Chapter XX: 482 (2)

But did it ever occur to our learned professor that he has, in order to prove the inspiration of the Scriptures, not only to take the authority of the church for so much, but to prove, before he can allege the authority of the Scriptures, all the Catholic has to prove, in order to prove the divine authority and infallibility of the church? He must prove that our Lord and his apostles spoke and wrote by divine authority, and that is all the Catholic has to prove. In either case, the authority, whether of the church or of the Bible, turns on the fact of the divine commission, which the Protestant must prove in the very outset as well as the Catholic, and which he cannot prove if he rejects the testimony of the church as the contemporary and living witness of the facts. The church, having been founded by and grown out of that commission, and continuing without interruption from the apostles down to us, is herself the living witness of the facts which prove the commission. She authenticates the record; but the Protestant has, in addition to authenticating the record which proves the commission, to establish the genuineness, integrity, and authenticity of the sacred writings before he can infer their divine inspiration and infallible authority, or use them as a rule of faith, and not even then unless their writers expressly declare them to be inspired, for it is possible for divinely commissioned men to write at times on matters not covered by their commission.

But we are not yet through with the Protestant’s difficulties, if he is to proceed independently of Catholic tradition. Supposing him to have proved all this, he still has to prove the completeness or sufficiency of the Scriptures. Dr. Hodge does not pretend that the Scriptures contain all the revelations made by our Lord to his apostles, but only what is now extant. “It is not denied,” he says (pp. 182, 183), “that there may have been, and probably were, books written by inspired men which are no longer in existence. Much less is it denied that Christ and his apostles delivered many discourses which were not recorded, and which, could they now be known, would be of equal authority with the books now regarded as canonical.” But how does he know that these discourses or the instructions they contained 498 are now lost, or that they are not preserved and as well-known and authenticated in the traditions of the church as the canonical books themselves? Furthermore, how does he know that it is not precisely in these discourses which were not recorded that is to be found the key to the sense of those which were recorded? The church has always so held and taught; indeed, the author himself concedes that, at the first, the whole revealed word, whether written or unwritten, went by the name of the tradition, and the written tradition was not distinguished from the unwritten. He says:

“In the early church, the word [tradition] was used in this wide
sense. Appeal was constantly made to the traditions, that is, the
instructions the churches had received. It was only certain
churches at first that received any of the written instructions
of the apostles. And it was not till the end of the first century
that the writings of the Evangelists and apostles were collected
and formed into a canon or rule of faith. And when the books of
the New Testament had been collected, the fathers spoke of them
as containing the ‘traditions,’ that is, the instructions derived
from Christ and his apostles.... In that age of the church, the
distinction between the written and unwritten word had not yet
been distinctly made. But as controversies arose and disputants
on both sides of all questions appealed to ‘tradition,’ that is,
to what they had been taught; and when it was found that these
traditions differed, one church saying their teachers always
taught them one thing, and another that theirs had taught them
its opposite, it was felt that there should be some authoritative
standard. Hence the wisest and best of the fathers [who were
they?] insisted on abiding by the written word, and receiving
nothing as authoritative not contained therein. In this, however,
it must be confessed, they [the wisest and the best of the
fathers] were not always consistent. Whenever prescription,
usage, or conviction founded on unwritten evidence was available
against an adversary, they did not hesitate to make use of it.
During _all the early centuries_, therefore, the distinction
between Scripture and tradition was not so sharply drawn as it
has been since the controversies between Romanists and
Protestants, and especially since the decisions of the Council of
Trent” (pp. 108, 109).

There are several inaccuracies in this passage. In the early ages of the church, when controversies arose and contradictory traditions were alleged, appeal was not made to the written word, but to the churches founded by St. Peter, or by his immediate authority, that is, to Antioch, Alexandria, or Rome, or to a council, provincial, plenary, or œcumenical, as can hardly be unknown to so learned a theological scholar as Dr. Hodge.[109] But two facts are conceded in the passage: first, that the church for a hundred years or more had only unwritten tradition or the oral instructions of its pastors as its rule of faith; and, second, that the written and the unwritten traditions of the word were deemed of equal authority by the wisest and best of the fathers, and were not as to their authority distinguished, at least not sharply distinguished, before the rise of Protestantism. The professor, then, must prove that the whole church was wrong prior to Luther in recognizing the authority of the unwritten traditions before 499 he can assert that the Scriptures contain all of the revealed word extant, or maintain the completeness or sufficiency of the Scriptures as the rule of faith. How will he do it, after conceding that they do not contain the whole revelation that was made, nor even the whole extant in the opinion of the church or the great body of Christians prior to the rise of Protestantism? Does the written word anywhere declare its own completeness or sufficiency, and that the portions not recorded are of no importance?

But the difficulties of Protestantism do not end even here. The Bible is no rule of faith except in its true sense, or as rightly interpreted according to the meaning of the Holy Ghost. The author says (p. 183): “The Bible is a plain book. It is intelligible by the people. And they have the right and are bound to read and interpret it for themselves, so that their faith may rest on the testimony of the Scriptures, and not on that of the church. Such is the doctrine of Protestants on this subject.”

But is it true? If so, how happens it that among Protestants we can hardly find two, when left to themselves, without any parental or pastoral instruction, who agree in their interpretation of the written word, or as to the doctrines to be deduced from it? Yet the author himself can hardly believe what he asserts to be the Protestant doctrine on the subject is true. “It is not denied,” he adds (pp. 183, 184), “that the Scriptures contain many things that are hard to be understood; that they require diligent study; that all men need the guidance of the Holy Spirit to a right knowledge and true faith. But it is maintained that in all things necessary to salvation they are sufficiently plain to be understood even by the unlearned.” What! even by those who are unable to understand a word of the language in which the Scriptures were written, and must depend on the fidelity of translations made by fallible men, and vouched for by no infallible authority? By those who do not know how to read at all in any language? Then how does the professor know what things are or are not necessary to salvation? That the things necessary to the right apprehension of the mysteries of the faith are not contained in those very parts of Scripture which are hard to be understood, or that the proper explanation of those parts is not necessary to the proper understanding of the other parts, which he judges to be intelligible even to the unlearned? The author here must either borrow from the Catholic rule, which condemns his Protestantism, or else admit that he has no satisfactory answer to give to these and kindred questions.

But all these questions are quite unnecessary, for the author obligingly refutes his own rule of faith, and acknowledges that the Scriptures interpreted by private judgment or by human reason itself are not sufficient to give a “right knowledge of the true faith.” Neither learning nor diligent study, nor the perspicuity of Scripture, suffices; for “all men,” he says, “need the guidance of the Holy Spirit in order to a right knowledge of the true faith.” This is conclusive against the Protestant rule; and confesses that no man can arrive at the knowledge of the true faith without the supernatural assistance of the Holy Spirit. Let us hear no more, then, of the Scriptures interpreted by private judgment, or of the ability or the right of every individual to read and interpret the Scriptures for himself and to form from them his own creed.

It is worthy of remark here that our Protestant professor is obliged 500 throughout to adopt the principle of the Catholic rule of faith, only he applies it differently. The Catholic asserts the infallibility of the Pope in matters of faith and morals by virtue of the assistance or guidance of the Holy Spirit; the Protestant professor claims the same infallibility, by virtue of the same supernatural assistance, for each one of the people of God taken individually. But the Pope is a public personage, all the world knows or may know who he is, and can recur to him, and, supposing him to be assisted as claimed, all the world may know from him the true faith; but in the Protestant sense there is no public means of knowing who the people of God are, and, consequently, no public means of knowing what the Spirit teaches, or whom he guides or assists to a knowledge of the true faith, since he guides or assists only private individuals, not a public personage or a public body. It can be no public rule of faith, and, as we have shown, none for the individual himself, for he has no objective and independent rule for determining whether the spirit that leads him is the spirit of truth or the spirit of error. The professor has refuted his own doctrine in his refutation of the Quaker rule of faith. The interior illumination, he asserts, is private, and can be brought to no public or catholic test. Not the church, both because the church the Protestant recognizes is invisible, and recognizable by no external marks or notes, and because the church, according to him, has no teaching authority or faculty. Not to the Scriptures, because it is the test of the right understanding of them that is required, and to take them as the test of this is to reason in a vicious circle.

Protestants, historically considered, arrived at their rule through Protestantism, not at Protestantism through the application of their rule, and the fact is, they cannot logically assert their rule till they have proved or obtained _aliunde_ their Protestantism. They are obliged to prove their Protestantism in order to prove their rule, and they must prove their rule in order to prove their Protestantism. This is a grave inconvenience. But, assuming without proof that the Scriptures are the sufficient and only rule of faith, they conclude, against undeniable facts, that the Bible is a plain book, and intelligible to the people, to even the unlearned, as it should be if intended by its divine Author to be the sufficient and only rule of faith. They find their conclusion untenable, and modify their statement, and say that their conclusion is true as to all things necessary to salvation. But, finding no agreement among Protestants themselves who take the Bible as their sufficient and only rule of faith as to what things are necessary to salvation, they divide. One class declares more or less distinctly that no objective faith is necessary to salvation, and another class, in which is included our author, asserts, while maintaining the right of private judgment, the private illumination of the Holy Ghost as the rule for interpreting the Scriptures, apparently not perceiving that they are in flagrant contradiction with themselves.

The professor objects (p. 127) to tradition as the rule of faith that it is not adapted to that purpose: “A rule of faith to the people must be something they can apply; a standard by which they can judge. But the unwritten tradition is not contained in any one volume accessible to the people and intelligible by them.” This were a valid objection, if the people had to seek through all history to find and verify the 501 tradition; but is no objection at all, if we suppose an infallible teacher, always present, who preserves and applies the tradition for the people. But does the Protestant escape his own objection by rejecting all unwritten tradition, and making the Bible alone the rule of faith, which is at least as unintelligible to the people as is unwritten tradition explained and applied by duly authorized preachers of the word?

That the Bible ought, on Protestant principles, to be a plain book, interpreting itself to every person of ordinary sense, or who has enough sense to be a moral agent, we concede, and Protestants should actually derive their doctrines from it. But nobody knows better than our author that neither is a fact. He knows that the Protestant people, however much they may read and praise the Bible, do not form their own opinions from it, but from their pastors or teachers, or the community in which they are brought up. He knows, also, that the people could never of themselves derive even the doctrines which he holds to be essential and necessary to salvation from reading the Bible alone. Unitarians and Universalists deny that the Bible teaches them, and the people, as a matter of fact, take them from the tradition of their sect, and at best only find confirmation of them in the Scriptures; and yet such are the exigencies of Protestantism that the ablest and most learned Protestant professors are obliged, in the face of these facts, to say with Chillingworth, “The Bible, the Bible alone, is the religion of Protestants.”

But Protestants should bear in mind that Catholics have the Bible as well as they--had it ages before Protestantism was ever heard of, and that it was from Catholics that they obtained it--strictly speaking, from the church _stole_ it. How, then, can it be their religion any more than it is the religion of Catholics? Catholics, if they have not admitted it to contain the whole revealed word, have always held it, before Protestantism and since, to be divinely inspired, and, as far as it goes, the infallible word of God. They have always held that all Christians are bound to believe whatever it teaches, and forbidden to believe anything that contradicts it. This is all that Protestantism can really say. The church contends that in no respect does her doctrine conflict with the written word, and is in most respects, if not in all, positively sustained by it. Suppose her as fallible as Protestants confess themselves to be, what can Protestants have in the Bible that Catholics have not? or what have they from any source that can override the Catholic understanding of the Scriptures, or authorize them to say that it is a misunderstanding? Catholics may have more than Protestants, but in no case have they or can they have less. By what rule or standard, then, do Protestants judge the Catholic understanding of the Scriptures to be false and the Protestant understanding to be true? Private judgment is no rule, and, if it were, Catholics have private judgment as well as Protestants; they have, too, reason, Biblical, historical, and all other sorts of learning, as well as they, and, at least, in as eminent a degree. By what rule or standard of judgment, then, is Protestantism to be pronounced more Biblical than is Catholicity?

The professor says: “The people have the right of private judgment, and are bound to read and interpret the Bible for themselves.” In matters left to private judgment, in regard to which there is no 502 public or catholic rule, be it so. But, when the people have a public or catholic rule, they are bound to judge by it, and the right of private judgment ceases. Protestants either have such a rule or they have not. If they have, they are bound to judge by it, and have no right of private judgment in the case. If they have not these, they have no rule or standard by which to judge, no rule of faith, and that ends the matter. We beg the professor to understand that all this Protestant rationalistic talk about private judgment is mere moonshine. He may allow it against what he calls “Romanism,” but he by no means allows it against what he holds to be the word of God. As for the people being bound to read or interpret the Bible for themselves, it is sufficient to ask what would become of the professor’s own vocation if it were so? Were the people who lived before the New Testament was written, or its several books collected into a volume as the rule of faith, bound to read and understand it for themselves? Are those bound to read or interpret the Bible for themselves who know not even how to read? These are reckoned to be at least nineteen-twentieths of mankind; shall they receive no religious instructions till they have learned to read? What shall we say of those who--and they are the bulk of mankind--obliged to toil incessantly to sustain their bodily existence, have no time to learn to read, much less to study diligently the sacred Scriptures, even if they could read? What are we to say of children who are too young to read and understand the Bible for themselves, and yet are old enough to sin? Can these all be saved without the knowledge of the truth? or are they excluded by an inexorable decree and no fault of their own from salvation? The fact is, Protestants, whatever the fuss they may make about the Scriptures and private judgment, adopt, in practice, as their rule of faith, the Bible interpreted by the learned, or those they hold to be learned, the rule Dr. Döllinger would force the church to adopt. Catholics are not more dependent on the church than Protestants are on their pastors. But as their doctors cannot agree among themselves, they have no resource but to divide with their doctors, and divide they do, each division following its favorite doctor, and founding with him a new sect, which allows no private judgment against itself. Even Unitarians, who believe hardly anything, tolerate private judgment only when it makes for them, and are as intolerant of those who deny anything they hold to be essential as an Old or New School Presbyterian. The worst of it is that, while Protestants yield a slavish submission to their ministers, they deny that their ministers have any authority from God either to teach or to govern them, and, like the old carnal Jews, boast that they are free and in bondage to no man. The most degrading and debasing slavery into which mortals can be plunged is that of Protestants to their favorite ministers, unless it be that of the heathen to their idols or false gods.

But we are exceeding our limits. We have said enough, we think, to show that Protestants have no independent rule of faith--independent of the Catholic Church, we mean. In so far as they hold Christian truth or positive faith at all, they hold it on the authority of the Catholic rule, which they reject; and when deprived of what they stole from us, and to which they have no right, they have nothing to prevent them from running into pure rationalism on the one hand, or into 503 mysticism and transcendentalism on the other. The germs of both were in the original Protestant movement, and may be easily detected even in our Princeton professor. Into one or the other he must run, if he ever gets out of the vicious circle in which Protestantism, pretending to be Christian, necessarily gyrates, unless the grace of God relieves him and enables him to return to the bosom of the Catholic Church, where alone he will find true freedom and truth in its unity and integrity.

[108] _Systematic Theology._ By Charles Hodge, D.D.,
Professor in the Theological Seminary, Princeton, N. J. Vol.
I. New York: Scribner & Co. 1872. 8vo, pp. 648.

[109] If the written word had been regarded as the
sufficient and only rule of faith, there could have been no
occasion to appeal to apostolic churches or to councils to
ascertain the evangelical or apostolical traditions. It
would have been simpler to appeal to the written word
itself. The reason of the council, as its purpose, was to
collect by the testimony of the pastors of the several
churches what was the tradition that was handed over to each
by its apostolic founder, and which it had preserved. By
ascertaining thus by the testimony of each the traditions
common to them all, the controversy was settled. The
frequency of councils in the early ages proves that during
those ages, at least, Christians did not adopt the
Protestant rule of faith, and that they were by no means
Protestants. The pretence of the Reformers that they were
restoring primitive Christianity, primitive faith and usage,
is to be taken as a pretence only.

----------

DANTE’S PURGATORIO.

CANTO SECOND.

This Canto of the _Purgatorio_ is the one which contains that episode of the music-master, Casella, to which Milton alludes in his celebrated Sonnet to Henry Lawes, and perhaps all the more celebrated from this allusion to the passage in Dante.

Casella was a dear friend of Dante’s, and used to set his _canzoni_ to music, and sing them with a voice which it must have been delicious for Dante to have made immortal. Dante supposes in the poem that Casella had gone to Rome in the year of the Jubilee, and, coming thence by sea, had perished near the mouth of the Tiber.

For Canto I. of this translation, see CATHOLIC WORLD for November, 1870.

Now that horizon whose meridian arch
Hangs o’er Jerusalem its topmost height
The sun had reached: while opposite, her march
Holding in countercourse, the circling Night
Walked forth from Ganges, bearing in her hand
The Scales that she lets fall with her advance,
So that the morning’s cheeks where I did stand
From white and red grew orange to my glance.

Beside the sea we made a brief delay,
Like lingering men, that on their journey dream,
Who go in spirit, but in body stay:
And lo! as when, surprised by morning’s beam,
Through the gross vapors Mars doth redly burn
Down in the west upon the ocean floor;
A light appeared--oh! may that light return--
So rapidly those waters travelling o’er,
That to its motion flying were but slow:
Then, having momently withdrawn my gaze
To question of my Guide, I looked, and lo!
Larger it burned, and seemed almost ablaze!
Soon from each side thereof, although I knew
Naught what they were, something appeared of white,
And underneath another of like hue
Little by little grew upon my sight.
My Master spake not: I meantime could spell 504
Wings in those first white objects at the side:
Soon as he recognized the pilot well,
“Behold God’s Angel!--bend thy knees!” he cried:
“Lift up thy palms to him--now in thy ken
See one of heaven’s high ministers indeed!
Look, how he scorneth all device of men;
He nor of oars nor any sail hath need
Save his own pinions (while he beats the air
And heavenward stretches those eternal pens),
From shore to shore so distant--plumes that ne’er
Moult like the changing tresses that are men’s.”

Then as more near and nearer to us drew
That divine bird, so grew the splendor more
Till scarce the eye could bear a closer view:
I bent mine down, and he arrived ashore
With a fleet skiff, so light upon the flood
That without wake it skimmed the water’s breast:
High on the stern the heavenly helmsman stood,
In aspect such as Holy Writ calls Blest.[110]
More than an hundred spirits in one band
Within sat blending in one voice their strains,
“_In exitu Isràel_--From the land
Of Egypt”--and what else that psalm contains.[111]

The sign of holy cross he made them then,
Whereat they bounded all upon the strand,
And he, swift as he came, sped back again.
The crowd that stayed looked wildly round, and scanned
The place like strangers coming to things new.
Now on all sides had Phœbus pierced the day
With his keen arrows, which so fiercely flew
That Capricorn was chased from heaven’s midway,
When the new-comers raised their brows to us,
Saying: “Show us the pathway, if ye know,
Up to the mountain.” Virgil answered thus:
“Perchance you think us dwellers here? Not so.
We, like yourselves, are only pilgrims here:
Just before you, and by another way,
We came, a road so rugged, so severe,
That climbing this will seem thereto as play.
The spirits, by my breathing who could guess
That I was living, wan with wonder grew;
And just as people round a herald press
Who comes with olive wreaths, to hear what new
Tidings he bears, regardless how they tread, 505
Thus gathering round, those favored souls eyed me;
Each one, as ‘twere, forgetful how he sped
Towards where they go, more beautiful to be.

One I beheld before the rest, who came
As to embrace me, with such look intense
Of love, it moved me to return the same.
Oh! save in aspect, shadows void of sense,
Three times my hands around his form I threw,
And thrice received them back upon my breast.
I think my face was tinged with wonder’s hue;
For the shade smiled as after him I pressed,
And, I still following, he so sweetly said:
“Follow no longer;” whose that voice must be
I knew full well, and begged him, ere he fled,
To stay a little while to speak with me.

He answered me: “As in my mortal part
I loved thee once, I love thee loose from clay,
And therefore stop; but thou--why wandering art?”
“My dear Casella, I come not to stay,
And must return where I am dwelling still.
But tell me what has so delayed thy bliss?”
“If he who taketh whom and when he will
Refused my passage oft, no wrong was this,”
The shade replied: “To Heaven’s his choice conforms:
These three months freely he hath carried o’er,
At their own pleasure, the peace-parted swarms:
Whence I, too, coasting homeward by the shore,
Where Tiber’s waves grow salt, with gracious hand
Was gathered. Titherward he now has gone,
Bending his pinions towards the sacred strand
Where all those meet who seek not Acheron.”

Then I: “Unless the new laws here forbid
Memory or use of that love-laden style
Which all my longings once full gently chid,
Soothe with one song, beseech thee, for awhile
This soul of mine, which, dragging here its clay,
Is so worn out.” Directly he began
“_Love reasons with me_,” in so sweet a way
That the same sweetness I could hear--I can.
We stood, my Master and myself, as though
Naught else possessed us, and that shadowy swarm,
Rapt, listening round him to his notes: and lo!
That noble old man’s venerable form[112]
Came crying: “How now, tardy spirits--why 506
This negligence? why lingering do ye plod?
Run to the mountain, that from every eye
The scales may fall that seal your sight from God.”

As doves in barley, gathering grain or tares
(Busy at pasture in a single flock,
Quiet, nor showing their accustomed airs),
If aught approach the timid tribe to shock,
Fly from their food, assailed by greater care,
So quit the song this new-come troop, and started
Hillward, like one who goes unknowing where:
And with no less a pace we, too, departed.

[110] “Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see
God.”

[111] Psalm cxiv.

[112] The spirit of Cato of Utica, introduced in the First
Canto.

----------

THE LATE GENERAL CONVENTION OF THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH.

The doings of a body so large, and in a worldly point of view so respectable, as the Episcopal Church, ought to be of some consequence to the public. Unfortunately, however, the negative character of its legislation prevents it from reaching the wants of the day, or speaking to the heart of a restless age which is bent on physical progress. The gentlemen who form the convention meet together every three years, and spend three weeks in moving the interesting machinery of legislation, without doing anything whatever, and in disappointing every one who asks for a positive statement in matters of doctrine or discipline. Their body is formed after the plan of the United States Congress, and has no counterpart in any period of ecclesiastical history. The bishops form the upper house or senate, and the clerical and lay deputies constitute the lower or more popular house, one half of which is composed of ministers and one half of laymen. Each house acts as a restraint upon the other, and no law can be passed without the agreement of the two branches. The bishops might be disposed to change the creed or make some new article of faith for their communion, but they cannot do so without the consent of the deputies. The same thing is true of the ministers in the convention. The laymen have a veto upon their pastors, who in turn can tie up the legislation of their flock. A negative lay-vote in the lower house will nullify even the action of the bishops in council, as well as the wishes of the reverend clergy. If, for example, the Episcopal body should propose to pass a law on ritual, and the ministers were agreed to it, the lay deputies could defeat it by an adverse vote. There is something very peculiar in this equalization of ecclesiastical prerogatives between ministers and laymen, which strikes the unpractised eye as unique and strange. The constitution of the Protestant Episcopal Church was formed, as we have intimated, after 507 the model of the American Republic. There is, however, no executive, the presiding bishop being only a chairman of a meeting; and the power of putting into effect the action of the convention lies wholly in the convention itself, which has no existence after it adjourns _sine die_. We believe, however, that the different dioceses feel bound to a certain kind of obedience, the nature of which will depend upon individual bishops.

In regard to the late convention, we have little to say, and yet some good may result from putting on record what Catholics think of a body of Christians which makes such large pretensions, and at the same time is so utterly helpless, and useless as a teacher of truth. Our purpose in this article will be accomplished by a brief view of the impressions produced by this council upon the Episcopalians and the world; by a consideration of what has been done negatively and positively; and a few remarks upon the position in which the Protestant Episcopal Church stands before mankind.

I. The impression produced upon Episcopalians, as far as we can learn it from themselves, is very singular, and seems to differ with different minds. The only satisfaction expressed in any of their journals is that the convention did not do any more harm. The _Church Journal_, of November 1, speaks of the “tomb of the Capulets” to which so many important measures were consigned. “That vast mausoleum,” it says, “well stored at the close of the session of 1868, received a large accession in 1871.” It also terms the whole thing a _fiasco_, and pitifully remarks that “the mind of the church must be well informed in 1874 if we would not pave the way to another _fiasco_.” “In the matter of tone, temper, and decorum, _with slight exceptions_, the convention was worthy of the respect of the church.” There were, therefore, exceptions in which it is not deserving of any respect. The _Church Weekly_ rejoices that no great evils have come from this council of their _branch_ of the one (_invisible_) church, and attributes this to the good sense of the deputies, who generally were “wise and conservative men.” “It was only by the _non-concurrence_ of orders that action was not had on ritual, and in the form proposed by the House of Bishops.” The same journal says that the bishops are utterly unfitted for action on any of the subjects which came before the convention. “They are chosen,” it remarks, “for any reason rather than knowledge of _liturgies_, _ritual_, _canon law_, _or theology_.” What these reverend fathers are expected to know we are left to imagine, and it is a great strain upon our powers; for we are somewhat bewildered by the observation “that they are chosen for their practical common sense, which is American English for success in life.”

The _Christian Witness_ feels happy that there is “such elaborate discussion on the smallest points, and that questions of order take much of the time in their disposal.” The result, however, is not so pleasant, because “the most important subjects are left to the end of the session, when the haste of the members to return home cuts short the discussion, and _dissatisfaction_ is the result.”

The _Protestant Churchman_ is the only paper we have seen which seems really gratified. The convention did not do anything, but showed a spirit which, if not quenched, will yet accomplish much:

“No one who was present could fail to be struck with some very
remarkable developments, the full significance of which does by
no means appear in what the convention actually did or left
undone. Although the convention did not pass any of the 508
proposed canons against ritualism, it is yet true that an
anti-ritualistic spirit was disclosed, which was entirely
unexpected, and in the presence of which scarcely any one, in
either house, dared to avow himself a ritualist. Although the
convention did not repeal the restrictive and exclusive canons,
still the evidence was most marked of the progress of liberal
sentiments. If the questions involved in these canons had come
fairly before the convention, we believe that the result would
have surprised every one, and satisfied those who have been
hopeless of favorable action.

“In our view, this convention has marked a transition period in
the history of the Protestant Episcopal Church. The old ruts have
been obliterated, and new paths of progress have been opened. It
is our profound conviction that there has not been a convention
for many years which has revealed a prospect so encouraging for
truly liberal and evangelical principles.”

The internal spirit of a legislative body is, however, hard to understand except from its public acts, and when there are no such satisfactory acts, honest observers may differ in their judgment. The High Churchmen felicitate themselves that their tenets were not pulled to pieces, while Low Churchmen see a _spirit_ which accords with their sentiments, and so take courage for the future.

In spite of all these causes of happiness, the advanced ritualists find much to complain of, because the bishops, _though apostles_, did not realize their dignity, and the ministers, though _actually Catholic priests_, did not seem to know it. Besides their ignorance of “liturgies, ritual, canon law, and theology,” they were not reverent in the house of God, nor did they seem to feel that they were, what the _Churchman_ calls them, “apostles, occupied with the faith and practice of the apostolic age, and framing their conduct and teaching according to a model seventeen hundred years older than the systems represented by Protestant names.” In church they seemed to forget the “real presence,” and to be only polite and sociable gentlemen, very glad to meet their friends of the nineteenth century. So says the _Church Weekly_:

“Men and women seem too tired and excited for reverent devotion;
and not merely was loud talking and laughter going on at one end
of the building before the blessed sacrament was consumed, but,
within the very sanctuary, even bishops were seen exchanging the
courtesies of society with one hand, while with the other they
were holding the Lord’s body and blood. The truth is, there
cannot be proper reverence when a building which is during one
hour the scene of exciting debate and the arena of unrestrained
conversation is, during the next, devoted to what ought to be the
solemn worship of Almighty God. Nearly all the clergy and laity,
ritualists included, seemed at times to forget that Emmanuel
Church, though used as a convention hall, was a consecrated house
of prayer. Constant introductions, subsequent chattings, mild
flirtations with ladies, and the frequent use of opera-glasses,
did a great deal towards destroying reverence for God’s
sanctuary; and I could not but feel the evil habit engendered
there found its way into many of the churches in which divine
worship was held on the following Sunday.”

As for the impression produced upon the world, we can take the spirit of the press, which has amused itself much in studying the science of using words, and saying nothing, which the Protestant Episcopal council possesses in the highest degree. Every one of the other Protestant bodies has a distinctive character, and uses words according to the received interpretation of the dictionaries. The Episcopalians, however, sit upon the fence, and turn their faces now to the north, and now to the south, and speak like the Sibyl, so as to be on the safe side with every one. No one would venture to abridge 509 their liberty, or even laugh at their peculiarities, if they did not pretend to be above their brethren, and ape the exterior of the old church. Their phylacteries are many and large, and so not a few of them carry a sign to prove that they are what they profess to be. In spite of what the world thinks, they are _priests_ and _bishops_, and theirs (O tempora, O mores!) is the only pure _branch_ of the Catholic church. Their coats and cassocks beat us out-and-out, and they are _Catholics_, the only true Catholics, while we are Romanists.

When we behold such a remarkable body, which claims, through its ardent children, to be the most primitive and only pure church in existence, we naturally are curious to find out what the doctrine of this church is. Then, when it speaks enigmas, and has a language of its own, with no published dictionary, we are somewhat bewildered. Seriously, we think we have not exaggerated the sentiment of the journals of the day. They are amused at the spectacle of three weeks’ work which has accomplished nothing, and at definitions of doctrine which can be construed in two contradictory senses. We do not believe there is a living man who can tell what the doctrine of the Episcopal Church is, nor a single member of that communion who has any clear ideas on the subject. Each one may tell us what he believes for himself, but his private opinion is not necessarily the creed of his church. If the Redeemer of men has left his religion in such hands, we can only say that he has not shown human wisdom, and that his Gospel will be of little use to mankind. Our further remarks will justify these conclusions, and show that never since the creation has there been a body with so great pretensions and so little foundation for them. This is not because the authorities do not sometimes speak plainly, but because the members of the church insist on interpreting whatever they say according to their own ideas, and there is no final tribunal.

2. With the exception of a few local canons on matters which have no general interest, the convention, as such, has done nothing. We shall try to give a fair synopsis of its doings, and let them speak for themselves. As the _Christian Witness_ tells us, great attention has been paid to points of order, and the rules for the trying of bishops and ministers. This would lead us to conclude that either these canons had been very imperfect, or that there are many and difficult cases of delinquency. We incline to think, however, that there are not many bad ministers, but that the wish to make laws and to speak on them is the parent of all these emendations of their code. Very few of the resolutions referred to the committee on canons have seen the light, but are consigned to that “tomb of the Capulets” of which the _Church Journal_ speaks.

The different dioceses in the State of New York have been desirous of having a “federate council” of their own, and some action was taken on this subject. Not much satisfaction has been derived from this, because the journal most interested is acutely grieved. “It is sad,” it says, “to think that what is called the mind of the church is not yet ready for the _Provincial System_, or even a court of appeals. The federate council of New York is granted sufficient power to keep it from dying of atrophy or inanition, but we fear it will prove only a sickly sort of existence after all.” The particular benefit of the provincial system in the Episcopalian hierarchy we do not see; but 510 this is none of our business. Our sympathies are with those who want it, and are unable to get it.

A joint committee of bishops and ministers has been appointed or continued on _religious reform_ in Italy.

As far as we can learn, the labor of this committee will be very arduous. They are to watch for Catholics and infidels in Italy who turn Episcopalians. There are not many of these converts, but for this very reason they will be all the more difficult to find and provide for.

We would humbly suggest that a _branch_ of their _branch_ of the _one_ church be established there, with a bishop whose travelling expenses should be prepaid, no matter what the cost may be. A committee in the United States can hardly be adequate to this critical work, for if there is no Episcopalian minister at hand when a man or woman is at the point of converting, he or she may be gathered in by a sect of Protestants who have no bishops. We should also have recommended that this committee have power to act in Bavaria, especially as there is no time to lose. Still, as our advice may not be understood, we do not press the subject. Old Dr. Döllinger has valid orders, and so has poor Father Hyacinthe, and might possibly be saved for the cause of Episcopacy.

Another thing which moves us very much is the magnitude of the work again thrown on the committee who are to seek for union with the Eastern heretical churches. So little has been accomplished beyond an exchange of courtesies that we fear the means are not adequate to the end.

Anglicans have already signified their willingness to throw the “Filioque” out of the creed, and to give up thus the doctrine of the Trinity, but this does not seem to bring the two or four bodies any nearer together. The Eastern churches still call the Anglicans heretical, and say they have no orders, while in all humility they prostrate themselves before the walls of Constantinople or St. Petersburg, and ask for the smallest smile of recognition. We do not think the committee have done their duty, and, as the prophet urged the priests of Baal, we beg them to persevere. These venerable patriarchs may possibly be asleep, or absent on a journey. If they would ordain one of the Episcopal ministers, he would certainly be a priest, and perhaps the American Branch might be ordered to adopt the Russian Pontifical. It is very like the Roman, but then it could be translated into English. The same doctrines are more palatable in Russian or in Greek than they are in Latin, and the Eastern is a “Holy Orthodox Church,” while the Roman Catholic Church is _schismatical_ and in great error. The Holy Orthodox Church, having anathematized the Thirty-nine Articles, has touched rather severely the Anglican pretensions, but our good friends here are able to bear more than this without being discouraged. Before these words reach the public, we trust the Episcopal Committee will have had the opportunity to wait upon the Grand Duke Alexis and offer him Trinity Church for his cathedral during his stay in New York. A _branch_ that has been cut off from the parent trunk can be carried even some distance to shade a sprout that comes out of the ground of its own responsibility and from its own little root. “How good and pleasant a thing it is to see brethren dwelling together in unity!”

At the next convention, we hope to hear something of the effect of the regular resolutions which have been passed the last fifty years, and 511 to hear if the old _branch_ will at last recognize the new branch planted by Henry VIII. and his daughter Elizabeth, and watered by Luther and Calvin and their friends. A small casket containing the ashes of Cyril Lucar might be carried in procession on this grand occasion, still in the future, with a tablet bearing in bold relief the canons of the Synod of Bethlehem.

We pass to another of the doings of the convention, which has our unqualified approbation, accompanied only with the fear that the project may not be successful.

We refer to “the revival of the _Scriptural diaconate_ of women,” as the bishops call it in their pastoral.

The Scripture here alluded to is probably the ninth to thirteenth verses of the fifth chapter of the First Epistle of St. Paul to Timothy:

“Let a _widow_ be chosen, not under threescore years of age, who
hath been the wife of _one_ husband; having a testimony of her
good works, if she have educated children, if she have exercised
hospitality, _if she have washed the saints’ feet_, if she have
ministered to them that suffer tribulation, if she have
diligently followed every good work. But the younger widows shun,
for when they have grown wanton in Christ, they will marry,
having damnation because they have made void their first faith.
And withal being idle, they learn to go about from house to
house, not only idle, but tattlers also, and inquisitive,
speaking things which they ought not.”

The bishops do not say whether they propose to carry out these rules of St. Paul literally, but they seem to “feel an earnest desire that prudence and good sense may preside over every _effort_.” The committee, whose report was substantially accepted, do not fix any rules as to the age of the postulants, nor do they utter one word about widows. They use the term “sisterhoods” in connection with remarks upon “the Phœbes and Priscillas of apostolic times,” while without explanation they condemn “the false and pernicious system of the Church of Rome.” (A rose under any other name will _not_ smell so sweet.) These sisterhoods are to be established everywhere in hospitals and benevolent homes, and a central house or training school is recommended to fit the candidate for the various works of mercy. These sisters are to be without vows, and so free to come and go, leave their various convents, and marry whenever they please.

The rule of obedience depends upon their own consent, and so they are their own masters, even when they live in community. We confess a great anxiety to see this system thoroughly tried, and to know, in the course of a few years, how many will remain and die in their conventual habit. Even if it fail, it is a step in the right direction, and we are glad the committee did not rigidly adopt the rules of St. Paul. For if they were restricted to widows over sixty years of age, they might not find many subjects, and in this climate the deaconesses might be incapable of much work.

The action of the convention in regard to _ritualism_ is so remarkable that we hardly know how to describe it.

The bishops in their pastoral have something to say on it, which we shall notice afterward. They, however, are only one-third of the convention, and cannot of themselves pass any laws which shall have binding force. It seems that, three years ago, when the matter was discussed, a committee was appointed to examine the subject, and report a canon or canons to be enacted which might produce uniformity. This committee reported very plainly, and gave an opinion which can be 512 understood. They recommended a canon which should forbid all the peculiar actions of the ritualists, such as “the use of incense, the placing or retaining a crucifix in any part of the church, the use of lights about the holy table, the elevation of the _elements_ in holy communion for the purpose of adoration, the mixing of water with the wine, the washing of the priest’s hands, the ablution of the vessels, the celebration of holy communion when there is no one to receive, and using any prayers or services not contained in the _Book of Common Prayer_.” This recommendation was referred to a joint committee, who, not being able to agree perfectly, brought forth as the result of their labors the draft of a law which makes the rule of ritual the _Prayer-Book_ and “the canons of the Church of England in use in the American Provinces before 1789, and not subsequently superseded, altered, or repealed.” Then, as few seemed to know about these canons, it was determined to appoint a new committee to find out about them, and inform the next General Convention. In the meantime, all mixed questions were to be settled by the bishops in their various dioceses, should it please them to interfere, or should any brother be offended by excess or defect of ritual. The evident result of all this legislation was to leave the whole matter just where it was before. This canon did not, however, seem to please. Some of the members wished to know what these “customs before 1789” were, before they could intelligently act, and on a division of the house the project was lost. Substitutes a little more decisive were offered, and they did not meet with favor. The bishops, anxious as it would seem to have some action taken on the subject, sent down to the deputies the following resolution, which they had passed, and for which they asked the concurrence of their brethren:

“_Resolved_ (the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies
concurring), That the following canon be adopted and enacted, to
be entitled Canon ----:

“The elevation of the elements in the holy communion in such
manner as to expose them to the view of the people as objects
toward which adoration is to be made, in or after the prayer of
consecration, or in the act of administering them, or in carrying
them to or from the communicants, and any gesture, posture, or
act implying such adoration, and any ceremony not prescribed as
part of the order of the administration of the Lord’s Supper or
holy communion in the _Book of Common Prayer_, and the
celebration or reception of the holy communion by any bishop or
priest when no person receives with him; likewise, the use, at
any administration of the holy communion, of any hymns, prayers,
collects, epistles, or gospels other than those appointed in the
authorized formularies of the church or under § 14 of canon 13,
title 1, of the Digest, are hereby forbidden.”

This resolution was put to vote, and lost by a small majority on the clerical vote. The following proposition was then offered and adopted unanimously, which, so far as we know, was the end of the matter in the convention:

“_Resolved_, That this convention hereby expresses its decided
condemnation of all ceremonies, observances, and practices which
are fitted to express a doctrine foreign to that set forth in the
authorized standards of this church.”