eported by the joint committee, the lower house did
not succeed in coming to any agreement as to this canon. Ii was attempted to postpone indefinitely the whole matter, but without success. The favorers of ritualism endeavored to get the convention committed to some action in accordance with their views; the opponents of ritualism were equally urgent in seeking to obtain legislation directly condemnatory ot numerous acts and observances peculiar to the ritualistic party. A very prominent advocate of the system (Dr. DeKoven, of Wisconsin) made a speech against the canon as adopted by the House of Bishops. He usedstrange andeven of- fensive language in support of his sentiments and opin- ions, and challenged any one who pleased so to do to present him for trial, he having boldly adopted and ut- tered as his own the words of one of the most ultra- ritualists in England: "I believe in the real, actual presence of our Lord, under the form ofbread and wine, upon the ahars of our churches. I myself adore, and would, if ii were necessary or my duty, teaeh my people to adore, < Ihrist present in the elements under the form ofbread and wine." The discussions, though exciting and continued from day to day, were conducted with good temper and general fairness. As. on the whole, where neither side in a controversy is willing to yield, it is usually found to be the easiest way to get out ol present difficulty to pass some comprehensive resolu- tions, which may mean more or less according to the mode of looking at them by different parties, such was the course now adopted. It was finally "Resolved, the
House of Bishops urring, That this convention nere-
bj expresses its decided condemnation of all ceremonies, observances, and practices which are fitted to express a doctrine foreign to that set forth in the authorized standards of this Church. Resolved, That, in the judg- ment of this house, the paternal i nsel and advice of
the right reverend lathers, the bishops of the Church. are deemed sufficient, at this time, to secure the sup- pression of all that is irregular and unseemly, and to promote greater uniformity in conducting the public worship of the Church and in the adminisl ration of the holy sacraments." Thus, as we have intimated above, the real question at issue was postponed rather than ad- judicated. Ritualism went on its course with additional vigor and confidence, and its opponents became more and more dissatisfied with the existing state of things. Consequently the Btruggle, as was to be expected, was renewed again whin the General Convention met in New STorli in October, 1874. Memorials were presented from various quarters on this Bubject, resolutions were introduced bearing directly upon it. and legislation was earnestly called for in order to restrain what was termed excess of ritual in the public Ben ice of the Church. In the House oi Deputii - the question of confirmation of
the bishop elect (Dr. G. F. Seymour) of Illinois came up. Jle was charged with being an active member of the advanced ritualistic party; his case was discussed for a whole week in seen i session, and. though Dr. Seymour energetically denied the imputation- cast upon him, alter a long Btruggle confirmation was refused by a close vote— viz, nineteen to twenty-two clerical, thir- teen to twenty-seven lay. i Four years later Dr. S. was elected to the episcopate, and is now | 1*7* bishop of the diocese of Springfield, 111.) This result in the Sey- mour case was looked upon as virtually a victory of the anli-riluali.-ls. and alter much debate in both houses agreement was bad to the following effect. A canon
was passed, almost unani usly nit. i. can. 22), requu>
ing every bishop to Buramon t he standing commits e as a council of advice, in case complaint i- made to him in writing, by tun or more presbyters, that ceremonies or practices not authorized by the Book oft Sommon Prayer, and symbolizing erroneous or doubtful doctrines, have been introduced into any Church, specifying, in regard to the Holy Communion, " the elevation of the elements
in such manner as to expose them to the view of the people as objects toward- which adoration i- to be made; any act of adoration ot or towards the elements in the Holy Communion, such as bowings, prostrations, or genu- flections; and all other like acts not authorized by the rubrics ot i he Book oi I lommon Prayer;" further, if after investigation it is found that such practices have been introduced, the bishop shall admonish, in writing, the offending minister to discontinue such practici - or cere- monies; and if he disregard such admonition, it -hall he the duty of the Btanding committee to cause him to he tried f,.r a breach of his ordination vow. Every minis- ter charged with violation of this cation i- t>. have op- portunity to be heard in his own defence; the charges and findings are to be in writing, and a record is to be kept l.\ the bishop and the Btanding committee of the proceedings in the case. Such was the latest direct ac- tion of the highest legislative authority of the Church on this subject. The opponents of ritualism have ap- parently settled down in the conviction that the pn sent canon is sufficient to enable the bishop- effectually to repress, when necessary, all unseemly practices in this direction. The favorers of ritualism, on the other hand (at least, the more outspoken of them', have treated with -cant courtesy the- action of the convention of 1*74. and alrirm that "the canon is flagrantly unconstitution- al, ami that no bishop ha- ever dared to put it in use. and none ever will." At the General < onvention of 1ST" the matter was hardly at all alluded to. This the anti-ritualists interpret as in their favor, in the confi- dence that the Church has become weary of the dispute, and i- disposed for the future to adhere to the old-fash- ioned, simpler, less ornate ways of conducting public Ben ice-. The ritualists hold the opposite \ iew, and it