It was at first intended to publish the whole of the Proceedings of this, the most important and eventful Session of the Provincial Synod ever held in Canada, but, upon serious reflection and anticipating the actual requirements in the premises to make this pamphlet of lasting interest and value, it was ultimately decided not to tax the reader with a large amount of routine matter, which can always be found in the Synod Reports; but to confine the work to the Debate on Ritualism, (which occupied such a prominent feature of this session), and the funeral obsequies of the late lamented Metropolitan, the Address of Condolence, and the Sermon of the Rev. Canon Balch, D.D., delivered on the occasion in the Cathedral, Montreal, the day after the funeral.

There was every latitude given on the floor of the Synod, to one and all freely to discuss Ritualism, and the impromptu speeches made are good evidence of the feelings of the speakers. We give the most correct report of the whole, taken by the short-hand Reporter of the Daily News, with the exception of three speeches which were in manuscript; and give the authority of the Synod Report for the order and division on the Resolutions, &c., as set down in the same. A careful perusal of this debate, especially the remarks towards the end, by eminent Divines, Lawyers and Laymen, will go far to illustrate the independence of the Church of England in Canada, and the great importance of the final vote.

The Provincial Synod of the United Church of England and Ireland in Canada, met in accordance with the Notice given by the Metropolitan, on Wednesday, 9th September, 1868, in the Cathedral School House, Montreal, and proceeded to the Cathedral for Divine Service, at 11 o'clock. Morning Prayer was said by Rev. Canon Beaven. The Litany was said by the Lord Bishop of Toronto. The Lessons were read by the Very Rev. the Dean of Huron and the Venerable Archdeacon of Niagara. The Sermon was preached by the Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Rupert's Land.

The Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Huron consecrated, and was assisted in distributing the Elements, by the Bishops of Ontario, Quebec and Toronto.

At 3 o'clock P.M. the Synod re-assembled in the Cathedral School House. The Lord Bishop of Huron informed the Synod that the Metropolitan was lying in so dangerous and precarious a state, that great fears were entertained of his immediate demise.

It was then agreed, amid many expressions of profound sorrow, to separate at once, and meet again at 10 o'clock on Thursday morning.

MONTREAL, Thursday, 10th Sept., 1868,

After Morning Prayer, the Synod met at 10 o'clock.

The Lord Bishop of Huron informed the Synod that it had pleased the Great Head of the Church to remove the Metropolitan from amongst us by death.

His Lordship further informed the Synod that he had been elected by the Bishops to act as President of the Upper House, and called upon the Lower House to elect a Prolocutor.

After the Bishops had withdrawn, on motion of Rev. H. Holland, the Very Rev. the Dean of Montreal was called to the chair.

The Dean of Montreal having taken the chair, it was

Moved by Ven, Archdeacon Fuller, seconded by Rev. Canon Bancroft,

That Rev. Canon Beaven be Prolocutor of the Lower House, which was accordingly put and carried unanimously.

The Prolocutor, having taken the chair, thanked the House for this expression of their continued confidence.

The Prolocutor was then conducted to the Upper House by the Chairman, accompanied by other Members of the Lower House, and his Election was announced to the President.

On his return the Prolocutor said the usual prayer.

The Clerical Secretary then called over the Roll as follows:--

DELEGATES TO PROVINCIAL SYNOD.

DIOCESE OF QUEBEC

Clerical. Rev. A. W. Mountain, M.A., Quebec. Rev. J. H. Nicolls, D.D., Bishop's College, Lennoxville. Rev. C. Hamilton, M.A., Quebec. Rev. H. Roe, B.A., Melbourne. Rev. R. H. Walker, M.A., Bishop's College, Lennoxville. Rev. G. V. Housman, M.A., Quebec. Rev. A. C. Scarth, Lennoxville. Rev. H. G. Burrage, M.A., Hatley, Rev. H. J. Petry, B.A., Danville, [Not present during the Session.] Rev. C. P. Reid, M.A., Sherbrooke. Rev. John Torrance, Three Rivers. Rev. John Foster, Coaticook.

Lay. Mr. H. S. Scott, Quebec. Hon. E. Hale, Sherbrooke. Hon. Geo. Irvine, Quebec. Mr. R. W. Heneker, Sherbrooke. Mr. E. J. Hemming, Drummondville. Mr. R. Hamilton, Quebec. Mr. Jos. B. Forsyth, Quebec. Mr. B. T. Morris, Lennoxville. Mr. W. R. Doak, Compton. Mr. Thomas Wood, Halifax, (Megantic.) Mr. Geo. Hall, Quebec. Mr. G. O'Kill Stuart, Quebec.

DIOCESE OF TORONTO

Clerical. Rev. Canon Beaven, D.D., Toronto. Rev J. G. Geddes, M.A., Hamilton. Ven. T. B. Fuller, D.D., D.C.L., Toronto. Rev. W. McMurray, D.D., Niagara. Ven. Arthur Palmer, M.A., Guelph. Very Rev. H. J. Grasett, B.D., Toronto. Rev. S. Givins, Toronto. Rev. W. S. Darling, Toronto. Rev. H. Holland, B.A., St. Catherines. Rev. Canon Brent, M.A., Newcastle. Rev. A. J. Broughall, M.A., Toronto. Rev. Canon Read, D.D., Toronto.

Lay. Mr. J. W. Gamble, Pine Grove. Mr. R. B. Denison, Toronto. Hon. J. H. Cameron, Toronto. Hon. H. B. Bull, Hamilton. James Bovell, M.D., Toronto. Mr. S. B. Harman, Toronto. Mr. C. J. Campbell, Toronto. Hon. G. S. Boulton, Cobourg. Mr. F. W. Cumberland, Toronto Mr. H. O'Reilly, Waterdown. Prof. Wilson, Toronto. Mr. T. C. Street, Chippewa.

DIOCESE OF MONTREAL

Clerical. Rev. Canon Balch, ex officio, Montreal. Rev. Canon Loosemore, Montreal. Rev. Canon Bond, M.A., Montreal. Ven. Archdeacon Leach, D.C.L., do. Rev. R. Lonsdell, M.A., St. Andrews. Rev. H. P. Darnell, St. John. Rev. Canon Bancroft, D.D., Montreal. Rev. D. Lindsay, Waterloo. Rev. G. Slack, M.A., Bedford. Rev. E. Duvernet, Hemmingford. Rev. Canon Anderson, Sorel. Very Rev. Dean of Montreal, Montreal.

Lay. Mr. M. H. Sanborn, ex officio. Major Campbell, C.B., St. Hilaire. Mr. Strachan Bethune, Q.C., Montreal. Mr. Edward Carter, Q.C., Montreal. Dr. Smallwood. Hon. L. S. Huntingdon. Mr. C. J. Brydges, Montreal. Mr. Jas. Button, Montreal. Hon. A. B. Foster. Mr. H. Roebuck. Mr. E. E. Shelton. Mr. M. H. Gault.

DIOCESE OF HURON

Clerical. Rev. J. Walker Marsh, M.A., London. Ven. C. C. Brough, A.M., London. Very Rev. J. Hellmuth, D.D., London. Rev. M. Boomer, LL.D., Gait. Ven. F. W. Sandys, D.D., Chatham. Rev. E. L. Elwood, A.M., Goderich. Rev. W. Bettridge, Woodstock. Rev. H. Caulfield, Mitchell. Rev. St. George Caulfield, LL.D., St. Thomas. Rev. A. Nelles, Brantford. Rev. S. DuBourdieu, Clinton. Rev. J. Smythe, M. A., London.

Lay. Mr. John Beard, Woodstock. Lt.-Col. Fitzgerald, London. Mr. S. Price, Port Stanley. Mr. Thos. W. Walsh, Simcoe. Mr. A. Lefroy, Goderich. Mr. G. F. Ryland, Birr. Col. J, Shanly, London. Mr. Crowell Willson, Arva. Mr. W. R. Davis, Mitchell. Mr. W. Grey, Woodstock. Mr. J. B. Strathy, London. Mr. M. Jackson, Glanworth.

DIOCESE OF ONTARIO

Clerical. Rev. F. R. Tane, Brockville. Ven. Archdeacon Patton, Cornwall. Rev. E. J. Boswell, Prescott. Rev. J. A. Preston, Carleton Place. Rev. W. Bleasdell, Trenton. Rev. J. A. Anderson, Tyendinaga. Rev. J. G. Armstrong, Hawkesbury. Rev. T. A. Garnell, Kingston. Rev. J. S. Lauder, Ottawa. Rev. J. J. Rogers, Napanee. Very Rev. Jas. Lyster, Kingston. Rev. C. Forrest, Merrickville.

Lay. Judge Jarvis, Cornwall. Mr. W. B. Simpson, Kingston. Mr. F. MacAnnany, Belleville. Mr. J. A. Henderson, Kingston. Hon, J. Hamilton, Hawkesbury. Hon. Jas. Patton, Kingston. Mr. H. D. Shaw, Perth. Mr. A. Code, Ennisville. Mr. Jas. Cartwright, Kingston. Mr. D. F. Jones, Gananoque. Mr. T. Kirkpatrick, Kingston: Mr. A. L. Roberts. Shannonville.

The Clerical Secretary read the following Memorials:

To the House of Clerical and Lay Delegates in Provincial Synod assembled:

The Memorial of the Bishop, Clergy and Laity of the Diocese of Toronto, in Synod assembled, humbly sheweth:

That your memorialists, deeply grieved at the innovations in Ritual that are prevailing in some Churches in the Mother Country, and justly alarmed lest these innovations should extend to the Church in this Province, have had under their consideration during their present session the best and most effectual manner of dealing with this growing evil; and doubtful of their own power, as a Diocesan Synod, effectually to check the introduction of those extreme practices, they have resolved to invoke the aid of the Provincial Synod to assist them in preserving the pure and simple service and worship in our Churches, that have had the sanction of the Church for three hundred years; and with that view they pray that the Provincial Synod shall adopt such measures as will guard against such innovations which have been condemned by the Convocations of Canterbury and York, namely, the wearing of the chasuble, alb, cope and tunicle, altar-lights, incense, the use of wafer bread, the elevation of the elements after consecration, and the encouragement of non-communicants to remain during the celebration of the Holy Communion.

And your memorialists will ever pray.

(Signed,) J. HILLYARD CAMERON,
Chairman.

Resolutions passed by the Synod of the Diocese of Huron, June 19th and 20th, 1867.

Moved by J. Beard, Esq., seconded by A. Lefroy, Esq.,

Resolved, That this Synod, viewing with great concern and regret the rapid progress of Ritualism amongst many of the members of the Church of England in the Mother Country, and convinced that any attempt to introduce unlawful or to revive obsolete or unusual practices, even if they have, as it is claimed they have, the sanction of the law, cannot but have a prejudicial effect, desires to express its determination to use all its powers, either by strengthening the hands of the Bishop, or in any other way practicable, to oppose any attempt at innovations of this character in the Diocese, and to maintain in all its simplicity, the mode of conducting public worship which has been adopted for many generations.

Moved by Rev. H. Caulfield, seconded by Rev. J. Carmichael,

Resolved, That the following words be added to Mr. Beard's resolution: And that this Synod concurs in the memorial to the Provincial Synod adopted by the Synod of Toronto during the recent session.

To the Prolocutor, the Clerical and Lay delegates in Provincial Synod assembled:

The petition of the undersigned members of the United Church of England and Ireland in Canada (Montreal), respectfully sheweth:

That your Petitioners view with deep concern and alarm the rapid increase of Ritualism in the Church of England and Ireland in England: that they sincerely believe the tendency of the forms and ceremonies introduced there, is to lead those brought under their influence to embrace many of the errors of the Church of Rome,--in proof of which your Petitioners would point to the numerous perversions, both of the Clergy and Laity, from the Mother Church;-

That systematic and persevering exertions are being made in some Churches in the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec, to introduce like Romanizing forms and observances, and to teach doctrines which are repugnant to the Spirit of our Reformed Church, and the 39 Articles: that these efforts demand the immediate and earnest attention of all true Churchmen.

Understanding that it is within the powers and duties of the Provincial Synod to regulate all forms and practices connected "with the public services of the Church of England and Ireland in these Provinces, your Petitioners respectfully pray that you will give their Petition your most serious consideration, arid take such immediate action thereon as will effectually prevent the introduction of all innovations in the ceremonies or practices of the Church in Canada, by Canon laws which shall define and establish a universal mode of conducting our Church Services, and thereby secure to the Members thereof a continuance of that pure Scriptural and Protestant form of worship which has ever been observed by the Church (prior to the said innovations) since the Reformation.

And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

(About 400 signatures attached.)

Petition from 176 Members of the United Church of England and Ireland, in Ottawa, (conveyed in the same terms.)

Petition from 156 Members of the United Church of England and Ireland, in Montreal, (conveyed in the same terms.)

Petition from 17 Members of the United Church of England and Ireland, in Franklin, Province of Quebec (conveyed in the same terms.)

Petition from 42 Members of the United Church of England and Ireland, in the Town of Prescott (conveyed in the same terms.)

To the Prolocutor and Members of the Lower House, of the Provincial Synod:

The Petition of the Clergy and Congregation of Saint James' Church, Kingston, in Vestry assembled, sheweth:

That your Petitioners are sincerely attached members of the United Church of England and Ireland, as its principles and practice were established at the Reformation in the Sixteenth Century; that they accept, with thanks to the God of all wisdom, the Prayer-hook as the expression of those principles and practices, and as the bond of union among the members of the United Church; That it is our painful experience that deviations and departures from this hitherto common ground, invariably lead to strife and division, and that from this cause, in several parishes in the Diocese of Ontario, peace has fled, confidence in the ministry has given place to distrust-and that strength, which in order to prosperity should be concentrated, is frittered away by the jarrings of party; to the present injury and prospective ruin of interests dear to us as Christians and as Churchmen.

Your petitioners earnestly, though respectfully, pray at the hands of the Provincial Synod of our Church, such prompt, wise, and vigorous interference as may allay suspicion, quiet the growing discord raised by the introduction of these practices, restore peace, and turn the strength of our Church into its legitimate channel of labour, for the glory of God and the good of man.

That God may grant to the Synod the spirit of wisdom to know what it ought to do in the present emergency, is the prayer of your petitioners.

(Sixty-four signatures attached.)

Dated at Kingston, August 31st, 1868.

By permission of the HOUSE, the following minutes of a Vestry meeting at St. Paul's Church, Lanark, were read by the CLERICAL SECRETARY.

On Monday evening, the 7th of September, a special Vestry meeting was holden in St. Paul's Church, Lanark, Rev. J. K McMorine, the Incumbent, in the Chair, Thos. Watchcorn, Esq., Secretary.

Moved by Mr. Jas. Jackson, seconded by Mr. Oswald Montgomery, and Resolved,

That this Vestry views with no small degree of alarm the efforts of a certain party in the Church of England to introduce forms of doctrine and worship, repugnant to the principles of the Reformation and closely allied to the errors of Rome, and that those practices now existing under the most extreme forms in England, seem to be gradually seeking for admittance in Canada; that the invariable result of these innovations at present is to unsettle the minds, and weaken the affection of multitudes in the Church, while their ultimate and avowed tendency is to unprotestantize the Church.

That this Vestry, therefore, realizing that it is within the power of the Provincial Synod to regulate the forms of worship of the Church in these Provinces, desires respectfully to petition the Synod to pass such canons as shall effectually prevent the introduction of ceremonies unknown to the Church for the last three hundred years, and preserve, unchanged, our present scriptural worship and doctrine; that this petition be entrusted to J. B. Lewis, Esq., Recorder of Ottawa, requesting him to urge the prayer of the petitioners.

To the Clergy and Lay Members of the Lower House of the Provincial Synod of Canada:

The humble Petition of the Incumbent, Churchwardens and Communicants in the Mission of Iron Hill and Fulford, in the Deanery of Bedford and Diocese of Montreal;

Whereas the Book of Common Prayer and administration of the sacraments and other rites and ceremonies of the Church, according to the use of the United Church of England and Ireland, was intended to be, and has been, a safeguard against Romish error on the one hand, and Puritan error on the other, and

Whereas your petitioners are satisfied with, and deeply thankful for the said book as it now is, and would regard with apprehension any alteration made in it in these dangerous days; and

Whereas they have been given to understand that it is in contemplation to move the Provincial Synod of Canada to make alterations in the Rubric of the said book; therefore,

Your petitioners earnestly entreat your Lower House to preserve to them the Book of Common Prayer in its integrity; that the administration amongst them of the sacraments, and other rites and ceremonies of the Church may be "according to the use of the United Church of England and Ireland."

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

(45 signatures attached.)

To the Reverend the Clergy and the Lay Delegates, Members of the Lower House, in Provincial Synod assembled;

The Memorial of the undersigned Clergy, Churchwardens and Lay Delegates to Synod of the United Church of England and Ireland, in the City of Toronto, respectfully sheweth:

That your Memorialists believe that at the time of the institution of Synods, diocesan and general, in the Ecclesiastical Province of Canada, it was assumed as a fundamental principle that no alteration was to be attempted locally in the received standards and formularies of the United Church of England and Ireland, as existing in the Mother Country.

Your Memorialists also believe that it is in accordance with ancient Catholic use that the limits of a branch of the Catholic Church in any given Realm or Empire should be determined by the civil and political limits of the Realm or Empire in which that branch is situated; and that consequently so long as any district or region, however remote or isolated, of that Realm or Empire, has not been politically and civilly separated and declared legitimately an independent state, the portion of the Catholic Church which exists therein is an integral part and parcel of the Catholic Body existing in the central and home portions of the Realm or Empire, and cannot in respect of doctrine and worship act in independence of that Body, without an approximation to schism.

Your Memorialists consequently believe that in matters of doctrine and worship, the power is not possessed here to vary and repeal what has been decreed in respect to such matters by lawful authority in the parent state.

Your Memorialists therefore feel it a duty to protest against any attempt that may be made in the present or any future Provincial Synod of Canada, to introduce a Canon or Rule which shall be supposed to have the effect of superseding, within this Ecclesiastical Province, any clause or regulation of the acts of Uniformity and Rubrics which at the present time govern the United Church of England and Ireland at home and in the Colonies of Great Britain Your Memorialists are of the opinion that such a Canon, if enacted, would not be binding on the consciences of Members of the United Church of England and Ireland in this Ecclesiastical Province, and that the effort to enforce the observance of such a Canon would only be productive of discord and discontent.

Your Memorialists moreover advocate abstinence from action m this matter, because they have reason to think that the points proposed to be touched by local legislation in Synod, have not at present been extensively examined and looked into by the members generally of the United Church of England and Ireland in Canada, and that accordingly they are not in a position to judge intelligently of the propriety of unsettling what, after profound research and deliberation, was settled by wise and discreet men in the ages that are past. And also because they have reason to think that the time is steadily and certainly approaching when, on the very questions that have been raised, a decision will be come to and promulgated by the central authorities of the Church in the parent state, a decision which they have faith to believe will be, as on other occasions in times past, by God's blessing and help, in harmony with Truth and Righteousness and acceptable to all well disposed men.

In the meantime, your Memorialists respectfully express their conviction that the wisest course will be, not to undertake the issue of novel recommendations in regard to rites and ceremonies and ornaments in Public Worship, a course as they have said likely to generate only confusion and strife, but to propose anew an adherence to the plain written letter of the Rubrics and directions of the Book of Common Prayer, as they stand, censuring alike whatever may exceed and whatever may fall short of those venerable standards. An authoritative exhortation to such a course as this, addressed to all the faithful of our communion in Canada by the Provincial Synod, would, your Memorialists are convinced, suffice for the present supposed necessity; and would in addition render comparatively clear and easy the action of their Lordships the Bishops, when, as Ecclesiastical Ordinaries, they are required to resolve doubts and appease the diversities, in regard to Divine Service, that from time to time are laid before them.

And your Memorialists will ever pray.

(20 signatures attached.)

To the Reverend the Clergy and the Lay Delegates, Members of the Lower House, in Provincial Synod assembled; The Memorial of the undersigned Members of the United Church of England and Ireland in the City of Toronto, respectfully sheweth:

That in view of any attempt which may be made at the approaching session of the Provincial Synod, to enact any Rules or Canons intended to have the effect of superseding the existing Acts of Uniformity and Rubrics which are at present the law of the United Church of England and Ireland in this Province, in regard to the ornaments of the Church or of the Ministers thereof, your Memorialists deem it their duty to state that in their opinion the enactment of any such Rule or Canon (even within the scope of the Synod's power) is wholly unnecessary and inexpedient. Seeing that action is now being taken in England in order to arrive at an authoritative and just interpretation of the law of the Church in these particulars, your Memorialists conceive that any attempted alteration at present of the existing uses in Canada, would certainly produce in our midst serious differences and a needless diversity between the Canadian branch of the Church and the Church in the mother country, in respect of rites and ceremonies and ornaments.

Your Memorialists furthermore desire to express their firm and most decided protest against any action on the part of the Synod which would seem to countenance or introduce alterations in the Book of Common Prayer in any of its parts, or which would tend to lay a restraint upon the comprehensive spirit of the Church in regard to its rites, ceremonies and ornaments, until the Church in Canada shall first have had the benefit of the authoritative decision upon disputed points which there is reason to believe will, ere long, be attained in England.

Your Memorialists therefore pray that the Provincial Synod will, for the present, forbear to enact any rule or canon of the nature referred to, or to introduce any alteration in the Book of Common Prayer, or any direction or rubric therein contained,

And your Memorialists will ever pray.

(68 signatures attached.)

To the Lower House of the Provincial Synod of the United Church of England and Ireland in Canada:

The Memorial of The Young Men's Christian Association, in connection with the Church of England and Ireland, in the city of Montreal, humbly sheweth:

That they believe that the innovations introduced into our beloved Church by the Ritualistic party therein, all tending to close assimilation to that of the Church of Rome, have already borne their natural fruit, by leading many of her members, both Clerical and Lay, to apostatize from her communion;

That they cannot disguise from themselves, that Ritualism has obtained a foothold in the Church in Canada, both in this and other Dioceses. And as one amongst other proofs thereof, they refer to its open avowal at the late meeting of the Synod of this Diocese; That they verily believe that the glory of God, the peace of the Church, and the good of men's souls, imperatively demand that practices which have produced such disastrous results in the Mother Country should not be allowed to gather strength here. And learning that the Provincial Synod has full poAver to deal with this momentous question, they, as faithful members of the Church, earnestly pray, that such provisions may be made during your present session as will, by promptly and effectually suppressing all pernicious innovations in ceremonial, preserve to our beloved Church the distinctive Protestant character won by her at the glorious Reformation.

And your Petitioners will ever pray.

(Signed by members of committees of Young Men's Christian Association of St. George's and Trinity Churches, Montreal.)

By permission of the HOUSE the following resolution, adopted by the SYNOD OF THE DIOCESE OF MONTREAL, with an addition suggested by the BISHOP, was read:

"That the Provincial Synod be respectfully requested to "take such steps, as they may deem necessary, to provide that the rubrics of the Book of Common, Prayer be maintained in their integrity."

To this amendment, the Bishop proposed the following addition:

"And make such alterations in the rubrics as may remove any of those ambiguities which have caused such difficulties of interpretation as to their meaning and purpose."

The hour of 1 o'clock having arrived, the House then adjourned.

The Lower House re-assembled at 2:30 P.M.

Moved by Rev. Canon Bond, seconded by Rev. H. F. Darnell:

That the petitions and other documents relating to Ritualistic practices now presented to the Lower House of the Provincial Synod, be referred to a committee to be named by the Prolocutor, to report on Monday.

Moved in amendment by Mr. W. B. Simpson, seconded by Rev. Dr. Boswell,

That the word Tuesday be substituted for that of Monday in said resolution.

Lost on the following division--Yeas, 43: Nays, 45.

Moved in amendment by Mr. E. J. Hemming, seconded by Rev. A. C. Scarth,

That all the words after the word "committee" be struck out of the original motion.--Lost.

Moved in amendment by Rev. J. A. Preston, seconded by Rev. C. Forest,

That the petitions and all other documents presented to this House, having reference to Ritualistic practices, be referred to a Committee to be appointed by the Prolocutor, to report thereon at their earliest convenience.

Lost on the following division;--Yeas, 35: Nays, 57.

Rev. G. V. Housman, Mr. B. T. Morris, Archd. Palmer, Mr. S. B. Harman, Canon Bancroft, Mr. Strachan Bethune, Dean Hellmuth, (Chairman,) Col. Fitzgerald, Rev. J. A. Preston, Mr. J. A Henderson.

The hour of 6 o'clock having arrived, the Prolocutor pronounced the benediction, arid the House adjourned.

Dean Hellmuth read the Report of the Committee to whom tin Memorials on the subject of Ritualistic practices had been referred as follows:- To the Lower House of the Synod of the Province of Canada:

The Report of the Committee on Ritual, appointed by the House, on Friday, the 11th inst.

Your Committee have considered as carefully as they could, in the limited time given them, the several memorials and other documents referred to them, a schedule of which is hereunto annexed, and they now respectfully report as follows:-

That the greater number of the Memorials, &c., referred to your Committee, contain expressions of anxiety and alarm at the rapid progress of extreme Ritualism in England, and pray the Synod to adopt such measures as shall effectually guard against the introduction into this Province of such Ritualistic practices as are, in the opinion of the Memorialists, of a dangerous tendency, and prejudicial to the purity of the doctrine and worship of our reformed Church. Of the Memorials just referred to, only one, viz., that from the Synod of the Diocese of Toronto, specifies the particular Ritualistic practices objected against, which are:

The wearing of the chasuble, alb, cope, and tunicle,
Altar lights,
Incense,
The use of wafer bread,
The elevation of the elements after consecration, and the encouragement of non-communicants to remain during the celebration.

But your Committee learn from a resolution of the Synod of the Diocese of Huron, now before them, that that Synod has expressed its concurrence with the Memorial of the Synod of Toronto, on the subject of ritual.

Among the documents referred to your Committee, they find a copy of a Resolution of the Synod of the Diocese of Montreal, which runs as follows:--

"That the Provincial Synod be respectfully requested to take such steps as they may deem necessary to provide that the Rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer be maintained in their integrity, and make such alterations in the Rubrics as may remove any of those ambiguities which have caused such difficulties of interpretation as to their meaning and purpose."

Other Memorials referred to your Committee, deprecate, in the strongest manner, any attempt to alter, in any respect, the Book of Common Prayer, or the Rubrics thereof, until the Church in Canada shall first have had the benefit of the authoritative decisions upon disputed points, which, there is reason to believe, will, ere long, be given by the tribunals in England.

With regard to the questions embraced in these several documents--the objection in regard to vestments would, in the opinion of your Committee, be dealt with by the Canon numbered 13, in the Report on Canons now before the Synod, were such report adopted; and that as regards the other questions involved in said petitions,--while your Committee are of opinion that any introduction of extreme ritualistic practices, especially such as symbolize doctrines contrary to those held and professed by our reformed branch of the Church Catholic, would justly call for the interposition of the Synod, with the view of considering how, (in the words of the report of the Commissioners appointed by the Crown, on the subject of ritual,) the same might "be restrained,"--your Committee, after considering the whole subject, have come to the conclusion that it is not expedient that the Synod should, at its present session, further deal with the questions referred to, for the following reasons:

1. Because no instance has been brought before your Committee in which any of the practices specified and complained of has been introduced into any church within this Province.

2. Because, in the absence of any such introduction, legislation on the subject might justly be regarded as premature.

3. Because the whole subject is now before the legal tribunals in England, and it is desirable to ascertain the course adopted in the mother country, and in our mother church, before we initiate measures that might have the effect of separating us from her, especially at a time when so noble an effort is being made to bind together the whole of the scattered branches of our communion in the unity, not only of the faith, but also of a common order and worship, so that, although free from any legal bonds, they may ever remain united by spiritual ties, and by intercommunion with each other.

Your Committee, therefore, recommend that the House content itself for the present with dealing with the measure already adverted to, in the manner above mentioned, if they see fit, and will approach the House of Bishops with their respectful request, that their Lordships would put forth a pastoral letter exhorting all the members of our Communion to a faithful adherence to the doctrine and discipline of our Church, as set forth in our Book of Common Prayer, and to maintain that Protest against the distinctive doctrines of the Church of Rom, which is as necessary at this day as when the Church of England first cast off Romish errors and superstitions.

Your Committee feel persuaded that such an appeal from the Right Rev. the Bishops, would be attended with far more beneficial results than any which could be expected from any attempt at special legislation, further than the measure hereinbefore adverted to. All which is respectfully submitted.

J. HELLMUTH, D.D.,
Chairman. Montreal,
14th September, 1868.

We, the undersigned, concur in the general tenor of the above Report, but we dissent from that portion of the Report which recommends delay of action in reference to the points submitted in the memorials from the Dioceses of Toronto and Huron.

J. HELLMUTH, D.D., Chairman,
CHAS. BANCROFT, D.D.,
GEORGE V. HOUSMAN,
J. FITZGERALD, Lt. Col.

(The memorials having been printed at length above, the schedule is omitted here, by direction of the House.)

Moved by Mr. B. T. MORRIS, seconded by Rev. Canon LOOSEMOORE,

That the Report just read be printed at once for the use of the House.--Carried.

CANON 2. All Ministers likewise shall observe Orders, Rites and Ceremonies, prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer, as well in reading the Holy Scriptures, and saying of prayers, as in the administration of the Sacraments; without either diminishing, on account of preaching, or in other respect, without the sanction of the Bishop, or adding any thing in the matter or form thereof, unless it has been authorized by the Synod of the Province.

The second Canon was taken up.

Moved in amendment by Rev. S. GIVINS, seconded by the Rev. G. SLACK,

That the following words be added to the end of the Canon: And whereas the Rubric ordering "that such ornaments of the Church and of the Ministers thereof, at all times of their ministrations, shall be retained and be in use, as were in this Church of England by the authority of Parliament, in the second year of the reign of King Edward the Sixth,"--has been found liable to diverse interpretations, and been alleged to justify the resumption of various obsolete vestments and ornaments contrary to the Canons and usage of the Church of England;--for the removal of all doubts or diversity of orders, rites and ceremonies, of the Church of England--the 58th Canon of A.D. 1603, is hereby declared to be the authority for the practice of the Church, in so far as relates to vestments within this Province,--and also, that special prayers and forms of thanksgiving or humiliation may be added by order of the Metropolitan, and a psalm or hymn maybe sung between the prayers and the communion service and before and after the sermon.

In offering this amendment he did so with a due sense of their responsibility as members of the Church of Christ. He hoped that every sincere and devout member of this Synod would endeavour to avoid all error, pride and prejudice upon this occasion. (Hear. hear.) He was no party man, but he had a duty to discharge, and wished to discharge that duty faithfully, and to declare his sentiments fearlessly. They were in danger of divisions. They might attribute this fear to senile timidity if they pleased, or to any other cause, but the fact was, there was danger. He had the honour of being one of the Chaplains of the late Bishop of Toronto, and in that capacity he travelled over much of this country, and many earnest thinking men spoke to him about this subject, to sec whether something could not be done to prevent the division which was likely to take place. There was a wide spread apprehension on the part of many of the members of the Church, and many of them threatened to forsake her communion rather than be subject to the annoyance and humiliation in consequence of the riskness of------he would not finish the sentence; they knew what he meant. (Laughter.) There were numerous desertions taking place from their ranks in consequence of these things, and the remedy must be applied. (Hear). It was high time that steps should be taken to prevent the spread of Ritualistic practices. He had a heartfelt sympathy for all Christian efforts. His love went out towards all denominations, and he was not the worse churchman for that (hear), because the grand thing was the salvation of men. (Hear, hear.) It was a delightful thing to hear from Col. Lowry that the Synod of Nova Scotia desired to be one with them. Why should they not? They professed great Catholicity and Apostolicity, but not as interpreted by some of their narrow-minded men, who would put on cassocks and buttons, and bow down to the very ground. (Cheers.) At a breakfast table, when there were one or two Bishops present, and also several ladies--and he always preferred the ladies to a Bishop (loud laughter)--the conversation turned on this subject, and he remarked that for his part it turned his stomach (renewed laughter) to see two young men standing by the grave of their beloved Metropolitan--he did not use the word out of mere form, because he did love him--dressed out in the livery of Rome. (Cheers.) He did not wish to say this to hurt the feelings of these young men. He had no doubt they were good men, but they were wrong, which was the case with regard to many in this ritualistic movement.

Dean Lyster--Would the gentleman name those young men? (Cries of No.)

Rev. Mr. Giving resumed. He was not doing the work of any party; he was an independent man, and only wished fearlessly to discharge his duty to the Church and to his God. There was no more dangerous doctrine than that which exalted the holy sacrament and the priesthood beyond what was right and what the Church had held. He had heard it stated that in this diocese the communicants would not touch the bread with the hand, though the rubric expressly states that it shall be taken in the hand. In like manner with regard to the cup. They would not touch it, and the minister was obliged to put the cup to the mouth of those persons. He maintained that the man who did these things, in contradiction to the rubrics, was a traitor to the Church of England. He was told that such things were done in this diocese. He would not go on further, because he knew he was giving pain to those he loved. He implored the Synod to take up this matter in a serious and grave manner, and with a sense of its importance. He rejoiced in the Church, and nothing would pain him so much as to be compelled to retire from her ministry. But if these things went on and increased as they were doing, what were they to do? He called upon every member to decide whether those follies, which most assuredly would be renewed here, should be allowed to go on, or whether they should by adoption of his amendment, prevent it in future. He entreated them to lay aside all mere technical objections, and let them have more of the Gospel and less of the law in these matters. (Cheers.)

Rev. E. Boswell raised a point of order. He wished to know by what authority any delegate could offer a canon altering the Book of Common Prayer. He proceeded to support his point of order, when another point of order was raised by another delegate.

The Prolocutor ruled that a point of order could not be raised on a point of order, and remarked that if there were so many points of order raised they would never get through their business.

Rev. Dr. Boswell proceeded, and argued that the Book of Common Prayer was a part of the statute law of Canada, and, therefore, the Synod had no right to interfere with the Prayer-Book. He was willing to make the changes proposed if it was not interfering with the statute.

The Prolocutor ruled that the point of order was not one that he was required to decide upon, but rather a matter of deliberation for this House.

Rev. G. Slack seconded the amendment. He did not expect to have the whole subject brought before them this session in a manner in which it should be settled. He would not mar the effects of the mover's speech by any intemperate remarks. The subject required to be considered with moderation, and with a due regard to the opinions and feelings of all parties. They were not to be so precise and exact upon every point; each should be allowed to enjoy his own opinion. The greatest danger arising from Ritualism is that it contains the germ of a danger which they are bound to resist. What is the meaning of these Ritualistic movements? If did not mean merely a matter of form--that was nothing, but there was a deeper meaning in them. He could not see how any true Churchman could object to the term Protestant, because it was only in that character that we have a footing and a standing in the country. He looked with abhorrence upon anything that had a tendency to draw them Romewards. (Hear.) He needed not to remind the House that what their fathers had died at the stake to support was that which related to the Holy Communion. He was not what was termed a low churchman, he was no party man, but he hoped he would never be backward in coming forward in support of those doctrines upon which depended the welfare of the Church. As one who laboured in the country, and in the backwoods, he could not but feel deeply the danger which was imminent of their losing many from the fold of the Church.

Moved in amendment by Rev. Canon LOOSEMORE, seconded by Judge JARVIS,

That the judgment of this Synod concerning the amendment of Canon No. 2, under discussion, pending the consideration of the adoption of the Report of Committee on Ritualism to-day presented, be reserved, in order to give the House an opportunity of acting in accordance with Resolutions IV and VIII, of the Pan-Anglican Conference.

Rev. Canon Loosemore desired to move an amendment to the amendment. They had all listened with deep attention to what he characterized as a carefully prepared report of the Committee on Ritualism. His impression was that that report was opposed to any legislation in the matter until the tribunals at home had given some verdict in the matter.

Dean Hellmuth said that upon those matters which were specially pointed out in the memorial form from the Diocese of Toronto, the Committee desired immediate legislation.

Rev. Canon Loosemore--What were the exceptions?

Dean Hellmuth--They are the use of the vestments, the wafer bread, lighted candles, incense, and the elevation of the elements after communion.

Rev. Canon Loosemore said that, lest his motives should be misunderstood in this matter, he desired to say that he was in sympathy with the views of the committee on these points mentioned by the Dean. It would be remembered that, three years ago, it was determined to leave those matters to be decided after the great Pan-Anglican Synod met at Lambeth. He read resolutions 4 and 8 of that Conference to show what action they had taken in the matter, and concluded by moving an amendment to the amendment, that the judgment of this Synod on Canon No. 2, pending the consideration of the adoption of the report on Ritualism to-day presented, be reserved, in order to give the House an opportunity of acting in accordance with resolutions 4 and 8 of the Pan-Anglican Conference.

Judge Jarvis seconded it.

At the request of a Delegate,

The Prolocutor read the Canons of 1603, referred to in the amendment.

Archdeacon Fuller said--

Mr. Prolocutor,--The subject before us is one of the last importance, and I am thankful to notice the excellent spirit displayed by the Synod on this occasion. It has always been my anxiety to be on the best of terms with my brethren, and it therefore pains me to have to give expression to opinions in which some of them would not concur. I have brought this matter before the Synod of Toronto, but have failed to carry my point. Since then I have not written anything on the subject, but the matter now having been brought up for discussion, and I trust with God's help, to do my duty in regard to it. I have always been considered, and have always been, a Prayer-Book Churchman. Nevertheless I am not prepared to vote for Canon Loosemore's amendment. For what would be the result if I did so? I would be binding myself to observe the second proposed canon, which says that we shall comply with all the orders, rites and ceremonies prescribed in the Prayer-Book. And amongst them is one requiring me to use the vestments which were in use in the second year of King Edward the Sixth. This I have never done and am not prepared now to do. I do not think it safe, (hear and a laugh,) and I am disinclined to run any unnecessary risks, and therefore cannot vote for said amendment. If this opportunity of acting in the matter were allowed to go by, three years would be lost, and during that long interval many men would doubtless be severed from the Church. We are told by the Rev. Dr. Boswell that we have no right to interfere with the Prayer-Book. I would, however, call the attention of the Synod to the fact that the amendment to the second canon, moved by my friend, Mr. Givins, contemplates touching only one of the many points which we are asked to legislate upon by the memorial to this Provincial Synod, sent by the Synod of the Diocese of Toronto. And who signed that memorial? The best legal authority in the Province of Ontario. No less a lawyer than the Hon. J. Hillyard Cameron. Though his authority might have been conceived sufficient, a few friends in Toronto thought it best to fortify themselves with the opinions of other eminent Counsel, and we have been favoured with this opinion from them, others of the most eminent lawyers in Toronto, viz.: S. H. Strong, Adam Crooks, and Edward Blake. Esquires:-

Our opinion is requested on the following questions:-

1. ''Whether it is competent for the Provincial Synod of Canada to pass a canon restraining the clergy from using the vestments authorized by the first Rubric in the Prayer-Book, commonly called 'the ornaments rubric.'

2. "Whether it can pass a canon defining the position of the clergyman in the communion office when it is said 'that he shall stand at the north side of the table.'"

We are of opinion that it is within the competence of the Provincial Synod or General Assembly, to frame regulations for governing matters of order and detail in the ministrations of the Church provided that such regulations do not abrogate those rituals, which are of divine institution, or conflict with any doctrine of the Church.

We are of opinion that matters referred to above involve such questions of order and detail merely, as may be regulated as proposed by the General Assembly.

Sept. 1, 1868.
(Signed,) S. H. STRONG,
ADAM CROOKS,
EDWARD BLAKE.

In addition to the opinions of these eminent Counsel, we are fortunately able to adduce the opinion of one whose opinion I am fully persuaded will carry great weight with the Synod. I refer to the opinion of the late highly revered Metropolitan. That excellent and eminent Prelate, at the last meeting of the Synod of the Diocese of Montreal, said that "in the meantime we must remember that there is no necessity for any one uniform ritual being established in every branch of the Church alike; and if we especially required it, we in Canada, according to the terms of the 20th and 34th articles, may take such order as in the matter may seem needful." We also find that at the same session the Metropolitan suggested the following addition to Canon Loosemore's amendment: "That this Provincial Synod make such alterations in the rubrics as may remove any of those ambiguities which have caused such difficulties of interpretation, as to their meaning or purpose." With such opinions for oar guidance I think we must all feel that we have ample powers to do anything that is required in this matter. And having the power, we are bound to exercise it. It was a matter which we could not afford to leave unsettled for years. We were told when we were assembled in our Diocesan Synods to wait for the decision of the Pan Anglican Conference. It was the bounden duty of this Synod to take action now in the important matter. They were in a different and more favourable position than was occupied by churchmen in England. There they were hampered by their connection with the State; here, thank God, they were no longer so. If in England they were as free as churchmen were here, the Bishops, I believe, would be glad to take the measures necessary to put down extreme Ritualism. It was an evil, the constant tendency of which was to progress and extend. What was the character of all idolatry? Was it not progressive?--beginning with the worship of the sun--the purest of created objects, and then descending step by step till inanimate things became objects of reverence, and even the base passions of human nature. All must feel that grievous errors are prevaling in a portion of the Church in England. My Rev. friend, Mr. Givins, alluded to the new views of some of our English brethren in regard to the Holy Eucharist. I trust that the Synod will bear with me whilst I read them an extract from the work of Archdeacon Freeman on "Right and Ritual." Archdeacon Freeman is well known as a very high churchman, who formerly went with the extreme Ritualists, but who is sound on this point. He says, "Doctrines have been maintained and practices founded on them, about which, whatever defence may be set up for them, this much at least is certain, and may be proved to a demonstration, that they find no recognition in the ritual of the primitive ages. I speak more particularly of the tenet, that one purpose, and a principal one, to say the least of the Holy Eucharist is, to provide for the Church an object of Divine worship actually enshrined in the elements, viz, our Lord Jesus Christ--that the Church ought to pay towards that supposed personal presence of Christ on the Altar, and towards the elements as contained in them, that worship which at other times she directs to Him, as seated at the right hand of God. Such is the position laid down and acted on by the extreme ritualists. The altar we are told is for the time being the majestic throne of God. His presence (I cite the language of the upholder of this view) is of such a nature as to demand at our hands the same worship as we commonly pay to the Holy Trinity in heaven. Now if this be really so, it necessitates, as a matter of course, acts of worship, of prayer, of invocations addressed to Christ as present and so enthroned. Let then the upholder of it produce a single instance from the ancient communion offices for a prayer or even an invocation so addressed. It cannot be done. And this is the leading consideration, that the entire drift and structure of the Eucharistic service is against such a view. Its very note is, Sursum Corda. This we are called upon to give up, and to turn our worship and the direction of our hearts to another object enshrined on earth. This is altogether contrary to the ancient Liturgies." Here, then, we have the evidence of Archdeacon Freeman as to the existence of this deadly error in England. But we are told that we have no extreme Ritualism in this country. I do not think it necessary to touch on that point at the present moment. But are we not closely and intimately connected with England, where this evil is very prevalent. Ten days are amply sufficient to bring these evils to us. To England chiefly we are indebted for our literature. From England we obtain almost all of our Church tracts. And thousands upon thousands of the most pernicious tracts sent to us by this party are to be found not only in this Diocese, but also in that of Toronto. To illustrate my view of the necessity of prompt and decided action in this matter, I would call the attention of this Synod to the action of our Government a few years ago in reference to the cattle plague. Did they wait till the diseased cattle had arrived in our midst and scattered the disease far and wide? Nothing of the kind! They made timely provision against their introduction, and the consequence was that the country escaped. And so I hold it to be the bounden duty of this Provincial Synod to use the powers conferred on them, and to prevent the spread of this acknowledged evil whilst it can be done. Last year it was my privilege to attend the Conference at Wolverhampton, and I had then an opportunity--I doubted whether I could call it the privilege--of attending the wonderful exhibition of ritualistic vestments. It was a large room--perhaps as large as that in which we now are--and it was filled with articles of clerical attire which really astonished me. There was one garment ticketed, "To be given to the first clergyman in the diocese of York who will wear it," the fact being that the Archbishop had forbidden his clergy to use it. A Roman Catholic priest who visited the exhibition was asked what he thought of the vestments displayed there. He said they were very fine indeed, much superior to anything the clergy of his Church could afford. He was then asked what he thought of their suitability to clergymen of the Church of England, and his answer was that they were all right if English clergymen were sacrificing priests, which he said he knew they did not pretend to be, but if they were not sacrificing priests, the vestments, etc., were all humbug. If your neighbour's house were on fire you would think it high time to look out for your own. If you would but consider how prevalent extreme Ritualism is in the mother country and how rapidly it is extending, if you reflected that the mother country can be reached in a fortnight and that books and other publications are being freely transmitted from there, you would at once see the necessity of bestirring yourselves. I would remind you of the tactics of the Ritualistic party. Dr. Pusey has said that they must not attempt to go too fast, and that they would have to Romanize England after the model of the encroachment of Russia in Asia.

Rev. Mr. Darling wished to know whether Dr. Pusey said his object was to Romanize England.

Archdeacon Fuller.--I thought I had had the paper within reach; I only quoted from memory. I will cite from Roman Catholic publications to show how much the members of that Church are expecting from the movement in the Anglican communion. In the Catholic World, a monthly periodical published in New York. (A member--Is it Roman Catholic, or English Catholic?) The writer called himself a Catholic, but I called him a Roman Catholic. (A laugh.) In the Catholic World for 1868 a writer speaks of the present spread of Catholic principles within the bosom of the Church, and actively employed in their propagation. That writer further stated that persons were constantly knocking at the gates of the Catholic Church for admission, encouraged to do so by their own teachers. The establishment was said to be dying by the hands of its own pastors; the public mind, it was said, was stirred on the subject of the Romish faith; Ritualistic practices were described as paving the way for Roman Catholicism; and it was stated that within a comparatively short time two hundred and six religious houses had sprung up to repair the loss of six hundred and eighty monasteries secularized at the Reformation. I make those citations to show how the matter is viewed by Roman Catholics, and the benefits which they expect will accrue from the present movement. I have seen a statement in one of the papers, quoted from the London Times, to the effect that the constitution of England had ceased to be Protestant: its laws had ceased to be Protestant; the Empire had ceased to be Protestant. I trust that by the grace of God the time will never come when the Church of England will cease to be Protestant. (Cheers.)

Rev. Mr. Darling pressed his question.

Archdeacon Fuller said he did not remember the exact words Dr. Pusey had used. (Cheers and laughter.) But the effect of his advice was that they are to gain their point by gradual steps. If this be the case, then it was time they should take measures to prevent the spread of the evil. The Archdeacon next read extracts from the Catholic World for September, which stated that the Romanizing of England was all that could be expected or hoped for. The World went on to say that the people of England were being taught the elements of the Roman Catholic from alien teachers, who laid down doctrines the so-called Reformers had laboured to explode. Thus the Catholics of England were greatly encouraged. The Church of England was dying by the hands of its own pastors. Such were the opinions of Roman Catholics respecting Ritualism. What better argument did they want to show the Romanizing tendency of Ritualism.

Rev. Mr. Darling said he desired to see the fullest and freest discussion on this subject; but he did think they ought, in their discussions, to avoid anything like an attempt, by introducing side issues, to frustrate a fair and straightforward issue. An under standing had been arrived at, when the Committee on this subject presented their report, that the discussion would not come up till to-morrow. But, by an unexpected line of action, the discussion was precipitated. He did not think this course quite fair, straightforward and manly.

Rev. Mr. Giving trusted that he had acted in a manly manner. The conduct of the rev. gentleman reminded him of an anecdote--(Cries of "order.")

Rev. Mr. Darling begged to withdraw the objectionable expression. There were several persons who intended to take part in the debate, who were not present, not expecting the question to come up.

Rev. Mr. Givins was willing to allow the debate to be adjourned till to-morrow. He wished to know if he might be allowed to finish his anecdote. (Laughter and cries of "order.")

Rev. A. J. Broughall wished to know if it was to divest the clergy of their bands. He thought that would be the effect of this canon. He did not use bands himself, but wanted the matter understood.

Mr. R. B. Denison asked if it was right to go on with the discussion, when the understanding arrived at in the forenoon was that it would not come up till to-morrow.

Mr. Henniker thought the discussion should be postponed, at the same time he was in favour of the amendment proposed.

Prof. Wilson said the discussion might go on, and be taken up also to-morrow. They could not finish it that day.

The Prolocutor announced that he had appointed Archdeacon Palmer as his deputy. He would now ask him to take his place while he expressed his opinion on the subject before the House. (Cheers.)

Archdeacon Palmer having taken the chair,

The Prolocutor said he simply wished to express his opinion, which was that they should accept the amendment of Canon Loosemore, and defer the consideration of the subject for the present. (No, no.)

The Prolocutor then resumed his seat.

Rev. C. P. Reid thought it was a want of courtesy to the Committee on Ritualism to take up the discussion of this subject before their report came up.

Rev. Dr. Balch said, as it was near the hour of adjournment, he would move that the House do adjourn, and then this question would come up the first thing in the morning. Lost.

Hon. Mr. Huntingdon moved that, when the House adjourn, the debate stand adjourned, to be taken up on the first order of the day to-morrow. Carried.

The Synod then adjourned.

The debate on the amendment to Canon No. 2 was resumed.

Rev. Canon Loosemore thought they should accept the recommendation of the Committee on Ritualism.

Dean Hellmuth said that the Committee consisted of ten delegates, and four of them dissented from that portion of the report which recommended delay of action in reference to those points referred to in the memorial from Toronto. He proceeded to state his reasons why they should legislate without any loss of time on a question of so much moment to the harmony and peace of the Church. There was no instrumentality better calculated to gather people into the fold of Christ than the Church of England. But she must hold her principles as firmly as those did who, in former times, were burnt at the stake. (Cheers.) If those men who suffered martyrdom in the cause of Christ had held the opinions which were now held by many within the fold of the Church of England, they would have saved themselves from a martyr's death. When they saw that many men of mind and influence had left the Church and gone over to the corrupt Church of Rome, for protesting against whose doctrines a noble army of martyrs had shed their blood, it was no time to delay. If those Ritualistic practices had not been introduced into the Church in Canada, then there could be no danger or trouble in passing laws to prevent the evil from ever being introduced. But if such practices had been introduced, caricaturing and misrepresenting that pure branch of the Reformed Church, which, under God, had been the instrument of doing so much against the corrupt practices of the Church of Rome--if such things had been introduced which would in any way mar their union, happiness and usefulness, then it was high time to take steps to check the evil. (Hear, hear.) He should be sorry to be personal in his remarks, but he had seen with his own eyes one gentleman, after consecrating the elements--with reverence be it said--take the bread and elevate it over his head, and also the same with the cup, and when he saw these things done in the Church of England, he thought it was no time for delay. (Hear, hear.) If they did delay they would alienate the best members of their Church. (Hear, hear.) He felt warmly on this subject. He had come out from Rabbinism, and knew the evil tendencies of these practices. He loved the Ritual of the Church of England, and when he was at the University, the first thing that attracted him to the Church of England was the beauty and simplicity of her Ritual. He had seen a great deal of Romanism, and when he looked at the mummeries of Rome he could not but consider them as idolatry, whether he looked at them as a Jew or a converted Christian. Hence, whenever he saw that beautiful Ritual, that Prayer Book which he loved next to his Bible, one of the best legacies which the Church of the Reformation had left them, he felt that it should not be impaired, or presented to the community in any way by which they could say that they had gone backwards instead of forwards. He could not conceive how these things could be suffered which were so painful to the eye and ear, and so heartrending to them as members of a branch of the true Church of God. He therefore trusted that no delay would be had in this matter, and that no more legal technicalities would prevent them from striking at the very root of this evil. He hoped that the House would not be influenced by nay arguments, that they were not legally constituted. He had heard many say that if this evil was not put a stop to they would leave the communion, because they would have no alliance with the Church of Rome. He would not be influenced by any such statements if he did not feel that their beloved Church was being caricatured. He had seen men bow down before--he would not say--the altar, but the table of the Lord, and when he saw men thus bow down as an act of adoration, for it could mean nothing else, he trembled, not so much for themselves, who are educated and grown to maturity, and could form their own judgment, but for their children and children's children, who, when they should see all this bowing and gesticulations, would take them to be an essential part of divine worship, and that the bread which the Church taught most distinctly was to be taken in remembrance of Christ's death, was really the fleshly body of Christ. He believed that the faithful spiritually eat the flesh and blood of Christ, but it was distinctly laid down that the bread and the wine remained in their natural state. They knew that the evil was growing, and, therefore, he would entreat the Synod, as they loved the holy communion, so pure and so apostolic, not under any circumstances to break up until they had put their foot upon this evil, that was now afflicting the Church. (Cheers.)

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE OF BISHOPS WITH REFERENCE TO RITUALISTIC PRACTICES.

The Prolocutor read the following Message:--

The presiding Bishop informs the Prolocutor that the accompanying resolution has been unanimously adopted by the House of Bishops, and requests a conference with the Lower House, with a view to obtaining the concurrence of the Lower House.

Sept. 15th, 1868. BENJ. HURON.

Whereas the Rubric on the ornaments of the Church and the ministers thereof being part of the Act of Uniformity, received as a Statute of Upper Canada by the Constitutional Act of 1791, and believed by many to be still in force so far as it is applicable to the condition of the United Church of England and Ireland in Canada; and, whereas, in the Act enabling the members of the Church to meet in Synod, it is enacted that nothing in the regulations of this Synod shall be contrary to any Statute in force in this Province; and, whereas, doubts have existed regarding the construction and meaning of the aforesaid Rubric, and as there is a danger lest this Synod should unwittingly enact any Canon which should contravene said Act of Uniformity, and so sever the Church in this Province, from the said United Church of England and Ireland, of which we have solemnly declared ourselves an integral part; therefore be it resolved that this Synod accepts such interpretations of said Rubric as have been given by Her Majesty's highest Courts of Law; and, whereas, the Court of Arches has determined that the elevation of the elements in the celebration of the Holy Communion, the use of incense during Divine Service, and the mixing with water of the sacramental wine, are illegal, it is resolved by this Synod that we accept such judicial decision, and that the above-mentioned practices are hereby forbidden in the Church of this Province; and, whereas, the Rubric at the end of the Communion office enacts that the bread shall be "such as is usual to be eaten," the use of wafer bread is hereby forbidden.

And, whereas, the question of altar-lights is at this moment before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, it is hereby resolved to await the decision of said Committee before legislating on the matter of altar lights; and, whereas, the question of vestments is now a subject of Royal Commission and Enquiry, and a Bill has been introduced touching the same in the House of Lords, it is the opinion of this House that we should defer legislation until action be taken in the Mother Church and Parliament affecting such vestments; but that pending such action, this Synod would express their disapprobation of the use of altar lights and vestments and their determination to prevent, by every lawful means, their introduction into the Church in this Province.

Sept. 15th, 1868. BENJ. HURON.

Rev. Canon Bancroft said, the usual practices in such cases had always been, when a message was received from the Upper House, to consider it after the question in which the house was at the time engaged, was decided.

Mr. Gamble begged to call the attention of the Synod to the 12th rule of order, which provided that it should be incumbent on the Lower House to take up and dispose of a message from the Upper House, in preference to any other business. He thought, therefore, that they should at once move a Committee of Reference.

Rev. Canon Bancroft said that might be the way, but their usual practice had been as he had already stated.

Mr. Huntingdon said he had every desire to pay respect to those in authority, but at the same time they were an entirely independent House, and, therefore, their deliberations should not be checked by outside influence. He presumed that the fact of the message being sent down at the very time when they were discussing the same subject, was a mere coincidence, but it should not be allowed to influence them in the least, and prevent them from treating the subject before them as an independent deliberative body. Otherwise their sitting there would be useless. If at this time they did not assert their right to deliberate upon the affairs of the Church without any possible interference with any other co-ordinate branch of the Church, they could not be true to themselves and the Church. (Cheers.)

Mr. Campbell rose to a point of order. There was a point of order before the chair, and there could be no discussion on it.

The Prolocutor said it had been an undoubted fact that, generally speaking, they had not allowed a message from the Upper House to interrupt the debate. But he should have to decide that the subject of the message being the very identical subject on which the House was engaged, it was due to the House of Bishops to allow their message to be considered before they proceeded further in this debate. (Cries of "No, no" and "Appeal.")

Mr. Gamble said he had not desired to adjourn the debate, but simply to appoint a committee to hold a conference with the House of Bishops and then proceed with the debate. A Conference with the two Houses was only asked when there was a difference of opinion between them, but in this case he believed they were in perfect harmony. However, they having desired the conference, he considered it should be granted at once.

Mr. Huntingdon appealed from the decision of the chair on the point of order.

Rev. Dr. Balch asked the Prolocutor to explain to the House what would be the effect of his decision. Would it stop the discussion before the House, or merely suspend it for the purpose of appointing a committee in accordance with the request of the Bishops.

Dean Hellmuth seconded the motion. It was a very remarkable coincidence that they should receive a message from the Upper House on the same subject as that before the House. It placed both Houses in a very delicate position. It might be interpreted by the outside world as an attempt to interfere with the Lower House. It should be distinctly understood that this House was a perfectly independent House. (Hear.) The Upper House had the power of vetoing any measure passed by this House, and, therefore, if anything passed by this House was objectionable to their Lordships, they had the power to correct it. Under any and all circumstances, he trusted that they should not be interfered with, but that they would be allowed to proceed with the discussion.

Archdeacon Palmer moved in amendment that the Conference requested by the Upper House be at once agreed to. He thought the time to confer with the Upper House was before they had arrived at anything decisive. Perhaps after the Conference they might receive such information as would enable them to come to a wise decision. Their Lordships did not seek to interfere with this House. The Dean of Huron had said that the sending of the message down was a singular coincidence. Now, the Dean was too acute a man to say this and not seem to imply that their Lordships had some little design in the matter.

Dean Hellmuth said it was not fair for his friend to assume the prerogative which belonged to God alone, and judge of his thoughts and intentions.

Archdeacon Palmer was happy to know that there was not the least insinuation against their Lordships. He entreated the Synod to proceed temperately, to have the Conference with the Upper House, and then proceed to business.

Rev. Mr. Geddes seconded the motion. He did not look upon the sending of the message as a singular coincidence, but as a happy occurrence. He was going to say a Providential occurrence. (Oh!) He wished that he could, as an honourable gentleman did last night, congratulate this Synod upon the spirit in which this discussion had been entered into. He could not do so. He had expected that this discussion would be entered upon in a calm, wise, moderate and Christian spirit. He was led to that expectation from the fact that the deliberations of the Committee on Ritualism had been conducted with harmony and in a temperate spirit. He thought they should be guided in their deliberations by such counsels of the Upper House. Their wise counsels would be much more likely to lead to a proper conclusion than discussing the subject in the manner that it had been done, calling gentlemen caricaturists and pantomimists.

Archdeacon Fuller was not prepared to vote for the amendment, because he considered that no Conference was needed except when a difference between two Houses arose. They were not in that position. The Upper House had arrived at a conclusion; now let the Lower House come to a conclusion, and then, if there was any difference, it would be time enough to have a Conference.

Rev. Canon Loosemore said it appeared to him that this question could never be decided without a Conference with the Bishops.

Mr. Harman said that he had heard some strange things since he came to the Synod. He did hope a better spirit would be manifested. According to the Constitution it was incumbent on the Lower House to obey the request, and it was a mark of disrespect of the grossest kind to disobey.

Rev. Canon Bancroft said he had no intention of giving disrespect to the Bishops, but he had voted as he did because he had never heard of an instance where the Lower House was interrupted in its debates, and they were asked to drop their debate to have a Conference. He did hope there would be no more bitterness and personality.

Rev. Mr. Darling said he regarded such a proceeding on the part of the House of Bishops as a tendency to destroy the independence of the Lower House, and as imperilling the liberty of debate. If the Constitution compelled them to obey, as Mr. Harman had argued, he thought it should be amended.

Mr. Huntingdon said he had listened to the discussion of the question with great pain, because there appeared to be a tendency to abrogate the independence of this House. He would yield to no man in respect for lawful authority, but he was there not for the purpose of receiving spiritual instruction from their Fathers in God, but as a delegate to stand up for the rights of this House, to express an independent opinion without any outside interference. If the House decided that the House of Bishops could at any time send down a message and stop their discussion, then they offered a good argument for having no Synod.

Hon. Mr. Irvine said he would vote for the amendment of Archdeacon Palmer, although he considered there was nothing disrespectful in the motion. If they really intended to come to a conclusion which would be binding on the whole Church, they must come to a conclusion which would be accepted by the House of Bishops.

Rev. H. Caulfield defended his conduct in calling out "question" when a gentleman was speaking. They had been in session seven days, and yet what had they done? Only passed one single canon. There seemed to be a desire on the part of some to do nothing this session--at least on the great subject which was causing so much anxiety in the whole Church. They would likely sit for a couple of weeks, and, if nothing was done, what account could they give to their diocese of the $600 or $700 it cost them to send delegates to the Synod. (Laughter.)

It being one o'clock, the Synod adjourned.

The Lower House re-assembled at 2:30 P.M.

The debate on Archdeacon Palmer's amendment was resumed. Mr. Carter said it was to be regretted that anything should be done which would give anything like a semblance of conflict between the two houses. It was very much to be regretted that that motion should be brought down at the time it was, because it must be admitted that if a Conference was desirable, another time would be more fitting. After the Lower House had taken action in the matter, then it would have to go before the House of Bishops and be passed by them before it could become law. Then, if they wished a Conference it would be the proper time to have it. The Lower House was competent to form its own opinions without having any pressure brought to bear upon it from other quarters. In reference to the legal view of the question, he must say that the true construction to be put on the Constitution was that they should give precedence to the subject that was engaging the attention of the House at the time the message was received from the House of Bishops; he quoted certain articles of the Constitution to support this view. It was charitable to suppose that their Lordships knew what the Lower House was discussing, and according to the 12th article of the Constitution, they were doing just what their Lordships desired. He did not wish to prolong the discussion, and he thought it would be seen that the delays had principally been caused by amendments and objections raised by the gentlemen on the other side.

Mr. Hemming considered that all this discussion was irregular. (Hear, hear.) The Prolocutor had decided that proceedings should be stopped when the message was brought down, and, in that case, the discussion was entirely out of order. He would therefore ask the Prolocutor if he was not correct on this point?

The Prolocutor said that, in the 18th section it was laid down that the Lower House had power to accede or not to the request of the Bishops to grant a Conference. At the same time he hoped the discussion would speedily be brought to a close.

Rev. Dr. Nicolls wished to call the attention of the Synod to one or two points. The Upper House had a right to summon or to invite the Lower House to a Conference. They had not summoned them but invited, and, therefore, he inferred that their Lordships wished to confer with them in an informal manner. He thought that they should be very much obliged to the House of Bishops for their advice on this subject. (Oh!) They might come to an independent conclusion; but what use would their conclusion be, if it was not sanctioned by the Bishops. The time for a Conference in his opinion was before they came to a dead lock with the Upper House.

Rev. S. Givins said that he was amazed at the number of expedients that had been raised by gentlemen opposite, to check discussion in this matter. (No.) Their conduct reminded him of a little story. (Cries of "Order, order!") He proceeded to relate the story, but was interrupted by the Prolocutor, and took his seat.

Mr. Denison said if this state of things continued he would be obliged to go away without recording a vote. There was so much talk and so many amendments and counter amendments that the time was being wasted. If they came there to waste their time they succeeded admirably. (Laughter.) Let them go to work and do something, or else adjourn and go home at once, (Cheers.)

The amendment was put and carried.

The main motion was accordingly lost.

The Prolocutor at once sent a message to the House of Bishops informing the President that the Lower House was prepared to have a Conference with the House of Bishops.

The Committee who carried up the Prolocutor's message brought back the following reply from the House of Bishops.

The House of Bishops would wish for a Conference with a Committee from the Lower House.

BENJ. HURON. Sept. 15,1868.

Moved by Rev. D. Lindsay, seconded by Mr. Thos. Simpson,

That the President of the House of Bishops be respectfully requested to appoint the Cathedral School House as the place of Conference.--Carried.

The Prolocutor accordingly sent a message embodying the above resolution to the President of the Upper House.

The President appointed the Cathedral School House as the place of Conference, and stated that the Bishops would be prepared to receive the Lower House at once.

Accordingly the Conference was held.

Debate on Canon No. 2 was resumed.

Professor Wilson called the attention of the Synod to the motion before the House, which he read. It was of great importance to note all that was included there--first, that the amendment to the Canon dealt only with vestments, and not with the other matters which had been complained of in the petitions to the Provincial Synod, and had been touched on in the Resolutions sent down by the Bishops. It dealt with vestments; but it did so in a delicate, moderate, and judicious manner. It made no change in the Prayer-Book, did not abrogate the rubric; but it said that there were doubts about the rubric;--a statement so true and indisputable--that that rubric had been used to support pretentious which were fitter for the debate of an antiquarian society than to be offered to the consideration of a Synod of the Church, as reasons for adopting a certain form of religious service. They had seen an old picture, they had seen ancient statues and monumental brasses produced in the Arches Court to support that interpretation of the rubric which justifies the usage of vestments, such as the chasuble, albe, cope, and tunicle, known, perhaps, to antiquaries, but which had never been seen in use by living man. The amendment, he repeated, did not abrogate the rubric, but it said that there was a Canon of the year 1603 which defined the meaning of this disputed rubric. That Canon was clear and unmistakable. It might perhaps be necessary to make some additions to it, as for example to provide for the use of bands for the clergy; but it must be remembered that bands at that time were no peculiar part of a clergyman's dress, but were worn by all gentlemen. They were still part of the dress of lawyers and were even to be seen worn by every London charity boy. For his part he would be sorry to see bands given up; but ho conceived they were of too trifling consequence for the Synod gravely to discuss their merits. Whilst he had been familiar with the black gown in the pulpit, and the surplice in the reading desk and communion rails, as long as he could remember the mode of conducting the services of the Church, and believed that both had been used from the Reformation downward; yet if the abandonment of the academic gown would be any inducement to those who incline to the novelties or revivals which, occasioning so great offence, to abandon them, it might be a reasonable compromise to give up the black gown and take the surplice the fitting dress of the clergy, which could not be mistaken as the garb of Rome. These matters of dress were unobjectionable as soon as they ceased to be badges of objectionable doctrines. Dress in his opinion was in itself an indifferent thing, and it only became objectionable when it indicated those extreme doctrines which pointed to a revival of the Mass or something like it, to protest against which our fathers died at the stake. It was when men saw that with these garments were associated strange postures, genuflexions, turnings of the back upon the people by the minister, and other things which seemed to approximate to the Church of Rome, that they rose up against vestments which they could not help thinking unbecoming the simplicity of their own worship; but which were chiefly complained of as imitations of the vestments of another Church from which the Fathers of the Church of England dissented at the Reformation. It was for that reason they utterly repudiated them. The ceremonial church of the Old Testament was typical and symbolical. It was so in dress and practices. With her, therefore, a ceremonial vestment was a fitting thing. The priest was a sacrificing priest offering up the sacrificial lamb, that was to be an emblem of that lamb which was thereafter to be slain once for all. Then came the new or Christian worship, which required no priest, because the great High Priest of that dispensation had entered into the Holy of Holies once for all. His sacrifice as was declared alike in the Scriptures and the rubrics had been offered up once for all, and if that is insufficient, there remaineth no other offering for sin.

Archdeacon Palmer announced that they had been instructed by their Lordships to inform the House that they would confer with the House forthwith, and that they appointed this room as the place of meeting.

The Prolocutor then vacated the chair, and their Lordships, on entering, took their seats on the platform.

The Lord Bishop of Huron (the Lower House standing) rose and said: In compliance with the wish which was expressed by the Lower House I have appointed this room in which the proposed Conference between the Upper and the Lower Houses is to take place. I have done so because I thought it would be gratifying to the members of the Lower House that the Conference should take place here.

With reference to the resolutions which were sent down to the Lower House, I would merely say that we have had before us all the petitions which you have had here. All the petitions concerning Ritualism were addressed to us even as they were addressed to you, with the request to dispose of them this session. We therefore thought it would be well that we should take this subject into consideration, and knowing that a discussion had been for several days carried on in the Lower House with reference to this subject, we thought that by taking the subject into consideration, and sending down our opinions on it to the Lower House, it would assist them in coming to a conclusion, which it was earnestly desired they should arrive at in accordance with the prayer of the petitioners. With reference to the message sent down, those who have heard it read will remember that all those things which were established by law and disposed of, we have also fully adopted and most cordially received. But the two points which are yet uncertain at home we have mentioned, and mentioned our disapproval of them, and our determination to prevent their introduction into the Church in this country. We thought, in sending this message, that we were acting in accordance with the wishes of those petitioners, and of many in the Lower House who are anxious that this question should be disposed of by the Synod. It grieves me to learn that the message was not received in the spirit in which it was sent. I feel sorry at this, and I feel sure that many of those who, perhaps without fully understanding the motives of those who sent the message down, have expressed themselves excitingly on the subject, are assured also that anything of the kind should take place. The earnest desire of the House of Bishops is to dispose of this great subject finally, if possible. All are anxious and desirous to suppress by every means in their power those objectionable practices; and we hope and trust that by conferring with you you will cordially concur with us in the Canon passed by the whole Synod.

The Lord Bishop of Ontario said that the House of Bishops, on the merits of the question, were unanimous. But they found that there were great legal difficulties in dealing with all the subjects which were mentioned in the various petitions. On certain points mentioned in the petitions, there were no doubts, but there were grave objections, touching the ornaments of the Church and the ministers thereof, arising from the fact that they--or at least he, for one--considered it was out of their power to change the rubrics in the Book of Common Prayer. All the Bishops had grave doubts on this point; but to him it appeared obvious that if they had power to repeal that rubric, they had power to repeal any rubric; and he thought it sincerely to be deprecated that this Synod should become the arena of doctrinal strife, in attempting to repeal the rubrics of the Church. At the same time, they thought that if the Church in this Province had patience, the two subjects remaining unsettled, of altar lights and vestments, would be managed for then by the Mother Church and Parliament of England; and it would be vastly better for them to consider those subjects then, more particularly when there was not the least danger of their being introduced into this Province, and when the Bishops had unanimously put on record their determination, by every lawful means in their power, to prevent their introduction into this Province, He trusted that this view would commend itself to the calm, thinking men of the Synod.

Their Lordships then withdrew.

Their Lordships having retired Professor Wilson continued his remarks, first protesting against any such interference with the independence of the Lower House as he believed was involved in the action just taken by the House of Bishops. He said that it had been stated in the report brought in by the Committee to whom the petitions against Ritualism had been referred, that there was no danger of the introduction of the practices complained of. But here was the Church Advocate, which in describing a consecration of a church in Brome Woods, stated that the altar was vested in accordance with the Sarum use. It also recorded many ether things all contrary to the established custom. Now the Prayer Book expressly set forth that whereas heretofore there "hath been great diversity in saying and singing in Churches within this realm; some following Salisbury use, some Hereford use, and some the use of Bangor, some of York, some of Lincoln," there should for the future be but one use for all the realm. So that this Sarum use was acted upon in direct defiance of that Prayer Book for which so much deference was professed. If they turned to that Sarum usage it would, indeed, be found to contain much that was in their own Prayer Books, only in Latin instead of in English; but there could be no better lesson for a Protestant Churchman than to compare our English Prayer Book with the Sarum or Aberdeen Breviary. They contained what the Prayer Book did; but a great deal more--as manuals for the adoration of the Virgin Mary, whose worship had been still farther exaggerated in recent times--prayers for the dead, invocations to saints and so forth. Nothing was so well calculated to stir up the true Protestant spirit as to see the changes made on these old missals by the Fathers of our Reformed Church. When he saw that altars were ornamented according to the use of Sarum, he felt himself justified in rejecting that part of the resolution of the House of Bishops which proposed to delay legislation and to decline to act on advice which came to them from elsewhere. There was no altar in their Church. Their reforming fathers had laid it down that they had only a table, in itself a mere piece of wood; by all earnest religious feeling protected from vulgar uses after it has been employed for so sacred a purpose; but having no holiness which should cause worshippers to bow down before it, or ministers to turn their backs on the people in order to face it. On the occasion on which it was used for showing forth the remembrance of our blessed Lord's death, it was directed to be covered with fair white linen, and if that were the proper covering when it was thus to be employed in the most sacred rite, how could it be necessary that it should be ornamented according to the usage of Sarum or of any other usage when it was not in use at all, and when other and totally distinct services than the Communion were taking place. This example showed that the practices complained of should be arrested while there was yet time. Professor Wilson then read a passage from the Prayer-Book on ceremonies, setting forth that some which had at first been laudable had been abused, and that others were from the first evil--that the former ought to be reformed, the latter "clean cut away." There were apparently both kinds now in the Canadian Church, though they might not be thought objectionable by those who rejected the name of Protestant. But it was that title on which thousands had been relying for the maintenance of one branch of the Church now threatened with destruction. The coronation oath of the Queen bound her to maintain the "Protestant" Church, and if the Church of England were not Protestant it could have no claim on such regal protection and maintenance. For his own part he could not understand how any one could continue to remain in the Communion of this Church, surrounded as they were here by members of another creed, and yet reject the name of Protestant. After alluding to the long struggle and various fortunes of the early period of the Reformation, and the final conflict under James II., when civil liberty and religious liberty were shown to be inextricably bound together, he went on to say to those who asserted that the English service had become with time more simple than it was at first, and who wished to return to the supposed Ritualism and practices of Queen Elizabeth's or Edward VI's reign; that the gradual simplification of such, even by unauthorized but universal usage, seemed to him very natural--but that it seemed most unnatural that the steps once made should be retraced. The ceremonies of the Passover under the old dispensation were very numerous and minute; but when our blessed Redeemer celebrated for the last time that symbolic rite, which was forever at an end when its types and shadows merged in his finished work, and we could therefore say, "Christ our passover is slain for us:" that last passover which he had so longed to partake of with his disciples, was eaten in a reclining posture, and the spirit of the rite, which with desire he had desired to celebrate was wholly preserved; but he showed that he attached little importance to the minute observances of the law. He besought them to adhere to the simple ceremonies, and the plain vestments to which they had always been accustomed; and he earnestly appealed to all to do whatever they did in a reasonable and moderate spirit. Protests had been made against the use of the word parties, but it could not be denied that they were divided; though he thought only a very small minority was separated from the rest on really important questions. The trouble was that though the great majority desired to keep in the good old paths, they feared to take the necessary steps. The Diocesan Synod referred the subject to the Provincial Synod, and now that Synod was told that it must wait for the mother country, the Court of Arches or the Parliament, though the Court of Arches might be presided over by a man who was not a member of the Church, and though Parliament was made up of men of every belief, or it might be of no opinion at all. They had waited on England too long, and Bishops in that country had looked on with dismay at what they could not see their way to prevent, though they spent enormous sums in procuring the inadequate and ineffective judgments of the Court of Arches. Nothing could have been more unsatisfactory than those judgments, which had in no way tended to prevent, on the one hand, the flow of perverts to the Church of Rome, nor on the other, the flow of the timid and dissatisfied towards other Communions. The Church of Canada had received her liberty; let them use it as their forefathers had done; and their friends in England, so far from blaming them would feel strengthened by their action, and encouraged to struggles against Romanizing error by the decision which a free Church would arrive at on these great questions.

Rev. W. S. Darling said, upon another occasion he would express freely and fully his views on the questions to which the last speaker referred. But on this occasion he would refer to the remarks of the mover and seconder of the motion before the House. The mover's speech was simply a matter of declamation, nothing that could be characterised as argument. One statement he made was that they had taught a superstitious regard for the most holy ordinance of the Church. He (Mr. Darling) wished to say, that on one occasion he had been requested to dispense the sacrament in place of a brother clergyman, and on the occasion one young man declined to hold out his hand for the elements, and he had placed them in his mouth. He believed it was a mistake to do this, and had the young man belonged to his own congregation, he would have warned him of his mistake. But he did not think it right to excommunicate that young man. Again, the next charge made was a question of buttons. He deprecated attaching so much importance to these trifling matters. If the matter of buttons must be attended to, he would be disposed to refer it to a committee of tailors. (Laughter.)

Rev. Mr. Givins objected to this language.

Rev. Mr. Darling had no intention to use improper language, but it was really contemptible to bring forward questions such as had been raised in an assembly of this kind. The seconder of the resolution had expressed his high approval of the mover's speech; he declared that those practices are to be denounced, because they are an outward symbol of a corruption of the faith. If he meant those practices condemned by the Church, he agreed with him; but if he meant those rites, ceremonies and vestments declared to be legal by the highest authority of the Church in England, were symbols of Popery, he protested against it. He desired those who were opposed to him to state clearly and distinctly what they meant by Ritualistic excesses. He protested against the vague and indefinite charge. Let gentlemen say that they think the legal ornaments are Popish, and therefore the Church of England in her Prayer Book had sanctioned Popish practices. Did they wish to protest against the ornaments which the highest Court of the Church had declared to be legal? Let them have a fair issue. Were they disposed to say that the Church of England had given her deliberate sanction to Popish observances? He would heartily join them in denouncing anything contrary to the legal enactments of the Church, but he did protest against the vague charges against what was authorized by law. A great deal had been said about the evil that arose out of these practices; but the fact was that the reports of these practices were greatly exaggerated, if not wholly untrue.

Rev. S. Givins explained that he had heard on what he considered good authority, that the communion had been administered in the way that he had stated. That was his authority for stating it.

Rev. Canon Bancroft said he was grieved to see this important subject treated in so trifling a manner, and with so much levity. He felt himself humiliated in view of the way they had passed the day. The amendment changed no rubric in the Prayer Book, it only interpreted a rubric, and he entreated them to come to a decision upon it. Since this Ritualistic controversy had commenced in England, and it was seen that the Bishops were powerless, that great body of Christians that had separated from the Church of England, were compelled to say that they could not look forward to a union with them while those practices existed. He concluded by entreating the House to remember the importance of the question, and to act in a tolerant and Christian spirit.

Rev. Mr. Geddes said that he was not a Ritualist in the general sense of the term. He had on more than one occasion resisted the tendency towards Romanism, and had received the thanks of the Clergy and Bishops therefor. He deprecated the hilarious spirit in which the debate had been conducted. He would rejoice to see this question settled.

It being six o'clock, the Synod adjourned.

SIXTH DAY.

The debate on the amendment of Canon 2 was resumed.

The Rev. Canon Bond said, in resuming the debate, he respectfully submitted that the question involved is not one of party, but one in which the best interests of the Church at large are at stake; and one in which the so-called High and Low Church parties are agreed.

There are men who have ever been regarded as consistent High Churchmen, as resolutely opposed to Ritualism as any Low Churchman possibly can be.

The question involved is this: shall our revered and loved Church, a branch of the Church Catholic, be stripped of that distinctive character that has made her the admiration of all good men and the envy of her enemies, and caused to conform to the corrupt Roman Church in those things which have made her the object of pity in the eyes of the followers of Jesus and of scorn to the enemies of Christianity. He said the question involved is, shall our Church, now, conformed to the Primitive Church, become, what it is sought to make her, a counterpart of the Church of Rome? And he believed upon the action of the Synod depended very much what the future of our Church in Canada shall be.

The argument mainly relied upon in opposing the motion before the House is, that it was abrogating one of the Rubrics and that it was neither desirable nor legal to take such a step. As to touching the Book of Common Prayer, the speaker said he was entirely opposed to such a course, and he would be amongst the first to resist it with all his power, whether on the floor of this House or elsewhere; but he denied that this was an attempt to do anything of the sort. What was the action proposed? Here is a Rubric of doubtful meaning, confessedly ambiguous in its application, and causing, by that ambiguity, diverse practices and hopeless confusion. And it is proposed to take one of the Canons of the Church and lay it side by side with the Rubric, and declare, so far as it is applicable, this Canon interprets the Rubric, and by this we wish to abide. Is that abrogating the rubric? Is not that a fair and straightforward course?

But then it is pleaded: put off the decision--wait until the law courts of England have given their judgment. Now why, he asked, delay? What object was to be obtained by procrastination? Would the decision looked for be regarded as the voice of the Church? Would the people of this Province receive it as binding upon them? He appealed to the House, would it have any weight in comparison with the voice of this Synod? Would they care what the lawyers say in the matter? While, on the other hand, he felt that there was a disposition in those with whom he acted, and he believed that it prevailed in the House, to bow to and obey the well-considered decision at which the Synod might arrive. Let there be, then, a prompt decision; and, if possible, let that decision be unanimous. Still the question ought to be looked fairly in the face; and, to his mind, that had not yet been done. It was said, let those gentlemen who are complained of, decorate themselves as they please, why trouble the Church with such trifles? If that were all, he, for one, would let them alone; but it is far from being all; these vestments and decorations and practices meant much more than mere decoration. The gentlemen themselves would tell us that they meant a great deal more; they would be the first to acknowledge that they meant by these things to teach doctrine, to prepare the mind for the reception of what they professed to discover in the Word of God; and if that doctrine be error, should they be permitted thus to inculcate it? And then, as to the legal question whether or not they had any right to legislate upon the subject at all, surely there could be no doubt that the Synod could act, and that their action would have all the force of law. There is ample support for the course they were pursuing. Who, knowing the Hon. J. H. Cameron, could suppose that he would have signed and sent down to this Synod a petition asking the Synod to do what he believed it could not do?

Mr. Harman said that Mr. Cameron merely signed as Chairman of the Committee, and had on the occasion of doing so, said there was no Ritualism at all in Canada.

The Rev. gentleman continued--Besides, the Ven. Archdeacon of Niagara had read to the House the opinion of three of the most eminent lawyers of Toronto, emphatically declaring that the Synod has power to act in this matter. There was still a corroboration that would carry with it more weight in the minds of many members of this House than all that the lawyers could say: the judgment of one who never spoke rashly--who never formed his conclusions without seeking the best advice--who always, before he uttered his opinion upon these momentous questions, assured himself that he was right. He referred to their late much-loved Metropolitan many amongst them had heard him say, and the statement was printed in the last report of the Diocesan Synod, that the Provincial Synod had full power to take legal action in this behalf. As to the statement just mentioned that there was no Ritualism in Canada, he thought it would be worse than loss of time to prove it, or, as they were asked to do, discuss the Ritualistic garments; he need only refer to what had been stated in this very room on another occasion, or, in fact, appeal to gentlemen present and who practice these things, for the admission that what was called extreme Ritualism, prevailed. He believed they would not attempt denial. Surely then, with the consciousness that these practices were doing incalculable injury to the Church, with the belief that the Synod had the power to condemn them, and with the conviction that in this condemnation they would have had the support of the late revered Metropolitan, had he still been with them, he hoped the Synod would act decisively and promptly in suppressing all objectionable practices.

Rev. Sir. Smythe counselled unanimity. He was willing to make some concessions for the sake of harmony.

Rev. Mr. Holland thought the people should be taught that there was a greater difference between their Church and the Church of Rome than the mere question of vestments. There had been a great deal of needless alarm in this matter. It was a good deal a question of custom. He knew many country parishes in which, if [47/48] the same observances were introduced which were used in the Cathedral here, there would be a great cry about Ritualism and Popish tendencies, simply because they were not accustomed to them, and yet he presumed the Cathedral would not be considered Ritualistic. He contended that he proposed alteration would be opposed to the mind of the Church from the Reformation. By reference to the "History of Conferences," it would be seen that though the rubric relation to ornaments had never been enforced, yet it had been most carefully maintained; that is to say, repeated attempts to obtain its abrogation at several Conferences always failed. Hence he inferred that the mind of the Church had been that there was nothing essentially Popish in that ritual. He for one could not take part in legislation which would deprive posterity of a liberty enjoyed from the period of the Reformation. There was another reason for not desiring stringent legislation in this matter. It was opposed to a spirit of true toleration in religion. He could not understand the necessity of establishing uniformity in matters of dress and ritual. The mere matter of a difference of dress could not affect the spirit of the worship. There should be a certain amount of elasticity in the services of the Church, and their ministers should not be bound down to a stringent uniformity. His preference was for a pure white cassock, but if another desired some little change, why should his liberty be judged by another man's liberty. Absolute prohibition by legislation would have the opposite effect to that intended to be attained. They would drive men into doing things as a mere protest against what they would consider as an interference with their liberty. He would do anything short of absolute legislation; he would join most heartily in a stringent declaration of their determination, by every lawful means, to prevent the introduction of any unauthorized ritual into the Church. By unauthorized ritual he meant any which was not then in practice in this Province. (Oh!)

Archdeacon Palmer said they were troubled with too much oratory, and therefore he would only offer a few remarks. He thought the addition proposed by Mr. Givins to the Canon was an incongruous one. The Canon referred to orders, rites and ceremonies, whilst his addition referred to vestments, a quite different matter. His amendment would come up more properly in the consideration of the 13th Canon, which referred especially to vestments. He would therefore suggest that Canon Loosemore withdraw his amendment, and that Mr. Givins also withdraw his amendment, and if he thought proper bring it up again on the 13th Canon. He did not wish to see any objectionable practices introduced into this country and when they saw what was going on in England, it was but reasonable that the Church in Canada should endeavour to adopt measures to [48/49] prevent the same practices from being introduced here. Before the royal commission on Ritualistic practices in England, a clergyman had testified that he considered himself a sacrificing priest. He maintained that the line which separated that man from Romanism was of the slenderest kind (Hear). Hence it was reasonable that the Church in Canada should be desirous of taking such precautions that any clergyman in Canada could never occupy such a position.

Rev. Canon Loosemoore said his amendment was intended to embody certain reasons why he should bring it before the House. Instead of withdrawing it he would prefer that it should be put to the House, and be lost, in order that it might be recorded on the minutes.

Canon Loosemoore's amendment was then put and lost.

Archdeacon Palmer then moved, seconded by Rev. H. Caulfield, that the 13th Canon now be taken into consideration.

At the request of the Prolocutor, Archdeacon Palmer took the chair.

The Prolocutor then said that in reference to the subject of vestments, a Committee of the House had reported, and surely they ought in some way to take that report into consideration in connection with the subject. He thought it would be advisable to take up the report and come to some resolution on it, which would not be so stringent as a Canon-an object desirable (No.)

Archdeacon Palmer suggested that it would be better if Rev. Mr. Givins would allow his amendment to drop for the present, and let them proceed to the consideration of the 13th Canon.

Rev. S. Givins did not know how to answer the venerable Archdeacon. There had been so much manoeuvring on this subject that he did not know what course to take. He would place himself in the hands of the gentlemen who had supported his amendment. If they wished to withdraw, he would not object; but he came there with the special object of settling this question, and he did not want to go home without having carried out that object.

Rev. H. Caulfield suggested that Mr. Givins withdraw his amendment, and then let them pass the 2nd Canon, as it stood originally. Then bring up the 13th Canon immediately after, and the question of vestments could then come up.

Prof. Wilson said he was willing to accept the proposition of Archdeacon Palmer, because he believed it would attain the object which they had in view.

Rev. G. Slack thought the House was falling into a great mistake. He was willing to withdraw the amendment of which he was a seconder, provided he was sure that they would at once take up the 13th Canon.

Judge Jarvis suggested that the 13th Canon be allowed to come immediately after the 2nd.

Rev. S. Givins was willing to withdraw his amendment, provided that he could bring it up again on some other Canon.

All the amendments were then withdrawn.

Mr. H. S. Scott understood that the consideration of the 2nd Canon should also be withdrawn.

Prof. Wilson said that that was his understanding also. The 2nd Canon involved questions fully as important as the question of vestments.

Archdeacon Palmer said that that was the understanding, as he understood it.

Rev. Mr. Darnell moved, seconded by Rev. R. Lindsay, that the consideration of the 2nd Canon be not now proceeded with, but that the House now proceed with the consideration of the 13th Canon.--Carried unanimously.

The House then proceeded to the consideration of the following Canon:

13.--Every Minister, saying the Public Prayers, or ministering the Sacraments or other rites of the Church, shall wear bands and a decent and comely surplice, with sleeves, to be provided at the charge of the parish. And if any question, arise as to the matter, decency, or comeliness thereof, the same shall be decided by the Bishop. Furthermore, such Ministers as are Graduates shall wear upon their surplices, at such times, such hoods as, by the orders of the Universities, are agreeable to their degrees; which no Minister shall wear, not being a Graduate; and all Priests shall wear scarfs or stoles of black silk.

Dr. Henderson submitted that, according to the Constitution, having finished the order they were then engaged in, the next business was the consideration of the Message from the House of Bishops.

The Prolocutor ruled that, as the House intended to proceed to the consideration of the same subject which they had previously been considering, they were perfectly in order.

The Rev. Dr. Balch then moved:

That the House concur with the House of Bishops in the resolution sent down to this House on the 15th inst. and subsequently explained by the House of Bishops in Conference; and that this House adopt in addition thereto, the resolution submitted by the Rev. Mr. Givins, and that this resolution be transmitted to the Upper House with a request that they will accept it.

After expressing his repugnance as a comparative stranger to address the meeting, the Rev. Doctor said that he had consented to waive this natural feeling at the solicitation of gentlemen members of the House, whose judgment he could not but respect. Though only three years in this Province he had for nearly thirty served the Master in another part of the vineyard, had been familiar with councils of the Church, and never remembered any one which had met under more grave or delicate responsibility than that which arose from the circumstances in which that Provincial Synod was assembled. Fourteen year's services as Secretary of the House of Bishops of the United States had given him an opportunity of observation, and observation had taught him that some of the best expounders of the Gospel of our Lord and Saviour were high Churchmen; and that some of those most loyal to the Church were low Churchmen. He therefore had long ceased to believe in parties and had learned to think that there was a greater degree of doctrinal unanimity in the Church than the outside world supposed. He thought also that it would be possible to bring a large body of that Synod to a unanimous conclusion on the important and delicate matter which was before it. Alluding to the large range of topics over which the discussion had gone, he said that he thought the Prolocutor had been right in permitting great liberty, and as to the extreme earnestness with which the debate had been carried on, it might be naturally accounted for. He would not contend with a man who sought by force to take from him a penny, but if any one sought to take his life, he would resist to the last, and when religious truth was in question men regarded it as more important than life itself. Then it had been said that the matters in dispute were small; but small things were often great things. There were times when to wear a red or a white rose would cost a man his life; and the smallest particle of virus once introduced into the human system soon permeated the entire body. Again it was said that all this discussion was unnecessary; but without alluding to the excellent observations of Professor Wilson and other speakers, there was one fact that would settle the question of importance in his mind. It was that, one, of whom it had been well said that he never spoke without deliberation nor wrote without caution--their late revered Metropolitan had written and had advised the Diocesan Synod to adopt a resolution, asking the Provincial Synod to remove the ambiguities in the rubric which had caused so much trouble in England and might cause trouble here. What was it that created the anxiety felt by the Church for earnest legislation on a subject which appeared to be trifling? It was not because a few of the Clergy had adopted some indifferent dresses and customs which others still rejected. If that were all, the attention of the Synod could not have been so long held closely to the subject. It was because underlying this question of vestments was the grand doctrine of the justification of the sinner. It mattered little in what garb a minister were dressed, if his ministrations saved souls; but if it was represented a certain form of garments or particular genuflexions were concerned in the saving of souls, then the form of the garment and of the genuflexion became a matter of the highest importance-as important as the soul itself. In fact, with one form of the garment of the celebration of certain rites, there was connected the doctrine of justification by works; with the other form the doctrine of justification by faith, which was the very foundation of the Reformation.

Rev. Mr. Darling interrupted to deny that he believed that his own or any other soul could be justified by works.

Rev. Dr. Balch continued by asking how the Synod was to act so as to bring together those who had different proclivities in the matter under discussion, and so save the Church from a supposed evil, which if it did not now might hereafter exist? He thought by acceding to the resolution proposed by the House of Bishops. He conceived that the Synod owed a debt of gratitude to their Lordships for the manner in which they had acted. That venerable House had considered the petitions on this subject; had sent down their resolution; and had afterwards asked for a conference in order that they might give an assurance that their resolution was unanimous. They disposed of some difficulties, and as to others that were not disposed of they declared themselves ready to take these up from time to time. What more could they have done to quiet the mind of the Church, agitated as it then was? If the Lower House should also concur, it would be seen that both Houses were unanimous, and men would say that there had been an answer to the prayer, that the Holy Spirit which did preside at the Council of the blessed apostles had also presided over this Synod; and that he whose function it was to make men of one mind, had made that Synod of one mind.

Rev. Mr. Bleasdell seconded the motion.

It being one o'clock, the Synod adjourned.

Rev. Mr. Bleasdell resumed the debate, and spoke at some length in support of the motion of which he was seconder.

Mr. Henniker said that they in the country were in a different position from those in the city, where the people had a choice of churches. In the country sometimes the were obliged either to submit to what they considered objectionable, or leave the communion of the Church. He referred to the ignorance of many of the people as to what really was allowed by the Church, illustrating this point by stating that in his own parish he was lying under a protest, from the fact that he, as Churchwarden, had caused texts of [52/53] Scripture to be placed around the Church. He was in favour of the 13th Canon, but did not approve of tacking it on to the resolution of the House of Bishops, and then sending it back to them.

Rev. Mr. Darling begged to reciprocate the kindly expressions of feeling that had been made during the debate with reference to himself personally. He felt there had been one characteristic throughout all the addresses made by gentlemen of opposite views, and that was want of clearness and definiteness of statement. He would try to guard himself against the same error, and would define his position as clearly as possible. He held that the rubric of Common Prayer, which he was bound to believe to be in conformity with the Word of God, sanctioned certain ornaments of the Church and the ministers thereof, and that the Church of England, from the Reformation to the present time, had distinctly enacted and re-enacted that those ornaments were sanctioned by the Church, and required them to be retained in use. Gentlemen had stated that these ornaments were shrouded in such obscurity that they had to go to monuments and tombs to know what they were. He was surprised at this statement. It was a fact beyond dispute that till within one hundred years those vestments had been used in the Cathedral of Durham, and the Cathedral Church of St. Peter at Westminster. Moreover, in the record office in three counties in England, long after the Reformation, vestments of this kind were frequently mentioned, this rubric was not only a part of the Book of Common Prayer, but it had been interpreted by the highest court, having jurisdiction on these matters, in the realm of England. That court had declared positively that it was legal to wear the vestments. He heartily concurred with those who stated that there was another interpretation, which he regarded an a private interpretation, and therefore having no binding force upon the Church. This private interpretation of the rubric he considered was the source of the trouble that had arisen. It recognized as binding the practices that were in use in the 25th year of the reign of Henry VIII. He repudiated that interpretation as having no force or obligation upon his mind or conscience. But he did hold that the Church of England, by the enactment of that rubric in the preface to the Prayer Book, had without doubt sanctioned these ornaments to which reference had been made, and a committee of the Privy Council had interpreted it. The evil had arisen from a private and an unauthorized interpretation. Therefore holding it to be law, he was utterly unable to coincide with any legislation on the part of this House, which either virtually or avowedly attempted to deal with the rubrics of the Church of England. With him it was a matter of principle. He did not believe they had any power or right to alter the laws of the Church of England; and therefore lie could not agree to any legislation that had that object in view. If the rubrics must be changed it should be done by competent authority, which he did not think this Synod was. He held that the Synod act, under which they were constituted, never contemplated any change being made in the Prayer Book by this Synod. He would not enter into the legal part of the question, because if he did he would be likely to fall into the same difficulty that lawyers did when they attempted to dogmatize on theology. (Laughter.) But he did think they were restrained from taking any action in this matter by their own solemn, voluntary and deliberate act in adopting the Constitution of the Synod. They had set forth a declaration of principles, as those alone to which they desired to ascribe to. Had it been attempted to change the rubric at the time the Constitution of the Synod was being adopted, did any one suppose that the attempt would have succeeded? They had at that time bound themselves to the Prayer Book, but they had not come under any obligation to accept any such alterations as this House might, from time to time, be pleased to make. The position was simply this: they had been admitted to certain privileges on certain conditions, and now were they to be deprived of these privileges because they did not accept other conditions never heard of before? It would be said that he would be subjected to discipline if he did not submit. He thought it wise to avoid the necessity of resorting to discipline if they could do so without being false to the truth. He thought the debate on this question was so much time lost. The Bishops had come to a decision in the matter, and it was not likely they would stultify themselves by taking a different course now. There was danger in passing enactments at this juncture. To proceed under the influence of excitement would be neither safe nor wise. (Hear, hear.) The celebrated Ecclesiastical Titles Bill was passed in the midst of excitement, and it was from the very first a dead letter. And if, under the influence of the present excitement, they proceed to legislate, the measure they passed would, very probably, be treated in the same way. There was another reason why they should not legislate hastily on this subject. If they enforced certain obnoxious measures, they would elevate those opposed to them to the character of martyrs, and secure for them an amount of support and sympathy which they would otherwise be without. He held that the time and the circumstances were altogether unsuitable to such proceedings as were proposed, and dissented entirely from the assertion that this body was a fit and proper body for the transaction of such matters. It was a time of excitement and alarm--an alarm which had been caused in a great measure by the ignorant clamours of the secular press, and by strong statements made by a partizan press. Notwithstanding all that had been said, there was no man able to put his finger on one single case of illegal excess in Ritualism. Could the same thing be said with reference to defect? It amazed him to find this body engaged in passing laws for the suppression of Ritualism, which did not exist; while on every side of them there were manifold defects both in doctrine and worship. He had listened with sorrow and surprise to charges of false doctrine which had been brought against those with whom he personally sympathized. He would remind gentlemen who lived in houses that were glazed, to a very dangerous extent, to be careful how they cast stones at their brethren. It seemed to be a statement which must be accepted that their friends, who were leading the van in this crusade, were absolutely immaculate, both in regard to doctrine and the observance of rites. These gentlemen had not hesitated to charge him with error of doctrine, and yet some of them taught that Almighty God had elected one man and another he had rejected--(Cries of order)--a doctrine which, in his judgment, had no foundation in the Word of God, and which was repulsive to the sense of justice. Other gentlemen had told him that the Holy Communion was simply a memorial of the death of Christ and nothing more--an untrue figure of what was absent. Gentlemen who held these views had better establish their own position before they attacked the position of their brethren. He, himself, had been held up to obloquy in the press, and there were those in this city with whom he sympathized, who were also the subject of misrepresentation. which could do nothing but an infinitude of harm, and destroy everything like harmony amongst them. There should be an end to such things. If the system of worship, which they wished to introduce was merely mummeries and tomfooleries, and pernicious nonsense, as it had been termed, surely those gentlemen need have no fear and might trust to the greatness of the nonsense to neutralize the extent of the perniciousness. If it were true that these observances were so abhorrent to the whole mass of the people, and that all the common sense, wisdom and Scripture, all the faithfulness and piety, were upon the side of those who opposed them, surely these gentlemen need not rush into repressive legislation for anything so contemptible as this. Surely it was a sign of weakness to be frightened out of all propriety by so miserable a scarecrow as they represented Ritualism to be. The speaker here read an extract from the Church Observer, illustrating his argument. He strongly deprecated the use of language such as he had read, and the course of action which had been pursued by the writers of it, and by those connected with them. If the proposed measure was passed they would be deprived of a liberty which the Church in England enjoyed. They would strike a heavy blow at Synodical action throughout the whole Church if, now they were free, the first use they made of that freedom was [55/56] to rescind a law of the reformed Church of England--a law which, under every vicissitude, she had steadfastly maintained. As a body they were still inexperienced, and had to learn many lessons in the art of self-control before they attempted to control others. Were the laity in a position to give an intelligent vote on this question? He did not question the ability of the laity, but it mattered not how great the ability, it was impossible for the most powerful mind to give an intelligent vote upon a motion of so vital importance as this question. There always had been diversity of Ritual, and in spite of all that might be done there always would be; and the Church of England had wisely declared that there should not be absolute uniformity in the expression of their universal devotion. An act of absolute uniformity should not be enforced; it would be a dead letter, as other acts of similar nature had been before. This wretched theory of uniformity was a theory that had wrought a vast amount of mischief in the Church. Prof. Wilson had spoken of the beautiful simplicity of the Ritual as observed in his church. He had not the slightest objection to that gentleman's enjoying his own beautiful simplicity of worship, but he did object to that gentleman interpreting for him what was meant by beautiful simplicity. Each one should be a judge for himself in these matters. Prof. Wilson had also spoken of a certain church having its communion table vested according to the Sarum rule; but that gentleman was mistaken in saying that it was contrary to the Prayer Book. If any clergyman preferred to follow the Sarum rule in vesting his communion table, he did not see why he should not be allowed to do so. Why should it be considered a monstrosity that, while in their worship they appealed to the mind and to the ear, they should also appeal to the eye. Why should a man be condemned for an act against which, neither in reason, nor Scripture, nor in the Church's law, was there the slightest objection? In so far as the Synod desired to suppress the excesses of those who were called Ritualists, he was heartily with the Synod. He was no apologist for those excesses either in doctrine or in ritual. He trembled at the tendency prevalent in the present day to come to some exact definition of the mode of the Divine Presence in the Holy Communion. The only definition that had ever been attempted had led to great and grievous error. Men had ever been trying to explain what the Word of God had declared to be a mystery, and the result had been deadly error. If their legislation was to put down any doctrine or observance contrary to the standards of the Church of England he would go heartily with them. But he would do nothing which would be, in effect, a protest against the action of the Church in England. There were excesses, and he deplored and deprecated them, but what movement ever took place that was not marked by excesses? The Reformation, the movement in the time of the Puritans, and the days of Wesley were all marked by excesses, and there had never been a movement so wide spread and accompanied results so effective as the Ritualistic movement which had been marked by fewer excesses. He implored the House to abstain from legislation in the matter, and when the Bishops expressed their disapprobation of the chasuble and altar lights, he considered that was sufficient for the present, and should be accepted by the Lower House. He implored the House not to put them in a position in which they would be put by the enactment of a Canon. He did not dream of threatening the House, but he was not master of his own conscience, and should feel obliged to disregard any obligation that interfered with a higher obligation. If his congregation desired him to wear those vestments which the Church of England allowed him to wear he would do so and take the consequences. The rev. gentleman concluded by a feeling appeal to the House, to work together in harmony and brotherly love, and resumed his seat amid loud cheers.

The Prolocutor withdrew from the chair for the purpose of offering a few remarks. (Archdeacon Palmer taking his place.) He thought they should endeavour to come to some terms of agreement to which they could all agree. He did not concur in the resolution of the House of Bishops that by the act of 1791 the act of uniformity was in force in this Diocese. (Hear.) The act expressly stated that it did not apply to the colonies. He quoted the opinions of Sir James Macaulay, Chief Justice Draper, and Mr. Hillyard Cameron, in support of this view. Their opinions were that the ecclesiastical law of England had no force in this country, except such parts as related to marriage and divorce.

Rev. Mr. Darling said that it had been urged that the act of uniformity was not a part of the ecclesiastical law of England.

Dr. Henderson said that the act of 1792 applied all the laws of England, except the corn laws, to Upper Canada, and, therefore included the act of uniformity.

The Prolocutor said he had stated the opinion of the eminent gentlemen whom he had mentioned. He considered that the mind of the Church was expressed not only in statutes but also in their allowing certain statutes to go into disuse. He looked upon the statute respecting vestments in the light of an obsolete statute. (Cheers.) He related his own experience in these matters, and how he had come to the conclusion that the mind of the Church had been expressed in this matter by allowing the Canon referred to to fall into disuse, and a Canon was only binding so far as it expressed the mind of the Church. With reference to their present position, it could not be denied there was an attempt to introduce [57/58] objectionable practices. Young men, and perhaps old men too, were coming over from England, whose views and practices tended to assimilate the Church of England to the Church of Rome. The question of vestments of itself was of not much importance, but where it was sought by their use to enforce those practices which tended towards Romanism, they should not be encouraged. He fully agreed with Mr. Darling, that it would be inexpedient to legislate against these by means of a Canon. If a resolution was passed by the House it would answer all the purpose, and would prevent any difficulty arising. He would accept of Canon Balch's resolution, omitting, however, the preamble, which stated that the act of uniformity was in force in Upper Canada. He would press this idea upon those whose opinions or points of doctrine were almost identical with his own.

Rev. Canon Balch was quite willing to accept the modification suggested.

A motion to suspend the rules so as to admit of an evening session, was here put and lost.

The Prolocutor having taken his chair, the Rev. Canon Balch read his motion as modified. That, whereas the Court of Arches has determined that the elevation of the elements in the celebration of the Holy Communion, the use of incense during divine service, and the mixture of water with the Sacramental wine, is illegal, it is resolved that we accept such judicial decision, and that the above mentioned practices are hereby forbidden in the Church of this Province; and, whereas, the Rubric at the end of the Communion office enacts that the bread shall be "such as is usual to be eaten," the use of wafer bread is hereby forbidden, and that this Synod express their disapprobation of the use of lights on the Lord's Table, and of all vestments, except the surplice, scarf or stole and the hood, and their determination to prevent by every lawful means, their introduction into the Church of this Province.

Mr. Carter suggested that the words "Court of Arches" be omitted, as they implied that the enactments of that Court were in some way binding on the Church in this Province. It should be distinctly understood that they were perfectly independent as a Church.

Rev. Canon Bancroft wished to have the motion so worded as not to prohibit the use of the gown. He would take this opportunity of explaining a remark referred to by Mr. Darling. Circulars had been distributed among the members of the Synod, charging him with writing in a spirit of bitterness against a certain church in this city. He desired to say that he never wrote a single line against that church.

After the conference the debate was resumed.

Moved in amendment by Mr. Carter, seconded by Dean Hellmuth,

That the following words be erased in the resolution, following the word Whereas, "the Court of Arches has determined that," also, "that we accept such decision, and."--Carried.

The hour of 6 o'clock having arrived the Prolocutor pronounced the benediction and the House adjourned.

The debate on Mr. Carter's amendment to Rev. Canon Balch's amendment to Canon 13, was resumed.

Dean Hellmuth believed that the whole House would support the views of the Prolocutor, that this House was an entirely independent body. It would be remembered that in a case in Australia, it had been decided by the Australian Judges, and confirmed by the Privy Council, that Her Majesty had no right to introduce tin. ecclesiastical law of England into the colonies which had an independent government. A similar decision had been arrived at in the case of Long vs. the Bishop of Cape Town. It would therefore appear desirable that the words "Court of Arches" should be left out in the resolution, and they proceed as an independent body. He contended that according to the general understanding entered into at the time Mr. Givins withdrew his amendment, the House should have proceeded to the consideration of the 13th Canon; how ever, as a different course had been taken, and a resolution had been introduced, he hoped the House would come speedily to a decision, as many of the clergy and laity also would soon be obliged to leave.

Mr. Walsh said he had not yet troubled the Synod, and believed that none of the laity of Huron had spoken on the subject. He must first take exception to the line of argument brought forward by the opposite side of the House; the first being the principle that this Synod is not perfectly and legally independent in itself, and capable of legislating for the welfare of the Church in any particular that might be deemed advisable. In the second place, the Rev. Mr. Darling, in his speech of yesterday, boldly asserted that this body (meaning the laity) were incompetent to legislate for the government of the Church. I have no doubt but the rev. gentleman was entirely sincere in his belief. But against this view I would protest, as I think it would be proven in the end that the laity possess more intelligence and capability of legislative character than the reverend gentleman is willing to give them credit for. The doctrine of the incompetency of the laity is that of the Church of Rome, and should be repudiated by this Synod. I further say, Mr. Prolocutor, that I can prove by an editorial in the Church Times, the organ of the English Ritualist party, as well as by an extract from a letter under the name of a minister, (or as he calls himself a priest of the Church of England in this city), that the object of that party both in England and here was to de-Protestantize the Church of England, drag it back to the trammels of Rome. By this article it is clearly laid down in what manner the campaign against the Goliath of Protestantism (as they call our church) should be carried on in England. First, there was to be introduced all these innocent vestments complained of, to be followed by the introduction of gradual changes in the services, until Protestantism should be vanquished and the supremacy of Rome established. But gentlemen on the other side of the house cannot object to the reading of a paragraph from the letter of Mr. Daniel, of this city, in which that rev. gentleman says:--"Far as we have receded from original Protestantism at St. John's, and still further as we hope to recede, it will, no doubt, afford some consolation to the old ladies of both sexes, among your readers, to know that we have not yet been able, and, we fear, shall not be able, to lead our people as far as this on the road to Popery." Now, Mr. Prolocutor, can any reasonable mind doubt as to the real intentions of the Ritualists, both here and at home? I am sorry to have to say, that the desire to Romanize the Protestant and Evangelical Church of England is not confined to the other side of the Atlantic. I, myself, witnessed on last Sunday, in a church in this city, what I never expected to have seen in a church calling itself the Church of England, and which I sincerely hope I may never again be called to witness. I saw a band of choristers, both clerical and laymen and boys, robed in white surplices, entering and leaving in procession, the same as I once witnessed in a Roman Catholic Church in Toronto. Whenever the Glorias were said or sung for the service choral, this body of choristers wheeled round to the east, and resumed their former position as soon as the Gloria was ended. Now, to me, this was an unseemly and strange spectacle in a Protestant church. I would ask, where is the rubric authorizing this turning to the east and bowing as most of the choir did at the name of the Trinity in the Gloria? I then saw the minister, after the collection had been taken up, receive the amount into what appeared to me to be a silver salver, and then walk up to what they called the altar, and place the collection thereon, and then kneel and make a profound bow to this supposed altar, but which seemed to me like a temple of idolatry. I would ask if this is not a gross departure from the accustomed usages of our church for the last two hundred years? I then saw the minister, who I am sorry to say, was a beneficed clergyman of the Church of England, walk directly up the chancel, and kneel with his back to the congregation, and make a low bow before what they call the altar. I leave it for that reverend gentleman to explain (as he is now in the Synod), whether he was bowing to the crucifix, or the altar, or to the candles and candlesticks, or to the covering on the table, or was it to some unknown god. As by our Protestant religion we are taught to believe that God is omniscient and omnipresent, and that it was wholly unnecessary for the minister to leave the pulpit in order to approach his Heavenly Father, so I can come to no other conclusion than that this act was an act of idolatry, which I never expected to witness in the Protestant Church of England. I leave it for our Ritualistic friends opposite to explain these things away, but it seems to me that these form ample grounds for repressive legislation on the subject; and can say, in conclusion, in the language of our beautiful Litany, "From all such evils, good Lord deliver us."

[This speech has been imperfectly reported which is very much regretted as it was one of the most powerful in the debate.]

Rev. H. Caufield entered into a lengthy argument to prove that these vestments, to which objection had been made, were illegal, reviewing the history of the Church with special reference this question, and quoting the opinions of Lord Chancellor Cairns and Sir Roundel Palmer in support of his views. He assured the House that he was not a party man, and entreated them to forget that they were high or low, or broad churchmen, but to work for the general good of the whole Church. At the same time there should be a limit to the latitude allowed to certain practices. He asserted that there was a conspiracy against the Church to subvert the Book of Common Prayer, and an attempt to bring the Church into the bondage of Rome, and read extracts from Ritualistic writings in support of his assertion. He denounced, at some length, the excesses of Ritualism in England, and warned the House to do all in their power to prevent their obtaining a foothold in Canada anything that savoured of them. They had gradually arisen in England, and if care was not taken they would gradually obtains foothold in this country. They should keep the skirts of the Church in Canada from the pollution of those practices that were disgracing the Church in the mother country. He concluded by an earnest appeal to the House to work together as brothers to preserve the heritage of their fathers, and that liberty with which Christ himself had made the Church free.

The amendment did not meddle with anything that was in use in [61/62] this Province, and therefore they were not attempting to force anything on any one. Hence they were not receiving any compromise, and it was rather too much to ask them to give up the black gown, when nothing was given up by gentlemen holding different views.

Rev. Canon Balch endorsed the remarks of Mr. Caulfield with one exception. He had made mention of those detestable land pirates, the Fenians--a name which should not be dragged into the discussion of a respectable body. (Laughter.) He hoped the Synod would come to a unanimous decision, as in that case the decision would have a much greater moral effect.

Hon. J. H. Cameron said that the fact of their retaining the words "the Court of Arches" could not be construed into an admission of dependence; on the contrary, they would show that the opinion of the House was supported by that court.

Mr. Carter contended that the retention of those words would seem to indicate that the Synod adopted the resolution because the Court of Arches had adopted it, and not as an independent body. He replied to the assertion of Mr. Darling that the Sarum rules in respect to vestments were not abrogated, quoting from the statute that those rules were abolished and forbidden on pain of punishment.

Archdeacon Palmer held that they were a free church, at liberty to make any enactments for the general management and observances of the Church. It has been said that they were unable to alter the rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer, but the declaration of the Bishops only referred to doctrine; it contained nothing which prevented the Synod from changing the rubrics. He appealed to his friends to come to a compromise, and give up the black gown for the sake of coming to a unanimous decision.

Mr. Harman complained that the report of the Committee on Ritualism had been treated as a dead letter, though at the first part of the session certain gentlemen wished to have the report brought in and discussed at the very earliest moment. This was not treating the Committee fairly. He preferred that the recommendation of their Lordships of the Upper House should be adopted in their entirety.

Mr. Scott was in favour of the "Court of Arches" being omitted in the resolution.

Mr. Carter's amendment was then put and carried.

Moved by Mr. Harman, seconded by Mr. W. B. Simpson,

Whereas, the elevation of the elements in the celebration of the Holy Communion, the use of incense during Divine Service, and the mixing of water with the sacramental wine, are held to be illegal, the above mentioned practices are hereby forbidden in the Church of this Province; and, whereas, the Rubric at the end of the Communion office enacts that the bread shall be "such as is usual to be eaten," the use of wafer bread is hereby forbidden, and this Synod would express their disapprobation of the use of lights on the Lord's table, and of vestments save and except the surplice, stole and scarf, and the academical hood pertaining to the degree of any graduate, which are to be the sole vestments in use in saying the public prayers, or administering the sacraments or other rites of the Church, and in preaching, and their determination to prevent by every lawful means the introduction into the Church of this Province of lights on the Lord's table, and vestments, save as aforesaid.

Rev. Mr. Darling said he could not vote for Mr. Harman's amendment, because it would place other gentlemen in the same position which he protested against having himself placed in. He did not attach much importance to the colour of the gown, and if some congregations preferred that their ministers should wear the black gown he considered that liberty should be allowed them. He pledged himself as a Christian man, that if the Synod expressed their desire that he should not use those vestments, he would not use them. (Cheers.) He had never, for one instant, thought of placing himself in opposition to his spiritual rulers, unless it was a matter of principle. He objected to clergymen being obliged to put off the black gown, when the well-being of their congregation was involved in it, and hoped the Synod would unanimously unite on Dr. Balch's resolution.

Mr. Simpson said he had seconded Mr. Harman's amendment on the ground that it would have the effect of producing peace, In prohibiting the use of the black gown, which was known as a party badge.

Hon. J. H. Cameron did not agree with those who considered that time expended in this debate was lost, as the subject was one of great importance. With reference to the power of this Synod, there could be no doubt of it. The act providing a Constitution for the Synod established that this was an entirely free church. (Hear, hear.) He had no hesitation in declaring that the effect of the law was to place them in a perfectly independent position. They had the same right to deal with these questions as the Parliament of Canada had power to change laws taken from England. He had not the slightest doubt that they had the power both to reject a Canon passed by the mother Church or to enact a Canon not in force in England. He did not see why they could not agree to the resolution of Dr. Balch, with probably an alteration or two. The black gown was not mentioned in any Canons, and was not a vestment in the proper sense of the term. The resolution proposed was equally as binding as a Canon, except that portion which was merely an expression of disapprobation, which might in time lead up to a Canon. He suggested an addition to the resolution of a clause, to the effect that all vestments be under the supervision of the Bishop of each Diocese. As a means of keeping peace, he would urge that a unanimous decision be arrived at upon the resolution, either as it stood or with his proposed addition.

Rev. Canon Balch was willing to accept the suggestion of Mr. Cameron.

Mr. Harman said he had not referred to the black gown. All he wanted was permission for the use of the surplice in the pulpit as well as during the service.

Archdeacon Fuller said he was willing to accept Mr. Harman's amendment, with the single exception of its prohibition of the black gown.

The hour of one o'clock having arrived, the House adjourned.

The Lower House re-assembled at 2.30 P. M.

The Ven. Archdeacon Patton appeared and took his seat.

The debate on Mr. Harman's amendment was continued.

Mr. Harman's amendment was put and lost.

Moved in amendment by Archdeacon Fuller, seconded by Professor Wilson:

Whereas, the elevation of the elements in the celebration of the Holy Communion, the use of incense during Divine Service, and the mixing of water with the sacramental wine, are illegal: Resolved by this Synod, that the above mentioned practices are hereby forbidden in the Church of this Province; and, whereas, the rubric at the end of the Communion office enact that the bread shall be "such as is usual to be eaten," the use of wafer bread is hereby forbidden, and this Synod would express their disapprobation of the use of lights on the Lord's table, and of the chasuble, alb, cope, tunicle, and all other vestments excepting those in ordinary use in this ecclesiastical Province.

Lost on the following division;--

CLERICAL.--Yeas: Rev. Messrs. Mountain, Nicolls, Housman, Fuller, McMurray, Grasett, Givins, Darnell, Bancroft, Lindsay, Slack, Du Vernet, Canon Anderson, Marsh, Brough, Hellmuth, Boomer, Sandys, Elwood, H. Caulfield, F. St. G. Caulfield, Nelles, Du Bourdieu, Smythe, Bettridge.

Nays: Rev. Messrs. Hamilton, Roe, Walker, Scarth, Barrage, Torrance, Beaven, Geddes, Palmer, Darling, Holland, Broughall, Balch, Loosemore, Dean of Montreal, Tane, Boswell, Patton, Preston, Bleasdell, Armstrong, Parnell, Lauder, Bogert, Lyster, Forest.

LAITY.--Yeas: Messrs. Scott, Heneker, Wood, Hall, Wilson, Carter, Smallwood, Brydges, Hutton, Forest, Shelton, Gault, Beard, Fitzgerald, Walsh, Lefroy, Ryland, C. Wilson, Davis, Grey, Jackson, Rosamond.

Nays: Messrs. Forsyth, Morris, Gamble, Denison, Cameron, Harman, C. J. Campbell, Boulton, T. Simpson, Jarvis, W. D. Simpson, Henderson, Hon. J. Hamilton, Shaw, Jones, Lewis.

Clerical Yeas, 25; Nays, 26.
Lay Yeas, 22; Nays, 16.

Moved in amendment by Rev. W. S. Darling, seconded Hon. J. H. Cameron:

That the following words be added to the Rev. Canon Balch's amendment:

And with the object of securing uniformity as speedily as possible, it should be understood that while on the one hand no lights shall be placed on the Lord's table, nor what are known as "the Eucharistic Vestments" used; on the other, the use of the Academic Gown shall be discontinued, where such discontinuance not likely to be injurious to the peace and welfare of the parish. Lost on the following division:--

CLERICAL.--Yeas: Rev. Messrs. Nicolls, Hamilton, Roe, Scarth, Geddes, Palmer, Darling, Holland, Broughall, Loosemore, Tane, Patton, Boswell, Preston, Armstrong, Lauder, Bogert, Lyster, Forest.

Nays: Rev. Messrs. Mountain, Walker, Housman, Barrage, Torrance, Beaven, Fuller, McMurray, Grasett, Givins, Balch Bond, Darnell, Bancroft, Lindsay, Slack, DuVernet, Anderson Dean of Montreal, Marsh, Brough, Hellmuth, Boomer, Sandys, Ellwood, H. Caulficld, F. St. G. Caulfield, Nelles, De Bourdieu, Smythe, Bettridge, Bleasdell, Parnell.

LAITY.--Messrs. Forsyth, Morris, Denison, Cameron, Harman, Campbell, Boulton, Thomas Simpson, Jarvis, W. B. Simpson, Hon. J. Hamilton, Shaw, Jones, Lewis.

Nays: Messrs. Scott, Irvine, Wood, Hall, Gamble, Professor Wilson, Carter, Smallwood, Brydges, Button, Foster, Shelton, Gault, Beard, Fitzgerald, Walsh, Lefroy, Ryland, Crowell Willson, Davis, Grey, Jackson, Henderson, Rosamond.

Clerical Yeas, 19; Nays, 33.
Lay Yeas, 14; Nays, 24.

The Prolocutor now called on Rev. Canon Balch for his closing remarks, when Canon Balch said:--

Mr. Prolocutor, the debate seems to be drawing to a close, and the House apparently is ready to take the question on the most important resolution submitted to the Synod. Before this is done, it is the right and sometimes it becomes the duty of the mover of the resolution, to sum up, and make such concluding remarks as in his judgment the case demands.

When, at the request of several members of this House, I introduced the resolution on which you are now to vote,--I accompanied it with some general remarks on the responsibility of our action, and the wide spread and lasting consequence's to the Church which are involved in its decision. I purposely abstained from discussing the merits of the question, in its theological aspect--reserving until the close any arguments on that point which might then be demanded. But in the progress of this debate, which I must characterize as one of extreme ability and great fairness, the theological principles involved have been clearly and fully developed on both sides-; more especially by the Rev. Mr. Darling on one side, and by Mr. Caulfield on the other. The arguments and facts stated by Mr. Caulfield are those which commend themselves to my judgment, and are similar to those (though presented in a better manner) which at this stage of the debate, I intended myself to have submitted to the House. My object, throughout, has been to secure the unanimous action of both Houses, and of both orders in this House; without such unanimity the effect of the resolution would be transient and feeble. With it, the above statute or Canon law, it will be abiding and powerful. No penalty is attached--no prosecution threatened. But the clergyman who can in the face of that resolution, if enacted by both Houses of this Synod, venture to trifle with his vows and disturb the peace of the Church with puerilities and novelties, which are the exponents of grave errors of doctrine, will damage his own conscience and incur a responsibility from which wise men would shrink. I sincerely hope that the resolution will be unanimously adopted.

The Rev. Canon Balch's amendment was then put, and carried unanimously in the following form:--

"Whereas, the elevation of the elements in the celebration of the Holy Communion, the use of incense during Divine Service, and the mixing with water the sacramental wine, are illegal, it is resolved by this Synod that the above-mentioned practices are hereby forbidden in the Church of this Province; and, whereas, the Rubric at the end of the Communion Office enacts that the bread shall be "such as is usual to be eaten," the use of wafer bread is hereby forbidden.

This Synod would express their disapprobation of the use of lights en the Lord's Table, and vestments, except the surplice, stole o: scarf, and hood, in saying the public prayers, or ministering tin-sacraments or other rites of the Church, and their determination to prevent, by every lawful means, their introduction into the Churches in this Province.

When the Rev. Canon Balch's resolution was put to the vote, a demand was made that it should be taken by orders, and while the names were being called it was found that with but two or three exceptions, all were voting yea. So it was decided by all that it be recorded passed unanimously.

The above note of facts is by a Delegate present when the voting took place.

The Prolocutor put to the House,

That Dr. Balch's resolution, as amended, do now stand as the main motion.--Carried.

The hour of 6 o'clock having arrived, the Prolocutor pronounced the benediction, and the House adjourned.

Moved by Prof. Wilson, seconded by Hon. J. H. Cameron, That the resolution unanimously adopted by the House on the subject of Ritual be sent up to the House of Bishops; and that they be respectfully requested to concur in it.--Carried.

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE OF BISHOPS ON RESOLUTIONS REFERRING TO RITUALISTIC PRACTICES.

The Prolocutor read the following message:

The presiding Bishop informs the Prolocutor that the House of Bishops has adopted the resolution of the Lower House with the accompanying amendments:

That the words "that it shall suffice" be inserted after the word "enacts."

That the words "the sacraments" be inserted after the word "ministering."

That the words "it has been determined by the Mother Church in England that" be inserted after the word "whereas."

Sept. 18th, 1868. BENJ. HURON.

The Lower House concurred in the first and second amendments to their resolution on Ritualistic practices sent down by the House of Bishops.

Moved by Mr. Carter, seconded by Rev. Canon Bond, That their Lordships be solicited to allow a conference by Committee, with a view of asserting their Lordships' reasons for the insertion in the resolution of the following words "it has been determined in the Mother Church of England."--Carried.

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE OF BISHOPS CONCERNING RESOLUTIONS WITH REFERENCE TO RITUALISTIC PRACTISES.

The Prolocutor read the following message:

The presiding Bishop informs the Prolocutor that after conference with a Committee of the Lower House, they have agreed to substitute instead of the words "whereas it has been determined in the Mother Church of England that," the words, "It is resolved by this Synod that the elevation of the elements during the celebration of Holy Communion, the use of incense during Divine Service, and the mixing water with the sacramental wine, be hereby forbidden in this ecclesiastical Province."

Sept. 18th, 1868. BENJ. HURON.

Moved by Rev. Canon Balch, seconded by Hon. H. B. Bull: That this House do concur in the amendment to the resolution on Ritualistic practices just sent down by the House of Bishops.--

Carried unanimously.

The funeral of the first Bishop of the Anglican Church in the Diocese of Montreal, took place on Saturday afternoon, 12th Sept., and was, in all respects, a most impressive ceremony. The death of Bishop Fulford, which took place on the 9th September, was an event, and a mournful one, in the history of this Province, as well as in the history of the Anglican Church.

The demonstration of Saturday may be said to have been rather a popular one than a state or official ceremonial. Little or no effort had been made, comparatively speaking, to render the funeral of the Bishop a "grand one;" on the contrary, there was on the part of his most intimate friends, a marked desire to avoid everything which should in any way savour of display. And in view of this fact the immense gathering of Saturday was a striking proof of the love and respect which the people of Montreal generally felt for the deceased prelate.

It was announced that the funeral procession would leave the See House at three o'clock, but at least an hour before that time there was quite a crowd of persons (mostly ladies) assembled round the principal entrance of Christ Church Cathedral. Gradually, as the time passed by, the crowd was augmented, until the yard of the Cathedral was as full as it well could be. Then the bell began to toll, and people commenced to talk to each other in low whispered tones, as though its sound had impressed them with a due sense of the solemnity of the occasion.

Then those who stood nearest to University street were seen to move hastily back, hats were raised and men stood bareheaded, while, preceded by mourners and officials, all that was mortal of Francis Fulford, first Bishop of Montreal, was borne slowly towards that beautiful edifice in the erection of which he had taken so much delight. Immediately following the corpse of him with whom for nearly forty years she had lived in love, came one whose grief is too sacred and whose wounds are too deep for us to venture even to touch upon. But this we may say, that as the widow of the late Bishop passed along many heartfelt earnest prayers for her comfort and consolation went up to "Him who drieth the mourner's tear" and who is the "God of the fatherless and the widow."

Then followed the clergy of the diocese and the clerical and lay members of the Synod staying in the city. And then in uniform, came the principal officers of the army now stationed in Montreal. Finally came the long procession of citizens--a procession composed not only of members of the Church of England, but members of every religious denomination in the city.

Thus, mid the solemn music of that wonderful "Dead March in Saul" and followed by hundreds of lamenting friends, was the body of the Bishop borne into the interior of the Cathedral, amid the sobs and tears not of near and dear relations alone, but of many persons of whose existence the late Bishop was not, perhaps, in his life time aware; honoured also by marks of respect from public men and officials, who could not help feeling that the loss of Bishop Fulford was to some extent a national calamity.

The body was received at the door of the Cathedral by the Very Reverend the Dean of Montreal, the Venerable Archdeacon Leach, and Rev. Canon Bond. Slowly the procession moved up the aisle, and in a few minutes the Church was filled. Then, amid the solemn silence of the vast assembly, who stood with heads bowed, the Dean read in a clear, calm voice, the words which have been the stay and consolation of bereaved Christians in the ages that are past, and will be to the end of time.

The Venerable Archdeacon Leach read that glorious chapter in St. Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians, which, more than any other passage of Holy Writ, exhibits the grandeur of the Christian religion.

The service throughout was very solemn and impressive. The vast assembly, the sad, mournful faces--the plain, but expressive draping on the pulpit, lecture and reading desk--the deep tones of the organ, as it pealed forth the "Dead March in Saul"--the calm voice of the officiating clergyman--the solemn stillness which prevailed--all impressed the mind with feelings of awe, and presented a scene which, once witnessed, can never be forgotten.

The Lord Bishop of Huron, Chairman of the House of Bishops, occupied a seat in the Chancel, being unwell at the time. At the close of the service in the Cathedral, the procession moved out in the same order that they had entered, and reformed on Union Avenue in the following order:

Carriage, containing the Very Rev. the Dean, the Venerable Archdeacon Leach, Rev. Canon Balch, D.D., and Rev. Canon Bond.
Carriage, containing the Lord Bishops of Rupert's Land, and Quebec, Rev. Dr. Beaven, Prolocutor, and the Very Rev. Dean Hellmuth.
Carriage, containing the Lord Bishops of Huron, Toronto, and Ontario.

THE HEARSE.

Carriage, containing the three Messrs. Holland, and Mr. Midshipman Fulford nephew of the deceased.

Rev. Canon Loosemore, the late Bishop's Private Secretary, and others.
Carriage containing Mrs. Fulford, Mrs. Holland, and Mrs. Loosemore.
Carriage containing R. L. Macdonnell, M.D., Attending Physician. Very Rev. Deans J. H. Grasett, Toronto, and J. Lyster, Kingston. Ven. Archdeacons Palmer, Guelph; H. Patton, Cornwall; Brough, London Sandys, Chatham.
Rev. Canons of Christ Church Cathedral, Bancroft and Anderson.

THE CLERICAL DELEGATES TO THE SYNOD.

Clergy not attending the Synod, including those of other denominations.

CHANCELLORS OF THE SEVERAL DIOCESES.

LAY DELEGATES TO THE SYNOD.

His Worship the Mayor of Montreal,
A. M. Delisle, Esq., Collector of H. M. Customs,
M. P. Ryan, M.P., D. A. McDonald, M.P.,
Hon. Thomas Ryan, Senator,
Major General Bissett and Aide-de-Camp,
Lieut. Fitzgeorge,
Col. Ford, R.E., Col. Williams, R.A.,
Lieut. Hutchins, R.A., Dr. McElree,
Col. Peacock and Officers 16th Regiment,
Major Cook and Officers 100th Regiment,
Officers of the Royal Artillery, Hussars, and Commissariat Department,
Sir Henry Havelock, &c.
Professors of McGill University,
Members of the Medical Profession,
Members of the Legislative Council,
Members of the Legislative Assembly,
Cathedral Choir,
Citizens.

The Hearse was drawn by four horses, all caparisoned with black. The clergy appeared in their gowns, hoods and cassocks. The procession passed up Union Avenue, Sherbrooke street, St. Lawrence Main street, to the cemetery. The shops along the route were closed until the procession passed. The lot selected for the last resting place of the deceased is situated near the centre of the Cemetery. Here the coffin was taken from the hearse, and placed in an oak shell by the side of the open grave.

Then the large body of mourners gathered round, and the Very Reverend the Dean read several sentences from the burial service; while the earth was being cast upon the coffin, the Rev. Canon Bond read the usual prayer, after which the coffin was lowered into the grave, and all that is mortal of the first Metropolitan of Canada was buried from view, never more to appear until the last trump shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall all be changed.

ADDRESS OF CONDOLENCE.

Archdeacon Fuller read the following Address of Condolence to Mrs. Fulford, prepared by the Committee appointed for that purpose:

To Mrs. Fulford.

DEAR MADAM,--We the clerical and lay delegates of the United Church of England and Ireland, in the Ecclesiastical Province of Canada, in Provincial Synod assembled, desire to approach you with an earnest expression of our heartfelt sympathy with you, in this hour of heavy trial; and to assure you of the universal respect and confidence entertained for our late Metropolitan, and of the deep sorrow felt for his loss; a sorrow extending to all ranks and classes amongst us, and to many outside of our communion. He appears to us to have been a Prelate pre-eminently fitted by his piety, his ability, his urbanity, his wisdom, and his devotion to his great Master's cause, for the difficult and important post which he was called to fill.

Whilst, therefore, bowing with submission to the inscrutable decree of Him "who does all things well," we feel it a privilege to record our sense of the heavy loss which you, Madam, and the Canadian branch of the Church, have sustained; and to assure you of our earnest prayers that He, who, for so many years, guided, supported and blessed your beloved husband in the discharge of his arduous duties, and "whose consolations are neither few nor small," may support, guide and bless you and your family under the heavy affliction with which He has been pleased to visit you.

SERMON,
PREACHED IN CHRIST CHURCH CATHEDRAL, BY THE REV. CANON
BALCH, D.D.

"And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them." Revelations xiv. 13.

"Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord." What words of Holy Scripture are more fit to be uttered in the Cathedral of a Christian Bishop, draped as this is with the emblems of mourning? Words which change the curse of death into a blessing; words which lighten the mourner's heart, and are balm to the wounded spirit. Scarcely one short week since, and they comforted the heart of a son, standing by the freshly made grave of a venerated father; and to-day they give abiding consolation to a whole diocese, stricken and mourning the loss of its Right Reverend Father in God. Let us first ponder the words themselves, and then consider our great sorrow which it is intended to sanctify. "I heard a voice from heaven," saith St. John. 'Twas not the voice of an angel; 'twas not the voice of an archangel, but the same voice which he had before heard on the Mount of Transfiguration--the voice of God the Father. And to this august voice the Holy Ghost responds: "Yea," saith the Spirit. The text challenges our faith on the testimony o£ two witnesses--God the Father and God the Holy Ghost. Mark the manner in which it is given: "Write," saith the Father; "Yea," saith the Spirit. Leave it forever on record; give enduring, unchangeable immortality to the testimony of these divine witnesses. Write--commit it to no vain, uncertain tradition of man. Let it not be the sport of human fancy--nor subject to all the accidents of human caprice; but write.

And it has been written. Written in the heart of man's belief--graven in the tablets of the soul. Time and death have not blotted out a single letter, nor cast a pall of forgetfulness over this glorious revelation. Each line, and syllable and sentence, are as fresh and powerful after the lapse of ages, and amidst all the mighty conquests of sin, as when first heard by St. John. Generations now silent in the grave have clung to them. The Sacramental host of the Church militant, valiantly doing battle in the good fight of faith, will to-day press them close to their hearts and rejoice in their strength and consolation. Generations to come will have no other, and can need no other revelation. "Write,"--thank God it is written--"blessed be the dead."

But how is this? Death, saith scripture, is a curse--the wages of sin is death. It is not an accident, but a punishment and disgrace. To be numbered with transgressors, to die by decree of law, has always been counted infamous, and such is the death inflicted upon fallen man by the law of God; but in the face of these facts the text says, and says truly, "Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord." The world says, "Blessed are the living." Life is a precious, joyous thing; beautiful in childhood; glorious in manhood; venerable in age. But revelation takes us into the darkened room, where the prattle of the sweet innocent is silent, or the strength of manhood withered like the grass that fadeth, or where the wisdom of age can teach only the one lesson--"It is appointed unto man once to die;" and as you look on those dear remains, the voice of God the Father is heard saying, "Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord, yea, saith the Spirit, for they rest from their labours, and their works do follow them."

But not all the dead are blessed. You may justly inscribe the text on the tomb of St. John, but not on the grave of Iscariot. Oh, no. The dead who die in the Lord alone "re blessed; the wicked have no hope in the grave. Some refuse to live in Christ, and rush into eternity unholy, unpardoned. You may put their bodies into splendid coffins; you may print their names in silver on the lids; you may form the long procession of solemn mourners; you may render the last sad office; you may erect the marble monument and engraved golden epitaphs--still it is only the funeral of the lost soul--a soul unblest; for man cannot bless what God hath cursed, and "Cursed is he who continueth not in the works of the law to do them," whilst "Blessed is he who dieth in the Lord." Only he who lives in Christ dies in the Lord. No man can die the Christian's death who has not by faith and repentance lived the Christian's life. "If we say that we abide in him," saith St. John, "we ought also to walk even as he walks." The Redeemer of mankind, to give us an outward example, and to provide an inward source of strength, requisite to live in the Lord, voluntarily withdrew himself from the glories of Heaven--set himself apart to the sorrows of earth and the sufferings of a vicarious death. His embassy was to make knows. God in the work of man's redemption. Charged with this commission he stands before the universe the visible representative of the invisible God. To unfold for our adoration, and quicken us by the life-giving power of the divine character, was the aim and object of his every act and word. And such must be the Church's work. Every member, living and dying in the Lord, is bound to show forth Jesus Christ by the grace of the Holy Spirit, as Jesus Christ in and of himself lived in and shewed forth the Father.

To persuade all men so to live and die in the Lord, the text furnishes two arguments. First, because such men having died a Christian, and therefore a blessed death, rest from their labours; and secondly, because their works do follow them.

Rest is sweet to the weary, but no haven of rest can be found on earth. That we are taught to look for it as a motive to action and a guide to duty is proved by the divine ordinance of the Sabbath, whilst every man's conscience recognizes its want as fundamental to our being. The labour of life and the rest of death were coeval with the beginning of the world, for God laboured six days, and rested on the seventh, giving us a promise and a pattern that if we labour with Him we should also rest with Him. No rest was necessary for the Almighty, but he rested for our instruction, to teach us that the labour of this life, if it is for God, will certainly end in the rest of Heaven.

But the fact stated by the Holy Ghost implies that rest is intended only for those who labour. The sleep of the labouring man is sweet. He that would rest with God must work for God. Everything in creation works for God, everything in Providence obeys God. He setteth up one and putteth down another. So in the Church. Every man has his specific duty assigned, of labour to be done, and work to be finished; and when it is well and faithfully done he shall enter into rest; but his labours, his works are not left behind, We are told by the text they follow him. They do not go before the soul to usurp the atoning efficacy of Christ's sacrifice, still less to insult the majesty of God by demanding eternal life as the just recompense of works done in the body. Oh, no, they do not precede, they follow the believer to heaven. You may forget the kind look, the gracious word, the friendly deed, the cup of cold water, but God does not forget them, Christ will not, the Holy Spirit cannot. The merciful shall obtain mercy. What men give and do for God in this world they shall have in the Kingdom of Heaven, with this difference, what they give up is temporal, what they receive is eternal.

Such then is the principle which sheds light on our Bishop's grave. The text says his death is blessed; he rests from his labours; his works do follow him. The text has great force applied to his death. He was taken at once from his labours to his rest; calm and peaceful and blessed was his death. No long weary interval of pain and sickness; but returning from a visitation of his Diocese, the Master called him home. I shall attempt no eulogy. His life is his best eulogy. Nor shall I give a sketch of that life, for that belongs to another time and place. But I cannot help feeling how short was the interval between the death of the senior Bishop of the American Church and of the Metropolitan of the Church of England in Canada. The grass is hardly green over the grave of the gifted and learned Bishop of Vermont. Born in Ireland, he gave a life of labour to the Church in the States, and received every honour and dignity in the power of that Church to bestow; but, like our Bishop, with his harness on, and fresh from a diocesan visitation, in a few days he entered on his rest. The Church in Canada and the Church in the States mourn him as a father, and to-day, both Churches are again involved in a common grief. Descended from a long line of English ancestry, bearing from his early home a goodly report as a faithful parish priest--first, in the country among the poor, and then in the city among the rich, for eighteen years Bishop Fulford has, with the aid of Divine grace, in meekness and wisdom, with a consummate ability, administered the affairs of this important diocese, and discharged the high trust of Metropolitan.

Bishop Fulford was no ordinary man. His quiet dignity of manner, his simple terseness of speech, relieved on suitable occasion by a cheerful kindness eminently becoming his station, are imperishably daguerreotyped on our hearts and memories.

But, to appreciate Bishop Fulford as he should be, you must study him in his holy office as Bishop. The qualities which preeminently stood out to view, and then entered into and pervaded all others, and became the guiding and controlling powers of his whole character, were wisdom and justice. Wise and just! Others may have excelled him in learning, in eloquence, in zeal, and in sympathy, but as a wise master-builder, as a just ruler of the Church he had few equals.

His open dislike of partizanship was well known. He rated men, not by their loyalty to the parties they represented, but by zeal for the Church at large, and he ever strove to shield diocese from the deadly effects of party strife. It is one of the trials of men holding high positions either in Church or State that they are often approached by persons with sinister designs, who seek to warp their judgments and prejudice their minds, and it was one of the striking excellencies of our venerable Bishop that he speedily penetrated such characters. The absent or the defamed needed no better advocate than the Metropolitan's own sense of right.

Bishop Fulford had no sympathy with that narrow spirit that is governed by the contracted bounds of geographical loyalty to Christ. He stood with St. Paul in a large hearted missionary zeal, and comprehended in his brotherhood the Catholic Church. He appreciated men, not because their bodies were born on one or the other side of the boundary lines of an earthly kingdom, but because their souls were born of water and the Holy Spirit, and with zeal and fidelity were doing the work of the Lord in the Kingdom of the Lord. Your own minds will readily recur in this connection to the warm interest and earnest efforts he made to promote the assembling, and further the objects contemplated by the great council which met at Lambeth. I will relate an incident of a different kind which illustrates, I think, the same fact. By the late war eleven dioceses of the United States for a while believed, and acted on the belief, that the Federal Union was broken, and therefore organized themselves under a senior Bishop of their own. When the war terminated no small anxiety was felt as to the mode in which the rupture should be healed, and harmony restored. Bishop Fulford was invited by one of the American Bishops to preach in his place at the opening of the General Council of 1865. He did preach that sermon. It is not too much to say that no sermon was ever preached on this continent before a more august Council of the Church, or on an occasion surrounded with interest of a more solemn and momentous character to the race which speaks the English language. And when I say that the wisdom of that sermon was equal to the occasion, that the Holy Ghost gave our departed Diocesan grace to meet the delicate responsibility he assumed, and that all hearts in the great Republic beat lovingly toward him, and with warm sympathy for the Church in Canada, you will be prepared to believe what I personally know to be a fact, that he gratefully acknowledged God's mercy in thus making him the honoured instrument of promoting that object dearest to his heart-- the unity, the harmony and the prosperity of Christ's Holy Catholic Church.

Were the Bishop preaching here to-day, as his mortal remains did, so solemnly and silently, yesterday, it would be not to deal only with the past, except to extract fresh lessons for greater diligence in the future. He would bid us not to linger in delight over the blessed death so soon to be the believer's portion, nor the joy of the saints' rest in heaven, because the blessings of the Christian's death we can neither alter nor improve. The rest that remaineth for the people of God we do not provide, nor can we adorn. But the number and character of the works and labours which are to follow us into that world of glory we can materially increase and affect. Mary Magdalene, who, as the proxy for the human race, welcomed our Lord on the morning of his resurrection, was not permitted to linger in delight, when she fell at his feet, and exclaimed "Rabonni." Christ sent her at once to discharge her duty. Her labours were not ended; and so with each and all of us. The Church depends on no man. God can raise up children to Abraham from the very stones. A great and glorious work lies before the Church in Canada, if we are faithful, each in his station and sphere. The noble foundations, laid amidst so many trials and perils, by Mountain and Stuart and Strachan and Fulford, will be built upon by our present earnest chief pastors and faithful clergy, till our children shall see it rise a glorious house, built on Christ, the corner stone, to the praise and glory of God.

I shall not speak of our loss, still less intrude on the sacred domain of domestic grief. But if the Metropolitan's death was blessed--if he has entered into his rest, and his works and labour of love do follow him to that world of bliss, oh, beloved brethren, how should we rejoice to be permitted to serve like him such a divine Redeemer! How consoling the thought that our turn will come before long. Many of you have been honoured long years by preaching the glorious gospel of the Son of God. One lingers yet amongst us, whose venerable form we love to see, who might have expected his Bishop to have closed his eyes and perform the last rites of our holy religion over his remains. But he is spared. God spare him for many years to counsel us with wisdom. And when, like a shock of corn fully ripe, he goes the way of all the earth, and when each and all of us shall follow, let the words of the text dwell in our heart and memories; "And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them."

Project Canterbury