“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 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 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