Prudently with power : William Thomas Manning, tenth Bishop of New York..

The Leonard Library

Wpdiitt College

Toronto

Shelf

Register No ...... f....4.«2f

PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

Portrait by Griffith Daily Coalc

PRUDENTLY
WITH POWER

WILLIAM THOMAS MANNING
TENTH BISHOP OF NEW YORK

So he fed them with a faithful and true heart, and ruled them
prudently with all his power. Psalm LXXV1II, 73

W. D. F. HUGHES

with a Foreword by the Bishop of New York

HOLY CROSS PUBLICATIONS

WEST PARK NEW YORK

FOREWORD

J_T is NOW fourteen years since William Thomas Manning, tenth
Bishop of New York, entered into life eternal. His name is held in
grateful and honored memory by a multitude of churchmen and men
of good will who either knew him or knew of him; and yet, so swift is
the passage of time, that even within the metropolitan Diocese of
New York there is already a new generation of clergy and laity to
whom he is but a figure, howbeit distinguished, from the past.

Therefore, it is fitting, that for these, and for those who shall come
after, there should be recorded some account of the Bishop's life and
work, of his place in the Church and in civic life, and some personal
memories, by one who for more than twenty years was associated with
him as a priest of the Diocese, a member of the Cathedral staff, and a
friend. This has been done with such objectivity as is possible to the
writer, in such circumstances.

As we think of Bishop Manning the things which come immediately
to mind are his loyalty to the Church, his steadfastness in the faith,
his fairness and justice, his moral indignation against wrong or evil,
and his courage which extended over the whole of his life; but behind
all these things and speaking through them was his deep personal
faith.

When he was consecrated in the Cathedral he was asked as every
Bishop is asked, certain questions and was given certain charges. These
questions he answered, and these charges he accepted, and in their
substance and in their implication he followed them.

Bishop Manning was fearless. It never occurred to him to hesitate

VI PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

in doing or saying what he believed to be right from motives of caution
or expediency. He was never afraid to express his opinions even when
they ran counter to commonly accepted beliefs.

A powerful friend, Bishop Manning could be as well a redoubtable
antagonist. There could be no question of a compromise on matters
of principle. He had sometimes to contend with his critics for he was
often misunderstood and criticized as every man must be who bears
large responsibilities, but criticism did not disturb his spirit or deter
him from following truth as he saw it.

As it was said of Bishop Potter, another great Bishop of New York,
and it is equally true of Bishop Manning, "He did not shrink from
unpopularity — to those who did not know him he seemed at times
to court it. But not so — he was built on larger lines and simply aimed
to do and say faithfully and fearlessly what he deemed was right, and
while ready to listen to reason to show that he was wrong, and frank
when convenient to acknowledge and to own it, no mere clamour
could swerve him from his course."

The source of this courage was that at the very core of his per
sonality, and the center of his life, was a deep loyalty to Christ and a
firm conviction that the Gospel of Christ is the one answer to human
needs. This is evident from his first to his last sermons and addresses
in the Diocese of New York.

No one could accuse Bishop Manning of petty partisanship. He was
the Bishop of the whole Diocese, and ready to uphold truth wherever
he saw it. Along with his true comprehensive essence of Anglicanism,
he held unfalteringly loyal to the faith and order of the Church as set
forth in the Book of Common Prayer and in the Church's own official
formularies. Again and again he spoke of the whole Gospel of Christ
and His Church, and reiterated the call to "hold fast to the Prayer
Book."

How it grieved him to exercise discipline, as it does any Bishop,
yet he did not hesitate when it was clearly his duty. He knew, however,
that our chief need in the Church is not more discipline but more of
the spirit of love for the Church, and for each other in the fellowship
of Christ, and that we need not so much new methods, but more
simple, more personal faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.

It would be impossible to speak of Bishop Manning's life and work
without referring to the Cathedral Church of Saint John the Divine
in which he took such intense interest and to which he gave so largely
of his time and strength. He inherited the Cathedral project from his

FOREWORD Vll

predecessors and carried forward this immense undertaking in such
a way that it is true to say no Bishop has done more for it.

His interests were not limited to the Church he loved and served
so faithfully. Bishop Manning was keenly interested in and concerned
with all that was related to the life and welfare of the city and its
people and he had the deepest sympathy with the poor and oppressed.
His tangible interest in slum clearance and his conviction that all men
of whatever race, colour, or station in life, are brothers in Christ be
speak a remarkable relevance to the life of our times. Certainly, the
Bishop was a great Patriot. Long before many others he saw clearly
what were to him the great issues involved in two world wars, and
that he saw these in spiritual terms is indicated by his service as a
chaplain.

Bishop Manning did not covet personal honor and tribute, and he
has passed beyond these things into the presence of his Lord. But out
of gratitude for his Episcopate and for continued encouragement in
our work here in the Church on earth, it is right that a book should
be written concerning the life and example of one who was not only
one of the greatest Bishops of New York, but was in truth "a servant
of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ."

+ HORACE W. B. DONEGAN,

Bishop of New York

CONTENTS

I. OVERTURE 3

II. SEWANEE 16

III. BEGINNINGS 35

IV. ASSISTANT RECTOR 43
V. RECTOR 51

VI. REUNION 69

VII. WAR 91

VIII. TENTH BISHOP AND TENTH RECTOR 102

IX. BUILDING THE CATHEDRAL 132

X. DIARY 150

XI. IN MEDIAS RES 187

XII. FALSE REUNION 209

XIII. FINALE 232

CHRONOLOGY 245

INDEX 249

List of Illustrations

Portrait by Griffith Baily Coale Frontispiece

Riding his first hobby 25

At Sewanee 25

The theology school at Sewanee 26

The young rector of Lansdowne 26

The new rector of Trinity 27

The 1912 trip 27

War chaplain 28

The new bishop 28

Signature 29

At Lausanne, 1927 29

A group of notables 30

The temporary altar in the nave 30

With children at St. Barnabas House 30

The nave of the cathedral, 1942 31

At Saint Sava's Cathedral 32

The "fighting bishop" 32

At the time of his retirement, 1946 33

With the bishop of Oxford at Somesville, 1949 34

The author and his subject 34

PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

CHAPTER ONE

OVERTURE

ILLIAM THOMAS MANNING was born in the town and county
of Northampton, in the Diocese of Peterborough, in England, on the
12th day of May, 1866, the second child and son of John Manning
and Matilda Robinson, his wife. It was the heyday of the Victorian
era. The prince consort had died five years before and the queen was
in full retirement. The Oxford Movement, of which the infant was
to be a lifelong follower and finally a leader in the new world, was
firmly established. Mr. Gladstone was serving the last years of his ap
prenticeship for the office of prime minister under Lord Russell,
whom he succeeded in 1868. The other famous Manning — there was
no relationship or connection between the two but the younger ob
viously got his nickname from the older in college days — had made
his submission to Rome some fifteen years earlier and was preparing
to assume the position of dominance and leadership among English
Roman Catholics on the death of Cardinal Wiseman. The gentle
Longley was Archbishop of Canterbury, very shortly to be succeeded
by the more astringent Tait. In the United States, where the child
was to find his home and the field of his labours, the Civil War was
over, Lincoln was dead, and the country was living unhappily, not
to say shamefully, through the administration of Andrew Johnson.
Events such as these were probably not noted in the simple house
hold at 21 King Street, Northampton, for they were plain people who
had little to do with great events. Willie, as he was called in early
years, changed before long to Will to match a certain dignity of
manner, passed an uneventful and normal childhood and in due course
began his schooling with his brothers, John and George, at the North-

PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

ampton Grammar School. There was an interlude of two years when
he and his younger brother went to a boarding school, the Moulsoe
School in Buckinghamshire. Here he won prizes, usually firsts, every
term. The custom of the day was to allow the prize winner to choose
his own prize; and on one occasion, when he had recited the Atha-
nasian Creed letter perfect, he chose a bright red wheelbarrow, which
he used to tend his garden plot and which was the envy of the rest
of the school. Here also he was confirmed on 14 November, 1878, by
Bishop Mackarness of Oxford. When he returned to the Northampton
School there were courses in agriculture, the results of which were
shown in later years by a critical eye for pigs. When driving through
the countryside the bishop was apt to spot and call the attention of
the family to a notable specimen.

The new baby was baptized in Saint Katherine's Parish Church
on the first of July, but the family attended Saint Peter's, and went
on occasion to the new Saint Lawrence, a pioneer parish of the Ox
ford Movement. In 1944 the bishop recorded of himself

His early religious life was greatly influenced by his father who as a lay
man was identified with the Oxford tractarian Movement and was active
in local undertakings representing that Movement.

At the time of the bishop's retirement from the Diocese of New York
there were one or two older parishioners of Saint Lawrence who
remembered his coming there as a boy. There are few tales to tell of
his childhood. He was faithful in his duties and grew up without
intellectual or religious difficulties or struggles. The path of duty
seemed always sufficiently plain and the yoke of obedience was borne
cheerfully and as a matter of course. His decision to enter the min
istry was made at the age of ten and was never altered.

In 1882, when Will was sixteen, the family — there were two girls
besides the three boys — came to America and went to live on a farm
in Nebraska. There they remained for four years until a devastating
hailstom swept a path two miles wide across the state, laying waste
their farm and driving them farther west to California where they
settled outside San Diego. Will was a faithful worker on the farm
and had a way with the animals. There was one muley cow of an
uncertain temper, which would let no one but Will milk her. It is
significant that he inspired confidence in the dumb beast because he
continued to inspire the confidence of people throughout his life.
The bishops under whom he served — old Bishop Whitaker in Penn
sylvania, Bishop Gailor in Tennessee, Bishop Potter and Bishop Greer
in New York — all addressed him with a sort of eager confidence that

OVERTURE 5

his judgment was good and that they could depend upon him. In his
later years a nurse in Saint Luke's Hospital said of him, when asked
about his visit to a very sick patient, that it had been all right for
him to come. She had often nursed patients visited by the bishop,
and it was always all right, "because Bishop Manning knows how to
behave in a sick room."

The boy's success with the muley cow would seem to have come
rather from an acceptance of the present circumstances of life than
from the absolute need for animal companionship which possesses
some. When he was a small boy he had a dog to which he was so
close that the dog was inconsolable when his young master went away
to boarding school until given an old coat of Willie's to sleep on.
But in later life, because Mrs. Manning did not like pets, he was
quite content not to have one. While he was milking the cow and
doing the chores on the farm in Nebraska he always carried a prayer
book in his pocket. He did well the work given him to do and made
no complaint that the task laid upon him was not the one for which he
was fitted. It is doubtful whether he even felt an inward dissatisfac
tion at his lot. But in a curious way he moved on rather swiftly until
he found his proper niche. In the first thirteen years of his ministry
he held seven different posts. Then in 1903 he went to New York and
stayed for the rest of his life, because there was where he belonged.

* * *

In the first years of retirement the bishop began to collect ma
terials for an autobiography and prepared a few notes. He writes of
those early days,

I should like to write a volume covering my experiences in my first par
ish, Trinity Church, Redlands, California [but before this he had been
briefly at Calvary Church, Memphis, and Saint Matthews, National City,
California]; at Sewanee, with Dr. Bose, as Professor of Dogmatic Theol
ogy; in Cincinnati at Trinity Mission; at Lansdowne, Pennsylvania, as
Rector of Saint John's Church; and in Nashville, Tennessee, as Rector of
the grand old Mother Parish of Christ Church. I can only say here that for
each of these experiences, I still feel grateful and that after more than
fifty years I still hear from some of the noble people of those parishes.
I have always been glad that before coming to work in New York City
it was my lot to live and work in four other different states — California,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee.

But the outline for his work indicates that he intended to deal chiefly
with his life in New York, and indeed he planned to call it, "My
Forty-Four Years in New York City."

PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

Dr. Morgan Dix chose the young Manning to prepare to succeed
him at Trinity as Dr. Berrian had chosen the young Dix years be
fore. Manning had not been two years at St. Agnes' Chapel when he
was elected Bishop of Harrisburg. Dr. Dix commanded his vestry to
elect Manning assistant to the rector in order to hold him at Trinity.1
He took four days to consider the matter and remained in Trinity
Parish. Or perhaps not so much in Trinity as in New York. He was
elected Bishop of Western New York in 1917. He was strongly urged
to stand for election in other dioceses, notably Pennsylvania, where
he was almost certainly assured of election if he did. But he was
working where he knew he belonged and he did not consider these
calls compelling.

It was recognized by others that Manning belonged in a position
of leadership in New York. George W. Wickersham, a leading citizen
and layman, attorney general under President Taft, and a vestryman
at Saint George's, Stuyvesant Square, wrote to him in June, 1917,
after he had announced his refusal of Western New York,

I am very glad that you have decided to remain in New York. I ventured
to telegraph you as I did because I thought the view of an outsider might
contribute something towards your decision; that is, it might help you to
realize that outside of your own parish, there was a deep appreciation of
your sturdy patriotism and a recognition of its value in inspiring and
directing public sentiment at this critical time in our country's history.
The influence of the Church is a matter of vital importance at such a
time. If her ministers do not lead public thought in the right way now,
how can she hope to retain her place and widen her influence later? From
the very first you have been one of the few — a very few — who recognized
where our national duty lay and what gospel should be preached to the
people. You were one of the first to point out the truth that there are
times when to follow Christ means to fight evil with all forces of human
combatants — to wield the scourge even as He did when He drove the
money changers from the Temple. You — your faith, your courage, your
uncompromising vigor are needed in this cosmopolitan city, where despite
flags, and pageants and contributions of money, few as yet realize what
war means, what sacrifices must be made by everybody before victory can
be won.

So I am sincerely glad that you have decided to remain here. I do not
think you will regret it. Thank you for writing me.

1 The charter of Trinity Church provides for the office of assistant to the rector, or
assistant rector. This officer has the right to preside at meetings of the vestry in
the absence of the rector and no action can be taken by the vestry without the
presence of either the rector or assistant. The assistant does not automatically suc
ceed to the rectorship but in fact always has been elected.

OVERTURE 7

The Southern Churchman, in an editorial just at the end of the
First World War, said of him

. . . the work and influence of the Rev. Dr. Manning, both in the camps
and in New York, have been beyond all praise. When some others were
weak-kneed, notably one or two denominational ministers of national
prominence located in New York, the Rector of Trinity lifted his voice
to utter some of the soundest patriotic statements language can frame.
Almost more than any other person he changed the tone of New York's
thinking on the war. He did so, not because Rector of Trinity, but be
cause of his personality and the opportune time he took to say what he
said. He was a leader when a leader was needed. Through him the Church
made a contribution to winning the war that ought always to stand, and
always to be known. From the war camps there come high appreciation,
but working in the war camps and occasionally speaking in New York,
his greatest work in this war has been outside of camps, even outside of
Trinity itself, and it is work that influenced all New York and the en
tire nation.

* * *

It is not to be supposed that Manning was indifferent to the im
plication and possibilities of his position or his work, or was unam
bitious. Moral fervour was his chief characteristic. He spent an enor
mous amount of energy on any matter he regarded as important —
and there was never a time when there was not at least one important
matter in hand. He had a habit of standing on his toes, his heels
just a little off the ground, when he preached or spoke in public and
while his manner of delivery was far from fiery it was very earnest;
those near him could hear the sharp intake of his breath which de
noted intensity of physical effort. Mr. Grenville Kleiser, formerly in
structor of public speaking at Yale Divinity School, published an
article in the New York Herald for Sunday, 28 January, 1912, on the
prominent preachers of New York City. He writes of Manning,

It was said of Pitt that he no sooner rose than he carried away every
hearer and kept the attention fixed and unflagging until it pleased him to
let it go. A like tribute can be paid to the preaching style of the Rev. Wil
liam T. Manning of Trinity Episcopal Church. His power of compelling
attention, however, is not due to an unbroken flow of words, but to an
unusual deliberateness of utterance punctuated by many eloquent and
significant pauses.

As he stands to preach he looks at his congregation for some moments
before he utters a single sound. Then, with measured precision he an
nounces his text and again pauses long. Having now secured the atten
tion of all his hearers he proceeds with his discourse in a manner at once

8 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

simple, direct and deliberate. Although the message itself may be simple,
the clean cut diction and reserve force of the speaker invest it with a
peculiar charm and power.

Dr. Manning's delivery is a study in the fine art of pausing. It is easy
to see that he has accustomed himself to explain and prove, to clear away
objections and to apply what he says to the practical, everyday needs of
men. His entire manner of speaking, indeed, is that of an earnest man
speaking to other men. The style is wholly extempore, which enables
him constantly to look into the eyes of his hearers. The marked deliber-
ateness of delivery and the long but judicious pauses come at last to fas
cinate the hearer's attention. The speaker is natural from the beginning
to the end of his sermon, with not the slightest attempt at oratorical effect.

Dr. Manning uses very little gesture, but what he does use is significant
and unobtrusive. He is particularly fond of a right hand movement, a
turning at the wrist, which serves to emphasize and illustrate some special
point. All of his gestures are very deliberate, in keeping with the move
ment of his mind and voice.

Manning had always the reputation of being a driver, both of
himself and of others. He was a relentless worker; he had no hesita
tion in calling on others to assist him, and he was peculiarly success
ful in making others work for him. But his method was one of calm
and cool concentration rather than hot haste. When he gave his
attention to a matter he was unconscious of all else and he could not
be drawn away from a subject until he himself was entirely through
with it. He was capable of working of an evening in the midst of the
family circle, quite undisturbed by the conversation going on around
him, until he was ready to lay aside his pad and pencil and join in;
then he might recite the Bab Ballads, or tell stories on himself, or
describe the incidental absurdities of the service or meeting or com
mittee he had attended during the day. His ability to give his at
tention and energy to the subject he regarded as important was ap
parently unlimited. He seemed almost never to know fatigue. But in
matters which he considered unimportant it was quite impossible
to tempt him into even formal interest.

The work of building the cathedral illustrates this. He was a trus
tee of the cathedral from the time he became Rector of Trinity but
the cathedral was not important in the rector's work and he gave no
attention to it, his record of attendance at meetings being probably
the lowest of any trustee in its history except that of Franklin Roose
velt after his election as President. When he became bishop the re
sponsibility was his. He neither sought it nor wanted it. But he gave

OVERTURE 9

himself to it in a way which produced results such as few bishops in
history have attained. This devotion gave rise to a popular miscon
ception that the cathedral was his own project and to the unjust and
entirely untrue criticism that it was all he cared about.

Annoyances to the life of the church which he felt he could remedy
he would pursue with entire relentlessness until they were removed.
Of personal annoyances which were unimportant he seemed unaware
even while they occurred. His conduct in the Torok case illustrates
his attitude toward matters of principle. The Revd. John Torok, who
in 1914 had received his orders probably as a uniat (i.e., a Christian
of the Eastern Rite who adheres to the Bishop of Rome instead of
the Patriarch of Constantinople) , was received in 1921 into the
Anglican obedience by the Bishop of Maryland, Dr. Murray, later
^presiding bishop. In 1923 he was consecrated a bishop, under very
peculiar circumstances, by two Orthodox bishops. In 1934 he was
elected Suffragan Bishop of the very small Diocese of Eau Claire, but
with the hope that he would work chiefly among Christians of Eastern
European origin in New York, Pittsburgh, Erie, and other cities. The
election was to be reported to General Convention of 1934 for ratifi
cation but in the spring of that year Dr. Torok called upon the Bishop
of New York to ask his permission to begin preliminary work in that
diocese immediately. Manning had at that time never heard of Torok
and knew nothing of his background or history but he had no hesi
tation in stating at once that he would give no consent to any work or
status in his diocese until General Convention should have completed
its action. He then began to inform himself of the case and soon be
came convinced that the election should not be ratified for many
reasons but chiefly because the Episcopal Church ought not to accept
Torok as a bishop. It soon became apparent that the Bishop of Eau
Claire was determined to secure ratification and Manning believed
that the professed neutrality of the presiding bishop in the matter
was in fact giving dangerous encouragement to the campaign of the
Bishop of Eau Claire. Very little was known of the case by the church
at large but, together with the Bishops of Erie and Pittsburgh, Man
ning continued firmly in opposition for over two years. As a result the
election never was ratified; and a change was made in the canons re
quiring that a diocese must receive permission from the church at large
before proceeding to the election of a suffragan bishop.

One purpose which the Bishop of Eau Claire had in mind was
the organizing and building up of a new work which would bring
Christians of Orthodox tradition, coming from Eastern Europe to this

10 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

country, into contact with the Episcopal Church. This might have
become an important development and it was the kind of thing in
which Manning believed and for which his support could have been
expected. In his annual convention address as bishop in 1923 he had
made reference to a project for giving Episcopal Ordination to min
isters of the Hungarian Reformed Church in this country and bringing
Hungarian congregations into formal affiliation with the Episcopal
Church. He presented it as "of special interest in its relation to the
question of Christian unity" and asked for the appropriation of funds
for the purpose. But, believing that no sound structure could be
built on the foundation proposed in the case of Torok, he had no
hesitation in pursuing the matter to the bitter end, quite unper
turbed by what the Bishop of Eau Claire and others said of him. But
once the controversy was over Manning forgot it. In 1939 he brought
Bishop Wilson to address the Diocesan Clergy Conference and from
1940 on they worked together closely in the matter of the proposed
union with Presbyterians as well as in other legislation before Gen
eral Convention.

On the other hand there was an occasion when a certain arch
bishop was most inconsiderately and astonishingly rude to the bishop.
They had met very casually at the Lausanne Conference in 1927 and
Manning offered to entertain the archbishop when he came to New
York. The archbishop sent his son instead for a week's stay. It then
developed that the archbishop was in fact to be in New York later.
Manning went out of his way to try to entertain the archbishop, if
only at a meal. Time did not allow and an arrangement was finally
made to breakfast together at an early hour in the Pennsylvania Sta
tion. Manning stood waiting with his chaplain for nearly two hours
at the appointed meeting place only to find that the archbishop had
gone directly to the dining room and finished his own breakfast with
out so much as looking for his would-be host. But it caused the
bishop no concern whatever, and as the archbishop trudged off to
his train the bishop addressed himself to his oatmeal and the com
ing events of the day, having forgotten the archbishop's very existence.
When reminded of the episode later he merely remarked that it had
been "a most foolish business."

* * *

The Detroit Free Press described him in 1919, when he was in at
tendance at General Convention for the last time as a member of the
House of Deputies, as a

dapper, smooth-faced, precise little man with a polish of manner and a

OVERTURE 1 1

perfection of diction that are striking and unusual. Nothing ruffles his good
humor, or disturbs his unfailing politeness.

Physically Manning was a very small man and remained thin through
out his life. The Matriculation Book of the University of the South
records that he was five feet four and a half inches in height and
weighed one hundred and thirty pounds. He probably never exceeded
that by ten pounds. He had a jaunty appearance and walked with a
curious combination of a springing step and a long stride even into
quite old age. He was apt to be thought of or seen with his coat tails fly
ing. But he combined with it a certain serious and stiff dignity of de
meanour. At college he was obviously nicknamed "Cardinal Man
ning" and as a young priest in Philadelphia he was known as "the
bantam." As bishop he was referred to by both his friends and ene
mies as "the little man." Picayune people said that he wore high
heels and a top hat to make himself look taller and that he would
not have tall men attached to his staff. He would greatly have en
joyed such stories, if he had heard them, for he never tired of anec
dotes which belittled him or made him absurd. But the evidence does
not support the belittlers. His use of the top hat followed the usual
pattern of New York clergy in the early twentieth century. His
clothing, including his shoes, was entirely conventional. As for his
insistence on having small people around him; it was a matter like
Mark Twain's death, "greatly exaggerated." I was master of ceremonies
at the cathedral for fourteen years and during that time it never was
suggested that size had anything to do with the matter of placing peo
ple near the bishop. Indeed one of the memorable scenes which oc
curred each year was the entrance to the cathedral at evensong on
Easter Day. As the choir and clergy went to their stalls, a long line
of acolytes needed for the solemn procession which followed the office,
some of them often young giants, passed up the choir to the sanctu
ary with the bishop, last and smallest but by no means least in fact
or in appearance, bringing up the rear.

The bishop was always the most impressive figure for all his slight-
ness at any gathering. But not quite always. There was a scene in
1931, at which he laughed afterwards, when the bishop received
from Archbishop Athenagoras, who had just arrived in New York as
Archbishop of North and South America and also personal repre
sentative of the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople, and who
himself now occupies that office, an icon of Saint John the Divine
and a fragment of stone from Mars Hill in Athens as gifts from the

12 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

patriarch to the cathedral and to the bishop. A simple ceremony was
arranged on a weekday after evensong in the cathedral. Athenagoras
is a man of huge frame, six feet, two, in height, and strikingly hand
some. A very long, dark beard and a rich sonorous voice contribute
to produce a majestic appearance. The icon was placed on an easel
and the stone on a table in front of it. The archbishop stood on one
side, the bishop on the other. The archbishop made his presentation
in greek. The bishop accepted and returned thanks in english. The
bishop then held out his hand to the archbishop to conclude the
formality. But it was one of the rare occasions when the bishop did
not have control of the proceedings. The archbishop followed the
oriental custom and, advancing on the bishop, took hold of him
and kissed him on each cheek. The bishop seemed not so much to be
kissed as to be completely swallowed up in the depths of the arch
bishop's beard and the folds of his vestments. It was generally agreed
that this was an occasion when the bishop had come off second best.
Canon Pascal Harrower of Staten Island, for many years Senior Pres
byter of the Diocese of New York, was present at the ceremony. He
too had a beard, a fact which led the bishop to greet him on occa
sion, to his huge delight, as the Archimandrite of Staten Island.
Some time later he told the bishop that an otherwise notable and
auspicious ceremony had been somewhat marred by one thing lack
ing. "What was that?" asked the bishop. "The fact, bishop, that you
did not have a beard." "Next time, Canon Harrower," the bishop re
plied, "I will borrow yours." Manning and Athenagoras were closely
associated in the years that followed and the Bishop of New York
was able to be of real use in some of the problems which the arch
bishop had to face. In his farewell address as he left to ascend the
Ecumenical Throne the stately Athenagoras referred to the little bishop
as "my protector," and the bishop remarked to friends, "There is a

man I can look up to."

* * *

Manning always held an exalted opinion of his office. He regarded
Trinity Parish and the office of rector in that parish as of the utmost
importance. No man could be doing anything more important in the
church. When he became Bishop of New York he transferred the same
feeling to the new office. He considered his election not so much as
a promotion but as a shift of responsibility and loyalty which he of
course would accept even though he did not seek it. His feeling
toward Trinity was shown in his refusal to consider the transfer of
Channing Lefebvre, the choirmaster of Trinity, to the cathedral, for

OVERTURE IS

which he was the obvious choice, in 1930. He felt it wrong to disturb
the arrangements of the mother parish and assumed that the choir
master of Trinity would not consider anything else anyway. And in
later years he was utterly astonished that a dean of the cathedral
would leave that office for a bishopric. But in his personal affairs he
was an entirely modest and almost completely unself -conscious per
son. He spoke of himself as a shy man. He was certainly quite simple.
He concentrated on his work but he was unaware of himself. He had
no hesitation however in pressing his point even in matters where he
made no claim to be an expert, if this seemed necessary. The greatest
care was taken over the stained glass to be installed in the nave of the
cathedral as it was building. The bishop made many trips to look at
glass; experts were consulted at length. Finally the decision was made
to invite five glassmakers to divide the work among them and the
rose window in the west front was assigned to Charles J. Connick of
Boston. It was agreed that the window was to be blue in tone. The
making of the window took some time. Part of it was brought and
installed temporarily in order to try the effect. Modification was then
made and the whole was finally completed. With pride and satisfac
tion Mr. Cram, the architect, and Mr. Connick brought the bishop in
to see the masterpiece, which indeed it was. But the bishop pointed out
that the effect of the window was purple rather than blue. The ex
perts assured him that it was just what was called for but the bishop
remained firm. A blue window had been decided on and he was dis
appointed that it was not blue. The bishop did not press the matter
but Cram and Connick were left with an uncomfortable feeling. After
some weeks Connick came down from Boston with his men and went
to work on the window. Connick sat at a table at the east end of the
nave with a chart of the window before him, examining the window
with field glasses. Instructions were telephoned to the men on the
scaffolding and, piece by piece, portions of the window were modified.
The chief cause of trouble lay in the great height of the window above
the ground which caused the light coming through red and blue bits
of glass to fuse into purple by the time it reached the eye. By the
end of the summer a great change was evident and the window was
indeed blue. Those who admire it may be grateful to the artists who
conceived and executed it and also to the bishop who was not willing
to be overpersuaded by experts and who knew that the ultimate re
sponsibility for the cathedral rested with him.

14 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

Manning was not the kind of person to whom people were indiffer
ent. He had warm and strong supporters, often among those who did
not wholly agree with his principles and policies; and he had op
ponents who seemed sometimes to be aroused almost to frenzy by
him. He was not of a demonstrative nature but he was never moved
to dislike of those whom he opposed, no matter how prolonged or
firm the opposition was. Those who were won to his support became
unwavering in their loyalty. At the time of the celebration of the
tenth anniversary of his episcopate the Revd. Percy Silver, Rector of
the Church of the Incarnation, was chosen to head the diocesan com
mittee of arrangements. It was decided to raise a sum of money for a
presentation to the bishop. Dr. Silver, while not himself known as
an opponent of the bishop, was on close terms with clergy who were
notorious in that respect. In the course of inviting subscriptions from
the clergy and others he came to feel, from refusals and from com
ments made, that much of the opposition was petty and spiteful and
he let it be known very plainly that he would not be a party to the
attitude and behaviour of some of his friends. On the day of Dr. Sil
ver's funeral, 18 December, 1934, the bishop noted in his diary

At eleven officiated at funeral of Percy Silver at the Ch. of the Incarna
tion. A great congregation — eight Bishops, including our own three, and
many clergy present. Dr. Silver's death is a great loss to the Diocese and to
me personally. Although not so at first he has in the last four years been
one of my truest friends and helpers and in many ways a great strength and
support.

And a business man who had expressed dislike of the bishop reported
in later years that he had changed his mind and had come to admire
him because he had found that Bishop Manning was the kind of per
son who would never shirk or leave to someone else a difficult or un
pleasant task.

Billy Sunday, the noted evangelist and revival preacher, shortly
before his death in 1935, said that Bishop Manning was the member
of the Episcopal Church whom he most admired. And Joseph Fort
Newton wrote in his diary

. . . The election of Dr. Manning, rector of Trinity Church, Bishop of the
Episcopal Diocese of New York, reminds me of a scene. After a Sunday
evening service in the City Temple in London, a number of people were
waiting to speak to me. The Verger weeded out those whom he regarded
as curiosity-seekers, or autograph-hunters, but he would never turn down
an American. "Doctor, there is a lady giving her name as 'Mrs. Mississippi'
who very much wants to see you. Maybe that means something to you, but

OVERTURE 15

it is beyond me," he added. "By all means, show her in," I told him; I
knew that she was a Southern woman, with gray hair and flashing black
eyes. The story she told me was pitiful. She had married a brilliant man
and lived in New York City; they had two little girls. Then suddenly her
husband was smitten with a strange mental affliction. She loved him too
much to have him put away — she could not bear it. "I could not have gone
through it if it had not been for that little man of God at Trinity Church.
He is a priest of the Most High, if ever there was one. He stood by me
to the bitter end." After her husband died she went to London to live.
Since I heard that story I have always loved Bishop Manning, even when
I did not agree with him.2

A few years later, when he had become an Anglican, Dr. Newton was
able to express his love in a concrete way by support of the bishop in a
matter in which he was able to agree strongly. In 1930 the clergy of
Saint James' Church, Philadelphia, of whom Newton was one, asso
ciated themselves

most earnestly and without qualification, with the Bishop of New York
in his stand against the sinister attack upon the sanctity and stability of
the home, which calls itself 'Companionate Marriage,'

by republishing for circulation in their own parish the bishop's ser
mon denouncing companionate marriage and its most vocal advo
cate, Judge Ben B. Lindsey. This action displayed both courage
and judgment for some of Dr. Newton's close friends among the
clergy in New York, blinded by the passion of their opposition to
their bishop, had got into the egregious strategical blunder of giv
ing support to Lindsey and his doctrine. They were far from pleased
to be deserted by so prominent a friend as Newton.

On the whole however it may be said that the opposition to Man
ning, even at its strongest, was the work of a small group. It never
represented anything like a division in the diocese. The clergy for the
most part were proud of their bishop, glad of his bold leadership,
content to be guided and ruled by him. The Revd. John Rathbone
Oliver wrote him in March, 1932, only a little over a year after the
Lindsey affair,

1 am taking back to Baltimore many very happy memories of your Dio
cese. There seems to be a spirit of happiness and of content among your
clergy that one doesn't find in other parts of the country.

Mayor La Guardia, who was himself a man of taste and sensitivity
as well as a successful politician, described Bishop Manning as "a
priestly man, a manly priest."

2 River of Years, 1946, p. 223.

CHAPTER TWO

SEWANEE

W,

HAT brought Manning to Sewanee? There is significance in his
making his final preparation for the ministry there, but no clear indi
cation exists as to how and why the choice was made. The boy had
been only six years in this country, four in Nebraska and two in Cali
fornia, where with his family he was a member of Saint Paul's Parish,
San Diego. John Manning was superintendent of the Sunday school
and his son, William, was his assistant. Dr. Restarick, later Missionary
Bishop of Hawaii, was his rector. Bishop Kip of California admitted
him a postulant. Neither of these had any connection with the Univer
sity of the South, eighteen hundred miles away. It is an interesting
speculation that Bishop Quintard may have had a part in drawing
the boy to Sewanee. Charles Todd Quintard was Bishop of Tennessee
and Vice Chancellor of the University of the South when he attended
the first Pan-Anglican, or Lambeth, Conference in 1867. The bishop
was determined to revive and rebuild the university after the deva
station of the Civil War. He remained in England through the winter
following the conference and went about raising money for the project.
He was greatly respected and widely received. Cambridge gave him
an honorary degree, and a vice chancellor's robe to wear in the new
world. He made a second visit to England, again to raise money, in
1872. Is it possible that he was the guest on one of these two trips of
Bishop Magee of Peterborough (afterwards Archbishop of York) 1 and

1 Manning delighted in later years to recite a poem of Bishop Magee on the
subject of the "north end," a fierce ceremonial controversy of the day.

16

SEWANEE 17

that he made one of his very effective appeals at Northampton and
was heard by the elder Manning, who later remembered when he
came to the new world the unusual name of the bishop, and the un
usual name of the seat of his university? Bishop Quintard's diary gives
no support for this speculation. But whatever the cause of his com
ing Sewanee was in a special way the right place for Manning.

Sewanee was small, of humble origin, but had lofty ideals and a
wide vision. Sewanee took itself seriously though by no means blind
to its smallness, and had no intention of being discouraged or of giv
ing, up until its aims and ideals were realized. Manning's life followed
a similar pattern. His origin was simple, his early life was quiet and
remote from the main current of affairs in church or state. By keep
ing a high ideal of the life and work of the church always before him
he came deliberately but fairly rapidly to the fore and soon achieved
high place. His success is due not so much to ambition as to faithful
hard work and unswerving purpose. Sewanee in its corporate life has
not yet achieved the prominence which Manning and many another
graduate have reached. But the university taught the young man both
method and objective.

At Sewanee Manning lived in Saint Luke's Hall, the theological
school. This was presided over by the Revd. William Porcher Du-
Bose, D.D., who lived in one of the entries of the hall with his wife

"By the piper that played before Moses."
This sentence is hard to explain.
And "before" is a difficult word,
It's true meaning, how shall we gain?

In days antecedent to Moses,
Was it then he delighted the throng,
Tubal Cain's most promising pupil,
First class both in music and song?

Or marched he preceding the prophet,
As they walked in processional line?
Did he stand face to face with the master
And gaze on his features divine?

Alas, how we err when we guess.
Why not to authority bend?
Sure the piper that played before Moses
Was piping at Moses' north end.

The "Life of Archbishop Magee" by his life-long friend, Canon MacDonnell, re
veals an outlook and attitude towards the church and the responsibility of the
episcopal office on the part of the older which bear curious resemblance to those
of the younger bishop, granted the difference of fifty years. They probably never
met, certainly there could have been no close contact. One amusing minor trait
they shared — fondness for reciting poetry to the children of the household. And
each made a special hit with the same selection, Thackeray's ballad, "Little Billee."

18 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

and his two daughters, Susie and Mae. The system at Sewanee was
for the students to live in comparatively small, family groups where
the feminine influence of the wife of the head of the group would be
felt and a homelike atmosphere maintained. Meals were at the fam
ily table, the mistress adding a few boys to her usual household. Man
ning took a normal part in the life of the theological school and the
university. He did not go in for games but he was heard in the debat
ing hall. He was respected in the college community but not a leader.
His work was his main concern but he published articles in the maga
zine of the University of the South in 1890 on "Socialism" and "Words
worth's Ideal of Woman," subjects representing a certain catholicity
of interest, not to say boldness, on the part of a new deacon in that
era. A few months after coming to Sewanee he assumed the care of
the chapel at Roark's Cove, a hamlet in one of the little valleys run
ning into the side of the mountain on which Sewanee stood. He would
walk down on Saturday afternoon, sleep in the tiny frame chapel, clean
it out in time to read the service and a sermon on Sunday morning,
and climb back up the mountain in the afternoon. The prayer book
in the Nebraska farm boy's pocket was now being put to public use.
One of his undergraduate friendships is of interest because of the
events of later years. William Norman Guthrie also resided in Saint
Luke's Hall. He was as lively as Manning was quiet, an amusing, talka
tive, clever, ardent, and not entirely balanced, young man. Guthrie's
career at Saint Mark's-in-the-Bouwerie seems to justify this descrip
tion. Perhaps an earlier indication is to be found in a letter he wrote
to Manning in 1898.

Hurrah for you. I am glad you will be at Christ Church, Nashville. When
you want an ideal assistant there look up Melish [John Howard Melish,
later Rector of Holy Trinity, Brooklyn] at Cincinnati. Just the man for
you. ... It is a great pleasure to me, — greater than if the promotion were
mine. Your head will never be turned. You'll always be the same true
steady noble fellow you have been in the past. No wonder your friends
want to see you at the top. Hurrah for 'Cardinal Manning.' With love,
your friend as ever.

The entirely different personalities of the two set up a field of mag
netic attraction and they were often engaged in friendly, and noisy,
undergraduate controversy. The word "Guthing" became a part of
the Sewanee vocabulary for a time to describe one given to much
argument.

SEWANEE 19

The most important feature of Manning's life at Sewanee was the
close friendship which grew up at once with his teacher, DuBose.
They were drawn together by a sort of awareness of the complementary
qualities which they had for each other. The young man became an
intimate and intensely beloved member of the doctor's household.
Manning's time at Sewanee as undergraduate and as teacher was very
brief, less than four years in all, but these years were invaluable to
both and their friendship continued, chiefly by close and affectionate
correspondence, until the doctor's death. DuBose writes him in Janu
ary, 1892,

. . . your comment on Mosley opens up a very serious and deep train of
thought. I regard it not so much a criticism of him as of a state of things
which he represents. That is the actual Church as it has come to be. The
real Church as it ought to be — which is the Universe, the World, humanity
in Christ; the Church which you and Phillips Brooks see from very op
posite standpoints of churchmanship; the Church which includes every
man in spite of himself — in one sense; and in another sense only excludes
him who will not be included (all men are saved by grace — tho through
faith they may not, & may never, be saved) — that Church which is & in
which men are, whether they know it or not, we will, or you will, have
your hands full with making men see as a fact again. I wish there were a
thousand like you to proclaim & restore it. If you are right in saying that
I have given you your point of view, or made you what you are in this
respect — I am more grateful for having provided you than my book. . . .

DuBose is an outstanding figure of Anglicanism, though better
known and more generally studied outside his own country than at
home. Manning, writing of DuBose in 1949, shortly before his own
death, calls him "the greatest Thinker and Theologian of the Episco
pal Church and one of the greatest of our modern era." J. O. F. Mur
ray, of Cambridge University, writes of him that he

was not only a thinker, who because he thought for himself naturally
stimulates thought in others, he was a prophet. His thinking is always in
touch with spiritual reality. He speaks at first hand of God and from
God. He is one of the few 'voices' in the world, not one of the many
'echoes.'

Again Manning says of him,

Dr. DuBose was in very truth an Apostle of Reality. To him Religion
meant Reality. His method was to explore Reality no matter what the
results might be. No man ever held more sincerely that Truth must be fol
lowed wherever it may lead, and that Truth can be trusted to vindicate

2U PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

itself to those who truly seek it. There are some who imagine that honest
and fearless thinking must necessarily lead away from full belief in Christ,
but it was not so with this truly great thinker. His complete loyalty to
Truth, and his depth of thought, led him to ever deeper understanding of
— and ever deeper belief in — the whole Truth Revealed in Christ and
declared in the Creed of the Catholic and Apostolic Church.

With his passion for Reality, and his absolute loyalty to Truth, Dr.
DuBose's teaching is startlingly 'modern.' ... I have been much struck
by the correspondence between the thought of Dr. DuBose and the thought
of that most modern representative of Science, Lecompte du Notty, in his
great recent book Human Destiny, du Notiy does not, of course, pretend to
deal with the theological aspects of the subject with the depth and com
pleteness with which Dr. DuBose does but from the strictly scientific stand
point he sees the same truth as to man's spiritual and moral destiny, and
declares the same reconciliation between the Scientific view and the Re
ligious view of the Universe, and between the Divine Transcendence and
the Divine Immanence, which Dr. DuBose saw, and so greatly teaches.2

The quotation is given at length because it describes something of
the pupil as well as the master. And the description of DuBose is as
he came to be, not as he was generally regarded in 1888.3 When Man
ning matriculated at Sewanee Dr. DuBose was a theological professor in
a tiny remote school of learning, faithfully teaching his pupils the faith,
beloved and respected, by those associated with him but scarcely rec
ognized beyond the limits of the Dioceses of Tennessee and one or two
others with which he was connected, an entirely unknown name in the
Anglican world. DuBose gave Manning the theology which was the
sufficient basis of his life and work and Manning introduced Du
Bose to the world outside. This is how it happened.

2 From the introduction to The Theology of Dr. DuBose — The Word was Made
Flesh by John S. Marshall, the University Press, at the University of the South, 1949.
For further material on Dr. DuBose, including a bibliography, see "William
Porcher DuBose, Unity in the Faith," Seabury Press, 1957.

3 Another former pupil of "the doctor," William Alexander Percy, gives a charming
description of him in Lanterns on the Levee, Knopf, New York, 1948. In chapter
IX, "Sewanee," he writes

. . . and the other great course of those days was Dr. DuBose's Ethics. He was a
tiny silver saint who lived elsewhere, being more conversant with the tongues of
angels than of men. Sometimes sitting on the edge of his desk in his black
gown, talking haltingly of Aristotle, he would suspend, rapt, in some mid-air
beyond our ken, murmuring: "The starry heavens — " followed by indefinite
silence. We, with a glimpse of things, would tiptoe out of the classroom, feel
ing luminous, and never knowing when he returned to time and space.

SEWANEE 21

The young man, whose schooling had been meager though earnestly
pursued up to this point, now came into contact with a great mind and
with the great reservoir of belief which the Anglican Communion has
received from the source of the apostolic springs. DuBose is represen
tative of that central stream of Anglican theology which reaches back
through the Tractarians — and Bishop Hobart of New York — to the
Caroline divines, to Laud, to Hooker, to the ecumenical councils, to
the fathers, to the apostles, to the ultimate reality of the gospel. This
is the theology and the faith which teachers are being continually
called upon to express anew and with renewed appeal but which
remains always old. Manning's theological position did not change
in essentials during the rest of his life because it was a sufficient, com
plete, catholic, and apostolic, position in the beginning. He seized
with glee upon Bishop Hobart's war cry "Evangelical Truth and
Apostolic Order" when he got to New York and, as bishop, he seemed
to get not only joy but renewed strength from frequent proclamation
of it in a voice which, very quiet and softly modulated in ordinary
conversation, became almost stentorian, and certainly authoritarian,
in the pulpit or on the platform. He was not himself given to pioneer
ing in the matter of rephrasing or re-defining the faith but he was
always alert to encourage others who did, provided it was really the
apostolic faith which was being rephrased or re-defined. And he was
both penetrating and persistent in discovering and warning when it
was not.

The young Manning plunged eagerly into the riches of this treasury
and drank deep of this reservoir. He was the kind of pupil to delight
the heart of an earnest teacher; he won his way straight to that of
DuBose. Saint Luke's was really just an extension of the DuBose house
hold. But Manning became specially intimate. He fell in love with
Susie, and was teased by Mae, and the doctor soon came to depend
upon him almost entirely.

DuBose had been urged for years to publish his teaching but had
never brought himself to the point of serious writing. It is not certain
whether Manning took the lead in the effort to persuade DuBose to
write or whether DuBose, being convinced that he should write but
aware of his own lack of drive, recognized in his pupil the dynamic
force needed to start him. It is the fact that DuBose repeatedly told
Manning that he felt that Manning could make him write and in
vited him to do so. Manning was made a deacon on Thursday, 12

22 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

December, 1889, by Bishop Quintard.4 He had been only twenty
months at Sewanee. The service was in Saint Luke's oratory and the
candidate was presented by DuBose, the sermon being preached by
Dr. Telfair Hodgson, the Dean of the Seminary. Manning went for
a time in 1890 to be curate at Calvary Church, Memphis. But dur
ing the long winter vacation (then the rule at Sewanee) of 1890-91
he went with the DuBose family to their usual winter home at Mel
bourne, Florida, to begin the task of making the doctor write.

The household there was a very simple one. No servants were taken
and the girls did the cooking. The doctor and Manning worked each
in his own room during the morning and there was a teasing period
at noon when Manning would stand in the doorway between the
kitchen and dining room explaining to Susie, at the stove, the morn
ing's work, while Mae kept pushing him out of her way as she carried
dishes to the table, and complaining that his talk was delaying the
meal. In the afternoon there were expeditions by rowboat on Indian
River and in the evening discussions with the doctor about the book.
An important part of the establishment was a small flock of chickens
whose overlord, a long-legged cockerel, went by the name of William
Thomas. Manning made a drawing of the cockerel with a learic

William Thomas here ventures to say,

'Many happy returns of the day'.

But he finds, to his cost,

The politeness is lost

On that hard-hearted chicken, Miss Mae.

to give to Mae at the teasing period on her birthday and the following
year the doctor wrote news of William Thomas to his patron, now
presiding over the parish at Redlands in California.

The book, The Soteriology of the New Testament, was written in
the course of the ninety days of the winter vacation in Florida. The
DuBose family returned to Sewanee. Young Manning, still a deacon,
graduated from the theological department and then took the manu
script to New York where he arranged for publication. Here he had
incidentally his first contact with Dr. Huntington of Grace Church,
a contact which was to grow into a warm friendship based on mutual
respect in spite of different churchmanship. He attended the General
Theological Seminary for a few months as a special student. In the

4 Bishop Quintard's diary records that this ordination was on the second Sunday
in Advent, the 8th.

SfcWANEfc 23

autumn he returned to California where he was in charge of Saint
Matthew's Mission, National City, for a time and after his ordination
to the priesthood on Saturday, 12 December, 1891, Rector of Trinity
Church, Redlands.

DuBose kept up a steady agitation to bring Manning back to Se-
wanee to teach. He wrote him frequently on the subject, referring to
the steps he was taking at Sewanee to this end. The trustees in 1892
authorized

the Vice-Chancellor, in consultation with the Professor of the Theological
Department ... to employ Rev. W. T. Manning, or some other compe
tent person, as instructor in Old Testament Language and Interpreta
tion at a salary not to exceed $400; provided that no part of this salary
be paid out of the Treasury of the University.

Nothing came of this but in 1893, at their annual meeting in June,
the trustees elected him to the chair of Systematic Divinity (changed
the next year to Dogmatic Theology) , and in the autumn he came into
residence and began to teach. The proviso about the salary in the
resolution of the previous year was carefully carried out. It was not
only not paid out of the university treasury, it was not paid at all. In
1901 Manning was a trustee of the university and the minutes of the
annual meeting record that at the meeting of the theological com
mittee, of which he was a member, the Rector of Christ Church, Nash
ville, remitted the debt of the unpaid salary of earlier days.

The list of books for his courses is revealing as to Manning's posi
tion in the main stream of Anglicanism.

Pearson on the Creed

Mason, "Faith of the Gospel"

Bishop Forbes on the Nicene Creed

Browne, Burnet, Forbes; on the Articles

Waterland, "Critical History of the Athanasian Creed" and "Treatise on

the Doctrine of the Eucharist"
Hagenbach, "History of Doctrine"

Liddon's Bampton Lectures ("The Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ")
Blum's Annotated Book of Common Prayer
Wilberforce on the Incarnation
Gore, "The Incarnation of the Son of God"
Sadler, "Emanuel"

Moberly, "Administration of the Holy Spirit"
Liddon, "Some elements of Religion"
Lee on Inspiration

24 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

Lucock, "Studies in the Prayer Book"

Mozley, "Eight Lectures on Miracles" (Bampton Lectures)

Maurice, "Kingdom of Christ"

But the Sewanee life was not to be for long. He went to Cincinnati
after the first term of teaching to visit the family of some friends and
parishioners in California. There he met Florence Van Antwerp. Their
courtship was brief and without notable event. Manning returned to
Sewanee after the long winter holiday but in the autumn of 1894 he
ended his brief teaching career and, leaving behind him on the moun
tain a grieving but always affectionate mentor and friend and also, it
is reported, three disappointed damsels, he took up work at a small
mission, Trinity Church in Cincinnati. On 23 April, 1895, William
Thomas Manning and Florence Van Antwerp were united in holy
matrimony.

Riding his first hobby

At Scwanee, an expedition to "wet cave'

The theology school at Sewanec. W.T.M. and Dr. DuEosc, mid
dle of the second row

*~

I

•A
.1%

The young rector at Lans-
downc, with his daughter
Frances

26

The new rector
at Trinity

The 1912 trip on behalf of the World Conference on
faith and order. W.T.M. with the bishops of Chicago
(Anderson), Vermont (Hall), and Southern Ohio
(Vincent)

The War chaplain

The new bishop

Faithfully and affectionately your Bishop,

M

liu^ \l ful'K/VK^

W.T.M. (signature)

At Lausanne, 1927. Prof. Cosby Bell, Revd. Floyd Tompkins, Jr.,
F. C. Morehouse, Prof. Francis Hall, Revd. Geo. Craig Stewart,
T. H. Ringrose, Bp. Brent, Dean Washburn, W.T.M. , Revd.
Alexander Zabriskie, (above) Pres. Kenneth Sills, Revd. Talbot
Rogers, Revd. Ridgely Lytle

, I

'• '' *•!

^H

*

A group of notables. Judge Samuel Seabury, Thos. E. Dewey,
Alfred E. Smith, Thos. W. Watson, James W. Gerard, W.T.M.

The temporary altar in the nave at the
annual nurses services, May, 1939

The nave of the cathedral, 1942

With children at St. Barnabas H.ouse, city mission
31

At Saint Sava's Cathedral (the
former Trinity Chapel)

The "fighting bishop"

Associated Press

BISHOP WILLIAM T. MANNING
The vestry took heed.

and the Roosevelts were linked by tradi
tion and sentiment. On Nov. 14, the
Roosevelt-less vestry of ivy-covered St.
James' met at a Poughkeepsie hotel to fill
three vacancies. For one they chose a
Roosevelt, the late President's second son,
Elliott.

Last week New York's thin-lipped,
aging Bishop William Thomas Manning
aimed an episcopal thunderbolt at un
wary St. James' and its new vestryman-
elect. In an action that he admitted was
"unusual" he decreed that thrice-married
Elliott "is not in good standing with the
Church and therefore is not eligible for the
office of vestryman and cannot serve in
that capacity."

Canon law forbids remarriage of di
vorced persons except in case of infidelity.
The "innocent party" may remarry, but
only with the approval of his bishop. Elli-
TIME, DECEMBER 3, 1945

32

JL-

At the time of his retirement, 1946

&

X

>^S ^5T

*.•».*•.

> •" -%N

'»* i

bishop o/ Oxford at Somesville, 1949

The author and his subject in the eastern way, Mt. Desert Island

CHAPTER THREE

BEGINNINGS

T,

HE FAMILY LIFE which now began flowed on evenly and undis
turbed by difficulties or disagreements for fifty-four years and a half.
And yet in some ways the two principals seemed strangely matched.
Florence was so much taller than William. She was by origin and out
look a patrician, somewhat aloof and inflexible. She was always very
proud of her William but the rough and tumble of public life and
controversy were distasteful to her. He throve on them. In her private
opinions she was an unashamed partisan and chafed at the opposition
and rebellion which were the inevitable lot of one who took as firm
and clear a stand on as many matters as William did. She was not a
"co-worker" with her husband and avoided rather than sought public
appearances. But she adored him, supported him vehemently in the
intimacy of her home, and was entirely content in her life with him.
In the preparation of this biography I owe an incalculable debt to
her work over the years. She saved great quantities of material about
William and his work — letters, clippings, pamphlets — and during con
siderable periods pasted them all carefully in great scrapbooks, pre
serving with equal care the pleasant and commendatory and the un
favourable and recriminatory. Such disagreements as they had were
over trifles, a normal part of a happy family life. Toward the end of
their life together she said to one of the clergy of the diocese, "My
husband is a great man. If he had not married he would have been
a greater one." The latter statement is certainly untrue and the whole
reflects as much credit on Florence as on William. But it fairly de
scribes an unselfish devotion, justly earned and duly received. They
were rarely apart during their married life. The few letters which he

35

36 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

wrote her reveal simply but clearly that he was deeply in love with
her. William was apt to discuss most matters of public import in his
life and work with her though it is doubtful whether he was influ
enced by her.1 In all domestic arrangements he was quite content that
her wishes should be supreme. He undoubtedly enjoyed his multitude
of public contacts for in spite of his shyness he liked people generally.
He had many friends to whom he was warmly attached but he had
undoubtedly the minimum of personal dislikes. People did not bother
him at all. But his relaxation was taken in his own family circle. Two
daughters were born to them. Frances, the elder, remained always at
home. Elizabeth went into business soon after her father became bishop
and later (18 May, 1933) married Griffith Baily Coale, the painter.
His portrait of the bishop is one of those successful studies, neither
glorifying nor belittling, which are difficult of achievement by one
who is bound to his subject by personal ties.

The sojourn in Cincinnati was brief. In the spring of 1896 he was
called by the Bishop of Pennsylvania, Dr. Whitaker, to Saint John
the Evangelist in Lansdowne. This mission had been torn apart by
controversy over matters of ceremonial and the bishop had removed
a difficult incumbent. Manning made it plain that he would not take
sides or identify himself with either faction; that he had come to min
ister to the flock as a whole; and that he "purposed doing it as the
exigencies of the situation demanded."2 He soon won the support of
all the congregation, including those who had been fearful that a "per
secuting" bishop was imposing a "low" churchman on them, and
within six months brought Saint John's to the status of an independent
parish. This was not accomplished without another minor controversy,
in which Manning stood his ground.

In drawing up a charter for the new parish, provision was made
that to be eligible for the vestry one must be a "registered communi
cant." Among those who were wanted for a strong vestry was a promi
nent layman, the president of a Philadelphia bank. He had been in
attendance at Saint John's for some time but had never transferred
his membership from a neighbouring parish where he had been con
firmed. In January, while the charter was being drawn up, he ex
pressed special approval of the provision.

1 But for an example of his complete confidence in her judgment see pp. 84-85.

2 From a letter of the bishop to Manning. The bishop commented "you stated
the true principle, the neglect of which rendered your coming there necessary." In
1907 the bishop wrote him "of the valuable help you gave me by your coming into
the diocese, solving one of the most troublesome problems which I have had to
face."

BEGINNINGS 37

The suggestion that a necessary qualification of a member of the Vestry
should be that he be a registered communicant of St. John's Parish, seems
to me wise in the light of personal experience, which at times has not
been entirely pleasant.

But in May, after he had been serving for some time on the vestry,
he changed his tune and stated categorically that he could not transfer
because of personal affection for the rector of his former parish. He
was nevertheless quite determined to keep his place on the vestry
of Saint John's, implied that the proviso of "registry" was merely the
personal wish or interpretation of Manning, professed to be unaware
that there had been a proposal of the requirement, and even attempted
to repudiate the meaning of his original letter. There was no quarrel
but Manning continued to stress the facts that the matter of eligibility
lay entirely within the discretion of the individual and that the charter
was clear and had been deliberately adopted. Finally the vestryman
resigned in preference to qualifying.

The incident is unimportant in itself but it is notable as illustrating
Manning's principles and his manner of upholding them. The pro
vision which the vestryman found a barrier had been openly proposed,
fully discussed, and deliberately adopted. It must then, so long as it
remained, — and Manning gave no hint of wishing to remove it — be
upheld, even at the cost of losing an important and useful member of
the vestry. "The bantam" certainly did not crow over the matter but
he was not overawed.

He was barely two years at Lansdowne but the expressions of re
gret at his leaving, in the parish and in Philadelphia, were extraordi
narily warm and moving. The Bishops of Louisiana and Tennessee
were both determined to have him and Bishop Gailor was successful.
Manning came into residence as Rector of Christ Church, Nashville,
in October of 1898. Dr. DuBose at Sewanee was ecstatic in his joy at
getting his darling back into the orbit of the university. Some of the
vestry hesitated for fear he might be too "high" church for them — the
reverse of the fear at Lansdowne! — but were content to be unanimous
in their call and more than content after he arrived.

Manning threw himself with tremendous vigour into the work. The
parish had been weakly administered under his predecessor and was
not in strong shape. It was large and fashionable and somewhat con
tented. A debt of $25,000 had been carried for some time rather com
placently. Manning proceeded to drive himself and drive his people.
He at once began to make plans for a preaching mission in which all
the parishes of the city would unite. This took place just before lent

38 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

in 1900. The missioner chosen by Manning was Dr. Rainsford of Saint
George's, Stuyvesant Square, New York. As an aftermath of the mis
sion, Manning received, in a series of confidential letters from Silas
McBee, the editor of The Churchman and a former fellow pupil of
Dr. DuBose at Sewanee, indignant protest that Manning not only al
lowed, but approved, the suggestion by Rainsford, for those who had
attended the mission, of reading matter of quite inadequate ortho
doxy. In view of the constant public criticism of the bishop by The
Churchman in later years — at times ill-tempered and unreasonable —
the earlier, private, criticism from a point of view diametrically op
posed is not without humor.

His preaching may be illustrated by a sermon of 20 January, 1901,
on the text, "and both Jesus was called and his disciples to the mar
riage." (St. John, II, 2) He makes three points. The miracle shows
our Lord's blessing on society and social activity, provided it is the
right kind. Second,

That scene suggests the humanness of Jesus, his realness and nearness to
us, ... We do not yet believe that Christianity stands for all that is
strong and robust and healthy and sound and virile, . . . We think of
religion as a yoke to burden life instead of as a crown to gladden and
glorify it.

Yokes are to help man bear burdens.

Life is the burden from which no man may escape and religion is to help
him bear it with ease and comfort, and so far as may be with joy and
gladness.

Third, the miracle is a denunciation of the theory of prohibition and
the essential evil of alcohol. He commends voluntary abstinence,

but that is a different thing from saying that every man who touches wine
is a sinner, or that "a moderate drinker is as bad as a drunkard."

He organized or revived mission stations of the parish in different
parts of the city under a band of lay readers. And he attacked the
long standing debt. This was paid off by Easter of 1902, the final
stage taking place in a dramatic manner. Almost from the time of his
arrival in Nashville, Manning had been receiving calls, sometimes
pressing and appealing ones, to go elsewhere. By the end of 1901 there
were two such calls to which he felt he should give serious consider
ation. News of the calls became public in Nashville. The parish was
in an agony of suspense. The vestry wrote him a letter pressing the
claims of Christ Church upon him. He soon announced his refusal of

BEGINNINGS 39

both calls and a committee was formed to give concrete signs of the
relief and gratitude of the parish. Within a fortnight the amount
necessary to clear the debt had been raised or pledged. The full amount
was presented in the offering on Easter Day, and the church was con
secrated by the bishop on Low Sunday. The Rector of Trinity Church,
Boston, Dr. Winchester Donald, wrote him

It would give me peculiar pleasure to be present with you next Sunday
morning, and to add my feeble voice to the hearty congratulations you
will receive; and justly, for I take it that this consecration means the re
moval of debt. Is this the explanation of your declination of your call
to New York? If it is, and I strongly suspect it, it does you honor; to
stand by your church until it could stand alone, is noble.

At the same time Manning gave aggressive support to the missionary
work of the church and had the loyal assistance of his layman in this.
Priest and delegates of Christ Church, one of the largest parishes of
the diocese, stood firmly in the Diocesan Convention of 1901 against
reduction of missionary assesments, for which there was a general
clamor, even though this involved for Christ Church an increase of
fifty percent in two years.3 His record in the matter of financial sup
port of the missionary work remained the same throughout his min
istry even when in later years as bishop he was outspoken at times in
his criticism of methods and policies. The Diocese of New York, the
largest and richest in the church, has on occasion failed to pay its
full missionary quota. But this has not been from lack of earnest and
effective leadership on the part of its bishop. Manning was always
very clear that support of missionary work was helped, not hindered,
by aggressive fund raising for local projects. A favourite criticism of
the great drive for the building of the cathedral was that it was hurt
ing, or would hurt, the missionary giving. In his convention address
of 1931 Manning commented on this.

It is worthy of note that during the period of our campaign for the Build
ing of the Cathedral our contributions for the Missionary Work, both
General and Diocesan, have been larger than they ever were before, and
that our gifts for Missionary Work reached their highest point in 1926

3 A delegate to the convention, one of his lay readers, writing him to thank him
for the stand the parish had taken, referred to another of the problems of the pa
rochial ministry, "I hope you will soon get a chance to see Dr. and Mrs. H . . . The
former is very recalcitrant, but I have great hope of Mrs . . . The Doctor does not
like the idea of 'The' Church, and his Baptist preacher has informed him that no
man or woman can get a license for a saloon or bawdy house in England unless
he or she first becomes a communicant of the Church of England!"

40 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

when the Cathedral Campaign was at its height. This should I think
fully answer the questions of any who feared, as some honestly did, that
the gifts for the Cathedral would conflict with and lessen the gifts for
other causes. The figures show the exact opposite of this, as we believed
they would. The gifts for the Cathedral have stimulated and increased
our giving for other purposes.

In another matter his work at Nashville foreshadowed in a curious
way the pattern of his future life. It was at a diocesan convention held
at Christ Church during his rectorship that the opening service was
for the first time for the whole convention and not divided as previ
ously into two services, one for white and one for black. For Tennessee
at the beginning of this century this was a great step forward. Man
ning's forthright behaviour at one moment helped to make the step se
cure. As he came into the parish hall for the meal following the service
he saw a negro priest standing alone at one of the tables. The rector at
once went forward and took his place beside him. There was an un
derstandable hesitation on the part of the ladies in the pantry waiting
to serve the meal. It was resolved by one of them, a northerner by
birth, who took her tray and came forward to her rector and his col
league. In somewhat the same understanding way he remained close
to his negro brethren throughout his ministry. He was glad to boast
as bishop that the Diocese of New York had more negro communi
cants than any other diocese in the country and his support of the
negro work was always firm, warm, courageous, and farsighted.

In 1901, being thirty-five years of age and only two years in the
diocese, he was elected at the top of the poll Deputy to General Con
vention from Tennessee. He took no active public part in his first con
vention but he made and renewed many friendships which were of
importance in later years. The convention met in San Francisco and
Dr. Huntington of Grace Church, New York, invited him to be one
of the company on the trip home in a private car which Mr. E. H.
Harriman, a vestryman of Grace Church, had put at his disposal. No
man commanded greater respect in the church, not only in New York
but throughout the country, than Dr. Huntington and the company
traveling across the country was a distinguished one, the conversation
at times certainly dealing with matters of moment to the church. Dr.
Huntington was specially impressed with his young friend. He set to
work to bring him to New York and went to the extent of sending an
urgent telegram to Nashville exhorting Manning not to decide about
a certain call to Philadelphia until a call from New York which he
knew was coming should be before him. The call was being delayed

BEGINNINGS 41

because of complications about the vacancy arising from the insanity
of the rector!

Dr. Huntington's regard for Manning's judgement and ability con
tinued. In 1906 a younger priest consulted Dr. Huntington as to what
position he should take in view of his agreement with Dr. Crapsey in
denying the virgin birth and the resurrection. Dr. Huntington sub
mitted his very carefully considered reply to only two people for their
criticism, one of these being Manning. He writes,

What I would especially like you to do for me if you will, is to criticize
with the utmost freedom and frankness the answer which I propose to
send ... I have already received the criticism of one clergyman, repre
senting a distinct "school of thought," and I should also greatly like to
have yours before I despatch my letter. These two criticisms are the only
ones that I shall seek.

Manning's reply was free and frank in its criticism as had been re
quested.4

My feeling in reading your reply is, first of all, one of most heartfelt
thankfulness that you in your position of leadership should feel able to
write as you do. Such a letter as this cannot but have weight most of all
because it is written by yourself with your known openmindedness and
freedom from the bias of mere ecclesiasticism. The letter is as admirable
in spirit as it is clear and strong in argument.

With every word that you say I most cordially agree except that I should
not feel able at certain points to concede quite so much as you do. [He
proceeds at length to specify.] These points upon which I have expressed
myself, do not, however, affect my feeling as to the strength of the main
positions taken in your letter or as to the great wisdom of the advice
which you give, with which I again express my most whole souled agree
ment.

The young high-churchman and the old broad-churchman had in
deed come very close together. But there were other ties also and in
the end it was another leader of the church, and another parish, which
drew him to New York. In the spring of 1903 he came at the summons
of the Rector of Trinity, Dr. Dix, to be Vicar of Saint Agnes' Chapel.
The rector's letter shows not only the typical urgency of one who has
become accustomed to command and to receive obedience, but also
what he intended the future should bring.

You will meet a very cordial &: warm reception, not only in Trinity Parish,

4 I have dealt at length with this correspondence in the Historical Magazine of
the Protestant Episcopal Church for September, 1956.

42 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

but outside of it, for you have many friends & admirers in this great phase.
In addition to this, it will be an inexpressible help & aid to me to know
that we have at St. Agnes' one whom I can trust, with many years before
him for consecrated work in the Master's field. You must not hesitate to

come to us I hope it is not selfish to say that I need you

personally, as my own strength declines, and hope that God has guided
me aright in thus unreservedly asking it of you.

The impact of Manning's ministry in Nashville may perhaps be
indicated by a note his curate, Holly Wells, wrote after Manning's last
Sunday there.

People often tell me how fortunate I have been in my association with
you — what a valuable training in parochial methods I have had, and how
much it ought to help me in after life. It is all quite true; I realize that
it is; But I also know that my debt to you is far greater than can pos
sibly be measured by any mere knowledge of parochial machinery. It is a
debt of personal character. I am a better man for having known you.
This I believe to be true and I see no good reason why I should not
say it.

Sometimes the warmth of a community's affection for one of its
citizens is shown by the absurd tales concerning him. In spite of his
youth and the shortness of his stay Manning took his part in the folk
lore of Nashville. In connection with a state visit to the city by Ad
miral Schley, a somewhat controversial figure in the war with Spain,
the local paper made the following report.

Rear Admiral and Mrs. Winfield S. Schley attended worship at beautiful
Christ Church last evening. . . . Dr. W. T. Manning, the rector, occupied
the pulpit during the evening, and delivered a powerful and thoughtful
sermon.

After a resum£ the account concluded

After the services Admiral and Mrs. Schley were again escorted to the
hotel and were allowed to take a much needed rest.

Manning recited anecdotes at his own expense with the greatest glee.
In after years he told this one probably more often than any other,
keeping the old newspaper clipping in a special folder among his
papers.

CHAPTER FOUR

M

.ANNING was elected an assistant minister of Trinity Parish by
the vestry on 22 December, 1902, to be Vicar of Saint Agnes' Chapel.
He came into residence there on mid-Lent Sunday, 22 March, 1903.1
Saint Agnes was at that time the newest Trinity Chapel, having been
first planned in 1888 and formally opened in 1892. It had an imposing
edifice, designed in the romanesque style by a brother of Bishop Henry
Codman Potter, with a large congregation and staff and a flourishing
parochial life. There had already been two vicars in the first ten years
of Saint Agnes' history, Dr. Bradley, the first, having died suddenly of
a heart attack, and Dr. Olmstead having been elected bishop coad-

1 The structure of Trinity is somewhat different from that of the typical Amer
ican parish. It consists of the parish church and its congregation and several chapels
in different parts of Manhattan Island — and one on Governor's Island in the
harbour — each with its own congregation. When the British took New Amsterdam
and made it New York, Trinity Church was built on its present site for English
worshippers. The present structure is the third building. The parish was endowed
with land by the crown. As the parish grew chapels were built, many of which
soon became separate parishes receiving portions of land for their endowment.
But some of the chapels remained within the parish and under the control of the one
vestry. The vicars of these chapels are assistant ministers of Trinity Parish, the
curates are all appointed by the rector. New chapels have been established, old
ones closed or moved to new locations, down even to the present time. The older
Dutch Reformed Church has a somewhat similar structure in the various con
gregations and churches which form the Collegiate Church of New York. The
endowment of Trinity Parish has at times furnished an irresistible temptation
to persons outside the parish. The fact that it was given for the Anglicans of the
community has been made the basis of claims that it now belongs to all the Epis
copalians of the city or even the diocese, if not the whole state. The controversy
has at times been a popular one. Had Trinity not succeeded in resisting the claims
the endowment would have been spread so thin that its usefulness would have ap
proached the vanishing point.

43

44 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

jutor of Central New York. The work at Saint Agnes was such as
called for exactly the kind of driving, forceful leadership which the
new vicar gave it. Saint Agnes became a great church during its brief
history of less than sixty years. All went smoothly under its third
vicar. The parochial system at Saint Agnes was noted and copied wide
ly throughout the church. A children's missionary play, "The Little
Pilgrims and the Book Beloved," which had a great vogue, was written
by Mrs. Henry Lee Hobart of the chapel congregation and first per
formed there.

Manning took a leading part in the early nineteen hundreds in an
effort to produce a stronger marriage law in the church by marshalling
the suport of Trinity parish. In 1901, when he was a deputy from
Tennessee, General Convention almost passed a canon forbidding ab
solutely the marriage of any person having a divorced partner still
living. In 1904 the effort was made again to pass such legislation and
again it failed. Manning thereupon arranged a mass meeting in early
November at Saint Agnes' Chapel to educate for the strict legislation.
Dr. Dix presided and Bishop Greer was one of the speakers. Shortly
afterward a statement was issued by the rector and clergy of the parish
that none of them would officiate at any marriage of a divorced per
son whose former partner was still living and that no such marriage
would be allowed in any church of the parish.

But just as there was question from the very beginning at Nashville
as to how long he was to remain so the matter of Manning's future
was raised almost as soon as he got to New York. Eighteen months after
his coming to Saint Agnes' he was elected, on Saint Andrew's Day, 30
November, 1904, bishop of the newly created Diocese of Harrisburg.
On December 12th the vestry elected him assistant to the rector. On
the sixteenth he declined the election to Harrisburg and accepted
the added responsibility in Trinity Parish with its implication, but
not guarantee, as to the future. It was a dramatic situation in which
the aging rector boldly forced a decision on the younger man but the
drama is greatly heightened by a knowledge of the relations between
the two illustrated by a private incident which could not be publicly
known at the time.

Between the rector and his new vicar there existed from the begin
ning a warm intimacy, but somewhat formal in its expression as be
fitted the character of the two. A constant stream of notes passed be
tween them, even on minor subjects, from which it is easy to see how
great was the affection and respect of each for the other. It was plainly
a cause of delight to Dix to realize that he was to pass on the leader-

ASSISTANT RECTOR 45

ship of the parish in which he had been born and in which he had
spent almost the whole of his life, culminating in a rectorship of over
forty-five years, to one in whom he had such complete confidence. The
admiration was mutual. In later years the bishop quoted Dr. Dix in
a way which almost imputed a measure of infallibility to the great
rector of the mother parish.

It was against this background that a difficulty arose, in which each
stated frankly his position and as a result of which the relationship
continued closer than before with no trace of rancour. On the eve of
Saint Andrew's Day, Dr. Dix officiated in Saint Agnes' Chapel at the
wedding of the daughter of the clerk of the vestry, Colonel Jay. There
was nothing extraordinary in this. The Jays worshipped at Trinity but
the chapel was more convenient for this ceremony. The vicar was not
present at the service, partly through a misunderstanding. On the
following day, while the electors in Harrisburg were casting their bal
lots for him, Manning sat down and wrote the rector a note of remon
strance at what had taken place. It is worth quoting in full.

I am sorry to have to speak of a matter that is not pleasant, but I believe
when such things arise it is better to speak frankly of them than to carry
them in one's mind and say nothing. The matter to which I refer is the
Wedding Ceremony which took place in St. Agnes' Chapel yesterday. I
have found myself, as Vicar of the Chapel, in the strange position of hear
ing, through the newspapers, and indirectly, that a service was to take
place here as to which I had not been once, in any way, consulted or even
informed. The Sexton of the Chapel, and the Organist, were duly con
sulted but at no point in the proceedings was the Vicar taken into ac
count at all.

Were this a matter which concerned only my own personal dignity, I
should say nothing about it but it so directly affects the influence and
usefulness of the Vicar in his work that I do not feel justified in allowing
it to pass in silence, and I do not believe you would wish me to let it so
pass. It seems to be vitally necessary, if the influence of the Vicar in his
own Chapel is to be maintained, that, before any service can take place
there, he should be consulted about it.

I feel sure this situation has arisen through some oversight but the
principle involved is one of such importance, and I believe so firmly in
speaking plainly and frankly to those whom one has a right to trust, that
I do not hesitate to lay the matter before you.

Dr. Dix's reply, written the same day, was based on the assumption
that what bothered Manning was that he had not been properly in
vited to be present at the ceremony and he assured the vicar that this
had been entirely unintentional and should not have occurred. But

46 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

that was not the point. On the first of December Manning sent the
rector two notes, the first informing him of his election to Harrisburg,
the second reiterating the contention that the vicar could not properly
administer his chapel if he was not informed officially what was going
on there. Immediately the rector replied with a letter which frankly
recognized both the point raised and the justice of it, though he did
go on to assert the right of the rector to officiate anywhere in the parish
without asking anyone's permission (a right Manning had not chal
lenged) . He added

If you should ever be the Rector of this Parish, I am convinced that your
views of this matter would coincide with mine.

Surely the venerable rector chuckled as he wrote these words to the
newcomer whom he was, at that moment, confidently, though still
confidentially, planning to put in exactly that position. The decision
to remain in New York was crucial to Manning's career, and so to the
future history of the parish and the diocese. The least trace of pettiness
on either side might well have altered this future completely.

The rector was mistaken however in his prediction that Manning's
views about the management of his office would change. It was quite
understandable that Dr. Dix, who was born and brought up in Trinity
Parish, who seemed almost to personify Trinity Parish, should have
become somewhat casual about details of administration. Manning
remained throughout his life punctilious in his respect for the respon
sibilities and prerogatives of subordinates. He probably never in his
life forgot to consult, in a rather formally courteous manner, his asso
ciates, even those with whom he was on the closest terms, as to mat
ters which concerned their departments. Two instances will illustrate
a manner which never changed. Edward Warren, the secretary of the
board of trustees of the cathedral, assumed that office in the later years
of Manning's episcopate. He recalls being impressed by an occasion
when the seal of the cathedral corporation had to be affixed to a some
what routine document, but without delay. The seal was in the bish
op's office. Its custodian was the secretary. The bishop would not allow
the document to go out until Mr. Warren had been reached by tele
phone, out of town, and his permission secured. Again, in 1927 when
I first came to the cathedral I was instructed by the bishop and dean
to draw up a written standard of ceremonial for the performance of
the cathedral services. The matter arose at my suggestion and I was
much interested in it. My proposals were discussed at a meeting of
the staff, approved by the bishop and dean, and put into practice.

ASSISTANT RECTOR 47

Soon afterward I became ill and was absent from the cathedral for
nearly three months. During this time some of the clergy became dis
satisfied with certain details of this ceremonial and wished to change
them. The bishop refused to allow any discussion of the matter in staff
meeting in my absence. On my return he informed me privately of the
situation and of his own decision that the change called for was neces
sary. The matter was then raised in the staff meeting and I was form
ally instructed to make the change.

The importance of the decision about Harrisburg was fully recog
nized by Manning's family and a host of friends. He was bombarded
with advice both to go and to stay. Dr. Dix wrote to say the election
had taken him by surprise and, obviously having in mind the action
he planned to prevent Manning's departure but hesitant as to its pro
priety at that moment, urged him not to decide quickly.

There are great interests here, in the Diocese at large as well as in our
parish, which you will of course consider. For myself, I should think it
beneath your dignity and my own, to take any sudden action intended to
influence your decision of a very grave question; but I may and will say
that I think you have a great future before you in this city and this
Diocese, and that, if you stand fast, time will show that I am no false
prophet. Leaving this matter, like all others, in the hands of God, I
remain . . ,

A female relative in Philadelphia wrote with great scorn of Harris-
burg and exhorted him not to bury himself there or to think of being
a bishop for at least ten years. Dr. Harry Nichols, of Holy Trinity,
Harlem, wrote him a tenderly affectionate letter,

I fear your sense of duty will lead you to accept. You cannot know . . .
what your responsive brotherliness has been to us all in New York, how
you have given us new light on the possibilities of being friendly even
in N. Y. city, how you have shown new avenues for Trinity's activities.
Even if you leave us I for one am deeply thankful you have been here . . .

Bishop Potter urged him not to go, but only after Manning asked his
advice.

The arguments were about equally divided as to where duty lay
and where the more important work was. Many who urged him to go
later wrote that he had made the wise decision and had assumed the
more difficult but more important task. In the end Manning recog
nized the rector's right to guide his decision. The account in his diary
is revealing, especially in the light of the correspondence just quoted,
of the strength of the bond which held the two men to one another

48 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

and to their common work; and also of the commanding position
which Dix occupied in the life of the church.

Saturday 10th (December) Still receiving great numbers of letters — writ
ing and thinking. The call is being pressed very strongly from all over the
Diocese. Went this afternoon by appointment to see Dr. Dix who urged
me most strongly and affectionately not to leave the parish and said "he
believed the future here held greater possibilities for me than the work
of the Diocese." Dr. Dix most kindly offered to preach for me tomorrow
morning.

Sunday llth 11.00 Celebrated the Holy Communion. Dr. Dix preached
a very strong sermon on "Retribution" quoting from "The Burial of
Raymond" — Feeling much weighed down by the great seriousness of the
question before me. Vestrymen saying little but want me to continue here
— Others here urging me to stay. . . . Mr. Carskaddon came up at night
by appointment and told me much about the towns in the Diocese of
Harrisburg — His report is very encouraging as to the nature of the coun
try, the character of the people, etc.

Monday 12th Anniversary of my ordination to the Diaconate by Bishop
Quintard — acting for Bishop Kip — and to the Priesthood by Bishop
Nichols. . . . Writing and thinking about the call to the Bishopric. Be
ginning to feel that I should accept it. Went tonight to the Dinner of
the Pennsylvania Society at the Waldorf Hotel. Invited through Har
risburg men of whom a number were at the Dinner. Mr. Lamberton took
especial charge of me. Was announced on list of invited guests as "Bishop-
elect of Harrisburg." Sat between General McCook and the Hon. Martin
Littleton. Mr. Ogden presided — (Robert C.). Harrisburg men all very
kind and very urgent that I should accept. General McCook told me much
about Harrisburg and all very favourable — as to country — people, etc.
Left the dinner more than ever drawn toward accepting and as though
question were almost decided. Reached home about one a.m. Found fam
ily up and awaiting me — Florence — Grandma — Lizzie and Alice who is
staying here. Florence told me that about ten thirty Dr. Dix asked for
me over the telephone — As I was not in Dr. Dix gave Florence this mes
sage — "Tell Dr. Manning that at the meeting of the Vestry, from which
I have just come, on my nomination he was unanimously elected Assistant
Rector of Trinity Parish. — I should like to see him tomorrow morning
or at any time tomorrow" —

Tuesday 13th. My interview with Dr. Dix was a most touching and
memorable one. He told me that he had decided that I must not be al
lowed to leave the parish and that under the circumstances definite action
must be taken — and that he therefore decided to do what had been in his
mind & that of the Vestry for a considerable time in nominating me as
Assistant Rector. Dr. Dix then told me of the very kind and emphatic
expressions of the gentlemen of the Vestry and that my election was

ASSISTANT RECTOR 49

unanimous. He said "This does not of course legally involve your succes
sion to the Rectorship but you are elected with that full hope and ex
pectation on our part. There has never been a case in the history of the
parish in which the Assistant Rector was not elected to the Rectorship
when that office became vacant and that is the intention with which this
election has been made both in my mind and in that of the Vestry. The
office of Assistant Rector is a charter office and its occupant like the
Rector himself is irremovable. "They cannot get rid of us unless we die or
resign." Dr. Dix then went on to speak of the duties of the office and to
express his strong hope that I should now feel it right to remain both
for his sake and for the sake of the parish and its future, as he kindly
put it. I expressed as well as I could my deep appreciation of all that he
had said and of what had been done — and of my unworthiness of it all and
said that it seemed clear to me now that I ought to decline the Bishopric
and remain in the parish but that in so grave a matter I felt that I
ought to wait for a few days before allowing myself to make a decision.
Dr. Dix very heartily agreed and after some more kind words from him
I left having first knelt to receive his blessing.

The advancing age of Dr. Dix, combined with his complete confi
dence in and warm friendship for the new assistant, led to Dr. Man
ning's being given a good deal of the rector's responsibility. But again
he exercised careful discretion and restraint to avoid even the hint of
any assumption of authority not formally assigned. One of the clergy,
a man both older than Manning and senior in service in the parish,
became troubled in his mind over Roman Catholic claims. He be
took himself to the rector in his distress and Dr. Dix bade him con
sult with the assistant rector. Together they wrestled with the problem
and in time were able to report to the rector that the troubles were
resolved and the difficulties overcome. But later the doubts returned.
He wrote to Manning asking for an appointment, but not indicating
the subject to be discussed. Manning replied with warm affection but
skillfully avoided setting a time by assuming that what was to be dis
cussed was a parish problem which it was not within Manning's prov
ince to settle. This brought a reply acknowledging that it was the old
trouble and Manning made it clear that he could go into the subject
again only with the knowledge, and at the direction, of the rector. In
the end the priest was reassured and laboured happily in the parish
until his retirement, dying finally at a ripe age, full of good works and
greatly beloved. Both the rector and the colleague were given reason
to feel complete confidence in Manning's judgement, loyalty, and dis
cretion.

Dr. Dix died on Wednesday, 29 April, 1908, after a short illness. His

50 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

funeral took place in the parish church on Saturday morning and on
Monday, 4 May, the vestry of Trinity Church elected as their tenth
rector William Thomas Manning. On the following day he was in
ducted into the rectorship of the parish by the ancient ceremony of
receiving the keys to the church and chapels from the senior warden
in the church porch. The warden reads a formal statement, the door
is unlocked, and the keys turned over to the various sextons of the
parish church and chapels. The vestry of Trinity Parish acts with dis
patch in the matter of filling the rectorship when there is an assistant
rector. Dr. Dix was assistant rector at the time of Dr. Berrian's death;
the vestry met in the evening of the day of the funeral and elected
him rector. The delay in the case of Dr. Manning was due to the fact
that Dr. Dix was buried on Saturday. This procedure scarcely seems
to allow time for the notification to the bishop and his reply, for which
the canon provides; but the charter of Trinity Church is much older
than the canon. In any case Manning sent Bishop Potter a note after
the vestry meeting informing him of his election, and the bishop's
reply, the same evening, expresses his joy but gives no hint that he
felt there had been any irregularity in the proceedings.

The letter of the coadjutor, Bishop Greer, the next day indicates the
relationship between two men who differed greatly in churchmanship
and in other ways and illustrates how the rectorship of Trinity Parish
was regarded.

It has all turned out as I had hoped and felt sure it would, and I need
not tell you how delighted I am to know that you are now the head of
Trinity Parish. It is in my judgment the most important position in the
American Church, not excepting the Bishopric of this or any other Dio
cese; and I pray God that you may be spared many years to develop all the
potentialities for usefulness in this great and important trust which has
been put into your hands, and in connection with which you may always
confidently count upon my cordial cooperation.

CHAPTER FIVE

RECTOR1

T,

HE simple ceremony of the delivery of the keys, performed with
no fanfare and with only a casual group of spectators, was to mark an
important new beginning both in the life of the little man and of the
great parish. He was succeeding a rector who had been born in the
parish and who was by ancestry a New Yorker; he himself had been
just five years in the parish and was of foreign birth. Manning was
often twitted with being an Englishman; he might as well have been
accused of jingo Americanism. So sure was he of his whole hearted
loyalty to his adopted land, where along with multitudes of his fel
lows he was a naturalized citizen, that he had no hesitation in giving
outspoken support to pro-British causes when occasion served and
felt no embarrassment in supporting Anglo-American friendship. He
was elected a member of the Pilgrims soon after he became rector and
made a notable address at the tenth anniversary banquet held by the
English branch in London in June, 1912, speaking as an American
rather than as a Britisher returned home. He had no trace of accent,
British or southern.

In one respect he had an advantage over Dr. Dix in assuming the
rectorship. Dr. Berrian brought the young Dix back to Trinity to
succeed him. This was resented by many of the Trinity clergy and the
resentment was openly shown. Manning quickly won the confidence
of the vicars of all the chapels after he was elected assistant rector
and was regarded and treated, without reserve, as the rector-to-be.

1 The great history of Trinity Parish has been continued by the Revd. C. T.
Bridgeman with a volume on the Manning period. The reader is referred to that for
fuller treatment than is given here.

51

52 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

The administration of Trinity Parish, particularly as regards the
management of the extensive property which forms its endowment,
was very much in a rut when Dr. Dix died — just as some matters of
diocesan administration were in a rut at the end of Manning's twen
ty-five years as bishop. The situation is almost inevitable. In the first
place Dr. Dix rather took the position that the rector attended to the
spiritual affairs of the parish and left the management of the prop
erty to the lay members of the vestry. There is danger in this that
business policies may have spiritual implications to which well-
meaning, but elderly and conservative, vestrymen and rector are not
sufficiently awake. Then there was no publicity about the details of
management of the property. Trinity Parish, like any church, is a pri
vate, not a public, corporation. Its affairs do not concern outsiders
and indeed are not easily understood by many of those who are
members of the parish itself. That point of view was acceptable in the
nineteenth century but not in the twentieth. Dr. Dix and the vestry
of his day resisted rather than welcomed the theory that all their
official acts are the concern of the general public. This was becoming
increasingly impolitic. Thirdly, the system of management of the
Trinity property was one which made the church vulnerable to at
tack in a muck-raking era and which it was impossible to change rap
idly. Trinity leased its land for long terms to people who then built
buildings upon the land. Long leases are necessary. No one wants to
build on land which he cannot count on having for the useful life
of his building. The part of the city where Trinity owned land went
through rapid and drastic changes at the end of the nineteenth cen
tury. Restrictions made on the original leases did not, and could not,
take account of new conditions. With regard to much of its land
Trinity was quite powerless to make changes until the leases ran out.

The chief trouble was that Trinity was rich, supposedly very rich.
The possession of riches in 1908 was not yet considered as gross a sin
as it came to be but it was regarded as justifying the asking of ques
tions and the raising of difficulties. Theodore Roosevelt's phrase,
"malefactors of great wealth," carried the implication that where
wealth is there is inevitably evil and one is justified in going to al
most any length to prove the point. So argue those who wish to ask
questions.

Trinity has at various times during its history been a fascinating
object of attack not merely by outsiders but by fellow churchmen.
Assertions are made which are either not based on facts or which are
unreasonable or untrue conclusions from the facts. Efforts to give

RECTOR 53

reasonable answers on behalf of the parish seem to give very little
satisfaction and the parish authorities have often felt forced to the
conclusion that it is better to batten down the hatches and sit tight
until the wind stops blowing. On 7 April, 1906, the Evening Post
newspaper printed a letter of rather shallow, but bitter, criticism of
Trinity with the following footnote:

The above letter was shown to the Rev. Dr. Morgan Dix. After reading
it, he said it did not interest him, and that he saw no reason to com
ment on it.

ED. EVENING POST.

Manning was fully aware of what lay before him and took up
matters at once. He published full financial reports of the property
the year he became rector. He began the process of improving the
property and its management by appointing a committee of the vestry
to report on the matter in October, 1908. He began a reorganization
of the committee system of the vestry in 1910 and put through loans
for property improvement at the same time. In 1909 he proposed the
cancellation of $370,000 worth of mortgages held by Trinity on other
churches. In 1911 he introduced the use of duplex offering envelopes
to the parish and proposed the freeing of the pews. From the begin
ning he was active in systematic theological instruction of the parish,
especially in Lent sermons. He even continued as rector his former
practice of going to the church door to greet people after service and
so caused unfavourable comment on his lack of dignity in compari
son with his predecessor. Some of the older members of the vestry
felt themselves rather pushed by the rapidity of all these changes.
But there were many to support him and he never let up his pressure.
De Lancy Townsend, Rector of All Angels', wrote him in 1909

God has endowed you with a rare personality with which you can secure
cooperation where another might find opposition.

Altogether Manning was faced with many and involved problems
from the beginning; and he made great haste in dealing with them.
At the very outset he was faced with a difficulty and an uproar which
would have daunted most men and which might well have destroyed
his usefulness in his office. This was the affair of Saint John's Chapel.
It is difficult to describe, and impossible to exaggerate, the excite
ment which this matter caused, not only among members of the
chapel congregation but throughout the city and far beyond. People
who had no connection with Trinity Parish or the Episcopal Church
expressed themselves vehemently and dogmatically. The President of

54 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

the United States entered the fray. Some of Manning's fellow clergy
in the diocese were relentless and unrestrained in their attacks. Even
the clergy of the chapel were led astray. What was it all about?

In the region south of Canal Street, near the shore of the Hudson,
there was, about the year 1800, a very pleasant area with a park,
known as Saint John's Park, as its central feature. It had not always
been pleasant. Trinity had laboured in earlier days to drain a swamp
and fill marshy waste land there. It had now become a region of large
and stately homes, all originally Trinity property. The park was a
proprietary one; that is it belonged to, and was for the enjoyment of,
the surrounding property owners rather than the general public; and
here lived the rich and influential persons of the city. If you were to
walk south on Varick Street from Canal today and try to visualize
the scene you would find yourself entirely frustrated. It is impossible
to recapture the rural charm and elegance of the past from the com-
merical present. An imaginative visit to Gramercy Park today might
give a hint, only Saint John's Park was much larger. There, in 1807,
Trinity built, on the east side of the park on Varick Street, Saint John's
Chapel, from which the park took its name. It was a handsome and
commodious building in the classical style, like Saint Paul's Chapel
on Broadway at Fulton Street. Its congregation were the wealthy and
fashionable of the city. It became Trinity's most important chapel
and for many years, in the days of both Dr. Berrian and Dr. Dix, the
rectory was next door to it.

But times change. The fashionable world moved north and com
mercial interests came in. In the later days of Dr. Berrian there was
a general agreement among the proprietors of the park that it should
be sold for a railway freight yard! Dr. Berrian resisted this vigorously
as long as he was rector, but immediately after the election of Dix
the vestry agreed to the sale, and Saint John's Park became Saint
John's freight terminal. It was a distressing change and one which
plainly indicated the ultimate end of the chapel's existence. Dr. Dix
in later years voiced his regret at what had happened at the outset of
his term of office. Whether he meant that he had come to feel that
he could have successfully and permanently resisted the sale of the
park or was only expressing his distress at the result, is not certain.
At any rate in his later years the question was much discussed as to
whether the vestry should continue to bear the disproportionate ex
pense of maintaining a chapel with an inevitably dwindling congre
gation. Dr. Dix set his face against change as Dr. Berrian had done.
But a few months before he died, recognizing the need for dealing

RECTOR 55

with the matter, he presented a resolution to the vestry directing a
committee to investigate and report what should be done. The com
mittee did not make its recommendation until after Dr. Dix's death
and in November, 1908, it was announced that services would be dis
continued after January and the work transferred to Saint Luke's
Chapel in Hudson Street. In fact a good deal of the parochial work
of the two chapels had been done jointly for some time.

The storm which naturally arose was as sudden and as vehement
as it was absurd. The grounds of grievance were numerous, some un
reasonable, some fictitious, some merely malicious; some quite justi
fied but unfortunately unavoidable. In the first place there were those
who wished to attack Trinity parish and found the affairs of the poor
people of Saint John's Chapel a good excuse. The Revd. John R.
Peters, rector of Saint Michael's, Manhattan, was one of these. He had
been denouncing Trinity Parish, its neglect of its tenants, its misuse
of its endowments, its generally decadent nature, for some years. Short
ly before Manning became rector, Peters had occasion to write him a
very cordial note of thanks. He referred to his attacks on Trinity and
wrote that his criticisms were directed against policies, not individuals,
and that this was specially true of Manning. When the announcement
of the closing of Saint John's was made, Peters sought an interview
with Manning, apparently to satisfy himself that the new rector would
conduct himself properly. The meeting obviously did not give this
satisfaction for he went to work in trenchant fashion to set things
right. His principle point seems to have been that Trinity's property
was intended for all the Episcopalians of the city, perhaps of the whole
diocese. It was not only unlawful but selfish for Trinity to keep its
property for itself. The high-handed treatment of the congregation of
Saint John's was typical of an administration lacking in conscience or
understanding of its true work. He circulated a petition among the
clergy and others to obtain an investigation of Trinity's affairs by the
state legislature. Dr. Huntington sent him a scorching reply.

... I am sorry not to oblige you in any matter, but in this particular af
fair of Trinity Church it is quite impossible for me to go along with you.
My judgment of the course pursued by the authorities of Trinity, during
the past fifty years or more, probably coincides pretty closely with your
own. . . . The difference between us is that you believe in coercive meas
ures, while, in a case like this, I most certainly do not. My confidence
in the new Rector of Trinity is absolute. My belief that he will have his
Vestry back of him in every attempt he may make in the future to widen
the scope of Trinity's usefulness, is a sanguine one. Moreover, I think it

56 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

most lamentable that the new Rector should have been met at the very
outset of his career by a blow in the face, before he had had a chance to
show what it was in his heart and mind to do ...

Dr. Peters had no intention of giving any chance. He consulted legis
lators and helped to get bills introduced at Albany; but he and those
who acted with him overplayed their hand. The bills all died in com
mittee. This must be said for Dr. Peters however; he really meant it
in his own peculiar way when he said he had no personal ill will
toward Manning. It was Peters who nominated Manning for bishop
ten years later, at the 1919 election, and made the principal speech
in support of Manning when he was elected in 1921.

Then there were the members of the community at large who were
distressed at the prospect of having the fine building torn down. The
original announcement of termination of the services made no refer
ence to destruction of the building but those who were interested in
earlier history and fine examples of architecture quite rightly assumed
that this was almost sure to be the consequence. A protest was sent
to the vestry signed by a most impressive list of people. Among others
were the president, Theodore Roosevelt; the mayor, George B. Mc-
Clellan; a former mayor, Seth Low; Levi P. Morton, Bayard Cutting,
J. P. Morgan, Edward W. Sheldon, Elihu Root, Robert W. de Forest,
J. M. Wainwright. It is interesting to note that many of these became
in later years closely associated with Manning, and warm supporters.
The Fine Arts Federation and the Municipal Art Commission called
upon the vestry to refrain. Richard Watson Gilder, editor of Cen
tury magazine and formerly Tenement House Commissioner, wrote
an impassioned ode, "Guardians of a holy trust," full of fire and error,
which was much quoted. George Zabriskie, chancellor of the diocese,
attempted to dampen the fire by exposing the error in a public letter;
but Mr. Gilder blandly replied that he believed a new era would now
dawn for Trinity and proceeded to press on for a crusade to restore
Saint John's Park as a playground for slum children! Dr. Huntington,
who wrote to a friend in Philadelphia that he had "plunged into this
controversy wholly and only out of loyalty to Dr. Manning," sug
gested publicly that the rich men who had expressed such concern for
the preservation of the chapel give an earnest of this concern by rais
ing a fund to accomplish the purpose. The Morning Telegraph re
marked

Everybody likes Dr. Huntington's suggestion that the eminent citizens who
have protested against the demolition of old St. John's make up a private
jackpot for the preservation of the Church. Everybody — that is, except the

RECTOR 57

eminent citizens themselves. As a rule we are more liberal with other peo
ple's money than our own.

Ten years were to pass before the chapel was torn down, not by Trin
ity but by the city, but during that time the efforts to preserve it took
the form of berating the vestry for failing to do so.

The clergy and many of the parishioners of Saint John's also added
fuel to the flame of controversy, not unnaturally and from their own
point of view quite reasonably. The priest in charge was the Revd.
Charles L. Gomph. He had been curate there since 1904 and in 1907,
when the vicar went on an indefinite leave of absence because of ill-
health, he was made priest-in-charge. Dr. Dix plainly urged him to
show by reviving the life of the chapel that its continuance would be
justified. Gomph and the curates went manfully to work and produced
quite surprising results. The announcement of the closing was natur
ally regarded as a cruel and disappointing, but also an unjustified,
judgement upon their efforts. Somewhere along the line Gomph
reached the point where his loyalty to his work at Saint John's became
disloyalty to the parish and the new rector. He may have consulted
with the writers of vituperative articles in the press, particularly in
the Churchman. The Revd. Arthur Lowndes, who had worked with
Dr. Dix for many years in the writing of the history of Trinity Church
and who had intimate knowledge and understanding of the parish,
wrote Manning on Christmas Eve, 1908,

. . . Has it not occurred to you that you are not loyally served by your
present staff at St. John's? The phrasing of the Churchman's articles today
has confirmed my own suspicions in that direction.

One of the first points made by some of the parishioners at Saint John's
after the announcement of the closing was that the objection to mov
ing to Saint Luke's was chiefly, or solely, that their clergy were not
going with them. The natural unhappiness for all concerned over the
closing was dragged out for over two months beyond the date set by
the granting of an injunction in the civil courts which was not dis
solved until April. By the end of this time it was perfectly clear that
Gomph's attitude toward the problem was such that he would be in
capable of continuing happily or loyally in Trinity Parish. There is
no indication how soon Manning recognized this fact. He bore in
silence the criticism of having dealt unfairly by a faithful priest and
thereby possibly shortened the time of Gomph's bitterness. Gomph
later became rector of Grace Church, Newark, where he had a long
and profitable ministry, greatly beloved.

58 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

The loudest noise and the most unsavoury odor proceeded from the
Churchman whose editor was Silas McBee, a Sewanee contemporary
of Manning. It will be remembered that he had taken Manning to
task in the Nashville days for the nature of the books he had allowed
Dr. Rainsford to recommend to the parishioners following his mission
there. Now he plunged into a public and lengthy attack on Trinity
and all who said a word in defense of Trinity or who failed to join
in the Churchman's denunciation. Five pages of the issue of 26 De
cember, 1908, were given to Trinity and Saint John's. Dr. Huntington
was attacked for defending Trinity and the rector. The Church Club
was attacked for failing to debate the conduct of Trinity. Bishop Greer
was excoriated for his failure to take a proper stand. In the issue of
30 January, he was given explicit instructions as to what he should
say and do in the matter and on 13 February, appeal was made to the
laymen of the diocese "to save their Bishop from his mistakes." The
clergy of the city finally signed a letter to the bishop expressing their
loyalty and denouncing the outrage of these attacks. But again it is
interesting to note that in all this hysteria, which continued for many
weeks, Manning was not often mentioned by name; and later personal
good relations were restored, for it was McBee who published Man
ning's article, "The Protestant Episcopal Church and Christian Unity,"
in the Constructive Quarterly in 1915.2

One grievance which was suggested to the people of Saint John's
and of which some of them made much, was that by being moved to
Saint Luke's Chapel they would be deprived of their franchise in the
parish. It made no difference that almost certainly no living member
of the chapel congregation, except the vicar and the sexton, had ever
exercised that franchise. Now that it was supposedly to be lost its
value soared. Reassurance was given by the vestry. The people of Saint
John's put up opposition candidates for the vestry at the annual elec
tion in Easter Week, 1909; and they were roundly beaten in the largest
vote ever cast at a Trinity election.

The naive suggestion was made to turn over the whole Saint John's
property to the congregation and let them operate it independently.
This of course could only have resulted in dissipating the property
entirely since the congregation could not possibly have raised the
amounts which the vestry no longer felt it right to spend.

The injunction obliged Manning to keep silence for over two
months and make no defence of what was being done. But silence

2 See p. 85.

RECTOR

under the first wave of attack was a device which he used often and
with good effect. Perhaps he learned its usefulness from the Saint
John's case. It could not have been comfortable however. Bishop Greer
became frightened at the storm and wrote Manning that

from conversations which I have recently had with several prominent per
sons who are friends of Trinity Church, I am afraid that advantage will
be taken of the present public feeling to make an effort in the Courts to
abolish or set aside the Charter of the Church.

He felt it likely these efforts might succeed and sent a formal letter,
to be used publicly if so desired, requesting that Saint John's Chapel
be used for work among Italians.

If it could be known that, not as the result of public clamor but out of
deference to the wishes of the Bishop of the Diocese, Trinity Church had
decided to use St. John's Chapel for the purpose which I have indicated, I
feel confident that no such attempt would be made. I am sure you know
that my own great desire is to stand by you and help you . . .

The injunction was dissolved on the 13th of April and on the 18th
the rector preached at length, over an hour, in the parish church on
his policy for the parish. He began by saying that since he had been
rector less than twelve months he would not have chosen to speak of
achievements or future policy but "the present situation . . . demands
a plain and public statement." He pointed out that Trinity had been
attacked before from time to time. Then as now "the most astonish
ing statements, and the most positive assertions . . . have proved to
have no foundation in fact." He deplored the fact "that the most bit
ter and the most openly unjust attacks" had come from within the
church. He gave a warm defense of the bishop for his courage in sup
porting an unpopular decision which he knew to be right.

It has been said that this episode has done harm to the Church as a whole.
It has unquestionably so done, and the persons who are responsible for
this are those who, whether intentionally or otherwise, have misrepresented
the facts, placed the matter persistently in a wrong light, and misstated the
case in a way which has confused and misled many earnest and conscientious
people.

He made four points as to the work of the parish at the beginning
of his rectorship. 1. A policy of complete publicity as to the financial
affairs of the parish and its property had already been adopted. 2. A
new development of work in the form of evangelistic services and
street preaching had been undertaken. 3. Increased attention was be
ing given to the improvement of the conditions of the dwelling house

60 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

property owned by the parish. He had given much time since becom
ing rector to inspection of the property with members of the vestry.

The condition of much of the property is good; the condition of none of
it is anything like so bad as has been frequently asserted; but having said
this I must also say, on the other hand, that there are important improve
ments which need to be made and that there is some of the property the
condition of which is far from being what, in my judgment, it ought to be
and from being what we intend that it shall be ... As Rector of this
parish my primary responsibility is for its religious acts, but I claim also
my full share of responsibility for its business acts, and I have found in the
vestry a most earnest desire that this whole matter of our property shall
be dealt with not merely from the business point of view, but from the
standpoint of religion, of social responsibility and of enlightened citizen
ship.

4. The right to vote had been extended to the members of Saint Luke's
Chapel and the Chapel of the Intercession. This had come about not
as a result of pressure of litigation but from the desire of the authori
ties of the parish to extend these rights as widely as possible.

He went on to describe the life and work of the parish as a whole.
Trinity Parish is indeed possessed of wealth but it is far from being
a parish entirely, or even largely, of wealthy people. It is rather "the
rich church of poor people." Stately services, fine music are a part of
the tradition of the parish but so are pastoral devotion to the poor,
relief of the needy, and the work of education and social service.
Trinity uses its wealth for the assistance of churches outside the parish
but not because its property belongs to the whole diocese. He made
it clear that the arguments of this kind which had been made are
without the slightest foundation. He dealt fully with the gross mis
representations which had been made about the combining of the work
of Saint John's and Saint Luke's showing that what was done had had
the full support, even if with regret, of Dr. Dix, who had indicated
the final result in the Trinity Year Book of 1893. The agitation at
Saint John's had been supported by only a portion of the congrega
tion for many of them had not voted for the Saint John's candidates
at the parish election the previous week. He ended with a resound
ing appeal for loyalty to the fundamentals of the faith in the life of
the parish.

I pray that this Parish may never be led into the mistake of giving to the
Second Commandment of our Lord Jesus Christ the place that belongs to
His First and still greater Commandment, or of allowing work in any
measure to usurp the place of worship.

RECTOR 61

While giving itself to fuller and fuller service and learning ever new and
and larger ways of ministering to the needs of men, may our parish stand
in all the future, even at is has stood in all the past, supremely, and above
all else, for true and living faith in God, for glorious and holy worship,
for the ministering of the divinely-given sacraments, for the carrying of
heavenly help and comfort to the poor and the rich, the living and the
dying, the sick and the well, for the preaching in all its fulness of the ever
lasting gospel, the truth of God revealed in our Lord and Saviour Jesus
Christ, and made known to us through His Church, One, Holy, Catholic
and Apostolic . . .

May these, then, be our two watch-words: Faith and Service. First, faith
in God and in His truth, divinely and once for all revealed; and then,
founded on this and inspired by it, the enlarging life, the growing vision,
the increasing service which shall make this venerable mother parish of
the diocese, with each year that passes, more and more a blessing and a
power for God in the Church and in the city.

It was obvious that a new era had begun for Trinity. The trumpet
at the lips of the new rector gave forth no uncertain sound. The ser
mon was printed and very widely circulated. Words of approval and
support came in from all sides. The troubles over the closing of Saint
John's died down fairly soon. The Revd. Edward Schlueter was brought
to Saint Luke's as its vicar in the autumn of 1909 and remained for
over thirty-five years. Manning notes in his diary when Schlueter's
coming was announced that there was "no trace of the ill feeling of
last winter." And again writes, on Saint Stephen's Day, when Schlueter
had begun duty,

The bad feeling about the re-arrangement, so needlessly created, seems to
be disappearing, and all now looks very promising.

He also noted with satisfaction that there was no reference to the previ
ous year's agitation at the diocesan convention in November and con
sidered that his election as deputy to General Convention and to the
standing committee represented a vote of confidence in the adminis
tration.

As for the building of St. John's Chapel, it stood until 1918. The
widening of Varick Street and the building of the Seventh Avenue
subway made it increasingly clear that the building could not be
saved. The following, in pencil, is on a slip of paper in the bishop's
file.

Note — After all the discussion and excitement, St. John's Chapel was taken
down in compliance with the order by the City Government for the widen
ing of Varick St.

WILLIAM T. MANNING

62 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

One of the important pledges of loyal support came at the very
beginning of the Saint John's fracas. Frederic Cook Morehouse, editor
of The Living Church, wrote Manning in December, 1908, to thank
him for letting him have the facts in the case and undertaking to give
full circulation to these facts.

I am also writing our correspondent in New York, Mr. Keller, that where
Trinity Church matters are before the public, it would be well for him
to get the facts from you on every occasion. Of course in Dr. Dix's later
years the correspondents did not like to approach him personally, although
I think he was always cordial to them when he was able to see them, and
in that way they have not formed the habit of verifying their Trinity
Church matter, as they ought to do.

. . . Indeed, I shall always be glad to have your suggestions as to any
course on the part of The Living Church that may in your judgment be
helpful, whether in connection with Trinity Church or in the issues of the
Church at large.

This was the beginning of a close and important relationship be
tween the two which continued as long as Morehouse lived.3

The opposition to the new rector in the vestry, never acrimonious
and never made public, centred in Mr. Cammann, the comptroller.
As the business manager of all of Trinity's vast property he occupied
a very important position. He was one who magnified his office and
who tended to view the entire operation of Trinity Parish, not merely
the administration of the property but the ministry of the word and
sacraments, in the light of its effect on real estate values. In the later
days of Dr. Dix there was a service held in Saint Paul's Chapel at an
unusual hour for the convenience of night workers in the vicinity.
Mr. Cammann caused this service to be given up for fear that the
people attending it might claim that they were thereby qualified to
be voters in the parish!

Dr. Manning caused Mr. Cammann very definite distress. In May
of 1909 he talked of resigning as comptroller. This did not obtain the
desired and expected result of quieting the new rector so he was ob
liged to stay on and do what he could to restrain the excesses and
novelties which were being proposed — and even carried through.

8 In 1919 I went as a spectator of the General Convention in Detroit with my
father, a clerical deputy from Rhode Island. In pointing out various important
members of the convention he commented that Dr. Manning and Mr. Morehouse
commanded such respect and had such influence in the House of Deputies that no
measure to which both expressed their opposition could pass that house. The
election of Mr. Morehouse's son, Clifford, as president of the House of Deputies in
Detroit forty-two years later is in a sense foreshadowed in this comment.

RECTOR 63

In October Manning proposed to the vestry that Trinity cancel
$370,000 worth of mortgages held on various churches. What had
happened was that Trinity had through the years made grants in vary
ing amounts to carry on the work of churches not a part of the parish.
It came to be felt that it would be wise to treat these not as outright
gifts but as loans without interest, not in order to secure a return of
the grant but to have a right to intervene if in the future unwise or
improper plans were proposed or the parish properties were en
dangered. There was the decided disadvantage however that the situ
ation was open to misinterpretation. The critics who were pursuing
Trinity found the mortgage arrangement useful for the support of
their criticisms. Trinity's ability to help hold up a weak parish through
a mortgage was perhaps exaggerated and it made for poor publicity.
The decision was finally reached in January, 1910, to cancel all the
mortgages and Manning noted in his diary

This is a great step accomplished and one which has cost much time and
effort.

Manning stated clearly in his April, 1909, sermon that he was not
satisfied with the condition of the tenement property. But it was by
no means easy to deal with the matter and impossible to do anything
hastily. It was distinctly embarrassing that the property which Trinity
did not control, because of the long leases, was in poor shape. The
critics were quite able to overlook Trinity's inability in the matter.
Trinity was by their definition an entirely misguided corporation and
should not have got into this inability in the first place. Costs of im
provements were great and required incurring very considerable debt
and the inertia of conservatism made progress difficult and slow. A
few quotations from his diary make clear both the situation and Man
ning's manner of dealing with it.

Monday, January 10, 1910 . . . Vestry meeting at night . . . Measure of
great importance passed looking to borrowing of large sums of money nec
essary for improvement of the property of the Parish and providing that
the loans should be secured by bonds of the Corporation running for thirty
years — with a sinking fund to provide for liquidation of the debt at its
maturity — Resolution passed providing for rotation in office on the Stand
ing Committee and other elected committees of the Vestry. This measure
provoked long and heated discussion when it was first proposed last winter.
Tonight it was passed with no discussion and with only one dissenting
vote — that of General Lockman — an indication of the general movement
among us in the past few months. Most of the important reform measures

64 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

have now been at least 'in principle' adopted by the Vestry. It remains to
fully apply these principles.

Wednesday, March 9, 1910 . . . very important meeting at 187 Fulton
St. of Committee consisting of Rector, Standing Committee and Property
Committee. Resolutions were offered with regard to the care of the Prop-
ery of the Parish

a. No leasing of Tenement Property for short or long terms — all to be
kept under our own direct control.

b. No subletting by tenants who take houses for this purpose.

c. All repairs and improvements indicated in recent report to be made
without delay.

Mr. Ogden offered these and I spoke strongly in favour of them, insisting
that they must be passed.

After much discussion they were laid on the table by vote of Mr. Cam-
mann, Col. Jay, Mr. Chauncey, Mr. Lockman and Mr. Palmer against Mr.
Ogden, Dr. Polk and Judge Davis.

Mr. Ogden then announced that he should resign from the Vestry —
after which I stated that if this was to be the policy I should feel it my
duty as Rector to publicly disavow it and condemn it. By motion of Mr.
Lockman, seconded by Mr. Palmer the resolutions were taken from the
table and discussion of them was postponed until a meeting two weeks
hence, Colonel Jay and Mr. Palmer intimating their willingness to vote
for them after further consideration . . .

Thursday, March 10, 1910 . . . Lunched with Mr. Ogden at the Down
Town Club and then went to our meeting with Mr. Cammann to arrange
for an Inspector of Sanitation for the Property of the Parish. Mr. Cam
mann agreed to our proposals more readily than we had expected . . .

Monday, March 14, 1910 . . . Vestry Meeting at night — Very important
measure passed to provide for borrowing the money required for the im
provement of the property of the Parish.

The meeting was a comparatively peaceful one as the Tenement ques
tion was not directly before us.

In the spring of 1909 the vestry voted to ask the tenement house
committee of the New York Charity Organization Society to make an
independent investigation of the Trinity property. Miss Emily W.
Dinwiddie was chosen to make the investigation. She was a person of
outstanding reputation in the field, of long and wide experience. Her
name was a guarantee as to the dependability of the report. The in
vestigation was made thoroughly and deliberately and took a consid
erable time, from the end of June to the early part of October. Miss
Dinwiddie published her report the following February.

In general, it may be said that sensationally bad conditions were not found
in the tenements and smaller dwelling houses owned and controlled by

RECTOR 65

Trinity Church. A very considerable majority were in good condition; a
minority had defects, and a very few were in bad condition.

It seems probable, however, that the residence houses on leased Trinity
ground . . . are, like other tenements throughout the city, often in very
bad condition. This is especially probable in the case of the houses on
land held on leases which will soon pass out of their hands. Until all the
houses on Trinity's land are kept on good condition, they will always be
made a ground of reproach to the church.

Since the clamor had been begun and carried on in an entirely un
reasonable manner the fact that the report left very little basis for
complaint did not restrain those who complained. But the rector went
on with his campaign for reform. Shortly after the publication of her
report Miss Dinwiddie accepted a position on the payroll of Trinity
Parish as adviser as to the tenement property under conditions which
satisfied her that she had complete independence.

The struggles were prolonged and intense but through them all the
rector kept the loyalty of the chief opponents. On the day of his elec
tion as bishop Mr. Cammann sat beside him in the Synod House at
the cathedral. He had been mastered but not alienated. Manning
notes in his diary that when he first referred, in March, 1912, to the
need for freeing the pews, "not many of the Vestry favourable." It
was not immediately accomplished but the pressure to do what was
necessary was never relaxed. The proposal was broached in a brief
Manning prepared for the vestry on the introduction throughout the
parish of the duplex envelope system with pledges for support of the
church's work by all members of the congregation. This system has
resulted in increased giving in other parishes and has commended it
self generally. The natural consequence of the introduction of this
system of support is to end the old system of pew rentals in the three
churches of the parish which still have it, Trinity Church, Trinity
Chapel, and Saint Agnes. Six of the chapels are already free and the
income from pew rents is in any case very small. In spite of the lack
of enthusiasm he preached on the subject to arouse the support of the
parish. The vestry voted the action the rector had recommended seven
years before in December, 1918, and announcement was made the fol
lowing month that it was done as an act of thanksgiving for victory
in the World War which had now ended. Patience and persistence ac
complished the result without the fight which so often seems inevitable
in the progress of a parish's life.

The chief building project during Manning's rectorship was at the
Chapel of the Intercession. As assistant rector, Manning had cooper-

66 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

ated with Milo Hudson Gates, the rector of the Church of the Inter
cession, in plans to convert the parish into a Trinity chapel. This took
place in 1907 and one of the new rector's first responsibilities was to
consider the plans being made by the new vicar for new buildings.
Gates had built a church at Cohasset in Massachusetts and was full
of enthusiasm for further building. The Church of the Intercession
was at Broadway and 158 Street. Trinity Cemetery spanned Broadway
from 153 to 155 Streets. A site had been reserved in the cemetery for
the building of a future chapel and it was decided by the vestry in
January, 1910, to build there. Work was begun in 1911 from designs
by Bertram Goodhue for one of the finest churches in the country,
in perpendicular gothic style. The new chapel was used for the first
time on the first Sunday in January, 1914, and was consecrated in
May, 1915.

The building of the Intercession was chiefly the vicar's task. At the
same time another chapel, also handsome but miniature by comparison,
was being built. To this the rector gave most careful attention for it
was specially an act of devotion and affection. This was the Chapel
of All Saints, north of the sanctuary at Trinity Church, as a memorial
to Dr. Dix. In May, 1910, Manning records in his diary that he had
consulted Mr. Nash about it. Thomas Nash was an architect, a parish
ioner, and a close friend. His plans were accepted by the vestry in
March, 1911, and the work began. As it approached completion Man
ning's diary is full of references to his concern over every detail. On
20 June, 1913, the rector went to Trinity Cemetery and accompanied
the body of his predecessor to its final resting place beneath the altar
of All Saints. The invitations to the consecration, which took place
on the first Sunday in Advent, 30 November, 1913, were addressed by
the rector himself with members of his family. It was typical of his
feeling both for Dix and for Trinity that the official acts should have
the closest personal significance. There were two other important em
bellishments to the parish church in Manning's time, the church-yard
cross which was dedicated in May, 1914, and the new choir stalls and
altar rail dedicated in February, 1916.

In the ordering of parish life Manning's constant endeavour was to
knit the congregations of the chapels together into one parochial unit.
He himself usually gave a series of lectures during Lent, going to the
different chapels for the purpose. In 1914 there was formed a commit
tee of laymen to sponsor and arrange for lectures on the New Testa
ment. In 1913 he began the publication of a parish magazine, the
Trinity Parish Record, which played an important part in the life of
the parish with notable articles by those outside as well as inside the

RECTOR 67

parish. In January, 1912, there was begun the custom of an annual
reception for all members of the parish to meet the clergy.

In 1910 Manning assisted in the founding of the church mission of
help, today known as the Youth Consultation Service, designed to deal
with the problems of young unmarried mothers. This was not a paro
chial work and was originated, guided, and nourished by Fr. Hunt-
ington of the order of the Holy Cross but Manning gave it his whole
hearted support always, in the early years serving as president. In 1916
he was active in a move to preserve the character of Washington
Square and Washington Mews by the trustees of Sailors' Snug Harbour,
of which he was one. Thirty years later he helped in a similar cam
paign after his retirement, and while he was living in Washington
Mews.

In June of 1917 Manning was elected bishop of Western New York
and received a flood of letters from all quarters urging him to go or
to stay. The great number of these demonstrates how important a
position he had come to occupy in the church, beyond New York.
While of course there were many who referred to the importance of
the diocese and the favourable opportunities there, the point most
often made was the great need for him in the House of Bishops. But
the majority indicated in varying degrees the importance of his stay
ing at Trinity. That his parishioners should plead with him was na
tural. He was respected and beloved. But the weight of solid advice
from outside was that the more important work was in New York. The
bishop of Western Michigan, Dr. McCormick, urged him to stay for
the defence of the catholic faith

There are few men we would rather have in the House of Bishops; but
there is no man we would rather have as Rector of Trinity.

George W. Wickersham's letter has already been quoted.4 Bishop
Rhinelander offered no advice but said that

What is clear is that you are strikingly and triumphantly vindicated. And
this means much to the whole church.

Presumably Rhinelander had reference both to Manning's stand as to
the war and also to the Panama Conference affair and Manning's de
feat as deputy to General Convention.5 The Bishop of Washington, Dr.
Harding, who had resigned with him from the board of missions, asked
whether he could guarantee his successor at Trinity if he went. More-

4 See p. 6.

5 See the two following chapters.

68 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

house made the same point and Haley Fiske plainly predicted that
the broad church party would make an effort to capture Trinity, which
would then never be won back. Fr. Huntington reviewed the situa
tion with great frankness.

There is more than a fighting chance that you may take your place (in the
house of bishops) as Bishop of New York. . . . Who but you can save us
from Dr. Stires or Dr. Robbins?

While Robbins himself, by pointing out the important place Manning
occupied in both the civic and church life of New York, made a tactful
appeal to stay without saying so and wrote warmly of his pleasure at
Manning's decision to remain. Bishop Hall of Vermont wrote that he
did not

like the imperium in imperio wh Trin parish holds . . . But as things are
I shd think it was probably easier to find a Bp for WNY than a Rector
for Trin. Parish. On the other hand if you decline you will be suspected
of staying on because you look for the N.Y. see. And you will be involved
in a horrid contest when the vacancy comes, wh one wd like to avoid.

One letter which came should be quoted in full, albeit anonymously,
for its poignant commentary on church life. The writer was an old
man who had been a bishop for many years and who was in no sense
a misfit or a failure.

In common with many who think you worthy of any honor, I present my
congratulations upon your election to the episcopate of Western New York.
But, nevertheless, (although I may be trespassing upon your good nature,)
I beg you not to accept. The experience is cruel when one gives up a place
as rector where everything is well ordered and under authority, to take a
position where most things are unordered and can be controlled only in
directly and inefficiently. It is heart breaking — and no one ever quite gets
over it.

As Rector of Trinity Church too you exert a wider influence than could
be possible in any Diocese — and I believe no one wants to miss you from
that honored place.

Forgive my intrusion into your intimate personal matters — but I feel
very strongly about it — and could scarcely fail to speak. Nothing in the
Episcopal office "makes up" for the loss of a Rector's pastoral relationship
to his people.

After long consideration Manning declined the election in a care
fully worded letter which won appreciation for its terms even from
those to whom the message was disappointing. He was about to enter
upon a war chaplaincy.

CHAPTER SIX

REUNION

M

.ANNING had two great interests which absorbed him and to
which he gave his full and energetic support — the building of the
cathedral, and the work of Christian reunion. To the former he came
reluctantly; to the latter his training and his whole conception of, and
loyalty to, the church brought him naturally and inevitably. The
cathedral interest is admitted; the interest in reunion is not so gen
erally acknowledged, in large part because so many of the plans put
forward were opposed by Manning from conviction that they led away
from the great goal, not toward it. The method of the Faith and Order
Conference, to which Manning gave so much of his effort, has not
been the one most followed.

The subject of reunion was one in which he had been solidly
grounded, as in so much of the rest of his theology, by his mentor Du-
bose. His approach was that of the theologian, who recognizes the
fundamental principle of the unity of the church, rather than that of
the active missionary, who faces the handicap of trying to present
the good news of the gospel to the heathen in divided form, rivalling
the presentation of what is supposedly the same good news by others
whose authenticity he seems to question. The difference is not unim
portant. Manning was not unaware of missionaries problems. We
have seen in his action at Nashville that he was prepared to pay the
increased cost of more adequate support of missions. But his devo
tion to the cause of church unity was in obedience to the evangeli
cal command rather than in the interest of missionary efficiency.

Manning was a deputy from Tennessee to General Convention in
1901. In 1904 and 1907 he was at Saint Agnes' Chapel and Trinity

69

70 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

was represented by the rector, Dr. Dix. By 1910 Manning had suc
ceeded to the rectorship and again took his seat in the House of Dep
uties. He at once took a leading part by introducing a resolution
which, in the form in which it was finally adopted, provided for the
appointment of a joint commission (of the two houses of General
Convention) to

bring about a Conference for the consideration of questions touching Faith
and Order, and that all Christian Communions throughout the world which
confess our Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour be asked to unite with us
in arranging for and conducting such a Conference.

Two important events had taken place in 1910 which led the way
to the introduction of this resolution. One was a great missionary
conference in Edinburgh during the summer. It was interdenomina
tional but limited in its scope, being debarred from discussing any ques
tions of corporate reunion among the yarious denominations repre
sented. Nevertheless great enthusiasm was aroused, the conference
had world-wide notice, and many plans for cooperation began to form
in the minds of those who attended.

Manning was not present at the Edinburgh Missionary Conference
but earlier in the year he had arranged a private conference of priests
and laymen of the church. He gave much time and thought to the
preparation of this conference. There are references in his diary in
November and December, 1909, to talks with Fr. Huntington and
George Wharton Pepper about plans for it. His feeling about the
Edinburgh Conference approach to the problem of reunion and the
need for his own conference are shown by his diary for Sunday, 16
January, 1910.

At 3:30 I went to the service held in the Hippodrome in connection with
the Laymen's Missionary Movement. The gathering was a remarkable one
but it left me with just the same feeling as to the "Movement," which I be
lieve to be a movement away from true Unity rather than towards it — so
far as its principles are concerned. Its intention is a different matter.

The conference set forth the following,

The undersigned, clergymen and laymen of the Protestant Episcopal
Church, having met in unofficial conference at Trinity Chapel, New York,
on the 27th and 28th of January, 1910, find themselves unanimously in
agreement upon the following Statement, which they believe to be war
ranted by the teaching of Holy Scripture and of the Universal Church; and
they humbly recommend it to the consideration of their brethren of their
own communion and of other communions as common ground upon which

REUNION 71

men of good will may discuss, without scruple of conscience, the manner in
which those who are in the fellowship of Christ may become reunited in
one communion and fellowship with each other.

STATEMENT.

1. The life of God, revealed as the life of the blessed Trinity in Unity,
is a life of fellowship.

2. God has created man in His own image. This likeness He has per
fected, by Himself taking human nature in the person of Jesus Christ. As
God's life is one of fellowship, the life of man is also one of fellowship.

3. God's revelation of Himself in His life of fellowship is received and
made our own through our fellowship with Him, and in Him with one
another.

4. God's purpose to bring us into fellowship with Himself, and in Him
with one another, is manifested in Jesus Christ His Son, "Who for us men
and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate by the
Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man."

5. God's purpose to bring us into fellowship with Himself, and in Him
with one another, manifested in Jesus Christ His Son, is made effectual by
the operation of the Holy Ghost.

6. Our fellowship with God is in Jesus Christ through the oneness in
Him of all mankind. This fellowship is a mystery so far above our natural
state that by our own strength we cannot attain unto it. It is God's free
gift, originating in His creative will and purpose, and administered by the
presence and power of the Holy Ghost.

7. God's purpose of fellowship for us as manifested in Christ, to be
realized in us by the gift and presence of the Holy Ghost, becomes effec
tual as it finds outward and visible embodiment.

8. This outward and visible embodiment, which makes effectual God's
purpose of fellowship for man as manifested in Christ, is the Holy Catho
lic Church.

9. The Holy Catholic Church, which is the embodiment of God's pur
pose of fellowship for man as manifested in Jesus Christ, involves the fact
of continuous life divinely given and outwardly and visibly assured.

10. Fellowship with Christ in His Church comes from Christ's communi
cation of His life to us, of which the sign and means is Baptism duly ad
ministered with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Ghost.

11. The fellowship of the baptized with Christ, and with one another
as sharers of the one life received from Him, calls for some corporate and
articulate expression of their common faith in Christ and of their worship
of Him; and this common faith of those who are baptized into the fellow
ship of Christ and share His life is expressed in the Apostles' and Nicene
creeds.

1 2. For those who are in the fellowship of Christ the characteristic corpo-

72 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

rate act of worship is the Holy Communion as instituted by Christ Himself,
for the continual remembrance of the sacrifice of His death, and for the
communion of His Body and His Blood to those who are in the fellowship
with Him, for the strengthening and refreshing of their souls.

13. This corporate act of worship, as instituted by Jesus Christ, calls
for some minister, who bears Christ's commission, to preside in the as
sembly of those who are in fellowship with Christ.

14. Jesus Christ, remaining a priest forever, ascended into Heaven but
present by His Spirit in His Church on earth, now acts in the Sacrament
of the Lord's Supper through those who bear His commission.

15. This continuing priesthood of the Lord Jesus Christ abides in the
whole fellowship. The outward and visible organ of this priesthood is the
continuous Ministry.

16. As the Church is the outward and visible Body of Christ empowered
by His Spirit, the Ministry, through which Christ acts in His Body, derives
its powers continually from Him and receives its authority from Him by
the outward sign and means of ordination.

17. The form of ordination should express, by its essential uniformity,
the oneness of the Body of Christ, which is the blessed company of all faith
ful people. Ordination has been effected from sub-apostolic times by the
laying on of the hands of the historic episcopate and prayer; and this
method of ordination, if restored to the whole fellowship, would be an
effective bond of its unity in Christ.

CHARLES SEARS BALDWIN,
LORING W. BATTEN,
CHARLES S. BURCH,
ROBERT H. GARDINER,
WILLIAM M. GROSVENOR,
JAMES O. S. HUNTINGTON,
CHARLES W. LARNED,
ALFRED T. MAHAN,
WILLIAM T. MANNING,
ALFRED G. MORTIMER,
HENRY S. NASH,
PHILIP M. RHINELANDER,
LEONARD KIP STORRS,
FLOYD W. TOMKINS,
JOHN W. WOOD,
GEORGE ZABRISKIE.

Mr. Wm. Jay Schieffelin withholds his signature upon the ground that,
on reconsideration of the Statement since its adoption by the Conference,
it seems to him to contain too much of theological definition to serve as
a useful basis for discussion of Christian unity.

This statement is the direct precursor of the faith and order resolu-

REUNION 73

tion at Cincinnati. It represents the thinking of the Chicago-Lambeth
Quadrilateral rather than that of the Edinburgh Conference. It deals
squarely with the questions of faith and order and so foreshadows the
form of the convention resolution. The conference was limited in
size (two prominent laymen closely identified with the Faith and
Order Movement, Francis Lynde Stetson and George Wharton Pep
per, were expected but unable to attend) but widely representative of
the different schools of thought in the church. An outline for dis
cussion had been prepared beforehand by Fr. Huntington, Dr. (later
Bishop) Rhinelander, Mr. Zabriskie, and Mr. Pepper, and was given
a final going over just before the meeting by Manning himself. He
was not only the host but very much the guiding spirit of the con
ference and records in his diary his deep satisfaction with the final
result.

The Conference was felt by all to be not only most interesting and help
ful, but to be a deep spiritual experience. The spirit shown and main
tained throughout — the entire freedom and frankness in discussion; the
considerateness and courtesy when differences arose; the large measure of
agreement in which men found themselves who had supposed that they
differed so widely — was a lesson to all of us which will not be forgotten.
It was a most interesting and inspiring sight to see the Conference gathered
round the table, every man with heart and mind wholly given to the work.
And this gathering around the table gave the air of informality which
helped greatly toward the feeling which prevailed, and the happy result
attained.

God's grace and presence with us alone made such a meeting possible
and we give our thanks to Him. May He accept our work done in His
name and make it a means of good to His Church.

One of the very happy things was to see the laymen as deeply interested
in this matter as the clergy, working with them on equal terms; as laymen
in the Church rendering their full contribution to the discussions and
most of them standing most strongly for the Faith.

The statement was published in March; Manning kept in touch
especially with Robert Hallowell Gardiner, who was to devote a
considerable portion of the rest of his life to the cause; and in Oc
tober they were ready to propose definite action by General Conven
tion. It has been suggested that Bishop Brent, who was a warm advo
cate of the movement toward a Faith and Order Conference from the
beginning and elected the president of the conference when it finally
met in Lausanne in 1927, was the author of the idea. This suggestion
seems to stem from an entry in Bishop Brent's diary in which he re
fers to a conviction of the need of such a conference which came to

74 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

him while at the eucharist on the first day of the convention, and
from the fact that he made a deeply moving address on the subject at
a meeting of the Woman's Auxiliary a few days later. But the Rector
of Trinity had been conferring on the subject for months and already
had a draft of the resolution in his pocket when he got off the train.
Manning gave his own account in his address at the memorial service
for Brent in the cathedral in New York on the twenty-eighth of April,
1929.

It was Bishop Brent who inspired and called forth this movement. ... It
was Robert Gardiner who suggested and urged that some definite action
should be taken by our Convention, and it fell to my lot to offer the
resolution. . . .

Not only did Manning present the resolution, its form is especially
his and represents at the very beginning his conception of both the
limitations and the method of the conference. The ultimate goal is
indeed reunion of the catholic church of Christ. But this can only
be brought about by the most careful consideration of what is in
volved. The resolution has two stern limitations. It does not con
template a conference for the drawing up of a constitution or a scheme
of reunion but "for the consideration of questions touching Faith
and Order." Also attendance was to be limited to those who "confess
our Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour." The word "God" has a
definitely exclusive effect. There are many who sincerely consider
themselves Christians who nevertheless repudiate such a definition.
The conference was planned on the assumption that effort to bring
together those who are divided to this extent would be unreal and
fruitless. The acceptance of the incarnation in the orthodox sense was
to be from the outset the minimum.

Manning proceeded in typical manner to put pressure upon the
work of organization and preparation. J. P. Morgan pledged a hun
dred thousand dollars for expenses on the floor of the convention in
the enthusiasm accompanying the passage of the resolution. The
Bishop of Chicago, Dr. Anderson, became the president of the joint
commission. Manning was elected chairman of the executive com
mittee; Robert Hallowell Gardiner was secretary; and George Za-
briskie treasurer. There ensued a flood of correspondence with Gardi
ner, who turned in his many troubles to Manning for advice, assist
ance, and reassurance. Among others Bishop Anderson proved dif
ficult. When misunderstandings with him arose Manning gave firm
support to Gardiner and calmly gave authoritative decisions as to

REUNION 75

matters of procedure. A year after the work began Gardiner felt that
he might be obstructing things and wrote to ask Manning to tell him
frankly if people felt he should not continue as secretary, since "you
and I are now in such close relations of friendship." And later on,
in 1922, when it seemed difficult to arouse proper enthusiasm for the
World Conference after the interruption of the war, Gardiner wrote
Manning in January

. . . Other Churches are waiting for the Commission of the Episcopal
Church to take the lead. Your unfailing and deep and practical interest in
the matter during all these eleven years, and especially your very valuable
book1 have pointed you out as the natural and proper leader, and though
I quite understand how you must be crowded with your work, still I ven
ture to urge that this matter is so important that if it is in any way pos
sible you should take hold of it and stir again the widespread interest
which your little leaflet2 on the plan and scope of the movement aroused
ten years ago. . . . You are known throughout the United States as a
leader in the matter,
and again in March,

So much of the practical wisdom of the new plans for the World Confer
ence have been due to your inspiration.

From the beginning Manning gave special thought to the very
difficult problem of dealing with the Church of Rome. However
much understanding and sympathy there may be among individual
Roman Catholics the official position offers little encouragement for
practical approach. Manning saw from the beginning the serious
danger of being frustrated by this official attitude, of accepting it as
final, and so adopting a point of view — as so many of the leaders of
the reunion movement have done — which contemplates a reunited
church that will not include the Bishop of Rome and the millions
of Christians who follow him. At the time of the Cincinnati Conven
tion erroneous statements appeared in the press as to the relation of
the Roman Catholic Church to the new movement. Gardiner wrote
asking whether he should not correct these statements. Manning re
plied

I do not think his unauthorized statement will cause any harm; whereas
a letter from you as a member of the Commission might provoke some
discussion as to the possibility of our being able to bring the Roman

1 The Call to Unity. The Bedell Lectures for 1919, delivered at Keyon College in
May, 1920. The Macmillan Company.

2 "The Protestant Episcopal Church and Christian Unity," Constructive Quarter
ly, December, 1915.

76 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

Catholics into the Conference; and that is such a delicate matter that any
public discussion of it at the present time, especially if there were any of
of us engaged in the discussion, might lessen our chances of bringing it
to accomplishment.

Briefly stated, my opinion is that as to our relations to the Roman
Church, it is better for us to permit, for the present, a moderate amount
of misconception in this matter than to run the risk of a public discussion
of it.

Manning arranged to have personal interviews with Cardinal Gib
bons and Archbishop (afterward Cardinal) Farley, reported that they
were noncommittal but cordial, and noted that care must be taken
to consult the cardinal on all points before approaching any other
Roman Catholic. At the Lausanne Conference in 1927 the only
statement which he made in the sessions of the full conference was

... in regard to that great Communion, the Roman Catholic Church,
which is not represented here. . . .

While the Christian Communions, Catholic and Protestant, which are
represented here can, and we pray that they may, make true progress
towards reunion, we recognize that Christian unity cannot be attained until
it includes our brethren of the Roman Catholic Church. What we who are
gathered here seek is not a unity of Protestants alone, or of Catholics
alone. This might only accentuate differences, and perpetuate divisions.
We seek a unity which shall include all Christian Communions throughout
the world, both Catholic and Protestant, which confess our Lord Jesus
Christ as Saviour, Lord and God. It is the united testimony of the whole
Church of Christ that is needed in the battle against the world-wide con
certed attack, disguising itself often under new and high-sounding terms,
upon Christ's standards of sexual morality and marriage.

In the every day conduct of affairs this attitude toward Rome is indeed
difficult to maintain. To the pan-protestant it has little appeal. After
the First World War the leadership of the movement fell more and
more into the hands of those who were able in one way or another
to ignore a principle which Manning could never forget.

In 1912 a delegation from the Faith and Order Commission went
to England to win the official support of the Church of England to
the cause. The matter was known in England but there was only mild
enthusiasm over it. The Bishop of Salisbury had been present at the
convention in Cincinnati, his trip having been arranged by Man
ning. On the way home he wrote

Perhaps the most important resolution arrived at was that of which you
were the spokesman,

REUNION 77

and gave lengthy advice on how to proceed. He undertook to bring
the matter before the Convocation of Canterbury. Manning was ad
vised, and himself believed, that personal contact was essential to
gain proper support. He wrote Gardiner in February in a way which
is typical of his policy in all matters, whether reuniting the church,
or building the cathedral, or straightening out recalcitrant clergy.

Communication by letter has always been the rock on which previous at
tempts to get nearer our brethren have been shipwrecked. The best way
to get near your brother is to go and see him and have a heart to heart
talk with him.

The delegation consisted of the Bishops of Chicago, Southern Ohio,
and Vermont, and Manning. Bishop Vincent of Southern Ohio and
Manning travelled over together, sailing on Saint Barnabas Day, 11
June. The daily paper reported, in a manner which reflected not
only the opinion of the man in the street about the Rector of Trin
ity Church but also the reality of the situation, that

Accompanied by three bishops, the Rev. Dr. William T. Manning, Rector
of "Old" Trinity, will go abroad June 12 to confer with the Archbishop
of Canterbury, the Archbishop of York and all the bishops of the Church
of England.

Manning records in his diary a whirl of activity from the time
he arrived in London. He stayed with the Romanes family and was
taken by them on all kinds of expeditions, including the annual
service and meeting of the English Church Union, a meeting at the
Queen's hall to hear speeches

on the Religious Aspects of the Woman's Movement ... by Bishop Gore,
who presided, Miss Maude Royden, Mrs. Runciman, Mrs. Creighton, and
the Revd. W. L. Temple (sic), son of the late Archbishop. A wonderful
meeting.

They went to the zoo, the Tower, Eton, Windsor — where they

saw His Majesty King George, as he returned from the races at Ascot
down the famous Long Walk,

and the Bishop of London's garden party at Fulham with a review
of boy scouts by the Bishop and the Lord Mayor of London. He even
notes, with obvious regret, proposed delights which had to be aban
doned because of a summons to meet the Primus of the Scottish
Church at an earlier date than had been anticipated. Finally on Saint
John Baptist Day, 24 June, the delegation was lodged at Lambeth
Palace. The first night Manning got special permission to be out to

78 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

go and respond to a toast at the Pilgrims' Banquet at the Savoy.
The next day they got down to business, not without misgivings.
Manning wrote both Gardiner and Mrs. Manning from Lambeth that
the prospect at the beginning was discouraging and noted in his
diary that

after his talk with the Archbishop on the preceding evening Bishop Ander
son was quite of the opinion that nothing would be done. The Bishops had
many doubts about the undertaking. It is our unanimous opinion that
nothing would ever have been done without a personal visit of this sort
to remove misunderstandings and explain matters face to face.

The difficulties were quite cleared up. Both archbishops made state
ments giving strong support, the Archbishop of Canterbury undertook
to appoint a large committee to arrange cooperation, and the next
day celebrated in the palace chapel with special intention for the
work of the Faith and Order Movement.

The month of July was spent in trips through the British Isles for
the purpose of sightseeing as well as promoting the cause of the con
ference. The Scottish and Irish bishops were cordial and less reserved
than the English bishops.

The Scottish Bishops . . . asked if we would object to their making their
participation conditional upon the participation of representatives of the
whole Catholic World — the Irish Bishops wished to be sure that it was
not our purpose to take a suppliant attitude towards Rome. Both equally
agreed with our position as to including only those who believe definitely
in the incarnation, and in the value of the movement as emphasizing the
importance of doctrine.

At Armagh, Manning

shocked the Archbishop and his family by asking if I should have time
in the morning to get some post cards of the Palace and Cathedral in "the
village." His Grace sank on the lounge by which he was standing and ex
claimed loudly at hearing the City of St. Patrick's See so described.

The specific task of the delegation was now completed and the in
dividual members went their separate ways. Manning journeyed to
Henley to see the regatta, went to Lords with two of the Romanes
boys for the Eton and Harrow cricket match, received from the Bishop
of London a signed photograph of the king in commemoration of
special services in Trinity Church for British residents of New York,
and had a talk with the bishop,

about the vital importance of having a majority of Catholic Churchmen
on the Committee to be appointed by the Archbishop.

REUNION 79

He did the sights at Oxford and Cambridge and stayed with Bishop
Gore at Cuddesdon at which time he won the Bishop's strong sup
port to the cause of the Faith and Order Movement, a support he
continued to give for the rest of his life.

Bishop Gore's definitely expressed sympathy means much to the under
taking. He is more important to the movement than any other person
in England.

After what must have been an exhausting six weeks he was back
in New York, and soon at Seal Harbor where he got relaxation from
ecumenical labours by representing Seal Harbor on a committee to
preserve Mount Desert Island from the desecration of the motor car!

The work of the commission and the executive committee, under
Manning and Gardiner, continued with frequent meetings. A pre
liminary and informal conference was held at the Hotel Astor in
May and another in November, 1913, presided over by Manning.
Another trip to Europe to consult with continental churches, the
Papacy, and the orthodox, was planned for the summer of 1914 but
was prevented at the last moment by the war. At Epiphany, 1916, a
larger conference was held at Garden City with wide, but not unani
mous, support.

Manning's great contribution to the beginning of the Faith and
Order Movement, in shaping its course and scope, bringing an or
ganization into being, and winning support by his combination of
earnestness, enthusiasm, and persistence which all through his life
inspired confidence, is rather forgotten because of the fact that he
was obliged to oppose so many of the plans which were put forward
in later years. He was rarely led by a desire to conciliate into ap
proval of what he believed would defeat the main purpose. He was
by no means convinced that Bishop Brent, who also had an enthusiasm
which won great numbers of people, was always on the right track.
In February, 1913, Gardiner wrote Manning urging the election of
Brent as executive secretary of the commission. Manning replied, dis
cussing the qualifications needed for the office, but making no refer
ence at all to Brent.

The first mistaken reunion activity which Manning felt called upon
to oppose was the Panama Conference. The success of the Edinburgh
Conference in 1910 suggested the holding of other regional mission
ary conferences with definite objectives. In particular a congress was
proposed for Panama City in February of 1916 to make plans for

80 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

united missionary work in Latin America. This was to be definitely
a protestant gathering.

The General Convention in 1913 had important impact on these
questions of reunion and missionary cooperation. In the first place
the movement to remove the word "Protestant" from the official name
of the church was being much agitated at this period. It had en
thusiastic and growing support and violent, not to say hysterical, op
position. Manning put himself squarely at the lead of those who
wanted to change the name by a sermon at Trinity Church in April.

I do not believe in changing the Church's name. The Church ought to
retain the name which has been hers through all the centuries. And just
because I do not believe in changing the Church's name, I do believe that
we ought to correct our present legal title and make it agree with the
true name of the Church which stands in the Creed. This cumbersome
and ugly legal title ought to be changed, because it is a modern inno
vation, because it misrepresents the Church and misleads people as to her
true character, because it puts the Church in the light of a modern de
nomination instead of in its true light as a part of the ancient, historic
Catholic Church, and because so narrow and limited a title is out of har
mony with the great name of the Church as given in the Creed, is a
hindrance to our work among the multitudes of many races who are now
coming to our country, and, as is well known, is a most serious barrier to
progress in some of our mission fields . . .

Practically the title has been dropped because it has been found to
be useless. Who would ever think of calling himself a "Protestant Epis
copalian"? . . . The change is taking place. ... It may not be done at
the coming Convention. That is a small matter. Most of those who de
sire to see the change have no wish to see it carried by a small majority.

The sermon attracted enthusiastic attention from those opposed to
change as well as those supporting it. The dean of the cathedral in
Louisville, Kentucky, who had wanted Manning as bishop of that
diocese, published it in two parts in his parish paper. The Rector of
Stockbridge wrote as a "country parson who wears a black stole and
never expects to see candles in his Church" to say that he was won
over by Manning's moderate tone and clear defense of his position.
It attracted attention also in the vestry of Trinity Church. One ves
tryman, who was by nature opposed to all matters that might bring
about any change in the parish as he had known it, indicated to the
rector that he should not preach sermons on such subjects without
consulting the vestry first. There is a note in his own handwriting
among Manning's papers of the conversation which took place, be-

REUNION 81

ginning "Mr. wants to control theological policy of the

Parish." The rector made it very clear that he could not.

Dr. McKim had announced that he would not stand again for the
presidency of the House of Deputies, after three terms. The conven
tion met in New York at the cathedral. Dr. Manning, the "local" can
didate, and Dr. Mann of Trinity Church, Boston, were nominated
and Dr. Mann was elected by a majority of sixteen votes. In the pro
ceedings before the balloting Manning was faced with the sneer
which met him at various times during his career that he was not an
American citizen and so not eligible. He made no comment at the
time but referred to the charge in a speech introducing an important
proposal the following day. He esteemed it as one of the chief privi
leges of his American citizenship that it gave him the right to sit
in that assemblage, he said, and in the spirit of American fair play he
offered a resolution to amend the constitution so that any changes
in the constitution or the Prayer Book — the change of name came in
this category — must have the favourable vote of two-thirds of the dio
ceses in both orders to pass the House of Deputies. Tremendous ex
citement greeted his speech. It was a generous proposal indeed for
one who was a leader in the move for a change which, it was generally
agreed, had good chance of prevailing by a bare majority. Some of
those advocating the change were disappointed. Most of those op
posed were greatly reassured and gratified — but not all. The proposal
was indeed generous but it was also wise and far-sighted for it looked
forward to other issues at other times. One of the things which plagues
the church is the spirit of those who are determined in one matter
or another to drive through General Convention proposals which do
not yet command, or can never command, overwhelming support.
There is often bitterness and recrimination at failure when success,
by the narrow margin which is theoretically possible (though it does
not often happen) , would produce equally unhappy results. A few
partisans, mostly extreme protestants, tried to turn the house against
Manning's proposal, Dean Grosvenor of New York finally pleading
that they should sleep on the matter and vote the next day. But it
passed almost by acclaim.

Then an unfortunate and irritating thing occurred. An assistant
secretary of the House of Deputies — one of those clerics who may be
described as holy but inadequate, if not wholly inadequate — put the
resolution on his desk where it was soon covered up with papers, in
stead of transmitting it in the usual way to the House of Bishops for
their action. Having been passed on the first full day of business it

82 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

lay buried until almost the end of the convention when the House
of Bishops declined to act on the matter because of lack of proper
time for consideration. The lower house was indignant and ap
pointed a special committee to wait on the bishops. They remained
adamant however, merely appointing a committee to consider the
matter and report at the next convention. Bishop Gailor wrote off a
note to Manning,

. . . don't be worried over the failure of the passage of that 2/3 rule. You
made your point. The whole country got the electric shock of your mag
nanimous action and churchmen everywhere are applauding it. After
consideration I am convinced that the effect upon men's minds of your
expressed desire to see fair play — to make any change in the Prayer Book
the result of a practically unanimous demand on the part of Churchmen
— is worth more just now than the passage of the amendment itself.

Your friends are all proud of you for the stand you have taken in the
Convention & the leading place accorded you, . . .

In the meantime other matters of importance in their bearing on
the question of unity were being considered. The House of Deputies
adopted a resolution authorizing the appointment by the Commis
sions on Christian Unity and Social Service of delegates to the new
Federal Council of Churches. The House of Bishops adopted a reso
lution sufficiently different to require conference. The conference
committee of the House of Deputies reported no agreement could
be reached, whereupon the house adopted the bishops' resolution. But
in the House of Bishops the report of no agreement led to the adop
tion of still a different resolution. The House of Deputies did not
concur in it and the House of Bishops took no further action. There
was a good deal of strained feeling between the two houses by the
time the convention ended due partly to the fiasco of the two-thirds
rule. The House of Deputies on the last day indicated its feeling by
adjourning without waiting to hear from the bishops that their busi
ness was completed. It was very doubtful whether the appointment
of delegates had been authorized or would be proper.

In another, and similar, matter there was less doubt. A resolution
was introduced in the House of Deputies to authorize the Board of
Missions

to take such steps as it deems wise to cooperate with other Christian
Boards of Missions in this country and elsewhere to arouse, organize,
and direct missionary spirit and activity of Christian people.

Manning had been a member of the Board of Missions since 1910.
He realized the serious and unforunate implications of such a broad

REUNION 83

and vague authorization. It could and would be interpreted in an
entirely protestant manner and so could do great harm to the whole
movement for reunion. He was never slow to catch implications and
was always arousing the ire of people who did not realize what their
proposals might, or did, involve. They would accuse him of misin
terpreting them and would take his unflinching firmness in opposi
tion to the form of their proposals as hostility toward themselves,
which it never was. He secured the amendment of the resolution and
in more moderate and limited language it passed the House of Dep
uties. But the House of Bishops turned it down entirely.

Plans for the Panama Congress proceeded. To some of those in
terested in it, it was to be a triumphant defiance of Rome in Rome's
own mission field. The nature of the preliminary publicity became
so embarrassing that Dr. John W. Wood, of our Board of Missions,
felt he should resign from the small sponsoring committee. Neverthe
less at the winter meeting of the Board of Missions in 1915 it was
proposed that the board send delegates to the congress. Question was
raised as to whether the negative vote in the House of Bishops at the
preceding General Convention did not forbid such action and the
matter was laid on the table. At the May meeting however it was
voted to send delegates, two lawyers on the board giving assurance
that the board was not bound by the action of General Convention.3
Manning was not present at this meeting but he at once made pro
test, as did various other members of the board. He based his pro
test on two points. The contemplated action would hurt the cause of
reunion since it was one-sided action, being protestant and manifestly
unfriendly to Roman Catholics. And it was in violation of the ex
pressed judgement of the House of Bishops.4

3 Various quaint arguments were advanced in the following months —

a) General Convention had set up the Board of Missions to prosecute the mis
sionary work of the church and it was the duty of the board to do just that in such
manner as it deemed wise;

b) The Board of Missions being an incorporated body in the state of New York
was responsible only to the legislature of that state [but no evidence was forth
coming as to what view the politicians at Albany took of the matter!];

c) It was not at the direction of the board that the question of cooperation had
been raised at General Convention anyhow.

4 Perhaps Manning had better have said that it was in violation of the action
of General Convention. Francis Lynde Stetson, who was in favour of membership
in the Panama Congress as well as being a member of the executive committee of
the Faith and Order Commission, maintained that while the House of Bishops had
voted negatively, the House of Deputies had voted in the affirmative and the board
was thus free to do as it saw fit, and was carrying out the expressed judgment of
the House of Deputies. But of course action has to be concurred in by both
houses to take effect. Action by one house has no legal significance.

84 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

A controversy ensued, carried on in the church papers and the
public press. In an effort to put a better face on things the authorities
arranging for the meeting took two drastic steps — the name was
changed from Panama Congress to Panama Conference and an in
vitation was issued to the Roman Catholic hierarchy to be present!
As Manning pointed out this last was like hitting a man over the
head with a club while at the same time calling upon him to keep
his temper. As objection mounted the leaders of the Board of Mis
sions increased their determination to carry through their plan. Bishop
Lloyd was so naive as to write to Manning in July

... I am certain that if I could have made you see before anything was
said aloud just what was involved, you would have been my strong sup
porter until this dayl

Manning announced that he would move at the next meeting of
the board to reconsider the action. The board met on the twenty-
sixth of October and discussion continued until long after the din
ner hour. The vote was 13 to reconsider, 26 opposed, (by a coinci
dence just two-thirds of those voting — a few members were absent)
and the Bishops of Washington, Marquette, and Fond du Lac, the
Dean of Milwaukee, and the Rector of Trinity resigned forthwith
from the board.

The Annual Convention of the Diocese of New York met three
weeks later and elected deputies to the General Convention of 1916.
Manning was defeated, this being only the second time that a pres
byter of Trinity Parish has not represented the Diocese of New York
in General Convention. Five candidates received majority votes, a re
sult perfectly possible but not common. Manning was the lowest of
the five. When the result of the ballot was announced Dr. Clendenin,
the president of the standing committee, went forward to speak, say
ing as he went that it was a sad day in the history of the diocese. The
bishop ordered him to sit down. After the meeting Dr. Clendenin pre
dicted that the day's action would result in making Manning Bishop
of New York. Later in November while Manning was conducting a
mission in Minneapolis a report appeared in a New York paper that
a prominent rector would shortly go to Rome with the hint that it
was Manning. At once he received telegrams from other papers and
one from his secretary urging him to make an immediate statement.
He telegraphed Mrs. Manning,

Mr. Browne wires about newspaper statements. He thinks some denial
should be made. I doubt if any notice should be taken of them. If you

REUNION 85

think well consult Dr. Clendenin, Dr. Gates, and any others. It is part
of the campaign of misrepresentation and should probably be ignored
but leave you and advisers to say anything you think best. William.

The responsible Roman Catholic press denounced the rumor and
it soon died.

The Board of Missions proceeded to elect seven delegates to the
Panama Conference instead of the sixteen to which it was entitled.
These were the bishops having jurisdiction in Latin America, the
president of the board, Bishop Lloyd, and the Bishop Coadjutor of
Virginia, who had been for many years a missionary in Brazil. Of
these seven Bishop Knight, who was temporarily in charge of the
missionary district of Panama,5 and Bishop Aves of Mexico refused
to attend. The conference itself was a model of deportment when
it took place, reporters being on hand to note any sensational de
velopments.

As is so often the case the net result of the Panama Conference bat
tle was harder on the victor than on the vanquished. The decision of
Bishop Lloyd to press the matter was unwise, typical of his warm
hearted but highly impractical nature. At General Convention in
1916 he was re-elected president of the Board of Missions by a ma
jority of only one vote in the House of Bishops. In 1919 the board
was absorbed into the newly created National Council and no place
was found in the organization for Bishop Lloyd.

Manning was preparing an article on "The Protestant Episcopal
Church and Christian Unity" while the Panama Conference contro
versy was going on. This was published in December, 1915, in the
Constructive Quarterly and reprinted in pamphlet form by Gorham,
running to eight editions or more and having a very wide circulation.
It represents the summing up of his thinking and work on the sub
ject of reunion thus far and is the platform on which he stood, to
further the cause in every possible way and relentlessly to oppose
misleading schemes, for the rest of his ministry.

The minds of men today are turned toward unity. They are at least
becoming convinced of the practical evils of division. And there is a
manifest longing for a unity that has outward and visible expression. . . .
It has become evident that those who preach a mere invisible unity propa
gate actual disunion. It is plain that there can be no adequate unity
among Our Lord's followers until it shall again become possible for

5 He had sent a telegram to the October meeting of the board urging that the
project of sending delegates be abandoned but it did not get read to the meeting.

86 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

them, without violation of principle or of conscience, to kneel together
at one Altar, there to eat of the One Bread and to drink of the One
Cup. And in many quarters Christians are realizing with new hope that
Our Lord Himself prayed not only for an inward and spiritual unity which
men could not see, but for a unity outwardly and visibly manifested which
should compel their attention, and which should be the proof of His
Presence among them. His prayer for His Church was, and still is, "that
they all may be one, even as Thou Father art in Me, and I in Thee,
that they also may be in Us, that the world may believe that Thou didst
send Me". . . .

There is a tendency to place disproportionate emphasis on the prac
tical advantages of unity to the obscuration of the higher considerations
involved, and so to think of it only from the utilitarian point of view.
. . . But we have not yet at all generally arrived at a realization of what
unity means. Many are disposed to accept some expedient or substitute
for it which falls far below the true ideal. If we are to work effectively
for reunion we must have the true ideal of it before us. ...

There is danger also in the increasing desire for quick results. Earnest
but impatient souls cry out that there is no need for all this talk about
the matter. If we want unity, all that we have to do is to "get together."
Let the divisions be ignored, questions of doctrine are all of them unim
portant, we should be ashamed to be kept apart by "our petty differ
ences."

These pronouncements have an engaging and pleasant sound to the
man in the street. . . . But they do not bear careful examination. They
imply the entire unimportance of Christian Truth. . . . Doubtless some
of the matters which have separated Christians are unimportant, per
haps even "petty" in themselves, but we must beware how we apply this
word to any belief which expresses a sincere conviction. Nor must we
make the kindred mistake of assuming that convictions with which we
do not agree, and which perhaps stand in the way of some plan of united
action in which we are interested, are the proof of narrowness and self-
will. . . .

There is a growing tide of sentiment in favour of Christian reunion
without much regard to Christian principles. A great number of people
seem to think that religion means little more than moral conduct and gen
eral amiability, and therefore take it for granted that union in religious
work, under any circumstances, must be right, and that any objection to
it must necessarily be wrong. . . .

In the Providence of God it would seem that the Episcopal Church, to
gether with the Churches which are included in the Anglican Commun
ion, has a special work to do toward bringing about a great synthesis in
the whole of Christendom. . . . To a singular degree she is enabled and
required by the peculiarities of her position to take into account the fac
tors on both the Catholic and Protestant sides in the West and also to

REUNION 87

realize the great place which belongs to the Ancient Eastern Orthodox
Churches, as to which until recently many of us have been so amazingly ig
norant, and which are now coming into close touch with the rest of the
Christian world.

The Episcopal Church has always been in close relation and contact
with Protestantism. Her easily misunderstood name is a curious evidence
of this. She includes, and has always included, in her fold many who
have strong Protestant tendencies and sympathies. She receives constant
accessions from the ranks of Protestantism, and some of those who enter
her communion retain much of their old point of view. She has many
interests and aims in common with Protestantism, and is brought into
frequent and valued association with its leaders and representatives. Still
more, she holds in common with orthodox Protestants many of the great
cardinal doctrines of the Christian Faith, and above all else is joined
with them in belief in Our Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour. The
life of the Episcopal Church has been much influenced by her contact
with Protestantism. . . . But her own faith and order as judged by the
standards of the undivided Church are fundementally and definitely
Catholic. Her distinctive beliefs are those which have been held and
taught by the Catholic Church throughout the world since the Apostles'
days. She has inherited these through nineteen centuries of history.

In common with all the ancient Communions everywhere, both East
and West, the Protestant Episcopal Church holds that the Church in its
outward and visible organization, as well as in its inward life, is of Di
vine institution. . . .

Again in common with all the ancient Communions, including at least
three-fourths of all Christendom, the Episcopal Church believes that when
Our Lord founded His Church in this world, He Himself appointed a
self-perpetuating Ministry, and that this Ministry has come down to the
present time through the succession of the Bishops. The Episcopal Church
holds the Catholic doctrine that a Priest, ordained by a Bishop, in direct
succession from the Apostles, is indispensably necessary for the Celebra
tion of the Holy Communion, the central and characteristic act of the
Christian Church. She pronounces no judgment as to the efficacy of sacred
ordinances otherwise administered. But she holds herself bound wholly to
the ancient ways which she believes to be of God's own appointment. That
this is the belief of the Episcopal Church is made unmistakably clear in
the Preface of her Ordinal . . . and that which she declares in word she
carries out in her acts. That she herself holds her doctrine of the Priest
hood to be Catholic is sufficiently demonstrated by one simple fact. A
Priest of the Roman Catholic Church, of the Holy Orthodox Eastern
Church, or of any Catholic Communion, coming into her fold, is not re-
ordained, while on the other hand, no Minister of any Protestant Com
munion, however great his attainments, or holy his life, can under any
circumstances be admitted to the Ministry of the Episcopal Church, and

PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

allowed to celebrate the Holy Communion, without ordination to the
Priesthood, at the hands of a Bishop. The doctrine of the Priesthood in
the Episcopal Church is not, as is sometimes supposed by those not fa
miliar with her teachings, a mere opinion or view held only by the "High
Church party." It is a matter of the Church's own most distinct and es
sential teaching, as appears in her authoritative formularies. . . . This
decline of the Priesthood and the Sacraments stands for, and is the out
ward expression of, that which is most fundamental of all things in the
Christian Religion. It stands for the true "givenness" of all that comes to
us in Christ, for the present operation of Divine grace on the souls of
men, for the reality of the supernatural. ... In her doctrine of the
Church and the Priesthood, the Anglican Communion aligns herself with
Catholic Christendom, and it is this fact which makes it impossible for
the Episcopal Church, without surrender of fundamental principle, to
identify herself with the present movement for Protestant Federation in
America or to enter into United Protestant work in the Mission fields or
elsewhere. ... If the movement for Protestant Federation related only
to forms of civic and social endeavour, it would present no difficulty.
But its work is not limited to this sphere. Its prospectus states clearly
and specifically that its purpose includes union in religious work.

Its aim is to combine the Protestant Churches and to bring about as
far as this is possible a "United Protestantism."

But it is clear that no Communion which holds the ancient doctrine
of the Ministry and Sacraments can, without surrender of faith, commit
itself to the Federation Movement.

The Episcopal Church can not rightly be expected to enter into Fed
erated union in religious work on a platform which presupposes and as
sumes that the doctrine which she holds as to the Church, the Priesthood
and the Sacraments is not only unessential but untrue.

There are many ways in which Catholics, Protestants, Jews and all
others can unite and co-operate to their own benefit, and to the great
advantage of the community. But plainly they can not, without sacrifice
of conviction, unite in the ministration and propagation of the Chris
tian religion.

Before there can be union in religious work, there must be agreement
as to the essentials of faith. Without this an outward reunion would not
be a manifestation of unity. It would probably be a manifestation of the
view that belief is of no importance, and of an absence of any definite
faith whatever. . . .

Whatever the difficulties and obstacles, whether the prospect is en
couraging or discouraging, the ideal of the Episcopal Church must for
ever be the ultimate reunion of all Christendom.

In all her prayers and plans and efforts, she must have this ideal ever
in view. All that she undertakes must be in conformity with this final
aim. She can not even entertain the suggestion that because such reunion
seems far off she may cease to believe in it and strive for it.

REUNION 89

She must welcome any and every step which makes truly in this direc
tion but she must try every proposed measure by the touchstone of this
her abiding faith and hope.

She can do nothing for the sake of a seeming temporary gain which
would weaken her central position, or lessen her power to help towards
the realization of this ultimate ideal, because she believes that this, and
this alone, is in accordance with the prayer and the purpose of the
Church's Divine Head. . . .

To some this method may seem a slow one. But in efforts toward
Christian reunion there can be no place for haste or impatience. God
alone is able to bring this to pass and He awaits our readiness to yield
ourselves to His Will and to the guidance of His Spirit. The fact that
this method is slow is perhaps one of its chief recommendations. We
must not try to run ahead of grace. . . .

We hope that when the time comes, the Episcopal Church will be
found ready, for the sake of reunion, to concede everything that can
rightly be conceded. But she can not concede anything believed by her
to be a matter of principle or an essential part of God's revelation of
Truth, nor would she desire to see any other Communion do so. We should
no more think it right that others should do this than that we should
do it ourselves. . . .

In the Trinity Parish Year Book for 1915 he made his full report
for the record of his objections to the action of the Board of Mis
sions with the following summary,

1. In the judgment of a great number of the Bishops, Clergy, and
Laity of the Church, this action of the Board was not in accordance with
the principles of the Church as set forth in the Prayer Book.

2. The authority of the Board to take action committing this Church
to participation in the Panama Congress was at least doubtful, and, there
fore, the action should not have been insisted upon.

3. In taking this action the Board in the judgment of a large part
of the Church exceeded its powers and disregarded the will of the Church
as expressed by the action of the last General Convention.

4. This action of the Board was partisan in character, and was there
fore wrong, both in principle and in policy. The Board should repre
sent the whole Church, not a part of the Church.

5. This Congress, carefully as its utterance was restrained, repre
sented a demonstration by one part of the Christian world against an
other part of the Christian world, and the action of our Board in com
mitting us officially to participation in the movement was contrary to
the principles of Christian Unity in its large and true and world-wide
aspect.

6. This action of the Board was certain to create division in our own
ranks, and seriously to weaken the united spirit in regard to our Mis-

90 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

sionary work, which had been secured by adherence to a non-partisan
policy.

He concluded with a challenge carefully calculated to win the sup
port of evangelicals, of whom Bishop Lloyd was one. The controversy
had done good.

It has made clear the fact that the clergy and people of this Church as a
whole are loyal to her principles, that they will not sit still and see her
historic position impaired, nor her Faith and Order compromised by any
plan to identify her officially with the platform of Protestant Federa
tion. . . .

The real issue is the watering down of the Christian religion, the
facts of the Apostles Creed.

The question today is, Do we believe that Jesus Christ is God?

In 1917 and 1918 there was talk of sending abroad the delegations
which had been interrupted by the war. Manning decided that he
would not be able to go on any of these. In March, 1919, he was one
of the signatories of the Congregational Concordat, a proposal for
the episcopal ordination, under various safeguards, of a minister who
so desires,

without giving up or denying his fellowship or his ministry in the Com
munion to which he belongs.

The Concordat caused much discussion. Its proponents had high
hopes for the results to come from it. Manning, always attacked by
someone, was now under fire from other quarters than the usual ones
because of his support of it. A canon giving effect to the proposals was
adopted that autumn at Detroit but it had almost no result one way
or another. In 1961, again at Detroit, it was repealed. In May Man
ning delivered the Bedell Lectures at Kenyon College, published as
The Call to Unity and already referred to.

He began to plan with Gardiner for our representation to the pre
liminary meeting of the World Conference in Geneva in the sum
mer of 1920. He decided with regret that he could not go but writes
to Gardiner in April, 1920, that Bishop Brent is going, "so that we
shall be well represented." The Geneva meeting elected him to the
"continuation" committee and when, in 1922, the Bishop of Chicago
resigned as president of our commission Manning proposed Brent
for the office but was himself elected and continued in this position
until his resignation as Bishop of New York in 1946,

CHAPTER SEVEN

WAR

A

-^:LAI<

IONG Manning's papers is a black notebook in which he scribbled
various notes for sermons and addresses, reminders as to routine
duties, and other miscellaneous material while he was a chaplain at
Camp Upton in 1918. In it is this note.

I have had a good many experiences — but never one like this — It has done
me more good than anything that ever happened to me.

This can well be said to apply not only to his chaplaincy but to his
whole part in the life of the city, and in a certain sense of the country,
during the First World War. His share in the war effort, both before
and after our entry into the conflict, did much for the development
of the man himself and for his establishment as an important leader
of thought. The hard, gruelling work of his chaplaincy drew out the
best in him and helped him to make easier contact with all sorts and
conditions of people. When Manning became rector he succeeded to
an office which his predecessor had made important; by the end of
the war it was the man himself who was regarded as much as the
office.

Manning is remembered for his consistent advocacy of military
preparedness, for his insistence from the beginning that our part lay
with the Allies and that neutrality was neither possible nor right. He
is sometimes described as a rabble rouser. It is therefore useful to
note the tone of his first sermon in Trinity Church after the out
break of the war. This was preached on 4 October, 1914.

We are not here in this place to pass any judgement, to express any view
as to the measure of responsibility resting upon those who are involved

91

92 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

in this strife, however deep our convictions may be, and I think should
be, in this matter. We are here to confess our own sins, to stand in
penitence and humility before God, to pray for all alike that God will
bring good to the world out of this evil, and that these terrible sacrifices
may end as speedily as may be possible in the establishment of just and
lasting peace. . . . We have heard the words of statesmen and diplomats,
of kings and emperors, of scientists and philosophers, but what is God's
word about it? There are three things that God is telling us unmistakably
through this war.

First. He is showing us as men have never seen it before the madness,
the horrible unmeasured wickedness of war. He is making us see that
war is never of his ordering, that it is never according to his will, that
it is always the result of human folly and selfishness and sin. It is true
that under present conditions it is sometimes necessary and right for a
nation to fight in its own defense or in defense of others, but this only
shows that the conditions are wrong and that they ought no longer to be
tolerated.

Second. God is showing us that such strife as this is as needless as it is
wicked. He is making us see at last that the conditions which make such
war possible are in our own hands. He is forcing us all to see that it is
possible for us to put an end to these conditions, and therefore that it is
our bounden duty to put an end to them. . . .

Third. Through these fearful events God is showing us once again
the need of true religion in the world. Men are asking in this crisis if
Christianity has failed. The question may be natural, but it is not a very
wise one. Christianity has not failed, but we have failed to be Chris
tians. . . . This war shows us that the religion of Jesus Christ is the
one hope of the world. Christianity is the one thing that has not failed.
Great armies and battleships have failed. These certainly have not served
to maintain the world's peace. ... It is our duty at this hour to keep
our faith in Christ strong and clear — to hold out constant hands of
hope and help, and when the time comes for such action to be ready to
lend our whole strength as a nation and as individuals to the support of
every well considered measure for the abatement and removal of the
curse of war and the preservation and maintenance of peace.

This point of view did not change. He continued to say the same
kind of thing, and the sermon is also typical of his preaching during
the Second World War. In the Trinity Year Book for 1914 he drives
home a similar point.

We had begun to imagine, some of us, that God's help was no longer
necessary, and that we could save the world by our own plans and de
vices. We were in danger of imagining that our Hague Conferences and
Arbitration Treaties were sufficient to bring universal peace, and that

WAR 93

we could make men and women all that they ought to be by education
and culture without religion.

But he was among the first to reach the conviction that President
Wilson's policy of maintaining a strict neutrality which would allow
this country to take the chief place in constructing the peace after the
war was impractical and indeed wrong. He quickly became known as
a leader in the opposition and, since his voice was clear and persua
sive in contradicting the assumption that religion and pacifism go
hand in hand and that the church looks with distaste on all matters
military, he was in great demand to speak and to preside at meetings
and was eagerly followed by the growing number who felt that we
must inevitably take our active part in the war and wished to hasten
the day when we would do so.

One of the matters on which there was strong difference was that
of military preparedness. Even among those who supported the presi
dent's neutrality policy, and quite irrespective of political party,
there were those who considered it important that military training be
greatly increased and who denied entirely that preparedness and
neutrality were inconsistent. In March, 1916, a conference of mayors
on national defense was held in Saint Louis. John Purroy Mitchel, the
Mayor of New York, was one of those who organized the meeting.
He was urgent in his request that Manning come to speak so as to
demonstrate that the pulpit could be counted on, in some cases at
least, to help in the important responsibility of preparing people
for what might lie ahead. This Manning did with telling effect upon
public opinion and upon his fellow clergy.

A minister of religion is supposed to be a man of peace. I am a man of
peace and therefore I have thought it worth while to speak in favor of
preparedness. . . . We do not want preparedness for war, we want pre
paredness against war, and I am here to speak of preparedness from the
Christian standpoint. . . .

Jesus Christ does not stand for peace at any price. He stands for
righteousness at any cost. And He proved this by going to His death on
the Cross.

This last statement became Manning's watchword on the subject, like
Hobart's "Evangelical Truth and Apostolic Order," or Saint John's
"Little children, love one another." He repeated it in almost the
identical words often, not only during the First World War but
during the Second, and when he spoke against the pacifism which
became so pronounced in between the two wars. It summed up his

94 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

teaching and he had no hesitation in repeating himself. The effect
at Saint Louis was electric as it usually was afterward.

In October he preached in Saint Paul's Chapel sternly calling upon
the president to take a firmer stand. The occasion was the 150th an
niversary of Saint Paul's. Much was made of the fact that George
Washington came to Saint Paul's Chapel, serving for the time being
as the parish church because Trinity had burned down, for a service
to complete the solemnity of his inauguration as the first president. An
invitation was sent to Wilson to be present in the pew often occu
pied by Washington. He designated Colonel House to represent him,
but the latter pleaded illness when the day came and did not attend.
The sermon was directed bluntly to the matter of the war and our
relation to it.

In this hour of the world's emergency, we have perhaps been neutral, but
we have not been great. ... As I look back over these two fateful years
... I cannot feel that we have risen to the measure of our opportunity
and of our just responsibility. ... I fear that partly as a result of our
coldness to the great issues in this world struggle, we have suffered some
real weakening and loss of our national spirit. I fear that there is today
among us a perceptible lowering of our national tone and lessening of our
moral power. . . . We need in every part of our land, and among all
classes of our people, a great reawakening of our sense of the respon
sibility which rests on us as citizens, ... I advocate Universal Training
because of its military effectiveness, . . . because it is the only Military
system that is truly democratic . . . because it will weld our nation
together and help to make of our many races one united people ... be
cause of its moral and spiritual value. It will give us needed discipline. . . .
We need among our people a great renewal of the spirit of true re
ligion. Religion is the only firm foundation for national life. . . .

The lines were sharply drawn by now and the sermon received thunder
ous approval from the one side, while there were those who were out
spoken in their disapproval of what was said, and of its being said
in church, in the name of religion.

In December there was a mass meeting in Carnegie Hall to protest
against the German treatment of Belgium. Elihu Root made the prin
cipal address and Manning presided. At similar meetings, in ser
mons and addresses, he continued to take a lead among those who
were determined that the country should take its part in the war. It
is interesting to note that in December, 1916, Manning and Harry
Emerson Fosdick were both among fifty prominent clergy and others
who signed a "Plea for a Lasting Peace," in which they

WAR 95

view with some concern the organized and deliberate efforts now being
made to stampede Christian sentiment as to create a public opinion
blindly favorable to stopping hostilities without adequate consideration
of the issues which the war involves.

In the period between the two wars their views on these subjects
were diametrically opposed, Fosdick being one of the leaders of an
aggressive and extreme pacifist movement, which Manning with as
much determination denounced. He engaged in a definite, but pri
vate and friendly, controversy on the matter with his ally, Frederic
Cook Morehouse. The latter lived in Milwaukee and was influenced
by the pro-German sentiment there.

On 3 February, 1917, Wilson broke relations with Germany and
Manning preached the next day in a strongly irenic tone toward those
who had been in opposition to one another on the great issues. We
are not

divided by racial antecedents, political affiliations, varying views and as
pirations. Today we are all of us Americans, without disfiguring adjec
tives, or divided interests. ... If it should come to actual warfare there
will be no more loyal Americans than our fellow citizens of German
antecedents, whose natural feeling for their fatherland we ought to re
spect and honor.

Official delegations from the allied countries, with whom we were
now drawing into closer relation, began to come and formal com
mittees of welcome were frequently being appointed by the Mayor
of New York. Manning was always on these. He served also on the
important Food Conservation Committee of Herbert Hoover. In the
autumn of 1917 Manning did not hesitate to call from the pulpit
for the defeat of Tammany corruption by the reelection of Mitchel.
Hylan was elected and Manning steadfastly refused all contact with
him.

In December, 1917, Manning was given leave of absence by the
vestry and went to Camp Upton at Yaphank, on eastern Long Island,
to take up duty as a temporary volunteer chaplain to the 302nd En
gineers. Once the break with Germany was made the preparations for
war proceeded apace but with a good deal of disorder due to the
fact that insufficient plans had been made by authority even when
there was not positive determination not to make plans. The chap
lain service was one of many things which were neglected. The church
formed a commission under the presidency of Bishop William Law
rence of Massachusetts to meet the need by supporting volunteer

96 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

chaplains and the Army and Navy agreed to accept their services in
the training camps. Manning at once went into this work and entered
upon a period of feverish activity. The camp was still in the process
of organization and everything had to be planned and prepared from
the beginning. It was a full time job in itself. But the leave of ab
sence did not mean much. He was at his office practically every week
if only for a few hours; he came often to special services at Trinity,
sometimes to preach; and he continued to appear at public functions
almost as much as before. He visited other camps and went from time
to time to Washington on official business. He was still a young
man, being 51, but only a phenomenal stamina and vitality could
have carried the load he did during the last year of the war; and it is
amazing that he was not burned out by it. The work at the camp
was pure joy to him. He made his way at once with officers and men.
The commanding officer, who at the outset looked with disfavour upon
the intrusion of a volunteer, came to have such confidence in him that
he treated him as though he were in fact, which he was not, in charge
of all the chaplains in the camp.1 The simple directness of his ap
proach to the pastoral office is shown by a note in the black book.

Young Russian Jew — Joseph Wertheim, of Co. A. came to my quarters —
said "I am of different religion but perhaps you will help me. I want
to keep the anniversary of my father's death as our religion requires.
My brother has been killed in Russian Army & I am the only son who
can do this. I must be at the Synagogue at 6:30 tomorrow morning and
keep the day as a fast — but the Captain will not let me go. He does not
understand. He thinks I want a holiday." The poor boy broke down
and wept but showed no bitterness at all. I told him that I would see
Captain Per Lee and explain to him, and do my best to get him a pass,
but that if the Captain should feel it could not be granted he would
have done his best and must not feel that he was doing wrong — & must
say his prayers & keep his fast here. This seemed to comfort him some
what. I went over at once to see the Captain & explained it to him, and
he immediately wrote out the pass and sent it to Wertheim.

Perhaps the notable thing in the account is the chaplain's prepara
tion of the boy for a refusal before he made the request on his behalf.
In February, 1918, a parade was planned for New York City to show
the newly trained soldiers from Camp Upton just before they went
overseas. This was to take place on a Sunday and ran into the oppo
sition of the New York Sabbath Committee, which succeeded in get-

1 The attitude of the chaplains toward him is illustrated on p. 105.

WAR 97

ting the event postponed to the next day. With obvious relish Man
ning delivered a stinging rebuke to the puritanism of the committee.
But the following month he supported puritanism in another form
by protesting against the appearance of Dr. Karl Muck, a German,
with the Boston Symphony Orchestra in Carnegie Hall. He spoke,
with Rabbi Silverman, at the appeal for the New York Catholic War
Fund, presided over by Cardinal Farley, on the evening of Saint Pat
rick's Day. And a few months later he marched in uniform with fifty
war chaplains, Manning being the only one not a Roman Catholic,
in the cardinal's funeral procession. Farley was a notable figure in the
life of the city. Manning admired him and counted himself a friend.
The occasion was appropriate for the expression of good will which
his formal participation indicated. It is difficult to imagine an action
which shows such entire disregard, not to say contempt, for the con
sequences to his own reputation and future career. When the Home
Association of the 302nd Engineers was formed after the departure
of the regiment to France, Manning was made chairman and so re
mained until June, 1919.

The work of a chaplain covers many aspects. At a meeting of the
trustees of Sailors' Snug Harbour one day a member asked Manning
if he would show Miss Maude Adams, the actress, something of the
camp if she came for a visit. He did his part so well that she arranged
to return for the month of August, working in the canteen and giv
ing performances for the camp. Through his friends in the city he
arranged for a visit by the Glee Club of the New York Police De
partment to entertain the camp with a concert. Great preparations
were made for a parade, led by a fife and drum corps, to march the
policemen around the camp after feeding them, and to round up
everyone for the concert at 2 o'clock. Just as the chaplain was about
to go to service in the morning word came that the cars to transport
the glee club had failed to appear in New York. Everything then got
disarranged. A substitute concert was put on at 2 and Manning asked
everyone to come back at 4:15. Fearful that there might be a slim at
tendance he arranged for his own battalion to be marched in forma
tion to the concert. The hour arrived, the hall was so packed that it
was difficult to get the battalion in. The police had still not arrived so
the fife and drum corps played, very loud. Volunteers were put up to
hold the crowd. It is not recorded that the chaplain did a turn him
self but he was obviously very busy back stage. It came time for re
treat and word was given that all in the hall would be excused from
the formation (loud cheers) . Well after 5 the cops arrived. Thunder-

98 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

ous applause, great enthusiasm, concert continuing until 6:30, end
ing with a late supper for the police and the battalion. Manning
closes his account to Mrs. Manning, "Some Sunday."

Probably the most notable event arranged by Manning during the
war was the visit of the Archbishop of York, Cosmo Gordon Lang.
The plan to bring him over originated with Manning and Trinity
Parish bore the main part of the expense. He arrived in March, 1918,
and was in this country and Canada for more than a month. He
preached at Trinity Church, addressed a mass meeting in Carnegie
Hall, spoke at Camp Upton, and preached again at Trinity on Good
Friday. The trip was eminently successful and both the archbishop
and Bishop Lawrence, of the War Commission, were outspoken in
their thanks to Manning for having made it possible.

In March Manning writes to Mrs. Manning to ask how she would
feel about his going abroad with the regiment. In April the vestry
passed a solemn resolution that the rector cannot be spared to go out
of the country. Manning nevertheless kept toying with the idea of
asking for a commission, perhaps for six months, and going to
France. In June he wonders whether he should retire from the camp
and return to the parish but it was only a passing thought for in
July he receives a letter from David Ogden, one of the vestry, say
ing that Ogden feels there is no reason why he should not continue
at the camp in the autumn. In August word comes that the volun
teer chaplaincies are to be abolished at the end of October and Man
ning returned to the parish just before the armistice. In August he
preached at Trinity on the fourth anniversary of Britain's entry into
the war. Quoting President Wilson's words, he made the same dis
tinction between the German people and their rulers.

Until the Prussian Military power is broken there can be no peace.

And he looks forward to the forming of "a league and brotherhood
of nations" after the war to maintain peace. Three months later, after
the armistice, in his Thanksgiving Day sermon he advocates the con
tinuance of universal military training not only for its military, but
for its moral and spiritual value; and he points out the peril of bol-
shevism, the equal to that of the Prussian militarism just defeated.

Manning had been close to Mayor Mitchel and served on many of
the civic ceremonial committees during his time. He avoided even
formal contact with Mayor Hylan and in January, 1919, publicly
refused to serve on the mayor's Committee of Welcome to the re
turning troops because William Randolph Hearst had been ap-

WAR 99

pointed. Hearst had been throughout the war notoriously pro-Ger
man, but Hylan was politically beholden to him and a place on the
committee was desirable to whitewash a besmirched reputation. Man
ning denounced Hearst in scathing and explicit terms and assisted in
forming an independent Citizens' Committee of Welcome, which
held a meeting in Madison Square Garden. In March Manning re
ceived the Legion of Honour from France. Bishop Burch wrote a let
ter of congratulation which serves as a fitting summary of Manning's
work and position during the war.2

Pray accept my wannest congratulations on the high honor conferred
upon you by brave, loyal grateful France, an honor splendidly won and
thoroughly deserved, your modest disclaimer of merit to the contrary not
withstanding.

No country engaged in contending for the Allied cause could honor
too highly one who, thank God, spoke out fearlessly and in no uncertain
way from the hour when all true Americans should have spoken.

I am grateful that your voice carried farther and farther during the
trying years — yes, I am grateful that you did not allow convention or
tradition or anything but the tremendous pressure of God's high cause
to influence you. In a word I am thankful you were not hobbled or de
limited by any one or any persuasion save truth and righteousness and a
threatened world's freedom.

In 1946 the French Government awarded him a higher grade of the
legion, that of Grand Officer.

As a sort of postscript it is worth noting an egregious mistake
which Manning made after the war. In June, 1919, he received an
honorary degree at Princeton and was called upon to make the
principal address at the alumni luncheon which followed the cere
mony. In this address he sternly attacked Wilson's war record.

The First World War did not by any means accomplish the high
hopes which many had for it. The world was not made safe for
democracy or anything else in particular. An extreme revulsion of
feeling set in and many who had preached the crusade of the war
made open confession of sin and proposed amendment of life by
embracing pacifism. Harry Emerson Fosdick was the typical ex
ponent of this position, which was that of a great deal of American

2 It was Manning who nominated Burch as suffragan in 1911. Burch was now
soon to be elected bishop on the death of Bishop Greer, defeating Manning, Slattery,
and Stires in the election. Manning presented Burch 's name to the House of Deputies
in September for confirmation as Bishop of New York; and was elected to succeed
Burch when he died suddenly fifteen months later.

100 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

protestantism. Manning was as much disillusioned and disappointed
as any but he remained faithful to his original watchword, "not peace
at any price, but righteousness at any cost." As occasion seemed to
demand he preached against the pacifist position.3 As the Second
World War began to draw nearer his preaching followed the same
pattern as in 1914. In 1935 the war in Ethiopia began and on 6 Oc
tober he preached in the cathedral on the subject.

As one of the Family of Nations we cannot escape our share of the moral
and spiritual effects of the war. . . . And if this outbreak should lead
to a European Crisis, which God forbid, we shall inevitably become in
volved.

He gave four things to do to promote peace.

1. Not allow ourselves to become discouraged. . . .

2. Face the economic causes of War. . . .

3. Give our full, active, co-operation and support to all wise efforts
and Movements for the establishing and upholding of World Peace. . . .

4. Not be guided by mere emotionalism. . . . We must face the hard
facts.

He took the occasion of a military church parade at Governor's Is
land in 1937, in celebration of the three hundredth anniversary of its
purchase, to preach in similar manner. And again in October, 1939,
as the war began he preached to bring people to face the facts. As
against the misleading of the pacifists he points out that

earnest, lifelong, pacifists like Thomas Mann and Lord Robert Cecil
have found themselves compelled to revise their judgments in the face
of this present world situation. ... It is useless to pretend that we as a
Nation have nothing to do with this conflict. . . . We cannot hold that
all the Nations engaged in this War are equally responsible for it. ...
The issue in this conflict is between Totalitarianism . . . and Democracy.
. . . No Christian, and no true American, can be neutral in judgment
between the things for which Totalitarianism stands and the things for
which Democracy stands. . . . We must pray for the German people and
for the Russian people who are being so tragically misguided and misled.

At the annual dinner of the Church Club in February, 1942, two
months after Pearl Harbor, the bishop and the British Ambassador,
Lord Halifax, made the two addresses. They furnish an interesting,
even amusing, contrast. It was the bishop who spoke earnestly, mili-
tantly, of the call to our people to give their full support to the

3 See pp. 180 ft.

WAR 101

struggle; while the ambassador spoke — in "a very able and moving
address" the bishop noted in his diary — of the spiritual and philosophi
cal problems for the Christian involved in the conflict. The statesman
preached the sermon; the bishop gave the call to arms. In August,
1943, he says in his diary

Anniversary of Britain's entry into World War I. This time a just and last
ing peace must be established and maintained under the leadership of
America and Britain, with America taking its part, which we failed to do
after the last War.

Among his papers is a pencilled note which dates from the time of
the Second World War or later. It sums up his teaching all through
his ministry.

Tolerance is today one of the most misused words in the language. As ordi
narily used, it implies either too little or too much. When used with
regard to our fellow citizens it implies too little — A country in wh. people
merely tolerate each other falls far below the Xian standard of life. When
used with regard to the evil-minded & the wrong-doers it implies too
much. The Xian Religion calls upon us to "hold fast to that wh. is good
& to abhor that wh. is evil." And we cannot sincerely do either of these
two without doing both. God Himself is (utterly) Love, & because He
is Love He hates iniquity — (see Hebert) — the sin of pacifism is that it
tolerates evil & wrong doing for the sake of peace, as we have seen in
two World Wars, 8c in doing so loses the peace that it seeks.

The bishop strongly opposed the exemption of theological students
from military service in time of war for the harm that it did to their
profession in the eyes of their fellows by setting them in a class
apart. He specifically repudiated the

implication that a theological student is automatically a conscientious
objector.

There was no longer opportunity or need for work as a war chap
lain but in the summer of 1942, the first after our entry into the
war, the bishop took no holiday, remaining at the cathedral to give
a special series of sermons in July and making routine visitations in
August. He was thus continuously at work, with no intermission of
any sort, from September, 1941, to July, 1943, no mean accomplish
ment for a man past 75 years of age.

CHAPTER EIGHT

TENTH BISHOP

AND
TENTH RECTOR

T,

HE CONVENTION of the Diocese of New York gathered for the sec
ond time in eighteen months to elect a bishop on the morrow of Saint
Paul's Day, 26 January, 1921. Once again leading names on the bal
lot were Stires, Slattery, and Manning, but this time there was real
question, as there was not in September, 1919, as to who might be
chosen. Since the office of suffragan bishop in this country was created
in 1910 it has been almost the unwritten rule that if there be a suff
ragan in the diocese he is chosen bishop. The vehemence with which
this is denied and the small number of exceptions, together with the
extraordinary circumstances surrounding some of these exceptions,
only emphasize the rule. While perhaps not many of the voters real
ized it at the time Bishop Burch's election was a foregone conclusion.
But in 1921 the field was quite open. All three men had strong sup
port; all had opposition, though in this Manning undoubtedly had the
lion's share. This was because of the qualities and character for which
he was elected. When the Rector of Trinity went to the contest that
winter morning he did so with definite reluctance. The opposition to
him was vehement even if unimportant. Percy Stickney Grant preached
a sermon against his election. William Randolph Hearst welcomed
the opportunity to get revenge for the rebuke Manning had adminis
tered to him after the war by denouncing him in an editorial and
having his papers thrust upon the delegates as they entered the Synod
House. As Bishop Greer had pointed out in 1908, the office of Rector
of Trinity was still a more important one, more comfortable to occupy,
with greater influence, and with the satisfaction of more positive and
important results. The election represented a very real contest and
promised unpleasantness.

102

TENTH BISHOP AND TENTH RECTOR 103

Dr. Stires and Dr. Slattery disappeared from the floor during most
of the day but Dr. Manning sat with the Trinity delegation next his
old opponent and friend, Mr. Cammann, the senior warden. Several
of those who wrote to congratulate him commented on the fact, not
ably the staunch old liberal, Harry Pierce Nichols, who presided at
the convention and who wrote a warm letter of welcome before he
went to bed that night.

... I was glad you sat through it all, modest and quiet, but as a member
of the convention in your place. It struck me as the thing to do, in a
somewhat difficult alternative.

I confess to you that in time past, perhaps even at the election of
1919, I should have felt the election of Dr. Manning to be a misfor
tune. With many of my brethren I have come to think differently. . . .
[I am] one who believes in your ability and has grown to admire your
method.

Manning was nominated by Edmund L. Baylies and seconded by the
Rector of Saint Michael's, Dr. Peters, the old troublemaker of the
Saint John's Chapel controversy. He had canvassed some of the clergy
by a letter shortly before the convention in which he stressed the impor
tance of Manning's wise and able leadership in the reunion move
ment, though he wrote he had not expected much at the inauguration
of the movement in 1910. Dr. Leigh ton Parks of Saint Bartholomew's
tried to answer this in his nominating speech for Dr. Stires by pointing
out that Manning would repudiate pan-protestantism as the goal of
reunion. Dr. Peters made the most of the effect of the Hearst editorial
by reading it in full. Manning led on each ballot. After the second
ballot Stires' name was withdrawn in an effort to stop Manning with
Slattery, but on the third ballot he was elected. This time there was
no question about his accepting. He did so immediately, from the plat
form. The office of Bishop of New York did not have in 1921 the im
portance which Manning gave to it in his twenty-five years but as the
summons of Dr. Dix in 1904 was mandatory, so now was that of the
diocese. It was not that Manning had worked to be bishop but that
his work had brought conviction to the electors that he was the right
choice.

A flood of congratulatory letters came to him, from beyond the
diocese and the church as well as from within. The quality the writers
referred to was Manning's ability for leadership, shown by his work
in the reunion movement, by the position he had taken in the war,
both as a moulder of opinion in the city and the country, and as a
pastor in the chaplain's office at Upton, as well as by his administration

104 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

of Trinity Parish. Of course many expressed delight at the conven
tion's treatment of Hearst; and Roman Catholics wrote of the respect
in which Manning was held by them. Several bishops — and others —
wrote of their satisfaction that a strong hand was now to be on the
helm of the chief diocese of the country. The Bishop of Oregon, Dr.
Sumner, wrote,

... A Bishop's life is bound to be a stormy one from "behind the scenes."
I have no doubt yours will be quite up to the standard! I am sorry you
have to start off with "Grant," but I do hope you will bring him to time.
You have no idea what the effect would be on the entire American
Church, for nearly every Diocese has its "Grant," and they glory in his
defiance and feel safe because the greatest of them all can escape, and,
therefore, they have little to fear. His eradication would do more to
strengthen the power of the church than anything that has been done
in many years, for it would establish a precedent and put fear in the
hearts of his satellites. . . .

The Bishop of Bethlehem, Dr. Talbot, later presiding bishop, wrote of

. . . what a great sense of relief that event brought me. I am sure there are
very many of us Bishops who feel that in God's Providence at this time,
there is great need in that Metropolitan Diocese, of a leadership, such
as you can give. Without any disparagement to anyone else I cannot but
feel that New York needs at this time a strong, masterful Catholic church
man, who can comprehend the issues now pending, and can, with a wise
but kindly Christian statesmanship grapple with them. . . .

The Bishop of Vermont, Dr. Hall, wrote,

... I would rather you had the exceedingly difficult task than any of the
others proposed. But it is a hard and difficult task. . . . You will be large
hearted, but I trust you will not continue the disastrous policy of drift
that (as Dr. Parks recognizes!) has led to chaos. . . .

Stephen Baker, a leading layman of the diocese, wrote,

... I feel that the work of the church in this Diocese has been "slumping"
during the last few years, and that what we needed for our Bishop was a
man of strong hand, steadfast faith and courage, and broad and sympa
thetic understanding. . . .

... I believe the Diocese has selected one who will meet all these is
sues with broadmindedness, and with charity to all.

Judge Morgan O'Brian, formerly of the New York Supreme Court,
a Roman Catholic, wrote

. . . Differing as we do in Religion you will not think me insincere when
I tell you how those who believe in & love Religion were delighted with

TENTH BISHOP AND TENTH RECTOR 105

your selection. It is a post of great dignity & great responsibility and
with your broad Catholic sentiments & experiences & zeal not only the
members of your own Church but the friends of Religion in our great
Centre have abiding faith in the good results that will flow under your
administration and discharge of a great trust.1

And a Presbyterian minister who had been a chaplain at Camp Upton
wrote,

. . . When I first heard that you were coming down there I was a bit
dubious, for I thought that a man of your experience and prominence
might not fit in very comfortably with the group of younger men who
were already there as regular chaplains. But I want to say to you now
what I never had a good opportunity to say before, that from the mo
ment you first came into our group it was a delight to have you there
working with us. I admired more than I can say your patience with our
inexperience, your restraint in keeping in the background in our dis
cussions, your kindly vision in helping us with the problems which arose,
and the warm Christian friendliness which all through those months made
you one with us. ...

I am glad beyond measure that you are to be the next Bishop of New
York, not simply because of the honor to yourself, but because I shall
be glad to feel that a man of your breadth and sympathy and strength
is to be at the head of the diocese. . . .

Frederic R. Coudert, a distinguished Roman Catholic lawyer of the
city, wrote,

It was with very real emotion that I read this morning of your election.
It is so rare that a man of great courage can be popularly chosen to a
great position that one is really stirred when it happens, and feels that
only a critical situation can bring about such a result. You are not only
admired for the enemies you have made, because they merely served to
point out that you have stood fearlessly for the right; but as an American
citizen interested in all that helps our nation I feel that your election to
a position of great public dignity and responsibility must be fraught
with great good to our country in times of peculiar difficulty calling for

i At the conclusion of the funeral of Cardinal Farley in 1918, where Manning
marched with the war chaplains in uniform — all but he Roman Catholics — Judge
O'Brian asked him to come to the late cardinal's house for coffee. Manning ac
cepted, saying that he had caught a very early train from Washington and had
had no breakfast. The judge commented with admiration on this and added,
"but you know there are many of us who would go even further to attend your
funeral." In after years the bishop always teased the judge, when he met him,
to declare in what sense he had meant this but got only that it had been said "in
the right sense."

106 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

constructive imagination, tempered by sound judgment and sympathetic
personality.

Frederick James Gregg of the Evening Telegram wrote,

... to tell you that the selection has been received by all sorts and con
ditions of newspaper men with sincere pleasure. I find that there is a
conviction everywhere in my trade that the next Bishop of New York will
promote not only the welfare of the Church, but the dignity of New
York. . . .

Dr. Mann, who had beaten Manning in the 1913 election of president
of the House of Deputies of General Convention, wrote from Boston,

... If the new bishop of New York can win back for that diocese some
thing of its old-time corporate unity and loyalty, he will render a notable
service to the whole Church. It is just that consciousness of the common
life and common responsibility which have seemed to some of us who
are outside New York to have been lacking in the life of the diocese in
late years. The task will be great, but the prize will be glorious! . . .

The Southern Churchman commented at length on the election in an
editorial.

The interest of the whole Church last week was centered on the elec
tion in the Diocese of New York. The Bishop of New York has more
than local importance. Because he can be the spokesman for this Church
of ours in the greatest city of the world, he becomes in some sense the
representative of us all. What he achieves or fails to achieve, what he
speaks of prophetic truth or futile commonplace, inevitably affects the
estimation in which this Church is held in all the land and subtly affects
our estimate of ourselves.

The Southern Churchman has sometimes profoundly disagreed with
Dr. Manning. It deplored his attitude of opposition to the share which
our Church had in the Panama Conference. It has believed that the rigid
ecclesiasticism by which at times his sympathies were hampered is an ana
chronism in this modern time. But in every instance of disagreement we
have recognized Dr. Manning's courage and sincerity. He was courageous
when he fought the Panama Conference, and he lost his seat among the
New York delegation to the General Convention of 1916 as a consequence.
He was courageous in the years long before, when, as the new rector of
Trinity Parish, he set himself to reform the conduct of the tenement
house properties which were part of the corporation's great endowment.
And he was most courageous of all when he espoused the "concordat" with
the Congregationalists against the astonished resentment of many of his
former associates of the High Church school of thought. Many a man
can stand up boldly against his recognized antagonists; it is the rarer man
who for the truth as he sees it can separate himself from his friends.

TENTH BISHOP AND TENTH RECTOR 107

For this reason, therefore, and for another one, the Southern Church
man congratulates Dr. Manning upon the recognition which has come to
him, and welcomes him with gladly accorded honor to his high post of
leadership. The second reason is the belief that Dr. Manning has within
him the spirit which makes a man grow. He is not afraid to expand his
views to meet expanding needs. He has shown himself increasingly in
dependent of ecclesiastical party in the power of a real devotion to the
things that count for the kingdom of Christ. Some men are fossilized by
their own self-importance when they are elected Bishops. If we read Dr.
Manning's record aright, we believe he will be sensitive to the greatness
of his possible service, open-minded, forward-looking and forward-leading.
He faces a great chance, and our confidence is that he will meet it greatly.

Manning's own assessment of the situation, and of his position, is
shown by the fact that he continued to hold the office of Rector of
Trinity for many months after his consecration and until the eve of
the election of his successor, Dr. Stetson. Both at this time and in
later years he took pride in pointing out that in holding the offices
jointly, as the tenth incumbent of each, he was returning to the tradi
tion of the diocese as it had been for the first half of its existence when
the bishop was the Rector, or at least an Assistant Minister, of Trin
ity Parish.

The consecration took place on Wednesday, 11 May, 1921, being
within the octave of the Ascension and also the stated day of the meet
ing of the Diocesan Convention, at the cathedral. He chose the Bishop
of Southern Ohio, Boyd Vincent, and the Bishop of Massachusetts, Wil
liam Lawrence, to be consecrators with the presiding bishop. The
Bishop of Tennessee, Gailor, preached the sermon. The Bishops of
Vermont and Pennsylvania, Hall and Rhinelander, presented him;
and his chaplains were the Vicars of Saint Agnes and the Intercession,
Dr. Bellinger and Dr. Gates. There were twenty-nine Anglican bishops
present, of whom ten joined in the laying on of hands; and four Ortho
dox bishops, of whom Bishop Nicolai of Serbia, having made a very
special effort to be present that day, came at the time of the laying-on
of hands to stand by the consecrator, but not actually to join. The
Sun reported that afterward Bishop Nicolai "remarked with a smile
that some more things would have to be done before an eastern bishop
may take part in the consecration of a western one."

The new bishop was undoubtedly faced with difficulties. The admin
istration of the diocese since the death of Bishop Henry Codman Pot
ter had been weak. Bishop Burch was a gentle, kindly person, who
had laboured earnestly in the outlying parts of the diocese as suffragan

108 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

and made himself greatly beloved but who was not well qualified to
cope with the problems which confronted him as diocesan. One of
these, private but nonetheless tormenting, was the fact that he was
going into debt for the upkeep of the palace which Cram and Bishop
Greer had concocted for the Bishop of New York. The matter of the
bishop's house was a problem which Manning never faced. President
Nicholas Murray Butler, with his experience of the obligations and
requirements of an official residence at Columbia, sought at the time
of Manning's election to make the diocese aware of what was imposed
on the bishop so that adequate financial provision would be made for
the upkeep of the house. But little was done. Mrs. Manning had pri
vate means. For twenty-five years they were drawn on heavily for house
keeping bills with the result that by the time of the bishop's retire
ment her property was impaired. After Bishop Manning the palace
was abandoned as the bishop's residence.

But Bishop Burch's episcopate was little more than an interregnum
and Manning really succeeded Greer, who had become bishop just
after Manning became rector. Bishop Greer was a person in many ways
unsuited to the episcopal office, certainly in a diocese such as New
York with heavy administrative duties. He had very little apprecia
tion of, or sympathy with, his cathedral. The work of construction
was always a distasteful burden to him; he preferred the Bronx Church
House, an approximation of the institutional parish house of Saint
Bartholomew's. He wished the cathedral services to be patterned after
those of Saint Bartholomew's and had it in mind to substitute a "cock
and hen" choir for the boy choir. He gave orders, soon after he be
came bishop, to abolish the choral service and was only with difficulty
dissuaded by Canon Voorhis, the precentor. He was a person of tre
mendous personal appeal and influence. This was the basis of his min
istry. It is successful with men of good will; but unfortunately there
are a few who cannot be fairly so described. He was further handi
capped, particularly during the war years, by being a believer in non-
resistance. His conscience did not allow him to take any kind of dis
ciplinary stand with regard to his clergy under any conditions. The
contrast between Greer and Manning is well illustrated by their re
actions to an episode which occurred in 1915. Dr. Percy Stickney Grant
chose to celebrate Lent at the Ascension that year with a sermon call
ing for free and easy divorce. The discourse was intended to give the
impression, while studiously avoiding any definite statement, that
complete freedom in the matter was the rule at the Ascension. The
sermon was good for the stir in the papers which was so dear to Grant's

TENTH BISHOP AND TENTH RECTOR 109

heart. The reporters asked for comment by the Bishop and the Rector
of Trinity. Greer and Manning were of one mind in the matter of
divorce; they both supported the passage of a stricter "no divorce"
canon. The contrast in their comments however was typical of a pro
found difference between them. The rector said,

. . . The Episcopal Church quite rightly allows large liberty of speech.
. . . But if any clergyman should so abuse his liberty as to make the state
ments [of Dr. Grant] it would be incumbent on the authorities of the
Church to take some action, unless they should feel that the utterances
were too irresponsible to deserve attention;

while the bishop, saying

I believe that the marriage tie should be indissoluble, and personally am
against permitting even the remarriage of the innocent party in a divorce
for the statutory ground. Dr. Grant's opinion is very decidedly opposed
to the law and to the mind of the Episcopal Church. ... I believe there
are not many clergymen in the Episcopal Church who agree with Dr.
Grant. . . . ,

concluded, in answer to a question by a reporter of the New York
Times as to

what measures would be taken in case an Episcopal minister preached
"free love" or some other opinion equally repugnant to the doctrines of
the Episcopal Church, . . . "We won't cross that bridge until we come
to it. We have enough concrete questions to deal with without going into
hypothetical ones."

The Diocese of New York had not been accustomed for some years
to a bishop who sought to make issues clear cut and to take firm stands.
The new bishop so believed and so acted. To those who were accus
tomed to following their own inclinations, especially to those who en
joyed the publicity which attaches to those who profess to be daring
or forward looking in their stands but who do not care to be called
to account for what they say, this is an irritating quality in a bishop.
The irritation soon became apparent in a small number of the flock.
One scheme Manning became aware of by the time of his consecration.
A little group of the clergy planned to isolate the new bishop from
diocesan administration to a considerable extent and preserve freedom
of action for themselves by setting up a system of archdeaconries which
would be independent units, and where self-important individuals
could enjoy the dignity and authority of an important title. Manning
scotched this plan by calling for the election of two suffragans at the

110 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

convention which assembled on the afternoon of the consecration. At
that time it was not necessary to get the consent of the other dioceses
for the election of suffragans and this took place at once. Bishop Lloyd,
who had been pastor of a small parish in the diocese since the end of
the Board of Missions in 1919, was elected one; the other was the Revd.
Herbert Shipman, Rector of the Heavenly Rest in New York. Man
ning gave a definite and warm welcome to each of these as he came
to the platform and accepted the election. The church generally was
pleased that a solution for the anomalous position of Bishop Lloyd had
been found. But over the election of Shipman a storm arose and con
tinued for some time.

Shipman was a gentle, unassuming, almost shy, priest, who was much
beloved by a host of friends; he also drifted into unfortunate positions.
Three matters were cited by those who felt he was unqualified for the
episcopal office. He allowed his name to be used on the editorial staff
of the Chronicle, a disreputable monthly publication put out by the
Rector of Christ Church, Poughkeepsie, the Revd. Alexander Griswold
Cummins. This individual had elbowed his way into a certain promi
nence in the diocese in the days of Bishop Greer. His paper, paid for
by the income of an endowment for evangelical education, was sup
posedly an organ of the low-church party, dedicated to describing the
follies and disloyalties of high-churchmen. But when occasion served
its stream of nastiness could be directed, and was, quite indiscrimi
nately. The paper was eargerly read, as indecent publications usually
are, but it was deplored by low and high alike. Shipman was entirely
unlike Cummins; their association seems a strange one. In the second
place Shipman was a believer in easing the divorce regulations of the
church. It was charged that he had allowed the marriage of a divorced
person to take place in his church and had brought in a Protestant
minister to officiate since he could not, in obedience to the canons,
do so. As is so often the case the facts where in dispute and depended
in part on the attitude and action in the matter of Bishop Burch,
who was dead and could not give his testimony. Thirdly, there was the
matter of Mrs. Shipman. No serious charge could properly be made
against her. She was a daughter of the "idle rich," in this case very
rich. As the wife of one of her own kind she would not have attracted
notice beyond the circle of her acquaintance. But as the wife of a
clergyman, and now a prospective bishop, she was the object of com
ment which was probably neither very well-informed nor kind.

Confirmation of the election was long delayed and public statements,
pro and con, were issued. Those who were fighting for confirmation

TENTH BISHOP AND TENTH RECTOR 111

were determined to make Manning join actively with them. He took
the advice of Bishop William Lawrence of Massachusetts and declined
to add anything publicly to what he had said in welcome of Shipman
at his election; though he indicated in a private letter his disapproval
of Shipman's weak behaviour. The election was of course ultimately
confirmed. Shipman resigned from the board of the Chronicle. Mrs.
Shipman returned to obscurity. During the nine years that he was
suffragan he continued in the love and enjoyment of those to whom
he ministered. He collapsed and died at the door of his father-in-law's
house on his return from a confirmation one Sunday morning in the
spring of 1930.

The bishop experimented in the early years of his episcopate with
the matter of organization of diocesan work, for the election of two
suffragans did not settle all problems. In his convention address of
1922 he reports that archdeaconries are unnecessary, an executive
council — patterned after the National Council set up by General Con
vention in 1919 — would take their place as the central diocesan organi
zation. In 1923 he told the convention that the committee setting up
a council was not yet ready to report. This encouraged the egregious
Dr. Cummins to light a grass fire in Dutchess county which the bishop
had to go put out in June. His diary reports that

This meeting was necessary to set things right. At an informal and un
authorized meeting held a short time ago action was taken adopting a
Constitution and By Laws and proceeding as though the Convocation
were an independent organization, unrelated to the Bishop and the Dio
cese. This was done quite unintentionally and unconsciously, except on
the part of the Chairman of the meeting who called it together. I ex
plained quite clearly the nature of this action showing that it was un
constitutional, and impossible, for any Convocation so to proceed, or of
itself to make any change in its organization. This statement was received
in the best of spirit by all present. I outlined my plans for the Convoca
tion in the autumn and the meeting adjourned.

In 1924 he told the convention that there was no need of a council but
that the archdeaconries were to be revised and revived. No diocesan
council was set up during his time. The supervision of each archdea
conry was in the hands of one or the other of the two suffragans. The
bishop declined to divide the diocese into watertight compartments
for visitations or oversight and made it clear that the canons did not
allow this and that such division

would tend to lessen that sense of unity which is vital to a strong Diocesan
life. It is my desire to keep in direct relation with the whole Diocese

112 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

and with every parish and mission in it, and periodically to visit personally
every parish and mission.

During his twenty-five years he did visit almost every parish and mis
sion once, but there were many he did not visit more than once. On
the death of Bishop Shipman in 1930 the Revd. Charles Kendall Gil
bert was elected to be the second suffragan; but after Bishop Lloyd's
death in 1936 no second suffragan was again elected.

In a diocese as large as New York there are always a few trouble
some clergy; and problems arise involving sometimes principles but
more often only personalities. Bishop Manning had his full share dur
ing at least half of his episcopate. The first problem appeared even
before his consecration in the person of his old schoolmate of Se-
wanee days, William Norman Guthrie. Guthrie often seemed as inno
cent of scruples as a child. He was concerned with publicity and had
a special genius for it. He was Rector of Saint Mark's-in-the-Bouwerie,
a church with a long and honourable history and a considerable en
dowment but with little or no local congregation in 1911, when he
became rector, because of the character of the surrounding population.
It happens that shortly after becoming rector he came to Newport to
deliver a "University Extension" lecture and stayed the night in my
father's rectory. After the lecture they sat until the middle of the night
while Guthrie described the problem of his new parish, an ancient
building, rich in tradition but impoverished in congregation. Only
novel and experimental methods, with the utmost publicity, would
revive it, he said. With his fascinating manner, half serious, half hu
morous, tense enthusiasm, and eager flow of words, he made it all sound
vital and important; but after he had left the next day I heard my
father remark to my mother that he wondered how long it would be
before he would be in trouble with his bishop.

During the time of Bishop Greer there was of course no trouble.
Guthrie's antics doubtless pained the bishop but aroused no com
ment or action on his part. Indeed he gave permission of a kind. It is
fair to point out that one consequence of Bishop Greer's policy was
to lessen the desired publicity. Guthrie's relations with Manning sug
gest that his boyhood contact gave him a special knowledge of how
to induce the bishop to contribute to his purpose; certainly he had
no hesitation in assuming, during his most outrageous behaviour, the
privilege of a special intimacy based on the early days.

Things began a few days after Manning's election. The winter of
1921 was a time of business depression and there was much unemploy-

TENTH BISHOP AND TENTH RECTOR 113

ment. Guthrie invited a number of homeless men to make their head
quarters at Saint Mark's and concerned himself in trying to ameliorate
their condition. One day in February Guthrie sent the men to march
in a body — due notice having been given to the press — to one of the
Trinity chapels, bearing a letter from Guthrie requesting lodging at
the chapel for the men. Their arrival was entirely without warning;
there were no facilities to make it possible to comply with the request;
tickets to the Salvation Army Shelter were offered instead; and Guthrie
had what was for him a sufficient excuse to attack, in letters and state
ments to the press, the selfish attitude of rich Trinity Parish, with the
callous indifference of its rector who, now that he was to be bishop
and responsible for building the cathedral, must be careful to act in
accordance with the dictates of the rich whose money he was going to
want. The Brooklyn Eagle was moved to publish a leading editorial
on the matter rebuking Guthrie severely and expressing sympathy with
the bishop-elect and confidence in his ability to deal fairly and cou
rageously with the problems before him. Guthrie was quite unabashed.
In April, shortly before Manning's consecration, Bishop Williams of
Michigan preached in the cathedral in New York and raised a storm
by making charges in the field of national politics which Manning felt
it necessary to notice and disavow. Guthrie, in a long, chatty letter,
couched in the intimate terms of old friends ("my dear Manning") ,
suggested that they discuss together the best way to handle the matter!
Guthrie's methods of attracting the so-called "unchurched" to Saint
Mark's had as many ramifications as a first class mole-run. He prepared
his own services, drawn from a variety of mysterious eastern and other
sources, with readings from all kinds of religious texts other than the
Bible; turbaned or veiled speakers; a parsee priest to burn fire before
the altar and recite from his ritual, translated and assisted by Guthrie;
incense burned on a specially imported eastern altar; liberal use of
an enormous gong which Guthrie would strike at certain points in
the proceedings with ecstatic enthusiasm. All this was substituted for
the Book of Common Prayer. Bishop William Montgomery Brown,
who had gone soft in the head and made such absurd theological state
ments that the House of Bishops, a body notoriously reluctant to take
precipitate or extreme action, felt it necessary to present him for trial
for heresy (he was later deposed from the ministry) , was invited to
state his side of the case in Saint Mark's in April, 1925, after his con
viction and while awaiting the final decision of the House of Bishops.
The bishop sent word to both the rector and Bishop Brown that the
latter must not speak. The church was packed by those who came to

114 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

see the fun. Guthrie had a field day. The crowd was treated to a psy
chological analysis of the case by Theodore Schroeder; Bishop Brown
was cheered and stood, smiling, bowing, blowing kisses, but silent;
Guthrie hurled defiance at his bishop and wound up with the an
nouncement that Bishop Brown would make his statement in the Com
munity Church (where the authority of the Bishop of New York did
not reach) on Wednesday.

But the most serviceable vehicle of publicity for week in and week
out use was "eurythmic dancing" in the church. An announcement
appeared that a talk on dancing was to be given in Saint Mark's by a
dancer who was admired for her art rather than her morals. The
bishop forbade the affair. Guthrie at once agreed; but, sensing that
the weight of the objection lay in the character of the speaker, plan
ned a series of dances by a group of young women of unimpeachable
reputation, one of them being his own daughter. Guthrie proved quite
impossible for Manning to restrain. He broke out in so many places.
His letters were of tremendous length, always beside the point, but
filled with self-confidence and pseudo-earnestness. In reply to one de
mand from the bishop for compliance on four specific matters of dis
obedience to the Prayer Book he wrote to ask for letters of introduc
tion to the authorities of the Church of England as he and Mrs. Guthrie
were going abroad for the summer to see what was being done to re
vive that venerable institution. In 1933 the vestry, hand-picked by
Guthrie, became aware of the appalling state of affairs in the parish —
a considerable endowment was entirely dissipated during Guthrie's rec
torship — and formally applied to the bishop to dissolve the pastoral
relation. But Guthrie managed to wriggle out of it and did not finally
resign until 1937.

The Revd. Percy Stickney Grant was Rector of the Church of the
Ascension in lower Fifth Avenue, where he had been since the early
nineties. He satisfied his craving for publicity by startling utterances
in his pulpit, designed to give the impression that he was a very ad
vanced thinker, prepared to restate the whole of the Christian Religion
in terms acceptable to the modern, scientific mind and to jettison any
part of the creed or gospel which did not meet the needs of the "edu
cated classes." In fact he showed considerable ingenuity in making his
statements in such form that it was not easy to be sure of his exact
meaning, and whether he was quoting others or stating his own be
liefs. He had made a particular point of catering to a certain element
of society by advocating free and easy divorce; and he was willing to
perform the marriages of divorced people other than innocent parties

TENTH BISHOP AND TENTH RECTOR 115

in divorces for adultery, which was then the canonical provision. In
the time of Bishop Greer he was caught in one very flagrant case,
marrying two divorced people, neither being "innocent parties," and
one whose divorce had been granted only nine days before. This was
reported to the bishop, who was gravely concerned by the matter, but
whose principles did not allow him to do more than plead with Grant
to be more careful in the future.

In August, 1921, Grant announced publicly his engagement to a
woman who had been twice divorced, both former husbands being
living. Permission for the marriage was asked of the new bishop, Man
ning, and of course refused. For the next three years the romance pro
vided most satisfying publicity but no marriage took place. In January,
1923, Grant preached a particularly obstreperous sermon in which he
implied, but did not clearly state, that he did not believe in the divin
ity of Christ.

I am talking to an intelligent audience and I don't expect them to be
shocked if I say that very few clergymen educated in the larger universi
ties accept the idea that Jesus Christ has the power of God. When I say
"larger universities" I mean places where science as well as classics and
mathematics are taught.

An uproar in the papers ensued. The bishop sent for Grant and talked
with him. Getting no satisfaction from that he sent him a public letter.

The impression which you have given to the Church and to the public is
that you deny the miraculous elements of the Gospel and that you no
longer believe the statement of the Christian Faith as contained in the
Apostles' Creed. ... I call upon you to correct unmistakably the im
pression which you have publicly given of your disbelief in our Lord
Jesus Christ as God and Saviour, or if it is not possible for you to do so,
then to withdraw from the ministry of this Church.

Grant sent a long reply, prepared by others as he himself stated later,
which appears to have been drawn up to provide as many opportuni
ties as possible to go off into side issues in case a trial for heresy should
take place, and to avoid giving any direct answer to the bishop's chal
lenge. It was plain to the bishop and his advisors that it would be im
possible to get Grant to make, or abide by, any clear statement; and
that therefore a trial could serve no useful purpose. He sent Grant a
second letter saying this.

You have, by your own utterances, caused grave doubt in the mind of
the Church at large as to your belief in the Deity of our Lord Jesus
Christ. You have been given opportunity to remove this doubt, but you

116 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

have not done so. You have made your reply to me in words which fail
to make clear your belief in this essential truth. There, for the present,
the matter rests.

Grant did not really represent the liberal school of thought in the
church; personal publicity was his line. This is clearly indicated by
two communications the bishop received. After the bishop's first letter
to Grant, John Jay Chapman, himself a fearless and persistent crusader,
wrote

. . . Your admirable public letter to Grant gets praise on all hands. It could
not have been better. Well, a trial is forced on you: everyone sees this.
The only thing is to have a trial so conducted as to keep your tone
throughout — I mean the tone you have set — a sort of gentle, gentlemanly
necessity of unfrocking Grant, and a confirming of the evidence to points
of 1. the church statutes: 2. Dr. Grant's oath: 3. his change of faith as
shown in his recent utterances, — which he will corroborate. There's your
case.

No one must say a word about Grant's being a jackass, — which is what
is really the matter with him. (That part must be kept a secret.) ... I be
lieve Grant himself is in a confused state of mind — drunk with notoriety.

And after the second letter Dr. Parks, of whose bona fide liberalism
there can be no doubt, telegraphed

Permit me to express my admiration for your letter to Grant. You have
shown wisdom and courage. The man craves publicity. You have taken
the center of the stage. I am but one of many who rejoice.

The relationship between the bishop and his chancellor is nicely illus
trated by Mr. Zabriskie's note of comment.

Suffer me to be so presumptuous as to say that your letter in reply to
Dr. Grant entirely meets my approval. You have taken him up by the
collar and shaken him and boxed his ears and turned him over your knees
and spanked him and set him down hard on his bench with a warning to
behave.

Manning's manner of dealing with Grant was eminently successful.
Aside from the undesirability of it an ecclesiastical trial takes a long
time. Grant's end came long before any trial could have been com
pleted. The bishop's second letter was written in early February of
1923. In May, 1924, public announcement was made by Grant that
his engagement to be married was at an end. In June, a few minutes
after a meeting of the vestry, Grant left town, his resignation was an
nounced, and he himself disappeared from the ecclesiastical scene. The.

TENTH BISHOP AND TENTH RECTOR 117

case was settled with what was probably the minimum of publicity and
certainly the minimum of time.

One ludicrous feature of the case indicates its bizarre nature. The
first of the two former husbands of Dr. Grant's temporary fiancee seems
to have been an amiable, but confused, person. Though they had been
separated for over twenty years he did what he could to smooth the
way for her marriage to Grant, even writing the bishop in the matter.
After Grant's departure from the Ascension this gentleman pursued
the bishop with urgent, not to say insistent, appeals that the bishop
make possible the marriage by releasing Grant from the obligations
of the ministry and providing him a pension sufficient to support the
lady in the style to which she had been accustomed! The bishop finally
replied that "it is not possible for me to entertain the suggestions which
you make."

But there are always liberals in the church, and the question arises
from time to time as to the appropriate limits of the liberal's effort
to restate the church's faith. People like Grant get their opportunity
out of the tremendous ferment and contest between fundamentalism
and liberalism, which in protestant bodies was concerned chiefly with
the nature of biblical inspiration, and in the church with the signifi
cance of the Creed. In the period after the First World War tensions in
these matters mounted. When the House of Bishops met in Dallas,
Texas, in November, 1923, there was presented to it a memorial signed
by a number of laymen asking that the bishops give reassurance to the
church as to

the authority of the Creeds as the expression, for this present age, of the
true Faith, and . . . the obligation upon all members of Christ's Church,
clergy and laity, to believe and teach the Faith as therein set forth.

By a coincidence there was in the Diocese of Dallas at that time a
clergyman about whom there was question as to whether he should
be put on trial for statements from his pulpit which appeared to be
inconsistent with the faith of the church.

The memorial was referred to a committee consisting of the Bishops
of Fond du Lac, Weller; New York, Manning; North Carolina, Che
shire; Tennessee, Gailor (who was also president of the National Coun
cil) ; and Vermont, Hall. The report was a reasoned, but definite,
statement that the Articles of the Creed are binding upon those who
hold the church's ministry; but also that they are entirely consistent
with sound modern thought. It followed the same line that Manning
had taken in a sermon in September at the consecration of Dr. Free-

118 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

man as Bishop of Washington. The house adopted the report unani
mously and directed it to be issued as a pastoral letter, which meant
that it must be read to every congregation in the church.

Trouble inevitably followed. The serious liberals in the church
made such an outcry that charlatans like Grant and Guthrie were
crowded out of the headlines. Dr. Parks at Saint Bartholomew's seemed
for the moment to have lost his head. He changed his surplice for a
black gown, read the pastoral from the pulpit, and then denounced it
to his congregation. The poor man realized that he had given some
excuse for misinterpretation, for he wrote the bishop the next day
asking him please to ignore the headlines in the newspapers and to
judge the sermon by the actual text, which was being printed and
would be forwarded to him. Dr. Parks was quite convinced that the
pastoral letter was to be used as a justification for the immediate trial
of the priest in the Diocese of Dallas, and probably others. He replied
to a request from the bishop a few days later that he felt it would be
impossible to raise any money for the nation wide campaign, the appeal
for missionary funds, in Saint Bartholomew's because their energy and
resources would have to be directed toward the defense and support
of those tried for heresy, and toward solving the problems of large
numbers of congregations and clergy which would now quite possibly
find themselves outside the church.

Manning dealt with the matter in his usual way, immediate silence
and delayed reply. He made no public comment on Parks' sermon. On
the twentieth of December he issued a pastoral letter saying that the
questions raised were

serious, and must be met faithfully, but as Bishop of the Diocese, I ask
that controversial discussion ... be suspended during the Christmas
season, and that all of us, clergy and laity alike, give our thoughts to the
message of Peace and Good Will and Brotherly Love which the Festival
of our Saviour's Birth brings to us.

In February he preached in the cathedral, driving home the points of
the orthodox position of the church, citing Bishop Henry Potter, Dr.
William R. Huntington, and Bishop Phillips Brooks, and calling upon
modern liberals to make the same professions of loyalty which they
had made. He quoted a statement by twenty-seven Unitarian ministers
who denounced those religious teachers

who play with words in the most solemn relations of life, who make their
creeds mean what they were not originally intended to mean,

and pointed out that this was just what the Dallas pastoral said.

TENTH BISHOP AND TENTH RECTOR 119

An effort was made, inaugurated by the Bishop of Rhode Island,
Dr. Perry, and led by the Chancellor of the Diocese of New York,
George Zabriskie, to arrange, by a meeting of a representative group
of conservatives and liberals, a statement which would clear the air.
It proved quite useless. The draft tentatively agreed on was so in
nocuous and so completely silent on the fundamental question of the
church's creed that Manning declined to sign it. Without his signature
it would have carried little weight. The result was that Manning's
position was left without serious refutation. Liberal interpretation of
the Creed must be within the limit of the loyal acceptance of that
Creed. He stood ready to discipline or try any priest who would un
mistakably go beyond this limit. But he would choose the ground for
any trial. No trial was held either in the Diocese of New York or else
where, for no serious liberal means to take a position of disloyalty; and
the lesser people were given a wholesome warning. Dr. Parks had in
tended to retire from Saint Bartholomew's in 1921, and did actually
leave in April, 1925. There was no liberal of his stature after him in
the diocese. Opposition to the bishop, such as it was, had rather the
nature of personal jealousy and petty sniping.

Bishop Manning held a very different view of the cathedral from
Bishop Greer. The cathedral as the bishop's church was to him one
of the realities of his life and work, not just a formality. Its altar was
his altar where he officiated not only on occasions of diocesan assembly
but regularly and normally. Its pulpit was his pulpit, the place where
he regularly preached and where he usually made his formal pro
nouncements to the diocese and to the community. It was his inten
tion that the cathedral should demonstrate the bishop's norm for the
diocese and that the services and the manner of performing them
should be such as would win the loyal approval of reasonable people of
all schools of churchmanship. This called at once for a return from
the standard of Bishop Greer, who took the Parish Church of Saint
Bartholomew as his model, to that of Bishop Potter, who wished the
cathedral to be after the pattern of those of England. The new bishop
bowed to the altar and wore white linen eucharistic vestments, as was
his custom, to the astonishment of Dean Robbins. But he was discern
ing about appropriate occasions to introduce changes. When I became
the precentor in 1927 I asked the bishop if I might follow his custom
of wearing eucharistic vestments. The matter was brought before a
staff meeting by the bishop and the bishop and dean, who by the
statutes jointly establish the practice of the cathedral, directed that
each priest who celebrated in the cathedral might wear either surplice

120 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

and stole or white linen vestments, except at the high altar at 11
o'clock on Sunday when surplice and stole were always to be worn.
About a year after Dr. Gates became dean the exception about 11
o'clock was withdrawn and the dean himself began the use of vest
ments then. The permissive choice was never changed but was soon
quietly forgotten; eucharistic vestments — but white linen — became the
rule.2 The clergy of the cathedral staff began one by one to bow to
the altar as the bishop did. The boys of the choir, who went to the
cathedral for their school prayers each day as well as for cathedral
services, soon followed suit, though without any definite instruction.
About 1930 one of the men of the cathedral choir asked me to give
instruction in the matter as the men were not sure what they were
supposed to do. I asked the bishop's permission but was told it was
not the proper time. A few months later a choir festival was held in
the cathedral at which six or more large choirs of the city joined and
at which the bishop was present. As the massed choir marched out at
the end the first men to leave their places were from a parish where
the practice of bowing to the altar was the rule. They turned formally
and bowed, two by two, and were naturally followed by all the other
men. The next day the bishop sent for me to say that the time had
now come for formal directions to bow to the altar to be given to the
choir. In 1927 a standard of ceremonial was drawn up. It was not
greatly changed in later years except in one particular. Permission was
given for the celebrant to genuflect once during the prayer of conse
cration — after the invocation. This became the cathedral rule though
the bishop himself never followed it. An aumbry was given for Saint
Martin's Chapel about 1936. The bishop directed that the sacrament
be reserved occasionally; but this soon became continuous. Saint Mar
tin's has been the chapel of the blessed sacrament ever since except
during the few years of construction in the choir when a temporary
altar and choir were placed in the nave. A chapel of the blessed sac
rament was prepared in the easternmost bay of the nave on the north
side. This is now the chapel where the bishop is buried.

The bishop had a prodigious memory as well as precise attention
to detail. Each year in May there occurs a great service for the presen
tation of the children's lenten offering. Two thousand or more chil
dren come, and the capacity of the cathedral used to be taxed. Chairs
from the chapels were brought out to fill up all available space. The

2 It was Dr. Manning as Rector of Trinity who began the use of eucharistic
vestments at the Chapel of the Intercession, where Dr. Gates was vicar, by wearing
them when he celebrated at the first service in the chapel in 1914.

TENTH BISHOP AND TENTH RECTOR 121

first year that I was at the cathedral the bishop sent for me a short
while before the procession was to be formed to tell me that he had
noticed the year before that no kneeling benches had been put before
the front chairs and that the children had sat during the prayers and
been embarrassed. He asked that this be avoided by providing proper
kneelers. Another instance is even more striking. The parents of the
Revd. Edward Rochie Hardy were members of the congregation of
Saint Agnes' Chapel, and the child was born just after Dr. Manning
had succeeded to the rectorship. The baptism took place before the
appointment of the new vicar and was performed by the rector. For
some reason none of the godparents could be present and proxies took
their places. In the register all six names were entered. In time the
baptismal certificate was lost. Nearly a score of years later, when it
was needed in connection with Dr. Hardy's application for admission
as a postulant for holy orders, a new one was prepared on which a
secretary copied from the register by chance the names of the three
proxies only. The certificate was taken to Dr. Manning, now the
bishop, for his signature. He glanced at it and remarked before sign
ing that the names were those of the proxies, not the actual godparents.

The bishop wore cope and mitre wherever he was expected or re
quested to do so but never in the cathedral until toward the very end
of his time, when he did on one or two occasions. He said that he
knew it was right to do, and that the time would soon come when
it would be the usual custom of the Bishop of New York in his cathe
dral and elsewhere, but that he preferred to respect what he believed
to be the feelings of many staunch lay people in the diocese who gave
him loyal and effective support in upholding the church's teachings,
sometimes against the attacks of their own rectors, even though such
people would never make any protest or cause embarrassment. After
he received his degree from King's College, Nova Scotia, where the
academic dress is the same as at Oxford, he often wore a scarlet chi-
mere, a practice still unusual in this country in his time.

The bishop celebrated on Sundays at 8 o'clock in the cathedral
when the location of his morning visitation allowed time. This was
irregular but fairly frequent. He intended to preach in the cathedral
at 11 o'clock on the first Sunday in the month but this proved impos
sible more often than not. Evensong on Sunday at 4 was the usual
time for special services at the cathedral. These occurred quite fre
quently and usually involved the bishop's presence though not often
to preach. Evening services or meetings there were comparatively rare.
At the services arranged for civic groups or to mark special occasions

122 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

the bishop more often than not invited a protestant minister to give
the address. One of the great occasions every year was the service for
nurses on a Sunday night in May near Florence Nightingale's birth
day, when the cathedral was filled with nurses in uniform from the
hospitals of the city. One year a nurse wrote the bishop to tell him how
much she always appreciated the service, especially the wide choice of
preachers, and to suggest the possibility of asking Fr. Ford, pastor of
Corpus Christi Church, and chaplain for Roman Catholics at Colum
bia University. The bishop knew that this was impossible but sent me
to Fr. Ford, formally but privately, to invite him. The latter explained
courteously that he had no discretion in the matter and could not be
given permission; and the bishop was able to answer his correspondent
that her suggestion had been acted upon.

The bishop gave careful attention, and expressed himself freely to
the dean, on the choice of preachers, especially the special preacher
chosen each summer for the period of the summer school at Columbia
when a very large number of visitors came to the cathedral. He served
as summer preacher himself in 1942, the first year of our participation
in World War II. He carried on for a time the practice of special
lenten instructions which he had used at Trinity. In 1922 and 1923
these were given at the cathedral. They were given in 1926 at Saint
Thomas Church, and one year in the '30s at Saint Bartholomew's. In
1931 he sent a copy of a book by Bishop Walter Carey, Evolution and
Redemption, to each of his clergy, and to the members of the Church
Club, just before Lent. In May, 1937, he sent to all the clergy, and to
some of the leading lay people, of the diocese, a book, Our Faith in
God, by the Dean of Saint Paul's, London. In 1928 he inaugurated a
conference for the clergy in the early autumn. This was held first at
Lake Mahopac and later at West Point, continuing from one noon
to the next. The bishop himself always arranged the list of speakers
and presided. Each year he records in his diary that the conference
has been productive of good feeling and loyalty among the clergy.

Bishop Manning had bad luck with his deans. There were three
of these during his episcopate. Dean Robbins, who was appointed by
Bishop Greer, became his implacable enemy. Dean Gates, who served
for almost nine years until his death in November, 1939, was past the
peak of his vitality when he was appointed, and an invalid for more
than two years at the end. Dean De Wolfe served for only a little over
a year and a half before his election as Bishop of Long Island. It was
charged against Manning that he kept affairs in his own hands so
much that those who served him felt hampered and discouraged and

TENTH BISHOP AND TENTH RECTOR 123

so unable to give him full loyalty. Dr. Zabriskie, in his life of Bishop
Lloyd, makes the charge quite specifically. My own experience of four
teen years at the cathedral does not bear this out. In all matters con
cerning the choir school, of which I was head; and in cathedral affairs,
where I was precentor and master of ceremonies, and at times in charge
because of Dean Gates' incapacity, I felt always the bishop's complete
confidence; his willingness to hear any criticism or suggestion in the
formation of policies; and freedom to choose the manner of carrying
out the details of these policies. Mistakes were noted frankly and
promptly (and without fail!) but without rancour or recrimination.
The truth is that the bishop was ill-served, and obliged against his wish
to interfere so that the cathedral should function.

Howard Chandler Robbins had been appointed to the cathedral by
Bishop Greer in 1917 from the rectorship of the Incarnation where
he had succeeded William Mercer Grosvenor, the first dean of the
cathedral. He was a person of great charm, with youthful enthusiasm
and warm affection. His preaching was popular, but diverting rather
than converting. He was a witty after dinner speaker and could make
an interesting and appropriate talk on almost any subject on short
notice. He obviously enjoyed preaching and lecturing and did them
well. He had a fine voice and sang the service beautifully but would
do so only rarely. I worked under him during his last two years as
dean and discovered beneath the childlike innocence and charm seen
by the public, the nature of a spoiled child. He liked flattery, was
changeable and arbitrary, and expected a loyalty he had neither power
nor patience to win. He was not interested in the organization of the
cathedral's life apart from the preaching and quite incapable of apply
ing himself to detail. The cathedral never had a sufficient income for
running expenses until after Manning's time and was constantly in
debt. At the trustees meeting in January, 1921, just after Manning's
election as bishop, Robbins reported a plan for clearing a deficit of
$50,000 for running expenses, and to obviate future deficits, by raising
a million dollars for endowment by

subscriptions from 40,000 of the 95,000 communicants of the diocese of
New York, in sums ranging from a few cents given by Sunday School
children up to one or several shares of $250.00 from those able to con
tribute in such amounts.

But nothing came of it. Later he was head of a committee to raise
funds to build the chapter house of the cathedral as a memorial to
Bishop Greer. An insignificant amount was raised and the project was

124 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

forgotten. His usual schedule was to be present at the cathedral on
Sunday; to celebrate and say mattins Monday morning, and evensong
Saturday afternoon; and during the rest of the week to retire to his
house across the Hudson at Sneden's Landing. For bishop and cathe
dral staff the dean's absence created a bottleneck in the proper flow
of the cathedral's life. Robbins was also possessed by the demon of
jealousy and was convinced that first one and then another of his
subordinates was attempting to usurp his authority.

In the spring of 1924 he went to England as an exchange preacher.
On the trip over signs of a nervous or mental breakdown appeared —
one of the doctors later called it an anxiety neurosis — but not serious
enough to prevent his keeping his preaching engagements. On his
return he was incapable of assuming any responsibility or work and
began the tedious and lengthy process of treatment which mental ill
ness requires. He very soon sent his resignation of the deanery to the
bishop. For the latter the situation was difficult. The great drive for
the cathedral building fund was planned for the winter of 1924-25
and it was essential that the cathedral should be functioning at its
best. The bishop needed the assistance in the campaign which only
the dean could give. In spite of this he declined even to consider the
resignation. He was convinced that an important element, if not the
most important, in the process of recovery of normal poise and ac
tivity, is the realization that one's work and presence are needed and
that there is a real job to come back to. While it was almost impos
sible for the dean to compose or write a letter the resignation was
several times repeated. Trustees of the cathedral became aware of his
desire to resign and urged that the bishop present the matter for ac
tion. They insisted that the cathedral was suffering unduly. Canon
Prichard, Rector of Saint Mark's, Mt. Kisco, was acting dean and doing
heroic work managing two places during the height of the drive.
But it was impossible to continue in this manner. The bishop knew
that the man's life came first and resolutely resisted the mounting
pressure to abandon the sick dean. Finally, late in the summer of
1925, after more than a year of absence, with another letter of res
ignation came word from Mrs. Robbins that the doctors felt that the
knowledge that he was still dean was hampering his recovery, which
they expected was going to be delayed for many months. The bishop
felt that it would be wrong to let him go but also that he could not
properly reject the doctors' judgement. Using a formula which he
often found handy he replied to Mrs. Robbins that he was soon to go
to General Convention and could not deal with so important a matter

TENTH BISHOP AND TENTH RECTOR 125

in the interval, but would take it up on his return. When he got back
from New Orleans he found the dean at the cathedral, "clothed and in
his right mind," and functioning as usual! Both the dean and Mrs.
Robbins were clear in their expression to the bishop that he had saved
the dean's very life.

The dean could not however bring himself to be active in the daily
life of the cathedral or assume any real responsibility except in the
important matter of the preaching. The bishop expected of him an at
tention to detail which was beyond his power to give. The situation
grew increasingly irksome. Finally at Christmas time in 1928 he quite
lost his head and offered his resignation ostensibly on the grounds
that the bishop was interfering with his "rights and privileges." The
letter of resignation was made public at once by the dean, or his
friends. It was, like its writer, naive.

More than a year ago I came to the conclusion that I ought to devote
myself, as soon as conditions are favorable, to preaching, literary work
in the field of religion, and its personal ministrations,

His reason for resigning was that he wanted to do other things. The
charge of interference was the excuse to make as much trouble as
possible. The bishop made this clear in his acknowledgement of the
resignation, which was not published.

We shall all regret very greatly losing you from the staff of the Cathedral
where you have served as Dean for eleven years, seven of which have
been during my administration. My own feeling towards you has been
one of warm regard and affection and will continue to be so. In view how
ever of your conclusion reached more than a year ago that you ought
to devote yourself to preaching and literary work in the field of religion,
a very natural conclusion for one endowed with your special gifts, and in
view also of the immensely inceased demands which must be made upon
the Dean of the Cathedral for executive and administrative work in con
nection with the opening and the plans for the use of the new portions
of the building, I feel no doubt that the decision which you have reached
is a right one, but it is my earnest hope that it may be arranged for you
to continue your work as one of our stated and specially appointed
preachers. This would continue your relationship with the Cathedral which
has been so deeply valued, and would give great happiness to all of us,
and I trust it may fit in with your desire, expressed in your letter, to de
vote yourself to preaching and literary work.

A storm arose. The dean's friends and the small group determined in
any and every way to damage the bishop joined to make a great issue
out of the resolution of a hopeless maladjustment which the bishop

126 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

had been obliged patiently to tolerate for seven years. The cry was
raised that the bishop was suppressing the liberals and playing the
dictator. The resignation was accepted at a meeting of the trustees
late in January, the delay and the bishop's silence when attacked be
ing this time due to his illness. He came down with influenza shortly
after Christmas and was very ill, lying at death's door for several
days. Some of the trustees were troubled over the harm to be done
to the cathedral and the life of the diocese by the dean's aggrieved
feeling. All but the blindly partisan came fairly soon to realize that
the bishop's position was right and inevitable and that Robbins' in
temperate behaviour was due to his mental condition, which required
medical care at recurring intervals the rest of his life. Robbins' suc
cessor at the Incarnation, Percy Silver, was one who supported him
staunchly and who believed the bishop to be in the wrong. I have
indicated earlier3 that he came to see things differently two years
later. In 1932 a curious illustration of Robbins' attitude came to
light. The bishop records in his diary in June of that year,

Much comment has been caused by the Will of a Miss Laura Shannon
who wrote a codicil directing that, in case I should outlive her, her be
quests amounting to $937,500. should go to St. Luke's Hospital instead
of the Cathedral. These bequests are in the form of Trust Funds left to
various people for their lifetime and the largest of these Trust Funds
amounting to $350,000.00 goes to the Revd. Dr. H. C. Robbins and his
wife. I did not know Miss Shannon and had never heard of her until this
Will was made public. She seems to have been known by no one at the
Cathedral except Dr. and Mrs. Robbins. It is a very interesting fact that
the codicil diverting these bequests from the Cathedral was written in
June, 1927, a year and a half before Dr. Robbins' resignation as Dean
which was presented on December 27th, 1928. A strange incident indeed.
I am receiving many letters and messages about it, but the less said about
it the better.

The bishop delayed the nomination of a successor to Robbins until
the autumn and then named Milo Hudson Gates. It was a shrewd
choice from the point of view of the election. Gates was popular with
Robbins' supporters and the "opposition" generally. He was an inti
mate crony of Silver. And he had been for years a devoted friend of
Manning. As Assistant Rector at Trinity, Manning had helped Gates
bring the Church of the Intercession into Trinity Parish as one of its
chapels. He had supported Gates in the building of the magnificent
new church, parish house, and vicarage in Trinity cemetery, and they

s See p. 14.

TENTH BISHOP AND TENTH RECTOR 127

had been on the closest terms. Gates was one of Manning's attending
presbyters at his consecration. His election was unanimous.

Gates took great interest in all the details of the daily life of the
cathedral. He lived entirely at the deanery and was in constant at
tendance at the services. He was specially qualified to concern himself
with the tremendous work of construction. He was also a popular
preacher, though a different kind from Robbins. He had been a greatly
beloved pastor at the Intercession and it disappointed him that there
was no parochial life at the cathedral. But it soon became apparent
that he was only a shadow of his former self. Part of the reason for
this lay in the devoted care and constant attention which he had
given to his wife during most of their married life. "Pussy" was an
invalid, partly paralyzed, amusing and gay, but unreasonable and dif
ficult. Gates had refused election to the Missionary Bishopric of Cuba
because he realized that the life would be too strenuous for her. They
were a very happy couple, but her incapacity made her quite depend
ent upon him and required a very large amount of his time and energy.
No one had suspected that his years at the Intercession had worn him
out but the change seemed to bring out the fact. He did not have
the necessary energy to undertake a new work, quite different from
what he had been doing. He suffered a serious paralytic stroke in the
spring of 1937 and it was apparent that he had been failing for some
time before that. With iron determination, but not discretion, he
continued in office for another two years and a half until his death.
The warm sympathy and cordial understanding of the Trinity days
continued between dean and bishop unabated at the cathedral but
the bishop was obliged to give much time to the oversight of cathe
dral affairs. He did not approve of this nor want to do it. The alter
native however would have been a neglect and decay in the cathe
dral's life which would have caused great harm.

The bishop took great pride in his relationship with the negro
members of his flock. The incident at Nashville4 indicates the man
ner of his approach. In 1923 he said to the convention

You may perhaps know that the Bishop of this Diocese has under his
spiritual charge more people of the colored race than any other bishop
of this Church, north or south.

He used to recall that the first child he baptized was a negro, his
first confirmation class was one of negroes, and the first church he
consecrated as bishop was for a negro congregation. His policy with

« See p. 40.

128 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

regard to the negro work of the diocese reflected his wisdom, vision,
and courage. Harlem, the great area to the northeast of the heights on
which the cathedral stands, was already well developed as a negro
"city" when he became bishop. The problems of Harlem are mani
fold. Integrated parishes were still for the distant future, though many
parishes had negro parishioners. Only one notorious case of exclusion
of negroes occurred in his time and that quickly failed. Some timid
people at the cathedral wondered from time to time whether the con
gregation there might become negro; but the bishop never gave the
matter a thought and allowed things to develop as they might. The
most notable thing about his policy was his insistence that fine sites
be procured for the negro churches where the work would have dig
nity and independence. In Lenox Avenue, at 122 Street, in the days
when Harlem was white there stood the large, ornate, ugly — and fash
ionable — Church of the Holy Trinity. In 1925 the problem of the
future of the parish was providentially solved by a fire which gutted
the building. Holy Trinity promptly moved to the north end of
Manhattan Island, announcing that the walls of the old building were
unsafe. The blackened remains stood thus for a few years, when fur
ther examination pronounced them sound and Bishop Manning in
sisted, over timorous objections by some diocesan officials, that ar
rangements be made to turn over the property to Saint Martin's
Chapel, then a negro mission under the City Mission Society. The
property was rehabilitated and Holy Trinity became Saint Martin's
Parish Church, commodious, dignified — and less ugly! — quite on a
par with the best churches of the city.

In Saint Nicholas Avenue, at 114 Street, was All Souls' Church,
smaller but also with an aristocratic white tradition. In 1929 the Revd.
Rollin Dodd became rector and began to give a more cordial wel
come to the negroes of the neighbourhood than seemed wise to some
of the vestry. In the struggle which ensued a majority of the vestry,
in an effort to maintain white supremacy and to induce the rector
to leave, finally closed the church "for repairs" and filled it with
scaffolding. On a Sunday morning in October, 1932, the bishop came
down from the cathedral, ordered a locksmith to break the lock on
the gate before the church door, and marched in with the rector and
a large congregation of negroes to hold service and to preach, point
ing out that the vestry had no authority to deny the rector free use
of the church and that the bishop stood squarely behind the rector in
his determination to minister to all who would come to All Souls'.
The opposition soon collapsed. Fr. Dodd remained the greatly beloved
white pastor of a predominantly black congregation until his retire-

TENTH BISHOP AND TENTH RECTOR 129

ment in 1950. In 1936 the bishop gave assistance to the Church of
Saint Ambrose, which for ten years had been using a rented hall, to
purchase a large stone church building at Fifth Avenue and 130
Street from the Presbyterians. This negro congregation had never had
financial assistance from the diocese and assumed itself the respon
sibility of the mortgage on its new building. These are only the more
dramatic illustrations of Manning's continuing policy, pursued with
out much fanfare, to nourish the negroes of his flock in conditions
which would provide them with independence, opportunity, and self-
respect.

Bishop Manning was a stern disciplinarian. He was always very
clear as to the limits of the church's law but within those limits he
was quite inflexible about what he knew it was necessary to do. The
sternness was well known to the public. The deep hurt sometimes to his
own sensitive nature was not known because it was concealed. The fol
lowing quotation from his diary in the third year of his episcopate
illustrates his private feeling.

Mrs. . . . came from Bar Harbor to see me this morning as to the ruling
which I have been obliged to make that she may not go to the Holy
Communion, which she feels deeply. It is a terrible responsibility to have
to give such a decision but the facts in this case seem quite clear, and the
Church must be true to her principles. The ever increasing tide of divorces
among us, and the increasing shamelessness of them is appalling. Mrs.
. . . , who had threatened to take her four children to the Presbyterian
Church, told me she could not be satisfied to do this and asked if she
might take them to the services of the Church, and attend with them.
I told her there had never been any ruling against this but that it was her
duty to take them to the services and bring them up in the Church, and
give them every help possible, but that she and [her husband] could not
lawfully receive the Holy Communion. She then asked if this would con
tinue necessarily until death, if her reinstatement might not be possible
in course of time if she accepted the present discipline. I told her very
definitely that I could make no promise as to this, that the question of
reinstatement in the future would have to be considered on its merits, in
view of the facts and the situation at that time and that the moral effect
of such reinstatement upon the life of the Church would always have
to be fully taken into account by the Bishop. After a long talk she left
seeing the position of the Church in the matter more clearly, and in a
better frame of mind than after our former interview some months ago.
The case is a most sad and flagrant one.

I was called one day with one or two other priests on the cathedral
staff to the bishop's office to act as witnesses of a quasi-judicial pro
ceeding. The rector of a country parish had become involved in gross

130 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

moral misconduct. The matter had been brought to the bishop's at
tention by the civil authorities in an effort to avoid publicity so far as
possible. A state policeman was present, ready to arrest the man, but
with instructions not to do so if the priest would resign and leave
the community at once. The bishop outlined the case fully to the
accused. He explained the overwhelming nature of the evidence
against him and the wisdom, both for his people and for himself, of not
bringing it out in public. He pointed out that he had every right
to a trial and the advice of a lawyer if he wished, but urged him to
sign the letter of resignation and renunciation of the ministry which
the bishop had prepared. The poor man twisted and turned for an
hour, attempting to deny everything, pleading for delay. The bishop
answered every point and remained adamant in the position that a
final conclusion was now to be reached one way or another. Of course
the firmness and the facts prevailed; the wretch signed the letter
and left; we were dismissed. A few moments later the bishop left his
office, white and shaken, and was not able to return to work there
for several days.

On the other hand the bishop had an unerring instinct as to what
action was really to the advantage of the church and when to leave
things alone. At the time of the publication of the 1928 revision of
The Book of Common Prayer members of the catholic party, led by
the Bishop of Milwaukee, decided to issue a missal which would con
tain in convenient form supplementary material used in many par
ishes — music, propers (the psalm verses for introit, gradual, offertory,
communion) , provision for a large number of saint's days and fes
tivals not in the prayer book calendar. Supplements to The Book of
Common Prayer, representing all schools of churchmanship, are num
erous and widely used. Each has its enthusiastic supporters, also those
who regard it of questionable value or downright disloyal. The
"American Missal" had on the fly leaf a certificate from the custodian
of The Book of Common Prayer that the material taken from that
book conformed to the standard book. It was an error in judgment
for the publishers to have asked, and for the custodian to have given,
this certificate. But the error offered an irresistible opportunity for
baiting catholics, and in New York for attempting to embarrass the
bishop by citing the excesses of members of his own party. Various
comments and resolutions were planned for the Diocesan Conven
tion in 1931. The bishop made the following statement early in the
proceedings and was thus able to block further discussion.

TENTH BISHOP AND TENTH RECTOR 131

The publication of an unauthorized service book for use in our churches,
bearing the title of "The American Missal," having come to my knowl
edge, I find it my duty as the ecclesiastical authority of the diocese to give
public notice, as I do hereby, in accordance with the provisions of Canon
46 of the General Convention, that the said book is not of authority in
this Church and that it is not authorized for use in this Diocese.5

The bishop tried always to continue the "chores" of the priestly
office in the midst of diocesan administration. Saint Luke's Hospital
is across the street from the cathedral and here he was able regularly
to make sick calls since church people, and especially the clergy, were
to be found there. Saturday afternoon was very often given to sick
calls.

In addition to the encouragement of new churches the bishop has
the difficult but inevitable responsibility, particularly in a city like
New York, of deciding when to give consent to the amalgamation or
closing of churches. Generally speaking Bishop Manning resisted sug
gestions that parishes be amalgamated. He always kept in mind that
while populations shift away they also shift back again. The Church
of the Ascension by the end of Grant's rectorship had come to be in
a largely nonresidential area in lower Fifth Avenue. Ten years later
it was in the midst of teeming apartments aud reconverted dwellings.
The unhappy memories of Saint John's Chapel may have influenced
him to shrink from facing the closing of a church. His firm resistance
to the judgement of rector and vestry had a good result in the case
of the Church of the Epiphany. This was in Lexington Avenue in
the thirties when he became bishop. The population had flowed
away from the church; the rector, the Revd. William T. Crocker, grew
old; and the life of the parish was at a low ebb. Twice the vestry
came to the bishop for his consent to the closing of the church and the
amalgamation of the parish with another. Twice the bishop refused.
Then came the proposal to move the parish itself to a new location
more than two miles to the north, on York Avenue. To this the bishop
agreed. The site chosen was in a growing residential area with no
church very near. The bishop made a large personal contribution to
the building fund. A handsome church was designed and built and
the parish flourished.6

5 An instance of his withholding a rebuke with good effect is given on p. 165.

6 See Charles Rowland Russell, The Church of the Epiphany, 1833-1958 (More-
house-Gorham, 1956).

CHAPTER NINE

BUILDING

THE
CATHEDRAL

T,

HERE were people who felt strongly, not to say violently, that
Bishop Manning used up too much time and energy in building his
cathedral; and there were also people who were filled with awe and
gratitude at the ability with which he laboured and at the success
he achieved. But there was general agreement that the Cathedral
Church of Saint John the Divine was Bishop Manning's cathedral, not
just because it was the cathedral of the diocese of which he was
bishop but because in a special sense he made it his own creation,
the product of his devotion and zeal and determination. Paradoxically
before he became bishop he showed almost complete lack of concern
for that with which he was to become so closely identified. Bishop
Manning did not make the cathedral in the sense of founding it.
He did not really take up the cathedral when he became bishop; it
was rather laid upon him.

Bishop Horatio Potter is buried behind the high altar of the cathe
dral in the place usually assigned to the founder. But he neither
originated the idea of a cathedral for the city and Diocese of New
York nor did he see so much as one stone laid upon another for its
construction. Philip Hone, the diarist, and mayor of the city, records
that Bishop Hobart in 1828 came to his house to discuss the matter of
a cathedral "in confidence"; and he adds, it "strikes my mind favour
ably." The first step was the securing of a charter and the forming of
a corporation. But this did not take place for over forty-five years after
Bishop Hobart's talk with Hone. Bishop Horatio Potter spoke pub
licly of the matter in his convention address in 1872. The moving
spirit behind the proposal was Stephen Payne Nash who, the follow-

132

BUILDING THE CATHEDRAL 133

ing year, secured passage, not without considerable opposition, of a
charter by the state legislature. The cathedral thus came into being as
a legal entity but no more. The trustees named in the charter began
to die off and in 1886 a meeting was held in the bedroom of the dying
bishop to fill up the number of trustees and so to forestall the demise
of the corporation. Bishop Horatio was succeeded in 1887 by his
nephew, Bishop Henry Codman Potter. The site of the cathedral was
purchased the same year and a competition for a design was insti
tuted. No less than sixty architects submitted plans and by July,
1891, that of Heins and La Farge was finally chosen. The cornerstone
was laid on the feast of Saint John the Evangelist, 1892, and the
building of the cathedral was really under way.

Cathedrals are for the most part built slowly and the Cathedral of
Saint John the Divine is of vast size. The change of design which took
place in 1911, when Cram was substituted for La Farge as architect,
did not materially alter the quantity of construction to be done. The
pace of construction which in reality is always the pace of money
raising, before Bishop Manning's episcopate, was normal as cathe
drals go. Biship Henry Codman Potter gave aggressive and energetic
leadership to the work. The granite cores of the great arches began to
rise on Morningside Heights. But the first major unit was not ready
until the time of Bishop Greer. In 1911 the choir and crossing (the
latter in reality only a temporarily enclosed space) were consecrated
and used for worship until 1939 when services began to be held in the
nave. Bishop Greer was not enthusiastic about cathedral building.
He was far more interested in the Bronx Church House. But even with
the bishop's coolness and the interruption of the First World War,
building progressed, the foundation of the nave being completed up to
the floor level.

On 27 April, 1920, the Board of Trustees passed a resolution calling
for proceeding with work on the nave

to the extent of not less than five hundred thousand dollars a year, pro
vided such sum be in hand.

The resolution has a certain note of grim determination about it. The
twenty-eight years since the laying of the cornerstone had seen real
progress in the work. But in proportion to what remained to be done
this was not notable. Cram's new, evolving, design was arousing en
thusiasm. Americans are inclined to be hasty. People must not be al
lowed to say we cannot or do not finish what we start. Let there be
no more delay.

134 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

It is interesting to note that Manning had nothing to do with the
passage of this resolution. He was not present at the meeting and
had not attended a meeting of the board during the preceding twelve
months. Indeed it might be said that his indifference to the cathedral
was apparently greater than that of Bishop Greer. It seemed almost
complete. In 1905 when he was at Saint Agnes, Canon George Wil
liam Douglas, who was directing cathedral affairs under Bishop Pot
ter (there was no dean until 1911), invited Manning cordially and
insistently to accept a canonry. This would not have involved transfer
to the cathedral but only responsibility for certain preaching. Man
ning declined. When he became Rector of Trinity he was elected a
trustee but rarely attended the monthly meetings. In the six years be
fore he was elected bishop he was present at six meetings, three of these
being in the spring of 1919 when plans were perhaps being made for
the erection of the founder's tomb. Manning had proposed this and
served as chairman of the committee. Aside from the matter of the
founder's tomb the only apparent indication of his interest in cathe
drals may be seen in his being invited to preach at the Washington
Cathedral in 1912 at evensong on the day of the consecration of the
Bethlehem Chapel, the first place of worship of that cathedral. His
sermon was a fine portrayal of the cathedral as a part of the sacra
mental system which is the extension of the incarnation, in his well-
known clear and didactic manner. But it is doubtful whether he was
asked to preach because of his interest in cathedrals or because of his
general position in the church and the great respect with which his
preaching was always heard. Certainly the trustees who voted for their
resolution in 1920 were not looking at the man who was to carry it
out. He was not present and they were not accustomed to having him
present. Bishop Burch had just become Bishop of New York and no
one that day foresaw his death and the election of the absent trustee
to succeed him in the course of another nine months.

The crusade of building the cathedral did not originate in the mind
of Manning and its inauguration did not have his support. He re
ported in his first convention address as bishop, in 1921, that he had
fully shared the misgivings of many as to the original design for the
cathedral, "but these latest plans have removed all my uncertain
ties." Now that he was bishop he gave earnest thought as to what he
must do about the resolution. It would certainly be easier to let it go
the way of many noble and impractical dreams and forget it. He has
left his own account of his approach to the project.

BUILDING THE CATHEDRAL 135

As I contemplated the task of arousing the necessary interest in the
Cathedral undertaking and of obtaining the great sums of money needed,
it seemed to me an almost overwhelming one. I knew that in the nature
of the case most of the large gifts must be obtained by the personal solici
tation of the Bishop, whoever he might be. I knew that this would de
mand a vast amount of time and energy which I should have liked to de
vote to other matters and that I must arrange to give this time and effort
without neglecting the normal and spiritual work of the Diocese, and
that the money must be raised without lessening the gifts for the sup
port of the large Missionary work and other work of the Diocese.

Both in the Diocese and the Community there was general apathy in
regard to the Cathedral Project. There was in fact opposition to active
renewal of the effort in some quarters where there should have been
strong support for it. The Rector of one of the largest and wealthiest
parishes in the city requested that none of the members of his parish
should be asked for gifts toward the building, a request which of course
could not be complied with.1 There were some leading citi/ens who felt,
and said, that in this day and land a Cathedral is an anachronism, that it
had its place in the middle ages and in the old world but would serve no
useful purpose here, though no one would today make this statement in
view of the place which the Cathedral holds in the life of the Diocese and
of the Community. It was evident that if the effort was to succeed there
must be a great campaign of education to arouse general interest in the
undertaking and to make clear what the Cathedral should mean to the
Diocese, to the City of New York, and to the whole Cause of Religion.
With this in view the firm of Tamblyn and Brown was engaged — not to
do the actual work of soliciting gifts — but to organize the campaign, to
give their advice and suggestions as to plans and methods, and to do the
vast amount of clerical work required. The part taken by Tamblyn and
Brown in the undertaking was invaluable and indispensable and the re
sults obtained would not have been possible without such help.

The bishop made a private promise to himself that if he were able
to raise a million dollars he would count his effort worth while. That
was in 1921. In April, 1925, when he telegraphed to Elihu Root, who
was one of his warmest supporters in the campaign and chairman of

i The rector in question sought to give weight to his request by having his two
wardens sign his letter with him but his thunder was rather stolen by the fact
that one of the two wardens had accepted quite cordially, less than two weeks
before, the bishop's request to serve on the great Citizen's Committee under Elihu
Root. This was in 1923. In 1925 the same rector endeavoured unsuccessfully to per
suade the convention to pass a resolution calling a halt on further raising of funds
for the cathedral. And in 1929, when his term of office as a trustee was due for
renewal, the bishop in his address called for the election of trustees who would
support the cathedral. The suggestion of a purge failed however for he was re-
nominated by the convention.

136 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

the Citizen's Committee, that the fund had reached ten millions Root
wrote back, "It is a cheerful thing to remember our discussions a
year or so ago about what could be done with a three million fund."
In the end he raised over thirteen million dollars for construction
alone, or rather more than the half million a year which the trus
tees' resolution had hopefully contemplated. This figure does not in
clude what was raised for endowment nor bequests inspired by his
leadership which came to the cathedral after his time.

The work of organizing a campaign was a lengthy one and the new
bishop's time was taken up with many other matters which he re
garded as important and to which he devoted his tremendous energy.
But it did proceed. There were long discussions with Tamblyn and
Brown and an elaborate plan and agreement worked out. It was eigh
teen months before the first meeting of the executive committee for
the campaign was held and the intensive public drive did not begin
until four years after Manning's election. But in the meantime he had
done valiant work in personal appeals for gifts, both large and small.
Mr. Frank Munsey, owner of the New York Sun, made a very helpful
gift at the outset though the bishop had been told he was not a likely
prospect. He agreed to be the first of ten to give a hundred thousand
dollars each. The other nine were secured within three months and
the bishop was past the mark he had originally set for himself. But
he was moving so fast by this time that it is to be doubted whether
he noticed it.

He wrote letters, sent literature, made calls, referred to the gifts of
others, used an infinite variety of means to appeal to possible donors.
One device he consistently followed was to reply at once to any
letter which expressed lack of interest or gave a refusal. The reply
almost ignored the refusal and continued to stress points which might
be of interest to the individual concerned. It often worked. One trus
tee who had been newly elected to the board insisted on resigning
when he discovered that there was to be a drive since he disapproved
of that method of building. He was the son of an ardent admirer
of Manning but the bishop could not dissuade him. Nothing daunted
the bishop wrote him,

I regret that this is your decision in the matter. This great undertaking
to which the Diocese of New York has been committed for fifty years is a
responsibility that has been laid upon us, and an unequalled opportunity
to increase and strengthen the influence of the Church. In my judgment
the name of your family should be identified, as so many of the old fam
ilies will be, with the building.

BUILDING THE CATHEDRAL 137

A few years later the bishop's judgement prevailed and he and his
family contributed most generously.

Another couple, who made a modest contribution (scarcely a tenth
of what the bishop had been led to expect) to the building fund in
the early days, gave thought to the matter in the succeeding years.
They had no further direct contact with the bishop but nevertheless
willed their residuary estate, amounting to a thousand times the
original gift, to the endowment fund. Word of this notable fruit of the
seed he had sown was given by the bishop in his final convention
address. The income from this bequest now forms the principal finan
cial support of the cathedral's work.

Two matters of policy helped to reduce the worries which must
always accompany so vast an undertaking. It had been the rule from
the beginning that no debt would be incurred for construction. To
this rule the bishop gave strict adherence. All contracts with the
builders were so arranged that work could be halted at any time. Con
struction proceeded as money was in hand. During the later years of
his episcopate progress at times slowed down almost to a standstill
but it was never stopped completely. Also the bishop made it a rule
to avoid suggesting that gifts to the building fund be made in the
form of visible memorials, except for very large units. There has
sometimes been great embarrassment where individuals have given
special memorial details in a great building and the general fund
is not able to build the necessary structure of which the memorials
are only parts. There are comparatively few individual memorials in
the Cathedral of Saint John the Divine. The bishop tried always to
suggest that gifts, large or small, be made simply to the building
fund and in this he was eminently successful.

One of the notable gifts was the baptistry, given by the members of
the Stuyvesant family. A figure of their famous ancestor, Peter, with
his wooden leg, stands in one of the niches. Peter is buried in the
church yard of Saint Mark's-in-the-Bouwerie and that parish was be
ing kept in the public notice at the time by the ingenious but unedi-
fying antics of the rector, William Norman Guthrie, the bishop's
friend of Sewanee days. The Stuyvesants were highly incensed at the
goings on in the parish church with which the family had been asso
ciated for so long and grateful to the bishop for his stiff disapproval.
They became his warm admirers and supported the cathedral cam
paign by providing this magnificent structure, the first unit of the
Cram design to be completed.

The largest single gift for construction in Manning's time came

138 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

from a Unitarian, George F. Baker. The bishop so impressed him
with the grandeur of the ideal of the cathedral that he agreed to give
the northwest tower. A serious embarrassment arose in the matter.
The bishop was given by his advisors the fgure of nine hundred
thousand dollars as the probable cost of the tower and this was the
amount that Mr. Baker understood. Later the firm figures from the
builder came in, based on the detail drawings; these figures were al
most double. In the meantime Mr. Baker had died. The bishop had
to take up the matter with his son, who very kindly agreed to an ad
ditional amount. But a million dollars did not complete the tower
and it could be carried up only to the level of the floor of the bell
ringers' chamber.

Another difficutly over the difference between estimates and actual
costs was more happily settled. Mr. William Woodward agreed to
give the great rose window in the west front in memory of his parents.
As the work approached completion it was reported that the expen
diture would be considerably over the original figure. Mr. Woodward
was abroad at the time watching his race horse, Gallant Fox, whose
name is known to all followers of the turf. Gallant Fox had a very
notable season, winning most of his races. His success gave joy to his
owner and afforded comfort to the bishop, for it furnished the latter
a suitable topic of pleasant conversation when he called on Mr. Wood
ward after his return to give him the bad news. It is reported that
Mr. Woodward swore but acknowledged handsomely that it was no
time to haggle over financial figures, even large ones.

When the bishop had once made up his mind to take up the cathe
dral project he did indeed throw himself completely into it. In his
convention address of 1923, as plans for the great drive were form
ing, he said,

It is my hope that when we begin the work we shall not stop, but that
we shall go forward until the whole great edifice is completed. This un
dertaking will not, I believe, conflict with any other good project —
civic, philanthropic, or religious. No one will give less to any good cause
because of the gift he makes toward the building of the Cathedral. On
the contrary, I believe . . . that this noble task will stir our interest and
enlarge our vision; it will give added impetus to all the religious work
we are now doing; it will rouse us spiritually as a Diocese as nothing has
yet roused us in all our history.

So far as he was concerned this remained the goal throughout his
episcopate. He gave so much time and energy and achieved such re
sults that it seems difficult to realize that he did much else. But he

BUILDING THE CATHEDRAL 139

did. There were many other things to occupy him and many inter
ruptions and obstacles to the drive for the cathedral. In 1924 he
preached in the cathedral, giving a charge to the diocese on the ob
ligation of the clergy to teach and preach with loyalty to the church's
creeds. He recognized and stated frankly the problem involved.

It has been intimated to me, and to the public, that a clear position on
my part upon these questions might result in financial loss to the work
of the diocese, and especially to the campaign now commencing for the
building of the Cathedral. I do not believe it. But if this suggestion were
true my answer would be that a thousand Cathedrals are of less im
portance than one foundation fact of the Christian Faith. Better that
the Cathedral should never be built than that a Bishop of this Church
should fail to bear his witness for the full truth of Jesus Christ.

The result of such a statement was, as he perfectly well realized it
would be, to attract the attention of people who admire straight think
ing and clear speaking even when they do not wholly agree and to
help rather than hinder the drive.

The controversies and disciplinary difficulties of the early years
of his episcopate did not originate with Manning. Some of them
were gratuitously stirred up by a small cabal of the clergy of the dio
cese who seemed determined, at any cost and in any way, to tear
him down. He had to make the decision in each case whether or not
to ignore questionable or wrong behaviour or teaching. There were
occasions on which he decided to ignore but it was never because
the result would be unpleasantness for the bishop, but only because
the unlikelihood of success offered no chance of advantage to the
church's well-being. The controversy and its publicity usually resulted
from what others started. In the matter of prohibition however it was
the bishop who took the initiative. The bishop was not a prohibi
tionist. A sermon at Nashville, quoted in a previous chapter, makes
this clear. Wine was served at his table before prohibition and after
repeal, though he was rarely if ever seen to take any himself. He had
no scruple against hot whiskey for a cold but that was the extent of
his drinking. In a sermon before the Loyal Legion in 1917 he spoke
in favour of prohibition as a war-time measure. When the constitu
tion was amended he took the position that what was the law of the
land could, and should, be enforced and that positive good would
come from it. In December, 1923, in the Marble Collegiate Church
and in the cathedral pulpit in February, 1926, he spoke about law
enforcement. He repudiated the teaching that drinking is sin and as
serted the right of any who wished to work for repeal; but he called

140 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

boldly for upholding the amendment and for enforcement of the law
so long as it existed. There was very real courage in taking such a
stand while the building campaign was on. The great majority of
those who were able to make large contributions were opposed to
prohibition and scornful of its advocates. In 1932 he went even fur
ther in a sermon from the cathedral pulpit, calling for the re-election
of Mr. Hoover to preserve the eighteenth amendment. There is dif
ference of opinion as to the propriety of such a sermon, or the right-
ness of the bishop's position, but there can be no question that he
was bold to the point of recklessness in his disregard for any pos
sible effect on the building campaign. But by 1932 the bishop's posi
tion was fully established. No one imagined that expediency would
be the sole, or even chief, influence with him in any matter.

The great drive for gifts and pledges took place early in 1925. It
opened with a mass meeting in the old Madison Square Garden,
which was packed and from which it was estimated that five thousand
were turned away. To fill Madison Square Garden for a religious
gathering was a thing which had not before been undertaken. It has
been reported that the result was achieved by the rather questionable
zeal of some anonymous underling who hit upon the device of dis
tributing among the parishes of the diocese two tickets for each seat!
Tamblyn and Brown, who managed the campaign, had a large staff
at work. A full time supervisor was employed from September, 1924,
to November, 1925. During the intensive period in January and Feb
ruary there were a maximum of 26 organizers, 8 publicity workers,
and 100 secretaries and stenographers. After the drive had continued
for a month the treasurer of the building fund, Mr. Edward W. Shel
don, made a report of the work done by his staff. Three hundred gifts
and pledges were received the first day. These increased rapidly to
about 5,000 a day, a total of 40,000 for the four weeks, coming from
about 90,000 individuals. As much as $10,000 in bills of small de
nominations and change was received in a day. Seventy-eight clerks
and 20 typists were employed in the work of counting money, tabulat
ing names and pledges, and sending out receipts. A series of daily
luncheon meetings was held at which the volunteers who were rais
ing funds reported. The paid staff then continued their work until
11 o'clock or midnight. Tamblyn and Brown estimated that 350,000
contributions or pledges had been made up to November, 1925. No
estimate could be made of the number of volunteer workers who took
part in the campaign under the direction of, and served by, all these
professionals. Over it all was the little man whose determination

BUILDING THE CATHEDRAL 141

aroused enthusiasm, overcame obstacles, and kept everything going.
A letter from Mr. Tamblyn in June, 1923, shows both the importance
of the bishop's part in the work and the feeling he inspired in those
who worked for him.

It is unnecessary to say that both Mr. Brown and I believe that the suc
cess of the campaign depends upon your health and your opportunity to
serve in the unique position which only the Bishop of the Diocese can
serve and that, after we have told everybody else what he and she must
do and impressed upon each of them the fact that their willingness and
their ability to do the particular task which we give them will deter
mine to a large degree the success of the campaign, we know deep down
in our hearts that the real success lies with you.

It is impossible to give anything like a complete list of all those he
won to the cause and induced to work for him, but reference to a
few will give an idea of the catholicity and compulsion of the bishop's
summons. Such public figures as Elihu Root, George W. Wicker-
sham, Frank L. Polk, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, were very actively
connected with the campaign. Adolph Ochs, the distinguished Jewish
owner of the New York Times, gave the cathedral a pair of menorah
lights, patterned after those which stand in Jewish synagogues and go
back to the furnishings of the temple as described in the Old Testa
ment, to burn on either side of the high altar. General Charles Sher-
rill arranged for a series of gifts to the cathedral from various na
tional governments and rulers throughout the world. The formal pres
entation of these gifts was a source of continuing publicity and the
gifts themselves were interesting, and occasionally a little baffling in a
Christian church. General Ballington Booth of the Salvation Army
joined Mr. Root's committee with a word of praise for the bishop's
call for a truce, during the celebration of the Feast of the Nativity,
in the controversy raging over the virgin birth. Ed Wynn, the co
median, gave a benefit performance from which circumstance grew a
mutual, and warm, respect. A "Cathedral Horse Show" was held in
Westchester county; and the bishop was even taken out onto the ice
in the middle of the new Madison Square Garden during an inter
mission of a hockey match played for the benefit of the Sports Bay
Fund. The experts of the Tamblyn and Brown organization much
admired the bishop's shrewd judgement of what to do and what not
to do in the campaign. They considered that he had made only one
mistake. It is the experts' view that charity performances do not pay
much and result in more publicity for the actors than for the charity.

142 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

They considered that the result of the Ed Wynn performance confirmed
their view.

During the late thirties, at the time of the World's Fair, the bishop
induced Mayor La Guardia to head a committee to raise funds to
complete the choir. The bishop had taken great interest in the Sea-
bury Investigation, which led up to Mr. La Guardia's election, and
the mayor was a fairly frequent worshipper at the cathedral during
his term of office. He always refused to be put in a prominent place
and only consented to have a seat saved for him on condition that it
be half way down the aisle.

With all that went on to arouse interest and invite support there
were bound to be untoward incidents. These were surprisingly few
and they did little harm. There was a certain lady who, when Man
ning was Rector of Trinity, had belonged to an organization of the
parish interested in good works though she herself was not a member
of Trinity Parish. One year the nominating committee proposed to
name her president of the organization but the rector ruled that since
she was divorced and remarried it would not be right for her thus to
represent the parish. During the cathedral drive the lady received one
of the thousands of appeal letters that went out. It seemed an oppor
tunity not to be missed. In her reply, which she gave to the press, she
declined to give to the building fund and ended, "Bishop Manning,
I am still a divorced woman." Then there was the rector of a country
parish who telegraphed the bishop to ask how he was to explain to
his people the raising of money for the cathedral at a Saturday night
theatrical performance which continued well into the morning hours
of Sunday.

But the most notable flurry was that caused by the suggestion of
John D. Rockefeller, Jr., that the Board of Trustees of the cathedral
be broadened to include some who were not members of the Epis
copal Church. The constitution of the cathedral, adopted in 1894,
states

The Cathedral Church of Saint John the Divine, in the City and Dio
cese of New York, is the Diocesan Church of the Diocese of New York.
As a house of prayer it is for the use of all people who may resort thereto,
and especially of the Christian folk dwelling within that portion of coun
try covered by the spiritual jurisdiction of the Bishop of New York.

From this it was very natural to describe the cathedral as "A house
of prayer for all people," and this expression was often used from the
beginning. Much was made of it in the publicity in Bishop Manning's

BUILDING THE CATHEDRAL 143

time. It was perhaps not unnatural that, to those so inclined, the
phrase had implications of interdenominationalism. The suggestion
was sometimes made that the election of one or more trustees who
were not Episcopalians would have definite value in many ways.
The bishop received a request, in a private letter from a prominent
lawyer who was taking active part in the campaign, that the matter
be considered. He replied at length,

The question which you asked me as to the possibility of the Board of
Trustees including a certain number of representatives of other Churches
is an interesting one. It is not impossible that in course of time when
conditions are more ready for it some such development may take place,
but in the present state of the ecclesiastical world the practical difficulties
in the way of it would be very great.

In the first place, the intent of the Charter when granted, as interpreted
by all subsequent action, and by the Constitution adopted under it, was
plainly that the members of the Board should be communicants of the
Protestant Episcopal Church. Action by the Legislature would be neces
sary before such a change could safely be made, and the question of
changing a Charter often raises other difficult legal questions, especially
if there are people disposed to raise these questions, as to bequests made
and property held under the original terms of the Charter.

In the second place, before application could be made to the Legis
lature, any such action would have to be discussed and passed upon by
our Diocesan Convention, consisting of some eight hundred clergymen
and laymen, and in a body which includes such different types of mind,
and such widely divergent views, as our Convention does, it is extremely
doubtful whether the discussion of this subject under present conditions
would serve a good purpose.

And in the third place, if such action were to be seriously proposed,
the question would at once arise how and by whom should such repre
sentatives of other Churches be chosen, and which among all the dif
ferent Churches should have such representatives.

Under present conditions in the ecclesiastical world the true course, I
believe, and the only practical course, is to take the Cathedral founda
tion as it stands and make it a great force for the increase of the spirit of
fellowship and unity as we are doing. Then in due time further advance
will be possible. The large lines on which the Cathedral is working and
the feeling toward it of Ministers and people of all Churches, and of the
community as a whole, are the evidence that it is accomplishing its
purpose. . . .

The Cathedral, taken and used as it stands, is proving itself a wonder
ful instrument, indeed one of the greatest that we have, for closer fellow
ship and unity. No Board or Bishop could prevent this even if they
wanted to do so; and we need not fear that anyone will want to do so. In its

144 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

very nature, a cathedral stands for and promotes unity. That is the reason
that the people feel about it as they do. An ordinary church stands naturally
and necessarily for ministry to a particular group. The Cathedral stands for
ministry to no particular congregation. No group of people has prior rights
to its ministrations, or to its seats. It is literally a House of Prayer for all
people, a gathering place for the whole community. Its influence as now ex
erted, and as it will certainly continue to be exerted, is doing more than any
other agency that I know of for the promotion of the spirit of unity in this
great city. By its influence, it is helping every day, practically and power
fully, to create the conditions under which some such development as you
spoke of, and I hope still greater developments in the drawing together of
all who are moved by the Spirit of Christ, will take place. Our work is to
use to the full the opportunity now in our hands and if we do this God will
bring the rest to pass in time . . . and perhaps in less time than we think.

Mr. Rockefeller was among those from whom the bishop hoped the
cathedral might receive help. He was notable for his contributions to
many causes, and his interest in religious matters was outstanding.
The bishop reports that he

came to my office . . . stayed for two hours and twenty minutes discussing
the matter. ... If he and his Father would build the West Front what a
magnificent thing this would be. This stands for Religion and would so
stand to the whole country — and beyond.

Mr. Rockefeller's gift was for an amount considerably less than that
required to build the west front, and with it he also made the gift
to the bishop of the suggestion, in a public letter, that at some future
time consideration might be given to the desirability of including
on the Board of Trustees "a small number of laymen of sister
churches."

Mr. Rockefeller's letter gave the opportunity for a notable display
of fireworks by a few somewhat explosive persons. All kinds of ad
vice was offered as to the best manner to make the cathedral a "house
of prayer for all people." It was even suggested that failure to do
something definite to satisfy Mr. Rockefeller would be to take money
under false pretenses. Those who were directing the drive became
concerned as to the harmful effect of public discussion of the matter.

The bishop's manner of dealing with this proposal is interesting.
His reply to Mr. Rockefeller (the letter had, in fact, been read by
Mr. Rockefeller before his gift was actually made) was clearly nega
tive but very general in its terms. The bishop then made no effort to
reply to the various statements, letters, and editorials which appeared
in support of Mr. Rockefeller or to give detailed reasons for his po-

BUILDING THE CATHEDRAL 145

sition. There was nothing like the private letter quoted above. Two
weeks later, at the Church Club dinner, he made two points. The
making of a drastic constitutional change in connection with the re
ceipt of a large gift of money would have unfortunate implications.
The slogan "A house of prayer for all people," was nothing new, but
as old as the cathedral itself, and was already in effect with things as
they were.

The excitement died down. No change was made in the cathedral's
constitution. The building campaign continued on its irresistible
way. The life of the cathedral went on as before. A young man who
asked to be married in the cathedral by a Protestant minister of his
choice was refused; but Protestant preachers continued to be invited
on frequent special occasions. The bishop was clear in his own mind
that what was proposed was of no practical value, either to increase
interest in the cathedral campaign, or to promote the cause of the
church unity to which he was whole-heartedly devoted, or to enlarge
the cathedral's usefulness. The answer had to be a plain no. This
was bound to cause distress to many. To give reasons for the necessity
of the no would only enlarge and prolong the controversy and so in
crease the distress. The bishop's supporters sometimes felt that he did
not do himself justice when he withheld the reasons for his decisions.
His opponents were given the opportunity to accuse him of being
narrow, dictatorial, unenlightened; and the public was deprived of
the chance to see that the accusations were false. But he was not given
to defending himself. He was content to take the blame if his silence
could help secure the decision by withholding fuel from the flame
of controversy.

The bishop took as much interest and pleasure in the development
of the design of the cathedral, and all its details, as in the raising of
the funds. The major change in design involved in the choice of Mr.
Cram was made before he became bishop. But Cram's design had to
go through a considerable evolution and details had to be worked out.
After making his superb plan for the nave, Cram had to cope with
the great problem of the central space, the crossing. This is a huge
area, one hundred feet square. Cram made a series of suggestions for
its treatment, finally making a large scale model of the whole cathe
dral to study adequately the design of a square tower resting, not
on the great arches of the crossing directly, but on a second set of
arches which provided a means of setting back the tower to a much
narrower dimension. The bishop followed Cram's studies with in
terest, criticising and encouraging. He accepted Cram's final design

146 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

with enthusiasm but the funds were never sufficient to carry it out.
It now seems very doubtful whether the design will be carried out
as Cram planned it. Before the end of his episcopate the bishop real
ized and admitted that another architect would have to make his own
plan when the time came to undertake the work.

The bishop gave much time to the study of the glass. He was
abroad in 1927 to preach in York minster at the 1300th anniversary
of that diocese and to attend the World Conference on Faith and
Order at Lausanne; and he took the opportunity to study medieval
stained glass in England and on the continent. Before decision was
made as to the glass for the nave he went about inspecting the mod
ern glass made in this country. He was interested in all the details of
iconography, that is the figures and scenes to be represented in the
ornamentation of the cathedral, and gave careful attention and study
to the proposals of various experts in these matters. His part in the
great rose window in the west front has already been told.

He took great pains over the design for the pavement of the nave.
The money for this was raised in an interesting way. The Laymen's
Club of the cathedral, a devoted body of men who ushered at the
services and guided visitors about the building, undertook the re
sponsibility for this and it came quite naturally to be called the Pil
grim Pavement. The bulk of a very large fund came from the offerings
of visitors who made the "pilgrimage." It was then decided that the
design of the pavement should have to do with pilgrimage. The pave
ment is of green and black slate, at the bishop's suggestion, with or
namental medallions of bronze, heraldic in design. Up the centre of
the middle aisle is a pilgrimage of the life of our Lord — the princi
pal places mentioned in the New Testament in connection with his
earthly life. In the side aisles the medallions are symbolic of various
famous pilgrimage sites of Christian history.

With the dedication of the Pilgrim Pavement in March, 1934, the
nave was ready for use; but with the choir incomplete, and the cross
ing untouched, the bishop reluctantly postponed taking down the
temporary wall between the nave and crossing. As a result of the great
depression of the early thirties funds came in slowly and work was
almost at a standstill. At one time the bishop received an earnest
request from members of the building trades that more construction
be undertaken so that employment might be given to those who so
urgently needed it. He was eager to do as he was asked but the rule
of no debt for construction stood in the way and the bishop bravely
decided that the rule must not be abandoned. One of the trustees

BUILDING THE CATHEDRAL 147

suggested that government work relief funds might be secured to
carry on construction but the problems and difficulties which he real
ized would be involved again prevented the bishop's pursuit of a sug
gestion which would not ultimately have been wise. To further this
effort to raise funds for construction to help relieve unemployment,
John Finley had a helpful editorial in the New York Times in July,
1933. In it he made a graceful reference to Saint Cyprian of Carthage,
saying that he would be "amazed and overjoyed" in seeing what was
being planned and carried out in the new world. The bishop wrote
to thank him for the editorial, while a certain Roman Catholic wrote
to protest that though Cyprian might well be "amazed," he would
be "grieved" instead of "overjoyed" because the bishop and the
cathedral in the new world were not in proper communion with the
Bishop of Rome whose position Cyprian had upheld so strongly. The
bishop sent Dr. Finley a justification of the editorial which the latter
described as an "ecclesiastical utterance of the highest order."

Mr. Mazzarela is mistaken as to Cyprian's position. Cyprian neither de
fended, nor imagined, the modern claims of the Roman church, or the
development of the Papacy and the recent Dogma of Infallibility. In the
year 250 no one had yet dreamed of this. What he had in mind was
Primacy of honour and respect, but without any rights of jurisdiction or
rule, such as we should all be glad to give today to the Bishop of the
great and ancient See of Rome, the same sort of brotherly Primacy among
equals which the Anglican Communion is given to the Archbishop of
Canterbury. The simple fact is that if Cyprian came to New York today
he would find himself entirely at home in the ecclesiastical atmosphere
at St. John's Cathedral while at St. Patrick's many things would be wholly
unknown and quite inexplicable to him.

Finally in 1938, in connection with the World's Fair of 1939, sufficient
funds were secured to proceed with the work of completing the in
terior of the choir, and a temporary altar was prepared in the nave,
part of the organ was moved, and services were held there from
March, 1939, to December, 1941, when the dividing wall was taken
down.

In the meantime the bishop arranged for two quite different, but
equally impressive, uses of the nave. By 1936 the subject of slum
clearance was much on men's minds. In January, 1937, the bishop
preached on the subject in the cathedral and was immediately asked to
head a conference under inter-religious auspices. A mass meeting was
held in the cathedral at the end of February and the conference took
place in the Synod House the following day. In the nave there was

148 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

set up an exhibit of plans, designs, and charts. The central feature
of the exhibit was an actual slum apartment of four rooms from an
area being cleared, which had been occupied by a family of nine less
than two weeks before. Mr. Spencer Miller, the moving spirit of the
committee in charge, reported

There, amid the serene and solemn Cathedral surroundings, this striking
evidence of the slum evil was witnessed by thousands of people not less
eloquent in its mute testimony than the addresses delivered at the Con
ference.

In May, 1937, and again in May, 1938, the bishop arranged for the
performance of the Bach Saint Matthew Passion in the nave. The
nave was crowded with people, who heard the performance with great
satisfaction and who were obviously much moved by it. This was
shown in an interesting way. It had been debated whether to put a
note on the program asking people not to applaud. The bishop de
cided that applause would be quite proper and people should be
free to do as they wished. No word was given but at the end of each
part of the performance the whole multitude sat for an instant in
complete silence and then rose and filed out.

As we have seen, the bishop accepted the mandate to build the
cathedral in the fullest and broadest sense. He carried his conception
of his duty to complete the cathedral to the end of his episcopate, no
matter how great the difficulties at any particular time, and assumed
that those who came after him would carry on where he left off. He
was quite indifferent to personal criticisms so long as what he did
was effective for the proper carrying on of the work.

The original drive in 1925 was announced as having fifteen million
dollars as its objective and the campaign brought in only two-thirds
of that amount at the time. But the bishop knew that what could be
called failure was a necessary device to spur greater effort than would
seem probable or possible. Goals are not so much to be achieved as
to be reached for. His words on the subject of the cathedral in his
last convention address, when he made formal announcement of his
resignation, were much the same as those of the twenty-five which had
preceded.

Our proposed renewal of the Building Campaign when the War ended
last year was postponed to give first place to the Appeal for the Fund
for Reconstruction and Advance, but this was only a postponement. The
whole glorious length of the great Edifice is open and in use, but the in
harmonious Round Arch at the junction of the Choir and Crossing, the

BUILDING THE CATHEDRAL 149

partly built North Transept, the unsightly temporary Dome still over
the Crossing and the steel scaffolding waiting in its place for the com
pletion of the Western Towers, call loudly for a continuance of the work.

These are not the words one expects from a man of eighty, who has
completed fifty-six years in the ministry, twenty-five of them as bishop
of the chief diocese of his province of the church, and who is re
signing. Rather they come from one who knows himself to be the
occupant for a brief time of an office which has come from the past
and continues into the future, who thus becomes completely forgetful
of self in the discharge of his trust. They are the words of a young
man who, knowing the past from which he comes and on which he
builds, looks forward with confidence to a new day.

CHAPTER TEN

DIARY

HE bishop kept a diary. It begins in 1904 when he was at Saint
Agnes. The last entry is on 30 October, 1949, a few days before his
death. In the earlier years there are many periods, even years, when
he made no entry. For the last twenty years of his life he wrote almost
daily. The chief feature of the diary is his account of family life;
public affairs are sometimes not even referred to. His constant refer
ences to the members of his household show his great delight in his
family including the more remote members who were with them a good
deal; his mother-in-law, of whose death in his house at Mount Desert
he gives a moving account; his sister-in-law, Lizzie, who lived with
them always, and whose deafness made her quite dependent on the
others; the Lea cousins from Philadelphia, who visited frequently;
the friends of his daughter Frances whom he quite obviously re
garded as his friends too; and the visitors, whether personal friends
or official callers, whose coming seems always to have given him
pleasure. He almost never indicates being tired or bored by people.
His references to the clergy newly come into the diocese are always en
thusiastic. There is almost no reference to the individuals who formed
the small group of clergy which was determined to harass him during
much of his episcopate. His public denunciations are never matched
by any private word of annoyance in the diary. When there is ref
erence to cases of discipline it is always with real grief.

The publication of the diary as a whole would be quite unsatisfac
tory, partly because of the many gaps (he was not keeping it at the
time of his election as Rector of Trinity, or as bishop) and partly
because the diary is so often silent about important matters. But a

150

DIARY 151

sample of it reveals the quite simple, warm, straightforward manner
of which many were unaware. It occurred to me to quote in virtual
entirety the diary for a year and I chose arbitrarily the middle year of
his episcopate, September, 1933, to August, 1934. Examination then
proved this to be a good choice. The diary was regularly kept up then.
It is a fair sample of the flavor of the whole. He was engaged in a large
number of matters in this period and there is a good picture of the
varied and crowded nature of his life.

BISHOP MANNING'S DIARY
September 1, 1933— August 81, 1934

September 1st [At Somesville, Mt. Desert, Maine] At work on sermons. In
afternoon F. [Mrs. Manning] and I drove to the top of Green Mountain —
now called Cadillac — the brilliant sun above and the fog below resting
softly on the islands gave a wonderful effect — Then to Jordan Pond for
tea with Bishop and Mrs. Freeman — Mrs. Mackay Smith and her daugh
ter Virginia Boy-Ed, the Newells and Mrs. Wolven.
2nd Van left this morning for Phila. in Elsie's Car; he expects to spend a
night with the members of the family at Stonington — At work in Study.
F. and I drove to Bar Harbor to see Elsie — A glorious day and the Island
was never more beautiful.

3rd Twelfth S. after Trinity. Another quiet Sunday — Many people are
leaving but there were 13 at our Early Service. Elizabeth's Birthday.
4th Labour Day — Torrents of rain all day — bringing disappointment to
great numbers of people — Received news of the death of the Revd. Dr.
Lubeck — a faithful and devoted priest. R.I.P. Spent the day in Study.
5th Morning in Study — Fr. Woolsey & Mr. Carson from South West Har
bour called.

6th-12th The usual round. At work on sermon for Chicago — address in
Philadelphia, etc., etc. Many letters. Elsie is here with us now convalescing
— and Lizzie since the Clifton House closed at Northeast Harbour.
18th At work on Cathedral and Diocesan matters. The amount received
in response to my letter sending out the Appeal of the Labour Unions is
now about $20,000.00. This will give the men some work but not very
much. Most of the people to whom the Appeal has gone are feeling keenly
the effects of the depression — and there is also a good deal of feeling
against the Labour Unions which has recently been strengthened by the
charge believed by many — whether justly or not — that William Green and
the other Labour Union Leaders are getting too much power through the
workings of the National Recovery Act.

14th At work on Diocesan matters and preparations for our Conference
of the Clergy at Lake Mahopac. This gathering which I started a few
years ago has done much for us and has greatly increased the spirit of
fellowship among the clergy — At this meeting I am to begin with a talk

152 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

on what we hope this Conference will do for us and the other speakers are
to be Bishop Sherrill of Massachusetts on "The Opportunity which this
present time offers to the Church," Bishop Farthing of Montreal on "The
Spiritual life of the Clergy," Mr. Will Spens, Master of Corpus Christi
College and Vice Chancellor of Cambridge University on "The Present
Condition of the Catholic Movement in the Church of England," Governor
John G. Winant of New Hampshire on "Recreation in its relation to
Life and to Religion," the Revd. Dr. McGregor of the Dept. of Religious
Education of the National Council, on "The Religious Teaching that our
young people need To-day" and the Revd. Dr. Sunderland of the City
Mission Society on "Our work for the unemployed people of our own
Church."

15th-18th The usual round — At work on sermons and on Diocesan
matters —

19th Writing all the morning. In the afternoon we drove over to Bar
Harbour to see Elsie in the Hospital — she is now making good progress —
Went to see Miss Miller — the Brinleys were there and he told me about
the Rural Missionary Work he is undertaking here in Maine — very inter
esting and promising. I re-read B'p. Gore's "Mission of the Church" — It
reminded of the first time I met him in 1912, when I spent a night with
him at Cuddesdon and found him eager to hear of my experiences in deal
ing with Trinity Tenement Situation — we talked for hours about it and
he asked endless questions. My last meeting with him was at the World
Conference on Faith and Order at Lausanne in 1927, where his influence
was far greater and more helpful than that of any other person. He was
unfailingly present at the early Eucharist in the little English Church and
on the morning that I Celebrated suggested my using the "American Rite,"
which I did, and insisted upon serving me at the Altar.
20th Preparing to leave for New York — Said goodbye to Mr. Fernald,
Mrs. Pray, the Parkers next door, Mrs. Smith at the Post Office, and left
"good bye" for others who were out. Miss Fannie Norris and her brother
Dr. Norris called. The time here has gone very quickly. It has been a
great rest, and a great opportunity for some of the work I can never find
time for in New York. Took the train at Ellsworth at 5.45 — Howard Town-
send and others on board. In the Dining Car a loud and cheerful voice
exclaimed "Why — Bishop Manning — by golley I'm glad to see you again"
— It was the Conductor with whom I had a long talk on the train one
night several years ago. We had a brief chat and later he came to my
section to tell me he had arranged for me to have the use of the vacant
Drawing Room on getting up in the morning, which was very nice of him
and very comfortable —

21st St. Matthews Day — Reached the house at about 8.15 a.m. and found
Frances at the door — Elizabeth and Griff came up for breakfast with us
and then went on to Philadelphia. Unpacking — seeing people — at work in
Office— etc.

DIARY 153

22nd Spent much time at my office — At work finishing my sermon for
Chicago —

2Srd In morning at office — Afternoon and Night in Study.
24th Fifteenth S. After Trinity — In Cathedral — Celebrated at eight — The
pavement of the Nave is finished and is very beautiful and effective — and
the smaller Rose Window is now very lovely —

25th At 9.30 offered a prayer at the opening of the Convention of Sec
retaries of Chambers of Commerce from all over the U.S. — a very interest
ing lot of men. Got news of the death of Geoge F. Crane and went at
once to see Mrs. Crane. Mr. Crane was of great help in the reorganization of
the affairs of Trinity Parish which followed upon the measures with regard
to the Dwelling House Property of the Parish to which I had to give
much of my time and strength during my first years as Rector. The printed
"Survey" of the Property and other Reports at that period show what an
undertaking this was but it was done without public demonstration and
with little newspaper publicity. One of the crucial measures was dis
cussed at a Vestry Meeting lasting until nearly two o'clock in the morn
ing, and the measure was carried only by my casting vote from the chair.
26th At work in Office and in Study on sermons.

27th At 10 officiated at funeral of George F. Crane at Trinity Church.
Saw many of my old friends and parishioners there but the number of
those whom I knew closely as Rector is growing much smaller. Letters,
Diocesan matters, etc. Spent some time in the Cathedral studying the new
Windows.

28th Office work all morning. Took train at 5 p.m. for Chicago. Met on
train an old choirboy of the Cathedral; 20 years ago, now one of the
Heads of Departments at "Bamberger's."

29th St. Michael and All Angels. Reached Chicago at 9.45— Met by
Bishop Stewart & others. The Bishop took me to the Diocesan Head
quarters — then to visit the great Fair in recognition of "A Century of
Progress" — It was possible only to see a little of it but we visited the
Hall of Science — went carefully through the Hall of Religion — what can
an intelligent pagan think of an exhibit of this sort? — and to the Belgian
Village, a very true and charming reproduction of Belgian life. Lunched
with the Bishop and a group of men, clergy & laity, & then to his home
in Evanston for a brief rest and dinner. Then to the Stadium for the
Service — a wonderful gathering — clergy and choir numbering two or three
thousand, with the great body of Acolytes — torch bearers — and Crucifers
four abreast — and some ten thousand people. After the service I went to
the train. Forty years ago I visited the Worlds Fair in Chicago, on my
way from my first parish in Redlands, California, to Sewanee to take the
Chair of Dogmatic Theology which I undertook at the urgent wish of
dear Dr. Du Bose and Bishop Gailor — though I told them I doubted if I
could feel satisfied away from parish life, which proved to be the case — I

154 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

loved the work and the life at Sewanee but could not feel fully satisfied
without a parish.

The five principal sermons and addresses which the bishop gave in
this year illustrate quite fully the bishop's preaching. The manner of
his preaching has already been described. This manner continued the
same in later life. His very deliberate delivery with rather long pauses,
the clear, strong tones, especially proceeding from so small a frame,
reinforced the impression of authority which his earnest and usually
grave demeanor created. He rarely preached or spoke at great length
though brevity was never obvious to his hearers. He never preached
"sermonettes." And while he did not usually preach upon mere topics
of the times it was usually plain that his preaching was specially timely.
Again in the manner of his presentation he always strove to appeal
to as wide an audience as possible and seemed specially to have in
mind the winning of those who could be expected to be in opposition,
or little interested, on the particular occasion.

Thus in the sermon in the Chicago Stadium on the occasion of the
observance of the hundredth anniversary of the Oxford Movement he
did not dwell specially upon the achievements and successes of the
movement, as might have been expected of the leading bishop of the
catholic party at a celebration attended chiefly by partisans; but rather
emphasized the special contribution of the movement to the work of
spiritual revival in the church which must always be taking place and
in which other movements also have their part. He spoke almost as
though he were addressing a gathering of avowed evangelicals instead
of catholics.

What I want to make clear tonight is that those great principles of the
Gospel and the Church which the Oxford Movement emphasized are not
the principles of any mere party in the Church but are the common her
itage of all of us, and are the things upon which the very life of the Chris
tian religion depends. . . .

1. The Oxford Movement set itself with its whole strength, as the
Evangelical Movement did also, to bring men to the knowledge of Christ,
and to faith in him as their personal Saviour and Lord.

2. The second great principle was belief in the Lord Jesus not absent
from us in some far off sphere but still present with us, still continuing
his work in the world, still speaking and ministering to us in his
Church. . . .

3. The third note . . . was its great and moving call to holiness of
living. . . .

4. Last — [it] stood for belief in Christ as Saviour of the whole world
and Lord of the whole of human life. And the Church today must awake

DIARY 155

to the full obligation of her social mission. . . . Go back then to your
parishes all over our land and rouse them to fuller realization of those
great principles of the gospel and the Church which are given to us in
our Prayer Book.1

80th Slow trip. On the train all day. Had a very interesting talk with a
Mr. L. H. Shingle of Phila. who proved to be a Presbyterian Elder — a fine
man — talks also of the same sort with one or two others. Men are more
willing to talk of religious matters than they were — Prepared sermon for
Sunday. Reached home a little before midnight.

Oct. 1st Preached in Cathedral — a large congregation — Music excellent
and much improved — more vigour and spirit, which it has needed.
2nd Florence and Lizzie arrived from Somesville for breakfast at 7.30 —
Elizabeth & Griff & the two little Hugheses here for breakfast.
3rd Appointments at office all the morning — John Poyntell Kemper of
St. John's, Kingston, here at lunch — a true and faithful man and priest.
4th-5th At work in Study most of these days. Went to see John Livingston.
6th Interviews at office all morning. At night F. and I dined with the
Deaconesses at St. Faith's and I took the service and spoke to them in their
Chapel.

On Weds, at 10 a.m. met Mr. Cram, Mr. Cleveland, Mr. Connick and the
Dean in the Nave to pass judgment on the Great Western Rose and the
Smaller Rose Window beneath it. Last June I insisted upon a complete
change in the Smaller Rose and also some important changes in the Great
Rose to get rid of the purple tone and bring out the blue — The changes
have been made and all are delighted with them. Connick himself is
completely converted and convinced, as also is Cram. Cleveland said "the
improvement in the Great Rose is one hundred per cent" and I think this
is no exaggeration. We all think the pavement of the Nave superb. The
beautiful slate — which I suggested to Mr. Cram — harmonizes perfectly
with the interior, and the medallions are most effective and interesting.
7th Office and Study.

8th At Zion Church, Dobbs Ferry, for 100th anniversary —
9th Interviews, etc. In afternoon presided at meeting of committee for
the help of the many unemployed people of our own Church.
Wth-llfth Diocesan work — interviews — preparation of sermons.
15th At St. Paul's, Chester in the morning — then to the Dedication of the
State School for delinquent boys at Warwick. Convoyed by a State Trooper
to the New Jersey line — Got home about 6.30. Elizabeth and Griff here
at supper.

16th Office and Study in morning. At meeting of Church Extension So
ciety all the afternoon.

17th Preparing for Conference of Clergy — Bishop Farthing — of Montreal
— arrived to stay with us —

The whole sermon is given in Strong in the Lord, Morehouse-Gorham Co., 1947.

156 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

18th I took Bishop Farthing with me to the Conference, St. Luke's Day,
— arriving there about noon — After Prayers and my opening address the
speakers in the afternoon were Will Spens, Master of Corpus Christi Col
lege, Cambridge, and the Revd. Dr. McGregor of the Nat'l. Council —
with Bishop Farthing at night, in preparation for our Corporate Com
munion. It is the largest Conference and the most helpful, so far, that we
have had.

19th Corporate Communion at 7.30 in the little Church crowded with
the clergy — Governor Winant was unable to come but his place was taken
very effectively by Dr. Van Keuren — then Dr. Sunderland on our work
for the help of our unemployed people and then Bishop Sherrill of Mas
sachusetts who made a powerful address. Luncheon — at which I made a
brief talk — then prayers and a hymn and the Conference ended. The
spirit of warm fellowship and unity was stronger than ever and all seem
to agree that this annual gathering which we have held now for six years
has done more for us than anything we have had in the Diocese. I brought
the Bishop of Montreal back — we went to Mrs. Crockett's to call on her
and Bishop Gailor who is staying with her — then home for dinner. Bishop
Farthing took the night train home.

20th Much accumulation of Diocesan work — At 3 attended meeting of
Finance Committee of Cathedral at 14 Wall Street.
21st In Office and Study —

22nd Nineteenth S. after Trinity — At Grace Church preached on the
life and work of Bishop Codman Potter and referred to the coming elec
tion and the need of freeing our City Administration from the corrupting
influence of a political machine. The sermon is to be published. It was
the 50th anniversary of Bishop Potter's consecration.

The bishop took keen interest in the investigation by Judge Samuel
Seabury into the corruption in the city government in the time of the
playboy mayor, Jimmy Walker, and gave the crusade his public sup
port. In 1932 Washington's two hundredth birthday was celebrated
in Saint Paul's in April because of the service at Saint Paul's which
marked the first inauguration on 30 April, 1789. Judge Seabury was
present and made the other address. Manning spoke plainly of the
state of affairs in the city, praised Seabury's courageous and able in
vestigation, and called upon the governor, Franklin Roosevelt, to give
proper support to it. This appeal fell on deaf ears of course, as the
bishop well knew it would. Roosevelt never in his public career showed
much enthusiasm for dealing with political corruption and did not
consider that alienation of Tammany would be useful to him in the
National Convention just a few weeks off. The Seabury Investigation
led to the nomination and election in 1933, on a fusion ticket, of
Fiorello La Guardia. The fiftieth anniversary of Bishop Potter was

DIARY 157

part of the celebration of one hundred and twenty-five years of Grace
Church. In his sermon he stressed the importance of Potter's denunci
ation of corruption and, following his predecessor's example, he made
an appeal for action on election day.

As we think of Bishop Potter, the things which come immediately to our
minds are his magnanimity of spirit, his breadth of vision, his wide sym
pathy and true humanness, his fairness and justice, his power of moral
indignation against wrong or evil, and his unflinching courage, but behind
all these things, and speaking through them, was his living, personal,
faith, and his deep spiritual reality. . . .

Two of Bishop Potter's official acts may be cited, from among many
others, as illustrating his breadth of view and his fearlessness in per
forming his duty as he saw it; one of these acts was his sanction of the
Order of the Holy Cross and his officially receiving the profession of the
Reverend James O. S. Huntington as the first member of this Monastic
Order, the other was his action in receiving the Reverend Dr. Briggs
from the Presbyterian Ministry and ordaining him to the priesthood in this
Church. Each of these acts caused great excitement at the time, and
brought down upon the Bishop severe, and public, criticism. But it was
soon realized, and as we now look back we can see clearly, that each one
of them was not only right and wise in itself but was precisely what was
required of a Bishop with a true view of his office as Chief Shepherd not
of a party but of the whole Church. And none of the direful predictions
which were made in regard to these acts have found fulfilment. Dr. Briggs,
with his great scholarship and his wide vision, was to die end of his life
a champion of orthodoxy, Father Huntington is today one of our most
beloved spiritual leaders revered by men of all parties in the Church, and
the Order of the Holy Cross is a great and recognized centre of spiritual
life and influence among us.

There was in Bishop Potter no spirit of petty partisanship, he was the
Bishop of the whole Diocese and was ready to uphold truth wherever he
saw it, but along with his breadth and sympthy and true Catholic com
prehensiveness, he held an unfailing loyalty to the Faith and Order of the
Church as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer and in the Church's
own official formularies. . . .

One of the great and chief notes of Bishop Potter's Episcopate, and
of his whole Ministry, was his witness for public, civic, and Social righteous
ness, his keen interest in all that related to the life and welfare of the
City and its people, and his deep sympathy with the under-privileged and
the oppressed. . . . When occasion called for it he did not hesitate to
speak out against evil or wrong doing. He was patient, and wise in often
refraining from utterance, but there was never any doubt as to where he
stood when important issues arose.

Some of Bishop Potter's utterances on civic and public matters were

158 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

so notable that they stirred the interest of the whole Country and are still
vividly remembered. One of these was his sermon in old St. Paul's Chapel,
at the Centennial of the Inauguration of George Washington as President,
when, in the presence of the President of the United States, of members
of the Cabinet, and of a most distinguished and representative assemblage,
he called attention in calm and courteous language, but with entire plain
ness of speech, to evils well known to all which were bringing discredit
upon the National Administration and injuring the life of our Country. . . .

Another of his great utterances of this character was his letter to Mayor
Van Wyck, in the days of Richard Croker. In grave but burning words he
protested against the infamous conditions, bringing unspeakable wrongs
upon the poorer people of our City, which had been brought to his knowl
edge, and demanded that these conditions be remedied. . . .

Those words of Bishop Potter's have an all too familiar sound, they
cannot but speak to us of the conditions in our City Government which
confront us at this moment. It is not necessary for me to rehearse the
facts. The shameful conditions have been clearly exposed by Judge Sea-
bury's investigation and are known to all. The dishonorable judges, the
betrayal of justice in our Courts, the swollen and unexplained bank ac
counts, the flight of witnesses, the overwhelming evidence of corruption
in many of our City Departments, are not forgotten. The financial conse
quences of this corruption have proved disastrous, but still more serious
is its moral and spiritual effect upon the life of our community. And the
one chief cause of these intolerable and gravely menacing conditions has
been, and is, the connection of our City Administration with party poli
tics. We all know this. And yet an effort is now being made to hand our
City Administration over to another, similar, political machine. What
gain will it be for this City if one political machine is replaced by an
other which represents the same methods, includes many of the same men,
and will be used for the same ends? The cause of honest government will
not be helped by a continuance of the base alliance between Politics and
our City's Business. National Politics ought not to have been brought into
any connection with our Municipal Election. We know from experience
that the only influence of National Politics on Municipal Government is
a debasing and corrupting one. Whether a man is a Democrat or a Re
publican has no more to do with his fitness for office in our City Gov
ernment than the colour of his eyes, or of his hair. What we need is men
who are qualified and capable and who will do their work honestly and
faithfully. "Practical Politicians," as a class, have no such purpose. Their
ideal, as we know only too well, is to work for the machine, to provide
for their friends, and to enrich themselves. Surely the honest men and
women of this City who work for their living have had enough of the
shameless corruption and thieving of partisan municipal government. I
hope that on November 7th our voters will go to the polls realizing that in
this election the one all important question is this — Shall our City Gov-

DIARY 159

ernment now be cut loose from the corrupting domination of a political
machine, or shall it not? The answer to that question affects the welfare
of every man, woman, and child in New York. If we are now to put an
end to political patronage and to the spending of the taxpayers' money for
partisan purposes, we must have a City Administration that is non-partisan.

One other matter I must mention for it would be impossible to speak
of Bishop Potter's life and work without referring to the Cathedral, in
which he took such intense interest, and to which he gave so largely of
his time and strength. He did not initiate the Cathedral project, he in
herited it from his great and revered predecessor Bishop Horatio Potter,
but it fell to him to commence, and to carry forward, the realization of this
immense undertaking.

It is interesting to note that in Bishop Potter's time, some fifty years
ago, there was exactly the same sort of discussion that we hear occasion
ally today as to whether the Cathedral can properly be regarded, and
referred to in its Constitution, as a House of Prayer for all people. The
answer was then, as it still is, that the Cathedral is intended to be used,
and is used, with the fullest degree of comprehensiveness that is consistent
with the principles, and the canons, of the Protestant Episcopal Church.
The Cathedral is in literal fact a House of Prayer for all People as no
ordinary Church can be. Any parish, or local Church, has a congregation
of its own which belongs there and has prior rights in the building. The
Cathedral has no such congregation of its own. It keeps no list of mem
bers, no register of communicants. It has no parochial organization. It is
the Church of the whole Diocese and of all others who wish to pray and
worship in it. Its doors are open, and its seats are free, to all, whatever their
faith, or race, or color.

As to the peaching in the Cathedral, Ministers of other Churches are
frequently invited to preach at special services, which is in accordance with
the canons of the Episcopal Church, and leading Ministers of different
Communions preach from the Cathedral pulpit every year. . . .

Men think of Bishop Potter as the able administrator, the great citi
zen, the fearless leader in public causes, the wise and far seeing states
man, and he was all of these, but he was more than all of them; before
and above all else he was "a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus
Christ." He was the humble and believing Christian, the bold and fear
less preacher of the Gospel, the true and faithful pastor of souls, the
friend, and counsellor, and father, of his clergy.

Back of all his words and acts there lay his own deep, personal, living,
faith. It was this which was the foundation of his life, and it was this
which made him so true, and trusted, and beloved, a Chief Pastor. His
clergy did not on all occasions agree with his views, it was far from his
mind to expect or to desire this, but they always believed in him and were
sure of his sincerity, his justice, and his generous, large-hearted sympathy.

160 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

The sermon won enthusiastic approval from a large number, notably
the Rector of Grace Church, Walter Russel Bowie, one of the leaders
in the opposition to the bishop. Bowie sent the bishop a note of warm
and sincere gratitude for the sermon and also for the bishop's address
the same week at the Catholic Congress in Philadelphia.

21>th At work on Diocesan problems — In afternoon meetings of Fabric
Committee and Cathedral Trustees. Took action authorizing work for
the completion of the Nave and bringing it into use — Another great step
in the progress of the Building in spite of the financial depression. This
work will give employment to many men and will be a great blessing to
them and their families.

25th At work in Office and Study — finishing my Address for the Catholic
Congress in Philadephia.

26th At work in Office — Took train at 5.30 for Philadelphia. Van met
me at 30th Street — Went straight to the meeting of the Congress — a great
and inspiring gathering — with a marked desire to keep away from mere
party spirit. I emphasized this need in my address and the response to it
was quite wonderful — very different from what it would have been a year
or two ago — Dudley Hughes came home with me — we arrived at 1.30 a.m.
The trip was well worth while.

In the address to the Catholic Congress in Philadelphia he began
by paying his respects to the evangelical movement and the liberal
movement which play their parts, along with the catholic movement,
in emphasizing essentials in the church's life. And he claimed for the
catholic movement a central place in the church's tradition.

The Protestant Episcopal Church itself holds and teaches the Catholic
Religion. The word Protestant in our name emphasizes this, for that word
as used in our official title means that this Church protests against de
partures from the Catholic Faith as received and taught everywhere by
the undivided Church during the early centuries. Every man who accepts
the teaching of the Prayer Book as to the Faith, the Apostolic Ministry,
and the Sacraments is a Catholic churchman.

And then in a departure from his text and with a twinkle in his eye
he delighted his audience by interjecting "though some of us are more
aware of this fact than others."

What then is our part and work, as members of this Church, for the Fu
ture of the Kingdom? How are we to help to bring Christ's Kingdom into
this world?

First and before all else as members of the Holy, Catholic Church of
Christ we must be true to our spiritual heritage, and faithful to the re
sponsibilities and obligations which this lays upon us. ...

DIARY 161

We must have always before us the vision of the One, Holy Catholic,
Church of Christ. The God given opportunity of the Anglican Com
munion, its uniquely central position among the separated Churches of
Christendom, lays upon us a sacred and special responsibility. We must
never for the sake of some supposed local benefit do that which is incon
sistent with the Faith or the Order of the Catholic Church throughout the
World. If Bishops or others take action of this sort, in disregard of their
obligations as Ministers of this Church, they are not taking a broad view
of the issues involved, they are taking a local and limited view and are
leaving out of account the world wide ideal of the Catholic Church. . . .

Second. We must see more clearly ourselves, and help others to see
more clearly, the vision of the Church as it is shown to us in the New Testa
ment. We cannot expect men to see the place of the priesthood, and the
sacraments, and the worship, unless they see the New Testament vision of
the Church itself. We must hold up more clearly before men St. Paul's
great vision of the Church as the means which God has appointed for
bringing to Himself all mankind in the fellowship of His dear Son. It is
this glorious New Testament Vision of the Church which the world so
greatly needs today, and it is this belief in the Church which men need to
make Christ Himself real to them. Men lose their sense of the supernat
ural power of Christ unless they believe in Christ's continued presence
and work among us in His Church. . . .

Third. It is, of course, the urgent duty of all who believe in, and be
long to, the Holy Catholic Church to press for the realization of the
ethical and social teachings of Christ's Gospel. We know how often, and
how far, we have fallen short in this matter. There is a great call here to
the Church at this moment. In the present World Movements for Jus
tice, and Peace, and Brotherhood, the Church has a mighty opportunity.
These movements are realizing the Will of Her Lord and Head. They are
the marks of the Coming of His Kingdom. It must not be said with truth
that the Church is so engaged in ecclesiastical matters that she leaves to
others the building of a better world. We are not to bring politics into
our religion, but we are to bring religion into politics and into the whole
of life. It is for us to show that membership in the Holy, Catholic Church
is a matter not only of theology and theory but of life and service. It is
for us to let the world see that the Church is here not merely for the
building up of an ecclesiastical organization but for the bringing in of the
Kingdom of God.

Last. Let us remember always that while the truth which the Oxford
Movement especially emphasized, the truth of the Divinely founded and
Divinely commissioned Church as the organ of Christ's continued presence
and work in this world, is vital and essential to the Christian Gospel, the
truth which the Evangelical Movement especially emphasized, the neces
sity of individual conversion in Christ, is equally vital and indispensable.
A Catholicism which is not truly Evangelical is dead and is nothing but an

162 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

empty shell. We need always in the Church a great emphasis on personal
conversion, and no one ever preached this with greater earnestness than
Dr. Pusey.

It was that great priest of our own Church, William Augustus Muhlen-
berg who suggested that we should call ourselves Evangelical Catholics.
The Anglican Communion throughout the world, and our own Church
in this land, are called to bear witness to a Catholicism which is wholly
evangelical, which is not disproportionately concerned with religious ex
ternals, which has for its one aim the bringing of men and women to
Jesus Christ, and which stands for full intellectual and spiritual free
dom. . . .

It is by bearing our witness for the New Testament ideal of the Catholic
Church, in all its largeness, in all its fullness, in all its faith, and in all
its fearlessness, that we shall do our part for the Future of the Church
and for the Coming of the Kingdom of God.

27th In Office all day catching up with arrears of Diocesan work.
28th St. Simon and St. Jude.

Florence and I drove out to Ridgefield to lunch with Mrs. Swords taking
Mrs. Crawford with us — On the way home stopped at Bedford to see
Percy Silver who is quite ill and obliged to be away from his parish.
29th Twentieth S. after Trinity.

At 225 anniversary of St. Andrews, Richmond. A very interesting service
and large congregation. Lunched with the Mason Smiths and the Rector
and his wife Dr. and Mrs. Godolphin — reached home about 4.30.
80th Interviews all the morning —
We dined with Elizabeth and Griff & the Crawfords.

81st Office and Study — At St. Edward the Martyr's at night for Con
firmation & their 50th anniversary.
Nov. 1st All Saints.

At 10 Celebrated in Cathedral and consecrated the Altar and Reredos
given by Mr. F. S. E. Drury in the Chapel of All Souls — Office and then
to the Lawyers Club for luncheon with Bishop Roots of Hankow given
by the Church Club. Back to office — signed 60 letters to the clergy of
Westchester, etc., etc.
2nd Office and Study —

Lizzie's Birthday — Elizabeth & Griff here at dinner.
3rd Office — 8c then in Study preparing sermons.

4th Office — interviews, etc. Florence & I lunched with the Crawfords —
the Cotton Smiths — Mr. Donegan, of St. James's, and his Mother — Gordon
C's birthday — later — to Judge and Mrs. Finch's for the coming-out of
their daughter.

5th Twenty-first S. after T. in Octave of All Saints.
At Cathedral at 8 — preached there at 11 — Spoke on the real issue of the
Election, clean Govt. freed from politics.

DIARY 163

6th At office — Diocesan work — Others, etc. —

Attended luncheon of the N. Y. Churchmans Association and made ad
dress welcoming Judge Seabury as the speaker. He has made a splendid
fight to break the power of Tammany and to free the City Government
from the corrupting influence of partisan politics. The prospect looks
hopeful but no one can tell what the result of the election will be. The
introduction of National politics into it through James Farley, Roose
velt's Campaign Manager, is a serious mistake. What we need here is
honest City Govt. freed from all connection with politics and this I have
been saying publicly. At night we listened to Farley and La Guardia over
the Radio. La Guardia's reply was simple, straight, and effective.
7th Election Day.

Voted for the Fusion Ticket — which was elected although Tammany re
tains a few offices of importance —
8th Officiated at funeral of John Jay Chapman. Painful interview with

the Rev. & fear that I must institute proceedings — am consulting the

Chancellor.

9th Diocesan work. Bishop Moreland came to see me about a most seri
ous and distressing matter. Had long talk with him.

10th Attended Dinner of the Pilgrims and said Grace for them — Sat
next to Sir William Beveridge, Head of the London School of Eco
nomics and had a very interesting talk with him. He made an excellent
speech and expressed his hope that, in time, we shall "recover from our
recovery."

llth — Armistice Day —

Interview with Judge Van Amringe as to a most distressing matter relating
to one of the clergy.

Frances and I drove out to Irvington to a Parish Reception which it is
hoped will help to calm the parish after a little disturbance and give it a
new start — & the prospects for this seemed to be good.
12th Twenty-second S. after Trinity.

Visitations at Wappingers Falls and New Hamburgh — Lunched with the
Willis Reeses.

18th Diocesan work — letters — interviews.

IJ^th Lunched at St. Barnabas House with forty or fifty of the City
Clergy and members of the City Mission Staff.
15th Office and Study — Letters, etc.

16th In office much of the day — At 165th Annual Dinner of the Chamber
of Commerce to which I have gone each year for many years. Sat next to
Col. McCormick, editor of the Chicago Tribune who was the principal
speaker and who made a strong address on "The Freedom of the Press."
The Chamber is deeply disturbed and anxious as to the results of some
of the Roosevelt financial policies.
17th In office until 11.45 — Florence, Lizzie, Frances and I drove to Tux-

164 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

edo to lunch with the Hoffmans — Visited the stables to see Mr. H's won
derful horses — A very pleasant trip — got home about 5 o'clock.
18th At Astor Hotel spoke to 1700 teachers in the public schools as to their
work for our boys and girls — A remarkable gathering. Bishop Woodcock
of Kentucky arrived. He and I are to speak at the meeting tomorrow at
White Plains.

19th Twenty-third S. after Trinity — At 8 in Cathedral and also at 11 —
In afternoon presided at great meeting of clergy and people from all our
parishes in Westchester County gathered in the huge Community Centre
at White Plains. A wonderful demonstration of faith and enthusiasm.
Speakers — Bishop Woodcock, Canon Prichard and myself. The Revd. W. G.
Peck of England preached in the Cathedral and lunched with us with
the Revd. Dr. and Mrs. McGregor — Bishop Woodcock took the train at
9.30 for Louisville.

20th At office all the morning — Bishop Oldham of Albany with us at
lunch. He is being maliciously and most unscrupulously assailed by A. G.
Cummins of Poughkeepsie and thinks he may be compelled to take some
notice of it. I have made it my rule to pay no attention to attacks from
this source. They have little effect in this Diocese where the author of
them is well known and those who share his theological views have, most
of them, no sympathy with his methods. Dr. C. is making similar attacks
on the Presiding Bishop. At meeting of Church Extension Society all the
afternoon.

21st Diocesan work — letters, etc., all day. At night drove to Nyack and
spoke at a meeting of men of that and the surrounding parishes — a pleas
ant and profitable evening. Got home about 11.30 —
22nd Office and Study.

28rd Interviews, etc. — In afternoon gave a reception in the Synod House
to the students belonging to our own Church in the various Colleges in the
City — Last year the number was 160, this year 260 — They all seemed to
enjoy it thoroughly — The clergy of the Cathedral Staff and others assisted
and Frances and Peggy Hughes poured tea.
24th In office most of the day — interviews, etc.

Drove to Newburgh for supper with the Clergy and Lay Delegates of that
Archdeaconry after which we had a special service in the Church of the
Good Shepherd. Bishop Gilbert took the service and made a brief ad
dress and I preached, afterwards invoking a special blessing on the Clergy
for the united evangelistic effort which they are undertaking — a crowded
Church and an inspiring service. Bishop Gilbert rode back with me — Got
home a little before midnight —

25th Interviews, etc., at office. At St. Lukes Hospital for a time in the
afternoon. Alonzo Potter, son of Bishop Henry C. Potter came to express
in person the thanks of his family for my sermon on Bishop Potter and
brought me a Private Communion Set which was given to Bishop Potter
by the Teachers in his Sunday School in Troy, in 1861 with an inscription

DIARY 165

on it stating that it is given to me by Bishop Potter's children. A very
touching and precious gift.

26th S. next before Advent — Service in my own Chapel — At 11 at Grace
Church, White Plains — lunched with the Rector and his wife and other
friends — home at about 4 —

27th Interviews, etc., all morning — Chaplain Fell at lunch to talk over
the possibility of his returning to St. Albans.

28th Diocesan work — Fabric Committee at 3, Cathedral Trustees at 4.
29th Diocesan work. A lynching at San Jose, California, aided and abetted
by the Governor of the State, has stirred public feeling all over the Coun
try — Dr. Darlington, Rector of the Church of the Heavenly Rest has
most amazingly sent a telegram of congratulation to Governor Rolph. In
view of this I have issued a statement which appears in the papers this
morning.

The kidnapping of the Lindbergh child had occurred the preceding
year and people were greatly stirred by it and by other kidnappings.
"Lindbergh" laws began to appear in different states applying the
most severe penalties. But in many cases people would not wait for
the passage of such laws. In California some men who had engaged in
an attempted kidnapping were apprehended and put in jail to be
brought to trial. A large crowd assembled in gala fashion, removed the
prisoners, and hanged them there and then. The governor was appealed
to to send in troops to keep order in the community. He refused, and
commended the lynchers. For this he was widely denounced; but some
people, in confusion over the epidemic of kidnapping, applauded.
Among them was poor Harry Darlington. The bishop's statement con
cerned itself with the lynching, and the appalling consequences of ap
proval given by the chief law-enforcing official of a state. No mention
was made of Darlington and his telegram. Perhaps this hastened the
acknowledgement of the error and the apology reported on the 6th.

80th Thanksgiving Day — In Cathedral at 8 and 11 — Elizabeth — "the
Beetle" [Gordon Coale] — and others here at lunch.
Dec. 1st Diocesan work — office, etc.
2nd Office all morning —

3rd Advent Sunday — At Ch. of Redeemer, Pelham. Home late for lunch
— Then to College of City of New York to speak at Mass Meeting in pro
test against California Lynching and Governor Rolph's action in the
matter. Then to official interview with one of the clergy who is accused
of immoral conduct. He signed a statement acknowledging his wrong do
ing and asking for deposition from the Ministry. A sad case.
4th In office and study —

166 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

Went to see Canon Prichard, Josiah Webster, and Dr. Rogers — all of them
sick.

5th Annual Service and meeting of Woman's Auxiliary. Took "Prepara
tory Service" and Celebrated the Holy Communion — more than a thousand
women present. Then to lunch in the Synod House and afterwards pre
sided at the afternoon meeting which lasted until about four o'clock. Writ
ing at night until late.

6th Office and Study — At St. Luke's Hospital and called to see Canon
Clover who has been seriously ill — Writing at night. Dr. Darlington came
to see me last Saturday. He realizes the seriousness of his mistake in re
gard to Gov. Rolph and on Sunday made a brief statement to this effect
from his pulpit.

7th Diocesan work all morning — In afternoon at meeting of Cathedral
Auxiliary — Heard of illness of George W. Wickersham — went at once to
the house and saw Mrs. Wickersham — He is improving slightly.
8th In office all morning — At 3.15 took train for Atlantic City at invita
tion of Bishop Matthews to discuss the arrangements for the General Con
vention — Bishop and Mrs. Matthews, Bishop Taitt, Bishop Washburn and
Admiral and Mrs. Belknap and Dean Dagwell of Denver were at Haddon
Hall and Bishop and Mrs. Stires came in from another hotel. Admiral
Belknap is chairman of the committee of arrangements for the Convention.
Haddon Hall is to be the headquarters of the House of Bishops. I spoke
to them of my plan for having the Consecration of the Nave of the Cathe
dral in connection with the General Convention and immediately follow
ing it, and they received the suggestion most warmly.
Dec. 9th Bishop Matthews took us to inspect the great Auditorium and
other halls which are to be used for the different gatherings at the Gen
eral Convention.

Took train for New York at 2.35.
Dec. 10th Second S. in Advent. Cathedral at 8.

In Bronx at Trinity, Morrisania, at 11. This parish is showing great re
vival under its new Rector. [Edward T. Theopold]. Some friends with us
at lunch — Hoffmans, Sampsons, Belknaps and Miss Caroline White.
llth Diocesan work all day — Writing at night.

12th Anniversary of my ordination as Deacon in St. Luke's Chapel, Se-
wanee, and as Priest at St. Paul's, San Diego; also on this date I was elected
Assistant Rector of Trinity Parish upon the nomination of Dr. Morgan
Dix. Forty-two years in the Priesthood — Redlands — Sewanee, as Professor
of Dogmatic Theology — Cincinnati, Trinity Mission, — Lansdowne, St.
John's — Nashville, Christ Church — New York, St. Agnes, Trinity Church,
and, in 1921, consecrated Bishop. The years as Bishop have been full of
work, full of difficulties, full of interest and, in spite of difficulties, short
comings, and mistakes, full of real happiness. The spirit of the Diocese was
never as good, as peaceful and united, as it seems to be at this time. We
had some of the clergy here at dinner — Wallace Gardener and his two

DIARY 167

sisters, Fr. McCune, Crosby, the Dotys, the Spears, and Fr. Mabry. They
stayed until 12 o'clock.

ISth In office and study all day. Mrs. Dudley Gale, of Christ Church,
Nashville, and her sister Mrs. Donnan here at lunch.
14th Diocesan work. Friends here in afternoon, Mrs. Frank Potter, Miss
White and others — Florence, Lizzie and I ran down at 5.30 to call on the
Flemings.

15th Office and Study all day long —

16th Made address at Luncheon of Grace Church in connection with the
celebration of their 125th anniversary — An interesting occasion. Spoke of
my relations with Dr. Huntington, and of fact that I have known four of
the eight Rectors of the Parish.

17th Third S. in Advent — At old St. Johns in Waverly Place. The parish
was almost dead but is reviving notably under the new Rector. [Walter P.
Doty] Bishop Roots of Hankow preached in the Cathedral and came in to
lunch with us — also Judge and Mrs. McCook, the Dean and Mrs. Gates,
and Bishop Lloyd.

18th Diocesan work — In afternoon Church Extension Society.
19th — 22nd Diocesan work — Office — Study — Sermons, £tc.
28rd Preparations for Christmas.

24th Fourth S. in Advent — Christmas Eve. At Cathedral all day — Cele
brated at 8 — Preached at 11 — At Carol Service at 4 — the best I think that
we ever had. The Dean and Mrs. Gates, Mrs. Jones and Miss Gill, and
Dr. Rogers and his son with us at lunch.

Many lovely gifts & plants have come, and an avalanche of Christmas
cards. We had our family gathering and gave our gifts at night.
Among my messages this morning was a telegram of good wishes from
Archbishop Tourian of the Armenian Church — later I learned that he
was murdered in the Church as the procession entered. Sent telegram to
Bishop Garabedian assuring him and his clergy and people of our sym
pathy and prayers.

25th Christmas Day — Celebrated at 7 in the Cathedral — and there also
at eleven. Offered special prayers for the clergy and people of the Ar
menian Church. Dr. Carr and Elmendorf, the Spears, and "Beetle" here
with us at lunch.
26th St. Stephen's.

Much work at Office all day. Arranged for the Armenians to have the
Archbishop's funeral service in our Cathedral on New Year's Day. Heavy
snow.

21th St. John the Evangelist — Celebrated in Cathedral at 11 at Annual
Service at The Cathedral Auxiliary — then at their meeting in the Synod
Hall made an address — then at lunch with them in the Undercroft — then
at Office for letters, etc. — At 3.30 special meeting of Finance Committee
to discuss matters relating to the Budget — At 4 Annual Meeting of the
Trustees — Long discussion as to the Budget — It developed that there was

168 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

a serious and unaccountable difference in the amount of the deficit as
shown in the Budget prepared by the Dean, and as shown in the report
made by the Treasurer, Lewis S. Morris. The Dean's statement showed
a deficit of about $11,000.00 for the past year; the Treasurer's statement
showed a deficit of about $30,000.00. The whole matter was referred back
to the Finance Committee for further consideration and report. At 8.30
p.m. went to Temple Adath Israel the principal Synagogue in the Bronx
to deliver a "Christmas Message" at the invitation of Rabbi Schorr — other
speakers were Bainbridge Colby, Nathan Strauss, Mr. Macdonald, a Roman
Catholic and Dr. Hunt. A most interesting evening and a great congre
gation.

28th Holy Innocents. At work most of the day trying to get matters
straightened out in regard to the Cathedral Budget and to ensure its
proper presentation at the special meeting which is to be held. Made
further arrangements for the funeral of Archbishop Tourian. Writing at
night. Very cold and much snow. Florence kept indoors with a cold.
29th Met a number of my Candidates for Orders for a talk with them.
Went down to see Percy Silver, Rector of "The Incarnation" who is seri
ously ill — found that he is not allowed to see anyone.
80th Diocesan work all morning — Study in afternoon — Working on mat
ters relating to the Cathedral Budget — a difficult and trying matter. Flor
ence in bed with her cold. Bishop Garabedian and one of his laymen, Mr.
V. Kurkjian, called in person to express the appreciation of their clergy
and people for my offer of the Cathedral for the funeral of Archbishop
Tourian.

81st S. after Christmas — Visited Church of the Holy Rood and preached.
Haskell DuBose and his wife and their son Haskell came to lunch — had a
good talk about Sewanee. Florence still in bed. Mr. Hoffman came in at
six to talk about the Budget situation. Sent telegram to our new Mayor,
F. H. La Guardia, to reach him when he takes up work tomorrow morning
at the City Hall. He has a tremendous task before him and will need all
the support and encouragement that can be given him.
January First, 1934 "The Circumcision."

In my own Chapel — At 10 at Cathedral for the funeral of Archbishop Tou
rian. A wonderful and most moving service. The martyred Archbishop lay
in the open coffin fully vested — Bishop Garabedian presided and pontifi
cated — with many of their clergy present and other dignitaries of the
Eastern Churches. I sat in my own stall and made a brief address after
the Creed, as they requested. The anointing of the body, the farewell by
each Bishop, Priest, Deacon and Sub Deacon and the whole service was an
experience never to be forgotten. Not only the Crossing but the Nave also
was filled with people, at least fifteen thousand, and perhaps twenty thou
sand, making the largest attendance ever yet gathered in the Cathedral.
The Armenians came not only from this city but from all the places round
about. The service lasted from ten until after one o'clock. Frances, Lizzie,

DIARY 169

and "the Beetle" were in the Organ Screen, with some others.
Elizabeth and Griff came to lunch. Florence still in bed. A very apprecia
tive reply from the Mayor.

2nd Usual round of work. Many letters and telegrams are coming, from
Armenians all over the country, about the service yesterday.
3rd Frances and Elizabeth went in my car to Philadelphia to see Elsie
Lea, taking "Beetle" with them to his school at West Town. Went to the
studio of Mrs. Farnam — (Suzanne Silvercruys of Belgium) to sit for a por
trait bust which she wishes to do — At dinner with the Aymar Johnsons —
Florence unable to go —

4th Again at Mrs. Farnam's studio for a second, and final, sitting for the
"bust" which is to be in bronze and is to be exhibited with others in
Belgium, France and America. Frances returned from Phila.
5th Almost the whole day in my office. Florence is better and was up
part of the day.
6th Feast of the Epiphany —

Spent most of the day writing — Struggling with a cold so went out as
little as possible.
7th First S. after Epiphany —

At St. Martha's in the Bronx — Church crowded in spite of the hard rain.
In these difficult times many are drawing closer to the Church. I see many
signs of this — though there are also powerful influences making for pa
ganism & materialism. Cold somewhat better but still troublesome.
Elizabeth and Griff here for supper — Bishop Gilbert and his son here at
lunch.

8th In the papers this morning a most surprising address delivered by
Dr. McBain, Dean of the Graduate Schools of Columbia University, at the
Annual Service for the Commemoration of the Departed in the University
Chapel — on the subject of "Immortality" — rejecting belief in a Future
Life. A busy day — too busy.

9th Went to see Percy Silver who is seriously ill and had a very happy
and touching little visit with him. No one else has yet been allowed to see
him. On the way home stopped at St. Bartholomew's and had a talk with
Dr. Sargent. Allan Chalmers came in from Scarsdale to see me about an
important matter and stayed for lunch. In office all the afternoon.
A number of people here with us for Dinner — Donegan of St. James's and
his mother, the Stephen Bakers, Willis Reeses, Crawfords, Dr. and Mrs.
Warner Bishop, Dr. Karl Vogel, Elizabeth and Griff and ourselves — A pleas
ant evening.

10th Busy all the morning at Office — Important meeting of Finance Com
mittee of the Cathedral in regard to difficulties about the Budget at 14 Wall
St., Mr. Wickersham's office.

llth Many interviews. Received a visit from the Vicar Primate of the
Armenian Church with some of his laymen to express thanks for our
having the funeral service of Archbishop Tourian in the Cathedral. They

170 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

brought me a beautiful photograph of the Archbishop. Called at Mr.
Wickersham's. He has been very ill but to my surprise was able to see me.
I find that many people are much shocked and hurt by Dr. McBain's ad
dress on Immortality in the Chapel of Columbia University and as I am
to preach there next Sunday I feel that I must speak on the same subject.
12th Diocesan work — and preparing sermon for Columbia University
Chapel next Sunday.
18th Busy day in office and study.

14th Second S. after Epiphany — Celebrated in Cathedral at 8 — At 11 in
the Chapel of Columbia University preached on "Immortality" — Some of
the newspapers had announced my intention to preach on this subject and
the congregation was the largest I have ever seen in that Chapel. Also
Dr. Butler and some members of the Faculty were there, which I have
never seen before at a regular Sunday service.8

On Saturday Chaplain Knox telephoned me. He had seen the announce
ment of my subject in the papers and was quite nervous about it. I told
him that I had no thought of mentioning Dean McBain's name but that
after what the Dean had said in the Chapel a week ago I should feel that
I could not come there without preaching on the subject. He accepted
this but I felt that he, and Dr. Butler also, would have much preferred
that I should not preach on this subject. The Chaplain rather weakly
tried to defend Dr. McBain's utterance, in some measure, but he told me
that he and Dr. Butler and Dean McBain had been receiving a great
number of letters protesting against it.

The sermon on "Immortality" is in no way extraordinary. It may
well have come out of "the barrel," though it is couched in language
suitable for the learned persons before whom it was delivered. Its im
portance lies in the fact that it was exactly the time and place for just
this sermon. In this sense the sermon was indeed timely.

15th Interviews — Many letters about my sermon at Columbia. Church Ex
tension Society all the afternoon. Great trouble with our endowment funds
in this Society and in all our organizations and institutions, owing to the
continued financial depression — trouble especially with mortgages ceasing
to pay interest and much of our endowment funds is in this form of in
vestment which everyone supposed to be the safest form.
16th Diocesan business. Many letters and messages about my Columbia
sermon. A letter from Professor Dixon Ryan Fox saying that the sermon
is appreciated by many of the Trustees and members of the Faculties and
asking permission for it to be printed, along with Dr. McBain's address,
in the Columbia University Quarterly. I gladly gave permission for this. A
remarkable letter about it also from Bernard Iddings Bell who knows Dr.

1 There is some evidence however that President Butler was fairly regular in
attendance at one time.

DIARY 171

McBain quite well. Letters still coming about the funeral service of Arch
bishop Tourian.

17th Still many letters about the Columbia Sermon. I am preparing for
the mass meeting next Sunday night in the Cathedral in behalf of the
Unemployed. Mayor La Guardia has promised me that he will speak at
the meeting although he is under tremendous pressure. As this is to be a
Mass Meeting of civic character, not a stated service, I have invited Min
isters of all Churches, and Rabbis of all Synagogues, to take places in the
procession and to sit in the Choir which seems to have aroused great in
terest.

18th Diocesan work — We dined at Mrs. Henderson's.
19th and 20th The usual round of work.
21st Third S. after Epiphany — In my own Chapel —
At St. Thomas's at 4 for the 25th anniversary of the Church Mission of
Help which Father Huntington and I started and the first meeting of
which was held in the old Trinity Rectory, 27 West 25th St. where we
lived for 10 years and where Dr. Dix lived for 36 years until his death.
At 8 in the Cathedral we had our Mass Meeting in behalf of the Unem
ployed with Mayor La Guardia, Judge Lehman, Bishop Gilbert and myself
as speakers. One of the most wonderful gatherings we have ever had. An
immense crowd estimated at 10,000. Very many unable to get in. Judge
Lehman is the brother of our present Governor and the leading Jewish
layman of the City. President of Temple Emmanu El.
The meeting was a great illustration of the function of a Cathedral on its
civic side. The mayor made an excellent address, simple, sincere and ef
fective.

22nd Diocesan business and many interviews. We dined with Dr. and
Mrs. Fleming — the Burleighs and the Belknaps.

28rd The whole afternoon at the Fabric Committee and the meeting of
the Cathedral Trustees. At night at a Dinner of the Alumni of St. Steph
en's College at the Columbia University Club spoke on the work and future
of the College.

Went downstairs, with H. Content, to another dinner of former Army
Officers — 29th Division — and spoke to them.

21+th At Annual Luncheon of The Pilgrims — Then to the Annual Meet
ing of the Churchwomens Patriotic League — spoke to them on their
work —

25th Conversion of St. Paul —
Diocesan work all day.

26th Thirteenth anniversary of my election as Bishop. In conference
with Bishop Gilbert on reorganization of our Missions in the Diocese —
Bishop Lloyd away for a rest — At 4 we all went to the studio of Mrs. Henry
Farnam to see my "bust" which she has done — The family are not greatly
pleased with it.
27th At work all day —

172 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

28th Septuagesima — Cathedral at 8 —

At 11 preached at the Church of the Incarnation — spoke to the people at
the door after the service — Then went to see Dr. Silver who is making
some improvement — Then home for lunch where we had Mrs. Wm.
Barclay Parsons, Mrs. Swords & Miss Clarkson and the DePeysters — Writing
at night.

29th Office until 12 — Then to lunch given to our Secretary of Labour, the
Hon. Frances Perkins, who made a very able speech on Unemployment
Insurance. In Office again until 5 — Writing at night. Donegan of St. James's
came to see me at 5.30.

80th In Study all morning — Wired congratulations to President Roose
velt on his 52nd Birthday. After lunch to St. Luke's Hospital — then to
Office. Writing all the evening.
31st The usual round.

Feb. 1st Diocesan work all day. Many of our smaller parishes are in dif
ficulties owing to the depression. We dined with the Willis Reeses — Judge
and Mrs. Finch, Dr. and Mrs. Ray and others.
2nd Office and Study all day.

3rd Office and Study. We dined with Mr. and Miss Sampson — the Archi
bald Murrays, Paul Tuckermans, Sam Tuckers, Admiral and Mrs. Hunt.
4th Sexagesima.

At 1 1 preached at St. Andrew's, Harlem.
5th Office — interviews, letters, etc.

At night the Annual Dinner of the Church Club at the Waldorf Astoria.
The Mayor and I were to have been the speakers but owing to the acute
situation the Mayor had to be in Washington and his place was taken by the
Comptroller, Major Cunningham, who made an excellent address. I paid
tribute to Judge Seabury who was present, as well as to the Mayor and the
new City Administration. A great gathering of men and women of the
Church. Florence had at her table Dr. and Mrs. Fleming, of Trinity,
Frances, Elizabeth and Griff, Ruth Delafield and her brother, Wallace
Gardner of The Intercession, Dudley and Peggy Hughes and Robert Wood
of Tuxedo.

6th At Staff Meeting at 9 — then at Office. Mrs. Herbert Shipman came
to see me about her work for cleaner streets and I gave her a letter to
Judge Seabury. Sidney Evans, Chief of Chaplains came to lunch to tell
me about the visit of the Fleet here next June and I arranged with him
for a special service for the Officers and Men at the Cathedral on Sunday
— June 3rd.

7th In Study and Office — In afternoon F. and I went to tea at Miss Mason-
Manheims — with Mrs. James Roosevelt, the President's Mother — Col. and
Mrs. Edward M. House, Mrs. Post, Helen Hooker, De Lazslo the great
Portrait Painter, who has just painted the Archb'p of Canterbury, the
Polish Ambassador, Admiral Fiske and others —
Called on Mrs. Richard M. Hoe who is far from well. Writing at night.

DIARY 173

8th The usual round of Diocesan and other work. Severe cold causing
much suffering among the people who are unemployed and in need.
9th Thermometer registered fourteen below zero. The lowest tempera
ture recorded in the history of the City. Many appointments. Long in
terview with the Dean in regard to Windows which we have to put in the
Nave. After lunch a long session with Bishop Gilbert as to rearrangements
of our Missionary work.

10th In office all morning. Long interview with Mr. Sampson on Cathe
dral matters. Was served with a subpoena in the case relating to Mrs.
Blodgett's will. Her physician is charged with having used undue influence
causing her to leave much of her property to him and to ignore some of
her relatives. Weather still very cold but moderating.
llth Quinquagesima.

In Ossining all day — Trinity Church in the morning and St. Paul's in the
afternoon — excellent congregations in both Churches. Got word of the
death of the Revd. Dr. Mansfield — After returning to the city went down
to see his family and had prayers with them.

12th Lincoln's Birthday — Spent the day writing and making notes for
sermons.

18th Diocesan work in Office — At 2.45 conducted Funeral Service of the
Revd. Dr. Mansfield in the Chapel at the Seamens Church Institute as
sisted by his Rector, the Revd. Donald Aldrich. Many of the clergy and
laity present, and a great throng of seamen in the Building — At 5.30 Mr.
Hoffman came to see me about Cathedral matters. Writing at night.
14th Ash Wednesday. St. Valentine's Day.

At 7.45 Celebrated in my own Chapel — at 12 preached in Trinity Church
— a great congregation in spite of the extreme cold and largely of men —
Florence and Elizabeth there with me — We took Elizabeth home and
went in to see Griff's portraits then home to lunch — At 5 preached at St.
James's — Florence went with me.

15th Frances's Birthday — we gave her our gifts after breakfast. Got news
of the death of Edward W. Sheldon, Treasurer of the Cathedral Building
Fund since the beginning of our Campaign in 1924, one of the best and
most upright men I have ever known and a sincere churchman. It is a
great loss. In office and study. Birthday dinner for Frances —

16th Busy morning in office. Another interview with on the

painful matter of the charges against him made by the Rector and Vestry

of These cases of necessary discipline among the clergy are heart

breaking and the number of them in the past few years has been dismaying
— it is a part of the general weakening of faith and world upheaval.
17th Officiated at funeral of Edward W. Sheldon at Church of the Incar
nation — then to see Dr. Silver who is making slow progress — then to Of
fice —

18th First S. in Lent. Cathedral at 8 — Matins in my own Chapel — At 4
in Cathedral for special service of the Protestant Teachers Association of

174 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

New York — an immense congregation — At 8 p.m. Confirmation at St.

Ignatius.

19th Office — interviews, etc. — In afternoon meeting of Church Extension

Society — many difficult problems owing to the financial situation but our

Missions are carrying on most faithfully and with great courage.

20th Another tremendous snowstorm — traffic impeded all over the City.

In office all the morning. The Rev. came to my office and signed

a statement confessing to immoral conduct in , waving trial, and

asking for deposition — and this statement was signed by and

as witnesses. Action on the other charges brought against

will therefore not be necessary. The papers relating to this and other sim
ilar matters are in my Safe Deposit Box in the Bank. We are all sorrowing
over the sudden and tragic death of Albert, King of the Belgians — a true
Christian man and a noble King —

At the time of my consecration as Bishop King Albert wrote me a letter
which hangs framed on the wall — I have also the "Order of the Crown"
conferred by him and in the Cathedral we have a Plaque which he sent
to us which hung in the Private Chapel of his Father — the subject of which
is The Descent from the Cross. King Albert's death is a loss to the whole
Christian World.
21st At Office — Diocesan business — In Cathedral pronounced sentence of

deposition on in the presence of Dean Gates and the Revd. W.

D. F. Hughes—

22nd Washington's Birthday — At 8.30 in Cathedral Celebrated at Cor
porate Communion of St. Andrew's Brotherhood. About 300 present in spite
of the deep snow and bad travelling. Breakfast afterwards in John Jay Hall,
Columbia University, where Dean Ackerman and I spoke to them.
Elizabeth and Griff here at dinner.

2Srd Weather still very cold. Office and Study. At work on subjects, etc.,
for Windows in the Nave of the Cathedral.

j&4th St. Mathias Day. Office — Diocesan work — went to call on Fr. L. C.
Rich, who lost his wife recently.

25th Second S. in Lent. Left at 8.30. At Grace Church, Middletown, at 11,
Instituted the new Rector and Confirmed a class of 25 — Church crowded
in spite of bad roads and bad weather — Went to Highland Mills for a quiet
service at 3 p.m. and found the Church filled — very surprising in view of
the unusual hour of the service and the weather. George Dumbell is doing
true and faithful work there — Left there in another snowstorm which
made a bad journey back to New York. Six different people telephoned the
house during the evening to know if I had reached home safely, among
them the Dean and Mr. Wood of Tuxedo who was at the service at High
land Mills.

26th Another heavy snowstorm. Traffic of all kinds seriously impeded. In
office morning and afternoon attending to Diocesan matters.
Snowed all day.

DIARY 175

27th Roads almost impassable but snow has now stopped. Went to see
Dr. Butler to ask him to act as Chairman of "The Friends of the Cathe
dral," an organization for which we are planning — Dr. B. accepted very
willingly though he will not be able to do much active work. At 3 Fabric
Committee — At 4 the meeting of the Cathedral Trustees — At 5.30 talk with
Dudley Hughes as to the Cathedral Music.

28th Weather clear but snow everywhere. In Office and Study all day.
Writing at night.

March 1st Weather somewhat milder but still cold. In Study and Office.
Much work on Diocesan matters. Received word of the death of Mrs.
Whitredge, the daughter of Matthew Arnold, a noble and charming woman
and a most devout churchwoman. It was her husband's request that I
presided at the great meeting in Carnegie Hall in behalf of the Belgians
at which Elihu Root, James M. Beck and others spoke — before we en
tered the War — see pamphlet in regard to this meeting — and ever since
that time our friendship with Mrs. Whitredge has been very real. I was
with her much at the time of her husband's death.

2nd Writing much of the day — Called on the Whitredge family and had
prayers with them —

3rd Officiated at funeral of Mrs. Whitredge with the Rector, Mr. Bourne.
Still much snow in the streets — Evensong at 5 at Cathedral.
4th Third S. in Lent. At 8 at Cathedral and also at 1 1 when the Presiding
Bishop preached. He and Mrs. Perry came in to lunch, with the Fos-
brokes, the Dean and Mrs. Gates, etc. — Writing in afternoon — At 5.30
went into the Deanery to see Dr. Mockridge — At 8 at the Chapel of the
Intercession preached, confirmed a class of seventy and received four
from the Roman Communion, which is now so frequent that it causes
no remark, and is the more remarkable because our clergy make no ef
fort to draw them away to us, they came wholly on their own motion. In
this Diocese we "receive" them officially and publicly but do not recon
firm them.

5th Writing most of the day.

6th Office and Study — We dined at Judge Finch's — the Benson Sloans,
Ex-Governor and Mrs. Miller, the Herbert Satterlees, Mr. and Mrs. Mum-
ford (?) from Brazil who had just flown here with their whole family includ
ing a baby ten months old — and others.

7th Preparing sermons and addresses, etc. and getting ready for the Ded
ication of the Pilgrims Pavement in the Nave next Sunday.
8th In Study most of the day. Another heavy fall of snow. Writing at
night. Got news of the death of Miss Maria B. Chapin, founder, and un
til recently head, of the School to which Frances and Elizabeth went —
one of the best of our Girls Schools. While I was at Trinity Miss Chapin
came there, from St. George's Church, and has been a member of Trin
ity Parish ever since. She was an able and a very noble woman.
9th Interviews at Office all the morning — At 4 p.m. officiated at funeral

176 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

of Miss Chapin at Trinity Church — Florence, Frances and Lizzie went
with me. Elizabeth came to the service and we took her home afterwards.
Another heavy snow.

10th Interviews at Office much of the morning. Preparing sermons, etc.
Snow still continuing.
llth Fourth S. in Lent —

At Church of Heavenly Rest, Confirmed and preached — Church crowded
in spite of the bad weather. At 4 Dedication of the Pilgrims Pavement in
the Nave of the Cathedral. A great congregation and a memorable service.
Another important step in the progress of the Cathedral. A number of
people came in to tea after the service and the Crawfords stayed to
supper.

12th The usual round — Preparing sermons, addresses, etc. Conference
with the Dean about Windows in the Cathedral.

18th In Study all morning — Office in afternoon — At night Florence and
I went to a Reception given for the Laymens Club of the Cathedral in
celebration of the laying of the Pavement in the Nave.
IJtth Study and Office — much Diocesan work.

15th Dinner with Sam Shoemaker and the leaders of the "Oxford Group"
and afterwards attended their meeting in the great Ball Room of the
Waldorf Astoria Hotel at which more than 3000 were present. I spoke
briefly to them and offered a prayer at the close of the meeting. They
seem to me to be trying to arouse the Church to believe and do more
truly what we ought all of us to believe and do — As to some of their
methods there is room for question, e.g., their views of "sharing" and of
guidance are open to obvious spiritual dangers, but their central aim
is to bring people to Christ and their great power is in their full faith
in Him, in their insistence on the necessity of a real conviction of sin,
and in their emphasis on the necessity of true conversion to Christ. The
Church should certainly welcome, and show its sympathy with this Move
ment. Some people feel that it makes too little of the Sacramental Truth
of our Religion and this is no doubt true in some of its representatives but
not in all of them and its principles should I think, if sincerely followed,
lead to a full realization of the need of the Sacraments and of the full
life of the Catholic Church. We must not in this case make the mistake
which the Church made in regard to the Methodist Movement.
16th Preparing sermons and Addresses for the Three Hour Service on
Good Friday — At 8 p.m. Visitation and Confirmation at St. Mary the
Virgin's — A large congregation for a Friday night.

17th St. Patrick's Day. Interviews, etc. in morning — Evensong in Cathe
dral. Elizabeth and Griff here at dinner —
18th Passion Sunday — Cathedral at 8 —

Quiet time in my own Chapel — very restful and helpful — At 4 Confirmed
and preached at St. Bartholomews — at door of Church spoke to many of

DIARY 177

the large congregation — then went to their Community House and met
a large gathering of young people. Writing at night.
19th Study in morning — then Office, letters, interviews, etc.
20th Frances motored to Philadelphia — Office and Study — Went to Mr.
Wickersham who is improving slowly and will have to give up much of
his work. Writing at night.

21st-22nd Diocesan work — Preparing sermons and addresses for Holy
Week.

23rd In Study and Office — At night Confirmation at Chapel of the Incar
nation. Church crowded with the poor people of the region — A real work
is being done there.
2bth Interviews — Office — Study, etc.

25th Palm Sunday — Celebration in my own Chapel. At 11 at Emmanuel
Mission in the Bronx — Church packed almost to suffocation and a large
class for Confirmation — Faithful work is being done. At 4 at Church of
the Transfiguration, "the Little Church around the Corner."
26th Study and Office.

27th Getting ready for Three Hour Service on Good Friday and for
Easter.

28th At 4 Confirmation in the Cathedral.
29th Maundy Thursday.
7.30 in Cathedral — Busy day —

SOth Good Friday — Took the Three Hour Service in the Cathedral — then
to Columbia Broadcasting Studios to make brief address introducing the
Archbishop of Canterbury who at my request spoke to people all over
this Country from the Cathedral at Canterbury — a most helpful address.
81st Interviews, etc. — At 3 p.m. Confirmation at Trinity Church — on way
home called to see Dr. Silver & had a prayer with him. He seems to be im
proving — but slowly.
April 1 Easter Day. At 7 at Cathedral.

At 1 1 preached in Cathedral — one of the largest congregations we have ever
had — many unable to get in — Mayor La Guardia and his wife came to the
service. In Cathedral again at 4. Elizabeth, Griff and "Beetle" here with
us. At Egg Hunt with the Choir boys at 2.30.

2nd In office all morning catching up with work. At 4 meeting of Com.
on Diocesan Finance.

3rd At work on Diocesan matters all day — many of them financial dif
ficulties of parishes and missions due to the continued depression.
4th Had a visit from Col. Fowler of the Police Dept. to talk about the
great number of people killed and injured in our streets and to ask if I
will ask the clergy to call the matter to the attention of our congrega
tions. Put him in touch with the Revd. Dr. Van Keuren who will report
to me on it. We dined at night at Mrs. Twombly's — the Everett Colbys,
Wm. Church Osborns, Geo. Brewsters, Dr. and Miss Satterwhite, Myron

178 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

C. Taylors, Mrs. Henry White, Charles E. Sampson and others — twenty
six in all.

5th Office, letters, telephone talks, etc. — At 10.30 meeting of Commis
sion on Faith and Order at General Seminary. I have been attending these
meetings now for twenty-four years, since 1910 when I offered the reso
lution in the General Convention, in Cincinnati calling for a World Con
ference. The movement has I think accomplished much, especially by
promoting and arousing friendly discussion and by its insistence that we
must have the faith and courage to face our differences and discuss them
frankly if we are to move towards Reunion.

Dr. Wm. Adams Brown of Union Theological Seminary came to see me
about having a service in the Cathedral to emphasize some of the different
Movements for Christian Unity.

6th Seventeen years ago today America entered the World War. It was
Good Friday, Father Huntington was preaching for me at the Three Hour
Service in Trinity Church and in an intense silence we heard the bands
go past the Church down Broadway and knew that the action had been
taken. It was a moment never to be forgotten, though no one in that vast
congregation could realize even faintly all that it was to mean.
At work in Study. Bishop Rhinelander came up at five for a talk — He is
better and is here for a day or two.

7th Many interviews in morning — Study in afternoon and at night.
8th Low Sunday. On Staten Island all day — at Christ Church and St.
Simon's Mission.

9th Diocesan work in Office and Study.

10th Interviews and preparing for Convention Address. We all went to
a Tea given by Elizabeth and Griff in the Studio for the members of the
Cathedral Staff and other friends —
llth The usual round.

12th Office — Letters — Interviews — Attended the Canonical Examination
of Candidates for Holy Orders — then to Seamens Church Institute for
90th Anniversary Service, etc. — stayed to the luncheon — then back to
Office — Writing at night.
13th Office work all the morning —

Annual meeting of the Cathedral Auxiliary at the Deanery —
Hth Florence and I motored to Philadelphia to see Elsie Lea who is
still far from well — took Kathleen Crawford with us — Good visit with Elsie
and Van — called on Mrs. John Thompson Spencer — Got home about
seven — making the return trip in just two hours.

15th Second S. after Easter — Cathedral at 8 — Christ Church, Riverdale
at 1 1 — St. Cyprian's Coloured Church at 8 — an immense crowd stretching
out into the street & a very large Confirmation Class.
16th to 21st Overwhelmed with work- — getting ready for our Convention
— meeting Committees — writing my Convention Address, etc., etc.
22nd Third S. after Easter. At Trinity and St. Paul's Churches, New
Rochelle. A busy day.

DIARY 179

23rd Our 39th Wedding Anniversary —
Interviews and meetings much of the day.

21fth Office and Study — Meeting of Trustees of Cathedral. Dinner of 22
for Elizabeth and Griff — for anniversary of their engagement — a very in
teresting company —
25th-28th The usual round of work.

29th Fourth S. after Easter. At St. Andrew's, Brewster, and St. Luke's,
Katonah —

30th At the meeting of the Archdeaconry of the Bronx at Christ Church,
Riverdale. Spoke to them on the Call to the Church at this time. A great
meeting.

May 1st St. Philip and St. James. A very full day. Spoke to the Woman's
Auxiliary at their meeting in the Synod Hall.
2nd and 3rd Getting ready for our Convention, etc.
4th At Installation of the new President of Hunter College with the
Mayor and others.
5th The usual round.

6th Rogation Sunday. At Cathedral and in my own Chapel.
Preached to the Girls Friendly Society of the Diocese in the afternoon.
7th Getting ready for Convention.

8th Meeting of Diocesan Convention — the fourteenth at which I have
presided.

9th Diocesan Convention — A good Convention; their response to my
Address was remarkable especially in view of some matters which it touched
upon. There was a good deal of ecclesiastical politics in connection with
the election of Deputies to the General Convention.

10th Ascension Day. Cathedral at 7.30. Church of the Ascension at night.
Busy all day.

llth At Commencement of the Deaconess School, etc., etc. Anniversary
of my consecration as Bishop.

12th My sixty-eighth Birthday — The usual round of work — Elizabeth and
Griff with us at dinner.

13th S. after Ascension. At St. John's, Larchmont. Our great Annual
Service for Nurses in the Cathedral at night. This was the tenth of these
services, I have been present and spoken at all of them and this was I
think the most inspiring. It is a great sight to see this army of Nurses in
their uniforms gathered for worship in the Cathedral.
14th A busy day — At night spoke to the Fellowship of Social Workers
with the Mayor.
15th-16th Work as usual.

17th Bishop Perry came to see me about a number of matters. Spoke at
Dinner for 225th Anniversary of Trinity School.

18th Busy day — Elizabeth and Griff's Wedding Anniversary — they came
to dinner.

19th Office all the morning — At 2.30 childrens service for Presentation of
their Missionary Offering in the Cathedral. A wonderful gathering. Van

180 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

Lea here for lunch. Elsie seems a little better but we are greatly concerned
about her.

20th Whitsun Day. At St. Mary's Staten Island. Procession of Clergy,
Choir and whole congregation through the grounds — Sermon — Confirma
tion — Holy Eucharist — followed by Parish Luncheons, etc., etc. Great
enthusiasm and a large attendance.
21st Office — interviews, etc., all morning —

22nd Office and Study — At 2 p.m. attended meeting of Trustees of the
General Theological Seminary — made a motion that the degree of S.T.D.
be conferred on Dean Fosbroke which was adopted unanimously. At
meeting of Trustees of Cathedral at 4 — Writing and preparing sermons at
night.

23rd Motored to Newburgh — one hour and forty five minutes to St.
George's Church where I preached at the service for the Woman's Auxiliary
of the Orange District — A great gathering — Stayed to the luncheon.
Reached home about 4.15. Office — Study, etc.
21+th Office — Interviews, etc.

Went to see Mr. Samuel Kress's wonderful collection of pictures, mostly
Italian, at his home, 1020 Fifth Avenue.

25th Florence and Lizzie left for Somesville. Frances & I went to train
with them.

26th In the afternoon dedicated Window in the Nave of the Cathedral
given by Francis M. Whitehouse and other members of the family in
memory of Mr. Whitehouse's Father, the Right Rev. Henry John White-
house — Second Bishop of Illinois and sometime Rector of St. Thomas's
Church in this City — An interesting service and a good number present
— all the Whitehouses — Mrs. Charles B. Alexander, Allison Armour, etc.,
etc.

27th Trinity Sunday — At the Cathedral, ordained eight to the Diaconate
and six to the Priesthood. A beautiful and moving service and the largest
congregation by far, we ever had at an Ordination — They all came to
lunch with me, with a number of the Clergy — Presenters, Examining Chap
lains, etc. After lunch I took the Deacons with me to Welfare Island where
we had, as we do each year, most touching services first in the Chapel and
then in the Wards of the Hospitals. Went to see Chaplain Dana who is
seriously ill. Got home about 6 p.m.
28th-Slst Work as usual. Overwhelmingly busy —

June 1st Office and Study. Went to the Mayor's Dinner to the Officers of
the Fleet at the Commodore Hotel. An immense gathering. A great many
of the officers spoke of their interest in the service next Sunday at the
Cathedral and told me they were coming.

2nd Officiated at funeral of Cass Gilbert at Church of the Heavenly Rest —
3rd First S. after Trinity — Cathedral at 8 —

At 11 great service for the Officers and Men of the Fleet at which I
preached. One of the most thrilling services we have ever had in the

DIARY 181

Cathedral. Admiral Sellers the Commander in Chief, eight other Ad
mirals &: some two hundred other officers in the Choir and the whole Cathe
dral packed with sailors. They marched from 96th St. with their Colours
and Bands —

The fleet service gave the bishop just the proper opportunity he
wanted to correct effectively a flabby and shallow advocacy of pacifism
which was rife. Many clergy who had preached a holy crusade during
the First World War went to the opposite extreme because of the great
feeling of disillusionment which the results of the war naturally
brought.

A considerable number of Ministers of Religion just now, carried away
by a wave of extreme pacifism, are announcing that no matter what the
circumstances or conditions they will never give their assent, or moral
support, to the use of force, and that in case of war they will refuse
even, as Chaplains, to give solace and comfort to the sick, the wounded,
and the dying. Such statements are greatly to be regretted. They do
harm to the cause of Religion, they repel strong men from the Church,
and they reflect discredit upon the Peace Movement which we wish to
see strengthened and advanced. This extreme pacifist position does not
represent either sound thinking or true religion. . . . Our Lord Jesus
Christ, the Master and Saviour of us all, stands not for peace at any
price, but for righteousness at any cost.

4th Office, etc. — Attended a Conference on the Unemployment Situation
called by the Mayor at the City Hall. Chaplain Evans came up to tea
and was overflowing with enthusiasm about the service yesterday. Admiral
Sellers has ordered my sermon printed in the Ships Papers and distributed
throughout the Fleet — It was on "The true Pacifism and the False" —
5th At work on my sermon for Albany — Attended the Commencement
Exercises at Columbia University.

6th Office, etc. — Took train at 2 p.m. for Albany arriving at 4.45 —
Bishop Oldham drove me out to see the new St. Agnes's School. At dinner
they had Mrs. Van Rensselaer, Col. Rice and Mr. and Mrs. Fayerweather
— Mrs. F. was Margaret Doane Gardiner — Service at 8 in the Cathedral
when I preached. The Lieut. Governor and his staff, the Governor be
ing absent, the Mayor and his Staff, and all the Judges of the Court of
Appeals were present and all came to the Sacristy before the service. A
large congregation. They are observing the 50th Anniversary of the Lay
ing of the Corner Stone. Left on midnight train. A pleasant visit.
7th Catching up with matters accumulated in my absence. At work on
matters relating to Cathedral Windows —

8th In office all morning dictating letters — Joint Meeting of Commit
tee on Program of Church and Committee on Diocesan Finance — Writing
at night.

182 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

9th Many interviews — Dr. Wallace Gardner at lunch to talk over various
problems.

10th Second S. after Trinity — At St. Augustine's, Croton, preached and
Confirmed a class from that congregation and from the Church of the
Divine Love, Montrose — also Confirmed a sick man in his home.
llth St. Barnabas Day. Still receiving many letters as to my sermon to
the Officers and Men of the Fleet on "The True Pacifism and the False" —
The Navy Department is ordering the sermon printed and distributed
throughout the Navy. It was a brief and simple statement, taking about
fifteen minutes to deliver.

At night went to Mamaroneck to a Parish Dinner celebration the 230th
anniversary of the first service of the Prayer Book held there — a large and
enthusiastic gathering.

12th Long conference with Bp. Gilbert on Diocesan matters. Still at
work on matters connected with the new Windows we are now to put in
the Nave. Attended Dinner in connection with the Installation of Dr.
Harry Woodburn Chase as Chancellor of New York University — Five
College Presidents were there Dr. Conant, the new President of Harvard,
Dr. Dodds, the new President of Princeton, Dr. Angell of Yale, Dr. Rob
inson of C.C.N.Y. and Dr. Chase. I sat between Dr. Chase and Dr. Conant
and had a most interesting talk with both of them.

18th Went with Frances, Elizabeth, Griff and "Beetle," to visit the Lex
ington, one of the two great Air Plane Carriers of our Navy, as the guests
of Chaplain Riddle — Govvy Hoffman and his wife also there.
The ship is 880 feet long, carries 76 Air Planes, has displacement 34,000
tons, is faster than any Ocean Liner — has Hangar 500 feet in length —
and the Upper Deck has an area of 2i/£ acres — A marvellous machine.
Lunched with the Chaplain. At work until late on Cathedral and other
matters.

li^th Interviews and Meetings. Prince Gagarian and the Grand Duchess
Marie came to talk about the situation of the Russian Church in this
Country.

15th and 16th Hard at work finishing up things many of which ought
to have been done long ago.

17th Third S. after Trinity. At Tomkins Cove — visited the Chapel of
St. John the Divine, the Cathedral Fresh Air Home, and the House of
Prayer at Jones's Point. Very hot but a good day —

18th Still at work on matters relating to the new Windows we are to
put in the Nave. In afternoon at meeting of Church Extension Society.
19th Made my annual visit to my Oculist, Dr. Conrad Berens — At work
on Windows, and other matters.

20th Mr. Hoffman came up to say good bye before sailing. Signed the
contracts for eight Clerestory Windows and six Aisle Windows in the Nave
to cost $289,000.00 — The money was given for this specific purpose — and
the work is a God send to the Stained Glass Makers — five different Firms

DIARY 183

— Cram tells me it will save three of the Firms from going to pieces. A
group of the younger Clergy and their wives with us at lunch — with
Frances as hostess. The Donegans, Whites, Prices, Pipers, Klomans and
Mr. Ackerman and Otis Rice. Dr. Fleming came up to say good bye be
fore sailing.

21st At work in Office and Study finishing up. Had a talk with Judge
Seabury. Thomas P. Browne who was my most faithful Secretary while I
was Rector of Trinity came up to have a talk about the Parish — Writing
at night —

22nd Long conference with the Dean as to Memorials in the Nave of the
Cathedral. Bp. Gilbert at lunch to talk over Diocesan matters.
28rd Many interviews at Office — Luncheon at Choir School and the An
nual Prize Day Exercises — Hard at work finishing up things — packing,
etc., for quiet — and work — at Somesville.

2J+th St. John Baptist — 4th S. After Trinity — At 8 in Cathedral — other
services quietly in my own Chapel.

25th At Luncheon of Citizens Budget Commission. Sat next to the Mayor
and had a good talk with him.
Office — Study — packing, etc.

26th Interviews with Dr. Sunderland — Committee from Trinity Church,
Saugerties, and others — Bp. Lloyd came to lunch. Very hot.
27th Office and Study all day — At 8 p.m. officiated at funeral of the Revd.
Albert E. Bentley at Grace Church in the Bronx. The Dean and Mrs.
Gates left for Cohasset.

28th At work closing up and packing. Dudley Hughes with us at dinner.
The extremely hot weather continues.
29th St. Peter's Day. Office — Study — packing, etc.
Left on Bar Harbour Express at 6.15 p.m. for Somesville.
30th After a hot journey reached Ellsworth at 9.45 a.m. — an hour late —
Found all going well — F. rather tired from looking after the family — Elsie
Lea still here but ready to leave for N.E.H. — where Lizzie has now also
gone.

July 1st 5th S. after Trinity — A quiet Sunday with our own services at
the house.

2nd-7th Resting — Unpacking — Getting things in order for work in my
Study — Writing many letters on Diocesan matters —

8th 6th S. after Trinity — Celebration at 8 and other services quietly in
the house as usual. Elsie seems much better than during her first week or
two here —

9th-19th At work on Diocesan matters — sermons, etc.
A good many callers and visitors — On the 16th we lunched with Edith
Miller at Bar Harbour — the Endicotts, the Bordens and Mr. Coles —
20th At work on Cathedral and Diocesan matters much of the day — The
dry weather continues and rain is greatly needed.
21st-21+th Reading — writing — etc. Many letters.

184 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

25th St. James's Day — News came today of the assassination of Chancellor
Dollfuss in Austria — just 20 years from the day on which Austria de
livered to Serbia the ultimatum which precipitated the World War. The
situation is a very dangerous one.

26lh Dined with Gilbert H. Montague in Seal Harbour — Several men
connected with our present Government were there — Donald Richberg —
James Landis, Justin Miller — also Henry Morgenthau, father of the Sec
retary of the Treasury, D. H. Morris, Ambassador to Belgium, Mr. Stim-
son, former Minister to Argentina, Dr. Angell, President of Yale, Dr.
Hopkins, President of Dartmouth, Elliott Wadsworth, William Procter,
Mr. Turner and Draper Lewis, Dr. Little, etc.

27th A heavy rain last night which was greatly needed. The Drought is
serious in this State and in a number of the Western States it is calamitous
and is accompanied with almost unprecedented heat.

28th Van Lea arrived, having motored from Philadelphia, stopping one
night at Stonington. This is Elsie's birthday — she and Lizzie and Eliza
beth Child came over in the afternoon — The welcome rain still continues.
29th Ninth S. after Trinity. Celebration and other services quietly at the
house — Isabel Benjamin and Mrs. Barnes, of Philadelphia came in to
see us —

80th At work on Diocesan and Cathedral matters much of the day.
31st Van drove us over to tea with Mrs. Barnes and Isabel Benjamin in
Bar Harbour — the Sampsons, Miss Angelica Livingston, Mrs. Sturgis, Mrs.
Mansfield Patterson, Miss Cross, etc. Called on the Wickershams.
August 1st Reading and writing much of the day.

2nd Florence's Birthday — the family here from "Northeast" in the after
noon for the party and presents. Mrs. West Roosevelt and others called.
Srd-7th At work on Diocesan Matters — Letters, Sermons, etc.
8th Writing all the morning. Still getting letters about my sermon to the
Officers and men of the Fleet in the Cathedral — one yesterday from the
Archbishop of Canterbury and one from Admiral Cluverius the day be
fore. F. and I went to Bar Harbour to a Tea at the Rectory and made
many calls — the John Hampton Barneses, Miss Fannie Norris, Edith
Bowdoin, the John M. Glenns, Miss Mollie Hoffman and Miss Livingston,
etc. — and after the Tea to the Wickershams at the Malvern Hotel.
9th Writing much of the day — Frances and "Beetle" and his friend Alfred
Barnes arrived about 7.30 p.m. having motored from Stonington, about
360 miles in Frances's Ford Car. They left Stonington at 8 a.m.
10th Reading — writing — and preparing sermons. Mrs. Barclay Parsons
arrived yesterday and Florence took her to Bar Harbour today to the Proc
ter's Lunch and Musicale — Frances and the two boys are running about
the island and enjoying it all —

llth Writing letters — preparing sermons, etc. Bishop Lawrence and Mrs.
Slattery came over to see us.
12th Eleventh S. after Trinity — Celebration in the house as usual at 8 —

DIARY 185

Preached at St. Mary's, Northeast Harbour at 10.30 — a crowded church and
many young people — Spoke to many old friends at the door after the
service.

13th Dr. and Mrs. F. Warner Bishop came over to see us. They are at
Northeast, with their daughter Dorothy and her young friend, until to
morrow — F. and I lunched with the Sampsons at Bar Harbour — the Wick-
eshams, the Hurds from Pittsburgh, Dr. and Mrs. Robbins from Phila
delphia, etc. Mrs. Parsons drove us over and we took her to Jordan Pond
for tea where we met our young people with Dorothy Bishop and her
friend — They all went to Northeast for dinner, the Movies and a Dance
— Am getting some remarkable letters about my sermon yesterday at
Northeast — which was on the need of Conversion.

14th Got off 26 letters today — Miss Louise Whitin called, also Mrs. Tufts
— Frances, Van, and the two boys went fishing — and to the movies at
night.

15th Writing and reading.

16th The two boys — "Beetle" and Alfred left for Stonington. A telegram
came telling us that Nick and Florence van Antwerp and their daughter
Greta from Cincinnati will arrive tomorrow — They have been on a camp
ing trip in Canada.

17th Nick, Florence and Greta arrived and Frances moved over to the
Clifton House at "Northeast" with Lizzie and Elsie —
18th The visitors are having a busy time here and at Northeast — swim
ming — fishing — lunches and picnics —

19th 12th S. after Trinity — Celebration at 8 in the house as usual — At
10.30 Van Lea and I went to the little Church at Southwest Harbour —
the others went to Northeast —
20th Writing, etc. — The visitors still very busy —

F. and I lunched at Northeast with Mrs. J. West Roosevelt. I took back
the manuscript — with comments — of a book by her son Nicholas which he
wanted me to read — title "The Heritage of Hate — Europe's Curse."
21st Reading and writing.

22nd At 12 Van and I went to a party on the Trail at Somes's Pond given
by the Wilsons to Gordon and Kathleen Crawford — From there we went
to the "Grey Guinea" beyond Ellsworth to a luncheon given by Van —
the Mayor and Mrs. Wilson of Cincinnati, Mrs. Parsons, Nick, Florence
and Greta van Antwerp — Frances and Lizzie, Mrs. Spear, the Crawfords,
Florence and I —

In the 14 miles from Somesville to Ellsworth I have seen an Ox Team,
Horse drawn vehicles, Steam Engines, Motor Cars and Air Planes — also
Sailing Vessels and Steam Yachts — all the means of travel known to his
tory. Coming back from Northeast Harbour the other night the light
from the Motor Car shone full on a beautiful deer which stood quietly for
a few moments and then went into the woods — Many deer have been
seen this season.

186 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

2Srd At work in Study. In the afternoon Frances drove me over to Bar
Harbour to see about tickets, etc.

Called on Bishop Lawrence — he showed us his wonderful collection of
photos of the family from the time of his Father and Mother — 169 in
number, including more than forty in-laws. The Crawfords came in at
night for a farewell visit as they leave tomorrow.
24th St. Bartholomew's Day —

At work on sermons. Florence lunched with Mrs. Angell wife of the Presi
dent of Yale. The Crawfords left at 4.30. I went in to see Mrs. Tufts,
who is a great sufferer from arthritis, in the cottage next door.
25th At work in Study most of the day.

26th 13th S. after Trinity — Celebration at 8 and read Matins at home —
Florence, Van and I went to Northeast to lunch with Frances and Lizzie
and Elsie at the Clifton House.

21th Van left this morning for Philadelphia and will stop at Stonington
on the way — At work on sermons, etc. A few friends came in to tea with
us — the Wickershams, the George B. McLellans, Mrs. Dickey, Mrs. Barclay
Parsons, Mrs. Murray Young, Edith Miller, etc.

28th-81st The usual round — Working on my two sermons for the Gen
eral Synod of the Ch. of England in Canada.

CHAPTER ELEVEN

IN

MEDIAS
RES

M

ANNING worked consistently throughout his ministry to uphold
a strict construction of the marriage canons and to strengthen these
canons. His basic principle is that the sanctity and permanence of the
marriage bond is the essential foundation of the Christian family. He
stood firm against remarriage after divorce. It is a common misunder
standing that forbidding the remarriage of a divorced person means,
or is the same thing as, forbidding divorce. In his consideration of
individual cases Manning quite realistically recognized the necessity
in hard cases of the complete separation of divorce. This does not mean
in the eyes of the church any power to contract a second marriage while
the life of the original partner continues. He gave permission for re
marriage only in cases clearly allowed by the canons, strictly inter
preted in accordance with the teaching of the Prayer Book, and he
spoke out firmly whenever occasion warranted against divorce.

In 1926 the Vatican Tribunal handed down a declaration that the
marriage of the Duke of Marlborough and Consuelo Vanderbilt in
1895 was annulled. The marriage had taken place in Saint Thomas
Church in New York City with the rector and the Bishops of New
York and Long Island officiating. The couple lived together for twelve
years and had two children. They then separated for twelve years,
made some effort at reconciliation, but failed and were divorced. Each
then remarried, the duchess to a French Roman Catholic. Application
was later made on her behalf and for the relief of her Roman Catholic
husband. There was much about the circumstances of the marriage of
wealth to high title in 1895 which was unedifying but a declaration
of nullity thirty-one years later brought no credit upon those con
cerned. It certainly did nothing to uphold the sanctity of marriage.

187

188 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

The bishop inquired of the Archbishop of Canterbury whether he in
tended to make a statement and, receiving a negative answer, decided
that it was his responsibility as the bishop in whose diocese the mar
riage had occurred, to do so. He preached on the matter in the cathe
dral on Thanksgiving Day.

This whole proceeding is a discredit to the Christian Church and an injury
to religion. It has done more than any event in years to weaken the sanc
tity of marriage.

If marriages are to be declared null and void on pleas so unreal as
this, no marriage, and no home, can be regarded as safe.

At this time when so many influences are at work which threaten to
destroy Christian marriage, the outlook is serious indeed if the Roman
Catholic Church is to take such a position as this decree represents.

For Rome's opposition to Divorce we have been accustomed to give
thanks. But of what effect is opposition to Divorce if those who wish to
escape from their marital obligations can obtain decrees of nullity on
such pretexts as this.

If couples who have lived years in wedlock can procure annulments
merely by discovering that undue pressure in some form was used at the
time of their marriage, divorce will become unnecessary. In the light of
this annulment, and others that are now rumored, on trivial and puerile
grounds, what becomes of the claim of the Roman Church that it stands
for indissoluble marriage?

If this is to be its policy the Sacred Rota Tribunal will be likely to re
ceive many applications for dissolution of the marriage bond.

By all who wish to see the sacredness of marriage upheld, and by all
who recognize the great moral and spiritual opportunity of the Roman
Catholic Church, this action by the Tribunal of the Vatican should be
openly condemned, and most deeply deplored.

These were strong words from one against whom an effort had been
made, and was to be made again, to show that he was about to submit
to Rome. He received letters both of praise and blame, some of the
former coming from Roman Catholics.

Manning's most dramatic stand in upholding the sanctity of mar
riage came in the episode of Judge Lindsey in 1930. This was con
cerned however with more than the Christian standards of marriage.
The matter was one of a series used by a small group of clergy of the
diocese to make as much trouble for the bishop as possible. Manning's
determination to exercise discipline firmly and definitely was infuri
ating to them. The group probably did not number as many as half
a dozen but they were unscrupulous in their methods and successful
in leading the press. The Churchman, which had made such trouble
over Saint John's Chapel twenty years before, though under different

IN MEDIAS RES 189

editorship, was the mouthpiece of the group. Dr. Robbins saw to it
that interest did not flag. In October, 1930, the bishop preached at
the consecration of Bishop Gilbert, not unnaturally on the subject of
the apostolic ministry. It was the kind of a sermon one would expect
to hear at the consecration of a bishop but with the clarity of wording
and forcefulness of delivery which were typical of Manning. The group
raised immediate outcry. What the bishop said was no longer tenable
in the light of modern scholarship and it was insulting to speak of the
necessity of episcopacy in the presence of Protestant ministers who had
been formally invited to be present. No explanation was given as to
why they were more insulted by the expostion of the meaning of the
act than by the invitation to see it performed.1

A statement was drawn up and signed by thirteen clergy of the
metropolitan area. The statement was so cautiously worded that Man
ning stated publicly he would have been glad to sign it, had he been
asked. But the impression was given to the press by those in charge
of it that it was in protest against, and in correction of, the bishop's
sermon. This caused acute distress to at least one of the signers who
hastened privately to make his apology to the bishop.

A few days later another occurrence gave this little group what
they considered a favourable opportunity to exploit their position.
There is in New York an organization known as the Churchman's
Association, made up of clergy of the Episcopal Church of the metro
politan area, who gather periodically to lunch together and hear a
speaker. It is a rather colorless body. The majority of the clergy of the
area belong but the attendance is apt to be meager. Most rectors serve
their time as president; Manning had done so in the past. In 1930
the president was the newly consecrated suffragan, Bishop Gilbert,
and the chairman of the program committee was a presbyter associ
ated in a somewhat informal capacity with Grace Church, and of whom
the kindest description would be that he was a minor poet. The usual
custom was to announce at each meeting the speaker for the next meet
ing. In November, without the usual advance notice, postcards were
delivered to members announcing as the speaker at the next meeting,
only a few days off, Judge Ben B. Lindsey. Judge Lindsey had had a
flamboyant career in Colorado and the far west. He was chiefly notable

i The following note is in the bishop's file:

I repeated the statements & emphasized them in my sermon at the meeting of
the Gen. Com. (in 1934, at a service in commemoration of the 150th anniversary
of the consecration of Bishop Seabury) — & so far as I know no one there pro
tested or questioned them,
see Strong in the Lord (Morehouse-Gorham, 1947), pp. 103-117.

190 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

at the time for his advocacy of companionate marriage, a device by
which he felt he could fit the yoke better to twentieth century necks.
Others declared it was merely free love. On receiving his postcard the
bishop took immediate action. He telephoned to Bishop Gilbert, who
was out of town, and found that he agreed that it was improper to
give Lindsey the support of being able to report he had been invited
to address the clergy. At Bishop Gilbert's suggestion he telephoned
the chairman of the program committee to ask that the invitation to
Lindsey be withdrawn. Much was made afterward of the fact that the
bishop did not so much "ask" as "demand" and "direct." Whatever
may have been his tone of voice on the telephone the communication
he gave, coming from the bishop of the diocese and a former president,
was of necessity authoritative. The group, who all belonged to the
association, felt that they had an attractive issue in the matter of "free
speech," and they encouraged the poor minor poet to stick to his guns,
defy autocratic and obscurantist dictation, and refuse to withdraw the
invitation. Drums were then beaten, dust thrown in the air, and the
issue of giving support to the doctrine of free love successfully ob
scured by the charge that the bishop was attempting to dictate to
grown men what they might hear in making up their minds on impor
tant moral issues. An attendance of two or three times the usual num
ber came to the meeting a few days later and in a passion of supposedly
moral fervour voted to hear Lindsey. The opposition was elated. But
they had overreached themselves. The bishop preached in the cathe
dral on the following Sunday, "on certain issues now before us and
on the meaning of so-called 'Companionate Marriage.' " He dealt very
fully and definitely with their behaviour.

There is in this Diocese a little group of clergymen who, with what mo
tive I do not venture to say, have been doing whatever lay in their power
to make difficulties for their Bishop and to place him publicly in em
barrassing situations. This group is a very small one relatively to the
whole number of our clergy. It figures little when our Diocese gathers in
Convention, but it figures largely in the newspapers, and it has the con
stant and active support of a Religious Journal miscalled Liberal, pub
lished in this city, which I think few can read without observing its per
sonal animus and its extreme partisan prejudice. It is time for this un
seemly agitation to cease.

He gave an account of their actions culminating in the matter of the
Churchman's Association. The bishop and Bishop Gilbert had joined
in asking that the invitation be withdrawn.

IN MEDIAS RES 191

In conference with Bishop Gilbert and myself on this matter Bishop
Lloyd said and I quote him with his permission, "I do not believe that
any of our clergy will vote to uphold what is the most unclean thing I
have ever heard of."

The issue of free speech is not involved here. I hold that it is both
the right and the duty of the clergy to hear, and read, and inform them
selves on all sides of these questions, but I hold that it was a grave mis
take and a shocking thing, for a gathering of our clergy to give their
countenance and endorsement to the former Judge Lindsey by inviting
him in this way.

He then went on to a description and denunciation of Lindsey's pro
gram as destructive of the Christian teaching about marriage and sum
moned parents to call to account those responsible for encouraging it.
Lindsey was in the cathedral and jumped on a table placed under the
pulpit for the convenience of reporters to reply at the close of the ser
mon; whereupon a tall, burly usher (Lindsey was a very small man)
grasped him round the knees, laid him over his shoulder, and marched
out of the cathedral 1

The sermon was effective in calling attention to the need for greater
definiteness in the teaching of Christian standards and more alertness
in recognizing plausible and persuasive attacks made upon them.
There was wide and enthusiastic response to the bishop's sum
mons. It was also effective in sweetening the atmosphere in the
diocese. People were shocked to discover how far the organized oppo
sition was willing to push things. No less a person than a future regius
professor of the University of Oxford had been led into the endorse
ment of Lindsey. The poor chairman who was encouraged to persist in
his invitation later went to such extremes in an effort to justify him
self that his connection with Grace Church was terminated, to his
understandable dismay. But the power to deceive the elect was broken.
The bishop felt at the time, and referred to it more than once in later
years, that a better spirit prevailed in the diocese after the Lindsey
sermon.

Six years later he preached on the matter of the abdication of King
Edward VIII, pointing out that the difficulty over the king's marriage
arose not from the fact that the proposed mate was a commoner, or
an American, but a divorced woman with two husbands living, and
driving home the lesson that the manner of handling the constitutional
crisis in England had given great support to Christian moral ideals
everywhere. He received privately the thanks of each of the two Eng
lish archbishops for the sermon.

192 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

Early in 1940 Bertrand Russell was appointed to teach philosophy
at City College in New York. The bishop publicly denounced the ap
pointment of one whose moral teaching is so entirely inconsistent with
Christian standards. Contest ensued. The matter of academic freedom
was of course raised. The Board of Education refused to cancel the
appointment. A taxpayer's suit was instituted and the courts voided
the board's action. The bishop spoke at length on the matter at the
Diocesan Convention, fully recognizing the dangers of interference
with teachers, but also plainly pointing out the dangers of irresponsi
bility, in the name of academic freedom, on the part of those respon
sible for education.

Much has been said and written in this case about Academic Freedom.
Academic Freedom is a vitally important principle and we should all
be eager to see it rightly maintained. But Academic Freedom has its nat
ural, necessary, and common sense limits. Academic Freedom does not
include the right to make the class rooms of our Universities, directly or
indirectly, centres of influence against religion and morality. There
could be no more grave disservice to the principles of Academic Free
dom than the exaggerated claims made for it by some representatives of
the Academic World. . . . The Moral Law is the only foundation for
Justice, Liberty, and Peace among men; it is the only foundation for
Democracy and the sacredness of human personality; it is the only foun
dation for civilized life and for a true World Order. Without this foun
dation there is no true education, no education that will develop char
acter, no education that will fit our young people for the duties and the
work of life.

In 1941 a proposal was made in Congress to increase income tax
income by requiring all married couples to file joint returns. This
would place the combined incomes in a higher tax bracket. The bishop
campaigned vigorously against the proposal as being an attack on
marriage by its offering a tax advantage to the divorced or the un
married. In 1943 he notes indignantly in his diary,

Received today an urgent plea from one of our clergy to find some way in
which a marriage contrary to the Law of the Church can be allowed be
cause the persons concerned are socially prominent and the Bride is to
be given in marriage by David Bowes-Lyon, brother of Queen Elizabeth
of England — an amazing and most immoral request but significant of the
times in which we are living. This request came from the clergyman who
wished to perform the ceremony, not from David Bowes-Lyon, who would,
I think, have known better than to ask it.

In 1945 an incident occurred which attracted attention because of
the prominence of the individual involved. After the death of Presi-

IN MEDIAS RES 193

dent Roosevelt one of his sons was elected to take his place on the
vestry at Saint James, Hyde Park. He was twice divorced and married
to a third wife. When announcement of this election was made by the
vestry and reported to the bishop he sent word that the individual
was "not in good standing" in the church and the election must be
withdrawn.

His last public stand against divorce came after his retirement. For
many years there had been a determined effort to change the canons
of the church so as to allow the marriage of divorced persons. In 1943
a "liberal" canon was almost adopted and its supporters felt that suc
cess was near. The 1946 General Convention was largely taken up
with the proposals to unite with certain Presbyterians but the im
portant matter of change in the marriage canon was also before the
convention. The demands of the "liberals" were such that the House
of Bishops could not swallow them. There was a feeling that some
thing must be done about the church's marriage laws and a small com
mittee of bishops was appointed to prepare a canon which would be
acceptable to both sides. It was reported at the time that the com
mittee was locked up over night in a hotel room with the threat that
they might not come out until they had something which could be
passed. The report may have been erroneous but what they produced
— the present canon — was certainly the result of extreme pressure, a
compromise so worded as to appear to each side to contain what was
needed to uphold its contention. In an attitude of impatient determi
nation the House of Bishops adopted the report of its committee unani
mously; and the House of Deputies was almost unanimous in agree
ing. The unanimity was to any thoughtful person an indication that
the canon was bad law. It meant that persons whose teaching and prin
ciples were diametrically opposed had accepted a form of words patient
of mutually exclusive interpretations. Manning was ill and did not
attend the convention.

Within less than a year there occurred the marriages, under the new
canon, of two priests of the church to divorced women. By an ironic
coincidence one of these involved the first wife of the Roosevelt whose
election to the vestry at Hyde Park the bishop had vetoed. Manning
was retired but nevertheless spoke out to express the consternation
and grief of church people at the scandal. He wrote to one of the
bishops

In your position on this matter you have divorced the Canons from their
necessary relation to the Doctrine and Tradition of the Church, and
based your action upon a legalistic, and mistaken, interpretation of the

194 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

Canons alone. You, and your advisers, have strangely failed to realize the
following facts:

1. No canon can be rightly so interpreted as to contravene and nullify
the Constitution of the Church. If the Canon did this, the Canon would
be ultra vires and without force.

2. The Prayer Book is an integral part of the Constitution of this
Church and your action, in marrying a priest to a divorced woman, con
travenes, and holds up to ridicule, the Prayer Book Doctrine as to Mar
riage.

3. No priest need marry a divorced woman, and if he chooses to do
this he shows himself unfitted for further service in the Ministry of this
Church.

4. Whatever may be the provisions of the Canon, no Bishop of this
Church can, with loyalty to the Doctrine and Teaching of the Prayer
Book, sanction the marriage of a priest to a divorced woman.

The marriage standards of the Episcopal Church are very low. They
have deteriorated grievously since Manning's time. The fact of his
speaking out in 1947 had, at the time at least, a sobering effect.

Miss Elizabeth McCracken was for many years a reporter and associ
ate editor of the Living Church. Her literal, dead-pan reporting of
the fatuous contributions to the discussions of the National Council
by some of its members used to delight readers of the paper in the
thirties and forties, and undoubtedly helped to improve that body.
She was also a frequent and welcome visitor in the bishop's household.
Returning on one occasion from General Convention she regaled the
family with the report of a conversation between two bishops which
she had overheard. Both were of a school of thought having little in
common with their brother of New York. One remarked that they
would never make any progress as long as Manning remained Bishop
of New York; the other replied that they would never make any
progress as long as he lived. The bishop laughed, not uproariously
for he did not laugh that way, but with a special heartiness with
which he always recognized and greeted an absurdity, particularly if
it applied to himself. The incident is in itself unimportant but it
accurately illustrates the extent of his influence and also his complete
lack of concern about himself and his personal, as distinct from official,

reputation.

* * *

When Manning became Bishop of New York in 1921 the practice
of inunction was not widespread in the diocese and there had been
no special agitation for it. However at Saint Bartholomew's in 1918
Dr. Parks, because of the influenza epidemic, began the practice of

IN MEDIAS RES 195

administering in one kind; and no communicant there was allowed to
receive from the chalice at the principal service on the first Sunday in
the month. Manning pointed out to Parks that this was not tolerable
and Parks prepared an "open letter" to the bishop, distributed with
the bishop's consent to all members of both Houses of General Con
vention in 1922, asking that relief be given by the House of Bishops,
or by convention, to the difficulty which people felt over the common
cup by making provision for communion in one kind. Manning prom
ised to ask for careful consideration of Parks' proposal and did so,
though he himself did not at that time support it. Parks had not given
sufficient care in his proposal to safeguarding the normal method of
receiving the sacrament and the right of any communicant to receive
in the normal manner. In his correspondence with Manning he ex
pressed great dislike for intinction; and also willingness to stand trial
for his practice at Saint Bartholomew's if need be. Manning vehe
mently repudiated the possibility of a trial and, declaring that he felt
Parks had put his case as strongly as it could be put, expressed the
hope that a "solution satisfactory to all" could be found. The House of
Bishops did discuss the matter fully and passed a resolution (as Man
ning reported to Parks, "unanimously") stating that the law of the
church required administration of the sacrament in both kinds.

Intinction was never allowed at the cathedral in Manning's time.
His answer to those who wrote protesting that it was not allowed was
that there was no authority for it in the law of the church — while the
House of Bishops had formerly passed a resolution declaring intinc
tion was "permissible in cases of actual emergency such as an epi
demic," authorization of the practice by General Convention was asked
in 1937 and refused — and at the cathedral the law must be obeyed
whatever might be done elsewhere. In a letter to the Bishop of Lund,
Sweden, in 1936 he writes.

For my own part I do not favour the use of Intinction in ordinary parish
life. There are many practical difficulties in regard to it and in some
cases it leads to pactices which are unseemly and irreverent.

About this time he proposed for discussion in a closed session of the
House of Bishops the following,

Resolved that the Bishops in Council recommend to the House of Bishops
the adoption of the following — Resolved that in order to relieve the
minds and consciences of any who are in uncertainty this House of Bish
ops declares that for reasons which he, or she, believes to be sufficient a
communicant of this church is at liberty to receive the Holy Communion

196 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

in one kind and the House of Bishops holds that one who so receives in
faith and sincerity does truly receive the Sacrament of the Holy Com
munion.

Manning was surprised at the strong support which was given in dis
cussion. He declared afterward that it would probably have passed
but he was not willing to allow it to be voted on without lying over
for a year for consideration. He therefore prevented a vote by with
drawing it and the matter did not again arise in that form. An im
portant reason for avoiding immediate action was that it was in the
nature of altering, or at least denning, the faith and order of the
Anglican Communion by one province of the church without waiting
for universal approval. If this were to be done in one matter it could
be done in others, with results which might well be undesirable. In
1941 the Archbishop of Canterbury requested a statement on the mat
ter of intinction in the American Church for the next Lambeth Con
ference. Manning was asked to prepare this statement and submitted
the following.

There is much disquiet of mind among our people in the Episcopal
Church in regard to receiving from the Chalice. As a result of this the
practise of Intinction has grown considerably in our parishes. This method
of administering the Holy Communion has not been authorized nor sanc
tioned by our General Convention but a resolution was adopted some
time ago by our House of Bishops indicating that in the judgment of the
Bishops the practise of Intinction is permissible in a case of emergency
such as an epidemic and this has been taken by some to warrant the
practise of Intinction under ordinary conditions.

In this Diocese the practise of Intinction is not sanctioned by the
Bishop but it is nevertheless used in some of our parishes and I am told
that in some of our Dioceses it is sanctioned by the Bishop and is almost
universal.

The practise of Intinction is open to grave objections, the methods
used seem all of them to be unsatisfactory and are often unseemly and
irreverent and I believe that many of those who practise Intinction feel
this.

There is a decidedly growing feeling among our people and especially
among our clergy that Communion in one kind is the true solution of
the difficulty and that this is more justifiable than the use of Intinction.

All Catholic Theologians, and also many Protestant Theologians, will I
believe agree that one who receives the Holy Communion in one kind
does truly receive the Sacrament. Few would hold that the people of the
Roman Catholic Church have failed to receive the Sacrament during the
centuries in which it has been administered to them in one kind.

It would I believe be action in the right direction, and action which

IN MEDIAS RES 197

would relieve the minds and consciences of many, if it were officially de
clared that one who in faith and sincerity receives in one kind does truly
receive the Sacrament of the Holy Communion.

At present a small but increasing number of our people are exercising
their liberty in this matter by refraining from receiving from the Chalice
and receiving only in one kind. In my judgment this matter and other im
portant matters such as the proposed approaches towards organic union be
tween the Episcopal Church and the Presbyterian Church in the United
States serve strongly to emphasize the necessity of some definite agreement
and statement to the effect that no Church of the Anglican Communion
will make any change in the Book of Common Prayer in any way affecting
Faith or Order without previous consultation with the other Churches of
the Anglican Communion.

Immediately after the present World War I believe the time will be
ripe for this and such an agreement and statement would tend towards
World Wide Christian Reunion by emphasizing and strengthening the
fellowship between the Churches of the Anglican Communion and so
among English speaking Christians throughout the world.
* * *

The bishop had no hesitation in speaking from the pulpit on politi
cal questions when he felt it proper and he was not deterred by the
frenzy of opposition which his words aroused. He delighted in the
absurdities which sometimes resulted, as in the case of the woman who
wrote him,

Bishop Manning, I am a Christian woman which it is very obvious you
are not,

or the man who exploded

half the lies you tell aren't so.

But he was also prepared to face the distress which his political utter
ances caused some of his strongest supporters. In 1937 he used the
occasion of the noonday sermon on Ash Wednesday in Trinity Church
to speak out against the president's plan to "pack" the Supreme Court.
It was clear to him that the president was proposing to remove an im
portant and fundamental safeguard of individual rights and liberties
and he sounded the alarm. Among others some of the clergy present
were horrified at this use of the pulpit, especially on such a day. He
continued to take a leading part in this fight, joining a "Committee
to Uphold Constitutional Government," but he declined urgent invi
tations to appear personally before congressional committees.

The period between the two world wars was perhaps more notable
than others for the matter of persecutions. Meetings of protest were

198 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

organized in this country and had inevitably political implications with
possible serious consequences. A protest against the persecutions of
the Christian Church in Russia or of Jews in Germany may well be
twisted by people who are irresponsible or wrongly motivated into
attacks upon Russian or German people in a way which is unwise in
the circumstances of the time and possibly quite unintended by the
protestants. Manning was usually called upon by those who organized
meetings to give his support. On several such occasions he received
warnings beforehand from responsible persons as to the dangers in
volved. His response was not to withdraw from the protest but so to
speak as to make plain that he was aware of the possibility of a wrong
attitude and repudiated it. In 1933 a meeting was held in Madison
Square Garden to protest against Hitler's treatment of Jews in Ger
many. It was a question in the minds of many reasonable people
whether the matter at issue was not in reality support of Communist
Russia against the German nation. The bishop emphasized the fact
that it was really persecution against which he protested by dealing
rather more with the persecutions in Russia than in Germany — for
which of course he got boohed! His words are so little confined to the
particular circumstances of 1933 and so generally applicable that they
seem worth quoting in full.

We are here tonight, all of us together, Jews and Christians, Catholics
and Protestants, in a common cause.

We are not here to arouse animosity or to appeal to passion. We are
here to assert together the great basic truth that God has made of one
blood all nations of men on the whole earth, and that because we have
one Divine Creator and Father, we are all brothers. That is the founda
tion truth of the religion of every one of us, and it is the foundation of all
that is noble and true and worthy in human life.

Upon that fact of the common Divine Fatherhood, we base the truth
of our common brotherhood, our common humanity, the quality of all
in the sight of God, the equal right of every human being to justice, to
liberty and to life. And we are assembled here because this basic truth
of humanity, this common right of all men, has, we believe, been trans
gressed. This right has, we believe, been transgressed by anti-Semitic prop
aganda and inflammatory utterance, and also by acts of violence and
persecution.

We are told that these acts have been exaggerated, that some of the
reports are untrue, and that any further acts of this nature will be pre
vented.

We most earnestly trust that these utterances will be justified. Without
claiming to know all the facts, and with nothing but good-will toward

IN MEDIAS RES 199

the German people, we are here to lift up our voices against the possi
bility of any such acts anywhere, and against any policy, or propaganda,
or utterance, that might encourage or induce such acts.

We are here to condemn and denounce racial or religious persecution,
whoever may be guilty of it, in Germany or elsewhere, and we must not
forget the tyrannical and cruel persecution carried on against those rep
resenting all religious faiths, and the brutal attempt to stamp out all
religion, which still continues under the Soviet Government in Russia.
Lifting up our voices against such wrongs, we cannot be silent against
the tyrannies and persecutions of the Soviet Government. We declare
that such persecution in Germany or in Russia or anywhere is inhu
man, intolerable and unworthy of civilized men. And I take this op
portunity to say that in my judgment such action against the religious
rights of men as that now continuing in Russia should not be condoned
or countenanced, or given moral support, by any country which stands for
liberty, or by any individual who loves right and justice.

None of us, whether we are Jews or Christians, none of us who call
ourselves Americans, have the right to be indifferent to such acts. Such
action against any race or group of men anywhere in the world is the
concern of all of us because those men are our brothers and have the
same rights before God that we have. I say again that we have nothing
but good-will toward Germany. We make our protest here for the sake
of Germany herself, because we wish to give our moral support to her right-
thinking people. We feel confident that the real Germany is as deeply
opposed to acts of racial or religious persecution as any of us are. We
make our appeal to the real sentiment and the true idealism of the great
German people and we believe that these acts will be suppressed. All of
us today are longing and hoping for the advancement of peace and broth
erhood in the world.

The Christian religion calls upon men not only for justice but for
brotherliness toward all, and in these days of world crisis we see clearly
that we must sweep out the spirit of hate and fear and banish war and
draw all nations together in brotherhood and fellowship if civilization is
to be saved.

Race prejudice, oppression, religious persecution, have no right to exist
anywhere in this world, and we have no right to condone or counte
nance them.

We appeal here tonight for their cessation everywhere in the name of
right, of humanity and of religion.

A Jewish lawyer wrote to thank him

for your asserting to the entire world 'that God has made of one blood
all nations of men.' ... I know that you are liberal, not only in words,
but by deeds, as we live . . . near your Cathedral, and know that you
draw no religious distinctions in your business dealings.
* * *

200 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

The Board of Missions was succeeded in 1920 by the National
Council. For a brief time the bishop was a member of the council
but his record of attendance was quite as bad as in the case of the
trustees of the cathedral before he became bishop. However he had no
hesitation in injecting himself into the affairs of the national church
as occasion warranted. The problem of carrying on the work of the
church's central agencies in a manner to take full advantage of the
opportunities offered, while maintaining financial soundness in the
budget, is a difficult one, at times apparently insoluble. The new coun
cil did not do better in this respect than the old board. By 1925 a
deficit of nearly a million and a half had built up for the work of
the national church. The Diocese of New York undertook to raise a
quarter of a million dollars toward the liquidation of this debt and
did so, though the bishop reported to the 1937 convention that it had
been

one of the most difficult pieces of work I have ever undertaken, for many
people felt that the deficit should not have been incurred.

In spite of the fact that the officials of the National Council were
under a mandate of General Convention to avoid deficits these tended
to recur. Much criticism, friction, and irritation ensued. Manning's
chief demand, especially in the depression years following 1929, was
that solvency must be maintained by reducing or even eliminating
the various good works done by the National Council beyond its pri
mary responsibility to support missionary work in the strict sense. Both
in private meetings of the bishops of the second province and in letters
to the church papers he was outspoken in his criticisms and charges
of irresponsibility, to the dismay of the Bishop of Rhode Island, who
became the presiding bishop in 1930 and who proved quite incapable
of restraining the juggernaut over which he presided.

While making these criticisms Manning used all his influence to
encourage the contributions to missions, diocesan and general, in his
own diocese. As has been already pointed out,1 he emphasized the fact
that the great drive for the cathedral building fund had helped rather
than hindered giving to missions. As the effects of the great depression
increased Manning was appalled that the central organization showed
no sign that it was aware of the realities of the situation by giving up
the various fringe activities. By 1937 the situation had become serious.

1 See pp. 39 ff. For his general attitude toward the missionary work see also a ser
mon in 1937 at a missionary rally in Baltimore. Strong in the Lord, p. 135.

IN MEDIAS RES 201

The bishop spoke very bluntly at the convention about the possibility
that General Convention might

be urged to discontinue the "Pay as You go Policy" which was estab
lished for the Missionary and General Work of the Church by the Gen
eral Convention in 1925.

He suggested that the Diocesan Convention express itself on the mat
ter, which it did by passing unanimously a resolution to send a copy
of the bishop's statement to each house of General Convention, request
ing that it be read in the debate, and to each individual member of
the National Council. This was strong support and placed the bishop
in a powerful position in the matter.

At the 1937 convention in Cincinnati the bishop played a leading
part in quiet preparation for the election of the Bishop of Virginia,
Henry Saint George Tucker, as presiding bishop. At that time the
presiding bishop was elected for a term of six years. The Bishop of
Rhode Island, James DeWolf Perry, had served since 1930, being
elected to a full term in 1931. It was generally supposed that he would
be re-elected. Manning had come to feel considerable lack of confi
dence in him. Most important was his apparent inability to control
the officials of the various departments of the church's work in the
interests of financial responsibility. His statement to the New York
convention did not name Bishop Perry but was aimed at him. He was
also disturbed at what he considered the irresponsible manner in
which the presiding bishop had handled the strange case of Dr. Torok.2
In connection with the work of the 1937 convention two matters indi
cated disturbing weakness in the presiding bishop. There existed an
organization called the "Church League for Industrial Democracy."
This was patterned after the League for Industrial Democracy and
consisted of clerical and lay members of the church who held radical
views on political, social, and economic matters and who were deter
mined to preach their views militantly at the convention and elsewhere.
There are many organizations devoted to special causes. It is neither
unusual nor improper for them to appear and press their points of
view at General Convention. But the C.L.I.D. managed by aggressive
planning on the part of its officers and unusual complacency on the
part of those arranging convention details to create the impression
that it was a quasi-official body and had formal approval. Manning
sounded the alarm; the entirely unofficial nature of the organization

2 See pp. 9ff.

202

was emphasized before convention met. In somewhat the same man
ner as the Panama Conference of 1916, the officers and speakers of the
C.L.I.D. were on their best behaviour and no great harm was done.
But Manning felt that the presiding bishop had not been forceful
in preventing a false impression of the importance of the C.L.I.D.3
Another matter came to light quite by chance at a meeting of the
Faith and Order Commission. Dr. Frank Gavin and Dr. Robbins had
advised the presiding bishop to recommend membership of the church
in the Federal Council of Churches. Manning reports in his diary,

We told Bp. Perry very strongly that we should oppose this, that it was
contrary to the understanding arrived at, and that whatever views one
held it would be most inopportune & would jeopardize the plans for the
proposed World Council of Churches. . . . After some discussion Bp.
Perry changed his plan and consented to recommend that in view of the
proposal for a World Council action as to the Federation of Churches be
deferred . . .

But for this accidental discussion at our Commission Meeting the Pre
siding Bp. would have made the recommendation & the action would
very probably have been taken.

Manning canvassed the situation thoroughly but quietly and on
arriving at the convention decided to act.

There is a strong feeling that we should have a change in the office of
Presiding Bishop — Bishop Perry will probably not be re-elected — Have
conferred with quite a number of the Bishops, including Bps. Francis,
Stewart, Gray, Wing, Fiske, Matthews, Moore, and Gardner, and we
feel that the best course is for us to vote for Bp. Tucker who we believe
can be elected and thus have in the office a conservative and non-partisan
low churchman, and a man of deep devotion, rather than an aggressive,
and perhaps partisan, liberal or radical Bishop.

Bishop Tucker was not among those nominated by the committee ap
pointed for the purpose but received a large number of votes on the

first ballot and was elected on the second.

* # #

The episcopal office has of necessity difficulties both for shepherd
and for sheep. For a variety of reasons these difficulties seem to have
been more numerous and more onerous in the life of the American

8 There is an interesting entry in Manning's diary at the time of the convention.
"Attended mass meeting of Dept. of Social Service to hear Mr. Seebohm Rowntree
of York, England, speak on 'Christianity and Industrial Relations' — a most re
markable address, the best, I think, that I have ever heard on this subject — This
seemed to me one of the highest points of this Convention."

IN MEDIAS RES 203

province of the Anglican Communion. In Manning's time two pro
posals were made to give relief in these difficulties. To both Manning
was opposed on constitutional and theological grounds. The first was
the "translation" of bishops, the second was compulsory retirement.
In 1933 Manning said in his convention address

A question of great importance to the life of the Church comes to us from
the General Convention and will be presented to you by our Committee
on Canons. I refer to the proposal to authorize the Translation of Bishops
so that when the office of Bishop becomes vacant in any Diocese the Bishop
of any other Diocese may be elected and transferred to fill the vacancy.
This would be a change in the practise of our Church from the time of
its beginning. The proposal has not, I think, received the general con
sideration in the Church which its grave importance demands, and there
is danger of its adoption without its possible effects being fully realized.
This Convention will of course act in the matter as it may see fit, but
I feel it right to tell you what my own judgment is in regard to it and I
will summarize this as follows:

1. The most permanent and stable factor in the life of our Church at
present is the Bishop. In our land both the clergy and the laity are more
or less migratory. The Bishop of the Diocese represents permanence of
work, and continuity of policy.

2. The fact that with us the relation of the Bishop to his diocese is
regarded as a life relationship has helped greatly to maintain the sacred-
ness, dignity and responsibility of the Bishop's office, and has strengthened
him immeasurably in his work. It places on the Bishop proper responsi
bility for his plans and policies, as he is committed to them for life and
must see them through.

3. Departure from our present system would have a weakening, dis
turbing, and unsettling effect on the whole life of the Church. Each
time one of the larger dioceses became vacant there would be speculation
and uncertainty in other dioceses as to whether their Bishops might be
elected. The possibility of such a change in the minds of the people, or
in the mind of the Bishop, would not be helpful to the life and work of
the Church. We have had illustrations in our Missionary Districts of the
weakening effect which the possibility of change may have upon the rela
tion between the Bishop and his clergy and people. A Bishop's truest work
can be done when it is felt that he is committed to his Diocese so long as
life, or health and vigour, shall last.

4. It is not likely that this possibility of change of diocese would give
much relief in the case of a Bishop who has proved to be a misfit. The
Bishop who is a misfit would be the least likely to be called to another
diocese. The proper course for a Bishop who is truly a misfit is to re
sign, in which case any diocese that wishes to do so is now free to elect him.

5. The fact that Translation of Bishops takes place in England has

204 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

little bearing upon our case even if it is really desirable and for the best
there. The conditions of Church life are quite different in England and
in our land, and the whole system of appointments to Bishoprics in Eng
land is so different from our system that there is little if any analogy. Ob
jectionable as is the English method of appointments it probably escapes
some of the features of possible Translation which might be most unde
sirable and harmful under our conditions.

I may say that a distinguished Bishop of the English Church who was
visiting here last autumn told me that in his judgment our practise in this
matter is far better for the life of the Church than the English practise,
and that he would like to see the Translation of Bishops discontinued in
the Church of England.

6. Instead of favoring action which would tend to weaken the relation
of the Diocesan Bishop to his diocese, my belief is that it would make for
stability and spiritual strength if our Missionary Bishops should commit
themselves for life to their fields. As an illustration of this I would cite
the spiritual power and influence which his steadfast determination to give
his whole life to his Missionary field has given to Bishop Rowe.

In my judgment we should think long and earnestly, and should be very
fully convinced of the necessity for a change, before we depart from a prin
ciple which has been adhered to throughout the whole life of our Church
in this land, and which has played so great a part in the life of our Church
as has the sacred and lifelong relationship between a Bishop and his
Diocese.

Translation failed of adoption and in 1940 there was proposed in
General Convention an amendment to the constitution of the church
which requires that a bishop resign at the age of 72; this was finally
adopted in 1943. Manning did not put up any particular fight in the
matter, perhaps because his attention and energy were occupied in
1943 by the presbyterian proposals, perhaps because he recognized the
futility of trying to resist an impatient body in its determination to
provide an immediate remedy for irritating defects. But he recognized
that the requirement was a novelty in the history of Christendom and
irreconcilable with any orthodox theory of the ministry. Being over
72 himself he announced that he would disregard the provision on the
basis that legislation cannot apply ex post facto.

Since the number of active bishops over 72 was small and would
decrease rapidly in any case no attempt was made to force the matter
in his case or that of any other bishop already over 72. But Manning
made two further proposals; one that the provision should not be
held to apply to any bishop consecrated before its enactment, the other
that the church should reconsider the whole matter with much more

IN MEDIAS RES 205

care than had been given to it. The first proposal was merely a delay
ing tactic to encourage such consideration. No real consideration has
ever been given to the matter. Like the eighteenth amendment to the
Constitution of the United States, adopted to deal with the evil of
drink; or the present acceptance by many in the church of divorce as
the way to deal with the difficulties of marriage in the present condi
tion of society, the cure is worse than the disease. For the future con
sideration of the matter it is worth while to recall that in 1832 the
church adopted a canon which virtually forbade the resignation of a
bishop under any conditions whatever; and to quote the argument
which Manning addressed to the presiding bishop and to each mem
ber of the House of Bishops in 1944,

The relation between a Bishop and his Diocese is one of deep sacredness
and spiritual reality and this relationship exists between the Bishop and
his Diocese — not between the General Convention and the Diocese. One
of the most universally established and accepted principles in the whole his
tory of the Episcopal Church, in the whole of the Anglican Communion,
and in the Holy Catholic Church throughout the world, is the Autonomy,
and Integrity of the Diocese. Everything in our Constitution and Canons
asserts, maintains, and insists upon this principle, and upon this principle
the whole system of Anglican and Catholic Church life rests. The Diocese
is the unit of the Church's life. Never before, I believe, in the history of
the Holy Catholic Church, never even under the Papal System, has any
power outside the Diocese undertaken to say to the Diocese that its rela
tionship with its Bishop must be terminated.

But now our General Convention enacts legislation which requires that
hereafter when the Bishop reaches the age of seventy-two his relationship
with his Diocese shall be automatically severed, and that he shall resign.

Is this in accord with the sacredness and significance of the office and
work of a Bishop in the Church of God, and will the spiritual life of the
Church be strengthened by this action?

Would the spiritual life of the Church have been strengthened by com
pelling Bishop John Williams of Connecticut, Bishop Frederic Dan Hunt-
ington, Bishop Arthur Cleveland Coxe, Bishop William Croswell Doane,
Bishop Rowe, or Bishop Tuttle to resign at the age of seventy-two? I do
not think so.

Considered only on the lower plane of business methods and practical
efficiency, is not this legislation an instance of the present tendency towards
the exercise of centralized power in spheres where hitherto the power has
always been exercised locally, and can be exercised locally with greater wis
dom and fuller knowledge of the facts in the case?

Compulsory Retirement on reaching a certain age may be proper in the
Army and Navy, or in the Business World, but is this a fitting procedure in

206 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

the case of Bishops of the Church? And has not the Diocese rights in this
matter which should be respected and preserved? The Bishop is elected by
the Diocese, he lives and works in relation with his Diocese. Surely the
Bishop's relation with his Diocese should not be terminated by an authority
outside the Diocese acting, quite possibly, against the judgment and desire
of the Diocese. The rights of a Diocese are analogous to those of a Sovereign
State under our American Constitution, and by this legislation, for the
first time in any branch of the Catholic Church, the rights of the Diocese
are encroached upon by the General Church.

The occasional case of a Bishop who becomes incapable physically or
mentally and does not resign his office should be provided for, but this
should be done in some better way than by compelling all Bishops to re
sign upon reaching the age of seventy-two. Bishops may at any age become
physically or mentally unfit to carry on their work. Canonical provision
should certainly be made for dealing with such cases at whatever age they
may occur, but this is not accomplished by compelling all Bishops to resign
at the age of seventy-two. It would seem that this recent action of our Gen
eral Convention needs to be most carefully reviewed and further con
sidered.

This action is out of accord with the age-long standards of the Church
as to the office and work of a Bishop, and there is grave doubt as to its
wisdom, as to its spiritual and practical effects, and also as to its canonical
validity.

If the Bishop were only a Business Executive, or a Superintendent, the
case would be different. But in view of the spiritual considerations involved,
in view of the dignity and sacredness of the Bishop's Office and of the
sacred relation of the Bishop to his Diocese, in view of the universal prin
ciple of the Autonomy and Integrity of the Diocese, and in view of the im
memorial practice of the Episcopal Church, of the Anglican Communion,
and of the Holy Catholic Church everywhere, it may well be questioned

whether our General Convention had the right to take this action.

* * *

The bishop was not specially interested in the details of business
administration of the diocese, though he had a thorough grasp of the
significance of such details and a willingness, even in his old age, to
face the need for changes in the interest of soundness and responsibil
ity. A considerable reform of business administration took place in his
later years. It began with the bishop's realization that the affairs of
the cathedral were in serious shape. From its beginning the cathedral
had been hard pressed for income for running expenses. The offerings
of the congregation which worships at the cathedral form an insignifi
cant amount. The diocese has never contributed to, or been taxed
for, its support. The campaign for the building fund does not tend

IN MEDIAS RES 207

to bring in money for endowment.4 Dean Gates was not able to cope
with the problem of operating a large, and growing, plant on an in
come which, never large, was not growing. In his later days the bishop
realized that the situation was acute and he brought onto the staff, as
bursar without salary, a layman, Edward Kunhardt Warren, the son
of a former Rector of Saint James, who thus combined the points of
view of the rectory and the business house. Matters were greatly im
proved at the cathedral but Warren also proceeded to interest himself
in diocesan affairs with equally good results. A proposal was made in
the middle thirties for a survey of the various agencies connected with
the diocese in varying degree and receiving some proportion of their
support from the diocese. There is always the problem of keeping such
agencies in proper touch with the diocese and in a reasonable state
of efficiency. Several laymen with wide business experience took part
in the work of revamping the diocesan machinery. In addition to
Warren there may be mentioned Clarence Michalis, Richard Mansfield,
and G. Forrest Butterworth, the chancellor of the bishop's later years.
The bishop's part was not so much to give the lead as to assess what
was proposed and to support sound plans. As in the case of the people
who managed the campaign for the cathedral building fund, these men
were impressed with the bishop's clear and immediate grasp of the
fundamentals in the proposals made and his readiness to support those
whose judgement he felt good reason to trust. Out of this work grew
important reforms in the work of the various diocesan agencies, a well
ordered business administration of the diocesan missionary work and
funds, and a diocesan investment trust to manage profitably the funds
of parishes, missions, and agencies, as well as the diocese itself. In all
this it was not the bishop who planned and developed matters him
self; but he kept things always on the right track because of his sound
critical judgement.

It was a delight to witness the bishop's management of the Annual
Diocesan Convention. It is a very large body of people. A great many
matters are discussed in a short space of time. There is ample oppor
tunity for confusion. This never happened in New York under Man
ning. He always knew what was going on. He was unfailingly fair to
all sides but it was impossible to impose on him or to mislead him in
the conduct of business. His entire relaxation in the arduous work of
presiding was made evident by the occasional flashes of humour with
which he would comment on proceedings or introduce anecdotes by

4 For the only notable, and vitally important, exception to this, see p. 137.

208 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

way of illustration or diversion. And he had an uncanny knack of
knowing when to shut off debate and when not to. He sensed accurate
ly the willingness of the convention to listen to the braying of an ass
at times, and at other times its desire to have him silence, even peremp
torily, persons of some importance. His rulings were never successfully
questioned; indeed they were rarely questioned at all.

The relationship of the bishop to his secretary is not the least im
portant illustration of his entire impartiality and his single-minded
pursuit of the important goal. Bishop Greer brought with him his
former secretary at Saint Bartholomew's, Miss Ada Barr. On Bishop
Greer's death she retired from the work but Manning, instead of
bringing with him his secretary from Trinity, to whom he was devoted
however, summoned Miss Barr to return.5 This she did; and they
worked together in great harmony for over fifteen years when Miss
Barr retired because of illness, though she continued as long as he was
bishop to manage the accounts of his various discretionary and private
funds. On Miss Barr's retirement the bishop entered into an unusual
and in some ways astonishing arrangement. There was in the diocese
when Manning became bishop a priest named Harrison Rockwell, who
had definite business ability. He was for some years the New York
correspondent of the Living Church, under Frederic Cook Morehouse.
He fell into serious heresy, being influenced by Christian Science, and
was deposed from the ministry. The bishop, having of necessity de
posed him, took steps at once to wean him from his error and to pre
pare for his return to his ministry. He gave Rockwell an office in the
Synod House and employed him in lay capacity in matters which were
sometimes manufactured for the purpose, all in order to keep Rock
well near him. More and more he assisted in the clerical work of the
bishop's office and when Miss Barr retired he became the bishop's
secretary. It was a strange situation, the bishop of a great diocese hav
ing in the necessarily confidential position of his secretary a priest
under inhibition from his priestly office. Having been some years at
the cathedral I felt that I was privileged, and that it was my duty, to
point out to the bishop the possibility of embarrassment in such a
situation. In typical manner the bishop listened patiently to what I
had to say and thanked me for speaking. But he made no change and
Harrison Rockwell continued, though never restored to the priesthood,
a devoted and efficient assistant until the bishop's retirement.

5 Miss Barr was thus for many years the cause of the clerical quip about "crossing
the bar" to get to the bishop.

CHAPTER TWELVE

FALSE
REUNION

DD

M.

.ANNING became the head of our Faith and Order Commission
in 1922 and held the office until his resignation as bishop. But he did
not direct the reunion movement in the way he had done up to that
time. A considerable portion of his work for reunion during the rest
of his life was in opposition to various plans put forward which led
away from the goal rather than toward it. This was not because he
lost interest in the cause or changed in any way his point of view with
regard to it. He continued always to keep the subject of reunion be
fore people's minds, to work to bring as many as possible together for
the consideration of the basic questions of faith and order, and to do
what he could to promote an atmosphere of understanding and ot
desire for accomplishing what is the mind of Christ for the church.
But those who became interested in reunion matters interpreted the
work and the goal in ways that Manning felt to be fundamentally false
and he would have none of it. To many earnest but mistaken people
Bishop Manning appeared the chief obstacle to the progress of the
reunion movement all through his episcopate. For he was unwilling
to lose sight of the fact, or to refrain from constant proclamation of
it, that Christian reunion means the coming together of all who ac
knowledge Jesus Christ as God; and that every step along the way
must be taken deliberately, and considerately, by free consent, and
with the ultimate goal always in view. Many of the leaders of the re
union movement in Manning's time felt this to be unrealistic. Discus
sion of reunion is impractical or impossible at the present time so
far as some are concerned, so runs their argument. This is notably
true of Roman Catholics; but it also seems to be true of the Orthodox

209

210 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

of the East and of some Protestants. To wait for a meeting of all minds
means in reality doing nothing. And we must be moving. From this
it becomes a perilously easy step to forget almost the existence of those
with whom we cannot at present negotiate and to plan as though they
were not there. Again waiting for all in any given group, such as the
Episcopal Church, to be in agreement before taking a concrete step
is impractical. What is needed is the fait accompli to which the ob
jectors will become accustomed sooner or later. The fait accompli to
Bishop Manning was like the hare to the beagle hound. He spotted,
gave tongue, and pursued relentlessly, undiscouraged by the angry
outcry of protest he aroused. It was not what he wanted to do but
it was what the times required.

Manning's positive contribution to the reunion movement was no
table and continuous during his episcopate in spite of the need for
opposition. His policy with regard to the use of the cathedral pulpit
was carefully designed to promote a proper basis of unity. It was a
fully established practice to invite Protestant ministers to preach at
the cathedral before Manning's time. He continued the practice and
used it to show what the church should be doing in the matter. There
are many services during the year, often at the regular hours, of speci
ally civic character. More often than not on such an occasion the
preacher was a Protestant minister. There were also meetings which
were not services at all but public gatherings properly held under
church auspices. At these the speakers were chosen because of the
positions they occupied or the significance of what they had to say with
no restriction whatever as to religion. In January, 1934, there was a
mass meeting on the subject of unemployment. The chief speakers
were Mayor La Guardia and Judge Irving Lehman, of the Court of
Appeals of the state, a Jew. In February, 1937, there was another mass
meeting, followed by a conference the next day in the Synod House,
on the subject of slum clearance. In the pulpit three of the speakers
were Michael Williams, a Roman Catholic layman; Nathan Strauss,
Jr., a Jew; and the Reverend Robert W. Searle, a Presbyterian min
ister.

On Sunday, 22 March, 1925, the bishop preached in the Fifth Ave
nue Presbyterian Church; and that evening the pastor of the Fifth
Avenue Church, the Reverend G. Campbell Morgan, preached at the
cathedral in the second of a series of evangelistic services addressed by
Protestant ministers. The bishop's sermon was on the subject of re
union, in the course of which he said,

FALSE REUNION 211

We need a synthesis of that Truth of Religion for which St. Patrick's
Cathedral, the Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church, the Russian Cathedral
of St. Nicholas, and the Cathedral of St. John the Divine all stand.

On 2 December, 1934, there was held a service at the cathedral in the
interest of the cause of reunion at which five of the international move
ments which came to be merged in the World Council of Churches
were represented. This service followed shortly after a sermon by the
bishop at General Convention in Atlantic City in October on the
occasion of the celebration of the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary
of the consecration of Bishop Seabury, in which the bishop made his
usual clear, forceful exposition and defense of the apostolic succession.
The bishop wrote often on the subject of reunion. An important
statement appeared in 1936, "The Sin of Disunion." Various leaders
of the catholic party in England and elsewhere began to discuss, dur
ing the '30s, the wisdom of giving a positive lead in the matter of
reunion as a corrective to the work of pan-protestants. It was decided
to hold an International Convention in 1940, the year of the Lambeth
Conference, and an International Committee of the Church Union was
formed to make preparation. The intention was to get Christians of
all persuasions to explain themselves and to discuss "what Reunion
ought to mean." It was decided to issue a series of twenty-eight essays
for information and to be used by study groups. This took place dur
ing 1936 and 1937. Dr. Bernard Iddings Bell was the chief American
representative on the committee and he suggested the appropriateness
of asking Manning to do the first essay. The committee agreed enthusi
astically. There was nothing specially new for Manning to write but
in "The Sin of Disunion" he made a solemn statement of the sin of
our divisions and the need for confession by all of common responsi
bility for this evil state; warned against the danger of pretending that
union could be obtained by intercommunion among Christians not yet
united; and ended with an assurance that "God will fulfill his pur
pose." The essays of the series were of a high order and were well re
ceived but they have been rather forgotten due to the fact that the
World War prevented the holding of the convention. Leadership was
not forthcoming to revive the idea after the war.

Three comments on Manning's essay are worth noting. Henry Smith
Leiper, a Presbyterian, at the time the American Secretary of the Uni
versal Christian Council for Life and Work, wrote

I wish that point of view could have much wider dissemination and pene-

212 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

trate the minds of a good many people who are at present apparently in
different or hostile.

William Pierson Merrill, of the Brick Presbyterian Church, wrote

It could not be expected that complete agreement in every detail would
be found between you, a convinced Catholic, and me, a convinced Protes
tant. But I was very happy at finding myself so largely in agreement with
what you say and the way you say it. You write in so fine a spirit of appreci
ation and consideration, and with so steady an aim on the great objective
of unity, that I found it very satisfying. . . .

And the President of the Princeton Theological Seminary, Dr. J. Ross
Stevenson, wrote

In stating your views so clearly and forcibly you have made a real con
tribution to the movement . . . With your statement regarding the sin of
disunion I am in entire accord. However, you would not expect a firm
believer in the Presbyterian episcopate to concede that an essential insti
tution to be incorporated in the united church is the historic episcopate.

The World Conference on Faith and Order, envisaged in the 1910
resolution, met at last in Lausanne in August, 1927. Manning attended
but was not in any sense in the position of directing the proceedings
as he had been at the beginning. He spoke in the full sessions of the
conference only once, briefly, to emphasize two points, the significance
of the absence of the Roman Catholic Church, and the importance of
the attack upon Christian standards of sexual morality and marriage.
For the rest of his life Manning did battle for these two fundamental
points, being often in conflict with members of his own household
who were able or willing to forget or ignore them.

Two years later conflict arose in acute form in Saint George's Church,
Stuyvesant Square. In 1928 there was formed, under the leadership of
the Revd. Peter Ainslie of the Christian Temple, Disciples of Christ,
Baltimore, the Christian Unity League, which affirmed its "active in
terest in all conferences that are working for the reconciliation of the
divided church," acknowledged "the equality of all Christians before
God," and proposed "to follow this principle as far as possible." By
way of illustration of the meaning of equality the league stated that

One communion posing as being superior to another because of this, that,
or the other, and, therefore, refusing membership, the Lord's supper, and
its pulpit to another because he is not the same communion is the behavior
of worldly and ordinary men.

And to demonstrate what was considered "possible," announcement
was made of a conference to be held in Saint George's in November,

FALSE REUNION 213

1929, which should close with a communion service at which the cele
brant would be a Presbyterian, the Revd. Henry Sloan Coffin, Presi
dent of Union Theological Seminary. The first word the bishop had
of the matter was from the newspaper. He tried at once to see the
rector, Karl Reiland, but found he was abroad. On his return Reiland
went to the country because of illness in the family and was not avail
able to his bishop. Only a week before the day appointed for the ser
vice was the bishop able to catch up with him by going to the rectory.
The bishop asked that the arrangement be changed. The rector gave
a variety of reasons as to how the matter had come about and as to its
justification, but firmly declined the bishop's request first orally and
again in writing the next day. The bishop then summoned the rector
to bring the wardens and vestrymen with him to meet the bishop.
Patiently and at length the bishop pointed out that both the teaching
of the Prayer Book and the provisions of the canons of the church
clearly forbade what it was proposed to do; and that the vestry, as
well as the rector, had a duty to see that it should not be done. George
W. Wickersham, the bishop's admirer and supporter, was one of the
wardens. He was, like all the vestry, anxious to uphold the rector and
by conviction strongly disposed to feel that what was proposed was a
good and desirable thing. But he recognized that the bishop was right.
As members of the Episcopal Church they must uphold the church's
law and teaching. The bishop wrote, and made public, a formal letter
describing the situation fully and saying that

... in the discharge of my duty as Bishop, and for the sake of peace and
unity in the Church to which we belong, I must earnestly beg of you, and
I do hereby officially admonish you, not to carry out your plans for the
. . . Communion Service at St. George's Church and not to "permit any
person to officiate therein without sufficient evidence of his being duly
licensed or ordained to minister in this Church."

The members of the vestry made it plain to the rector that they could
not support him, however much they might want to, and the service
was transferred to the chapel of the Union Seminary.

As always the bishop had prepared his position with care. The
answer to the contention that the church's law does not forbid a per
son who has not received episcopal ordination to act as a priest, or
to a declaration of intention to defy the law, is comparatively simple.
But a precedent was found in another direction. It sometimes happens
that an Episcopal Church is loaned to another body deprived of a
place to worship by some calamity such as a fire. Or an arrangement

214 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

may be made for the rental of an Episcopal Church for a time or in
extraordinary circumstances. The Christian Unity League, it was main
tained, could be allowed the use of Saint George's Church and rector
and vestry absolved of responsibility for what then occurred. The
chancellor, George Zabriskie, gave his advice and later incorporated
it in a formal letter dealing fully with the various points. As to the
rector freeing himself of responsibility he wrote,

it is apparent that the persons present in the church, who constitute the
Congregation at any particular time, are regarded by the Church as Dr.
Reiland's congregation within the meaning of the Prayer Book.

It is significant that what was contemplated in the Saint George's case
is still deemed improper by the World Council of Churches.

Three weeks later, on Advent Sunday, the use of the revised Prayer
Book began at the cathedral. In his sermon on "What the new Prayer
Book ought to mean to us," Manning stated again the church's posi
tion, without any reference to current or controversial events,

Without passing any judgment or criticism upon other Christians and their
ways, the Prayer Book holds to the Faith and Order of the Catholic Church
throughout the whole world before the present divisions took place, and it
is to be remembered that the position held by the Prayer Book as to Holy
Orders is still held by seven-tenths of all Christians in the world today,
and it would therefore not be a move in the direction of Christian Unity
for the Prayer Book to depart from this position.

The league was quite determined to "put on" a service in an Epis
copal Church and planned the following year to do so in Saint Bar
tholomew's in New York. As neither the law nor the bishop had
changed the plan withered. But in 1932 a service was held in the
Cathedral of the Diocese of Missouri with a Methodist minister, the
Revd. (afterward Bishop) Ivan Lee Holt, as celebrant, the Bishop of
Missouri giving the blessing, the bishop coadjutor being the preacher,
and the dean aiding and abetting. There were many who felt that
some definite reply must be made to this. The New York branch of
the Clerical Union for the Maintenance and Defense of Catholic Prin
ciples, commonly known as the Catholic Club, came to the conclusion,
with the assistance of Manning's advice, that a brief statement should
be circulated by a committee as widely representative both in church-
manship and geography as possible, for signature by the clergy and
for presentation to the House of Bishops. The bishop gave a great
deal of thought to the whole project and to the exact wording of the
statement. Two thousand, one hundred and fifteen of the clergy from

FALSE REUNION 215

every diocese in the Episcopal Church, except three Japanese dioceses,
signed the following,

To the House of Bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United
States of America:

We, the undersigned clergy of the Protestant Episcopal Church, desire
respectfully to express to the House of Bishops our conviction that with
loyalty to the provisions of our Book of Common Prayer and of our Canons,
and with Christian consideration for the consciences of our brethren in our
own Church, our clergy cannot participate in Celebrations of the Sacrament
of the Lord's Supper by ministers who have not had episcopal ordination,
and we feel bound to state that if Celebrations of the Lord's Supper by
Ministers not episcopally ordained are permitted in our churches this will
precipitate a crisis in our own Church, will break the fellowship of our
Church with the Anglican Communion, and will endanger the present
hopes of Christian Reunion.

No action was asked of the House of Bishops; but the statement, with
the names arranged by dioceses in a booklet, sent to every bishop and
widely distributed otherwise, had an impressive effect in causing a
good many second thoughts as to the wisdom of lawlessness and in
restraining precipitate action.

In November, 1936, the bishop addressed a dinner meeting in New
York held to arouse interest in two world conferences to be held in
1937, a conference on life and work at Oxford, and the second con
ference on faith and order at Edinburgh. (Manning did not attend
either of these.) He was careful to point out that the two conferences
were complementary parts of work toward a common end, and that
we can live and work together only by facing frankly the differences
of our belief and practice.

We cannot reach Reunion by ignoring or disregarding the deep and sacred
convictions of the different groups and Communions. . . . Christian Re
union must include the whole of Christendom, not only a part of it. ...
We must believe not only in the possibility of Reunion, but in the cer
tainty of it — because it is the Will of God.

One statement which he made was profoundly untrue of some who
heard him and of those who were assuming the leadership of the move
ment for reunion.

We have discovered that the cause of Reunion is not helped by well mean
ing but ambiguous statements which cover up real differences.

An anonymous "sad listener" wrote him,

216 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

I attended the dinner last night of the Worlds Christian Conference. It
was a wonderful meeting until you threw the monkey wrench into the
machinery.

More and more the emphasis and interest were with life and work
rather than faith and order. The former were regarded as the im
portant matters. Difficulties over the latter must not be allowed to de
lay them. If the frontal attack of the Christian Unity League was not
successful indirect methods must be tried to achieve the same results.
In 1937, following the two conferences, there began a campaign which
continued with great intensity for nine years, until the end of Man
ning's episcopate. His part in its defeat was one of his final achieve
ments. The campaign was one to make it plain that the Episcopal
Church is indeed a Protestant Church in the sense in which that term
is generally understood by Protestants and to accomplish this by amal
gamating the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of
America with the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America
on terms acceptable to, if need be dictated by, the latter.

The General Convention of 1937, in Cincinnati, adopted the follow
ing declaration, which was then also adopted by the General Assembly
of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. in Philadelphia in 1938,

The two churches, one in the faith of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Incarnate
Word of God, recognizing the Holy Scriptures as the supreme rule of faith,
accepting the two Sacraments ordained by Christ, and believing that the
visible unity of Christ's Church is the will of God, hereby solemnly declare
their purpose to achieve organic union.

This is one of those loosely worded statements which invite great
variety of interpretation and which say either too much or not enough.
In the debate in the House of Deputies it was pointed out that the
declaration committed the church to a good deal more than members
realized or were then prepared to accept. Howard Chandler Robbins,
who became the vice chairman of the commission handling the nego
tiations, solemnly assured the house that it committed the church to
nothing and was only an expression of good will to assure the Presby
terians that our commission had official support in its exploratory work.
But from the time of its passage in 1937 until the collapse of the nego
tiations at the General Convention in Philadelphia in 1946 it was al
ways claimed by the spokesmen of our commission, and those who sup
ported their plans, that this resolution, and a similar one passed in
1940 in Kansas City, were mandates to the commission to carry out
what was the final and considered decision of the church. Indeed it

FALSE REUNION 217

rather seemed that those who set the pace in the subsequent proceed
ings believed, and wished the church to believe, that union was accom
plished by the action of 1937, the function of our commission being to
arrange details. In 1938 there was published a document, "Proposals
Looking Toward Organic Union between" the two churches issued
jointly by the "Department of Church Cooperation and Union of the
Presbyterian Church in the United States of America and the Commis
sion on Approaches to Unity of the Protestant Episcopal Church in
the United States of America." While the proposals began with the
disarming statement that "they are not in final form. No member of
either body is under obligation to support them as they stand," they
proceeded to a "Proposed Concordat" of very definite nature.

The immediate purpose of this agreement is to provide means whereby
each Church may wherever it seems locally desirable assume pastoral charge
of the members of the other church and offer them the privilege of the
holy communion, thus establishing one congregation. The primary difficulty
lies in the differing views of the ministry. But there is large agreement. . . .
Both (churches) believe in episcopal ordination, the one by a bishop, the
other by a Presbytery acting in its episcopal capacity.

The form of "commissioning" for use in the case of both Presbyterians
and Episcopalians was thus described,

In the case of a minister of the Presbyterian Church, the Bishop of the
Diocese concerned, when satisfied as to the qualifications of the candidate,
with attendant Presbyters, shall lay his hands on his head and say: "Take
thou authority to execute (exercise) among us the office of a presbyter in
the Church of God, committed to thee by the imposition of our hands. In
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen."
In the case of a minister of the Protestant Episcopal Church the moderator
of the presbytery concerned shall proceed in the same manner and use
the same sentence.

This looks very much like "ordination" but was not so called. The
Christian Century, a leading Protestant periodical, tried to give as
much approval to the concordat as possible but was obliged to com
ment

It would seem that the concordat should have been drawn up with greater
candor and clarity. The document bears certain marks of studied ingenu
ity. It is courageous, but not sufficiently so.

In fact it was difficut to make clear what was in the minds of the
majority party of our commission, and it was difficult for them to be
candid even with themselves, because what they planned was a reversal

218 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

of the practice of the church without saying so or even admitting it.
Bishop Parsons of California was the chairman of the commission. He
had been in correspondence with Manning on the subject of the min
istry for some years. As early as 1930 he began writing Manning to
say that he was wrong to claim that his belief about the ministry was
the church's official belief. He felt that Manning's interpretation was

that the historic ministry stands in a position parallel to or equal to that
of the Sacraments and the essential faith in the Incarnation.

This could not be the church's position, Parsons maintained, because
he and many others did not believe it and were not required by the
church to believe it. Manning replied to say that,

While various theories of Episcopacy are held by individuals in the Episco
pal Church, yet the Church herself is plainly committed to the theory that
Episcopal ordination is essential, and she requires all of us to act as though
we held this theory. This I think is made unmistakably clear by the fact
that the humblest Roman or Eastern priest coming to us is not reordained
while the most eminent and godly Protestant Minister coming into our
Ministry must be reordained. . . .

The Bishops of the Anglican Communion certainly took this position (that
the Historic Ministry stands in a position parallel to or equal to that of
the Sacraments and the essential faith of the Church) when they issued
the Lambeth Quadrilateral and included the Historic Ministry as one of
the four necessary foundations in any approach to Unity. . . If the His
toric Ministry is not essential, it seems to me that the Episcopal Church
and the Catholic Churches of the world ought to be willing to surrender
it at once as an unwarranted obstacle in the way of Unity with our Protes
tant brethren.

Bishop Parsons and his cohorts were now looking for a way to make
their action about the ministry fit their belief without attempting the
hopeless task of reconstructing the Book of Common Prayer and the
whole constitutional structure of the church. Bishop Wilson of Eau
Claire, a member of the commission who consistently opposed the ma
jority plans, wrote in 1939 to President Sills of Bowdoin, another mem
ber of the commission,

There has been some impression that after the passage of the resolution
[of 1937], the Concordat emerged as an effort to follow instructions. This,
however, is not the case. The original draft of the Concordat was prepared
and sent to members of the Commission nearly a year before this declara
tion was presented to General Convention. As a matter of fact, the decla
ration itself was part of the Concordat in its original form. Those who
devised the Concordat followed up their idea with the declaration though

FALSE REUNION 219

the Concordat itself was not mentioned to General Convention when the
declaration was offered.

Of course not, for it would have killed the declaration!

In September, 1939, Manning issued an "open letter" to the com
mission pointing out the hopeless weakness of the proposal and ask
ing that it be withdrawn in the interest of peace and unity in the
Episcopal Church. The proposed concordat

1. would work untold harm to the cause of Christian Reunion in its larger
and wider aspects. . . .

2. [is] not in accord with the faith and doctrine of the Episcopal Church
and if adopted it will bring not only discord but actual division in the
Church

3. is one of those well meant but mistaken efforts to promote unity by
the use of ambiguous phrases which cover up fundamental differences. . . .

4. will sow dissension in our ranks where now there is peace and har
mony and a steadily deepening spirit of understanding between the more
Protestant-minded and the more Catholic-minded members of our Com
munion.

He quoted the official statement of the Presbyterians to the World
Conference on Faith and Order to show that the two churches use
the words

believe in Episcopal Ordination ... in entirely different senses and with
quite different meanings.

He cited a former moderator of the Presbyterian General Assembly,
Dr. McCartney, and Dr. William R. Huntington, "that apostle of true
unity," in support of his position and rebuked Bishop Parsons for try
ing to silence legitimate criticism by charging "the spirit of schism."
The Second World War had begun and this reinforced the necessity
for withdrawal of the divisive proposal.

In January he preached at the Philadelphia Divinity School and
renewed the attack, pointing out that the Presbyterian Church con
cerned was only one of several in this country. Much of the argument
of the proponents of the concordat was based on a book, The Primi
tive Church by B. H. Streeter, published in England a few years before,
in which he had undertaken to show that all forms of ministry known
today have equal authority in the New Testament. This book was
supposed to remove the bogeys of "apostolic succession" and "historic
episcopate" but the bishop cited the Lambeth Conference of 1930 and
Archbishop Temple of York as still upholding these very things in
spite of Dr. Streeter. And he added,

220 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

if it were true, as this proposed Concordat declares, that "both Churches
believe in Episcopal Ordination" we might well ask why was this fact not
brought to light long ago.

Bishop Parsons thundered forth from California, replying to every
statement and giving assurance that all was proceeding with the full
approval of the two official committees. In private correspondence with
Manning he upbraided him for "contributing to hysteria" and tried
to reassure him about the ministry.

No man would celebrate the Holy Communion for our people or in one
of our Churches who had not received the laying on of hands of a bishop,
and if you or those who think as you do believe that he was not ordained
before, this would be an entirely adequately ordination.

Manning in reply asked whether he would "be willing to state this
publicly to the Presbyterians" and the subject was dropped. Parsons
also returned to the argument of ten years earlier that either Man
ning must take steps to see that Parsons and those who believe as he
does are removed from the church or admit that their teaching is the
Church's teaching. He wrote further,

You cannot, if you have had any experience of men and scholars, you
cannot for a moment believe that the Protestant world is coming to hold
your view. . . .

Every single movement in the Christian world for the last fifty years
has been in the direction of breaking down the barriers which such a
doctrine of the ministry as you hold has interposed among Christians.

Manning was the chief spokesman in defense of the church's position
but he did all he could to get others to speak also. Whenever he found
a response to his statements from a layman he urged him to make his
own public utterance. He was in cordial correspondence with Presby
terians who were as scandalized as he at what was going on. The Pres
byterian published his principal statements in criticism of the com
mission. He remonstrated privately with Dean Fosbroke

that the General Seminary appears to the Church Public to be strongly
identified with the movement in behalf of the proposed Concordat. Some
members of the Seminary Staff seem to be definitely campaigning for this
Proposal and at present there has been no word so far as I know from
anyone connected with the Seminary representing the other side of the
question and thus giving a more balanced position in the matter. In view
of the official relation of the Seminary to the whole Church this situation
seems to me to be unfortunate and indeed serious.

FALSE REUNION 221

The poor dean replied at length to dissociate himself personally from
such support but the bishop indicated he did not feel this was enough.
Bishop Stewart of Chicago made a notable charge to his diocese on
the matter of the concordat at the Diocesan Convention of 1940. It
proved to be his last utterance for he died suddenly in May. Manning
arranged for a group of clergy to circulate the charge, in a pamphlet
with a telling brief introduction, to all members of the General Con
vention.

Feeling and tension mounted during 1940. Manning, members of
the commission who were in opposition to Bishop Parsons, and many
others who had inside knowledge of the situation, were convinced
that the Bishop of California and his supporters were determined to
force some positive action through General Convention. Dr. William
H. Nes, Dean of the Cathedral in New Orleans, wrote Manning in

July

What seems to me very patent is that, whether in Reunion schemes, or in
regard to marriage, or in a number of other ways, there is a concerted
drive by Liberals to commit the Church to a position which will cut the
roots of all Catholic orientation. I think they feel that it is now or never.
The Forward Movement syllabus on the Concordat, in its article describing
the Episcopal Church, was clearly written to support such a position.

Among the bishop's papers is a pencilled note of exactly what he
would say in case a resolution on the subject were offered at his own
convention; but no trouble arose. It developed that the commission
was quite divided and too strong a report might produce a minority
report. As a result the concordat was not brought before the conven
tion. Instead the commission was continued with expressions of good
will; an amendment to the canon "of persons not ministers in this
church officiating in any congregation thereof" was adopted author
izing the bishop to give

permission to a Minister of any Church with which this Church has entered
into a declaration of purpose to achieve organic union to preach the
Gospel;

and it was voted to join the Federal Council of Churches. Manning
came down with influenza at the time of the convention and could
not attend. Dr. William Adams Brown wrote to rejoice over the Fed
eral Council matter and insisted that the council was now no longer
a merely partisan, Protestant body; but Manning declined to agree
with him. There was also passed by the House of Bishops a resolution
advising i

222 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

members of this Church so situated that the ministrations of this Church
are not accessible, to associate themselves with a Presbyterian congrega
tion. . . .;

but when debate in the House of Deputies indicated defeat the reso
lution was withdrawn; and another in very general terms was adopted
in its place.

The strategy of the majority of the commission was to magnify what
General Convention had done. It had adopted what the commission
had put forward. Nothing which had been allowed to come to a vote
had been turned down. Therefore convention fully approved all that
the commission was doing, and proposed to do. The concordat, so
far as the title and the exact text were concerned, passed into oblivion;
but reappeared in a proposal for "joint ordination" in 1941. Man
ning was one of many who continued to point out the inconsistencies
and contradictions. In particular he dwelt on the fact that matters of
such delicacy and such vital importance should not be forced through
in time of war, and without reference to the Lambeth Conference.
Manning was quite impartial in his rebukes to those who erred in
the contest. Clifford Morehouse, editor of the Living Church, gave
some support to the joint ordination proposal, not so much because he
was satisfied with it as to encourage discussion in the church which
would bring out the fact that the majority of the commission did not
have the support they imagined. The bishop telegraphed

I hope most earnestly that you will not take this position;

and when Morehouse persisted, showed his disapproval by definite
coolness for a time, in spite of the fact that the Living Church was an
important medium for the bishop's statements and the mouthpiece of
the catholic party.

In June, 1942, the two bodies produced a set of "basic principles"
for discussion by the members of both churches and for presentation
to General Convention for adoption. This was a restatement of the
position which had been taken all along. But shortly before its publi
cation Bishop Parsons executed a bold manoeuvre which might have
had extraordinary results had not Bishop Manning been immediately
aware of the implications. Some time in the summer of 1942 appar
ently Bishop Parsons wrote the Archbishop of Canterbury, William
Temple, reporting on the work of the commission and asking for a
general expression of approval from the archbishop. This the arch
bishop gave, saying that he was not passing judgement on any par
ticular scheme. Following his usual tactic Bishop Parsons assumed

FALSE REUNION 223

that the letter would be generally considered an endorsement of what
ever the commission should propose in the future. Many a man has
given a general endorsement in this manner and regretted it. But it
is not certain that the archbishop was unaware of what he was doing
for he, like Bishop Parsons, was a believer in the fait accompli method
of reunion. Manning promptly called attention publicly to the serious
impropriety of the archbishop's action.

Although the Archbishop says in his letter that he does not wish to form
any judgment at present upon any particular schemes . . . [it] will be
understood by all as giving support to the Proposal now under discussion.
... I feel compelled to express publicly my surprise, and my great regret,
that the Archbishop should have allowed himself to write this letter. . . .
Would it have been permissible for Archbishop Temple to send for pub
lication a letter opposing this Movement? Manifestly this would not have
been permissible and on the same principle it is an act of ecclesiastical
intrusion for the Archbishop to send a letter which will be generally
understood as giving support to the Movement and which is evidently so
understood by Bishop Parsons who publishes it. ...

The archbishop sent a private reply to Manning in very cordial
personal terms but somewhat naively declaring that he had not in
tended to support "any propositions before the committee at the
time." Bishop Parsons' audacity was matched by Bishop Manning's
alertness and courage, for to rebuke the Archbishop of Canterbury
in public is brave indeed if it is justified but foolhardy if mistaken.
As usual Manning acted quite impersonally addressing himself to the
issue of the moment. In his diary for 27 September, 1948, he records

Finished reading the Life of William Temple — an admirably written rec
ord of a truly great Christian and Archbishop.

and on 11 May, 1949,

Finding much help in Wm. Temple's Readings in St. John's Gospel.

Manning dealt with the "basic principles" in letters to the church
papers, in his convention address in May, 1943, and in a sermon in
the cathedral in September. He carried on a wide correspondence and
urged others to express themselves publicly. The majority of the com
mission felt that it was time for definite action and prepared a report
for General Convention of such nature as to require a minority report
dissenting completely from what the majority wrote in support of
"basic principles" and from the implementing resolutions proposed.
The situation was serious in the extreme. The majority faced either a

224 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

clear defeat or a victory with opposition of such proportions as to be
tantamount to defeat. A compromise was arranged. Convention re
ceived both reports, thus giving as much approval to the objections
as to the matters objected to; it was indicated that changes in the per
sonnel of the joint commission should be made; and the commission
was directed to ask the counsel of the Lambeth Conference. Manning
wrote out and kept the brief statement which he made in the House
of Bishops.

In view of the terms of these Resolutions and of the fact that they do not
commit us to any of the provisions either in the Majority Report or the
Minority Report, and that they cannot be interpreted as giving any sort
of approval to the suggested "Basic Principles," I second the motion for
the adoption of these Resolutions.

If it could not be said that the majority of the commission had suf
fered complete defeat it could certainly be said that they were not
able to produce anything which they could carry through General
Convention. Yet both Bishop Parsons, now retired from the Diocese
of California and from the commission, and Dean Zabriskie of the
Virginia Theological Seminary tried desperately to rescue something
for their cause by minimizing what Bishop Manning had said. From
long experience of the manner in which the debate had been carried
on Manning recognized the necessity for nipping this effort in the bud.
He wrote publicly

Dean Zabriskie says — "It is true that in supporting the resolutions Bishop
Manning said he did so because they committed the church to nothing,"
and he adds that my statement was immediately corrected by Bishop Sher-
rill. ... I make two comments — first, I did not make the statement which
Dean Zabriskie attributes to me, second, Bishop Sherrill did not "correct"
the statement that I made.

He then quoted his exact statement and added

After Bishop Sherrill's statement I expressed my agreement with him that
these resolutions do not close the door to the possibility of eventual re
union with the Presbyterians and with other bodies of Christians.

Dean Zabriskie wrote him privately to say that he was sorry that
the bishop felt he had misrepresented him and that he had no inten
tion of doing so but he by no means altered his own interpretation
of what had taken place nor did he make any public statement by
way of correction.1

See additional note at the end of this chapter.

FALSE REUNION 225

The new commission, after the 1943 convention, was more evenly
balanced but a bare majority still remained faithful to the policies
and plans of the original group of 1937. There was very little pub
licity about its work until just before the 1946 convention. In 1945
Manning dealt with a pronouncement of John D. Rockefeller, Jr., on
the subject of the reunited church of the future.

It would be the Church of the Living God. Its terms of admission would
be love of God, as He is revealed in Christ and His living spirit. ... Its
atmosphere would be one of warmth, freedom and joy. ... It would pro
nounce ordinance, ritual, creed, all non-essential for admission into the
Kingdom of God or His church. ... Its object would be to promote ap
plied religion, not theoretical religion.

Manning exhorted the Diocesan Convention to

pay no heed to those who tell us that the Creed and Sacraments are unim
portant for Christians today, and that we can have Christian Unity by
casting aside the Christian Creed. ... A Christian is one who believes in
and prays to Jesus Christ and strives by the grace and help of Christ to
follow His teachings. The Christian creed it what the Gospel itself tells
us about God and about the Lord Jesus Christ. A Unity without the Chris
tian creed would not be Christian Unity. Anyone who advocates a creed-
less Christianity is, consciously or unconsciously, striking at the very foun
dations of the Christian Religion.

In March, 1946, Manning announced his retirement at the end of
the year. His convention address was therefore to be his last. In it he
appealed for loyalty to the position and opportunity of the Anglican
Communion in the work of reunion. He returned to his favourite war
cry, the words of Bishop Hobart, "Evangelical Truth and Apostolic
Order," and twice quoted the late Archbishop Temple (he died sud
denly in October, 1944) to warn against the mistakes of haste and
expediency and to remain faithful to true catholicity.

Not until the summer was the plan of the two bodies made known.
It was entitled the "proposed Basis of Union" and contained nothing
very different from the various pronouncements since the concordat
of 1937 except to go further in making it plain that the Episcopal
Church was to be assimilated to the Presbyterian Church in a manner
satisfactory to their department. Eight only of the fifteen members of
the commission signed the report. It was said that some did so without
approving and there was talk of the possible defection of some one
of the eight, in which case there would have been technically no re
port. The minority of seven issued two reports, one of them a closely

226 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

reasoned statement, from the point of view of a lawyer, of the incon
sistencies and contradictions of the majority report. It was the work
of James G. Mitchell, a communicant of the Diocese of New York,
who had been encouraged by the bishop in 1943 to publish his criti
cisms of the proposals of that year. The plan of the commission leader
ship was to ask not that the proposed basis be approved by convention,
but that it be referred to the church for study during the next three
years, presumably with the 1937 tactic in mind to claim that what has
been referred for study has thereby been adopted. Manning at once
published a brief but clear statement.

The issue which this Report presents is whether the Episcopal Church shall
remain true to the Faith and Teachings of the Prayer Book — or . . . shall
now repudiate its principles as to the Apostolic Ministry, and shall be
merged into a United Church which will be essentially Presbyterian. . . .
The Presbyterian Church officially and definitely maintains the doctrine
of "Parity of Orders," which means that all ministers of the church have
exactly the same spiritual powers and spiritual authority, and that Bishops
have only the same spiritual powers and the same spiritual functions that
Presbyters have. It is this doctrine which is expressed and maintained in
the "Proposed Basis of Union." ... I am not criticizing the Presbyterians
for maintaining their beliefs and convictions. I respect them for doing
so. I say simply that this "Proposed Basis of Union" is not a unification of
the positions of the Episcopal and Presbyterian churches, it is a surrender
of the principles for which the Episcopal Church stands, and has always
stood. . . . The Prayer Book itself ... is to be put aside and discarded.
If the Episcopal Church were to accept this Proposal it would become a
different church from which it has always been, it would repudiate its spir
itual heritage and its whole history, it would separate itself from the rest
of the Anglican Communion, it would completely cast away its opportunity
to serve the cause of Christian Reunion as a "Bridge Church" between
Catholicism and Protestantism, and, as the Minority Report says, would "be
come merely one of several hundred other Protestant sects."

The statement was given wide distribution, including all the mem
bers of General Convention. The Rector of Trinity, Dr. Fleming, re
ported after a trip to the west that there were some who wished a
warning might be given to the new Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr.
Fisher, who was coming to the convention. He was to speak at a din
ner given by certain liberal groups which were supporting the pro
posal and it was felt he might be jockeyed somehow into making a
statement which could be interpreted as committing him to that side.
Manning at once sent a note, enclosing his statement. It was unneces
sary. The archbishop was not, like Temple, a believer in the fait ac-

FALSE REUNION 227

compli; and had no intention of taking sides, inadvertently or other
wise. But his address to the convention was nevertheless generally
supposed to have strengthened some waverers who were willing to go
along with a scheme which was supposed to promote reunion.

The archbishop preached at the cathedral in New York on his ar
rival but the bishop was too ill to come to receive him or to attend
the convention. After the convention was over Manning discovered
that proper arrangements had not been made to pay for the arch
bishop's trip and he was able to relieve what would have been an em
barrassment by a large cheque.

The issue was clearly drawn at the convention in Philadelphia. The
argument of the pro-Presbyterians was that the declaration of 1937
had in effect established reunion between the two churches; the func
tion of our commission had been to secure the best terms possible.
After nine years of discussion it was essential that some definite sign
of good faith should be shown. In effect they emphasized that the
answer of this convention must be taken as final. By this they doubt
less hoped and expected to drive a sluggish and timorous church into
action. Once more they failed to carry the convention to a positive
vote. Clifford Morehouse telegraphed Manning in Maine

Deputies have killed "basis of union" by substituting resolutions receiving
majority and minority reports, calling upon both our commission and
presbyterian department to prepare statement of faith and order upon
which further negotiations may be based. Lambeth asked to appoint stand
ing commission on reunion to consider all specific approaches in which any
Anglican Church concerned. Although this was a compromise resolution
with a few questionable features it is in general a great victory for our
cause and is so regarded by both sides.

Manning replied

No words can express my thankfulness for this news. We must thank God
and take courage.

The majority of the commission were accurate in their judgement that
the answer to what had been brought forward thus far must be con
sidered final. The commission turned its attention in other directions
after 1946.

Who defeated these proposals? Does chief credit go to Manning?
The account given here does not profess to be a full history; it is an
effort only to recount Manning's part. This was indeed an important
one. He had been concerned and active quite as long and quite as
much, in the cause of reunion, as those he was opposing. It was im-

228 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

possible to carry conviction with the charge that he was insincere or
out of touch with the main stream of Anglican thought. The catholic
party when it is ably led, as by Manning, is near to the aim and in
tention of the whole church as no liberal or protestant party can ever
be. Manning's leadership in the fight was unwavering and untiring.
He dealt always with the fundamental points. He was effective in
spurring others on and in giving them new courage when things
seemed to go badly. But it would not be accurate to claim the victory
as his. It was rather that of the great central body of the church which
was unwilling to surrender to the Presbyterians in the twentieth cen
tury that which it had successfully defended in the seventeenth. And
Manning regarded the victory only as a necessary step to proceed to
the true cause of Christian reunion which he regarded as the special
opportunity and duty of Anglicanism.

Seventeen years have passed and the signs are plainer every day of
the Tightness of his position. The advocates of pan-protestantism de
crease in number. The conviction grows that that is neither the goal
nor even a step toward the goal. More and more there is a return to
the principles behind the resolution of 1910. It is significant that the
visit in 1961 of the Anglican "pope" to his brethren in Constantinople
and Rome has had no opposition or adverse criticism of any real im
portance. The theological equipment, background, and outlook of
him who now occupies the chair of Saint Augustine indicate an ad
herence to the intent and method of 1910 and justify the bishop's work
both in earlier and later days. Were he here today it is safe to assume
that he would rejoice but that he would also repeat a warning. If it
be true that we must never be discouraged by the slowness of our
progress, it is also true that we must not be misled into a false opti
mism by success. The way is still long; the important thing is not the
progress we seem to be making, but the certainty of the road we travel.

We must not try to run ahead of grace.2

ADDITIONAL NOTE

The episode of 1943 is of importance because it is one of three
incidents in which Zabriskie seems to show personal animus toward
Manning and in which, while privately professing a friendly attitude,
he was unwilling to correct false statements made publicly which
tended to put Manning in a very unfavourable light. In an article in
the Southern Churchman in June, 1940, Dean Zabriskie expressed his

2 See p. 89.

FALSE REUNION 229

lack of concern over gloomy predictions of the consequences of adopt
ing the concordat.

Threat has been raised often before by people who felt some of the inter
pretations about which they felt deeply were imperilled. If I am not mis
taken, Dr. Manning raised it himself in the famous Briggs case over the
issue of ordaining men who doubted the Mosaic authorship of all the
Pentateuch.

Zabriskie was quite mistaken as Manning pointed out. He had made
no such protest and had been on friendly terms always with Dr. Briggs.
But Zabriskie made no public correction or apology.3

Most serious of all was misrepresentation of the relationship between
Bishop Lloyd and Bishop Manning during the fifteen years the former
was Manning's suffragan, from 1921 until Lloyd's death in 1936. In
view of the positions of the two men in the Panama Conference con
troversy of 19154 it would not have been unnatural to expect difficul
ties. In fact there were none. Bishop Lloyd was possessed of a lovable
and loving personality. Though a Virginia low churchman he became
especially popular in the catholic parishes of the Diocese of New York.
He was indeed a highly impractical man in business, who in his time
at the Board of Missions had given serious concern to associates who
greatly admired him. Business judgement did not count in his work as
suffragan and there was always an especially happy relationship be
tween the three bishops, first with Bishop Shipman and later with
Bishop Gilbert. In his later years the bishop became infirm, especi
ally after the death of Mrs. Lloyd, and was not always able to keep
appointments. For some time before his death it was necessary for
Bishop Manning to have always an alternative arrangement available
in case at the last moment Bishop Lloyd could not make the visitation
assigned him in the schedule. Three times in the last three years
Lloyd sent a formal letter of resignation but Manning refused always
to give any consideration to it, knowing how deeply Bishop Lloyd
loved his work and all the contacts of his office. This was in no sense
a burden to Manning, who was scarcely aware of the extra responsi
bility and work for himself which were involved. His feeling about
Lloyd is expressed in his diary on the day of the latter's death,

22nd July (1936). Received news of the death of dear Bishop Lloyd. Tele-

3 For Manning's opinion, publicly expressed in 1933, of the ordination of Dr.
Briggs, see p. 157.

4 See pp. 79 ff.

230 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

phoned the Haddens at Darien, Connecticut, to arrange for the funeral at
the Cathedral but found that the family wish to have the service in Vir
ginia so we shall have a Requiem at the Cathedral, and a Memorial Ser
vice there later. Bishop Lloyd was beloved by all of us and by the whole
Church. We shall greatly miss him. I was deeply touched by my last talk
with him just before I left the city. He was most affectionate — as he was
always — and insisted upon telling me how much he appreciated my re
fusal to consider his resignation, which he had several times offered on
account of his health. He told me again how much this meant to him —
and I told him how much it meant to all of us to have him still at his
post and that I would not even listen to anything else, though he said he
could not feel it right to go on much longer. And so he continued to the
end. May light perpetual shine upon him.

About Christmas, 1942, Zabriskie published a life of Bishop Lloyd.
In the portion dealing with the Diocese of New York he went to some
length to give the impression that Lloyd was unhappy, and rather
shabbily treated by Manning. Some of what he wrote represented con
clusions he drew from letters of Bishop Lloyd, or reports of conver
sations, which he did not quote. And he cited as facts certain things
which were simply not so. Thus he reported that most of Bishop
Lloyd's "Manhattan visitations were to the smaller congregations and
missions." The present Bishop of New York, then Rector of Saint
James', one of the largest and most important of the Manhattan par
ishes, reminded Bishop Manning that Bishop Lloyd had made the
official visitation to St. James each year for the last twelve of his fifteen
years. Again Zabriskie reported that Bishop Lloyd visited Dobbs Ferry
on the 5th of July, only about two weeks before his death, and had
another service that night in New York. The bishop's own report in
the diocesan journal showed that he visited Dobbs Ferry, not on the
5th of July but the 3rd of May, and made no further visitation until
his death. Zabriskie did not consult Bishop Manning or Bishop Gil
bert before writing.

Manning felt that a serious injustice was done to Bishop Lloyd by
what Zabriskie wrote of him but because the injustice was also to him
self his usual policy prevented any public correction. He contented
himself by writing privately to various officials to set things straight.
Bishop Tucker, the presiding bishop, and Dr. John W. Wood, Lloyd's
close associate of the Board of Missions days both wrote to agree with
his protest. Manning notes in his diary that

Bp. Gilbert told me that he agreed entirely with all that I have written
to Chorley (the historiographer of the diocese) and Zabriskie and said,

FALSE REUNION 231

"You and I know, of course, where that misinformation came from." He
expressed astonishment that Zabriskie should have published these state
ments without any conference in regard to them with him (Bp. G.) or
with me, and said, 'I can bear witness from my own close contact with
Bishop Lloyd that many of these statements are entirely untrue and they
give a wholly wrong impression. Bp. Lloyd never cherished or expressed
any such feeling and our relations and work together — all three of us —
were always singularly happy.'

Again Zabriskie wrote to protest that he

would not try deliberately to misrepresent . . . the Bishop by whom I was
ordered deacon and at whose hands I received many kindnesses, certainly
not the valued and trusted friend of my father.

He justified himself for the conclusions he had drawn but indicated
that the frustration was in large measure due to the essential nature of
the office of suffragan as defined by canon and to the feeling that there
seemed no abiding result to his work, statements giving a very different
impression from the book. The errors as to ascertainable facts he ig
nored. No public correction or withdrawal was ever made.

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

FINALE

_1_F it be the duty of a chief pastor to show his people how to live,
it is also his duty and privilege to show them how to retire and to die.
This Bishop Manning did in fullest measure. His retirement came in
a manner which might well have caused bitterness and surrender. It
had the appearance of serious defeat in what he regarded as an impor
tant campaign. At the Diocesan Convention in May, 1944, he an
nounced that he would not be in any way bound by the legislation of
the 1943 General Convention requiring a bishop to resign at 72 and
that

I shall continue to serve you as your Bishop so long as I am given health
and strength sufficient,

a statement which he noted in his diary

was received with most gratifying demonstration of assent and approval.

He was of the school of thought which believes it to be the bishop's
duty to remain at his post as long as he lives, a belief unpopular in
an age enamoured of business efficiency in church methods. Almost at
once however illness came upon him, an illness which could not be
altogether ignored though for his five remaining years he carried it
with a cheerful gallantry. In November he was incapacitated by

pain & stiffness in my back, arms and legs, and moving about as little as
possible.

He was obliged to cancel all appointments and on 7 December he
went into Saint Luke's Hospital where he remained until 13 March,
1945. Slowly he got back into harness. He did most of the work of his

232

FINALE 233

office but he was not able to make a parochial visitation until the
following September. He had cancer. His diary records his frequent
treatments but he never mentions the cause. He writes always of going
to the hospital for "radio treatment." This may be a humorous eu
phemism for x-ray or radium or it may represent the contempt the
bishop always had for unimportant details. It was astonishing how
little the treatments were allowed to interfere with what he was
doing and how little aware those around him, even quite close to
him, were of his state. By March of 1946 the bishop realized what he
must do and made his decision. He took twenty-four hours to inform
those closest to him, beyond his own household. The first of these
was his chancellor, Forrest Butterworth, who wept. But the bishop
noted in his diary,

He so expressed himself that it almost undid me.

Then he wrote his letter to the standing committee and gave the word
to the press, recording again in his diary

the relief to feel step is definitely taken.

But once the decision was announced he seemed almost to forget it,
going on with his work much as usual in spite of interruptions for
visits to the hospital, sometimes for only a few hours, sometimes over
night or for a few days. He directed the final battle in the Presbyterian
fiasco during this period and notes that his last convention address in
May took an hour and six minutes to deliver. The summer in Maine
relaxed and refreshed him and though he did not come back to re
ceive the Archbishop of Canterbury or to attend the General Conven
tion he took up his work quite normally at the end of September.
As the autumn proceeded more attention was given to final details.
He notes in his diary in December that the standing committee had
asked him to call a special convention to elect his successor.

I am glad to have this news for I had decided that if the Standing Com
mittee did not make this request I would call the Convention anyway —
as provided by Article III of the Constitution.

A special service was held on the third Sunday in Advent; he wore
his cope and mitre to officiate in the cathedral on Christmas Day and
again at the carol service the following Sunday; he presided at the an
nual meeting of the trustees of the cathedral; preached his last ser
mon as bishop; and on the last day of the year made the final arrange
ments to turn things over to Bishop Gilbert. On the 25th of January
he notes in his diary

234 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

Finished clearing out desk and files and left the Office in the Synod House
where I have administered the affairs of the Diocese for more than twenty-
five years. Went over to the Cathedral and spent an hour there quietly.

He declined to preside at the convention in January at which Bishop
Gilbert was elected bishop of the diocese but went to give his good
wishes on receiving the news. It was decided that Bishop Gilbert was
to occupy the deanery as the bishop's house and the palace was no
longer used for that purpose. Bishop Gilbert moved in in March and
the Manning family arranged to rent the small house he had occupied
in Washington Mews. They moved on 29 April, twenty-six years to the
day from the time of their moving into the

house in which I have spent nearly one-third of my whole life.

The solemnities and tributes on his retirement gave him the greatest
joy and there was satisfaction even in the pain of separation. One
letter may be quoted as representative of what was said. It came from
the Rector of Christ Church, Cincinnati, Dr. Burroughs, who was him
self consecrated bishop two days before the bishop's death.

I want you to know that even way out here in the middle west we have
seen in you an example of leadership that, in my opinion, has not been
matched anywhere else in the Church. There is no greater task in the
Episcopal Church in the United States than that given to the Bishop of
New York. The manner in which you have carried it on and pushed it
forward, the dignity with which you have endowed the office of Bishop, the
keen judgement and nice discernment of major and minor issues when
ever difficult decisions had to be made, and most of all your pastoral care
of your clergy and their people have given us all an example to follow
in our own minor positions, and have been an inspiration which will last
as long as we live.

When it was over and he had gone to live very simply in a tiny house
in a back street it was to be expected that he would give himself up
to nursing himself, fretting over his changed state, and soon collapse
into invalidism. It is often what happens. But on the contrary he was
in no time concerning himself with new affairs. He took great pleasure
in settling into the house. A small altar was prepared for him in his
room and here he celebrated on occasions and said his offices. The
little house was now home and gave him as much pleasure as had
the great palace.

He took up the scandal of the marriage of clergy to divorced women
with as much vigour as ever, making his own protest and urging others
to do the same. A group of clergy went off to Yugoslavia to inspect af-

FINALE 235

fairs under Tito and came back with a glowing report as to the state
of religion in that country. The bishop wrote at once and vigorously to
the press to denounce this absurdity. He protested strongly about the
trial of Cardinal Mindzenty in Hungary; and about the participation
of a Unitarian minister in a service in Saint James' Church. These mat
ters required comparatively little time but in another of local interest
he gave a great deal of time and energy. This was a project to try to
preserve the character of Washington Square, both park and buildings.
The bishop had lived in the Square as Rector of Trinity and was
now on the edge of it again. He joined with a group of artists and
local residents to form an "art centre" which would preserve the simple
charm of the region. For eight months an intensive campaign was
waged. The meetings of the committee were often held in the bishop's
house. On one occasion he went to the hospital at noon for a treat
ment, which always tired him greatly, but returned and attended a
meeting of the committee from 4:30 until 7! On June 28, 1948, the
bishop records in his diary

Announcements in N. Y. Papers today that we have given up the effort
for the "Art Centre" — as the option on the property is ending and there
is not enough money in sight. The effort however has been well worth
while and has done good in several ways.

In 1947 the Rector of Saint James, Madison Avenue, Horace Wil
liam Baden Donegan, was elected suffragan bishop. He was consecrated
on the Feast of Saint Simon and Saint Jude, the same day as Bishop
Gilbert seventeen years earlier. Manning was obliged to send word that
he could not attend. When the day came he was in the hospital and
the new bishop came to his bed from the cathedral to ask his blessing.
Just two years later Bishop Donegan was elected coadjutor and Bishop
Manning was thus able to know of two of his successors, an unusual
circumstance.

Through the years several foreign governments had bestowed deco
rations upon the bishop. Others were given him after his retirement,
of which the most notable was the appointment by the British Govern
ment as sub-prelate of the order of the Hospital of Saint John of
Jerusalem. The insignia of this was conferred on Saint George's Day,
1948, before a small but distinguished company, including Bishop Gil
bert and Bishop Donegan, at the residence of the British Consul Gen
eral. And once again he was subjected to malicious and slanderous
reports such as had been circulated over thirty years before that he
was about to submit to Rome. Shortly after his retirement he received

236 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

a letter from a prominent, but unscrupulous, Roman ecclesiastic re
questing an interview. The wording was cleverly chosen to bear the
implication that this was for the purpose of discussing the bishop's
submission while sufficiently vague to allow repudiation. The bishop
made no direct reply but prepared a scathing denunciation of the
trickery in a letter signed and sent on his behalf by one of the clergy
of the diocese. At the same time others wrote him of rumours which
were about and urged him to make a public statement. In particular
a lady, not personally known to the bishop, wrote, with apology for
intruding upon him, to ask whether he could reassure her. She had
heard from sources she could not easily doubt that the bishop was
under instruction by Roman Catholics and that he had had to have
special dispensation from Cardinal Spellman to be present at the in
stallation of Bishop Gilbert! The bishop scorned any public state
ment, as he had before, but he wrote personally to reassure each one
who wrote him.

As to the "rumour" of which you speak, I hope all who meet it will de
nounce it suitably as not only preposterous but also quite slanderous and
impertinent.

The bishop had always taken pleasure in the visitors to the house
hold, whether to himself or to Mrs. Manning or his daughters. These
visits grew more numerous both at the house in the Mews, in spite
of its limited accommodation, and especially at the summer house in
Maine. Ever since the Trinity days the summer holidays had usually
been spent on Mt. Desert, first in a house at Seal Harbour, and since
the early thirties in a rambling old house at Somesville, at the head
of Somes Sound, which had been an inn in earlier days. The bishop
stayed at Somesville for five months in each of his last two years. Here
visitors, over night or for a few days, were welcome and came in con
siderable numbers. Athenagoras came to the Mews in January, 1949,
to bid him farewell as he left for Istanbul to ascend the throne of the
Ecumenical Patriarch. In August Dr. Kirk, the Bishop of Oxford,
made a special pilgrimage to Somesville to meet the bishop whom he
had never seen personally before.

A deeply interesting and delightful visit. ... At night after dinner we
sat and talked until midnight.

The bishop enjoyed all the charms of the island. He notes in his
diary the times when an eagle sits for hours in a tree near the house;
his witnessing a fight between the eagle and an osprey; his talks with

FINALE 237

Mr. Fernald, the patriarch of the village, in the store across the way;
trips about the island; and the continued interest of the farm boy in
agricultural matters.

Frances and I drove over to the Gilpins & had a pleasant visit. Mr. G. is
much interested in the culture of earth-worms for the improvement of the
soil — a very important subject.

It was suggested to him that he prepare a history of the cathedral
and he toyed with the idea of writing his own autobiography. But he
was not enthusiastic at recalling the past except as it provided material
for pushing forward into the future. He wrote an introduction to a
book on Dr. DuBose's theology, The Word Made Flesh, by Professor
Marshall of Sewanee and wrote to the papers to draw attention to the
fact that thoughtful scientists are turning again to faith and to the
Christian religion.

During his last year he was hard at work giving assistance to a cam
paign for evangelism in the church. At the time of his retirement the
national church was planning such a campaign. It was distinctly a
jejune effort as evidenced by the fact that the chief instrument de
vised for its prosecution was an expensive radio program, called "Great
Scenes from Great Plays," which would serve as the magnificent intro
duction for an announcement by the rector of each local church of
the hours of service on the following Sunday, with an invitation to
attend, as a result of which it was confidently expected

to bring 70,000,000 "unchurched" Americans into the Episcopal fold.

As these grandiose plans were developing the bishop wrote to the
press a searching letter inquiring as to the foundation on which it was
being built ending with the devastating quotation of the words of
Joab1

My son, wherefore wilt thou run seeing that thou hast no tidings?

The result of his concern was the publication of an article, "The Turn
ing of the Tide," which he began to write in March, 1949, and the dis
tribution of which he was working on at his death.

There are three current books which should be noted by thoughtful Chris
tians, as signs of the times. These Books are Human Destiny, by Lecomte
du Notiy, Civilization on Trial, by Arnold Toynbee, and Miracles, by C.
S. Lewis. It is significant that these books have all appeared at this time
and that, although not of the type that is ordinarily popular, two of them

i II Samuel, XVIII, 22.

238 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

have, for many months, been in the lists of "best sellers." They represent
three great and different fields of human knowledge, the field of Science,
the field of World History, and the field of Philosophy and the Humani
ties. The writer of each book is a recognized master in his own field.

And all three of these writers give their testimony definitely for God
and Religion, and repudiate the Secularist Philosophy which largely
dominates the thought and teaching in many of our institutions of higher
learning — and which has been a chief factor in the weakening of the sense
of personal responsibility, and the lowering of moral standards in our life
generally.

After discussion of his theme he concludes with a listing of eight
"Christian Imperatives," the duty of the Christian to preach to his
world today.

1. We must tell men plainly — and especially the secularist teachers in
our universities and colleges — that the secularist philosophy is not only un
intelligent but is deeply and definitely evil — destructive of the foundations
of human life — destructive of that which gives human life its sacredness
and worth and dignity — destructive of belief in God, in the moral law, and
in the soul of man.

2. We must call upon men to see that the one hope of this world is
belief in the Living God and in His moral law the same for all men every
where — and that it is Jesus Christ alone who can bring the world to God,
and so to world brotherhood and peace.

3. We must call upon men to believe the Christian Gospel not only
because it is declared by the Church and the Bible but because it is the
absolute truth — the absolute truth about God, about man, and about the
relation of men to God and to each other. The Gospel is not true because
the Church and the Bible say so; the Church and the Bible say so because
it is true.

4. We must preach the whole Gospel. We cannot convert men to Christ
by preaching only the social half of the Gospel, or only the ethical half,
or only the Golden Rule and the Sermon on the Mount. The whole Gospel
has power to convert the world; half the Gospel has no power to convert
anyone.

5. We must preach the glorious fact of the Incarnation in all its Di
vine truth and splendor. We must show men that this stupendous event
illuminates, and orders, and gives reason and meaning to all our other
knowledge of God, of the universe, and of ourselves; that it shows us the
boundless love of God, and the greatness of His purpose for man; that
it shows us the depth and tragedy of human sin and what God has done
to rescue and redeem us from sin.

We are "boldly to make known the mystery of the Gospel." We are to
declare to all men that "Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man" —

FINALE 239

that He "reveals God to us, and reveals us to ourselves." We are to show
men that Jesus Christ is the One who "was in the beginning and was
with God, and was God" — the One who "was made flesh and dwelt among
us" — the One in whom we see "the glory as of the only-begotten of the
Father, full of grace and truth" — the One Who today offers to all who will
receive Him, and believe on His Name, "power to become the sons of
God."

6. We must preach more faithfully the divine Wonder of the Atone
ment — the Transcendent Glory of the Cross. We must preach that which
is the very truth of the Gospel — "that Christ Jesus came into the world
to save sinners," that He "suffered death upon the Cross for our redemp
tion," and that He "made there (by His one oblation of Himself once
offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction,
for the sins of the whole world." We must call men to truer realization
of the meaning of the Cross, and to truer thankfulness for all that Christ
has done for us.

Jesus Christ suffered for us and for the whole world. He did for us what
no other could do. He broke down "the middle wall of partition" and
overcame everything in our human nature that separates us from God. He
lifted up our human nature into perfect union with God. He made His
glorious sacrifice for us, but not instead of us. He offered Himself for our
sake, but not as our substitute. He suffered in our behalf, but not in our
stead. To accept Him as our Saviour means that we ask Him to do in us
what He has already done for us, so that we may "grow up in all things
into him which is the head, even Christ" and may be brought into at-one-
ment with God by Him who "loved us and gave himself for us" — and who
"ever liveth to make intercession for us."

7. We must preach the Divine Reality and Mission of the Holy Catho
lic Church of Christ, the Church which our Lord Himself founded, the
Church of which the New Testament tells us such glorious things, the
Church in which we declare our belief each time that we say the Apostles'
or the Nicene Creed.

Jesus Christ Himself founded His Church, chose and commissioned His
Apostles, instituted the Sacraments of Baptism and the Holy Communion,
and promised to be with the Church "alway, even unto the end of the
world." He is "the head over all things to the Church, which is His Body."
The Gospel without the Divinely Instituted Church is not the Gospel of
the New Testament. The Gospel preached by the Apostles and declared
by the whole New Testament is the Gospel of Christ and His Church.

Christ's power is not circumscribed. He is the eternal Word "by whom
all things were made." He is "the Light which lighteneth every man that
cometh into the world." He promises His help to all who call upon Him.
But the Church is the divinely constituted means and the visible pledge
of His continuing presence and work in this world and of our fellowship

240 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

with Him. The Church is the pledged sphere of His grace and help given
to men. In spite of its sinful divisions, in spite of its weakness and short
coming on its human side, the Church is still "His Body" in which He
lives and ministers to us, and in which He seeks to manifest Himself to
the world. And so evangelism means that we are to bring men to accept
Jesus Christ as their Saviour, and to follow Him as their King "in the
fellowship of His Church."

We must tell all men that the Anglican Communion and the Episcopal
Church hold and teach the Gospel of Christ and His Church, that they
believe in the Church Divinely Instituted, the Holy Catholic and Apos
tolic Church of Christ, and that they therefore hold steadfastly to the
Apostolic Faith and Sacraments and — in common with all the Catholic
Churches of the World, both of the East and of the West, which today in
clude the great majority of all the Christians in the world — to the Apos
tolic Ministry which has come down in unbroken succession "from the
Apostles' time" as our Prayer Book declares.

The Church, and the Sacraments, and the Ministry are not the ends.
They are the means to bring men to Christ. But they are the divinely
appointed means. And history shows two facts. First, that where these
means of grace are used faithfully they do bring men to Christ and hold
them near to Him in faith and life. Second, that where these divinely
given helps are rejected or neglected, this leads toward loss of faith in
Christ as God, and to a religion of vague subjectivism, or rationalistic hu
manism, as is shown today only too clearly in much of modern Protestant
ism. Men tend toward loss of faith in the presence and power of Christ
when they cease to believe in Christ's presence in the Church and the
Sacraments.

8. We must make clear — clear beyond all doubt or per-adventure —
that we preach not a philosophy, not merely an ideal, or a doctrine, but
a Person — no less a Person than the Eternal Son of God, the Living
Christ, the Lord and Redeemer of the World. The Christian religion is
personal faith in a personal Saviour.

We who preach the Gospel must preach Jesus Christ not only as He
was here on earth but as He is now at the right hand of God, not only
as teacher and example but as God and Saviour. The Gospel that we
preach is Jesus Christ Himself. We must preach the Jesus of History, the
Jesus of the Apostles, of the New Testament, and of the Holy Catholic
Church from the beginning.

We must preach the Christ of the Annunciation, the Christ of Beth
lehem, the Christ of Calvary and the Resurrection and the Ascension into
Heaven, the Christ who with the Holy Ghost still ministers in His
Church on earth and in His holy Sacraments still blesses us with His
living touch. We must preach the Christ who is both God and man, the
Christ who feels for our infirmities because He is one of us and "hath

FINALE 241

Himself suffered being tempted," the Christ who is able to give us His
grace and strength, able to hear our prayers and answer them, able to
fulfill all His promises to us for this life and for the life to come, because
He is "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God." We must
preach the Christ "who for us men and for our salvation came down
from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary,
and was made man," the Christ to whom, before the Altar as we cele
brate the Sacrament of His own institution we say "Thou only, O Christ,
art most high in the glory of God the Father." This is the Christ who
speaks to all mankind as no other ever has, or ever can. . . . It is this
that is required — the simple, fearless preaching of Christ and His Church
— if our Campaign of Evangelism is to have any reality and power.

This is the bishop's final statement to the church and the world. It
will be noted that it is not new, largely a repetition of things he had
been saying all through his ministry; that it draws heavily on the
New Testament and especially the Prayer Book. This was always his
method. He had no fear of repetition and quotation; he used both
deliberately. He never tired of commending the Prayer Book to catho
lics and evangelicals alike because it had in it all that each wanted or
needed and because it kept both closer together; and to liberals be
cause it furnished the standard by which they must always measure
their reinterpretation.

The bishop returned to New York on 20 October, 1949. The last
entry in his diary is ten days later in the same clear, bold handwriting
of earlier days.

Twentieth S. after Trinity. Celebrated at 8.30 but found the physical effort
quite severe. Am thankful that I could to (sic) it Dr. & Mrs. Newman (he
the vicar of Trinity church) with us at lunch. Spent much of the day on
the bed.

A few days later he was taken to Saint Luke's Hospital, next the cathe
dral. A number of those close to him came to take farewell. His great
friend, Bishop Nicolai of Ochrida, who had stood nearby when he was
consecrated bishop, sat holding his hand for two hours one day and
reported that he could feel tremors, supposedly of pain, pass through
his body. On the 12th he was anointed by the Rector of Saint Peter's,
Westchester, Leslie Lang, and thereafter one of the priests of the dio
cese was always by his bed, the last being William Good of Trinity
Parish. The end came on Friday, 18 November, 1949.

The body lay in state before the high altar of the cathedral until
Tuesday, watched continuously and with frequent requiems said at
the high altar or at one of the chapels. Bishop Donegan said the burial

242 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

office and Bishop Gilbert the final requiem at noon in the presence
of a large and distinguished congregation. The bishop's body was
cremated and the ashes deposited temporarily in Saint Ambrose Chapel,
near the high altar. In 1954 they were put in the final resting place, a
tomb in the northeast corner of the nave beneath a recumbent effigy
of the bishop. There is a temporary altar in this bay which it is ex
pected will be replaced by a permanent one, with a stone screen over
the tomb.

The Bishop of Oxford wrote of him in his own diocesan magazine,

One of the happiest twenty-four hours I had in the United States was
spent with him and his family at their lovely summer home by the sea
on the coast of Maine. I have rarely, if ever, met anyone in whom saint-
liness, shrewdness, courage, and an unquenchable sense of humour were
so wonderfully combined. He had an unshakable grasp of the deepest
principles of our religion, and expressed them with unfailing vivacity and
an infectious use of humorous anecdote, often at his own expense. He
was unanimously regarded, even in his old age, as the dominant figure in
the Episcopal Church of America; and though I only spent so short a time
with him I shall always think of him as one of the greatest bishops in the
Anglican communion I have ever been privileged to meet. At times of
anxiety and difficulty it is a great source of strength to learn from per
sonal experience that the Christian church can still, as in past ages, pro
duce leaders of pre-eminent power — true men of God, equipped with
all the gifts and graces needed for the tasks with which spiritual states
manship confronts them. R.I.P.

BE ATE GUIGLIELMI THOMA
ORA PRO NOBIS

CHRONOLOGY

1866 12 May born — Northampton, England

1 July baptized — St. Katherine's Church

1878 14 November confirmed — Moulsoe School, Buckinghamshire

— Bishop Mackarness of Oxford

1882 family came to Nebraska

1886 San Diego, California— St. Paul's Church

1888 12 April matriculated, University of the South

1889 12 December ordained deacon, St. Luke's Oratory, Bishop

Quintard for Bishop Kip of California
curate, Calvary Church, Memphis, Tenn.

1890 December Florida with Dr. DuBose — Soteriology of the

New Testament

1891 Autumn St. Matthews, National City, California

12 December ordained priest, Bishop Nichols, coadjutor of

California

1892 rector, Trinity Church, Redlands, California

1893 September Professor of Systematic Divinity, University of

the South
December first visit to Cincinnati, Ohio

1894 December Trinity Church, Cincinnati

1895 23 April married to Florence Van Antwerp, Cincinnati

1896 July rector, St. John the Evangelist, Lansdowne, Pa.
1898 October rector, Christ Church, Nashville, Tenn.

1901 deputy to General Convention, San Francisco

called to New York & Overbrook, Philadelphia
December elected to National Missionary Council

1903 22 March vicar, St. Agnes' Chapel, Trinity Parish, New

York City
7 May received into Diocese of New York

245

246 PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

1904 SO November elected Bishop of Harrisburg

12 December elected Assistant Rector of Trinity Parish

16 December accepted Trinity election

1908 29 April death of Dr. Dix

4 May elected Rector of Trinity Parish

November announcement of closing of St. John's Chapel

1909 April St. John's Chapel closed

sermon on policy of Trinity Parish

May vestry requests investigation of property by New

York Charity Organization Society. Miss Din-
widdie chosen.

1910 January Trinity mortgages cancelled

Conference on reunion
February Miss Dinwiddie's report

Church Mission of Help organized

October Faith and Order Commission established by

General Convention

1911 March work begun on All Saints Chapel

duplex envelopes introduced in parish

1912 March suggests freeing of pews in vestry meeting
June trip to Great Britain in interests of faith and

order

1913 June body of Dr. Dix removed to All Saints Chapel
October "two-thirds" proposal at General Convention

30 November All Saints Chapel consecrated

1914 January Chapel of the Intercession opened
May churchyard cross dedicated

1915 May Chapel of the Intercession consecrated
October resignation from Board of Missions in Panama

Conference controversy
defeated as deputy to General Convention
December "The Protestant Episcopal Church and Chris

tian Unity" published

1916 January Garden City Conference on Faith and Order
February new choir stalls and altar rail dedicated

Panama Conference

March Conference of Mayors of St. Louis

October St. Paul's Chapel sermon on the war

1917 February relations with Germany broken
June elected Bishop of Western New York
December chaplain to 302nd Engineers, Yaphank, N. Y.

1918 March visit of Archbishop Lang of York
September funeral of Cardinal Farley

1919 Congregational Concordat

CHRONOLOGY

247

1921
1922

1923
1924
1925

1926
1927

1928
1929
1930

1931
1932
1933

1934
1935

January pews of Trinity Parish free

Citizen's Committee holds welcome to troops in

Madison Square Garden
election of Bishop Burch as Bishop of New

York

26 January elected Bishop of New York
11 May consecrated Bishop

Bishop Lloyd and Dr. Shipman elected suf
fragans

October elected president of Faith and Order Com

mission
December announcement of dancing at St. Mark's-in-the-

Bouwerie
Grant case
Dallas pastoral letter
resignation of Dr. Grant
illness of Dean Robbins
18 January inauguration of cathedral building campaign in

old Madison Square Garden
Vatican annulment of Marlborough marriage
sermon at 1300th anniversary of York minister
Lausanne Conference on Faith and Order
Baptistry consecrated

September Clergy Conference inaugurated

December Dean Robbins resigns

proposal of open communion by Christian
Unity League at St. George's, Stuyvesant
Square

January Dr. Gates installed as dean

23 March death of Bishop Shipman

28 October consecration of Bishop Gilbert

7 December sermon on companionate marriage — Judge

Lindsey

Athenagoras arrives in New York
October re-opening of All Souls, Harlem

vestry of St. Mark's-in-the-Bouwerie seeks disso
lution of pastoral relation with Dr. Guthrie

27 March meeting in Madison Square Garden to protest

persecution of Jews in Germany
October sermon on Bishop Potter at Grace Church

La Guardia elected mayor

November lynching at San Jose, California

March Pilgrim Pavement dedicated

election of Dr. Torok as suffragan in Eau Claire

war in Ethiopia

248

PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

3 June service for officers and men of U.S. Fleet

1936 "The Sin of Disunion" published
27 July death of Bishop Lloyd

the blessed sacrament reserved in aumbry in
St. Martin's Chapel

1937 February Slum Clearance Conference and exhibit in the

nave

sermon at Trinity on Supreme Court "pack
ing" plan
1937 May performance of Bach St. Matthew Passion in

nave (also in 1938)
Dr. Guthrie resigns

October election of Bishop Tucker as presiding bishop

Presbyterian Unity Resolution

1939 March services held in nave (until December, 1941)

open letter on the proposed concordat with
Presbyterians

27 November death of Dean Gates

1940 appointment of Bertrand Russell to City Col

lege

Dean De Wolfe installed
opening of full length of the cathedral
W. T. M. remains at cathedral all summer

(September, 1941 to July, 1943)

1943 retirement of bishops at 72 voted by General

Convention

1944 7 December in St. Luke's Hospital until 13 March, 1945

1946 March decides to resign

September General Convention withholds approval of

commission plan for reunion with Presby
terians
31 December resigns as Bishop of New York

1947 January Bishop Gilbert elected Bishop of New York
13 May Dr. Donegan elected suffragan

28 October Dr. Donegan consecrated Bishop
1949 "The Turning of the Tide"

October Dr. Donegan elected coadjutor

18 November William Thomas Manning died in St. Luke's

Hospital

23 June
1941 30 November

INDEX

Adams, Maude, 97

Ainslie, Peter, 212

All Saints Chapel, 66

All Souls, Harlem, 128

American Missal, 130, 131

Anderson, Bishop (of Chicago), 74, 77,

90

Ascension, Church of, 108, 114, 117
Athenagoras, 11-12, 236
Aves, Bishop (of Mexico), 85

Bab Ballads, 8

Bach, Saint Matthew Passion, 148

Baker, George F., 138

Baker, Stephen, 104, 169

Baldwin, Charles Sears, 72

Barr, Ada, 208

Basic Principles, 222, 223, 224

Basis of Union, Proposed (1946), 225-

227

Batten, Loring W., 72
Baylies, Edmund L., 103
Bedell Lectures, 75, 90
Belgium, 94

Bell, Bernard Iddings, 170, 211
Bellinger, W. W., 107
Berrian, Dr., 6, 50, 51, 54
Bishop's House, 108
Bishops, House of, 193
Booth, Ballington, 141
Boston, 13,92
Bowes-Lyon, David, 192
Bowie, Walter Russell, 160

Bradley, Dr. (vicar of Saint Agnes'

Chapel), 43

Brent, Bishop, 73, 74, 79, 90
Briggs, Charles Augustus, 157, 229
Bronx Church House, 108, 133
Brooklyn Eagle, 113
Brooks, Bishop (of Massachusetts), 118
Brown, Bishop (of Virginia), 85
Brown, William Adams, 178, 221
Brown, William Montgomery, 113, 114
Browne, Thomas P., 84, 183
Burch, Bishop (of New York), 72, 99,

102, 107, 108, 134
Burroughs, Bishop (of Ohio), 234
Butler, Nicholas Murray, 108, 170, 175
Butterworth, G. Forrest, 233, 307

Call To Unity, 75, 90

Cammann, Hermann Henry, 62, 64, 65,
103

Carnegie Hall, 94, 97, 98, 175

Carskaddon, Mr., 48

Cathedral of Saint John the Divine, 8,
11, 12, 13, 132-149, 151, 153, 155, 159,
160, 164, 165, 167, 168, 170, 171, 172,
173, 174, 177, 178, 179, 180-183, 227,
230, 233, 234, 241, 242

Catholic Club, 214

Catholic Congress, 160

Cecil, Lord Robert, 100

Century Magazine, 56

Chapman, John Jay, 116, 163

Chauncey, Elihu, 64

249

250

PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

Cheshire, Bishop (of North Carolina),
117

Chorley, E. Clowes, 230

Christ Church, Poughkeepsie, 110

Christian Century, 217

Christian Unity League, 212, 214, 216

Chronicle, The,UO, 111

Church Club, 58, 100, 122, 145, 162, 172

Church League For Industrial Democ
racy, 201, 202

Church Mission of Help, 67, 171

Church Union, 211

Churchman, The, 38, 57, 58, 188

Churchman's Association, 189

Cincinnati, 5, 24, 73, 75, 76, 166, 178,
216, 234

City College, New York, 192

Clendenin, Frank M., 85

Clergy Conference, 10, 122, 151

Coale, Elizabeth M., see Manning, Eliz
abeth

Coale, Griffith Baily, 36, 152, 155, 162,
169, 172, 173, 174, 176, 177, 178, 179,
182

Coffin, Henry Sloan, 213

Cohasset, 66

Columbia University, 108, 170, 171

Commission On Approaches To Unity,
217-227

Companionate Marriage, 188, 189-191

Concordat, Proposed (with Presbyteri
ans), 217, 218-222, 225

Congregational Concordat, 90, 106

Connick, Charles J., 13, 155

Constructive Quarterly, 58, 75, 85

Coudert, Frederic R., 105, 106

Council of Churches, Federal, 82, 202

Council of Churches, World, 202

Cram, Ralph Adams, 13, 108, 133, 145-
146, 155, 183

Crocker, William T., 131

Croker, Richard, 158

Crozier, Archbishop (of Armagh), 78

Cuba, 127

Cummins, Alexander Griswold, 110, 164

Cutting, Bayard, 56

Dallas Pastoral, 117, 118
Darlington, Henry B. V., 165, 166
Davidson, Archbishop (of Canterbury),

77, 78, 188

Davis, Judge Vernon M., 64
Deaconess House, 155, 179

de Forest, Robert W., 56

Detroit, 90

Detroit Free Press, 10

De Wolfe, Bishop (of Long Island), 122

Diary of William T. Manning, 14, 47-

49, 61, 63-64, 70, 73, 77, 78, 79, 96,

101, 111, 126, 129, 150-156, 160, 162-

186, 202, 223, 229-231
Dinwiddie, Emily, 64-65
Diocesan Investment Trust, 207
Dix, Morgan, 6, 41, 44-50, 51, 52, 53, 54,

55, 57, 60, 62, 66, 70, 103, 166, 171
Dobbs Ferry, 155, 230
Dodd, Rollin, 128
Donald, Winchester, 39
Donegan, Bishop (of New York), 162,

169, 172, 183, 230, 235, 241
Douglas, George William, 134
Du Bose, Mae, 5, 18,21,22
Du Bose, Susan, 18, 21, 22
Du Bose, William Porcher, 5, 17, 18, 19,

20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 37, 69, 153, 237
Du Noiiy, Lecomte, 237

Eau Claire, 9
Edinburgh, 70, 73
Edward VIII, King, 191
Elizabeth, Queen (Mother), 192
Engineers, 302nd, 95, 97
Epiphany, Church of the, 131
Erie, 9

Ethiopia, 100
Evangelism, 237-241
Evening Post, 53

Faith and Order, 69, 70, 72, 73, 74, 76,
78, 178, 202, 209, 212, 214, 215, 219

Farley, Cardinal, 76, 97, 105

Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church, 210

Finley, John, 147

Fisher, Archbishop (of Canterbury),
226-227, 233

Fiske, Haley, 68

Fleming, Frederick S., 226

Ford, Fr. (of Corpus Christi), 122

Forward Movement, 221

Fosbroke, Hughell, 175, 180, 220

Fosdick, Harry Emerson, 94, 99

France, 98

Freeman, Bishop (of Washington), 117-
118, 151

Gailor, Bishop (of Tennessee), 4, 37,
82, 107, 117, 153, 156

251

Gallant Fox, 138

Garbett, Archbishop (of York), 191

Garden City, 79

Gardiner, Robert Hallowell, 72, 73, 74,

75, 77, 78, 79, 90
Gardner, Bishop (of New Jersey), 182,

202
Gates, Milo Hudson, 66, 85, 107, 120,

122, 123, 127, 167, 173, 174, 175, 183,

207

Gates, Mrs., 127, 167, 183
Gavin, Frank, 202
General Convention, 40, 44, 193, 194,

195, 201, 204, 206, 211, 216, 218, 219,

232
General Theological Seminary, 22, 180,

220

Geneva, 90

George V, King, 77, 78
Germany, 94, 95, 198-199
Gibbons, Cardinal, 76
Gilbert (of New York), 112, 164, 169,

171, 173, 182, 183, 189, 190, 191, 229-

231,233,234,235,236,242
Gilder, Richard Watson, 56
Gladstone, 3
Gomph, Charles L., 57
Good, William, 241
Goodhue, Bertram, 66
Gore, Bishop, 77, 79, 152
Gorham, Edwin S., 85
Governor's Island, 100
Grace Church, New York, 22, 156, 157,

167, 189, 191

Grace Church, Newark, 57
"Great Scenes From Great Plays," 237
Gramercy Park, 54
Grant, Percy Stickney, 102, 104, 108, 109,

114-117, 118, 131
Greer, Bishop, 4, 44, 50, 58, 99, 102,

108, 109, 110, 112, 115, 119, 122, 123,

133, 134,208

Gregg, Frederick James, 106
Grosvenor, William Mercer, 72, 81, 123
Guthrie, William Norman, 18, 112-114,

118, 137

Halifax, Lord, 100

Hall, Bishop (of Vermont), 68, 77, 104,

107,117
Harding, Bishop (of Washington), 67,

84

Hardy, Edward Rochie, 121
Harriman, Edward H., 40

Harrisburg, 6, 44, 46, 47, 48

Harrower, Pascal, 12

Hearst, William Randolph, 98^99, 102

Heins and La Farge, 133

Hobart, Bishop (of New York), 21, 93,

132, 225

Hodgson, Telfair, 22
Holt, Ivan Lee, 214
Hone, Philip, 132
Hoover, Herbert, 95, 140
House, Colonel Edward, 94
Hughes, Stanley C., 62, 112
Hughes, William Dudley Foulke, 11,

46, 47, 120, 121, 122, 123, 129, 172,

174, 175, 183, 184
Huntingdon, James O. S., 67, 68, 70, 73,

157, 171, 178
Huntington, William Reid, 22, 40, 41,

55,118, 167,219
Hylan, Mayor, John F., 95, 98, 99

Incarnation, Church of the, 14, 172
Income Tax, (proposal to increase),

192

Intercession, Chapel of the, 175
Intinction, 194-197
Ivins, Bishop (of Milwaukee), 130

Jay, William, 45, 64
Johnson, Andrew, 3
Jews, 198-199

Johnson, Bishop (Coadjutor of Mis
souri), 214

Kansas City, 216

Kenyon College, 75, 90

Kip, Bishop (of California), 16, 48

Kirk, Bishop (of Oxford), 236, 242

Kleiser, Grenville, 67

Knight, Bishop (of Cuba), 85

La Farge, John, 133

La Guardia, Fiorello, 15, 142, 156, 163,

168, 171, 172, 177, 210
Lamberton, Mr., 48
Lambeth, 16,78,211
Lang, Cosmo Gordon, Archbishop (of

York, then Canterbury), 184, 188, 191
Lang, Leslie J. A., 241
Lansdowne, Pa., 5, 36, 37, 166
Larned, Charles W., 72
Lausanne, 73, 76, 212
Lawrence, Bishop (of Massachusetts),

95, 107, 111, 184, 186
Laymen's Club, 146, 176

252

PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

Laymen's Missionary Movement, 70
Lea family, 48, 150, 151, 169, 178, 180,

183, 184, 185, 186
Lefebvre, Channing, 12
Legion of Honor, 99
Lehman, Judge, 171,210
Leiper, Henry Smith, 211
Lewis, C. S., 237

Life and Work, Conference on, 215

Lincoln, Abraham, 3

Lindbergh, Charles, 165

Lindsey, Judge Ben B., 15, 188, 189-191

Littleton, Martin, 48

Living Church, The, 62, 194, 208, 222

Lloyd, Bishop, 84, 85, 90, 110, 112, 167,

171, 183, 191, 229-231
Lloyd, Mrs., 229
Lockman, General John T., 63
Longley, Archbishop (of Canterbury), 3
Louisville, Kentucky, 80
Low, Seta, 56
Lowndes, Arthur, 57
Lund, Bishop (of Sweden), 195

Mackarness, Bishop (of Oxford), 4
Madison Square Garden, 99, 140, 141
Magee, Bishop (of Peterborough, then

York), 16

Mahan, Admiral, 72
Maine, 151, 152, 183-186, 233,236-237
Mann, Bishop (of Pittsburgh), 81, 106
Mann, Thomas, 100
Manning, Cardinal, 3
Manning, Elizabeth, 36, 151, 152, 155,

162, 165, 169, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176,
177, 178, 179, 182, 236

Manning, Florence Van Antwerp, 24,
35, 36, 48, 84, 98, 108, 151, 155, 162,

163, 167, 169, 172, 173, 176, 178, 180,

184, 185, 236

Manning, Frances, 36, 150, 152, 163,

164, 168, 172, 173, 175, 176, 177, 180,
182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 236, 237

Manning, George, 3
Manning, John, 3, 16, 17
Manning, John, Jr., 3
Manning, Matilda Robinson, 3
Manning, William Thomas, birth, 3;
baptism, 4; school, 14; confirmation,
4; removal to U.S.A., 4; early parish
es, 5; Saint Agnes' Chapel, 6, 43-46;
Trinity, 6, 7; New York, 4, 6; World
War I, 7; Cathedral, 8; at Sewanee,

5, 11, 16-24; appearance, 11, 12; reac
tions of others, 13, 14, 15; ordination
as deacon, 21-22, 48; as priest, 23, 48;
consecration as bishop, 107; mar
riage, 24; at Lansdowne, 36, 37; at
Nashville, 37-42; relations with ne
groes, 40, 127-128; missionary pro
gram, 39-40; General Convention, 40,
43, 83; anecdotes, 42; assistant rector
of Trinity, 48-49; rector 51-68; re
union 69-90; two-thirds rule, 81; dec
orations, 99, 235; honorary degrees,
99; volunteer chaplain, 91-98; elected
bishop 102-103; consecrated bishop,
107; ceremonial matters, 119, 120,
121; attitude toward the cathedral,
134-137; 138-139, 142-144, 148, 149;
preaching, 7-8, 38, 154, 157-159, 170,
181; discipline of clergy, 129-130, 150,
163, 165, 173-174

Mansfield, Richard, 207

Marble Collegiate Church, 139

Marlborough, Duchess of, see Consuelo
Vanderbilt

Marriage and divorce, 44, 108, 109, 114,
115, 129, 142, 145, 187-194, 234

Marshall, John S., 20, 237

Melbourne, Florida, 22

Melish, John Howard, 18

Memphis, 5, 22

Merrill, William Pierson, 212

Michalis, Clarence, 207

Miller, Spencer, 148

Milwaukee, 95

Mindzenty, Cardinal, 235

Minneapolis, 84

Missions, Board of, 82, 83, 85, 200

Mitchel, John Purroy, 93, 95, 98

Mitchell, James G., 226

Morehouse, Clifford, 62, 67, 227

Morehouse, Frederic Cook, 62, 67-68,
95, 208

Morgan, G. Campbell, 210

Morgan, J. P., 56, 74

Morning Telegraph, 56

Mortimer, Alfred G., 72

Morton, Levi B., 56

Moulsoe School, 4

Mount Desert, 150, 151, 183

Much, Dr. Karl, 97

Muhlenberg, William Augustus, 162

Munsey, Frank, 136

Murray, Bishop (of Maryland), 9

Murray, J. O. F., 19

INDEX

253

Nash, Henry J., 72

Nash, Stephen Payne, 132

Nash, Thomas, 66

Nashville, 5, 23, 37, 38, 40, 42, 44, 67,

167

National City, California, 5, 23
National Council, 111, 200, 201
Nebraska, 4, 5, 16
Nes, William H., 221
New York City, 5, 6, 7, 10, 96
New York Diocese, 12, 103, 151, 226
New York Diocesan Convention, 102,

201, 207-208, 225, 232
New York Herald, 7
New York Sun, 107, 136
New York Times, 109, 141, 147
Newman, Bernard C., 241
Newton, Joseph Fort, 14, 15
Nichols, Bishop, 48
Nichols, Harry, 47
Nicolai, Bishop (of Ochrida, Serbia),

107, 241
Northampton, 3, 4, 17

O'Brian, Judge Morgan, 104, 105
Ochs, Adolph, 141
Ogden, David B., 64, 98
Oliver, John Rathbone, 15
Olmstead, Bishop, 43
Open Letter of 1939, 219
Oxford Group, 176
Oxford Movement, 3, 4, 154
Oxford University, 191

Palmer, Nicholas F., 64

Panama Conference, 79, 83, 84, 89, 106,

202, 229
Parks, Leighton, 103, 116, 118, 119, 194-

195
Parsons, Bishop (of California), 218,

219, 220, 222, 223, 224
Pearl Harbor, 100
Pepper, George Wharton, 70, 73
Perry, Bishop (of Rhode Island), 119,

164, 175,200,201-202
Persecution, 197-199
Peterborough, 3, 16
Peters, John R., 55, 56, 103
Philadelphia, 40, 160, 227
Pilgrims, the, 51, 78, 163, 171
Pittsburgh, 9
Polk, Frank L., 141
Polk, Dr. William M., 64

Potter, Bishop Horatio (of New York),
132, 133, 159

Presbyterian, The, 220

Presbyterian Church in U.S.A., 216-22C
222, 226

Presbyterians, 193, 210, 211

Prichard, Harold Adye, 124, 164, 16€

Princeton, 99, 212

Prohibition, 38, 139-140

Protestant Episcopal Church and Chris
tian Unity, 75, 85-89, 216

Protestant Episcopal Church, suggested
change of name, 80, 81

Quintard, Bishop, 16, 17, 22, 48

Rainsford, William, 38, 58

Ramsey, Archbishop (of Canterbury),

228

Redlands, California, 5, 22, 23, 153
Reiland, Karl, 213, 214
Resignation of Bishops, 204-206, 232
Restarick, Bishop (of Hawaii), 16
Reunion, 58, 69-90, 197
Rhinelander, Bishop, 67, 72, 73, 107,

178

Roark's Cove, 18
Robbins, Howard Chandler, 68, 119,

122, 123-126, 189, 202, 216
Robbins, Mrs., 124, 125
Rockefeller, John D., Jr., 142-144, 225
Rockwell, Harrison, 208
Roman Catholics, 75, 76, 78, 83, 84, 147,

188, 235, 236
Romanes family, 77, 78
Roosevelt, Franklin, 8, 141, 156, 163,

172, 193

Roosevelt, Theodore, 52, 53, 56
Root, Elihu, 56, 94, 135, 136, 141, 175
Roots, Bishop (of Hankow), 162, 167
Rowe, Bishop (of Alaska), 204, 205
Rowntree, Seebohm, 202
Royden, Maude, 77
Runciman, Mrs. Walter, 77
Russell, Bertrand, 192
Russell, Lord, 3
Russia, 197-199

Sailor's Snug Harbour, 67, 97

Saint Agnes' Chapel, 6, 41, 43-45, 66,

134, 150

Saint Ambrose, Harlem, 129
Saint Bartholomew's, 108, 118, 119, 122,

214

254

PRUDENTLY WITH POWER

Saint James Church (Hyde Park), 193
Saint James (Manhattan), 230, 235
Saint John's Chapel, 53-57, 58, 59, 60,

61,131

Saint John's Park, 54, 56
Saint Katherine's, Northampton, 4
Saint Lawrence, Northampton, 4
Saint Louis, 93, 94, 215
Saint Louis Statement, 215
Saint Luke's Chapel, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60,

61

Saint Luke's Hall, 17, 18
Saint Luke's Hospital, 35, 131, 164, 166,

232, 241
Saint Mark's-in-the-Bouwerie, 18, 112,

113, 114, 137

Saint Martins, Harlem, 128
Saint Michael's Church, 55
Saint Patrick's Cathedral, 147
Saint Paul's Chapel, 62, 173
Saint Peter's, Northampton, 4
Sain Diego, 4, 16

Scarlett, Bishop (of Missouri), 214
Schieffelin, William Jay, 72
Schley, Admiral, 42
Schluter, Edward, 61
Schroeder, Theodore, 114
Seabury, Judge Samuel, 156, 163, 172,

183

Searle, Robert W., 210
Sessums, Bishop (of Louisiana), 37
Sewanee, 5, 16-24, 153
Shannon, Miss Laura, 126
Sheldon, Edward W., 56, 140, 173
Sherrill, Bishop (of Massachusetts), 152,

156,224

Sherrill, Charles, 141
Shipman, Bishop (of New York), 110,

111, 112,229

Shipman, Mrs., 110, 111, 172
Sills, President (of Bowddin College),

218
Silver, Percy, 14, 126, 162, 168, 172, 173,

177

Silverman, Rabbi, 97
Sin of Disunion, 21 1
Slattery, Bishop (of Massachusetts), 99,

102, 103

Slum Clearance, 147-148
Southern Churchman, 7, 106, 228
Spellman, Cardinal, 236
Standing Committee, 61, 233
Starrs, Leonard Kip, 72
Stetson, Caleb Rochford, 107

Stetson, Francis Lynde, 73, 83

Stevenson, J. Ross, 212

Stewart, Bishop (of Chicago), 153, 202,

221
Stires, Bishop (of Long Island), 68, 99,

102, 103, 166
Strauss, Nathan, 210
Streeter, B. H., 219
Stuyvesant family, 137
Sumner, Bishop (of Oregon), 104
Sunday, Billy, 14
Supreme Court, 197
Sweet, Sidney Edward, 214

Taft, William Howard, 6

Talbot, Bishop (of Bethlehem), 104

Tamblyn and Brown, 135, 136, 140, 141

Tammany, 95, 156, 163

Temple, Archbishop (of Canterbury),

77, 222-223, 225
Tenements, Trinity, 52, 59-60, 63-65,

152

Tennessee, Diocese of, 39, 40
Tito, 235

Tomkins, Floyd W., 72
Torok, John, 9, 10, 201
Tourian, Archbishop, 167, 168, 169, 171
Townsend, Delancy, 53
Toynbee, Arnold, 237
Translation of Bishops, 203-204
Trinity Cemetery, 66, 126
Trinity Chapel, 65
Trinity Chapel Statement, 70-72
Trinity Church, 51-68, 91, 171, 172, 177,

197
Trinity Parish, 6, 12, 44, 46, 47, 48, 49,

50, 51-68, 89, 92, 98, 103, 106, 126,

134, 142, 150, 153, 166
Trinity Parish Record, 66
Tucker, Bishop (of Virginia), 201, 202,

230

"Turning of the Tide," 237-241
Tuttle, Bishop (of Missouri), 107, 205

Union Theological Seminary, 213
Upton, Camp, 91, 95, 56, 58, 103, 105

Van Antwerp, Lizzie, 48, 150, 151, 155,

162, 163, 167, 168, 180, 183, 184, 185
Van Antwerp, Mrs., 48, 150
Vanderbilt, Consuelo, 187
Vatican Tribunal, 187, 188
Vincent, Bishop (of Ohio), 77, 107
Voorhis, Canon, 108

INDEX

Wainwright, Mayhew, 56

Walker, Mayor James, 156

Warren, Edward K., 46, 207

Washington, 96, 105, 134

Washington, George, 158

Washington Mews, 67

Washington Square, 67, 235

Weller, Bishop (of Fond Du Lac), 84,

117

Wells, Holly, 42
Whitaker, Bishop (of Pennsylvania), 4,

36
Wickersham, George W., 6, 67, 141, 166,

169, 170, 184, 186, 213
Williams, Bishop (of Marquette), 84
Williams, Bishop (of Michigan), 113
Williams, Michael, 210

255

Wilson, Bishop (of Eau Claire), 9, 10,
218-231

Wilson, Woodrow, 93, 94, 95, 98, 99

Winnington-Ingram, Bishop (of Lon
don), 77, 78

Wiseman, Cardinal, 3

Wood, John W., 72, 83, 230

Woodward, William, 138

Wordsworth, Bishop (of Salisbury), 76

World War 1,91-99

World War II, 100-101

Wyn, Ed, 141, 142

York, 146

Zabriskie, Alexander, 224, 228-231
Zabriskie, George, 56, 72, 73, 74, 116,
123, 214

DATE DUE

MAR 1 3 1965

PRINTED IN CANADA

BY
RYERSON PRESS