PROPOSED ALTERATION IN THE THIRTY-FIFTH CANON.
Another subject came up in this Convention worthy of some
notice. It was the meaning and design of the thirty-fifth canon,
which relates to the officiating of those not ministers of our Church
in the houses of worship belonging to our communion. On my
visit to Newburyport the preceding year, I spent several days in
the hospitable family of the Rev. Dr. Morse, Episcopal minister in
that place. So far from condemning me for preaching in the pulpits
of other denominations on the subject I had in hand, as "Sopater
of Berea," and perhaps some others, had done, he informed me
that only on the preceding Sabbath he had a most respectable
minister of the Presbyterian denomination in his pulpit, and justified
the act. At the succeeding General Convention, in the year 1820,
to my surprise, he brought forward a proposition to repeal the
thirty-fifth canon, which seemed to forbid what he had done, and
which he also alleged might be construed so as to forbid lay reading
in our churches. His proposition was referred to a committee,
which reported unfavourably. It was nevertheless carried. Being
sent to the House of Bishops for concurrence, it was there negatived.
A committee of conference was proposed and agreed to,
and I was one of the committee. On a meeting of the joint committee,
it was urged, by those who were in favour of its being rescinded,
that our Bishops and ministers, in seeking to build up our
Church in many places where we had no houses of worship, were
often allowed the use of those of other denominations, and it would
be unbecoming in us to seek or accept such favours without being
willing to grant similar ones. The meeting, however, broke up
without any agreement. On that or the following day I dined with
Bishop Hobart at a Mr. Smith's, of Philadelphia, and just before
dinner the Bishop took me aside and read me something which he
thought would satisfy all parties. It is the same which may be
seen on page 58 of the Journal of the Convention of 1820. It is
as follows:—
"The Bishops have found by experience that such ministers, [those not
of our Church,] in many instances, preaching in our churches and to our
congregations, avail themselves of such opportunities to inveigh against
the principles of our communion; and in some instances have endeavoured
to obtain a common right with us to our property. It is therefore not
from want of charity to worthy persons dissenting from us, but for the
maintenance of such charity, and to avoid collision, that we declare our
non-concurrence. The Bishops further declare their opinion concerning
the thirty-fifth canon as it now stands, that it does not prohibit the officiating
of pious and respectable persons as lay readers in our churches, in
cases of necessity and expediency;
nor the lending of any church to any
respectable congregation on any occasion of emergency."
It will be seen that in the foregoing exposition of the Bishops
there is no exclusive offensive reason assigned for their non-concurrence,
but one which all candid persons must admit to be good,
—which indeed all denominations act upon, according to circumstances.
It is not said that no other ministers but ours have a
right to preach, and that none but ours must enter Episcopal pulpits,
but that, to promote charity, to prevent collision, it is best
that they be opened only to our own, except when justifying causes
exist. That we have suffered at times in the way complained of,
in permitting the too free use of our churches, is a fact too well
known to us in Virginia, as elsewhere. I have on more than one
occasion advised the refusal of our churches, when there was no reasonable
cause for the loan of them. Against the uniting in free and
common churches I have protested from my first entrance on the
ministry, and have on various occasions been instrumental in substituting
Episcopal churches for such. Of course, it is for the
ministers and vestries to apply the reasoning and advice of the
Bishops, and decide when it is proper to open our churches to
others. There is not much cause to fear the excessive hospitality
of our own or other denominations in this respect; for all are so
multiplying houses of worship through the land that there is little
need of it. The jealousy of sects is also a sufficient safeguard
against excess. Let me add, in conclusion, that this was an old
canon of the English Church, adopted, like many others, into our
code. Its title in England, and for many years in our own land,
was, "Concerning the officiating of strangers, &c." It was designed
to prevent strolling impostors from getting into our pulpits,
and therefore their regular credentials were required to be shown
to the vestries and ministers. Had it been originally framed to
prevent all non-Episcopalian ministers from being admitted into
Episcopal pulpits, it would surely have been declared in some plain,
honest way, and the word "strangers" not have been used, for that
would have been most inapplicable to some worthy ministers of
other denominations living in the same town or parish, and well
known. For many years the same title was used in the American
Church. In the Convention of 1808, a committee was appointed
(of which Dr. Hobart was one) to revise the canons. The title of
the old canon, and nothing else, was altered, and perhaps without
discussion or observation. Bishop Hobart was a good expositor of
the design of the change, and of the construction to be put upon it.
It is to be regretted that any alteration took place in the title.
The Church has sustained injury by it in the increased prejudice
produced by the construction put upon it by some too zealous friends
and some too bitter foes,—namely, that the Episcopal Church hereby
denies the right of any other minister to preach the Gospel, which
is inconsistent with the exposition given of it by the House of
Bishops. Without any such canon, all the ministers and trustees
of other denominations guard their churches against intruders, and
lend them out when it is deemed expedient. For various reasons,
ours will always be yet more particular, even without law.
