versal properties and relations in phenomena arises from no other necessity than the action of a desire urged beyond the normal promptings of its power." (p. 292.) Rather, we reply, the discovery of the fact of being, to which belong ultimate and universal properties and relations in phenomena, arises from the normal necessity of real being to develop beyond the mere animal promptings of its power into the human consciousness of self as the reason for all that has preceded it. The strength of the Phenomenologists, represented by Mr. Wright, lies in their attack upon the Natural Realists, who admit that we only know phenomena, and claim that we should put faith in noumena. But against one who claims to know in the phenomena of mind the being of mind also, and thence to infer from the phenomena of matter the being of matter, howsoever analysis may present material forces to our understanding, the idea of being having sprung from the immediate knowledge of self, the Phenomenologist can merely disclaim for himself any such knowledge, or deny the probability of its correctness, and attempt to account for its origin, as Mr. Wright admits, on its own ground, that is, dogmatically, or by theory" (p. 250) by phenomenal evolution, for instance, into which he is obliged to introduce a mystery certainly no less than the absolute knowledge of self, namely: the spontaneity by which man first becomes conscious of self, the readiness with which he makes the mistake of believing in being, and the persistence with which even philosophers cherish this offspring of the barbarian mind.

แ

The dilemma between the empiricists and the school of Kant concerning self consciousness is-doubt of, or faith in what is not absolutely known; but I am convinced that between all the deniers of an absolute knowledge of self on the one side, and all who affirm an absolute knowledge of self on the other, lies the more correct dilemma-ignorance, or knowledge of essential being in self-consciousness.

ARTICLE VI.-"IS SCHISM A NECESSITY?"

AN OPEN LETTER, IN FRIENDLY REPLY, TO THE REVEREND LEONARD WOOLSEY BACON, M.A., ETC.

MY DEAR CHRISTIAN BROTHER:

YOUR Letter, addressed to me in the New Englander of April last, deserved an earlier notice. I will not waste words in explaining the fact that until now I have had no time to give it the attention it merits. I feel that it contains much which does great honor to its writer; I feel thankful to God for the solemn and far-reaching inquiry suggested by its title "Is Schism a Necessity?" But it is a great question, and how shall I answer it? God help me to say what I can under a deep and constant sense of responsibility to Him.

It is a good token that such a question is not only put for ward, in the New Englander, in a large and liberal spirit, but that, in the same spirit, a reply is admitted into its pages from the pen of a "prelate" who believes in the divine origin of his order, and who has never been backward in asserting it. Deeply do I feel that such liberality imposes on me the duty of saying nothing offensive, and, in short, of doing something less negatively to freshen an old subject, and to present it in a manner entirely free from the old quarrel about "Bishops, Priests, and Deacons."

It is not difficult to do this. In some respects you have set me an example. Yet let me be very candid, in order to excuse my serious line of thought, in replying to a letter which is often very merry, if not in fact witty, at our expense. I asked a friend, a Presbyterian pastor of great respectability, to read your letter and to give me any suggestion that might occur to him as to the kind of answer it would seem to require. He gratified me by complying with my request, but he dropped the remark, "Some of the points are meant to be stinging." Such, then, was the impression of an unprejudiced party. A word, therefore, on that feature.

There are nettles which can only be treated as such and grasped with the proverbial pluck that deprives them of much of their power to inflict a wound. But, occasionally, one descries a nettle in a very fragrant hedge which does no harm if let alone. Now, your nettles are of the latter class, and I see no need of disturbing them. I am regaled by the flavor of brotherly-kindness that exhales, as from a garden, in most of what you have addressed to me, and I trust I may present you with nothing less agreeable in return. Let a new spirit, if nothing more, be begotten of our correspondence, and may the Holy Spirit enlarge it in all future discussions between those whom we may represent, respectively. Oh, that we might be baptized with the spirit which St. Paul commends to Timothy: "The servant of the Lord must not strive, but be gentle unto all men."

The time that has passed since you did me the honor to write to me has rendered the matter which was the occasion of your letter to some extent a thing of the past. Even were it otherwise, I should be compelled to say very little on that point, in view of the fact that it has been assigned to another bishop for settlement, under our Canons, so that I could not, without indelicacy, prejudge the questions it involves. You will appreciate this fact and excuse me for applying my thoughts chiefly to the large and abstract bearings of your inquiry-"Is Schism a Necessity?"

And here let me thank you for your very courteous reference to my little book, "Apollos, or the Way of God." When you do me the favor to read it, you will find how deeply we are one in the fundamental spirit of your inquiry, which, I trust, God sees to be even in me, as I am sure it is in you-the spirit of that genuine Agape without which we are nothing. You are eloquent on the shame and disgrace of “running rival churches," of sustaining them by rivalries in "fancy fairs and pious lotteries,” and on the effect produced in foreign parts, by such specimens of "American Christianity.". You will find that what so justly shocks you abroad is much more distressing to me, on the vast scale which afflicts us at home: but you will observe that much which I have said in "Apollos," in entire sympathy with you, has been directed to the consciences of hundreds of

our pious countrymen who regard this as a beautiful development of Christianity, and who lose no opportunity of commending it, as a desirable state of things, to our Evangelical countrymen. Seldom have I met with a view of the hideousness and folly of this idea more forcible and convincing than your own. "Is Schism a Necessity?" I answer No, in the name of God and of His Christ. When our countrymen see their actual condition as you do, we shall have gained half the battle against the spirit of schism. I think the Spirit of Wisdom can lead us to the rest.

When we come to consider the remedies, no doubt we shall differ discouragingly at first. For all that, I do not despair of at least two results: (1) We shall begin to know and respect one another and to be profoundly convinced that there are new views to be taken of old subjects; and (2) this mutual confidence must beget a happier social Christianity, at least, out of which more and better things will come, under the plastic hand of a loving Master, to whom all true believers are so unspeakably dear.

Let me look the worst difficulties full in the face. You discuss in a manly way the three things which, in your opinion, "hinder Episcopalians from common worship with their fellow Christians, generally." Now, I feel that should I take them up in the order and outline of your own discussion of them, I should find myself running into the old ruts of "Church-Polity," which since the days of Cartwright and Hooker have been worn so deep, with so little apparent progress. I must avoid this mistake, and yet, conceding that the points you make ought not to be disregarded, I must give them something more than a general reply. And, upon reflection, I have thought it best, and most just to our common convictions, to remark upon them by reducing them to their underlying principle, and then discussing that. For it is true that our hinderances have much to do with your "three heads: (1) Conditions of Communion, (2) Ritual, and (3) the Authority of the Ministry." But, again, it is true, as you do not seem to see, that these hinderances result not from any feelings, or even principles, personal to ourselves, but from the fact that we maintain them in fidelity to a trust which we share with others on so large a scale, that our

very insignificance, if you will, forbids us to modify or break what we regard as common property, without the common consent. Conceding, then, for argument's sake, that what we thus find objectionable to many of our fellow Christians, are things mutable in themselves, you will perceive that conscience may have much to do with the inquiries-when, how, and by what processes, shall the changes be made, which have so much to say for themselves on the score of expediency. Thus our Thirty-fourth Article maintains that "Whosoever, through his private judgment, willingly and purposely doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the Church which be not repugnant to the Word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked," &c. Let me, first, ask you to observe, then, that if we accept this principle, as possibly you do not, we may, as conscientious Christian men, and not as sentimentalists or mere bigots, be forced to do, on principle, many things, accordingly, which cost us dear, in view of private interests and most natural feelings. In this way, then, dear brother, I answer a question very frankly, which you put very squarely and plumply. You ask: "After all, is the divisive, schismatic course so often pursued in the name of the Episcopal Church really a matter of principle at all?" I answer, no "divisive, schismatic course" can have any principle in it; but if you give such hard names to the real difficulties created by the great principle of law and order to which I have referred, then, I must say, you do us a great injustice; because, from our point of view, such is not a principle of division and schism, but of unity and love. Our differences here grow out of the different views of Christendom and of Christian relations, which are habitual to us, respectively, in our different positions. Here, then, is the place for me to say how thoroughly I agree in your opinion of the snobbery which you seem to have encountered somewhere, in a very offensive form, but which you too hastily conclude to be common and operative among us on a large scale, if not in a predominant degree. You would not adhere to such an idea, however, and it would be mere bathos to argue on the want of charity which would be involved in pressing it seriously. Let us suppose that fools and snobs may be found in both camps, and that since Horace