124 ment. He is respectfully advised that this country does not embrace "all the world and the rest of mankind!" That the cause of Church Unity would be greatly promoted by a change of name to one that would "most accurately describe the nature" of "this Church," there can be no manner of doubt. The writer would gladly enlarge upon this point to a considerable extent, but time and space forbid. He cannot refrain, however, from quoting the following paragraph from p. 238 of a book by the Rev. Dr. Briggs, just published by Messrs. Scribners, entitled Whither? A Theological Question for the Times, and which work must attract very wide attention. The author, with great ability, discusses the question as to the basis upon which the Presbyterians can unite with the Church, and in defining the bounds of Christian union, makes the following remarkable admission, which, coming from such an eminent Presbyterian standpoint, must be refreshing to Catholic-minded Churchmen: We confess to a warm sympathy with those members of the Protestant Episcopal Church who desire to remove the terms Protestant Episcopal from the name of their Church, on the ground that these terms are schismatical. All such terms are from the very nature of the case schismatical. They represent that the churches that bear them are parties or branches of the Church of CHRIST, and not the true and pure Church of CHRIST. The advocates of a change in the name have every reason for encouragement. So far as the writer is aware, the question was first brought before the House of Deputies at the General Convention of 1877, when only three Deputies voted for the change. Some members of the House that then voted in the negative, did so because of peculiar circumstances connected with the then fresh In 1883, the matter again Cummins-Cheney schism. came before the House of Deputies, when over one hundred members voted for the proposed change. On the second day of the session of the General Convention of 1886, the writer of this article introduced the following Preamble and Resolution in the House of Deputies: WHEREAS, The name 'Protestant Episcopal' is too narrow and exclusive as a designation of a Branch (as ours is) of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church' of CHRIST, in which we express our belief in solemn Creed ; and, WHEREAS, Such designation is not only thus incomprehensive in its significance, but misleading to the uninformed, and to that extent pernicious and harmful; therefore, Resolved, As the sense of this House, that such name should be expunged from the present designation of the Church in her laws and formularies, and that proper legislative action should be taken to that end. On the tenth day of the session, after a remarkable discussion of over a week's duration, a vote by Dioceses and Orders was taken on the question of adopting the Preamble and Resolution, resulting as follows: Clergy-Ayes, 17; nays, 22; divided, 10. The individual vote of Deputies, as shown by the rollcall, was: Ayes-Clergy, 81; Laity, 30-total, 111. The Rev. Dr. John H. Egar, of Central New York, on the eleventh day of the session, offered and moved the adoption of the following Preamble and Resolution : WHEREAS, The Book of Common Prayer is the common heritage of all English-speaking people who have been baptised into the Church of CHRIST, and should express that fact upon its title page; and, WHEREAS, It is according to the custom of the Church in all ages, as well as in the New Testament, that a branch of the Church Universal, by whatever name it may be convenient otherwise to distinguish it, be also designated by the name of the country in which it exists; therefore, Resolved, The House of Bishops concurring, that the Joint Committee on the Revision of the Prayer Book be instructed to report an amendment to the title page of said book, setting forth that the Book of Common Prayer, in its American form, is 'according to the use of the Church in the United States of America.' Further discussion ensued, whereupon, on the fourteenth day of the session, the Rev. Dr. Dalzell, of Louisiana, proposed the following resolution: Resolved, That it is inexpedient to consider any changes of the titlepage of the Book of Common Prayer at this time. On division of the House, this resolution was defeated, by a vote of 129 in the affirmative to 151 in the negative. 126 The question thereupon recurring on the Preamble and Resolution of the Rev. Dr. Egar, the vote, taken by Dioceses and Orders, resulted as follows: Clergy-Ayes, 30; nays, 13; divided, 6. It will be noted that, on the Clerical vote, there was a Thus it will be seen that, by the individual vote of Deputies, Dr. Egar's proposition to drop the words "Protestant Episcopal" from the title page of the Prayer Book was carried by a good round majority, and that the measure was defeated only by the technical vote by Dioceses ana Orders. It will be observed, likewise, that there were forty-six more Deputies voted in favor of change of name in the title-page of the Prayer Book than for immediate "legislative action" to expunge the objectionable words "from the present designation of the Church in her laws and formularies." Surely, a gain of from 3 votes in 1877 to 157 (a majority of the House) in 1886 has in it no element of discouragement. It may be added, moreover, that not an inconsiderable number of Deputies, who voted in the negative in 1886, were known to be friends of the proposed change, but considered that the Church was not quite ready for it. And there are still some friends of the change who seem. to think it prudent to wait until our less pronounced Church people can be "educated" up to a proper understanding and appreciation of the proposition. It may be suggested to this well-meaning class of Churchmen that if the experiences of the last one hundred years, and especially the thorough discussions of the proposed change of name during the last twelve years, have not proved sufficient to "educate" such Church people in the premises, then it is to be feared that the latter are very much in the condition of obduracy that those were of old, of whom it was said, "If they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." The question to be determined is between the right and wrong of the matter. If the right be ascer tained, it were cowardly and sinful to follow the wrong. We dare not temporise. We dare not delay. As soldiers of the Cross, it is our duty to "go forward!" "Let us quit us like men." 66 'Magna est veritas, et prævalebit." In conclusion, the attention of all who love our Holy Mother is directed to the earnest words of Bishop Hall, a contemporary of Laud. Says Bishop Hall, in a Sermon on the Beauty and Unity of the Church: Let me never have part in her or in heaven, if any Church in the world have more part in the universal. Why do we wrong ourselves with the contradistinction of Protestant and Catholics? We do only protest this, that we are perfect Catholics. Let the pretenced look to themselves; we are sure we are as Catholic as true faith can make us, as much one as the same Catholic faith can make us; and in this undoubted right we claim and enjoy the sweet and inseparable communion with all the blessed members of that mystical body, both in earth and in heaven. [Hall's Works, edited by Winter, Oxford, 1863, vol. v, p. 285.] S. CORNING Judd. Freemasonry and the Roman Church. THE 'HE world's attention has been frequently drawn to the antagonism that exists between the Roman Church and Freemasonry. That this opposition is the source of much real evil must be evident to every thinking man. Every one knows that these two societies bring charges one against the other, that these charges are often made in the heat of passion, and are, in a measure, the result of wilful ignorance or blind prejudice. Truth and principle must, and will, in the end prevail, and assumptions of the utter wickedness of large bodies of men will find less toleration as the ignorance that now prevails passes away, and as the superstitions of paganism and the errors engrafted by men on Christianity fade from view. More and more the world is growing desirous of peace and goodwill among men, and the arrogant pretensions of those who aim at destroying the true liberty of man's mind and conscience, will meet with just rebuke. A policy of hatred and denunciation will never help the cause of virtue and truth. Men are disposed to accept the truth and to admire virtue, even though they do not act in accordance with the one nor practise the other. The sooner all leaders of thought come to recognise these principles, not merely in theory but in practice, the sooner will the way be prepared for the elimination of mutual distrust and enmity. It is not the object of the writer to explain the origin of Freemasonry or of the Roman Church. Freemasons claim that their Order is very ancient, although they willingly admit that there have been modifications through the ages and different departures in different countries, and at times an unfortunate abuse or denial of the true principles of the Order. The Roman Church declares that the antiquity claimed for Masonry is imaginary; that the Order of Freemasons as at present in the world is but the outgrowth of societies within the last 1,000 years at |