網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

Pennsylvania; Milnor and Channing Moore in New York; McIlvain in Brooklyn ; Henshaw and Johns in Baltimore; Tyng, Bristed, and Crocker in New England. The theological seminary in Virginia was made a stronghold of the party; and in the same State it had perhaps its most illustrious leader, — the deeply pious, eloquent and earnest William Meade.1 At the same time a High Church party was being formed, the ablest leader of which was Henry Hobart, who became AssociateBishop of New York in 1811 and shortly afterwards took full charge of the diocese. Bishop Ravenscroft, of North Carolina, was an advocate of High-Church principles in the South. Much of the zeal of the Evangelicals was expended in foreign missions, while a chief part in home missions was relegated to the High-Church party. This enabled the latter to give its impress to many of the new churches in the West, and worked toward its relative advancement in the country.

In correspondence with the predilections of these two parties, the Oxford, or Tractarian, movement was diversely judged. Bishop McIlvain, speaking for the Evangelicals, pronounced it “a systematic abandonment of the vital and distinguishing principles of the Protestant faith, and a systematic adoption of that very root and heart of Romanism whence has issued the life of all its ramified corruptions and deformities." 2 On the other hand, there were some in the High Church ranks who were ready to espouse and defend the Tractarian standpoint. The Romanizing tendency of their agency was soon manifest. Still, the number of those

1

Perry, History of the American Episcopal Church, ii., 191–193. 2 Oxford Divinity, 1841.

[ocr errors]

who formally betook themselves to the Romish Church was not large. The effect of the apostasy of Bishop Ives, of North Carolina, was much qualified by the unseemly evasions which preceded his withdrawal, and which presented his character in a very unenviable light. Some of the lower clergy took the path to Rome, numbering, from first to last, perhaps fifty priests and deacons.1

In its American environment the Episcopal Church could reap only a doubtful advantage from the intensified ecclesiasticism and denominational exclusiveness which were fostered by Tractarian doctrines. As if conscious of the need of some offset, a party began to agitate near the middle of the century for an enlargement of the practical activity of the Church, and, to this end, for such an increase of liberty in the forms of public worship as would be inviting to those who had any thought of ministering at Episcopalian altars. In behalf of this project, a number of men, headed by W. A. Muhlenberg, presented a memorial to the assembled bishops in 1853. In this paper it is declared that a wider door ought to be opened for admission to the gospel ministry ; that men who are well qualified to be able ministers of the New Testament ought not to be debarred from exercising their gifts within the Episcopalian communion for the sake of conformity in matters that are unessential; and that in granting this reasonable latitude the Church would be taking an important step towards the effecting of a church unity in the Protestant Christendom of the land. The memorial was respectfully entertained by the bishops in general, and was specially appreciated by Alonzo Potter, Bishop of Pennsylvania. At the time, however, little was done for the fulfilment of its intent.

1 Perry, History of the American Episcopal Church, ii. 290.

The quiescent attitude of the Episcopal Church on the subject of slavery left her Southern members without any ground of disaffection. Slave-holding was never made by her a matter of discipline, though some of her children severely censured this neutrality in face of what they considered a great moral evil. While, therefore, the Civil War precipitated a separation, it was only

a temporary. The collapse of the Southern confederacy left the way open for restored fellowship. Already at the General Convention of 1865 representatives from the South were present and were received as if no rupture had occurred.

As in England it required an interval for Tractarian doctrine to flower forth in ritualistic practice of the more advanced, or Romish type, so also in the United States. Special attention was called to this kind of practice in 1866, and it became a chief item of debate in several General Conventions. Definite legislation was first reached in 1874, when a canon was passed in condemnation of practices defined as unauthorized and symbolical of erroneous or doubtful doctrines, such as: " (1) The elevation of the elements in the Holy Communion in such a manner as to expose them to the view of the people, as objects toward which adoration is to be made. (2) Any act of adoration of or toward the elements in the Holy Communion, such as bowings, prostrations, or genuflections. (3) All other like acts not authorized by the rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer.” In the preceding year the Assistant-Bishop of Kentucky, George D. Cummins, offended by the apparent advance of ritualism and High Church tendencies in the Episcopalian body, had withdrawn. Under his auspices the “ Reformed Episcopal Church” was insti. tuted, in which ritual is kept within moderate limits, and all sacerdotal and ultra-sacramental theories are discarded. As yet it has not won a large following.

The plea for action in the direction of unity which Muhlenberg and others urged in the memorial of 1853 has been responded to recently in a proposal for the reunion of Christendom on the basis of certain specified terms. As revised by the Lambeth Conference, representing the Church of England and her daughters, these terms are as follows: (1) The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as containing all things necessary to salvation, and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith. (2) The Apostles' Creed as the baptismal symbol, and the Nicene Creed as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith. (3) The two sacraments ordained by Christ Himself - Baptism and the Supper of the Lord — ministered with unfailing use of Christ's words of institution, and of the elements ordained by Him. (4) The historic episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the unity of His Church.” The element of ambiguity in these specifications evidently lies mainly in the fourth. The “historic episcopate” may mean more or less. If it means that there is no valid ministry, no legitimate ecclesiastical standing outside of the so-called “apostolic succession,” then a vast preliminary work must be accomplished before this union scheme can have the least chance of adoption. A mere willingness to absorb is not likely to be met by a willingness to be absorbed.

Somewhat of a test of the animus of the Episcopal Church was furnished in the election of Phillips Brooks to the episcopate and his confirmation in the office in 1891. Personally the candidate was of a character to invite a unanimous suffrage, being second to no contemporary representative of the American pulpit in respect of his fame as a great preacher, - a man of commanding presence, inspiring address, and unusual resources for an ever fresh development of Scriptural themes. But he was known also to be a man of very liberal sentiments, insomuch that he was classified with the Broad Church. That his elevation to the episcopate was stoutly opposed by some of his brethren shows that one wing of the denomination regards the High Church ideal as among things most sacred and essential. On the other hand, the fact that a man of his stamp could be elected and confirmed may be taken as an omen that the High Church movement is not soon to win complete ascendency in the Protestant Episcopal Church.

[ocr errors]

7. LUTHERANS. — The slow progress of the Lutheran Church in the early part of the nineteenth century was succeeded later by a rapid advance. Extensive immigrations from Germany and the Scandinavian countries gave to it a great expansion in the Western States, so that now it ranks among the larger communions.

From the time that the Lutheran Church occupied any considerable stretch of territory it has subsisted in a number of divisions, some of the synods declining to

« 上一頁繼續 »