University of Virginia Library

THE EPISCOPAL SUNDAY-SCHOOL UNION.

This was established at the General Convention of 1826. Nothing
of its formation appears on the journal, for it was not even
proposed to the House. It was the wish of some to make it an
institution of the Convention, and such a proposition was talked of;
but the whole history of the action of the General Convention was
against it. On more than one occasion, individuals had applied to
the Convention or to the House of Bishops to adopt or recommend
certain Church-books, but were refused on the ground that the
General Convention was formed for other purposes, and that the
precedent would be bad. In that very year,—1826,—the Rev. Mr.
Barlow brought forward a scheme for a Church book-establishment,
and was permitted to occupy many hours in the explanation and
advocacy of it. The following resolution was adopted in regard to
it:—"Resolved, As the opinion of this House, that, without entering
at all into the merits of the plan noticed in the report of the
committee, it is inexpedient to legislate on the subject." On another
occasion an effort was made to form a General Education
Society under the patronage of the General Convention. This also,
after being considered for some time, was postponed, and never
resumed. In truth, the only institutions which have been brought
under the General Convention are the General Seminary and the
Missionary Society; and whether they give any encouragement for
the trial of others, all may judge for themselves. The Episcopal
Sunday-School Union was therefore, as has since been publicly
and formally admitted by itself, a voluntary institution. Several
attempts were made, at different General Conventions, to have it
enrolled and recognised among the general institutions of the
Church; but they failed,—the Convention being reminded that it
was only a voluntary society. The determination of the Church
not to embarrass itself and produce discord, by adopting any such
institution, was further manifested by the failure of an effort made
in 1847 by Bishop Henshaw, who proposed to have a committee
of both Houses to prepare a few catechetical books for the children
of the Church, with a view to uniformity and harmony. It was
opposed by Bishops Delancy, Whittingham, Hopkins, and myself.
After a discussion during a part of several days, the question being
taken, the mover of the resolution was the only one who voted for it.

There was, however, from the time of its formation a general
disposition to encourage the Episcopal Sunday-School Union as a

voluntary society. The American Sunday-School Union and the
American Tract Societies were noble institutions, and furnished
many excellent and suitable works for individuals, families, and
Sunday-schools; but they could not supply certain books setting
forth the peculiarities of the different denominations in connection
with the Gospel. It was therefore desirable that Episcopalians as
well as others should have some organization for supplying such.
It was distinctly understood, at the establishment of ours in 1826,
that it should assume no party character, but be conducted on liberal
comprehensive principles, setting forth only those common truths
about which Episcopalians are agreed,—which platform has been
repeatedly declared since then. Accordingly, the diocese of Virginia,
at the first Convention after its organization, earnestly recommended
it to the patronage of the Episcopalians of the State.
A few months only, however, had elapsed, when some of its publications
contained sentiments very different from what was expected,
and which were calculated to dissatisfy many of us. I immediately
wrote to the chief manager of it,—the present Bishop of Maryland,
—making complaints. In reply, I was assured that the greatest
pains should be taken in the future to avoid giving offence; that
the book most objected to should be withdrawn from circulation;
and that henceforth books favouring both parties in the Church
should be published. I did not question the sincerity of the promise
and intention, but saw the impracticability of the plan proposed.
Thus disappointed, I did not take any particular concern in the
operation of the Society after that. I only saw that from time to
time some things came out which were criticized, and which I could
not approve, though there were many good little books published
for children, chiefly from the pens of pious writers in England. At
length, when Tractarian publications began to multiply in our own
and Mother-Church, the character of the issues of this Society became
more and more tinctured with the false doctrines of that
school. Complaints became so numerous and heavy, that in the
summer of 1846, when a number of Bishops were in New York at
the annual meeting of the General Missionary Society, the Executive
Committee of the Union was convened, and the complaints
stated. An order was then passed that a set of all the books of
the Society should be sent to each Bishop for examination. On
receiving and examining those sent to myself, I found so much to
object to, that the duty was felt to spread the same before the
Church. This was done in an octavo pamphlet of more than sixty
pages. For so doing I received much severe censure from the press
and elsewhere. My charges were pronounced to be false. The
books were declared to be worthy of all praise, and to have no unsound
doctrine in them. The Church was solemnly and repeatedly
called on to sustain it just as it was. Seeing that there was no
promise or hope of amendment, a number of those who believed
that better books and tracts might be procured determined to form
another voluntary Society, in which those who agreed in sentiment
might with more harmony and efficiency benefit the Church by the
press, and resist that torrent of evil which was pouring itself over
our own and Mother-Church. Wherefore a number of Bishops,
clergy, and laity, who met together at the Convention of 1847,
in New York, united in forming what is called the Evangelical
Knowledge Society. For so doing they have been stigmatized by
many of the friends of the other Society as the promoters of division,
schism, and discord, and as slandering that Society, whose publications
were still defended as sound and useful. God has nevertheless
been pleased to bless our efforts and to extend the sphere of
our operations beyond our first hopes. Under these circumstances,
at the last General Convention, a most unexpected and extraordinary
call was made upon us to cease from our work and unite with
the elder Society under a somewhat new organization, which disavowed
all former claims by its friends of being other than a voluntary
society, and made fresh pledges of the avoidance of all which
could offend any sincere and pious Episcopalian. Had the regular
officers and members of this Society, after due consideration, formally
proposed to those of the Evangelical Knowledge Society a
conference for the purpose of inquiring whether there might not be
a union of effort on some liberal basis, and, having agreed on the
same, called upon the Church generally to sustain such a union,
there would have been something worthy the name of compromise,
though I do not believe such union practicable or likely to satisfy
long. Or had the managers of the elder Society been content to
discard such of their books as were at length found to be unworthy,
and made, even on the ground of expediency, certain changes in
others, and resolved on the most comprehensive and conciliatory
mode of action for the future, and left the other Society to do its
own work in its own way, there would have been nothing to complain
of. All must have desired to see the work of reformation go
on. But instead of this, as though it were the only Society having
a right to exist, having resolved on certain changes and certain
promises, and forgetful of past failures, it calls upon all the clergy
and congregations of the Church to rally around its banner, and it
only, under pain of being regarded as wanting in true attachment
to the Church and devoid of Christian charity. If such is not the
position which the old Society (under an altered name) has assumed
toward the Evangelical Knowledge Society, consisting of a large
number of Bishops, clergy, and laity of the Church, I have mistaken
the movement. So have I understood the language of its managers,
its committees, and its active friends, as spoken throughout the land.
As to the probability of success in making it answer all the wants
of the whole Church, it is not in place to discuss the question. It
is sufficient to say that the Evangelical Knowledge Society has seen
no cause to relinquish its work. That work is not the division of
the Church, (as has been falsely charged upon it,) either as designed
or as the natural or probable consequence. On the contrary, the
best method of preventing division is to allow a reasonable liberty
of thought and action. By attempting hermetically to seal the
minds and lips of men, there may be a swelling and an explosion.
In our Mother-Church, different societies, having the same great
object in view, but using somewhat different means, are not considered
as interfering with the unity and welfare of the Church.
Many there are, among both clergy and laity, who actively co-operate
with different societies. I sincerely hope that both of our
Societies may be worthy of such general patronage.