vailing guide. He would ask them, as brethren, whether they ought not to do something to appease this state of things

in the church? He believed in his soul that evils of fearful magnitude did exist, and he thought it would be criminal to treat them with indifference, or to shrink from meeting them at once."-Proceedings, pp. 30, 31.

The result of the anxieties and

conflicts, the loud alarms and notes of preparation, the protests and remonstrances, the heated discussions, the maneuverings, and the changings of sides, in that General Convention, which acted 'as in a vast amphitheater, beneath the vault of heaven, and in the presence of one or two millions of immortal be

ings congregated about them,' whose decision was to constitute 'one of the elements out of which strangers to the fold of Christ at the distance of a thousand leagues will conceive their opinion of what the practical fruit of the articles of faith and of the ecclesiastical polity' of the Protestant Episcopal church in the United States, on the most important subject which ever came before a Protestant church will be,-can now be stated in few words.

On the final vote, the following proposed amendment to the original resolutions was negatived.

"Whereas, The minds of many of the members of this church throughout its union are sorely grieved and perplexed, by the alleged introduction among them of serious errors in doctrine and practice, having their origin in certain writings emanating chiefly from members of the University of Oxford in England; and Whereas, it is exceedingly desirable that the minds of such persons should be calmed, their anxieties allayed, and the church disabused of the charge of holding in her articles and offices, doctrines and practices consistent with all the views and opinions expressed in said Oxford writings, and should thus be freed from a responsibility which does not properly belong to her: Therefore

"Resolved, That the House of Bishops be respectfully requested to communicate with this House on this subject,

and to take such order thereon, as the nature and magnitude of the evil alluded to may seem to them to require."-Journal, p. 63.

By this decision, it was practically resolved by the Convention, that while it was undeniable that the 'minds of many of the members of the church throughout its union are sorely grieved and perplexed by the alleged introduction among them of serious errors in doctrine

and practice, having their origin in certain writings emanating chiefly from members of the University of Oxford in England,' (for the fact that certain persons were so aggrieved and troubled no one pretended to deny,) it was not "desirable that the minds of such persons should be calmed, their anxieties allayed, and the church disabused of the charge of holding in her articles and offices doctrines and practices consistent with all the views and opinions expressed in said Oxford writings," and "that the House of Bishops should" not "be requested to communicate with this House on the subject, and to take order thereon."

This resolution was decided by a vote of fifty five in the affirmative, and ninety two in the negative. It is due to certain dioceses and members of the Convention, nearly all of whom saw reasons ultimately to unite with their brethren in the final resolution which affirms substantially that there was no occasion for the action of the Convention, and that the church is not in danger, to state more particularly how this vote stood. Those who voted in the affirmative on this resolution, we may regard as substantially constituting the evangelical party, or as so far united with that party as to regard the church as in danger from the influence of Puseyism. They were those who had raised the note of alarm; who had generally been regarded as opposed to Oxfordism ; and they may be considered as embodying the strength of the evangelical party in the Convention. Thus we find the entire dioceses of Maine, Virginia, Ohio, and Georgia, giving an undivided vote in the af

firmative; and the well known highchurch dioceses of Connecticut, New York, Western New York, New Jersey, and North Carolina, giving an undivided vote in the negative. Among those who voted in the affirmative are recognized the names of Drs. Bull, Tyng, Wyatt, Hawks, and Brooke, men who are well known throughout our country as the friends of evangelical religion, and who, with their brethren who have sympathized with them in the alarm which has been felt respecting the prevalence of the Oxford divinity, it was to have been anticipated would never in any way cease to lift up their voice against the sys. tem, or be brought to lend the sanction of their names to the proposi tion that an avowal of the doctrines

of Puseyism was consistent with a fair standing in the Episcopal

church.

The first vote adopted by the Con vention on this long agitated and important subject, and which may be supposed now, according to the language of the President of the Convention, to show what the prac. tical fruit of the articles of faith and of the ecclesiastical polity of the Episcopal church really is, was the following:

"Resolved, That the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies consider the liturgy, offices, and articles of the church, suffi cient exponents of her sense of the essential doctrines of Holy Scripture; and that the canons of the church afford ample means of discipline and correction for all who depart from her standards; and further, that the General Convention is not a suitable tribunal for the trial and censure of, and that the church is not responsible for, the errors of individuals, whether they are members of this church or otherwise."-Journal, p. 60.

As this was the most important vote ever given in the Episcopal church; as it determines the 'position' of that church in reference to a most momentous controversy; as it is a proclamation to the world respecting the policy which it is disposed to pursue towards that com

munion from which it was once the glory of the Episcopal church in common with the other churches of the Reformation to have departed; and as it contains some painful developments of influences which we are little able to understand acting on the low-church party, and which that party has not yet explained, we propose to analyze the vote with some care.

The vote as taken by dioceses stood thus

"Clergy-27 dioceses represented. For THE AFFIRMATIVE, 25. FOR THE NEG ATIVE, 2.

"Laity-22 dioceses represented. FOR THE AFFIRMATIVE, 18. FOR THE NEG ATIVE, 3. DIVIDED, 1."-Journal, p. 65.

The actual number of negative votes was ELEVEN, embracing the following names-Mr. Ide, of New Rev. Messrs. Berkley and Cowgill, Hampshire; Mr. Aldis, of Vermont; of Kentucky; Rev. Dr. Brooke, Rev. Messrs. Smallwood and Dobb, clergy, and Messrs. Noble and Du bois, laity, of Ohio; and Messrs. Dent and Furness, laymen, of Missouri.-Journal, pp. 65, 66.

On the ultimate vote, therefore, the entire low-church party, with the exception of five clergymen and six laymen, were found to unite with the high-church or Puseyite party, and in this vote we find, among others, to our entire amaze ment, the names already referred to

of Bull, and Tyng, and Wyatt, and Hawks. The only clergymen of the whole party, who, to the last, lifted up their solemn voice against the errors which had been the pro minent subject before the Convention, and who recorded their votes to be one of the elements out of which strangers to the fold of Christ

at the distance of a thousand leagues, were to conceive their opinion of

The Rev. Dr. Empie, of Virginia, who took so noble a stand against the er rors of Oxfordism in the debates, had probably left the Convention before the final vote was taken, as his name does not appear on that vote.

what the practical fruit of the articles of faith and the ecclesiastical polity of the church really is,' were from the diocese of Ohio.

What produced the remarkable changes indicated by this vote, we know not. What secret influences were at work, if any, to lead to this distressing unanimity, we have no means of ascertaining. They who had so earnestly lifted up their voices against the errors of Pusey ism; they who had so loudly and so unambiguously proclaimed that the church was in danger; they who had contended so earnestly, and with so good a spirit, in the debate, for what they deemed vital and essential truth; they who for years had been regarded as constituting a distinct party, under a name assumed or admitted by themselves as the evangelical or low-church party,' and who had been so much loved and honored by other denominations, as bold champions for the principles of our common Protestantism, but who at last were found to harmonize with the advocates of high churchism and Puseyism, in the most important voté which they ever gave, have as yet, so far as we know, not deemed it of sufficient importance to explain to the world at large the reasons why they were found at last in this position.' We charge on them no improper mo. tives. We do not accuse them of being under any improper influence, or of any want of piety. We have no doubt that they are good men. We know that not a few of them are men deservedly honored for zeal, and eloquence, and learning, and for abundant labors in promoting the extension of the Redeem er's cause. We know that they have won the love, and we have no doubt that as Christian men they will retain it, of the friends of religion in other denominations, and we would not utter one word which would wound their feelings, or which would interfere with their doing

good in the widest manner possible. We record, in the language which we use, only the deep regret with which it was seen by the Christian public that their names occupy the position which they do, on the final vote; and the belief that in coming to such a result, they must have seen things which the world with out' can not as yet understand, and our unfeigned sorrow that by this vote they have given such occasion to the true friends of evangelical religion every where to mourn, and have done so much, as we think, to lend their sanction to the worst er. rors of the times.

With this vote, the long agitated subject was allowed to rest. The voice of alarm died away. The work of the Convention respecting Puseyism was forever ended. The policy' of the Episcopal church was settled. Harmony was restored; UNITY-the object most sought in certain quarters-was secured, and SCHISM-that thing more dreaded' than all false doctrine and her esy'-was avoided. It was in view of such things, and having evidently a primary reference to the result on the subject of Puseyism, that the following resolution at the close of the Convention was adopted:

"On motion, unanimously Resolved, That this House can not adjourn without expressing its gratitude to the Great Head of the church, for the unanimity of feeling which has prevailed during its most animated discussions, for the uni versal expression of attachment to the doctrines and discipline of the Protestant Episcopal Church, and for the peace and HARMONY with which we now adjourn." -Journal, p. 105.

From this view of the result which the Convention reached in the most important question which ever came before the Episcopal church in this country, we are authorized to derive several important conclusions in regard to the "ecclesiastical policy" of that communion:

(1.) That there was really no occasion for alarm; no reason why

mother country, had been suspended from the exercise of the functions of his office, showing that even in England there were some means of arresting the evil; but no such thing had occurred in the United States. The only ground, therefore, on which that resolution could have been rejected was, that, though these sentiments were known to prevail, and were even increasing, there was no cause for alarm. They were not so inconsistent with the articles and offices of the church that they could not be embraced in that large charity which the church seeks and loves, and which she prefers to 'schism.' This is the interpretation which we are constrained to put on the action of the Convention in this case, and which we think the doings of that body fairly demand. This is the interpretation which the high-church party put on those acts, and so far as we can see, there is entire propriety in the triumph and exultation of the "Churchman," the leading paper of that par ty, in the results of the Convention. Referring to the doings of the Convention, that paper remarks:

"The whole low-church portion of our representative American church, on an occasion on which, of all others, they were expected to choose their strongest position, did not even affirm the existence of error in the church. During the last eighteen months especially they have complained, in no gentle strains, of Puseyism,' Tractarianism,' Semi-Popery,' and 'Popery; they have brought against us vague accusations of undermining our Protestant church, of subverting the ground of the Reformation, of corrupting the church's doctrine of justification, of 'superseding the written word by our doctrine of tradition; they have united (whether as leaders or followers we say not) with sectarians of every hue, in holding us up to obloquy and reproach for Papistical corruptions; they have prepared themselves for the great Central Ecclesiastical Council,' and have raised the religious public to the tiptoe of expectation, and yet when the time comes that our Protestant church is to be vindicated, that Tractarianism' is to be exposed and its abettors sent home rebuked and crestfallen, they do not take on themselves the Vol. III.

47

responsibility of affirming the existence of a solitary error! The resolutions on which they spent their strength were under discussion for a week or ten days together; they were offered in one form by a layman and in another form by a clergyman; they were open to every variety of modi fication and comment which the wit of 'Anti-Tractarian' forces could suggest, and yet the very preamble which sets forth the ground and necessity of their contemplated action, did not define the character, nor even assert the existence of the error, or errors, which it was deemed desirable to remove!!"

(2.) It is decided that to hold the doctrines of Puseyism, or Tractarianism, is in entire accordance with a good standing in the Episcopal church; that to maintain them avowedly and in the most unambiguous manner, is to be no bar in admitting a candidate to the ministry, and to constitute no disqualification or ground of suspicion in those who are already in the ministry. The case which actually gave rise to all the alarm in the church and the Convention, was one where there was no ambiguity as to the sentiments entertained; and in all the debates in the Convention, on which the ultimate result was based, there was no difference of opinion as to the nature of the doctrines which came under review. All understood what was the point at issue, and all acted intelligently on the question whether those doctrines were or were not to be regarded as inconsistent with the "articles and liturgy and offices" of the church. Every one understood what sentiments had been avowed by Mr. Carey, and what are the general principles involved in Tractarianism.' The question was fairly before that body, whether to hold those sentiments was to impair the good standing of ministers and members in that communion, or whether they should be tolerated as not inconsistent with what the church holds. This was

the proper occasion, and the only occasion, where this question could be hoped to be brought to an issue,