A SHORT METHOD
WITH
HIGH-CHURCHMEN.
J
.—_ ——
BY TILE REV. J. E. EVANS, D.D.,
A MEMBER OE THE SOUTH GEORGIA CONFERENCE OF THE METHODIST
EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH.
1
Nasfjbtlle, Cenn.:
PRINTED AT THE SOUTHERN METHODIST PUBLISHING JIOUSE.
A SHORT METHOD
WITH
HIGH-CHURCHMEN.
BY THE REY. J. E. EVANS, D.D.,
A MEMBER OP THE SOUTH GEORGIA CONFERENCE OF THE METHODIST
EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH.
KasptlU, Cenn.:
PRINTED AT THE SOUTHERN METHODIST PUBLISHING HOUSE.
1870.
.A. SHORT METHOD
with
HIGH-CHURCHMEN.
CHAPTER I.
to the reader.
A brief history of the facts which led to this publication is
due to the cause of truth.
Under the circumstances explained in the introduction to
my sermon, herein contained, Bishop Beckwith preached the
sermon to which mine is a response. One additional fact the
truth of history requires to be mentioned. Several candidates
were confirmed at the Presbyterian Church, at the close of the
Bishop's sermon, and among them the son of a Presbyterian.
This, it would seem, was designed to give effect to the Bishop's
effort to induce all other Churches to join the Protestant Epis¬
copal Church; for there had been a confirmation of a member
at the Protestant Episcopal Church in the forenoon of that
day. Why were not these also then and there confirmed ?
As a watchman upon the walls of Zion, I felt it to be my
duty to respond to the Bishop, as will appear in these pages.
The Rev. John Fulton, Rector of the Protestant Episcopal
Church, Columbus, Ga., in a letter to the editor of the Chron¬
icle and Sentinel, dated August 3, 1868, says: "By the
request of Bishop Beckwith, I shall avail myself of your cour¬
tesy to publish weekly, in your Sunday paper, a series of
4 A Short Method with High-churchmen.
letters, addressed to Mr. Evans, on the subject of Christian
Unity, and other matters mooted in his discourse. Though
these letters will appear by the request of Bishop Beckwith,
it is not to be inferred that he is in any sense answerable for
them. He will not even see them till they appear in the
Chronicle." Then followed fourteen letters to the Bev. J. E.
Evans, signed "John Fulton." These letters were subse¬
quently published in pamphlet form. I am informed, by
unquestionable authority, that Bishop Beckwith requested, a gen¬
tleman of reputation as a writer, to revise said letters for publi¬
cation. They were therefore written, revised, and published by
the request of Bishop Beckwith. An intelligent public will
determine whether or not he is " in any sense answerable for
them."
To these letters I made a reply through the Southern Chris¬
tian Advocate, which, with some additions, will also be found
in these pages.
The South Georgia, the Montgomery, and the South Caro¬
lina Annual Conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church,
South, at their late sessions, passed resolutions, in substance
as follows:
Resolved, That the Bev. J. E. Evans, D.D., be requested to
publish, in a more permanent form, his communications on
the Episcopal controversy, which were published in the South¬
ern Christian Advocate.
In compliance with the request of my brethren, I herewith
present this pamphlet, dedicated to the cause of Christian
Unity, as taught by Christ and his apostles.
J. E. Evans.
A >Short Method with High-churchmen.
5
CHAPTER II.
a sermon of rev. j. e. evans, in response to the proposition
of bishop beckwith for all other denominations of chris¬
tians to join the protestant episcopal church, delivered
at st. luke methodist episcopal church, south, in colum¬
bus, ga., may 24, 1868.
"For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body/' 1 Cor. xii. 13.
" From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that
which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure
of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love."
Eph. iv. 16. "That they may be one as we are." John xvii. 11.
At the instance of the Rector of the Protestant Episcopal
Church in Columbus, Ga., the Presbyterian Church was
obtained for Bishop Beckwith Sabbath night, May 3, 1868.
The Rector sent messages to the ministers in charge of other
Churches, who were then in town, (the Baptist and Presbyte¬
rian ministers being absent,) with his kind regards, and a re¬
quest that they and their congregations should hear the Bishop
that night. This was the Bishop's first Episcopal visitation
to our city. Under these circumstances his theme was the
necessity of Christian union. He proceeded to show that Chris¬
tians were divided into various "branches." Some of them
denied both the sacrament of baptism and the Lord's-supper
to the people, some denied baptism to children, some denied
the Supper to all who were not immersed, and some main¬
tained that the Supper was fully taken in the bread or the
wine, one without the other. He dwelt particularly and at
length upon the errors of the Roman Catholic Church in the
fourteen articles of faith, added by the Council of Trent.
Having thus illustrated the divisions of the Church into
various "branches," he proceeded to lay down the following
propositions, to wit:
6
A /Short Method with High-churchmen.
1. The Bible is the Constitution of the Church.
2. Private interpretations of this Constitution—the Bible—
lead to schism, and ought not, therefore, to be countenanced.
3. The Church alone is authorized to interpret the Constitu¬
tion of the Church, and her decisions, as to its meaning, are
binding upon Christians.
I do not pretend to give his words, but simply the purport
of his position, as understood by me and many others who
heard him on that occasion.
He then held up the Protestant Episcopal Church, with her
Apostles' Creed, which all could embrace; with her apostolic
ministry, which even the Catholics admitted to be a true succes¬
sion; with her two sacraments—baptism and the Lord's-supper
—which all receive as sacraments; as the organization to which
all the "branches" might come, and be one Church, and thus
fulfill the prayer of the Saviour for the Church, " that they
may be one as we are one."
I understand the Bishop presented the same view of Church-
union at Macon and at Atlanta. Two other Bishops of the
Protestant Episcopal Church, in a recent conversation with a
friend of mine, presented the same views. From these, and
from indications in other quarters, it appears to be the settled
policy of the Protestant Episcopal Church to induce the mem¬
bers of other Churches to join that Church. The Bishop's
sermon was understoood to be an invitation, upon a broad
scale, to the members of all other Churches to join the Prot¬
estant Episcopal Church. This was done in a candid manner,
and yet in terms and spirit as respectful as such a proposition
could be made to his hearers. It was not an outright invita¬
tion to join them, as we Methodists would open the door of
the Church to admit members; but it was intended to be under¬
stood, and was received, as an invitation to join his Church.
He proposed no common council to settle terms of union as
between equals. He proposed no concessions on the part of
the Protestant Episcopal Church as an advance to meet other
Churches. Not a word of all this. He is for a union of
Christian Churches, but how ? Why, let them all accept the
Apostles' Creed, the apostolical ministry, and the two simple
A Short Method with High-churchmen.
7
sacraments of the Protestant Episcopal Church—i. e., let them
join that Church. It is to this proposition that I respond.
I object to the union of all Christians into one organization,
because it is impracticable.
It is human to differ. We differ on all subjects—on agri¬
culture, on commerce, science, government, and on all ques¬
tions of moment. It is, therefore, utterly impossible to get
every Christian to believe with Bishop Beckwith, that the
Protestant Episcopal Church is " The Church." On the essen¬
tials of salvation—which are few and simple—we must agree,
or be lost; but on the non-essentials we are left free to differ:
on these men always have differed and always will differ.
Moreover, no one organization could manage all the religious
interests of the whole world. The field is too vast for finite
mind. !N"o combinations of human skill have ever proven
competent to govern the world in civil matters, nor can they
ecclesiastically. It is simply an impossibility, and, therefore,
should not be attempted. God alone governs the whole
world: let finite man move in a limited sphere. Again, it
would not be best to commit such vast power to human
hands. The history of all ages demonstrates that the con¬
centration of power in the hands of men, both in Church and
State, tends to corruption and oppression; while the division
and limitation of power and responsibilities act as checks and
balances, and promote purity, efficiency, and the common
good. It would not, therefore, promote the interests of man¬
kind to create such a grand monopoly, ecclesiastical, as the
Bishop proposes to make the Protestant Episcopal Church.
Divine wisdom has so determined: let us not be wise above
what is written.
I object to such a union upon the Bishop's principles,
because it would destroy my distinctiveness as a maw, and con¬
vert me into a mere machine. God made man a thinking,
self-acting, and determining being, and thus distinguished
him from inanimate matter. But to prevent schism, and to
secure a universal union, I must surrender the right of pri¬
vate interpretation of the word of God, and accept the decrees
of Church-councils as the law of my faith and the rule of my
8
A Short Method with High-churchmen.
life. This sinks me to the level of a machine, moved by the
motive-power of the Church. God made me a man, not a
thing. In the name of my manhood, I protest against its
surrender, to build up the Protestant Episcopal Church. The
Bishop's theory of union involves also the destruction of the
principle of moral action. Volition gives moral quality to
human action. The law of God is the only rule of right to
man. It is the willful violation of this law that fixes guilt,
and the voluntary observance of it constitutes virtue. But if I
am denied the right to judge of the meaning of the law, I can
have no volition touching its observance. My obligations, by
the Bishop's hypothesis, are transferred from the law of God
to the decrees of the Church-council. Touching the law of
God, I can have no volition: my volition acts only on the
decisions of the Church. As volition, therefore, is not allowed
to act on the only rule of right and wrong, the principle of
moral action is destroyed by this theory of Church-union.
All personal responsibility is also annihilated by this dogma.
Personal responsibility is a fundamental principle in the
divine government. Good and evil, with their rewards, were
placed before Adam and Eve in the garden of Paradise. The
whole dealing of God with man, from that day to this, as
revealed in his word, has been upon that principle. Ezekiel
says, " The soul that sinneth, it shall die." Paul exclaims,
"Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? To his
own master he standeth or falleth." "But why dost thou
judge thy brother? Or why dost thou set at naught thy
brother ? For we must all stand before the judgment-seat of
Christ." So, then, every one of us shall give an account of
himself to God.
The theory that the Church alone has the right to interpret
the word of God, transfers all this responsibility from the
individual to the Church in her organized action. The Mas¬
ter commands us to "search the Scriptures." Paul says,
" Examine yourselves whether ye be in the faith" let every
man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in
himself alone, and not in another." The great Head of the
Church has fixed our individual responsibility to him, and has
A Short Method with High-churchmen. 9
given lis his word as the law of our conduct. "We are not at
liberty to transfer it to the Church, nor has the Church the
right to assume this responsibility for us.
Ho such external unity as the Bishop proposes is enjoined
in the Bible.
We could not reasonably expect to find such a contradic¬
tion of its own teachings as to require a Church-union at the
sacrifice of volition and personal responsibility. But "to the
law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this
word, it is because there is no light in them."
The first external organization of the Church was under the
Levitical economy. This was a politico-ecclesiastical organiza¬
tion—a union of Church and State. King Rehoboam was the
son and successor of Solomon. He rejected the counsels of the
old men, and, governed by the young men of his kingdom, he
made his administration one of great oppression. The Ten
Tribes, under the lead of Jeroboam, revolted. Rehoboam
was preparing to pursue and force them to submission, when
the Lord commanded him: "Thus saith the Lord, Ye shall
not go up, nor fight against your brethren the children of
Israel: return every man to his house; for this thing is from
me." 1 Kings xii. 24. This division of the Church was
never healed. The separation continued; and some of the
most prominent of the prophets—among whom were Elijah
and Elisha—belong to the separatists.
Christ rebukes this exclusive centralizing spirit in the apos¬
tles. "And John answered and said, Master, we saw one cast¬
ing out devils in thy name; and we forbade him, because he
followeth not with us. And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him
not; for he that is not against us is for us." Luke ix. 49,
50. "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold,"
says Christ. John x. 16.
The first council held by the apostles (Acts xv.) was to con¬
sider a question of external rites ; and it was settled in favor of
the non-conformists. The canon adopted and sent by Barna¬
bas and Silas to the Gentile converts was in these words:
"For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay
upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
10 A /Short Method with High-churchmen.
that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood,
and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which
if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well." The
succession of circumcision, for which the Jewish converts con¬
tended, was placed among the non-essentials of Christianity.
The different Churches were evidently independent in their
ecclesiastical government; and they are, therefore, separately
addressed as such by the Apostle St. Paul in his Epistles.
So, also, in the last message of the great Head of the Church
by St. John to the Seven Churches of Asia, each is addressed
separately and distinctly. Mosheim says: " The Churches in
those early days were entirely independent; none of them
being subject to any foreign jurisdiction, but each governed
by its own rules; for, though the Church founded by the
apostles had this particular deference shown to them, that
they were consulted in difficult and doubtful cases, yet they
had no juridical authority, no sort of supremacy of the others,
nor the least right to make laws for them. Hor does there
even appear, in the first century, the smallest trace of that
association of provincial Churches from which councils and
metropolitans derive their origin. It was only in the second
century that the custom of holding councils commenced in
Greece, whence it soon spread through other provinces."
ISTor does it appear that from the days of the apostles till
now there ever existed a single Church-organization control¬
ling all the world of believers.
The Latin and Greek Churches were always independent
of each other, though maintaining friendly relations till about
the eighth century, when these relations were interrupted and
finally broken off by the mutual expulsion of each by the
other. The Church of England was independent of both the
Latin and the Greek Churches till the sixth century, when she
was gradually merged into the Latin Church, only to sepa¬
rate under Henry VIII. in the sixteenth century.
The Baptists claim a line of independent Churches back to
the days of the apostles.
The Lutherans separated from Rome in the sixteenth cen¬
tury. Subsequently the Methodists organized into a distinct
A Short Method with High-churchmen.
11
Church, and the Protestant Episcopal Church in America is
distinct in her government from the Church of England, and
in some respects widely different.
The history of the Church, as given in both the Old and
Hew Testaments, and interpreted in the practice of every age
to the present, demonstrates that Christ and his apostles did
not command all Christians to form one external organization.
Hor is this injunction to he found in the doctrine of the
New Testament, as embodied in my text: " By one Spirit are
we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gen¬
tiles, whether we be bond or free."
This passage shows that it is by the renewing of the Holy
Ghost, being made partakers of the divine nature, we are
constituted members of the body of Christ, which is his Church.
"From whom the whole body fitly joined together, and com¬
pacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the
effectual working of the measure of every part, maketh
increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love."
Here is the description of the Church's external organism
into one body. "From whom"—Christ, the Head—the whole
body must be fitly joined. The Church has but one Head,
and all the members must have a living union with their
Head. Moreover, there must be a union of the body in its
parts; and these parts must be fitly joined; for " God hath
set the members, every one of them in the body as it hath
pleased him." "If the whole body were an eye, where were
the hearing ? If the whole were hearing, where were the smell¬
ing ?" " But now are they many members, yet but one body;
and the eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need of thee;
nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you."
This figure shows diversity in unity: separate and distinct
parts, but one whole—illustrating the individuality of the
membership of the Church, the functions to be filled, and
the various sections of the body of Christ, all united to the
Head by the Holy Ghost, and to one another. This union is
to be strong, compacted together by that which each joint
supplieth. How strongly are the various parts of the body
united at the joints ! This is effected by "the effectual work-
12
A Short "Method with High-churchmen.
ing of the measure of every part." The Head furnishes a
living, vital union; and each member must work his part,
and unite to the Head by a living faith in Christ. Each
member must love his brother, and thus work the measure
of his part of the union of the body. And he must fill the
place assigned him in the Church—fitly joined. Let him not
aspire to be the eye, when the foot is his place; let him not
claim to be the whole body, while he is simply an humble
member of it.
Christ is the Head of the Church. One great division of
the body is to be found on the side of Moses and the proph¬
ets ; another on the side of the apostles, and the Christians
of all ages from their day. This division of the body is made
up of the Latin, the Greek, the Protestants, and all of every
name who have been baptized into the body by the "one
Spirit." So that "we are one body, but many members,"
and each has his own work to do.
That this is the true view of Church-unity, is manifest from
the Saviour's prayer, that his people '■'■may be one as we are."
He and his Father were one in nature: so must all Christians
be created anew, after the image of Him that created them,
"having escaped the corruption that is in the world through
lust."
They were one in concert of effort for the salvation of the
children of men. The Father so loved the world that he gave
his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him
should not perish, but have everlasting life. And the Son
"gave his life a ransom for many;" for "he is the propitia¬
tion for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the sins of the
whole world." And to extend this figure to the third person
in the Godhead, the Holy Ghost is also one in nature and in
concert of effort to save men. He applies and "witnessetli
with the blood that we are born of God." ^
Here is the model of Church-unity. But is it in such form
as to destroy the individuality and personality of either of the
persons in the Godhead? Or does it in the least interfere
with their separate spheres of action ? The Son makes the atone¬
ment, and pleads the cause of guilty man before the Throne;
A JShort Method with High-churchmen. 13
"but it is the Holy Ghost that enlightens, convicts, renews, sanc¬
tifies, testifies of pardon, comforts, and keeps the child of God,
through faith unto salvation, ready to be revealed in the" last
time. The prayer of the Saviour precludes the idea of such a
oneness as destroys the various branches of the Christian Church;
but it teaches oneness in nature, feeling, motive, purpose,
and effort, with distinct individuality of operation. Let, then,
the various branches of the Church see to it, that they have
the Spirit of Christ, and act in their ,sphere in concert for the
salvation of the world.
It is, therefore, clear to my mind, that the Bishop's propo¬
sition to have the Protestant Episcopal Church absorb all
other branches of the Church into its organization, is both
impracticable and antiscriptural.
But were a universal Church both practicable and scrip¬
tural, I could not accept the Protestant Episcopal Church as
the organic form of such union.
The line of argument presented by Bishop Beckwith
would necessarily carry me to the Roman Catholic Church
for the true Church-organization. He maintained, in the
sermon to which I now respond, that the Bible is the Con¬
stitution of the Church; that private interpretation leads to
schism, and should not therefore be allowed; that the author¬
ized decisions of the Church are the only true interpretations of
this Constitution—the Bible—and therefore binding on all
Christians. What is this but Romanism? The right of
private judgment is denied us, and the decisions of Church-
. councils proclaimed to be the only true exposition of the
Bible. Hoes not this involve the infallibility of the Church ?
Private interpretation leads to schisms; therefore the canons
of Church-councils must not be questioned. What right,
under this rule, had the Church of England to protest against
Romanism, and the fourteen additional articles of faith enacted
by the Council of Trent? Was not this the authorized inter¬
pretation of the Bible—the Constitution of the Church—by
the Church ? By what authority did the Church of England
protest? Hoes not the word "protest" indicate the right of
private judgment in the minority to call in question the
14 A Short Method with High-churchmen.
doings of the majority? Majorities never protest—it is the
minority. Is not the Church of England, and, by conse¬
quence, the Protestant Episcopal Church in this country,
under the Bishop's rule of action, a schism ? Had not Mr.
Wesley as much right to protest against the ritualism and
worldliness of the Church of England as she had to protest
against the unscriptural dogmas of Romanism ? If the right
of private judgment is schism, and schism is sin, I cannot
leave one schism to unite with another. I am forced to Rome
if I adopt the Bishop's principles. This is the legitimate and
necessary result of his dogma; and the truth of this statement
is being illustrated daily in the history of his own Church.
The Rev. Mr. Ellis, one of the Rectors of the Protestant
Episcopal Church in Nashville, Tenn., in a sermon recently
preached by him, says: "No one can study the history of our
own Church, from the time of the Oxford Tracts, without
seeing that there has been every year a great increase in
Romish doctrines and practices. . . . And even as it is now,
we are, in and out of our Communion, legitimating doctrines,
and encouraging thoughts and feelings, which predispose
people to go to Rome." Therefore, as the Bishop is no friend
to Romanism, he will excuse me for rejecting principles that
would carry me to Rome. But as I do not adopt the Bishop's
dogma touching the right of private judgment, as to the
meaning of the word of the Lord, it is but fair to consider
the claims of the Protestant Episcopal Church, upon its own
merits, as an organization for a universal Church.
That she protested against the errors of old Mother Rome,
is no objection to me. She did right. May she ever maintain
the faith of the fathers, and protest on, and protest ever,"
against the antiscriptural dogmas of Catholicism! "For
every man must give an account of himself to God." But
I have several objections to the Protestant Episcopal Church,
some of which I proceed to state.
The Protestant Episcopal Church magnifies external organi¬
zation into an essential to salvation; thus limiting the divine
power to save men, and greatly imperiling human salvation.
I am aware that there is a High and a Low-church party in
A Short Method with High-churchmen. 15
the Protestant Episcopal Church. I believe the High-church
to be the controlling party in the Church, both in England
and America. I shall therefore treat of the principles of
the Church as embraced by that party. "With this rule
of ascertainment, we find the Church holds the doctrine:
1st. That apostolic succession of ordination by Bishops is
essential to the gospel ministry. 2d. That such a ministry only
has authority to administer the sacraments of baptism and
the Lord's-supper. 3d. That spiritual regeneration is received
only in water baptism when thus administered. 4th. That the
merits of the atonement are received through the sacrament
of the Supper, only when administered by such a successor of
the apostles.
Archbishop "Whately, late Primate of Ireland, is said to
bfe one of the most learned and thoroughly-read divines of
his day; and upon this subject he says: "The sacramental
virtue—for such it is that is implied, whether the term be
used or not, in the principle I have been speaking of—that
is dependent on the imposition of hands, with a due observ¬
ance of apostolic usages, by a Bishop himself duly conse¬
crated, after having been in like manner baptized into the
Church and ordained deacon and priest—this sacramental
virtue, if a single link of the chain be faulty, must, on the
above principles, be utterly nullified ever after, in respect of
all the links that may hang on that one. . . . The poisonous
taint of informality, if once crept in undetected, will spread
the infection of nullity to an indefinite and irremediable
extent."
Such is Archbishop Whately's statement of the doctrine of
apostolic-successional-sacramental virtue. I do not overstate
the case, then, when I object that the Protestant Episcopal
Church makes external organization—i. e., apostolical succes¬
sion of ordination—essential to salvation. There can be no
regeneration without it; nor can the saving benefits of the
atonement be appropriated but through this channel. If
any doubt that the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is the
doctrine of the Protestant Episcopal Church, I refer them to
the forms of baptism in the Prayer-book, where the child
16
A Short Method with Highrchurchmen.
and the adult are declared "to he regenerate" after baptism;
and the prayer is that they "may lead the rest of their life
according to this beginning." I also refer them to the stand¬
ard Episcopal authors, and to the Bishop of the Diocese, and
the Rector of this Parish.
This doctrine limits the divine power to save men. It shuts
God up to the agency of apostolical succession—he can use no
other. The Holy Ghost himself cannot create the soul anew
without a successor to pour the water upon the subject, or to
dip him in it. "What, then, is to become of the millions even in
Christendom, to say nothing of the heathen, who have never
had access to this ministry ? Has Christ suspended the bene¬
fits of his death upon such contingencies ? Has he thus
limited his power to save the purchase of his blood ? Has
he placed my salvation in the keeping of my fallen fellow-
men ? Hay, verily. The Master said to his troubled disciples,
"If I go I will send the Comforter." He came on the day of
Pentecost. It is his work to enlighten, to convict of sin, to
help to believe, to create anew in Christ Jesus, to witness our
adoption, to sanctify, to comfort, and to keep us unto the end.
The Holy Spirit q^^od often performs his work independ¬
ently of all aid from phurch-orders. The enlightenment and
conviction of man 'for sift, is universal. "And when he is come,
he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of
judgment." John xvi. 8. "For the grace of God that bring-
eth salvation hatji appeared to all men." "Which show the
work of the law written in their hearts"—i. e.; the heathen,
the Gentiles.
Pardon and regeneration have also been received without
water baptism. St.. Paul was converted, received his sight,
and was filled with the Holy Ghost, before he arose and was
baptized. Cornelius and his company received the Holy
Ghost while Peter was preaching; "insomuch that they of
the circumcision were astonished." Then answered Peter
and said, " Can any man forbid water that these should not
be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as
we?" Here are clear cases of the renewing of the Holy
Ghost before water baptism, even in apostolic measure, "as
A Short Method ivith Higji-churchmen. 17
well as we." If it has "been in one case, it may be in a thou¬
sand. Baptism is but the outward sign of the inward grace
already received. For it is "not by works of righteousness
which we have done, but according to his mercy, he saved us,
by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy
Ghost." Christ tasted death for every man; and the Holy
Ghost is ready to apply to all, and witness with the blood
that they are born of God. The atonement cost too much,
and the world needs its personal application too much, to
commit it to human hands. This work Christ specially turns
over to his equal, the Holy Spirit of God. " If I go, I will
send himand "he shall glorify me; for he shall receive of
mine, and shall show it unto you."
The theory of apostolical succession, therefore, limits God's
power to save men, contrary alike to the word of God, human
reason, and the best interests of mankind.
I now proceed to show how it greatly imperils human salva¬
tion.
This theory requires that all the links of the succession
chain should be complete, or the saving virtue cannot' pass.
In the language of Archbishop Whately^ " The poisonous
taint of informality, if once crept in undetected, will spread
the infection of nullity to an indefinite and irremediable
extent."
Let us take up this chain and examine its links, to see if
they are perfec|.
But the first difficulty we meet is, that we can find no
authorized chain at all. There is no explicit command in the
Bible for any succession of the order of Bishops above and
distinct from Presbyters; nor is there any clearly-implied direc¬
tion to this end. ,
Our second difficulty is, that no such chain can be found,
based upon any authority whatever. But, as the friends of
this dogma claim both divine authority, and the chain, we
must examine what they present as a chain.
They present simply a list of Bishops successively in office,
but do not assume to give a record of successive ordinations.
The ordination is the vital point in this theory; but of this
2
18
A Short Method with High-churchmen.
they can produce no record. In the language of Bishop
Elliott, they say, "We can give name by name, Bishop after
Bishop, until we touch St. John at Ephesus, and St. James
at Jerusalem, and St. Mark at Alexandria." But in the
absence of all official record of this chain of ordinations, they
are forced to rely upon the testimony deduced from the laws
and customs of the Church. The argument is, the laws and
customs of the Church required Bishops to be ordained by
Bishops; and, as they were Bishops, ergo they were ordained.
Let us examine this testimony.
1st. The most that can be said for it is, that it is inferential;
it is not positive testimony—a vital question is m^d,e to rest
on second-class testimony.
2d. But the ground on which the inference rests' lp assumed,
and is not true.
. There is no law in the Bible directing a form and service
for the ordination of Bishops distinct from Priests, or Elders.
The apostles held but one general council, and that was about
the succession of circumcision, which was settled adversely to
the successionists; but they passed no canon rgspecting the •
ordination of Bishops. There was no general council after
the days of the apostles till about the middle of the second
century; and the first canon on the subject was enacted about
the close of that century. This required three Bishops to
ordain a Bishop. But Mosheim and other historians inform,
us that there was no distinction at that time between a Bishop
and a Presbyter as to order, the only difference being that a
Bishop was the pastor of a congregation—just the difference
there is between a traveling and local elder in the Methodist
Episcopal Church, South; so that this canon proves nothing
concerning the ordination of Bishops as a distinct order above
Elders.
For two hundred years, then, we find no law or custom
authorizing and ordaining a distinct order of Bishops above
that of Elders in the Church. If, then, the first links in the
chain are wanting, it is all worthless as a rope of sand.
But to pass over this defect. If the law and custom had
been specific in these early times, and down to the sixth
A Short Method with High-churchmen.
19
century, the state of matters, both civil and religious, for a
thousand years, down to the days of Luther and Calvin, was
such as to render it highly improbable that these laws and
customs toere observed in every instance. Indeed, we have posi¬
tive tegtimony that they were not. I quote again from Arch¬
bishop Whately, because he is Episcopal authority of a high
order. Upon this point he says: " There is not a minister
in all Christendom who is able to trace up, with any
approach to certainty, his own spiritual pedigree.
And who can undertake to pronounce that during that long
,^period, usually designated as the dark ages, no such taint was
ever introduced ? Irregularities could not have been wholly
excluded without a perpetual miracle; and that no such
miraculpus 'interference existed, we have even histogMeal
proof' of the greatest irregularities in respect of dis&pSfife
and form." We read of Bishops consecrated when mqafeJihil-
dren; of mdn officiating who barely knew their letters-.; of
prelates expelled and j^tners put in their places by violence;
of illiterate and prq$i|gg;e laymen, habitual drunkards, admit¬
ted to hojy orders^ȣira, in short, of the prevalence of every
kind of disorder and reckless disregard of the decency which
the apostle enjoins. . . . The ultimate consequence must
be, that one'J^ho sincerely believes that his right to the bene¬
fits of the gospel covenant depends on his own minister's
claim to the sacramental virtue of ordination, and this again,
as above described, must be involved in proportion as he reads,
inquires, and reflects, and reasons on the subject, in the most dis¬
tressing doubts and perplexity." Such is the language of
Archbishop Whately, of the Church of England, in Ireland.
The learned 'historian, Macaulay, says: "ISTow it is probable
that qo clergyjnan in the Church of England can trace up
his spiritual genealogy from Bishop to Bishop, even as far
back as the time of the Reformation. There remain fifteen
or sixteen hundred years, during which the history of the
transmission of his orders is buried in utter darkness; and
whether he be a priest by succession from the apostles, depends
on the question whether, during that long period, some thou¬
sands of events took place, any one of which may, without
20
A Short Method with High-churchmen.
any gross improbability, be supposed not to have taken place.
We bave not a tittle of evidence to any one of these events.
. . . In the utter absence of all particular evidence, we
are surely entitled to require that there should be very strong
evidence, indeed, that the strictest regularity was observed
in every generation, and that Episcopal functions were exer¬
cised by none who were not Bishops by succession from the
apostles. But we have no such evidence. But, on the other
hand, we read of the Sees of the highest dignity openly sold;
transferred backward and forward by popular tumult; bestowed
sometimes by a profligate woman on her paramour; some¬
times by a warlike baron on his kinsman still a stripling.
"We read of Bishops of ten years old; of Bishops of five
years old; of many Popes who were mere boys, and who
rivaled the frantic dissoluteness of Caligula."
Mosheim sustains these general statements, and, speaking
of the state of things in the tenth century, says: " Elections
of Bishops and Abbots were no longer adjusted by theMwsof
the Church; but kings and princes, or their minister^ and
favorites, either conferred these ecclesiastical dignities ujJpn
their friends and creatures, or sold them without shame to the
highest bidder. . . . Upon several occasions even soldiers, civil
magistrates, and courts, were, by a strange mqtamorphosis,
converted into Bishops and Abbots."
Such is authentic history of the laws and customs of the
Church upon which the advocates of apostolical succession
rely in proof of their dogma. In the language of Archbishop
Whately, "It is inconceivable tfyt any one, even moderately*
acquainted with history, can feel a certainty, or any approach
certainty, amidst all this confusion and corruption."
But if, by possibility, all the links of this apostolical chain
had been preserved down to the organization of the Church
of England, how does the matter stand then ?
Henry the VIII. became enamored with Anne Boleyn, and
desired of the Pope a divorce from Queen Catharine. i The
Pope did not like openly to refuse the King, and yet he was
not willing to grant his request. Henry had but recently
written a review of Luther's book, " The Captivity of Baby-
A Short Method with High-churchmen. 21
Ion," in defense of the Seven Sacraments, for which the Pope
had conferred on him the title of the " Defender of the Faith."
The Pope, though the friend of the King, delayed to act on
the question. Henry applied to the Archbishop of Canterbury,
and obtained a divorce. The Pope condemned both the
Bishop and the King. Whereupon Henry repudiates the
authority of the Pope, puts away Catharine, and takes to
himself Anne Boleyn; and is proclaimed by Parliament the
Supreme Head of the Church. This was the organization of the
Church of England, as a distinct Church from the Roman
Catholic Church. Methodism invites a comparison of mm,
motipes, and causes, which induced her to separate from the
Church of England, with those which influenced that Church
t@ separate from Rome.
I, .Cardinal Pole, the last Romish Archbishop of the English
\,|^UTen^died Kov. 17, 1558. He was succeeded by the Prot-
viestant Archbishop, Matthew Parker. Here the succession in
the Church of England and of the Protestant Episcopal Church
in America begins. The question is, did the succession pass
» from the Romish into the English Church at this point ?
It was then, and is still denied, that Parker was ever
ordained Bishop at all. The successionists claim that he was
ordained by Bishop Barlow. It was then, and is still denied,
that Bishop Barlow was ever ordained a Bishop. I am not
aware that the records of their ordination have ever been pro¬
duced in an authentic form. To say the most for it, there is
uncertainty as to these ordinations.
But if this was settled beyond a question, by what Authority
did Bishop Barlow ordain Bishop Parker? If he ever had
any at all, he receded it from the Roman C&fchblie Church.
And yet he and Parker had both been excommunicated from
the Catholic Church long before the time in which this ordina¬
tion is said to have occurred.
If„ therefore,, Parker ever had been ordained a priest, and
Baftpw a Bishop, the orders conferred had been withdrawn by
the same authority that conferred them, and neither had the
right to confer or receive the order of Bishop. The Protestant
- Episcopal Church expelled Bishop Ives and suspended the
22
A Short Method with High-churchmen.
Onderdonks : had they the right to ordain a Bishop ? Most
certainly not. By what authority, then, does Barlow transfer
the apostolical succession to Parker?
Finally, upon the succession. It is a fact well established
by history, that during the dark ages, the office of Bishop was
obtained j.n some instances by force of arms, and in others by
bribery. Does apostolical succession pass through either of
these channels ? Would not an ordination obtained by either
violence or bribery be null and void, ? If so, would not all
others that descended from such Bishop, be also null and void ?
If it is maintained that such orders ar£ valid, then may any
man become a Bishop by force or by money. If it is valid in
one case, it is in all. If such ordinations are valid, then is
apostolical succession perpetuated by force and corruption.
If they are not valid, there is no succession; for if it ever
existed, force and corruption have severed the chain.
I therefore maintain that the doctrine of apostolical suc¬
cession makes external organism essential to salvation, limits
the Divine power to save men, and puts the salvation of men
in the most extreme peril. Who, upon this theory, can be cer¬
tain of his salvation ? Who knows that every link in the
succession chain, down to him, is perfect ? If this hypothesis
be true, then is every man forced, with the poet, to exclaim—
" Who can resolve the doubt
That tears my anxious breast ?
Shall I be with the damned cast out,
Or numbered with the blest ?"
Ay, more ! The almost certainty is, that the chain, if it
ever existed, is broken. " Who, then, can be saved f" According
to this theory, Christ has parted with his original right to call
and send out men to preach his gospel; arid those to whom
this sacred trust was committed have proven unfaithful to that
trust, and the whole scheme of redemption is a failure. Such
is apostolical succession !
I rejoice to assure you, my readers, that "we have a more
sure word of prophecy, whereunto ye do well that ye take
heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the
day dawn and the day-star arise in your hearts." The veil of
A JShort Method with JHigh-churchmen. 23
the temple was rent in twain at the crucifixion of Christ, and
the way into the holy of holies opened to the people. "Let us,
therefore, come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may
obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need." "For
there is one God, and one mediator between God and men,
the man Christ Jesus." Through Christ, the way to God is
direct to every soul of man ; and through him the Holy Ghost
enlightens, sanctifies, and saves men. Christ has instituted
the Church to help men to God, and not to defeat their salva¬
tion, or to prevent the salvation of those who are denied the
privilege of the living ministry. " Look unto me, and be ye
saved, all'the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is
none else," says the blessed Master. Let us look to Christ,
and not to bishops, priests, and sacraments, for salvation.
This succession never can be broken. " His mercy endureth
forever." " Thy kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and thy
dominion endureth throughout all generations." There can
be no break in the links of this chain.
Having disposed of my first grand objection to the Protest¬
ant Episcopal Church, arising out of the savings virtue she
attaches to apostolical succession, I now proceed to notice
some two or three others.
I object to the Protestant Episcopal Church as not suited
to a universal Church, because I conceive her standard of
practical and experimental piety to be below that enjoined in
the Bible. You will understand me as speaking of the Church
as a Church, and not of its individual members. I intend no
unkind reflections in making this objection. I entertain no
unkind feelings for a human being. I know there are many
devotedly pious members in the Protestant Episcopal Church,
in the ministry and the laity; but it is with the Church-stand¬
ard I now have to do.
I understand it to be held by the Church that social danc¬
ing, circuses, theaters, modern opera, the race-course, card-
playing, and, in a word, indulging in the ordinary amuse¬
ments of the world, in which the irreligious seek their enjoy¬
ment and pastime—yea, all this is consistent with Christian
character. There are exceptions to this rule, I know. But is
24
A Short Method with High-churchmen.
not this the rule on this subject in the Protestant Episcopal
Church? I should rejoice to find that I was mistaken. But
certainly I am not as to the Protestant Episcopal Church in
Columbus, Ga. This view of Christianity, it seems to me, is
in conflict with both the general tenor and the specific teach¬
ings of the word of God. From Genesis to Revelation, the
Scriptures teach that Christianity is designed to make man a
new creature; that by nature he is earthly, sensual, and devil¬
ish ; and that he must be crucified to the world and the world
to him—made separate from sinners. The grandeur of the
scheme of salvation is an argument a 'priori. God is mani¬
fest in the flesh; Christ is crucified; the Holy Ghosf is given;
the Church is organized, and the living ministry appointed—
the united, Triune God seems to be moving on some grand
mission. Man is the theater of action. It is to bring him
back to God. Does not all this wafaant the conclusion that
some marked change is to be wrought in man—that he is to
be lifted up to communion with God again ? Is mixing with
the world, in its pursuit after earthly joys, consistent with the
divine purposes as indicated in these mighty movements for
human redemption and salvation ?
The specific teachings of the Bible illustrate more fully
these general indications.
"Moses stood in the gate of the camp and said, "Who is on
the Lord's side? let him come unto me." And the great
apostle said: " What concord hath Christ with Belial ? . . .
What agreement hath the temple of God with idols ? for ye
are the temple of the living God. . . . Wherefore come
out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord,
and touch not the unclean thing, and I will receive you. . . .
And be not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed
by the renewing of your mind." "Ye are the light of the
world," says Christ. "Let your light so shine before men,
that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father
which is in heaven." There is a marked distinctiven&ss in the
Christian's outward character, according to these teachings,
which does not comport with the pursuit of the pleasures of
the world. "All my springs are in thee," said the Psalmist.
A Short Method with High-churchmen. 25
Moreover, the standard of experimental piety, according to
the teachings of the Protestant Episcopal Church, is equally
defective. Indeed, this is the spring from which flows this
conformity to the world.
While the Church "teaches the general doctrine of ultimate
holiness a snecessary to salvation in heaven, she denies the
doctrine of a conscious sense of sins forgiven, and of the new birth,
and maintains that it is injurious to piety to entertain the
idea that you are born again. Conversion, as understood by
evangelical Christians, is not only denied, but ridiculed by
some of the "successors of the apostles." What do they do
with the*conversion of Paul, and his experience, often told
before kings and judges ? Did he not have a conscious sense
of pardon and of the new birth? "He was filled with the
Holy Ghost." The nature of the work—"Marvel not that I
said unto thee, ye must be born again"—is such as necessarily
involves our consciousness. Mark the figures of Scripture on
this subject: "Crucified with Christ;" "risen with him;"
"created anew;" "partakers of the divine nature;" "the
body of sin destroyed." Are these the words of the Lord?
Are they used to convey ideas to the mind of the gracious
change produced upon our moral nature ? Then is it utterly
impossible for such a change to pass upon man without a
conscious sense of it.
The explicit teachings of the Book proclaim that we may
know this grace. " Then shall we know, if we follow on to
know the Lord." "If any man will do his will he shall
know of the doctrine." "I know that my Redeemer liveth,"
said Job. And Paul exclaims, "I know whom I have
believed. . . . Knowing this, that our old man is cruci¬
fied with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed. . . .
The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are
the children of God."
In the light of the Bible, we must insist, therefore, on a
conscious sense of the pardon of sins, and of being born again,
as the birthright of the Christian. And to those who have it
not the words of the apostle are addressed: "For when for the
time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach
26
A Short Method with High-churchmen.
you again which, be the first principles of the oracles of
God."
It was for preaching and professing to live up to this doc¬
trine that the Wesleyans were persecuted by the Church of
England into a separate Church-organization. And while
the leaven of the truth maintained by the Wesleyans has
leavened many of the ministers and members of that Church,
both in England and America, still the Church itself holds to
her first principles upon this subject. We cannot, therefore,
accept her platform for a universal Church.
Again, I object to the economy of the Protestant Episcopal
Church as not adapted to the spread of the gospel.
The apostolic commission is, " Go ye into all the world
and preach the gospel to every creature." An apostolical
Church must, therefore, be adapted to this end. The dogma
of apostolical succession necessarily restricts the extension of
the blessings of the gospel. Her forms of worship, while they
suit minds of a particular cast, are not adapted to the masses
of the people, and prevent Church-advancement. This is
illustrated in the progress of the Church. Her operations
and increase are confined mainly to the cities, towns, and
populous communities. The Church is coexistent with
Georgia, and she now only numbers twenty-two ministers
and not quite twenty-four hundred members; while "the
Sects," and "Societies," as they call the other Churches,
number about two hundred thousand communicants. Then
there must be a want of motive-power as well as organic adapt-
edness. Paul says, "Eor our gospel came not unto you in
word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in
much assurance." The experiment of the Protestant Epis¬
copal Church in this country does not commend it to my
judgment as an organism best suited to spread the gospel
throughout the world.
Finally, the divisions in the Protestant Episcopal Church
constitute an objection to her as an organization for the union
of all Christians at this time. It is not to be concealed that,
both in Europe and America, there are serious divisions in
the Episcopal Church, which the best friends of the Church
A Short Method with High-churchmen.
27
fear will eventuate in rending the body. There are at least
three distinct parties: 1st. The Tractarians, who are in
deep sympathy with Rome. 2d. The Iligh-churchmen, who
still fight against Rome. 3d. The Evangelical Episcopalians,
who hold that, while they prefer Episcopal ordination, it is
not essential to a Church or to a Christian ministry. On
this subject the Rev. Mr. Ellis, Rector of Christ Church,
Hashville, Tenn., holds the following language: " One party
wishes to effect what all must admit would be an essential
change in our Church—to reintroduce the precise dogmas
and practices, the removal of which was the very aim of the
Reformation. . . . The other party, animated by the
same idea—the same governing principles which moved the
Reformers—labor that the very same identical spirit shall
ever breathe in her formularies and govern all her conduct."
Again he says, "I warn those in the Church who say peace,
that there can be no peace." He maintains that the Ritual¬
ists are the aggressive party, and that they must and will be
met. The Tyng difficulty in Hew York illustrates the truth
of our assumption. Indeed, no well-informed Churchman
will deny that there are serious divisions in the Protestant
Episcopal Church.
In this state of things, it seems to me to be wise to wait
till these conflicting forces are harmonized, lest the foreign
element introduced might increase the centrifugal, rather
than the centripetal forces, and thus precipitate another
schism, instead of promoting a universal union.
The imperfect examination I have been able to make in
the space of time allowed me for a discussion of the founda¬
tion of the Protestant Episcopal Church, discovers that it is
not well suited to so large a building as the Bishop proposes.
I prefer the foundation "stone which the builders disal¬
lowed," but which has become "the head of the corner."
But allow me to say, in conclusion, I do not believe God
ever designed that his believing children should all be united
under one external organization. While it is reasonable that
I should believe Methodism to be the Church-organization of
all others most suited to help man to be good, and to carry
28 A Short Method with High-churchmen.
the gospel to all people, still I have no idea that the end of
the gospel would he best subserved by all believers joining
the Methodist Episcopal Church.
I believe the cause of God may be promoted by the subdi¬
vision of the Church into various external organizations,
furnishing an opportunity to every member to be fitly joined
to the body. Some prefer to be Episcopalians, some Meth¬
odists, some Baptists, some Presbyterians, and some prefer
other denominations—let every one be fitly joined, where the
doctrines, forms, and economy suit him best; but let all
be united together, and to the Head, Jesus Christ; and be
one as Christ and his Father are one—one in nature, having
all been made "partakers of the divine nature," by "the
renewing of the Holy Ghost;" one in united effort to save men:
the Father gave his Son; the Son gave his life; the Holy
Ghost sanctifies the soul. Neither is jealous of the other,
nor seeks to monopolize the whole work, or to absorb the
other. The Father is not jealous of the Son, as he triumphs
over his enemies on the cross, in the resurrection and ascen¬
sion. Nor does the Son complain of the honors given to the
Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost. It is their one work
to save men, and each is glorified in the work of the other.
So should each branch of the Church of God feel that it has
its own specific work in the vineyard of the Lord, and that
each is honored in the success of the other, and should, there¬
fore, rejoice in the triumph of the Redeemer's cause wherever
it is to be seen. This is "the unity of the Spirit in the bonds
of peace"—"many members," "but one body and one Spirit."
This unity in individuality and distinct personality of the
various Churches prevents stagnation, and also the oppression
of a great monopoly. It provokes each other to good works,
and keeps the Churches active and alive. And there need be
no more contention and strife between the various branches
of the Church than in any one Church. If we have the
Spirit of the Master we are one.
"Let the potsherds strive with the potsherds of the earth,"
but let Christians of every name cease to proselyte from
each others' Churches, and "go up to the mountain and
A Short Method with High-churchmen. 29
bring wood and build tbe bouse; and I will ,take pleas¬
ure in it, and I will be glorified, saith tbe Lord." "Then
Epbraim shall not vex Judah, and Judab shall not vex
Epbraimbut, by "tbe effectual working of tbe measure
of every part, make increase of tbe body to tbe edifying of
itself in love."
" Thus 'will the Church below
Resemble that above,
"Where streams of endless pleasure flow,
And every heart is love."
30
A Short Method with High-churchmen.
i
CHAPTER III.
To the foregoing sermon, the Rev. John Fulton, by the
request of Bishop Beckwith, as he himself writes, published
fourteen letters addressed to me, in reply. These letters
were published in the Chronicle and Sentinel, (in which, by
request, my sermon originally appeared,) up to Ho. 7, when
the Editor closed his columns against the Rector; but the
whole fourteen were published in the Columbus Enquirer, in
which also my sermon appeared.
While these letters were being published, I thought it
proper to publish in the Enquirer the following communica¬
tion, addressed
TO THE READERS OF THE ENQUIRER.
My attention has been called to several letters in the Colum¬
bus Enquirer, addressed to one Rev. J. E. Evans, signed
"John Fulton." These letters profess to be a reply to a
sermon preached by said Evans in reponse to a sermon
delivered on "Church-unity," by Bishop Beckwith, in the
Presbyterian Church, Columbus, Ga.
From certain local facts referred to in said letters, I am led
to suppose that they were designed for me. I certainly never
should have inferred, either from the personal characteristics, or
the doctrines ascribed to the said J. E. E., that the writer
intended them for myself. Indeed, I have been not a little
amused at the deep interest manifested, and the dexterity
with which he set up, and then demolished, the man of
straw which he styled the Rev. J. E. Evans.
While professedly writing on Church-unity, Mr. Fulton
seems to have been mainly occupied, through the four letters
already published, in giving the public his estimate of me per-
A Short Method with High-churchmen. 31
sonally. In drawing what he designed to he my portraiture,
he has so mixed his colors as to leave his readers to infer
whether he intended the white or the black to predominate.
A few strokes from his brush will serve for illustration.
Now, he speaks of my sending him a "challenge;" then of
my being the first to pray that his Church may be increased
next year "an hundred-fold." (Not if the increase is to be
made by proselyting from other Churches; but I do pray that
his Church may be increased a thousand-fold through the con¬
version of sinners to God by the washing of regeneration
and renewing of the Holy Ghost.)
He accuses me of "busying myself with other people's
matters ;" and then asserts that he doubts not I was uconscien-
tious" in what I did. He more than intimates that I have
not the Spirit of Christ; and yet he states that I am "by far
[his] superior in spiritual wisdom." He alleges that my
"whole discourse shows evidence of over-haste in composi¬
tion;" and still he says that lam " a learned divine," "set
deliberately to [my] task," "in nowise hurried," "having
ample time for study and mature reflection." He charges
me with "unpardonable recklessness," and with "more than
unpardonable negligence;" nevertheless, he insists that there
"are reasons why he must believe that I was very careful in
preparing this discourse." He is greatly "pained" at the
manner in which I "garble the words of Christ;" and he
asserts that I "deliberately set [myself] to prove that the
Saviour did not mean precisely what he said;" that I "con¬
veniently forgot" parts of the sacred word; that I must
"read [my] Bible backward, so as to make any thing it says
mean any thing I please ;" that I "treat no other book as [I]
treat the Bible," and ""no other man as [I] do the Saviour."
And still he maintains that, "as a minister of religion, author¬
ized to preach the Scriptures to a large congregation »of
devout and earnest Christian people," "it is utterly impos¬
sible that [I] would willingly mislead them."
The letters of Mr. Fulton abound with examples of this
sort; but these will suffice to show the skill with which he
dipped his brush alternately in white and black—which he
32 A Short Method with High-churchmen.
intended to make the most prominent—what his motives for
using the black at all—whether to make the picture stand out
on the canvas, or simply to help his cause, he does not state
in terms.
The same style and spirit characterize Mr. Fulton's review
of the doctrines of my sermon, and the passages of Scripture
quoted to sustain them. Mr. Fulton misrepresents me on the
"unity of the Church," and makes me to teach exactly the
opposite of what I most distinctly maintained. I insisted on
a unity of the Church as complete and as "fitly joined and
compacted together" as the human body, and that it should
be as perfect as the unity of the Godhead ; but he represents me
as advocating a "mutilated Church," and that it "should
be shattered into fragments." I quoted the words of our
Saviour—"Other sheep I have that are not of this fold"—
evidently for the specific purpose of proving that then, as now,
there were different folds which must be recognized as making
up the whole Church of Christ; and because I omitted to
quote the remainder of the verse—which was not pertinent
to the point in hand—he would have his readers believe that
I, of set purpose, "garbled the words of Christ," to make
them teach what I knew they "did not mean." If I had not,
in other parts of my sermon, most distinctly insisted upon the
very doctrine contained' in the clause omitted, there might
seem to be some pretext for his misrepresentation, and this
most serious charge against me; but as it is, there is none.
Mr. Fulton ought to be obliged, to me for omitting the clause
in question, for it applies with terrible force against the Prot¬
estant Episcopal Church, which persistently refuses to recog¬
nize any other fold but its own. Christ taught the disciples
that there were other Christians besides their little company,
and that they must not treat them as "sects," but as part of
his" Church—one fold. "Would it not promote Christian unity
if the Protestant Episcopal Church would follow the example
of the Master in this respect ?
Just in the same way he says that I hold that the canon
referred to in Acts "was adopted by Barsabas and Silas;"
whereas my language is, "the first council held by the apos-
A Short Method with High-churchmen. 33
ties;" and that the canon adopted "was sent by Barsabas
and Silas." In the same strain of misrepresentation, he
would have his readers believe that I regarded circumcision
as a part of Christianity, and that in this, I took issue with
St. Paul. The truth, however, is, that my argument was to
show that circumcision was not at all necessary to Christianity;
and that therefore the converted Jews must not require the
Gentile convert to be circumcised as a condition of Church-
fellowship. But he did not seem to understand that I insisted
that the succession of circumcision was abrogated in that
Church-council.
The fact is, Mr. Fulton has misrepresented me in every
passage of Scripture I used, which he has reviewed, except
the one in reference to the division of the Jewish Church
under Jeroboam. In a discourteous manner he does take
issue "with what I did, and do still maintain, on that subject.
He admits that God did divide the nation, but not the Church.
He maintains that " it was still at Jerusalem that all the
tribes went up to worship." And yet he admits that there
was "an unauthorized division of the Church;" and that
Jeroboam issued an order prohibiting the Ten Tribes from
going up to Jerusalem to worship, and requiring them to
worship at Bethel and Dan. How can all these propositions
be true ? Is it not true " that it was still at Jerusalem that
all the tribes went up to worship ?" The history does not
show that they did so a single time after the nation was
divided by God—some individuals may have done so, but as a
people they did not. "Was not the ecclesiastical and the 'political
economy of the Jews so interwoven that it was impossible
for God to divide the nation without dividing the Church ?
Could God divide the English nation without dividing the
Church of England? Did not the state of hostility that
existed at the time of the division of the nation, necessitate
the division of the Church into two bodies, worshiping at
different places ? The facts show that the division of the
nation was the division of the Church. Or did God, in
dividing the nation, intend to deprive the Ten Tribes of Church-
membership and privileges for all time to come? For "the
3
34 A Short Method with High-churchmen.
Jews and the Samaritans h^d no dealings" even down to the
coming of Christ. Some of the learned maintain that the
temples built at Bethel and Dan, under Jeroboam, were
dedicated to the God of Israel, and not to Baal, as .Mr.
Fulton asserts; and that the calves placed in those temples
were not designed to be worshiped as idols, but simply to be
regarded as images ; aud that they were placed there for the
same reason that images are now placed in Episcopal Churches.
They led to idolatry then—may they not lead to it again ? If
the hypothesis of Mr. Fulton be true, that because the Ten
Tribes became idolaters after the division of the nation,
therefore they never were a Church at all, in their separate state,
what becomes of the Church at Jerusalem in the days of
Kings Jehoram, Ahaziah, Ahaz, and Manasseh, who perpe¬
trated all the idolatry of the Ten Tribes ? And what becomes
of the apostolical succession during the dark ages, from the
sixth to the sixteenth century? If corruption and sin
destroyed all Church-succession in the days of Jeroboam,
under that moonlight dispensation, how did it survive the deeper
and more abominable corruptions of the noontide light of the
gospel day? Moreover, it is true that Samaria was the capital
of the Ten Tribes, who were therefore often called Samaritans;
and that at the coming of Christ, there was still existing an
organized Church of Samaritans, with a regular priesthood,
which they claimed to be a true succession from Aaron.
They also had the five books of Moses; and history accords
to them purer morals than those of the Church at Jerusalem.
One of the strong arguments in favor of the authenticity and
uncorrupted preservation of the Sacred Scriptures, is drawn
from the similarity of the copies of these Scriptures found in
the possession both of the Jews and the Samaritans, who had
no dealings with each other. IIow could all this be without
Church-organization and divine supervision among the Ten
Tribes, or Samaritans ?
I conclude, therefore, that when God divided the nation of
the Jews in the days of Kehoboam, he also divided his Church
into two branches, just as the Anglican and Protestant Epis¬
copal Church in England and America have divided, and for
A Short Method with High-churchmen. 35
the same reason—the state of civil affairs made it a necessity;
and that he then held, and now holds, each branch of his Church
responsible for maintaining the unity of the faith—one Lord,
one faith, one baptism, and one God and Father of all, And
it is no argument against this hypothesis that so little is said
of the Church among the Ten Tribes in the after-history
given in the Bible; for Christ was to come of Judah, which
appertained not to the Ten Tribes, and he is the Alpha and
Omega of the divine record; hence the promise given in
after times to Judah over Israel, in Bible history.
But I have digressed from the purpose of this communica¬
tion. I did not design to answer what little of argument is
to be found in his four letters already published, but simply
to correct some of his misrepresentations, and to inform all
concerned that I shall not bandy personal epithets and flings
at character with the Rev. Mr. Fulton. However inviting
the subject, and tempting the occasion, I shall not enter the
arena with him. It would doubtless greatly gratify a certain
class of persons to see a great religious, question degenerate
into a personal quarrel between two ministers of the gospel;
but I shall not furnish my part of the entertainment. Such
a wrangle over religious questions is justly offensive to all
right-minded men.
The point at issue, as raised by Bishop Beckwith, and
responded to by me, is, whether it is necessary to the unity of
the Church, as taught by Christ and his apostles, that all
Christians should join the Protestant Episcopal Church. I
understood the Bishop to affirm, and I denied this proposition.
I adopt, in all its force, the language of Mr. Fulton in his
third letter, when he says : "I affirm, unhesitatingly, that no
honest, truthful man can, with a free mind and unbiased
private judgment, read the seven passages of Scripture you
have quoted, and arrive at any other conclusion than that the
perfect unity of Christ's Church is what Christ commands.'
Ho sane Christian will deny that the Bible requires the perfec.
unity of the Church. But what constitutes this perfect unity
of the Church, is the question at issue. I maintain in my
sermon that it is not necessary to such unity that all Chris-
36
A Short Method with High-churchmen.
tians become members of tbe Protestant Episcopal Church. I
understand the Bishop and Mr. Fulton to insist that it is.
This is the simple issue between us.
"When the Rev. Mr. Fulton gets through with his person¬
alities of the Rev. J. E. Evans, and addresses himself to this
question, as raised by Bishop Beckwith, I will give a most
respectful consideration to what he has to say; but whether
I will respond to him or not, circumstances will determine.
Most respectfully, J. E. Evans.
A Short Method with High-churchmen. 37
CHAPTER IV.
a brief reply to fourteen letters, from the rev. john fulton,
by request of bishop beczwith, addressed to the rev. j. e.
evans.
This reply shall be brief. 1st. Because I desire it read by
the masses of the people. 2d. Because, as a matter of taste and
Christian propriety, I shall pass by all that is personally disre¬
spectful to me, with which said letters abound. 3d. When
the verbiage and personal matter is excluded, the argumentative
part of these epistles is reduced to a small compass. An
extended reply is not therefore necessary to a defense of
the truth. '
For the following reasons I maintain that Bishop Beckwith
is responsible for the doctrine and argument of said letters :
1st. Because the Rev. Mr. Fulton publishes that he wrote them
by the request of the Bishop; and it is a well-established prin¬
ciple in law, that what is done by your authority is done by
yourself. 2d. The communications in question were not only
written by the request of the Bishop, but in*his defense. It is
just, therefore, to presume that both the doctrines and arguments
of said epistles, if not furnished by the Bishop, at least meet his
approval. 3d. Moreover, I have it from unquestionable author¬
ity, that the Bishop requested a layman of reputation as a
writer, to revise these letters for publication in the form in
which they now appear before me. They therefore have the
indorsement of the Bishop. It, however, affords me great pleas¬
ure to say that I do not hold him responsible for the arrogant
style, the offensive personalities, and the verbiage of said epistles
—all this I suppose to be purely Fultonian—(which I see the
pruning-knife of the layman has improved a little.) I regard
Bishop Beckwith a high-toned gentleman, and wholly incapa-
38
A Short 'Method with High-churchmen.
ble of any thing incompatible with Christian courtesy. I shall,
therefore, only hold him " answerable " for the doctrines and
arguments of the letters in question.
Xow to the points at issue. I maintained that the sermon
of Bishop Beckwith, to which I responded, was an invitation
to all other Christians to join the Protestant Episcopal Church.
The reply insists that I "failed utterly and entirely to appre¬
ciate the scope of the Bishop's remarks "—that they were
simply addressed to his own people, " to quit themselves like
men," etc. (See Letters I. and II.)
In view of this denial, I most respectfully submit the follow¬
ing inquiries: Why, then, did Bishop Beckwith preach on
Unity at all? Was the Protestant Episcopal Church in
Columbus so divided as to require it ? Or was it to urge them
on in the work of 'proselyting from other Churches ? Why were
the pastors of other Churches, with their congregations,
requested to be present on that occasion to hear the Bishop ?
Why were several persons, and one of them the son of a Pres¬
byterian, reserved from the forenoon service, to be " con¬
firmed " at the Presbyterian church at the time said sermon
was preached? I regret that truth and facts require me, with
all due respect, to ask, Is it not the custom of both ministers
and members of the Protestant Episcopal Church to endeavor
to make proselytes from other Churches and congregations ?
And has not the desire to do so, induced them, in some casesy
to appeal even to a love of the ball-room, the social dance, the
circus, the theater, and such like amusements, to influence
such members of other Churches—as the writer of Letter XIV.
says he had met at such places—to join the Protestant Episcopal
Church because she does not prohibit indulgence in these
things ? Is it not manifest to the most superficial reader that
the design of these fourteen epistles, from first to last, is to
show that the Anglican, or Episcopal Church, is the only true
ground of union for all Christians? Do not Letters XII. and
XIV. close the discussion with an admission that there is no
other ground of union ? and also with an urgent appeal to Meth¬
odists to join the Protestant Episcopal Church ? Why did the
Bishop dwell upon Christian Unity in other parts of his diocese
A Short Method with High-churchmen. 39
on his first round of visitation ? Why was not the Bishop's
sermon, if it was so misunderstood, published, when requested
by the Editor of the Chronicle and Sentinel, and allowed to
speak for itself?
I submit to all candid minds, whether the facts in the case
do not sustain the construction I placed upon the sermon in
question.
The issue raised by Bishop Beckwith is, whether it is neces¬
sary to the unity of the Church, as taught by Christ and his
apostles, that all Christians should join the Protestant Epis¬
copal Church. I understood the Bishop to affirm, and I
denied this proposition. And here let it he distinctly under¬
stood, that there is no dispute about the fact, that the Script¬
ures teach a most perfect and complete unity of the Church—a
unity as perfect as the human body, and as the Three Persons
in the Godhead—" that they may he one even as we are," said
Christ. All that is said in the reply about my advocacy of a
"mutilated Church," and that it "should be shattered into
fragments," is simple misrepresentation of my views, which
were most plainly presented in my published sermon.
We agree, as do all Christians, that the word of God requires
a 11 unity of the faith"—"One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one
God, and Father of all," etc. But the Bishop affirms that
Christ and his apostles also teach that there must be one form,
of external, visible, organic unity ; and he maintains that the Epis¬
copal Church is that form of organic unity. Here we join issue.
And this is the issue, and the only issue, made in my response
to his sermon. And I must beg to hold to this issue in my
reply.
1st. In my response to the Bishop, I objected to his theory
of external Church-unity, because it is impracticable; and
because no human organization could manage the religious
interests of the whole world to the best advantage. To this
argument, a priori, no reply is made.
2d. I objected to his dogma because it is antiscriplural.
It is not authorized in specific terms in the word of God; nor
is it doctrinally taught in the Scriptures. But, that it involves
the surrender of the right of private judgment, destroying
40
A Short Method with High-churchmen.
man's personal responsibility, and making him a mere machine
—is opposed to the teachings of the Bible, and also to the his¬
tory of the Church.
3d. Farthermore, I objected, that if an external, organic
unity of the Church were both scriptural and practicable, I
could not accept the Protestant Episcopal Church as the
organic form of such union, because she is a schism herself.
And, moreover, because she "magnifies external organism
into an essential to salvation ; thus limiting the divine power to
save men, and greatly imperiling human salvation." And it
was also objected that her standard of experimental and
practical piety was below that enjoined in the Bible; that her
economy was not adapted to the spread of the gospel; and
finally, that the divisions in the Protestant Episcopal Church
were an argument against that Church as the organism for
external Christian unity.
The Bishop maintained, m the sermon to which I replied,
that the unity of the Church could only be preserved by the
surrender of the right of private judgment, and by an implicit
obedience to the decrees of the Church.
I was surprised at the time, that, in the face of the divine
command, to "obey God rather than man"—"for every man
shall give an '<account of himself to God"—andin the face of the
fundamental article of the Creed, that " the Holy Scriptures
contain all things necessary to. salvation," that a Protestant
Bishop should take such a position; and I did hope that the
letters would show that in this I had misunderstood him.
But to my utter astonishment, the reply ridicules the idea of the
exercise of private judgment against the decisions of Church-
councils ; and Letter No. 5 speaks of the Church as " the only
infallible human interpreter of the word of God!" This is
high ground, indeed; but it is a necessity to his theory. The
uniform external unity of the Church can be maintained in
no other way; and he meets the question boldly. What
right has the Church to require me to surrender my conscien¬
tious convictions of the meaning and requirements of God's
word to any authority less than infallible f Let not the reader
suppose that we misunderstand the writer. Not only are the
A Short Method with High-churchmen. 41
words "infallible," etc., used in Letter No. 5, as just stated,
but the wbole argument of the fourteen letters in question is
designed to establish the supreme authority of the Church;
and the careful reader will be impressed with the fact, that
generally throughout these fourteen letters, the term " Catho¬
lic" is used to designate the Bishop's Church, instead of its
distinguishing cognomen, "Protestant Episcopal."- This is
explained in Letter No. 14, by the fact that he claims for his
Church still to be one with the Roman Catholic Church.
When, in response to the Bishop's sermon, I maintained that
if I embraced the Bishop's principles, I could not join his
Church, but must of necessity go to Rome, I did not sup¬
pose that he would so soon demonstrate the truth of my views
of his doctrine, by a repudiation of his Protestant brethren,
and a frank admission of the affinities of the Protestant Epis¬
copal Church with Rome. What say the Evangelical party
of that Church to such repudiation of Protestantism and
union with Rome ? The doctrine of these letters is, that the
Catholic Church is invested with "infallible" authority in all
questions essential to Christian faith and practice; and that
while the Greek and Roman Churches may be regarded as
"branches of the Catholic Church," but in error, "the Epis¬
copal Church" is the true form of the Catholic Church, to which
all Christians must eventually come.
The Bishop in his sermon, and also said letters, claim for
the Church the prerogatives of a " Supreme Court" in all
questions of moral law. I maintained that the nature of the
question thus stated demands specific constitutional authority.
A Supreme Court settles all constitutional, legislative, and
executive questions of the government; and from its decisions
there can be no appeal. Such powers cannot be inferred. -The
constitution of the government must specifically provide for
such a court, and define its authority; otherwise its decrees
can have no binding force. And so must the constitution of
the Church—the Bible—define in specific terms the organization
and authority of the Church, before its decrees can become the
supreme law of morals. Show me the passage in the word
of God that invests a specific form of Church-organization
42
A Short Method with High-cliurchmen.
with infallible authority over all questions of divine teaching,
and I bow in humble submission. But charge me not with
"heresy" because I refuse obedience to usurped authority : the
nature of the question requires authority in terms, both as to
the form of organization, and the right "infallibly'' to deter¬
mine all questions of Christian faith and practice.
It may°be proper just here to notice the form of Church-
organization for which the Bishop claims the right in ques¬
tion, and the important and fatal point of difference between
his Church and the "heretical sects," as they are called.
That this may appear the more plainly, we will first notice
some of the points of agreement between 'them. In my
general statements, I include the many classes of Baptists,
Presbyterians, Methodists, and Lutherans, in Europe and
America, with the Moravians, Waldenses, etc.—all who are
termed "orthodox." "We agree with the Episcopal Church in
the doctrine of the fall of man, the atonement of Christ, the
new birth, and holiness in order to final salvation; the neces¬
sity of repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus
Christ, and that we "do justly, and love mercy, and walk
humbly with God." Indeed, with our interpretation of "bap¬
tism for remission of sin," as meaning an evidence of the
remission of sin; and that "the Spirit proceeds" from the
Son, as well as "from the Father." We all adopt, with the
Episcopal Church, the "Nieene Creed." And this Creed, he
says, in Letter FTo. 5, is "sufficient" and "final." He also
informs us that the ancient Church passed a canon, which
"provides, that if any Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, shall demand
of any man more than is contained in the Creed of the Holy
Ecumenical Council, as a condition of baptism or communion,
the said Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, shall be ipso facto excom¬
municate." And the said letter admits that I believe said
Creed; and if so, that I am "a Catholic in faith." Therefore
all the orthodox "Sects" are admitted to be Catholic in faith;
and, so far as this goes, are entitled to be admitted into the
"Catholic Church." The fact that we believe more—such
as regeneration by the Holy Ghost instead of in water bap¬
tism, the witness of the Spirit, and that we may be made
A /Short Method with High-churchmen. 43
holy in this life—operates no bar; for the Roman Catholics
believe the doctrines of transubstantiation, and that the
Pope is God's Vicegerent on earth, and in the immaculate
conception, purgatory, etc.; and still they are admitted, in
Letter No. 14, to membership in the true CJiurch.
Again, we agree that all believers should he baptized into
the visible Church; that God has ordained a living ministry
to preach the word and administer the ordinances of his
Church ; that every Church should have a Bishop, or pastoral
Elder, and Deacons, or officers to care for the poor. In all
these leading points of doctrine and of organization we agree.
Indeed, there are fewer points of difference between the
"Sects," as they are called, and the Episcopal Church, as its
doctrines were originally understood, than there are between
that Church and the Roman and Greek Churches.
The question arises, Why, then, are not these "Sects"
recognized as branches of the Catholic Church, as well as the
Romans and the Greeks ? What is the fatal sin that excludes
them from the Church Catholic ? Do the "Sects" refuse to be
regarded as a part of the Church? Not at all. We claim to
be a part of the "universal Church." And we moreover
demand, in view of the ancient canon quoted before, to know
what "Bishop, Priest, or Deacon," has the right to demand
of us, "as a condition of communion," more than a belief in
the Nicene Creed. Is not that Creed true, sufficient, and final?
He is by the law himself, ipso facto, excommunicate. The
question recurs, What is the fatal sin that excludes.so many
believers in the Creed—ay, men and women that love the
Saviour and keep his commandments—from communion in
the universal Church of Christ ? Are their ministers wolves
in sheep's clothing, and their members whited sepulchers ?
"By their fruits ye shall know them." "The light that is in
them is not darkness." "They are a city set upon a hill,"
and the judgment of the world is, that they are as worthy as
those who exclude them. But it must be told, and let all
men ponder and judge between us: The fatal sin is, the
rejection of the dogma of apostolical succession in a third order
of the ministry, called Bishops. Admit Phis—and though our
44
A Short Method with High-churchmen.
Bishops procure their office through gold and corruption, and
our priests be polluted with whoredom, and our members be
the patrons of the brothel, the bar-room, and the gambling-
saloon—nevertheless, we are a part of the Catholic Church.
But reject the dogma of succession—and though our Bishops'
and ministers "deny themselves, take up their cross and
follow Christ;" and though the seals to their ministry are
counted by the million, "epistles known and read of all
men;" and though the membership "follow after holiness,
without which no man shall see the Lord;" nevertheless, they
are only " heretical sects" and to be denied communion in the
universal Church. This is the doctrine of these fourteen
letters to which I now reply. The Roman Catholic Church,
with all its corruptions through the middle ages, is defended
and apologized for as God's true Church; while Luther and
the Dissenters are censured for the course taken in and since
the Reformation. And now, the Romanists in Mexico and
Spain, with all their crimes and immoralities, are taken by
the hand, and admitted to the communion of saints; while
such men as Chalmers, Hall, Asbury, and Soule, are classed
among "heretics," and denied the communion of the Church.
"Apostolical succession" is the fatal rock on which the Church
has split. The Bishop presents it to us as the only corner-stone
of union.
This is the form of Church-organization for which "infal¬
lible" authority is claimed. The rights and responsibilities
claimed for this distinct form of Church-organization are
fearful to contemplate. Ho class of men should assume
them without the most explicit authority, lest the curse of
God should fall upon them for presuming to add to, or to
take from, his word. In the name of the cause of God, I
demand, therefore, the most explicit command from God, direct¬
ing that his Church be formed after the model in question,
and investing it, when thus formed, with the powers claimed
by the Bishop. Letter Ho. 5 Admits that there is no
specific authority in the word of God for this hypothesis.
He attempts to sustain his theory by inference, and talks
of no express authority for the baptism of females, etc.,
A Short Method with High-churchmen. 45
as if there was any parallel in the case. Nothing essen¬
tial to salvation does the Bible leave to inference. "Whatever
is not specifically enjoined is not essential. Can it he possible,
that in a question vital to the ministry, and to the very exist¬
ence of his Church in the world, Christ should have given no
express instructions to his disciples ? Never, no, never. If
it had been the divine decree, that no man should preach the
gospel and administer the ordinances of his Church unless
ordained by a successor of the apostles, as a third order in the
ministry, he would have so stated, in terms not to be misun¬
derstood. Mark the language of the Master in things essen¬
tial : " Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish" Marvel
not that I said unto thee, Ye must he born again"He that
believeth not shall he damned;" "And holiness, without
which no man shall see the Lord." But he nowhere says,
"You must he ordained by a successor of the apostles, or you
are not a minister of Christ." Nor does he anywhere say
that without such ordinations there is, and can he, no Church.
Indeed, the Bishop's theory makes such ordinations not only
essential to a Christian ministry, and to the existence of the
Church, but makes it also essential to the salvation of believ¬
ers ; for by such an ordained ministry are they regenerated in
baptism, and receive the virtue of atonement in the sacra¬
ment of the Supper. Without such ordination who then can he
saved? This theory is obliged to be essential, or it is not. If
not, they who magnify it into the importance given to it, sin
against God and their brethren. If it be essential, then there
must be a specific' command for it. When it is admitted,
therefore, that there is no specific command for such ordina¬
tion and organization of the Church, the whole question is
given up. The "Supreme Court f with all its decrees and
high-sounding titles, dies for want of constitutional life.
Not only is there no express authority for this dogma of
the Bishop, but there is express example against it. Who
ordained Paul and Barnabas? Christ ordained the twelve,
(Mark iii. 14,) and the eleven ordained Matthias ; but who
ordained Paul? He was never ordained at all, or he was
ordained by an inferior order of ministers. (See Acts xiii. 1-4.)
46 A Short Method with High-churchmen.
Simeon, Lucius, and Manaen, "prophets and teachers,"
belonging to the Church at Antioch, ordained Paul and Bar¬
nabas. There was no apostle, or third-order Bishop present.
It does not appear that either of them was ever in charge of
the Church at Antioch. Here is a break in the links of suc¬
cession at the start; and most of the ordinations in apostolic
times, of which the sacred history treats, came from Paul and
Barnabas.
The admission that there is no express authority in the
Bible for the Bishop's theory, is fatal to it; but still other
admissions are made in the letters in question which should
bury forever this High-church dogma.
It is admitted in Letter Ho. 7, that a Bishop in apostolic
times was the same in order as an Elder: many most learned
Episcopalians make the same admission. His language is:
"During the lives of the apostles, the more specific name of
members of the second order of the ministry was that of
Episcopos, or Bishop ; but after.their decease, we find this name
of Bishop given exclusively to men of the chief order"—
"having the exclusive right of apostolic ordination." By
what authority, allow me to ask, did the Church constitute a
third order, and transfer the title of the second order to it?
It is admitted that there is neither divine command nor apos¬
tolic example for it; for it was not until "after their decease"
that this innovation commenced. The italicising is mine.
Again, it is admitted that it was at a still later date that
the offices of Archbishop, Patriarch, and Pope were intro¬
duced into the Church. As early as the fifth century the
Patriarchs claimed the exclusive right to ordain Bishops.
(Moslieim, p. 114.) And in the sixth century, Mosheim (p. 151)
informs us that "the most learned writers, and those who are
most remarkable for their knowledge of antiquity, are gener¬
ally agreed that Boniface III. engaged Phocas, that abomi¬
nable tyrant, who waded to the imperial throne through the
blood of the Emperor Mauritius, to^take from the Bishop of
Constantinople the title of ecumenical, or universal Bishop, and
to confer it upon the Roman Pontiff." By what authority
were these additional offices created, through which the apos-
A Short Method with High churchmen.
47
tolical succession must come, and through, which it did come,
if it came at all to the Church of our times ?
It is also admitted in Letter Ho. 7, that there is no record
of the ordination of Bishops in succession from the apostles
to the present day. But it is maintained that the argument,
based upon the promise of the Saviour to the ministry, "Lo,
I am with you alway, even to the end of the world," and upon
the fact that there have always been Bishops in the Church,
and that therefore they were always canonically ordained, is
conclusive and demonstrative of the apostolical succession!
This is the argument with which he bridges over that chasm
in Church-records from the sixth to the sixteenth century.
As Christ promised to be with the ministry alway, (Which, he
assumes, means an unbroken ordination,) and as there was
all the time something claiming to be that ministry, therefore
they were ordained always in true and regular succession!
He assumes that being in the office of a Bishop in those cor¬
rupt ages of the Church is conclusive evidence that the office
was obtained according to the canons of the Church. And
yet it is admitted in Letter Ho. 10, that " the Episcopate had
been degraded by its honors and emoluments, so that it was
sometimes a thing of traffic and political subserviency. The
priesthood, bound down by the vow of an impossible celibacy,
was soiled by general uncleanness and unchastity.
The heavenly keys committed to his Church by Chkist him¬
self were bought and sold for money, and were vainly thought
to open the eternal kingdom to the man who brought to the
Pope, Priest, or Bishop gold to satisfy his greed." Was it
canonical to get a bishopric in that way ? If it is conclusive
to the Bishop's mind, that a man who would buy the Episco¬
pate "with gold," because of "its honors and emoluments,"
would be careful to have his ordination in the true opos-'
tolical succession, I confess that, on this subject, his mind is
more easily assured than mine. I cannot get rid of the idea
that such a man would not stand on the manner of the ordina¬
tion any more than on the manner of procuring the office. The
admission of corruption in procuring the Episcopate, in the
absence of all record to the contrary, is fatal to the idea of
48
A Short Method with High-churchmen.
unadulterated purity in the ordination. And as to the promise of
the Saviour, "Lo, I am with you," etc., it is all an assump¬
tion, without a particle of proof, that it has reference to an
unbroken apostolical ordination. This interpretation suits a
creed, but it is not at all essential to faithfulness in fulfilling
the promise.
In Letter No. 6, it is admitted that, in apostolic times, " The
Church in each city was, in its own affairs, independent of
every other." This is fully sustained by Scripture and history.
Mosheim (pp. 22, 23) says: " The Churches in those early
times were entirely independent, none of them being subject to
any foreign jurisdiction. . . . Nor does there ever appear,
in the first century, the smallest, trace of that association of
provincial Churches from which Councils and Metropolitans
derive their origin." True, the writer insists that the Church
was a unit in each town. He says: " However many congre¬
gations there might be in any city, it was still The Church in
Jerusalem, in Antioch, in Home, that was addressed—never
the Churches of Jerusalem, or Antioch, or Rome. What
would the apostles have thought of a man who had addressed
a letter to the eight denominations of Christians in the city of
? And yet that is how he would have to address a
letter to us here in Columbus, if he wanted to reach us all."
Why did he not say eight Churches, not denominations?
And we are "challenged" in Letter No. 6 to show a single
example from the New Testament adverse to this position.
We accept the challenge. And in response, we would ask
the writer, what does he think of St. Paul, in Gal. i. 1,
where he sends his Letter as " Paul the Apostle, and all the
brethren that are with me, unto the Churches of Galatia?"
And what of St. John the Divine, (Rev. i. 4,) where he says,
"John to the Seven Churches of Asia?" The principle is the
same, whether applied to a "city" or a country. The pre¬
sumption therefore is, that if there had been more than one
Church or congregation in the cities of Rome, Corinth, Ephe-
sus, etc., when these Epistles were written, they would have
been addressed, as in the cases of Galatia and Asia, to the
"Churches" of Rome, Corinth, etc. It seems to me, there-
A Short Method with High-churchmen.
49
fore, that a letter addressed to "the eight" Churches (not
"denominations") of Columbus, "the apostles would think"
to be both respectful and according to apostolic example.
Moreover, it is admitted in these letters that the Greek
and Roman Churches have been separate and independent of
each other for centuries; and that the Anglican Church sepa¬
rated from Rome in the sixteenth century; and that these
are now entirely independent of each other. It is also admit¬
ted in Letters Ros. 5 and 10, that there has been no Ecumeni¬
cal Council held since the Council of Rice, in A.D. 825. All
other creeds but the Ricene are repudiated for want of author¬
ity. The Council of Trent is not regarded by the Bishop as
ecumenical, and its decrees are therefore null and void.
Row, if these admissions be true, has not the Church been
hopelessly divided since A.D. 325 ? All this Letter Ro. 10
attributes to "the curse of private judgment." But it is
amusing to see how he ascribes this curse of private judg¬
ment alike to individuals, to Provincial Councils, and to the
Roman Catholic Church, when she in council proclaims articles
of faith, that she says have always been the faith of the Church,
but which a little handful of the Church, calling themselves
"The Church," presumes to declare to be "the curse of private
judgment." This does not present a very inviting Church-
unity, in form even, much less in spirit, in the Bishop's
"Catholic Church."
But to proceed. It is admitted, after all, that private judg¬
ment selected the books of the Bible, and gave us the inter¬
pretation of the Bible that is binding upon the faith of
Christians.
Letter Ro. 4 is devoted to the authority of the Holy Scrip¬
tures. It is maintained that the books "were submitted to
the decision of the whole Church." "When and where the
Council was held he does not inform us. The celebrated
Horne states that "the simple fact is, that the canons of this
Council (Laodicea) are the earliest extant which give a formal
catalogue of the books of the Rew Testament. This was
held in 364." Br. Thornwell says: " The records of the Coun¬
cil of Rice (325), that have survived the ravages of time, give
4
50 A Short Method with High-churchmen.
not a single hint touching the books which the Fathers
received as inspired." In the Conncil of Laodicea, the book
of Revelation is omitted. The Council of Carthage (A.D.
397) is the first that adopted the New Testament as it now
stands. Origen, in the third century; Athanasius, in 315;
Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, in 340; Epiphanius, in 370;
Gregory, in 375; Rufinus, in 390; Jerome, in 392; and
Augustine, in 394, had all, in the exercise of the right of
private judgment, ascertained which were the genuine books
of the Bible, and given them to the world, before the Council
of Carthage gave forth its decrees on the subject. But the
principle, by which the Bishop says the Council was bound to
be governed," "was a plain and simple one, and it was this:
that those books which had always, everywhere, and by all
Churches, been received, must be true Scriptures." The
whole question, then, had been settled by private judgment before;
and the Council was shut up to a simple record of that
judgment.
It is claimed, also, that the Church gave us the translation
we now have. This statement must have been made without
reflection, in the haste of composition. Certainly, in the face
of facts touching King James's translation, the author did
not -mean to say that a universal Council of the Church—every
member—had examined every sentence of the translation,
and pronounced it to be what every Christian "had always
and everywhere believed to be the word of God!" This is
historically false. No General Council has ever pronounced
upon it; and the Roman Catholics reject the translation.
It is maintained in Letter No. 5, that "the Church is the
only infallible human interpreter of the word of God." But, "
then, the rule of interpretation is stated to be, " That which
Catholic Churches have always and everywhere universally
received as the word of God, must be the meaning of the
word of God;" which must be "thereupon accepted by the
universal Church." The Nicene Creed, tried by this rule, is
pronounced to be Utrue, sufficient, and final;"* because no
other has been "thereupon accepted by the universal Church."
This rule, it will be perceived, not only restricts Church-
A Short Method with High-churchmen.
51
councils to a simple record of what they deem to he univer¬
sal private judgment as to the meaning of the word of God,
but it subjects the judgment of the Council to the veto of
private judgment; for its decisions must be "therefore
accepted by the universal Church." The most zealous advo¬
cate of the right of private judgment could ask no more.
The rule given for the government of Church-councils settles
it forever, that Councils have no authority in any matter of
faith and practice, but to record universal private judgment,
subject to be rejected by private judgment afterward, as in
the case of all the Councils since the Nicene, according to
the Bishop. It is a little remarkable that private judgment
should have achieved such a triumph in the hands of those
who speak of it as a "curse." But truth is mighty, and
must prevail.
According to these letters, then, private judgment selected
and determined what are the genuine books of the Scriptures,
gave us our translation of the Bible, and determines the
true meaning of the word of God.
It will be perceived that I have relied mainly upon the
admissions and doctrines of the Bishop, to show the error of
his theory of external Church-unity and authority. There is
no authority for his theory in the Bible, and there is no such
Church in history. The Bishop has mistaken the import of
the promise of Christ to his disciples and to his Church.
A Short Method with High-churchmen.
CHAPTER V.
application of the argument to the protestant episcopal
church.
Let us recapitulate, that we may resume the subject in its
connections.
I have shown that Bishop Beckwith holds, 1st. Tl^at Christ
and his apostles organized an external visible Church, upon
the basis of a third order in the ministry, to be perpetual, in
regular succession, through all time; and that all Christians
are required to unite with this Church-organization. 2d.
That the Church thus organized was clothed with authority
"infallibly" to determine all questions of religious faith and
practice; and that no man has the right to exercise his
private judgment in opposition to the decrees of said Church.
3d. That while the Greek and Roman Churches may be
regarded as branches of the Church—though "in error"—the
Protestant Episcopal Church, in the estimation of the Bishop,
is the true form of the Church, to which all Christians must
eventually come.
I maintained that, in the nature of the case, we had a
right to demand express authority from the word of God for
the Bishop's dogma of Church-organization. I showed that
the fourteen letters admitted that there was no express author¬
ity for this theory in the Scriptures. Also, that it was admit¬
ted that Bishop and Elder was the same order in the days of
the apostles; and that it was not till after their death that
the title, Bishop, was applied to a third order of ministers.
That it was farthermore admitted that there is no record
of the successive ordinations of Bishops from the apostles to
the present; and that the whole theory, therefore, rests on
A Short Method with High-churchmen. 53
inference. Moreover, I showed that it was admitted that the
Churches were separate and independent of each* other in the
days of the apostles; and that the Council of Nice was the
last Council held, whose edicts are of binding force upon
all Christians; and that hence the Church, from that time,
has been divided in its external organization. It was shown,
also, to be admitted, that an Ecumenical Council, such as the
Nicene, had authority only to declare the universal private judg¬
ment of the Church, subject to be "thereupon accepted by the
universal Church; otherwise its decrees were null and void.
This was applied to the selection of the books of the Bible,
its translation and interpretation, and showed to be fatal to
the doctrine of Church-authority in the case, and the most
triumphant vindication of the exercise of private judgment
on all questions of faith and practice.
Here let us resume the argument.
It would seem that such admissions, sustained as they are
by the Bible and history, should put this question of apostolical
succession, and the infallible authority of any specific Church-
organization, forever at rest. But notwithstanding all these
admissions, and their logical sequence, the Bishop maintains
his theory with the earnestness of one who really believed it,
and,as if he thought his arguments triumphantly conclusive.
It is evident from the Bishop's sermon, and from these four¬
teen letters, that the Protestant Episcopal Church is his ideal
of this Church-dogma. The Greek Church is charged with
"the curse of provincial private judgment;" and especially
is Borne charged with this curse, in presuming to excom¬
municate the Anglican] Church. Who is Borne that she
should presume to do such a thing ? What though she
counts her priests by thousands, and her communicants by
the million, while the Anglican Church numbers theirs by
tens and hundreds—what though she was the mother of us
all, and the Anglican a daughter just throwing off the mater¬
nal authority—what right had she to excommunicate her
rebellious child ? Has not the child the right to proclaim the
mother a "usurper," and to declare her councils null and
void—merely "provincial?" Has not the daughter the right
54
A Short Method with High-churchmen.
to 'the patronymic name and the estate? And has she not
the right to require the mother to humble herself in confes¬
sion of her sins for the past twelve hundred years, before she
can be admitted to the old homestead again ? Why not ?
True, a captious inquirer might ask if this is not inverting
the order of things; and he might demand of the daughter
her right to such procedure. He might wish to know if the
Protestant Episcopal Church has a regularly ordained min¬
istry; and if so, whence did the succession come. He
might inquire if the Councils of that Church are ecumenical;
and if not, by what authority she altered the Hicene Creed,
for it is altered in the "Prayer-book." And he might
demand the authority for proclaiming herself " The Church,"
and requiring Mother Rome, with her sister, the Greek
Church, to go back to the days of Nice and begin again. He
might presume to ask, since all must go so far back for a
ground of union, had we not better go a little farther back,
and unite on the Bible without note or comment? Or he
might press his inquiry to know if the Protestant Episcopal
Church would abide by the Hicene Creed, and make no
other condition of communion. If so, he might demand to
know by what authority she made a third order of ordination
a condition of communion, as it is not in the Hicene Creed.
And, finally, if not regarded too captious to be respectful, he
might demand to know if this condition of communion is
not a "Roman Catholic provincialism," which the Protestant
Episcopal Church carried off from Mother Rome and adopted.
But we must call our captious questioner to order, and
proceed with the argument.
If there is no authority in the Bible, and no proof in
history of an unbroken succession of a third order in the
ministry, or that Christ organized and has perpetuated a
Church upon this basis, all the claims of the Protestant Epis¬
copal Church, in these regards, fall to the ground, as a matter
of course. And this is the present state of our investigation.
But admitting, for the sake of the argument, that Christ
did so direct concerning himself and the Church, the ques¬
tion arises, Does the Bishop make out the case that the Prot-
A Short Method with High-churchmen. 55
estant Episcopal Church is that organization, and that she has
that ministry ? To this question we now give attention.
The Bishop, of course, will not object to the application of
his own principles in determining this point.
He holds that "apostolical succession," as technically under¬
stood, is "essential" to a gospel minister, and that it is also
"essential" to a Christian Church. It is essential to "bap¬
tismal regeneration," and the "sacrificial" virtue of the
Lord's-supper, according to the Bishop's dogma: it is the
very organic constitution of the ministry and the Church. This
said fourteen letters abundantly show.
In Letter Ho. 5, it is maintained that an "Ecumenical
Council alone has the authority to settle and declare the essen¬
tials of faith and practice."
The question first to be determined is, has the Protestant
Episcopal Church this apostolical ministry ? Who shall decide
this essential of faith and practice ? I know that in the haste
of the delivery of his sermon in the Presbyterian church, he
said that even the Boman Catholics admitted that Protestant
Episcopal ordinations were apostolical. But this certainly
must have been an immature extempore remark; for the Bishop
know^ that the Roman Catholic Church has never recognized
the validity of the ordinations of the Protestant Episcopal
Church. Individual members of that Church may have even
put it into books, that said ordinations are valid; but the
Bishop has ruled out the right of private judgment on the
"essentials," and we are not at liberty to take their testimony
in the case. The uniform practice of the Church of Rome
has been to reject the ordinations of the Protestant Episcopal
Church, and to require Beacons, Priests, and Bishops to be
reordained before they are allowed to officiate at*her altars.
The question then is made, and made by the Mother
Church. Who shall decide it? Letter Ho. 5 informs us that
an "Ecumenical Council" alone has the right. But such a
Council, it is maintained, has not been held since A.B. 325.
I will not use the elegant language of Letter Ho. 7, and say
it is one of "those things of yesterday," (speaking of other
Churches,) but the Protestant Episcopal Church is a Church
56
A Short Method with High-churchmen.
of yesterday, comparatively speaking—and, therefore, the
question of her legitimacy, raised by Mother Rome, could not
have been settled at Nice; and hence it has not been deter¬
mined at all. The question then arises, How can it ever he
settled ? The Church has been so divided for twelve centu¬
ries, that no universal Council could be held: in the mean¬
time, this new claimant for supremacy appears on the stage,
rendering it the more difficult to convene such a Council.
But should it he assembled, it would he controlled by the
rule to declare only what " had always and everywhere been
believed by the Churchwhich must he " therefore accepted
by the universal Church." What think you, reader, is the pros¬
pect, under the Bishop's rule—1st. To get an " Ecumenical
Council?" 2d. To have it make a decision that it "has
always and everywhere been believed" that the ordinations
of the Protestant Episcopal Church are apostolical? 3d. And
that such decree, once had, be " thereupon accepted by the
universal Church?"
The same difficulty arises as to the " infallibility" of the
Protestant Episcopal Church. It is claimed in Letters Nos.
5 and 14, that "the Church is the only infallible human
interpreter of the word of God;" that "we have all erred—
the Church only is infallible;" and the Protestant Episcopal
Church is "the Church"—at least, that form of the Church
to which the erring Greek and Roman Churches, and the
"Sects," must conform.
Now, if by possibility an Ecumenical Council should he
assembled, and should determine, and it "he accepted," etc.,
that the ordinations of the Protestant Episcopal Church are
apostolical—how about the "infallibility?" It has never
been decided where thaj^'infallibility" rests. The Greek
Church repudiates the dtfgjSIa entirely. The Roman Church
is divided on the subject—some placing it in the Pope; some
in the Pope and Bishops; others, in the Pope, Bishops, and
Priests ; and yet others, in the whole Church Catholic. We
are not informed where the Bishop places it in the Protestant
Episcopal Church: he is silent on that subject. No Council
has ever presumed to decide this all-important question;.
A Short Method with High-churchmen.
57
and yet it must be determined before the Churcb bas a rigbt
to require me to surrender my private judgment to its
decrees. Can any one imagine, in view of all the facts in the
case, that it is within the range of possibility that an Ecumen¬
ical Council can ever be convened, which could decree that/
it had been "always and everywhere" believed that "infalli¬
bility" is with the Protestant Episcopal Church, and that it
be "thereupon accepted by the universal Church?" I think
not. And yet the Bishop maintains that the Anglican
Church—and especially the Protestant Episcopal Church—is
the pillar and ground of the truth; that she is upon the
Creed of the Hicene Fathers, and the Greeks, Romans, and
the "Sects" must all come to her. "Well, when she is so
declared by an Ecumenical Council, and as such is "there¬
upon accepted by the universal Church," we will submit. In
the meanwhile, the Bishop must bide his time till the ques¬
tion is settled according to his own ruling, and allow us to
exercise the right of private judgment on the claims of his
Church to loe "the Church," as well as upon all matters of
faith and practice.
Passing from these primary principles, which are so conclu¬
sive against the exclusive claims set up for the Bishop's
Church, let us examine the facts of its separation from thh
Church of Rome in the sixteenth century.
Although it is claimed that the Church of England existed
before its connection with the Pope of Rome, still it is not
denied that she recognized her allegiance to the Church of
Rome in the commencement of the reign of Henry VIII.,
and that a separation commenced during his reign, which
finally resulted in what is now known as the Anglican Church,
from which the Protestant Episcopal Church descended.
And permit me to say, that I regret to find in the letters
an apology for Henry VIII., seeking to justify his separation
from Catharine of Arragon, and his marriage to Anne Boleyn,
upon the ground of conscientious scruples that his marriage to
Catharine was illegal. This matter had been fully discussed
more than twenty years before; and the Pope issued a bull
granting him a dispensation for the marriage; and the decis-
58
A Short Method with High-churchmen.
ion of the Council in favor of it was had; and his infantile
marriage, as it is called, was confirmed after this, upon his
coming to full age; and he had lived with Catharine for
twenty years, and she had been the mother of several children
by him. Mosheim says of Henry: "He was a prince who in
vices and abilities was surpassed by none who swayed the
scepter in his age." And of this divorce he says: "He was
captivated by the charms of an illustrious virgin, whose name
was Anne Boleyn, (not 'Bullen,') and he ardently desired to
be divorced from Catharine, that he might render lawful his
passion for Anne Boleyn." Hume, in his History of England,
says, that the King was the more confirmed in his resolution
to marry Anne, "when he found that her virtue and modesty
prevented all hopes of gratifying his passion in any other
way." In the course of time, his passion for another "illus¬
trious virgin," Jane Seymore, induced the King, under false
pretenses of infidelity to him, to have Anne Boleyn beheaded,
that he might marry Jane. His fourth wife was Anne of
Cleves; but his want of love for her, and his affection for Catha¬
rine Howard, soon caused him to obtain a divorce from Anne
of Cleves, that he might marry Catharine Howard. Such is
t the character of the man, whose unlawful attachment for, and
^pa-arriage to, Anne Boleyn, gave rise to the Church of England.
T|ie Pope expelled him. for the marriage, and declared his
former marriage valid; whereupon the King threw off all
allegiance to the Pope, and the Parliament proclaimed him
the Head of the Anglican Church. (Hume's History of
England, Vol. I., Chap. 30.) Truly this was a very "fleshly"
and "sensual" beginning for The Church of Christ. But the
facts recited are so familiar to every school-class in history,
that it will not relieve the Church of the odium to attempt to
make it appear that Henry was a conscientious Christian, in
his love for Anne Boleyn.
It is sophistical to maintain, as the letters in question do,
that because all things in the Church went on as before—
Bishops, Priests, and people approving the new order of
things—that therefore no new Church was organized at that
time. Just as well assert, that because the State organiza-
-4 Short Method with High-churchmen. 59
tions, Governors, Legislatures, Judges, and subordinate offi¬
cers, in the South, continued during the late war, just as
before, therefore there was no new civil government organized.
The only difference is, that the central government forced
the South into union again; and that Rome, with the aid of
"Bloody Mary" even, failed to force the Anglican Church
back into union with Rome; hence she is still independent.
The fact that she carried on the Reformation, and, under the
reigns of Edward and Elizabeth, threw off many of the errors
of Rome which Henry had tolerated, is no argument against
the fact, admitted in all authentic histories of England, that
the Anglican Church was organized, as a separate and distinct
Church from Rome, in the days of Henry VIII.; and that his
marriage to Anne Boleyn was the proximate cause of its sepa¬
ration, at that time, from Rome. Madaulay (Vol. I., p. 45)
saysy "Henry VTII. attempted to constitute an Anglican
Church, differing from the Roman Catholic Church on the point
of supremacy, and on that point alone. His success in this
attempt was extraordinary.'" According to Macaulay, then,
he did succeed in constituting an Anglican Church. And
" that the King was, under Christ, sole head of the Church,
was a doctrine which they all with one voice affirmed."
(Page 48.)
We now proceed to inquire whether the divine right of
apostolical ordination was " maintained" (as the Bishop prefers
that word to "transmitted") in the transition from Rome to the
Anglican Church.
We have already seen that Mother Rome says, the new
organization lost the divine right in the change; and that,
therefore, none of her Bishops or Priests are recognized by
her, as such; but must be reordained by her Bishops before
they are allowed to minister at her altars. Let us inquire
into the facts, to ascertain whether or not this judgment of
Rome against the "Kew Church" be the result of prejudice,
arising out of the separation.
The said letters insist that the " succession" was with them
at the time of the separation, and that, as a matter of course,
it continued in the new organization. To this I objected, in
60 A Short Method with High-churchmen.
my sermon, that the Church .of Rome excommunicated the
separatists, thus depriving the Bishops of all authority to
perpetuate ordinations in the Church. To this it is replied,
(Letter No. 8,) " Your reasoning upon this subject, Reverend
Sir, shows you to he ignorant of Catholic law, as held by every
Catholic Church in Christendom." "The Pope asserts no
such effect belonging to his excommunication, not even to
his deposition. On the contrary, it is the doctrine of the
Roman Church, as well as the Anglican, that the priestly or
Episcopal acts of deposed Priests or Bishops are valid, though
schismatical, and hence are effectual in their object, though the actors
are schismatics." "Once a Priest, always a Priest. No power
on earth can deprive a man of his priesthood." "Notwith¬
standing, that if the deposition is just, the deposed Priest
commits a sin in not submitting to the Church.'^ Never¬
theless, "the Priest's official acts are valid."
I confess to my ignorance on this point. Some people pro¬
fess to know every thing; but I think it no reflection upon
my intelligence to admit that I do not. And, for the honor
of Christianity, I still hope that the Bishop is mistaken in "this
matter. This may be the dogma of the Jesuits and Ultra-
montanists in the Church of Rome; but I can find no canon
of the Church making this the law in the case : the Bishop
points me to none. Will he do me the favor to refer me to
the decree of the Council of Nice, or of any Council anterior'
to that—as he does not admit the authority of any of the
later date—that was "thereupon accepted by the universal
Church," making the point in question an essential article of
" Catholic faith ?"
Most assuredly this was not the doctrine of the Anglican
Church in the time of Henry VIII. Macaulay, in his His¬
tory of England, Vol. I., pp. 48, 49, holds the following lan¬
guage : "What Henry and his favorite counselors meant by
the supremacy, was certainly nothing less than the whole
power of 'the keys.' The King was to be the Pope of his
kingdom, the vicar of God, the expositor of Catholic verity,
the channel of sacramental graces. . . . He proclaimed
that all jurisdiction, spiritual as well as temporal, was derived
A Short Method with High-churchmen. 61
from him alone, and that it was in his power to confer the
Episcopal character, and to take it away. He actually ordered
his seal to be put to commissions by which Bishops were
appointed, who were to exercise their functions during his
royal pleasure. The King—such was the opinion of Arch-
bishod Cranmer, given in the plainest words—might, in virtue
of authority derived from God, make a Priest; and the Priest
so made needed no ordination whatever. These opinions
Cranmer followed out to their legitimate consequences. He
held that his own spiritual functions, like the secular func¬
tions of the Chancellor and Treasurer, were at once deter¬
mined by a demise of the crown. When Henry died, there¬
fore, the Archbishop and his suffragans took out fresh com¬
missions, empowering them to ordain and to perform other ,
spiritual functions, till the next sovereign should think fit to(
order otherwise. . . . Cranmer, indeed, plainly avowed
his conviction, that in primitive times, there was no distinc¬
tion between Bishops and Priests, and that laying on of hands
was altogether unnecessary." And says Macaulay, "The ,
man who took the chief part in settling the conditions which
produced the Anglican Church, was Thomas Cranmer."
Whatever may have been the opinions of Cranmer at differ¬
ent periods of his life, no well-informed man will deny that
Henry VIII. and Archbishop Cranmer understood the doc¬
trines of that Church at its formation. Burnet, in his His¬
tory of the Reformation, (Vol. I., p. 223,) informs us that
Bishop Cranmer held that "Bishops and Priests were at one
time, and were not two things, but both one office in the beginning
,of the Christian religion." And Stillingfleet (Irenicum,
Jart II., Chap. 8) says of Cranmer: "Thus we see by the tes-
: timony chiefly of him who was instrumental in our Reforma¬
tion, that he owned not Episcopacy as a distinct order from
presbytery of divine right, but only as a prudent constitution
of the civil magistrate for the better governing of the
Church." Burnet farther informs us that the Bishop of
London, and Drs. Robertson, Edgworth, and Cox, who acted
a conspicuous part under Edward VI. and Elizabeth, all held
that Priests and Bishops in the primitive Church were one;
62 A Short Method with High-churchmen.
and Cox says that as Bishops now are, they were after priests,
and therefore made of priests. (Burnet, Appendix, Vol. I., p.
224.) Mr. George Cranmer, a relative of the Bishop, says,
that "at the first, the greater part of the learned of the land
were either eagerly affected, or favorably inclined that way
and that "the books then written, for the most part, savored"
of the same doctrine. "It sounded everywhere in pulpits and
in common phrases of men's speech: many of the contrary
part began to fear they had taken a wrong cause." Tyndale,
denominated the Apostle of the Reformation, the celebrated
Barnes, and the godly Lambert, all tell us that Bishops and
Priests were one office; and Heal informs us that in the reign
of Edward VI., the form of ordination of Priest and Bishop
was the same; and that "the distinction of the two orders
was not the received doctrine of these times." (History of
the Puritans, Vol. I., p. 611.)
Ho stress seems to have been laid upon ordination at all,
as essential to the ordinances; and very loose morals were
tolerated in some cases. Bishop Parker himself authorized
a midwife, by the name of Eleanor Pead, to baptize children;
and a notoriously corrupt libertine, with four living wives, ti>y
the name of Blackall, intruded himself into the ministry,
without ordination, and for twelve years performed all its
functions. And Archbishop "Wfiately says that within the
memory of men then living, there existed a Bishop of whose
ordination there were many doubts, and no certainty.
Such were the legitimate fruits of Cranmer's and Henry's
doctrines and policy at the formation of the Anglican Church.
Moreover, Macaulay (p. 62) says: "In the reign of Eliza-*
beth, Jewell, Cooper, Whitgift, and other eminent doctors^
. . . never' denied that a Christian community without a
Bishop might be a pure Church. On the contrary, they
regarded the 'Protestants of the continent as of the same
household of faith with themselves. ... It was even held
that Presbyterians were entitled to a place and a voice in
Ecumenical Councils. When the States General of the United
Provinces convoked at Dort a Synod of Doctors, not epis-
copally ordained, an English Bishop, and an English Dean,
A Short Method with High-churchmen. 63
commissioned by the Head of the English Church, sat with
those doctors, preached to them, and voted with them on
the gravest questions of theology. (Joseph Hall, then Dean
of Worcester, and afterward Bishop of Norwich, was one of
the commissioners.) . . . Nay, many English benefices
were held by divines who had been admitted to the ministry
in the Calvinistic form used on the conti&^fc; nor was reor-
dination by a Bishop, in such cases, thewmought necessary,
or even lawful."
From this authority we gather the following facts:
1st. That the authorities of the Church of England, at its
formation, rejected the doctrine of the divine right of Bishops.
2d. They hold^that the divine right to appoint Bishops and
Priests, to give virtue to the sacraments, was in the King.
3d. That the King's appointment conveyed this virtue, with¬
out the imjfbsition of the hands of anybody.
4th. That the King, at will, could terminate the right to
ordain, or to administer the sacraments.
5th. That the authority conferred by him ceased at his
death.
6th. Even down to the time of Elizabeth, non-Episcopal
Churches, who rejected the third order in the ministry, were
recognized by the Church of England as scriptural Churches,
and their ministers were allowed to become pastors of English
Churches without reordination.
7th. That it was against the law to reordain ministers of
non-Episcopal Protestant Churches.
It is no part of my purpose to defend the theological cor¬
ruptions of Henry VIII., any more than his ungodly passion
for young women; but the facts just cited are intended to
show that the statement is not correct which says that it has
always been the doctrine of the Anglican Church, "that
once a priest always a priest; that no power on earth can
deprive a man of his priesthood." Nor do I believe that it
can be shown always to have been the doctrine of the Church
of Rome. Moreover, these facts demonstrate that the doctrine
of apostolical succession, as now held, was repudiated by the
Church of England in its organization; and they become
64
A Short Method with High-churchmen.
prima facie evidence that no regard was had to this succession
in the consecration of the first Bishops of that Church. Cran-
mer was the Archbishop himself, who under the former law—
which came to he regarded as law again in after-times—was
clothed with the authority to ordain Bishops ; and yet he is the
very man who rejects the divine right of Bishops and Pope, and
of a third order,... and recognizes the divine right of King
Henry to appoint without ordination at all. Let the reader
bear these facts in mind, as I shall recur to them presently.
The attempt to show that Archbishop Parker was canoni-
cally ordained by Barlow and others, fails to be conclusive.
And here again, as was implied in sermon on this
point, I frankly admit that the writer d^s bring forward
records of which I was not informed. I hope, however, that
he will excuse my want of knowledge of the records of his
Church. But let us proceed to examine them. "Will, I find,
after all, that his own records sustain all that is essential to the
allegations of my sermon. It is admitted that, if not "at the
time," at most within "fifty years," the ordination of Parker
was so seriously questioned, that the records of' his ordination
were submitted to examination; whereupon it was held by
tfie opposing party that the records were a "forgery." And
Lingard, the Roman Catholic historian from whom the letters
quote, admits that "Harding and Stapleton, and the more
ancient Catholic controvertists, denied that Parker was a
Bishop"—which he supposed "referred to the validity, and not
to the fact, of his consecration." So that, while the private
judgment of Catholics may admit the fact of Parker's ordina¬
tion; the Bishop having ruled private judgment out, he is not
entitled to such testimony when in his favor. But if we give
him the benefit of said testimony to the fact, he must allow
it to have equal weight against the validity of Parker's ordina¬
tion ; and especially so, as their private judgment agrees with
the universal practice of the Roman Catholic Church in deny¬
ing that the divine right of ordination did continue with the
Church of England after her separation from Rome. But
we are referred to the refusal of the Council of Trent, when
Pope Pius IY. importuned them "to declare that the Bishops
A Short Method with High-churchmen. 65
assumed and created by or under Elizabeth were not lawful
Bishops," as proof positive tliat the Council of Trent believed
those Bishops lawful. But in the language of Letter No. 7,
"What care we whether the apostles (Council of Trent)
directed a thing, or just did it, and left the Church to do it
after them ?" The Council of Trent did not put its opinions
on record, doubtless for reasons of policy, in view of their
surroteidings at the time ; but it is a notorious fact, that they
"just did" as a Church, ever since, refuse to recognize the
ordination of the English Church.
Admitting, for the sake of the argument, that the ordina¬
tion of Parker did take place, how does the matter stand?
From the record cited in Letter No. 8, it appears that four
Bishops officiated. "Bishops Barlow and Hodgskins had
been ordained Bishops according to the Roman Pontifical;"
and they had also been deposed, under Bloody Mary, by the
same Roman authority. "Scorey and Coverdale, the other
two, had been ordained according to the Reformed ordinal."
Barlow and Hodgskins were deposed Bishops; Scorey and
Coverdale were of the "New Church;" and who ordained
them ? The historian says it was done according to the
Reformed ordinal. That, of itself, renders it null and void,
according to Catholic faith. It was not done according to
Catholic law. But who officiated at their ordinations ? Were
they of the third order? or were they the appointees of Henry,
without the imposition of hands ? How were Scorey and Cover-
dale constituted Bishops? Very loose notions prevailed in the
"New Church" in regard to the divine right of ordination,
and nothing but the record will demonstrate the succession to
them. Two points are essential in this record to make out
the case: 1st. The succession. 2d. That the ordination was
performed according to Catholic law. The Romanists maintain
that as none but an Ecumenical Council has the right to change
the form or " ordinal" of consecration, the admission that they
were ordained "according to the Reformed ordinal" is fatal
to their claims to the succession. We must, therefore,
rule out Scorey and Coverdale, till they show the "record."
This leaves us but two; and we are informed by the historian
5
66
A JShort Method with High-churchmen.
that the canon required four Bishops to ordain an Archbishop.
But had these two the right ? Has a deposed Bishop the right
to transmit the apostolical succession ? Let us analyze the
principles of this doctrine for a moment.
1st. It is opposed to reason. The power that creates can¬
not destroy.
2d. It is opposed to the claim.of "infallible" authority
in the Church, as insisted upon throughout said fourteen
letters.
3d. It is opposed to the positive and explicit teachings of the
Bible. See Matt, xviii.: " If he neglect to hear the Church,
let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican. Ver¬
ily I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be
bound in heaven." This is full power given to the Church
over all rights and privileges conferred by the Church, beyond
all question. The apostles were commanded to fill the place
"from which Judas by transgression fell"—not by death. Has
not God bound himself to bind in heaven whatsoever the Church
binds on earth ? How can this be consistent with a continued
authority from God, in defiance of the Church, to transmit a
divine right that is essential to the Church, notwithstanding
the Church has justly excommunicated him ?
4th. This doctrine promotes schism in the Church. An
expelled Bishop, cursed from head to foot by the Church of
Rome, may set up a rival Church, and it be all apostolical!
5th. But, worst of all, this doctrine shows that the Church
of England was organized in sin. Bishops Barlow and Hodgs-
kins having been deposed by the Church of Rome, but now
acting in violation of the authority of the Church, in presum¬
ing to exercise functions from which they had been deposed,
are " sinners " in the act, according to Bishop Beckwith. They
sin in the act of ordination, and Parker is party to the sin, in
receiving ordination at the hands of sinners, in the act of his
ordination. So that according to this showing, the first Arch¬
bishop ordained by the authority of the Church of England
was consecrated by a sinful act and by sinners, and sinned
himself in receiving the ordination.
The law of the Church of England, then, required that the
A Short Method with High-churchmen. 67
Archbishop should ordain the Bishops. Therefore, the succes¬
sion in the Church of England and of the Protestant Episco¬
pal Church, from the days of Parker to the present, accord¬
ing to this argument, is the child of sin. This is indeed " hor¬
rible:." I do not affirm this of the succession—it is only the
logical sequence of the Bishop's doctrine. And it will avail
nothing to claim that the sentence of deposition against Bar¬
low and Hodgskins was "unjust, and therefore null and void."
Who is to determine that question ? Private judgment
and provincial judgment cannot be permitted to bring their
"curse" upon the Church in a question of such vital interest.
hTo Ecumenical Council has been held since the transaction.
Therefore, at the risk of being regarded as "more loyal to
the Hope than the Council of Trent was," I must still ques¬
tion whether, according to Catholic doctrine, Parker was
canonically ordained, and whether any divine right can be
perpetuated by sin.
68 A Short Method with High-churchmen.
CHAPTER VI.
logical results of high-church doctrines.
Having shown conclusively, as I think, that there is no
authority in the word of God, or in history, for the dogma of
apostolical succession in the ministry, or for an external Church-
Unity based upon such succession, and, therefore, and for other
reasons given, that the claims of the Protestant Episcopal
Church to be that Church-organization are without foundation,
I come now to notice the reply in said letters to the objection
made in my sermon against this doctrine, because of its logical
results, that it " limils the power of God to save men," etc.
I maintained that the Bishop's theory " shuts God up to the
agency of apostolical succession. He can use no other. If
this agency is not at hand, all is lost. The Holy Ghost himself
cannot create the soul anew, without a 4 successor,' to pour
the water upon the subject, or to dip him in it." Moreover,
I contended that this doctrine " imperils the salvation of man."
The uncertainties of the succession are forever to be such, that
no man can be assured that he was baptized by a " successor;"
and if not, he is still umregenerated and unsaved.
To this logical sequence of the Bishop's doctrine, it is replied
in Letter Ho. 12: "Ho Church on earth holds any such atrocious
blasphemies, on this or any other subject, as you are pleased
to preach into our mouths." "Rev. Sir, you are theologian
enough to know that this is flippant blasphemy against the
Holy Ghost." "You had a sermon to preach in which jmur
cue was to make our doctrine as absurd and as senseless as
you could, and so you felt yourself at liberty to ascribe these
blasphemous abominations to High-churchmen, and to our
whole Church."
A Short Method with High-churchmen.
69
I shall not stop to comment upon the spirit that pervades
this passage, and that could impute such motives to any one as
this extract does to me. I am content to leave that in the
hands of Him who said, "Judge not lest ye be judged; for
with what judgment ye judge, ye shall he judged."
But allow me to remind the writer of that response, that the
simple denial of a logical sequence does not prove it false. I
demand to know wherein the logic is unsound, by which these
"atrocious blasphemies" are deduced from the Bishop's doc¬
trine.
1st. The writer holds this language in Letter Ho. 14: " Every
Catholic Church throughout the world maintains that an
apostolic ministry deriving its authority in regular succession
from the apostles, is indispensable to catholicity."
2d. It is further held in Letter Ho. 14, that " every Church
professing catholicity, not only holds its ministry to be a
•priesthood, but maintains the priestly office to be absolutely
e^ytn^al to the validity of certain sacramental acts."
is also held that infants and adults are regenerated in
receiving water baptism, and that the Loid's-supper has sacri¬
ficial virtue in it when administered by such successors.
There is no salvation without regeneration; and there is no
regeneration without,water baptism; and there is no virtue in
water baptism exceptit is administered by a successor of the
apostles ! Are not these the doctrines of the Bishop's Church,
as he set them forth in his sermon and in the letters in its
defense ? Then, I ask, is not God shut up to this agency ?
How can he use any other ? How can the Holy Ghost regen¬
erate a soul without the baptizing successor ? If souls can be
regenerated, and the sacraments administered without this
ministry, then it is not essential to the Church. But if the
minister is essential to the sacraments of baptism and the Sup¬
per, and they are essential to salvation, I ask again, where the
"atrocious blasphemy" to say that this doctrine "shuts God
up to this agency, and that he can use no other ?" And is not
God "limited" thereby in his power to save men? I agree
with the writer, that it is "atrocious blasphemy" to maintain
that God has shut himself up to any human agency, in carrying
70 A Short Method- with High-churchmen.
out his grand designs of human salvation. It is "horrible"
to hold that the Holy Ghost cannot regenerate a soul without
the aid of an apostolic successor.
It is absurd to maintain that God has bound himself to any
external form of Church-organization. Civil government—
"the powers that be, are ordained of God;" but he has no¬
where committed himself to any one form of it. He changed
it among the Israelites from that of Moses to Judges and to
Kings. And so is the organization of the Church of God.
The only specific form of Church-organization God ever gave
to men was that of the Jewish Church; and that Christ abro¬
gated and simply gave us in its stead general principles, without
a form. The Church of Christ is for the whole world. To
make specific forms essential, must of necessity hinder the gos¬
pel and the Church. The Holy Ghost is not hound. " The
grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men."
It is "horrible," "atrocious blasphemy," to teach that Christ,
who died to save men, who sent the Comforter to "reprove the
world of sin," and to sanctify and save, should have 'confined
the Holy Ghost—omnipotent, omnipresent as he is—to p. spe¬
cific human agency, through which alone he should save men !
A doctrine that logically involves these results must there¬
fore he "horrible" to God.
Moreover, the doctrine that specific forms and ordinances
are essential to salvation, gives merit to works, and takes from
the merits of Christ's death. It transfers the essentials of
salvation from simple faith in the atonement to men and means.
Hence the tendencies of the Catholic Church, in all its
branches—Greek, Roman, and Anglican—is to ritualism and
ceremonial Christianity. The merit of forms and external
services is the natural outgrowth of the dogma of a specific
form of ministerial ordination, and of Church-organization.
So that the Bishop's doctrine, in its logical and practical
results, not only limits the divine power to save men, renders
man's hope doubtful and uncertain, hut it also robs Christ, in
part, of the merits of his death, and transfers it to human
agency. This is indeed " horrible." But as it is not proved
that my deductions from his doctrine are not legitimate, I
A Short Method with High-churchmen. 71
must insist that they are, and call upon the whole Church to
discard doctrines that involve a logical sequence so "atro¬
cious."
In Letter No. 12 complaint is made that I hold up the Epis¬
copal Church as maintaining that " social dancing, circuses,
theaters, the modern opera, the race-course, card-playing,"
etc., "yea, all this, is consistent with Christian character."
And because I illustrated this historic fact by what are the
teachings and practice of the Church in Columbus, it is com¬
plained that " in plain words you hold up my parish, priest
and people, to public reprobation, as a parish of dancers, cir¬
cus and theater-goers, horse-racers, gamblers," etc., etc. I did
not say "gamblers," but "card-playing;" nor did I say
" horse-racers," but the attending such places was the meaning.
Now did I state the position of the Protestant Episcopal
Church correctly or not ? If correctly, where is the wrong ?
"•The truth* of my statement is not denied in said letter. If
the Church, as a whole, condemns the amusement complained
of, why were not the canons and practice of the Church cited,
that it might appear that I had slandered the Church? We
have nothing of all this. But on the contrary, it is cited as
matter of " glorying," that the Protestant Episcopal Church has
"no Church-rules" against any but "open and notorious evil-
livers"—" not boys or girls who dance or otherwise offend
against a crotchet of some body of well-meaning old wives of
either sex"—"but you," he says, "have rules not written in
the law of God, nor anywhere else in heaven or earth, except
in the Methodist Discipline." %
I suppose, of course, the writer had never seen the closing
paragraph of our General'Pules, which says, "All of which
we are taught of God to observe even in his written word,
which is the only rule, and the sufficient rule, both of our faith
and practice." Moreover, it is cited as matter of " thanks to
God, that our blessed mother [the Protestant Episcopal
Church] still holds out her arms for them for whom Christ
died" "sinners who were far too mean to be Methodists."
In Letter No. 14 the writer says, " How about dancing ? I have
seen a number of your people dance, and I think none the
72
A Short Method with High-churchmen.
less of them for that." Of course, then, he was present at the
dance, where he saw Methodists dance. Dancing is not only
approved by name, and sinners in worldly amusements, far too
mean to be Methodists, are gloried over, if they will become
Episcopalians; but he also levels against us the following
passage for condemning such things: "Woe unto you, ye
blind guides !"—"ye strain at a gnat and swallow a camel;"
"ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for ye
neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are enter¬
ing to go in." "Woe unto you scribes and Pharisees, hypo¬
crites," etc.
How, what is meant by this quotation ? Was it not intended
to teach by it that those Christian teachers who oppose " danc¬
ing, theaters," etc., etc., are "blind guides," "straining at
these gnats"—that in this way we are " shutting up the king¬
dom of heaven against" dancers, etc., who wish to enter, and
that we are "hypocrites" in*all this? What else can the*
quoting of the passage in this connection mean? I ask, then,
is not the allegation complained of admitted and approved? and
is not a censure passed upon those Churches who discounte¬
nance these worldly amusements? How can a Church be
held up to public reprobation for a matter in which they "glory"
and "thank God?" I insist upon it, that it should be no
matter of offense to ascribe to a Church, as one of its charac¬
teristics, a trait which the defender of one of her Bishops
"glories" in.
But I admitted in my sermon, that while this was a Church-
characteristic, there were some noble exceptions. Bishop Cobb,
former Bishop of Alabama, said in his day, " Our Church has
become a Church of dancers." "it is the receptacle of those
that other Churches will not have, and which are no loss to
them, and no gain to us." Bishop Coxe, of Western Hew
York, in a recent pastoral address, complains of the same evil;
and he warns dancers and attenders of theaters, and such like,
" not to presume to come to the holy communion;" also classes
preparing for confirmation are notified that he " will lay hands
on no one who does not renounce all these worldly amuse¬
ments." How much more this is like a Christian Bishop than
A Short Method with High-churchmen_
73
that defense of the opposite course, which I am reviewing! It
does not look lovely for one Bishop to call another of his
Church a "blind guide," who will not "enter heaven" him¬
self, and "shuts" his dancing members out, a "hypocrite,"
as Bishop Coxe, of New York, is called in the letter just
considered.
But why, then, again I ask, complain of me for a true state¬
ment of the position of the Church? Methodists do not
regard it as holding them "up to public reprobation" to state
that they are opposed to dancing, and all worldly amusements,
hut rather to public admiration. State us correctly as a Church,
not the exceptions, and we shall never complain. If a sin is
shown us, we will confess and forsake it—not "glory" in it,
and defend it. "We are not what we ought to he: the Lord
make us a purer, holier people !
But after all, I am glad to see the sensitiveness manifested in
Letter No. 12 on worldly amusements in the Protestant Epis¬
copal Church. It shows that conscience is ill at ease, and
that there is still some respect for what may he properly
expected of Church-members. There still is hope in that
direction. It will afford me great pleasure to number both
the Bishop of Georgia and his Amanuensis upon the side of a
spiritual, unworldly Christianity.
74
A Short Method with High-churchmen.
CHAPTER VII.
letters xiii. and xiv. on union oe the protestant episcopal
church and the methodist episcopal church.
On the subject of a union of the two Churches, Letter Ho~
12 holds the followihg language: "I quite agree with a recent
writer in the Macon Christian Advocate, that it would be
worse than preposterously arrogant in us to summon the
Christian world, or even the Methodist Episcopal Church,
South, to surrender to us." "Let me tell you, dear sir, that
in a reiinion between you and us, we would have to give up
every thing that would be given up. I can think of nothing
which you have, which we should call upon you to surrender.
I can think of many things that we have, which we should
be forced to bring down to a level of your wishes. And you
would be very wrong were you to think that we should hesi¬
tate to make the sacrifice." In Letter Ho. 13 we are informed
that the title of the fourteenth and final letter will be, " Why
not unite? And in it I shall endeavor to give some reasons why
wise men of your Church should rather look for honorable
terms on which we might unite, than strive to justify a sepa¬
ration that is equally dishonorable and unfortunate to both."
And in a very Christian spirit he declines to follow "the
advice of eminent friends to attack Methodism." "I think
I can do better than attack you."
How, that all looks hopeful and Christian. It really looks as
though I did misunderstand the Bishop's sermon, and that
he was not trying to get all Christians to join his'Church as it
is. It does look so, does it not? "Well, thought I, no one will
be more gratified than I to find that the Protestant Episcopal
Church has come down from her exclusiveness, and is willing,
not only to form a union with Methodists, but "actually"
A Short Metjhod with High-churchmen. 75
finds nothing in Methodism that she will require us to give
up; but finds much in "The Church" which she must, can,
and will give up for the sake of the union. What a prospect!
The ecclesiastical heavens are bright with hope for the future.
A Bishop fresh from the people speaks through his Suffragan,
and it is the voice of union by sacrifice on his part—none is
required of us. One week more and the plan will be given.
Boll on, ye wheels of time, and bring us the glad tidings!
But pause a moment. What mean those fourth of a hun¬
dred quotations from Wesley at the close of Letter Bo. 13?
There is a speck of cloud in the sky, all so bright a moment
ago. Then " The Church" was to make all the sacrifice for
union ; and now some twTenty-five passages are produced from
John Wesley to inform us that Wesley was a Churchman, and
died in the Church; just as if every intelligent Methodist did
not know that before. What is all this for ? Is it not to make
ignorant Methodists believe that Wesley not only thought it
best that, in England, his societies should not take the form
of a distinct Church, but that he also opposed a separate
Church-organization in this country? Why was it added,
" Why, sir, if to agree with Wesley is to be a Methodist, I am
to-day a better Methodist than you " ? Bid not the writer know
that Mr. Wesley did not believe in a third order in the minis¬
try ? and that as an elder, and not as a Bishop, he ordained Br.
Coke to the office and functions of a Bishop, to organize a
separate and distinct Church in America? True, he called
him a " Superintendent," instead of a Bishop; not because
he did not intend to clothe him with all the functions of a
Bishop, but because he thought the title of Bishop, from what
he knew of the office in " The Church," tended to feed vanity
and pride. He never would have thought so of Methodist
Bishops, had he lived to know them and their works and
"labors more abundant." Boes the Bishop agree with Mr.
Wesley? Then he must give up his dogma of succession
and external Church-unity. Wesley held to neither. While he
thought it best for himself and the Methodists in England to
remain members of the Church of England, he, as elder,
ordained a Bishop for a new Church-organization in America,
76
A Short Method with nigh-churchmen.
to be entirely separate and distinct from the Church of Eng¬
land. This is an old game of Churchmen to catch uninformed
Methodists. Truth requires all the facts on the subject: a false
impression is made by giving only some of the facts in the
case.
This last stroke of the pen in Letter No. 13, throws a
shadow over the bright prospect of union, that rose up before
us so grandly a moment ago; and the old specter of prose¬
lyting into the Protestant Episcopal Church, upon a grand
scale, appears again. But it may be only an apparition: let
us bide our time and wait for No. 14, which is to contain the
panacea for ecclesiastical ills.
"Well, here is the promised letter, "Why not unite?" But
where is the plan of union ? Alas! alas! what evil genius
has been tampering with the writer? Hear him: " The form
in which I had proposed the question seemed to imply a reason¬
able hope that a union of our Churches might in some way be
accomplished." "I could find none either in the facts of the
case, or in,the precedents of history. And yet, as I revolved
the facts through which I came to that conclusion, it did seem
to me that the mere statement of them would compel your
thinking people to inquire why they should not unite with
Christ's Church Catholic." There it is! 0 that is too had!
Why did not he look into the question before he promised a
plan of union, in which his Church should make all the con¬
cessions ? Is it possible that he had not studied the questions
at issue between us till the two weeks between Letters Nos.
13 and 14 ? So it would seem from his statements. And so,
failing to find the promised plan of union, he falls back on
his old inclination, in the thought of indulging which he says
he "found pleasure" while writing his other letters—i. e., to
"show up Methodism !" What a fall!—from being the projector
of a plan for uniting the whole Church of God on earth, to
showing up the imperfections of a "little Sect" called Meth¬
odists ! True, he had just said that this "Sect." had nothing
that the Church would require them to give up for union;
but to secure a closer connection with them, "The Church"'
would giv6 up "many things." What is the matter now?
A Short Method with High-churchmen. 77
People will think—and I incline to the opinion that the
Bishop has given them ground to think—that, after all, I was
right in supposing that the purpose was to make proselytes from other
Churches to the Protestant Episcopal Church.
But let us notice the difficulties which the more recent
investigations found in Methodism, and which rendered the
union, so much desired, wholly impracticable.
1st. The Methodist Episcopal Church does not even pretend
to he a Catholic Church, and "is not now in the Catholic
Communion."
This is all true; hut it is not new—it is not a new fact of the
last two weeks' discovery. The Methodist Church never did
claim to he "The Catholic Church;" hut she has always
claimed to he an humhle part of the universal, or Catholic
Church. True, she "is not in communion" with the Greek,
the Roman, or the Anglican Church; but whose fault is it ?
No Ecumenical Council ever read us out of the Catholic
Communion. This is one ofifhe Bishop's "cases of provin¬
cial private judgment." "We hold the ancient creed, and
demand to know hy what authority "any other condition of
communion" is required. All those who make the demand,
according to the Bishop, "are themselves, ipso facto, excommuni¬
cate."
But is not the Protestant Episcopal Church in the same
condemnation? True, she claims to be "The Church;" but
who admits it ? The Bishop admits that she is not in com¬
munion with the Greek or Roman Church. Why, then,
present this as a reason why he could find no plan of union
with Methodists ?
2d. It is given as another reason of his failure in the plan
of union, that the Methodist Church "ridicules the idea of an
apostolical ministry, deriving its authority in regular succes¬
sion from the apostles.'
I was looking for something new, which two weeks' inves¬
tigation had discovered; but this is as old as Wesley. The
Methodists, from Wesley till now, have always held that
Christ is the Head of the Church—that he alone can confer
ministerial authority, and that he never has transferred his
78
A Short Method with High-churchmen.
authority to any man, or set of men, on earth. The Church
has authority only to recognize Christ's call to the ministry,
and so to declare. A divine call to the ministry Methodism
has always held to be essential to this sacred office.
3d. Another objection the investigation discovered is, that
Methodists "hold the notion of a Christian priesthood to be
utterly untenable."
As a general proposition, this is a mistake. Methodists
believe, with St. Peter, that all Christians " are a royal priest¬
hood"—"a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices,
acceptable to God by Christ Jesus." It is the privilege and
duty of every Christian to come with humble boldness " to
the throne of the heavenly grace"—even into the "holy of
holies," and to present and plead the merits of the blood of
Him "offered without the gate." But in the sense in which,
the Roman Church holds that ministers are priests, the Meth¬
odist Church does hold the doctrine "to be utterly unten¬
able." Does the Protestant Episcopal Church hold the doc¬
trine of Rome on this subject ? Methodists hold that " Christ
is the High-priest of our profession"—"who needeth not,
daily, as those high-priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his
own sins, and then for the people's ; for this he did once, when
he offered up himself"—"There remaineih no more sacrifice for
sins."
4th. The next difficulty stated is, that the'Methodist Church
"came into existence" "without the authority of the Cath¬
olic Church, and in defiance of that authority." This is an
admitted fact, known to every student of history, and the
writer must have known it also. Why, then, present it as a
reason for his failure in his plan of union ? But allow me to
respectfully inquire by what authority of the Catholic Church
did the Anglican and Protestant Episcopal Church separate
from Rome? Verily, thou art in the same condemnation;
and may not this he fatal to all the cherished hopes of an ulti¬
mate union with the Greeks and the Romans ?
5th. Again: the Methodist "ministry were ordained by
men whom no Church ever authorized to exercise the power
of ordination."
A Short Method with High-churchmen. 79
Just a moment ago, and the writer was more of a Wesleyan
than I am; but what a heretic Wesley has become all at
once, to presume to ordain ministers without authority! But
Wesley believed that, as an elder in the Church of God, he
had a right to ordain. And does not the Church of Rome
bring the same complaint against the ordination of the Prot¬
estant Episcopal Church ? Archbishop Parker—the fountain
of all the ordinations in the Episcopal Church from his day
till now—was ordained by men who were not only 11 not author¬
ized" by Rome to ordain him, but who did so in defiance of the
Roman Church who had deposed them. Yerily, I am afraid
that the Bishop, in bringing reasons why he cannot unite
with Methodists, will block up his way to union with Rome.
6th. The Methodist Church, it is maintained, is "founded
upon the shifting sands" "of popular opi$bn." This is
something new—it is an'original discovery. History, however,
shows the very reverse of this to be true. Wesley and his
coadjutors formed their societies in England in despite of
popular opinion in " The Church," and the violence of mobs.
I recommend a review of the history of those times—two
weeks was not time enough for so vast a subject. Methodists
claim Christ as the foundation-stone of their Church; and
building upon this Bock, instead of Peter, we claim the prom¬
ise that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
7 th. The Methodists are such u small affair compared to t^e
Catholic Church, that the writer concludes that " The Church,"
instead of forming a union with us, will just absorb us. "Jonah
has concluded to swallow the whale," or try. The reader will
remember that he admitted that the Methodist Episcopal
Church, South, compared to the Protestant Episcopal Church,
was as a whale to Jonah. It is amusing to see the process of
Jonah's enlargement for the effort. He determines to claim
to be as large as the Anglican, Protestant Episcopal, Roman,
and Greek Churches, all together. Ho matter, though the
Romans and the Greeks say, because of your noisome irregu¬
larities and defiance of Catholic authority, in your separation
from us we "will spew you out of our mouth;" yet for the
purpose of "swallowing the whale," the Protestant Episcopal
80 A Short Method with High-churchmen.
Church is imagined to he as large as all Catholic Christendom I
It is claimed that their doctrines are the same, and that they
"cannot stay apart." But the Greeks and Romans have
stayed apart for more than a thousand years, and I see no
evidence that they may not continue as they are for a thou¬
sand years more. The Bishop's Church has been separate
from Rome and the Greeks for some three hundred years. I
do see some signs that Rome may absorb the Episcopal Church,
but none of a union. It has been manifest, all through these
fourteen letters, that there was a disposition to shelter the
2,400 members of the Protestant Episcopal Church in Georgia
under the wing of the Roman and Greek Churches.
8th. The writer thinks that he has discovered that the right
of private judgment, as recognized by the Methodist Church,
is an element of disintegration, which discouraged him as to a
union with us.
Methodism has maintained from the beginning that the
Scriptures require that "every man give an account of him¬
self to God," and that "the word of God is the only rule, and
the sufficient rule, of our faith and practice," and that "we
ought to obey God rather than man." But why should the
right of private judgment be charged, in Methodism, with
disintegration ? What has divided the Catholic Church into
Greek, Roman, and Anglican ? Did not private judgment
do this ? Then why bring up a principle against Methodists
that is imbedded in the Catholic Church ? If private judg¬
ment did not divide the Catholic Church, then why not attrib¬
ute Methodist divisions to the same cause that produced them
in Catholicity ? This discovery ought not to be allowed to
frustrate all the Bishop's glorious plans of union.
9th. The writer is discouraged, because he has discovered
that no "Sects" have ever returned to Catholicism; nor has
any subdivision of "Sects" ever been reunited.
He is mistaken as to the reunion of "Sects," but it is true,
I believe, of Catholicism. Ho Church that ever separated
from it went back to it again. And it is true of the " branches "
of Catholicism: all the subdivisions of it stand as aforetime.
But still the Bishop has hope in the one case, and none in
A Short Method with High-churchmen. 81
the other. Why bo ? History is the same in both cases as to
a union with Catholicity. But there is a spirit of reunion abroad
among Protestants everywhere: some reunions have already
taken place among the Presbyterians and Methodists of this
country. A whole Conference, as such, of Methodist Prot¬
estants came to the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, a few
months ago, and were received as an organized body.
10th. The writer discovered, in his more recent researches,
that the "normal end of sectarian associations is apostasy"—
that Catholics keep the faith, but the "Sects" apostatize from
the Nicene Creed.
The Bishop forgot that the Council held at Tyre, A.D. 335,
deposed and banished Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, and
received the Arians into the communion of the Catholic
Church; and that the Greek Church now holds that the
Spirit proceeds from the Father only, and not from the Father
and the Son, as the Romanists and the Anglicans hold.
"Lutheran Germany" is charged with "infidelity;" but
what of Catholic France ? Who is responsible for her corrup¬
tions of faith and morals ? And what about the Fourteen
Articles which the Council of Trent added to the faith ?
Is there no departure from the faith with Rome ? Does the
Bishop take it all ? I think not.
But Methodism especially is made responsible for the infi¬
delity, "isms," and morals of this country, as the controlling
power in the land. Row I submit, whether it be fair to hold
an unpretending "Sect" to the same responsibility as that of
the Catholic Church, with her high claims and prerogatives.
But we will admit it for the sake of the argument; and
we are willing that an unprejudiced judgment be made, as
between the mental and moral cultivation of these United
States, with all their "isms" and corruptions, and any purely
Catholic country that may be selected. England is out of
the question she is leavened with Protestantism. But take
France under the reign of Catholicism, or Spain. But Mexico
is, perhaps, a purer specimen of unadulterated Catholicism.
11th. The separation and relations of the Methodists, North
and South, are cited with special emphasis, as an evidence of
6
82
A Short Method with High-churchmen.
the tendency of our system to corruption and apostasy.
"Four-fifths" became so corrupt that "one-fifth" could not
live with them ; and then the recriminations, North and South,
during and since the war, are referred to with special unction.
Truly, this is a bad showing for Methodism. The Lord help
us to do better ! But then it is so natural to follow bad exam¬
ples : how could any thing better be expected of us when the
genuine Catholie Church has set us such examples in this
regard ? The Greek and Roman Churches separated and
excommunicated each the other, a thousand years ago, and
they have been criminating and recriminating each other ever
since. Three hundred years ago, "four-fifths" of the Roman
Catholic Church became so corrupt, that "one-fifth" could
not remain with them, and so they separated and formed the
Anglican Church—Rome excommunicated her. And, in the
language of Letter No. 14, just changing the title of the Churches,
"unless the Protestant Episcopal Church, Bishops, Episcopal
papers, and Episcopal people, are consistent breakers of the
ninth commandment, Roman Catholicism throughout the world
has been the most stupendous failure of the age." They have
called Rome the "antichrist," the "great whore " of Revelation;
and the Pope is styled "the man of sin, who opposeth and
exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is
worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God,
showing himself that he is God." Such was the language of
the Anglican fathers toward Rome. "The Church" ought
not to set the "Sects" such bad examples, and'thus teach us
how to bring "railing accusation against" each other.
12th. Finally, the writer thinks that Methodism is not
strong enough to resist this tendency to apostasy, and that it
must ultimately go to pieces ; and that his Church must con¬
tent themselves with gathering up the fragments. And we*
are referred to' the neglect of band and class-meetings, and
the attendance of our members upon the circus, theaters, and
•dancing-parties, where, the winter says, "he had seen many
of them;" and the introduction of organs and the renting of
pews, together with the love of our people for dress and show
—which he says "he likes to see"—is all noted as "Evidence
A Short Method with High-churchmen. 83
of decline. Many of these things are not new—Mr. "Wesley
deplored them in his day. And we admit that, with the
world, the flesh, and the devil, and the whole "Catholic"
Church against us in these matters, and those in high places
m "The Church" especially, encouraging our members both by
precept and example, to depart from the simplicity of the
faith, and the purity of life of our fathers, we have had to row
against wjnd and tide to maintain our onward way, and some¬
times we have seemed to be drifting with the current. The
war left many of our members somewhat demoralized, and
there are those who still drift with the current of worldly
pleasure-hunters, and they may float into the Protestant Epis¬
copal Church or Roman Church for sympathy and justifica¬
tion.
Rut I am glad to inform the Bishop that, since the war,
our Southern Zion is "arising and putting on her beautiful
garments," and the great body of our ministers and members
are inquiring "for the old paths," that they may "walk therein."
And now, after all, what did the writer find in Methodism
that is not in Catholicism, that should have so discouraged
him all at once, and caused him to abandon his project of
Church-unity ?
Methodism made no sudden change, in principle or prac¬
tice, in those two weeks between Letters hTos. 13 and 14.
His researches during that time enabled him to make no new
development of Methodism. The only new thing he disclosed
was, that " Methodism was built upon the shifting sands of
popular opinion;" which was simply a historical mistake.
But we must submit. The Bishop has abandoned the project
he had so much at heart, when he preached his sermon on
"Christian Unity" in the Presbyterian church of Columbus;
and he will content himself with absorbing the Methodist Church,
by urging " every thinking Methodist that he should well and
seriously ponder why it is that Methodism cannot, and why
individual Methodists should not, unite with Christ's Church
Catholic." We shall, therefore, hear no more of "Christian
unity " to Methodists—proselyting is now the watchword. So
I thought at the first.
84 A /Short Method with High-churchmen.
CHAPTER VIII.
conclusion of the whole matter.
But a great truth is brought out in this failure to find a
common ground of external visible union for all Christians;
and it is this, that those who hold that doctrine are in error.
Christ did not mean to pledge himself to external unity, when
he said, "The gates of hell shall not prevail against" the
Church. If external unity is the pledge, then has it failed
for more than a thousand years. And does not the Bishop's
investigation demonstrate that it is doomed to fail for the
future? This is not the meaning of the promise of the
Master; nor is it to, a formal external ordination that he pledges
himself to the ministry, when he says, "Lo, I am with you
alway!" for this has failed also. But it is to those who have
"one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one^God and Father
of alland it is to that ministry whom he shall call to
forsakfe all to preach his gospel, that his precious promises
are made. No matter where these believers and this min¬
istry are found, or under whatever external Church-organiza¬
tion they are united, they are members of the Church Cath¬
olic, or universal, and they are apostolical ministers of
Christ. Christ and his apostles urge this unity of the faith in
the bonds of peace, but say nothing about external unity of
apostolical succession as a divine canon of his Church.
Morever, it is this dogma of external unity that has so
divided the Church in spirit and in form. What else divided
the Greek and Latin Churches ? An imperious demand of
each for an external form led to divisio^i in spirit, and to
mutual excommunication. What keeps them alienated and
still apart to-day but ^this same dogma of an external rite ?
A Short Method with High churchmen. 85
What keeps the Anglican Church from communion with her
Greek and Roman sisters but this same censor upon external
punctilios, which ever keeps watch at the gate ? "What drove
Methodists into a separate organization from the Church of
England hut that the Church, hampered by her rubrics and
forms, could not, or would not, give the gospel and the sacra¬
ments to the perishing thousands of God's poor, in the lanes
and streets of the city, in the coal-mines of England, and in
the wilds of America ? And what is it hut this same devo¬
tion to form and specific externals that has for one hundred
and thirty years caused the whole Catholic family, as they
call themselves, to refuse us recognition as brethren ?
The bitterness of controversy has usually resulted from
contentions about the non-essentials of Christianity. Let thfe
reader refer again to Letter ISTo. 14, and he will see that apos¬
tolical succession is the whole difficulty to communion, wherever
it is denied. This, and external Church-authority, has divided
Christendom, and keeps it divided. Throw this to the winds,
and make the essentials of faith the condition of communion,
and at once all Christendom is one common brotherhood.
I insist upon it, that this dogma of apostolical succession is
chargeable with the present divided state of the Church, both
in form and feeling, to a large extent. Let, then, the division
of the body of Christ rest where it of right belongs—with
the advocates of antiscriptural terms of communion—terms
found neither in the Bible nor in the Nicene Creed of the
Fathers; and let it never be forgotten, that it is the perti¬
nacity with which these terms of communion are still insisted
upon, that keeps the body divided in Spirit. The demand for
the observance of these ceremonial punctilios is made fimperative
as a condition of communion. The business world—mer¬
chants, farmers, mechanics, and the learned professions—
allows each to pursue his calling in his own way, without
excluding him from the brotherhood. Farmers allow each
other to plant in straight or horizontal rows—all in grain,
cotton rice, or tobacco, or a portion of each, as suits him
best and to cultivate in his own way; and still the hand of
fraternal recognition is not denied him. But Successionists have
86
A Short Method with High-churchmen.
an iron creed of forms, to which all must subscribe, or Chris¬
tian fellowship is refused, and epithets of "Schismatics,"
"Sects," "things of yesterday," etc., are applied to those who
dissent, or call in question their infallibility. "What though
our ministers be called of God, and preach in the " demonstra¬
tion of the Spirit," with "signs following," how dare they to
preach the gospel without the authority of the succession ? The
people are warned against them as usurpers of ministerial
robes. What though our Church-members, under this min¬
istry, do repent, believe in Christ, are born of the Spirit, and
have set up in them the "kingdom of God," which is not
"meat and drink," but "righteousness, peace, and joy in the
Holy Ghost;" and what though "others, seeing their good
works, glorify their Father which is in heaven"—the world
is told that these are "righteous over much," "religious
fanatics," and "no Church." And why not? Because we
sow in straight lines, and not horizontally, as they direct—because
we plant a proper proportion of every plant needed for food,
and do not run all on King Cotton, which can only clothe the
body, but never feed and nourish the life—because we do not
run our spiritual farm all on apostolical succession—which is
11 in loord only "—but " hold to the Head," and worship God in
the Spirit, and "have no confidence in the flesh;" therefore we
are denied the hand of fellowship.
Moreover, the dogma of succession is not only answerable
for the divisions of the Church in form, and its continued
alienation in spirit, to a large extent, but it saps Christianity
at the root; it robs Christ of the merit of the atonement, and
transfers it to an outward ceremony; it lulls the conscience,
and rocks unrenewed and backslidden members of the Church
to sleep in the cradle of carnal security, and opens up an easy
way to heaven for the worldly-minded. What though the heart
is still as "a cage of unclean birds," have they not been bap¬
tized, and thus regenerated, by a successor of the apostles ?
What though they still love to gratify the lusts of the flesh,
the lusts of the eye, and the pride of life, do they not take
the bread and the wine at consecrated hands? and do they not
therefore receive the atoning merits of Christ ? If this be done,
A Short Method with High-churchmen. 87
may they not enjoy the world, and "rejoice in thy youth, and
walk in the ways of thine heart and in the sight of thine
eyes?" Need they be crucified to the world, or the ivorld
to them, with its affections and lusts ?
These are the legitimate results to spiritual religion from
this theory of Christianity. And the practical results are,
that the Church is full of a class of religionists who present
no marked difference from sinners who make no pretensions
to Christianity at all—the only difference is in external forms
of religion. This style of religion pleases the unrenewed
heart, and finds favor with those who intend to live for the
flesh, and yet desire to have some ground of hope for heaven.
Thus the Church is filled with those who know nothing of
the "renewing of the Holy Ghost." Forms are substituted
for the atonement—outward ceremonials for a "new creature in
Christ Jesus," and the practice of worldliness for that holiness
of life which makes Christians "the light of the world."
The Church is shorn of her power and her glory; the word
preached is paralyzed, and infidelity and sin walk through
the land.
The advocates of succession exclaim, "Is thy servant a dog
that he should do this thing?" "We hold no doctrine that
involves any such " horrible results: it is flippant blasphemy."
"Nay, verily," say they, "the Sects and Schismatics have
done this evil." It is no new thing for those who adopt
error to deny its consequences—for those who usurp unau¬
thorized power to deny the evils arising from its exercise, and
to charge them upon rebellious subjects. This is human
nature; hence history repeats itself both in Church and State.
But the logic of events will trace effects to their legitimate
causes. And just as sure as the people hold political tyrants
to account for arbitrarily trampling upon their liberties, so
surely will a" thinking, reading public hold usurpers of pre¬
rogatives in the Church, never conferred by Christ, answer¬
able for the evils they charge upon "Schismatics." The
Bible is the charter of our religious liberties, and by this
Book we must stand or fall. It warns us of those "who would
exalt themselves as God," and seek to lord it over his heritage.
88
A Short Method with High-churchmen.
We are commanded to resist all such. "Standfast in the faith."
Facts are stubborn things, and the history of the past and of
the present demonstrates that the Successionists are justly
answerable for the evils alleged in the hill presented. What
a brood of evils from this parent sin—Succession ! "Surely an
enemy hath done this."
Let Bishop Beckwith, therefore, and all who desire the
scriptural unity of the Church, put away the idea of an
external organic unity, on the apostolical-succession theory,
or any other, and seek unity upon the essentials of faith—
" One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of
all." Let this be the only condition of Christian communion.
Let each branch of the Church maintain such external organi¬
zation as in their judgment may best promote the cause of
God; and let each think theirs better than their brother's, if
they please; still let them not magnify this into an essential
to communion, and so divide the Church. It is not essential
to salvation that all Christians have the same external forms
of service and Church-organization. The Methodists can
believe in Christ, and be united—may live according to the
Bible, without seeing a Roman Catholic; and so may others.
Why then make that essential which is not ? Let us regard
every Christian and every Church, believing in Christ and
living according to his word, as of one brotherhood. Then
shall the prayer of the Master for the Church be answered,
"That they maybe one as we are"—one in nature and in
Spirit, one in motive and in purpose, and one in effort for the
salvation of the world; and yet each part and person distinct
in their individuality, and specific work assigned them in the
vineyard of the Lord, as are the Father, the Son, and the
Spirit. May the day soon come, when from Christ the Head,
the "whole body, fitly joined together and compacted by that
which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual work¬
ing in the measure of every part," may make "increase of
the body unto the edifying of itself in love!"