im it?,;;,: 
 
 
 
 fe 
 
 p'¥?- 
 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of tliis book is in 
 tine Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924029456542 
 
olin 
 
 3 1924 029 456 542 
 
THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED 
 
 BY A REFERENCE TO 
 
 THE HISTORY 
 
 ORIGIN, PERPETUATION AND EXTENSION 
 
 INTO 
 
 THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 A NEW SE VISED EDITION. 
 
 ,, ,-i BY THE 
 
 REV. W.'D?^ WILSON, D.D., LL.D., L.H.D., 
 
 PROFESSOR EMERITUS OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY, AND 
 
 DEAN OF ST. ANDREW'S DIVINITY SCHOOL, 
 
 SYBACUSE, NEW YOSK. 
 
 NEW YORK! 
 
 JAMES POTT & CO., PUBLISHERS, 
 
 14 AND 16 AsTOR Place. 
 
 1888. 
 
Copyright, 1888, 
 By James Pott & Co. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 It Is now very nearly forty years since the first draft 
 of this book was given to the public. Since that time 
 quite a number of editions, or issues, have been sent 
 forth, and still the book is in demand — though it has 
 been out of print for several years. 
 
 In preparing this edition for the press, the recollec- 
 tion of the time ajjd scene when the first idea of the 
 work occurred, has been constantly in my mind. It 
 was a pleasant day in September, 1 848, in the modest 
 parsonage of my quiet little parish in Sherburne. 
 Several students, who were in pursuit of theological 
 training, had sought me out there. Among them 
 were, H. B. Whipple, now Bishop of Minnesota ; Os- 
 
8 PREFACE. 
 
 good E. Herrick, now Chaplain at Fortress Monroe ; 
 James A. Robinson, an honored Presbyter in Central 
 New York, and the Rev. Theodore M. Bishop, D.D., 
 now gone to his rest and his reward among the saints 
 of God. 
 
 We had been talking of one or more of the occa- 
 sional sermons that were so abundant at that time, 
 which urged the claims of the Church on the ground 
 of the divine institution of Episcopacy — the necessity 
 for the Apostolic Succession, and such like topics. I 
 arose from my chair, and walking the room, said, it 
 seems to me that these men are all mistaking the 
 proper course. What they advocate is well enough, 
 but they are insisting on one or another of the Notes 
 of the Church ; whereas, what we want is the Church 
 identified — and discriminated from among the varying 
 sects around us — the Church itself, and not any one 
 or all of its Notes. 
 
 Bishop Whipple, having just come into the Church 
 from among the Congregationalists, grasped the idea 
 
PREFACE. 9 
 
 at once, and it was decided that I should proceed to 
 develop it in some articles in the Churchman, which 
 was then edited by the Rev. Dr. Samuel Seabury. 
 
 I suppose that every one who has any earnest be- 
 lief in Christ, sees and feels the necessity of belonging 
 to some Church, and, doubtless, he feels that it is bet- 
 ter to belong to that Church which our Lord founded, 
 if he can only find what it is, and where it is, than to 
 any other. I suppose that most people would be will- 
 ing to sacrifice a good deal of what they may happen 
 to prefer as a matter of taste, or of judgment even, for 
 the sake of the certainty that they were in that com- 
 munion and fellowship which he founded, and which 
 he declared " should last forever — the gates of hell 
 should not prevail against it." 
 
 In the early days of the Church, in the times which 
 we read of in the New Testament, there was no diffi- 
 culty in identifying that Church. Hence the severity 
 of the terms in which not only divisions in it, but se- 
 cessions /ww it, and the getting up of rival communi- 
 
10 PREFACE. 
 
 ties outside of it, to draw men into that which is not 
 the fellowship of Christ, are spoken of 
 
 But in these latter days the case is widely different. 
 No one can identify the Church among the many 
 bodies or denominations that present their claims, by 
 any minute comparison of them in detail, with the de- 
 scription given in the New Testament. In fact, there 
 seems to most persons to be a singular and most un- 
 accountable- absence of any minute description or de- 
 tail of the Church organization of those days. And 
 yet we read that there is one Body, that is the Church, 
 as well as one Faith and one Baptism; and what deep- 
 ens the impression of the reader of the Scriptures in 
 regard to this subject is, the fact that there are not 
 only exhortations and entreaties to preserve the unity 
 of the Body, but also statements of the nature and 
 danger of the divisions that might arise, and warnings 
 of the peril of those who allow themselves to be led 
 into these evils. Heresy and schism are classed 
 among the works of the flesh, in the exhortations to 
 a holy life, by the writers of the New Testament. 
 
PREFACE. 11 
 
 I have said very little by way of describing or de- 
 fending the special features of the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church in the United States. There may be some 
 things in it that are wrong ; and doubtless there are 
 many that may be improved. But the fact of con- 
 stant experience shows that many things which, to 
 those who are outside of it appear objectionable, are 
 seen in quite a different light when once they have 
 been fully admitted to its communion. 
 
 Since the body of this book was in type I have re- 
 ceived the following: "One of the oldest of our Bish- 
 ops says that within the last thirty years over twelve 
 hundred ordained preachers from the denominations 
 around us have been received into our Ministry. 
 During the last year, thirty have been reported : from 
 the Methodists eight, Congregationalists four. Baptists 
 four, Reformed Episcopalians two, Presbyterians three, 
 Universalists one, not indicated four." 
 
 There are but few, if any, who do not at times at 
 least, feel the need of spiritual counsel and guidance. 
 
10 PREFACE. 
 
 ties outside of it, to draw men into that which is not 
 
 the fellowship of Christ, are spoken of 
 
 But in these latter days the case is widely different. 
 No one can identify the Church among the many 
 bodies or denominations that present their claims, by 
 any minute comparison of them in detail, with the de- 
 scription given in the New Testament. In fact, there 
 seems to most persons to be a singular and most un- 
 accountable- absence of any minute description or de- 
 tail of the Church organization of those days. And 
 yet we read that there is one Body, that is the Church, 
 as well as one Faith and one Baptism; and what deep- 
 ens the impression of the reader of the Scriptures in 
 regard to this subject is, the fact that there are not 
 only exhortations and entreaties to preserve the unity 
 of the Body, but also statements of the nature and 
 danger of the divisions that might arise, and warnings 
 of the peril of those who allow themselves to be led 
 into these evils. Heresy and schism are classed 
 among the works of the flesh, in the exhortations to 
 a holy life, by the writers of the New Testament. 
 
PREFACE. \\ 
 
 I have said very little by way of describing or de- 
 fending the special features of the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church in the United States. There may be some 
 things in it that are wrong ; and doubtless there are 
 many that may be improved. But the fact of con- 
 stant experience shows that many things which, to 
 those who are outside of it appear objectionable, are 
 seen in quite a different light when once they have 
 been fully admitted to its communion. 
 
 Since the body of this book was in type I have re- 
 ceived the following: "One of the oldest of our Bish- 
 ops says that within the last thirty years over twelve 
 hundred ordained preachers from the denominations 
 around us have been received into our Ministry. 
 During the last year, thirty have been reported : from 
 the Methodists eight, Congregationalists four, Baptists 
 four, Reformed Episcopalians two, Presbyterians three, 
 Universalists one, not indicated four." 
 
 There are but few, if any, who do not at times at 
 least, feel the need of spiritual counsel and guidance. 
 
12 PREFACE. 
 
 as well as the fellowship and sympathy of kindred 
 spirits. And, doubtless, all things that are needed for 
 the soul's health and welfare, are to be found in the 
 Church, if we can only find the Church itself God 
 help us to find it, and to find in its communion and 
 fellowship that peace of mind and help of the Spirit 
 which we all need. 
 
 May these considerations prevail more and more, 
 until we all come in the unity of the Faith, the bond 
 of peace, and righteousness of life, to the fullness of 
 the stature of perfect men in Christ Jesus our Lord. 
 
 Syracuse, March, 1888. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 Introduction ,. vj 
 
 CHAPTER n. 
 The Method Stated and Illustrated 31 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 The Church Before the Reformation 58 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 The Reformation in England 96 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 Sects Since the Reformation 128 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 The Church of England Since the Reformation, 177 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 The Church in the United States 208 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 The Identity of Spirit 255 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 The Effects of Sectarianism 292 
 
THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The account of the cure of the woman with a fatal 
 and foul disease of long standing, by our Lord, by the 
 mere " touch of the hem of his garment," is one of 
 the most interesting and tender of all the narratives in 
 the Holy Scriptures. It is recorded by all three of the 
 evangelists that profess to give a historical account of 
 the words and deeds of his life, St. Matthew, St. Mark 
 and St. Luke.' And the two of them, who most 
 probably were not present when the miracle was per- 
 formed — St. Mark and St. Luke, — have taken pains to 
 give prominence to a fact that is not mentioned by the 
 others, namely : that our Lord himself did not know 
 of the cure until after it had been effected. 
 , This poor girl had spent all the money she had, on 
 physicians ; she had tried all the natural meansj and 
 was " nothing better, but rather grew worse." She 
 
 ' Matt, ix, 24 ; Mark v, 24 ; Luke viii, 44. 
 2 
 
18 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 had heard of our Lord ; and this shy, believing wo- 
 man thought within herself, that if she could but 
 " touch the hem of his garment, she should be made 
 whole." We may even suppose that she was unwill- 
 ing, in her humility, to so much as give him the 
 trouble to but " speak the word," that she might be 
 healed. 
 
 And, doubtless, such has been the experience of 
 many more. Mere faith in him has a transforming 
 power over the souls of them that believe. Somehow 
 or other, no one can really believe in him witlujut ex- 
 periencing a power from on high, that elevates the 
 soul. This poor girl had, doubtless, done all that she 
 knew, or had the means of knowing, to be necessary 
 to her cure. She believed, and touched the hem of 
 his garment, and "virtue went out of him," out of his 
 very nature, to heal and to save. And such, it would 
 seem, is the case with the thousands, who, in their ig- 
 norance of what our Lord has required of them that 
 would be saved. They have done what they could, 
 and are healed. 
 
 But such is not the case with us. We have the 
 Scriptures in our hands, and are able to read them. 
 Faith in Christ, as our Lord and Saviour, produces 
 love to his person. And faith and love will surely 
 produce the most earnest desire of obedience to his 
 blessed will. I say nothing now of the fact of obedi- 
 ence, I speak rather of the spirit and disposition to 
 obey, in all things, his will, so far as that is, or may 
 be made, known to us, as being necessary as a means 
 and condition of forgiveness and salvation. I speak 
 
INTRODUCTION. 19 
 
 of obedience only as a necessary outgrowth and ac- 
 companiment of faith and love ; and, surely, love and 
 obedience, or rather the disposition to obey, are the 
 necessary outcome and fruit of faith. They are, per- 
 haps, the only means that we can have for practically 
 distinguishing between a living faith and a "dead 
 faith," which is of no value. 
 
 If, then, we turn to the Bible, we read in our Lord's 
 own words of the requirement of baptism. " He that 
 believeth and is baptized, shall be saved." ^ " But he 
 that believeth not shall be damned." If one is bap- 
 tized and does not believe, there is no hope. But the 
 language, I think, leaves ground to hope that if a be- 
 liever has not been able to get baptism, through no 
 fault of his own, he may expect the Lord's favor and 
 acceptance none the less. 
 
 I am not speaking of Baptism, however, as a means 
 of salvation, or with reference to its efficacy on the 
 soul of the recipient ; but only of its observance or re- 
 ception as an act of obedience, and a manifestation of 
 love for our Lord, who ordained it. 
 
 If we look now to the- other sacrament, the Lord's 
 Supper, we need not, for our present purpose, inquire 
 into its nature or efficiency as a sacrament or means of 
 grace. Let us look at its observance only as an act of 
 obedience, and as showing the spirit of love and grati- 
 tude. He said: "Do this in remembrance of me. "2 
 He does not say how often he would have us to do it, 
 nor at what hour in the day. But we cannot doubt, 
 from the reason assigned — the two reasons in fact, — 
 iMarkxvi, i6. 'Luke xxii, 19. 
 
20 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 one as a means of spiritual life, as food is to the body ; 
 and the other, that by so doing we "show forth his 
 death until his coming again," that he would have us 
 do it more than once in our lives, and, in fact, rather 
 often. Hence, as an act of love and obedience, we 
 cannot neglect or omit this Holy Sacrament altogether, 
 so long as the opportunity and the means of celebrat- 
 ing it are allowed us^ 
 
 Once more. We find that our Lord ordained and 
 sent forth a Ministry " to preach the gospel to all na- 
 tions," ^ " to every creature," and promised to be with 
 them always " even unto the end of the world." ^ Of 
 course, this language implies their perpetuity as a 
 body of preachers ; for, assuredly, no one of them, 
 nor all of them, personally, was able to preach to 
 every creature in all the nations of the earth ; nor were 
 they to remain, personally, until "the end of the 
 world." Hence, we find them ordaining deacons* and 
 appointing others to take part in, and carry on, their 
 work of preaching the gospel, and administering the 
 sacraments at an ea,rly stage of their ministry. 
 
 Our Lord surely attached great importance to this 
 mission. He does not seem to have contemplated any 
 other way of making his message of love and salva- 
 tion known to men. He also said, " He that receiv- 
 eth you receiveth me."* 
 
 I say nothing here of the nature of the ministerial 
 office and of the importance of the reception of that 
 ministry which he appointed, except the fact that all 
 
 ' Matt, xxviii, 19 ; Mark xvi, 15. * Acts vi. 
 
 ' Matt, xxviii, 20. * Matt, x, 40 ; Luke x, 48. 
 
.< ■ INTRODUCTION. 21 
 
 religious bodies and organizations find it necessary to 
 have some persons set apart for that work — -the worlc 
 of the ministry. Suppose we admit or maintain that 
 one of our own appointing is just as good, and can do 
 the worlc as well, as the one he appointed. I want the 
 reader to consider the reception of the one which he 
 appointed, in such a way that it must continue " to 
 the end of the world"; and with which he promised 
 to be always, every day or daily, as an act of love, and 
 as a manifestation of the spirit of obedience, which 
 grows out of a living faith and a genuine love to him 
 who instituted that rninistry. Of course, his words 
 preclude the possibility of the doubt that the ministry 
 will continue ; and continue, too, in such a way and 
 form that every true and loving believer can find it, 
 accept it and the ministration of the word and sacra- 
 ments at their hands. He has assured us that this 
 ministry shall not fail, or cease to exist, and to be his 
 ministry. And he has nowhere given us authority or 
 permission to set it aside and establish one of our own, 
 or to get along as best we can without any. 
 
 Doubtless our Lord founded a Church which is to 
 last forever. When Peter had made a comparison of 
 his divine nature, as the Son of God, he said: "On 
 this rock will I build my church, and the gates of hell 
 shall not prevail against it." ^ 
 
 I kijow that there are those who claim that this, and 
 
 most of the other passages in Holy Scripture that 
 
 seem to speak of the importance of the Church, refer 
 
 only to the invisible Church, including all who are 
 
 •Mattxvi, 18. 
 
22 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 spiritually regenerate and holy in their lives and con- 
 versation. 
 
 I do not propose here to dispute or discuss that ; 
 but I wish merely to call attention to the fact that our 
 Lord did attach the utmost importance to a public 
 and outward " confession before men." ' Baptism is a 
 visible act, and has always been connected with a con- 
 fession or profession of the faith. It is, in fact, a con- 
 fession or profession in and by itself It is baptism 
 into, — not in, merely, but into, — the name of the 
 Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost. St. Paul 
 speaks of the Jews as having ieen " baptized into 
 Moses " ; ^ that is, made or declared to be, believers in 
 Moses, and obedient to his laws ; so we are baptized 
 into Christ. 
 
 The reception of the holy Eucharist is also a visible 
 and, in some sense, a public act. It was intended to 
 be a " showing forth" of the Lord's death, for our re- 
 demption, to the end of the world. But this it could 
 not be, if it were not public. So, too, the ministry are 
 a visible body of men, distinguishable, in some way, 
 from other men, by those who wish to find them and 
 receive the word and sacraments from their hands, or 
 our Lord's avowed purpose has failed; and there is no 
 possibility of our being reckoned among those who 
 receive him by receiving them,' whatever we may 
 say or think of being included among those who will 
 be rejected by him, because of our rejection of them. 
 
 I have spoken of obedience as an outgrowth of 
 
 ' Matt. X, 32 ; Luke xii, 8. ' i Cor. x, 2. 
 
 ' Matt. X, 32 ; Luke xii, 8. ' 
 
INTRODUCTION. ' 23 
 
 faith and love, and as a manifestation of them both. 
 But I cannot close this part of my subject without a 
 few words more, of a somewhat more earnest char- 
 acter. 
 
 I think that no one can have read the New Testa- 
 ment without observing how the subject of obedience 
 is spoken of The expression " obedient to the faith," 
 and " obedience to the faith," occurs more than once 
 in very important connections. It would seem that, 
 in one point of view, the leading object of the incar- 
 nation, and the death on Calvary, was to bring men 
 back to a state of obedience to the will of God. 
 Doubtless, forgiveness and reconciliation are neces- 
 sary ; and the death of Christ was, in some way, — we 
 may not be able to say what way, — but was in some 
 way necessary to the forgiveness and reconciliation ; 
 and these are, both of them — if they are to be consid- 
 ered as separable — to the state of submission and 
 obedience which seems to be one — if not i^e one — es- 
 sential conditions to the glory and happiness of heaven. 
 Hence we pray, " Thy kingdom come, and thy will 
 be done on earth as it is in heaven." These words 
 indicate the perfection of loving obedience, as that 
 which constitutes the glory and the blessedness of 
 heaven. i 
 
 Our Lord makes this doctrine very emphatic, when, 
 in the sermon on the mount, after warning people to 
 " beware of false prophets," he adds, " Not every one 
 that saith unto me Lord, Lord, shall enter into the 
 kingdom of heaven, but he that doei/i the will of my 
 Father who is in heaven." Doubtless this is limited 
 
24 THE CHURCFT IDENTIFIED. 
 
 by the means and opportunities they may have had to 
 learn and know his will, — it is limited to those that 
 "hear and do it not." But with the Bible in our 
 hands, we can hardly hope to avail ourselves of the 
 excuse that arises from unavoidable ignorance. 
 
 Even under the old dispensation, where so much of 
 the worship consisted of rites and ceremonies, the 
 Lord could say, as to Saul : " Behold, to obey is better 
 than sacrifice, and to hearken, than the fat of rams."^ 
 We may even suppose that the rites and ceremonies 
 themselves, had this, among other important objects, 
 for their existence and observance, namely : to test 
 and promote obedience to the divine will, until that 
 will shall be " done on earth as it is in heaven." 
 
 Nor ought we to omit to mention the fact, in this 
 connection, that both heresy and schism are in more 
 than one place ^ mentioned as sins which subject us to 
 the disapprobation of God. St. Paul, in writing to the 
 Corinthians, in regard to some evils that had sprung 
 up in their Church, says, though apparently very re- 
 luctant to believe anything so bad concerning them : 
 " I hear that there are divisions among you, and I 
 partly believe it; for there must be also heresies 
 among you, that they which are approved may be 
 made manifest among you." ^ 
 
 But heresies and schisms, causing "divisions," could 
 come only in the visible Church. 
 
 Heresy is the holding and insisting upon, or persist- 
 ing in, an opinion which is contrary to the established 
 
 1 1 Sam. XV, 22. » Gal. v. 20 ; 2 Peter ii, i ; Titus iil. 10. 
 
 'I Cor. xi, 18, 19. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 25 
 
 doctrine of the Church And, of course, since a par- 
 ticular Church may err, even if the whole Church can- 
 not, by its unanimous voice, declare anything that is 
 wrong to be " of the faith," and thus necessary to be 
 held by all its members, it follows that one may be in 
 the right even when holding what " they call heresy." 
 Our Lord himself came, as he said, " not to destroy, 
 but to fulfill the law and the prophets ; " and yet, by 
 putting an interpretation upon their teachings, which 
 was contrary to the prevailing and received opinion of 
 the Jewish authorities of his time, he was, in their esti- 
 mation, a heretic. So St. Paul says of himself : " Af- 
 ter the way which they — the Jews — call heresy, so 
 worship I the God of my fathers," ^ though claiming 
 to believe, and as we now judge — actually and truly 
 believing — " all things that were written in the law 
 and the prophets " concerning Christ. 
 
 So, too, with schism. It cannot be anything else 
 than a division in the visible Church. A division in 
 what is invisible is inconceivable ; or, at least, if not 
 inconceivable, it is of such a nature that it is not 
 observable, and never could be seen or known of men. 
 
 At any rate, the schisms spoken of with disapproba- 
 tion, in the New Testament, were divisions in the visi- 
 ble Church, and that, too, in the Church in some one 
 city of nation, and not the mere alienations that may 
 have occurred between two or more of the separate 
 Churches that were located and organized in different 
 cities or nations of the earth. St. Paul compares such 
 a Church to the human body, and its members to the 
 * Acts xxiv, 14. 
 
26 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 various parts of the body, and insists that eyes, or feet, 
 hands, or other members, should work in harmony and 
 accord with one another, in order that there should be 
 no schism in the body.^ 
 
 As with heresy, so with schism, wherever there is., 
 either the one or the other, there is a fault on the part 
 of somebody. And it may not be always easy to de- 
 termine which party is at fault. 
 
 St. Paul gives us an insight into the nature and ori- 
 gin of such strifes, in his first epistle to the Corinth- 
 ians.2 He does not lay the blame on any one of the 
 parties named. But the fault was, that some said that 
 they " were of Paul," others, that they were " of 
 ApoUos " ; and there was not only " division " but also 
 " strife " and rivalry among them, — between the two 
 parties. 
 
 But our Lord and his apostles, although regarded 
 as heretics by the authorities of the Jewish Church, 
 were never schismatics. It was the custom of our 
 Lord to worship in their synagogues, and on one oc- 
 casion at least, he officiated in them.' He participated 
 as a layman — he was not of the line of the priesthood 
 in that dispensation — in the temple services. He was 
 in Jerusalem for that purpose, in fact, when he was 
 betrayed and crucified. 
 
 So, too, the apostles appear to have gone into the 
 synagogues, as the proper place both to worship and 
 to preach, wherever there was one in the town or city 
 which they reached, in the fulfillmerft of their mission. 
 And we read of the believers at Jerusalem, that they 
 1 1 Cor. xii, 25. « iii, 3. > Luke iv, 16. 
 
INTRO D UCTTOtT. . < 27 
 
 not only continued in the fellowship, " the breaking of 
 bread," and the prayers with the " Christians," but 
 also " z'« iAe temple" with one accord, with gladness 
 and singleness of heart.' And this continued at Jeru- 
 salem until they were cast out, and the temple itself 
 destroyed by that avenging messenger of God, Titus 
 and the Roman army. 
 
 Nay, so far from causing a schism or separating 
 from the established order, our Lord expressly com- 
 manded his disciples — "they sit in Moses's seat, all 
 therefore whatsoever they teach you observe, that 
 observe and do," notwithstanding their great errors 
 which he severely reprobated. 
 
 I do not mean to assert or insinuate that the rites 
 and customs were the same in all " the churches." 
 There was a one Church, holy and catholic throughout 
 the whole world ; and there were also national or pro- 
 vincial churches, in the different provinces or nation- 
 alities into which the populations of the world were 
 divided. Each one of these churches was complete in 
 itself, and independent of each other, as we shall see 
 more fully by and by. There was one faith that was 
 common to them all and essential to their being of the 
 " one body." So, too, there were certain rites and 
 customs that were common to them all, as Baptism 
 and the Holy Supper. But we infer from the writings 
 of St. Paul, that diversities, at least in certain less im- 
 portant elements of the religion and worship, were in 
 existence and frefely allowed, even in his day. He 
 says, in writing to the Corinthians : " We have no 
 ' Acts ii, 46. 
 
28 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 such custom, neither the churches of God."^ From 
 this the inference seems to be obvious and inevitable, 
 that there were different customs in the different 
 churches or branches of the Church, which were al- 
 lowable, as they might be conducive to edification; 
 while others were not allowable, and were not in use 
 anywhere. This liberty can, of course, apply only to 
 those matters of detail in regard to which our Lord 
 has given us no commandment, and which the Apos- 
 tles do not appear to have taught or instituted as of 
 divine command. 
 
 I have no disposition to diminish, or underestimate, 
 in the slightest degree, the value of whatever excuses 
 any one may have for his or her ignorance of what is 
 the will of God, in regard to the Church ; and I think 
 God is more generous and loving in this respect than 
 he has seen fit to make known to us in his revealed 
 Word. But there can be no excuse, I think, for a 
 want of the spirit and disposition to obey in all things 
 so far as God shall give us the means and opportunity 
 to know what are his will and pleasure in this, as in 
 other matters. But for all cases, and to any extent of 
 unavoidable ignorance or mistake, we may take to our 
 comfort the case of the woman who believed, and felt 
 sure, in the strength of her faith, that if she could but 
 " touch the hem of his garment," she should be made 
 whole. 
 
 But the fact remains that our Lord did appoint and 
 send forth his ministry to teach his word, and to guide 
 those into the way of truth who might be willing to be 
 ' Cor. xi, 13. 
 
JNTROD UCTION. 29 
 
 guided by them. And he established his Church, into 
 which they should gather, by Baptism, those that 
 should be,, or might be, in the process of " being 
 saved " ;^ for that seems to be the obvious and natural 
 meaning of the expression. I refer to the Greek, 
 which any scholar will see means as I have interpreted 
 it. And the revised version so reads it: "And the 
 Lord added to them [to the Church], day by day, 
 those that were being saved." And in this view I see 
 no escape from the conclusion that the Church, in 
 what it is, and what it includes, is, as a collective whole, 
 the divinely appointed way and means of salvation. 
 And this is in accordance with what St. Paul says: 
 " All things are of God, who has reconciled us unto 
 himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given unto us the 
 ministry of reconciliation." ^ He continues the idea : 
 " Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though 
 God did beseech you by us. We, then, as workers 
 together with him, beseech you also that ye receive 
 not this grace in vain." In the first epistle c. iii, 9, 
 the apostle has said, " We are laborers, together with 
 God, ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building." 
 Of course, this can not have been said of St. Paul 
 and his fellow-laborers in respect to their special char- 
 acter as inspired men. The work of which he speaks 
 is as necessary now as it was then, and: will be no less 
 so to the end of the world. And the ministry, thus 
 appointed to do that work, must be perpetuated and 
 continued, or we must invent and institute one of our 
 own as best we can. "The field is the world," and 
 there will be need of men for " the work of the minis- 
 ' Actsii, 47. . '3 Cor. V, 18. 
 
30 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 try " even when all the kingdoms and peoples of the 
 world shall have been converted to Christ and gath- 
 ered into his kingdom. Even in that case, always, 
 even " unto the end of the world " there will be need 
 of some persons to baptize the infants that shall be 
 born, to administer the Lord's Supper to those who 
 by this means wish to " show forth," in gratitude and 
 love, " his death, until he comes again " ; to lead in 
 the public worship, and to guide and counsel those 
 who are in doubt, and feel the need of an instruction 
 and a guidance superior to their own. 
 
 St. Paul intimates quite clearly the continuance of 
 the ministry, when he says, that it is " for the perfect- 
 ing the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edi- 
 fying of the Body of Christ till we all come in the unity 
 of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, 
 unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature 
 of the fullness of Christ."' Surely, then, "the work of 
 the ministry " is to be done, and will need to be done, 
 till the end of earthly time. Again, St. Paul, writing 
 to the Thessalonians," exhorts them in these emphatic 
 words : " And we beseech you, brethren, to know," 
 or recognize, " them that labor among you and are 
 over you, in the Lord, and admonish you, and to es- 
 teem them very highly in love for their work's sake, 
 and be at peace among yourselves." Most assuredly, 
 these words cannot apply to the apostles and other in- 
 spired ministers, whose office was to pass away with 
 the age in which they were appointed. Our only in-- 
 ference, therefore, is that they were to continue, in 
 their corporate capacity, to the end of time, 
 'iv, 12, 13. "V, 12, 13. 
 
CHAPTER 11. 
 
 THE METHOD STATED AND ILLUSTRATED.^ 
 
 In the days of the apostles there could have been 
 no difficulty in identifying the church in which the 
 duties of the Christian life could be performed and the 
 privileges and blessings of grace and fellowship. could 
 be enjoyed. The apostles had been appointed by our 
 Lord himself They had been taught by him in per- 
 son, and they had been empowered to work miracles 
 in his namef and as an evidence of their commission and 
 authority. 
 
 But when they passed away the case became some- 
 what different. False prophets and teachers arose. 
 as he had foretold to draw multitudes after them. ^ 
 No one of them, however, so far as I know, ever at- 
 tempted to form a new church by making converts of 
 their own, independent and outside of the One Church 
 that Christ in person and through his apostles had 
 founded. What those false apostles aimed to do was 
 to get themselves recognized as teachers in the Church, 
 to build up a sect or a schism in its communion. 
 And they aimed or preached " to draw away followers 
 'I Matt, vii, IS ; xxvi, li, 24 ; Mark xiii, 22, 
 
32' THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED: 
 
 after them " only when they had been repudiated and 
 ejected by a church itself acting through its recog- 
 nized and competent authorities. St. Paul and St. 
 John each of them speak of such cases. 1 
 
 However, such secessions, all of them, came to 
 naught at a very early day. None of them remained 
 long to trouble any one who sought to identify the 
 Church, in order to enter the communion and fellow- 
 ship of that which was truly the body of Christ 
 
 At a somewhat later day the question becomes more 
 serious. It arose, however somewhat incidentally 
 and as a question that was at that time subordinate to 
 another. 
 
 Our Lord sent his apostles to preach the gospel, and 
 nothing is left on record as having been said by him 
 about their writing it. They did, however, commit it 
 to writing, and these writings were received as of 
 divine authority, read in their churches, and used as 
 means of instruction in their schools — for the Church 
 early had schools for the instruction of its members — 
 as well as for private edification. Collections of these 
 writings were made and added to the Old Testament 
 canon. Heretics also appealed to them as authority 
 for their doctrines and even went so far as to forge 
 spurious writings which they attributed to the apostles 
 and for which they claimed recognition. This led to 
 the necessity for some test ; and this test was an ap- 
 peal to those Churches which had been founded by the 
 apostles and their immediate and well known succes- 
 sors in the work of extending the Church. The books 
 ' Acts XX, 30 ; I John ii, 18, 19. 
 
THE METHOD STATED AND ILLUSTRATED. 33 
 
 that they had received were true, and genuine. The 
 doctrines that they have handed down and constantly 
 beheved and proclaimed were to be regarded as ex- 
 pressing the true sense of Holy Scripture in all point; 
 in regard to which there was uniformity and agree- 
 ment ; -and that, in every case, was to be regarded in, 
 each nation or province, as the true Church, which re- 
 tained the ministry in its succession, the Holy Scrip- 
 tures in their integrity and continued the close ob- 
 servance of the two great sacraments, Baptism and 
 the Lord's Supper. All these Churches had a " form 
 of words" or a creed — which was essentially the same 
 in all its doctrines, and is the same in nearly the exact 
 words and phraseology as what we now have as the 
 Apostles' Creed. But the test was apostolic origin; and 
 the continuity of the ministry. This implied and in- 
 cluded the other essentials as they were regarded, 
 namely, the reception of the Holy Scriptures and the, 
 contimied use oi the creeds, and the observance of the 
 sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper. 
 
 The two most obvious elements of Christianity and 
 of the Church, are (i) the Scriptures and (2) the two 
 sacraments first named. But then the gospel cannot 
 be " preached " as our Lord intended and commanded 
 it should be, nor the sacrament be administered with- 
 out the ministry. Hence the ministry, continued by 
 some means of valid perpetuation, became an essential . 
 element of the Church which he instituted. And the 
 creeds of the primitive Church while it was whole and 
 undivided, must be accepted by each branch of the 
 Church or "the body" will not recognize it — there 
 3 
 
34 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 will be a schism in the body— and the part thus cut 
 off is likely, not to say absolutely, certain to die, as a 
 limb amputated from the body, or a branch cut off 
 from the one vine; for they would not only have "de- 
 nied the faith " but they would be most assuredly 
 " cast out" from the fellowship of that body of which 
 the Holy Spirit is the life and life-giving energy. 
 
 It is easy to see in the early history of the Church 
 how, that is in what state of mind, and not only from 
 what antecedent influence each heresy arose, but, also, 
 how God used it as he did the treachery of Judas and 
 the weakness of Pontius Pilate, as means to the ac- 
 complishment of his most beneficent ends. The found- 
 ers of sects stirred up the true believers to consider 
 most carefully the doctrines they should teach, and the 
 forms of expression they should use, and the rites and 
 modes of ritual and worship that would be most safe 
 and conducive to the edification of the faithful. Hence 
 we have not only the canons of the early Church, but 
 the creeds and determinations of Nicca, Constanti- 
 nople and the other general councils, which all the 
 Churches of those early days set forth all its parts and 
 branches, sooner or later most reverently received. 
 
 And I cannot doubt that something of the kind may 
 now, or in due course of time, be said of all the mod- 
 ern sects and divisions. They grow out of the past, 
 they were favored and brought to light and manifest 
 outward existence by the peculiar mental habits of 
 their founders and members, and they will, in the end, 
 be found to conduce to the increase of the number of 
 those that shall be saved to the glory of God, the ex- 
 
THE METHOD STATED AND ILLUSTRATED. 35 
 
 tension of and building up of the Redeemer's king- 
 dom. Each of them has attractions for, and adapta- 
 tion to a certain class of minds that could not, per- 
 haps, be reached otherwise, and though they " follow 
 not with us," we must remember our Lord's saying 
 " no man that can work a miracle," that is, do any 
 mighty work, " in his name can lightly speak evil of 
 him." 
 
 In order to identify the Church, it is obvious that 
 we may take one of two different methods. We may 
 ascertain from the Scriptures what are to be regarded 
 as its essential Notes, and then institute a comparison 
 between those notes, or features, and any given body 
 claiming, at this day, to be the Church, or a branch of 
 it. Or we may go back to the first planting of the 
 Church, and trace its existence down the current of 
 time, in its spread over the face of the earth, until we 
 find it extending itself into our own country. The 
 former method is the most common in our day — and 
 has involved us in interminable discussions upon the 
 preliminary matters — Episcopacy, Presbyterianism, 
 Congregationalism, etc., which are merely Notes of 
 the Church, and thus kept us back from the subject 
 itself; and even when the question has been decided, 
 it leaves the appearance of making the whole matter 
 depend upon a question of mere form. 
 
 I shall take the last of the two methods indicated 
 above. This would be very easy if the infirmities, the 
 follies, and the willfulness of men had not encumbered 
 the subject with embarrassments which render a more 
 cautious procedure and a more careful investigation 
 necessary. 
 
36 
 
 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 Let US, then, endeavor to get a definite idea of the 
 Identity of the Church. And for this purpose, per- 
 haps a few illustrations from other subjects will be of 
 the most important service. 
 
 There is, for instance, such an institution as Masonry. 
 I say nothing of its merits, or demerits, but simply 
 refer to its existence as an illustration in point It has 
 existed, through several centuries at least, one and the 
 same institution. It is spread extensively over the 
 face of the earth. It is the same institution in cill the 
 nations where it has an existence at all. In separate 
 towns and villages there are distinct Lodges, each with 
 its officers, its Lodge-room, etc. He that joins any 
 one of these Lodges is a Mason, there and everywhere. 
 In any other Lodge, in any other nation, he would be 
 received as a free and accepted Mason, to the same 
 standing and degree as that which he had at the place 
 where he resided. This is because of the identity of 
 the institution. It is one and the same everywhere. 
 
 If, now, several individuals, in a settlement where 
 there is no Lodge, believing the institution to be a good 
 one, become desirous of joining the Masons, and hav- 
 ing a Lodge where they reside, there are certain rules 
 and principles of extension by which they can obtain 
 their object. They must first go in sufficient num- 
 bers and be regularly initiated into some Lodge already 
 in existence; and having been initiated themselves, 
 they may obtain a charter or dispensation, and go to 
 work under it. In this way they become truly Ma- 
 sons — their association is a Lodge. They derive all 
 the benefits, whatever they may be, of this ancient 
 
THE METHOD STATED AND ILLUSTRATED. 3V 
 
 institution, from their connection with the Lodge which 
 they have founded. And they are Masons the world 
 over. In any Lodge, in any city or nation, they 
 would be received to the same standing, and entitled 
 to the same privileges. 
 
 But if they had gone to work otherwise than as 
 these principles of extension require, or got up a clan- 
 destine lodge, they would not have become Masons — 
 their association would not have been recognized as a 
 Lodge at all — nor would they themselves have re- 
 ceived any of the benefits which would result to them 
 from being Masons — for, in fact, the course which 
 they took did not make them Masons, but only imi- 
 tators of Masons. 
 
 The same illustration may be derived from the Odd 
 Fellows' institution — from that of the Sons of Tem- 
 perance — the Rechabites, etc 
 
 As this is an important point, I will venture one or 
 two more illustrations ; and especially so because each 
 individual will understand it the better if I give as an 
 illustration something that he has known in his experi- ! 
 ence or that has occurred to his own thoughts. 
 
 Take, then, for another illustration, the American 
 Bible Society ; an association which, while it is chiefly 
 designed for doing good to others, confers benefits and 
 privileges upon its members. This society was, I 
 believe, first established in New York. It has a writ- ' 
 ten constitution, estabhshed modes of operation, and 
 established principles or provisions for extension by 
 means of auxiliary associations, which may be formed 
 in every county, town, or parish. If individuals, re- 
 
38 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 siding in a place where there is no auxiliary society, 
 are desirous of establishing one, they have only to as- 
 certain what are the rules that are laid down by the 
 parent society, and strictly conforming themselves to 
 those rules in their organization, they become thereby 
 members of the American Bible Society. They are 
 entitled to all the benefits arising from such member- 
 ship, and can do all the good which it enables them 
 to accomplish. 
 
 But if they proceed otherwise than according to 
 those established rules, they may indeed form them- 
 selves into a Bible Society — one that may confer 
 benefits upon its members, and enable them to do good 
 by the circulation of the Bible — but still they will not 
 be members of the American Bible Society, nor will 
 their assoication be one that is auxiliary to, or a part 
 of, that older and more extensive institution. 
 
 Now this same thing must hold true with regard to 
 the Church. Our blessed Redeemer contemplated 
 founding a Church, that should exist forever.' But it 
 is evident that he did not himself establish it in all 
 places. Neither was it established in all places and 
 nations by his immediate apostles, during their life- 
 time. There must, therefore, be certain principles on 
 which its extension depends, and by which it may be 
 extended; so that where a number of persons, who 
 are already Christians, or who are desirous of becom- 
 ing so, are found, a society may be formed in accord- 
 ance with those principles, and become thereby part 
 of his Church. 
 
 ' Matt, xvi, 18. 
 
THE METHOD STATED AND ILLUSTRATED. 89 
 
 Every society that is intended to outlast the gen- 
 eration in which it is instituted, and to be extended 
 beyond the immediate locality where it was first or- 
 ganized, must have principles of extension, by which 
 it can be expanded and located elsewhere. By ascer- 
 taining these principles we are able to follow the so- 
 ciety in its spread, And identify its existence in each 
 particular place. The Church, like a vine, the root of 
 which is at the place of its first establishment — Jeru- 
 salem — puts forth its branches into each city, prov- 
 ince, and nation, until they spread over the face of the 
 whole earth, and its tendrils reach every human heart. 
 Now a vine is one. Though it may have many 
 branches, yet we find no difiSculty in identifying them. 
 We can trace each one back till it articulates with the 
 main stalk, and so, through that stalk, to the original 
 root, in a continuous line of unbroken succession. Or, 
 in case we start with a branch that does not belong to 
 the same vine, we can trace it back to its separate 
 root and tell where it started from, ascertain, perhaps, 
 by whom it was planted. And at any rate, we can 
 thus prove that it is not a branch of the same vine. 
 In "tracing the vine, however, we may find here a 
 branch crushed and deformed by violence, there one 
 overlaid by mildew and rust — here one blighted by 
 dearth or choked by the growth of noxious weeds. 
 And then again, we may possibly find one on which 
 man has grafted scions of a different stock so as to 
 produce fruits of a different character. But through 
 all, its identity can be traced ; it is the same vine still. 
 So with the Church. Violence has been at work upon 
 
40 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 her sacred principles and lineaments; superstition has 
 overlaid her simple truths and simple forms ; apathy 
 and worldliness have blighted her fruits, and the in- 
 vention of man has been busy with efforts to engraft 
 its own multifarious schemes upon that which is the 
 only life-giving stalk. But the Church's historic iden- 
 tity can be traced through them all. 
 
 It is comparatively easy to trace the identity of the 
 Church in those places where it was estabb'shed by the 
 apostles and has continued, without interruption to 
 this day, as at Jerusalem, Antioch and such places. 
 The constant admission of members has kept the visible 
 organization alive. And the constant administration 
 of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper and the observ- 
 ance of Sunday and other holy days, with, in fact, the 
 constant recognition by other branches of the church, 
 and other notes of various kinds, guide us without fear 
 or danger of mistake. And as a matter of fact, though 
 we find the enemy l;as always been busy at work in 
 creating divisions and schisms, yet, in the places of 
 which we now speak, there has never been any diffi- 
 culty in deciding which was the old Church, cmd which 
 the new sect. 
 
 There may have been much difference of opinion as 
 to which was right, the old Church or the new one, 
 but none as to the fact, which was the old and which 
 the new. In other words, the identity of the body 
 has never been a matter of doubt or dispute. 
 
 In all the earlier controversies — the Aryan, the 
 Donatist, the Pelagian, and the Nestorian — there was 
 no doubt, no question raised that these sects were the 
 
THE METHOD STATED AND ILLUSTRATED. 41 
 
 more recent bodies. They, of course, all claimed to 
 be right. But no one of them claimed to be the 
 Church that had existed from Christ and the apostles." 
 Their plea was that the Church had fallen into error 
 and corruption, and that they were reformers. And 
 so they were, if they had truth on their side, so long 
 as they continued in the Church. ' But when they left 
 it to form a new one, that which they formed was a 
 new one, and that which they left was the old. So, 
 also, with the modern sects — the Presbyterians, 
 the Independents, and the Methodists — in England. 
 There is no pretence that any one of them is the Church 
 that has existed in England from the earliest ages. It 
 is fully and freely acknowledged that they are new 
 churches, formed by individuals seceding from the old. 
 
 Now such facts do not at all embarrass us in our at- 
 tempts to identify the Church in those countries where 
 it was planted in the earlier ages — that is, in ages so' 
 early as that no mere sect that then existed has lasted 
 down to our own. The Church that was planted 
 there, and has outlived all schisms and sects and op- 
 positions, is undoubtedly and unquestionably the one 
 of which we are in pursuit. It may be somewhat — 
 nay, sadly — changed in doctrinal character and gen- 
 eral appearance, but, historically and lineally, it is the 
 same. 
 
 The difficulty presses upon us only when we come 
 to identify the Church in these latter ages, where sects 
 are abundant, and where, until lately, the name of 
 Christ had not been heard. Though late in reaching 
 us, a branch of the vine may have found (and we trust 
 
42 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 it has found) its way to our country. In studying the 
 history of the Church, v.'e shall find that it was never 
 inactive. The vine was always growing, always put- 
 ting forth new branches. The Northern nations of 
 Europe — Sweden and Norway — were not converted 
 until the tenth or eleventh centuries. Yet at length a 
 branch of the vine reached them also. So with us.' 
 Therefore we want some clue, or guide, by which we 
 can trace the connection and identify the body. 
 
 Now, to accomplish this object, I propose to ascer- 
 tain, in the first place, what are the fundamental prin- 
 ciples of the extension of the Church, as we find them 
 in the Scriptures, and apply those principles to the 
 facts of history. I propose to inquire, then, how the 
 Church was extended and expanded by the apostles, 
 into other countries than that where it was first estab- 
 lished. 
 
 \ The method which I propose to pursue is one with 
 which we are familiar in similar cases. For instance, 
 the Baptist sect was first established, in the United 
 States, at Providence, R. I., A. D., 1639. Since that 
 time it has spread over almost the whole country. 
 Yet we have no difficulty in identifying it. We are 
 willing to go by the name, until we learn that there are 
 several sects claiming the same name. We then resort 
 to their principles of extension, and to the acknowledg- 
 ment of communion. They have principles by which 
 their church can be extended indefinitely. Persons 
 residing in a place where there is no society of that 
 communion, have only to ascertain those principles, 
 organize accordingly, and they are acknowledged by 
 
THE METHOD STATED AND ILLUSTRATED. 43 
 
 the general body of the Baptists as a part of their 
 Church. 
 
 The same may be said of any other denomination 
 in this country. It has its own principles of exten- 
 sion. When in the formation of new religious socie- 
 ties, designed to belong to any existing communion, 
 the people favoring it have only to conform to the 
 rules and organic principles of that denomination, they 
 become a part of it, and as a religious body are iden- 
 tified with it. But if they do not conform to those 
 principles, they form a new denomination — at first by 
 themselves : but, in the course of time, others' may 
 adopt their rules and principles, build on the same 
 platform, and then they will become a vine also, put- 
 ting forth branches, perhaps, into other parts of the 
 earth. And in writing the history of that denomina- 
 tion, we must first learn, from a study of its principles 
 of extension, what we are to regard as a part of the 
 same denomination and what is not; that is, we must 
 identify it. 
 
 Now this is what I propose to do with regard to the 
 Church of Christ — the visible society of believers 
 which he, founded. We cannot always be guided by 
 the name ; for that is claimed by all sects in one form 
 or another. We must then follow the Vine historic- 
 al)y, and trace its progress as it extends itself into 
 different countries and thus identify its existence. 
 And in order to do this, we must, in the first place, 
 ascertain the manner in which, or the principles by 
 which, it was extended. 
 
 I have said that this method is one with which we 
 
44 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 are already familiar. All denominations use it in their 
 own case, and therefore no one can object to use it 
 here. There is not one of the fifty or sixty denomi- 
 nations of this land that is not extending its commun- 
 ion, or at least seeking to do so, by establishing socie- 
 ties in places where there are none of their order. 
 And when such a society is established, they ascer- 
 tain, in some way or other, whether it has been estab- 
 lished on their own principles, and in conformity to 
 their general usages, before they receive it into their 
 communion. They all have representative bodies, or 
 councils, under the name of Conference, Presbytery, 
 Convention, Association, Convocation, Synod, or 
 something of the kirid ; and when any newly formed 
 society seeks admission to their deliberations, etc., 
 they examine (if they have not previously been suffi- 
 ciently assured), and see if the society has been or- 
 ganized in conformity to their principles and usages. 
 If so, they gladly grant the admission which it seeks. 
 But if not, the recognition is withheld. If its mem- 
 bers yield their points of difference, they may be 
 united; if not, they form a new sect, and are so re- 
 garded. 
 
 Whatever, therefore, we may think of the result of 
 our application of the organic principles of the Chris- 
 tian Church to the facts of history, we are, all of us, 
 prohibited by our own acts — acts indispensable to our 
 distinct existence — from pronouncing the method un- 
 sound or unjust. And in taking this course, it seems 
 to me no small gain that we avoid all of the appear- 
 ance, as well as the reality, of malving Church com- 
 
THE METHOD STATED AND ILLUSTRATED. 45 
 
 munion depend upon a mere form, or incidental fact. 
 It carries all along with it the impression that it is not 
 a mere form that we are seeking, but the Church it- 
 self — the mystical body of Christ — the fellowship of 
 the Apostles and Martyrs — the communion of those 
 who have been sanctified — the Temple of his Worship 
 — the participation of his promised presence — the 
 Flock that he feeds, and the Fold of his watchful care. 
 
 The principles by which the Church was extended 
 over the face of the earth, must be inferred partly from 
 the acts of the Apostles, in extending it, and partly 
 from the precepts and principles scattered through the 
 New Testament, more or less directly applicable to 
 the subject. 
 
 The principles that I shall call attention to, are, ^i) 
 that the Church must be extended by living members, 
 (2) going into a place where the Church was not pre- 
 viously established, (3) for the purpose of preaching 
 the true Faith, and establishing the Communion of the 
 Church there. Of these principles we will speak in 
 order. 
 
 I. The charge or commission which our Saviour 
 gave his Apostles, just as he was leaving the world — 
 " Go ye into all the World, preach the Gospel to every 
 creature, teach or make disciples of all nations, bap- 
 tizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, 
 and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all 
 things whatsoever I have commanded you,"i raises 
 the presumption that the Church was to be established 
 and extended by persons who had previously been re- 
 ' Mark xvi, 15 ; Matt, xxviii, 20. 
 
46 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 ceived as members and acknowledged to have author- 
 ity in it. No question will be raised, I presume, that 
 this commission, and the duties assigned to the Apos- 
 tles, did at the least include the establishing or exten- 
 sion of the Church which he had before declared that 
 he would build. ^ He did not send the Apostles to 
 preach the Gospel and leave the converts to organize 
 a church or not, as they might choose, and in such a 
 way as they might choose. He did not charge the 
 Apostles to commit the Gospel to writing and leave 
 the people to study it for themselves, and then act as 
 they might think it required. The duties of the new 
 life, to which the converts were called, required some 
 society, association, or organization. The Church was 
 not a mere matter of choice or expediency : it had an 
 end in view : it was a necessary element of his relig- 
 ion. It was for the support of Public Worship ; the 
 administration of the Sacraments ; the comfort, fellow- 
 ship and edification of its members. Therefore the 
 Apostles were to establish it, and enlarge its extension 
 as fast and as far as converts should be made to resort 
 to it, and live in its communion. 
 
 The thing to which I wish first to direct atten- 
 tion, is, the fact that the Apostles went and did the 
 work of founding and extending the Church them- 
 selves. 
 
 It is unnecessary to follow them as they went, 
 
 preaching the Gospel, and ordaining Elders in every 
 
 Church 2 where converts to the faith had been made in 
 
 sufficient numbers to sustain the continued worship of 
 
 'Matt, xvi, 1 8. 'Actsxiv, 23. 
 
THE METHOD STATED AND ILLUSTRATED. 47 
 
 God. The fact that the living Preacher went first 
 with the Gospel — not in his hand, for it was not then 
 committed to writing, but in his heart — is the con- 
 spicuous and the prevailing rule. Nor is this confined 
 to the Twelve ; for St. Paul, the chief Apostle of the 
 Gentiles, was soon after converted, and became more 
 efficient than any of the rest, and in no respect a whit 
 behind the very chiefest Apostles.^ We also find 
 Barnabas, Timothy, Titus, and others, laboring in the 
 same way and sphere, though manifestly in an inferior 
 capacity. 
 
 After the persecution that arose at the time of 
 Stephen's martyrdom, Philip, who, as we read, had 
 previously been appointed to some inferior office in 
 the Church,* went down to Samaria and preached the 
 Gospel. And the people gave heed to Philip, hearing 
 and seeing the miracles that he wrought. And when 
 they believed and were converted, they were baptized 
 in large numbers. The Apostles yet abode at Jerusa- 
 lem : but when they heard that Samaria had received 
 the word of God, they sent down Peter and John, two 
 of their number, who laid their hands on the newly 
 baptized converts, and they received spiritual gifts. ^ 
 These gifts had not before been received by the Sa- 
 maritan converts. 
 
 But again: We read that they which were scat- 
 tered abroad upon the persecution that arose about 
 Stephen, traveled as far as Phenice, Cyprus and Anti- 
 och, preaching the Gospel. Now, who those men 
 were we do not know. We only know that they were 
 ' 2 Cor. ii, 5. ' Acts vi, 1-6. ' Acts viii, 5-7. 
 
48 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 not Apostles. But be this as it may, the narrative-' 
 proceeds to say, that wh'en the tidings of this came to 
 the ears of the Church which was at Jerusalem, they 
 sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Anti- 
 och, the most distant place from Jerusalem that is 
 mentioned, and so over the whole country spoken of. 
 When he came and saw the grace that had been given 
 them, he exhorted them to cleave unto the Lord. 
 And, as we read, much people was added unto the 
 Lord. Immediately Barnabas went for Saul — or Paul 
 — and brought him to Antioch, and they remained 
 there for a whole year, and "assembled themselves 
 with the Church, and taught much people." 
 
 Hence we see that the Church was extended by in- 
 dividuals previously in its communion — sometimes 
 alone, as in the case of Philip, and sometimes in com- 
 panies — going into places where they would be as 
 seed scattered in the soil, to spring up and bring forth 
 a harvest, or like leaven hid in a lump until the whole 
 be leavened. Thus, always, each branch and part of 
 the Church had a historic and visible connection with 
 the rest, and that which existed before, and through 
 that Church received the persons who were to do the 
 ministry among them. Wherever the Apostles went, 
 they were men who had been set apart for the Minis- 
 try themselves. And in other cases — as Samaria and 
 Antioch — the mother Church sent forth Apostles as 
 soon as they had heard of the conversion of those 
 places ; to the one, Peter and Tohn ; to the other, 
 Barnabas and Paul. 
 
 But in no case do we find a society starting up inde- 
 
THE METHOD STATED AND ILLUSTRATED. 49 
 
 pendently of that which existed before, and organiz- 
 ing themselves as " a voluntary association," called or 
 recognized as a part of the Church of Christ ; the 
 gathering and organizing energy in all cases proceeded 
 from Christ through the Church itself, to each separ- 
 ate branch and member. 
 
 2. The second principle of the extension of the 
 Church seems to be, that, besides perpetuation by 
 additions in places where it already exists, it must be 
 extended by establishing new branches in other places, 
 and not by establishing different branches in the same 
 place. 
 
 We might follow the Apostles, as they went from 
 one nation or province to another, laboring for a time 
 in the central places of population and influence, and 
 see how, in every case, this rule was observed. In 
 this way a great number of distinct and independent 
 branches of the Church were established, all having 
 the same faith, the same hope, the same rule of life, 
 and all partaking of the same fellowship, and forming 
 one and the same communion. 
 
 In each place the Church had to start anew, and 
 begin from nothing. At first, therefore, it would be 
 but small in point of numbers. They could all be ac- 
 commodated in one place of meeting and worship, and 
 they would need no more. As they increased in num- 
 bers, however, they would need more than one place 
 of worship. Other places were provided. But there 
 were then no divisions into parishes and separate con- 
 gregations, each with its appropriate minister as at the 
 present day. The divisions into parishes and separate 
 4 
 
60 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 congregations, each with its appropriate minister, as 
 at the present, came in at a later day. 
 
 But with or without the Parochial system, there 
 could be no occasion for forming another church or 
 religious denomination in the same place. With it 
 the Church and communion already established might 
 be extended as fast as occasion should require, or as 
 done by each denomination at the present day, by 
 forming new congregations and organizing new par- 
 ishes. Without it, all that would be required would 
 be to add to the number of the places of worship and, 
 perhaps, to the number of the clergy, as fast as the 
 increasing wants of the community might require, 
 leaving the members to attend at whichever place 
 they might choose. 
 
 The feelings of brotherhood, and brotherly love, 
 which are so strongly inculcated in the Scriptures, and 
 which the religion of Christ is so peculiarly calculated 
 to produce, would dispose all the Christians in any 
 place, to belong to the same society or Church. They 
 would also remember the Lord's prayer that they 
 might all be one, that he might dwell in them and 
 they in him.^ They would be familiar with such pre- 
 cepts as these: "Let brotherly love continue,"- " Let 
 us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing,"'' 
 ;"Be of the same mind one toward another,"* " Love 
 as brethren,"^ " For as the body is one and hath 
 many members, and all the members of that one body, 
 !so also is Christ; for by one Spirit are we all baptized 
 
 ijohn xvii, 21. 'Heb. xiii, i. 'Phil, iii, 16. 
 
 * Rom. xii, 16. • i PeL iii, 8. 
 
THE METHOD STATED AND ILLUSTRATED. 51 
 
 into one body." ^ " There is one Body and one Spirit, 
 even as ye are all called in one hope of your calling, 
 one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father 
 of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you 
 all,"^ "That there may be one Fold and one Shep- 
 herd.'" 
 
 And, as enforcing these precepts of Divine truth, 
 we are to consider what is said of the nature and dan- 
 ger of divisions ; " For ye are yet carnal — for where- 
 as there is among you envying and strife, and divisions, 
 are ye not carnal, and walk as men ? For while one 
 saith, I am of Paul, and another, I am of Apollos, are 
 ye not carnal?"^ "Mark them that cause divisions 
 and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have 
 learned, and avoid them, for they that are such serve 
 not the Lord Jesus Christ."' "There must also be 
 heresies among you, that they which are approved 
 may be made manifest."* 
 
 We need go no further to see that all the believers 
 in one place would endeavor to "speak the same thing, 
 that there should be no divisions among them, but 
 that they should be perfectly joined together, in the 
 same mind and in the same judgment."' 
 
 And if any one should come preaching "another 
 gospel," either in the Church that was already estab- 
 lished, or for the purpose of establishing another of a 
 different denomination, he must be rejected and 
 avoided. In the strong language of St. Paul, twice 
 repeated, " let him be accursed." ' 
 
 ' I Cor. xii, 12, 13. 'John x, 16. ° Rom. xvi, 17, 18. 
 
 ' Eph. iv, 4, S. * I Cor. iii, 3. ' i Cor. xi, 19. 
 
 ' I Cor. i, 10. ° Gal. i, 8-9. 
 
52 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 This must evidently be the meaning of the Apostle. 
 He was not speaking of those who professed to teach 
 a new religion, altogether distinct from and independ- 
 ent of Christianity, but of those who inculcated a view 
 of Christianity inconsistent with the doctrine of Justi- 
 fication by the Faith, which he had taught them. By 
 " another gospel," therefore, he must have meant 
 another view of the same gospel ; for he says of it, 
 that it " is not another," but another view, or a per- 
 version, of the same. 
 
 There was then no possible way in which another 
 church which should be a distinct visible society, or 
 communion, and yet a true branch of the Church of 
 Christ, could be established, in a place where one al- 
 ready existed, so as to produce two in a community, 
 (i.) It could not be produced by a division, or seces- 
 sion, for that is condemned as carnal, and not serving 
 the Lord Jesus Christ. (2.) It could not be by the 
 coming in among them of false Apostles or Prophets; 
 for no society which they could establish would be 
 any part of the Church of Christ. (3.) It could not 
 be by a person's coming among them to preach 
 another gospel — another view of Christianity — even 
 though that person were an Apostle, or an angel from 
 heaven ; for whoever should come on such an errand 
 or undertake such a work, must be held "accursed" 
 
 Hence, then, we may lay it down as a rule that the 
 Church was expanded or extended, not by establish- 
 ing different denominations in the same place, but by 
 establishing the same denomination in different places. 
 
 3. In the third place, the persons going into an un- 
 
THE METHOD STATED AND ILLUSTRATED. 53 
 
 occupied field — purely missionary ground — to estab- 
 lish the Church, must go for the purpose of establish- 
 ing a branch of the Catholic Church of Christ, on the 
 same basis, and for the same object, as the Church it- 
 self. This basis is, the Christian Faith, the Christian 
 Sacraments, the Christian Worship, and the Precepts 
 of the Christian Life. And the object is, the glory of 
 God in the salvation of sinners. These being essen- 
 tial elements of the Church and of Christianity, they 
 must, of course, therefore, be essential to its Identity. 
 
 St. Paul says, " other foundation can no man lay 
 than that which is laid.''^ This foundation is the 
 Christian Faith, as the Apostles taught it, and the 
 Church at first received it. 
 
 I do not mean to say that every error or mistake in 
 point of fact, will nullify or invalidate the labors of the 
 missionary who makes it. Such mistakes are incident 
 to human infirmity, and separable from whatever is to 
 be done by fallible men. But when a missionary, or 
 a band of them, go about to build a church on a basis 
 or foundation materially different from that which was 
 the acknowledged Creed, or Confession of faith of 
 the Primitive Church, the design itself shows that they 
 intend to found a new church — a new religious com- 
 munion. And such a step would lead to two results, 
 which would make the fact that a new church had 
 been established conspicuous and generally admitted, 
 (i.) The new church would not be likely to claim com- 
 munion with the old, but would be likely, on the other 
 hand, to entertain some feelings of hostility towards 
 ' I Cor. iii, 11, 
 
54 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 it. (2.) Nor would the old Church admit the claims 
 of the new one to be received to communion and fel- 
 lowship, if such claims were made. So that the fact of 
 non-intercommunion — and, perhaps, great hostility 
 — would be a sufficient indication that there was no 
 identity or affiliation between them. 
 
 One may err in his apprehension of some of the 
 points of the Primitive Faith. Education may have 
 accustomed him to some modifications of the Primi- 
 tive rites and customs. But these things, so long as 
 they do not lead him to seek, by a conscious intention, 
 to engraft them upon the Primitive Faith and cus- 
 toms, or so to narrow down the Christian Platform, 
 and restrain the liberty of conscience allowed to Chris- 
 tians by the Law of Liberty in Christ Jesus, that its 
 members are not allowed to hold the Faith in its pur- 
 ity — do not necessarily constitute the church so es- 
 tablished, an entirely distinct one. It may teach and 
 practice error — ^but it does so unintentionally. It was 
 not founded for the purpose of binding over its mem- 
 bers to the errors which it inculcates. The door is 
 not closed against the light. It has interposed no ob- 
 stacles to the return to the trutli, in its purity and 
 simplicity ; but everywhere professes the design so to 
 teach that truth to its members. 
 
 The design of the heresiarch — that is, the person 
 who founds a new sect or church — is, to found one 
 that shall embody and represent his own peculiar 
 views. These views are of course [diverse from those 
 entertained by the Church or churches already exist- 
 ing — else there could be no desire to establish a new 
 
THE METHOD STATED AND ILLUSTRATED. 55 
 
 one. Now we have seen, under the Principle last 
 specified, that this desire or design can not be in- 
 dulged in a community where the Church already 
 exists. The operation of the Principle now under dis- 
 cussion, is to prevent this design or desire from taking 
 effect in any other community. The result would be 
 no less a new and distinct church in the one case than 
 in the other. The founder lays a new foundation in 
 the doctrines and usages which he advocates, and his 
 followers are built upon that foundation, with himself, 
 perhaps for " the Chief Corner-stone." And his 
 church, instead of being an extension of the Church 
 of Christ, is most evidently another and a new one. 
 We have now considered the three Principles of 
 Church extension, which encompass the whole sub- 
 ject. I do not profess to have enumerated all the 
 principles involved in the subject — I have selected 
 only those which are the most general in their charac- 
 ter — the most obviously true, and the most easily ap- 
 plied to the facts of history. With these principles, 
 we can follow the Church from its establishment at 
 Jerusalem, in the days of the Apostles, to its exten- 
 sion and final triumph in all the remotest corners of 
 the earth. Be it Episcopal or Presbyterian, Baptist or 
 Papal — be its form and its doctrines what they may — 
 the same Principles of Extension will enable us to fol- 
 low it in its growth, and identify its existence. We 
 need not even know what are its doctrines or its forms 
 — these may all be left as a matter for subsequent in- 
 vestigation. But the Church itself, in any place, and 
 for any country, or any age, we can find and identify 
 
66 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 — postponing all secondary and subordinate questions 
 until we are able to contemplate them from a more 
 advantageous position, and settle them more satisfac- 
 torily. 
 
 I am aware that thus far I have been running counter 
 to the opinion of those who think that the Church 
 exists wherever the Gospel is preached. But evidently 
 the Church and the Faith are not the same thing. The 
 one is a system of doctrines to be believed — ^the other 
 is a visible society professing to be believers in those 
 doctrines. Now it is obvious, that other persons and 
 societies of persons may take the same standard of 
 Faith as that to which the Church holds. Nay, there 
 are different churches and denominations at the pres- 
 ent day, having substantially, if not in form, the same 
 creed, one with another, and yet no one thinks of call- 
 ing them one and the same body — the same Church. 
 
 Let it then be distinctly kept in mind, that we are 
 seeking to identify the Church, and not the Faith. 
 
 The Church, then, is susceptible of an identifica- 
 tion distinct from that of the Faith. We should iden- 
 tify the Faith by first seeking out the earliest Creed, 
 and then follow that creed in its adoption or rejection 
 through the lapse of ages, carefully noting every va- 
 riation in its language — and in the sense in which it 
 was understood and believed. But in identifying the 
 Church, we start with the idea that the Church is a 
 visible society of men and women, capable of a visible 
 historic existence through successive generations, as 
 they pass over the stage of human action. 
 
 And when we have thus outwardly and historically 
 
THE METHOD STATED AND ILLUSTRATED. 5^ 
 
 identified the Church, we may entertain a presump- 
 tion almost as strong as certainty itself, that we shall 
 find in its teaching " the Faith once delivered unto the 
 Saints." At all events we shall have found the casket 
 in which the jewel was placed, — the keeper and wit- 
 ness to whom the Truth was intrusted, and whose tes- 
 timony we are bound to take into consideration in all 
 our inquiries after the Truth itself. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE CHURCH BEFORE THE REFORMATION. 
 
 The full execution of my plan would require me to 
 go over the whole history of the planting and exten- 
 sion of the Church from the day of Pentecost up to the 
 present time, and show the application of the principles 
 laid down in a previous chapter, throughout But 
 this, as will be seen at once, would require a great deal 
 of detail which would have no direct bearing upon the 
 more immediate practical result to which I design 
 to bring my present undertaking. It will be borne in 
 mind, that while I have laid down the principles by 
 which to identify the Church in general, I am aiming 
 to give to the present discussion of the subject such a 
 shape as to enable one with certainty to identify the 
 Church here from amidst so many claiming sects. I 
 shall select my portions of the history of the Church 
 for the application of my principles with this view ; 
 leaving out cdl others as having no immediate connec- 
 tion with the object now before us. 
 
 The Apostles, in executing their mission of preach- 
 ing the Gospel, first settled in the principal towns and 
 cities, establishing a Church in each, which was left to 
 
THE CHURCH BEFORE THE REFORMATION. 59 
 
 grow until it should extend the dominion of Christ's 
 Earthly Kingdom over the surrounding country, and 
 meet the efforts of the Church planted in the next 
 city spreading the Gospel in like manner over its sur- 
 rounding territory. These Churches were at first in- 
 dependent of one another. And if we would follow 
 out the history of their planting, we should find the 
 three Principles already laid down fully and exactly 
 followed. 
 
 Of this independence I shall have occasion to say 
 more in subsequent chapters. 
 
 It would be well, in some respects, to go through 
 the New Testament in the first place and see how these 
 principles were observed and illustrated by the imme- 
 diate Apostles of our Lord. But as I must omit some- 
 thing, and the New Testament is in the hands of every- 
 body, I will pass it over. However, the early history 
 of the Church, besides that which is contained in the 
 Acts and Epistles of the Apostles, assigns a different 
 local and limited territory to each of tlie Apostles, 
 with more or less of certainty in regard to them. 
 In the earlier period there seems to have been a gen- 
 eral division of the Field — as between Sts. Peter and 
 Paul ; the former going chiefly to the Jews and the 
 latter to the Gentiles. But the traditions with regard 
 to the Apostles are rather uncertain and vague. St. 
 Paul, however, refers to this principle as having been 
 observed by himself "Yea, so have I strived to 
 preach the Gospel, not where Christ was named, lest 
 I should build upon another man's foundation."^ 
 * Kom. XV, 20. 
 
60 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 It is, indeed, quite true that the Apostles went 
 sometimes in companies of two or even more, as Sts. 
 Paul and Silas and Timothy and Barnabas and Mark. 
 
 But in all these cases they were in harmony and 
 worked together. They had but one Gospel to preach 
 and one Body to build up. Even if in some places, 
 as at Antioch, there were two congregations — one 
 composed of converts from the Jewish religion and the 
 other from among the Gentiles, — allowed to remain 
 as somewhat distinct for the time — there was but the 
 one Faith, one Lord, one Baptism ; these differences 
 soon disappeared. They were not two churches or 
 two denominations of Christians, for " the wall of par- 
 tition " had been broken down and the tendency was 
 to bring them into union so soon as the Jewish con- 
 verts could be gotten over their disposition to observe 
 certain portions of the Law of Moses, which had been 
 declared by the council at Jerusalem to be no longer 
 binding upon them and not obligatory on the Gentile 
 converts at all. 
 
 But with this exception in a few large cities, where 
 there weie many Jewish people, the church in each city 
 was one, how many soever or Apostles and other min- 
 isters may have labored within its borders. 
 
 We have several short treatises that were written 
 by the immediate disciples of the Apostles, as, Sts. 
 Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp, of whose genuineness 
 there is no doubt. Of these one — Clement — is men- 
 tioned, as is believed, by St. Paul (Phil, iv, 3), as one 
 whose name is written in the Book of Life. 
 
 Of Clement, we have only one Epistle that is clearly 
 
THE CHURCH BEFORE THE REFORMATION. 61 
 
 genuine, and that is to the Corinthians, and is mostly 
 of a practical and hortatory character. He speaks, 
 however (xiv), of those who, " through pride and se- 
 dition, have made themselves ringleaders of detestable 
 emulations." But he says (xlii), " the Apostles have 
 preached to us from our Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus 
 Christ from God. Christ, therefore, was sent by God ; 
 the Apostles by Christ ; so both were orderly sent ac- 
 cording to the will of God. For having received the 
 command . they went abroad proclaiming 
 
 that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus, 
 preaching through countries and cities, they appointed 
 the first fruits of their conversions to be Bishops and 
 Ministers, over such as should afterwards believe, hav- 
 ing first proved them by the Spirit." Then, xliv, he 
 says, " So likewise the Apostles knew, by our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, that there should contentions arise upon 
 the account of the Ministry ; therefore, having a per- 
 fect knowledge of this, they appointed persons, as we 
 before said, and then how, when they should die, other 
 chosen and appointed men sfiould succeed them in this 
 Ministry." 
 
 St. Clement died as a martyr, in the persecution 
 under Trajan, about A.D. lOO, or possibly a little 
 later. The Epistle was written about A.D. 67 or 70. 
 
 The next writer, whose works I will cite, is St. Ig- 
 natius, Bishop of Antioch — that old city on the Oron- 
 tes, — where the believers were first called Christians. 
 He suffered martyrdom at Rome in A.D. 107. He 
 had been a hearer of St. John, and was, probably, con- 
 verted by him. It is also said that he was ordained 
 
62 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 Bishop of Antioch, by St. Peter, before he went to 
 Rome, — if he ever went there. 
 
 On his way to Rome, he wrote seven Epistles: 
 one to the Ephesians, one to Magnesians, one to the 
 Trallians, one to the Romans, one to the Philadel- 
 phians, one to the Smyrneans, and one to St. Poly- 
 carp, at that time the Bishop of Smyrna. 
 
 In his Epistle to the Romans, he makes no mention 
 of their Bishop, — no allusion to "the Chair of St. 
 Peter," and no mention of St. Peter. But in all the 
 other Epistles, except that to Polycarp, who was him- 
 self Bishop, he makes constant mention of the Minis- 
 try as existing in the three orders : Bishop, Presby- 
 ters and Deacons. In these letters — except that "to 
 the Romans " — although the Martyr makes mention 
 of their Ministry, Bishop, Presbyters and Deacons, yet 
 in no one of them does he allude to any Bishop as 
 being over these Diocesan Bishops, or to any " Bish- 
 ops of Provinces," or Archbishops, as they were after- 
 ward called. It is most likely, therefore, that at that 
 early period, which was, at the latest, A.D. ii6, the 
 Church had not been organized into Provinces, so that 
 each city, with its one Bishop and other clergy — Pres- 
 byters — always in the plural, and Deacons — were 
 totally independent of any and all others. 
 
 With Ignatius, therefore, the office of a Bishop 
 was a definite and precise thing. 
 
 In the epistle to the Ephesians he says (iii): "For 
 our Lord Jesus Christ, our inseparable Life, is sent by 
 the will of the Father as the Bishops appointed to the ut- 
 most bounds of the earth, are by the will of Jesus Christ" 
 
THE CHURCH BEFORE THE REFORMATION. 63 
 
 In the epistle to the Magnesians (vi) he says: "I ex- 
 hort you, that ye study to do all things in a divine 
 accord, your Bishop presiding, . . . your Pres- 
 byters in the place of the council of Apostles and 
 your Deacons, most dear to me, being entrusted with 
 the ministrations of Jesus Christ." In the epistle to 
 the Tralliaris (iii) speaking of the three orders. Bishop, 
 Presbyters and Deacons, he says : " Without these 
 there is no Church." To the Philadelphians (iv) he 
 says: " Wherefore let it be your endeavor to partake 
 all of you of the same Holy Eucharist, for there is but 
 one flesh of one Lord Jesus Christ and one cup in the 
 unity of his blood, one Altar ; as also there is one 
 Bishop, together with his Presbytery, and the Deacons, 
 my fellow servants, so that whatever ye do, ye may 
 do it according to the will of God." To the Smyr- 
 neans he says (viii) : " In that ye all follow your Bishop 
 as Jesus Christ followed the Father j and the Pres- 
 bytery as the Apostles ; and reverence the Deacons, 
 as God has commanded." 
 
 These extracts are but a small part of what might 
 be cited. But they will suffice for the present pur- 
 pose, and I think they will be regarded as strong con- 
 firmation of my point, namely, that there was but one 
 Church or denomination in one city or community, 
 and that provision had been made by our Lord and 
 his Apostles for establishing such a Church in every 
 city and nation of the Earth. 
 
 But instead of following the long detail of the his- 
 tory of their planting, it may be both more satisfactory 
 and more interesting to quote a few passages from the 
 
64 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 early Christian writers to show that the principles to 
 which I have called attention, were then substantially- 
 regarded in the same light as I have aimed to place 
 them. 
 
 Of course it will not be expected that they were 
 then stated in the way that I have stated them ; for 
 there was then no occasion for such a statement. The 
 principles were not disputed or denied, and of course 
 needed not to to be stated in either an argumentative 
 or didactic way. All that we can expect therefore is 
 to find them recognized or assumed as unquestionably 
 true. The evidence of the regard for these principles 
 would be perhaps the most clearly manifested in such 
 a work as Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History, where 
 he gives an account of the spread and perpetuation of 
 the Church down to his own time, that is, through the 
 first three centuries. In each case we find the historian 
 ' carefully specifying the facts which show the conform- 
 ity to these principles : and yet not in a way to imply 
 that there was any dispute or doubt about them; but 
 rather in a way which implies that these were the es- 
 sential facts, which it was well and important to put 
 distinctly on record. 
 
 I will cite, therefore, only a few of the later Fath- 
 ers, and the first passage that I will quote is from Ter- 
 tulHan, who was converted to Christianity toward the 
 close of the second century. In writing of heretics, or, 
 perhaps I had better say — concerning the rule by 
 which we are to decide who are heretics, he says : 
 
 " Immediately, therefore, the Apostles (whom this 
 title intendeth to denote as ' sent '), having chosen by 
 
THE CHURCH BEFORE THE REFORMATION. 65 
 
 lot a twelfth, Matthias, into the room of Judas . . 
 . . first having throughout Judea borne witness to 
 the faith in Jesus Christ, and established Churches, 
 next went forth into the world and preached the same 
 doctrine of the same Faith to the nations, and forth- 
 with founded Churches in every city from whence the 
 other Churches thenceforward borrowed the tradition 
 of the Faith [received the Faith] and the seeds of doc- 
 trine, and are daily borrowing them, that they may 
 become Churches. . . . Wherefore these Churches, 
 so many and so great, are but that one primitive 
 Church from the Apostles, whence they all spring. 
 Thus all are the primitive, and all are Apostolical, 
 while all are one." ^ 
 
 And then in reference to others, he says : 
 " If there be any heresies [sects] which venture to 
 plant themselves in the midst of the age of the Apos- 
 tles, that they may therefore be thought to have been 
 handed down from the Apostles, because they existed 
 under the Apostles', we may say, let them then make 
 known the original of their churches : let them unfold 
 the roll of their bishops so coming down in succession 
 from the beginning that their first Bishop had for his 
 ordainer and predecessor some one of the Apostles, or 
 of the Apostolic men, that continued steadfast with 
 the Apostles. For in this manner do the Apostolic 
 Churches reckon their origin: as the Church of 
 Smyrna recounteth that Polycarp was placed there by 
 John ; as that of Rome doth, that Clement was in like 
 manner ordained by Peter. Just so can the rest also 
 ' TertuUian, De Praescrip., § xx. 
 
 5 
 
66 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 show those, whom being appointed by the Apostles 
 to the Episcopate, they have as transmitters of the 
 Apostolic seed. ... To this test, then, they will 
 be challenged by those Churches, which, although 
 they can bring forward as their founder no one of the 
 Apostles or of Apostolic men (as being of much later 
 date, and, indeed, being founded daily), nevertheless, 
 since they agree in the same Faith, are, by reason of 
 their consanguinity in doctrine, counted not the less 
 Apostolical. So let all heresies, when challenged by 
 our Churches to both these tests, [to wit, their origin 
 and their faith"] prove themselves Apostolical in what- 
 ever way they may think themselves so to be. But 
 in truth they neither are so, nor can they prove them- 
 selves to be what they are not, nor are they received 
 into union and communion by Churches, in any way 
 Apostolical, to wit, because they are in no way Apos- 
 tolical, by reason of the sacred mystery which they 
 teach." 1 
 
 The reader will please bear in mind that I am not 
 quoting Tertullian for the sake of expressing my own 
 ideas in another man's language, nor for the sake of 
 approving all that he says. My object is to show that 
 the Principles of church extension which I have laid 
 down, were constantly kept in view and regarded as 
 sacred by the Church generally, before the Reforma- 
 tion. For this purpose I continue my quotations a 
 little farther. 
 
 The next author that I shall quote is Cyprian, who 
 also had been a heathen of eminence, before he was 
 converted. He died a Martyr, A.D. 258, Sept 14. 
 ' Tertullian, De Praescrip., § xxxii. 
 
THE CHURCH BEFORE THE REFORMATION. 67 
 
 "The Church is likewise one, though she be spread 
 abroad, and multiphes with the increase of her prog- 
 eny : even as the sun has rays many, yet one light ; 
 and the tree boughs many, yet its strength is one 
 seated in the deep-lodged root ; and as where many 
 streams flow down from one source, though a multi- 
 plicity of waters seem to be diffused from the bounti- 
 fulness of the overflowing abundance, and unity is pre- 
 served in the source itself. Part a ray of the sun from 
 its orb, and its unity forbids the division of light; 
 break a branch from the tree, once broken it can bud 
 no more ; cut the stream from its fountain, the rem- 
 nant will be dried up. Thus the Church flooded with 
 the light of the Lord, puts forth her rays through the 
 whole world, with yet one light, which is spread upon 
 all places, while its unity of body is not infringed. 
 She stretches forth her branches over the universal 
 earth, in the riches of plenty, and pours abroad her 
 beautiful and onward streams, yet is there one head, 
 one source, one Mother abundant in the results of her 
 fruitfulness." ^ 
 
 Again, the same author speaking of Novatian, who 
 had tried to get up a new church, says : 
 
 " He attempts to make a human church, and sends 
 his new apostles through very many cities that he may 
 establish certain recent foundations of his own institu- 
 tion." "And does any think that there can be, in 
 one place, either many shepherds or many flocks ? 
 The Apostle Paul, likewise imitating the same unity, 
 solemnly exhorts 'I beseech you, brethren, by the name 
 1 Cyprian, De Unitate, Oxford Trans. § 4. 
 
68 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same 
 thing, and that there be no schisms among you ; but 
 that ye be joined together in the same mind and in 
 the same judgment.' And again he says, 'forbearing 
 one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of 
 the spirit in the bond of peace.' Think you that any 
 can stand and live who withdraws from the Church 
 and forms himself a new home and a different dwell- 
 ing?"i 
 
 This brings us to A.D. 325, the first General Council 
 after that of the " Apostles, Elders and Brethren," 
 which met at Jerusalem. — Acts xv. 
 
 Before this time, however, the Bishops and Churches 
 had been accustomed to meet and confer with one 
 another in -regard to matters of doctrine and disci- 
 pline. In this way we have a series of Canons, known 
 as the Apostolical Canons. No one knows when or 
 where, or by whom they were formed. But at the 
 Council of Nice — ^which was held, it will be remem- 
 bered, within about twelve years after the conversion 
 of Constantine, and as soon, therefore, as any general 
 Council could have been held, — these Canons were in 
 existence. And what is more, they were recognized 
 and re enacted for the whole Church, as obligatory 
 upon all of its members. They said, " Let the an- 
 cient Canons or customs be maintained." I will cite 
 a few of their provisions, as proving the point that 
 there was then but one church in a city or town, that 
 was recognized as belonging to the Catholic Church, 
 — all the rest were regarded as heretics or schismatics. 
 ' Epist. Iv, § 20, and De Unitate § 7. 
 
THE CHURCH BEFORE THE REFORMATION. 69 
 
 Canon XIV ordains that no Bishop may go beyond 
 his Diocese [or Parish as it was then called] to per- 
 form any function except in certain cases, and "this 
 must be done not of his own accord, but by the judg- 
 ment of many Bishops and at their earnest exhorta- 
 tion." Canon XXXI provides that " if any Presbyter, 
 despising his own Bishop, shall collect a separate Con- 
 gregation and erect another Altar, ... let him 
 be deposed for his ambition." Canon XXXIV enacts 
 " the Bishops of any nation must acknowledge him 
 who is first among them and account him as their 
 head, . . . but each one of them may do those 
 things which concern his Diocese (or See) and the 
 the country places which belong to it." And XXXV 
 Canon prohibits a Bishop from ordaining any clergy 
 beyond his own limits, in cities and places not subject 
 to him. The provincial system had now come into 
 use to some extent. 
 
 Passing now to the Council of Nice, A. D. 325, we 
 have as Canon IV : " It is most proper that a Bishop 
 should be consecrated by all the Bishops of the prov- 
 inces, but if this be impossible, ... at all events 
 three shall meet together to consecrate him. . . . 
 and those who are absent shall give their consent in 
 writing." Canon VI ordains: " Let the ancient cus- 
 toms prevail which are in Egypt and Lybia and Pen- 
 topolis. . . . For this is customary to the Bishops 
 of Rome. In like manner at Antioch and in all the 
 other provinces the privileges are to be preserved to 
 the Churches." It will be noticed that "the Bishop of 
 Rome" is mentioned and "the customs" of his prov- 
 
70 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 inces as one of the many that were recognized were 
 to be preserved. But manifestly he was only one of 
 the many, and had at that time no authority or juris- 
 diction out of his " own province " which we happen 
 to know was then only the " suburbicarian districti" 
 that is, Rome and its suburbs, with, possibly, the Isl- 
 and of Sicily. 
 
 I will now quote one or two other Fathers who 
 lived and wrote after the Council of Nice. 
 
 St. Chrysostom, A. D. 395, in writing his Homilies 
 on the Epistle to the Galatians, on the expression 
 "churches of Galaiia," thinks that St. Paul was re- 
 ferring to the sects that had been founded by the 
 preachers of another Gospel. He notices that the 
 Apostle does not call them "the beloved" or "the 
 saints " nor even " the churches of God " but simply 
 "churches of Galatia." " Here at the outset, as well 
 as elsewhere, he attacks their irregularities and there- 
 fore gives them the name of ' churches ' in order to 
 impress them and to reduce them to unity. For per- 
 sons split into many parties cannot properly claim the 
 appellation 'church;' for the name is one of harmony 
 and concord." 
 
 This exposition, as will be seen at once, is based 
 upon the idea that there could be only one Church in 
 a place that could " properly claim the name." He 
 seems not to have thought of the possibility of there 
 being more than one in the same community and there- 
 fore he gives the explanation which we find above. 
 
 Again he says : — 
 
 " For this is, if anything, the subversion of the 
 
THE CHURCH BEFORE THE REFORMATION: 71 
 
 Church, the being in divisions. This is the Devil's 
 weapon, this turneth all things upside-down. For so 
 long as the body is joined into one, he has no power 
 to get an entrance, but it is from division that the 
 offense Cometh."^ I now quote from Cyril, Bishop 
 of Jerusalem, A. r>. 350: 
 
 " While the Kings of particular nations have bounds 
 set to their dominions, the Holy Church Catholic alone 
 extends her illimitable sovereignty over the whole 
 world." "Now it is called" catholic "because it is 
 throughout the world, from one end of the earth to the 
 other, and because it teaches, universally and com- 
 pletely, one and all the doctrines which ought to come 
 to men's knowledge, concerning things both visible 
 and invisible, heavenly and earthly; and because it 
 subjugates in order to godliness, every class of men, 
 governors and governed, learned and unlearned; and 
 because it universally treats and heals every sort of 
 sins which are committed by soul or body, and pos- 
 sesses in itself every form of virtue which is named 
 both in deeds and words and in every kind of spiritual 
 gifts. And it is rightly named ' Church^ because it 
 calls forth and assembles together all men."^ 
 
 The same author says also : " But since the word 
 ' Church ' or ' Assembly ' is applied to different things 
 (as also it is written of the multitude in the theatre of 
 the Ephesians, Acts xix, 41, and since one might prop- 
 erly say that there is a church of the evil doers) the 
 Faith [the rule of Faith, or Apostles' Creed] has 
 ' Homilies XXXII on Rom. xvi, 17, 18. 
 'Cathechet, Lects., xviii, §§ 27, 23, 24. 
 
12 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 delivered to thee, by way of security, the Article, 'and 
 in One Holy Catholic Church^ that thou mayest avoid 
 their wretched meetings and ever abide with the Holy 
 Church Catholic in which thou wast born again. And 
 if ever thou art sojourning in any city, inquire not 
 simply where the Lord's House is (for the sects of the 
 profane also make an attempt to call their own dens 
 ' Houses of the Lord,') nor merely where the church is, 
 but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the 
 peculiar name of this Holy Body, the Mother of us all, 
 which is the Spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the 
 Only Begotten Son of God."' 
 
 Here I close my quotations from individual authots, 
 not, however, from want of much more like this, (foi 
 I could easily fill a volume), but for want of room, 
 and because I deem it unnecessary to proceed any 
 farther. 
 
 I have quoted the Apostolic Canons and those of 
 Nice as bearing on the subject before us. It may be 
 well, however, before going any farther to cite the Vlth 
 Canon of Constantinople. The council was a general 
 council of the whole Church, and was held A. D. 381. 
 The Fathers at this council say: "And we include 
 under the name of heretics those who have been for- 
 mally cast off by the Church, and those who have 
 since been anathematized by us, and in addition to 
 these, those also, who do indeed pretend to confess 
 the sound Faith, but have separated themselves and 
 founded congregations in opposition to our canonical 
 
 Bishops." 
 
 * Lects. xviii, § 26. 
 
THE CHURCH BEFORE THE REFORMATION. ijs 
 
 m accordance with the Principles already discussed 
 in Chap. II., which as we have now seen, were enter- 
 tained by the Church universally, the communion of 
 the Church was extended from its first establishment 
 up to the time of the Reformation with a progressive 
 growth from century to century, until it covered the 
 whole of Europe — the Western part of Asia, and the 
 Northeastern part of Africa. 
 
 Thus the Church was established in Asia Minor by 
 the Apostles A. D. 40-50. St. Mark, the Evangelist, 
 established it in Egypt. In the fourth century Fru- 
 mentius was consecrated by St. Athanasius as the first 
 Bishop of Ethiopia. And in the same century the 
 Gospel was preached in Armenia, Iberia, Thrace, 
 Moesia, and Dacia. Two missionaries — Columban 
 and Wilibord — the former fro Ireland, and the lat- 
 ter from England, planted the Church to a consider- 
 able extent in many parts of Germany — as Batavia, 
 Friesland, Westphalia, and Denmark in the seventh 
 century. In the eighth century Nestorian Mission- 
 aries from Chaldea converted the Tartars. In the 
 ninth century the Church made its way into Austria, 
 Sweden, and Russia. In the tenth it became estab- 
 lished in Poland, Hungary, and Denmark. Of course 
 it did not reach the Western Continent until the six- 
 teenth century, or afterwards 
 
 Thus we see that the Church was never stationary 
 — but always progressing in its extension, Many of 
 the nations which we have named above were not 
 wholly converted at the time specified, and the work 
 of their conversion continued many years (in some 
 cases more than A century) before it was completed 
 
74 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 The ravages of Mahometanism had obscured and 
 greatly marred a part of the Church, and the strifes 
 between the Bishops of Rome and of Constantinople 
 for the supremacy or precedence, had led to a division 
 or schism. Russia and the east of Europe, including 
 Greece and the west of Asia, and the northeast part 
 of Africa were on the one side, and Europe, from Aus- 
 tria west,"was on the other. The former part is usually 
 known as the Greek Church. The latter as the West- 
 ern or Roman Church. 
 
 There is no contemporary evidence that St. Peter 
 was ever at Rome. We know of his having been at 
 Antioch and having participated in building up the 
 Church in that ancient city. It is in fact pretty well 
 established that before the union of the Jewish and 
 Gentile converts, St. Peter labored there with the con- 
 verts from Judaism as St. Paul did with those that had 
 been converted from the Gentile world, and that the 
 two Apostles united in placing Ignatius — from whose 
 epistles, written on his way to his martyrdom at Rome, 
 we have already made some quotations. 
 
 But there is no contemporary evidence that St Peter 
 ever went to Rome in any capacity ; Ignatius never 
 alludes to it. None of the earlier lists of their Bishops 
 ever include his name. St. Jerome, who lived at the 
 close of the fourth and fifth century, is the first author 
 of note that gives the name of Peter as among their 
 Bishops. Otherwise and by other and all the earlier 
 authorities, we have the list as follows : Linus, A. D. 
 79, Clement (whose epistles I have quoted), Anacletus, 
 A. D. 91, and so on. 
 
THE CHURCH BEFORE THE reformation: 75" 
 
 But in the second and third centuries — that is, one 
 hundred years or more after St. Peter's death, writers 
 began to speak of him as having suffered martyrdom, 
 with St. Paul, at Rome. I certainly do not intend to 
 deny that he did, but the fact that there is no con- 
 temporary evidence of the fact, no mention made of it 
 and no allusion to it for some two or three hundred 
 years after the death of St. Peter, shows very clearly 
 that no such importance was attached to the fact of his 
 having been there, as we have in modern times, espe- 
 cially by the advocates of the Romish Supremacy. The 
 notion of the " Chair of St. Peter " as at Rome, and 
 the idea that Peter himself was the Rock — rather than 
 the Faith which he had just confessed — on which the 
 Church was built, came in at a later age. We know 
 how and when it came — the "Fathers" conceded "the 
 primacy of honor " to the See of Rome, because that 
 Rome was the " imperial city." At the Council of Nice 
 the fathers conceded the second place to ^lia — ^Jerusa- 
 lem — ^while in fact Alexandria was the ecclesiastical 
 head of the Church at that time, and at Constantinople 
 A. D. 381. Constantine having made that city the seat 
 of his empire in the East, the "Fathers" decreed (Canon 
 III) that " the Bishop of Constantinople shall have the 
 primacy or precedence of honor after the Bishop of 
 Rome, because that Constantinople is new Rome:" the 
 Council of Chalcedon, the largest of the general coun- 
 cils, A. D. 451, with six hundred and thirty Bishops, 
 decided Canon XXVIII, "the Fathers /ro/^r^r gave 
 the primacy to the throne of the elder Rome, because 
 that was the imperial city." 
 
78 \Tff£ CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 The growth of the Supremacy of the Bishop of 
 Rome as contrasted with the mere "Primacy in honor" 
 which the early councils gave him, was gradual, and 
 will be considered more at length hereafter. But the 
 influence of the city — "the imperial city " — ^was grad- 
 ually transferred to the See of the Bishop. I will in 
 this place, however, allude to one of the means of this 
 transfer, which was of a more general character. The 
 Bishops of Rome, besides having their Sees in the im- 
 perial city, were generally — though not always — re- 
 garded as sound in the faith. Hence, very naturally, 
 appeals would he made to them by Bishops of less 
 important Sees. They would apply to them for their 
 " opinions" as anybody in these modern times would 
 ask the opinion of a great and influential man in any 
 department of theology or science — when he might 
 happen to be in doubt, or, as frequently occurred, 
 when he happened to be in controversy with his more 
 immediate superior, the Bishop of the province in 
 which he lived. 
 
 As an example: From the time of Constantine, the 
 Emperors in the East were, or professed to be. Chris- 
 tians with one exception — the apostate Julian. But 
 they were statesmen more than Christians, for the 
 most part, and they were disposed to use whatever of 
 Christian influence they could command, whether cath- 
 olic or sectarian, as they could best use it for purposes 
 of statecraft or kingcraft. But Rome and the Bishop 
 of Rome, for the time being, was too powerful to be 
 ignored. Nay, it was not safe, in a political point of 
 view, to dissent or differ from him in matters of the 
 
THE CHURCH BEFORE THE REFORMATION. *i*i 
 
 faith. Hence Bishops in the east, from Antioch, from 
 Edessa, and such places would appeal to the Bishop 
 of the older Rome, as against those that differed from 
 them in the East and even from the Emperor himself, 
 when he happened, as occurred quite too often, to be 
 unsound in the faith. The Bishop of Rome, to say- 
 nothing of any ambitious or selfish motives, would, for 
 the sake of his adhesion to the faith of the Church, as 
 declared at Nice, side with the appellant; and with so 
 much influence from his very name (often) and his 
 position (always), that the Emperor seldom dared to 
 disregard it or go in contradiction to the opinion thus 
 declared. 
 
 And what thus grew up, naturally, from the posi- 
 tion of the Bishops of Rome, and was, at first, merely 
 a matter of our common human nature, came to be 
 " precedents," and were afterwards cited as such in 
 favor of claims to a supremacy in matters of faith and 
 discipline, such as none of the earlier bishops of Rome 
 ever thought of claiming. And thus we see an illus- 
 tration of the saying, that what is wrong, ought not 
 to be done at all ; and what is right, ought to be done 
 as a precedent. 
 
 However, the Bishops of Rome, in the rude times 
 that followed, were extending, by one means or 
 another, their influence over the churches of the West- 
 ern Empire, or rather the western part of the Empire. 
 -The Roman Communion therefore consisted of sev- 
 eral national or provincial Churches, which had been 
 brought in some way to acknowledge the supremacy 
 of the Bishop of Rome as Pope. He and they had 
 
78 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED.' 
 
 arrogantly appropriated to themselves the title of 
 " Catholic," and declared obedience and submission to 
 the Pope to be indispensable to God's favor. 
 
 Among those Churches which had been brought 
 into this subjugation was the Church of England. 
 Planted in that Island in the days of the Apostles, and 
 probably by an Apostle's own labors — St. Paul — it 
 maintained its perfect freedom from all foreign juris- 
 diction or interference for four or five centuries — until 
 after the Saxon invasion. The Island was then re- 
 converted in part, by Missionaries, sent thither from 
 Rome, who, of course, brought with them a Roman 
 influence, which, by one means and another, was in- 
 creased, until the Papal Supremacy was fully acknowl- 
 edged some five or six hundred years afterwards. Of 
 course, therefore, the Church of England partook of 
 the darkness and corruptions of the middle ages. 
 While the Eastern Churches which had never ac- 
 knowledged the Papal Supremacy, had not become 
 nearly so corrupt. 
 
 At the Reformation then, we have the Church in 
 what, for convenience sake, may be called two com- 
 munions — the Eastern or Greek, and the Western or 
 Roman — nearly equal in point of numbers — and both 
 equally parts of the original vine, planted in accord- 
 ance with the Principles to which our attention has 
 been called. They were divided by events that oc- 
 curred long after they were established, and not by 
 the very fact of their origin. The Reformation — 
 which took place in a part of the Western or Roman 
 part of the Church — constituted still another division, 
 
'THE CHURCH BEFORE THE REFORMATION. 'jg 
 
 as we shall soon see ; so that after that event the whole 
 Church Catholic will be distinguished into three parts 
 or communions — the Greek, the Roman, and the Re- 
 formed. 
 
 It would be unnecessary, so far as the practical re- 
 sult of our present undertaking is concerned, to refer 
 to any of the sects which existed before the Reforma- 
 tion, were it not for the fact, that some of our modern 
 sects refer to them, and especially to the Waldenses 
 and Albigenses, as the link of visible union and con- 
 nection between themselves and the Primitive Church 
 Catholic. These sects have also served many modern 
 speculators another very convenient turn. After hav- 
 ing come to the conclusion that the Churches in the 
 Roman Obedience are apostate, it is necessary to 
 point to something that might be regarded as the con- 
 tinuation of the Church, notwithstanding this apostacy; 
 and, as if forgetting the whole Eastern half of the 
 Church, these writers have fixed upon the Waldenses 
 and Albigenses as ansv/ering the demands of their 
 theory. It becomes necessary, therefore, for these 
 two reasons, to give these Sects a passing notice. 
 
 I. The Albigenses seem to have been a sect who 
 were at first called Paulicians, and are said to have 
 been Manichceans also in their religious opinions. 
 The Paulicians are a sect " said to have been founded 
 in Armenia [a country in Asiatic Turkey] by two 
 brothers, Paul and John, the sons of Callinice, of 
 Samosata, and said to have received its name from 
 them : some, however, derive it from one Paul, an 
 Armenian, who lived in the reign of Justinian II." ^ 
 ' Mosheim. Book III. cent. ix„ Part II., cap. v., sec. 2. 
 
80 THE CHURCIT IDENTIFIED. 
 
 About the middle of the eighth century, (752. Ced- 
 renus) Constaiitine, surnamed Copronymus, by the 
 worshipers of images, had made an expedition into 
 Armenia, and found in the cities of Melitene and Theo- 
 dosiopoHs a great number of PauHcians, his kindred 
 heretics. As a favor, or a punishment, he trans- 
 planted them from the banks of the Euphrates to 
 Constantinople and Thrace; and by this emigration 
 their doctrine was introduced and diffused in Europe."^ 
 " From Bulgaria and Thrace, some of this sect, either 
 from zeal to extend their religion, or from weariness 
 of Grecian persecution, removed first into Italy, and 
 then into other countries of Europe ; and there they 
 gradually collected numerous congregations, with 
 which the Roman Pontiffs afterwards waged very fierce 
 wars."^ " Albigesium was the name given to the 
 whole territory of the Viscount of Albi, Beziers, Car- 
 cassone, and Rasez. Hence Albigenses became, from 
 this time, the name, — at first for all those who fought 
 against the crusaders, and then — ^for the Catlmri^ or 
 Puritans, as they called themselves." 
 
 I will now proceed to give some of their character- 
 istic doctrines : That there are two Gods and Lords, 
 the one good, the other evil ; that the creation of all 
 things visible and corporeal was not by God the 
 Father Almighty and the Lord Jesus Christ, but by 
 the Devil and Satan, the evil god, who is the god of 
 this world ; that all Sacraments are vain and unprofit- 
 
 1 Gibbon's Decline and Fall. Ch. LIV. 
 "Mosheim. Cent, xi.. Part II., cap. v., sec. 2. 
 'Gieseler. Text Book of Ecc. Hist. Ed. Philadelphia, 1836. 
 Vol. ii. p. 385, sec. 7. 
 
THE CHURCH BEFORE THE REFORMATION: 81 
 
 able. As to the Eucharist, they believe that there is 
 nothing in it but mere bread. They condemned Bap- 
 tism by water, saying that a man was to be saved by 
 the laying on of hands upon those that believed them. 
 They allow of no ministry. They say that marriage is 
 always sinful, and cannot be without sin. They hold 
 that our Lord did not take a real human body, nor 
 real human flesh of our nature ; and that he did not 
 really rise with it, nor do other things relating to our 
 salvation. They affirm that the Virgin Mary was not 
 a real woman, " but their church, which is true peni- 
 tence ; and that is the Virgin Mary." They deny the 
 resurrection of the body, and hold that human souls 
 are spirits banished from heaven on account of their 
 sins.i 
 
 I will not go farther into an account of this sect. 
 The " Facts and Documents " collected by Maitland, 
 show beyond question that they were, as he says, 
 " either hypocritical imposters or misguided fanatics,"- 
 or both, aiming at no good for mankind ; and so far 
 from being characterized for true piety and zeal against 
 the errors of their times, they were given to sensuality 
 and selfishness. 
 
 After what has been said, it will hardly be necessary 
 to add anything more to show that no modern sect 
 can gain anything in point of respectability or ecclesi- 
 astical identity with the Church of Christ from an alli- 
 ance with the Albigenses. We have seen that they 
 were not persons of good standing in the Church in 
 
 'Abridged from Limborch, in Maitland's Facts and Docu- 
 ments, p. 233-241. 
 
 6 
 
82 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 the country from which the founders of this sect in ; 
 Europe came. They went into a country where the 
 Church was fully established, without going into, or 
 seeking to enter, its communion ; they set themselves 
 about making converts to their opinions, which were 
 sufficiently abhorrent from the Faith once delivered 
 to the Saints; they neither claimed, nor were acknowl- 
 edged to be, a part of that identical, visible society 
 which had existed from the days of the Apostles, and 
 was planted by their labors. 
 
 2. " The early history of the Waldenses is, indeed, 
 involved in some obscurity ; but it seems clear, be- 
 yond all reasonable doubt, that they owed their name 
 and their origin as a sect, to a certain citizen of 
 Lyons (in France), who lived in the latter half of the 
 twelfth century [1160]. It appears, also, that he 
 [Peter Waldo] caused the Scriptures to be translated 
 into the vulgar tongue ; that he and his immediate fol- 
 lowers drew upon themselves the censure and persecu- 
 tion of the Church, not only by taking upon themselves 
 the office of teaching, but by some of the doctrines 
 which they taught." ^ " It does not appear that Waldo 
 and his immediate followers contemplated a separation 
 from the Church, but rather a revival of personal reli- 
 gion within its pale, and a removal of some abuses 
 and superstitions. ... It seems clear, from the 
 statements, or (what is even more important) the 
 silence, 'of their persecutors and their own confessions 
 (that is, from all the sources of information that we 
 possess), that opposition zvas not directed against some 
 ' Maitland's Facts and Documents, p. 677. 
 
THE CHURCH BEFORE THE REFORMATION. 83 
 
 of the peculiar doctrines of the Romish Church." ^ 
 For instance, they held firmly to the doctrine of 
 Transubstantiation, and believed that each individual 
 could perform the service of the Mass. There is rea- 
 son to believe that Waldo designed to form a new 
 religious Order, like the Monks or Friars, under the 
 sanction of the Romish See, but failed in his object. 
 
 We have before us, then, the Waldenses, or a sect 
 within the Church, differing in many respects from its 
 doctrines, yet agreeing with it in many of its peculiar 
 characteristics — submitting to its opposition and per- 
 secution. But besides these, many of them were 
 scattered abroad by the persecutions, and became 
 associated with the Albigenses, and were dispersed 
 over the greater part of Europe. There they re- 
 mained until the Reformation, and were among the 
 first to join that movement. This fact will go far to 
 account for the confusion of names so often found in 
 speaking of these people. 
 
 Of that part of the followers of Waldo which joined 
 the Albigenses, and by which the doctrines of the 
 latter were much modified, we need not say anything 
 further. Ecclesiastically they became the same "peo- 
 ple" a part of the same sect, bearing the same rela- 
 tion to the identity of the Church. 
 
 But of the other part of the Waldenses, we need say 
 nothing further than that, as a sect in the Church, 
 they had ceased their existence before the commence- 
 ment of the Reformation. But if they had not, they 
 would not require to be considered as a distinct branch 
 
 of the Church. 
 
 1 Maitland as above p. 467. 
 
84 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 So far, then, as our present purpose is concerned, 
 we may regard these two sects, that is, the Albigenses 
 and the Waldenses, except that portion of them which 
 never separated from the Church of Lyons, where they 
 were born, as being but one. Shall we now claim for 
 them the name and character of a Church, properly 
 so called ? This word either denotes the Church — 
 that is, the Church universal — or a particular branch 
 of it ; and, in this last case, it must be the Church of 
 some particular place, and have a local habitation — a 
 geographical position on the surface of the earth. Of 
 what territory or country were they the Church? 
 Of Albigesium ? If so, then of course they were 
 schismatics whenever they went into any other terri- 
 tory already occupied by the Church, and set up their 
 independent emd rival jurisdiction there. But they 
 were not the Church of Albigesium — that Church 
 was established long before these emissaries from 
 Thrace came thither with their peculiar doctrines: 
 they neither claimed nor received communion with 
 the Church of Albi — were in no way merged in or 
 identified with it while they remdned — but always 
 continued to be a distinct, a rival, and an opposing 
 body. They were a sect of human origin at the first, 
 and that they continued to be until they were lost in 
 the sects that arose at the time of the Reformation. 
 
 It is evident therefore, that notliing can be gained 
 by any modern sect in the point of identity with the 
 Church of Christ, from a connection with the Albi- 
 genses or Waldenses. They constituted no distinct 
 part of the Church — no branch of the original vine. 
 
^ THE CHURCH BEFORE THE REFORMATION. 85 
 
 As a church they had not existed from the Apostles' 
 days, in a distinct individual capacity : and, therefore, 
 they were not of Apostolical origin. They never were 
 in communion with any part of the Apostolical Church, 
 for a moment, from the very comniencement of their 
 existence as a sect. They never held or claimed the 
 ecclesiastical jurisdiction of any one portion of the 
 habited globe ; but were always a sect living within 
 the limits of, and in opposition to, a branch of the 
 Church whose catholicity was not questioned by them, 
 and whose right to jurisdiction is undeniable. 
 
 The efforts of Waldo and his immediate followers, 
 so far as they aimed only at a reformation, and the 
 restoration of pure religion, cannot fail to elicit our 
 most cordial sympathy. But we must not attribute 
 to him an infallibility, nor let our admiration and ap- 
 probation of his course follow him any farther than he 
 followed the only infallible Standard and Guide of hu- 
 man actions. I readily concede that his views were 
 a vast improvement upon the Church dogmas of the 
 age and country in which he lived. But when he 
 consented to become the founder of a sect — to lay an 
 " other foundation " whereon for others to build — ^he 
 vjolated a fundamental law of God — a law which, I 
 suppose, I have sufficiently developed, as the Second 
 Principle of Church Extension,^ and which every sect 
 and denomination of our land sanctions by its own use. 
 It is the law of unity. Take the case of any village 
 or community in which there is a parish of Presbyte- 
 rians, Baptists, Methodists, or Congregationalists even, 
 • Chap. ii. 
 
86 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 sufficient to accommodate all the persons of that way' 
 of thinking in that place, and where there is no pros- ' 
 pect of an increase of numbers, and what they have 
 are only sufficient for the support of the ministrations 
 of the one parish ; and none of these denominations 
 will allow their members to form a new parish in that 
 place, necessarily weakening, as it will the old one and 
 presenting an occasion for inevitable rivalry, opposi- 
 tion, and contention, between those who are thus un- 
 necessarily divided. The organized seceders would 
 not be recognized in such a case as a church of their 
 denomination by any of these sects, nor allowed a seat 
 in their Council, Presbytery, Conference, or whatever 
 may be the name by which they designate their delib- 
 erative body next above the parish. 
 t Now, assuredly we cannot deny that the Church of 
 Christ has the power which they claim for their own, 
 to preserve its unity, and protect itself from the iden- 
 tification with itself of other bodies heterogeneous to 
 its own, and containing principles fundamentally re- 
 pugnant to those on which its existence depends. 
 
 I am aware that I have given an account of the 
 Waldenses and Albigenses somewhat different from 
 those which are the most popularly received. The 
 truth of the case is, that but little has been known 
 about these sects until quite lately. And writers who 
 felt the awkwardness of their position in advocating 
 the ecclesiastical character of churches unconnected 
 with the past, as well as those who, though they were 
 in no such position, were, nevertheless, bent on mak- 
 ing out the theory that the Church of Rome is the 
 
' Tim CHURCH BEFORE THE REFORMATION. 87 
 
 anti-Christ spoken of in the Scriptures, and needed 
 these sects for the " two wiinesses," have seized upon, 
 here and there, a fact or an isolated expression, and 
 in some cases even drawn upon their fancy for facts, 
 to make out such an account of them as would best 
 subserve the purposes of their respective theories. But 
 the publication of The Facts and Documents relat- 
 ing to them by Mr. Maitland, has revealed a state of 
 facts which yields but little support to those theories 
 and has completely dissipated the hopes of their ad- 
 vocates. It is from this source that the foregoing ac- 
 count of those mediaeval sects has been chiefly de-^ 
 rived. 
 
 ' Before proceeding any further in our attempt to^ 
 identify the Church since the Reformation, and in order 
 to make our way perfectly sure before us, let us pause 
 and consider whether the Church had become apostate 
 at or before the time when the Reformation com- 
 menced. That darkness, gross darkness^ corruption, 
 and superstition, had covered, as it were, the face of 
 the earth, admits of no denial. It is the opinion of 
 some, that " there was a time when the Church was 
 so essentially corrupt, that she ceased to be a Church 
 of Christ, and her officers ceased to be ministers of 
 Christ." If so, then, any connection with the past, 
 through that channel, can be of no avail. 
 
 We might here enter a plea of exception in favor of 
 the Eastern ChurcheS; on the ground that they were 
 not involved in the same corruptions as the Churches 
 in the Roman Obedience, But it is unnecessary 
 to attend to that suggestion here, for several reasons. 
 
88 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 Those that bring this charge against the Churches in 
 the Roman Obedience, extend it also to those in the 
 East And besides, none of the sects that we shall 
 notice claim to have been derived from the Eastern 
 Church. 
 
 Now, looking at the Church simply as a visible so- 
 ciety, we may say that it is not apostate, or extinct, 
 so long as it has within itself the powers of recovery 
 and reformation. If it has the Ministry and the Script- 
 ures, it is competent to all the ecclesiastical functions 
 necessary to life and vigor. Now, that the Churches 
 in the Roman Obedience were capable of reformation, 
 is a position that has never been denied, that I know 
 of, and I presume it never will. 
 
 There is one important consideration in relation to 
 this subject to be derived from the history of the Coun- 
 cil of Trent This Council was not held until after the 
 Reformation had commenced. The English Church 
 took no part in it, and never assented to its doings. 
 Now, until this Council, the Churches in the Roman 
 Obedience were not committed to many of the worst 
 abuses and corruptions which were then incorporated 
 into their Rule of Faith. These abuses and corrup- 
 tions were in existence, and had been approved and 
 allowed by Provincial Councils ; but their formal adop- 
 tion of them, as necessary to salvation, at the Council 
 of Trent, put the whole Roman Church into an en- 
 tirely new position in its relation to the Catholic 
 Church of Christ. And it would certainly be much 
 more difficult to defend it against the charge of apos- 
 tacy since that Council than before ; that is, since the 
 
THE CHURCH BEFORE THE REFORMATION: 89 
 
 Reformation, than before. Until that time, they were 
 historically a part of " the people " to whom the King- 
 dom was given — they had the Ministry and the Script- 
 ures, and they had not formally and professedly set 
 forth any new Rule of Faith peculiar to themselves, 
 and excluding from the Christian estate, or condition, 
 all who do not adopt their rule.' 
 
 But since the Council of Trent we have at least 
 two new doctrines set forth as " of the Faith" and 
 therefore necessary to be believed by all who would 
 hope for salvation — ^the immaculate conception of our 
 Lord and the infallibility of the Pope. 
 
 In closing this part of my subject, I will use the 
 language of the Rev. Dr. Lathrop, of West Springfield, 
 Mass. The origin of the passage is worthy of note. 
 He and his people had been imposed upon by a man 
 claiming to be a minister of Christ. The Doctor wrote 
 two sermons on Matt, vii, 15, 16, ["Beware of false 
 prophets," etc.,] in which he occupied nearly the whole 
 of the first sermon in proving that " they who refuse 
 to enter into office in the way which the Gospel pre- 
 scribes, are to be rejected : they have one plain mark 
 of false teachers." The doctor considers "the way 
 which the Gospel prescribes '' to be ordination by those 
 that were in the ministry before them. Perceiving 
 that this position implied the necessity of an Apostolic 
 Succession, and that the validity of such a succession 
 depended upon the Church's not having become apos- 
 tate before the Reformation, he adds to his sermons 
 
 ' I refer to Creed of Pius IV, A. D. 1 569, which will be given 
 in a subsequent Section. 
 
90 THE CHUKCn IDENTIFIED. 
 
 an Appendix, in which he discusses these points. I 
 now quote his words : " But will history support this 
 conclusion ? Did the first Reformers, distrusting their 
 past ordination, receive one from their lay brethren? 
 The contrary is most evident. The Protestant Re- 
 formers in England early drew up a confession of their 
 faith, in which, as Dr. Burnet says, 'they censure any 
 who should take upon them to preach, or administer 
 the sacraments, without- having lawfully received the 
 power from the ministers, to whom alone the right of 
 conferring that power doth appertain.' Certainly they 
 had no apprehension that the ministerial succession 
 was at an end. .... 
 
 " Though corruptions early began in the Christian 
 Church, yet their progress was gradual and slow. In 
 every age many dissented from them ; great opposi- 
 tion was made to them, and large councils of Bishops 
 or ministers condemned them. The Western, or Ro- 
 man, Church ultimately carried her corruptions to a 
 more extravagant height than the Oriental, or Greek, 
 Church ; but even in the former tliey never came to 
 their crisis, until the famous Council of Trent, which 
 was opened more than twenty and closed more than 
 forty years after the beginning of Luther's Reforma- 
 tion. That Council, called by the Pope's bull, and 
 supported by the Emperor's arms, in opposition to the 
 Reformers, established, as Dr. Tillotson says, ' several 
 articles which had never been acknowledged by any 
 general council.' Those new articles, if avowed by 
 some, yet had not been generally received in their full 
 extent, as now declared. If they had been decreed 
 
THE CHURCH BEFORE THE REFORMATION. 91 
 
 by one council, it was but a partial one, and they were 
 soon after condemned by another; and, therefore, were 
 not to be considered as the received and acknowledged 
 
 doctrines of the Church 
 
 " Luther and his associates, in their first opposition 
 to the errors of the Roman Church, did not consider 
 her as having essentially departed from the Gospel, or 
 as being utterly disowned by Christ ; for their pri- 
 mary object was not to withdraw from her, but to effect 
 a Reformation by means which might preserve the 
 general union. They never renounced her, until they 
 and their adherents were excommunicated, and all 
 hopes of union were cut off; but, on the contrary, 
 demanded 2, free zx^di general council, to deliberate on 
 means of accomplishing the Reformation so much de- 
 sired. When Luther was constrained to disclaim that 
 Church, Dr. Mosheim observes, 'he separated himself 
 from it, only as it acknowledged the Pope to be infal- 
 lible ; not from the Church, considered in a more ex- 
 tensive sense ; for he submitted to the decision of the 
 universal Church, when that decision should be given 
 in a general council, lawfully assembled.' ' This,' says 
 Dr. McClaine, ' was a judicious distinction; for though 
 the papacy was confounded with the Catholic Church 
 [Roman] 1 they were in reality, different things. The 
 papacy had, indeed, by degrees, incorporated itself 
 into the Church ; but it was a preposterous supple- 
 ment, and as foreign to its genuine constitution, as a 
 
 ' It is surprising to see how generally writers have agreed in 
 applying to the Eoman branch of the Church the title " Catholic," 
 which belongs to the whole Church, as though the Roman were 
 the whole and only Church. 
 
92 THE CHVRCII IDENTIFIED. 
 
 new citadel, erected by a successful usurper, would be 
 to an ancient city.' 
 
 " One cannot but feel the striking contrast between 
 those ancient reformers who labored to correct the er- 
 rors, without breaking the union of the Church, and 
 certain modern pretenders, who in the first instance 
 separated themselves from the churches, and then ex- 
 claiming against them as corrupt, promote and encour- 
 age divisions in them. 
 
 " It will, perhaps, be asked : ' How do we know 
 but the first Reformers had been ordained by some of 
 the vilest men in the Roman Church ?' But let me 
 ask, How do we know, or is it probable this was the 
 case ? The Reformers themselves appear to have en- 
 tertained no scruples on this head. Let it still be re- 
 membered, that irregularity in ordinations was not 
 made matter of complaint against her ; and that her 
 corruptions had not so recently risen to their height ; 
 and that she had not yet established, by a general 
 council, her grossest errors, nor expelled her purest 
 members. 
 
 " But admitting that a man of corrupt principle and 
 morals, acts in an ordination, will his character nullify 
 the transaction ? As long as the Scribes sat in 
 Moses's seat, Christ acknowledged them as officers of 
 the Jewish Church ; nor did he deny the authority of 
 the High Priest, though his personal character was far 
 from recommending him. 
 
 " The person ordained derives his authority to 
 preach from Jesus Christ ; not from the men who or- 
 dain him. They indigitate tlie person to be vested 
 
THE CHURCH BEFORE THE REFORMATION. 93 
 
 with this authority, and officially install him in the 
 regular exercise of it ; but it is Christ's Gospel, not 
 their will, which must direct him in the execution of 
 his office. If they are corrupt in principles or man- 
 ners, it will not thence follow that he must preach 
 heresy or immorality. He is ordained to preach the 
 Gospel; and whoever may ordain him, the charge 
 which he receives, and the vow which he makes, bind 
 him to teach not the commandments of men, but all 
 things whatsoever Christ has commanded." ^ 
 
 I am sure my readers will pardon this long quota- 
 tion from one, of whom it has justly been said, " Per- 
 haps there was no minister in the whole circle of the 
 Congregational churches of New England, more re- 
 spected by his cotemporaries, or who exercised greater 
 influence among them," when he says so much that is 
 to our present point so much better than I could say 
 it myself 
 
 The reader will also bear it in mind, that it has been 
 no part of my undertaking to say that the corruptions 
 and the darkness of the ages antecedent to the Ref- 
 ormation have been greatly exaggerated; though 
 there may be good reason for saying so. I have 
 rather chosen to show that even the Roman Church 
 had not become apostate — that is, had not ceased to 
 exist as a Church of Christ. 
 
 I am well aware that the great body of the Reform- 
 ers, and, indeed, of the Protestants generally, have re- 
 garded the Pope as the Anti-Christ. Without either 
 admitting or denying the correctness of the opinion in 
 ' Wainwright's Ed. 1844, pp. 111-119. 
 
94 ^ THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 this place, I will only say that, if it be correct, it does 
 not involve the conclusion, or admission, that the 
 Churches subject to him are apostate. Whether the 
 Pope be Anti- Christ or not, it is evident, from the 
 Scriptures, that the Anti-Christ was to manifest him- 
 self in the Church ; and, perhaps, I may say that it is 
 equally as manifest, on a careful inspection of the 
 prophecies concerning him, that the Church, over 
 which he should usurp his authority, would not there- 
 by become apostate, though subjugated to an anti- 
 Christian power. The sheep which the wolf worries 
 and rends, do not thereby become wolves. Nay, if 
 the Pope is Anti-Christ, the very Reformation, which 
 was a refusing to hear and obey him, is proof that the 
 part, at least, which reformed, was not apostate, or in- 
 volved in his condemnation. 
 
 We now come around again to the point that we 
 occupied at the close of the preceding chapter. At the 
 commencement , of the Reformation the Church of 
 Christ was separated into two communions. The 
 Oriental Church prevailed in Russia, Liberia, Poland, 
 European Turkey, Servia, Moldavia, Wallachia, 
 Greece, the Archipelago, Crete, Cyprus, tJie Ionian Isl- 
 ands, Georgia, Circassia, Mingrclia, Asia Minor, 
 Syria, Palestine and Egypt?- The Western Church, 
 or the Roman Obedience included, therefore the whole 
 of Europe, west of Russia, Poland, and European 
 Turkey. 
 
 Palmer, in his Treatise on the Church^ has entered 
 
 * Palmer's Treatise on the Church, Vol. I. p. 176, N, Y. Ed. 
 1841. 
 •Vol. I. p. 198, et seq. 
 
THE CHURCH BEFORE THE REFORMATION. 95 
 
 into an interesting calculation of the relative portions 
 of the Church that adhered to the two heads of this 
 division. As the result of his computation, he says : 
 " It is impossible to determine, precisely, the number 
 of Bishops on each side; but there is neither proof 
 nor presumption, th.at the majority of the Church took 
 part with the Roman Pontiff against the Greeks : and 
 it is impossible to affirm with any certainty that the 
 Western Churches were greater than the Eastern, up 
 to the period of the Reformation." 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE REFORMATION IN ENGLAND. 
 
 At the time of the introduction of Christianity, the 
 Roman Empire included nearly the whole of the 
 known world. This Empire was divided, in the first 
 place, into Dioceses, which were the largest divisions. 
 Each Diocese contained several Provinces, and these 
 Provinces were again subdivided into Parishes. Each 
 city was under the immediate government of certain 
 magistrates within its own body, at the head of which 
 was an officer called Dictator or Defensor civitatis, 
 and whose power extended not only over the city, but 
 over all the adjacent territory, commonly called the 
 proasteia or paroikia [Parish], the suburbs or lesser 
 towns belonging to its jurisdiction. Such, for the 
 most part, were the cities spoken of in the Testament, 
 in which we read of Churches being established. Each 
 such city had a separate government by itself, and 
 was, to a very great extent, independent of all others. 
 This constitutes what in modern ecclesiastical lan- 
 guage, is called a Diocese. Several of these divisions 
 of the Empire conioined into one, made tlie next 
 
THE REFORM A TION IN ENGLAND. 97 
 
 larger division, or a Province, subject to the authority 
 of one chief magistrate, who resided in the metropolis 
 or chief city of the Province. 
 
 The necessities of the Churches, to say nothing of 
 the intention of their Founder, soon led to an associa- 
 tion of the several Dioceses in a Province for purposes 
 of mutual edification and helpfulness. All the early 
 records of the Church speak of the Diocesan Churches 
 as having one man at their head, called by a variety 
 of names, "Apostle;' "Angel" "President," "Papa," 
 etc., etc., but more generally, and always in the 
 Canons, or laws of Discipline, " Bishop" that is, 
 "overseer" — to whom alone was reserved the right of 
 ordaining the clergy. The very oldest canon or 
 Church law, in existence, requires, that for the Ordina- 
 tion of one of these Bishops, there should be, at least, 
 two or three Bishops present, and assisting, while 
 each Bishop was allowed alone and by himself to or- 
 dain the other clergy of his Diocese. In the same 
 code, which, as I have already said, is the earliest 
 code that has come down to us — reaching back, as 
 some of its Canons doubtless do, to near the time of 
 the death of St. John the Apostle, it is ordained as 
 follows : 
 
 " Let there be a meeting of the Bishops [in a Pro- 
 vince] twice a year, and let them examine amongst 
 themselves the decrees or canons concerning religion, 
 and settle the ecclesiastical controversies which may 
 have occurred." (Can. XXXVII.) 
 
 The Bishop of the metropolis of the Province was 
 called Metropolitan or Arch-Bishop. 
 
 7 ' 
 
98 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 Hence the IX Canon of the Council of Antioch, A. 
 D. 341, ordains: 
 
 " It behooves the Bishops in every Province to own 
 him who presides over the Metropolis, and who is to 
 take care of the whole Province; because all who have 
 business come together from every side to the Metrop- 
 olis. Wherefore, also, it has been decreed that he 
 should have precedence of rank, and that the other 
 Bishops should do nothing of consequence without 
 him, according to the ancient Canons, which we have 
 received from our Fathers : or at any rate, only those 
 things which belong to each particular parish [Diocese 
 in the modern sense of the word"} and the districts 
 which are under it. For each Bishop is to have 
 authority over his own Parish [Diocese], and to ad- 
 minister it with that piety which concerns every one, 
 and to make provision for all the district which is 
 under his City, to ordain Presbyters and Deacons, and 
 to determine everything with judgment ; but let him 
 attempt nothing further without the Bishop of the 
 Metropolis ; and let him not do anything without the 
 consent of others." This same principle had been 
 acted upon long before and was included in the Apos- 
 tolic canons, Can. XXXIV. 
 
 Ere long, however, there was occasion for a still 
 more extensive association, and the Bishops and 
 Churches of several Provinces began to meet to- 
 gether. And then the several provinces in one of the 
 larger divisions of the Empire, called a Diocese, as 
 the term was then used, were associated in a sort of 
 ecclesiastical union, and the Bishop of the chief city. 
 
THE REFORMA TION IN ENGLAND. 99 
 
 who was called a " Patriarch" or " Exarch" resided. 
 Of this subdivision of the Church we find many 
 proofs in the early Canons. The XVII. Canon of 
 Chaledon [a. D. 451,] decreed that "If any [Bishop] 
 is wronged by his Metropolitan, he is to be judged by 
 the Exarch of the diocese," or by the Emperor. (See 
 also Can. IX.) 
 
 Yet even among these Patriarchs there must needs 
 be some order of precedence. The first Council of 
 Constantinople, A. D. 381, therefore decreed (Can. III.) 
 " That the Bishop of Constantinople shall have the 
 Primacy of Honor, after the Bishop of Rome, because 
 that Constantinople is New Rome." 
 
 The Council of Chaldeon A. D. 451, also decreed 
 that " Following in all things the decisions of the Holy 
 Fathers, and acknowledging the Canon [of Constanti- 
 nople just read,] they do also determine and decree 
 the same things respecting the privileges of the most 
 Holy city of Constantinople, New Rome. For the 
 Fathers properly gave the primacy to the Throne of 
 the Elder Rome, because that was the imperial city." 
 (Canon XXVIII.) 
 
 The Emperor Justinian also decreed : 
 
 " We decree according to the decision of the Can- 
 ons, that the most Holy Archbishop of the elder 
 Rome, should be altogether first of all the Priests, and 
 that the most Holy Archbishop of Constantinople, 
 which is New Rome, should have the second rank 
 after the most holy Apostolic throne of tlie elder 
 Rome." {Novell 132, c. 2.) 
 
 The jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome at this time. 
 
100 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 however, was bounded an the North by the Patriarch- 
 ate of Milan,^ that is, about the parallel of north lati- 
 tude, 44 degrees, and extended south, including the 
 Peninsula of Italy, and the Islands of Sardinia, Corsica, 
 and Sicily. Beyond these limits he was not acknowl- 
 edged to have any more authority than any other 
 foreign Bishop whatever. 
 
 Thus was the Church of Christ — while it consti- 
 tuted one Body, one Church, divided and subdivided, 
 each part being in perfect union, communion, and 
 harmony with each other. And when, therefore, the 
 ancient writers spoke of churches in the plural number, 
 they always meant these subdivisions, one, and only 
 one, of which existed in the same subdivision of the 
 Empire, and not as we now do, the several denomina- 
 tions or churches in the same place. A Church was 
 then as intimately and inseparably connected with a 
 locality and territorial limits from which it derived its 
 specific name, as was a civil government, a Pro-consul, 
 or an Emperor. 
 
 Among these separate and distinct subdivisions of 
 the Church, that of England was one. Nothing in 
 history is more certain than the perfect and entire 
 independence of the English Church of any foreign 
 Bishop or Church for the first five hundred years. 
 The best proof of this is found in the history of the 
 missionary labors oi Atigustinc. 
 
 About the middle of the sixth century, the Saxons,' 
 a heathen people from the continent, overrun the 
 
 1 Theodoret Eccl. Hist. B. H. c. XV. compared with Athana- 
 gius Epist. ad Solitar in Bingham, B. IX. c. i. 
 
THE REFORM A TJON IN ENGLAND. 1 o 1 
 
 whole of the North and East of England. Gregory, 
 Bishop of Rome, sent Augustine as a missionary to 
 convert them. On his arrival he found that the Brit- 
 ish Church remained complete in its organization, and 
 in full operation in what is now called Wales — or the 
 western part of England. He called their Bishops 
 together, seven in number, and had a conference with 
 them. He found that their rites did not correspond 
 with those used in the Church of Rome in all respects, 
 and that they had never acknowledged any depen- 
 dence upon the Roman See. He then proposed that 
 they should confirm and acknowledge the supremacy 
 of the Bishop of Rome. This they positively refused 
 to do. 
 
 The reply was given by Dinoth, Abbot of Bangor, 
 as follows : 
 
 " Be it known to you beyond a doubt, that we are 
 all and each one of us, obedient and subject to the 
 Church of God and the Pope of Rome, and to every 
 other true and pious Christian, to the extent of loving 
 each of them in word and deed, as the sons of God ; 
 but other obedience than this I do not know to be 
 justly \yindicari et postulari^ claimed and proved to 
 be due to him whom you call ' Father of the Fathers.'^ 
 And this obedience we are willing to give and perform 
 to him and to every other Christian continually. But 
 for anything further we are under the jurisdiction of 
 the Bishop of Caerleon upon the Uske (now St. Davids) 
 who is, under God, to take the oversight of us and 
 make us pursue a spiritual life."^ 
 
 1 A title which Augustine had given the Bishop of Rome. 
 ' Spelman's Cone. Brit. an. 6oi. 
 
102 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 . Of course this proof is conclusive and beyond ex- 
 ception. The British Church up to that time A. D. 
 60 1, had never acknowledged the Roman Primacy or 
 Supremacy at all, or in any form or to any extent. 
 Three of its Bishops were at the Council of Aries A. D. 
 314. St. Athanasius says also that there were British 
 Bishops at the Councils of Nice A. D. 325 and Sardica 
 
 347-^ 
 
 These councils were held, the one in the South of 
 France, the other was in what is now called European 
 Turkey. The presence of her Bishops in these coun- 
 cils, proves that the Church of England was then in 
 communion with the rest of the Church. 
 
 It would seem from the circumstances of the case, 
 that even the Bishop of Rome did not know that there 
 were any Christians in England, and perhaps did not 
 know, except in a most general way, that there was 
 any such place — island or continent— as England. 
 
 Nor is this all ; the differences in opinion and usage 
 showed that the old British Church had derived, if 
 not its existence, yet its Liturgy and ritual from the 
 church in the south of France, before the influence of 
 the Bishop of Rome had extended to them. This 
 Church had been founded, not by Rome or from Rome 
 at all, but by missionaries from Ephesus, and they 
 brought with them the Liturgy and rites of that Church 
 — the Church of the home of the last of the Apostles, 
 St. John. 
 
 One of the points of difference was in regard to the 
 keeping of Easter. We can explain this easily as fol- 
 1 Apol. Introduc. § i. 
 
THE REFORMA TION IN ENGLAND. 103 
 
 lows : The Declaration of the American Independence 
 was made on Thursday, July 'Cat fourth. Now, sup- 
 pose that all. the States wish to celebrate the day ; but 
 there is a difference of opinion among them, some pre- 
 ferring to celebrate it on the fourth day of July, on 
 whatever day of the week it may happen to come, and 
 others, thinking it best to celebrate it on the first 
 Thursday in July, whether it occurs on the first or 
 any subsequent day until the seventh. The Church 
 of Rome kept Easter on the first Sunday after the full 
 moon next after the vernal equinox, as had been de- 
 cided by the Council of Nice A. D. 325. Whereas the 
 British Church kept it, as many of the Churches in the 
 East had done, on the same day of the Jewish month 
 as that on which our Lord had risen from the dead — 
 whatever day of the week it might happen to be. 
 
 There can be no doubt that Gregory, canonized as 
 a saint, and called the Great, was one of the best and 
 holiest men that ever lived. Nor need we doubt that 
 Augustine, notwithstanding some infirmities of tem- 
 per, undertook the mission to England in the purest 
 spirit of missionary zeal. But he found things there, 
 on his arrival, or soon afterwards, quite unlike what 
 he had expected. In view of the fact that there was 
 a Church in full organization and operation, in Wales, 
 in Ireland and in Scotland, and doubtless many re- 
 mains of the old British population, scattered through- 
 out the country, notwithstanding the Saxon conquest 
 and the differences in ritual already alluded to, Augus- 
 tine wrote back to Gregory for instructions. The 
 answer of Gregory, in reply, is worthy of note. He 
 
104 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 writes to Augustine: "You, my brother, are ac- 
 quainted with the customs of the Roman Church, in 
 which you have been brought up. But it is my pleas- 
 ure, that if you have found anything either in the Ro- 
 man or tlie Gallican, or any other Church, which may 
 be more acceptable to Almighty God, you carefully 
 make choice of the same, and sedulously teach the 
 " Church of the Angles," (not the Britons) " which is 
 at present new in the Faith, whatsoever you can gather 
 from the several churches. For things are not to be 
 loved for the sake of the places, but places for the sake 
 of the good things that are in them. Select, there- 
 fore, from each Church those things that are pious, 
 religious and correct. When you have made these 
 up into one body, instill them into the minds of the 
 English for their use."^ 
 
 Augustine, however, and his company went on with 
 their work, and the British Church continued its sep- 
 arate existence for a while, until the whole Island had 
 been reconverted when the ancient British and the con- 
 verted Saxons were united into one Church, as the 
 Heptarchy had been united under one Monarch. 
 
 The following is given as the respective dates of 
 the conformity of the several Dioceses, and parts of 
 the country. The greater part of Anglia, 631 ; 
 Northumbria, 634 ; Mercia, 655; Essex, 660; Corn- 
 wall acquiesced, 905; Cambria, 908; Wales, 1135- 
 1150. 
 
 At the close of the eleventh century William, Duke 
 of Normandy, formed a design to place himself on tlie 
 1 Bede, H. Eccl., B. I, § 27. 
 
THE REFORM A TION IN ENGLAND. 105 
 
 throne of England. In this he was encouraged by 
 the Pope, Alexander II., who was probably no less 
 anxious to gain an ecclesiastical supremacy over Eng- 
 land, than William was to gain the crown. Accord- 
 ingly, they encouraged and assisted each other until, 
 by steps and means which I shall not now stop to 
 specify, the Church of England was reduced to a 
 pretty complete subjugation to the Papal Supremacy. 
 
 In the first half of the sixteenth century, Henry 
 VIII, King of England, having married the widow of 
 his deceased brother, began to entertain doubts of the 
 lawfulness of the marriage, and, as the usage then was, 
 appealed to the Pope as the highest ecclesiastical au- 
 thority commonly recognized. The Pope did not 
 readily decide in the affirmative, for fear of displeasing 
 Charles V, of Spain ; nor in the negative, lest he of- 
 fend Henry. This occasioned a vexatious delay, 
 which had the effect to diminish very considerably the 
 regard which was generally felt for the Pope in Eng- 
 land. At length, Henry, by the advice of some of 
 the wisest divines in his country, determined to revive 
 the old freedom from Romish authority, and declare 
 the independence of the English Church, and decide 
 his own question in his own realm. 
 
 Corruptions in doctrine, and abuses of jurisdiction 
 of the most gross character, had also long been calling 
 for reformation. But these evils seemed to be insep- 
 arably connected with the supremacy of the Pope, and 
 he steadfastly opposed any adequate measures for re- 
 form. Accordingly it began to be discussed in the 
 Universities, and by the learned men of the kingdom 
 
106 THE CffUJiCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 generally — whether the Bishop of Rome had any right 
 to that supremacy which he was exerting with such 
 destructive influence over England. And in the spring 
 of 1534, the whole Church of England, assembled in 
 their usual mode of Convocations — of which there 
 were two, one of Canterbury, the other of York — ^very 
 unanimously resolved, that the Bishop of Rome had, 
 by divine right, no more authority in England than 
 any other foreign Bishop whatever. ^ 
 
 The Church of England was, as we have seen, di- 
 vided at this time into two Archbishops — Canterbury 
 and York. Each Province had a Convocation of its 
 own. And, besides the Acts of King and Parliament, 
 which settled the matter so far as the civil law was 
 concerned, we have the Acts of the Convocation of 
 Canterbury, March 31, 1534, declaring " that the Ro- 
 man Bishop has no greater jurisdiction given him by 
 God, in this kingdom, than any other foreign Bishop." 
 The Act of York was June 1st, of the same year, and 
 in these words : " The Roman Bishop has not in the 
 Holy Scriptures any greater jurisdiction in the King- 
 dom of England than any other foreign Bishop." On 
 May 2d, of the same year, the University of Cam- 
 bridge adopted the Canterbury Form, and on the 27th 
 of July following, the University of Oxford adopted 
 the Form which had been adopted at York ; the opin- 
 ion was nearly universal. The Archbishop of York 
 said that he did not know of more than twelve of the 
 secular clergy and but few friars that dissented. The 
 opinion was nearly universal against the Pope. 
 ' Collier, vol. vi. p. 266. 
 
THE REFORMA TION IN ENGLAND. io7 
 
 Thus the Church of England was declared free and 
 independent; and proceeded to a reformation of er- 
 rors and abuses in doctrine and in morals. But no 
 changes were made in the constitution and organiza- 
 tion of the Church except merely the removal of the 
 Papal authority, and the abuses dependent upon it. 
 No clergymen of any order were removed from office, 
 no new ones appointed into their places — no new con- 
 gregations gathered — no new Churches built in place 
 of the old. It was in all respects the old Church 
 going on in a regular and orderly way, doing her work 
 of preaching the Gospel, administering the Sacraments 
 and [edifying the body of Christ, as before, with the 
 exception of th^ Papal Supremacy. 
 
 This rejection of the Papal Supremacy took place 
 in 1534. There was, at that time, and for centuries 
 before there had been, but one Church or religious 
 communion in England. And for more than thirty 
 years after this event there was only one — and that 
 one, before the Reformation as after it, was called and 
 known as the Church of England. About thirty years 
 after this date, the Puritans and the Papists began to 
 separate from the Church and form themselves into 
 sects by themselves. 
 
 . We are not, however, to suppose that the change in 
 opinion in the English took place all at once. More 
 than one hundred years before, the celebrated Wick- 
 liffe had preached a reformation and inculcated doc- 
 trines contrary to the prevailing errors of the times 
 which had never been eradicated or fully suppressed. 
 On the contrary, they had been gaining ground until. 
 
108 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 in the middle of the sixteenth century, they were en- 
 tertained by the majority of the Church, and a favor- 
 able time had come for a reformation in accordance 
 with them. The friends of the Reformation had, how- 
 ever, always remained in the Church, except when the 
 Church itself excommunicated them, and then they 
 formed themselves into no rival or opposing commun- 
 ion. At the Reformation there was a minority op- 
 posed to it. Among them occur the distinguished 
 names of Fisher, of Rochester, and Sir Thomas More, 
 men of unquestionable learning, integrity and piety — 
 as well as Wolsey, Gardiner, and Bonner, of whom a 
 different character must be given. And even for thirty 
 years and more, after the Reformation, we find many 
 persons opposing its principles, and yet they did not 
 separate from the English Church or form themselves 
 into a new communion. 
 
 And with regard to More and the few others who 
 did not acquiesce in the movements of Henry, we 
 know that in regard to many of them their objection 
 did not arise from attachment to the Papal Supremacy, 
 as an independent doctrine. But it arose rather from 
 a fear of what Henry himself might do. His charac- 
 ter was well understood. He was selfish, ambitious, 
 and tyrannical. He tried to assume all the authority 
 over the Church which the Bishop of Rome had exer- 
 cised — except, perhaps, the purely clerical functions 
 or ordination and such like. He not only claimed that 
 nobody — Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, Papal legate, or 
 the Pope himself — should exercise any authority in 
 England or over the people of England, without his 
 
THE REFORMA TION IN ENGLAND. 109 
 
 consent and by his appointment. He even claimed 
 the right to make visitations of the Churches, and to 
 control and direct the exercises of the ministerial func- 
 tion in the most purely clerical duties. And More 
 and others like him, fearing what Henry might do, 
 preferred that if they must have such a tyranny exer- 
 cised over them, it should be by some one in Holy 
 Orders, even though he were a foreigner — the more 
 remote and farther removed from England perhaps 
 the better. 
 
 But as I have said, no change was made in the 
 mode of Church government, except simply the aboli- 
 tion of the Papacy. In doctrines the English Church 
 retained for their Rule of Faith, the Apostles' Creed 
 (which had, in fact, been the only one that they had 
 ever acknowledged to hold that place), though they 
 drew up certain " Articles agreed upon by. the Arch- 
 Bishops and Bishops of both Provinces and the whole 
 Clergy, for the avoiding of diversities of opinions, and 
 for the establishing consent touching true Religion" 
 These Articles, after passing through several stages, 
 finally became the XXXIXth Article as adopted in 
 England, 1562; and, with a few modifications growing 
 out of local circumstances and political considerations, 
 adopted also by our Church in 1801. But these Ar-, 
 tides were never declared articles of the Faith, or nec- 
 essary to salvation. Nor were they ever imposed 
 upon the laity at all, as a condition of communion. 
 They were only an agreement among the clergy on 
 certain points then chiefly in controversy. The only 
 Creed, or Standard of Faith, adopted for admission and 
 
110 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 communion in our Church, is that which is known as 
 " the Apostles' Creed," in these words : 
 
 " I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of 
 heaven and earth : 
 
 " And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord ; 
 who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, Born of the 
 Virgin Mary ; Suffered under Pontius Pilate, Was 
 crucified, dead and buried ; He descended into hell. 
 The third day he rose from the dead ; He ascended 
 into heaven. And sitteth on the right hand of God 
 the Father Almighty ; From thence he shall come to 
 judge the quick and the dead. 
 
 " I believe in the Holy Ghost ; The Holy Catholic 
 Church ; The Communion of Saints ; The Forgive- 
 ness of Sins ; The Resurrection of the body; and the 
 Life everlasting." 
 
 For their Liturgy they revised the books then gen- 
 erally in use, purging them from the errors and super- 
 stitions that had crept into them. In all this, the one 
 rule that they strictly adhered to, was to restore all 
 things to a conformity, as near as possible, to the 
 authentic documents of the first centuries. 
 
 They also translated the Scriptures, and used them 
 in the Churches in the English language, and made 
 provision for putting a copy into every family and 
 into the hands of every individual that could read 
 them. 
 
 We have seen that the Bishop of Rome had no au- 
 thority in England for several centuries after the 
 Church was established there. I have already quoted 
 from the Canons or Laws of the Church, which were 
 
THE REFORM A TION IN ENGLAND. \\\ 
 
 acknowledged to be of authority by V/^^ whole Church. 
 I will give one or two quotations more from the same 
 authority. It must be remembered that they were 
 passed at a time when the authority of the Bishop of 
 Rome was confined, as we have seen above, to the 
 Peninsula of Italy, and the adjacent Islands. In al- 
 most every Council anterior to that of Ephesus A. D. 
 431, there had been something said to prevent the 
 ambition of the Bishops from going beyond their limits 
 to extend their authority over others. In this state 
 of things the Council of Ephesus passed the following 
 law, Canon VIII. 
 
 I " The most beloved of God and our fellow Bishop 
 Rheginus, and Zeno, and Euagrius, the most religious 
 Bishops of the province of Cyprus, who were with him, 
 have declared unto us an innovation which has been 
 introduced contrary to the laws of the Church and the 
 Canons of the Holy Fathers, and which affects the 
 liberty of all. Wherefore, since evils which affect the 
 community \i. e., the whole Church] require more at- 
 tention, inasmuch as they cause greater hurt, especially 
 since the Bishop of Antioch has not so much as fol- 
 lowed an ancient custom in performing ordinations in 
 Cyprus, as those most religious persons who have 
 come to the holy Synod have informed us, by writing 
 and by word of mouth, we declare that they who pre- 
 side over the Holy Churches which are in Cyprus, shall 
 preserve, without gainsaying or opposition, their right 
 of performing by themselves the ordinations of the 
 most religious Bishops, according to the Canons of the 
 Holy Fathers, and the ancient customs. The same 
 
113 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 rule shall be observed m all the other Dioceses, and in •. 
 the Provinces everywhere, so that none of the most 
 religious Bishops shall invade any other Province which 
 has not heretofore from the beginning, been under the 
 hand of himself, or his predecessors. But if any one 
 has so invaded a Province, and brought it by force 
 under himself, he shall restore it, that the Canons of 
 the Fathers may not be transgressed, nor the pride of 
 secular dominion be privily introduced under the ap- 
 pearance of a sacred office, nor we lose by little and 
 little the freedom which our Lord Jesus Christ, the 
 Deliverer of all men, has given us by his blood. The 
 holy and oecumenical Synod has, therefore, decreed, 
 that the rights which have heretofore, and from the 
 beginning, belonged to each Province, shall be pre- 
 served to it pure and without restraint, according to 
 the custom which has prevailed of old, each Metropol- 
 itan having permission to take a copy of the things 
 now transacted for his own security. But if any shall 
 introduce any regulation contrary to what has been 
 now defined, the whole holy and oecumenical Synod 
 has decreed that it shall be of no effect." 
 
 I trust to my reader's knowledge of the Scriptures 
 to satisfy him that they afford no proof that any su- 
 periority was given to the Bishop of Rome by Divine 
 Authority over the whole Church of Christ. This 
 Canon is proof that the Primitive Church neither rec- 
 ognized nor allowed any. If, then, he had usurped it, 
 or acquired it in any way, any branch of the Church 
 which was originally independent and complete in it- 
 self might set it aside. 
 
THE REFORM A TION IN ENGLAND. \\z 
 
 But the main point for our present purposes ,is the 
 fact that this Reformation constituted no new Church. 
 The Church of England reformed itself. There was 
 but one religious denomination in England before 1534. 
 There was but one for more than thirty years after- 
 ward: and that one was the same identical body 
 through the whole interval. There was no change in 
 its name or form of organization, no turning out old 
 clergy and appointing new, no gathering new congre- 
 gations from the old, no separation of the clergy from 
 the laity, but a quiet, orderly, and harmonious prog- 
 ress in the work of Reformation. 
 
 In 1569, more than thirty years after the rejection 
 of the Papal Supremacy — after the reign of Mary, and 
 after several ineffectual efforts to get Queen Elizabeth 
 and the English Church to recognize again the Papal 
 Supremacy, the advocates of the old papal abuses, 
 having lost all hope of gaining the ascendency in the 
 Church of England again, left it and organized a Papal 
 sect, which, however, was very small in point of num- 
 bers. Subsequently, the partisans of the peculiarities 
 of the Calvinistic theory, despairing of gaining the as- 
 cendency in the Church, withdrew also and formed 
 another sect. But still the Church included the vast 
 majority of the people of England. No one of these 
 sects of seceders claimed to be the Church which had 
 existed in England for centuries. Such a claim was 
 too obviously absurd, and contrary to all facts, and all 
 principles of identity, to be thought of, even by those 
 whose interests were the most concerned in making it. 
 
 Hence, there was no new communion formed, no 
 8 
 
114 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 new Rule of Faith adopted, no new terms of commun- 
 ion proposed, no new name assumed, no new standard 
 set up, nothing new except a new return to old truths, 
 a renewed inculcation of the Faith once delivered to 
 the Saints. 
 
 It is desirable to show, not only that the Reforma- 
 tion did not establish " the Church of England " as a 
 new sect, but also that it was not so regarded by the 
 enemies of the Reformation themselves. 
 
 This appears from several facts, no less clearly than 
 from declarations in express words. 
 
 After the accession of Mary, 1553, when she deter- 
 mined to restore Popery in England, no changes 
 were required except that the Bishops and Clergy 
 should conform to the Romish Faith and Obedience. 
 If they would have done that, they need not be mo- 
 lested or disturbed. So, likewise, in the early years 
 of Elizabeth's reign. While the Pope was endeavor- 
 ing to regain the ascendency which he lost when she 
 came to the throne, he did not declare the Church of 
 England a mere new sect that had sprung up, but he 
 was willing to receive it collectively as a Church — ac- 
 knowledging the validity of its ordinations, if it would 
 acknowledge his supremacy and conform in some few 
 particulars to his will. 
 
 I But most of all : after he had succeeded in getting 
 a sect of seceders from the Church to profess their ad- 
 herence to him, he did not even then call his followers 
 in England " the Church of England." And though 
 he sent Bishops there, he did not call them Bishops 
 of London, of Durham, of Winchester, etc., etc., 
 
THE REFORM A TION IN ENGLAND. 115 
 
 after the Sees from which the Bishops in the English 
 Church for centuries had taken their titles, and from 
 which they take them to this day ; but he gave them 
 a fictitious title, derived from no place whatever, as 
 Bishop of Melipotamus [Honey- River], etc., etc. 
 
 Now from these facts it is perfectly certain, that the 
 Church of Rome did not regard its adherents in Eng- 
 land as the Church of England, and that it did so re- 
 gard the Church which had thrown off the Papal yoke. 
 
 It appears thus, from the admission of her enemies, 
 no less than from her own claims and from the indis- 
 putable and insuperable facts in the case, that the 
 Church of England did not originate at the time of 
 the Reformation, or lose her identity by the change ; 
 and by rejecting the Papal Supremacy, she only gained 
 the independence to which, by the Scriptures and the 
 ancient laws of the Church, she was most fully and 
 most indefeasibly entitled. 
 
 Since the Reformation in England, the Church of 
 England has been in communion with the Eastern 
 Churches. They have mutually recognized each other 
 to be true branches of the Church of Christ, acknowl- 
 edging the validity of each other's ordinations, con- 
 ceding to each other the communion due from one 
 branch of the Church of Christ to another, though 
 there have been, and are still, some minor points of 
 difference which both parties regard as important, 
 though not essential to intercommunion. 
 
 Although we may say that the original Church is 
 divided at present into three Communions, the East- 
 ern, the Roman and the Reformed — including, in the 
 
116 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 latter, all the Churches which she has established since 
 her reformation, yet in fact they are but two — ^the Ro- 
 man, on the one hand, and the Eastern and the Re- 
 formed [being in communion with each other], con- 
 stituting the other. 
 
 In speaking of the Reformation in England, I do 
 not intend to prejudice the character of any of the 
 other reformations. I select England as the point of 
 discussion, for several reasons, i. Because the Church 
 in that country is older than in any of the others 
 where a Reformation has been effected. 2. Because 
 that Church was so unquestionably independent for 
 several centuries after its first planting. 3. Because 
 the Reformation was there beyond the possibility of a 
 denial — a reformation in a branch of the Church, and 
 not the origination of a new Church or sect ; and fi- 
 nally, 4. Because the Church of England has done 
 more than all the other reformed Churches put to- 
 gether, in extending the Church, by establishing new 
 and affiliated branches. 
 
 In what I shall have to say in the present chapter, 
 I shall include with the Church of England, as a class 
 of which that is a type and representative, all other 
 Churches which have been founded by the Church of 
 England, or which are in communion with her. 
 
 The early divisions in the Church were local; each 
 division being called, also, a Church, and took its 
 name from the place where it was situated. The only 
 denominational difference known to the Scriptures or 
 allowed in the Church, were derived from the place in 
 which each Church was located. It was not a Presby- 
 
THE REFORMA TION JN ENGLAND. 117 
 
 terian church, a Methodist church, a Congregational 
 church, etc. ; but it was the Church at Ephesus, the 
 Church of Rome, the Church of England, etc., etc. 
 
 We have seen how these Churches were associated 
 for provincial and still more general purposes. As 
 early as the middle of the fifth century, Leo the Great, 
 Bishop of Rome, had formed the design of an univer- 
 sal supremacy in the Church, for himself and his 
 successors in the same See. And yet, more than a 
 century after this, Gregory, also called the Great, 
 Bishop of Rome, vehemently denounced the idea of 
 any such supremacy. In his letter to Mauritius, the 
 Emperor, he says : " I am bold to say that whosoever 
 uses or affects the style of universal Bishop [as the 
 Arch-Bishop of Constantinople had done,] has the 
 pride and character of Anti- Christ, and is in some 
 measure his harbinger in this haughty quality of 
 mounting himself above the rest of his order." Writ- 
 ing to Anastasius, Bishop of Antioch, he says still 
 further: "This is a point of the last importance, neither 
 can we comply with the innovation without betraying 
 Religion, and adulterating the Catholic Faith?" Thus 
 we see that in the sixth century, a Bishop of Rome 
 could condemn as a characteristic of Anti- Christ, that 
 for not believing in which a Bishop of the same See, 
 in more modern centuries must declare persons out of 
 communion with the Church, and cut off from its In- 
 visible Head. 
 
 Jealousies had for a long time subsisted between 
 the East and the West, before a final separation took 
 place. 
 
118 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 In A. D., 1053, Michael Cerularius, Patriarch of 
 Constantinople, sent a letter to the Bishop of Trani 
 intended for the Bishop of Rome, complaining, as he 
 had a right to do, of some of the rites and customs 
 which the Bishop of Rome was encouraging in the 
 Western Churches. Leo IX (for that was the name 
 of the Bishop of Rome), complained of the interfer- 
 ence of the Constantinople Bishop. In the next year 
 he sent three Legates to Constantinople. Among 
 these Legates was Cardinal Humbert, which was evi- 
 dently an unfortunate selection. His language to 
 Cerularius was arrogant and discourteous, and he 
 closed by threatening him with excommunication, etc., 
 if he did not reject, what Humbert was pleased to call 
 hi,s errors, and conform to the Romish usages. The. 
 Bishop of Constantinople would not yield, and before 
 •the Legates left the city they placed on the altar of St 
 Sophia's, a formal excommunication of Cerularius and 
 his adherents. This was a most direct assumption of 
 authority over Cerularius and the Eastern Church, of 
 which he was the acknowledged head. It led to the 
 division of the East and West, which exists to the 
 present day. 
 
 At the Reformation, as we have seen, another divi- 
 sion was occasioned. The contest then, also, was with 
 the Romish claim to Supremacy. Yet not directly; 
 for the Church of England probably would not have 
 rejected that Supremacy if it had been kept within the 
 bounds of the early canons, and had not indissolubly 
 allied itself to some of the worst corruptions in morals, 
 as well as doctrines, that were to be found in that age. 
 
THE REFORMA TION IN^ ENGLAND. ng 
 
 As England had the right to be free from Rome, and 
 could not reform herself without, she exercised that 
 right, and was anathematized by Rome for it. 
 
 This, of course, led to another division and aliena- 
 tion among Churches which are unquestionably Apos- 
 tolic, and whose catholicity up to that day had never 
 been called in question. We have not yet proceeded 
 far enough in our work of historic identification to say 
 with any definiteness how large a portion of the 
 Churches, in the Roman Obedience, became separated 
 from it by the Reformation. In England, Ireland, 
 Scotland, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, the Church 
 of Rome made no pretensions of retaining the juris- 
 diction. She made no show even of setting up her 
 claims for the individuals that still cherished a prefer- 
 ence for her doctrines and usages, that they should 
 be considered as the old Church in those countries, 
 still in existence, though diminished in numbers. By 
 her own confession, then, she lost the Churches in 
 these several nations, from her Obedience. 
 
 Now, it cannot for a moment be pretended, with 
 any show of reason, that any one of these parts of the 
 Church lost its right, or its power, to spread the Gos- 
 pel, in consequence of this alienation. If the Papal 
 Supremacy were an essential element of the Church, 
 then, of course, rejection of that supremacy — or re- 
 jection by it — would disable any Church from carry- 
 ing on missionary operations. It might, indeed, preach 
 and build, but it would be building on "another foun- 
 dation," and what it built would not be the Church of 
 Christ. 
 
120 THE CHVRCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 Or again : if any one of these three parts, into which 
 the Originnl and Primitive Church is divided, has set 
 forth another Rule of Faith different from and incon- 
 sistent with that of the Primitive Church, so that in 
 her missionary operations she is inculcating a Gos- 
 pel different in its essential features from that preached 
 by the immediate Evangelists and Apostles of our 
 Lord, this fact may incapacitate them from effectual 
 missionary labors. 
 
 I will not here stop to inquire how far Rome has 
 laid a new foundation. But most assuredly the Church 
 of England has not done it Her Rule of Faith is the 
 Apostles' Creed — the most simple — ^the most primi- 
 tive, and the one that was and is now universally re- 
 ceived. This she proposes as her Baptismal Confession 
 of Faith. This is what she requires all of her mem- 
 bers to be taught in her Catechism, and to renew their 
 profession and confession in, in Confirmation, and this 
 it is which she proposes to her members when about 
 to leave the world as the Faith in which they are to 
 be received by their Final Judge. 
 
 Nor does she put upon this Creed any new or pe- 
 culiar construction of her own. Her solemn declara- 
 tion is that her 
 
 " Preachers shall take heed that they teach nothing 
 
 in their preaching which they would have the people 
 
 religiously observe and believe, but that which is 
 
 agreeable to the teaching of the Old Testament and 
 
 the New, and that which the Catliolic Fathers and the 
 
 Ancient Bishops have gathered out of that very teach- 
 
 ing.' 1 
 
 ' Cardwell's Synodalia, vol. I, p. 126. 
 
THE REFORM A TION IN ENGLAND. \ 21- 
 
 Again in the Canons of 1603, Canon XXX, the 
 Church of England says : " Nay, so far was it from the 
 purpose of the Church of England to forsake and re- 
 ject the Churches of Italy, France, Spain, Germany, 
 or any such like Churches, in all things which they 
 held and practiced, that as the Apology of the Church 
 of England confesseth, it doth with reverence retain 
 those ceremonies [even] which do neither endamage 
 the Church of God, nor offend the minds of sober men; 
 and only departed from them in those particular points 
 wherein they were fallen both from themselves in their 
 ancient integrity and from the Apostolic Churches, 
 which were their first founders." 
 
 It has sometimes been said, that since the English 
 Church and Bishops derived whatever authority they 
 had from the Pope and Church at Rome, therefore, 
 now that the Church of Rome has withdrawn that 
 authority they are none the better for this connection 
 with the past. 
 
 To this I reply in the first place that nothing oc- 
 curred which either directly or by implication deprived 
 the English Church or its Bishops of their ecclesiasti- 
 cal authority until the Bull of Pius V, February 23, 
 1569. This Bull declares " that those who adhere to 
 Queen Elizabeth in the practices aforesaid" — the Ref- 
 ormation — " lie under the censure of anathema, and 
 are cut off from the unity of the body of Christ." But 
 the Pope had no authority at that time either in fact 
 or by right over Elizabeth or the Church of England, 
 and [therefore his excommunication was of no force. 
 
 The Canon of Ephesus (Canon VIII), already cited, 
 
122 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 settles this matter so far as church law can settle it 
 It is in fact the highest authority on earth, now that 
 inspiration has ceased and the Canon of Holy Script- 
 ure is closed. Was it not the same authority that 
 directed in the Council at Jerusalem (Acts xv) that 
 the ritual of the Mosaic Law was not binding on Chris- 
 tians? "The Apostles, Elders and Brethren came to- 
 gether to consider the matter." The question was not 
 one in regard to which they had been guided by that 
 Inspiration by which they wrote the Scriptures ; for 
 they would not need to " consider " or discuss the 
 matter at all ; it was settled for them by authority. 
 Nor was it one of those matters " pertaining to the 
 Kingdom," with regard to which our Lord had given 
 them instructions during " the great forty days ;" for 
 these also there would have been no occasion for "con- 
 sideration" or arguments; a simple " the Lord hath 
 said " would have been all that there was occasion or 
 opportunity for. 
 
 But be this as it may ; the Papal Supremacy had 
 been abolished in 1534 by both Church and State; — 
 the only authority that had given it, or could have 
 given it so much as the semblance of a right to exist- 
 ence and exercise in England. From tliis time there- 
 fore until the accession of Mary, 1553, Bishops were 
 selected and ordained without obtaining any authority 
 or permission from the Pope — and without even con- 
 sulting him at all. Again, after the accession of Eliz- 
 abeth, 1558, the Papal Supremacy was again abol- 
 ished, and from that time until the Bull of 1569, Bish- 
 ops had also been ordained without consulting h im at 
 
THE REFORMATION IN ENGLAND. 123 
 
 all. Now it so happens that in 1569, when the Bull 
 of excommunication was issued there was not a single 
 Bishop in the English Church who had been ordained 
 under the Pope's supremacy, or had in any way prom- 
 ised obedience to him or derived even a show of au- 
 thority from him in any shape or form whatever. 
 They had all been ordained under Edward the VI, 
 before Mary's reign, or under Elizabeth after Mary's 
 reign was over. Therefore the Bull of Pius V was of 
 no force in invalidating the authority of the English 
 Bishops that were then in office. 
 
 But finally, even before the Reformation the Eng- 
 lish Bishops were not considered as deriving their au- 
 thority from the Pope. It was indeed one part of his 
 supremacy that no Bishops should be chosen without 
 his permission and approbation. The election of 
 Bishops was as follows : The King granted to the 
 Chapter, that is the Cathedral Clergy, of the vacant 
 Diocese a conge d'elire [permission to elect]. They 
 chose the man whom they desired for Bishop. The 
 Bishop elect must then have the royal assent and be 
 confirmed as Bishop elect by the Pope or his Legate. 
 After which he was ordained by the Bishops whom 
 the Pope named for that purpose. The Pope also, or 
 his Legate, put upon the newly consecrated Bishop 
 the pall and other insigna of his authority — which was 
 called the " Investiture." ^ But his election and ordi- 
 nation gave the Bishop his authority as Bishop in the 
 Church and his right to jurisdiction in the particular 
 Diocese. Neither of them was derived from the Pope. 
 1 Bums's Ecclesiastical Law, vol. i. p. 179. 
 
124 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 There is therefore no sense in which the English 
 Church or her Bishops had derived their authority 
 from the Pope or Church of Rome, consequently no 
 sense in which it could be taken away by Romish au- 
 thorities. 
 
 Here then we have the Church of England unques- 
 tionably a part of the identical historic Church of 
 Christ, deriving the origin of its existence from the 
 very Apostles themselves, reformed from the corrup- 
 tions and errors of the middle ages, returning to the 
 teachings and standards of the Primitive Church — and 
 disowned by Rome for so doing. If now this aliena- 
 tion is the annihilation of one or the other of the par- 
 ties to the division, as Churches of Christ, there is no 
 reason why this consequence should result to the 
 Church of England rather than to the Church of 
 Rome. 
 
 The alienation between these three branches of the 
 Church, the Eastern, the Roman , and the Reformed, 
 is undoubtedly an evil, and alike the result and the 
 proof of sin. But most unquestionably neither the di- 
 vision nor the alienation terminates the visible exist- 
 ence of either of those branches. And I know of no 
 reason why it should necessarily involve any one of 
 them in apostacy from Christ If they are apostate it 
 must be for other reasons. 
 
 I am not anxious to conceal the fact, though the 
 object we have now in view does not require any pro- 
 longed discussion of it — that there are also alienations 
 and misunderstandings existing, to some extent, be- 
 tween the different branches of the Oriental Church. 
 
THE REFORMA TION IN ENGLAND. 125 
 
 And so, too, there are controversies and points of ma- 
 terial difference, between the several Churches in the 
 Roman Obedience, as, for instance, between those in 
 France and Italy. From what has been said, it will 
 appear that the Church, in any one or all of these sep- 
 arate or distinct nations, has a right to declare itself 
 free and independent of the control of any foreign 
 Bishop or Church whatever, if it should choose to do 
 so. 
 
 Without saying, then, that there is a perfect har- 
 mony among all of the Branches in each of the great 
 divisions of the Catholic Church of Christ — for that 
 manifestly is not the case — I say that we may include 
 all these Churches in three distinct classes. 
 
 I. The Eastern, including all those Branches of the 
 Church which have never submitted to the Papal Su- 
 premacy — the Russian, the Greek, the Syrian, the Ar- 
 menian, the Coptic, or Egyptian, the Abyssinian, etc. 
 , 2. The Churches that are yet in the Roman Obedi- 
 ence, as those of Austria, Italy, France, Spain, Portu- 
 gal, etc. 
 
 3. Those Churches which were once subject to the 
 Papal Supremacy, are now reformed and freed from it, 
 as England, Ireland, Scotland, Norway, Sweden, Den- 
 mark, etc., without naming now the midland nations 
 of Europe, where, as we shall see by and by, the case 
 is somewhat different; and omitting ]to mention, in this 
 place, all those Churches that have been established 
 by any of the Churches in this class since the Ref- 
 ormation. 
 
 In classing the churches of Norv/ay, Sweden and 
 
126 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 Denmark, with the Church of England, I do by no 
 means intend to intimate that I consider them as oc- 
 cupying the same position in all respects. In some of 
 those nations, there is no doubt that the Clergy, at the 
 time of the Reformation, were driven off or out of their 
 official positions, and others put in their places in a 
 manner which was at variance with what has always 
 been regarded in the Church as essential to the valid- 
 ity of the ministerial office. This, however, is a point 
 that we need not discuss here. They are at least 
 Churches that separated themselves at that time from 
 the Roman Obedience ; and if their ministry is invalid 
 or informal, the defect can be remedied, as was done 
 with that in the Church of Scotland in 1610, when the 
 regular succession having been lost, three Bishops 
 were ordained for Scotland in London, and they on 
 their return ordained others to supply the whole de- 
 ficiency. 
 
 But no such imperfection or invalidity attaches to 
 the Ministry of the English Church. They were 
 neither driven off nor ejected at the Reformation, but, 
 on the contrary, they were themselves the chief agents 
 in carrying it on. And, in the ordination of their 
 successors, all the rites that have ever been deemed 
 essential in the Church, were carefully observed. 
 
 We have then, before our minds, one of the oldest 
 branches of the Church of Christ, reaching back, in 
 the commencement of its existence, to the very days 
 of the Apostles, once subjugated to the Roman Su- 
 premacy — but now reformed and free, — in the full ex- 
 ercise of her functions as a Church of Christ, and as 
 
THE REFORMA TION JN ENGLAND. 127 
 
 unquestionably a part of that identical visible society 
 which he and his Apostles founded as any other that 
 can be named on earth ; disowned, indeed, by Rome 
 for her Protestantism, but for that very reason owned 
 and fellowshiped by Churches older than Rome her- 
 self, which were in Christ before the sound of the 
 'Gospel had ever been heard in the city of the seven 
 hills. She has had, indeed, some vicissitudes of fortune, 
 but through them all she has been the same — the 
 Church of England — the only body of persons that 
 ever claimed to be called by that name in England, or 
 to which it was ever by any body, for one moment, 
 supposed to belong. 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 
 SECTS SINCE THE REFORMATION. ' 
 
 / At the time of the Reformation the idea of the 
 Church had pretty much died out ; or rather it had 
 been absorbed into the idea of the Papacy. Few, very 
 few, people had seen a complete copy of the Holy 
 Scriptures, and most of clergy even, knew of only cer- 
 tain parts that occurred in their services. The publi- 
 cation of Wickliffe's Translation in England about 1360, 
 nearly two hundred years before, had done a good 
 deal towards producing a better state of things by dif- 
 fusing a more general acquaintance with their con- 
 tents, and giving quite a different turn to affairs from 
 that which they took on the Continent. 
 
 The history of the Denominations or Sects which 
 arose at the time of the Reformation hardly fcdls within 
 the line of my argument as a positive element. It is 
 rather of a negative character, and serves our purpose 
 by way of contrast. I shall therefore give attention 
 chiefly to the few of those that set up some claim to 
 a continuity and perpetuation of the Church that was 
 founded by the Apostles : of those that make no such 
 claim very little need be said for our present purpose. 
 
 In considering these Sects we shall see that some of 
 
SECTS SINCE THE REFORMATION: 129 
 
 them were formed by persons seceding directly from 
 either the Roman or the Reformed Branches of the 
 Church, some have been formed by divisions in those 
 sects, and still another class have arisen as it were de 
 novo, by some individual, collecting around him a num- 
 ber of persons from all sects, or that had belonged to 
 no sect. 
 
 In this enumeration I shall have regard only to the 
 sects In our own country. I shall in all cases take 
 their own statements, and accounts of their origin; 
 and when I can conveniently do so, I shall give those 
 statements in their own language. My object will 
 not lead me into any general account of their doctrines 
 or of their principles of church-polity. Our atten- 
 tion is directed chiefly to their history as visible so- 
 cieties. 
 
 These Sects or Denominations are of three orders : 
 Primary, or those that arose at the time of the Refor- 
 mation, and in an effort at reformation; secondary, or 
 those that have arisen by a secession from the Primary 
 Sect ; and third, autothentic, those that have arisen by 
 gathering in persons that belonged to no denomination. 
 
 The Primary Sects. Under this head, I include 
 some nine or ten. The characteristic by which they 
 are distinguished, is, that with one or two exceptions, 
 they resulted from attempts at what was, or was re- 
 garded as, a reformation in the Church or some one 
 of its Branches — the reformers, however, failing to 
 have their views adopted by the Church, seceded with 
 their adherents and became a sect. I shall take up 
 the consideration of them in alphabetic order. 
 
 9 
 
130 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 I. The Baptists. "The Baptist Church in this 
 country was founded in March, A. D. 1639. Many of 
 the first settlers in Massachusetts were Baptists, and as 
 'holy and watchful and fruitful and heavenly a people as 
 perhaps any in the world,' says Cotton Mather. Roger 
 Williams having escaped the intolerance of the Puri- 
 tans of Massachusetts Bay, came to what is now called 
 Providence, Rhode Island, in 1636, founded a Colony, 
 and became its governor. He was a Baptist, and 
 •many of his people entertained his views.' But 
 neither he nor any of them having been baptized, as 
 they understood the rite, and ' there being no minister 
 in New England who had been baptized by immersion 
 on a profession of faith, in March, 1639, Ezekiel Holli- 
 man baptized Roger Williams, who then administered 
 the rite to Holliman and ten others.' Williams had 
 been ordained in the English Church. 'Thus was 
 founded ' under Roger Williams as Governor of Rhode 
 Island, and minister of the Lord Jesus, and by Ezekiel 
 Holliman, Deputy Governor, with ten others, the first 
 Baptist Church on the continent of America." 
 
 For this quotation, and all my others when not 
 otherwise indicated, I am indebted to a History of the 
 Baptists, by the Rev. A. D. Gillette, pastor of the 
 Eleventh Baptist Church, Philadelphia, pubhshed in 
 Rupp's Collection, 1844. 
 
 But tliough this was the origin of the Baptist church 
 in this country, it was not tlie origin of the communion 
 to which it belongs. Our author claims : 
 
 " That persons holding Baptist sentiments have ex- 
 isted always in the Church ; that for the first three or 
 
SECTS SINCE THE REFORMATION. 131 
 
 four centuries after Christ, the whole church held to such 
 sentiments, that at the time of the Reformation they 
 became scattered throughout Europe and sprang up in 
 part as a Baptist church. But the first society or church 
 of Baptists which our author names is as follows: 'The 
 British Baptists continued to multiply; and in 1689 
 they, with forty of their Bishops [preachers, for they 
 had no Bishops in the established sense of the word] 
 assembled in an association at London and adopted a 
 confession of Faith ; the same that was adopted by the 
 Philadelphia association in 1742.'" 
 
 Mr. Gillette refers to nothing earlier than 1689 
 which can be regarded as the origin of the Baptists as 
 a church ; for a church is a society of persons, and 
 implies not only the existence of the persons, but it 
 also implies that they are gathered out of the rest of 
 the world and brought together either in some place 
 or within some definite and visible bond of union. 
 Mr. Gillette points out no such association, which he 
 recognizes as a Baptist church before the one named 
 above in 1689. 
 
 There is no need that we should go into the history 
 of the Baptists any farther, for the purposes of our pres- 
 ent inquiry. Their claim is that the Baptist Church 
 was founded by persons who seceded from the corrupt 
 Church of Christ. Of course, therefore, the Baptist 
 Church is another, and entirely distinct from that from 
 which its founders seceded. 
 
 2. The Dutch Reformed Church. In speaking of 
 this Sect I shall follow chiefly Dr. Brownlee's Account 
 of the Dutch Reformed church, in Rupp's Collection — 
 p. 220. 
 
132 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 " The Dutch Reformed church is the oldest church 
 in the United States, which adopts the Presbyterian 
 form of church government. Its history begins with 
 the history of New York and New Jersey. It is a 
 branch of the National church of Holland." 
 The Dutch West India Company were the first who 
 carried the ministers of the Gospel from Holland to 
 our shores. Until 1772, they were dependent upon 
 the classis in Holland." 
 
 They receive, as their Rule of Faith, the Confession 
 of Faith, etc., of the Synod of Dort. 
 
 Now upon this state of facts two questions arise, 
 one relating to the Dutch Reformed church in the old 
 country, and the other to its mission in this country. 
 
 On this point I freely confess, that I have not the 
 means at hand to investigate the Reformation in the 
 Netherlands so minutely as I should like ; but still, I 
 have enough for our present purpose. 
 
 At the commencement of the Reformation, as it is 
 called, Netherlands consisted of four Dioceses. These, 
 on the accession of Philip II. of Spain, were increased 
 to fourteen.^ Amsterdam was in the diocese of Haer- 
 lem. The Reformation was commenced by individ- 
 uals, and not carried on, as in England, by the 
 Church, in her regular course of ecclesiastical proceed- 
 ings. The recognized authorities of the Church did 
 not encourage the change at all, but still adhered to 
 their old opinions. The Protestants, consequently, 
 separated from the Church, and formed themselves 
 into a new church on the Calvanistic foundation. 
 
 ' Mosheim, Cent. xvi. c. iv. sect. i. § 12 12, note 4, Ed. Lond,, 
 1845. 
 
SECTS SINCE THE REFORMATION. 133 " 
 
 We must therefore decide that the adherents to the 
 Romish Obedience, in Holland, were the Old Church, 
 •whether they were in the minority or the majority in 
 point of numbers. And in that case, the Protestants 
 were seceders, as they acknowledged themselves to be, 
 setting up a rival sect within the actual jurisdiction of 
 the Church which Christ and His Apostles had estab- 
 lished fifteen hundred years before. 
 
 Finally — it does not appear that the Holland Mis- 
 sionaries came to this country for the purpose of , 
 building a Branch of the Church of Christ, on the 
 broad Foundation laid by Christ and the Apostles. 
 Their object was to establish the new Rule of Faith, ' 
 adopted by the Holland seceders from that Church, 
 and to extend the communion or church which they 
 had formed on their own terms of communion. They 
 neither took the Apostles' nor any one of the Creeds 
 of the Universal Church for their Rule-of Faith, nor 
 did they manifest any serious regard for the acknowl- 
 edged records, opinions and usages of the Primitive 
 ages of the Church of Christ. But in all respects they 
 regarded themselves as a new sect or church — based,' 
 indeed, upon the Bible — but still, as a church, a reli- 
 gious society — a visible community — they considered 
 themselves as of an origin more recent than the com- ' 
 mencement of the Reformation. 
 
 3. The German Reformed Church. The following 
 account is taken from Dr. Mayer, of York, Pa., in 
 Rupp's Collection. 
 
 "The German Reformed Church, as its name im- 
 ports, comprises the portion of the family of reformed 
 
134 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 churches which speak the German language, and their 
 descendants, and as such is distinguished from the 
 French Reformed, the Dutch Reformed, etc. The 
 founder of this church was Ulric Zwingli, a native of 
 Switzerland. After the death of Zwingli and CEco- 
 lompadius in 1531, none of their associates enjoyed so 
 decided a superiority over his brethren as to give him 
 a commanding influence over the whole church, and 
 to secure to him the chief direction of her councils. 
 This honor was reserved for John Calvin, the French 
 Reformer. 
 
 Thus the reformed church was established at Ge- 
 neva, in 1 541, with Calvin at its head. 
 
 "The German Reformed Church in the United 
 States was founded by emigrants from Germany and 
 Switzerland. Its origin may be dated about the year 
 1740, or rather somewhat earlier. The principal seat 
 of the church in its infancy was eastern Pennsylvania, 
 though setdements were made also, and congregations 
 formed, at an earlier period in other States, particu- 
 larly in the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey 
 and Nev/- York. 
 
 The Heidelberg Catechism is their Rule of Faith. 
 
 It is perfectly evident, from the foregoing account 
 of the German Reformed Church, that it does not ful- 
 fill the conditions requisite to constitute a Branch of 
 that Church which has existed since our Lord was on 
 earth. It was established in this country by members 
 of the German Reformed Church in Germany and 
 Switzerland, and that church, as Dr. Mayer ingenu- 
 ously confesses, was founded by Ulric Zwingle, of se- 
 
SECTS SINCE THE REFORMATION. 135 
 
 ceders from the Church that existed in those countries 
 before his day. 
 
 Mosheim says the same thing of them : 
 
 " The founder of the Reformed Church was Ulrick 
 Zwingli, a Swiss, an acute man, and a lover of truth." ' 
 
 As at Zurich, so at Geneva and elsewhere, therefore 
 the German Reformed Church was made up of those 
 who seceded from the Church, rejecting its regular and 
 acknowledged authorities — retiring from its congrega- 
 tions to form new ones of their own, taking a new 
 name and proceeding in a new manner altogether, 
 whilst the old Church continued its functions and 
 ministrations as before. They were, therefore, merely 
 a sect of seceders, and no part of that visible society 
 that had existed from the days of the Apostles. And 
 therefore, although they might, and did — as history 
 proves — extend their church into America, and other 
 countries, yet the Church of Christ, whose visible com- 
 munion they had left, they were entirely incapable of 
 extending until they should return to its communion. 
 
 Nor, even in this, let any one suppose that I am say- 
 ing of them what they did not admit to be true of 
 themselves. Thus, Calvin, the very highest authority 
 among them, said, " I know how great are our defi- 
 ciencies [in an ecclesiastical point of view,] and cer- 
 tainly, if God should call us this day to an account, it 
 would be difficult for us to make an excuse " \difficilis 
 esset excusatid\. Viret says the same : " Many things 
 are yet necessary for us in order that we may have 
 the full regimen of the Church." Calvin, also, in his 
 ' Cent, xvi, Sect, iii, c. ii, § 3. 
 
136 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 reply to Cardinal Sadolet, says, in behalf of himself 
 and his German Reformed Church, " We do not deny 
 that we are destitute of the regimen which the ancient 
 Church had." Beza, Calvin's successor, said," Think 
 not that we wish to abolish that which is eternal, to 
 wit, the Church of God. Think not that we search 
 after arguments by which to depress you to this our 
 wretched and vile condition." Writing to Archbishop 
 Grindal, of England, he says, " that we are as yet far 
 from what we ought to be, we willingly confess." The 
 context shows beyond a question that he referred to 
 their ecclesiastical position. 
 
 The son of Peter Du Moulin, another of their dis- 
 tinguished writers, says : " But the generous and il- 
 luminate souls make no difficulty to acknowledge 
 openly the scantiness of their church government, and 
 that their bed is shorter than that they can stretch 
 themselves on it, and their covering narrower than 
 that they can wrap themselves in it. But as short 
 and narrow as it is, they must keep it by an invincible 
 necessity." He also says, that so far as "ecclesiastical 
 power [power to do anything as a church] is con- 
 cerned, it is a perfect interregnum," i. e., there is none. 
 In addition, I will only refer to the fact that Calvin 
 himself made application to the Church of England, 
 to ordain him Bishop, and thus constitute him and his 
 followers, a Branch of the Church at Geneva, founded 
 by the English Branch of the Church. The applica- 
 tion was intercepted by Romanists. But it is in itself 
 a confession of the truth of all that I have said or need 
 to say for our present purpose of the defects of the 
 German Reformed Church. 
 
SECTS SINCE THE REFORMATION'. 137 
 
 4. Evangelical Lutherans. The name officially- 
 adopted by the Lutheran reformers was the " Evan- 
 gelical Church." 
 
 " As Germany was the cradle of the Reformation, 
 she was also the primitive seat of that church which 
 grew out of the Reformation in the land of Luther. 
 The Germans, after they had thrown off the yoke of 
 Rome, through the instrumentality of their country- 
 man Luther, and others, constituted themselves a re- 
 formed evangelical church which has been denomi- 
 nated Lutheran." The Elector of Saxony early in- 
 stituted measures by which the Lutheran religion was 
 established throughout his dominions. The treaty of 
 Passau 1552, in which the Elector gained some im- 
 portant concessions from the Emperor Charles V., 
 after the surprise at Inspruck, is regarded by the Lu- 
 therans as the basis of their religious freedom. A Diet 
 assembled at Augsburg, 1555, declared that all who 
 adopted the Augsburg confession [all Lutherans"] 
 should for the future be considered entirely free from 
 the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, and from the 
 authority and supervision of the Bishops (who re- 
 tained their allegiance to Rome), that all the inhabi- 
 tants of the German Empire should be allowed to 
 judge for themselv(?s, and to join the church whose 
 doctrine and worship they thought most pure and 
 Scriptural — i. e., the old or the new. 
 
 This sect presents to our consideration substantially 
 the same state of facts as the one last reviewed. The 
 movement was commenced by an individual in the 
 Diocese of .Brandenburg, soon gained the favor of the 
 
13S THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED.^ 
 
 secular arm in the person of the Elector of Saxony, 
 and the seceders became established as a new sect • 
 the Church still continuing (though of course dimin- 
 ished in numbers by the secessions), in the full perform- 
 ance of its functions as before. 
 
 " It was from the church thus reformed, indoctrin- 
 ated and established, that the German Lutheran Chris- 
 tians in the United States descended. After the es- 
 tablishment of the Lutheran church in Germany by 
 the labors of Luther, Melancthon and others, about 
 1545, the Lutheran doctrines were extensively diffused 
 and adopted. The earliest settlement of Lutherans in 
 this country was made by emigrants from Holland to 
 New York soon after the first estabhshment of the 
 Dutch in that city, 1621. To this settlement suc- 
 ceeded that of the Swedes on the Delaware in 1636. 
 The third settlement of the Lutherans in this country, 
 was that of the Germans which gradually spread over 
 Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, the interior of New 
 York, and the Western States. The year 1820 has 
 been mentioned as the date of the formation of the 
 General Synod of the American Lutheran Church. — 
 {Chiefly from the Article in Rupp.) 
 
 The Augsburg Confession is the Rule of Faith for 
 the Evangelical Lutherans. 
 
 I might also quote a list of confessions of deficiency 
 and destitution of what they considered essential to 
 the Ministry and Sacrements of the Church by the 
 founders of the Lutheran sect, similar to those I have 
 quoted from the founders of the German Reformed. 
 But it is not necessary to take pp the tin»e and room 
 to repeat them. 
 
SECTS SINCE THE REFORMATION. 139 
 
 5. The Mennonites. This sect is probably to be re- 
 garded as more nearly the descendants and represen- 
 tatives of the Albigenses or Waldenses than any other 
 now in existence. 
 
 "The Mennonites fully acknowledge that they derive 
 their name from Menno Simon, a native of Witmar- 
 sum, born in Friesland, A. D. 1495. In 1530 he was 
 induced to examine the New Testament for himself, 
 and his views were materially changed. He now com- 
 menced to travel with a view to consult some of his 
 cdtemporaries, such as Luther, Bucer, Bullinger and 
 others. He distinctly repudiated the extravagances 
 of the Munsterites or Anabaptists, yet assumed among 
 them, at their earnest solicitation, the rank and func- 
 tions of a public teacher. In 1537 he commenced 
 traveling among the Anabaptists, or descendants of 
 the ancient Waldenses all of whom were as scattered 
 sheep of the House of Israel. He visited East and 
 West Friesland, the province of Groningen, and then 
 went to Holland, Guilderland, Brabant, Westphalia, 
 and continued through the German Provinces that lie 
 on the coast of the Baltic Sea, and penetrated as far as 
 Livonia. In these places his ministerial labors were 
 attended with remarkable success, and added a pro- 
 digous number of followers." 
 
 Now in all these countries the Church was estab- 
 lished, but Menno allied himself with those who were 
 out of its communion. Whether he found them al- 
 ready organized as sects, or organized them himself, 
 or left them unorganized, it is immaterial so far as 
 their identity with the Church is concerned. 
 
140 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. ' 
 
 His object, says his historian, Christian Herr, of 
 Pequa, who was a bishop of the Mennonite Church 
 " was reformation and spiritual edification of his fellow 
 
 men. He purified the doctrines of the Anabaptists 
 
 he retained some of them, and he excluded others who 
 were tainted with the Munsterite heresy. He founded 
 many communities in various parts of Europe." 
 
 Thus we see that he was a reformer amongst the 
 Anabaptists, a body totally distinct in all its visible 
 relations and connections from the Church which we 
 are seeking to identify. 
 
 " From the year 1537 the Mennonites suffered great 
 persecutions in Europe. They were compelled to flee 
 from one country to another. Many came to Penn- 
 sylvania as early as 1783. Before 1735 there were 
 probably rising of five hundred families in Lancaster 
 county, Pa. In 1 727 they translated and published 
 their confession of faith. 
 
 6. The Methodists. The following account is abridged 
 from the Rev. Dr. Bangs, of New York : 
 
 "The well-known founder of Methodism, under 
 God, was the Rev. John Wesley, a presbyter of the 
 Church of England, who, after his own conversion, set 
 out with a simple desire to revive pure and undefiled 
 religion in the Church of which he was a member and 
 a minister." 
 
 Dr. Bangs has not given an account of the occasion 
 and rise of Methodism in England, I will, therefore, 
 interrupt his narrative to speak of it somewhat. 
 
 From the Revolution in England, 168S, in conse- 
 quence of important changes in the ecclesiastical man- 
 
SECTS SmCE THE REFORMATION. 141 
 
 agement, there commenced a rapid and sad decline in 
 the state of religion in the English Church. Daily- 
 Prayer, from being neglected and omitted, came to be 
 regarded as not at all obligatory — unnecessary, and 
 even superstitious. The Church's holy seasons for 
 Prayer, Fasting and Repentance, were neglected. The 
 Holy Communion was less and less frequently admin- 
 istered, and in some cases it was celebrated only on 
 the three times in the year required by the law of the 
 land. Discipline was relaxed and worldly indifference 
 was the prevailing characteristic. Wesley and a few 
 others combined for the purposes of greater piety and 
 a more faithful use of the means of grace pointed out 
 for her members by the English Church. This pro- 
 cured for them the name of Methodists, which the sect 
 that grew out of the movement still retain. In 1738 
 he visited Germany, and on his return he commenced 
 those systematic labors which resulted in the founda- 
 tion of his sect. The foundation of separate congre- 
 gations in England is commonly assigned to 1739. 
 
 " The Methodist society in America was established 
 in the city of New York, in the year i "jSS. A few 
 pious emigrants from Ireland, who previously to their 
 removal had been members of the Methodist society 
 in their own country, landed in this city. Among 
 their number was Mr. Philip Embury, their local 
 preacher. This party soon became very dissolute in 
 their morals, until a pious woman went into the room 
 where they were assembled — seized the cards with 
 which they were playing and threw them into the fire. 
 She turned to Mr. Embury and said that he must 
 
142 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 preach to them. And accordingly he preached his 
 first sermon in his own hired house to five persons 
 only. This, it is believed, was the first Methodist ser- 
 mon ever preached in America, October 30, 1768. 1 
 " In 1784, we come to an important era in the his- 
 tory of this sect. Up to this time their preachers had 
 been considered as laymen having no authority to 
 administer the ordinances, and hence the members of 
 the societies had been dependent upon other ministers 
 for the rite of Baptism and the Lord's Supper. In 
 1770, to avoid this difficulty, some of the southern 
 preachers had begun to ordain each other. Through 
 the influence of Mr. Asbury this practice had been 
 discontinued, and on the 2d of September, 1784, Mr. 
 Wesley, assisted by other presbyters, consecrated 
 Thomas Coke, LL.D., then a presbyter in the Church 
 of England, as superintendent, and likewise ordained 
 two others to the office of Elders, and sent them over 
 to America, with instructions to organize the societies 
 here into a separate and independent church, furnish- 
 ing them with forms of ordination for deans [dea- 
 cons ?], elders and superintendents, for administering 
 baptism, and the consecration and administration of 
 the Lord's supper. At a Conference called for that 
 purpose in Baltimore, December 25, 1784, the meas- 
 ures were unanimously approved. Dr. Coke was rec- 
 ognized in his character of Superintendent, and Mr. 
 Asbury was elected to the same office, and conse- 
 crated by Dr. Coke, on the 27th of the same month. 
 Several others were ordained deacons and elders at 
 the same time." 
 
SECTS SINCE THE REFORMATION. 143 
 
 The founders of the Methodist church in this coun- 
 try v/ere men who had been, and were at that time, 
 some of them, members of the English Church. Yet, 
 in what they did, they did not act with the sanction 
 of that Church ; the society which they founded was 
 not received into communion with the Church of 
 England and never sought to be so received. It made 
 no claims to be a branch of that Church. In the 
 function of ordination which Mr. Wesley took up- 
 on himself to perform, he transcended the authority 
 which in the, view of the Church of England, he, as a 
 Presbyter, merely, possessed. Nor do even the men 
 whom he ordained seem to have been satisfied with 
 their ordination ; for both Dr. Coke and Mr. Asbury 
 sought ordination from the American Bishops, Sea- 
 bury of Connecticut, and White of Pennsylvania. ^ 
 
 It is a singular fact, that as in the case of almost all 
 the founders of the modern sects, they did not believe 
 that they could, under the circumstances, found a 
 society that should be a branch of the Church, so also 
 it was in the case of Wesley. 
 
 Thus Wesley says : " At the first meeting of all our 
 preachers in conference in June, 1744, I exhorted 
 them to keep to the Church ; observing that this was 
 our peculiar glory — not to form any new sect, but 
 abiding in our own Church, to do to all men all the 
 good we possibly could. 
 
 " But as more dissenters joined us, many of whom 
 were much prejudiced against the Church, these, with 
 or without design, were continually infusing their own 
 prejudices into their brethren. 
 
 1 See Bishop White's Memoirs, p. 168. 
 
144 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. ' 
 
 " I saw this and gave warning of it from time to ' 
 time both in private and in public, and in the year 
 1758 I resolved to bring the matter to a fair issue. 
 So I desired the point might be considered at large 
 whether it was expedient for the Methodists to leave 
 the Church. The arguments on both sides were dis- 
 cussed for several days, and at length we agreed with- 
 out a dissenting voice ' It is by no means expedient 
 that the Methodists should leave the Church of Eng- 
 land.' Nevertheless the same leaven continued to 
 work in various parts of the kingdom." 
 
 In 1778 he says again: "The original Methodists 
 are all of the Church of England, and the more awak- 
 ened they were the more zealously they adhered to it 
 in every point both of doctrine and discipline. Hence 
 we inserted in the first Rules of our Society ' they 
 that leave the Church, leave us.' And this we did, 
 not as a point of prudence, but a point of conscience." 
 
 He died March 2, 1791, and in 1789, two years 
 before his death, he said : " I never had any design of 
 separating from the Church ; I have no such design 
 now. I do not believe the Methodists in general 
 design it when I am no more seen. I do, and will do 
 all that is in my power to prevent such an event. 
 Nevertheless in spite of all that I can do many will 
 separate from it. 
 
 " In flat opposition to these, I declare once more 
 that I live and die a member of the Church of Eng- 
 land, and that none who regard my judgment or 
 advice will ever separate from it." 
 
 In his sermon preached at Cork, about the same 
 
SECTS SINCE THE REFORMATION. 145 
 
 time, he declared to the preachers in his connection 
 that they had no right to baptize and administer the 
 sacrament of the Lord's Supper. His design was to 
 improve the state of reHgion in the Church. But, as 
 he said, he did not dare to leave the Church, and on 
 the Minutes of the Conference, in 1770, he had these 
 emphatic words entered : " Let this be well observed 
 > — I fear when the Methodists leave the Church, God 
 will leave them." 
 
 7. The Moravians. Like that oftheMennonites and 
 Baptists, the history of this sect is involved in a great 
 deal of obscurity. Like them too, the Moravians re- 
 fer to, and make use of the Waldenses, or Albigenses. 
 From an article in Rupp's collection, which has the 
 sanction of the Board of the Moravian Church, I make 
 the following abridgment : 
 
 " United Brethren, or Unitas Fratrum, or some- 
 times called Moravians, were originally founded by 
 the descendants of the Bohemian and Moravian Breth- 
 ren, who being persecuted for their religious tenets 
 and non- conformity in their native country, founded a 
 colony under the patronage of Count Zinzendorf, on an 
 estate of his called Berthelsdorf, in Upper Lusatia, in 
 the year 1722, to which colony the name of ' Hernn- 
 hut,' was given. No bond of union, however, existed 
 for some time. But after a while, under the guidance 
 of Count Zinzendorf, who from an early age had en- 
 tertained an idea of constituting a Christian commu- 
 nity, on the model of the primitive Apostolic congrega- 
 tion, certain articles of union were proposed among 
 them. All the inhabitants of Hernnhut, after mature 
 10 
 
146 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 consideration, adopted this scheme and these statutes 
 by the name of a brotherly agreement, and pledged 
 themselves mutually to its observance in the year 
 1727, and thus formed the first stock of the present 
 Society of United Brethren. Count Zinzendorf was 
 justly in some measure considered the founder of the 
 society. Individuals from the Protestant denomina- 
 tions were, from the beginning, admitted among them' 
 without renouncing their original Church and creed. 
 /The United Brethren continue strenuously to object 
 to being considered a separate sect or denomination, 
 because their union is exclusively founded on general 
 Christian doctrines and their peculiarities relate solely 
 to their social organization.' Still, however, when 
 called upon to point out their creed, they profess a 
 general adherence to the Confession of Augsburg. 
 The Society early undertook to propagate the Gospel 
 among the heathen nations. In the prosecution of 
 their object they planted colonies in different parts of 
 Germany, England, Holland, America, etc., all of 
 which together now constitute the Unity of the Bretli- 
 ren. Each local congregation is responsible to the 
 General Board of the Directors, at present seated at 
 Berthelsdorf, near Hernnhut." 
 
 Although the foregoing statements are copied from 
 a document which had the approbation of the Board, 
 I cannot but think that it comes short of what is 
 claimed for them. I have before me another account, 
 as follows : 
 
 " They derive their origin from the Greek Church 
 in the ninth century, when by the instrumentality of 
 
SECTS SINCE THE REFORMATION. 147 
 
 Methodius and Cyrillus, two Greek monks, the kings 
 of Bulgaria and Moravia being converted to the Faith, 
 were, together with their subjects, united in commun- 
 ion with the Greek Church. Methodius was their first 
 Bishop, and for their use Cyrillus translated the Scrip- 
 tures into the Sclavonian language. The greater part 
 of the members, in process of time, were compelled to 
 submit to the See of Rome. A few of them joined 
 the Waldenses, in 1170, and became identified with 
 them. From this union of the Bohemian seceders 
 and the Waldenses, arose the sect ol Moravians." 
 
 The Moravians are Episcopalians. In 1467 three 
 of their Preachers were ordained Bishops by a Wal- 
 densian Bishop in Austria, by the name of Stephen. 
 I These, on their return, ordained ten other Bishops. 
 I This occurred in Bohemia, where the Church was al- 
 ready established, and, consequently, this step was the 
 organization of a distinct and opposing sect. 
 
 Mosheim says: "The Bohemian Brethren, as they 
 are called, or Moravians, were descended from the bet- 
 ter sort of Hussites, and at the Councils of Os- 
 torg, 1620, and 1627, the two communities of Bo- 
 hemians and Swiss [Hussites], became consolidated 
 into one which took the name of the Church of the 
 Uftited Brethren, and retained the form and regula- 
 tions of the Bohemians, but embraced the doctrines of 
 the Reformed."! 
 
 Notwithstanding all this uncertainty and diversity 
 ©f opinion and statement concerning their origin, there 
 is no uncertainty about the main point of our inquiry, 
 ' Cent, xvi, sec. iii. 
 
148 TI{E CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 to wit, that the Moravians are a sect outside of the 
 visible Society which has existed ever since the As- 
 cension of our Lord. 
 
 It is pretty certain that Moravia had been (imper- 
 fectly, no doubt), converted, in a great measure, be- 
 fore Methodius and Cyrillus, the Greek Monks, went 
 there, and that, too, by missionaries in the Roman 
 Obedience. At all events, the Church in Moravia was 
 soon brought into the Roman Obedience, and only the 
 few seceders who joined the Waldenses, enter in as 
 an element towards making up the modern sect of the 
 Moravians. 
 
 We have already seen who and what the people 
 called Waldensians were. The Hussites were also a 
 sect of seceders (probably from the Diocese of Con- 
 stance, in Switzerland), whom Huss had gathered 
 around him. None of these things can give ecclesias- 
 tical character to them as a part of Christ's visible 
 Church. They make no claim to such a position in 
 the sense in which we are using the words, i. e., to 
 denote the visible society which has existed since his 
 day. 
 
 In tracing any Branch of the Church it is always a 
 proper and a profitable question to ask where it has 
 existed : for the Church is necessarily connected with 
 place. And hence, as we have more than once seen 
 and said, each Branch takes its name from the place 
 in which it existed and exercised its jurisdiction. The 
 Moravian Church, when called by] the name which its 
 members prefer, has no such indication of locality. 
 They call themselves United Brethren. But even 
 
SECTS SINCE THE REFORMATION. 149 
 
 when we call them, or they call themselves Moravians, 
 neither we nor they mean to indicate by that name 
 that they are the Church of the Province of Moravia, 
 which is in the Empire of Austria. The Church in 
 that Province is now in the Roman Obedience, and 
 has been for centuries. It never rejected the Papal 
 Supremacy, as the Church of England had done. 
 
 8. The Presbyterians. We now come to the last 
 in our list of the Primary Sects. 
 
 We have already examined, so far as our present 
 undertaking requires, the ecclesiastical position of 
 those who came to this country as " elements to the 
 American Presbyterian church," from " the Reformed 
 churches on the Continent," and after giving an ac- 
 count of its establishment here, we will proceed to an 
 account of those that came from Scotland. 
 
 I shall take my account of the Presbyterians chiefly 
 from the article of Dr. Krebs, Permanent Clerk of the 
 General Assembly, in Rupp's Collection. 
 
 " The Presbyterian church in the United States de- 
 rives its lineage from the Presbyterians, both in Ireland 
 and ^Scotland. It is true that Presbyterianism was 
 the form not only of the church of Scotland, but also 
 of the , Reformed churches on the continent of Europe, 
 and indeed, of the Puritans of England about the time 
 of the Westminster Assembly [1643]; and contribu- 
 tions from all these sources have been made at various 
 times to the elements of the American Presbyterian 
 Church. 
 
 " The primary jecclesiastical union of the American 
 Presbyterians occurred in 1706 when the Presbytery 
 
150 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 of Philadelphia was founded. At the meeting of the 
 Synod in 1721 there was made a declaration that the 
 Presbyterians in America had exercised the Presby- 
 terian government and discipline according to the 
 practice of ' the best reformed churches,' as far as the 
 nature and constitution of this country would allow." 
 
 Dr. Miller, of Princeton Theological Seminary, New 
 Jersey, in his Encyclopedia of religious knowledge 
 says: 
 
 " This denomination is to be considered as the off- 
 spring of the church of Scotland." 
 \ Our attention is, therefore, in the first place, chiefly 
 directed to Scotland. 
 
 i The Church of Scotland was brought into the Roman 
 Obedience about the beginning of the twelfth century, 
 and so continued until the sixteenth. In 1555, John 
 Knox, who is regarded as the great Scotch Reformer, 
 returned from Geneva, in Switzerland, and added great 
 vigor to the reformation which had already been begun. 
 The Bishops and ecclesiastical authorities generally op- 
 posed the movement. The contest was carried on, on 
 both sides, in a most unjustifiable spirit. The civil 
 authorities were called into requisition by both parties, 
 as it was found possible to make use of them. In 
 1558 the reforming party in the Parliament described 
 themselves as " the Nobility and Commons of the Prot- 
 estants of the Church of Scotland"'^ In 1560, the Par- 
 liament published by their authority, " the Confession 
 of Faith professed and believed by the Protestants 
 
 ' Lawson's Hist, of the Episcopal Church of Scotland from the 
 Reformation to the Revolution, p. 41. 
 
SECTS SINCE THE REFORMATION: 151 
 
 within the realm of Scotland." This confession was 
 confirmed by the three estates in Parliament on the 
 17th of August, and on the 24th of the same month, 
 the jurisdiction of the Pope was abolished by the 
 same authority. The Bishops and Clergy who were 
 in Parliament seem to have acquiesced in this pro- 
 ceeding, though they did not approve of it. They 
 lived and died for the most part Papists. On the 
 20th of December in the same year, " the Protestants 
 of the Church of Scotland " held their first General 
 Assembly. It consisted oi forty -six persons, of whom 
 Knox was the principal. They commenced operations 
 as an organized sect about this time, being as yet, of 
 course, only a small minority, and in opposition to the 
 Church and its Clergy generally. 
 
 Thus things went on; the Protestants gaining in 
 numbers and influence. Some of the Bishops joined 
 them — as for instance, the Bishops of Galloway, Ork- 
 ney, Caithness and Argyll. Some of the Bishoprics 
 soon became vacant by death or otherwise, and in 
 1572, a Convocation was held at Lieth in which some 
 very important steps were taken. It was not thought 
 expedient, however, to alter the titles of the Archbishops 
 and Bishops, nor the bounds of the Dioceses, but that 
 they should stand and continue as before the Refor- 
 mation. Some of the old Bishops had conformed, and 
 the places of the others were now filled, without reg- 
 ular and canonical ordination, however, with Prot- 
 estants. 
 
 This constituted what was called a Tulchan Epis- 
 copacy — a term derived, as Lawson says, from a prac- 
 
152 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 tice then prevalent, of stuffing a calf's skin with straw, 
 and placing it before a cow to induce the animal to 
 give milk, which figure was called a " tulchan" — a 
 term derived from a word signifying a model, or close 
 resemblance. 
 
 From this time [1572] the Clergy in the Roman 
 Obedience ceased to claim or exercise jurisdiction or 
 ministerial functions in the Church of Scotland. 
 
 This " Tulchan" Episcopacy continued until 1610. 
 In 1607 James I, King of England, and Vlth of Scot- 
 land, summoned a General Assembly of the Scotch 
 church to be held at Dundee on the 24th of Novem- 
 ber. Each of the Presbyteries was required to send 
 " two of the most godly, peaceable, wise and grave " 
 of their number, as their representatives. A confer- 
 ence was also held at Falkland, in Fife, in June, 1608, 
 and a General Assembly again in Dundee, on the 26th 
 of July of the same year. In all of these meetings, 
 progress was made towards the settlement of the state 
 of affairs in the Church, in a more satisfactory manner. 
 In 1 6 10 three of those persons who were actually in 
 possession of the Sees, or had been nominated to those 
 that were vacant, Spottiswoode, Archbishop of Glas- 
 gow, Lamb, Bishop of Brechin, and Hamilton, Bishop 
 of Galloway, went to London and were ordained Bish- 
 ops by the Bishops of the English Church. They re- 
 turned home and consecrated the others, who either 
 were in possession of, or had been appointed to the 
 vacant Sees. 
 
 Thus the Church became again, in fact, as well as 
 in name and form, Episcopal. 
 
SECTS SINCE THE REFORMATION: 153 
 
 In 1754,' Andrew Melville returned from a ten 
 years' residence in Geneva, and if he was not the first 
 to introduce a preference for the Presbyterian form of 
 church government, he certainly added great vigor to 
 the zeal of those who entertained such a preference. 
 His party continued to increase until 1637, when they 
 combined and drove those of the Episcopal Clergy, 
 who would not submit to the Presbyterian rule, out 
 of their places in the Church. 
 
 The establishment of Presbyterianism at this period, 
 was no act of the Church. The General Assembly — 
 which met at Glasgow, November 17, 1638 — con- 
 sisted, according to the laws of the Church and the 
 Realm, of the King's Commissioner (at that time the 
 Marquis ,of Hamilton), the Bishops, and inferior clergy 
 and laity as Delegates. The King's Commissioner 
 was acknowledged to have the right to dissolve the 
 Assembly. Such an Assembly was the highest eccle- 
 siastical authority in Scotland, the only one that could 
 make any change or regulation of any kind in the 
 Church. But on the 2ist of November, before any 
 business had been transacted, the Bishops protested 
 against the Assembly and refused to have anything to 
 do with it, on the ground of illegality in the election 
 of the Deputies, and for other reasons. This protest 
 or " Declinature " as it was called, occasioned a good 
 deal of discussion — the Marquis taking sides with the 
 Bishops. On the 29th he dissolved the Assembly and 
 withdrew. Episcopacy was abolished and Presbyte- 
 rianism established by this remainder of a General 
 ' Lawson's Hist, as before, p. 131. 
 
154 THE CHURCI-I IDENTIFIED. 
 
 Assembly — after the Protest or Declinature of the 
 Bishops — after the withdrawal of the Lord High Com- 
 missioner — and after, therefore, the Dissolution of the 
 Assembly by what it had hitherto acknowledged a 
 competent authority, and according to its own rules 
 and laws.^ 
 
 But on the Restoration of King Charles II, to the 
 throne of England, in 1660, steps were taken to bring 
 back those of the Episcopal Clergy that survived, to 
 their places in the Church in Scotland, as well as in 
 England. On the isth of December, 1661, four per- 
 sons were consecrated, for the Scottish Sees, and they, 
 on their return home, filled up, by consecration, the 
 other Sees as before 1637. Sydserf, of Galloway, the 
 only Scotch Bishop that survived the Rebellion and 
 remained faithful to the Church, was transferred to the 
 See of Orkney. The four new Bishops were James 
 Sharp, Archbishop of St. Andrews, Andrew Fair foul, 
 Archbishop of Glasgow, James Hamilton, Bishop of 
 Galloway, and Robert Leighton, for Dumblane. 
 
 Thus again was the Episcopacy restored to the 
 Church of Scotland. It appears from the testimony 
 of the Earl of Glencairn, that the Episcopalians were 
 six to one.2 The Presbyterians, who were now ex- 
 cluded from its Ministry and its Churches, had, many 
 of them, settled in Ireland, some came to America, 
 and many remained at home as a sect in opposition to 
 the Church. 
 
 But the act which has led the Presbyterians in this 
 country to call the Presbyterians in Scotland "the 
 "Lawson, pp. 571-590. *Lawson, p. 671. 
 
^SECTS SINCE THE REFORMATION. 155 
 
 Church of Scotland" is of a subsequent date, and re- 
 mains yet to be related. 
 
 In 1688, occurred a change in the English Dynasty. 
 James II, the last of the line of the Stuarts, left the 
 kingdom, and William, Prince of Orange, the husband 
 of the eldest daughter of the King, came to the 
 Throne. James, however, had a son, who, according 
 to the laws of England, and the oaths of all in office 
 in the realm, was the legitimate heir to the crown. 
 The Scotch Bishops and Clergy generally, adhered to 
 James and his son. The Presbyterians, on the other 
 hand, readily yielded their support to William. In an 
 interview between Compton, Bishop of London, and 
 Rose, Bishop of Edinburgh, Compton said to Rose 
 that William was satisfied that " the great body of the 
 nobility and gentry of Scotland were for the Episco- 
 pacy, and that he had directed him [Compton], to say 
 that if the Episcopalians of Scotland would undertake 
 to serve him to the purpose that he is served in Eng- 
 land, he would take them by the hand, support the 
 Church and Order, and throw off the Presbyterians."^ 
 
 The Presbyterians had kept alive their animosities 
 towards the Church, from the time of Melville's re- 
 turn. Their feelings had been much embittered by 
 the proceedings of the Churchmen, after the Restora- 
 tion : and they were ready to avail themselves of every 
 advantage in their favor that might present itself 
 William, after his recognition as king, took the rev- 
 
 iLathbury's Hist.~of the Non Jurors, p. 416, where this testi- 
 mony as to the comparative numbers, etc., of the Churchmen and 
 the Presbyterians, is abundantly sustained. 
 
156 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 enues of the Scotch Bishops and put them into his 
 pocket, by an order published October 19, 1689.1 
 Ever since that time these revenues have been paid 
 into the Royal Exchequer.^ An act, passed in the 
 Scotch Parliament, through the King's influence, on 
 the 24th of April, 1690, gave to the Presbyterian Se- 
 ceders the possession and control of the Church edi- 
 fices and property ; and on the 7th of June following, 
 the Westminster Confession of Faith was declared, by 
 the same authority, to be the allowed and established 
 Confession of Faith in Scotland, and the Presbyterian 
 Church-government and Discipline "established, rati- 
 fied and confirmed." ' 
 
 The Bishops and Clergy, however, continued their 
 ministrations entirely distinct from the Presbyterians, 
 as before, as far as the tyranny of the laws and the 
 violence of Presbyterian intolerance would permit. A 
 large portion of the people still adhered to their com- 
 munion — and thus the identity of the Church of Scot- 
 land was preserved by them, notwithstanding the dis- 
 establishment and the violence that was brought to 
 bear against it. 
 
 " The first Presbyterian church that was organized 
 and furnished with a place of worship in this country," 
 says Dr. Miller, " was about 1703." Their first pres- 
 bytery was organized in 1 704. But neitlier the Church 
 of Scotland nor the Sect which is by law entitled to 
 
 ' ' Lawson's History of the Church of Scotland since the Revo- 
 lution, p. too. 
 , " Lawson's Hist, of the Ch. of Scotland, pp. 103-105. 
 ' Lawson's Hist, of the Ch. of Scotland, pp. 103-105. 
 
SECTS SINCE THE REFORMATION. 157 
 
 that name, appear to have had anything to do with it. 
 The agents in its formation were indeed chiefly of 
 Scotch descent. But they were neither members of 
 of the Scotch Church when they came to this country, 
 nor admitted to its communion afterwards. 
 
 When, therefore, the Presbyterians say that the 
 Presbyterian church in America was founded by the 
 Church of Scotland, they mean that it was founded by 
 Presbyterian seceders from the Scotch Church, who, 
 since their establishment by the State, have been called 
 " the Church of Scotland." 
 
 It is not true, therefore, in the sense required by the 
 essential principles of the identity of the Church, that 
 the Presbyterian church in this country was estab- 
 lished by the Church of Scotland. 
 
 If we turn our attention to Ireland, we find the same 
 general state of facts. In 1537 the Papal jurisdiction 
 was abolished by Parliament and the Bishops, Clergy, ' 
 and whole Church generally assented to the Refor-' 
 mation. In the reign of Mary, the Papist, five of the 
 Irish Bishops who would not conform to the Roman 
 Obedience, were expelled from their Sees. When, in 
 1560, the Reformation was restored, seventeen out of 
 nineteen Bishops in Parliament approved it, and the 
 rest of the Bishops and clergy generally, as well as 
 the people acquiesced. But Presbyterianism was never 
 established in the Church of Ireland. The Presby- 
 terians were always, whenever there were any, seceders 
 from the Church, so confessedly and nominally, as 
 well as in fact. 
 
 The Presbyterians are certainly very shrewd, if 
 
158 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 not altogether wise, in referring to Scotland for their 
 pedigree of descent. The facts permit, if not an argu- 
 ment, yet an obscuration of the subject, in the midst 
 of which men of only ordinary sagacity are in danger 
 of getting so bewildered as not to know what to think 
 or believe. 
 
 Let us now turn our attention to England, which is 
 really the nation and home of the denomination. 
 
 When the Presbyterians gained the ascendency in 
 the English Parliament, 1643, they appointed the 
 famous Westminster Assembly of Divines — to provide 
 for a change in religion. In consequence. Episcopacy 
 and the Prayer Book were abolished — so far as the 
 authority of Parliament could effect such a result, and 
 Presbyterianism established instead. The Independ- 
 ents petitioned for toleration, and a correspondence 
 ensued. From Collier's History of Great Britain, I 
 make the following quotations : ^ 
 
 " That the toleration which the Independents asked 
 could not be granted as it would ' be licensing per- 
 petual division in the church ; ' that ' the request sup- 
 poses the lawfulness of gathering churches out of true 
 churches — in countenance of which there is not the 
 least example in all the Holy Scriptures; ' that ' if the 
 Church requires that which is evil of any member, he 
 must forbear compliance, but yet without separation;' 
 that though tenderness of conscience may oblige to 
 forbear or suspend the act of communion in a case 
 scrupled and supposed unlawful ; yet it does not bind 
 people to a practice repugnant to the will of God ; of 
 ' Vol. VIII, p. 297-302. 
 
SECTS SINCE THE REFORMATION. 159 
 
 which kind they conceive the gathering separate 
 churches out of true churches to be an instance ;' that 
 ' the notion of separation is not to be determined by 
 civil legislature, nor by acts of state, but by the word 
 of God,' 'the same ground of separation maybe pleaded 
 by any erroneous conscience whatever, and thus by the 
 same equity and parity of reasoning the Church may 
 be broken into as many subdivisions as there are dif- 
 ferent scruples in the minds of men,' and in this new 
 shelter, the same danger may be apprehended and 
 carry the scrupling persons to a further distance. And 
 are these subdivisions and fractions in church govern- 
 ment as lawful as they may be infinite ? Or must we 
 give that regard to erroneous consciences as to satisfy 
 men's scruples by so unbounded a liberty ? Does not 
 this plainly import that error in conscience is a pro- 
 tection against [the guilt of] schism.' ' Scruple of 
 conscience is no good plea against the charge of schism, 
 the motives must have more weight in them.'" 
 
 Such is the language used, and the views held by 
 the men who composed the Westminster Assembly — 
 of whose Confession of Faith and Catechism, Dr. Krebs, 
 "Permanent Clerk," etc., says that they "always have 
 been the only standard [!] of Faith, Rites, Government 
 and Discipline of the Presbyterians of this country." 
 
 I do not intend to adopt this language altogether — 
 or to make an indiscriminate application of it. But it 
 states with great plainness several points — (i) that the 
 Scriptures do not allow of the gathering of a church 
 out of one that is already established, that is, establish- 
 ing a second, where there is already one — (2) that the 
 
160 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 civil authority or " acts of the state " can give no au- 
 thority or be any justification for so doing, the matter 
 being exclusively of a religious character — (3) that 
 error and evil in a Church is no justification of separ- 
 ation, though it may be necessary to refuse compli- 
 ance in particular acts — (4) that in as much as con- 
 science may be erroneous and corrupt, its scruples 
 alone are no sufficient plea or excuse for an act of sep- 
 aration — and (s) that therefore, there can be no justi- 
 fication for a separation from a Church that is truly a 
 Branch of the Church of Christ. 
 
 So thought and taught the Presbyterians when they 
 had got, or supposed they had, the ascendency in 
 a legitimate branch of the Church of Christ Their 
 whole and sole authority, however, for legislating in 
 the court had been derived from Parliament, and by a 
 violent expulsion of legitimate members. 
 
 And this is in the main, sound reasoning. When 
 the Presbyterians used it, they supposed they occu- 
 pied the position which the Church of England now 
 occupies — that is, the position of a valid Branch 
 of the Church, historically connected with the past, 
 which could be identified with the main Body. The 
 reasoning which they then used for their own advan- 
 tage, as they supposed, if it is now turned against 
 them, completely cuts off their claim. 
 
 In considering these Sects, I have avoided a state- 
 ment of their doctrines and constitution except in so 
 far as some allusion to them came in incidentally. 
 But of them all it may be said : 
 
 I. That no one of them has the Ministry which our 
 
SECTS SINCE THE REFORMATION. 161 
 
 Lord instituted, continued and perpetuated in the way 
 which has always, in the Church, been esteemed essen- 
 tial to its identity. 
 
 2. That no one of them is based upon the Creed of 
 the Primitive Church, or professes to hold to it as 
 their Rule of Faith, but each of them has a Rule of its 
 own, and peculiar to itself. 
 
 3. That they all have b&en organized not by, or 
 with the consent and approbation of the Church in 
 which their founders were members, but always and 
 in all cases within the jurisdiction of that Church, and 
 in opposition to its laws and authority. 
 
 4. That no one of them has ever been recognized 
 as a Branch of the Church of Christ by any Church 
 which has existed from the Apostles' days, or any 
 that has been planted by such an Apostolic Church. 
 But they have always regarded themselves, and have 
 been regarded by others as constituting a communion, 
 or perhaps several, by themselves, which has arisen 
 into being since the commencement of the Reforma- 
 tion. 
 
 I have no disposition to call in question the piety or 
 motives of those who have been instrumental in lay- 
 ing the foundations of these sects. On the contrary I 
 had much rather dwell upon the excuses and apolo- 
 gies for their error — which are to be found in the 
 times and circumstances of their lives. The abuses 
 and evils in the Church were great, and the influence 
 of the preceding centuries had, perhaps on the whole, 
 been calculated to produce views of the organization 
 and discipline of the Church, more completely erro- 
 II 
 
162 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 neous than of the doctrines of the Gospel. The re- 
 formers of whom we have been speaking felt deeply 
 the evils under which they were suffering. But they 
 saw no clear way of escape. Unlike the English 
 Reformers, the Church and ecclesiastical authorities 
 with which, by the Providence of God, they were con- 
 nected, were against them. They considered them- 
 selves called upon to bear their testimony against the 
 evils and corruptions of their day. In this we cer- 
 tainly cannot consider them in the wrong. And it is 
 now impossible to say what might have been the 
 result if they had pursued a course not less firm and 
 faithful, but more meek and conciliatory. The truth 
 has a power and vitality of its own, in all cases. But 
 religious truth is especially the object of Divine care. 
 If they had simply borne their testimony and sub- 
 mitted to whatever might have been inflicted upon 
 them, the good seed might, and probably would, have 
 taken deeper root, and sprung up to a more wide- 
 spread growth, and Germany, instead of being, as it is, 
 overrun with pantheism, rationalism, and infidelity, 
 would probably have presented us with a Protestant 
 Church, sound in the faith, unblamable in life, and 
 embracing the great mass of the population. 
 
 But to human foresight — for man sees not as God 
 seeth — it seemed that without some association or. 
 combination amongst themselves, their influence would 
 be greatly circumscribed, and, perhaps, wholly coun- 
 teracted and lost to the world. Therefore, they or- 
 ganized into churches, formed rules of faith for them- 
 selves, and undertook to perform ecclesiastical func- 
 
SECTS SINCE THE REFORM A TION. 163 
 
 tions ; and putting their trust in him, whose preroga- 
 tive it is to bring good out of evil, they relied upon 
 the necessities of the case for their justification in what 
 they were doing. 
 
 With this, however, we are not now to concern our- 
 selves. We have ascertained the fact that they are 
 not parts of that visible and continuous Church which 
 Christ and the Apostles founded — this they did not 
 claim to be, and that is all that we need now to ascer- 
 tain concerning them. 
 
 Secondary Sects. — These, it will be remembered, 
 are those that have split off from some one of the Pri- 
 mary Sects. 
 
 Secessions from the Presbyterians. 
 
 I. The Congregationalists. I shall treat the Con- 
 gregationalists as a secondary sect or denomination, 
 for the reason that the majority of the early Congre- 
 gationalists had been Presbyterians. * 
 
 " The origin of the Congregationalists as a modern 
 sect is commonly ascribed to Robert Brown, who or- 
 ganized a Church in England in 1583." 
 
 Brown's Church, however, seems to have come to 
 naught, and many — perhaps a majority of the early 
 Puritans or non- conformists — were Presbyterians in 
 principle. 
 
 " But about the commencement of the seventeenth 
 century appeared John Robinson, who has, not inap- 
 propriately, been called the Father of modern Congre- 
 gationalism. We first hear of him as a pastor of a 
 church which had been formed in the north of Eng- 
 land, in the year previous to Elizabeth's death [March, 
 
164 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 1603]. But not finding things to their mind in Eng- 
 land, they left for Holland, in 1 608, and Mr. Robinson 
 soon followed. ' Mr. Robinson and his congregation, 
 upon their arrival in Holland, first joined themselves 
 to the church at Amsterdam [Dutch Reformed] ; but 
 owing to the dissensions that had broken out among 
 its members, at the end of a year they removed to 
 Leyden. In the year 161 7, Mr. Robinson and his 
 church began to think of a removal to America. 
 Robinson remained with the majority at Leyden, and 
 Elder Brewster accompanied the emigrants.'" They 
 arrived at Plymouth, Mass., 1620." 
 
 At first the Congregationalists gathered their con- 
 gregations within the bosom of the Church of Eng- 
 land, then they went to Holland, and, failing to gain 
 their object there, obtained a grant of a large tract of 
 land in America, and came hither to settle. 
 
 0/ course there is no pretense that these Pilgrims 
 were the Church of England. 
 
 Mr. Robinson " at the commencemeot of his minis- 
 try among the separatists, in common with Brown, 
 denounced that Church, as essentially anti- Christian, 
 and would neither regard her members as brethren, 
 nor hear ministers preach." 
 
 This, we are to remember, was after the Reforma- 
 tion — after the Church of England had adopted the 
 Apostles' Creed, as her Rule of Faith; after the 
 adoption of the xxxix Articles as the standeird of her 
 teaching on all points included in them. 
 
 The Chief complaints of the Congregationalists, or 
 Puritans, against the Presbyterians, was the use of 
 
SECTS SINCE THE REFORMATION. 165 
 
 clerical garments, certain abuses of plurality, and gen- 
 eral laxity of discipline. 
 
 2. Associate Presbyterian Church in North Amer- 
 ica. This is a branch of the Church of Scotland [the 
 Presbyterians], and holds the doctrines of the West- 
 minster Assembly. It was formed in 1733. In con- 
 sequence of the recognition of the Presbyterians as the 
 Establishment in Scotland by William and Mary, in 
 1688, a law was passed in 1712, giving the right of 
 patronage and presentment to lay proprietors. This 
 led to a secession in 1733, and the seceders took the 
 title above written. ^ 
 
 3. Reformed Presbyterian Church. This sect also 
 is formed of persons who seceded from the Scotch 
 Presbyterians in 1688, in consequence of their con- 
 senting to become the Establishment, and be sup- 
 ported by law. They were organized into a Sect in 
 this country in 1 798.2 
 
 4. Associate Reformed Church. Between 1660 and 
 1688, alarge number [3,000 Wodrow\ of Presbyterians 
 were brought to this country from Scotland, and sold 
 for slaves, chiefly in Virginia, Pennsylvania and New 
 Jersey. The first steps toward organization into a 
 Church, were taken in 1736, by the Associate Presby- 
 terian Church, etc. In 175 1 they received a minister 
 from the Reformed Presbyterian Church, and in 1774 
 they received two more. In 1782 they became a fully 
 organized Sect. Efforts have been made to unite 
 them with the two Sects just named, derived from the 
 
 ' Eev. W. I. Cleland, and Rev. James P. Miller. 
 'The Rev. John N. McLeod, D.D^N. Y. 
 
1C6 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 Scotch Presbyterians, but they have hitherto been un- 
 availing.' 
 
 5. Cumberland Presbyterians. This Sect was 
 founded in 1796, by the Rev. James McGready. It 
 originated chiefly in an effort for a revival in Ken- 
 tucky. It resulted in the formation of the Sect in 
 1802. A General Assembly was formed in 1829.^ 
 
 Secessions from the Baptists. 
 
 1. Freewill Baptists. This connection was founded 
 in 1780. The first Baptist Church was of general 
 views, and the Baptists in several of the States were 
 Armenian long before the Freewill Baptist connection 
 arose. In 1780, this portion, being in the minority, 
 seceded.' 
 
 2. Seventh-Day Baptists. In 1665, a Seventh- 
 Day Baptist came from England, and in 1681 he and 
 his followers came to an open separation from the 
 Baptist Church, on the ground, as their name indi- 
 cates, of their preferring the seventh day of the week 
 for their Sabbath.* 
 
 3. Disciples of Christ These are sometimes called 
 " Reformed Baptist" and " Campbellites." This Sect 
 was chiefly founded by Mr. James Campbell, who had ' 
 been a Minister in the " Secession " branch of the 
 
 ^ Rev. John Forsyth, D.D., Professor in the Seminary at New- 
 burg, N. Y. 
 
 " Rev. Dr. Beard, President of the Cumberland College, Prince- 
 ton, Ky. 
 
 'Rev. Porters. Burbank. 
 
 * Rev. W. B. Gillett, Pastor of the Seventh-Day Baptist Church, 
 Piscataway, N. J. 
 
SECTS SINCE THE REFORMATION. 167 
 
 Scotch Presbyterians. He and his followers were bap- 
 tized again by immersion in 1812. In 1813 they 
 were received into communion with the regular Bap- 
 tists. But soon after they separated again,'- 
 
 Secession from the Mennonites. 
 
 1. Reformed Mennonites. This Sect commenced in 
 181 1, when certain members of the Mennonite connec- 
 tion, deploring the general decline in the piety of their 
 Sect, commenced a reformation. They do not deem 
 themselves at liberty to keep an accurate account of 
 their members.^ 
 
 2. German Baptists or Brethren. This Sect are 
 often called " Dunkers." They came to this country 
 from Germany, in 1718-1730.' 
 
 3. Seventh-Day German Baptists. This Sect is an 
 offshoot from the foregoing under the leading of Con- 
 rad Beissel, in 1728.* 
 
 4. Amish or Ornish Church. This is a Sect of the 
 Mennonites, separated from the rest chiefly on the 
 ground of being more strict in their dress and disci- 
 pline. They are sometimes called " Hook " Menon- 
 ites," while the others are called " Button " Mennon- 
 ites.* 
 
 Secessions from the German Reformed Church. 
 
 The Church of God. In 1820, the Rev. John Wine- 
 brenner commenced a revival in Harrisburg, Pa., 
 ' Rev. R. Richardson, of Ya. 
 ' Rev. John Herr, Strasburg, one of their Bishops. 
 ° Rev. Philip Boyle, Uniontown, Md. 
 * Dr. Wm. H. Fahnstock, 
 'ShemZook. 
 
168 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 which extended to some distance around. His move- 
 ment was disapproved by the German Reformed au- 
 thorities, and led to a separation, and the formation of 
 a new Sect, with the title above given. ^ 
 
 The Secessions from the Methodists. 
 
 1. The Methodist Society. This Society was first 
 composed of a number of members seceding from the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church in the city of New York, 
 in the year 1 820, together with several of their trust- 
 ees. It had its origin in the ruling elder's insisting 
 on receiving the money collected in the different 
 churches under his charge, through stewards of his 
 own appointment, instead of the usual and lawful way. 
 They have three Conferences.^ 
 
 2. Methodist Protestant Church. This Sect was 
 organized in 1 830. It consists mostly of seceders from 
 the Methodist Episcopal Church. " on account of her 
 government and hostility to lay representation."' 
 
 3. Reformed Methodist Church. This Sect took its 
 origin from a feeble secession from the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church in Vermont, 18 14. They believe in 
 "the attainableness of entire sanctification in this life."* 
 
 4. The True Wesleyan Methodist Church. This 
 Society was organized in 1843. It consists of seced- 
 ers from the original Sect, and from the Methodist 
 Protestants. They united for the purpose of having 
 
 1 Winebrenner, V. D. M. 
 'Rev.W. M. Stillwell. 
 ' Rev. J. R. Williams, of Baltimore. 
 • Rev. Wesley Bailey, Utlca, N. Y. 
 
SECTS SINCE THE reformation: 169 
 
 " churches free from Episcopacy, Intemperance and 
 Slavery."! 
 
 This completes the list of Secondary Sects, as it was 
 in 1849, and I have not thought it worth while, for 
 my present purposes, to bring it down to our time. 
 
 The Autothentic Sects. Under this head I in- 
 clude those sects which can hardly be called branches 
 or offshoots from any of the preceding ones: but which 
 are rather the organized body of the followers of some 
 one or more influential individuals gathered from many 
 sects, perhaps, and composed in a measure of those 
 that had not previously belonged to any sect or pro- 
 fession of religion. 
 
 1. Christians. It is claimed for this sect that they 
 do not owe their origin to any one man. They arose 
 nearly simultaneously in different sections of the 
 country. In N. C. James O'Kelly and several, other 
 preachers seceded from the Methodists on account of 
 some disagreement in regard to their church govern- 
 ment. In Vermont Abner Jones, iamong the Baptists, 
 commenced to preach against creeds and sectarian 
 names, and gathered a church in 1 800. About the 
 same time a number of Presbyterians, in Kentucky 
 and Tennessee, began to entertain similar views,, and 
 Barton W. Stone, with several others, seceded. They 
 are not Trinitarians, reject infant baptism and baptize 
 by immersion.2 
 
 2. The Evangelical Association. In 1796 Jacob 
 Albright began to preach among the Germans " among 
 
 1 Rev. J. Timberman, Pastor, etc., N. Y. 
 
 2 Rev. David Millard. 
 
170 ' THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 whom at this time Christianity was at a very low ebb." 
 He was quite successful, and in 1 800 his followers 
 formed themselves into an association; and in 1803 
 they introduced among themselves " an ecclesiastical 
 regulation." "Albright was chosen presiding Elder 
 among them, and duly confirmed by the other preach- 
 ers, and ordained by their laying on of hands, so as to 
 authorize him to perform all transactions that are nec- 
 essary for a Christian Society, and becoming to an 
 evangelical preacher."' 
 
 3. Schwenkfelders. This sect was founded by Cas- 
 par Schwenkfeld Van Ossing of Silesia. A number 
 of them came to Pennsylvania in 1734. They have a 
 peculiar custom of calling their minister to pray over 
 and for infants instead of baptizing them. They in- 
 vert the words of the institution of the sacrament of 
 the Lord's Supper (This is My Body) and say, My 
 Body is this — that is, such as is this bread which is 
 broken for you, etc.* 
 
 4. Unitarians. Unitarian sentiments made their 
 appearance very early among the descendants of the 
 Puritans in New England. In 18 15 a new impulse 
 was given to the subject by the publication of Bel- 
 sham's Life of Lindsey. A controversy was com- 
 menced, which led to an open separation between the 
 two parts of the Congregational church.^ 
 
 5. Universalists. This sect was chiefly founded by 
 John Murray and Elhanan Winchester, from 1775 to 
 1780. Their first convention was held in 1785. They 
 
 1 Rev. W. W. Orwig. ' Dr. Lamson, of Dedham, Mass. 
 ' Isaac Schultz. 
 
SECTS SINCE THE REFORMATION. Vi\ 
 
 believe that all retribution or punishment is confined 
 to this -world.! 
 
 6. "Restorationists. This sect split off from the 
 Universalists in 183 1, on account of the original sect 
 declaring against any punishment or opportunity for 
 repentance in a future world.2 
 
 7. United Brethren in Christ. This denomination 
 took its rise in the United States about 1755, and is 
 distinguished from the Old United Brethren or Mora- 
 vians by the additional phrase " in Christ." The 
 founder was Wm. Otterbein. The sect bears many 
 points of resemblance to the Methodists, though gath- 
 ered chiefly from among the Germans. ^ 
 
 8. Second Advent Believers. This sect was com- 
 menced by Wm. Miller, who began to lecture in 183 1. 
 They are distinguished by their view of the socond 
 Advent and their belief that the present dispensation 
 and orders of things in the world will soon come to an 
 end. They have already fixed upon several dates 
 which have not realized their expectations.* 
 
 Sects which claim some Special Revelation or Inspira- 
 tion, besides that received through the Bible. 
 
 I. Friends or Quakers. This sect was founded by 
 George Fox, He commenced his labors in 1647, i" 
 England. About 1655 sonle of this people arrived 
 in America. They discard a Ministry, Sacraments, 
 
 'Eev. A. B. Grosh. 
 ' Hon. Charles Hudson. 
 ' Rev. Wm. Hanby: 
 
 * Most of these facts are taken from N. Southard, editor of the 
 Midnight Cry. 
 
172 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 and outward Forms generally. Without discarding 
 the Scriptures altogether, they believe in an " inner 
 light " or " a Spirit within" which is recognized as 
 the principal guide in divine things.' 
 
 2. Friends (Hicksites). This society was founded 
 by a secession from the foregoing in 1837. The cause 
 of the division was doctrinal differences in opinion. 
 
 3. Shakers. This sect was founded by the French 
 Prophets in Dauphiny and Cervennes, in France, about 
 1788. In a few years several hundred Protestants 
 professed to be inspired ; their bodies were much agi- 
 tated with various operations ; when they received 
 the spirit of prophecy they trembled, staggered and 
 fell down, and lay as if they were dead. They recov- 
 ered, twitching, shaking and crying to God for mercy 
 for themselves and all mankind. Three of their most 
 distinguished prophets came to London about 1705. 
 In 1772 the society residing in Lancashire, England, 
 received a revelation from God to repair to America. 
 They arrived in New York in 1774.^ 
 
 4. New Jerusalem, or New Christian Church. This 
 sect was founded by Emanuel Swedenborg, who com- 
 menced his labors in this department about 1743. He 
 did not profess to make a new revelation, but merely 
 to apply a new key to its interpretation. The church 
 first received its form in -England in 1783. The doc- 
 trine was introduced in the United States in 1784. 
 The followers of Swedenborg now generally claim for 
 him and his writings, a special inspiration. 
 
 5. Latter Day Saints. "The church of Jesus Christ 
 
 1 T. Evans. ' Thomas Brown. 
 
SECTS SINCE THE REFORMATION. 173 
 
 of Latter Day Saints was founded upon direct revela- 
 tion, as the true Church of God has ever been." 
 Joseph Smith, the founder of this sect, was told super- 
 naturally that " all the denominations were believing 
 in incorrect doctrines, and none of them acknowl- 
 edged by God as His." Smith "was directed not to 
 go after them. On the 21st of September, 1823, a per- 
 son appeared to him calling himself an angel of God, 
 sent to assure Smith that God's covenant with ancient 
 Israel was about to be fulfilled, and that he [Smith] was 
 chosen to accomplish an important part of it. He 
 received a revelation concerning the aboriginal inhab- 
 itants of this country. He was told of the existence of 
 certain plates on which was engraven an abridg- 
 ment of the records of the ancient prophets that 
 had existed on this continent. On the 22d of Sep- 
 tember, 1827, the angel delivered to Smith the records. 
 With them was found, also, the Urim and Thummin 
 by which he translated the records which were written 
 in Egyptian characters." In April, 1830, was first 
 organized the church of the Latter Day Saints. ^ 
 
 This closes the list of Sects in this country, so far as 
 I am able to make out any account of them: 
 
 Besides the Sects named above, there are particular 
 congregations scattered all over our land, which are in 
 fact, communions or sects by themselves, and of which 
 no account has here been or can be given. A few in- 
 dividuals taking a dislike to something in the affairs or 
 doctrines of the church to which they have belonged, 
 almost without hesitation, make it a matter of con- 
 1 Joseph Smith. 
 
174 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 science, withdraw and constitute themselves into a 
 new church wholly independent of, and disconnected 
 from all others. 
 
 But, besides all this, the vast majority of our popu- 
 lation make no profession of religion at all. 
 
 It is, of course, unnecessary to enter at large into a 
 discussion of the connection between these churches 
 and that visible society which has had a continuous 
 existence from the days of Christ. The facts of their 
 origin present nothing that requires anything more to 
 be said than what we have already had occasion to 
 say, and the application of which is too obvious to 
 need repetition here. 
 
 I have said of the Primary Sects, and it is still more 
 true of the last two classes that we have noticed, that 
 they make no pretensions to be a part of the Church 
 of Christ. Of course I would not be guilty of a 
 misstatement or misrepresentation. Neither would I 
 dodge or evade any fact or objection that fairly lies in 
 my way. I therefore recur to this assertion for the 
 purpose of explaining it in such a way as to make the 
 whole matter perfectly clear. 
 
 When I say, then, that none of these sects make any 
 pretension or claim to be parts of the Church of 
 Christ, I must be understood to use the words in their 
 strictest and most appropriate sense as indicating that 
 society or Church which has had a visible and contin- 
 uous existence from the time of its first establishment 
 in Judea unto the present day, and which has always 
 been known and called by that name. Now, in this 
 sense of the words, all persons readily admit the cor- 
 
SECTS SINCE THE REFORMATION. \^^ 
 
 rectness of my assertion. For there is none of these 
 sects that professes (i) to have had a distinct visible 
 existence from the Apostles' days — or (2) to have 
 been founded by a Church that has had such an exist- 
 ence, or by its members with its concurrence and 
 approbation — or (3) finally, to be in communion with 
 any Church which has had such a distinct continuous 
 existence, or with one which has been founded by 
 such a Church. On the contrary they profess to have 
 left and forsaken that Church and its branches on 
 account of a disagreement in doctrine, discipline or 
 worship, in order that they might found one that 
 should be different in those respects, and more agree- 
 able to their own opinions and consciences. 
 
 Yet, in another sense it seems they do claim to be 
 parts of the Church of Christ or Christian churches. 
 I confess that I am somewhat at a loss to know in 
 what terms they would give a precise and definite 
 statement of the grounds of this claim. It would 
 probably include several items — such as (i) a con- 
 formity to the Scripture model — (2) a harmony with 
 the Apostolic doctrines — (3) the fact that there have 
 always been persons who entertained the same views 
 as themselves — and (4) that any number of true be- 
 lievers, associated for the purpose of religion, are a 
 branch of the Church of Christ. 
 
 Now we may admit all of these claims without at 
 all interfering with our main proposition — for I have 
 undertaken to identify only that visible Society or 
 Church which was founded by Christ and the Apos- 
 tles, and I have undertaken to show that these Sects 
 
176 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 are, none of them, identical parts of that Church. This ■ 
 they admit, and it holds equally true, if the grounds 
 stated above on which they claim to be considered 
 churches of Christ be admitted. The admission, how- 
 ever, will raise a new issue. 
 
 It is no part of my design to deny that these sects 
 are Christian churches — that is, churches or societies 
 sincerely professing to be founded on the Christian 
 Faith, regulated and governed by Christian principles, 
 and aiming at the Salvation of the souls of men. But 
 as visible Societies, they are all distinct one from an- 
 other. Historically, for instance, there can be no more 
 doubt that the Presbyterian church is a separate so- 
 ciety, from that which our Lord and His Apostles 
 commenced, than that the Presbyterians and the Meth- 
 odists are two and distinct Societies. 
 
 The Primary Sects had, as we have seen, some idea 
 of a church and of church authority, and they re- 
 gretted their deficiencies in this respect quite seri- 
 ously. I have quoted Calvin and Luther, and Wesley, 
 the founder of the Methodists, to this effect. But 
 soon all idea of the Church as a divinely founded 
 institution passed away, and in some cases, as among 
 the Congregationalists and Baptists, their members 
 went quite into the opposite extreme of denying any 
 church, except such as the members themselves could 
 form by a voluntary association with one another. 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND SINCE THE 
 REFORMATION. 
 
 . We now recur to the Church of England in order 
 to explain a few events in its history, from the com- 
 mencement of the Reformation in the reign of Henry 
 Vni, to 1789, at which time the Branch of the Eng- 
 lish Church in America, was fully established, and be- 
 came complete in its organization and independent in 
 its existence. 
 
 The common impression is, that at the time of the 
 Reformation the Church was all broken to pieces, all 
 organization had come to an end, and the people or- 
 ganized themselves again and anew into denomina- 
 tions according to their own convictions or prefer- 
 ences. The Clergy, it is supposed, were all adherents 
 of Rome, and as such, abandoned their positions or 
 were cast out of them. Or, perhaps, the masses of 
 the people do not go so far, or care to think, or have 
 any thought at all on this point. They merely be- 
 lieve, or rather acquiesce in, the opinion that has been 
 rather seduously inculcated for partisan ends — that 
 the Church was all dissolved — the people had broken 
 12 
 
178 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 away from the old organization, and had nothing that 
 they could do but to organize themselves into churches 
 as best they could, or in accordance with the views 
 they might happen to have. 
 
 Now, the prevalence of this view suits the two 
 classes of people that we have around us. It suits the 
 sects that arose at the time of the Reformation, or 
 have arisen since, because it puts our Church — the 
 Protestant Episcopal Church, as they prefer to call it 
 —on the same footing as themselves — the Presbyterian 
 Church, the Congregational Church, the Methodist 
 Church, the Unitarian Church, and such like other 
 denominations. 
 
 And it suits the claims and the aims of the Roman- 
 ists for the same reason : it is an assertion of dis-con- 
 tinuity on our part, an admission, if we accept the 
 statement, that we left the Church when we left Rom- 
 anism and the See of Rome, and that we are therefore 
 no better, so far as historic continuity and identity 
 with the Church which our Lord founded, are con- 
 cerned, than any of the other sects. Hence they base 
 their arguments, in talking with our people, that to re- 
 turn to the Church, we must return to Romanism; 
 there can be for us in the West, at least, whether 
 Episcopalians or Christians of any other denomination, 
 neither Christ nor salvation, without union with the 
 Church of Rome and submission to the Pope. 
 
 But we have seen that the Church of Christ was es- 
 tablished in England in the first century, that it con- 
 tinued perfectly independent of any foreign jurisdic- 
 tion until after tlie Saxon invasion, until the close of 
 
ENGLAND SINCE THE REFORMATION. \>i^ 
 
 the sixth century, that from that time the Papal influence 
 increased in England until its final rejection by the 
 Church as a united body, in 1534, and that since that 
 time, the Church of England, with those derived from it, 
 constitutes the chief part of the third Great Division of 
 the Catholic Church of Christ— to wit: the Reformed. 
 
 Henry VIII, died in 1547, and was succeeded by 
 his son, Edward VI, January 29. During the last ten 
 years of Henry's reign, he had rather retarded than 
 promoted the Reformation. The spirit which had 
 been thus repressed, burst forth with perhaps too 
 much of impetuosity on the change in the sovereignty. 
 The first reformed Liturgy was published May 4, 
 1549, and came into use the Whitsunday following.^ 
 The first Book of Homilies had been published in July 
 before. But before the end of 155 1, the Prayer Book 
 had been again revised and materially altered. This 
 second Prayer Book of Edward VI, was brought into 
 use from the Feast of All Saints, November i, 1552. 
 In the next year the Articles (now XXXIX, but then 
 XLII, in number) were published. 
 
 But it pleased Almighty God to put a stop to the 
 rapid progress of this work by the death of Edward, 
 who was succeeded by his half-sister Mary, July 6, 
 1553. Mary was the daughter of Catherine of Arra- 
 gon, and a zealous Papist. She set about restoring 
 Popery to its former position in the English Church, 
 and thus occasioned the first of those events, which, 
 for our purpose, we need to consider. 
 
 At the time of the rejection of the Papal Suprem- 
 
 1 Cardwell's Two Liturgies of Edward VI, compared. Pref. 
 P- 13- 
 
180 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 acy, the Church of England consisted of two Arch- 
 bishoprics and nineteen Bishoprics — twenty-one in the 
 whole.^ Besides the immediate acts of the chief Pas- 
 tors, or Bishops of these Sees, the ccclesieistical au- 
 thority was exercised by Convocations and Synods as 
 follows : There were two Convocations, one for the 
 province of Canterbury, and one for that of York. 
 These Convocations usually assembled separately, 
 though they often transacted business in common. 
 They consisted of two Houses each — the upper com- 
 posed of the Bishops of the Province, and the lower 
 Priors, Deans, Archdeacons, Proctors, etc., etc.^ The 
 Convocations assembled only at the call of the king 
 and transacted no business without his permission. 
 The Synods, on the other hand, are councils of the 
 Church assembled by the Archbishops, or by the gen- 
 eral consent of the Bishops, and act independently of 
 the State. 
 
 After the Reformation had been commenced, six 
 new Bishoprics were erected during Henry VIH's 
 reign, 1540—1542 — Chester, Oxford, Gloucester, Peter- 
 bo7'ough, Westminster and Bristol. Westminster, how- 
 ever, was dissolved and united to London, in the Par- 
 liament which met January 23, and sat until April 15, 
 1552.3 The Bishopric of Gloucester was suppressed 
 the same year and added to Worcester.* 
 
 ' Canterbury, London, Winchester, Ely, Lincoln, Coventry and 
 Litchfield, Salisbury, Bath and Wells, Exeter, Norwich, Carlisle' 
 Worcester, Hereford, Chichester, Rochester, St. David's, Landaff, 
 Bangor, St. Asaph, York, Durham. — COLLIER, vol. iv, p, 188. 
 
 " Lathbury's Hist, of Convocation, p. 99. 
 
 " Burnett's Hist. Ref. vol. ii, p. 302, N. Y. Ed. 1842. 
 ' * Burnett vol. ii, d. 324. 
 
ENGLAND SINCE THE REFORMATION. 181 
 
 Durham was suppressed by the Pai-liament in March 
 of the next year [1553] with the design of establish- 
 ing two in its stead. But Edward dying soon after, 
 this design does not seem to have been carried into 
 effect. 1 
 
 Flence at the commencement of Edward's reign, 
 there were twenty- seven Bishoprics in the EngHsh 
 Church. Westminster, Gloucester and Durham hav- 
 ing been suppressed during his reign, there were only 
 twenty-four when Mary came to the throne, July 6, 
 1553. In the August following she restored the See 
 of Durham,^ and it was confirmed by the act of Par- 
 liament in April of the next year [i 5 54].^ I have not 
 been able to find in any documents within my reach 
 an account of the restoration of Gloucester, or the 
 date. But I find in Burnett* a declaration, that on or 
 before the i8th of March 1 1554) a conge d' elire was 
 issued to the Dean and Chapter of Gloucester, among 
 others, for the election of a Bishop, and Brooks was 
 elected. He died in the year following, and the See 
 was vacant when Elizabeth came to the throne. It 
 has since been united to Bristol. 
 
 Ripon was erected in 1836, and Manchester, 1847, 
 so that the whole present number is twenty-seven. 
 
 During the most of Edward's reign there were 
 twenty-seven Bishoprics. At the commencement of 
 Mary's reign, however, there were only twenty-four, 
 
 1 Burnett, vol. ii, p. 342. See also Collier, vol. v. p. 501, 502. , 
 " Burnett, vol. ii, p. 382. 
 
 ' Collier, vol, vi, p. 71 and Burnett, vol. ii, p. 434. 
 'Burnett, vol. ii, p. 427. See alsoWorksworth'sEccl. Biog., 3d 
 Ed., vol. ii, p, 461, n. 8. 
 
1S2 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 but during her reign there were, for the most part, 
 twenty-six. 
 
 My object in these statements has been to get at a 
 definite fact whereby to determine what, in the esti- 
 mation of the EngUsh Church, was at that time neces- 
 sary to constitute an Ecclesiastical body, or Convoca- 
 tion, capable of acting in a legislative capacity, or in 
 such a way as to have its acts binding on the Church. 
 
 During the reign of Henry VIII, no changes in the 
 Clergy were made in order to effect the Reformation. 
 Fisher of Rochester, however, refused to acknowledge 
 the Supremacy of the King over all persons in his 
 kingdom, claiming that supremacy for the Pope. He 
 was accused of high treason, and beheaded June 22, 
 1535, aged seventy-seven. 
 
 In the reign of Edward VI, there were several 
 deprivations for political and religious causes. Octo- 
 ber 1549, Edmund Bonner, Bishop of London, was 
 deprived of his See. In April of the next year, Ste- 
 phen Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester, was also de- 
 prived. The cause in both cases was partly political, 
 and partly ecclesiastical. There were also four other 
 deprivations during this reign ; Day, of Chichester, 
 Heath, of Worcester, Voisy, of Exeter, and Tunstal, 
 of Durham.i 
 
 I do not design to undertake the defense of all these 
 things. I mention them only for their bearing upon 
 the question of the identity of the English Church, 
 through the period named above, that is, from 1 5 34 to 
 1789. 
 
 ' Collier, vol. v. p. 425, 441, 300, 
 
ENGLAND SINCE THE REFORMATION. 183 
 
 None of these deprived Bishops continued to claim 
 their Sees or to exercise the functions of their office 
 after their deprivation, and their places were immedi- 
 ately filled by others. Six out of twenty-seven were a 
 minority too small to affect the integrity of the Epis- 
 copate, and no pretense is set up that the identity of 
 the Church was lost, or that a division in the Church 
 or a secession from it, was effected thereby. 
 
 But on the accession of Mary, we find changes 
 made that were of a different character. She recalled 
 all of the Bishops named above, as having been de- 
 prived, except Voisy, who had died. Four Bishops 
 were imprisoned — Ridley and Latimer in the Tower, 
 Hooper and Coverdale in the Fleet. ^ Soon afterwards 
 Holgate, Archbishop of York, was sent to the Tower 
 also.'' In March, 155 3-4, four Bishops, Holgate, of 
 York, Ferrar, of St. David's, Bird, of Chester, Bush, 
 of Bristol,^ were deprived for being married. In the 
 same month Taylor, of Lincoln, Hooper, of Gloucester, 
 and Harley, of Hereford, were deprived on the ground 
 that they held their sees only during the King's pleas- 
 ure,^, a condition which Mary pretended they had for- 
 feited.^ Bishops Poinet, of Winchester, Barlow, of 
 Bath and Wells, Scorey, of Chichester, and Coverdale, 
 of Exeter, had been compelled to flee the country in 
 order to save themselves. And besides these, Cran- 
 iner. Archbishop of Canterbury, had been attainted of 
 
 1 Collier, vol. vi, page 1-4, ' Ibid, page 64, comp. 66. 
 
 ° Ibid, page 23. * Durante bene placito. 
 
 " Ibid, page 65. 
 
184 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 high treason for signing the instrument settling the 
 crown upon Lady Jane Grey.^ 
 
 Thus thirteen Bishops, viz : Cranmer, Ridley, Hoop- 
 er, Coverdale, Holgate, Ferrar, Bird, Bush, Taylor, 
 Harley, Poinet, Barlow, and Scorey, a majority out of 
 all that were in possession of Sees when Mary came to 
 the throne, were deprived and put to silence by her 
 on one pretense or another ; this was not done, how- 
 ever, by any competent ecclesiastical authority. It 
 was, therefore, as completely an act of persecution 
 against the Church as though it had been done by tlie 
 Emperors of Pagan Rome, or the Authorities of the 
 Mahometan Imposter. The places of these men were 
 all filled by Mary with men who were violent Papists. 
 And besides these, as we have seen before, Durham 
 was restored, and Tunstal, a Papist cJso, restored to 
 that See. 
 
 Hence fourteen Bishops of her own choosing were 
 put into possession of Sees in England, to fill vacan- 
 cies of her own creating, within a very short period 
 after Mary came to the tlirone. 
 
 With a majority thus provided it is not at all 
 wonderful that the Queen succeeded in making any 
 changes in religion that she chose to make. 
 
 Latimer had resigned his See during the reign of 
 Henry VHI. He, with four other Bishops, Cranmer, 
 Ridley, Hooper, and Taylor, were burnt at the stake 
 for their refusal to conform to Papacy. From the list 
 given by Maitland,^ it appears that no less than two 
 
 '^ Collier, vol. vi, page 36. 
 
 " Essays Subjects Connected -with the Reformation »» England 
 pp. 576-585. 
 
ENGLAND SINCE THE REFORMATION.' 185 
 
 hundred and seventy-seven persons, including five bish- 
 ops just named, suffered martyrdom for their rehgion 
 during this reign. 
 
 Of the Bishoprics, six, to wit : Canterbury, Here- 
 ford, Bangor, Gloucester, Salisbury, and Oxford, were 
 vacant by death, on Elizabeth's accession, November, 
 1558 : four became vacant by the death of the incum- 
 bent before the oath of supremacy was offered them, 
 to wit: Rochester, Chichester, Norwich and Bristol. 
 Fourteen Bishops were deprived for not acknowledg- 
 ing the Queen's supremacy, and one, Anthony 
 Kitchen, of Llandaff, took the oath. Of the deprived 
 Bishops, some of them, as Bonner, Gardiner and Tuns- 
 tal had, in Henry VHIth's reign, acknowledged and 
 maintained the very supremacy which they now re- 
 fused, and for refusing which, they were deprived. 
 
 From the foregoing account it appears that only one 
 of the Bishops in England that was in the exercise of 
 Episcopal functions at the close of Mary's reign, con- 
 tinued to hold his office after the accession of Eliza- 
 beath. Stanly, of Sodor and Man, also retained his 
 place.* But of the fourteen Bishops deprived, three, 
 to wit: Christopherson, of Chichester, Bourne, of Bath 
 and Wells, and Tuberville, of Exeter, at the least, held 
 Sees, whose lawful Bishops had been driven out by 
 violence, and consequently, after their return, they 
 were the rightful incumbents of those Sees. Hence 
 the number that were ejected by the oath of suprem- 
 acy, is reduced to eleven. Thus fourteen Sees, a ma- 
 
 \Bramhall's Vindication of the Protestant Bishop's Consecra- 
 tion. Works, vol. iii, page 232, ed. 1844. 
 
186 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 jority out of the twenty-six, were at that time vacant 
 in the course of nature, or filled with Bishops who ac- 
 knowledged the supremacy, and who would concur 
 in restoring the Reformation ; and this, too, without 
 any ejection either violent or otherwise, on the part of 
 Queen Ehzabeth. 
 
 Kitchen conformed. Barlow, Scorey, Coverdale, 
 Hodgkins — besides some suffragan Bishops — returned 
 from abroad and were put into a condition to resume 
 their duties and jurisdiction. By these Bishops the 
 vacant Sees were filled up. 
 
 The restoration of the Reformation seems to have 
 been generally popular, as is to be inferred from the 
 fact that only one hundred and eighty-nine out of 
 about ten thousand (that is, less than one in fifty), of 
 the Clergy, refused compliance.^ 
 
 Now, in the first place, the fourteen non-conform- 
 ing Bishops did not draw off a party with them over 
 whom they continued to exercise jurisdiction. They 
 lived and died vacant Bishops — some in England 
 (eleven), and the rest (three) went beyond seas.^ And 
 when, some ten years after, the Papal adherents se- 
 ceded and formed a Sect by themselves, these Bishops 
 were not placed over them, nor did they set up any 
 claims to be Bishops over any body, or any thing in 
 England. 
 
 And here again I must say that I am not now aim- 
 ing to justify all that was done by Elizabeth. The 
 whole matter may be stated thus in the alternative. 
 If the proceedings of Mary, in restoring popery, are 
 1 Short's Hist. % 407. ' Collier, vi, p. 251. 
 
ENGLAND SINCE THE REFORMATION. \^>i 
 
 held to be valid, then the proceedings of Elizabeth are 
 much more so : for they were less the result of the exer- 
 cise of secular and political authority. But if the pro- 
 ceedings of Elizabeth are not valid, on account of the 
 secular authority used in bringing them about, then 
 those of Mary are not valid for the same reason, acting 
 with an hundredfold greater force, and popery was 
 never lawfully established during her reign, and no 
 authority of any kind, either secular or ecclesiastical, 
 was required to abolish it on the accession of Eliza- 
 beth. In either case Protestantism was legally and 
 validly established in the English Church in the first 
 years of Elizabeth's reign. 
 
 The identity of the Church, therefore, was not af- 
 fected by the occurrences of this period. 
 
 The See of Canterbury, which had become vacant 
 by the death of Pole, who died within a few hours — 
 twenty-two — after the death of Queen Mary, was filled 
 by the Consecration of Matthew Parker. 
 
 Parker's consecration has been denied by certain 
 advocates of the Papal Supremacy ; and, so far as we 
 can see, for purely partisan purposes. He was con- 
 secrated December 17, 1559; and scarcely any fact in 
 English history is better known. It was a public act, 
 performed in the presence of a multitude, and Parker 
 was universally recognized by all persons, without a 
 dissenting voice — not even the Papists themselves 
 doubting it or making any objection at the time — and 
 he proceeded with the discharge of his public func- 
 tions to the day of his death. 
 
 The story was first invented by one Christopher 
 
188 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED.: 
 
 Holywood in 1603 ; some forty years after the event 
 took place. Parker was consecrated in the chapel at 
 Lambeth, and the occurrence is recorded, in detail, in 
 the contemporaneous accounts, in the Lambeth Reg- 
 ister, and in the manuscript of Corpus Christi College, 
 Cambridge — the college in which he graduated. 
 
 But suppose he had never been consecrated, — what 
 then ? I do not ask what effects it might have had on 
 the ministerial acts which he performed, other than 
 that of contributing to the succession ; but in regard 
 to the succession of Bishops and the validity of their 
 orders, what would have been the consequences if, 
 through some oversight or negligence, Matthew Par- 
 ker had not been consecrated at all ? Almost none — 
 none in fact whatever : for he never consecrated any 
 other Bishop by himself alone. In all cases the old 
 law — a law as old as the Apostolic Canons — ^had re- 
 quired that, for the security of the succession, there 
 should always be three, or at least two, present and 
 participating in the act of consecrating a Bishop. But 
 it was always held that the consecration by 07ie Bishop 
 alone, though irregular, was valid. St. Paul does not 
 seem to have had any other Bishop with him when he 
 gave to Timothy his authority to ordain others by the 
 " laying on of ///^ hands." ^ And although such or- 
 dinations are of very rare occurrence, yet several of 
 that kind are pointed out as having occurred in the 
 Romish Church. If, therefore, Parker had had no 
 consecration, his defect could not have rendered the 
 consecration of those on whom he laid his hands with 
 1 1 Tim. i, 6. 
 
ENGLAND SINCE THE REFORMATION. 189 
 
 others; since the imposition of hands, by any one of 
 them, would have made the consecration good — as 
 good as though he had not been present. 
 
 In fact, the succession is a cord — a threefold cord 
 — with many fibres. Each bishop is but one. He 
 lasts but a short time, comparatively, while the con- 
 tinuity never ceases, and never depends on him alone; 
 there are always three at least at any consecration, 
 hence'the succession is not broken if one of the fibres 
 be broken or good for nothing. The rest holds good 
 and preserves the continuity and the hne forever. 
 
 But the objection of those Romanists who think that 
 no consecration is valid without the Pope's co-opera- 
 tion, implying consent on his part and an acknowledg- 
 ment of his authority on the part of the person who 
 is consecrated, is worthy of more consideration and 
 respect. If one has got his mind so thoroughly pre- 
 occupied with the idea of the Papacy, that he thinks 
 that " the Church is nothing without the Pope," he 
 may be pitied, I suppose, but he must be considered. 
 I shall do nothing for such an one now, but to make 
 what I have said if possible a little more plain. There 
 is no contemporary evidence that St. Peter was ever at 
 Rome. The expression and the idea of " the Chair of 
 St. Peter" did not arise until some hundreds of years 
 after his death, whether at Rome or elsewhere ; the 
 Council of Nice, A. D. 325, shows beyond question that 
 his ministration was at that time, in the estimation of 
 the whole Church, confined to Rome and the suburb- 
 icarian cities; it certainly did not extend to or include 
 Milan on the north, nor yet France on the northwest; 
 
190 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED, 
 
 and the Council of Ephesus, A, D. 431, reaffirmed the 
 doctrine of limiting «// Bishops — the Bishop of Rome 
 expressly included by name — to the Provinces that 
 were then and had been under their jurisdiction, in 
 " all Dioceses and Provinces everywhere," and de- 
 clared moreover that if any Bishop — the Bishop of 
 Rome included — should introduce any other regula- 
 tion or custom contrary to that which had always pre- 
 vailed, " the whole holy QEcumenical Synod has de- 
 creed that it shall be of no effect." If then there be 
 any such doctrine in regard to the Papacy as to make 
 it essential to the whole Church, it must be of com- 
 paratively recent origin and in contradiction with the 
 doctrine of the Cathohc Church. 
 
 But this is a very extreme opinion, and is not, as I 
 apprehend, to be treated with much respect. The 
 highest Roman authorities — even the Pope himself — 
 recognized the validity of the English Orders, so long 
 as there was any probability of getting England and her 
 queen, Elizabeth — that is, until 1568-9 — back to an 
 acknowledgment of his supremacy. It is even said 
 on fairly good authority that he would have consented 
 to the legitimacy of the orders of her Bishops, the mar- 
 riage of the clergy, communion in both kinds, the ser- 
 vices in English, and in fact the English Prayer-book 
 itself with very few changes, if only the English queen 
 and nation would return to submission and obedience 
 to his authority. In fact he was ready to concede 
 pretty much all that the English had gained or cared 
 for, if by so doing he could retain his supremacy over 
 the nation and people of England. There was no 
 
ENGLAND SINCE THE REFORMATION. 191 
 
 doubt then about the validity of their Orders. Even 
 the story about Parker's ordination was not invented 
 until some thirty-five years afterwards. 
 
 In fact the question of the validity of the orders ad- 
 ministered by the English Bishop was not settled or 
 adjudicated for something like one hundred and fifty 
 years after the time we are speaking of 
 
 In 1 704 John Gordon, Bishop of Galloway, in Scot- 
 land, apostatized to the Romish Communion. This 
 brought the question of his ordination before the 
 Romish See. Gordon had requested ordination in the 
 Romish Communion, thereby denying the validity of 
 that which he had had before. The examination of 
 the subject at that time, proves that it had not been 
 previously regarded as a settled question. Clement 
 XI, however, decided against the validity of Protestant 
 ordinations ; and since then I believe they have been 
 generally regarded by the Romanists as of no force 
 or validity whatever. 
 
 It would be entirely foreign to my plan to enter 
 into a discussion of the grounds on which this decision 
 of the Roman See is based, in this place. Many rea- 
 sons are given for it by the Romanists ; as is usually 
 the case with those who are determined to do what 
 they can find no one good reason for doing. If the 
 Protestant ordinations were invalid in 1 704, then they 
 must have been so from the moment when the rejec- 
 tion of the Papal Supremacy took place, and ordina- 
 cions began to be held without the Papal consent or 
 approbation. But the validity of the Anglican ordi- 
 nations was distinctly admitted by the Papists, as we 
 
192 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 have seen, in the reign of Mary, and again in that of 
 Elizabeth, her successor on the Throne of England. 
 It is true, indeed, that a Bull of excommunication was 
 issued against Elizabeth, and all her subjects, who 
 were in the communion of the English Church, by- 
 Pius V, in 1659. But, as has been said, the Pope had 
 then neither in fact, nor by right, any authority in 
 England, or over the English Church. Nor had any 
 of the Bishops who were then in the exercise of the 
 duties of the office — and whom he included in the pre- 
 tended excommunication — been ordained under his 
 supremacy — by his permission and approbation, or 
 even with his knowledge. Of course, tlierefore, they 
 v/ere under no obligations to him ; and his excom- 
 munication could have no effect upon them (as is some- 
 times contended), on the ground that they had derived 
 their authority from the Pope and that he that gave 
 them their authority could take it from them again. 
 I Of course the Pope's adherents must maintain the 
 validity of the Bull ; and in consequence deny the 
 validity of all ministrations within the English Church 
 and its branches, after this pretended excommunica- 
 tion. They are consistent therefore in denying the 
 validity of our ordinations. But the force of the Bull 
 depends exclusively upon the divine right of the Papal 
 Supremacy. If that, as we contend, and as I think I 
 have abundantly proved, is a mere an ti- Christian 
 usurpation, then of course Pius' Bull, and excommuni- 
 cation are of no force, and the whole ground for re- 
 jecting the validity of the English, Scotch and Amer- 
 ican Ordinations is shown to be untenable. It is, in 
 fact, a mere expedient of malicious bigotry. 
 
ENGLAND SINCE THE REFORMATION. 193 
 
 By many of the Roman Catholics, however, we are 
 regarded merely as schismatics, whose ministerial acts 
 are valid in themselves, and only voidable as an act of 
 discipline by the highest authority to whom we are an- 
 swerable. They claim to be that authority — ^with how 
 much reason, may be seen from what has already been 
 said. But, for the most part, an insane fury for the 
 establishment of that most anti-Christian dogma whicli 
 lies at the foundation of the system they are now en- 
 grossed in propagating — the Papal Supremacy — has 
 driven them to disregard and outrage all considera- 
 tions, not only of charity and truth, but also of decency 
 and decorum. 
 
 On the 23d of February, 1569, the Pope, Pius V, 
 issued his Bull by which Queen Elizabeth was declared 
 'a heretic and an encourager of heretics; those that 
 adhere to her lie under the censure of an anathema, 
 and are cut off from the Body of Christ.' 'We like- 
 wise,' says the Bull, ' declare the said Elizabeth de- 
 prived of the pretended right to the kingdom, and of 
 all dominion, dignity and privilege, whatever, and that 
 all the nobility and subjects of the said realm, who 
 have sworn to her in any manner whatever, are forever 
 absolved from any such oath, and from all obligations 
 of fidelity and allegiance.' ' We likewise command all 
 the nobility, subjects and others above mentioned, that 
 they do not presume to obey her orders, commands 
 or laws, for the future.' 
 
 " The Romish Sect in England was at first governed 
 by Jesuits and Missionary priests, under the superin- 
 tendence of Allen, a Roman Cardinal, who lived in 
 13 
 
194 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 Flanders, and founded the Colleges at Douay and 
 Rheims. In 1593 George Blackwell was appointed 
 Arch- Priest of the English Romanists, and this form 
 of ecclesiastical government prevailed among them 
 until 1623, when Dr. Bishop was ordained titular 
 Bishop of Chalcedon, and sent from Rome to govern 
 the Papists in England. Dr. Smith, the next Bishop 
 of Chalcedon, was banished in 1629, and they were 
 without a Bishop until the reign of James II." 
 
 Eleven of the Bishops who refused to acknowledge 
 Elizabeth's supremacy, as we have before seen, re- 
 mained and died in England. The last of them, Wat- 
 son, of Lincoln, died in 1584. But the Romish se- 
 ceders were never placed under their jurisdiction. Nor 
 did they claim to be Bishops over them. Not even 
 this pretense to be the Church of England, was set up 
 for the Papists, by their most zealous defenders. 
 
 These titular Bishops, of whom we have spoken as 
 placed over the Papists in England, were called Bish- 
 ops in partibus, and Vicars Apostolic. " This is an of- 
 ficer," says Butler, " vested with Episcopal authority, 
 by the Pope, over any Church which is in want of a 
 Bishop, but wliich, for some reason, cannot have one of 
 its own." But if the Papists were a branch of the 
 Church of Christ, having lawful jurisdiction in Eng- 
 land, there was no reason why they could not have 
 Bishops of their own. Butler was himself a Papist — 
 his admission, therefore, is specially important. 
 
 Butler's admission is a confession that the English 
 Papists were not a branch of the Church of Christ, 
 competent to the performance of ecclesiastical func- 
 
ENGLAND SINCE THE REFORMATION. 195 
 
 tions. They were mere intruders into a field which 
 the Lord had committed to other laborers. 
 
 This is a most important fact. They were Papists, 
 I admit, and in communion with the Churches in the 
 Roman Obedience. But such was not the Church of 
 England at that time. The Papal adherents in that 
 country could be only a Sect in opposition to the 
 Church; and whatever sympathy, countenance, or 
 support, they might have from the members of 
 another branch of the Church in a different country, 
 could not benefit their situation in England. But by 
 seceding from the Church of England, they had se- 
 ceded from the Church wholly and altogether, whilst 
 they remained in England, and lost their power of ex- 
 tending its communion within the English Dominions. 
 
 This, then, was the beginning of the formation of 
 Sects in England. In order they stood thus : 
 
 1. In 1569, Pope Pius V issued a Bull calling upon 
 all who regarded his authority to secede from the Eng- 
 lish Church, and form themselves into a Sect in sub- 
 jection to him. This Sect was first governed by Jes- 
 uits and Missionary Priests. In 1593, an Arch-Priest 
 was appointed over them, and not until 1623, were 
 they placed under titular Bishops. 
 
 2. Perhaps as early as 1567, persons who had 
 learned Presbyterianism during their residence abroad, 
 in Mary's reign, began to secede from the Church, 
 hold meetings, and form a sect by themselves. The 
 first Presbytery, however, was organized at Wands- 
 worth, in the county of Surrey, about four miles from 
 London.^ This occurred 1572. Other Presbyteries 
 
 ' Collier, vi, p. 529. 
 
196 ■ THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 were soon organized in other parts of England : and 
 thus commenced the Presbyterian Sect in England. 
 
 3. In 1583, Robert Brown organized a Society or 
 church, on Independent or Congregational principles 
 — and thus began another Sect in England. They 
 are, perhaps, best known as " the Puritans." 
 
 Besides these, there was also a small Sect of Bap- 
 tists or Anabaptists. 
 
 But all these sects put together, included only a 
 very small part of the population of England. The 
 great mass of the people still remained in the Church. 
 
 No one of these sects ever claimed to be "tlie 
 Church of England," properly so called. But on the 
 contrary, by their acts and by their admissions, they 
 acknowledged themselves to be new Sects. 
 
 We have seen that up to this time, 1623, and even 
 much later, the adherents of Rome made no claim or 
 pretense to be the Church of England — ^they were 
 mere schismatic intruders. 
 
 But with regard to the Protestant Denominations, 
 beside " building on another man's foundation," they 
 lacked the historic Episcopate, without which no body 
 or denomination of Christian believers had ever been 
 acknowledged to be a true Branch of the Church. 
 
 There appears, to most persons, to be but very lit- 
 tle said, in the New Testament, concerning the organi- 
 zation of the Church ; and from this the inference is 
 very generally drawn, that the organization is of little 
 or no consequence. 
 
 For this absence of detailed account of the organi- 
 zation, several reasons may be assigned. 
 
ENGLAND SINCE THE REFORMATION. 197' 
 
 I 
 
 In the first place the Apostles were sent to preach 
 the Gospel, and we have no record of anything hav- 
 ing been said to them about writing it. Besides that, 
 in the execution of their mission, they did preach the 
 Gospel and establish the Church far and wide, before 
 any part of the New Testament was written. The 
 Epistles to the Thessalonians, being among the very 
 first of that we have, were written about A. D. 52, or 
 nearly twenty years after the Crucifixion ; and the 
 Gospels were not written for some years, perhaps 
 about ten more. And before this time Churches had 
 been already organized, if not throughout the world, 
 yet wherever any of the Books of Holy Scriptures 
 were circulated, and among all the people for whom 
 they were intended. 
 
 In the second place the Apostles themselves and 
 the apostolic men organized the church for the people. 
 The organization of a Church does not appear to have 
 been any part of the business or duty of the people. 
 Hence no instructions were given them on that sub- 
 ject. Their instructions are limited to what they are 
 themselves to believe and to do — their faith and their 
 duty to God and to their fellow men. There are no 
 instructions intended to guide them in the organiza- 
 tion of a church.. 
 
 But in the third place, we have something on this 
 subject. In Acts vi we have an account of the ordi- 
 nation of Deacons. But then the ordination was by 
 the Apostles, although the people "looked them out." 
 So, too, in the Epistles of St. Paul to Timothy and Titus 
 we have instructions about organizing the Church in 
 
198 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 their respective places — Ephesus and Crete. But the 
 instructions were given, not to the people but to these 
 men, who were instructed, and had been some how 
 or other authorised to organize the Church in those 
 places. St. Paul says expressly in the case of Tim- 
 othy that it was by the laying on of his hands — with 
 the laying on of the hands of the presbytery doubtless, 
 but by the laying on of his apostolic hands. The in- 
 structions then, were given to those who had the duty 
 and the responsibility, as well as the authority, to 
 effect an organization and to regulate their church 
 affairs for them. The Apostles and the men that were 
 sent by them organized the Churches — one in every 
 city and nation, and there was no need, as there was 
 no permission, to form another. Hence no instruc- 
 tions were given to the people on that subject 
 
 But whatever may have been the primitive organi- 
 zation of the churches, we have seen from St Igna- 
 tius ^ that at the beginning of the second century they 
 had been established in all the world and with a min- 
 istry in three orders, so that without them there was 
 no church. And although we have mention of many 
 Churches with no account of their organization, we 
 have no account of the organization of any one that 
 had not the three orders. And surely we cannot infer 
 from the fact that nothing was said about their organi- 
 zation, that they were Presbyterian or Congregational. 
 
 From the restoration of the Reformation at the ac- 
 cession of Elizabeth until the Rebellion of 1640, noth- 
 ing further occurred that we need to notice in this 
 
 place. 
 
 1 Ad Trail., iii. 
 
ENGLAND SINCE THE REFORMATION. 199 
 
 From the restoration of the Reformation at the ac- 
 cession of Elizabeth until the Rebellion of 1640, noth- 
 ing further occurred that we need to notice in this 
 place. 
 
 I need not now enumerate the causes which con- 
 tributed to the growth of Puritanism in England. In 
 1640 the Church entered upon a more energetic 
 course than it had previously pursued, to prevent the 
 spread of Popery, and other forms of error in Eng- 
 land, which provoked a determined resistance from all 
 against whom these efforts were directed. The calam- 
 ities that overtook the Church, however, arose to a 
 very great extent from her alliance with the State, 
 the administration of which had become unpopular, 
 and needed reformation. 
 
 Early in November, was assembled what is called the 
 Long Parliament. They soon resolved themselves 
 into a " Committee of Religion," and this branched 
 off into divers sub-committees, one of which was for 
 providing "preaching ministers and for removing scan- 
 dalous ones." On the loth of March a bill was brought 
 into the House of Commons and passed "that no 
 Bishop should have any vote in Parliament." The 
 bill, however, did not pass the Upper House. 
 
 On the 17th of July, the Commons undertook a 
 measure for materially changing the form of Church 
 government, but finding it impossible to accomplish 
 any of their plans while the Bishops retained their 
 constitutional seats in Parliament, thirteen of the 
 Bishops were impeached of high treason. The ground 
 of their impeachment was, in fact, the fidelity with 
 
200 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 which they had done their duty according to the laws 
 of the Church and of the Realm. This impeachment 
 was found untenable, and dropped soon after it was 
 made. The opposition to the Bishops increased, how- 
 ever ; and soon after, they were prevented from going 
 to attend in their places in the House of Lords by a 
 mob throwing stones, etc., etc., at them. The mob 
 was encouraged by the Commons. The Bishops pro- 
 tested against the validity of any laws that might be 
 passed while they were thus deprived of their vote. 
 They were immediately impeached of high treason for 
 this protestation, and imprisoned in the Tower. Soon 
 after, hostilities actually commenced against the king. 
 In May, 1643, the Commons (who were now the 
 only branch of the Parliament that can be regarded as 
 responsible for what was done) called the famous West- 
 minster Assembly, for remodeling their ecclesiastical 
 affairs. An arrangement was made with the Scotch 
 Covenanters, by which the Scotch were to assist the 
 English against their king, and the English were to 
 abolish Episcopacy and establish Presbyterianism in 
 the English Church. In October, 1644, it was de- 
 clared in Parliament, that Presbyterian ordinations 
 should be held valid in the Church of England. The 
 Ordinance for abolishing the Common Prayer and es- 
 tablishing the Presbyterian Directory was finally passed 
 March 13, 1645, and Episcopacy suppressed by the 
 same authority the 9th of October following.^ And 
 it was made a crime to use the Common Prayer either 
 in the Church or in their families, punishable with a 
 1 Beren's History Prayer Book, p. 195. 
 
ENGLAND SINCE THE REFORMATION. 201 
 
 fine of five pounds for the first offense, ten for the sec- 
 ond, and one year's imprisonment for the third.^ 
 
 Notwithstanding these laws,- the Bishops and the 
 great mass of the clergy never complied. Many of 
 them, as Sanderson, Hackett, Bull, Fell, Alliston and 
 Dolben, continued to use the Book of Common Prayer 
 or to repeat its contents without the Book. 
 
 This change it will be observed was made by an 
 authority that was purely and exclusively secular — 
 for the Bishops had been excluded from the House of 
 Lords by the mob, and then by attainder ; and the 
 Westminster Assembly were only a committee to 
 prepare matters for the Parliament to set forth and 
 enforce by its own authority. We certainly cannot 
 call the Parliament and its adherents the Church of 
 England, as things then were, without doing violence 
 to all our ideas of identity and all sense of propriety 
 in the use of the language. 
 
 We now pass over several years to the Restoration 
 in 1660. On the 29th of May, in this year, Charles 
 II was recalled to the Throne of his ancestors. The 
 Presbyterians had been defeated in their original in- 
 tention by the Independents, and therefore readily 
 joined with the Churchmen in desiring the Restora- 
 tion. It is not improbable that they entertained the 
 hope that Presbyterianism might be established in the 
 Church — ^being a sort of middle ground between Epis- 
 copacy and the Indepefidents, who were then the rul- 
 ing party. But in this they were disappointed. The 
 Restoration necessarily implied the nullification of all 
 1 Collier, vol. viii, p. 596. 
 
202 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 the laws and ordinances that had passed since about 
 1643, when the constitutional requisites for the pass- 
 age of a law had been disregarded. This restored the 
 Bishops and the other Clergy, who had been ejected 
 by Parliament, to their old places again. 
 
 Nine out of twenty-six Bishops lived to recover 
 their Sees at the Restoration, to wit : Juxon of Lon- 
 don, Pierce of Bath- and Wells, Skinner of Oxford, 
 Warner of Rochester, Roberts of Bangor, Wren of Ely, 
 Duppa of Salisbury, King of Chichester, and Frewen 
 of Coventry and Litchfield. The other Sees of course, 
 had not been filled ; for the object of the change was 
 to do away with Episcopacy altogether. On the first 
 Sunday in Advent, six new Bishops were consecrated 
 for the following Sees : Durham, St David's, Peter- 
 borough, Llandaff, Carlisle and Chester. The re- 
 maining Sees weje filled soon after, and all things re- 
 stored in the Church as before 1643. 
 
 We have seen the character of the measures which 
 Mary took to secure a majority in the Convocation 
 that should be of her views. When she had done this, 
 and not before, she became compunctious about using 
 the secular authority for religious purposes, and re- 
 signed the regale into ecclesiastical hands. On the 
 accession of Elizabeth, six Sees were vacant, four be- 
 came so before the oath of Supremacy was tendered 
 to them, three were lawfully in the hands of Protestant 
 Bishops, who returned from their exile, and one con- 
 formed — r^zSdn^ fourteen, a majority, which were soon 
 filled, without any violence to the laws of the land or 
 the Church, with Bishops who were friends of the Ref- 
 
ENGLAND SINCE THE REFORMATION. 203 
 
 ormation. Thus by an act of Providence, Elizabeth 
 was saved the necessity of any violent or arbitrary 
 ejection in order to secure-a majority in the Church 
 in favor of Protestantism. Providence had done the 
 work before she had any occasion to do it herself 
 Even the three who held the Sees from which the re- 
 turning exiles had been unlawfully expelled, would 
 not have been disturbed if they would have acknowl- 
 edged the queen's supremacy. She could have pro- 
 vided for the returning Bishops in some of the vacant 
 Sees. The other eleven who occupied places for 
 which there were no lawful claimants living, might 
 also have retained their places notwithstanding their 
 religious opinions, if they would have acknowledged 
 her supremacy. But by holding that she herself, and 
 her government, were rightfully subject to the Pope 
 in temporal as well as in ecclesiastical affairs, their 
 opinion was of the nature of treason, and was so re- 
 garded. And for this they were ejected. 
 
 But in the Rebellion, as it is called, the changes 
 were made without even the pretense of the concur- 
 rence of the Church, acting either in Convention or 
 Synod — by any means produced. Neither Conven- 
 tion nor Synod -was held — from the commencement 
 of the long Parliament in the autumn of 1640, until 
 the 8th of May, 1661, after the Restoration.^ 
 
 The Church of England, therefore, never consented 
 to the change that was made in its Doctrines, Wor- 
 ship, and Polity during that period, and as soon as the 
 state of the kingdom would permit, resumed her 
 ' Lathbury's History Convocation, pp. 235-239. 
 
204 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 former position and went on as before. An effort was 
 indeed made at the Savoy Conference to modify the 
 Liturgy so as to retain some that were inchned to se- 
 cede, but nothing of importance in this respect was ac- 
 complished. 
 
 We now pass to the Revolution. On the i8th of 
 May, 1688, seven Bishops drew up a protest and peti- 
 tion against certain measures of King James II, for 
 introducing Popery into his kingdom. This protest 
 was afterward approved and signed by six other Bish- 
 ops. The measure resulted in James fleeing from 
 the kingdom, and the call of William, Prince of 
 Orange, to the Throne. On the accession of William, 
 however, six of these Bishops — Sancroft, of Canter- 
 bury, Turner of Ely, Frampton of Gloucester, White 
 of Peterborough, and Ken of Bath and Wells, refused 
 to acknowledge him as king while James was alive, 
 and were ejected, with a large number of the Clergy, 
 for their refusal. The Non-Jurors, as they were called, 
 continued for some time to maintain a separate com- 
 munion. Boothe, the last of their Bishops, died 1805,^ 
 and the party became extinct soon after. 
 
 After the accession of William, an attempt was 
 made to change the Doctrines and Worship of the 
 Church materially. But, as Bishop Burnett confesses,^ 
 this was not done chiefly through fear of the advan- 
 tage which the change would give the Non-Jurors in 
 claiming to be the Church of England, and declaring 
 the adherents to William to be seceders. 
 
 1 Lathbury's Non-Jurors, p. 412. 
 
 ' History of His Own Times, p. S44. Smith's edition, without 
 
 date. 
 
ENGLAND SINCE THE REFORMATION. 205 
 
 This fact is sufficient to determine the identity -of 
 the Church after the Revolution with that before it. 
 The ejection of the Non-Jurors may have been unjus- 
 tifiable (that is a point not now under discussion), but 
 it did not change the identity of the Church. 
 
 From this period no change occurred that needs to 
 be mentioned, until after the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church in this country, having been founded by mem- 
 bers of the English Church, became entirely inde- 
 pendent of it, and therefore we need not pursue its 
 history, for our present purpose, any further. 
 
 The competency of the English Church to extend 
 the communion of the visible Church of Christ by 
 founding new branches, is, I suppose, sufficiently ob- 
 vious from what has already been said. Being her- 
 self, by her perpetual existence, unquestionably a 
 branch of that Church, and having set up no standard 
 of her own, which she would have interpreted to mean 
 anything contrary to the Holy Scriptures and " the 
 Faith once delivered to the Saints," as held by the 
 Church in its earliest and purest days, and having 
 neither rejected nor lost anything that is essential to its 
 integrity and jurisdiction, she can send forth her mis- 
 sionaries with the assurance that her Lord will accept 
 their work. 
 
 In the course of this discussion I have said but very 
 little of the royal supremacy over England that is 
 claimed by her kings except in an incidental way, and 
 the subject is hardly under discussion here. Since 
 the conversion of Constantine, that is, since there has 
 been a Christian King or Prince by any title, there 
 
206 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 has been some claim to a Supremacy over all persons 
 in the Realm and to a union of Church and State. 
 In a Republic, and at all events with a large num- 
 ber of religious denominations, this is not necessary. 
 Here no one denomination is large enough to control 
 a majority of the votes, and if any one of them should 
 attempt it, it would be pretty sure to effect a combina- 
 tion of all the rest against it ; but luckily in this re- 
 spect at least, there is so much of rivalry and ill will 
 amongst them that no combination to effect such a 
 purpose is possible, however much they may combine 
 to defeat it. 
 
 But in a monarchy it is far otherwise. The King^ 
 or Monarch, by whatever name he may happen to 
 be called, expects to reign as long as he lives ; and 
 then, at his death, to leave his dominions to his heirs, 
 or to persons who are to be selected by him. They 
 in turn expect to rule during life and to leave their 
 dominions in like manner to those who shall receive 
 them as a life-time possession. Such men, therefore, 
 cannot afford to allow any persons to exercise any 
 authority over their subjects and in their dominions 
 without their consent. They must, if not actually 
 appoint the Bishops and other clergy, yet at least they 
 must have a veto or negative upon all appointments. 
 They cannot afford to risk ijie possibility of having 
 men of so great influence in connection with their 
 people without being in some way subject to them- 
 selves and indebted to them for their offices and under 
 their control. Hence it is a matter of grave doubt 
 whether under a monarchy there can be such a thing 
 
ENGLAND SINCE THE REFORMATION. 207 
 
 as a total separation of Church and State ; except in 
 those cases where the denominations are so numerous 
 that they may be pitted and played off, the one 
 against another in all matters of a political nature. 
 
 The energy however with which the English sov- 
 ereigns have claimed the so-called " Supremacy of the 
 Church" has arisen to a large extent from the fact 
 that there were a large number of persons in the realm 
 who claimed exemption from the laws of the Realm, 
 in consequence of their clerical character or their alle- 
 giance to the See of Rome. But in this country there 
 are no such exemptions. A Romish priest or Bishop 
 even, is as much and as completely subject to the laws 
 of the land and to its courts as any other person. 
 Thus we have solved the most important point in a 
 controversy with regard to the Supremacy of the 
 State. The other part has no concern for us. 
 
CHAPTER VII. 
 
 THE CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES." 
 
 We come now to a most important stage in the 
 progress of our investigation : the introduction of the 
 Church into the United States. 
 
 As this continent was unoccupied by Christians until 
 the sixteenth or seventeenth century, it will be in vain 
 to look for, or expect any establishment of the Church 
 here by the immediate Apostles and Disciples of our. 
 Lord. We are, therefore, compelled to look to the_ 
 labors and efforts of missionaries and colonists of a 
 later date ; and all that we can reasonably ask is, that 
 we may find that the Church was extended into this 
 country in accordance with the fundamental principles 
 of its extension and identity already considered. 
 
 The first settlement made by any Christian people 
 within the portion of the continent which subsequently, 
 became the United States of America, was at James- 
 town, in Virginia, May 13, A. D. 1607. Earlier at-, 
 tempts had been made, but they all came to nothing. 1 
 
 "As early as 1580, letters patent were granted by. 
 Queen Elizabeth to Sir Humphrey Gilbert, to go to 
 America, and ' prosecute effectually, the full posses- 
 
THE CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES 209 
 
 sion of those ample and pleasant countries for the 
 crown and people of England.'^ His patent granted 
 him 'free power and liberty to discover all such 
 Heathen Lands as were not actually possessed by any 
 Christian Prince or people' 2.1x6^ to establish his juris- 
 diction there, ' provided, always, that the statutes he 
 devised should be, as near as conveniently might, 
 agreeable to the laws and policy of England ; and pro- 
 vided, also, that they be not . against the true Chris- 
 tain Faith professed in the Church of England.' "^ 
 
 " In consequence of some collision at sea with the 
 Spanish, as it is supposed, this expedition came to no 
 permanent result. 
 
 " Though Sir Humphrey had sacrificed the great- 
 est part of his fortune in fitting out his first missionary 
 expedition to this country, yet he was not discouraged 
 by this failure. About five years later, he sold all that 
 remained of his property, and obtained the assistance 
 of other wealthy persons, and fitted out another expe- 
 dition. He landed at Newfoundland, and after various 
 reverses and misfortunes, was obliged to return. On 
 his way home he was shipwrecked. ' Gilbert was 
 forced, most unwillingly, to turn his course homeward. 
 His own little barge was ill-suited for the violence of 
 the open sea, but he would not forsake his comrades. 
 On the voyage, the storms grew more outrageous, and 
 he was pressed to come on board the larger vessel.' 
 ' We are as near heaven by sea as by land,' was the 
 answer of the gallant man. But he could not save 
 
 1 Wilberforce's Hist, of the American Church, p. 9, 
 ' Wilberforce, as above, p. 10. 
 
 14 
 
210 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 the crew he would not leave. That same night, as he 
 led the way, his companions in the larger vessel saw 
 the lights of his barque suddenly extinguished. She 
 had sunk, with all on board.' "^ 
 
 " Soon afterward. Sir Walter Raleigh obtained a 
 similar patent, and sent forth two vessels for the coast 
 of Carolina. Six times did this man dispatch expedi- 
 tions on the same errand, till his fortune was expended 
 in the attempt. 
 
 " In 1 606, a new company applied for, and ob- 
 tained, from James I, a charter for settling Virginia. 
 Their expedition sailed on the 19th of December, and 
 reached Cape Henry, in Virginia, April 26, 1607. 
 They had with them the Rev. Robert Hunt, a Pres- 
 byter of the Church of England. On the 14th of May, 
 the day after their arrival at Jamestown — the place of 
 their settlement — they took possession of the territory, 
 and Mr. Hunt administered the Holy Eucharist, ac- 
 cording to the rites of the English Church, to the com- 
 pany. 2 Among the first buildings erected was a 
 Church." 
 
 " Thus," says Dr. Hawks, ^ "Jamestown was the first 
 permanent habitation of the English in America, and 
 Virginia commenced its course of civilization with one 
 of the most impressive solemnities of the Christian 
 Church." 
 
 A leading motive in all these efforts at the settle- 
 ment of America, is declared to have been " the honor 
 
 1 Wilberforce's Hist, of the American Church, p. 16. 
 " Wilberforce, as above, p. 22. 
 
 • Narrative of events connected with the rise and progress of 
 the Protestant Episcopal Church of Virginia, p. 2<x 
 
THE CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES. 211 
 
 of God, and compassion for the poor infidels (Indians), 
 captivated by the Devil," it seeming probable that 
 " God hath reserved these Gentiles to be reduced into 
 Christian civility (civilization) by the English nation." 
 And in the patent it is expressly ordered that the offi- 
 cers of the colony " should provide that the true Word " 
 and Service of God be preached, planted, and used, 
 according to the rites and doctrines of the Church of 
 England, not only in the said colonies, but also, as 
 much as might be, among the savages bordering upon 
 them ;" and " that all persons should kindly treat the 
 savage and heathen people in those parts, and use all 
 proper means to draw them to the service and knowl- 
 edge of God.'" 
 
 In order to show how completely the doctrine, disci- 
 pline, and worship of the English Church were en- 
 forced, I will give an abstract of some of the laws 
 adopted in the colony in the earliest periods of its ex- 
 istence [1611] for the purpose of enforcing them. 
 
 The first commands that Daily Prayer, morning and 
 evening, be observed. 
 
 • No person could speak against the Holy Trinity — 
 blaspheme the name of God — speak lightly of his 
 Holy Word, or demean himself unworthily or disre- 
 spectfully unto any minister of the same, under severe 
 penalties. 
 
 The sixth law ordains that " every man and woman, 
 daily, twice a day, upon the first tolling of the bell, 
 shall upon the working days, repair into the Church 
 
 1 Wilberforce, pp. 9, 20, 21. See also Hawks's Narrative,^. 
 19. 
 
212 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 to hear divine service." No man might break or pro- 
 fane the Sabbath. 
 
 Ministers were obliged, in addition to the daily 
 Service, to preach on Wednesday and on the Sunday 
 afternoon. 
 
 Every person on arriving in the colony must give 
 an account of his or her faith to the minister, and sub- 
 mit to be instructed, if he or she were not sufficiently 
 informed in what every Christian ought to know.^ 
 
 With the policy or justice of these laws I am not 
 now concerned. I cite them merely as proofs of the 
 course that was taken to carry out the system of the 
 English Church, and be identical with it. 
 
 In 162 1—2 met the first Legislature in Virginia, and 
 " among the first enactments were those which con- 
 cerned the Church." "The general provisions " above 
 recited, " were embodied in a statutory form," and 
 provision was made by law for tlie support of the 
 Clergy. 2 
 
 Soon after this there is reason to believe that a 
 small number of Puritans came to the colony; but 
 their number was too inconsiderable to produce any 
 change in the religion of the colony, and public wor- 
 ship continued to be conducted as it always had been, 
 in conformity with the ritual of the Church of Eng- 
 land.3 
 
 In 1628 Lord Baltimore, father to the Lord Balti- 
 more who settled in Maryland, visited Virginia. The 
 Legislative Assembly was in session, and as he was 
 
 1 Hawks' Narrative, pp. 25-27. ' Ibid., p. 35. 
 
 'Hawks, p. 35. 
 
THE CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES. 213 
 
 known to be a Papist, they required that he should 
 take the oath of supremacy and allegiance, but he 
 refused. This act, whether right or wrong, in itself 
 shows, and is cited to show the strictness, with which 
 the Virginia settlers adhered to the English Church. 
 
 In 1642, however, Puritan discontent had gone so 
 far as to make application to the General Court of 
 Massachusetts to send ministers of that order to Vir- 
 ginia, " that the inhabitants might be privileged with 
 the preaching and ordinances of Jesus Christ."^ 
 
 It will be remembered that notwithstanding the 
 Puritan insinuation, the preaching of the Gospel and 
 the administration of Christian Ordinances according 
 to the English Church, was established and abun- 
 dantly provided for in Virginia. Dr. Hawks^ remarks, 
 " that it is possible, and indeed probable, that the ap- 
 plication was suggested by some of those who had 
 emigrated from New England two years before, and 
 sought a home in the southern colonies." 
 
 Thus it appears that the Puritans were not content 
 with having everything their own way in their own 
 colony, but they must intermeddle with the more 
 peaceable and harmonious affairs of another colony 
 and cause dissent and confusion there. 
 
 The historian, to whom we are already so much 
 indebted, adds : " Up to the period of Harvey's arrival 
 in 1629, there was no complaint. The colonists were 
 content to remain in the bosom of that Church in 
 which they had been reared ; and there is ample evi- 
 dence of a conscientious and general attachment to the 
 faith which was established." 
 
 1 Hawks, p. 51. 'Hawks, p. 52. 
 
214 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 The foregoing account has been given so much at 
 length, for the purpose of showing what was thfe lead- 
 ing design of the first settlers in these States. ' :" 
 
 The English Church continued to take charge of its 
 children in the colonies — to make provision for their 
 wants — and to gather in the wanderers and outcasts. 
 They were under the Diocesan supervision of the 
 Bishop of London. 
 
 I need not go into a detail of the efforts that were 
 made to introduce Episcopacy into this country, be- 
 fore the Revolution ; nor enumerate the special acts 
 of supervision and fostering care which were mani- 
 fested by the mother Church. I will rather pciss on 
 to the organization of the Church after the Revolu- 
 tionary War. 
 
 Independence was declared in 1776, and peace made 
 by the acknowledgment of our separate national 
 existence, in 1783. Up to that period this country 
 was a part of the English dominions and dependen- 
 cies. And when the connection with the mother 
 country was severed, the Church which she had 
 planted became independent also. 
 
 As early as August, 1782 — that is, before the re- 
 cognition of the national independence by England— 
 a scheme was proposed for the organization of the 
 " Church of England people" into an independent 
 branch of the Church, by themselves. This scheme, 
 however, was purely an individual proposal, and re- 
 sulted in nothing. It is indeed doubtful, whether if 
 it had been carried into effect, the religious associa- 
 tion which would have been the result., would have 
 
mn. CUURCU IN THE UNITED STATES. 215 
 
 been recognized by the Church of England, or any- 
 other branch of the Church of Christ, as a part of that 
 Church. And it is certain that the author of this pro- 
 posal — the venerable Bishop White — afterwards re- 
 pudiated some of the fundamental points which were 
 understood to be combined in it. 
 
 The first measure towards completing the organiza- 
 tion of a Church in America identical with the Eng- 
 lish Church, was taken in Connecticut, in March 1783, 
 when at a meeting of the Clergy of the State, the Rev. 
 Samuel Seabiiry, D. D. was elected Bishop for the 
 Church in that State. 
 
 I do not however dwell upon this fact at length, for 
 two reasons : first it was only local in its character, 
 and did not profess to aim at anything beyond the 
 single Diocese of Connecticut : and secondly, because 
 a single Diocese is not competent to an independent 
 existence as a branch of the Church. There must be, 
 at the least, " two or three " Bishops and Dioceses in 
 order to enable them to perform all the functions 
 requisite to their existence — the ordination of Bishops 
 for instance. 
 
 But on the 13th of November, 1783, the Rev. Dr. 
 White, afterwards Bishop of Pennsylvania, having 
 previously consulted with the other Clergy of that 
 city, proposed for consideration, at a meeting of the 
 vestry of his parish, the appointment of committees 
 from the different city vestries, to confer with the 
 Clergy on the subject of forming a representative body 
 of the Churches in Pennsylvania. 
 
 These Committees met with the Clergy on March 
 
216 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 29th, 1784. Another meeting was called for May in 
 the same year, and a Committee was appointed to 
 confer with the Churches in other States. 
 
 A few days afterwards a meeting, for another pur- 
 pose, of several Clergymen from New York, New Jer- 
 sey, and Pennsylvania, was held at New Brunswick, 
 New Jersey. The proceedings of the Philadelphia 
 meeting were communicated to them, and it was 
 determined to call a fuller meeting in New York, on 
 the 5th of October following. At this convention 
 there were delegates from Massachusetts, Connecticict, 
 New York, New Jersey, Petmsylvania, Delaware, 
 Maryland, and Virginia. 
 
 At the meeting in Philadelphia, March, 1784, the 
 following basis of a general organization was proposed. 
 It was also brought to the notice of the meeting in 
 New Brunswick, in the May following, and was adopted 
 by the First General Convention that was duly called, 
 viz: September, 1785. ^ 
 
 " I. That the Episcopal Church is, and ought to be, 
 independent of all foreign authority, ecclesiastical or 
 civil. 
 
 " 2. That it hath, and ought to have, in common 
 with all other religious societies, full and exclusive 
 powers to regulate the concerns of its own com- 
 munion. 
 
 " 3. That the doctrines of the Gospel be maintained 
 as now professed by the Church of England, and uni- 
 formity of worship continued, as near as may be, to 
 the Liturgy of the same Church. 
 
 i^Bioren's Journals, pp. 5, 6, and the Preface byBp. White. 
 
THE CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES. 217 
 
 " 4. That the succession of the ministry be agree- 
 able to the usage which requireth the three orders, 
 Bishops, Priests, and Deacons — that the rights and 
 powers of the same, respectively, be ascertained, and 
 that they be exercised according to reasonable law, to 
 be duly made. 
 
 " 5. That to make Canons, or laws, there be no 
 other authority than that of a representative body of 
 the Clergy and Laity, conjointly. 
 
 " 6. That no powers be delegated to a General Eccle- 
 siastical Government, except such as cannot conven- 
 iently be exercised by the Clergy and Laity in their 
 respective congregations." 
 
 At the meeting in New York, 1784, eight different 
 States were represented, and it was agreed : — 
 
 " I. That there should be a General Convention 
 of the Episcopal Church in the United States of 
 America. 
 
 " 3. That the said Church should maintain the 
 doctrines of the Gospel, as now held by the Church 
 of England, and adhere to the Liturgy of the said 
 Church, as far as shall be consistent with the Amer- 
 ican Revolution and the constitutions of the several 
 States." 
 
 There were also other resolutions,. 2, 4, 5, and 6, 
 providing for a General Convention, and its meeting, 
 which was to be held in Philadelphia on the 27th of 
 September following. 
 
 This may perhaps be regarded as the organization 
 of the Church in this country. It took to itself the 
 name, "Protestant Episcopal" — Protestant to denote 
 
218 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED, 
 
 its freedom from Popery, and Episcopal, to denote its 
 adherence to the Apostolic Ministry. 
 
 It may be well to notice, particularly, that this was 
 not called, nor regarded as the commencement of the 
 Church in this country. The Clergy and Laity came ^ 
 together, only to provide for some deficiencies in their 
 organization. The Church had been founded here in 
 1607, by the Jamestown colonists. And now that a 
 separation from the mother country had been effected 
 by the Revolutionary War, they came together to pro- 
 vide for those ministrations and elements of growth 
 and edification for which, until that event, they had 
 depended upon the mother Church, and the mother 
 country. 
 
 It may be well, however, to show from the records 
 of those times, that this was not regarded by those 
 who took part in the transactions, as the origin or first 
 establishment of the Church in this country. Thus, 
 on the second day of the Convention, it was Resolved, 
 that the testimonials produced from the Churches in 
 the several States, .... are satisfactory.^ 
 
 Here the Church is spoken of as an existing body, 
 and as one, though distributed through many States ; 
 and that too, before any formal constitution had been 
 adopted, a Liturgy provided, or the Episcopate ob- 
 tained. 
 
 Again, the adoption of the Constitution of thq Prot- 
 estant Episcopal Church was not spoken of as the 
 origin of that Church ; the Preamble to the Constitu- 
 tion as reported by a Committee, reads — "Whereas, 
 iBioren, p, 5. 
 
THE CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES. 219 
 
 in the course of Divine Providence, the Protestant 
 Episcopal Church in the United States of America, is 
 become independent of all foreign authority," etc. It 
 also spoke of meetings of Clerical and Lay Deputies 
 of the said Church previously held. 
 
 These expressions are quoted to show that the men 
 of those times did not consider the Church in this 
 country as originating with themselves, but that they 
 did consider that it had been in existence as a Church 
 before their time. 
 
 The address to the English Archbishops and Bish- 
 ops, is also worthy of being referred to for its bearing 
 on several important points now before us. The Con- 
 vention call themselves " the Clerical and Lay Depu- 
 ties of the Protestant Episcopal Church in sundry of 
 the United States of America." They say, " Our 
 fathers, when they left the land of their nativity, did 
 not leave the bosom of that Church ovpr which your 
 lordships now preside ; but, as well from a veneration 
 for Episcopal government, as from an attachment to 
 the admirable services of our Liturgy, continued in 
 willing connection with their Ecclesiastical Superiors 
 in England, and were subjected to many inconven- 
 iences- rather than break the unity of the Church to 
 which they belonged. 
 
 " When it pleased the Supreme Ruler of the Uni- 
 vease, that this part of the British Empire should be 
 free, sovereign and independent, it became the most 
 important concern of the members of our communion 
 to provide for its continuance."^ 
 
 * Bioren, p. I3, 13. 
 
220 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED.^ 
 
 The leading objects which claimed the attention of 
 the Convention of 1785, were (i) a more complete sys- 
 tem of union and organization for the whole country; 
 (2) the preparation of the Liturgy, and (3) the obtain- 
 ing of the Episcopate. 
 
 The Constitution reported to that Convention was 
 adopted, with some modification, on the 26th of June 
 the next year, 1786.^ 
 
 Before this time, however, the Rev. Dr. Samuel 
 Seabury had been consecrated Bishop of Connecticut, 
 at Aberdeen, in Scotland, on the 14th of November, 
 1784, by three Scotch Bishops. The reason of his 
 being consecrated in Scotland, rather than in Eng- 
 land, is to be found in the fact, that the English Bish- 
 ops were restrained, by a law of Parliament (not of the 
 Church), from consecrating any Bishops, without cer- 
 tain oaths which could be taken only by Englishmen. 
 
 The Convention of 1785, however, made application 
 to England for the consecration of Bishops there. 
 After a series of events, which need not here be re- 
 cited in particular, an act of Parliament was obtained 
 for the purpose, and the Rev. Dr. Provoost, of New 
 York, and the Rev. Dr. White, of Pennsylvania, were 
 consecrated, in the Lambeth Palace, February 4, 
 1787. And on the 19th of September, 1790, the Rev. 
 Dr. James Madison was ordained Bishop for Virginia, 
 at Lambeth, in England, by English Bishops. 
 
 The Church in America had now four Bishops — a 
 number which, according to the uniform usages and 
 principles of the Church, is competent to perform all 
 ' Bioren, pp. 22, 23, 24. 
 
THE CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES. 221 
 
 the functions requisite to an independent branch, or 
 Provincial Church. 
 
 In 1789, the General Convention met for the first 
 time with a full organization. The Bishops now con- 
 stituted a separate house. A new Constitution was 
 adopted, and the Prayer-Book, as revised, was set 
 forth, to be used from and after the first day of Octo- 
 ber, 1790. The Ratification bears date October 16, 
 1789. 
 
 The settlement at Jamestown was the first that was 
 made at all, by any Christian people, within the limits 
 of what was the United States, when they became an 
 independent nation. 
 
 In this there was an exact compliance with the 
 terms and principles of the extension of the Church, 
 of which we have already spoken. 
 1- I. The settlers were members of the Church, from 
 the English Branch. 
 
 I 2. They came into a country (the English posses- 
 sions of North America), at that time unoccupied by 
 any other branch of the Church ; 
 
 3. For the purpose of establishing here "the true 
 Word and Service of God." 
 
 That all these conditions were fulfilled, is a matter 
 of fact. The design of the settlers, however, was not 
 exclusively religious. They did not come here for the 
 sole purpose of converting the heathen. They claimed 
 the territory for their own, and designed to found a 
 colony, as well as a Church, which should be a part 
 of the Church and the nation to which they belonged. 
 This, however, cannot invalidate the missionary char- 
 acter of their undertaking. 
 
222 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. ' 
 
 Thus, in the most general view — considering this 
 western continent as unoccupied country — we find 
 that the commencement of these English missionaries 
 was such as to identify their communion with the 
 English Church, and was no violation of the rights or 
 claims of any other branch of the Church. 
 
 But there is still another light in which this matter 
 ought to be placed. 
 
 From its first discovery, some part of this conti- 
 nent was acknowledged to belong to England. Vir- 
 ginia, and Jamestown — the place of the first English 
 settlement — were within those limits. This fact must 
 be considered as giving the English Church a pecu- 
 liar right and claim here. The territory was a part 
 of the English dominions. Hence this country — as 
 a part of the English Domain — was a part of Eng- 
 land — as much so as though it had been within the 
 Island that is called by that name. Hither English- 
 men might come and settle, with all the rights and 
 privileges of Englishmen, subject to the laws of Eng- 
 land, and entitled to claim her protection. The right 
 to bring their religion and the peculiarities of their 
 worship with them, will not therefore be questioned. 
 And as these colonies were a part of the English 
 dominions, so also those members of the English 
 Church, who came hither did not lose their member- 
 ship, or transfer it to another communion, by their 
 removal. They were a part of the English Church 
 still. 
 
 It is, indeed, true that Royal Authority gave grants 
 to others of its subjects, who had forsaken the com- 
 
THE CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES. 223 
 
 munion of the English Church, to come and settle on 
 this continent also. But something more than Kings' 
 patents, and Parliamentary grants are necessary, to 
 enable persons to found a branch of the Church of 
 Christ. He is the Sovereign of His Earthly King- 
 dom, and its Colonies must be founded by grants 
 obtained from Him, and in conformity with His laws 
 and Institutions. 
 
 King Charles, or any other English King, could 
 confer ample authority for founding colonies that 
 should be a part of his dominions and kingdom. But 
 he had no such authority over the Kingdom of Christ. 
 
 Of course I am not denying the right of the Eng- 
 lish Puritans, and other seceders from the English 
 Church; to come and settle in this country. So far 
 as man, or human authority is concerned, their right 
 was unquestionable. But although they had a right 
 to settle here, and to have what religion they pleased, 
 or none, if that had been their choice ; still, however, 
 the relation of their ecclesiastical institutions to the 
 identity of the Church could not be changed by the 
 peculiarities of their location. They were persons 
 whose consciences had compelled them to leave the 
 English Chui-ch, and they came here, not to establish 
 the Church in which they had found that they could 
 not live at home, but to extend the communion of 
 that which they had themselves founded. It was, 
 therefore, no more a part and branch of that which 
 had always been known as the Church of England, 
 when established in this country, than it was in that 
 which they left in order to come here. 
 
224 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 But we must keep in mind the fact that they had 
 been seceders from the Church, and not merely a 
 schism in the Church, in the primitive and scriptural 
 sense of the word. 
 
 And we must remember, too, that the Episcopal 
 Polity, if not of divine institution, that is, if it had not 
 been instituted by the Apostles, acting under the 
 plenary inspiration that was given them by our Lord 
 for this purpose, was, nevertheless, of very early insti- 
 tution, and was unanimously accepted at an early 
 date. We know, in fact, of no Church that was or- 
 ganized on any other polity. Of course we read of 
 many churches in those early days of whose organiza- 
 tion and polity nothing is said. But we have no 
 account of anything that was regarded as an organi- 
 zation that was other than Episcopal. 
 
 Then, too, we have the testimony of Ignatius, who 
 died a martyr not later than 117, probably as early as 
 97 A. D., who tells us that "without Bishops and Priests 
 and Deacons, there is no Church." 1 
 
 Ignatius had been a disciple of St. John, and was, at 
 this time, Bishop of that city in the East where " the 
 disciples of our Lord were first called Christians. "^ It 
 was a city at that time of some three or four hundred 
 thousand inhabitants. It had been for a while the 
 most influential Church after Jerusalem had been de- 
 stroyed, and the successor of St. James had taken the 
 title of Bishop of .^lia. Alexandria had not yet risen 
 into the prominence that Clement, A. D. 200, and 
 Origen, A. D. 230, afterwards gave it. And as for 
 ' Ed. ad Trail., iii. ' Acts xi. 26. 
 
THE CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES. 225 
 
 Rome, it was not yet thought of as the seat of a Pri- 
 macy or Supremacy of the whole Church. 
 
 And it is a little doubtful, from the form of the ex- 
 pression used by St. Ignatius whether he was intend- 
 ing to assert the fact that there was no Church without 
 its Bishop — or the law, that there could be no Church 
 without the three orders, either in fact or intention — 
 that is, actually intending to get them as soon as 
 practicable. 
 
 But whatever he may have intended to say, or was 
 in fact saying, there can be no doubt that he knew 
 whether what he was saying was true or not. 
 
 Then we have seen, also, that the very first of the 
 Apostolical Canons requires that at the ordination of 
 a Bishop three, or at least two Bishops should be pres- 
 ent ; and the second Canon reads, " Let a Presbyter, 
 Deacon and the rest of the clergy (Deaconesses) be or- 
 dained by one Bishop." 
 
 The Council of Nice, A. D. 325, recognized this fact 
 and law (Canon IV) and provided that in addition to 
 the three Bishops to be present and participating in 
 the consecration, all the other Bishops of the Province 
 should, if they could not be present, give their con- 
 sent in writing, and thus the ordination might be 
 performed." 
 
 Of these Provinces six are mentioned by name: 
 Antioch and Alexandria being two of them, Rome 
 being one also and only one, with the rest. 
 
 The action of this council, which was a General 
 Council of the whole Church, the first that had been 
 held since that at Jerusalem (Acts xv) was acquiesced 
 IS 
 
226 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 in and ratified by all the three or five Councils (as one 
 chooses to reckon them) that were held before the final 
 separation of the East and West in the eleventh century. 
 
 Nor is this all. It is not merely that we have these 
 testimonies to the fact that there were no churches 
 without Bishops, and the provisions of the Canons for 
 the succession of the Bishops and the certainty of the 
 ordination, by requiring two at least to be present, 
 consenting to, and taking part in the ordination. We 
 have two cases which confirm this view, and show that 
 the position was not taken without consideration and 
 a sense of the necessity for such rules. 
 
 The one case, is that of Aerius, of Armenia, and the 
 other is that of Colluthus, of Alexandria. Aerius and 
 his fellow student, Eustathius, had been candidates for 
 the Bishopric of Sebaste. Eustathius succeeding in 
 the competition, Aerius claimed to think that there 
 was no difference between the two Orders — Bishops 
 and Presbyters — and that, as a Presbyter, he could or- 
 dain the Clergy as well as a Bishop. But his Sect in- 
 cluded only a very few members, and did not last long. 
 
 The case of Colluthus is more instructive. He se- 
 ceded from the communion of the Patriarch of Alex- 
 andria, became an Arian — that is a denier of the di- 
 vinity of Christ, — ^and, because he could get no Bish- 
 op to ordain his followers, he claimed to have the 
 right to do it himself: this was in A. D. 319 — just be- 
 fore the Council of Nice. And it is not at all unlikely 
 that the Fathers of that Council had his case in mind, 
 when they passed the Canons I have just cited. How- 
 ever, the case had been considered, and his opinion 
 
THE CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES. 227 
 
 condemned, by a Council at Alexandria, — "unani- 
 mously," as it is said, by the Bishop of Alexandria.* 
 
 Now, I am aware that the persons I have in mind, 
 care but very little, if anything, for Church authority, 
 even though it be the authority of the whole Church. 
 Yet there is one respect, at least, in which they must 
 regard it. The Church had declared that there was 
 no Church, without its Bishops, in their sense of the 
 word, whether that were the Bible sense or not ; and 
 more than that, namely, they had declared that they 
 would not receive or acknowledge any body or num- 
 ber of Christians, who had not a Bishop, ordaining 
 their Clergy, as a Branch of the Church ; nor yet any 
 number of churches as constituting a Provincial 
 Church, that had not at the least three Bishops, so as 
 to be competent for the ordination of its own Bishops, 
 and for managing all the other matters of a provincial 
 character. The early Church may have been wrong 
 in this matter, but it is too late to correct their error 
 now. 
 
 As a practical matter, I suppose that whatever the 
 Church — the early and undivided Church — had thus 
 adopted in a matter of this kind, must stand as Church 
 law ; so that if we would be in their communion, or 
 recognized by them, we must abide by it. 
 
 And I think that we have both the example and 
 the precepts of our Lord, to this effect. " The power 
 to bind and to loose," which he gave the Apostles, 
 could not have related to the first founding of the 
 
 ' Theodoret's Eccl. Hist. B. I, 34. Also Athanasius's Works, 
 Vol. I, pp. 134 and p. 193. 
 
228 ' THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 Church, merely. This becomes manifest if we refer 
 to the occasion on which the authority was given. It 
 was to be exercised whenever a brother had aught 
 against another. If the matter could not be settled 
 without, he was then to " tell it to the Church. "^ 
 
 Nor is this all. Although our Lord had come to 
 put a new construction on many passages of the Jewish 
 Scriptures, and although he expressed himself in very 
 severe terms of disapprobation of the teachings of 
 the Scribes and Pharisees, personally and individually, 
 yet when " they sat in Moses' seat," that is, in the San- 
 hedrim, they were the legitimate Council and law 
 making body of the Jewish Church and people, and 
 the command was " all therefore whatsoever they bid 
 you observe, that observe and do."^ 
 
 And not only so : He himself took part in their wor- 
 ship. He never seceded from their Church, nor did 
 he permit his disciples to do so, although much, both 
 in the temple service and in the synagogue worship 
 was doubtless of merely human origin. In fact we have 
 no evidence, that I am aware of, that the synagogue 
 services had ever been established by any especial 
 divine command. And yet he attended their services, 
 and in one case, at least, he took part in it, if he did 
 not in fact conduct it wholly.^ 
 
 And then, too, we have a record* of our Lord's 
 having been in Jerusalem and apparently taking part 
 in one of the feasts which was of purely human — or 
 rather ecclesiastical origin " the feast of tlie dedication 
 
 'Matt xviii, 15. 'Luke iv, i6, 23, 
 
 * Matt, xxiii, 3. * John x, 22. 
 
THE CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES. 229 
 
 and it was winter." We are not told what part he 
 took in these services. But it is evident from the 
 narrative that he did not condemn them nor discour- 
 age others in their attendance on them. 
 
 The principle on which these remarks are based is 
 recognized and practiced upon, every day, in this rap- 
 idly growing Republic. Emigrants are going from 
 the States in which the religious institutions are estab- 
 lished on a well-understood basis, into new territories. 
 Some of them are of one religion, and some of another. 
 They locate and form themselves into churches, as 
 they choose. Those who were Presbyterians there, 
 and organize on the Presbyterian platform here, are 
 regarded as a part of the Presbyterian Church still. 
 So with every other denomination. It is not supposed, 
 or held, that their ecclesiastical identity is changed by 
 the change of location. If they adopt different views, 
 and a different organization, then, of course, they will 
 become a different church, or at least a part of a dif- 
 ferent one ; but not otherwise. 
 
 So with the first settlers in this country. It was a 
 part of the English dominions — and the settlers were 
 Englishmen, going from one part of the English 
 dominions to another ; neither changing nor intend- 
 ing to change either their civil allegiance or their 
 Church-communion and membership. 
 
 Un^l the colonies became a separate nation, by the 
 Revolution, they were considered a part of the Eng- 
 lish Church. The others that came here were also 
 considered as belonging to the same church, or com- 
 munion, as that to which they had belonged on the other 
 
230 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 side of the great waters, and sustained the same rela- 
 tion to the English Church here as they had sustained 
 there. 
 
 With regard to the immigrants from other coun- 
 tries, they were of two classes ; those which came to 
 parts of this continent then belonging to England, and 
 those who came to parts belonging to their native 
 countries — as the Spanish in Florida, and the Dutch 
 in New York. The case of these last will be consid- 
 ered by and by. But those who came to settle in the 
 English colonies became thereby subjects of the Eng- 
 lish crown, and therefore stand on the same footing in 
 relation to the object now under consideration, as Eng- 
 lishmen themselves. 
 
 Thus it appears that the Protestant Episcopal Church 
 was founded in this country, then a part of the Eng- 
 lish dominions, by members — missionaries and colo- 
 nists — from the Church of England, with the concur- 
 rence and approbation of that Church, and under its 
 fostering care. That it is a branch of the English 
 Church, is, therefore, a matter that admits of no doubt 
 
 The fact that the English Church consecrated for 
 them the number of Bishops required by the universal 
 practice of the Church, to constitute an independent 
 Provincial Branch, is proof that they acknowledged 
 the Protestant Episcopal Church in this country to be a 
 part of their own communion. Beside this, there has 
 always been a free communion and good understand- 
 ing between them. Until quite lately there has been, 
 however, a law of the English Parliament excluding 
 from the pulpits of the English Church all Clergymen 
 
THE CHURCH IN THE~ UNITED STATES. 231 
 
 who had not made certain declarations equivalent to 
 an oath of allegiance to the English Government. 
 This, of course, our Ministers had not done, and 
 could not do. Therefore, they were excluded, by a 
 Parliamentary regulation. This law was repealed in 
 1840. But the validity and regularity of our minis- 
 trations have always been recognized and allowed by 
 the English Church, and our Clergy (now that the 
 political obstacle is removed) are received to preach 
 in their pulpits, and to minister at their altars ; and 
 members going from the Church in this country are 
 received to communion there, simply on a certificate 
 of their having been admitted to communion here, and 
 so, vice versa, they are received in this country. 
 
 These facts prove identity of communion between 
 the two Churches. 
 
 Though hardly anything more can be necessary on 
 the point of our unity and identity with the English 
 Church, yet I will quote the declaration made by the 
 House of Bishops, in this country. May 20, 1814: 
 
 " It having been credibly stated to the House of 
 Bishops, that, on questions in reference to property 
 devised, before the Revolution, to congregations be- 
 longing to the Church of England, and to uses con- 
 nected with that name, some doubts have been enter- 
 tained in regard to the identity of the body to which 
 the two names have been applied, the House think it 
 expedient to make the declaration, and to request the 
 concurrence of the House of Clerical and Lay Depu- 
 ties therein. That the Protestant Episcopal Church in 
 the United States of America is the same body here- 
 
232 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 tofore known in these States by the name of the 
 Church of England ; the change of name, although 
 not of religious principle, in doctrine, or in worship, or 
 in discipline, being induced by a characteristic of the 
 Church of England, supposing the independence of 
 Christian Churches under the different sovereignties 
 to which, respectively, their allegiance in civil con- 
 cerns belongs." This declaration was concurred in by 
 the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies. ' 
 
 During the course of the preceding sections, I have 
 often had occasion to designate Churches by the 
 name of the country in which they are located — im- 
 plying thereby some sort of a connection between the 
 Churches and the States. 
 
 The subject demands a few words of explanation ; 
 and we have now arrived at a point in our investiga- 
 tion, where a due consideration of that relation will be 
 of material assistance. 
 
 By the nationality of Churches, I do not mean any 
 recognition of the Church, as a legal establishment 
 by the State. The idea that I wish to use is equally 
 consistent with all possible relations between the 
 Church and State. Whether, as in the Roman Em- 
 pire in the second century, the State persecutes and 
 opposes the Church ; or whether, as in England, it 
 supports it by law ; or whether, as in this country, it 
 leaves the Church to itself, neither opposing nor sup- 
 porting it ; or finally, whether, as in Scotland, it estab- 
 lishes a rival Sect — the doctrine which I wish to make 
 use of, is equally consistent with that relation. 
 
 1 White's Memoirs pp. 357, 357. Also Journals of the Gen- 
 eral Convention, vol. i. pp. 310, 311. 
 
THE CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES. 233 
 
 Where, as in the nations of the old continent, there 
 is a Governing Class consisting of persons who are 
 born to authority, hve in its exercise, and leave it to 
 their heirs as an heritage when they die — my opinion 
 is, that they are bound, and must, if they will regard 
 their own welfare, make the Religion of Christ a part 
 of the law of their dominions. ^ This, of course, im- 
 plies a support of the Church and its institutions. 
 
 But, in this country, where we have no such gov- 
 erning class, but only a number of citizens called for 
 a time to execute the people's will in relation to cer- 
 tain matters of a more general concern, no such incor- 
 poration of Christianity, its doctrines and institutions, 
 into the laws of the land, can well be made. The 
 People, who are the government themselves, yield 
 their support to religion in another way, and thus 
 perform, without the intervention of the State author- 
 ties, what the nations differently constituted can per- 
 form only by a union of Church and State. 
 
 But the duty of " nations" and " kingdoms" toward 
 the Church is not the subject which I wish now to 
 present to the consideration of my readers. It is 
 rather the fact, that the territorial limits of the juris- 
 diction of the Church are commensurate with those of 
 the nation in which it is situated. This is what I 
 mean by the nationality of Churches. 
 
 There are several considerations derivable from 
 Scripture which confirm this idea. 
 
 I. It is obvious that the Apostles, in locating the 
 different and independent branches of the Church, had 
 1 Isaiah Ix, i?. 
 
234 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 regard to the political divisions of the world, as has 
 been already stated. 
 
 2. It is evident that the members of the Church, as 
 Christians, owe some duties to the government that 
 is over them, and to their governors, such as are 
 incompatible with any allegiance or obedience to per- 
 sons or governors out of the nation in which they live. 
 Hence it has been held by thoughtful Christians, that 
 a belief in the Papal Supremacy by persons in nations 
 that are politically independent of Rome, is inconsis- 
 tent with due allegiance to the national sovereignty. 
 
 3. But again. In a Christian country, the govern- 
 ment or administration must come into either concur- 
 rence or collision with the Church and her regulations 
 in regard to some points. Even in this country, 
 where there is the least possible amount of connection 
 between Church and State — some points are assumed, 
 and must of necessity be assumed, by the State. For 
 instance, the officers employed in the administration 
 must either keep or violate the Christian Sabbath. 
 And the nation must have a law upon the subject. If 
 that law regards the day as holy, then, in so far it 
 adopts the doctrine of the Church : if not, then it may 
 require, and in some cases it will require its citizens, 
 if they are members of the Church, to violate their 
 consciences by continuing in secular occupations 
 which the laws have required regardless ef the day. 
 The laws of our country recognize this day, notwith- 
 standing the many Jews, Seventh-Day Baptists and 
 infidels, who differ from the Church in their religion 
 on this point. Our Congress, also, adjourns for Christ- 
 
THE CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES. 235 
 
 mas and the Holy Days connected therewith, notwith- 
 standing the fact that neither Presbyterians, nor Bap- 
 tists, nor Methodists — the most numerous denomina- 
 tions in our country — regard them as Holy Days at 
 all. On the subject of marriage and divorce, both the 
 Church and the State must have laws which will be 
 either concurrent or contradictory. 
 
 With regard to many of these things, the Scriptures 
 have left the Church to make her own laws and ar- 
 rangements for the mere circumstantials. If, now, the 
 Church and the nation are co-extensive and contermi- 
 nous, there will be no difficulty in securing a harmo- 
 nious arrangement between them. But if there were 
 parts of several different and independent Churches, 
 or the whole of them within the limits of the same 
 State, it would be impossible to adapt the laws so as 
 to harmonize with them all. 
 
 When the Church was first planted, regard was had, 
 as we have repeatedly seen, to the secular and political 
 divisions of the earth, so that there should never be 
 two different Churches or ecclesiastical authorities in 
 the same division. And in following down the his- 
 tory of the Church for several centuries, we find this 
 rule to have been pretty carefully adhered to. 
 
 " This may be evidenced both from the rules and 
 canons, and known practice of the Church ; for when 
 any provinces were divided in the State, then com- 
 monly followed a division in the Church also; and 
 when any city was advanced to a greater dignity in the 
 civil account, it usually obtained a like promotion in 
 the ecclesiastical. It was by this rule that the Bishop 
 
236 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 of Constantinople was advanced to Patriarchal power 
 in the Church, who before was not so much as a Met- 
 ropoHtan, but subject to the Primate of Heraclea in 
 Thrace ; and this very reason is given by two general 
 Councils, which confirmed him in the possession of 
 vthis newly acquired power. ... It sometimes 
 happened that an ambitious spirit would petition the 
 Emperor to grant him the honor and power of a 
 Metropolitan in the Church, when the province to 
 which he belonged had but one metropolis in the 
 State ; which was so contrary to the aforesaid rule of 
 the Church that the Great Council of Chalcedon, made 
 it deposition for any Bishop to attempt it But, on 
 the other hand, if the Emperor thought fit to divide a 
 province into two, and erect a new metropolis in the 
 second part, then the Church allowed the Bishop of 
 the new metropolis to become Metropolitan in the 
 Church also. . . . The canons of the Church were 
 made to favor this practice in the erection of new 
 Bishoprics also ; for the Council of Chalcedon has 
 another canon which says, that if the Imperial power 
 made any innovation in the precincts or parishes be- 
 longing to a city, then the Church precincts might be 
 altered in conformity to the alterations that were made 
 in the political and civil state, which canon is repeated 
 and confirmed by the Council of Trullo."^ 
 
 I am aware that this rule is not one of necessity, 
 and that history presents many exceptions to it. The 
 rule, if strictly adhered to, would present serious diffi- 
 culties in times of general commotion, when the bound- 
 1 Bingham's Antiquities Book ix, c I, § 7. 
 
THE CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES. 23 Y 
 
 aries of Empires and Kingdoms are subject to sudden 
 and frequent changes. Still, however, the evils with 
 which the present divided state of Christendom would 
 embarrass the application of the principle, ought not 
 to be urged against its soundness : for those divisions 
 and their causes are themselves anomalies and evils 
 which ought not to exist. We have no right, there- 
 fore, to expect the rules and principles of the Church 
 to be such as to sanction and perpetuate them. 
 
 If, for instance, any part of Canada should become 
 politically incorporated with the United States — the 
 Church in that part would find no difficulty in coming 
 into our General Convention, and becoming incorpor- 
 ated with the Protestant Episcopal Church in this 
 country, for the reason that there is no material differ- 
 ence between us and them in matters of religion. But 
 if we should acquire a part of Mexico, inhabited by a 
 Church in the Roman Obedience — the incorporation 
 would be more difficult, and probably in fact would not 
 take place — so great is the difference between us and 
 them. But yet this should be no objection to the rule 
 laid down ; for such a difference has no right to exist 
 between any two branches of the Church. It is itself 
 a wrong. 
 
 But the practical object of this discussion is to say — 
 what the practice of all sects and denominations implies 
 and presupposes, namely, that the Branch of the 
 Church which has the right to existence and jurisdic- 
 tion in any nation at all, has a right to jurisdiction in 
 any and every part of it, and throughout the whole 
 extent of its Domain. 
 
238 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 I have aimed in what I have said, to prove the 
 nationality of Churches only so far as is requisite for 
 this practical conclusion. And that, I suppose, I have 
 proved. If not, who shall deny it? Surely no one 
 without condemning himself There is not a church 
 or sect in this country, that would hesitate to extend 
 itself into any village, town, or settlement, where it 
 was desired, on the ground that some other church or 
 denomination had a society established there. The 
 thing was never heard of Not a denomination doubts 
 its right to extend its communion anywhere within 
 our country. Now this right is what I mean by the 
 nationality of an independent Branch of the Church. 
 And this is the right that I claim for the Church of 
 Christ. 
 
 Most of the larger denominations in our country 
 do not hesitate to identify themselves, by name, with 
 the country. I believe that all of them that are any 
 ways diffused throughout the country, or ever expect 
 to be so diffused, do so. Thus we have " The Asso- 
 ciate Presbyterian Church of North America" " The 
 Reformed Protestant Church of North America" 
 " German Reformed Church in the United States" 
 " The General Reformed Synod of the American Lu- 
 theran Church," " The Presbyterian Church of the 
 United States of America" etc., etc. Thus in some 
 way or other, every denomination recognizes the na- 
 tionality of their church, and claims the right to ex- 
 tend it into any town or settlement where it may be 
 desired. 
 
 The Papists do not so distinctly recognize this prin- 
 
THE CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES. 239 
 
 ciple in some of its bearings, while in others they are 
 unbounded in arrogance. They claim the right to ex- 
 tend their jurisdiction everywhere, regardless of others. 
 But still they do not recognize the principle in its re- 
 lation to the independency of the national Churches. 
 They aim rather to destroy that independence and 
 reduce them all into one consolidated Hierarchy, that 
 the Papal domination may thereby be the more effect- 
 ually established, or unrestrained in its exercise. And 
 while on the one hand, the uncertainty and variations 
 of the boundaries of the secular kingdoms have doubt- 
 less done much to uprear and support that consolida- 
 tion, let us also admit that the consolidation itself has 
 done much to preserve the nations from those hostile 
 collisions which lead to dismemberment and over- 
 throw. 
 
 Now if one is so thoroughly impregnated with the 
 idea of the Papal Supremacy that he can see nothing 
 in the Church — no Church in fact — without it, he is 
 probably beyond- the influence of any argument that 
 can be addressed to him. 
 
 I know that it is claimed that our Lord, in speaking 
 of building his Church, meant by the Rock, St. Peter 
 himself, instead of the Faith he had just confessed. 
 But this is not the primitive understanding of the pass- 
 age. The words of our Lord when he said, " I will give 
 unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven," were 
 thought to have received their full and sufficient mean- 
 ing when (i^ Peter made converts of the Jews, by 
 preaching on the day of Pentecost, when about 
 three thousand were at once converted and baptized 
 
240 ' THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 in (into) the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of ; 
 their sins ; and (2) when Peter first admitted the Gen- 
 tiles, who had been converted by his preaching at 
 Caesarea, into the full communion and fellowship of 
 the Church. He had thus used his " keys " by open- 
 ing the Church for the admission of both Jews and 
 Gentiles. 
 
 I And the other part of the text, as recorded in Matt 
 xvi, — " and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shaE 
 be bound in heaven," and "Whatsoever ye shall loose 
 on earth shall be loosed in heaven," is repeated in the 
 next chapter but one (xviii, — '), and in this case to all 
 the Apostles alike — in exactly the same words. This 
 doubtless conferred on each one of them the authority, 
 whatever it may have been, that had been conferred 
 on Peter. 
 
 ' Whatever, therefore, may have been the meaning of 
 our Lord's words in the first case, and when addressed 
 to Peter alone, they must have the same meaning 
 when addressed to the twelve, so that he was in no 
 way superior to them. Nay, St. James is always re- 
 garded and spoken of as the first of the Apostles after 
 the day of Pentecost had fully come, and he, and not 
 St. Peter, nor the beloved disciple St. John, was made 
 the first Bishop of Jerusalem. 
 
 We have seen that the Canons of Nice recognizes 
 Rome as one of the Provinces of the Church, and con- 
 firms the authority of the Bishops of Rome in that 
 Province. 
 
 The Council of Ephesus, A. D. 431, confirmed the 
 decrees of Nice, 325, A. D., and tliat of Constantinople, 
 
THE CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES. 241 
 
 381, now limiting the Bishops of Rome, as in fact the 
 other great Bishoprics, Antioch, Alexandria and Con- 
 stantinople, etc., each of them to its proper Province. 
 
 There is no doubt about the genuineness of these 
 Canons. The scholars of Rome, even in the days of 
 her most supreme trust in the famous or rather in- 
 famous forged decretals of Isidore, — never denied or 
 doubted the genuineness of these Canons. Nor did 
 she ever doubt or deny that these Councils — the three, 
 Nice, Constantinople and Ephesus, at least — were gen- 
 eral Councils, and represented the whole Church, and 
 expressed the voice of its unanimous decision at that 
 time. They became the law of the Church from that 
 time onwards, even in the professed estimation of the 
 Bishops of Rome themselves. 
 
 Now I do not care to concern myself with an in- 
 quiry into " customs " of the Province of Rome at that 
 time. But whatever they were they were limited as 
 the law of the Church for all time, as far as any legis- 
 lation of the Church can go, to this Province. And 
 this, since inspiration has ceased and the Canon of 
 Holy Scripture is completed, is the highest and most 
 sacred law that we can have. 
 
 I do not overlook or forget the times that ensued. 
 I know, as Egar^ has so well shown, that as the 
 early Bishops of Rome were generally sound in the 
 Faith, they did good service in receiving appeals from 
 the Bishops of other Provinces than their own, and by 
 giving " opinions " as any wise men might do. And I 
 know, too, that these opinions were of great weight. 
 1 Paddock Lectures, 1887, 
 16 
 
242 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 I know very well, too, that during the long period 
 from Charles the Great to the thirteenth, or possibly 
 the fourteenth century, the Popes often stood firm, like 
 a rock, for Christianity, Christian institutions and the 
 rights of the Ministry, against the attempts of civil 
 Rulers to make the Church and Christianity itself a 
 mere matter of State policy, and a machinery for en- 
 forcing civil laws and perpetuating their dynasties. 
 Doubtless some of them were very bad men. Doubt- 
 less, too, many of them, perhaps all, resorted to meas- 
 ures of which we cannot altogether approve, and which 
 cannot be altogether reconciled to the Canons of the 
 early Councils that I have cited. These were rude 
 ages. Few people knew much of the rights of others 
 or had much regard for them or the higher principles 
 of law and liberty, as we now understand them. But 
 he that would drive must hold the reins according to 
 the team he has in hand. It was a principle of the 
 Roman law that " the safety of the republic is the su- 
 preme law," and I, for one, can excuse the Popes for 
 doing a good many things that seemed to us uncalled 
 for and perhaps unjustifiable on general principles, in 
 order to preserve the Church through these troublous 
 times. 
 
 And even now if the people in their Province are 
 so degraded and incapable of having opinions of their 
 own, that they must be governed by the Pope, I can 
 see a good reason for the retention of the Supremacy; 
 and I have no doubt it will be retained so long as that 
 necessity lasts. Nay, if the people under his jurisdic- 
 tion have become so demoralized, and lost to all sense 
 
THE CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES. 243 
 
 of truth and honesty as to make compulsory confes- 
 sion necessary as a preparation for the Holy Commun- 
 ion, I would say let them enforce it until their people 
 shall be better educated and made more capable of 
 judging for themselves when they need priestly advice 
 in regard to their spiritual affairs. It is better, in my 
 judgment to obey the Pope and go to confession and 
 get priestly absolution, than not to profess to serve 
 God at all, or not to receive the Holy Communion of 
 the Body and Blood of our Lord. 
 
 But when the first rays of the dawning Reformation 
 shone upon Europe, the Popes and their adherents, 
 instead of hailing them with gladness and co-operat- 
 ing with those measures to the extent of their ability, 
 set themselves to oppose the movement and to per- 
 petuate measures which, though they may have been 
 necessary and excusable for the times, would inevita- 
 bly become, and could only become, injurious and 
 possibly intolerable evils if prolonged beyond the day 
 and the occasion that called them into existence, and 
 justified, perhaps, their existence and exercise. 
 
 But any claim to extend them into this country 
 and exercise them here is clearly a violation of the 
 early canons, and is a schismatic intrusion into a Pro- 
 vince which was not theirs, and has never since been 
 placed under their charge. 
 
 As I have said, the Roman authorities do not deny 
 either the genuineness or the binding force of the 
 canons of the early councils I have named. And yet 
 in practice they are constantly disregarding them. 
 They are, therefore, simply schismatics in our country, 
 
244 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 constantly saying "we are of Peter," when Peter never 
 knew them, and when, according to our Lord and St. 
 Paul, there should be no schism in the Body. 
 
 But the Church of England and our own recog- 
 nize and act upon these principles. Though we be- 
 lieve the churches of the East to be ignorant and 
 degraded, and those in the Roman Obedience to be 
 corrupt and idolatrous, we make no effort to estab- 
 lish a purer Branch of the Church in their midst I 
 say this with a full knowledge of all that might have 
 the appearance of an exception. A caution has been 
 observed, which, whether the course pursued be justi- 
 fiable or not, has saved them from the violation of the 
 letter of the rule laid down. Thus when the English 
 Bishop Luscombe resided at Paris, he claimed no 
 jurisdiction over the citizens of France or the Nether- 
 lands, but only over Englishmen who were tempo- 
 rarily residing in those countries. The present Bishop 
 of Gibraltar takes his name from a point of land be- 
 longing to the English, but he exercises jurisdiction 
 over persons within territory belonging to the Greek 
 Church. Yet it is only over the Englishmen who 
 are residing there. So with Bishop Southgate, resid- 
 ing at Constantinople. He was an American Bishop, 
 residing within the limits of the jurisdiction of the 
 Patriarch of Constantinople. But he claims and ex- 
 ercises jurisdiction over no territory, but simply and 
 only over American citizens residing there. 
 
 In the latter case, the object is purely missionary 
 — the improvement of the Church as it now exists, 
 and has been in existence there, ever since St. Andrew 
 
THE CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES. 245 
 
 first preached the Gospel to that people. But with 
 regard to the British Bishops mentioned above, the 
 fact that occasioned the necessity of the anomaly is 
 urged as its only justification, namely, that the Church 
 in those places was so corrupt that the English Church 
 could not recommend or willingly permit her mem- 
 bers to commune with it. For this reason an En- 
 glish Chaplain is permitted by the English Church to 
 hold services according to her Liturgy within the very 
 walls of Rome itself. Yet in all these cases, she 
 neither claims jurisdiction over, nor pretends to pro- 
 vide for any but her own children in their temporary 
 wanderings from their home. 
 
 The same adherence to this principle is seen in our 
 course toward Texas. While it was considered a part 
 of Mexico, we took no measures to send missionaries 
 there, or to establish a Church like our own. But so 
 soon as it came to be regarded by our government as 
 an independent nation, our missionaries, with a truly 
 Apostolic zeal, and with the approbation and support 
 of our Church, went thither to establish the Gospel in 
 the newly erected republic. And until the Annexa- 
 tion of Texas, they were regarded as foreign Missions. 
 But now they are placed on the list of " Domestic 
 Missions," and may become a Diocese and enter into 
 the General Convention, whenever they choose to do 
 so, and can comply with the Constitution and Canons 
 of our Church. 
 
 The application of this principle, which is thus seen 
 to be established, no less by the Scriptures than by 
 the recognition and practice of all Churches and Sects, 
 is serviceable to us in many ways. 
 
246 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 1. In the first place, others settled in some places 
 in the United States, as their limits were in 1783, be- 
 fore the Church of England had made a settlement 
 in those particular places, as the Puritans in Massa- 
 chusetts, the Dutch Reformed in New York, the 
 Quakers in Pennsylvania, etc., etc. Yet, inasmuch 
 as these were but parts of the country in which the 
 Church of England was established before those Sects, 
 her claim would not be prejudiced or precluded by 
 their settlements, even admitting them to be Branches 
 of the Church of Christ. 
 
 The Roman Catholics settled in the State of Mary- 
 land before the members of the Church of England 
 settled in that State, though not until twenty-six 
 years after the English settlement in Virginia. This 
 gave to the English Church settlement priority of 
 claim over the Romish in this country. 
 
 But in regard to all these settlements, the Romish 
 — the Congregational — the Dutch Reformed, etc., etc., 
 it is to be observed that they were in what was then, 
 or soon after became, territory belonging to the Eng- 
 lish Crown, and therefore within territory which the 
 English Church had a right to occupy, before the 
 Revolution of 1776; nay, was bound to occupy and 
 provide for as soon as she could. 
 
 2. But again. Since the organization of our Gov- 
 ernment, we have acquired territory that was occupied 
 before our acquisition of it, as for instance, Louisiana, 
 Florida, and parts of Mexico. In these territories 
 Churches of the Roman Obedience had made a settle- 
 ment, and though there was no independent or Pro- 
 
THE CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES. 247 
 
 vincial Church in any of those territories, yet the 
 Roman exercise of jurisdiction was established there. 
 Belonging as they did to Spain, to France and to 
 Mexico, nations in which the Churches are in the 
 Roman Obedience, those Churches had a right to ex- 
 tend their communion within their borders. 
 
 But when those tracts of country became united 
 to, and incorporated with, the United States, the 
 Christians there ought to have come into the commun- 
 ion of the Protestant Episcopal Church — that being 
 the Branch of Christ's Visible Church holding juris- 
 diction in this country. And if the Churches in the 
 Roman Obedience had not departed from their original 
 purity, and assumed an attitude of schismatic opposi- 
 tion to the rest of the Church, these members would 
 undoubtedly have come into union with us. And 
 their neglect or refusal has given us a right to regard 
 as null and void their jurisdiction, since their admis- 
 sion to the Union : and to extend our communion into 
 the very ^places where theirs was before established. 
 We do not become schismatics thereby. On the con- 
 trary, they are the schismatics for refusing communion 
 and unity with those with whom, by the Providence 
 of God, and in accordance with the Scriptures, and 
 the principles of the CathoUc Church, they ought to 
 be perfectly united. 
 
 I am aware that I may be asked if I should give 
 the same advice in a reversal of the circumstnnces of 
 the case. It is said to be a bad rule that will not work 
 both ways. 
 
 But to this I say, in the first place, that the errors 
 
248 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 of the Romish Church have no right to exist at allj 
 nor be encouraged anywhere, and therefore their ex- 
 istence is no valid objection to any rule or principle, 
 whose operations would lead to evil results in conse- 
 quence of the existence of those errors. 
 
 In the second place, I remark, that no case has yet 
 occurred in which a portion of country in which a Re- 
 formed Branch of the Church had canonical jurisdic- 
 tion, has been brought under the jurisdiction of a Papal 
 country in temporal things. But if such a thing should 
 happen, I could of course no more recommend the 
 inhabitants of the conquered territory to conform to 
 the peculiarities of Popery, than I could encourage or 
 recommend those now living in Papal countries to 
 conform to them. We must always obey God rather 
 than man ; and we are obeying man only, when we 
 yield, even to those that have lawful authority over 
 us, obedience in those things which they have no right 
 to teach and command. 
 
 But finally, I may be permitted to avow my belief, 
 that God in his Providence, will never permit any 
 Papal nation to extend its dominion over one in which 
 a purer Branch of the Church exists. If we look at 
 the Papal nations now existing, whether we consider 
 the South American Republics on our own continent, 
 or the kingdoms of the old world, France, Spain, Aus- 
 tria, Italy — we shall see but very little to encourage 
 the belief that there are any of them likely to subju- 
 gate any of the Protestant nations. Where is there 
 one that could for a moment cope with Great Britain 
 or the United States ? Alas ! they are hardly able to 
 
THE CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES. 249 
 
 sustain themselves, crumbling in fact with their own 
 weight, and rent with internal feuds and commotions. 
 In these things we can hardly fail to see the hand of 
 Providence. " Verily there is a God that judgeth in 
 the Earth." 
 
 But if a nation in the Roman Obedience should thus 
 extend itself it could be only a political extension ; it 
 could not be ecclesiastical. And the Law] of the 
 ancient Church would stand in force ; each nation so 
 far as the Church is concerned is a separate and inde- 
 pendent Province. 
 
 If, now, we can fix our attention upon the facts and 
 principles that have been brought before our minds in 
 the foregoing sections long enough to see their full 
 force and bearing, I think we cannot fail to see, that 
 it is as certain that the Protestant Episcopal Church 
 in these United States is the Church of Christ for the 
 people of this Union, throughout its whole extent, and 
 in all its parts, as if no ages of darkness and corrup- 
 tion had intervened between us and the Apostles, and 
 no Sects had arisen claiming the Christian name. This 
 communion, therefore, is the Church of Christ in and 
 for the people of this nation — identical for all the pur- 
 poses that immediately concern their eternal interests 
 with that Church which is spoken of in the Scriptures. 
 It is a branch of the Original Vine duly articulating 
 with the parent stalk and thereby connected with the 
 root. 
 
 The only difficulty in identifying the Church, as I 
 said at the outset, results from the lapse of ages, and 
 the vicissitudes of fortune through which it has to be 
 
250 • THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 traced. In some histories it may be concealed by the 
 p overshadowing importance conceded to the secular 
 concerns of the age. Passions, prejudices, and sinister 
 designs, have also had their influence in diverting at- 
 tention from the naked and controlling facts in each 
 important epoch. My aim has been to bring these 
 facts distinctly forward — shutting out from our view, 
 for the time, all others, that these might be the more 
 justly estimated in their bearing upon the main and 
 all-involving conclusion. I do not mean to say that 
 the Church has not in some ages been very corrupt, 
 that it has not been, at times, greatly at fault in its 
 treatment of its members. But my main points are to 
 identify the Protestant Episcopal Church in these 
 United States, as an outward and visible institution, 
 with the Church of which we read so much in the 
 Scriptures, and to show that it has not lost its charac- 
 ter or importance in a spiritual point of view, by any- 
 thing that has transpired in its past history. 
 
 The Scotch Church (not the Establishment, for that 
 is a Presbyterian affair), and the Irish Church, are in 
 full and free communion with the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church in the United States. 
 
 But neither of these Churches, nor any that are in 
 communion with them, recognize as parts of the visi- 
 ble Church of Christ, any of the Sects enumerated in 
 a preceding Chapter, or any others that have arisen 
 since the Reformation. Neither of them will receive 
 the members of those denominations to communion by 
 letter, or on certificate of membership, from them. 
 And both the English Church and our own have laid 
 
THE CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES. 251 
 
 down a condition that excludes their ministers from 
 being received as ministers by us until they shall have 
 been ordained anew, by our Bishops. 
 
 But this is not the attitude which these Churches 
 have taken towards the other parts of the Visible 
 Church. Between us and the Oriental Churches there 
 is free communion and full recognition, notwithstand- 
 ing some important differences in doctrine, discipline, 
 and worship, they remaining where they were at a pe- 
 riod somewhat later than that which we have taken 
 for our standard. We also receive both members and 
 ministers of the Roman Communion to the same stand- 
 ing in ours, on a distinct renunciation of those points 
 in which that communion differs from our standards, 
 and a profession of agreement and conformity to ours. 
 Thus we admit the Churches in the Roman Obedience 
 to be true, though corrupt. Churches of Christ 
 
 The Roman practice toward us has been variant. 
 They use certain rites in Baptism, Confirmation, and 
 Ordination, which are omitted by us, and to which 
 some of their members attach a great importance. 
 For this reason they have sometimes admitted the va- 
 lidity of our Baptisms and Ordinations, and at others 
 denied it. Thus though they admit the validity of 
 baptisms by unordained persons in their own com- 
 munion, yet they usually regard as unbaptized those 
 persons whom they can succeed in perverting from 
 ours. The validity of our ordinations was admitted 
 until some years after Elizabeth's accession to the 
 throne of England. But latterly it has been almost 
 uniformly denied by them, as we have seen in the 
 
252 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 chapter on the Church of England since the Reforma- 
 tion. 
 
 It may be thought by many that this is a reason 
 why we should disclaim all alliance with them, and 
 class ourselves at once with the Protestant Sects. 
 But this cannot be done. A sister may become a 
 harlot, and her disgrace may change the nature and 
 manifestations of our obligations to her ; but she is 
 our sister still. We cannot deny that the same mother 
 bore, and the same father begat, both us and her. 
 Others may be more worthy of our love, but neither 
 this fact, nor any other, can change the relations which 
 not ourselves, but the allotment of Providence has 
 formed between us. 
 
 In our Church each Diocese has a convention or 
 council consisting of its Bishop, the clergy actually 
 engaged in ministerial duty, and Delegates chosen by 
 the people of the parishes. The chief Synodical 
 authority consists in the General Convention. This 
 body holds its sessions once in three years, and is 
 composed of all the Bishops, and four Clerical and four 
 Lay Deputies from each Diocese. 
 
 It may be expected that I will not pass by without 
 notice, a matter of so much importance in this con- 
 nection, as the doctrinal character and teaching of 
 that Body which we have identified as the Church of 
 Christ for this country. 
 
 It is obvious that a consideration of this matter 
 does not come within my plan, and is not necessary to 
 its completion. I will, however, make a few general 
 statements on the subject. 
 
THE CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES. 253 
 
 The first point that I shall mention in this connec- 
 tion, is the declaration in the Vlth " Article of Reli- 
 gion," that " Holy Scripture containeth all things 
 necessary to salvation : so that whatsoever is not read 
 therein nor may be proved thereby, is not to be re- 
 quired of any that it should be beheved as an article 
 of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to 
 salvation." And by the Vllth Article, the Church 
 declares that the Apostles' and the Nicene Creeds are 
 to be retained — for they may be proved by most cer- 
 tain warrants of Holy Scripture. 
 
 I have, in fact, already, in the foregoing pages, 
 repeatedly stated, that the Reformed Branches of the 
 Church returned to the Scriptures as the only stand- 
 ard of Divine Truth — the only authority by which 
 anything can be proved to be obligatory upon man, 
 as the commandment of God: 
 
 While, however, the Church in this country ac- 
 knowledges no other source of divine knowledge than 
 the written Word of God, she claims, in all cases of 
 doubtful interpretation or construction, the right to 
 interpret and construe that Word for herself And in 
 doing this, she professes to be guided by the earliest 
 and most prevalent construction. 
 
 The possession and exercise of this authority, I 
 have justified from the Scriptures, as well as from the 
 necessity of the case. 
 
 The inevitable inference is, that we are bound to 
 look to the Church as in some sense and to some 
 extent our teacher and guide, under God, in things 
 pertaining to Rehgion. 
 
254 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 This principle modifies our duty and our course to 
 a considerable extent. The teaching of the Church 
 becomes thereby an important item for our considera- 
 tion in our investigation of truth. Hence, in practice, 
 if we find the Church teaching, or holding any thing 
 contrary to our view of the Scripture doctrines — we 
 may not lightly dismiss the Church testimony. It is 
 of more importance to us, than the opinion of any one 
 man. Its doctrinal standards are the result of the 
 wisdom and knowledge of the Scriptures possessed by 
 a large number of men who have probably no supe- 
 riors living in these respects. They have, moreover, 
 stood the test of many hundred years of experience 
 and discussion. And besides this, the authority nec- 
 essary to the maintenance of its integrity and disci- 
 pline, confers upon the doctrines of the Church an 
 importance that is not to be lightly esteemed. 
 
CHAPTER VIII. 
 THE IDENTITY OF SPIRIT. 
 
 My plan might now be regarded as having been 
 completed. But as no identification of the Body — the 
 outward and visible existence of the Church — can be 
 entirely satisfactory which wholly omits the consider- 
 ation of the identity of the Spirit, I will devote a few 
 words to that subject. 
 
 Every organized society may be regarded as having 
 a certain spirit of its own ; not merely what the French 
 call an " esprit de corps" but a state of mind and feel- 
 ings produced by their association and the pursuit of 
 the common object which they have in view. We see 
 this among the Masons — among the Presbyterians — 
 among the members of a Temperance Society, and, 
 indeed, among every society or association of men. 
 There is a feeling of interest in the affairs and history 
 of the society, and in each of its members — a zeal and 
 promptness in denying unfounded calumnies, and in 
 apologizing for undeniable faults and mistakes ; a sym- 
 pathy of feeling that produces a general similarity in 
 the state of mind and heart among all the members. 
 
 This holds true with much greater force in the 
 
256 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 Church, for that is a society designed for special spir- 
 itual purposes, and a supernatural agency has been 
 promised to all its members — to make them to be all 
 " of one heart and one mind" — to renew and trans- 
 form them into a likeness with our Blessed Lord. The 
 identity of spirit, therefore, must be an object that can 
 be easily distinguished and traced by its outward forms 
 and manifestations. 
 
 St. Paul says : " There is one Body, and one Spirit, 
 even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one 
 Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of 
 all."i 
 
 It is quite probable that when St. Paul says " there 
 is one Spirit," he refers by these words to the third 
 Person of the Blessed Trinity, the Holy Ghost. There 
 is one Body — the Church ; and one Spirit — the Holy 
 Ghost. He is in the Church, and the Church would 
 be apostate without him. And the difference in their 
 spiritual condition, between Christians and those who 
 are not, is the fruit and operation of the Holy Ghost 
 in and upon their hearts. 
 
 The existence of genuine piety, which may be con- 
 sidered as the spirit of the Church — being the effect 
 and influence of the Holy Ghost — does most unques- 
 tionably imply the renewal of the heart ; and without 
 such a change in man it cannot exist. 
 
 We may refer to a variety of manifestations, or tests 
 of the identity of spirit, and to their existence in vari- 
 ous ages and branches of the Church as proofs of iden- 
 tity in them all. Observance of the moral precepts — 
 1 Eph. iv, s. 6. 
 
.THM IDENTITY OF SPIRIT. 257 
 
 the duties of good citizenship, and of good neighbor- 
 hood — meekness, humility, quietness, temperance, so- 
 briety and truth — may all be regarded as fruits of the 
 Spirit ; and hence these things, or at least a tendency 
 to them, and an approval of them, must be found in 
 all the Branches of the Church. 
 
 I shall at present, however, refer to only a few tests, 
 of the identity of spirit, as being not only satisfactory, 
 but the most convenient of application. 
 
 If we look at the present condition of the various 
 branches w:hich we have identified as being parts of 
 the one Catholic Church, or at its past history, we 
 shall doubtless find much to excite emotions of one 
 kind or another, according to the spirit by which we 
 ourselves are actuated. We shall see much zeal and 
 suffering for the cause of Christ. We shall see also 
 much ignorance — much corruption — much supersti- 
 tion — much depravity — much, in short, to love and 
 admire — much to censure and condemn, as well as 
 much to pity and bewail. 
 
 All this we may admit as matter of fact and of his- 
 tory. And it will excite various emotions in different 
 classes of individuals, according to the spirit by which 
 they are actuated. Now, the Sects will undoubtedly 
 be inclined to represent the corruptions in the Church 
 to have begun at as early a period as possible — to ex- 
 aggerate them, and to speak of them in as strong lan- 
 guage of condemnation as the subject will bear. This 
 is a part of their justification for their existence as 
 Sects. 
 . On the other: hand, a Churchman, one who recog- 
 
 17 
 
258 ^THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 nizes in himself a member of that same Church in 
 which these corruptions are represented to have pre- 
 vailed, will be disposed to extenuate, and as far as 
 truth and candor will allow, to draw the veil of charity 
 — "for charity covereth a multitude of sins" — over 
 their errors and faults. He will feel towards the repu- 
 tation of the Church as a Puritan in this country does 
 towards the history of the English Non-conformists — 
 as the Presbyterians do towards that of Calvin, and 
 the Presbyterians on the Continent of Europe — as the 
 Masons of the present day do towards the past history 
 of their institution. 
 
 Now, as a general thing, the Sects which we have 
 enumerated in a foregoing chapter, do, as a matter of 
 fact, consider the Church to have become corrupt at a 
 very early age — much earlier than the members of 
 the Protestant Episcopal Church in this country, or 
 the members of the Church in any other country, will 
 admit that it became corrupted in any important point 
 The members of these Sects also represent the extent 
 and influence of those corruptions as much greater 
 than any branch of the Church has admitted. 
 
 Undoubtedly there is an extreme on both sides to 
 which we may run. I do not now undertake to say 
 that the Church-people in this country have not gone 
 to one extreme ; nor that the Sects on the other hand 
 have gone to the other. I refer only to the fact that 
 they tend in different directions and towards opposite. 
 extremes. 
 
 No special proof of this assertion, I presume, will 
 be demanded or expected. ^ The matter is obvious to 
 
THE IDENTITY OF SPIRIT. 259 
 
 all men. The Sects universally reproach the Episco- 
 palians wi-th making tradition — which is but the testi- 
 mony, opinions, and usages of the Church — a joint 
 Rule of Faith with the Scriptures — of looking with a 
 blind reverence to the past, instead of sympathizing 
 with the improvements of the age. It is thought that 
 we do not condemn and reject the errors of Rome and 
 the Oriental Churches with sufficient decision, and we 
 are accused of inclining towards them. 
 
 If we look behind these outward acts to the motives 
 from which alone they can have proceeded, we shall 
 find, in one case, a partiality for the Church, and in 
 the other, a disposition to disparage it ; though those 
 who are actuated by the last named motive, may be 
 unconscious to themselves of any such feeling. But 
 without it, most certainly they would not be disposed 
 to exaggerate the faults of the Church. 
 
 None of the Sects, I believe, have any Holy Days 
 for the commemoration of the Apostles and Martyrs, 
 by whose blood, no less than their lives, the infant 
 Church was nurtured and made strong. They pay 
 but little regard to the decisions and Canons of the 
 early Councils or to the early Liturgies and Creeds. 
 Many of them know nothing at all of these things, and 
 do not appear to care to know anything about them. 
 The sufferings of the early Martyrs and Confessors 
 interest them less, and apparently excite less sympathy 
 in their minds, than the labors, privations, and perse- 
 cutions of the founders and early fathers of their own 
 Sects, 
 
 I refer to this obvious difference between the Prot- 
 
260 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 cstant Episcopal Church on the one hand, and the 
 Protestant Sects on the other — a difference which, so 
 far from being denied by any body, is a matter of 
 boast on both sides, and a matter with which each in 
 turn reproaches the other — as proving that they are 
 actuated by a different spirit in this particular. And, 
 without going into the question of right and wrong in 
 the case, I say that the difference shows where the 
 Church-spirit or the spirit of the Church is. The 
 Protestant Episcopalians may go only to the just and 
 the justifiable extent of brotherly love in this matter, 
 or they may have gone to the extreme, and be justly 
 censurable for the abuse of that sentiment But which 
 view soever be taken of this peculiarity of the Church- 
 men in this country, in either case it shows where the 
 sentiment exists, and where it does not 
 
 I have said that there will be a sympathy and sen- 
 timent of brotherly love among the members of the 
 Church as a consequence of their common experience, 
 common hopes, and common interests. The cultiva- 
 tion of this sentiment is also represented as a duty. 
 "Let brotherly love continue."' And our Saviour 
 has made it a test whereby we may know who are his 
 disciples : " By this shall all men know that ye are my 
 disciples, if ye have love one to another." 2 
 
 This sentiment, however, will not extend merely to 
 the members of our own parish, nation, or age ; but it 
 will embrace the whole fellowship of the Church — 
 the whole family of Christ Those whom he has re- 
 
 ' Heb. xiii, i : Rom. xii, lo : i Thess. iv, 2 : 2 Pet. i, 7. 
 'John xiii, 35. 
 
. THE IDENTITY OF SPIRIT. 261 
 
 ceived throughout the past ages of the Church, and 
 in the different nations where it exists, are our breth- 
 ren. Or if not, the fault is in our position, and not 
 in theirs. The time has now gone by when they 
 could be unchurched. If, therefore, we are in the 
 Church, they are our brethren in Christ, and the sen- 
 timent of brotherly love, if it be genuine, will extend 
 towards them, and we shall cultivate it if we discharge 
 the whole of our duty. We are not left to select for 
 ourselves who shall be our brethren in our spiritual, 
 any more than in our natural, relations. And we 
 must have sufficient self-denial to receive and ac- 
 knowledge whomsoever Christ has received into the 
 fellowship of his Church, however different our tastes 
 and preferences might have made the selection if the 
 making of it had been left to ourselves. 
 [ I refer then to this sentiment which is manifested 
 towards what is known and acknowledged to have 
 been the Church of Christ in ages past, as proof of 
 identity of spirit between the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church in the United States, and the Church of the 
 Fathers, the Apostles, and Martyrs. 
 I It will be understood that I am not pointing out the 
 course that ought to be taken ; or suggestin'g a direc- 
 tion in which we may go, without going to a vicious 
 extreme, or amiss from the right way. Doubtless we 
 should not deny that errors and corruptions have pre- 
 vailed in the Church. Nor should our sympathy for 
 those whom we must acknowledge to be brethren, 
 lead us to imitate their faults. But even if this sen- 
 timent leads, or has led to this abuse, its existence is 
 
262 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 none the less on that account an evidence of the main 
 point of our present subject — the identity of spirit 
 manifested in what may be called a partiality for the 
 Church — in all of its affairs and its history — a dispo- 
 sition to extenuate, rather than to condemn — to throw 
 the veil of charity over faults, rather than expose them 
 to the scoffs and sneers of the infidel and the profane 
 ■ — to treat them, in short, as we do the faults of our 
 brethren in the flesh — faults which are too obvious to 
 be denied, and yet too painful to be spoken of when it 
 can be avoided. 
 
 Now there is no doubt which of these two opposite 
 courses the Protestant Episcopalians in this country 
 take. There is no more doubt which of the two the 
 Protestant Sects take. And the adherents to the 
 Roman See are, in fact, fast taking sides with the 
 Sects in this matter. Their avowal of the doctrine of. 
 development, including a right on their part to de- 
 cree new articles of Faith, and to depart from the 
 doctrines and usages of the Fathers — is a manifesta- 
 tion of the same sentiment as that by which the Sects 
 are actuated, though in a different form. And so far 
 as it extends it shows that the spirit of sectarianism 
 and not the spirit of tlae Church, is prevailing among 
 them. 
 
 Unquestionably there are positive Institutions and 
 outward tests in Christianity ; and without them one 
 great object of our call to the Christian state is lost 
 A leading design in the introduction of Christianity 
 to the world was, that men, by the observance of these 
 Institutions and tests on earth should habituate them:^ 
 
THE IDENTITY OF SPIRIT. 263 
 
 selves to self-denial and self-control, and to the con- 
 tinued yielding up of their wills, so that they may do 
 the will of another, and acquire, by religious discipline 
 and experience in this state of their being, with the 
 help of the Holy Ghost, that holy, and to us, second 
 nature which may fit us for the society and employ- 
 ment of the souls of the just made perfect. 
 
 Hence the training which carefully observes the 
 outward and positive Institutions, is a part of religion 
 as essential in itself considered as the inward experi- 
 ence of renewal and peace. 
 
 And these outward Institutions are a better test of 
 our conversion, and the genuineness of our piety than 
 the inward emotions ; since they bring us at once and 
 directly into connection with what God has ordained 
 for us. Hence they are the test whether we will obey 
 him or not. 
 
 When a man changes his opinions and course of 
 life with sobriety and emotion, he may be said to be 
 converted. But not every conversion is a turning to 
 the Lord. Each sect and each imposter calls the em- 
 bracing of his or their peculiar views " conversion." 
 Hence we hear of converts to Millerism, to Mormon- 
 ism, to Popery, and sometimes to Mahometanism. 
 All such changes are attended with much emotion, 
 and are regarded by those who are the subjects of 
 them, no less than by those to whom they are con- 
 verted, as a light and joy from above — the fruit of the 
 Holy Spirit. And if we appeal to the consciousness 
 of the individuals themselves as the test, we shall be 
 in danger of finding what may be regarded as the best 
 
264 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 evidence only there, where the fanaticism is the most 
 unmingled and unrelenting in its hold upon its victim. 
 There must, therefore, be some objective test ; and 
 surely there can be nothing better than the regard 
 paid to the Word and Institutions of God. One may 
 be converted to the peculiarities of a Sect, and show 
 no more regard for what is really divine than he did 
 before, and the inward confidence which his experi- 
 ence has inspired may be a perfect shield against the 
 truth itself 
 
 It is a little remarkable, perhaps, that the Scriptures 
 contain the word "piety '' only once ; ^ but righteous- 
 ness is described as " walking in all the statutes and 
 ordinances of the Lord blameless. "^ 
 
 The Church itself is indeed a divine institution. 
 But it includes within itself, and for the observance 
 and regard of its members, several others— the Script- 
 ures, the Ministry, the Lord's Prayer, Baptism, the 
 Lord's Supper, etc. 
 
 I do not mean to discuss at length, in this place, 
 the nature, design or importance of these sacred in- 
 stitutions. I refer only to the sentiment manifested 
 toward them by different classes of individuals for the 
 purpose of identifying the spirit. 
 
 I am well aware that there are many who, in this day, 
 refer to these inward emotions, which they call piety 
 and which are the result of what they call " conver- 
 sion" as the only essential thing in religion ; and hence 
 they hold that he that has these feelings has all that 
 he needs, and is sure of God's favor and the final sal- 
 1 1 Tim. V, 4. * Luke i, 6. 
 
THE IDENTITY OF SPIRIT. 265 
 
 vation of his soul, and that without them he is no 
 Christian. 
 
 But the more thorough study of the history of man 
 and of the nature of the human soul, which have oc- 
 curred in these latter years, have thrown a new light 
 on this subject. These " pious emotions " are, doubt- 
 less, religious emotions; and they are the result of 
 fixing the thoughts upon God, or what is called God. 
 But they are by no means peculiar to the religious ex- 
 perience of Christians. Every form and variety of re- 
 ligion has something of the kind. The Buddhists excel 
 in them. Even the devil worshipers of Persia get up 
 an excitement of the feelings which they do not doubt, 
 and cannot be made to doubt, is genuine religion — a 
 sign of the favor and approbation of the beings whom 
 they worship. 
 
 I think that these considerations have satisfied the 
 men who have given a fair amount of attention to 
 them, that we must have some other test — some out- 
 ward test. And for this purpose nothing can be bet- 
 ter than the divine institutions which our Lord estab- 
 lished. 
 
 To make my investigation complete I ought to refer 
 to the past, and show that the Church has always, in 
 all ages, been characterized by a high regard to these 
 Institutions. But we have neither time nor space to 
 go into a discussion of that kind. I will, therefore, 
 merely say, that those who have been found to be 
 Sects by the outward indications of history, now, and 
 in all ages past, accuse and have accused Churchmen 
 of superstition and formality on account of the high 
 
266 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 estimation in which they hold these Institutions. 
 These charges against the Protestant Episcopalians in 
 this country have doubtless been heard by all persons. 
 
 It is the well-known tendency of love to magnify — 
 if that be possible — the importance of its object, and, 
 at any rate, to exaggerate rather than disparage what- 
 ever is connected with, or has proceeded from it. 
 
 Now, there is no doubt that our Lord did institute 
 a Ministry — that he gave his Disciples, at their re- 
 quest, a Prayer — a Form of Prayer — that he instituted 
 the Sacrament of Baptism to be received by all who 
 should be converted to him, and in which he also him- 
 self, was declared from heaven to be tKe son of God 
 — and the Sacrament of his Last Supper, by which 
 his people are to show forth his death until his coming 
 again. Most intimately, and most unquestionably, 
 therefore, are these things connected with him. And 
 they were instituted by that Spirit which produces 
 the unity and identity of spirit in the Church. 
 
 How, then, will genuine piety dispose us to regard 
 these Institutions ? I speak not now of erroneous 
 views concerning them : nor of the superstitions of 
 the past and present ages which have exalted the in- 
 ventions of man, and the cunning devices of the de- 
 signing, into an estimation of equal importance with 
 those Institutions which God has most certainly or- 
 dained. But is it not the tendency of genuine piety, 
 of pure and unfeigned love, to place too high an esti- 
 mation upon what God has ordained — if that be pos- 
 sible — rather than to disparage it ? There may be ex- 
 tremes on both sides, and the best of sentiments may 
 
THE IDENTITY OF SPIRIT. 267 
 
 be abused. Yet the abuse shows the existence of the 
 sentiment. The abuse of the sentiment now in ques- 
 tion, is manifested in an over estimate of these Insti- 
 tutions. Its absence, on the contrary, is manifested by- 
 holding them in a light estimation and in a disposition 
 to omit or neglect their observance altogether, as un- 
 important. 
 
 Now the Church has always held them to be means 
 of grace, and ordinances whose observance is condu- 
 cive to salvation. The Sects, on the contrary, gener- 
 ally regard this view of them as a dangerous supersti- 
 tion. 
 
 If we love him who founded the Church and gave to 
 it its Institutions, we cannot fail to venerate and es- 
 teem them very highly in love for his sake. If there 
 were any doubt or reason to distrust their connection 
 with him, it might, indeed, be superstition to bestow 
 upon them the regard with which piety embraces 
 them when they are ascertained to be genuine. The 
 feelings of piety and love, and gratitude, and self-de- 
 votion, awakened in the renewed heart by the consid- 
 eration of what the Saviour has done for us, flow out 
 toward these Institutions, in which he comes nigh unto 
 us and is present with our souls. 
 
 It rests upon the undoubted word of God that many 
 will fail to enter into his heavenly rest on account of 
 their unbelief But there is neither caution nor warn- 
 ing in all the Holy Scriptures against esteeming too 
 highly, or loving with too ardent a zeal, anything 
 which our Lord has instituted or commanded. There 
 is no intimation that such a thing is possible. The 
 
2G8 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 Lord loved the Church and gave himself for it : onr 
 highest glory is to be like him. 
 
 Again. The Church has always shown a prefer- 
 ence for worship with a stated Liturgy, and such was 
 the mode of worship in which our Saviour himself en- 
 gaged while he was here in the flesh. It is equally 
 certain and equally admitted that the Church has al- 
 ways been disposed to regard Baptism as a saving or- 
 dinance — that it has always manifested a disposition 
 to a frequent administration and reception of the 
 Lord's Supper, and that Daily Prayer in the Sanctu- 
 ary, morning and evening, has been felt to be both a 
 privilege and a duty. Through all the vicissitudes of 
 the Church's history, and throughout all its branches 
 — amidst all the diversities in other matters — we find 
 an identity of spirit manifested in these respects. 
 
 Whether we look at the centuries when the Disci- 
 ples of the Lord had to creep stealthily before the 
 light of day should facilitate their detection, to dens 
 and caverns in the earth there to chant their praise to 
 Christ, their God, and renew their vows, and refresh 
 their souls in the commemoration of the Last Supper, 
 or whether we consider the] oppressed remnants of the 
 Greek Church, scarcely permitted by their Mahome- 
 tan oppressors to meet in the most obscure and un- 
 pretending hovel, made a Sanctuary indeed by the 
 presence of their God with them, or whether we look 
 to the magnificent Cathedral and splendid pageantry 
 of the more prosperous branches of the Church in the 
 West, or, in fine, to the chaste simplicity and subdu- 
 ing grandeur of the reformed Ritual — throughout the 
 
THE IDENTITY OF SPIRIT. 269 
 
 whole, from first to last, and in all the parts, and 
 amidst all other diversities, we find a unity and iden- 
 tity of spirit manifested toward those acts of piety and 
 faith. Combined with superstitions, as it sometimes 
 has been — and shining forth, as it sometimes does, 
 from amidst errors and corruptions, perversities and 
 abuses, that make us weep for the dishonor done to 
 the Christian name — yet as tested by its regard for 
 these institutions, an identity of spirit throughout the 
 whole history of the Church is too conspicuous to be 
 mistaken even by the most careless reader. 
 
 The Sects, on the contrary, very generally prefer 
 worship with an extemporaneous prayer. It is thought 
 that a stated Liturgy is a great hindrance to the man- 
 ifestations of the spirit among them. Their piety is 
 better promoted without than with a stated Form of 
 Common Prayer. 
 
 Another point intimately connected with this sub- 
 ject, and indeed forming a part of it, is derived from 
 the regard which the Church has always paid to cer- 
 tain days on which the most important events of our 
 Lord's life occurred — his Birth, his Epiphany, his 
 Death, his Resurrection, his Ascension, and the com- 
 ing of the Holy Ghost. Let it be admitted that there 
 is an uncertainty with regard to the day on which 
 some of them occurred. Yet there is no such uncer- 
 tainty with regard to the others — the Death, the Res- 
 urrection, the Ascension, and the coming of the Holy 
 Ghost. Most of the Sects, however, pay no regard to 
 those day^. The day on which the Blessed Lord died 
 to save their souls from the bitter pains of eternal 
 
270 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 death, comes in the annual round of earthly affairs ; 
 they apparently take no pains to identify it; they feel 
 no interest in observing it with appropriate commem- 
 orations ; they go about their work or their pleasures 
 as if they were no part of the race for which he died. 
 And if perchance they meet with one whose heart is 
 too full of the sad recollections with which the day is 
 associated to " eat any pleasant bread," or to pursue 
 his ordinary vocations in the world, they regard his 
 feelings as superstitious. On these days their piety 
 — the spirit that is in them — does not incline them to 
 lay aside all else, to forget all temporal concerns and 
 indulge the feelings that the event of which they are 
 the anniversaries, inspires in the heart of every devout 
 son of the Church. 
 
 It is not, however, because the Sects are opposed to 
 commemorations on general principles, for they all 
 have some events in their history which they com- 
 memorate — some founders and fathers to whom they 
 look back with veneration. There have been some 
 strange manifestations of this kind. Thus the same 
 people who ordered Christmas to be kept as a fast, a 
 day of mourning, can commemorate the " Landing of 
 the Pilgrims " with an anniversary festival. And in 
 general, the Sects show a disposition to impress upon 
 the minds of their members the importance of the 
 principal events and persons in their history, by com- 
 memorations, festivities, and rejoicings, just as the 
 Church attempts to impress upon the minds of her 
 members the great events in the history of her origin 
 — the Birth, the Death, the Resurrection, and the As- 
 
THE IDENTITY OF SPIRIT. 2'?1 
 
 cension of her Lord, and the coming of the Holy- 
 Ghost. 
 
 It is hardly worth the while to attempt here to vin- 
 dicate the Church against the charge which is brought 
 against it, of superstition and formality in these re- 
 spects. The fault of superstition, like that of idolatry, 
 consists not in the excess of affection — but in a mis- 
 take in regard to its object. It is idolatry to bestow 
 upon that which is not God the honor and glory due 
 to him. It is superstition to bestow upon human 
 devices and the inventions of men, relics and institu- 
 tions not mentioned in the Scriptures, the regard which 
 genuine piety would bestow upon those institutions 
 not mentioned in the Scriptures, the regard which 
 genuine piety would bestow upon those institutions 
 which have unquestionably proceeded 'from the Lord 
 himself. Doubtless there has been much of both, 
 superstition and idolatry, in the Christian as well as 
 the Jewish Church. But the spirit which has always 
 and everywhere been manifested in the Church in all 
 of the ages and parts, of which we know anything, 
 cannot be regarded either as superstition or idolatry. 
 The Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit, was prom- 
 ised to be sent to the Church and to abide with it for~ 
 ever?- This promise must have been fulfilled : for it 
 proceeded from him "whose word shall not return 
 to him void, but shall accomplish that whereunto He 
 sends it." That, therefore, which has always been 
 held in the Church " always, everywhere, and by all" 
 cannot be contrary to the unity of the spirit, but must 
 have proceeded from the Spirit of God himself. 
 ' I John xiv 1 6, 
 
272 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 Now, as there has always been a unity of spirit in 
 the Church, wherever the Church itself has existed — 
 notwithstanding all the corruptions that have prevailed 
 within its pale, and all the misfortunes that have op- 
 pressed and disturbed its functions — so among the 
 Sects there is perhaps in one sense the unity of a spirit 
 diverse from that in the Church, yet for the most part 
 there is an almost endless variety of manifestations of 
 spirit among them. 
 
 They have, each of them, a distinct standard or test 
 of piety of their own. I need not enter into protracted 
 specifications. Every one has observed the difference 
 between the character of the piety of the Methodists 
 and the Presbyterians for instance : a difference which 
 it would not be easy to characterize in words, but 
 which no person of common sagacity could fail to ob- 
 serve on being acquainted with the religious experi- 
 ence of two individuals belonging to those Sects re- 
 spectively. But to look at cases which are still more 
 marked. The piety of a Shaker — a Second Advent 
 Believer — a Latter Day Saint — manifests itself in very 
 different ways from that of a Presbyterian, a Lutlieran, 
 a Moravian, or a Methodist. And within these Sects 
 themselves, it is also judged by different standards and 
 tests. A Methodist whose piety did not manifest it- 
 self by groans and responses in the time of prayer — 
 a Shaker that could not dance, " moving about with 
 extraordinary transport, singing and making a perfect 
 charm " — a Second Advent Believer who did not 
 think that " the time of the end was near " and "the 
 judge at the door," or a Latter Day Saint who did 
 
THE IDENTITY OF SPIRIT. 273 
 
 not acknowledge the inspiration of Joseph Smith, and 
 the genuineness of the engraved Tables which he 
 claims to have discovered — would hardly be regarded 
 by those Sects respectively as possessed of genuine 
 piety. 
 
 Thus each Sect has k spirit of its own, and yet dif- 
 ferent from that of the Church : a kind of piety pe- 
 culiar to itself which can be identified as well as the 
 visible existence of the Sect, and which makes up a 
 part of its identity. 
 
 So it is in the Church. There is something in the 
 spirit of the devout and intelligent Churchman which 
 science may fail to analyze and words may be insuffi- 
 cient to describe, but which enables us to distinguish 
 him as soon as we become acquainted with him, and 
 wherever we may meet him. There is something in 
 the books of devotion and edification which have been 
 written by Churchmen — aside from all the peculiar- 
 ities of doctrine — by which we can recognize at once 
 the identity of the sprrit. The more eminent and dis- 
 tinguished the members of the different ages and 
 parts of the Church which we take for illustrations, 
 the more conspicuous does this identity of spirit be- 
 come — the more do they have in common with each 
 other, and the less of the peculiarities of the age and 
 nation. The writings of the early Fathers could be 
 used from our pulpits without presenting any contra- 
 diction either in doctrine or in spirit to what is con- 
 tained in our Liturgy. And the works of Fenelon 
 and A'Kempis, though distinguished members of the 
 Romish Communion, are prized as devotional guides 
 i8 
 
274 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 by all who have sought a practical acquaintance with 
 works of that kind. 
 
 I will not here undertake to account for this differ- 
 ence between the Church and the Sects in their regard 
 for the outward Institutions and Ordinances of religion 
 and in their tests of the genuineness of conversion and 
 piety. 
 
 Doubtless also there is a danger within the Church 
 of a superstitious regard for rites and Sacraments that 
 are unquestionably of divine origin. Christianity is 
 broader and more comprehensive than any one human 
 mind, and while there are those that will attach the 
 chief importance to soundness in the doctrinal and 
 ethical teachings, others of a different mental constitu- 
 tion, will be chiefly impressed with the ritual and 
 Sacraments, as constituting the chief parts of the reli- 
 gion of Christ. And of course such persons may 
 carry this view so far as to omit or neglect the doc- 
 trines and the practical duties of the Christian life. 
 
 But it is difficult to understand why any persons 
 should disparage institutions and means of grace which 
 they do not doubt that they possess. If they were 
 conscious of being without them, or in a condition to 
 have only the form without the validity and spiritual 
 grace, we should expect them to believe and teach, 
 either as a cause or as a result of their position, that 
 they are of no essential importance. 
 
 Again : there is always an advantage, in a secta- 
 rian point of view, in making the test of piety, some- 
 thing inward and subjective — for in that case, persons 
 are committed to nothing that is permanent and un- 
 
THE IDENTITY OF SPIRIT. 215 
 
 changeable -^but they can always adapt themselves 
 to the inclinations of men, and change from time to 
 time to suit the spirit of the age. 
 
 Such differences are there between the spirit that is 
 in the Sects and that which is in the Church. So dif- 
 ferent is the piety of the two different classes of per- 
 sons. In all this we doubt not their sincerity, or their 
 good intentions. And I have introduced the subject 
 for no purpose of pointing an argument, or of drawing 
 an unfavorable conclusion against them. I have spo- 
 ken of it for the purpose of showing that that body, 
 which I have historically identified -as the branch of 
 the Church of Christ in this country, claims to mani- 
 fest, and is accused of manifesting, that sentiment 
 towards the Church — even in regard to its undenia- 
 ble faults and corruptions — which both nature and 
 Revelation teach us to expect, if there really exists the 
 identity between them which we have traced out ; and 
 that its sympathies are with the Church, as tested by 
 its most important Institutions and its most character- 
 istic Observances. And by this train of thought it 
 must appear, as I think — taking the claims of the 
 Protestant Episcopal Church and the accusations of 
 those opposed to it (concurring as they do in this) as 
 the premises from which our conclusion is drawn — 
 that there is an identity of spirit as well as of body 
 clearly traced between the branch of the Church in 
 this country and the original Vine. 
 
 Now this identity of spirit — that which has been 
 possessed always, everywhere, and by all in the 
 Church — is the fruit of the Spirit of God in the 
 
21Q THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 Church. And whatever any particular Church has 
 more than this is peculiar to itself, and therefore, not 
 catholic ; and whatever any one may have that is con- 
 trary to it, is opposed to Christ. 
 
 I think that I have now shown, that if one wishes 
 to perform all the duties commanded in the Scriptures, 
 to enjoy the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, 
 and to have the satisfaction of knowing that he is a 
 co-worker together with God in the work of human 
 salvation, or to give himself up in a life of devotion 
 to him who gave himself for the world, this may be 
 done without fear^of mistake or failure, by any of the 
 inhabitants of this Republic, in what is here called the 
 Protestant Episcopal Church. I have pointed out a 
 communion in which my fellow-travelers to eternity 
 may find rest for their souls, with every assurance of 
 the blessings of the Spirit and the enjoyment of the 
 favor of God, which the nature of the case permits us 
 to have. I could easily refer to experience, which 
 attests the existence and reality of all that our course 
 of investigation may have led us to expect. The joy 
 and hope and peace of those who have drunk into her 
 Spirit, are too deep and tranquil to attract the obser- 
 vation of the heedless and noisy. But her " heavenly 
 ways, sweet communions, and solemn vows" are being 
 daily more and more appreciated and sought after ; 
 and wanderers, weary of the turmoil and burthen of 
 the world, or sick of the strifes, the instability, and the 
 ever varying changes of sectarianism, are returning for 
 a home, and for i-est, in her bosom. 
 
 It is ascertained that out of fifteen hundred clergy 
 
THE IDENTITY OF SPIRIT. 211' 
 
 in the Protestant Episcopal Church in this country, 
 over (/iree hundred, or about one-fifth have been min- 
 isters in some of the other denominations. This was 
 said in 1850 and though I have no means of determin- 
 ing at present, I do not doubt that the proportion is 
 about the same as it was then. Of the clergy in this 
 city who are engaged in actual Church work here, 
 nine in all, four at least have been preachers in other 
 denominations. 
 
 One of those who have thus come into the Church 
 thus writes of his change : " My answer to the Dis- 
 senter is, who, but a Churchman, that has tasted the 
 great delights of the sanctuary, can appreciate the 
 Church's excellence ? My vindication to the Church- 
 man is, who but the soul that has been 'tossed up and 
 down like a locust ' upon ' the winds of doctrine ' and 
 the sea of Sects, can undei^stand the mazes, the dan- 
 gers, the under- currents, and the disasters of sectari- 
 anism ? Sectarians, you know nothing of the Church's 
 blessings ! Churchmen, you know nothing of Secta- 
 rianism's mischiefs ! " 
 
 The proportion of those now in our ministry who 
 were born and brought up in the other denominations 
 is of course still greater than that of their ministers 
 who have changed, and is in fact estimated at about 
 two-thirds of the whole number. 
 
 Of the communicants I presume the jlroportion is 
 even still larger. Some few years ago I made a cal- 
 culation and found that while the population of the 
 country, including immigrants, had increased from 
 1830 to date — 1880 — that is, in fifty years, at the rate 
 
278 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 of 3.46 per cent, per year — the increase in member- 
 ship of our Church from that time had been a trifle 
 over 6.4 per cent. From this it must be evident that 
 we have gained by the admission of converts to the 
 Church something more than by the natural growth ; 
 that is, by tlie growing up of persons born and bred 
 in the Church : some at all events must have been lost 
 by one means or another, who should have belonged 
 to us by natural descent. 
 
 We are in this country thrown upon our merits. 
 The principle of" the struggle for life with survival of 
 the fittest " must apply to Churches as well as to in- 
 dividuals, and in fact all things else. The Church 
 which commends itself the most to the minds of 
 thoughtful and earnest men, is that which they will 
 prefer and it will grow by their preference. 
 
 Now one of the points that is exerting this attractive 
 influence is the claim which we present of identity with 
 the original Church which our Lord Jesus Christ 
 founded. And we are largely if not wholly " on our 
 merits " here. We have no State protection to help 
 us — or to hinder us — if that should happen to be the 
 case. We are free from Papacy : but then that institu- 
 tion has its glamour and attractions for minds of a cer- 
 tain constitution. But everybody unless it be the im- 
 migrant who comes here under Papal prepossession — 
 considers himself free to examine and make up his 
 mind, or to choose for himself which church he will 
 belong to — or none if that should happen to be his 
 choice, 
 
 I have but a few, points more to add : The first 1 
 
The identity op spirit. 279 
 
 shall remark upon is the relation of the Church to 
 Divine Truth. 
 
 This element is very clearly indicated by St. Paul 
 when writing to Timothy. He calls the Church " the 
 Pillar and Ground of the Truth." 
 
 By recurring to its history it will be seen that the 
 Church was instituted before the Scriptures of Divine 
 Truth were written. We first read of the Church as 
 already in existence on, or immediately after the day 
 of Pentecost, in the common computation A. D. 33. 
 But no portion of the New Testament Scriptures were 
 written until several years after that date. And when 
 they were written it was in the Church and by its 
 members ; and they were committed to the Church 
 for use and for transmission. 
 
 . The whole value of the Scriptures to us depends 
 upon (5ur having them as they came from the pen of 
 inspiration. If any part has been lost the loss is irre- 
 parable. If anything has been added to them, or 
 anything changed in their contents, it becomes unsafe 
 to rely upon what we have, as the word of God. 
 Before, therefore, we can make any use of the Script- 
 ures which we now have as an authority for doctrine 
 or for duty, we must identify them with those that 
 were at first given by the inspiration of God. 
 
 We may learn from external testimony and from 
 heathen writers, enough to prove that such a person 
 as our Lord lived in Judea at the time designated in 
 the Scriptures — that he taught a new religion and 
 founded a Church, and that some Scriptures contain- 
 ing his doctrines were written by his disciples. But 
 
280 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 no copies of the Scriptures then written, have been 
 preserved by the Heathen. They are not mentioned 
 by name, enumerated, described, or quoted by heath- 
 en writers, so that we can compare the Scriptures 
 which we now have with what was then written. De- 
 pending upon this source then, we are but little, if any 
 better off, than as though we did not know that a 
 Bible had ever been written — for we have no means 
 of ascertaining that what we have came from our Lord 
 or his Apostles. 
 
 Nor shall we fare much better if we turn from the 
 heathen to the Christian Sects. By their very posi- 
 tion, the Sects were incapacitated from being compe- 
 tent witnesses to the genuineness and identity of the 
 Scriptures. For not only their doctrines, but the very 
 step which they had taken, and which brought them 
 into existence as Sects, was condemned by the' Scrip- 
 tures. This they knew and felt. Hence they would 
 be strongly tempted to corrupt the Scriptures, in or- 
 der that they might bear no testimony against them. 
 
 And this is not a mere conjecture of what they 
 might do, and would be likely to do ; it is known that 
 they actually did do it. Many spurious works were 
 produced and circulated among the early sects as the 
 works of the Apostles. Some of the genuine works 
 were interpolated and badly corrupted ; and others re- 
 jected altogether. So that if we were left to depend 
 upon them we could no where find a pure and unadul- 
 terated copy of the Scriptures. 
 
 On the contrary, all the genuine productions of the 
 Apostles would be received and carefully preserved by 
 
THE IDENTITY OF SPIRIT. 281 
 
 the Church. Their chief desire was to know the truth 
 and the whole truth. They had no temptations to 
 corrupt the writings of the Aposles. Those writings 
 were constantly used in their daily and weekly wor- 
 ship. They were freely and fully quoted in the writ- 
 ings of the Fathers of the Church whose works have 
 come down to us. And it is said, that if the Bible, as 
 a distinct book, were now entirely lost, it could be re- 
 stored by collecting the quotations made from it in the 
 early Fathers of the Church, and putting them to- 
 gether in a volume. Of course, therefore, by compar- 
 ing the Bible we now have with what we find there 
 quoted, we can ascertain whether the Bible is precisely 
 the same as it was then : in other words, we can iden- 
 tify our Bible with that of the early Church, and so 
 with that which the inspired Prophets, Evangelists, 
 and Apostles wrote. 
 
 Strike out of existence, then, the testimony of the 
 Church and its members, and leave the inquirer to 
 what he can find outside of its pale alone, among 
 heathen writers and outside sects, and it is very doubt- 
 ful whether he could find a copy of the Scriptures any- 
 where in existence at all. He certainly could have 
 no satisfactory proof that he was in possession of all 
 that had been written for the guidance and instruction 
 of man, by the inspiration of God. He could not 
 know that what he had, is the work of the Apostles 
 and others to whom it is attributed. He could not 
 know but that what we have, has been so grossly cor- 
 rupted as to be totally unlike what it was when it came 
 from the pen that was guided by inspiration. On the 
 
282 "THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED, 
 
 contrary, knowing as we do how the early sects, the 
 Ebionites, the Gnostics, the Montanists, etc., etc., cor- 
 rupted the Scriptures, we could not doubt that, if we 
 had only what is derived to us through such sources, 
 that which we might possess would have been so 
 much corrupted as to be no safe guide to practice — no 
 sure ground of hope. But in the Church the Scrip- 
 tures were first received. By it they have been kept, 
 reverenced and used. In the early Fathers they were 
 fully and freely quoted, and by this means the Word 
 of God has been kept for us, and we know that what 
 we have is the Word of God. 
 
 But the value of this testimony depends upon the 
 identity of the Church. If, instead of the testimony 
 of the Church, we should take that of the Ebionites, 
 we should have a corrupt copy of St. Matthew's Gos- 
 pel, as our only account of our Lord's life, and none 
 of the writings of St. Paul. If we should take that of 
 the Gnostics, we should be without the best proofs of 
 the Divinity of Christ. So with each of the Sects. 
 Did we rely upon their testimony alone, we should 
 have a copy of the Scriptures modified and altered to 
 accommodate and inculcate their errors, instead of the 
 truth as it is in Jesus. But the Church has had neither 
 motives, disposition, nor opportunity to corrupt them. 
 And more than this, we know from history that the 
 Sects did corrupt the copies which they received, and 
 that the Church did not. 
 
 But this is not all — these early Fathers, by whose 
 writings we are able to identify the Scriptures, contain 
 such doctrinal statements and discussions as enable us 
 
THE IDENTITY OF SPIRIT. 283 
 
 to see how Christianity was then understood. " The 
 faith once delivered to the saints," was explained to 
 them in all of the Churches founded by the Apostles 
 — that is, in Churches scattered over nearly the whole 
 of the then known world — ^before they had received 
 the Scriptures at all, and in many cases before any 
 part of them was written. Some formularies, or con- 
 fessions of faith — "forms of sound words "^ existed and 
 were in use as bonds of union and baptismal confes- 
 sions from the very commencement of those Churches. 
 Perhaps no one of these can now be found precisely as 
 it then existed. Yet divers of them do we find in all 
 the Churches founded by the Apostles. They are 
 quoted, discussed, and explained, as of authority, in all 
 the earlier writers from Alexandria and Carthage to 
 Byzantium, and from Jerusalem and Antioch to Ly- 
 ons, in the west. We have also the early Canons of 
 Discipline and the Liturgies of their Worship. We 
 have the writings of Clement, whose name was in the 
 Book of Life,2 of Ignatius, the friend and companion 
 of St. Peter, of Polycarp, the disciple of St. John, of 
 Tertullian, of Irenaeus, of Justin Martyr, of Clement 
 of Alexandrin, of Cyprian, and of Eusebius, who wrote 
 a history of the Church from its foundation to his days, 
 A. D. 325. 
 
 Now from these writings we can ascertain how 
 Christianity was understood, what the Scriptures were 
 thought to contain, and how their contents were ex- 
 plained, as well as we can learn from the writings of 
 Calvin and Beza, and the early Presbyterians, how 
 Christianity was understood by them. 
 
 i2Tini. i, 13. 'PhU. iv, 3. 
 
284 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 Thus we have an independent testimony, an extra- 
 neous witness to the faith once delivered to the saints, 
 coming down to us in the Church from the very age 
 in which the Scriptures were written. It is of course 
 imperfect, but yet sufficient to enable us to identify 
 the Faith as well as the Scriptures. All the salient 
 points and leading doctrines of Christianity are stated 
 with sufficient distinctness. And these writings show 
 that the same system was delivered everywhere : and 
 on all these great and leading points there is a perfect 
 harmony and agreement. They speak of the Faith as 
 a historic thing, which had once been delivered to 
 them, which they must keep and hand down to others ; 
 and not as something which they had invented, or 
 adopted by agreement and compact among them- 
 selves, nor yet as something that each individual had 
 been left to discover for himself by his own investiga- 
 tions and the exercise of his private judgment. 
 
 And in all the earlier writers, when a question arose 
 concerning any doctrine, or a dispute with the heretics 
 called forth a defense of the truth, the appeal was not 
 as now, to philology, to hermeneutics, to reason and 
 to logic, but to the doctrine, or mode of explaining a 
 doctrine or passage of Scripture which had been pre- 
 served in those Churches that had been founded by 
 the Apostles in person, and received an explanation of 
 Christianity from their own living lips. 
 
 As a specimen of this kind of reasoning, take the 
 following from Tertullian's Prescription against Her- 
 etics. 1 " On this principle, therefore, we shape our 
 1 § xxi I quote the Oxford Translation of 1842. 
 
THE IDENTITY OF SPIRIT. 285 
 
 rule, that if the Lord Jesus Christ sent the Apostles to 
 preach, no others ought to be received as preachers 
 than those whom Christ appointed. . . . Now 
 what did they preach, that is, what Christ did reveal 
 unto them, I will here also rule, must be proved in no 
 other way than by those same Churches which the 
 Apostles themselves founded; themselves, I say, by 
 preaching to them by the living voice, as afterwards by 
 Epistles. If these things be so, it becometh forthwith 
 manifest, that all doctrine, which agreeth with these 
 Apostolic Churches, the wombs and originals of the 
 Faith, must be accounted true, as without doubt con- 
 taining that which the Churches have received from 
 the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ, and Christ 
 from God ; and that all other doctrines must be 
 judged at once to be false, which soweth things 
 contrary to the truth of the Churches, and of the 
 Apostles, and of Christ, and of God. It remaineth, 
 therefore, that we show whether this our doctrine, the 
 rule of which we have above declared, be derived from 
 the tradition of the Apostles, and from this very fact, 
 whether the other doctrines come of falsehood. We 
 have communion with the Apostolic Churches because 
 we have no doctrine differing from them. This is 
 evidence of truth." 
 
 The reasons for this rule, as Tertullian says, are 
 various. In the first place, the Heretics do not re- 
 ceive the entire and uncorrupted Scriptures. But 
 secondly, the Scriptures were never given to them: 
 they have no right to the ■ use of them : and without 
 the Scriptures we prove that they have no right to the 
 
286 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 Scriptures as an authority for what they do : and 
 finally, by putting a meaning upon them different from 
 that which they were intended to have, they confound 
 and mislead the simple and unlearned, and make the 
 Gospel itself to convey, only at best, an uncertain 
 sound, and people will not know what to believe. 
 
 There is a pregnant text to this point in St. Paul's 
 second Epistle to the Thessalonians : ^ " Therefore, 
 brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye 
 have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." 
 
 When this was written the Thessalonians had no 
 part of the Scriptures except St. Paul's first Epistle to 
 them. They had, however, "the Faith," and were 
 directed to hold that fast even as it had been taught 
 to them orally — "by the living voice," as Tertullian 
 says. Other passages of similar import might be 
 quoted from the New Testament. 
 
 But I do not design to dwell on this part of my 
 subject. Different men will of course attach very dif- 
 ferent measures of importance to this kind of testi- 
 mony or authority. But call its value what we may, 
 either a controlling and ultimate authority, from which 
 there may be no appeal — or nothing ; or place it any- 
 where between those extremes as we please, the fact 
 itself, that we can thus learn from the early records of 
 the Church what was received as Christianity, admits 
 of no denial. 
 
 It may be difficult to say precisely to what degree 
 of minuteness we might descend in specifying the 
 points of Christian doctrine, which can thus be proved 
 1 2 Thess. ii, 1 5. 
 
THE IDENTITY OF SPIRIT. 287 
 
 from the early Fathers to have been dehvered to the 
 Church by the Apostles. This much we may say, at 
 least, that man is in a fallen and depraved condition 
 by nature, and needs forgiveness — renewal ; that in 
 the unity of the Godhead there are three distinct Per- 
 sons, the Second of whom was incarnate of the Virgin 
 Mary, suffered as an atonement for us ; and that the 
 'Third, was sent to sanctify the hearts of them that 
 believe ; that thus salvation was freely offered to all 
 men, and all are capable, by the divine grace, of re- 
 ceiving it ; that sin and depravity are washed away in 
 Baptism ; that the spiritual effects of Christ's incarna- 
 tion are conveyed to us in the Sacrament of the Lord's 
 Supper; that a Ministry was established to have 
 charge and oversight of the believers ; that respect, 
 obedience and support are due unto them for Christ's 
 sake ; that there should be a resurrection from the 
 dead, and a final judgment according to the deeds 
 done in the body. 
 
 It is true, indeed, that in these early writings we 
 find nothing on many of the points that now agitate 
 the world with controversies, because those points do 
 not appear to have been thought of or suggested for 
 discussion by any body. But most unquestionably all 
 that is necessary to salvation, all that has come from 
 God, was then known ; for we can have nothing that 
 was not given to the Christians of that age and has 
 not come down to us through them. And on all the 
 points named above, and a great many more, there is 
 the most perfect harmony and uniformity of teaching 
 in all parts of the early Church — in those that were 
 
288 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 the most remote and disconnected from each other, as 
 well as in those that were adjacent and more immedi- 
 ately affiliated. 
 
 It is then undoubtedly certain that we are indebted 
 to the Church for the preservation of the Scriptures 
 whole and uncorrupted, and that we must depend 
 upon the Church, and upon that wholly and exclu- 
 sively, for our certainty that what we have is the 
 Scripture, as it was "given by the inspiration of God," 
 the source and fountain of Divine Truth. We are 
 indebted to the Church for the preservation of that 
 which " containeth all things necessary to salvation." 
 And we learn from the Church too, what are the great 
 facts and doctrines which it was understood to con- 
 tain, and was explained to contain by those who wrote 
 
 Was there no moral design in this ? Does not this 
 chain of facts give force and significancy to such pass- 
 ages of Scripture as these. " The Church of the Liv- 
 ing God, the Pillar and Ground of the Truth!" "Hold 
 fast the form of sound words which thou hast learned ! " 
 " Stand fast and hold the traditions which ye have 
 been taught, whether by word or our Epistles!" "If 
 he neglect to hear the Church let him be unto thee 
 as an heathen man and publican!" 
 
 If, then, it is true that no other Church can certify 
 us of the genuineness and identity of those Scriptures 
 which were at first given by the inspiration of God, 
 and are profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correc- 
 tion, for instruction in righteousness ; it is no less 
 true, that no other has preserved to us, or could pre- 
 
THE IDENTITY OF SPIRIT. 289 
 
 serve to us, that interpretation which was at first put 
 upon them, and which, if we would be guided into 
 the truth, we must now believe. If there is now a 
 doubt about the Divinity of Christ, the freedom of 
 salvation for all men, the remission of sins in Bap- 
 tism, the necessity of good works to salvation, the 
 future punishment of the finally impenitent, the three- 
 fold order of the ministry, the necessity of communion 
 in the Church established by our Lord and his Apos- 
 tles, there was certainly no doubt or uncertainty on 
 these points, " while," in the language of Tertullian, 
 " all were Apostolic, because all were one." These 
 things without the Scriptures can be proved to have 
 been taught by the Apostles " by word," even before 
 the Scriptures themselves were written. And it de- 
 serves to be considered by him who would receive 
 and hold "the Faith once delivered to the Saints" 
 whole and undefiled, whether,, and if so, when, and 
 on what grounds the command to stand fast and hold 
 the traditions which ye have been taught, "whether by 
 word or by our Epistle," has been abrogated. 
 
 Hence no objection to the view which has now been, 
 presented of this function of the Church can arise 
 from the corruptions and darkness of the middle ages, 
 or from the present position and claims of the Romish 
 Church. The field is clear, and we can look above 
 the fogs and mists of intervening centuries, take up 
 the writings of the early Fathers just as they left them, 
 and see through them what Christianity was under- 
 stood to be when it was first committed to Holy 
 Scripture, and " written for our learning." 
 
 19 
 
290 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 We claim no value for this early interpretation, on 
 the ground that the men of that age were wiser and 
 holier than the men of this, nor on the ground that 
 they had any special authority binding upon us. But 
 it is simply on the ground that their mode of inter- 
 pretation, their view of Christianity, their Creeds, in 
 short must have been given on the same authority, and 
 by the same persons, and in most cases earlier in point 
 of time, than the writing of the Scriptures. So that 
 in the language of the profound and cautions Thorn- 
 dike,^ " it remains that we affirm, whatsoever the 
 whole Church from the beginning, hath received and 
 practiced for the Rule of Faith and manners, all that 
 to be evidently true, by the same reason for which we 
 believe the very Scriptures [to be the word of God] : 
 and therefore, that the meaning of them is necessarily 
 to be confined within those bounds, so that nothing 
 must be admitted for the truth of these which contra- 
 dicteth the same" ["the Rule of Faith and man- 
 ners."] 
 
 But be this as it may, the fact cannot be denied, 
 and it is nowhere denied, in practice, however much - 
 it may be in theory — that what men regard as the 
 Church, is acknowledged to have authority over its 
 members in matters of faith. No member is allowed 
 to contradict anything that is held to be fundamental 
 by any religious society or church, and yet retain his 
 membership. The right of discipline and excommun- 
 ication is claimed and exercised by all. 
 
 Now in the Church this right becomes one of fear- 
 ' Principles of the Christian Truth, B. i chap, vi, § i. 
 
THE IDENTITY OF SPIRIT. 291 
 
 ful responsibility and import, for it declares the ex- 
 cluded member to have denied the Faith, whereof 
 alone cometh salvation — it cuts him off from the 
 means of grace, the fellowship of Christ, and unless 
 he repents and is restored, from the hope of salvation. 
 And it is as sure as the Revealed Word of God itself, 
 that what is thus done on earth will be ratified in 
 heaven, unless the Church in so doing has exceeded 
 her authority, and made that to be a term or condi- 
 tion of communion, which is not clearly laid down in 
 the Scriptures as of essential and fundamental impor- 
 tance. 
 
CHAPTER IX. 
 
 THE EFFECTS OF SECTARIANISM. 
 
 The Church then, as one Body, and with a united 
 voice, comes, or should come, to every human being, 
 proclaiming to him the G'ospel of his Salvation. It 
 comes with the Word of God as a Revelation of his 
 Will : with the Sacraments and with the Creed, con- 
 taming a brief summary statement of what the Scrip- 
 ture teaches that he ought to believe and do, with 
 fuller explanations of the same truths, in her Canons, 
 her Liturgies, her Offices, and in the Homilies and 
 Sermons of her Preachers. And this each one is au- 
 thorized and bound to receive as the true meaning 
 and intent of the Scriptures, until he is qualified to 
 look beyond these elementary forms and teachings to 
 the Bible itself, and to the teachings of the Catholic 
 Church while it was undivided, and all of its different 
 branches spake and taught the same thing. And if 
 his branch of the Church brings him no other Creed 
 than that of the Apostles, or that which was agreed in 
 by the whole Church, and no teaching but what is in 
 accordance with that Creed, and the teaching of the 
 Church in its earliest days, I confess I cannot see how 
 
THE EFFECTS OF SECTARIANISM. 293 
 
 the guilt or the danger of him who rejects any funda- 
 mental portion of that teaching, can be less than that 
 of him who rejects a certain portion of the Word of 
 God, because it teaches what he thinks ought not to 
 be found there, and could not be found there if it came 
 from God. In looking at mankind at large, the first 
 and most obvious fact, in a moral point of view that 
 strikes the observer, who is acquainted with the con- 
 tents of the Scriptures, is that of disobedience. On 
 examination, every sin is found to contain this as the 
 chief element of its guilt. The evils which result, in 
 the ordinary course of consequences, great as they 
 sometimes are, are nothing compared with the fact 
 that the authority of the Supreme Governor, upon 
 whom all things depend, and for all things, is rejected, 
 despised, and trampled under foot. A shock is thus 
 sent throughout the universe — the effect is felt by 
 every created thing. 
 
 If we recur to the first sin committed on earth — the 
 transgression in Eden — we shall see that its whole 
 guilt consisted apparently in its being an act of dis- 
 obedience. So far as we know or can see it had no 
 natural consequences of evil. But it was the exalta- 
 tion of human pride, the aspiration of human ambi- 
 tion, the disposition to trust in human reason, to the 
 disparagement of the revealed will, or imposed com- 
 mandments, of God. 
 
 And if we look at the dispensations of God to man, 
 we shall derive a lesson of equal importance in rela- 
 tion to our present subject. We have alluded to this 
 part of God's dealing with man in a previous chapter,^ 
 ' Chap. I. 
 
294 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 and we may as well recur to it in conclusion. We shall 
 not need to repeat here what was said there. From 
 these considerations it is evident that obedience is the 
 cardinal point of our earthly probation, as including 
 all the rest. Each of the prominent relations in life 
 has its precept of obedience. Children are com- 
 manded to obey their parents, servants their masters, 
 wives their husbands, citizens and subjects their rulers 
 and governors, and Christians their pastors. Thus the 
 law of obedience is made to run through all the grada- 
 tions of society. And from the highest Archangel 
 around the Eternal Throne, through each descending 
 link in the scale of being, Angels, Sei'aphim, Cherubim, 
 Apostles, Prophets, Bishops, Priests and Deacons, 
 down to the humblest individual that waits at the al- 
 tar, or serves as a doorkeeper in the House of the 
 Lord, there must be order and subordination ; and the 
 duty of obedience from each one to those that are over 
 him in the scale of the Divine appointments, is essen- 
 tial to the stability and harmony of the whole. This 
 obedience implies government and governors in the 
 immediate exercise of authority over us. 
 
 The Scriptures, unaccompanied by any interpreta- 
 tion, or interpreted by each individual's private judg- 
 ment, cannot accomplish their intended result. For, 
 in the first place, but only a very small part of the hu- 
 man race are able, or ever have been able to read and 
 acquire sufficient familiarity with the contents of the 
 Scriptures to be able to know what they teach and re- 
 quire. Many Christians in the world cannot read at 
 all. And a still greater number have no sufficient 
 
THE EFFECTS OF SECTARIANISM. 295 
 
 amount of leisure to make themselves familiar with all 
 that is contained in the Holy Bible. 
 
 But again, the endless diversities in the religious 
 opinions that prevail in the community, show beyond 
 question that without something having authority to 
 intervene between the Scriptures and the private judg- 
 ment of the individual, there is no possibility of bring- 
 ing men into obedience to any rule, such as that which 
 is contained in the Scriptures must be, unless they 
 give an uncertain sound and contradict themselves. 
 The diversities do not affect mere doctrines alone, they 
 affect the practice of our religion also ; and the prac- 
 tices which are alleged to have been derived from the 
 Word of God, are as diverse as the doctrines them- 
 selves. Some baptize their children ; others consider 
 it wrong to do so. Some think the frequent observ- 
 ance of the Holy Communion good and edifying ; and 
 others pronounce it a more superstition and formality. 
 Some believe that the restitution of what has been 
 wrongfully taken is necessary to the obtaining God's 
 favor when one repents ; others hardly ever think of 
 the thing. Some believe that the tithe, at least, of 
 their income is God's due for the support of his relig- 
 ion ; others are thankful that they can enjoy all the 
 advantages of religion and have it cost them nothing. 
 Some think that a. daily service is edifying and no 
 more than is due to the mercy and goodness of God ; 
 others think that once a week is often enough to spend 
 their time in the public worship of God ; and many 
 there are who are not careful to attend the public wor- 
 ship of God, even once on a Sunday. 
 
296 'THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED^ 
 
 Now all these views cannot be right. They can- 
 not all be inculcated in the Word of God or derived 
 from it. And most undeniably it is best for each in- 
 dividual to know what is the view that is presented in 
 the Scriptures, and to follow it. 
 
 But again, the idea that men may violate the unity 
 of the Church, separate from its communion, and form 
 a church of their own for every opinion which they 
 may honestly and conscientiously hold, is a death- 
 blow to all obedience. 
 
 If man were not depraved and corrupt in his nature, 
 it is most certain that he could not honestly and sin- 
 cerely entertain any view or opinion that is not in 
 harmony with the truth. But it is one of the proofs, 
 as well as one of the worst evils of our fallen condi- 
 tion, that we do sometimes love error rather than 
 truth, and can most honestly and most conscientiously 
 believe that which is not true and righteous. 
 
 No fact is more certain, or of a more fundamental 
 importance, than that we need something to go be- 
 hind even our convictions of right and truth, and bring 
 these very convictions into harmony with that which 
 is really the right and the truth. Undoubtedly " there 
 is a way that seemeth right unto man, but the end 
 thereof are the ways of death." ^ We are not for a 
 moment to suppose that all those who are wandering 
 in the ways of error and unrighteousness are conscious 
 of insincerity and hypocrisy. It is difficult to say 
 whether such an opinion would imply most of unchar- 
 itableness, or of a total ignorance of human nature. 
 iProv. xiv, 12. 
 
THE EFFECTS OF SECTARIANISM. 297 
 
 No, those who are in error often give the best evi- 
 dence of sincerity and good intentions. The Prophet 
 speaks of the idolater thus : " A deceived heart hath 
 turned him aside, that he cannot deliver his soul nor 
 say, ' is there not a lie in my right hand ? ' " i Surely 
 he has not duly estimated the fearful import and con- 
 sequences of the fall of man, who has not seen that it 
 has so deranged his moral and spiritual faculties, as 
 to make necessary some guide and authority out of 
 himself, to reduce great truths to definite and positive 
 statements, great principles to practical precepts, and 
 to speak with dogmatic and commanding authority. 
 We see the necessity for this in the education and 
 government of children. We see it in schools. We 
 see it in our legislatures, and in our courts of civil as 
 well as criminal judicature. 
 
 If now man may throw off the regimen or govern- 
 ment that God has placed over him, whenever he 
 conscientiously differs from it, there is an end to all 
 government and to all obedience ; that is not obedi- 
 ence properly speaking, which conforms, because the 
 thing required coincides with the private judgment of 
 him who is to do it. It is only when private judg- 
 ment is yielded up to an authority duly placed over 
 us, that our act becomes one of obedience, and shows 
 any measure of subjection to the Divine Will. To 
 give alms to a poor person, because his distress excites 
 our compassion, may be indeed a commendable act, 
 but no one would think of calling it an act of obedience. 
 It becomes obedience only when we do it because God 
 I Isa. xiiv, 20. 
 
298 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 has commanded, " be ye merciful because I am also 
 merciful." 
 
 Another essential element of obedience is, that it be 
 rendered to the proper authority. Ultimately, it" 
 should terminate in God and in his truth. Obedience 
 to parents and to civil magistrates is right, because 
 God has required it. But obedience to one who has 
 usurped the authority which God has given to another 
 is rebellion against him. When the people desired a 
 king to rule over them instead of the corrupt and 
 wicked sons of Samuel — who, nevertheless, were over 
 them as judges, according to the established law of 
 God, — God said unto Samuel, " they have not rejected 
 thee, but they have rejected Me that I should not reign 
 over them."^ 
 
 Here then we see the connection of our subject with 
 the identity of the Church. We have seen that man 
 needs an authority, and God gave such an authority 
 to his Church. It, therefore, is the institution which 
 he has appointed for the moral purpose of promoting 
 obedience. We must be brought into a state of 
 obedience before we can be admitted to the final king- 
 dom and glory of God. The Church is the agent 
 which he has appointed to accomplish this work, and 
 the Bible is the Rule which he has ^iven the Church 
 whereby to be guided in doing it. 
 
 But if we may reject this authority and government 
 
 for every scruqie of conscience, every conscientious 
 
 opinion, we may at any time escape the test proposed. 
 
 We are under no obedience so long as we may make a 
 
 ' I Sam. viii, 7, 
 
THE EFFECTS OF SECTARIANISM. ' 299 
 
 matter of conscience of any opinion we entertain, or 
 of any preference we may cherish, and set up a church 
 or authority, that shall direct and govern according to 
 our own opinions and wishes. In that case we make 
 ourselves the masters of the Universe, and the gov- 
 ernment or Church becomes but the reflection of the 
 volitions of our own will. 
 
 And here is the broad difference between the Church 
 and all forms of Sectarianism. The one represents 
 unto us the authority and will of God, and the other 
 reflects but our own. Hence there may be as many 
 sects as there are classes of opinion and preferences — 
 and a form of error adapted to the weakness and pe- 
 culiar susceptibilities of each individual, that so he may 
 find something that he will like better, and on the 
 whole prefer, to that which he ought, for his soulls 
 health, to receive. Is not this the meaning of that 
 saying of St. Paul, " For there must also be heresies 
 among you, that they which are approved may be made 
 manifest among you."^ In our country Popery appeals 
 to the imagination, to the love of pomp and show, 
 and of arbitrary rule. Presbyterianism appeals to that 
 element which has always inclined men to fatalism, 
 and a comfortable conviction concerning oneself, as 
 one of the elect, combined with a belief that the char- 
 acter and fate of others was foreordained and cannot 
 be helped. Methodism appeals to that species of ex- 
 citement and enthusiasm which regards "the fervor 
 of the animal sensibilities " ^ as religion. And so of 
 
 I Cor. xi. 19. 
 • ° I use the words of Bishop White. 
 
300 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 all the forms of error around us. They make the 
 command " deny thyself, take up thy cross daily," to 
 be of none effect. They exhibit to each individual 
 some form of religion which he may embrace without 
 this painful and humiliating duty. If he does not 
 find religion what he wants it, he may turn reformer 
 and present it to the world in any form that he may 
 choose. 
 
 Now it is but an insane folly to suppose that such a 
 system can bring men " in the unity of the Faith and 
 of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect 
 man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of 
 Christ." No : we need something to meet us in God's 
 name at every step and turn in our lives, and with 
 authority to give us his precepts and directions, until 
 we are trained and habituated to that perfect resigna- 
 tion of our own wills, that perfect obedience, which is 
 the distinguishing characteristic of the angels in heaven 
 and was the crowning glory and charm in the Ufe and 
 character of our blessed Lord on earth. 
 
 Hence it is necessary to have the representatives 
 of the Divine authority always present in the form of 
 a living and personal agent. And not only so, but 
 even the human infirmities and imperfections of the 
 minister may be turned to our advantage. The per- 
 fect subjugation of every thought and wish to the law 
 of Christ, can be more surely and speedily effected 
 when the path through which he calls us to walk is 
 attended with trials and hardships which it grieves 
 our unsanctified natures to bear. 
 
 But if all this self-renunciation and voluntary humil- 
 
THE EFFECTS OF SECTARIANISM. 301 
 
 iation and submission be rendered to that which we 
 have put in the place of God — some idol set up in our 
 hearts — or some government which we have erected 
 in the willfulness of our unsubdued hearts, and put into 
 the place of that which God has placed over us ; then 
 we do indeed take up a cross, but it is not the cross 
 of Christ ; and we make a sacrifice, but it is not upon 
 the Altar of the true and only God : and we obey, 
 but our obedience is not rendered to him whose right 
 it is to reign on earth as in heaven. 
 
 We have seen that the identity of the Church, that 
 is, the Church itself, is intimately connected with the 
 highest interests of man. We present evidence of 
 that identity. Our evidence is addressed to the un- 
 derstanding and to the conscience, for the purpose of 
 inducing an exercise of belief, and leading us to put 
 our trust in that which we allege to be the Church in 
 this country, for all the purposes for which the Church 
 itself was designed. 
 
 Nor can we deny that the evidence in these cases, 
 or in any other in which God requires us to believe 
 anything, or has attached any importance to our be- 
 lieving or doing it, is sufficient to throw the responsi- 
 bility upon us, and make unbelief itself a sin. There 
 is such a thing as insufficient evidence ; and in all such 
 cases unbelief implies no moral fault, no guilt on the 
 part of him who withholds his assent, and each one is 
 left to his own discretion or choice. But in all the 
 cases mentioned, the "Messiah, the Bible, the Church, 
 everything in regard to which God has given us any 
 commandment, or made any requisition upon us— the 
 
802 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 amount of evidence is just what God himself has seen 
 fit to give us. To say then that he has not given us 
 evidence enough to produce conviction — unless we 
 ourselves willfully and wickedly interpose some obsta- 
 cle — " set up some idol in our hearts, or put the 
 stumbling block of our iniquity before our faces " — is 
 either to accuse him of injustice or to impeach his om- 
 niscience. It implies, either that he did not know 
 what evidence would be sufficient, or that he has re- 
 quired us to believe under circumstances, when the 
 best, the wisest, and the healthiest exercise of the fac- 
 ulties he has given us, would be unbeHef 
 
 Now all this is as applicable to the Church as to the 
 Scriptures, or to the Messiah himself 
 
 It is an institution concerning which, as we have 
 seen, God has given us commandments, and made 
 requisitions upon us, and with which he has connected 
 many and precious promises. It must be admitted, 
 therefore, that he has given us the means and oppor- 
 tunities of doing what he thus requires ; and among 
 these, first and foremost, is sufficient evidence of the 
 identity of that Church with which these commands, 
 requisitions, and promises are connected. 
 
 If the evidence is not in itself sufficient, it is the 
 fault of him whose province it was to furnish the evi- 
 dence. It implies that God did not know what would 
 be sufficient, or could not furnish it, or finally, that he 
 was so unjust, to say nothing of his love and mercy, 
 as not to do what he could, and what he knew to be 
 just and necessary. 
 
 Hence the Church. must be an object of faith, and a 
 
THE EFFECTS OF SECTARIANISM. 303 
 
 test of our obedience to God. It has always been so, 
 and such it always must be. We can have no direct 
 intuition, no direct supernatural communication as to 
 the fact. Even in the days of our Lord and the 
 Apostles, when miracles were wrought and supernat- 
 ural gifts conferred, the Church was an object of faith. 
 If Christ was the Son of God, if the Apostles were 
 truly such, if the miracles were genuine, there was in- 
 deed no room to doubt that the society and fellow- 
 ship of the Disciples was the Church and the kingdom 
 of God. But these premises, each of them, were ob- 
 jects that tried the faith of the people of that age. 
 
 Perhaps I cannot better conclude this work, than 
 by some reflections upon the effects of the present di- 
 vided state of Christendom. 
 
 The existence of so many sects or denominations is, 
 from one point of view, at least, an immense evil. And 
 there is no wonder that there is a cry and a demand 
 for union. 
 
 But the existence of these sects or denominations is 
 not wholly an evil. Or at least there is a hopeful side 
 to it. Or, at all events, we may take an optimistic 
 view of the subject and see how God is bringing good 
 out of the evil. 
 
 Our population are of a very mixed character. They 
 have come together from almost all the nations of the 
 earth. And, doubtless, the beliefs and usages, which 
 their ancestors may have been accustomed to in other 
 lands, are a powerful means of influence, even in re- 
 ligious matters. The masses of people do not, and 
 cannot, wholly change, in one generation at least, their 
 
304 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 beliefs and usages. It is well that they cannot. Our '. 
 safety depends upon it in more ways than one. We 
 change for the better only as we grow up to the 
 change. 
 
 In looking at the mass of our population, in one di- 
 rection, as we see them in this country, around us and 
 in our midst, it is very doubtful whether they could 
 be kept up to a fair amount of purity and temperance 
 without compulsory confession. Nor does it seem that 
 these masses could be kept in order and submission to 
 our laws if it were not for the authority of their Priests. 
 And it is doubtful, if even the Priests could do much 
 in this direction, if they were not backed up by the 
 Pope and the belief in his supremacy. 
 
 And something to the same effect, although of quite 
 a different character, may be said of another large 
 section of our population. They have been brought 
 up, here or in their native country, where the idea of 
 the Church was not one that they had imbibed in the 
 ea!rly vocabulary of their domestic lives. Many of them 
 — nay, multitudes of them — had gone from the idea 
 of the Church into that of sectarianism, and thence into 
 unbelief and irreligion. With regard to these persons, 
 it often happens that sectarian preachers have shown 
 special facilities for reaching them that we have not. 
 
 God's ways are often mysterious, and he who sees 
 the end from the beginning often leads his people by 
 a way that they know not to results which are in the 
 end, and when we can look upon them as in the past, 
 seen to be good, and possibly results such as could 
 have been attained in no other way. The nations 
 
THE EFFECTS OF SECTARIANISM. 305 
 
 have much — very much — to learn before they are 
 prepared for the Advent, and the Millenium that most 
 Christians expect in the future. There are always 
 some things that apparently need to be done, which a 
 conscientious and well informed Christian man may 
 well hesitate to undertake. But then, there are al- 
 ways men who have no such scruples. They are 
 often men whom we greatly admire and regard as far 
 superior to ourselves in all kinds of moral excellence. 
 But they see things in a different light from ourselves, 
 and enter upon work that we could not undertake. 
 And then, too, sometimes, the men who engage in 
 such works are selfish, ambitious, unscrupulous — men 
 for whose moral character we can have no respect. 
 And yet God makes use of them for the accomplish- 
 ment of his purposes. 
 
 This principle of God's moral government is very 
 distinctly enunciated by the Prophet Isaiah (x, 5—8), 
 
 " O Assyrian, I will give him charge 
 
 . . . . to take the prey, to tread down nations 
 like the mire in the streets. Howbeit he meaneth not 
 so, neither doth his heart think so, but it is in his 
 heart to destroy and to cut off nations not a few." 
 While thus the King of Assyria was thinking of and 
 intending one thing, God was using him as his instru- 
 ment to accomplish quite another purpose, and one 
 that he had no thought of and no wish to accomplish. 
 
 And it seems to me that our Lord taught the 
 
 same doctrine, though less distinctly perhaps, when 
 
 he administered his rebuke to his disciples, who had 
 
 forbidden some men who were doubtless preaching 
 
 20 
 
306 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 Christ, but followed not them.i He rebuked them : 
 If they preached Him they could not be against Him. 
 Or, as it is in St. Mark " no man that can do a mar- 
 velous work (miracle) in my name, can lightly speak 
 evil of me." They might be mistaken, and doubtless 
 were so, if they did not follow with the chosen twelve, 
 or acknowledge them to be the Apostles ; but they 
 were doing his work, nevertheless, if they were zeal- 
 ous for him. There can be, and there is, no middle 
 ground. " He that is not against us is for us," '' and on 
 our part." They were doubtless speaking of Christ, 
 and thus whether what they said of him was true or not, 
 they were directing attention to him, and the matter 
 was too important to be neglected. It concerned the 
 hopes and the salvation of all men ; and whoever so 
 learned or heard of him was pretty sure, quite sure if 
 he had the right spirit or any moral earnestness to 
 inquire farther into a matter of such a vital importance 
 to his highest welfare, and thus be put in the way to 
 learn the truth. 
 
 There is also a passage in one of the Epistles of St 
 Paul that seems to me quite significant and instructive 
 on this point. In his Epistle to the Philippians he 
 alluded to some (i, i8) "who preach Christ of envy 
 and strife," as well as to those who preach Christ "of 
 good will and of love." But he adds, "What then? 
 Notwithstanding every way, whether in pretense or in 
 truth, Christ is preached, and I therein do rejoice, yea 
 and will rejoice." In either way Christ was made 
 known to the world, and this was a great thing. 
 1 Mark i.N, 38, Luke ix, 49. 
 
THE EFFECTS OF SECTARIANISM. 307 
 
 And if the holy Apostle, could rejoice in the fact 
 that Christ was preached, proclaimed and made known 
 to his fellow men who were perishing in their sins and 
 in their ignorance of the way and means of salvation 
 even though it were by envy and "strife" and with the 
 intent to add " affliction to his bond," we cannot 
 doubt that he could and would much more earnestly 
 rejoice in all the efforts that might be made in good 
 faith, and with the most unquestionable piety and zeal, 
 to make him known who is our only Lord and Saviour, 
 notwithstanding any mistakes in their teachings con- 
 cerning him, and much ignorance or neglect of the 
 means which he has ordained for the extension and 
 and building up of his kingdom. 
 
 But then whatever this state of things may be, it is 
 the state of things in which it has pleased Almighty 
 God to assign us our lot and our work. Every one 
 must do what he sees and thinks best ; and as he sees 
 best ; God will overrule it for good and judge him at 
 last " according to the deeds done in the body." 
 
 I trust, however, that we may now say, with the 
 concurrence of all persons in our statement, that the 
 day has gone by when it is regarded as an unmixed 
 blessing that there are so many different Churches and 
 Sects, so that each may find a view of religion that 
 will suit himself 
 
 It is a solemn and melancholy fact, that in this na- 
 tion, the most enlightened and liberal on the face of 
 the earth — where freedom of thought and the right of 
 private judgment are encouraged as they are no where 
 else — where humanity is left to the most unrestrained 
 
308 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 liberty of development and progress — the proportion 
 of souls that can be regarded as within the covenanted 
 conditions of salvation, is less than in any other por- 
 tion of the Christianized world. Yet the fact is un- 
 deniably so. 
 
 From the very limited means of investigation with- 
 in my reach, I am inclined to think that there is not 
 more than one in ten of our adult population who 
 make a public profession of Christianity, by a regular 
 observance of the stated ordinances required by the 
 denominations to which they may severally belong. 
 In this estimate I include all denominations, of what- 
 ever name or kind ; I include all who call themselves 
 Christians, and not merely those who -would be in- 
 cluded by the rule or standard of any one denomina- 
 tion. For myself, I am unwilling to lay down any 
 standard or test by which to decide at present, who 
 will obtain everlasting salvation. If one asks what he 
 shall do to be saved, I, of course, as my duty requires, 
 have a ready answer affirmatively. And if he does 
 not do it, I can tell him that he has not complied with 
 the conditions of salvation and there my duty and my 
 functions end. 
 
 We are to apt to forget that salvation is of grace, 
 and that the Holy Scriptures were given us — not to 
 be Hke a book of human statutes which we may in- 
 terpret as we will and have our interpretation enforced 
 for us as against the State, But as against God we 
 have and can have no rights. He looketh upon the 
 heart ; and when he sees the disposition to love and 
 obey, we cannot doubt that he will make large allow- 
 
THE EFFECTS OF SECTARIANISM. 809 
 
 ance for mistakes in matters of fact and of detail. 
 " To obey is better than sacrifice," in his estimation. 
 Whereas human law must look chiefly at the outward 
 act and see that that is "according to the law." But 
 these laws exist quite as much for the purpose of 
 defining our rights as against the State itself, as for 
 the purpose of prescribing our duties to the State, and 
 to our fellow citizens in the State. Hence there are 
 courts and we may go into them and have our rights 
 declared and enforced even as against the State itself 
 We are not bound to do anything unless " it is so 
 nominated in the bond." 
 
 But in the concerns of our spiritual Hfe, it is not a 
 matter of "bond" or of statute between our Saviour 
 and ourselves. We have no right and can have none 
 as against him. It is altogether a matter of grace and 
 divine favor. Hence, while we are authorized to say 
 what one ought to do to be saved, we have no author- 
 ity to judge those who choose to neglect some of the 
 obvious duties, because, in their estimation, they are 
 not essential, or are unimportant. 
 
 No; the Gospel is not a mere statute law for each 
 one to interpret in his favor as far as the laws and na- 
 ture of language will permit: it is a message of grace 
 addressed to those who love the Lord and delight to 
 do his will. 
 
 Doubtless reason and conscience are primarily our 
 guide. But we need something higher and more un- 
 erring than our reason and conscience, and this want 
 God has supplied by giving us a Revelation of his will. 
 
 We have two very instructive cases recorded for us 
 
310 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 in the Gospel. The first I have referred to at the be- 
 ginning of this discussion. This poor, humble, but 
 believing woman, had doubtless done all that she 
 had any means of knowing to be necessary ; and she 
 was healed. Or, if we must make an exception, it 
 would be in favor of her modesty and self-distrust. 
 She did not wish to make herself conspicuous — did 
 not, perhaps, even wish to give our Lord so much as 
 the trouble to say a word, that she might be healed. 
 And we can well understand that our Blessed Lord 
 would appreciate such feelings. 
 
 The other case is the thief on the cross. This illus- 
 trates for us, I think, another great principle of the 
 Divine Economy. There was faith and confession of 
 the utmost unworthiness, and whether he knew of any- 
 thing more that had been required, we do not know. 
 But we do know that we have here an open public 
 confession and profession of faith in our Lord and of 
 his ability to save. And we know also that there was 
 then no opportunity for him to do anything more. 
 Baptism and the Holy Eucharist were out of the ques- 
 tion, and we have the blessed words, " this day thou 
 shalt be with me in Paradise." Nor was there any op- 
 portunity for him to recognize the Ministry which our 
 Lord had sent, or to do the other works, meet for re- 
 pentance and as manifesting the holiness of life that 
 becometh the Saints: and yet we cannot doubt that he 
 was saved. 
 
 It is sometimes thought and said that the Ministry 
 at least is not " of the essence of the Church," and 
 even the creeds need not be retained "inform, if only 
 
THE EFFECTS OF SECTARIANISM. 311 
 
 we receive their substance — the truth of the Gospel — 
 as contained and set forth in the Holy Scriptures." 
 These statements are usually accompanied with, and 
 are an outcome of, the doctrine of the continuity and 
 oneness of the Church from the beginning of human 
 history — the time of the fall of man, to the end of 
 time. The Church, it is said, continues, and is one, 
 but there are many Dispensations, the one following 
 another, as the Patriarchal, the Mosaic and the Chris- 
 tian ; and Christianity is but one of the Dispensations. 
 The Church itself, on this theory, consists of the elect 
 or chosen people, who are in covenant relations with 
 God. Under the Mosaic Dispensation it consisted of 
 all the descendants of Abraham by the line of Isaac 
 and Jacob, who had not omitted circumcision, or ne- 
 glected the required sacrifices, and the few converts 
 from the Gentiles. Under the Christian Dispensation it 
 consists of all those who have been elected to be re- 
 ceived as believers by Holy Baptism, and live in com- 
 munion and fellowship with those already elected and 
 admitted. But the Ministry and the Worship are 
 changed, more or less, with each new Dispensation ; 
 and therefore they cannot be essential — or " of the es- 
 sence " of the Church. 
 
 Now there is a sense of the words in which this is 
 true, and these things are not " of the essence" of the 
 Church. They are not essential to it in the same 
 sense as three sides are essential to a triangle. In this 
 sense probably no one thing is essential except, per- 
 haps, covenant relations with God. The doctrines to 
 be believed have changed, by way of addition at least, 
 
312 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 with every succeeding Dispensation. The rites and 
 ceremonies required by the law in each Dispensation, 
 have changed somewhat. And in regard to the Min- 
 istry, we have three stages — the patriarchal, in which 
 every man at the head of a family was priest for the 
 family ; the Mosaic, in which the office of priesthood 
 was limited to the descendants of Levi; and the Chris- 
 tian, in which it appears to have been limited only to 
 persons properly selected and admitted by ordination, 
 by the laying on of hands. 
 
 But our question is not whether these four elements 
 — the Scriptures, the Creeds, the Sacraments, and 
 the Ministry — are essential to the Church, but only 
 whether they are essential to the Christian Church, 
 the Church under the Christian Dispensation, the 
 Church of which our Lord spoke when he said " on 
 this Rock I will build My Church." Doubtless they 
 are not of the essence of the Church, or essential to it 
 in the sense that God cannot change them ; for he hcis 
 replaced circumcision by Baptism, animal sacrifices by 
 the Holy Eucharist, the Levitical or Aaronic priest- 
 hood by the Christian ministry, "the diverse orders." ^ 
 In this we concede that these things are not essential 
 in the sense that God cannot change them. But we 
 must still consider whether we can change them or 
 have any right to change them. Doubtless he who 
 ordained them can change them. But they were 
 ordained for us and for our use, and they were des- 
 tined to extend and last always, even unto the end of 
 the world. Are they not then essential for us if they 
 
 are not so to him ? 
 
 1 1 Cor. xii, 28. 
 
THE EFFECTS OF SECTARIANISM. 813 
 
 Hence if God h as appointed persons to make known 
 liis will and to teach and guide us in the way of life, it 
 is of the utmost importance that we know who they 
 are and what they proclaim and represent to be his 
 will. Of course they may err and we have " the more 
 sure word of prophecy " to serve as our guide. But 
 if he has " sent them " they are his authorized agents. 
 We must not forget that he has on more than one 
 occasion warned us to be on our guard against those 
 who profess to come in his name but whom he has 
 never sent. His ministers are in some sense " ambas- 
 sadors for Christ." St. Paul says so,' and surely no 
 one who expects favor from a Sovereign will treat his 
 duly appointed ministry with disrespect or neglect. 
 
 The abandonment of Sectarianism — and it must 
 be abandoned sooner or later, for a kingdom divided 
 against itself cannot stand — may require much self- 
 denial ; in many cases a severe and protracted strug- 
 gle. But the reader certainly needs not be told that 
 such a struggle may be required by his Saviour. I 
 have the utmost confidence in the good intentions of 
 the vast majority of those whom I believe to be in 
 error. I entertain not the slightest doubt that their 
 salvation may be confidently hoped for through the 
 mercy of the atoning Redeemer. But I do believe 
 that the subject of this book has not been generally 
 presented to their minds and consciences as it admits 
 of being presented, and as it ought to have been. 
 Whether I have done anything towards so desirable 
 an object, is a question which I must leave to others 
 
 to decide. 
 
 1 2 Cor. V. 2a 
 
314 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 The history of the Church for the early centuries 
 will serve, as I think, as a comment on the doctrines 
 and views of the Church and church unity which I 
 have presented. There were in those early centuries 
 sects of almost all possible varieties and opinions. 
 But where are they now ? What has become of 
 them ? As sects or denominations they have no 
 name or place of existence in modern times. They 
 disappeared after a few generations, more or less. 
 
 As sects or organized bodies, outside of the Church, 
 they have long ago ceased to have a name to live. 
 But if we inquire after their members individually — 
 the people that belonged to them — we find that the 
 great mass of them, or their immediate descendants, 
 returned to the Church. Doubtless there were some 
 of them, of whom it may be said as St. John said of 
 some seceders in his time, "they went out from us 
 because they were not of us.i And they went from 
 worse to worse until they died in their unbelief and 
 without hope. But the most of them returned to the 
 communion of the Church. And if there were any 
 families that had descendants that did not return to 
 the Church, those families became extinct long ago 
 with no line of posterity and no name in existence. 
 
 But on the other hand those who became more 
 numerous and continued to exist the longest, gath- 
 ered in a good many who had never before heard of 
 Christ, and who possibly never could have been 
 reached and converted by the true and lawful min- 
 istry of the Church. Nearly all the Goths were at 
 
 first Arians. 
 
 ' I John ii, 19. 
 
THE EFFECTS OF SECTARIANISM. 315 
 
 And these cases raised the questi6n, then as it does 
 now, as to the conditions of their return and readmis- 
 sion. Some of the Fathers, as St. Cyprian and the Afri- 
 can Bishops generally, held that their Baptisms were 
 of no value and ought to be repeated when converts 
 from them came into the Church. But this was not 
 the prevailing view. The view that prevailed was that 
 their Baptisms if duly performed were valid so far as 
 the outward form was concerned and that its spiritual 
 defects, whatever they may have been were remedied 
 by the " the laying on of hands " in confirmation, 
 whenever they came into the Church. ^ 
 
 But in regard to their ordinations they were gener- 
 ally held to be of no value. In some cases, however, 
 those who had been ordained by the schismatic Bish- 
 ops, after their succession, were received on the mere 
 renunciation of their schism. 
 
 The leading design of the merciful dispensations of 
 God to man appears to be, 'to bring back as many as 
 possible, whether from error in religion or viciousness 
 of life, to holiness and submission to his will. In the 
 accomplishment of this work, the Church is the chief 
 visible means and agency. It is the economy of sec- 
 ond causes through which God works. On this, so 
 far as we are permitted to judge, depends its whole 
 value. Doubtless it is intrinsically better adapted 
 to that end than any one differently constituted could 
 be. At least it is a matter of faith to think so. But 
 how well soever it may be adapted to the end, the 
 whole tenor of the Scriptures, no less than many ex- 
 
 1 Bingham's Hist, of Lay Baptism, pt. I, chap. I, § xx. 
 
316 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 
 
 plicit declarations, teach us that membership in it — 
 unless one submits to it, as to the Messenger and Am- 
 bassador of Christ, in meekness, humility and love — 
 will be of no avail. " Christ formed within us," is the 
 grand result at which all its principles, functions and 
 powers are directed. For this an outward organiza- 
 tion was given Sj., and incorporated into the very 
 " foundation that was laid " by Jesus Christ himself, 
 " that there might be no schism in the body ; " for this 
 the elements of its constitution, Baptism and the Lord's 
 Supper, were made channels of grace; for this the 
 Holy Ghost was sent to abide with it forever, and for 
 this, charity — which sufifereth long and is kind, which 
 envieth not, vaunteth not itself; is not puffed up, 
 which doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not its 
 own, is not easily provoked, and thinketh no evil, re- 
 joiceth not in iniquity, beareth all things, believeth all 
 things, hopeth all things, endureth all things, and never 
 fails — is declared to be " the more excellent way," and 
 greater than even " faith and hope." 
 
 Seen in this light, the Church is no mere matter of 
 outward form, or combination of forms It is the liv- 
 ing witness and testimony of God — the sheet anchor 
 of religion. And we enter its communion, not be- 
 cause one or more of the peculiarities of its constitu- 
 tion commend themselves to our judgment, or please 
 our fancy, but because we see, as St. Paul says of the 
 Ministry, that unto it, God has committed the work 
 of reconciliation, and by it, as an Ambassador, Christ 
 comes to us, beseeching us that we be reconciled to 
 God. In its communion we may be trained for the 
 
THE EFFECTS OF SECTARIANISM. 317 
 
 Church and communion above, where schisms and 
 divisions can never prevail, and where we shall see, not 
 as now, through a glass darkly, but face to face, and 
 know even as we are known. Such a view of the 
 subject produces a softening and humiliating effect 
 upon the native hardness of the human heart, and 
 teaches us to renounce our own wilj,.that the will of 
 God may be done ; to become nothing in ourselves, 
 that Christ may the more fully dwell within us, and 
 occupy all the faculties of our mind and soul. And 
 if I shall be found to have done anything tov/ards the 
 accomplishment of such a result, I shall feel myself 
 most amply rewarded for the hours of assiduous toil 
 and prayerful thought which I have taken from other 
 labors to bestow on this. That such may be the re- 
 sult, is my prayer to him who overruleth all events, 
 and uses all things as the agents of His Blessed Will. 
 
 THE END. 
 
W^^^M^^Wf^