Modern Women And What Is Said Of Them.A reprint of a series of articles in the Saturday Review.With an introduction by Mrs. Lucia Gilbert Calhoun.New York: J. S. Redfield. Pp. 371. 1868.
This volume contains thirty-seven articles on modern woman in her various phases. That they are, in a certain sense, ably written, it is needless to assert; and as the majority of them have been extensively copied on this side of the Atlantic, it may be equally unnecessary to state that, as regards the subject under discussion, they are generally denunciatory. Hence we are at a loss to understand what could induce one of the sex attacked to take upon herself the ungracious task of a compiler, even with the opportunity of self-vindication afforded by the introduction. Perhaps, however, this advocate of woman's rights acts on the principle that even kicks and cuffs are better than being entirely ignored.
Alton Park; Or, Conversations On Religious And Moral Subjects.Chiefly designed for the amusement and instruction of young ladies.New edition. Philadelphia: Eugene Cummiskey. Pp. 408.
Alton Parkis so well and favorably known to Catholics, that praise at our hands and at this late day is supererogatory. We must, however, compliment the publisher for the very handsome style in which he has brought out this volume.
A Pysche Of To-day.By Mrs. C. Jenkin, author of "Who breaks pays," "Skirmishing," "Once and Again," "Cousin Stella."New York: Leypoldt & Holt. Pp. 280. 1868.
This tale represents to us certain aspects of Parisian life, which are interesting, not as always exciting pleasurable emotions, but as being evidently drawn from life. The story is told in a pleasing, unaffected manner, and the main incidents are only too probable.
Logic For Young Ladies.Translated from the French of Victor Doublet, Professor of Belles-Lettres.New York: P. O'Shea. Pp. 148. 1868.
An excellent text-book; clear, simple, comprehensive. We would suggest, however, in order that its sphere of usefulness may not be even apparently circumscribed, that the title for the next edition read, not "Logic for Young Ladies," but "Logic for the Young."
Academic Edition. A Dictionary Of The English Language, explanatory, pronouncing, etymological and synonymous. With an appendix, containing various useful tables. Mainly abridged from the latest edition of the quarto dictionary of Noah Webster, LL.D.By William G. Webster and William A. Wheeler.Illustrated with more than three hundred and fifty engravings on wood.Pp. xxxii. 560. 1868.A High-school Dictionary Of The English Language, explanatory, pronouncing, and synonymous. With an appendix containing various useful tables. Mainly abridged from the latest edition of the quarto dictionary of Noah Webster, LL.D.By William G. Webster and William A. Wheeler.Illustrated with more than three hundred engravings on wood.Pp. xxiv. 415. 1868.A Common-school Dictionary Of The English Language, explanatory, pronouncing, and synonymous.With an appendix containing various useful tables. Mainly abridged from the latest edition of the American dictionary of Noah Webster, LL.D.By William G. Webster and William A. Wheeler.Illustrated with nearly 250 engravings on wood.Pp. xix. 400. 1868.A Primary-school Dictionary Of The English Language, explanatory, pronouncing, and synonymous.With an appendix containing various useful tables.Mainly abridged from the latest edition of the American dictionary of Noah Webster, LL.D.By William G. Webster and William A. Wheeler.Illustrated with more than 200 engravings on wood.Pp. xii. 352. 1868.A Pocket Dictionary Of The English Language;abridged from the American dictionary of Noah Webster, LL.D.Prefixed is a collection of words, phrases, mottoes, etc., in Latin and French, with translations in English.William G. Webster, editor.Pp. iv. 249. 1868.The Army And Navy Pocket Dictionary.By William G. Webster.Pp. iv. 319. 1868.
The peculiar claims of these books to professional and popular patronage are so fully set forth in the titles prefixed, that it only remains for us to say that we heartily recommend them to teachers and others, as among the best dictionaries of their class now before the public. They are published by Ivison, Phinney, Blakeman & Co., New York.
The "Catholic Publication Society" has in press
The Holy Communion: its Philosophy, Theology, and Practice.By John Bernard Dalgairns, Priest of the Oratory of St. Philip Neri.A new edition of theIllustrated History of Ireland, by a member of the Poor Clares, Kenmare, Ireland, and sold for the benefit of that community. This edition will have additional engravings, and over 100 pages more matter than the first edition. It will also contain a chapter on the Irish in America. The work will be ready about October 15th. Canvassers are wanted to sell it in the country.
From THE CATHOLIC PUBLICATION SOCIETY, New York:
Symbolism.By John Adam Moehler, D.D.1 vol. crown 8vo, pp. 504. Price, $4.The Illustrated Catholic Sunday-School Library Second series. 12 vols. in box, $6 per box.From PATRICK DONAHOE, Boston:The works of Rev. Arthur O'Leary, O.S.F.Edited by a Clergyman of Massachusetts,1 vol. 8vo, pp. 596. Price, $2.
Vol. VIII., No. 44—November, 1868.
The phrase which forms the title to this article does not originate with us. We find it floating in the columns of various recent periodicals. Our attention is especially directed to it, as the expression of a definite idea, in a late number of theGalaxy, and by an editorial in theChurchmanfor the 25th of July of the present year. From these we gather that, in the opinion of certain modern prophets, some one of the existing Protestant denominations is destined to achieve pre-eminence over all the rest, and, gathering into its single fold the population of America, become the "Church of the Future" in our land.
The author of the article in theGalaxywrites in the interest of Methodism. In its past successes and its present characteristics he beholds an omen of its ultimate supremacy over all other Christian bodies, if not over infidelity and rationalism itself. TheChurchman, on the contrary, claims the laurels of this future victory for Protestant Episcopalianism—predicting that, through its inconsistency with republican institutions, the influence of the Catholic Church must eventually be destroyed; that Presbyterianism, being a growth of but three hundred years, and never yet attaining, or likely to attain to, thesemper, et ubique, et ab omnibusof mature and stalwart age, must soon decay; that Methodism, having lost its pure vitality when it departed from the sacred unity of "Mother Church" can never meet the needs of coming generations; he thence concludes, that the diminutive society once called the "Protestant Episcopal" but now rejoicing in the title of the "Reformed Catholic" Church, is to absorb into its bosom the teeming millions of this country, and become the guide and teacher of the Western continent.
The expections of these dreamers are well calculated to provoke a smile. While the great fact remains uncontradicted that the united strength of Protestant Christendom has failed to check the spread of irreligion in the bosom of modern society, while nearly every one of its denominations is struggling to maintain its present spiritual powers, it seems a time for humiliation rather than for boasting, for prayer and labor rather than for triumph. Far be it from us to discourage Christian hope, or snatch away from Christian zeal the vision of those future glories to which it should aspire. But the impression is strong upon our mind that such "castles in the air" as those to which we have referred, imply worse than time wasted in their building, and manifest an increase of that indolent consciousness of strength which, in communities as well as individuals, is the forerunner of a swift decay.
With this remark, we leave the thoughts suggested by the advocate of Methodism, and pass on to discuss the question raised by the assumptions of theChurchman, namely:
Whether the Protestant Episcopal Church is destined to attain pre-eminence over the other sects of Christendom in this country, and become the church of the future people of America?
This question is susceptible both of a divine and human answer. It may be said that the Protestant Episcopal Church is the true Church of God, and therefore that its ultimate supremacy, not only here but everywhere, is certain. It may be also said that, as its internal structure and external operations are such as will adapt it to control and harmonize the elements of which American society is now and will hereafter be composed, so is it likely to attain the relative position which its advocates with so much assurance claim, and to wear the crown which already glitters in their dazzled eyes. Together these two answers stand or fall; for, if the Protestant Episcopal Church be the true church of God, then must it,ex necessitate rei, be adapted to control and harmonize, not only the society of this age and country, but the societies of every other age and clime; and,vice versa, if it be adapted to control and unify the faith, and, through the faith, the acts and lives of men, then must it also,ex necessitate rei, be the church of God.
The writer of theChurchmanappears to us to have chosen the former method of reply. He says:
"Our own church is to be the church of the future in our country. It is a church of apostolic constitution and derivation, with a pure, uncorrupted faith, with a duly authorized ministry, with the word and sacraments of the gospel, and, with and through these, the dispensation of the supernatural grace of God, without which everything else would be but ineffectual words and forms. Whatever may be alleged of others, it cannot be denied that all this is true of our church. We do not find it to be true, in all particulars, of any church in the land but ours."
The two syllogisms of which this allegation forms a part, seem to be logically complete as follows:
(1.) The true church of God will be the church of the future in our country.
The church, which is alone of apostolic constitution and derivation, with a pure and uncorrupted faith, a duly authorized ministry, the word and sacraments of the gospel, and, with and through these, the dispensation of the supernatural grace of God, is the true church of God.
Ergo, The church, which is alone of apostolic constitution and derivation, with a pure and uncorrupted faith, a duly authorized ministry, the word and sacraments of the gospel, and, with and through these, the dispensation of the supernatural grace of God, will be the church of the future in our country.
(2.) The church, which is alone of apostolic constitution and derivation, with a pure and uncorrupted faith, a duly authorized ministry, the word and sacraments of the gospel, and, with and through these, the dispensation of the supernatural grace of God, will be the church of the future in our country.
The Protestant Episcopal Church is alone of apostolic constitution and derivation, with a pure and uncorrupted faith, a duly authorized ministry, the word and sacraments of the gospel, and, with and through these, the dispensation of the supernatural grace of God.
Ergo, The Protestant Episcopal Church will be the church of the future in our country.
With both the premises and the conclusion of the former syllogism we presume that nearly every Christian, Catholic or Protestant, will heartily agree. But we believe the conclusion of the second to be erroneous, and its fallacy we find in what we conceive to be the utter falsehood of its minor premiss, as a simple matter of fact. We know that the writer says: "Whatever may be alleged of others, it cannot be denied that all this is true of our church." But, whether it can or cannot, it most certainlyisdenied. We here deny it. We deny the apostolic constitution and derivation of the Protestant Episcopal Church. We deny that she holds a pure, uncorrupted faith. We deny that she has a duly authorized ministry. We deny that she possesses the word and sacraments of the gospel. We deny that through that ministry, that faith, that word, those sacraments, [Footnote 27] she retains the dispensation of the supernatural grace of God. And, in support of our denial, we point to Holy Scripture, to the unanimous tradition of the fathers, to the vast treasures of historical and theological learning which have accumulated in the past eighteen hundred years, and to the united voice of the holy Catholic Church throughout the entire world.
[Footnote 27: Except baptism.]
Nor only we. In our own country these bold assertions, and the extravagant pretensions which are based upon them, are also constantly denied. Two million Methodists deny them. One million six hundred and ninety thousand Baptists deny them. Seven hundred thousand Presbyterians deny them. Six hundred thousand Universalists deny them. Three hundred and twenty-three thousand eight hundred Lutherans deny them. Two hundred and sixty-seven thousand four hundred Congregationalists deny them. Of the one hundred and sixty-one thousand two hundred Episcopalians, how many dare maintain them? How many are at open warfare with that party, within their communion, from whom these rash and groundless allegations come? Among the extremest of "Reformed Catholics" how many actually believe that the ecclesiastical organization to which they protestingly belong, is, in truth, that glorious fabric which our Lord built upon the Rock, St. Peter, and to which he communicated the infallibility of his perpetual presence? Even the subtleChurchmanwill hardly venture to affirm distinctly his belief of such an extravagant proposition, but will most likely take refuge in the declaration that his is a reformedbranchof the Catholic Church, a declaration that destroys the value of his whole argument, unless he also demonstrates the impossibility, to other branches, of the reformation which has sprung from within his own.
To argue that the Episcopal Church alone possesses those characteristics which indicate the true church of God, and that, as such, she must eventually predominate over all the rest, is thus as useless as it is unwise. It opens up a series of disputes which no generation would be long enough to exhaust, and no acknowledged authority be sufficient to determine. It creates in advance an adversary in every Christian outside her exclusive pale, and puts him on his guard against the courtesy and solicitude with which she seeks to win his personal devotion. It thrusts into the face of the inquirer a proposition whose absurdity annoys him, whose positiveness discourages him, whose arrogance repels him. If our Episcopal brethren wish to realize the dreams of their modern seer, they must abandon this species of argument and betake themselves to the adaptation of their church to meet, more fully, the wants and necessities which surround them upon every side.
In their ability or inability to do this resides the human answer to the question whose discussion we pursue.
The syllogism in which this answer is embodied may be thus constructed:
The church which is best adapted, by internal structure and external operations, to control and harmonize American society, will be the church of the future in our country.
The Protestant Episcopal Church is best adapted, by internal structure and external operations, to control and harmonize American society.
Ergo, the Protestant Episcopal Church will be the church of the future in our country.
The major premise of this syllogism is evidently sound. If the minor is reliable in fact as well as form, the conclusion is unmistakable. Our inquiry is thus reduced to this:
Whether the Protestant Episcopal Church is best adapted, by its internal structure and external operations, to control and harmonize American society?
The answer to this inquiry will unfold our own view of the matter now in issue, and will, we trust, set forth some of the principalcriteriaby which the church of the future may, at this day, be humanly discerned.
1. The "church of the future" is a "church of the people."
The American nation is now, and always must remain, in the strictest sense, "a people." The order of our political and civil institutions, the vast area of our territory and the unlimited susceptibility of its development, the achievements of art and mechanism by which alone that development can be secured, all necessitate, in the future, as in the present, a nation of working-men, homogeneous in principles, in intelligence, and in toil. Classes of society, except so far as based upon the accidents of personal friendship, cultivation, or locality, are practically now, and must hereafter become more and more, unknown. The distinctions by which its divisions in the Old World were created and maintained, lost the last hold upon America when slavery went down in the fierce tempest of the recent war. The proud prerogatives of race and birth are henceforth without value. Every man must receive himself from the hands of his Creator just as that Creator made him, and carve out for himself a destiny, limited only by his individual ambition, and by his fidelity to the end for which his life and independence were bestowed upon him.
Unfavorable as such a state of things may be for the extreme cultivation of the few, that the great masses gain immeasurably by it, is undeniable. A race of farmers, of mechanics, of tradesmen, of laborers, can never be illiterate, immoral, or impoverished.A race whose future embraces the population and political direction of a continent, into whose veins the choicest blood of the eastern hemisphere pours itself with an exhaustless tide, whose wisdom is the experience of six thousand years, and whose labors already testify to the vigor of its ripe and lusty manhood, must be a people in whose ranks each individual counts one, and by the overwhelming pressure of whose progress ignorance and pauperism must eventually disappear.
The church which gathers this grand race of the future into her bosom, and holds them by her spiritual hand, must, therefore, be a church adapted to the wants, the sympathies, the tastes of working-men. Its creed must be within the scope of their intelligence. Its worship must give form to their devotion. Its teaching must be simple, earnest, hearty, like themselves. Its pastoral care must be at once familiar, constant, and encouraging. Just what the so-called "masses" need to-day, in faith, in ceremony, in the pulpit, in the priest, will the whole nation seek for in those years of coming labor. Just that internal structure and external operation which now most fully and most readily supplies that need, will characterize that church which then absorbs the rest and guides and governs this great people in all heavenly things. And if, of all the clashing sects of Protestantism, there is one which is destined to occupy this exalted station, it is that one which is to-day the "church of the people," and whose trophies, won in warfare with the toiling multitudes of past and present generations, are the sure omens of complete and final victory.
Judged by this standard, what prospect has the Protestant Episcopal Church of becoming the "church of the future" in our country?
This question merits a most serious and thorough answer; not merely as a speculative problem, but as a matter eminently practical, affording a fair test of her divine commission, and of the quality of the spiritual workmanship which she performs. For this reason, we attempt to pass upon her no verdict of our own, but, turning to her best authorities, gather from them thedataof her progress, and the measure of her churchly capabilities.
The first few years of this half-century were a season of unusual prosperity to the Episcopal Church. From 1850 to 1856 the numerical increase of her membership far exceeded that of any former period. The ranks of her clergy gained largely in extent and influence. A spirit of unprecedented activity seemed aroused within her; and, above all, was manifested a disposition to rally round herself the other Protestant denominations, and unite them with her into one ecclesiastical body.
This disposition met with much encouragement from those outside her fold. Many who never yet had called themselves by any distinctive Christian name were attracted, by her dignity and order, to regard her as the most desirable of Protestant societies. Eminent "dissenters" looked to her for the solution of that entanglement of schism in which their various barks were already well-nigh overwhelmed. Large charity on both sides, and a full meeting of the issue upon her part, alone seemed necessary for the consummation of that "union" for which distracted Christendom had so long yearned and prayed.
It was her golden opportunity. The iron was hot for the hammer. The wheat was ripe for the harvest. The profound peace, which rested on the entire country, gave leisure for sedate and kindly inquiry. The spirit of organic life was kindling over all the land, and men were drawing into closer brotherhood, and prejudices waned and lost their power. It needed but a strong will and skilful hand to sweep away the few remaining obstacles, and the triumph of Episcopacy in this country might have been secured.
Perhaps the most startling of the events which marked this important period, and certainly the one which most clearly manifested its awakening vitality, was the presentation of aMemorialto the General Convention of 1853. Therein was suggested the important question, whether "the posture of our church with reference to the great moral and social necessities of the day" was all that could be desired or expected, and whether her usefulness might not, by specified means, be greatly enlarged.[Footnote 28]
[Footnote 28:Journalof 1853, p. 181,et seq.]
The convention referred the subject to a commission of bishops, which met six times during the interval between the date of its appointment and the convention of 1856. At its first meeting this commission published aCircular, propounding certain questions, and requesting answers to them, from any persons interested in the subject into whose hands the circulars might fall. A large number of communications were received in reply, both from Episcopal and non-Episcopal divines, most of which united in admitting the necessity for some decisive change, and in recommending the improvements suggested in theMemorialitself. At the general convention of 1856, the commission made their report, warning the church of the great popular destitution which surrounded her, and advising the adoption of extemporary preaching, the curtailment of the liturgical services, the employment of lay workers, the association of unmarried women into sisterhoods, the better training of her ministry, and the thorough Christian cultivation of the young, as the principal means by which her ability to meet these necessities might be extended. [Footnote 29]
[Footnote 29:Journalof 1856, p. 339. 1 1 tut. p. 204.]
The house of bishops therefore passed a series of resolutions, expressing their opinion that certain variations might be lawfully made in public worship, and appointing a "Commission on Church Unity" to confer with other churches as occasion might require. [Footnote 30]
[Footnote 30:Ibid. p 204.]
But no legislation followed. No practical recognition of the emergencies in which the nation lay, or of her urgent duty to meet the wants which cried so loudly for her interference, marked the proceedings of this chief council of the church. Not one of the important measures which theMemorialsuggested, which many leaders of the church recommended, and which the Episcopal commission had itself advised, received the sanction of her legislative will. On the contrary, at the next session of the convention, in 1859, a strong and determined effort was made, by the house of clerical and lay deputies, to move the house of bishops to rescind their resolutions, and permit the representative branch of the convention to take part in the discussion of the subject and in determining what steps should be adopted. This the bishops refused, [Footnote 31] and there the matter rested and still rests a solitary report of the "Commission on Church Unity" thatthey have done nothing[Footnote 32] alone marking the spot where the vast hopes and aspirations of theMemorialistsexhaled and disappeared.
[Footnote 31:Journalof 1859, pp. 55, 72, 100, 143.]
[Footnote 32:Ibid. p. 382.]
And thus the golden opportunity of Protestant Episcopalianism passed by. The terrible events which followed in the next six years, put far away that quiet calm in which religious differences grow dim, and love for God and man overcomes human pride. Through her own bisection intoConfederateandFederalher unifying influence has sustained a shock from which it will not, for long years, recover. Theevangelicalchurches have, at once, lost confidence in her disposition to meet them with a fair and open compromise, and in her separate ability to do the work which, in the providence of God, is placed before her; while her internal difficulties have augmented year by year, and rendered less and less likely the revival of that spirit which promised such achievements only fifteen years ago. Her golden opportunity passed by. But that hour of trial, in the great crucible of national emergencies, can never be forgotten, either by her friends or foes, and both will look to it for the disclosure of her real abilities, and for the revelation of her character, as human or divine.
TheMemorial, the report of the commission, and many of the communications which were received in answer to theCircular, were collected into one volume, and published by the Rt. Rev. Bishop Potter, of Pennsylvania, in 1857. For some reason, (which we never could explain,) the publication of this volume was soon afterward suspended, and such portions of that edition as could be reached were called in and destroyed. The last monuments of thegreat uprisingwere thus levelled with the dust; and, to-day, except for the few copies ofMemorial Paperswhich escaped destruction, and the scattered records ofConvention Journals,reliable statistics of that eventful period are almost unattainable.
Fortunately, however, we have these authorities at hand, and thus are able to try the Episcopal Church by her own evidence, and rest the truth or falsehood of her claims to be the "church of the people" on her own solemn and well-weighed admissions.
First, then, in theMemorialitself, which bears the date of October 14th, 1853, we find the following statement:
"The actual posture of our church, with reference to the great moral and social necessities of the day, presents to the minds of the undersigned a subject of grave and anxious thought. Did they suppose that this was confined to themselves, they would not feel warranted in submitting it to your attention; but they believe it to be participated in by many of their brethren, who may not have seen the expediency of declaring their views, or, at least, a mature season for such a course.
"The divided and distracted state of our American Protestant Christianity; the new and subtle forms of unbelief, adapting themselves with fatal success to the spirit of the age; the consolidated forces of Romanism, bearing with renewed skill and activity against the Protestant faith; and, as more or less the consequence of these, the utter ignorance of the gospel among so large a portion of the lower classes of our population, making a heathen world in our midst, are among the considerations which induce your memorialists to present the inquiry whether the period has not arrived for the adoption of measures, to meet these exigencies of the times, more comprehensive than any yet provided for by our present ecclesiastical system; in other words,whether the Protestant Episcopal Church, with only her present canonical means and appliances, her fixed and invariable modes of public worship, and her traditional customs and usages, is competent to the work of preaching and dispensing the gospel to all sorts and conditions of men, and so adequate to do the work of the Lord in this land and in this age? This question, your petitioners, for their own part, and in consonance with many thoughtful minds among us, believeMUST BE ANSWERED IN THE NEGATIVE." [Footnote 33]
[Footnote 33:Memorial Papers, p. 27, et seq.]
"The undersigned," who passed this severe and searching criticism upon the practical efficiency of the Episcopal Church, were such men as Dr. Muhlenberg, founder and chaplain of St. Luke's Hospital, New York; Dr. Crusé, librarian, and Drs. Turner and Johnson, professors at the General Theological Seminary; Drs. Bedell and Coxe, both since made bishops; Drs. Hobart and Higbee, of Old Trinity; Drs. Francis and A. H. Vinton, two of the most eminent of her parochial clergy; and Dr. Harwood, late professor at the Berkeley Seminary of Connecticut. Certainly no Episcopalian, either of that day or our own, could ask for more reliable authority.
Second, the report of the commission of the house of bishops, made to the convention of 1856, after some preliminary statements, thus continues:
"An examination into the relative increase of the various bodies of Christians in the United States within the last thirty years will exhibit some startling facts, which may well rouse us to serious considerations, and lead us to ask ourselves the questions, 'What have we been doing? and what shall we do?' We have been in the habit of looking merely at the increase of our ministers and members within given periods as the proper exponent of our growth, without considering how that increase compares with the rate of increase in the population at large. Making our estimate in this way—and it is the only accurate method to ascertain the ratio of our growth or increase as a church—it will be found that we are by no means keeping pace with the population of the countryin the provision we make for their religious instruction, to say nothing of our duty to heathen and foreign lands; that we are consequently falling very far below the measure of our responsibility, andthat our growth in the last half century, which has been dwelt upon with complacency, if not with a spirit of vainglory,furnishes matter of deep humiliation and shame, rather than of boasting." [Footnote 34]
[Footnote 34:Memorial Papers, p. 53, et seq.]
And again:
"Ministers are found, who yet do not minister; rectors who cannot govern; pastors who do not feed the flock; teachers send forth theological essays, for the instruction of the church, who might find better employment in studying the Bible and catechism, while the necessary means for maintaining religious services too often have to be wrung from those who appear reluctant to recognize it as a Christian obligation to give of their ability, as God has prospered them, with liberality, with cheerfulness, and with simplicity.On every side the complaint is heard, that the work of the church languishes, or is not done.' [Footnote 35]
[Footnote 35:Ibid. p. 58.]
The bishops over whose signatures these statements were made were Otey of Tennessee, Doane of New Jersey, Potter of Pennsylvania, Burgess of Maine, and Williams of Connecticut; all of whom, except the latter, have since closed their earthly career, leaving behind them reputations for prudence, learning, and earnestness in their official labors which are sacred in the heart of every member of the church over which they ruled.
Third, in the communications sent to the commission, in answer to theirCircular, the same sentiment prevails. The Rev. Dr. Craik, of Louisville, Ky., in speaking of the constitution of the apostolic church, remarks:
"Nearly the whole church has sanctioned the wisdom of this seemingly apostolic arrangement by imitating it. The refusal of the church in the United States to imitate it, has sanctioned its wisdom in another way,by our comparative failure to do the work of the church in this country." [Footnote 36]
[Footnote 36:Ibid. p. 232.]
The Rev. Dr. Gregory, of Syracuse, writes:
"It is said that the Episcopal Church is the church of the educated and the rich.This is soto a considerable extent, particularly in the cities." [Footnote 37]
[Footnote 37:Memorial Papers, p. 250. ]
Then, speaking of certain remedial measures, he continues:
"It cannot be done, in the present state of feeling—the pride of social distinction is against it; and all the canons and councils in Christendom cannot make a churchefficientin which this feeling prevails." [Footnote 38]
[Footnote 38:Ibid. p. 251.]
And again, in concluding, he says:
"The great body of our people are at ease—satisfied to have avalidministry, andvalidsacraments, and asoberliturgy, and aconservativeecclesiastical system. And the rest of the world haveno evidencethat wecarevery much about them." [Footnote 39]
[Footnote 39:Ibid. p. 254.]
The Rev. Dr. Howe, of Philadelphia, declares:
"Having been through my whole ministry (now of more than twenty-two years continuance) in a position to observe the relation of our church to the middling and lower classes as they are found in and around great cities, I cannot forbear the confession that we do not, by the authorized appliances of the church, reach and interest them. Individuals of these classes, by the force of early association, or a refinement of taste unusual in their sphere, do retain or acquire a strong attachment to our worship, and derive unspeakable benefits from its use. But the fact is too glaring to be denied, that mechanics and laboring men are not in any considerable numbers reckoned among our people; and pastors who will expose the truth in this behalf, must confess that of those who are reared among us to these industrial pursuits very many desert the church, and find religious associations more acceptable to them among other denominations. This is too general to be attributed to the unfaithfulness of ministers. There must be some lack in the system of means under which such disastrous issues occur." [Footnote 40]
[Footnote 40:Ibid. p. 255.]
These are but a few out of the many writers whose communications were collected into the volume before alluded to, and even those were few in number, when compared with those whose letters were omitted from lack of room. Of these, Bishop Potter, in hisIntroduction, says:
"A large proportion plead for change in one or more respects more earnestly than most of those inserted;" [Footnote 41]
[Footnote 41:Memorial Papers, p. ix.]
and then significantly adds:
"That a spirit of self-depreciation and of change for the mere sake of change is not that to which as a communion we are most obnoxious." [Footnote 42]
[Footnote 42:Ibid. p. ix.]
Fourth, at the same general con before which theMemorialwas first discussed, another document was presented, in tone and application almost exactly similar, which forms a valuable corroboration of the statements which we have already cited. This was the report of the Committee on the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society, of which the Rev. Dr. Stevens, now Bishop of Pennsylvania, was chairman. In this report the following occurs:
"Not only have we to deal with these multitudes of emigrants, spreading their ignorance, their irreligion, and their superstitions over the land, but we should also carefully provide for another and deeply interesting class, those who come to us from countries and churches holding like principles of ecclesiastical polity and Christian faith, the sons of Sweden, and the children of the Church of England, and the brethren from Moravia. …Thousands of emigrants from these foreign churches, who, if properly looked after, would unite themselves to our church, are lost to us, and either relapse into infidelity or unite themselves with the sects around them, because we make no effort to win them to our bosom." [Footnote 43]
[Footnote 43:Journalof 1853, pp. 80, 81. ]
The report then calls attention to the new missionary fields opening in the West, and says:
"Every other evangelical denomination in the land has gone before us in this matter, and the Romish Church has planted bishops, clergy, schools, churches, convents, and colleges, while we have been debating about one bishop and two or three ministers. As in too many previous instances, our church has been too much stiffened with dignity to run, like the prophet, before the chariot of some political or commercial Ahab, but, like a laggard in the race, treads daintily and slowly in others' footsteps, and then, when almost too late, discovers her error." [Footnote 44]
[Footnote 44:Journalof 1853, p. 81.]
Such was the deliberate verdict of the bishops and the leading clergy of the Protestant Episcopal Church, concerning her efficiency, during and prior to the year 1856. Such was the intensity of the conviction which forced itself upon the minds of committees and conventions, and swept from one end of her communion to the other, that, without great changes in her mode of dealing with the masses of our people, no considerable influence over them could ever be obtained. It is no wonder that Bishop Upfold should have written, concerning these admissions, that
"Her worst enemies could not have said a worse thing of the church; and,if it be true, involves a cogent argument for at once abandoning a church so radically and essentially defective in its organization and working agencies." [Footnote 45]
[Footnote 45:Memorial Papers, p. 189.]
Surely if evidence of any kind could satisfy us that, at any time at least, the Episcopal Church was not adapted, by internal structure and external operations, to control and harmonize American society, the evidence which theMemorialmovement thus elicited, has done it. If it ever has been, or can ever be, made manifest that any given church is not the "Church of the People," it was then demonstrated that the Protestant Episcopal Church is not so.
Since that golden epoch twelve years have passed away. That the people of America have materially changed, either in intelligence or religious feeling; that their necessities are lessened or more easily supplied, no one will venture to assert. All the world knows that the spiritual destitution of the nation has increased, and that the same means which failed to relieve it then meet with like failure now. All the world knows that the Protestant Episcopal Church is the same dignified and stolid organization, moving on in the same beaten track, its ponderous and cumbersome machinery revolving heavily round the same well-worn axis, and limited on every side by clamps and bands, which tremulous conservatism dare not offer to unloose.
The records to which we have heretofore referred show also that, in both of these particulars, all the world is right. Not one of the measures advocated by theMemorialistshas ever been adopted. No law has ever passed, requiring that her clergy preach instead of read. No general attempt has yet been made to organize the lay element, either male or female, into a body of efficient laborers. No change has taken place in the canon which requires that upon every occasion of public worship the Prayer-book, and it only, should be used. And, worse than this, no disposition to so modify existing modes of labor as to secure their wider range or surer efficacy has ever since been manifested. Even when, at the convention of 1865, a memorial was presented, signed by nearly fifty leading clergymen, repeating the statements of theMemorialof 1853, and praying for the institution of an association of "Evangelists," in the hope that "these statements may be so regarded as to secure to the church the important instrumentalities." … "which were never more urgently demanded than at the present time," the house of bishops coolly resolved that "it was not expedient to entertain the subject" and the other house tacitly concurred in the decision. [Footnote 46]
[Footnote 46:Journalof 1865, pp. 361, 190.]
If, in the face of facts like these, we judge of the future by the present and the past, what shall we say? Is there a hope that, in that mighty era when this great continent shall swarm with prosperous, intelligent, industrious millions, a church, which during a whole century, with every advantage of respectability and wealth, has met with such signal failure, shall rise into supremacy? Is there a probability great enough to justify our serious contemplation that a church, whose claim to be the "Church of the People" is thus denied by that unerring voice of history which is the echo of the voice of God, should be the "Church of the Future" in our country?
We know no better answer to these questions than the thrilling exhortation given by the venerable Dr. Muhlenberg to the Memorial Commission concerning their own duty to their church:
"Bid her," said he, "look over this vast continent, filling with people of all nations and languages and tongues, and see the folly of hoping to perpetuate among them anAnglicancommunion, that will ever be recognized as aught more than an honorable sect. Bid her give over the vain attempt to cast all men's minds into one mould.
"Bid her cherish among her own members mutual tolerance of opinion in doctrine, and taste in worship; remembering that uniform sameness in lesser matters may be the ambition of a society, a party, a school in the church, but is far below any genuine aspirations of the church herself. It is the genius of Catholicism which is now knocking at her doors. Let her refuse to open. Let her, if she will, make them faster still with new bolts and bars, and then take her rest, to dreama wilder dream than any of the Memorial of becoming the Catholic Church of these United States." [Footnote 47]
[Footnote 47:Memorial Papers, p. 288.]
The conclusions to which the experience of a hundred years has thus directed us will be extended and confirmed by an examination of certain characteristics which the "Church of the Future," as a "Church of the People," must necessarily present, and by a comparison of these with the internal structure and external operations of the Episcopal Church. In the course of this examination we shall also probably discover the causes from which the past failures of the latter have resulted, and the means by which she might adapt herself more fully to the wants of the country and the age, if, in fact, such adaptation were any longer possible. Therefore we proceed:
II. The "Church of the Future" is a church of stability in principle and flexibility in operation.
The work of the church of God upon the earth is to teach and govern men. The truth, by which alone the intellect can be enlightened, the law, by which alone the heart and life can be subjected to the will of God, are both entrusted to her keeping. Doctrine informing and directing discipline, discipline realizing and preserving doctrine—such is the system by which her Lord commanded her to subdue the world, and by which to this day the world has been subdued.
The people whose church the "Church of the Future" is to be, and of whom, as its members, it must be composed, will be afreepeople. The race from which they spring long ago recognized, as fundamental truth, that the will of the people is the highest law, and every civil and political institution which is or is to be derives its origin and permanence from the sole fiat of the citizen. There is no power above it by which its errors may be corrected or its excesses be restrained.The popular vote is the tribunal from whose decision there can be no appeal. The ballot-box is the throne of state, from which supreme authority comes down only to take up the thunderbolts of war.
The sturdy independence which results from such a national cultivation will place a burden of no common order upon the church into whose hands the control and unification of American society must fall. The bearer of divine illumination, the custodian of unalterable truth, the spiritual government of the people, will be also on her shoulders; and she must be able to withstand not only persecution from without, but the more dangerous assaults of innovation and revolt within. She must haveno capacity for compromise. The organic principle which binds into one body her integral elements must be beyond the power of popular tumult to disturb or political dissensions to destroy. In every storm and tempest she must be immovable, and, with a will of divine firmness and an arm of godlike might, must bend the tempest and control the storm.
Again, the people over whom the "Church of the Future" will extend its sway embraces men of every nation, color, class, and tongue. The offspring of the African, the Saxon, and the Indian dwell here together with the children of the Hebrew, the Mongolian, the Teuton, and the Celt. Religions of all forms offer contemporaneous and discordant worship to their several divinities. Prejudices of every complexion and against every truth mingle in the religious atmosphere. Vices of every name, grown, through long apathy or longer ignorance, into a second nature, contaminate the public heart. Every possible diversity of ideas, of tastes, of impossibilities, is found among them, and, under all, the same great wants, the same unceasing aspirations, the same formless void.
The church which heals the spiritual wounds of such a people must both possess and use appliances of infinite variety. Herpharmacopoeiamust contain all remedies which ever have been suitable to man. Her learning and ability must extend to their appropriate selection and bestowal. She must, indeed, be "all things to all men," high with the high and lowly with the low, wise with the learned and simple with the ignorant, firm with the headstrong and gentle with the meek, sublime with the imaginative, cold with the severe, in every way adapting the method of her operations to the dispositions of the people whom she seeks to save, if by any means their salvation may be made secure.
Thus, in herself immovable, eternal, and in her labors as flexible and various as the needs she must supply, the "Church of the Future" will not only conquer, but wherever and whatever she has conquered she will thenceforth unceasingly retain.
But can the church which does this be the Episcopal Church? Let us test her immobility of principles. Let us measure the flexibility of her operations. The result will teach us much that is worth learning, and should not be without its influence on her.
The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States consists "of thirty-four confederated dioceses, under the care of bishops, using the same liturgy, and yielding obedience" to the same canon law. [Footnote 48] The organic principle by which this confederation was originated and has been maintained is a written constitution. [Footnote 49] Its organic life is manifested through a general convention, in which the supreme legislative and judicial authority of the whole church resides.
[Footnote 48:Church Almanacfor 1867, p. 17.]
[Footnote 49: Law writers define a "constitution" as either a "limitation" or a "grant" of power. Did the general convention of 1789, in adopting the constitution of the Episcopal Church, therebygrantto the church of Christ, or to any part thereof, powers of which it was previously destitute, or limit powers which Christ himself conferred upon it? Or, on the contrary, is not the idea of a "constitution" essentially repugnant to the idea of the Christian church?]