Reminiscences of the Rev. Edwin Harwood, D. D., Rector of Trinity Church, New Haven, Conn., 1859-1895.
Edited by the Rev. Frank Woods Baker, D. D., Rector of Trinity Church.
New Haven: Trinity Press, 1903.
I cannot let these reminiscences of Dr. Harwood go to press without writing a brief preface. It is only just to those who have given time to their preparation to state that they do not, in any sense, pretend to be a biography of the man of whom they treat; that they can, at best, be only suggestive of the power and real strength of scholarship and personal charm of Dr. Harwood. I think his friends will agree with me that only those whose privilege it has been to sit down in the quiet of Dr. Harwood's study and listen to his conversation, realize where his greatest power lay. He had read widely and thought profoundly on a great variety of topics, and, whether one agreed with him or not, it was an education and a stimulus to hear him discourse on them. He was a master of the art of conversation on subjects worth talking about. He possessed many personal charms, was a thorough gentleman of the good old school, was always self-possessed and never affected by the nervous rush of the day.
I shall always esteem it one of the privileges of my life to have been called to the rectorship of Trinity while he was Rector Emeritus. I came to know Dr. Harwood well and to respect him greatly. I can, however, only imagine what he must have been in his prime.
The place which Dr. Harwood occupied in the Church at [1/2] large was conspicuous. At a time when the Church was in danger of running either to the extreme of narrow evangelicalism or that of sacramentarianism and of losing sight of her true catholicity, men like Dr. Washburn, Bishop Potter, John Cotton Smith, Philips Brooks and Dr. Harwood stood as giants of force and intellect and demanded that larger views should be held and that she should recognize her true historic heritage and keep herself as charitably and spiritually broad as the teaching of her Divine Master. But what Dr. Harwood's position in the Church at large was, the following papers make plain.
Like most men Dr. Harwood had his strong and his weak sides. He cared little for ordinary parochial and pastoral duties. They were irksome to him. He loved his books and he loved to preach and he was always ready to impart the treasures of his thought to his chosen friends in the seclusion of his study. He was always a staunch friend to the younger clergy.
In an age of over-organization, when most rectors are overwhelmed by the great increase of necessary details connected with their office, and are obliged, almost, to steal the time for study, the memory of the erudition of such men as Dr. Harwood should serve as a stimulus to greater scholarship and to more earnest and fearless application of the old truths to the ever changing conditions of the times.
FRANK WOODS BAKER,
Rector of Trinity Church,
New Haven, Conn.
Sermon preached by Rt. Rev. Chauncey Bruce Brewster, D. D., in Trinity Church, New Haven, on the occasion of the Memorial Service for Dr. Harwood, Sunday morning, March 16, 1902.
IT was the request of your Rector, which I found myself unable to gainsay, that on the occasion of this visitation I should speak of the eminent man who was for so many years Rector of this historic Parish, and who has lately been taken from the Parish and the Diocese.
I could wish that this duty had fallen to some one more competent by reason of closer acquaintance in recent years. I can only say that my words this morning do not claim the dignity of a memorial sermon and must necessarily be a very inadequate tribute to one whose memory I should count it a privilege more worthily to honor.
As I think of Dr. Harwood there comes to my mind that ancient description of the son of Jesse: "A mighty valiant man, and a man of war, and prudent in matters (in the Revised Version, prudent in speech), and a comely person, and the Lord is with him."--I Sam. XVI: 18.
The first thing one is impelled to say is: This was a man. The manliness of him whom we remember, it is worth our while to note. When we remember that of the ministers of a certain school in a former generation there has been recorded the observation: "A gently complaining and fatigued spirit is that in which Evangelical Divines are very apt to [3/4] pass their days," when we observe among the students in some of our theological seminaries a type which would seem more fitting in the candidates for the Girls' Friendly Society, we are more ready to appreciate this fine example of manliness in the Christian ministry. There was in him no slightest suggestion of the effeminacy that is sometimes associated with religion. As you remember his comeliness of person, that fine type of manly beauty that to me seemed endowed with perpetual youth, that head so like the great Thomas Arnold's, that firm and massive lip, that well-knit, muscular frame, that erect carriage; you know also that the outward man was the index of what manner of man he was inwardly. He was characterized by an undeniable masculinity and strength of mind and temper and will. His was always a robust vigour of thought. In his sermons and platform addresses, in his very manner of utterance one might be sensible of a virile tone. There was certain positive directness and downrightness in his fashion of speech and thought.
One derived an impression of his strength of nature from a certain reticence regarding his deepest feelings and experiences. That which he thought and felt was kept under the lock and key of a masterful will, repressing any full expression of much that was characteristic within. In intercourse with him one felt the quiet power of self-control. A man of rare personal dignity, he manifested the gravity of a noble seriousness in tone of conversation and in outward bearing. It was evident that his mind was resolutely set to meditate upon great and worthy things.
Dr. Harwood was a typical scholar. Graduated from the University with high honors, he gave his best energies in loyal devotion to the Queen of Sciences, Theology. He had read widely, studied diligently, and thought profoundly. Especially was he a student of sacred Scripture. From 1854 [4/5] to 1859 he was Professor of the Literature and Interpretation of the Scriptures in the Berkeley Divinity School. Thence he brought to this parish the treasures of his scholarship. I well remember, as a boy, sitting in this Church, being impressed by his reading of the Scriptures. That office he performed with a reverence and dignity and an accurate touch of emphasis which brought out the meaning of every word of that Holy Writ he knew so thoroughly.
He was a man of vast reading in theology. That which especially characterized him as a theologian, I should say, was, first, his love of truth, and, secondly, his courageous faith in truth. Devotion to truth was with him a passion. His reverence for the authority of truth made him fearless, that is to say, he was not afraid of the truth and he was not afraid for the truth. Nor did he ever fear to speak out what he believed to be the truth. In theological controversy he was truly "a man of war," a foeman of undaunted prowess. As an example of his virile doggedness and fearlessness, let me quote these characteristic words from a pamphlet of his regarding a controversial topic: "We have heard lately that this is a closed topic! Pray, will any one I tell me what is closed? How was it closed? When was it closed? Who closed it? It is not a closed, but a very open I topic." The words sound like him, one who has drunk delight of battle with his peers, "a mighty valiant man."
"There is no note
How dread an army hath enrounded him."
It was impossible that such a man should be content with any narrow theological position. His feet must be set in a large room. He was conspicuous among a number of prominent Churchmen who moved on out of the old Evangelical party into a larger position, characterized by a tone and temper at once less given to literalism and less emotional, [5/6] more scholarly and thoughtful, with a wider outlook and broader sympathies. He appreciated the largeness of the spaces of the Kingdom of Christ. His was a mind that must bring truths into relation with each other in a large unity. With him the intellect must have its rights. He belonged to that school of Churchmanship which approaches Christ on the intellectual side, which stands upon that promise: "Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free."
He would have been slow to call himself a Connecticut Churchman. In his own way, however, he valued the historic and Catholic position of the Church. In early life he had come under the influence of the great Dr. Muhlenberg, a seer who had visions of what was for many men yet below the horizon. With Muhlenberg he was more closely associated than any other clergyman, as trusted friend and fellow-worker. The name of Edwin Harwood is prominent on the list of names appended to the famous Memorial to the House of Bishops in 1853. This movement, regarded at the time as revolutionary, had for its object the vindication of the Church's Catholicity through a more thorough adaptation to the wants of the country and the times. It aimed to emancipate the Episcopate from some of the canonical limitations that fettered it. It urged upon the Bishops a certain course which was, in the language of the Memorial, "believed to be the peculiar province and high privilege of your venerable body as a college of Catholic and Apostolic Bishops, as such." This memorial movement was too far in advance of the time, but it was the forerunner of that declaration which we have been privileged to witness, the Chicago-Lambeth overture of Anglican Bishops addressed to the world, the first signal step in the direction of the unity of Christendom.
Dr. Harwood's ecclesiastical services are especially worthy [6/7] of note. Having attended the English Church Congress, he brought to this country the idea of such an arena of fraternal discussion, and, having earnestly advocated a Church Congress here, he inaugurated it at a meeting of prominent clergymen held in his study in this city in May, 1874. That same year the first American Church Congress was held in New York. Thus to him, more than to any other man, was due the inception of an institution which has done much to moderate the rancour and to elevate the tone of theological controversy by bringing representatives of differing schools and parties together and bringing them to a better understanding of each other. From 1877 on, he was elected a deputy to seven General conventions. In the House of Deputies he served on important committees; he was a member of the first Joint Committee on the Revision of the Prayer-Book, and he was Chairman of the original Commission on Marginal Readings in the English Bible. In the Conventions of this Diocese he was for years foremost in debate and counsel. He was one of the Examining Chaplains of the Diocese and was for seven years Archdeacon of the New Haven Archdeaconry.
For thirty-six years he has been Rector of this Parish, and since his resignation, in 1895, he has been Rector Emeritus. As a preacher, you who heard him can describe him more adequately than one who speaks only out of the recollections of boyhood. As I remember him in the pulpit, he was dignified in bearing and in manner, intellectually cogent, and with deep moral earnestness, but little given to emotional appeals and exhortations, a strong, weighty, and incisive preacher. He was certainly "prudent in speech," if by prudence we mean that which is opposed to inconsiderateness, the wisdom which comes through much study, especially of those Holy Scriptures which are able to make one wise, the [7/8] wisdom which comes of profound reflection and brooding meditation upon the greatest things. Favored, indeed, the people whose privilege it has been to learn of a teacher who had won his place among "those who know."
As a parish priest his characteristic reserve made him seem to some undemonstrative and probably often prevented the expression of his feelings as a pastor. There are, however, many among you who saw another side of the man, who learned to love him for what he had been to you and who can never forget his sympathy, devotion, and labor of love. To the students of the University he was naturally drawn and was to many of them a counsellor and friend. To his brethren of the clergy he was a faithful brother and many of them found in him indeed a friend in need. There are those to whom life cannot be the same, as they think of this man gone and know they shall not look upon his like again.
In his own life he was a man that had seen affliction. The trials and sorrows that befell him he bore with the uncomplaining reticence that was in accord with his nature, and that, moreover, betokened his patience of faith and the fortitude of one who was willing to bear the cross after the Master and be partaker of his sufferings.
In his sturdy manhood he seemed like a veteran oak that for many a year has battled with winds and tempests and witnessed the flash of the lightning-bolt, but yet stands unbroken, erect, unscathed. At last there came a final stroke, not to be withstood, that uprooted him and laid him low. He was bereft of her whose gracious companionship had blessed his life full fifty years. It is not for us to look upon that affliction, upon its overwhelming desolation or upon his child-like submission to be guided through the darkness into light and peace.
To you, his people, I commend his memory and example, [8/9] and particularly the lessons to be learned from the strength of his Christian character, from the patience and fortitude with which he endured, as a soldier of Jesus Christ, from his loyal devotion to truth, his valor on behalf of truth, his courageous faith in truth and in the living God of truth. "A mighty valiant man, and a man of war," one of God's chivalry!
"One who never turned his back but marched breast forward,
Never doubted clouds would break,
Never dreamed, though right were worsted, wrong would triumph,
Held we fall to rise, are baffled to fight better,
Sleep to wake.
* * * * * *
Bid him forward, breast and back as either should be,
"Strive and thrive!" cry "Speed,--fight on, fight ever
There as here!"
 Article by the Rev. Samuel Hartt D.D. on Dr. Harwood, from the Hartford Courant.
TO the brief notice of the life and work of Rev. Dr. Edwin Harwood of New Haven, which accompanied the announcement of his death on Sunday last, there may well be added a more full statement of the position which he held in the Episcopal Church and in the community, and a tribute to his character and to the value of the services which he rendered.
Born in Philadelphia nearly eighty years ago, he was graduated at the University of Pennsylvania with high honors, at the age of eighteen, in 1840. He studied theology at the General Theological Seminary in New York, completing his studies there in 1844, and was ordained with others by Bishop B. T. Onderdonk on the 30th of June in that year. It was a time of much theological excitement, especially in New York, where the Carey ordination had taken place but the year before; and Dr. Harwood was accustomed to say that he was a member of the only class of candidates ever ordained without an examination, the controversies at the seminary not giving the professors any time in which to hold one. He began his ministrations in Oyster Bay, Long Island, but soon became rector of St. James's Church, New [10/11] York, then assistant minister of Grace Church, and in 1852 rector of the newly organized Church of the Incarnation, of which he was in reality the founder. In 1854, Mr. Harwood became Professor of the Literature and Interpretation of the Scriptures in the Berkeley Divinity School, which was established that year in Middletown; and there he spent five years in study and teaching, greatly enjoying the work and giving to the students the inspiration of his varied and graceful scholarship. In 1859 he was called to the rectorship of the important parish of Trinity Church, New Haven, and there he continued as rector for thirty-six years, resigning in 1895 and receiving an election as rector emeritus.
He attained, as he deserved, great influence in New Haven, in the diocese of Connecticut, and in the councils of the Episcopal Church in this country. The Church Congress owes its inception very largely to him. He had attended the sixth meeting of the English Church Congress, and was greatly impressed with its workings and their possibilities, and having spoken earnestly in favor of similar meetings in this country, he brought the matter before a joint meeting of the clerical clubs of New York and Boston, held in his study in New Haven. The result was the establishment of the American Church Congress, which held its first meeting in 1874, and of which Dr. Harwood continued an influential member. He was elected a deputy from Connecticut to the General Convention of 1877 and to six succeeding triennial conventions; and, beginning in 1880, he was a member of the very important committee of the House of Deputies on amendments to the constitution. He was also appointed in 1880 a member of the first joint committee on liturgical enrichment and the revision of the Prayer-Book; and at a later day he was appointed chairman on the part of the House of Deputies, of the original commission on marginal readings for the [11/12] English version of the Bible. For many years he was a member of the committee on constitution and canons of the Connecticut Diocesan Convention, and after the death of Rev. Dr. Beardsley in 1891, he was its chairman and practically the leader of the house. From 1878 he was one of the examining chaplains of the diocese, by appointment of the bishop, and from 1879 a trustee of the aged and infirm clergy and widows' fund, in which he was much interested, as also in the more recently established clergy retiring fund. In 1885 he was elected archdeacon of the New Haven archdeaconry, and held the office until his resignation in 1892. A little more than five years ago Dr. Harwood was warned by a sudden attack that he could not continue in all the work which had remained to him even after he had retired from active service as rector; and he resigned his duties in the several positions which have been enumerated. His last public service to the Church was rendered in 1900, when he was appointed chairman of a committee to act with the bishop in sending an address from the diocese to the venerable Society for the Propagation of the Gospel on its two hundredth anniversary.
Dr. Harwood's degree in divinity was conferred by Trinity College in 1862. In 1853 he gave an oration before the Trinity College Chapter of the Phi Beta Kappa, the Beta of Connecticut; and again in 1895, at the semi-centennial of the chapter, he delivered the oration. His published works include only occasional sermons and addresses; among the latter are two on the early history of the Episcopal Church in New Haven, to the study of which he had given much attention. He also translated a part of Lange's commentary for the American edition. He was a constant student, a careful writer, and a thoughtful and earnest preacher; and, in every particular showing the scholar, his sermons had a [12/13] strong influence on his parishioners, the community, and the many Yale students who listened to them. He was the last survivor of a body of scholarly men with whom he was specially associated in the Church Congress, prominent among whom was Dr. Washburn, once of Hartford and afterwards of New York; and as he confessed that it took him a long while to understand and appreciate the New Englanders among whom he had come to live and to minister, so he felt for a considerable time that, though he had been a professor in Bishop Williams's school of divinity, yet he was not entirely in touch with the diocese in which his lot was cast. As years passed on, he understood his townsmen and neighbors better and they understood him better; and what has been said above will show the honorable positions which were ungrudgingly accorded to him. Such recognition was a tribute rendered to learning and influence and character in a man who might not be called a typical Connecticut churchman, but to whom Connecticut churchmen were glad to give deserved honor.
In the library of the rectory of Trinity Church, New Haven, Dr. Harwood caused to be painted in large letters two sentences from ancient authors, which suggest the principles by which he sought to guide his studies and his life. One, taken from Sallust, tells how harmony of action is a source of strength to that which is by nature weak, and how discord can bring ruin to great enterprises: "Concordia res parvae crescunt, discordia maximae dilabuntur;" the other, which seems to be from St. Augustine, is a warning against breaking down or in any way impairing the authority of truth, if one could arrive at any real knowledge: "Fracta nim vel leviter diminuta auctoritate veritatis, omnia dubia, remanebunt."
Dr. Harwood's family life was full of sorrow; its story, [13/14] as a friend said, was like a chapter of the book of Job. All his children died before him, and his wife also died in October last, leaving the memory of a sweet and gentle life. And now we think of that which awaits him, as in the simple words on the tomb of a great philosopher of France: He shall rejoice in the vision of that truth which he supremely loved. [January 13, 1902.] SAMUEL HART.
 An appreciation of Dr. Harwood’s work; being an Essay delivered before the "Clerical Club," of the Diocese of Connecticut, Monday, April 7th, 1902, by the Rev. W. G. Andrews, D. D., Rector of Guilford, Conn, at Christ Church, New Haven.
"WHEN the Rector of Trinity Church, New Haven, gratified and honored me by asking me to give this club something like an estimate of his predecessor's services to theology, I shrank from the task. My own unfitness for it, the scantiness of material in the form of published writings, and the impossibility of supplementing these by vivid recollections of frequent intercourse, owing to my removal from New Haven, more than twenty years ago, showed me that I could not do just that. But a hearty friendship extending over a period of thirty-five years, and a beneficent influence, almost unconsciously exerted, on my own religious thinking, should have helped me to appreciate some aspects of Dr. Harwood's work, particularly interesting to myself. I shall seek to show, then, from my own point of view, what he did, in virtue of his particular theological position, for the Catholic Church. In this way I may be able to add something to the testimony lately born to his great gifts and attainments as a Christian divine, by his closest friend, the Rev. Stewart Means, to whom, and to our associate, Dr. Hart, I am much indebted in my attempt.
Edwin Harwood was a native of Philadelphia, where he was born on the twenty-first of August, 1822. His ancestry was at least in part Episcopal, but the associations of his immediate family were Presbyterian. Apparently he became a communicant in his youth, under the guidance of the distinguished Dr. Bethune, one of whose hymns (a translation) is the four hundred and nineteenth of our Hymnal--"It is not death to die." Dr. Bethune, a man of rare eloquence, was in those days pastor of a Reformed Dutch Church in Philadelphia, but he and his people were essentially Presbyterians, and in close sympathy with those who bore that name. The influences which surrounded the young convert were no doubt strongly evangelical, in the somewhat narrow sense which the word than bore. During his university course he must have been an intelligent and interested observer of the heated controversies which resulted, in 1838, in what may be called a double schism. The Old School and New School parties in the Presbyterian church then became two distinct denominations, and the former dissolved a union, in some degree organic, which had been formed between the Presbyterians and the Congregational Churches of Connecticut in 1801, and had been very useful in preventing local schisms. These events illustrated, whether young Harwood remarked it at the age of sixteen or not, the tendency to schism which is created by the imposition of theological systems on ministers. And, on the other hand, his attention might have been drawn to the true and righteous principle, which some of the ablest leaders on the conservative side had contended for without success, that even dangerous errors, not subversive of the elements of an accepted system, do not make it impossible to receive its standards honestly nor make it necessary to cut off those who hold them. This was always the view of Dr. Charles Hodge of Princeton, one of the very foremost of Calvinistic Theologians. Two years later, in 1840, Edwin Harwood went to the Congregational [16/17] seminary at Andover to prepare himself for the Presbyterian ministry. Andover theology was not gravely obnoxious even to some Old School men, and the fine Biblical scholarship of Professor Moses Stuart was recognized on all sides. Mr. Harwood was born to be a scholar and under such tuition he was likely to learn how best to ascertain the exact meaning of the Scriptures, rather than how to import meanings into them from human systems. But the influence which he felt most powerfully at this time, was that of Coleridge, the second American edition of whose "Aids to Reflection" had then just appeared. Coleridge's disciples in Christian philosophy moved along paths even more diverse than those of Horace Bushnell and of Edward Irving, both his disciples, and they were not easily kept within rigid traditional lines. He taught them to value truth supremely, and to believe in their possession, as really spiritual beings of moral freedom, and the power of intuition, through what he called the reason. The Scriptures, indeed, reveal truths beyond the reach of the reason, but that can, and must (if those truths are to be accepted) perceive them to be in harmony with what it does discover. Coleridge's statement of distinctively Christian doctrine began with this; "that a mean of Salvation has been effected and provided for the human race by the incarnation of the Son of God." Here is the germ of a theology which, making the Incarnation central, grows naturally out of the Creed, and should bear fruit, as it often has done, in some noble and great conception of the Church.
Mr. Harwood, I suppose, went to Andover a Calvinist and he used to say that he should always have been one but for the new scholarship. Coleridge might have left him a Calvinist, as he did leave others, and certainly there is nothing in the "Aids to Reflection" which could have lessened this disciple's strong and lasting sympathy with St. Augustine. [17/18] His own profound sense of the greatness of God would always, I should think, have saved him from Arminianism. But it must have been growing clear to the young scholar that to use his freedom as not only Coleridge but as St. Paul and as Jesus Christ authorized him to do would not be easy in any communion which declared itself Calvinistic. And probably inherited instincts and an increasing appreciation of what is beautiful and dignified and reverent in worship were drawing him towards the Church of the Prayer Book. It is said that he finally entered it under the guidance of Dr. Tyng, then of Philadelphia. He doubtless did so not only as more or less an Evangelical but as a Low Churchman, and perfectly aware of his right to be one. The right was perfectly clear, for not many years before, Low Churchmen of the Tillotsonian school of Bishop White, and those of the very different school of Dr. Tyng, would have constituted a strong majority in the Church, if they could have acted together. The new High Church majority, still led long after his death, in 1830, by the great soul of Hobart--Puritan and Methodist combined in Anglican--was a good deal inclined to be intolerant, but was embarrassed by a Red Spectre from the Tiber, haunting its councils. When, however, in 1842, Mr. Harwood removed to the General Theological Seminary in New York, seeking perhaps a larger freedom in our church, he did not find freedom enough to give security for peace. Early in 1841 the Tractarian, or Oxford Movement (in which it is hard not to trace an impulse from Hobart, whom its earliest leaders greatly admired) had sounded its last warning in the ears of the High Church Peter; Newman's Tract 90 had demanded a shelter for Roman doctrine behind the Protestant rampart of the Thirty-nine Articles. This was in reality a plea for freedom of opinion, and Dean Church regards Newman's reasoning as part of the more accurate and the more [18/19] temperate and charitable thought of our day." Most Episcopalians did not see this quite clearly, and the ordination of the saintly Arthur Carey, suspected of Roman tendencies, and in the face of a protest, in 1843, was thought to imply sympathy with Rome on the part of the authorities, and increased the prevailing excitement, though it should never be forgotten that the ordination was defended by Dr. Tyng. If the General Convention of1844 had been of the temper of the General Assembly of 1837, it, too, might have caused a schism. But the Convention disclaimed jurisdiction as respects "the errors of individuals" and thus averted the danger. Dr. Harwood long afterwards declared this to be "good law," as long as proper courts are provided, and little as he sympathized with the Oxford Movement, it is improbable that he would ever have had its adherents excluded from the ministry. He was getting lessons in toleration, and he had found a church, after all, in which there was freedom enough to make schism unreasonable.
Having been ordained in 1844 and served for a few years in rural or suburban parishes, he accepted in 1850 the charge of what soon became the Church of the Incarnation, in the city of New York. Early in 1851 he made the acquaintance of that almost ideal Christian, William Augustus Muhlenberg. Muhlenberg had for some years been suspected, and, as he himself confessed, not quite unjustly, of Puseyism. He had never, unfortunately, believed in Baptismal Regeneration, but he had, most fortunately, "passed through the mists of vulgar Protestant prejudices," and his real position was not generally understood. It was when he was charged with crypto-Romanism that the young Low Churchman became his intimate friend, and gave him his zealous cooperation in his most cherished plans. This seems an example of our honored friend's characteristic courage, though [19/20] of course he had not been long in finding out that Muhlenberg was now as good a Protestant as himself. A few months after the two men met, the younger became the assistant of the elder in the publication of the "Evangelical Catholic." This name defined Dr. Muhlenberg's own position, as he conceived of it, and it must have defined, approximately, that of his fellow laborer. Each was Catholic, as holding the Catholic faith, set forth in the Apostles' Creed (I follow Dr. Muhlenberg's statements) and therefore believing, as the Creed requires, in the Catholic Church, or in Christianity, not as an abstract doctrine, but as embodied in an institution, adapted to all mankind, in all ages, and embracing all of mankind who confess the one Faith in the one Baptism. Each was Evangelical as insisting specifically against Rome, that this Faith, thus confessed, suffices for a title to all rights in the Church and is the faith of the Gospel, and the Gospel is, as Muhlenberg affirmed, in its essence the truth that the Son of God became man in order to make believing men the sons of God. "Here," he said, "is the origin of the Church--the incarnation of the eternal Son." Dr. Harwood wrote of him after his death, "The Incarnation of the Word of God in Jesus was the central idea of his theology.'' It is very easy to suppose, though I have no right to affirm, that the name of the younger man's new parish, "The Incarnation," given to it in 1853, was one indication of his acceptance of Muhlenberg's theological position. The word Evangelical (used, be it observed, to qualify "Catholic," the more important word) thus received a broader meaning than that usually assigned to it by the Evangelical School, most of whom would have made the doctrine of justification by faith central. But this doctrine had its proper place within the larger conception of the Gospel. Thus when Mr. Harwood's position first seems clearly outlined we find him [20/21] standing squarely on the principle (laid down by the Lord in sending His ministers to baptize) that only the Faith is to be required of Christians, and, by necessary consequence, that no set of theological opinions may be required.
In 1853 Mr. Harwood aided Dr. Muhlenberg in the preparation of the famous "Memorial" addressed in that year to the Bishops of our Church. The idea was Muhlenberg's, but the document contains words and phrases contributed by his associate, who was undoubtedly in full sympathy with its aims, and entirely willing to promote the methods which it indicated. The first aim was that of better adapting this Church internally to its task in America, by multiplying and giving freer play to its appliances both for work and for worship. The second was that of making this Church the nucleus of a larger ecclesiastical system, embracing baptized Christians of various names, not bound by our rubrics and canons (and of necessity neither controlled by nor represented in our General Convention) but bound to us and to each other by the common acceptance of "an American Catholic Episcopate." Dr. Muhlenberg accordingly addressed the Memorial not to the House of Bishops, a co-ordinate branch of the General Convention, but to the Bishops in Council, acting simply "as Bishops," under Christ's commission to His ministers, and capable of fulfilling in their catholic character the shepherd's office for "the whole of Christ's dispersed sheep.'' It was a great, noble, and, as I believe, eminently wise effort in behalf of Church unity, worthy of the man in whom we behold more fully, perhaps, than in any other American Christian, the union of the saint and seer. And by throwing all his own strength into the effort, Edwin Harwood (who was the last survivor of the Memorialists of 1853) had thrown himself unreservedly into the great Catholic movement of the nineteenth century. That cannot possibly [21/22] be limited to what is sometimes called the Anglo-Catholic movement, either in its Tractarian or its Ritualistic forms. To do so, indeed, is to rob it of its splendid birthright, for it is the lawful offspring of the great Evangelical movement of the Eighteenth century. That brought, in spite of its many misconceptions, a clearer and happier recognition of the fatherhood of God, and was followed naturally by a new discovery of the brotherhood of man, fully expressed in the brotherhood of Christians, or in the Church universal. The magnificent philanthropic work of the last century, forms one aspect, (or, if they are two, they are twin currents, in one mighty stream of Christian love,) of the Catholic movement. Muhlenberg, the Evangelical Catholic, was pre-eminent among philanthropists. And if the proper aim of the movement be the reunion of Christendom (to be followed by the world's believing that the Father sent the Son) then we can find it pervading the life of American Christianity, however tumultuous or feverish or convulsed, from the first year of the nineteenth century on to this second year of the twentieth. As a very slight but not insignificant example of the multitude of facts by which this statement might be supported, I may say that I heard all the bells of my own village of Guilford, led by the Methodist, ringing together at sunrise on Easter Day. The Catholic character of the Muhlenberg Memorial, recognizing the claims of the Past along with those of the Present, will hardly be disputed, even if it be thought to have looked too little towards a possible reconciliation with Rome. The man whose part in the effort was, I will not say second, but next, to that of Muhlenberg, cannot be denied the name of Catholic, and the less for his being, with Muhlenberg, an Evangelical Catholic. That name, as they understood it, committed them to the Church Idea in distinction from the Sect Idea, a Catholic attitude, if there be such a thing. And [22/23] their attempt in the Memorial to substitute, as far as might be, unity for schism, was a farther interpretation, in the same sense, of the now almost forgotten title which the one made venerable and which the other, as we shall see, went on interpreting, by his life, for half a century. The Evangelical principle that the Faith is all that may lawfully be imposed on Christians evidently cuts the nerve of sectarianism, for sects, as a rule, exist to propagate beliefs which lie outside of the Faith, while the Church exists to propagate that and that only. Almost forty years ago the late Dr. John Henry Hopkins, then editor of the Church Journal, said this in a highly characteristic way (the italics are his;) "When there is nothing left of a sectarian but an attachment to the general truths of Christianity, there is just enough left of him to make a good Churchman of." (Sept. 14, 1864.) If my memory serves me Dr. Hopkins afterwards declared, with great vigor, that even a High Churchman may be a terrible sectarian. At all events it is true.
Dr. Harwood never repudiated the fundamental ideas of the Memorial. Not only did he have an important share, in later years, in promoting its minor aim, by his services on the committee of the General Convention on liturgical enrichment, but as a member of its committee on amendments to the constitution he joined in presenting and supporting, as lately as 1895, the remarkable amendment proposed by Dr. Huntington (on whom Muhlenberg's mantle may seem to have fallen) under which Bishops would have been formally authorized to take the oversight of congregations having other forms and usages than ours. He lived to see the Convention of 1901 recognizing that inherent right of Bishops to do this for which Muhlenberg earnestly contended. I do not know whether Dr. Harwood approved of this recognition, and I do know that in 1886 he refused to sign a [23/24] petition addressed to the Bishops in Council, and accompanied by a copy of the Memorial of 1853, in which they were asked to offer ordination to qualified men not intending to serve within our Church, but willing to be responsible to its chief pastors for teaching the Catholic Faith, and administering the Sacraments according to Christ's institution. The petitioners (among whom there were Low Churchmen and Broad Churchmen and Ritualists) believed, with Muhlenberg, that this right, also, is inherent in the Episcopate. But Dr. Harwood had learned to cherish a not unnatural jealousy of Episcopal prerogative, as did Dr. Hopkins, for that matter, while the House of Deputies (which is Presbyterian by nature) has again and again fought for parity in government with all its might. And Dr. Harwood had even come to believe that the Memorial itself had done harm by encouraging Bishops to act outside of law in the ordering of worship. But he said in his tribute to Dr. Muhlenberg, after the death of the latter in 1877, that he had by his "appeal to the Bishops and the Church," in 1853, "left the impress of his Christian wisdom upon our entire Church." Nor did he ever cease, I am confident, "to look towards unity" (as he once expressed it) nor to believe that it must be attained, if at all, through the Episcopate. At the Church Congress of 1887 he said; "When men, our Protestant brethren, especially, are longing for a restoration of a lost unity, let us hold forth the episcopate . . . . With the sanction of seventeen hundred years or more attached to it, good, thoughtful, learned men will listen as they have never listened before to us, and find in our position the proper centre of a new union of believers." Furthermore, he made much effort in behalf of internal harmony (not of opinion but of spirit) evidently a very necessary condition of success in any attempt of ours to lead others towards unity.
 All know his relation to the Church Congress, begun in 1874, and distinctly his work. Its object, that of bringing together men of widely different views on a common platform, for the frank and friendly comparison of views, was manifestly an extremely useful one, and was to a large extent attained. On a partial list of the first general committee, I find the names of the eminent Low Churchman, Charles W. Andrews of Virginia, the more eminent Ritualist, James de Koven, and our own Bishop Williams. Three years earlier, when party spirit was intense and full of menace, Dr. Harwood joined three of his New Haven brethren (the Rev. Joseph Brewster, father of our present Bishop, the Rev. Francis Lobdell, and myself) in obtaining signatures to a petition of an irenic character, addressed to the General Convention of 1871, held in Baltimore. This petition asked for relief to burdened consciences through an explanatory note to follow the Baptismal Office, and to the effect that the word "regenerate" and its equivalents "are not to be taken as referring to that moral change which is commonly called conversion," etc. About half the letter which was circulated with the petition was from the pen of Dr. Harwood. He said, among other things, that it was perhaps not to be regretted that our differences of opinion were increasing. "It gives to the Church a many-sidedness of development which is one mark, at least, of a Catholic body, and is the safeguard against sectarianism." The petition was, however, not presented, for the very sufficient reason that on the seventh day of the session the Bishops, acting in Council, signed a Declaration stating that in their opinion "the word 'regenerate' is not there [in the Baptismal office] so used as to determine that a moral change in the subject of baptism is wrought in the Sacrament." This Declaration, said to have been suggested, if not written, by Dr. Andrews of Virginia, [25/26] was signed by forty-eight Bishops, or all, apparently, who were then in Baltimore, with a single exception. It was entered the same day on the minutes of the House of Bishops (there being a separate Journal for sessions in Council) and ordered to be sent to the other house, on the motion of the distinguished High Churchman, Bishop Whittingham. It did unquestionably relieve many consciences, and there is excellent reason for believing that it went far to prevent the schism of 1874, led by Bishop Cummins (one of the signers) from attaining very serious dimensions. Dr. Harwood and his New Haven friends had contributed little, perhaps nothing, to this result, but the result amply justified their effort.
But his greatest service to the Catholic movement and the Catholic Church was rendered in a different way, a scholar's way. The goal of Catholic unity may never be reached; it can never be reached until Christians in general perceive that the Creed does really contain the Faith, and is therefore a safe dogmatic basis of unity. This does not mean that Christians must cease to oppose opinions in theology which they may think false and dangerous. That would be treason alike to truth and to love. It does mean that we must challenge no man's place in a Catholic ministry for errors which do not contradict the Catholic Faith, being, nevertheless, ready, if we are priests, "to banish and drive away . . . doctrines contrary to God's Word" by being loyal to truth and love. Nor does the acceptance of the Creed, as "sufficient" mean that congregations and groups of congregations within the Catholic Church may not undertake to guard their own pulpits against what seem to them "erroneous and strange doctrines." Every congregation in the Protestant Episcopal Church has this power, and a good many of them use it ''with all faithful diligence.'' But none of them has the power, nor any smallest fraction of the power, to [26/27] determine what type of doctrine not heretical, any other shall listen to. Now this freedom, this comprehensiveness, of our Church we are especially bound to treat as sacred because of the peculiar relation of our Church, as already indicated, to the Catholic movement in the organic bond of union which it can supply.
It is certainly not easy for Episcopalians formally to deny, in the face of the Baptismal Office and the Catechism and the affirmation of the whole Anglican Episcopate, made in the Chicago-Lambeth Declaration, that the Faith is, all of it, in the Creed. But it is very easy to deny it practically by saying, or suggesting, that men who constantly say the Creed in solemn worship, arc heretics, if not perjurers, because they use their Christian freedom freely. It is of such invasions of freedom that Dr. McConnell reasonably complains in his late admirable "Eirenicon," as threatening our peace. And the natural guardians of liberty and peace are the great body of sober-minded conservatives, whose devotion to "the Apostles' doctrine and fellowship" no one questions. They seem indeed to have accepted this duty, as was seen when in 1891 most of the standing committees, including our own, consented to the consecration of Bishop Brooks. At that time the president of our own, that typical Connecticut Churchman, Dr. Beardsley, said in response to my expression of pleasure at the committee's action; "What did you expect us to do? If a man accepts the Nicene Creed that's enough for me." He assumed, as became a fair-minded man and a good Christian, that when a respectable clergyman utters the great symbol of the Faith, he does so both honestly and intelligently, giving its terms no meaning which, as interpreted under the laws of language, they will not bear. Dr. Beardsley might, as far as I know, have listened with approval to an illustration of the difference between religious [27/28] opinions (or "doctrines,") and the Faith, which he probably heard from Dr. Harwood in 1892, when the latter likened them to the shifting waves at the foot of the firm lighthouse on its firmer rock. The lighthouse, it may be added, shows a safe path to those who are moving, on any course, across the waves. And to both men this contrast between fixity and incessant change would give the Faith its rightful pre-eminence, while its fixity, its place among "those things which cannot be shaken," would be assured by its very nature, as the Lord delivered it to the saints in sending it to all nations. Neither tides nor currents nor winds, neither science nor criticism nor philosophy, can ever take from us what we "chiefly learn in the Articles of our Belief" concerning the Name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Learned men, good men, men whom, since they call Christ their teacher, we ought to call His disciples, may disbelieve this but they cannot possibly disprove it.
Now it fell to Dr. Harwood, as avowedly a liberal Churchman, to secure from a large number of conservative Churchmen, namely the mass of Connecticut presbyters and laymen, so well represented by Dr. Beardsley, a practical and very emphatic assertion of that Catholic freedom of opinion, the denial of which is sectarianism, and which must have wide practical recognition from such men unless the Catholic movement is doomed to failure. No one man, I believe no ten men, did, or could have done, what he did in this respect.
I do not know what was Dr. Harwood's precise theological position when he came to Connecticut in 1854, the year after the Muhlenberg Memorial, to hold a professorship in the Berkeley Divinity School. Nor can I attempt to define it accurately as it was at any particular period afterwards. He was not in the least eager to make proselytes to his opinions, and in our many conversations I never found him [28/29] trying to win me to his side. He once cautioned me against preaching on a Good Friday the doctrine of the Atonement (as respects its nature, not its extent) which I had learned at Princeton, lest I should be obliged to retract it afterwards. I did preach it and I did retract it, but I do not know to this day whether what I had meanwhile come to believe was his view or not. Since the doctrine is not defined in the Creed farther than in the statement that Jesus Christ, having come from Heaven "for our salvation," "was crucified also for us," there is no farther definition of it which can be imposed. But I know that Dr. Harwood in 1866, long after he came to Connecticut, understood "the work of redemption through our blessed Lord" just as he believed it to be understood by the representatives of Evangelical opinion in New England, and therefore, assuredly, as something more than a form of sublime ethical teaching. That the sinless Son of God was literally punished for our sins he certainly did not believe. As to inspiration, Dr. Harwood believed that the Holy Ghost "spake by the prophets" and he believed in the authority of the Scriptures "as coming in some special sense from God." But he thought that there is a momentous "difference between inspiration and an infallible intelligence in the person inspired." And he especially insisted that "the order of things to be believed" is, "Christ first, and therefore the Scriptures," a rule which soon received the hearty endorsement of his old and very orthodox friend, Dr. Muhlenberg. With regard to the episcopate, he believed most confidently, as a scholar, that it dates in some form and measure from the time of the Apostles, but that it cannot be proved to have been established by our Lord. It is not, therefore, like the ministry as a whole, a divine, but an ecclesiastical institution. It has, nevertheless, been of great value to the Church and may prove still more valuable in the future. He would [29/30] have been the last man to think of giving it up, or of asking for any change in the requirements of the ordinal.
On the other hand, Dr. Harwood held and taught the Catholic Faith. In 1866 he declared this, as stated in the Apostles' Creed, and more fully in the Nicene Creed, to be "unalterable." He said that it embraced the Fatherhood of God, the Sonship and redemptive work of Jesus Christ, the sanctifying office of the Holy Ghost and His work in the Church, and everlasting life. In 1892, he said in the General Convention, in defending the proposal to embody the two Creeds in the Constitution, and as a member of the Committee which recommended it, that the Committee's object was to show the world "just what we regard as the unchangeable factors of the Christian Faith." Doctrines, he affirmed, and discipline and canons and forms of worship change; "the one thing for us that does not change is the Creed of the Church . . . When you come to the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds there is no change, no variation; they are the same all the world over. I hold my doctrine in respect to the Holy Communion; my neighbor holds a different doctrine; but I and my neighbor hold the same doctrine in respect to the divinity of our blessed Lord, and the personality of the Holy Ghost."
But Dr. Harwood's opinions, as distinct from his Faith, undoubtedly marked him as a Broad Churchman. And when that name began to come into use it had an ill sound. At some time during the sixties, a distinguished and very accomplished layman of New York was shocked at hearing young Phillips Brooks described as of that school; he spoke of the report as "scandal." And perhaps ten years later one of Dr. Harwood's friends, a man who, I believe, really loved him, repeated to me, as I thought, with assent, the statement of another, that he was one of the most dangerous men in the [30/31] Church. At about the same period, Broad Churchmen were described in a Connecticut pulpit as the "infidel party" in our communion, and through a singular misconception, Dr. Harwood himself was publicly represented (he was not named) as having put contempt upon the beliefs of the majority of orthodox Christians by calling them "the Commonplaces of Theology." This interpretation of a term as old in its technical sense as Cicero, and made famous for theologians by Melancthon's great summary of the Protestant belief (his Loci Communes) did not amuse Dr. Harwood, I am afraid, as much as it exasperated him. "That I should have been thought capable, " he exclaimed, "of speaking contemptuously of those great doctrines!" The prevalent distrust of him was shown when he was nominated for a seat in the General Convention either in 1871 or 1874. In the latter year, I am confident, he received twenty-five clerical votes out of about one hundred, and his supporters were nearly all men who for very various reasons were out of sympathy with the dominant tendency; a few, very few, Broad Churchmen, a few Low Churchmen, and a few Ritualists, besides a handful of his warmest personal friends. He himself laughingly compared us to the rather motley company which flocked to David in the cave of Adullam.
But from the first there were men who understood him, notably Bishop Williams. It is needless to say that that excellent scholar and sound divine did not receive to the new chair of the Literature and Interpretation of the Scriptures in his School at Middletown, a man whom he suspected of heresy. How well the choice was justified by "the inspiration of" the young professor's "varied and graceful scholarship" Dr. Hart has told us in his comprehensive and discriminating tribute, published in the Hartford Courant, three days after Dr. Harwood's death. All that I know [31/32] about his teaching there, I have treasured for more than forty years as I heard it from one of his pupils: "Young gentlemen, the secret of perpetual youth--you see it in Dr. Muhlenberg--is the Indwelling of the Holy Ghost."
He came to Trinity Church, New Haven, in 1859, as the successor of a memorable man whom he was as unlike in almost every respect as it was possible for him to be, Dr. Harry Croswell. The contrast impressed everyone, including the new rector himself. But he had not brought his people another Gospel, as they certainly cannot have expected him to do. And his conception of his office as that of a messenger of Jesus Christ, commissioned, not to inaugurate discussions about religion but to summon men to faith and obedience, he once expressed in a familiar way by saying that he was a "pulpit man and not a platform man." That Christian scholars soon learned to trust him was shown by the degree in divinity given him by Trinity College in 1862. How fully he kept the confidence of his Bishop (whose society he much enjoyed, in spite of their divergences) is shown by the fact that for nearly a quarter of a century, he was, by the Bishop's appointment, one of the examining chaplains. How he won and kept the confidence of the diocese was shown by his election to the General Convention in 1877, and six times afterwards, or as long as his health permitted him to serve, the last time in 1895. I have touched upon his work there, which was done less upon the floor, since he did not speak very often, than in the two or three very important committees of which he was a member. Connecticut must soon have been convinced that he was not in haste to betray her; on every recorded vote by dioceses and orders in the session of 1877, he and Dr. Beardsley voted together. He was, in fact, essentially conservative in temperament, and his reverence for law illustrates this. And while, as Dr. Hart [32/33] has said, he ''might not be called a typical Connecticut Churchman," he was, as the same well qualified witness testifies, a man to whose "learning and influence and character, Connecticut Churchmen were glad to give deserved honor." We have seen that it was honor under forms which necessarily implied confidence. And it is honorable to Connecticut that she accorded this recognition to a type other than that impressed on the diocese by Johnson and Seabury, while not much unlike that impressed on the Colonial Church elsewhere by scores of faithful missionaries of British birth. It is more honorable to her that it is what might have been expected of the spiritual descendants of those whom the magnanimous Seabury brought into full fellowship not only with White but with Provoost, thereby rescuing an endangered unity without endangering the Faith, and of the descendants by blood of those on whose behalf, nearly two generations earlier, in 1732, Samuel Johnson pleaded for unity without uniformity under the historical episcopate. Thus it came to pass that in his eminent place and by his eminent gifts, Edwin Harwood was gradually obtaining, during almost half a century the practical acceptance by this diocese of the principle which no churchman can reject in theory, that the Creed contains the Faith; a principle which may soon guide the Catholic Movement to its goal, without which it must forever lose its way.
Of Dr. Harwood as a man, a scholar, and a thinker, the essential things have been said far better than I could say them. I have, of course, many delightful memories of him as a friend, far too many to rehearse. And them I can never separate from the thought of her who so loved to share his friendships with him, who added to the cordial welcome which belonged to the household, a charm of her own, and who, with her gracious sympathy and her wisdom and her [33/34] humor, could give his friends what to some natures was worth hardly less than what he gave so freely from his affluence of heart and brain; who never hesitated frankly to dissent from his opinions, but whose moral and spiritual strength made her deep devotion to him priceless amidst the successive sorrows which overtook them. His own strength was wonderful; there have been few manlier men. But undoubtedly he bore their common griefs more manfully because so true a woman bore them with him--until that grief--came which he must endure alone. Then, indeed, as we are told, he was for the time unmanned, but, surely she hastened back from "the choir invisible" "to be the cup of strength in" that "great agony." His friends can never have found his friendship richer on all sides than in the months that followed, while there was a new gentleness in it, as if her greeting were now blended with his. How great and how many their sorrows were need not be told. A warm friend of theirs said to me, just after one dreadful blow, far from the last, had fallen upon them, "It is like a Greek tragedy." In Greek tragedy a man or a house often lies helpless before the hatred of the gods, who smite terribly and incessantly and without pity. But these sufferers knew their God as a merciful Father, revealed to them by the Son who was made perfect through sufferings," through whom and with whom the Father is bringing His "many sons to glory." The glory was already visible in the "sweet benignity and consecrated tenderness," the "childlike simplicity of the inner life," which Dr. Harwood's faithful friend has described as making his last days so beautiful. Thus, too, he renewed his own testimony, given so long ago, to the secret of that perpetual youth, for which there can be no "last days," and which was shown us in the ceaseless growth of his splendid manhood--the Indwelling of the Holy Ghost. We can well believe that his best service to the [34/35] Catholic Church was priestly. When he let his light shine so brilliantly beneath a sky so dark, what we saw was the flame kindled on a living altar by the Hand which in every age has fed the fires of Pentecost.
 Extract from Sermon by the Rev. Wm. R. Huntington, D. D., Rector of Grace Church, New York City, preached at the Semi-Centennial Service of the Parish of the Incarnation, New York City, April 20th, 1902, Third Sunday after Easter.
"I WONDER how they came to call it the Church of the Incarnation.'' Possibly, and! Am inclined to say probably, the suggestion originated with the brilliant young scholar and theologian, whom Dr. Taylor, with wise prescience, had put in charge of his Chapel of Grace."
[(Here Dr. Huntington adds a footnote as follows:) "In prompt confirmation of this conjecture, there reached me, on the next day after this sermon was preached, the following interesting statement from one of the congregation, for many years a personal friend of Dr. Harwood: "You mentioned that you did not know how the Church came to be called 'The Incarnation'--and this is really the object of this letter. In one of my frequent visits to New Haven, not long before his death, I asked Dr. Harwood how it came to be so called. He said he gave it the name, as the parish had started from Grace Church, for by grace came the Incarnation." W. R. H.]
"The young man's name was Harwood--Edwin Harwood. During his later middle life and in his shadowed old age, it was my high privilege to know well that first rector of yours, and though I have more than once, since his death, [36/37] publicly sounded his praises, it can not be amiss, here and now, to say again how deeply those whom he admitted to his friendship loved and reverenced him.
"Institutions (Churches along with the rest) take color and character from their founders. In my judgment, one of the most valuable of all the assets of this Church is the fact that the lower courses of the spiritual house were laid by a thinker and scholar. Edwin Harwood was thirty years old when he was chosen to be first rector of the Church of the Incarnation. He had been graduated at the University of Pennsylvania when only eighteen years of age, and had used the intervening period in theological study and in such parochial work as had the character of apprenticeship. He came here in the fitness of his powers, and though his stay was brief, he succeeded in putting an impress on the parish which it never wholly lost. Truth is the foundation of everything and Edwin Harwood loved the truth. To buy it he would have travelled any distance and over roughest roads. To sell it nothing would persuade him. His distinguishing mental characteristic was lucidity, his distinguishing moral characteristic courage. He never penned an obscure sentence and he never, under stress of panic, failed a friend. Whether as a city rector here or in New Haven, or in the quiet seclusion of his life as a Professor of Divinity at Middletown, he maintained always the balanced dignity of the scholar and the divine. He founded, or rather, to be accurate, he imported from England and naturalized in our American soil the Church Congress, one of the most potent of all agencies that have been at work during the last quarter of a century, in the communion to which you and I belong, in softening the asperities of party warfare and persuading men to be "of one mind in one house." He served also during his later life, for several terms, in the House of Deputies as a [37/38] representative of Connecticut, and in both of these two relations he showed how much he had in him of the genius of the statesman and the ecclesiastic. Yes, thank God, men of the Incarnation, that at the head of your roll of clergy stands the name of one so true, so laborious, so brave."
At a meeting of the rector, wardens and vestrymen of the parish of Trinity Church in New Haven (in meeting assembled) January 13, 1902, the following minute in relation to the death of the Reverend Edwin Harwood, D.D. late rector emeritus of this parish, was unanimously adopted.
WHEREAS it has pleased Almighty God to take to the rest of Paradise the soul of the Reverend Edwin Harwood, D. D., who ministered amongst us long and faithfully as the rector of this parish, we, the rector, wardens and vestrymen of Trinity Church, desire to put on record our sense of the heavy loss which the Church at large and this parish in particular has sustained.
For nearly forty years he upheld amongst us the standard of truth and righteousness, with faithfulness to his Master, with unfailing charity to his fellow men: in a wise, broad and Catholic spirit which will long leave its mark on the community.
Possessed of distinguished talents, and of scholarly habits, he has been recognized as a power in the Church in his day and generation, while his personal dignity and social gifts have commanded respect and admiration from all who knew him.
A preacher of depth of thought, a steadfast friend, a kind and wise counsellor, imparting patience, courage and endurance alike by precept and example, he will live long in [39/40] the hearts of those who have been proud to call themselves his friends and who will ever feel the effects of his influence. He passes from amongst us in the fullness of years and we commend to God the soul of this His servant who has departed this life in His faith and fear, while we thus give expression to our affection and respect for one whom we have loved and honored.
RESOLUTIONS PASSED AT THE MEETING OF THE PARISH OF TRINITY CHURCH, JANUARY 15, 1902.
THE members of the Parish of Trinity Church in New Haven (in meeting assembled) Easter Monday, March 31, A. D., 1902, desire to put on record the loss this parish, this community, this diocese, and the Church at large have sustained in the death of Rev. Edwin Harwood, D. D., late rector emeritus of this parish, therefore, Voted:
That the minute adopted by the vestry, January 13, 1902, respecting Dr. Harwood, be, and is hereby, approved and adopted by this parish meeting; also Voted:
That this parish unite with the vestry in tendering its thanks to the Right Reverend Chauncey B. Brewster, D. D., for his able and touching address delivered by him in Trinity Church, March 16, A. D. 1902, in memory of Dr. Harwood, also join in the request that Bishop Brewster will consent to place a copy of the same in the hands of the committee of the vestry for publication together with others and the official acts of this parish and its vestry. Voted:
That in loving memory of Dr. Harwood, when the passage of the foregoing resolutions are acted upon it shall be [40/41] manifested by a rising vote. The foregoing resolutions were adopted by a rising vote as set forth therein.
Attest. EDWARD C. BEECHER, Parish Clerk.
Parish of Trinity Church in New Haven, Vestry Room, Parish House, April 1, 1902.
AT a meeting of the rector, wardens and vestrymen of the Parish of Trinity Church in New Haven held March 21, A. D. 1902, the following votes were unanimously adopted; Voted:
That the rector, Rev. Frank Woods Baker, D. D., Dr. Benj. H. Cheney and Edward C. Beecher be, and they are hereby, appointed a committee of this vestry to convey the grateful thanks of this parish to the Right Reverend Chauncey B. Brewster, D. D., Bishop of the diocese of Connecticut, for his able, thoughtful and appreciative address delivered in Trinity Church, March 16, 1902, in memory of the Rev. Edwin Harwood, D. D., late rector emeritus of this parish; also Voted:
That Bishop Brewster be requested to favor the committee with a copy of his address and his consent for its publication with others which have been delivered upon Dr. Harwood's life and worth, together with the official acts of this vestry and parish.
Attest. EDWARD C. BEECHER, Clerk of the Vestry.
 At a meeting of the Convocation of New Haven County held at St. Paul's Church in New Haven the 28th of January, A. D., 1902, the following minute was adopted.
THE Convocation of New Haven County places on record its deep sorrow at the death of its most distinguished member, the Rev. Edwin Harwood, D.D., Rector Emeritus of Trinity Church, New Haven. Dr. Harwood had been connected with the Convocation for more than forty years. He was at one time its dean and he was at all times, when in health, active and influential in its proceedings and discussions. Until within a very few years he must have been personally known to all its members and on terms of familiar intercourse with the larger part of them. It is, therefore, our right to be the first to testify, collectively, to the great gifts with which God had endowed him, and to the fidelity with which he used them for the Master and his fellow-disciples.
Intellectually, Dr. Harwood was among the foremost in the power of seeing truth and enabling others to see it; morally, he was pre-eminent for that absorbing love of truth through which alone it can have its full power as uttered. And that supreme truth to which the Son of God came into the world to bear witness, was only made more clear to him by the philosophy in which he was at home and the science which he entirely comprehended. He kept the Catholic Faith "whole and undefiled." On all sides he was both intellectually and morally a strong man; none could fail to [42/43] recognize, few could fail to be helped by, his strength. He combined with the scientific methods of the scholar the graces of the literary artist; the charm of his conversation, due partly to his large and varied knowledge of men and things, as well as of books, partly to his instinctive avoidance of all that could offend, was also his as a master of language. He had depth and tenderness of feeling and quick sympathies, while his wonderful self-control and his delicate reserve made what others might learn of his own emotion and his share in theirs more inspiring and consolatory. Apart from what he did for his people as a preacher and pastor--and there are those who can speak with enthusiastic gratitude of his pastoral ministrations--he brought to bear on his nearest friends, without effort and even unconsciously, a force, proceeding at once from his intellect and his character, which profoundly and permanently affected their inner life. And they were aware of a mightier force acting on him, and, through such a discipline of sorrow as few are required to undergo, steadily enriching and exalting his Christian manhood, and so making his friendship continually more beneficent. For that Christian manhood, with its courage, its fortitude, its sincerity, its generosity, its courtesy, and all that adorns manly strength with the finer quality by which the man (and he only) is set apart as the gentleman, Dr. Harwood will be especially remembered by those who knew and loved him best. In such a man, too, they saw more and more clearly that Grace of God by which he was what he was, the Creative Hand which was carrying forward in him the work of the new creation.
(Signed) W. G. ANDREWS.
EDWIN S. LINES.
J. E. WILDMAN.