New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-03-18
THE LATE EPISCOPAL ELECTIONS.

TIE LATE EPISCOPAL ELECTIONS.
The adverse vote Of the Standing Commit
| tees of the Protestant Episcopal Church on the
question of the confirmation of the Rev. DR..
| De Koven as Bishop of Illinois will no doubt
| be considered the most serious advantage that
the Low Church patty have gained in their
contests with the alleged Ritualists. 1t is very
apparent that the Ritualistic issue was upper
most in the minds of nearly every Standing
| Committee passing upon the Illinois election
Indeed a better test of the relative strength of
the two great parties in the Church could hardly
have been devised. There were no important
side issues. The candidate is honored through
| out the country by other denominations as
well as his own, for rare scholarship, purity
of character, and oratorical ability; while even
many of those who opposed his confirmation
most stoutly, admit that his executive talent
is of the kind peculiarly. necessary for the
arduous and often delicate duties of Bish-
opric Aside from his reputcd sympathy with
| Ritualsts and Ritualsm no objection was
urged against him unincumbored in this re-
spcct, the ratification Of his election would
have been almost undisputed. Nor is this all /;
his very election by the Diocesan Convention
seemed to be Il protest against Prof Seymours
rejection on the same grounds, and down.
right challenge to the Low Church party to
show their strength on an appeal from the
| General Council to the Church at large. DR..
| De Koven's views were almost as pronounced
| as Prof Seymour's lie had been twice before
| nominated for the Bishopric-in Massachu-
sets and Wisconsin-and each time had been
~ hy fba NyNtn of ho
anti Ritualists. 1t was stated by the
| Chicago papers that, no accepted the
honor at the hands of the Illinois Convention
| with the express understanding that the cleo
ton was intended as vindication of the
| former action of that Convention III the choice
Of Prof Seymour.
Here then was battle fairly joined; and that
the importance of the decision was generally
understood is shown by the unexampled in
terest in the progress of the vote IN the
Standing. Committees. The result is evidence
az conclusive rs may be that the Ritualists or
| tolerators of Rituaism are a mincrlty-apd a
small minority at that-in the Protestant
Episcopal Church in the United States.
We are not sufficiently advised of
the details Of the vote to give
an analytical statement of it, but the data
before us indicate that the opposition to DR..
De Koven was principally, though far from
entirely, among the laty. This fact is con-
| frnatory of the belief that Rtualism has less
strength with the laity than with the clergy;
particularly when it is remembered that the
adverse vote Oh the confirmation Of DR.. Jag
car. who was opposed for presumed sympathy
with the Low Church party, was largely
modo M of clerical members of the Standing
| Committees.
Dr. De Koven's rejection and DR.. Jaggars
confirmation will, upon the whole, We think,
rebound to the welfare of the Church of
which they are beloved and honored members,
while the result in either case will dctract not
q whit from the esteem III which the candl-
dates are held. Unquestionably the greatest
| dissatisfaction has existed in. the Low Church
party, whose dread Of Rituaistic teachings and
practices has led them to assume an aggressive
rather than defensive attitude during the
last few years. They have been anxious to
relieve. the Church from what they con-
slider the Odium Of R0manizlng tendencies, and
| to preserve its unity by concessions to those
whose offended conscences would make it a
serious question whether they ought to con-
tinue in their present church RELATIONSHIP the
event of the election to the Bishopric of a
man of such advanced views as are held by
DR.. De Koven. The rcady-open door OF the
Reformed Episcopal Church would in that case
have received not few such persons. But 1t
may now be said by moderate Churchmen that
no plausible excuse can DO given for
secession. While the Church allows
the largest liberty of conscience in the
Interpretation of tho Prayer-Bool, it has pos
itively refused to place men of reputcd
Ritualistic tendencies in positions where their
teachings or their practices might be subver-
siye of conservative churchmauship. No doubt
| this view of the matter will strengthen the
allegiance of many wavering Churchmen. On
the other hand, the allegiance of the Ritual
lists will not DO shaken, for on their
side, although there have been occasional
| departures in the direction Of Rome, there has
| been no manifestation of the desire Of any
considerable number of either clergy or laty
| to put themselves without the pale Of the
Church, whatever might be the issue OF tho
episcopal elections. The Rtualistic cOntro-
yeray will DO continued in conventions and