Communion in One Kind, by Franklin Joiner (1944)

In the Book of the Acts of the Holy Apostles we read that after our Lord’s resurrection from the dead he showed himself alive to his Apostles and disciples, and spoke “of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.” The writer goes into no detail, but states simply this bare fact. The author of this book in writing about S. Peter’s Pentecostal sermon which converted 3000 souls, adds that “they continued steadfastly in the Apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in the breaking of bread, and in prayers.” And further on in the Acts he writes of the infant Church and the contemporary Christians, “they continued daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house.” The Apostles on the Day of Pentecost were ready to give the Sacraments of the Church to those who were being brought into its fellowship.

In establishing the Sacramental Rites and customs the Apostles began apparently by doing, what they had seen our Blessed Lord do, especially in regard to the Holy Eucharist, for this he had instituted amidst such dramatic surroundings and with such solemnity that they could never forget its slightest word or action. According to contemporary writings the first celebrations of the Mass consisted of a solemn recitation of the words of consecration as spoken by our Lord in the Upper Room, accompanied with the breaking of the bread and the blessing of the cup, the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer (since this form was in the Apostles’ mind closely and intimately bound up with the Master), and a Hymn, for the Synoptists tell us that on Maundy Thursday night after the institution of the Eucharist a hymn was sung before they went out to the Mount of Olives.

When our Blessed Lord instituted the Holy Eucharist he gave his Apostles both the Sacred Bread as his Body and the Sacred Wine as his Blood in Holy Communion. This was followed as the practice of the Church in the early centuries, and has persisted to the present day in one manner or another throughout the long history of the Church. To receive Holy Communion under both the species of Bread and Wine, as our Lord gave to the Apostles, has been a universal practice of the Church throughout the ages. But it is interesting to note that as early as the writing of the Book of the Acts of the Holy Apostles the Holy Eucharist is known and referred to as the breaking of bread. In that early day there seems to be already a peculiar devotion to the Sacramental Body, and throughout the history of the Eucharist, even though Communion was generally given in both kinds, Eucharistic devotion centered more and more in the Sacred Host.

A close study of the Gospels and Epistles, and a scrutiny of our Lord’s own words give ample warrant for this discrimination. Over and over again our Lord speaks of himself as the Living Bread, as Food which man must eat, whereas he never speaks of himself as the Cup or as of Drink. In the 6th chapter of the Fourth Gospel we have his wonderful dissertation on the Bread of Life. The reference here in this great Eucharistic sermon to his Blood and the drinking of it seems to be only incidental in his discourse, for he speaks at such length and with such emphasis about the Bread of Life and the partaking of his Flesh. While no one would suggest for a moment that our Lord was here forecasting the practice of giving and receiving Holy Communion in one kind, it can be said quite definitely that this Eucharistic discourse of our Lord’s had a great deal to do with the development of Eucharistic doctrine, and gave the Church ample justification for the centering of her Eucharistic worship and devotion in the Sacred Species of the Sacramental Bread. This concentration of devotion in the Sacred Host is rather a practical than a theological matter. It is difficult to move the Chalice. It is very hard to prevent irreverence in its administration. It is impossible chemically to reserve the Sacred Species of Wine. These difficulties are not present in the administering and reserving of the Sacred Host.

In Apostolic days great emphasis was laid on the Unity of the Bishop with his priests. No occasion was overlooked to underline this essential one-ness between the Cathedral and the Parish Church. One of the many ways in which this Unity was symbolized was by the Bishop from his Mass sending a piece of his Consecrated Host to every parish Church in the city where he was celebrating. These bits of the Sacred Host consecrated by the Bishop were carried by the Deacons, and the piece of the Bishop’s Host was deposited in the Chalice of the Priest’s Mass in his parish Church. This Unity of the Church, symbolized by the Eucharistic Body of our Lord in the Mass, is the theme of one of our most beloved Communion Hymns, “O may we all One Bread, One Body be, in this blest Sacrament of Unity.” We have a survival of the ritual of this sharing of the Bishop’s Mass and the Bishop’s Host with each parish in his See in the commixture at the Mass when the Priest today breaks a piece of the Host he has consecrated and places It in the Chalice with an appropriate prayer. And the Humeral Veil worn by the Sub-Deacon at the Solemn Mass is a survival of the time when he stood ready at the Bishop’s Altar to carry the Holy Fragment to the Church where he was assigned.

When Reservation of the Sacrament in order to communicate the sick and dying came into practice, it was found impracticable to reserve the Sacrament of the Precious Blood. Attempts to communicate the sick and dying with the Species of Wine were made in the beginning, but they had to be given up. Such things as silver and gold tubes were resorted to in order to communicate the sick and dying with the Precious Blood, but it was impossible to avoid irreverence and desecration in such communions. The question of cleansing the instruments thus brought into contact with the Holy Sacrament was an insuperable problem, so, primarily on practical grounds the Blessed Sacrament from earliest days has generally been reserved in one kind only.

This custom is protected by the Doctors of the Church who with one accord have agreed on the Doctrine of Concomitance. By this doctrine the Church declares that our Lord is wholly and entirely present in the smallest crumb of a Consecrated Host and in the tiniest drop of the Consecrated Wine. Therefore one who receives a whole Host in Communion receives no more of our Lord’s Sacramental Body and his grace than he who receives only a small particle. And one whose lips are barely touched by the Sacred Species of the Chalice has received of our Lord’s Sacramental gifts as fully as one who grabs the Chalice with both hands and partakes with presumption. So the Church has always taught that a Communion made under the form of the Host alone or under the form of the Chalice alone is a whole and valid and sufficient Communion.

As Eucharistic devotion grew under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, it centered as we have said above in the Sacred Host. Because of the reverent necessity to reserve under this one kind only, and because theologians substantiated the practice as it developed, the Church found justification for the custom in the teaching of our Lord and of S. Paul, in the emphasis they both lay upon the Living Bread, and also in the striking incident that it was in the Breaking of Bread that the Risen Christ was made known to the disciples at Emmaus on the first Easter night.

When processions of the Blessed Sacrament came into being and the Rite of Benediction was framed, it was the Sacred Host that was carried in procession, it was the Sacred Host that was exposed in the Monstrance. This is a development, we admit, but a development under the tutelage of the Holy Ghost, who was sent among other reasons that he might guide us into all truth. This development in Eucharistic practice did not emerge full-blown, but appeared slowly through the years, and has been verified from age to age in the experience of the Church and in the testimony of the Saints.

There is no doubt whatever that during the early centuries of the Church Holy Communion was given to the faithful under both kinds, that is, the communicant received both the Body and the Blood in the Eucharist under the two forms of Bread and Wine. The Sacrament was reserved under the Species of Bread alone, so the sick and the dying and those who received Holy Communion outside the Liturgy received in one kind only, that is under the Species of the Holy Bread. Communion by Intinction was not unknown in the early Church, but where and when it was first introduced we do not know. We do know there was at first a great prejudice against this practice and it was most scrupulously avoided because it was too reminiscent of the traitor Judas who “dipped a sop” with our Lord, in the dish. By Intinction we mean dipping the Sacred Bread in the Sacred Contents of the Chalice, and communicating the faithful with the Host thus moistened, and placing It upon the tongue. Sometimes the Sacred Host was dipped in the Chalice and sometimes It was intincted or moistened with un-consecrated wine. This is the manner of giving Holy Communion in the Eastern Orthodox Church today, a mere vestige of which we have in the West in the Mass of the Pre-sanctified on Good Friday, when the Priest makes his communion after this fashion with the Consecrated Host (reserved from the Mass of Maundy Thursday) and the unconsecrated chalice. In the East the Species of Bread is reserved, and in Communion the Sacred Host is dipped in unconsecrated wine and given to the communicant on a spoon. Wherever the Chalice has been given directly to the laity and at whatever period in the history of the Church, there has always been a fear of irreverence and a dread of desecration on the part of the Priest, and a feeling of revulsion, more or less, on the part of the communicant. Pious efforts to avoid this situation have been the incentive for inventing other ways in which Holy Communion may be given and received. In the middle ages during the prevalence of wide-spread epidemics and general plagues, as a sanitary precaution, the faithful began of themselves to withdraw from the Chalice. The Church did not take the Chalice away from the people, the people themselves withdrew from the Chalice. Communion in one kind was the practice in England at the time of the Reformation, and has always continued there in certain quarters. The appellation of the term mutilated sacrament to communion in one kind, arose not in England but with the protestant reformers on the continent.

There is perfectly good precedent for Communion in all three ways, both kinds, one kind, and intinction. And all three ways of administering Communion are still practiced in the Catholic Church today. We cannot say that any one or two of the ways is catholic to the exclusion of the other. Any one is quite as catholic as the other two. The Eastern Orthodox still communicate the faithful by Intinction, and as far as we know by Intinction only. In the Latin Church of the West, that is in the Roman Catholic Church, Communion is given by direction in one kind only under ordinary circumstances. There are groups in union with the Roman Catholic Church where Communion is given in both kinds, and at certain functions and on special occasions in the Roman Church itself, Holy Communion is given today in both kinds.

With us in the Anglican Church the primitive practice of Communion in both kinds has prevailed. Reservation has been in one kind only, and the sick and the dying and those who receive Holy Communion outside the Mass have received the Sacred Host only. In recent years, with our modern consciousness of germs and almost fanatical fear of contagion, great prejudice has arisen against the common drinking cup, and in most states of the Union there are laws which forbid its use. This same fear and prejudice has been carried into the Church, and already most protestant bodies have adopted in their communion services the use of individual communion cups.

But with these religious groups there is no real presence in their elements of Holy Communion, the rite is simply a memorial, and with them there is no irreverence or desecration in spilling or dropping either species. This prevailing fear has been met in the Episcopal Church by adopting the practice of Intinction. There is nothing wrong with the principle of Intinction, it is its method that is bad. Intinction is the exclusive method used in the three largest and most prominent Churches in this Diocese, and in these parishes we are told Holy Communion is available in no other way. Various methods of Intinction are noted. In two of these local Churches the officiating Priest dips the Host in the Chalice and places It in the hand of the communicant. If this is done for fear of spreading disease, what about the Priest’s fingers touching the contents of the Chalice and then the hands of the communicants, and so on, back and forth? In the other local Church the communicant retains the Sacred Host in his hand, and when the Priest follows with the Chalice, the communicant himself dips the Consecrated Host into the Chalice, and conveys It to his mouth. Here you have the fingers of all the communicants going into the Chalice. It would seem that in either of these ways one is more apt to spread disease than when the faithful receive directly from the common Cup.

The answer to these fears and prejudices is Communion in One Kind. At the last meeting of our General Convention in Cleveland this matter was brought before the attention of both houses. The House of Deputies, which is made up of Priests and laymen, passed a resolution endorsing the practice of giving Holy Communion either by intinction or in one kind, and authorizing the use of any of the three prevailing methods in administering Holy Communion in the Episcopal Church. Holy Communion in one kind did not seem to be very well known to our Bishops, and when the matter was brought before them for consideration, one Bishop thinking there might be a theological question involved, suggested that the matter be referred to the Lambeth Conference, so it was left there officially by the Bishops. In the meantime they took an “off-the-record” vote and upheld the decision of the House of Deputies. So as it now stands any Bishop can give his consent to either deviation from Communion in both kinds. But the Bishop’s permission is not necessary in the matter of Communion in one kind, for in this practice it is not the Church that withholds the Chalice, it is the communicant himself of his own free will who with-draws from the Altar after he has received the Sacred Host. But the Bishop who consents to the one deviation from Prayer Book direction must also consent to the other. If we want the House of Bishops to recognize the validity of Communion in one kind, we must begin to practice it, we must make it known. It would be a very sad thing, and it is a possibility, that the Bishops would approve giving Holy Communion by Intinction and definitely repudiate the giving of Holy Communion in one kind only.

The difficulty of communicating a large number of people in both kinds is perfectly evident to all who receive at a Sunday Mass in a large city Church. The general use of cosmetics and lip stick makes for great irreverence in the use of the Chalice by many who least intend it. (Every Sunday when I go back to the Altar after giving Holy Communion at the 8 o’clock Mass and receive the Chalice from the assisting Priest, and have to cleanse the rim of the Chalice with my own lips and tongue before taking the ablutions, I find the rim of the Chalice covered with lip-stick, and the sight and taste is not only repulsive to my natural senses, but it is a real strain to preserve a priestly reverence in consuming what remains.)

I do not want any communicant in this parish to do anything that violates his conscience, nor do I want any one to receive in one kind only either to please me or because they think it is more Catholic to do so. But I would like you all to give this matter your prayerful consideration. I recommend the practice to you most highly. Receiving in one kind will be a protest against the irreverence of Intinction which is growing very rapidly throughout our Church. It will give the Bishops an opportunity to observe its practicability, its reverence, and its simplicity. It will be another step in the direction of Catholic Unity. And it will be a great physical saving to your Priests. Our Blessed Lord is wholly present in the slightest crumb or merest drop of the Holy Sacrament. There is not a dissenting voice on this point among the Doctors of the Church. By with-drawing from the Chalice I am sure in a short time you will realize that the reverence for your communions and for the Sacrament Itself has increased. My final word though must be this: the important thing in Holy Communion, and I underline this with my heaviest pencil, the important thing in Holy Communion is not the way in which you receive, but the spirit in which you come to the Blessed Sacrament. That your Communion be a worthy one must always be your first and chiefest consideration.

S. Clement’s Quarterly (Philadelphia), June 1944, pp. 11-16.

Considering the Propriety of Supporting the Episcopal Theological Seminary at New-Haven (1820)

An Address to the Episcopalians of the United States: Considering the Propriety of Supporting the Episcopal Theological Seminary at New-Haven.
By an Episcopalian.
No place: no publisher, 1820.

As a Protestant Episcopalian, I feel myself deeply interested in every measure which involves the honour and prosperity of the Church to which I belong. It would be a waste of words to prove that of this description is every thing which relates to the business of Theological education.

I have perused, very seriously, the various pieces which have appeared in the public prints, relative to the Episcopal Theological Seminary, at New-Haven; and also the journals of the General Convention, on this subject, and the plan and address of the Board of Trustees of the Seminary. I have also made very particular inquiries of the members of the late Convention, and others capable of giving me information; and I beg leave respectfully to submit to the consideration of my fellow Episcopalians, throughout the Union, the following facts and observations, which are offered under a very serious impression of their important bearing on the honour and prosperity of our Church.

It is undoubtedly a fact, that other institutions are contemplated, besides this at New-Haven; and that there was full reason to believe that this would not receive the support of Episcopalians generally. The measure of establishing it at New-Haven appears to have been a measure of conciliation. But I am informed, on the best authority, that, while all the members of the Convention were deeply impressed with the importance of effectual provision for Theological education, some were opposed, on principle, to a Theological Seminary; others indifferent on the subject; and others disposed to unite with the friends of the General Institution in removing it to New-Haven, provided it was understood that there might be diocesan schools, with the arrangements for which the General Seminary was not to interfere. This, it appears, was particularly the case with regard to the Church in New-York. I am utterly astonished that any person can doubt this fact, or presume to represent any attempts to establish diocesan institutions, as an opposition to the general one, when I notice, on the journals of the Convention, (page 57,) that the Bishops adopted the resolutions, on this subject, with a  proviso, allowing diocesan institutions, even expressing the opinion, that the subscribers to the General Seminary were not bound to pay, in consequence of its removal. But, independently of all this, it is absurd to suppose that the General Convention can compel any diocess or any individual to support the General Institution. They have not attempted to do so—they merely request the Bishops, or standing committees, where there are no Bishops to [3/4] adopt such measures as they may deem advisable to collect funds, in aid of the Theological Seminary. Surely a request is not obligatory, and non-compliance is not an offence. And who can suppose the Bishops or Standing Committees bound to comply with this request, when the Bishops expressly declare, that the General Institution is not to interfere with “any plan now contemplated, or that may hereafter be contemplated, in any diocess or diocesses, for the establishment of Theological Institutions or professorships;”* I perceive from the journals, (page 65,) that the former Theological Seminary, while the school was at New-York, transmitted a circular address to each Clergyman of the Church, requesting his co-operation and influence in favor of the institution. The request, from all that I can learn, was in very few instances attended to; and yet, who ever thought of impeaching the delinquents with a resistance to the authority of the Church.

The support then of the institution at New-Haven, is merely voluntary—it may or may not be patronized by any diocess or individual, as may be deemed proper. And the inquiry may be fairly, and of right, made into the propriety of supporting it.

And here it must be evident, that, in supporting the General Seminary in name, we should probably support a local one, as to the management of its concerns. These are confined to twenty-four Trustees, nominated every three years, by the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies of the General Convention, from various parts of the Union, together with the Bishops of the Church. Of these Trustees, seven constitute a quorum to do business—and at present there are exactly seven Trustees in Connecticut, (exclusive of the Bishop,) residing with a day’s ride of New-Haven. Who can fail to see that the institution, in its management, will, after all, be an institution of the diocess of Connecticut, under the management of the Bishop and some of his Presbyters and Laymen? Can it be supposed, that, occupied as the Bishops and Clergy of the Church are, they can or will leave their diocesses and congregations, some of them at several hundred miles distance, to attend a meeting of the Trustees of the Seminary at New-Haven? In fact, then, it will, as to management, be a Connecticut institution. To this there would be no objection, were it a diocesan one. But is the Protestant Episcopal Church throughout the United States prepared to commit an institution, involving so deeply her interests and honour, to the management of any one diocess in the Union, however respectable? There is, indeed, a provision in the plan of the institution, adopted by the trustees, that any diocess, granting funds for a professor, shall have the right of nomination. Still the control of the professors, when appointed, and the direction of the institution, and all rules concerning it, are confided to Trustees, seven of whom constitute a quorum. There are right (including the Bishop) in Connecticut—and it is most probable, that these eight will generally be [4/5] a majority of those who attend. This was the fact, as I am informed, at the late meeting: a majority of those present were from Connecticut, and only one Bishop attended—the Bishop of the Church in that state.

It may be said, this arrangement is necessary, in order to secure a quorum. But then there ought to have been some plan to secure the proper influence to the Church at large, in an institution which goes under her name. This was attended to in the arrangement, while the institution was at New-York. Its management was confided to a Committee, consisting of the three adjacent Bishops, in Pennsylvania, New-Jersey and New-York, three Presbyters, and three Laymen—a very judicious distribution, in reference to the important check of the three orders on each other:—yet no plan which this committee might adopt, for carrying the institution into effect, was to be valid, until submitted to all the Bishops, and approved by a majority of them. No such provision now exists—and the consequence has been, that a plan of an institution, visibly affecting the dignity and prosperity of the Church, was adopted (and is binding) at a meeting of a minority of the whole board of Trustees, and only one Bishop present. It is easy to see what great influence such an institution may possess. Is it wise to patronize it, when its influence may, and generally will, be controlled and directed by the Bishop, and three Presbyters, and four Laymen of a single diocess? Take another view of the subject—suppose that the institution excited the attention of the Church generally; and that Bishops, and Presbyters, and Laymen flock from all parts of the Union, to meetings of the Trustees at New-Haven. How and when are those twenty-four Trustees, exclusive of the Bishops, elected? Every three years, by the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies in General Convention. Who does not foresee, judging from what we know of human nature, that if the institution become of such importance as to excite general and deep interest, the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies will, every three years, be the scene of contention between different diocesses and different theological parties, for the control of an institution, having so important an influence upon the general character of the Church? And who, that views the waters of bitterness which will thus be poured forth, and, unable to trace the whole extent or the termination of their ravages, should be considered as hostile to the unity of the Church in deprecating a measure which lets them loose, and in lifting up a respectful but earnest voice against it.

            The Trustees, at the meeting already noticed, in July last, have put forth an address, and adopted, as before mentioned, a plan for the organization of the institution. The Bishop of the Church in Connecticut, was the only Bishop present. In both the address and the plan, there are some matters which had better have been otherwise, and some were exceedingly exceptionable. The writer of these remarks is a friend to liberality, properly understood; and no one would more cordially hail its progress among all Christians. By liberality, he understands a kind judgment of the motives, [5/6] characters and views of others; a courteous behaviour to them; proper respect for their virtues; and, above all, maintenance of them in their just rights and privileges—all which is very consistent with exclusive views and opinions on all subjects. But the writer, in common, he concludes, with every correct mind, cannot be pleased with cant of any description, sill less with the cant of liberality—and he is sure, he speaks the sentiments of every noble-spirited friend of the Church, when he deplores any thing which lets her down from her elevated station, to a contest for popularity. The New-Haven address states, that while the institution was in New-York, no “general appeal was made to the liberality of the members of the Church.” This is not correct;* for one of the measures which would come under the denomination of a general appeal, adopted by the former Theological Committee, was an address on the subject of a Theological Seminary, directed to “the members of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States.” This was as it should be, as might be expected, from the members composing the Committee; and particularly from their dignified and venerable Chairman, the Bishop of Pennsylvania. For when all other denominations of Christians want all the funds which they can collect, for the support of their own Theological schools, who would think of directing an appeal, in favour of an Episcopal school, to them; or would consider such a measure in any other light than the cant or affectation of liberality—knowing neither those who employ it, nor those to whom it is addressed? The New Haven address, in favour of the Theological Seminary of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, appeals to “the Christian public.”

            But still further—a section of one of the articles of the plan of the New-Haven Seminary provides as follows:

            “The Seminary shall be equally accessible to students of all religious denominations, exhibiting suitable testimonials of character and qualifications. But no one, while a member of the institution, shall be permitted to disturb its harmony, by maintaining any thing contrary to the system of faith, discipline and worship, which shall be taught in it.”

In enacting this section, the Trustees must have supposed, that [6/7] the invitation contained in it, would not be accepted, or, that it would. On the former supposition, that it would not be accepted, here is the Episcopal Church, in the person of the Trustees of the Theological Seminary at New-Haven, condescending to a cheap art of obtaining popularity, by an offer, which, they knew at the time, would not be accepted. Of if they supposed it would be accepted, how insulting to students of other denominations, the condition with which it is coupled. They are “not permitted to disturb the harmony of the institution, by maintaining any thing contrary to the system of faith, discipline and worship, which shall be taught in it;” as much as to say to them—young gentlemen, Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists—see how liberal we are; we open the doors of our temple to you, but the moment you enter it, your mouths are closed, except to utter the sentiments, however repugnant to your principles, which we shall inculcate. How insulting, I repeat it, the condition of this offer; and yet, I impeach not its necessity, and even its expediency, if the invitation be made. For, undoubtedly, it would not be a very “harmonious” assemblage of Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Baptist and Methodist students in Divinity, contending for their variant systems. But what does this prove? That the offer should not have been made.—Let Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, take care of their own students in Divinity, and Episcopalians of theirs. This is dignified liberality; this is the true mode of preserving harmony. If the offer, however, must be made, connect not with it a degrading condition. It may be pleaded in excuse, this is only following the example set us by other denominations—not exactly, for I suspect they lay no such injunction as that stated, on the students of a different faith, who enter their schools. But example cannot sanction what is incorrect; and I am concerned for my Church, when I see her character involved in this (I must so consider it) undignified attempt to obtain popularity. But further—if the candidates for the ministry of other denominations are to come to our Theological school, must we not be equally liberal, and send some of our candidates to theirs? And is this to be desired?

            There is another very extraordinary feature in the plan of the Theological Seminary at New-Haven. It is provided, that “every student who shall be assisted in the pursuit of his theological education, to the amount of $100 per year, shall, on his receiving holy orders, officiate, if required, as a missionary, under the direction of the Board of Directors of the Foreign and Domestic Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States, for the term of from one to three years, according to the discretion of the said Board, provided a suitable provision be made for his support.”

This measure is a violation of the Canons of the Church. They prescribe that candidates for orders, when ordained, shall be under the direction, while in Deacon’s orders, of the Ecclesiastical authority by whom they were ordained. But what says the Theological Seminary at New Haven? No—you shall be under the direction of [7/8] the Board of Directors of the Foreign and Domestic Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States; and that not merely while you are in Deacon’s orders, but, if they think proper, for the term of three years.

            And what is this Foreign and Domestic Missionary Society? Let me digress, for a few minutes, while I say—I know of no such society in existence. To constitute a society, there must be a meeting of its members to enact measures for the attainment of its object, be it secular, literary, or religious. To the journal of the last General Convention of the Church, there is annexed a constitution of the Protestant Episcopal Missionary Society in the United States, for Foreign and Domestic Missions.” But I find no provision for any meeting of the society, nor, of course, for any exercise of the powers of its members. The presiding Bishop of the Church, is indeed President; the other Bishops are Vice-Presidents; but they never have an opportunity of presiding—the society never meets—who can say that it exists. True, there is a Board of Managers, of twenty-four members, appointed by the General Convention, to conduct its affairs, who are thirteen Presbyters, and nine Laymen; the Laymen all resident in the city of Philadelphia; and, will it be believed, among these managers, not a single Bishop. The Presiding Bishop of the Church is indeed President, and the Bishops Vice-Presidents of the Society. But the society never meets. In other societies, the President and Vice-Presidents are, ex officiis, members of the Board of Trustees, or Managers. Not so here; the Managers of the society, consist of the thirteen Presbyters, and nine Laymen. A Bishop of the Church, in the United States, according to the constitution of the Protestant Episcopal Society, has no more right to meddle with its concerns, than the Bishop of Calcutta: and thus the business of Foreign and Domestic Missions, in which, surely, the agency of the Bishops would be important, is placed entirely beyond their control.

            Let not the writer be misunderstood: he is not contending for any high claims of Bishops; he approves, most cordially, of the principles which associate Bishops, Clergy and Laymen, in the offices of the Church. But surely there are none who will contend, that the Bishops of the Church should be excluded from any participation in the management of a Society for Foreign and Domestic Missions.

            But further—of these thirteen Presbyters, and nine Laymen, who are managers of this society, (and who, it would seem, if there be any society, constitute the society itself,) there are twelve resident in Philadelphia, and six constitute a quorum. Thus, then, the whole business of Foreign and Domestic Missions, as far as it comes within the powers of this society, may be conducted by three of the youngest Presbyters in the city of Philadelphia, who are the only Clerical Managers there, with any three of the nine Laymen resident in that city. No Bishop, not even the venerable Presiding Bishop of the Church in Pennsylvania, has any right to make his appearance among them, or to lift up his voice in their concerns. Could all [8/9] this have been understood by the Convention? Here I confess is a mystery.

            On recurring, however, to the journals, I find on the minutes of the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, the last day of the session of the Convention, the following record:—“The Rev. Mr. Boyd, from the committee on the subject of a Missionary Society, reported in favour of forming such society, and offered a constitution, which was considered and accepted, with amendments, and sent to the House of Bishops.” On the minutes of that house, at a meeting, at 5 o’clock, P.M. of the same day, I find recorded, their concurrence in this constitution, with amendments. The strange defects and arrangements of the constitution must then be accounted for, by the rapidity with which it was carried through both houses, on the last day of the session of the Convention. The entire omission of the agency of the Bishops, must also be accounted for, from the circumstance, that, being appointed to preside over the society, and the presiding officers generally being members of the Board of Managers, the omission, in this case, could not be expected, and would naturally be unnoticed. How so defective and exceptionable a constitution could have been reported by the committee, who must, or ought to have had it for a long time under consideration, must still remain a mystery. But even the Board of Managers of this society, according to the constitution, are not in existence. The constitution provides, that they shall “be appointed by the General Convention.” The General Convention consists of the House of Bishops, and the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies. Of course, the Managers must be appointed by a vote of both houses. If the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, alone, had been meant, it would have been so specified, as is done in the case of the Trustees of the Theological Seminary. On the last evening of the session, it appears, from the journals, that the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies appointed certain persons Managers of the Missionary Society. This appointment was not sent to the House of Bishops—of course, it did not receive their concurrence. The Managers were not, therefore, appointed as the constitution provides by the General Convention; of course, they are not authorised to act. Is it not plain, that there is neither society nor Managers?*

            The Theological students, educated at the expense of the General Seminary, are to be compelled to officiate, if required, (contrary to the canons) as missionaries, under the direction of the Missionary Society, for a term from one to three years. Now, suppose this Seminary obtains large funds, and educates a large number for the ministry—they are all to be under the direction of this Missionary Society; and thus, they may be under the control of six Presbyters or six Laymen, (Bishops being out of the question,) who are authorised to conduct the affairs of this society. What powerful influence will [9/10] they possess! Besides, individual states have their Missionary Societies, and they may want the students, educated at the seminary, for the destitute settlements of those states; but they cannot have them, unless it pleases the Foreign Missionary Society, who may be six Presbyters or six Laymen. What an extraordinary society! And what an extraordinary act, (to say nothing of its being uncanonical,) in the Trustees of the Seminary, to place such power in the hands of this society.

            With respect to the Theological Seminary at New-Haven, it is evident, it will not be a general one—it will not receive general support; for plans are now in operation, and others are contemplated, for diocesan institutions. It will be general, too, only in name, as to its management; for it will virtually be under the control of the diocese where it is situated; and surely it is obviously improper, that the character of the Church at large, in so important a business as Theological instruction, should be in the keeping of the Bishop and of the Clergy and Laity of any one diocese. The inexpediency of this has been already verified in the proceedings of the Trustees, as a meeting at which but one Bishop was present, and who, with his Clergy and Laity, constituted a majority of the meeting, adopted measures, as has already been shewn, derogatory to the dignity of the Church, and taking from the canonical authority the control of certain candidates for orders, in order to place them under the control of a few Presbyters and Laymen, acting as the Managers of a society, which, in fact, cannot be said to have any existence.*

[11] May I not be permitted to suggest, that the error of the Convention has been in attempting to do too much; departing from the sage advice of their venerable senior Bishop, to confine their legislation to such matters as are necessary to constitute the Church one body, and leaving the rest to diocesan regulation—thus opening a door for endless jealousies and collisions.

            In the address of the Trustees of the Seminary at New-Haven, it is stated, that “its contiguity to Yale College will afford it the advantage of the valuable library, and the public lectures of that institution.” And are we come to this? Is the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, the daughter of one of the first Churches of the Reformation, reduced to the necessity of depending on the aid of a literary institution, by charter, under the control, and in operation devoted to the interests, of another denomination of Christians? Must the candidates for orders, of a Church that has justly boasted of her scriptural doctrines—her Apostolic ministry, and he primitive worship, be dependent on the public lectures of a President and Professors, who subscribe to doctrines opposed, in some respects, to those which she professes to have derived from the Apostles’ times? And must she, in a public address, or any of her constituted authorities, pride herself in her humiliation? As an Episcopalian, I disclaim any share in the degrading boast. It was not, I am thankful, the act of my Church—of her Bishops—her Clergy, and Laity. Is it possible that it will be sanctioned by the Churchmen in Connecticut—by the Churchmen in the United States?

            Short-sighted is this temporizing policy—this barter for the favours of Yale College, of the dignity, distinction, character and solid interests of the Church! Who does not see that, of two literary and religious institutions, so contiguous, the more powerful must imperceptibly, perhaps, for a time, but surely and effectually, influence, if not control the latter? Can the Theological Seminary expect to vie with an institution, so respectable and powerful as Yale College? Will not the former be perpetually eclipsed, in lustre, by the latter—venerable for antiquity, solid in her establishments, respectable in her endowments, and numerous and eminent in her professors? Are there any so weak, or so blind, as to believe that the President, Professor and Guardians of Yale College will be so faithless to their trust, as to be disposed seriously to promote the extension of the Church, which holds doctrines, ministry and worship, different from, and opposed to, those which they are pledged to maintain and advance? They are wiser men than all this. From what we know of human nature, it is not uncharitable to think that they will conciliate—they will make advances—they will offer advantages, on the policy of ultimately influencing, if not controlling.

            But is it then certain, that the Theological Seminary of the Protestant Episcopal Church, is to be associated with Yale College? Must the hope which every high-minded Churchman has cherished, [11/12] that the Church would possess within herself those means of literary and Theological instruction, which others enjoy, be relinquished? What would we think of the Presbyterian Church, if she were to locate her Theological Seminary contiguous to an Episcopal College, (did one exist—alas! there is not one,) and acknowledge herself indebted to its smiles? What but that she was humbled, degraded—an objection of compassion, with other independent denominations of Christians. Surely, in locating the Seminary, reference should be had to the inspiring object, of ultimately connecting it with an Episcopal College. At New-Haven, every such hope is cut off. If it was proper that the Seminary should be transferred to a place, (to use the language of the address,) “equally removed from the expensive extravagances of a large city and the vulgar manners of an obscure village,” it was not on this account indispensable to transfer it to New-Haven.

            The importance, in the view of the writer, of these facts and observations, must be his apology for presenting them. Let it not be said, that he is stirring up a strife: his object is to prevent it. For he considers the measures on which he has remarked, in many respects injurious, and calculated to produce endless collisions and jealousies. Obsta principiis. Now is the time to prevent these evils. The means of prevention may be unpleasant—but the evils would be worse.

            Fellow-Episcopalians,—I trust I have said enough to induce you to pause—to delay—before you patronize the Seminary at New-Haven. The next General Convention may, indeed, transfer it to another place, and make other arrangements concerning it; but this is uncertain. Let provision be made for diocesan Theological instruction; and if, at any future time, the Church must unite in a General Theological Seminary, let it be connected with an object, from which it ought never to be separated—an object without which the Church must languish in reputation, as in strength and influence—an object therefore worthy of the warmest zeal, devotion, and liberality of her Sons—an Episcopal College.

AN EPISCOPALIAN

---

* This declaration, though a public document, appearing on the journals, and evidencing the views of the Bishops relative to the Theological Seminary, is not inserted among the other documents in the pamphlet published by Bishop Brownell, in behalf of the Trustees of the Seminary.

* By a general appeal, must be meant, either a general address, or particular applications—both were done while the Seminary was in New-York. A general address was made, by the Committee, to the members of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States. An address was made on the subject, by Bishop Hobart, to the Committee of New-York. Particular applications were made by the agents appointed at the General Convention; by the Committee; and by special agents in the city of New-York, who had districts assigned them, and by Bishop Brownell, who, as he states, “travelled from New-York to Georgia on its concerns.” But, as it is understood, his object was also health, and the most southern climate, confined his applications to the towns on the post road. Besides this, a circular letter was addressed to every Clergyman of the Church in the United States, earnestly soliciting his co-operation and influence, in favour of the Seminary. How can it be said, that, while the institution was in New York, “no general appeal was made to the liberality of the friends of the Church?” No order appears in the resolutions of the Trustees, at their late meeting in New-Haven, with respect to an address. It is, however, signed, “By order of the Trustees: T.C. Brownell, President pro tem.;” and provision therefore must have been made for drafting it.

* The Managers of the Society, as well as the Trustees of the Seminary, were appointed, as I am informed, viva voce; a mode which prevents an unbiassed election, and places the appointments, virtually, in the hands of three or four members, and probably, even one.

* It may be said, that these Presbyters and Laymen were chosen by the General Convention—not so; only by the house of Clerical and Lay Deputies. And how were they chosen? Not by ballot, the only correct mode, but by the nomination of a committee. Besides the question occurs—is it safe, is it right, to pace so important a business under the control of so few Presbyters and Laymen, excluding entirely the Bishops of the Church.

Transcribed by Richard Mammana, 2019

“A Royal Martyr” in Holy Cross Magazine (1926)

Introduction

This unsigned reflection on King Charles the First appeared in The Holy Cross Magazine (January 1926), pp. 14-16. Devotion to the Royal Martyr in the Order of the Holy Cross was strong in the person of OHC founder James Otis Sargent Huntington (1854-1935), who was present at the 1897 unveiling of a Caroline portrait at the former Church of the Evangelists in Philadelphia. By the 1920s, the Order’s ownership and veneration of a relic of Charles exposed them to Low Church mockery in the popular press—an account of which I will prepare for a future issue of SKCM News.

“For God, for the Cause, for the Church, for the laws, for Charles, the King of England.”

Such was the watchword of the Cavalier of 1642, a watchword which represented an ideal for which life itself was but a small price to pay. For Church and King, the Royalists unhesitatingly sacrificed wealth, honors, lands, and faced death on the battlefield or on a scaffold with smiling lips and with undaunted courage.

King Charles, beaten and a prisoner, ruled in the hearts of his followers, and his death at the hands of his foes brought inspiration to the hunted Cavaliers and added a new name to the bede roll of England’s saints and martyrs.

It is the fashion now to decry King Charles, to speak with pitying tolerance of the hero worship of the Royalists, to laud Cromwell the statesman, and to admire the sterling qualities of the stern old liberty-loving Puritans. Yet a most cursory study of the times shows clearly that the conflict of the Civil War was not for the liberties of England, nor was the issue tyranny or limited monarch,—these points were quite aside from the vital question.

The Stuarts, Scotch by race and French by upbringing, were quite unable to grasp the constitution of England and never could understand why a King should not levy his own taxes. Their idea of the “right divine of kings to govern wrong,” though in no sense a doctrine put forth to ensure absolute power, was a dogma that they thoroughly believed, as showing the sanctity of their persons, and as adding to their responsibility.

When in addition to this they faced the problem of a divided Parliament, it was natural that the trouble over ship money should result. In the year 1641, the House of Lord was Royalist almost to a man, and the House of Commons solidly Puritan. A deadlock ensued. A proposal from the Lords was promptly voted down by the Commons and a measure had only to be passed by the Lower House to ensure its being vetoed at once by the Lords. Money bills could be originated only in the Commons, and as a result, the King found himself in the position of having to keep up a navy and an army without funds. The only outlet seemed to be illegal taxation, and the quartering of the army upon inhabitants of villages and towns.

Again, the cause of the war is often stated to be the attempted arrest of the five members, certainly an unconstitutional act and one quite indefensible. Yet Cromwell was equally unconstitutional when in order to get a decision against the King, he refused admission to members of Parliament who would vote in his favor, and likewise abolished the House of Lords by a minority vote. When this packed Parliament and its successor finally failed him, he turned the members out by force, and from thenceforth ruled without a Parliament and levied taxes as he pleased.

The cause of the war was not the constitution of the English government, but the real issue lay clear cut and well defined in the mind of Cavalier and Roundhead alike,—religion.

 “Down with the Bishops,” shouted the Puritan. “Stand by the Church,” was the cry of the Royalist. Should England become Puritan, or should she hold by her ancient heritage, and remain a part of the Holy Catholic Church? That was the question. And the result of the Civil War answered it.

Beaten, hunted from place to place, her churches desecrated, her altars torn down, her services proscribed, her priests shot, exiled and even sold into slavery, England kept the faith. Through all the dark years of the Commonwealth, in woods and in waste places, in tiny obscure chapels and hidden rooms of the great houses, the Holy Sacrifice was offered. Bishop, priest, and layman alike risked life itself for the sake of Mother Church, and, standing staunchly side by side, grew stronger while the Puritan body, split by innumerable quarrels, lost its hold.

It was on this issue that King Charles won his right to be termed a hero of the Church. It was a hard fight, for conflict was foreign to his nature. It was natural for him to compromise and to take the easier path. In his home life, his character was unimpeached. His love of his queen was a marvellous thing in a day when Kings wedded for political reasons, and frequently held themselves above responsibility for the lonely princesses who shared their splendour.

Henrietta Maria was the love of King Charles’ life and the first outburst which he faced from his rebellious people, was caused by the fact that he permitted her the free exercise of her religion, and her own chaplain. The blot on his life was Strafford,—a blot which he owned himself, never forgiving that moment of weakness when he signed the warrant which sent his friend to a scaffold. Even on the day of his death he spoke of this. Undoubtedly he had other grave faults. The temptation to compromise was a Stuart trait as was a certain insincerity and tendency to untruthfulness. King Charles shared these, and in the troublous times in which he lived, the difficulties led to a shifty policy, and the playing of one party against another.

But where the Church was concerned, he never for a moment flinched. Parliament, or rather the House of Commons, would have voted him whatever money he asked if he had discredited Laud, and refused his assent to the Ecclesiastical Commission. He would not. Even before the question of the Episcopate came up, he steadily refused to have the Church molested. Her services, her altars, her Sacraments, were inviolate, and he risked a civil war rather than danger to her.

 When after Marston Moor, he took refuge with his Scotch subjects, his liberty depended on his signature to the Covenant, and he chose a prison. Sold to the Puritans of England, he went to Carisbrook a captive, knowing that on his pledge to abolish the episcopate, his throne would be his again.

He repeatedly refused and as a result, Cromwell brought him to trial for treason. The King faced it. Never had he shown more quiet dignity, more steadfast courage than when he stood before the packed Parliament, and made his protest against their Right to try their King. Where were his peers? he asked.

His plea denied, oblivious of insults, slanders and slurs, he defended himself resolutely, and when the foregone conclusion was reached, and the mock trial ended in his condemnation, he received his sentence of death unmoved.

Doubtless, Cromwell thought that face to face with mortal danger, he would yield, but the offer of life was received like all the rest. The King would not renounce the Church, nor abet the Puritans in their persecution of her. It remained for the Prince of Wales to offer a blank paper with his signature for his father’s life, but the Puritans knew only too well that the King would receive it at no such cost. Dear as his son was to King Charles, dearer than the life they threatened, dearest of all was the love of Christ, so far above all earthly issues as to be immeasurable.

The end came. He arrayed himself as for a bridal, walked with firm step across his own banqueting hall, stood on the grim scaffold above his people, guarded by his foes. With a parting charge for forgiveness to those who had hounded him, and a prayer “as short as a grace,” the King bowed his head beneath the executioner’s axe, and passed to the “crown incorruptible.”

“A tragedy,” said the world. “A kingly ending,” his unrelenting foes agreed. Yet it was no tragedy. King Charles won the victory of his life that day when he laid it down. Nor was it a “King’s courage” that carried him firm to the end. The faith that he kept in the shadow of death was the faith of the saints of old, and the courage was the same as that which sent little maidens and young lads to face the lions under Nero, and which nerved the early Christians to die smiling under their tortures.

Hero and martyr, he was rightly termed, not by the blind partisanship of his own devoted followers, but by the Church for whom he fought and died. The Puritans counted their victory complete on the thirtieth of January 1649, but it was the hour of their downfall. With the death of the King, a great revulsion swept over the people; once again, the blood of a martyr was the seed of the Church, thousands wavering in the balance, turned back to the faith of old, and those, who had stood steadfast through the dark years of civil strife, took fresh courage as they thanked God for Charles, King of England.

HE WAS AN EXTREME ANGLICAN (1899)

From The New York Times, February 12, 1899

HE WAS AN EXTREME ANGLICAN
LEAVES EPISCOPAL CHURCH
The Rev. Mr. Nichol Professes the Roman Catholic Faith.
A Founder of the Society of King Charles the Martyr
His Change of Creed a Sudden One

It became known yesterday that the Rev. Robert Thomas Nichol, a member of the Episcopal priesthood of this city, had forsaken the faith to which he belonged and had united with the communion of the Roman Catholic Church. The knowledge of Mr. Nichol’s conversion to the Catholic Church was a shock to the clergyman’s friends, although it was known that he was one of the most devoted adherents of the Anglican-Catholic party in this country and in England, for it was not believed by them that he would go to the length of separating himself from the association and traditions in which his whole life seemed to be bound up. It was said by those who know of the circumstances which led to his change of faith that his action was sudden and followed an attendance upon a series of missions lately held here in a Roman Catholic church and a subsequent brief study of the Roman Catholic doctrine.

The Rev. Mr. Nichol, or Father Nichol, as he is called, was born in Toronto, Canada, about forty years ago, and was graduated from Trinity College, in that city, in 1879. After graduation, he became master in Trinity College School, Fort Hope, Toronto. He was admitted to holy orders as a Deacon in 1882, and was ordained to the priesthood in the Church of England in 1883.

Father Nichol came to this city in 1891, and, although he never became a member of the Diocese of New York, he received from the diocesan authorities a license to perform the functions of a clergyman in the Episcopal Church here. He became a protégé of the late Rev. Dr. George H. Houghton, then rector of the Church of the Transfiguration, and was by him made Sub-Warden of the Sisterhood of St. John the Baptist, an English order of religious women having a branch house in this city, of which Dr. Houghton was the Warden. For a time he was a curate in the Church of St. Mary the Virgin, of which the late Rev. Father Thomas McKee Brown was the rector.

One of Father Nichol’s chief characteristics was his ardent devotion to the Church of England, to the priesthood of which he belonged, while his fealty to the British Government was unquestioned. Although for nine years a resident of the United States, he never became a naturalized citizen of this country. He was one of the organizers of the Society of King Charles the Martyr, in America, and was its chaplain. The object of this association of believers in the martyrdom of King Charles I., the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of whose execution was held two weeks ago in the Holy Cross Church, at Avenue C and East Fourth Street, this city, is intercessory prayer for the defense of the Anglo-Catholic Church against the attacks of her enemies. Its obligations of membership comprise the weekly use of certain prescribed prayers. Mr. Nichol retained the chaplaincy of this society from the time of its establishment, in 1894, until a short time ago, when he resigned from its membership.

Father Nichol was also one of the founders and the prior of the North American Cycle of the Order of the White Rose, an English political organization, established here three years ago. The work of the Order of the White Rose is partially set forth in the following extracts from a circular letter sent to the Companions and Associates of the North American Cycle on the occasion of one of the anniversaries celebrated by the members:

Many people from the Atlantic to the Pacific and from Manitoba to the Gulf of Mexico have doubtless learned through our efforts many facts and theories entirely new to them. The Divine ordinance and right of monarchy, the sacrilege of regicide, the crime of rebellion, the hideous farce of mobs; these, no less than a re-reading of history with regard to the reigns and persons of the royal and devoted House of Stuart, and the hereditary right of the Heiress of Line, have, we are convinced, through our agency, been brought before thousands who have never so much as heard of them before.

A propaganda of loyalty to these principles is the object of the order, by means of lectures on historical and other subjects and by letters and articles in the public press. At the recent commemoration of the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the death of Charles I., the Order of the White Rose issued an elaborate memorial parchment bearing the coat-of-arms of the beheaded King and wrote: “In Memoriam, Charles of Great Britain, France, Ireland, and Virginia, King Defender of the Faith, and Martyr, January xxx., A.D. 1649.” with the single word “Remember” at the bottom.

Despite his extremely ritualistic tendencies and his inclination to asceticism, none of Father Nichol’s associates suspected that he would leave the communion to which he appeared to be most earnestly devoted. It was learned that his period of hesitation was of short duration, and that he was only a comparatively short time under instruction before his reception into the Roman Catholic Church, last week, at a private service. It is understood that he will study for Holy orders in the Church of his adoption, and that he will pursue his theological studies in England, where he will go within a few weeks. He is at present in retirement in Boston, Mass.

Extracts from the Records of Trinity Episcopal Church, New Haven, Connecticut: Deaths and Parish Meetings

Transcribed in 2012 by Richard J. Mammana, Jr. from a typescript submitted to Diocesan Convention, 1899.

A correct copy, made from the copy in the hands of Mr. Ed. C. Beecher, Parish Clerk, as per Resolution of Convention, 1897. Affidavit Frederic W. Bailey, Official Copyist, March, 1899.

Deaths

February 12, 1770

Died Capt. John Miller of New London at the house of James Rice, February 10, buried February 12, 1770

October 27, 1774

Buried at West Haven, Polly daughter of Widow Turner, age 9 years

May 7, 1775

Buried Peter Harrison, Collector of His Majesty’s Customs of Port of New Haven

September 10, 1776

Buried at West Haven, Sibyl, a female child of one year old of John Ward, preached on the occasion

September 21, 1776

Buried at West Haven, Ichabod a youth of 10 years old, son of David and Mehetable Bristol, preached on the occasion

September 26, 1776

Buried at West Haven a child of Daniel Hodges, preached on the occasion

October 15, 1776

Buried at West Haven Ebenezer Thomas, preached on the occasion.

October 16, 1776

Buried at West Haven, Dinah, daughter of David and Mehetable Bristol, age 2 years.

June 8, 1777

Buried at Stratford

George Chapman

Richard son of Richard and Prudence Hawley

Elisha son of Elnathan and Abigail Jones

Joseph son of Samuel and Martha Lamson

September 21, 1777

Guilford, buried Damaris Waterhouse, an aged woman 85 or 86

January 31, 1778

West Haven, Dorcas, daughter of C. & S. Thomas, buried February 1

March 25, 1778

West Haven, died Samuel Clark of Oyster River, 80th year, buried March 27.

April 29, 1778

Milford, buried Henrietta Thong age 49, preached

November 20, 1778

Buried Samuel Clark of Oyster River

January 5, 1779

Guilford, buried Benjamin Waterhouse, age 85, preached.

August 14, 1779

East Haven, buried Desire, infant daughter of Thomas and Abigail Green

November 22, 1780

Buried Captain Edwards

December 24, 1780

West Haven, buried Mrs. Stevens, age 101

February 1, 1780

New Haven, buried Capt. James Gyon of Rye in New Haven

August 26, 1781

Milford, buried Mrs. Pritchard, consort of Mr. Pritchard, Milford Farms, age 64

October 6, 1781

Buried child of ——, Bristol

February 6, 1782

West Haven, buried Mr. Marvin, age 70

October 4, 1782

Buried at Bethany, Betsey child of Ebur and Abigail Downs

December 22, 1782

West Haven, Mr. Joseph Mansfield son of the Rev. Mr. Richard Mansfield of Derby, buried

June 12, 1783

Enoch son of Thomas Frisbie between 17 and 18 years, “and preached a lecture in the meeting house.”

November 28, 1784

Bethany, Caleb son of Caleb and Mary Ray, buried

December 8, 1784

Guilford, Samuel Collens, age 81 buried

February 20, 1785

West Haven, Mary wife of Joseph Bradley, age 36 buried—preached

May 22, 1785

Woodbridge, Benajah Peck buried—preached to a large audience

June 3, 1785

West Haven, wife of Benajah Thomas age 36, preached funeral sermon from the words “Be ye Ready.”

September 7, 1786

Bethany, Woodbridge, buried wife of —— Goodwin age 23

October 12, 1787

Guilford, buried Ebar Waterhouse age 57

January 1788

Buried Susanna Miles age 36

January 1788

North Guilford, buried Ebenezer Bishop age 86

March 31, 1788

East Haven, buried Stephen Pardy age 63, died of smallpox.

April 23, 1788

Milford, buried Jonathan Mansfield Peck age 30 who was killed by the falling of a tree at Bethany

June 3, 1788

West Haven, buried wife of Daniel Thomas age 77

October 17, 1788

West Haven, buried widow Deborah Toles age 81

January 21, 1789

Woodbury, died the Rev. John R. Marshall, buried January 23

August 3, 1789

New Haven, buried Walter Hawley age 23 son of Ebenezer Hawley of St. Johns, New Brunswick

January 29, 1790

Northford, buried widow Anna Cook age about 50, died of consumption

May 3, 1790

West Haven, died Easter Ray

June 12, 1791

Northford, buried Paul Tyler age 90

June 18, 1791

East Haven, buried Mrs. Huse age 31, died of consumption

September 1791

Bethany, buried ye wife of —— Umpherville, age 33

Buried ye wife of Abraham Tuttle, age 65, after baptizing her.

September 1791

West Haven, buried Abigail Lanchester, age 54

October 14, 1791

East Haven, buried Henry F. Huse, age 68

March 12, 1792

West Haven, buried Phebe Clarke age 11 years

May 17, 1792

West Haven, died Captain Benjamin Smith, 70th year, buried the 19th, sermon preached in church at West Haven.

October 22, 1792

West Haven, buried James, son of Ward and Abia Atwater age one year six months.

February 27, 1793

Milford, buried Abraham V. H. DeWitt, age 58

April 12, 1793

Wallingford, buried W. Kirtland, age 24

April 21, 1793

East Haven, buried Jehiel Forbes, age 59, died of consumption April 17, preached in the church

May 12, 1793

West Haven, died Jonathan Browne age 64 of a mortification—buried May 13. Preached.

September 7, 1793

Died —— Hecock of Westbury age 28 years, of yellow fever

November 20, 1793

Died at house of John Smith —— Usher a transient gentleman from St. Croix after a short illness age 45

November 27, 1793

Died at house of Dr. Northrup David Chandler of Sunderland, Massachusetts of bleeding and inward weakness, 27th year of age

February 13, 1794

Milford, buried the widow of G.A. De Witt, age 55th year

June 21, 1794

Derby, at one of the clock in the morning died Henry Hubbard, 20th year, son of Levi and Anna Hubbard, of putrid or bilious fever.

June 22, 1794

New York, died Elijah Austen, 44th year, putrid fever.

November 21, 1794

West Haven, buried Edward Thomas, 49th year.

March 24, 1795

West Haven, died Daniel Thomas, age 84

September 1, 1795

New Haven, Nancy Holmes, 15 years old, daughter of Eliphalet Holmes of East Haddam, buried.

October, 1795

East Haven, buried a daughter of Ichabod Bishop, age 19; a son of Capt. Thompson, age eight years

November 24, 1795

East Haven, Levi Forbes, age 59, consumption

August 24, 1796

West Haven, Oyster River, buried Hannah wife of Asahel Thomas, preached on the occasion in Christ Church, West Haven

New Haven, April 23, 1797

Buried Ogilvie Pingue 5 weeks old—of Moses and Catharine Pingue of New York

New Haven, June 28, 1797

Died Thaddeus Baldwin, son of John Baldwin of Westfield, age 32

West Haven, April 21, 1798

Buried Lemuel Umpherville age 56 years, consumption, preached in the church on that occasion.

Branford, October 26, 1799

Buried Ralph Isaacs

Parish Meetings

March 31, 1777.

Voted that Dr. Samuel Johnson should be applied to and desired to adjust and settle the accountings subsisting between Mr. Alling and said church. Sept 11, 1777. Mr. Alling unwilling that the church should be at the expense of sending for Dr. Johnson to adjust and settle his account. Proposed.

Parish Meeting, March 27, 1780.

Voted that the Wardens request Dr. Samuel Johnson to deliver to them a note formerly given by the late Enos Alling Esq. in favor of Trinity Church for the purpose of an organ to be applied toward the payment of the said church debts to the hairs of Mr. Alling (if obtained).

Vestry Meeting April 17, 1780.

Agreeable to former vote, the Wardens waited on Dr. Johnson on the business of Mr. Alling’s note and received for answer that the note cannot be given up or applied to any other purpose but for the purchase of an organ.

NORTHINGTON. In consequence of a vote of the church of Easter Monday, Capt. Gad Wells was employed to go to Northington, a parish of Farmington in search of the Damask Hangings and Mr. Hubbard’s Surplice &c. stolen out of Trinity Church July last by some militia from that place and he succeeded in the business so far as to obtain the Damask Hangings. The parties concerned satisfied him for the expense of his journey.

The Wardens found it unnecessary to consult Dr. Johnson concerning Barney’s shop so called, Mr. Ingersoll claiming the right of it in behalf of the late Mr. Alling’s estate.

Parish Meeting, October 5, 1785

ENGLAND. Voted that the Rev. Mr. Hubbard is allowed the deficiency of the salary he received from England until Easter next as Missionary.

CONN. Voted that the sum of ten pounds be paid unto the Right Rev. Dr. Samuel Seabury Bishop of this State.

April 9, 1787. Easter Parish Meeting.

            HAMPDEN. Voted that Mr. Samuel Hummerston be appointed to obtain the Pew tax list from the people of Hambden and other towns and be rewarded for the same.

September 17, 1788. Vestry Meeting.

            CONN. DIOCESE. Voted that the sum of ten pounds L.M. be granted and pained to the Right Rev. Samuel Seabury Bishop of this State as a donation from Trinity Church, provided this vote be not considered as a precedent to the Wardens and Vestry of the ensuing year either respecting the sum or the grant itself, otherwise than the circumstances of the Church will admit.

January 14, 1788. Parish Meeting.

            Voted that this society will appoint a representative to meet a convention of representatives from the several churches in this state at Waterbury on the 13th of February next to take into consideration the sum that would be necessary and proper for the support of the Right Rev. Dr. Seabury and the best means of raising the same.

            Voted that Dr. Samuel Nesbit, Warden of said church be the person appointed according to said vote and that he be furnished with the amount of the Society’s list, certified by the Clerk.

March 24, 1788. Easter Parish Meeting.

            The delegate appointed by this society on the 14th of January last to meet the delegates from the other Churches in Convention at Waterbury February 13, 1788, having this day reported the doings of said Convention: voted that we approve of the same and agreeable to their recommendations will raise the sum amounting to one half penny on the pound for the support of our Diocesan Bishop and that it be collected by four quarterly collections in the church, the deficiency if any to be paid out of the Treasury, said grant to continue two years.

            Voted: that Dr. Samuel Nesbitt is appointed to represent this church at the Convention to meet at Wallingford May 7 next for the purpose of meeting the several churches in order to ratify or amend the doings of the former convention at Waterbury.

            Voted on the consideration of the Rev. Mr. Hubbard choosing to attend the service at West Haven for four or more Sundays and that the vestry be empowered to agree with the said church and fix the sum to be paid into the Treasury for the said services for one year.

March 3, 1788. Vestry Meeting.

            Voted that Mr. Samuel Hummiston be appointed to obtain the list of parishioners of this church in Hambden and other parishes out of town.

April 21, 1788, also June 2

            Land in Wallingford recovered of Mr. Isaacs to be sold. Case against John Austin of Wallingford, trespass.

April 13, 1789. Easter Parish Meeting.

            The Rev. Samuel Nesbitt appointed delegate on last Easter Monday to represent this church at Wallingford on the 7th of May last made his report of their doings. Voted that we confirm and ratify the said doings of our delegates.

            Voted that Jonathan Ingersoll, Esq. is our delegate to meet a Convention of the churches at Middletown on the 13th of May next for the further consideration of the state of the Churches in State and to consult with them the necessity of sending a representative from the Church at large of this State to meet a convention of all the churches throughout the United States purposed to be held at Annapolis in Maryland said to be for the uniform discipline of the American Episcopal Church and other purposes.

            Voted that the Rev. Mr. Hubbard shall be at liberty if he chooses to officiate at any other parish one quarter of the year ensuing for his own emolument.

October 1, 1789. Parish meeting.

            Voted that on consideration that the General Convention of the Episcopal Church being now sitting at Philadelphia greed to suspend the consideration of the deed of Dedication recommend by the Rev. Mr. Hubbard until Wednesday the 14th instant as their doings may require some alteration in said instrument.

October 17, 1789

            Moderator and Clerk meet and having no intelligence from the General Convention adjourn till Thursday 22nd instant.

April 24, 1791

            Church land at Wallingford sold to Samuel Woodruff, Esq. of Wallingford.

April 1, 1793. Easter Meeting.

            Voted that Jonathan Ingersoll, Esq. be a delegate to meet the Convention of the Episcopal Church at Middletown.

April 20, 1794.

            Voted that Mr. McCracken be a delegate from the church to the Convention to be held in this place in June next.

June 30, 1794. Vestry Meeting.

            The proposals of Mr. Salter, an organist from England, to perform the duties of that office for the church at the rate of 20 guineas per annum were taken into consideration and agreed to. Mr. Salter engaged for six moths.

April 14, 1795. Easter Meeting.

            Joseph Bradley, Esq. elected delegate to Convention of Ministers with the Rev. B. Hubbard.

March 28, 1796. Easter Meeting.

            Joseph Bradley, Esq. chosen delegate to State Convention at New Haven May next.

April 30, 1796.

Captain Joseph Bradley absent on a journey, Colonel Joseph Drake chosen as a delegate.

April 17, 1797. Easter Meeting.

            Voted that Mr. Bela Hubbard be our parson with permission to go to West Haven seven Sundays in the year upon the condition the Church Society there obligate themselves to pay the Wardens and Vestry of this Church Fifty Dollars for his services.

            Voted Joseph Bradley Esq. lay delegate to the convention at Derby.

            Voted that the clerk of the society transmit the vote of the society passed on Easter Monday last (respecting Parson Hubbard’s preaching seven Sundays at the West Side the ensuing year) to the Wardens and Vestry of that Society and inform them that this Society expect security for the payment of the Fifty Dollars if they expect the benefit of the vote.

October 2, 1797. Parish Meeting.

            Capt. Joseph Bradley and Col. Joseph Drake chosen to attend at the Consecration of the Bishop elect the present month in New Haven.

April 9, 1798. Easter Meeting.

            John Barker chosen lay delegate to Diocesan Convention at Derby 1st Wednesday in June next.

March 25, 1799. Easter Meeting.

            WEST HAVEN. The Rev. Bela Hubbard allowed the privilege of preaching seven Sundays in the year at West Haven for the sum of Fifty Dollars as a compensation therefor.

July 6, 1799 Vestry Meeting.

            Philadelphia General Convention. Upon the representation of Parson Hubbard that three gentlemen had been sent by the State Convention to attend a General Convention of the Episcopal clergy at Philadelphia in June last which put them to very considerable expense—Voted that a contribution be had in Trinity Church on the second Sabbath in July for the purpose of relieving the above mentioned gentlemen.

Canon Nineteen in Practice, by Charles Chapman Grafton (1908)

To the Editor of The Living Church:[1]

ALLOW me through your columns to answer some communications made me concerning the interpretation now being placed in some dioceses on the amendment to the 19th canon.

Yours very faithfully,

C. C. Fond du Lac.

“Bishop’s House,

Fond du Lac, Wis., April 6, 1908.

“My Dear Sir:—

“As an ‘Ambassador’ of the King, Jesus Christ, and a ‘messenger’ from the Kingdom of Heaven, I have no wish to escape any responsibility for the message God may make known through me.

“I believe, and so declare, that as it is now being interpreted in some Eastern dioceses, Canon 19 is contrary to the faith as this Church has received it.

“As a Bishop of the Church, first, I pronounce it to be unconstitutional. The Canons and Ordinal of our Apostolic Church allow for a ministry whose members have been examined and approved of by the Standing Committee of the diocese and ordained according to the form set forth in the Prayer Book by a Bishop. It is unconstitutional to allow the Bishop, by a mere license, to put anyone to preach his own ideas in our pulpits and act as a religious instructor to our people.

“This canon also violates the ‘holding out’ of the Church to candidates for Holy Orders, that she alone is possessed of an Apostolical and so valid ministry; trusting to which ‘holding out,’ so many ministers have been induced to make the sacrifice of their lives by leaving their former sectarian connections, submitting to Episcopal re-ordination, and becoming ministers of the Episcopal Church.

“I am also opposed to the canon as it is being interpreted because it alters our Church’s position about the ministry, and doing so, frees Bishops and clergy from their oath of canonical obedience. The Episcopal Church, if the ‘Open Pulpit’ becomes the allowed interpretation of the canon, is no longer the Church to which they promised it. It has broken its faith to them, and altered fundamentally its character.

“Again, it is a most undesirable canon, for it is no expression of good fellowship to the sectarian minister, but rather is a proffered insult to him. It only regards him as a ‘Christian man,’ i.e., a layman, who is allowed by the Episcopal license to speak in our churches. I do not see how a self-respecting sectarian, who believes that he is a minister of Christ, can accept the insult.

“Moreover, it can bring no spiritual help to our people, save on the belief that our Orders and Sacraments cannot and do not develop any greater helps to the spiritual life; and (when rightly used) a higher degree of sanctity and union with Christ, than the sectarian system, which is destitute of Bishops and priesthood and has only the one sacrament of lay Baptism, and has an imperfect conception of holiness and our partaking in Christ of the divine nature.

“It is objectionable, also, because it testifies to the erroneous idea, that without the Apostolic priesthood and sacraments, sectarianism can develop without the grace of Confirmation, Absolution, the Real Presence of Christ’s Body and Blood in the Eucharist, the same degree of holiness that is to be found in the Catholic Church, the Anglican branch of it, and as is to be seen in their saints.

“Again, the canon has alarmed thousands of our laity, and unsettled many of our clergy, who have thereby lost confidence in our Bishops and so in the Church, and a number of whom have lately felt forced to go to Rome and more are contemplating secession.

“This canon will not help on the union of the Apostolic Churches, but be a fatal hindrance to it; and if it tends to union with the heretical and schismatic Protestant bodies, it will end in dividing our own communion and be practical suicide. Why should it not be recast and Churchmen live in peace and harmony as formerly?

“C. C. Fond du Lac.”

---

[1] The Living Church, May 9, 1908, p. 57.

“Standing Room Only” at Hungarian Mission, South Bend, Indiana (1941)

From Forth: The Spirit of Missions

“Standing Room Only” at Hungarian Mission, South Bend, Indiana

April 1941, volume CVI, No. 4, pp. 28, 31.

“STANDING room only” is an everyday occurrence at a little mission in South Bend, Ind., where scores of Hungarians, the only Magyar congregation in the American Church, gather to participate in services in the language of their homeland.

“Standing room only” is the rule, too, at these people’s Episcopal Society meetings, when sixty persons crowd into a store meant to hold thirty. And when there is a tea or a festival or some other social activity centered around the church, attendance is numbered in the hundreds.

For nearly thirty years these Hungarians have been worshiping in little Holy Trinity Mission, which they long ago outgrew. From the little group that petitioned the bishop to be received into the Episcopal Church, they have grown to a congregation of nearly two hundred communicants.

On Sunday the little church, which seats only a hundred, fairly bulges with worshipers. They sit in pews and on folding chairs, standing every available spot, and kneel in the aisles.

            The members of Holy Trinity are among thousands of Hungarians who have come from Europe over a period of years and have settled at South Bend. A good many of them are American-born sons and daughters of the immigrants. For the most part they are factory workers. The young people, especially, are having a hard time to find jobs. But if they cannot give as much money as they would like to the support of their mission, they make up for that with work.

The pulpit from which their pastor speaks was made by the men and boys of the congregation. A prayer desk is the work of a layman. One family made a humeral veil (scarf worn during the celebration) and pulpit cover. When the entrance needed redecoration and the floors needed repairs, the members of the congregation did that work. When the people wanted more trees and shrubbery on the grounds, they did the planting.

Their plebanos, or pastor, is the Rev. Harold G. Kappes, who knew no Magyar when he assumed the office a little more than two years ago. At first he needed an interpreter for his pastoral work, and only the hymns and chants were in Magyar. Now he [28/31] conducts services in Magyar and English.

Fr. Kappes is keeping the Magyar tongue alive among his people. Every child must be able to recite the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer and other devotions in that language as well as in English before he is presented for confirmation. On the other hand, Fr. Kappes spends one evening a week giving Americanization and English classes at the clergy house. He makes a fair trade with the people, for while he teaches them English he absorbs more and more Magyar.

He is only the third clergyman to minister to this congregation in nearly thirty years. The Rev. Victor von Kubinyi, a Hungarian, was first. The Rev. Edwin E. Smith came in 1918, learned the language at 55, and served for twenty years before he retired. He still lives among the Hungarians at South Bend and is their pastor emeritus.

For many of these Episcopalians, social life as well as religious life centers around the church. Besides the meetings of the Episcopal Society, an active organization that gave the church a new heating system recently, there are huge Hungarian dinners, harvest festivals and butchering festivals reminiscent of the homeland. For such events the young people dress up in colorful, lavishly embroidered costumes, full-sleeved shirts and starched aprons from Hungary.

An annual outing at lovely All Saints’ Chapel at Lake Wawasee is one of the most popular events. Another is the tea of the Episcopal Society, which as many as 450 have attended.

Holy Trinity has no parish house, so the social events and meetings must be held in rented halls, stores, and other such places. But it would take more than the lack of a parish house to daunt his enthusiastic Hungarian congregation.

Iconoclasm Boomerangs (1950)

By the Rev. Gregory Mabry, Rector, St. Paul’s Church, Brooklyn, N. Y.
New York: St. Mary’s Mission House, 1950.

HUMANISM leads eventually to a dilemma, Western materialism or Communism.

Americans are dead set against Communism; yet the same end comes of our prevailing philosophy of life, Humanism.

We are an altruistic people, but our altruism rests on sand, materialism. While Communist materialism revolts us because of its heartless inhumanity, we are deceived by our own brand because of its apparent generosity. But like Communism, Humanism, too, is seen to be on close inspection a distortion of Christianity; for both face manward.

History has pretty well demonstrated that man can not save himself by any political, economic, or social system; nor are they his fundamental need. His fundamental need is reconciliation to God. Of His great mercy God has provided the means of mediation through the ministerial Priesthood of His Son, which brings Christ’s work of reconciliation into the here and now. .

Turning to the Book of Common Prayer, and leafing over to the Form and Manner of Ordaining Priests we read in the introductory rubric “how necessary that Order is in the Church of Christ. . .

Why priests? Why is that Order necessary in the Church of Christ?

Because of God’s love and man’s sin. Because in reconciliation to God through Christ lies peace—peace in the hearts of men, peace between men, peace between nations, harmony in the universe. Because reconciliation to God is the key to peace. Because Jesus Christ is not only the Prince of Peace but the High Priest of Peace. Because Jesus Christ is peace.

I. THE CHRISTIAN MINISTER

We turn to the Offices of Instruction in the Book of Common Prayer for the Church’s definition of the Office of a Priest. There we read, “The office of a Priest is, to minister to the people committed to his care; to preach the Word of God; to baptize; to celebrate the Holy Communion; and to pronounce Absolution and Blessing in God’s Name.”

The Epistle to the Hebrews tells us that in the beginning of Christianity, and incidentally for fifteen hundred years after, “no man taketh this honour unto himself.” From whence then do our priests derive their commission? The Church, the New Testament, Tradition, and the Book of Common Prayer give us the answer: From our Lord Himself, through His Apostles and their successors, the Bishops of that Church which is described in the Creeds as “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic,” and so re affirmed in the Offices of Instruction.

How did our Lord transmit His Priestly Authority to His Apostles? The Apostles to them who were soon called Bishops? And the Bishops share it in large degree with those ordained Priests?

Christ’s ordination of His Apostles was done in a series of acts, commands, and commissions, extending from the night of His Betrayal to the day of His Ascension.

The Two Essentials of Priesthood

On Maundy Thursday, in the cathedral of the Upper Room, our Lord instituted the Holy Eucharist; and embedded in the institution was power given to His Apostles to consecrate His Body and Blood and offer the Eucharistic Sacrifice; “Do this in re-calling Me”—the command conveying the power needed for fulfillment. So He endowed them with the first essential of Priesthood, authority to offer sacrifice.

Again, in the same Upper Room, on Easter evening, the Risen Lord appeared among His Apostles, saying, “Peace be unto you; as My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you. . . . Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whosoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosoever sins ye retain, they are retained.” And there is the second essential function of Priesthood, authority to forgive sins.

Then the scene shifts to a mountaintop in Galilee, and the time is close to His Ascension, when before more than five hundred witnesses the Victorious King, in farewell gives His last command and bestows His final commission on the Eleven, sealing it with His promise, saying, “All power is given unto Me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” And so the Apostles came to be completely clothed with all of Christ’s own Priesthood, and merely await, again at His injunction, the infusion with the Holy Ghost at Pentecost, which received they went out into the world fulfilling His commands.

“The Same Office and Ministry”

We turn now to the essential form and matter for the making of a priest by our Ordinal, wherein a bishop of the Apostolic Succession, first reciting the Prayer, “Almighty God, and heavenly Father,” and then laying his hands on the ordinand’s head, says, “Receive the Holy Ghost for the Office and Work of a Priest in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the Imposition of our Hands. Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained. And be thou a faithful Dispenser of the Word of God, and of His holy Sacraments; In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.”

There we have all the commissions, so far as they are delegated by a bishop to a priest, given by the Great Bishop of our souls to His Apostles brought together; the same form and matter are transmitted unbroken down through the twenty centuries of the Christian dispensation, “that,” as expressed in the Epistle to the Hebrews, concerning our Lord’s own Priesthood, “he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God; to make reconciliation for the world.”

There in the same form and same matter we have God’s peace treaty, the New Covenant, signed in His own Blood.

There is but one Priest and one Sacrifice, transcending all time and space, a continuous Action and Actor reaching every altar, and sweeping over the far horizon to eternity.

“Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens,” why do not men come boldly unto the throne of grace . . . “and find grace in time of need?” Because modern man is the victim of a colossal self-hoax.

Iconoclasm Boomerangs

Our present passion for man’s temporal welfare has misled many, very many, into thinking that Christianity is, essentially, concerned with an action toward that welfare; all religious ministers are conceived of by modern society in terms of “doing good,” and not in terms of priesthood at all; the ministry is measured by its manwardness. This, in fact, is Humanism. It is too “broadminded” to smash altars with axes and hammers; it is subtle in its iconoclasm, it causes men to ignore them. Such a false emphasis has reduced life to a material level, and the price has become a burden almost too heavy to bear, for it has led our world into stalemate, and filled men’s hearts

II.  THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY

All too many Christians in trying to measure God’s love look back over the centuries into the crude Crib of Bethlehem, and contemplate the Cross of Calvary. But He epitomized His charity in the Upper Room in the night in which He was betrayed, when in the Eucharist He set forth His Sacrifice, and turning to His disciples “gave himself with his own hand,” for a transfusion of His own Life—the very Life of very God—into the souls of men. In the Holy Eucharist therefore we have God’s supreme expression of His love given to us in instruments of measurement whose scale we can at least begin to read in the Bread which is the Body and the Wine which is the Blood. Bethlehem was but the first visible manifestation of the continuing process of reconciliation, and Calvary the costly physical climax of the solemn spiritual Offering of the night before. The Great High Priest became the Great High Victim, opening wide the flood-gates of mercy and peace to men in an Action which is to continue “to the end of the world.”

The mystery of the Christian Sacrifice is great indeed. Because many cannot comprehend it, they reject it. Yet since the beginning of time men have found sacrifice intrinsic to life, although they have never been able to fathom why it is so. Christians are no exception. There have been a multitude of theories of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, past and present, with which men have belabored their minds; but those theories which are not outright heretical are too circumscribed; and, after all, they are but human speculations. We ought to face it: the Christian Sacrifice being heavenly transcends men’s minds, and lies beyond their power of definition. We do well to content ourselves with the statements of the Sacrifice in our Prayer of Consecration, for they satisfy both heart and mind. But it may be that by a little analogy we can gain a clearer understanding of how it is that the Church can continue to offer Christ Himself in Sacrifice. Let us begin with something our intellects already comprehend:

Energy Is Life

What do we mean when we present at the Offertory the bread and wine, purchased with our own money, or, as in former times, in kind, and say, “We humbly beseech thee most mercifully to accept our oblations?” And, again, in the Canon, what does the Church mean when in our behalf it says, “And here we offer and present unto thee, O Lord, our selves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and living sacrifice unto thee?”

In the case of money, it is not a mere symbol, as generally thought, but a fraction of our life, for did we not expend energy to obtain it? And what is energy but life? Is not, then, the offered bread and wine it has bought truly a part of our life ? Do we not mean, then, when the Church says on our behalf, “And here we offer and present unto thee, O Lord, our selves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and living sacrifice unto thee” that we are offering our spiritual, mental, and physical energy?

Now if we identify energy with life when we offer our selves, our talents, and our means, even our money, to God, we can better comprehend how the Church can continue to offer Christ’s Life—His Energy—to the Father in Eucharistic Sacrifice, in that Bread and that Wine which are energized through the power of the Holy Spirit with His Life and become truly His Body and His Blood; and that we in union with Him can continue His Sacrifice for our sins and for those of the whole world.

The Wonder Sacrament

The power of Absolution involved in the Christian Priesthood is not difficult of comprehension if we see all sin as that which is against God. Reason dictates that only He against whom we sin can forgive it. Had Christ not delegated authority to forgive sin to representatives on earth, He would have betrayed His justice and mercy. For a Christian there is no question that all sin is against God. There is no question of the necessity of forgiveness. If we believe in Christ at all, we see that He has provided for our need. But there is the very serious question of acknowledgement of our sin, and our seeking His forgiveness. It may be that our greatest sin is that of presumption, taking for granted that God forgives without our acknowledgement and penitence. Such presumption does not remove guilt and its torture. If a man would know peace, he must take the step which will make acknowledgement and express penitence. Otherwise there can be no reconciliation, since sins do not die of old age.

Gratefully our generation is learning through the new science of Psychiatry much of what causes men’s confusion, unhappiness, and illness; and that articulated acknowledgement is the primary step necessary for “release” from them. But we have yet to learn that psychiatric confession is not enough; and that possible consequent release does not integrate personality on the highest level. For that, man requires compulsion by a love of the highest, God.

Many of the psychological complexes are symptoms of what the Gospel calls Sin, the individual’s or some one else’s. Christ removed the symptom by eradicating the root, through the revelation and manifestation of God’s love. The Magdalene is an example of the power of His remedy.

A man can not banish his own sin. He may rationalize it, employ escapes of one sort or another, or lock it up in the dungeon psychiatry labels “libido,” and so he may find quiet for a season. But he will not be rid of it, for concealed sin festers in the secret recesses of the pre-eminently important subconscious, and sooner or later, perhaps to his utter surprise and chagrin, it will erupt in acts quite contrary to his intention or desire. Then guilt arises to torment beyond the pain of physical torture.

But if a man sees his complexes as symptoms of sin he will know it to be against his Creator; and if ever his citadel of pride collapses he will fall on his knees before the Heavenly Father and in the spirit of the Prodigal Son confess, “Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son.” But, alas, too often because the confession is subjective, and he knows not how to make it objective, he may not be released from his sense of guilt, much less know the joy of forgiveness and the security of restoration. Quite likely when the experience is past it will seem unreal, and he will treat it as such, so leaving him in a worse plight than before. Psychiatry would insist that he make his confession objective.

The Parable of the Prodigal Son would be pointless for us had not God ordained a means whereby it could be objectively played all the way out, by forgiveness and restoration, for man being finite requires a sign before peace can again reign in his soul.

The objective medium Christ instituted in His Church is the sacrament of Penance, and a duly accredited priesthood to administer it.

In the Episcopal Church we find this sacrament of reconciliation and the proper ministers for its mediation, since the power of Absolution is specifically conferred in every priest’s ordination.

Sacramental Penance is not only the cure for sin, but it is a powerful preventive; and it is even more than a medium of reconciliation, for it sustains a proper relation to God and our neighbor. We could not hear too much of its joys.

Nothing has been said of the other functions involved in the Christian Priesthood, for in our consideration of “how necessary that Order is in the Church of Christ” we have been thinking of the two primary ends to which all other of its functions are means; for the supreme prerogatives of Priesthood are “the duty of calling sinners to penitence and absolution, and of the primacy in public worship of the offering of the sacrifice of the Eucharist through Christ to the Father.” (The Apostolic Ministry, Kirk, p. 50.)

What a loving God we have, that He has provided the Priesthood of Reconciliation, to cleanse men and fit them to return that love through the Sacrifice of the Altar and the dedicated living which flows from the Eucharistic Offering.

Indelible Service

Recently a certain diocesan convention witnessed the loveliest sight vouchsafed to mortal eyes. The bishop of that diocese has the good custom of summoning to him those priests who have borne the yoke of Christ for fifty years, and with citation conferring on them what is called “The ——— Distinguished Service Cross.” This year one of the old priests who knelt before the bishop provided the thousand persons assembled with a living picture of yet another Curé d’Ars or Charles Lowder, of what a man looks like whose character has been molded by the faithful exercise of Christ’s Priesthood. In his face was the calm trust of a lamb who knows and loves his shepherd. One could not be faulted that St. John Baptist’s figurative salutation ran through his mind, “Behold, the Lamb of God!” That old priest had become a living sacrifice! Men perceived that in him again had been fulfilled what the prophet had in mind when in God’s Name he said, “I will raise me up a faithful priest, that shall do according to that which is in mine heart and in my mind.” He had been faithful for fifty years making reconciliation for the sins of the people.

The one word “Reconciliation” explains “The Duty and Office of such as come to be admitted

Priests; how necessary that Order is in the Church of Christ, and also, how the People ought to esteem them in their Office.” So, in the Christian Religion there must be priests to deliver us from all false religions which ensnare men’s souls, and to return us to the waiting arms of our Heavenly Father.

“And now, O Father, mindful of the love
That bought us, once for all, on Calvary’s Tree,
And having with us him that pleads above,
We here present, we here spread forth to thee,
That only Offering perfect in thine eyes,
The one true, pure, immortal Sacrifice.”

A Visit to St. Alban’s, New York: A Memorandum for Future Antiquarians (1868)

Unsigned article in Putnam’s Magazine, April 1868, pp 416-420.

[By Jesse Ames Spencer]

I had heard something, in the talk of the day, of the ceremonial observances at the Protestant Episcopal Church of St. Alban; and though I confess being what may be called an old-fashioned churchman, on principle and by education, and therefore not likely to be in favor of any considerable departure from the usual worship of the Church, yet I determined on this occasion to be strictly impartial, and to go simply as an observer, a “looker-on in Vienna,” to see what these things might be. If the reader has any curiosity on the subject, the following report is at his service.

One bright Sunday morning, then, not long ago, I visited the “Church of St. Alban.” It is situated in 47th-street, near Lexington Avenue, quite beyond the business portion of the city, and is rather a plain-looking brick building, with a peaked roof, low, stained glass windows, and a bell on the gable in front, surmounted by a cross. I arrived some little time before the commencement of the services, and had an opportunity to look about a little, and note the interior arrangements. I found the church to be capable of holding about two hundred and fifty worshippers, with plain wooden benches for seats on each side of a central aisle, and every bench having an announcement posted upon it, as follows:

“The seats of this church are all Free, on the following conditions, a compliance with which is an obligation binding on each person occupying a sitting:

“I. To behave as in the presence of Almighty God.

“II. Not to leave the church during service; remaining until the clergy and choristers have retired.

“III. That each worshipper shall contribute, according to his ability, to the collections, which are the only means of supporting the church. The poor can give little, and are always welcome; but those who are able to give should not be willing to occupy seats (which might be availed of by others), without contributing their just share to the expenses.”

The pulpit, which is elevated only three or four steps, stands on the left-hand of the congregation, close to and in front of the vestry-room door or passage. The stalls adjoin the organ in a recess on the vestry-room side, with others facing them on the opposite side for antiphonal chanting or singing. The lectern, or stand on which the Bible is placed, for reading the lessons, is on the right side opposite the pulpit. There is no reading-desk for other parts of the service, as in most of the Episcopal churches.

The arrangements of the chancel occupy considerable space for a building no larger than this, and every thing is very elaborate and ornamental. It is elevated by several steps, and inside the rails is still further raised, so as to bring the communion table, or altar, prominently into view. This altar is very large, built against the rear wall of the church, with a super-altar, having a tall gilded cross in its centre. The decorations on the wall and about the chancel-window are of the most approved pattern, drawn from the highest authorities in ritualism and church decoration. These words, in beautiful old English letter, crown, as it were, the altar in St. Alban’s: “He that eateth Me, even he shall live by Me.” (John vi. 57.)

On either side of the large gilded cross, on the super-altar, is a lofty candlestick, with a candle in it, about seven feet high, or perhaps more. Four other candlesticks not quite so tall, and four others less lofty than these again, are on each side of the altar by the wall; and standing in the chancel, some little distance from the wall, on the right and left hand, are candelabras, with branches holding some twenty candles each. None of these were lighted when I entered. Soon after, the bell having stopped ringing, the organ began a voluntary, on a low note, introductory to the opening of the service.

Presently the introcessional hymn was begun, and then, emerging from the vestry-room door or passage, the first thing visible was a large wooden cross, which had to be lowered to get it through the passage, and which, when elevated, reached some six feet above the head of the small boy who carried it, and was, of course, in full view of the congregation. This boy, and others following, had on white robes or surplices. Two of the boys carried banners, with devices, and all, with a number of adult choristers, advanced slowly towards the chancel, singing the introcessional. Last of all came the three officiating priests or ministers, with purple-velvet, crown-shaped caps on their heads, and white garments, made like sacks, and ornamented with various colors and symbols. Profound obeisances were made towards the altar; the hymn was ended; the choristers took their places; and one of the priests, on arriving in front of the chancel-rail, began the intoning of the Litany. Morning Prayer had been said at an earlier hour.

The Litany was said as in the Episcopal Prayer-Book, directly after which, notice was given that there would be a meeting of “The Sodality of”—exactly what and whom I did not catch at the time. The priests then retired for a space, during which the two candles on the altar, and the branch candles on each side in the chancel, were lighted by a boy having a long stick or pole with a light on the end for the purpose. This boy passed half a dozen or more times in front of the altar, and every time made, or attempted to make, an obeisance, but it was not with any great success. The frequent repetition seemed to reduce it to little more than the “fashionable nod.”

The introit was one of the psalms of the Psalter. While it was being chanted, the priests returned, and with lowly bowings, even to the knee, passed within the chancel and advanced to the front of the altar. The Ante-Communion was then said, the Epistle and Gospel being read by different persons; after which notice was given of the communion, and “a high celebration,” to occur during the week. The people stood up, and remained standing, while one of the priests left the chancel, proceeded to the pulpit, and, after crossing himself, said, “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.”

The congregation being seated again, a discourse followed, about twenty minutes long, earnest in tone and manner, and with much good exhortation in it. Some of the preacher’s figures were rather startling, especially when speaking of the Lord’s Supper; he told his hearers of “the bleeding hands of the Almighty” offering them Christ’s flesh to eat, and Christ’s blood to drink. The homily ended with the priest’s turning to the altar, and saying, “Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost.” He then went back to the chancel, where the others had been sitting, caps on, to listen to the discourse.

The plates were next passed around, and the alms, being collected, were placed on the altar. Then, from a side table on the right, the two boys on duty in the chancel handed to the priest the vessels containing the bread and wine, which were placed on the altar. The remaining candles were then lighted. After this the communion service proceeded; and when the officiating priest faced the congregation, to say the exhortation, &c, one of the others, a step below him, held the book open for him to read from, thus serving, as it were, for a reading-stand. Wherever possible, the priests studiously preserved a position with their backs to the congregation. In the part of the communion service where the bread and wine are consecrated, the officiating priest said the words in silence; in like manner, when he partook of the sacrament himself, it was done in entire silence, with crossings and the lowliest of kneeling and postures of adoration. Without professing to be at all learned in the meaning of the rubrics in the Prayer-Book, I venture to think the language in regard to this part of the service to be plain enough, and to require that the officiating minister shall say it all openly, and in the presence of the people; so that they can see or witness what is done by him on every such solemn occasion. But at St. Alban’s the priests had their faces to the altar and backs to the congregation, and thus it was hardly possible to see any thing, and be sure of what was done or left undone.

A large portion of the congregation now went forward to the chancel-rails, along or on top of which were napkins or cloths, placed so as to prevent a single crumb, or a single drop, falling to the floor. While the people were engaged in kneeling at the rails, the priests remained standing and holding aloft the paten and chalice, with their contents, for reverent and profound admiration. The administration of the sacrament was as is usual in the Episcopal Church, save that the first part of the words (“the body of our Lord Jesus Christ,” “the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ”) was said when the bread or wine was given to each communicant, and the latter (“take and eat this,” “drink this”) was said to three or four together. The cup, too, was retained in the hands of the priest, and not “delivered” into the hands of the communicant.

When all had gone forward who wished to partake of the Lord’s Supper, the vessels were replaced on the altar and carefully covered, the concluding prayers were intoned, the Gloria in Excelsis was chanted, and the parting blessing was given. After a few moments, the whole congregation stood up, and remained standing, while the priests, having received water from the boys, with napkins, carefully cleansed and wiped the vessels, giving them to the boys to place on the side table. The little fellow took up the big cross again, the others gathered in line, with the older choristers, and slowly moving, with music, to the passage at the side, the priests finally disappeared in the vestry.

The service on this occasion occupied exactly two hours, after which the people were allowed to go their way and profit by what they had seen and heard.

The congregation in general were quiet, attentive, and disposed to join in the services. A large portion were, I think, visitors, drawn by curiosity, and anxious to see the strange and novel things, as they seemed, in an Episcopal church. Among the regular attendants, I could not but notice several near me who were exceedingly devout, making obeisances at the recurrence of the name of Jesus Christ, at the Gloria Patri, and on other occasions, even to the bowing down to the very floor. Many, like myself, not initiated as to the times and places of obeisance, could not do what they saw others do, and could be only lookers-on, rather than partakers in the full and complete services as they are taught and performed by the priests and people of St. Alban’s. As I was leaving the church, I heard several expressions of surprise and wonder on the part of those who had never witnessed any thing of this kind before, and who, with old-fashioned notions and habits, as in Episcopal churches generally, seemed to be not a little perplexed as to whereunto all this would grow. It was too much to expect that they should be able to understand or appreciate the assumed advanced ritualistic position of St. Alban’s; for that requires an acquaintance with the details of the subject, and a training in the observances of earlier rituals, far beyond what one out of a thousand in the Episcopal Church has any notion of. It was no matter of astonishment, therefore, to hear the charge of “popery,” folly, extravagance, &c, made freely against St. Alban’s, and to observe among visitors a strong disposition to condemn what they saw and heard, because it was all new to them, all contrary to the practices to which they had become accustomed, all unauthorized, as they unhesitatingly concluded, and all, to an ordinary looker-on, very much resembling the public performances in a Roman Catholic church.

On my walk homeward, I had abundant leisure for thinking over the matter, and considering some of its points of interest and possible importance at the present day. Recurring to the state and condition of things, quite in the recollection of middle-aged men, it is plain that a great change has taken place in the metropolis in respect to churches and places of public worship. New York has grown with marvellous speed in wealth and luxury, and as its citizens have become rich, they have erected houses to dwell in which may be termed palaces for the elegance and profusion which belong to them. In earlier days, the merchant had his business on the first floor, and his family occupied the rest of the building for a residence; in those days, too, New York was a good-sized town, doing a fair business, and all within a mile and a half of the Battery. Now, massive warehouses, five, six, seven stories high, solely for business purposes; now, splendid residences in the upper part of the city; now, mile after mile devoted to trade and commerce, as well as art and beauty, show what giant strides the metropolis has made. Of course, churches have shared in this change. The former barn-like structures of a preceding generation, with square windows and green blinds, without decoration or taste, inside or out, and the farthest remove from any thing ornamental or beautiful, have disappeared; and as the churches and congregations have moved “uptown,” professional architects have been employed, and tasteful edifices erected of the Gothic and other styles, cruciform in shape, with towers and spires reaching up into the sky, with elegant windows, crosses, and symbols, internally evidencing the growth of the aesthetic element in our advancing civilization. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been expended on single churches. One church in New York—St. George’s—has a most magnificently decorated interior, the painting of which alone is said to have cost $25,000; and, to a very large extent, art and taste have been brought to bear in rearing and adorning the temples devoted to God’s worship and service, so as to render them somewhat proportioned in splendor and comfort to the private residences of those who attend them.

It struck me, however, as rather curious and interesting, that, although we have in our city a large number of noble and imposing church edifices, still the order and performance of public service have retained, almost everywhere, the simplicity of half a century ago. In this respect, the change has been much less than might have been expected. In the Episcopal Church, for example, the same plain surplice, bands, and gown, which were in use in the time of our grandfathers, are still the prevailing garments, without decoration or any thing of the kind. There has been no alteration in the form and arrangements of the service, nor any as to postures, places, and modes of going through with it. Church music, it is true, is much improved, and organs and trained choirs are everywhere to be found. But there is, as yet, no general attempt to introduce the highly adorned garments, the stately processions, the awe-inspiring symbols, the crucifixes, banners, pictures, and the like ecclesiastical furniture and upholstery. The Episcopal Church, as a whole, appears to shrink from these exhibitions, and deems it enough to have beautiful and striking temples, like St. George’s, Grace Church, and others, without bringing in the ceremonial observances which ritualists, as they are called, are advocating in England and the United States, with considerable force and persistency.

It would be out of place here, of course, to undertake to argue the question, or to venture to pronounce upon the points in dispute, between the ritualists and the quieta non movere portion of Episcopalians. The ritualists urge strongly the necessity of adding to the impressiveness and force of religious worship, in order to meet the wants of the masses, who must (whatever public education may effect) be reached mainly through the senses of sight and hearing; and they strive to accomplish this by an increase of ceremonial observances; by the free use of symbolic representations, as lights, crucifixes, incense, pictures, &c.; by the clothing of the priests and ministers in rich and variegated garments; by giving to the Lord’s Supper, and every thing connected with it, the character and appearance of the most awful of mysteries; by employing processions, grand music, and the like; in short, by any thing and every thing which shall strike men’s senses with awe-inspiring thoughts, and add to the solemnity, grandeur, and majesty of the public worship of God. The anti-ritualists urge, on the other hand, that all these things are absurd, and out of place and time, belonging to the dark ages, obscuring the simplicity of the Gospel, contrary to law, in violation of the fundamental principles of Protestantism, mischievously assimilating the Episcopal Church to the Roman in appearance, with the further intention of bringing it to Roman obedience in doctrine at the earliest practicable period.

Let the reader judge for himself. Davus sum, non Œdipus. Apart from all question of right or wrong, law or violation of law, expediency or inexpediency, ritualism, it must be admitted, has made progress, and may be destined to make still greater; and, from various significant indications in the religions world, it would appear that Protestant churches, especially in cities, have begun to find that the stern, hard, bald system of worship and service bequeathed to them by their Puritan forefathers, does not suffice for the age in which we live; or, at least, does not adequately meet the longings of certain people, who, having secured noble and beautiful temples in which to worship God, now desire other things in keeping therewith.

But how far all this is to go; what are the proper proportions of ceremonial and ritualistic observances; what is to be done, and what to be left undone—these are points which it is not my province to discuss; and so, I leave the subject for the consideration of others.

Transcribed by Richard Mammana, 2017.

The Russian Seminary (June, 1940)

• Readers of THE LIVING CHURCH have generously contributed to the support of the Russian Theological Seminary in Paris. This splendid institution is training priests of the Russian Orthodox Church to minister to their people in exile and to form a body of clergy competent to carry the Gospel anew into their homeland when it may become possible to do so. This letter from the dean of the Seminary, the Very Rev. Sergius Bulgakov, expresses his appreciation for the help rendered by readers of The LIVING CHURCH and tells something of the way in which the seminary is carrying on its work under wartime difficulties.

SIR: On April 30, 1940, the Russian Theological institute in Paris, celebrated its 15th anniversary, and on this occasion we write to inform some of its most faithful friends about its present situation. You will recall that, although this institution is recognized by the University of Paris, it receives no state subsidies and has always depended entirely upon private support. The Russians in emigration have given consistently and sacrificingly, a convincing demonstration of public recognition of the need for such an institution. But still the principal basis of our life, these 15 years, has been the generosity of European and American friends.

We are confident that our work, both of theological research and of pastoral education, is essential, not alone for the rebirth of our own Church and national life, but also for the general rapprochement among Christians in the ecumenical movements of our day, to which we feel a special calling. We have lived throughout these 15 years in a continuous sense of the almost miraculous help and guidance of our patron, St. Sergius, great spiritual leader in the rebirth of the Russian people after they had thrown off the Tartar yoke, a despotism equalled only by the present regime in Russia. But never have we been so conscious of divine help, living and near, as in those recent months.

At the outbreak of the war, with all our resources exhausted, and little hope of their renewal, we faced the question “to be or not to be.” Faith and devotion led us to refuse a negative answer to that question and we believe that St. Sergius answered with us and for us, for what has happened since is a veritable miracle. Our students, in spite of the war, began to gather, not in so large numbers as hitherto, but with the same desire to finish their course of studies. Our appeals to our friends were heard, and one by one the springs of supply which we had thought dried up, began to flow again.

Your own generous aid has deeply touched us. It is so comforting to know that in days of adversity we may always count on the loyal and efficient support of THE LIVING CHURCH. Let me take this  occasion to tell you how deeply grateful we are for your unfailing and devoted friendship to our Church.

Other friends have also helped. Dr. Adolf Keller, our friend and collaborator in the ecumenical field, was the first to respond to our appeal. Then our dear friends, Dr. and Mrs. Cram, with their loyal and capable energy, appealed to the membership of the American Episcopal Church—thanks to your collaboration in this case, as well as in the matter of Dr. Mott’s appeal. Further, the American Committee for strengthening the Russian Orthodox Church, with our esteemed Bishop Perry as its chairman, and the Rev. Lauriston Scaife as its executive secretary, have once more sent us generous support, and have promised further help in the future.

And now the Russian Clergy and Church Aid Fund, our steadfast friend and supporter since the beginning, headed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, has decided, in spite of the war, to reorganize on a broader basis, a move which fills our hearts with hope and joy.

Thus in a few short months our material situation has changed completely. We have at present in hand the amount necessary for three months operation. Recent correspondence makes us equally hopeful for the future. This does not mean that we are completely freed of concern, but we are filled with a sense of the wonderful working of divine providence.

And we are writing you, as one of our loyal friends, to express our prayerful gratitude. This our wonderful preservation will always remain in our memories as a sign of Christian unity in the midst of a world at war.

Calling the blessing of Our Lord upon you and your work,

(The Very Rev.) SERGIUS BULGAKOV.

Paris, France.

• Contributions for the maintenance of this splendid work may be sent to THE LIVING CHURCH RELIEF FUND, 744 North 4th Street, Milwaukee, Wis., marked “For the Russian Theological Seminary.”