MASTER 
 NEGA TIVE 
 
 NO . 92 -80825 
 
MICROFILMED 1993 
 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES/NEW YORK 
 
 as part of the 
 "Foundations of Western Civilization Preservation Project" 
 
 Funded by the 
 NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES 
 
 Reproductions may not be made without permission from 
 
 Columbia University Library 
 
COPYRIGHT STATEMENT 
 
 The copyright law of the United States - Title 17, United 
 States Code - concerns the making of photocopies or 
 other reproductions of ( 
 
 • !• 
 
 Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and 
 archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other 
 reproduction. One of these specified conditions is that the 
 photocopy or other reproduction is not to be "used for any 
 purpose other than private study, scholarship, or 
 research.'* If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a 
 photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of "fair 
 use," that user may be liable for copyright infringement. 
 
 This institution reserves the right to refuse to accept a 
 copy order if, in its judgement, fulfillment of the order 
 would involve violation of the copyright law. 
 
AUTHOR: 
 
 BROWN,WILLIAM 
 MONTGOMERY 
 
 TITLE: 
 
 THE CHURCH FOR 
 
 AMERICANS 
 
 PLACE: 
 
 NEW YORK 
 
 DA TE : 
 
 1896 
 
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES 
 PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT 
 
 BIBUQGRAPHICJMICRQFORMTAROFr 
 
 Original Material as Filmed - Existing bibliographic Record 
 
 Master Negative # 
 
 32-X0825'8 
 
 B&l I CKu-rcU ^o#/^ 
 
 Amcnricwns... 
 
 a^ab. 
 
 571 
 
 Imap 
 
 1 -r* 
 
 \ 
 
 Restrictions on Use: 
 
 TECTiN^lCALMlCROFORMDATA 
 
 FILM SIZE: 3fj!<.'L^^ REDUCTION RATI0:_LLJ!: 
 
 T^^^t^") '^^^V INITIALS„_6^i^ 
 
/ 
 
 ,%, 
 
 1 
 
 r.o a'^^ ^ «0. 
 
 
 ^. 
 
 r 
 
 Association for information and Image Management 
 
 1100 Wayne Avenue. Suite 1100 
 Silver Spring. Maryland 20910 
 
 301/587-8202 
 
 Centimeter 
 
 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 mm 
 
 iiiiiiiiliiiiliiiiiiiiiliiii 
 
 TTT 
 
 Inches 
 
 lllllllllllllMlMllljllll[llll|Mll|llllm 
 
 FT II I I 
 
 1 2 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 1.25 
 
 2.8 
 
 1^ 
 
 IM Bill 3.2 
 
 |«3 
 
 Itt 
 
 ■Ubia 
 
 3.6 
 
 I 
 
 14.0 
 
 1.4 
 
 4 
 
 2.5 
 
 2.2 
 
 2.0 
 
 1.8 
 
 1.6 
 
 I 
 
 MRNUFRCTURED TO flllM STHNDFIRDS 
 BY APPLIED IMRGE. INC. 
 
 / 
 
 
f. ^* 
 
 
 !'«*>•.»' 
 
 ■'**»<.1 
 
 * - -A 
 
 >s;' 
 
 7»\ / 
 
 
 
 *"V 
 
 ■'^^ 
 
 -♦-' is 
 
 
 - . .:*? 
 
■'I ill, 
 
 
 Columbia WiniiKvaitv 
 
 intljeCitpof^togorfe 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 I 
 
 i 
 
 \ 
 
 f 
 
 1 
 
 
 V 
 
 
 11 
 
 « 
 
 IB 
 
 '' 
 
 H 
 
 
 r 
 
 
 n 
 
 
 Hb 
 
 
 HI 
 
 . 
 
 ^1 
 
 ■1 
 
 H 
 
 f, f^ 
 
 H 
 
 tti.i 
 
 m 
 
Xutograph ^^rracntation Copp. 
 
 /" ^^^^. 
 
 ^:^'^^K^iV'^? 
 
 /^k 
 
 ^^'^. x^. 
 
 ^^:^^^^^^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ! * 
 
■ • t «, 
 
 • • 
 
 • • • 
 
 • «i * * •' 
 • « * « • 
 
 « II 
 
 • • » • t 
 
 : t c 
 
 ( « • ■ t ■ C 
 
 ii 
 
 Hi 
 
 HI 
 
 71 E 
 •^ s 
 
 w 
 
 z x: 
 
 3 
 
 "SJ o 
 <a u 
 
 ^X- 
 
 ox: 
 o 
 
 t- a» t* 
 c-x: q» 
 _ ^ in 
 
 p- • 
 •£ EQ 
 
 l|< 
 
 3 r c 
 
 c >>— 
 c ^ 
 
 .- PS 
 
 « 
 
 c E 
 
 at «•* 
 
 ex: *? 
 
 " I- w. 
 
 (/) a^ '-;= 
 ■"03 a, 
 
 ■- V ^ 
 f Ij c 
 !/l 3 K 
 
 3,-vx; 
 
 o-s 
 
 = .!£ a. 
 
 <u 
 
 41 >» 
 
 •^ «w H 
 o <u 
 
 '^ ^* Zm 
 
 ^■5-5 
 iU£ 
 
 o lu 
 
I • •(„ 
 
 • -• ». 
 
 • • • t I I 
 
 y.'u 
 
 • *' • • 
 
 I • • * 
 
 • • t 
 
 • t I 
 
 « 
 
 .;:; ta 
 
 C-i o 
 
 3 = 
 
 C >.— 
 C t/-n 
 
 .— d 
 
 <u 
 
 " • <* 
 
 r. ->'<. 
 
 '^ ■— ^ 
 
 ■5r3 2 
 
 ,^ = E 
 o " - 
 
 ■"CQ (y 
 
 •= j; c 
 
 yi 3 i> 
 
 < J ix 
 - .!£ 'E. 
 
 v^ U. Q, 
 
 5 <w i; 
 
 z <u 
 
 •n '? 
 
 c # 
 
 a> 
 
 3"~ ^ 
 
 i/i-rr 
 
 -« 3 
 
 li 
 
 iU.E 
 
 ^/■. = s 
 
 1 
 
• ,< 
 
 I «. .. • • » 
 
 • e « ' 'F • t ■'-■ ■• 
 
 • *' • • 
 
 1 * 
 
 HI 
 
 > -> , > ) 
 
 THE 
 
 Church for Americans 
 
 BY 
 
 William Montgomery Brown, 
 
 > k > 
 
 Archdeacon of Ohio; Lecturer at Bexley Hall, the Theological Seminary 
 
 of Kenyon College. 
 
 £}(j de Xiyto eh JCpifftov koI eh ryv EKKlrjaiav. 
 
 — Ephbsians, V : 32. 
 
 FOURTH EDITION 
 
 REVISED AND ENLARGED, 
 
 NEW YORK: 
 THOMAS WHITTAKER, 
 
 2 AND 3 Bible House. 
 1806. 
 
r * c f 
 
 , ■; « t « « • 
 t t • f • ' 
 
 « * . « * « 
 
 « « • 
 
 t * • 
 
 t 
 
 • t 
 
 « . f 1 • 
 
 t • 1 .. «■ 
 
 • ■ • * 
 
 t 
 
 • » ■ »' * ■ ■ .. *:■ • . • • t • 
 
 • • 
 
 • » 
 
 1 » * • 
 
 t • • • 
 
 .1, • 1 1 • • * • • * • : t 
 • •• i ,, , , •••• •• •••••■•"• 
 
 Copyright, 1895, 
 
 BY 
 WILLIAM MONTGOMERY BROWN. 
 
 CSOPY RIGHT, 1896, 
 
 BY 
 
 WILLIAM MONTGOMERY BROWN. 
 
 MADE BY 
 
 THE WERNER COMPANY, 
 
 AKRON, OHIO. 
 
 TO 
 MY BELOVED WIFE, 
 
 ELLA BRADFORD BROWN, 
 
 AND HER MOTHER, 
 
 MARY SCRANTON BRADFORD, 
 
 TRUE AND INSPIRING HELPERS OF THE AUTHOR IN HIS LIFE'S WORK, 
 
 THIS VOLUME IS 
 
 AFFECTIONATELY AND GRATEFULLY 
 
 DEDICATED. 
 
 
[I 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 "The Time Will Come When Three Words Uttered 
 WITH Charity and Meekness Shall Receive a Far More 
 Blessed Reward Than Three Thousand Volumes 
 Written with Disdainful Sharpness of Wit." 
 
 — Hooker. 
 
 (jv) 
 
 AS the origin of a book is often of interest to the 
 reader, I will explain that this work is along 
 lines, which, as a Missionary, 1 have followed for 
 many years in my addresses and conversations con- 
 cerning the Church. I was first induced by the request 
 of the Kt. Rev. Dr. Leonard, Bishop of Ohio, to elab- 
 orate my talks into formal lectures, in the hope that 
 they might contribute in some degree to the excellent 
 preparation which our Missionary recruits are receiving 
 at the Divinity School of Kenyon College. .After their 
 delivery to the Theological students, it was thought 
 that they would not be without interest to Sunday 
 School teachers and others who now and then are called 
 upon to commend or defend our beloved Church. 
 Accordingly they have been made the basis of Lenten 
 discourses to general congregations in Trinity Church, 
 Toledo, and the Cathedral Parish, Cleveland. Finally, 
 I have been persuaded by the representations of many 
 who heard them that, if published, they would make a 
 useful book for distribution among those who have been 
 reared under Denominational or Roman influences, and 
 supply the need, often felt by Lay readers and young 
 missionaries, of a course of Confirmation instructions 
 about the Church. 
 
 (V) 
 
▼1 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 "t 
 
 Til© concern which this book manifests for the 
 Ecclesiastical side of Christianity and the little it has to 
 say about its spiritual and practical aspects, is due to 
 what the writer cjoiiBiders to be, just now, the 8i)ecial 
 reli<>ious need of our time and country. This is not 
 instruction in the moral requirements of Christianity so 
 much as the establishment of the fact that Christ 
 founded a Church which has come down to us, and with 
 some branch of which it is the privilege and duty of all 
 to identify themselves. The idea that "one Church is 
 as good as another" and that consequently "it jnac- 
 tically makes no difference to which we belong," is 
 responsible for the enormous non-church element of tk© 
 United States, which, according to the last census, 
 amounted to more than half of the whole population, 
 and for the loose hold which all bodies of Christians 
 have upon their constituency. 
 
 Under such circumstances ff! becomes a matter of 
 first importance that the duty of belonging to the 
 National branch of the one Apostolic Church of Christ, 
 and the evil of separation from it, should be set forth 
 in season and out of season. In proportion as this is 
 done, the Episcopal Church will be built up and held 
 together. Our incomparable Liturgy, impressive Serv- 
 ices, and attractive yearly round of varied Holy Sea- 
 sons, are indeed annually drawing thousands to this 
 fold ; but others in great numbers who care compara- 
 tively little for these things, come because they believe 
 this Church to be historicallv and canonically the 
 American as well as our racial branch of Christ's 
 Church, and that, therefore, she possesses exclusive 
 claims to allegiance. Every one who is influenced by 
 this conviction, is worth ten of such as are attracted 
 only by aesthetic considerations. Those who are in the 
 Church simply because of natural ties, or on account of 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 VU 
 
 her attractive features, are often drawn away by coun- 
 ter influences and alienated the 'moment that all does 
 not go on according to their liking. But Episcopalians 
 who are such from piinciple rather than preference— 
 and, thank God, this class is rapidly increasing— stand 
 by the Church through all the changes and chances of 
 
 parochial life. 
 
 I have an instance in mind of a person who, upon 
 coming to a village where our Mission was weak and 
 the Presbyterians and Methodists wei-e strong both 
 socially and numerically, was asked by a caller : " What 
 Church do you and your husband expect to attend?" 
 Upon replying that they were members of the Episcopal 
 Church, her interrogator said : '' But that Church is so 
 new and small and has no standing in the community. 
 I think you will find it much more to your taste to be 
 identified with one of the big churches where the other 
 members of the social circle to which you will belong 
 all go. Mrs. B., an estimable lady who recently came 
 to town, was an Episcopalian but, after going once or 
 twice to the little Chapel, she left and joined the Pres- 
 byterian Church where she is now a leading member. 
 We like her very much and should be glad if you and 
 Mr. C. would follow her example." To this the self-re- 
 specting and consistent answer was made: ''We are 
 not that kind of Episcopalians. We became members of 
 the Episcopal Church rather than of any other Chiis- 
 tian body because, after studying into the matter, we 
 believed it our duty to do so. I am sorry to hear of 
 the feeble condition of my Church and of the infrequent 
 Services by a Lay reader instead of by a Clergyman. 
 But this is all the more reason why we should be true 
 to our colors and lend a helping hand." This consis- 
 tency on the part of an infiuential new-coming family 
 was the making of the mission. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 IX 
 
 frt 
 
 I am under great oWlgation to some ten or twelve 
 learned and judicious Clergymen of the Diocese of Ohio 
 for their painstaking and helpful criticisms. Especially 
 am I indebted to the Very Rev. Francis M. Hall, M.A., 
 for invaluable assistance in preparing the manuscript 
 for the printer, and to Canon D. F. Da vies, M.A., for 
 some exceptionally important suggestions and a careful 
 reading of the proofs. I desire also to thank the Rev. 
 A. E. Dldroyd, M.A., of Oundle, England, for kind per- 
 mission to use some of the excellent charts in his able 
 pamphlet on " The Continuity of the English Church 
 through Eighteen Centuries," and the Rt. Rev. William 
 Stevens Perry, D.D., LL.D., D.C.L., Bishop of Iowa, and 
 other experts in special branches of learning who were 
 good enough to answer my letters of incjuiry and to 
 send me some of their valuable publications, and last, 
 but not least, my printers, The Werner Company, of 
 Akron, Ohio, and their efficient and obliging employees 
 who have been uniformly courteous and patient. 
 
 I shall feel amply repaid for the time and labor ex- 
 pended upon this work, if, by God's blessing, it shall 
 prove, to any degTee, instrumental in persuading non 
 church members to make a profession of Christ by 
 identifying themselves with His Church , in adding t© 
 the number of well-instructed persons who come to us 
 from the Denominational and Roman communions be- 
 cause fully convinced of this Church's Divine and supe- 
 rior claims to their allegiance, and in increasing the 
 appreciation, love, and zeal of Episcopalians for their 
 pure brancjli of tb^ Catholic and Apostolic Church. 
 
 W. M. B. 
 
 Trinity Cathedral, Cleveland, Ohio, 
 St. Luke's Day, 1895. 
 
 PREFACE TO THE FOURTH EDITION. 
 
 Owing to the urgent recommendation of fiiends, my 
 humble effort to set forth the superior claims of the 
 Anglican Communion to the exclusive allegiance of 
 English speaking people, written especially for Ameri- 
 cans, was published a year earlier than was intended 
 and, accordingly, the First Edition lacked a great 
 many finishing touches. When it became manifest that 
 the demand for the book would greatly exceed my ex- 
 pectation, every spare moment that could be com- 
 manded was given to the work of revision. A few cor- 
 rections and changes were made in the Second Edition, 
 but there was no time between it and the Third for 
 further alterations in the plates. It was then deter- 
 mined that the Fourth Edition should be as free from 
 blemishes and points for cavil as possible. Fortunately 
 the summer vacation gave me the necessary leisure for 
 the carrying out of this resolve. 
 
 The many letters of warm commendation and friendly 
 criticism received from Clergymen and Laymen have 
 been a great encouragement and help to me. Those to 
 whom I am most indebted are: the Rt. Rev. Thomas 
 Underwood Dudley, D.D., LL.D., D.C.L., Bishop of Ken- 
 tucky and Chancellor of the University of the South ; 
 the Rt. Rev. Hugh Miller Thompson, S.T.D., LL.D., 
 Bishop of Mississippi; the Rev. W. C. Hopkins, D.D., 
 City Missionary of Toledo; the Rev. Wm. Jones Sea- 
 bury, D.D., Charles-and-Elizabeth-Ludlow Professor of 
 Ecclesiastical Polity and Law in the General Theological 
 Seminary, New York; the Rev. Wm. C. McCxacken, 
 M.A., Rector of St. Martin's Church, Fairmont, Minne- 
 
 Ir 
 
X PREFACE. 
 
 8ota; the Rev. G. H. H. Butler, B.A., Curate o! the 
 Church of the Ascension, Mount Vernon, New York; 
 and some unknown critic and friend of great learning 
 who signed his several most important communica- 
 tions with the pseudonym, "A Layman." 
 
 One of the most scholarly and conservative Clergymen 
 of this country accompanied his valuable corrections 
 and suggestions with the gratifying assurance that the 
 First Edition of the Church for Americans "brings out 
 the whole case so that no one can be seriously misled by 
 any of its statements ; and so that in point of principle 
 and historical fact the reader who gets his first impres- 
 sions from it must inevitably be started in the right 
 direction. He would never feel himself to have been 
 misled or obliged to deny the substance of what you 
 have taught him." Many others have given expression 
 to the same comforting opinion. If this is true of the 
 Srst three editions it will be much more so of the fourth. 
 
 It is believed that the value of the book has been 
 materially increased by the addition of the last nine- 
 teen sections to the Appendices and an Index of Refer- 
 ences to Quotations. 
 
 I desire to record here ray gratitude to God for the 
 blessing of strength and the grace of perseverance which 
 have enabled me, notwithstanding the constant travel- 
 ing and the many engrossing duties of a. General Mis- 
 Bionary of an extensive and populous Diocese, to 
 complete a book that has required so much more work 
 than was at first anticipated. . AV. M. B. 
 
 Trinity Cathedral, Cleveland, Ohio, 
 
 Feast of St. Michael and All Angels, 1896. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Introductory 1 
 
 LECTURE I. 
 Church Membership 15 
 
 LECTURE TI. 
 Our Controversy with RoiManists 51 
 
 LECTURE IIL 
 Our Controversy with Dknominationalists 147 
 
 LECTURE IV. 
 The Mother Church of England 215 
 
 LECTURE V. 
 The American Church c , 259 
 
 LECTURE VI. 
 Ob.tections to the Episcopal Church 311 
 
 LECTURE VII. 
 Why Americans Should Be Episcopalians 357 
 
 Appendices and Supplementary Articles 403 
 
 xi 
 
Hi 
 
 ILLUSTRATIONS. 
 
 I 
 
 •I 
 
 . t 
 
 f I 
 
 ** Thus Saith the Lord, Stand Ye in the Ways, 
 AND See, and Ask for the Old Paths, Where Is the 
 Good Way, and Walk Therein, and Ye Shall Find 
 
 Rest for Your Souls." 
 
 — Jeremiah vi:16 
 
 FACING 
 PAGE 
 
 St. Martin's Church, Canterbury {Frontispiece.) 
 Diagram, Showing the Episcopal Descent of Par- 
 ker Traced Back Four Successions 127 
 
 Diagram, Showing That the Anglican Communion 
 THROUGH Archbishop Laud Has the Apostolic 
 Succession Independently of Archbishop Par- 
 
 ker 
 
 130 
 
 Diagram, Showing That the Present Episcopate of 
 the Anglican Communion Can Trace Its De- 
 scent THROUGH Archbishop Laud to Italian, 
 Welsh, Irish, and Eastern Lines of Succession 131 
 
 Diagram, Showing the Origin of the British 
 
 Church to Have Been Independent of Rome. 236 
 
 Map, Showing the Parts Taken, Respectively, by 
 THE Native and Roman Missionaries in the 
 Conversion of the Anglo-Saxons 240 
 
 • • • 
 
 Xlll 
 
 (xii) 
 
 til 
 
i-l 
 
 " The Search for Truth Is Not Half So Pleasant 
 As Sticking to the Views We Hold at Present." 
 
 I 
 
 (xiv) 
 
 
 • » » ^ 
 
 C - » 4 ,, » 
 
 
 » J » » » 
 
 > 7 . ■♦ - 
 
 > ' » 1 i » J » > .- ' 
 
 « 1 J > I 
 
 « • i t 1 .) J J ' 
 
 » > 1 
 
 • 1 » .» 1 
 
 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 IN our day and country there is, as everybody 
 knows, a vast non church membersliip population. 
 eTudging from a somewhat extended personal ob- 
 servation, 1 should say that at least one-half of the 
 men and a third of the women are not identified with 
 any form of organized Christianity. This is not be-\ 
 cause Americans, at the close of the nineteenth cen- \ 
 tury, are preeminently skeptical and irreligious, but 
 because the opinion so widely prevails that a person 
 can be as good a Christian outside of the Church and 
 without the use of the Sacraments and means of grace 
 as with them. / 
 
 The neglect of institutional religion is accounted for 
 by the exaggerated importance which was attached to 
 it by Catholic Christendom in the Mediaeval Ages, and 
 is still attributed to it by Romanism. When we con- 
 sider the tendency of human nature to go from one 
 extreme to another, we shall not wondc' ^hat the 
 Reformation, in which Wick^'^Te, Husb, i^uther, Calvin 
 and Knox took such prominent parts, has manifested a 
 disposition to depreciate the Church with her Priest- 
 hood and Sacraments, and to magnify certain Evangel- 
 ical doctrines and the preaching of them. Romanists 
 made salvation to depend upon belonging to the 
 Church ; therefore, Protestants hinged it upon belief in 
 a dogma. Then the pendulum of human opinion, which 
 
 C. A. — 1 /-i » 
 
 \ 
 
 |! 
 
f 
 
 
 THE CHrRCH FOR AMERICANS. 
 
 
 rf • 
 
 'never contlrtf tfift ^e iifay,6egan to swing away from 
 both Romanism and 'l^rotestantism towards what is 
 called praidttekl .' "reVgiba, atid has p:one on in that 
 direction until many hi' every community, having' re- 
 nounced* .tooth ' E/jl!l6siiisticisili and dogmatism, are 
 relying- wholly upoii 'ftibr^rKVing- and good works for 
 isalvation. The representatives of institutional, doc- 
 / trinal and practical Christianity are now widely sepa- 
 rated, and between them, apparently, a great and 
 bridgeless gulf is fixed. And, what at first sight seems 
 surpassingly strange and even inexplicable, they are 
 strongly fortified in their respective positions by walls, 
 the stones of which are hewn from the rock of Holv 
 Scripture. And so impregnable are these fortifications 
 that, notwithstanding each has been bombarded for 
 tliese many years by ponderous controversial artillery, 
 no practicable breach has been effected. 
 
 Now, how shall we account for this? Does the Bible, 
 mit of which the contending hosts have constructed 
 their defenses, contradict itself? God forbid! It does 
 nothing of the kind. The solution is rather in the fact 
 that the Divine quarry contains more than one stratum 
 of truth. There is an institutional, a doctrinal and a 
 practical stratum. Christ founded a Church to be en- 
 tered; He appointed Sacraments to he received; He 
 taught doctrines to be believed, and He set an exam- 
 ple of good works to be followed. Salvation depends 
 in due proportion upon all of these, not upon one of 
 them alone. These have been joined together by God; 
 therefore, "let no man put them asunder." 
 
 If iu this book a great deal is said about Church 
 membership and comparatively little concerning the 
 necessity of right living or believing, it is because we 
 have written chiefly for those w^ho, whether as Doc- 
 trinalists or I'racticalists, have either quite divorced 
 
 ii 
 
 INTRODUCTORY. & 
 
 themselves from the Church, or else have learned to es- 
 teem her altogether too little. We would not have any 
 reader make less of doctrinal, (certainly not of practical 
 Christianity, but w^ould persuade many to attach more 
 importance to the institutional side of our religion. 
 Accordingly, we have endeavored to promote the con- 
 viction that every person is in duty bound to identify 
 himself with some branch of the Church of Christ. 
 
 It may as well be confessed here that our object is 
 not only to persuade non church members to unite with 
 some one of the many organizations of Christians, but 
 particularly with the Episcopal Church. Moreover, we 
 have been guilty of keeping in mind our Denomina- 
 tional and Roman brethren, in the hope that what we 
 have to say will induce some of them to come over to 
 us. Many condemn such efforts as betokening a want 
 of broadmindedness and charity towards other Chris- 
 tian bodies. Those who pride themselves upon their 
 *' non-sectarianism" — and there are multitudes of such 
 in every community — characterize as bigots all who do 
 not acknowledge that one Denomination is as good as 
 another, and contend that it makes practically no dif- 
 ference to which of them one belongs, since all will lead 
 us to the same Heaven if we but trust in Christ and 
 follow Him. 
 
 So plausible and pleasing is this representation to 
 people generally, that the assertion of convictions which 
 run counter to it is usually listened to with impa- 
 tience. And yet no observing and reflecting person can 
 fail to discover the hollowiiess of the pretensions of 
 those who affect this liberality. Nothing can be plainer 
 than that they regard the Denomination with which 
 they have cast their lot as being, at least in some re- 
 spects, better than any other. The evidence of this is 
 found in the very existence and continuance of their sect. 
 
THE CHURCH FOR AMERICANS. 
 
 It would never have been organized if its charter mem- 
 bers had not regarded their creation as superior to 
 others of the kind ; and it would soon have died out but 
 for the conviction of its superiority which continued to 
 possess its adherents. Sects, like political parties, 
 originate and perjietuate their existence because their 
 peculiar principles attract men and hold them together. 
 This being the case, no one who is governed by conviction 
 and principle can be ''non-sectarian." All such must 
 feel it a duty to assert and prove superior claims to 
 allegiance for the Denomination with which they are 
 connected. Hence, though the writer may have had 
 some hesitancy arising from the dread of adverse criti- 
 cism, he has had no qualms of conscience in trying to 
 make it appear that the Episcopal Church can establish 
 luperior claims to the allegiance of Americans. 
 
 But this work was not prepared exclusively with ref- 
 erence to non church members and the members of other 
 Christian bodies. Indeed, it was primarily intended for 
 the instruction of our own people. The accessions to 
 the Episcopal Church from the various Denominations 
 have been increasing until they constitute a large per- 
 centage, often the principal part, of our Confirmation 
 classes. These converts are, as a rule, good, enthusiastic 
 Episcopalians. But in many cases there is reason to 
 fear that the change of Church relationship may be ac- 
 counted for upon the ground of superficial preferences 
 rather than deep-rooted conviction. It is highly desir- 
 able, both on the convert's and the Church's account, 
 that he should be able to justify his course on the score 
 of principle. Those who cannot do this, and there are 
 many such in nearly all of our congregations, have 
 been, we think, insufficiently instructed. 
 
 The Archbishop of Canterbury is doubtless correct in 
 the supposition that ''there is perhaps not even now 
 
 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 5 
 
 one Churchman in ten who is as well instructed in the 
 reason why he is a Churchman as Dissenters or Roman 
 Catholics are instructed in the arguments whereby their 
 position is defended. This should surely be remedied." 
 For those who are not well grounded in Church princi- 
 ples are apt to be more or less disturbed by the asser- 
 tions and objections of Denominationalists on the 
 one hand and of Romanists on the other. And in de- 
 fending their transfer of allegiance they are seldom able 
 to do themselves or their Church justice. In fact they 
 not infrequently do more harm than good to all con- 
 cerned. It is believed that the facts and arguments of 
 these pages will enable those who have come into the 
 Church from Denominationalism and Romanism, or are 
 about to do so, to justify their action upon principle as 
 well as from preference. 
 
 Throughout this work the isolated and neglected 
 brethren, of whom there are many in the rural commu- 
 nities of alrhost every part of the United States, have 
 also been kept in view. Such are strongly tempted to 
 turn their back upon the Church of their birth or adop- 
 tion. After living for some time Avithout her Services, 
 and becoming convinced that there is no immediate 
 prospect of their establishment, in the majority of cases, 
 they finally yield to the pressing solicitations of the rep- 
 resentatives of some one of the established Denomina- 
 tions to cast in their lot with them. In this way it 
 has come about that in many Dioceses the Church has 
 lost the allegiance of as many communicants as she 
 now possesses. The writer could mention several towns 
 in Ohio, in which the "bone and sinew" of some 
 strong Denomination is composed of lapsed Church 
 people. 
 
 )i 
 
9 
 
 i!l 
 
 II 
 
 m 
 
 I 
 
 O THE CHURCH FOE AMERICANS. 
 
 This leakage is largely accounted for by tlie lack of 
 the missionary spirit on the part of our great city con- 
 gregations. From every point of view the failure of city 
 Churchmen to minister to their country brethren, by 
 taking the Church to out-of-the-way places and helping 
 to maintain it, has been a mistake. Not only have we 
 lost the nucleus for a congi-egation that at one time or 
 another has existed in almost every village, but also all 
 the multitudes that would have been added to them, 
 had we been wise enough to plant and nourish missions 
 before the ground was preoccupied and our constitu- 
 ency alienated. 
 
 Moreover, the Church in our < ities, though usually 
 strong and often the dominant body of Christians, is 
 much weaker than it would have been, had the city 
 Churchman not refused to be his country and village 
 brother's keeper. The drift in this country has been and 
 is from the smaller towards? the larger centers of pop- 
 ulation. The operation of this law^ of centralization 
 has constantly weakened the rural and strengthened the 
 city Churches. In the Diocese of Ohio many of our 
 congregations in the large cities and towns are greatly 
 indebted to more or less obscure villages and hamlets 
 where the Apostolic Chase, Searle, Hall, and others, had 
 the wisdom to plant the Church in the earl v days Had 
 their policy of strengthening the weak things that re- 
 main, by establishing Services wherever two or three of 
 ourpeoplecouldbe found and a congi-egation assembled, 
 been continued, the Church would now be probably two 
 or three times stronger than it is. If the expectation 
 that this book will tend to make the Episcopalian 
 reader a Churchman from conviction is not disappointed 
 It will also make him a missionary. Nothing extraor- 
 dinary m the way of gifts or work for the cause of 
 Church extension can be expected of those who are 
 
 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 Episcopalians rather than Denominationalists from 
 preference only. 
 
 And if what we have to say promotes the missionary 
 spirit among the favored Church people of our cities, it 
 will at the same time tend to restrain "the neglected 
 shee]) of the wilderness" from wandering away from 
 this fold of Christ, the Church of their fathers. There 
 are scattered here and there through Ohio, and no 
 doubt the same is true of every undeveloped Diocese, 
 men and women who have been without the Services of 
 the Church for as many as thirty, forty, and even fifty 
 years, and yet have remained her faithful children dur- 
 ing all this time. These, as a rule, have gone regularly 
 to some Denominational place of worship and contrib- 
 uted their proportion towards its support, but such 
 spiritual privileges have never induced them to allow 
 their Prayer Books to grow dusty. One of the objects 
 of this book is to increase the number of such by pro- 
 moting the conviction that nothing will justify the 
 abandonment of tlie ancient Catholic Church of the 
 English-speaking race for membership in any of the 
 modern Denominations. 
 
 Because a person finds himself to be one of only 
 two or three representatives of the Church in a com- 
 munity, he is not justified in transferring his allegiance 
 to any of the Denominations. Let him rather consti- 
 tute himself a missionary. He can persuade his breth- 
 ren, if there be any, and other well-disposed persons, to 
 join him in the establishment perhaps of a Sunday 
 afternoon Lay Service ; he can distribute Prayer Books 
 and tracts in which the claims and ways of the Church 
 are explained and justified, and he can be instrumental 
 in an organized effort to secure at least the occasional 
 visit of a Clergyman. Some of the most prosperous 
 parishes and promising missions of Ohio have gi-own 
 
8 
 
 THE CHURCH FOR AMERICANS. 
 
 H' 
 
 i:;l 
 
 out of the zealous efforts of a very few persons. One of 
 our largest and best equipped Churches and Sunday 
 Schools owes its origin to a discreet Church worn an. 
 She assembled her numerous family and as many of her 
 neighbors as she could persuade to join them on each 
 Lord's Day, and after she had conducted the Service, her 
 husband, who was not a communicant, read a sermon 
 which she had selected. 
 
 Thus, the fact tliat l| litt pleased God to call a 
 Churc'hman to live in a place where he is deprived of 
 priestly ministrations, affords no reason why he should 
 forsake the spiritual mother and guide of his youth by 
 joining himself with those whose ancestors, in their self- 
 will and rebellion, went out from her, and by the form- 
 ing of rival sects did all in their power to realize the 
 mad cry, **down with her, down with her, even to the 
 ground." On the contrary, such persons have all the 
 more cause for extraordinary faithfulness, since, by 
 such a course, thev mav become the honored instru- 
 ments of planting the Catholic Church of the English 
 race and establishing " the Faith once delivered to the 
 Saints " in a region where otherwise these might remain 
 unknown or obscured for generations to come. Think 
 of the inestimable privilege of thus becoming instru- 
 inental in establishing a mission or parish of the Church 
 of Christ. It falls to the lot of but few in any other 
 way to erect such a fair, enduring monument to the 
 glory of (lod and their own memory. The isolated sons 
 and daughters of the Church may in many cases at least 
 have their names inscribed upon such a monument as 
 the charter members of the Church of the place in which 
 their lot has been cast. 
 
 It is often very easy to secure this imperishable fame. 
 The truth of this observation might be abundantly 
 ilustrated out of the experience of all who have been 
 
 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 9 
 
 long engaged in Church extension work. The writer 
 coutd m'^ention a village where six years ago the only 
 person interested in the Episcopal Church, if not indeed 
 the only one who knew of her existence, was a child who, 
 while attendinir a seminary, had occasionally accom- 
 panied two or^three companions to the Services of a 
 neighboring Church. Now the little village boasts of a 
 flourishing mission with a centrally located lot and a 
 picturesque Chapel, paid for, and in all time to come, 
 whenever the history of this Church shall be rehearsed, 
 the name of the school-giri to whom it owes its origm 
 
 will be mentioned. 
 
 If, then, this book should fall into the hands of some 
 isolated member of the Church, let me exhort you to re- 
 member that "though a sentinel on the outposts, you 
 are still a member of that vast army with its two hun- 
 dred Bishops, forty thousand other Clergy, and millions 
 of privates." You are not alone. Though few of your 
 faith are near you, there are, in every portion of the 
 globe, millions of intelligent, godly men and women 
 who think as you think, love the same worship and hold 
 the same truths. God has placed you where you are for 
 a purpose, perhaps to be the nucleus of some future 
 Clhurch, in which hundreds will learn her sacred ways. 
 Stand firm, then, as a pioneer. Be true to your trust. 
 Teach vour children to love your Church. That Church 
 is doing a grand, a glorious work. She is marching to 
 victory. Be faithful at your post, and watch unto 
 prayer I 
 
 (► 
 
 M 
 
 . I ■ ■ 
 
 i 
 
 It will appear, from an examination of the table of 
 contents, that it was impossible to cover the ground 
 marked out for this book without instituting com- 
 parisons between the Episcopal Church and other 
 
 !■ 
 
10 
 
 THE CHURCH FOR AMERICANS. 
 
 !'•: 
 
 !•',' 
 
 m 
 
 bodies of Ghristiaus. Where we are found to differ 
 radically in matters of doctrine and government, an 
 uncompromising effort has been made to justify our 
 position. But the uniform endeavor has been to s[)eak 
 the truth as P]piscopalians understand it, in a spirit 
 of love and fairness, and it is hoped that we have 
 nowhere been so unfortunate in our expression as to 
 wound the feelings of any who differ from us, or to leave 
 the impression that we are so narrow and bigoted as 
 not to perceive that the various Denominations of Chris- 
 tians have done and are doing a great amount of good. 
 If it was said of one who followed not the ** twelve," 
 with Jesus personally amongst them, "Forbid him not, 
 for he that is not against us is for us," we must surely 
 say it with far more emphasis with respect to those who 
 follow not the American successors of the Apostles. ' ' No 
 one of the Apostolic band upheld the unity of Christ's 
 mystical body, the Church, as St. Paul did, and he also 
 could say, and let us say it with him, ' Notwithstanding, 
 every way, Christ is preached, and I therein do rejoice, 
 yea, and will rejoice.'" We believe that countless mil- 
 lions will be in Heaven who followed not with us. 
 
 But though we are aware of the Christian graces, the 
 good works, and the bright heavenly prospects of tens 
 of thousands of the representatives of the Roman 
 Cluirch and non-Episcopal Denominations, yet this glad 
 conviction does not justify us in forgetting our pro- 
 longed, causeless, hurtful, and, therefore, sinful divi- 
 sions, and the consequent obligation to do what we can 
 to restore the visible organic unity of the primitive 
 Church. We are indeed all journeying toward the 
 Promised Land ; but how much better it would be for us 
 and for the world if we were going together in the 
 straight and narrow way of God's appointment. The 
 fallacy of those who argue that " we are all engaged iu 
 
 IXTRODUCTORY. 
 
 11 
 
 the same work and seeking the same Heaven, and after 
 all it does not ma.tter much which way we take," has 
 been illustrated by the Mississippi River at a flood 
 time. The water which remains in the channel, and that 
 which breaks through the dikes and tears its destruc- 
 tive course along, alike make their way to the Gulf; 
 but it does make some difference how they get there. 
 The Church of God is often compared to an army, and 
 the various Denominations are likened to so many regi- 
 ments in that army. But, as has frequently been pointed 
 out, an army the regiments of which held little or no 
 communication, recognized no common orders or offi- 
 cers, and had no concerted plan of campaign, would be 
 helpless and ineffective. Such an undisciplined horde 
 could only court defeat. 
 
 *^ Let us suppose," says Bishop Coxe, * 'that General 
 Moltke had said, before crossing the Rhine, to his brave 
 men in arms, ' Soldiers, we are acting on a very false 
 system of war. I observe you all seem to be thor- 
 oughly organized as one grand army, and that you are 
 anxious to preserve, however you may be distributed in 
 various corps, one discipline, one common plan of cam- 
 paign, and one recognized system of drill, of instruc- 
 tions, of subordination, and of organic force. All this 
 is mere delusion. You have different tastes, and are in- 
 telligent enough to have each your own ideas of what it 
 is best to do. Break up, then, this vast clumsy organi- 
 zation, and let us have, at least, five or six different 
 armies, each pursuing its own w^ay, and occasionally 
 firing into each other, or pausing for skirmishes be- 
 tween diffei-ent generals. If these skirmishes should 
 promote subdivisions, and end in producing thirty or 
 forty armies and guerrilla gangs, obviously we should 
 all be the stronger. We want nothing but unity of 
 heart. Be good Germans, and act for the one object of 
 
 f 
 
 I iM 
 
 ,- 
 
12 
 
 THE CHURCH FOR AMERICANS. 
 
 I 
 
 ■ 
 
 humbliiio; the enemies of Fatherland. Yes, I hear your 
 cheers. Your hearts are all right ; now then, break up 
 into your several gangs, act with your favorite officers ; 
 agi-ee to differ; scatter, scatter, scatter! That is the 
 best plan, if the heart is only true to the cause. Be sure 
 to shake hands with one another before and after a free 
 fight among yourselves; then keep to your personal 
 ideas of a campaig-n, and follow no leader that will not 
 gratify these convictions. This will insure success. 
 Huzzah, boys! Now, begone! Helter-Skelter ! be your 
 war cry."* 
 
 No separations among Christians are lawful, though 
 they may be divinely overruled for good, except such as 
 come from the mere national divisions of humanity. 
 All Americans should be in an American Church. There 
 should be a "United Church of the United States"—" a 
 Church with wide freedom in all minor matters, but 
 with Apostolic succession for its ministry, Ecumenical 
 indorsement for its Creed, and reverent celebration of 
 the two Sacraments." 
 
 In view of the fact that ow blessed Lord fervently 
 prayed that w© might be one, and that He hinged the 
 Christianization of the world upon a united Church, we 
 feel in conscience bound to do what we can to convince 
 all with w^hom, in any way, we come into contact, and 
 over whom we have the least influence, that the Anglican 
 Communion, of which the American Episcopal Church 
 is a part, offers the only ground upon which the reunion 
 of divided Christendom can take place. It has been 
 well said: "We have not, as a communion, such a 
 monopoly of either piety or learning in this^ land that 
 we can afford to be contemptuous, even if that temper 
 were ever permissible in a Christian Church. But we 
 have, through the blessing of God, the title deeds of the 
 old homestead in our hands ; we sit by the hearthstone 
 
 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 13 
 
 of the English-speaking race; and ought we to be 
 blamed for thinking that if the family can be gathered 
 anywhere in peace, it must be here? " 
 
 " O Thou who didst on that last night, 
 
 Ere death had paled Thy brow, 
 Speak sweetly of love's power and might, 
 
 As none could speak but Thou, 
 Remind Thy little flock, alas! 
 
 So prone to disagree. 
 That Thy desire and last prayer was 
 
 For Christian Unity." 
 
 I 
 
 I must conclude these introductory remarks with a 
 little further justification of our Clergy and a large per- 
 centage of the Laity who have no hesitancy in doing 
 what they can to persuade the adherents of other Chris- 
 tian bodies to come into the Episcopal Church. To this 
 end we write and disseminate books such as this, preach 
 sermons, converse, and invite people to the Services. 
 Romanists do not blame us for this because, as a rule, 
 they are also avowed proselyters. But Denomination- 
 alists often represent that we are guilty of something 
 akin to robbery, in fact they plainly call it "sheep steal- 
 ing." They represent our conduct as being, if not abso- 
 lutely sinful, at least unworthy of any Christian man or 
 woman. We protest that this representation is wholly 
 unjustified. Christian Denominations have just as much 
 right to proselyte as political parties. If a Prohibit 
 tionist has no hesitancy in winning over a Republican 
 or Democrat we do not see why Methodists should have 
 any scruples about taking in Presbyterians or Baptists 
 when they have an opportunity. And if they can win 
 back the adherents of the numerous bodies who at one 
 time or another went out from themselves, it is even 
 
 111 
 
i 
 
 I 
 
 14 
 
 THE CHURCH FOR AMERICANS. 
 
 8i 
 
 I'l I 
 
 harder to conceive upon what grounds they can be 
 justly condemned. 
 
 But whether the making; of inroads one upon the 
 other by rival Denominations is justifiable or not, we 
 cannot allow those who fault us to forget that if they 
 and their ancestors had all along been guiltless, the 
 great majority of Denominationalists would now be in 
 the Episcopal Church. When the tide was flowing from 
 the Church, Congregationalists, I'resbyterians and Meth- 
 odists did not condemn proselyting, but now that the re- 
 action has set in and the returning waves are bringing 
 tens of thousands from them to our shores, they have 
 suddenly discovered that it is a very discreditable busi- 
 ness. We contend, however, that if the law of charity 
 and comity be observed, an Episcopalian has a perfect 
 right to make as many converts to his Church as 
 possible. In fact the majority of us are obliged bv our 
 convictions to do so, for we believe that tliere is*^ only 
 one Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ, and that 
 the various branches of the Anglican Communion in 
 their respective countries are entitled to the exclusive 
 .allegiance and support of the English speaking popu- 
 lation. Moreover, we hold that sectarianism is a 
 great evil. This being the case, an Episcopalian who is 
 not a proselyter would be as inconsistent as a Deuomi- 
 uationalist who is such. 
 
 11 
 
 The Church for American.s, 
 
 LECTURE I. 
 
 CHURCh ynEA\BERSniP. 
 
 I. Obligations to Belong to Church. 
 II. The Choice of a Church. 
 
 ti 
 
 I will not cease from mental strife, 
 Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand, 
 
 Till we have built Jerusalem 
 In this our green and pleasant land." 
 
 (15> 
 
1 
 
 Id 
 
 « 
 
 ft' 
 
 i 
 
 I* 
 
 n'« 
 
 ^ 
 
 AUTHORITIES. 
 
 CiiAPiN, Primitive Church. 
 
 Chapman, Sermons on the Church. 
 
 Churton, Bp., The Missionary's Foundation of Doctrine. 
 
 CusHMAN, Doctrine and Duty. 
 
 Garnier, Canon, A First Book on Church Principles. 
 
 Gladstone, Church Principles Considered in Their Results. 
 
 GouLBURN, Dean, The Holy Catholic Church. 
 
 Huntington, The Church Idea. 
 
 Labagh, Theoklesia. 
 
 Lay, Bp., Studies in the Church. 
 
 Leonard, Bp., A Brief History of the Christian Church, 
 
 OxoNiENsis, Komanism, Protestantism, Anglicanism. 
 
 Palmer, Treatise on the Church. (2 vols.) 
 
 Row, Apostolic Christianity. 
 
 Sadler, Church Doctrine, Bible Truth. 
 
 West, Tracts on Church Principles. 
 
 Wilson, The Church Identified. 
 
 PAMPHLETS. 
 
 Drummond, The City Without a Church. 
 Drummond, The Programme of Christianity. 
 Ewer, What Is the Anglican Church ? 
 Miller, My Parish Note-Book. 
 Thompson, Bp., First Principles. 
 Woodhouse, What Is the Church 7 
 
 (U) 
 
 CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. 
 
 JL« 
 
 ¥ 
 
 ■I' 
 
 1 -J,.! : 
 
 if 
 
 III 
 
 OBLIGATIONS TO CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. 
 
 THERE are three principal reasons why every per- 
 son who hears the Gospel of Christ should 
 belong to His Church. The first grows out of 
 the duty of obedience. The Church is the Kingdom of 
 Christ, and all outside of it is the Kingdom of Satan. 
 We must, in the long run, give our undivided alle- 
 giance to either one or the other of these princes. We 
 cannot adhere to both. "No man can serve two mas- 
 ters, for either he will hate the one and love the other ; 
 or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. 
 Ye cannot serve God and Mammon." Those who re- 
 main out of the Church, and yet try to follow the 
 example and precepts of Christ, are trying to please two 
 masters. As a rule which holds, notwithstanding 
 the comparatively few exceptions that we may know 
 of, such men fail. The majority of non church mem- 
 bers are not the servants of Christ. Speaking gen- 
 erally, men out of His Church do no more serve Him 
 than they who fight in the enemies' ranks help their 
 country. The Kingdom of Christ and the world are 
 in deadly conflict for the mastery. How then can 
 
 C.A.-2 (17) 
 
 1! 
 
18 
 
 CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. 
 
 ifli 
 
 'I 
 
 
 i 
 
 \ 
 
 'Ml 
 
 anyoDe who professes to be a loyal servant of Christ, 
 stand aloof from His Church, which is His Kinsr- 
 dom? 
 
 ^ In our day a great many people acknowledge the 
 duty of making the example and precepts of Christ 
 their rule of life, but deny that they are under any 
 obligation to become Church members. They fail to 
 see that this is required of them. *' Millions in Amer- 
 ica," says Bishop Coxe, "live and die in the easy per- 
 suasion, from which no trumf)et of united testimony 
 rouses them, that they are rather the better for 'read- 
 ing their Bibles' and 'leading moral Hves,' while not 
 'making any profession of religion,' as they term it.. 
 Inverted Pharisaism of American inorganic Chris- 
 tianity! They make a merit of not obeying, and of 
 being so good without the means of grace." Surely 
 such have not asked themselves the question : Why 
 did Christ found a Church, and why did He say so 
 much about it? Was it not manifestly that men 
 might be separated from the Kingdom of Satan, and 
 be identified with Him? 
 
 It is well known that all great prophets and re- 
 formers have had some particular message which has, 
 by constant reiteration, crystallized into a word or 
 phrase. With Moses it was law ; with Confucius, mo- 
 rality; with Buddha, renunciation; with Mohammed, 
 God; with Socrates, soul. With the Master it was 
 "the Kingdom of God." Says Professor Drummond: 
 "Christ's great word was 'the Kingdom of God.' One 
 hundred times it occurs in the Gospels. When He 
 preached He had almost always this for a text. His 
 sermons were explanations of the aims of His society. 
 of the different things it was like, of whom its mem- 
 bership consisted, what they were to do or to be or 
 not to do or to be. And even when He does not use 
 
 OBLIGATIONS TO CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. 
 
 19 
 
 I ^^ 
 
 the word, it is easy to see that all He said and did had 
 reference to this." 
 
 A little reflection, therefore, must convince all that 
 the founding of the Church by Christ, or by His repre- 
 sentatives, the Apostles, and the importance which He 
 attaches to it, make identification with it of universal 
 obligation. The prevailing demand is for a preaching 
 ^f the Gospel with the Church left out, or at least put 
 far in the background. Surely the many who, in defer- 
 ence to popular sentiment, have tried to preach such a 
 Gospel, have not preached Christ's Gospel, for it dwells 
 more on the Church than upon any other subject. 
 
 Though the duty of membership may be clearly in- 
 ferred from the fact that Christ founded a Church and 
 made it the burden of His discourses, we are not left 
 without explicit injunctions requiring identification 
 with His Kingdom. For every command to receive 
 Christian Baptism is really a positive injunction to be- 
 long to the Church. Baptism is the door to the Church. 
 It is the Sacrament of initiation. A person cannot re- 
 ceive it without becoming a member of the Church. 
 Therefore, when our Lord said, " Go ye and teach all na- 
 tions, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of 
 the Son and of the Holy Ghost," it is as if He had said, 
 Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel, making 
 whosoever accepts it a member of My Church. Noth- 
 ing can be clearer than that in Apostolic days none who 
 stood aloof from the Church were regarded as having 
 received the Gospel. Non church members were looked 
 upon as heathen. The unbaptized stood in the same 
 relation to Christianity as the uncircumcised did to Ju- 
 daism. It must be evident to all that if others are 
 commanded to see to it that we are identified with the 
 Kingdom of Christ by Baptism, it is equivalent to a 
 command that we should become Church members. 
 
 
 I ,; ,1 
 
 1.. 
 
 f 
 
 !:!• 
 

 CHUECH MEMBERSHIP. 
 
 M 
 
 
 1. 
 
 I'! 
 
 •'>!( 
 
 I I 
 
 'ii ', 
 
 The first and most important step in the way of 
 obedience to Christ is, therefore, Church membership. 
 No man, who has heard the Gospel and acknowledges 
 the claims of Christ to his allegiance, can discharge his 
 duty while remaining outside the Church. The first 
 thing to be done by him who would follow Christ is to 
 transfer his allegiance from the prince of this world to 
 the Divine Lord of the Kingdom of Heaven. It is the 
 height of absurdity for a man to claim that he can be 
 as good a Christian while outside of the Church as he 
 could be within it. As well miglit a foreigner pretend 
 that he can be as good an American citizen without 
 naturalization as with it. Such a man is not an Ameri- 
 can at all. Neither is a non church member, strictly 
 speaking, a Christian. 
 
 A good story is told by a distinguished Presbyterian 
 clergyman, about a little girl who was talking to her 
 grandfather. The old gentleman had been imparting 
 some advice, suitable to the tender years of his grand- 
 child. Finally the latter put the question : " Grandpa, 
 are you a Christian ? " ^'Yes, my dear, I hope I am.'' 
 "What Church do you belong to, grandpa?" "Oh, I 
 belong to the Church of Christ." "But what is that? 
 Are you a member of the same Church that mamma 
 and I are— the Episcopal Church?" "No, my dear, I 
 am not an Episcopalian." "Are you a Presbyterian, 
 then?" "No, I am not a Presbyterian." "Are you a 
 Baptist, then?" "No." "Are you a Methodist?" "No, 
 dear; I don't belong to any of the churches." After a 
 pause, in which the little one was thinking it all over, 
 she turned her face up to her grandfather's and said : 
 " Well, grandpapa, if I were you, I would try and get in 
 somewhere.'' Until modern times no one claimed to be 
 a Christian, or was regarded as such, who did not "get 
 in somewhere." 
 
 ( ■ 
 
 OBLIGATIONS TO CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. 
 
 21 
 
 Again, those who are standing aloof from the Church 
 
 shouTd enter out of consideration for their own highest 
 
 welfare. Salvation is made by our Lord Himself to 
 
 depend upon the confession of Him. " Whosoever shall 
 
 confess me before men, him Avill I confess also before my 
 
 Father, which is in heaven ; but whosoever shall deny 
 
 me before men, him will I also deny before my Father, 
 
 which is in heaven." Now there is no way in which a 
 
 person can make an open unreserved confession of 
 
 Christ except by the renunciation of the world for the 
 
 Church. This, according to our Lord's own appoints 
 
 roent, must bo done in Holy Baptism. " Except a man 
 
 be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into 
 
 the Kingdom of God." And the Kingdom of God here 
 
 does not mean that Heaven which we hope to attain 
 
 after this life, but the Church which Christ founded when 
 
 upon earth. It is, therefore, the same as if He had said. 
 
 Unless you belong to the Church, you cannot attain to 
 
 Gospel Salvation. 
 
 I cannot do better than to quote in this connection 
 the weighty words of Bishop Pearson: "We read at 
 the first that the Lord added daily to the Church such 
 as should be saved ; and what was then daily done hath 
 been done since continually. Christ never appointed 
 two ways to Heaven, nor did He build a Church to save 
 some and make another institution for other men's 
 salvation. There is none other name under Heaven 
 given among men, whereby we must be saved, but the 
 name of Jesus, and that name is no otherwise given 
 under Heaven than in the Church. As none were saved 
 from the deluge but such as were within the ark of 
 Noah, framed for their reception by the command of 
 God; as none of the firstborn of Egypt lived, but such 
 as were within those habitations whose doorposts 
 were sprinkled with blood by the appointment- of 
 
 It 
 
 4 
 
22 
 
 CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. 
 
 OBLIGATIONS TO CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. 
 
 23 
 
 I 
 
 ,1 
 
 J' 
 
 "J 
 
 God for tlieir preservation ; as none of the inhabitants 
 of Jericho could escape the fire or sword but such as 
 were within the house of Rahab, for whose protec- 
 tion a covenant was made, so none shall ever escape 
 the anger of God which belong not to the Church of 
 God/' 
 
 As some one has pointed out, "The nineteenth 
 feentury needs to be told, as by another John Baptist, 
 crying, not in the wilderness, but throughout all the 
 I American continent, that not to confess Christ openly, 
 I that is, not to accept His covenant in the institution 
 He has provided, is virtually to deny Him. How 
 I very comfortable it would have been had this Amer- 
 ican gospel been taught in the first century: 'Be 
 |good, read your Bibles, and God will not ask you 
 whether or not you belong to Church.' That would 
 just have suited Demas, who loved this present world 
 and had no idea of coming out of it and being sep- 
 arate. He would have lived and died, 'respecting re- 
 ligion,' as the phrase is, but chiefly consoled by that 
 blessed doctrine, ' It makes no difference about exter- 
 nals, provided only the heart is right.' 'Precisely so,' 
 brother Demas would have said; 'I trust my "heart 
 is all right, but I've no trust in ordinances.' To come 
 out and be baptized and to receive the laying on of 
 hands, and to frequent the Lord's Supper, he would 
 have argued, 'are well enough for those who are so 
 superstitious. But stoning by the Jews is uncom- 
 fortable ; beheading and other tortures of the Romans 
 involve great personal sacrifices. I can ' believe in my 
 heart,' you know, without confessing with my mouth, 
 or submitting to those outward things which carnal 
 minds make so much of. Yes, I've always been consoled 
 by those spiritual views of the Gospel which teach me 
 to be a good Christian in my heart, without submitting 
 
 I 
 
 
 to any formal system, subversive as such systems must 
 be of our Christian liberty." 
 
 Moreover, the good of others should move non 
 church members to identify themselves with the Church. 
 The continuation and development of our civilization 
 depend upon the Church which gave it birth, and has 
 brought it to its present stage of perfection. It is 
 wrong for any man or woman to pursue a course which 
 if universally adopted would make the world worse in- 
 stead of better. If all were from this time on to follow 
 the example of the non church members who are to be 
 found in every community, the Christian civilization, in 
 every respect, even in its present imperfect state, the 
 best that the world has ever seen, would rapidly decline, 
 and a generation or two would suffice to bring about 
 its extinction. History plainly teaches that no civiliza- 
 tion long survives the abandonment of the religion 
 upon which it is founded. Up to this time all civiliza- 
 tions have had some religion for their basis. Chris- 
 tianity is the foundation -of our civilization. 
 
 So long as the Greeks and Romans were faithful in 
 the service of their gods, their magnificent civilizations 
 advanced to higher stages of perfection, but when they 
 began to forsake their temples a. retrogression com- 
 menced which in its degree kept pace almost exactly 
 with the progress of the national apostasy. History 
 would certainly repeat itself in the case of our civiliza- 
 tion, if all were to imitate the example of non church 
 members. In addition, therefore, to the duty of obedi- 
 ence to Christ and consideration for your own highest 
 welfare, the good of the worid, in so far as it depends 
 upon the perpetuity and development of our civiliza- 
 tion, requires you to identify yourself with the Church. 
 Duty to Christ, to yourself, and to every human being 
 in the^worid, makes it incumbent upon you to belong to 
 
11 
 
 V. 
 
 CBITRCH MEMBERSHIP. 
 
 fie diurdi. **If," to borrow tlie burning words of an- 
 other, "you know anything- better, live for it; if not, in 
 the name of God and of humanity, carry out Christ's 
 plan " by the identification of yourself with his Kingdom. 
 
 It is impossible for the non church member to justify 
 his position. It is not sufficient that he should be able 
 to say truthfully : "1 follow the example and precepts 
 of Christ as closely as the majority of Church members 
 who are within the circle of my acquaintance." The 
 Church, which was founded for the salvation of the world, 
 would cease to exist if all followed your example, and 
 but for the Church and its impei-fect, sinful members, 
 towards whom you are ever pointing the finger of criti- 
 cism, you would know little, and care less, about Christ. 
 
 To quote Professor Drummond again: "Here and 
 there an unchurched soul may stir the multitudes to 
 lofty deeds; isolated men, strong enough to preserve 
 their souls apart from the Church, but shortsighted 
 enough perhaps to fail to see that others cannot, may 
 set high examples and stimulate to national reforms. 
 But for the rank and file of us, made of such stuff as we 
 are made of, the steady pressure of fixed institutions, 
 the regular diet of a common worship, and the educa- 
 tion of public Christian teaching, are too obvious safe- 
 guards of scriptural culture to be set aside." 
 
 Even Renan, one of the most gifted of modern 
 French skeptics, declares it to be his conviction that, 
 "beyond the family and outside the state man has 
 need of the Church. Civil society, whether it calls itself 
 a commune, a canton, or a province, a state or a 
 Fatherland, has many duties towards the improve- 
 ment of the individual; but what it does is necessarily 
 Umited. The family ought to do raiipfe more, but' often 
 
 OBLIGATIONS TO CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. 
 
 25 
 
 it is insufficient. Sometimes it is wanting altogether. 
 The association created in the name of moral principle 
 can alone give to every man coming into this world, a 
 bond which unites him to the past, duties as to the fu- 
 ture, examples to follow, a heritage to receive and to 
 transmit, and a tradition of devotion to continue." 
 
 Nor can a non church member justify his position by 
 the opposite plea, so frequently urged— "I am not 
 good enough to belong to Church." Christ came to 
 save sinners. He said: "They that be whole have 
 no need of a physician." The Church would collapse 
 to-day if goodness and worthiness were made conditions 
 of membership. In the Litany all, even those who have 
 attained the greatest degree of Christlikeness, are 
 taught to pray, "Have mercy upon us miserable sin- 
 ners." Whether in or out of the Church every member 
 of the human race is a sinner. We are of course aware 
 that some deny that they are sinners. My attention 
 has recently been called to an instance. In a sermon 
 preached at one of our mission stations I had occasion 
 to refer to the fact that the Church teaches all, not ex- 
 cepting the most venerable and godly, to look upon 
 themselves as sinful men and women. The lay reader 
 afterwards told me that he was glad for that passage 
 in my sermon, because on the Sunday before, during the 
 reading of the litany, a woman had abruptly left the 
 Church in manifest displeasure and that one who after- 
 waT*d made inquiry concerning the ground of her excep- 
 tion to the Service was told : "I will have nothing to 
 do with a Church that obliges all her worshipers, with- 
 out distinction, to confess and acknowledge that they 
 are sinners. I was converted only a few weeks ago, and 
 am not a sinner." Of course such a person cannot be 
 an Episcopalian nor a member of any branch of the 
 Catholic Church of Christ, which is exclusively for sinners. 
 
All' 
 
 CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. 
 
 II 
 
 The man of whom one of our missionary Bishops 
 tells had a truer appreciation of his real condition. 
 Upon going to a mining village of his jurisdiction, where 
 the Services of the Church had never been held, the 
 Bishop inquired of a person whom he met at the board- 
 ing house whether or not there were any members of 
 the Episcopal Church in the camp. *' Why, yes,'' said he, 
 "that is my Church, and I am glad you have come." 
 The Bishop expressed his gratification at running 
 across an interested person so soon and requested his 
 help in securing a hall and making the arrangements 
 for the initiatory Service. He found the miner to be a 
 cheerful and efficient helper, taking everything into his 
 own hands. When the hour of Service arrived he con- 
 ducted the Bishop to a billiard hall, where a good sized 
 congregation of miners had assembled. The Service 
 w^as quite satisfactory, considering the incongruous 
 surroundings, there being some half dozen Churchmen 
 present who read the responses. But the Bishop no- 
 ticed with surprise that his zealous helper could not 
 handle the Prayer Book, and did not even conform to 
 the customary postures. So, after returning to the 
 house, he naturally made some inquiries of his friend. 
 "Did you, Mr. , say that you were an Episcopa- 
 lian?'' "Yes, sir, that is my religion." "Where were 
 you confirmed ? " He did not seem to understand what 
 was meant. After the Bishop's explanation of the rite 
 he replied : " Oh, I never had that done to me." " Where 
 were you baptized?" "I never was baptized." "In- 
 deed," said the astonished Bishop. "How is it then 
 that you told me that you were a member of the Epis- 
 copal Church?" "Well, parson, when I was at " 
 
 naming a mining camp in an adjoining Territory, "one 
 of your kind of preachers came along and held a meet- 
 ing in the billiard hall. I was there, and when I heard 
 
 OBLIGATIONS TO CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. 
 
 27 
 
 ':, I \ 
 
 them say, ' We have left undone those things which we 
 ought to have done and we have done those things which 
 we ought not to have done,' I said, 'that hits me ex- 
 actly, I am one of them kind of Christians,' and that is 
 why I say that I am an * Episcopal ; ' and parson, if 
 you think it necessary, I want them things that you 
 were a telling about done to me when you come again." 
 Strange as it may seem to many, this man rather 
 than that deluded woman had the true idea. His only 
 title to Church membership was the recognition of the 
 fact that he was a sinner, both by commission and 
 omission, and a manifest desire to do better. Of course 
 the Bishop, after due instruction, would baptize, con- 
 firm and admit him to the Holy Communion. It is sur- 
 passingly strange that men and women who have heard 
 the Gospel all their lives, should still suppose that none 
 ought to come to Baptism or Confirmation or the Holy 
 Communion who are not prepared to stand £ind make 
 the Pharisee's profession of religion—" God, I thank 
 Thee that I am not as other men are. I am converted. 
 I am not a sinner." But, as all are sinners, and those 
 who say they are not, deceive themselves and the truth 
 is not in them, the salvation of the world depends upon 
 the sinners that are in the Church. They are the salt of 
 the earth without which all would perish. Not that a 
 bad man in the Church is more pleasing to God and has 
 brighter prospects of heaven than a good man outside, 
 but that the place for all who would serve Christ is 
 iuside. 
 
 Some imagine that by remaining non church mem- 
 bers they escape the responsibilities of professing Chris- 
 tians. But this is by no means the case. The Gos- 
 pel makes identification with the Kingdom of Christ 
 
in 
 
 28 
 
 CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. 
 
 obligatory upon every man and woman, and refusal to 
 fulfill this obligation in no degree lessens responsibility ; 
 for the Gospel rule of life is binding upon all alike. In 
 Christian lands, such as ours, Church members and non 
 church members are under one and the same law. In 
 that great day when all must give a strict account of 
 the deeds done in the body, we shall not be judged by 
 different standards. 
 
 As Bishop Hugh Miller Thompson says: * It is one 
 of the prevailing delusions and one, we fear, which the 
 common pulpit seldom reaches, to suppose that a man 
 is free to accept or refuse the responsibilities of the 
 Christian life — that 'the professingof Christianity 'is the 
 taking up of new and quite voluntary duties. We dis- 
 tinctly write it down a delusion ; and such a shallow de- 
 lusion that it will stand no test. It is a flat contradic- 
 tion of human life, and of the facts of human life that 
 stare us all in the face. The profession of Christ is not 
 the taking up of a single duty which is not binding on 
 every man already, at least in lands like this. The 
 baptized man has bound himself to nothing which is 
 not on the unbaptized man as well. The communicant 
 is measured by no rule which is not used righteously 
 also for the noncommunicant. There are not two 
 classes of people in a Christian country, under two dif- 
 ferent laws— the * professors ' under one, and the ' non- 
 professors ' under another. By God's divine ordering 
 of human life, we are elected to Christianity. Why, we 
 cannot tell. It is His *good pleasure.' It is the fact, 
 that is all we know about it, and all that, as sensible 
 people we should care to know. Our ])lain business is 
 to ' make the election sure.* " 
 
 Let none, therefore, stand aloof from the Church, 
 either upon the pharisaical plea of righteousness, or 
 upon the publican's plea of sinfulness, but let all do 
 
 '* 
 
 THE CHOICE OP A CHURCH. 
 
 29 
 
 their duty to Christ, to themselves and to the world, by 
 becoming faithful, humble, unostentatious, and, so far 
 as possible, consistent members of the Church. 
 
 II. 
 
 THE CHOICE OF A CHURCH. 
 
 IF we only get to Heaven," says a dear old lady, 
 in her arm-chair, her face beaming with good na- 
 ture and kindly Christian feeling, which we would 
 not rudely violate for the world: ''If we only get to 
 Heaven, it will never be asked by what road we came." 
 We trust that the tranquillity and radiancy of the 
 lovely creatures, of whom this good woman is a repre- 
 sentative, will not be too much disturbed or obscured if, 
 in accordance with our sense of duty, we try to make it 
 appear that more thought and care than is customary 
 should be exercised in the selection of a Church in which 
 to become a member. Usually a person when he has per- 
 ceived the duty of confessing Christ by identification with 
 His Church and has made up his mind to discharge it, 
 feels at liberty to unite with that Denomination whicl^ 
 may chance to be his preference. This in the majority^ 
 of cases is determined by some accident of circumstan- 
 ces and environment, as, for instance, the Church rela-| 
 tionship of parents and friends, the size of the Denomi- 
 nation, its social status in that particular place, or its 
 advantages from a business point of view. / 
 
 Now there is nothing wrong about this, if the assump- 
 tion that we are free to follow natural preference in th*y 
 matter of Church membership can be supported ; for tak- j 
 ing this freedom for granted, why should not a man / 
 in the choice of a Church, as in other affairs of life, 
 act with reference to those who are near and dear to I 
 him and to the furtherance of his social and commercial \ 
 
 J ' 
 
 Pf 
 
 
»'./ ^l 
 
 r 
 
 lis 
 
 It 
 
 V 
 
 f| 
 
 111 < 
 til 
 
 "'i j 
 
 30 
 
 CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. 
 
 / 
 
 Interests? But a moment's reflection will convince all 
 thoughtful persons that we are not in the enjoyment of 
 this assumed liberty. We are under a law that requires 
 US in this, as in all matters of importance, to be guided 
 by principle, not by preference. The conscience of all 
 will bear witness to the truth of the assertion that a 
 man, in the choice of a profession or business, should be 
 influenced not by his inclinations, but by the prospect 
 of service to God and man. We may imagine a young 
 man with life before him strongly inclined to the profes- 
 sion of the law or of medicine, although he is thorough- 
 ly convinced that the need for him is greater, and that 
 lie would be more useful, in the ministry. In such and 
 all analogous cases, a person is not at liberty to follow 
 his preference. Duty to God and man lays upon him 
 the obligation of denying himself and of taking up his 
 cross and following Jesus. 
 
 The duty of such a course is quite as apparent in the 
 choice of Church relationship. If God were equally 
 pleased, and if our opportunities for usefulness were the 
 same, no matter what body of Christians we join, then 
 indeed we might follow preference, for there would be no 
 principle at stake. But would God be equally pleased, 
 and would our opportunities for usefulness be the same? 
 These are questions which should be candidly and con- 
 scientiously considered by every non church member who 
 has made up his mind to do his duty, and equally so by 
 any who, without a proper understanding of the claims 
 of this subject upon his thoughtful attention ,has already 
 united with some one of the numerous religious bodies 
 about us. 
 
 There is a great advantage in the choosing of a 
 Church from principle rather than preference; for, be- 
 sides promoting self-respect and contentment, it enables 
 one to give a manly and thoughtful reason for his choice. 
 
 
 I 
 
 THE CHOICE OF A CHURCH. 
 
 31 
 
 A person who is known to entertain a deep-seated and 
 rational conviction that the Church with which he is 
 identified has superior claims to his allegiance, will al- 
 ways have an influence over those who have been guided 
 by mere preference or circumstances in the choice of 
 their Church relationship. This is illustrated by an an- 
 ecdote told of a parishioner by one of our Clergy. A well- 
 instructed young woman of his Church married a Denomi- 
 nationalist. Upon returning home for a visit a year 
 or so later, her old pastor inquired, " How about Church 
 attendance? You go with your husband, I presume? " 
 *'0h, no,he goeswith me," washerreply. "HisChurch, 
 he.said, was the Church of his choice. But mine, said I, 
 of my principle. ' Preference must yield to principle, ' said 
 my good man; and he always goes to Church with me.'' 
 
 We believe that it is God's will that we should belong 
 to a branch of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic 
 Church of Christ, spoken of in the ancient Creeds. No 
 other organization can make good a Divine claim to the 
 allegiance of any man or woman . We contend also, that 
 not only are we under no moral obligation to belong to 
 an un-Catholic and un-Apostolic Christian body, but 
 rather obliged not to belong to such, since our doing so 
 would tend to destroy the unity of Christ's Kingdom, 
 and hinder His holy conquest of the world. It may be 
 a good thing for a man to found a new fraternity, or to 
 become a member of human societies, such as the Ma- 
 sons, Odd Fellows, or Knights of Pythias, but it is 
 wrong for him to establish, or to identify himself with, 
 a human church. 
 
 But since tbere are many bodies of Christians, each 
 claiming to be a little more according to the mind 
 of Christ and the Apostles than any of its rivals, it 
 becomes necessary to investigate the several grounds 
 upon which this claim is based, in order that we may be 
 
 t'vl 
 
 «• 
 
 III 
 
 
 
 
T"***:, 
 
 If! 
 
 
 CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. 
 
 fX 
 
 able to make an intelligent choice among them. Then, 
 if, in tlie end, w® yet fail of reaching the truths we at 
 least shall have done our best to discover the will of 
 God in regard to our Church affiliation; and al- 
 though we may join a schismatical body instead of a 
 true Church, we nevertheless shall not be held to have 
 been thoughtlessly or willfully guilty of the great sin of 
 schism. It is quite likely that some will never be able 
 to decide among " the churches," and that they may 
 make this inability an excuse for remaining non church 
 members. To such I would say: Join any Christian 
 body that acknowledges Christ to be the Divine Saviour 
 of thd world, rather than none. The identification of 
 yourself with any Denomination that administers Holy 
 Baptism ^'in the name of the Father, and of the Son, 
 and of the Holy Ghost," makes you a member, not of 
 that Denomination only, but also of the One, Holy, 
 Catholic and Apostolic Church. The fact that Baptism 
 does not make us members of a Denomination, and 
 that all duly baptized persons are members of one 
 universal Church of Christ, is not generally known and 
 appreciated as it should be. 
 
 There are three conceptions of what is necessary to 
 constitute an organization of Christians a true branch 
 of the Catholic Church of Christ. 
 
 1. According to the Roman conception of the Church, 
 there are, properly speaking, no branches; for the Church 
 of Rome, so widely diffused throughout the world, is 
 the only Catholic and Apostolic Church that has ever 
 existed, or ever can exist. It is claimed that the Pope 
 is the sole representative of Christ on earth, and that 
 only by allegiance to him can a person be identified 
 with Christ and His true Church. These are sweeping 
 
 THE CHOICE OF A CHURCH. 
 
 33 
 
 pretensions. Their very boldness and magnitude are 
 well calculated to awe and fascinate the minds of the 
 unsophisticated. "As," says Mr. Gladstone, "adver- 
 tising houses find custom in proportion, not so much 
 to the solidity of their resources, as to the magnilo- 
 quence of their promises and assurances, so theological 
 boldness in the extension of such claims is sure to pay, 
 by widening certain circles of devoted adherents, how- 
 ever it may repel the mass of mankind." 
 
 There are, however, unanswerable objections to the 
 Roman claims, a full consideration of which will require 
 a separate lecture.t For the present it must suffice 
 simply to observe that they were unknown in the ear- 
 liest and purest ages of the Church. The peculiar posi- 
 tion of Rome as the chief city of the world early tended 
 to the undue exaltation of her Bishops or Popes, but 
 they are on record as repudiating any exclusive right 
 or claim to lordship over other Bishops and Churches. 
 Even so late and great a Pope as Gregory I., Bishop of 
 Rome from a.d. 590 to a.d. 604, rebuked John IV., 
 Patriarch of Constantinople, who, it is interesting to 
 note, was the first to style himself the ''Ecumenical 
 Patriarch" or "Universal Pope." ''This title," wrote 
 Gregory, "is profane, superstitious, haughty, and in- 
 vented by the first apostate. St. Peter is not called 
 universal Apostle. No one of my predecessors ever con- 
 sented to use so profane a title. Far from Christian 
 hearts be that blasphemous name. I confidently affirm 
 that who calls himself, or wishes to be called, universal 
 Priest, is in his pride a forerunner of Antichrist." 
 
 2. A satisfactory discussion of the Denominational 
 conception of the Church also will require a lecture 
 devoted exclusively to its consideration. § What we 
 say at this time must necessarily be fragmentary. By 
 
 + Lecture II. $ Lecture III. 
 C. A— 3 
 
 V 
 
1! 
 II 
 
 
 ' i: 
 
 4'i 
 
 
 CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. 
 
 the Denominations we mean all the Protestant bodies, 
 except those that are comprised within the Anglican 
 Communion. The chief of the Denominations, in the 
 order of their organization, are the Lutherans, a.d. 
 1517; Congi-egationalists, a.d. 1571; Presbyterians, 
 A.D. 1592; Baptists, a.d. 1644; and Methodists, a.d. 
 1739. According to the conception which prevails 
 among these and all Denominations of later origin, any 
 Christian is at liberty to collect about him persons of 
 like mind with himself, and to form a society for the 
 preaching of the Gospel and the administration of the 
 Sacraments. Such societies are mutually acknowl- 
 edged to be so many true Churches. In theory, at 
 least, these Churches are admitted to be one as good 
 as the other. 
 
 We are aware that Pi-esbvterians, Methodists and 
 Lutherans might protest, with some show of reason, 
 that this is not a correct statement of their position. 
 "We," they may say, "believe in Ordination as firmly 
 as do Episcopalians, but contend that Bishops and 
 Presbyters are the same Order." But the force of this 
 objection is turned aside by the consideration that 
 those who make so much of the Presbytery when arg-u- 
 ing against Episcopacy, show little or no regard for it 
 when dealing with societies of Christians which confess- 
 edly haA^e a self-constituted ministry. Such are recog- 
 nized as standing upon the same footing with them- 
 selves. They ireelj exchange with their ministers and 
 even receive them into fellowship, and give them pas- 
 torates without reordination. This thev could not 
 do if the Presbyterian regime were held to be by Divine 
 appointment essential to the constitution of a valid 
 ministry. Mr. Maclean, a writer who has given con- 
 siderable space to this subject, sj)eaking of Scotch and 
 English Presb^i;erian8, says that they, "and the other 
 
 im 
 
 '1 
 
 HI 
 
 M 
 
 THE CHOICE OP A CHURCH. 
 
 S5 
 
 bodies which are separated from the ancient Church, 
 are now agreed in saying that it does not matter 
 whether there is any succession or none at all. The 
 Nonconformist bodies do not claim to have any suc- 
 cession going back to the Apostles, or going back at 
 all more than a few generations at most. They all 
 really derive the authority of their ministry from the 
 congregation, that is, from below instead of from 
 above. They mostly hold that any assembly of 'be- 
 lievers' may appoint a man, either with or without 
 the laying on of hands, to the Holy Ministry. For 
 this is the way in which the ministry of all Noncon- 
 formist bodies, or almost all, first began." Else- 
 where he writes: "Scarcely anyone now holds the 
 belief that a succession of sacred ministers must be 
 passed on through an unbroken line of Presbyters. The 
 Presbyterians have almost entirely ceased to hold it, 
 and most of them hold, with the other nonchurchmen, 
 that the Christian congregation can appoint its own 
 ministers." 
 
 It is said that there are above three hundred 
 Denominations. According to their principles a man 
 can have his choice among them ; or, if none of them 
 accord with his ideas, he may start one to suit himself. 
 This is doubtless the prevailing view with professing 
 Christians in America; but, taking the world at large, 
 there are probably not more than one-tenth who hold 
 it. And there is an increasing number of the adherents 
 of the Denominational system who have more or 
 less serious misgivings as to whether or not a church 
 which they might see fit to found upon their prefer- 
 ences in regard to doctrine or government, would 
 really be a true branch of the One, Holy, Catholic and 
 Apostolic Church of Christ. They realize that it is not 
 lawful for men to make new books written since the 
 
m 
 
 m 
 
 
 t [. 
 
 I ' 
 
 ^ii 
 
 36 
 
 CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. 
 
 Apostles' day and to pretend for them that they 
 should be received as of Divine authority. And, they 
 inquire, if the most learned, gifted and l)e8t men who 
 have lived since the Apostolic age cannot make a New 
 Testament, or add so much as a syllable to it, how can 
 any found a new Church? Moreover, they perceive that 
 the principles of Denominationalism would be rejected 
 by human organizations such as the Masons, Odd 
 Fellows and Knights of Pythias, and ask themselves, if I 
 cannot found a new and independent lodge, how can 
 I found a new and independent Church? And if I, 
 in my day, cannot start such a Church, how is it that 
 Luther and Brown and Calvin and Knox and Williams 
 and Wesley and Campbell could do so in their days? In 
 the estimation of all such as have regard to law and 
 order and perceive the force of the historical argument, 
 these questions can never be satisfactorily answered on 
 behalf of Denominationalism. 
 
 Take for example Mr. Wesley's Society. What is 
 true of this, the largest of modern Denominations, is 
 true of all. Is it a Church? If the Denominational 
 reader insists that "yes" must be the answer to this 
 question, let me ask him, is Mr. Booth's Society, known 
 as the Salvation Army, also a Church? As I under- 
 stand it, the founder and adherents of this organiza- 
 tion do not regard it as such ; nor have I met with any 
 Denominationalists who do. But if Mr. Wesley's 
 Society is a Church, why is not Mr. Booth's? They were 
 both founded for the same purpose, and their methods, 
 though differing in external details, are in principle 
 essentially the same. The brass band, street parades, 
 and services are, after all, only another form of the old- 
 fashioned revival system. I am not here pronouncing 
 upon this way of bringing men and women to Christ. 
 For the purpose of my argument it is only necessary to 
 
 THE CHOICE OP A CHURCH. 
 
 37 
 
 point out that according to all reports Mr. Booth and 
 his army are using it quite as successfully as Mr. Wes- 
 ley and his followers. Now, if the Methodists constitute 
 a Church, why do not the Salvationists? True the 
 latter do not claim to be a Church, but neither did the 
 former at first. Indeed, I have seen it stated that in 
 England the Wesleyans have not up to date formally 
 claimed to be a Church, though they have gradually 
 adopted the name. Their founder to the day of his 
 death insisted that they were not such, but only a 
 society. Will the Denominational reader occupy him- 
 self in trying to give a satisfactory answer to the 
 following questions: When did Methodism change 
 from the state of a society to that of a Church ? What 
 were the steps in the transition ? Why is the Salvation 
 Army not a Church ? What will it have to do to become 
 one ? An observing traveler in New England sees over tlie 
 doorway of primitive places of worship the original in- 
 scription '^ Meeting House," while, at the side, on the mod- 
 ern bulletin board he reads "Congregational Church." 
 What has happened in the interval represented by these 
 designations to justify the change ? Whoever attemptsX 
 to answer these inquiries will ultimately abandon the \ 
 Denominational conception of the Church and conclude 
 that, in the nature of things, mortal men cannot or- / 
 ganize a new Church any more than they can create a / 
 new Bible or place a new star in the heavens. ' 
 
 Bishops of regular and canonical descent from the 
 Apostles are the perpetuators of the Church. As a true 
 lodge, through its legally executed charter, must be his- 
 torically connected with its founder, so a true Church, 
 through its lawful Bishop-successors of the Apostles, 
 must be able to show an uninterrupted continuity back 
 through the ages to Christ. One of the earliest of the 
 Christian Fathers and Doctors tersely gave expression to 
 
v,l 
 
 It.' 
 
 I I 
 
 I.'. 
 
 
 CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. 
 
 ( 
 
 ■f 
 
 fie conviction which prevailed universally during the 
 first fifteen hundred years when he said, "No Bishop, 
 no Church." 
 
 The oldest of the Denominations, and in many re- 
 spects the most dignified and justifiable of them, the 
 Lutherans, started about fifteen hundred years too late 
 to make good its claim to be a regular and legitimate 
 branch of the Church of Christ. There will ever remain, 
 after all that can be said in justification of the fifteenth 
 century and later organizations of Christians, room for 
 reasonable and serious doubt concerning their CathoHc- 
 ity. Such organizations, it will be perceived, would not 
 have been recognized as true Churches in the earlier and 
 purer, or indeed in any preceding, ages of the Church. 
 They are not so regarded even now , and in all proba- 
 bility never will be, by the vast majority of Christians. 
 ,/ All Churches whose claim to Catholicity cannot be gain- 
 said were founded by the Apostles, or by those who "con- 
 tinued steadfastly in the Apostles' doctrine and fellow- 
 ship, and in the breaking of bread and in the prayers." 
 But the founders of modern Denominations were not 
 Apostles nor did anyof them, except the Wesleys, remain 
 in communion with any undoubted branch of the Apos- 
 tolic Church. John and Charles Wesley lived and died in 
 the communion of our Mother Church of England . Would 
 to God that Coke and Asbury had done the samel 
 
 Those who perceive the difference between a Divine 
 and a human Church, and realize their obligation to be- 
 long to the former rather than to the latter, can never 
 be quite satisfied in any body of Chiistians which traces 
 its origin to uninspired men, and is not the recognized 
 offspring of any undisputed bi-anch of the ancient Cath- 
 olic Church. 
 
 3. Finally, w^e have the Greek and Anglican conception 
 of the Church, which is held by all Christians outside 
 
 THE CHOICE OF A CHURCH. 
 
 39 
 
 the Roman and Denominational Communions. The 
 Greek Church is the Church of Western Asia and East- 
 ern Europe. It embraces nearly all Christians in Tur- 
 key, Servia, Roumania, Greece, Russia, and is strongly 
 represented in Austria. The Anglican or English Com- 
 munion includes all Christians in full fellowship with the 
 Church of England, and is composed of these par-ts: 
 The Church of England, the Episcopal Church in the 
 United States, the Church of Ireland, the Church of 
 Wales, the Church in Canada, the Church m Asia, the 
 Church in Africa, the Church in Australia, the Church in 
 Scotland, and nine scattered Dioceses. 
 
 The Greek and Anglican Churches are in practical 
 communion with each other ; at least, they agree per- 
 fectlv in regard to their conception of what is necessary 
 to constitute a Catholic Church. According to their 
 view there are as many branches of the true Church of 
 Christ as there are nations in which there is an inde- 
 pendent Church that can trace its origin to the Apostles. 
 Each such Church has a right to self-government, hav- 
 ing respect only to the general regulations of the great 
 Councils in which the whole of Catholic Christendom 
 
 was represented. , * v 
 
 The Church, according to the Greek and Anghcan 
 conception, may be compared to a fruitful vine which, 
 having been planted by the Apostles at Jerusalem, not 
 Rome, overran, even in their lifetime, almost all of the 
 then known world, pushing its tendrils into the several 
 political divisions of Western Asia, Northern Africa and 
 Eastern Europe. These branches were in many cases 
 carried over by the Apostles themselves, and through 
 their planting took independent root. The successors 
 of the Apostles, whom we call Bishops, have been going 
 on with this work ever since, and they will continue to 
 do so untU the vine has taken root in every nation of 
 
 II 
 
'N '" 
 
 I 
 
 i ! 
 
 H 
 
 I* 
 
 Ik 
 
 'I; ; 
 
 I* 
 
 i > 
 
 f 1 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 40 
 
 CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. 
 
 the eftrth. Thus the one vine of the Church of Christ has 
 as many roots as there are National Churches. If the 
 parent root of any branch should wither and die, the 
 offspring would flourish nevertheless, and if in future 
 ages the surviving offshoot should send a branch back to 
 the native land to take new root there, the second Church 
 of that country would be essentially the same as the first. 
 This makes it impossible that the gates of hell should 
 permanently prevail against any branch of the Church. 
 According to the Roman theory there is only one vine 
 having its root in Christ through only one Bishop, who 
 is the representative of only one Apostle. The branches 
 of this vine overrun other countries, but they do not 
 take root, and thus have no independent national life. 
 There is, therefore, according to this view, no such thing 
 as a National Church. Of course, if Romanists are right 
 Anglicans and Greeks are wrong. 
 
 An argument for the Scripturalness of independent 
 National Churches, as well as for the equality of Bishops, 
 might be built upon our Lord's commission to the 
 Apostles, ** Go ye therefore and teach all nations." ** Go 
 ye," not go you, St. Peter, and all your successors in 
 the See of Rome, but *'go ye," all the Apostles and all 
 their successors, and make disciples of ^'all nations," 
 not make missions of Rome. Obedience to this com- 
 mand, especially in the early days of Christianity, when 
 the animosity between nations and the difficulties of 
 intercommunication were much greater than at pres- 
 ent, made the establishment of independent National 
 Churches unavoidable. Take England for illustration. 
 In obedience to Christ's command some early successor 
 of one of the Apostles, not St. Peter— many think it was 
 St. Paul himself— preached the Gospel and established 
 the Church there. But even as late and intelligent a 
 Pope as Gregory I. did not appear to know of the exists 
 
 THE CHOICE OF A CHURCH. 
 
 41 
 
 ence of the British Church until informed of it by St. 
 Augustine about the year 600. Nor can this ignorance 
 be accounted for by supposing that the Church was in- 
 significant. Hundreds of years before, the British Church 
 had been represented in great Councils by a delegation 
 of Bishops and other Clergy. This was the case at Aries, 
 A. D. 314, and Ariminum, a. d. 359, and probably at 
 Nice, a. d. 325, and Sardica, a. d. 347. And though the 
 Church had undoubtedly suffered severely fi-om the north- 
 ern invasions, there still remained many Bishops, Priests 
 and Deacons who congi-egated from all parts to the 
 monasteries in the region of Wales, Scotland and Ireland. 
 The number of Bishops at that time we do not know. 
 Bede says that seven were present at a conference with 
 Augustine. A very ancient author reckons them as 
 twenty-five Bishops and three Archbishops. 
 
 The Anglican idea concerning self-governing Na- 
 tional Churches is confirmed by the parable of the vine. 
 At least the Roman doctrine concerning St. Peter and 
 the necessity to Catholicity of communion with the 
 Popes, is irreconcilable with our Lord's teachmg m this 
 passage : ^^ am the Vine, ye are the branches." Note 
 that Christ is here represented as the stem and root, 
 that the Apostles are only branches, that there is no in- 
 dication that the branch represented by St. Peter 
 should, by Divine right, overshadow the rest, and that 
 there is not the faintest allusion to his successors in the 
 See of Rome. In order to harmonize the parable with 
 the Ultramontane conception it would have to be recast 
 so as to read : While in the world I am the Vine, but 
 after My ascension Peter and the Bishops of Rome, one 
 after the other, until the end of the world, will take My 
 place. Therefore, in all time to come, he that abideth in 
 the Pope, and the Pope in him, the same will bring forth 
 much fruit, for without the Pope you can do nothing. 
 
|i^ 
 
 i 
 
 I 
 
 •w 
 
 .QHURCH MEMBERSHIP. 
 
 If a man abide not In ti^ Pt>pe, he is cast forth as a 
 branch and is withered. But since Romans interpret 
 the Scriptures one way and we another, let us turn to 
 the history of the earliest and purest ages for the pur- 
 pose of ascertaining who are right. 
 
 The very name of the Roman Church proves the 
 National Church theory, and shows that originally she 
 was regarded as one of the state Churches. Her official 
 name is "The Holy Catholic x\postolic Roman Church." 
 Before the Council of Trent it was ''The Holy Roman 
 Church.'' The word "Roman" in this title is inexplic- 
 able upon the hypothesis that the Papal Communion 
 comprised the whole of Catholic Christendom. 
 
 Again, the phrase "The Catholic Churches," which 
 occurs so frequently in the writings of both the Latin 
 and Greek Fathers, cannot be explained in harmony 
 with the Roman theory of Catholicity, for how could 
 they speak of more than one Catholic Church, if "The 
 Holy Roman Church" could make good its exclusive 
 pretensions? St. Irenaeus bears witness to the National 
 Church idea when he says : " and neither do the Churches 
 founded in Germany, nor those of Spain, in Gaul, in the 
 East, in Egypt, in Africa, nor in the regions in the mid- 
 dle of the earth, believe or deliver a different Faith." 
 
 The Church is com])ared by the Fathers to the sea, 
 as being diffused throughout all the world; as being, 
 like it, one; as having one name, that of the Catholic 
 Church; and as containing within it many Churches 
 with various names, as the ocean has many bays 
 within it. 
 
 The so-called "Canons or laws of the Apostles," 
 which were compiled about the end of the second century, 
 distinctly mention the existence of independent state or 
 national Churches. "It is necessary," runs the thirty- 
 fourth canon, "that the Bishops of every nation should 
 
 THE CHOICE OF A CHURCH. 
 
 43 
 
 know who is first among them, recognize him as such, 
 and do nothing important without his assent." How 
 unfortunate it is for the Papal claims that this cele- 
 brated canon was not worded something like this: It 
 is necessary that every Bishop throughout the world 
 should know that he is subject to the Pope of Rome, and 
 that he should do nothing of importance without first 
 securing his consent. 
 
 The local character of " The Holy Roman Church " 
 was recognized by Pope Innocent III., a.d. 1198-1216, 
 who, though given to the most unwarrantable efforts 
 towards the aggrandizement of his position, says, in a 
 letter to the Patriarch of Constantinople: "That is 
 called the Church universal which consists of all the 
 Churches and is named from the Greek word Catholic. 
 And in this sense of the word the Roman Church is not 
 the Church universal, but a part of the Church univer- 
 sal." Gregory IX., a.d. 1227-41, admitted that the 
 Eastern Church was a part of the universal Church. 
 Even as late as the middle of the sixteenth century, the 
 Council of Trent, presided over by Pius IV., tacitly 
 acknowledged the existence of National Churches ; for 
 the creed which it formulated declared that Rome was 
 "the Mother and Mistress of all Churches." It is im- 
 |)ossible to escape the logical conclusion that there 
 must have been more than one Church in the minds of 
 the Pope and theologians ; for otherwise that of Rome 
 could not be regarded as a mother. 
 
 But if there be any room for doubt as to the opinion 
 of Innocent III. and Pius IV., upon this subject, there is 
 none whatever when we go back to the time of Pope 
 Gregory I. Bede records that among the questions sub- 
 mitted to this Pontiff by St. Augustine, who, in a.d.596, 
 had been sent by him to England, was the following: 
 "When there is but one Faith, why are there different 
 
 lili! 
 
44 
 
 CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. 
 
 customs of Churches, and why is one custom of Masses 
 observed in the Holy Roman Church, and another in the 
 Church of Gaul?'' To which Pope Gregory made this 
 answer: "You, my brother, know the custom of the 
 Roman Church, in w hich you remember that you your- 
 self were brought up. But my sentence is, that whether 
 in the Roman, or the Gallican, or in any Church, you 
 have found an^^ thing which may be more pleasing to 
 Omnipotent God, you carefully select, and with special 
 instruction impart to the Church of the English, which, 
 as yet, is new to theFaith, what things j^ou have been 
 able to collect from many Churches. *For things are not 
 to be loved for the sake of places, but places for the 
 sake of things. From each individual Church, therefore, 
 choose the things w^hich are pious, which are religious, 
 which are right, and deposit these things— when you 
 have collected them, as it were, into a bundle— in the 
 minds of the English for their use." 
 
 It cannot, therefore, be disputed, by any who ac- 
 knowledge the infallibility of the Popes, that there were, 
 at least in England and Gaul, National Churches which 
 were separate and distinct from the Church of Rome. 
 Until the Council of Trent, Roman writers, like those of 
 the rest of the world, speak of the Churches of these 
 countries, and of Germany and Spain, and, in fact, of 
 every nation, in such a way as to show conclusively that 
 the idea of the Church's being one universal communion 
 with Rome and her Bishop as its indispensable center, 
 had not been conceived, or at least did not obtain, even 
 among Ultramontanists, until after the middle of the 
 sixteenth century. 
 
 If the present Roman theory and the interpretation 
 given to the texts by which it is supported be correct, 
 we ought to find that during the first three or four hun- 
 dred years, all Churches were subject to the Bishop 
 
 THE CHOICE OF A CHURCH. 
 
 45 
 
 of Rome, and that there was no such thing to be 
 found in all the world as an independent Provincial or 
 National Church. On the other hand, if the Anglican 
 theory be tenable, it will appear that during this period 
 the Churches of the several political divisions through- 
 out the vast Roman Empire governed themselves with- 
 out practically any reference to the Bishops of the 
 capital city, or to any other external authority except 
 the decrees of the General Councils. Those who have 
 not taken the pains to investigate the truth of the 
 representations of modern Romanists respecting their 
 universal sway in primitive times, will be surprised 
 when they learn the real extent of the original Diocese 
 presided over by the Bishops of the Imperial city, and 
 of the comparatively little influence and power that 
 they exercised abroad during the first four or five cen- 
 turies. The limits of the original Papal See were those 
 of the city of Rome. Even after the development of the 
 Patriarchal system the region in which the Bishop of 
 Rome was first among equals was by no means co-ex- 
 tensive with Italy. '' Italy," says an Ecclesiastical geog- 
 rapher, *'from very early times was divided into two 
 gi^eat Provinces. First, the Italic Diocese, which com- 
 prehended the present Kingdom of Lombardy, and the 
 other countries subject to the Empire south of the 
 Danube, of which Milan was the metropolis; and, sec- 
 ond, that of Rome, which comprised Tuscany, the 
 recekt States of the Church, Naples, Sicily and the Med- 
 iterranean Islands ot Sardinia and Corsica, usually 
 known as the Loca Suburbicaria." 
 
 Now, in the early times, the primacy of the Bishops 
 of Rome was confined to the limits of the Suburbica- 
 rian Churches, and his jurisdiction to the city. He 
 had nothing whatever to do with the great Italian 
 Churches of Ravenna, Aquileia or Milan. Ravenna was 
 
t 
 
 ' 
 
 CHURCH MEMBEKSHIP. 
 
 only about a hundred and eighty miles northeast of 
 Kome; Aquileia was three hundred miles in that direc- 
 tion, and Milan about the same distance to the north- 
 west. Since the jurisdiction of the Pope was originally 
 confined to Kome, and his primacy was so far from be- 
 ing coextensive with Italy itself, we might regard it safe 
 to conclude that he had nothing to say about the gov- 
 ernment of the Church in remoter parts of Christendom. 
 But we are not left to conjecture on this point. There 
 is abundant evidence, known to all readers of Ecclesias- 
 tical History, that the Churches of Palestine, Asia Minor, 
 Africa, France, Spain and England were all for the first 
 six centuries, and some of them during the first thou- 
 sand years, quite independent of Roman, or any other 
 foreign, domination. In fact, such of these Churches as 
 compose the gi*eat Greek Communion have never sub- 
 mitted in the least degree to Papal dominion. 
 
 " Janus " * says : ** There are many National Churches 
 which were never under Rome, and never even had any 
 intercourse by letter with Rome, without this being con- 
 sidered a defect, or causing any difficulty about Church 
 Communion. Such an autonomous Church, always in- 
 dependent of Rome, was the most ancient of those 
 
 •"Janus" was a mythological deity of the Latins who had the power of 
 looking both ways at once. It was therefore, not without significance, assumed 
 as the pen name by the profoundly learned German authors of " The Pope and 
 the Council," a powerful protest against the proposition to declare the infalli- 
 bility of the Papacy. It looked at the question from both the standpoint of 
 history and expediency. Professor SchafT speaks of this work as '♦ a book which 
 will be memorable in the history of literature as one of the most crushing 
 blows ever struck in any controversy. It is the work of more than one learned 
 theologian of the Roman Catholic Church and deals with the question of in- 
 fallibility from the root. It shows that the theological opinion in favor of Papal 
 Infallibility, as it has been held by many in other ages, was the offspring of 
 sheer imposture and wholesale forgery sustained and repeated from genera- 
 tion to generation, and that many other claims of the Papacy rest on like 
 foundation." There is considerable uncertainty about its authorship. It is 
 supposed to be the joint work of Professors Von Dollinger, Fried rich and Hu- 
 ber of the University of Munich. There seems to be little room for doubt that 
 the famous Dr. Von Dollinger was the chief writer and the editor of the whole. 
 
 THE CHOICE OF A CHURCH. 
 
 47 
 
 founded beyond the limits of the Empire, the Armenian, 
 wherein the primatial dignity descended for a long time 
 in the family of the national Apostle, Gregory the Illumi- 
 nator. The great Syro-Persian Church in Mesopotamia 
 and the western part of the Kingdom of the SassanidiB, 
 with its thousands of Martyrs, was from the first, and 
 always remained, equally free from any influence of 
 Rome. In its records and its rich literature we find no 
 trace of the arm of Rome having reached there. The 
 same holds good of the Ethiopian or Abyssinian Church, 
 which was indeed united to the See of Alexandria, but 
 wherein nothing, except perhaps a distant echo, was 
 heard of the claims of Rome. In the West, the Irish and 
 the ancient British Church remained for centuries au- 
 tonomous, and under no sort of influence of Rome." 
 
 This being notoriously the case, what becomes of 
 the assertion of Romanists that the Church of England 
 and the American Episcopal Church ,are not true 
 branches of the Catholic Church of Christ, because they 
 are not under the dominion of St. Peter's successor in 
 the See of Rome? May we not effectually answer that 
 if obedience to the Bishop of Rome is essential to Cath- 
 olicity, the Church did not exist anywhere in all the 
 world during the first six centuries after the Ascension, 
 except in the little Diocese of Rome? Roman Catholics 
 feel the weakness of their cause when pleaded at the bar 
 of antiquity; hence, in the person of one of their most 
 representative Cardinals, Manning, they have pro- 
 claimed that to appeal to history instead of the Pope 
 is a sin no less heinous than "treason" and "heresy. 
 
 !' ■ f 
 
 i m 
 
 i«i 
 
 Though the Roman view diff"ers widely and funda- 
 mentally from the Anglican and Greek conception, 
 there is manifest agreement in the belief that there can 
 
p 
 
 I :• 
 
 48 
 
 CMURCfl MEMfefiRSHll*. 
 
 be no such thing: as a valid Church of Christ, to which 
 it is the duty of non church members to belong, unless 
 there be an historical connection with Him through 
 Bishops in unbroken succession from the Apostles. We 
 also agree thattlie Church is a Divine institution with 
 a human mission. Denominationalists think that it is a 
 human institution with a Divine mission. We hold that 
 the Church is the Kingdom of Heaven seeking men on 
 earth ; they that it is a society on earth seeking the 
 Kingdom of Heaven. We think that it is an organi- 
 zation for dispensing Christianity; they that it is for 
 the attainment of Christianity. On these points Ro- 
 mans, Greeks and Anglicans, who constitute about 
 nine-tenths of Christendom, are agreed. 
 
 It may as well be observed here as elsewhere that 
 our argument in many places throughout this book is 
 on behalf of the whole of the great ancient Catholic 
 Church. If we were to contend thus for some nonessen- 
 tial feature of the Anglican Communion, however ad- 
 mirable in itself, what we say might apparently for good 
 reason be disregarded as an ebullition of the sectarian 
 spirit; but as we speak for the whole of Christendom 
 during the first fifteen centuries, and for the overwhelm- 
 ing majority in our own time, it will surely be conceded 
 that we are entitled to a respectful hearing. 
 
 Even the small minority who maintain that connec- 
 tion with Christ through Bishops of the Apostolic suc- 
 cession is not necessary to the existence of a true 
 Church, did not originally reject the Historic Episcopate 
 because they thought it to be unscriptural, but because 
 of the force of circumstances. Luther intended that his 
 followers should be governed by regularly consecrated 
 Bishops as soon as they could be obtained. Calvin ap- 
 plied to the Church of England for Consecration ; Wesley 
 to a Greek Bishop ; and Dr. Coke first to the American 
 
 THE CHOICE OF A CHURCH. 
 
 49 
 
 and then to the English Episcopate. The hopes and 
 schemes of these were in each case frustrated, but their 
 advice and efforts should deter any of their admirers, 
 who cannot like them plead necessity, from choosing a 
 non-Episcopal Church for membership, and, also, their 
 example should turn the face of all Lutherans, Presby- 
 terians and Methodists towards Episcopacy. 
 
 Of course Anglicans, Romanists, and Denomina- 
 tionalists each cite Holy Scripture in support of the 
 claim that their respective organizations are true 
 branches of Christ's Church. In view of our wide differ- 
 ences, outsiders cannot decide which is right, and what 
 Church to join, unless they can determine which is the 
 best interpreter of the New Testament teaching. Now 
 it so happens that all of us are able to refer such to 
 an interpreter, which we severally regard as eminently 
 trustworthy. Romans direct us to the Pope, and 
 Denominationalists to their founders and bright lights, 
 but the Episcopal Church has no modern Pope or 
 founder ; so, instead of referring to personal interpre- 
 ters, we have always asked inquirers to examine our 
 claims in the light of the early Fathers and the history 
 of the Church. We think that those who lived nearest 
 the time of our Lord and the Apostles knew more con- 
 cerning their teaching than the Christians of subse- 
 quent ages, and that consequently what they said and 
 did must be taken into account by those who would 
 conscientiously and intelligently choose between the 
 Anglican and Roman Churches or amongst the various 
 Protestant bodies of Christians. 
 
 We are well aware that with tens of thousands of 
 the representatives of the Denominations which have 
 sprung up in the course of the last three hundred and 
 fifty years, the historical argument will be without 
 influence. They contend that a Church, which it is 
 
 C.A.-4 
 
 f 
 
 i 
 
I{ «' 
 
 • II 
 
 50 
 
 CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. 
 
 quite within the power of a half dozen Christians to 
 organize at any time, may have a much greater claim 
 upon the allegiance of non church members than some 
 undoubted branch of the Historic Church of Christ. 
 But as time goes on, the test of history is sure to be 
 applied more and more by the educated and reflecting 
 who are guided by principle rather than by preference 
 in the choice of their Church relationship. 
 
 The Church for Americans. 
 
 LECTURE II. 
 
 OUR CONTROVERSY WITM ROAANISTS. 
 
 I. Papal Infallibility. 
 II. Jurisdiction of the Pope. 
 
 III. Anglican Orders. 
 
 IV. Leo XIII.'s Decree of Invalidity. 
 
 im 
 

 
 AUTHORITIES. 
 
 Bacon, The Vatican Council, 
 
 Barrow, The Papal Supremacy. 
 
 Bennett, The Distinctive Errors of Romanism. 
 
 Brightman, What Objections Have Been Made to English Orders. 
 
 CoLLETTE, The Papacy. 
 
 CoxE, Bp., Institutes of Christian History. 
 
 CouRAYER, On English Ordinations. 
 
 Denny, Anglican Orders and Jurisdiction, 
 
 Gayer, Papal Infallibility and Supremacy. 
 
 Gibbons, Cardinal, Our Christian Heritage. 
 
 Gore, Canon, Roman Catholic Claims. 
 
 GuETTE, Abbe, The Papacy. 
 
 Haddan, Apostolic Succession in the Church of England. 
 
 Hussey, On the Rise of the Papal Power. 
 
 ** Janus," The Pope and the Council. 
 
 Jenkins, Romanism: An Examination of the Creed of Pope 
 Pius the IV. 
 
 Jenkins, The Privilege of Peter. 
 
 Lee, The Validity of the Holy Orders of the Church of England. 
 
 Leto, Rome During the Vatican Council. 
 
 Littledale, Plain Reasons Against Joining the Church of Rome. 
 
 Littledale, The Petrine Claims. 
 
 Moore and Brinckman, The Anglican Brief Against Roman 
 Claims. 
 
 Newman, Apologia Pro Vita Sua. 
 
 Paton, British History and Papal Claims. (2 Vols.) 
 
 Puller, The Primitive Saints and the See of Rome. 
 
 Ramsay, Prop., The Church in the Roman Empire. 
 
 Robertson, The Growth of the Papal Powet. 
 
 Robins, On the Claims of the Roman Church. 
 
 Salmon, Infallibility of the Church. 
 
 Seymour, Bp., What Is Modern Romanism? 
 
 Smith, English Orders. 
 
 Spencer, Papalism versus Catholic Truth. 
 
 Stearns, The Faith of Our Forefathers. 
 
 Treat, The Catholic Faith. 
 
 Wilson, The Papal Supremacy and Provincial System. 
 
 PAMPHLETS. 
 
 Butler, Rome's Tribute to Anglican Orders. 
 Hopkins, John Henry, Monsignor Capel. 
 Littledale, Words for Truth. 
 
 OUR CONTROVERSY WITH 
 ROMANISTS. 
 
 THE object of this lecture is to correct two widely 
 spread, mistaken impressions concerning the 
 Episcopal Church, namely, that her sympathy is, 
 upon the whole, with Eomanism rather than with 
 Protestantism, and that she is not Catholic because she 
 does not form a part of the Papal Communion. 
 
 Here and there is to be found a person who, havmg 
 heard the claims of Rome, is possessed with the uncom- 
 fortable misgiving that perhaps, after all, they are true, 
 and that in standing aloof from the Pope he is living m 
 disobedience to the will of God. The number of such 
 among Protestants of every name is probably greater 
 than is generally supposed. Certainly there are multi- 
 tudes who are more or less disconcerted whenever they 
 enter into an argument with Romanists, or read any of 
 their controversial books. So far as non-Episcopahans 
 are concerned their embarrassment is easily accounted 
 for They rest their whole case upon '^ the Bible and the 
 Bible alone." Owing to the many-sided character of 
 Revelation, Romanists are able to cite as many texts m 
 support of their position as Protestants are. If excep- 
 tion be taken to their interpretations, they reply : We 
 have as good a right to our opinion in such matters as 
 vou have to yours." 
 
 In the Roman controversy, Episcopalians have this 
 advantage over other Protestants that, being connected 
 in unbroken continuity with the Apostolic Church, and 
 
 (53) 
 
 i 
 
 ", 
 
'f 
 
 f 
 
 
 OUR CONTROVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 
 
 havings rid themselves of erroneous doctrines, and 
 superstitious ceremonies which grew up in the Dark 
 Ages, they are able to wield the two-edged sword of 
 Scripture and history. With this weapon in hand, and 
 standing on the vantage ground of the Reformation, 
 we are, indeed, weak Anglo-Catholics, if unable to van- 
 quish the most powerful champion of the Papacy. Any 
 person of average intelligence, who has attentively read 
 one of our Reformation fathers, or such writers of this 
 generation as Littledale, Salmon, Puller, Hopkins, Kip, 
 Little, Ingram, and many others whose books are easily 
 procured, is more than a match for all the Cardinal 
 Gibbons and Newmans and Mannings that Rome can 
 produce. An Episcopalian who has any hesitancy in 
 meeting an intelligent Roman Catholic Layman, or 
 even Priest, in debate, should reijuest his Rector to 
 deliver a course of lectures on the points of difference 
 between Romanists and ourselves, or at least to lend 
 bim a book upon the subject. 
 
 I. 
 
 PAPAL INFALLIBILITY. 
 
 SINCE the year 1870, belief in the inerrancy of the 
 Pope, as the guide of mankind in the way of truth 
 and life, has been made the condition of member- 
 ship in the Roman Church and of salvation. Of all the 
 articles which Rome has added to "the Faith once de- 
 livered to the Saints," this is the most remarkable, both 
 for its presumptuousness and for its irreconcilableness 
 to Scripture, reason and history. No wonder that its 
 promulgation caused even the Ultramontane Com- 
 munion fairly to reel with astonishment, and that it 
 set on foot as a reformatory movement headed by Dol- 
 linger, the greatest theologian of the Roman obedience 
 
 PAPAL INFALLIBILITY. 
 
 55 
 
 if not indeed of modern times, who with other scarcely 
 less distinguished scholars restored the ''Old Catholic 
 Church" to parts of Europe. Nor was this all. The 
 knowledge that the Jesuits were bent upon having the 
 Pope declared infallible gave a great impetus to the 
 Liberal School of Romanists. Many, representing 
 almost every country of Christendom, who could not 
 quite justify separation even from a heretical Church, 
 felt, nevertheless, in conscience bound to identify them- 
 selves with this movement in ringing protests. 
 
 There is little room for doubt that the resolution to 
 make the dogma of infallibility an article of faith would 
 have been voted down, if free and full discussion had 
 been allowed and if the vote had been at all representa- 
 tive of the whole communion. But the Jesuits, with 
 whom Pius IX. cooperated, took care to pack the Coun- 
 cil with Italians and others whose votes could be relied 
 upon. As there was some reason to fear that the num- 
 ber of these among the legitimate Cardinals and Bishops 
 might fall short of an overwhelming majority, a host of 
 native titular, or merely nominal, Ecclesiastical digni- 
 taries was created. By this desperate expedient, Italy 
 had an altogether disproportionate representation of 
 two hundred and seventy-six delegates. France, with 
 a much larger Roman Catholic population, had only 
 eighty-four, Germany, nineteen and the United States, 
 forty-eight. By one means and another Pius IX. made 
 sure of the enormous majority of 576 votes out of 770, 
 for the dogma of infallibility. All whose attitude was 
 in the least doubtful were, as far as possible, persuaded 
 to accept his lavish hospitality. The Pope himself had 
 his good-humored jokes about the numbers who com- 
 promised themselves by living like princes at his ex- 
 pense. " If they do not," said he, " make me infallible, 
 they will render me Wlire,'' that is, bankrupt. 
 
I 
 
 t 
 
 56 
 
 OUR CONTROVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 
 
 After the resourceful Pontiff and Jesuits had done all 
 they could to minimize the opposition, what little 
 remained was, by one means and another, coerced so 
 that only the most fearless could summon sufficient 
 courage to raise their voices in debate ; and even these 
 were prevented by strategy from speaking at length 
 and by the notoriously bad acoustics, designedly so, 
 of the hall erected for the meeting, were not heard 
 except by a few in the region of the platform. The 
 wary infallibilists instinctively felt that it would not 
 do to give such Germans as the authors of '^ Janus," 
 or Frenchmen as the Archbishop of Paris, or Amer- 
 icans as Archbishop Kenrick, the floor for extended 
 speeches. The proceedings were, of course, in the offi- 
 cial language of the Roman Church, which all Prelates 
 could understand and speak, though very few of them 
 with sufficient ease to do justice to themselves and their 
 subjects. "Quirinus" asserts that nine-tenths of the 
 Prelates were condemned to silence simply from being 
 unable to speak Latin readily and coherently through 
 want of regular practice. And to this must be added 
 the embarrassment occasioned by diversities of pro- 
 nunciation. It was impossible, for example, for French- 
 men or Italians to understand an Englishman's Latin. 
 
 The rules of order provided that the chairman, who, 
 of course, was the Pope's appointee and trusted repre- 
 sentative, might call any speaker to order for wander- 
 ing from the question and deny him liberty to proceed. 
 No ap|>eal from the decision of the chair was allowed. 
 The working of this rule is illustrated by the experience 
 of Monsig-nor Haynald, one of the most prominent 
 Bishops in the opposition. In proof of a statement in 
 his address he made some historical quotation, which 
 showed that on the occasion of the reform of the 
 Boman Breviary, a Pope had expressed an opinion con- 
 
 PAPAL INFALLIBILITY. 
 
 57 
 
 trary to that of the present majority in the Council. 
 Thereupon, the president immediately requested him to 
 stop, and to descend from the tribune. Anything like 
 debate was precluded. Offhand remarks were out of 
 order. The speakers were required to give notice 
 some days in advance of their wish to be heard. They 
 had to speak in the order of their rank, without refer- 
 ence to the relevancy of any speaker's remarks to those 
 of his predecessors. No reply was permitted. When, 
 on the 3rd day of June, 1870, the debates of the Coun- 
 cil on the main question were suddenly silenced, there 
 remained on the list of those who had signified their in^ 
 tention to speak, the names of some forty Bishops who 
 were still unheard. They were forbidden, by the rules of 
 the Council, to print their views for private circulation 
 among the Bishops; and the spiritual prohibition was 
 reenforced by police arrangements which locked every 
 printing office in Rome against them. But while noth- 
 ing derogatory to the dogma of infallibility could be 
 printed, the organs of the Pope had full freedom to 
 publish what they pleased. 
 
 However, an American Prelate, Archbishop Kenrick, 
 of St. Louis, refused to be thus gagged. Claiming a 
 "Divine right to express his convictions, on this most 
 important question, to his fellow-Bishops," he sent the 
 carefully prepared manuscript of his Latin speech to 
 a printer in Naples, where, under the flag of an excom- 
 municated king, might be found that liberty for the 
 Bishops of the Church which was denied them in the 
 States of the Church itself. A copy of this remarkable 
 document afterwards fell into the hands of the author 
 of " An Inside View of the Vatican Council," by whom it 
 was translated, and made an appendix to his excellent 
 volume. We shall have occasion frequently to quote 
 from it, and from the other notable protests of German 
 
 III 
 
58 
 
 OUR CONTBOVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 
 
 aiid FreiK^li Romanists against the scheme which had 
 been prepared for the Council by the Pope and the 
 Jesuits. 
 
 x\nother expedient that was resorted to, for the pur- 
 pose of making stiw of the end in view, was the post- 
 ponement of the voting upon the dogma of infallibility 
 until the intolerable Summer heat of Rome had driven 
 two hundred and thirty-five Bishops from the Council. 
 Of the delegates from foreign countries who were in the 
 city when the vole was finally taken, many were de- 
 tained from the session by sickness, and others would 
 not attend because of their disgust at the way in which 
 the council had been manipulated. A private vote was 
 taken on July 13, 1870, only five days before the pro- 
 mulgation of the doctrine of infallibility, which resulted 
 in four hundred and fifty-one aflfirmative and eighty- 
 eight negative votes; sixty-two Bishops giving a quali- 
 fied affirmative, and ninety-one abstaining from voting, 
 although present in Rome. * 'Among the negative votes 
 were the Prelates most distinguished for learning and 
 ])OKition, as Schwarzenberg, Cardinal Prince-Archbishop 
 of Prague; Rauscher, Cardinal Prince-Archbishop of 
 Vienna ; Darboy, Archbishop of Paris ; Matthieu, Cardi- 
 nal-Archbishop of Besancon ; Ginoulliiac, Archbishop of 
 Lyons; Dupanloup, Bishop of Orleans; Maret, Bishop of 
 Sura ; Simor, Archbishop of Gran and Primate of Hun- 
 gary; Haynald, Archbishop of Kalocsa; Forster, Prince- 
 Archbishop of Breslau; Scherr, Archbishop of Munich; 
 Ketteler, Bishop of Mayence ; Hefele, Bishop of Rotten- 
 burg; Strossmayer, Bishop of Bosnia and Sirmium; 
 MacHale, Archbishop of Tuam; Connolly, Archbishop 
 of Halifax; Kenrick, Archbishop of St. Louis.'' If 
 scholarship instead of votes had counted, the minority 
 would have been found to overweigh the majority by 
 much as a giant outweighs a pygmy. Thus the 
 
 PAPAL INFALLIBILITY. 
 
 59 
 
 article of infallibility was added to the Ultramontane 
 creed by the Jesuits and ignorant Italians and not by 
 the Roman Church as a whole. 
 
 All accounts of the Vatican Council contain ref- 
 erences to a remarkable coincidence. Its two most im- 
 portant days were December 8, 1869, when the mag- 
 nificent opening session was held, and July 18, 1870, 
 when the vote upon the momentous question, whether 
 or not the Pope should be declared infallible, was taken. 
 Both of these events occurred during the most terrific 
 storms of which the oldest inhabitants of Rome had 
 any recollection. The thunder and lightning were ap- 
 paUing, and the darkness was so great at midday that 
 the ceremonies and business could not proceed without 
 artificial light. A candle had to be brought in order 
 that Pius IX. might see to read his decree of Papal in- 
 fallibility. All this made a profound and lasting im- 
 pression upon the members of the Council and the whole 
 city. It was universally regarded as a manifestation 
 either of Divine approval or disapproval of that which 
 was commenced on the first day and consummated on 
 the last. Of course Infallibilists took one view of it and 
 Anti-Infallibilists the other. But the untoward events 
 which followed in quick succession abundantly justified 
 the opinion to which the latter adhered. For " behold," 
 says Professor Schaff, "the day after the proclamation 
 of the dogma, Napoleon HI., the political ally and sup- 
 porter of Pius IX., unchained the furies of war, which 
 in a few weeks swept away the Empire of France and 
 the temporal throne of the infallible Pope. His own 
 subjects forsook him, and almost unanimously voted 
 for a new sovereign, whom he had excommunicated as 
 the worst enemy of the Church. History records no 
 more striking example of swift retribution of criminal 
 ambition." 
 
 11 
 
il 
 
 60 
 
 OUR CONTROVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 
 
 As Romanists speak of the doctrine of Papal infalli- 
 bility so as to create the impression that the difficulties 
 in the way of its acceptance are not nearly so insupera- 
 ble as is popularly supposed among Protestants, we will 
 here quote the decree and explain the qualifying clauses 
 behind which they take refuge when we press them too 
 hard. After the introduction, which is too long for 
 quotation, this declaration follows: 
 
 "Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition re- 
 ceived from the beginning of the Christian Faith, for the 
 glory of God our Saviour, the exaltation of the Catho- 
 lic religion, and the salvation of Christian people, the 
 sacred Council approving, we teach and define that it is 
 a dogma divinely revealed : that the Roman PontifiF, 
 when he speaks ex-cathedra, that is, when in discharge 
 of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by 
 virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a 
 doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the 
 universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to 
 him in blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility 
 with which the Divine Redeemer willed that His Church 
 should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith 
 or morals; and that, therefore, such definitions of the 
 Roman Pontiff* are irreformable of themselves and not 
 from the consent of the Church. But if anyone — which 
 may God avert^-presume to contradict this our defini- 
 tion, let him be anathema. '* 
 
 The'Pope's infallibility is limited indeed to his ex- 
 eathedra pronunciamentoes affecting the universal 
 Church, But these phrases cannot be so explained as 
 to exclude anything except his informal conversations 
 without making it impossible to determine when his 
 words are infallible truth. Certainly all his allocutions, 
 encyclicals, bulls and decrees are ex-cathedra proclama- 
 tions, and as such they must necessarily, to the Roman 
 
 
 rAPAL INFALLIBILITY. 
 
 61 
 
 mind, affect the " universal Church." In short, if the 
 Pope is ever infallible, he is always so whenever he seri- 
 ously assumes the character of a teacher, even though 
 it be in the preaching of an ordinary sermon. 
 
 The almost blasphemous doctrine of Papal infallibil- 
 ity is partly accounted for (1) by the deep-seated desire 
 of mankind for certitude in matters of religion, and (2) 
 by the comparative freedom of the early Roman Church 
 from theological error. 
 
 But, before proceeding to consider the causes which 
 led to the decree, let me observe, by way of self-justifica- 
 tion, that I am not the first to make use of strong lan- 
 guage in its condemnation. Professor Schaff", who as an 
 historian enjoyed an enviable reputation for sobriety of 
 judgment, did not hesitate to say that, "if the dogma 
 is false, it involves a blasphemous assumption, and 
 makes the nearest approach to the fulfillment of St. 
 Paul's prophecy of the man of sin, who 'as God sitteth 
 inthetempleof God, showinghimself off thatheisGod.' " 
 "The fundamental error of Rome," says the same au- 
 thor, "is that she identifies the true ideal Church of 
 Christ with the empirical Church, and the empirical 
 Church with the Romish Church, and the Romish Church 
 with the Papacy,and the Papacy with the Pope, and at 
 last substitutes a mortal man for the living Christ." Be- 
 fore the Vatican Council many Romanists took this 
 view. " Janus " prophesied that if the Jesuits had their 
 way, "In Rome itself the saying will be verified, 'Thou 
 wilt shudder thyself at thy likeness to God. ' " And an 
 anonymous writer of great learning and elo'quence, in a 
 " Pretended Speech of a Bishop in theCouncil," thus ex- 
 presses his horror at what was contemplated : " Ah, if 
 He who sitteth in the heavens is disposed to make heavy 
 
 11 
 
 ilf 
 
 
f 
 
 62 
 
 OUR CONTROVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 
 
 His hand upon us, as once on Pharaoh, he has no need 
 to suffer the troops of Garibaldi to drive us out of the 
 Eternal City ; he need only let us go on to make Pius IX. 
 a God, as we have made the blessed Virgin a goddess.'' 
 Nor is blasphemy the only evil that grows out of the 
 doctrine of infallibility. For, if on the one hand it tends 
 to idolatry, its opposite tendency is towards infidelity. 
 As some one has pointed out, it is a very short way 
 from the doctrine that Pius IX. and Leo XIII . were as 
 much inspired as Peter and Paul, to the doctrine that 
 E^r jad fail wire no more inspred than Pius or Leo. 
 
 1. There can be no doubt that men generally have 
 felt the need of a Supreme and Omniscient Ruler who 
 would authoritatively say, " This is the way ; walk ye in 
 it." Romanists appeal to this well nigh universal crav- 
 ing in their efforts to commend the doctrine of Papal 
 infkllibility to Anglicans and other Protestants. They 
 contrast the divisions of Protestantism with the unity 
 of Romanism, and account for our unhappy condition 
 by assuming that, because we are not in communion with 
 the Pope, we are without a reliable guiding star, com- 
 pass or pilot. Hence, in their opinion, we are like a ship 
 tossed about by every wind of doctrine, wrecked and 
 buffeted to pieces upon the rocks of heresy and schism. 
 We shall see how much there is in this representation later. 
 For the present, let us examine the claim to definiteness 
 of teaching in matters of faith and morals with which 
 Ultramontanists claim to be blessed in their Pontiff. 
 
 They have the canonical Scriptures. When Protes- 
 tants accuse them of rejecting or ignoring the Bible, 
 Romanists contend that it is either an ignorant or a 
 malicious misrepresentation. They say that they con- 
 sider themselves just as much bound as we do to make 
 
 PAPAL INFALLIBILITY. 
 
 63 
 
 if 
 
 its revelations and precepts their rule of life, and cite 
 a decree of the Council of Trent in proof of this. Not 
 only are they obliged to have reference to all the books 
 which we recognize as canonically forming a part of 
 Holy Scripture, but to those also which we regard as 
 apocryphal. So far, therefore, as the Bible is concerned, 
 Romanists have less of definiteness by fourteen books 
 than Protestants. 
 
 The Denominational wing of Protestantism does not 
 acknowledge the binding force of Ecumenical enactments, 
 but Romanists and Anglicans do. We do not, however, 
 make belief in them, except as they pertain to the Creeds, 
 necessary to salvation. Here again Episcopahans have 
 a decided advantage over Ultramontanists ; we recognize 
 only four, or at most six. General Councils, because 
 these are all in which the whole of Christendom can 
 be said to have been fairly represented, or that received 
 universal acceptance for their enactments; but there are 
 fourteen or fifteen other synods, chiefly Italian, which 
 are equally binding upon members of the Roman Com- 
 munion. The fullest and most reliable collection of the 
 Conciliary decrees is said to be a French work in twenty- 
 one large folio volumes. It is perhaps not too much to 
 say that every page of this huge collection contains, on 
 an average, at least some one doctrine upon which sal- 
 vation is hinged. And, even if every Romanist could 
 read French, and it were possible for him to go through 
 all the ponderous tomes for the purpose of making sure 
 that he observes every precept, the dread of damnation 
 would nevertheless still haunt him, because many of the 
 canons which were doubtless coupled with the usual 
 anathema upon those who should disregard them, have 
 been lost beyond recovery. 
 
 But we have really only begun to show the hollow- 
 ness of Rome's pretension to satisfy our desire for 
 
Hi 
 
 OVU CONTEOVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 
 
 definiteness. There remain the decrees, which no man 
 can number, of the two hundred and fifty-six Popes. As 
 the infallibility of the Bishops of Rome did not suggest 
 itself to anyone until about fifty of them were in their 
 graves, and as it was not oflScially proclaimed to be 
 a verity before the lapse of more than eighteen hundred 
 years, no great care was taken to preserve their official 
 utterances, and hundreds and thousands of these, 
 unquestionably, have perished. During the Avignon 
 Schism, which commenced in a. d. 1379 and continued 
 until A. D. 1409, two and sometimes three rivals dis- 
 puted the fictitious "chair of St. Peter." It is impos- 
 sible to decide between their respective claims. Even 
 the great Councils held at Pisa and Constance could 
 not do this. Accordingly they deposed all the Popes 
 in turn, and elected a new one. Now this is the predica- 
 ment in which Romanists find themselves. They do 
 not know which of the claimants was the true Pontiff, 
 and so of course cannot tell whose decrees to obey. 
 Moreover, as if for the very purpose of creating as 
 much confusion and uncertainty as possible. Papal 
 decretals are said to be infallible only when spoken 
 ex-cathedra. There are no less than eleven theories 
 as to when the Pope so speaks. 
 
 Finally, to cap the climax of Roman indeflniteness, 
 after the Bible, the Councils, and the Popes, come the 
 writings of the Saints and Doctors of both the West and 
 the East. Even the number of these cannot be accu- 
 rately ascertained without laborious research, and 
 what remains of their writings could scarcely be thor- 
 oughly read in a long lifetime by one who was at lib- 
 erty to devote himself wholly to the task. It has been 
 facetiously said of Duns Scotus, one of the Doctors who 
 flourished in the thirteenth century, that "he wrote 
 more than ten men could read in a generation and 
 
 PAPAL INFALLIBILITY. 
 
 65 
 
 more than a hundred could understand ! " Those whom 
 Romanists reckon as Latin Fathers form two hundred 
 and twenty-two thick volumes ; the Greek, one hundred 
 and sixty -seven ; total, three hundred and eighty-nine. 
 
 The only reply that Ultramontanists can make to 
 our representation of indefiniteness, is that the com- 
 mon people are not expected to concern themselves 
 about all this. They look to the Priests for guidance. 
 But the Priests are not infallible. Besides, in nine cases 
 out of ten, yes, in nine hundred and ninety-nine out of 
 a thousand, they are practically no better off than the 
 Layman, for, if the doctrine of Papal infallibility be 
 true, they do not, and no man can, know the millionth 
 part of that which is necessary to salvation. 
 
 Nor is there more of doctrinal stability than of certi- 
 tude in the Papal Communion. Since the time of the 
 illustrious Bossuet a staple argument of Romanists 
 against Protestants has been based upon the variations 
 of belief among us. There is no denying the fact that 
 there is a great deal of truth in this charge, in so 
 far as the non-liturgical and non-Episcopal bodies of 
 Christians are concerned. But however this may be 
 with respect to them, we are safe in making the asser- 
 tion that the Anglican Communion, in the course of the 
 last three hundred years, has manifested less of insta- 
 bility than the Church of Rome. In fact, it cannot be 
 shown that we have departed in any important partic- 
 ular from the position which we occupied immediately 
 after the Reformation. Our Prayer Book, which in- 
 cludes the Creeds and Catechism, has remained essen- 
 tially the same. It certainly will not be pretended that 
 this can be said of the Roman book of worship and 
 standards of doctrine. Some of these have been ma- 
 terially changed within the present generation. For 
 example, thirty years ago '^Keenan's Catechism" was 
 
 C.A.^5 
 
 
66 
 
 OUR CONTROVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 
 
 recognized by the Komanists of Scotland, Ireland, Eng- 
 land and America as an eminently orthodox exposition 
 of the things most surely believed among them. It 
 was highly recommended by many Bishops, including 
 Cardinal Manning. All the editions of this .popular 
 manual of instruction and controversy which appeared 
 before the year 1870, contained the following question 
 and answer: "Q. Must not Catholics believe the Pope 
 in himself to be infallible? " "A. This is a Protestant 
 invention: It is no article of the Catholic Faith: No 
 Papal decision can bind under pain of heresy, unless it 
 be received and prescribed by the teaching body ; that is, 
 bythe Bishops of theChurch." Of coursethis with all of 
 the same import has been omitted and exactly the con- 
 trary doctrine substituted in the post-Vatican editions. 
 It is remarkable that the very history of Bossuet's 
 great work on the Variations among Protestants, illus- 
 trates how little advantage can be gained for the 
 Roman Church by the arguments which it contains. It 
 was approved by one Pope and disapproved by an- 
 other ; applauded by the Archbishop of Rheims, and 
 condemned by the university of Louvain ; censured by 
 the Sorbonne in the year 1671, and in the next century 
 declared by the same learned body to be a true exposi- 
 tion of the Catholic Faith. And whatever may have 
 been the success of this great controversialist against 
 those who rejected the Papal Communion, it is beyond 
 denial that, during the controversy concerning Papal 
 infallibility, he proved at least as formidable against 
 the Italian section of his own Church. 
 
 The bare list of the heretical changes in the Roman 
 creed is enough to show that the faith of the Anglican 
 Communion is by comparison like the Rock of Gibral- 
 tar beside a sand heap. In A. d. 754 the Church of 
 Rome introduced the worship of Saints; in a. d. 787 
 
 PAPAL INFALLIBILITY. 
 
 67 
 
 she authorized the use of images and relics in religious 
 worship ; in A. d. 1123 she forbade the Clergy to marry ; 
 in A. D. 1215 she proclaimed the supremacy of the Pope 
 and the doctrine of transubstantiation ; in A. d. 1414 
 she withheld the Cup from the Laity; in a. d. 1438 the 
 lucrative doctrines of purgatory and indulgences were 
 invented; in a.d. 1439 it was first officially declared that 
 Christ instituted seven Sacraments; in a. d. 1854 the 
 Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary was 
 promulgated ; and in a. d. 1870 the infallibility of the 
 Pope was asserted. "Janus'' calls attention to thefact 
 that " the very names the Popes assumed or accepted, 
 mark the broad division between the earlier and new 
 Gregorian Papacy. To the end of the twelfth century 
 they had called themselves Vicars of Peter, but since 
 Innocent III. this title was superseded by Vicar of 
 Christ. In fact, the gulf between the position and rights 
 of a Gregory I., and the pretensions and plenary power 
 of a Gregory IX., or between a. d. 600 and a. d. 1230, 
 is as wide as from Peter to Christ." Surely, of all Chris- 
 tians our Roman brethren have the least of doctrinal 
 certitude and stability. 
 
 The author of an able article in one of our maga- 
 zines is right when he says : " There is no royal road to 
 certainty ; no organon for the summary extinction of 
 doubts. As much in the sphere of religion, as in the 
 social and political domains, infallibility and perfection 
 are mere dreams of the imagination." And, after all, it 
 is questionable whether the definiteness of which Ro- 
 manists make so much and have so little, would be de- 
 sirable, even if it were attainable. "It would," as the 
 Bishop of Vermont observes, "have saved the Church 
 much perplexity, much discussion, if she had been able 
 to refer her questions and doubts as to points of faith 
 and morals to an infallible guide and teacher. But she 
 
 ill 
 
llO' 
 
 OXm CJOJ^TROVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 
 
 did not. And We can see what she would have lost had 
 Bhe been able to do 80. Out of all the discussion, debate, 
 and controversy, in Council and in treatise, the weigh- 
 ing of evidence, the pondering of arguments, through 
 much perplexity, in spite of some mistakes and blun- 
 ders, the Church advances, like the individual, in the 
 knowledge of God, and in an intelligent apprehension of 
 His mind and will. We gain first a practical working 
 assurance, then a growing certainty. God, who surely 
 hates sin more than He hates error, wills us to be freed 
 from both ; but as He has not made sin impossible, so 
 
 neither error." 
 
 But Anglicans are not left quite so hopelessly adnft 
 as Ultramontanists represent. For the Bible is our 
 guiding star, history our compass, and conscience our 
 pilot. If these be faithfully followed there can be no 
 doubt that, though for one reason and another we may 
 now and then deviate more or less widely from the true 
 course, we shall nevertheless drop anchor at the last in 
 the haven where we would be. 
 
 2. The development of the ddetrfne of Papal infalli- 
 bility is also due in part to the fact that, during the first 
 centuries, the Bishops of Kome, though by no means 
 exempt from error, were singularly free from heresy. 
 The great majority of the Popes held unswervingly to 
 the Faith as it had been handed down to them in succes- 
 sion from the Apostles or defined by the Ecumenical 
 synods. As compared with the other chief Sees, Rome 
 certainly had a well-earned and enviable reputation for 
 orthodoxy. It is therefore not surprising that the im- 
 pression early began to prevail that the Faith, though 
 it should come to be everywhere else corrupted, would 
 always be kept whole and undefiled at Rome. Some of 
 
 i!i' 
 
 PAPAL INFALLIBILITY. 
 
 69 
 
 the early Fathers who lived at a distance from Rome, 
 save expression to this conviction. Ultramontanists 
 make a great deal of such well-merited eompliments 
 Thev see in them an evidence that the mfallibility ot 
 the Pope was recognized from the beginning. But this 
 is far from having been true. For long centuries, no 
 one dreamed of accounting for the comparative im- 
 munity of the Roman Church from error, upon the 
 hypothesis of infallibility. The reason they uniformly 
 gave for her good fortune was the fact that Rome, 
 being the capital of the empire, was the rendezvous 
 of Christians from every part of the world who bore 
 testimony to the Faith, as it was taught in their respec- 
 tive Churches. Hence, if any error of doctrine arose, it 
 was promptly detected and protested against. 
 
 The comparative freedom of the Church of Rome 
 from heresy is also accounted for by the fact that she 
 was so far removed from the scenes of battle between 
 the orthodox and heterodox. It is one thing to stand 
 off at a safe distance looking on, and quite another to 
 take part in the fray. The Faith was formulated and 
 defended by the Greeks. The Latins accepted the Creeds 
 and preserved them as they came from the Councils, but 
 they had practically nothing to do with the making of 
 them. If the Bishops of Rome are really the Divinely 
 appointed infallible teachers of mankind in the Chris- 
 tian Faith, the fact that they had so little to do with 
 the formulation and promulgation of the Catholic 
 Creeds, is inexplicable. Nor can the absence of any ref- 
 erence in the universally accepted Creeds to the doc- 
 trine in question, be satisfactorily explained upon the 
 Roman hypothesis. If it were correct, after the article 
 on the " One Catholic and Apostolic Church," this would 
 have followed: -And I believe in the Pope of Rome, 
 the successor of Peter and infallible Vicar of Christ. 
 
 ti 
 
70 
 
 OITB CONTROVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 
 
 li i 
 
 r 
 
 V' 
 
 h ' 
 
 But thou^b file Popes were really exceptionally 
 orthodox, nevertheless their doctrinal errors were 
 numerous and serious enough clearly to disprove the 
 infallibility which in our generation has been decreed of 
 them. In fact, the dogma will not at all stand the test 
 of history. The occupants of the so-called '* chair of 
 Peter" have all along been guilty of as many errors, 
 follies and sins as ordinary mortals would have been 
 under similar circumstances. Even in their doctrinal 
 decisions, which were certainly ** ex-cathedra" utter- 
 ances, they have frequently contradicted each other; 
 and some of them have taught downright heresy. 
 
 (1) Innocent I. and Gelasius I., who occupied the 
 Papal chair in the fifth century, dogmatically main- 
 tained that infants who died without receiving the 
 Holy Communion, were without doubt damned. The 
 Council of Trent, which assembled a. d. 1545, about a 
 thousand years after their time, with a Pope at its 
 head, rightly condemned and anathematized this mon- 
 strous teaching. 
 
 (2) Pope Victor, A. d. 192, approved of Montanism, 
 and afterwards condemned it. This heresy consisted in 
 the belief that its promoter, Montanus, by virtue of a 
 revelation, was to introduce a new dispensation of the 
 Spirit superior to that of Christ and his Apostles. 
 
 (3) Zephyrinus, A. d. 201-19, and Callistus, a. d. 
 219-23, two Bishops of Rome, held and taught the 
 Patripassian heresy, which is that God the Father be- 
 came incarnat;e, and suffered with His Son. 
 
 (4) Marcellinus, A. d. 296-303, was an idolater. He 
 entered the temple of Vesta and offered incense to that 
 goddess. Romanists excuse him' on the ground of in- 
 timidation and human infirmity. To this Protestants 
 reply that if this Pope had been really the Vicar of Christ, 
 he might have died, but could not have apostatized. 
 
 ^t'i 
 
 PAPAL INFALLIBILITY. 
 
 71 
 
 (5) Liberius, A. d. 352, for the sake of being recalled 
 from exile, and reinstated in his See, consented to the 
 condemnation of Athanasius, and openly professed 
 Arianism. This heresy consisted in the denial of the 
 Divinity of Christ. The apostasy of Liberius sufficed, 
 through the whole of the Middle Ages, for a proof that 
 Popes as well as other people could fall into heresy. 
 
 (6) Zosimus, a. d. 417, at first indorsed as orthodox 
 Pelagius and Celestius, who denied the fall and the 
 necessity of Divine help in order to attain salvation. 
 Afterwards Augustine and the African Bishops com- 
 pelled Zosimus to follow the example of his predecessor, 
 Innocent I., in condemning these heretics. 
 
 (7) Gregory I., a.d. 578-90 condemned as antichrist 
 anyone who assumed the title Universal Bishop ; Boni- 
 face III., A. D. 607, obtained this title from the parricide 
 
 Emperor, Phocas. , ^.t. i. i 
 
 (8) Pelagius, in the sixth century, and Nicholas, m 
 the ninth, made contradictory decisions upon the form 
 of words necessary to valid Baptism. The earlier Pop^ 
 declared that it is essential that the Sacrament should 
 be administed in the name of the Father and of the Son 
 and of the Holy Ghost ; and the later, that m the name 
 ofChrist alone is sufficient. ^-n ^ 
 
 (9) Stephen, about the year a. d. 750, officially de- 
 clared that a marriage with a slave girl might be dis- 
 solved and another contracted . In this he contradicted 
 his predecessors, who had uniformly decreed such mar- 
 riages indissoluble. 
 
 (10) InA D 824, the Bishops assembled m synod at 
 
 Paris spoke without hesitation of the "absurdities" of 
 Pope Adrian, who, they said, had commanded an 
 heretical worship of images. ^ 
 
 (11) Adrian H., A. d. 867-72, declared civil mar- 
 riages valid; Pius VII,, A,p, 1800-23, conaepined tjiem. 
 
 I 
 
M 
 
 72 
 
 OUR CONTBOVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 
 
 (12) Celestine III., A. d. 1191, pronounced the mar- 
 riage tie broken when either party became heretical. 
 Innocent III., a. d. 1198, annulled this decree, and Adrian 
 VI., A. D. 1522, declared that it was a pernicious heresy. 
 
 (13) Stephen VI., a. d. 885, caused the body of For- 
 mosus to be disentombed, clothed with Pontifical robes, 
 and cast into the Tiber, after he had cut off from it the 
 fingers with which he had given the benediction, pro- 
 nouncing him perjured and illegitimate. Stephen himself 
 was afterwards imprisoned by the people, poisoned and 
 strangled. His successor restored the body of For- 
 mosus to Christian burial, and, at a council presided 
 over by John IX., A. d. 898, the Pontificate of For- 
 mosus was declared valid and all his acts confirmed. 
 
 (14) The doctrine that Christ's body is sensibly 
 touched by the hands and broken by the teeth, in the 
 Eucharist— an error rejected by the whole Church— was 
 affirmed by Nicholas II., at the Synod of Kome, in A. d. 
 1059. 
 
 . (15) Paschal II., A. d. 1088-99, and Eugenius III., 
 A. D. 1145-52, authorized dueling; Julius II., A. d. 
 1509, and Pius IV., a. d. 1560, forbade it. 
 
 (16) Eugenius IV., a. d. 1431-39, approved the Coun- 
 cil of Basle and the restoration of the Chalice to the 
 Bohemian Church; Pius II., A. d. 1658, revoked this 
 concession. 
 
 (17) Coming down to the time when the doctrine of 
 Papal infallibility had been quite fully developed, and 
 become the shibboleth of the Jesuits and of the dominant 
 school in the Koman Communion, we have the amusing 
 experience of Sixtus V., a. d. 1585-90, in connection with 
 the issue of his revised edition of the Latin translation 
 of the Holy Scriptures. Imagining that the immunity 
 from error which he believed he had inherited as Pope 
 from St. Pet^r, would enable him to produce an abso- 
 
 ^ 
 
 PAPAL INFALLIBILITY. 
 
 73 
 
 lutely correct rendering, he undertook, with much en- 
 thusiasm, the task of doing the worid this invaluable 
 service. In due time his revision of the Latin Bible 
 came forth from the press with a great flourish of 
 trumpets. The bull by which it was introduced, declared 
 that, inasmuch as it had been corrected from beginning 
 to end by his own infallible hand, it was absolutely fault- 
 less, and'must supersede all imperfect renderings as rap- 
 idly as copies could be supplied, and that in reprints 
 the greatest care must be taken to prevent the slightest 
 deviation from the edition bearing his imprimatur. 
 Printers and editors who should be either so careless or 
 presumptuous as to change so much as a syllable, 
 were then and there excommunicated. Surely no one 
 will pretend that the Pontiff was not speaking ex-catAe- 
 dra when he issued his version of the Holy Scriptures, 
 and anathematized all who would not recognize and ad- 
 mit its absolute perfection. In view of all this, the sur- 
 prise and chagrin of "His Holiness" may be imagined 
 when the scholars about his court represented that, 
 after a somewhat hasty examination of his work, they 
 felt obliged to call his attention to more than two 
 thousand glaring errors which, upon reference to the 
 compositor's copy, were found to be in his handwriting, 
 and to say that, unless the whole edition could be called 
 in and suppressed, it would undoubtedly prove fatal to 
 the doctrine of Papal infallibiUty . Of course some way 
 out of the difficulty had to be found. Among the sug- 
 gested schemes, the one adopted was to ask for the re- 
 turn of the copies which had been sent out, upon the 
 ground of the discovery of some mistakes which had 
 crept in through the carelessness of the printers. This 
 apology appeared in the Pope's preface to the new 
 edition, in which the errors of this infallible successor of 
 gt. Peter were corrected. That Sixtps was guilty of the 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 rf, ■ : 
 
 i. 
 

 OUR CONTROVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 
 
 multitudinous inaccuracies and base deceit of which we 
 have spoken, we know on the authority of no less a per- 
 sonage than the learned Bellarmine, upon whom the 
 Pope chiefly relied for extrication from the embarrass- 
 ing situation in which he found himself. In his autobi- 
 ography the great Cardinal congratulates himself on 
 having thus requited the Pontiff with good for evil ; for 
 he had put Bellarmine's work concerning controversies on 
 the Index, because he had not maintained the direct, but 
 only the indirect, dominion of the Pope over the whole 
 world. ** And now," says one of the Koman Catholic 
 authors of the Pope and the Council, *^ followed a fresh 
 mishap. The autobiography, which was kept in the 
 archives of the Koman Jesuits, got known in Rome 
 through several transcripts. Hereupon Cardinal Az- 
 zolini urged that, as Bellarmine had insulted three 
 Popes and exhibited two as liars, namely, Gregory XIV., 
 and Clement VIII., his work should be suppressed and 
 burnt, and the strictest secrecy inculcated about it." 
 I have dwelt somewhat at length upon this instance 
 of Papal fallibility, because it seems to me that in it- 
 self it is sufficient to explode the Vatican dogma of in- 
 
 fallibility. 
 
 (18) But this unfortunate Bible, which as we have 
 seen had already scored above two thousand points 
 against the Papal doctrine, was destined to make still 
 another. For in his bull announcing its publication, 
 Sixtus strongly recommended the general study of the 
 Holy Scriptures; but Pius VII., a. d. 1800, severely 
 condemns the reading of them by any except the Clergy. 
 
 (19) Perhaps, after all, nothing can show the ab- 
 surdity of the Papal claims to infallibility quite so well 
 as the spuriousness of the relics, which, from time to 
 time, the Popes, directly or indirectly, pronounced to be 
 genuine. Even the gravest enumeration of those which 
 
 PAPAL INFALLIBILITY. 
 
 TO 
 
 have been preserved at Kome, sounds like profane jest- 
 ing. Among them are: 
 
 " The sponge tinged with the blood of our Lord. 
 
 " The spearhead which pierced His side. 
 
 *' The pillar at which He was scourged. 
 
 " Thorns from His crown. 
 
 " Nails from His cross. 
 
 " The Infant Saviour's cradle. 
 
 " The table at which the Last Supper was eaten. 
 
 "The cloth with which Christ wiped His disciples' feet. 
 
 "Blood from Christ's side and the drops which fell 
 from His brow." Among miscellaneous treasures of the 
 same sort are showed : 
 
 " A stone cast at St. Stephen. 
 
 " Part of Aaron's rod. 
 
 " Manna from the wilderness. 
 • " The espousal ring of the Blessed Virgin. 
 
 "A piece of money received by Judas." Absurd as 
 all this is, it is really no more so than the relics of 
 which an extended account is given in the New York 
 "Times" of Friday, September 20, 1895. Under the 
 head-line ^'Belies of Many Saints" are described the 
 achievements of a Brooklyn lady, who organized a 
 pilcrrimage to Lourdes, where, at the famous grotto of 
 Ma^'ssavievelle, the Virgin Mary is believed byRomamsts 
 to have revealed herself repeatedly to a peasant girl 
 in A D 1858. The spot at which this occurred is now 
 resorted to bv multitudes of pilgrims from all parts of the 
 world It is marked by a large Church, consecrated a. d. 
 1876 in the presence of thirty-five Cardinals and other 
 hioh representatives of the Pope. The Holy Father was 
 so much pleased with the number and zeal of the Ameri- 
 can pilgrims that he favored their fair leader with a 
 " reliquary." '' In appearance," says the '' Times ' cor- 
 respondent, "it is a silver frame, measuring five or six 
 
7§ 
 
 OFR CONTROVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 
 
 inches from top to bottom. In the oval opening are 
 exposed the relics, each very tiny and marked with its 
 Latin name. The back of the oval can be removed, and 
 underneath it is the seal of the Holy See, firmly affixed 
 in red wax, to show that the contents remain intact as 
 first arranged. A paper accompanies the reliqnary, 
 giving the names of the relics and vouching for their 
 genuineness. This is the list given in oi'der : 
 
 '* Veil of the Blessed Virgin. 
 
 "Cloakof St. Joseph. 
 
 " Bone of St. Peter and St. Paul. 
 
 *'Bone of St. John and St. Andrew. 
 
 '•'Boneof St. Philip Neri. 
 
 " Bone of St. Augustine. 
 
 *' Bone of St. Domiiiick. 
 
 " Bone of St. Francis de Sales. 
 
 '* Bone of St. Alphonsus. 
 
 "Habit of St. Francis of Assisi. "Other valuable 
 relics which were given to in Rome were: 
 
 "A piece of the true cross. 
 
 "A piece of thorn from the crown of thorns. 
 
 "A piece of the Saviour's winding sheet. 
 
 "A bone of St. Francis Assisi. 
 
 "A bone of St. Clair of Assisi. 
 
 "A relic of the habit of St. Cecilia. The first three 
 were in one reliquary. The piece of the cross is in the 
 form of a tiny cross, and the other relics are on either 
 side below it.' The two bone relics are in still another 
 reliquary, and the piece of the habit of St. Cecilia on a 
 sheet of paper and stamped with a seal. Proper papers 
 accompanied them all." 
 
 (20) But passing over the above mentioned relics we 
 fix upon the famous house of the Blessed Virgin in Lo- 
 retto, because, upon the whole, it may fairly be said to 
 put the finishing touches to this class of Roman absurd- 
 
 
 PAPAL INFALLIBILITY. 
 
 77 
 
 ities. In order to escape the accusation of drawing 
 upon my imagination, I shall give the story in the 
 words of Professor Salmon, whose reputation for learn- 
 ing and candor will shield him from suspicion. "You 
 have all, I dare say, heard the story of the holy house 
 at Loretto. The Virgin Mary's house at Nazareth, when 
 the land fell into the possession of unbelievers, and wor- 
 shipers could no longer resort to it, was carried by the 
 angels across the seas on the9thof May, 1291— forllike 
 to be exact— and, after taking three temporary resting 
 places, finally settled down at Loretto in the year 1295. 
 There, on the credit of so great a miracle, it attracted 
 many pilgrims, and was by them enriched with abun- 
 dant gifts. Several Popes pledged their credit to the 
 proof of the story, and rewarded pious visitors with 
 indulgences. I possess a history of the holy house, 
 written by Turselliuus, a Jesuit, and printed at Loretto 
 itself in 1837, from which I find that the story is proved 
 by such irrefragable evidence that no one can doubt it 
 who is not prepared to deny the power and Providence 
 of God, and to remove all faith in the testimony of 
 man. Mr. Ffoulkes, whose turn of mind was such that 
 he seemed to find it as hard as the holy house itself to 
 find a resting place, either among Protestants or 
 Roman Catholics, neither accepted this story without 
 inquiry, as might a thorough -going Roman Catholic, 
 nor rejected it without inquiry, as might a thorough- 
 going Protestant. He took the trouble of going 
 both to Loretto and to Nazareth, and making labori- 
 ous investigations on the spot; and the result of his 
 inquiry was, that he came back thoroughly convinced 
 of the fictitious character of the Santa Casa notwith-^ 
 standing the privileges bestowed by so many Popes.'' 
 (21) In the eighth century, Virgil, Bishop of Salzburg, 
 was condemned by PopeZachary, because he maintained 
 
OUR CONTROVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 
 
 tlie spherical form of the earth, and the existence of the 
 antipodes; he is now a saint of the Roman calendar. 
 In the thirteenth century, Roger Bacon was imprisoned 
 as an astrologer, and dealer in unlawful arts ; his ap- 
 peal to Nicholas IV. only procured him a closer captiv- 
 ity. A hundred years later it was still the same. Sev- 
 eral Popes and their representatives in the infamous 
 Inquisition condemned Galileo's system of astronomy, 
 and in contradiction to it asserted that the sun goes 
 round the world every twenty -four hours. Every good 
 Roman Cathohc was forbidden even to read a book 
 which taught the mobility of the earth. The poor 
 astronomer escaped the stake by confessing, through 
 extreme fear of a horrible death, what he never believed, 
 that the Church was right and he wrong. It is needless 
 to say that the Popes and Doctors have long since 
 abandoned the ground which their predecessors occu- 
 pied, and have come over to Galileo's way of thinking. 
 Kepler would have fared no better than his friend 
 Galileo, had he lived at Pisa instead of Gratz; nor 
 Newton, if his lot had not been fortunately cast in Eng- 
 land, and a little too late for such interference. 
 
 (22) Adrian I., a. d., 772-95, sent a long letter to 
 the Council in defense of the use of images. It contains 
 the following story in support of his argument : Con- 
 stantine was at first a persecutor of the Christians, and 
 put many of them to death— among others his own wife 
 —for refusing to sacrifice to the gods of Rome. He 
 was struck with leprosy, and, in order to effect a cure, it 
 was prescribed that he should bathe in infant's blood. 
 The mothers of the children who were destined to fur- 
 nish this very uninviting bath, however, prevailed on 
 him by their tears to give up the idea, and he was 
 warned in a heavenly vision by St. Peter and St. Paul 
 to appij to the Bishop of Rome, Sylvester, wlio had 
 
 ,L 
 
 I' 
 
 1>APAL INFALLIBILITir. 
 
 79 
 
 been driven by the persecution to take refuge on Mount 
 Soracte. Constantine accordingly sent for Sylvester, 
 found him as described, and in short carried out the 
 whole programme of the dream with the happy result 
 of a complete cure. He then asked, who those gods, 
 Peter and Paul, might be. Sylvester replied, they were 
 not gods, but the servants of Christ. Constantine then 
 asked, whether there were any images of them pre- 
 served ; and when the Pope sent for paintings of the 
 two Apostles, and showed them, the emperor at once 
 recognized them as the persons who had appeared to 
 him in the vision. This was one of Pope Adrian's au- 
 thorities for the use of images. Now it is to be observed 
 that Sylvester was not Pope until the persecution was 
 ended; that Constantine never persecuted in Italy; 
 that, on the contrary, his coming to Italy put a stop 
 to the persecution ; that he was not baptized by Sylves- 
 ter, nor baptized at all until his last illness, and then at 
 Nicomedia, most probably by Eusebius ; that there is 
 no notice in history of his ever having been afflicted by 
 leprosy, and it is most incredible that he ever was. 
 The infallibility of Adrian, which ought to be the 
 voucher for this story, involves here the veracity of the 
 two Apostles, who are both made to assert in the vision 
 what was not true. The ridiculous legend was probably 
 taken from some spurious biography of the Popes. Did 
 Adrian know the worth of his authority or not? The 
 answer either way is fatal to the dogma of Papal Infalli- 
 bility. 
 
 (23) A number of the Popes have proved themselves 
 incompetent to distinguish spurious from genuine docu- 
 ments. Adrian I. and others cited the donation of Con- 
 stantine; Nicholas I. the acts of the apocryphal Council 
 of Sinuessa ; and his successors for ages the decretal let- 
 ters. The work of Gratian, which was corrected by a 
 
1* < 
 
 if 
 
 80 
 
 OUR CONTROVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 
 
 commissfoii appointed by Pius IV., and published with 
 confirmation by Gregory XIII., is full of coarse and 
 stupid forgeries, which needed no supernatural gift to 
 detect. Sometimes they mistook one writing for another, 
 as when Zosimus and others produced the Sardican 
 canons for the Nicene, which Baronius, Bellarmine, and 
 others ascribe to ignorance, as a less injurious imputa- 
 tion than fraud. Innocent III. quoted for Holy Scrip- 
 ture a passage written by Augustine. Books to which 
 the Papal sanction is pledged as fully as possible con- 
 tain undeniable misstatements. Thus the Roman Cate- 
 chism, after describing the ceremonies used in Baptism, 
 such as the use of salt and the chrism, adds that they 
 were instituted by the Holy Apostles. 
 
 (24) But the case of Pope Honorius, A. d. 625-38, is 
 generally regarded as affording the most conclusive and 
 unanswerable historical evidence against this decree of 
 the Vatican Council. The facts which historians, hav- 
 ing access to orginal sources of information, tell us with 
 practical unanimity are the following: (1) Honorius 
 taught in two ex-cathedra letters the Monothelite 
 heresy, that is, that the human will was wanting in 
 Christ, and that therefore He was wholly possessed and 
 influenced by the Divine will. (2) The doctrine, which 
 was a denial of our Lord's perfect manhood, was con- 
 demned ; and Pope Honorius, as one of the chief heresi- 
 archs, was excomnuinicated by the generally accepted 
 sixth Ecumenical Council assembled at Constantinople in 
 A. D. 080. *' Not a single voice was raised in his defense. 
 Even the Papal Legates had nothing to say." The 
 anathema which accompanied the excommunication 
 of the Pontiff, was repeated at the seventh and eighth 
 Councils, which were held respectively in A. d. 787, 
 and A. D. 869. (3) All the successors of Honorius down 
 to the eleventh century, included him in the eternal 
 
 I 
 
 i "i 
 
 PAPAL INFALLIBILITY. 
 
 81 
 
 anathema which they pronounced upon the autliors and 
 abettors of the Monothelite heresy. They undertook to 
 see that he was condemned in the West as well as 
 throughout the East and that his name was struck out 
 of the Liturgv. Pope Leo II., in a letter to theemperor, 
 stronglv confirmed the decree of the Council, and de- 
 nounced his predecessor Honorius as one who endeav- 
 ored by profane treason to overthrow the immaculate 
 Faith of the Roman Church. The same Pope says, m a 
 letter to the Spanish Bishops: '^ With eternal damna- 
 tion have we punished Theodore, Cyrus, Sergius, to- 
 gether with Honorius, who did not extinguish at the very 
 beginnino; the fiame of heretical doctrine." Thus, after 
 A. D. 680, for three hundred years the Popes formally 
 and publicly recognized the right of General Councils to 
 condemn and depose any of them that might fall into 
 error of doctrine. There is, therefore, no getting around 
 the fact that during the first one thousand years both 
 Councils and Popes believed in the fallibility of the Bish- 
 ops of Rome, in flat contradiction to the dogma promul- 
 gated at the Vatican in a. d. 1870. As was said in one of 
 the many able protests by Romanists against the scheme 
 of the Pope and the Jesuits: ^'This one fact, that a 
 Great Council, universally received afterwards without 
 hesitation throughout the Church, and presided over by 
 Papal legates, pronounced the dogmatic decision of a 
 Pope heretical, and anathematized him by name as a 
 heretic, is a proof, clear as the sun at noonday, that the 
 notion of any peculiar enlightenment or inerrancy of the 
 Popes was then utterly unknown to the whole Church.'' 
 (25) Finally, we have what in itself should settle the 
 question, namely, the confession of three of the Popes. 
 John XXn.,A.D.* 131 6-34, and Gregory XI.,A.D.1370-78, 
 
 when dying, confessed their liability to error, and sub- 
 mitted all their statements, whether spoken or written, 
 
 C.A.— 6 
 
\.l 
 
 1^ ' 
 
 OUR CONTROVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 
 
 to the judgment of tlie Ctmrcli. Pius IV., a. d. 1559-65, 
 declared, in consistory, that he himself, like his predeces- 
 sors, was fallible. Perhaps the most remarkable case 
 was that of Adrian VI., A. d. 1522-23, who, while he 
 was a professor at Louvain, maintained that the Pope 
 might err in questions of faith, and support heresy by 
 decisions and decretal letters. This is his declaration : 
 **It is certain that the Pope can err even in matters of 
 faith, asserting heresy in his determination or decree ; 
 for many of the Roman Pontiffs were heretics." He did 
 not retract these words after becoming Pope, but re- 
 printed them at Rome in the year 1522. There were 
 certain Cardinals to whom this was a ''hard saying,'' 
 and, as the book had been published and republished in 
 Rome itself, and had become extremely popular, they 
 urged the Pope to reconsider his judgment. This he 
 nobly refused to do. "His opinion," he said, "had al- 
 ways been this in the case of other Popes, and he could 
 not hold the contrary in his own case." 
 
 My chief authorities for the above twenty-five para- 
 graphs, anyone of which is sufficient to disprove the doc- 
 trine of Papal Infallibility, are Salmon, Coxe, Robins, 
 Hussey, Robertson, Littledale, Schaff, Gore, Glad- 
 stone, Puller, Von Dollinger, Hefele, and the unknown 
 brilliant author of the "Pretended Speech of a Bishop 
 in the Council."* If the reader desires to pursue the 
 subject further, he will find all that I have said in ex- 
 panded form in the works of these unexceptionable 
 authors, and much more of the same tenor which I am 
 obliged to pass over for the want of space. 
 
 ♦Before the Vatican Council there was a large school of "Liberal Catho- 
 lics," composed chieflv of Frenchmen, Germans and Americans, many of 
 whom were scholars o'f the first rank, who expressed their opinions freely 
 about the grosser errors and corruptions of their Church and the schemes of 
 their bitter enemies, the Jesuits, for the aggrandizement of the Pope and their 
 order. Our quotations from Roman authorities are chiefly from the writing! 
 of representatives of this School. 
 
 t } 
 
 'f 
 
 1 
 
 V 
 
 1 '1 
 
 n. 
 
 JURISDICTION OF THE POPE, 
 
 INNOCENT III., A. D. 1198-1216, wrote to the 
 Patriarch of Constantinople that "Christ has 
 committed the whole world to the government of 
 the Popes." In the famous Bull, Unam Sanctaw, pro- 
 mulgated about the year 1300, by Pope Boniface VIII., 
 occurs this passage: *'We therefore declare, assert, 
 and define that for every human creature it is alto- 
 gether necessary to salvation that he be subject to the 
 Roman Pontiff." The closing words of the third chap- 
 ter of the dogmatic decrees of the Vatican Council, of 
 A. D. 1870, are to the sameeffect: ''If, then, any shall say 
 that the Roman Pontiff has the oflSce merely of inspec- 
 tion or direction, and not full and supreme power of 
 jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in 
 things which belong to faith and morals, but also in 
 those which relate to the discipline and government of 
 the Church spread thoughout the world, or assert 
 that he possiesses merely the principal part, and not all 
 the fullness of this supreme power, or that this power 
 which he enjoys is not ordinary and immediate, both 
 over each and all the Churches, and over each and all 
 the pastors and the faithful, let him be anathema." 
 
 As the interpretation which Protestants put upon 
 the above quotations is as a rule warmly repudiated by 
 American Roman Catholics, it will be well to quote two 
 or three passages from their own highest authorities. 
 "No man can deny," says Archbishop Kenrick, in his 
 
 (83) 
 
 I 
 
84 
 
 OUR CONTROVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 
 
 JURISDICTION OF THE POPE. 
 
 85 
 
 ^ ) 
 
 ill 
 
 I: 
 
 undelivered speech at the Vatican Council, "that the 
 purpose o! Boniface in that bull was to claim for him- 
 self temporal power, and to propound this opinion to 
 the faithful, to be held under pain of damnation." 
 Turrecremata says that "the power of the keys com- 
 mitted to the Pope reaches all places, persons, and 
 cases, and that in the authority of his jurisdiction he is 
 superior to all the remainder of the Church ; " Becan, 
 that "the Pope has the same power of making Ecclesias- 
 tical laws, to bind the whole Church, as a secular prince 
 for a kingdom or empire ; " De Castro, that "the denial 
 of the Papal supremacy has been the great source of 
 heresies;" Duval, that "the power of Bishops and 
 Patriarchs in the Church is derived from the supreme 
 monarch, the Vicar of Christ, just as the great offices in 
 France are held of the king;" Bellarmine, that "no 
 man can have Christ for his Master, who is not a sub- 
 ject of the Pope." Cardinal Manning, speaking in the 
 Pope's name, says: "I claim to be the supreme judge 
 and director of the consciences of men ; of the peasant 
 that tills the field, and the prince that sits on the 
 throne ; of the household that lives in the shade of pri- 
 vacy, and the legislature that makes laws for king- 
 doms—I am the sole last supreme judge of what is right 
 and wrong." The following is from the Pope's official 
 organ, the Gvinta Cattolka, of March 18, 1871: "The 
 Pope is the supreme judge of the law of the land. In 
 him, the two powers, the spiritual and the secular, meet 
 as in their apex ; for he is the Vicegerent of Christ, who 
 is not only a Priest forever, but also King of kings and 
 Lord of lords. The Pope, by virtue of his high dignity, 
 is at the summit of both powers." Pope Innocent III. 
 described himself as "the Vicar of Jesus Christ, the suc- 
 cessor of Peter, the anointed of the Lord, the God of 
 Pharaoh, short of God, beyond man, less than God, 
 
 greater than man, who judges all men, and is judged 
 
 by no man." 
 
 Of course, if the Popes are really all this, no man who 
 has reference to the will of God in the choice of his 
 Church relationship, can either become or remam a 
 member of any branch of the Anglican Communion, be- 
 cause the Chui'ches of which it is composed, not being in 
 subiection to the Bishop of Bome, form no part of the 
 Catholic and Apostolic Church. Episcopalians contend, 
 however, that neither Boniface VIII., nor any one of his 
 predecessors or successors, was endowed with infallibil- 
 ity, and that the Episcopal Church, by proofs drawn 
 from both Holy Scripture and Ecclesiastical History, can 
 be shown to be hot a whit less Catholic because of her 
 independence of Papal government. Which of the par- 
 ties in this contention is right? This is a question which 
 we shall now proceed to answer. Though we shall con- 
 fine ourselves as much as possible to the dispute con- 
 cerning the jurisdiction of the Pope, it will be clearly im- 
 possible to lose sight altogether of the controversy 
 about his infallibility. For in showing that the univer- 
 sal authority claimed by him has no foundation in 
 Scripture or history, we necessarily undermine his pre- 
 tension to exemption from error. 
 
 Romanists base the Papal claim to universal do- 
 minion upon the following texts : "Thou art Peter, and 
 upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of 
 hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto 
 thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven: and whatso- 
 ever thou Shalt bind on earth shalt be bound iu heaven; 
 and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be 
 loosed in heaven." (St. Matthew, 16:18-19). "I have 
 prayed for thee that thy faith fail not, and when thou 
 
86 
 
 OUR CONTROVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 
 
 JURISDICTION OF THE POPE. 
 
 87 
 
 
 art converted, strengthen thy brethren." (St. Luke, 
 22:32.) '-Feed my sheep." (St. John, 21:17.) 
 
 From these texts it is argued that St. Peter was con- 
 stituted prince of the Apostles and Vicar of Christ ; " that 
 all the power and office that was communicable from his 
 Lord to him who should stand in His place as the head 
 and center of the Apostles, was communicated to Peter, 
 and to him was given the undivided pastoral care of the 
 whole flock upon earth." This conclusion reached, it is 
 further claimed that the successors of St. Peter in the 
 See of Rome are Christ's sole representatives in the 
 world, and that there can be no such thing as a true 
 Church unless it be presided over by the Pope and in 
 communion with him. 
 
 Learned Anglicans have repeatedly shown, by Scrip- 
 tural and historical arguments, which the Romanists 
 have never been able to answer, that the texts referred 
 to do not give the slightest support to these conclusions, 
 and have proved that the Church is built on the founda- 
 tion of the Apostles and Prophets, not of St. Peter alone ; 
 JesusChrist Himself, not St. Peter, being thechief corner- 
 stone. There is no intimation in the New Testament that 
 St. Peter based any claims to authority upon Christ's 
 words ; nor is there one recorded instance of his exercis- 
 ing any primacy or presidency, or even claiming it. The 
 most that can with any show of reason be inferred from 
 the texts under consideration, is a kind of personal 
 leadership among the Apostles. But granting, for the 
 Bake of argument, that he was distinguished by such 
 primacy, there is not the slightest ground for the claim 
 that his successors in the See of Rome were to enjoy a 
 similar distinction. The words of Bishop Barrow are 
 true: "In all Divine Revelation the Bishop of Rome is 
 not so much as once mentioned, either by name, or by 
 character, or by probable intimation." 
 
 The great majority of the Fathers and Doctors un- 
 derstood the chief of these texts, "Thou art Peter, and 
 upon this rock I will build my Church," to refer to St. 
 Peter's confession of Christ's Divinity. The venerable 
 and learned Roman Catholic Archbishop of St. Louis, 
 in his famous discourse against the proposition to de- 
 clare the Pope infallible, contends that, because the creed 
 of Pope Pius IV. makes it obligatory upon them to in- 
 terpret the Holy Scriptures according to the unanimous 
 consent of the Fathers, Roman Catholics cannot make 
 good their claim of supremacy for St. Peter. " If we 
 are bound," says he, "to follow the great number of the 
 Fathers in this matter, then we must hold for certain 
 that the word Peter means, not Peter professing the 
 Faith, but the Faith professed by Peter. In a remarkable 
 pamphlet, printed in the fac-simile of the manuscript, 
 and presented to the fathers almost two months ago, 
 we find five different interpretations of the word 'rock,' 
 in the place cited. 
 
 "The first of these declares that the Church was built 
 on Peter; and this interpretation is followed by seven- 
 teen fathers, among them, by Jerome, and Cyril of 
 Alexandria. The second interpretation understands 
 from these words, 'On this rock will I build my Church,' 
 that the Church was built on all the Apostles, whom 
 Peter represented by virtue of the primacy. And this 
 opinion is followed by eight fathers— among them, 
 Origen, Cyprian, Theodoret. The third interpretation 
 asserts that the words, ' On this rock,' are to be under- 
 stood of the faith which Peter had professed— that this 
 faith, this profession of faith, by which we believe Christ 
 to be the Son of the living God, is the everlasting and 
 immovable foundation of the Church. This interpreta- 
 tion is the weightiest of all, since it is followed by 
 fifty-four Fathers and Doctors; among them, from the 
 
! 
 
 88 
 
 Om COKTBOVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 
 
 JUEI8DICTI0K OF THE POPE. 
 
 89 
 
 i 
 
 
 East, are Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, Theophylact ; 
 from the West, Hilary, Ambrose, Leo the Great; from 
 Africa, Augustine. The fourth interpretation declares 
 that the words, 'On this rock,' are to be understood 
 of that rock which Peter had confessed, that is, Christ— 
 that the Church was built upon Christ. This inter- 
 pretation is followed by sixteen Fathers and Doctors. 
 The fifth interpretation of the Fathers understands 
 by the name of the rock, the faithful themselves, 
 who, believing Christ to be the Son of God, are 
 constituted living stones out of which the Church is 
 
 built." 
 
 "I suppose," says Professor Salmon, "there is no 
 text on which the Fathers have given greater variety of 
 interpretation than ' Thou ai-t Peter ; ' and we have to 
 go down far indeed before we find one who discovered 
 the Bishop of Rome in it." 
 
 In their Collect for the Yigil of St. Peter and St. Paul, 
 Romanists are taught to pray: '* Grant, we beseech Thee, 
 Almighty God, that thou wouldst not suffer us, whom 
 Thou hast established on the Rock of the Apostolic 
 Confession, to be shaken by any disturbances." 
 
 The remaining part of the text contains, indeed, a 
 notable promise, and, if it were all that our Lord had 
 said upon the subject, the supremacy of St. Peter over 
 the rest of the Apostles could hardly be questioned. " I 
 will give unto thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven ; 
 and whatsoever thoushalt bind on earth shall be bound 
 in heaven ; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth 
 shall be loosed in heaven." 
 
 But what was here promised before the Cruci- 
 fixion to one Apostle, was, after the Resurrection, actu- 
 ally bestowed upon each of them, without distinction, as 
 a part of their common commission. " Then said Jesus 
 unto them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father 
 
 hath sent me, even so send I you. And when He had 
 said this He breathed on them, and saith unto them, 
 Receive ye the Holy Ghost : Whosesoever sins ye re- 
 mit, they are remitted unto them, and whosesoever sins 
 ye retain, they are retained." By interpreting these 
 texts in the light of each other, it is clear that 
 the promise was made to St. Peter as the representa- 
 tive of his fellow Apostles. This was the view of the 
 great St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, a. d. 391-430. 
 He says: ** Peter, in many places of the Scriptures, ap- 
 pears as representing the Church, but especially where 
 it is said of him, ' I will give you the keys.' Has Peter 
 received these keys, and has not Paul received them? 
 Has Peter received them, and not James and John, and 
 the rest of the A postles ? " 
 
 The context shows how St. Peter came to be repre- 
 sentatively addressed. It was not because he was to 
 be the first Bishop of Rome, St. Paul, or more proba- 
 bly Linus, was this, but because he was the first to 
 give expression to the growing conviction among the 
 twelve that Jesus was none other than the promised 
 Messiah, the Divine Saviour of the world. As he was 
 the spokesman for the rest in this glorious confession, it 
 was natural that they should through him receive the 
 promise of stewardship— that is what the keys signify 
 —in the Church or Kingdom which Christ would found 
 on the rock of faith in His Divinity. '* I do not think," 
 says Canon Gore, " we can make it too plain how exclu- 
 sively Western in growth is the Papal claim, as Rome 
 understands it. Thus it does not appear that a single 
 Greek Father of the first six centuries recognizes the 
 connection, which Rome supposes to exist, between the 
 promise to St. Peter and the position of the Pope. * In 
 the writings of the Greek Doctors,' says Manus,' *Euse- 
 bius, St. Athanasius, St. Basil the Great, the two Greg- 
 
 P 
 
90 
 
 mjM CONTROVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 
 
 JURISDICTION OF THE POPE. 
 
 91 
 
 I 
 
 i 
 
 ories, and St. Epiphanius, there is not one word of any 
 prerogatives of the Roman Bishop. The most copious 
 of the Greek Fathers, St. Chrysostom, is wholly silent 
 on the subject.' Universal negatives are somewhat dan- 
 gerous, but I do not think that this can be disputed." 
 
 But owing to the fact that the promise was made 
 through St. Peter, and because we see in the Acts of the 
 Apostles that he was the first to exercise the power of 
 the keys by opening the door of the Church to both the 
 Jewish and Gentile world, Anglican scholars, follow- 
 ing the early Christian writers, very generally grant 
 that Christ may have intended to reward him for his 
 courageous avowal, by making him the first among his 
 equals, that is to say, the chairman or official head of 
 his brethren. There is no serious dispute between Ro- 
 manists and Anglicans on this point. We part company, 
 however, when they pretend, upon the ground of the 
 primacy, which we are willing to admit, that St. Peter 
 was the Vicar of the ascended Master to the Apostolic 
 Church, and that, therefore, his successors in the See of 
 Home are Divinely commissioned to lord it over the rest 
 of Christendom. 
 
 Moreover, it has been settled almost conclusively 
 that the Roman Succession is due quite as much to St. 
 Paul as to St. Peter and that the Church of Rome does 
 not owe her origin, except perhaps indirectly , to the latter 
 of these Apostles, and that he was not the first resident 
 Bishop of "the Eternal City." Such authors as Professor 
 Salmon on the one side and Dr. Dollinger on the other 
 substantially agree in this conclusion. The former of 
 these great authorities in his chapter on " Peter's Alleged 
 Roman Episcopate," says: ''lam justified in thinking 
 that candid inquirers need not differ very much on these 
 questions, because I find that the results at which I 
 had arrived independently are, on several points, in 
 agreement with those obtained by von Dollinger in 
 
 his First Age of the Church, a book pub!ished while 
 he was still in full communion with the Church of 
 Rome, and was regarded as its ablest champion." 
 Scaliger, the greatest scholar of the sixteenth century, 
 says that '*no moderately learned man can believe 
 Peter's Journey to Rome, his session for twenty-five 
 years, or his capital punishment there." Ranke says 
 cautiously and truly: '^Historical criticism has shown 
 that it is a matter of doubt w^hether the Apostle ever was 
 at Rome at all." But however this may be, Wycliflfe ex- 
 pressed the whole truth of the matter in a few words 
 when he said : "As it does not folio w% because Peter was 
 personally called * Satan ' by our Lord, that, therefore, 
 he was made lower than any of the Apostles, so it does 
 not follow, because certain privileges were given him 
 personally in the words : ' Thou art Peter,' that, there- 
 fore, he was made Pope and head of the Church after our 
 Lord's ascension." 
 
 According to the understanding of the Fathers, the 
 second text relied upon by Romanists, "I have prayed 
 for thee that thy faith fail not, and when thou art con- 
 verted strengthen thy brethren," was intended to warn 
 St. Peter of his pitiable weakness which manifested 
 itself in the base denials of his Lord recorded in the 
 same chapter, and to prevent him from falling aw^ay 
 altogether. It is claimed by Roman divines that this 
 prayer and precept of our Lord extends to all the 
 Bishops of Rome, as St. Peter's successors, and that in 
 speaking to St. Peter our Lord spoke to them. " Would 
 they," asks Dr. Wordsworth, late Bishop of Lincoln, 
 "be willing to complete the parallel and say that the 
 Bishops of Rome especially need prayer because they 
 deny Christ ? Let them not take a part of it and deny 
 the rest." 
 
92 
 
 OUR COHTBOVEBSY WITH ROMANISTS. 
 
 The third text, "Feed my sheep," was regarded as 
 Christ 's gracious absolution of Peter upon his sorrow- 
 ful repentance, and the restoration of him to the Apos- 
 tolic office which had been forfeited. True, our Lord, in 
 commanding St. Peter to feed his sheep, uses, as Eoman 
 Catholic controversialists point out, a word which con- 
 veys the idea of ruling as well as feeding. But if they 
 argue from this that to St. Peter alone was given the 
 fullness of authority to feed the lambs and the sheep— 
 the whole flock of Christ— how will they explain St. 
 Paul's injunction to the elders of Ephesus, "Feed the 
 Church of God?" It is the same Greek word. Mani- 
 festly the Roman argument, if consistently adhered to, 
 would prove that the Ephesian elders and their succes- 
 sors were, by the use of this word, all created universal 
 Popes. " Indeed, St. Paul expressly tells them that the 
 Holy Ghost has made them overseers to all'the flock, 
 which is more than the Lord said to St. Peter himself." 
 St. Peter received no more power from Christ than the 
 other Apostles, for nothing was said to him which was 
 not also said to them. All the Apostles were therefore 
 equal to St. Peter in power. 
 
 An exhaustive consideration of all the passages of 
 Scripture which are irreconcilable with the Papal pre- 
 tensions would be w earisome. It is therefore fortunate 
 that the texts, as a rule, are so clear and conclusive 
 that only a few need to be cited or alluded to, with but 
 little comment. Upon two or three occasions our Lord 
 refused to grant the request of His disciples to indicate 
 which of them was to be chief. The last was on the 
 night before His Crucifixion. His refusals will at once 
 be seen to be unaccountable upon the Roman hypothe- 
 sis. For, surely, if that were correct, the supremacy of 
 
 JURISDICTION OF THE POPE. 
 
 93 
 
 St. Peter would have been clearly proclaimed and 
 
 recognized. 
 
 Again, the claim of Ultramontanists cannot be 
 reconciled with the fact that St. Paul received neither 
 his commission as an Apostle nor his doctrine from St. 
 Peter individually, or from the college of Apostles, and 
 that yet they gave him the right hand of fellowship and 
 intrusted him with the leadership in the evangelization 
 of the Gentiles. As he himself tells us, he labored more 
 abundantly than any of his colleagues, and this he 
 did quite independently of St. Peter. '^This fact," says 
 one, "seems to have been Divinely intended to bar, 
 from the very first, the Papal claim as false and unten- 
 able." 
 
 When St. Peter dissembled with the Jews, St. Paul 
 not only rebuked him, but rebuked him publicly, show- 
 ing that if St. Paul was not his superior, he was at least 
 
 his equal. 
 
 When Samaria had received the Gospel from Philip, 
 the Deacon, and converts needed Confirmation, and the 
 subject came before the Apostles, did St. Peter direct 
 who should perform the duty? On the contrary, the 
 Apostles sent him, together with St. John ; and Christ 
 says, "A servant is not greater than his lord; nor he 
 that is sent greater than he that sent him." 
 
 St. Paul speaks of: "That which comes upon me 
 daily, the care of all the Churches." How fortunate 
 it would have been for the Roman claims if St. Peter 
 had said this of himself. 
 
 "The same Apostle Paul," says a Roman Catholic 
 writer, "enumerating the offices of the Church, mentions 
 Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, pastors and teachers. 
 Is it credible that St. Paul, the great teacher of the 
 Gentiles, would have left out the greatest of all the 
 offices, the Papacy, if the Papacy had been founded by 
 
' 
 
 M 
 
 OUR CONTROVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 
 
 JURISDICTION OF THE POPE. 
 
 95 
 
 
 I 
 
 Divine institution? It seems to me that this omission 
 would have been no more possible than a history of the 
 Vatican Council that should make no mpBtion of His 
 Holiness, Pius IX." 
 
 *'But," says the same author, "the thing which 
 astounds me beyond all expression is the silence of St. 
 Peter himself. If he had been what we say— the Vicar of 
 Christ upon earth— he must have known it. If he knew 
 it, how does it happen that he never once, not one sol- 
 itary time, acted as Pope? He might have done it on 
 the Day of Pentecost-, when he pronounced his first dis- 
 course ; but he did not. He might have done it at An- 
 tioch ; but he did not. He might have done it at the 
 Council of Jerusalem ; but he did not. He might have 
 done it in his two epistles to the Churches; but he did 
 not. Can you imagine such a Pope as this ? " 
 
 Of St. Paul it is said that to him the uncircum- 
 cision were committed ; that is, all but Jews were put 
 under his headship. Hence, it is clear that if we Gen- 
 tiles have a spiritual monarch, he is St. Paul, not St. 
 Peter. 
 
 The claims of Rome respecting St. Peter's superiority 
 will appear in their right light if, as Dr. Littledale sug- 
 gests, we ask these questions : Suppose the rest of the 
 Apostles decided one way and St. Peter separately de- 
 cided the other way, which decision would stand? 
 When St. Paul withstood St. Peter to the face, which of 
 the two actually yielded ? See Galatians II : 11-14. 
 
 The silence of our Lord is hard to explain on the 
 Roman hypothesis. As a candid author of the Roman 
 Communion observes: "Not only is Christ silent upon 
 this point, but He has so little thought of giving the 
 Church a chief, that when He is promising thrones to 
 His Apostles, to judge the twelve tribes of Israel, He 
 promises twelve of them, without saying that one is 
 
 to be higher than the rest, and is to belong to Peter. 
 Surely, if he had wished Peter to occupy a throne that 
 should overshadow the rest. He would have said so. 
 What must we infer from this silence? Logic tells us: 
 Christ did not intend to make Peter the chief of the 
 Apostolic college.'* 
 
 The following golden words of a Franciscan monk 
 show how utterly out of accord the Papal claim to sov- 
 ereignty is, with not only the letter but the spirit of the 
 New Testament: "If the Bishop of Rome possessed a 
 plenitude of power, such as the Popes falsely lay claim 
 to, and such as many, through mistake, or in the spirit 
 of adulation, concede to them, all men would be slaves; 
 and this is plainly contrary to the liberty of the Gospel 
 law." 
 
 The hollowness of the Papal pretensions to supreme 
 authority appears also from the history of the early 
 Ecclesiastical Councils. If the Bishops of Rome were 
 really by Divine appointment and inspiration the uni- 
 versal sovereigns and unerring guides of Christendom, 
 it is impossible to explain the obscure and subordinate 
 position which some of them occupied in these delibera- 
 tive assemblies and the condemnation which was 
 passed upon others. Indeed, upon the Ultramontane 
 hypothesis, it is difficult to account for the great Coun- 
 cils at all. If the infallibility of the Bishop of Rome had 
 been recognized during the Conciliary period which em- 
 braces the five hundred years from the fourth to the 
 ninth centuries, there would have been no need of the 
 expense and trouble of bringing a host of fallible 
 Bishops from distant parts to pass upon matters that 
 might have been disposed of by a stroke of the Pope's 
 pen. Under such circumstances, the only imaginable 
 
96 
 
 iiuil UnitTROVERSY i^rrm homanists. 
 
 JURISDICTION OF THE POPE. 
 
 97 
 
 reasons for a Connci! would have been to give an 
 opportunity of explaining to the heads of Dioceses, 
 Provinces, and Patriarchates the decrees upon which 
 "His Holiness" had resolved, and to add dignity and 
 solemnity to the occasion of their promulgation. But 
 if these had been the ends in view, the Popes would have 
 called each of the Councils which are recognized by the 
 Greek and Latin Churches as Ecumenical, and their 
 resolutions or decrees, passed not infrequently after 
 many months of debate, would have served no purpose 
 but to provide the delegates with an exciting pastime. 
 At best their action could have had no other effect 
 than that of a recommendation to the Pope, whose ap- 
 proval and signature Avould have been required to 
 make it a law. But it has been admitted by the 
 greatest Roman scholars that *'the Popes took no 
 part in convoking Councils. All Great Councils, to 
 which Bishops came from different countries, were con- 
 voked by the emperors." The same authorities also 
 admit that "neither the dogmatic nor the disciplinary 
 decisions of these Councils required Papal confirma- 
 tion." 
 
 Even St. Peter himself, as we have seen, did not pre- 
 side at the Council of the Church held at Jerusalem to 
 settle the dispute which had arisen between the Jewish 
 and Gentile converts. Nor were the so-called successors 
 of St. Peter in the See of Rome the conveners, or ex 
 ofScio presidents, of any of the General Councils. These 
 were all called by the reigning emperor. They were pre- 
 dominantly, and some of them exclusively. Oriental. 
 From the year 325, in which the first Council of Nicae 
 was held, to the year 680, the date of the third Council 
 of Constantinople, out of the one thousand one hun- 
 dred and nine Bishops who attended the six great Coun- 
 cils, only nineteen were from Western Europe. They 
 
 were "presided over,'' says Dr. Kurtz, "either by the 
 monarch in person, or by a prelate chosen by the 
 Council." 
 
 Hosius, Bishop of Cordova, a province of Spain, was 
 elected president of the first Nicene Council. The third 
 Council, A. D. 481, which met at Ephesus, was presided 
 over by St. Cyril of Alexandria. It was convened to 
 consider a matter which had already been passed upon 
 by the Pope, in a Roman Synod, whose judgment was 
 not regarded as conclusive. The Pope's legates, to- 
 gether with the Patriarch of Constantinople, presided 
 at the fourth Council, a. d. 451, which also acted upon 
 matters that had already been considered by the Ro- 
 man Bishop and Synod. The fifth Council, a. d. 553, 
 contradicted with anathemas a doctrinal statement of 
 Pope Vigilius, and compelled him to retract it, as well 
 as to conform to its own contrary decision. The sixth 
 Council, a. d. 680, as we have observed elsewhere, form- 
 ally anathematized Pope Honorius I. as a heretic— a 
 condemnation which was submitted to by the Roman 
 Church, and for nearly a thousand years afterward was 
 renewed by every one of her Popes at his coronation. 
 In view of the simple truth in regard to the Popes and 
 the Councils which may be read in the Church histories 
 of reliable Roman, as well as Protestant, authors, 
 what becomes of the Papal claims? 
 
 In addition to the abundant evidence which has al- 
 ready been given in support of the Anglican and Greek 
 contention, that the Bishops of Rome, during the first 
 centuries, did not claim or exercise jurisdiction outside 
 of their own Diocese, may be mentioned the correspond- 
 ence which they had with their brethren of the Episco- 
 pate. If by Divine appointment they stood in the same 
 relation to the rest of the Bishops as our Lord did to 
 the Apostles, the early Church Fathers knew it, and their 
 
 C. A.-7 
 

 OUR CONTROVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 
 
 JURISDICTION OF THE tOPE. 
 
 99 
 
 knowledge of this vitally important fact would be man- 
 ifest in their communications with them, and they 
 themselves would be evidently mindful of their unique 
 position while inditing letters. But there is nothing in 
 the epistolary remains of the first three or four hundred 
 years to indicate that it ever occurred to any of the 
 Popes, or to their contemporary Bishops, that they 
 were not, in respect to their commission, on the same 
 footing. They addressed each other just as the Bish- 
 ops of the United States and our Primate do. On the 
 one hand there was no assumption of superiority, and 
 on the other no acknowledgment of inferiority, even by 
 the occupants of the most out-of-the-way and obscure 
 Dioceses. 
 
 For example, St. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage from 
 A. D. 248-57, corresponds with the various Popes with 
 whom he was contemporary, on terms of complete equal- 
 ity. He speaks of them, and addresses them, as his 
 brothers and his colleagues. " What is more notorious 
 than that those, and those only, could be colleagues who 
 enjoyed the same power and the same prerogatives?" 
 Councils used the same form of address. The Fathers of 
 Constantinople inscribed their epistle to their *' brethren 
 and colleagues, Damasus of Rome, Ambrose of Milan, and 
 others." The Council of Antioch addressed a synodical 
 letter, about Paul of Samosata, to *' Dionysius, Bishop 
 of Rome, and Maximus, Bishop of Alexandria, and to 
 all their fellow-servants, Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, 
 and to the whole Church." Another Council at Constan- 
 tinople wrote to '^Damasus, Britto, Valerian," and 
 others, uniting their names without any mark of dis- 
 tinction, but calling them alike brothers and fellow-ser- 
 vants. "It must not be supposed,'' observes Father 
 Puller, "that this familiar style of address was due to 
 the primitive simplicity of the Christians of that age. 
 
 On the contrary, when the Priests and Deacons of Rome 
 have occasion to write to St. Cyprian, they conclude 
 their letter thus : ' Most blessed and most glorious Pope, 
 we bid vou ever hear til v farewell in the Lord.' And 
 again, when the same Priests and Deacons of Rome, 
 writing to the Clergy of Carthage, have occasion to 
 refer to St. Cyprian, they say: 'We have learnt that 
 the blessed Pope Cyprian has, for a certain reason, 
 retired.' " 
 
 The equality of the Pope and other Bishops is even 
 more apparent from the disputes which he had with 
 some of them than from his friendly correspondence. 
 Firmilian, Bishop of Cappadocia, applied language of 
 unusual harshness to Stephen, Bishop of Rome. He 
 compares him to Judas; accuses him of " defaming the 
 Apostles;" calls him "Wind," "ignorant," "rash," 
 " presumptuous," "a partaker with heretics,"— Stephen 
 had called Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, whose part 
 Firmilian was taking, " antichrist," " false apostle" and 
 "deceitful worker." "Nothing, indeed, could well be 
 more grievous than the spirit in which the conflict was 
 carried on. Christian meekness and charitv were sacri- 
 ficed by both parties; there was certainly no restraint 
 in the use of reproachful terms through any conscious 
 inferiority to the Roman Bishop. Cyprian maintained 
 his conclusion as strongly against Stephen as he would 
 against any other .Bishop ; he rebuked him as freely, 
 and condemned him as severely. The anger of Stephen, 
 on the other hand, is a proof of how he understood thel 
 conduct of his opponent; yet he does not venture to 
 charge him with rebellion against the See, which is now 
 said to be the center and source of unity. Harsh words 
 he gave abundantly in reply, but he stopped short of 
 the point which is indispensable to the papal argument." 
 An appeal to local synods or General Councils some- 
 
100 
 
 OUR CONTROVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 
 
 times showed that the Pope was right, and then he had 
 the satisfaction of a victory ; but, unfortunately for the 
 Papal claims, quite as frequently he was convicted of 
 error, and so had to bear the chagrin of defeat, and 
 even of rebuke and condemnation. 
 
 It should be remarked in this connection that there 
 were times, before the rise of the Papacy, when the Sees 
 of Carthage, Alexandria, Constantinople and Milan in 
 turn temporarily quite overshadowed the See of Koine. 
 This was sometimes owing to political circumstances, 
 but more frequently to the great superiority of the 
 Bishop or Patriarch over the Pope. Gregory Nazianzen, 
 himself one of the Primates of Christendom as Bishop of 
 Constantinople, said truly of his brother Patriarch, 
 " The head of the Alexandrian Church is the head of the 
 world." At a later period, Justinian's rescript also 
 recognizes Constantinople as the head of all the 
 Churches. At another time it was correctly said of the 
 gi'eat Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, that he ^'presided 
 not only over the Church of Carthage and over Africa, 
 but also over all the countries of the West, and over 
 nearly all the regions of the East and of the South 
 and of the North." It is scarcely necessary to add 
 that the presidency which St. Cyprian exercised was 
 not, outside of Africa, a headship of jurisdiction, but 
 one of love and honor, and, as a consequence, of 
 
 influence. 
 
 But though the Pope of Kome has not, by Divine ap- 
 pointment, any jurisdiction over other Bishops and their 
 Dioceses, yet at an early date the Church of both the 
 East and the West conceded the primacy to him, and in 
 the course of time he began to exercise a more or less 
 universal and absolute supremacy over Western Chris- 
 tendom. An explanation of how this came about will be 
 necessary to show that the Catholicity of the Anglican 
 
 JURISDICTION OF THE POPE. 
 
 101 
 
 Communion is not in the least compromised by its pres- 
 ent independent position. 
 
 The universal primacy with which the Pope was hon- 
 ored during several centuries, is accounted for by the 
 development of the Patriarchal system. The Apostles 
 were equal in authority, because they all received the 
 same commission. As the authorized representatives of 
 Christ they gave this commission and the authority con- 
 nected with it to their successors, whom we call Bishops. 
 When the xVpostles and Bishops met for consultation 
 and corporate official action, as they did more or less 
 frequently from the beginning, it was necessary that 
 one of them should be the chairman. Before the crea- 
 tion of Diocesan Bishops, this privilege, by common 
 consent, mav have been accorded to St. Peter. When- 
 ever a number of men associate themselves together 
 for any purpose, some one of them comes to the front 
 as a leader. In this instance, it would appear from 
 the Acts of the Apostles, and from tradition, that St. 
 Peter was the person who did so. It is probable that 
 he was the oldest of the twelve. If so, this of itself, 
 other things being equal, would single him out for 
 honor. But it would seem that not only was he the 
 senior, but that he was also by nature endowed above 
 his fellows w ith the qualities of leadership. In order to 
 account for the part which he took after the Ascension, 
 until St. Paul becomes the central figure, there is no need 
 of the Ultramontane hypothesis that he was designated 
 by the Lord as Prince of the Apostles. Even if Koman- 
 ists could substantiate this view, which is an impossi- 
 bility, before it would be of service to them in their 
 controversy with the great Greek and Anglican Com- 
 munions, it would be necessary for them to show con- 
 
102 
 
 OUR CONTROVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 
 
 JURISDICTION OF THE POPE. 
 
 103 
 
 clusively that the prerogatives of St. Peter had been 
 duly made over to the Bishops of Rome in succession. 
 There is not a scrap of evidence that they ever inherited 
 anything from him, not even the primacy of natural 
 leadership, which he appears to have enjoyed for a season , 
 certainly not the supremacy which he never possessed. 
 
 We have conceded that, owing to his age and nat- 
 ural qualifications, St. Peter may have presided at 
 most of the formal meetings of the Apostolic college. 
 But as the Diocesan system developed, the Bishop of 
 the city in which a Council was held, would take 
 the chair without encroaching upon any known right 
 of St. Peter. This was illustrated in Jerusalem^ the 
 first See City, by St. James, the first Diocesan. After 
 his Consecration to be Bishop of the Mother Church, 
 the Apostles had occasion to meet at their headquar- 
 ters. As this is the only Council of which we have 
 any New Testament record, we conclude that it must 
 have been of exceptional importance. In view of the 
 claims which Romanists make for St. Peter, the fact that 
 not he, but St. James, was president, is inexplicable. 
 
 In the course of time, when the whole Roman Empire 
 was divided into Dioceses, the Bishops of each Province 
 were accustomed to meet for consultation and legisla- 
 tion. The Bishop of the Diocese in which the Provincial 
 Council met presided, or at least his right to the presi- 
 dency was for a long time recognized. But the transac- 
 tion of business in the interim between the Councils re- 
 quired an official head, and this was usually the Bishop 
 of the chief city or of an Apostolic See. Out of this neces- 
 sity it was that the Metropolitan system grew. Ulti- 
 mately the Metropolitans were called Archbishops, and 
 were generally, by courtesy, conceded the right to pre- 
 side at all Provincial Councils, whether held in or out of 
 t^eir own Dioceses. When it wets necessary to decide 
 
 some question of more general importance, the Arch- 
 bishops and Bishops of two or more Provinces would 
 come together for the purpose. At first the Archbishop 
 of the Pro\ince in which the meeting was held presided. 
 But after a time the confederation developed into the 
 Patriarchal system, and its oflScial head for the interim 
 between Councils, who usually occupied the most impor- 
 tant See of the whole confederation, was designated Pa- 
 triarch, and conceded the right of presidency over these 
 assemblies, whether held in his own or in another Arch- 
 episcopal Province. 
 
 The whole of Christendom was divided into five 
 Patriarchates, namely, Rome, Constantinople, Anti- 
 och, Alexandria and Jerusalem. Now and then it was 
 found necessary, for the preservation of the faith and 
 the unity of the Church, to hold a Council in which 
 all the Patriarchates should be as fully represented as 
 possible. These General Councils created the need of 
 of an official head for the whole Christian world. This 
 high distinction would, of course, fall to one of the 
 five Patriarchs, and naturally to him who occupied 
 the most powerful See, namely, the Pope of Rome. 
 
 Ever}' Bishop was originally called Pope, but as time 
 went on the title was more and more restricted to the 
 Patriarchs. Then, owing to various circumstances, the 
 occupant of the Roman See had the distinction of being 
 called '' the Pope." In later times the title was appro- 
 priated almost exclusively to the Bishops of Rome, 
 while those of the other Patriarchal Sees were called 
 Patriarchs. Each title is derived from a Greek word 
 meaning "father." Patriarch is the more dignified of 
 the two, since it is applicable not so much to the head 
 pf a family as to the chief or ruler of a clan. 
 
 It is worthy of note that England, probably by 
 reason of its isolation and early political obsciirity, was 
 
OUR CONTROVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 
 
 not canonically made a part of the Koman. or of any 
 other, Patriarchate. Says an able writer on *' English 
 Orders:" " Our contention is that Britain or any part 
 thereof, as England, was never within any Patriarchate 
 at anytime, and was never assigned by any Ecumenical 
 Council to any Patriarchate. It was and is outside of all 
 Patriarchates and therefore was and is independent." 
 The exceptional position of the Church of England was 
 recognized by a Pope, in his treatment of one of the Arch- 
 bishops of Canterbury who, happening to be in Italy 
 during the meeting of a Provincial Synod, made an 
 effort to attend its sessions incognito. He did not, 
 however, escape recognition. The Pope, having been 
 made aware of his presence, introduced him as ''the 
 Pope of another World" and insisted on his being 
 seated with him upon the Papal throne. 
 
 It was not then because of any prerogative inherited 
 from St. Peter, but because their See City was the world's 
 metropolis and seat of government, that the Bishops of 
 Rome, with the development of the Patriarchal system, 
 came to be recognized as the first among equals. 
 
 That the presidency enjoyed by the Roman Prelates 
 was of human rather than Divine institution, is also 
 evident from the legislation upon the subject by several 
 Councils. It was ordained at Constantinople, in a. d. 
 381, "That the Bishop of Constantinople shall hold t\\e 
 first rank after the Bishop of Rome, for Constantinople 
 is new Rome." This decree was reiterated and more 
 fully explained at the General Council of Chalcedon, a, 
 D. 451. The fact that Rome was the only Apostolic See 
 in the West, and that both St. Peter and St. Paul, the chief 
 Apostles, suffered martyrdom there, also contributed to 
 exalt its Bishop. "The reverence paid in the East to 
 
 JURISDICTION OF THE POPE. 
 
 105 
 
 Alexandria and Antioch and Ephesus and other 
 Churches was in the West monopolized by Rome." But 
 as Primus he had, of course, no canonical jurisdiction 
 outside of his own Diocese. He had no more authority 
 over his Episcopal brethren than Bishop AVilliams of 
 Connecticut, the present Primate of the American Epis- 
 copal Church, has over Bishop Leonard of Ohio. 
 
 Papal supremacy developed much later than the 
 primacy and was limited to the Western Church. As 
 the doctrine of infallibility grew out of the widespread 
 desire for an unerring religious teacher, so that of the 
 Pope's right to universal dominion had at least one of 
 its roots in the felt need of a Supreme Ruler, which has 
 manifested itself in both the Old and the New Dispensa- 
 tions, by the setting aside of the polyarchical for a mo- 
 narchical regimen. God provided that the government 
 of the Jewish nation and Church should be divided 
 between the elders of the twelve tribes, Himself being 
 Head over all. A similar provision was made by Christ 
 for His Kingdom, which is a continuation and develop- 
 ment of the old Church. He was to be its supreme 
 Ruler and center of unity. His administratlA^e repre- 
 sentatives were to be the twelve Apostles and their suc- 
 cessors. These were invested with equal authority, so 
 that in their 'respective fields of labor they were quite 
 independent of each other. 
 
 We would not be understood to teach that in the 
 early Church every Bishop was a law unto himself, but 
 that none had a right to meddle in the administration 
 of another's Diocese, so long as the Faith and the regu- 
 lations which the college of Bishops had decreed in 
 Council assembled, were not violated. It was, in the na- 
 ture of things, necessary that the head of a Diocese 
 under certain circumstances should be called upon by 
 an higher authority to give an account of his steward- 
 
 N 
 
'f 
 
 n 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 OUR CONTROVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 
 
 iMp. An atitlldllty that liioiild be recognized as final 
 was clearly indispensable to the well being of the 
 Church. During the first one thousand years, this was 
 found in the Ecumenical Councils, which possessed 
 both legislative and judiciary functions, and bore 
 much the same relation to the Diocesan and Provincial 
 Synods that the Supreme Court of the United States 
 bears to the other courts of the country. The Scriptu- 
 ral warrant for these Councils and their essential value 
 to the Church may be inferred from the fact that the 
 Apostles, themselves, set the example of convening 
 them for the solution of difficulties which none of them, 
 not even St. Peter, could solve. Western Christians re- 
 peated the fault of the Jews in abandoning God's gov- 
 ernment for one of their own choosing, when they 
 allowed the Popes more and more to supplant the Coun- 
 cils and to lord it over their brethren of the Episcopate. 
 
 The circumstances which led to this unfortunate and 
 sinful exchange of the Episcopal pol^^archy for a Papal 
 monarch}' were very much the same in both cases. It 
 seemed to the worldly wise to be a necessary expedient 
 for self-protection against heathen enemies. Of course, 
 when the Church in the West determined to have a king, 
 it had no difficulty in finding a candidate who was head 
 and shoulders above his rivals for the throne. All eyes 
 naturally turned to the Bishop of Rome, who had long 
 been the Primus of Christendom. 
 
 But the exaltation of the Papacy is by no means 
 wholly accounted for by the people's desire for an Eccle- 
 siastical monarch. They were indeed ready to invest 
 the great Bishop of the Imperial City with extraordinary 
 judicial powers and to make him the center of unity 
 in both Church and State, but they had no intention of 
 going beyond this. The greatness which they may be 
 said to have thrust upon him, though much more thaii 
 
 JURISDICTION OF THE POPE. 
 
 107 
 
 .' 
 
 the primacy, was far less than the supremacy. But for 
 the ambition of the Popes, and the corrupt methods 
 which the degeneracy and ignorance of the Dark Ages 
 made it possible for them and their aggrandizers to em- 
 ploy in its gratification, they would never have become 
 more than supreme judges in cases which had been 
 carried from the Diocesan to the Archbishop, and from 
 him to the Patriarch, without settlement. The Church 
 always has stood in need of a court from which there 
 is no appeal except to a General (buncil, but it has 
 never required a king other than the One who ever sits 
 at the right hand of God. Fortunately for the world 
 the Popes have not and never can attain the goal upon 
 which, with astounding presumption, they have fixed 
 their eyes. Nor, as has just been observed, would their 
 efforts to reach it have been crowned with anything 
 like the measure of success which has been achieved, but 
 for the unscrupulous use of the most reprehensible 
 means. We must make along story as short as is con- 
 sistent with clearness. 
 
 When at leng-th the combination of circumstances to 
 which we have referred began to open a little the door 
 of dominion to the ambitious Popes, they found them- 
 selves constantly embarrassed by its rubbing and stick- 
 ing against the grain of tradition and history and of 
 the ancient Conciliary decrees and Patristic writings. In 
 fact, it was discovered that everything would have to be 
 either planed off a good deal or made over altogether 
 before there could be any freedom of action. Accord- 
 ingly, work was begun and vigorously continued 
 throughout the Dark Ages. 
 
 From first to last, there were a great many more or 
 less systematic efforts to reconstruct history in the 
 
108 
 
 OUE CONTROVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 
 
 interest of the Papacy. One of the most important of 
 these was made as early as the beginning of the third 
 century, in a work of fiction which, however, purports 
 to be the autobiography of Clement, who, at that time, 
 was erroneously supposed to have been the first occu- 
 pant of the Roman See. The object of the unknown 
 author was to create the impression that the honor of 
 being the first among equals, which had long been con- 
 ceded to the Bishops of Rome, was not due, as had 
 hitherto been believed, to the political greatness of the 
 dty over which he presided, but to the circumstance 
 that St. Peter, who was represented, contrary to fact, 
 to have been the founder and Apostolic head of the See, 
 had, shortly before his death, consecrated Clement to 
 succeed him, and bequeathed to him and his successors 
 forever the headship of the whole Church. 
 
 Before the close of the ninth century, the Popes, by 
 the mutual consent of the disputants, had frequently 
 acted as arbitrators and judges in cases that natural- 
 ly should have come before the other Patriarchs. A 
 record was kept of the decisions rendered in these ex- 
 ceptional instances of appeal to Rome. As this busi- 
 ness added greatly to the dignity and revenue of the 
 Roman Bishops, they grew more and more anxious to 
 make it apyjear that they were, by Divine appointment, 
 the supreme judges of Christendom. So they made a 
 great deal of the romance concerning St. Peter and 
 Clement. But in pushing their claims, at every step 
 they were asked such questions as these : If the right 
 to adjudicate all diflScult cases has been inherited from 
 St. Peter by the Popes, why is it that, as the records 
 show, appeals were not made to the Holy See from the 
 beginning ; and why do the canons forbid the carrying 
 of cases beyond the Patriarch of the jurisdiction to 
 which the litigants belong, and make it unlawful for all 
 
 It 
 
 JURISDICTION OF THE POPBJ. 
 
 109 
 
 I I 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 Bishops, Archbishops, and Patriarchs to exercise any 
 of their functions beyond theiu canonically defined bor- 
 ders? What are known as the False Decretals of Isidore 
 assisted greatly in getting rid of these embarrassing 
 questions. The work in which they were embodied 
 contained both genuine and forged canons of the 
 Councils and judgments of the Popes. It has been 
 established beyond dispute that they contain ninety- 
 four spurious Papal Decrees, fifty-four of which are 
 attributed to the first thirty-five Bishops of Rome. 
 The rest are distributed along the intervening period 
 to A. D. 851, so as to make the chain of appeals practic- 
 ally continuous from St. Clement to the then reigning 
 Pope. This gross forgery, owing to the uncritical age 
 in which it was perpetrated, was not detected and ex- 
 posed until the Reformation. Though the Bishops of 
 Rome had very little if anything to do with the author- 
 ship of the Pseudo-Clementine literature and the Isidor- 
 ian Decretals, they are none the less guilty, for they 
 vouched for their authenticity, and made use of them 
 to change the government of the Church from a Divine 
 polyarchy to a human monarchy. 
 
 After the appearance of the decretals the canons of 
 the Councils and the writings of the Fathers were rap- 
 idly more and more corrupted by additions and sup- 
 pressions. But by the twelfth century such tinkerings, 
 extensive as they were, having been found to be in- 
 suflftcient, Gratian deliberately undertook the work of 
 recasting the whole canonical code, so as to make it 
 fit in with the new order of things. Thomas Aquinas, 
 the intellectual giant of the thirteenth century, ac- 
 cepted, apparently without misgiving, the whole mass 
 of false Decretals, counterfeit Canons, and corruptions 
 of Patristic writings, which had accumulated during 
 five hundred years, and, after fusing them together 
 
n 
 
 OUB CONTROVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 
 
 I 
 
 into a homogeneous whole, and rounding out the work 
 of fraud by additions from the spurious Cyril of Alexan- 
 dria, built upon it his system of Papal dominion and 
 infallibility which has continued to this day. "John 
 XXII., in his delight," says "Janus," "uttered his 
 famous saying, that Thomas had worked as many 
 miracles as he had written articles, and could be can- 
 onized without any other miracles, and in his Bull he 
 affirmed that Thomas had not written without a spe- 
 cial inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Innocent VI. said 
 that whoever assailed his teaching incurred suspicion of 
 heresy." 
 
 The world has never witnessed such gross and all 
 pervading literary frauds as those for which the Papacy 
 is responsible. Everything which they and their ag- 
 grandizers touched has been modified so as to square 
 with the dogmas of universal dominion and doctrinal 
 infallibility. An old author, in connection with what 
 he has to say about the corruption of the Fathers, 
 gives a list of one hundred and eighty-seven treatises 
 cited by Roman writers, about the spurious character 
 of which no doubt remains; and modern criticism 
 could easily add to the number. He gives also a list of 
 fifty passages corrupted in the genuine writings of the 
 Fathers, and adds : " I have set down only five decades 
 whereby you may conjecture of the rest, which for brev- 
 ity's sake are omitted." 
 
 Not even the Roman Breviary, or Prayer Book, has 
 escaped. An author quoted by Canon Gore says : " The 
 condemnation of Pope Honorius for heresy is recorded 
 in the Roman Breviaries until the sixteenth century, at 
 which period the name of Honorius suddenly disap- 
 pears. The theory of Papal infallibility was' at that 
 time being rapidly developed. A fact opposed it. The 
 evidencefor the fact is suppressed." "I have before me/* 
 
 JURISDICTION OF THE POPfi. 
 
 Ill 
 
 writes P^re Gratry, "a Roman Breviary of the year 
 1520, piinted at Turin, in which, on the feast of St. Leo, 
 June 28th, I find the condemnation of Honorius:* In 
 which synod were condemned Sergius, Cyrus, Honorius, 
 Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter who asserted and proclaimed 
 one will and operation in our Lord Jesus Christ. 
 I open the Roman Breviary of to-day,'" he continues, 
 "and there I find in the instruction of St. Leo, June 
 28th : * In this Council were condemned Cyrus, Sergius, 
 and Pyrrhus, who preached only one will and operation 
 in Christ.' The trifling incident of a Pope condemned for 
 heresy by an Ecumenical Council is simply omitted by 
 the revisers of the Breviary in the sixteenth century. 
 Father Garnier, in his edition of the Liber Diurnus, 
 says, with a gentle irony, that ' they omitted it for the 
 sake of brevity.'" "One of the enrichments of the 
 Breviary," pointed out by another Roman Catholic 
 writer, " was the putting of Satan's words to our Lord in 
 the Temptation, ' I will give thee all the kingdoms of the 
 world,' into the mouth of Christ, who is made to address 
 them to Peter." These forgeries and mutilations in the 
 interest of the Papal system were so astonishing, that 
 the Venetian Marsiglio thought that in course of time 
 no faith would be reposed in any documents at all, and 
 that so the Church would be undermined. "It is im- 
 possible," as Professor Salmon observes, "to think 
 that if Roman prerogatives had rested on any Divine 
 gift, it would have been necessary to bolster up the fab- 
 ric with' so enormous a congeries of fraud and lies." 
 
 In cases wherein the light of modern learning and 
 the art of printing have made it impossible to effect the 
 necessary changes, the books have been placed upon the 
 Index of works which may not be read by Romanists. 
 Indeed, the reading of any book or article which 
 contains anything derogatory to Ultramontanism 
 
Ii1 
 
 JiiiiiKitf 
 
 OUR CONTROVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 
 
 JURISDICTION OF THE POPE. 
 
 113 
 
 
 18 forbidden except to a few specially licensed contro- 
 versialists. The Bible itself is popularly supposed, 
 not without good reason, to be among such books. 
 Certain it is that Scripture reading was for ages dis- 
 couraged, and sometimes absolutely interdicted. For 
 instance at the Council of Toulouse, a. d. 1229, the Laity 
 were forbidden to have in their possession any copy of 
 the books of the Old or New Testament if translated 
 into the vulgar tongue. This was the first synodical 
 prohibition; there had been no instance of a law 
 since the days of the emperors which showed the 
 same hostility to the Bible. When the Council of 
 Trent met, a.d. 15G2, the first business taken in hand 
 was to prepare an Index of prohibited books. The 
 work was intrusted to a committee of Bishops, who 
 reported, concerning the Scriptures, that as the result 
 of experience their translation into the vulgar tongues, 
 and the indiscriminate use of them, has produced 
 '*more evil than good." The report was not made 
 until there was no time left for its consideration by 
 the Council; so the matter was committed to Pope 
 Pius IV., who approved the part in which we are here 
 interested. It reads as follows: ''Since it is manifest 
 by experience that if the Holy Bible in the vulgar 
 tongue be suffered to be read everywhere without dis- 
 tinction, more evil than good arises, let the judgment 
 of the Bishop or inquisitor be abided by in this respect; 
 so that, after consulting with the parish Priest or the 
 confessor, they may grant permission to read transla- 
 tions of the Scriptures made by Catholic writers, to 
 those whom they understand to be able to receive no 
 harm, but an increase of faith and piety, from such 
 readings; which faculty let them have in writing. But 
 whosoever shall presume to read these Bibles, or have 
 them in possession without such faculty, shall not be 
 
 capable of receiving absolution of their sins, unless they 
 have given up the Bible to the ordinary." 
 
 But conclusive as are the foregoing arguments 
 against the claims of the Papacy, the strongest yet 
 remains to be presented. It is based upon the scandal- 
 ous lives which many of the Popes have lived. For how 
 can they make good the pretension that since the Ascen- 
 sion they stand in the same relation to the Church uni- 
 versal as our Lord did to His Disciples, unless it be 
 shown that, like Him, they have also been a perfect 
 example to the world as well as its light and king? As 
 the claims of Christ could not stand for a moment but 
 for His absolute holiness, so the assertion that the 
 Popes are His infallible and all powerful representatives 
 must fall to the ground if any of them can be con- 
 victed of sin. Many of the Bishops of Home have been 
 in all respects ornaments to the Church and have rend- 
 ered her inestimable service. I would rather dwell on 
 the virtues of these than upon the heresies, frailties, 
 and immoralities of the unworthy occupants of that 
 illustrious Apostohc See. But as Professor Salmon says : 
 *' When Rome is made the hinge on which the whole 
 Church turns— the rock on which it rests— then it is 
 necessary to give proof that Rome has not the strength 
 to bear the weight which it is proposed to lay upon it." 
 The evidence by which her weakness wilf be made 
 manifest shall, for obvious reasons, be quoted solely 
 from the pages of her own sons. I shall be obliged to 
 suppress some of the passages which have been collected 
 from their books, because they contain accounts of 
 crimes too revolting for mention in a work that is in- 
 tended for general reading, but not one word will be 
 added from Protestant authors. 
 
 C. A.-8 
 
114 
 
 OUR CONTROVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 
 
 JURISDICTION OF THE POPE. 
 
 115 
 
 
 The learned Cardinal Baronius, speaking of the 
 Papal Court in the tenth century, says: *' What was 
 then the semblance of the Holy Roman Church? As 
 foul as it could be, when harlots, superior in power as 
 in profligacy, governed at Rome, at whose will Sees 
 were transferred, Bishops were appointed, and, what is 
 horrible and awful to say, their paramours were in- 
 truded into the See of Peter; false Pontiffs who are set 
 down in the catalogue of Roman Pontiffs merely for 
 chronological purposes; for who can venture to say 
 that persons thus basely intruded by such courtesans 
 were legitimate Roman Pontiffs? No mention can be 
 found of election or subsequent consent on the part of 
 the Clergy; all the canons were buried in oblivion, the 
 decrees of the Popes stifled, the ancient traditions put 
 under ban, and the old customs, sacred rite8,and former 
 usages in the election of the chief Pontiff were quite 
 abolished. Mad lust, relying on worldly power, thus 
 claimed all as its own, goaded on by the sting of am- 
 bition. Christ was then in a deep sleep in a ship, when 
 the ship itself was covered by the waves and these great 
 tempests were blowing. And what seemed worse, there 
 were no Disciples to wake Him with their cries as He 
 slept, for all were snoring. You can imagine as you 
 please what sort of Presbyters and Deacons were chosen 
 as Cardinals by these monsters." 
 
 Genebrardus, Archbishop of Aix, speaking of the du- 
 ration of the Papal profligacy which Baronius thus 
 describes, says : **Thi8 age has been unfortunate, in so 
 far that during nearly a hundred and fifty years, about 
 fifty Popes have fallen away from the virtues of their 
 predecessors, being apostates, or apostatical, rather 
 than Apostolical." 
 
 Very sad is the picture drawn in the speeches at the 
 Roman Catholic Councils of the 16th century, when a 
 
 powerful but unsuccessful effort at reformation was 
 attempted. The speakers made avowals and charges so 
 outspoken and of such overwhelming force that they 
 cannot but amaze us. Their descriptions reproduce in 
 various forms the same idea: '' We Cardinals, Italian 
 Bishops, and officials of the Curia, are a tribe of worth- 
 less men who have neglected our duties; we have let 
 numberless souls perish through our neglect, we dis- 
 grace our p]piscopal office, we are not shepherds but 
 wolves, we are the authors of the corruption prevalent 
 throughout the whole Church, and are in a special 
 sense responsible for the decay of religion in Italy." Car- 
 dinal Antonio Pucci said publicly, before the assembly 
 of A. D. 1516: "Rome, and the Roman Prelates and 
 Bishops daily sent forth from Rome, are the joint causes 
 of the manifold errors and corruptions in the Church ; 
 unless we recover our good fame, which is almost wholly 
 lost, it is all up with us." 
 
 *' Janus" tells us that: "The means used by the 
 Popes to secure obedience, and break the force of oppo- 
 sition among people, princes, or Clergy, were always 
 violent. The interdict which suddenly robbed millions, 
 the whole population of a country — often for trifling 
 causes which they had nothing to do with themselves— 
 of Divine Worship and Sacraments, was no longer suflS- 
 dent. The Popes declared families, cities, and states 
 outlawed, and gave them up to plunder and slavery; 
 as, for instance, Clement V. did with Venice; or excom- 
 municated them, like Gregory XI., to the seventh gener- 
 ation ; or they had whole cities destroyed from the face 
 of the earth, and the inhabitants transported— the fate 
 that Boniface YIII. determined on for Palestrina." 
 
 Macchiavellisays : " The Italians are indebt^ed to the 
 Roman Church and its Priests for our having lost all 
 religion, and devotion through their bad examples, and 
 
i!l'n 
 
 OUR CONTROVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 
 
 having become an unbelieving and evil people. The 
 nearer a i^eople dwells to a Roman Court the less religion 
 it has. Were that court set down among the Swiss, 
 who still remain more pious, they too would soon be 
 corrupted by its vices." Nor was a more favorable 
 judgment given by Macchiavelli's fellow-citizen, Guic- 
 ciardini, who for many years served the Medicean 
 Popes m high offices, administering their provinces and 
 commanding their army ; he observes, on Macchiavelli's 
 words, that ^^ whatever evil may be said of the Roman 
 Court must fall short of its deserts." 
 
 The corruption of the Hierarchy is witnessed to in 
 Rome itself by that triumph of Michael Angelo's genius, 
 the '^Last Judgment," which was painted for the Altar 
 of the Sisdne Chapel, in a. d. 1541. This magnificent 
 work, according to all accounts, is a thrilling prophetic 
 parable, which the Papal Court, in its stupid debauch- 
 ery, was incapable of comprehending. It portrays to 
 the eyes, in awful menace, the final reckoning. By 
 including some of them among the damned, the saintly 
 artist, who must have been scandalized at what he con- 
 stantly beheld of the abomination of desolation in 
 the temple, wrote ^^Tekel," in vivid and unmistakable 
 characters, on the walls of the Popes and Cardinals. 
 Of course, those who saw their own portraits in this 
 terrible caricature, winced a little, *'but they were too 
 torpid to comprehend the length and breadth of such 
 a prophecy. A day of retribution was close at hand. 
 God, in the great Reformation, was arising to shake 
 terribly the earth." 
 
 Roman writers have put as good a face as possible 
 upon this unfortunate showing. Of those who have 
 exercised their ingenuity to this end, Baronius has 
 succeeded as well as any. He contends that inasmuch 
 as the Church and Roman Hierarchy were not utterly 
 
 JURISDICTION OF THE POPE. 
 
 117 
 
 ruined by the sins of the Popes, their Divine origin and 
 indestructible character are manifest. "If," the ingen- 
 ious Cardinal asks, "the Papal chair was filled by a 
 succession of monstrous men, most base in life, most 
 abandoned in morals, and in every way most foul, if it 
 had a set of chiefs whose sins would have brought down 
 judgments and utter ruin on any other government, 
 must we not infer, from the fact of the Papacy's having 
 survived such a state of things, that it enjoys the spe- 
 cial favor or blessing of Heaven?" But Baronius was 
 not the first to resort to this paradoxical makeshift ; in 
 fact, he only restated and lent the weight of his repu- 
 tation to an explanation which had long exercised a 
 great infiuence over the illiterate masses, but which, in 
 his time, was fast losing its influence with the educated 
 and thoughtful. 
 
 Boccaccio, an Italian writer of the fourteenth 
 century, should have been canonized by the Roman 
 Church for the support which her corrupt Bishops long 
 derived from his account of "Abraham's Conversion to 
 Christianity." If it were not for the age and the con- 
 text in which the narrative appears, it would seem in- 
 credible that a story which cannot now be read or heard 
 without laughter, should ever have been regarded as 
 a satisfactory illustration of the way in which the 
 worst Popes, scarcely less than the best, contributed 
 to the Glory of God in the upbuilding of His Church. 
 As given in the "Decameron," it is briefly this: 
 Abraham was a Parisian Jew, who, being pressed to 
 embrace Christianity, declared his intention of visiting 
 Rome, in order to determine by personal investigation 
 whether the morals of Christ's Vicar and of the Cardi- 
 nals and Clergy proved the superiority of their Creed 
 over his own. His Christian friend, intensely desiring 
 his conversion, was hoiTified, knowing too well that the 
 
118 
 
 OUR CONTROYERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 
 
 spectacle of sensuality, avarice, and simony which 
 tainted all at Rome, from the least to the greatest, was 
 better calculated to make a Christian turn Jew than to 
 induce a Jew to become a Christian. But Abraham 
 could not be dissuaded from going. However, it turned 
 out better than there was reason to fear, for upon his 
 return he, after all, presented himself for Baptism, de- 
 claring himself convinced of the Divinity of a reli^on 
 which survived, notwithstanding that its chief ministers 
 were doing their very best to destroy it. ^'The popu- 
 larity of this tale in pre-Reformation times, shows that, 
 if the Bishop of Rome was then believed to be a guide 
 to truth, he was not imagined to be an example of 
 moral purity." 
 
 A brilliant objector against the doctrine of infallibil- 
 ity, after an almost brutal exposure of the monstrous 
 crimes of the Popes, in which special mention is made of 
 the infamous Alexander XI. and John XXIL, sums up 
 his argument thus : '* If you declare tlie infallibility of 
 the present Bishop of Rome, you will be held bound to 
 prove the infallibility of all his predecessors, without a 
 single exception. But can you do this, with liistory 
 lying open and showing as clear as sunshine that the 
 Popes have erred in their teaching? Can you do it, and 
 maintain that Popes who were guilty of avarice, of in- 
 cest, of murder, of simony, were nevertheless Vicars of 
 Jesus Christ ? Oh, venerable brethren, to maintain this 
 monstrous thing would be to betray Christ worse than 
 Judas did. It would be flinging mud in His face! Be- 
 lieve me, venerable brethren, you cannot make historv 
 over again. There it stands, and there it will stand 
 forever, to protest mightily against the dogma of 
 Papal infallil>ility. You may proclaim it unanimously, 
 but you will have to do without one vote, and that is 
 mine." 
 
 III. 
 
 ANGLICAN ORDERS. 
 
 BESIDES the consecration of oneself to the Chris- 
 tian ministry and the spiritual and intellectual 
 preparation necessary for this high calling, two 
 things always have been required in every branch of the 
 Catholic Church, namely, Apostolic and Canonical 
 Ordination to the office of Deacon, Priest or Bishop, 
 and a lawful appointment to a particular field of labor. 
 Upon the first of these dejjends the validity of Sacramen- 
 tal ministrations, and on the second the exclusive 
 authority and submission which are indispensable to 
 efficiency and harmony. So far, there is no difference 
 of opinion between Romanists and Anglicans. Our con- 
 troversy is concerning the question, whether or not we 
 have the regular Orders and commission. 
 
 Romanists represent that pre-Reformation Bishops 
 in England derived whatever authority they had from 
 the Pope, and that, now that he has withdrawn that 
 authority, they are none the better for this connection 
 with the past. Anglicans reply that the Church of Eng- 
 land was, in its origin, independent of Rome and con- 
 tinued so for hundreds of years.* This being the case, 
 Canon VIII., of the General Council of Ephesus, a. d. 
 431, makes the interference of the Pope in the Ecclesias- 
 tical affairs of England unlawful, and annuls his bull of 
 excommunication. This canon restrains all Bishops, 
 not excepting the Popes, from the exercise of Episcopal 
 functions and jurisdiction in any Diocese or Province 
 except their own. Thus, when the Pope excommunicated 
 
 * Lecture IV. 
 
 (119) 
 
 f 
 
 ■■L'l .-IJ^ J »iiii . 
 
1! 
 
 120 
 
 OUR CONTROVERSY WJTH ROMANISTS. 
 
 ANGLICAN ORDERS. 
 
 121 
 
 the Church of England in the reigns of Henry VIII. 
 and Elizabeth, he did no more than cut himself and 
 his Diocese off from a pure branch of the Catholic and 
 Apostolic Church of Christ. His excommunication 
 of the whole Eastern Church some four centuries before 
 had the same effect. St. Firmilian, Metropolitan of 
 Ca^sarea in Cappadocia, was right when he said to 
 Stephen, Patriarch of Rome, "Whilst you think it in 
 your power to excommunicate all the world, you have 
 only separated yourself from the communion of the 
 whole Catholic Church." 
 
 During the fourth and fifth centuries, the Church was 
 harassed by the rise of many grave heresies. In this 
 period of excited disputation the weapon of excommuni- 
 cation was brandished recklessly, not only by the Popes 
 of Rome, but also by the other heads of Patriarchates, 
 and even by comparatively obscure Diocesans. When 
 there was danger of serious corruption, the best way to 
 guard against it known to the Ecclesiastical authorities 
 of those days, was.to cut the offender off from fraternal 
 intercourse wi th the endangered Diocese and to brand him 
 with the censure called anathema. But when one Bishop 
 excommunicated another, it never occurred to the ex- 
 communicate that he and the Christians of his Diocese 
 were cast out of the Catholic Church. It required the 
 condemnation of a General Council for this. With but 
 comparatively few exceptions, the cause for the excom- 
 munication was too trifling to commend it to the 
 attention of such a body. The dispute was therefore 
 usually settled, and the parties directly concerned recon- 
 ciled, by arbitration, or by time, that great healer of 
 petty differences and alienations. 
 
 It seldom happened that the aggressor in an excom- 
 munication procedure enjoyed the undivided support, 
 of neighboring Dioceses. As in the case of nearly all 
 
 disputes about little matters, there were two sides to the 
 question. Often the Bishops far and near were pretty 
 evenly divided. This was frequently so when the 
 Bishop of Rome was the excommunicator. In fact, 
 there is more than one instance on record in which he 
 was so clearly in the wrong as to be obliged, under the 
 pressure of public sentiment, to annul his bull or at 
 least to allovT it to become inoperative. This conclu- 
 sively shows that excommunication by the Bishop of 
 Rome did not, in the early days of Christianity, sepa- 
 ' rate from the Church ; and if it did not do so then, there 
 is no reason for believing that it did in the sixteenth 
 century or that it does now. It must be remembered 
 too, in this connection, that the argument by which 
 Romanists would unchurch Anglicans proves too much. 
 We have seen that the power of loosing and binding 
 was given to all the Apostles and their successors, not 
 to St. Peter and his alone, and that in the primitive 
 Church it was exercised by all Bishops. If, therefore, 
 our Orders are to be regarded as invalidated b}^ the fact 
 that the Pope has separated himself from communion 
 with us, their own must be similarly affected by the re- 
 fusal of the great Greek Church to commune with Rome. 
 Not only were our Orders thus canonically protected 
 from any invalidating effect of the Pope's excommuni- 
 cation, but, at the time when his final bull was promul- 
 gated, it happened, either by chance or, as is more prob- 
 able, by a Providential election, that there was not one 
 of all the English Bishops who owed either his appoint- 
 ment or his Consecration to the Pope of Rome. None 
 had promised obedience to him, nor derived even a 
 show of authority from him. "They had all been or- 
 dained under Edward VI., before Mary's reign, or under 
 Elizabeth, after Mary's reign was over." It is. sheer 
 absurdity to pretend that the Bishop of Rome could 
 
122 
 
 OUR CONTROVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 
 
 ANGLICAN ORDERS. 
 
 123 
 
 1^ 
 
 m 
 
 I 
 
 abrogate what was in no way derived from him. If it 
 were not for the Ephesian Canon, it might be conceiv- 
 able that Rome could withdraw, by canonical deposition, 
 the Apostolic strand which we have through the Italian 
 succession, but, even then, our Bishops could trace their 
 spiritual descent through two and probably three re- 
 maining continuous Apostolic ancestral lines, namely, 
 the English, the Irish, and the Saxon. Na allegation of 
 loss of continuity has ever been, with any show of reason, 
 urged against the last two of these. And unless Arch- 
 bishop Theodore disregarded the precautionary Canon 
 which requires that every Bishop shall have at least 
 three Consecrators, the third has been continued also 
 through Chad, who was elevated to the Bishopric of 
 York in a. d. 664. 
 
 But if our Orders were wholly derived through the 
 Roman succession, it would not follow that we must be 
 in subjection to the Pope in order to retain a valid 
 Apostolic ministry. For as has been well said: '^The 
 Consecration of a Bishop or Archbishop by the Pope, 
 does not invest him with authority or jurisdiction over 
 the said Bishop or Archbishop, or over their Diocese or 
 Province. Otherwise Virgilius, Bishop of Aries, in 
 France, by consecrating Augustine, would have acquired 
 jurisdiction over him, and over Canterbury likewise; 
 and also Godwin of Lyons by consecrating Bright wald, 
 Theodore's successor, would have done the same. Several 
 Priests in Roman Orders are, it is stated, at this mo- 
 ment incumbents in the English Church, having con- 
 formed thereto. Supposing this to be the fact, that 
 would not make their parishes Roman parishes ; and, in 
 like manner, a number of Bishops, with an Archbishop 
 at the head of them, would not, because they had re- 
 ceived their Consecration from Roman Bishops, turn 
 their Dioceses or Provincesinto Roman ones.'' To argue 
 
 otherwise would prove too much for Romanists. Many 
 of the Popes were translated to Rome from the French 
 and other National Churches— one from England. Are 
 we, therefore, to conclude that the foreign Church which 
 happens to have a son in the reputed chair of St. Peter 
 is, for the time being, entitled to rule over the Roman 
 Church? If so the '* Holy See " must always be subject 
 to some jurisdiction other than that of its occupant, 
 for the Pope never consecrates or appoints his successor. 
 
 However, the Roman strand has never been drawn 
 from the Anglican succession by any Papal deposition 
 of our Bishops. Though the Pope withdrew from their 
 Communion, neither he nor anybody else ever deposed 
 them. Certainly, without canonical deposition and deg- 
 radation there can be no such thing as nullification of 
 Holy Orders. The learned Roman Catholic, Courayer, 
 in his unanswerable work in defense of English Ordina- 
 tions, points out that "when the Donatists made a 
 schism, the succession of the Episcopate was acknowl- 
 edged in them. Yet they were guilty of the same in- 
 trusion with which the English are reproached. They 
 had erected Altar against Altar; they had put them- 
 selves in the place of the Catholic Bishops ; their title 
 was altogether faulty, and they were equally excom- 
 municated and irregular. Nevertheless, the Catholic 
 Bishops acknowledged in them the validity of the 
 Priesthood, and, far from disputing their succession, 
 offered to yield them their place, provided they would, 
 by their reunion, terminate the schism. We cannot re- 
 fuse the English a succession of the same nature, sup- 
 posing once the validity of their Ordination, which the 
 authors of the objection are willing to admit." 
 
 Besides, when Romanists insist upon the necessity of 
 submission to the '' Holy See," we can quote the words 
 of a Pope to one of our Archbishops of Canterbury : ' ' By 
 
i 
 
 in 
 
 ll 
 
 OUR CONTROVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 
 
 the authority," said he, "of the blessed Peter, Prince 
 of the Apostles, to whom power was given by our 
 Lord to bind and to loose in heaven and on earth, 
 we, however unworthy, holding the place of that same 
 blessed Peter, who bears the keys of the kingdom of 
 heaven, grant to you, Theodore, and your successors, 
 all that from old time was allowed, forever to remain 
 unimpaired in that your Metropolitan See in the city 
 of Canterbury.'- This grant was made more than a 
 thousand years ago. Dr. John Henry Hopkins' witty 
 remarks upon it are to the point: **Our modern con- 
 troversialists on behalf of the Pope would fain make 
 us believe that this, the Pope's promise and gift ' for- 
 ever to remain unimpaired,' is now utterly null and 
 void. But we think better of ' His Holiness ' than that ! 
 It was hardly worth while, indeed, to lug in St. Peter as 
 having anything to do with conveying to Theodore 
 * all ' that the Archbishops of Canterbury had already 
 been enjoying from *old time.' It sounded generous, 
 and was certainly quite safe, however, to give to the 
 Archbishop what belonged to his See anyhow. It was a 
 way the Popes had. But if there was anything at all 
 in the gift prospectively, we would only call attention to 
 the fact, that, as the Pope gave the Archbishop of Canter- 
 bury all these things, in the name of Blessed Peter, and 
 to the Archbishop's 'successors,' * forever to remain un- 
 impaired,' of course, if there is any truth or reality in a 
 gift from a Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury must 
 retain them all to this day. To deny it, and maintain 
 that they are all gone, is to be guilty of flat blasphemy 
 against the Pope!" 
 
 Komanists also try to discredit the mission of the 
 Clergy of our Mother Church of England, by disparag- 
 
 ANGLICAN ORDERS. 
 
 125 
 
 ing her connection with the state, and the part taken 
 by the crown and civil authorities in the filling of va- 
 cant Bishoprics and benefices. They never tire of repre- 
 senting that Henry VIII., after breaking with Clement 
 VII., styled himself Supreme Head of the Church, and 
 usurped the Ecclesiastical government which, up to 
 that time, by Divine appointment, had devolved upon 
 the Pope. This notion is entirely erroneous. *'We 
 must not be misled," says the learned Canon Dixou, 
 "by the term 'supremacy,' which first began to be 
 applied to the Papal power in England after that 
 power had been taken away. It was not applied to 
 the Papal power so long as it existed, while, on the 
 other hand, it was always applied to the kingly power, 
 and properly expressed the nature of the same. The 
 sovereign was at all times the head of the realm, both 
 of the spirituality and the temporality, whether or not 
 he had borne a title to express his spiritual suprem- 
 acy. In the laws of Edward the Confessor, a. d. 
 1004-66, he was termed the Vicar of Christ, a title which 
 seems as expressive as that which was taken by Henry 
 yin." But in speaking of the king'stitle, candor should 
 induce Eomanists not to stop short of the important 
 qualifying clause, ''as far as is permitted by the law of 
 Christ.'' Perhaps it would be a little too much to ex- 
 pect them to add Henry's ofl^cial explanation, in which 
 he disclaimed any intention of usurping the Spiritual 
 government of the Church. *' It were absurd," he says, 
 ''for us to be called Head of the Church, representing 
 the mystical Body of Christ." He restored the spiritual 
 headship to the Bishops, convocations and Ecclesias- 
 tical courts, to which it canonically and constitution- 
 ally belonged. There is one more fact bearing upon 
 this subject to which Romanists of course never refer. 
 The title which is such a stumbling-block to them was 
 
If 
 
 ill 
 
 '"tm 
 
 OUR CONTROVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 
 
 dropped by Queen Mary, since whose time it has not 
 been assumed by any English sovereign. 
 
 Those who have not read both sides might suppose, 
 from the representations of Ultramontanists, that the 
 Bishops of England and her colonies derive their mis- 
 sion from the King or Queen. In reality jurisdiction is 
 given at Ordination. The crown, as represented by the 
 Prime Minister, for the purpose of safeguarding the in- 
 terests of the state, of which the Church is such a pow- 
 erful factor, simply reserves the right of nomination. 
 The Bishop elect is then consecrated by order of the 
 Archbishop of the Province. Thus the English Bishops, 
 like those of any other branch of the Church Catholic, 
 owe their Mission to Ecclesiastical Consecration, or, in 
 case of Missionary Jurisdictions, to appointment, by the 
 Metropolitan. "In sum," says Bishop Bramhall, *'we 
 hold our benefices from the King, but our offices from 
 Christ; the King doth nominate us, but Bishops do 
 ordain us." 
 
 The objection to the mission of the Anglican Episco- 
 pate and ministry upon the ground of Erastianism 
 will not stand, therefore, even so far as England is con- 
 cerned, and, as for the American Episcopal Church, it 
 has no foundation whatever. But even if it were well 
 taken, Romanists could not safely make much of it, as 
 we would not be slow in pointing out that the Popes 
 were for several centuries created by the Emperors. 
 Much of their jurisdiction was derived from the same 
 source. For example, whatever authority they exer- 
 cised in France was due to a statute of the Emperor 
 Valentinian III., which runs as follows: *' We decree, by 
 a perpetual sanction, that nothing shall be attempted 
 against ancient custom by the Bishops of Gaul, or other 
 Provinces, without the authority of the venerable Pope 
 of the Eternal City ; but whatever the authority of the 
 
1 1 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 i 
 ill 
 )i 
 
 < 
 Q. 
 
 k 
 
 
 h 
 Z 
 
 hi 
 
 
 M 
 
 
 J 
 
 < 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 y 
 
 i 
 
 X 
 
 •at 
 
 i 
 
 H 
 ■a 
 
 < 
 
 ^3 
 
 ? 
 
 a 
 a 
 o 
 
 
 M 
 
 
 I? 
 
 -^ ^ - 
 
 ^ 
 
 c» 
 
 89 
 
 21^^' 
 
 
 
 iio 
 
 ■^ "* rh •^ 86 ^ 
 
 S5 2 a a !^ 
 
 li ^ H 00 
 
 K .M OC 'm 
 
 M 
 H 
 
 at 
 
 
 00 
 
 O 
 o 
 
 'O'd X 
 
 ©CO. 
 
 fc< 9 a? 
 
 C3 CJ o 
 0=0 
 
 ©-o 2 
 *" a£ 
 
 X) a h. 
 
 •M © 
 
 ©T3 « 
 
 g © © 
 
 « " aS 
 
 a 
 
 O !*' I 
 
 o 2n 
 
 
 
 ^^ 1 
 
 >i«^ """^^ !>• 
 
 S ST 
 
 [ r r-4 
 
 IjQ Co df^t 
 
 ^fi oO lO 
 
 |jQ |A _i4 
 
 f-t *-t ^^ 
 
 s^ 
 
 '^i^ 
 
 < 
 
 i4 
 
 a 
 
 H 
 
 & 
 
 z. 
 
 O 
 
 H 
 
 < 
 
 s 
 
 » 
 
 M 
 
 O 
 
 Q 
 
 O 
 
 a 
 
 » Ed 
 
 © u*^ 
 
 © ©-4 
 
 BO ^ >" 
 
 ts ©w 
 
 **_- © 
 
 *^ ** *« 
 
 ® d © 
 
 d on d 
 © © 3 
 
 en O ^ 
 © 08 d 
 
 03 • 2 
 
 ^ds^. 
 
 
 H 
 
 5^5 
 
 •^4 «fc4 fl»4 
 
 52g 
 
 ANGLICAN ORDERS. 
 
 127 
 
 ) 
 
 Apostolic Chair ordains, shall be law to them ; so that 
 if any Bishop when summoned shall omit to come to 
 the court of the Roman Bishop, he shall be compelled 
 to come by the governor of the province." "Thus," 
 observes Professor Hussey, "the Pope's supremacy was 
 now estabhshed, not by the law of Christ, nor by a 
 canon of the Church over the Church, but by the 
 Roman law over the dominions of the Roman em- 
 peror of the West." 
 
 Roman Catholic controversialists have tried to dis- 
 credit the English Succession by affirming that the reg- 
 ister at Lambeth Palace, recording the Consecration of 
 Archbishop Parker, was a forgery, and that all which 
 really took place was a mock Consecration at the Nag's 
 Head tavern in London. It was said that Kitchin and 
 Scory, with Parker and other Bishops elect, met there, 
 that Kitchin, on account of a prohibition by Bonner, re- 
 • fused to consecrate them, that Scory, therefore, order- 
 ing them to kneel down, placed the Bible on the head 
 of each and told them to rise up Bishops. But this rep- 
 resentation was at once thoroughly exploded by 
 Anglican writers, and has long been repudiated by all 
 respectable Roman authors. One of these, Lingard, 
 says : " Of this tale, concerning which so much has been 
 written, I can find no trace in any author or document 
 of the reign of Elizabeth. I should not hesitate to pro- 
 nounce in favor of the Consecration, even if all direct 
 and positive evidence respecting it had perished. But 
 there exists such evidence in abundance." And an 
 erudite Roman Catholic Layman writes: "I am unable 
 to understand those who maintain that the Protestant 
 Bishops went through a mock consecration at a tavern 
 in Cheapside. If there is one historical fact for which 
 
128 
 
 OUR CONTROVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 
 
 ANGLICAN ORDERS. 
 
 129 
 
 1 1 ■■ 
 
 the existing evidence should render it undisputed, it is 
 the fact of the Consecration of Dr. Parker at Lambeth, 
 on December 17, 1559." 
 
 It is further urged that Barlow, the chief Consecrator 
 of Parker, was not a Bishop. To this we reply that, 
 whether he was or not. Dr. Parker was validly conse- 
 crated, because three other Bishops, whose Ordination 
 is unquestioned, laid hands upon him and repeated the 
 words of Consecration. But there is no reason, except 
 the fact that the records have been lost, for the asser- 
 tion that Dr. Barlow had not been dulv invested with 
 the Episcopal character. If Romanists foolishly insist 
 that this not unusual circumstance must be regarded 
 as conclusive, we will meet them on their own ground 
 by insisting that all the Popes whose records of Conse- 
 cration are not extant, and there are many such, were 
 merely Laymen. Ordination papers and records are by 
 no means the onlv sufficient evidence of canonical 
 ministerial office. In the case of Dr. Barlow there is 
 enough besides to convince Dr. Lingard, one of the. 
 greatest of Roman Catholic historians, and many other 
 scholars of the first rank, that he was regularly 
 consecrated. "When," says Lingard, "we find Barlow 
 during ten years, the remainder of Henry's reign, con- 
 stantly associated, as a brother, with the other con- 
 secrated Bishops, discharging with them all the duties, 
 both spiritual and secular, of a consecrated Bishop, 
 summoned equally with them to Parliament and con- 
 vocation, taking his seat among them, according to 
 seniority, and voting on all subjects as one of them, it 
 seems most unreasonable to sup])Ose, without direct 
 proof, that he had never received that sacred rite, 
 without which, according to the law^s of both Church 
 and state, he could not have become a member of the 
 Episcopal body." 
 
 Finally, it is objected that the Ordinal of the first 
 Prayer Book of Edward VL, used at the Consecration of 
 Archbishop Parker and others wlio continued the 
 Anglican Succession, was defective in that the w^ord 
 " Bishop" did not occur in the formula appointed to be 
 said at the laying on of hands, and that there was 
 nothing in any part of the Service to make the int-en- 
 tion of consecrating to the Episcopate sufficiently clear. 
 The answer to which is that the only Sacraments tied 
 to express forms of words and particular matter, by 
 our Lord's appointment, are Baptism and the Euchar- 
 ist. Courayer says that " according to a principle now 
 almost universally received in the schools, and gen- 
 erally by all learned divines, imposition of hands 
 and prayer are the only essentials of Ordination, and 
 the Ritual of Edward has preserved both. Therefore, 
 the Bishops ordained by this new Ritual are truly 
 Bishops, and this new Ordination would suffice alone to 
 assure the succession of the Episcopate." The omission 
 of the word Bishop in the formula repeated at the lay- 
 ing on of hands does not make the purpose of the 
 Ordination indefinite, when all the circumstances render 
 the intention unmistakable. The following rubrical 
 direction, which occurs in the Service used at Dr. Park- 
 er's Consecration, puts the intention of those who took 
 part beyond dispute: "After the Gospel and Credo 
 ended, first the elected Bishop shall be presented by two 
 Bishops unto the Archbishop of that Province, or to 
 some other Bishop appointed by his commission; the 
 Bishops that present him saying: Most Reverend 
 Father in God, we present unto you this godly and 
 well-learned man, to be consecrated Bishop." Further 
 on we find this rubric: "Then the Archbishop and 
 Bishops present shall lay their hands upon the head 
 of the elected Bishop, the Archbishop saying: Take the 
 
 C. A .—9 
 
 1 
 
130 
 
 OTTR CONTROVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 
 
 ELECTRIC 
 BATTERY 
 
 Holy Ghost, and remember that thou stir up the grace 
 of God which is in thee by imposition of hands ; for 
 God hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, 
 and love, and of soberness." 
 
 It should be observed in this connection that the 
 Edwardian Ordinal was strictly in accord with the 
 usage which universally prevailed until the twelfth cen- 
 tury, and still prevails in the Greek Communion. If, 
 therefore, Archbishop Parker's Consecration is invali- 
 dated on account of the form of words used, there was 
 no valid Ordination of a Bishop until after twelve hun- 
 dred years, when the Latins added certain novelties of 
 ceremony to the ancient usage. But as the Orders of 
 the Greeks are acknowledged, notwithstanding their 
 persistent adherence to the old form, it is difficult to 
 see how those of the English can be objected to on this 
 ground. The difficulty is increased by the fact that 
 Pope Pius IV., by his envoy, ofiered, in the reign of 
 Elizabeth, to confirm the whole English Prayer Book, 
 of course including the Ordinal, provided the Church of 
 England would be reconciled to the Pope, and acknowl- 
 edge his supremacy. The Roman Catholic, Father 
 Courayer, calls attention to the report of Lord Camden 
 to this effect, and also to Sir Edward Coke's independ- 
 ent and solemn statement of the same. 
 
 There is, then, not the slightest ground for doubt 
 that the Apostolic Succession has been duly transmitted 
 through Archbishop Parker and the Elizabethan Bish- 
 ops. But even if the transmission of valid orders 
 through Archbishop Parker were not, in so far as mat- 
 ters of history are capable of mathematical certainty, a 
 demonstrable fact, we have Archbishop Laud to fall 
 back upon. That he received Episcopal Consecration 
 by those whose Orders were valid, has not been and 
 never will be questioned. Through him, quite indepen- 
 
 Diagram showing that the Anglican Communion through Archbishop Laud 
 has the Apostolic Succession independently of Archbishop Parker. Ea^h ring 
 represents a Bishop and his interlaced succession from the Apostles, The red 
 Illustrates the succession of Archbishop Parker. It will be seen that without 
 it the present Bishops of the Anglican Communion could, nevertheless, trace 
 their succession from the Apostles through Laud, via the Bishops of Jerusalem, 
 Wales, Ireland, and Italy ; for it is evident that if the diagram were actually 
 constructed from wire rings, that an electric battery, placed at the ring repre- 
 senting the Apostles, would send a current around that including the present 
 Episcopate of the Anglican Communion ; and this it would do through the iron 
 rings representing the Jerusalem and other successions, even if the copper 
 rings representing the Parker succession were removed. 
 
tf 
 
 Pn 
 
 $11' 
 
 t0 
 
 
 Oi o 
 JJP" 
 Sail., 
 
 O 
 
 s,s 
 
 
 R"^ Si - 
 
 Bi 
 
 a, ^ 1^ ^ 
 *, '- ffi , Q 
 ^S ,- ™ o t- z 
 
 D^w_; O < O 
 
 fi. Bh O4 
 
 few **ai 
 
 MM 'M iMl 
 
 pa Q •** 
 
 5"* 
 
 
 !(, ** O S8 
 O OO 2 
 
 S H ^" 
 
 pi) 94 9^ 
 
 ■B 
 
 H 
 
 ^^ m Q£ 
 
 i4 !s^ *** r* 
 
 Hi 
 
 ^ P 3 
 
 3 **^ 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 
 2 
 o 
 
 Sfi 
 
 A* 
 
 w 
 
 
 * ?3 
 
 cl ^ 
 to ^ 
 
 g.rfg 
 
 ►J . ftt 
 
 ►*"^ Sim 3Q 
 
 ffco 
 o 
 0% 
 
 ft. -< 
 
 CO — 
 
 
 o 
 
 £Q 
 
 
 
 « Li 
 
 
 1 
 
 U SQ 
 
 .0 3 
 
 tap 
 
 
 iBJjJ 
 
 
 M* 
 
 ^ ^ >» 'I' 
 
 lis 
 
 M .aC bC' 
 
 Pi ll llli ift i n iiilll M IIII|||l!!|l p i|i p ii 
 
 00, ^ 
 
 
 ?9' 
 fSEQ 
 
 Sa 
 
 2-": S K >»« 
 
 ns e: s: a: 
 
 OS ' 
 
 «3 
 
 i . 
 
 SI §5 
 Wi5< 
 
 Ml * 
 
 
 o 
 
 Cm 
 
 23 tJ 
 
 
 < 
 
 »,< "/ C," C' 6,' 0^ 
 
 c . c ** 
 
 1^ "lis 
 
 w 2 as '-S -o 
 
 = K c S « 
 ^ '^> fiS 
 
 e c ai W't3 
 
 tic r; a. 4) Q 
 
 c; -s 5 cj S 
 
 t^ sS -"^ C 
 
 f* cs"!! S) 
 
 m\ 0^ hm 
 
 o • — 
 
 - S "'S 2 
 
 S§ . 
 
 •-^ C CO D 
 
 C O B s a> 
 
 '» 15 S^ eS 
 
 o « o . 
 
 Z*^ s ep n 
 
 ■3.2 i*!.© 
 
 .2 bc>.2 
 £ c OS «3 
 
 5 . -r .(3 
 J- ci^ « o 
 
 
 o 
 
 as >»" ^ 
 
 ^ '^ 00 " 
 
 S- 2 s- 
 
 *^0 aoOg 
 
 2«2Bfs« 
 
 08 as ^ »^ "J" 
 
 SSsSg 
 
 ANGLICAN ORDERS. 
 
 131 
 
 dently of Archbishop Parker, we have the English, the 
 Irish and the Italian succession and probably also that 
 of the Saxon. This is clearly shown from the record of 
 Laud's Consecration as Bishop of St. David's, which 
 took place in the reign of King Charles I. He had six 
 Consecrators, of whom Montaigne, Bishop of London, 
 and Felton, Bishop of Ely, had been consecrated on the 
 14th of December, 1617, by George Abbot, Archbishop 
 of Canterbury, assisted by Mark Antonio de Dominis, 
 an ex-Roman Catholic Archbishop. Laud therefore 
 received, through Montaigne and Felton, both the 
 English and Italian successions. He had also the Irish 
 through three other of his Consecrators, John Thorn- 
 borough, Bishop of Worcester, translated from Limer- 
 ick; John Howson, Bishop of Oxford, who had the 
 Irish succession through the Archbishop of Armagh; 
 Theophilus Field, Bishop of Llandaff, one of whose Con- 
 secrators was the Bishop of Derry. Nine Bishops 
 survived the rebellion, eight of whom— Juxon, Duppa, 
 Wren, Skinner, King, Warner, Roberts, and Frewen— 
 had the succession from Laud ; and from these all the 
 Bishops of the Anglican Communion derive their 
 Orders. They, therefore, have their spiritual descent 
 from Laud, and derive through him, independently of 
 Archbishop Parker, the three successions, English, Irish 
 and Italian. 
 
 An able writer calls attention to the interesting fact 
 that Roman controversialists never attack the validity 
 . of the Orders of the Protestant Episcopal Church in Ire- 
 land. ^*In fact, there can be no question about them, 
 as they are derived from Connor's Consecration of Arch- 
 bishop Curwin in Queen Mary's reign. This has a vital 
 bearing upon the question of English Orders since Irish 
 Bishops of this succession took part in the Consecra- 
 tion of Archbishop Laud. Thus, even if it could be for 
 
ff 
 
 III 
 
 1 1 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 132 
 
 OUR CONTROVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 
 
 ANGLICAN ORDERS. 
 
 133 
 
 a moment admitted that there was any doubt of the 
 validity of Parker's Consecration, it would haveto be al- 
 lowed that the defect was at least in a measure rectified. 
 A Roman Catholic Archbishop, who had connected him- 
 self with the Anglican Church and received an appoint- 
 ment to an English benefice, also took part in Laud's 
 Consecration. Absolutely certain as the Consecration 
 of Archbishop Parker is, English orders do not stand 
 or fall even with that." 
 
 IV. 
 
 LEO XUrS DECREE OF INVALIDITY. 
 
 Not a few in both the Roman and Anglican Com- 
 munions have been looking forward with considerable 
 anxiety to the result of the Pope's investigations con- 
 cerning the validity of Anglican Orders, and his recently 
 published adverse decision will of course settle the ques- 
 tion with the rank and file of Romanists. This is the 
 decree: "We pronounce and declare that Ordinations 
 carried out according to the Anglican Rite have been 
 and are absolutely null and utterly void." But there is 
 nothing in the long and intricate arguments of the 
 Bull that will change the mind of a single scholar of 
 either Communion. It throws no new light upon the sub- 
 ject, and does not raise a single objection that has not 
 been answered a thousand times. Perhaps some of my 
 readers will be glad to know that the Pope's argu- 
 ments are all anticipated and very effectually answered 
 in a little book, entitled, "What Objections Have Been 
 Made to English Orders," which is published by the 
 Society for the Propagation of Christian Knowledge. In 
 the future Anglican Orders will of course not have so 
 many outspoken champions among Roman writers, but 
 
 " A man convinced against his wiU, 
 Ig of the same opinion still." 
 
 There are many learned Roman Catholics who will 
 continue in one way or another to make felt their re- 
 sentment at the scandalous disregard of history and 
 canon law, which the Jesuits have manifested all along 
 in their propaganda against the ministry of the Apos- 
 tolic Church of the English race. 
 
 It may turn out that the "Black Pope" and his 
 followers,, by practically forcing Leo XIII. to declare 
 against Anglican Orders, have done our Communion a 
 great service. There have been a considerable number 
 of both Clergymen and Laymen whose devotion to the 
 idea of the restoration of intercommunion with the 
 Roman Church has been so great as, in a few instances, 
 to compromise their loyalty to the great Historic 
 Church of their race. These, as their leader. Lord Hal- 
 ifax, admits, will now be forced to perceive, what their 
 forbearing Bishops and brethren have seen all along, 
 that there can be no such thing as the unity upon which 
 they had set their hearts without a complete and un- 
 conditional surrender on our part of the liberty which, 
 according to the Ecclesiastical Canons, belongs to every 
 
 National Church. 
 
 The Pope's decree will be welcomed cordially by many 
 Episcopalians, not only because it will turn the faces of 
 their infatuated brethren away from Rome, but also 
 because it gives them possession of all the outposts 
 around which the battle of controversy concerning our 
 Orders has hitherto raged. Since the publication a few 
 months ago of M. Dalbus' work on the validity of An- 
 glican Orders, Ultramontanists have realized that there 
 was nothing for them to do except to extort a decree 
 from the " infallible" Pope and take refuge behind it, for 
 it appears from these publications that the controversial 
 guns of every other parapet have been silenced by our 
 relentless artillery, reinforced by many an effective shot 
 
134 
 
 OUR CONTROVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 
 
 ANGLICAN ORDERS. 
 
 135 
 
 :|l 
 
 . , 
 
 II 
 
 from the enemies' own ranks. Those who are familiar 
 with the ground upon which the battle between Angli- 
 cans and Romanists has been raging for three centuries, 
 will be greatly surprised that the Bull contains not a 
 word about the " Nag's Head " or Bishop Barlow. This 
 gives us a position which our enemies long regarded as 
 their Gibraltar. 
 
 M. Dalbus is the pen name of a distinguished French 
 Priest and scholar, the Abbe Portal. His work waa 
 honored with a commendatory letter by the learned Car- 
 dinal Bourret, and a favorable criticism by the great 
 Abbe Duchesne. I will, in part, quote Abbe Duchesne's 
 review of M. Dalbus as condensed in the Literary Digest, 
 because comparatively few words will thus suflSce to show 
 what both have to say. 
 
 Abb6 Duchesne says: "M. Dalbus begins by estab- 
 lishing the claim that Bishops Parker and Barlow, from 
 whom the whole of the Anglican Clergy derives its 
 Ordinations, were really ordained ; or, at least, that 
 there is no ground for contesting their Ordination. On 
 the other hand, the Ritual of the Anglican Church is 
 substantially similar to the Ritual of the Greek Church, 
 and even to that of the Latin Churches down to the 
 twelfth century. Conclusion : The Ministers of the An- 
 glican Church are just as rightly ordained as Gregory of 
 Tours, Hincmar of Rheims, and other Latin Clergy of 
 ancient times." 
 
 It is difficult to see how the Pope could be induced to 
 take the stand he has in the face of the admissions and 
 contentions of many of the most scholarly among his 
 own officers. He passes over what they have to say 
 with the remark that the validity of Anglican Orders has 
 been maintained by *'some few Catholics, chiefly non- 
 Enghsh,'' and attributes their mistake to *' insufficient 
 knowledge'' concerning certain documentary evidence 
 
 relating to the decisions of his predecessors. Such con- 
 temptuous references to men who might forget more than 
 Leo XIII. ever knew and still be better furnished than 
 he to pass upon the subject in question, are calculated 
 to make the blood boil. 
 
 ' As the Pope seems to congratulate himself upon the 
 alleged fact that the Catholics who admit the vahdity of 
 Anglican Orders are chiefly - non-English," we will here 
 call attention to a remarkable letter by an English Ul- 
 tramontanist. It is reprinted in full by Dr Lee in the 
 Appendix to his great work on "The Vahdity of the 
 Holy Orders of the Church of England." The following 
 is a short extract: "Now, my own conviction has al- 
 ways been, as you are aware, that the probability in 
 favor of English Orders, as gathered from the direct evi- 
 dence amounts to moral certainty, which is the highest 
 kind of certainty attainable in such questions. I have, 
 therefore, myself, no more doubt of their validity than I 
 have of the validity of the Orders of the Catholic Church 
 or of the Greeks. The Jesuit Missionaries of Elizabeth s 
 reio-n, and those who have followed in their footsteps 
 since,' thought it necessary for Catholic interests to strain 
 every nerve to disprove the Anglican Succession. Hence, 
 first the scandalous invention of the Nag's Head Fable. 
 When that was too much blown upon for any respectable 
 writer to be able to use it, the mare's nest about Bar- 
 low's Consecration was thrust to the front, though even 
 if his Consecration could have been disproved it would 
 have had no real bearing on Parker's, for of the Episco- 
 pal Orders of his three other Consecrators there can be 
 no doubt. When that broke down, the Doctrine of In- 
 tention was attempted to be worked in a way which, 
 if it proved anything, would shake the validity of 
 every Sacrament in Christendom. The whole history 
 of the controversy about Anglican Orders, so far from 
 
1 ! 
 
 1S3 
 
 OUR CONTROVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 
 
 ANGLICAN ORDERS. 
 
 187 
 
 tending to shake their validity, very strongly con- 
 firms it.'' 
 
 Many of the brightest lights of the Eoman Commun- 
 ion have held and are holdingthese views. The Rev. M. 
 R. Butler, in his "Rome's Tribute to Anglican Orders," 
 has compiled many pages of extracts from the writings 
 of more than thirty of the most eminent Roman Catholic 
 authors, who admit the validity of our ministry, and in 
 some cases even contend for it. Among those who have 
 done this are such celebrated names as Dr. Nicholas 
 Sanders, Cardinal Archbishop of Odescalchi, Monseig- 
 neur De Dominis, Archbishop of Spalatro, and Primate 
 of Dalmatia and Croatia ; Monseigneur Jacques Benigne 
 Bossuet, the renowned Bishop of Meaux ; Monseigneur 
 Harlay, Archbishop of Paris; St. Alfonso M. Liguori, 
 Bishop of Agatha, and founder of the congregation 
 of the Most Holy Redeemer, and the celebrated Galilean 
 divine, Le Courayer, who wrote a dissertation in support 
 of Anglican Orders and afterwards a defense of it, which 
 together contain perhaps the most thorough refutation 
 of Roman attacks which has ever been made. 
 
 In the verdicts rendered in the case of Dr. Stephen 
 Gough, we have the deliberate and semi-oflicial pro- 
 nouncement of the Sorbonne Faculty, upon two occa- 
 sions, in favor of Anglican Orders. Dr. Gough, before 
 entering the Church of Rome, had been one of the Chap- 
 lains of Charles I. His ministrations as a Roman Priest 
 were in the Diocese of Paris. He insisted that the Or- 
 dination which he had received at the hands of an Eng- 
 lish Bishop was valid, and the Archbishop of Paris hold- 
 ing the same view, gave him a cure without reordination. 
 The most learned Faculty of the celebrated Theological 
 Seminary of the Sorbonne was, however, charged with 
 the thorough investigation of the whole subject of An- 
 glican Orders. After spending several months in research 
 
 and conference they pronounced them unquestionably 
 valid But after a time the misgivings of some influen- 
 tial Ultramontanists induced the Archbishop to re-com- 
 mit the case to a choice number of the great Sorbonne 
 Doctors. These, after sifting again all the evidence, 
 confirmed the verdict of the preceding committee, and 
 framed a report which had the efi^ect of silencing all op- 
 position to Dr. Gough. This testimony to the vahdity 
 of Eno-lish Orders is exceptionally valuable, because it 
 comes^^from what, during several centuries, was "the 
 most renowned and competent theological school in 
 Latin Christendom." 
 
 The "Life of Archbishop Tait" contains an account 
 of a very important communication, received by the 
 late Bishop of Lincoln, Dr. Wordsworth, from some of 
 the Bishops who were attending the Vatican Council, 
 A D 1870 in which it was signified that the opposition 
 to the Dogma of Papal Infallibility would be exceedingly 
 erateful for the moral support of the Anglican Episco- 
 pate Thus the validity of our Orders was acknowledged 
 by the Vatican minority, which, so far as learning is 
 concerned, was the flower of the Roman hierarchy. 
 
 Moreover, by declaring Anglican Orders to be 
 totally invalid Leo XHL reverses the decision of Popes 
 Julius HL, Paul IV., Pius IV. and Urban VHL, who 
 admitted their validity. The evidence of this state- 
 ment will be found excellently summarized and well 
 supported by quotations from and references to origi- 
 nal authorities in the Rev. Mr. Butler's pamphlet re- 
 ferred to above. Our space will admit of little more 
 than a bare statement of the facts. , ^^ , . 
 
 Pope Julius III. addressed a brief to Cardinal Pole m 
 the year 1554, desiring him to absolve and reconcile 
 the Bishops and Priests made in Edward VI.'s time, 
 but not directing him to reordain them. Leo XIII. 
 
IBS 
 
 OUR CONTROVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 
 
 ANGLICAN ORDERS. 
 
 139 
 
 
 tries hard to get rid of this embarrassing fact by 
 maintaining that Julius III. at the restoration of the 
 usurped Papal power in England on the accession of 
 Queen Mary reinstated only the Bishops and Clergy who 
 had been ordained by the Roman Ordinal. But the 
 instructions to Cardinal Pole, the Apostolic Legate to 
 England, nowhere discriminate against those who had 
 received the Edwardian Ordination. In order to make 
 it appear to the contrary, the Pope and his advisers 
 conveniently lose sight of the fact that in those days it 
 was not uncommon for Laymen to nominally hold 
 • vacant benefices, which were sometimes of considerable 
 duration. The Bull, so far as it relates to this subject, 
 is a restatement of the argument of Canon Moyes, 
 " who, finding a man described in Mail's reign as never 
 ordained or 'no minister' calmly puts him down 
 among those whose Orders were disallowed because 
 conferred by the Edwardian form. Canon Moyes' logic 
 is of the most refreshing type, since to him ' ordained ' 
 by the Edwardian form is equivalent to *not ordained 
 at all.' Therefore, also, * not ordained at all ' is equiva- 
 lent to * ordained by the Edwardian Form.' " 
 
 Though during Mary's reign many of the Edwardian 
 Clergy were reconciled to the Pope by his representa- 
 tives and satisfactorily reestablished in their benefices, 
 there is no instance of the reordination of a single 
 Bishop, Priest or Deacon. Bishop Bonner, who was 
 high in favor at Rome, on the 14th of July, 1554, 
 restored his beloved colleague Scory ; the sole ground 
 alleged for the need of such restoration to his Episcopal 
 office being his marriage; and there is no question 
 that Scory was consecrated on the 10th of August, 
 1551, with the Revised Ordinal. 
 
 Pope Paul IV., A. D. 1555-59, "established" and 
 " confirmed " the action of Julius III. 
 
 Pope Pius IV., A. D. 1559-65, invited the English 
 Prelates, as Bishops, to join in the deliberations of the 
 Council of Trent. No Bishops were sent from England 
 and the Council expressed amazement that the English 
 Bishops did not even send a letter "to excuse thej 
 absence when summoned by the Vicegerent of Chnst, 
 for the settlement of religion." ,, , . „ a ^ 
 
 Pope Urban VIII., a. d. 1623^, twice offered a 
 Cardinal's hat to the Anglican Primate, Archbishop 
 Laud, without questioning his Orders. 
 
 An effort to disparage Anglican Orders was made at 
 the Council of Trent, not, however, upon the ground 
 that they were defective, but that our Episcopate was 
 not in subjection to the Roman Pontiff. One of the mem- 
 bers maintained without contradiction that it was lor 
 "this one reason and no other" that the Roman 
 Church argued against the Bishops of England, for 
 thev prove that they have been called, elected, conse- 
 crated and given mission." The Popes regard this 
 Council as Ecumenical, thus giving it their highest 
 
 sanction. ^ , - 
 
 The Popes did not question our Orders for many 
 years after we had cast off every semblance of alle- 
 giance to them. Once and again they signified a 
 wilHngness to restore us to Communion without re- 
 Baptism, Confirmation or Ordination, providing only 
 that we should return to the partial subjugation of the 
 Dark Ages. And even at this late date there is not the 
 least doubt in the minds of the well instructed that, 
 notwithstanding his recent decree, "His Holiness" 
 would repeat the overtures, looking to the wholesale 
 restoration made by his predecessors, if there were the 
 slightest chance of their acceptance. 
 
 We submit that in view of the above mentioned 
 acknowledgments of his predecessors the dogmatic 
 
140 
 
 OUR CONTROVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 
 
 ANGLICAN ORDERS. 
 
 141 
 
 iiiil 
 
 decree of the present Bishop of Rome tells more against 
 the doctrine of infallibility^ than against Anglican Ordi- 
 nations. 
 
 The reasons now given by Leo XIII. for declaring 
 Anglican Orders to be invalid are only two: (1) the 
 defectiveness of the Edwardian Ordinal, and (2) the 
 want of the requisite Intention. 
 
 1. We have already had occasion to refer at some 
 length to the first of these objections, but we must in 
 this connection quote a few sentences from what Abb^ 
 Duchesne, the most celebrated liturgiologist of the 
 Roman Communion, has to say about it. " The objec- 
 tion drawn from the modifications in the Rituals is no 
 more admissible than the other. The objection con- 
 cerns the Ordination of Priests. The schoolmen laid 
 down the rule that, for this form of Orders, the essen- 
 tial part of the Rite consists in the delivery of the 
 sacred vessels, and in the words which the Bishop pro- 
 nounces in giving them. At present, this system is 
 abandoned ; it is too clear that, to maintain it, all the 
 Greek and Oriental Ordinations, and even those of the 
 Latin Church before the eleventh or twelfth century, 
 would have to be considered null." 
 
 To this we must add the clear statement of a scholarl v 
 writer in the English Church Times : " Words which the 
 Romans say are essential to a valid Ordination of a 
 Priest were not in the Ordinal of the Western Church till 
 the tenth century. Before that period the words of ' a 
 commission to Consecrate the Holy Eucharist ' were never 
 given. Nor was the form ' for conveying the power of 
 absolution ' given till a later time. That is completely 
 modern. The actual words, ' Receive ye the Holy Ghost : 
 Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them ; 
 and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained,' are 
 first found in a book belonging to the Cathedral of 
 
 Mayence, of the thirteenth century. They are not m the 
 early English manuscripts of Egbert, or Dunstan or the 
 Winchester Use. They are not in any of the foreign 
 Ordinals printed by Martene before the twelfth century 
 Thev are not in the old Sacramentaries of St. Gregory 
 or Gelasius. Such being the case, and as the Roman 
 Bishops and Priests receive their Orders through St 
 Greaory, according to their present contention that 
 the om'ission of this form of words invalidates a pro- 
 fessed Ordination, they should, to be consistent, con- 
 clude that their own Orders are null and void We, ot 
 the purer branch of the Catholic Church, believe our 
 Orders to be valid because of our true and unbroken 
 succession from the Apostles, and because the Ritual 
 used at the time of our Ordination was in accordance 
 with the ancient use of the Church before the Medieval 
 
 corruptions set in." ,. j.. j. 
 
 2 We may also answer the Pope's objection to 
 Aneiican Orders, so far as it is based upon lack of In- 
 tention, by a quotation from the profoundly learned 
 Abbfe Duchesne: "Intention must be presumed till the 
 contrary is proved. Baptism may be validly conferred 
 by a ijerson who knows only that it is a sacred rite by 
 which one becomes Christian. In the same way, the Angli- 
 can Ordinations have always been performed by persons 
 who wished to make Bishops or Priests, and so on. We 
 ought not to ask more." «mr. t> 
 
 As one of the critics of the Bull observes: "ThePope 
 has not the hardihood to say that if he used the Angli- 
 can Ordinal it would not make a Priest or a Bishop, and 
 he hardly could considering how many of his predeces- 
 sors in primitive times were ordained and consecrated 
 by forms equally elastic and indefinite, but he does 
 sav that the excision of everything in the Ordinal 
 referring to sacrifice clearly shows that those who 
 
mm CONTROVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 
 
 Cdffipiled and first used it had no * intention of making a 
 sacrificing Priest.' The question, then, is one of Inten- 
 tion, and here the Pope gives away his case, for he ad- 
 mits that the Intention of the compilers of the Ordinal, 
 as expressed by themselves, was to return to primitive 
 usage ; his words are, * under a protest of returning to 
 the primitive form ; ' the Intention of the Ordinal, there- 
 fore, was to make Priests of the primitive type, and if 
 the Intention was good, the Pope does not venture to 
 deny that the Orders are valid." 
 
 In times gone by when Denominationalists taunted 
 Episcopalians with the fact that the Church of Rome 
 virtually denied Anglican Orders by reordaining Episco- 
 pal Clergymen who go over to her, we could retort that 
 nevertheless our Ordinations had at various times been 
 regarded as valid, and that as a whole they never have 
 been officially pronounced invalid. We shall now be 
 reminded that so far as Rome is concerned, we stand on 
 the same footing with the other Protestant bodies. To 
 this we will reply that there is no adequately supported 
 Btatement in the Pope's pronunciamento which goes to 
 show that the status of our Bishops, Priests and Dea- 
 cons is not historically and Canonically what we have 
 hitherto held it to be. Our arguments will still be strong 
 enough to compel many of the leading ministers of the 
 various Denominations to transfer their allegiance to the 
 Catholic Church of the English speaking race. Ever since 
 Colonial times, when President Cutler of Yale College, 
 with several of the Professors, did this, the procession 
 has been continuous, and there is no probability that it 
 will be interrupted. On the contrary, the statistics show 
 that the number of Denominational ministers who make 
 application for Holy Orders in the Church is increasing 
 
 ANGLICAN ORDERS. 
 
 148 
 
 steadily. I know the Bishop of Ohio almost alwayshas 
 from one to four of such on his list of candidates, and he 
 might have more if he could accept all who offer them- 
 selves. When it is remembered that we have nearly three 
 hundred Bishops in the Anglican Communion, and that 
 most of them have more or less of the same experience, 
 the magnitude of the reaction towards the Mother 
 Church may be imagined. Many of the ministers who 
 have their faces turned homeward are far above the 
 average, and not a few of them rank among the very 
 first in their respective Denominations. 
 
 The decree of invalidity, though coming as it does 
 from the infallible successor of St. Peter, will not go very 
 far in the minds of most Protestants towards counter- 
 acting the impartial and weighty testimony of such men 
 as Dr. DoUinger. It will be generally recognized that 
 the question respecting Anglican Orders is one to be 
 settled by the facts of history, not by intuition or in- 
 spiration. This being the case, Dollinger's utterance 
 will command the respect due to one who speaks or 
 writes with the authority of an expert, and consequently 
 what he says is much more likely to influence intelligent, 
 sensible people than the decree of the good and amiable 
 Italian Ecclesiastic, who enjoys no great reputation for 
 learning, and owes what little weight it will have to his 
 exalted position. At the *' Reunion Conference " held at 
 Bonn in A.D. 1874, Dr. Dollinger, who is generally 
 ranked as the first theologian and Ecclesiastical histo- 
 rian that the nineteenth century has produced, said : 
 
 " The solution of the question depends solely on an 
 examination of historical evidence, and I must give it, 
 as a result of my investigations, that I have no manner 
 of doubt as to the validity of the Episcopal Succession 
 in the English Church. The Ordinations of the English 
 Bishops since the Reformation were first assailed by a 
 
 i 
 
liii'^; 
 
 144 
 
 ©UR CONTROVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 
 
 ANGLICAN ORDERS. 
 
 145 
 
 It I 
 
 BOW exploded story, the Nag's Head Fable, and then 
 by sundry objections, some of which rested on utterly 
 unfounded suppositions, while others were quite as appli- 
 cable, or more so, if any importance were to be attached 
 to them, to the Ordinations of Roman Catholic Bishops 
 and Priests. Circumstances occurred in the Western 
 Church, before the Reformation, calculated to raise far 
 more serious doubts as to the unbroken succession and 
 the validity of many Ordinations than anything which 
 has been alleged against English Orders." 
 
 As Anglicans can prove that their Bishops are his- 
 torically and Canonically in unbroken succession from 
 the Apostles, the Pope's pronunciamento does not dis- 
 turb us in the least. All that we regret is that it will 
 widen and deepen the gulf between Rome and the rest of 
 Catholic Christendom. There now seems to be no pos- 
 sibility of the reunion of Greeks and Anglicans with 
 Italians for a long time to come. But many are taking 
 comfort in the consideration that what the cause of 
 unity loses in this direction will be compensated for by 
 the accelerated drawing together of the rest of the 
 Christian world. There is much more ground than ever 
 for the hope that the restoration of intercommunion 
 between Greek and Anglican Catholics will take place 
 within the next generation. The Greeks will not fail to 
 observe, and the observation will produce righteous in- 
 dignation, that the Pope of Rome is killing two birds 
 with one stone. For, if our Orders are invalid because 
 of the reasons which he gives, theirs are the same, and 
 if there is anything in the proverbial representation that 
 "misery loves company," the decree will tend to bring 
 the great Catholic and Apostolic Communions which it 
 affects together. Henceforth, either Constantinople or 
 Canterbury— more probably the latter, for she is the 
 centre of the race and Church that are rapidly becoming 
 
 dominant— will supplant Rome, which, by the indiscre- 
 tion of the present incumbent of the reputed Chair of St. 
 Peter, has lost the golden opportunity of becoming the 
 reconciler of divided Christendom. 
 
 The reconciliation and bringing back to the Catholic 
 fold of our Denominational brethren probably will take 
 much longer than the reunion of Anglicans and Greeks, 
 but the Pope's action will hasten this as well, and, we 
 believe, make its accomplishment for the most part pos- 
 sible within the coming century. Whenever in the prov- 
 idence of God that time comes, the Italian Church will be 
 compelled to give up its preposterous claims and to 
 form one division of the great reunited Catholic army 
 which will then march on to the rapid conquest of the 
 world for Christ. 
 
 Although the limits to which I have confined myself 
 will not admit of adding to or expanding the foregoing 
 arguments, it is hoped that enough has been said to 
 leave no room for doubt that if a General Council could 
 be assembled, and be asked to decide whether or not 
 Anglican Orders are valid, the vote would be overwhelm- 
 ingly in the affirmative. We should be morally cer- 
 tain of the unanimous vote of every branch of Catholic 
 Christendom,* except the Roman, and there w ould be 
 many a representative of that Communion, prob- 
 ably the majority, certainly the choicest of them, who 
 would cast their ballot for us. 
 
 In conclusion let me say, by way of a general answer 
 to any quibbles which, for the want of space, have neces- 
 sarily failed to receive attention heie, that Romanists 
 urge no objection against the Anglican Ministry and 
 Communion, which will not be found, upon examiua- 
 
 * See Appendix XXVII. 
 C. A.— 10 
 
146 OUR CONTBOVEKSY WITH KOMANISTS. 
 
 men bave an Jtb.ng to to ta ^ ^^^^^^ ^^ 
 
 '''TbroSar;trr=7ovt.^,- tb. 
 
 me on^iucii i^ rinints of our controversy 
 
 tnkinff UP of several other points oi oui ^ 
 
 Si lolni..., ,m™,.v: !'"''':J,4° *t:'„"S:;''S- 
 
 , ,1 ^^ooWi+a- nr« vers in an unknown tui%uc J 
 
 and other saints , prd^ t?i » 111 i.„„4-;ofioTi npii- 
 
 r ^ +V.O tnn^t cursorv examination ot tiie nay^i 
 Ck whi ri aTessible to all, the Deno.n.inatjona 
 I7tly see that none of these Bo-an eo„-upt.ons 
 
 e.. be fastened -P-«:, "^Z^^^^. th^t ^. 
 has been said to convince any tu ^ * , ^ ||,, 
 Anglican an.l Ron.an ^omn.n..on.^^^^^^^^ 
 and to show that we are none the less Latno 
 
 rr.rrrr.tr;'"^'a* 'rn,be t ap^a 
 
 n'^f oonfessin- Christ by identification with some 
 tkl of H Catholic and Apostolic Church, he can 
 
 Se no mistake if he allow W™-»y«,^£i fo , 
 +i.»r,rppk and Ann'lican conception of the uuircn, loi, 
 ut that of eVtier Denominationalism or Romanism, 
 r^n ac^ld th Holy Scripture, when interpreted m 
 the iShtonh; history of the earliest and purest Chns- 
 
 tian ages. 
 
 The Church for Americans. 
 
 LECTURE III. 
 
 Our Controversy With Deno/^inationalists. 
 
 I. Christ Founded a Visible Church. 
 
 II. Perpetuated by Successors of the Apostles. 
 
 III. The Appointed Ark of Salvation. 
 
 IV. The Depository of Sacramental Grace. 
 V. Objections. 
 
 (147) 
 
AUTHORITIES. 
 
 CoiT, Puritanism. 
 
 CoTTERiLL, Bp., Gcnesis of the ChurcB. 
 
 CoxE. Bp, ApoUos, or the Way of God. 
 
 Eagar, The Christian Ministry in the New Testament. 
 
 Gore, Canon, The Church and the Ministry 
 
 Hammond, What Does the Bible Say About the Church ? 
 
 Hammond, What is Christ's Church ? . , ^^ . ^. ..^ 
 
 Sammond', English Nonconformity and Christ s Chnstian.ty. 
 
 Hammond, The Christian Church: What Is it/ 
 
 Ingram, England and Rome. 
 
 Marshall, Notes on the Catholic l^piscopate. 
 
 Morse, Apostolical Succession. 
 
 Mountfield, The Church and Puritans. 
 
 Neal, Puritans. (2 Vols.) 
 
 Se.bury, Lectures on Haddon's Apostolical Succession. 
 
 SeIbury, Introduction to the Study of Ecclesiastical Polity. 
 
 Shields, The Historic Episcopate. 
 
 W^EST, The Kingdom of Heaven upon Earth. 
 
 PAMPHLETS. 
 
 McIlvaine, Bp., The Origin and Design 6f the Christian Ministry. 
 Thompson, Bp., Concerning the Kingdom of God 
 Thompson, Bp., The Protestant Episcopal Qhurch and Her Rela- 
 tion to Other Bodies. 
 
 4f 
 
 MISCELLANEOUS. 
 
 Pittas Street Chapel Lectures. 
 
 Library of the FATHERS-Oxford Edition. 
 
 The Church Defense Institution Handy Volume. 
 
 The Doctrine of the Apostolic Succession. 
 
 Tracts for the TiMES-Apostolic Succession. 
 
 ■!l 
 
 Our Controversy with Denomina- 
 
 tionalists. 
 
 HAVING grown up in one of the many communities 
 of Ohio in which the Episcopal Church is not 
 represented, I well remember the astonishment 
 produced in my mind by the first tractates concern- 
 ing the Church which fell into my hands. They were 
 Bishop Randall's *'Why I Am a Churchman" and 
 Bishop Thompson's " First Principles." The idea that\ 
 some Churches are Divine Institutions, and others only 
 human societies was to me altogether new and prepos- 
 terous ; so, also, was the doctrine that the Gospel rehgion 
 and salvation are inseparably connected with the his- 
 toric Church of Christ. All I had previously heard or 
 read led me to believe that Christianity was essentially 
 doctrinal and spiritual, and only incidentally institii- 
 tional. To me religion was a faith, an experience, a life 
 with which the Church and the Sacraments had noth- 
 ing to do, except in so far as they contributed to keep 
 up enthusiasm and to prevent from backsUding. 
 This is the view of nine-tenths of the people in the 
 various Denominations. Hence they cannot under- 
 stand the position of Churchmen, and think that all 
 that we have to say about the Church and her three- 
 fold ministry coming from the days of the Apostles, is 
 
 so much trifling. 
 
 An editorial in a recent number of a widely circu- 
 lated religious paper, speaking of the now famous essay 
 
 - (149) 
 
 ■p 
 
 / 
 
150 
 
 OUR CONTROVERSY WITH 
 
 \ 
 
 I 
 
 i!' 
 
 
 V. 
 
 on "The Historic Episcopate," accuses its distfnguished 
 Presbyterian author, Professor Shields, of surrender- 
 ing *' the entire Protestant position in the declaration 
 that the institutions of Christianity, its ministry and 
 Sacraments, are revealed in the Sciiptures no less than 
 its doctrines." " No Protestant," warmly contends the 
 gifted editor, "if he is Protestant on principle, and un- 
 derstands his Protestant principles, will accept an His- 
 toric Episcopate as essential to the Church of Christ; 
 for he holds that the only thing essential to that Church 
 is loyalty to Christ, who is the living and ever-present 
 Head, and therefore needs no Vicar or series of Vicars; 
 and he holds that the true bond of Church Unity is 
 Spiritual and not Ecclesiastical." He then goes on to 
 say in almost so many words that Christ did not, as 
 Episcopalians would have non-Episcopalians believe, 
 organize an Ecclesiastical society, founding it upon the 
 twelve Apostles who had authority to appoint their 
 successors, a society that he intended should be the 
 depository of His special grace and the revelation of 
 His truth. A forcible writer in another popular reli- 
 gious paper says: "Denomi nationalists think that 
 1 Christianity is not concerned with Primacies and Apos- 
 ^ tolic successions, that Christianity is a matter of the 
 heart and loyalty to Jesus Christ and love to God and 
 man ; and that all the machinery that goes with the 
 Church is but a greater or lesser convenience or burden. 
 They are satisfied with the Kingdom of God, which is 
 righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost." 
 
 "^In order to secure further reading from those who 
 thus flatly deny the premises upon which the chief ar- 
 guments of the remainder of the book are based, it is 
 ^necessary to turn aside at this point for the purpose of 
 ^proving four propositions, namely: (1) Christ founded 
 a visible organic society. (2) This society has been 
 
 DENOMINATIONALISTS. 
 
 151 
 
 perpetuated through duly constituted successors of the 
 Apostles. (3) This Apostolic Church is the appointed 
 ark of Gospel salvation, and only by entering it can a 
 l)erson place himself in assured covenant relationship 
 with God. (4) This Church is also the sole depository 
 of Sacramental grace. 
 
 i 
 
 But, l)ef()re entering upon the task of establishing 
 these propositions, a preliminary remark is necessary in 
 explanation of the fact that our arguments to a consid- 
 erable extent, will be based upon inferences drawn from 
 the Scriptures and Patristic writings rather than upon 
 quotations that, in so many words, declare the truth for 
 which we contend. This is because the Church had ex- 
 isted for a number of years before the earliest of these 
 productions were penned. "The Bible," says an author, 
 quoted by the Bishop of Ohio, "was not put together 
 till the Council of Carthage, a. d. 397. When the 
 Nicene Creed was formulated, Scripture was never even 
 appealed to. The three hundred and eighteen Bish- 
 ops were asked singly concerning each article of the 
 Apostles' Creed, what its meaning was, according to 
 the tradition handed down in his Church. Seventy 
 years afterward it was found that every particular 
 of the Doctrine was registered somewhere or another 
 in the written Code, and thus it became an axiom 
 that whatever claimed to be an article of belief, must 
 also be tested and proved by the written word." 
 So, also, Bishop Thompson: "The Church was al- 
 ready organized, and at her appointed work within 
 a year after the Ascension. Men were admitted into 
 her, and trained and taught within her, heard the 
 Gospel, 'The whole counsel of God,' believed it. and 
 lived and died by it, before the first line of the New 
 
\M 
 
 it)<* 
 
 OWE CONTROVERSY WITH 
 
 DENOMI NATIONALISTS. 
 
 153 
 
 ii 
 
 FIK 
 1 1! 
 
 Testament was penned. We cannot expect, therefore, 
 to find in the New Testament a formally drawn up 
 constitution of the Church. The book was not first 
 written, and the Church organized according to a plan 
 laid down on paper beforehand ; but the Church was 
 first organized, and then the book was written be- 
 cause the Church needed it— required a written record 
 of the Gospel she was teaching. The Church produced 
 the New Testament, and not the New Testament 
 the Church." 
 
 And when, at length, the wntings of the Apostles and 
 Fathers began to come forth, they were addressed to 
 cono-renations or to individuals, who w^ere already 
 familiar with the organization instituted by Christ. 
 Ifc was, therefore, in no case the object of the author of 
 these writings to announce the existence of the Church, 
 or to set forth and explain its constitution. The Gos- 
 pel writers give fragmentary and supplementary ac- 
 counts of our Lord's life and works for the purpose of 
 persuading the reader to accept Christ as the promised 
 Messiah, or of building up believers in faith and right- 
 eousness. The Epistles are, for the most part, con- 
 cerned with the correction of irregularities in life and 
 doctrinal errors. Even the Acts of the Apostles, though 
 professedly historical in character, throw only an in- 
 direct light upon the questions which we are to discuss. 
 What, in this respect, is true of the New Testament 
 is equally true of the Fathers. They have nothing to 
 say directly on the various points of controversy be- 
 tween the Romanists or the Denominationalists and 
 ourselves, for the simple reason that the Romanism 
 and Denomination alism against which Catholic Chris- 
 tians of both the Greek and Anglican Communions pro- 
 test, had respectively no existence, for a thoi|§§nd and 
 fifteen hundred years. 
 
 As the Church antedates the Sacred and Patristic 
 writings, and as they were addressed to those who had 
 her constantly before their eyes, it is not to be expected 
 that they wilf contain a systematic treatise concerning 
 Ecclesiastical polity and other matters about which 
 there was little, if any, dispute, until many centuries 
 later. Under the circumstances we cannot reasonably 
 expect to find much beyond incidental remarks and 
 hints, which, taken in connection with the Christian in- 
 stitution and faith that have come down to us from the 
 earliest times, will enable us to determine, with more or 
 less certainty, what were the original organization and 
 doctrines. The messages of our Presidents do not con- 
 tain a history of our origin as a nation, nor do they ex- 
 plain our form of government. Nevertheless, if all our 
 histories were to be lost, these documents, if preserved, 
 would enable our descendants to determine whether or 
 not they had departed from the constitution by which 
 wo have been governed since the time of Washington. 
 If a thousand years hence it should be pretended by 
 some that up to the year 1896 our form of government 
 was an absolute monarchy, the assumption would be 
 refuted by innumerable quotations from the Presiden- 
 tial messages. The same would be true if, on the other 
 hand, any should maintain that, until our day, there 
 were forty-nine independent nations in the United 
 
 States. 
 
 Now what it is desired that the reader shall clearly 
 perceive is this— though the argument by w^hich it 
 would be shown that the America of the nineteenth cen- 
 tury was one nation under a Democratic form of gov- 
 ernment, would be chiefly inferential, it would not- 
 withstanding be strong enough to convince the great 
 majority of our descendants of, say, the thirtieth cen- 
 tury. No doubt the monarchists on the one hand and 
 
n 
 
 184 00E CONTROVERSY WITH DENOMINATIONALISTS. 
 
 the nwlthmtiomiUsts on the other, would quote in their 
 support many isolated passages from the messages, but 
 the advocates of Democracy and Unity would insist 
 that such quotations must be interpreted in harmony 
 with the general drift of the utterances of the Presidents 
 and with the fact that the government which had come 
 down to them was unified and representative, and that 
 this inestimable inheritance still had the cordial sup- 
 port of nine out of every ten of all the millions of Amer- 
 ican citizens. 
 
 The arguments of Anglican and Greek Christians, so 
 far as they are based upon the New Testament and 
 Patristic writings, are confessedly, to a great extent, 
 inferential. We infer that the extremes of Romanism 
 and Denominationalism are wrong, because in the 
 literary remains of the Apostolic age and first centuries, 
 there is no trace either of the Papacy or of non-Epis- 
 copal sectarianism, while what light is indirectly 
 thrown upon the subject reveals the truth of our con- 
 ception of the Church. Nor does the doctrine concern- 
 ing the Church for which we contend, stand alone iu 
 being largely supported by inferences drawn from the 
 Bible rather than by clear,positive statements. On the 
 contrary some of the chief doctrines set forth in the 
 Creeds and Confessions of Faith are inferred from, rather 
 than expressly taught by, the Scriptures. This, for ex- 
 ample, is true even of the fundamental doctrine of the 
 Trinity. Indeed it would seem to be a characteristic of 
 God's revelation, whether through His works or in His 
 Word, that only so much is made manifest as will en- 
 able the earnest student to arrive at something like 
 Batisfactory conclusions concerning the rest. Both the 
 scientist aiid the theologian must ascend the ladder of 
 inferences, the one to learn the mysteries of creation, 
 and the other those of redem ption . Of course the former 
 
 CHRIST FOUNDED A VISIBLE CHURCH. 
 
 155 
 
 must make sure that the lower end of the ladder stands 
 upon some well-ascertained law of nature, and the 
 latter that it is planted upon the sure Word of God, for 
 only so will the upper end lean securely against the 
 
 truth. 
 
 But we by no means rest our case wholly upon 
 Biblical and Patristic inferences. W^e also appeal to 
 liistory which we think bears testimony for us and 
 against tliem. Ilowfar we are right in this has already 
 appeared so far as Romanism is concerned. Unless we 
 are greatly mistaken, it will be seen as we proceed that 
 Denominationalism is equally unable to endure the 
 historical test. 
 
 I. 
 
 CHRIST FOUNDED A VISIBLE CHURCH. 
 
 NO attentive reader of the Holy Scriptures, whether 
 Episcopahan or non-Episcopalian, denies that 
 the.^' are filled with prophecies of, and references 
 to something which is variously denominated "the 
 Ki^igdom," 'Hhe Church," ''the Body," and "the Bride 
 of Christ." Moreover, there is no difierence of opinion 
 touching the fact that Christ would have all men to be 
 His Disciples, and followers of His precepts and ex- 
 ample; and that those who do His will are so united to 
 Him, and stand in such close relationship to each other 
 that they constitute a separate and distinct family, in 
 the world, but not of it. All alike hold that there is a 
 vast invisible society, composed of true behevers and 
 the pure in heart, the number of which no man, but 
 God only, can tell. But though all who confess the 
 name of Christ go together thus far in the interpreta- 
 tion of the phrases just mentioned, the Denominational 
 minority separate from the Catholic majority, when the 
 

 156 OUR CONTROVERSY WITH DENOMINATIONALISTS. 
 
 latter contend that the expressions have primary, if not 
 sole, reference to a divinely constituted visible organi- 
 zation, the constituency of which may be determined as 
 certainly as that of the United States or of any civilized 
 commonwealth. 
 
 Now which of these views is right? Of all religious 
 questions this is at the present time the one of the most 
 world-wide and intense interest, for upon its answer de- 
 pends more than upon anything else the reunion of 
 English-speaking Christians. As the writer of one of 
 the editorials quoted above says: ^'The consumma- 
 tion of Church Unity must wait until Protestant [non- 
 Episcopalian] Christians are convinced that Christ insti- 
 tuted an Ecclesiastical society into which every follower 
 of His should enter." The answer to the question. 
 Did our Lord found such a society? like all the points of 
 dispute between Denominationalists and Episcopalians, 
 must, of course, be determined by a study of the Scrip- 
 tures in the light of the Primitive Fathers and Eccle- 
 siastical History. I say Scripture in the light of the 
 Fathers and history, because, though the texts which 
 can be quoted in support of the institutional concep- 
 tion of Christianity, are as numerous and conclusive as 
 those that might be cited in proof of almost any of the 
 fundamental articles of the Christian Faith, yet if we 
 confined ourselves to them and to dogmatizing about 
 them, the argument would be comparatively weak and 
 unsatisfactory, because large parts of the Sacred Record 
 which more or less clearly favor our conclusion, would 
 not be taken intp the account. 
 
 Starting then with the Scriptures as a basis, let us 
 proceed to determine whether or not the mission of 
 Christ, as non-Episcopalians claim, simply was the pro- 
 
 CHRIST FOUNDED A VISIBLE CHURCH. 
 
 157 
 
 mulgation of a system of philosophy and doctrine, 
 which, at the Ascension being left to itself, or to such 
 voluntary associations as His Disciples might see fit to 
 form, should leaven and regenerate the human race; or 
 whether, as is claimed by Episcopalians, He made pro- 
 vision through a visible organic society for the pres- 
 ervation and universal dissemination of the knowledge 
 of His revelation, precepts, and example, and for the 
 conveyance of His enabling grace to behevers, who, 
 through the instrumentality of the Sacraments, are by 
 the Holy Ghost joined to Him in living union as the 
 husbandman unites the graft to the tree or vine. 
 
 That the society instituted by Christ was a visible 
 organization rather than a school of philosophy, may 
 be inferred from the prophecies of the Old Testament 
 relating to the Messiah. According to them one of the 
 chief reasons for His coming was to restore the throne 
 of David and to establish an everlasting kingdom. 
 Now the Davidic Kingdom w as an organized visible in- 
 stitution. Indeed, in the nature of things, there could 
 be no such thing as an unorganized kingdom, or an or- 
 ganized kingdom which would be invisible. There can 
 be no question that the Messianic prophecies lend their 
 support to the Episcopalian rather than to the De- 
 nominational conception of the Christian society. The 
 same is true of the names by which this society is re- 
 ferred to in the New Testament Scriptures, " the Kingdom 
 of God," ** the Church of Christ," "the Body of Christ," 
 ** the Bride of Christ." These phrases all refer to a visible 
 organism between which and an undefined school of phi- 
 losophy there is no possible correspondence. Moreover, 
 in the parabolic teaching of our Lord and the Apostles 
 this society is compared to many things which are 
 visible, and more or less highly organized. It is like *'a 
 field," "a vineyard," ''a mustard tree," "a net," 
 
7 
 
 ,4 
 
 158 
 
 OUK CONTROVERSY WITH DEXOMINATIONA LISTS. 
 
 CHRIST FOUNDED A VISIBLE CHURCH. 
 
 159 
 
 "leaven," *'a city set on a hill," "the human body," "a 
 household," "a sheepfold," and so on. Surely it will be 
 admitted that, if Christ intended simply to preach the 
 Gospel and leave it to spread through all the world 
 without the aid of an institution, His doctrine mip^ht 
 have been more aptly illustrated; but, on the other 
 hand, if it was His intention to found a visible society in 
 which the Gospel should be preserved during all the ages 
 and disseminated throughout the world, no better 
 illustrations are conceivable. 
 
 It has been held apparently upon good ground, that 
 at least one of the similitudes, the parable of the leaven, 
 favors the Denominational conception of an invisible 
 Church. It is maintained that the leaven works unob- 
 served until the whole lump is leavened. But, though 
 this be true, the leaven itself is visible as are also the 
 meal into which it is put and the woman who kneads 
 the dough. If, therefore, the parable of the leaven illus- 
 trates the mysterious secret workings of the Holy 
 Spirit, it nevertheless lends its support to the conclu- 
 sion that ordinarily His operations are through the 
 visible agencies of the Church and her ministry. 
 
 When our Lord said that He would build His Church 
 upon the foundation of faith in His Divinity, He had 
 reference to a visible organization. This is evident from 
 the fulfillment of the promise of which we read in the 
 Acts of the Apostles. On the Day of Pentecost three 
 thousand were added to the Church. This proves that 
 the membership of the society founded by Christ may 
 be known, for it can be numbered, and that, therefore, 
 the society itself is visible. 
 
 Again, the Church of Holy Scripture is not, as De- 
 nominationalists say, a human organization, founded 
 by the voluntary coming together of Christians ; but it 
 is, as Episcopalians and the representatives of every 
 
 
 branch of the Catholic Church hold, a Divine institution, 
 membership in which is necessary on the part of all who 
 would become Christians. This appears from its name, 
 Ecclesia, which means an assembly of those who have 
 been called. Christ established a Church, and made it 
 the duty of its charter members, the Apostles, to go in 
 person, and in the persons of their representatives and 
 successors, into all the world, and by the preaching of 
 the Gospel to call all men into it. Those who accepted 
 the good news were to be admitted into the Kingdom 
 by Baptism, and to be retained in it so long as they 
 maintained fellowship with the Apostles by holding 
 their doctrines, joining in the prayers, and partaking of 
 the Eucharistic meal. 
 
 "Men speak," says the Bishop of London, "as if 
 Christians came first, and the Church afterwards; as if 
 the origin of the Church was in the wills of the indi- 
 vidual Christians who composed it. But, on the con- 
 trary, throughout the teaching of the Apostles, we see 
 that it is the Church which comes first, and the mem- 
 bers of it afterwards. Men were not brought to Christ, 
 and then determined that thev w ould live in a com- 
 munity. Men were not brought to believe in Christ and 
 in the Cross, and then decided that it would be a great 
 help to their religion that they should join one another 
 in the worship of the Father through His Name. In the 
 New Testament, on the contrary, the Kingdom of Hea- 
 ven is already in existence, and men are invit;ed into 
 it. The Church takes its origin, not in the will of man, 
 but in the will of the Lord Jesus Christ. Everywhere 
 men are called in; they do not come in, and make the 
 Church by coming. The}^ are called into that which al- 
 ready exists ; they are recognized as members when they 
 are within; but their membership depends upon their 
 admission, and not upon their constituting themselves 
 
160 OUR CONTROVERSY WITH DENOMINATIONALISTS. 
 
 CHRIST FOUNDED A VISIBLE CHURCH. 
 
 IGl 
 
 a body in the sight of the Lord. In the New Testament 
 the Church flows out from the Lord, not flows into 
 Him. In the New Testament, the ministers are sent 
 forth to gather the children of men within the fold, and 
 are not simply selected by the members of the Church to 
 help them in their spiritual life." 
 
 *' Jesus," says another able writer, "never speaks of 
 the Kingdom as something which men could constitute 
 for themselves; it must come to them." And Dr. Milli- 
 gan, a distinguished Scotch Presbyterian professor and 
 author, has brought out this point with perfect clear- 
 ness. '' The true idea of the Church on earth," he writes, 
 "is, therefore, not that of a body starting from earth 
 and reaching onwards to a heavenly condition, to be 
 perfectly attained hereafter. It is rather the idea of a 
 Body starting from Heaven, and so exhibiting, amidst 
 the inhabitants and things of time, the graces and 
 privileges already ideally bestowed upon it, that it may 
 lead the world either to come to the light or to condemn 
 itself because it loves the darkness rather than the light, 
 its deeds being evil. It will follow that the community 
 thus constituted must be the visible representative of 
 our Lord, while He is Himself invisible, and that to it 
 must be committed the work, which, in personal pres- 
 ence with us. He can no longer do. As the Father 
 sent Me, so send I you— Prophets, Priests, and Kings- 
 envoys of the Father through the Spirit, proceeding 
 from the Father and the Son." 
 
 The name given by Gentiles to the followers of Christ 
 also favors the Anglican, rather than the Denomina- 
 tional, conception of our Lord's mission. '' The Disciples 
 were called Christians first in Antioch." The form of 
 the word Christ mni indicates their adherence "not as 
 Disciples to the founder of a school— in that case 
 it would have been Christ ici— hut rather as partisans 
 
 to a leader and commander. The Christians were not 
 merely people of a certain way of thinking, suggested 
 to them by Christ; they were a party who wanted 
 
 Christ to be King." 
 
 Denominationalists endeavor to support their theory 
 of the Church by such texts as "The Kingdom of God 
 is within you." " The Kingdom of God is not meat and 
 drink, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy 
 Ghost." "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision 
 availeth anything nor uncircunicision, but faith which 
 worketh by love." "Christ sent me not to baptize but 
 to preach the Gospel." "The Church of God which he 
 purchased with His blood." "He is the Head of the 
 Body, the Church." " We are come to the Church of the 
 first born who are enrolled in Heaven . " " Whenever two 
 or three are gathered together in my name, there am I 
 in the midst of them." " Jesus said, Forbid him not, for 
 there is no man that shall do a miracle in My Name 
 that can lightly speak evil of Me." " For he that is not 
 against us is on our part." 
 
 If these texts comprehended all that the New^ Testa- 
 ment has to say upon the subject. Episcopalians w^ould 
 have decidedly the worst of the argument ; but in reality 
 they represent only one side Of the truth: the other is 
 expressed in such passages as these: "Thou art Peter, 
 and upon this Rock I will build My Church; and the gates 
 of Hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give 
 unto thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven: and what- 
 soever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in 
 Heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth 
 shall be loosed in Heaven." " Tell it unto the Church : 
 but if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto 
 thee as an heathen man and a publican. Yerily I say 
 
 C. A.— 11 
 
mm.. CilSlllOVERSY WITH DENOMINATIONALISTS. 
 
 unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be 
 bound in Heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on 
 earth shall be loosed in Heaven." " Then said Jesus to 
 them again, Peace be unto you, as My Father hath 
 sent Me, even so send I you. And when He had said 
 this, He breathed on them, and saith unto them, Re- 
 l^iveyethe Holy Ghost: whosesoever sins ye remit.they 
 are remitted unto them ; and whosesoever sins ye retain 
 they are retained.'^ "All power is given unto Me in 
 Heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all 
 nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and 
 of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to 
 observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you : 
 and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the 
 
 world." 
 
 These passages, and many others, including most of 
 our Lord's Parables, and all that the Gospels have to 
 sav about the Kingdom of Heaven or of God, and the 
 Epistles about "the Church,'' "the Body," and "the 
 Bride of Christ," are inexplicable upon the Denomina- 
 tional hypothesis that "Christ did not institute an 
 Ecclesiastical society into which every follower of His 
 should enter." Romanists have made too much of them ; 
 but are Den omi nationalists therefore justified in pass- 
 ing them over altogether? Because they do not teach 
 that the Pope is infallible and that the Papal Commu- 
 nion comprehends the whole of the One, Catholic, and 
 Apostolic Church, must we conclude that they mean 
 nothing at all, or the oi)posite of what they plainly 
 
 say ? 
 
 It is impossible for Denominationalists to explain 
 
 the texts upon which they rely to prove that the Church 
 
 of Christ is the unorganized invisible society of true 
 
 believers, or at most the aggregate of voluntary 
 
 associations of Christians, in harmony with those 
 
 CHRIST FOUNDED A VISIULE CHURCH. 
 
 103 
 
 which Episcopalians cite as evidence that our Lord 
 organized, or provided in the Apostles for the or- 
 ganization of a visible society which, through the 
 Apostolic Succession, has been perpetuated to this* 
 day. But we have the advantage of having no diffi- 
 culty whatever in explaining their texts in harmony 
 with ours. 
 
 The texts quoted by Denominationalists against Epis- 
 copalians may be divided into two classes, those which 
 are supposed to teach the invisibility of the Church, and 
 such as are believed to support the pretension that 
 there is no body of Christians which can make good an 
 exclusive claim to allegiance. In order to prevent rep- 
 etition, we shall confine ourselves for the present to 
 the first group, reserving what we have to say about 
 the second for other connections. And in the interest 
 of brevity we shall consider the texts which have sub- 
 stantially the same import in pairs. 
 
 "The kingdom of God is within you." "The King- 
 dom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness 
 and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost." Denomination- 
 alists quote these texts for the purpose of proving that 
 the religion of Christ is subjective rather than objective. 
 If they can make this appear, it follows as a matter of 
 course that the Church is essentially invisible, for, if 
 Christianity be exclusively a religion of the heart, none 
 but God can know who embraces it. Now no one denies 
 that the Church of the Gospels has a spiritual side 
 to which these texts and others like them refer; 
 but, because we recognize this, are we logically forced 
 to the conclusion that Ecclesiasticism is no part 
 of Evangelical truth? Though man has an invisible 
 mind, he nevertheless possesses a visible body. When 
 we speak of the former without reference to the lat- 
 ter, it is not concluded that the person referred to 
 
JHHv 
 
 OUB CONTROVERSY WITH DKNOMINATIONALISTS. 
 
 has only a mental existence. Every text which relates 
 to the invisible principles, life, and fruits, of the Chris- 
 tian religion, can be offset by at least a dozen that refer 
 to a visible organization instituted by Christ. There 
 is an universally recognized canon of interpretation 
 which prohibits the construing of one passage of the 
 Scriptures so as to contradict another. Only in so far 
 as this law is ignored, is there any truth in the popular 
 misconception that almost anything can be proved 
 from the Bible. Had this rule not been disregarded, 
 Denominationalists could never have found any Scrip- 
 tural ground upon which to stand. In order to justify 
 sectarianism, they invented the theory of the invisibil- 
 ity of the Church. This ingenious conceit was rendered 
 plausible by the desperate expedient of interpreting 
 a few texts so as to make them contradictory to the 
 whole tenor of both the Old and the New Testament. 
 Before their interpretation of the isolated passages, 
 upon which they rest their cause, can be accepted, every 
 book of the Bible will have to be rewritten; and not 
 only this, but eighteen hundred years of Ecclesiastical 
 History must be blotted out. It should be remembered, 
 too, that, the authorized translation of the first ot 
 these texts is in dispute. Alford insists that it should 
 be *' among'' instead of ''within." The weight of au- 
 thority inclines to this interpretation, and with good 
 reason. It is inconceivable that our Lord in speaking 
 to the Pharisees should have said ''the Kingdom of 
 Heaven is within you," that is, in your hearts; for in no 
 sense was this true of them. 
 
 Those who hold that Christ did not found a visible 
 Church, with which He would have every disciple identi- 
 fied, also quote these texts: "For in Christ Jesus 
 neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uucircum- 
 cision, but faith viJmh worketh by love." " Christ sent 
 
 CHRIST FOUNDED A VISIBLE CHURCH. 
 
 165 
 
 me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel." As cir- 
 cumcision was a rite of initiation into the Jewish 
 Church, it is argued from these texts that the ex- 
 ternalism of the Old Dispensation has been w^holly 
 done aw^ay in the New\ But upon this hypothesis the 
 circumcision of our Lord, and His participation in the 
 synagogue and Temple w^orship are inexplicable, as are 
 also the facts that He appointed Baptism as the initia- 
 tory lite of the Society which He founded, and that the 
 Apostles deemed it absolutely necessary to administer 
 this Sacrament to all converts. Baptism and the 
 Lord's Supper are so plainly required in the New Testa- 
 ment, that even Denominationahsts almost universally 
 have felt called upon to administer them. But so long 
 as they maintain the invisibility of the Church, it would 
 seem that consistency requires that, like the Quakers, 
 they should renounce the use of visible ordinances ; for 
 by continuing to admit and retain members by their 
 use, they witness against themselves. None of the lead- 
 ing non-Episcopalian Denominations will accept an 
 unbapbized person as a member. This being the case, 
 their representatives cannot consistently quote these 
 texts against us. 
 
 With more plausibility Denominationalists make the 
 following citations in support of their invisibility 
 theory of the Church: "The Church of God which He 
 purchased with His blood." "He is the head of the 
 Body, the Church." There can be no doubt that if there 
 be any such thing as an unrecognizable Church com- 
 posed exclusively of the sanctified, it is here referred to. 
 For surely the " Church of God," the "Church of Christ" 
 includes at least all who are destined to be so happy as 
 to attain Gospel Salvation. There is no difference of 
 opinion between us and Denominationalists on this 
 point. Our contention is upon the question whether or 
 
OUR CONTROVERSY WITH DENOMI NATIONALISTS. 
 
 not *'the Church/' ** the Body, "has reference to a visible 
 organization containing both good and bad. They 
 argue, with some show of reason, that "the Body" of 
 which Christ is the head, is, and must necessarily be, "a 
 glorious Church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any 
 such thing, but that it should be holy and without 
 blemish." But this in all probability is not the decla- 
 ration of an existing fact. It is more likely a prophecy 
 of what the Church will be at the consummation of all 
 things when the tares shall be separated from the 
 
 wheat. 
 
 It is asserted that a "body having corrupt members 
 cannot have an immaculate Head." We reply thatGod 
 was certainly the head of the Jewish Church which had 
 many unrighteous members; in fact all who belonged 
 to it were more or less so. "Everybody allows," says 
 Mr. Hammond, "that the ancient Jewish Church, the 
 Church before Christ, was a visible Church, and God's 
 Church— God's Church and people, in spite of its many 
 corruptions— and one Church and one body, the com- 
 munion of the circumcised : every one knows how de- 
 praved, how rotten, even that was, and yet every man 
 who knows his Bible also knows that it was not lawful 
 for any man to leave it and found another." The Psalm- 
 ist declares there is "none holy, no, not one." As in 
 the Old Dispensation, all failed in their efforts to keep 
 the law, so in the New all have fallen short of their high 
 calling in Chiist Jesus. Thus if our Lord be the Head of 
 any Church, it must be of a body in which not only 
 some, but all its members are more or less imperfect. If 
 credence is given to their own testimony, it will be ad- 
 mitted that the most eminent Saints in all ages have 
 been far from perfect. And if, as Denominationalists con- 
 tend "the Church is composed not of the christened, but 
 of the Christlike," then there is not, never has been, and 
 
 CHRIST FOUNDED A VISIBLE CHURCH. 
 
 167 
 
 I 
 
 probably never will be, a Scriptural Church on earth. 
 Even the Apostles St. Peter, St. Paul and St. Barnabas 
 would not have been eligible for membership in such a 
 Church. If Churches consist of the "Christlike" only, 
 most of them will be reduced to " me and the meenister " 
 with grave doubts as to the niiiiister! "Let us sup- 
 pose," says William Law in his letters to the Bishop of 
 Bangor, "that the Church of Christ was this invisible 
 number of people united to Christ by such internal in- 
 visible graces. Is it possible that a kingdom, consisting 
 of this one particular sort of people invisibly good, 
 should be like a net that gathers of every kind of fish? 
 If it were to be compared to a net, it ought to be com- 
 pared to such a net as gathersoiily of one kind, namely, 
 good fish, and then it might represent to us a Church 
 that has but one sort of members. If anyone should 
 tell us that we are to believe invisible Scriptures and 
 observe invisible Sacraments, he would have just as 
 much reason and Scripture on his side as your Lord- 
 ship has for this doctrine. And it would be of the same 
 service to the world to talk of these invisibilities if the 
 canon of Scripture were in dispute, as to describe this 
 invisible Church, when the case is with what visible 
 Church we ought to unite." 
 
 That the texts do not support the Denominational 
 theory of invisibility is further evident from the fact 
 that one of them, as we see from the context, refers to 
 a Church having "Elders," whom St. Paul exhorts "to 
 feed the Church of God." Now, these Ephesian Elders 
 and the Christians whom they were charged to shep- 
 herd were visible. It is impossible otherwise to think of 
 them. In the other text the Church is spoken of as 
 "the Body of Christ." An invisible body is also un- 
 thinkable. It is of the essence of a body to be recogniz- 
 able. The Denominationalists, themselves, do not think 
 
i 
 
 168 mn OONTEOVERST WITH DENOMIN ATI0KALI8TS. 
 
 of something invisible when they speak of the Congre- 
 gational, Presbyterian, Baptist and Methodist bodies. 
 These are all visible societies. 
 
 There still remains the strongest text quoted by 
 Denominationalists to prove their theory. ''We are 
 come," says the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
 *'to the Church of the first born who are enrolled in 
 Heaven.'' At first sight it would seem as if they must 
 be right in maintaining that such words cannot possi- 
 bly have reference to a Church composed of both good 
 and bad. The difficulty arises from the mistaken idea 
 that the names of none can be written in the Book of 
 Life, except of those who are in the state of salvation, 
 and destined to remain so to their life's end. It is 
 strange that those who have so much to say about 
 ''conversion/' and "backsliding," should lose sight of 
 the fact that a name once registered in Heaven may be 
 blotted out. If there be such a thing as falling from 
 grace, no reason can be assigned why the word Church 
 in this passage should mean something different from 
 what it does everywhere else in Holy Scripture. 
 
 If, 110^^ we turn for a few minutes to history, we 
 shall see even more clearly than we have seen from our 
 necessarily incomplete examination of the Scriptures, 
 that the society instituted by Christ is a visible organ- 
 ization. 
 
 The Sacrament of Baptism, as we already have had 
 occasion to observe, conclusively shows this to be the 
 case; it has been administered from the beginning al- 
 most universally. Though there has been some differ- 
 ence of opinion, especially since the Reformation, as to 
 the benefits annexed to this ordinance, all agree that it 
 formally admits the recipient to the society of believers. 
 
 CHRIST FOUNDED A VISIBLE CHURCH. 
 
 169 
 
 I 
 
 Now, a society which makes provision by the adminis- 
 tration of a visible Sacrament, for the reception into 
 membership of visible men and women, is certainly a 
 visible organization. 
 
 The legislation of this society as manifestly proves it 
 to have been highly organized. The pages of Ecclesias- 
 tical History from the beginning to the end are largely 
 occupied with the accounts of the Councils, Synods and 
 Convocations which have borne essentially the same 
 relation to the society founded by Christ as Senates, 
 Parliaments and Legislatures bear to the various civil 
 commonwealths of the world. These Legislative As- 
 semblies of the Church, the first of which met at Jeru- 
 salem in Apostolic times, settled disputes; decided which 
 books were Divinely inspired and should, therefore, 
 be regarded as a part of the Bible; formulated the Faith 
 once delivered to the Saints; and passed a great body of 
 laws or canons for the regulation of the Church. The 
 Councils and their acts prove beyond peradventure that 
 the society founded by Christ, was a visible organiza- 
 tion, just as much so as is the United States, or any 
 other nation. 
 
 The persecutions which the Church suffered during 
 the first four or five centuries prove the same. It was 
 the uniform policy of the civil authorities to smite the 
 Christian Shepherds that the sheep might be scattered. 
 An unorganized society would have had no rulers that 
 could have been singled out from the rest to suffer the 
 terrible vengeance of the law, and obviously an invisible 
 society could not have been persecuted at all. 
 
 The fact that the Church has in all ages excommuni- 
 cated those who have been guilty of great offenses, also 
 proves that she is a visible organization. That part of 
 St. Paul's second Epistle to the Corinthians in which he 
 gives directions concerning the course to be pursued in 
 
li 
 
 170 OUR CONTROVERSY WITH DENOMINATIONALISTS. 
 
 the case of a notorious evil liver, and the excommuni- 
 cation of Arius and other notable heresiarchs by the 
 Councils, are inexplicable upon the Denominational 
 hypothesis of an invisible Church. 
 
 " But perhaps the strongest historical argument in 
 favor of that view of Christ^s mission for which we con- 
 tend, namely, that in addition to the teaching of a new 
 philosophy of life and illustrating it in a career of self- 
 sacrifice which ended in the atoning death on the cross, 
 He organized a new Kingdom, is found in the simple fact 
 that befoi-e the Reformation the Denominational idea 
 never obtained. For fifteen hundred years it was uni- 
 versally believed that Christ had made provision for the 
 preservation of the new wine of the Gospel by the crea- 
 tion for it of a new recei)tacle, the Church. The notion 
 that the hearts of true believers were to be the only 
 receptacle, never occurred to any one, and a suggestion 
 to this effect would have been ridiculed as preposterous. 
 How this could have been the case, if the theory of an 
 unorganized invisible Church be correct, has never been 
 satisfactorily explained. . ,. 
 
 Inclosing our argument in favor of the Episcopahan 
 conception of the Church, we may venture to call atten- 
 tion to the inconsistency of the great majority of those 
 who would persuade us that the society instituted by 
 Christ was not a visible organization. Methodists, 
 Presbvterians, Baptists, Congregationalists and many 
 other ^bodies of Christians have made for themselves 
 more or less elaborate organizations, and are leaving 
 no stone unturned which will contribute to their up- 
 building. By doing so they virtually profess to be wiser 
 than Christ;' for, according to their representation, He 
 had not like them the wisdom to perceive the necessity 
 for a corporate Christianity. They contend that the 
 Christian religion without organization could not, uu- 
 
 CHRIST FOUNDED A VISIBLE CHURCH. 
 
 171 
 
 der present conditions, make progress against opposing 
 influences in the conquest of the w^orld for Christ. In 
 this they are unquestionably right. There can be no 
 doubt that if the various organizations of Christians 
 were to disband, the cause of Christ would rapidly wane 
 until Satan could boast of a complete triumph. But 
 w ere the conditions of the first centuries more favorable 
 to Christianity than they have been for the past two 
 or three hundred years, within which it has been found 
 necessary to organize several hundred Christian socie- 
 ties? No. On the contrary, the Gospel in our day 
 would stand a thousand chances to one in our Lord's 
 time of making its way without the assistance of an 
 organization. The greatest obstacle now to be over- 
 come is a languid indifference ; then the w ay had to be 
 fought through a solid phalanx of the most powerful 
 and persistent opposition. It would be a marvel be- 
 yond all comprehension, if the Divine Founder of our 
 Holy Religion who knew that He would be nailed to the 
 cross and that His Apostles and their successors for a 
 long time w^ould nearly all suffer martyrdom, had been 
 so devoid of foresight as to quit the world without 
 leaving an organization which w ould be compact and 
 vigorous enough to live and grow in spite of all the 
 organized forces which heathendom, through the 
 representatives of the Roman Empire, could muster 
 against it. 
 
 St. Augustine, one of the greatest theologians that 
 the Church has produced, must, therefore, have been 
 right w^hen, as an able summariser points out, he taught 
 that *^The Kingdom of God was not a mere hope, but a 
 present reality ; not a mere name for a Divine idea, but 
 an institution, duly organized among men, subsisting 
 from one generation to another ; closely inter-connected 
 with earthly rule, with definite guidance to give, and a 
 
 I ) 
 

 172 OUR co:ntroversy with denominationalists, 
 
 definite part to take in all the affairs of actual life. To 
 him the Kingdom of God was an actual Polity, just as 
 the Roman Empire was a Polity, too. It was ' visible ' 
 in just the same way as the earthly state, for it was a 
 real institution with definite organization, with a recog- 
 nized constitution, with a code of laws and means of 
 enforcing them, with property for its use, and officers 
 to direct it." 
 
 II. 
 
 PERPETUATED BY SUCCESSORS OF THE APOSTLES, 
 
 PERPETUATED BY SUCCESSORS OF THE APOSTLES. 
 
 173 
 
 T 
 
 HAT our Lord intended His Church or Kingdom 
 to continue through the ages is antecedently 
 probable, because the conditions which made the 
 founding of it necessary, would require its continuation. 
 This generation of sinful men and women need the re- 
 generating influence of the Church quite as much as 
 that which witnessed its founding. To argue otherwise 
 would be to accuse of partiality Him who was no re- 
 specter of persons. 
 
 Again it may be inferred, if not positively concluded, 
 from Holy Scripture that the Church was designed to 
 continue through all generations. The numerous 
 prophecies of the Old Testament in which the mission of 
 the Messiah is represented to be that of founding an 
 everlasting Kingdom and universal Dominion certainly 
 favor this conclusion. When our Lord said **upon this 
 rock," the confession of faith in His Divinity, **I will 
 build My Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail 
 against it;" when He commissioned His Apostles to 
 "Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the 
 name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy 
 Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever 
 
 I have commanded;" and when He gave them this 
 promise for their encouragement, **Lo! I am with you 
 alway even unto the end of the world," it is as if he had 
 proclaimed the perpetuity of the Church in almost so 
 many words. Certainly nothing else can be inferred 
 from these texts. 
 
 Furthermore, if the Church were to continue, since it 
 could only do so through a succession of officers, it is 
 antecedently probable that the Apostolic College, which 
 after the Ascension, was the visible head of the Church, 
 would not be allowed to die out with the twelve. All 
 other organizations that the world has ever known, 
 have made provision for a succession of .their chief offi- 
 cers, and there is no reason to suppose that it was to 
 be otherwise with the Church of Christ. The promise, 
 ^* Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the 
 world," besides proving that the Church is to endure 
 through all the ages, proves the same of the Apostolic 
 office. The College of Apostles was constituted a 
 moral, corporate personality, which was to continue to 
 the end of the world. Its identity is no more diminished 
 by the perpetual succession of its members, than our 
 individuality is affected by the constant change of the 
 elements that compose our bodies. 
 
 The fact that the Apostolate was not limited to the 
 original twelve, justifies the inference that this office 
 was to be perpetuated in an uninterrupted succession. 
 Matthias was elected to take the place of Judas. The 
 Church of Antioch, acting under express direction of 
 the Holy Ghost, set apart, by the imposition of hands, 
 St. Paul and St. Barnabas to be Apostles. James, the 
 Lord's brother, evidently was consecrated by the Apos- 
 tolic College the first Apostle or Bishop of Jerusalem. 
 Timothy and Titus were made Apostles, respectively, of 
 Ephesus and Crete. St. Jerome, one distinguished even 
 
If 
 
 
 174 OUR CONTROVERSY WITH DENOMINATIOXALISTS. 
 
 among Saints, himself only a Presbyter, writes: "Im- 
 mediately after the passion of the Lord, James was or- 
 dained by the Apostles Bishop of Jerusalem.'' "That 
 Timothy was a Bishop,'' says Bishop Bull, " and Bishop 
 of Ephesus, the metropolis, or chief city of Asia, is so 
 fully attested by all antiquity, that he must be either 
 very ignorant or very shameless that shall deny it, es- 
 pecially there being besides very plain evidence of the 
 Episcopal power and authority, wherewith he was in- 
 vested, in this very Epistle of St. Paul written to him." 
 St. Jerome calls Titus " Bishop of Crete ; " St. Ambrose 
 says, "The Apostle Consecrated Titus Bishop ;" Theo- 
 doret, that he was "the Bishop of the Cretans;" and 
 so the whole band of witnesses. 
 
 When, in addition to what might naturally be in- 
 ferred, we take into account the fact that in all ages and 
 every part of the world there have been men claiming to 
 be, and universally recognized as, successors to the Apos- 
 tles, the conclusion that the inference respecting the per- 
 petuation of the Church through Bishops of the Apos- 
 tolic Succession is correct, can hardly be resisted. As 
 Mr. Haddan points out, "in one sense Apostolic Suc- 
 cession requires a complicated proof; in another it is a 
 palpable fact— as nmch a matter of moral certainty as 
 is the actual appointment, by the rightful authority, 
 of ministers of the state. No one doubts the fact of 
 the Ordination of the Clergy or Bishops now offici- 
 ating, although, among some myriads, there may oc- 
 casionally have been an impostor. Yet this assurance is 
 not founded on personal inspection of legal evidence. It 
 rests upon the overwhelming presumption that the fact 
 would not be as it is, unless the legal evidence were be- 
 hind it ; and this presumption extends back to the be- 
 ginning as regards the Church." "It is," as Bishop 
 Hugh Miller Thompson says, "merely trifling with 
 
 PERPETUATED BY SUCCESSORS OF THE APOSTLES. 175 
 
 words if a man knows, and evidence of incompetency 
 to express an opinion if he does not know, to say, 
 *you cannot prove that, from any modern Bishop up 
 to the Apostles, there is a continuous succession of 
 Ordainers:' You might as well tell me I cannot prove 
 that the oak tree on the lawn has an unbroken de- 
 scent from some oak of two thousand years ago! I 
 do not need to prove a self-evident fact in nature, 
 or a self-evident fact in organic society. The oak of 
 to-day proves the oak of twenty centuries ago. The 
 Bishop of to-day proves the Bishop of eighteen cen- 
 turies ago. They knew oaks then from bramble bushes 
 as well as we do. They knew Bishops just as well as 
 we do, perhaps better, and they knew, too, that Bish- 
 ops came from Bishops as oaks come from oaks. There 
 is no other way known to man to get either oaks or 
 Bishops. The ground has been gone over so many 
 times, and so carefully and exhaustively, and by such 
 thorough scholarship, that one may rest in peace." 
 
 There can be no doubt that, if the Apostolic office 
 were continued in the Church, it would be the center of 
 unity and the fountain of ministerial authority ; hence 
 we are right in saying that the Cliurch itself was perpet- 
 uated through the Apostles and their successors. They 
 were the representativ^es of Christ, and after His Ascen- 
 sion, the visible head of the Church. Before He returned 
 to the right hand of the Father to make intercession for 
 us he gave them all power and said: "As my Father 
 hath sent me even so send I you." Nothing, therefore, 
 could be more certain than that the Apostles and their 
 successors were appointed by Christ Himself to be His 
 representatives. As before the Ascension there would 
 have been no Church without Christ as its head, so 
 since then, there can be no true Christian Church with- 
 out the representative headship of the Apostolate. 
 
176 OUR CONTROVERSY WITH DENOMINATIONALISTS. 
 
 We are aware that these inferences will seem new and 
 strange to many, but we submit to the candid reader 
 that they are naturally drawn from the texts which 
 have passed under review. And we are all the more 
 confident as to the correctness of our conclusions, be- 
 cause of the fact that they are in accord with the repre- 
 sentations that were made by the early Fathers and the 
 great Doctors of the Church. Let us see what some of 
 them have to say about (1) the perpetuation of the 
 Apostolic office in the Episcopate, and (2) the necessity 
 of Bishops to the existence of the Church. 
 
 1. What then do the ancients say concerning the per- 
 petuation of the Apostolic office through the Historic 
 Episcopate? 
 
 St. Clement of Rome, a.d. 95, says that "desiring to 
 avoid controversy which they foresaw, the Apostles 
 ordained certain men to the end that, when they should 
 have fallen asleep in death, others of approved charac- 
 ter might succeed to their special office." Such were 
 Timothy and Titus. 
 
 Irena^us, a. d. 180: ''We must obey those who are 
 the Elders in the Church, those who, as we have shown, 
 have the succession from the Apostles ; who, with the 
 succession of the Episcopate, have received also the 
 sure gift of truth, according to the will of the Father ; 
 but as for the rest, who leave the original succession, 
 and come together wherever it may be, them we must 
 hold in suspicion, whether as heretics of a wrong opin- 
 ion, or as men who make division through pride and 
 self-pleasing, or again, as hypocrites." ''All who wish to 
 see the truth, have it in their power to fix their eyes on 
 the tradition of the Apostles, which is manifested in all 
 the world ; and we can recount the number of those, 
 who were appointed by the Apostles as Bishops in the 
 Churches, and their successors down to our own time, 
 
 PERPETUATED BY SUCCESSORS OF THE APOSTLES. 177 
 
 who neither taught nor had any knowledge of the wild 
 notions of these men. For had the Apostles known any 
 mysteries which they taught to the perfect in private, 
 and unknown to the rest, they would have delivered 
 them to those surely before all others, to whom they in- 
 trusted the very Churches themselves. For they desired 
 them to be eminently perfect and utterly without re- 
 proach, whom they left behind as their actual successors, 
 handing on to them their own position of presidency." 
 
 Tertullian, a. d., 200, adopts Irenseus' line of argu- 
 ment and enlarges upon it in dealing with Gnostic 
 heretics. He asks them a double question : First, do 
 they hold the rule of Faith? Second, have they an 
 Apostolic Succession? "Let them produce the ac- 
 count of the origins of their Churches; let them unroll 
 the line of their Bishops, running down in such a way 
 from the beginning that their first Bishop shall have 
 had for his authorizer and predecessor one of the Apos- 
 tles, or of the Apostolic men who continued to the end 
 in their fellowship. This is the way in which the Apos- 
 tolic Churches hand on their registers. As the Church of 
 the Smyrnaeans relates that Polycarp was installed by 
 John, as the Church of the Romans relates that Clement 
 was ordained by Peter, so, in like manner, the rest of 
 the Churches exhibit the names of men appointed to the 
 Episeopate by Apostles, whom they possess as trans- 
 mitters of the Apostolic seed." " So, now, you who wish 
 to exercise your curiosity to better profit in the matter 
 of your salvation, run through the ApostoHc Churches, 
 where the very chairs of the Apostles still i)reside in their 
 own places — Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonica, Ephesus, 
 Rome. Make it your business to inquire what they 
 have learnt and taught I " 
 
 Nor had the Fathers any other thought of Bishops 
 but as successors in the very Office and Order of the 
 
 C.A.— 12 
 
I 
 
 
 118 #UK COHTROVERSY WIT» BENOMIH ATIONALISTS. 
 
 Apostles. **lreii8Bns/* observes a learned commentator, 
 "regards the Bishops in every Church as succeed- 
 ing in an especial sense to the Apostles. They rep- 
 resent in every place by Apostolic Succession the 
 Catholic Faith ; they have the ' gift of the truth ' and 
 the Apostolic authority of government; they are the 
 guardians also no doubt of the grace by which Chris- 
 tians live, of which as much as of the truth the Church 
 Is the 'rich treasury."' And St. Jerome, a. d. 390, 
 commenting on that saying of St. Paul, "Other Apos- 
 tles saw I none save James the Lord's brother," says : 
 " For by degrees, as time went on, others were ordained 
 Apostles by those whom the Lord had chosen, as that 
 passage to the Philippians proves, saying: *I supposed 
 It necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, your Apos- 
 tle.'" ''The Bishops," observes Pacian, "are called 
 Apostles, as Paul declareth in speaking of Epaphro- 
 ditus." 
 
 ' So that as has been well said, "if the words of Holy 
 Scripture be not altogether unmeaning and unsubstan- 
 tial, if the Church of the Apostles be anything more 
 than a phantom or a vision, if its first rulers, St. James 
 and St. John, Clement and Epaphroditus, Ignatius and 
 Polycarp, were really what they seem to have been, 
 what they claimed to be, and what they were admitted 
 to be, then is it most certain that they, and all their 
 successors after them, were, as universal Christen- 
 dom believed, Bishops or Apostles in the Church of 
 God." 
 
 As the author makes no claim to being a Patristic 
 scholar or an historical authority, a few quotations 
 from the writings of those who have been preeminently 
 such will greatly strengthen his position, and so carry 
 conviction to the reader. Hooker : " Let us not fear to 
 be lier^in bold and |)eremptory, that, if anything in the 
 
 ■>.;. 
 
 f 
 
 PERPETUATED BY SUCCESSORS OF THE APOSTLES. 179 
 
 Church's government, surely the first institution of 
 Bishops was from Heaven, was even of God : the Holy 
 Ghost was the author of it." Bishop Bilson : " Of this 
 [the Apostolical Succession] there is so perfect record, in 
 all the stories and Fathers of the Church, that I must muse 
 with what face men that have any taste of learning, can 
 denie the vocation of Bishops came from the Apostles; 
 for that they succeeded the Apostles and Evangelists in 
 their Churches and chaires may inevitably be proved, 
 if any Christian persons or Churches deserve to be 
 credited." Bishop Sanderson: "The Bishops are the 
 lawful successors of the Apostles and inheritors of their 
 power." Archbishop BramhaM : " The line of Apostolic 
 Succession is the very nerves and sinews of Ecclesiastical 
 unity and communion both with the present Church, 
 and with the Cathohc symbolical Church of all suc- 
 cessive ages." Bishop Taylor: " Episcopacy relies not 
 upon the authority of the Fathers and Councils, but 
 upon Scripture, upon the institution of Christ, or the 
 institution of the Apostles, upon an universal tradition 
 and an universal practice, not upon the words and 
 opinions of the Doctors ; and it hath as great a testi- 
 mony as Scripture itself hath." Archbishop Laud: 
 "This I will say, and abide by it, that the calling of 
 Bishops injure diviDO,hy Divine right." Canon Liddon: 
 "When w^e say that Bishops are successors of the 
 Apostles we are not formulating a theory, but stating 
 a fact of history." Bishop Moberly : " The historical 
 fact of an Episcopal Succession, tracing back to the 
 Apostles themselves, is undeniably established." And 
 even John Calvin in writing to a friend who had recently 
 been consecrated to the Episcopate, felt constrained to 
 acknowledge: "Thou hast been appointed a Bishop; 
 with thee is present the authority of the Apostle 
 Paul." 
 
; 
 
 ■ 
 
 I; 
 
 180 OUR CONTROVERSY WITH DENOMI NATIONALISTS. 
 
 Presbyterians, Lutherans, Methodists and some 
 other bodies of Christians who are without the Historic 
 Episcopate, claim that if there be any ministerial suc- 
 cession coming down to us from New Testament times, 
 it is through the order of Presbyters or elders, not that 
 • of the Apostles. They affirm that, after the death of St. 
 John, the Church was governed by colleges of the Pres- 
 bytery of which, when Christianity had been well estab- 
 lished, there was one in every large city. These had 
 jurisdiction over adjacent villages and the surrounding 
 country. Each of them had a Moderator or President 
 who was elected from year to year. In the course of 
 time reflections became almost the universal rule. As 
 the Moderator-Presbyters were usually men of great 
 force and influence and withal men of ambition, they 
 soon, either by common consent or usurpation, set 
 aside their brother Presbyters and assumed the author- 
 ity and prerogatives of the Apostolate under the title of 
 Bishops. 
 
 In proof of all this they urge the probability that 
 there was an early period of the Church's life when 
 "Bishop'' and ** Presbyter" were convertible terms. 
 And, it is, indeed, a curious and admitted fact that 
 there is no special name absolutely restricted to the 
 highest Order, on which all others depend, in the New 
 Testament. "But," as Mr. Eagar observes, ** whatso- 
 ever may be the explanation, the Order of the Episco- 
 pate shares this namelessness with even greater things. 
 The second Sacrament has no absolutely distinctive 
 Scriptural name; it may be referred to once as 'the 
 Lord's Supper;' it is called 'Euchari8tia,'but that word 
 is employed also in other meanings; our common name 
 of *Holy Communion' is not to be found in the Bible. 
 The Doctrine of the Incarnation has to go outside 
 Scripture for a name in which to sum up the revealed 
 
 
 PERPETUATED BY SUCCESSORS OF THE APOSTLES. 181 
 
 truths, and we have to employ a word not found in 
 Scripture whenever we speak of the Everlasting (rod as 
 *the Trinity.' In all these matters, sensible persons 
 have long ago learned that names count for very little 
 and facts for a great deal ; the same observation applies 
 at least as forcibly to the question of the Episcopate." 
 It is probable that in the case of some of the Churches 
 founded by St. Paul, the chief Elder had the oversight 
 of the flock during the Apostle's absence; but there is 
 no evidence that such overseers or Bishops had the 
 power of ordaining, or that they were anything more 
 than the Archpriests, or Archdeacons of later days. 
 But the period of this Presbyterial overseership, if it 
 existed at all, was so brief and confined to such narrow 
 limits ; its history was so obscure, and the speedy emer- 
 gence of the threefold order so universal, that nothing 
 in regard to the permanent constitution of the Church 
 can be built upon the fact of the identity for which our 
 brethren contend. A departure from the universal rule 
 of centuries cannot be justified by a reference to the 
 possible practice of one brief, transitional period of his- 
 tory. If in the Apostolic age Presbyters were some- 
 times called Bishops, it was only because the highest 
 Order of Church governors to which this title was after- 
 wards reserved, were in the earliest ages generally called 
 Apostles. ^*The Bishops," says St. Ambrose, "are 
 Apostles;" and St. Cyprian: **The Lord appointed 
 Apostles, that is. Bishops;" and St. Jerome, "Bishops 
 occupy the place of Apostles;" and Pacian, "the Bish- 
 ops are entitled Apostles;" and Tertullian, "were first 
 ordained by the Apostles;" and St. Irenaeus, "are 
 traced in all Churches from the Apostles;" and St. 
 Augustine, " are instead of Apostles ; " and, in one word, 
 all the Saints and all Martyrs, all Churches, and all 
 times, declare the same truth— that Bishops are the 
 
182 
 
 OUR CONTROVERSY WITH DENOMINATIONALISTS. 
 
 Apostles of the Most Higli ; or that, in the words of 
 Hooker: "The first Bishops in the Church of Christ 
 were His blessed Apostles." 
 
 Presbyterians are ever reminding us, also, of what St. 
 Jerome says about the Church at Alexandria. It is, as 
 they say, at least possible to conclude from his account 
 that when the Patriarchal See fell vacant, it was filled 
 by the election of a Presbyter who, by this act, without 
 Episcopal Consecration, became Bishop. To this we 
 reply: (1) St. Jerome nowhere actually says that an 
 Alexandrian clergyman who had received Ordination 
 to the Presbyterial office only, became Bishop simply 
 because of his election to the Episcopate by brother 
 Presbyters. (2) Even if at Alexandria the election was 
 not followed by Consecration to the Episcopate, this 
 departure from the general rule may be accounted for 
 upon the hypothesis that some of the Parochial Clergy 
 had been duly invested with the Episcopal character by 
 the laying on of hands. At a later period this is known 
 to have been the case at Rome, and it probably ac- 
 counts for the fact that in the early British Church 
 there were so many more Bishops than Dioceses. Of 
 course these possible Bishops of Alexandria could not- 
 legally exercise the functions of the Episcopate until 
 they had been canonically elected to a vacant See, but 
 after such election they could, without further qualifica- 
 tion, ascend the Episcopal throne. 
 
 As the late Prebendary Sadler, one of the most 
 profound of modern Biblical students, in a tract 
 on Church government, says: "The idea of an 
 Apostolically-ordained Presbyterian, or other such 
 system, following upon the death of the Apostles 
 and existing for any length of time, appears to me 
 to be involved in the greatest difficulties. It seems 
 mcredible that a Fresbyterate appointed bv Knox 
 
 PERPETUATED BY SUCCESSORS OF THE APOSTLES. 183 
 
 and Melville, should have lasted three hundred years, 
 whilst a supposed corresponding system, appointed 
 by St. Paul himself, hopelessly collapsed in half a 
 century." Elsewhere he sums up the case thus : " (1 ) 
 We have the Lord Himself personally appointing 
 the Apostles and apparently assuring them that 
 their ministry would last till the end of the world. 
 (2) We have in the New Testament the history of 
 the first thirty or forty years of the Church, during 
 the whole of which period the one sole, supreme gov- 
 ernment is the Apostolic, with the exception of the 
 Church in one city. (3) I1iis exception is the Mother 
 Church of Christendom, which, if St. James be not an 
 Apostle, is under Episcopal as distinguished from 
 Apostolic rule. (4) We have the great Apostle of the 
 Gentiles ruling the Churches committed to him with 
 an hyper-Episcopal oversight, keeping apparently all 
 power ofevery sort in his own hands. (5) We have the 
 Apostle at the close of his career writing letters to the 
 men tlirough whose means he had exercised his Episco- 
 pal control over Churches in all parts of the civilized 
 world, in order to instruct them in the right use of the 
 quasi-Apostolic powers he had made over to them. 
 Then there is a gap of some seventy years at the most, 
 and at the end of this period history presents us with 
 the spectacle of the Christian Church everywhere offi- 
 cered by men possessing the Governmental and Ordain- 
 mg powers of the Apostolic delegates, though, as was to 
 be expected, with more defined and localized spheres of 
 action . And yet apparently for the one almost avowed 
 purpose of interposing some break, and proving a dis- 
 connection between the Apostolic and any later minis- 
 try, we are asked to assume the existence of some inter- 
 mediate Presbyterian or Congregational system, of the 
 constitution of which history has not preserved to us 
 
i 
 
 M 
 
 i 
 
 184 OUR CONTROVERSY WITH DENOMINATIONALISTS. 
 
 one fragment, and which, i! established, must have been 
 established without any principles of permanency im- 
 pressed upon it, so that, according to the confession of 
 those who conjecture it, its very memory had perished 
 out of the mind of the Church within a hundred years 
 after its appointment.'' 
 
 The obscure but short period between the last of the 
 Apostolic and the firet of the post-Apostolic writers, 
 during which, according to the representations of De- 
 nominationalists, the Church was governed by a Board 
 of Presbyters, has been compared to a tunnel. We 
 have good light where we have the books of the New 
 Testament to guide us, and again when we come down 
 to the abundant literary remains of the latter part of 
 the second century; but there is an intervening period, 
 here and there faintly illumined by a few documents 
 giving such scanty and interrupted light as may be af- 
 forded by the air-holes of a tunnel. If in our study of 
 the dimly-lighted portion of the history we wish to dis- 
 tinguish what is certain from what is doubtful, we may 
 expect to find the things certain in what can be seen 
 from either of the two well-lighted ends. If the same 
 thing is visible on looking from either end, we can have 
 no doubt of its existence. Beyond question the Church, 
 before entering the tunnel, was governed by Apostles 
 and when it came out, by Bishops, claiming to be 
 successors of the Apostles. 
 
 We shall conclude this division of our subject with a. 
 famous passage from Chillingworth's crushing answer 
 to the rejH-esentations of Presbyterians: "When 1 shall 
 see all the fables in the * Metamorphoses ' acted and 
 proved true stories; when I shall see all the democracies 
 and aristocracies in the world lie down to sleep, and 
 awake into monarchies, then I will begin to believe that 
 Presbyterial government, having continued in the 
 
 PERPETUATED BY SUCCESSORS OF THE APOSTLES. 185 
 
 Church during the Apostles' times, should presently after, 
 against the Apostles' Doctrine and the will of Christ, be 
 wheeled about like a scene in a mask and transformed 
 into Episcopacy. In the meantime, while these things 
 are thus incredible and in human reason impossible, I 
 hope I shall have leave to conclude thus: Episcopal 
 government was universally received in the Church 
 presently after the Apostles' times. Between the Apos- 
 ties and this presently after, there was not time enough 
 for, nor possibility of, so great an alteration; and, 
 therefore, there was not such alteration as is pre- 
 tended. And, therefore. Episcopacy being so ancient 
 and Catholic, must be granted also to be Apostolic." 
 
 In reference to the necessity of Bishops to the exist- 
 ence of the Church, it may be said that, since they are 
 the successors of the Apostles, it follows as a matter of 
 course that, as there could have been no Church in the 
 Apostolic days without the headship of "the eleven" 
 and those whom they made partakers with themselves 
 in the Apostolate, so, after their time, there could be 
 none without a Bishop. We see from the Acts that the 
 first disciples "continued steadfastly in the Apostles' 
 doctrine and fellowship." This was, in the nature of 
 things, a necessary condition of membership in Christ's 
 Apostolic Church. As Bishops of the uninterrupted and 
 Canonical succession are nothing less than Apostles, it 
 is, in the nineteenth century as in the first, obligatory 
 upon all professing Christians to be in communion with 
 one of them. At any rate this view prevailed down 
 through the ages until the Reformation. 
 
 St. Ignatius, a. d. 107, writes: "Where the Bishop 
 appears, there let the people be, as where is Christ Jesus, 
 there is the Catholic Church." "The Bishop is the 
 
OUR COOTROVERSY WITH DENOMINATIONALISTS. 
 
 center of each individual Church, as Jesus Christ m the 
 center of the universal Church." "He who does anv- 
 thing apart from the Bishop, and the Presbytery, and 
 Deacons is not pure in his conscience.'' '^For as many 
 as are of God and of Jesus Christ, they are with the 
 Bishop." Elsewhere the same Father says: "Do your dili- 
 gence, therefore, that ye be confirmed in the ordinances 
 of the Lord and of the Apostles, that ye may prosper in 
 all things whatsoever ye do in flesh'^and spirit in the 
 Son and Father and in the Spirit, with your revered 
 Bishop, and with the fitly wreathed spiritual circlet of 
 your Presbytery, and with the Deacons who walk after 
 God. Be obedient to the Bishop and to one another, 
 as Jesus Christ was to the Father, according to the flesh,' 
 and as the Apostles were to Christ and to the Father,' 
 that there may be union both of flesh and of spirit." 
 
 Irenaeus, a. d. 180, gave laconic expression to the 
 conviction which universally prevailed during the first 
 fifteen hundred years of Christianity, when he said : " No 
 Church without a Bishop." 
 
 The blessed Athanasius, a. d. 350, writing to one 
 who had fled from the duties of the Episcopal oflfice, for 
 fear of persecution, says, "How wouldst thou have be- 
 come a Christian, if there had been no Bishops?" And 
 then he proceeds to assert, in the uniform language of 
 the primitive Saints, from the Martyrs Ignatius and 
 IrensBus down to Basil and Ambrose^ that the Church 
 is in such sort built upon the Bishops — that is, the 
 Apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ—that the one cannot 
 even be contemplated as distinct, from the other; a 
 Church without Bishops being, in the judgment of these 
 ancients, not "defective," or "imperfect" merely, but, 
 as they speak, *' no Church at all." 
 
 Speaking of the necessity of Bishops to the existence 
 of the Church, the author of " Notes on the Catholic 
 
 PERPETUATED BY SUCCESSORS OF THE APOSTLES. 187 
 
 Episcopate," says : " So constant was this belief among 
 all lands wheresoever the Gospel had been preached, 
 that even those misbelievers who fled out of the ark of 
 the Church, and formed to themselves conventicles 
 apart, never dreamed of setting up any purer or more 
 primitive— nay, or any other— form of government 
 than this, but perpetuated their errors by a succession 
 of Pseudo-Bishops. And, when certain women, Med 
 away with divers lusts,' and seeking to annul even the 
 distinction between the sexes, ventured to usurp the 
 ofl^ce of teachers, and to frame a new company of be- 
 lievers, it was by imitating the only order which they 
 had ever heard of, and appointing from their own ranks 
 Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, that they attempted to 
 execute their impious plan." 
 
 So far as Holy Scripture is concerned, one passage 
 only has been quoted as leaving an opening for other 
 than an Episcopally ordained ministry in the Church 
 of Christ. ^' Forbid him not," said our Lord of the man 
 who cast out devils in His name, while not following 
 the Apostles. But an injunction not to forbid work 
 does not necessarily imply its orderliness, or even legal- 
 ity ; and what is there, save a very doubtful analogy, 
 to connect this man's actions with the work of the min- 
 istry? We should not be at all willing to forbid the work 
 of, say, **The Young Men's Christian Association," or 
 to deny that it is '' on Christ's part." But we should be 
 greatly surprised if this were construed into a recogni- 
 tion of any claims that its worthy secretaries might 
 put forth to be a branch of the Christian ministry.'' It 
 is quite certain, at any rate, that neither in the New 
 Testament, nor in Church History, is there any trace of 
 the followers of this man, or of any like him, as a sep- 
 arate body of Christians. So that one of two things 
 must have happened— either his work absolutely died 
 
OUR COIfTROVERSY WITH DENOMINATIONALISTS. 
 
 111% or he found that very work a means of drawing 
 him into the fellowship of the Apostles. 
 
 m. 
 
 THE APPOINTED ARK m^ SALVATION. 
 
 THE Church of Christ which has been perpetuated 
 through the Historic Episcopate is the appointed 
 ark of Gospel Salvation, and only by entering it 
 can a person place himself in assured covenant relation- 
 ship with God. Passing by for the present the difficulties 
 which this statement will suggest to the minds of non- 
 Episcopalian readers, let us first see what reasonably 
 may be inferred from the Scriptures and what light the 
 writings of the Fathers and Doctors throw upon the 
 subject. 
 
 It must be evident to every attentive reader of the 
 Bible that it divides the human race into two great 
 classes—those who are in covenant relationship with 
 God, and those who are without the pale of his cove- 
 nanted mercies. A religious covenant is an agreement 
 which God condescends to enter into with man. Be- 
 tween man and man there are, speaking broadly, two 
 kinds of agreements— the commercial and the beneficent. 
 The former has in view mutual profit, but the latter is 
 of no benefit to the contracting party who takes the 
 initiative except the satisfaction he experiences in the 
 effort to bless. Where a covenant between God and 
 man exists it is of course so far as He is concerned one 
 of grace. 
 
 The importance of entering into such relationship 
 with God may be inferred from the fact that the Creator 
 Himself proposes it . He certainly would not do so, if it 
 were a trifling matter. Our falling in with this proposal 
 must, therefore, contribute to our highest eternal welfare 
 
 THE APPOINTED ARK OF SALVATION. 
 
 189 
 
 and to the great glory of God. The same may be in- 
 ferred even more clearly from the fact that both the 
 Jewish and Christian Scriptures are called Testaments, 
 a word which in Holy Writ is synonymous with cove- 
 nant ; indeed the titles of Old and New Testaments arose 
 from an inaccurate rendering in the Latin Vulgate of 
 the word meaning covenant by testainentum. It would 
 be a decided gain if the correct titles could be used. In 
 the Revised Version of the New Testament the word 
 " covenant " is almost without exception the translation. 
 Now the title of a book or of a collection of writings 
 is drawn from the chief subject treated of. The fact that 
 the Bible is divided into Old and New Covenants is 
 therefore very instructive. It shows that God not only 
 proposes to enter into covenant relationship with us, 
 but that He makes it the principal topic of His Revela- 
 tion, which He would not do if it were not supremely 
 important. The Church is the ark of Salvation because 
 only by entering it and by remaining in it, can a person 
 be in covenant relationship with God. That under the 
 Old Dispensation none could establish this relationship 
 except by membership in the Jewish Church is, in the 
 light of the Law and the Prophets, so manifest that I 
 presume it will not be questioned by any ; and since 
 membership in the Church of God was so necessary in 
 the Old Dispensation, all will admit that we ought not 
 to conclude without the best of reasons that it is any 
 less so in the New. There is, however, no ground for 
 such a conclusion. On the contrary, all the facts point 
 in the other direction. God does not change; the con- 
 dition and needs of mankind have remained the same; 
 and Christ expressly declares that He came not to 
 destroy, but to fulfill the Old Covenant Scriptures. 
 These considerations, though falling short of a positive 
 proof that the Church occupies as important a place in 
 
w 
 
 i I 
 
 I 
 
 J. 
 
 OUR CONTROVERSY AVITH DENOMINATIONALISTS. 
 
 tlie present Dispensation as in the preceding, render it 
 at least highly improbable that the assertion to the 
 contrary is true. 
 
 But that which we have seen to be antecedently 
 probable must be apparent, it would seem, to all who 
 have the least familiarity with the Gospels and Epis- 
 tles. These when taken as a whole, and especially when 
 interpreted in the light of the writings of the Fathers 
 who lived nearest the time of the Apostles, leave no 
 room for reasonable doubt that he who would be in 
 covenant relationship with God and thus make sure 
 that he is an inheritor of Gospel Salvation, must be a 
 member of the Apostolic Church. Those who think 
 that they have made their calling and election sure 
 because they have been converted and are in the enjoy- 
 ment of experimental religion, that is, have, as they 
 say, the witness of the Spirit that they are saved, will 
 find it difficult to explain satisfactorily many of the 
 most striking passages of the New Testament. 
 
 Why, for example, did our Lord in His commission 
 to the Apostles connect Baptism with the preaching of 
 the Gospel and the teaching of obedience? Why was 
 Baptism administered to the three thousand upon 
 whom, on the Day of Pentecost, the Holy Ghost fell? 
 Or why to St. Paul who, upon the occasion of his mirac- 
 ulous conversion, was smitten to the ground and made 
 blind by the heavenly light? Or to Cornelius who had 
 the assurance of an angel that he was accepted of God ? 
 These and many similar questions cannot be answered 
 by those who attach little or no importance to the Ec- 
 clesiastical side of the Gospel. The theory that salva- 
 tion is offered upon the condition of conversion, is one 
 of those half truths which leave a large part of the New 
 Testament unexplained and inexplicable. In the Chris- 
 tian Dispensation as in the Jewish there can be no 
 
 THE APPOINTED ARK OF SALVATION. 
 
 191 
 
 assurance of salvation outside of the covenant relation- 
 ship, and this cannot be entered now any more than it 
 could then by faith and conversion alone, but with these 
 through the door of membership in the Church which 
 has come down to us from Christ through Bishops of the 
 Apostolic Succession. Nevertheless baptized Denomi- 
 nationalists as well as Greek, Roman, and Anglican 
 Catholics are regarded as members of this Church, 
 because Baptism may be valid although not regular. 
 To many this will look as if we exalted the Church at the 
 expense of what they call "vital religion." But faith, 
 conversion, and other Evangelical doctrines are not 
 really undervalued in the Episcopal Church. It is not 
 that we make less of these doctrines but more of the 
 Church than Denominationalists do. We think that the 
 Scriptures justify us in this; and to verify the correctness 
 of our interpretation of them to this effect, we appeal to 
 the writings of those who lived nearest to the time of the 
 Apostles. Do they teach that only members of the Apos- 
 tolic Church are in covenant relationship with God? 
 
 Ignatius, of Antioch, a. d. 107, as we have just 
 seen, says: '* Where the Bishop appears, there let the 
 people be, as where is Christ Jesus, there is the Catholic 
 Church." Again, ''He who is within the Sanctuary is 
 pure; he who is outside is impure, that is to say, he 
 who does anything apart from Bishop and Presbytery 
 and Deacons, is not pure in his conscience." "If anyone 
 follows a separatist, he does not inherit the Kingdom 
 of God." So also Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, a. d. 180, 
 who represents the Churches of Gaul and Asia, where he 
 had been brought up: "In the Church God placed 
 Apostles, Prophets, Doctors, and the whole operation of 
 the Spirit, and all who do not have recourse to the 
 Church do not participate in Him, but deprive them- 
 selves of life. For where the Church is, there is the 
 
192 .0U« mSfOmrERSY with DEHimiNATIONALISTS. 
 
 Spirit of God, and wbere tie Spirit of God is, there 
 is the Church and all grace.'' *' God will judge all those 
 who make schisms. No reformation can be wrought 
 by them, which can compensate for the injury of the 
 schism. God will judge all those who are outside the 
 Church." And Cyprian, of Africa, A. d. 250: "Who- 
 soever shall be found without the Church, will be cut off 
 from the number of sons. He will not have God for his 
 Father, who refused to have the Church for his Mother." 
 "To separate from the Church is to deny that Christ 
 came in the flesh ; because it is to scatter that which He 
 gathered together in one. This is to be Antichrist!" 
 "If a separatist should lay down his life for the name of 
 Christ, he would dieunblest." "The House of God is 
 one, and no man can have salvation except in the 
 Church." He also speaks, as did some copies of the 
 earlier Baptismal Creeds, of "remission of sins, and 
 eternal life through the Church." Origen, a. d. 230, 
 says, "Outside this House, that is to say, outside the 
 Church, no one has salvation." 
 
 This language, astounding as it must be to modern 
 Denominationalists, is not as strong as that used by 
 the renowned Augustine, A. d. 398. He spoke as fol- 
 lows of a class of sectaries, who, as respects their doc- 
 trinal teaching, were certainly orthodox: "I do not 
 assert that if a Donatist should profess to have suf- 
 fered any injuries in the cause of his party, or to have 
 endured temporal losses, it would profit him nothing; I 
 say more. I say, that if he should suffer without the 
 pale of the Church, it will be as the enemy of Christ ; and 
 if one of Christ's enemies should say to him, being with- 
 out the Church, 'Offer sacrifice to our idols, worship 
 our gods,' and he, through refusing to worship, should 
 be slain by the enemy of Christ, his blood he may pour 
 out, a crown he cannot receive." "The Holy mountain 
 
 THE APPOINTED ARK OF SALVATION. 
 
 193 
 
 of God," he says elsewhere, "is His Holy Church. Those 
 who are not in communion with her will not attain 
 to everlasting life." And still more pointedly, "Christ 
 is the head and Saviour of His Body. Outside this 
 Body the Holy Spirit gives life to none." Jerome, 
 A. D. 390: "As from Adam and his wife the whole 
 race of men have sprung, so of Christ and His Church 
 the whole multitude of believers are begotten." He 
 also compares the Church to the Ark. "What the 
 Ark was in the Deluge, that the Church is in the 
 world." 
 
 "Clement, A. d. 194, and Origen, a. d. 230," says 
 Canon Gore, "alike endeavored to mitigate this doc- 
 trine of exclusive salvation within the Church, so as to 
 bring it into harmony with God's universal purposes, 
 with his recognized equity and good-will towards all, 
 and with the universal presence of the Word to all men. 
 But with all this it is an undoubted truth that they did, 
 like all the other Fathers, regard God's covenant in 
 Christ as made with a visible society, membership in 
 which was of universal obligation, and alienation from 
 which was death." 
 
 "It is sometimes argued," observes the same pro- 
 found author, "that St. Paul could not have believed in 
 Salvation through the Church, because this contradicts 
 his doctrine of the justifying effect of individual faith. 
 But in fact there is no such contradiction. The Chris- 
 tian life is a correspondence between the grace commu- 
 nicated from without and the inward faith which, 
 justifying us before God, opens out the avenues of com- 
 munication between man and God, and enables man to 
 appropriate and to use the grace which he receives in 
 Christ. There is thus no antagonism, though there is a 
 distinction between grace and faith. Now, grace comes 
 to Christians through social Sacraments, as members 
 
 C. A.— 13 
 
IM 
 
 OUR CONTROVERSY WITH DENOMlNATlONALISTS. 
 
 ©f one 'spirit-bearing body.' *By one Spirit we are 
 all baptized into one body;' ^we being many are one 
 bread and one body, for we are all partakers of that one 
 bread.' Thus the doctrine of the Church as the house- 
 hold of grace is the complement, not the contradic- 
 tion of the doctrine of faith. Faith is no faith if it 
 isolates a man from the fellowship of the one body, and 
 the one body has no salvation except for the sons of 
 faith." 
 
 The Patristic doctrine of salvation only in the 
 Church, harsh as it now sounds to Denominationalists, 
 is no other than that held by their spiritual ancestors. 
 The Presbyterian Westminster Confession put forth in 
 A. D. 1647 speaks of the visible Church as ''the house 
 and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary 
 possibility of salvation." 
 
 IV. 
 
 THE DEPOSITORY OF SACRAMENTAL GRACE, 
 
 •*He, Ransomer from death, and Light from shade, 
 Now gives His holy grace, His Saints to aid. 
 Approach ye then with faithful heart sincere, 
 And take the safeguard of salvation here." 
 
 Not only is it necessary to enter the Apostolic Church 
 in order to establish covenant relationship with God, 
 but also because she is the depository of Sacramental 
 grace of which her Ministers are the sole authorized 
 dispensers. The subjective blessings of valid Sacra- 
 ments, that is, of Sacraments administered by Ministers 
 of Apostolic authority, may come to those who receive 
 them at the hands of an unauthorized ministry ; but 
 the benefits of Baptism, Confirmation and the Lord's 
 Supper are not wholly of a subjective character any 
 
 THE DEPOSITORY OF SACRA>[ENTAL GRACE. 
 
 195 
 
 more than are the benefits of prayer. To those who 
 ask in faith and in accordance with the will of God, 
 prayer, besides giving right direction to inward dispo- 
 sitions, secures to the petitioner spiritual and temporal 
 blessings. In like manner valid Sacraments when re- 
 ceived in faith and repentance assure the recipient that 
 he is a child of God and an heir and joint heir with 
 Christ to the life which now is and to that which is to 
 come. Nor is this all. Such Sacraments also remit sins 
 and convey strength to live a life of righteousness. 
 
 I am not saying that the Sacraments of non-Episco- 
 palians do not convey these blessings, but that there is 
 no assurance that they do; indeed tlieir ministers do 
 not claim to administer Sacramental grace. On the 
 contrary they maintain that the benefits of the Sac- 
 raments are purely subjective, and condemn as Romish 
 superstition and error the doctrine which has been 
 taught in every branch of the Catholic Church from the 
 beginning; namely, that the Sacraments are channels 
 of grace. If it be true that the Roman Church teaches 
 that they work by magic or charm to save their 
 recipients, she is in so far clearly unscriptural. Repent- 
 ance and faitli are alway spoken of, or im])lied, in 
 connection with the administration of Holy Baptism, 
 and, in the sixth chapter of the Gospel according to St. 
 John, in which eternal life and the resurrection are 
 plainly made dependent upon the Sacramental eating 
 and drinking of Christ's body and blood, faith and 
 coming to Christ are also connected with the resurrec- 
 tion and life everlasting. 
 
 As in many other particulars, so in respect to her 
 doctrine of the nature and efficacy of the Sacraments of 
 Baptism and the Lord's Supper, it will be discovered 
 upon examination, that the Anglo-CathoHc Church of 
 which the Protestant Episcopal Church is a branch, 
 
lii OUR CONTROVERSY WITH DENOMINATIONALISTS. 
 
 occupies the middle ^ound between the Koman Catholic 
 Church and the various Protestant bodies of Christians. 
 This position is due to the fact that at the Keforma- 
 tion the Mother Church of England, from which the 
 American daughter has not departed in any essential 
 of doctrine or ceremony, returned to the ground that 
 she had occupied in the earliest and purest ages, while 
 the Roman Church continued in her Mediaeval de- 
 partures, and the sixteenth century and later Denomi- 
 nations have gone off quite as far in the opposite 
 direction. 
 
 Anglo-Catholics connect salvation with the Sacra- 
 ments and with faith and repentance. All that is 
 Scriptural and essential in the Roman and Protestant 
 views of the efficacy of the Sacraments, we hold. For 
 with the one we agree that, "the Sacraments are gen- 
 erally necessary to salvation and that they work invis- 
 ibly in us and do not only quicken, but also strengthen 
 and confirm our faith in Christ ; " and with the other we 
 hold that the Sacraments "have a wholesome effect 
 and operation in such, only, as worthily receive the 
 same by a death unto sin, and a new birth unto right- 
 eousness, by repenting themselves truly of their former 
 sins, by having a lively faith in God's mercy through 
 Christ with a thankful remembrance of His death, and 
 by being in charity with all men." 
 
 In all ages there have been many who have depreci- 
 ated the importance of external rites and ceremonies. 
 This is the tendency of a large element even in the An- 
 glican Communion, and it is so in all the Protestant 
 bodies about us. Surely those who are inclined to 
 under-estimatethe Sacraments have not well considered 
 the fact that they were instituted by Christ Himself at a 
 time when the evil of externalism was at its height 
 in the Jewish Church. He was familiar with this evil, 
 
 THE DEPOSITORY OF SACRAMENTAL GRACE. 
 
 197 
 
 and often inveighed against it, and yet He made the 
 very existence and continuance of His Kingdom to de- 
 pend upon external observances. This is unaccountable 
 unless we infer, as under the circumstances we must, 
 that there is an intimate and vital connection between 
 divinely instituted externalism and deep piety and gen- 
 uine spirituality. And that there is such a connection 
 is further indicated by the constant practice of the 
 Apostolic and primitive Church. The Apostles, them- 
 selves, and those next to them, who lived nearest to the 
 time of the great Head of the Church, and consequently 
 knew most about His teaching, unquestionably re- 
 garded the external rites of Baptism and the Lord's 
 Supper as inseparably connected with salvation. We are 
 willing to grant that they made as much of repentance 
 and faith as a modern Methodist, but while admitting 
 this we must insist that the Apostles, Fathers and Doc- 
 tors attached as much importance to Baptism and the 
 Lord's Supper as the ancient Jews did to Circumcision 
 and the Passover. The proof of this is abundant in 
 nearly every chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, and 
 on almost every page of the Fathers. All who would be 
 saved were ui'ged to be baptized without delay, and the 
 early Christians seldom, if ever, met without celebrating 
 the Holy Communion. Some of us might make more 
 of certain doctrines which Denomination alists magnify, 
 but none can esteem and use valid Sacraments less 
 without diminishing the aids to holy living. 
 
 Before the Ascension it was Christ onlv, and after- 
 wards the Apostles, or those whom they commissioned, 
 who dispensed the Bread of Life in the Lord's Supper. 
 It was as necessary to receive this Heavenly food at 
 their hands as to continue in their doctrine and fellow- 
 ship and the appointed worship. We read of the three 
 thousand, who believed and were added to the Church 
 
198 
 
 OUR COUTEOVERSY WITH PBHOMIITATIONALISTS. 
 
 THE DEPOSITORY OF SACRAMENTAL GRACE. 
 
 199 
 
 i 
 
 by Baptism, that ^'They contmtred steadfastly in the 
 Apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in the breaking 
 of bread and in the prayers." The only way in which 
 Christians of later days can imitate the example of the 
 first Disciples is by adhering to the Bishop of the Apos- 
 tolic Succession who has been canouically placed over 
 them. At least so taught the Fathers. 
 
 "Let no man," wrote the Apostolic Ignatius when 
 on his way to martyrdom, a. d. 107, "let no man be 
 deceived. If anyone be not within the precinct of the 
 Altar, he lacketh the bread of God . For, if the prayer of 
 one and another hath so great force, how much more 
 that of the Bishop and of the whole Church." *^Let 
 us, therefore, be careful not to resist the Bishop, that by 
 our submission we may give ourselves to God. And in 
 proportion as a man seeth that his Bishop is silent, let 
 him fear him the more. For everyone whom the Mas- 
 ter of the household sendeth to be His steward over 
 His own house, we ought so to receive as Him that 
 sent him. Plainly, therefore, we ought to regard the 
 Bishop as the Lord Himself." "For as many as are 
 of God and of Jesus Christ, they are with the Bishop; 
 and as many as shall repent and enter into the unity 
 of the Church, these also shall be of God. Be not 
 deceived, my brethi-en, if any man followeth one that 
 maketh a schism, he doth not inherit the Kingdom of 
 God. If any man walketh in strange doctrine, he hath 
 no fellowship with the passion." '' Be ye careful, there- 
 fore, to observe one Eucharist [that is, the Holy Com- 
 munion], for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ 
 and one Cup unto union in His blood ; there is one 
 Altar, as there is one Bishop, together with the Pres- 
 bytery and the Deacons, my fellow-servants." " Let no 
 man do aught of things pertaining to the Church apart 
 from the Bishop. Let that be held a valid Eucharist 
 
 which is under the Bishop or one to whom he shall 
 have committed it. Wheresoever the Bishop shall ap- 
 pear, there let the people be; even as where Jesus may 
 be, there is the Universal Church. It is not lawful apart 
 from the Bishop either to baptize or to hold a love- 
 feast ; but whatever he shall approve, this is well- 
 pleasing also to God; that everything which ye do 
 may be sure and valid." 
 
 "Athanasius,"says Canon Gore, "endeavors to recall 
 a Bishop who in time of persecution had been guilty of 
 fleeing from his duty, in part by reminding him of 
 monks who have made good Bishops, but principally 
 by recalling to his mind the dignity of the Episcopate, 
 as instituted by Christ through His Apostles and hav- 
 ing, therefore, not merely the authority of the Church 
 but the authority of Christ Himself, and as being the 
 essential condition of the continuous life of the Church 
 and the handing down of grace." 
 
 V. 
 
 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 
 
 THIS Lecture would be incomplete without some 
 reply to the principal objections which, judging 
 from my own experience, must inevitably have 
 presented themselves to the Denominational reader. 
 Hewill,of course, perceive, as I did, that such arguments 
 tend to unchurch the non-Episcopal bodies ; to make it 
 an imperative duty to go out from them, and to enter 
 some undoubted branch of the Catholic Church; to 
 \ invalidate the ministry and sacraments of non-Episco- 
 palians, and to limit covenanted salvation to the his- 
 toric Catholic Church. All this, it will be said, is unmit- 
 igated and intolerable bigotry. In a generation, which, 
 
 < r 
 
200 
 
 OUE CONTROVERSY WITH DENOMINATIONALISTS. 
 
 like ours, glories in its creedless liberality, this appar- 
 ently well-founded accusation will settle the whole mat- 
 ter in the minds of the great majority, who have been 
 led on by curiosity to follow me thus far. 
 
 A long experience in a position which has brought 
 me in contact with great numbers of non-Episcopalians, 
 does not encourage the hope that there is anything to 
 be said which will prevent most of us from parting com- 
 pany at the end of this lecture. Nevertheless, Episco- 
 palians, as might be expected, have their ready answer 
 to these, as to all other objections, that are urged 
 against their Church, which, in each and every case, is 
 so far satisfactory as to clear the way for the continu- 
 ous procession of intelligent Denominationalists, who 
 are coming into the Episcopal Church at the rate of 
 about twenty thousand annually. Though this is a 
 great host, all who have completed their Churchward 
 journey believe that it would be far greater, if inherited 
 prejudice and the popular cry against illiberality did 
 not deter many from investigating the claims of the 
 Church. Nine out of every ten who hear and read 
 enough really to understand these claims, sooner or 
 later identify themselves with us. The truth of this 
 statement will be established in other connections. 
 
 1. The propositions which we have been considering 
 are objected to, because, if followed to their logical con- 
 clusion, they unchurch the various non-Episcopal bod- 
 ies of Christians. The edge of this objection will be 
 blunted by the explanation that, though we do not rec- 
 ognize a society which was organized by a human 
 agency only three hundred years ago, more or less, as a 
 branch of the Divine Institution of which we read in the 
 New Testament, yet we do admit that all its members, 
 who have been duly baptized with water in the Name of 
 the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, are 
 
 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 
 
 201 
 
 
 members of the "One, Holy, Catholic Church of Christ," 
 as really as ourselves. The difference between them and 
 us is, that they are living in schism while we are not. 
 Nevertheless, by reason of their Baptism, they are Chris- 
 tians. 
 
 If I mistake not there are several of the Denomina- 
 tions whose representatives, if true to the convictions 
 J which prevail among them, could not say as much of 
 ^ Episcopalians. Consistency would require them to call 
 \ our Christianity in question, because we are not united 
 to Christ by a particular form of Baptism or by some 
 special kind of faith and experience. At any rate it 
 cannot truthfully be said that any of the leading and 
 so-called orthodox Denominations are more liberal than 
 we are in the cordial recognition of Christian brethren 
 who are outside of our respective communions. Thus, if 
 we unchurch the Denominations we do not unchristianize 
 their members. According to our understanding, their 
 case is very much like that of those who belonged to 
 the great revolt effected by Jeroboam. " The ten tribes 
 did not cease to be Hebrews. They were still brought 
 by circumcision into covenant with God ; they are still 
 addressed as His chosen people. Their Priests are never 
 recognized as the Priests of God ; their ministrations are 
 always stigmatized as illegitimate ; but the people, be- 
 ing Israelites and being circumcised, are still accounted 
 the elect or chosen people of God, are always recognized 
 as belonging to the one body. Wide as was the breach 
 which Jeroboam made, it did not split the 'common- 
 wealth of Israel ' into two. He sinned grievously him- 
 self, and he ' made Israel to sin ' — ^in fact, it is beyond 
 all doubt that separation in that age was wholly sinful. 
 But, notwithstanding the schism, the Jewish Church re- 
 mained one. Not even Jeroboam, the great heresiarch, 
 who carried five-sixths of the congregation of Israel 
 
202 OUR CONTROVEBST WITH I>1M0IIINATI0NALISTS. 
 
 aloiig* Wftli him— Jeroboam, whom God appointed to 
 rule over the ten tribes— could found a new Church or 
 people of God." 
 
 It has been asked, "But, how do you account for the 
 blessing which has attended the labors of the various 
 Denominations, if they are not true Churches of Christ?" 
 In the same way that we account for the successes of 
 the Young Men's Christian Association or of the Salva- 
 tion Army. God's abounding grace constantly over- 
 flows its channels. God forbid that we should deny for 
 a moment the good and holy work done for Him by the 
 Denominations. Why should we? It is the work of our 
 fellow-Christians, and it is because they are Christians 
 by Baptism, and not because the societies to which 
 they belong are Churches, that God has blessed their 
 preaching and endeavors. 
 
 Denominationalists usually justify their separation 
 from the Historic Church of our race upon the ground 
 that they were "kicked out." In proof of this they 
 mention the fact that a large number of self-constituted 
 ministers, who had been intruded into English l)enefices 
 in the Revolutionary period, were ejected upon the 
 restoration of the monarchy, and that many of the 
 Church of England pulpits were closed against John 
 and Charles Wesley. We answer that even if such ejec- 
 tions and exclusions could be shown to have been 
 wholly unjust and reprehensible, they afford no excuse 
 for the sin of schism. Two wrongs do not make one 
 right. Even, though, for the sake of argument, it be 
 conceded that the Independents and Methodists met 
 with unjust and harsh treatment, yet it cannot be ad- 
 mitted that they were compelled to leave the Church; 
 for many of the leaders of both movements remained in 
 the Church all their days, and died in her communion. 
 Besides, there is really no such thing as " kicking" peo- 
 
 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 
 
 203 
 
 pie out of the Catholic Church. They can be made to 
 endure wrong and cruel persecution, but they cannot 
 be cut off from the Body of Christ of which they were 
 made members at Holy Baptism. Not even excommu- 
 nication will do this. It may prevent participatioi; in 
 the benefits of the means of grace. But, those, who at 
 various times since the middle of the sixteenth century, 
 have left the English and American Episcopal Churches, 
 were not even excommunicated. They went out of their 
 own accord. If vve look at the matter from the stand- 
 point of Denominationalists, the most charitable ex- 
 planation of their conduct is that they were unwilling 
 to suffer wrongfully for the sake of Christ. In this respect 
 the followers of John Wesley, if the representations 
 respecting the persecutions which he endured are true, 
 did not imitate his example, for, according to many 
 accounts that we have seen, he could not be ^'kicked 
 out." There is, however, room for doubt whether cre- 
 dence should be given to all that has been published on 
 this subject. Mr. Wesley, himself, never accused the 
 Church of casting him out— least of all in his last days— 
 when, he tells us, he had **more invitations to preach 
 in Churches than he could accept of;" when many of the 
 Clergy were "prejudiced in favor of the Methodists;" 
 when, as his biographer Tyerman says, " he was invited in 
 all parts of the country by Rectors, Vicars, Curates, and 
 others to favor them with his services. An eminent 
 Methodist in a " Contemporary Review " article, has tes- 
 tified that, on the whole, the Bishops treated Wesley bet- 
 ter than he could have expected. "So persistent were 
 Wesley's irregularities that it has always seemed to me 
 that great indulgence on the part of the Bishops was 
 exercised, or he would have been, in every Diocese, in- 
 hibited with vigor." Those who read history through 
 Anglican spectacles will continue to attribute our 
 

 204 OUR CONTROVERSY WITH DE1T0MINATI0NALISTS. 
 
 tiilfbrtuiiate df tfsioTis to the Puritanical Pharisaism and 
 willfulness of the first Separatists. No reflection is here 
 intended upon their descendants. Denominationalists 
 can no more be held responsible for the sins of their 
 ancestors, except in so far as they knowingly and delib- 
 erately continue in them, than Episcopalians can be for 
 those of the "fox hunting parson." 
 / Moreover, we must not allow our objectors to forget 
 /that, if we unchurch their recently organized voluntary 
 societies, because they have no historic connection with 
 Christ through an Apostolic and Canonical succession 
 of Bishops, we are simply following the example of their 
 ancestors who unchurched us, not only because they in- 
 sisted that the Presbytery was the only Divinely insti- 
 tuted form of Church government, but also because they 
 maintained that the whole Episcopal establishment 
 was so utterly corrupt that it was not any part of the 
 Church of Christ, but rather the synagogue of Satan. 
 Heylin, who wrote his standard History of Puritanism 
 and Life of Archbishop Laud about the time of the 
 Cromwellian Kevolution, thus summarizes the language 
 used by the enemies of the Church in the innumerable 
 pamphlets which in his day were scattered broadcast. 
 " They could find no other title for the Archbishop than 
 Beelzebub of Canterbury, the Pope of Lambeth, the 
 Canterbury Caiaphas, Esau, a monstrous Antichrist, a 
 most bloody opposer of God's Saints, a very anti- 
 christian beast, most bloody tyrant. The Bishops are 
 described as unlawful, unnatural, false and bastardly 
 governors of the Church, the ordinances of the devil, 
 petty Popes, petty Antichrists, incarnate devils, cog- 
 ging,cozening knaves, who lie like dogs, and so on." 
 
 When we were thus not only unchurched but also 
 reviled, instead of retorting in kind upon the calum- 
 niators of the Church, Hooker, Andrews, Thorudike, 
 
 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 
 
 205 
 
 Taylor, Laud and a host of others calmly proved 
 by works that have never been answered that Episco- 
 pacy is an essential part of the Church's constitution 
 and that, notwithstanding the sins of omission and 
 commission of which many of her representatives in 
 high places were guilty, the Church of England is a true 
 branch of the Church of Christ. Nor were our scholars 
 and Saints content with writing unanswerable controver- 
 sial works. They frankly confessed our short-comings 
 and preached the necessity of reformation v/ith a fidelity 
 and vigor that resulted in the purifying of the body 
 Ecclesiastical and in making her confessedly the great- 
 est educational, missionary, and benevolent agency 
 that the world has ever known. 
 
 Our Methodist brethren who seem to be the most 
 deeply oflended at our alleged uncharitableness towards 
 other Christian bodies and have so much to say about 
 it, may be reminded that after all we simply occupy the 
 ground that John Wesley took in regard to all Separat- 
 ists from the Historic Church. He never looked upon 
 the association of which he was the head as anything 
 more than a society within the Church. Nor would he 
 listen to any suggestion of separation, but warned his 
 followers against it and prevented it so long as he lived. 
 Dr. Beet, who is perhaps the greatest living scholar 
 among English Methodists, says: *' Wesley had no 
 thought of founding a community otitside the Anglican 
 Church, and strongly urged his followers to remain in 
 the ancient fold." As is well known John and Charles 
 Wesley both died Priests and communicants of the 
 Church in good standing. 
 
 2. Again, it is objected that the propositions which 
 we have been maintaining, logically lead to the conclu- 
 sion that it is the duty of n on -Episcopalians to leave 
 their respective societies and to identify themselves with 
 
i 
 
 ( 
 ( 
 
 ' 
 
 OUR CONTROVERSY WITH DEN0MINATI0NALIST8. 
 
 some undoubted branch of the Divinely instituted 
 Church. What we really intend to teach is at least ca- 
 pable of statement in the following less objectionable 
 form :— It is the duty of all Christians and of those who 
 would become such, to examine the relative claims of 
 the various religious bodies to their allegiance. Other 
 things being equal, we feel sure that Americans who 
 have any regard for antiquity and for the predominat- 
 ing judgment of Christendom, will feel obliged to ally 
 themselves with some branch of Episcopacy which has 
 come down from the Apostles rather than with any of the 
 various forms of a self-constituted ministry as found in 
 Denominationalism. Until the Reformation practically 
 the whole of Christendom believed the "Historic Episco- 
 pate '^ to be an essential characteristic of the Church 
 founded by Christ, and even now. the vast majority of 
 Christians hold to this view. If the teaching or practice 
 /of the early Church on any point is unanimous, or nearly 
 so, then it is not safe to draw conclusions contrary to 
 it except upon unmistakable evidences of error. "We 
 require you to find out but one Church upon the face of 
 the whole earth, that hath been ordered by your disci- 
 pline, or hath not been ordered by ours, that is to say, 
 by Episcopal regiment, since the time that the blessed 
 Apostles were conversant.'' This is the famous chal- 
 lenge of Hooker, who wrote at the close of the sixteenth 
 century against the I'resb^^terians. It has never yet 
 been met. Until non-Episcopalians can meet it, they 
 cannot reasonably object to the logic which makes it 
 their duty to be in communion with the canonical Bishop 
 of the region in which they live. 
 
 3. It is also objected that the line of argument pur- 
 sued in this lecture invalidates the Ministry and Sacra- 
 ments of Denominationalists, that is, makes them of no 
 effect. If we have said or implied anything of this kind, 
 
 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 
 
 207 
 
 \ 
 
 we take it all back. For the truth is, instead of depreciat- 
 ing their Ministry and Sacraments, we admit not only all 
 for which most Denominationalists contend, but, in the 
 case of Baptism we go beyond their claim for it by ac- 
 knowledging that it makes the candidate "A member of 
 Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of the King- 
 dom of Heaven," which they deny. It must, however, 
 not be understood from this acknowledgment that we 
 concede a Divine Priesthood to Denominational minis- 
 tries. We can and do acknowledge as much of Baptism 
 administered by ordinary Laymen and Lay-women. 
 But why should they take offense at our refusal to force 
 upon them a character which they, themselves, repu- 
 diate ?[ Denominationalists generally deny that their 
 ministers are Priests and that Divine Grace is given 
 through the channel of Sacramental ordinances. Ac- 
 cording to their view a minister is only a commissioned 
 preacher, and the Sacraments are simply commemora- 
 tive ceremonies. How can they justly charge us with 
 uncharitableness if we simply take them at their word 
 upon this point ? 
 
 ^ "It is well to understand," says Bishop Hugh Miller 
 Thompson, "that we have little, if any, difference with 
 the 'Denominations' about their ministry and ordi- 
 nances. These are valid for all that is claimed for them. 
 They say that their ministers are teachers of religion, 
 duly appointed^ and authorized by a voluntary society. 
 They are certainly this. They assert that their ministers 
 are not Priests and have no Sacerdotal power or au- 
 thority. To this assertion we assent. They profess 
 not to have Apostolic Succession. We agree with them 
 upon this point. They state that they administer an 
 Ordinance in which the Body and Blood of Christ are 
 not really present, and are not verily and indeed given, 
 taken, and received ; but that it is merely a mode of 
 
208 OUR CONTROVERSY WITH DENOMINATIONALISTS. 
 
 recalling to their minds our Lord's death. This state- 
 ment is quite unobjectionable. About Baptism we 
 differ somewhat from them, attributing to that Sac- 
 rament, as administered by them, a greater effect than 
 their own faith ventures to hope for. Administered 
 with water, in the name of the Holy Trinity, we believe 
 it to regenerate the soul that duly receives it, and to 
 graft it into the body of Christ's Church. So, we admit 
 their ministry to be all that they claim it to be; and we 
 admit their ordinances to be in no case less, and in one 
 case more, than they, themselves, believe.'' 
 
 And if there be any Denominationalists who claim 
 that their ministry is a Priesthood and that their Sac- 
 raments are the means through which Divine gifts are 
 received, the irritation caused by our attitude towards 
 non-Episcopacy may be somewhat soothed by the fact 
 that they are not alone in being called upon to sustain 
 the charge of invalidity. Romanists are continually 
 representing our ministry and Sacraments to be invalid. 
 There was a time when Denominationalists also did 
 this. Bishop Coleman, speaking of the Puritans of 
 Colonial days, says: "While some were pleased to allow 
 that a clergyman ordained by an English Bishop re- 
 quired no further credentials to officiate when called to 
 a society of Congxegationalists, others compelled such 
 to submit to a * re-ordination by the brethren.' This 
 ceremony was gone through with, for example, in the 
 case of the Rev. Thomas Hooker, at Newton, afterwards 
 Cambridge, in the year 1633, and of Master Cotton, at 
 Boston, in the same year. Episcopal Ordination was 
 even looked upon as something for which those receiv- 
 ing it must needs apologize, and there seems to be 
 reason for believing that in some instances they were 
 obliged to recant it." Such treatment has never wor- 
 ried us. Whenever occasion has arisen, our writers and 
 
 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 
 
 209 
 
 preachers have proceeded to show by unanswerable ar- 
 guments based upon Scripture and history that our 
 Ministry and Ordinances are valid. 
 
 If Denominationalists are sure of their ground, let 
 them, when we call in question their ministry, pursue 
 the course towards us that we do towards Romanists. 
 Unfortunately for them, of those who do this the 
 majority have the experience of good Dr. Wolff, of 
 missionary fame, about whom the following anecdote is 
 related. The Doctor, burning with zeal to preach the 
 Gospel of Christ, was on one occasion traveling in some 
 out of the way region in the Orient. It was in the 
 Diocese of one of the Bishops of the (jreek Church; and 
 in the course of his wanderings he fell in with the Bishop. 
 **Who are you?" said the Bishop, looking at him 
 rather suspiciously. ''A poor Missionary," said the 
 Doctor. ^*A what?" asked the Bishop. '^A Mis- 
 sionary," repeated Dr. Wolff, pulling out his little black 
 Bible. And those of us who are old enough to have 
 seen Wolff fingering his Bible, will remember how it al- 
 ways seemed to open of itself at the precise text he 
 wanted. "I am come to preach salvation to these 
 people. How shall they call on Him on whom they 
 have not believed ? Or how shall they believe in Him of 
 whom they have not heard? Or how shall they hear 
 without a preacher?" " That is all very well," said the 
 Bishop, "but why don't you finish the text?" "How 
 shall they preach except they be sent ?" "Who sent you?" 
 "Sent?" said Wolff. "Yes, sent!" replied the Bishop. 
 "My Metropolitan sent me, and his predecessors sent 
 him, and I send my Priests and Deacons. Now, who 
 sent you?" " The Spirit of the Lord," said Wolff boldly; 
 for he was not a man to be put out of countenance. "I 
 hope you do not deny that Christ is able to send His 
 own messenger without human intervention?" "God 
 
 C. A .—14 
 
210 
 
 OUR CONTROVERSY WITH DEN0MINATI0NALI8TS. 
 
 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 
 
 211 
 
 forbid that I should doubt it for a moment," the Bishop 
 answered, *' I know He can. I know that He sent Moses 
 and Aaron, without human intervention, to establish 
 the Aaronic Priesthood ; and I know that He superseded 
 this very Priesthood of His own Ordination, by sendinji: 
 also without human intervention the Apostolic Priest- 
 hood; and what He did once He can do again. God 
 forbid ! that I should doubt that ; I should be a Jew if I 
 did. Still I do observe that whenever God does send 
 anyone direct from Himself and without human inter- 
 vention, He is always gi*aciously pleased to confirm His 
 ©wn appointment to the minds of his faithful servants 
 by signs and wonders. Moses called down bread from 
 Heaven. He and Aaron brought forth water from the 
 rock. And so, also, when God was pleased to supersede 
 that Priesthood, many wonders and signs were wrought 
 by the hands of the Apostles. They did not go upon 
 their own testimoay; but appealed to these as wit- 
 nesses; as, in the case of their Master, Himself, the works 
 which they did testified of them. Now,'' continued the 
 Bishop, " without at all doubting the possibility that a 
 Wolffian succession may be commissioned to supplant 
 that of the Apostles, where are your witnesses? I sup- 
 pose you do not expect us to take your word for it. 
 What supernatural powers do you appeal to, in proof 
 of your Heavenly mission?" This was a puzzling ques- 
 tion. It had puzzled Mahomet several hundred years 
 before. That false prophet, however, got out of it clever- 
 ly, by saying that he had written the Koran, which as 
 everyone thought, was a miracle of itself; but poor 
 Wolff could not say that he had written the Bible; so 
 he fell to thinking. The result was that he came home, 
 I will not say a better man— for a most excellent man 
 he always was— but by many shades a wiser man ; and 
 soon afterwards sought for Ordination in the regular 
 
 way, and was ordained by Bishop Doane, of New 
 Jersey. 
 
 /'Nor has the Greek Bishop been the only one to 
 /recognize that miracles are the necessary credentials of 
 I him who, without Episcopal and Canonical Ordination, 
 claims to have a sufficient call to preach the Gospel and 
 administer the Sacraments. When the Anabaptists 
 appealed to Luther, "not doubting," as the historian 
 fsays, ''that he who had first preached the liberty of the 
 |Gospel would pronounce in their favor," they had cer- 
 tainly some reason to be astonished at a reply which 
 seemed to involve the formal renunciation of one of the 
 first principles of his Reformation. ('Let the Senate 
 ask this man," said the Reformer, when giving advice 
 about the ministerial pretensions of their would-be 
 pastor, Muncer, "who called him? and, if he shall an- 
 1 swer, ' God,' let them charge him to prove his calling by 
 some manifest sign, which, if he cannot do, let him be 
 repudiated as an impostor." Under the circumstances 
 this was a harsh and inconsistent judgment which must 
 be as great a source of regret and embarrassment to 
 the Lutheran ministry as John Wesley's famous Ser- 
 mon CXV, on "the Ministerial Office," is to the Metho- 
 dist Ministry. 
 
 4. Finally, it will be objected that we limit cove- 
 nanted salvation to membership in the historic Catho- 
 lic Church. But this is not the same as saying that 
 only members of the Greek, Roman, and Anglican Com- 
 munions will be saved. As has already appeared by 
 reiterated statements, we acknowledge all who have 
 been baptized in the name of the Trinity to be in cove- 
 nant relationship with God. Nor is it equivalent to a 
 declaration that all non church members will be lost. I 
 suppose that there is not an Episcopalian to be found 
 anywhere, who believes that God's mercy does not 
 
Mt 
 
 OUB CONTROVERSY WITH DENOMINATIONALISTS. 
 
 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 
 
 213 
 
 
 (' 
 
 I 
 
 .1 ' 
 
 ^ 
 
 overflow the Church. But if there were such, Denomina- 
 tionalists should be the last to accuse them of bigotry ; 
 for, as we have seen, their ancestors, the Presbyterians, 
 declared in their Westminster Confession of Faith that 
 there is a visible Catholic Church, *'the house and 
 family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possi- 
 bility of salvation.'' 
 
 No, we do not limit salvation to the adherents of the 
 Catholic Church. What we do say is that covenanted 
 or assured salvation is limited to the Church. Nor 
 do we, as our objectors represent, tie God's gifts of 
 grace and mercy to Sacramental Ordinances. Our 
 doctrine is lucidly and concisely set forth in Dr. Sea- 
 bury's edition of "Haddan's Apostolical Succession," 
 ** Without Bishops, no Presbyters ; without Bishops 
 and Presbyters, no legitimate certainty of Sacraments ; 
 without Sacraments, no certain union with the mys- 
 tical Body of Christ; without this, no certain union 
 with Christ; and without that union, no salvation. 
 Yet with these necessary provisos at every step, by the 
 very nature of the moral laws and attributes of God : 
 First, that these outward things ma^' be had ; secondly, 
 that due allowance be made for ignorance, prejudice, 
 or necessity ; thirdly, that the system be regarded as 
 subservient and ministering to a true faith, a living 
 religion, and a hearty love of Christ in the soul." 
 
 We recognize the truth, that God is free to grant His 
 blessings through whatever instrumentality He may see 
 fit to use, or directly without any ceremonial channel. 
 But are we justified in concluding that, because God is 
 not bound to the Ordinances which He has instituted as 
 the instruments of our salvation, we are free to disre- 
 gard them ? If God be not limited, we are. Those of us 
 who know His appointments, certainly are not justified 
 in expecting that we can be saved without using them. 
 
 We do not, then, make the Church of the Historic Epis- 
 copate to be the only way of salvation, or confine the 
 bestowal of God's Grace to her Ministry and Sacra- 
 ments. All we claim is that they are the Divinely ap- 
 pointed ark of satety and channels of refreshment. Mul- 
 titudes, doubtless, will reach Heaven by other ways. 
 But we contend that it is, nevertheless, required of all 
 to deteririiiie whether or not God has appointed a way, 
 and if it be found, to walk in it. Moreover, Holy Scrip- 
 ture makes it a duty to search out and to take ''the 
 old paths," rather than the new. '' Stand in the ways, 
 and see and ask for the old paths where is the good 
 way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your 
 souls." These words of the Prophet Jeremiah, ad- 
 dressed to the perverse and erring people of Judah, are 
 full of instruction for those who desire to serve God 
 acceptably under the Christian as well as the Mosaic 
 Dispensation. At all times entitled to the most serious 
 consideration, they are especially applicable to this 
 age. What this precept, when applied to the unhappy 
 condition in which divided Christendom finds itself, 
 requires is, that we should all follow the history of 
 the body with which we are identified and each Article 
 of its distinctive Creed back to the place of the parting 
 of ways. There we shall find the way from which all 
 others have diverged — ''the good way," the way which 
 all Christians once pursued, the way in which all, if they 
 will, can walk again in unity and brotherly love, the 
 only way by which the hosts of Christ can progress 
 towards universal conquest. The world will never be 
 evangelized by a divided Church, and the Church will 
 never be united so long as Christians continue in the 
 paths of their own choosing. All must come back to 
 the " old paths," " the good way." For nearly a thou- 
 sand years Romanists have been wandering further and 
 

 I 
 1 
 
 ! I 
 
 I 
 
 214 
 
 OUK CONTEOVERSY WITH DENOMINATIONALISTS. 
 
 further from this way in one direction, and Denomina- 
 tionah'sts, since their beginning, more than three cen- 
 turies ago, have been doing the same in the opposite 
 course. Both of these must follow the example which 
 the Anglican Communion set at the Reformation, by 
 retracing their steps until they come to ''the good 
 way." God grant that the Denominational reader for 
 whom this chapter has been especially written, may be 
 disposed, by the operation of the Holy Spiiit, to heed 
 the Prophet's injunction, by asking for '' the old paths," 
 '• where is the good way ? " and having found it, may he 
 walk therein and find rest for his soul. 
 
 "For all Thy Church, O Lord, we intercede; 
 
 Make Thou our sad divisions soon to cease; 
 Draw us the nearer each to each, we plead, 
 
 By drawing all to Thee, O Prince of Peace. 
 Thus may we all one Bread, one Body, be 
 
 Through Thy blest Sacrament of Unity. 
 
 '* We pray Thee, too, for wanderers from Thy fold ; 
 
 Oh, bring them back, good Shepherd of the sheep, 
 Back to the Faith which Saints believed of old, 
 
 Back to the Church which still that Faith doth keep. 
 Soon may we all one Bread, one Body, be, 
 
 Through Thy blest Sacrament of Unity." 
 
 The Church for Ameficans. 
 
 LECTURE IV. 
 
 THE ynoTHER cnURcri or England. 
 
 I. Continuity of the English Church. 
 II. Not Originally a Mission of Rome. 
 III. Roman Encroachments and Their Resistance. 
 
 (215) 
 
AUTHORITIES. 
 
 Bright, Early English Church History. 
 Bright, Side Waymarks of Church History. 
 CoiT, Early History of Christianity in England. 
 Cox, Is the Church of England Protestant? 
 Cole, The Anglican Church. 
 Fry, Lectures on the Church of England. 
 Garnier, Canon, The Title-deeds of the Church of England. 
 Hart, Ecclesiastical Records of England, Ireland and Scotland. 
 Jennings, Ecclesia Anglicana. 
 Jennings, A Manual of Church History. (2 Vols.) 
 Lane, Illustrated Notes on English Church History. (2 Vols.) 
 Lightfoot, Bp., Leaders in the Northern Church. 
 Perry, Canon, Students' English Church History. (3 Vols.) 
 Pryce, The Ancient British Church. 
 Robertson, History of the Christian Church. (8 Vols.) 
 Ross-Lewin, Continuity of the English Church. 
 Sparks, The Resistance of the English Church and Nation to the 
 Encroachments and Usurpations of the Bishop of Rome. 
 Stoughton, Ecclesiastical History of England. (2 Vols.) 
 
 PAMPHLETS. 
 
 Garrett, Bp., Historical Continuity. 
 
 Grueber, The Church of England and the Ancient Church of the 
 
 land. 
 
 LowRiE, The Mother Church of England. 
 
 Nye, The Story of the Church of England. 
 
 Nye, The Right of the Church of England to Her Property. 
 
 Oldroyd, The Continuity of the English Church Through 
 Eighteen Centuries. 
 
 MISCELLANEOUS. 
 
 Church Club Lectures, The Church in the British Isles. 
 Church Club Lectures, The Church in the British Isles, Post 
 Restoration Period. 
 
 (216) 
 
 The Mother Church of 
 England. 
 
 WE have endeavored to show elsewhere* that the 
 Gospel makes identification with some true 
 branch of the Apostolic Church of Christ 
 obligatory upon all. It is now necessary, in order that 
 the way may be prepared for determining whether or 
 not a person who unites with the American Episcopal 
 Church fulfills this obligation, to devote a lecture to the 
 Mother Church of English-speaking Christianity. 
 
 I. 
 
 CONTINUITY OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH. 
 
 WE shall assume that all, whether they be repre- 
 sentatives of Romanism or of Denomination- 
 alism, admit that the Church of England, be- 
 fore the Reformation, was a part of the true Church of 
 Christ. Certainly she was the only form of organized 
 Christianity then in the land. It is equally certain that 
 her title to Catholicity was never questioned during all 
 of the pre-Reformation ages. The impression, however, 
 prevails that the Church of Rome was the Church in 
 England up to the time of Henry VIII., and that the 
 present religious establishment is a new foundation. 
 
 The necessity for the dissemination of knowledge con- 
 cerning the origin and continuous history of the Mother 
 
 ♦Lectures I and III. 
 
 (217) 
 
218 
 
 THE MOTHER CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 
 
 i 
 
 II 
 
 Church of England, is illustrated by an experience 
 which I had about a year ago upon the occasion of the 
 holding of the first Service in one of the many large towns 
 of Ohio where, as the General Missionary of the Diocese, it 
 has been my duty and privilege to care for the isolated 
 and neglected members of the Church by estabhshing 
 Missions or occasional Services. At this place, a county- 
 seat, there was not an adherent of the Church to be 
 found, and so, though the congi*egation was good for a 
 stormy evening, and the Service, considering a number 
 of adverse circumstances, was as satisfactory as could 
 be expected, it did not look as if the result would justify 
 the somewhat unusual expenditure of time, money, and 
 energy which the Service had cost. It was, therefore, a 
 source of encouragement and gratification to me when, 
 as the congregation was disbanding, a middle-aged 
 man with his half grown son lingered to thank me for 
 the Service, and to request permission to accompany 
 me to the hotel for some conversation about *'vour 
 Church.'' 
 
 When w© reached my room he told me the following 
 interesting story: *'I am a farmer living twelve miles 
 from town. I saw the announcement of your Service in 
 our county paper, and, having lately become interested 
 in the Eyjiscopal Church, my son and I have driven all 
 the way through the rain and mud to attend it. I have 
 never been at one before, partly, because there has been 
 a lack of convenient opportunity, and partly, because 
 of a deep-rooted prejudice of thirty years' standing 
 against that Church. In times past, as you may re- 
 member, there was a great deal more of controversy 
 and bigotry about matters of religion than there is 
 now. The members of the rural congregation to which 
 I belonged would have gone home feeling that they had 
 not received their money's worth unless the preacher 
 
 CONTINUITY OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH. 
 
 219 
 
 had dwelt at some length upon the perfections of their 
 sect and severely criticised its numerous rivals. One of 
 the ministers who stood high in the estimation of us 
 all for learning, because, as I have since concluded, he 
 descanted a great deal concerning matters about which 
 neither he nor his auditors knew anything, used fre- 
 quently to go out of his way, for there was no parish 
 within fifty miles of the place, to denounce the Episco- 
 pal Church. As much of his reputation for learning 
 rested upon his supposed familiarity with history, I did 
 not question his representation that the Mother Church 
 of England owed its existence to Henry VIII. From 
 what he said about that monarch and his Ecclesiastical 
 handiwork, I naturally concluded that I never should go 
 across the road to attend a Church which had such an 
 ignominious origin and between which and the Church 
 of Rome there was nothing but the thinnest and flimsi- 
 est paper wall. Though I have since frequently spent 
 more or less time in a city where you have many 
 Churches, and though there has for years been a, parish 
 within less than three hours' drive, the resolution formed 
 so long ago has never been broken until this evening. 
 This departure from a life-long course is accounted 
 for by the fact that a much-beloved relative, who has 
 long been one of the most respected ministers of the 
 Denomination to which I belong, to the astonishment 
 of everybody, became an Episcopalian a few weeks ago. 
 Shortly after seeing the announcement of the change, I 
 received a copy of the Prayer Book and certain publi- 
 cations containing some account of the Episcopal 
 Church, and answers to popular objections to her. 
 There is, of course, no doubt in my mind as to whom I 
 am indebted for them. Under the circumstances it was 
 natural for me to read them attentively in the hope of 
 discovering the reason for my friend's unexpected action. 
 

 
 
 220 
 
 THE MOTHER CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 
 
 Even the cursory examination which I first gave the 
 Prayer Book led me to the conclusion that it was a 
 pretty good book, even if Henry VIII. did make it. 
 The pamphlets put the Episcopal Church, as to its 
 origin, history, and relationship to Rome in a very dif- 
 ferent light from that in which it was placed by the 
 pulpit orators, from whom my knowledge of Ecclesias- 
 tical History has been chiefly derived. After reading 
 them I went back to the Prayer Book and have read 
 much of it over, and over, with an ever-increasing sense 
 of the beauty of its Services— hence my desire to join in 
 their public use as I have had the privilege of doing this 
 evening. And now I have a favor to ask of you. It is 
 that you will outline a course of reading in the history 
 of the English and American Episcopal Churches, and 
 give me the address of a publisher from whom the books 
 may be procured." 
 
 It need hardly be said that this request was readily 
 complied with. The next thing that the writer heard of 
 the man was from the Rector of the nearest Church. He 
 and a part of his large family had put in an appearance 
 on a Sunday morning. After the Service he made him- 
 self known and requested that he and his house might 
 receive preparation for Confirmation at the Bishop's 
 next visitation. All the family, who have arrived at 
 the years of discretion, are now communicants of the 
 Church. Its head has proved to be a veritable mission- 
 ary outside of his own household, for he has talked to 
 his neighbors about the Church, and distributed broad- 
 cast among them Prayer Books and tracts. So suc- 
 cessful has he been that the community, which, owing to 
 the recent construction of a railway and the establish- 
 ment of a station for its convenience, is developing into 
 a village, has determined to erect a Chapel and request 
 the Bishop to send a Oergyman to minister to them. 
 
 CONTINUITY OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH. 
 
 221 
 
 There is, indeed, considerable reason for the wide- 
 spread opinion that Henry VIII. founded the Church of 
 England. Several new organizations were formed dur- 
 ing that period. And so many changes were made in 
 her government, doctrine, and worship as to make it 
 very natural for people generally to suppose that the 
 Reformed Church of England was simply one among 
 the new organizations. It was to the interest of the 
 representatives of Romanism on the one hand, and of 
 Denominationalism on the other, to encourage this im- 
 pression. Both were anxious to make it appear that 
 this Church is a creature born of the Reformation. Ro- 
 manists desired this because it could then be shown 
 that so far as historic continuity and identity with the 
 Church that our Lord founded are concerned, we are no 
 better off than any of the sects ; and Denominational- 
 ists, because it puts our Church on the same footing with 
 themselves. This accounts for the fact that history, as 
 it is taught in our common schools, often does us fla- 
 grant injustice. The author has heard no less a person- 
 age than the principal of a high school, w ho afterwards 
 became superintendent, tell his pupils that Henry VIII. 
 founded the Episcopal Church. 
 
 Episcopalians claim that the present Church of Eng- 
 land is identical with that which was in the land before 
 the Reformation. The changes in doctrine, govern- 
 ment, and worship, though confessedly great, did not 
 necessarily result in the creation of a new Church. This is 
 because all such changes were merely reformatory and so 
 stopped short of revolution. " I know that some people 
 are to be found," writes Lord Selborne, *^who pretend 
 that a new^ Church of England w^as set up at that time, 
 and the old Church cast out. For that pretense there 
 is no foundation in law or in fact. A Church doe6 not 
 lose its identity or sameness, as an organized institution , 
 
99^ 
 
 rWM MOTHER CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 
 
 CONTINtJITY OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH. 
 
 223 
 
 
 li 
 
 if 
 
 m 
 
 i 
 
 \ 
 
 by changes in form or ceremony. In the English 
 Reformation, the organization of the Church, as the 
 Church of England, was not displaced or broken at any 
 single point. And I think it right to add, though it is 
 not my object to enter at all into theological questions, 
 that nothing was then done which made the Church of 
 England really different in any point of substance 
 affecting religious faith or practice from what it had 
 originally been in the days of Augustine, the first Arch- 
 bishop of Canterbury." 
 
 The Reformation left the Church stripped of Roman 
 bondage and corruptions, but this only rendered her, 
 in all important respects, what she had been before the 
 captivity, an independent, pure branch of the Catholic 
 Church of Christ. "An old Gothic tower, founded cen- 
 turies ago, might, in lapse of time, be so overgrown with 
 ivy, and choked with rubbish, as to have all its original 
 features concealed. If the ivy were pruned away, and 
 the rubbish removed, it would not be a newly-founded 
 tower, but the old one restored. But if the proprietor 
 should build a new^ one on some other part of his estate, 
 digging new foundations and raising new walls, this 
 would be another tower, however closely it might re- 
 semble the old one in its outward features." The point of 
 difference between the Church of England and the van- 
 ous Denominations is seen in the fact that they werenot 
 even in existence before the Reformation, while she has 
 come dow n in unbroken continuity from the Apostles. 
 If, in an evil day, the United States should become tribu- 
 tary to some foreign power from which, after a struggle 
 of, say, three hundred years, our posterity succeeded in 
 freeing themselves, and if they then returned to the full 
 constitutional government which had been in force be- 
 fore, and never more than partially set aside, would not 
 the nation, at the end of the three centuries of subjuga- 
 
 tion, be historically the same as that which had pre- 
 viously existed? If so, the Church of England was 
 identically the same after the Reformation as before. 
 
 *'Out of Lake Leman," as our poet Bishop, Coxe, of 
 Western New York, puts it, "comes the 'arrowy Rhone,' 
 beautiful as light from the clear blue sky. You may have 
 stood on the little promontory where the Arve issues 
 forth to meet it— a red torrent from the Alps, once the 
 crystal of melted snows, but now arrayed like a Papal 
 legate. How the purer river writhes and refuses to be 
 tainted ! How the red rufiian presses and pushes it to 
 the wall ! Still the Rhone keeps up the contest as best 
 he may. For a time he holds his own, but, alas! the 
 red wins, and the sapphire disappears. What is visible 
 to the common eye is no longer the blue Rhone, but 
 only the blood-colored Arve. Is the nobler river lost? 
 By no means. It becomes the Rhone again, and rolls 
 on superbly, through the broad lands, where Irenseus 
 planted the Gospel, under the walls of Lyons and Aries, 
 and so to the sea. Behold a parable that illustrates 
 the Nicene Church in England, in her original glory, 
 and in her restored identity." 
 
 That the contrast between the Church of England, im- 
 mediately before, and after, the Reformation did not nec- 
 essarily interrupt the continuity of her history, has been 
 aptly illustrated by the celebrated Dr. Hook, in a ser- 
 mon preached before the Royal Family: "About two 
 years ago," said he, "the very Chapel in w^hich we are 
 now assembled was repaired, certain disfigurements re- 
 moved, certain improvements made. Would it not be 
 absurd on that account to contend that it is no longer 
 the Chapel Royal? Would it not be still more absurd if 
 someone were to build a new Chapel in the neighbor- 
 hood, imitating closely what this Chapel was five years 
 ago, and carefully piling up all the dust and rubbish 
 
224 
 
 THE MOTHER CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 
 
 
 which was at that time swept from hence, and then pro- 
 nounce that, not this, to be the ancient Chapel of the 
 sovereigns of England? The absurdity is at once ap- 
 parent ; but this is precisely what has been done by the 
 Koman Catholic or Papist. The present Church of 
 England is the old Church of England reformed in the 
 reigns of Henry, Edward, and Elizabeth, of certain su- 
 perstitious errors ; it is the same Church which came 
 down from our British and Saxon ancestors, and, as 
 such, it possesses its original endowments, which were 
 never, as ignorant persons foolishly suppose, taken 
 from the Church and given to another." 
 
 This point has been illustrated also by the washed 
 face of a besmirched coal miner. The change gives the 
 appearance of a complete transformation, or of a new 
 creation ; and yet no one believes that the identity has 
 been changed. ''I make not," says Archbishop Bram- 
 hall, A. D. 1593-1663, "the least doubt in the world but 
 that the Church of England, before the Keformation, 
 and the Church of England, after the Reformation, are 
 as much the same Church, as a garden before it is 
 weeded, and after it is weeded, is the same garden ; 
 or as a vine, before it is pruned, and after it is pruned 
 and freed fi-om luxuriant branches, is one and the same 
 vine." "Be it known to all the world," said Bishop 
 Hall, A. D. 1574-1656, "that our Church is only re- 
 formed or repaired, not made new— there is not one 
 stone of a new foundation laid by us ; yea, the old walls 
 stand still." 
 
 The identity of the Church of England, which has 
 been since the Reformation, with that which was before, 
 is established by a variety of considerations. We shall 
 here consider five of them. 
 
 CONTINUITY OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH. 
 
 225 
 
 1. In all essentials of Catholic doctrine, worship, and 
 government there was no change. This observation 
 will, according to our design, receive full proof and illus- 
 tration in other connections. We shall, for the present, 
 do no more than simply call attention to the fact that 
 our Book of Common Prayer is essentially the same as 
 that which had been in use from the earliest times. 
 During the Dark Ages, many Roman superstitions and 
 corruptions crept into the various liturgical "Uses." 
 The Reformers eliminated these. The first Prayer 
 Book of Edward VI., a. d. 1549, was mainly a simplifi- 
 cation of the old Service Books, translated into P]nglish, 
 with very little matter added. Indeed, Cranrner offered 
 to prove to all comers that "the Order," or, as we 
 should say, the Prayer Book of the Church of England, 
 as set out by the authority of King Edward VI., was 
 the same as had been used in the Church for fifteen hun- 
 dred years past— a challenge which was never taken up 
 by any Roman Catholic. None of the revisions of a. d. 
 1559, 1604, or 1662 seriously altered the character im- 
 pressed upon the English Liturgy from the first. The 
 Roman Liturgy was never used in England, except in 
 some monasteries of foreign monks, and by the present 
 Italian schism during the last one hundred and fifty 
 years. 
 
 2. Those who effected the English Reformation did 
 not intend to abandon the old Church and to found a new 
 one, nor did it even occur to them that they were doing 
 so, in casting off' the Roman yoke. They put their house 
 in order, but it was the same dwelling after as before. 
 Mr. Gladstone says : ^'I can find no trace of that opin- 
 ion which is now so common in the mouths of unthink- 
 ing persons, that the Roman Catholic Church was 
 abolished at the time of the Reformation, and that a 
 Protestant Church was put in its place, nor does there 
 
 C. A.— 15 
 
226 
 
 THE MOTHER CJtttfRCH OF ENGLAND. 
 
 appear to have been so much as a doubt, iu the mind of 
 any one of the Reformers, whether the Church legally 
 established in Elngland after the Reformation was the 
 same institution with the Church legally established 
 in England before the Reformation." The fact that the 
 Roman Church was never by any Act of Parliament 
 recognized as the English Church and that the Re- 
 formed Church has always been so regarded, notwith- 
 standing there were no Acts of Establishment passed 
 in the reign of Henry VIII. or any of his successors, 
 is in itself sufficient conclusively to establish the claim 
 of Episcopalians that the English Reformers did not 
 intend to organize a new body, and that the Church 
 of England after the Reformation, was, and is, in 
 Mstory and in law, identically the same which was 
 previously the Church of that country. 
 
 But while no statute can be cited which suggests 
 that any new organization was effected at the Refor- 
 mation, many official documents of that period plainly 
 show that there was no intention of breaking the 
 Church's continuity. For example, in the Preface to 
 the First Prayer Book of Edward VI., published at 
 the very crisis of the Reformation, we find this state- 
 ment: "The Service in this Church of England, these 
 many years hath been read in Latin to the people." 
 It was expressly declared in an Act passed in the year 
 1533 that "it is not intended to force the Church 
 of England into an uncatholic position, or to change 
 its character as a sound branch of Christ's Holy 
 Church." And when Queen Elizabeth was requested 
 by the. German Emperor to permit the Roman Catho- 
 lics to set up an independent worship, she refused, upon 
 the ground that "there is no new faith propagated in 
 England, no rehgion set up but that which was com- 
 manded by our Savior, practiced by the primitive 
 
 CONTINUITY OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH. 
 
 227 
 
 Church, and unanimously approved by the Fathers of 
 the best antiquity." 
 
 In freeing herself from the Roman yoke and corrup- 
 tions, the Church of England no more became a new 
 Church, than she did, when, after centuries of liberty 
 and purity, she began to be yoked and corrupted. If 
 the casting off of the Papacy, Indulgences, Mariola- 
 try, and the like, made a new Church in England, then 
 the imposition of them upon a Church that was cer- 
 tainly wholly free of them for five centuries, and practic- 
 ally so, for more than a thousand years, must have 
 created a new English Church. " The Anglican Church," 
 says Bishop Coxe, "was primitive and pure; she became 
 enslaved and defiled; she regained her liberties, she 
 washed, and is clean. But she is none other to-day, as 
 to individualitv and identitv, than she was when Ital- 
 ians were sent to put chains upon her ; when she shook 
 her chains in defiance, as she chafed under them; when 
 she la,>*dowii and slept awhile, baffled and degraded ; 
 or when, at last, she woke and broke from her fetters, 
 and began to be herself again ; until now, God has 
 given her to many nations, and set her footsteps in 
 the seas, and enabled us to say, 'Her sound is gone 
 out into all lands, and her words into the ends of the 
 world.'" 
 
 3. Another strong evidence of the historical conti- 
 nuity of the English Church is afforded by the fact that 
 there was no transfer of property. The force of tb is argu- 
 ment will be felt by all. If the Roman Church had Ijeen 
 the Church of England before the Reformation, the Ro- 
 manists of that land now would have, at least, a moral 
 title to all the Church property that had been accumu- 
 lated up to the time of Henry VIII. But their own 
 English Bishops are on record as disclaiming any 
 right whatsoever to such property. I have before me a 
 
228 
 
 THE MOTHER CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 
 
 eopy of a very interesting document entitled, '* Declara- 
 tion of the Roman Catholic Bishops, the Vicars Apos- 
 tolic, and their Coadjutors in Great Britain," the ninth 
 section of which is '*0n the claim of the British Catho- 
 lics to the property of the Church established in Eng- 
 land." It runs thus: "British Catholics are charged 
 with entertaining a pretended right to the property of 
 the established Church in England. We consider such a 
 charge to be totally without foundation. We declare 
 that we entertain no pretension to such a claim. We 
 regard all the revenues and temporalities of the Church 
 establishment as the property of those on whom they 
 are settled by the laws of the land. We disclaiui any 
 right, title or pretension with regard to the same." 
 This declaration proves that even the Pope and his 
 English representatives do not believe that the Church 
 of Rome was the Church of England before the Reforma- 
 tion, otherwise there would be no such article in their 
 pronunciamento. 
 
 It has also been decided by the highest Civil Court of 
 England that Rome has no title to English Church pro]3- 
 erty. A nine hundred and ninety-nine years' lease of a 
 piece of land to be used for military purposes was given 
 by the Church to the Crown in a. d. 872. Upon its ex- 
 piration some twenty years ago, it was adjudged that, 
 according to the laws of the realm, "it reverts to the 
 original owner, the party that gave the lease, namely, 
 the Church of England." This lease was executed over 
 six centuries before Henry VIII. was born. It conclu- 
 sively establishes the identity of the Church of England 
 in the reign of Queen Victoria, with the Church which ex- 
 isted in the time of King Alfred, thus witnessing to her 
 continuous organic life through one thousand years 
 of history. But a thousand years, long as the stretch 
 of time is, far transcending the grasp of imagination, 
 
 CONTINUITY OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH. 
 
 229 
 
 cover but little over half of the Church's existence in 
 England. Planted by St. Paul or St. Joseph, of Arima- 
 thea, or at least by some disciple who sat at the feet of 
 the beloved St. John, she has come down through the 
 British, the Anglo-Saxon, the Norman, the Mediaeval, 
 the Reformation, and the Revolution periods to the 
 present, looking ^' forth as the morning, fair as the 
 moon, clear as the sun, and terrible as an army with 
 banners." 
 
 It is worthy of note, in passing, that the property at 
 present possessed by the Church of England, speaking 
 broadly, was given her before the Norman Conquest, a. 
 D. 1066, or since the Reformation. The influence of 
 Rome was but little greater in the first of these periods 
 than it has been in the second. 
 
 4. The name of the Church after the Reformation is 
 the same as before, Ecclesia Anglicaim, the Church of 
 England. If the Church of Rome had been the Church of 
 England until the reign of Henry VIII., the name would 
 have borne w itness to it, and would have been neces- 
 sarily changed, but, as it is, the unchanged name bears 
 strong testimony to the identity of the present Church 
 of England with that which was before the Reformation. 
 
 5. But a most conclusive evidence of the identity of 
 the present Church of England with that of the pre-Re- 
 formation period, is the fact that the whole nation, with 
 scarcely a dissenting voice, consented to the changes 
 w^hich terminated the usurped jurisdiction of the Pope 
 in England, and restored to the Crown its ancient au- 
 thority over both the temporal and spiritual estates of 
 the realm. It is popularly and erroneously supposed 
 that there would have been no Reformation of the Eng- 
 lish Church, but for the iniquitous matrimonial projects 
 of Henry VIII., the consummation of which made neces- 
 sary the repudiation of the Roman supremacy. As a 
 
230 
 
 THE MOTHER CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 
 
 matter of fact, however, nothing can be more confidently 
 predicated than that the Reformation of England would 
 have taken place very much as it did, and at about the 
 same time, even if the King had seen fit to resist, rather 
 than abet it. "Revolutions which shake the deepest 
 foundations of society, and destroy old forms of belief ; 
 reformations for which a world is anxiously looking, do 
 not take their rise from the will of a single individual. 
 They are the slow growth of time, the outcome and 
 final result of centuries of forgetfulness of duty, and of 
 infinite and wide-spread mismanagement. It is as great 
 a folly to attribute the English Reformation to the w ill 
 of Henry, as to ascribe the gradual and necessary prog- 
 ress of the Papacy wholly to the False Decretals, or to 
 assert that the French Revolution sprang from a single 
 cause. At the time of Henry's accession, the Reforma- 
 tion was already in existence, silently working and fer- 
 menting in the minds of all men. Any occasion might 
 give it birth ; at any moment any individual — a monk 
 in Germany, or a King in England — might call it 
 forth, and clothe it with a shape and a name." Henry 
 Vni. was therefore, in reality, but the gilded hand 
 on the outside of the dial — the hour to strike was 
 determined by the obscure but weighty movements 
 within. 
 
 There had been a time when the Roman swav was, 
 upon the whole, beneficial to England, but that time 
 had passed. Adam Smith goes none too far when he 
 says: '* During the tenth, eleventh, twelfth, and thir- 
 teenth centuries, and for some time before and after 
 that period " [that is to say, during the time of Papal 
 domination in England] ''the constitution of the 
 Church of Rome may be considered as the most formid- 
 able combination that was ever formed against the 
 authority and security of civil government, as well as 
 
 CONTINUITY OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH. 
 
 231 
 
 against the liberty, happiness, and reason of mankind." 
 "In nearly every way," says Dean Farrar, "material 
 and moral, the Papacy was a curse to England." 
 
 Their novel Courts of Appeal, and the usurped power 
 of appointing to vacant Bishoprics and benefices, 
 enabled the Popes at will effectually to resist the con- 
 stitutional legal machinery ; to introduce innumerable 
 corrupting agencies, and more and more to gratify their 
 insatiable greed for money by a system of extortion so 
 stupendous and unconscionable, as really to amount to 
 wholesale robbery, the like of which the world perhaps 
 never witnessed before or since. Some faint idea of the 
 extent of that stream of gold which, during the Dark 
 Ages, flowed to Rome from England, may be gathered 
 from the recorded complaint of the House of Commons, 
 made as early as the year a. d. 1376. It was main- 
 tained on the floor of the house that " the sums paid to 
 the Pope by those alone, who were indebted to him for 
 Ecclesiastical preferment, amounted to five times as 
 much as the taxes of the whole realm, which accrued to 
 His Majesty, the King, and that there was no monarch 
 in Christendom so rich as to possess the fourth part of 
 the treasure which was annually exported from Eng- 
 land to Rome." Bishop Grey, who was translated from 
 Winchesfyer to York in a. d. 1215, was compelled to pay 
 to the Pope, for receiving the pall, a sum equivalent to 
 fifty thousand dollars of our money. In the light of 
 this, how ridiculous it would be were the Pope to make 
 any serious claim to the property of the Church of Eng- 
 land. He impoverished our Mother Church, but did 
 not put so much as a penny into her endowments and 
 buildings. The money that went to Rome would have 
 built and endowed a hundred cathedrals and colleges, 
 but that which came from thence would not have kept a 
 single Italian monk from starvation. 
 
mm' THE MOTHER CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 
 
 The people generally had loug been convinced that 
 things could not always go on in this way. And it is a 
 great, though strangely prevalent, mistake, to suppose 
 that Henry VIII. was the first to take steps for the pur- 
 pose of curbing the rapacity of the Roman potentate. 
 Nothing could be wider from the truth. Indeed, so 
 accustomed were the people to struggle against the en- 
 croachments of the Papacy, and so many were the laws 
 which they had in different ages enacted for their self- 
 defense, that, when Henry VIII. found it convenient for 
 more reasons than the one usually assigned, to exercise, 
 even in Ecclesiastical affairs, the prerogative of ruling 
 his Kingdom without interference from the Pontiif— a 
 prerogative which the gi-eat majority of his predecessors 
 had exercised— he had but little to do beyond the en- 
 forcement of long-existing laws. 
 
 The proof of all this is admirably set forth by Dr. 
 Ingram, a London barrister, in his excellent volume, 
 entitled *' England and Rome, A History of the Rela- 
 tions Between the Papacy and the English State and 
 Church, from the Norman Conquest to the Revolution 
 in 1668." After a most scholarly and exhaustive 
 presentation of the whole subject in the light of full 
 quotations from the statutes of the realm, it is asked : 
 *' What Ecclesiastical jurisdiction did the Pope possess 
 in England at the accession of Henry VII. in 1485," 
 that is, thirty-two years before Luther commenced his 
 reformatory work, and fifty-seven years before Henry 
 yill. broke with Clement VII.? The answer to this ques- 
 tion is to the effect that the Pope was possessed of no 
 such jurisdiction whatsoever. " The Pope could not ap- 
 point, translate, suspend, or depose a Bishop, or regu- 
 lar Prelate in England. He could not appoint to an 
 English prebend or benefice; and every Englishman who 
 accepted a preferment at home from the Pope, without 
 
 CONTINUITY OP THE ENGLISH CHURCH. 
 
 233 
 
 the King's leave, was liable to banishment and forfeiture 
 of all his property. A Papal excommunication of itself, 
 had not the slightest effect in England. No one could 
 receive, read, or publish such a document, or any other 
 Papal sentence or process without leave of the King." 
 
 It may be conceded that the Popes, during several 
 reigns, practically'- ruled, and grievously spoiled, the 
 Church of England, notwithstanding the laws of the 
 realm. But it should be remembered that they were 
 permitted to do this by the Kings who found it to their 
 real or imaginary political interest to be on friendly 
 terms with so great a potentate. Not one of them since 
 the Plantagenets, had possessed a strictly legitimate 
 claim to the crown, and they needed the support of 
 Rome to prop up their thrones. Though the people 
 were exceedingly long suffering, yet their spoliations 
 and wrongs sometimes became intolerable. At such 
 times they not infrequently offered effectual protest. 
 The forcing of the Magna Charta from the despicable 
 John in the year 1215, is an illustration in point. This 
 celebrated document provided both in its opening and 
 closing sentences for the recognition and restoration of 
 the ancient liberty of the Church to govern itself. 
 
 As we approach the Reformation, we find the nation 
 growing more and more impatient of Papal interfer- 
 ences and exactions. This accounts for the phenomenal 
 success of Henry VIII. in freeing himself and people 
 from the Roman grasp. Romanists and Denomina- 
 tionalists have joined hands in efforts to make it ap- 
 pear that this self-willed and burly King so intimidated 
 his cowering subjects that they espoused his cause 
 against the Pope, notwithstanding their sympathies 
 and prayers were with *'His Holiness." This view is 
 contrary to the witness of all trustworthy contempora- 
 ries who have left on record their impressions concerning 
 
234 
 
 THE MOTHER CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 
 
 the temper of the people. Even Bishop Gardiner, who 
 in the next reign opposed the Reformation, and suf- 
 fered five years' imprisonment in the Tower of London, 
 and was made Lord Chancellor by "Bloody" Mary, 
 tells us: "All who have been boi'n and reared in Eng- 
 land, learned and unlearned, men and women, are 
 agreed upon this point that they have naught to do 
 with Rome." And a correspondent of Cardinal Pole 
 writes: "One thing yet resteth that I thought conven- 
 ient to advertise you of wherein I do perceive ye be 
 ignorant, which is this: Ye write in one part of your 
 book that ye think the hearts of the subjects of this 
 realm greatly offended with abolishing of the Bishop of 
 Rome's usurped authority in this realm, as if all the 
 people, or most part of them, took the matter as ye do. 
 Wherein I do answer ye be deceived. If, at this day, the 
 King's grace would go about to renew in his realm the 
 said abolished authority of the Bishop of Rome, I think 
 he should find much more difficulty to bring it about in 
 his Parliament, and to induce his people to agree there- 
 unto, than anything that ever he proposed in his Par- 
 liament since his first reign." Dr. Ingram says: "It is 
 even absurd to speak of the existence of coercion at a 
 time when the King, the two Universities, the two Con- 
 vocations, all the Monasteries, Colleges, Chapters, and 
 Hospitals in the Kingdom, and the two Houses of Par- 
 liament were of the same mind . " 
 
 Thus, there can be no question that the Reformation 
 would have come about in England some time in the 
 course of the sixteenth century, when it was taking 
 place in all the surrounding nations, even if Henry VIII. 
 had been content to retain Catherine of Aragon as his 
 wife. So unanimously resolved upon casting off the 
 Papal yoke were the people, that of all their represen- 
 tatives at Parliament, only one Bishop, Fisher, and one 
 
 CONTINUITY OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH. 
 
 235 
 
 Layman of note. Sir Thomas More, voted against the 
 various constitutional legislative acts which terminated 
 the already illegal Papal tyranny and robbery in Eng- 
 land. Of the nine thousand eight hundred Clergy, only 
 one hundred and eighty-six refused to assent to the Re- 
 formed Offices in a. d. 1559. Investigation would 
 doubtless show that most of these were foreign intrud- 
 ers. And when the Nation and Church, at the accession 
 of Elizabeth, finally and forever repudiated the usurped 
 authority of the Pope, only one hundred and ninety- 
 two out of more than nine thousand Clergymen refused 
 to subscribe to the Prayer Book, and only eighty of 
 these were Rectors of Churches. 
 
 This unanimity puts the identity and continuity ot 
 the present Church of England with that which was be- 
 fore the Reformation beyond the possibility of doubt. 
 The whole nation, not excepting even Fisher and More, 
 for they did not withdraw from the Church, belonged to 
 it after the repudiation of the l*ope's authority as they 
 had done before. It was, therefore, the same Church 
 minus the unconstitutional interferences of the Papacy. 
 During long centuries of her early history, the Church of 
 England, notwithstanding her independence of Roman 
 authority, had flourished and been universally recog- 
 nized as a true branch of the Catholic Church of Christ ; 
 and now that she has regained her ancient liberty and 
 purity, she is unquestionably the same Church that she 
 was before and during tlie period of her captivity and 
 corruption— the Church of England in unbroken con- 
 tinuity from the time of Archbishop Theodore, who 
 about the year 670 consoHdated the various Churches 
 of the Heptarchy into one National Church, the Mother 
 of English-speaking Christianity, the rock from which 
 the American Episcopal Church is hewn. 
 
I 
 
 I 
 
 ii 
 
 n. 
 
 NOT ORIGINALLY A MISSION OF ROME, 
 
 MANY of the filets produced inproof of the identity 
 of the present Church of England with the 
 Church of that country before the Reformation, 
 also prove that the Church of Rome was not the un- 
 reformed Church of England. Unless, indeed, that for 
 which we have been contending be a fiction, the very 
 fact that the present Church of England is not the 
 Church of Rome proves that she never was such. For if 
 this had ever been the case, it must still be so, or else 
 the identity of which we have spoken does not exist. In 
 establishing the historical continuity of the Mother 
 Church, we have, therefore, necessarily established her 
 constitutional independence of Rome; nevertheless, it 
 will be well to make this appear from other points of 
 view. 
 
 That the Church of England up to the Reformation 
 was not, as Ultramontanists represent, simply a branch 
 of the Church of Rome is evident from her origin. Just 
 when, and by whom, the Church was planted in England, 
 can probably never be satisfactorily determined. *' We 
 see the light of the Word shined here, but see not who 
 kindled it." But that it was very early and not by the 
 Roman Church is certain. One tradition to which many 
 learned men have been inclined to give credence, tells us 
 that St. Paul, himself, preached in Britain. That he 
 visited Northern Europe seems more than probable 
 from his Epistle to the Romans, where he expresses his 
 intention of taking a missionary journey into Spain. 
 
 (236) ^ 
 
 Jeru 
 
 KALEM 
 
 '* The Mother of all the Churches 
 
 Rome 
 
 T 
 
 fiiPHESUS 
 
 Gaul 
 
 ~r- 
 
 Britain 
 
 1 
 
 S.Paul and oniKiis 
 
 J 
 
 Gregory 
 
 Cornwall 350 
 
 Wales 
 
 CuMrtKJA 400 
 
 HONORIUS 
 
 Ireland 441 
 
 Max t47 ' 
 
 Scotland e565 
 
 Kent 597 
 
 E. An(;lia 631 
 
 NORTHI MBRIA 835 
 
 Whsnkx 634 I 
 
 Mercia 653 
 
 Essex 654 
 
 SrccKssioN 
 
 OF J^iMTisH 
 
 Bishops 
 
 IN TIL THE 
 CHlKCir WAN 
 FIN ALLY DJilVKN 
 
 INTO Wales, 
 A. D. 587. 
 
 Sussex 68L 
 
 ent SHJSS: '&'?eV?yirilIi^?Se's^\^^^^^^^^ Chnrch to have been Independ- 
 of England, and the blacrtype a"^^^^^ of the present Church 
 
 results of the Roman MlBsfoVifl Tw^t^ °*^. ®i*^® appearance and meaeer 
 the Anglo-Saxorconquerirs of NSrt'kumbrif Mfrrf/r^'^ the converSof 
 the part taken by them in theconversio^nf i?;^®5^^^^^^ »'*<* Sussex; and 
 
 compared wi th that taken by thS nit ?2 Bri^f«h 'phf^l ^k°«^"? *°<* Wessex is as 
 In the case of Kent. ^ "^® British Church unimportant, except 
 
NOT ORIGINALLY A MISSION OF ROME. 
 
 237 
 
 
 
 Thence he might easily have sailed to England. Clem- 
 ent, of Rome, a disciple of St. Paul, and mentioned with 
 commendation by him in his Epistle to the Corinthi- 
 ans, about A. D. 95, thirty yeai^ after the death of the 
 Apostle says that in preaching the Gospel, St. Paul 
 " went to the utmost bounds of the West." Now this ex- 
 pression, " the utmost bounds of the West," is the epithet 
 that the ancients ordinarily used in speaking of the 
 British Isles which composed the principal and alto- 
 gether the best-known part of the most western ly por- 
 tions of the land that appeared on the maps during the 
 first centuries of the Christian era. Eusebius, a. d. 325, 
 says that one of the Apostles "visited the British Isles," 
 and Theodoret, about a century later, mentions Britain 
 as one place where St. Paul labored. Hore concludes 
 his scholarly summing up of the authorities with the re- 
 mark: "There can be no reasonable ground for doubt- 
 ing that the British Church was not only of very ancient, 
 but also of Apostolic foundation." 
 
 There are some ten traditions respecting the plant- 
 ing of Christianity in Britain. It would be a grave 
 error to consider them as altogether worthless because 
 they are not a certain source of knowledge. " One lead- 
 ing idea seems to underlie them all alike, that the Gos- 
 pel was preached in Britain at an early date, but that 
 this was effected by different and independent agencies, 
 at different times, from different places, and at different 
 points in the Island." 
 
 That the early Church of Britain was not a Roman 
 Mission is certain. For when in a. d. 597 the Bishop of 
 Rome sent Augustine with a band of missionaries to 
 the Island, they found an ancient, regularly organized 
 Church. As Thomas Fuller quaintly expresses it : " Re- 
 ligion came into Britain, not by the semi-circle of Rome, 
 but in a direct line from the Asiatic Churches." The 
 

 
 
 238 
 
 THE MOTHER CHURCH OP ENGLAND. 
 
 celebrated jurist, Blaekstone, says: " The ancient Brit- 
 ish Church, by whomsoever planted, was a stranprer to 
 the Bishop of Rome, and all his pretended authority." 
 The difference between the two Churches in matters of 
 ceremony, which soon became a source of contention, 
 also shows that the native Church was not one of Ro- 
 man orio;in. Evidence to this effect still exists. All the 
 Enc;;liHh Cathedrals and old Churches were built with the 
 Chancel to the East, and the main entrance at the West. 
 No such universal resi>ect was paid to the points of the 
 compass in Ultramontane countries. Rome had no 
 Trinity Sunday in her Ecclesiastical year before the end 
 of the fourteenth century, and she still names the Sun- 
 days following Pentecost until Advent after that Festi- 
 val, whereas we name them after the feast of the 
 adorable Trinity. This was the case before the Refor- 
 mation, as may be seen by reference to the Old Sarum 
 Missal, for example, '*The 10th Sunday after the Feast 
 of the Holy Trinity." Tluis, as long as one stone 
 remains upon another, and while we adhere to our re- 
 spective Liturgies, there will remain monumental and 
 documentary witnesses of great antiquity and worth 
 to the independent origin of the English Church. 
 
 It has often been represented that the original Celtic 
 population, and with it tlie native Church of Britain, 
 were all but annihilated by the Angles and Saxons, who 
 in the fifth and sixth centuries frequently invaded the 
 Island and eventually conquered the greater part of it, 
 and that the Roman Mission was so successful in the 
 conversion of the new inhabitants that the date of its 
 establishment may properly be reckoned as the begin- 
 ning of the present Church of England. If this represen- 
 tation were true, we, as members of the Anglican Com- 
 munion, would have no interest to serve by calling it in 
 
 NOT ORIGINALLY A MISSION OF ROME. 
 
 239 
 
 question. For it would be an honorable origin for our 
 Mother Church. During the first six or eight centuries, 
 the Church of Rome was as pure a branch of the Catho- 
 lic Church as any on earth. But even if Christianity 
 had been planted in England by Rome, her pretended 
 right to be called the Church of England to the time of 
 the Reformation, could not possibly be established. 
 The argument from which it might appear to the unre- 
 flecting that such a claim had been made good, would 
 prove quite too much to the thoughtful, namely, that 
 the Church of Rome and Italy should be subject to the 
 Church of Jerusalem and Palestine. 
 
 But the representation is not true. The native 
 Church was not annihilated. We read that numerous 
 Synods of the Welsh Bishops were held during the sixth 
 century, at some of which there were as many as one 
 hundred and nineteen Bishops present; this number 
 being doubtless made up chiefly of abbots, monastic 
 Bishops, and the Bishops driven thither from English 
 Sees. The most important of these Church assemblies 
 were held at Brevi, near Lampeter, a. d. 569, and Lucus 
 Victorae, a. d. 570, both presided ovei by St. David, 
 who had been consecrated Bishop by the Patriarch 
 of Jerusalem, thus adding an independent strand in 
 our Apostolic Succession. 
 
 Nor was the conversion of the Anglo-Saxon con- 
 querors due to the Roman Mission in any such degree as 
 is popularly supposed. As Mr. Gladstone says: *' It was 
 not by the action of Rome that the whole of England 
 was converted. A very large portion of England was 
 converted, not by the action of the Roman missionaries, 
 but from the North.'' Christianity was really restored 
 to fully nine-tenths of the Island by missionaries, who 
 either went out or received their inspiration from the 
 ancient Celtic Monasteries of lona and Lindisfarne. To 
 
It 
 
 ,HE MOTHKB CHURCH OF 1«HO..ANP. 
 
 St. Aidan.founder of Ae latter^" oHvangelizing the 
 tine, rightfully ^^;gX nlsiouaries did not suc- 
 Anglo-Saxons. The 'ome church beyond the 
 
 ^ in Pe-anently P an^^ t^« ^.^ ,.,i,i,,, of the 
 Kingdom of Kent^ The rema^ y ^^^^.^^ 
 Heptarchy were Chnstiamzed ^J the:-elative8izeof the 
 
 aries. W^^«'""^T;„.ustte and Aidan were vespect- 
 territories of which ^f^^J-^ that to the foreigner 
 ively the apostles, 7!. ^^^ ^^.-esented by the portion 
 
 missionaries. eonversion of Kent is by 
 
 And even the credit ^ovt^^^^ Augustine found a 
 
 no means wholly due t^. ^°"'; ^^e Queen, who was a 
 
 ;owerful and indispensab^^^^^^^^ 
 
 Galilean, that is, f^"'",,,,it,h the monks, the credit of 
 nmst at least «hare equally ;^^;^^^,fu, wholesale Bap- 
 the King's Conversion and thew ^^^^ 
 
 tism of the little k^gdo'" vvh ^^^ Canterbury Chapel. 
 
 their work of e\^"g«^f J^X^ed that "next to God 
 Pope Gregory ^^'"^f. 7^ for its conversion. ''' 
 England was indebt^ to B^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^ te 
 
 The words of the ^0^°"" > ^ Durham, and his 
 historian, LigMfoot ^-^J^'Zte.man and author, 
 quotation from the ''J™'" „„ confirm our repre- 
 iontalembert, a ^^'"f/l ^^*^^^^^^^^ 
 mentation in jX^i^^ compart with native Mis- 
 the labors of tl»«^*°J^.'^ . „ ^f the Celtic Evangehsts, 
 sionaries. "Of the tmmP^« f;j3, ^, «aid already. 
 
 X li?rknt trs2:it of th^r success it is soon 
 
 • See Frontispiece. 
 
 BRITISH CHURCH 
 CELTIC MISSIONS 
 ITALIAN MISSIONS 
 
 6th & 7th Centimes. 
 
 Map, showing the parts taken respectively by the native and Roman Mis- 
 sionaries in the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons. 
 
1' ' 
 
 I. 
 
 
 
 NOT ORIGINALLY A MISSION OF ROME. 
 
 241 
 
 told. It was the power of earnest, simple, self-denying 
 lives, pleading with a force which no eloquence of words 
 can command. But, whatever may be the explanation, 
 the fact remains. lona succeeded where Rome had 
 failed." "From the cloisters of Lindisfarne," writes 
 Montalembert, " and from the heart of those districts 
 in which the popularity of ascetic Pontiffs, such as 
 Aidan and martyr kings, such as Oswald and Oswin, 
 took day by day a deeper root, Northumbrian Chris- 
 tianity spread over the southern Kingdoms. What is 
 distinctly visible is the influence of the Celtic Priests 
 and missionaries everywhere replacing and seconding 
 Roman missionaries, and reaching districts where their 
 predecessors had never been able to enter. The stream 
 of the Divine Word thus extended itself from North to 
 South, audits slow but certain course reached in succes- 
 sion all the people of the Heptarchy. Of the eight 
 Kingdoms of Anglo-Saxon confederation, that of Kent 
 alone was exclusively won and retained by the Roman 
 monks, whose first attempts among the East Saxons 
 and Northumbrians ended in failure. In Wessex and in 
 East Anglia, the Saxons of the West and Angles of the 
 East were converted by the combined action of conti- 
 nental missionaries and Celtic monks. As to the two 
 Northumbrian Kingdoms, and those of Essex and Mer- 
 cia, which comprehended in themselves more than two 
 thirds of the territory occupied by the German con- 
 querors, these four counties owed their final conversion 
 exclusively to the peaceful invasion of Celtic monks, who 
 not only rivaled the zeal of the Roman monks, but 
 who, the first obstacles surmounted, showed much more 
 perseverance, and gained much more success. Sussex 
 still remained heathen ; Sussex, the smallest of all but 
 one of the earliest founded ; Sussex, the immediate neigh- 
 bors of the Roman missionaries in Kent ; Sussex was at 
 
 C. A.— 16 
 

 242 
 
 THE MOTHEB CHUECH OF ENGLAKD. 
 
 i 
 
 I 
 
 
 last stormed and taken. And here again the conqueror 
 of this last stronghold of heathendom, though an 
 ardent champion of the Roman cause, was a Northum- 
 brian by birth. Wilfrid had been a pupil of Aidau, and 
 his missionary inspiration was drawn from Lindis- 
 farne." 
 
 III. 
 
 MOWAM MMCmACStMENTS AND THEIR RESISTANCE. 
 
 BUT it is said that, however it may be in regard to 
 the planting of the Church among the Britains 
 and the conversion of the Anglo-Saxon conquer- 
 ors, the fact remains that from. a. d. 596, to the Refor- 
 mation, the headship of the Pope was as fully recog- 
 nized in England as in the See of Rome. We have 
 already had repeated occasions to show the utt^r base- 
 lessness of this pretension, but inasmuch as reitera- 
 tion is necessary to remove the effect of inherited mis- 
 conceptions, especially when, as in this case, they are 
 deei^ened by persistent misrepresentations which have 
 just enough of truth to give tha color of plausibility, 
 we shall here speak of the resistance, which, at every 
 step, was offered to the encroachments of Rome upon 
 the liberties of the Church. 
 
 The Italian missionary was not long content with 
 confining himself to the work of converting the heathen 
 conquerors of Kent, but felt called upon to meddle with 
 the worship, ceremonies, and observances of the native 
 Church in order that they might be conformed to the 
 Roman usage. It is probable that, but for Augustine's 
 haughty demeanor, he would have succeeded in pur- 
 Buading the Celts to make some of the desired changes. 
 In A. D. 603, seven Bishops, accompanied by many 
 
 ROMAN ENCROACHMENTS AND THEIR RESISTANCE. 243 
 
 learned men from the famous Monastery of Bangor, 
 met him in a conference. Augustine and his monks, 
 failed to rise and to receive courteously the Bishops 
 and their attendants upon their arrival. This slight 
 set the natives against the foreigners. So when Augus- 
 tine had explained the object of the meeting, and made 
 his demands, it was replied in substance: *' We will ob- 
 serve none of your customs, nor accept you as our 
 chief. If you would not rise up to us just now, how 
 much more will you despise us if we begin to be subject 
 to you. We indeed owe fraternal love to the Church of 
 God and to the Bishop of Rome, but we owe no obedi- 
 ence to him whom you call Pope. Besides, we cannot 
 submit ourselves to him or to you, his representative, 
 because we are already subject to the Metropolitan 
 Bishop of Caerleon-on-Usk [now the See of St. David's, 
 Wales], who is, under God, our spiritual overseer." Of 
 the eight Sees of these seven British Bishops and their 
 Archbishop, all of which were in existence at least a hun- 
 dred years before the coming of Augustine, two, Lan- 
 Patern and Morgan, are extinct; the other six, namely, 
 Hereford, Worcester, Llandaff, Bangor, St. Asaph, 
 and St. David's, have existed continuously from that 
 day to this ; a standing visible proof of a Christianity 
 still existing in Britain, that was not brought there by 
 Roman missionaries. 
 
 The conference between Augustine and the British 
 Bishops, marks the first of a series of protests against 
 Roman encroachments that extended through a thou- 
 sand years, of which we can take notice of only a few, in 
 the briefest words possible. 
 
 Toward the close of the seventh century, Wilfrid, 
 Bishop of York, had some difficulty with Theodore, 
 Archbishop of Canterbury. Wilfrid appealed his case 
 to the Bishop of Rome who commanded that he should 
 
244 
 
 THE MOTHER CHURCH OP ENGLAND. 
 
 be reinstated into his Bishopric. The matter came up 
 for consideration before the Witan or the Parliament of 
 those days. "Who," said the rulers of the nation, in 
 eifect, "who is the Pope and what are his decrees? 
 What have thev to do with us, or we with them ? Have 
 we not the right and power to manage our own affairs, 
 and to punish in our discretion all offenders against 
 our laws and customs?" So they burned the parch- 
 ment containing the Pope's directions, and cast Wil- 
 frid into prison. Afterwards, in the National Anglo- 
 Saxon Synod of Osterfield, Wilfrid reproached the 
 members with having "openly opposed the Pope's 
 authority for twenty-two years together." 
 
 In A. D. 747, when it was proposed at a Council to 
 refer difficult questions to the Bishop of Kome, those 
 present refused to entertain it, and declared they would 
 submit to the authority of the Archbishop of Canter- 
 bury in such matters. 
 
 The Anglo-Saxon Church was certainly independent 
 of Rome down to the Norman Conquest, a. d. 1066. 
 For when William was making his plans for the sub- 
 jugation of England, he secured the Pope's blessing and 
 cooperation upon the representation tliat he desired to 
 bring the Church of that country under the dominion of 
 the Roman See. This was the surest way to gain the 
 Pope's approval, for, as the histoiian Freeman says in 
 his Norman Conquest, "England's crime in the eyes of 
 Rome — the crime to punish which, William's crusade was 
 approved and blessed— was the independence still re- 
 tained by the Island, Church, and Nation. A land where 
 the Church and Nation were but different names for the 
 same community, a land where Priests and Prelates 
 were subject to the law like other men, a land where the 
 King and his Witan gave and took away the staff of a 
 Bishop, was a land which, in the eyes of Rome, was more 
 
 ROMAN ENCROACHMENTS AND THEIR RESISTANCE. 245 
 
 dangerous than a land of Jews and Saracens." But 
 William, after his successful conquest, was quite as 
 loath to give the country over to Papal dominion as 
 his predecessors had been. In a letter to the Pope he 
 writes thus: "Thy legate Hubert, Holy Father, hath 
 called upon me in thy name to take the oath of fealty 
 to thee and to thy successors, and to exert myself in en- 
 forcing the more regular payment of the money which 
 my predecessors were accustomed to remit to the 
 Church of Rome. One request I have granted, the other 
 I refuse. Homage to thee I have not chosen, nor do I 
 choose, to do. I never made a promise to that effect, 
 neither do I find that it was ever performed by my pred- 
 ecessors to thine." A word of explanation in regard 
 to the money referred to in William's letter is necessary 
 to prevent misunderstanding. It was not an obliga- 
 tory tribute, but a voluntary gift for the support of a 
 school at Rome where English youths were to have in 
 return the advantages of a liberal education. "The 
 regularity of its payment depended upon the pros- 
 perity of the country, and upon the rise and fall of the 
 Church of Rome in popular esteem." 
 
 Early in the twelfth century, Warelwast, Bishop of 
 Exeter, was sent to Rome for the purpose of bearing 
 official protestation against the repeated effort of the 
 Pope to meddle with English affairs, and of explaining 
 to His Holiness "that the Church and realm of England 
 occupied a different position from the continental king- 
 doms and Churches, and had always been independent 
 of Papal jurisdiction." " There are abundant proofs," 
 writes Bishop Coxe, "that the Anglican Church was 
 everywhere recognized as maintaining an exceptional 
 position, other than that of the Latin Churches con- 
 nected with 'the Holy Roman Empire.' At the Council 
 of Bari, a. d. 1098, when Anselm's spare and modest 
 
246 
 
 fHE MOTHER CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 
 
 figure was bidden from Urban IL, at a bumble distance 
 from bis tbrone, be cried out, *Anselm, fatber and mas- 
 ter, wbere art tbou?' Wben be very meekly advanced, 
 tbe Pontiff gave bim a privileged seat, and added, ' We 
 include bim indeed in our oecumene, but as tbe Pope of 
 anotber oecumene.' Wbatever meaning* be may have 
 attached to bis almost prophetic words, it is evident 
 that be regarded bim as a Patriarch, and as somewhat 
 which others were not." 
 
 To this period also belongs tbe famous correspond- 
 ence of Pope Pascal II., who wrote to the King and 
 Bishops of England two letters, which, as has frequently 
 been observed, show beyond all doubt that, at tbe time 
 wben tbe Papal power was at its zenith, tbe Church 
 of England was a thoroughly self-governing body, 
 possessed of its own system of Ecclesiastical law and 
 administration, and also that tbe Pope's power of visi- 
 torial interference bad no existence. The letters are too 
 long for transcription here, but a short extract or two 
 will be sufficient to demonstrate the truth of the above 
 observation. "From tbe Apostles St. Peter and St. 
 Paul," says the Pope, "tbe custom has been handed 
 down to us that the more weighty affairs of tbe Church 
 should be managed or reviewed by our See. But you, 
 in despite of this long-established custom, settle 
 among yourselves tbe business relating to Bishops, 
 without even consulting us. You will not allow tbe op- 
 pressed to make their appeals to the Apostolic See. You 
 venture without our knowledge to celebrate tbe Coun- 
 cils and Synods. You even attempt, without our 
 knowledge, to make translation of Bishops, an un- 
 warrantable liberty, as such affairs ought not to be at- 
 tempted except by our authority. If for tbe future, you 
 are willing to pay a due respect to the Apostolic See, 
 we will treat you as brothers and sons; but if you per- 
 
 ROMAN ENCROACHMENTS AND THEIR RESISTANCE. 247 
 
 sist in your obstinacy we shall shake off tbe dust of our 
 feet against you, and deliver you to tbe vengeance of 
 God as backsbders from the Catholic Church." 
 
 Resistance to tbe encroachment of tbe Popes, not- 
 withstanding this threat, was persisted in until tbe be- 
 ginning of tbe thirteenth century, less than two hundred 
 years before the Reformation, wben, through the traitor, 
 King John, the State and Church were all but given over 
 as plunder to Rome. But this they did not submit to 
 long. The Archbishop of Canterbury became tbe head 
 of a great popular uprising which left the King helpless 
 in spite of all that his ally, the Pope, could do for bim. 
 On June 15tb, a. d. 1215, John was compelled to sign 
 tbe famous Magna Charta. Tbe first provision of this 
 renowned document runs: "The Church of England 
 shall be free and bold her rights entire and her liberties 
 inviolate." After specifying these rights and providing 
 for the freedom of the subject, and law and order in the 
 realm, tbe Charta concludes with a reassertion of its 
 initial principle: "That the Church of England be free, 
 and that all men have and hold the aforesaid liberties 
 truly and peaceably, freely and quietly, and wholly in 
 all things and in all places forever." 
 
 About tbe middle of tbe thirteenth century, Robert 
 Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln, successfully resisted at- 
 tempted Papal interference in the affairs of his Diocese. 
 In his sermons he boldly connected the misery of tbe 
 people with the wickedness of the Popes, whom be char- 
 acterized as devouring wolves in sheep's clothing. Said 
 he: "The Roman Pontiff and bis Court are tbe foun- 
 tain and the origin of all the evils of the Church." 
 
 In the year 1307, Parliament protested against tbe 
 multiplied forms of Papal exaction, and refused to 
 allow the Pope's tax-gatherer to leave the country with 
 money be bad collected. Shakespeare was not mistaken 
 
 I 
 
THE MOTHER CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 
 
 in putting these vigorous words in the month of the 
 England of this period : 
 
 "Thou canst not, Cardinal, devise a name 
 So slight, unworthy, and ridiculous 
 To charge me to an answer, as the Pope. 
 Tell him this tale ; and from the mouth of England 
 Add thus much more— that no Italian Priest 
 Shall tithe or toll in our dominions. 
 Though you, and all the kings of Christendom 
 Are led so grossly by this meddling Priest, 
 Dreading the curse that money may buy out, 
 And by the merit of vile gold, dross, dust. 
 Purchase corrupted pardon of a man, 
 Who in that sale sells pardon from himself, 
 Yet I alone, alone do me oppose 
 Against the Pope, and count his friends my foes." 
 
 , Toward the middle of the fourteenth century, the 
 foreign Clergy were expelled fiom the country, ships 
 which brought them hither were confiscated, and any 
 who brought Papal letters or bulls into the land, were 
 condemned to forfeit all their possessions. Soon after- 
 ward, the Statutes of Provisors and Praemunire were 
 passed. The first of these ordered that '* Kings and all 
 other Lords are to present unto benefices of their own 
 or their ancestors' foundations, and not the Pojie of 
 Rome," and the second that "all who should sue for re- 
 dress in the Papal court should be put out of the pro- 
 tection of the laws of England, and forfeit all their 
 goods to the State." It was about this time that John 
 Wyckliffe, "the Morning Star of the Reformation," was 
 engaged in his wonderful work of opposing the Romish 
 encroachments, and in translating the Bible into Eng- 
 lish. This was one hundred and fifty years before the 
 time of Martin Luther. 
 
 A little later, in A. d. 1420, "Archbishop Chichele, 
 when censured by Pope Martin V. for not disregarding 
 
 I 
 
 ROMAN ENCROACHMENTS AND THEIR RESISTANCE. 249 
 
 the English laws which prevented the Pope from appoint- 
 ing to English benefices, told him that he, himself, was 
 the only Bishop in England who did pay any attention 
 to orders from Rome ; and when Martin, by way of reply, 
 took away from him his rank of ex-oflScio legate, and 
 bestowed that title on another Bishop, proceeding fur- 
 ther to excommunicate all the other Prelates, and to 
 threaten an interdict, his Bulls were stopped by the 
 government, and the Archbishop appealed at once to a 
 General Council, while the new legate was never suffered 
 to act in that character." 
 
 Finally, about a century later, came the Reformation 
 when the Papal yoke of which the whole nation had all 
 along been so impatient was at last cast off. In March, 
 A. D. 1534, the Convocation of Canterbury declared that 
 the Roman Pontiff has no greater jurisdiction given to 
 him by God in this kingdom than any other foreign 
 Bishop, and in the following June, the Convocation of 
 York adopted substantially the same resolution. 
 
 Even this necessarily rapid and condensed sketch of 
 the resistance of the Church of England to the encroach- 
 ments of the Papacy upon her liberties, is quite sufficient 
 to justify a passage in one of the earlier writings of 
 Cardinal Manning: "If," said he, "any man will look 
 down along the line of early English History, he will 
 see a standing contest between the rulers of this land 
 and the Bishops of Rome. The Crown and Church of 
 England, with a steady opposition, resisted the entrance 
 and encroachment of the secularized Ecclesiastical 
 power of the Pope in England. The last rejection of 
 it was no more than a successful effort after many a 
 failure in a struggle of the like kind." "Through the 
 long ages of Roman domination," writes Bishop Light- 
 foot, "the English Church was the least enslaved of all 
 the Churches. Her statute book is a continued protest 
 
250 
 
 THE MOTHER CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 
 
 against this foreign aggression. Her ablest kings were 
 the resolute opponents of Roman usurpation. When 
 the yoke was finally thrown off, though the strong will 
 of the reigning sovereign was the acting agent, yet it 
 was the independent will of the Clergy and of the people 
 which rendered the change possible. Hence there was 
 no break in the continuity of the English Church.'' 
 
 No labored or extended argument is now needed to 
 prove that the Mother Church of England is a true 
 branch of the Catholic Church of Christ. We need only 
 to appeal to the history that has been reviewed, and to 
 the Roman Church itself. For it must be remembered 
 that the English Church continued in communion with 
 the Church of Rome until the promulgation of the Pope's 
 Bull of excommunication in the year 1570, which was 
 thirty-five years after the repudiation by Parliament 
 and Convocation of the usurped Papal Supremacy in 
 England. During this long interval of a full genera- 
 tion, Anglican Sacraments and Orders were regarded as 
 valid at Rome. And if the English Church retained her 
 Catholicity for so many years after the Reformation, 
 no living man can show why she has not continued to 
 be truly Catholic until the present day. Rome has never 
 (|uestioned the Catholicity of the Anglican Church be- 
 tween the landing of Augustine and the Reformation. 
 She cannot deny the Catholic character of the pre-Au- 
 gustinian Church in Britain, for the British Bishops 
 had undisputed seats in the great Church Councils. 
 Pope Leo Xin.,in his recent declaration concerning the 
 invalidity of Anglican Orders conveniently loses sight 
 of these indisputable facts of history. 
 
 In view of all this, we may well ask with a writer in 
 one of the periodicals : Are Romanists sincere when 
 
 ROMAN ENCROACHMENTS AND THEIR RESISTANCE, 251 
 
 they allege, as an historical fact, that Henry VIII. was 
 the founder of the English Church? Alfonso M. Lig- 
 uori, a Doctor of the Roman Communion, says in his 
 History of Heresies and Their Refutation, "Mary, 
 likewise, proclaimed the innocence of Cardinal Pole, and 
 requested Julius III. to send him to England as his leg- 
 ate a latere. He arrived soon after, and, at the request 
 of the Queen, reconciled the Kingdom again to the 
 Church, and absolved it from schism. On the Vigil of 
 St. Andrew, a. d. 1554, he confirmed in their Sees the 
 Catholic Bishops, though installed in the time of the 
 schism, and recognized the new Sees established by 
 Henry. All this was confirmed by Paul IV." In this 
 proclamation, the Bishops are styled " Catholic," and 
 the Anglican Church is represented as being in schism, 
 but no mention of Henry being the founder of the Eng- 
 lish Church is made, although this would have been the 
 proper time to have asserted the fact, if such were the 
 case. Thus the Popes and Roman historians being wit- 
 nesses, the Church of England is a true branch of the 
 One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ. 
 
 This apologetic dissertation concerning the Mother 
 Church of our race would be incomplete without some 
 fuller reference to two objections which are constantly 
 urged against her. The first of these is that she was 
 founded, or at least reformed by the adulterous Henry 
 VIII., and the second, that her reformation was so in- 
 complete that she is still permeated with Romanism. 
 
 1. Of course, educated persons know that only the 
 grossly ignorant or dishonest can maintain that Henry 
 VIII. founded the present Church of England, and so 
 this objection has no weight with them. They see that 
 the great Tudor, who lived less than four hundred 
 
 
252 
 
 THE MOTHER CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 
 
 years ago, could not have founded a Church that, as an 
 overwhelming accumulation of evidence proves, has 
 had a continuous existence from the present day back 
 through the ages, one thousand seven hundred years, 
 to the very threshold of the time of the Apostles. 
 
 It must, however, be admitted that Henry YIII. did 
 have a great deal to do with ridding the Church of 
 Papal interference, and that the part he took would 
 perhaps not have been taken but for his iniquitous 
 matrimonial schemes. But when our objectors go so 
 far as to leave the impression that but for the King's 
 guilty love for Anne Boleyn, there would have been no 
 Reformation in England, and that the Church would 
 have continued under the tyranny of Rome, they take 
 an untenable position. It must be evident to all who 
 have even a cursory knowledge of the drift of events in 
 England, that the rupture could not have been much 
 longer deferred. Henry VIII. was simjjly the instru- 
 ment in God's hands for setting in operation and guid- 
 ing the Reformation, and except in his determination 
 to get rid of the Pope's usurped authority in England, 
 he was a very unwilling tool of Providence. In view 
 of the fact that the Pope dubbed him ** Defender of 
 the [Roman Catholic] Faith" for a tractate which he 
 wrote against the German Reformation, and that he 
 left money for the saying of masses forever for his soul, 
 it is highly ridiculous to attribute the Anglican Re- 
 formation to him. If Henry VIII. hanged the men who 
 believed in the Pope, he burned alive those who disbe- 
 lieved in transubstantiation and auricular confession. 
 His laws would have sent to the stake every Bishop, 
 Priest and Deacon who accepts the Anglican Prayer 
 Book. 
 
 If our ancestors could have had the choosing of the 
 instrument, they doubtless would have chosen a more 
 
 ROMAN ENCROACHMENTS AND THEIR RESISTANCE. 253 
 
 exemplary man, but the choice could hardly have 
 fallen upon a better King. For it is universally con- 
 ceded that, notwithstanding his moral imperfections, 
 Henry VIII. was one of the ablest and most popular 
 monarchs w^ho ever occupied the English throne, or, in 
 fact, that of anv other nation. "He carried the coun- 
 try safely, without massacre and without a general 
 civil war, through the most tremendous crisis that 
 ever existed in England." The uneducated and un- 
 principled Romanist or Denominationalist who pours 
 contempt upon the English Church and her American 
 Sister because of the domestic faults of Henry VIII. 
 should in justice not altogether lose sight of his regal 
 virtues. Nor must they be allowed to forget that 
 his character compares very favorably with that of 
 some of the great Puritan leaders and is positively 
 respectable in comparison with that of many of the 
 Popes. 
 
 So far as Puritanism is concerned, take its great hero, 
 Oliver Cromwell. His memory to this day is held in 
 bitter execration throughout England and especially 
 in Ireland where his ruthless butcheries were such as to 
 be almost without parallel in the annals of inhumanity. 
 He landed in Dublin with an army in a.d. 1649. Several 
 battles were fought, and men, women and children were 
 indiscriminately slaughtered. Houses w^ere pillaged 
 and burned; Churches desecrated, and terror reigned 
 wherever he went. For a long time the Irish would 
 say: "The curse of Cromwell upon you," when they 
 desired an expression of hatred. In view of this, and 
 much more of which it is a piece, the several writers 
 of first rank who denounce him as a bloody tyrant 
 would seem to have truth on their side. Certainly 
 his military cruelties brought more suffering and sorrow 
 to the world than that which resulted from the conju- 
 
254 
 
 THE MOTHER CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 
 
 i 
 
 i> 
 
 gal infidelities of Henry VIII. And as for Romanism, 
 Pope John XII., was convicted by an Italian Synod of 
 almost every enormity to be found in the catalogue 
 of crime. During the tenth century about thirty Pon- 
 tiffs occupied the Papal chair. Each succeeding one sur- 
 passed, if possible, his predecessor in abominable crimes. 
 The mind sickens in reviewing the enormities of these 
 monsters of wickedness.* Even King Edgar, who, though 
 not a severe moralist, was a saint if compared with the 
 Pontiffs of his time, has recorded his testimony against 
 them. "We see in Rome," he says, **only debauchery, 
 licentiousness, and drunkenness f the houses of Priests 
 are the shameful abodes of harlots, and of worse than 
 these. In the dwelling of the Pope, they gamble by 
 night and by day. Instead of fastings and prayers, 
 they give place to bacchanalian songs, lascivious 
 dances, and the debauchery of Messalina." 
 
 It should be remembered also that Henry VIII. was 
 not the only very imperfect man whom God has been 
 pleased to use to accomplish His great purposes. Jehu, 
 one of the greatest reformers among all the Kings of 
 Israel, fell far short of perfection. '' Constantine estab- 
 lished Christianity in the Roman Empire and Napoleon 
 restored it in France, yet who cavils at either of these 
 great changes on account of the want of personal sanc- 
 tity in the authors." We have, therefore, in the case of 
 Henry VIII., only one of many historical instances 
 which illustrate the truth that God's ways are not 
 man's ways, and show how he causes the wrath of man 
 to praise Him, and brings good out of evil. 
 
 But really, no country has upon the whole more rea- 
 son than England to be proud of those who were con- 
 spicuous in bringing about its reformation. If the 
 political part of it was wrought by Henry VIII., the 
 
 ♦Lecture II. 
 
 ROMAN ENCROACHMENTS AND THEIR RESISTANCE. 255 
 
 doctrinal and spiritual parts were accomplished by such 
 men as Latimer, Ridley, Cranmer, Jewel, Parker, Tay- 
 lor, Hooker, and a host of the like, who for their piety, 
 and learning, and martyr heroism, shine as bright stars 
 in the Christian firmament. "After all," says the fair- 
 minded Evangelist, Barnes, ^^rail at her as we will, there 
 is no Church on earth like the Church of England ; no 
 holy army of martyrs like to hers ; no ritual so pure 
 and uplifting ; no giants of theolegy like hers ; no his- 
 tory on the whole so honorable." 
 
 2. As to the objection that the English Reformation 
 did not go far enough, we may say that our plan con- 
 templates a fuller answer in another connection than 
 there is space for here.* For the present, therefore, we 
 shall content ourselves with an appeal to representa- 
 tive men both within and outside of the Anglican Com- 
 munion. And first, there are the great English theolo- 
 gians, whose writings are universally acknowledged to 
 be the bulwark of the Reformation , Pearson and But- 
 ler—the latter was brought up in non-conformity, but 
 left it— and Barrow, and Bull, and Beveridge, and Chil- 
 lingworlh, and Taylor, and Ussher, and Leighton, and 
 Tillotson, illustrious divines, whose folios form the 
 library to which Denominationalists as well as Episco- 
 palians go for sound doctrine, and for arguments with 
 which to refute Roman controversialists. Then, com- 
 ing down towards our own time, there are such pro- 
 found scholars as Arnold, Maurice, Whately, Alford, 
 Lightfoot, Stanley, Vaughan, and many contempo- 
 raries of almost equal endowments and learning who 
 were, if we are to believe the representations of Denom- 
 inationalists, so blind and ignorant as not to perceive 
 that by remaining in the English Church they were cast- 
 ing the weight of their immense infiuence on the side of 
 
 ♦Lecture VI. 
 
256 
 
 THE MOTHER CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 
 
 deadly error. Nor will we allow those who accuse us 
 of Romanism to pass over our Laity such as Glad- 
 stone, Hatherley, Selborne, Wilberforce, Shaftesbury, 
 Gordon, Salisbury, Balfour, and our own George Wash- 
 ington, Patrick Henry, Peyton Randolph, Alexander 
 Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, John Marshall, 
 and a host of others whose high conscientiousness, 
 taken in connection with their well-known Protestant 
 sympathies, forbid us to believe that they would have 
 clung so firmly and lovingly to the English and Ameri- 
 can Episcopal Churches if these were, as is affirmed, 
 tainted to the core with Roman and Mediaeval corrup- 
 tions. On the contrary, nothing can be more certain 
 than that, if our criticisers be right, the great majority 
 of them would have found their way into one or another 
 of the numerous non-Episcopal bodies of Christians. 
 
 Moreover, the brightest lights that non-Episcopal 
 Protestantism has produced have given their unquali- 
 fied indorsement to the English Reformation. The re- 
 nowned Casaubon of Geneva said : ' ' Unless 1 am deceived, 
 the most perfect part of the whole Reformation is in 
 England, where the study of antiquity flourishes along 
 with the study of truth." And this is the testimony of 
 the greatest jurist and theologian of the seventeenth 
 century, Hugo Grotius, of Holland : '' It is clear to me 
 that the English Liturgies, the custom of the laying on 
 of hands on those arriving at years of discretion in 
 memory of their Baptism, the regimen of Bishops, the 
 Presbyteries composed of Clergy alone, with many other 
 things of the same kind, agree with the customs of the 
 ancient Church, from which we cannot deny that in 
 France and Belgium we have departed." And surely 
 no American will again accuse the Episcopal Church 
 of Romanism after reading the following from the im- 
 mortal Puritan fathers: "The humble request of his 
 
 ROMAN ENCROACHMENTS AND THEIR RESISTANCE. 257 
 
 Majesty's loyal subjects, to the rest of their brethren in 
 and out of the Church of England : We esteem it our 
 honor to call the Church of p]ngland, from whence we 
 rise, our dear Mother, ever acknowledging that such 
 hope and part as we have obtained in the common sal- 
 vation, we have received in her bosom and sucked it 
 from her breasts." But the witness of John Wesley will 
 be even more convincing to many objectors. There is 
 the testimony of his life-long adherence to the Church 
 and his constant refusal to allow the Methodists to sep- 
 arate from her. Besides we have his express words 
 uttered as late as the seventy-seventh year of his age : 
 "Having had an opportunity of seeing several of the 
 Churches abroad, and having deeply considered the 
 several sorts of Dissenters at home, I am fully con- 
 vinced that our own Church [the Church of England] 
 with all her blemishes, is nearer the Scriptural plan 
 than any other in Europe." 
 
 The Faith and worship of the English and American 
 Episcopal Churches are as free from error and supersti- 
 tion as those of any non-Episcopal Denomination. 
 Those who had the greatest influence in the Reforma- 
 tion of the Church of England, had reference in all they 
 did to the ancient, uncorrupted Church. Dr. Jewel, 
 Bishop of Salisbury, a chief reformer, saj^s: ''We are 
 come as near as we possibly could to the Church of the 
 Apostles and the old Catholic Bishops and Fathers, and 
 have directed according to their customs, not only our 
 Doctrine, but also the Sacraments and forms of Com- 
 mon Prayer." " I protest," said Cranmer, ''that it was 
 never in my mind to write, speak, or understand any- 
 thing, but what I have learned of the Sacred Scriptures 
 and of the Holy Catholic Church of Christ from the be- 
 ginning ; and also, according to the exposition of the most 
 holy and learned Fathers and Martyrs of the Church." 
 
 C. A.— 17 
 
258 
 
 THE MOTHER CHUECH OF ENGLAND. 
 
 
 The guiding principle of Cranmer, Kidley, Hooker, Bull, 
 Thorndike, and all the galaxy of the English Reforma- 
 tion leaders, is also well expressed in the following 
 passage from Bishop Beveridge: '* When this, our Eng- 
 hsh Church, through long communion with the Ro- 
 man Church, had contracted like stains with her, from 
 which it was necessary that it should be cleansed, they 
 who took that excellent and very necessary work in 
 hand, fearing that they, like others, might rush from 
 one extreme to the other, removed indeed those things, 
 as well doctrines as ceremonies, which the Roman 
 Church had newly and insensibly superinduced, and, as 
 was fit, abrogated them utterly. Yet, notwithstanding, 
 whatever things had been at all times believed and ob- 
 served by all Churches in all places, those things they 
 most religiously took care not so to abolish with them. 
 Hence, therefore, these first reformers of this particular 
 Church directed the whole line of that Reformation 
 which they undertook, according to the rules of the 
 whole or Universal Church, casting away those things 
 only which had been either unheard of, or rejected by the 
 Universal Church, but most religiously retaining those 
 things which they saw equally corroborated by the 
 consent of the Universal Church." 
 
 If there were two or more Churches that could make 
 in other respects equally good claims to our allegiance, 
 it would certainly appear to be the will of God that we 
 should identify ourselves with the one whose govern- 
 ment, doctrine, and worship are most closely patterned 
 after the Church of the earliest and purest times. As 
 things now are, Americans who choose their Church re- 
 lationship with reference to the primitive model, must 
 give the preference to the Episcopal Church. 
 
 Vi 
 
 The Church for Americans. 
 
 LECTURE V. 
 
 THE A/nnRlCAN CHURCH. 
 
 I. The Pre-Colonial Church. 
 II. The Colonial Church. 
 ni. The National Church. 
 
 (259) 
 
AUTHORITIES. 
 
 I . 
 
 m 
 
 :i 
 
 Anderson, History of the Colonial Church. (3 Vols.) 
 
 Beardsley, Life and Correspondence of Bishop Seabury. 
 
 Benham, Short History of the Episcopal Church in America. 
 
 Brand, Life of Bishop Whittingham. (2 Vols.) 
 
 Coleman, Bp., The Church in America. 
 
 Hawks, Contributions to the Ecclesiastical History of the United 
 States of America. 
 
 Leonard, Bp., Witness of the American Church to pure Chris- 
 tianity. 
 
 McCoNNELL, History of the American Episcopal Church. 
 
 McVickar, Professional Years of Bishop Hobart. 
 
 Perry, Bp., The History of the American Episcopal Church. 
 (2 Vols.) 
 
 Smitfi, The Church in the New Land. 
 
 Stone, Memoir of Bishop Griswold. 
 
 Ward, Bishop William White. 
 
 Wilberforce,Bp., History of the American Episcopal Church 
 
 White, Bp., Memoirs of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the 
 United States of America from its organization to the present day. 
 
 Wordsworth, Canon, Theophilus Americanus. 
 
 PAMPHLETS. 
 
 Perry, Bp., The Faith of the Framers of the Constitution of the 
 United States. 
 
 Perry, Bp., The Faith of the Signers of the Declaration of Inde- 
 pendence. 
 
 Perry, Bp., Historical Sketch. 
 
 Royce, Historical Sketches of the Church of England and the 
 Protestant Episcopal Chureliiii the United States. 
 
 ml^WIWl'jf 
 
 The American Church. 
 
 WE have seen that the Church of England is a 
 branch of the Church of Christ.* A review of 
 the history of the American Episcopal Church 
 will now be necessary in order to determine whether or 
 not the connection between the two is such as to justify 
 the conclusion that in becoming or remaining an Episco- 
 palian, a person will be doing the will of Christ by 
 identifying himself with His Church. 
 
 •' I 
 
 I. 
 
 THE PRE-COLONIAL CHURCH. 
 
 THIS period extended through the one hundred and 
 ten years from the discovery of the American 
 Continent by John Cabot in a. d. 1497, to the 
 establishment of the first permanent colony in the year 
 1607. Before the planting of the Jamestown col- 
 ony the Church had no organized form. It is, how- 
 ever, matter of record that the Cabots, Drake, Frob- 
 isher, Cavandish, and others who were the first discov- 
 erers, explorers and colonizers of various parts of the 
 North American Continent, were accompanied by 
 Priests of the Church of England, who conducted daily 
 Morning and Evening Frsbjer w hether on ship, or land. 
 In A. D. 1579, on the first Sunday after Trinity, 
 Francis Fletcher, Drake's chaplain, conducted Service, 
 preached and administered the Holy Communion on the 
 
 ♦Lecture IV. 
 
 (261) 
 
'f 
 
 i, 
 
 !l 
 
 THE AMERICAN CHURCH. 
 
 shore of a "fayre and good baye," which is supposed to 
 be Drake's Bay, about thirty miles from San Francisco. 
 These are the first recorded Christian Services held 
 within the present limits of the United States. They are 
 commemorated by the massive and elaborately carved 
 "Prayer Book Cross " of granite placed in Golden Gate 
 Park, San Francisco, by the late Mr. George W. Childs, 
 of Philadelphia. 
 
 It is somewhat uncei-tain when the first Baptism was 
 administered in this country. The honor is claimed on 
 behalf of two places and for both Romanists and Angli- 
 cans. The child of an Indian chief is said by some to 
 have been baptized in the year 1570, in Virginia, by 
 Quiros, a Jesuit— one of a small colony of missionaries 
 who settled in the wilderness, but after a few years were 
 all murdered by the natives. Others maintain, with a 
 greater show of probability, that the converted chief, 
 Manteo, and Virginia Dare, the first English child born 
 in America, baptized, respectively, on the Ninth and the 
 Tenth Sundays after Trinity, August 13 and 20, 1587, 
 on the Island of Roanoke, by the chaplain of Raleigh's 
 second colony, were the first recipients of the Sacrament 
 of Regeneration. Dr. McConnell confidently asserts: 
 *' These were the first fruits, not only of the Church of 
 England, but of Christianity in the Colonies." 
 
 But there was no continuity in the Church's life for 
 more than a quarter of a century later. The pre- 
 colonial Church either came and went with the adven- 
 turesome seamen, or lingered only while the several 
 abortive attempts at colonization lasted. So devoid of 
 stability and the essential equipments was it that call- 
 ing it a Church is only possible by a very broad applica- 
 tion of our Lord's words: "Where two or three are 
 gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst 
 of them." 
 
 II. 
 
 THE COLONIAL CHURCH, 
 
 THE American Church may be said to date its 
 organized existence from the establishment of 
 the first permanent colony at Jamestown, Vir- 
 ginia, A. D. 1607. The distinguished honor of making 
 the beginning of this Church is due to the Rev. Robert 
 Hunt who conducted daily Morning and Evening 
 Prayer, preached twice every Sunday, and administered 
 the Holy Communion quarterly. The scene as it is 
 briefly described in the quaint phraseology of the time, 
 presents to the imagination a striking picture of the 
 first American Church edifice and worshipping congre- 
 gation. " We did hang an awning to the trees to shield 
 us from the sun, our walls were rails of wood, our seats 
 unhewed trees, our pulpit a bar of wood." Here on an 
 equally rustic Altar occurred the first recorded celebra- 
 tion on the Atlantic seaboard of the Holy Eucharist 
 according to the English Liturgy. This was June 21, 
 the Third Sunday after Trinity, five weeks after landing. 
 The colony was more than once prevented from 
 breaking up by dissension, through the reconciling infiu- 
 ence of Mr. Hunt. The Rev. Alexander Whittaker, 
 styled the Apostle to the North American Indian, was 
 Hunt's worthy successor. It was he who baptized the 
 celebrated Pocahontas in a. d. 1611. In a. d. 1619, the 
 first elective assembly of the New World met in the 
 Jamestown Church. It was opened with a Prayer Book 
 Collect by one of the Church's Clergy. Its first act was 
 
 (263) 
 
264 
 
 THE AMERICAN CHURCH. 
 
 a provision for tlie protection of the Indian from op- 
 pression, and the second for the establishment of a 
 university. Thus the foundation of our Eepublican 
 form of government was laid a year before the famous 
 "Mayflower" left EDj>;land with the first of the Pilgrim 
 colonists. Our Colonial Church was established seven 
 years before the Holland-Dutch came to New York, 
 eleven years before the much-belauded Massachusetts 
 Bay Puritans landed, and twenty-seven years before 
 Lord Baltimore came with the first colony of Roman- 
 ists. From all this it will be seen that the Episcopal 
 Church is justly entitled to the distinction which her 
 members often claim for her of being denominated " the 
 American Church," or ''the Church." This is not be- 
 cause she is the largest body of Christians in the coun- 
 try, nor because we claim her to be the only true branch 
 of the Apostolic Church of Christ, but owing to the fact 
 that she was the first Church to celebrate the Christian 
 w orship and Sacraments on our shores as she was also 
 the Church of the first permanent settlers within the 
 limits of the thirteen original states. It must be re- 
 membered, also, that, as Bishop Coleman points out, 
 she was "by charter and law established in the older 
 colonies; that more than anv other Ecclesiastical 
 organization she had to do with constituting the na- 
 tion, and, in the period of the Civil War, with its main- 
 tenance and reunion ; and that, while conservative and 
 Catholic in her character, she yet is distinctively Amer- 
 ican in spirit." 
 
 But even if our pretension were not supported by 
 any of these interesting considerations, it would be 
 abundantly justified by the simple fact that this is an 
 English-speaking nation, and ours is preeminently the 
 Church of the English-speaking race. According to 
 the idea which prevails among us, it is necessary iu 
 
 THE COLONIAL CHURCH. 
 
 265 
 
 order to justify our existence, for us to claim that the 
 Episcopal Church is the Church of the American people. 
 To us it seems to have been plainly the intention of the 
 Master to establish one Church only which was to be 
 continued by the Successors of the Apostles, called Bish- 
 ops. Each Bishop is, by virtue of his Apostolic authority, 
 conveyed through Canonical Consecration by successors 
 of the Apostles, supreme in his own Jurisdiction. More- 
 over, the great Ecumenical Councils made provision for 
 the protection of this supremacy. Therefore, there can 
 be only one Bishop in a given Diocese, and one Church 
 in a Nation. If two or more bodies exist with separate 
 officers, only one can be the right and lawful Church of 
 Christ, the others must be usurpers or schismatics. Our 
 claim to be the Church in the United States having the 
 right to exclusive allegiance is canonically justified chiefly 
 by the fact that this country was originally the posses- 
 sion of the English Nation, and that the English tongue 
 and laws were adopted by the common consent of the 
 American people. The Church of England which conse- 
 crated and gave us our Bishops, traces its descent from 
 the Apostles of our Lord and possesses the independence 
 that was originally conferred upon Her, and all other 
 National (churches. No civil officer can produce a more 
 legitimate authority than can a Bishop of the Episco- 
 pal Church. Therefore this is the American Church. 
 
 The colonial Church was for the most part under the 
 nominal supervision of the Bishop of London. But this 
 was a very unsatisfactory arrangement. It necessitated 
 an expensive and perilous voyage of six thousand miles 
 on the part of candidates for Holy Orders. This kept 
 many from applying at all, and of the few whose conse- 
 crated zeal impelled them forward, a large proportion 
 perished by shipwreck, or died abroad by one or an- 
 other of the pestilential diseases, so common a century 
 
266 
 
 THE AMERICAN CHURCH. 
 
 I'a 
 
 I J 
 
 nr two ago iu all parts o! Europe. Under these circum- 
 stances it was impossible to secure an adequate staff of 
 native-born Clergymen. The Church was, therefore, 
 largely dependent upon recruits from England. And, 
 unfortunately, of the few who came, some were either 
 adventurers or persons who had left home to avoid dis- 
 cipline for some misdemeanor. Laws had to be made to 
 restrain such from even the gross vices of gambling and 
 drunkenness, and to force them to discharge the duties 
 they were neglecting. As, however, the Church here was 
 practically without a head, these unworthy ministers 
 escajjed the penalties and continued to work havoc 
 wherever they went. 
 
 It is related that a clergyman on his way to Mary- 
 land, or purposing to emigrate, died. His valet as- 
 sumed the clerical garb of his master, took possession 
 of his letters of Orders, his stock of sermons and other 
 papers, continued the journey to Maryland, and there, 
 under the name of the dead clergyman, had charge of a 
 parish for a long time. This outrage also occurred : A 
 known profligate in Orders obtained, through family 
 influence, an important parish. The incensed congre- 
 gation rose up and declared that he should not come 
 among them. They accordingly barred the windows 
 and put extra locks on the doors of the Church. But 
 they had to deal with a resolute man. A window was 
 forced, and when the good people entered through the 
 opened door they found their pastor in the desk, his 
 opened Prayer Book flanked on either side by a pistol, 
 and he ready to address them as '* Dearly beloved 
 brethren." Having "read himself in, "his future concern 
 was only the taxes collected for the support of religion. 
 
 The Northern Clergy were of the most exemplary 
 character. But they were few, and suffered much perse- 
 cution from the Puritans, who "assumed the right of 
 
 THE COLONIAL CHURCH. 
 
 267 
 
 taxing all for the support of their ministers and meet- 
 ing-houses; and, wherever they could gain over the 
 local Governor to their persuasion, proceeded to en- 
 force their claim with signal violence." "With mel- 
 ancholy hearts," a member of the "Church" at Wal- 
 lingford, Connecticut, wrote home to complain, "have 
 divers of us been imprisoned, and our goods from 
 year to year distrained for taxes levied for the build- 
 ing and supporting of meeting-ho.uses." As late as the 
 year 1750, an old man, who had been long a member 
 of the Church, was whipped publicly for not attend- 
 ing meeting. Dr. Peters, a contemporaneous writer of 
 Colonial History, relates that, in the same year "an 
 Episcopal Clergyman, born and educated in England, 
 who had been in Holy Orders above twenty years, once 
 broke their Sabbatical law by combing a discomposed 
 lock of hair on the top of his wig ; at another time, by 
 making a humming noise, which they called whistling; 
 at a third time, by walking too fast from Church ; at a 
 fourth, by running into a Church when it rained ; at a 
 fifth, by walking in his garden and picking a bunch of 
 grapes ; for which several crimes he was complained of 
 by the Grand Jury, and a warrant granted against him, 
 was seized, brought to trial, and made to pay a consid- 
 erable sum of money." At Hartford, one of the judges 
 of the county court, assisted by the mob, pulled down a 
 rising Church, and with the stones built a house for 
 his son. Mr. Morton, a staunch Churchman of Massa- 
 chusetts, was persecuted violently, all the more because 
 of the satires contained in his "New English Canaan." 
 He died in England from the effects of his imprisonment 
 at Boston. 
 
 Owing to the many disadvantages growing out of 
 the dependence upon a foreign Episcopate, repeated and 
 persevering efforts were made to secure the Consecration 
 
268 
 
 THE AMERICAN CHURCH. 
 
 I 
 
 of Bishops for this coimtry, but without avail. The 
 celebrated English philanthropist, Granville Sharp, 
 used his great influence on behalf of the neglected sheep 
 of the American wilderness, and almost succeeded in 
 bringing about the Consecration of chief shepherds for 
 them. "' Twice," says the author of " The Professional 
 Years of Bishop Hobart," "was the goodly plan frus- 
 trated when on the very point of completion. In the 
 reign of Charles II., the patent was actually made out, 
 appointing Kev. Dr. Alexander Murray, a good man, 
 and a companion of the King's exile. Bishop of Vir- 
 ginia, with a general charge over the other provinces ; 
 but the scheme fell through by a change of ministry, 
 and what Clarendon had done, the ' Cabal ' revoked, 
 though the deeper cause probably was, that the King, 
 himself, had no heart in the matter. A second time, in 
 the reign of Anne, was provision made, a scheme of 
 four American Bishoprics adopted, and certain govern- 
 ment lands in the Island of St. Kitts actually sold for 
 their endowment. The death of the Queen cut this 
 short, and although subsequently approved and recom- 
 mended by the first and ablest men of the Church, hf 
 Berkeley, Butler, Gibson, Sherlock, and, above all, by 
 the meekest of Prelates, Archbishop Seeker, it w^as never 
 carried into effect.'' ''At one time," writes Canon 
 Perry, in his "History of the Church of England," 
 " there were two non-juring Bishops in America, namely. 
 Dr. R. Welton, and Dr. J. Talbot, a. d. 1722, the former 
 in Philadelphia, the latter in Burlington, N. J., but 
 they were not allowed to exercise Episcopal functions, 
 except by stealth, and the government soon afterwards 
 interfered with, and put an entire stop to, all action on 
 their part." 
 
 The failure to secure the Episcopacy was chiefly due 
 to the political influence of the Puritanical sects. But 
 
 THE COLONIAL CHURCH. 
 
 269 
 
 
 Strange as it may appear, some of the Prelates them- 
 selves objected to the giving of the Episcopate to ''the 
 New World," upon the ground that there could be no 
 adequate provision made in such a barbarous country 
 for the due support of Bishops in the state and dignity 
 which, according to their conception, properly belong 
 to them. As Dr. McConnell observes: "The idea of a 
 Bishop in the American wilderness was as grotesque to 
 them as now would be the suggestion of a professor of 
 higher mathematics among the Zulus." It is surpass- 
 ingly strange that their " lordships," who for the most 
 part were really good and learned men, should so far 
 have been blinded by their environment as altogether 
 to lose sight of the simplicity of the Apostolic and 
 primitive Episcopate. But, in view of the unfortu- 
 nate experience of our fathers, it is even more inexplica- 
 ble that the multiplication of Bishops to supply the 
 growing needs of the American Church is, at this late 
 date, prevented by the survival of the misconceptions 
 of our English forefathers. Large sections, in many 
 of our states and territories, are at this time de- 
 prived of adequate Episcopal ministrations because 
 they have not the ability to make "ample provision" 
 for the support of a chief shepherd. An able edi- 
 torial critic thus puts the unscriptural and unjustifi- 
 able character of the legislation regulating the crea- 
 tion of new Dioceses and Missionary Jurisdictions: 
 "It is the fashion to talk of the Episcopate as dis- 
 tinctively the Missionary Order; and so it ought to 
 be; but the Constitution of the Protestant Episco- 
 pal Church forbids it to be so unless on conditions 
 at w^hich the Apostles of Jesus Christ— men who w^ere 
 sent without scrip for their journey, and without gold, 
 silver, or even brass in their purses— would have been 
 amazed." 
 
270 
 
 THE AMERICAN CHUBCH. 
 
 But having, in accord with their inherited ideas, con- 
 ceived this objection against responding to the appeal 
 of the Colonial Church, the English Bishops were doubt- 
 less confirmed in it by the fact that the Clergy already 
 in the field were paid in tobacco instead of in gold, and 
 that they experienced considerable difficulty in collect- 
 ing even the scanty amount of that indigenous weed 
 which had been promised. The Clergy often had occa- 
 sion to complain that the tobacco given them in pay- 
 ment for their salaries was inferior in quality. The 
 stipends were fixed in some Parishes at sixteen thousand 
 pounds of tobacco per annum. This would realize, if 
 the article were of the best grade, the equivalent of 
 between four and five hundred dollars of our money, 
 upon which sum the Rectors are said to have lived, even 
 when married, very comfortably. Why could not a 
 Bishop have done the same? 
 
 No wonder that under these circumstances the 
 Church was in an almost hopelessly depressed condi- 
 tion. At the South she was nearly ruined by the irreg- 
 ularities growing out of the want of Episcopal over- 
 sight, while to the Northward she was downtrodden 
 and all but crushed out by Puritanism. But there were 
 many notable exceptions among the Southerners, of 
 Clergymen and Laymen who were examples of piety 
 and self-sacrificing devotion. And in the course of time 
 there was also an unmistakable reaction against North- 
 ern Puritanism. 
 
 This reactionary movement started in the year 1722, 
 among the faculty and graduates of Yale College. 
 Seven of these, all professors. Congregational or Pres- 
 byterian ministers, were accustomed to meet together 
 for the purpose of studying and discussing the claims of 
 
 THE COLONIAL CHURCH. 
 
 271 
 
 the Episcopal Church. These meetings grew out of a 
 Prayer Book, which many years before had providen- 
 tially fallen into the hands of President Cutler, and from 
 the study of certain standard works of the Anglican 
 Divines, contributed by the eelebrat^ed Dean Berkeley, to 
 the College library. One of them tells us that not a sin- 
 gle path was left untrodden, which seemed likely to lead 
 to fresh sources of knowledge. The best writers on 
 either side of the controversy were carefully consulted, 
 and their arguments deliberately discussed and weighed. 
 As far as temporal ease and prospects were concerned, 
 it would have been a welcome result to these inquirers, 
 had they found the principles of Congregational gov- 
 ernment to agree, in their judgment, with those of the 
 primitive Church of Christ. Such a conclusion would 
 have retained them in the peaceful discharge of their ac- 
 customed duties, and have preserved unbroken the 
 cords of love which bound them to their kindred, 
 friends and country. But the enjoyment of the present 
 ease would cease to be a blessing, if purchased at the 
 cost of truth ; and come therefore what might, the dic- 
 tates of conscience were to be obeyed. When, therefore, 
 after long study and many conferences, they had fully 
 made up their minds as to the truth of the Anglican 
 Church's position, they met the trustees of Yale College 
 and astonished them beyond measure by reading the 
 following address : 
 
 *' To the Rev. Mr, Andrew and Mr. Woodbridge and others, our Rev- 
 erend Fathers and Brethren, present in the Library of Yale College 
 this 13th of September, 1722. 
 
 "Reverend Gentlemen:— Having represented to. 
 you the diflSculties which we labor under, in relation to 
 our continuance out of the visible communion of an 
 Episcopal Church, and a state of seeming opposition 
 thereto, either as private Christians, or as officers, 
 and so being insisted on by some of you, after our 
 
272 
 
 THE AMERICAN CHURCH. 
 
 THE COLONIAL CHURCH. 
 
 273 
 
 i 
 
 I III ' 
 
 
 1^ 
 
 Professors and 
 Ministers. 
 
 repeated declinings of it, that we should sum up our case 
 in writing, we do, though with great reluctance, fearing 
 the consequences of it, submit to, and comply with, it, 
 and signify to you that some of us doubt the validity, 
 and the rest of us are more fully persuaded of the inva- 
 lidity of Presbyterian Ordination, in opposition to Epis- 
 copal ; and should be heartily thankful to God and man 
 if we may receive from them satisfaction herein ; and 
 shall be willing to embrace your good counsels and in- 
 structions in relation to this important affair, as far as 
 God shall direct and dispose us to do." 
 Signed, Timothy Cutler, 
 
 [President of Yale College.] 
 
 John Hart, 
 Samuel Whittlesey, 
 Jared Eliot, 
 James Wetmore, 
 Samuel Johnson, 
 Daniel Brown, 
 
 When this dMaration was made there was only one 
 of our Clergymen in all Connecticut. In the course of 
 the next month, at the suggestion of the Governor of 
 the Colony, there was a public discussion between its 
 signers and the amazed Puritans. At this debate Pres- 
 byterians contended that the Apostles, in the nature of 
 things, could have no successors, and that the title 
 Bishop, which Episcopalians restrict to those whom 
 they conceive to be invested with Apostolic authority, 
 is used in the Epistles as a synonym of Presbyter or 
 Elder. It was shown by the converts to Episcopacy, 
 that the first of these assertions is a misleading half 
 truth. It is of course true that the Apostles could not 
 transmit to successors their blessed personal experience 
 as the privileged Disciples of the Lord, their Pentecostal 
 illumination and inspiration, their ability to bear the 
 testimony of eye-witnesses to the Resurrection and their 
 power to work miracles. But the instances of St. 
 Matthias and St. Paul prove that the Apostolic office 
 
 was not limited as to number, or person, or time, for 
 these were not of the twelve first selected by Christ, and 
 yet they were confessedly none the less Apostles. ' - 
 
 It appears, therefore, from Seripturethat the Apostles 
 could and did perpetuate their office by delegating their 
 authority to those who should assist and succeed them 
 in the adminiHtration of the Church. To argue the im- 
 possibility of this, as the Presbyterians do, upon the 
 gi'ound of the supernatuial endowments of the Apostles 
 and their close relationship to our Lord, is as incon- 
 sistent and contrary to human experience as it would 
 be to insist that kings and princes can have no succes- 
 sors, because they cannot convey their personality to 
 others. Moreover, according to this hypothesis the 
 Elders and Deacons could have no successors, for they 
 also worked miracles. The remark of Hooker expresses 
 the truth respecting this matter: ^'In some things 
 every Presbyter, in some things only Bishops, in some- 
 things neither the one nor the other, are the Apostles' 
 successors." 
 
 The circumstance of Presbyters sometimes being 
 
 called Bishops in the New Testament and vice versa 
 
 does no more prove that there was no dictinction in 
 
 office and authority, than the calling of the Apostles 
 
 Elders places them upon a level with the Presbytery. 
 
 They also called themselves Deacons. Are we therefore 
 
 to conclude that the Apostolate and Diacouate a-e the 
 
 same office in theChurch of the NewTestament? Bishop 
 
 means overseer or superintendent. The confusion arises 
 
 from losing sight of the fact that Bishop is a title com- 
 
 mon to the members of both the Apostleship and Pres- 
 
 bytership. These in their respective spheres were 
 
 rulers. The Presbyter-bishops were local, parochial 
 
 superint^endents. The Apostle-bishops were General, Dio- 
 
 cesan or Metropolitan superintendents. The difference 
 
 C. A.— 18 
 
 
274 
 
 THE AMERICAN CHURCH. 
 
 'iM I 
 
 il! 
 
 
 between the Presbyterian and Apostolic Bishops appears 
 very plainly in what St. Paul had to say to the repre- 
 sentatives of both Orders who were stationed at Eph- 
 esus. Upon comparing Acts 20: 28-36 with I Tim- 
 othy 5: 1, 19-22, and II Timothy 2: 2, it will be 
 observed that the duties required of them, respectively, 
 correspond exactly with the requirements of the Epis- 
 copal Church from the second and third Orders of her 
 ministry. The Presbyter-bishops were charged with 
 the feeding, protection and correction of particular 
 flocks. The Apostle-bishops were exhorted to seek out 
 and prepare fit men for the Holy Orders ; to ordain 
 those who should be found worthy, and to administer 
 discipline to the Clergy who should be guilty of irregular 
 life or heretical teaching. In order to avoid confusion 
 it was not very long before Presbyters ceased to be 
 called Bishops, and the title was reserved exclusively 
 for the successors of the Apostles. This rests upon the 
 testimony of the early Fathers who tell us that ''those 
 who in their day were called Bishops w^ere first called 
 Apostles." ''It was precisely as if, by the common con- 
 sent of the American ])eople, springing from gratitude 
 for the services, and veneration for the memory, of 
 Washington, it should be determined, for the future, to 
 appropriate to him alone the title of jiresident ; and to 
 all his successors in the presidential office created by 
 the constitution, what is now regarded as the less dig- 
 nified name of governor. It would not abstract one 
 iota from the constitutional privileges and powers 
 attached to the oflSce itself." 
 
 Thus the representatives of Presbyterianism at the 
 famous Yale debate found that " their chief argument, 
 from the different uses of the words Bishop and Presby- 
 ter in the New Testament, was met by the incontest- 
 able evidence from Scripture of the superintendency of 
 
 
 THE COLONIAL CHURCH. 
 
 275 
 
 Timothy over the Clergy and Laity of Ephesus, and of 
 Titus over the Church in Crete. The appeal to the his- 
 tory of the first and purest centuries of the Church was 
 made until at length, as Johnson records it, 'an old 
 minister got up and made an harangue against us in 
 the declamatory way to raise an odium, but he had not 
 gone far before Mr. Saltonstall, the Governor, who, him- 
 self, presided, got up and said that he only designed a 
 friendly argument, ' and so put an end to the conference." 
 The Puritans regarded this notable defection from 
 their ranks w ith apprehension and dismay. On the oc- 
 casion of the celebration of the one hundred and fiftieth 
 anniversary of Yale College, President Woolsey, refer- 
 ring to the event, said : '' I suppose that gTeater alarm 
 would scarcely be awakened now, if the theological 
 faculty of the college were to declare for the Church of 
 Rome, avow their belief in transubstantiation and pray 
 to the Virgin Mary." Nor were they mistaken in the 
 expectation that others would follow. In the ten 
 years subsequent to that memorable declaration more 
 than one in ten of the graduates of Yale, who entered 
 the ministry, followed the example of Cutler, John- 
 son. Brown and Wetinore— the leaders of the great 
 army of Denominational ministers, who, from that day 
 to this, have been drawn into the Church's service. 
 So many were the accessions to the Church from Con- 
 gregationalism and Presbyterianism that in the year 
 1734 the Independents sent a petition drawn up by the 
 famous Jonathan Edwards to the Bishop of London, 
 in which they represented to his lordship that they did 
 not need any more Church missionaries in New England,, 
 as they only drew away from their own people into the 
 Episcopal ranks ; that there w as, however, great need 
 of missionaries in Carolina and New York, and not 
 north of that. 
 
 I 
 
m. 
 
 I 
 
 
 THE NATIONAL CHURCH, 
 
 OtTR National Episcopal Church is one of the results 
 of the American Revolution. It was not that 
 Churchmen generally preferred to be independent 
 of the Church of England, but that owing to the temper 
 of the times, and the relation of the English Church to 
 the State, it was simply impossible to continue the re- 
 lationship of a daughter as in colonial times. Hence- 
 ^forth the Church, if it continued at all, must be re- 
 garded as an independent sister. But, as a matter of 
 fact, it looked very much as if she would become extinct. 
 Many of her own sons supposed that she was hopelessly 
 prostrate, and despaired of her resuscitation. An 
 anecdote concerning Chief Justice Marshall, related by 
 Bishop Meade, is illustrative of the deep-rooted impres- 
 sion which prevailed that the Episcopal Church could 
 not be revived. even in the stronghold of old Virginia. 
 When the Bishop ''soon after the establishment of the 
 Theological Seminary of Virginia, was collecting funds 
 for it, he presented the subscription list to Judge Mar- 
 shall. With his usual kindness and liberality, he set 
 down a handsome amount, but at the same time said 
 he really feared that it was doing an unkindness to the 
 young men of Virginia, thus to tempt them to prepare 
 for the ministry of a Church which could never be 
 revived. He lived, however, to rejoice in seeing the 
 failure of his fears and prophecy." 
 
 Even the good, and for the most part, judicious. Dr. 
 William White, of Philadelphia, the first Bishop of 
 
 (276) 
 
 THE NATIONAL CHURCH. 
 
 277 
 
 Pennsylvania, saw no hope for the saving of the feeble 
 remnant but in the adoption of the extraordinary 
 measures recommended in his famous pamphlet writ- 
 ten at the close of the war. In it he advocated, among 
 other novelties, the creation of a temporary fictitious 
 p]piscopate, ordained by I'lesbyters and Laymen. The 
 proposition was regarded and represented, especially 
 by the few remaining Northern clergymen, as prepos- 
 terous, and there is reason to believe that Dr. White 
 himself came to regret this production of his pen. At 
 least, on the blank pages in the back of his private 
 copy there was found, in his handwriting, a note of ex- 
 planation and justification which we quote here, be- 
 cause of its concise description of the condition and 
 prospects of the Church during, and for some time 
 after, the struggle for Independence. ''The circum- 
 stances," runs the note, "attached to that publication 
 are the following: The congregations of our Church 
 throughout the United States were approaching annihi- 
 lation. Although within this city [Philadelphia] three 
 Episcopal Clergymen, including the author, were resi- 
 dent and officiating, the Churches over the rest of the 
 State had become deprived of their Clergy during the 
 war, either by death or departure for England. In the 
 Eastern States, with two or three exceptions, there was 
 a cessation of the exercises of the pulpit, owing to the 
 necessary disuse of the prayers for the former civil 
 rulers. In Maryland and Virginia, where the Church 
 had enjoyed civil establishments, on the ceasing of 
 these, the incumbents of the parishes, almost without 
 exception, ceased to officiate. Further South the con- 
 dition of the Church was not better, to say the least." 
 Then follows the aged Bishop's explanation of why 
 he thought that the true Apostolic Episcopate could 
 not be secured in time to save the Church from ruin. 
 
I 
 
 278 
 
 THE AMERICAN CHURCH. 
 
 THE NATIONAL CHURCH. 
 
 279 
 
 But in the Providence of God this was to be another of 
 the many illustrations of the maxim, ''Man's extremity 
 is God's opportunity." The Blessed Saviour had prom- 
 ised that the gates of hell or death should not prevail 
 ap:aint His Church. The fact that the Colonial Church 
 did not utterly perish in the dark days which imme- 
 diately preceded and succeeded the Revolution, is an 
 all but conclusive proof of its Divine and indestructible 
 character. No political revolutions, no bigoted perse- 
 cutions, no machinations of evil-minded men are suffi- 
 cient to crush out the Church of the living* God. 
 
 " Crowns and thrones may perish, 
 Kingdoms rise and wane. 
 But the Church of Jesus constant will remain." 
 
 The Colonial Church had been one, with the Bishop 
 of London as the center of unity, but after the Declara- 
 tion of Independence the remnant of the Church in each 
 colony became a little feeble National Church. As in 
 the period of the Heptarchy, there were seven independ- 
 ent branches of the Apostolic Church in England, so for 
 some time there were thirteen separate and distinct 
 little Episcopal Churches in America, as there were also 
 thirteen little nations in the country. These were con- 
 solidated into one Church and one nation in the same 
 vear. And it is noteworthy that in manv instances the 
 same men were, under God, instrumental in the unifica- 
 tion of both. Two-thirds of the framers of the Consti- 
 tution of the United States were, by birth, by Baptism, 
 by family association, Churchmen. Of these nearly one- 
 fifth were deputies in actual attendance upon the early 
 General or State Conventions of the Church. This no 
 doubt accounts for the striking resemblances between 
 the governments of the United States and the Episcopal 
 Church about which we shall have occasion to say more. 
 
 The unity which was ultimately effected in both 
 State and Church was in part the result of a felt neces- 
 sity for self-preservation. In the case of the Church it 
 was seen to be necessary in order that sufficient influ- 
 ence might be exerted to secure the Consecration of 
 Bishops by the English Prelates, and to obtain permis- 
 sion from Congress for them to take up their abode in 
 the several States. The Bishops in England were no 
 longer unwilling to consecrate for America, but, under 
 the laW'S by which their official acts were regulated, 
 they could not proceed without special permissory leg- 
 islation by Parliament. This, owing partly to piques 
 connected with the outcome of the late war, but princi- 
 pally to the great power of the Puiitan enemies of the 
 Church, was exceedingly hard to obtain, and conse- 
 quently required all the influence that could be exerted 
 by a united effort. 
 
 The want of general cociperation accounts for the 
 failure of the Connecticut Clei-gy to secure Consecration 
 from the English Episcopate for their admirable Bishop 
 elect, Dr. Samuel Seabury. After* many months of fruit- 
 less negotiations, he was at last compelled to apply to 
 the non-juring Bishops of Scotland, who. having no con- 
 nection with the State, were free to exercise the func- 
 tions of their Apostolic office according to discretion. 
 They invested Dr. Seabury with the Episcopal char- 
 acter at Aberdeen in an ui)per room on November 14, 
 1784, Bishops Kilgour, Petrie and Skinner being the 
 Consecrators. "This ever-memorable Service was per- 
 formed," says an eye witness, "in the presence of a con- 
 siderable number of respectable Clergymen and a great 
 number of Laity." 
 
 The Consecration of Dr. Seabury took jlace about 
 two years and a half after the declaration of peace 
 and the acknowledgment of the independence of the 
 

 
 [ .fa 
 
 II 
 
 280 
 
 THE AMERICAN CHURCH. 
 
 colonies. It was the most important event which had 
 so far happened in the history of the American Episcopal 
 Church. Its immediate and direct influence for good 
 cannot be exaggerated. It destroyed the argument of 
 necessity by which Dr. White, and some Southern 
 Churchmen sought to justify their proposition to aban- 
 don temporarily the government of the Church by the 
 Historic Episcopate. There was now a Bishop in the 
 States, and if the canonical number three could not 
 possibly be secured, he could by himself consecrate 
 others, and so perpetuate the succession, and provide 
 for the performance of all the Episcopal ofl^ces required 
 at any time. If this unfortunately had been necessary, 
 we should have been as well off as the Mission which the 
 Church of Rome has planted in the United States, for, 
 not to mention other irregularities, its Episcopate is 
 uncanonically derived through one Consecrator. Their 
 first Bishop, Dr. Carroll, arrived in the year 1790, six 
 years after Bishop Seabury. About twenty years after- 
 wards, without regard to Canon law, which requires 
 that there shall be at least three Consecrators, he 
 invested four others with the Episcopal office. Thus 
 Episcopalians have the legal line of the Apostolic suc- 
 cession in this country, while Romanists have not. 
 Morover, we have a decided further advantage in that 
 our Episcopacy was first on the ground. According to 
 Ecclesiastioal Law, we therefore constitute the American 
 branch of the Catholic Church, and they are intruding 
 schismatics. 
 
 In any case, however, the Episcopal Church would 
 be the only logical and legitimate Catholic Church of 
 the land, because Americans are English-speaking peo- 
 ple, and this is the historic Church of our race. The 
 Mother Church of England was established among our 
 British ancestors for centuries before they came into 
 
 THE NATIONAL CHURCH. 
 
 281 
 
 X 
 
 / 
 
 contact with Romanism through the Mission of Augus- 
 tine, and she was identified with the P^nghsh nation for 
 fifteen hundred years before the birth of the oldest of 
 the non-Episcopal bodies. Indeed the very existence of 
 England as a nation and kingdom is owing to this 
 Church which was instrumental in uniting the seven 
 tribes into which Anglo-Saxons were divided. Many of 
 the Bishoprics and other Ecclesiastical foundations are 
 older than the Kingdom, and have held their lands and 
 endowments longer than the Crown has possessed its 
 property. There was an Archbishop of Canterbury 
 three hundred years before there was a King of Eng- 
 land. And not only has she been connected with our 
 race much longer than any other Christian body, but 
 she has now, and, in all probability, always will have by 
 far the greater number of English-speaking adherents. 
 Moreover, taking it altogether, she is as the foundation 
 of the English nation and civilization, the most power- 
 ful agency for good the world has ever seen. The 
 Church of England is, therefore, as preeminently the 
 Catholic Church of our race, as the Church of Rome is 
 that of the Italians, and the Greek Church that of the 
 Eastern nations. 
 
 Dr. Seabury's success in obtaining the Episcopate, 
 and his safe return were a great joy to the Connecticut 
 Clergy. But the Presbyterian ministers appeared to be 
 rather alarmed, and ^'in consequence of his arrival as- 
 sumed and gave to one another the style and title of 
 Bishop which formerly they reprobated as a remnant 
 of Popery." Upon one occasion when the Bishop en- 
 tered the hall where the Yale College commencement 
 exercises were going on, some one suggested to the 
 President that he be invited, out of respect to his ofRce, 
 to a seat upon the stage among other distinguished 
 persons; to which it was replied: "We are all Bishops 
 
282 
 
 THE AMERICAN CHURCH. 
 
 here, but if there be room for another, he can occupy 
 it.*' 
 
 Besides removing the plea of necessity for the crea- 
 tion of a spurious Episcopacy, Dr. Seabury's Consecra- 
 tion by the Scottish Episcopate apparently had the 
 effect of mortifying the English Bishops, and of inducing 
 them to redouble their efforts to secure the requisite 
 Act of Parliament to enable them to consecrate for 
 foreign countries without the administration of the 
 civil oath. In little less than two years and a half, 
 they had not only secured the enabling act, but under 
 it, had duly set apart Drs. Provoost and AVhite as 
 Bishops, respectively, of New York and Pennsylvania; 
 and in a. d. 1790, they Consecrated Dr. James Madison, 
 Bishop of Virginia, and so the canonical number neces- 
 sary to transmit the Apostolic Succession was at last 
 obtained from England. 
 
 Still another direct and important effect of the timely 
 action taken by the Northern Clergy in securing a regu- 
 larly conseciated Bishop, is seen in the restraint put 
 upon the Southerners, who were for making radical 
 changes in the Prayer Book, and for materially curtail- 
 ing the ancient rights and powers of the American 
 Episcopate. That such restraint was sorely needed will 
 be sufficiently evident by observing that it was pro- 
 posed to omit the Nicene Creed from the Liturgy, and 
 to deny our Prelates many of the rights and powers 
 which have been, by common consent, a })rerogative of 
 Bishops from the beginning. 
 
 For some time after the Consecration of Drs. Pro- 
 voost and White the thirteen State Churches, without 
 formal action, grouped themselves into two incipient 
 Provinces with the Bishop of Connecticut as the primate 
 of the Northern, and the Bishops of New York and 
 Pennsylvania at the head of the Southern. Owing to 
 
 THE NATIONAL CHURCH. 
 
 283 
 
 the unfortunate difference of opinion respecting the 
 regularity of Dr. Seabury's Consecration, and the South- 
 ern prejudice against him, growing out of his Chap- 
 laincy in the British Army, and to the dissatisfaction 
 of the Connecticut Clergy and Bishop with what they 
 regarded as the want of Churchliness in the Southerners, 
 it seemed highly probable that two distinct and sep- 
 arate Episcopal Churches would be perpetuated in 
 America. This to all appearance would certainly have 
 been the case but for the wise management of the Rev. 
 Dr. Parker and Bishop White. 
 
 Dr. Parker was a distinguished Boston Clergyman, 
 who in A. D. J 804 was consecrated Bishop of Massachu- 
 setts, but died before performing a single Episcopal act. 
 In order to accomplish the union of the Northern and 
 Southern Churches, he contrived to have the Rev. Dr. 
 Bass elected Bishop of Massachusetts, and an appHca- 
 tion made to the General Convention of a. d. 1789, for 
 his Consecration by Bishops Seabury, Provoost and 
 White. Dr. Bass was not consecrated at that time and 
 it is thought that there was no expectation that he 
 would be, but the election and application led to the 
 unanimous adoption of a resolution in which the valid- 
 ity of Bishop Seabury's Consecration was recognized. 
 At an adjourned meeting of this Convention, held in 
 Philadelphia on September 29, 1789, the Bishop of 
 Connecticut was present with his Clerical deputies. But 
 they would not subscribe to the constitution previously 
 adopted until it had been so far changed as to allow 
 the House of Bishops their ancient vetoing power, and 
 the privilege of introducing new measures. These 
 changes made, the Connecticut delegation affixed their 
 signatures, took their seats in the convention, and so 
 the Northern and Southern Churches were united. At 
 the next General Convention this unity was effectually 
 
284 
 
 THE AMERICAN CHURCH. 
 
 cemented by the Consecration of the Rev. Thomas 
 John Claggett, D.D., as Bishop of Maryland by the 
 Bishops of Connecticut, New York, Pennsyh^ania and 
 Virginia. Through the first Bishop of Maryland, 
 though his was the only Consecration in wliich Bishop 
 Seabury took part, all American Bishops subsequently 
 consecrated are able to trace their Apostolic succession 
 along both the Scottish and P]nglish lines. 
 
 Thus the connection between the Church of England 
 and the American Episcopal Church is such that the 
 Catholicity of the latter cannot be denied if it be ad- 
 mitted of the former. The history of our Church ** in a 
 nut-shell " is this : It was founded in Jerusalem, a. d. 
 30, by Jesus Christ ; was planted in England, possibly 
 by St. Paul or one of his pupils ; was more or less sub- 
 ject to the usurpations of the Bishop of Rome from the 
 twelfth to the sixteenth centuries, then freed and re- 
 formed; was a mission of the Church of P]ngland in 
 America until after the Reyolution, when it became au- 
 tonomous and was called "Protestant Episcopal." It 
 therefore possesses authority from Christ Himself, and 
 has continuous existence from the days of the Apostles. 
 
 Cardinal Gibbons in his "Faith of Our Fathers" 
 says of us, "Theyery name you bear betrays your re- 
 cent birth ; for whoever heard of a Baptist or an Episco- 
 pal or any other Protestant Church, prior to the Refor- 
 mation?" To this we reply that the Mother Church 
 has the same name now that she had before the 
 Reformation, EcelesiR Anglkana^ the Church of Eng- 
 land. The French Roman Catholic Dupin, a distin- 
 guished Doctor of the famous Sorbonne Faculty and 
 regius professor of Divinity who flourished some two 
 hundred years ago, opens a chapter in his Compendious 
 History of the Church, with the question: "In what 
 state was the Church of England, and what passed there 
 
 THE NATIONAL CHURCH. 
 
 285 
 
 in the eleventh century?" The Magna Charta which 
 dates back three hundred and fifty years before the final 
 breaking with the Papacy, speaks of the Church of Eng- 
 land and guarantees her liberty and the independence 
 of all Ecclesiastical persons. As Dr. Stearns in his 
 "Faith of Our Forefathers," a crushing reply to Car- 
 dinal Gibbons, says: "It was the Church of England 
 then and it is the Church of England now; it was 'free' 
 then; it is 'free' now. The 'Episcopal' Church in the 
 United States is its legitimate offspring, recognized by 
 it as such. Its name of 'Episcopal,' therefore, does 
 not 'betray' its 'recent birth;' nor is that birth 
 'recent' in any other sense than that in which the 
 birth of every Church, the Roman itself not excepted, in 
 a recently discovered country is recent." 
 
 Of course Roman controversialists proceed upon the 
 hypothesis that the Church of England was originally a 
 mission of the Church of Rome. But we have seen that 
 this is not true, and that even if it were, our right to 
 independence of Papal dominion would not be affected. 
 The argument to the contrary, if carried out to its log- 
 ical conclusions, would prove quite too much for our 
 adversaries. It would subject Rome to Jerusalem from 
 which all Churches have directly or indirectly sprung. 
 Or if they contend that as the child is governed by its 
 parents rather than the grandparents, so a mission 
 must be subjected to the Church that planted it, rather 
 than to the mother of all Churches, we point out that by 
 this reasoning the Church of Rome should be subject to 
 the Church of Greece. For it is now a well-established 
 fact that the Greeks planted Christianity in Rome, and 
 indeed that the Church there was for more than two cen- 
 turies confined to a Grecian colony. Bishop Coxe says, 
 "The local Roman Church was for three hundred years a 
 mere colony of Greek Christianity." And Dean Stanley, 
 
 ■"-■^ .' 
 
 •# 
 
286 
 
 THE AMERICAJJ CHURCH. 
 
 ill 
 
 ^1 
 
 II Ms **Eastern Church/' writes: "The Greek Church 
 reminds us of the time when the tongue, not of Rome 
 but of Greece, was the sacred language of Christendom. 
 It was a striking remark of the Emperor Napoleon, 
 that the introduction of Christianity itself was, in a cer- 
 tain sense, the triumph of Greece over Rome. The early 
 Roman Church was but a colony of Greek Christians or 
 Grecized Jews ; the earliest Fatliers of the Western Church 
 wrote in Greek ; the early Po[)es were not Italians but 
 Greeks; the name of Pope is not Latin but Greek, the 
 common and now despised name of every pastor in the 
 Eastern Church ; she is the mother, and Rome the daugh- 
 ter." Canon Gore observes that "at an unknown 
 moment, before the middle of the third century, the 
 Church of Rome, which up to that time had been Greek 
 in language — alike in her Liturgy and her theology — a 
 Greek colony in the Latin city, became, perhaps some- 
 what suddenly, a Latin Church, and in consequence of 
 this change of language so completely forgot her Greek 
 past that in the fourth century she was ignorant of an 
 accident in her life which the coincidences of modern dis- 
 covery have laid open to our eyes.y 
 
 The unity so happily effected in A. d. 1789, between 
 the Northern and Southei-n Dioceses, though often more 
 or less strained, fortunat el V has never been broken. Its 
 most severe trial was at the opening of our great Civil 
 War. The Southern delegations were, of course, not 
 present at the General Convention which met in the 
 year 1862, but the right of the South to representation 
 was not questioned, seats were assigned them as in 
 times past, and their absence was not recognized by the 
 secretary, w^ho never omitted their Dioceses at the roll 
 call. They had formed a separate General Convention 
 for the Confederate States, but this was dissolved im- 
 mediately after the war, and all were represented as 
 
 THE NATIONAL CHURCH. 
 
 287 
 
 / 
 
 usual at the first General Convention which met there- 
 after. This coming together of Churchmen, among 
 w^hom were many of the most influential leaders on both 
 sides, did much more than is commonly realized to help 
 forward the reconstruction of the Union and Government. 
 
 For many years after the foundations of unity and 
 Catholicity had been laid and well cemented, the upbuild- 
 ing of the superstructure was discouragingly slow. This, 
 in fact, continued to be the case until about thirty years 
 ago. It was due to the operation of a variety of causes. 
 
 1. There was, first of all, the inveterate puritan- 
 ical hatred of the Church, because of those features in 
 her system which were groundlessly denounced as the 
 * ' rags of Popery . ' ' 
 
 2. There was also the wide-spread conviction that 
 the Episcopal polity was essentially opposed to the 
 newly-founded Republican form of government, and 
 that consequently its introduction and toleration 
 would be a menace to the recently-acquired liberties. 
 Bishop White says: "I have lived in days in which 
 there existed such prejudices in our land against the 
 name, and still more against the office, of a Bishop, 
 that it was doubtful whether any person in that char- 
 acter would be tolerated in the community." Even as 
 late as the year 1827, when Bishop Chase laid the mas- 
 sive foundations for "Old Kenyon," the people of the 
 region about Gambler had the gravest suspicions that 
 he was building an English fort for the subjugation of 
 the country west of the Alleghanies, and could scarce be 
 restrained from taking up arms against the Bishop and 
 workmen. 
 
 It is still periodically represented, to the great preju- 
 dice of the Episcopal Church, that she fits in with a 
 
 > 
 
288 
 
 THE AMERICAN CHURCH. 
 
 1; 
 
 n 
 
 Monarchical rather than a Republican form of gov- 
 ernment. In a recent widely-circulated attack upon 
 the Episcopal Church, it is charged that she cannot 
 make good the claim to be the Church of the United 
 States, because she "has not in history been loyal to 
 Americanism," and "it is not in its government 
 American." 
 
 So far as the first of these assertions is concerned, 
 what little foundation there is for it exists in the fact 
 that before the Independence, there being no Bishop in 
 this country, our Clergy either came from England or 
 went there for Ordination, and so their loyalty to the 
 Crown was pledged in the oath required from the Eng- 
 lish Clergy by the government. But though our minis- 
 try was thus embarrassed, our laymen were as free 
 as those of any other communion to govern them- 
 selves according to their conviction. It is a mistake to 
 suppose that before the Declaration of Independence, 
 opinion as to the advisability of separating from the 
 mother country was nowhere divided except in the 
 Episcopal Church, and the colonies where she predom- 
 inated. The Puritans were by no means unanimous for 
 an appeal to arms. In Massachusetts a majority were 
 at first opposed to the war ; a bill to sanction it was 
 twice defeated in the Legislature. In Connecticut the 
 opposition w^as still greater. In New York the parties* 
 were so equally divided, that when the Provincial Con- 
 gress chanced to receive notice upon the same day in 
 1775 that General Washington was about to cross the 
 Hudson and General Try on had arrived in the harbor, 
 they ordered the colonel commanding the militia so to 
 dispose his men that he could receive whichever General 
 should first arrive, and wait upon both as w^ell as cir- 
 cumstances would allow. Two-thirds of the signers of 
 the Declaration of Independence were Episcopalians. 
 
 THE NATIONAL CHURCH. 
 
 289 
 
 One signer from Massachusetts, Elbridge Gerry, after- 
 wards Vice-President of the United States ; all but one 
 of the signers from New York ; one signer from New Jer- 
 sey, Francis Hopkinson, a vestryman and warden; all 
 the signers but one from Pennsylvania; all but one 
 from Delaware; all but one from Maryland; all the 
 signers from Virginia; all from North Carolina; all 
 from South Carolina; and aH but one from Georgia, 
 were Episcopalians. This immortal document was 
 mainly drawn up by Thomas Jefferson, who was, at 
 least, a baptized member and a professed adherent of 
 the Episcopal Church. He was, to the day of his death, 
 a constant attendant upon her Services. 
 
 Washington, the Commander-in-chief of the armies, 
 and the one, under God, to whom the nation owes more 
 for its independence than any other, was a Communicant, 
 Vestryman, and Lay Reader of this Church, and died in 
 it. Robert B. Livingston, who, -in a. d. 1764, organized 
 the opposition to the Stamp Act in New York, was an 
 Episcopalian. So was Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, to 
 whom w^e owe the phrase, ''milHons for defense, but not 
 a cent for tribute." He was also the author of that 
 clause of the Federal Constitution which provides that 
 no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification 
 for any oflfice in the United States. And there was Pat- 
 rick Henry, whose famous speech, *' Give me liberty or 
 give me death," went so far in deciding Virginia to join 
 her sister colonies in the struggle for freedom. The debt 
 of gratitude w^hich we owe this thrilling Revolutionary 
 orator cannot be appreciated unless we realize how in- 
 dispensable the help of Virginia was to the patriot 
 cause. Had Virginia stood aloof, or taken sides with 
 England, we should, in all probability, have failed. 
 John Morton, who, as chairman, on July 2, 1776, cast 
 the vote by which Pennsylvania was committed to the 
 
 C. A.— 19 
 
mUH 
 
 THE AMERICAN CHURCH. 
 
 Revolution, was an Episcopalian. So was Csesar Rod- 
 ney, who did a similar service for Delaware. Richard 
 Henry Lee, of Virginia, called the Cicero of the Revo- 
 lution, who first proposed the idea of a Congress for all 
 the Colonies, and introduced into Congress a resolution 
 for the Independence of the Colonies, was an Episcopalian. 
 On his motion, and supported by his eloquence, was 
 adopted the recommendation of the Committee which 
 drew up and reported the Declaration of Independence : 
 and in t^at instrument was embodied by Congress the 
 very words that Lee had used in his original resolution : 
 "That these united Colonies are, and by right ought to 
 be, free and independent States; that they are absolved 
 from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all 
 political connection between them and the State of 
 Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.'' 
 The declaration of rights adopted by the Virginia Legis- 
 lature, and embodied in the Declaration of Independ- 
 ence, was written by George Mason, an Episcopalian. The 
 Declaration was first publicly read in the State House 
 Square, Philadelphia, by John Nixon, an Episcopalian. 
 Peyton Randolph, the first President of the Ameri- 
 can Congress — that very Congress which inaugurated 
 and set on foot the War of the Revolution — was 
 an Episcopalian. So was Rober-t Morris, whom Con- 
 gress appointed superintendent of finances, and by 
 whose management of them, and the pledging of his 
 own immense fortune— an act that reduced him to pov- 
 erty—did so much to raise the necessary means to keep 
 Oiir armies in the field. Benjamin Franklin, whom Con- 
 gress sent abroad as one of its special envoys, and who, 
 by his tact and persistence, negotiated the treaty which 
 secured for us the aid of France, without which our 
 cause must, to all appearance, inevitably have failed, 
 was nominally an Episcopalian. 
 
 THE NATIONAL CHURCH. 
 
 291 
 
 The lanterns which lighted Paul Revere's famous 
 ride to alarm the country of the British movement 
 upon Lexington and Concord were hung in the steeple 
 of "Old Christ's Episcopal Church" by an Episcopalian. 
 The Bishop of Iowa, the learned and painstaking his- 
 toriographer of the American Episcopal Church, to whose 
 writings I am indebted for many of the facts of this 
 lecture, says truly : " Not a field of battle, from Bunker 
 Hill to Yorktown, was there, but was moistened by 
 Churchmen's willing offering of life-blood for country 
 and freedom." General Sullivan, of New Hampshire; 
 General Cobb, of Massachusetts; General Ward, of 
 Rhode Island; Generals Morgan and Lewis, of New 
 York; General Brearly, of New Jersey; Generals Ross, 
 Cadwallader, and ''Mad Anthony" Wayne, of Penn- 
 sylvania; Generals Sumpter, Marion, and Moultrie, of 
 South Carolina; Generals Gwynnett, Wymberl}' Jones, 
 and Walton, of Georgia, were all Episcopalians. So 
 were Generals Montgomery and Mercer, who in turn so 
 gallantly laid down their lives at Quebec and Prince- 
 ton. Alexander Hamilton and John Laurens, the 
 first of whom commanded, and the other led, the 
 storming party which captured the first British re- 
 doubt at Yorktown, where Cornwallis surrendered 
 and where the war was practically ended, were P]pis- 
 copalians. Nelson, the Governor of Virginia, who 
 called out the militia of the lower part of the 
 State, himself personally giving the State. security for 
 the funds to equip them, and who, at the head of 
 three thousand five hundred of them, marched to 
 Yopktown, reaching the scene of action just in time 
 to reinforce the army of Washington and that of 
 our French allies, so that they were enabled to sur- 
 round Cornwallis and prevent his escape, was an Epis- 
 copalian. 
 
mWm 
 
 THE AMERICAN CHURCH. 
 
 James Madison, afterwards President of the United 
 States, who, besides giving- the benefit of his great mind 
 to the country during the continuation of the struggle, 
 after its close, when the States were about to fall apaii:, 
 was mainly instrumental in the formation of our present 
 Constitution, was an Episcopalian. All of these men, to- 
 gether with Monroe, and Jay, and Marshall, and Living- 
 stone, and Rutledge, and King, and the Pinkneys, and the 
 Harrisons, and Edmund Randolph, and Lord Sterling, 
 and " Lighthorse Harry " Lee, and Lillington, and Derr, 
 and Troup, and William Samuel Johnson, and hosts of 
 others, were Episcopalians. Francis Hopkinson, of New 
 Jersey, one of the E])iscopalian signers of the Declara- 
 tion, was the father of Joseph Hopkinson, also a mem- 
 ber of the Episcopal Church, who was the author of our 
 National song," Hail Columbia; "and Francis Scott Key, 
 of Maryland, the writer of *'The Star Spangled Ban- 
 ner," was an Episcopalian. 
 
 As for our Clergy, when the great crisis came, there 
 were only two hundred and fifty of them in the country. 
 It is true that some of them, including Dr. Seabury, 
 who afterwards became the first Bishop of Connecticut, 
 strongly sympathized with England. These for the 
 most part either left the country or remained neutral. 
 But a goodly proportion of our ministry must be 
 reckoned among the staunchest of patriots. Of these 
 in the North mav be mentioned the Rev. Doctors Bass 
 and Parker, both in turn, after the war. Bishops of Massa- 
 chusetts. These refused to read prayers for the King 
 and Parliament and instead prayed for the Ameri- 
 can cause. Dr. Provoost, of New York, afterwards first 
 Bishop of that State, was an ardent friend to America. 
 The Rev. William White of Philadelphia, who became 
 the first Bishop of Pennsylvania, also Doctors Madison 
 and Smith, the first Bishops respectively of Virginia 
 
 THE NATIONAL CHURCH. 
 
 293 
 
 and South Carolina, took sides with the Colonies. The 
 Rev. David Griffith of Virginia, Rector of the Church 
 which Washington attended, did the same. The Rev. 
 Charles M. Thurston, of Gloucester County, Virginia, 
 went into the army as a soldier, rose to the rank 
 of major and became known as the "fighting par- 
 son of Gloucester." The Rev. Peter Muhlenburg, of 
 Woodstock, who had been a soldier before he became 
 a Clergyman, entered the army as Colonel of the 8th 
 regiment of Virginia and afterwards rose to be a 
 brigadier-general. 
 
 A graphic account is preserved of the leaving of the 
 pulpit for the field by Mr. Muhlenburg. Having procured 
 a colonel's commission from General Washington, he 
 proceeded on a Sunday to Church, and, after a patriotic 
 sermon, took leave of his congregation in the following 
 words : " There is a time for all things — a time to preach 
 and a time to pray ; but there is also a time to fight, and 
 that is now come." He then gave them his benediction, 
 and throwing back his gown discovered to them his mil- 
 itary uniform. We may well leave the poet Read to tell 
 the remainder of this dramatic story in the closing verses 
 of one of the most stirring poems in the English language : 
 
 A moment there was awful pause, — 
 When Berkley cried, "Cease, traitor! cease! 
 God's temple is the house of peace!" 
 
 The other shoute^, "^'ay, not so, 
 When God is with our righteous cause ; 
 His holiest places then are ours, 
 His temples are our forts and towers, 
 
 That frown upon the tyrant foe; 
 In this, the dawn of Freedom's day, 
 There is a time to fight and pray!" ' . 
 
 And now before the open door — 
 
 The warrior Priest had ordered so — 
 The enlisting trumpet's sudden roar 
 
2M THE AMERICAN CHURCH. 
 
 Rang through the chapel, o'er and o'er, 
 
 Its long reverberating blow, 
 So loud and clear, it seemed the ear 
 Of dusty death must wake and hear. 
 And there the startling drum and fife 
 Fired the living with fiercer life; 
 While overhead, with wild increase, 
 Forgetting its ancient toll of peace. 
 
 The great bell swung as ne'er before; 
 It seemed as it would never cease; 
 And every word its ardor flung 
 From off its jubilant iron tongue 
 
 Was, "War! War! War!*' 
 
 "Who dares" — this was the patriot's cry, 
 As striding from the desk he came, — 
 
 "Come out with me, in Freedom's name, 
 For her to live, for her to die?" 
 A hundred hands flung up reply, 
 A hundred voices answered "I!" 
 
 Mr. Muhlenbiirg, having led three hundred brave vol- 
 unteers to the front, remained with the army till the 
 close of the war, and then engaged in civil pursuits until 
 his death in 1807. There was also the patriot, the Rev. 
 Charles Pettigrew, of North Carolina. In South Caro- 
 lina, where at the breaking out of the war, there were 
 only twenty Clergymen of the Church, it is said that fif- 
 teen of them, or three-fourths of the entire number, took 
 sides with .\merica. Six of the Signers of the Declara- 
 tion of Independence were sons or grandsons of Episco- 
 pal Clergymen. 
 
 The Rev. Thomas Duche, of Philadelphia, arrayed 
 in full canonicals, offered the first prayer in Congress. 
 The following interesting reminiscence of this event 
 is preserved to us in a letter to his wife from the ven- 
 erable John Adams. "When the Congress met, Mr. 
 Cushing made a motion that it should be opened with 
 prayer. It was opposed by Mr. Jay, of New York, and 
 
 THE NATIONAL CHURCH. 
 
 295 
 
 Mr. Rutledge, of South Carolina, because we were so 
 divided in religious sentiments, some Episcopalians, 
 some Quakers, some Anabaptists, some Presbyterians, 
 and some Congregation a lists, that we could not join in 
 the same act of worship. Mr. Samuel Adams arose and 
 said, that he was no bigot, and could hear a prayer 
 from any gentleman of piety and virtue, who was at the 
 same time a friend to his country. He was a stranger 
 in Philadelphia, but had heard that Mr. Duche deserved 
 that character, and therefore he moved that Mr. Duche, 
 an Episcopal Cleigyinan, might be desired to read 
 prayers to Congress to-morrow morning. The motion 
 was seconded and passed in the affirmative. Mr. Ran- 
 dolph, our President, waited on Mr. Duche and received 
 for answer that, if his health would permit, he certainly 
 would. Accordingly next morning he appeared with his 
 clerk, and in his pontificals, and read several prayers in 
 the established form, and then read a psalm for the 
 seventh day of September, which was the 35th Psalm. 
 You must remember this was the next morning after we 
 had heard of the terrible cannonade at Boston. It 
 seemed as if Heaven had ordered that psalm to be read 
 on that morning. After this Mr. Duche, unexpectedly 
 to everybody, struck out into extempore prayer, which 
 filled the bosom of every man present. I must confess 
 I never heard a better prayer or one so well pronounced. 
 Episcopalian as he is, Dr. Cooper himself never prayed 
 with such fervor, such ardor, such correctness and 
 pathos, and in language so elegant and sublime for 
 America, for Congress, for the Province of Massachusetts 
 Bay, especially the town of Boston. It had excellent 
 eflbct upon everybody here. I must beg of you to 
 read the psalm. [''Plead Thou my cause O God, with 
 them that strive with me, and fight Thou against 
 them that fight against me."] It was enough to 
 
296 
 
 THE AMERICAN CHURCH. 
 
 THE NATIONAL CHURCH. 
 
 297 
 
 I ' I 
 
 I' ' 
 
 melt a heart of stone. I saw the tears gnnh into the 
 eyes of the old, grave, pacific Quakers of Philadelphia." 
 Dr. William White, mentioned above, was elected as 
 the first regular Chaplain of Congress. I do not remem- 
 ber ever reading of any l*uritan ministers who did more 
 for the cause of liberty than these Clergymen of the 
 Church. None of them, so far as my knowledge extends, 
 took up arms. They may, in some cases, have done more 
 patriotic preaching than our Clergy, but they certainly 
 did not do as much fighting of which record is made. 
 
 During the late Civil War, the Northern members of 
 the Episcopal Church certainly manifested as much 
 patriotism as those of any other body of Christians. 
 This will hardly be denied in the face of the notable fact 
 that the Bishop of Ohio was sent by the Noi-thern gov- 
 ernment to England to dissuade the nobility from 
 acknowledging and favoring the Confederacy, and who, 
 by accomplishing a mission so important to the Union, 
 earned the lasting gratitude of his fellow countrymen. 
 Surely the reader will perceive the injustice of charging 
 the Episcopal Church with a lack of patriotism, when 
 he is told that Mc'Ilvaine, Seward, Chase, Stanton, 
 Wells, Blair, Dennison, Columbus Delano, Henry Win- 
 ter Davis, Edmunds, David Davis, Isaac F. Redfield, 
 Jay Cooke, Fremont, Mead, Schofield, Curtis, Hancock, 
 Porter, Craven, and other distinguished Union patriots, 
 a complete list of whom would fill several pages, were 
 Episcopalians. The authoress of " Uncle Tom's Cabin," 
 a book which, perhaps, next to the daily pi*es8, did 
 more than anything else to fire patriotism and the 
 / spirit of war in the rank and file of the North, and, by 
 so doing, contributed immeasurably towards preventing 
 I the downfall of the Union, is an Episcopalian. How 
 \;an a Church which enrolls the above names among her 
 members, names which represent so many pillars of lib- 
 
 k 
 
 erty and union, be justly stigmatized with a lack of 
 patriotism? A regard to that Scriptural precept which 
 requires honor to be given to whom it is due, would 
 surely place the Episcopal Church far up, if not at 
 the very head of American patriot-producing institu- 
 tions. 
 
 The only conceivable ground for the misconception 
 regarding the patriotism of Episcopalians, is found in 
 the fact that the Episcopal Church steadfastly refuses 
 to meddle in politics. Her policy is to leave the govern- 
 ment in the hands of those whom God, by the voice of 
 the people, has charged with its awful responsibilities, 
 and to hold up their hands by the loyalty and the 
 prayers of her members. The Church that teaches her 
 adherents, without regard to political and other prefer- 
 ences, to pray at every Service for the President, and all 
 other civil authorities, and appoints a prayer to be 
 said every Sunday during the session of Congress, is 
 \essentially a patriotic Church, and what wonder is it 
 that so many of her sons have been among the most 
 noble and distinguished of our patriots. 
 
 /"In reply to the charge that ''the Episcopal Church 
 is not in its government American," one of our Clergy- 
 men pointed out that our critic was mistaken as to the 
 essential characteristic of the United States govern- 
 ment, which is not the individualism that finds free play 
 in the Congregational Denomination, but the represen- 
 I tative policy which prevails in the Episcopal Church. 
 The critic's idea of American government is a town 
 meeting, a little affair in which each individual expresses 
 his opinion and choice directly. Our idea of American 
 government is that of a nation in which the people 
 voice their choice through representative assemblies or 
 
 V." 
 
298 
 
 THE AMERICAN CHURCH. 
 
 persons. Will it be contended that the American o;ov- 
 ernment is not a representative gjovernment?" 
 
 The Episcopal Church is as effectually safe-guarded 
 ajifiinst Monarchicalisni as the United States, if any 
 thing more so. Though our Bishops, because of their 
 exalted position as successors of the Apostles and their 
 personal worth, are greatly honored, yet they do not, as 
 the heads of their resj^ective Dioceses, exercise as much 
 authority as the Governors of our States ; nor does our 
 Primate enjoy the vetoing power with which the Presi- 
 dent of the ITnited States is invested. The Laity are 
 more fully represented in our Diocesan Synods than the 
 Clergy, and the Lower House of our Triennial General 
 Convention is composed of Clergymen and Laymen in 
 equal numbers. These generally vote together, but a 
 representative of either order may at any time call for 
 a division, and so it becomes possible that a measure 
 which has passed the House of Bishops, and also re- 
 ceived the majority of clerical votes in the House of 
 Deputies, may yet fail of becoming a law, because 
 among the Lay delegates there is one more against 
 than for it. This is a remarkable departure from the 
 Mother Church, in whose Convocations the Laity have 
 no voice, and can l>e accounted for only by the fact that 
 in all things of human ordering, the Church's gOTarn- 
 ment was modeled by true sons of America. 
 
 The principles which prevail in the government of 
 the Church at l^rge are also carried out in our Parishes. 
 Though the Rector is the official head of the parochial 
 organization, his word is not law except when it relates 
 to the Services and Discipline; and even in these mat- 
 ters he is obliged to have reference to the regulations 
 of the General Convention and Diocesan Synods, in 
 which, as we have seen, the Laity as well as the Clergy 
 have a voice. Besides the Layman, who feels that he 
 
 THE NATIONAL CHURCH. 
 
 299 
 
 \ 
 
 \ 
 
 has a just grievance against his Rector, is alwa^^s at lib- 
 erty to appeal to the Bishop, The Vestry, elected 
 by the supporters of the Parish, have charge of the 
 property and finances. In the case of a vacancy in 
 the Rectorship they fill it with the approval of the 
 Bishop. 
 
 '* While," as Bishop Perry observes, '*our Orders are 
 Apostolic and unchangeable, as coming from above- 
 made, as of old the Tabernacle of Israel was, after the 
 pattern given in the Mount— our organization is of 
 human origin and adaptation, and is just such as might 
 be expected from Churchmen who were leaders and fram- 
 ers of government both in Church and State a century 
 ago. Thus is it that we are at once, in structural being 
 \and government, thoroughly republican, distinctively 
 American— the Church of the people, the Church for the 
 people. And the work of our Fathers, both in Church 
 and State, has now the approval and indorsement of 
 more than a hundred successful years." 
 
 I cannot better conclude this necessarily somewhat 
 lengthy digression for the purpose of answering the 
 charge of un-Americanism than by calling attention to 
 what Henry Clay had to say upon the subject. This 
 great statesman and orator did not identify himself 
 with any form of organized Christianity until late in 
 life. He is reported to have said about the time of 
 his Baptism, that among the considerations which 
 induced him to become a member of the Episcopal 
 Church rather than of any other, was the fact that years 
 of observation and study had led him to the conclusion 
 that the stability of our government depends upon the 
 perpetuation of two institutions. "One of these, and 
 the most important of the two," said Mr. Clay, "is the 
 Episcopal Church, and the other is the Supreme Court 
 of the United States." 
 
I 'I 
 
 THE AMERICAN CHURCH. 
 
 3. Ag^afn, tlie Revolutionary War was especially dis- 
 astrous to the Church. As we have seen, many of its al- 
 ready very inadequate Clerical force had abandoned the 
 country. In the four colonies of Connecticut, New York, 
 New Jersey and Pennsylvania there were at the close of 
 the war no less than seventy vacant Churches. Those 
 Clergymen who remained, in the majority of cases came 
 out, after eight long years of privation and anxiety, 
 broken in health and greatly impoverished, if not abso- 
 lutely destitute. The Churches and rectories very 
 generally had been destroyed or desecrated, and al- 
 lowed to fall into ruins. When the war began, Vir- 
 ginia had one hundred and sixty-four Churches and 
 ninety-one Clergymen. At the end, ninety-five Churches 
 had been destroyed, and only twenty-eight of the 
 Clergy remained. Moreover, the glebe lands and endow- 
 ments were, after a time, confiscated. The misfortunes 
 which befell Virginia were common throughout the 
 South. 
 
 4. About this time the Chui*l!h was greatly weakened 
 by the creeping in of heresies. King's Chapel, the 
 oldest foundation of the Episcopal Church in Boston, 
 was lost to the Unitarians. This, however, was due as 
 much to the scattering of Churchmen by the Revolu- 
 tionary storm as to the ravages of heresy. 
 
 5. Again, our immigration since the Revolution has 
 been almost wholly from the non-Episcopal and Roman 
 Catholic elements of England, Ireland and Scotland. 
 And from all the hosts that have come to us from con- 
 tinental Europe, we have received no accessions. The 
 principal part of the Roman constituency is of foreign 
 birth. The papers frequently convey the information 
 that one hundred thousand souls have been added to 
 their Communion within a given year. This is astonish- 
 ing to all that are not aware that about this number 
 
 THE NATIONAL CHURCH. 
 
 301 
 
 of Romanists have been immigrating to the United 
 States from year to year. But for this, the growth 
 
 f would have been the other way. All the chief bodies of 
 Protestants, except the Episcopal Church, have had 
 thousands and tens of thousands of accessions by im- 
 migration. Our adherents are almost wholly Amer- 
 ican born. The great majority of English immigrants 
 are Dissenters, and so do not contribute to our up- 
 ^ building, though, fortunately, their removal weakens 
 the enemies of the Mother Church, who are bent upon 
 disestablishment and confiscation. The fact that this 
 Church has profited so little by immigration is, in 
 itself, almost sufficient to explain our comparatively 
 slow growth. 
 
 6. Moreover, we became an independent Church, and 
 started out on our career as such, just about the time 
 of the great Methodist schism, and the beginning of the 
 revival system, which for fifty years swept very nearly 
 everything before it. In the religious excitement, which 
 in one resistless wave after another rolled over the 
 country, the Church was almost submerged and lost 
 sight of, and hundreds of thousands who, under nor- 
 mal conditions, would have remained in this Church, or 
 would have come into it, were floated into one or an- 
 other of the Denominations. 
 
 7. Even the Civil War brought more disaster to the 
 Episcopal Church than to any other Christian body in 
 the land. "The reason," observes a Southern Clergy- 
 man, "is plain. The Churchmen of ante-bellum davs 
 were the social as well as the political ruling class of the 
 South. The struggle shattered their fortunes, and left 
 many a family of former affluence in comparative pen- 
 ury. Consequently, many rural, and not a few village, 
 Churches, are to-day in ruins, or bearing every mark of 
 poverty and neglect, occasionally sheltering a dispirited 
 
\\ 
 
 302 
 
 THE AMERICAN CHURCH. 
 
 THE NATIONAL CHURCH. 
 
 coiigregation, Tafniy strugo^ling to repair the waste 
 places of the local Zion.'' 
 
 8. But perhaps the most potent of many causes 
 which operated a«:ain8t the Church's growth, was the 
 timid and apologetic policy pursued for the most part 
 by her representatives, until about fifty years ago. Then 
 the principles of Bishops Seabury and Hobart began 
 to prevail, and the Church was represented by an ever- 
 widening circle in her true character as a veritable 
 branch of the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic 
 Church of Christ." The adoption of this policy by a 
 considerable number of our Clergy, marks a new and 
 brighter era in the history of the American Episcopal 
 Church. This is also true in respect to the English 
 Church in which the movement was started. The 
 contrast between the phenomenal growth of both 
 Churches in every element of strength since the change, 
 and their languishing condition before it, should be 
 a perjietual admonition to Chun^hmen never again 
 to commit the fatal mistake of allowing the impres- 
 sion to go abroad that the P^piscopal Church is 
 simply one of the post-Reformation sects, whose chief 
 distinguishing features are the Prayer Book and sur- 
 plice. 
 
 ^ But for a long time the revi^ 
 jberemonies of the Primitive CI 
 
 ival of the doctrines and 
 Church was stoutly and 
 persistently resisted by a formidable party in tlieChurch 
 which styled itself ''Evangelical." Its representatives 
 were ever loudly lamenting and denouncing what they 
 w^ere pleased to characteiize as the Medijpval and 
 Romanizing tendency of those who called themselves 
 Anglo-CatholicR. A few of the more radical among 
 them finally grew so d^perate that they could no 
 
 303 
 
 longer defer the secession which for years had seemed 
 inevitable. Accordingly, in December, 1878, under the 
 leadership of the Assistant Bishop of Kentucky, the so- 
 called Reformed Episcopal Church was organized. It 
 was expected on all hands that there would be a gen- 
 eral exodus of the ''Evangelicals." This expectation 
 was, however, never realized. Only a handful of the 
 Clergy, and in proportion, fewer of the Laity Avent out, 
 and many of both after a short sojourn returned. It is 
 known that the disappointment and chagrin of Bishop 
 Cummins were very great, and it is generally believed 
 that they caused his premature death to which his fol- 
 lowers attribute in great measure the almost complete 
 failure of their ill-advised and unjustifiable schism. 
 Though it was begun with forty ministers, there are 
 now, after twenty years, only one hundred and twenty, 
 not a few of whom are dissatisfied. One of the most 
 distinguished of Bishop Cummins' original adherents 
 deplores the present condition of things, and asks an 
 explanation of its cause. He says that "a portion of 
 our Church has been impressed from the beginning of 
 our present system with its inherent defects." 
 
 As long as the Church was generally believed to be 
 only one among the sects, it was naturally the most 
 despised and least progressive of them all. The real 
 sects flourished while the Church languished ; had she 
 continued in this false attitude, she would doubtless be 
 even now an inconsiderable force among the many De- 
 nominations in this country. Our ancestors of a hun- 
 dred years ago beheld with astonishment the progress 
 of modern Sectarianism, which was then in all its mar- 
 velous vigor, and they, perhaps naturally enough, 
 jumped to the conclusion that the weakness and waning 
 state of the Church were chiefly due to what her ene- 
 mies ignorantly represented as l^opish ceremonies and 
 
104 
 
 THE AMERICAN CHURCH. 
 
 J '■ 
 
 doctrines. They did not perceive, and nnder the cir- 
 cumstances could hardly be expected to have perceived, 
 that the conditions of Sectarian and Church growth 
 are essentially different. The sect in all ages, like the 
 cornstalk, shoots up quickly and bears its fruit in a 
 summer; but the Church, resembling the oak in her 
 growth, advances slowly and remains through frost 
 and sunshine, and from generation to generation. 
 
 Our growth, since we have recognized and proclaimed 
 the true. Divine and Catholic character of the American 
 Episcopal Church, has been scarcely less remarkable 
 than that of the most prosperous forms of Sectarianism 
 in their palmiest days. In fact, we are outstripping 
 them in various parts of the country where it once 
 seemed as if we could never get a foot-hold. It has been 
 acknowledged that, if the Church continues her present 
 rate of growth for another decade, she will be the 
 strongest body of non-Roman Christians in New Eng- 
 land itself. And it has been admitted by distinguished 
 Denominational ministers that the Church throughout 
 the country is, everything considered, making more 
 rapid and substantial progress than any of the Denom- 
 inations. 
 
 In every State and Territory, the percentage of in- 
 crease for the period covered by the last census, was all 
 that could have been expected, and in the majority of 
 them was astonishing even to those among us who are 
 most sanguine and confident touching the future of the 
 Church. In forty-two of our forty-nine States and Terri- 
 tories, our increase has been from thirty to more than 
 six hundred per cent. The population of the United 
 States during the same period increased less than 
 twenty-five per cent. And not only has the general 
 
 THE NATIONAL CHURCH. 
 
 305 
 
 growth of the Church far exceeded proportionately that 
 of the population at large, but it is also greater than 
 that of any other religious body in particular. 
 
 Moreover, there is a very general looking towards us 
 with favor. It is said by those who are in a position to 
 know, that in our large cities, where the Church is well 
 represented, out of ten persons who change from one 
 Denomination to another, nine of them come into the 
 Episcopal Church. Among those recently confirmed in 
 thirty of the New York City parishes, there were 
 over four hundred who had been born and educated in 
 the several Denominations. In one of the classes alone 
 there were one Jew, one Baptist, two French Protes- 
 tants, three Unitarians, three Congregationalists, seven 
 Methodists, nineteen Romanists, twenty-eight Presby- 
 terians and fifty-two Lutherans. This drift is rapidly 
 making us the dominant body of Christians in all large 
 centers of population. 
 
 One of the most remarkable and encouraging 
 features of our growth is the number of able ministers 
 from the various Denominations who are coming to us. 
 Our accessions from their ranks now amount to about 
 forty annually, and the rate is increasing from year to 
 year. It is estimated that within the last thirtv vears 
 fully fiiteen hundred Denominational preachers have been 
 rec^eived into our ministry. Many of these were the 
 foremost men of their respective Denominations. A 
 number of them have become Bishops among us and 
 Rectors of our largest parishes. 
 
 This remarkable drift towards the Episcopal Church 
 is, of course, observed by the Denominational leaders 
 who try to account for it. A Presbyterian writer thinks 
 that it is due to "the attractiveness of the Prayer Book 
 Worship." A Lutheran believes that "the possession 
 of the Historic Episcopate explains it." But a New 
 
 C. A —20 
 
306 
 
 THE AMERICAN CHURCH. 
 
 V 
 
 York Baptist minister '' hits the nail on the head" when, 
 after calling attention to the fact that his Denomina- 
 tion has increased only thirty-six per cent, in the Em- 
 pire State, while the Episcopal Church has j>:ained one 
 hundred and forty-one per cent, in the same period, 
 he says : " The true explanation is to bef found in the con- 
 fidence, assurance, and couragre of the Episcopal lead- 
 ers. They believe that theirs is 'the Church,' and are 
 not slow to assert their belief. That very assurance, 
 and the exclusiveness which comes from it, is the tower 
 of their strength. They are not ashamed of their belief; 
 they have the courage of their convictions, and a large 
 part of the world takes them at their own estimate. 
 Here is the secret of their power." In commenting upon 
 tliese words, the editor of one of our religious papers 
 rightly says: '' This is a clear-headed, and, we believe, 
 substantially a true judgment. It goes to prove two 
 things : first, that many thinking people are in search 
 of ' the Church ;' second, that those are hardly true sons 
 of the Church who seek to take away this bulwark by 
 decrying or minimizing her Catholic claims, or by enter- 
 ing into entangling alliances, which would remove the 
 exclusiveness which legitimately results from such 
 
 claims." 
 
 It is popularly supposed that since the Oxford re- 
 vival, almost as many go from the Episcopal Church to 
 the Eoman Communion as come to her from the sev- 
 eral Protestant Denominations. And for some time 
 after its beginning there was, it must be confessed, 
 much ground for fear that this would be the case. As 
 Dr. McConnell remarks: '*In England, as a direct con- 
 sequence of the revived Ecclesiasticism, such great 
 names as Newman, Manning, Oakley, Faber, Wilber- 
 force, Palmer, and Ward passed from the Church's rolls 
 to the lists of Rome. In America, Bishop Ives, of North 
 
 THE NATIONAL CHURCH. 
 
 307 
 
 Carolina, and a group of men of lesser station, but 
 greater character, followed in the same path. But the 
 general apostasy for which many looked did not occur. 
 The facts seemed to point to a different outcome, as the 
 event has shown. The sum total of the losses to the 
 Roman Catholic Church in Great Britain up to a.d. 
 1888, including Clergy and Laity, men and women, fall 
 below two thousand. That is to say, an average of 
 thirty-five persons per year have left the Church of Eng- 
 land for Rome dining th# last sixty years. One large 
 parish Church w^ould hold them all, living or dead." 
 
 Nor is it speaking beyond bounds to say that for 
 every one who went to Rome five have come from her 
 to us. Bishop Perry, of Iowa, says that during his 
 Episcopate of eigliteen years, there have been received 
 into the Church in Iowa from the Roman obedience over 
 seven hundred adults who have exchanged, intelligently, 
 and with a full knowledge of what they were doing, a 
 false Catholicity for a true. ^^ In the same time," the 
 Bishop adds, "we have lost to Rome, so far as I can 
 learn, less than half a dozen individuals." The Bishop 
 of Maryland reports that in his average Confirmation 
 classes there are about thirty converts from Romanism 
 and the same number from the Methodists each month. 
 "The tide of return," says he, "appears a steady 
 
 one. 
 
 j> 
 
 But increase in numbers does not much more than 
 half tell the story. The growth of the Church must 
 also be measured by her influence upon the Denomina- 
 tions about her. During her prostrate condition 
 Methodism moulded all Protestantism to her own form. 
 But this is no longer the case. Methodism is now herself 
 putting on the external garments of the Church. The 
 general observance of Christmas and Easter by special 
 services and decorations; the responsive readings and 
 
308 
 
 THE AMERICAN CHURCH. 
 
 I 
 
 anthems and the growing elaboration of ritual; the 
 catechising of children, and the reception of them into 
 full membership at the tender age of twelve years and 
 even younger ; the Gothic architecture, pipe organ and 
 stained glass— all these things and much more, partic- 
 ularly the decline of the revival system, bear witness to 
 the fact that the influence of the Church is becoming 
 more and more dominant. 
 
 Even in old Presbyterian, Puritanical Scotland, we 
 find a remarkable illustration of the growing ascend- 
 ency of Church ideas. A numl)er of the most prominent 
 ministers in the established Kirk, including such famous 
 men as Milligan, Macleod, Lang, Boyd and Cooper 
 have organized **The Church Society," the special ob- 
 jects of which are "(1) The consistent affirmation 
 on the same basis of the supernatural life and 
 Heavenly calling of the Church. (2) The fostering of 
 a due sense of the historic continuity of the Church 
 from the first. (3) The maintaining of the necessity 
 of a valid Ordination to the Holy Ministry, and the 
 celebration in a befitting manner of the Rite of Ordi- 
 nation. (4) The assertion of the efficacy of the Sacra- 
 ments. (5) The promotion of the religious education 
 and pastoral care of the young on the basis of Holy 
 Baptism. (6) The restoration of the Holy Communion 
 to its right place in relation to the worship of the 
 Church, and to the Spiritual life of the Baptized. (7) 
 The revival of daily Service where practicable. (8) The 
 observance, in its main features, of the Christian year. 
 (9) The deepening of a penitential sense of the sin and 
 I^eril of schism." "Now it seems to me," says an irate 
 Scotchman from whom we quote the above, *'that 
 though the promoters of this movement do not say so, 
 the whole thing smacks of High Churchism. What do 
 you say to expressions like 'Catholic Doctrine,' 'His- 
 
 THE NATIONAL CHURCH. 
 
 309 
 
 toric continuity of the Church,'' Valid Ordination of the 
 Holy Ministry,' 'befitting celebration of the Kite of Or- 
 dination,' 'efficacy of the Sacraments,' 'basis of Holy 
 Baptism,' 'Holy Communion in relation to the Spirit- 
 ual life of the Baptized,' 'revival of daily Service,' 
 ' observance of the Christian year ' and ' sin and peril 
 of schism?'" 
 
 Romanists sometimes claim that the striking chatige 
 which has come over Denominationalism is due to the 
 influence of their Church. But there is really nothing in 
 this. Owing in part to the origin and character of the 
 Roman constituency, and also in part to the detestation 
 in which the whole Ultramontane system is still held 
 by Denominationalists, these representatives of the ex- 
 tremes have very little social and less religious inter- 
 course. But Episcopalians and Denominationalists have 
 always mingled freely in all things except religion. And 
 as our members have been a great, if not the dominant, 
 influence in the social, political and commercial w^orld, 
 it is evident that they have had much to do directly and 
 indirectly in bringing about the. change under considera- 
 tion. Take, for example, the striking change in respect 
 to the observance of Christmas and Easter, and even of 
 the Lenten season. There can be no question that it is 
 due to Episcopal rather than Roman influence. This 
 is especially evident in the case of Lent. Though its 
 religious observance is by no means general, yet it 
 receives almost universal recognition in the abandon- 
 ment of social gaieties. This is accounted for by the fact 
 that during this holy season a large and important 
 section of society withdraws from the social world, and 
 it is, as everybody knows, composed not of Romanists, 
 but of Episcopalians. 
 
 Truly we may thank God and take courage. The 
 day of small things and of adversity is being succeeded 
 
SIO 
 
 THE AMERICAN CHURCH. 
 
 
 Hi 
 
 
 ■1 \ 
 If 
 
 p 
 
 
 
 '1 
 
 
 ■:i|, 
 
 ■ ll 
 
 ' 1 
 
 1 '1 
 
 l ''l 
 
 J 
 
 
 1 ! 
 
 
 i ! 
 
 i 
 
 by one of rapid growth and great prosperity. The 
 touching prayer contained in the old poetical version of 
 the nineteenth Psalm, sung at the Consecration of 
 Bishop Seabury, is being graciously answered : 
 
 "To satisfy and cheer our souls, 
 Thy early mercies send ; 
 That we may all our days to come 
 In joy and comfort spend. 
 
 "Let happy times with large amends 
 Dry up our former tears, 
 Or equal at the least, the term 
 Of our afflicted years. 
 
 "To all thy servants. Lord, let this 
 Thy wondrous work be known, 
 And to our offspring yet unborn, 
 Thy glorious power be shown. 
 
 "Let Thy bright rays upon us shine. 
 Give Thou our work success, 
 The glorious work we have in hand, 
 Do Thou vouchsafe to bless." 
 
 1 
 
 The Church for Americans. 
 
 LECTURE VI. 
 
 OBdECTIONS TO THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 
 
 I. Prayer Book Worship. 
 
 TI. Formalism. ' 
 
 III. Vestments. 
 
 IV. Lack of Vital Religion. 
 
 V. Composed of the Upper Classes. 
 VI. Bigoted and Exclusive. 
 VIL Like the Roman Catholic. 
 
 (311) 
 
'!. 
 
 » ' 
 
 ' 
 
 r. 
 
 AUTHORITIES. 
 
 Bull, Bp., A Vindication of the Church of England. 
 Clarke, Walk About Zion. 
 
 CrAKANTHORP'S DeFENSIO EcCLESIiE ANOLICANiE. 
 
 CuRTEis, Dissent in Its Relation to the Church of England. 
 Garnier, Canon, Church or Dissent. 
 
 Hopkins, Bp., The Primitive Church Compared with the Prot- 
 estant Episcopal Church of the Present Day. 
 Kip, Bp., Double Witness of the Church. 
 
 Snyder, The Chief Things, or Church Doctrine for the People. 
 Staley, The Catholic Religion. 
 
 PAMPHLETS. 
 Shanklin, Some Objections Against the Episcopal Church. 
 
 MISCELLANEOUS. 
 Why Can't Our Ministers Preach in Your Pulpits. 
 
 (312' 
 
 Objections to the Episcopal 
 
 Church. 
 
 IN almost every community in which the Episcopal 
 Church is represented, many persons are kept from 
 an examination of her peculiar claims to the alle- 
 giance of Americans by certain groundless objections, 
 some of which it is the purpose of this lecture to state 
 and answer. No attempt will here be made to exhaust 
 the subject, because the most weighty of the objections 
 have been considered in other connections, and because 
 many of those which remain are too trifling for serious 
 notice. 
 
 It is believed that all the popular objections against 
 the Church may be answered not only to the entire sat- 
 isfaction of candid persons, but that to such, some of 
 them can be made to appear as re^^sons why Americans 
 should identify themselves with the Episcopal Church 
 rather than with any other. 
 
 I. 
 
 PRAYER BOOK WORSHIP. 
 
 THOSE who object to the Episcopal Church because 
 she uses a Prayer Book in her public Services are 
 constantly growing fewer. Indeed, there has 
 been for some time a marked drift towards liturgical 
 forms of worship in all of the leading Denominations. 
 Many of their ablest representatives have been advocat- 
 ing, in their religious journai-ls, and on the floor of their 
 
 (313) 
 
II 
 
 OBJECTIONS TO THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 
 
 Conferences and Synods the adoption of precomposed 
 Services, and nearly all of the city congregations have 
 anticipated official sanction by introducing certain fea- 
 tures of our Ritual, such as the chanting of Scripture, 
 the responsive reading of the Psalms, the repetition of 
 the Lord's Prayer, and even the Apostles' Creed by min- 
 ister and people. Nevertheless, there are still some to 
 be found in almost every community who feel that there 
 can be no ** praying from the heart," no genuine, accept- 
 able *' approach to the throne of grace," except by an 
 extempore worship. Of such let me beg due considera- 
 tion of the following facts : 
 
 First Fact. Our Lord com munded the useof precom- 
 posed forms of prayer. '* When ye pray say, Our Father." 
 He surely would not have given this direction if precom- 
 posed prayers tend to promote empty, formal worship 
 more than extempore prayers. 
 
 Second Fact. In all ages of the Church, in both 
 the Old and the New Dispensation, the vast majority 
 of the Saints worshipped God by the use of precom- 
 posed Services and prayers. Hebrew scholars tell us 
 that the Jews had not only fixed forms, but also a fixed 
 order in their public worship, both in the Temple and in 
 their synagogues. And when the Apostles founded the 
 Church, we are told, at the very outset, that it was one 
 of the four marks of the Christian Unity that all joined, 
 not only in prayers, but in "the prayers," that is, cer- 
 tain well-known, appointed prayers. After the time of 
 the Apostles until the Reformation, worship by precom- 
 posed forms was the universal and unvarying custom. 
 Justin Martyr, in the second century, speaks expressly 
 of *' Common Prayers." A hundred years later Origen 
 and Cyprian speak respectively of the *' appointed 
 prayers," and the "customary prayers." These "com- 
 mon," "appointed," "customary" prayers, of course, 
 
 I 
 
 PRAYER BOOK WORSHIP. 
 
 315 
 
 ( 
 
 could not have been extempore prayers. And that they 
 were not such, is put beyond all dispute by the exist- 
 ence of Liturgies, or as we should call them, Prayer 
 Books, which have been used in various parts of Chris- 
 tendom from the earliest times. Such are the Service 
 Book of St. James, the first Bishop of Jerusalem, used 
 in all the eastern Churches ; that of St. Peter, used in 
 Rome; that of St. Mark, used in Africa: that of St. 
 Chrysostom, used in Constantinople; and that of St. 
 John, used in Gaul, Spain and Britain. 
 
 Third Fact. Not only was public worship, from the 
 Apostles' time to the Reformation, universally conducted 
 according to precomposed forms, but even at this day, 
 out of three hundred and fifty millions of nominal Chris- 
 tians, at least three hundred millions use the ancient 
 and divinely sanctioned method of worshiping God by 
 means of written forms of prayer and services. 
 
 Fourth Fact. Public prayer, according to the 
 teaching of Christ, is agreement in asking. But this 
 cannot take place unless those engaged in worship 
 know beforehand what they are to ask. This essential 
 knowledge can exist only when the people, as well as the 
 minister, are aware of what is coming. Hence, a lit- 
 urgy is indispensable to true congregational devo- 
 tion. 
 
 Fifth Fact. Strictly speaking, there can be no such 
 thing as public worship without the use of precomposed 
 forms. Mr. Spurgeon is credited with the silly remark 
 that he would tolerate but one form of prayer, namely, 
 " From all ready made prayers, * Good Lord deliver us.' " 
 But he was forthwith answered by an English Dissenter, 
 who pointed out that in his Sunday School Hymn 
 Book the great Baptist preacher of London had uncon- 
 sciously sanctioned and adopted a large number of 
 "ready-made prayers." All Denomination alists, so far 
 
316 
 
 OBJECTIONS TO TUE EPISCOPAL CUUKCU. 
 
 1 
 
 M 
 
 as I know, except the Quakers, use hymns which are, in 
 reaUty, forms af worship. 
 
 " Critic freely may rehearse 
 Forms of prayer and praise in verse; 
 Why should Critic then suppose 
 Mine are sinful when in prose? 
 Must my prayer be thought a crime 
 Merely for the want of rhyme?" 
 
 Again, the extempore prayer which the ministers of 
 non-lituro^cal bodies of Christians oifer is, so far as the 
 congregation is concerned, a precom posed prayer, just 
 as really as are the prayers to which a congregation of 
 Episcopalians respond, Amen. I repeat, public worship 
 cannot be conducted except by the use of precomposed 
 prayers and services. So far as the congregations are 
 concerned, the only difference between, for example, 
 Methodists and Episcopalians is that the members of 
 a Methodist congregation prefer a form of prayer set 
 forth by their minister, while the members of a congre- 
 gation of Episcopalians prefer one which has been 
 selected from the richest treasuries of devotion, and 
 which has been approved by the whole Church in Coun- 
 cil assembled. 
 
 Sixth Fact. The use of the Prayer Book in public 
 worship tends to prevent irreverence. There can be no 
 question that the ministers of non-liturgical Churches 
 are constantly in great danger of approaching the 
 Eternal Being in too easy, unceremonious and irreverent 
 a manner. No doubt all of us have witnessed shocking 
 examples of liberty and familiarity in approaches and 
 addresses to the throne of grace. Perhaps we have 
 seen a minister get up before a public gathering with a 
 cane in one hand and his hat in the other, and folding 
 his arms address the King of Kings and Lord of Lords 
 
 PRAYER BOOK WORSHIP. 
 
 317 
 
 BB if he were complimenting a boy in the street for his 
 good behavior. What an abomination in the estima- 
 tion of those who have in mind the majesty of God 
 whose throne is in the heaven of heavens, is the prayer 
 of which Mr. Gough used to tell: '*We pray Thee O 
 God, that the height of the rostrum may not interfere 
 with the comfort of the lecturer, but that he may be 
 able to give us as good a lecture as Thou hast seen in 
 the papers he has given in other towns in the country." 
 
 As a distinguished Denominational minister con- 
 fesses: "In nearly every newspaper you may read some 
 funny story based upon the ignorance or eccentricity or 
 blasphemous familiarity of some extemporizing prayer 
 maker. All of you have been at times shocked or bored 
 by public devotional performances. Nothing of this 
 sort ever occurs in the Episcopal Church. All things 
 are done and spoken decently and in order." 
 
 In view of these facts there can be no reasonable ob- 
 jection urged against the Episcopal Church on account 
 of her use of the Prayer Book, unless it can be shown that 
 it is wanting in spirituality or erroneous in doctrine. 
 It can hardly be defective in either of these respects. 
 From beginning to end the Prayer Book consists of but 
 little more than selections from the Holy Scriptures. It 
 contains the whole Book of Psalms and a large portion 
 of the Gospels and Epistles. These in themselves occupy 
 four hundred and twenty-seven pages of the five hun- 
 dred and fifty-seven paged edition which I happen to 
 have before me, leaving only one hundred and thirty 
 pages for the various Services, in all about twenty-five 
 in number. Some of these, notably the Morning and 
 Evening Prayer and the Holy Communion, which are 
 most frequently used, are each about two-thirds part 
 a compilation from the Bible, and even the remaining 
 third is composed of prayers, exhortations and confes- 
 
mjECTIOXS TO THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 
 
 sions in almost the very words of Scripture. And the 
 Prayer Book as a whole is an inheritance from the 
 earliest and purest ages of the Church. It has come 
 down to us from the Apostles, Saints and Martyrs. 
 Surely a form of worship compiled from the Word of 
 God by such as these cannot be lacking in either spiritu- 
 ality or soundness of doctrine. "Blame us not, then, 
 if we value our liturgy ; it embodies the anthems of 
 Saints ; it thrills the heart with the dying songs of the 
 faithful ; it is hallowed with the blood of the Martyrs ; 
 it glowis with aacred fire." 
 
 II. 
 
 FORMALISM. 
 
 UWDEK this head we shall consider the objections 
 urged against the postures used in our wor- 
 ship. 
 Many people find in the formalities of her worship 
 an insuperable objection to the Episcopal Church. 
 "What is the use," they ask, "of changing postures so 
 frequently? You kneel and stand, say, a dozen times in 
 the course of Morning or Evening Prayer. Why not 
 follow the example of other Protestants and remain 
 quietly seated during the most, if not the whole, of the 
 Service? " The answer is found in the fact that while the 
 Services of the various non-liturgical bodies of Chris- 
 tians, if we except the hymns, provide only for a mental 
 worship, those of this Church make the fullest provision 
 for the adoration of Almighty God not only with the 
 mind, but also with the voice and body. It is a curious 
 thing that those who have the most to say about the 
 Priesthood's coming between a man and his God, are 
 
 FORMALISM. 
 
 319 
 
 the very ones that intrust their worship most exclu- 
 sively to ministers. Episcopalians leave less of this all- 
 important duty to the Priest than any other body of 
 Christians with which I am acquainted. Our Laity re- 
 serve to them selves the right of taking about half of the 
 Service. In rendering their part it is necessary that 
 they should assume different postures in order to suit 
 the action to the words. All must perceive, the moment 
 that they begin to reflect, that it would be highly im- 
 proper for us to confess our sins and pray for pardon 
 while sitting. The instinct of propriety and reverence 
 teaches us that we should not sit when we come before 
 "the King of kings and Lord of lords in his Holy 
 Temple.'' We must at least kneel in prayer and stand in 
 praise. Except for the precept which inculcates mercy 
 rather than sacrifice, the Church would doubtless forbid 
 the use of pews or chairs altogether, unless during the 
 sermon, but out of consideration for physical infirmities 
 and because weariness would tend to distract the mind, 
 we are allowed to sit during the reading of the Lessons 
 from God's Word, except in the case of the Gospel for 
 the day which is heard standing, because it is regarded 
 as a special message from the Lord Himself. 
 
 But "the getting up and down" to which our De- 
 nominational brethren object, is justifiable upon the 
 ground of helpfulness in worship as well as reverence. 
 There is an intimate connection between mental and 
 bodily worship ; indeed it is questionable whether the 
 former can long exist without the latter. At all events 
 there are many among the more thoughtful and candid 
 of the non-liturgical Denominations, who feel that wor- 
 ship is rapidly becoming "a lost art" among them. 
 That there is only too much foundation for this opinion, 
 is evident from the prevailing motive for assembling 
 themselves together. In nine cases out of ten it is 
 
OBJECTIONS TO THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 
 
 avowe<i1y tor fie purpose of hearing; the sermon and 
 music, that is, of being edified and entertained, not in 
 
 order to worship. 
 
 Ajrain, there can be no question that the Scriptures 
 lend their support to the Episcopalian rather than to the 
 Denominational manner of worshipping God. We read 
 of standing, bowing, kneeling and prostration in wor- 
 ship. Not only were these the postures assumed by our 
 Lord and the Saints of the Bible, but also by the primi- 
 tive Christians and, in fact, by the Church of all ages 
 down to the Reformation . Before that time the custom 
 which now prevails among Denominationalists of sit- 
 ting during the progress of Divine Service, was utterly 
 unknown. As the learned author of "The Antiquities 
 of the Christian Church" points out, " Tertullian indeed 
 says, there were some superstitious persons in his time, 
 admirers of the book called ' Hermes Pastor,' who made 
 it a matter of conscience to sit down some time when 
 prayer was ended, because they found the example of 
 the pastor in that book to that purpose. For as he sat 
 down upon a bed after prayer, so they thought them- 
 selves obliged to do the same in compliance with his 
 example. But this is no proof of their sitting at prayer, 
 but only after prayer was ended ; and that, too, grounded 
 upon a very weak and superstitious opinion, that every 
 circumstance of an action or narration, however indif- 
 ferent in itself, was to be drawn into example and to he 
 made matter of necessary duty, according to which way 
 of reasoning, as Tertullian observes, they must have 
 worshipped nowhere but where there was a bed, nor sat 
 upon a chair or bench because it would have been a de- 
 viation from their example. He adds that the heathen 
 only were used to sit after prayer before their idols, and 
 for that very reason it was not fit for Christians to imi- 
 tate their practice. All which shows that the Christians 
 
 
 VESTMENTS. 
 
 321 
 
 then were so far from using sitting as a posture of devo 
 tion, that they did not think it proper to sit even aftei 
 prayer in the presence of God, whilst the Angel of Prayer 
 stood by them, and because it looked more like a heath- 
 enish than a Christian practice." 
 
 It appears then tha t the formalities to which Denom- 
 inationalists object in the worship of the Episcopal 
 Church, are justified by reason, Scripture and history, 
 and consequently that their own practice is condemned 
 by this tribunal from which there is no appeal. 
 
 ni. 
 
 VESTMENTS. 
 
 THE prejudice of many against the Episcopal 
 Church chiefly grows out of the vestments worn 
 by her Clergy while conducting Divine Service. 
 A representative of this class said to the writer: "There 
 is one thing about your Church which I fear I can never 
 become reconciled to, and that is the wearing of gowns." 
 An eflbrt Will now be made to answer this objection to 
 the Church. 
 
 It will be remembered that God gave minute direc- 
 tions concerning the attire of the Jewish Ministry which 
 bears much the same relation to the Christian that the 
 bud does to the flower. In Exodus 28: 2, we read: 
 *'And thou shalt make holy garments for Aaron thy 
 brother, for glory and for beauty." Dr. Adam Clarke, 
 the great Methodist commentator, speaking on this 
 text says: "The white surplice in the Service of the 
 Church is almost the only thing that remains of those 
 ancient and becoming vestments, which God commanded 
 to be made 'for glory and beauty.' Clothing, as em- 
 blematical of office, is of more consequence than is gen- 
 erally imagined." Chalmers, a Presbvterian divine, 
 
 C. A.-21 
 
B 
 
 322 
 
 OBJECTIONS TO THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 
 
 VESTMENTS. 
 
 323 
 
 I 
 
 commenting on the same passage, says: "There is 
 here a distinct sanction given to the association of 
 outward splendor with the office of the ministry— if not 
 such as to make it imperative or indispensable, at least 
 as to condemn the intolerance of those who stand op- 
 posed to it. In the antipathy to priestly garments, 
 and in the controversies which have been raised about 
 them, I can take no share." 
 
 The use of ministerial vestments and insignia of 
 'Office is also justified by a deep-rooted instinct which 
 in all ages, our own not excepted, has found universal 
 expression. It is this instinct which accounts for the 
 gowns worn by the 'Judges of the Supreme Court of the 
 United States, the uniforms of our army and navy, and 
 the epaulets of their officers. Even the members and 
 officials of secret orders are distinguished by regalia, 
 scarfs and badges. This being the case, the use of 
 sanctuary vestments cannot reasonably and consistently 
 be objected to. As has been well said: "When objec- 
 tion is made to our Church on this gi'ound, may we not 
 fairly reply that, to be consistent, the objector must 
 insist upon the officer's laying aside his uniform ; that he 
 must oppose the badges and regaha of the different orders 
 and societies, and that when he has abolished all these, 
 we shall be prepared to allow his objection some weight, 
 but not until then?" If this book should chance to 
 fall into the hands of some good Methodist objectors 
 to our vestments and Services, the knowledge that 
 through all his life John Wesley regularly used both, 
 may go far towards reconciling such to them. Except 
 in his field preaching, which was never allowed to con- 
 flict with the Church's Services, he always wore essen- 
 tially the same Priestly garments and read the same 
 prayers that are now seen and heard in the Episcopal 
 Church Service. 
 
 The sanctuary vestments convey symbolic instruction. 
 Not to go into particulars, the white surplice reminds 
 both minister and people that they should be clothed 
 in righteousness, and the stole, that they must bear the 
 yoke of Christ. But aside from their teaching value, 
 our vestments serve a very practical purpose. So far 
 as appearance in the Chancel- is concerned, they place 
 those whose circumstances oblige them to wear "home 
 spun " on the same footing with their brethren who are 
 able to go about in ''soft clothing." 
 
 In view of the Scriptural n ess of Ecclesiastical vest- 
 ments, of their varied usefulness and of the fact that 
 some peculiarity of dress is almost universally adopted 
 as the insignia of office, it seems surpassingly strange 
 that the first English Separatists went out, because the 
 Church did not discard the Bishop's robe and the 
 Priest's surplice and stole which they were pleased to 
 characterize as ''the rags of Popery." But this objec- 
 tion, though persistently urged for three hundred and 
 fifty years, at last bids fair to give w ay before the gen- 
 eral reaction towards the Church and her ways. I, my- 
 self, have seen Presbyterian ministers in this country 
 attired in black silk gowns — white would have been 
 more appropriate — conducting a liturgical Service. In 
 Scotland where the cassock, gown and bands are more 
 common I heard a "Parson" read our evening prayer 
 with but few omissions, and this in old St. Giles, Edin- 
 burgh, where the apocryphal "Jenny Geddes" in the 
 yefxr 1637, cast a stool at the surpliced minister who 
 ventured to reestablish the Church of England worship. 
 
 It may be observed in passing that the clerical suits 
 which most of our clergymen wear, are also justifiable 
 on several accounts. The ability readily to distinguish 
 ministers from laymen is highly advantageous — it tends 
 to make the Clergy so many witnesses for Christ, 
 
324 
 
 OBJECTIONS TO THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 
 
 LACK OF VITAL RELIGION. 
 
 325 
 
 V 
 
 
 known to all men ; it sometimes renders them useful to 
 strangers who but for the distinctive habit, would not 
 be aware of their high-calling; it often checks improper 
 conversation, profanity, rudeness and violence. 
 
 IV. 
 
 LACK OF VITAL RELIGION, 
 
 OF course others must be our judges in this deli- 
 cate matter, and, if this be their just verdict, it 
 is becoming that we should submit without pro- 
 test, and humbly begin a reformation. And, yet, I 
 trust that I am not going beyond the bounds of pro- 
 priety in calling attention to the fact that there is a 
 difference of opinion as to whether the possession of 
 "vital religion" is demonstrated by pious profession, 
 or by good works. If, as St. James seems to teach, it 
 consists in the latter rather than in the former, the 
 Episcopal Church will compare favorably with any 
 other body of Christians of equal size. Indeed, the 
 assertion may be safely ventured that in places where 
 we are as well represented as others, none give or do 
 as much for the cause of beneficence. Our contri- 
 butions to hospitals and other institutions of mercy 
 fa New York and Philadelphia, and in most of the 
 principal cities, are much greater than those of any 
 other Christian body. I happen to have at hand a clip- 
 /ping from "The Churchman" of December 24, 1887, 
 which forcibly illustrates the truth of this assertion : 
 "In New York the Hospital Sunday collection is taken 
 in the Churches on the last Sunday of the year, and in 
 the Synagogues on the preceding Saturday. In 1886 
 the various Denominations were represented as follows: 
 Episcopal, $16,578.12; Presbyterian, f 6,458.27; Con- 
 
 gregational, |3, 520.08; Synagogues, 11,602.06; Meth- 
 odist, 11,402.00; Reformed, |1,262.92; Lutheran, 
 1770.57; Baptist, |368.53; Unitarian, 1227.00; Uni- 
 versalist, $122.70; Roman Catholic, $108.13; Sweden- 
 borgian, $92.50; Ethical Culture, $92.00; Friends, 
 $60.00; other Churches, $119.42. Total, $32,784.30." 
 Observe that the Episcopal Church gave towards the 
 support of hospitals on Hospital Sunday, 1886, $185.- 
 97 more than half of the whole collection. And there 
 can be but little doubt that this showing is substan- 
 tially true of every year. Moreover with the possible 
 exception of the Romanists, Episcopalians in all our 
 great cities outnumber the active workers of other 
 bodies in the various fields of charity. We bespeak for 
 these facts a candid consideration on the part of those 
 who think they are justified in alleging that the Epis- 
 copal Church is behind other Christian bodies touch- 
 ing "fervent piety" or "vital religion." 
 
 Much of the talk about the Episcopal Church's lack in 
 this respect, is due to the erroneous impression that true 
 religion consists in not doing certain things, such as 
 dancing, card playing and attending theatres, and that 
 people who do these things cannot be sincere Christians. 
 But may not those who do them, ask their critics, "Who 
 art thou that judgeth another man's servant ? To his 
 own master [conscience] he standeth or falleth." In the 
 face of the fact that Solomon said there is "a time to 
 laugh " and " a time to dance," and that our Saviour 
 attended the wedding atlCana, where, if this was like 
 other Jewish marriage feasts, and there is every reason 
 for believing that it was, there were feasting, wine-drink- 
 ing, merry-making and dancing, what Scriptural ground 
 have our accusers for alleging that a Church which 
 does not forbid these things "is lacking in vital reli- 
 gion?" 
 
I 
 
 ! fl: 
 
 !:jt 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 f 
 
 326 
 
 OBJECTIONS TO THE EPISCOPAL CHUECH. 
 
 COMPOSED OF THE UPPER CLASSES. 
 
 327 
 
 
 •Ml 
 
 Bis represented that many Join the Episcopal Church 
 
 /because she does not forbid amusements ; but it would 
 be nearer the truth to say that this Church is the first 
 choice of some because she makes no unreasonable and 
 unscriptural requirements of her members, and allows 
 them to conduct their private and home life in accord 
 with the dictates of conscience and natural preferences of 
 taste, so long as the moral and social law of God is not 
 broken. We admit that we have too much worldliness 
 among us and would not say one word in its justifica- 
 tion. But I would respectfully remind those who re- 
 proach our Church because of this fault in some of her 
 members, that people who live in glass houses should 
 not recklessly throw stones. The votaries of society are 
 not by any means exclusively Episcopalians. In fact 
 so evenly are the various Protestant Denominations 
 represented, that none should venture to take the 
 mote out of the eye of his brother religionist without 
 first making quite sure that there is not a beam in his 
 own eye. 
 
 A Church witch stands second to no body of Chris- 
 tians in her contributions of both money and workers 
 to the cause of benevolence; which has preachers of right- 
 eousness who shrink not from rebuking sin, even "in 
 high places," which, in every age of the history of the 
 English-speaking race, has produced such Saints as Al- 
 ban, the Venerable Bede, Dunstan, Becket, Grosseteste, 
 Wycklifie, Ridley, Cranmer, Latimer, Taylor, Ken, Wes- 
 ley, Wilberforce, Bloomfield, Sickersteth, Keble, Selwyn, 
 Patteson, Muhlenberg, Hannington, and ten thousand 
 times ten thousand besides, who, though less distin- 
 guished, have their names no less surely recorded in the 
 Lamb's Book of Life— a Church, I say, which has pro- 
 duced, and is producing, such philanthropists, such 
 preachers, such Saints, should not be reproached with a 
 
 want of '* vital religion." If "fervent piety" does not 
 exist in the Episcopal Church, will her critics kindly tell 
 us what it is, and where it may be found ? 
 
 
 I 
 
 V. 
 
 COMPOSED OF THE UPPER CLASSES. 
 
 T is objected that the Episcopal Church is composed 
 of the upper classes to the exclusion of the Classes. 
 Granting for the time being that this objection is 
 well founded, I wish to show that it should not, as it 
 certainly will not, permanently prejudice thoughtful 
 people against this Church, but rather attract them to 
 her. For such will readily perceive that the dominant 
 peopleof a community must have a Church home as well 
 as their poorer and perhaps less cultured neighbors, and 
 that, if it be true that the Episcopal Church furnishes a 
 home for them, it should be cordially welcomed and 
 kindly spoken of by all. 
 
 And we are also of the opinion that, if this popular 
 estimation of the Episcopal Church be really true, the 
 day is not far distant when people will begin to inquire, 
 Why is it so ? And, if I mistake not, the answer to this 
 question will contribute to account for, and to increase, 
 the Church's rapid growth, which, of late, has been a 
 source of so great encouragement to her members and 
 friends. For the answer must be that this Church is 
 the home of the dominant people of the country, either 
 because she possesses decidedly superior qualities which 
 recommend her to the broader and more intelligent 
 elements of American society, or else that by her more 
 complete system of religious culture she tends to make 
 her adherents dominant. Either of these answers to 
 the inquiry, Why is the Episcopal Church the home in 
 
328 
 
 OBJECTIONS TO TUE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 
 
 COMPOSED OF THE UPPER CLASSES. 
 
 329 
 
 k 
 
 11 
 
 SO many instances of the leaders in the social, political 
 and commercial world, will, as time goes on, and mis- 
 understanding is corrected, do more to commend than 
 to condemn her to the thoughtful. 
 
 But we will not admit that the Episcopal Church is 
 composed almost exclusively, or even principally, of the 
 wealthy and cultivated. In her, as in all bodies of 
 Christians, the great middle class fortunately predomi- 
 nates; they are the back-bone and sinew of *^the 
 Churches'' as well as of the country; moreover, it is 
 from them that the more highly favored few arise. We 
 have very little aristocracy by inheritance in the United 
 States. It is doubtless true that proportionately more 
 of the sons and daughters of the Episcopal Church than 
 of any other Christian body rise to the first rank in the 
 commercial, professional, official, and social life of the 
 country. One of our most learned and judicious clergy- 
 men, who, because of his fairness towards the Denomi- 
 nations, was held in the highest estimation by them, 
 and was for many years the President of their local 
 ministerial association, told me in his old age that 
 the observation of a long life convinced him that the 
 ability of the Episcopal Church to make the most of her 
 children amounts to a species of genius which is not 
 paralleled in any other communion. Speaking of the 
 parishes of outlying smaller cities and towns, with the 
 working of which he had an intimate acquaintance, he 
 . said that he had always observed that when a young 
 couple connect themselves with the Episcopal Church, 
 they, in a remarkable number of cases, begin to grow 
 in every form of prosperity, and continue until they 
 outgrow the place ; then they move to some large city 
 where ultimately they take first rank. He had met with 
 so many instances of this kind under such varying 
 conditions, and had seen comparatively so little of it 
 
 outside, that he was persuaded that the elevating influ- 
 ence of the Church was one of her distinguishing char- 
 acteristics. After having my attention called to this 
 interesting matter, I found that my own, up to that 
 time, comparatively limited observation tended to cor- 
 roborate the representation of my aged friend. A 
 more or less systematic inquiry subsequently instituted, 
 convinces me that he was right so far, at least, as the 
 Diocese of Ohio is concerned. As an illustration in point, 
 I could name a town of less than 10,000 inhabitants 
 from which fifteen of the young people, a few days be- 
 fore the writing of this passage, started off to various 
 widely-separated seminaries and colleges of higher edu- 
 cation. All, with possibly one exception, came from 
 the so-called middle class parentage. The majority of 
 them are sure to better their condition in life. Is it not 
 remarkable that twelve of the fifteen should be com- 
 municants of the Episcopal Church, which is the small- 
 est Christian body of the town, being still a mission 
 station? Some years ago a layman, in showing me the 
 village in which he lived, pointed out our little board 
 chapel, and, by way of apology for its insignificant ap- 
 pearance as compared with other places of worship, 
 told me that almost every young 'man who had risen 
 above mediocrity and made for himself a name, had 
 gone out from that Sunday School and Church. Two 
 of the Clerical deputies of the General Convention of 
 A. D. 1895 were from that little town and congregation. 
 And as for the very poor I am sorry to say that not 
 many of them are found in any of '*the churches," but 
 I am glad to be able to testify that so far as my obser- 
 vation goes they are just as welcome in the most fash- 
 ionable congregations of Episcopalians as they are in 
 the corresponding congregations of other Christian 
 Ibodies. And none are more solicitous— I do not except 
 
OBJECTIONS TO THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 
 
 t 
 
 li 
 
 / 
 
 Romanists— that the poor shall have the Gospel 
 preached to them without money and without price. 
 In our large cities we have more down-town Churches 
 —Churches which are kept for the poor population— 
 than any other body of Protestant Christians. Before 
 making up the programme for the last Triennial Council 
 of the Congregational body, the committee requested 
 distinguished delegates to suggest topics for considera- 
 tion. In one of the replies this subject was suggested : 
 "Why is the Episcopal Church above all others success- 
 ful in attracting to her Communion both the high- 
 est and the lowest classes of society?" And that the 
 Episcopal Church has a better title than any Christian 
 body to be called the Church of the English-speaking 
 poor, will be put beyond doubt if we rise to a world-wide 
 view of the subject. The Anglican Communion, includ- 
 ing the Church of England, and her colonial branches, 
 and the Episcopal Church of the United States, has 
 about twenty-eight millions of adherents. It is a low 
 estimate to say that two-thirds, or fourteen millions of 
 these belong to the poorer classes. Now the largest of 
 the other bodies, not excepting the Roman, have not 
 fourt^n millions of English-speaking adherents, includ- 
 ing both rich and poor; and as none of them, except 
 possibly the Roman Church, has a greater proportion 
 of the poor than the Anglican Communion, she is clearly 
 entitled to the credit of being recognized above all 
 others as the Church of the English-speaking poor. 
 
 •*0h, the poor man's friend is the Church of Christ, 
 From birth to his funeral day ; 
 She makes him the Lord's, in her surpliced arms, 
 And singeth his burial lay." 
 
 \ 
 
 VI. 
 
 BIGOTED AND EXCLUSIVE, 
 
 IN support of this charge Denominationalists affirm 
 that we do not allow their ministers to preach in 
 our pulpits, that we refuse to admit their members 
 to our Communion, and that we do not recognize their 
 organizations as being true Churches. Now, though 
 there is some difference of opinion and practice among 
 us touching these things, yet, upon the whole, candor 
 requires that we should plead guilty to each of the 
 accusations. Therefore, unless we can satisfactorily ex- 
 plain our conduct, it would seem that the charge of 
 bigotry and uncharitableness is sustained. 
 
 What then have we to say in justification of our 
 refusal to allow the ministers of the various Denomina- 
 tions to conduct our Services? It should of course be 
 remarked that one of our canons or laws, makes it 
 impossible for us to join in the practice of exchanging 
 pulpits that is common among some of the Denomina- 
 tions—I say some, for the custom is not universal 
 among them. The Congregationalists, Presbyterians, 
 Methodists, Baptists, English Lutherans, United Breth- 
 ren, and a few^ others are accustomed to more or less 
 frequent interchanges, and to joining in Union Temper- 
 ance, Thanksgiving and Revival Services. But none of 
 the^e would exchange with a Universalist or Unitarian, 
 because they do not believe these Denominations to be 
 orthodox. 
 
 And right here we touch upon the principal of the 
 reasons why we do not exchange with any of the 
 
 (331) 
 
tiij 
 
 \. 
 
 f 
 
 332 
 
 OBJECTIONS TO THE EPISCOPAL CUUKCH. 
 
 Denominatious about us. For though as compared 
 with Unitarians they are sound in doctrine, yet the 
 various non-Episcopal Denominations are, in our esti- 
 mation, unsound touching what we regard as funda- 
 mentals. Not to mention other differences between 
 them and ourselves, they believe that any man can 
 found a Church, and, oil this ground, justify their sep- 
 aration from the historic Church of Christ and the 
 Apostles, while we maintain that schism is a great sin, 
 and that the attempt to defend it is a grievous error. 
 This being our honest con\iction, we certainly should 
 be accorded as much right to exclude them from our 
 pulpits as they exercise in the case of those with whom 
 they do not agree. From the standing point of the 
 Universalists and Unitarians they are as bigoted and 
 uncharitable as we are from theirs. 
 
 Those who make the complaint seek to justify it by 
 arguments based upon the goodness and ability of their 
 minist-ers. We do not question their possession of these 
 qualities, but on the other hand are ready to pay the 
 tribute of highest respect and admiration to many of 
 the Denominational ministers whom we know. If it 
 were a question of personal holiness or of learning and 
 aptness to teach, we should certainly often be found 
 humbly sitting at the feet of some of them. But these 
 virtues have nothing to do with the matter in dispute. 
 If they had, those who rank themselves among the so- 
 called ** Evangelical Denominations" would be obliged 
 to admit to their pulpits Unitarian ministers, many of 
 whom are distinguished for their piety and erudition. 
 It is a question of right and wrong— of whether or not 
 we are at liberty to change the Divine order by encour- 
 aging division in the Body of Christ through the aban- 
 donment of the divinelyinstituted ministry of three 
 orders, Bishops, Priests and Deacons. Thus the argu- 
 
 SIGOTED AND EXCLUSIVE. 
 
 333 
 
 ment from the moral and intellectual fitness of the 
 Denominational ministers is not pertinent. It is 
 exactly the ground which Korah and his company took 
 against Moses and Aaron, when they wanted to justify 
 their intended usurpation of the Priesthood . They com- 
 plained bitterly that Moses and Aaron kept the sacred 
 offices to themselves, whereas all the congregation was 
 holy. " No Episcopalian has ever been more berated for 
 his exclusiveness—more reproached with thinking too 
 much of himself and despising his brethren than were 
 Moses and Aaron. *And they gathered themselves to- 
 gether against them and said unto them, Ye take too 
 much upon you seeing all the congregation are holy, 
 every one of them, and the Lord is am ong them . Where- 
 fore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation 
 of the Lord?' Now you will remember that this man, 
 Moses, was the meekest of men. He did not deserve the 
 reproach of thinking his house better than the other 
 families of Israel, for he was but carrying out God's 
 ordinance, *that no stranger which was not of the 
 house of Levi should come near to offer incense.' " 
 
 Is it not possible that our exclusiveness, like that of 
 Moses, is a matter of principle, and not an evidence of 
 pride a.nd 'bigotry? Certainly there are hundreds of 
 thousands among us who feel that we must stand by 
 the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of the 
 English race, and say: ** There is no Divine warrant for 
 the Denominational theory; no trace of it is in the Bible 
 or the early Church. It is not the system instituted by 
 our Lord for the evangelization of the world. It can 
 remedy no evil, for it is in itself, by the strife it engenders, 
 and by the uncertainty and disputation in which it in- 
 volves religious truth and duty, an evil incalculable." 
 Because we feel and say these things are we therefore 
 justly stigmatized as exclusive bigots? No, we should 
 
p 
 
 I'. <. 
 
 I I' 
 
 It 
 
 334 
 
 OBJECTIONS TO THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 
 
 rather be honored for having the courage of our convic- 
 tion. 
 
 But even if there were no principle at stake, we could 
 not as a rule exchange with the Denominational Min- 
 isters for the simple reason that they would be un- 
 willing to take our places and incapable of doing so. 
 This practical and well-nigh insuperable difficulty may 
 be aptly illustrated by an actual occurrence which the 
 saintly Bishop Bedell, who certainly could not be ac- 
 cused of uncharitableness towards the Denominations, 
 used to tell to the great amusenient of his auditors. 
 The Bishop, as nearly as I can remember, gave 
 Ihe story as follows: I placed a young Deacon in 
 
 charge of the parish at . He soon identified 
 
 himself with the local ministerial association, and this 
 being contrary to the policy of his predecessors, he be- 
 came unusually popular. His popularity, however, was 
 not destined to continue long. He came among them 
 in October. In January the Association determined to 
 inaugurate a Union Revival in which all the Protestant 
 ministers should take part. The Methodists, Presby- 
 terians, English Lutherans, Baptists and Episcopalians 
 were represented. All their ministers entered into the 
 arrangement. The Services were to be held on each 
 evening of the week, except Saturday, in the several 
 churches in a prearranged order. It so happened, 
 either by design or accident, that the turn for opening 
 the Episcopal Church to the Revival came last. The 
 Deacon, therefore, went the round of the other churches, 
 and all were pleased by his presence and at the readi- 
 ness and ease with which he took the various parts of 
 the Service that were assigned to him from time to time. 
 Indeed he was rapidly gaining for himself the reputation 
 of being unusually broad-minded and brotherly for an 
 Episcopal Clergyman, and it was even hinted that if 
 
 BIGOTED AND EXCLUSIVE. 
 
 335 
 
 he would only let himself down a little in speech and 
 bearing, he might make a first-class Revivalist. But his 
 reputation for liberality was suddenly blasted and their 
 hope of his becoming an Evangelist withered upon the 
 occasion of the holding of the Service in our house of 
 worship. This resulted from a most unexpected and 
 embarrassing hitch. It would seem that the Deacon 
 was either truer to his colors, or else that he was more 
 of a wag than had been suspected. For it was dis- 
 covered quite too late that he had taken the precaution 
 of providing surplices and Prayer Books for all. As the 
 brethren came straggling through the Church towards 
 the Chancel, where they expected to place their hats and 
 overcoats upon ^^tlie Holy Table," and to take their 
 seats to see and to be seen until "the exercises" should 
 begin, they were politely conducted into the vestry- 
 room. When all had assembled, the Deacon, to their 
 utter surprise began to hand out the surplices. Of 
 course there was a chorus of protests. The Deacon, 
 however, calmly, and with dignity, reminded them that 
 all, including himself, had, at the services so far held, 
 respected the customs of the several churches visited, 
 and that he very much desired that there should be no 
 departure from this reasonable and courteous proced- 
 ure. Of course no satisfactory answer could be made 
 to this argument, and so there was nothing for the par- 
 sons to do but to submit. Accordingly, each, with what 
 grace he could, put on a surplice and accepted a Prayer 
 Book. The Deacon having apportioned the Service be- 
 tween them, led the procession into the Chancel to the 
 great astonishment of the congregation, which was 
 composed of Christians of every name. They then went 
 on with the Evening Prayer, taking the part appointed 
 to them, respectively; but they had not proceeded far 
 when they became hopelessly mixed and exceedingly 
 
ni!: 
 
 S3d 
 
 OBJECTIOiJS TO TfiE EPISCOPAL CBUfiCH. 
 
 embarrassed. At the conclusion of each portion of the 
 Service there was an awkward break until the Deacon 
 would come to the rescue by finding the place. There 
 was, as may be imagined, an utter absence of dignity 
 and solemnity. It is needless to observe that the minis- 
 ters of the town in which the unique Service took place 
 never again asked the Deacon, or any of his successors, 
 to join them in union meetings. 
 
 I have related this anecdote at some length because 
 it well illustrates the practical difiiculties in the way of 
 our exchanging pulpits with Denominational ministers. 
 There is scarcely one in a hundred of them that can 
 render our Services, and perhaps fewer still who would 
 be willing to wear our vestments, and conform to the 
 customary postures. It is hoped that after this expla- 
 nation, the Denominational reader will not again accuse 
 us of bigotry and uncharitableness because we do not 
 exchange pulpits. 
 
 As to the Lord's Supper the Anglican Communion is 
 no more exclusive to-day than she, with the other Apos- 
 tolic Churches, has been for eighteen hundred years. 
 Her law is set forth in the Offices for Adult Baptism 
 and Confirmation: "It is expedient that every per- 
 son thus baptized should be confirmed by the Bishop so 
 soon after his Baptism as conveniently may be ; that so 
 he may be admitted to the Holy Communion;" and 
 ** There shall be none admitted to the Holy Communion 
 until such time as he be confirmed, or be ready and 
 desirous to be confirmed. '' These Rubrics were designed 
 to maintain the Scriptural position of Confirmation. 
 Their framers had no thought of excluding any from 
 the Lord's Supper. The object was rather to indicate 
 the way of coming. Those who will not take it exclude 
 themselves. The adherents of other bodies of Christians 
 do not often present themselves at our Altars, nor 
 
 BIGOTED AND EXCLUSIVE. 
 
 337 
 
 is there as much inter-Communion between the members 
 of the various non-Episcopal Denominations as is com- 
 monly supposed. However, when any Baptized but 
 unconfirmed persons present themselves, it may be 
 said to be generally true that our Clergy do not assume 
 the responsibility of denying them. Even those who 
 interpret the rubrical law most rigidly seldom turn 
 such away, because they attribute what is lacking in 
 them for the want of Confirmation to the failure, owing 
 to defective teaching, to apprehend the importance of 
 that Apostolic Ordinance, and hope that they will 
 receive it as soon as they can be taught more perfectly 
 concerning the Divinely appointed way. 
 
 But it is claimed that there is abundant evidence 
 against us in the alleged fact that we do not regard the 
 various Denominations as being true Churches. As Mr. 
 Gladstone has pointed out, it is no reply to the Church- 
 man's argument to cry out that it "unchurches" Dis- 
 senting communions. He reminds them that when the 
 Puritans "contended against the Prelatical constitution 
 of the Church of England by arguing that the entire con- 
 stitution of the Church was defined in the Word of God, 
 and that that constitution was exclusively Presbyte- 
 rian," this allegation " was met, not by complaints of its 
 ' unchurching' the Church of England, but an examina- 
 tion of its matter and foundation." However, no offi- 
 cial document of this Church can be cited in which we 
 make any declaration in regard to the status of any of 
 the Denominations. Nevertheless it should be admitted 
 that the great majority of our Clergy, and many of 
 our Laitj', feel that the unhistorical Denominations are 
 at best defective Churches. It is evident that if we were 
 to entertain such feelings without good and sufficient 
 reasons, the accusation of uncharitableness might justly 
 be made. But in consideration of the fact that all of 
 
 C. A.— 22 
 
338 
 
 OBJECTIONS TO THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 
 
 I 
 
 the Denominations, concerning which these views are en- 
 tertained, were organized at least fifteen hundred years 
 after the time of Christ and the Apostles, and that they 
 have abandoned certain features both of doctrine and 
 government which had always been universally regarded 
 by Catholic Christians as essential to the constitution of 
 a true Church, and are still so considered by fully nine- 
 tenths of Christendom, we may justly feel ourselves ag- 
 grieved at being stigmatized as narrow, exclusive bigots 
 because we refuse to go contrary to all tradition and to 
 the conviction of the great majority of living Christians, 
 by recognizing the organizations of, for example, Luth- 
 er, Calvin, and Wesley, all less than three hundred and 
 fifty years old, as Apostolic and Catholic Churches of 
 Christ. 
 
 It is argued that the prosperity which has attended 
 the organizations which they represent, is an evidence 
 of God's favor, and of his special recognition of them. 
 Some, therefore, would have us believe that as St. Paul, 
 who, having had no connection with Christ and His 
 Apostles, was specially called out of season to be an 
 Apostle, so they have been called out of due time to be 
 Churches. But the analogy is not complete enough to 
 hold. The claims of St. Paul, because of the miracles 
 which he performed, were recognized by the i-est of the 
 Apostles. Moreover, he did not found a new Church. 
 On the contrary he constantly condemned divisions and 
 illustrated the importance of unity by the strongest 
 imagery. If God, through the founders of the various 
 Denominations, had really called new Churches into 
 existence. He would certainly have caused them to have 
 been recognized by the undoubted Historic Churches, as 
 St. Paul's Apostleship was by the original Apostles. 
 But none of them are in communion with any branch 
 of the old Church. 
 
 BIGOTED AND EXCLUSIVE. 
 
 339 
 
 Nor will the argument based upon the rapid prog- 
 ress and great size of some of the Denominations, carry 
 conviction to the thoughtful. The schism in the Jew- 
 ish Church comprised ten tribes, while only two re- 
 mained faithful to the old Church which was, neverthe- 
 less, the true Church of God. No modern Denomination 
 has had a more phenomenal growth than Arianism. 
 In the short space of fifty years it sprang up and 
 drew almost half of Christendom after it, and numbered 
 among its millions of adherents, the Roman Emperors 
 and Eulers. But Arianism was not, therefore, a part of 
 the Catholic Church of Christ. Granting, however, for the 
 sake of argument, that the question of Catholicity can 
 be decided by the number of adherents to a system, the 
 verdict must be, as matters now stand and have stood 
 ever since the Reformation, against the pretensions of 
 the Denominations to Catholicity. For there are cer- 
 tainly not more than fifty millions of them, while there 
 are three hundred and fifty millions of us. Thus, fi'ora 
 whatever point of view, it is impossible for the Denom- 
 inations to make good against the Episcopal Church 
 the accusation of uncharitableness. 
 
 But let us now examine this charge of exclusiveness 
 from another point of view. There are almost always 
 two ways of looking at such questions. As we look at 
 it, those who make the accusation are really the violat- 
 ors of charity. And this because upon uncharitable 
 grounds they have withdrawn from the Mother Church, 
 and have fenced themselves in with new conditions of 
 Church membership, and excluded all, who, for any rea- 
 son, do net see fit to comply with the novel require- 
 ments. Rome and the Denominations are alike in this 
 respect. The older Sectarian bodies went out from us, 
 
840 
 
 OBJECTIONS TO THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 
 
 ( 
 
 not because we were too narrow and bigoted, but be- 
 cause they themselves were not broad and tolerant 
 enough to remain in the ancient and spacious fold. We 
 are well aware that it is often maintained that they 
 were driven out. It would be an easy task to prove to 
 the contrary by evidence that might be accumulated 
 from almost every page of the Reformation histories. 
 But there is a much shorter cut to the truth. It is by 
 showing that this way of accounting for the origin of 
 the first sects proves quite too much. If their with- 
 drawal was due to the parent's intolerance, what are we 
 to conclude in the case of the sects which soon sprang 
 from themselves? The census shows that in the United 
 States, the Presbyterians have divided and sub-divided 
 twelve times ; the Baptists have done the same thirteen 
 times, and the Methodists seventeen times. If the orig- 
 inal Denominations could truthfully account for their 
 exodus on the score of illiberality, why may not those 
 who sprang from them justify their separation on the 
 same ground ? Out of the five or six Denominations of 
 the Revolutionary period, have come one hundred and 
 forty-three. Excepting the Episcopal and Roman 
 Churches, each of these accounts for its existence by at- 
 tributing intolerance to its Mother. As only three or 
 four of all the Denominations now in the country are 
 the direct offspring of the Episcopal and Roman Com- 
 munions, it follows that about one hundred and forty 
 of them must be traced, if the theory of the origin of 
 sects under consideration be correct, to the bigotry 
 of the Methodists, Lutherans, Baptists, Presbyterians, 
 Mennonites, Adventists, and the rest of the long list 
 which is ever growing longer. Thus, if the Episcopal 
 Church be exclusive, it would appear that none of the 
 older Denominations are in a position to stone her for 
 the fault. 
 
 BIGOTED AND EXCLUSIVE. 
 
 341 
 
 \ 
 
 But the theory of maternal intolerance is not the 
 true solution of sectarianism. It is due rather to the 
 exclusiveness and bigotry of the child itself. There is of 
 course a sense in which the Episcopal Church is exclu- 
 sive. She must, as a branch of the Catholic Church, 
 exclude from membership all who do not accept Christ 
 as the Divine Saviour of the world, and from her com- 
 munion all open and notorious evil livers. She is in- 
 deed fenced about by the Catholic Creeds and the Moral 
 Law, but there is nothing of human construction to keep 
 people out. The only fence that exists, was constructed 
 by God Himself through Moses, the Apostles and Ecu- 
 menical Councils. But the Denominations did not 
 consider this fence of Divine regulation sufficient. They 
 felt called upon to supplement it by hedges of their own 
 planting. The Presbyterians were determined literally 
 to wall us in with the '^Westminster Confession;" the 
 Baptists insisted on surrounding us with a deep moat 
 filled to the brim with water ; the Methodists wanted to 
 hedge us about with their peculiar doctrines of saving 
 faith, instantaneous conversion and experimental re- 
 ligion. The Church did not deny her children the privi- 
 lege of holding the views of Calvin, Williams and Wesley, 
 but she refused to allow these views to become so many 
 barriers to membership and communion. It was held 
 that inasmuch as the Church is a Divine institution, 
 God alone has a right to impose conditions of entrance. 
 And because the rest of the flock refused to be hedged in, 
 the sectaries withdrew, in order that their ideas might 
 be carried out in their own narrow enclosure. 
 / " It strikes one," says Bishop Thompson, " as rather 
 /a queer thing that these people should charge the 
 / Church with * exclusiveness ; ' that they should take 
 I their own special sin and lay it on her shoulders. They 
 I each had their birth in exclusiveness. The Church wafl 
 
V ' 
 
 \ 
 
 OBJECTIONS TO THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 
 
 not holy enough nor orthodox eiotlgb, aM so the sect 
 was created to exclude all but the saints. This is the 
 historic becriuning of every sect. It excludes all but 
 Itself from the Kingdom of God. With the early Puri- 
 tans, whatever was outside of Puritanism was of Satan. 
 The Church, especially, was of the evil one. The only 
 body in the land which demands only Christianity as a 
 test of membership, which does not supplement Chris- 
 tianity with some ism as an essential to fellowship, is 
 the Protestant Episcopal Church." 
 
 Bishop Vail's remarks concerning the comprehen- 
 siveness of the Church as compared with Denomination- 
 alism are also to the point and equally forcible : 
 
 *'TheChurch is founded upon unity and universality; 
 
 "Sectarianism is founded upon unity without univer- 
 salitv. 
 
 " The dtirch is founded upon law and liberty ; 
 "Sectarianism is founded upon law without liberty. 
 "The Church is founded upon conformity and com- 
 promise ; 
 
 "Sectarianism is foiinded upli conformity without 
 compromise. 
 
 "The Church in its practical operation produces for- 
 bearance ; 
 
 "Sectarianism in its practical operation produces 
 intolerance." 
 
 The comprehensiveness of the P]piscopal Church is 
 manifest from the fact that she contains so many dif- 
 ferent schools of thought. There are among us High, 
 Low, and Broad Churchmen. These differ with each 
 other on as many points and as radically as do the var- 
 ious Denominations, and yet there is as much unity and 
 harmony with us as in any other body of Christians. 
 This is accounted for by the fact that, while Episcopa- 
 lians are required to adhere to the faith set forth in the 
 
 LIKE THE ROMAN CATHOLIC. 
 
 343 
 
 Catholic Creeds and to submit to the government of the 
 Historic Episcopate, they are, in respect to all compar- 
 atively indifferent matters of doctrine and conduct, per- 
 mitted the largest liberty. Under such circumstances 
 men always form themselves into parties. For example, 
 in this " land of the free " we have at present Democrats, 
 Republicans, Populists, and others, each denouncing the 
 rest, but all respecting the Constitution and the powers 
 that be, and so, paradoxical as it may seem in view of 
 our wranghng, we are really one of the most united and 
 harmonious of nations. The opinion prevails with 
 Americans that the country is upon the whole the better 
 for political combinations and agitations. Episcopa- 
 lians generallv feel the same about their divisions into 
 Schools of Chiirchmanship. It is thought that, if there 
 were a dead level of agreement among us, our Ecclesias- 
 tical waters would soon become stagnant. 
 
 Ill 
 *. 
 
 VII. 
 
 LIKE THE ROMAN CATHOLIC. 
 
 THIS objection so frequently urged against the vari- 
 ous branches of the Anglican Communion, is 
 based upon partly real and partly imaginary re- 
 semblances in her system to that of the Roman Church. 
 That there are some striking similarities we are ready 
 enough to admit, but that they are of a character to 
 justify the conclusion that there is no essential difference 
 between theEp»copal and the Roman Church cannot be 
 allowed. For there are many important doctrinal and 
 ceremonial poiats about 'which we differ fundament- 
 ally. And even where the resemblance is most strik- 
 ing, objectors have always found it impossible to prove 
 that the condemned doctrine or ceremony is contrary to 
 
344 
 
 OBJECTIONS TO THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 
 
 Scriptore or the teaching aud practice of the earlier, 
 purer ages. 
 
 The objection, in short, is based upon the erroneous 
 idea, that, because the Church of Rome has erred in 
 many points, she has done so in all, and that, therefore, 
 a Church is reformed only in proportion as she has de- 
 parted from the Roman faith and ritual. This, as an 
 old writer points out, is because '' man is a creature of 
 extremes. The middle path is generally the wise path ; 
 but there are few wise enough to find it. Because Pap- 
 ists have made too much of some things, Protestants 
 have made too little of them. The Papists treat man 
 as all sense; and, therefore, some Protestants would 
 treat him as all spirit. Because one party has exalted 
 the Virgin Mary to a Divinity, the other can scarcelv 
 think of that *most highly favored among women' 
 with common i-espect. The Papist puts the Apocrypha 
 into his Canon ; the Protestant will scarcely regard it 
 as an ancient record. The Popish heresy, human merit 
 in justification, drove Luther, on the other side, into the 
 most unwarrantable and unscriptural statements of 
 that doctrine. The Papists consider grace as insepara- 
 ble from the participation in the Sacraments ; the Prot- 
 estants too oft^n lose sight of them as instituted 
 means of conveying gi^ace." 
 
 Now, it is the glory of the Episcopal Church, that she 
 has avoided both the extremes of Romanism and Prot- 
 estantism. The testimony of the objectors from both 
 quarters proves this. For the representatives of each 
 in turn accuse us of being identified with the other. 
 Romanists declare that we are Protestants, and Prot- 
 estants constantly represent us as Romanists. Their 
 witness, as a whole, therefore proves that we are neither 
 the one nor the other. We are essentially unlike either of 
 these extreme wings of Christendom. Ve occupy the 
 
 LIKE THE ROMAN CATHOLIC. 
 
 345 
 
 middle ground between them. Between the Scylla and 
 the Charybdis of perverted Catholicism and Protestant- 
 ism, we steer the middle course, having inscribed on 
 our banner the motto : 
 
 " Catholic for every truth of God ; 
 Protestant against every error of man." 
 
 The fact that we are so far removed from both, ac- 
 counts for the mistake which each makes in classing us 
 with the other. 
 
 It cannot be denied that there is, according to the 
 tastes and preferences of our Clergy and congregations, 
 a more or less striking resemblance between the Roman 
 and Anglican Communions in the nonessentials of cere- 
 monies and ornaments. But, however it may be with 
 Romanists in these things, Anglicans almost without 
 exception stop short of superstition and idolatry. If, 
 indeed, there be any exceptions, they are so few as not 
 to disprove the general rule of the past three hundred 
 years. We do not deny that there are a few among us 
 who prefer the Ultramontane nomenclature and ritual, 
 and indeed persistently use them, notwithstanding their 
 well-known offensiveness to the vast majority of the 
 Anglican Communion. But the extreme Mediaeval cere- 
 monialism that has been adopted by a congregation here 
 and there of which, merely because of its exceptional 
 character, we read so much, is not at all representative 
 of the Episcopal Church as a whole, and there is not the 
 ghost of a probability that it will ever become so. After 
 all these years there is not on an average more than one 
 or two of these extremely ritualistic parishes in a Dio- 
 cese. Our Bishops, Clergy, and Laity, with very few 
 exceptions, will never consent to abandon the dignified 
 position which we occupy as the American branch of the 
 
 i 
 
346 
 
 OBJECTIONS TO THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 
 
 LIKE THE ROMAN CATHOLIC. 
 
 347 
 
 historic Catholic Church of the English race. As such 
 we have our own traditions, customs and forms of 
 worship, which if less elaborate and showy, are more in 
 harmony with the sturdy, sober qualities of the Anglo- 
 Saxon people than anything which has been imported 
 from aesthetic, gaudy Italy. If there must be imitation, 
 let Rome, which whether from a political or intellectual 
 point of view is much more likely to be Anglicanized 
 than we are to be Romanized, do the imitating. The 
 Anglican Church was compelled to conform more or less 
 closely to the Itahan when Rome was ''the mistress of 
 the world," but now that the position of the English 
 and Latin-speaking races has been reversed, the Roman 
 Church must in her turn be moulded by foreign influence. 
 In the Pastoral Letter delivered at the close of the 
 Triennial General Convention held in Minneapolis a. d. 
 1895, the Bishops speaking o! the Roman terminology 
 say that "it involves themanly independence of a Church 
 rooted in the primitive soil of Christianity, to a Church 
 which has no claim upon the allegiance of the English 
 speaking race." Those among us who have been con- 
 cerned lesf the Ritualists " would ultimately lead the 
 Episcopal Church to forsake its Reformation principles 
 and surrender to Rome, will have their fears allayed by 
 reading that section of the Pastoral which bears upon 
 this subject. It plainly appears from this timely utter- 
 ance that the few Romanizers among us cannot reckon 
 upon the support of the Bishops, without which the 
 Church as a whole can never be compromised. Though 
 the great majority of the American P]piscopate are pro- 
 nounced high Churchmen and some of them have a 
 strong predilection for Mediaeval ceremonialism, it is 
 understood that there was in the House of Bishops 
 little'or no opposition to this part of their Epistle to 
 the Council and Churches. 
 
 But the existence in the Church of those who reso- 
 lutely have turned their faces towards Mediaeval doc- 
 trine^ and ritual, is no more to be regretted than the 
 presence of such as persistently fix their eyes upon the 
 barren and disputatious Puritanism of the Reformation 
 period. One has as much right among us as the other, 
 for the doctrines and ceremonies which they respectively 
 represent, are in the main utterly alien to the primitive 
 Catholicity of which the Anglican Communion is an ex- 
 ponent. Our Church claims to be " Catholic." It is true 
 that the word does not appear in the title, but neither 
 does it in the oflftcial designation of the English Church 
 which, nevertheless, strenuously insists upon her Cath- 
 olicity. The word Catholic occurs in our Creeds 
 which to us are of much greater importance than our 
 name, as must be evident to all from the fact that we 
 repeat one or the other of the former at every Service, 
 and seldom use the latter except in some abbreviated 
 form. As the Church of England is no less Protestant 
 than the Episcopal Church in the United States, though 
 the term has not been officially adopted as a part of 
 her api^ellation, so the American daughter is no less 
 Catholic than her English Mother, notwithstanding the 
 absence of the word in the epithet by which she is distin- 
 guished from the various Christian bodies of this coun- 
 try. Now if the Episcopal Church is really what it 
 claims to be, the American branch of the Catholic 
 Church, it must make room for all who accept Christ 
 as their Divine Lord and only Saviour, and who engage 
 by God's help to live according to the Gospel rule of 
 life. But it is too much to expect that all who agree in 
 dointr this, will be of the same mind about other things. 
 We find among us men and women who look at subjects 
 from very different points of view. Take for example, 
 the Reformation. The Mediaevalist warmly contends 
 
348 
 
 OBJECTIONS TO THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 
 
 il 
 
 that in some respects, especially in the matter of ritual 
 and ornaments, it went too far, while his Puritan 
 brother maintains with equal warmth that it did not 
 go far enough. But the one is no more inclined to 
 Romanism than the other is to Denominationalism. 
 Both in nine hundred and ninety-nine cases out of a 
 thousand will remain just where they are, disputing 
 with one another about nonessentials while agreeing 
 concerning essentials and communing at the same 
 Altar. 
 
 There is, however, some ground for congratulation 
 that there are a few of both these classes of extremists 
 among us. The positions which they respectively oc- 
 cupy, being almost as widely separated as the East is 
 from the West, make manifest to all men the Catholicity 
 of the Episcopal Church. There is no other bodv of 
 Christians sufficiently comprehensive to include any- 
 thing like such radical divergences in either doctrine or 
 ceremony. The all-inclusiveness of this Church is in- 
 comprehensible alike to Romanists and Denomination- 
 alists. They will not tolerate each other, and they can- 
 not understand a Church that is spacious enough to 
 comprehend within the same fold those who look at 
 things fi-om such different points of view. But how 
 could the Episcopal Church make good her claim to 
 Catholicity unless she had room for both ? The Medise- 
 valists and Puritans who are among us, though given 
 to disputing with each other about what the rest of us 
 regard as nonessentials, are nevertheless orthodox and 
 exemplary enough touching the essentials of doctrine 
 and life. They adhere unswervingly to "the Faith once 
 delivered to the Saints," and persistently endeavor to 
 make the precepts and example of Christ their rule and 
 pattern of life. These few P^piscopalian extremists of the 
 right hand and the left are in fact as good Christians as 
 
 LIKE THE ROMAN CATHOLIC. 
 
 349 
 
 the average among the host of their conservative breth- 
 ren or of those in the Roman and Denominational Com- 
 munions. We cannot, therefore, deny them a spiritual 
 home among us without excluding true Christians, nor 
 can we, so long as they remain within canonical and 
 reasonable bounds, insist upon conformity, on the part 
 of our Mediaevalists and Puritans, to the ideas and cer- 
 emonials which prevail among us, without becoming 
 guilty of persecution. The Episcopal Church cannot, 
 therefore, reasonably be objected to upon the ground of 
 
 ritualism. 
 
 Again, it must be remembered that there are also 
 many ceremonial similarities between Denominational 
 and Roman worship. Consistency would require those 
 who object to the Episcopal Church upon the score of 
 ceremony, to become Quakers, or even to give up public 
 worship altogether. But their tendency confessedly is 
 towards an elaborate and ornate worship. 
 
 I 
 
 But, say our objectors, the doctrines of the Episcopal 
 Church are such as to convict her of Romanism, and, 
 whatever mav be said of ceremonials, doctrines are 
 essentials. Now, it must also be confessed, there are 
 many doctrinal parallels between the Episcopal and 
 Roman Churches. The same may, however, be said of 
 us as compared with the various Protestant Denomi- 
 nations, for much of our teaching is the same as 
 theirs. So is it, moreover, with Denominationalists 
 and Romanists. There are more particulars in which 
 their faith is the same, than will be readily acknowl- 
 edged by those who have never been at the pains of 
 making a comparison. And in fact if it were not so, 
 the Denominations could make no plausible preten- 
 sion to orthodoxy. For, though the truth of all that 
 
OBJECTIONS TO THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 
 
 H 
 
 i 
 
 is said concerning the errors and corruption of the 
 Roman Church be admitted, yet no well-informed per- 
 son will deny that she holds all the essential doctrines 
 of Christianity. Though she has added much to the 
 Faith as outlined by the Councils, she has never sub- 
 tracted from it. For, not to go into details, she has 
 the Bible, the Ancient Creeds, the Ministry, the Sacra- 
 ments, and all the Christian Ordinances. Without these, 
 as all must agiee, there can be no such thing as a Catho- 
 lic Church of Christ. Therefore, resemblances to Rome 
 in these and otheressentials of Catholicity, do not consti- 
 tute the Episcopal Church Romish but Catholic. We 
 cannot, with justice, be identified with the Roman 
 Church because we are partakers with her in the distin- 
 guishing features of the Church of the Apostles, and of 
 the earliest ages. It is unjust to accuse us of Roman- 
 ism unless we consent to and teach the errors which are 
 peculiar to the Church of Rome. From these offenses 
 we are as innocent as any body of Christians on earth. 
 
 But in condemning and renouncing the Papal addi- 
 tions to the Catholic Faith, with the corruptions 
 growing out of them, we were careful not to follow 
 Denominationalists in subtracting from that doctrine 
 whicli has been believ^ed always, everywhere, and by the 
 vast majority of Christians. This is the true Catholic 
 Faith which the Anglican Communion, of which the 
 Episcopal Church is a part, holds " whole and undefiled," 
 without the additions of Romanists, orthe subtractions 
 of Denominationalists. And because we are neither plus 
 nor minus touching this Faith,Romanist8 contend that 
 we are Denominationalists, and they, that we are 
 Romanists, whereas we are neither the one nor the 
 other, but true Catholics. 
 
 There can be no doubt that both Romanists and 
 Protestants hold to a great deal of truth, but too 
 
 LIKE THE ROMAN CATHOLIC. 
 
 351 
 
 often it is opposite halves of the same truth; and a 
 half truth, as we all know, frequently has the effect of a 
 whole error. It will usually be found by the candid 
 investigator that the Episcopal Church holds both 
 halves of the truth. Take for example her doctrine con- 
 cerning the nature and efficacy of the Sacraments of 
 Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Since the Reformation, 
 as in the age of the Apostolic Fathers, Anglo-Catho- 
 lics connect salvation with the Sacraments and with 
 faith and repentance. All that is Scriptural and essen- 
 tial in the Roman and Denominational views of the 
 efficacy of the Sacraments, we hold. For with the one 
 we agree that: "The Sacraments are generally neces- 
 sary to salvation and that they work invisibly in us 
 and do not only quicken, but also strengthen and con- 
 firm our faith in Christ ; " and with the others, we agree 
 that the Sacraments "have a wholesome effect and 
 operation in such only as worthily receive the same by a 
 death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness, by 
 repenting themselves truly of their former sins, by hav- 
 ing a lively faith in God's mercy through Christ with a 
 thankful remembrance of His death, and by being in 
 charity with all men." 
 
 Take also our doctrine about confession and absolu- 
 tion which,is such a bugbear to many Protestants with- 
 in as well as without the Anglican Communion, who have 
 never taken the pains to inform themselves of the funda- 
 mental difference between our teaching and that of the 
 Roman Church. Doubtless there are among us those 
 who practically hold the Romish dogma, but the view 
 which prevails with our Clergy and intelligent Laity, and 
 which alone can be justified by our standards, looks 
 very much like a compromise between the extremes of 
 Romanism and Denominationalism, though, as a mat- 
 ter of fact, it is simply that w^hich is taught in the New 
 
ilHi 
 
 'IliH! 
 
 m 
 
 OBJECTIONS TO THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 
 
 Testament. This will appear from the followiog dia- 
 logue between a Presbyterian lady and an ex-Methodist 
 minister friend of mine who had just made application 
 for Holy Orders in the Episcopal Church. 
 
 L. "How strange to think that you left the Metho- 
 dists to become an Episcopalian. Do you believe in the 
 confessional?" 
 
 Ex. M. "Why, yes, I believe with the Episcopal 
 Church that it is our duty and privilege to confess our 
 sins to God, and, yet, if any are troubled in their con- 
 science and wish advice concerning any besetting sin 
 or to make any confession to their pastor so as to 
 receive encouragement in the Christian life, I believe 
 they should have the privilege of doing so. But of 
 course I do not believe in the Roman confessional, that 
 is, an obligatory confession of faults and sins in detail 
 as a prerequisite to the reception of the Holy Com- 
 munion." 
 
 L. "Well, I am glad to be set right in this, as in the 
 future I shall feel somewhat more comfortable about 
 the Episcopal Church. No reasonable objection can be 
 offered to such a confession, for in one form or another 
 it obtains to some degree in all Protestant Denomina- 
 tions. But how about Priestly Absolution? Do you 
 believe in that?" 
 
 Ex. M. "Yes, I do; and I think that I can also 
 remove your prejudice against the Episcopal Church 
 so far as it is due to a misunderstanding on this point. 
 I believe that our Heavenly Father is always ready 
 to forgive His erring children when they come to Him 
 in true penitence confessing their sins. And He is so 
 anxious to keep this truth before their minds that He 
 has not only caused it to be written in His Word that 
 He is ready to forgive iniquity, transgression and sin, 
 but so great is His love that He has commissioned 
 
 LIKE THE ROMAN CATHOLIC. 
 
 353 
 
 His ministers, or Priests, to preach repentance and 
 remission of sins to all men in His name, and to pro- 
 nounce absolution to all who truly and earnestly repent, 
 that the penitent may have every encouragement to 
 trust Him." 
 
 L. "I have no objection to that kind of Priestly 
 Absolution. It is a very different thing from the teach- 
 ing of the Roman Church, that would deny the penitent 
 the privilege of trusting alone in the promises of God 
 for pardon, and compel him to receive absolution from 
 Priests." 
 
 Ex. M. "The fact is, Mrs. , that many Protes- 
 tants, in their efforts to get away from the errors and 
 corruptions of Rome, have gone to the other extreme. 
 It is often said that the I']piscopal Church is more 
 like the Roman Church than any other, and there 
 is a sense in which this is true. Those that are least 
 like her are the Quakers. Except the Bible they have 
 thrown away almost everything; the Sacraments of 
 Baptism and the Lord's Supper, Confirmation, an Or- 
 dained Ministry, the Creed, and so far as possible all 
 ceremonies are laid aside, and the inner Light is 
 exalted until it is not to be tested or measured either 
 by reason or Revelation; while the Enghsh Church 
 aimed only to throw aside the errors and corruptions 
 of Rome, retaining all that was Scriptural, Apostolic, 
 primitive and Catholic in worship. The motto of this 
 Church is ^ Prove all things; hold fast that which is 
 good.'" 
 
 But let us see how the assertion that we are like the 
 Roman Catholics, can be proven untrue, those who 
 make it being themselves the judges. After making it 
 they usually proceed to tell their auditors or readers 
 
 C. A.— 28 
 
854 
 
 OBJECTIONS TO THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 
 
 i"f 
 
 I 
 
 Is 
 
 i ^ (.■ 
 
 about "the ignorant, superstitious, degraded, priest- 
 ridden condition of Romanists." Now I am not called 
 upon to pronounce upon the truth or falsity of this 
 severe indictment of Romanism. I simply direct atten- 
 tion to it in order that the utter inconsistency of those 
 who make it, may appear. For if there be any truth in 
 what they say concerning the resemblance of Episcopa- 
 lianism to Romanism, their description of the members of 
 the Roman Church ought to apply to Episcopalians. But 
 all the world knows that such a representation of our 
 constituency would be simply ridiculous. In fact, those 
 who pass this judgment upon Romanism are the same 
 who reflect upon the Episcopal Church by representing 
 her as made up almost exclusively of the aristocratic 
 and dominant elements of the country. "By their 
 fruits ye shall know them.'' Surely those who assert 
 that the Episcopal Church is like the Roman Catholic 
 do not regard this precept. In fact they know and 
 admit, and even emphasize the dissimilarity of the 
 fruit, and yet declare the identity of the trees. *'Do 
 men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles ? " '* Con- 
 sistency, thou art a jewel ! " 
 
 The fact that the Episcopal Church is sonon-Ronmn, 
 and has done more than any of the Denominations to 
 correct the errors and weaken the power of the Papacy, 
 while at the same time she has been wise and conserva- 
 tive enough to hold fast to that which is essential to 
 Catholicity, as also to many nonessentials which are 
 nevertheless good and ancient, will, in proportion as 
 prejudice gives place to candor, come to be regarded as 
 one of the chief reasons for identification with this 
 Church rather than with any of the revolutionary De- 
 nominations. In the long run sensible men and women 
 may be trusted to perceive the absurd character of 
 objections to our Church based upon mere resemblances 
 
 
 LIKE THE ROMAN CATHOLIC. 
 
 to the Church of Rome. Our unreasonable objectors 
 sometimes talk as if one of the chief aims of the Church 
 should be to render itself as much unlike the Roman 
 Church as possible. We have little use for Rome, but if 
 we were to adopt that policy, we should be about as 
 wise as a family would be to discard their cook-stove 
 because their neighboring enemies have one. Such a 
 course would starve the Anglican Communion into the 
 proportions of a sect, and give ftomanism such an op- 
 portunity to triumph as she will never have, so long as 
 we maintain the advantage of a position which includes 
 the essential elements of both Ultramontanism and 
 Protestantism without their extravagances and errors. 
 The late Bishop of Louisiana expressed the conclusion 
 of the whole matter, when, in the course of his reply to 
 some objector to the Episcopal Church, he observed, 
 " After all she is to the various Denominations what the 
 town clock is to the citizens, a regulator. Though no 
 one seems to be satisfied with the time, some affirming 
 that it is too slow, others that it is too fast, and all 
 agreeing that it is utterly unreliable, yet in the long run 
 the great majority set their watches by it." 
 
 On the general subject of objections to the Episcopal 
 Church it may l^ observed that there is nothing which 
 either Romaiiists or Denominationalists urge against 
 us, that is not trifling in comparison with their own 
 serious additions to or subtractions from the Faith and 
 Government to which the undivided Church of the flrst 
 one thousand years adhered. We confess to many im- 
 perfections but they are of a superflcial charact-er and 
 do not touch the essentials of the Catholic Creed or 
 Polity. This was not true of us in Mediaeval times. 
 Like the whole of Western Christendom we fell into 
 many gross errors and superstitions of which Rome has 
 always been the synonym, but of these we rid ourselves 
 
356 
 
 OBJECTIONS TO THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 
 
 at the Keformation. Since that memorable event the 
 Church of the English-speaking race has been the most 
 Scriptural and Apostolic of all the branches of the 
 Catholic Church. 
 
 But again we must heed the precept of Solomon's 
 proverb: '* Let another man praise thee and not thine 
 own mouth: a stranger and not thine own lips.'' 
 Speaking of the English Church, which is the Mother of 
 the Anglican Communion, the great commentator 
 among the Methodists says: ''I consider the Church of 
 England the purest National Church in the world." 
 " We remember," says an eloquent Presbyterian writer, 
 "the former Services which the Episcopal Church ren- 
 dered to the cause of truth, and of the world's redemp- 
 tion ; we remember the bright and ever-living lights of 
 truth, which her Clergy and her illustrious Laymen have 
 in other times enkindled in the darkness of this world's 
 history, and which continue to pour their pure and 
 steady lustre on the literature, the laws, and the cus- 
 toms of the Christian world ; and we trust the dav will 
 never come, when our own bosoms, or the bosoms of 
 Christians in any Denomination, will cease to beat with 
 emotions of lofty thanksgiving to the God of grace, 
 that He raised up such gifted and holy men to meet the 
 corruptions of the Papacy, and to breast the wicked- 
 ness of the world." 
 
 The Church for Americans. 
 
 LECTURE YIl. 
 
 WHY AA\ERICANS SHOULD BE EPISCOPALIANS, 
 
 I. The Episcopal Church Apostolic. 
 
 IL The Church of Our Race. 
 
 in. A Valid Ministry. 
 
 IV. Superior Opportunities. 
 
 V. Doctrinal Stability. 
 
 VI. Christian Unity. 
 
 (357) 
 
m 
 
 AUTHORITIES. 
 
 Brittan, An Apology for Conforming to the Protestant Episco- 
 pal Church, Contained in a Series of Letters Addressed to Bishop 
 Onderdonk, New York. 
 
 Clark, Walk About Zion. 
 
 Clarke, Christian Union and the Protestant Episcopal Church. 
 
 Faussett, The Claims of the Established Church to Exclusive 
 Attachment and Support— Bampton Lectures, 1820. 
 
 Hammond, John Wesley " Being Dead, Yet Speaketh." 
 
 Heygate, Why I Am a Churchman. 
 
 Little, A. W., Reasons for Being a Churchman. 
 
 Mines, A Presbyterian Looking for the Church. 
 
 O'Neill, Christian Unity. 
 
 Percival, The Glories of the Episcopal Church. 
 
 Shields, The United Church of the United States. 
 
 Vail, Bp., The Comprehensive Church. 
 
 PAMPHLETS. 
 Dudley, Bp., Why I Am a Churchman. 
 Hopkins, Wm. C, Reasons Why I Am a Churchman. 
 Meade, Bp., Reasons for Loving the Episcopal Church. 
 Randall, Bp., Why I Am a Churchman. 
 SwoPE, Why I Am an Episcopalian. 
 Vincent, Bp., An Address on Church Unity. 
 
 Wesley, Reasons Against a Separation from the Church of Eng- 
 land. 
 
 MISCELLANEOUS. 
 
 The Good Way, or Why Christians of Every Name May Be- 
 come Churchmen, 
 
 (858) 
 
 Why Americans Should Be 
 Episcopalians. 
 
 EVERY right-thiDkibg person will readily give his 
 consent to the proposition that in the choice of 
 a Church, reference should be had to God's will 
 and the promotion of one's own salvation and that of 
 the world. The object of this lecture is to show that 
 by uniting with the Episcopal Church, Americans will 
 be most Hkely to accomplish these important ends. 
 
 I. 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH APOSTOLIC. 
 
 IF this Church could not historically and doctrinally 
 make good the claim to be a part of Christ's One, 
 Holy, CathoHc and Apostolic Church, it would be 
 impossible to show^ that Americans are under any Divine 
 obligation to identify themselves with her. That the 
 Mother Church of England is a true branch of the 
 Catholic Church, and that the American Church is iden- 
 tical with the parent stalk in all features essential to 
 Catholicity, are propositions which, as we have shown,* 
 cannot be (questioned without a total disregard of the 
 most obvious facts of history. The close and vital con- 
 nection between the two Churches is evident from the 
 mere fact that they are in the most cordial and complete 
 communion. Our Bishops sit with the English and 
 colonial Bishops at the Pan-Anglican Council once m 
 
 * Lectures IV and V. 
 
 (359) 
 
It 
 
 360 
 
 WHY AMERICANS SUOUId BE EPISCOPALIANS. 
 
 ^^- 
 
 every ten years. The Clergy of all ranks exchange min- 
 istrations. A communicant in good standing in one 
 Church is recognized as such in the other. This inter- 
 communion could never have existed and would not be 
 maintained, but for the fact that the Church of England 
 and the American Episcopal Church are substantially 
 the same in all essentials of government, doctrine and 
 worship. They are, therefore, manifestly different 
 branches of the same vine. And that this vine has its 
 root in Christ, through the Apostles, is evident from the 
 fact that it can be traced down the ages in unbroken 
 continuity. Furthermore, representatives of the Church 
 of England occupied undisputed seats in the early Gen- 
 eral Councils, and she was universally recognized as a 
 true branch of the Apostolic Church of Christ down 
 to the time of the Reformation. And if she was this 
 until then, she is still the same, for the present Church 
 of England is identical with that which was before the 
 Reformation.* 
 
 Of course the non church member who has made up 
 his mind to obey Christ by identifying himself with His 
 Kingdom, will be told by the representatives of each of 
 the Protestant Denominations that their respective 
 bodies are true branches of the Church of Christ. I do 
 not feel called upon to go through the long list of three 
 hundred or more for the purpose of investigating their 
 claims, nor to pronounce upon them. It is only neces- 
 sary that the reader should be put upon some short and 
 plain way of coming to the truth by personal investiga- 
 tion. You will not be deceived into accepting a Church 
 as Apostolic and Catholic which is not such, if you will 
 simply trace its history back to the beginning, or 
 ascertain whether or not it is or ever has been in com- 
 munion with any unquestioned branch of the historic 
 
 * Lecture IV. 
 
 THE CHURCH OF OUR RACE. 
 
 361 
 
 Church. If you are advised to join a Church which can- 
 not trace its lineage to the Apostles, or which is not 
 and never was recognized by any Church which indis- 
 putably has come down from the first centuries as 
 being a branch of the Apostolic Church, reject it as 
 a human institution that has no Divine claim to your 
 allegiance. The American Episcopal Church can stand 
 both of these proposed tests, and therefore non church 
 members and members of human religious societies can 
 make no mistake in uniting with her, for so they will 
 certainly be doing the will of God by identifying them- 
 selves with a true branch of His Church. 
 
 II. 
 
 THE CHURCH OF OUR RACE. 
 
 BUT some one may ask, why not join the Roman 
 Church and have done with it— why stop midway 
 between Sectarianism and Romanism? We an- 
 swer because there is absolutely nothing in the way of 
 Catholicity to be gained, while in other respects much 
 would be lost by so doing. 
 
 God, by a wonderful Providence, has made this an 
 English-speaking Protestant country. It is true that 
 the first discoverers and some of the settlers of the 
 Western Hemisphere were Italians and Spaniards, but 
 the discoveries and conquests made under the flag of 
 Spain are of very little concern to us. As the Bishop of 
 Iowa has aptly observed : " Our interest as a race and 
 as a nation centers in the discovery of the North Ameri- 
 can continent on June 24, St. John Baptist Day, 1497, 
 by Cabot sailing under the authority of King Henry 
 VII. of England. It is on the ground of this priority of 
 discovery of the continent that the English Crown and 
 
m 
 
 IHI" 
 
 anas WHY AMERICANS SHOULD BE EPISCOPALIANS. 
 
 Commonwealth based their claim to occupy the West. 
 It was in consequence of this discovery of the continent 
 by Cabot, and in pursuance of this asserted right to 
 people the land on which the cross of England's Church 
 had been first planted, and to which the arms of Eng- 
 land had been affixed by Cabot, that the great histori- 
 cal fact is due that we, the people of these United States, 
 are neither by discovery, by colonization, by civiliza- 
 tion, by race, by institution nor by faith, Spanish or 
 Koman. The Latin race and the Latin Church were 
 granted by Divine Providence the opportunities of 
 planting their colonies and attempting the conversion 
 of the Aborigines of the Western Hemisphere. God 
 willed it that in this Western World there should be wit- 
 nessed the struggle between the two races, the two 
 civilizations, the two ideas of liberty, the two faiths, 
 the one of the English Church and State, and the other 
 of the Latin people and belief. It is this struggle for a 
 continent which has determined our origin as a people, 
 the nature of our institutions, our civil and Ecclesias- 
 tical liberties, our common laws, our forms and features, 
 our very speech, our present standing and glory among 
 the nations of the earth, our civilization, our culture 
 and our Chnstianity.'^ 
 
 Since the memorable commemoration of the four 
 hundredth anniversary of the discoveries by Columbus, 
 Komanists have been assiduousl3^ claiming a large 
 share of the credit for the wonderful development of 
 this country. The unsophisticated would naturally 
 infer from what I^eo XIII. says in a recently published 
 encyclical, that Columbus and the Spaniards not 
 only discovered the North American Continent, but 
 also colonized, civilized, and created the United States. 
 The Pope, as one of his caustic newspaper critics points 
 out, seems to have forgotten that it was Englishmen 
 
 THE CHURCH OF OUR RACE. 
 
 363 
 
 and their descendants, mostly Protestants, who did all 
 this. The truth is that Columbus discovered only some 
 far-away islands of the West Indies and afterwards 
 made his way to a portion of South America ; but he 
 went to his grave believing the land he had seen to be 
 a part of Eastern Asia. The attempt of Leo to estab- 
 lish himself on a specially friendly footing among us on 
 the ground that the Spanish bravoes of South America 
 were Roman Catholics, heroes of the faith and Apostles 
 of Christian civilization, will strike the average Ameri- 
 can Protestant as a rather heavy Papal joke. Ameri- 
 cans are not all that they might be, but they have 
 common schools in which they learn a little of the ele- 
 mentary history of their country. If, therefore, Roman- 
 ists expect the rising generations to accept the dogma 
 of infallibility, they must either induce the Pope to 
 place our school histories on the '' Index of books which 
 Catholics are, at the peril of their souls, forbidden to 
 read," or to cease writing encyclicals in which reference 
 is made to historical subjects. 
 
 Think of it for a moment. This independent, repub- 
 lican, Protestant country, the fruit of Spanish enter- 
 prise and the Roman Catholic religion! Romanists 
 will find it hard to convince us of this. Indeed they 
 can never do it, so long as Mexico, and the Central and 
 South Americas are remembered. If there is one les- 
 son written in bold and unmistakable characters all 
 over the face of those countries, it is that Romanism 
 has not the power to create great, free, prosperous and 
 intelligent, or even moral nations. The Spanish and 
 Italian Peninsulas are themselves evidence of this. In 
 the words of Motley: "They have had a different his- 
 tory from that which records the career of France, 
 Prussia, the Dutch Commonwealth, the British Empire 
 and the Transatlantic Republic." The cause of this 
 
I 
 
 364 
 
 WHY AMERICANS SHOULD BE EPISCOPALIANS. 
 
 difference is pointed out by *' Janus" who was certainly 
 in a position to know whereof he spoke. There is, 
 says he, "a profound hatred at the bottom of the soul 
 of every genuine Ultramontane, of free institutions and 
 the whole constitutional system.'' He then proceeds 
 to make the truth of this statement manifest by the 
 most conclusive and varied evidence drawn from the 
 history of almost every European country. 
 
 We have not in this connection lost sight of the fact 
 that it is claimed, upon what on the surface seems to be 
 good ground, that the Romanists of Maryland were the 
 first to practice toleration in mattera of religion. Their 
 descendants of this generation make much of the stat- 
 ute which provides that "no person whatsoever within 
 this province [Maryland] professing to believe in Jesus 
 Christ, shall from henceforth be anyways troubled or 
 molested for his or her religion, nor in the free exercise 
 thereof, nor anyway compelled to the belief or exercise 
 of any other religion against his or her consent.'' This 
 with the statement of the historian, Bancroft, to the 
 effect that in Lord Baltimore's colony "religious liberty 
 obtained a home, its only home in the wide world," 
 formed the text and burden of the addresses at the 
 Roman Catholic Conference at Baltimore in 1889, and 
 ever since Romanists have quoted them upon almost 
 every occasion of a conversation with a Protestant. 
 
 Before proceeding to examine this claim in the light 
 of the facts in the case, let it be observed that, though 
 Maryland may have been the first to secure religious 
 toleration by legislation, she was not the only colony 
 to practice it. Mr. Bancroft whose complimentary re- 
 marks concerning them Romanists are naturally fond 
 of citing, also has something to say about the toler- 
 ance of the Episcopalians of Virginia : "I find no trace 
 of persecution in the earliest history of the colony." 
 
 THE CHURCH OF OUR RACE. 
 
 365 
 
 The following extract from Bishop Coleman's History 
 of the Church in America will show that no more can be 
 said of Maryland . ' ' Churchmen began very early to set- 
 tle in Maryland, so called in honor of Queen Henrietta 
 Maria, wife of Charles I. They came from Virginia, 
 some time prior to 1634, and made their homes on the 
 Isle of Kent, opposite what is now known as the city of 
 Annapolis. The Rev. Richard James, who had accom- 
 panied Sir George Calvert, the first Lord Baltimore, 
 before he became a Roman Catholic, was for a while 
 their minister. Not long afterwards, a Chapel was 
 erected at St. Mary's where lay Services were held. 
 These Church people suffered considerable indignity at 
 the hands of the Roman Cathohcs, against whom they 
 felt obliged to petition for redress. They styled them- 
 selves 'Protestant Catholics.' One complaint was 
 that a prominent Roman Catholic had stolen the key of 
 their Chapel and removed their books. He was made 
 to restore them, and pay a fine of five hundred pounds 
 of tobacco, to be applied to the support of the first 
 Clergyman who should arrive. Before a gi-eat while, 
 the proprietary government was overthrown, and 
 Protestants, with religious toleration, were in the 
 
 ascendency." 
 
 In regard to the pretension that Americans ow^e 
 their religious and civil liberties to Roman Catholics, 
 we desire in the interest of truth to make two or three 
 observations. To begin, the statute of which we hear 
 so much is not quite so liberal as might be supposed 
 from the extracts w hich Romanists so frequently quote. 
 The part that they always leave out runs as follows : 
 '*Any person or persons whatsoever that shall deny 
 our Saviour Jesus Christ to be the Son of God, or shall 
 deny the Holy Trinity, the Father, Son, and Holy 
 Ghost, or the Godhead of any of the three persons of 
 
IIIt 
 
 i i\ 
 
 
 366 
 
 WHY AMERICANS SHOCLD BE EPISCOPALIANS. 
 
 
 % 
 
 §' 1 
 
 the Holy Trinity or the unity of the Godhead, or shall 
 nse any reproachful words, speeches or lan^ages con- 
 cerning the Holy Trinity, or any of the three said Per- 
 sons thereof, shall be punished with death and confisca- 
 tion or forfeiture of all his or her land and goods to the 
 Lord Proprietor and his heirs." And, in quoting from 
 Mr. Bancroft they forget to mention what he says 
 about the composition of the legislative body which 
 passed the statute. He says: ''The Protestant Gov- 
 ernor, Stone, and his Council of six, composed equally 
 of Protestants and Catholics, and the representatives 
 of the people of Maryland, of whom five were Catholics, 
 at a general session of the Assembly, held in April, 
 1649, placed upon their statute book an act for the 
 religious freedom which by the unbroken usage of fif- 
 teen years had become sacred on their soil." In an- 
 other place he tells us that " the very great majority of 
 the Maryland people were Protestants." 
 
 Thus it looks very much as if the law were a Protes- 
 tant act for the toleration of Romanists instead of the 
 reverse, as they would have us believe. That this is the 
 correct view of the matter is rendered next to certain by 
 the fact that in a.d. 1048 William Stone, the Governor, 
 an ancestor of Bishop Stone, of Maryland, took the 
 following oath: "I will not molest, trouble or dis- 
 countenance any i)erson in this province professing to 
 believe in Jesus Christ, in particular no Roman Catho- 
 lic." "What does this signify," asks Bishop Coleman, 
 " but that the Roman Catholics were the tolerated and 
 protected?" 
 
 "That Roman Catholics," says Dr. McConnell in his 
 History of the American Episcopal Church, "should be 
 claimed as the champions of religious liberty in the 
 seventeenth century, seems suflSciently grotesque to the 
 student of history. The simple truth in the premises is 
 
 
 THE CHURCH OF OUR RACE. 
 
 367 
 
 this: The Calverts did believe and practice so; the 
 Roman Church did neither the one nor the other. The 
 settlers of Maryland were too glad to find safety to 
 think of persecution. Notthatthey would have done so 
 if they could. They should have, ungrudged, their meed 
 of praise; but they must not have all the praise. It 
 must not be forgotten that their new home was given 
 them by a Protestant king, with the hearty advice and 
 approval of a Protestant council, who in so doing 
 waived their own claims in the interest of their mis- 
 guided but still loved countrymen. They made the gift 
 with their eyes open. English Romanists were ut- 
 terly discredited as citizens. It was not alone nor chiefly 
 that their religion was abhorrent. By their own dec- 
 laration they took their political orders from an 
 enemy whom England could not then afford to despise. 
 Romanists in England meant servants to the Papacy 
 and agents of the King of Spain. Despite of this Prot- 
 testant Englishmen gave them that peaceful home in 
 Maryland, which had already been brutally refused 
 them by their French co-religionists in Newfoundland. 
 The founders were of those few in their day who were 
 Catholics rather than Romanists, and Englishmen be- 
 fore either. Such were the Calverts, a noble race with 
 few contemporaries and few^er descendants. They had 
 neither the will nor the power of intolerance. But they 
 laid no claim to toleration as a virtue. They simply 
 recognized existing facts. The first offer of persecution 
 by the Maryland colony would have brought such a 
 storm about them as would have swept them into the 
 ocean. Churchmen and Quakers, Papists and Puritans, 
 would have combined to exterminate the ingrat^s. 
 They were glad to leave England, and there is serious 
 reason to believe that they were not altogether sorry 
 to be three thousand miles farther away from Rome." 
 
368 
 
 WHY AMERICANS SHOULD BE EPISCOPALIANS. 
 
 ■ 
 
 No, we owe our liberty of conscience, civilization and 
 marvelous material prosperity to our English origin 
 and Protestant religion. This being the case, it seems 
 to be a clear indication of God's will that we should be 
 identified with the Church of the English-speaking race. 
 Neither the Roman Church nor any of the Denomina- 
 tions can establish a claim to the recognition and allegi- 
 ance of Americans upon the ground of being the Church 
 of our race. Romanism and Sectarianism were respec- 
 tively six hundi-ed and fifteen hundred years too late in 
 coming upon the scene. Whatever the Roman Catholics 
 in England may have to say about the Church of Eng- 
 land, they are unable to deny that their own organiza- 
 tion in that country is a new one. It has no succession 
 from pre-Reformation times. But the present Bishops 
 of the older Sees are historically and canonically the 
 successors of those who occupied them before the Refor- 
 mation back to the earliest days of Christianity. The 
 Archbishop of Canterbury was therefore right when 
 sometime ago he styled English Romanism the *'new 
 Italian Mission.'' Romanists at first were much ex- 
 asperated at an expression which so precisely defined 
 their true status. But one of their own number, the 
 Jesuit Father Humphreys, has since boldly avowed : 
 " We are a new Mission straight from Rome." On this 
 point at least, Anglican and Romans are now 
 agreed. An Archimandrite of the Greek Church, resid- 
 ing in England, says : " Roman Catholics, like ourselves 
 [Greek Catholics], are Nonconformists in these Isles. 
 The Ecclesiastical State Church of England we recognize 
 a& an important branch of the great Catholic Church." 
 
 Thus, whether we act, in the choice of a Church, with 
 reference to God's will, or regard to the future of our 
 race and civilization, we shall choose the Episcopal 
 Church rather than any other. 
 
 III. 
 
 A VALID MINISTRY, 
 
 WE should be induced to identify ourselves with 
 the Episcopal Church rather than with any 
 one of the Protestant Denominations, because 
 her ministry is more certainly authoritatively commis- 
 sioned. All agree that the validity of a minister's com- 
 mission must be considered. Some of the Denominations 
 of modern origin attach almost, if not quite, as much 
 importance to this matter as do Episcopalians and 
 other representatives of Historic Churches. We are at 
 unity in the agreement that no man with impunity can 
 take the great honor and assume the awful responsi- 
 bilities of representing Christ as a proclaimer of the 
 Gospel message and an administrator of the Gospel 
 Sacraments, unless he be divinely called thereto. But 
 we differ as to what constitutes this call which we agree 
 to be essential. A majority of our Denominational 
 brethren think that it consists exclusively in an inward, 
 spiritual call. The minority among them hold that to 
 thiscall must be added thelayingon of hands by Presby- 
 ters or elders. But not even the latter of these, though 
 inclusive of the former, is held to be a sufficient com- 
 mission by any of the branches of the Historic Church 
 of which the American Episcopal is one. Romans, 
 Greeks, Anglicans and other Catholic and Apostolic 
 Communions, comprising together about nine-tenths of 
 Christendom, insist that none are lawful ministers of 
 the Church of God unless they have received Ordination 
 by a Bishop who can trace his spiritual descent and 
 
 C. A.-24 (369) 
 
870 
 
 WHY AMERICANS SHOULD BE E1»ISC01»ALIAKS. 
 
 authority to the Apostles by an unbroken succession. 
 Nor are those who contend for the sufficiency of Presby- 
 terian ordination, able to advance and support any ar- 
 gument that is convincing to us, or reassuring to those 
 among themselves who have once become familiar with, 
 and disturbed by, the facts upon which our convictions 
 rest. 
 
 Our Bishops can show their connection with the 
 Apostles by at least three independent continuous an- 
 cestral lines, namely, that of Jerusalem, Rome and 
 Ephesus. And this they can do by almost innumerable 
 separate strands. Through St. Augustine, first Bishop 
 of Canterbury, St. Patrick, first Archbishop of Armagh, 
 and the British, Irish and Galilean Bishops, they are 
 connected with St. John and St. Paul ; through Arch- 
 bishop Theodore and several of his successors, with St, 
 Paul and St. Peter, and through St. David and the 
 Welsh Bishops, with St. James and the whole college of 
 Apostles. There is not a candid historian in all the 
 world who will question the continuity of the English 
 succession. Thus, in our Ordinations, nothing is want- 
 ing that either the representatives of modern Denomina- 
 tion alism or of the various branches of the ancient 
 Catholic and Apostolic Church deem essential. 
 
 In view of the fact that the whole of Christendom 
 held to the necessity of Episcopal Ordination during all 
 of the fifteen hundred years preceding the Reformation, 
 and that nine-tenths of the Christian world still hold it, 
 we could never be quite certain about the lawfulness of 
 the Orders of our ministry, if their possession depended 
 wholly upon the inward call, or upon the laying on of 
 hands by the Presbytery, or even upon both of these. 
 On the other hand, if w^e, who are in the great majority, 
 be wrong, and they, who are in the small minority, 
 right, there will still be no room for misgiving on our 
 
 SUPERIOR OPPORTUNITIES. 
 
 371 
 
 part. For if either the inward call or the laying on of 
 hands by Presbyters, or both of them together, be neces- 
 sary, the validity of the Ordination which our ministers 
 have received, cannot be doubted. They are obhged to 
 answer questions by responses which they could not 
 make if they were not fully persuaded of a Divine call to 
 preach the everlasting Gospel. It is moreover required 
 that at least two Presbyters shall be present to lay on 
 hands with the Bishop. If, therefore, a Church be 
 chosen with reference to the validitv of its ministrv, 
 there is none which can present a better claim than the 
 Episcopal Church. No ministry is more demonstrably 
 Scriptural and Apostolic than ours. 
 
 IV. 
 
 SUPERIOR OPPORTUNITIES, 
 
 NEXT to finding in history an external indication 
 of God's will as to our choice of a Church, we 
 should have also in view an environment con- 
 ducive to our growth in Christ4ikeness, and to the up- 
 building of ourselves in "the Faith once delivered to the 
 Saints." Indeed to be governed by these considerations 
 is only another way of obeying Him. For certainly it 
 is His will that we should be rooted and grounded in 
 the true doctrine of Christ and the Apostles, and that 
 we should grow into the full stature of Christian man- 
 hood and womanhood. The main object in life should 
 be the shaping of our conduct and the moulding of our 
 character by the precepts and example of our Lord 
 and Saviour. In this great work we require help in the 
 way of constant, eflScient teaching. In other words, we 
 must be in a good school of Christ. All Churches are, 
 
 'i 
 
 
a72 
 
 WHY AMERICANS SHOULD BE EPISG<)PAI«IAHS. 
 
 in one of their chief aspects, religions seminaries of 
 learning. And all persons who attend upon Divine 
 Services are students. 
 
 In respect to institutions for secular education, it is 
 well understood that there is a wide difference between 
 them, so far as equipment and efficiency are concerned. 
 Parents and students recognize this, and, when their 
 circumstances will permit, feel it their privilege and duty 
 to select the best. Now we hold that there is just as 
 much room, if not more, for preference in rehgious 
 schools. If in other respects the popular assertion: 
 "One Church is as good as another,'' be true, it cer- 
 tainly is not so concerning their teaching capabilities. 
 In this particular some are unquestionably better than 
 
 others. 
 
 The efficiency of a school depends upon four things : 
 The proficiency of the teachers, the course of study, 
 the text-books and the apparatus for illustrating and 
 impressing the truths that are taught. We believe that 
 even a cursory examination of the educational system 
 which prevails throughout the Anglican Communion, 
 will lead all candid Americans, who make choice of a 
 Church for the purpose of learning in the school of 
 Christ, to choose the Episcopal Church. Her ministers 
 or teachers will be found to l>e well qualified for their 
 work. Her course of study covers the whole ground. 
 Her text-books comprise not only the Holy Scriptures, 
 but also the Book of Common Prayer, which has no 
 equal for the light which it throws upon the Word of 
 God, and for the practical way in which it weaves its 
 teachings into our lives. Her ritual, festivals, and fasts 
 are so many impressive object lessons, tending at once 
 to systematize, emphasize and fix the oral teachings of 
 the Services and sermons. See how the most important 
 events of the Christian Dispensation and the doctrines 
 
 SUPERIOR OPPORTUNITIES. 
 
 373 
 
 which they teach pass under review from year to year 
 through the whole of our lives. 
 
 "Advent tells us Christ is near, 
 Christmas tells us Christ is here; 
 In Epiphany we trace 
 All the glory of His Grace. 
 
 "Those three Sundays before Lent 
 Will prepare us to repent, 
 That in Lent we may begin . 
 
 Earnestly to mourn for sin. 
 
 " Holy Week and Easter then 
 Tell who died and rose again, 
 O that happy Easter day, 
 Christ is risen again we say. 
 
 "Yes, and Christ ascended, too, 
 To prepare a place for you. 
 So we give Him special praise 
 After those great forty days. 
 
 "Then He sent the Holy Ghost 
 On the Day of Pentecost, 
 With us ever to abide. 
 Well may we keep Whitsuntide. 
 
 "Last of all we humbly sing 
 Glory to our God and King, 
 Glory to the One in Three 
 On the feast of Trinity." 
 
 But the doctrinal period from Advent to Trinity 
 covers only half of the course of sacred teaching pro- 
 vided for in the Prayer Book. After that we have six 
 months of practical instruction. In the words of the 
 Bishop of Ohio : " The Church gives us twenty-five Sun- 
 days of the Trinity season, in which the holy teachings 
 of our Lord are set forth. The first six months of the 
 year are occupied with the succinct narrative of His 
 earthly experience ; the next six months are filled with 
 

 WHY AMERICANS SHOULD BE EPISCOPALIANS. 
 
 the result of His holy instructions. Each Sunday has 
 its theme and topic ; and these are the fruits, the out- 
 growth of His own example. Faith, forgiveness, charity, 
 hope, perseverance, patience, these are some of the 
 sacred virtues illumined and set forth— the Christian 
 works, the Christian development, the Christian walk — 
 accentuated by the glowing words culled ft-om the 
 Bible, and grouped in order, to set forth the unmistak- 
 able rule of the Christian's daily life and conversation." 
 
 As a distinguished Congregational minister. Dr. 
 Thomas K. Beecher, says: **He, who for years has 
 been a Churchman, and remains ill-grounded in Scrip- 
 ture, shows himself to be an unworthy son of a very 
 faithful Mother. By the Lessons, Gospels, Epistles, 
 Psalms and Collects, appointed for special fast or feast 
 days, the events commemorated by that day are 
 wrought into the memory of every worshipper. And by 
 seasons, longer or shorter, of special religious effort 
 and observance, this Church satisfies the same want 
 which other churches satisfy by weeks of prayer, pro- 
 tracted meetings and long revivals. A good school is a 
 dull place to any visitor who rushes in to find sensation 
 and excitement. He will call it dry, poky, stupid. In 
 like manner, many religious sensation-makers and sen- 
 sation-seekers will promptly vote the Church calendar 
 and all its smooth machinery of pious drill, a very dull 
 substitute for a regular, rousing revival. But, in the 
 long run, the Church that steadily trains and teaches 
 will outlive the church that only arouses and startles. 
 * If ye continue in My word, then are ye My disciples 
 indeed.'" 
 
 The Rev. Dr. Hitchcock, in a paper read before the 
 last Pan-Presbyterian Conference, thus speaks of the 
 value of the Christian year and pleads for its restora- 
 tion : "I anticipate a revival of the old Christian year. 
 
 SUPERIOR OPrOUTUXITIES. 
 
 375 
 
 Clear back, close up to the Apostolic times, we find at 
 least the Passover, Pentecost and Epiphany. Christmas 
 appears not long after. And then the calendar was 
 crowded with festivals which disgusted our Protestant 
 fathers, bringing the w hole system into disrepute. As 
 between Puritans and Papists, we side, of course, with 
 the Puritan, but the older way is better than either. 
 Judaism had more than its weekly Sabbath, and Protes- 
 tant Christendom needs more, and is steadily taking 
 more. Christmas is leading this new procession. Good 
 P>iday, Easter and Whitsuntide are not far behind. 
 These, at least, can do us no harm. They emphasize the 
 three grand facts and features of our religion : Incar- 
 nation, Atonement, and Regeneration." 
 
 By comparison with the Episcopal Church, the Ro- 
 man educational system is unintelligible and supersti- 
 tious, and that of the Denominations is wanting in com- 
 prehensiveness and thoroughness. Rome gives too much 
 time to legends and traditions, and the Denominations 
 lay too great stress upon emotions and impulses. The 
 former system accepts the decrees of a Pope ; the latter 
 follows the idiosyncrasies of enthusiastic leaders. The 
 one tends to exaggerated dependence, the other to un- 
 bounded individualism. The one is petrifaction, the 
 other dissipation. The end of both must be a departure 
 farther and farther from the Catholic Faith. I am 
 not claiming that the Anglican or Episcopalian system 
 is faultless, but I insist that it is incomparably better 
 than either the Roman or Denominational. Besides, it 
 stands to reason that the Church which is entwined 
 with the entire history of our race, has in herself those 
 conservative elements and constructive forces which are 
 just what our national fabric requires. The Church's 
 superiority as a religious educator has all along at- 
 tracted many Americans to her fold, and will continue 
 
 \ 
 
I 'I. 
 
 ! 
 
 376 
 
 WHY AMERICANS SHOULD BE EPISCOPALIANS. 
 
 to do SO in increasing numbers as long as men and 
 women choose their Church relationship with reference 
 to the opportunity afforded to them for becoming 
 rooted and grounded in the Faith of the Gospel, and for 
 gTovving up in the full stature of Christian manhood 
 and womanhood. 
 
 Again, we claim that in the choice of a Church, it is 
 a duty to have regard to opportunities of usefulness to 
 your neighbor and to the world at large. The reasons 
 which would induce you to join the Episcopal Church, 
 on your own l)ehalf, are of equal force when you have in 
 view the good of others. For they, as well as you, have 
 need of building up in faith and character. If the 
 Church's system is best for you, it will likewise be so 
 for your family, for your neighbor, and for your coun- 
 trymen generally. This will appear more satisfactorily 
 if, after agreeing upon the principal religious needs of 
 our time and country, it can be shown that of all the 
 Christian bodies, the Episcopal is the best adapted to 
 meet them. There will be little, if any, dissent from the 
 affirmation that one of our greatest needs is such a 
 presentation of Christianity as will produce the highest 
 type of character. 
 
 We have already seen that the educational system 
 of the Episcopal Church is at least theoretically the 
 best. If our theory be true, it should be capable of 
 something approaching to practical demonstration, for 
 "By their fruits ye shall know them.'' But how shall 
 we, without comparisons which will be apparently un- 
 charitable, demonstrate our theory by the fruit of the 
 system? It will not do for us to be the judge, for so 
 our decision would be rejected as ])artial and biased. 
 We must, therefore, produce outside testimony. This is 
 
 SUPERIOR OPPORTUNITIES. 
 
 377 
 
 found in the most satisfactory directions imaginable. 
 Upon the whole, those who are placed by the suffrages 
 of the people in the most responsible and exalted public 
 offices, will be admitted to have been the picked men of 
 the country. This has not, of course, always been the 
 case, but the exceptions, it must be conceded, do not 
 disprove the general rule. If, then, we can make it clear 
 that an abnormal proportion of the most illustrious of 
 our public servants have been sons of the Episcopal 
 Church, our claim that she should be chosen because she 
 develops the type of character that the country stands 
 most in need of, will have been made good. 
 
 Now, it cannot altogether have escaped the atten- 
 tion of any who are in the habit of reading the obitu- 
 ary notices of distinguished personages, that many 
 of the public men who have died in the course of 
 the last ten or fifteen years, have been buried by our 
 Clergy and Service. Of course, this is no proof that the 
 deceased was a communicant of the Episcopal Church, 
 but it does prove that he was more or less closely con- 
 nected with her, or, at least, that she was his preference. 
 I am convinced, however, from personal investigation, 
 that inquiry would, in the majority of cases, establish 
 the fact that he was by birth, education, and life-long 
 association, a Churchman. 
 
 In September, 1886, 1 had occasion to make a mem- 
 orandum of the men who, in the course of the preceding 
 twelve months, had been added to the United States' 
 list of honored dead. It was as follows : Thomas A. 
 Hendricks, Vice President of the United States; George 
 B. McClellan, General^ and candidate for the Presidency; 
 Wm. H. Vanderbilt, the richest man the world had ever 
 known; W. S. Hancock, General, and candidate for 
 the Presidency; Horatio Seymour, twice Governor of 
 New York, also candidate for the Presidency; J. H. 
 
378 
 
 WHY AMERICANS SHOULD BE EPISCOPALIANS. 
 
 Devereux, General, and Kailway President ; David Davis, 
 Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court ; 
 S. J. Tilden, Governor of New York, and candidate for 
 the Presidency ; John W. Stevenson, Governor of Ken- 
 tucky, and United States Senator ; Rufus P. Spaulding, 
 Judge and Scholar. Of these, Tilden was the only one 
 whose obsequies were not performed by one of our Cler- 
 gymen, and he, Justice Davis and McClellan were the 
 only persons among these ten distinguished American 
 citizens who were not found, upon investigation, to 
 have been actual communicants of the Episcopal Church. 
 This showing is doubtless proportionately as true of 
 the other years back to Revolutionary and Colonial 
 times. 
 
 Bishop Perry, the learned and tireless Historiog- 
 rapher of the American Church, has thrown a great 
 deal of light upon the Church relationship of the great 
 heroes and statesmen, whose names will ever be house- 
 hold words with Americans, as, indeed, not a few of them 
 are with all lovers of liberty, and admirers of greatness 
 throughout the civilized world. It appears from his 
 investigations that, notwithstanding the prejudice 
 against the Episcopal Church, and the false charges as 
 to her patriotism in Colonial times, which charges have 
 been fully answered in another connection,* two-thirds 
 of the First Continental Congress held at Philadelphia 
 A.D. 1774, were Churchmen. The same proportion 
 obtained in the Congress which declared our independ- 
 ence. Of the fifty-five actual signers of the Declara- 
 tion of Independence, thirty-five were Episcopalians; 
 twelve, Congregationalists ; four, Presbyterians ; three, 
 Quakers; one was a Baptist, and one a Roman 
 Catholic. The Resolution offered in the Continental 
 Congress of a. d. 1776, declaring the thirteen colonies 
 
 ♦ {jecture V., Part III. 
 
 SUPERIOR OPPORTUNITIES. 
 
 379 
 
 
 free and independent, was moved by Richard Henry Lee, 
 of Virginia, an Episcopalian and a vestryman. The 
 Chairman of the Committee of Congress, to which this 
 resolution was referred, and by whom the declaration 
 was reported after its discussion, and adoption in " com- 
 mittee of the whole," was Benjamin Harrison, of Vir- 
 ginia, also a vestryman of the Episcopal Church. The 
 author of the Declaration itself, Thomas Jefferson, 
 of Virginia, although in later life regarded as a sceptic, 
 and cei-tainly holding and advocating views quite incon- 
 sistent with those accepted by any Christian body, had 
 been baptized and was a vestryman of the Church in 
 Virginia, and to the last of his hfe was a regular attend- 
 ant at her Services. 
 
 Of the twelve generals appointed by Washington 
 early in the war, eight were his fellow Episcopalians. It 
 is not too much to claim, indeed it was admitted by 
 the Puritan, Adams, that the issue of the struggle for 
 Independence, and the history of this country, would 
 in all probability have been very different but for these 
 illustrious Episcopalian patriots. The sons of the Epis- 
 copal Church were no less conspicuous and important in 
 the preservation of the Union when threatened by the 
 Confederacy. Seward, Chase, Stanton, Wells, Blair, 
 Dennison, Henry Winter Davis, Scott, Meade, Scofield, 
 Curtis, Hancock, Farragut, Porter, Waite, Columbus De- 
 lano, and many others of scarcely less distinction, were 
 Episcopalians. Nor will it at all weaken our argument, 
 so far as it concerns the superiority of the Church's edu- 
 cational system, if we call attention to the fact that the 
 leaders of the Confederacy were also Episcopalians. 
 This is true of Davis, I^ee, Toombs, Hill, Johnston, 
 Bishop Polk, Longstreet, Stuart and Wade Hampton. 
 True, these were not patriots from the standpoint 
 of Northerners, but Southerners regarded them as 
 
lit 
 
 I 
 
 380 
 
 WHY AMERICANS SHOULD BE EPISCOPALIANS. 
 
 such ; and OTdbtibtedly they would have taken first 
 rank with our heroes had their environment been the 
 
 same. 
 
 The late Bishop Robertson, of Missouri, a high au- 
 thority on American history, in his "Churchman's 
 Answer," says that those, who in this country have borne 
 rule and been representative men, have with a curious 
 unanimity come forth from those whose piety found its 
 best expression in the Prayer Book . Of the Continental 
 Congress from Peyton Randolph, the majority of its 
 Presidents were Episcopalians. Washington, and two- 
 thirds of the Presidents of the United States since his 
 day, have been Episcopahans. The same has been true 
 of three-fourths of all the Secretaries of State. The 
 most eminent and influential of all our Statesmen have 
 been the same: Franklin, Clinton, Jay, Morris, Living- 
 stone, Patrick Henry, Hoffman, Schuyler, Randolph, 
 Duane, Wirt, Cass, Clay, Benton, Webster. To say 
 that the same is true of the commanders of our army 
 and navy, w ould be to catalogue the names of almost 
 every one who has attained to eminence. The Chief 
 Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States 
 have, with but two exceptions, been Episcopahans. 
 
 Now, this is a very remarkable showing, especially 
 so when we consider that the Episcopal Church 
 ranks only seventh or eighth in point of numbers 
 among the religious bodies of the country, and that 
 both Romanists and Denominationalists, who together 
 must represent nine-tenths of our Christian population, 
 have always been deeply prejudiced against us. There 
 is, under the circumstances, only one satisfactory w ay 
 of accounting for this, namely, by admitting the truth 
 of our claim, that the Episcopal Church, having the best 
 system of religious education, is the best adapted to 
 produce that type of character of which the country 
 
 DOCTRINAL STABILITY. 
 
 381 
 
 stands most in need. Therefore, if a Church be chosen 
 with reference to the opportunities which it affords to 
 promote the good of others and of the country, it will 
 necessarily be the Episcopal. 
 
 V. 
 
 DOCTRINAL STABILITY. 
 
 THE English Church, having freed herself from the 
 Mediaeval errors, which were common to the 
 whole of Western Christendom, occupies now 
 the same doctrinal position that she did during the 
 first centuries of the Christian era. Since the Reforma- 
 tion she has remained immovably anchored by her in- 
 comparable Liturgy, to the Faith once delivered to the 
 Saints. This is not the case with Romanism or with 
 any of the forms of Denominationalism. 
 
 Rome has been adding to the Faith, the articles of 
 the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary and the 
 infallibility of the Pope, to say nothing of the numerous 
 decrees of the Council of Trent, the acceptance of which 
 is made necessary to salvation and to membership in 
 her communion. 
 
 No additions have been made to the faith originally 
 held by Denominationahsts, but it has been woefully 
 diminished. With the possible exception of the high 
 German Lutherans, between whom and Episcopalians 
 there is, aside from their Presbyterian government and 
 doctrine of Consubstantiation, so much in common, 
 all the chief Denominations have drifted far away from 
 their original moorings. It is impossible for any; but 
 the historian, to realize the extent to w^hich Denomina- 
 tionalists have been driven about by every wind of doc- 
 trine, and how many of them have made shipwreck of 
 
I 
 
 382 
 
 WHY AMERICANS SHOULD BE EPISCOPALIANS. 
 
 faith on the shoals of heresy, skepticism and indifference. 
 But those who have not the leisure or books to 
 familiarize themselves with the melancholy history of 
 non-Episcopal Protestantism in Germany, France, 
 England, Holland, the United States, and indeed all 
 countries without any exception, where it has taken 
 root, will perceive the truth of what we have said as 
 soon as their attention is called to the fact, that all the 
 divisions which have occurred since the Lutherans 
 went out from the Koman Church, and the Independents 
 from the Church of England, mark more or less wide 
 departures from the doctrine and discipline of the first 
 Dissenters. In the nature of things there would have 
 been no division without a difference, and no difference 
 resulting in a division without a departure from the 
 tenets of the earliest sectaries. From the standpoint 
 of the first sects, those who went out must have been in 
 each case heretics. Schism and heresy are inseparable. 
 Church history proves that the two invariably go hand 
 in hand. There may be error in doctrine without 
 separation, but not the latter without the former. This 
 being so, the reader will see at once that all the hun- 
 dreds of Denominations into which the first two or 
 three nop-Episcopal bodies have been multiplied, could 
 not have arisen without wide divergences from the doc- 
 trinal position of their sectarian forefathers. 
 
 Nor is there any reason for believing that the end is 
 yet. True the multiplication of sects is no longer en- 
 couraged and justified as it was until lately. On the 
 contrary, many of the choicest Christians of every name 
 are praying, working and hoping for reunion. But 
 nevertheless we now and then read of the organization 
 of a new Denomination. And, it must be remembered 
 that in reality all who are not identified with any form 
 of organized Christianity, because they think that they 
 
 DOCTRINAL STABILITY. 
 
 383 
 
 can be as good Christians outside the Church as in it, 
 are a church unto themselves. There can be no doubt 
 about it, these one-man churches are increasing at an 
 astounding rate. At the Keformation period every 
 man, woman and child in Christendom was identified 
 with some body of Christians, but now untold millions 
 are unattached. So numerous are the outsiders, espe- 
 cially in the United States, that if a man be asked con- 
 cerning his religious affiliations, no one is surprised if 
 he reply, "0 1 belong to the big church," from which 
 we are to understand that he is one of the unaffiliated 
 majority. And this church so called certainly has a 
 larger constituency and is growing more rapidly than 
 any other. Now the point I make is this— and certainly 
 there are none so obtuse as not to be able to see 
 it— that every man or woman having no Ecclesiastical 
 relationship, whose sympathies are with Protestantism, 
 is a witness to the departures, and very wide ones at 
 that, from the position occupied by the first Denomi- 
 nationalists. 
 
 The most cursory examination of the writings of 
 Luther, Calvin, and John Wesley will convince any can- 
 did mind that even those who now profess to be their 
 followers are not so at all. The evidence of this is found 
 in the fact that these illustrious Reformers held and 
 taught many of the very doctrines which are now said 
 to bar their professed spiritual descendants from the 
 Episcopal Church. They believed Episcopacy to be of 
 Divine appointment, or, at least, the best form of Eccle- 
 siastical government ; they held the doctrine of Baptis- 
 mal Begeneration ; they regarded Confirmation as a 
 Scriptural ordinance; and maintained that the Body 
 and Blood of Christ are spiritually, though reallj^ re- 
 ceived in the Holy Communion. It was upon the urgent 
 recommendation of Peter Martyr and Bucer, disciples 
 
384 
 
 WHY AMERICANS SHOULD BB EPISCOPALIANS. 
 
 of Luther and Calvin, that the Confession and Absolu- 
 tion were introduced into our Daily Morning and Even- 
 
 ing Prayer. . 
 
 And not only have Denominationalists departed 
 from their founders in respect to those points which 
 wwe originally held in common with the Church of Eng- 
 land, but they have, in many cases, renounced the doc- 
 trines which differentiated them from the Church. Take, 
 for example, the distinctive dogmas of Calvin. It is un- 
 questionable that during the la^t fifty years, Calvinistic 
 theology has been generally surrendered by the Bap- 
 tists, CongTegationalists, and even Presbyterians. And 
 yet so thoroughly was Congregationalism once identi- 
 fied with Calvinism, that in England, the Independent 
 Chapel is still sometimes called, in common parlance, the 
 '* Calvinistic meeting." If my memory serves me correctly, 
 it was at Chicago, on the floor of the Great Annual Pres- 
 byterian Assembly that a delegate, in speaking upon a 
 resolution providing for some change in the Confession of 
 Faith, electrified the vast assemblage by asserting that 
 there was not in all the Assembly a single minister who 
 believed in infant damnation. I believe the speaker was 
 not contradicted. Be it remembered, it was Calvin- 
 ism which "divided the English Church, and, indeed, 
 Protestant Christendom, into two hostile camps." 
 This system is now universally given up. After work- 
 ing endless mischief and estrangement, it has quietly 
 disappeared from the Evangelical Creed. And this 
 is to a great degree true of the distinguishing doc- 
 trines of Luther and Wesley, and, in fact, of all who 
 have originated divisions in the Body of Christ. So 
 that, strange as it may appear, those who call them- 
 selves by the names of sectaries, are not their followers, 
 either in the many doctrines which they held in com- 
 mon with the Church, or in a few wherein they diflered 
 
 DOCTRINAL STABILITY. 
 
 385 
 
 from her. The old Faith is still believed by countless 
 millions, but the new doctrines which were thought to 
 be of so great importance as to justify promulgation at 
 the expense of Christian unity, have, for the most part, 
 been repudiated, or at least neglected, even by the de- 
 scendants of those who separated from the Historic 
 Church, and banded themselves about their leader 
 in order that they might disseminate his peculiar 
 views. 
 
 Now I respectfully submit to the Denominational 
 reader that these and other changes of front constitute a 
 sufficient reason for an examination, if not an abandon- 
 ment, of your present position. The fact that you are 
 not in accord with the doctrinal eccentricities of your 
 fathers, while they were at unity with us touching the 
 doctrines and customs to which you object in the 
 Mother Church, should at least induce you to listen 
 patiently to any explanation that we have to offer. 
 "A part of the old Denominational platform has already 
 given way under your feet ; may it not well be suspected 
 that the rest is rickety and untenable? May it not be that 
 objections still entertained— as, for example, to Apostol- 
 ical succession, to Baptismal Regeneration, to Absolu- 
 tion, and the like, may turn out to be based on misunder- 
 standing and to be propped up by prejudice? You will 
 no doubt protest that this is impossible, but then your 
 forefathers would have protested just as loudly that 
 they could never be reconciled to the surplice, never 
 abandon the 'Five Points,' never tolerate Liturgical 
 forms. To Churchmen patiently looking on and pray- 
 ing that Christians may be one, it seems that /Mr. 
 Prejudice has fallen down and broken his leg,' and 
 they may not only wish with Bunyan ' that it had been 
 his head,' but may see in his unsteadiness ground for 
 hoping that that will come next. " 
 
 C. A.— 25 
 
WHY AMWIICAKS SH<WIJ) B» EPISCOPALIANS. 
 
 The Episcopal Chnrcfi is doctrinally the most con- 
 servative of all bodies of Christians. The fact that she 
 is known and spoken of as the via. media, the '* middle 
 way" between the extremes of Romanism and Prot^es- 
 tanti8m,in itself proves this. Whoever, therefore, in the 
 choice of his Church relationship has reference to un- 
 ehan^eableness of teaching, will identify himself with 
 some branch of the Anghcan Communion. 
 
 VL 
 
 CHRISTIAN UNITY. 
 
 « For hearts that have been long estranged, 
 And friends that have grown cold, 
 Shall meet again, like parted streams. 
 And mingle as of old ? " 
 
 AS a convert to Episcopacy, I have always thought 
 that one of the chief reasons for membership in 
 the Anghcan Communion rather than in any 
 other is the fact that she occupies the only gi-ound upon 
 which the greatest need of the Christian world. Unity, 
 
 can be satisfied. ^. .. , , 
 
 Of late years the subject of Christian Unity has been 
 receiving more and more attention, until now it may be 
 said to have become the ^^burning question " of theday. 
 Professor Fisher, of Yale College, a Congregational di- 
 vine clearly discerns the rising spirit of Church Unity, 
 when he says : *' The centrifugal age of Protestantism is 
 closed. The centripetal action has begun." The change 
 of thought in favor of a united, rather than a di- 
 vided Church cannot have escaped observation by any 
 except a few Ecclesiastical Rip Van Winkles. They 
 will wake up some of these fine days to the reahza- 
 tion of the fact that the old leaders of thought, 
 and the whole of the rising generation are regretting 
 
 CHRISTIAN UNITY. 
 
 387 
 
 and deprecating the evils of divisions and are talking, 
 working and praying for unity, and that they are stand- 
 ing alone as the champions of sectarianism. 
 
 Christian Unity is a thought which has been in the 
 hearts of many of the religious movements of the Nine- 
 teenth Century. The Irvingite movement, the Tracta- 
 rian and that which has developed into the Denomina- 
 tion of Plymouth Brethren, were all largely influenced 
 by it. The Evangelical Alliance, the Association for 
 promoting the Unity of Christendom, the Bonn Reunion 
 Conferences, and the Home Reunion Society, are all of 
 them fruits of the desire for unity taking diflerent forms. 
 The longing for reunion is now more than ever finding 
 expression in publications, in the organization of socie- 
 ties, in the official declarations of Churches and in the 
 institution of a day of intercession and instruction 
 which gives promise of general observance. By com- 
 mon consent the day fixed upon is Whitsun-Day. It 
 was first appointed in the year 1894, by the Archbishop 
 of Canterbury. In A. D. 1895, the League of Catholic 
 Unity, a society composed of very distinguished min- 
 isters representing several of the leading American 
 Denominations, joined the Primate of the Anglican 
 Communion in the request that on this day, annually, 
 prayers be offered, and sermons preached, on behalf of 
 organic Christian Union. 
 
 The reasons for fixing upon Whitsun-Day are obvi- 
 ous. It is the birthday of the One, Holy, Cathohc and 
 Apostolic Church of Christ. It was on Pentecost, fifty 
 days after Easter, and ten after the Ascension, w^hen the 
 Disciples were all with one accord in one place, that they 
 were baptized with the Holy Ghost, and endued with 
 that miraculous wisdom and power which enabled them 
 to carry out their Lord's plans and directions, by estab- 
 lishing and building up His Kingdom, in spite of every 
 
I 
 
 L) , 
 
 Iffl 
 
 I 
 
 388 
 
 WHY AMEKICAKS SHO0LD BE EPISCOPALIANS. 
 
 opposition, with marvelous rapidity. And after eight 
 hundred years of division between the Eastern and 
 Western Catholic Churches and three hundred years of 
 Denominationalism in the West, it has come to be real- 
 ized by Christians of every name that the world can 
 never he brought to Christ by a divided Church. " The 
 world," says Dr. Milligan, a Presbyt*^rian, "will never 
 be converted by a disunited Church." ** In our present 
 divided state," writes a veteran missionary, Dr. Alex- 
 ander Williamson, himself not a Churchman, "we will 
 never Christianize China— never ! " "When I asked," 
 says Bishop Selwyn, " one of the most remarkable of the 
 New Zealand chieftains why he refused to be a Christian, 
 he stretched out three fingers, and, pointing to the 
 center joint, said, 'I have come to a point from which I 
 see three roads branching. This is the Church of Eng- 
 land, this the Church of Rome, and this the Wesleyans. 
 I am sitting down here doubting which to take.'" 
 "And," adds the Bishop, "he sat doubting at that 
 * cross road ' until he died." The realization of our im- 
 potency is pressing upon the hearts and consciences of 
 multitudes of every name the question, how can unity be 
 restored ? It is my purpose to answer this inquiry in 
 part by trying to make it appear that the only' practi- 
 cable rallying point is on the ground occupied by the 
 American Episcopal Church. 
 
 At the consecration of Dr. Lawrence, Bishop of 
 Massachusetts, the celebrated Greek Archbishop of the 
 Apostolic See of Zante, said truly of us: "You are Prot- 
 estant, but you are Catholic. As Protestants, you com- 
 prehend all the other Protestant bodies, and, on the 
 other hand, you alone can draw the attention of the 
 Catholic Churches. Your Church, sister of the other 
 
 CHRISTIAN UNITY. 
 
 389 
 
 Protestant Churches, and sister of the other Catholic 
 Churches, is the center to which all the eminent pastors 
 of Christians will, in the future, cast their eyes, when, by 
 the grace of God, they shall decide to take steps for the 
 union of the Christian world into one Church with one 
 Pastor." The Archbishop is not alone in his opinion. 
 Count Joseph De Maistre, a distinguished Koman Cath- 
 olic, thought that if ever Christendom is to be reunited, 
 the movement must proceed from the Anglican Com- 
 munion. He recognized it as the only mediator who 
 can lay hands upon both parties; for, as he says, "with 
 one hand she touches us [Roman Catholics] and with the 
 other the Protestants." 
 
 It will be perfectly manifest to all who are familiar 
 with the Declaration of the House of Bishops at Chicago, 
 in A.D. 1886, and of the Pan-Anglican Conference of 
 Bishops at Lambeth Palace, London, in the year 1888, 
 and of the action of the General Convention at Balti- 
 more, in A.D. 1892, that any scheme of Christian unity 
 which cannot be consummated within the Hmits of the 
 ground now occupied by the American Episcopal Church, 
 must fail so far as includingthe great Anglican Commun- 
 ion of more than twenty million adherents is concerned. 
 
 As actual proof that it is possible for Christians of 
 every name to unite here in one organic body, let me 
 call attention to the notable fact that representatives 
 of all doctrinal and governmental views are now, and 
 long have been, standing upon this ground. We have 
 in this Church some who are, in respect to their views of 
 God's mercy, Arminians, Calvinists, and Universahsts. 
 The Roman, Zwinglian, and Lutheran doctrines of the 
 Sacraments have their advocates, or at least would be 
 tolerated among us. The same is true of the distinct- 
 ive doctrines of the Baptists, Methodists, Adventists, 
 Disciples, and others. Concerning the vexed question of 
 
mo 
 
 WHY AMERICANS SHOUM> BE EPISCOPALIANS. 
 
 Church govertitnent, we have H%h Episcopalians, Pres- 
 byterians, Congregationalists, and Indifferentists. There 
 is a sprinkling of those who advocate and practice an 
 extreme Ritualism, such as could scarcely be duplicated 
 in Koman usage, and others who, in spirit, and so far as 
 possible in practice, are severe Puritans. There are sub- 
 jectivists and externalists ; literalists and rationalists ; 
 the votaries of society and the recluse — all these schools 
 of doctrine, government, worship and conduct are now 
 actually to be found among both the Clergy and Laymen 
 of the Protestant Episcopal Church. 
 
 The comprehensive character of the Church is illus- 
 trated by almost all our Confirmation classes. A 
 majority of the adult candidates are usually pei-sons 
 who have grown up under other religious influences. I 
 have before me the account of a class of one hundred 
 and two candidates confirmed on Good Friday, a.d. 
 1894, in St. Andrew's Church, Harlem, New York. There 
 were fifty-seven Americans, twenty-one Germans, nine 
 Swedes, seven Irish and eight English. The class was 
 composed of twenty men, twenty-eight women, twenty- 
 $ix girls, and twenty-eight boys. Among these, seven 
 were married couples. Ten men and eighteen women 
 represented the heads of families. They were from the 
 following Christian bodies: the Church, 52; Roman 
 Catholic, 4; Universalist, 1 ; Lutheran, 9; Methodist, 
 14; Baptist, 5; Hebrew, 2; Quaker, 1; Dutch Re- 
 formed, 5; Presbyterian, 6; Congregational, 3. 
 
 The idea for which many of the Denominations stand, 
 finds recognition in the Episcopal Church. The Presby- 
 terian will find, upon investigation, that the authority 
 of the Presbytery is duly recognized in the government 
 of the Church and the Ordination of elders ; the Congre- 
 gationalist, that our parishes are sufficiently independ- 
 ent of each other, and that the Laity have enough to 
 
 CHRISTIAN UNITY. 
 
 391 
 
 say concerning Ecclesiastical affairs ; the Lutheran, that 
 the necessity of faith is taught; the Methodist, that 
 the Church in which John Wesley lived and died, lays a 
 great deal of stress upon conversion and sanctification ; 
 the Baptist, that he can immerse without let or hin- 
 drance, and that though Baptism is commenced in un- 
 conscious infancy, it is not completed until Confirma- 
 tion is received upon an intelligent confession of faith; 
 the Romanist, that the necessity of unity and Catholic- 
 ity is emphasized ; and so on through the whole list. 
 
 It appears, then, that almost any person, no matter 
 what his peculiarity of belief, can find room enough in 
 this Church, providing only that he sincerely accepts 
 the cardinal doctrines of the Catholic Creeds, grammat- 
 ically and historically interpreted, and will tolerate the 
 eccentricities and whims of others, who, like himself, be- 
 lieve that the salvation of the world depends upon some 
 little pet idea. If a man can make up his mind to live 
 and let live, he can ride into the Episcopal Church on 
 almost any hobby, and remain mounted without fear of 
 molestation during the remainder of life. Hobbyists 
 are never excluded from a truly comprehensive and Cath- 
 olic Church such as ours. They often exclude themselves 
 because they are too narrow, intolerant and self-willed 
 to remain where others, as well as they, have liberty. 
 
 But, notwithstanding all the apparently irreconcil- 
 able and conflicting elements to be found in the Epis- 
 copal Church, there is as much harmony and brotherly 
 love among us as in any one of all the bodies of Chris- 
 tians. The Rev. Dr. Shields, the Princeton Professor, 
 whose writings upon the subject of Church Unity have 
 p,ttracted so much attention, bears generous testimony 
 to the truth of this. He says: *' Differences w^hich 
 have elsewhere issued in sectarianism, are somehow re- 
 strained like balanced forces, or blended like discordant 
 
 I 
 
 

 392 
 
 WHY AMERICANS SHOULD BE EPISCOPALIANS. 
 
 i 
 
 harmony. Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Congre- 
 gationalists, in their relation as Denoininationahsts, 
 are in a chronic state of antagonism and irritation ; 
 but the very same Christians or others like them, in 
 their relations as Churchmen, holding to the unity of 
 the Church, simply lose all their sectarian rancor with- 
 out losing their distinctive beliefs. Denominational 
 variety is thus visibly made consistent with Church 
 Unity." 
 
 This remarkable unity, in spite of the widest divers- 
 ity, is accounted for by the fact, that we agree in rec- 
 ognizing the inherited Apostles' and Nicene Creeds as 
 containing the essentials of doctrine, from which there 
 can be no departure, and in allowing almost unbounded 
 liberty of opinion, respecting all matters, that are not 
 touched upon in these summaries of the ''Faith once 
 delivered to the Saints." It is also largely due, as 
 Professor Shields points out, to the fact that we have 
 the Historic Episcopate as a center of unity. **It is 
 not," says he, "a matter of speculation. We have be- 
 fore us all the while, the object lesson of a unifying 
 Episcopate." 
 
 There is, therefore, nothing which partakes of the 
 character of mere enthusiasm and experiment, much 
 less of bigotry, in our proposition that all Christians 
 should unite upon the ground now occupied by the 
 Protestant Episcopal Church. For, so far as this 
 Church is concerned, unity is impossible upon any other 
 ground, and, as for almost all other Christian bodies, it 
 is possible here. 
 
 But in showing that the Episcopal Church is des- 
 tined to become the all-embracing form of organized 
 Christianity in the United States, we may call attention 
 
 CHRISTIAN UNITY. 
 
 393 
 
 to the significant fact that she is already dominant in 
 our largest city, and is rapidly becoming so in all great 
 centers of population. In New York, the increase of 
 population in five years has been 15.38 per cent. The 
 increase of Church membership, all Churches except the 
 Episcopal, has been only 3.12 per cent., while including 
 the Episcopal, it has been 13.03 per cent. But the 
 increase of the Episcopal alone was 31.74 per cent., 
 double that of the population, and nearly treble that of 
 all the Protestant Denominations put together. 
 
 There can be no question that in the leading city of 
 the country, the Church is the most powerful of the re- 
 ligious forces. Leaving out of the list the Christian 
 bodies which represent current foreign immigration, and 
 her proportionate lead is even greater than it appears 
 from the following full list of houses of worship which 
 the various Denominations had respectively in the years 
 1871 and 1894: 
 
 Episcopalian 
 
 Presbyterian.. . . 
 
 Methodist 
 
 Roman CathoHc 
 
 Baptist 
 
 Jewish 
 
 Reformed Dutch 
 
 Lutheran 
 
 Congregational . 
 Universalist .... 
 
 Unitarian 
 
 Friends . / 
 
 Miscellaneous.. . 
 
 Totals.. 
 
 numbbr of 
 
 Churches 
 
 IN 1871. 
 
 74 
 
 51 
 
 60 
 
 40 
 
 30 
 
 25 
 
 20 
 
 15 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 4 
 
 3 
 
 18 
 
 340 
 
 Number op 
 
 Churches 
 
 IN 1894. 
 
 103 
 
 70 
 
 65 
 
 84 
 
 50 
 
 46 
 
 27 
 
 21 
 
 7 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 41 
 
 522 
 
 Now it will be admitted by the observing and reflect- 
 ing that our great cities exercise a moulding influence 
 
 ' I 
 
>i 
 
 
 894 
 
 WHY AMERICANS SHOULD BE EPISCOPALIANS. 
 
 over the inhabitants of illiall^r towns, villa^s and the 
 country. If, therefore, the Protestant Episcopal type of 
 religion prevails at the close of the nineteenth century 
 in New York, it is probable that by the close of the twen- 
 tieth century it will do so in all the other greater cities 
 —it does so now in Philadelphia— and that it will be the 
 dominant religion of the country in the course of time. 
 
 The history of the spread of Christianity plainly 
 teaches that no body of Christians which is losing 
 ground or falling behind in our great cities, however 
 prosperous it may be in smaller centers of population 
 and in the country, can possibly become the Church of 
 the Keconcilation to American Christians. In the 
 Roman Empire the inhabitants of the smaller towns, 
 villages and country were the last to give up their 
 heathen religion and to embrace Christianity. Long 
 after the Christian religion had been dominant in 
 Rome, Alexandria, Ephesus, Antioch and Constanti- 
 nople, the '' pagans" or, to translate the word, the *' in- 
 habitants of the country," continued in heathenism. 
 But in time Christianity became the religion of the 
 whole Empire. Hence we argue that, as the Protestant 
 Episcopal type of religion is now dominant in our 
 greater cities, when sufficient time has elapsed for his- 
 tory to repeat itself, this type will also prevail through- 
 out the United States. 
 
 Again, a strong argument in support of the claim 
 that our Savior's prophecy, "They shall l>ecome one* 
 flock and one Shepherd," will be realized in the Anglican 
 Communion, may be founded upon the fact that the Eng- 
 lish civilization seems destined to become universal, and 
 so the unifier of all thenations of theearth. Themarvel- 
 mm spread of the English language would seem abund- 
 
 CHRISTIAN UNITY. 
 
 395 
 
 antly to justify this assertion, extravagant as it may 
 appear at first sight. It is stated that within the 
 present century the number of those who spoke our 
 tongue at its beginning has been multiplied six times — 
 from 21,000,000 in the year 1800 to 126,000,000 in 
 A. D. 1894. French, in the same period, has not quite 
 doubled ; German, a little more than doubled ; Russia 
 keeps close pace with Germany, having risen from 
 30,000,000 to 70,000,000. Of the 162,000,000 people 
 who are estimated to have been using the seven leading 
 European languages in a. d. 1800, the English speakers 
 were less than 13 per cent., while the Spanish were 16, 
 the Germans, 18.4, the Russians, 18.9 and French, 19.6. 
 This aggregate population has now grown to 400,- 
 000,000 of which the English-speaking people num- 
 ber 126,000,000. From 13 per cent., we have ad- 
 vanced to 31 per cent. The French speech is now used 
 by 50,000,000 people; the German by about 70,000,- 
 000 ; the Spanish by 40,000,000 ; the Russian by 70,- 
 000,000; the Italian by about 30,000,000; and the 
 Portuguese by about 13,000,000. Thus the EngHsh 
 language is now used by nearly twice as many people 
 as any of the others. 
 
 In his history of the English People, Mr. Green fore- 
 casts the future of the race in these terms : *' Before half 
 a century is over, it will change the face of the w^orld. 
 As tw^o hundred millions of Englishmen fill the valley of 
 the Mississippi, as fifty millions assert their lordship 
 over Australia, their vast power will tell through Britain 
 on the old world of Europe, whose nations will have 
 shrunk into insignificance before it. What the issues of 
 such a wide-world change may be, not even the w ildest 
 day-dreamer will dare to dream. But one issue is inevi- 
 table. In the centuries that lie before us, the primacy 
 of the world w ill be with the English people. English 
 
r- 
 
 \l 
 
 m 
 
 -'W \ 
 
 396 
 
 WHY AMERICANS SHOULD BE EPISCOPALIANS. 
 
 instfttitions, Engtfeli speech, English thoughts will be- 
 come the main features of the political, the social, the 
 intellectual life of mankind." 
 
 Now we contend that the Anglican Communion will 
 always follow and keep up with the English language, 
 that in proportion as our civilization unifies the polit- 
 ical world, our Church will reunite divided Christendom 
 and Christianize heathenism. If it be asked why she, 
 rather than one of the English-speaking Denominations, 
 may aspire to become the Church of the Reconciliation, 
 the ready answer is found in the simple fact that she is 
 the Historic, the Catholic, the Mother Church of our 
 race. For, other things being equal, it is in the nature 
 of things that her children and grand-children should 
 gather around her rather than about any one of them- 
 selves. And how much more likely is this to be the case 
 when, as in this instance, the Mother has so many and 
 great advantages, as is evident from the fact that many 
 of her distinctive features, after having been long re- 
 jected by her wayward children, are now being com- 
 mended and adopted. The Church that has been 
 entwined about the very heart of the Anglo-Saxon 
 nation and that of all its colonies through their entire 
 history, is not likely to be abandoned at this late date 
 by such a conservative race as we are, for some one of 
 the many organizations of the last three hundred years, 
 none of which have taken any hold upon our people as a 
 whole. The Anglican Communion always has been, is 
 now, and ever will be, the dominant religious influence 
 with English-speaking people, and there is as much 
 reason for believing that in the course of time it will be- 
 come all-embracing aafor the belief that ultimately ours 
 will be the universal language. Certainly our civiliza- 
 tion cannot assume world-wide proportions without the 
 Church doing the same, for she is its foundation. 
 
 CHRISTIAN UNITY. 
 
 397 
 
 In a day when the divisions of Western Christendom 
 are almost universally deplored, and when those whose 
 ancestors went out from the Anglican Communion, rep- 
 resent the "Historic Episcopate " to be almost the only 
 thing which prevents them from returning to the fold 
 of the Mother Church, the fact that the great non-Epis- 
 copal Reformers and their co-laborers were Presbyte- 
 rians from necessity, not preference, should be more 
 generally known than it is. "Our Churches," writes a 
 distinguished Protestant teacher, "did not embrace 
 the Presbyterian discipline from dislike of Episcopacy, 
 or because it seemed to be opposed to the Gospel, or to 
 be less profitable to the Church, or less suitable to 
 the condition of the Lord's true fold, but because 
 they were compelled by necessity.'' Luther intended 
 simply a temporary departure from the Episcopal 
 regime. Calvin made application to the English Epis- 
 copate, and John Wesley to a Greek Bishop for Conse- 
 cration. 
 
 It is not improbable that some arrangement would 
 have been made for the granting of Calvin's request, 
 had his letter not fallen into the hands of unprincipled 
 sympathizers with Rome, who forged an insulting re- 
 jection of it. Says Archbishop Abbot : " Perusing some 
 papers of our predecessor, Matthew Parker, we find that 
 John Calvin and others, of the Protestant Churches 
 of Germany, and elsewhere, would have had Epis- 
 copacy, if permitted, but could not upon several 
 accounts; partly, fearing the other princes of the Ro- 
 man Catholic faith would have joined with the Emperor 
 and the rest of the Popish Bishops, to have depressed 
 the same; partly, being newly reformed, and not set- 
 tled, they had not sufficient wealth to support Episco- 
 pacy, by reason of their daily persecutions. Another, 
 and a main cause was, they would not have any Popish 
 
 jiill 
 
I 
 
 898 
 
 WHY AMERICANS SHOULD BE EPISCOPALIANS. 
 
 i'^ 
 
 111 
 
 hands laid over their Clergy. And, whereas John Calvin 
 had sent a letter in King Edward VI.'s reign, to have 
 conferred with the Clergj^ of England about somethings 
 to this effect, two Bishops, namely, Gardiner and Bonner, 
 intercepted the same, whereby Mr. Calvin's offerture 
 perished ; and he received an answer, as if it had been 
 from the reformed divines of those times, wherein they 
 checked him, and slighted his proposals. From which 
 time John Calvin and the Church of England were at 
 variance on several points, which otherwise, through 
 God's mercy, had been qualified, if those papers of his 
 proposals had been discovered imto the Queen's Majesty 
 during John Calvin's life. But being not discovered 
 until or about the sixth year of her Majesty's reign, her 
 Majesty much lamented they were not found sooner; 
 which she expressed before her Council at the same time, 
 in the presence of her great friends, Sir Heip Sidney 
 and Sir William Cecil." 
 
 It is also worthy of note that our Church m America 
 to-day stands with the authority of the Presbyterate 
 fully recognized, precisely as the English Presbyterians 
 of A. D. 1660 asked that it might be in the Church of Eng- 
 land, when they professed that they would be content 
 with the Anglican Episcopate, provided such place and 
 such authority were secured to the body of the Pres- 
 byterate. *an their celebrated manifesto favoring a 
 'moderate Episcopacy,' they acknowledge that this 
 was * agreeable to the Scriptures and the primitive gov- 
 ernment, and likeliest to be the way of a more univer- 
 sal concord, if ever the Churches on earth arrive at such 
 a blessing.' Their idea of a ^moderate Episcopacy' 
 was precisely that which has been restored in America, 
 namely. Episcopacy ^conjunct with synodical govern- 
 ment ; ' the Presbytery and the Laity being admitted 
 to synods." 
 
 CHRISTIAN UNITY. 
 
 S99 
 
 It is impossible in the light of the constant and uni- 
 formly consistent example and utterances of the Wes- 
 leys, to believe they ever intended their followers to 
 separate from the Church of England, or that John Wes- 
 ley intended to be understood as conveying Episcopal 
 authority upon Dr. Coke, when, by imposition of hands, 
 he set this Priest of the English Church apart for the 
 superin tendency of the Methodist Societies in America. 
 The Wesley brothers lived and died in the Communion 
 and Priesthood of the Church. That Charles Wesley 
 did this, has never been questioned, and that John 
 Wesley did so, is evident from his own reiterated state- 
 ment and deathbed prayer. In answer to his followers 
 who wanted to go out, and to his enemies who accused 
 him of meditating an exodus, he always replied to the 
 day of his death : *' I never had any design of separat- 
 ing from the Church. I have now no such design, and I 
 declare once more, that I live and die a member of the 
 Church of England, and that none who regard my judg- 
 ment or advice will ever separate from it." And when 
 his last hour came, he prayed : " We thank Thee, 
 Lord , for these and all Thy mercies. Bless the Church 
 and King. And grant us truth and peace, through 
 Jesus Christ our Lord forever and ever." We also 
 have the conclusive evidence afforded by the circular 
 letter addressed by the Methodist Conference to the 
 Societies, in which they say: *^Our venerable father, 
 who is gone to his great reward, lived and died a mem- 
 ber and a friend of the Church of England. His attach- 
 ment to it was so strong and so unshaken, that nothing 
 but irresistible necessity induced him to deviate from 
 it in anv dej^ree." 
 
 Methodists claim that Mr. Wesley intended to conse- 
 crate Dr. Coke, his brother in the Priesthood, a Bishop, 
 when he blessed him upon his departure to assume the 
 
 i :l 
 
1 ' 
 
 i j 
 
 400 
 
 WHY AMERICANS SHOULD BE EPISCOPALIANS. 
 
 direction of the American societies. But it is difficult 
 to reconcile this view with his words as quoted above, 
 or with his rebuke of Mr. Asbury, when he began to as- 
 sume the title and exercise the functions of a Bishop, 
 upon the ground of his ordination by Dr. Coke. " How 
 can you," said Mr. Wesley, ''how dare you suffer your- 
 self to be called a Bishop ? I shudder, I start at the 
 very thought ! Men may call me a knave or a fool, a 
 rascal, a scoundrel, and I am content ; but they shall 
 never, by my consent, call me Bishop. For my sake, 
 for God's sake, for Christ's sake, put a full end to this. 
 Let the Presbyterians do what they please, but let the 
 Methodists know their calHng better." 
 
 Even if it be granted that Wesley did intend to in- 
 vest Coke with the Episcopal character, it must be 
 admitted that he was the only person ordained to the 
 Episcopate by him, and that Francis Asbury was the 
 only so-called Bishop ordained by Coke. Methodist 
 Bishops must then trace their authority to Asbury, 
 whose Episcopacy was thus earnestly repudiated by the 
 founder of Methodism, and with it, of course, their own 
 pretensions to any office higher than the general super- 
 intendency which Asbury was permitted to retain. Nor 
 must we lose sight of the significant fact that, according 
 to Wesley's letter of instruction. Coke was sent to Amer- 
 ica to minister to persons " who adhered to the doctrine 
 and discipline of the Church of England." He was not 
 commissioned to found the Methodist Episcopal ('hurch. 
 It is said that there is not at this time a single descend- 
 ant of the Wesleys in any of the Methodist Communions. 
 Three grandsons of Charles Wesley have been Clergymen 
 of the Church of England. In this they are following 
 the precept and exampleof their distinguished ancestor. 
 
 From this it will appear that there is not a Lutheran, 
 or a Presbyterian, or a Methodist in the United States 
 
 CHRISTIAN UNITY. 
 
 401 
 
 who would not, if he followed the express preference of 
 the man whom he venerates as the founder and pillar 
 of his Denomination, find his way into the Episcopal 
 Church. The same also might be said of Congregation- 
 alists, for Brown who led them out, in his old age, 
 returned to the fold and ministry of the Church. " The 
 Baptist, Congregational and Methodist Churches could 
 construct no platform of Church Unity more Catholic, 
 practical and helpful than the Quadrilateral ; while the 
 Lutheran, Reformed and Presbyterian Churches could 
 adopt no other without largely ignoring their own 
 standards and history." 
 
 In conclusion, let me answer a practical question 
 which every one, who recognizes the evils of a divided 
 Church and desires to do the will of Christ, should ask 
 himself: " What can I do to bring about the visible 
 organic unity among Christians for which our blessed 
 Lord prayed, and upon which He makes the evangeliza- 
 tion and salvation of the world to depend? " 
 
 As you no doubt have anticipated, my answer to 
 this, the greatest question which a Christian of these 
 days can ask himself, so far as it relates to the sons and 
 daughters of the Protestant Episcopal Church, is : Pray 
 and work for the return of your brothers and sisters of 
 ever}^ Denomination to the Mother Church of the Eng- 
 lish-speaking race. And to those who are living in 
 separation from her, let me say: Study the claims of the 
 Mother Church upon you, and when you have become 
 convinced that they are superior to those of the Denom- 
 ination to which you belong, return without delay to 
 your ancestral home where a warm welcome awaits you. 
 Then others will follow your example, and others theirs, 
 and so on in increasing numbers, according to the law 
 
 C. A.~26 
 
MM 
 
 WHY AMERICANS SHOUtB BB UPISCOPALIANS. 
 
 of natural progression, until the way will be pre- 
 pared for the return of whole families of the Mother 
 Church's wayward children. It will be hard for you to 
 take the step. In many cases it will require much cour- 
 age and great sacrifices ; but— I speak from personal ex- 
 perience, and there are many others, some of whom are 
 to be found in almost every community, who will bear 
 witness to the same effect— when once you are within the 
 embrace of the dear Mother Church, there will be no re- 
 gret, but your satisfaction and happiness will find ex- 
 pression in the beautiful poem written by Bishop Coxe, 
 after he had taken the step which I am advising you 
 to take : 
 
 ••1 love the Church, the Holy Church, 
 The Saviour's spotless bride, 
 And O, I love her palaces, 
 
 Through all the world so wide. 
 
 "Unbroken is her lineage, 
 
 Her warrants clear as when 
 Thou, Saviour, didst go up on high, 
 And give good gifts to men. 
 
 "Here clothed in innocence they stand, 
 Thine Holy Orders three, 
 To rule and feed, Thy flock, O Christ, 
 And ever watch for Thee. 
 
 " I love the Church, the Holy Church, 
 That o*er our life presides, 
 The birth, the bridal and the grave, 
 And many an hour besides. 
 
 "Be mine through life to live in her. 
 And when the Lord shall call, 
 To die in her, the Spouse of Christ, 
 The Mother of us all." 
 
 The Church for Americans. 
 
 Appendices and Supplementary Articles. 
 
 I. LiGHTPOOT : Apostolic Origin of the Three- 
 fold Ministry. 
 
 II. Bishop Grisw^old on the Presbyterian Hy- 
 pothesis. 
 
 III. Washington a Communicant. 
 
 IV. Franklin an Episcopalian. 
 V. Jefferson an Episcopalian. 
 
 VI. The Constitution of the United States and 
 the Faith of Its Framers. 
 
 VII. Growth of the Episcopal Church. 
 VIII. Non-Episcopalian Encomiums on the Prayer 
 Book. 
 
 IX. John Wesley Always an Episcopalian. 
 X. Pope Pius IV. and the English Prayer Book. 
 XI. Greek Catholics and Anglican Orders. 
 XII. John Wesley on the Ministerial Office. 
 
 XIII. The Nine Hundred and Ninety-Nine Years' 
 Lease. 
 
 XIV. Continuity of the English Church Proved 
 »y the Uninterrupted Succession of Her Bishops. 
 
 (403) 
 
404 
 
 APPENDICES. 
 
 XV. The English Opifrch Did Not Secede from 
 
 Rome. 
 
 XVI. Harriet Beecher Stowe. 
 XVII. Henry Clay. 
 XVIII. Reformed Episcopalians. 
 XIX. Extempore Prayer and Experience Meetings. 
 XX. Vestments — A Layman on. 
 XXI. UaxVCIng, Card Playing and Theatre Going. 
 XXII. The Episcopal Church the Church of the 
 
 Poor. 
 
 XXIII. Fermented Commuhion Wine, Objection to, 
 
 Considered. 
 
 XXIV. The Declaration of Independence and the 
 
 Faith of Its Signers. 
 
 XXV. Perpetuity : An Additional Reason for Being 
 
 AN Episcopalian. 
 
 XXVI. New York : Statistics of the Chief Bodies 
 
 of Protestant Christians in 1895. 
 
 XXVII. Statistics of English Speaking Bodies op 
 Christians in the World. 
 XXVIII. Catholic 
 
 M.» 
 
 LIGHTFOOT: APOSTOLIC ORIGIN OF THE 
 THREEFOLD MINISTRY. 
 
 Lecture III; Page 184. 
 
 "^ I "HE following self-explanatory correspondence, which ap- 
 
 peared in the " Church Guardian," of Montreal, and was 
 
 republished in the "Living Church," of Chicago, will be of 
 
 interest to many : 
 
 LocKEPORT, N. S., March 1, 1887. 
 To THE Editor of the ' Church Guardian : ' 
 
 Sir : Having been shown a speech by a Presbyterian 
 minister, in which he claimed that Dr. Lightfoot, Bishop of 
 Durham, acknowledged that Presbyterian order was the rule 
 in Apostolic times, I wrote his Lordship, and received from 
 his chaplain the following reply, which may be of much service 
 in refuting the views imputed to the great orientalist, histo- 
 rian and commentator. S. G. 
 
 AuKLAND Castle. 
 The Rev. S. Gibbons. 
 
 Sir : The Bishop of Durham finds to his great regret that, 
 owing to the great pressure of work by which he is sur- 
 rounded, your letter respecting the Christian ministry has 
 remained unanswered. 
 
 The Bishop desires me to say that so far from establish- 
 ing as the fact that ' Presbyterianism was the first form of 
 Church government,' his essay goes to prove that Deacons 
 existed before Priests, and yet no one would contend that 
 Church government by Deacons was the ' first form,' hence the 
 writer's argument, based on priority of time, proves too much 
 for his taste. It is, however, generally allowed that the 
 names of Presbuteros and Episcopos in the New Testament 
 are sometimes synonymous, Acts, 20 : 17 ; I Peter, 5:1,2; I 
 Tim., 3 : 1-13, where the Apostle passes at once to Deacons 
 from Episcopos, Titus, 1 : 5, 7 ; but even in the times covered 
 
 (405) 
 
 i 
 
]■ 
 
 406 
 
 AWFMmncm. 
 
 %j tlie New Testament writings, we see in the lifetime of the 
 Apostles individuals singled out to preside over certain 
 Churches and to exercise powers of ordination, government 
 and presidency, as Titus at Crete, James at Jerusalem, Tim- 
 othy at Ephesus; and though the evidence is necessarily 
 limited, we find in Asia Minor Episcopacy pure and simple, 
 appointed and established, no doubt by the influence of St. 
 John, at the date of the Ignatian Epistles, and its institution 
 can be plainly traced as far back as the closing years of the 
 
 first century. 
 
 We see the threefold ministry traced to Apostolic direc- 
 tion, and this bears out the truth of our Prayer Book Preface 
 IK) the Ordinal, and is the belief of the Anglican community. 
 
 I regret that in a brief letter so much must be passed 
 ©ver ancTso inadequate an account be given of so interesting 
 and absorbing a subject. 
 
 But enough has been said to prove that the Presby- 
 terian's deduction from the Bishop of Durham's article is not 
 justified by the facts. Yours faithfully 
 
 J. R. Harmeb, Chaplain. 
 
 January 20, 1887. 
 
 II, 
 
 BISHOP GRISWOLD ON THE PRESBYTERIAN 
 
 HYPOTHESIS, 
 
 Ijgcture III; "Wmi^ 184. 
 
 **TT i» often affirmed but has never been proved, that the 
 -*■ ministers of Christ were, at first, all of one grade, 
 and that the Bishops usurped the authority, which, it is ac- 
 knowledged, they, in the early ages, possessed. But this is 
 absurd, and altogether incredible. It is absurd to suppose 
 that those, now called "Bishops, made such a change. Because, 
 if the government of the Church was left by the Apostles in 
 the hands of Presbyters, they, the Presbyters, must have made 
 the change. On this supposition, there were no Bishops to 
 abuse power ; the Presbyters usurped authority, and made the 
 change. If a thing so strange and so wicked was done at all, 
 
 THE PRESBYTERIAN HYPOTHESIS. 
 
 407 
 
 it was done by Presbyterians or Congregationalists. Those 
 who advance this position virtually say, that within one or two 
 centuries at most, after the government was put into their 
 hands, they all, in every country, agreed in changing it to what 
 Christ never intended. They certainly do very little honor to 
 that mode of Church government, by supposing it so defective 
 and inefficient as to be so soon relinquished. 
 
 " It must, too, be difficult for us to believe, that, in the first 
 three centuries, men should have been ambitious of the Episco- 
 pate, when its worldly advantages were so small, and its sacri- 
 fices and perils so great. Martyrdom in those ages might 
 almost be considered as annexed to a bishopric. The general 
 practice of the persecutor was to smite the shepherd, that the 
 sheep might be scattered; the Bishop was usually the first led 
 to tortures and to death. How can we, in reason, believe that 
 under such circumstances, so great a change should be made 
 in the "government of the Church ? that the holy martyrs of 
 that time, which truly ' tried men's souls,' should either attempt 
 or desire to alter the institutions of Christ ? And had such a 
 change by some Churches been attempted, it seems morally 
 impossible that it should have become general. And yet we 
 are sure from all ancient history, that Episcopacy was general 
 from a very early period down to the Reformation. During 
 the first fifteen centuries, it is not easy to name any one part of 
 Christianity, in which all Christians were more generally 
 united than in what we now call Episcopacy. Were we to 
 admit that so great and material a change was made in our 
 religion, without being recorded in history, we might well fear 
 that other great changes were also made; that even the Scrip- 
 tures were altered. If all the Churches would agree in cor- 
 rupting one part, why not in corrupting another part? In any 
 part of the first three centuries, it would have been as difficult 
 to produce such a change, as it would be in our day. And to 
 me, certainly such a change, so silent, so peaceable, and so 
 general, without opposition, or any historical record, is a moral 
 
 i 
 
>t 
 
 APPENDICES. 
 
 impossibility. SliouM there be any liere who think differently 
 on this point, they will not, I trust, regret having heard what 
 we think on a subject which so much concerns us all. Nothing 
 will tend more to unite Christians in love, than candidly hear- 
 ing from each other the hope that is in them. And, indeed, if 
 differing Denominations of Christians are ever brought to strive 
 together for the faith of the Gospel, it will be by their first 
 uniting in the government, whatever they may decide it to 
 be, which God has set in the Church." 
 
 WASHINGTON A COMMUNICANT. 
 liEcrruRE V ; Page 289. 
 
 TT is not clisptifed that Washfegton was an adherent of the 
 Episcopal Church and a regular and devout attendant upon 
 her Services, but the statement that he was also a Communi- 
 cant is sometimes questioned. In an interesting contribution 
 to the " Living Church " of June 29, 1895, the Rev. Wm. E. 
 Hooker settles this question. He says : " I have in my library 
 this volume, entitled* * Memoirs of Washington, by his 
 adopted son, George Washington Parke Custis.' There is as 
 well a memoir of the author, by his daughter, with notes by 
 Benson J. Lossing. The work was published in 1859. On 
 page 173, the writer speaks of Washington as a strict observer 
 of the Lord's Day, and of his habit of attending public wor- 
 ship ; of his respect for the Clergy; of his friendship for 
 Bishop White and Archbishop Carroll of the Roman See of 
 Baltimore. Then in a foot note, on the same page, is this state- 
 ment : * Washington was a member in full Communion of the 
 Protestant Episcopal Church and was for many years before 
 and after the Revolution, a vestryman in Truro parish, whose 
 Church, Pohick, built under his supervision, is yet standing.'" 
 " I have before me," he continues, " the original drawing of 
 
 WASHINGTON A COMMUNICANT. 
 
 409 
 
 the ground plan and elevation of that Church, made by Wash- 
 ington himself. He was also a Vestryman, previous to the 
 Revolution, in Fairfax parish, whose Church, wherein he 
 frequently worshipped, is yet standing in the city of Alex- 
 andria. While President of the United States and residing 
 in New York, he attended St. Paul's Church ; in Philadelphia, 
 Christ Church." " A member in full Communion " is merely 
 another way of designating a Communicant. And this state- 
 ment is unqualifiedly made by one of Washington's own 
 family, his son by adoption. Mr. Custis, himself a Church- 
 man, died in 1857. 
 
 To this weighty testimony cited by Mr. Hooker, may be 
 added a passage almost equally conclusive to which the late 
 learned Dr. Bolles calls attention in his » W^ashington, A 
 Centennial Discourse : " " In the twelfth volume of the writ- 
 ings of Washington, Sparks has a remarkable note as follows : 
 ' I shall here insert a letter written me by a lady who lived 
 twenty years ago in Washington's family, and who was his 
 adopted daughter and the granddaughter of Mrs. Washington. 
 The writer of this letter married Lawrence Lewis, the nephew 
 of Washington.' It is dated Woodlawn, February 26, 1833. 
 It is too long for reproduction in these notes. I give some 
 extracts from it, namely : * My mother resided two years at 
 Mount Vernon after her marriage. I have heard her say that 
 General Washington always received the Sacrament with my 
 grandmother before the Revolution.' " 
 
 The Honorable Mr. Sewall of New Hampshire said : " To 
 crown all his virtues he had the deepest sense of religion. He 
 was a constant attendant on public worship and a communicant 
 at the Lord's Table. I shall never forget the impression 
 made by seeing this leader of our hosts bending in this house 
 of prayer in humble adoration of the God of armies and the 
 Author of our salvation." 
 
 General Porterfield, his aid, testifies : " General Washing- 
 ton was a pious man, a member of the Episcopal Church. I 
 
ilO 
 
 Jii^PSVUICBS* 
 
 I 'ft! 
 
 ! 
 
 saw Mm myself oif ih lue^i f^i^f^ the Lord's Supper at 
 Philadelphia. As brigade inspector I often waited on Wash- 
 ington in the army, and going once, without warning, to his 
 headquarters, I found him on his knees at his morning devo- 
 tions. I was often in his company under very exciting cir- 
 cumstances, and never heard him swear or profane the name 
 of God in any way." 
 
 Major Popham, a Revolutionary officer much with Wash- 
 ington, testifies that, "he attended the same Church with 
 Washington during his Presidency, that the President often 
 communed, and that he had the privilege of kneeling and 
 communing with him." 
 
 Mr. Edward Everett in his famous oration on the " Life and 
 Character of Washington," says : " Washington was brought 
 up in the Episcopal Communion, and was a member of the 
 vestry of two Churches. He was at all times a regular attend- 
 ant upon public worship, and an occasional partaker of the 
 Communion." 
 
 The Honorable R. C. Winthrop, who was one of the orators 
 »t the laying of the corner stone of Washington's monument, 
 and also at its dedication, gives the following testimony : 
 ♦* True to his friends, true to his country and to himself ; fear- 
 ing God, believing in Christ, no stranger to private devotion, 
 or to the holiest offices of the Church to which he belonged; 
 but ever gratefully acknowledging a Divine aid and direction 
 in everything he attempted, and in everything he accom- 
 plished. What epithet, what attribute could be added to that 
 consummate character, to commend it as an example above 
 all other characters in human history ! " 
 
 The learned Historiogra])her of the American Episcopal 
 Church says : " That Washington was a communicant of the 
 Church previous to the war of the Revolution, admits of no 
 doubt, if any regard is to be paid to the testimony of numer- 
 ous witnesses who could not have been deceived. That he 
 was not a frequent or regular communicant after the War and 
 
 FRANKLIN AN EPISCOrALlAN. 
 
 411 
 
 while in public office, is equally certain, but the testimony 
 adduced by the celebrated Dr. Chapman, a distinguished 
 Clergyman of the Church, is conclusive as to his occasional 
 reception. Dr. Chapman's words are as follows : " From the 
 lips of a lady of undoubted veracity, yet living, and a worthy 
 communicant of the Church, I received the interesting fact 
 that soon after the close of the Revolutionary War she saw 
 him partake of the consecrated symbols of tlie Body and 
 Blood of Christ, in Trinity Church, in the city of New York." 
 " Major Popham's testimony ' that he believed without a 
 doubt that they both. President and Lady Washington, 
 received the Holy Communion' at St. Paul's, New York, 
 comes from one who had every possible opportunity to know 
 whereof he affirmed." 
 
 IV. 
 
 FRANKLIN AN EPISCOPALIAN. 
 
 Lecture V; Page 290. 
 
 TN a letter addressed to his daughter, under date of Novem- 
 ^ ber 8,» 1754, Dr. Benjamin Franklin writes: "Go con- 
 stantly to Church. The act of devotion in the Common 
 Prayer Book is your princi[)al business there, and, if properly 
 attended to, will do more towards amending the heart than 
 sermons generally do. I wish you would never miss the 
 prayer days." Bishop Coleman points out that "it was he 
 who, when the Convention of 1787, for framing the Federal 
 Constitution, had made but small progress in its business, 
 proposed that the Clergy of Philadel[)hia should be invited to 
 say prayers at the morning sessions of the Convention." 
 AJPter the Revolution, Franklin was at the pains of revising 
 the Prayer Book to suit tlie altered conditions and his own 
 ideas, which, to say the least, were somewhat eccentric. Our 
 
412 
 
 APPENDICES. 
 
 I- 
 
 r 
 
 !l 
 il 
 
 Historiographer says : " Bishop White had this work in his 
 hand when the * Proposed Book ' was in process of preparation 
 by the committee consisting of Provost Smith, of the Univer- 
 sity of Pennsylvania, William White and Charles H. Whar- 
 ton, the latter being the first convert from Romanism to the 
 faith of the American Church.** 
 
 V. 
 
 JEFFERSON AN EPISCOPALIAN. 
 Lecture V; Page 289. 
 
 A CORRESPONDENT of "The Churchman" recently 
 communicated to that paper the following extract from 
 Dr. John Stoughton's "History of Religion in England:" 
 " Bishop Wilberforce, in his * American Church,' p. 175, calls 
 him the * Deist Jefferson,' but I have before me an autograph 
 letter by Jefferson, dated August 10, 1823, in which, reply- 
 ing to some application for pecuniary aid, he says : 
 
 'The principle that every religious sect is to maintain its 
 own teachers and institutions is too reasonable, and too well 
 established in our country to need justification. I have been, 
 from my infancy, a member of the Episcopalian Church, and 
 to that I owe and make my contributions. Were I to go 
 beyond that limit in favor of any other sectarian Institution ' 
 I should be equally bound to do so for every other, and their 
 number is beyond the faculties of any individual. I believe, 
 therefore, that in this, as in every other case, everything will 
 be better conducted if left to those immediately interested. 
 On these grounds I trust that your candor will excuse my re- 
 turning the inclosed paper without my subscription ; and that 
 you will accept the assurance of my great personal respect and 
 esteem. ' Th. Jefferson.' " 
 
 The publication of this letter, says Bishop Perry, elicited 
 from the granddaughter of .lefferson, Sarah N. Randolph, who 
 was engaged in preparing a conr]:)lete edition of her ancestor's 
 works, a letter under darte of May 19, 1888, confirmatory of 
 
 THE CONSTITUTION. 
 
 413 
 
 the statement made in text. The closing paragraph of this 
 letter is as follows : 
 
 " It may interest you to know that I have Mr. Jefferson's 
 little pocket Prayer Book, which he used in his constant at- 
 tendance at the Episcopal Church, in Charlottesville. For a 
 long time, too, there was in the possession of my family a 
 little folding chair or camp stool of his own invention, so 
 made that it looked, when it closed, like a stout cane. This 
 he carried in hand, though on horseback, and used as his 
 seat in Church. Pardon this long letter with which I have 
 presumed to inflict a stranger, and believe me to be. 
 
 Yours respectfully, Sarah N. Randolph." 
 
 VI. 
 
 THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE 
 
 FAITH OF ITS FHAMERS. 
 
 Lecture V; Pages 278-292. 
 
 TN his little publication, "The Faith of the Framers of the 
 -■" Constitution of the United States," the Bishop of Iowa 
 gives a most interesting account of the Church relationship, 
 so far as it can be ascertained by the most painstaking investi- 
 gation, of those who in Convention assembled formed our ^ 
 Constitution and affixed their signatures to this all-important 
 national document. I give the result of Dr. Perry's investi- 
 gation without the proofs : 
 
 New Hampshire — John Langdon, Congregationalist ; 
 Nicholas Oilman, Congregationalist. 
 
 Massachusetts — Nathaniel Gorham, Congregationalist; 
 Rufus King, Episcopalian. 
 
 Connecticut — William Samuel Johnson, Episcopalian ; ' 
 Roger Sherman, Congregationalist. 
 
 New York — Alexander Hamilton, Episcopalian. 
 
 New Jersey — William Livingstone, Presbyterian ; David 
 Brearly, Episcopalian; William Patterson, Presbyterian; 
 Jonathan Dayton, Episcopalian. 
 
APPEKDICBS. 
 
 Pennsylvania — Benjamin Franklin, Episcopalian; Thomas 
 Mifflin, Episcopalian; Robert Morris, Episcopalian; George 
 Clymer, Episcopalian ; Thomas Fitzsimons, Roman Catholic ; 
 Jared Ingersoll, probably Episcopalian. His descendants are 
 Episcopalians, and have been so for several generations. 
 James Wilson, Episcopalian ; Gouverneur Morris, Episco- 
 palian. 
 
 Delaware — George Read, Episcopalian; Gunning Bed- 
 ford, Jr., Presbyterian ; John Dickinson, originally a Quaker, 
 but in later life inclined toward the Episcopal Church. He 
 was a liberal contributor to the funds of the Church Corpora- 
 tion for the relief of the widows and orphans of our Clergy. 
 Richard Bassett, originally an Episcopalian, but later in life a 
 Methodist ; Jacob Brown, Episcopalian. 
 
 Maryland — James McHenry, Presbyterian; Daniel of 
 Jenifer, Episcopalian ; Daniel Carroll, Roman Catholic. 
 
 Virginia — George Washington, Episcopalian ; John Blair, 
 Episcopalian ; James Madison, Jr., Episcopalian. 
 
 North Carolina — William Blount, Episcopalian ; Richard 
 D. Spright, Episcopalian ; Hugh Williamson, Presbyterian. 
 
 South Carolina — John Rutledge, Episcopalian; Charles 
 C. Pinckney, Episcopalian ; Charles Pinckney, Episcopalian ; 
 Pierce Butler, Episcopalian. 
 
 Georgia — William Few, Episcopalian; Abraham Bald- 
 win, Congregationalist. 
 
 This list, as Bishop Perry observes, shows that about two- 
 , thirds of those who framed and attested by their signatures 
 the Constitution of the United States, were connected with the 
 Episcopal Church. He gives the names of some ten or twelve 
 more or less distinguished members of the Convention who 
 were Episcopalians, but who, owing to necessary absence at 
 the time of the completion of the work, did not affix their sig- 
 natures to the Constitution. Surely it must be conceded that 
 the learned Bishop is right when he says : " No other religious 
 body in the land, if judged in the light of history, has any 
 claim to be compared with, or to be regarded as the American 
 Church."* 
 
 * See Appendix XXIV. 
 
 VII. 
 
 GROWTH OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 
 Lecture V; Page 304. 
 
 OUR growth during the ten years covered by the last 
 census, 1880-1890, has been indeed phenomenal as 
 will appear from the following tabulated statement of com- 
 municants : 
 
 1880 
 
 Alabama 
 
 Arkansas 
 
 California 
 
 Colorado 
 
 Connecticut 
 
 Dakotas (two) 
 
 Delaware 
 
 Florida 
 
 Georgia 
 
 Illinois 
 
 Indiana 
 
 Iowa 
 
 Kansas 
 
 Kentucky 
 
 Louisiana 
 
 Maine 
 
 Maryland and Dist. of Columbia 
 
 Massachusetts 
 
 Michigan 
 
 Minnesota 
 
 Mississippi 
 
 Missouri 
 
 Montana 
 
 Nebraska 
 
 Nevada 
 
 New Hampshire 
 
 3,955 
 
 1,010 
 
 4,323 
 
 1,758 
 
 20,953 
 
 1,746 
 
 2,026 
 
 1,789 
 
 4,536 
 
 11,320 
 
 3,830 
 
 4,203 
 
 2,187 
 
 4,295 
 
 3,782 
 
 2,170 
 
 23,573 
 
 18,076 
 
 10,749 
 
 5,243 
 
 2,386 
 
 5,413 
 
 575 
 
 1,926 
 
 315 
 
 2,066 
 
 1890 
 
 6,196 
 
 2,200 
 
 11,239 
 
 4,366 
 
 27,374 
 
 3,680 
 
 2,943 
 
 4,409 
 
 5,975 
 
 20,040 
 
 6,126 
 
 6,526 
 
 3,072 
 
 7,079 
 
 5,256 
 
 3,080 
 
 30,956 
 
 29,487 
 
 18,482 
 
 10,973 
 
 3,281 
 
 9,356 
 
 1,514 
 
 4,274 
 
 576 
 
 2,894 
 
 Per cent. of 
 iucrease. 
 
 56— 
 
 117-- 
 
 159— 
 
 154- - 
 
 30-- 
 
 110-- 
 
 45-- 
 
 146-- 
 
 31— 
 
 76-- 
 
 59— 
 
 55— 
 
 40-- 
 
 64-- 
 
 38— 
 
 41-- 
 
 31— 
 
 63— 
 
 71— 
 
 109-- 
 
 37— 
 
 72— 
 
 163— 
 
 121-- 
 
 82— 
 
 40-- 
 
 (415) 
 
i 
 
 416 
 
 APPJBNmCSS. 
 
 New Jersey . . . • . • - • •» • ..•••• • • • ■ • 
 
 New Mexico anil Arizona* 
 
 New York • 
 
 North Carolina 
 
 Ohio • • • 
 
 Oregon 
 
 Pennsylvania 
 
 Rhode Island • 
 
 South Carolina 
 
 Tennessee 
 
 Texas 
 
 Utah 
 
 Vermont 
 
 Virginia 
 
 Washington 
 
 West Virginia 
 
 Wisconsin 
 
 Wyoming and Idaho 
 
 « * • w » 
 
 1S80 
 
 16,632 
 176 
 87,364 
 5,836 
 11,693 
 737 
 89,251 
 6,821 
 4,686 
 3,500 
 4,388 
 385 
 3,488 
 13,951 
 839 
 1,945 
 7,133 
 371 
 
 29,821 
 
 696 
 
 131,437 
 
 8,410 
 
 18,057 
 2,265 
 
 58,875 
 
 10,388 
 5,737 
 6,044 
 7,379 
 767 
 4,244 
 
 19,042 
 2,585 
 8,109 
 
 10,609 
 1,733 
 
 Per cent. of 
 increase. 
 
 78-- 
 
 297-- 
 
 50-- 
 
 54-- 
 207- - 
 
 52-- 
 
 22+ 
 72— 
 68-- 
 yy 
 
 21-- 
 37- • 
 662-- 
 59-- 
 48-- 
 367-- 
 
 VIII. 
 
 NON-EPISCOPALIAN ENCOMIUMS ON THE 
 
 PRA YER BOOK. 
 
 Lecture VI; Page 318. 
 
 THE following passages bearing testimony to the unrivaled 
 excellency of the Book of Common Prayer, are collected 
 from the writings of representatives of nearly all the chief 
 bodies of Christians, or from what unbiased literary critics have 
 to say about our Liturgy. The first quotation shall be from 
 Taine's " History of English Literature." The author of this 
 famous work, by common consent the best upon the subject, 
 was, I suppose, a French Protestant. I give what he has to say 
 somewhat at length, because of his extracts from the Prayer 
 
 NON-EPISCOPALIAN ENCOMIUMS. 
 
 417 
 
 Book which will enable those not acquainted with it, to form 
 something of an independent estimation of its merits. 
 
 "This Prayer Book is an admirable book, in which the 
 full spirit of the Reformation breathes out, where, beside 
 the moving tenderness of the Gospel, and the manly ac- 
 cents of the Bible, throb the profound emotion, the grave 
 eloquence, the noble-mindedness, the restrained enthusiasm of 
 the heroic and poetic souls who had rediscovered Christianity, 
 and had passed near the fire of martyrdom. * Almighty and 
 most merciful Father, we have erred and strayed from Thy 
 ways like lost sheep. We have followed too much the de- 
 vices and desires of our own hearts. We have offended against 
 Thy holy laws. We have left undone those things which we 
 ought to have done ; and we have done those things which we 
 ought not to have done ; and there is no health in us. But 
 Thou, O Lord, have mercy upon us, miserable offenders. 
 Spare Thou them, O God, which confess their faults. Restore 
 Thou them that are penitent, according to Thy promises de- 
 clared unto mankind in Christ Jesus our Lord. And grant, O 
 most merciful Father, for His sake, that we may hereafter live 
 a godly, righteous, and sober life.' * Almighty and everlasting 
 God, who hatest nothing that Thou hast made, and dost forgive 
 the sins of all them that are penitent, create and make in us 
 new and contrite hearts, that we worthily lamenting our sins, 
 and acknowledging our wretchedness, may obtain of Thee, the 
 God of all mercy, perfect remission and forgiveness.' The 
 same idea of sin, repentance, and moral renovation continually 
 recurs ; the master-thought is always that of the heart humbled 
 before invisible justice, and only imploring His grace in order 
 to obtain His relief. Such a state of mind ennobles man, and 
 introduces a sort of impassioned gravity in all the important 
 actions of his life. Listen to the Liturgy of the deathbed, of 
 Baptism, of marriage ; the latter first : * Wilt thou have this 
 woman to thy wedded wife, to live together after God's 
 ordinance, in the holy estate of Matrimony? Wilt thou love 
 
 C. A.-27 
 
\ 
 
 1 1 
 
 ii 
 
 418 
 
 AiTENDICteS. 
 
 i'\ 
 
 hmw, comfort her, honor, and keep her in sickness and in 
 health ; and, forsaking all other, keep thee only unto her, so 
 long as ye both shall live?' These are genuine, honest, and 
 conscientious words. No mystic languor, here or elsewhere. 
 This religion is not made for women who dream, yearn, and 
 sigh, but^'for men who examine themselves, act and have confi- 
 dence, confidence in some one more just than themselves. When 
 a man is sick, and his flesh is weak, the Priest comes to him, 
 and says : ' Dearly beloved, know this that Almighty God is 
 the Lord of life and death, and of all things to them pertaining, 
 as youth, strength, health, age, weakness and sickness. Where- 
 fore, whatsoever your sickness is, know you certainly, that it 
 is God's visitation. And for what cause soever this sickness 
 is sent unto you ; whether it be to try your patience for the 
 example of others, or else it be sent unto you to correct 
 and amend in you whatsoever doth offend the eyes of your 
 heavenly Father ; know you certainly, that if you truly repent 
 von of yoftf siiis, and bear your sickness patiently, trusting 
 ill Cbd's mercy, submitting yourself wholly unto His will, 
 it shall turn to your profit, and help you forward in the 
 right way that leadeth unto everlasting life.' A great mys- 
 terious sentiment, a sort of sublime epic, void of images, 
 shows darkly amid these probings of the conscience ; I mean 
 a glimpse of the Divine government and of the invisible world, 
 the only existences, the only realities, in spite of bodily ap- 
 pearances and of the brute chance, which seems to jumble all 
 things together. Man sees this beyond at distant intervals, 
 and raises himself out of his mire, as though he had suddenly 
 breathed a pure and strengthening atmosphere." 
 
 The "North British Review," a Scottish Presbyterian 
 periodical, contained an article some time ago from which this 
 is quoted : " The Liturgy is the choicest selection of what has 
 proved to be best during a long lapse of time. Its Litanies 
 and its Collects are the fruit of the most sublime piety, and 
 the noblest gifts of language, tested by long sustained trial. 
 
 NON-EPISCOPALIAN ENCOMIUMS. 
 
 419 
 
 No single generation could have created, or could replace the 
 Liturgy. It is the accumulation of the treasures with which 
 the most diversified experience, the most fervent devotion, 
 and the most exalted genius, have enriched the worship of 
 prayer and praise during fifteen hundred years. Who, then, 
 can overestimate its influence in perpetuating the sacred fire 
 of Christian love and Christian faith among a whole people, or 
 exaggerate its power in conserving the pure and Apostolic 
 type of Christian worship." 
 
 Dr. Doddridge, an English Independent divine and ex- 
 positor says of the Prayer Book : " The language is so plain 
 as to be level to the capacity of the meanest, and yet the 
 sense is so noble as to raise the capacity of the highest." 
 
 Rev. Albert Barnes, the great commentator among American 
 Presbyterians, says : " We have always thought that there are 
 Christian minds and hearts that would find more edification 
 in the forms of worship in that Church than in any other. 
 We have never doubted that many of the purest flames of 
 devotion that rise from the earth, ascend from the Altars of the 
 Episcopal Church, and that many of the purest spirits that the 
 earth contains, minister at those Altars and breathe forth their 
 prayers and praises in language consecrated by the use of 
 piety for centuries." 
 
 Another Presbyterian, Professor Shields, of Princeton 
 TJniversity, writes : " The English Liturgy, next to the Eng- 
 lish Bible, is the most wonderful product of the Reformation. 
 The very fortunes of the book are the romance of history. 
 As we trace its development, its rubrics seem dyed in the 
 blood of martyrs ; its offices echo with polemic phrases ; 
 its canticles mingle with the battle-cries of armed sects and 
 factions ; and its successive revisions mark the career of dy- 
 nasties, states and Churches. Cavalier, Covenanter and Pur- 
 itan have crossed their swords over it ; scholars and soldiers, 
 statesmen and Churchmen, kings and commoners, lipve united 
 in defending it. England, Germany, Geneva, Scotland, 
 
rnl 'i 
 
 .11 ll 
 
 I ill 
 
 APPENDICES. 
 
 America, have, by turns, been the scene of its conflicts. Far 
 beyond the little island which was its birthplace, its influence 
 has been silently spreading in connection with great political 
 and religious changes, generation after generation, from land 
 to land, even where its name was never heard. At first sight, 
 indeed, the importance which this book has acquired, may 
 seem quite beyond its merits, as the Bible itself might appear, 
 lo a superficial observer, a mere idol of bigotry and prejudice. 
 But the explanation is in both cases somewhat the same. It 
 is to be found in the fact that the Prayer Book, like the Sacred 
 Caoon, is no merely individual production, nor even purely 
 liuman work, but an accumulation of choice writings, partly 
 Divine, partly human, expressing the religious mind of the 
 whole ancient and modern world, as enunciated by Prophets 
 and Apostles, Saints and Martyrs, and formulated by councils, 
 synods and conferences, all seeking heavenly light and guid- 
 ance. Judaism has given to it its Lessons and Psalter ; Chris- 
 tianity has added its Epistles and Gospels ; Catholicism has 
 followed with its Canticles, Creeds and Collects ; and Protes- 
 tantism has completed it with its Exhortations, Confessions and 
 Thankscrivings. At the same time, each leading phase of the 
 Keformation has been impressed upon its composite materials. 
 Lutheranism has molded its Ritual ; Calvinism has framed its 
 Doctrine ; Episcopalianism has dominated both Ritual and 
 Doctrine ; whilst Presbyterianism has subjected each to thor- 
 ough revision. And the whole has been rendered into the 
 pure Enirlish and with the sacred fervor peculiar to the 
 earnest age in which it arose ; has been wrought into a system 
 adapted to all classes of men, through all the vicissitudes of 
 life, and has been tested and hallowed by three centunes of 
 trial in every quarter of the globe. It would be strange if a 
 work which thus has its roots in the whole Church of the past, 
 should not be sending forth its branches into the whole Church 
 of the future ; and anyone who will take the pains to study 
 iip present adaptations, whatever may have been his preju- 
 
 NON-EPISCOPALIAN ENCOMIUMS. 
 
 421 
 
 dices, must admit that there is no other extant formulary 
 which is so well fitted to become the rallying- point and stand- 
 ard of modern Christendom. In it are to be found the means, 
 possibly the germs, of a just reorganization of Protestantism, 
 as well as an ultimate reconciliation with the true Catholicism, 
 such a Catholicism as shall have shed everything sectarian and 
 national, and retained only what is common to the whole 
 Church of Christ in alt ages and countries. Whilst to the 
 true Protestant it offers Evangelical doctrine, worship and 
 unity, on the terms of the Reformation, it still preserves, for 
 the true Catholic, the choicest formulas of antiquity, and to 
 all Christians of every name opens a liturgical system at once 
 Scriptural and reasonable, doctrinal and devotional, learned 
 and vernacular, artistic and spiritual. It is not too much to 
 say that were the problem given, to frame out of the imper- 
 fectly organized and sectarian Christianity of our times a 
 liturgical model for the Communion of Saints in the one uni- 
 versal Church, the result might be expressed in some such 
 compilation as the English Book of Common Prayer." 
 
 Some of the Methodists pronounced the Prayer Book Serv- 
 ices to be "chaff" and so incapable of sustaining spiritual 
 life. These received this contradiction and rebuke from John 
 Wesley: "The prayers of the Church are not 'chaff ;' they are 
 substantial food for any who are alive unto God." In his pref- 
 ace to the " Sunday Service for the Methodists in America " 
 which is simply an abridgment of the Prayer Book for con- 
 venient use in missionary fields, he says : " I believe there is 
 no Liturgy in the world, either in ancient or modern language, 
 which breathes more of solid, spiritual, rational piety than the 
 Common Prayer of the Church of England." Elsewhere he 
 says : " I hold all the doctrines of the Church of England. I 
 love her Liturgy." 
 
 Dr. Adam Clarke, the most learned commentator among 
 Wesley's followers, says : " It is the greatest effort of the Re- 
 formation, next to the translation of the Scriptures into the 
 
%^ 
 
 422 
 
 APPENDICES. 
 
 English language. As a foTm of devotion it has no equal in 
 any part of the Universal Church of God. It is founded on 
 those doctrines which contain the sum and essence of Chris- 
 tianity, and speaks the language of the sublimest piety, and of 
 the most refined devotional feeling. Next to the Bible it is 
 the book of my understanding and of my heart." 
 
 Dr. Watson, another choice spirit of Methodism, the well- . 
 known author of the Theological Institutes, said : " Such a 
 Liturgy makes the Service of God's house appear more like the 
 business of the Loid's Day ; and besides the aid it affords to the 
 most devout and spiritual, a great body of Evangelical truth 
 is, by constant use, laid up in the minds of children and igno- 
 rant people who, when at length they begin to pray under a 
 religious concern, are already furnished with suitable, sancti- 
 fying, solemn and impressive petitions. Persons well ac- 
 quainted with the Liturgy are certainly in a state of important 
 preparation for the labors of a preachei%^d their piety 
 often takes a richer and more sober char^^r from that cir- 
 cumstance." 
 
 Robert Hall, ope of tie Brightest lights that ever shone 
 among the Baptists, and one that would have been bright in 
 any firmament, confesses that " the Evangelical purity of the 
 Prayer Book, the chastened fervor of its devotions, and the 
 majestic simplicity of its language, have combined to place 
 it in the very first rank of uninspired compositions." 
 
 The following is from the memoirs of the learned Congre- 
 gationalist, Professor Phelps : " The Liturgy of the Episcopal 
 Church has become very precious to me. The depth of its 
 meaning, it seems to me, nobody can fathom who has not ex- 
 perienced some great sorrow. We have lost much in parting 
 with the prayers of the old Mother Church ; and what have we 
 gained in their place? I do not feel in extemporaneous prayer 
 the deep undertone of devotion which rings out from the old 
 Collects of the Church like the sound of ancient bells. I longed 
 for, and prayed for, and worst of all, waited for, some sublime 
 
 NON-EPISCOPALIAN ENCOMIUMS. 
 
 423 
 
 and revolutionary change of heart ; and what that was, as a 
 fact on a child's experience, I have not the remotest idea. If 
 I had been trained in the Episcopal Church, I should at the 
 time have been confirmed, and entered upon a consciously 
 religious life, and grown up into Christian living of the Epis- 
 copal type." ,>^ 
 
 This is the te5^lm)ny of another gifted Congregation- 
 alist of this couj^Kffy, the Rev. Thomas K. Beecher : " The Epis- 
 copal Churpb offers for our use the most venerable Liturgy in 
 the English tongue. The devotional treasures of the Roman 
 Catholic Church are embalmed and buried in Latin. But in 
 English there are no Lessons, Gospels, Psalms, Collects, Con- 
 fessions, Thanksgivings, Prayers — in one word, no religious 
 form book that can stand a njoment in comparison with the 
 Prayer Book of the Episcopal Church in the two-fold quality 
 of richness and age. The proper name, because truly descrip- 
 tive, for this Church would be the Church of the Prayer Book. 
 As is the way with all other Churches, so here, the Church 
 champions and leaders have many wise things to say about the 
 Church and her prerogative. But the pious multitudes that 
 frequent her courts are drawn thither mostly by love of the 
 prayers and praises, the Litanies and Lessons of the Prayer 
 Book. And, brethren of every name, I certify that you rarely 
 hear in any Church a prayer spoken in English that is not in- 
 debted to the Prayer Book for some of its choicest periods. 
 And further, I doubt whether life has in store for any of you 
 an uplift so high, or downfall so deep, but that you can find 
 company for your soul and fitting words for your lips among 
 the treasures of this Book of Common Prayer. ' In all time 
 of our tribulation ; in all time of our prosperity; in the hour of 
 death and in the day of judgment. Good Lord deliver us.' 
 No transient observer can adequately value this treasure of a 
 birthright Churchman ; to be using to-day the self-same 
 words that have through the centuries declared the faith, or 
 made known the prayer, of that mighty multitude, who, * being 
 
 ' 
 
ii 
 
 mi 
 
 t;,[l 
 
 424 
 
 APPENDICES. 
 
 It 
 
 •il 
 
 now delivered from the burden of flesh, are in joy and felicity;' 
 to be baptized in early infancy and never to know a time 
 when we were not recognized and welcome among the mil- 
 lions who have entered by the same door ; to be confirmed in 
 due time in a faith that has sustained a noble army of con- 
 fessors, approving its worth through persecutions and pros- 
 perities, a strength to the tried and a chastening to the 
 worldly-minded ; to be married by an authority before which 
 kings and peasants bow alike, asking benediction upon the 
 covenant that, without respect of persons, binds by the same 
 words of duty the highest and the lowest ; to bring our new- 
 born children as we were brought, to begin where we began, 
 and to grow up to fill our places ; to die in the faith, and al- 
 most hear the Gospel words soon to be spoken over one's own 
 grave as over the thousand times ten thousand of those who 
 have slept in Jesus. In short, to be a devout and consistent 
 Churchman, brings a man through aisles fragrant with holy 
 association, and accompanied by a long procession of the good, 
 chanting, as they march, a unison of piety and hope until they 
 come to the holy place where shining Saints sing the new song 
 of the redeemed. And they sing with them." 
 
 The distinguished brother of the author of the above 
 eulogium, Henry Ward Beecher, was quite as enthusiastic in 
 his praise of our form of worship. He wrote thus in a letter 
 from Scotland after attending a Church Service : " The serv- 
 ices began. You know my mother was, until her marriage, 
 in the Communion of the Episcopal Church. This thought 
 hardly left me, while I sat, grateful for the privilege of wor- 
 shipping God through a Service that had expressed so often 
 her devotions. I cannot tell you how much I was affected. 
 I had never had such a trance of worship, and I shall never 
 have such another view until I gain the gate. I am so 
 ignorant of the Church Service that I cannot tell the various 
 parts by their right names ; but the parts which most affected 
 me were the prayers and responses which the choir sang. I 
 
 NON-EPISCOPALIAN ENCOMIUMS. 
 
 425 
 
 had never heard any part of a supplication — a direct prayer 
 sung by a choir — and it seemed as though I heard not 
 with my ear, but with my soul. I was dissolved, my whole 
 being seemed to me like an incense wafted gratefully towards 
 God. The Divine Presence rose before me in wondrous 
 majesty, but of ineffable gentleness and goodness. Through- 
 out the Service, and it was an hour and a quarter long, 
 whenever an Amen occurred, it was given by the choir, 
 accompanied by the organ and the congregation. Oh, that 
 swell and solemn cadence yet rings in my ear. Not once, 
 not a single time, did it occur in that Service without bringing 
 tears from my eyes. I stood like a shrub in a spring morning, 
 every leaf covered with dew, and every breeze shook down 
 some drops. I trembled so much at times, that I was obliged 
 to sit down. Oh, when in the prayers, breathed forth in strains 
 of sweet, simple, solemn music, the love of Christ was recog- 
 nized, how I longed then to give utterance to what that love 
 seemed to me. There was a moment in which the heavens 
 seemed opened to me, and I saw the glory of God ! All the 
 earth seemed to me a storehouse of images, made to set forth 
 the Redeemer, and I could scarcely keep still from crying 
 out." No wonder that Mr. Beecher before his death ar- 
 ranged with an Ej)iscopal Clergyman to oflSciate at his funeral, 
 using the Church's Burial Service. The marvel is that both 
 he and his scarcely less brilliant brother did not, like therr 
 sister, Harriet Beecher Stowe, find their way back to the 
 Church of their maternal ancestors. 
 
 Want of space compels us to conclude these quotations 
 with an extract from one of Mr. Edmund Clarence Stedman's 
 lectures on Poetry, delivered at Johns Hopkins University and 
 published in the " Century Magazine." Mr. Stedman stands in 
 the front rank of living poets and critics. He is not a mem- 
 ber of the Church, but few if any of her sons have a higher 
 appreciation of her worship than he, and I know of none who 
 have spoken more eloquently of it. " Let me refer," says he, 
 
It 
 
 i 
 
 ill! 
 
 ! I 
 
 «**o a single illtistTBlifiii of the creative faith of the poet. For 
 centuries all that was great in the art and poetry of Christen- 
 dom grew out of that faith. What seems to me its most poetic, 
 as ivell as the most enduring, written product is not, as you 
 migllt suppose, the masterpiece of a single mind — the ' Divina 
 Comedia,' for instance — but the outcome of centuries, the 
 expression of many human souls, even of various peoples and 
 races. Upon its literary and constructive side I regard the 
 venerable Liturgy of the historic Christian Church as one of 
 Hie few worid-poems, the poems universal. I care not which 
 of the Rituals you follow, the Oriental, the Alexandrian, the 
 Latin, or the Anglican. The latter, that of an Episcopal 
 Prayer Book, is a version familiar to you of what seems to me 
 the most wonderful symphonic idealization of human faith — 
 certainly the most inclusive, blending in harmonic succession 
 all the cries and longings and laudations of the universal 
 human heart invoking a Paternal Creator. I am riot here con- 
 sidering this Liturgy as Divine, though much of it is derived 
 from what multitudes accept for revelation. I have in mind 
 its human quality ; the mystic tide of human hope, imagina- 
 tion, prayer, sorrows, and passionate expression, upon which 
 it bears the worshipper along, and wherewith it has sustained 
 men's souls with conceptions of duty and immortality through- 
 out hundreds, yes, thousands of undoubting years. The 
 Orient and the Occident have enriched it with their finest and 
 itrongest utterances, have worked it over and over, have 
 itricken from it what was against the consistency of its import 
 and beauty. It has been a growth, an exhalation, an apoc- 
 alyptic cloud 'arisen with the prayers of the Saints,' from 
 climes of the Hebrew, the Greek, the Roman, the Goth, to 
 spread in time over half the world. It is the voice of human 
 brotherhood, the blended voice of rich and poor, old and 
 young, the wise and simple. This being its nature, and as 
 the crowning masterpiece of faith, you find that in various and 
 constructive beauty — as a work of poetic art — it is unparal- 
 
 NON-EPISCOPALIAN ENCOMIUMS. 
 
 427 
 
 leled. It is lyrical from first to last with perfect harmonious 
 forms of human speech. Its chants and anthems, its songs 
 of praise and hope and sorrow have allied to themselves 
 impressive music from the originative and immemorial past, 
 and the enthralling strains of its inheritors. Its prayers are 
 not only * for all sorts and conditions of men,' but for every 
 
 stress of life which mankind must feel in common in the 
 
 household, or isolated, or in tribal or national effort, and in 
 calamity and repentance and thanksgiving. Its wisdom is 
 forever old and perpetually new ; its calendar celebrates all 
 seasons of the rolling year; its narrative is of the sim])lest, 
 the most pathetic, the most rapturous, and most ennobliiiir 
 life the world has known. There is no malefactor so wretched, 
 no just man so perfect, as not to find his hope, his consolation, 
 his lesson in this poem of poems. I have called it lyrical ; it 
 is dramatic in structure and effect ; it is an epic of the age of 
 faith ; but, in fact, as a piece of inclusive literature, it has no 
 counterpart, and can have no successor." 
 
 But it may be asked, if the Book of Common Prayer con- 
 tains a form of worship so superior to the extempore use 
 which prevails with Protestants, how is it that this superiority 
 is appreciated by comparatively so few among us? We 
 answer this question by asking another. Why is it that in 
 the world of art the vast majority are not able to distinguish 
 the inferior from the superior, and in nine cases out of ten 
 prefer a trifling ditty to an oratorio, a daub to a masterpiece, 
 or a doggerel to a poem? It is simply because their educa- 
 tion is deficient. 
 
 " There must be, in ordinary circumstances," writes one 
 who came to the Episcopal Church from Presbyterianism, 
 " not only a taste, but an educated and cultivated taste, to 
 appreciate beauty in a landscape, grace in a statue, refinement 
 in manners, elegance in literature, force in eloquence, melody 
 
428 
 
 APPENDICES. 
 
 
 in music, purity in morals, and, to come to the point in hand, 
 perfection in worship. Time, or opportunity, at least, must be 
 allowed to correct and adapt the taste. It is impossible to 
 rise at a bound from the impression that the sermon is the 
 summnm bomim for which we turn our feet towards the 
 sanctuary, into the feeling — not new, I apprehend, to the 
 heart of the veriest worldling among the Episcopalians — that 
 when we ' go within thy gates, O Zion,' it is to worship God. 
 It is not possible, from the heavy, dull commonplaces of an 
 extemporaneous prayer, which it is enough to have heard once, 
 to rise, by a single effort, to the dignity of a Liturgy, which, 
 to be adequately admired, must be heard a thousand times. 
 It is impossible to settle down, from the fitful, feverish and 
 momentary flights of the revival and the camp-ground into 
 the chastened and life -long fervor of the incomparable 
 
 Liturgy." 
 
 Moreover, but for inherited prejudices, many would recog- 
 nize the superiority and appreciate the beauties of the Prayer 
 Book, who now inveigh against it. A curious illustration of 
 the force of prejudice is related of the parishioners of the 
 famous Bishop Bull, who, during the Commonwealth, when 
 the use of the Liturgy was prohibited, committed to memory 
 the various Services of the Prayer Book, and made them the 
 channel of the public devotions of the people in the parish of 
 which he was then minister. " The consequence of which was," 
 says the biographer; "that they who were most prejudiced 
 against the Liturgy did not scruple to commend Bishop Bull 
 as a person that prayed by the Spirit, though at the same time 
 they railed at the Common Prayer as a beggarly element, and 
 as a carnal performance." 
 
 IX. 
 
 JOHN WESLEY ALWAYS AN EPISCOPALIAN. 
 
 Lecture VII; Page 205. 
 
 TN order to feel the force of the following quotations from 
 '*" Mr. Wesley's works, it will be necessary to bear in mind 
 that he was born in the year 1703 and that he died a. d. 1791, 
 at the extreme old age of 88 years. The extracts from his 
 writings cover the latter half of his life, the first being passed 
 over because it is never claimed that he was anything except 
 a Churchman during the earlier part of his career. 
 
 1746 : " I dare not renounce Communion with the Church 
 of England. As a minister I teach her doctrines ; I use her 
 offices ; I conform to her Rubrics ; I suffer reproach for my 
 attachment to her. As a private member, I hold her doctrines; 
 I join in her offices, in prayer, in hearing, in communicat- 
 ing." Vol. VIII, p. 444. 
 
 1747 : " We continually exhort all who attend on our 
 preaching, to attend the offices of the Church. And they do 
 pay a more regular attendance there than they ever did be- 
 fore." Vol. VIII, p. 488. 
 
 1755: "We began reading together — *A Gentleman's 
 Reasons for His Dissent from the Church of England.' It is 
 an elaborate and lively tract, and contains the strength of the 
 cause ; but it did not yield us one proof that it is lawful for us, 
 much less our duty, to separate from it." Vol. II, p. 328. 
 
 1758 : In this year Mr. Wesley wrote his " Reasons Against 
 a Separation from the Church of England ; " and in writing to 
 Miss Bishop in 1778, he says : " These reasons were never yet 
 answered and I believe they never will." The Rev. Charles 
 Wesley says of this tract : " I think myself bound in duty to add 
 my testimony to my brother's. His twelve reasons against 
 our ever separating from the Church of England are mine also. 
 I subscribe to them with all my heart. My affection for the 
 
 (429) 
 
I 
 
 430 
 
 APPENDICES. 
 
 JOHK WESLEY ALWAYS AN EPISCOPALIAN. 
 
 431 
 
 ii 
 
 t:!|i' 
 
 Church is as strong as ever ; and I clearly see my calling, which 
 is to live and die in her Communion. This, therefore, I am de- 
 termined to do, the Lord being my helper." Vol. XIII, p. 199. 
 
 1759 : " I received much comfort at the old Church in the 
 morning, and at St. Thomas' in the afternoon. It was as if 
 both the sermons were made for me. I pity those who can 
 find no good at Clmrch ! But how should they, if prejudice 
 come between them? An effectual bar to the Grace of God." 
 Vol. II, p. 478. "I had appointed to preach at seven in the 
 evening at Bradford, but when I came, I found Mr. Hart was 
 to preach at six, so I delayed till the Church Service was 
 ended, that there might not appear on my part, at least, even 
 the shadow of opposition between us." Vol. II, p. 516. 
 
 1761 : " We had a long stage from hence to Swadale, where 
 I found an earnest, loving, simple [)eople, whom I likewise ex- 
 horted not to leave the Church, though they had not the best 
 of ministers." Vol. Ill, p. 61. 
 
 1763: "I then related what I had done since I came to 
 Norwich first, and what I would do for the time to come, par- 
 ticularly that I would immediately put a stop to preaching in 
 the time of Church Service." Vol. Ill, p. 152. 
 
 1766 : " I see clearer and clearer none will keep to us, 
 unless they keep to the Church. Whoever separates from the 
 Church separates from the Methodists." Vol. Ill, p. 260. 
 
 1767: "I rode to Yarmouth, and found the Society, after 
 
 the example of Mr. W p, had entirely left the Church. I 
 
 judged it needful to speak largely upon that head. They 
 stood reproved, and resolved, one and all, to go to it again." 
 Vol. Ill, p. 272. 
 
 1768 : " I advise all, over whom I have any influence, 
 steadily to keep to the Church." Vol. Ill, p. 337. 
 
 1770 : •• We liad a poor sermon at Church. However, I 
 went again in the afternoon, remembering the words of Mr. 
 Philip Henry: ' If the preacher does not know his duty, I bless 
 God that I know mine.' " Vol. Ill, p. 401. 
 
 1772 : " I attended the Church of England Service in the 
 morning, and that of the Kirk in the afternoon. Truly, * no 
 man having drunk old wine, ^raightway desireth new.' How 
 dull and dry the latter appeared to me, who had been accus- 
 tomed to the former." Vol. Ill, p. 463. 
 
 Ill 
 
 1775 : "Understanding that almost all the Methodists, by 
 
 the advice of Mr. , had left the Church, I earnestly 
 
 exhorted them to return to it." Vol. IV, p. 64. 
 
 1777: "They, the Methodists, have read the writings of 
 the most eminent pleaders for separation, both in the last and 
 present century. They have spent several days in a General 
 Conference upon this very question : 'Is it expedient, sup- 
 posing, not granting, that it is lawful, to separate from the 
 Established Church*?' But still they could see no sufficient 
 cause to depart from their first resolution. So that their fixed 
 purpose is, let the Clergy or Laity use them well or ill, by the 
 grace of God, to endure all things, to hold on their even 
 course." Vol. VII, p. 428. 
 
 1778: "The original Methodists were all of the Church of 
 England, and the more awakened they were, the more zeal- 
 ously they adhered to it in every point, both of doctrine and 
 discipline. Hence we inserted in the very first Rules of our 
 Society: *They that leave the Church leave us.' And this we 
 did, not as a point of prudence, but a point of conscience." 
 Vol. XIII, p. 134. "I believe one reason why God is pleased 
 to continue my life so long is, to confirm them in their present 
 purpose, not to separate from the Church." Vol. VII, p. 278. 
 "I dare not separate from the Church; I believe it would be 
 a sin so to do; I have been true to my profession from 1730 to 
 this day." Vol. VII, p. 279. 
 
 1785: "Finding that a report had been spread abroad that 
 I was just going to leave the Church, to satisfy those that 
 were grieved concerning it, I openly declared in the even- 
 ing that I had now no more thought of sejiarating from the 
 Church, than I had forty years ago." Vol. IV, p. 320. 
 
 1786: "Whenever there is any Church Service, I do not 
 approve of any appointment the same hour; because I love the 
 Church of England, and would assist, not oppose it, all I can." 
 Vol. XIII, p. 55. [This is taken from a letter to the Rev. Free- 
 born Garretson, of the Methodist Society in America, and 
 clearly shows that in no instance did he suffer anything to be 
 done to oppose the Church of England, whether in the States 
 or at home.] 
 
 1787 : " I went over to Deptford, but it seemed I was got 
 into a den of lions. ' Most of the leading men of the Society 
 were mad for separating from the Church. I endeavored to 
 
432 
 
 APPENDICES. 
 
 I , 
 
 reason with tbem, but in vain ; they had neither sense nor even 
 good manners left. At length, after meeting the whole So- 
 ciety, I told them : *If you are resolved you may have your 
 service in Church hours ; but remember, from that time you 
 will see my face no more.' This struck deep, and from that 
 hour I have heard no more of separating from the Church." 
 Vol. IV, p. 357. "Few of them, those who separated, as- 
 signed the unholiness of either the Clergy or Laity as the cause 
 of their separation. And if any did so, it did not appear that 
 they themselves were a jot better than those they separated 
 from." Vol. VII, p.. 183. 
 
 1788: "This is the peculiar glory of the people called 
 Methodists. In spite of all manner of temptations, they will 
 not separate from the Church. What many so earnestly covet, 
 they abhor. They will not be a distinct body." Vol. XIII, 
 p. 232. 
 
 1789 : " Unless I see more reasons for it than I ever yet 
 saw, I will never leave the Church of England, as by law 
 established, while the breath of God is in my nostrils." Vol. 
 XIII, p. 238. In this year, two before his death, Mr. Wesley 
 wrote "Seven more reasons against separating from the 
 Church." 
 
 1790: "I have been uniform, both in doctrine and disci- 
 pline, for above these fifty years, and it is a little too late for 
 me to turn into a new path, now I am gray-headed." Vol. 
 XII, p. 439. " The Methodists in general are members of the 
 Church of England. They hold all her Doctrines, attend her 
 Services, and partake of her Sacraments." Vol. XIII, p. 119. 
 
 POPE PIUS IV. AND THE ENGLISH PRAYER BOOK. 
 
 Lecture II ; Page 130. 
 
 A N interesting letter upon this subject, from Dr. W. D. 
 '*^*' Wilson, has recently appeared in the New York Church- 
 man, under the heading, " The Pope and the English Liturgy: 
 A New Confirmation of the story." It is substantially as fol- 
 lows : In A. D. 1568-70, the Pope offered to accept the English 
 
 POPE PIUS IV. AND THE ENGLISH PRAYER BOOK. 433 
 
 Liturgy, and allow it to be used in England, if only Elizabeth 
 would acknowledge that she had received it from him, and 
 used it with his consent and in subordination to his authority. 
 This story is commonly repeated as resting on the authority of 
 Lord Coke, who is reported to have said that he had seen the 
 letter. But Coke does not say, in his charge at Norwich, that 
 he had seen it. What he does say is : "I have oftentimes 
 heard it avowed by the late Queen, in her own wordes, and I 
 conferred with some lordes that were of greatest reckoning, 
 who had seen and read the letter." Of course, therefore, there 
 was such a letter written. But, within a short time past, it has 
 been found that in the " Calendar of State Papers," there is a 
 dispatch from Lord Walsingham, who was then in France, to 
 Lord Burleigh, dated June 21, 1571, in which it appears that 
 there were some negotiations going on in regard to a marriage 
 between Queen Elizabeth and the Duke of Anjou, in which 
 Walsingham says that an " offer was made by the Cardinal of 
 Lorraine, that the Pope would have allowed and confirmed as 
 Catholic the English Liturgy and other oflSces, so the Queen, 
 my mistress, would have acknowledged the same as received 
 from him." This was written while the negotiations for the 
 marriage were pending. But after they had failed, and Eliza- 
 beth had refused to accept the Pope's offer, he issued his 
 famous bull of excommunication. But this statement of Wal- 
 singham proves that such an offer was made, and this confirms 
 the statement made by Lord Coke some thirty-five years after- 
 wards. Now, although this statement of Walsingham does not 
 prove that such a letter was sent, as Coke's statements do, it 
 proves that such an offer was made, and throws an important 
 light on the motives and reasons for it. 
 
 ' C. A.— 28 
 
ilK 
 
 M 
 
 !!' 
 
 1 l&Mwi 
 
 ■[! 
 
 l4lfl 
 
 4S4 
 
 APPENDICES. 
 
 XI. 
 
 GREEK CATHOLICS AND ANGLICAN ORDERS. 
 Lectuke II; Page 143. 
 
 Though Anglican Orders have not been oflScially pro- 
 nounced upon by the Greek Church, there can be no doubt that, 
 if occasion for formal action should ever arise, their validity 
 would be recognized. Romanists try to make it appear to the 
 uontrary by representing that when the Greek Church receives 
 one who is in Anglican Orders he is reordained. They give 
 nt) instance, and we do not remember to have seen the account 
 Hf any. Even if their representation respecting the attitude of 
 Hie Greeks towards our Orders be correct, it avails them noth- 
 ing, for the Roman Clergy must also be reordained before 
 they are allowed to minister at Greek Altars. But we are 
 Inclined to doubt the correctness of their representation. It 
 ii not long since we saw it stated that a "faddy" Ang- 
 lican Clergyman persuaded a Russian nobleman to try to 
 arrange for his reordi nation by the Metropolitan of St. Peters- 
 burg. But the theological professsor there wrote to the Procura- 
 tor : " Take care what you are about, for the Greek Church has 
 never disowned the Orders of the Church of England." The 
 matter was looked into and the Anglican Priest returned 
 home without being reordained. The subject was then given 
 as the thesis for the theological degree in the academy, and all 
 the students came to the conclusion that our Orders were 
 valid. The statement, that at the Bonn Conference the Greeks 
 voted against the acceptance of our Orders, has been shown by 
 Canon MacColl to be contrary to fact. "The chief Greek 
 Churchman present was Archbishop Lycourgus, and he 
 iccepted their validity." 
 
 I 
 
 GREEK CATHOLICS AND ANGLICAN ORDERS. 
 
 435 
 
 Some years ago, the Patriarch of Jerusalem invited the 
 Archbishop of Canterbury to send a Bishop to overlook the 
 Anglican Church there. He has allowed our congregation the 
 use of the Chapel of Abraham in the church of the Holy Sepul- 
 chre and has often invited our Clergy to go with him to sacred 
 Functions, and has placed them in the Chancel among his 
 Clergy. A short time ago, the Russian Bishop of California, at 
 the invitation of the Bishop of Iowa, was present in his Cathe- 
 dral, and sat vested in his Chancel. At the Consecration of 
 the Bishop of Massachusetts, the- Archbishop of Zante, who 
 came to represent the Eastern Churches at the World's Fair 
 Parliament of Religions, was present in the Chancel during the 
 Function, and preached a brief sermon. He was in attendance 
 at the opening of the Diocesan Convention of New York, and 
 received the Holy Communion at the hands of Bishop Potter. 
 He also made an address at the Missionary Council in Chicago. 
 In .lune, 1887, the Patriarch of Alexandria wrote to the 
 Archbishop of Canterbury in the following terms: "Most 
 Reverend Archbishop of Canterbury, Exarch of all England, 
 my Lord Metropolitan Brother, Beloved in Christ, my Lord 
 Edward, we embrace your reverence in the Lord, and in 
 gladness address you." 
 
 In a correspondence which took place in a. d. 1896 be- 
 tween the Ecclesiastical head of the Russian Church and that 
 of the Anglican Communion the former addressed the latter 
 as follows : " Palladius, by Divine mercy. Metropolitan of 
 St. Petersburg and Ladoga, Archimandrite of the Lavra of the 
 Holy Trinity and St. Alexander Nevsky, Presiding Member 
 of the Most Holy Governing Synod of all the Russias, unto 
 Edward, Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of All Eng- 
 land and Metropolitan, greeting in the Lord." 
 
 Lycourgus, late Archbishop of Syra and Tenedos, in a 
 speech at Ely, in a. d. 1870, said, " When I return to Greece I 
 will say that the Church of England is a sound Catholic Church, 
 very like our own." 
 
 /I 
 I 
 
 i 
 
I 
 
 i'Jl'.i.,!/ 
 
 •■"' .1 
 
 APPENDICES. 
 
 To the foregoing expressions of kindly feeling toward the 
 English Church may be added the utterances of an Archiman- 
 drite in the course of a correspondence in the columns of the 
 West London Observer : " Permit me, as a member of the 
 oldest branch of the great Catholic Church, namely, the Greek 
 Church, to state that all right minded Catholics agree so far 
 with the writer of the letter signed * An English Catholic,' as 
 to freedom of speech. It is a great pity that discussion on 
 religious subjects is not liked by the Roman Catholic sec- 
 tion, who are really, like ourselves, Nonconformists in these 
 Isles. The State Church of England we recognize as an 
 important branch of the great Catholic Church, which was 
 established prior to the Roman Mission. The Pope, or 
 Bishop of Rome, is only head of that portion of the Cath- 
 i^ifS Church which adheres to the Roman doctrines of the 
 Cfemicil of Trent, and has no authority over the Greek, Eng- 
 lish, or any other Catholics. Shakespeare said, * There is 
 no iffnorance but darkness,' so let all branches of the Cath- 
 olic Church for the future be allowed free ventilation of re- 
 ligious subjects." 
 
 JOHN WESLEY ON THE MINISTERIAL OFFICE. 
 
 437 
 
 XII. 
 
 JOHN WESLEY ON TEE MmiSTERIAL OFFICE. 
 
 Lecture III ; Page 211. 
 
 HB following is extracted from .John Wesley's Sermon 
 No. CXV. on "The Ministerial Office." The text is, 
 "No man takoth this honour unto himself, but he that is 
 culled of God, as was Aaron." — Ilebreim Y:4. It was deliv- 
 ered at a Conference of Methodist preachers held in th© 
 city of Cork, May 4, 1789. This, it is important to remem- 
 ber, was only two years before the death of Mr. Wesley and 
 §▼© years after his reputed ordination of Dr. Coke to the 
 
 Episcopate. The utterance is noteworthy on several ac- 
 counts. It shows that Wesley up to that late date did not 
 intend to found a Church ; that he did not understand his 
 Service and laying on of hands in connection with Dr. Coke's 
 departure for America as a setting apart to the office of a 
 Bishop ; that he did not feel constrained to depart from the 
 Church of England in any essential feature of doctrine or 
 discipline, and in fact did not do so, even in non-essentials, 
 much if any further than such societies as the Brotherhood of 
 St. Andrew have done in our day ; and that he did not regard 
 the preachers whom he appointed over the Methodist socie- 
 ties, as standing on the same footing with the Clergy of the 
 Church. It is difficult to see how any modern Methodist in 
 the light of these quotations can regard himself as a follower 
 of John Wesley. 
 
 " Many learned men have shown at large that our Lord 
 Himself, and all His Aj)ostles, built the Christian Church as 
 nearly as possible on the plan of the Jewish. So the great 
 High Priest of our profession sent Apostles and Evangelists 
 to proclaim glad tidings to all the world ; and then Pastors, 
 Preachers, and Teachers, to build up in the Faith the congre- 
 gations that should be founded. But I do not find that ever 
 the office of an Evangelist was the same with that of a Pastor, 
 frequently called a Bishop. He presided over the flock, and 
 administered the Sacraments ; the former assisted him, and 
 preached the Word, either in one or more congregations. I 
 cannot prove from any part of the New Testament, or from 
 any author of the first three centuries, that the office of an 
 Evangelist gave any man a right to act as a Pastor or Bishop. 
 
 " But may it not be thought that the case now before us 
 is different from all these? Undoubtedly in many respects it 
 is. Such a phenomenon has now appeared as has not ap- 
 peared in the Christian world before, ^.t least not for many 
 ages. Two young men sowed the Word of God, not only in 
 the Churches, but likewise literally *by the highway side;' 
 and indeed in every place where they saw an open door, 
 where sinners had ears to hear. They were members of the 
 Church of England, and had no design of separating from it. 
 And they advised all that were of it to continue therein, 
 
II 
 
 438 
 
 APPENDICES. 
 
 thoujg^h they joined the Methodist society ; for this did not 
 imply leaving their former congregation, but only leaving 
 their sins. Not long after, a young man, Thomas Maxfield, 
 offered himself to serve them as a son in the Gospel. And 
 then another, Thomas Richards, and a little after a third, 
 Thomas Westell. Let it be well observed on what terms we 
 received these, namely, as Prophets, not as Priests. We re- 
 ceived them wholly and solelv to preach, not to administer 
 Sacraments. 
 
 " In 1744 all the Methodist Preachers had their first Con- 
 ference. But none of them dreamed that the being called to 
 preach gave them any right to administer Sacraments. And 
 when that question was proposed, * In what light are we to 
 consider ourselves?' it was answered, 'As extraordinary 
 messengers, raised up to provoke the ordinary ones to jeal- 
 ously.' In order hereto, one of our first rules was given to 
 each Preacher, * You are to do that part of the work which we 
 appoint.' But what work was this? Did we ever appoint 
 you to administer Sacraments ; to exercise the Priestly office? 
 Such a design never entered into our mind ; it was the farthest 
 from our thoughts. It was several years after our society was 
 formed, before any attempt of this kind was made. The first 
 was, I apprehend, at Norwich. One of our Preachers there 
 yielded to the importunity of a few of the people, and baptized 
 their children. But as soon as it was known, he was informed 
 it must not be, unless he designed to leave our Connexion. 
 
 " Now, as long as the Methodists keep to this plan, they 
 cannot separate from the Church. And this is our peculiar 
 glory. Methodists are not a sect or party ; they do not sepa- 
 rate from the religious community to which they at first be- 
 longed ; they are still members of the Church ; such they 
 desire to live and to die. And I believe one reason why God 
 is pleased to continue my life so long is to confirm them in 
 their present purpose, not to separate from the Church. 
 
 " But, notwithstanding this, many warm men say, * Nay, but 
 you do separate from the Church.' Others are equally warm, 
 because they say I do not. I will nakedly declare the thing 
 as it is. I hold all the doctrines of the Church of England. I 
 love her Liturgy. I approve her plan of discipline, and only 
 wish it could be put in execution. I do not knowingly vary 
 from any rule of the Church, unless in those few instances, 
 where I judge, and as far as I judge, there is an absolute 
 
 JOHN WESLEY ON THE MINISTERIAL OFFICE, 
 
 439 
 
 necessity. For instance (1) As few Clergymen open their 
 Churches to me, I am under the necessity of preaching abroad. 
 (2) As I know no forms that will suit all occasions, I am 
 often under a necessity of praying extempore. (3) In order 
 to build up the flock of Christ in faith and love, I am under a 
 necessity of uniting them together, and of dividing them into 
 little companies, that they may provoke one another to love 
 and good works. (4) That my fellow-laborers and I may 
 more effectually assist each other to save our own souls and 
 those that hear us, I judge it necessary to meet the Preachers, 
 or, at least, the greater part of them, once a year. (5) Jn 
 those Conferences we fix the stations of all the Preachers for 
 the ensuing year. But all this is not separating from the 
 Church. So far from it, that, whenever I have opportunity, 1 
 attend the Church Service myself, and advise all our societies 
 so to do. 
 
 " I wish all of you who are vulgarly termed Methodists 
 would seriously consider what has been said. And particu- 
 larly you whom God hath commissioned to call sinners to 
 repentance. It does by no means follow from hence, that ye 
 are commissioned to Baptize, or to administer the Lord's Sup- 
 per. Ye never dreamed of this for ten or twenty years after 
 ye began to preach. Ye did not then, like Korah, Dathan 
 and Abiram, ' seek the Priesthood also.' Ye knew ' no man 
 taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, 
 as was Aaron.' O contain yourselves within your own bounds; 
 be content with preaching the Gospel ; ' do the work of 
 Evangelists ;' proclaim to all the world the loving kindness of 
 God our Saviour ; declare to all ' The Kingdom of Heaven is 
 at hand ; repent ye, and believe the Gospel !' I earnestly ad- 
 vise you, abide in your place ; keep your own station. Ye 
 were at first called in the Church of England ; and though ye 
 have and will have a thousand temptations to leave it, and set 
 up for yourselves, regard them not. Be Church-of-England 
 men still ; do not cast away the peculiar glory which God hath 
 put upon you, and frustrate the design of Providence, the 
 very end for which God raised you up." 
 
 The Rev. L. H. Wellesley Wesley, Rector of Hatchford, 
 England, an aged and erudite descendant of the same family of 
 which John and Charles Wesley were members, in an article 
 
 i 
 
:l ' 
 
 I 
 
 4 
 
 440 
 
 APPENDICES. 
 
 fecently published in The London Church Bells, is represented 
 as insisting upon the fact that the founder of the original 
 Methodist Societies was loyal to the Church of which he lived 
 and died a member. " How," said he, " the Wesleyan minis- 
 ters can call themselves * Rev. ' and their chapels ' churches ' 
 in the teeth of John Wesley's teaching, I cannot understand. 
 He always called the chapels 'preaching houses' and the 
 ministers ' preachers.' 
 
 »» 
 
 XIII. 
 
 THE NINE HUNDRED AND NINETY-NINE 
 
 YEARS' LEASE. 
 
 Lecture IV; Page 228. 
 
 'T^HE statement of this passage having been called in ques- 
 '■' tion I wrote to the learned author of " The Continuity 
 of the English Church through Eighteen Centuries," the Rev. 
 A. E. Oldroyd, Vicar of Oundle, England, requesting him to 
 be good enough to investigate the matter and let me know the 
 result. In a letter bearing date June 8, 1896, he gives the 
 following extracts from two of the answers to his inquiries : 
 
 " * St. Paul's Chapter, 9 Amen Court, London, E. C, Mar., 
 18, 1896. I cannot tell what is intended by the passage which 
 you cite. It can have no reference to Tillingham, for this was 
 given to the Cathedral by Ethelbert, and has Leen in our pos- 
 session ever since: one of the most interesting cases of contin- 
 uous possession to be found. This is no case of a 999 years' 
 lease, but a case of unbroken ownership from the days of 
 Ethelbert who died, you will remember, in 616. Some estates 
 in London, notably the Finsbury estate, have lately fallen in 
 after a rather long lease, but not such a lease as that of which 
 you speak.' 
 
 " ' St. Nicholas Vicarage, Tillingham, Maldon, Essex, Mar. 
 1896. The Manor together with the lands attached thereto 
 granted by Ethelbert, King of Kent, who began to reign in 
 565, to Mellitus who was consecrated Bishop of London by 
 
 CONTINUITY OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH PROVED. 441 
 
 St. Augustine of Canterbury 604, for the endowment of his 
 monastery of St. Paul in London, still remains the property of 
 the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's. As Ethelbert died in 616 
 this grant must have been made between 604 and 616, so that 
 for nearly 1300 years the ownership has remained unchanged, 
 a title continuous in one corporation probably unequaled in 
 the country.' " 
 
 " I have tried," says Mr. Oldroyd, " in various quarters, 
 but the above is the best result of my investigations. If not 
 the basis of the 999 years' lease paragraph, the Tillingham 
 inheritance of St. Paul's Cathedral Chapter, London, is at any 
 rate quite as strong on the continuity of the Church of 
 England." 
 
 XIV. 
 
 CONTINUITY OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH PROVED 
 
 BY THE UNINTERRUPTED SUCCESSION 
 
 OF HER BISHOPS. 
 
 Lecture IV; Page 235. 
 
 'T' HERE were Bishops in England who carried on the 
 "*" canonical jurisdiction as well as the Apostolic Succes- 
 sion through the reigns of Henry VIII., Edward VI., Mary, 
 and into the reign of Elizabeth. For example, Kitchin re- 
 mained Bishop of Llandaff through all the changes from 
 A.D., 1545 to the year 1563. But the point we wish to make 
 is this : all the old English Sees are at this time occupied by 
 Bishops who are* the successors in unbroken continuity of all 
 who have preceded them in those Sees back to the time of the 
 first incumbent. This is not true of the Succession of any 
 other religious body. The only one to which some might 
 suppose this continuity appertained, the Roman Church, is 
 entirely without it, for there is not a single Roman Bishop 
 in England who has an Ecclesiastical predecessor in any 
 Bishop of the English Church, either of the pre -Reformation 
 
442 
 
 APPENDICES. 
 
 :|::| 
 
 or the post-Reformation period. The Roman Church in Eng- 
 land of to-day laid its corner stone in a.d. 1570, and its 
 Bishops and Priests ha^e been imported in most cases from 
 across the Channel, and when not thus derived, their Orders 
 have come from thence. There is no succession of the Eng- 
 lish Roman Catholic Hierarchy which goes back further than 
 September 29, 1850, when Dr. Wiseman became the first 
 Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster. We thus have (1) The 
 identity of the pre -Reformation with the post- Reformation 
 Church of England, for its Orders are unbroken from the 
 beginning to the present time. As Beard in his "Herbert 
 Lectures " says, " It is an obvious historical fact that Parker 
 was the successor of Augustine as clearly as Lanfranc and 
 Becket." This being true of the first post -Reformation 
 Archbishop of Canterbury, it is of course equally so of the 
 present incumbent. As for the other Sees no attempt has 
 ever been made to raise a doubt as to whether an uninter- 
 rupted succession has been maintained. On this point see 
 " Spiritual Succession and Jurisdiction in England," by John 
 W. Lea. (2) The Roman Church in England at present time 
 is a schismatic sect, dating from a.d. 1570, and has no iden- 
 tity or organic connection with the Church of England before 
 or after the Reformation. 
 
 It must of course be granted that the corporate life of 
 the Church of England, which, as we have shown conclusively, 
 has existed without interruption from the Apostles, does not 
 absolutely prove the spiritual identity of the post-Reforma- 
 tion with the pre-Reformation Church. Ifr for illustration, 
 the American Episcopal Church at the next General Conven- 
 tion were to exchange the Bible for the Koran, to deny the 
 doctrine of the Trinity, and adopt Mohammed as its supreme 
 prophet, then, even, if not a man were changed there would 
 be no spiritual identity between the Episcopal Church after 
 the Convention of a.d. 1898 with that which had existed be- 
 fore. But surely none will contend that anything of this 
 
 THE ENGLISH CHURCH DID NOT SECEDE FROM ROME. 443 
 
 kind took place in the Church of England. No one un- 
 doubted Catholic doctrine, practice or institution was abol- 
 ished at the Reformation, nor were there any novel doctrines, 
 practices or institutions imposed at that time or since. 
 
 XV. 
 THE ENGLISH CHURCH DID NOT SECEDE FROM ROME, 
 
 Lecture IV; Page 250. 
 
 13 OMANISTS in England were enjoined by the Papal Bull 
 of A. D. 1570 to withdraw from the Church of England. 
 Many of the English Laity and some of tlie Clergy obeyed 
 this summons and organized another religious body, separate 
 and distinct from the English Church. This was a schismatic 
 procedure by the Roman element, for it deliberately left the 
 regular Church of England and formed a new body in opposi- 
 tion thereto. Truth and justice require it to be made plain 
 even at the risk of frequent reiteration that the first division of 
 English Christians was effected by a few sympathizers with the 
 Papacy in obedience to the mandate of Pius V. The Eno-Hsh 
 Catholics and patriots, now commonly called Churchmen or 
 Episcopalians, continued on as usual without withdrawing 
 themselves from any one. The vast majority of the inhabi- 
 tants remained in the old Ecdesia Anglicana which still con- 
 tinues and always will remain preeminently the Church of 
 that country and our race. The following brief and accurate 
 account of the beginning of the Roman schism in England 
 is extracted from Palmer's Church History : " The accession 
 of the illustrious Queen Elizabeth was followed by the restora- 
 tion of the Church to its former state. ' The Clergy o-ener- 
 ally approved of the return to pure religion, and retained 
 their benefices, administering the Sacraments and rites ac- 
 cording to the English Ritual. There was 7io schism for 
 many years in England, all the people worshipp)ecl in the 
 
I • 
 
 'V 
 
 i'l 
 
 J f 
 
 'Hi 
 
 i|:^ 
 
 444 
 
 APPENDICES. 
 
 same Churches, and acknowledged the same pastors. At 
 last, In liii, Pius V. issued a bull, in which he excommuni- 
 cated Queen Elizabeth and her supporters, absolved her sub- 
 jects from their oaths of allegiance, and bestowed her domin- 
 ions on the King of Spain. This hull caused the schism in 
 England ; for the Popish party, which had continued in 
 communion with the Church of England up to that time, dur- 
 ing the past eleven years of Elizabeth's reign, now began to 
 separate themselves. Bedingfield, Cornwallis, and Silyarde, 
 were the first Popish recusants; and the date of the Romanists 
 in England, as a distinct sect or community, may be fixed in 
 the year 1570." 
 
 Cardinal Manning was once of the opinion that the schism 
 of A. D. 1570 did not proceed from the English King and 
 Church, but from Rome, and as logical deductions from histor- 
 ical facts do not vary with a change of Ecclesiastical relation- 
 ship, his words are here quoted : " Tlie Crown and Church of 
 England with a steady opposition resisted the entrance and 
 encroachment of the secularized Ecclesiastical power of the 
 Pope in England. The last rejection of it was no more than 
 a successful effort after many a failure in struggles of the like 
 land. And it was an act taken by men who were sound, 
 •iicording to the Roman doctrines, in all other points. There 
 is no one point in which the British Churches can be attainted 
 of either heresy or schism. She, the Anglican Church, has 
 rejected, what the Eastern Churches rejected before, the arro- 
 gant pretense of a universal pontificate rashly alleged to be 
 of Divine right, imposed in ojien breach of Apostolical tradi- 
 tions and the canons of many councils. The Churches of the 
 East are not schismatical for their rejection of this usurpation; 
 neither are the Churches of Britain. But they are guilty of 
 the schism that obtrude this novelty as the condition of Chris- 
 tian QoxnmunioQ." 
 
 HARRIET BEECHER STOWE. 
 
 445 
 
 XVI. 
 
 HARRIET BEECHER STOWE. 
 
 Lecture V; Page 296. 
 
 THERE seems to be some room for dispute as to the 
 Church relationship of Mrs. Stowe. The statements of 
 this book, which were based upon what appeared to be trust- 
 worthy testimony, having been called in question by an 
 esteemed correspondent, an effort was made to ascertain the 
 truth of the matter. After putting together all the facts that 
 conveniently could be collected, it was concluded that what 
 had been written might as well remain unaltered. For, while 
 it appeared that she had never been confirmed and was during 
 all her life nominally a Congregationalist, her attachment for 
 and interest in the Episcopal Church were such as to lead peo- 
 ple generally, and even members of her own family, to sup- 
 pose that she was an Episcopalian in body as well as at heart. 
 The following interesting passage from the " Reminiscences of 
 Harriet Beecher Stowe," by Elizabeth Stuart Phelps Ward, 
 shows which way the wind blew as far back as her Andover 
 life, A.D. 1852-64 : 
 
 " I dimly suspected then, and I have been sure of it since, 
 that the privilege of neighborhood was but scantily a|)preciated 
 in Andover, in the case of this eminent woman. Why, I do 
 not know. She gave no offense, that I can recall, to the 
 peculiar preferences of the place. The fact that she was 
 rumored to have leanings towards the Episcopal Church did 
 not prevent her from dutifully occupying with her family her 
 husband's pew in the old chapel. It was far to the front, and 
 her Ecclesiastical delinquencies would have been only too 
 visible, had they existed. A tradition that she visited the 
 theatre in Boston when she felt like it, sometimes passed 
 solemnly from lip to lip; but this is the most serious criticism 
 upon her which I can remember." 
 
446 
 
 APPENDICES. 
 
 In the Life of Mrs. Stowe, edited by her son, the statement is 
 made that she had joined the Protestant Episcopal Church, 
 some time before a. d. 1867. But the Clergyman who 
 was the Rector of the little Parish at Mandarin, Florida, 
 her winter home, informs me that this cannot be true, because 
 in the year 1882 she told him that she had not been confirmed, 
 and was thinking seriously of receiving the Apostolic Rite of 
 the laying on of hands. " Mrs. Stowe," says this Clergyman, 
 who was her pastor for several years, "did not believe in 
 Episcopacy as the only form of Church Polity, but she did be- 
 lieve the Anglican Church to have the best system of worship 
 and teaching. Her three daughters were all thorough Church - 
 women." One of these in a letter bearing date September 
 3, 1896, speaking of her mother's failure to come to Confir- 
 mation, says: "Her reason for this she never told me, but I 
 always supposed it was because of a feeling of loyalty and 
 allegiance to her husband. I can say to you with full assur- 
 ance of the truth of the statement, that at heart she was 
 warmly and sincerely an ardent Episcopalian." In another 
 letter she says: "From the time of the removal of my father 
 and mother from Andover to Hartford in 1864, my mother 
 attended regularly the Episcopal Church, going to the Com- 
 munion as well. Trinity Church was the last Church she 
 ever attended, and there she took her last Communion. That 
 the Episcopal Church was the Church of her choice and her 
 heart, there is in my mind no room for doubt." The Rev. 
 Storrs O. Seymour, in a communication to the Living Church 
 dated Litchfield, Connecticut, September 5, 1896, says : 
 "While the Rev. Charles E. Stowe was pastor of the Windsor 
 Avenue Congregational Church in Hartford, Conn., his mother 
 generally attended the services of that Church. After his 
 resignation she attended Trinity Church, frequently express- 
 ing to the rector the satisfaction and pleasure which the 
 Church Service afforded her. She was especially delighted 
 with the vested choir." 
 
 HARRIET ^EECHER STOWE. 
 
 447 
 
 Mrs. Stowe was counted among the most deeply interested 
 and active Church workers in the Diocese of Florida. In 
 A. D. 1866 she wrote to her brother, the Rev. Charles 
 Beecher, a letter in which she says : " The Episcopal Church 
 is undertaking, under direction of the future Bishop of Florida, 
 a ^de embracing scheme of Christian activity for the whole 
 State. In this work I desire to be associated." In 1867 she 
 wrote to him another letter, as follows : " I am now in corre- 
 spondence with the Bishop of Florida, with the view to 
 establishing a line of Churches along the line of the St. John's 
 river, and if I settle at Mandarin, it will be one of my sta- 
 tions. Will you consent to enter the Episcopal Church, and 
 be our Clergyman? You are just the man we want. If my 
 tasks and feelings did not incline me toward the Church, I 
 should still choose it as the best system for training immature 
 minds, such as those of our negroes." 
 
 The winter of a. d. 1883-1884 was the last one spent by 
 hor at Mandarin, which, largely through her efforts, had 
 been provided with a pretty little Episcopal Church, to which 
 was attached a comfortable rectory. In January of that year 
 she wrote : " Mandarin looks very gay and airy now with its 
 new villas and our new Church and rectory." 
 
 Upon one occasion, when consulted by some neighboring 
 resorters, among whom were representatives of several bodies 
 of Christians, about what had better be done in regard to 
 the establishment of religious services, Mrs. Stowe strongly 
 recommended them to request the Bishop to send a Missionary 
 to the community because, aside from the superiority of her 
 Services, the Episcopal Church was the only one comprehen- 
 sive enough to include them all. 
 
 It is believed that in view of the above showing, no rea- 
 sonable exception can be taken to the representation that the 
 authoress of " Uncle Tom's Cabin " was an Episcopalian. 
 
 It may be observed by the way that Miss Catherine 
 Beecher, Mrs. Stowe's elder sister, to whose excellent school 
 
 I' I 
 
 t"' 
 
II 
 
 448 
 
 APPENDICES. 
 
 she owed so much, was also a staunch Episcopalian. In some 
 oilier writings Miss Beecher expresses regret that her mother, 
 after marriage, saw fit to leave the Episcopal Church and 
 become a Presbyterian in order that she might be with her 
 husband. She thought that the father sooner or later would 
 liave followed the mother into the Church, whose Liturgy and 
 system of religious culture would have furnished the family 
 with a much needed balance-wheel, and saved it from its 
 checkered religious history. 
 
 We affree with Miss Beecher that the idea of a wife being 
 obliged to follow the husband in the matter of religious 
 affiliation, or vice versd, is all wrong from whatever point of 
 view. As the well-instructed Episcopalian looks at it, no 
 consideration will justify a person in leaving the Catholic 
 Church of his race and country. And in the eyes of a con- 
 sistent Denominationalist, division being a good thing, it 
 ought to seem desirable or at least allowable that every mem- 
 ber of a household should belong to a different body of 
 Christians. 
 
 XVII. 
 
 HENRY CLAY, 
 
 Lectube V ; Page 299. 
 
 THE following letter from the Rev. Dr. E. H. Ward, Rector 
 of Christ Church, Lexington, Kentucky, was published in 
 77ie Pacific Churchman of June 15, 1896. As the editor in 
 his prefatory note remarks, it furnishes ground for the infer- 
 ence that Mr. Clay might have used the remarkable language 
 attributed to him, but does not establish the fact that he 
 actually did make the statement quoted. However, it appears, 
 by the mouth of two reliable witnesses, that the words were 
 really expressive of his thought : 
 
 " Editor of The Pacific Churchman: 
 
 ** Bishop Dudley some weeks ago referred to me a letter 
 
 HENRY CLAY. 
 
 449 
 
 from , of , in regard to a quotation from Henry 
 
 Clay. It was the one in which Mr. Clay said that his hope for 
 the future of the United States was in the Supreme Court and 
 the Episcopal Church. I have asked some of Mr. Clay's 
 grandchildren about it, but they can give me no information 
 upon the subject. 
 
 " .Judge Richard Buckner, who is now past four score, and 
 before whom Mr. Clay often appeared as an advocate, is not 
 able to locate the quotation ; but he said to me that it was so 
 in line with Mr. Clay's thought that it might have been spoken 
 at any time, and on almost any occasion. 
 
 "The late Mr. James O. Harrison, who was at one time Mr. 
 Clay's law partner, and who was also his executor, said to me 
 essentially the same thing. So then if we cannot locate the 
 saying, the testimony of these two gentlemen is sufficient to 
 assure us that it was in keeping with Mr. Clay's thought, and 
 so we have a right to use it. 
 
 "As I have lost Mr. 's address, I take this method of 
 
 answering his question, hoping that it may be of interest to 
 others besides him. E. H. Ward " 
 
 " Lexington, Ky., May 25, 1896." 
 
 Upon reading this correspondence it occurred to me that 
 it had grown out of the passage of this book indicated 
 above. I had heard the statement made in an interesting 
 address delivered by the Bishop of Delaware at the laying of the 
 corner stone of St. Mary's Chapel, St. Mary's, Ohio, in the 
 year 1889. After reading Dr. Waid's letter in The Pacific 
 Churchman, I inquired of Bishop Coleman concerning the 
 source of his information. In a letter bearing date. Bishop- 
 stead, Wilmington, Delaware, July 3, 1896, he says: "I 
 cannot now possibly give you my authority for the reported 
 saying of Henry Clay. But I am still satisfied that the 
 authority was such as made and makes me confident to repeat 
 the statement. The Clergyman who- baptized Henry Clay, 
 and to whom it might be well for you to write, is the Rev. 
 Edward F. Berkley, D.D., St. Louis, Missouri." In a con- 
 versation with the Rev. Dr. Ward he told me that his letter 
 to The Pacific Churchman was in response to an inquiry 
 
 C. A.— 29 
 
 i1 
 
 r 
 
 [ '< 'lb 
 
APPKJfDICES. 
 
 concerning the crrounds tef wtit was said about Mr. Clay in 
 **The Church for Americans," and that he had heard the late 
 Judge Sheffy in a speech at a General Convention of the 
 Church make the same statement. The Doctor regretted that 
 In his letter he had not remembered to add this important 
 testimony to that of Judge Buckner and Mr. Harrison. He 
 thought it probable that the Bishop of Delaware had also 
 eithcT heard Judge Sheffy make the statement in question or 
 read it in the New York Churchman's report of the Con- 
 vention. 
 
 In accoTclance with Bishop Coleman's suggestion, I wrote to 
 the Venerable Dr. Berkley, now in his eighty-third year, who 
 replied in the following letter, which is a valuable contribution 
 to the biography of one of the most prominent and interesting 
 figures of American history : 
 
 " PiTTSBTTRGH, Pa., July 15, 1896. 
 
 " Reverend and Dear Brother : 
 
 ** You ask a siraj)le question about a sentiment attributed 
 to Henry Clay. I give you the answer, but a statement from 
 your book which you quote moves me to say something 
 about his religious character. You have referred to me for 
 information about an exi)ression of opinion on his part * that 
 the stability of our government depends upon the perpetua- 
 tion of two institutions, to wit, the Episcopal Church, and 
 the Supreme Court of the United States.' This is very like 
 him, and he may have expressed this sentiment to others, but 
 never to me. Although so much younger, as his Pastor, I 
 was in intimate intercourse with him for fourteen years of his 
 life, from 1838 to the time of his death in 1852. He often 
 spoke of the dignity and beauty of the Church Service, and of 
 its adaptability to strengthen the struggling infirmities of a 
 
 ' poor sinner.' 
 
 "This expression leads me to notice another statement 
 made in your book, and which you quote in your letter, ' this 
 great statesman and orator did not identify himself with any 
 form of organized Christianity until late in life.' A religious 
 vein ran through his nature, and more than once he said in a 
 public speech, ' I am not a Christian, but I hope to give evi- 
 dence of my faith in the excellence and Divine authenticity of 
 
 HENRY CLAY. 
 
 451 
 
 Christianity before I die.' His family were Baptists, but I 
 believe he felt a strong interest in the Church from his early 
 life. 
 
 " And here let me say even with the fear of wearying you 
 by going so far aside from your letter, that he did not talk 
 seriously of Baptism until he had taken leave of the Senate, 
 and as he supposed retired from public life. He feared that 
 if he made the sacred promises of Baptism, and the ordinances 
 following, he might in his relations to public life do something 
 that would compromise his Church and his profession. When 
 he was seventy years old in June, 1847, 1 administered the 
 Rite of Baptism to him and a daugliter-in-law, with three or 
 four of her children, in the parlor at Ashland, and not, as the 
 Baptists proclaim to this day, ' in one of the beautiful ponds of 
 Ashland.' I was familiar with the surroundings of that lovely 
 country home, but I never saw any beautiful ponds. He came 
 to the Communion on Sunday the Fourth of July after, and 
 was confirmed by Bishop Smith within a week or two. 
 
 " He was afterward sent back to the Senate, pending the 
 then absorbing question of the Missouri Compromise, where 
 his burdened mind and forensic efforts killed him. He died 
 in Washington city on the fifth anniversary of his Baptism, 
 June 28, 1852, and was consigned *to earth, ashes and to 
 dust' in Lexington Cemetery on the 10th of July. 
 
 " To a Churchman I ought to say, that he was baptized in 
 his house, because we were then building a Church, in which 
 he manifested great personal interest, and I had no better 
 place for the Service. 
 
 " I could write much in detailing reminiscences of this 
 wonderful man, but if you have interest enough in this great 
 character to endure what I have already said, I shall be 
 gratified. I am cordially yours, 
 
 "Rev. Wm. M. Brown." Ed. F. Berkley." 
 
 i , 
 
 il 
 
 m 
 
 f. 
 
452 
 
 APPENDICES. 
 
 XVIII. 
 
 REFORMED EPISCOPALIANS. 
 Lecture V ; Page 303. 
 
 I HAVE learned recently to my great surprise tliat Reformed 
 Episcopalians are often guilty of the grossest misrepre- 
 sentations in their efforts to persuade our members and those 
 who have their faces turned towards the old Catholic and His- 
 toric Episcopal Church to identify themselves with the modem 
 sect known as the " Reformed Episcopal Church." They say 
 Miat the two Churches properly may be regarded as twin sisters ; 
 Id that by becoming a member of either of them a person con- 
 nects himself with the great Church of the English speaking 
 race. The distinguishing characteristics of these sister Churches 
 are represented to be that the sympathies of her, who is denom- 
 inated "Reformed Episcopal," are wholly with Protestantism, 
 wMle those of the " Protestant Episcopal " are centered in Ro- 
 manism. They commonly speak of their body as, "Low 
 Church " and of ours as " High Church." 
 
 Though I had heard from persons who seemed to know 
 whereof they spoke, that these reprehensible tactics were being 
 used by the Reformers, I could not believe that it was generally 
 the case until assured of its truth by their members and publi- 
 cations. .Their senior and most distinguished Bishop, Dr. 
 Cheney, of Chicago, speaking of the origin of the Reformed 
 Episcopal Church, says : " The roots of the plant which has 
 seemingly sprung up in the soil of the United States of Amer- 
 ica and in the last third of the nineteenth century are imbedded 
 in that fertile age, the Reformation of the sixteenth century. 
 From that hour the Church of England rose to that place o! 
 influence which she has held through three hundred years. It 
 
 REFORMED EPISCOPALIANS. 
 
 453 
 
 might have been justly said of her as of Rebecca of old, ' Two 
 nations are in thy womb, two manner of people shall be sepa- 
 rated from thy bowels.' " Again he compares the relationship 
 of the body to which he belongs and the Episcopal Church to 
 two chestnuts lying peacefully in the same bur ; but in a. d. 
 1873 the shell burst and the chestnuts went in opposite direc- 
 tions. Elsewhere he maintains that " in one sense this Church 
 is not a new Communion, but the old Episcopal Church." In 
 his sermon at the Consecration of Dr. Cheney, Bishop Cum- 
 mins declared, " We claim to be the old and true Protestant 
 Episcopalians of the days immediately succeeding the Amer- 
 ican Revolution." 
 
 The fallacy involved in this position would seem to be suf- 
 ficiently obvious. It lies in the mistaking of a party in the 
 Church for a coordinate branch of the Church. The analogy 
 of Rebecca's twins is not quite apt, for, notwithstanding their 
 differentiating characteristics, they were equally able to per- 
 petuate a posterity of the same organic kind : whereas the 
 conception of heretical doctrines and their promulgation by 
 contentious and schismatical individuals is not a thing of the 
 same kind as the continuity of organization. When certain 
 members of the Low Church party separated themselves from 
 the American branch of the Anglican Communion they sev- 
 ered all connection with that body and organized a new body 
 having no more continuity with the old than the society of 
 Presbyterians, or Baptists, or Methodists. The fact that their 
 secession was headed by a Bishop did not alter its character, 
 for it was nevertheless a going out of individuals from a 
 preexisting and continuous body. Dr. Cummins held his 
 Bishopric solely for use in the Catholic Church and not 
 outside of or against it. There was no preexisting organic 
 unity between him and his followers making them in any 
 sense a Church or a constituent part thereof sharing with her 
 her inherent self-perpetuating power. They were simply an 
 aggregation of persons who organized themselves into a body 
 

 '*! 
 
 454 
 
 APPENDICES. 
 
 which hitherto had no corporate existence of any kind. This 
 argument is equally applicable to Dr. Cheney's " chestnuts ! " 
 We think that any one who will candidly investigate the 
 subject in the light of history and Canon law cannot escape 
 the conviction that if an American would join the Catholic and 
 Apostolic Church of our race, there is no way of doing so ex- 
 cept by entering the Protestant Episcopal Church. Residents 
 of the British Empire must unite with the Mother Church of 
 England or one of her Colonial branches. By joining the Re- 
 formed Episcopalians a person no more becomes a member 
 of the Anglo-Catholic Communion than if he were to join the 
 Methodist or Presbyterian body. There is in fact practically 
 no essential difference between the Reformed Episcopal 
 Church and the various sixteenth century and later Denomi- 
 nations ; at least there is none which they admit. It might 
 at first sight seem that this statement needs modification, 
 so far as the ministry is concerned, for their Orders are traced 
 to Bishop Cummins, who had been duly Consecrated a Bishop 
 in the American branch of the Apostolic and Catholic Church 
 of Christ. But, aside from the fact that his Consecration of 
 Dr. Cheney was a schismatic and unlawful act. Bishop Cum- 
 mins was afterwards Canonically deposed. It should also be 
 remembered that Dr. Cummins was only the assistant Bishop 
 of Kentucky, and as such he had no jurisdiction except what 
 was delegated by his superior. He was expressly forbidden 
 by his Diocesan, who was at the time also the executive head 
 of the House of Bishops, to Consecrate Dr. Cheney. Never- 
 theless he proceeded, and this in spite of the fact that in 
 doing so he violated his Ordination vows which constitute one 
 of the most solemn oaths which a man can take. If, therefore, 
 the Reformers claim that they share the Historic Episcopal 
 Succession with the Anglican Communion, we answer yes, but 
 so far only as the mere laying on of hands is concerned ; you 
 have no jurisdiction, and what you have would not be yours 
 but for the perjury of him who gave it. His schism and 
 
 KEFORMED EPISCOPALIANS. 
 
 455 
 
 deposition historically and legally separated him from the 
 Anglican Communion. If to this it be replied that the Church 
 from which the American Episcopal body is sprung was also 
 schismatic, we refer to Appendix XIV., which conclusively 
 shows to the contrary. 
 
 It is a curious fact that, though the '' Reformed " body make 
 a great deal of the Historic Episcopate when competing with 
 Episcopalians for members, in their efforts to commend them- 
 selves to non-Episcopalians, they deny that Episcopacy is a 
 Divine institution, and that there is such a thing as Apostolic 
 Succession. The action of their late General Council in for- 
 bidding the reordination of Denominational ministers was, 
 therefore, much more consistent than the stress which they put 
 upon the Historic Episcopacy as a distinguishing feature 
 between them and other sectarians. If, for the sake of argu- 
 ment, we admit — what would probably not be conceded 
 by any great Canonist — that this body possesses a valid 
 Historic Succession, it is, nevertheless, difficult to see how 
 such of their congregations as are without an Episcopally or- 
 dained Clergyman, and there are several of them, can derive 
 any profit from the Succession. Paradoxical as it may seem, 
 there are probably scores among the Reformed Episcopalians 
 who have never received the Holy Communion at the hands of 
 any minister who has received Episcopal Ordination. 
 
 The Reformed Episcopalians are nothing more or less than 
 Prayer Book Methodists. At a Methodist Conference held in 
 Baltimore, Bishop Cummins declared that he and his followers 
 were enveloped with a very thin Episcopal shell which only had 
 to be broken to reveal the full fledged Methodist. They went 
 out from us because we refused to revise our Liturgy so that 
 its doctrine concerning the Ministry and Sacraments would 
 conform with the ideas which prevail among Denomina- 
 tionalists. It is very easily shown that the objections to the 
 Episcopal Church which they made the basis of their schism 
 apply quite as much to the Bible as to the Book of Common 
 
 I 
 
I . i 
 
 456 
 
 APPENDICES. 
 
 Prayer. This will be apparent upon the mere mention of 
 the passages in our Liturgy to which they took exception. 
 The italicised words and phrases in the following quotations 
 were their great stumbling-blocks : (1) " Receive the Holy 
 Ghost for the office and work oi Priest in the Church of God." 
 (2) " Hath given power and commandment to His ministers to 
 declare and pronounce to His people being penitent the Abso- 
 itition and remission of their sins." (3) "Seeing now, dearly 
 beloved, that this child is regenerate and grafted into the body 
 of Christ's Church, let us give thanks unto Almighty God for 
 these benefits." And " it has pleased Thee to regenerate this 
 child with Thy Holy Spirit." (4) " Almighty and everliving 
 God we most heartily thank Thee for that Thou dost vouchsafe 
 to feed us, who have duly received these holy mysteries with 
 the spiritual food of the most precious Body and Blood of Thy 
 Son our Saviour Jesus Christ." 
 
 1. Great exception is taken to the word " Priest;" but it 
 should be remembered that this is the general name for 
 ministers of religion in all ages and countries. It occurs many 
 times in the Old and New Testaments ; in the latter it is 
 generally translated "Elder." That the Christian Church 
 was to have Priests in the Old Testament sense appears both 
 from prophecy and early history. Christ was " A Priest for 
 ever after the order of Melchizedek." The word "order" 
 implies more than one, a succession. The Church of Christ 
 therefore, has a succession of Priests of which He is the Head. 
 We have the writings of some of the immediate successors of 
 the Apostles, such, for example, as the epistles of Ignatius, 
 A. D. 107 and Polycarp, a. d. 108, in which the Ministry of 
 the Christian Church is represented as constituted of Bishops, 
 Priests and Deacons. I turn to the short letter of the Martyr 
 Ignatius, written to the Magnesians, and find that the word 
 " Priest " in its uncontracted form. Presbyter, occurs at least 
 five times* 
 
 3. It is jilso very certain that the Prayer Book Jjas no wore 
 
 REFORMED EPISCOPALIANS. 
 
 457 
 
 to say about Ministerial Absolution than the Bible. Christ said 
 to the Apostles, and through them to their successors and dele- 
 gates: "Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto 
 them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained." 
 
 3. The Prayer Book doctrine of Regeneration furnishes the 
 Reformers their greatest pretext for schism. But our Lord said : 
 " Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot 
 enter into the Kingdom of God." Much confusion arises from the 
 failure of Methodists and Reformed Episcopalians to distinguish 
 birth from the beginning of life. These are by no means the 
 same thing. In fact birth presupposes the existence of life ; 
 it is therefore the transition from one state of existence to 
 another. This is also true of the regeneration or new birth 
 which Catholic Christians in all ages have connected with Holy 
 Baptism. The recipient of the Sacrament is thereby trans- 
 ferred from the natural relation established by creation to the 
 covenant relation established by adoption. The change in the 
 spiritual life of an infant is somewhat as the natural birth is to 
 the physical life. Baptism is therefore properly called the new 
 birth, and the Reformers in making and maintaining a schism 
 chiefly because of our Prayer Book doctrine concerning Re- 
 generation disregard both Scripture and reason. 
 
 4. The teaching of our Liturgy regarding the spiritual re- 
 ce})tion of Christ in the Bread and Wine of the Holy Com- 
 munion is also eminently Scriptural. For, on the night in 
 which He was betrayed, " Jesus took bread and blessed it and 
 brake it and gave it to the Disciples and said, Take, eat, this is 
 My Body. And He took the cup and gave thanks and gave it 
 to them, saying. Drink ye all of it for this is My Blood of the 
 New Testament which is shed for many, for the remission of 
 
 The Reformed Episcopalians -are very much like those 
 
 sins. 
 
 Jews who strove among themselves saying, "How can this 
 man give us His Flesh to eat ;" but Jesus said unto them, 
 " "C'erily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the Flesh of the 
 Son of Man and drink His Blood ye have no life in you. 
 
 <;i| 
 
i 
 
 
 APPENDICES. 
 
 Whoso eateth My Flesh and drinketh My Blood hath eternal 
 life, and I will raise him up at the last day, for My Flesh is meat 
 indeed and My Blood is drink indeed. He that eateth My Flesh 
 and drinketh My Blood dwelleth in Me and I in him. As the 
 living Father hath sent Me, and I live by the Father, so he that 
 eateth Me, even he shall live by Me. This is the Bread which 
 came down from Heaven : not as your fathers did eat manna, 
 and are dead : he that eateth of this Bread shall live forever." 
 And St. Paul says, " The Cup of blessing which we bless, is it 
 not the Communion of the Blood of Christ? The Bread which 
 we break, is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ? " 
 
 The Princess Elizabeth's famous reply to her Theological 
 inquisitors is true of the old Prayer Book of our Catholic and 
 Apostolic Church, not only so far as its doctrine concerning the 
 Holy Communion is concerned, but likewise, in principle, of 
 all essential points in which the Reformers and other De- 
 nominationalists depart hgm it. 
 
 " Christ is the Word that spake it. 
 He took the bread and brake it. 
 And what the Word did make it, 
 That I believe and take it." 
 
 The Rev. Dr. Wm. C. Hopkins, of Toledo, heard Dr. 
 Newton, of Philadelphia, a leader of the Low Church party, 
 say, in a public address, that Bishop Cummins had expressed 
 to him deep regret for starting the Reformed Episcopal 
 Church, and acknowledged that his doing so was a great 
 mistake. Many other low Churchmen in refusing to follow 
 his lead said that all that the Reformed Episcopal Church 
 affirmed was already abundantly affirmed by the old Church 
 and all that was denied is already abundantly denied by 
 the Denominations ; so that no new organization was needed 
 for either the affirmative or negative. They said also that 
 the old Church already allowed all the liberty of opinion 
 that the lowest Churchman could ask, in proof of which 
 they called attention to the fact that for years many of 
 
 EXTEMPORE PRAYER AXD EXPERIENCE MEETINGS. 459 
 
 them had freely denied Apostolic Succession and Baptismal 
 Regeneration, and yet continued their ministry without let or 
 hindrance. So that this was the most causaless of all the 
 schisms, and ought to be the first to be healed, and we look 
 forward with hope to the day when the little band of separated 
 brethren will return to the fold, and of them and us there shall 
 be, indeed, " one fold and one Shepherd." 
 
 XIX. 
 
 EXTEMPORE PRAYER AND EXPERIENCE MEETINGS, 
 
 Lecture VI; Page 321. 
 
 'T^HERE are many who have derived a great deal of blessing 
 •*■ and support from the Prayer and Experience Meetings. 
 Not a few of these are almost if not quite persuaded that, 
 being English speaking people, they ought to be in commun- 
 ion with the Historic Catholic Church of their race. But they 
 hesitate in transferring their allegiance because they fear that 
 her Liturgical Services would not meet their spiritual wants. 
 Such will be glad to know that there is no law to prevent 
 Episcopalians from meeting together to join in extempore 
 prayer and to strengthen themselves and encourage one 
 another by the relation of their religious experience. The 
 regular Services of the Church are of course stereotyped, but 
 they are scarcely more so than those of the various non-litur- 
 gical Denominations. So far as general public worship 
 is concerned it does not in any body of Christians take the 
 place of the Prayer and Experience Meeting. There is, how- 
 ever, no Denomination in which it comes so nearly doing so as 
 in the Episcopal Church. The Laity take more part in our 
 regular Sunday services than they do in those of any other 
 religious body. They confess their shortcomings and sins; 
 pray for forgiveness and help ; make a profession of Christ ; 
 and, in the Psalter, even tell their religious experience. True 
 
 y 
 
 : ( 
 ■ 'I 
 
 'J 
 
 \\\ 
 
 I'V 
 
 ..I' 
 
II 
 
 ■^ !! 
 
 460 
 
 APPENDICES. 
 
 they do this by conforming to the postures and joining their 
 voices with the rest of the congregation, but we trust that 
 the prayers, confessions, professions and experiences which 
 Episcopalians say in concert, are no less helpful than those 
 of the hymns which all Christians are accustomed to sing 
 together. 
 
 It is true that taking part in precomposed Services does 
 not afford so much of an opportunity to individuals of taking 
 up their cross, but what is lost in this respect is more than 
 compensated for by the removal of a stumbling-block which 
 accounts for a large element in our non church member popu- 
 lation. So much importance has been attached to the class 
 meeting that taking part in it has come popularly to be 
 regarded as a prerequisite to Church membership in good 
 standing, and the degree of spirituality is judged of by the 
 ability to pray and talk in public. In every congregation 
 there are some whose piety is overestimated, because of the 
 ease with which they meet these requirements ; while that of 
 others is unjustifiably discounted, owing to the lack of fluency 
 and self-assertion which puts them at a disadvantage. The 
 representatives of the latter of these classes who in many 
 cases exhibit the choicest fruits of Christianity, regard the 
 cross which they are called upon to take up as being too 
 heavy for them to bear. The great majority of these would 
 g'ladly make use of the means of grace which Christ and the 
 Apostles instituted for their admittance to the Church and 
 upbuilding in righteousness, but they cannot meet the require- 
 ments of, say, John Wesley and his followers, and so to their 
 regret they feel that they must remain unafllliated with any 
 body of Christians. All such will find the Apostolic Church 
 of the English speaking race the place for them. 
 
 This great historic Communion does not put a yoke upon 
 the humble and shrinking which they are not able to bear. 
 Baptism, of which Confirmation is the completion, and the Holy 
 Communion, are the Gospel ordinances for the confession of 
 
 VESTMENTS A LAYMAN ON. 
 
 461 
 
 Christ. The reception of these upon the simple conditions 
 imposed in all ages by the Catholic Church, namely, a public 
 promise by God's help to renounce the Devil and all his 
 works ; to believe all the articles of the Apostles' Creed ; and 
 to keep God's holy will and Commandments, is all that any 
 person or society has a right to require of those who desire 
 to identify themselves with the Savior and His Kingdom. 
 
 But if there be any Episcopalian who finds that the regular 
 institutions and worship of his Church do not meet his spirit- 
 ual needs, he is at perfect liberty to resort to extemporary 
 prayer. And if the use of it in his closet and the relation of 
 his experience in private conversation with his household and 
 particular friends will not suflBce, there is no reason why he 
 should not organize a class of any who sympathize with him. 
 This is what John Wesley did. In view of this representation, 
 we trust that none who are convinced of this Church's superior 
 claims to their allegiance will hesitate to identify themselves 
 with her, because her regular public worship is liturgical. 
 
 ^■' 
 
 XX. 
 
 VESTMENTS— A LAYMAN ON. 
 Lecture VI; Page 324. 
 
 A FTER reading the section concerning the use of Eccle- 
 
 '^^ siastical Vestments a thoughtful Layman was good 
 
 enough to give me the following excellent criticism: 
 
 " You might have added that the vestments form not only 
 a fitting attire, placing the Clergyman in harmony with the 
 underlying spirit of the Service, but they also * conceal the 
 varying fashions of^men' and are a great protection to the 
 Laity against the personal kinks of their Rector. The latter 
 may wear a sack or a dress coat, but whichever it is the over- 
 lying cassock and surplice hide it. If — as a minister in a 
 religious body not Episcopal was said to have done — he comes 
 into the Church with his pants tucked into the top of boots, 
 
 n 
 
 
 I 
 
I 
 
 Is! 
 
 
 ! ' 
 
 II 
 
 "il 
 
 APPENDICES. 
 
 the fact that he does this is not manifest ; but, in the case just 
 alluded to, the congregation were helpless and would have 
 been so if he had worn a green coat. The vestments insure 
 respect for the dignity of worship, as well as for the rights of 
 the Laity, and does this without trespassing upon the liberty 
 of the Clerffv." 
 
 XXI. 
 
 DANCING, CARD PLAYING AND THEATRE GOING. 
 Leotube VI ; Page 326. 
 
 A T a Mission held in one of the county-seats of the Diocese 
 '^^^ of Ohio, where the Church had been newly established, 
 tlie Missioner encouraged the people to ask questions about 
 points concerning which they would like to know more. Free- 
 dom of inquiry was secured by the placing of a box near the 
 door into which unsigned questions might be deposited. One 
 evening, among other inquiries, it contained this : " You say 
 that in order to become a member of the Episcopal Church a 
 person has to 'Renounce the Devil and all his works, the 
 pomps and vanity of this wicked world and all the sinful lusts 
 of the flesh.' Query : Does dancing, card playing and the* 
 atre going fall under any of these heads? If so, why are not 
 Episcopalians who indulge in them excommunicated? " 
 
 In his answer, which in that community silenced much cavil- 
 ing at the Church, the Missioner, as nearly as I can remember, 
 said : " I confess to a little surprise at this question. Indeed, 
 if it were not for some things which have come to the surface 
 in the course of certain conversations which I have had since 
 my coming among you, I could hardly believe that it is asked in 
 the right spirit. To one raised as I have been it seems almost 
 incredible that any one should seriously contend that pro- 
 fessing Christians who participate in these amusements merit 
 the extreme penalty of excommunication. But in view of 
 
 DANCING, CARD PLAYING AND THEATRE GOING. 
 
 463 
 
 what I have heard, there seems to be a necessity for treating 
 liiis inquiry with the same respect that others which appeared 
 more reasonable received. 
 
 " People are so constituted that they must have a little 
 recreation. There is a proverb to the effect that all work and 
 no play, if long continued, will inevitably have a bad effect 
 upon both body and mind. The universal recognition of this 
 accounts for the fact that no body of Christians forbids all 
 diversions to its adherents. The only difference therefore be- 
 tween Episcopalians and their criticisers is in the matter of 
 regulation. One resorts to legislation, while the other leaves 
 it to the conscience of its members. 
 
 " The Episcopal Church of course expects all her adherents 
 to keep their Baptismal vows. But so far as adults are con- 
 cerned she treats them as men and women, and not like 
 children, and so she allows them to determine for themselves 
 what ate to be included among the things which they have 
 promised to renounce. As for the boys and girls she leaves 
 their parents and spiritual masters and teachers to determine 
 what amusements they shall enjoy. 
 
 *' Now where such liberty of conscience is allowed there is 
 of course always more or less of diversity in opinion and prac- 
 tice. This accounts for the fact that there are Episcopalians 
 who from conscientious scruples do not dance, play cards or 
 attend theatres. Some of our ministers openly discourage 
 these things, and even those who see no harm in them strongly 
 recommend moderation. However, they also do this in re- 
 spect to all amusements which are likely to absorb too much 
 time and attention. 
 
 " The character of one's amusements when he is at liberty to 
 choose for himself, is largely a matter "of taste. I am sorry to 
 say that my j)arents were not professing Christians and that I 
 was not a Church member until after I had reached the estate 
 l»f manhood. I therefore felt perfectly free to dance, play 
 cards or attend the circus — there was no theatre or opera in 
 
1^ 
 
 111 
 
 1 
 
 i«i'| 
 
 'v^HMiflp^iflCi 
 
 APPENDICES. 
 
 the town near the rural community where I lived. I also fre- 
 quented the inevitable Church social and joined without com- 
 punction of conscience in the various romping and kissing 
 games. I will not say that I did not enjoy them, but I always 
 contended, and I have not up to date seen any reason to 
 change my mind, that if I had a sister I should rather have 
 her go to a select dancing party or the circus — opera much 
 preferred if there be any — than to attend the old time Church 
 social or mite society. 
 
 " If some of the Churches which expressly prohibit dancing, 
 card playing and theatre going were to excommunicate all 
 those of their membership who disregard the law, there would 
 Be many empty pews in their places of worship. The mem- 
 bers of the Episcopal Church are by no means the only pro- 
 fessing Christians who take part in the amusements against 
 which the writer of the question seems to be so deeply 
 prejudiced. In fact I have often observed that the various 
 bodies of Christians are generally pretty evenly represented 
 at such parties and entertainments, and that Episcopalians are 
 not always the ones who are most carried away by them. On 
 the contrary, the conduct of those who do these things regard- 
 less of the regulations of the Denomination to which they be- 
 long, often furnishes an iUwstration of the truth of the prover- 
 bial saying, * Stolen waters are sweeter than any other.' " 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH THE CHURCH OF THE POOR. 
 
 Lecture TI; Page 330. 
 
 'HPHIS is the testimony of the Rev. Dr. Jackson, the elo- 
 quent and candid Pastor of the Wesleyan Chapel, Co- 
 lumbus, Ohio. 
 
 "If time permitted I would like to speak at length in 
 praise of the work of the Episcopal Church among the poor, 
 
 THE CHURCH OF THE POOR. 
 
 465 
 
 Although that Communion has perhaps the highest percentage 
 of wealth per member of any Church in this country, yet the 
 poor have they always with them. To the solution of the 
 problems of poverty they have given much of their best thought 
 and energy. Although numerically among the smallest, yet 
 they lead among the Protestant Churches of America in the 
 erection of hospitals, the foundation of charities, and in the 
 organization of various sisterhoods, guilds, brotherhoods and the 
 like, for the alleviation of human distress. Their Parish and 
 Cathedral system for our great cities, with their Parish Houses, 
 is the only sensible and practical plan yet devised for bringing 
 the whole force of the Church to bear for the relief of our over- 
 crowded tenement house population. The Methodist Epis- 
 copal Church, while theoretically the best organized, next to 
 the Catholics, for united attack upon the evils of our great 
 cities, is yet, practically, owing to our compulsory system of 
 pastoral change by the almanac, and the ruinous competi- 
 tion encouraged between our congregations, weakly and 
 criminally negligent and utterly inefficient." 
 
 The custom of fashionable dressing in all " the churches " 
 
 has done more than anything else to exclude the poor from 
 
 public worship, but this is the misfortune of all Denominations 
 
 alike, and its correction is a problem only partially solved 
 
 by our various City Missions. One thing is certain that all 
 
 respectable poor people faithfully attending the Episcopal 
 
 Church are sure of a warm and permanent welcome. 
 
 "Our Mother, the Church, hath never a child 
 
 To honor before the rest, 
 And she singeth the same for mighty kings 
 
 And the veriest babe on her breast; 
 And the Bishop goes down to his narrow bed 
 
 As the ploughman's child is laid, 
 And alike she blesseth the dark-brow'd serf, 
 
 And the chief in his robe arrayed. 
 She sprinkles the drops of the bright new-birth, 
 
 The same on the low and high, 
 And christens their bodies with dust to dust, 
 
 When earth with its earth must lie." 
 C. A.— 30 
 
F 
 
 m 
 
 I 1. 
 
 466 
 
 APPENDICES. 
 
 XXIII. 
 
 FERMENTED COMMUNION WJNE, OBJECTION 
 
 TO, CONSIDERED. 
 
 Lecture VII; Page 355. 
 
 SINCE tlie pnblication of the First Edition of this book, I 
 have met with some excellent people who, after connect- 
 ing themselves with a newly organized Mission, had compunc- 
 tion of conscience about coming to the Holy Communion 
 because the Church requires fermented wine to be used in its 
 administration. This led to considerable conversation and 
 inquiry, which convinced me that the law regulating this 
 matter is a stumbling-block to many whose total abstinence 
 pledge forbids them the use of wine except for medicinal pur- 
 poses. There are doubtless some of these in almost every 
 community. In view of the gigantic evils growing out of the 
 use of alcoholic drinks, those who do what they can to stem the 
 tide of degradation and sorrow by observing the precept to 
 "touch not, taste not" and "handle not," and by inducing 
 others to follow their example, must command the profound 
 respect of all thoughtful men and women. Can such receive 
 the Holy Communion in the Episcopal Church without doing 
 violence to their noble conscientious scruples? It would be 
 8 matter for great regret if this question could not be satis, 
 factorily answered in the affirmative. How then can any one> 
 who is pledged to total abstinence justify himself in receiving 
 the Holy Communion in a Church that uses fermented wine 
 and does not permit anything else to be substituted? 
 
 In our answer to this question we would call attention to 
 the fact that those who have signed total abstinence pledges 
 generally feel at liberty to use wine or even pure alcohol for 
 
 FERMENTED COMMUNION WINE. 
 
 467 
 
 medicinal purposes. And surely if the pledge may be set 
 aside by a human physician's prescription in the case of bodily 
 sickness, it may be done by the prescription of the Divine 
 Physician for our spiritual illness. But, it will be asked, did 
 our Lord prescribe fermented wine by using it at the institu- 
 tion of the Holy Communion on the night of His betrayal ? 
 We think that there can be no reasonable doubt that He did. 
 
 In the General Convention of a. d. 1886, the House of 
 Bishops passed a resolution declaring that the use of unfer- 
 mented wine was " unwarranted by the example of our Lord, 
 and contrary to the custom of the Catholic Church." The 
 Lambeth Conference of a. d. 1888 more strongly affirmed the 
 same position in the following resolution : " That the Bishops 
 assembled in this conference declare that the use of unfer- 
 mented juice of the grape or any other liquid other than true 
 Wine diluted or undiluted, as the element in the Administra- 
 tion of the Cup in Holy Communion, is unwarranted by the 
 example of our Lord and is an unauthorized departure from 
 the custom of the Catholic Church." 
 
 In an editorial on the first Lord's Supper The Congrega- 
 
 tionalist thus admirably sums up the reasons why we must 
 
 accept it as a fact that the wine used was fermented: 
 
 " The Jews had no scientific knowledge intimating the 
 fermentation of bread and wine to be identical. The Jerusa- 
 lem Talmud distinctly orders the Passover service to be cele- 
 brated with red wine, which is necessarily fermented. The 
 Talmud limited the quantity to such a degree as clearly to 
 show the prevention of drunkenness to be the object. Vinegar 
 was used at the Passover table, showing that vinous fermenta- 
 tion was not prohibited. To this may be added the opinions 
 of Dr. Edersheim, a Christian of Jewish lineage and an emi- 
 nent graduate of Oxford, singularly -familiar with the Tal- 
 muds and the entire Hebrew literature, who says : ' The 
 contention that this was unfermented wine is not worth dis- 
 
 * 
 
 cussion.' All the testimony of the most eminent Jewish 
 Rabbis of our day is also in this direction." 
 
 Those who have total abstinence vows resting upon them 
 
I 
 
 r 
 
 III 
 liil' 
 
 1 
 
 may ilierefore come to the Lord's Supper in the Episcopal 
 Church, because in doing so they will be rendering obedi- 
 #nce to the Great Physician of their souls. As the late Bishop 
 of Pennsylvania said to one who hesitated, because of a 
 pledge, to receive the Communion, and sought his Godly 
 advice and counsel: "Our Blessed Lord used the ordinary 
 wine of the country at the institution of the Lord's Supper. 
 In His Divine omniscience He looked through all the future, 
 and saw every possible consequence of such an act. Yet He 
 deliberately chose the * blood of the grape,' when He would 
 symbolize the Blood of the Cross, and, in His infinite wisdom, 
 which can do no wrong, ordained that it should be used in all 
 places and ages, and among all conditions of men as the one 
 Divine way of celebrating the Lord's Supper. To hesitate 
 at taking a small sip of wine from the Chalice, because it is 
 used by others for intoxicating purposes, is to reflect on our 
 Blessed Lord's wisdom and goodness and love and purity, and 
 to affect to be purer and holier than He. The Lord Jesus, if 
 you take the wine in His strength and at His command, 
 will keep you from an evil consequence to yourself and others; 
 whereas, disobedience to His command dishonors Him, insults 
 Him; sets up your judgment against His, and will put your 
 own self-will above the positive command 'drink ye all of 
 
 this.' " 
 
 One of the persons with whom I conversed about this 
 matter argued that it was wrong to use fermented wine, 
 because newly converted men who had fallen into the drinking 
 habit would have their almost irresistible cravings for intoxi- 
 cants revived by the taste of it. But I happened to be able 
 to cite an instance from my own pastoral experience which 
 goes to show that there is not much in this. He was an attrac- 
 tive young man, for whom his parents and lovely wife had a 
 great deal of anxiety. After much hesitancy due to fear that 
 he would bring reproach to the Church, he finally yielded 
 to the persuasion of one of his companions who was a Church- 
 
 V 
 
 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. 
 
 469 
 
 man and was confirmed. There were some misgivings about 
 the result of his coming to the Holy Communion, but it did not 
 occur to me or to any one else to use unfermented grape 
 juice or some other substitute for wine. The friend who in- 
 duced him to come into the Church afterwards asked him 
 whether he thought that there was any danger connected with 
 the taking of the Sacramental wine, to which he confidently 
 replied, no. He then went on to explain why he had no fear. 
 In the first place, he went to the Altar for help to enable 
 him to overcome his besetting sin and he did not go in vain. 
 Moreover, there was scarcely any resemblance in taste between 
 the light diluted wine received from the Chalice and the 
 strong drink which overcame him, for the latter contained a 
 large percentage of alcohol, while the former has almost none 
 at all. 
 
 .1* r 
 
 •/s 
 
 XXIV. 
 
 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE AND THE 
 
 FAITH OF ITS SIGNERS. 
 
 Lecture VII ; Page 378. 
 
 C JGNERS of the Declaration of Independence : 
 *^ New Hampshire — Josiah Bartlett, Congregation - 
 
 alist ; William H. Whipple, Congregationalist ; Matthew 
 Thornton, Congregationalist. 
 
 Massachusetts — John Hancock, Congregationalist ; John 
 Adams, Congregationalist ; Samuel Adams, Congregationalist; 
 Robert Treat Paine, Congregationalist ; Elbridge Gerry, 
 Episcopalian. 
 
 Rhode Island — Stephen Hopkins, Quaker; William Ellery, 
 Congregationalist. 
 
 Connecticut — Roger Sherman, Congregationalist ; Samuel 
 Huntington, Congregationalist ; William Williams, Congre- 
 gationalist ; Oliver Wolcott, Congregationalist. 
 
 New York — William Floyd, Presbyterian ; Philip Liv- 
 ingstone, Episcopalian ; Francis Lewis, Episcopalian ; Lewis 
 Morris, Episcopalian. 
 
 I 
 
!| 
 
 470 
 
 APPENDICES. 
 
 New Jersey — Richard Stockton, Quaker ; John Wither- 
 spoon, Presbyterian ; Francis Hopkinson, Episcopalian ; John 
 Hart, Baptist ; Abraham Chirk, Presbyterian. 
 
 Pennsylvania — Robert Morris, Episcopalian ; Benjamin 
 Rush, Episcopalian ; Benjamin Franklin, Episcopalian ; John 
 Morton. Episcopalian ; George Clymer, Episcopalian ; James 
 Smith, Presbyterian ; George Taylor. Episcopalian ; James 
 Wilson, Episcopalian ; George Ross, Episcopalian. 
 
 Delaware— Caesar Rodney, Episcopalian; George Read, 
 Episcopalian ; Thomas McKean, Presbyterian. 
 
 Maryland — Samuel Chase, Episcopalian; Thomas Stone, 
 Episcopalian ; William Paca, Episcopalian ; Charles Carroll, 
 
 Roman Catholic. 
 
 Virginia — George Wythe, Episcopalian ; Richard Henry 
 Lee, Episcopalian ; Thomas Jefferson, Episcopalian; Benja- 
 min Harrison, Episcopalian; Thomas Nelson, Jr., Episco- 
 palian ; Francis Lightfoot Lee, Episcopalian ; Carter Braxton, 
 
 Episcopalian. 
 
 North Carolina.— William Hooper, Episcopalian; Joseph 
 
 Hewes, Episcopalian; John Penn, Episcopalian. 
 
 South Carolina.— Edward Rutledge, Episcopalian; Thomas 
 Heyward, Jr., Episcopalian; Thomas Lynch, Jr., Episcopalian; 
 Arthur Middleton, Episcopalian. 
 
 Georgia.— Button Gwinnett, Episcopalian; Lyman Hall, 
 Congregationalist; George Walton, Episcopalian. 
 
 Signatures were affixed to the Declaration on July 4 and 
 August 2, 1776. Several members of Congress who voted 
 for, or while present strongly favored the Declaration did not, 
 for one or another good reason, have an opportunity of signing 
 it. Among such there were five Congregational ists, one 
 Presbyterian, one Dutch Reformed, one Quaker and thirteen 
 Episcopalians. The members of the Episcopal Church of 
 whom this is true are : John Alsop, John Jay, James Duane, 
 Robert R. Livingston, Jr., Henry Wisner, Edward Biddle, 
 Thomas Willing, Robert Goldsborough, John Hall, Matthew 
 Tilghman, Thomas Johnson, Jr., John Rutledge and Archi- 
 bald Bullock. 
 
 In view of this showing and that of Appendix VL, page 
 413, it is surpassingly strange that Congregationalists, on the 
 
 Nf 
 
 PERPETUITY. 
 
 471 
 
 one hand, and on the other, Romanists, try to make it appear 
 that the credit of laying the foundations of our Independence 
 and Republican Government is due chiefly to their sons. But, 
 surely, if the representatives of either of these bodies of 
 Christians had any ground for their pretension. Episcopalians 
 would not have predominated so greatly among the makers 
 and signers of the Declaration of Independence and the Con- 
 stitution of the United States. The first of these instruments 
 was signed by twelve Congregationalists and one Roman 
 Catholic, and the second by five Congregationalists and two 
 Roman Catholics. But thirty-six Episcopalians had the im- 
 perishable honor of subscribing their names to the first of these 
 documents and twenty-seven to the second. 
 
 As of late years Romanists have been making such 
 astounding claims, we are justified in going a little out of our 
 way to call especial attention to a fact which must be humili- 
 ating to them, namely, that Charles Carroll, the only one of 
 their faith whose name appears among the signers of the 
 Declaration of Independence, was a pew renter and an at- 
 tendant of the Episcopal Church. 
 
 PERPETUITY: 
 
 XXV. 
 
 AN ADDITIONAL REASON FOR BEING AN 
 EPISCOPALIAN. 
 
 Lecture VII ; Page 386. 
 
 ONE of the considerations which will induce many to iden- 
 tify themselves with the Episcopal Church rather than 
 with any other body of Protestant Christians, grows out of the 
 fact that the long continuance and present condition of this 
 Church are a guarantee of her perpetuity. There is a strong de- 
 sire on the part of most thoughtful men to ally themselves with 
 the permanent and to avoid the ephemeral. The Scriptural 
 proverb "no man also having drunk old wine straightway 
 
n 
 
 11 
 
 i 
 
 
 472 
 
 APPENDICES. 
 
 clesireth new, for he saith the old is better " expresses a deep- 
 rooted and far-reaching instinct, which as time goes on will 
 tell more and more upon the growth of the Episcopal Church. 
 Of two or more institutions claiming the allegiance of men and 
 women, the one which gives the greatest promise of durability 
 will, other things being equal, in the long run gain the day. 
 In view of what has been said in other connections it cannot 
 foe denied that the Episcopal Church is at least as Scriptural, 
 as pure and as useful as any other Christian body. This 
 being the case, if she can be shown to be more enduring than 
 her rivals, that, in itself, will, in the case of multitudes, settle 
 the question touching the superior claims of allegiance. 
 
 Now the very fact that this Church has existed for eigh- 
 teen hundred years, certainly proves that she has marvelous 
 qualities of endurance. Nor does she yet show the slightest 
 signs of decay. On the contrary she never was more vigorous 
 in every part of the English speaking world than at this time. 
 Those who identify themselves with the American branch of 
 this Communion will therefore be morally certain that their 
 influence and work and gifts will go towards the upbuilding 
 of an institution which will continue as long at least as the 
 English civilization lasts. It may be that some of the other 
 Protestant bodies will also continue through many centuries 
 to come, but the history of sectarianism is against the proba- 
 bility of any of them doing so. 
 
 Of all the sects that arose in the course of the first one 
 thousand years of the Christian Dispensation, none has survived. 
 If Arianism, the greatest of them all, may be said to biB an ex- 
 ception, its feeble condition as seen in the Unitarian body 
 will afford no encouragement for hope that the Denomi- 
 nations which have sprung up since the Reformation, though 
 they be ever so flourishing at this time, will be in existence 
 three hundred years hence. Where are the sects that made 
 such a stir in pre-Reformation times, the Donatists, the Nova- 
 tians, the Arians, the Cathari? If these have all long since 
 
 CHIEF BODIES OF PROTESTANT CHRISTIANS. 
 
 473 
 
 died out, what guarantee of perpetuity can any post-Reforma- 
 tion Denomination offer ? Many of them have had their little 
 day already, and not a few others have not much more than a 
 name to live. Even the most flourishing among them are 
 comparatively no more so than some of the early sects. Their 
 growth has not been any more rapid or substantial. 
 
 There is therefore no reason why the history of the pre-Re- 
 formation sects should not repeat itself in those of the post-Re- 
 formation period. The probabilities are entirely on the side 
 of the conclusion that at the end of the next four or five hun- 
 dred years Lutheranism, Congregationalism, Presbyterianism, 
 Baptistism and Methodism will be things of the past. But 
 while this in the light of history is the outlook of sectarianism, 
 the prospects are that the Historic Church of the English 
 speaking race will, as the centuries come and go, grow more 
 powerful and useful until her children shall be in numbers as 
 the sand by the seaside, for multitude, and her blessing shall 
 cover the whole earth. 
 
 Thus, if Americans choose their Church relationship with 
 reference to the probabilities of perpetuity, there is nothing for 
 them to do but to become Episcopalians. 
 
 XXVI. 
 
 NEW YORK STATISTICS OF THE CHIEF BODIES OF 
 PROTESTANT CHRISTIANS IN 1895. 
 
 Lecture VII; Page 393. 
 
 Disciples 493 
 
 Evangelical 800 
 
 United Presbyterian , 900 
 
 Congregationalists 2,763 
 
 Reformed 8,936 
 
 Lutheran 11,632 
 
 Methodist 14,657 
 
 Baptist 15,110 
 
 Presbyterian 22,313 
 
 Episcopalian 43,689 
 
t 
 
 APPENDICES. 
 
 Tmpi figures are furnished by the New York city 
 Mismon Monthly, a Presbyterlta publication. The following 
 
 is its coiutnent : 
 
 ** It will be noticed that the Episcopalians far outnumber 
 any other denomination in their membership. Their relative 
 
 byterians in the matter of Church membership. 
 
 XXVII. 
 
 STATISTICS OF ENGLISH SPEAKING BODIES OF 
 CHRISTIANS IN THE WORLD. 
 
 Lecture VII ; Page 396. 
 
 THE following estimates by M. Fournier de Flaix, pub- 
 lished in IImi " Quarterly dl the American Statistical 
 
 ilii»l>l«tillil^ Hi March, 1892, are the latest that have been 
 
 made by a compelinl tilfeority : 
 
 Episcoimlians ; • ; ?u'^'^ 
 
 Methodists of all descriptions l^'oS^'Sv! 
 
 Roman Catholics jY't^'Sv^ 
 
 Presbyterians of all descriptions \vAlX'X2; 
 
 Baptists of all descriptions ^I'XUX'XJSJ 
 
 Congregationalists 
 Free Thinkers 
 
 H,000,000 
 4,500,000 
 
 I^utheraiis - 9'?^'^ 
 
 Unitarians ^Wnno 
 
 Minor Religious Sects. it'S^'^ 
 
 Of no particular religion io,i)UO,»uu 
 
 English speaking population 117,175,000 
 
 The overshadowinj^ preponderance of Episcopalians in the 
 English speaking world will appear still plainer when it is 
 remembered that she is one great, closely-knit Communion, 
 while the various other bodies, except the Roman Catholics, 
 are broken up into many rival sects. For example, there are in 
 America alone seventeen Denominations of Methodists, which 
 
 I 
 
 ENGLISH SPEAKING CHRISTIANS IN THE WORLD. 475 
 
 to all practical purposes are as separate and distinct from each 
 other as Congregationalists and Baptists. The largest by far 
 of these Wesleyan bodies reports a membership of less than 
 two millions. It is therefore very misleading, when compar- 
 ino- the Anglican Communion with the followers of Wesley, 
 to say that the former has twenty-eight million five hundred 
 thousand, and the latter eighteen million two hundred and 
 fifty thousand. The same is quite as true of Presbyterianism. 
 So far as numbers are concerned, the Romanists really come 
 much nearer to us than any of the Protestant Denominations, 
 but even they are numerically not much more than half as 
 strong; while in other elements of strength, such as social, 
 political, and commercial influence, they fall behind much 
 
 further. 
 
 Moreover, there is no probability that either Romanism or 
 Denominationalism will ever overshadow the Historic Catholic 
 Church of our race. There" have been periods since the 
 Reformation when it seemed as if there were ground for fear 
 first that the one and then the other might do so ; but this is 
 far from being the case now. The great Anglican Com- 
 munion is rapidly recovering from the prostrate and pitiable 
 condition to which she was brought by the cooperation of her 
 powerful Papal and Puritanical enemies, who after abandon- 
 ing her in great numbers used their immense political power 
 to keep her in the dust. But though they were for a long 
 time successful, she finally recovered her feet, and now it may 
 be said of her : " God even thy God hath annointed thee with 
 the oil of gladness above thy fellows." 
 
 That this is true of the English branch of our Communion, 
 appears from the following extract from the Schaff-Herzog 
 Encyclopaedia : 
 
 '' During the century the vigorous life of the Church has 
 been further shown by the restoration of Cathedrals and con- 
 struction of Churches, in the creation of new Episcopal Sees at 
 home and the rapid extension of the Church and Episcopate in 
 the Colonies. At no time in its history has it been stronger 
 
 fl 
 
476 
 
 APPENDICES. 
 
 and more vigorous than now ; more alive with Theological 
 discussion and achievement ; more competent to cope with 
 infidelity ; more solicitous to relieve the poor and fallen ; more 
 munificent in its gifts for the conversion of the heathen, or 
 more adapted to secure the esteem and gain the respect of the 
 Anglo-Saxon people." 
 
 That the same is true of the American branch of our Com- 
 munion appears from what a writer in Harper's Weekly says : 
 
 " The Episcopal Church has now for many years weighed 
 far more in public estimation than is indicated by its very mod- 
 erate array of Communicants and Clergy in the United States. 
 The Church in America stands not alone, but is a Province of 
 the world-wide Anglican Communion, and borrows as well as 
 lends importance by reason of that association and kinship. It 
 derives dignity and gathers influence from its roots in the past, 
 from its mediatory position between the great Protestant 
 bodies and the historic Churches, from its steadfastness among 
 winds of doctrines, from its venerable order, from its sobriety 
 of taste, from its grave splendor of public worship, from ite 
 widespread and devoted work among the poor, and from its 
 great strength at centres of thought and influence." 
 
 Nor is our unparalleled growth in the British Empire and 
 America the only evidence of renewed life and vigor. We 
 have become the greatest Missionary agency of Christendom. 
 There are at this time nearly one hundred of our Missionary 
 Bishops and four thousand other Missionaries in the field. 
 " They are in every part of Europe, Asia, Africa, South 
 America and in the Isles of the Sea. Many of these Bishops 
 have now established strong Churches which are themselves 
 sending out Missionaries. For instance, the Bishop of Sierra 
 Leone has an entire corps of black Clergy and they are not 
 only self-supporting, but they have sent twenty-eight Mission- 
 aries into the interior of Africa." 
 
 Nothing can be more certain than that, so far as the Eng- 
 lish speaking race is concerned, the prophecy " They shall be- 
 come one flock and one Shepherd " is destined to be fulfilled 
 in the Anglican Communion. It will not be until after the 
 English civilization has run a much more remarkable course 
 than that of Rome, that a New Zealander " in the midst of a 
 vast solitude shall take his stand on a broken arch of London 
 
 CATHOLIC. 
 
 477 
 
 Bridge to sketch the ruins of St. Paul's." In the meantime 
 some one who is a more reliable prophet and historian, if not 
 a more brilliant rhetorician than Lord Macaulay, will record 
 the collapse of the Papacy and the names of defunct Denomi- 
 nations which are now flourishing. 
 
 XXVIIL 
 
 CATHOLIC, 
 
 Lecture VII; Page 347. 
 
 I WEAR the name of Christ, my God, 
 So name me not from man ! 
 And my broad country Catholic, 
 
 Hath neither tribe nor clan: 
 Its rulers are an endless line, 
 
 Through all the world they went, 
 Commissioned from the Holy Hill 
 Of Christ's sublime ascent." 
 
 Both Romanists and Denominationalists object to our use 
 of the word "Catholic." This is because the former per- 
 sistently claim, and the latter practically concede, the designa- 
 tion to be the exclusive property of the Roman Church. 
 Romanists call themselves " Catholics," and the body to which 
 they belong the " Catholic Church." Denominationalists and 
 not a few thoughtless Episcopalians in both their spoken and 
 written utterances often politely allow this usurpation. It is 
 said that in China courtesy requires a man to use disparaging 
 words in speaking of anything belonging to himself or with 
 which he is connected, so that if he were asked of what re- 
 ligion he was, it would be proper for him to answer : The miser- 
 able superstition to which I an addicted is so-and-so. There 
 is a large and increasing element in the Episcopal Church who 
 cannot conscientiously carry their politeness to such an ex- 
 treme. We feel that consistency with our profession of faith 
 
478 
 
 AFPKNDICBS. 
 
 twi a regard fm. fftiHi, »qii«fe that we should rather protest 
 against the exclusive appropriation by Romanists of what be- 
 longs to us quite as much as to them. 
 
 We profess to be Catholics, for in one of the Creeds we 
 say, *«I believe in the Holy Catholic Church," and in the 
 ether, "One Catholic an4 Apostolic Church." One of the 
 Creeds is repeated at every regular Service and often on less 
 formal occasions. If the Episcopal Church is not really 
 Catholic so far as the Faith is concerned, and Apostolic m 
 lespect to her origin and government, we should cease to repeat 
 
 the Creeds. 
 
 Catholic is a Greek word, which literally means general or 
 universal, but this is not its entire significance in the Creeds. 
 It has reference there to the doctrine and government which 
 were universally believed and accepted by the Orthodox dur- 
 ing the early ages of Christianity. The Catholic doctrine was 
 de'fined by the Great Ecumenical Councils, and consists of the 
 twelve articles which were first condensed into the Apostles 
 Creed and afterwards expanded into the Nicene. During the 
 Conciliary period, which closed with the year 680, there was a 
 great deal of dispute about matters of doctrine, but there was 
 practical unanimity concerning the form of Ecclesiastical 
 Government, and so the Creeds contain comparatively little 
 upon the subject, in fact the older form contains nothing 
 while the other has simply the word *' Apostolic." This is 
 however enough to abundantly justify the conclusion that no 
 organization which was not founded by the Apostles and is 
 not governed by Bishops, who are their legitimate successors 
 in Office, has a right to call itself a '^ Catholic " Church. 
 
 Romanists and Denominationalists define the term " Catho- 
 lic " very difEerently. The former makes it exclude all bodies 
 of Christians except the Papal Communion and include all the 
 Roman additions to " The Faith once delivered to the Saints." 
 According to the latter, it embraces all Denominations that 
 acknowledge the Divinity of Christ and look to Him for Salva- 
 
 CATHOLIC. 
 
 479 
 
 tion, whether they adhere to the whole of the Ecumenical 
 Creeds and discipline or not. But " can any one," asks Mr. 
 Labagh, " be so demented as to suppose that when the Primi- 
 tive Christians repeated the Apostles ' Creed and said, ' I be- 
 lieve in the Holy Catholic Church' or the Nicene Creed 
 and said, * I believe one Catholic and Apostolic Church ' 
 they embraced in that language the whole brood of Sec- 
 taries that either then existed or might at any future time 
 arise, and at the present time flourish." Both Romanists and 
 Denominationalists agree that " Catholic " is a synonym for 
 universal ; but the one applies it to the doctrines and govern- 
 ment that are peculiar to the Roman Church, while the other 
 contends that every sect has as much right as the Church of 
 Rome to stamp its peculiarities with the imprint of " Catholic." 
 Episcopalians agree with Denominationalists in this con- 
 clusion, but we say that neither is right in supposing that the 
 word "Catholic" in the Creeds has any reference whatso- 
 ever to their respective peculiarities. On the contrary, it is 
 not a justification, but a condemnation of them. We glory in 
 the fact that, if judged by the Ecumenical Creeds, our Church 
 has no uncatholic peculiarities, none whatsoever. This is true 
 of her both in respect to doctrine and government. Romanists 
 and Denominationalists boast of their doctrinal and govern- 
 mental peculiarities, we of our freedom from them. Pecu- 
 liarities are not notes of Catholicity but rather evidences of 
 sectarianism. The dogmas of Transubstantiation, the Imma- 
 culate Conception, the Infallibility of the Pope, and Papal 
 Jurisdiction, come perilously near to converting the Roman 
 Church into a mere sect. Many think that so long as that 
 Church persists in these and her many- other peculiar heresies 
 she has no title to be regarded as anything more than a sect. 
 The names of Denominationalists, such, for example, as Pres- 
 byterian, Baptist, Methodist, Congregationalist, Seventh-day 
 Adventist, usually mark their heretical peculiarities and bear 
 witness to their sectarian character. 
 
 m 
 
APPExmoBS* 
 
 That tlie Episcopal CImrcl Is tlie oiily Christian body in 
 this country to which the word " Catholic " as used in the 
 Creeds is applicable, appears from the fact that she has no 
 peculiarities and that her teaching and government are the 
 same as those which always have prevailed. The remarkable 
 fact cannot be made too plain that at this time our Communion 
 neither teaches nor practices any essential thing which is 
 peculiar to herself. If this statement, which no Romanist or 
 Denominationalist would dare to make of the communion to 
 which he adheres, be doubted, let him who calls it in question 
 name so much as one doctrine of this Church that is not to-day 
 taught by the majority of Christians. He who undertakes to 
 do this will enter upon an interesting trend of investigation 
 which will ultimately bring him into the Episcopal Church ; 
 for not only will the truth of our representation be confirmed, 
 but the attractiveness of a Church devoid of peculiarities will 
 become irresistible. 
 
 "Ancient prayer, and song liturgic. 
 Creeds that change not to the end, 
 As His gifts we have received them. 
 As His charge we will defend." 
 
 I 
 
 REFERENCES TO QUOTATIONS. 
 
 The Lectures in their original form were written for the 
 class room, not for publication; and even when, after the 
 lapse of several years, the work was prepared for the press, 
 there was no expectation that it would be read by Clergymen 
 and learned Laymen, who might want to verify and use its 
 statements in their articles and books. Hence it was decided 
 to omit the localizing foot-notes which increase and disfigure 
 the pages of more pretentious volumes and are passed over by 
 the ordinary reader. Accordingly no record of quotations 
 was kept. The compiling of this Index has been therefore 
 no little undertaking, and it was found to be practically im- 
 possible to make it entirely complete. However, special pains 
 . have been taken to trace to their source all quotations which are 
 likely to prove of any value to those who have represented 
 that a list of references would be helpful to them and others. 
 
 PAGES 
 
 4, 85th line, Oldroyd, Continuity of the English Church through Eighteen 
 Centuries, inside of front cover. ^ ^-igutccu 
 
 9, 15th line, Barrett, The Churchman's Scrap-Book, n 48 
 I?' l^it? ?"^' S*^^J^^' Prebendary, Church Government, p.' 14. 
 H' i^JJ? i?"®' 5P-^®^^' Apollos, or the Way of God, p. 94. 
 iS' ?^u^/^"®vy• ^- Huntington, The Church Idea, p. 211. 
 J?' J^fu 1?^' Hammond. John Wesley, " Being Dead Yet Speaketh," p. 114. 
 J4 27th line, Hammond, What is Christ's Church, p. 370. ^ 
 
 Jo' ^"V"!?®' ®^- C!oxe, Apollos, or the Way of God, p. 45. 
 1.' 29th line, Drummond's Programme of Christianity, pp. 19-20. 
 
 21, 21st line, Pearson on the Creed, p. 522. . 
 
 22, 7th line, Bp. Coxe. Apollos, or the Way of God, pp. 40-47. 
 Sf' ?!L"/}^' Drummond's Programme of Christianity, p. 02. 
 ?t' H^? il"®' Drummond, The City Without a Church, p. 45. 
 HI' 28th line, Drummond, The City Without a Church, p. 45. 
 ^, 9th line, Bp. Thompson, First Principles, p. 17. 
 
 ??' ?«?J^,?^' Bp. Coxe, Apollos, or the Way of God, p. 95. 
 81, 10th line. Miller's Parish Note-Book, p. 14. 
 
 83, 8rd line, Gladstone, The Vatican Decrees, p. 83. 
 
 ??♦ ?fr? Ii"^' 1'/^?°''^' Epist. VII. 27, V. 20; v. 43; VII. v. 33. 
 
 84, 85th line, Macleane,The Coat Without Seam Torn, p. 93. 
 
 C. A.— 81 
 
 (481) 
 
I 
 
 
 PAGES 
 
 THE rni'RCH FOR AMKRICAJiS. 
 
 »AGES ^ -, 
 
 35 14th line, Macleane, The Coat Without Seam Torn, p. 61. 
 
 A2 '2Ut line, J. H. Hopkins, Monsignor Capel. p. 33. 
 
 la Sth line, Littledale, Words for Truth, p. 20. 
 
 A«i nnth line Church Eclectic, vol. h». p. IfH. 
 
 ii itst line Gayer, A. E., Papal Infallibility and Supremacy, p. 3. 
 
 tf' ?i?h iTne "Jknus," The Pope and the Council, pp. (WMW. 
 
 S' mth Wnl: Sa?nion's Infallibility of the Church, p. 325. 
 
 57' 24th line, The Vatican Council, p. 8H. 
 
 fts' 19th line Gladstone-Schaff's Vatican Decrees, pp. '^-7-'^. 
 
 M Sth line History of the Vatican Council, DrScWfT, p. 79. 
 
 m Sh 1 ne!br sSff, Dogmatic Decrees of the Vatican Council, p. Ib7. 
 
 S' i^rh iViiP Dr Schaff, History of the Vatican Council, p. M. 
 
 6 ' mh ne! dJ: Scliaff : HistorJ of the Vatican Council, p. 89. 
 
 fii Sth ne " Janus," The Pope and the Council, p. 40. 
 
 el' ind lin^. Pretended Speecli of a Bishon in the Council, p. 195. 
 
 ttfi' Sth line, Keenan's Controversial Catechism. 
 
 tl] mhHn;, "Janus," The Pope and the Council^>. 129. 
 
 fi7 94th line Quarterly Review, October. 1S89. p. .^M 
 
 t?: ll9?Une, The Church Standard, February 9. im p 442. 
 
 74 11th line, " Janus," The Pope and the Council, p. S2. 
 
 ?t' ^rd line Robins, On the Claims of the Roman (Church, p. 474. 
 
 ?!' Sth Hne, New York Churchman, September 2«, 1«^^P- •««• 
 
 7?' ^h 1 ne! Salmon's Infallibility of the Church VV-}^19,. 
 
 80 29th line, " Janus," The Pope and the Council, p. 00 
 
 SV' mtH n^ nr Schaff. History of the Vatican Council 
 
 «a' 9nd line " Janus," The Pope and the Council, p. 1J«. 
 
 S' .1?h li^ne PuUer The Primitive Saints and the ^ee of Rome, p. XII 
 
 Si' 1 th Une, G adstone-Schaff, the Vatican Decrees p. K^ 
 
 S' 27th ine The Vatican Council - Speech of Abp. Kenrick, p. 12i,. 
 
 M 5th line Robins, On the Claims of the Roman Church, p. «>. 
 
 M 9th iSe Robins On the Claims of the Roman Church p^8K 
 
 M 11th line, Robins, On the Claims of the Roman Church, p. 88. 
 
 84' 13th ine Robins On the Claims of the Roman Church, p. 88. 
 
 84' 16th ne Robins On the Claims of the Roman Church, p. 89 
 
 84' 19th ne Quirinus, Letters from Rome on the Council, p. 832. 
 
 M 26th Wnl: The Sequel to the Council, The Vatican <Jouncll, p. 229 
 
 m 33rd ne InnoceJit III., Serm. 2. De Consecr. Pontif., p. 189, ed. < 
 
 iJ' 4th line! Littledale, Words for Truth, p. 58 
 
 ««' sird line Supremacy of the Pope Disproved, p. 47. 
 
 S' nth line Speech of Abp. Kenrick, The Vatican Council, p. 107-109. 
 
 S' 27th line Gore, Roman Catholic Claims, pp. X\ II-X\ III. 
 S' Set line Salmon Infallibility of the Church, p. 353. 
 2?' ^Jh line RSbms On Claims of the Roman Church, p. 256. 
 S : 8 S SI: Robins': oS the Claims of the Roman Church p. 2o(.. 
 
 S}' ^ liSI: ^^S^^^r^^Ti^^^^ Nf>te. vol. I., p. 246. 
 
 W, SthStne,"" P'rSiended Speech of a Bishop in the 
 Council, p. 181. 
 
 Colon, l.')75. 
 
 Council— The Vatican 
 
 »4. Slst IhTe! Pr^etended Speech of a Bishop in the 
 Council,?. 177. -- - 
 
 Council— The 
 Council— The 
 Council, 
 
 Vatican 
 
 Vatican 
 
 95 10th TS'eTh^' Sequel to the Council -The Vatican Council, p 
 S' 16th Vml: " Janus," The Pope and the Counci , p. 63 
 r^' i^.f !?"„' ,4 T*„„. " Th^ Pone and the Council, p. W 
 
 23<'.. 
 
 {)3. 
 
 ^- S line: ■• Zu^r The Po^ and the Council, p. 
 
 S- l^fh'^fne'^R^MnXthl'ciaSs&'.he Roman Church, p m. 
 
 S: fflrd line: Robins: On the Claims of the Roman Church, p. 1*. 
 
 ^- S'rd line' fuTe? Thl'primltt« S^X ^d the See of Rome. p. 51. 
 » mt Se RoWns. On the Claims of the Roman Church p. l.M. 
 
 S. i iiSei l£il?rihJT^Se 's^rinS ^X^l^^.. p. n. 
 
 REFERENCES TO QUOTATIONS. 
 
 483 
 
 PAGES 
 
 104, 3rd line. See Smith's Anglican Orders; Whence Obtained, p. 10. 
 104, 26th line, Denny, Anglican Orders and Jurisdiction, p. 143. 
 110, 4th line, *' Janus," The Pope and the Council, p. 217. 
 IIU, 25th line, Robins, On the Claims of the Roman Church, p. 244. 
 110, 29th line, Willis' Pope Honorius, p. 26. 
 
 110, 85th line, Willis' Pope Honorius, p. 26. 
 
 111, 16th line, " Janus," The Pope and the Council, p. 324. 
 
 111, 25th line, Salmon's Infallibility of the Church, p. 456. 
 
 112, 23rd line, Littledale, Plain Reasons Against Joining the Church of Rome, 
 
 p. 90. 
 
 113, 22nd line, Salmon's Infallibility of the Church, p. 284. 
 
 114, 2nd line, Littledale, Plain Reasons Against Joining the Church of Rome, 
 
 114, 
 
 pp. 208-209. 
 29th line, Littledale, Plain Reasons Against Joining the Church of Rome, 
 
 p. 209. 
 
 115, 5th line, Ross-Lewin, Continuity of the English Church, p. 49. 
 115, 14th line, Ross-Lewin, Continuity of the English Church, p. 49. 
 115, 19th line, " Janus," The Pope and the Covincil, p. 147. 
 
 115, 33rd line, " Janus," The Pope and the Council, p. 289. 
 
 116, 10th line, " Janus," The Pope and the Council, p. 289. 
 
 116, 2t)th line, Bp. Coxe, Institutes of Christian History, p. 176. 
 
 117, 2nd line, Roliertson, The Growth of the Papal Power, p. 181. 
 
 118, 10th line, Salmon, Infallibility of the Church, p. 102. 
 
 118, 19th line. Pretended Speech of a Bishop in the Council— The Vatican 
 Council, p. 193. 
 
 120, 8th line, Marshall's Cyprian, part II., p. 203. 
 
 121, 32nd line, Wilson, W. D., The Church Identified, p. 123. 
 
 122, 19th line. Smith, J. B., English Orders; Whence Obtained, p. 12. 
 
 123, 18th line, Courayer on English Ordinations, p. 292. 
 12;J, 35th line, J. H. Hopkins, Monsignor Capel, p. 39. 
 
 124, 11th line, J. H. Hopkins, Monsignor Capel, p. ;jy. 
 
 125, 8th line, Dixon, History of the Church of England, vol. I., p. 58. 
 
 125. 28th line,Denny's Anglican Orders and Jurisdiction, p. 1.^)5. 
 
 126. 16th line, Seabury's Haddan's Apostolical Succession, p. 105. 
 r2«», 31st line, Hussey, On the Rise or the Papal Power, p. 63. 
 
 127. 4th line, Hussey, On the Rise of the Papal Power, p. 64. 
 
 127. 24th line, M. R. Butler, Rome's Tribute to Anglican Orders, p. 39 and 40. 
 
 127, 30th line, Lee, Validity of the Holy Orders of the Church of England, 
 
 p. 186. 
 
 128, 23rd line, Gore, Roman CathoLic Claims, p. 147. 
 
 129, Pith line, Courayer on English Ordinations, p. 285. 
 129, 26th line. In Courayer on English Ordinations, p. 318. 
 
 129, .3:}rd line, In Courayer on English Ordinations, pp. 319-320. 
 131, 30th line. The Living Church, May 19, 1894. 
 i;^, Kith line. Decree of Leo XIII. 
 
 i:S5, 13th line, Lee, The Validity of the Holy Orders of the Church of England, 
 pp. 488-500. 
 
 137, 10th line, Lee, Validity of the Holy Orders of the Church of England, ch. 
 
 XXVI., p. 297. 
 
 138, 15th line, London Church Times, Septeml)er 25, 1896, p. 297. 
 
 139, 5th line. Church Eclectic. January. 1895, p. 931. 
 
 140, 25th line, London Church Times, September 25, 1896, p. 2{>2. 
 
 141, 28th line, London Church Times, September 25, 189t), p. 292. 
 
 143, 30th line. Report of the Proceedings of the Reunion Conference at Bonn in 
 1874, pp. 50, 51. 
 
 1.50, 3rd line. The Christian Union, 1894. 
 
 L51, 15th line, Bp. Leonard, Witness of the American Church to Pure Chris- 
 tianity, p. 15. 
 
 151, 28th line, Bp. H. M. Thompson's The Kingdom of God, p. 3. 
 
 156, 11th line. The Christian Union, 1894. 
 
 KK), 7th line, Jewish and Christian Messiah, p. 218. 
 
 160, 12th line, Firminger's Attitude of the Church of England to non-Episcopal 
 Ordinations, p. 3JJ. 
 
 160, 33rd line, Simcox. pp. 62, 63. 
 
 162, 21st line. The Christian Union, 1894. 
 
 166, 16th line, Hammond, What Does the Bible Say Aiiout the Church, p. 23. 
 
 166, 34th line, Hammond, What Does the Bible Say About the Church, p. 12. 
 
 167, 5th line, Hammond, English Nonconformity and Christ's Christianity 
 
 p. 150. 
 
 f 
 
484 
 
 TlIK rillTRril FOR AMERICANS. 
 
 PAtJES 
 
 107, 
 171, 
 174, 
 174, 
 174, 
 174, 
 174, 
 
 176, 
 
 177, 
 
 178, 
 
 178, 
 
 178, 
 
 178, 
 
 178, 
 
 179, 
 
 179, 
 
 179, 
 
 179, 
 
 179, 
 
 179, 
 
 179. 
 
 179, 
 
 180, 
 
 181, 
 
 182, 
 
 183, 
 
 184, 
 
 185, 
 
 185, 
 
 186, 
 
 186, 
 
 186, 
 
 186, 
 
 186, 
 
 186, 
 
 186, 
 
 191, 
 
 191, 
 
 191, 
 
 191, 
 
 192, 
 
 192, 
 
 192, 
 
 192, 
 
 192, 
 
 192, 
 
 192, 
 
 192, 
 
 192, 
 
 193, 
 
 193, 
 
 193, 
 
 193, 
 
 193. 
 
 194. 
 
 IW, 
 
 19t5, 
 
 1%, 
 
 198, 
 
 198, 
 
 198, 
 
 199, 
 
 201, 
 
 203, 
 
 203. 
 
 203, 
 
 204. 
 
 6th line, William Law. Letter III., pp. 8, ». 
 
 31stline, Cunningham's St. Austin, p. lib. 
 
 1st line, Marshall's Notes on the Cat^iohc Epjseopate, p. 42. 
 
 3rd line, Bp. Bull, Sermon XIH. W orks, vol. I., p. 828. 
 
 nth line, Marshall's Notes on the Catholic Episcopate, p. (^. 
 
 'Wild line Seabury's Uaddan's Apostolical Succession, p. o5. 
 
 mhliiutFro^^^^^^^^^ the Consecration of Bp. Sessums, 
 
 bv the Bishop of Mississippi. 
 2lst line. Gore, The Church and the Ministry, pp. 12.^124. 
 
 14th line. Gore, The Church and the Ministry, p 12». 
 
 1st line. Gore. The Church and the Ministry, p. 120. 
 
 10th line, Marshall's Notes on the Catho ic Episcopate, p. 
 
 hith line Marshall's Notes on the Catho ic Kpiscopate, p. 
 
 19th line Marshall's Notes on the Catholic Episcopate, p. 
 
 34th line Marshall's Notes on the Catholic Episcopate p 112. 
 
 Srdline The Perpetual Government of Christ s Church, ch. XIII. 
 
 109. 
 
 109. 
 519. 
 
 p. 247. 
 
 nth line, Sanderson, On Episcopacy, part II\;. /ec. 2 
 
 iHth line lust Vindication of the Church of England, p. io. 
 
 mh l!SI; Taylor, Works, vol. VII Dedication p. XVIU. ed. Heber. 
 
 24th line, Laud, On Church Ritua. p. lU,. (1S40) 
 
 26th line, Staley, The Catholic Religion^ p. 2S 
 
 2«th line, Contemp. Review, October, 18i«. p. <22. 
 
 t^rd linp Marshall's Notes on the Catholic Episcopate, p. dO(». 
 
 mt SI: EagI?, The Christian Ministry in the New Testament, p. 30. 
 
 26th line, Marshall's Notes on the Catholic Episcopate, p. 110. 
 
 mith line Sadler. Church Government, p. 10. . 
 
 ^hlinetfip. Leonard, Witness of the American Church to Pure Christian- 
 
 ity,p.67-«8. _ . ^ 
 
 30th line, Labagh's Theoklesia, p. 20. 
 31st line, Staley, The Catholic Religion, p. 33 
 83rd line, Staley, The Catholic Religion, p. JW. 
 2nd line, Staley. The Catholic Religion, p. 33. 
 4th line, Staley, The Catholic Religion, p 34. 
 6th line. Gore, The Church and the Ministry, P- 290 
 19th line, West, The Kingdom of Heaven upon Earth, p. 68 
 23rd line, Marshall's Notes on the Catholic Episcopate, p. 245. 
 32nd line, Marshall's Notes on the Catholic Episcopate, p. 240. 
 35th line, Marshall's Notes on the Catholic Episcopate, p. 521. 
 22nd line. Gore, The Church and the Ministry, p. 24. 
 24th line. Gore, The Church and the Ministry, p. 24. 
 27th line. Gore, The Church and the Ministry, p. 24. 
 31st line. Gore, The Church and the Ministry, p. 17. 
 2nd line. Gore, The Church and the Ministry, p. 17. 
 0th line, Marshall's Notes on the Catholic Episcopate, p. 23i. 
 10th line, Marshall's Notes on the Catholic Episcopate, p. 23S. 
 13th line, Marshall's N«»tes on the Catholic Episcopate, p. 241 
 14th line, Hammond, The Christian Cniurch : \N hat is it, p. 240. 
 17th line, Hammond, The Christian Church : W hat is it. p. 240. 
 19th line, Hammond. The Christian Church : W hat is it. p 24b. 
 25th line, Marshall's Notes on the Catholic E]uscopate, p. 241. 
 35th line, Hammond, The Christian Church : VN hat is it. P- 247. 
 3rd line, Hammond, The Christian Church : VN hat is it, p. 24^. 
 0th line, Hammond, The Christian Church : W hat is it. p. 24^. 
 0th line, Hammond, The Christian Church : NN hat is it, p. 24<. 
 Pith line. Gore, The Church and the Ministry, p. 28. 
 23rd line. Gore. The Church and the Ministr^v. p. 49. 
 14th line. The Westminster Ct»nfession, ch. XX \ . 
 17th line. Hymn 220. 
 IGth line, Article XXV. 
 
 20th line. Article XXV. .,„.,. ^. 
 
 8th line. Gore, The Church and the Ministry, p. 294. 
 2l8t line. Gore, The Church and the Ministry, p. 298. 
 33rd line. Gore, The Church and the Ministry, p. 299. 
 9th line. Gore, The Church and the Ministry, p. 150. 
 20th line, Hammond, What is Christ's Churcli, p. 20 , .. ^ r. 
 
 22nd line, Hammond. "John Wesley • Being Dead, J et Speaketh, p. 54. 
 25th line, Hammond. " .John Wesley * Being Dead, ^ et Speaketh, p. 54. 
 80th line. Rev. W. Arthur, Contemn. Review. July, 1887. 
 24th liiie,f«rry, English Church History, II. 333. 
 
 REFERENCES TO QUOTATIONS. 
 
 485 
 
 PAGES 
 
 206, 26th line, Hammond, English Nonconformity, and Christ's Christianity, 
 p. 54. "" 
 
 206, 20th line. Cole, R. H., The Anglican Church, p. 64. 
 
 207, 22nd line. Miller's Parish Note Book, p. 19. 
 
 XXV. 
 
 23. 
 
 212, 15th line, Seabury's Haddan's Apostolical Succession, p. 
 214, 13th line, Communion Hymn, Ancient and Modern, 553. 
 
 221, 30th line, Endowments and Establishment, p. 10. 
 
 222, 15th line, Goulburn, The Holy Cathv>lic Church, p. 30. 
 
 223, 4th line, Bp. Coxe, Institutes of Christian History, p. 211. 
 
 223, 27th line. Bp. Kip, Double Witness of the Church, p. 120. 
 
 224, 17th line, Abp. Bramhall's Works, I. 2. 
 
 •224, 25th line, Hammond, What is Christ's Church, p. ia5. 
 
 225, 31st line. The State in Its Relations to the Church, vol. II. 127, 1841. 
 
 220, 24th line. Preface concerning the Service of the Church, Prayer Book, 1549 
 220, 27th line, Howard, R.,The Church of England and Other Religious Com- 
 munions, pp. 200-201. 
 220, 33rd line, Oldroyd, The Continuity of the English Church through Eight- 
 een Centuries, p. 30. or. 
 227, 12th line, Bp. Coxe, Institutes of Christian History, p. 177 
 22«, 0th line, Nye, The Right of the Church of England to Her Property, p 14 
 230, 5th line. Dr. Ingram, England and Rome, pp. 139-140. 
 
 230, 29th line. Church Standard, August 17, 1895, p. 458. 
 
 231, 2nd line. Church Standard, August 17, 1895, p. 458. 
 
 232, 25th line. Dr. Ingram, England and Rome, pp. 121-122. 
 234, 5th line. Dr. Ingram, England and Rome, p. 194. 
 
 234, 9th line, Burnet, Collection of Records, 0, 181. 
 
 234, 22nd line. Dr. Ingram. England and Rome, p. 195. 
 
 236, 20th line. Gamier, Title-deeds of the Church of England, p. 31 
 
 26. 
 
 239, 28th line, W. E. Gladstone. Speech in House of Commons, May 24, 1870 
 
 240, 23rd line. See Bede and William of Malmesbury. 
 240, 31st line, Bp. Lightfoot, Leaders in the Northern Church, p. 9. 
 
 irst Period, p. 30. 
 
 iglican (Jhurch.pp. 94-95. 
 
 244, 12th line, Nye, The Story of the Church of England, p. 35. 
 
 244, 27th line. Lane, Illustrated Notes on English Church History, vol. I., p. 
 
 145-140. 
 
 245, 5th line. Lane, Illustrated Notes on English Church History, vol. I., p. 147. 
 245, 19th line. Lane, Illustrated Notes on English Church History, vol. I., p. 148. 
 245, 27th line, See Perry's Student's English Church History, First Period, 
 
 p. 206. 
 245, 30th line, Bp. Coxe, Institutes of Christian History, p. 204. 
 240. 21st line. Dr. Ingram, England and Rome. p. 01. 
 247, 15th line. Cole, R. H., The Anglican Church, p. 97. 
 
 247. 30th line. See Brown's Fasciculus. II. 250. 
 
 248, 3rd line, Bp, Coxe, Institutes of Christian History, p. 219, 
 
 248, 2:{rd line, Oldroyd. A, E. Continuity of the English Church, p. 23. 
 
 248, 2iJth line. Lane, Illustrated Notes on English Church History, vol. I., p. 229. 
 
 248. 35th line. Words for Truth, Littledale. pp. ;«>-40, - ' h • 
 
 249, 24th line, Manning, " On the Unity of the Church," 
 
 249, 32nd line. Leaders in the Northern Church, Bp, Lightfoot, p, 52. 
 
 253, 0th line. Dr. Ingram, England and Rome, p. 140. 
 
 25.3, 29th line, Bp, I^onard. History of the Christian Church, p, 238. 
 
 254, nth line, Bp, Coxe, Institutes of Christian History, p. 151, 
 
 255, 6th line, Barrett, Nineteen Questions About the Protestant Episcopal 
 
 Church, p. 3. ^ 
 
 250, 20th line, Hammond, What is Christ's Church, p. 120. 
 250, 25th line, Hammond, What is Christ's Church, p. 120. 
 
 256, 35th line, Hammond, What is Christ's Church, p, 120. 
 
486 
 
 THE CHURCH FOR AMERICANS. 
 
 PAGES 
 
 257, 18th line, Hammond, What is Ohrist'i Cltirch, p. 136. 
 257, 25th line, See Sanford's Bampton Lectures, 1«01, p. 49. 
 
 257, 80th line, Sanford. Bamuton Lectures, IWU, p. 4». 
 
 258, 4th line, Anglo Catholic Library. Oxford, vol. XI., p. 
 Prcemium to " Codex Canonum Ecclesise Primitivae." 
 
 24th line, Dr. McConnell, History of the American Episcopal Church, p. 
 
 262, 
 2t>3, 
 2tVi, 
 2tk>. 
 2ti7, 
 2I>7, 
 
 XXIII., sec. VI. 
 
 16. 
 
 12th line. See Bp. Coleman's Church in America, p. «. 
 23rd line, Bp. Coleman, The Church in America, p. V. 
 35th line, Bp. Willx'rforce, History of the American Chui 
 
 293, 
 24f4, 
 
 297, 
 299, 
 
 _ rch, p. 109. 
 
 4th linerBp*^ Wilberforce, History' of the American Church, p. 109. 
 
 13th line. Dr. Peters' (General History of Connecticut. 
 26S, 6th line, McVickar, Professional Years of Bisht>p Holwrt, pp. 82-85J. 
 2iW, 25th line. Canon Perry, History of the Church «>f England. 
 269, 7th line. Dr. McConnell, History of the American Episconal Church, p. b7. 
 271, 28th line, Bp. Perry, History of the American Episcopal Church, vol. I., 
 p. 247. 
 
 273, 17th line. Hooker, Eccl. Pol. VII., sec. 4. 
 
 274, 21st line. Chapman's Sermons on the Church, p. 76. 
 
 274, 32nd line. See Bp, Perry's History of the American Church, vol. I., p. 251. 
 
 275, 14th line, Bolles, Connecticut and Bishop Sea bury, p. 9. 
 
 276, 17th line, Bp. Meade, Reasons for Loving the Episcopal Church, p. 11. 
 278, rith line. Hymnal. . „ , ,_ 
 
 281, 86th line, Beardsley, Life and Correspondence of Bp. Seabury, p. 237. 
 284, 24th line, Stearns, The Faith of Our Forefathers, p. 41. 
 
 284, 34th line, Dupin, Compendious History of the Church, Century XI., ch. 
 
 VII. , ^ 
 
 285. 7th line, Stearns, The Faith of Our Forefathers, p. 41. 
 285, 34th line, Institutes of Christian History, Bp. Coxe, p. 22. 
 28<l, 1st line, Bp. Coxe, Institutes of Christian History, p. 23. 
 2««>, 13th line. Gore, Roman Catholic Claims, p. 97. 
 
 288, 5th line. The Cincinnati Tribune, OcIoVkt 21, 1895. 
 
 291, 8th line, Bp. Perry, The Relations of the Church and the Country, p. 26. 
 
 17th line, Bp. Coleman, The Church in America, p. 132. 
 
 35th line. Description on an engraving entitled " The First Prayer in Con- 
 gress." 
 
 29th line. The Cincinnati Tribune, October 21, 189B. 
 
 7th line, The Church Standard, September 14, 1895, p. 587. 
 299, 32nd line. See Appendix XVII. 
 sot), 31st line, Dr. McConnell, History of the American Episcopal Church, p. 340. 
 »)8, 15th line. Church Standard, July 8, 1893, p. 19. 
 ;{os, 31st line. Church Standard, July 8, 1898, p. 19. 
 310, 5th line. Hymnal. 
 
 315. :JOth line, British Weekly. January 17, 1890. , . . , ... . . , 
 
 316, 3rd line, Hammond, English Nonconformity and Christ s Christianity, 
 
 p. 227. 
 
 817, nth line, Thos. K. Beecher, What a Congregationalist Can Say of the Prot- 
 estant Episcopal Church, p. 10. 
 
 318, 7thline, Mines, Looking for the Church, p. 29. , , ^ „„, 
 
 320, 15th line, Bingham's Antiquities of the Christian Church, vol. I., ch. VIII. 
 
 321, 26th line. Barrett. The Churchman's Scrap-Book, p. 36. 
 
 322, 1st line. Barrett, The Churchman's Scrap-Book, p. 36. 
 322, 19th line, Barrett, The Churchman's Scrap-Book, p. 35. 
 321, 26th line. The Churchman, December 24, 1887, p. 738. 
 3;«, 8th line. Tracts for Missionary Use, No. 3, p. 8. 
 
 m\, 2:ird line, Rubric in the Prayer Book. v 
 
 337, 20th line, Hammond, English Nonconformity and Christ s Christianity, 
 p. 10. 
 
 , 14th line, Bp. Vale. The Comprehensive Church, p. 62. 
 
 , 8th line, Cecil's Remains, quoted l)y Bp. Kip in " Double Witness. 
 
 345, 5th line, Labagh, Theoklesia, p. 173. 
 
 346, ]8th line. Bishops Convention Pastoral, 1805. 
 351, 13th line. Article XXV. 
 
 355, 17th line. Anecdote related by Bp. J. S. Johnston, of Texas. 
 
 3t>4, 3rd line, " Janus," The Pope and the Council, p. 18. 
 
 3t'»4, 14th line, Stearns. The Faith of Our Forefathers, p. 256. 
 
 !m, 21st line. Dr. McConnell. History of the American Episcopal Church, p. 60. 
 
 865, 3rd line, Bp. Colem-Mi, The Church in America, p. 24. 
 
 365, 32nd line, Stearns. The Faith of Our Forefathers, p. 257. 
 
 366, 25th line, Bp. Coleman, The Church in America, p. 60. 
 
 342, 
 344, 
 
 »♦ 
 
 REFERENCES TO (QUOTATIONS. 
 
 487 
 
 PAGES 
 
 366, 31st line. Dr. McConnell, History of the American Episcopal Church, pp. 
 
 50-52. 
 368, 20th line, M. R. Butler. Rome's Tribute to Anglican Orders, p. 44. 
 
 373, 3rd line, Miller's Parish Note Book, p. 49. 
 
 878, 81st line, Bp. Leonard, The Witness of the American Church to Pure 
 Christianity, pp. 51-62. ^ _ 
 
 374, nth line, Thos. K. Beecher, What a Congregationalist Can Say of the Prot- 
 
 estant Episcopal Church, p. 13. 
 374, 35th line. Millers Parish Note Book, p. 52. 
 880, 6th line, Bp. Robertson, The Churchman's Answer as to the History and 
 
 Claims of the American Episcopal Church, pp. 25-26. 
 
 384, 24th line, Hammond, What is Christ's Church, p. 119. 
 
 385, 19th line, Hammond, What is Christ's Church, p. 119. 
 
 386, 9th line, The Churchman, January 12, 1895, p. 46. 
 
 386, 24th line. Shields, The United Church of the United States, p. 47. 
 388, 6th line, Hammond, What is Christ's Church, p. 10. 
 388, 8th line, Hammond, What is Christ's Church, p. 10. 
 
 388, nth line, Speech at the Wolverhampton Church Congress. 
 
 389, nth line, Bp. Coxe, Institutes of Christian History, p. 283. 
 
 391, 33rd line, The Churchman, April 7, 1894, p. 404. 
 
 392, 19th line. The Churchman, April 7, 1894, p. 404. 
 
 395, 25th line. History of the English People, J. R. Green. 
 
 397, 9th line, Marshall's Notes on the Catholic Episcopate, p. 286. 
 897, 24th line, Marshall's Notes on the Catholic Episcopate, p. 314. 
 
 398, 26th line, Bp. Coxe, Apollos, or the Way of God, P. 244. , ,^ , „ 
 
 899, 16th line, Hammond, '' John Wesley ' Being Dead, \et Speaketh,' p. 14. 
 899, 21st line, John Wesley's Works, Third London Edition. 
 
 399, 27th line, Hammond, " John Wesley, ' Being Dead, Yet Speaketh,' p. 48. 
 
 400, 5th line, John Wesley Works, XIII., 58. 
 
 401, 6th line. The Churchman, April 14, 1894, p. 482. 
 
 402, 14th line. Hymnal. , * ^ , j * i:- • i 
 
 405, 5th line, Firminger's Attitude of the Church of England to non-Episcopal 
 
 Ordinations,.pp. 65-66. , ^«, . ^ x. -oi , • .. . 
 
 406, 22nd line, Bp. Griswold, The Apostolic Office, quoted by Clarke in A 
 
 Walk About Zion," pp. 90-92. 
 408, 15th line, Living Church, June 29, 1895. 
 
 408, 29th line, Living Church, June 29, 1895. 
 
 409, 15th line, Bolles, Washington : A Centennial Discourse to Young Men, p. 19. 
 409, 27th line, Bolles, Washington : A Centennial Discourse to Young Men, p. 18. 
 
 409, 34th line, Bolles, Washington : A Centennial Discourse to Young Men, p. 19. 
 
 410, 9th line, Bolles, Washington : A Centennial Discourse to Young Men, p. 19. 
 410, 14th line, Living Church, June 29, 1895. 
 
 410, 22nd line, Bolles, Washington : A Centennial Discourse to Young Men, p. 20. 
 410, 31st line, Bp. Perry, The American Church and the American Constitu- 
 tion, p. 5. , , . ^ ... 
 4th line, Bp. Perry, The American Church and the American Constitu- 
 tion, p. 5. „ 
 
 ~ Perry, The American Church and the American Constitu- 
 
 4n, 
 
 4n, 
 
 411, 
 
 10th line, Bp. 
 
 tion, 5. p. 
 16th line, Bp. 
 
 , Coleman, The Church in America, p. 74. 
 4ni 2lst line, Bp. Coleman, The Church in America, p. 74. 
 
 4i2| ist line, Bp". Perry, The American Church and the American Constitution, 
 
 p 7. 
 
 412, 14th line. Dr. John Stoughton's History of Religion in England. 
 
 418, 3rd line, Bp. Perry, The American Church and the American Constitution, 
 
 413, 21st line, Bp. Perry, The Faith of the Framers of the Constitution of the 
 
 United States, pp. 2-10. 
 
 414, 34th line, Bp. Perry, " The Faith of the Framer.s," p. 2. 
 
 417, 3rd line, Taine, History of English Literature, pp. 251-252. 
 
 418, 30th line, Shanklin, Some Objections to the Episcopal Church Considered 
 
 and Answered, p. 18. 
 
 419, nth line. Mines, Looking for the Church, p. 30. 
 419, 15th line. Mines, Looking for the Church, pp. 29-30. 
 
 419, 25th line. Shields, The United Church of the United States, p. 25. 
 
 421, 28rd line. The Good Way; or, Why Christians of Whatever Name May Be- 
 come Churchmen, p. 16. .J J 
 
 421, 27th line, Shanklin, Some Objections to the Episcopal Church Considered 
 and Answered, p. 17. 
 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
422, 
 422, 
 423, 
 
 488 rmm church fok Americans. 
 
 PAGES 
 
 421, 31st line, Wesley's Sermons, No. CXV. ,, ^ 
 
 421, 34th line. The Good Way ; or, Why Christians of Whatever Name May Be- 
 
 come Churchmen, p. 18. 
 
 422, 8th line. The Good Way; or. Why Christians of Whatever Name May Be- 
 come Churchmen, pp. 18-19. 
 
 22nd line. Mines, Looking for the Church, pp. 30-31. 
 27th line. From the Memoirs of Professor Austin Phelps. 
 8th line, Thos. K. Beecher, What a Cougregationalist Can Say of the Prot- 
 estant Episcopal Church, pj). IMl. 
 424, 25th line. Mines, Looking for the Church, pp. 177-178. 
 
 427, 29th line. Mines, Looking for the Church, pp. 32-33. • 
 
 428, 26th line, Anderson's History of the Colonial Church, vol. III., p. 392. 
 
 429, 8th line. Works of John Wesley, Third London Editon. 
 432, 31st line. New York Churchman, August 4, 1894, p. 129. 
 434, 17th line, Church Eclectic, December, 1894, p. 816. 
 
 434, 25th line. Church Eclectic, Decemljer, 1894, p. 816. 
 
 435, 18th line, Butler, Rome's Tribute to Anglican Orders, p. 53. 
 4*5, 26th line, London Church Times, July 31, 1896. 
 
 435, 33rd line, Butler. Rome's Tribute to Anglican Orders, p. 58. 
 
 436, 4th line, Butler, Rome's Tribute to Anglican Orders, p. 65. 
 
 437, 16th line, Wesley's Sermons, vol. III., p. 261. 
 
 443, 23rd line, Palmer's Church History, p. 168. 
 
 444, 17th line, Ingram, England and Rome. p. 183. 
 
 445, 18th line, McClure's Magazine, June, 1896, pp. 3-4, 
 
 446, 29th line. Living Church, Septemlier 19, 1896, p. 586. 
 
 447, 4th line. Living Church, Septeml)er 19, 1896, p. 58C». 
 447, 8th line. Living Church, Septeml)er 19, 189<;, p. 586. 
 
 447, 21st line, Living Church, September 19, 189t>, p. 586. 
 
 448, 29th line. The Pacific Churchman, June 15, 1896. 
 
 452, 22nd line, Cheney, What is the Reformed Episcopal Church? p. 2. 
 
 453, 7th line, Cheney, What is the Reformed Episcopal Church ? p. 14. 
 453, 10th line. Cheney, What is the Reformed Episcopai Church ? p. 14. 
 456, 4th line. Prayer Book, " The Form and Manner of Ordering Priests." 
 456, 6th line. Prayer Book, " Evenine Prayer." 
 
 456, 8th line, Prayer Book, Baptismal Office. 
 456, nth line, Prayer Book, Baptismal Office. 
 
 456, 12th line. Prayer Book, Communion Office. 
 
 457, 3rd line, St. John, 20: 23. 
 457, 7th line, St. John, 3: 5. 
 
 457, 26th line, St. Matthew, 26: 26-28. 
 
 457, 32nd line, St. John, 6: 52-58. 
 
 458, 9th line, I. Corinthians, 10: 16. ^ „ ^ «^ ^ „, . i tt 
 458, 18th line. Lane, Illustrated Notes on English Church History, vol. II., p. 
 
 75. 
 
 464, 28th line, Ohio State Journal, Monday Morning, February 10,'1896. 
 
 465. 27th line. Quoted in Kip's Double Witness, pp. 215-216. 
 
 467, 13th line, Confraternitv of the Blessed Sacrament, " Altar Wines," p. 1. 
 469, 17th line. Perry, Bp., The Faith of the Signers of the Declaration of Inde- 
 pendence. 
 
 474, 14th line. The Oklahoma Churchman, June, 1896. 
 
 475, 27th line, Psalm XLV., 8, Prayer Book Version. 
 
 475, 32nd line, Schaff Herzog Encyclopaedia, vol. I., p. 729. 
 
 476, 9th line, Church Life. August, 1896, p. 9. 
 
 476, 27th line, Barrett, Nineteen Questions About the Protestant Episcopal 
 
 Church, p. 4. 
 
 477, 6th line, Quoted in Kip's Double Witness, p. 237. 
 
 480, I8th line, F17, Lectures on the Church of England, p. 17. 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 ABB^ DUCHESNE, 134 ; testimony of, 
 against so-called defectiveness of 
 Edwardian Ordinal, 140 ; on Doctrine of 
 Intention, 141. 
 
 Abbe Portal, M. Dalbus, on the Validity of 
 Anglican Orders, V6:i. 
 
 Abbott, Archbishop of Canterbury, re- 
 marks of, on Calvin's application for 
 Consecration to the Episcopate, 397. 
 
 Abraham, the Jew, Conversion of, to Chris- 
 tianity, 117. 
 
 Absolution, priestly, as taught by the Epis- 
 copal Church, 352. 
 
 Accessions to Episcopal Church from De- 
 nominationalists, 142, 305 ; from Rom- 
 anists, 307. 
 
 Adams, letter of, to his wife, concerning 
 tirst prayer in Congress, 294 : admission 
 as to the important partof Episcopalians 
 iu the lievolutionarj' War, 379. 
 
 Adrian VI., confession of, regarding the 
 liabilitv of Popes to err, 82. 
 
 Advent, from, to Trinity, teaching of, 
 Bishop of Ohio on, 373. 
 
 Agreement between Anglican and Greek 
 Churches, 39, 145; between Anglican, 
 Greek and Roman Churches, 47, 345; be- 
 tween Anglican and Roman Churches, 
 119 ; aflFected Ly Leo XIII.'s decree of 
 Anglican invalidity, 144 ; between the 
 Anglican Church and Denominational- 
 ists, 390. 
 
 Aidan, St., not Augustine, the Apostle to 
 the Saxons, 240. 
 
 Alfred, King, lease given by the Church of 
 England in his reign, 228. 
 
 America, discovered by Episcopalians, 261. 
 361; the Episcopal Church canonic- 
 ally the Church of the country, 280. 
 
 American Episcopal Church, the, 259-310; 
 the, pre-Colonial period, 261-262; Colo- 
 nial period, 263-275; National period, 
 276-310 ; most Scriptural and Apostolic 
 Church, 356 ; the Apostolic, 359-361 ; the 
 racial Church, 301-368; valid ministry 
 of, 369-371 ; offers superior opportun- 
 ities, 371-381 ; its doctrinal stability, 
 381-386; the only hope of Christian 
 unity, 386402. 
 
 Amusements left to the conscience of Epis- 
 copalians, 325 ; all, permitted that do 
 not break the Baptismal vows, 462-464. 
 
 Anabaptists, the, and Martin Luther, 211. 
 
 Anecdote concerning a little girl and her 
 non church member grandfather, 20 ; 
 a woman who was not a sinner, 25 ; the 
 miner and the General Confession, 26 ; 
 the woman who married a Denomina- 
 tionalist, 31 ; Sixtus V. and the Bible, 
 72 ; the Grotto of Lourdes, 75 ; the House 
 of Loretta, 76-77; the conversion of 
 Abraham, the Jew, 117 ; Dr. Wolff and 
 the Greek Bishop, illustrating theun- 
 scripturalnessof a self-constituted min- 
 istry, 209; illustrating the importance 
 of more instruction concerning the 
 Episcopal Church, 217 ; illustrating tne 
 misfortune growing out of the want of 
 Episcopal oversight, 266; concerning 
 Chief Justice Marshall, 276 ; Bishop Sea- 
 bury and me Presbyterians, 281 ; con- 
 cerning Bishop Chase, 287 ; of Bishop 
 Bedell concerning the young deacon 
 and the Denominationalists, 334-336; 
 of Presbyterian lady and ex-Methodist 
 minister on confession, 352-353 ; change 
 in Calvinistic theology, 384 ; the old- 
 time Church socials, 4H2. 
 
 Angelo, Michael, in his " Last Judgment," 
 includes Popes and Cardinals among 
 the damned, 116. 
 
 Anglican Bishops, connection of, with the 
 Apostles, 370. 
 
 Anglican Church, the Communions in- 
 cluded in the, 39; the Pope's offer to re- 
 ceive it to Roman Communion, 130, 139 ; 
 why its controversies are not wholly 
 settled by appeal to Scriptural and 
 Patristic writings, 152; occupies the 
 via media between Denominations and 
 Rome, 196, 344, 386 ; the Church of our 
 race, :3()8. 
 
 Anglican Communion, the, <loctrinal stabil- 
 ity of, 65-66, 386 ; the future of, 3%. 
 
 Anglican Orders, 119-146; independent 
 Apostolic strands in, 122 ; Leo XIII.'s re- 
 cent decree of Invalidity reviewed, 132- 
 146; admitted validity of, by M. Dal- 
 bus, 133 ; Abbe Duchesne, 134 ; by 
 several Roman dignitaries, 136; the 
 Sorbonne Faculty on, 136-137; valid- 
 ity admitted by members of the Vati- 
 can Council, 137 ; Papal decisions on, 
 137-139; Dr. DolUnger on, 143; Greek 
 Catholic scholars, testimony of, on, 434- 
 436. 
 
 (489) 
 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
490 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Anglican Ordination, w«ming in no essen- 
 tial, 370. 
 
 Anglicans, advantage of, over Denomina- 
 tionalists, in dealing with the Roman 
 pretensions, 53; wherein they diflFer 
 from Romans. 54, 313-355; disposed to 
 admit the primacy of St. Peter, 90; ap- 
 peal of, Romanists to the Pope and De- 
 nomi nationalists to their founders, 155. 
 
 Anglo-Saxons, not converted by Roman 
 Missionaries, 2:i8. 
 
 Anne, Queen, in the reign of, arrangements 
 made to send Bishops to the American 
 Colonies. 268. 
 
 Anti-Infallibilists at the Vatican, 59. 
 
 Antioch, Church of, set apart St. Paul and 
 St. Barnabas to be Apostles. 173. 
 
 Apocrapha, the, regarded as Scripture by 
 Romanists, 63. , , ^ 
 
 Apostasy to Rome, the, 306-307 ; will be 
 farther decreased by Leo XHl.'s decree 
 of Anglican invalidity, 13:^. 
 
 Apostles, equality of, established by Scrip- 
 tures, 92. . , 
 
 Apostles and Saints, worship of, liturgical, 
 314. 
 
 Apoetleship, St. Paul's, not a justification 
 of Denominationalism, ;5o8. 
 
 Apostolate, its perpetuity promised, 17:". ; if 
 perpetuated, as essential to the Church 
 now as ever. 175 ; perpetuated m the 
 Episcopate, 176. 
 
 Apostolic Canons, an evidence cf National 
 
 Apostolic Church, the depository of Sacra- 
 mental grace, 191 ; necessity of com- 
 munion with. 197. 
 
 Apostolic Commission, the evidence of 
 National Churches, 40. 
 
 Apostolic origin of the threefold ministry, 
 Lightfoot on the, 405-40<>. 
 
 Apostolic Sacraments, teaching of the 
 Fathers concerning the necessity of, 
 198. 
 
 Apostolic See of Rome, the only one in the 
 West 104. 
 
 Apostolic Succession, through Parker and 
 Laud, 130; testimony concerning, by 
 Abbe Portal, 134; illustrated by the 
 Oak tree, 175 ; from the Episcopates of 
 Jerusalem, Rome and Ephesus, to the 
 Anglican Communion, 370. 
 
 Aquinas, Thomas, corapleteii the founda- 
 tions of fraud upon which the Roman 
 system is built, 109-110. 
 
 Archbishop Bramhall, on the line of Apos- 
 tolic Succession, 179. 
 
 Archbishop of Canterbury, the, remarks on 
 uninstructed Church members, 5 ; on 
 English Romanism, 368. 
 
 Archbishop Laud. Apostolic Succession, 
 independent of Rome, through, 180 ; of- 
 fer€Ni the Cardinal's hat, 139. 
 
 Archbishop Parker, Apostolic Succession 
 througn, 130. 
 
 Argument for the Scripturalness of Na- 
 tional Churches, 40. 
 
 Arian heresy, the, 71, 3.'i9. 
 
 Ark of Salvation, the Church, 18JJ-194. 
 
 Asbury, Wesley's repudiation of his Epis- 
 copal pretensions, 400. 
 
 Augustine, conference with British Bish- 
 ops, 243 ; first Bishop of Canterbury, 370. 
 
 Augustine, St., and Pope Gregory I., 41, 43 ; 
 on " I will give you the Keys," 89 ; on 
 the visibility of the Kingdom of God, 
 171. 
 
 Authorities consulted, lists of, 16, 52, 148, 
 216, 260. 312, 358. 
 
 Avignon Schism, the. 61. 
 
 BACON, Roger, imprisoned by Rome, 78. 
 Baltimore, Lord, and Maryland tol- 
 
 Bancroft on religious liberty to Americans 
 
 the gift of Romanists, 364-368. 
 Baptism, the door to the Church, 19 . the 
 mode appointed by Christ for confes- 
 sion of Him, 21, 460; Roman ceremo- 
 nies in connection with, 80; valid 
 even when irregular, 191, 207 ; an Epis- 
 copal Clergyman the first to adminis- 
 ter it in America, 262; of Pocahontas. 
 263; properly called "the new birth," 
 457 ; completed by Confirmation, 460. 
 Baptist Denomination, date of the, 34 ; a 
 human organization, 170 ; subdivisions 
 of the, 340 ; no longer Calvinistic, 384 ; 
 will probably pass away, 473. 
 Baptist reason for Episcopal accessions, 306. 
 Baptists, the, interchange of pulpits, 3;{1- 
 334 ; exclusiveness of, 341 ; doctrine of, 
 held by the Church, 389; one signer 
 of the Declaration of Independence 
 among, 469-470. 
 Barlow's Consecration admitted by Roman 
 
 writers, 128, 134. 
 Barnes, Albert, encomium of, on the Book 
 
 of Common Prayer, 419. 
 Baronius, Cardinal, on immorality of 
 
 Popes, 114, 117. 
 Bede, the Venerable, citation from, 43. 
 Beecher, Henry Ward, encomium of, on the 
 
 Book of Common Prayer, 424. 
 Beecher, Thomas K., encomium of, on the 
 
 Book of Common Prayer, 423. 
 Bellamiine, Cardinal, authority for the 
 charge of Papal deceit, 74 ; Papal igno- 
 rance, 80 ; on Papal jurisdiction, 84. 
 Bible, sectarian and uon church member- 
 ship not accounted for by its seeming 
 contradictions, 2 ; date of its construc- 
 tion, 151; divisions of Old and New 
 Covenants, 189; lAtin translation of 
 Sixtus v., 72 ; by Rome interdicted to 
 the common people, 74, 112. 
 Bishop and Pope used interchangeably, 103. 
 Bishop and Presbyter originally convert- 
 ible terms, 180, 273-274, 405. 
 Bishop Lightfoot, on the conversion of the 
 Anglo-Saxons, 240; on opposition of 
 the British Church to Roman usurpa- 
 tion, 249 ; on the Apostolic origin of the 
 threefold ministry, 405. 
 Bishop Pearson and Bishop Coxe on non 
 church membership, 21-22. 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 491 
 
 Bishop Seabury, arrival of, in America, six 
 years before a Roman Bishop, 280. 
 
 Bishop of Rome, the first, 89 ; the first to 
 arrive in America, 280. 
 
 Bishop of Vermont, the, on Papal Infalli- 
 bility, 67. 
 
 Bishops, the, of canonical descent, perx)et- 
 uators of the Church, 37 ; number of, 
 in Britain, 41 ; early Roman, interpre- 
 tations of the texts relied upon by 
 Ultramontanists, 8(>-89 ; the, of to-day 
 prove the Bishops of eighteen cen- 
 turies ago, 175 ; Fathers on the necessi- 
 ty of, to the existence of a Church, 176- 
 185; Roman, in England, disclaim any 
 title to the property of the English 
 Church, '227; supremacy of in their 
 own jurisdictions, 265 ; the creation of 
 spurious ones for the United States 
 mooted, 277; American, all have the 
 Scottish as well as the English succes- 
 sion, "284; American, not Autocrats, 
 298 ; Pastoral Letter of the, 346 ; Au- 
 glican.connected with the Apostles, 370. 
 
 Bishops of Alexandria not Presbyters, 182. 
 
 Bishops of Apostolic Succession necessary 
 to the existence of a Church, 37. 
 
 Bishops of Iowa and Maryland, the, on 
 Roman accessions to the Church, 307, 
 
 Blasphemy, the, of Papal Infallibility, 61. 
 
 " Blue Laws" of New England, the, 267. 
 
 Boccaccio, worthy of Roman Canonization, 
 117. 
 
 Boniface VIII., Pope, and his Bull, Uriam 
 Sandam, 8:i. 
 
 Book of Common Prayer, the, a proof of 
 the Continuity of the English Church, 
 225-226 ; part of, in the conversion of 
 the President and Faculty of Yale Col- 
 lege, 271 ; encomiums on, by non- 
 Episcopalian.s, 416-428; Pope Pius IV., 
 on, 432, 433; its teachings justified, 
 against Reformed Episcopalians, 455- 
 458. 
 
 Boesuet's Variations among Protestants. 66. 
 
 Bramhall, Abp., the line of Apostolic Suc- 
 cession, 179. 
 
 Breviary, corruption of, in the interest of 
 the dogma of infallibility. 111. 
 
 British Bishops, conference with Augus- 
 tine, 242. 
 
 British Church, representation of, in great 
 Councils, 41 ; not a mission of Rome, 
 237 ; difterence between it and the Ro- 
 man Church, 237-238. 
 
 Bull, Papal, of Leo XIII., decreeing Angli- 
 can Orders invalid, 132-146. 
 
 Bunyan, John, the wish of, concerning 
 prejudice, 385. 
 
 CABOT, John, discoverer of America, 
 261, 361. 
 Calvin, applied to English Bishops for Con- 
 secration, 48, 397 ; his doctrines aban- 
 doned by Baptists and Presbyterians, 
 383. 
 Calvinistic theology, 384. 
 Canon or laws of the Apostles, 42. 
 
 Card-playing and amusements a matter of 
 conscience, not of legislation, 462-464, 
 
 Carroll, Bp., the first of the Roman Church 
 in America, arrived six years after 
 Bishop Seabury, 280. 
 
 Cathedrals and old Churches of England, 
 the, an evidence that British Church 
 was not a mission of Rome, 238. 
 
 Catholic, how to determine whether or 
 not a Cv'hurch is, 360 ; significance of, 
 as applied to the Episcopal Church, 
 477-480. 
 
 CathoUc Creeds, 68, 477-480. 
 
 Causes leading to Papal InfalUbility, 61 ; of 
 the incorrect opinion that Henry VIII. 
 founded the ("hurch of England, 221 ; 
 accounting for the slow growth of the 
 Episcopal Church at first in America, 
 278-:302. 
 
 Celebrated Episcopalians, some, 255, 256, 
 289-297, 326, 377-381. 
 
 Celibacy, when introduced by Rome, 67. 
 
 Celtic, Church of, not annihilated by the 
 Angles and Saxons, 238. 
 
 Celtic Evangelists more successful than 
 Roman Missionaries, 240. 
 
 Celtic Priests and Missionaries, influence 
 of, 241. 
 
 Ceremonies, tendency to unduly depreciate 
 them, 196. 
 
 Certitude, desire of, accounts for the doc- 
 trine of infallibility, 61-68. 
 
 Challenge of Hooker to the Presbyterians, 
 the. 206 ; of Cranmcr to the Roman 
 Catholics, 225. 
 
 Change, the, from Episcopal polyarchy to 
 Papal monarchy, 105-106. 
 
 Charity expressed for those who differ from 
 us, 9-11, 201, 207, 211, 332. 
 
 Charles II., patent made out in the reign 
 of, appointing Rev. Dr. Alexander 
 Murray Bishop of Virginia, 268. 
 
 Chase, Bp., anecdote connected with the 
 laying of the foundation for " Old Ken- 
 yon," 287. 
 
 Chillingworth, crushing answer of, to the 
 representations of Presbyterians, 184. 
 
 Choice of a Church, the, 29-50 ; not free to 
 follow preference, 30. 
 
 Christ, formed a Church to be entered, 2-19 ; 
 loyal Church membership necessary to 
 the service of, 18; examples and pre- 
 cepts of, 18; came to save sinners, 
 hence the insufliciency of the excuse, 
 "not good enough," 25; profession 
 of, 28; the Vine, not the Pope, 41; 
 Pop)e not the Vicar of, 67 ; unwilling 
 to name a chief among His followers, 
 92, 94-95 ;. founded a visible Church, 155- 
 172 ; mission of, not to disseminate a 
 
 Shilosophy, but to establish a King- 
 om, 156 ; established a Church, 159 ; 
 authorizes the use of pre-composed 
 prayers, 314. 
 Christ's Gospel has more to say about the 
 
 Church than any other subject, 19. 
 Christ's Mystical Body, 10. 
 Christ's great word, "The Kingdom of 
 God." 18. 
 
 t 
 
 
 f 
 
 i 
 
 r 
 
492 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Christendom, divided, 12; divided into 
 
 live Patriarchates, 103. 
 Christiani, signification of the name. 160. 
 Christianity, importance of its ecclesias- 
 tical aspect, vi ; the foundation of civil- 
 ization, 23. . 
 Christian Unity, a prayer for, 13; the Epis- 
 copal Church the only hojie of, 38t>-401. 
 Christians, non church members not origi- 
 nally regarded as such, 20; Denomi- 
 nations of. in America. 35. . 
 ChrysoRtom, St., Service Book of, used in 
 Constantinople, 315. ^ ^, „ 
 Church, the, fidelity to, illustrated, vii, 9 ; 
 its existence a necessity admitted by 
 Renan, 24. 25 ; the choice of a, 29-50, 
 261 ; to which, God would have us be- 
 long, 31 ; conceptions of, 32-47 ; Roman 
 conception of, 32; Denominational 
 conception of, 33 ; Greek and Anglican 
 conception of, 38; and the State, 126 ; 
 Anglican conception of, incomprehen- 
 sible to Denominatlonalists, 149 ; Scrip- 
 ture on the visibility of, 160; visibility 
 of, proved by history, the Sacrament of 
 Baptism, the Councils, Persecutions 
 ana Excommunications, 168-169 ; 
 founded by Christ, perpetuated by suc- 
 cessors of the Apostles, 172-188 ; none 
 without Bishops, 175, 185 ; the Ark of 
 Salvation, 188-194 ; founded by Christ 
 and perpetuated by Bishops of the 
 Apostolic Succession, the Depository of 
 Sacramental grace, 191-199 ; Catholic, 
 covenanted salvation limited to it, 211 ; 
 British, not a Roman mission, 237; 
 American Episcopal, free from Roman 
 errors, 257 ; Colonial period of, 263-275 ; 
 Episcopal, why called the Church, and 
 the American Church ? 264 ; the Mother 
 of English speaking Christianity, 264 ; 
 the National period, 276-310 ; American 
 Episcopal, prejudices against, 287; 
 American Episcopal, classed as a sect, 
 chief cause of slow growth, 302 ; Ameri- 
 can Episcopal, future prospects of, 309 ; 
 American Episcopal, objections to, 311- 
 353; American Episcopal, the most 
 Scriptural and Apostolic, 356-359 ; Cath- 
 olicity of the Episcopal, tested, 360 ; 
 American Episcopal, the Church of 
 our race. 361 ; the Roman, why not 
 join it? 361 ; Anglican Communion ad- 
 milted hy Romans and Greeks to be 
 the Church of the English Race, 368 ; 
 American Episcopal, as a school, 372 ; 
 American Episcopal, superior educa- 
 tional system of, 376 ; American Epis- 
 copal, doctrinal stability of, 381-386; 
 American Episcopal, Comprehensive- 
 ness of, 391 ; AmericAn Episcopal, the 
 Church of the poor. 464-465 ; American 
 Episcopal a Catholic Church, explana- 
 tion of the term, 477-480 ; Objections to, 
 311-356. 
 Church Government, Presbyterian explan- 
 ation concerning the development of 
 Episcopacy, 180-185; Bishop Griswold 
 on Presbyterian hypothesis, 406-408; 
 
 John Wesley on " The Ministerial Of- 
 fice," 436-440. , ^ 
 Church Members, uninstructed, 5 ; isolated, 
 5-9; course to be pursued by such, 7; 
 exhortations to, 9. 
 Church Membership, 15-50 ; the obligations 
 to, 15-29; necessity of, on the part ol 
 those who would serve Christ, 194. 
 Church of Americans, the, justification of 
 
 the use of this title, 264. 
 Church of England, the, reviled by early 
 Denominatlonalists, 204 ; the Mother, 
 217-258 ; evidence of its continuity, 225- 
 235, 440 , Estates of, not claimed by the 
 Church of Rome, '227 ; robbed by the 
 Popes, '231 ; not originally a Mission of 
 Rome, '236-242; Roman encroachments 
 upon, and their resistance, '242-'258; in- 
 dependence of, evidence by the Magna 
 Charta, 247 ; impartial testimony con- 
 cerning her excellency, '255 ; on the 91K) 
 years' leaseofproperty, 227-229, 440-441 ; 
 continuity of, proved by the uninter- 
 rupted succession of her Bishoj>s, 441- 
 443 ; did not secede from Rome, 443-444. 
 Churches, human, identification with, sin- 
 ful, 31 ; National, denied by Romanists, 
 40 ; National, testimony of " Janus," 45 ; 
 Jewish and Christian, Divinely ap 
 pointed government of polyarchical, 
 not monarchical, 105. 
 aty Congregations, obligations of, to rural 
 Missions, 5 ; indebtedness of, to village 
 Churches, 6. 
 Civil War, eflFect upon the Episcopal 
 
 Church, 296,301. 
 " avilita Cattolica," 84. 
 Civilizations, so far all founded on religion, 
 
 23. 
 Clairns, Roman, unknown in the early 
 ages, 33; respecting America ex- 
 amined, 362. 
 Clarke, Dr.. encomium of, on the Book of 
 
 Common Prayer, 421. 
 Class, middle, constitutes the principal part 
 of the Episcopal Church, 328 ; poor, as 
 welcome in the Episcopal Church as 
 elsewhere, 329 ; upper, the genius of the 
 Episcopal Church, as manifested in 
 making the most of her adherents, 328. 
 Clay, Henrv, on the importance of the 
 Episcopal Church, 299; interesting cor- 
 respondence about, with reminiscences 
 of, 448-451. 
 Coincidences, remarkable, at the Vatican, 
 
 59. 
 Coke. Dr., application for Consecration as 
 
 Bishop, 48. 
 College of Apostles to continue to the end 
 
 of the world, 173. 
 Colonial Church, the, 263-275; originally 
 under the supervision of the Bishop of 
 London, 265, 278. 
 Columbus, Christopher, his discoveries in 
 the Western world, 362 ; Spanish and 
 Papal claims based upon them, 363. 
 Commission, Ministerial, the, to the Apos- 
 tles, 40; the Divine, always accom- 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 493 
 
 panied by the testimony of miracles, 
 210-211, 338. 
 
 Communion, the Pope offers restoration to 
 the Anglican Church, 130. 
 
 Communion, Holy, rubrical directions af- 
 fecting admission to, o:>6. 
 
 Conference, Augustine and British Bish- 
 ops, 242. 
 
 Confession of Christ, how made, 21, 460. 
 
 Confession, Westminster, anecdote concern- 
 ing, '26; on the necessity of Church 
 membership, 194 ; dialogue concerning, 
 352. 
 
 Confirmation, a condition of Communion 
 in the Episcopal Church, 336, 4G0. 
 
 Congregational " meeting-house " changed 
 to " Church," 37. 
 
 Congregationalists, the, when formed, 34 ; 
 self-constituted organization of, 170; 
 left Calvinism, 384 ; five signers of the 
 Constitution, 413-414 ; thirteen signers 
 of the Declaration of Independence, 
 469-470 ; their claim of laying the foun- 
 dations of American independence 
 disproved, 469-471 ; to pass away, 
 473. 
 
 Consecration, Dr. Seabury's 280 ; effect of, 
 
 '.:82. 
 
 Constitution, the, of the United States and 
 the faith of its framers, 413-414. 
 
 Continuity of the English Church, 217 235; 
 illustrated, 2'22-'225. 
 
 Contradictions of Pnpal utterances, 70. 
 
 Contrast between Episcopal Church com- 
 prehensiveness and Denominational 
 narrowness, 342. 
 
 Controversy between Anglicans and Rom- 
 ans, 51-140; points passed over, 146; 
 between Anghcans and Denominatlon- 
 alists, 147-214. 
 
 Conversion, of Abraham, the Jew, to Chris- 
 tianity, 117 ; of the Anglo-Saxons, 238- 
 241. 
 
 Converts to the Episcopal Church, 4 ; Yale, 
 the President and Faculty, 271-272 ; to 
 Episcopacy from other ministries, 305. 
 
 Council, Church, the only, recorded in the 
 New Testament, 102. 
 
 Council, of Bari, 242; of Cartha^fC, 151; of 
 Chalcedon, 104 ; of Constantinople. 9(> ; 
 of NicfD, 96; of Trent, 43, 44, 112 ; Eng- 
 lish Prelates invited to Council of 
 Trent, 139. 
 
 Covenant, necessity of, 189 ; none outside 
 of the Apostolic Church, 190. 
 
 Covenanted salvation limited to the Cath- 
 olic Church, 211. 
 
 Coxe, Bp., on non church membership, 
 21-22. 
 
 Creed, Roman, changes in, 66. 
 
 Cromwell, Oliver, the character of, 253. 
 
 Cummins, the, schism, 302 ; the untenabil- 
 ity of their position and the invalidity 
 of their orders shown, 452-459. 
 
 Cup, the, withheld from the Laity by 
 Romanists, 67. 
 
 D 
 
 ALBUS, M., on Anglican Orders, 133. 
 Damnation of Infants, 70, 384. 
 
 Dancing, the attitude of the Episcopal 
 Church towards, 462-464. 
 
 Dark Ages, the, 107 ; gold drawn from Eng- 
 land by Rome during, 231. 
 
 Dates of formation of I^nominational or- 
 ganizations, 34 ; of Roman heresies, 66- 
 67. 
 
 Declaration of Independence, influence of, 
 on the Colonial Church, 278 ; two-thirds 
 of the signers Episcopalians, 378 ; faith 
 of the signers, 4(!9-470. 
 
 Declaration of Rights, the Virginian, 290. 
 
 Decrees, Papal, 64 ; spurious, 109. 
 
 Decretals of Isidore, Papacy built upon, 109. 
 
 Depreciation of ceremonial observances, 
 196, 2r2. 
 
 DeMaistre, Count, on the Anglican Com- 
 munion and Christian Unity, 389. 
 
 Denominational Sacraments, benefit of, 
 195; ministry and Sacraments, 206; 
 clei^y joining the American Episcopal 
 Church, 305 ; educational system com- 
 pared with that of Episcopal Church, 
 376 ; latitudinarianism of, ;^l-385. 
 
 Denominationalism, change which has 
 come over it due to Episcopalian, not 
 Roman, influence, 309; rapid growth 
 not an evidence of Catholicity, 339 ; cer- 
 emonial resemblance to Romanism, 349. 
 
 Denominatlonalists, their conception of the 
 Church, 33-38, 48, 150, 3:J2; advantage 
 of Anglicans over, in the Roman con- 
 troversy, 53 ; controversy with, 147-214 ; 
 where they and Episcopalians part 
 company, 155; textscitedby them, 161, 
 164-168 ; Episcopalians more liberal in 
 their treatment ofother Christians than, 
 201 ; unchurched the Church of Eng- 
 land, 204 ; reviled the Church of Eng- 
 land, '204 ; more exclusive than Episco- 
 Salians, 339-342; and Romanists, con- 
 icting testimony of, concerning the 
 Episcopal Church, 34 i ; agreement with 
 Episcopalians in regard to the necessity 
 of a valid ministerial commission, 369. 
 
 Denominations, when founded, 34 ; impos- 
 sibility of removing doubt concerning 
 their Catholicity, 38 ; founders of, more 
 in harmony with Episcopalians than 
 their professed followers, 48 ; no more 
 free from Roman error and superstitions 
 than the Episcopal Church, 257 ; had 
 their rise in the bigotry of schismatics, 
 340-341; departure of, from their 
 founders, 383 ; have passed and will 
 pass away, 471-473. 
 
 Different schools of thought included in 
 the Episcopal thurch, 342. 
 
 Diocesan system, development of the, 102. 
 
 Disciples, name given to them indicates the 
 visibility of the Church, 160. 
 
 Distinction between Christiana and Christ- 
 id, 160; grace and faith, 193. 
 
 Divisions, hurtful among Christians, 10-11, 
 332; evils of, amon^ Christians illus- 
 trated by the Mississippi at flood time, 
 11 ; unhistifiable, 202 ; heresy and, in- 
 separable, 382 ; hinders the evangeliza- 
 tion of the world, 388. 
 
494 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 I 
 
 
 Doctrines of tTansubetantiation, purgatory 
 and Indulgences introduced by Rome. 
 67 ; ofinfallibilityeifectually disproved 
 by Leo XIIl.'s decree of the invalidity 
 of Anglican Orders, 140 ; of intention, 
 135, 140; Denominational, recognized 
 in the Episcopal Church. 390. 
 
 Doddridge, Dr., encomium of, on the Book 
 ofCommon Prayer, 419. 
 
 DoUinger, Von, chief editor of " The Pope 
 and the Council," under the nom de 
 plume of "Janus." 46; rejection of 
 Papal infallibility by, M ; on Peter s 
 Roman Episcopate, 91 ; on the validity 
 of Episcopal succession, 143. 
 
 Drummond, H., on the need of Churches, 
 
 24 
 
 Duchesne, Abbe, on the validity of Angli- 
 can Orders, 134. 
 
 Duty of Obedience, 17-19; of Church mem- 
 bership, 19-23. 
 
 jpcCLESIA,ihe signification of, 159. 
 
 -C/ Ecdesia Anglicana, the continuity of, 
 proved, 221-2;5.-), 2fvi. , . 
 
 Ecclesiastical view of Christianity, impor- 
 tance of the vi. 
 
 Ecclesiastical year, the, as an educator, 
 309, 373-374. 
 
 Ecumenical Councils, 63; an evidence 
 against Papal pretensions, 9j; Con- 
 voked by Emperors, 96 ; Oriental in 
 representation, 96; final authority for 
 ten centuries, 100. 
 
 Educational features of the Anglican Com- 
 munion, 371-:i81. 
 
 Edward, the Confessor, called Vicar of 
 Christ, 1*25. , .. ^ ^^ 
 
 Edwardian Ordinal, the, similar to the 
 Greek and early Roman Offices, 129, 
 
 140-141. „ ^. 
 
 Encomiums, by non-EpiscopaUans, on the 
 
 Book ofCommon Prayer, 41G-428. 
 England, King and Pope supporting each 
 other, 2:53 ; Church of, not originally a 
 Mission of Rome, 236-242 ; exclusion of 
 Italian Clergy, 248. , ^ ,„ 
 
 English Church, when founded, 40 ; never 
 included in any Patriarchate, 103-104 ; 
 continuity of, 217-2:50 ; lease showing 
 her to be over a thousand years old, 
 228, 440-441; protests of, against the 
 usurpations of the Popes, 2 17 ; inde- 
 pendence of, 2 19 ; continuity of, proved 
 for 1300 years by property, 440; conti- 
 nuity of, proved by uninterrupted suc- 
 cession of her Bishops, 441-443 ; did not 
 secede from Rome, 443-444. 
 English Reformation, the, precipitated, not 
 caused, by the matrimonial affairs of 
 King Uenry VIII., 230, 234, 252; based 
 on Scripture, 257. 
 Episcopacy, conversion of the President 
 and Faculty of Yale College to, 270 ; 
 prejudice against, in colonial times, 
 287 ; Presbyterian explanation concern- 
 ing the development of, 180-185 ; Bishop 
 Griswold on the Presbyterian hypothe- 
 sis, 406-408; John Wesley on the Minis- 
 terial Office, 436-440. 
 
 Episcopal Church, the, Apostolic Succession 
 of 130-146, 370 ; the via media between 
 Romanism and DenominationaUsm, 
 196, ;544, 386 ; effect upon, of the Revo- 
 lutionary War, 276-277 ; the consolida- 
 tion of, 278 ; Canonically the Church of 
 America, 280; unity strained by the 
 Civil War, 286; slow growth of, ac- 
 counted for, 287-302; ground for en- 
 couragement as to the future, 304; 
 moulding influence of, 307 ; oWectiona 
 to, 311-3,56; not behind in good works, 
 324 ; conflicting representations of De- 
 nominationalists and Romanists, 344 ; 
 both Catholic and Protestant, 345, 388 ; 
 resemblance of, to Rome, stops thort of 
 superstition, 345; not like Rome, De- 
 nominationalists being witnesses, ?53 ; 
 the most Scriptural and Apostolic, 356 ; 
 Apostohc. 3.59-361; to-day doctrinally 
 as in the first century. 381 ; comprehen- 
 siveness of, 389-:^91 ; the Church of the 
 Reconciliation, 3% ; statistics of, show- 
 ing growth from 1880 to 1890, 435; its 
 perpetuitv, 471-473 ; its Catholicity ex- 
 plained. 477-480. 
 Episcopal Reformed Church, the so-called, 
 ?m ; simply a Denominational organi- 
 zation, 453-451; objections of, to por- 
 tions of the Liturgy, considered, 456- 
 458; the regret of the leader that he 
 had formed the, 4r)8. ,»..,. 
 Episcopalians, conception of the Churcn 
 which prevails among them, 38 ; differ- 
 ences between them and Denomina- 
 tionalists, 155; texts cited bv them 
 respectively, 157-161 ; some celebrated 
 and patriotic, 255-256, 289-'297, 326, 377- 
 381; persecution of, by Puritans, 26/ ; 
 why Americans should be, 357-402; 
 twenty-five signers of the Constitution, 
 413-414; thirty-four signers of the Dec- 
 laration of ' Independence, 469-470 ; 
 great preponderance of, in the world, 
 
 474-477. ^ ^ V 
 
 Episcopate, Anglican, never deposed by 
 Rome, 1'2*3; the, a perpetuation of the 
 Apostolate, 177 ; priority of Anglican 
 in America, 280. 
 
 Equality among the Apostles, 92, 101 ; of 
 the early Bishops. 9S-1(K). 
 
 Erastianism not chargeable to the Episco- 
 pal Church, 124. , , ^ , ^ 
 
 Estates of the Church of England not 
 claimed by the Church of Rome, 227 
 
 Eucharist, the Holy, first recorded celebra- 
 tion in America, 263; rubncs regulat- 
 ing admittance to, ;«6-337 ; teaching of 
 the Prayer Book concerning, 457-458 ; 
 the use of fermented wine in, 466-469 ; 
 
 Evil of extempore prayer in Pubhc Wor- 
 ship, 314-318 ; of schism, 10-12, 332, 382*' 
 
 Evils arising from want of Episcopal over- 
 sight, 265-267. 
 
 Ex-Cathedra Papal utterances, 60, 64. 
 
 Exclusiveness. the alleged, of the Episcopal 
 Church, disproved. ;53l-343. 
 
 Excommunication, 120; what it cannot 
 
 effect. 203. ^ .. ^ 
 
 Excuses of non Church members, 24-29. 
 
 A 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 495 
 
 Experience Meetings, a stumbling-block to 
 the shrinking and nervous, 460. 
 
 Extempore prayer in Public Worship, evils 
 of, 314-318 ; the Anglican view of, and 
 relation to, 459-461. 
 
 FABLE, "Nag's Head," 127; references 
 thereto, 133, 135, 143. 
 
 Faculty of Yale College, conversion of, to 
 the Episcopacy, 270. 
 
 Faith, the, of the signers of the Constitu- 
 tion, 413-414 ; of the signers of the Decla- 
 ration of Independence, 469-470. 
 
 False Decretals, the, their part in the de- 
 velopment of the Papacy, 109. 
 
 Fallibility, Papal, proved by the contradic- 
 tory decrees aud admissions of the 
 Popes, 70-82. 
 
 Fathers, the, appealed to by Episcopalians, 
 49 ; number of, according to Romanists, 
 65; nature of the evidence adduced 
 from, largely inferential but scarcely 
 less satisfactory on that account, 152; 
 testimony to the perpetuity of the 
 Apostolic office in the Episcopate, 176 ; 
 on the necessity of Bishops to the ex- 
 istence of a Church, 185 ; on the neces- 
 sity of membership in an ApostoUc 
 Church, 191 ; on the necessity of Apos- 
 tolic Sacraments, 198. 
 , Fermented Communion Wine, objection to, 
 considered, 466-469. 
 
 Fidelity to the Church, Illustration of, vii, 9, 
 
 First, the. Church Council, 102; recorded 
 Christian service within the limits of 
 the United States, 262 ; Baptism in the 
 United States, 262 ; American Church, 
 263 ; recorded celebration of the Holy 
 Eucharist in the United States, 263; 
 American Episcopal Bishop, 279 ; Rom- 
 ish Bishop to America, 280. 
 
 Fluency often a Denominational test of 
 piety, 460. 
 
 Formalism, a groundless objection urged 
 against the Episcopal Church, 318-321. 
 
 Formosus, the body of Pope, indignantly 
 mutilated by Pope Stephen VI., 72. 
 
 France, Church of Rome re-estabUshed in, 
 by Napoleon, 254. 
 
 Franklin, an Episcopalian, 290, 411. 
 
 Fraud, Papal, 80. 109, 133. 
 
 Freedom of early Roman Bishops from 
 heresy a cause of the doctrine of infal- 
 libihty, 68. 
 
 Fuller, Thomas, on the introduction of 
 Christianity into the British Isles, 236. 
 
 GALILEO, condemned by the Inquisi- 
 ' tion, 78. 
 
 Gardner, Bishop, testimony of, that the 
 Reformation in England was in accord 
 with the will of the people, 234. 
 
 Grenebrardus, Archbishop of Aix, on Pa- 
 pal profligacy, 114. 
 
 Gibbons, Cardinal, refuted, 284-285. 
 
 Gladstone, Hon. W. E., on the continuity 
 of the English Church, 225 ; on the cry 
 of " unchurching Denominations," 3;i7. 
 
 Gore, Canon, on the Fathers and Papal 
 claims, 89. 
 
 Gospel, demand for one with the Church 
 left out, 19. 
 
 Gough, Dr. Stephen, the case of, a valuable 
 proof of the validity of Anglican Or- 
 ders, 136. 
 
 Government, Church, Presbyterians on the 
 development of Episcopacy, 180-185; 
 the Presbyterian hypothesis, 406 ; John 
 Wesley on Ministerial Office, 436-440« 
 
 Grace, Sacramental, the Apostolic Church 
 the dept>sitory of, 194. 
 
 Gratian's code, the part of this literary 
 fraud in the development of the Pa- 
 pacy, 109. 
 
 Greek Church, the. 38-40; affected by Leo 
 XIIl.'s Bull of Anglican Invalidity, 144 ; 
 high estimation of Anglican orders by, 
 4:34-436. 
 
 Green, J. R., on the future of the English 
 race, 395-396. 
 
 Griswold, Bishop, on the Presbyterian hy- 
 pothesis, 406-408. 
 
 Growth of the Papal primacy and suprem- 
 acy, 101-118; of the Episcopal Church 
 in America, slow at first, 278-302 ; rapid 
 at present, 143, 304-310, 393 ; of the Eng- 
 lish speaking population of the world, 
 395 ; of the Episcopal Church in Amer- 
 ica, 1880-1890. 415-416; of the Episcopal 
 Church, perpetual, 472-473. 
 
 HALIFAX, Lord, leader of movement 
 for reunion with Rome, i;i8. 
 
 Hall, Robert, encomium of, on the Book of 
 Common Prayer, 422. 
 
 Henry VIII., King, wrong impression that 
 the Church of Rome was the Church of 
 England up to the time of, 217-224; 
 causes of this impression, 221 ; the ma- 
 trimonial affairs of, not the cause of 
 the English Reformation, 230, 234, 252 ; 
 did not found the present Church of 
 England, 251 ; his character and creed, 
 252-2.53. 
 
 Heresies of the Roman Church. 66-67. 
 
 Heresy of Pope Honorius, 80, 97. 
 
 Historic Episcopate, the, accepted until 
 the Reformation, 206. 
 
 Historical investigation, necessity of, before 
 choosing a Church, 261. 
 
 History against Roman claims, 47, 91, 137- 
 146; appeal to, regarded by Cardinal 
 Manning as treason and heresy, 47 ; the 
 testimony of, justifies the claims of the 
 Episcopal Church, 49, 54, 143, 168-258, 
 reconstructed by Romanists to their 
 interest, 107 ; proves the Mother Church 
 of England to be a true branch of the 
 Catholic Church of Christ, 217-258; brief, 
 of the American Episcopal Church, 
 284 ; the future of Sectarianism in the 
 light of, 472, 473. 
 
 Holy Catholic Church, what is meant by 
 the, 477-480. 
 
 Honorius, Pope, guilty of the Monothelite 
 heresy, 80; anathematized by the sixth 
 Council, 97 ; disappearance of the re- 
 corded condemnation of, from the 
 
 i 
 
49(» 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 '!! 
 
 !|. 
 
 ii 
 
 Roman Breviaries in the sixteenth cen- 
 tury, HO. ^ r^ V * • 
 Hooker's challenge to the Presbytenans, 
 
 200. 
 
 IDENTITY of the Church of England 
 after the Reformation with that which 
 was before, 225-2:55. 
 Idolatry of Pope Marcellinus. 70. 
 Ignorance or fraud, Papal, 80, 109, 133. 
 Illustration from tlood of Mississippi River, 
 U; from imaginary conversation of 
 General Moltke, 11 ; of unwillingness 
 to admit human sinfulness, 25; of 
 readiness to confess short-comings, 26- 
 27 ; of the Church as a Vine, 39-40 ; 
 from Presidential messages, irvJ; from 
 a tunnel. 184; from Jeroboam's revolt, 
 201 ; from restoration of (iothic tower, 
 222 ; of the River Rhone, 223 ; from 
 restoration of the Chapel Royal, 223. _ 
 Images, use of, inlrt)duced by Rome, 6/ ; 
 
 supported by Pope Adrian I.. 78. 
 Immorality of the Popes, incompatibility 
 of, with the I Itramontane claims, 113 ; 
 Cardinal Baronius on, 114, 117 ; Ultra- 
 montane apology for, 11 6. . 
 Importance or the Ecclesiastical view ot 
 Christianity, vi; of belonging to the 
 National branch of the One Apostolic 
 Church, vi. . „ . 
 Independence, Declaration of. Episcopa- 
 lian signers, 378 ; faith of all the sign- 
 ers, 469-471. ^ ^ ,^ 
 Indulgences, when introducetl. <)7. 
 Infallibility of the Papacy. 54-82 : decree of, 
 GO ; strong condemnation of the dex- 
 trine justified, 61 ; accounted for by the 
 desire for certitude, 61-68 ; disproved by 
 conflicting decrees, heresies, and ad- 
 missions of the Popes, 70-82 ; denied by 
 the minority of the Vatican Council,13/. 
 Infidelity, a revulsion from Papal Infalli- 
 
 Influence, the, of a school-giri, 9 ; of Church 
 tracts, 149 ; of the Episcopal Church s 
 observance of the Ecclesiastical year, 
 
 309 374. 
 
 Institutional Religion, neglect of, account- 
 ed for, 1. 
 
 Insufficiency of mere morality, 18. 
 
 Intellectuality of Roman minority against 
 
 the claim of Papal infallibility, 58. 136; 
 
 of the Anglican Communion, 371-381. 
 Intention, the doctrine of, 135, 141. 
 Interdict, the result of the, 115. 
 Invective, Papal, 99 ; Denominational, 204. 
 Iowa, Bishop of, testimony as to accessions 
 
 from the Roman Communion, 307. 
 Irenaeus, saying of, " No Church without 
 
 a Bishop," 186 ; on schism, 192. 
 Irish Bishops, their connection with the 
 
 consecration of Arohbishop Laud, 131. 
 Irreverence, frequent, of extempore public 
 
 prayer, 31f.-317. 
 Isidorian Decretals, 109. , ^ ,, ^ . 
 Isolated Church people, exhortation to, 9. 
 Isolation, no reason for abandoning the 
 
 Church, 8. 
 
 Italians, Vatican Council packed with. 
 55. 
 
 ti TANUS," the pseudonym adopted by 
 J the writers of "The Pope and the 
 Council," 46 ; on the Jesuits, 61 ; on 
 Papal names, 67 ; on Thomas Aquinas, 
 
 110. 
 Jefferson an EpiscopaUan, 289, 412. 
 
 Test a Papal 55 
 
 Jesuits and Papal infallibiUty, 55 ; "Janus" 
 
 on. 61 ; their part in Leo XIII.'s decree 
 
 of Anglican invalidity, 133. 
 Jurisdiction, the Pope's original, extent of, 
 
 44 ; the Pope's, 83-118 ; lexts upon which 
 
 the Papal claim is built, 85. 
 Justification of proselytizing, 13-14. 
 
 ttxZ'EENAN'S Catechism" on Papal in- 
 IV fallibility, 65-66. 
 
 Kenrick, Roman Archbishop of St. Louis, 
 publication of his famous undeliv- 
 ered speech at the Vatican Council, 
 56-57; on the Bull of Bonifice VIII., 
 
 Kingdom of God, the, Christ's great word. 
 18; a visible Kingdom or Church, 155^ 
 172 ; St. Augustine on the Visibility of, 
 
 171. 
 Kings of England, league of the, with 
 
 Popes, 223. 
 
 LATIN Bible, the. of Pope Sixtus V., 72. 
 Legal proof of the Continuity of the 
 English Church, 228. 
 
 Legend, absurd, of Constantine, quoted by 
 Adrian L, 78. , . . 
 
 Lent, influence of its observance by the 
 Episcopal Church, 309. 
 
 Leo XIII., Pope, the decree of Invalidity of 
 Anglican Orders, 132-146. 
 
 Letter, Adams, of, to his wife, 294 ; Bish- 
 ops' Pastoral, on Ritualism, 346. 
 
 Lightfoot, Bishop, on Celtic Evangelists, 
 240 ; on opposition of the British Church 
 to Roman usurpation, 249 ; on the Apos- 
 tolic origin or the threefold Ministry, 
 405-40*;. ^ , ^, r 
 
 Liguori, Dr. Alfonso M., on the relation of 
 the English Church to the Roman 
 Church, 251. 
 
 Limitations of Papal infambihty, 60. 
 
 Lists of authorities consulted, 16, 52, 148, 
 216, 2rA 312, 358. ^ . „ , 
 
 Lituigles, ancient use of, by Apostles and 
 Saints, 314-315. 
 
 Loretto, the house of the Blessed Virgin in, 
 
 Louides, the grotto of Massaveivelle, at, 75. 
 
 Luther, Martin, sanction of the Htetoric 
 Episcopate by, 48, 397 ; demanded mir- 
 acles of the Anabaptists as Credentials 
 of Divine Commission, 211. 
 
 Lutheran Denomination, the, should em- 
 brace Episcopacy. 49; has wandered 
 far from Luther, its founder, 883 ; will 
 ultimately pass away, 473. 
 
 Lutheran reason for the growth of the 
 Episcopal Church, 305. 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 497 
 
 MAGNA CHARTA, an evidence of the 
 independence of the Church of Eng- 
 land, 247. 
 
 Manning, Cardinal, regards appeal to his- 
 tory as treason and heresy, 47 ; on Papal 
 jurisdiction, 84 ; on the opposition of 
 British Church to Rome, 249, 444. 
 
 Marshall, Chief Justice, an anecdote con- 
 cerning, related by Bishop Meade, 276. 
 
 Maryland, Bishop of, on accessions to 
 Roman Communion, 307 ; colonists of, 
 the great majority of, Protestants, 366. 
 
 Matrimony, conflicting Papal decrees re- 
 specting, disprove the doctrine of infal- 
 libility, 71, 72. 
 
 Meml>ers of the Church, uninstructed, 5 ; 
 neglected, 5-7. 
 
 Membership, Church, duty of, 15-29. 
 
 Methodism, when founded, 34 ; a society, 
 not a Church, 36-37 ; the, of to-day, put- 
 ting on the external garments of the 
 Church, 307; will pass away like other 
 human organizations, 472-473. 
 
 Methodists, of to-day, not followers of Wes- 
 ley, 203, 383 ; exchange of pulpits, 334 ; 
 subdivision of, 340 ; one signer of the 
 Coustitution among, 413-4U ; their esti- 
 mation of the Prayer Book, 421. 
 
 Metropolitan System, the, 102. 
 
 Ministers of various Denominations becom- 
 ing Episcopalians, 142,305; why Epis- 
 copalian, do not exchange pulpit8,illus- 
 tra^ed by an anecdote from Bishop 
 Bedell, :i34-336. 
 
 Ministry, change from Jewish to Chris- 
 tian attested by miracles; self-constitut- 
 ed, presumption of, 210-211, 338; John 
 Wesley on the, 436-440. 
 
 Miracles demanded as evidence of Divine 
 Miaisterial Commission, 210-211, 338. 
 
 Missionary efforts unsuccessful through 
 divisions among Christians, 388. 
 
 Missionary spirit, need of, 6. 
 
 Moltke, Gen., imaginary address of, to the 
 army, illustrating the evils of divisions 
 among Christians, 11. 
 
 ■Monothelite heresy, the, 80. 
 
 Montalembert, on Celtic evangelization of 
 Britain, 241. 
 
 Montanism, 70. 
 
 Monuments which isolated members of 
 the Church can build to themselves, 8. 
 
 Morality, mere, insufficient, 18. 
 
 Moses, bigotry of, in the eyes of Korah, 
 Dathan and Abiram, 333. 
 
 Muhlenburg, Rev. Peter, the warrior Cler- 
 gyman, 293-294. 
 
 tt "M"AG'S HEAD," Fable of, 127, 134,135, 
 
 Names of the Roman Church, 42 ; for the 
 Lord's Supper, 180; for Church Gov- 
 ernors, 181 ; of some prominent and 
 patriotic EpiscopaUans, 255-256, '289 '297, 
 3'26, 377-381. 
 
 Nation and Church, not intimidated by 
 Henry VIIL, '233. 
 
 National Church, the, of America, 276-310. 
 
 National Churches, the Apostolic Church 
 
 divided into, 39 ; their Scripturalness, 
 40 ; existence of, proved from the Ro- 
 man Church, 42 ; existence of, denied 
 by Romanists, 45 ; " Janus " on, 46. 
 
 Need of Missionary spirit, 6. 
 
 New York Statistics of the Chief Bodies of 
 Protestant Christians in 1895, 473. 
 
 Non church members, not generally serv- 
 ants of Christ, 17 ; not originally re- 
 garded as Christians, 19. 
 
 Non church membership, population of, 1 ; 
 virtually a denial of Christ, 22 ; unjusti- 
 fiable, 24-25 ; is no escape from respon- 
 sibility, 27-29. 
 
 Non Episcopalians, encomiums of, on the 
 Prayer Book, 416-428. 
 
 Non Sectarianism, fallacious, 3; impossi- 
 ble, 4. 
 
 North British Review, encomium in, on 
 the Book of Common Prayer, 416. 
 
 Number of non church members, 1 ; of 
 uninstructed Churchmen, 5 ; of Denom- 
 inations, 35 ; of Denominationalist ac- 
 cessions to the Episcopal Church, 200, 
 275 ; between years 1880 and 1890, 415- 
 416; of Clergy refusing assent to the 
 Reformed Offices in England, 235 ; of 
 Anglicans in the world, 330; Protes- 
 tant Christians in 1895 in New York, 
 473; of English speaking bodies of 
 Christians in the world, 474. 
 
 OBEDIENCE, a reason for Church mem- 
 bership, 17. 
 
 Object of this work, the, 3-13. 
 
 Objections to Church membership answer- 
 ed, '24-29 ; that the Episcopal Church is 
 like the Roman, answered by Leo XIII., 
 133 ; the, to Anglican conception of the 
 Church as set forth in Lecture III., 
 199-214; the, to the Episcopal Church, 
 311-355; the, to the Episcopal Church 
 Prayer Book Worship, 313-318; the, to 
 Formalism, 318-321 ; the, to Vestments, 
 321-324 ; lack of vital reUgion, 324-327 ; 
 composed of upper classes, 327-330; 
 bigoted and exclusive, 331-343 ; like the 
 Roman Catholics, 343-355 ; its permis- 
 sion of amusements, 462-464 ; the use of 
 fermented Communion wine, 466-469; 
 the use of the title, "Holy Catholic 
 Church," 477-480. 
 
 Obligations acknowledged, viii-x ; the, to 
 Church membership, 17. 
 
 Observance of Religious Festivals, Angli- 
 can, 309, 374. 
 
 Office, the Ministerial, extract from John 
 Wesley's famous sermon on, 436-440. 
 
 Official name of the Roman Church, 42. 
 
 Ohio, Bishop of, on the educational system 
 of the Episcopal Church, 373. 
 
 Orders, Anglican, 119-146; independent 
 Apostolic strands in, 122 ; their validity 
 denied by Pope Leo XIIL, 132 ; Leo's 
 Bull considered, 133-146 ; validity of, 
 admitted by M. Dalbus, 133; Abbe 
 Duchesne, 134 ; by several Roman pre- 
 lates, 136; the Sorbonne Faculty on, 
 
 i\ 
 
 n 
 
498 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 \ 
 
 » 
 
 N! 
 
 136-137; validity of, admitted by mem- 
 bere of the Vatican Council, 137 ; Pa- 
 pal decisions on, 137-139 ; Dr. Dollinger 
 on, 143 ; verdict of Greek CathoUcs on, 
 4^-436. . , 
 
 Ordinal, Edwardian, wanUng in no essen- 
 tial, 129, 140, 141. _ ^ ,^ 
 
 Ordination, essentials of, 129; Anglican, 
 vaUdity of, 370. ,.._*,• 
 
 Origen, on Salvation only in the Apostouc 
 
 Church, 192. „^ „^ v. * 
 
 Origin of this work, on "The Church for 
 
 Americans," the, v. ^ , „^. 
 
 Osterfield, Anglo-Saxon Synod at, 244. 
 Oxford, revival of, 306. 
 
 PAPAL See, original limits of. 45 ; in- 
 fallibility, W-82; decretals, 64 ; Com- 
 munion, 65 ; contradictions, 70-82, 137 ; 
 supremacy, its development, 105-111; 
 forgeries and corruptions of history, 
 109:113, 133; profligacy, 113-118 254; 
 ignorance as exhibited by Leo XIII. s 
 decree, 134 ; willingness to restore the 
 Anglican Church to its Communion, 
 139; usurped authority in England 
 terminated, 229 ; aggrandizements, 247- 
 249 ; dogmas that come perilously near 
 to changing the Roman Church into a 
 mere sect, 479. .^ „ 
 
 Parker, Archbiihop, the Apostolic Succes- 
 sion transmitted through, 130-132. 
 Parliament, never recognized the Roman 
 Church as the Church of England, 226, 
 244, 248 ; protests of, against the usur- 
 pations of the Popes, 247. 
 Pastoral, Bishops', on Ritualism, 346. 
 Patriarchates, the five, of Christendom, 103. 
 Patriotism of Episcopalians, the, proved, 
 
 288-299. 
 Patripassian heresy, the, 70. ^ , ^^ 
 Patristic interpretations of "Thou an 
 Peter," 87; scholars, quotations from, 
 regarding the perpetuation of the Apos- 
 tomte in the Episcopate. 178. 
 Paul, St., nearer to the Gentile Church than 
 St. Peter, 94 ; testimony of Theodoret 
 concerning his planting the Gospel in 
 Britain, 237; ministry of, approved by 
 miracles, 338. , , ^^ 
 
 Pearson, Bp., on Salvation only in the 
 ApostoUc Church, 21 ; on non church 
 memt)er8hip, 22. 
 Pelagiani8m,71. 
 
 Permanency of the Anglican Communion, 
 the, contrasted with Denominational 
 transitoriness, 471-473. 
 Perry, Bp., concerning the relative claims 
 of the Episcopal and Roman Churches 
 to the allegiance of Americans, 414. 
 Peter, St., never had any successors in the 
 See of Rome, 90; doubtful if ever at 
 Rome, 91; silence of, proof against 
 Romish claims, 94 ; not the President 
 at Council of Church at Jerusalem, 96 ; 
 probably oldest of the twelve, 101. 
 Pius IV., Pope, offer of, in the reign of 
 Elizabeth, to confirm the whole Eng- 
 lish Pzayer Book. 130. 
 
 PoUtics, relation of the Episcopal Church 
 
 Poor, the welcome to the Episcopal Church, 
 329-330; Dr. Jackson's testimony in- 
 dorsing this fact. 464-465. 
 
 Pope, the jest of the, about his Vati(»n 
 guests, 55; dispute of early Fathers with 
 the, 99; every Bishop originally so 
 called, 103 ; league of the Kings of Eng- 
 land with the, for mutual support. 233 ; 
 King William's reftisal to do homage 
 
 to 244. 
 Pope, Adrian, I., on images, 78 ; Adrian VI., 
 on Papa\ infallibiDty, 82; Boniface 
 VIII., and his famous Bull, Unam Sane- 
 tarn, 83; Formosus, body of, disen- 
 tombed and abused, 72 ; Gregory I., 
 ignorant of the existence of the British 
 Churches, 40; on the Holy Roman 
 Church, 43 ; Gregory IX., on the Roman 
 Church, 43 ; Gregory XL's, dying con- 
 fession of fallibility, 81 ; Honorious, a 
 teacher of the Monothelite heresy, 80, 
 81, 97, 110; Innocent III., on Holy 
 Roman Church, 43, 83 ; self-description 
 of, 84; John XXII.'s admission of Papal 
 fallibility, 81 ; Leo II., correspondence 
 of, denouncing Honorius, 81; Leo 
 XIII.'s decree of Invalidity of Anglican 
 Orders discussed and disproved, 132-146; 
 Marcellinus, idolatry of. 70 ; Pascal II., 
 correspondence of, with English au- 
 thorities, 246 ; Pius IV., on Holy Roman 
 Church, 43; admission of Papal infalU- 
 biUty, 83 ; on English Prayer Book, 130, 
 432-433; Pius IX., and infallibility, 55; 
 Stephen VI., the fate of. 72 ; Sixtus V.'s 
 Latin version of the Scriptures, 72-73. 
 Popes, original jurisdiction of, 44 ; the, ju- 
 risdiction of, 83-118; took no part in 
 convoking Councils, 96; scandalous 
 lives of some, 113; and Cardinals, 
 
 E laced in Hell by Michael Angelo in 
 is " Last Judgment." 116 ; the, for sev- 
 eral centuries created by Emperors, 
 126; offler of, to receive the Anglican 
 Church into Roman Communion, 130; 
 the robbery of the English Church by, 
 231. 
 
 Postures of the Church in worship, 318. 
 
 Praemunire, statute of, 248. 
 
 Prayer, Extempore, Evils of Public, 314-318; 
 not forbidden by the Episcopal Church, 
 459-461. 
 
 Prayer Book. Episcopal, stability of the, 65 ; 
 essentially unchanged by the Refor- 
 mation, 225 ; worship objection to, 313- 
 318 : encomiums by non Episcopalians, 
 416-428 ; Pope Pius IV. on, 130, 432-4:53. 
 
 Pre-Colonial Church of America, the, 261- 
 262. 
 
 Presbyterian, anecdote, 20 ; should become 
 Episcopalians, 49; Westminster Con- 
 fession on the visible Church, 194, 212; 
 assumed the name of Bishops, 281 ; use 
 of Ecclesiastical vestments, 323; hy- 
 pothesis of the development of Episco- 
 pacy criticised by Bishop Griswold, 
 406-408. 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 499 
 
 Presbyterian Ordination, invalidity of, 272. 
 
 Presbyterians, objections of, to the repre- 
 sentation that according to the Denomi- 
 national idea any person is at liberty 
 to form a Church, 34 ; explanation of, 
 concerning the development of Epis- 
 copacy, 180-185 ; challenged by Hooker, 
 206 ; reason of, for Episcopalian acces- 
 sions, 305 ; subdivisions of, 340 ; drifted 
 from Calvinism, 384 ; five, signersof the 
 Constitution. 413-414; five, signers of 
 the Declaration of Independence, 469- 
 470: will pass away like other sects, 
 472-473 ; request of, in 1660, realized in 
 the American Church, 398. 
 
 Presbyters, the, sometimes called Bishops 
 in the New Testament, 273. 
 
 President and Facultv of Yale converted to 
 the Episcopal Church, 270. 
 
 Priest, objection of some to the Anglican 
 use of the title, 456. 
 
 Primacy of the Popes not due to inherit- 
 ance from St. Peter. 104. See 101-118. 
 
 Principle, the highest ground for the choice 
 of Church relationship, 30. 
 
 Prophets, messages of, 18. 
 
 Proselytizing justified, 13-14. 
 
 Protestant, objection of, to the doctrine of 
 infallibility, 60. 
 
 Provisors, statute of, 248. 
 
 Provoost. Bishop, the first of New York, 282. 
 
 Pseudo-Clementine literature, the, 109. 
 
 Pulpits, exchange of, 334. 
 
 Purgatory, doctrine of, when introduced, 
 67. 
 
 Puritan Fathers, the, on the Episcopal 
 Church, 257. 
 
 Puritan sects, opposition of eflForts of the 
 Colonial Church to obtain local Epis- 
 copacy, by. 268, 279. 
 
 Puritanism, reaction of, towards the Epis- 
 copal Church, 270. 
 
 Puritans, alarm of, at Dr. Seabury's Con- 
 secration, 281 ; not unanimous for the 
 Revolutionary War, 288. 
 
 QUAKERS, the, disuse of forms in wor- 
 ship, 316; inner light of, 353; one 
 signer of the Constitution among, 413- 
 
 414 ; two signers of the Declaration of 
 
 Independence among, 469-470. 
 Queen Anne, made provision for American 
 
 Bishops. 268. 
 Queen Bertha's share in the Christianizing 
 
 of England, 240. Frontispiece. 
 Queen Elizabeth on the Continuity of the 
 
 English Church, 226. 
 Questions, the, to be considered before 
 
 choosing Church relationship, 30. 
 "Quirinus " upon the Council on Papal in- 
 
 fallibiUty, .56. 
 
 REASONS why Americans should be 
 Episcopalians, 857-402 : the perpetuity 
 of the Church an additional reason. 
 471-473. 
 Reformation, the, not dependent on Henry 
 VIII., 230 ; English, impartial testimony 
 as to its excellency and completeness, 
 255. 
 
 Reformed Episcopal Church, the so-called, 
 303, 452-459 ; simply a Denominational 
 organization. 453-454 ; criticism of the 
 Liturgical passages to which the, objects, 
 456-458 ; Dr. Cummins' regret that he 
 had formed the, 458. 
 Reformers, English, the, morality of. com- 
 pared with Puritans and Roraanists.'253. 
 Relics introduced into Roman worship, 67 ; 
 
 many, of Saints, 75. 
 Religious societies not the Church, ;55-37. 
 Renan, testimony of, as to the necessity of 
 
 the Church, 24. 
 Revolutionary War, Puritans not unani- 
 mous for, 288 ; effects of, on the Epis- 
 copal Church, 300 ; the part taken in, 
 by the Episcopalians, 379. 
 Ritualism, Bishops' Pastoral letter on, 346. 
 Rock, five Patristic interpretations of, 87. 
 Roman Breviary, corruptions of, 110. 
 Roman Catholic, testimony against St. 
 Peter's supremacy, 93-95; for Dr. 
 Parker's Consecration, 127; for the 
 validity of Anglican Orders, 133-144; 
 two signers of the Constitution. 413-414; 
 one signer of Declaration of Indepen- 
 dence, 469-470. 
 Roman Church, the, originally a local 
 Church, 43 ; doctrinal instability of, 65- 
 68 ; not the Church of England to time 
 of Henry VIII., 2I7-'258 ; difference from, 
 not always defensible, 344 ; holds the 
 essentials of the Faith, 350. 
 Roman, Conception of the Church, 32; 
 theory of the Church unhistorical, 46; 
 Bishops in England, declaration of 
 concerning English Church property, 
 228; encroachments and their resist- 
 ance, 242-258; Communion, no claim 
 to the allegiance of the English speak- 
 ing people, 361. 
 Romanists, controversy with, 51-146 ; course 
 to be pursued by those who would 
 answer them, 54; qualifying clauses 
 by which they seek to take the sting 
 from the Protestant objections to the 
 doctrine of infallibility, 60; representa- 
 tions of, concerning Anglican Orders, 
 119; and Denominationalists, conflict- 
 ing testimony of, concerning the Epis- 
 copal Church, 344. 
 Rome, claims of, unanswerable objections 
 to, 33 ; claim of, to supply the felt need 
 of a Supreme and Omniscient Ruler re- 
 futed, 62-68; comparative freedom of, 
 from heresy, 68 ; Sees which at one time 
 overshadowed it, 100; objection of, to 
 the Anglican succession, 127 ; never le- 
 gally the Church of England, 226 ; en- 
 croachments of, and their resistance, 
 242-249 ; interferences of, in England, 
 protested against by Warelwast, 245; 
 perversions from, to the Episcopal 
 Church, inconsideraule, 306. 
 Romish claims, a fascination to the unso- 
 phisticated, 33 ; additions to the " Faith 
 once delivered to the Saints," 381; her- 
 esies that change the Church of Rome 
 into a sect, 479. 
 
 
500 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Rubrical directions affecting Communion, 
 336. 
 
 SACRAMENTS, teaching of the Fathers 
 concerning the necessity of, valid. 19h. 
 
 Saints, Romish worship of, when intro- 
 duced, 66. ^ o . ^ 
 
 Salmon, Professor, on the Santa Casa at 
 Loretto, 77 ; on " Thou art Peter." H8 ; on 
 Peter's alleged Roman Episcopate, 90. 
 
 Salvation dependent upon Church Sacra- 
 ments, doctrines and good works, 2 ; 
 upon the Confession of Christ, 21 ; only 
 in the Church taught by the Westmin- 
 ster Confet^ion, 194; conditioned by 
 conversion a half truth, 190, 196; cov- 
 enanted, limited to the Apostolic 
 Church. 211. ^ ». . ,, 
 
 Salvation Army, the, is it a Church ? If 
 not, why are the various Denomina- 
 tions such ? 36. 
 
 Scahger, on Peter's alleged connection with 
 Rome, 91. 
 
 Scandalous lives of st)me Popes, 113. 
 
 Schaff, Professor, on the retribution follow- 
 ing the declaration of Papal infallibil- 
 ity, 59 ; on the fundamental error of 
 
 Rome, 61. . ..« , 
 
 Schism, the evil of. 10- 12, 3;i2; not justified 
 by the plea of harsh treatment, '202 ; of 
 Cummins and the Evangelicals, 302- 
 303 ; never justified though apparently 
 successful, 339 ; inseparable from her- 
 esy, 382. 
 
 School Histories, erroneous teachings of, 
 concerning the Church of England, 221. 
 
 School-girl's influence in planting a 
 church, a. 9. 
 
 Science and Romanism, 77-78. 
 
 Scotland, revival of Episcopalian ideas in, 
 308 323. 
 
 Scriptural names of Church Governors, 181. 
 
 Scripture, English Reformation based 
 upon, 257. , ^, , 
 
 Scriptures, the, appealed to, by practical- 
 ists, Doctrinalists and Institutionalists, 
 2, 49, 53, 156 ; to be read only by Clergy, 
 74. 112; claimed by Romanists to 
 teach Papal universal jurisdiction, 85- 
 86 ; inference from, regarding the per- 
 petuity of the Church, 172 ; regarding 
 forms of prayer, 314 ; postures, 320 ; 
 vestments, 321 ; appealed to, regarding 
 the difference between the Episcopal 
 and Romish Churches, 354. 
 
 Seabury, Dr., first Bishop of America, 279 
 
 Sectarian and Church growth, difference 
 between. 304, 471-473. 
 
 See, the, of Rome, overshadowed by other 
 Sees, 100 ; the Roman, the only Apos- 
 tolic in the West, 104. , ^ 
 
 Selbome, Lord, on the Continuity of the 
 
 Church in England. '221. 
 Sermon-hearing, tendency to. rather than 
 worship, among Denominationalists. 
 320. 
 Service of Christ, first step in, 20. 
 Shakespeare. William, on Papal greed, 248. 
 SbieldB, Professor, on the Hwtonc Episco- 
 
 pate, 150 ; encomiums of, on the Book 
 
 of Common Prayer, 419. 
 Sinfulness of the human race, the. 25. 
 Spurgeon, Rev. C. H., on forms of prayer, 
 
 315. 
 States, United, should be a United Church 
 
 for. 12. , . , r 
 
 Statistics of non church members, 1 ; of 
 uninstructed Churchmen, 5 ; of Denom- 
 inations, 35 ; of Denominationalist ac- 
 cessions to the Episcopal Church, 200, 
 275 ; of (Uergy refusing assent to the 
 Reformed Offices in England, 235 ; of 
 Anglicans in the world, 330; of New 
 York Protestant Christians in 1895, 473 ; 
 of English speaking Christians in the 
 world, 474; showing the growth of the 
 Episcopal Church from 1880 to 1890, 415. 
 
 Stedman, Edmund Clarence, encomium of, 
 on the Book of Common Prayer, 425. 
 
 St. Louis. Abp. of, protest against the dogma 
 of infallibility. 87. 
 
 Stowe, Harriet Beecher, the Church rela- 
 tionship of, 29(5. 445-448. 
 
 Succession, English, Dr. Seabury's failure 
 to obtain it, 279. 
 
 Successors of the Apostles, Church perpetu- 
 ated by, 172-188. 
 
 Supremacy, Papal. 101-118. 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 501 
 
 TABLE, showing increase of Episcopal 
 Church in New York city, 393. 
 Taine, ecomium of, on the Book of Com- 
 mon Prayer, 416. 
 Talbot. Dr. J., Bishop incognito, at Bur- 
 lington, N. J., 268. 
 Tertullian, testimony of, to the fact that 
 the first Bishops were ordained by the 
 Apostles, 181. 
 
 Testamentum, 189. 
 
 Theater-going, the position of the Episco- 
 pal Church towards, 462-464. 
 
 The Mother Church of England, 215-258. 
 
 Theologians and Scientists, their depend- 
 ence upon inferences, 154. 
 
 Thompson, Bp.on the responsibilities of the 
 Christian life, '28 ; on the Bible and the 
 Church, 151 ; on the Apostolic Succes- 
 sion, 174 ; on Denominational ministry, 
 207 ; on sectarian bigotry, 341. 
 
 " Thou art Peter," 85; five Patristic inter- 
 pretations of, 87. 
 
 Timothy, the Bishop of Ephesus, 173. 
 
 Titus, the Bishop of Crete, 173. 
 
 Tobacco stipends, 270. 
 
 Toulouse, Council of, 112. 
 
 Tractarian movement, the, 387. 
 
 Trent, Council of, English Prelates invited 
 to, 139. 
 
 Trinity, Advent to, Bishop of Ohio on ed- 
 ucational advantages of the Church 
 year, 373. 
 
 ULTRAMONTANE ARGUMENTS, the, 
 answered, 41 ; Roman interpretation 
 of the texts they are based on, 86-89; 
 
 claims disproved by St. Paul's case, 93 ; 
 claims Incompatible with Roman im- 
 morality, 113; the. apology for Papal 
 immorality, 116; arguments prove too 
 much against Anglicans, 122 ; refuge 
 behind so-called "infallible" Papal 
 decrees, 133 ; representation that the 
 Church of England was a Romish 
 Mission, disproved, 2:36-242 ; hatred of 
 free institutions. 364. 
 
 Unam Sanctam, the Bull, 83. 
 
 Un- Americanism , the alleged, of the Epis- 
 copal Church, disproved, 288-299. 
 
 Uncanonical Episcopate of Rome in the 
 United States, the, 280. 
 
 United States, Constitution of, the faith of 
 its framers, 413. 
 
 Unity, Christian, prayer for, 13; the Epis- 
 copal Church the only hope of, .-iStMOl. 
 
 Unity of the Christian Church, strained 
 but not broken by the Civil War, 286. 
 
 Universal jurisdiction claimed by Rome, 
 83-8.'>. 
 
 Urban II., Pope, on the independence of 
 the English Church, 246. 
 
 VALENTINIAN III., decree of, 126. 
 _ Validity of Parker's Consecration, 
 131-132 ; of the Anglican orders denied 
 by Leo XIIL, 131-146. 
 Variations among Protestants, Bossiiet's, 66. 
 VaUcan Council, its constitution and meth- 
 ods of procedure, 5,5-59; remarkable co- 
 incidence, a, 59 ; dogmatic decree of, 83, 
 137, 
 
 Verdict of Greek scholars on the Validity 
 of Anglican orders, 4;J4-436. 
 
 Vestments, objections to, 321-324 ; a layman 
 on, 461-462. 
 
 Vicar of Christ applied to Edward the Con- 
 fessor, 125. 
 
 Vicars of Peter changed to Vicars of Christ, 
 67. ' 
 
 Vic^erent of Christ, the Pope claims to be, 
 84. 
 
 Virgil, Bishop, Papal condemnation of, 77. 
 
 Virginia s Declaration of Rights the work 
 of an Episcopalian, 290. 
 
 Virgin Mary, Immaculate Conception of, 
 66 ; believed by Romanists to have re- 
 vealed herself, 75. 
 
 Vital religion, reputed lack of, an objection 
 to the Episcopal Church, 324-326. 
 
 Votaries of Society, the, not exclusively 
 Episcopalians, 326. 
 
 Votes of Roman Prelates against the doc- 
 trine of Papal infalUblUty, 58. 
 
 WAR, effect of the Revolutionary, on 
 the Episcopal Church, 300; effect 
 of the Civil, on the Episcopal Church, 
 
 Washington, Gen., communicant of the 
 Episcopal Church, 289, 408-411; of 
 twelve generals appointed by, eight 
 were Episcopalians, 379. 
 
 Welton, Dr. R,, Bishop incognito in Phil- 
 adelphia, 268. 
 
 Wesley, Charles, a life-long Episcopalian, 
 38, 399. 
 
 Wesley. John, is his society a Church ? 36 ; 
 a life-long Episcopalian, 38, 429-432; 
 followers of, did not imitate his exam- 
 ple, 203 ; and Charles, died communi- 
 cants of the Church, 205 ; sermon of 
 No. CXV on the " Ministerial Office.'' 
 great source of regret to Methodist 
 ministers, 211, 436; on the English 
 Church, 257 ; regularly used both Vest- 
 ments and Services, 322; death-bed 
 prayer for the Church of England, 399 ; 
 reasons against a separation from the 
 Church of England, 429 ; on the Minis- 
 
 q^V*oo^^,5P^' ^^-^0 ' references to. 
 32*2. 826, ;i.38, 341, 383,397, 421. 
 Westminster Confession, Presbyterian, 194, 
 212, 341, 
 
 White, Bp., advised the creation of a spur- 
 ious Episcopate, 277. 
 
 ^^y^^^^(^^s should be Episcopalians, 
 359-402. 
 
 William the Conqueror, refhsal of, to do 
 
 homage to the Pope, 244, 
 Wine, fermented, Communion, objection to. 
 
 considered, 466-469. 
 Witan, attitude of the Saxon towards the 
 
 Pope, 244. 
 Wolff, Dr., and the Greek Bishop, anecdote 
 
 concerning, 209. 
 Words typical of great religious systems, 18. 
 Wordsworth, Bishop of Lincoln, communi- 
 cation to, from members of the Vatican 
 
 Council, 137. 
 World exchange of, for the Church, the 
 
 only acceptable way of confessing 
 
 Christ, 21, 
 Worldliness, the Episcopal Church accused 
 
 Worship, pre composed forms of, justified 
 313-318; of Apostles and Saints, liturgi- 
 cal, 314, 315. ^ 
 
 Wyckhffe, on " Thou art Peter," 91 ; trans- 
 lating the Bible, 248. 
 
 YALE, notable conversion of the Presi- 
 dent and Faculty of, to Episcopacy, 
 
 Yale College converts to the Episcopacy. 
 
 reply of, to the Presbyterians, 272 
 Year, the Christian, the Bishop of Ohio on, 
 
 373 ; Dr. Hitchcock upon revival of. 
 
 Young Men's Christian Association, why 
 are not its secretaries ministers? 187; 
 an organization, not a Church, 202, 
 
 ZANTE. Abp. of, on the Anglican Com- 
 munion as the rallying point for di- 
 vided Christendom, 388. 
 Zephyrinus, Pope, held the Patripassian 
 
 heresy, 70. 
 Zosimus, Pope, his relation to Pelagius, 71. 
 
This book it due two weeks from the last date 
 stamped' below, and if not returned or renewed at or 
 before that time a fine of five cents a day will be incurred. 
 
 Ik 
 w 
 
 t 
 
 h 
 
 
 35f 
 
 
 
 t^ 
 
 ^^fr\ 
 
 
 IE 
 
 U^ 
 
 > 
 
 1 /^ 
 
 3 
 
 
 <_ 
 
 ^CM 
 
 CO^^ 
 
 tVJ 
 
 5^ 
 
 TTl 
 
 CO 
 
 -i^= 
 
 
 
 
 
 BRITTLE DO NOT 
 PHOTOCOPY 
 
 ■•ill ,1 »>i|l^«»||ia*ii|||iialllli>aJ4tirt|>iii III, I 11 
 
 UAH ) 2