The Rt. Rev. John Watrous Beckwith
St. Luke’s Church in Atlanta, Georgia
May 16, 1889

Brethren of the Clergy and Laity:

May 20, 1888—I held morning service, assisted by the Rector, Rev. Byron Holley, and made an address upon the subject of its Parish debt in St. Philip’s, Atlanta.

June 3—Held morning service, assisted by the Rector. Rev. Mr. Hebbard; confirmed three persons, and made two adresses in St. James’, Marietta.

June 10—Held morning service, assisted by the Rector. Rev. Mr. Dowe: preached, confirmed nine, and made au address in St. George’s. Griffin.

June 16—I baptized in private three children near Atlanta.

June 17—Held morning service, assisted by Rev. Mr. Holley, and made a second appeal to St. Philip’s congregation upon the subject of its Parish debt. There was much enthusiasm, and some $12,000 were pledged, and it was agreed to canvass the Parish and, if possible, remove the entire debt. I trust the Rector may be able to report good progress in this matter.

June 21—I said the burial service in St. Luke’s Cathedral, Atlanta.

June 24—Administered the Holy Communion, assisted by the Rev. H. K. Rees; confirmed seven, and made two addresses in the Church of the Good Shepherd, Cave Spring.

June 25—Received notice that the Right Reverend the Bishop of Florida had confirmed one person in the Church of the Atonement, Augusta.

July 8—Held morning service, assisted by the Rector, Rev. Mr. Davis; confirmed one, and made an address in Emmanuel Church, Athens.

July 19—Said the burial service, assisted by Rev. Messrs. Holley, Barrett, Macauley, Prentiss and Hunt, in St. Philip’s, Atlanta.

August 26—Held morning service, assisted by the Rector, Rev. Dr. Wilder, and preached in Christ Church, Riverdale, New York City.

September 2—Held morning service and preached in All Saints’ Chapel, Newport, R. I.

September 27—I performed the marriage service in private in the city of Chicago, Ill.

October 14—Held morning service, assisted by Rev. Mr. Rees; confirmed two, and made an address in St. James’, Cedartown.

October 18—Gave letter dismissory to Rev. George H. Edwards to the Diocese of Mississippi.

October 21—Held morning service, assisted by the Rector, Rev. Mr. Forbes; confirmed six, and made an address in St. Mark’s, Dalton.

October 22—Held service, assisted by Rev. Mr. Holley; confirmed two, and made two addresses in Ascension Church, Cartersville.

October 28—Held morning service, assisted by the Rector, Rev. W. Dye, and made an address in Calvary Church, Americus.

October 29—Held service, assisted by Rev. Mr. Dye: confirmed one, made an address, and baptized one infant in the same Church.

November 4—Held morning and evening service, assisted by the Rector, Rev. W. C. Hunter; confirmed twenty five, and preached twice in Trinity Church, Columbus.

November 5—Held evening service, assisted by the Missionary in Charge. Rev. Mr. Denniston ; preached, confirmed one, and made an address in Zion Church, Talbotton.

November 8—I received and accepted the withdrawal of his resignation of the ministry of the Rev. W. H. Morris (colored), Deacon. On the same day I gave a letter dismissory to the Rev. Walter R. Dye to the Diocese of Alabama.

November 11—Held service, assisted by the Missionary in Charge, Rev. Mr. Turner, and made an address in the Church of the Mediator, Washington.

November 15—In obedience to the summons of the presiding Bishop, I attended a meeting of the House of Bishops in Washington City, D. C.

November 23—Held confirmation service, and confirmed two persons presented by Rev. Mr. Winchester, and made an address in Christ Church, Macon.

November 25—Held morning service, assisted by Rev. A. Barnwell; preached, and confirmed two, in St. Luke’s, Hawkinsville.

December 2—Held morning service, assisted by Rector, Rev. Mr. Hudgins; preached, confirmed five, and made an address in St. Peter’s Church, Rome.

December 3—I said the burial service in Ascension Church, Cartersville.

December 9—Held morning service, assisted by Rev. Mr. McConnell; preached, confirmed three, and made an address in All Saints’ Church, Sylvania.

December 16—Held morning service, assisted by Rev. Mr. Stuart-Martin; preached, confirmed one, and made an address in St. John’s. Bainbridge.

December 23—Held morning and evening services, assisted by Rev. Mr. LaRoche; confirmed eight, preached, and made an address in St. Thomas’ Church. Thomasville.

December 25 (Christmas Day)—I held morning service, preached, and administered the Holy Communion, assisted by Rev. Mr. Coley, of the Diocese of Connecticut, in Christ Church, Savannah.

December 30—Held morning service, assisted by the Rector, Rev. W. E. Eppes; preached, confirmed five, and made an address in St. Paul’s, Albany.

December 27—Held evening service, assisted by Rev. Mr. Stuart Martin, and preached in Grace Church, Waycross.

January 1, 1889—Gave canonical consent to the consecration of Rev. J. M. Kendrick, D. D., as Missionery Bishop of New Mexico.

January 6—Held morning service, assisted by Rev. Mr. Page; preached, confirmed ten, and made an address in St. Andrews, Darien. In the afternoon held service, assisted by Rev. Mr. McConnell; confirmed two colored persons, and made an address in St. Cyprians’, Darien.

January 1.3—Held morning service, assisted by the Rector, Rev. H. E. Lucas, and Rev. Samuel Benedict, D. D., of the Diocese of Southern Ohio; preached, confirmed eleven, and made an address in St. Mark’s, Brunswick. On the same day I confirmed in private two colored persons in Brunswick. In the afternoon of the same day I held service, assisted by Rev. Mr. Fisse, Missionary in Charge. Rev. Mr. Lucas and Rev. Dr. Benedict; confirmed two colored persons, and made an address in St. Athanasius’ Chapel, Brunswick.

January 16—I performed the marriage service in Trinity Church, Chicago.

January 20—Held morning service, assisted by Rev. Messrs. Winn and Dodge; preached, confirmed two, and made an address in the Church at St. Simon’s Mills, St. Simon’s Island. In the afternoon I held a confirmation service, and confirmed two colored persons, and made an address in the same Church.

January 22—Held morning service, assisted by Rev. Messrs. Dodge and Fisse; confirmed twelve, made an address, and administered the Holy Communion, at Bridge Hammock. In the evening of the same day I consecrated the Church of the Messiah, assisted by Rev. Messrs. Dodge and Fisse, and Rev. Mr. Sturgis, of the Diocese of Florida: preached, confirmed one, and made an address in St. Mary’s.

January 23—I confirmed three colored persons, presented by Rev. Mr. Dodge, and administered the Holy Communion in a private house nine miles from St. Mary’s.

January 24—I consecrated St. Clement’s Church, assisted by Rev. Messrs. Dodge and Fisse; baptized one adult, confirmed one, and administered the Holy Communion at Satilla Bluffs. In the evening of the same day I held confirmation service, confirmed two presented by Rev. Mr. Fisse, and made an address at the Lower Mills, on the Satilla River.

January 25—I confirmed three, presented by Rev. Mr. Dodge, at Spring Bluff, on the Little Satilla.

January 26—I baptized two children in St. Mark’s, Brunswick.

January 27—I consecrated St. Athanasius’ (colored) Chapel, assisted by Rev. Mr. Fisse, and made a short address in Brunswick.

January 31—I read the burial service and made an address over the body of the Rev. George Macauley, who died on the day before. In this sad service I was assisted by the Rev. Mr. Holley. The service was held in St. Philip’s, Atlanta. In the evening of the same day I met the members of St. Andrew’s Brotherhood in the basement of St. Luke’s Cathedral and made them an address.

February 3—Administered the Holy Communion and preached in St. Stephen’s, Milledgeville.

February 5—I received and accepted the letter dismissory of the Rev. G. M. Funsten from the Diocese of Virginia.

February 6—I gave a letter dismissory to the Rev. H. J. Broadwell to the Diocese of Ohio.

February 7—I assisted the Bishop of Tennessee in saying the burial service in St. Philip’s, Atlanta.

February 10—Held morning service, assisted by Rev. Messrs. Winchester, Powers and Kimball; preached, confirmed ten, and made an address in Christ Church, Macon. In the afternoon held service, assisted by Rev. Mr. Kimball; confirmed five, and made an address in St. John’s Mission Church, Macon.

February 17—Held morning service, assisted by Rev. Mr. Davis; preached, confirmed two, and made an address in Emmanuel Church, Athens. In the afternoon held service, assisted by Rev. Mr. Davis; confirmed two, and made an address in St. Mary’s, Athens.

February 24—Held morning service, assisted by the Rector, Rev. John Gass; preached, confirmed ten, and made an address in the Church of the Atonement, Augusta. In the afternoon I consecrated St. Mary’s Chapel (for colored people), assisted by Rev. Messrs. Williams and Gass and the Rev. J. H. M. Pollard (colored), Priest of the Diocese of South Carolina. This Church was built with funds left for the purpose by the will of Mrs. Harrison, late of Augusta. I confirmed five colored persons at this service, and made an address.

March 3—Held morning service, assisted by Rev. C. Dowe; preached, and administered the Holy Communion in St. George’s, Griffin.

March 4—I said the burial service in Ascension Church, Cartersville.

March 6 (Ash Wednesday)—Held service, assisted by Rev. Mr. Barrett, and made an address in St. Luke’s Cathedral, Atlanta.

March 7—Held morning service, assisted by Rev. Mr. Holley, and made an address in St. Philip’s, Atlanta.

March 10—I consecrated Grace Church, assisted by Rev. Mr. Pond; confirmed three, and made an address in Grace Church, Gainesville. In the afternoon I held service, assisted by Rev. Mr. Pond, and preached in the Methodist Church, Gainesville.

March 10-11—Made addresses in St. Luke’s Cathedral, Atlanta.

March 17—Held morning service, assisted by Rev. E. H Coley, of the Diocese of Connecticut; preached, confirmed twenty-three, and made two addresses in Christ Church, Savannah.

March 21—Held morning service, assisted by Rev. Mr. Andrew; confirmed two colored persons, and made an address in St. Augustine’s Mission, Savannah.

March 22—I confirmed two persons in Christ Church, Savannah.

March 24—Held an early confirmation service, confirmed forty three, made an address, and administered the Holy Communion in St. John’s, Savannah. At the 11 o’clock service I preached in the same Church. I was assisted in the service by the Rector, Rev. Mr. Strong, and the Rev. Mr. Henry, of the Diocese of New York. In the evening of the same day I held service, assisted by the Rector, Rev. Mr. Andrew, and Rev. Mr. Coley; preached, and confirmed eight colored persons in St. Stephen’s Church, Savannah.

March 25—I confirmed two persons and administered the Holy Communion, assisted by Rev. Mr. Coley, in Christ Church, Savannah.

March 27—Made an address in St. Luke’s, Atlanta.

March 28—Made an address in St. Philip’s, Atlanta.

March 29—Made an address in St. Luke’s, Atlanta.

March 30—I approved, as directed by the Canon of this Diocese, of the application of St. John’s, Bainbridge, remitting it to the position of a Mission of the Diocese.

March 31—Held morning service, assisted by Rev. Mr. Turner,’ and preached in the Church of the Redeemer, Greenesboro.

April 5—I gave a letter dismissory to Rev. J. Wiley Page to the Diocese of South Carolina.

April 5—I established a Mission known as Christ Church Mission, in Hapeville.

April 7—Held morning service, assisted by Rev. Mr. Pinkerton; preached, confirmed twelve, and made an address in St. Paul’s, Augusta. The Rector, Rev. C. C. Williams, was prevented from being present by sickness in his family. Immediately after this service I held a confirmation service, and confirmed five colored persons in St. Mary’s Chapel, Augusta. In the afternoon I held service, assisted by the Rev. Mr. Walton, and preached in the Church of the Good Shepherd, Summerville.

April 8—Held morning service, assisted by Rev. John Gass; preached, confirmed two, and made an address in the Chapel of the Heavenly Rest, in Grovetown.

April 14—Held morning service, assisted by the Rector, Rev. W. Dudley Powers, and Rev. Mr. Kimball; preached, confirmed ten, and made an address in St. Paul’s, Macon. In the afternoon held service, assisted by Rev. Messrs. Kimball, Winchester and Powers; preached, confirmed thirteen, and made an address in St. Barnabas’ Chapel, Macon.

April 15, 16, 17, 18, 19—Made addresses in St. Luke’s Cathedral, Atlanta.,

April 21 (Easter Day)—Held morning service, assisted by Rev. Byron Holley; preached, confirmed twenty-four, made an address, and administered the Holy Communion in St. Philip’s, Atlanta. In the evening held service, assisted by Rev. Mr. Rarrett; confirmed thirty-eight, and made an address in St. Luke’s Cathedral, Atlanta.

April 25—I baptized one infant in St. Luke’s Cathedral, Atlanta.

April 26—I received the letter dismissory of Rev. W. M. Walton from the Diocese of Colorado.

April 28—Held morning service, assisted by the Rector. Rev. Mr. Hebbard; preached, confirmed seven, and made an address in St. James’, Marietta.

May 1—I gave a letter dismissory to Rev. Byron Holley to the Diocese of South Carolina.

May 5—I held morning service, assisted by Rev. Augustus Prentiss, the Missionary in Charge; preached, confirmed twenty-nine, and made an address in St. Ignatius’ Chapel, Tallapoosa.

During the past year the Appleton Church Home has received from the Parishes, $370.06. There are in the Home at this time twenty-three children. We have had altogether eighty-four children as permanent inmates. A large number of these were received at ages ranging from three to eight years. When they reach the age of eighteen years, if there are no relatives to take them (as occasionally, but not often, happens), homes are secured for them in Christian families. Some fifteen of those who have left the Home have married, and are doing well. We have every reason to thank God that He put it into the heart of Mr. Appleton to establish an institution which has cared for and trained in the Church so many poor, destitute girls, who were well-nigh friendless and alone in the world. The Home has not sought notoriety, but has quietly and faithfully done its work, and it receives its abundant reward in the Christian lives of those, who, under God, owe their present usefulness and happiness to its loving care and training. At the last Convention I stated that I hoped to sell a sufficient amount of its property to increase its endowment to a sum which would render it independent. Unexpected depression in business affairs prevented this. Three lots were sold, and then it was thought wise to withdraw the remainder from the market and wait for more prosperous times. I am forced, therefore, to ask the Diocese to continue the collections provided for in the Canons until I can dispose of the remaining lots without sacrifice.

The subject of Diocesan Missions will naturally engage much of your attention during the sessions of the Convention. I can only repeat to you what I said one year ago: “Unless something can be done, some plan suggested by which the hearty co-operation of the Parishes can be obtained, and their liberal support secured, our missions in the villages and small towns will gradually weaken and die out, and our missionary work be confined to the cities and such places as can be reached by the city clergy.”

The past year has shown the correctness of this statement. Our missions in the villages and small towns are dying, and dying rapidly. Often and over have I called attention to the hopelessness of our present plan. The Convention appropriates $3,500 to missions: the Board of Missions meets and divides this sum among the four Convocations; the sum given to each Convocation is then divided among the missionary stations now in existence, and the work is finished.

Two results follow:

1. All the funds being appropriated, we have literally nothing with which to undertake new missions, and consequently there can be no expansion.

2. The amounts given to each missionary station are necessarily so small that the life of the missionary is made a burden, and, after bearing it awhile, he naturally looks elsewhere for relief, gets a call, and the mission is left vacant.

You cannot, in my judgment, do a wiser or better thing than to devote, if necessary, all the time of this Convention to finding out what is best to be done, and how best to do it.

One thing only do I desire further to say, and that is that no plan can succeed without the hearty and liberal assistance of the laity, and the assistance of the laity, humanly speaking, depends absolutely upon the zeal and interest shown in the work by the clergy. If the clergy, in their Parishes and pulpits, remain silent, the laity will continue in ignorance of the importance and the wants of the missions, the money needed will not be given, the missionaries will suffer, endure and leave, and the unoccupied fields will remain unworked, and after awhile we will become a Diocese of congregations living within themselves and for themselves, and Diocesan Missions—and with them. I fear, Diocesan life—will have ceased in Georgia.

In the death of the Rev. George Macauley, one more has been added to the ever lengthening list of my old friends who have gone before, leaving those who remain to realize more and more that to us the night cometh when no man can labor. One is taken and another left to work and wait awhile, that God’s will may be done. When I came to Georgia in 1868 Mr. Macauley was here, actively engaged in the duties of a Parish Priest. During twenty-one years I have known him—a self-denying, modest man, leading a life of personal sacrifice and striving, according to his ability, to help others in the way of a better and nobler existence; kind, thoughtful, considerate of others, full of sympathy for the needy and suffering, with the courage of a true man and the tenderness of a child—he won the affection of those who knew him well and the respect of all among whom he ministered. Mr. Macauley literally grew poor in the service of the Master. He used his little private means to supplement the poverty of the Parish he served until old age came upon him and found him wasted in strength, broken in health and wrecked in fortune. To me, who knew him well, it was touching to see the manly patience with which he endured poverty and the unhesitating faith with which he depended upon the Master’s promises. His was a quiet, unobtrusive life, which the busy world does not estimate at its true value; but those of us who knew him can find in his patient endurance much to strengthen and encourage us in the days of our trial.

In reply to your resolution, passed at your last session, one year ago, requesting me to give you my views upon the subject of uniformity in the services of the Church in this Diocese, I beg to submit to you the following:

Uniformity was considered by the fathers of the Church essential to its existence and perpetuation in America. So important did they esteem it that in the preamble to the Constitution of 1785 they say: ”The said Deputies, being now assembled and taking into consideration the importance of maintaining uniformity in doctrine, discipline and worship in the said Church, do hereby determine and declare: 1. That there shall be a General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America,” etc.

Without it, individual opinions, tastes and eccentricities would soon change liberty into license, and the oneness of the faith into an ever-increasing multitude of individual interpretations, as contradictory as have ever been the opinions of men unrestrained by law. As the Church is the body of Christ and we are its members, so there can be no peace among ourselves nor security against others unless we be upon essentials of one mind, and. exhibit our oneness by uniformity in the services which express those essentials It is the partisan who objects to this. He represents, not the Church, but a party in the Church. Uniformity would take from him his occupation, render his agitations harmless, and cause his schemes to languish.

Uniformity in the services of the Church in a Diocese is the outward visible sign of inward peace and harmony. “The worship publicly performed and in Parochial assemblies,” says L’ Estrange, in his “Alliance of Divine Offices,” published in the “Anglo-Catholic Library,” “is not to be reputed the worship peculiar of those congregations, but common to the whole National Church, whereof they are limbs. * * * Why should she not strictly enjoin to her several members the frame and model thereof, lest any should in her name present to God a service she would not own, and that the uniformity of her worship in her distinct members may argue and demonstrate the mutual and joint communion all members have one with another.” [Pages 30-31.]

Again: The treatise entitled “Of Ceremonies; Why Some be Abolished and Some Retained,” printed in the first Prayer Book of Edward VI., and in every succeeding Prayer Book in the English Church, as also in the Scotch Liturgy of 1637, says: “And although the keeping or omitting of a ceremony (in itself considered) is but a small thing, yet the wilful and contemptuous trangsression and breaking of a common order and discipline is no small offence before God. ‘Let all things be done among you,’ saith St. Paul, ‘in a seemly and due order.’ The appointment of which order pertaineth not to private men. Therefore, no man ought to take in hand, nor presume to appoint or alter, any public or common order in Christ’s Church, except he be lawfully called and authorized thereunto.”

More than this, uniformity in the prayers and creeds and modes of administering sacraments, convinces the laity that the Church is secure from individual eccentricities in prayer, personal teachings in the faith, and individual or party interpretations of the sacraments, and, therefore, begets confidence in the clergy as their teachers and guides. It removes doubt, assures the world that we know our own mind, gives a conclusive answer to the charge that we have no fixed principles, that we are so unsettled that we allow anything and everything; shows that we are not mere clay in the hand of the potter, Public Opinion; that our mission on earth is not to exhibit the peculiarities or eccentricities of individuals or parties; that the Church is the guardian of the truth, and therefore knows the truth; the witness of the truth, and therefore delivers no uncertain or contradictory testimony; the teacher of the truth, and therefore her services as conducted in one Church are not made to give an interpretation of the truth which the services in another Church do contradict. “Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel,” is the brief history of a Church which, under the plea of freedom, rejects uniformity. It is simple cause and effect.

The clergyman in conducting the services is, wittingly or unwittingly, presenting object lessons to the congregation. If he be careless and unreverential, the congregation, taught by his example, will fall into his habit, and grow indifferent, inattentive, lounging and taking no part, or but little, in the services; if he be reverential, humble, devotional, unostentatious, they will profit by it and be encouraged to greater devotion; if he be self-conscious and watchful, exhibiting before them the movements and postures of a drill, they will gradually fall into his ways and many of them become the merest formalists. Now, when such Parishes become vacant, and then are filled by Rectors differing from the old, you can imagine the confusion worse confounded, the bewilderment, the curiosity, the questionings and criticisms, the approvals and disapprovals, the formation of parties, the discussion of forms and ceremonies, of attitudes and dresses, which will follow, to the injury of the Church. One thing one year, another thing the next. One Rector, by his actions during the services, gives an interpretation of a doctrine which his successor flatly contradicts; and so the people become unsettled, then lose confidence in the Church herself, and the Scripture is fulfilled—”Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel.”

The very idea of an established liturgy is uniformity. The principle which underlies it, and without which it would be useless and absurd, is that what is done in one Church shall be done in every Church; and, therefore, a clergyman in one Parish should not, by his postures and actions, give an interpretation of those services which will be contradicted by others in other Parishes. In the very act of establishing a liturgy the Church emphasizes the vast importance she attaches to uniformity. If she did not deem it essential, she would not, and could not, require that the same lessons, prayers, creeds and thanksgivings, with the same rubrics, should be everywhere used at her morning and evening services.

Now, add to this the fact that the Church declared in the preamble to the Constitution, in the very act of forming a Union and Ecclesiastical Government, that, for the sake of uniformity, she created the General Convention, and you have two facts which are, I think, a convincing proof that it is our bounden duty to do all in our power to prevent the evil which the Church has so clearly indicated must and will flow from a neglect of so vital a matter. These two facts—viz.: Uniformity as essential to an established liturgy, and uniformity as the cause of the creation of the General Convention—do, I think, help us to reach a conclusion upon that vexed question: Does omission mean prohibition? or, to state it as some prefer, Is everything not directly prohibited therefore allowed!

When the Church adopted a Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, etc., and put it in the Constitution that, “when established by the General Convention,” this book “shall be Used” in the Dioceses, and “no alteration or addition shall be made in it,” unless the alteration or addition be proposed in one General Convention, made known to the Convention of every Diocese, “and adopted at the subsequent General Convention,” did she mean to prohibit what is not there contained, or did she mean that any clergyman, having used what is in the book, may insert between the rubrics such performances, for example, as he may find directed by some of the rubrics of the service of the Romish Church? The answer seems inevitable. If by establishing a liturgy she meant that there should be uniformity, then the simple existence of the Ritual is proof that what she established she intended should be used: and the clause in the Constitution declaring that “no alteration or addition shall be made,” except as therein provided, shows that what she omitted she intended should not be used. It is impossible that she could have meant that each individual clergyman may pick out of other books of public worship what may suit his taste or party, and, upon the plea that it is Catholic, render uniformity impossible. If, in our judgment, the Ritual need enrichment then let us endeavor to induce the only body authorized by law to make “alteration or addition” to give us what we desire; but, for the sake of peace and loyalty and truth, do not let us, as individuals, each in his own Parish, establish such practices and customs as our individual fancies, tastes or prejudices may suggest, or the interests of a party may dictate. And this we of the clergy are pledged not to do, for the following reasons, in addition to the clause in the Constitution providing for alteration or addition, above mentioned:

First. In obedience to Article VII. of the Constitution, we, before ordination, subscribed the declaration that we “do solemnly engage to conform to the doctrines and Worship of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States.”

Second. In the Ratification of the Prayer Book, that book is declared to be “the Liturgy of this Church, and they require that it be received as such by all the members of the same.”

Third. The Preface to the Prayer Book declares that alterations may be made when done “by common consent and authority,” which implies that without such common consent and authority they may not be made.

Fourth. In the most solemn hour of a clergyman’s life, as he stands before God’s altar making the promises upon which his very ordination depends, he is asked by the Bishop: “Will you then give your faithful diligence always so to minister the Doctrine and Sacraments as the Lord hath commanded and as this Church hath received the same,” etc. And he answered: “I will so do, by the help of God.”

Now, with such facts and statements before him, for a clergyman to claim that he “can go outside the text or rubric and introduce whatever to him seems desirable, or can omit whatever he may think unevangelical,” is, I think, simply “to palter with language.” [Dr. Garrison’s Bohlen Lectures for 1887, page 362.] It is urged in reply that in the Preface to the Prayer Book the Church declares that she “is far from intending to depart from the Church of England in any essential point of doctrine, discipline or worship, or further than local circumstances require,” and that this declaration gives freedom of action. On the contrary, it seems to me to be a statement entirely in favor of uniformity. It declares, first, that the Church has departed from the English Church; second, that these departures are not in any essential point of doctrine, discipline or worship, and, third, that the departures were required by local circumstances. A distinct reason is here given for her departures—viz.: they were required by local circumstances. If an omission is made, and it is declared that the cause of the omission is that it is required by local circumstances, surely such omission means prohibition; otherwise it were absurd to say that it was done for a reason. So long as local circumstances require the omission, just so long the thing omitted cannot be replaced without a disregard of the requirements; but the governing body, which was authorized to omit, and to give the reason for omission, is the only body authorized to declare that the reason for omission has ceased. Until, therefore, that body does declare that the reason has ceased we, who are bound to obey the decisions of that body, must consider that the reason has not ceased, and therefore still remains; and, inasmuch as the Church declares that local circumstances require the omission, therefore we cannot replace the thing omitted without violating the will of the Church. The essential points this Church retains; many of the non-essentials she has changed or omitted, and in so doing has declared that the changes were required by local circumstances. Until, then, she declares that this requirement of local circumstances has ceased the requirement must bind, and therefore omission means prohibition.

Says Judge Hoffman, of New York, in ”The Ritual Law of the Church” (introductive page xiii.): “In our own country, amid every variety of disbelief, the great danger is in the prevalent spirit of contempt of authority, each one framing for himself a creed and worship, shifting often from sect to sect, to test its conformity with his own ideal. Hence the adoption by some of the most pregnant symbols of the Romish error into our services; hence the melancholy spectacle of a mutilated Prayer Book. It is the duty of all to struggle against these evils.” And again (page 1): “That libertinism of opinion which would allow a minister to search for a guide over every field of forms and observances, in any age, endangers truth, and is fatal to uniformity.”

Speaking of the doctrine of Civil Courts, Judge Hoffman says (page 33): “Omission of the previous provisions upon the same point is repeal or abrogation. Legislation upon a subject with the certainty that previous legislation was in view does, presumptively yet strongly, indicate what is intended, and all that is intended, to be the law. It excludes what is passed over.”’

Says Mr. A. J. B. Beresford Hope, in his book “Worship in the Church of Englaud” (pages 158-9): “It is argued that because the Prayer Book contains no prohibition of the minister interrupting the evening service between the first Lesson and the Magnificat by a series of ceremonious censings, and superadding a cope to the vesture legally appointed for him, therefore such proceedings lie within his own uncontrolled arbitrament. My only appeal against such reasoning must be to the natural sense of the congruous which is possessed by any person of average understanding, for it is intangible by any formal argument.” In the same direction the same writer says (page 160): “But as to this modern claim, the Reformed Church of England, through the mouth both of its Prayer Book and of its Canons, orders one, and one only, dress at this particular time, and yet it is contended that each clergyman may of his own mere motion add another. The same stretch of words would justify the clergyman who was less ritualistic in topping his surplice with a great coat if the weather happened to be cold!”

In the same direction is the following quotation, from the judgment of the Privy Council in the case of Martin vermin Mackenochie: “If the use of lighted candles in the matter complained of be a ceremony or ceremonial act, it might be sufficient to say that it is not, nor is any ceremony in which it forms a part, among those retained in the Prayer Book, and it must, therefore, be included among those that are abolished. As to the argument that the use complained of is at most only part of a ceremony, their Lordships are of opinion that when a part of a ceremony is changed the integrity of the ceremony is broken, and it ceases to be the same ceremony”—i. e., when a clergyman introduces into our service any ceremony, or part of a ceremony, not contained in the Prayer Book, the integrity of the ceremony provided for in the Prayer Book is broken, and it ceases to be the ceremony required by the Prayer Book! “And,” says Archdeacon Sharp, quoted by Dr. Garrison in the Bohlen Lectures for 1887, page 164, “whosoever among the clergy either adds to it or diminishes from it, or useth any other rule instead of it, * * it behooves him to consider with himself whether in point of conscience he be not a breaker of his word and trust and an eluder of his engagements with the Church.”

It may not be amiss to quote just here the following impressive words, from the Judicial Committee, in the case of Westerton versus Liddell, adopted by the Privy Council in its judgment in the case of Martin versus Mackenochie: “In the performance of the services, rites and ceremonies ordered by the Prayer Book, the directions contained in it must be strictly observed. No omission and no addition can be permitted.” And to add the following resolutions, which were adopted by both Houses of the General Convention in 1871:

“Resolved, That this Convention hereby expresses its decided condemnation of all ceremonies, observances and practices which are fitted to express a doctrine foreign to that set forth in the authorized standards of this Church.

“Resovled, That in the judgment of this House the paternal counsel and advice of our Right Reverend Fathers, the Bishops of the Church, is deemed sufficient at this time to secure the suppression of all that is irregular and unseemly, and to promote greater uniformity in conducting the public worship of the Church and in the administration of the Holy Sacraments.”

In these resolutions the General Convention declares, first, that “ceremonies, observances and practices” may be so used as to express doctrine; second, it condemns such ceremonies, etc., as are even “fitted to express” any doctrine foreign to that “set forth” in our “authorized standards,” and, third, to use the language of Judge Hoffman, in his “Ritual Law,” page 54, commenting upon these resolutions, “that the authority of the Bishops (doubtless each in his own Diocese) is the proper and adequate power for correction or avoidance of irregularities or excesses.”

Most important are these resolutions of the General Convention, as the following extract from an article, in “The Church and the World.” by Rev. E. L. Blenkinsopp, pages 212-213, will show: “Ritual, like painting or architecture, is only the visible expression of divine truth. Without dogma, without an esoteric meaning, ritual is an illusion and a delusion—a lay figure, without life or spirit; a vox et pratoria nihil. The experience of the last century shows that it is impossible to preserve the Catholic Faith excepting by Catholic Ritual; the experience of the present century equally makes manifest the fact that the revival of the Catholic Faith must be accompanied by the revival of the Catholic Ritual; and. still more, that the surest way to teach the Catholic Faith is by Catholic ritual * * * * Our Churches are restored after the mediaval pattern, and our Ritual must accord with the Catholic standard. * * * The Eucharistic office is only a variety of the Western rite.”

And the following from Rev. T. W. Perry, in his essay on ‘”Reasonable Limits of Lawful Ritualism,” in “‘The Church and the World.” page 494: “From this it follows that in the ritualistic rehabiliment of the offices and service of the English Church it is only dutiful to consult, first of all, the once so generally received Sarum Liturgy and Hours, and when these are deficient in information, it is plainly allowable, nay, surely wise, to have recourse for guidance to the visible customs of East and West, and especially to the explicit rules of the latter, which indeed in this case is the natural resort of us who are ourselves Westerns.”

Many similar quotations could be given, but these will suffice to show that it was time that the General Convention, recognizing the importance of Ritual as a teacher, should express its condemnation of any Ritual fitted to express any doctrine not “set forth” in our authorized standards, and remind the Church that, for ‘”the suppression of all that is irregular” and the promotion “of greater uniformity in conducting the public worship of the Church and in the administration of the Holy Sacraments,” the advice and counsel of the Bishops is deemed sufficient. It is often said, and I think justly, that our rubrics are not so minute in their directions but that something must be left to the discretion of the officiating minister. This seems absolutely necessary, and perhaps no better general rule can be laid down than the following, by the Privy Council, above referred to—viz.: “Though there may be articles not expressly mentioned in the rubric, use of which would not be restrained, they must be articles which are consistent with and subsidiary to the services—as a credence table from which to take the sacramental Bread and Wine, an organ for singing, cushions, hassocks, etc.; and the following from Dr. Garrison’s “Bohlen Lectures” of 1887, page 181: “While no ‘rite or ceremony’ can lawfully be added to those appointed for each service in the Prayer Book, yet the direction to perform any service in a certain mode carries with it the permission to supply such ornaments and do such acts as are implied in and subsidiary to this performance, and which have been so recognized in the continued usage of this Church under its present formularies.”

In examining such publications as “The Ritual of the Altar,” “The Plain Directions for Celebration of the Public Services of the Church,” “The Plain Suggestions for Reverent Celebration, etc.,” “The Ritual Reason Why,” “The Congregation in the Church,” etc., etc., one cannot but ask the question, What is the object of this movement? Is this an effort on the part of devout Churchmen simply to cause a revival in the Church of the spirit of devotion? Are they true to the Church, and only anxious, according to their vow, “always so to minister the Doctrine and Sacraments and the Discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded, and as this Church hath received the same, according to the commandments of God?” These are important questions, to the answer of which the following quotations may assist us:

Says Mr. Blenkinsopp, as quoted above: “The Eucharistic office is only a variety of the Western rite.”

Says Mr. Perry, above quoted: “It is dutiful to consult first of all the Sarum Liturgy and Hours, and, where these are deficient, * * it is surely wise to have recourse for guidance to the visible customs of East and Went, and especially the explicit rules of the latter, which, indeed, in this case is the natural resort of us who are ourselves Westerns.’”

Says Rev. Osby Shipley, in his “Ritual of the Altar”: “The practical result of these rubrics (which he proposed to be used in the services of the Church) will be two-fold. In the first place, they will bring the Offering of the Sacrifice into far more intimate union than heretofore with that of the Western rite. And another advantage * * will be the more outward conformity between our form of worship and that of other branches of the Catholic Church.” * * * And this result will be accomplished amongst others by such ceremonial acts and ceremonies as the following: The burning of incense at various points in the office; the crossing, censing and kissing of the Book; the kneeling in the Creed of Priest and people at the Incarnatus est; the significant washing of the fingers, etc., etc. * * * It is felt that a strict adherence to the principles of the living Liturgy of the West is at once our safety * * and our safeguard,” etc.

The author of the work entitled “The Congregation in Church,” in giving the reasons for the “present use of ceremonies,” mentions as Reason No. 8 “the desire which has grown up of late years among the High Church party for the restoration of the visible unity of Christendom, and especially the renewal of communion between the Church of England and both the Eastern and the rest of the Western Church, and, with this view, it has become an avowed object to assimilate the Anglican service as much as possible to that of other Catholic Churches.”

Mr. Blenkinsopp, in the essay quoted above, says: “Anglicans are reproached by Protestants with their resemblance to Romans; they say a stranger entering into a Church where Ritual is carefully attended to might easily mistake it for a Roman service. Of course he might; the whole purpose of the great revival has been to eliminate the dreary Protestantism of the Hanoverian period, and restore the glory of Catholic worship.”

In a remarkable “Paper read before the May Synod, and presented with additions to the September Synod (apparently 1870) of the Society of the Holy Cross, on the establishment of an Oratory in London” (vide “Facts and Testimonies,” page 27), I find these words: “And we must be decided, I also venture to think, in adhering to the ancient Catholic Ritual, which prevails at this moment in the great Western Patriarchate, of which we still actually, though outwardly and unjustly severed, form an integral portion.”

In a pamphlet entitled “The Special Beliefs and Objects of Catholic Churchmen, etc.,” by Rev. F. S. Jewell, published in Milwaukee by the Young Churchman Company, I find on page 20 these words: “The Ritual of the American Church: Hence, we hold that a proper Ritual for the American Church must be grounded upon, and, under judicious selection and sympathetic adaptation, derived from, some existing, cultured and well-tested Ritual; and that, although it is somewhat marked by excess and by disregard of national characteristics, there is none which, in the main, so aptly and fully meets the above mentioned conditions and our needs as the established Ritual of the Roman Church—that of the Sarum use, to which Anglican predilections noticeably incline us, never having been really national, and being withal somewhat crude, complex and ill-defined.”

Speaking of the ritualistic movement, Archbishop (now Cardinal) Manning says, in his “Essays on Religion”: “I must also add the latest and strangest phenomenon of the movement—the adoption of an elaborate Ritual, with its vestments borrowed from the Catholic Church.”

In the volume now before me, entitled “Facts and Testimonies Touching Ritualism,” published in London by Longman, Green & Co., 1874, I find the following quotations:

“Church News,” 18(38: “What, we should like to know, has the Church of England to do with the spirit and principles of the Reformers, except to get rid of them as soon as possible. We will have nothing to do with such a sect.”

“Church Times,” 1868: “In sober truth, the English Reformation was an unmitigated disaster. * * * There is no reason whatever to suppose that there is any larger proportion of really God-fearing persons now than there was before the reformation of religion was taken in hand by a conspiracy of adulterers, murderers and thieves.”

“The Church and the World,” page 231: “By degrees the question resolved itself for me into a belief that the English Church is still a part of the Catholic Church, unless she sinned sufficiently at the Reformation to justify Rome in cutting her off.” In the same volume, page, 212, the same writer says: “We have no desire to treat the Roman body in England any longer as a schism, but rather to work with it (as things now are) on equal terms for the destruction of all that is not Catholic,” etc.

“The Union Review”: “To join the Roman Catholic Church in any but a corporate capacity would be, in our opinion, to sin against the truth. In twenty years hence Catholicism will have so leavened our Church that she herself, in her corporate capacity, will be able to come to the Church of Rome, and say: ‘Let the hands which have been parted these three hundred years be once more joined.'”

Now recall the words above quoted of Mr. Blenkinsopp, in the “Church and the World”: “It is impossible to preserve the Catholic Faith except by Catholic Ritual, * * and the revival of the Catholic Faith must be accompanied by the revival of the Catholic Ritual”—and you have before you a few (and only a few) statements from the leaders and thinkers in this movement, which cannot be ignored in giving your answer to the question, What is the object of this movement?

I close these quotations with an extract from ‘”The Church Times,” 1867, taken from the same volume. It refers to methods: “Let a gradual change be brought in. Where there is a monthly Communion let it be fortnightly, where it is fortnightly let it be weekly, where it is weekly let a Thursday office be added. Where all this is already existing, candle-sticks with unlighted candles may be introduced; where these are already found they may be lighted at evensong; where so much is attained, the step to lighting them for the Eucharistic office is not a long one. * * * It is easy for each reader to see that some advance, all in the same direction, can be made, and that without any offence taken.”

Our people are to understand that in order to revive the Catholic Faith by means of the Catholic Ritual, our Priests are to become a body of Catholic hypocrites!

Before closing this already very long address, I wish to say a few words as to the authority to which we are to look for guidance in this matter of ritual uniformity:

First. In the early Church, Bingham tells us, the Bishop had “absolute power in his own Church, independent of all others.” “For the right understanding of the just limits of this power,” says he, “we are to distinguish between the substantial and the ritual part of religion. For it was in the latter chiefly that Bishops had an absolute power in their own Church, being at liberty to use what indifferent rites they thought fit in their own Church. Thus, for instance, though there was but one form of worship throughout the whole Church as to what concerned the substance of Christian worship, yet every Bishop was at liberty to form his own liturgy in what method and words he thought proper, only keeping to the analogy of faith and sound doctrine.” L’Estrange, in his “Alliance of Divine Offices,” page 39, refers to the same fact. On the same page he says: “Upon inquiry into the ancient practice of this Church of England. I find it most apparent that every Bishop in his own Diocese, or Episcopal Synod, had full power to constitute such Canons, * * to frame such services for the respective Dioceses as he and his clergy should think most convenient.”

Second. When we come down to the time of the reformation, when the Church adopted the first Prayer Book of Edward VI., a change took place. The Church had suffered from these divers “uses,” and determined that in future there should be but one. Therefore, in the Preface of that Prayer Book she makes the following order: “And where heretofore there hath been great diversity in saying and singing in Churches within this realm, some following Salisbury (Sarum) use, some Hereford use, some the use of Bangor, some of York, and some of Lincoln, now from henceforth all the whole realm shall have but one use. And for as much as nothing can, almost, be so plainly set forth but doubts may rise in the use and practising of the same, to appease all such diversity (if any arise) and for the resolution of all doubts concerning the manner how to understand, do and execute the things contained in this book. The parties that so doubt or diversely take anything shall always resort to the Bishop of the Diocese, who, by his discretion, shall take order for the quieting and appeasing of the same, so that the same order be not contrary to anything in this book.” This Prayer Book of 1549 was revised in 1552, and this in 1559, and this in 1604, and this in 1662, which is the present book of the English Church; and yet in every single book these words have been retained. Thus, in five separate books has the Church of England declared that the uses of Sarum, etc., are abolished. In the English Church, therefore, the authority to look to for guidance is, first, the Prayer Book, and, second, in all cases of doubt or diversity, the Bishop of the Diocese.

Third. Our Church, as an independent branch of the Church Catholic, has in her Preface declared her right “to model and organize” her “forms of worship * * in such manner as she might judge most convenient,” and this she has done. In 1789, in the “Ratification of the Book of Common Prayer” she declares that this Convention, having in their present session set forth a book of Common Prayer, etc., do hereby establish the said book, and they declare it to be the liturgy of this Church, and require that it be received as such by all the members of the same. In Article VIII. of the Constitution she declares that “no alteration or addition shall be made” in this book except as therein provided. In Article VII. she declares that no person shall “be ordained until he shall have subscribed * * the declaration: ‘I do solemnly engage to conform to the Doctrine and Worship of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States.” In Canon XXI., Title I., she declares that every minister “on all occasions of public worship shall use the Book of Common Prayer,” and that “if the Bishop have reason to believe that within his jurisdiction ceremonies or practices not ordained or authorized in the book of Common Prayer, and setting forth or symbolising erroneous or doubtful doctrines, have been introduced by any minister during the celebration of the Holy Communion (such as elevation of the elements * * as objects toward which adoration is to be made; any act of adoration of or toward the elements, such as bowing, prostrations, or genutlections, and all other like acts not authorised by the rubrics,” etc.), he shall investigate, and, if necessary, have the clergyman tried as therein provided. Could prohibition be more strongly stated!

In the resolutions adopted by both Houses of the General Convention in 1871, she declares, to use Judge Hoffman’s words, “that the authority of the Bishops is the proper and adequate power for correction or avoidance of irregularities or excesses.” Finally, in the ordination service, she requires the candidate for Priesthood to take a vow, first, that he will “always so minister the Doctrine and Discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded and as this Church hath received the same.” How can he always so minister as this Church hath received the same if anywhere ho introduce form or ceremony which this Chinch hath not received? And, second, that he will “reverently obey his Bishop, * * following with a glad mind and will their godly admonitions, and submitting himself to their godly judgment. ”

Now, my dear brethren, does it not seem beyond possibility that the Church, after all this legislation to form and establish a Liturgy, and to guard it against alteration or addition, could have meant that while a clergyman is obeying the rubrics he can between these acts of obedience insert any other acts he may choose, whether because he thinks such acts pretty or proper, or, in the words of Rev. Osby Shipley, “to secure people’s interest in the changes, or to wean their attachment from that which is to be changed?”

Let me here call attention to a rubric in the Euglish book around which a great controversy has raged. It is known as the Ornaments rubric, and is in these words: “And here it is to be noted that such Ornaments of the Church, and of the ministers thereof, at all times of their ministration, shall be retained and be in use as now in this Church of England by the authority of Parliament in the second year of the reign of King Edward VI.” Of this it is only necessary to say that this rubric was in the English book at the time it was being examined by our Church when she was making her own Liturgy, and that it was deliberately left out of our Prayer Book: and, to use the words of the Privy Council, “it is not * * retained in the Prayer Book, and it must therefore be included among those that are abolished”; or, as Judge Hoffman expresses it (Ritual Law, page 135), “our Church in 1789 omitted this rubric. Nothing can be more clear than that such omission was equivalent to a declaration that it should not be considered a part of our law.”

And now, my dear brethren, we are brought face to face with the question, What is our duty? I frankly declare to you that my chief object in all that I have said has been to impress upon you the duty of discountenancing “all ceremonies, observances and practices not ordained or authorized by the Prayer Book, and setting forth or symbolizing erroneous or doubtful doctrines.”

Let me illustrate: “In the Holy Eucharist there is present to the bodily senses only bread, but in, or with or beneath, the veil of that bread there is the presence of the Body of Christ. This is the standing miracle of the Christian dispensation.” [Short treatise on “The Holy Eucharist,” by Rev. J. N. West, quoted in ‘Facts and Testimonies.”]

And again, vide “St. Clement’s Pulpit Sermon Series,” No. 19; Philadelphia; sermon by Rev. Father Convers, page 7: “And St. Luke so words the sentence as to settle that this participle refers not to His blood shed on Calvary, but to His blood poured out into the chalice; thus showing, not that the blood was to be poured out on the morrow—a statement perfectly true, but not the truth here expressed, but that His blood in the cup was “so poured out” in libation as to be a sacrifice then and there.”

Again, on page 9: “Though the glory of celestial brightness is gleaming on the Brow of the sacred Humanity upon the Altar, yet the circlet of thorn-marks is on it, too, as it looks upward toward the Eternal Trinity from the Altar, pleading for its very presence,” etc.

Turning now to page 52 of a late work, entitled “The Congregation in the Church,” we find these words concerning Lights on the Altar at Holy Communion: “Lights, being in themselves mysterious and wonderful, also symbolize the Holy Mysteries which take place in the Eucharist.”

The use of lights on the altar is nowhere ordained or authorized by the Prayer Book. They are here certainly made to symbolize a doctrine which vast numbers believe to be utterly false, and which those who hold the doctrine must confess to be at least “doubtful,” and therefore the use of lights on the Altar for such purpose at the time of the Holy Communion is condemned. No man, I believe, is more anxious than I to see our services rendered in all their majesty and beauty; but, my dear brethren, innocent as we maybe, and doubtless are, of any—the least—intention to be untrue to our branch of the Church, yet we cannot close our eyes to the fact that there exists among certain parties, calling themselves Churchmen, a deliberate, well-digested plan to bring about a union between our Church and the Church of Rome, and that an important part of that plan is by familiarizing our people with the Ritual of “the West”—i. e., of Rome—to teach them to love it, and then to love the doctrines which it symbolizes, and thus prepare our Church “to come to the Church of Rome and say: ‘Let the hands which have been parted these three hundred years be once more joined.'”

For the majesty and beauty of our services these mediaeval ceremonies are not needed; and, inasmuch as they are intended to symbolize and teach a false doctrine, which the Church has long ago declared to be “repugnant to the plain words of Scripture,” we should not tamper with them, lest in our search for the beautiful we may sacrifice the truthful, and in trying to build up and strengthen the Church we may in reality be preparing her for her downfall and ruin. It is the habit of the American mind to laugh at danger until, armed with all its terrors, it threatens destruction. This is very brave and reckless and, I venture to say, very foolish. It is the part of wisdom to avoid trouble by anticipating it.

There is one fact connected with the doctrine of Transubstantiation which the Mediaeval Ritual constantly expresses, and which renders that ritual so very dangerous to the Church, and that is the localizing the Body and Blood of Christ upon the altar. Having localized the Body in, with or beneath, the veil of the Bread, the question of the difference between Rome and the Church seems to dwindle down to this, as stated by Rev. Ed. Stuart in “Some Thoughts on Low Masses,” quoted in “Facts and Testimonies,” page 51 (note): “It is not the presence of the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ (as asserted by the Church of Rome), but it is the absence of the substance of bread and wine against which we protest.” And the following, from “Catholic Papers,” No. 3; “English and Roman Ideas of Christian Unity”; reprint from “The Church Eclectic,” Utica, N. Y., page 5: “No doubt the English Church, in Article XXVIII., has not merely not accepted, but has rejected the word ‘Transubstantiation’; but it by no means follows that it hits condemned the doctrine which it involves. On the contrary, it is capable of demonstration that what is condemned is the very ‘materialism’ which the Abbe Guettee severely censures. More than this, the admission of Bishop Herzog and other old Catholics to Communion by the American Bishops is tantamount to a declaration on their part that the ‘transubstantiation’ of the Council of Trent is an admissable exposition of the doctrine of the Holy Sacrament.”

The absolute agreement with Rome as to the fact that the Body and Blood are localized upon the Altar makes the Mediaeval Ritual far more suitable for the expression of that doctrine than any Ritual the Church has to offer; naturally, therefore, that Ritual is desired. The effort to introduce it is an acknowledgement that the Ritual of the Church is unequal to its expression, and that fact shows how vital and fundamental is the change in the Church’s teaching which is sought to be made. As Mr. Blenkinsopp expresses it, “without dogma, ritual is an illusion and a delusion,” and “the surest way to teach the Catholic Faith is by the Catholic Ritual.” Observe now what Romish doctrines naturally flow from this of the localized body:

First. If the Body of Christ be there, in, with or beneath, the veil of the Bread, how natural the desire that the consecrated bread should be kept in the Church, that the faithful may come and worship Him there, beneath that veil. Hence the doctrine of Reservation of the Sacrament for worship.

Second. Says Mr. Meydrick, in “The Doctrine of the Holy Communion,” page 155: “If that which is in the pyx is the Person of Christ, why should He not have His royal progresses, like other Eastern Kings, saluted as He goes by prostrate multitudes and honored with the clang of music and the melody of song?”’ Hence naturally the procession of the host.

Third. If, when the Priest pronounces the words of consecration, this great miracle be wrought, how proper it seems that the Bread be lifted up before the people to be gazed upon, and that they may prostrate themselves before the localized Christ and worship Him. Hence the elevation of the Consecrated Elements.

And Fourth. The worship of Christ there localized, other Romish doctrines, such as communion in one kind, the eating of Christ’s Body by the wicked, etc., seem naturally to flow from this, theory of the localized Body and Blood; but as they do not so much concern ritual, no further mention need be made of them. It seems to me, therefore, in view of these dangers, and of the Church’s legislation to protect her liturgy and prevent alteration or addition, and in view of our solemn ordination vows, that our duty is simple and plain: First, adhere strictly and conscientiously to the Prayer Book and the Constitution and Canons of the General Convention; and inasmuch as the General Convention has declared that, in its judgment, the paternal counsel and advice of the Bishop is “sufficient to secure the suppression of all that is irregular and unseemly, and to promote greater uniformity in conducting the public worship of the Church and in the administration of the Holy Sacraments,” expressing thereby the belief of that body that the clergy should be guided by the counsel and advice of the Bishop: and inasmuch as the clergy, at the time of their ordination, did take a vow to “reverently obey” their Bishop and follow his godly admonitions and submit themselves to his godly judgment; therefore, second, in matters not sufficiently provided for in the Rubrics, let the rule laid down by St. Ignatius, in Epistle to the Trallians, be your guide—viz.: “Do nothing without the Bishop.”

This I say, not because I deem your Bishop better or wiser than you, or any of you, but simply because it has been the rule of the Church of God through the ages. The Bishop is bound as thoroughly as you are by the Prayer Book and the Constitution and Canons of the General Convention. What our Church has deliberately omitted from the English Prayer Book, and therefore prohibited, he has no more right to restore than you have; but in all things which may be “irregular and unseemly,” or which may interfere with “uniformity,” his “godly judgment” should be your guide. I believe the laity and clergy of this Diocese are loyal and true to the Church, and I believe the Church is loyal and true to the Word of God. We want no Medieval Liturgy to give expression to our belief as to the Doctrines and Sacraments and Discipline which the Lord hath commanded. That which is simply medieval is as thoroughly modern as though it were an invention of the nineteenth century. It is no recommendation to us to say that a practice is a thousand years old. If that be its age, it is modern. A thousand years ago the Church had already lived eight hundred years. The Church has fought her way, through lire and blood, to freedom from the tyranny and false teachings of the Church of Rome, and we, who have inherited this glorious liberty, are not willing to sacrifice it to a union which means a submission to the Church of Koine. Wise in their generation, wise with worldly wisdom, are those who, through the soft blandishments of music, by gorgeous vestments, by the reverential attitudes and postures of a cut-and-dried drill, by prostrations and genuflections, would steal our hearts away from the simple truth as it is in Christ Jesus. These are but parts of a far-reaching plan to mesmerize the (Church so that, with suspended will and judgment, she may, in obedience to the dominating will of others, go to Rome and say: “Let the hands which have been parted for three hundred years be once more joined.”

And now let me conclude by saying: “Ritual, like painting and architecture, is only the visible expression of divine truth.” The Ritual of the Prayer Book is the Church’s ritual expression of divine truth, and the only one she has accepted and authorized. In Article VIII of the Constitution she has declared that the Ritual contained in the Prayer Book “shall be used in the Protestant Episcopal Church in those Dioceses which shall have adopted this Constitution.” She also declares, in the same article, that “no alteration or addition shall be made in the Prayer Book, or other offices of the Church, except as therein provided.” Again: “When a part of a ceremony is changed the integrity of the ceremony is broken, and it ceases to be the same ceremony.”

When, therefore, a clergyman introduces into the services of the Church any ceremony not therein contained, he destroys the integrity of the ceremony; it ceases to be that which the Church has authorized as her expression of divine truth, and becomes the unauthorized substitute of the clergyman so using it. Therefore, first, he violates the Constitution by making an alteration or addition prohibited by the law; second, he destroys the integrity of the Church Ritual, and thereby impairs her expression of divine truth; and, third, lie substitutes a ritual expression of divine truth of his own adoption for that which the Church has authorized and required him to use. Now, therefore, my dear brethren, especially my brethren of the clergy, as the Bishop of this Diocese, speaking in the presence and the fear of God, I do most earnestly and affectionately exhort you, by your ordination vow, to ”reverently obey your Bishop,” “to follow his godly admonitions and to submit yourselves to his godly judgments”: First, that you adhere strictly and conscientiously to the Book of Common Prayer, and administration of the sacraments and other rites and ceremonies of the Church, which have been or shall be constitutionally declared by the General Convention to be “the Liturgy of this Church”; making neither alteration nor addition thereto; and. second, that for the resolution of all doubts and differences, which may rise “concerning the manner how to understand, do and execute the things contained in this book, you do always resort to the Bishop of the Diocese, that by his discretion he may take order for the quieting and appeasing the same.”

And now. my dear brethren, I commend you to God. May the future be filled with evidences of our devotion to Him, to His blessed Word, and to His Holy Church. We are “stewards of the mysteries of God,” and may we never forget that “it is required in stewards that a man be found faithful.”

Believe me your friend and Bishop,

JOHN W. BECKWITH,
Bishop of Georgia.