was rather exult ine.lv proclaimed in a letter to the A"</''
York Tribune, by Dr. John Henry Hopkins (just after
the convention of 1*77 had adjourned', that the result of the war against the Bystem, of which he i- one of the ablest advocates, " is victory all along the line for the ritualistic advance, and that this victory i- so complete that the renewal of hostilities hereafter is hop a party, it is certain that the ritualists have shown themselves to he bold, confident, energetic, and full of zeal iii behalf ot i he cause w huh they have undertaken to maintain. In the American Church they arc prob- ably not so numerous in proportion a- in the ( huivh of England; but. as an offset to this, it is to be noted that they have enlisted in their ranks numbers of the younger clergy, and. in view "t what they have already aco m- plished, they not unnaturally look forward to ultimate and corapli te success. The bishops, to w bom are com- mitted the oversight and regulation of this whole mat- ter under the canon, are iii a rather difficult and delicate
position. A-. on the one baud, they are compelled to
tolerate much i hat i- regarded aa d< fective and in viola- tion of the plain meaning of the rubrics and canons, so.
PROTESTANT EPISC. CHURCH 683 PROTESTANT EPISC. CHURCH
on the other, they may reasonably be expected to shrink from pressing too severely upon those who carry ritual- istic practices to more or less of excess. The opinion may here be expressed — simply as an opinion, without reference to the merits of the questions at issue — that ritualism has had its day, and that, while it may be ad- mitted that considerable, perhaps even great, good has resulted and may yet further result from this movement, it will not be likely again to assume any special promi- nence in the history of the Protestant Episcopal Church. The bringing of this topic before the reader in con- tinuous order, from its rise to the present time, has necessarily led to the omission of a number of interest- ing historical facts and incidents in the progress of the Church of late years: these are herewith succinctly presented in their proper sequence and connection. On a previous page has been noted the action of the General Convention on the subject of liturgical relax- ation and Church comprehension. This was in 1856 and 1859. At the convention of 1868 various "me- morials" were presented pleading for larger latitude in the use of the Prayer-book. This was reported against by the House of Bishops, and the following resolution •was unanimously adopted : " Resolved, That, in the opin- ion of this house, such latitude in the use of the Book of Common Prayer as the memorialists ask could not be allowed with safety, or with proper regard to the rights of our congregations." In 1874 the question of short- ened services came up, but no definite action was had. The convention expressed its sense by resolution sim- ply. - That nothing in the present order of Common Prayer prohibits the separation, when desirable, of the Morning Prayer, the Litany, and the Order for the Ad- ministration of the Lord's Supper into distinct services, which may be used independently of each other, and either of them without the others: provided that when used together they be used in the same order as that in which they have commonly been used and in which they stand in the Book of Common Prayer." At the next convention (October, 1877), the committee on canons in the House of Deputies reported in favor of an "order concerning divine service," more especially for shorter services on other days than Sundays and the greater festivals and fasts. To this the bishops declined to agree, and by general .consent a joint committee was appointed to sit during the recess on the matter of pro- viding shortened services, by rubric or otherwise, this committee to report in 1880. — In a country such as ours, where the laws regulating marriage and divorce differ considerably in different states, this subject must necessarily cause much perplexity and annoyance to the clergy, unless they have some law of the Church to guide and control their action. This was long felt throughout the Protestant Episcopal Church, and in hope of some remedy or aid the matter was brought be- fore the General Convention of 1868. A canon was en- acted forbidding a clergyman to solemnize matrimony where there is a divorced wife or husband of either party still living, with a proviso in favor of the inno- cent party in a divorce for the cause of adulter}'. In 1877 the canon was put in its present shape, as follows : '•No minister, knowingly after due inquiry, shall sol- emnize the marriage of any person who has a divorced husband or wife still living, if such husband or wife has been put away for any cause arising after marriage: but this canon shall not be held to apply to the innocent party in a divorce for the cause of adultery, or to parties once divorced seeking to be united again. If any min- ister of this Church shall have reasonable cause to doubt whether a person desirous of being admitted to holy baptism, or to confirmation, or to the holy communion. has been married otherwise than as the Word of God and discipline of this Church allow, such minister, be- fore receiving such person to these ordinances, shall re- fer the case to the bishop for his godly judgment there- upon : provided, however, that no minister shall, in any case, refuse the sacraments to a penitent person in im-