"Jesus Christ is the living centre of unity." Certainly; but we have been speaking of a visible unity, and Jesus Christ is not visible to us. The vicar of Christ is the Holy Ghost, a singular office for the third person-of the undivided Trinity, and he is not visible either. The invisible Christ has an invisible vicar on earth, and this is the coequal and coeternal Spirit! The visible expression of Catholic unity is the "apostles' doctrine and fellowship, the breaking of bread and prayers."
Oh! for the good and honest heart among the Episcopalians to see that these words are empty sounds which mean nothing at all. "Where is the apostles' doctrine and fellowship?" Is it in the Episcopal Church alone, and if not, where is it? The bishops ought to have said that their doctrine was the apostles', that their fellow ship was the apostles', or if they had doubts on the point, they should have told us unequivocally where to find these important and absolutely necessary "expressions of catholic unity." We are here reminded of an old negro who in our young days used to speak Latin fluently; but as his phrases were made up of plural genitives, we could only hear the sonorous "Bonorum, filiorum, malorum, optimorum," without comprehending one single word. In like manner, with at least the common intelligence which God has given us, we do not comprehend this pastoral, unless it really means, in circumlocution, to say nothing.
The bishops then go on to defend the Anglican reformation, and hold up to condemnation the attempts made by some High-Churchmen to disparage it. And in this connection they "especially condemn any doctrine of the Holy Eucharist which implies that after consecration the proper nature of bread and wine does not remain, which localizes in them the bodily presence of our Lord, which allows any adoration other than that of Christ himself." Here we do think the prelates have said something, and we can understand what they mean. We would have preferred that they should have used language more direct, and without any insinuations. But we understand them to say that the bread and wine are unchanged by their consecration, and that there is no presence of Christ at all in the Eucharist. For as he is very man, his presence must necessarily be a bodily one, and must be localized. We Catholics adore the blessed sacrament only because it is Christ himself; because the bread and wine are changed into his body. The bishops here deny any such presence of Christ, and go on to assert that the humanity of our Lord is only to be found at the right hand of God in heaven.
For this reason, very appropriately, the ceremonies of the ritualists are denounced, because they are built upon a doctrine which supposes Christ to be present on the altar. Will it now be believed that the organ of the ritualists, in New York, expresses itself pleased with this part of the pastoral? We blush for the insincerity and dishonesty of men who love to call themselves "Catholic priests." They are satisfied with this open denial of any real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and "they will work on with new vigor, cheered and sustained by the admonitions of their fathers in God." If such admonitions cheer them, what kind of admonition would dishearten them?
No, my friends, you are not cheered, nor sustained; but being determined to make the best of your cause, you strive to look pleasant. God is the judge. You may deceive yourselves and mislead others, but you are responsible to him for calling white black, and black white.
On questions of doctrine we find, then, that the convention has done nothing, save that the bishops have asserted, on their own authority, that Christ's commission has been committed to a fallible instrumentality; that communion with the body of Christ is necessary, while no instructions are given as to what and where that body is to be found; that the pope is the great obstacle to catholic unity; that the vicar of our Lord on earth is the Holy Ghost; that the Anglican reformation is good and to be imitated; that there is no presence whatever of Christ in the Holy Eucharist; and that the extravagances of the ritualists are entirely to be condemned.
We do not remember any ecclesiastical body which has said more striking things than these; but as no canons have been made, we must only take them as the opinions of the bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church in 1868.
II. In regard to discipline, we find that there were discussions on many subjects, but that very few laws were passed.
In the early part of the session, an attempt was made to change the name of their body from "General Convention" to "National Council," or something similar. The disputes were quite racy, one member insisting that "convention" was a dirty word. But the delegates were unwilling to rebaptize themselves, and after three or four days the whole thing was dropped.
The singing by the boys in surplices, which we believe is usual in Trinity chapel, was so much objected to by some of the members, that they withdrew from the church during the service, until the point was conceded and the boys were put away. No canon, however, was introduced on this subject. Shortly after, the sessions of the deputies were removed to the church of the Transfiguration, where the Church Record tells us that "the music was led by some of the deputies, and a beautiful marble altar, with a large brass cross, and a pair of candlesticks with candles, added to the solemnity of the scene." We are glad that our ritualistic friends had such great consolations.