Chicago Daily Tribune Newspaper, September 26, 1875, Page 2

THE CHICAGO TRI™ UNE: SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1876.—SIXTEEN PAGES. £ sl I e N i . divine, perhaps .the most eloquent and promi- | quarter contury ago, but is stiil by her Commis- | h, 0. 1 to call forth thoe reply of Catholic No. 2, , perhap! q gion pard oot e aioag o o lrfl:i DOt to pronouces frapikly thy Dr. McLaren Bisbop, and oatwitted the minority.” Neither is there 2oy better foundstion for the assertion that “the election of Dr. McLaren to the Episcopate cleariy shows that the past strife in the Diocese was factious and personal.—not one of principle, —for there is no difference in churchmanehip be- tween Dr. Do Eoven and the Bishop-clect,” 8o far as the friends of Dr. De Eoven are concern- ed, thie is most probebly correct. In fact, the great body of these have alwavs placed their support of Ur. De Koven upon personal grounds, such as Dr. De Koven's eloquence, amizblechar- r, aud the like, maoy of them declaring that did ot agree with him in his doctrinal Tlews, or that they were such a8 wero tolerated in the Chorch, and he bad aright to maintain them and be a Bisnop if thereto elected. The migonty, ou the other hand, declared that they had no personal objections to Dr. De Koven, but opposed him simply and solely on principle. They were opposed to Ritusliem, to all those ussges condemned by the Bishops' Pastoral of 1671 and by the Canon on Ritual of 1874. They believed Dr. De Koven to be the leader, the brains of tho Ritualistic party, so far a8 it has aoy, and this was the ground of their opposition to him, in which also they bad been supported by the great body of the Church in their rejection of Dr. De Koven by the Standing Commitlees, Dr. De Koven alio 8o understood she matter whan he propared his lattcr to cho inon Couvention to explain hia views and eatialy his opponent of his orthodoxy. Dut why is the Times, or rather the Chancel- Yor's clique which inspires it, so anxions about tho consistency of the minority? Why do they exr. *The opporents of Lr. Do Koven with upazimity sould have ogpoecd Dr. McLaren's ejection, end should have, follawing their old way, protested aganst it, if they hed been governed by principla? They rejected Dr. Seymour upon & Iwere savpicion of views and practices which Dr. McLaren is knowa fully to indorse.” Is it ths inzention of these state- ments to excite doubts in the minda of our Stand- ing Committecs and Bishops i _regard to Dr. McLaren's poeition fa regard to Ritoztism ? Is it intended, by representing Lim as ectertainirg the reme views on the subject as Prof. Seymour and Dr, Do Eoven, to sagges:i to these bodies that it 18 their duty to examinoc into the matter, and, if they find him equally obnoxions with those gontlemen, to treas bim in the samse way? If 5o, we declars and protest that we, *‘the minority of the Illinois Convention,” 28 these geutlemen call us, have nothing to do with it,— the * protesting” this time comes from the Do Koven side! But these gentlemen tell their own story and reveal thair own character when they eay in this Tines editorial, ** By a stratagem these men of principle were driven from their position, and solid!y cast their vote for a most mtumato friend and sapporter of Dr. Ds Eovea.” Weo have no doubt, as they here intimzte, these gentlemen have been uging 2l sorts of stratsgem. It ap- pears to be thewr nature, ard practice Las 80 cou- firmed them in it that, a3 has been paid of some one, *‘they cannot drink their tes without a stratagem.” Bat this timo all their strategy was wasted. The minority, made tho masjorty by the »addition of a few De Koven votes - already enumerated, Gid .indeed, **cast thoir vote solid” for Dr. McLaren, not beczuse they wore saured by Judze Otis, or Dr. Locks, or Dr. Chase. that ‘he was the right man,” baf because they had tbis 2ssurance from Bishop McCoskry .and other mep, in whoze sound churcbhmanship they nad the most implicit con- fidence. If Bishop MoCoskry is deccived, thea wo are decsived, and in that event we bave only toray, “Malo cum Plaone errare quam cum istis siare.” All the twaddle about “cortzin clersymen who voted nay as to Dr. Do Koven’s gonudness in the faith,” and “the difference between tweedledum acd tweedledee,” I may well pass over in silence,—it is mere bravado. But this I will venture to promise,—thst it the fact of “Ritualism” is taken sway, if the “C. B. 5.” renounces its dark intrigues, ceazcs to ask * prayers for tho repose of the soul of the Iate- Bishop,” etc., *Iava aside i:s miliivery and its mummery,” they will mo longer ba wonbled by *that karp of a thousand "—ves, ten thousand—**strings,” tbe indignant protests . of all sound churchmen sgainst such innova- tions and ineidions asezuits npon the time-hon- ored doctrives acd usages of the Yrotestact Episcopal Charch. But here is ths climax of this rbodomorntade of the Times: **Tke whole (‘'onveution, Bishop and al, havo been bagged by the Do Kovenmeo, and the antis ars left without consetency, with- out ammaunition for futars warfare, or 2ny hope of ever recovering from the blows of the stnrdy warriors for the trachs of the old Charch.” Ah! Lhere thoy * let the cat out of the bag.” Thatis the gane they are after. They wautto ** bag the Bishop.” They want to sy, * He isourman; we elected him.” Too Iate, "zentlemen! You rannot turn £o sharp & corper as that, Dr. Mo- Laren 18 t0o canny & Scot £0 be caught by that **stratagem.” Yom have suceeeded remarkably well in > pulling the wool " over the eyes of & few simpie preachers s=nd veordant theological etudents just out of the hends of Dr. De Koven and Prof. Seymeur, bnt it is most serionely suy- ested to yoa that Dr. McLaren, especially after e shall be iovested with the robes of a lichop, as we hbope he will be vyery_soon if yeu do mpot frighten the Standing Committees too much—Dr. McLaren i6 **too old & bird to be cauglit with such chaff.” Beriously, Dr. McLaren comes into the Diocese wnirammeled by oy party obligations or plocges, and I zrust that he will ever romain so. Aclive, wuuscrupulous, vindictive, relentleés as the clique has shown itself, 1 do not think that Bishop Me- Laren will havesnything to fear from it. It hag Dow a) tly exhanated its fory upon the men who elected bim, and will. porlups, according to ta promises, be a5 sntmiszive as a spaniel to the incoming Bishop. Bat of ovething I ventare to warn the-coming Bishop. Those gentlemen, in the edito- rial which we are copsidering, suggest it too plaivly to allow me to overlook it. Tney propose to enlist in their wild crusade spanst the Constatution and established order and neages of the Church as represented in the General Convention and the Standing Commit- tees of the Church. They waot to make him tieir fignrehead in that contest which they still ‘propose to urge for what they call * Diocesan rights.” This is what'they mean when they eay *“The principles of Diocesan rights have been firmly planted 25 the piatform upon which ail ‘must come who wish any recognition by Ilinois churchmen.” We trust ihat the Bishop-elect will not be frightened by tlus, or think that he must give in his adhesion to this * plattorm " before he will be =llowed to take his seat upon_the Episcopal throne of- Hlinois. Oh! no. Thatisonly intended for the ostra- c1zed and outlawed * minority " who i take sueh a position avd assist in Diocess of Illinos against the great Churcb, £3 represected in the General én- tion, and its Constitution and Canons. This is very cleary explained when it is said, *‘The friends and advocates of the tyranny of the Blanding Committees have been wholiy ignored as to official position, and it looks as if there ‘will bs no compromiss here, and no modification of the movements that go right on to full victory.® That is to say, in pleain English, mo one who wonid “not sobmit his conscionce to the dictation of this cligue, and indorse the orthoduxy of Dr. De Koven, 88 axpressed in his most_extraordinary letter of quzsi-resiguation to the Illinois Convevtion, ehall bold any office, or in any way represent that Convection, and least of all in the Fouse of Clerieal and Lay Deputies. Wonderful maz- Denimity! Beautiful Christian chsrity! Re- markable liberality of those men who were for- ever prating abous * liberality,” and denouncin, the * harrow-micdedness” of those who woul not approve of electing and consecrating in the highest officea of the Church the men who were to revolutionize the doctrines and usages of the Church—Seymour and De Koven. But what am I to think of men who can ex- prees themselves in such language, and are not asbamed to avow such sentiments as these: **They (the Chancelior's clique) see and feel that it in ln;gbt they (thoee?) who havo thus humilisted the Diocess (by defeating Seymour and De Koven), and have been wanting in Em]nr Diocesan pride, should not be onored, —that they who look abroad forcom- amendation and praise should not receive thoge of the Diocese at home. This is manly aod right.” * Proh pudor! that any man woaring tho garb of & Christian mimnicter shonld dare to lift his face towards heaven, or even to look & Christian man in the face, after uttering such sentiments. For my part I desire no eeverer punishment for such 3 man, if we may 0 call him, than that he should utter such seotiments throngh the 0 Times, and be known as s anthor. And - the geptleman who, thus wntes may be assared that ho is knowa— ‘the liou’s skin of the Chicago Ti¥mee cannot con- ceal the long ears and dissonant veize of the an- imal that thus brays ander it. But with all. his 1iguorance and disregard of common propriggy ‘wall a5 of Christian charity, this one thing temporary occupant of the editorial chair ought 10 know : that there is not a mzn iu the “mincr- ity ” whom ha thus rates so wesk a5 to be frigit- goed by such hectoring. With good Bishop, o, "Sbex socond thonghts, we have no doubi lnmn poor Diceese of Illinois will ere euep, Some out al right, even with 0 Chars L«mmh-;;u‘o iillmn-i:;;a Chancellor ¥, : ter his words “All word and fary, mmmg':ozging." and the San- T who for some time past has undertaken to guide the counsels of the Diocese of Lilinoie a member of the Episoopal Church, or is be in full sympa- thy and communion with Rome? An answer to this question may throw some light upon kis deep interest and profound insight into the affnire of the Protestani Episcopal Charch. And if this be so, what becomes of the consistency of the gentleman who discourses 80 eloguently in tho Times snd Diocesan Con- veution abont *‘men who, baving no eympathy with tle Episcopal Church, undertake to control its action :” 1sthat dirccted at the editor of the Chicago Sunday Times, who has eo gra- cionely given him tho incognito of his editorial position for the publication of Lis crude views of the policy not only of the Dioceges of 1llinois and Iows, but of the American Chorch gen- exally? XYZ — THE BISHOP-ELECT. WHAT A CLEVELANDER THINES OF BDML To the Edutor of The Chicago Tridune : Cuicago, Bept. 25.—The following letter, though pot written for publication, is 50 perfect an aalysis of the character and capabilitzes of the Rev. Dr. McLaren, I take the responsibility f oftering it for your columns, - Yours truly, e 4 ! £. M. Ho>T. Sept. 20.—My Desn Sm: I am do- Hglited to get # note from yon. It is a Little singular Sort of & colncidence, 1 wos about to drop you & line on the very subject, when I rocerved yours. ‘ougn not a regular wotehiper ‘at Trinity [Yat- tend St, Paul'], 1 most attend Triciy in the g L e st sluibirey 2 es e ot Thope, for the past twoscars snd & haf lhearing bimm, He is always ; hi8 manner ia eusy, Yoo solid snd_substantial, ges- zud graceful—in c,mu?x' s atyis easig in every rempect, =n every, e Souches ho._ shons tho Laod of & In Lis discourses there i no superdous CLEVELAND, ing master. Verbisgo or any redundant rhetoric, but plain, 1 irecs Sconcisey scuolarly, and {0 the point, in well- Choson Langusge, nover hot far above thie iesd of bis Dearers into the realms of fancy, His manner and style reminds me of the Rev, Dr. Vinton, of BIDSIDD. {hwhim spoken of by thore who kuow him inti- matoly 35 8 man of good temper, sound judgment, Tirong cammon senss, firm in his convictians, ready oo & reason for the faith he Dolds, tdlerait, not bigated, kind zad eonlatory, and s percect génti- mazn in his manners. eisa hman ‘doudt whatever, He is nb half-wsy ithout an; :;uchm&n.’ Ho belicves the early Fatliers knew someth] ol Eeclosta, sine Episcopo.” I thiok be be- Ievas that there can be no Church without a Bihop, thongh he may beliove there can_be o State without & King, 6 hods an ardent lover of his country and of Repnblican institntions, if I czn judge correctly from a discouree I heard him deliver, and a0 from an ora- tion T read delivered on a special oocesion by him. The objecticn that he has boen buta sbort timo in the Cliure!: ought to bave no weight whatever, For many cars he was a clergyman in the Presbyterian denom- Jiation, and accepobly performed all iberdutios in. cumbent upon i 25 pustor. Thosa duties are not bk thoso required Ly the Church of {ta own clergy, and since his admission to ordersin the Church hie takes to its ways essicr snd much iwore gracefully than many who were bora in the Church, and took Epis- copaty in the natural way. Ho sesms to it in exactly wherw he belongs, and where Yrovidencs intended hie should be. 4 ‘Socially you will find him a great acquisition to sour Dicocse, & genticman of cuitle, relinement, cf diyni- fied manners, of fine personal ‘cppearance’ and pol- fibod address, who will bo weicomed o any circle where those quelitios are spprecizted, and where 1nflu- ence for good will be felt througliout the entire com- ‘munsty withont seferenco to denominational lines. ‘Trimty Chiurch Lero will Lo the only sufferer by his elevation 10 tho Episcopste. Tho parish considers 1t will sutfer & great loss, while the Church ot large will make s great gain, Yeaterday at the closo of mornizg service one of the oldest and most substantial pariah- foners of Trinity szid tos gratleman, while coming out of church, -*Iwish Judge Otis liod kept &t home- and not cone here to take our Bector away.” alluding, probaiy, to some visit of Judge O, to Cieveiand, 1 1hink (14 entire parish coneurs in the tentiment, 'A prowminent member of St. Paul's, and ono of the Vestry (bimeelf Low Church), told me=o thought the election a good one, and that it would tend to tical all the duflicultzes in tho Church in Lilinois, as Dr. Mo- Laren wouid douLtiees pursae o conciliatory course, and worid be likdy to harmoniza the conficting cle meata. It would bo a great good {or tno Chvseh at e. I could quote you the 0pruions of & great many e o Gienont ahaden o Shurehmanabn, waro Deceasary,—ull very #trongiy i his favor, and more 3gaiust Lim. : "His cdministrative and oxecutiro sbilitles aro of s Iigh order, having comn:on fene3 s & busie, Witness Luin efforts In parish work, < tke Church Home ” and “ Chiidren's cme ” of Trinity. He is emphatically a worker. He has Instituted tho practico of celebrat- ing the Hoiy Corumunion on Sxints' dave 2t Trinity, witero ali the ciergy, both High and Low, attend with ularity, uod partake. In short,’ there ia no g0t going on in the Church bt what Eo is deep- I¥ inwrested in, and gives t0it 3 Delping band and ‘willing suypeet. 3 The ¢yes of the whote Church in this country were #pon your late Convention. Eversbody hoped that {Be resuit of its aciion would be such as tolesd to burmony and peace witkin your borders, and put an end 1o strife 2nd_coatention, and that the future of the Diocese may be cuch as to show tho wisdom of its clvice, and overything in the futuro be to the glory of God aid tho gocd of wankind. Lat the chuzchuen of lindis give to the Bishop- eloot their confidence and support. Let them aid him, sirengihen him lead him 3 Lelpicg hand, sud coafal sion und disorder will cease, and peace and quiet will reign. He wiil, under the guidance of Dirine Provi- dence, cause {ke Church to lengilen her cords and strecgihen ber Stakce, Tou will see by tizis Iotter that T ineline strougly in favor of Dr. McLuren. Ay opivion is mot given Eastily, Lut after dliberation. I arxive ot my con- cluston's atter ccnferring with mauy Tersons hero, whoge opportunitcs for knowing and judging of him are much beiwer than mine ; and, if thero is_any con- Silence to Lo pliced in himan testimony, be it em- phstically the night man in the right place. I hope I maynot be mistaken, Appsarances are sometizes decestful, but, with he best knowledge I now huve, I think the action of yorr lata Conveation will stand the teat of talent aud of time. His election wes not the result of chance. Iaman umbelever in the doctrine of chznce, I believe Srmly ence, made aud anwaveringly in an overrul ‘manifest and working through human agencies or in- strumentalitiss. Aud if Providence ect in the affairs of men. I think it is manifest here. Isit too much to €ay, that the way out of your ditficulties was designed in the council chamber of the Almighty, and every ballot castiwas stamped with the impress of the Holy Ghost? Excuse my long letier. I thonght I could say all tnst ‘would benecessary ‘n 3 #ingle page, but I have ex- tended it unconscienly to this great length. Hoping this will find yoz in tho enjoyment of hezith, Iam, your ald fricad and obedient servent, J. X. BrewEs, GUIBORD. THE LAW IN THE CASE. The decision of the English Privy Council in the cage of Joseph Guibord, which has created so much excitement in Montreal, and sttracted £0 much sttention everywhere, is one which can- not but prove interesting to a great many read- ers, and the selient points of it are consequent- 1y laid before them. The case,—anappeal to the Privy Council from the Court of Queen’s Bench for the Province of Quebec,—was argued by Messrs. Boopas sand Doutrs for the * Institut Canadien,”” and by Mesars. Weat- Iake and Matthews for the Church. There were present Lord Selbourne, Sir James W. Colville, Sir Robert J. Phillimore, Sir Barnes Peacock, 8ir Montague E. Smitb, and Sir Robert P. Col- lier. Sir Robert Phillimore delivered the opinion of the Council. A brief review of the facts in the cass will make the decision of the Court more intelligible, Joseph Guibord died at Montreal Nov. 18, 1869, Kix widow and represectative, Heuriette Brown, prosecuted the auit relating to his burial in the Canadian Couris until her death on the 24th of March, 1873. By her last will sud testament ebe devised Ler Pproperty to the “Institat Canadien,” and appointed them ber universal legatees. The **lnstitut” applied for and obtzined leave to continne the apgeal which Guibord’s widow had begun. The suit was for & mandamus to the Catholic eccle- siastical suthorities of Montreel to bury the body of Joseph Guibord in the parochial ceme- tery of members of the Catholic Church at Mon- treal. The cemetery is divyded into two [arts, the smaller past separated from the larger by & paling. Unbaptized persons, suicides, criminals who have died without being reconciled to the Charch, and others who have refused its last rites, are buried in the smaller The larger part contains tho remains of Catn- olics who have died in good standin, iu the Cliurch. Neitler part of the Mnntrel[; cemetery i8 consecrated as a whole, It is cgs— tomary to comsecrate each grave ecparately in the larger part. 'The graves in the smaller part are never consecrated. s The circumstances which_led to tho litigation has been frequently told. For the sake of acen- racy the version of them given in the decision of the Court will bo followed. Guitord was a lay member of the Catholic Church, ard, saya Bir L. Phullimere. reviewing the evidence in tho case, “‘appears to have been of.unexceptionablo moral character, and to have ‘both by baptism and education, ;a Roman which faith he re- tained up to bis defER” A litera saientific institution'sf"was form Siontreal in_ 1M£ for the pur- poso of providing a library, reading-room. and other appliances ol education. Guibord was one of the onginal members of the Institut. In 3853, a minority of the members of the * Insti- tut " proposed thal a committeo should be ap- pointed for tho parpose of making a list of the books in the Lbrary which, in their opinion, ebould not be sllowed to remain [nit. An smendment to this proposal, bowever, was car- ried by the majority, which amendment was to thom;:dl that the lil of the *Institut”™ conf no improper books, and that it was the sale judge of the moralify of such as were in 1. Oo_ the 13th of April, 1855, the Catholic Bishop of Montreal published a pastoral, which was read in all the charches of the Diocese, condemning the majority for declaring that thoy were the proper judges of the morality of the books in their hibrary, tho Council of Trent baving decided that that was the office of the Bishop, and also for declaring that the library contained only moral boclks, whereas it contained books which were on the Index a: Rome. The Bishop cited a decieion of the Council of Trent, that anyone who read or Lept beretical works should incur the sentence of excommunication, and that anyone who resd or kept books forbidden on other grounds ehould be subject to severo punishment. The *In- stitnt,” however, did not rescind its resolution, In 1865, Guibord and several other Catholics of Montrea! appealed to Romo against the circular of the Bishop. The-appellants received no an- gwer to their application. The Pope, however, sent an answer to tho Bishop relating to in- quiries made by him, and this answer the Bishop published in 1869. The .*‘decretum™ of the Pope *forbade all Catholics to beloug to the In- stitut while it taught pernicious doctrines,” and algo prohibited tho publishing, retaining, keep- ing, or reading the ** Annu " of 1868. Tho Bishop informed all whom it might concern that, if they persisted in keeping or reading the ‘* Anpuaire,” or remained in the Institut, they would be doprived of the Szcrament oven on their death-bed. At a meeting of the “Institut,” held on the 23d of Soptember, 1869, it was resolved that tho.objects of the Society were purety literery and scientific, 8ud that it, as & scciety, held no doctrinal teach- ing whatever, but was anxious to exclude the teacking of ‘sl pernicions doctrine in genernl. 1t resolved also that tho Catholic members of the *Inatitut,” having heard the condemnation of the “ Aupuaire™ of 1868 by the Church zu- thoritics at Rome, were desirous of submitting to the decree. These resolutions were followed by o letter of the Bishop, dated Oct. 30, 1869, in which ne denounced the concessions of the *¢Tostitut " as hypocritical. Among the reasons why tho Bithop considered the concessionsinsnf- ficient was that tho Scciety had adopted a resolu- tion “establishingin principle religious tolerativn which has been the principal cause of the con- demnation of the Institut.” The lotter again gave tho members of the ** Inetitut " to under- stand that they would bo refused the Sacrament oven at death if they persisied in remaining in it. Guibora died suddenly Nov. 18, 1869, of an attack of paralysis, and on the 20th his widow requesied the parish priest to bury his body in tho cemetery. The parish priest answered that he hed applied to tho Administrator of the Dio- coge for instruction, and that the Bishop had di- rected him to refuse absolution to membera of the Institut even to the last. He couid pn:‘ therefore, he said, permit ‘-ecclesiastical burial to Joeeph Guibord, wherezpon a writ of man- damus issued. which, however, was no more than a proceeding to ehow cause whya wnt of mandamus should not issue. The defendants glended that they had not refused to bury the ody, alleging that they wore entitlod to point out the placo in the cemetery where Guibord should be buried, and that they were ready to give hum such burinl 28 under the rules of the Church he was entitled to recoive ; that Guibord bed not complied with the rules of the Charch or obeyed its injuncticns, and that the defend- ants were the sole judges of how and whers he should be buried in the cemotory. They pleaded also that civil conrts are incompetent to question & decision of the ccclesiaatical authorities on ec- ciegisstical matters, acd conld not inguire into the grounds upon which ecclesiastical burial had Leen refused to Guibord. 'They cited the decrees of the Councl of Trent with regard to the Index, and con- coucluded with the averment that, in conse- quence, Gunibord wss to be considered a **1iecheur public” (public sinner), and as such obuoxious to the canonical penalties imposed by the Catholic ritual, smong which was tho priva- tion of scpultore, acd thst the Administrator of the Diocese, taking all the facts of his cage into copsideration, had decreed that Guibord should be deprived of - ecclesiastical burial. The decis- ions of the inferiot courts from which an ap- real wag taken by the ‘‘Institui Canadien™ to the English Privy Council sre passed over. Sir Bobert J. Phitlimore introduces the decision of the mein question in issue with the inquiry: ‘What is the question here to be decided? It isthe right of Guibord to interment in the ordina- 1y way in the cemetery of is parish, & right en- forcoable by his representatives.” Tho ques- tion was not go much 'one of burial as of burial in the larger part of the cemetery, the exclasion- of the body from which, their Lordships remark- ed, “implies degradstion, not to say infamy.” The question whether ecclesiastical burial might not be forfeited in certain cages was not raised. It was only contended by appellants that such forfeiture was not incurred by Guibord, snd *that, according to the law of the religious com- munity to which be belonged, he retained at the time of nis death his right to be buried in the larger portion of tho cemetery in the usaal man- ner Their Lordehips considered such matters as baptism, marriage, and burial as mattera partly civil ‘aud partly ecclesiastical, and declared it incompetent fora Bishop to deprive & Catholic subject of any of theso mghts. “Ex mero motu.” Roman COatholics, however, mey be de- prived of ecclesiastical burial in places clearly provided for by the law of the Church, but in no other case. And courts of justice have a right and are bound to 1uquire whether such depriva- tion hasbeen in sccyrdance with the law and rules of diecipline of the Roman Catholic Chureh, aund whether tire seutence, if any, by which it is sought to be justified, wasregularly pronounced, and by competeut anthority, Having 1id down these principles, the Court cites the law of the Church on ithe guestion of sepulture from the Quebec ritual. The provisions of the ritual are, In snbstance, a8 follows: Ecclesiastical burlal is to be refased : First, to all who donot profess the Catholic religion, such as Jews, heretics, in- fidels, and spostates. Second. to children who die unbaptized. Third, to those who have been escommunicated by name, and who have shown no sigus of repentance. Fourth, to suicides. Fifth, to those killed in a duel. Sixth, to those who bave not received the communion at Easter, unless penitent. Beventh, tothose who bave 1ed bad lives and refused to repent before death. Eighth, to public sioners, such as fornicators, prostitutes, ugarers, ste. The Privy Ccuncil say that tho refusal of ec- clesinstical burial to Guibord is not justified by the first, second, fourth, fifth, or seventh of the above rules. He could not be brought within the third, because not excommunicated by name. “That such a sentence might be passed against s Roman Catholic in Canada, and _that it might be the duty of the civil courts to respect and give effect to it, their Lordships do not deny.” Gui- bord could not be brought under the sixth rule, becanse he did uot refuse to communicate at East. . 7The Bacrament was refused to him be- cav=e e remained a member of the *‘ Institut.” Morenar, it wasnot on that gronnd that ec- c}emalicu burial was refased him in the first in- stance. The last cause of refusal to bury Gribord was tbat he was a * publio sinner.” Certain classes of public sinners were enumerated in the rules, Guibord conld not be brought within acy of them, nor was ho shown to be guilty of any of- {fense “cjuedem generis " as thoae epecified. To ullow a discretionary addition, or an cniargement of the categonies epecified in the ritual, would bo fraught with the most startling con- sequences. Inthe words of the Court: ** Kor instance, the * et cactera’ might be according to the exigency of the p ular case, expanded so as to include within its bann any person being in habits of intimacy or conversing with mem- ber of a literary society containing a prohibited book; any person sending his son to a echool in the brary of which there was such a book; go- iog to a shop where such books were sold ; and maoy other inetances might be added. More- over, the Index which aiready forbids Graotius, Pascsl, Potnier, Thuanus, and Sismond: might be made to incitde all the writinga of juriats and ail Jegal reports of judgments sapposed to be hostile to the Church of Rome; and the Roman Catholic lawyer might find it difficult to pursoe the studies of his profession.” The Court quotes from various Catholic au- thorities to show that, by the law of the Church in Canada, Guibord should not be deprived of ecclesinstical buriel. Among the works cited ara Jean de Pontas, * Cas de Copecienci”; Durand de Maillavo, 'Dioit Canomique; Hericourt, a_lsmue Eccleeiastiques,” and other works of ibert. . Tho Court held that'the ccelesisstical law in force among the Catholica of Lower Canada is the same as that in force at the time of ita ces- &ion to England, and that under thot law Gui- bord had not forfeited ccelesiastical burial. a 1t thns appears that the Judges relied in their ‘ecidions not 50 much on the law of England ag oo thelaw of the Charch, and that there is a ng! easy way fer the Church to escape from the cffect of this rrecedent, if it will, in all future caees: by being more explict in 118 own law. Ttis left to the readers of Tz TrsUSE to pass their ©OWR comments on the law and its application, —~— @ TL}%‘"T%EE LATEAU, W OF To the Fditer of The Chicago “Tfnfif Cricaao, Sept. 25.—In your issues of the Iast two Sundays have oppeared.- letters from two Catholics on the cate of Loniss Lateau, the Bel- gisn girl. Withont raimng any controversy, I zgj :t? privilege of saying something on the There was pothing in the letter of Catholic N for the Iatter does not atreraptto controvert anything the former has asserted. He mmplé puts forward some views of his own, that I thin! were quite uncalled for. If the case was worth &n article in Tme TmscNe dening the fact, it certaiuly was worth one reaflirming it; and tbis i just what No.1 did. They are both, no doubt, 00d Catholica; though some opinions of the fntmr are a little at variance with his postion. . Truth, in theology a8 in ~ther things. lies in the mean ; error in the extremes. To attach an undue 1mporiance to & thing is surerstition; not to give enough, or nome at all, iz skepticism. The Catholic Church does not requira a bolief in sny miracles, save thoso recorded in Serip- ture; buc she does require the belief thac the pover to work them still exists in her to-day. I am far from beiog over-credulope, but I fail to see that believing in an instance of a superaat- urzl phenomenon is more evidence of & wealk mind than believing in the various zod unex- plained phenomens of Nature. A tendency to atiribote everything that cannot be explsined by natural causes to a supernatural agency is as mischievousas o deny all such ageccy. But when 8 thing is shown to be, both by its nature and effeots, an impossivility in the nataral order, it would be blindness in & Christian and Catbolis to deny its supernatural character any more than any other well-authenticated fact. The craci- fixion and death of the humanity of our Lord was an onlinazy natural occnrrence such as took place in the persons of the two thieves, and in hundreds of other criminals exe- cated in Jerusalem ; but His resurrection after having 1ad for thres days in a grave wss an im- possibility in the order of Nature, and therofora afforded the strongest possibls proof that He was (jod. 1o this connection [ must say that the nuthoritative tribuval of the Church does nof countenance decoption. Not long ago there happened o case in California whero a young gitl was eaid to have reccived the stigmsia on her hands. 8he decoived two noted physicians ; but tho Archbishop had her shut upin & convent and closely watched, by which it was discovered thet she ul)mdueod the marks on herself. Equal- ly careful is the Charch, in cases where extraor- dinary occarrences mar be attributed to *‘din- bolical agencies.” I agree witnh No. 2, that a running after tho supernaturalis the result of ignorance. The botter educated s Catholic is, and the more he Lnows of the intellectual grounds of his faith, the lesa he requires the aid of such things. An inatance is given in the life of Bt. Louis of France. This pious bnt well-informed King refused to go into thechapel to see some marvelous occurrence, said to be ukinf?' place during masa. * Let those go,” he said, **who do not believe in the real presence ; I beliove, and do not require any euch aid to my 1faith.” This is the fsith of the well-instrnoted Catholie, and sach, Ido not doubt, No. 2 pos- sceses. He, however, goes too far, and spesks too disparagingly of miraclea in goneral. He also puts turwm-dy gome views that are not ten- able even on broad Christian grounds, He says: *Tho miracles of past centuries may impress the igndrant, but will only awake smiles in the enlizhtened,” &c. Does he include the miracles wrought by our Lord and His Apostles? If not, *is ho aware that there is o s of ‘‘enlightened” men vwho ridicule these, as Lo does other miracles, and wio use the same argument sgunst them that ho does agsiust ‘‘those pseudo-miracles™? This pnssage is not easily understood when taken in connection with the one immediately folloming. Ie says: ‘‘Per- baps, in the days when the Church had fo deat with a rude and uncaltivated people, it was nec- essary to call on the aid of the supernstural,” etc. ‘Does ho think that o manifestation of God's power, exercised to convert barbarians to the faith of Christ, is a fit subject of ridicule, or caloulated to ‘‘awake amiles in the enlight- ened”? I bardly think eo; vet his words, as they stand, woutd peem to indicate that he did. As regards **blind belief,"” thero are lots of * en- Dightened” men who swallow all the vagarics of scientists with as much avidity and want of jndgment as igoorant Catholics swallow mira- cles. I do neither.” A thing, whegher natural or supernatural, must bs proved befors I be- lieve it No. 2 thinks that if all that is claimed of Louise Lateau bo true, it proves no supernatural interposition of Providence. Here 1 entirely disagree with him. It 18 no iso!ated case. Thera are many and well-authenticated instances of the saints of God’s Church who bore on their porsons the marks of the passion of Christ, notably St. Francis of Assissi. Granting tbat there i8 no decention practiced—to suppose that any natural cause whatever could producs these marks only on Friday, aud only on the hands, {eet, side, and forebead, in exact imitation of Christ's passion, with other notable features un- necessary to mention, does not show & high de- gres of enlighteumeunt. As regarde the utility of such miracles nowadays, it i8 not for ns to shackle the infinitude of God, or dictate to Him what He shall do. The arguments used by No. 2 agaiust these miracles apply with equal force to those of our Lord and His Aposties. They have been termed by infidels in nearlythe preciso woids used by him: ** A species of supernatural joggiery quite unworthy of the Christisa’s God.” "Will he, then, say that they were wrought in vain? The whole plan of redomption wss a disappointment to tho *eulightened” of thosa days. A God lying 8 an infaot on straw, and hanging as o criminal on & cross, was not very well calculated to impress men as ** the One who rules the Heavens and holds creation in the hol- low of His hand.” No wonder, if we can believe the Bible, that there were ouly *‘a few fools,” who ‘*wondered and adorod.” 1 must not be misunderetood as holding that these modern mtracles are necessary to confirm Catholic faith, nor as believing all the Lumbug that may be palmed off on the public as genuine. But in the case of Lowse Lateau 1 sea a particular fitness of such a thing in theso days of nobelief and scientific research, to ehow to an infidel and material world that there exists, side by side with tho institutions of men, & religion, divine in its origin; sustained and apheld solely by the power that established it. One noted skeptic, a physician, has been converted ; others may follow. Ia not, then, **the means proportioned to the end 2" H. _— EPISCOPAL AND METHODIST UNION. BENTIMENT OF THE MOTEER CHURCH. To the Edstor of The Chicago Tridune: Caxcado, Bept. 24.—Np editorial article of your paper has ever atiracted more attention among Christian people than that on * Methodism and Episcopalianism.” You well put the inguiry, “Why showld there be any ecparation between these two Churches ?"” Are you informed of the sction of the Episco- pal Church on the subject of Church unity? In 1853 a memorial was signed by many distin- guished presbyters of the Episcopal Charch, and was presented to the House of Bishops at the seesion of the General Convention of this year. Several of the signers havo sinco becomo Bishops. This memorial eaid: *‘In addition to the prospect of the immediate good which would thus be opened, an important step would be taken towards the offecting & church Tnity in the Protestant Christondom of our land.” This memorial was referred to a commission *‘io take into consideration the subject thoreof, receive farther communications, and report to the next Gereral Convention. DBut four Bishops of the entire Bynod voted agains tho reference, so cath- olic was this body. This Commission consisted of five Bishops, four of whom were of the High- Church school. Itheld one mession at Hart- ford, Conu., one at Newport, B. 1., two at Naw York, and two ot Philadelphia. A large number of Diocesan Conventions passed resolations, of which Rhode Islsnd is a specimen, asserting : “*We earnestly sympathize with the wish of the memorialists that the great catholic idea of the Church of Christ may be fully daveloped.” The Commission addressed a eerios of ques-" tions to various clergymen within and without tho Church, among Wwhich waa this: “ Are any facts gnown to you indicating on the part of-the members of such bodies a disposition to make any sacrifice of eectarian feeling for tue eake of ishop Aloozo Potter said: ** That this divi and distracted state of Christianity i Py and a carse,” Bishop Burgess said pray and labor for unity,” “This unity must be secured,” Coxe w;;m & r. (Dow Bish- or) Howe wrota: * 1 long to see it "—-(tha nni‘c.*, Dr. Lewes wrote: ** No fear that such union will | distarb anything that is valuablo or catholic in our system.” Dr. Mublenborg said: *Thus will she become the Ostholic Church in the United Btates.” Dr. Francis Vinton wrote: “Let the Church herselt insist on nothing which is oot catholic. . Tho creeds are catholic ; the sscraments sre ‘catholic. . . Ilblia union ?ndps.eflaczed." ‘venerable divine of the Presbyterian Church (tho Old School) wrote: “ am gl);td the Episco- g:\l Church is moviog in this direction. - ‘bough I am not & believer in Apostolical suc- cession, gtill, for the sake of unfon with Eplsco- palians, I wish we had in their estimation .a claim 88 good as their own; thatisto 8ay, I with we and the Baptists and the Meth- odista_ had -received ordination through the Episcopal Church, or -soms other chaonel esteemed by them ss valid as their own.” A Baptist diviné wrote: ¢ ‘The present state of the Christian Church is anomalous, and almost ehocking to & Christlan.” A Methodist nent, wrote *I have alwaya regarded the Charch of England as the central framswork and life of Protestantism in Greag Britain, and the Protest- ant Episcopal Church in Americaas containing sho same elements of durability and life. T have occasionally mentioned this to our minis- tera and chiefs and chicf members and {o our Bishops, suggesting that our gervices are too exclusively extemporo and impulsive, and thal we neod & more formal and more siabls publie service, in view of the culture of the vast mul- titudes now attonding our miristry. I am of opinion that tho Metbodist Cburch will yet provide a liturgzy for her people, to be used by churches preferriug it. « .« . TboqueStion is ono of growih ju every chureh, and will make itself respected. . . . “You ask whether the Episcopal Oburch mzy be- come a peace-maker hmong Lhe diverse and too hostile sections of Protestast Christians ? These quotations are pregnant with a great and glow- ing problem ; aud I'may say, in the vory outass, tiat I have been accustomsd to supposo-that il it conld be solved successfally at &ll, the central olement jn iis zolntion would ba found io the Protestant Episcopal Cburch. Beiug & direct offsnoot from the Church of England, and bearing in herself, as sho docs, the order, an- thority. doctrines, and forms of publio worship in this Church, which is the mother of the great mass of the Protestant Charchea of this land, she occupies historicaliy 2 central positiod in refercnce to this question. Hor doctrince and forma of public worahip are sufficiently general to allow of such variety of opinion and practico 23 might well sausly thoe genersl body of Christtans.” ‘The Commission msade thair report to the Geuorsl Convention of 1856, in which thoy de- clare that thoy have earnestly sought to devise gome plan to heal thage divieions; that thoy re- joice in tho sentiment of :tbe Church &8 to Christian urien, and of much of it as existing in the various religious bodies. They recom- mend an increase of charity, of ‘dealing éfisfly with systems that may bave demerits, by re- preesinga spirit of self-lsudation, by infusing into our worship, preaching, and policy more of the ancient atd historical, and algo of the popu- lar and practical, by more cordial manner to- wards minigters or all religions, by considering whether we cannot safely lessen canonical im- pediments in the way of ministers, and yet pre- serve sufficient gnarantess forsoundness, and by fruitfulness m good works. The Committee closed with unanimonsly recommending the fol- lowing resclution : That to indicate the desire of this Church to pro- mote union among Chrictians, and as an organ of communicaton with different Christian bodies or in- dividuals who may deeire information or couference on the subject, it is expedient that five Bishops be jonérs for the foregoing pu: ent the Commimton on Chaces Doty The House of Bishops adopted the report of the Commission, as follows : ‘That {n view of the desirablenees of unicn among Christians, snd &5 & pledge of willingness to commu- nicate and receive informaiion tending to that end, and in order to conferance, if occcasicn or opportanity anould occur, this House will appoint by ballot & com- mittee of five Blahops 38 an. orzan of communication or conference with such Christian bodies or individu- als as may be desired to be entitled. There was no response from any religions body to this tentative effort on the pari of the Episcopal Charch, and the Commission expired by the death of all the Bishops appoainted as ita members. In 1867, the clergy of Newark and other places in New Jerscy, representing every shade of opinion in the Charch, from advanced Ritualism to the baldest Low Chuarchism, addressed a memorial to the General Conference of ihe Methodiat Charch, tben meeting in this city. They said: We heartily sympathize with the effort for the urion of all Christian people in one commanion. We beliove that, when there is a hearty detire among all Christian people for such union, mens will bo found to secars it. Wnatwencad,in our humble opinion, is mot at present a discusaion of Lhe mode of orgauic union be- iween the Methodizt and Episcopal bodies, but an ao- knowledgment of its importance, and appoint- ment of Comamissioners by both bodiés to hear sug- Reations, receive communicstions, hold mectings for deliberation, and discuss propositions un! i effectual and unanimous action. ‘We rospectfully ask your body,f consistent with gour views of proprioty, to appoint a conmission of ishops and clergy to meet s similar commission to be appointed by our General Convention, A General Commisvion—that iz, ons for the purpose of promot- ing union among all_ Coristian people—has existed by appointment cf our General Convention for years. There was not a clergyman of the Episcopal Chaurch who refused to sign this memorial, They regarded s union beiween the Methodiat and Episcopal Churches as that which must come first. They were .awere of the fact that the Methodist body bad preserved almost intact our forms (enjoining them ** invariably to be used ") for administering baptism, celebrating the Lord's Supper, the burial of the dead, snd the dedica- tion of church edifices, and for conferring the three orders of the ministry, and kad added thereto a substitute for confirmation, and bad preserved the ‘* Articles of Keligion,” and had prescribed fssts on Fridays, and * abstinence, and fasting overy wesl,” and had enjoined sea- sons for special religious effort corresponding to the season of Lent, and had preserved by tradition or otherwise the very words.of many of-our prayers, and had required *‘ tho Lord’a Prayer to be used on all occasions of public woz- ship in conclading the first prayer, the congre- gation bemg exbiorted to join in its sudible repe- tition,” and that the * Doxology be sung at the conclusion of each service, and the Apastolio benediction be invariably used in dismissing tho congregation,” and had preserved the respon- sive system of our Church—the Psalms of David in mauy of their charches being responsively used, and their peoplo, in their discinline, being ‘ earnestly exhorted ” *“ especially to respond to the prayers of our ritnal,” and had prescribed our lessons from Scripture for their congrega- tions, acd obliged their preachers to pubticly catechise their children ; and the signers further informed that many of onr Methodist breturen anticipated, in the language of ono of their most gifted orators and dinines, that * the Methodist Episcopal Charch will yet provide a litargy for her peopls £o be used in public worship by those locai churches which may prefer to haya a stated morniog and evening service ” ; the signers also recollectiog that from the Mothodis¢s have come directly or indirectly, perhaps, one-fourth of the clergy of the Charch (some of whom have been onr most emineat and conservative Bishops) ; and recollecting the history and origin of t{m Methodiat societies 1n England and of the Meth- odist Church in America and with the Prayer-Book befora them propared by that epiment servant of God, the ~ Saint- ed Wesley; and the signers, moved only, as they balioved, by the Spirit of God, im- pressed with the diseraco to Ohristendom Bf the istracted state of Christianity, snd not confer- riog with flesh and blood, send their memorial to tho Geueral Conference of the Methodist Episcopzi Church. The General Conforence, influenced by the same Holy Spirit, nobly and gmmpt:y responded. The memorial was réfarred to a committee, which reported, after weeks of consideration, thst they * respectfully recommeound toat a com- mittee of seven be appointéd who shall consti- tate a Comrmittes of Correspondence on Church Union, who shall repiy to the lattars addrossed to this body on this subject, and slall carry on such other correspondence therson 3 they may deom necessary, and report to the next sesaion of the General Conference. This report was unanimously adopted, and the following eminent Chriatian gentlomen and cler~ gymen appointed the Commission, viz.: The Rev. John McClintock. D. D.; tha Rev. Daniel Curry, D. D.; _tho Rev. Edward G. Andrews, D, D.; tbe Bev. J. Townley Crane, D. D.; the Rav. Jawmes Porter, D. D.; the Rev. John Lanshan, D.D.; and tbe Rev. W. L. Harris, D. D. Tms Commission had fall power to correspond with a similar Commission from the Episcopal Church, and that it was the unanimous ventimént of the General Conference to cousider the whole sub- ject with a specific Commission from the Gen- eral Convention of tle Protestant Episcopal Church. Thereupon the following %etition was sent to g::lclarg of the Episcopal Church in the United es: Rt-Rev. Fathers in God: The clergymsn Protestant Episcopal Cirarch in the Dnsted Braes ser 8 ully ask your body to supply the vacancles in the Commissicn on Church Uniiy created at the ses- sion of the General Convention of 1856, and with cial refereace to correapondence and conference with a Oommission from our Methodist brethren appoinsed at the lato session of their General Conference, and to take such forther action in the premises as may be deemed wise 4nd expedient. There wers bat four Episcopal ciery en in the entire nation who refused to uigm veti- tion. It was forwarded to the Honae of Bish- ops, and was the most numerously-signed peti- tion ever presented to either Honse of the Gen- eral Convention. All parties in the Church heartily united 1n it. _The Church journals of the country spokes Lindly of the movsment. The Aethodist va- pers “were ail kindly slent except the Aleth- odist, which wes vituperative of it, and some evil-minded person spread its issues broad- cast over the City of New York auring the sit- tiog of the General Convention. The Bishops were ready to act, and did act, in the sppoint- ment of 8 new Commission, but preferred to make it s Commission to meet any aimilar Com- mission of any religious body whatever. This was, perhaps, wise. This Commission still ex- un;,l;ng‘ in ready :‘lfl mnfier Yhenaver charity and forbearance and an ardent love of unity and unsi:n shall h‘&: lrre ared the way, you Bee, what yon the Eri copal Church was not only m to dap“; [ expired yoars ago. Let it be rovived, snd the tame may speedily come ‘when there can ba a successful consideration of this subject by both bodies. God bring the golden era in ‘When Christiss ail are One. In veur editorial you write of the * dogmatic partition between thom,” tho two Churches “teing thin.” They both believe ia the very same creed, have the sama articles of religion, the same servicos of the Sacrawents, and the some formula for ordinations, dedications, aud consecrajions. Waile the Hethodise Lave no Liw yot no one can Loar their g.n“m but be will find that the thought of our Liturgy and many of its words are in free use among them. Buat ‘vho Methodists sre now using the Lord's Prayer in concert, and respond in the Pralms, Bot tho pon-use of our forms of prayer would nof be in the way of orgame union. The oaly barrier is in tho betiof of Episcopalians in an historic church and its ministry. This needs be no barrier. If thercis a hearty dssire.aod a determination to effect 1t, homble, snd boly, sud wise men will find out the method of securicg it, 8 the Teprodentatives a¢ Born have fonnd out a mutlloé for scconding Groek, Bemazn, and Anglican Christians. In any union there mnst ba no compromise, no yielding of what either ealls principle. It is not necessary. Tne forms of praver can be ro- tainod for the one, and love-feasts znd ciass- meetings for the other, Union mnst tod can bo secured without abandoning any cherished senti- ment or preacher. Your acticle is well considered, and shows & most thorough scquaintanco with the’ points of differenco. You commit one error. Tha sym- pathy is Dot roally bolween the Low Church aud the Methodists, but between tho High Charch, end even the Ritualists. The Low Cuurch sre generally Calvinietic. Thoe High Church, like the Methodists, sre Amaenian in doctrine. The Ritualists are the real Motho- dista of thé Episcopal Church, and the Low Church the Presbyterians. Tyerman's groat work on the_early Methodists shows thac tho Ritualists in England ave doing tha work of tho early Methodists, and he writes that if ‘the TFpiacopaliata do not kuow the worth of the Rituahais or appreciaio their work the AMothodists do, and that there will be nn eventual union between them. One of the Episcopal writers terms the Mothodista * preaching friars.” 'no severance of tho HMethodists from the Church was an unnatufal thing, never contem- glnled by tbe founder of taeir brotherhood. ohn and Charles Wealey lived and died in the bosom of the Church. They wero men of pure lives, verv earnesi priests, firm Lelievers in baptismal grace, and atudious to promots con- sistent living among Christisn peaple. ‘These to bodies again uaited, but very hitile time would elapse befors the whols Proteatant world would be one on the Apostles’ Creed and on_historic mimistry and Church. This visible unity hero 2nd in Engiand would lead not oniy to intercommunion with the Oreek acd Old Catholic bodies, but would compel vigorous and thorongh reformation in the Roman Cathouc Charch itself. Nothing is so much in the way of the renovation of the Boman body as the divisions among Protestants. God speed the day when thers ghall be in this glorious Iand of ours but ‘ One Lord, one faith, and one baptism.” Such union;would restore to the world the power to soften its hardness. It would take zway contempt for religion, and the doubt, uncertainty, procrastination, and indiffer- ence of the world, aud hasten its conversion to God and true boliness. Will it be said tbat it i in van to hopa for, to pray for, to labor for such aresult? Notso. There is a yearning for unity, deep-sested and wide-spread, which can ouly come from above, aud which stirs tho noblest to heroic action. Tte blessed vision of the Church of the fature rises bsfors me to-day, & city at unity in iteelf, its sirength no longer wasted in intestine warfare, but combined egainst a common foe, goirg forth {rom con- quering unto conquest. Lover or UxITY. ——— MR. BEECHER'S PRESENT POSITION. A CLEBGTMAN'S VIEW. . For the Chicago Tribuna, ‘We have waited a year for a condition of cir- cumatances which would permit criticismof soms aspects of Mr. Beecher's religious work, withont any appearance of personal disrespect. It that state of things has not yct come, it is because of facts which have no remedy, and for which none of usoutside of the caseare to blame. We are of those who have strenuously insisted that pre- vious character must be respected to the end, if proot of guilt is not forthcoming, and that judg- ment upon Wrong appearances must be held back firmly, to give the accused his full place, both of private respect and of public Iabor. But we cannot think that Mr. Beecher's friends reason well, or that he carries himself as dis- creetly a8 his extraordinary situation renders desirable, Held guilty by the whole more val- gar portion of the world, who judge him by themselves, and not acquitted, but held pre- sumably guilty, by no small portion of the more regpectablo and refined ; wkile not a sonl any- where can see him without seeing also the shapes of foul dirkness which will not down to the imsgination 23 long a8 any wrong appearances exist,—Mr. Beecher should remember—as he evidently does noi—that any promiscuous popular intérest in seeing and hearing him muss be, to no amall extent, sensational and unsavory. He would consult the interest of clear moral demoastration of innocence if he kept as close- ly as possible to his most regular and neceasary dusies, and for all else made himself a recluse,— ot only avoiding all sensational contact with tho world, but foregoing even ordinary pleasures and interests, to lay bare the figure of his unspotted consecralion to the pure est spiritual things. Suock a retirement from the colmon world, for exzample, aslends to the figure of John Heury Newman, the eminent Englsn Catholic, an ascetic sancti- ty, wonld mightily help to inctine the =cale of public judgment to & decisive verdiet in Alr. Beecher’s favor. It would especislly serve him if he could subject himself. as any man well may, after even less confeesed error and fsal, to a muod of profound hamiiisy, contrition, saif- eurrender, and self-devotion, uotil he can staud clear from all those appearances of self-confi- doceo, self-asscrtion, misguided confidecce 2nd enthusiasm, and sadly disturbed aud disor- dered emozion snd imagination, which havs laced him in eo doubtful a light. It would also En:e boen greatly to the advantage of clear con- viction everywhere of his sinuiute innozence, if his studies of religion had taken thesame direc- tion for the tims, and led bim clear over to that eide of religiouy interest and expenence shich makes mach of the cloast and of thedeop placas of the inner lifs, and is remoto fror the moods and methods of our common work aud plgy. The sacrifice which this would have involved of Mr. Beocher's more wusual and npatoral moods, both of work and of play, would have shown bim in o hight the most convincing possible to the judicious many who are neither his foes nor his partisans. ‘The severe exclusion of comedy, sod all mere acting, from his public performan- cas, would alono go far to sst his professional character abovn the reach of eager scandal, and t0 make the mao seem all that geasrous oharity would believe him to be. Not that any of this 18 pronounced at all neceseary to enable a fair mind to hold him nol couvicted of guilt; brt only that & course such a3 this woald have power- fuliv helped to disgolvethe doubts #hich remain, and to break down tho adverse decizion which 8o many have given. The contrary course, however. has been chosen by Mr. Beecher ; probably with no dis- tiuet senss of the resl state of the case. To- wards his fc2s and advorse critics, Mr. Beecher hastaken a toue of open seif-congentulation, not to say triumph and defiasce, 2s if he had nothing to regret, and 8aw no occasion for sor- row, much jess any resson for shame. He has openly acted and spoken from 2 view of his own cage more cheerful and cougratulatory than any of his jutiicions friends can take. Hs not only does not hide himself from unsavory curio: but he foeds it with {regucut #od dounbtful ap- earauces,—either speaiinog directly on his own half, or talkiog and preaching to'crowds which are drawn more by the circamstances than by what ho bas to say. He presents him- self to throngs gathered 1o po little disregard of his own religious principles, and exerts all his powers of popular spee to carry through & season of - Sunday excursions, from all direc- tions, to his place of resort in the mountains, The large working of unwholesome curiosity is fed as unhesitatingly as if it were a good thing to do, and_the very doubtful motives which go with thisin drawipg crowds of Sunday excur- sionists are trosted as perfuctly proper, not to say commendable. And the carriage of the preacher, his choice of topics, and his manner of treating them, give the same impression of Inxuriant aod jubilant satisfaction which seemed an extreme in that direction in the old days of happy moural and epiritual relations, No doubt sll "this is the almost inevitable ontcoms. of the man’s peculiar nature; aod no doubt, foo, the fact that his mind bas worked amid terribly- should causs every person to forbesr Judgment ; and yet it can do no good, bmnmy y tae wrong couse to take for. ing, 33 much ay’ Mr, public opinion. It is largely tho fault of Afr. Beecher doey, tq t o and of the way that the; e sbout him, that ho m_,’,,g:'° pelled to the more discreet copre 0 coneiderod. And by ‘his feienei® R fer to none of his doubtful adv: iy sucoseded to the charge laid doga 3y 10 but to those honorzbls rionds, wheg. | cta will compel the respect of ali, have tried to preve A: titude by an argumea! 3 his unbappy situation and Ecives upoo the me: for a fair suspe; ing for Mr. Beachor to show, and life, notonly it has, of necessity, badly the other way. thas a man of the good intentions, thoughts poured out by Mr. bava doue 80 wrong at 1p byeo much falsehood. Bat if Mr. Beeciier did this wron, some wey making it Beecher’ notwerth a siraw in its first, and secret. dhing, aod then felt rogard feusion elong knaw must be beld 1 Beecher wasin m!;“e:y Capabin of g, falsehood of ia a secrot ing it seem ight to have, with Jected womaa, a rolation like th, gngdu‘gl rc]u.llli'on wedenborg, and countao: inatf, £tancs by ;‘Bmher.—nfl ha gt that he is unspol ment used by the good mmfi: :fiu 3 inclued a poin; wpoCAN ‘The general thi g, he m‘”k;h A seem no compeliag” less eri} - which ty by all the '8 T nse of judgment Thagg 28 Decessyry, {ntg Prig oy and charity of fs 2% gy Beacher, ) - /] cov H F, 3 - b oy e i 2 2 wraiched . the rest wonlq naturally a3 anv form of sha libera} which 50 many peopls consider no Boechern frionds put in plea, that Xr. Beeclier is exceptionall 1nnocent resort to doultfal quenca of & habit he hes al {frecdom which characte; plen, if it i true, only stand thai Afr. Beecher sucred thing in an unla; ‘posure, 13y have foun: here 2ir. ihe honest, Lteral fact in ordar his own in the a this. T overwhelming, bus into proof, where a0 maay tle the friends would hav doubt. cheraczer for guod_intanti tho absurdits of tring (b thegtary facs of factg Logic i3 presam; o - thors other way; and bad frunkly coufessed his painfa oaly asked for hum a fators Ar. Bee sepse and necessity if and thoroughly, that hig less cloud, and that he teat, win his foture, cher himself we if he mast, may have wial passio; it necessary rizes chidrey, mALes it easior £y gy droamed ofy D, a0d, cmay. theorotioaly Jeirilany . toved 2~ ’me. the = iy capadieg 1 courses, fn o WS bad of g Py o, 2 0 tonot ifes to ebeolately which cruty ion of Lnnoung“‘ » ‘&P"::ln ook !l:gn Boecher'y o 1 i s - 37 by ra'thy notal, ®cone him 2 servies if fi tnati : oo ehicled by e ave consni Bad pegosnited god Past waa under chusty, a oocy 8 boga. to0 o emall ey, Bat b seeny - almost impossibia for Mr. Beecherto Consider and to take the viser course. Ho acts mavi, .. ably from impolse; ha still more 8peaky from impules, or from appearaaces wide and there seems 1o chance thay lginnlio of wisdom and truth, tion, from the siart, that so: Baecher's reliz o cooformity to truth, 20d 8 sidering, nov_withont anxisty whether extended, bas not brougkt into the holdinz and haodiin conduct n vl ever accept and Heacea Mr. Beecher, g0 far of life which need jo A 03 work will rave 0f the mark; Impulso or im. oboy a strict Ly . 8530Dg presumy m8 2spacts of Al anything buf ecessity for cog. and cribical 23 his infineniog day g of audids be rooted out, Crrzonus, ] REFCRMED EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SYNODICAL COUNCIL IN CEICAGO, The first Synodicat Coxnctl of ths Rafornd car, Episcopal Church, called ander tha providg of the Constitution and Canons of that will assemble In St. Paul's Church, Washingg street, between Ann sireet and Willanl placy o Tuesday next, the 28th inst., at 2:30-ebloct p, m. The proceedings of the Council will by prefaced by short religious exercisss, afiw which the regnlar order of busiress will bs ez menced. On Tueaday evening at 7:30 o'clock the Bav. Albert Walkley, now in charge of the Church of tne Good Shepherd, in this city, will be daiy orjiained, at St. Panl’s Church, as & prasbytria the Reformed Episcopal Church, by Bishop (as ney. The ordination serwon will ba by the Rev. Dr. Fallows, of St Paals Thes will be full evening service. The musical cxa ciges will be rendered by tha choir of Bt Faai's Chorch under the chargs of Prof. Gustams Genry. 1t is expected that the Council wili be abls o complete its work and adjourn by Wedaeshy evening. The polity of the Reformed Episcopal Chureh contemplates the division of ths conntry and of the States into local ecclesiastical jurisdictions called Synoda, all under the uitimate contralof the General Couacil of the Church, which, with the aid of a Standing Committes and s Presid ing Rishop, constitutes the central govel pover of the Charch. This General C meets anhtally instead of trienaially a5 intis old Protestant Episcopal Chucch; but mathey of local concern are left eniirely tc tho'Synof- ical jurisdictions or Bishoprica, yacd, whit musé be composod of at lwd six adjacent. parishes and six, presyhtars - may contain many more, elect ite own appoini its own Standiog Committes, mska own Constitution, Canons, etc. Each Syl takes its nama from the chisfeity or town witkis its jurisdiction. As the Reformed Epis Church virtually had its origin m Chicigy springing from tho arbitrary exercise of de- cement of whst POtic po this Charch deems to ba davgerous and onacriptural dogmas, it is growth has first concentratod wer applied to she eafo: juriediction or Synod of tkas Chax are now ten Reformed Episcopalp congregations in Chicsgo aod its vicinity, including the City of Peoris, and shors forty others in differentparts of the ‘horssite hers that s inzo the first leal ch. -Thai arishes sod immadisia Tailed Sthtes sud British Provicces, At the first Gax eral Coauctl of the Reformed Episcol in 1573, there wers but seven ministers of &4 Chnrch present. At ths secoud, in 1874, thert wero soventeen. Al tho third, beld in E?MW in May, 11.57521 thaxe‘weru] over forty and a lay delogation largely exc fumber. ‘I"humg General Coaneil egdlinng. pal Chezd W bed a¢ Ottaws, Ont., in May, 1875, a2 which there 3 now prospect of as la.galy increased repressis tion s in the Councils preceding—3 gro! which is zltogather remarkablc, consideriog Lief term since the ory and ths deep-seated re! axization of the Chgrtd, igioas prejadices snd 1 sociatinns which it i necessary to overcoms ® ita progr The Nations! Council of the Eoman in Irelaud, which Loy been _on the ta e, —_—— THE IRiSH CHURCH. MERTING OF THE NATIONAL 6YSOD Tho New York Herald has corssspondent from Dublin, giviog an account of thé opeai of the National Counetl of the Insh Churh frem which the following extracts uanyd‘;'z:‘ pis for nestly throe yeare, was opencd at Maynooth, Tusidsy, 4 31 Izu worth remarking the precent is cl:.hu_ sécond National Council held in il wicion Lhe 2 liph invasion, 700 vears age; whereas, m Amesdh fhoeo Epiacopil gatheriags are eveats of ropus 2 currenceat elated hmes, The orplensfon 2,0 it ditference must Le nothing p:‘m $r) infivences of the Ney World; even fixad ory as th: Roman quire 1n 1ta atmospherc & fresh encrgy. Anotber peculiarity worth noting:n the aslical system i the inciination tw bold whoed therings in remole plsces. The formes Beld e: i huries, a quict villsyo in the Forary, ‘The present one §a being Leld st sull smaller villago 310t 33 mies froi, tho great pastoral district of E 2k he fortanen of, Irish cattindeaiors. however, an sppropristencss in beldicg 3 Msyncoth. The Coliege of Msyrooth is tha erally for the [rish race wharaver fully placed it is for fts object—quits wooded detaesne of Catton, the sest of T.cinster, the lord of tre sazrounding College gates are the picturesque ra toric castle of, the Geraidines, wherce all the border land o that side of tze ains they d walking distance i Ceilridge, t% easy Dean Swifr's ongowes | TIrish school of the Jesuita; the **Fill sceno of O'Connells celebrsted dusl with I Tke Lollege of Alaynoctl itsel{ P scene. The entrance qusdrangle was all Vaneess ; Ok s Alorg several corridors rooms had expected visitors, 2nd, jndging {rom 3EE person of resnectable exterlor we S’“T oecupy a. bedroom, ** sud weicons than!’r]Be'- Dr. Charlea Busacll, s most and kindly gentlsman, whose f3me bemispheres, come: of sumptucna f=ast, Lecn ent An'improvised bonquettas d & was been received. It was persans b tion of Irish hospitality. To & Ateanger the gcono Y13 MO cassock, with {ans therv, and a Franciscan who &id s in_violet rof viclet ciactarea, of the immarisl ** Mark of 8. Fras: “ Bensational f Mozt wor2 mm{f,‘ ywns, others the Roman ferrajuois Fovntle. Abost onefourth of s We -3 oeen 0 i B 1s knowa R a eor & is. grest % tramning the pricets, Tot plons for LrelsnC, nted i £ 3 i Cattolig Chusch & mnfi L beart of B ) hove gt ey it g e fiiersy § il B i ¥ vaks £ K E f 8 k ¥ B E T T T S KPS SRRV 08 I A STV TR STV RSty FIET TP B 7 - 54 {1 k 3