“ ‘First Presiding Member of the Governing Synod of all the
Russias, and Metropolitan of Novgorod and St. Petersburg.’
“The only ecclesiastical representative of the Russian Church in
this city, the Rev. N. Bjerring, has corroborated the facts set
forth in this letter, and furthermore stated to the writer, in
answer to inquiries, that the Orthodox Church seeks not exclusive
affiliation with the Anglican and American Episcopal Churches, but
desires to hold friendly relations with all Christian
denominations; and in this spirit of fraternal love he receives in
his own house, as personal friends, not only members of his own
household of faith, but ministers and members of the Lutheran and
Reformed Churches, Methodists, Baptists, Episcopalians, and Roman
Catholics, with all of whom he maintains the most cordial
relations. But he declares that there can be no such thing as
sacramental union between his church and any other, unless there
shall have been first complete agreement in dogmas and an
unconditional acceptance on the part of the affiliating churches
of the authority and acts of the first seven Œcumenical Councils.
This is a _conditio sine quâ non_ from which the Russian Church
cannot move a step nor deviate one line from the dogmatic truth
handed down to her from the apostolic church; nor can she at the
same time permit anything to be added to these dogmas.”
The Eastern churches will never recognize the Episcopalians as anything
but a sect of Protestants. They deny the validity of their orders, and
condemn their articles of faith as heretical. Not one of their bishops or
priests would be recognized as possessing any sacerdotal power, or could
ever receive Holy Communion at the hands of the Greeks, whom they are
inclined to receive with so much favor.
The following words of one of their leading agents in England are
sufficiently decisive, though we fear not plain enough to convince our
brethren who are so sensitive about their apostolic succession, which
every one denies but themselves:
“No other Protestant church was ever so full of contradictions, so full of
variegated heresy, as the English Church was and is, and will be to the
end of her existence. With _such an heretical church_ the Orthodox Eastern
Church never would allow her bishops to transact.
“If Rome considered all ordinations by Parker and his successors—_i.e._,
the whole present English episcopate and clergy—to be invalid, null, and
void, and consistently re‐ordained all those converts who wished and were
fit for orders, the Eastern Church can but imitate her proceedings, as
both follow, in this point, the same principles.
“The Anglo‐Catholics are _most decidedly_ no Catholics, but Protestants,
although inclining hopefully towards Catholicism. It is astonishing how
the zealous Intercommunionists dive into the depths of orthodox learning,
rove in the remotest districts, compile the minutest arguments, while they
overlook the _chasm at their feet_. They most ingenuously demand to
dispense with ceremony, and to join hands all at once over _the vast deep_
stretching out between them.”(107)
Very little has been done by this convention in the way of doctrinal
decisions. The House of Bishops having solemnly declared that in baptismal
regeneration, as the term is used in the Prayer‐Book, no _moral change_ is
signified, the effort to drop the term altogether was voted down. Thus, in
harmony with the customs of this church, a term is retained which has no
real significance. Those who object to it can only console themselves by
the conviction that it means nothing.
A former convention had quite plainly denied the real presence of Christ
in the Holy Eucharist, and hence the condemnation of any adoration of the
sacrament is quite natural. We are not certain that the Ritualists will
see anything to startle them. They would hardly hear any voice, however
loud it might be. Yet we think the rest of the world will be satisfied
that no adoration can be paid to the _elements_ of the Protestant
Episcopal communion, for the reason that they are in their very nature and
substance, and that Christ is not in them. An important canon on ritual
was passed bearing chiefly on this subject. As it first received the votes
of the House of Deputies, it condemned “the use of incense; the placing,
carrying, or retaining a crucifix in any part of the place of public
worship; the elevation of the elements in the Holy Communion in such
manner as to expose them to the view of the people, as objects towards
which adoration is to be made; and any act of adoration of or towards the
elements, such as bowings, prostrations, or genuflections.” As amended by
the House of Bishops, and afterwards passed by both houses, the use of
incense and of the crucifix is not forbidden. One deputy explained that
the Greek Church is in the habit of using incense, and that the Lutherans
retain the crucifix. Perhaps these may be among the reasons for the action
of the bishops. We conclude that while the crucifix may be placed in the
church, and incense be used at the will of ministers or their people, no
act of adoration can be allowed towards the Eucharist. The force of this
canon will depend much upon the disposition of the bishop, who can wink at
these observances or fail to know anything of them. The law, however,
obliges him to examine the matter if any two of his presbyters complain,
and, referring the subject to his standing committee, to admonish the
offending minister. And if the minister disregard this admonition, he must
be tried for a breach of his ordination vow. If this canon means anything
at all, it will put a stop to all the practices of the Ritualists by which
they endeavor to imitate the beauty of Catholic worship, and their whole
ceremonial is at once excluded from any Episcopal church. Let us see if
this law will be either respected or obeyed.
The rejection of Rev. Dr. Seymour, elected to the bishopric of Illinois,
is a still further condemnation of any Eucharistic adoration. For chiefly
for this adoration, which he was supposed to favor, was he refused the
vote of the clerical and lay deputies. The majority against him was so
great that hardly any one can doubt of the mind of the convention. He had
been involved in the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament, either
directly or indirectly, and this fact alone was sufficient to cause his
rejection. It seems to us pretty evident that the Episcopal Church by her
highest authority has denied both baptismal regeneration and the real
presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Yet this denial will have little
effect, because all Episcopalians will think as they please, and no
doctrinal decision influences their faith. Creeds are with them written on
paper, and have no further value. One would naturally expect the believers
in these rather important doctrines to forsake a church which condemns
them. But few will do so. They will talk of the primitive days and the
hopes of better times, when the “three branches” of the Catholic Church
shall come together. Until that time there is no authority for Anglo‐
Catholics. If the Protestant Episcopal communion should by synod deny the
existence of God, we believe they would still remain in her, bearing their
burden, persecuted by their own church, and with great self‐denial waiting
till the truth should revive in the hopeful mother that bore them. This
new species of self‐abnegation and of moral martyrdom by one’s own church
is the glory of Ritualistic confessorship. They have not learned that the
first duty of a true church is to teach, and that the first step in
holiness is to mortify self‐will.
On the subject of education, the Protestant Episcopal Church has _nearly_
taken a step forward, and we sincerely regret that the step was only half
made. The Committee on Christian Education recommended the organization of
“sisterhoods” and “brotherhoods” to supply teachers. They say:
“The great want will not be met until some method of organization
be adopted, such as brotherhoods or sisterhoods, whose members
make teaching their special work, and who therefore cultivate the
teaching faculty, and acquire all the branches of useful learning,
in order to do Christ’s work for the young, under the direction
and at the call of their bishops and pastors. And while an
organized work seems to be the only one likely to meet our
necessities, and while the religious motive is the only one
powerful enough to draw men and women to such work for the best
years of their lives, it should be borne in mind that the truths
of the Gospel, and the Catholic faith, as this church hath
received the same, have strength and vitality sufficient to
furnish motive and method to such associations without
exaggerations or additions in doctrine or practice, and without
borrowing distinctive dress, nomenclature, or usages from the
Church of Rome. In some of the schools or colleges at present
belonging to us, such associations might be developed—teaching
orders—Brothers of the Christian Doctrine, Sisters of the Holy
Childhood—composed of men and women of sound judgment, moral
force, thorough education, patient and winning ways, who would ask
for no higher work than to train the minds and mould the
characters of the young in accordance with the gracious teachings
of the church, and with the sanction of, and in loyal submission
to, the authority of those who are rulers in the same.”
In accordance with this recommendation, a canon to establish “deaconesses
or sisters” was reported to the convention. It, however, failed to pass,
and the words of the committee stand before the world on their own merits.
Though there are grave difficulties in the establishment of communities
where there is no religious rule or any unity in faith, yet we would like
to see this imitation of Catholic life tried among our Protestant
brethren. It might do good, and gradually lead the earnest and truly self‐
denying soul to the one home of all Christian life and zeal.
It is a disappointment to us, however, that this convention has done
nothing in regard to parochial schools. Some years ago the language of the
Episcopalian bishops led us to think that they realized the full
importance of guarding the young from the dangers of an infidel education.
Colleges and academies will very poorly meet this great evil. The children
most exposed are those who every day go to our public schools, where no
religion can be taught, and where a non‐Christian system of instruction is
equivalent to infidelity. The truth of this assertion needs no
demonstration, for the facts of every day prove it, and the tide of
unbelief is at our very doors.
The report of the Committee on the State of the Church dwells on some
generalities, but yet admits a substantial decline during the three years
past:
“But there are in these documents some facts that are not cheering
or satisfactory. In 1871 there were 448 candidates for holy
orders, and in 1874 but 301—decrease in three years, 147. In 1873
it is said there were no ordinations in 17 dioceses, and of the
whole number of candidates only 60 or 70 were able to maintain
themselves. Thus we have not only the supply of the ministry
diminished, but the fact revealed that parents of pecuniary
ability, elevated social position, and great culture, seemingly
withheld their sons from the Lord’s higher service. We have also
had our attention called to the fact that, in many instances, the
young novice is admitted to the diaconate and priesthood with such
imperfect qualification that we are forced to the conclusion that
there is great imperfection in our legislation, or they whose
office and duty call them to decide upon the qualifications of
candidates are too lenient in their admission of the applicants.”
We do not find any comparative table of communicants, but should be led to
conclude that as the ministry diminishes in numbers, the members would
decline in the same ratio. Perhaps a little more attention to schools and
the training of the young would be advisable. If the Episcopal Church
wishes to hold its own in this age and country, it will have to give more
attention to the dangers of the public schools.
We do not know precisely what authority belongs to the address of the
bishops at the end of the convention. It has not one word in regard to
doctrine, and the allusions to any differences of opinion are so very
general that no party could be offended. We do not even gather the precise
meaning of the writer. We utterly fail to comprehend his idea of “the
_liberty_ of Christian faith,” or understand his notion of freedom in
obedience. The pastoral was evidently written to offend no one, and in
this we think it must have succeeded.
There are some good words on the subject of divorce, but we can hardly
tell how far they go. Those “who put away an uncongenial wife or husband,”
and marry again, taking advantage of the license of the civil courts, are
condemned as adulterers, unless they do so for the cause of fornication.
We do not know how to explain this. Is fornication or sin before marriage
a reason for divorce? Is adultery after marriage considered sufficient to
break the tie of matrimony, so that a new marriage is permitted? If the
bishops mean to say this, we would earnestly recommend them to study the
sacred scriptures of the New Testament. Their halfway protest against
civil divorce is nevertheless something to be thankful for in these days.
Now, having rehearsed all the important points which we have been able to
see in the doings of this General Convention, we would ask any person of
honest mind who really believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ if there
is in the Protestant Episcopal community any trace of the one true church
which he established. It is to be found neither in the unity of faith nor
in any consciousness of sacerdotal gifts. No conception of the fundamental
idea of a church has any place in her councils, and the truth of Christ’s
presence in his adorable sacrament, which is the very life of his elect,
is the constant object of assault. While they, against all facts and the
testimony of all which they pretend to hold as the Catholic Church, assert
the validity of their orders, they prove beyond all cavil that the grace
of the priesthood is not theirs. For God never left that grace, even in
heresy and schism, without the consciousness of its tremendous power. As a
mere Protestant body, it may keep its exterior before the world. It has no
interior life whatever, no heart and no soul, that we might mark it and
distinguish it among the hosts of a divided Christianity. Nevertheless,
there is light enough to guide the sincere to the one faith, and the plea
of invincible ignorance will be a poor excuse for many in the dread day of
account. Let us pray earnestly to God for these souls in the night of
error. “What will it profit them to gain the world, and then to lose their
souls?”
Assunta Howard. Concluded.