at every mention of the Saviour's name, or of those of the persons in the Trinity, turning away from the people at some junctures, as in the ascription, and certain other postures, beyond those that have been mentioned above. To such, and other additions, not a few clergy bring the objection that, if they are not illegal nor indicative of doctrine which is at variance with Scripture, they are yet novelties that tend to formalism, may produce an unhealthy tone of religion, and therefore are to be avoided, when the Church has not suggested, nor sanctioned, their engrafting upon the former order of things.

Now, these three classes of objections to certain practices, come under the domain of principle. When this question arises, can any one claim that it is right to comply because of considerations of courtesy? Surely everybody will admit that it is not justifiable to be polite at the expense of convictions. Therefore it would appear manifest that a clergyman so regarding the matter should not conform to any of these customs, when he finds them the use of a chancel where he is a visitor. He may be deemed narrow and hypercritical, but the question is simply whether it is a matter of conscience with him. If this is the case, then he is precluded from acquiescence, though he may be mistaken, and the minister in whose chancel he is, should, and doubtless will, recognize this as a valid restraint. He should not expect his visitor to imitate him at the cost of his convictions. Consequently, our second principle of adjustment is that a clergyman should not be expected, nor should it be exacted of him, to conform to any of these new practices that conflict with his ideas of what is lawful, or true, or proper.

But a third issue is brought before us by the reverse of the above instances.

If a minister who cannot conscientiously conform to certain new practices, is to be released from the obligation to do so when a guest, how is it with one who makes use of them, when this latter is in a chancel where they have not been adopted? Is he, or is he not, bound to conform? Must he lay them aside under such cir cumstances, or may he introduce them, in his performance of the service?

To this it may be replied that, surely, to use a popular expres

sion, "what is fair for the one is fair for the other." But this answer implies a fallacy, in which is involved the solution of the

matter.

These customs now under consideration are of recent origin, and have not been adopted by the Church in any way whatever. They are, at the best, only tolerated, and have no sanction. Any clergyman, therefore, is at liberty to refuse to initiate them in his conduct of the services, if he prefer to adhere to the "old paths." But it results, hence, that no one else has a right to import them into his Church, and thus to make variations that disturb the usual mode of procedure, or conflict with his influence upon his people. Common courtesy would seem to indicate this.

Yet it may be said that the visitor may have principle in his use of these practices, and cannot be expected to lay them aside for that reason. It is difficult to see how this plea can be urged. For, if any one assert that his conscience will not permit him to dispense with acts or customs that are of recent date, then he impliedly says that the Church was in error before these things were in vogue, is still in error in not enforcing them, that all err who adhere to the former and venerable methods, and that his ways are indispensible to right worship. Few, if any, will claim this much. That is, it seems clear that a minister may make it a point of conscience not to conform, in chancels where there are new ways, but that no one can refuse, upon principle, to do so where there are none. Conscience may refuse assent to additions, but it cannot, as it seems to me, require refusal to follow the original order of things.

In this way, therefore, should regard for a brother's feelings, and for his relations with his people, indicate the propriety of a visitor dispensing with all novelties in a Church where they have not been introduced, since he can do this without any violation of conscience.

We thus arrive at, to recapitulate, three principles for the etiquette of the chancel, viz:: compliance, from courtesy, where there is no question of principle involved; abstinence from exaction of conformity, where the visitor has scruples regarding it; and, lastly, the laying aside of all novelties, on the part of those addicted to them, when in Churches where they have not been adopted.

With the questions that arise connected with preaching, we cannot now enter, nor are they within the line of thought to which I have had to limit myself. They awaken very delicate considerations, and demand a wider and more protracted study than the issues pertaining to acts and postures. For, when it comes to direct utterances, we have to take into account the adjustment of fidelity to what is held to be truth, with the claims of regard for a brother's feelings and influence. Yet this much we may say, that, in the vast range of themes wherein all agree, which, thank God, comprises matters so much greater and more numerous than those wherein there is variance amongst us, and unites us so closely against the unbelief of the day, the properly minded minister, when called upon to preach in Churches whose pastors disagree with him, ought always to be able to treat of subjects pertaining to Christ and His salvation, without incurring either the charge of discourtesy or that of unfaithfulness to duty.

But, to recur to the matter properly before us, which is more really practical, unless some such principles of action are recognized and agreed to, there must either be a cessation of exchanges to a great extent, or else a most deplorable amount of clashing and of feeling. For, these variations are becoming more and more numerous, and, more and more prevalent every day, and the question involved as to conduct, is becoming more constantly serious. There are too many men in our Church who are in earnest and conscientious, for us to expect that friction will not arise, if conformity is exacted by those who vary from the past methods of conducting service. I am not disposed, nor intending, to arouse needless difficulties, but wish only to state that which is beyond doubt, that there exist, in many minds, well grounded scruples as regards these new customs. If those scruples are not heeded nor respected, in some such manner as that which I have sought to indicate, then our clergy will be divided up into cliques, marked by various degrees of "advance," who will not be able to enter one another's chancels, and who will, consequently, form parties and "schisms in the body" beyond anything that has been known hitherto. It might be here urged that all these difficulties form a good argument against the arbitrary adoption of new practices, and that, upon them, an appeal may

be based to those who love peace, to abstain from them and be content with "the old ways. But all I am now concerned with, is to show, that, if they will adopt them, brethren should be ready to acquiesce in the above principles, regarding what they exact in their own Churches, and concede in those of others.

That many will do so, there can be little doubt. Many instances occur where that considerateness is manifested, which, as I have sought to show, must control the etiquette of the chancel.

In closing, let me disclaim any intention to speak disrespectfully of any brethren or of their convictions, or to impugn the motives of any. I have sought to speak without passing judgment upon the merits of the novelties to which I have referred, except in the case where I was personally concerned.

GEO. Z. GRAY.

THE SCHISM OF 1873.

BISHOP CUMMINS' LETTER TO THE RIGHT REVEREND BENJAMIN BosWORTH SMITH, D. D., Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Kentucky.

THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER; as Revised and Proposed to the use of the PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH, at a Convention of said Church, held in Philadelphia, from September 27, to October 7, 1785.

[The above is certified by "George David Cummins, Bishop of the Reformed Episcopal Church," as an exact Reprint of the English edition of 1789, of what is commonly called the Proposed Prayer Book of 1785.]

THE UNION PRAYER BOOK: A Manual of Public Worship, prepared for the use of the followers of the Lord Jesus Christ, in the United States of America. NEW YORK: A. S. BARNES & Co. 1872.

THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER OF THE REFORMED EPISCOPAL

CHURCH: Adopted and set forth for use by the Second General Council of the said Church, held in the City of New York in the month of May, 1874.

On the 10th day of November, A. D. 1873, the Right Rev. George David Cummins, D. D., then Assistant Bishop of the Diocese of Kentucky, did, in a letter addressed to the Right Rev. Benjamin Bosworth Smith, D. D., LL. D., Bishop of the Diocese, make the following announcement : "I am about to retire from the work in which I have been engaged for the last seven years in the Diocese of Kentucky," and "I leave the Communion in which I have labored in the sacred ministry for over twenty-eight