High Church Episcopacy; ITS ORIGIN, CHARACTERISTICS AND FRUITS. "THE TRUTH SHALL MAKE YOU FREE." B Y WILLIAM 'ANNAN. PITTSBURGH: E. S. DAVIS & CO., No. 175 LIBEETY STEEET. PEESBYTERIAN BOOK STORE, No. 198 PENN STEEET. 1 87 4. Entered accordiug to Act of Congress, in the year 1874, by William Annas, ^n the Office of the Librarian of Congress at Vashington. PRINTED AND BOUND BT BAKEWELl & MAKTHENS, CONTENTS. CUAP. Paob. I. High Church Pretensions.— Assaults of their Writers upon the Presbj terian and other Churches, . 5 II. Origin of the Book of Common Prayer. — A Historical Sketch, 16 III. Difficulties in Doctrine.— The XXXIX Articles Cal- vinistic, but subscribed by an Arminian Clergy; though the XVIIth teaches Decided Predestina- tion. — Immoral Subscription. — Views of Macaulay, 2.3 IV. Justification by Faith.— High Church Errors.— Pu- seyite Developments. — Tendencies towards Popery, 44 V. Articles on Original Sin and Free Will admirably Calvinistic. — High Church teach some Natural Spark of Goodness. — Dying Infants according to High Churchism, need no Saviour, ... 58 VI. Popish Doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration. — "S'iews of Archbishop Cranmer and others who framed the Articles. — " Stupendous Change " in Baptism. — Shreds of Popery in the Liturgy, ... 64 VII. Difficulties of Baptismal Regeneration in connection with the Burial Service.— Dangerous Delusions. — Bishop Hobart's Evasions. — High Church Altars.— Confessionals and Pricstliood, .... 83 VIII. Difficulties in the High Cliurch Scheme of Govern- ment.— Doctrine of the Three Orders of Ministers. — Views of English Prelates. — A Bishop in Every Town at first, 102 IX. The High Church Theory of Three Orders not taught in the New Testament. — Usher's Reduced Episco- pacy. — Strange Perversion of Scripture. — Ordina- tion by the Presbytery, 113 X. Difficulties in Accepting the Fatliers as Interpreters of Scripture. — True Doctrine of Private Judgment. — Early Writings (corrupted.— Scripture its own Best Interpreter.— Delusions of the Fathers. — Pa- tristic Puddles, .137 iv COXTENTS. Chap. Paoe. XI. Same Subject continued. — Principles of High Church- men. — Many Early Superstitions.— Infi&ted Style of the Fathers.— Jerome on the Gradual Growth of Prelacy. — The Presbyters Defrauded of their Rights, 156 XII. Difficulties of High Churchism in connection with the Names and Functions of Ancient Bishops. — Toplady on the Fathers.— Fertile Soil for Prelacy. — The Primitive Diocese a Parish. — Early Bishops Chosen by the People, 174 XIII. Clement and Ignatius on the Authority of the Primi- tive Bishop and the Extent of his Diocese and Labors.— Four Hundred Bishops in one Province. — Some Ignatian Epistles Forgeries. — Calvin on the subject, 190 XIV. Same Subject continued. — Tertullian not a High Churchman. — Jerome on " Diaboli Instinctu." — Bishops alone Entitled to Baptize. — Gradual Ap- proaches to Popery, 206 XV. Apostolical Succession : its Nature and Difficulties — This Feature the Derision of the World. — The Blessed Martyr Laud. — Muddy as the Tiber. — High Church not Great Divines, . . 227 XVI. Tractarianism : its Origin and Progress. — Eggs and Cheese Good Diet for Tractarians. — Postures and Impostures. — Pope Accepts the English Prayer- Book, — Newman on Absolution for a Hyena, and Exorcism of a Bactrian Camel. — Puerilities of the Liturgy, 245 XVII. Ritualism: its Nature and Fruits. — Incense and Bow- ing towards the Altar. — Adoration of the Elements of the Lord's Supper. — Bethlehem Bread and Jeru- salem Grapes. — Spurgeon on the subject. — Advice to the " Babel Sects," 269 HIGH CHURCH EPISCOPACY, CHAPTEK I. INTEODUCTOEY. HIGH CHURCH PRETENSIONS, AND CARICATURES OF PRESBYTERIANISM. The preparation of this volume was first suggested to the writer by one of the leading pastors of Pittsburgh. Our friend alluded to a volume of discourses by the Rev. Dr. Van Deusen, then Episcopal Rector of St. Peter's church, Pittsburgh, now of Utica, N. Y.* These discourses contained numerous very offensive statements and assumptions in regard to the Presbyterian and other non-Episcopal denominations, and were regarded as wor- thy of some notice, particularly as reflecting many of the common misrepresentations of High Churchmen generally, in reference to their ecclesiastical neighbors. As a type or representative of certain extreme positions assumed by a portion of the Protestant Episcopal Church, they seemed to call for some suitable review, and to furnish a proper ground or starting-point for a sum- mary exposure of the unscriptural and semi-Popish tenets of Dr. Van D. and many of his brethren. After very considerable delay, the reasons of which are of no general interest, the writer now presents to the public the results of his investigations on these topics *_Dr. Van D. was one of tlie candidates for a vacant bishop's ' chair in New York. 2 6 High Chtjrch Episcopacy. He has been encouraged to feelieye that his book will occupy a position well adapted to popular usefulness, and th?t it touches on many points not noticed in other books. As a comprehensiire manual, it will be accom- modating in price and easy of perusal. It meets cer- tain popular objections commonly employed by High Churchmen ; and though not a yoluminous treatise, it is hoped it wDl present sufficient argument for all practi- cal purposes for those who will candidly and seriously read it. Among the very kind and cordial expressions of approval from some of our most prominent pastors, to whom the manuscript has been submitted in whole or in part, are such as these : " Your work is well done, and the argument is effective "the work exposes the errors and offensive assumptions of the High Church and ritualistic parties in the Episcopal Church ;" " the subject is of present public importance, and your treat- ment of it is, in my opinion, calculated to do good, &c." Again, we are assured "that such a short and easy method of repelling the proselyting raids of High Churchmen, as they are sometimes practised upon our congregations, is needed, and will be serviceable in many parts of the Presbyterian Church." It need scarcely be said that in this discussion we are not the aggressors. We merely repel the assaults of Dr. Van D. and many other High Churchmen, whose works will be quoted as we proceed. "We may, indeed, give the "Rector" the credit for a certain degree of moderation, as compared with some others of his co- laborers. Especially we may mention one of his oft- quoted authorities, " The Presbyterian Clergyman Looking for the Church." The author is dead; but his book we will not characterize as it deserves. Let it speak for itself, as it will do, in this and other chapters. Its publishers in New York have given it a sort of offi- cial High Church character, " Christianity in the Republic " is the title of Mr, Van D's volume ; and the object of the author is to state "the dangers and the hopes" of this vast common- wealth of nations, including " the best modes of sustain- ing" and extending its great interests. To muc^ that is Introductory Remarrs. 7 said on the first two of these topics, every Christian patriot will yield his cordial concurrence. From " the want of an enlightened and high-toned patriotism," down to "the luxury and extravagance in the higher walks of life " and the malign prevalence of "unbelief," we find much to approve in the tone of righteous rebuke assumed by "the Rector," and the same is true when he speaks of " the hopes of the Republic " — crowning the whole with the consolatory fact of " the existence and pervading influence of Christianity throughout all parts of the land," p. 87. But it is when he ooraes to examine the positive remedies proposed for the great evils enumerated — when Dr. Van Deusen proceeds to investigate certain existing modes of religious influence, especially those which he earnest- ly repudiates, that we are compelled to record our dis- sent. Here we think him not very consistent with him- self, even in the details of his own favorite " mode " of extending Christianity. But when he enumerates the several grounds of his opposition to the methods of his ecclesiastical neighbors, our dissent is not uumingled with feelings of amazement and indignation. The rea- sons of this will appear as we proceed. It is asserted by the author of these sermons, that "the sanctifying, restraining and elevating influence of the principles of the gospel, is felt among all classes of our people,"* and that we have " the most incontroverti- ble and very gratifying evidence of a powerful, active, LIVING, religious element in our population." These are candid concessions, especially as he tells us in the same connection, that " mani/ religious bodies" (which being interpreted by Dr. Van D. himself, mean all denomina- tions except the Episcopal,) have departed from the 2')ure faith and rejected many of the profitable institutions of the early church of our Lord and his Apostles." The Episcopal sect is well known to be among the lesser tribes of Israel, embracing comparatively a small pro- portion of the professing Christians of the country. And when we take into consideration the malignant influences and downward tendencies attributed to "sec- * Sermon IV, p. 87. 8 High Church Episcopacy. tarianism," as distinguished by prelatists from the Episcopal CiiUECH — when we add, that by the showing of High Churchmen, these sects "are no true churches of Christ," but only schismatical associations outsicle of the pale of the " covenants of mercy " — we may well feel amazement at " the sanctifying, active, living, religious element and influences " which are admitted " to exist among all classes !" A strange phenomenon, indeed, when even Di'. Van D. discovers grapes on thorns and gathers figs of thistles ! Among nearly forty millions of our population, the clergj' of the Episcopal Church are about three thousand one hundred, the congregations about two thousand seven hundred, and the communicants about two hundred and sixty thousand* Thus by the Rector's own showing, some thirty thousand of the min- isters of religion in the land, including about eight thousand of the different Presbyterian bodies, belong to the sects, schismatical or apostate ; and as to the com- municants, the various Presbyterian denominations alone report above nine hundred thousand actual meni- bei-s, leaving out of the account the several Methodist, Baptist, and other evangelical bodies, which number their millions. Hence, it must be obvious to every un- derstanding, that what the Rector calls "the sanctit^'ing, active, living religious element " in this country, must mainly originate with " the sects," not witli the compar- ative handful of Episcopalians. On Dr. Van Deusen's theory of exclusive episcopacy, "the church of Christ and his Apostles" has had but small instrumentality in disseminating so widely this " active, living, religious element." And the admitted existence of such an "ele- ment," so extensively prevalent in this great commu- nity of nations, is a strange fact, which of itself discredits, if it does not utterly explode, the High Church theory of exclusive episcopacy. We are not framing an apology for the existence of the numerous organic divisions in the great Protestant brotherhood, much less arguing their positive advan- tages. That some negative benefits have accrued from these separate organizations, no one can doubt. They * Church Almanac for 1874. These are Episcopal estimates. Introductory Remarks. 9 at least call forth that activity of mind which is often very useful. The author of the sermons has extrava- gant views of the " direct evils which spring from the multiplication of religious bodies, to stand oftentimes arrayed agaiust each other, to engage in controversy and strife," &c. But he has also a \ery plain and easy cure for tiiese divisions. Let all people, he seems to say, come into the Episcopal Church, the true fold of the true shephei'd ! But to such conditions of peace there arc numerous and very obvious objections. We, not to speak for other bodies, are conscientious Presbyterians, and of course would greatly prefer that bishops and rectors, and all other Episcopalians, should forsake their High Church errors and join the Presbyterian Church. They think we ought to become Episcopalians ; we think they ought to be Presbyterians; and who shall decide between us ? Nothing remains, therefore, but to take the laboring oar of argument. Show us that you are right, and we promise to be your zealous disciples. But until you thus satisfy our rational nature, it is ut- ter folly to expatiate so eloquently as you do upon the value of" union." For, no sooner have you proclaimed in our ears, " Come over and join us," than the sincere Presbyterian retorts, " Do you forsake your anti-scriptu- ral notions and become of us ! Do this, and we shall then form a glorious union !" Thus it is demonstrable that all that remains for either party, is in the fear of God to " search the Scriptures," and inquire what they teach on th&se topics. " Come now and let us reason TOGETHER," is the invitation of the only infallible tri- bunal in the universe, even God himself, who by his own example teaches us how to correct the errors and restrain the discordant principles and practices of his children. I am not ignorant of the favorite plea of prelatists in this connection : " We Episcopalians," Dr. Van D. tells us, "are of the church of Christ;" all others are "but sects." Hence, to expose our diversities with all liis zeal and eloquence, he esteems a Christian duty. " The ac- tual working of the sect spirit — the true influence of separations and divisions — how the head is bowed in 10 High Chuech Episcopacy. shame," &c., &c.* " Their discontent, suspicion and hostility — their malice, intolerance and persecution — their sectional prejudices, interests and collisions" — are considered fair game. Such are his apostolical methods of pouring oil upon these troubled waters ! These, we suppose, are fair specimens of Dr. Van Deusen's version of a certain text. He seems to read as follows : " Let there be strife between us, for we are not brethren!" In the midst of his zeal for peace and union, he seems to forget that possibly some members of these " sects " may feel provoked to resent this arrogant claim, and retort by an assault upon "the church" and her not too modest defenders ! Thus there may possibly be fur- nished occasion for more " hostile strife," unsettling the minds of men, destroying confidence, removing the landmarks, producing envying and every evil work.""}" "We suppose, however, that Mr. Van D. will very com- placently flatter himself that for all this " the church" is guiltless, and he will stand in utter amazement at the recklessness with which these "sectarians" can venture to assail "divine institutions!" He, no doubt, thinks " the sects" are under great obligations to him, the re- presentative of " the true church ;" and he will not con- ceal his wonderment that his "righteous smiting" is not received as a "kindness, nor as an excellent oil which shall not break our heads." Ps. 141 : 5. It is a great mistake, therefore, to assume at the outset in these discussions, that the High Church Episcopal theory is true, and all others false ! If all the leading Protestant denominations, constituting, as they do, the great brotherhood of the Keformation (except the small minority of High Churchmen), are no branches of the true Vine, but mere " human associations," without a lawful ministry, Avithout the authoritative preaching of the Avord, administration of the sacraments and other divine institutions— if this were as clear to mankind in general as it appears to be to these High Church breth- ren, the case would be a plain one. But they well know that many of the most learned, and pious, and useful of their own associates, including some of the * Sermon V, p. 73. flbid. Intkoductory Remarks. 11 highest dignitaries, regard "with utter disgust and con- tempt these arrogant pretensions, and agree more nearly with the Presbyterian than -with the High Church the- ory. Dr. Van D. may indeed call his church "the communion and fellowship of Christ and his Apostles," without entering which, he tells us, we can have " no divine reconciliation, peace of mind, triumph in death, and bliss in eternity." He may call it, if he choose, " the divine plan which Christ himself instituted and prescribed," and denounce all other forms of church organization " as rival systems of man's device," " hu- man organizations," &c. He may proclaim, " say or sing," at his pleasure, that union with the Episcopal Church is " essential in order to gain tinal admission to the church of the firstborn, which are . written in heaven."* All this is very easy. But if he supposes that such arrogant pretensions as these, based, as they are, upon exceedingly flimsy proof, are the sovereign cure for dissension and controvei-sy and strife— if he imagines that they possess any intrinsic efficacy, logical or otherwise, to allure the members of " the sects" into the Episcojial fold — we beg to differ with him entirely. We, of course, cannot speak for other denominations, but we feel sure that Presbyterians are not to be made converts to his notions by quite such a summary pro- cess. Protestants will not readily discover " the odor of sanctity" in assumptions which savor so strongly of downright Popery. There is one presumption against Dr. Van D.'s exclu- sive doctrine which, in advance of other argument, may be here mentioned. He is found in very bad compauy. The Papist unchurches the Episcopal sect, just as High Churchmen do other denominations. AVhat sort of a "synagogue" Popery is, Dr. Van D. tells us: "Rome, paralyzed at the very heart, supporting life only in her local stronghold, when torn from which she will have neither name nor meaning — while her worship has be- come a gaudy display of heathenish idolutry."'\ Roman- ism, he elsewhere tells us, instead of making " its every land a paradise of saints, imbued with the morality * Sermon I, pp. 25, 26. f Sermon VII, p. 152. 12 High Chuech Episcopacy. and piety of the gospel," has made France and other kingdoms, when most entirely under its control, " na- tions of infidels." Yet, Popery claims to be the only true church, just as High Church Episcopacy does! So, also, the Campbellite Baptists — all besides them- selves are " the Babylonish sects !" The same claim is set up by Judaism ; and even Jlormonism ventures to arrogate an exclusive title to divine favor, and calls her system of brutish abomiuations, "the Church of Saints." Systems, like men, may often be known by the company they keep.* Dr. Van Deusen agrees with us, that the exclusive pretensions of Popery, Campbell- ism, Judaism and Mormonism, to be the only "true church," are beneath contempt. We hope to show that his own modest claims are not much better entitled to respect. But had not Dr. Van Deusen a perfect right, in the discharge of his parochial duties, to preach and publish such sentiments as these ? In reply, we need only sug- gest that the simple fact of the printing and publication of these discourses, adapted, as they are, to place all non-Episcopalians in the position of " aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise," is sufficient to justify the most careful and thorough examination of their logical foundations. Be- sides, these discourses are submitted to " the indulgence of the reader," p. 10 (not to the Episcopal " reader"), " who is invited to the careful consideration of their truths." " They are avowedly submitted to all who take pleasure in being recognized as a part of the Ee- public, and feel honored with the appellation of Ameri- can citizens." In addition to this, the thirty-six re- spectable gentlemen who solicited their publication, say their desire was " to give these discourses a more per- * We beg pardon for the introduction of Brigham Young and Jus crew into the argument. But we only copy the example of Rev. F. S. Mines, whose book Dr. Van Deusen repeatedly quotes with approbation. In " enumerating" the schismatical "sects" Mr. Mines includes " the Latter Day Saints," and on a subsequent page adds, " So it lias ever been from the Baptists to the Mor- mon*!, &e." Introductory Remarks. 13 manent form, and the important truths they set forth a more extended hearing." The volume is therefore a legitimate subject of criticism, and the inalienable right of self-defence fully authorizes a fair and candid inves- tigation of its far-reaching and not too modest positions, on the part of those whose cherished views and ecclesi- astical relations are thus summarily disposed of. As an " American citizen," and as a Presbyterian, I assert the right to bring this and similar publications to the " law and to the testimony ;" for if they speak not according to this rule, it is because "there is no light in them." To indicate still more clearly the tone and spirit which live and breathe through these assaults of High Churchmen upon Presbyterianism, the following ex- tracts, a few of many of the same sort, from the volume referred to in the foregoing note, may suffice. The book is one of Dr. Van Deusen's favorite authorities, and is published by "The General Protestant Episcopal Sunday School Union of New York." "They (Presby- terians), though they seem to have a sacrament in the Lord's supper, * * * strictly speaking, have no sacrament at all." "Not once in a thousand times do they grant baptism to the dying penitent ; not once in a thousand more do they allow the Lord's supper to the dying believer." " Instead of teaching that few find it (the way of life), because few seek it as they should, Presbyterianism teaches that few find it because God hides it, save from his elect !" " Presbyterianism is now overtaken in all lands by a deep and mortal de- cay." " Presbyterianism * * * has in nearly all lands fallen already from its hold on the skies through a Mediator, and is cast upon the earth, covered with the awful leprosy of Rationalism." " The atonement is preached (by Presbyterians) as a naked, stern, quid pro quo commercial transaction." " A sudden burst of sorrow, a lightning flash of joy, and repentance is done." " She teaches that the satisfaction of Christ was 7nere suffering." "Except for the Episcopal Church, thou- sands and tens of thousands would have no other home to llee unto from the apostate sects but to the bosom of Rome." He means that if he had not joined Episco- pacy, he would have been a Papist ! 14 High Chuech Episcopacy. Such are specimens of the pahulum, the " heavenly manna," which the " General Protestant Episcopal Sun- day School Union" presents to her children for their spiritual nourishment ! Yet, " the Prayer Book" con- tains the Ten Commandments, and along with the others that one which says, " Thou shalt not bear fake loitness against thy neighbor." There is consolation, however, in the assurance of our divine Master : " Blessed are ye when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely for my sake. Rejoice and be exceeding glad," &c. Let these extracts suffice to determine the relative positions of the parties in this discussion, whether as as- sailants or the assailed. We rejoice to know that there are not a few excellent people in the Episcopal body — some bishops and presbyters — to whose spiritual dis- cernment the foregoing extracts must be quite as nause- ous as they are to us. To such " beloved brethren in the Lord," it is far from our desire to say a word which could prove offensive, or in any way wound their feel- ings of partiality for the church of their choice. K all Episcopalians were such, there would be small occasion of controversy on either side. And whatever compari- son of views might occur, there would be no disturbance of friendly church relations — no ebullition of unseemly strife — and no interruption of mutual prayer for either branch of the New Testament Zion. But under the circumstances already detailed (and many similar provocations will appear as we proceed), it is surely our privilege, not to say our bounden duty, to speak for God and his truth. At the same time, to- ward our Low Church brethren, we cordially recipro- cate the following kind and brotherly expressions from an Episcopal source : " With the Presbyterian branch we have little to do. Not that they are rich, and have need of nothing. But we never remember to have seen but one sermon upon Presbyterianism in our lives. The great majority of Presbyterian ministers, to their honor be it spoken, preach Christ, and him alone. There is less of cant or ranting, or sentimental preaching, in that branch of the Church than elsewhere." Introductory Remarks. 15 Again : " It matters little from what point we ap- proach Presbyterianism, it is solid granite, whether we regard its doctrine, its discipline, or its worship. The best minds in the church have framed its creed, the wisest of men have learned civil government from its polity, and in these days of ritualistic abominations there isone church where we can go and Avorship God in simplicity and in truth." " Its glory is its stability and good sense." Let the reader compare with these sentiments the foregoing monstrous misrepresentations of a rabid High Churchman and his publishers of " The General Pro- testant Episcopal Sunday School Union of New York." 16 High Church Episcopacy. CHAPTER II. ORIGIN OF THE BOOK OF COMMON PKAYER — A HISTOR- ICAL SKETCH. As " the Book of Common Prayer " of the Episcopal Church is at once a summary of doctrine and a direc- tory for worship, and next to the Holy Scriptures is held in the highest reverence by Episcopalians, especially of the High Church persuasion, it may be proper to briefly sketch the history of the Reformation in England, during which the Prayer Book received its characteristic fea- tures. When Henry VIH ascended the throne in 1509, Eng- land was sunk in the deepest night of Popery. At that period Henry was the devoted and obsequious servant of the Pope. He was even ambitious of the character of a theological polemic; and some years afterwards wrote a work in opposition to Luther, for which the holy Father dubbed him "Defender of the Faith." Of the reasons which led that monarch step by step to break with Rome and reject her authority, it is unnecessary to speak, since all admit that the best and noblast ends are often, in divine Providence, brought about by the most un- worthy instruments. Suffice it to say, that having in 1536 come to an open rupture with Rome, the king set up for himself as the ecclesiastical as well as the politi- cal head of the nation. Ten years later, Bishop Hooper, afterwards martyred under bloody Mary, wrote as fol- lows : "As far as true religion is concerned, idolatry is no where in greater vigor. Our king (Henry VIH) has destroyed the Pope, but not Popery. * * * * The impious mas?, the most shameful celibacy of the clergy, the invocation of saints, auricular confession, * Origin of the Prayer Book. 17 * * * were never before held in greater esteem by the people." The next year (1547) Edward VI began to reign. He was a zealous Protestant, " abolished the mass, threw down the statues and images, gave the cup to the laity, set forth a form of public worship or liturgy, and prohibited all the popish monuments of superstition, excejrt the surplice, kneeling at the Lord's supper," and one or two other things of no great importance.* In a little more than six years Edward died, and his sister, " the bloody Mary," succeeded to the throne. She was a most bigoted and furious papist, and of course labored to undo all that her father and brother had done for the cause of the Keformation. She had suffi- cient influence with the Parliament to induce them to repeal, at one stroke, all the statutes which Henry and Edward had passed to establish the reformed religion. Hooper, Cranmer, Rogers, Latimer, Ridley, and many others of the noble reformers, were the victims of her blind superstition, and Popery, in the language of the queen to Bonner, lier favorite bishop, let loose its ven- geance without restraint, "pursuing its piom work with- out pity or interruption." In five years, through the goodness of God, this mer- ciless bigot died, and in 1558 Elizabeth assumed the scep- tre. "She is not willing," writes Bishop Parkhurst, " to be called the head of the Church of England, but she accepts the title of governor, which amounts to the same thing." It was during the splendid reign of this great princess for more than forty years, that the Church of Eng- land was fully and firmly established in doctrine and worship nearly as at the present day. King Edward's Liturgy was revised in council, and in 1559 established by law, though to satisfy Elizabeth, it was made much less decidedly Protestant. A clause was inserted in the act, empowering the queen to ordain further ceremonies, and without this clause she told Parker she would have withheld her sanction. She soon appointed the Court of High Commission, the object of which was to take cog- nizance of religion. She forbid priests and deacons to marry without leave * Letter of George Withers, in Zurich Letters, pp. 158-9. 18 High Church Episcopacy. of the bishops and two justices of the peace; and bish- ops too, without the consent of the archbishops and the High Commissioners. She frowned upon preaching, and established for the Sabbath day, " The Book of Sports." She ordained that family and private prayer should be discouraged, and that all formal prayer should be offered in the churches. Bishop Sandys observes that multi- tudes did not hear one sermon for seven years. In her chapel she had images and crucifixes and lighted can- dles, and commanded the clergy to wear full canoni- cal dress. Against some of her appointments, the wisest and best of her clergy bitterly complained. Ridley or- dered tables to be substituted for altars in the churches. Hooper refused to wear the sacerdotal vestments. Bishop Jewel declared the priest's raiment to be " a stage dress, a fool's garb, a relique of the Amorites !" When on one occasion the queen's chaplain preached against the sign of the cross, unable to restrain her anger, she shouted to him, " Desist from that ungodly digression, and go on with your text."* In view of such facts, it is not surprising to find the pious Coverdale and others, writing to their friends on the continent (under date 1566,) of " fresh troubles." " We are to seek our pattern, they say, not out of the cisterns and puddles of our enemies, but from the foun- tain of the Scriptures and of the churches of God." "The clergy should be distinguished by their doctrine, not their garments ; their conversation, not their dress." "Many of us have cast out these things, and cannot restore them without grievous offence and abomina- ble impiety." " The question we confess is nice and difficult, whether to yield to circumstances, or to depart ; to admit the relics of the Amorites, or to desert our post." " The papacy," says Beza, " was never abolished in that country, but rather transferred to the sover- eign." " In cases of necessity," says another, "women are allowed to baptize." " Every one is obliged to com- municate at the Lord's supper on his knees." Under such auspices as these the Prayer Book with the Articles and Liturgy, was ordained and received its * London Eclectic Eeview. Origin of the Prayer Book. 19 essential character. In the brief space of a quarter of a century the nation was converted from Popery and back again, " not once nor twice !" The hoary monuments and other remembrancers of the old superstition were every where to be seen, in immense cathedrals, dilapidated monasteries, &c. The masses of the people were, of course, at each vibration of the ecclesiastical pendulum, Protestant or Papist, only as "the stage dress" differed in the several acts of the drama. Nor was it to be ex- pected that under such sovereigns as Henry and Eliza- beth, the Protestant religion would be aught but a polit- ical engine, or the Church of England be more than half reformed, satisfactory to no class of persons except the monarch and the worldly and ambitious portion of the clergy. No wonder that conscientious Protestants were grieved and disgusted with the garb of Popery, the remnants of a dreary superstition, which met the eye on all sides. No wonder that the Prayer Book, especially in the forms of worship, bears numerous traces of this doubtful parentage. At the commencement of the Reformation in Eng- land, Popery, as already stated, had struck deep its deadly roots and dijfused far and wide its malignant in- fluence. Avarice, insolence, ignorance, imposture and shameless corruption in morals, were the common char- acteristics of the priesthood, and blind superstition and abject degradation, those of the laity. When, therefore, Henry, vvho had renounced the Pope, was succeeded by his son Edward VI, it became neces- sary to prepare a form of public worship for common use in the churches to take the place of the Romish breviaries. A committee for this purpose, digested such a volume, collecting the materials from five Latin mis- sals or mass books, which had been in use in the same number of Popish bishoprics. '"' The greater part of the Common Prayer Book," says Bishop Short, '■ is taken from the Roman ritual." " Almost the whole of it was taken from different Roman Catholic services, altered as little as possible from tliose familiar to the people." Some of the points in which it differs from the Roman Church, Bishop Short tells us, owe their origin to the 20 High Church Episcopacy. Liturgy of Strasburgh, which was framed by Calvin, but had been modified before it was published in Eng- land."* Copies of this book were submitted to Calvin and other continental divines, and at their suggestion it was revised and many grossly Popish things were ex- punged. Even then, however, adds Bishop Short, " the execution of the work was far from being so complete as its first appearance might lead us to suppose." " Pray- ers for the dead," "anointing with oil," "the outward sign of the cross," still remained. So that this book forms a connecting link between the missal (or mass book) and the (present) prayer book."t It was after- wards revised by Cranmer and others, and " two learned foreigners," adds Bishop Short, "Bucerand Peter Martyr, then in England, were consulted, and their opinions seem to have influenced the decisions of the bishops. Most of the points objected to by them were subsequent- ly amended." This prayer book differs very little from the one now in use."J It was again revised under Elizabeth, who, as Bishop Short concedes, " was not in- disposed to approach as near as possible to the Romish communion. "§ Such, then, was the origin of "the Book of Common Prayer ;" nor need it occasion sur- prise that under such controlling influences and embar- rassments even the godly Calvinists who gave it its origi- nal shape and form, were obliged to tolerate many things which to their better knowledge and scriptural conscience, were exceedingly offensive. As it is used in this country some alterations have been made, but it will presently appear that it is very far from being a perfect image of Protestantism. It is a curious fact, however, illustrating the unity of the mother church, that a num- ber of her leading divines some years ago published No. 86 of the " Tracts for the Times," in which they speak of " the Prayer Book " as reduced at the Reformation * History of the Church of England, p. 198. f Ibid., p. 539. "Liturgy," from two Greek words, meaning pub- lic work or service, i. e. the prayers, forms of baptism, ordination, &c., adopted by Episcopalians. i Ibid., p. 542. ^ Ibid., p. 594. Origin of the Prayer Book. 21 " to a low and decayed state," " shorn and left bare of much that is valuable," " in a degraded condition," "in a state of captivity and servitude," and " as the language of those who have fallen away (from Popery ?) from the richer inheritance, the privileges of sons !" Thus "they were preparing men to return to the sujierstitions of the Roman mass book."* The same writers seriously labored to prove " that a person adopting the doctrines of Trent, might, with the single exception of the Pope's supremacy, conscientiously sign the XXXIX doctrinal articles of the Church of England," — "that the apparent differences he- tween the two churches (of Rome and England) will upon examination vanish /"f "We will not equal High Churchism in this country with the " perfect statui-e " of Tractarianism, but it is impossible not to perceive that in this, as in some other cases, "the child is the father of the man." Yet this is the sort of men who, with the Rector of Pittsburgh, make large boast of "their unbroken uniformity of doctrine, discipline and worship," denounce Presbyterians as " guilty of change, a want of steadfast- ness in adhering to those standards of doctrine with which they began," and even caricature what they call Puritanism, " as divided into countless schisms, unable to defend itself from the heresies which it has conjured up, and changing its aspect from year to year!" J But the same writer, as before stated, seriously asserts " the actual existence and pervading influence of Christian- ity throughout all parts of this land ;" " the sanctify- ing, restraining and elevating influence of the principles of the gospel among all classes of our people ;" yea, he says, " we have incontrovertible and very gratifying evidence of a powerful, active, living religious element in our population."! These, he says, are the " highest and surest hopes of the Republic !" And all this in great part through the influence of " the apostate sects ! T' These are the genuine and " very gratifying " fruits of the labors of those denominations who have " no au- *Cliarge of the Bishop of London, 1842. t Charge of the Bishop of Gloucester, 1841. t Mr. Van Deusen, pp. 109, 139, 152. i Ibid., p. 87. 22 HiGu Chuech Episcopacy. thorized ministry," "no valid ordinances," "no cove- nanted mercies," or as Mr. Van Deusen says, "no divine reconciliation, no peace of mind, no comfort in adversity, no triumph in death, no blLss in eternity, because they refuse to enter the (Episcopal) communion and fellow- ship of Christ and his Apostles! !"* But let us not cen- sure the Pittsburgh Rector too severely. He treads in the illustrious footsteps of his English predecessors in this modest line of self- laudation. Thus Dr. Hook, Vicar of Leeds, in his sermon before the queen, on the text, "Hear the church," speaks of the (Episcopal) church in America in thiswise: " There," quoth the vicar, " you may see the church like an oasis in the desert, blessed by the dews of heaven, and shedding heavenly blessings around her, in a land where, because no religion is established, if it were not for her, nothing but the extremes of infidelity or fanaticism would prevail!" Modest Dr. Hook ! * Cliristianity in the Republic, p. 25. " These," he says, " are essenlial divine relations." Episcopacy or perdition ! Difficulties in Doctkine. 23 CHAPTEE III. DIFFICULTIES IN DOCTRINE — THE XXXIX ARTICLES CAL- VINISTIC, BUT SUBSCRIBED BY AN ARMINIAN CLERGY. It is a first principle of the Presbyterian Confession of Faith and of common sense, that truth is in order to goodness, and the great touchstone of truth is its ten- dency to promote holiness.* There is an inseparable connection between faith and practice ; otherwise it would be of comparatively small consequence either to discover truth or to maintain it. In the light of this plain principle of common sense, we detect a radical defect in the plan of Dr. Van Deusen. He expressly disavows any intention "to examine the truth of the doctrines of any religious body," but proposes to con- fine himself " to the practical working of the modes or systems adopted for the dissemination of morality and religion throughout the nation.'''^ But how is it possible, in practice at least, to separate what, we may say it with reverence, "God hath joined together?" How, for ex- ample, can you test the practical tendencies of Univer- salism "to promote morality and religion," without at the same time subjecting to trial the truth of its doc- trines f And the same is true of Romanism with its " blasphemous fable and dangerous deceit " of the mass, as the 31st Article properly calls it, its purgatory, in- dulgences, &c., &c.? But let us bring this matter a little nearer home. How is it possible successfully to investigate the influ- ence of Presbyterianisni in promoting " morality and religion in the republic," without taking into view cer- tain doctrinal points, which the Rector is pleased to call * Confession, p. 344. f See p. 9. 24 High Chuech Episcopacy. " the unpopular tenets of Calvinism," " individual elec- tion and reprobation," " a limited atonement, &c., &c. ?"* Has it not a most direct bearing on this subject of " morality and religion," that Presbyterians, as High Churchmen afBrm, hold doctrinal views which imply " a cruelty that Rome, in the days of her worst tyranny, would have shuddered to inflict ?"t Calvinists are said to teach a religion which " through the whole circle of trnth, with its multiform anathemas, is a vast, gigantic system, frowning and scowling sullenly upon the sons of men," " and which has kept the earth wet with men's tears."! Is it nothing that " Geneva," i. e. Calvinism, is accused with "fake doctrine, heresy and schism, bewild- ering and blighting the minds of men," " the mother of a miserable brood of schisms, horrid and blasphemous opinions that darken and curse the sectarian world."§ Now if these statements are true, they surely relate to what Dr. Van Deusen calls " the practical working of the mode or system (adopted by Presbyterians) for the dissemination of morality and religion." Nay, they are the very essence of it. Take, for example, such pas- sages of his work as charge Cah'inists with " a general giving up of prominent principles," " doctrines of the Trinity, divinity of our Saviour, the atonement, &c.," " not taught now as they were by Calvin, Knox and the "Westminster Divines."|| Thus Dr. Van Deusen is convicted of assailing the truth of the Cahdnistic doctrines — the very thing which he professes to have he denounces our doctrines as untrue, yea, so obviously false that we Presbyterians are obliged to modify or conceal them ! " He avoids the examination of the truth of our doctrines," — he merely argues that they are so obviously false that Presbyterians are ashamed to avow them ! We need scarcely say that these and similar state- * Sermon VI, p. 109. f Presbyterian Clergyman Looking for the Cliurcli, p. 60, one of the Eector s own authorities. X Ibid., p. 502. ^ Ibid., p. 530. II Sermon VI, pp. 109, 110. Thus in the most offensive mode. Calvinism of the Articles. 25 ments, are the fruits of ignorance and prejudice. Tliey do not savor of " morality and religion." They are not the weapons of Christian warfare. If we were to allow our argument to pursue a similar course, we would sug- gest that " the Rector " has only adopted a familiar stroke of policy, which, though sometimes successful, is not ordinarily esteemed to be evidence of a calm confi- dence in the convictions of those who employ it. High Church Episcopalians are certainly not entitled "to throw the first stone" in a comparison of doctrinal vulnerability, and it is a very supposable case, that "the Rector" was not unwilling to divert attention from the doctrinal weaknesses of High Churchism, by professedly ignoring the whole subject. Calvinists feel no such restrictions. It is proposed to inquire whether the XXXIX Arti- cles of the Episcopal Church, especially as they are expounded and adopted by High Churchmen, constitute a part of " the best mode for bringing men under the righteous and blessed dominion of the gospel, even that mode which Christ himself instituted and prescribed."* I. The whole practice of subscription to those " Arti- cles," as it prevails in the Episcopal Church, is opposed to " the dissemination of morality and religion." To illustrate this topic so as to be level to every understanding, seve- ral particulars require attention. The Articles of the Prayer Book on " Original or Birth Sin," " Free Will," " Justification," and especially that on " Predestination and Election," are pure Calvinism. They meet the entire approval of every enlightened Presbyterian. For example, look at the last mentioned, the 17th : " Predestination to life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honor. Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be called according to God's purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they * Sermon V, p. 91. 26 High Church Episcopacy. throvigh grace obey the calling : they be justified freely : they be made sons of God by adoption : they be made like the image of his only begotten Son Jesus Christ : they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity. " As the godly consideration of predestination, and our election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons. &c." Taking the words in their plain obvious meaning, here is " the unpopular doctrine of individual election ;" no stronger Calvinism is held or taught in the Presby- terian Church, and the same is true of the other Arti- cles mentioned above. Xow compare these sound evan- gelical sentiments with the liideous picture of Calvinism we have quoted from Dr. Van Deusen, and " the Cler- gyman Looking for the Church !" Can it be adapted to promote " morality and religion," for men of such senti- ments holding the most sacred of all offices, to subscribe, and promise to teach, high Calvinism of this sort, — a system which they profess to abhor ! It was such con- duct as this which drew from the distinguished Lord Chatham the sarcastic remark, that the English Epis- copal Church is constituted of " Calvinistie articles, a Popish liturgy, and an Arminian clergy." " The Thirty-nine Articles" were drawn up princi- pally by Archbishop Cranmer, though aided by Ridley and perhaps one or two others. This was A. D. 1551-52, in the reign of Edward XL But did any one ever suspect Cranmer and Ridley of being Arminians ! In 1571 Queen Elizabeth signed the act "calling upon the clergy to subscribe (or give their assent and adher- ence) to all those articles which concern the confession of the true Christian faith and the doctrine of the sac- raments." " The whole were subscribed by the upper House of Parliament in ^tay, 1571, and published * Dr. Scott, the commentator, an Episcopal Calvinist, says of this 17th Article : " It speaks my sentiments and those of my brethren. I could not * * * so fully, so simply, so unex- ceptionably express my sentiments as this Article does." — Reply to Bishop Tomline. " Perhaps the Apostle's doctrine was never more justly expressed than in the former i>art of the 17th .Article of our church." — Comm. on Rom. 8: 28-."l. Immoral Subscription. 27 under the superintendence of Bishop Jewel ; and the ratification with which they now conclude was added."* Yet the historian tells us that in 1632 "the opinions of the Arminians had so prevailed among the high clergy, that to entertain sentiments in favor of Calvinism was the greatest bar to preferment." When Bishop Morley was asked, " what the Arminians held," he replied, " they hold the best bishopries and deaneries in Eng- land !"t Nor is the case different in modern times. Such Calvinists as the excellent Thomas Scott, the com- mentator, Newton, and others of the same sort, may, with good conscience, subscribe these Articles. But what shall we say of Bishop Tomline, with his " Refuta- tion of Calvinism " — what of the Pelagian and Arian, John Taylor, of Norwich — what of Whitby, who scoffs at the doctrine of " original sin," and speaks contemp- tuously of the covenant with our first parents, as a " forged compact between God and Adam ?" This is " morality and religion " with a witness ! and unless my information be entirely incorrect, Whitby and Taylor are the representatives of a class, whose numbers are by no means incousiderable.| Their heretical works are still read and admired by not a few of the " bishops, priests and deacons !" and to cap the climax, such men as these are permitted to live and die in their fat offices, with none " to molest or make them afraid !" Nor is the case different in this country. Mcllvaine and Johns are the doctrinal antipodes of the Onderdonks and Doane, to say nothing of the morals of the two classes. II. But here arises an important inquiry. By what rule are "the Thirty -nine Articles " to be interpreted ? Obviously by the sentiments of their framers, who pro- posed them to the world as the actual basis of the Church of England, for the purpose of promoting unity * For the foregoing facts see Bishop Short's " History of the Church of England," pp. 325, 326. + Ibid., 309. t " It (Whitby's Discourse on the Five Points) has been recom- mended by some of the highest dignitaries of our (the Episcopal) church * * * as an able elucidation of the doctrines of Ar- minianism." — Advertisement to the Ath edition of Bishop Short's, History. 28 High Church Eplsccpacy. of sentiment, and preventing strife and dissension in the brotherhood. " The legitimate mode of interpreting our Articles," says the Bishop of Eipon, " is the animus imponentis, by which I mean the sense of the fram- EES ;" otherwise " the integrity of subscription appears to be endangered." " The sense of the convocation of 1571," (i. e., under Queen Elizabeth,) adds the Bishop of Exeter, '• must have been the sense of Parliament in the same year, when both legislatures for the first time imposed the duty of subscription," " and the civil leg- islature, we may well believe, intended that they be understood in that sense." " The articles are required to be subsci'ibed," adds the Bishop of Llandaflf, " as a safeguard against erroneous and heretical opinions. * * - * To speak of the language of the Articles as being capable of two or more senses, and that the subscriber may therefore take them in his own seme, * * * is surely a dishonest course, &c."* Much more to the same effect miglit be quoted from the highest authorities of the Church of England. We admit that others of the chief dignitaries teach that "the Articles are neither Calvinistic nor Arminian, and forbid the favorite tenets of either party to be so taught as to contradict the truth taught by the other." And the practice of that church lends its sanction, as in the case of Hoadley, Taylor and Whitby, to the grossest forms of Pelagian and Arian error ! But if those Ai'ticles were intended to be " a safeguard against erroneous and heretical opinions," they surely cannot admit, without the most glaring absurdity, an Arian, Socinian, Universalist, or Pelagian interpretation ! To say, with Ai-chdeacon Paley,t that they are merely " articles of peace," intended to exclude tans ;" and that every subscriber " should himself be well convinced that he is truly and substantially satisfying the intention of the legislature," is a very different thing from "the sense of the framers." But the wide spread prevalence of these discordant views on the sub- * For these extracts see Bricknell's Judgment of tlie Bishops (i. e. their charges) from 1837 to 1842 ; a London work, t Moral Philosophy, Book III, ch. 22. only " all abettors Anabaptists and Puri- Immoral Subscription. 29 ject of the practical working of the system, demonstrates clearly that the Articles are a mere " nose of wax," and that they are made to mean anything which " the sub- scriber himself," as Paley has it, may prefer! Even that sturdy Arminian, Bishop Short, hints to his breth- ren most significantly, " that it should be remembered that there is an anti- Calvinism, which is as much at variance witli the doctrines of the Church of England and with Scripture, as the decrees of the Synod of Dort can be."* If such be the state of things in the mother church, is it likely to be at all different with the Amer- ican daughter? And is this in part Van Deusen's " mode of disseminating morality and religion ?"t " The Articles were established in this country by the Bishops, Clergy and Laity of the Protestant Epis- copal Church, in Convention, 1801." They were de- signed (in England), says Dr. Hook, " for establishing a consent touching true religion," " a consent in opinion." "The meaning of every subscription," he adds, "is to be taken from the design of the imposer and from the words of the subscription itself." " The 36th Canon expressly requires the clergy to subscribe willingly, and ex animo to acknowledge all and every Article to be agreeable to the word of God." Dr. Hook also quotes a statute of Queen Elizabeth, "requiring every clergyman to give a declaration of his unfeigned assent to ihem."X Now what a solemn mockeiy of " morality and religion" ap- pears in the infinite diversity of doctrinal views among the clergy, from Calvinism down to low Arminianism, in such men as Taylor and Whitby, and Arians such as Clark— to say nothing of infidelity in Colenso and others. Yet they are expected to " subscribe ex animo and with un- feigned assent." With such a brilliant example in the English mother church, we need hardly ask, " Do morality and religion fare better in this country ?" IH. But what were the sentiments of the framers of the Articles ? Were Uranmer, Kidley, Jewel, Hooper, Calvinists or Arminians? Was Edward VI, under * Hist. Ch. of Eng., p. 390. t Christianity in the Republic, p. 9. X Hook's Church Dictionary, re-published in this country, with additions to suit the Prot. Episcopal Church. See Articles, &c. 30 High Chukch Episcopacy. whose authority the Articles were published, likely to give his royal sanction to Arminianism ? It is a notori- ous fact that the distinguished Keformers of the Eng- glish Church held much corresijondence of a most friendly sort, with Calvin, Bucer, Peter Martyr, Bul- linger, and many others of the prominent non-Episcopal divines of the continent. Even, the early Puritans, who were most rigid Calvinists, had no controversy with the English Church on doctrinal poLats — their opposi- tion being mainly to her form of government and modes of worship. In 1549 King Edward wrote to the Senate of Zurich in Switzerland, as follows: "There is a mutual agreement between us concerning the Christian religion and true godliness." We need scarcely say that the Zurich body were Calvinists. In " the Short Cat- echism," " containing the sum of Christian learning," and required to be taught in all the schools, known as " the Catechism of Edward VI," the following statement is made of the great doctrine of justification : " The first, principal and most perfect cause of our justification and salvation, is the goodness and love of God, whereby he chose us for his before he made the world." Is that an Arminian sentiment? Is that the language of aTVTiit- by or a Taylor ? Again, " All that is good in us or doneby us,springeth from * * * the love, choice and unchangeable purpose of God. He is the cause, the rest but the fruits." We have seen that Queen Elizabeth, in 1571, signed " the first act requiring subscription to the Articles by all the clergy." To manifest her desire to cultivate the most friendly relations with the Protestant and Cal- vinistic, though non-Episcopal churches of the conti- nent, she wrote in 1590 a very friendly letter to the Swiss Cantons.* Under her reign " Calvin's Institutes" was the text book of theology at Oxford ; and in 1595, Barret, a fellow of Cambridge University, was com- pelled to make a public recantation of a sermon he had preached against predestination and the perseverance of the saints. Thus much for the sovereign and the univer- * For this and other documents, see "the Zurich Letters," pub- lished in 1842, by the Parker Society of England. Calvinists Framed the Articles. 31 sities. Now let us inquire into the views of the men whom they employed in the construction of the Articles. In 1552 Archbishop Cranmer wrote to BuUinger, a strong Calvinist, inviting him, Calvin, and others of like mind, to " a synod of the most learned and excellent men to be convoked in England" — for what purpose? " That provision might be made for the purity of ecclesi- astical doctrine, and especially for agreement upon the sacramentarian controversy," " and whereby taking counsel together," he adds, " they might handle all the heads of ecclesiastical doctrine, and hand down to pos- terity some work," &c., " thus setting forth the doctrine of godliness." Yet these were the men who held " horrid and hideous opinions," " false doctrine," " heresy, &c." What a pity Messrs. Mines, Van Deusen and other High Churchmen, were born a few centuries too late. In 1562,Bishop Jewel writes to that most thorough Cal- vinist, Peter Martyr: " Now that the full light of the gospel has shone forth, the very vestiges of error must, as far as possible, be removed. * * * * As to 7nat- ters of doctrine, * * * * we do not differ from your doctrine by a nail's breadth." All know that Peter Martyr was an extreme Calvinist, probably a supra- lapsarian. To the same Jewel says : " The queen (Elizabeth) regards you most highly. She made so much of your letter tliat she read it over with the great- est eagerness a second and a third time." " She thinks most honorably of you and is desirous of inviting you to England." Yet this was the man who taught " horrid and blasphemous opinions." To BuUinger, who was the chief author of " the Helvetic Confession of Faith," to which Strype says " our (the English) church did then heartily consent,"* — ^Bishop Hooper (1551) says, "Your writings are exceedingly delightful to me, and to all who have the true worship of God at heart."t And the next year, Bartholomew Traheron, an eminent London minister, writes to BuUinger, " respecting the predes- tination and providence of God, ***** the * Annals, I, II, 223. t Wliich being interpreted by High Churclimen, means — "ex- ceedingly delightful" to all , who love "horrid and blasphemous opinions, heresy, &c." 32 High Church Episcxjpacy. greater number among us, of whom I am myself one, embrace the opinion of John Calvin, as being perspicuous and most agreeable to holy scripture." ***** " He has thrown much light upon the subject ; * * * we have never before seen anything more learned or more plain." And this is said of a man who held doctrines which were " the mother of a miserable brood of schisms," and "kept the earth wet with men's tears." But we have still stronger testimony, if that were possible. Fifteen years after the act of Elizabeth re- quiring subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles, there was published by the Rev. Thomas Rogers, chaplain to Archbishop Bancroft (then Bishop of London), and dedicated to him, " An Exposition of the XXXIX Ar- ticles." On the 17th, copied on a previous page, he lays down the following propositions regarding the doctrine of election : 1. There is a predestination of men to life eternal. 2. Redemption hath been from everla.sting. 3. They which are predestinated to salvation, cannot perish. 4. Not all men, but certain are predestinated to be saved. 5. In Christ Jesus, of the mere will and purpose of God, some men are elected and not others, to salvation. 6. The predestinated are called by the word and Spirit. 7. They are justified by faith (not by the merit of works), sanctified by the Holy Spirit, and shall be glori- fied in the life to come. 8. The consideration of predestination is to the godly full of sweet, pleasant and unspeakable comfort.* How sad to think that Archbishop Bancroft had no such enlightened advisers as Van Deusen, F. S. Mines and others ! Can any one doubt, taking into view the circumstan- ces of the time, place, and ecclesiastical relations of the author and patron of tliese sentiments, what was the *"FuU of sweet, pleasant and unspeakable comfort," i. e., " frowning and scowling npon.tlie sons of men ;" " wetting the earth with tears." Cat>vinism of the Akticles. 33 prevailing theology of the church of which they were such distinguished members and ministers ? This pub- lication was in 1586, and nine years subsequently ap- peared the " Lambeth Articles," whose author was Arch- bishop Whitgift, the great persecutor of the Puritans. Like the work of Kogers, they are so stern in their orthodoxy that few Calvinists of the present day would adopt them in every jot and tittle. Yet they were signed by the Archbishop of York, and Fletcher, Bishop of London, and when completed, "the Lambeth Articles " were sent by Archbishop Whitgift to Cambridge, and " the students were enjoined strictly to conform to them, there having been previously vented some contrary doctrines which had given cause of alarm to the eccle- siastical authorities."* Much more to the same effect might be added, but these testimonies are surely sufficient to prove the har- mony of "the framers" of the English "Articles," with the leading Calvinistic Reformers of the continent. And that the other continental divines were at that date unanimously in agreement with the sentiments of Calvin, is conceded by Milner, the historian of the church. "In the origin of the terms 'Helvetic and Calvinistic denomination,' " he says, " as distinguished from the Lutheran, there really existed no material dif- ference of sentiment," ***** " gg far as the recovery of the lost image of God in this world and eternal salvation in the next, &c."t He then states one difference, viz., " the dispute concerning the manner in which the body and blood of Christ are present in the eucharLst, which at length terminated in the fatal di- vision of those sincere friends of Reformation." This was the fatal topic of discord, but in the great leading doctrines, the Confession of Switzerland or Helvetia, in- cluding Geneva, was entirely acceptable to the early Lutherans. Such is the testimony of a learned Episco- pal divine. It would be easy to quote largely from the * Those who have not access to these Articles in Bishop Short's History, nor in Goode on Baptism, may see them in Buck's Theo- logical Dictionary, Art. " Lambeth Articles." f Milner waa Dean of Carlisle, and President of Queen's Col- lege, Cambridge. 34 High Church Episcopacy. writings of Luther to prove that in all the great dis- tinctive "doctrines of grace" he in all important points agreed with the illustrious Reformer of Geneva.* Besides this conclusive evidence, we invite attention to a discussion of the same subject, by a learned and distinguished author, an Episcopal clergyman of Lon- don, the Eev. William Goode.f In chapter 3 of his valuable work on " Baptism," he institutes the inquiry : " To what school of theology did our Reformers and early divines belong ?" " I believe it to be undeniable," he says, " that their doctrine was in the most important points Calvinistic." This statement he abundantly proves by an elaborate induction of particulars. Com- mencing with Cranmer (the author of tlie "Articles"), in the reign of Henry VIII, he piles fact upon fact and quotation upon quotation, through near a hundred pages, proving beyond the shadow of a doubt that Rid- ley, Jewel, Parker, Latimer, Philpot, Grindal, Horn, Parkhurst, Whitgift, Bancroft, in a word, all the lead- ing divines who established the Reformation in England, held and taught " the most thoroughly Calvihistic views of doctrine on all the prominent points," such as pre- destination_ election, final perseverance, &c. The following extracts are from the examination by the Papists, of Philpot the martyr, under Queen Mary, " Bloody Mary :" " Which of you," says Philpot, " is able to answer Calvin's Institutions ?" " In the matter of predestination, he is of none other opinion than all the doctors of the church be, agreeing to the Scriptures." " I allow the church of Geneva and the doctrine of the same — it is una, catholica et apostoliea, and doth follow the doctrine the apostles did preach ; and the doctrine taught in King Edward's day, was also according to the same." * Bishop Grindal writes to a friend on the continent (1562; : " It is astonishing that they are raising such a commotion about predestination ! They should, at least, consult their own Luther on 'the Bondage of the Will.' For what else do Bucer, Calvin and Martyr teach, that Luther has not maintained in that trea- tise ?" t See also Eev. Augustus Topladys Works, pp. 124-158. Agreement with Puritans. 35 Heal' next Thomas Beacon, chaplain to Archbishop Cranmer, and appointed by him one of the six preach- ers at Canterbury. Among many testimonies in his " Commonplaces of the Holy Scriptures," published in 1562, are these: "That God's election is certain and unchangeable." " That God's election is free and un- deserved." " That God's elect cannot perish." So in " the Short Catechism of Edward VI," set forth by royal authority and subscribed (1553) by both Rid- ley and Cranmer : " As many as are in tbis faith stead- fast, were forechosen, predestinate and appointed to everlasting life, before the world was made." Next hear Archbishop Grindal, Parker's successor in the See of Canterbury. Writing to BuUinger (1566), in speaking of the Helvetic Confession, including Ge- neva itself, he says : '-' The pure doctrine of the gospel remained (in England) in all its integrity and freedom, in which, even to this day, we most fully agree with your churches and with the confession you have lately set forth." Oh ! for the wisdom of High Churchism to correct such horrid sentiments! To the same, Horn, Bishop of Winchester, writes, 1563 : " We have throughout England the same ecclesi- astical doctrine as yourselves." And to the same BuUin- ger, author of the Helvetic Confession, Parkhurst, Bishop of Norwich, writes, 1574: "That Confession of true religion which you published in 1566, is now read in English, and in the hands of every one." Speaking of the Puritans in Elizabeth's reign (1573), Pilkington, Bishop of Durham, says : " The doctrine alone they leave untouched ;" and Bridges, Dean of Salisbury, afterwards Bishop of Oxford, says : " The controversies betwixt us and our brethren (the Puritans), are matters, or rather (as they call them), but manners of the church's regiment," i. e., of church government, not doctrine. Hear also Whitgift, the author of the " Lambeth Articles:" " There are two kinds of government in the church ; the one invisible, the other visible ; the one spiritual, the other external. The invisible and spirit- ual government is when God, by his Spirit, gifts and 36 High Church Episcopacy. ministry of the word, doth govern, it, by ruling in the hearts and consciences of men and directing them in all things necessary to everlasting life. This kind of gov- ernment indeed, is necessary to salvation, and it is in the CHURCH OF THE ELECT ONLY." Many pages of similar passages might be copied from Mr. Goode's work — but we must forbear. The conclusion to which this eminent Episcopal clergyman arrives is this : " The prevalent opinion was in favor of what is now called the Calviuistic view, * * * * ^hich our early divines would have called the scriptural doc- trine." " I ought not to forget," he adds, " to direct the atten- tion of the reader to the fact that four representatives of our (the established) church were sent by public authority to the Synod of Dort in 1619, and gave their unanimous testimony as such representatives, in favor of the system of doctrine there agreed to." Bishop Carleton, one of these representatives, is then quoted, affirming it to have been " the open confession both of the bishops and Puri- tans (of England) that both parts embraced a mutual consent in doctrine ; the only difference was in matter of conformity." Well might the learned historian Mosheim say, that " after the death of Henry VIII, the universities, schools and churches became the oracles of Calvinism. * * Hence, in the reign ol Edward VI, when it was proposed to give a fixed and stable form to the doctrine and dis- cipline of the church, Geneva was acknowledged as a sister church, and the theological system of Calvin was adopted and rendered the public ruling faith in Eng- land."* Hume bears the same testimony .f "Calvin- ism," says Mr. Goode, " was the univei-sally received doc- trine of our (the established) church in Elizabeth's days." " Horrid and blasphemous opinions." "From the establishment," adds Mr. Goode, "of the present formularies of our church (the XXXIX Ar- ticles and the Prayer Book) down to 1595, the doctrine now called Calvinism, on the points of election, predes- Hist. Cent. XVI. t Vol. VI, p. 271. The Church Flooded with Calvinism. 37 tination and final perseverance, was the almost uni- versal doctrine of our divines, and consequently is most in accordance with those formularies — unless the men who established them voluntarily made them such as they could not themselves conscientioushj subscribe!" "Is it credible, is it reasonable to suppose * * * that they established such as they could not themselves honestly subscribe, or even such as did not favor their views. The question so completely answers itself that it is almost absurd to propose it." We have room for only one other source of evidence. Mr. Goode's admirable book is directed against the Puseyite or tractarian notion, viz., as he states it, " that spiritual regeneration is always, ex opere operato, conferred upon infants in their baptism. " The contrast," he says, " between such a doctrine (universal and unconditional regeneration in infant baptism,) and the theological sys- tem of our early divines, reduces it to an absurdity." Those eminent men of God were Calvinists — and of course held no such Papistical dogma. But to place this reasoning beyond all suspicion of doubt, Mr. Goode quotes the testimony of the leading tractarian periodic il, the British Critic* "Cranmer and his associates," the Critic tells us, * * * " ^fQ-ce obliged to bow to the master mind of Calvin." " But for the death of Edward VI, compliance with the for- eigners (Bucer, Peter Martyr and others) would, so far as we can judge, have swamped the English Church in one general alliance with Calvinism." "The whole church, from one end to the other, was flooded with the pemdiar doctrines of Calvinism, absolute election, repro- bation, and the rest of the five points. They gained pos- session of both universities." * * * " Oxford was the very focus of Geneva influence, and its doctors and professors were Calvinistic preachers, its colleges and halls were seminaries of Calvinism." * * * « All THE WORLD WERE Calvtnists, and there was no one else to whom Elizabeth could give the places." ^ For October, 1842. 38 High Church Episcopacy. Again, says the Critic : " Laud found Oxford a sem- inary of Calvinism." " Tiie Laudian school (i. e., the Arminian and High Church school,) -was clearly a new DEVELOPMENT of the church in his day ; he and his party were innovators." " The full development of Cal- vinism was stopped indeed, but its peculiar doctrines remained the theology of the church until Laud upset them." "Ours," adds this Puseyite Critic, "was in spirit A Calvinistic reformation ; and a noble epis- copate (that of Laud) afterwards reclaimed us." " This witness," remarks Mr. Goode, " is true." " It is the confession of an adversary, that in matters of doc- trine the original ' church principles' (the 39 Articles, too,) of our Reformed Church were those which are now railed at under the names of Puritanism and Calvinism." Such, by the confession of an extreme High Church pe- riodical, were the men who drew up and subscribed the XXXIX Articles, and composed and authorized the Prayer Book. Even Queen Elizabeth, whose love for forms and pomp and show in religion was notorious, was entirely cordial in the adoption of " the Lambeth Articles," drawn up in 1595 by the Archbishop of Can- terbury, assisted by Fletcher, Bishop of Bristol, Vaughan of Bangor, Tyndal of Ely, and some others. These Lambeth Articles are quite as strong Calvinism, espe- cially in the doctrines of predestination and election, as anything in the Presbyterian Confession of Faith ; though teaching more at large the same system as the 1 7th Article of the Prayer Book before quoted. Nor should it be forgotten that, in this country, the 39 Articles of the Prayer Book were " established by the bishops, the clergy and laity of the Protestant Epis- copal Church in convention, 1801." Also, that every priest is required, at his ordination, " to promise to min- ister THE DOCTRINE and sacrameuts * * * as this church hath received the same, * * * and to teach'the people with all diligence to keep and observe the same." Yet such " priests " as Van Deusen and Mines ai'e found stigmatizing, in the most offensive terms, the very doc- trines taught in their own Prayer Book ! To all this multiplied evidence of the original Cal- Views of Macaulay. 39 vinism of the Chui'ch of England, we add that of the prince of modern historians. Of that church says Ma- caulay : " The doctrinal confessions and discourses, composed by Protestants, set forth principles of theol- ogy in which Calvin or Knox would have found scarcely a word to disapprove." " A controversialist who puts an Arminian sense on her Articles, will be pronounced by candid men to be as unreasonable as he who denies that the doctrine of baptismal regeneration can be discovered in the liturgy." Again : " The doctrines held by the chiefs of the English hierarchy touching original sin, faith, grace, pre- destination and election, were those which are popularly called Calvinistic. Towards the close of Elizabeth's reign, her favorite prelate. Archbishop Whitgift, drew up, in concert with other theologians, the celebrated instru- ment known as ' the Lambeth Articles,' in which the most startling of the Calvinistic doctrines are affirmed with a distinctness which would shock many in our age, who are reputed Calvinists." And who was the man, and what his character, who, in the next century, according to the "British Critic," reformed, or attempted to reform, the English Church hack to Arminianisra and Popery ? Of Archbishop Laud Macaulay draws the following portrait : " Of all the prelates of the Anglican Church, Laud had departed farthest from the principles of the Reformation, and had drawn nearest to Rome. His theology was even more remote than even that of the Dutch Arminians from the theology of the Calvinists. His passion for ceremo- nies, his reverence for holidays, for vigils and sacred places, &c., made him an object of aversion to the Puri- tans." " His understanding was narrow. * * He was by nature rash, irritable, quick to feel for his own dignity, slow to sympathize with the sufferings of others, and prone to the error common with supei-stitious men, of mistaking his own peevish and malignant moods for emotions of pious zeal. Under his direction, every cor- ner of the realm was subjected to a constant and minute inspection. Every little congregation of separatists was broken up. Even the devotions of private families 40 High Church Eplscx)pacy. could not escape the vigilance oi his spies. Such fear did his rigor iuspire, that the deadly hatred of the An- glican Church, which festered in innumerable bosoms, was generally disguised under an outward show of con- formity." The success of this bad man, in giving the English Church an Arminiau, High Church and Popish charac- ter, was very great. "It was such," Mr. Goode ac- knowledges, " as completely to overwhelm for the time the influence of the school of the Reformers (of the pre- vious century), and turn the current of theology into a very different channel." The recent outgrowth of Pu- seyism in the Establishment and in this country, and the spread of Popery in Episcopal ranks, are legitimate fruits of Laudism. Yet he is sometimes called " the blessed martyr." We are thus foi-ced to the conclusion that Calvinism, which such clergymen as Van Denser Mines and others style "that false doctrine, heresy and schism," *" the moth- er of a miserable brood of schisms," was the very doctrine of " the Church of England " at the period of her ref- ormation from Popery — was the cherished doctrine of her Protestant sovereigns, and of those great men, arch- bishops, bishops and priests, who were appointed to set- tle her doctrinal foundations, and present her to the acceptance and admiration of the whole world. There stand the recorded monuments of their wisdom, piety and orthodoxy, in " the XXXIX Articles " of the Prayer Book, both of the English and American church. And must it not be a sad evidence of the low tone of " morals and religion " in the body, when gross and avowed Arminians, decided Pelagians, and even notori- ous Socinians and Arians, subscribe to those Articles without hesitation, and are permitted to enjoy quietly, through a long life, the reward of such perfidy. In the days of Cranmer, such sentiments, if openly avowed by their author.-;, would in all probability have led them to the itake. It is as "a safeguard against (such) erroneous and heret- * See " The Presbyterian Clergyman Looking, &c.," p. 60. Calvinism the Sense of the Fkamers. 41 ical opinions," says the Bishop of Llandaff, that " the Articles " are required to be subscribed-; and " the legit- imate mode of interpreting them," adds the Bishop of Ripon, * * * "is the sense of the framees." The sense of the Convocation of 1571" (when Eliza- beth, by law, required subscription), " must have been the sense of both (the civil and ecclesiastical) legisla- tures," adds the Bishop of Exeter. To say that men are authorized to construe those articles in a Romish, Socin- ian, Arian or Arminian sense, and subscribe them as bearing such a sense, is a most criminal trifling with the obligations of truth and honesty. Yet such are " the morality and religion " of " High Churchism ! " How much more unity of sentiment there is in this country than in the mother church, deplorable and humiliating facts too plainly testify. (See, for example, the books of Van Deusen and Mines.) As a legitimate fruit of this lax morality, such " apos- tolic " priests of the English Church as Pusey, Newman and Froude published the Tracts for the Times and other works denouncing the Reformation from Popery as " a desperate remedy for the diseases of the church, and a fearjid judgment upon her " — alleging that " certain lit- urgies are of apostolic origin," * * and " the canon of the mass ("that blasphemous fable and dangerous de- ceit," Art. 31,) is found in one of these liturgies, called "the Liturgy of St. Peter." They declare that "the doctrine of justification by foith," (as held by Luther, Calvin, Cranmer and others,) is " monstrous, immoral, heretical and anti-christian " — " a heresy, than which none other is so subtile and extensively poisonous," &c. These are specimens of the teaching of men who have " professed to subscribe the Thirty-nine Articles, willingly and ex animo," and " when licensed to any charge de- clare their unfeigned assent to those Articles."* Several of these writers afterwards became Papists, but while publishing such sentiments they continued quietly to eat the bread of the Established Church. But we are told " the Church of England wrote articles, not in her * See Bricknell's " Judgment of the Bishops," for the foregoing extracts from the Puseyites. 5 42 High Church EpiscoPAcnt'. creed, but in another place, simply to explain what she had done."* But why, then, did Elizabeth and her bishops enforce subscription by positive law ? And what is the meaning of the extracts from the charges of bishops and high dignitaries quoted above ? Does not Dr. Hook know what he is talking about ?t A man who is " look- ing for the church" ought to have better eye-sight, or he will prove a " blind leader of the blind." In England, under all the restraints of subscription, the church has become a sort of Noah's ark, only not for safety. She is infested with divers sorts of heretical opinions, some of them directly subversive of the very foundations of the true faith as taught by Cranmer, Ridley, Hooper, Grindal, " the framers of the articles," and embodied therein. And in this country, where it would appear there is only an indirect verbal subscrip- tion to the Articles at ordination, who can compute the probable laxity of sentiment, the wide-spread desola- tions of dangerous error ? " Still I sighed for unity." " I panted for a unity." | Yes, and after long " looking," he found it in such a church as this of the Episcopal order ! "A unity " which, as Macaulay has well said, " consists of a bundle of religious systems without number — the religious system of Bishop Tomline and that of John Newton, and all the religious systems that lie between them. Is it not mere mockery," he adds, " to attach so much importance to unity in form and name where there is so little in substance — to shudder at the thought of tivo churches in alliance with one state, and to endure with patience the spectacle of a hundred sects battling within one church.'"\\ Well may he add that " whether Calvin or Arminius be right (Cranmer or Laud, or Clark the Arian, or Colenso * Looking for the Church, p. 273. t Dr. Hook gives the act of subscription to the Thirty-nine Ar- ticles '■ by all persons who are to be ordained," as follows : " I do willingly and from my heart subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles of religion of the Church of England and Ireland," &c. See his Church Dictionary, Art. Orders. This looks like " writing the articles as her creed." X Clergyman Looking, &c., p. 267. II Review of Gladstone, Edinburgh Eeview. Many Sects in one Chuech. 43 be right), one set or other of their followers teach a great deal of false doctrine." And the same conclusion follows if we substitute such names of the American Episcopacy as Mcllvaine, Johns and others in opposition to Onderdonk, Doane and their " apostolic success- ors." * A curious illustration of the whole argument appears in one of the journals, as follows : "An argument for the ' Abolition of the Thirty-nine Articles,' has been printed by an English Ritualist. The writer shows that their authors were Calvinists ; and the fact that Church- men are agreed in repudiating Calvinism, makes their presence in the Prayer Book a scandal and a reason for getting rid of them." * Toplady, as before quoted, describes Episcopal "unity," and as an Episcopal minister he knew what he said: "We pray, we sub- scribe, we assent one way ; we believe, we preach, we write an- other." " We tag the performance with fragments bequeathed to us by Pelagius and Arminius, not to say by Arim, Socmus and by others still worse than they." " Is there a single heresy that ever an- noyed tiie Christian world which has not its partisans among those who profess conformity to the Church of England ? " ( Wks. p. 275.) This is the sort of " unity " for which Kev. F. S. Mines sighed and panted, and after long " looking," be found it ! 44 High Chuech Episcopacy. CHAPTER IV. DOCTRINAI. DIFFICULTIES — JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH — ORIGINAL SIN — HOW SUBSCRIBED BY AN ARMINIAN CLERGY. We are investigating the "difficulties" of the Calvin- istic Articles of the Prayer Book, especially as subscribed by "an Arminian clergy." The Pittsburgh "Rector" ■warns the people against " individual election and rep- robation," as of " the unpopular tenets of Calvinism," and " not adapted to disseminate religion throughout the land." But if language has any precise and definite meaning, his own system embodies these very objection- able doctrines. This was unquestionably the view of the early " framers of the Articles," and of those who gave his church its form. If " the predestined to salvation cannot perish, but shall be glorified," &c., as the Rev. Thomas Rogers, chaplain to Archbishop Bancroft,* in common with the leading clergy of that and previous periods, interpret the 17th Article, this is high Calvinism. " The language," remarks the judicious Calvinist and Episcopalian, Dr. Scott, " is special and personal." " The calling described in the 17th Article" (* *) is insepa- rably connected with being justified and glorified ; for in other senses of the word, ' many are called, but few chosen.' " And if Christ, the final judge, knows with infallible certainty the precise individuals, by name and by number, who " shall be glorified " — knows, too, with unerring prescience, his own judicial act by which they will be adjudged to eternal life — this is " individual * The Arclibishop enjoined " that a copy of Rogers' ' Exposi- tion of the Articles ' should be bought for every parish in the province of Canterbury." Justification by Faith. 45 election ;" and in the divine foreknowledge there is equal certainty as to the individual names and numbers of the non-elected, and of the final act of the judge — " Depart from me ; I never knew you." Yet Christ says, '■ I kt%ow my sheep — they shall never perish." We now turn to another of these forms of Calvinistic truth. The doctrine of justification by faith in the exclu- sive merits of Christ, is well stated in the Xlth Article of the Prayer Book : " We are accounted righteous be- fore God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith, and not for our own works or de- servings. Wherefore, that we are justiiied by faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort." Of this article, and others relating to the same topic, " Cranmer was the sole compiler ;" " nor were there any material changes made under Elizabeth."* From that period (1551) till the close of her reign in 1603, we have demonstrated, what its enemies themselves affirm, the decided Calvinism of all the leading men of the An- glican Church. It follows, therefore, that this Article, having been composed by Calvinisls, and required to be subscribed by Calvinists acting by authority of law, must have been meant to be taken in a Calvinistic sense. To render the meaning still more evident, the 13th Article is " of works done before justification " — which denies them all efficacy " to make men meet to receive grace, or deserve grace of congruity," because " they are not pleasant to God, forasmucli as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ, and have the nature of sin." The 12th Article, in like manner, speaks of '' works which are the fruits of faith and follow after justification," but which " cannot put away our sins," though '■ they spring out necessarily of a true and lively faith;" and "by them a lively faith may be as evidently known as a tree by its fruit." Modern Calvinists and Presbyterians find scarcely anything objectionable in these excellent state- ments of divine truth. Very different, however, is the doctrine of Popery and * Bishop Mcllvaine. 46 High Church Episcopacy. High Churchism. The 32d Canon of the Council of Trent pronounces "accursed" the man who shall say that a person justified by good works which are done by him through the grace of God and the merit of Christ, does not truly deserve increase of grace, eternal life," &c. And further, Romanists teach that " such good works are necessary — ad erpianda peccata — to expi- ate our sins, appease God, and obtain eternal life." Thus justification, i. e., the pardon of the sinner and his acceptance as righteous before God, in the Romish scheme, is partly through the merits and righteousness of Christ, and partly by his own deserts ! I cheerfully concede that High Churchism, even in ita later development into Puseyism, has not sunk quite so low as this, except in a few instances. Yet no enlight- ened Christian can read such works as Bishop Tom- line's " Refutation of Calvinism," without perceiving that he stands upon the same common ground with Ro- manism — that he has no clear views of the exact scrip- tural sense of "justification by faith without the merit of works," and that he constantly confounds it with sanctification. Thus " the works which he (Paul) rejects from any share in justification, are the ceremonial works of the law." Of James, it is added, " He means not ceremonial, but moral works ; * * and even to these he (the Apostle James) does not attribute the whole of justification."* In these and many similar statements in Tomline's " Refutation of Calvinism," we have the seed of the sys- tem which Newman and Pusey have nurtured into full growth. The contrast between the doctrine of the "Ar- ticles '" and that of High Church theology, is well stated by Bishop Mcllvaine : " That on which ice rely for all hope of present mercy and final acceptance, is exclusively the righteousness (active and passive obedience) of Christ. To them (the Puseyites) justification consists in being made personally holy. To m, it consists in being * accounted righteous ' (Art. XI), through the obedi- ence and death of our Redeemer. They (the Puseyites) * BefutatioD of Calvinism, p. 120. Justification by Works. 47 satisfy the law (in part at least) by their own obedience ; we have no hope of its fulfilment and satisfaction on our behalf, but as it received its full demand in the obedi- ence of our divine Surety. They look to it (the merit or righteousness of Christ) not for direct acceptance with God, but for the power of divine grace to enable the)n so to work and walk, that in themselves they shall be acceptable." It is well added, " that as to the matter and essence of the medicine whereby Christ cureth our disease, we are as wide apart as two opposite descrip- tions of remedy can make us."* According to High Church or Popish Arminianism, our justification de- pends on the performance on our part of certain merito- rious conditions. The Scriptures teach that all condi- tions of justification, properly so called, are performed by Christ. " Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect ? Is it God that justifieth ? Who is he that condemneth ? Is it Christ that died — yea, rather, who is risen again, * * who ever maketh intercession for us ?" Rom. 8 : 33, 34. As this subject has always been 'regarded by true Protestants as of the very essence of Christianity — " the doctrine of a standing or a falling church," as Luther expressed it — it deserves a careful consideration. " The works (says Tomline and other High Church men) which Paul rejects from any share in justification, are ceremonial, not moral works " — " even to these last, the ajjostle attributes not the whole of justification." Thus, as stated by the distinguished Episcopalian, George Stanly Faber, "man is justified before God (in the High Church Arminian sense), not by the righteousness of Christ (exclusively), but by an intrinsic righteousness, which is infused into him by God, through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ." Or, as stated by another one of themselves, Mr. Knox : " Our being reckoned righteous before God, always and essentially implies a substance of righteousness previously implanted in us, and that our reputative justification is the strict and inseparable result of righteousness, on which this reckoning (accounting us * On Oxford Divinity, p. 509-10. 48 High Church Episcopacy. righteous) is founded."* But this, as Faber well replies, is the plain " doctrine of the Council of Trent," i. e., "justification by the merit of our own inherent right- eousness," — a doctrine essentially unscriptural and highly dangerous.''^ In opposition to these Komish or High Church notions, " the Articles " make the exclusive " procuring cause of righteousness and salvation, to be the extrinsic righteousness of Christ appropriated by the hands of faith."| Justification, therefore, according to " the Articles," and all sound Protestants, is being " accounted" righteous before God" — "a relative change of state, not a personal change of nature." In the personal sense, it would be opposed to unholiness ; in the relative sense , it is the op- posite of condemnation : the one would take away moral pollution, the other removes judicial guilt. Justification " by an infusion of righteouness," as Romanists term it, is nothing difierent from sanctificalion (which is one of its fruits), and therefore as Tomline teaches, it is said to be a gradual work, often interrupted, frequently lost and regained, and never complete till perfected in glory. "Which of these is the scriptural sense, is obvious from such passages as this: "He t\i2ii justifieth the wicked, and condemneth the just, both are an abomination to the Lord." Here the terms justify and condemn are op- posed to each other. They both refer to judicial acts. It never could be " an abomination to the Lord " to jus- tify the wicked, i. e., to make him personally holy by infusing righteousness ! Thus also reasons the apostle, Rom. 5:13: " As by the offence of one judgment came on all men to condemnation ; even so by the righteous- ness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto justifi- cation of life." And Paul adds : " Who shall lay any- thing to the charge of God's elect? Is it God that justijicthf Who is he that condemneth ?" The apostle certainly does not speak of acts of the judge, inj'ming * As quoted by Bishop Mcllvaine, p. 46. Knox is not a Trac- tarian, but an ordinary High Church man. So the Bishop tells us. t Faber, p. 49. % Ibid., p. 43. Christ our Eighteousness. 49 either righteousness or unrighteousness into the elect ! The whole has reference to judicial pi-ocess, the pro- nouncing, declaring and accounting persons either justi- fied and acquitted, or condemned, viewed, accounted, treated as guilty. Hence, such eminently pious men as Bishops Beveridge and Andrews, and " the judicious Hooker," speak of " two kinds of Christian righteous- ness ; the one without us, which we have by imputation, which God giveth us — accepting us for righteous in Christ — the other in us — whicli he giveth by working righteousness (or holiness) in us." " Justification is God's act in himself, whereby we are accounted righteous by him, and shall be so declared at the great day." This is very diflTerent from the Tomline doctrine, that moral works have " a share in justification !" Very different the Romish doctrine that our merits have a part in our justification before God. Let Cranmer, the author of the Articles, now explain his own meaning. On the exercise of living and saving faith, he says : God doth no more impute unto us our former sins, but he doth impute and give unto us the justice and righteousnes of his Son, and so we ' be counted righteous, for as much as' — what ! — righteous- ness is infused into lis ? No — but " no man dare accuse us for that sin for whicii satisfaction is made by our Saviour Jesus Christ."* And in his Homily on the sub- ject: " So that Christ is now the righteousness of all them that truly believe in him. * * * He for them fulfilled the law in his life; he paid their ransom by his death. So that now by him, every true Christian may be called a fulfiller of the law ; for as much as that which their infirmity lacked, Christ's righteousness hath supplied." Thus Cranmer interprets Paul, " Christ is THE END of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth" — " and the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us." " Therefore," Cranmer adds, " he that believeth in Christ * * * jg jyg^. j^jj^j l^olj be- fore God." How?" By infusion of holiness ? No! but by the justice (or righteousness) of Christ, which is im- puted and given unto him, as Paul saith — " we judge * Cranruer's Catechism, Redemption. 50 High Church Episcopacy. that man is justified by faith without works. " Thus," as Fisher says, " Though there is a power purg- ing the corruption of sins, which foUoweth upon justifi- cation ; yet it is carefully to be distinguished from it." So, also, Bishop Andrews speaks of the two kinds of righteousness, " the one a righteousness reputed or ac- counted (as to Abraham), and the other a righteousness done." He adds, " The one is a quality of the party, the other an act of the judge, declaring or pronouncing righteousness. The one ours by influence or infusion (flowing from justification), the other by account or im- putation. That both these exist, there is no question." The one justifies — the other sanctifies- And so, also, Archbishop Usher, the prince of Protestants : " Thus God, imputing the righteousness of Christ to a sinner, doth not account his sins to him, but interests him in a state of as full and perfect freedom and acceptance, as if he had never sinned or had himself fully satisfied." Hence flow good works as the fruits. In these and hundreds of similar passages written by the early fathers and founders of the Anglican Church, we gather a view of the great cardinal doctrine of "jus- tification by faith only"— very different from the semi- popery of Tomline, Knox and other High Church Ar- minians. As the latter interpret Paul, "to be justified" is not simply to be " accounted righteous," as their own Article says — " but also to be made righteous by the im- plantation of a i-adical principle of righteousness." "It is on this implanted principle that our being reckoned RIGHTEOUSNESS IS FOUNDED."* Thus, iu a vcry import- ant sense, it is not "God that justifieth" — but man is en- abled to justify himself! Man must first be made righteom by infusion — then he can be accounted righteous before God ! But if this be true, how comes it that the objects of justification are declared in Scripture to be sinners and ungodly? What can be more express than the words of Paul : " To him that (worketh or doeth right- eousness) is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt : But to him that worketh not, but believeili on * See the quotation in Bishop Mcllvaine on Oxford Divinity, p. 46. High Ciiu^ :h Errors. 51 HIM THAT justipieth" — -whom ? High Churchmen re- ply : " Justifieth him who is made righteous, by implant- ation of a radical principle of righteousness !" Not so Paul — " believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly." Even as David describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God -imputeth righteousness ivithout works. Kom. 4 : 5-6. " To justify the ungodly" — " To justify them which are found sinners" — " To justify them that are without works !" These are the favorite phrases of the inspired Paul ; and they certainly give no counte- nance to the High Church notion of " a justification founded on an implanted principle of righteousness !" We admit, with Dr. Owen, " that all who are justified by faith, though before they were ungodlj^ are at the same instant regenerated and made godly." This is the working of the Holy Spirit, sandification begun, to end in glorification — but that is altogether a different thing from " the act of the judge, declaring or account- ing the sinner righteous" — as Bishop Andrews expresses the sense of the 11th Article. Scarcely less unscriptural and absurd are the views of many High Churchmen on the subject of "saving faith." Thus Bishop Tomline tells us that " the Gen- tiles are a law unto themselves, and their faith consisted in believing that a compliance with that law was accept- able to the Deity." " Thus," he continues, " through the merits and mediation of Christ, * * * every human being (heathen as well as Jew) had it in his power to please God." So that all the Gentile idolater had to do, was to believe that his compliance with his own "ac- cusing or excusing conscience" was acceptable to God, and he was justified. If he continued in this sort of faith, he was saved by the merits of Christ ! And this, too, directly in contradiction of the 18th Article of his own creed, viz., " They are to be had accursed that pre- sume that every man shall be saved by the law or sect he professes, so that he be diligent to frame his life ac- cording to the light and law of nature. For Scripture doth set out unto us only the name of Jesus Christ, &c." But if Bishop Tomline's doctrine be true, why did Paul severely censure the Jews for " forbidding him to speak 52 High Church Episcopacy. to the Gentiles, that they might be saved f" They could be saved without any such speaking to them ! See, also, Rom. 10 : 13, 14 — where " calling on the name of the Lord" is made to depend on believing in him, believ- ing to depend on hearing, and hearing on the preaching of the word. Bishop Tomline has certainly discovered a new meaning for justifying faith, viz., " believing i\i2A compliance with the law of conscience is acceptable to God!" But how does faith justify in the theological scheme of High Churchmen? " Faith," says Bishop Bull, as quoted by Tomline, " must by no means be taken for a single and simple virtue ; for in its circuit it comprises all the works of Christian piety." In the system of sound Protestants, justifying faith " works by love, purifies the heart, and overcomes the world" — thus producing spiritual fi'uit in the soul, viz., repentance, hope, purity, &c. But in High Church doctrine, faith contains within itself all other graces, and this justifies, i. e., sanctifies, the soul. Man must be made righteous, and then accounted righteous." " The Scripture uses to say," remarks Hooker, " that, faith without works doth justify.* It is a childish ob- jection, he adds," * * * « ^hat we thus tread aU Christian virtues under our feet and require nothing but faith We never meant to exclude either hope or ' charity from being always joined as inseparable mates with faith in the justified ; nor works from being added as necessary duties, &c. Faith is the only hand which putteth on Christ for justification, and Christ the only garment which covereth the shame of our defiled na- tures." But in the High Church scheme we are justified nit only by faith, but in a measure by repentance, hope, love, and the other graces comprised in it. As to the notion that the true believer may lose his justification every day or every hour, and have it renewed again, this was not the doctrine of Bishop Jewel, of the days of the Reformation. "God hath chosen you from the beginning. His election is sure. You shall not fall from grace ; you shall not perish." * * * * " But how may * Homily on Salvation, 3d part. PusEYiTE Tendencies. 53 we know that God hath chosen us? * * * The apostle says, " Through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth." These are tokens of God's elec- tion.* "This Article" (the 17th), adds Cranmer, *' speaketh only of the elect, in whom finally no fault shall be, but they shall perpetually continue and en- dure." t The Westminister Assembly did not more clearly define justification in the Presbyterian Shorter Catechism than these early framers of the Articles and fathers of the Church of England : " Justification is an act of God's free grace wherein he pardoneth all our sins and accepteth us as righteous in his sight only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us and received by faith alone." We have said that High Church Arminianism has gone to seed extensively iu Puseyism ; and in no partic- ular is this so obviously true as in the question of our justification before God. Thus says Sumner, Bishop of Chester : " The tractarian system involves the Article of our justification in obscurity ; what has been done for tis and what is to be wrought in us are confounded to- gether, and practically man is induced to look to himself and not to his Eedeemer for acceptance with God." " It threatens," he adds, " the revival of the worst evils of the Romish superstition." " It tends," say others of the Episcopal Bench, "to generate an inadequate, super- ficial and superstitious religion " — " to undermine the whole fabric of the gospel " — " to produce a lowered tone of practical religion, a revival of by-gone follies, &c."J Yet this system of bad theology and loose mor- als is admitted by the same high authorities to be "no new controversy " — " to represent a contrast of opinions which have always existed in the Anglican Church," &c. And Thirlwall, Bishop of St. David, says of this scheme : " After the closest attention I could give to * Jewel's Exposition of Thessalonians, pp. 143, 144. f " I have demonstrated," says Dr. Scott, " the doctrines com- monly called Calvinistic to be those of our liturgy, articles and homilies, and of those reformers both before and after Mary's reign, who compiled them." — Remarks on Tomlin^s Refutation. X See Bricknell's Judgment of the Bishops. 6 54 High Church Episcopacy. the (tractarian) dispute, I view it as one of words, in- volving no real difference of opinion, and consequently look upon both parties as, in this respect, equally ortho- dox."* This he says to his clergy in relation to " the eleventh Article on justification," which he admits to be "the test of a standing or falling church." Messrs. Newman and Pusey, however, are not so blind to their own distinctions, affirming that " men are accounted righteous (justified) inasmuch as they have been made righteous through Christ's righteousness infused into them ;" and the opposite sentiment they denounce as " the soul-destroying heresy of Luther on justification." f This is only High Church Armiuianism run mad — " reasoning correctly to legitimate conclusions, though from false premises."| From the facts stated and the extracts now given it appears most undeniable that the views of the framers of the XXXIX Articles and of the early founders of the Established Church of England, were, in the main, what are usually called Calvinistic. No Presbyterian desires more clear and explicit statements, especially on the subject of justification, i. e., the great question, "How shall man be just with God?" Nor is it less plain that from the days of Archbishop Laud (that " man of littleness and unchristian temper, who in his * See his Charge, 1842, in Bricknell. t On the .same topic let us hear the " Clergyman Looking for the Church" — one of Mr. Van Deusen's authorities: " My own conviction, after long and painful attention to the subject, is, that the manner of preaching (among Presbyterians and others) the great doctrine of justification by faith * * * * \i ik^ soul-destroying lieresy of the age." " We express our firm convic- tion once more, that the doctrine of jiistijication by faith is under- stood by the people generally to mean what none but the Antino- mians would desire to teach ; in a word, that as it is too often preached especially among sectarians, it is * * * in the popular apprehension, /aZse." "They [i. e., our avarice, worldli- nes.s, broils, vindictive tempers, &c,] are all coined by the imputed, but not corrected by the indwelling righteousness of Christ; s^noothed over," &c.; "justified by faith" — "a dunghill wrapped in snow." I concede to this writer that he probably " speaks what he experienced," especially while looking for " the church." t See notes to Bricknell, for the foregoing extract. PusEYiTE Developments. 55 diary makes constant reference to dreams and other portents, and who, in many instances, it is impossible to suppose not to have been influenced by feelings of per- sonal revenge),"* from the age succeeding that of the English reformation to the present time, there has been a constant struggle between the High Church or Armin- ian party and the evangelical or Calvinistic part of the establishment. Nor need I say that the lines are drawn with equal distiuctness and with similar results in the Protestant Episcopal Church of this countrj'. It is the old conflict between light and darkness. " The sagacity of Luther," says Faber, " readily per- ceived that the doctrine of justification constitutes the broad boundary between the Church of Rome and the churches of the Reformation. The doctrine as defined by Trent, is the ample foundation upon which all her anti-scriptural fopperies and anti-christian impieties clearly repose."t "The doctrine of the early Reform- ers, English and continental," he continues, " makes Christ alone received by faith in full-orbed glory and undivided righteousness and merit the Saviour of sinful man ; but the whole drift of High Church Arminianism, especially in its Puseyite developments, is to make church and priest, and sacraments and saints, and pil- grimage and fasting, and penances and ordinances, and innumerable notions, the saviour of men." And these are little short of Popery. And now, without extending the discussion, to which of these forms of doctrine in its practical working can be truly ascribed the actual and most efiectual " dissemi- nation of morality and religion," wherever the two modes of teaching have had equal scope ? To say noth- ing of the great " mother of abominations," on which side in this conflict have ordinarily been found the profane and profligate monarch, the fox-hunting, card-playing, theatre and ball-going priest, the gay, voluptuous, giddy throng, the patrons of " luxury and extravagance in the higher walks of life," whose lives are little else than a * This is Bishop Short's description of Laud — "the martyred Laud ! " Short is a staunch Arminian. J t On Justification, the work of an Episcopal clergyman. 56 High Church Episcopacy. succession of " amusements," entertainments, pleasures and personal decorations,"* and oftentimes scenes of far less creditable indulgence? To this question there can be but one answer. But this may be thought partial and invidious. Let us then summon an unexceptionable witness to testify in relation to the practical influence of the two schemes of justification. Hear Bishop Mcll- vaine : " Few evidences of that sad decline in the Church of England from the spirit and doctrine of her martyred Reformers, which the 18th and the latter part of the 17th century exhibited, are more striking than * * * * the almost entire exclusion from the controversies with Rome, of the doctrine of justification. * * * As we approach the latter period of that (17th) century, when it is acknowledged that true religion was greatly on the wane in that church, we find this great subject more and more excluded from the controversies with Rome, as if the greater number of Protestants were either agreed with her doctrine, or considered the objections of Protest- ants of uo great importance. When, however, we have reached the 18th century, wherein it is universally con- ceded that the spiritual character of the Church of Eng- was at its lowest depression, we take leave of justification by faith. * * * * The axe is laid no more at'the root of the tree. The great effort against Popery is to trim off" its branches."! " This process went on" adds Bishop Mcllvaine, " debilitating, and exanimating the religion of the Anglican Church, till in the latter part of the last century, by the renewing of the Holy Ghost, occurred the revival of true, spiritual piety, and the return of the preaching of the doctrine of the Reformers as to the sinner's justification before God." So true is it in the language of the Pusejate organ, that " as the church threw off her Calvinism, she also began to incline to a union with Rome, with that peculiar system of morality and religion,"! which mark "the mother of harlote and abominations of the earth." Well might Bishop * This picture is from Mr. V. D., p. 44. t On Oxford Divinity, p. 8. t British Critic, Oct. 1842. Tendencies towards Popery, 57 Bull say that " there is no society in the world, where Antinomianisra and Libertinism more reign than among the Papists."* We know High Church Armiuiauisra hj her proclivities and advances towards such associa- tions ! No wonder that the " clergyman looking for the church" can bring himself to say " the right of private judgment is the (Calvinistic) cup of sorceries." " There is certainly," he adds, " a chain of hands from Calvinism down to atheism."! Yet the fathers of the Church of England were Calvinists ; and in several essential par- ticulars, as will be shown hereafter, they were Calvinistic Presbyterians! It follows, from this induction of particulars, that Messrs. Van Deusen, Mines, and their fellows, charge the early reformers and fathers of their own church with " horrid and blasphemous opinions," &c., &c. Among the recent developments towards Popery among High Churchmen, are found the following : Somebody writes to the Church Journal to say that '• wafers," instead of bread, have been introduced in the administration of the Lord's supper in the Episcopal diocese of Tennessee, and asks if there is any law against it. The Journal says no. Last year only eight Episcopal churches in London used incense. Now it is used in fourteen. Altar lights are used in thirty-six churches. The practice of confession is increasing. * Bishop Mcllvaine, p. 12. f Pages 169, 170. 58 Hjgh Chukch Episcopacy. CHAPTER V. THE IXTH AND XTH ARTICLES OF THE PRAYER BOOK — THEIR ADMIRABLE CALVINISM. The articles on Original Sin and Free Will are fully up to the Presbyterian doctrinal standards, and greatly add to the difficulties and embarrassments of an Armi- nian clergy. By what process of evasion or spiritual legerdemain they are subscribed by the High Church anti-Calvinists, who solemnly promise to teach them, is a profound mystery which Ave will not attempt to solve. The Xth reads as follows. It is on Free Will : " The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith, and calling upon God. Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will." Taken in connection with Art. IX, and as interpreted by it, we learn that by reason of original or birth sin, man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh ALWAYS lusteth contrary to the Spirit ; and, therefore, in every person born into this world, it (" birth sin") de- serveth God's wrath and damnation." This is certainly explicit enough, and seems to teach with great clearness that man is " shapen in iniquity and in sin his mother conceives him that he is by nature dead in trespasses and sins," and " his heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked" — which is the Scripture doc- trine of original sin. But now look at an Arminian or High Church com- Some Spaek op Goodness. 59 mentary on these Articles: "We have our Saviour's authority for saying that there is some goodness of heart in the human race ; different men possess these various qmlities in different degrees." "We can by no means allow the inference attempted to be drawn from the words of the Articles, that we are without any spark of goodness (or holiness) in us." "This is such a degra- dation of human nature." " God gives to every man * * * a power, the efficacy of which depends upon the exertion of the human will." "God gives the strength of the human body, but the exertion of that strength is left to the will of man ; in like manner, the gifts of the Spirit, &c."* But if this last statement be the true sense in which " faith is the gift of God," then unbelief is his gift in the same sense, viz., God bestows the faculties of mind by which the soul freely disbelieves, as much as those by which it believes ! This is not the doctrine of Paul. "It is God who worketh in you both to will AND TO DO of his own good pleasure." If " man is of his oum nature inclined to evil," and "the flesh alwayslusteth to evil," and he is " dead in trespasses and sins," how can he possess " any spark of goodness ?" Yet this same author says: " It is acknowledged that he has not the disposition, and consequently not the ability, to do what in the sight of God is good, till he is influenced by the Spirit of God. f But if man possess neither " the dispo- sition" nor " the ability" to do good, how can he possess " virtuous qualities," or " a spark of goodness ?" So, when that High Church Arminian Whitby at- tempts to prove " that there is no need of any operation of the Spirit of God to change and determine the will of man to good, except a moral influence, suggesting ideas to his understanding,"! he seems to have forgotten the prayer of David : " Oreate in me a clean heart." Creation is something different from "suggesting ideas." " If any man be in Christ he is a new creature." " We are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works." Besides, these "suggested ideas," to have * Tomline, Eefiitation of Calvinism, pp. 14, 55, t Ibid., p. 61. i Disc, on the Five Points, pp. 211-213. 60 High Church Episcopacy. any good influence over the soul, must present control- ling motives of action, and thus superinduce a bias or strong bent in one direction. But this is to destroy Arminian liberty, which consists in indifference, or a freedom of the mind from actual pre-possession and pre- inclination one way or the other. Again : If " man is of his own nature inclined to evil, and the flesh (the natural man) always lusteth against the Spirit," as the Articles affirm — then here is an ante- cedent bias which totally obliterates Arminian indiffer- ence, and destroys the liberty of the will ! If the will must be possessed of such an indifference as leaves it free from actual inclination one way or other, as Whitby and other Arminians affirm, then, by the very terms of the Articles, man by nature possesses no " freedom of will !' Of course, if left in that state, he could not commit the least sin. Hence it follows that all the sins of mankind since the fall, are to be ascribed to free grace, which, Arminians say, restored free will. They assure us that, by reason of " original sin," " we are utterly disabled for the performance of true obedience without new grace from God, which he mercifully gives to all." Yet, they also affirm that to leave man in his ruined and helpless state produced by the Fall, would be extremely cruel and unjust. In other words, to leave man in a perfectly sinless state, would be tyranny, cruelty and injustice! And to enable him to escape from such cruelty and in- justice, is the peculiar office of Arminian grace! But if this be true, " grace is no more grace." It is scarcely the full payment of a just debt ! For surely it is no grace in God to avoid acts of cruelty and injustice ! He owes it to himself to do right. High Church Arminians profess to be very zealous for the doctrine that " faith and obedience are in some degree in our own power."* And it is even maintained that " the power which God gives to every man, through the means of his grace, to perform the conditions of the gospel, is a power which depends for its efficacy upon the exertion of the human will."t In other words, grace * Tomline's Eefutation, p. 66. t Ibid., p. 64. .Strange Notions of Free Will. 61 gives " a power of exertion to the will," without which it would not be free, man would be a mere machine, and sin would be impossible ! And to leave him in this sinless condition would be great " cruelty and injustice," which require infinite grace and mercy to shield his inno- cent head ! The truth is, that the "Articles," when in- terpreted on Arminian and High Church principles, are a mass of contradictions and- incoherencies. Man is of his ovm nature " inclined to evil," always inclined to it. Hence, of coui-se, moral evil or sin is an impossibility. This inclination or habit of sin, destroys the power to sin ! So that Whitby affirms that even " the saints in heaven and the damned in hell," in consecjuence of pre- viously formed habits of good and evil, " are not reward- able or punishable."* These are parts of the system which the Rector at Pittsburgh thinks best adapted to "disseminate morality and religion throughout the world." We fear the High Church millennium is still far distant. For, as Edwards has well said : " If men must be possessed of a po'wer of self-determination con- sisting in absolute indifference, without being swayed by Erevious inclination or motive — if this is essential to the •eedom of the will, then it follows that the stronger a man's inclinations and evil disposition to do wickedly, the less culpable ;'and the stronger his dispositions or in- clinations to virtuous actions, the less praiseworthy.""!; Hence it follows that as heaven is the place where the strongest dispositions to holiness, love to God and to his service exist, that is the least holy place in the universe : and changing the terms, hell must be the least wicked of all parts of the universe ! " Who shall blame me," says a rabid High Churchman, " for renouncing a religion (the Presbyterian) which taught me that for Adam's sin alone, his whole posterity are by nature children of wrath, bond slaves of Satan, justly liable to all punishments in this world and that which is to come." The refer- ence is to Ques. 29 (it ought to be 27) of the Larger Cat- echism. It speaks of " the misery the fall of Adam brought upon mankind." Of course he shudders at such horrible doctrine ! * Disc, on the Five Points, p. 269. tOn the AVill, p. 296. 62 High Church Episcopacy. Now we suspect this person had never read the ninth Article of his own church : " Original sin * * is the fault and corruption of the nature of every man that natu- rally is engendered of the offspring of Adam ; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and of his own nature inclined to evil — so that the flesh lust- eth always against the spirit : and therefore, in eveiy person born into the world, rr deserveth God's wrath AND DAMNATION." What a horrible religion, to require people to believe this monstrous Article! "In every person " (even infants) " born into this world, it (original sin) deserveth God's wrath and damnation !" Because it is " the fault and corruption of the nature of every man who is naturally engendered of the ofispring of Adam, &c." It must be obvious to every person of commou sense, that if " original or birth sin deserveth God's wrath or damnation," it of course deserves all the pun- ishments which befall any of our race, even infants, in this world. Of course the greater includes the less. And would a just God inflict such punishments, if not de- served ? Yet this man has the eflft-ontery to publish, as a reason for "renouncing the Presbyterian Church," that she teaches this identical doctrine of "the Fall," and " original or birth sin," as stated in Article IX of the Episcopal Church, to which he says he fled from such awful heresy ! What a marvellous escape !* To render the perfect absurdity of such conduct still more obvious (if possible), let it be observed that if even infants dying in infancy do not deserve the punishment stated in Article IX, of course they need no Saviour — for why should Christ die to save them from a penalty which they do not deserve? Of course the baptism of infants is an unmeaning rite — for why use the sign of cleansing where there is nothing to be cleansed ? It fol- lows, too, that in regard to that large proportion of the human family (infants who die) grace is a word without meaning. Wonderful " grace " indeed, that the Son of God should die to save those who could not be justly punished, and so had no need of salvation ! Hence it follows, that Christ did not make " a perfect satisfaction for the whole world," contrary to Article XXXI. * Clergym.in Looking, &c., p. 552. Dying Infants are Saved. 63 Presbyterians joyfully receive the pleasing assurance that all who die before coming to the years of responsi- bility are "elect infants," i e., elect from the mass of mankind, redeemed from the curse and saved — but this supposes them to have needed the remedy provided in the gospel, and to be saved only by its infinite virtue. The absurdity of High Churchism lies in teaching " salvation, for those who need no salvation !" 64 High Church EprscoPACY. CHAPTER VI. DOCTRINAL DIFFICULTIES — THE POPISH DOCTRINE OF BAPTISMAL REGENERATION — THE LITURGY AGAINST THE XXXIX ARTICLES. In investigating the Arminian and Romish character- istics of High Church Episcopacy, we are now prepared to examine the subject of Baptism, particularly in its rela- tions tviih regeneration. The 27th Article of the Prayer Book is as follows : " Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of re- generation or new birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive baptism rightly, are grafted into the church ; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed ; faith is confirmed, and grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God. The baptism of young children is in any wise to be retained in the church, as most agreeable with the institu- tion of Christ." Scarcely a word in this Article can give oflfence*to a Calvinist. In every important particular, it is almost verbally the doctrine of the Presbyterian Confession. And in Article 25, " On the Sacraments," the mean- ing is more fully brought out. " In such only as worthily receive the same (the sacraments) they have a wholesome effect or operation; but they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation, as St. Paul saith." And in Article 26, " Neither is the effect of Christ's ordinance taken away by their wickedness (viz., of the persons administering them), nor the grace of God's gifts diminished from such as by faith and rightly, BaPTI.sMAI. liEGENKUATlOX. (5-5 do receive the sacraments, * * * * which be etfectiial because of Christ's institution and promise." Now would it ever enter the mind of an honest interpre- ter, that these Articles teach the doctrine of "baptismal Regeneration" — i. e., not that this great change produced by the Holy Spirit operatingupou the soul, may be effected at the moment of baptism, which Presbyterians most firmly believe to be often the case — but that they are so inseparably connected, that in no instance is baptism ad- ministered without " the si^/i" being attended with "the thing signified ;" the washing with water, attended by " the washing of spiritual regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost." Yet this is the interpretation, rather the perversion, put upon these Articles by High Church- men ! Take one or two examples : " Tiiose who are baptized ari' immriJiatehi translated from the curse of Adam to the ijritcr of Christ, * * * they become reconciled to God, partakers of the Holy Ghost, and heirs of eternal happiness. * * * * This great and wonderful change is as it were a new nature — an act essential to the cliaracter of a Christian." " There cannot be a second baptism or a second regeneration ;" " the Holy Ghost, in and by the use of water, causes the new birth ;" " an inward effect produced by the Holy Ghost through the means of baptism." " Regeneration is in Scripture solely and exclusively applied to tlie one immediate effect of baptism once administered, * ''^ * never to express any operation of the Holy Ghost upon the mind subse- quent to baptism."* Again: "Our church," another bishop tells us, "considers the being baptized as the same as being regenerated, and uses the veiy terms as convertible." " Whether where baptism cannot be had, God is ever pleased to give re- ;^eneration, as Scripture is silent, so likewise is the church." " She tells us, too, that every baptized infant is regenerated and grafted into the body of Christ's church, * * and received for God's own child by adoption."t But perhaps it may be suggested that these are the * Tomline's Refutation of Calvinism, chap. 2 t rharge of thp BiMiop of Kx-^ter, 1842. 66 High Cjivkch EriscoPAcy. extreme dogmas of the M'ell-fed dignitaries of the mother church, but not at all the views of American Episcopacy. Listen : " They (Presbyterians) have no baptifm. The sprinkling of water among them is without the Spirit." " The Baptists see distinctly that infant baptism * * * is not worth maintaining on the popular grounds ad- duced by Presbyterians in its defence. In fact they see that separated from regeneration, it ceases to he a saeror vient." " Baptism without regeneration is not a sacrament, and notworth retaining."* These sentiments are published under "copy right," by " the General Protestant Episco- pal Sunday School Union," New York ! They are the ^cripturil "milk" which High Church furnishes for her babes ! " Presbyterians have no baptism" — yet the Bishop of Exeter says cxprcs.'^ly, " The effect of baptism * *■ * administered by heretics and schismatics, is snfficient to render re-baptization unlawful." It is added, " Thu incomparably learned Bingham * * * maintained that schismatical baptism * * * is valid so as to I 'recludc re-baptization."t Bishop Hooker says the same thing. " The Court of Arches" also expressly decides, "Nothing can be more dear than that from Augustine in the 4th century down to 1712, * * * the bajitisni of persons by any one other than a lawful minister, was considered to be valid and sufficient. "X And the Bishop of Exeter adds, "Infants, baptized by per- sons heretical in tlie fundamental Article of the Trinity," are to be regarded as having received " baptism in that holi/ name I'' Yet " Presbyterians," worse than laymen, and heretics, " have no baptism !" The doctrine of High Churchmen is thus demonstrated to be this, " that regeneration is the immediate, invaria- ble effect of lawful" baptism, and Sabbath schools are to be taught that without this " effect" of baptism, " it ceases to be a sacrament." But is this the teaching of the XXXIX Articles ? The early Refoimers and framers of the Articles were Calvinists, as we have already shown ; and the sense which * " Clergvnian Looking for tlie Gunx-li,"' ji. 557, Go, 4, &c. . t Charge, lRt-2. t Ibkl/ Views of Chan>ikr amj oTtiEUs. 67 they intended should be put on those Articles, is the sense now universally givenbyCalviuistie Presbyterians. Those noble men oi' I he IGtli century never conceived of " baptismal regeneration" as taught therein. Thus Cranraer: " Those that come feign edly and those that come unfeignedly (' rightly') — both be washed with the sacramental water, but both be not luashed with the Holy Ghost and clothed with Christ."'* " All that be washed in the water be not washed with the Holy Ghost."t So Latimer : " What is this regeneration '/ It is not, ' to be christened with water.'".]; Hooper says : "Bap- tism is but the confirmation of Christ's promises which be in the person that receiveth the sacrament before, or else these e.vtenwi n/V/zi.? aiuii/ liolJihu/." " They (tlie sacra- ments') show that we be fegeuirtifed, ami not be regene- rated l)y then)." Coverdale afhrms: "To use the sacraments witliout faith profitetli not, but rather liurt- eth." Jewel adds: "It is neither the work (jf the priest, nor the nature of the sacrament a>t of iUdf, that maketh us partakers of Christ's death, liut only the ftitli of the receiver." " Whosoever is not joined to God before lie receiveth the sacraments, he eateth and drinketh his own judgment. The sacraments be seeds and witnesses, ■And not properly the causes of this conjunction." "The sacraments, unto the godly are the instruments of the Holy Ghost ; and unto tlie wicked are increase of further judgment." " lu baptism thei-e are two parts or mys- teries, Clirist's blood and material water, * * which l.)e oftentimes severed, and the one is received ivithout the o'/(tT."§ One other testimony. Kogers (1586) chaplain to Archbishop Bancroft, in his Exposition of the XXXIX Articles, dedicated to him, says : " Baptism is called the washing of the new birth, * * to signify how they which rightly receive the same (as all do not), are in- grafted into the body of Christ." "We condemn the * Answer to Gardiner, Wks., vol. 1, p. 47. t Answer to Smith, vol. 1, p. 206. j Sermons, vol. 1, p. 202. ' S i;ne rrcoire tlie sacraiiienis, bill nut the thni plausible ground for their doctrine. It is indeed a disputed point in the Anglican Church whether " the liturgy is the ex- ponent of the Articles or the Articles of the liturgy." The Bishop of London, in his charge, 1842, mentions " an instance in which the liturg r not only explains, but in some sense corrects the language of an Article." Again, " where the meaning of an article may appear to be un- certain, we have the church for her own interpreter in her liturgy and homilies, especially the former." But this view has been vehemently opposed. " The Articles," it is said, " are the sheet-anchor of our churchraauship." * Those who wish to see this subject fully discussed, are referred to "Goode on Baptism"— an elaborate work of 500 pages octavo, a London book, reprinted in this country. His 7th chapter treats of " the doctrine of our leadins; Reformers and divines during the reigns of Edward VI and Elizabeth and the earlier part of that of James I." From such a source, sustained as he is by a vast cloud of witnesses, his work approaches near to an absolute de- monstration; that "baptismal regeneration" is not taught in the XXXIX Articles, but is a romparntive noveltv of (lie days of Laud, Regenek.vtiox only IX Baitis-M. (j9 " Of what use were the Articles meant to be if not to act as the final summary of the theology of the Church of England ? " " This is their peculiar property and ot- fice" — " to give a general exponential face to her entire theology." " We heartily give in our allegiace to the church as understanding the liturgy * * * fjic sense of the Articles." " But," replies the Bishop of Lon- don, " our Jirst guide is the liturgy." The opinion which denies baptismal regeneration, might, possibly, though not withuiit great difficulty, be reconciled with the language of the twenty-seventh Article, but by no stretch of inge- nuity be brouglitto agrt-o witli {hv jtlniii, unqna/i/iedlan- guage of the offices for b:i|)tisni and confirmation."* So the Bishop of Exeter quoting the liturgy, in- structs his clergy: "Tlu' ehui-'-h tells lis that every baptized infant is icgriiciatf and grafted ii:to the body of Christ's church," and eouinuinds us "to yield hearty thanks to Almighty God for having been pleased thus to regenerate him with his Holy Sjjirit," and for " having received him for his own child by adoption," and " for having incorporated him (the infant) into his holy church." And to " teach any other doctrine than this," the bishop pronounces "disingenuous" on the part of his clergy! Nay, he adds, " our church maintains * * * that to infants always, and to adults rightly re- ceiving, regeneration is given in baptism, and in bap- tism only! " "We may say in faith," adds the Bishop of Down and Connor, "of every child that is bajjtized, that it is regenerated by God's Idoly Spirit." This is genuine High Churchism ! It does not say mucli for the boasted unity of the Auglican Churcii that others of her chief dignitaries. Low Churchmen, maintain with equal zeal, that " regeneration is to be distinguished from re- novation" — " that the- Episcopal Church does )io< assert that every baptized infant is regenerate in the spiritual sense of the word." f With these opposing views we are not at present concerned. Our argument is with the High Church. If any one should imagine that the American braneii of the Episcopal body is either more Chi.r-c, 1S4-'. t ItricUi.cU's Ch:,r^. 70 IlKiH Chi rch Episcopacy. sound or more harmonious on these topics, he will obtain small credit for accurate obser\'atiou. Amid this conflict of opinion, the discord of a "family divided against itself," we go to the liturgy to examine for ourselves : 1. How does the liturgy describe the moral disease which is to be healed? "All men are conceived and born in sin " — need to be " delivered from God's wrath," and to be " baptized with water and the Holy Ghost, whicli &)/ ?i((^r;v tb( y cannot have" — need " to be made living inembcrs oi' ( "liristV holy church;" and, accord- ingly, the chnicli is r( (|iiiiv(l to pray for ilte injant about to be baptized, that " lie may receive remission of sins by spiritual regeneration. " Such is the spiritual malady. 2. The remeiJj/. The prayer before baptism is, " Givt thy Holy Spirit to this infant, that he may be bori again, and be made an heir of everlasting salvation,' and that " Christ would embrace this present infant in the arms of his mercy," " release him from sin, sanctify him with the Holy Ghost, and give him the kingdom of heaven and everlasting life," that " he may receive the fullness of thij grace and ever EEJLiiN in the number of thy faithful children." These various phrases explain what is meant by "spiritual regeneration." Certainly not a mere change of external relation in regard to nominal membership in the church. 3. Such are the disease and the remedy. Now, after baptism has been performed, how do matters stand ? Alter " the sign of the cross " upon the child, the min- ister says, " Seeing now that this child is regenerate and grafted into the liody of Christ's church, let us give thanks," and then he prays that " this child may lead the rest of his life according to this beginning." Again : " We yield thee hearty thanks, most merciful Father, that it hath I'LEASED thee to regenerate this infant with tliij Hohj Spirit, to receive him for thine own child by adoption, and to incorporate him into thy holy church ; '''' * and we beseech thee that as he is made partaker of the death of thy Son, he may also be a partaker of his resurrection, * * * an inheritor Sxri-KXDOCs CHANtiE I.N J iAl'i' l.'-M . I I oi thy everlasting kingdom." Will any person of good -i iise venture to affirm that all this means no more thnu a change of outward relation ? Does it require " Al- mighty God" to "regenerate with his Holy f?()irit" be- fore a child can possess this external relation V In like manner, in private baptism, the minister, after the rite i- performed, exhorts " Doubt ye not, but earnestly believe that he (Christ) hath /aivjmi/// received this pres- ent infant, hath embraced him in the anus of his mercy, and will give unto him the blessing of eternal life." Then the minister says, S.H-inu- ti at this (-WM is reijenerate and grafted iutn the body of Cliii-t's rhiin-h, lrt"u> uive thanks:" " We yield lli'ee heartv thank,-, most merciful Father, that it li'ath pbii<,:d iher to mjenerolr this iutlint with thy Holy Spirit," i^t,, ■' uuule [hiui] i.a:takcr of the death of thy Son," ■■ su may he be jiartaker of his resurrection," " an inheritor of thy eviTlasting king- dom." It is doubtful whether any lauguage could be employed to teach more distinctly than these forms do that all infants who aro baptized are spiritually regene- rate, made " new creatures in Christ Jesus" by the influ- ences of the Holy Spirit upon the soul. That this is the interpretation that High Churchmen put upon these expre^^si(l^s is further proved by the fol- lowing extracts from the sermon preached at the recent dedication of Trinity Cluireh, Pittsburgh. Tlie iireacli- er, Kev. Dr. C. E. Swope, one of the ministers of Trinity Church, New York, described a certain " stupendous change " in baptism, and which ho said was produced in mode and manner as follows : " A child of Adam and of wrath is brought to the regenerating font for the remis-i'in nf iIkiuu'' is wrdiight un- der the veil of a few uttered words, aud the sprinkling of a little water in the Triune Xame." This stupendous •■ iiiyst(>ry " of course cannot consist in a mere external relation, for there is nothing " stu- pendous" in that. A baj^tized hyj)ocrite or infidel undergoes just such an outward change; nor is thei-e 72 High Ciii;i!( ii Episcopacv. any " mystery " attending it. When we come to speak of the language used at " confirmation " of these sub- jects of " spiritual regeneration," much further evidence will be adduced of the nature of this " stupendou-^ change" wrought at the " regenerating font." Let us uow look at the subject of " adult baptism." With much of the same phraseology, we find several additional hints of the meaning of regeneration in the Episcopal sense. The iifisons are ."aid to be " conceived and born in sin," "live in sin,"' "cannot please God." They mvd to b.' " d,-liverrd from Gods wratii." God is ni'i'ln --'■'] :is "the lip of those who believe;" and after re- ]>; riiii. 'h. ■ conversation of the Saviour with Nicodemus (,L>lio :; , ihe minister teaches as follows: "Hereby you may perceive the great necessHij of this sacrament, whore it can be had." " Dcmbt ye not, therefore, but firmly believe that he Avill favorably receive these pre- sent persons, truly repenting and coming unto him bt FAITH ; that he will grant them remission of their sins, the blessing of eternal life, &c." Thus far, nearly every thing is suitable for the adult to be baptized. But look how the matter stands after baptism : " Seeing now that these persons are regenerate and grafted into the body of Christ's church, let us give thanks unto Almighty God for these benefits." " We yield thee humble thanks, O heavenly Father. &c. Give thy Holy Spirit to these persons, that being nom' borx again, and made heirs of everlasting salvation (viz. by baptism), through our Lord Jesus Christ, they may continue thy servants, &c." And then the godfathers and godmothers are ex- horted to put them in mind, * * * * * jq ^gg ^jj diligence, * * * that so they may grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ." But can any thing be more preposterous or more delusive than to'aihbvss such language to all adults at baptism? After most seriptnially representing repentance and fdHli as indispen-able t'> "a favorable reception" with Christ, ALL :trc as made the children of God by faith, and made lieirs of everlasting life," and of The (jk Sr.Mox Magl-h. 73 (•(iiirsc the)'' must have repi'uU'd and believed! But in the judf^nient of charity, is tliis true of all baptized adults? Was it true of Siuiou Masjus? What uiinis- ter, unless possessed of oniniscioufe, can liave the hardi- hood to pronounce such a decision? Can any thing be better adapted to flatter all self-deceivers and hypocrites with the notion that they "are alive when they are The same monstrous teach in IT is found in "the cate- chism, to be learned before confirmation." The youth is taught to say, "I was in baptism made a member of (Ju-iff, the child of God. and an inheritor of the king- dom of licaven." He is also tauicht "that there is re- quired of persons (adults) to be baptized" — repentance, " whereby they f u'sake sin. and faith" — and yet. after confirmation by the Itishop, he ])rays : " Defend, O Lord, this thy child, with thy heavenly grace, that he may continue thine forever." Of course the unavoidable inference is, that all adults ever baptized and confirmed, are po.ssessed of true repentauce and saving faith ! But is not this to lay "a snare and a trap" for the souls of men? If this is not the " opus operatnm " of the Papist, it is very little better. It is true, therefore, that " these liturgical services retain certain expressions which savor of an o]nis operidum effi<'acy in the sacrams'nis." Xor is it at ill surprising that with sui-h a basis of ojiorations, the Puseyites " undertook to twist the whole tVamework of the church, doctrinal and ecclesiastical, into harmony with the.se shreds of Popery, in a word, I ' > Romanize the Establishment." "The fruits of this move- lUL'nt were, as might have been expected, the revival and resumption of superstitious rites and fantastic mummeries, the cast-off rags of the old imposture, and a large secession of ministers and members to Rome."* There was truth, therefore, in the pithy sentiment of Lord Chatham, " Calvinistic articles and a Popish litur- gy." Yet Bishop Short assures us " there is ewery rea- son to applaud the conduct of Archbishop Cranmcr and 74 High Church Episujpacy. admire our standards, because they so nearly resemble the works (the five Popish mass-books") of the same sort which preceded them ; and to rejoice that * * * " they are but amended transcripts of those which our forerunners established !"* Now it is prccisL'ly at this jioint where the argument of certain cxcelh'nt brethren in England and America of the EvaiiLii lii-al Low Church party, labors and shows its woakiii'ss. Mr. Goode, indeed, tries to sustain the Calviiiistic iiiti ipretation of the liturgy by assuming that " it .si(/j;-iyses all interested in its services to be the true and living members of Christ's body, the church. "t But this very thing, this false mpposition, is one of the main gnunids of objection. Ministers have no rational or scriptural basis for such an assumption. It is a dan- gerous delusion. It savors of the doctrine of "the father of lies," "Ye shall not surel}' die." "Our church," says .Mr. Goode, " clearly requires in adults faith and rejicniance as the necessary qualifications for being made in baptism sons of God." But if they have faith and repentance, they are " sons of God " without baptism. Besides, what becomes of the thanks to Al- mighty God, offered in everi/ case without exception, that the same persons are " now born again and made heii-s of everlasting life ? " Is it true that all who are thus baptized are believers? And if not "after confirmation," why does the bishop assiune unconditionally, that eveiy confirmed person is " a child of God." and therefore pray that "he may costi^UE thine forever f " "Our Reformers and early divines," adds Mr. Goode, " clearly used the baptismal service with the notion that we are to presume that the infant baptized is one of the elect, * * and will fulfil the terms of the covenant." Thus he ac- counts for the fact that all such infants are said to be regenerated in baptism. But this is just no explanation at all. It only complicates the matter and makes the difficulty worse. The question instantly arises , Is this opinion true? If not, if " our Reformers " were still in *Hist. of the Ch. of Enj:., p. 201. •; On Knpti-.ni. cliap. 0. Shreds of I'opkisy i.\ tiik Liti;i;(;v. 75 the darkness of Popeiy on this point, why require sound Protestants of the present day to repeat and sanction such deadly error? I admit, with Sir. Goode, that the liturgy was ap- l)roved by such liigh Calvinists as Bucer and Peter Mar- tyr, whom Cranmer had made professors of divinity at Cambridge and Oxford, and that some phraseology' ap- pears in " Lutlier's Service for Infant Baptism " similar to that of the Prayer Book. The same is true of other similar documents of that period, both public and pri- vate. So even the vehement spirit of the intrepid Lu- ther was long in reaching the true Protestant result, that Popery is " the man of sin," not to be reformed but de- stroyed ; and that the only way of escaping her plagiies is " TO COME OUT OF HEii." We know and lament his iibstinate blindness in the matter of consubstantiation. The great cause of gratitude to God is, that, emerging as those holy men did, suddenly from Popish midnight to dazzling noonday, they were enabled to see so much with clearness and scriptural accuracy. We gratefully recog- nize and reverence them as "great instruments of God," but that is no reason why we should canonize their errors. That they did not hold the modern notions of High C'luirchmen in regard to the efficacy of the sacraments, Mr. Goode has clearly shown. But neither he nor any other can escape the logical conclusion that their formu- laries were suffered to retain some " relics of the Amo- rites" — not ouly at the expense of logical cousistcncy, but to the serious detriment of the glorious cause which was so near to their hearts. It is undeniably true, therefore, that these things furnished only too plausible a pretext, to say the least, for the Oxford movement, which " dwells upon the external ritual parts of relig- ious service, and which speaks of the sacraments * * as instruments of salvation in a justifying and casual ^euse."* The Bishop of Llaudaff commends the wis- dom and charity of the English Reformers in gently ueaning the public mind from a false religion, and he Chai-oc of ll.c Rishop uf WiiK'liesler. 76 Hl(;ll C^HUliCH Ep]^S(•OI'A<•Y. concludes " tliat many ceremonies which they retained would probably be omitted if the work were begun anew in our own time.'"* But, if this be true, in the name of all that is precious in genuine religion why maintain in use, as inviolable, forms of devotion which misrepre- sent at once the worshippers and the truth of God? Why not " purge out this old, offensive leaven," that the church may become in the true sense, " a new lump ?" Why persist in the moral treason which thus " brings aid and comfort to the enemy ?" These are sad speci- mens of " admirable liturgy," " incomparable liturgy," which we are told " is always purer than the church it- self" — especially that one " which commands the admi- ration of the world ! " But whilst wo are constrained to admit that, as a question of iiitcrjiretatiou of the liturgy, the High Cluu'ch iiavc (lie l)est of the argument as against the Low Churchmeii — tliere is another and a far more im- portant aspect of the general sul)jcct. Do tlic Holy Scriptures teach that regeneration is solely and cxchisively applied " to one impjortant effect of baptism once administered," " using the very terms as convertible":'"' Do they affirm that ''baptism separated from regeneration ceases to be a sacrament "?" This is High Church Episcopacy, but is it scriptural doctrine? We can only refer to a tew of those obvious arguments which overthrow this dangerous and delusive dogma. 1. How was this question regartled under the old economy, when the same thing was signified by a differ- ent sign ? l^aul tells us, " Circumcision was to the Jews llie seal of the rigliteousness of faith," just as baptism now is. Horn. 4 : 11. But how careful is he to distin- guish l)etwofii " tlic sign of circumcision" and the inward work of tin; Holy Spirit. Hear him: "He is not a Jew wlio is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, and not in the letter, * Change. ScRiPTUJRE Doctrine of Regeneration. 77 whose praise is not of men, but of God." Certainly if language has meaning, this teaches that " the sign of circumcision in the flesh" was not always and " imme- diately" attended with "the circumcision of the heart," and that a man might be a " Jeiv outwardly," without being " one inwardly." If this is true of that sign, why not of baptism? 2. The blessed Saviour expressly excludes all who are not " born again," " born of water and of the Spirit," from seeing or entering into " the kingdom of God."* But are High Church Episcopalians prepared to take this ground ? Do the millions of the children of anti- pcedobaptists, Quakers, Jews, Mohammedans, heathens, wlio die in infancy, inherit this dreadful fate ? Calvin- i^ts have been often falsely charged with teaching " in- fant damnation" — but here it is in its most fearful form. It is true " he that believeth and is baptized shall be -aved, but he that believeth not shall be damned."! Tliis is viewed as one of the strong texts of the High Church and of Popery. The Episcopal Whitby however, understood it correctly. He says in his commentary — "In the second clause, baptism is omitted." "Why so ? " Be- cause," he adds, " it is not simply the want of baptism, but the contemptuous neglect of it which makes men guilty of damnation, otherwise infants might be damned for the mistakes or profaneness of their parents." The truth is, that this passage no more requires baptism as indispensable to infant salvation than it requires faith. In regard to adults, there is an important sense, as Whitby teaches, in which " the want of baptism " is a damning offence, i. e., where it is the fruit of " contempt- uous neglect." But the same is true of reading the Scriptures, attending on the preaching of the word, and, indeed, almost any other Christian duty. "He that despiseth, despiseth not men but God." So also Peter, alluding to the great deliverance of Noah by the ark, says, " the like figure whereunto baptism doth also now save us," but Paul tells us " we are saved by hope," ^Uohn 3: 3-7. t Mark IC: IG. 78 High Chtjech Episcopacy. aud " confession -with the mouth is made imto salvation." But is it true that none are saved but those who "confess with the mouth? " Far from it. The promise of salva- tion is most commonly made " to those who believe " — but baptism and " confession with the mouth," under some peculiar circumstances, especially in times of per- secution and as the form of public profession may also be necessary ; or at least the contemptuous neglect of either would be fatal. This view harmonizes all the texts of the subject in beautiful consistency. No one imagines the thief on the cross was regenerated by bap- tism. 3. If regeneration by the Holy Spirit always accom- panies baptism, would Paul have said, "/ thank God that I baptized none of you but Crispus and Gains" — " Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel." If " the grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ " were absolutely, immediately and invariably associated with the external rite of baptism, would the apostle have spoken thus ? Nay, he elsewhere speaks gratefully of what God had done by him : " In Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel," and of Onesimus, " whom I have begotten in my bonds." (2 Cor. 4 : 15, Philem. 10.) 4. The same result is reached when we examine the numerous passages which speak of regeneration or use equivalent terms : " To as many as received him to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them which believe on his name, who were bom, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, but of God."* Can this possibly mean external baptism, of which not the remotest hint had before been given ? How then can it be truly said that these are " convertible terms ? " And so in the texts before referred to (John 3 : 5-11), -when our Lord told Nicodemus of the necessity of the new birth, if he had meant baptism with water, Avith which the Jews were perfectly familiarized in their " divers baptisms " or washings, is it likely ^Christ would have * John 1:11-13. Teachixg of the New Testament. 79 introduced the subject with so much solemnity — "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born agaiu [or from above,] [or baptized'], he cannot see the kingdom of God." And when Nicodemus strangely misunderstood him to mean a second natural birth, why did not " the teacher sent from God " immediately correct his mis- take by adding, " I mean only water baptism ! " Why still further seem to darken so simple a subject by refer- iug to " the wind which bloweth where it listeth," &c. 5. If regeneration, or being born again, be only an- other expression for baptism, so that these are "convert- ible terms," let us try the substitution in a few passages, and see whether it will make sense. " Whosoever is born of God (i. e., baptized,) doth not commit sin — can- not sin." Is this true in any intelligible sense, of all baptized persons ? " Whosoever believeth, is begotten (if God." But, said the Ethiopian eunuch, "what doth liiuder me to be baptized?" "If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest," i. e., mayest " be born of God." But according to the first passage, if the eunuch believed, he was already "born of God." 6. There were special reasons in the days of primi- tive Christianity, as before intimated, amid the fires of persecution, in the hazard of temporal benefit and even of life, which stared the new convert in the face, why the open profession of faith in Christ and the ex- ternal badge or form of that profession, should in some instances appear to stand in close connection the one with the other. Thus: "As many of you as have been baptized unto Christ have put on Christ." Again : " By one Spirit we are baptized into one body." " We are buried with him by baptism into death, * * * that we also should walk in newness of life." So it is said : " Whosoever confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is born of God. No man can say that Jesus is the Christ but by the Holy Ghost." But it surely needs no proof that " the confession of Christ," as in the case of Simon Magus, Ananias and Sapphira, and indeed of all other hypocrites and self-deceivers, was no evidence of 80 High Church Episcopacy. being born of the Spirit— and the same is true of bap- tism as the outward form and recognition of discipleship. term " regeneration," &c., is said to be by another and a very different instrument. " Of his own will begat he us," — there is the divine power. But how was this blessed work performed ? Not by baptism, but " with THE WORD OF TRUTH."* There is not in the whole Bible a text which ascribes regeneration to baptism as explicitly as this attributes it to " the word of truth." But the preaching of the gospel is not invariably at- tended with regeneration by the Holy Spirit. The same is true of baptism. We are told by High Churchmen that this is " the only sacrament by which the gospel can be preached or its distinctive grace conveyed to an infant mind ;" and much pious horror is exhibited at that view of the sub- ject which denies " the Avaters of pardon and of promise " to an infant of infidel or atheist ! Such infant, dying, " goes into eternity with nought to impart a differeiice of glory in the resurrection, nought by which angels may know that it had come from a Christian land !"t But this is surely giving " the angels " very small credit for intelligence ! Besides, the same writer says of Presby- terians : " They have no baptism !" Yet he rebukes our church for declining " to set faith's mark upon every infant's brow," without respect to parentage or other cii'cumstauces ! That, however, is a subject on which we cannot now enter. It may be proper simply to remark that if our High Churchmen had lived in the days of circumcision, which was restricted to the infants of Jews by birth and proselytism, their anxiety to en- large the boundaries of angelic knowledge would have found ample scope for exercise ! The several proofs now adduced must suffice as hints of the manner of the Scriptures in speaking of this topic. But before closing this chapter we refer to an objection. It is said with much confidence, that our * James 1:18. f Clergyman Looking, &c. 7. The same spiritual influence TiiuE Presbyterian Doctrine. er "the wicked and such as he void of lively faith," "do eat and drink to their condemnation," for so says the 29th Article, as also the 25th. 86 High Church Episcopacy. or any other nation." Even Toplady, one of the most distinguished Episcopal divines, could utter the follow- ing humiliating confession : " We have already for- sook the good old paths trod by Christ and his apostles. * * * * * Our liturgy, our articles, and our homilies, still keep possession of our church walls, but we pray, we subscribe, we assert one way — we believe, we preach, we write another. In the desk we are verbal Calvinists, but in the pulpit we tag the performance with a few minutes " entertainment compiled from fragments bequeathed to us by Pelagius, Arminius, Arius, Socinus and others still worse than these." " Is there a single HERESY," he adds,"that ever annoyed the Christian world, which has not its partisans among those who profess conformity to the Church of England.* This was said in the latter part of the last century — and whether it is less true of our High Church Episcopacy, is no very doubtful point. Toplady, and many others of the Eng- lish Episcopal Church, were not quite so sanguine as Mr. Van D. seems to be, that the " church system," which (he says) " Christ himself instituted and prescribed, is the best mode for the dissemination of morality and re- ligion throughout the nation."t There is a method sometimes employed to evade the shocking conclusions thus lawfully deduced from the " Liturgy" on baptismal regeneration. But it is a mere evasion, and of course it is entirely without foun- dation in the Scriptures. On this subject, indeed, as the Rev. Geo. Stanley Faber,| an English Episcopal minis- ter, has demonstrated, "the church is a house divided against itself" 1. Some, as Dr. Waterland and one or two bishops, have taught that " regeneration or the new birth is not an internal change of the soul," " but only an external change of man's relative state towards God," "not a moral change of disposition." Thus the baptized infant of a believer would sustain a widely different outward * Works, p. 275. t Christianity in the Kepublic, pp. 91-9. I Primitive Doctrine of Eegeneration. Some Evasions. 87 relation to the church and her Head, from that _ of an iinbaptized child of heathen parents. This interpreta- tion, however, is shown by Mr. Faber to be utterly false. For the express terms of the Holy Oracles prove that scriptural " regeneration " is " a birth from above," " a birth from the God of heaven," " a birth from the Holy Spirit, as contrasted with a physical birth of flesh," "which contrast vanishes if we limit the sense to a mere outward change of relation." Persons thus " born of God " " have ^^ower (or privilege) to become the sons of God," " do not commit sin," " cannot sin," " love the brethren," " know God," and " overcome the Avorld," So also they " are born again, not of cor- ruptible seed, but by the word of God," and " baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, doth save us." Thus, adds Mr. Faber, " the terms used in Scrip- tui'e indicate a moral change of disposition, obedience to the truth through the Spirit, and purification of the soul." To say, therefore, that "regeneration" is an external or relative change only, is a manifest perver- sion of the truth. 2. Another, and the true scriptural view of regen- eration, according to Faber, is that it is "a moral change of disposition (or change of heart) associated with a change of relative condition, of which baptism is the outward and visible sign." " It is a moral conver- sion of the heart " — " a moi-al renovation of the inward frame, and this may, according to the Divine pleasure, take place either before baptism, or in baptism or after baptism." The obligation of this great moral revolution in the soul rests, he says, "upon the apostasy of man occa- sioned by the fall;" "it is founded upon an eternal moral necessity, which has subsisted ever since man's heart became alienated from God and true holiness." " This change," he adds, " is in Scripture called ' regen- eration,' 'conversion of the heart,' 'renovation,' 'new creation,' ' resurrection from the death of sin to the life of righteousness,' 'circumcision of the heart,' " &c. With these explanations before his mind, let the reader 88 High Church Episcopacy. recall the shocking assertions of the Liturgy as quoted above — that the person baptized is thus made " a mem- ber of Christ," " a child of God," " regenerated by the Holy Spirit," put " in a state of salvation" and at death is received with the song of triumph, " Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord," &c. Is not this monstrous ? There can be no doubt that both in England and America there are not a few High Church Episcopa- lians who go the full length of the opus operatum doc- trine of Popery in regard to baptismal regeneration. Hence, when some years ago, Bishop Meade wrote in opposition to the doctrine of regeneration at baptism, " The Churchman " demanded " how a Christian bishop dared openly to impugn the church's teaching on bap- tism ? " " One or the other of us must be wrong." Well did Dr. Aydelott, while an Episcopal presbyter, declare that " there were two entirely different gospels and kinds of religion in the church " — " a vast moral desert," &c. The notion that regeneration as taught by Christ and his apostles is " a mere external change of the relative state," appears to be adopted by Bishop Hobart in order to evade the monstrous conclusions legitimately drawn from the Liturgy. " There is a distinction," he says, made in the language of the Episcopal Church as well as in Scripture between regeneration and renovation." " Unless," he adds, " the baptized person is renewed by the Holy Ghost, his baptismal regeneration will only in- crease his guilt."* This, however does not much mend the matter. Where has the Scripture said that a per- son may be " regenerated by the Holy Ghost," but not " renewed by the Holy Ghost ?" Did the Psalmist so teach ■? " Create in me a clean heart, and renew a right spirit within me." Both clauses of this Hebrew paral- lelism mean the same thing. This " new creation" and " the renewal " are substantially the same. " Eenova- tion * * * ig obviously used in Scripture," says Faber, " to express that progressive sanctification or * Apology for Apostolic Order, p. 230. Bishop Hobart"s Evasions. 89 growth in grace, the gradual healthy developmeut of the germ of spiritual life." " But, save with this ex- planatory adjunct, renovation and regeneration are iden- tical." " Strictly and properly," he adds, "conversion of the lieart is the very same as moral regeneration, as was taught by Augustine." Bishop H. says he teaches baptismal regeneration in this sense, " that the baptized person is born again, not in the affections of his soul, but into a neio state, &c." But can any one be so regenerated or " born of God " as to "love the brethren," "overcome the world," "know God," &c., without any change in his affections? And when the minister prays, just before baptism, " Give thy Holy Spirit to these persons that they may be born again and made heirs of salvation" — does it all indicate a mere "change of state," but no " change of the affec- tions ?" Again, when a person of twelve or sixteen years of age is preparing to be confirmed, he is taught the Cate- chism, which says of baptism, " wherein I was made a member of Christ — the child of God." " I thank our heavenly Father that he hath called me to this state of salvation." " Adults, when baptized, are to " give thanks that they are made heirs of everlasting salva- tion." They are admonished that " having put on Christ," "being made the children of God," they are bound " to die from sin, and rise again to righteousness, continually mortifying all evil and corrupt affections." And in the preceding prayer these adults are represent- ed as " truly repenting and coming to Christ by faith." These forms surely look beyond a mere change of rela- tive state, and concern " the affections of the soul." Either Bishop H. or the liturgy is in the wrong — rather his attempt to explain away the language of the liturgy is a miserable failure. Bishop Hobart further explains that " the baptized person is born again into a new state, in which he re- ceives conditionally a title to the blessings of the gospel covenant." But this is simply to contradict the liturgy, not to explain it. It declares positively, without any conditions, that the baptized child is " regenerated by 9 90 High Church Episcopacy. the Holy Spirit and received as God's own child by adoption, and incorporated or grafted into God's holy church." "And for these blessings the minister is re- quired to give thanks to God." Where are the bishop's " conditions" in all this ? He and the liturgy are in direct opposition to each other. He says " a conditional title to gospel blessings" is received in baptism. The liturgy teaches that the blessings themselves are received without any conditions. It was in view of such conclusions as these that Rev. Dr. Aydelott, while still an Episcopal presbyter, felt constrained to say, " No part of the Prayer Book is so open to objection as this ; none has so grieved the hearts of good men from the very first as this baptismal office."* As the question of regeneration, viewed as insepa- rable from baptism, is of infinite practical importance, let us examine the doctrine, taught by another High Church ecclesiastic. Dr. Hook's " Church Dictionary," revised and republished in this country, is a sort of cyclopsedia of prelacy, and is good authority on such topics. If words have any meaning, Dr. Hook takes very diflferent ground from Bishop Hobart's view, i. e., that regeneration is a mere change of state and does not touch the afiections or dispositions of the soul. (1.) Under the article "conversion," Dr. Hook says: " That the sins, original and actual, of the faithful re- cipient of baptism (of course an adult) are washed away, the church doth teach," of course not without baptism. Again, of infants, he says : " In the opinion of our Reformers, regeneration and remission of sins did ac- company baptism." Of all this he approves cordially. Elsewhere he speaks of "the baptized" as " therefore in fact regenerate." (2.) Dr. Hook teaches that regeneration is so con- nected with baptism that "it (regeneration) cannot be repeated — because this would require the repetition of baptism, which were an act of sacrilege." This is cer- tainly making " the washing away of all sin" or " the remission of sin " to depend absolutely upon the rite of * Conditions and Prospects of the Episcopal Church. Case of Baptisjial Sacrii.ege. 91 baptism. There are none of Dr. Hobart's " conditions " here ! (3.) Yet, in contradiction of all this, under the arti- cle "regeneration" Dr. Hook quotes with strong appro- val, Mr, Simeon, of Cambridge, as follows : " Does God ahvays accompany the sign with the thing signified ?" Mr. Simeon's answer is, " We cannot know or even JUDGE respecting it in any case whatever, except by the fruits that follow." " It may be considered only a doubtful point." Which is the same as to say, that our ignorance is so great that separate from the fruits we can form no judgment on the question ! But this is precise- ly the doctrine of the Presbyterian Confession, viz., that a person may be regenerated by the Holy Spirit at bap- tism, and that some infants are probably thus " born again " — but beyond this " ye shall know them by their fruits." Here, then, Drs. Hook and Simeon are evi- dently at swords points. Yet strange to say. Dr. Hook says of the extract from Simeon, '"We have seldom seen the truth more briefly vindicated !" Which is the same as to say that our knowledge is so limited that we can- not even judge whether " the thing signified " always accompanies "the sign" or not — and "this truth is vindicated " by Mr. Simeon ! As to the condition of those unfortunate persons who have been baptized but not regenerated, their case is a sad one — for to regene- rate them now would be " an act of sacrilege," viz., " a repetition of baptism !" 4. Dr. Hook is still more explicit. After the " wash- ing away of the sins, original and actual, of the faith- ful recipient of baptism," he says " he may by his own fault fall again into sin, in which if he die, he shall without dovht perish everlastingly — his condemnation be- ing rather increased by his baptismal privilege." We suppose of course, "all his sins, original and actual," will then return upon his soul for punishment. On the whole it is obvious that this doctrine of " Bap- tismal Regeneration " is one of those inscrutable mys- teries, like "Apostolic Succession," tactual succession, which none but High Churchmen can fathom. It is a ' washing away of sin, original and actual;" but not- 92 High Chuech Episcopacy. withstanding " original sin " so remains " that the per- son will always by his own fault fall again into sin, his conscience be defiled, &c." It is " baptismal purity ;" " the baptized are therefore in fact regenerate," " born of God." They thus become " the children of God " — but they may to-morrow become the children of the devil. And this process back and forth may go on for an indefinite number of times. " Kegeneration," again, " cannot be repeated, except by repeating baptism " — but " this would be sacrilege." " Regeneration and re- mission of sins " do accompany baptism ; but notwith- standing, in no case of baptism can we know whether the subject is regenerate or not, until he prove it by the fruits of holiness. Nay, except by the fruits, we cannot even form any judgment respecting it ! " The Holy Spirit gives new life at baptism," and that " by his im- mediate agency " — but the recipient of this " baptismal privilege and purity" often "falls into sin, in which if he die, his condemnation is not avoided, but rather in- creased." "Whether " all the sins, original and actual," washed away in the baptism of an adult, are again charged upon him when he falls from grace and per- ishes, is a curious question not cleared up by High Churchmen. " Baptismal regeneration," therefore, like the magi- cal influence which has streamed through eighteen centuries from the fingers of Popes and bishops in ordination, is a certain vague, undefined and undefinable quiddity, to which it is difficult to give " a local habita- tion," or even an intelligible " name." We fully be- lieve that true believers may fall for a time into griev- ous sins, and thus incur the divine displeasure; but they will be " visited with stripes " and brought out of that state before death. We also teach that if left to themselves, even those who are " regenerated by the Holy Spirit " would fall and perish. But can it be true that those who have been made " the children of God," " heirs of salvation," received " the remission of sins " — whom " God hath accepted in the Beloved " and " be- gotten to a lively hope," and who are " purchased with the precious blood of Christ, as of a Lamb slain " — that True Doctrine of the New Birth. 93 this class of persons " do often fall into sin," " their con- science again defiled," and their condemnation rather increased by " baptismal purity and privilege !" Every true Christian is one of Christ's " sheep who hear his voice and follow him," He says, " I know them." But to the lost he will say, " Depart, ye cursed, I never knew you." High Churchmen would add to the sen- tence of some of them — " except that I regenerated you in holy baptism !" Genuine believers are " kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation." " I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not de- part from me." " If any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever." " He is able to save to the uttermost " — " BECAUSE He ever liveth to make intercession for them " — " and him the Father heareth always." He prays, that " they may be with me where I am." " Holy Father, keep through thine own name, those whom thou hast given me." These are but specimens of the texts which prove that whom God regenerates, he justifies and glorifies. Well may Paul exclaim, " Who shall separate us from the love of God ?" Dr. Hook utterly repudiates the Calviuistic doctrine of the new birth, "as the first influx of irresistible and indefectible grace, that cannot be repelled by its subject, and which must issue in salvation." " Of such grace," he says, " our church knows nothing." But it is very obvious that by using such terms as " irresistible," " in- defectible," " cannot," " must," he intended to make our doctrine look as odious as possible. It will appear, however, that he does not understand the subject. We will try to make it plain. We teach that when \t pleases God, according to his purpose and grace, to perform for any soul the work which Dr. H. calls " conversion " — i. e., " a change of heart and life from sin to holiness" — HE CAN DO IT. " He Can work in that soul both to will and to do of his good pleasure." This is " irresistible " grace. We concede that the corrupt nature often does greatly resist and grieve the Spirit of God by endeavors to drive away convictions of sin, &c. But if, as in the case of Saul of Tarsus, it is the good pleasure of God to translate him from darkness to light, he is able to over- 94 High Church Episcopacy. come, by his Spirit and grace, all resistance. Dr. Hook, and High Churchmen generally, we suppose, take the opi)osite view, i. e., that God tries, but cannot convert some souls — he is often frustrated and defeated in his efforts at conversion ! Now if this be true, what infinite folly to pray God to do what, in very many cases, he cannot do ! Better pray to the sinner to consent to be converted — then all would be easy. Thus much for " irresistible grace." As to " indefectible grace " — we believe that when the most wise and mei-ciful God, by his Spirit, has thus at the infinite expense of the death of his Son, made per- sons " new creatures in Christ Jesus," and they have become of the number of his "sheep" — it also follows, as Christ himself declares, " they shall never perish, nei- ther shall any pluck them out of my hand." But our limits will not allow us to pursue this topic farther. The passage of Holy Writ which seems most to favor the High 'Church doctrine of " baptismal regenera- tion," is Titus 3:5. " According to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost." " The washing of regeneration " is inter- preted to mean regeneration by baptism. Dr. Scott, an Episcopalian, comments thus: " The washing of regen- eration is that new birth of the Spirit of which ' the laver ' of baptism was the sacramental sign, but nothing more." Admitting, for argument, an allusion to baptism, the two forms of phraseology seem plainly to mean the same thing, i. e., the new birth by the Holy Spirit. But the text no more proves a spiritual birth to be inseparable from baptism, than Psalm 51 : 7 proves a spiritual birth to be inseparable from " the sprinkling with hyssop." David says, "Purge me with hyssop and I shall be clean ; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow :" a Hebrew parallelism, both clauses having the same meaning, though the hyssop refers to a ceremonial act. So " the washing of regeneration " and " the renewing of the Holy Ghost," clearly indicate the same great change, only expressed in diflTerent terms. The idea of an inseparable connection between baptism and "the new birth" is not so much as hinted at. For Paul, The English Burial Service. 95 doubtless, had not forgotten such cases as that of the baptized Simon Magus, whom Peter pronounced to be " in the gall of bitterness and bonds of iniquity" — who "had neither part nor lot in the matter," "his heart Ijeing not right in the sight of God." And now, what Christian heart but must shudder in contemplating the Rev. Dr. Hook and other English clergymen, repeating " the Burial Service " over an adult whose " sins original and actual had been washed away in baptism," but who " has fallen into sin," and die? in secret vice, " his condemnation," as he admits, " being increased by his baptismal privilege." Dr. H. quotes the rubi-ic of the Prayer Book thus : " The office is not to be used for any that die unbaptized, or excom- municated, or have laid violent hands upon them- selves." " All other persons," he adds, '' that die in the communion of the visible church, are capable of these rites of Christian burial." So in the case of the wicked person supposed : the doctor takes his " Prayer Book " and says : " It hath pleased Almighty God, of his great mercy, to take unto himself the soul of our dear departed brother." * * * " We commit his body to the ground 171 sure and certain hope of eternal life, &c." " We give thee hearty thanks that it hath pleased thee to deliver this our brother out of the miseries of this sinful world." And in the Collect, he prays, "That we may rest in Him (i. e., Christ,) as our hope is, this our brother doth." If this is not to teach " a strong delusion," what would be? The American editor of the " Church Dictionary " says : " Our Reviewers struck out the words in the Eng- lish Service just after ' we commit his body to the ground,' viz., ' in sure and certain hope of the resurrec- tion to eternal life.' " He adds : " This clause was a great stumbling-block in the way of conscientious cler- gymen of the Church of England." "A great stum- bling-block." That is a very mild expression ! It is the precise gospel of the Old Serpent — " Ye shall not surely die." In thousands of cases it teaches to " be- lieve a lie !" It is not surprising, therefore, that this horrible profaneness was too strong for the digestion of 96 High Chuech Episcopacy. the " American Keviewers of the Book of Common Prayer." But they have left enough to startle, if not disgust, most " conscientious clergymen," as was before demonstrated. These are curious illustrations of Dr. "Van Deusen's " best method " of promoting " morality and religion I" As to the other sacrament, the Lord's Supper, Episco- pal usages are not much better. Dr. Aydelott, who was an Episcopal priest at one time, says that he himself was admitted to the communion by one of the most dis- tinguished Episcopal ministers, without the slightest examination as to his views of the gospel, or his experi- ence of its power. " He might," he adds, " have been not only spiritually dead, but * * * even an infidel, for aught his pastor knew." " Thus so many unconverted men, thoughtless, self-deceived ones, and others still worse, have found their way into the Episcopal church- es." And thus the most sacred ordinances are greatly profaned. In view of the foregoing facts and arguments, it is not surprising that so early as 1689, under the reign of "William and Mary, an effort was made to revise the English Prayer Book. Such men as Bishops Burnet, Stillingfleet and Tillotson were the movers — but it failed ; though the book was the one sanctioned in the reign of the notoriously profligate Charles H, under whom two thousand of the best of the clergy were ex- cluded from their livings, and " of every five churches in England, one was vacant " — as Archdeacon Den- nison testifies. In 1785, the first General Convention of the Episco- pal Church in this country, under the lead of the excel- lent Bishop "White, undertook a revision, so far as to adapt the Prayer Book to their evangelical views. " They expunged," as Bishop Cummins states the facts, " from the English Prayer Book those Articles which contained the words 'baptismal regeneration,' 'priest,' and ' declaration of absolution,' instead of which were substituted the words ' declaration concerning the for- giveness of sin ;' also, expunging the words in the Apos- tles' Creed, ' He descendeth into hell,' for which words Reformed Episcopal Church. 97 there is no authority in the word of God, and which were never used during the first four hundred or five hundred years of the existence of the church. The prayer in behalf of all bishops, priests and deacons, meaning of the Episcopal Church, was changed so as to embrace ' all bishops and other pastors.' The Prayer Book was unanimously recommended by the Conven- tion to all Episcopal ministers, and was used by them for four years, having been first read by Bishop White in old Christ church, in Third street, Philadelphia." This revised edition, commonly called "The Bishop White Prayer Book," was condemned by the Conven- tion of 1789, through the influence of Bishop Seabury. The same Convention inserted a recognition of the doc- trine of oblation (or sacrifice) in the service of the Lord's Supper. Bishop White did not believe in the divine right of apostolic succession ; he only recognized the Episcopal system as an ancient and desirable form of church polity. This was of course very wrong, in the judgment of High Churchism. The struggle which has long agitated the Episcopal Church in America, has at length issued in the organi- zation of " the Reformed Episcopal Church." In a re- cent discourse, Bishop Cummins, who was the first to secede, has stated the basis of this movement. After informing his audience " how sorely he had often been tried when discharging his duties as a bishop by having to join in ceremonies of which he did not approve, and say things with which he could have no sympathy," he went on thus : " The Reformed Church adopts the Bish- op White Prayer Book, and it aims not to destroy but to conserve the old faith of the Protestant Episcopal Church, and firmly holds to that authority of religion which recognizes a fellowship between all ministers of God's gospel, no matter of what denomination. It ex- cises from its liturgy the very name of priest, and dis- countenances the erection of altars in churches, as even more abhorrent than the genuflexions and ceremonies before that altar." The bishop expressed a firm faith in his work, and said that unless it was of God, it would surely come to naught. 98 High Church Episcopacy. The friends of this movement allege that " all hope of reforming the Episcopal Church while they remained within her pale, was utterly hopeless." In this they are undoubtedly right. It may be proper to add, however, that the argument in this and the previous chapter was completed many months before the origin of " the Re- formed Episcopal Church." We rejoice to have such a confirmation of the logic we have employed. Nor is it the least of the objectionable features of the Prayer Book, that in the ordination of presbyters, mis- called priests, it copies so closely the very terms of the Romish mass book "What an utter disregard of New Testament phraseology in the expression, a Protestant priest! "The order of priesthood!" "The form of ordering priests !" These terms are quite natural and consistent in the Popish church, where, in the mass, the priest pretends to ofier a sacrifice, literally to oflTer the body of Christ upon the altar for the remission of sins. But in a Protestant church it is simply nonsense or something worse. No truth more plainly appears in the New Testament than this, viz., that our blessed Lord is the only, ever-living and all-sufiicient Priest of his church, and that she needs no other. His sacrifice once offered, once for all, forever excludes all others by men or angels. This doctrine is largely demonstrated in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the opposite doctrine is both anti-scriptural and impious ; because it exalts man into the place of the Divine Saviour, "who bore our sins in his own body on the tree," and is our intercessor in heaven. Where have Christ and his apostles called the ministers of the word priests or given them " a sacerdo- tal function ?" This should suffice. Agreeably to this gross departure from New Testa- ment usage, these priests are endowed with the power to practise a kind of Popish "confessional." Thus, in their ordination, the bishop uses this language: "Re- ceive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a priest in the church of God, now committed to thee by the imposition of our hands. Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven ; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained." (There is here an alternate form allowed, High Church Altars and Confessional. 99 but a majority of the bishops use the form here given.) So also, in the stated services of the church, there is a "declaration of absolution or remission of sins, to be made by the priest alone, standing : the people kneeling." But if there be a priest, it is quite natural that he should have an altar. And here it is. When the bishop is about to form a pastoral relation between one of the priests and a congregation, the terms " altar," " sacerdo- tal relation," " sacerdotal connection," are freely used, and the new pastor is made to say the following prayer : " Thou hast honored thy servant with appointing him to stand in thy house and to serve at thy altar, &c." We have not the Romish mass-book at hand, but there can hardly be a doubt that this was the original, from which the Prayer Book is a pretty close copy. Protest- ant Christianity repudiates all such conformity to Jew- ish rites — all such apeing of Popisli mummery. Let any person of sense apply such forms to the original institution of " the Lord's supper," a phrase which the Prayer Book has not expunged. Read the record, Matt. 26 : 20-28. " Jesus sat down with the twelve," viz., to eat the passover, " and as they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed and brake it," &c. Where was the altar in this case ? Did our great High- Priest offer any sacrifice, bloody or unbloody, in the institution ? Did he take himself, the only victim, into his own hands, and offer himself by handing his whole body round to be eaten by each of the twelve ? So when the inspired Paul uses the phraseology, " eat the Lord's supper," 1 Cor. 11 : 20, can any person of com- mon sense imagine he intended to convey the idea of a sacrifice, a priest, an altar and a victim ? He knew too well the precise language of the adorable Saviour, " This do ye in remembrance of me," " to show forth the Lord's death till he come." But it is proper to inquire, whether Episcopal minis- ters and people have exhibited any great tendency to forsake the true Protestant doctrine in regard to the functions of the clergy and adopt the corrupt interpre- tation of the Roman apostasy ? In reply we quote the words of Rev. Mr. Latane, formerly Episcopal Rector 100 High Church Episcopacy. of a church in "Wheeling, now of the " Reformed Epis- copal Church," " that many (of the Episcopal priests) have come to look upon themselves, and their people to regard them, as really priests, their office as a priestly office, and the Lord's supper as a sacrifice, the Lord's body and blood being in some form offered in that sac- rifice." "Can -we wonder," he adds, "that the doc- trine and practice of priestly confession and absolution should claim a rightful place in the (Episcopal) Church." The same able writer, who, impelled by a sense of duty, "has withdrawn from the Protestant Episcopal ministry," in his letter to Bishop Johns, announcing the fact, makes the following startling statements : In 1869, alarmed by certain corrupt innovations in doctrine and usage, nine bishops met in New York to confer together as to what was to be done to avert the impending dan- ger. They simply asked for some changes in the liturgy, or an insertion of some alternate phrases, where the most objectionable anti-protestant language was em- ployed. What was the result? "Their propositions were fairly scouted," and Bishop Potter, of New York, issued a pastoral letter, predicting the certain "judg- ment of the General Convention," " that the movement will end in a mortifying discomfiture," and that " very nearly the whole church will stand amazed that any respectable body of churchmen, not to say bishops, could have been found to give their countenance to such propositions," and that " it is indeed astonishing that they did not see that the thing to which they were urged to give their countenance was an absolute impossibility." Bishop Potter was a true witness in this matter of the nine bishops. And so confident was he that his High Church brethren were of the same mind with himself, that, to use Mr, Latane's language, " he boldly threatens them, that whenever such revision of the Prayer Book shall take place, then, if two-thirds of the bishops and three-fourths of the dioceses may be expected to act according to their principles," it would result in such changes (and he distinctly specifies them,) as would make the Prayer Book teach unmistakably the doctrine of the presence of our Lord's body and blood, " verily and indeed," in the Lord's supper." The Clay and the Potter. lUl The Bishop of New York felt that he was master of the situation, and in the spirit of Pope Pius seems to regard the Episcopal Church as so much " clay in the hands of the potter." The chief alteration desired by the " nine bishops," according to Mr. Latane, was this : "that any minister who desired it, might be allowed to omit from the service that single clause which makes him seem to declare of every infant, after he has bap- tized it, that the child is now regenerated with God's Holy Spirit." Well, this seems reasonable enough to those of us who are mere lookers on. But not so my Lord Bishop. He tells these Low Church men to BEWARE, lest they arouse into action "the principles of two-thirds of the bishops." And, then, what would en- sue? Why such a revision of the Prayer Book as would make it teach " unminlakably the doctrine of priestly absolution " and the actual bodily presence of our Lord in the Eucharist ; of course his whole body being pre- sent in a thousand different churches and countries and in hea;ven too, at the same moment ! This jjrelate seemed to think that " two-thirds of the bishops and three-fourths of the dioceses" would work wonders, if once provoked ! Li view of such developments us these, every oue can judge for himself whether "the Prayer Book " be not a fertile soil for the germination of many of the worst superstitious of ajjostate Rome. What became of the petition of the " nine bishops," when brought to the notice of the General Convention, may be told hereafter. 10 102 Hifiii Chukch Episcopacy. CHAPTER VIII. DIFFICULTIES OF THE PRELATICAL SCHEME OF CHURCH GOVERNMEXT DR. TAN DEUSEN's THREE MODES — VIEWS OF THE ENGLLSH REFORMERS ANI> CERTAIN MODERN DIGNITARIES. From the doctrinal discussion we now turn to the con- stitution of the ministry and mode of church govern- ment according to the Prelatical scheme. "Christ," says the Rector, " prescribed one mode for the salvation of men (i. e., the Episcopal Church), * * * * the true and divine way." "Men," he adds, "are the advocates of a variety of systems, * * * human schemes." Amid "all these iiuiltiplied forms," he informs us, "there are three disiimt systems, viz., the Romish, the Denominational, and the Episcopal or church system."* But to this classification, we as non-Episcopalians do most seriously object, for several reasons. First. It IB altogether at fault in regard to strid logical prei-ixinn.. Why does "the Rector" separate "the Romish" fri>ni "the KpiFcopal system," while at the same time confoiindiuu- ill heterogeneous mass Preshyterianism with the lowest forms of lievesy and fanaticism? "Wliat an outrage upon all rules ')f logical order, to say nothing of Christian courtesy and comuuin decency, to throw to- gether and assail e/i ina'^^e af one " system" (viz., ''de- nominationalism"\ tlie tlecent, orderly teachings and worship of Baptists, Presbyterians, Dutch Reformed and others, in common with the fanaticism of Shakerism and the licentiousness of Universalism ? Suppose we should denounce and hold up topublic abhorrence his " church system," which all know to be Prelacy, viz., by charging * Cb. in Eep., p. 106. High C'htjECH OJrrRAfeE. upon the Episcopal Chui-ch all the monstrous idolatries, ludicrous legends, hateful impieties and moral corrup- tions of the Romish Church ! Episcopacy and Popery- are both prelatical systems — and there would be no greater injustice, to say tiie least, in holding the " Rec- tor's church system" responsible for all the abominations of " the man of sin," than to class Presbyterians with the lowest grades of heretics and fanatics! And so when one of his authorities speaks of all denominations but his own (and perhaps Popery) as " the apostate sects" — when in denouncing Sectarism, he asks, " did you ever hear a Mormon sermon" — and when he in- cludes what he calls " the Deistic Campbellite," " the Latter Day Saints," " the Come Outers,"* &c., in the same apostate category, as specimens of the "denominational system" — we presume Dr. Van Deusen sees in all this greai accuracy of discrimination and rigid analysis ! But to his perception, to class such prelatical schemes as Popery and High Churchism together, would be confounding things totally distinct ! ! We do not wish to be con- sidered as uttering any complaint of such treatment. The " Rector" and his aids are thus doing essential ser- vice to the cause of truth. They are directing upon themselves the argurnentum ad absurdum. Again, " the Rector" hiimelf furnishes another conclusive objection to his threefold arrangement nf " systems." He acknowledges that those wlio adopt " promiuent peculiarities of the denominational systems," " have done most valuable service!" How so? He answers: ''In maintaining many great and fundamental principles, we acknowledge their influence and power — in opposing the overflowings of ungodliness— in zeal, labors, and sacrifices, they have furnished bright examples to their fellow Christians of all names. "f Not so bad for " the apostate sects !" Much more of the same description appears in the same volume as quoted in part in our introductoiy chapter. But will Dr. Van D. pretend that it is a fair, candid classification of sects, by which he gives part of this l)raise to Mormonism, Shakerism, Universalism, er to ascertain in the first place, what are the precise views of High Churchism on this topic. Christianily in Eepnb., p. 91. + Tbid. DOCTP.INK OF ThUKE OliDERS. 105 111 the preface to the several forms of ordiuation iu the Prayer Book, we read: " It is cvidcut * * that from the Apostles' time there have beeu three orders of minis- ters iu Ciirist's ehurcii, l)ishops, priests aud dca(.'0us." And iu the ordination of those several grades of the cK rLiv, AIniiLibfy God is rlnve limes addressed as haviug " a;i|Miiit>'d ///r/ /-x iii' ministers in his ehureh" — 1 III- drjcons " hy his proxideiiee," aud the priests aud '■-hops " by his Holy Spirit." The bishop ordaius the acou once, aud then he has authority to preach aud iiaptize — he ordaius the same deaeou again, aud then he is a /jriesi, with authority (from " the Holy Spirit") to preach and administer both sacraments : iu counection with other bishops, he ordaius the same priest a third time, aud now he too is a bishop complete, preaches, ailiniuisters the sacraments, ordaius deacous and priests, who with their congregations are required "reverently to obey " him, &c., &c. Snch is the Episcopal hierarchy of I his country. It is hidd by all classes of Protestant 'Episcopalians, but with various shades of iuteusity, — ! ■ deepest and darkest dye being that of High Church- -m. Presbyterians and other churches, ou the coutrary, maintain that this notion of " divers orders" of minis- ters is uuscriptural, a mere human invention. We hold rhat there is but oue order aud office of the ministry ap- liuted by Christ, aud we think the Prelatical theory [tended with insuperable objections. 1. The definition of " the visible church of Christ," HI the 19th Article, is " a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure word of God is preached and the sacraments duly administered according to Christ's or- dinance in all tliose things that of necessity are requisite to the same." Hence arises the inquiry. Can there be any such " visible cougregatiou or company of be- lievers," with " the pr^aahiug of the pure word aud the sacraments duly administered," which does not recog- nise " the three orders of ministers ?" The High Churchman answers in the negative. Thus, Dr. Van Deuiea: "How shall we gain tlie divine reconciliation, peace of mind, * * triumpli iu death and bliss in eternity, if we refuse to enter the commuuion aud fel- High Chitkch Episcopacy. lowship of Christ and his Apostles ?" " These," he adds, " are essential divine relations, and each must labor to keep them pure, * * * * or gain no final admis- sion to the general assembly and church of the first born, which are written in heaven." This Episcopal organization, he affirms, is Christ's " one body," " the one mode prescribed for the salvation of men."* In the same strain speaks Bishop Hobart: "Where the gospel is preached, communion \vith the church by the participation of its ordinances at the hands of the duly authorized priesthood (the three "orders,") is the indvipensable condition of salvation." And Bishop Doane says of the Pilgrim fathers, "They went from here (England) * * * without a c/;urcA, without a litur- gy, with no transmitted authority from God to minister in holy things." " I entreat all," he adds, "not to be con- tent * * without that ministry and those sacraments which are equally his ordinance and equally essential TO SALVATION." Such is High Church Episcopacy! We cheerfully acknowledge, however, that there is a large, respectable, laborious, and useful body of the clergy of the Episco- pal denomination, who can adopt the language of Bishop McUvaine of Ohio. " Should he ( the bishop) offer hfs Christian brethren of other churches (he does not say scct^f) no better consolation than ' uncovenanted mercy, he would t*hink their souls utterly without hope." " H. knows of no such mercies." " With all his heart h^ can carry to them as beloved brethren in Christ, the over- flowing cup of blessing, &c., &c."f But Bishop Mcll vaine and all who sympathized witli him, were regarded by some High Churchmen with supreme contempt. Theirs is " a high low and low high church Episcopacy," the only thing preventing our fraternization with the sects," " a batch of Puritans," " combining with the dissenter, the profane, the lawless and the infidel," "apologizing Chriookitig for the Charch," with copyright by "the General Prot. Episcop, Sunday School Union." t See his charge, in Bricknell's Judgnaent, &e. Van Deusen, Mines and others seem to have far outatiipped sueh ministers as Dean Pearson, Bishop Musgrave and otliers. 108 High Chukch Episcopacy. that those who do not receive them from meu so ac- credited and appointed to minister * * * * * therefore injieriloj their salcation CLud left to the uncov- enantcd mercies of God, which may be to them no mer- cies at all." " To spread this notion," the bishop sav.-, "would he to make ourselves the dekision of Tin: WORLD." "Our Reforiucrs," he adds, " dLstiaguisli 1). tweeu what is essential to the being and what is essential to the well-being of a church — a wise distinction, which good sense and Christian charity should lead us all ever to keep in sight."* In illustration of these sentiments, how refreshing the letters of Edward VI, Cranmer, Jewel, Hooper, and others of the noble company who founded the English Establishment. In addressing such persons as Calvin, Bucer, EuUiuger and the non-Epis- copal churches of the continent, do they denounce them as " schismatics," "apostate sects," &c. &c.? No ! They are their " very dear brethren," " much esteemed fathers in Christ," "learned and godly men," "most illustrious meu, to whom we are much indebted for your piety," &c. And even the great Queen (Elizabeth) writing to the Cantons of Switzerland, speaks of "the more pure religion which they (the Cantons) profess," and "as professing the same religion."! And to crown the whole, the present Archbishop of Canterbury speaks of " the respectable ministers of the orthodox congregations of Dissenters" (apostate sects!), and he says that "these terms belong to many pious and good men '."X So the Bishop of Chester says, " Perhaps it is too much to expect ***** that THE CHURCH OF Christ should ^er be a seamless coat ;" that all " the congregations of faithful meu * * * should think alike and agree unanimously upon such subjects as diocesan Episcopacy, infant baptism, liturgical forms or a national establish- ment." To put the meaning of these statements beyond the ■•'See Ills charge, in "Bricknell's Judgment of the Bishops," p. 320. t Tliesc letters are publishc 1 iu England by the Parker Socie- ty, from the original manuscripts. X Charge, 1840. Views of Exgltsii Btsiiops. 109 possibility of cavil or doubt, the Bishop of Chester adds : "The comfort and peace ot the Christian worhl would l>c (greatly increased, if it were coiniiionly undcivtood tliat the u))Hi/ irliich the Scrij/tiin s ,1, ni'iinl wci-c tlic unity of tliose who hold alike Me r/yv,,/ ,lo,lrii, rs ui' ( hristian truth, Init consent to (Hjf'cr on matters concerning which Scripture does not carry determinate conviction to every honest mind."* Sucli were undoubtedly the large and liberal views of all tlie Icadinu- Reformers of the 16th century, as they are now of s(jrae of the most eminent of the P]nglish dignitaries. The notion that " ir'dhovt a bisJtop tli/'re can- iKit c.risf lun/ church, * * * =^ vo, W't so much as in inline," f was the afterthought of "the school of Laud," of which tlie distinguished liistoriau, Hallam, writes as follows: " A characteristic tenet of tins party was that J-^/iiscopnl ffoverniucnt Is uuVixpcnsuhhj requisite to a Chris- tian church. Hence they treated the Presbyterians with insolence abroad and severity at home."| Among "the petty superstitions introduced or countenanced by Lnud," ilnllam enumerates pictures, communion altars, cruci- h.-vcs, gaudy dresses of priests, the real presence, invocation of saints, prayers for the dead, auricular confession, &c., kv. It was fitting that the exclusive High Church dogmas siiould originate in the English establishment under an unmitigated tyrant (Charles I ) as "the head of the church," and with an archbishoj) and primate of " riiirrow uiiilcrMandiiif/, and who, of all the prelates, d (parted firlhcst from the principles of reformation and had drawn nearest to Rome."§ Even Bishop Short, as we have seen, has no apology for such a creature as J/iud, of whom it is well known that he was a close ob- server and diligent student of his own dreams and other supi^osed o»(cu.*. The I'oundcrs of the Anglican Church, of the previous century, were dead. A Papist at heart, Laud was of coui-se tlie antipodes of such men as Cran- * See his charge, 1841. t The Oxford Tract party add — "nor any Christian man, no, not so much as in name." Briti-^h Critic, April, 1842. J Constitutional Hist, of England, vol. 1, chap. 8. 'i Macaiilay, Tlist. of Eng., chapter 1. no High Cnx-iicH t-piscoPAcr- mer, Ridley, Jewel, and their noble associates. " They had retained Episcopacy," says Macaulay, " but they did not declare it to be essential to the welfare of a Chris- tian society or to the efficacy of the sacraments. Cran- mer, indeed, on one important occasion, plainly avowed," says Macaulay, " liis coTiviction that in the primitive time there wa.s- no disti nctiuti h' tn een bishops and priest?." "Archbisho]) Grindal loiiu hesitated," adds the eloquent historian, " about accei)ting the Episcopal office, from dislike of what he regarded as tiie munimei-y of consecra- tion. Bishop Parkhurst uttered a fervent prayer that the Church of England would propose to herself the (non- Episcopal) Church of Zurich, ( "apostate sect T'^a- the absolute pattern of a Christian community. Bisho]) Ponet was of opinion that the word bishop should be abandoned to Papists, and that the chief officers of the purified church should be called superintendents.'"* Thus history adds her testimony, that High Churchism is a bald innovation upon the original constitution of the Church of England. "There were giants in the earth in those days" — and we may readily conceive the wondei-ment which Cran- mer. Hooper, Griu'lal and their associates would have felt, had some aspiring stripling attempted to enlighten their ignorance in the following style: Gentlemen, you are sadly deficient in the knowledge both of Scripture and antiquity, especially of the divine right of Episco- pacy as established by Christ and the Apostles. Permit nic to inform yuu, "the Christian would reposed for at least f//;-c. n ii/irok'-n centuries of primitive piety, mira- cle and martyrdom, under the undisputed watch and rule of the Episcopacy."! Of course it originated with the Redeemer and his immediate successors ! " Did you, gentlemen," exclaims another zealous High Church- * Macaulay's Hist, of Eng., chap. 1. As a matter of fact and of history, it is notorious las Bishop Burnet has recorded,) that tlie nineteenth article of the Church of England was expressly inserted in order to embrace and recognize non-Episcopal and Episcopal ciiurches, and among tliese the Presbyterian Church of Scotland. t Clergyman Looking, &c , p. 341. A Bishop in evkky Town. Ill man,* "did ?/oit say that the (non-Episcopal) Church of Zurich was the absolute tattern of a Christian com- munity ?" What a piece of inexcusable rashness ! " In- quire for the Church of the Apostles" — " that which Christ himself instituted and prescribed" — " and which was generally faithfully adhered to for the first three centuries of the Christian era." "How could you afBrni," adds a half fledged convert to High Churchism, that "in primitive times there was no distinction between bishops and priests f" What inexcusable ignorance ! " Episcopacy existed wherever the church existed." "In that age of truth and danger, there was in every city and island and town, one and one only who was known as the chief pastor or bishop of the place. "f Just at this point Archbishop Cranmer happens to recall to mind the text, Philip. 1 : 1 — " Paul and Timo- theus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints which are at Philippi, with the BTSiiors and deacons." Also Paul's direction to Titus — " I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest * * * ordain elders (Greek, 'pres- byters') in every city"—" for a bishop must be blameless, &c." Titus 1:5,7. " These presbyters," argues Cran- mer, " were obviously in Apostolic phrase, real bishops. But were they diocesan or prelatical bishops ?" Are the bishops of the States of Pennsylvania, of New York and of Virginia such 'bishops as these?' Did every city, island and toicn" form a separate diocese for such a bishop as these modern prelates ? Surely the dioceses must liave been very contracted in the Apostolic day ! But we have extended this historical view of the sul)- ject as far as our limits permit. The difficulties which beset the High Church theory are fully expressed by the prince of historians, Neander. " I can discover," he says, " no other difference between the terms presbideroi and episcopoi in the Apostolic age, than that the first signifies rank, the second the duties of the office. This name of presbyter," he adds, " by which this office was first distinguished, was transierred from the Jewish synagogue to the Christian church."| From this it * Mr. Van Deusen's " Cliristianity in the Kepublic," j.p. 104, 91. t Clergyman Looking, &c., p. 341. t Planting of Christianity, vol. 1, p. 167. 112 High Chukch Eiu.scui'acy. appears the title of dignity was presbyter, the name of labor and toil was bishop. We open the Scriptures to verify these statements, which are diametrically opposed to the Episcopal scheme. But will some High Church- man resolve us this question, viz.. If every city and town in Pennsylvania were favored with a prelatical bishop of the modern sort, how many would the State require? The Diocese of Pittsburgh, for example, contaiusover tifty parishes or churches, of which only ten have more than one hundred communicants and twenty-four less than fifty — one of them, that of the town of Indiana, reports only nine ! These parishes are almost without exception located in the cities and towns, and of course they would require about fifty bishops, provided they wei'e of the sort which belonged to " the first three cen- turies !" A bishop of nine, or as in two other parishes, a bishop of fourteen communicants, would be a modern curiosity. But we propose to examine with some care the extent of primitive dioceses in a future chapter. As to the state of matters m the two other dioceses of Penn- sylvania, our State being favored with only three diocesan bishops, the Church Almanac for 1874 furnishes similar facts, as it is our authority for " the Diocese of Pitts- burgh." Teaching of the New Testament. 113 CHAPTER IX. THE THEORY OF THREE ORDERS OF MINISTERS — THE NEW TESTAMENT SAYS, " IT IS NOT IN ME." In obedience to the couusel of the " Rector," we now proceed "to inquire for the church of the Apostles." Did our blessed Lord direct the apostles to establish in the church "three orders of ministers?" Did they clear- ly teach that, exce^jt in "fellowship" with these "divers orders," there is " no communion with Christ," " no divine reconciliation," " no triumph in death," " no bliss in eternity," for the plain reason that " these are essential divine relations?"* If it be so, they surely have not left us in the dark on the subject. I. Our first objection arises from a comparison of this topic, as it is said to be revealed in the Scriptures, with other acknowledged "essentials" of genuine piety. Faith is universally acknowledged to be one of these essentials. But mark how plain and oft-repeated is its necessity, as taught by inspired men.f Repentance and regeneration are essential to Christian character; and again how obvious the teaching of Christ and his apos- tles ! Holiness is one of those requisites " without which no man shall see the Lord." Is there room for any honest mind to frame a doubt on the subject? Now, if the inspired apostles, to say nothing of their Master, " (who may be regarded as only preparing the way for the foundation of the true church organization), if the apostles, like modern High Churchmen, had considered * Christianity in the Eepub., pp. 25, 26. t The term failh is used between two and three hundred times in the Scriptures, and in a majority of these instances it proba- bly means the saving grace of faith. A similar statement is true of repentance. 11 114 High Church Episcopacy. " the three orders " as essential to the very existence of the church, or even to its jjerfection, that doctrine would no doubt have held a similar prominence in the New Testament. Would a God of infinite goodness and wisdom have left in great obscurity that which he knew to be essential to all the privileges and hopes of perishing men ? To give additional force to this reasoning, we have only to call to mind that it is not only the ignorant and superficial who find great embarrassment in searching the Scriptures for High Church doctrine, but as was shown in our last chapter, the founders, and decided friends of the English hierarchy, men eminent for learning and piety, and even profound historians who have spent a long life in the study of the subject. On the other essentials of salvation there is great harmony. " Thus," says the Bishop of Llandafi", in one of his charges, "they (non-Episcopalians) interpret the Scriptures in the main, nearly in the same maimer with ourselves, bidding their hearers look ta the same means of salvation," &c.; " they have much more in common with us — I do not hesitate to say it — than of diflerence from us."* All is plain to non-Episcopalians, it seems, until they begin to inquire for "the three orders:" then darkness shrouds their minds ! It was some such strange predica- ment as this that drove the Oxford Tractarians to say : "The gosjyel viessage is but indirectly and covertly re- corded in Scripture under the surface !"\ If these high- est of all High Churchmen held this to be true of "the gospel message," much more must it be true of the theory of prelacy ! But says the Bishop of London, " Our single ultimate reference is to the m-itten word of God, which we believe to contain all truths, a knowledge whereof is necessai-y to salvation, and so to contain them that by the diligent use of the ordinary means and with * See Bricknell, p, 336. t Tract 85, p. 27. Article 17 of the Prayer Book, however, gays, " Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salva- tion ; so that whatsoever * * may not be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of faith, or thought necessary to salvation." Episcopal Concessions. 115 jirayer for God's eulighteaing grace, they (all necessary truths) may be certainly discovered therein." Can this be truly said of High Church prelacy ? " This absolute completeness of the Holy Scriptures," continues the bishop, " as the source and proof of our faith, I hold to be a vital doctrine of our Reformed church."* But were not Cranmer and his associates men of prayer? Did they not seek "God's enlightening grace?" Have not hundreds of Low Churchmen, profound historians, learned divines, both in and out of the Church of Eng- land, since their day, been capable of rightly "using the ordinary means ?" Yet they assure us they discover no such truth as High Churchmen affirm to be " essential and necessary to salvation," and without which there can be " no church, no valid ordinances, no covenanted hope of mercy," " no triumph in death, no bliss in eternity." II. " Inquire for the church of the Apostles," says Dr. Van Deusen. Agreed. But here we are met by the assurances of some of your most learned authors, that in looking for prelacy in the writings of those in- spired men, our labor is necessarily in vain ! " The learned High Churchman Dodwell, and those who agree with him, concede that prelacy (or ' the three orders ') is not taught in the New Testament, because it did not exist until after the commencement of the second cen- tury."-\ But if this be true, then it is not of divine origin and authority, but a human invention. Let it not be said that manifest traces of the existence of " three orders of ministers " appear very soon after the close of the sacred canon. Admit it for argument sake ; but in 1 Cor., 11th chapter, we find Paul severely re- buking the church of Corinth for converting the Lord's supper into a profane debauch, "one is hungry and another is drunken." And we have historical proof that other corruptions quite as unlikely to exist, quite as certain to arouse resistance, did very early gain preva- lence, certainly before the end of the second century, and why not distinct traces of this prelatical figment of clerical ambition? Under the very eyes of the apostles * Charge, 1842. t Bib. Eepertory, No. 1, 1830. 116 High Church Episcopacy. themselves, there were those who " loved to have the pre-eminence, as Diotrophes!" High Churchmen agree with us that before the death of Paul, " the man of sin and the mystery of iniquity did already work." In its milder forms it developed itself in prelacy, its perfect stature was popery. That true piety had sadly declined and the "love of many waxed cold," very soon after the decease of the last apostle, is admitted by Milner, the Episcopal historian : " A gloomy cloud," he tells us, "hung over the conclusion of the first century!" and when he reaches the termination of the second, his language is far more emphatic : " A dark shade is enveloping these divme glories. The Spirit of God is grieved already by the ambitious intrusions of self-righteousness, argumenta- tive refinements and pharisaical pride."* Here was the fruitful soil from which sprung a crop of deadly cor- ruptions, shooting up fast into prelacy and ripening at length into papal supremacy with all its dark abomina- tions. " Inquire for the church of the Apostles ;" but Archbishop Whately says, as the result of his inquiries, " Successors of the apostles' office the apostles have none," " but ****** their successors are the law- fully ordained ministers, the regular and recognized o-overnors of a regular subsisting Christian church." And the judicious Hooker adds: "There may some- times be very just and sufficient reason to allow ordina- tion made without a bishop." Archbishop Cranmer also says : " The bishops and priests were at gpe time and were no two things, but both one office in the begin- ning of Christ's religion." These learned dignitaries " inquired for the church of the Apostles," and such were the results. III. These considerations prepare the way for a closer inspection of the sacred Record. Is it within the limits of probability that any unprejudiced person, especially one who had never heard of the prelatical controversy, would gather from the New Testament such a scheme as that of "the three orders?" The Milners, historians high in repute in the Church of England, one of them * Ch. Hist., vol. 1, pp. 85, 137. Usher's Reduced Episcopacy. 117 " President of Queen's College, Cambridge," refer to those remarkable and oft-quoted texts, Philip. 1 : 1 and Acts 20: 17, 28— "Paul and Timotheus * * to the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons." "And from Miletus he (Paul) sent to Ephesus and called the elders (Greek, presby- ters) of the church. * * * Take heed unto your- selves and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers " (Greek, episkopous, i. e. bish- ops), "to feed the church of God." Here then were " the bishops of the city of Philippi," several of them ; and "the presbyters (or elders) of Ephesus," whom Paul calls " bishops " over that church. In commenting on these passages, Milner says : " In vain, I think, will almost any church set up a claim to exact resemblance." Then after commending "Usher's model of reduced Episcopacy as coming nearest to the primitive plan," ( very redvxied it must have been to have several bishops in one city!) he adds, "At first, indeed, or for some time, church governors were only of two ranks, presby- ters and deacons (no ' three orders '), at least this ap- pears to have been the case in particular instances, as at Philippi and Ephesus; and the term bishop was con- founded with that of presbyter. The church of Corinth continued long in this state," &c.* These are important concessions. In the writings of inspired men observe, " the term bishop is confounded with that of presbyter," and "there were only two ranks ('orders') of church governors." But was it not most extraordinary that inspired apostles, supposing them to have adopted the High Church theory, " No bishop, no church," should thus confound things essen- tially distinct, should appoint " only two ranks " (or "orders") of church rulers? The historian then pro- ceeds to state that not till " towards the end of the first century did all the churches follow the model of the mother church of Jerusalem, where the Apostle James was the first bishop," i. e. pastor, as we understand it. " A settled presidency obtained, &c., &c." Again, " It * Vol. I, p. 92. 118 High Church Episcopacy. may perhaps be true," says Milner, "that a reduced Epis- copacy, in which the dioceses are of small extent, as those in the primitive churches undoubtedly were, and in which the president, residing in the metropolis, exercises a superintendency over ten or twelve presbyters of the same city and neighborhood, would bid the fairest to promote order, peace and harmony." And when Mil- ner comes to the third century, he says: "Both at Rome and Carthage, the reduced mode of Episcopacy was the form of ecclesiastical government which gradw- ally prevailed in the Christian world." " The settled president," he adds, " obtained the name angel (or mes- senger), though that of bishop soon succeeded." Thus we have from the pen of learned Episcopal dignitaries, a description of primitive Episcopacy differing in few material points from the moderatorship of the Presby- terian system, except that its incumbent is represented as a permanent officer, while our " president " or moder- ator is elected at stated periods. In the second century, Milner quotes Ignatius, who, he says, " evidently points out three distinct ranks in the primitive chui'ch, the bishops, presbyters and deacons."* But it is denied that these were " three orders of minis- ters." The sophistry lies in the asswnption that prelat- ical and not Presbyterian bishops were intended. The primitive bishop was the pastor of a church. "What though some of these bishops are early spoken of as appointed by the apostles and as the successors of the apostles ? Assuming the doctrine of Presbyterian pari- ty, might not such a statement be just as true of such ministers as of prelates ? What though one man only is represented as presiding at a time in Rome, and in other large and populous cities? So in France at the present time, the Protestant churches, though Presbyterian, have a consistory in each large city or district, embrac- ing a number of pastors, and, in some cases, many thou- sand communicants — and over these they always have one of the senior pastors as " president," who not only occupies the chair at their meetings, but is also the * Vol. 1, p. 92. Strange Perversion of Scripture. 119 prominent organ for receiving all applications, conven- ing all assemblies and conducting all their ecclesiastical affairs. So it has been, in substance, ever since the Reformation. But they have never had prelatical bishops."* Some such Episcopacy as this Milner evi- ilently teaches to have been the primitive or reduced form recommended by Archbishop Usher. But this is a very different affair from modern diocesan Episcopacy. IV. In the light of these facts, what shall we say of the obvious perversion of Scripture practised by Prela- tists, in their form for ordaining modern bishops ? This is a serious charge. We prove it as follows : The term bishop (episcopos) in its personal form, is used only Jive times in the New Testament. Two of these passages ( 1 Tim. 3 : 1 and Acts 20 : 27, 28,) are quoted by the Prayer Book, in " the Form for consecrating a Bishop." Thus, "this is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work, &c." This is read as "the collect," from Scripture, just before the ordination of a modern pi'elatical bishop, with a diocese (it may be) such as the whole State of Pennsylvania! IBut this is extremely absurd, to say the least. Bishop Onderdonk tells us, " the name bishop, which now designates the highest grade of the ministry, is not appropriated to that office in Scripture. The name is there given to the middle order of presbyters; and all that we read in the New Tedavient concerning bishops (including, of course, the w ords overseers and oversight), is to be regarded as per- taining to that middle grade." -\ Now if this be true, what a strange perversion of the word of God, to quote such passages, which Bishop O. admits to pertain only to presbyters or elders, at the ordination of a prer latical or diocesan bishop P How would it be more ab- surd to cite at the ordination of bishops those texts * Bib. Kepertory for 1830, p. 54. t See his tract, " Episcopacy Tested by Scripture." So Peter. " The elders (or presbyters) which are among you I exhorts * * * * Feed the flock of God, * * * taking the over- sight (episkopountes) acting the bishop thereof." 2 Pet. 1 : 5. So evident is it that bishop and elder were the same office and possessed the same powers of the pastor, viz., to feed, to rule, guide, protect, &c , the flock of God. 120 High Church Episcopacy. which speak of the appointment of deacons, as 1 Tim. 3:8," Likewise must the deacons be grave." But if we admit that modern Prelatists are too intelligent to be guilty of any such absurd perversion of Scripture, the only alternative is to suppose that these texts were the best they could find, and of course, by their own acknowledgment, the Scriptures contain no statement of the qualifications requisite for a modern diocesan bishop, the highest and most important office in the church ! Ergo, they are compelled to substitute sound for sense ! To give additional point to this reasoning, we would guard against the impression that Bishop Onderdonk stands alone in this view of the subject. " That presby- ters were called bishops," says Dr. Bowden, " I readily grant, * * also that this proves the officer who was then called a bishop (and consequently the office,') was the same with presbyter." " That bishop and presbyter are terms of the same meaning in the New Testament * * * their humble measure of learning does not permit Episcopalians to debate."* Very well, and yet in ordaining your first and highest order of bishops, you take your " lesson " from Paul's exhortation to " the elders (or presbyters) of the church at Ephesus " (Acts 20:17), who are addressed as " made by the Holy Ghost overseers " (episkopovs) or scriptural bishops ! At the same time you concede, without hesitation, that this ■'lesson" refers only to the middle grade, i. e. presby- ters, and has nothing to do with such bishops as you ordain ! With the same propriety you might take your " lesson " from the qualifications prescribed for any other office, and from almost any other part of Scripture. How easy thus to make the New Testament testify to anything the most absurd. V. " Has the claim of Episcopacy to be of divine institution, the authority of Scripture ?" " No argu- ment is worth taking into account that has not a palpa- ble bearing on * * * the scriptural evidence of Episcopacy."! We can have no objection to such a test, * Clergyman Looking, &c., p. 372. f Onderdonk, p. 1 . The New Testament Blshop. 121 for if Episcopacy be " essential " to a well founded hope of salvation, the teachings of Christ and of those whom he inspired to reveal " the things profitable for doctrine, reproof, and instruction in righteousness, that the man of God might be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works,"* will surely make it plain to every honest, inquiring mind. "I am firmly persuaded," says the Bishop of London, " that all the essential doctrines of Christianity would have been discoverable in the Bible," " if no formularies had been drawn out. The imple- ment," he adds, " with which the secrets of God are to be dug out of the written Word, is a plain and rightly in- formed understanding, guided by an honest and good heart, and aided by the Holy Spirit."t " What, then, saith the Scripture ? How readest thou?" "The name bishop," says Dr. Onderdonk, when we find it in the New Testament, we must regard as meaning the bishop of a parish (i. e.pastor of a church) or a presbyter," p. 20. The power or right of ordina- tion — whether committed to presbyters, or " to the agency of a minister of higher grade than presbyters " — is declared " to be the main issue." Episcop. Tested by Scripture, p. 18. None but diocesan bishops are scrip- turally empowered to ordain other bishops and presby- ters ; so we are told by other High Churchmen ; so that all pretended ministers of the gospel not thus ordained, are nothing but laymen ! But, if this be true, how ex- traordinary, and as before stated, that so many of the most learned and able presbyters and bishops of the Church of England, as well as others, can find no such doctrine in the Scriptures ! " If in any church," says the Rev. Wm. Goode, Episcopal minister of London, " a presbyter be appointed by his co-presbyters to be the l)i The same word is used for the Sanhedrim, " the elders of the people" (Luke 22 : 66). Again in 2 Tim. 1 : 6, "Stir up the gift of God which is in thee, by the putting ou of my hands." Now either Paul refers to the same ordination in the two texts quoted, or to two separate ordinations. If it be the same, then if only the apostle had a divine right to " lay on hands," he must mean by " presbytery " only hbnself! But if, as some Episcopa- lians contend, Paul refers to two ordinations of Timothy, the first as presbyter, the second as bishop, still the first ordination was by " the presbytery," and here is the very thing denied, viz., " that presbyters did ordain !" If the apostle, as president or moderator of " the presbytery," led in the service, all is plain ; for all the other presby- ters united with him. This is Presbyterianism. Even Archbishop Potter concedes that " there was a Presby- tery or college of elders (or presbyters) in the place where Timothy was ordained ; for it was by the imposi- tion of their hands he received his orders."* And the Ehemist translators (Papists) render the passage, " with imposition of the hands of priesthood," and quote the canon of the Council of Carthage, requiring all the priests (elders or presbyters) present to lay on hands with the bishop. But if this be the right view, then presbyters possess the power or right of ordination. To allege that the term " presbytery " means a council of bishops, except in the parochial sense of pastor of a church, is a lame begging of the question. Bishop Beveridge expounds these passages, thus : " Paul says Timothy received the Spirit by the laying on of his hands, notwithstanding the Presbytery (i. e. the elders ) joined ivith him in it."-f Nothing could more clearly de- monstrate the embarrassment which these • texts cause to High Churchmen, than the numerous shifts and de- vices to which they are obliged to resort in reconciling them with their theory. Thus Bishop Ouderdonk refers to Calvin, as countenancing the opinion that the word presbyterium (the presbytery) refers to the office, not to the company who ordained. But this is a misrepre- * On Ch. Govt. pp. 105, 67, 267. t Works, vol. 2, pp. 121, 122. 124 High Church Episcopacy. sentation. Calvin, in the " Institutes," written in his younger days, did indeed express a doubt as to the meaning of the term ; " it is not certain," he says. But in his later and more mature judgment, as in his Com- mentary, he expressly affirms that "those who think jireshytery a collective noun for the college of presbyters, think rightly — "pro coUegio presbyterorum positum, recte sentiunt, me judice "* The notion that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus, where Paul " besought him still to abide, when he went into Macedonia,"! is a main pillar of the prelatical edifice. But does Paul ever call him " bishop ?" Ko. But he does speak of him as an " evangelist." And what was " the work of an evangelist ?" To preach and organize churches in cities and regions destitute of regular organizations. This is so obvious that the learned Episcopal commentator Whitby says, " Both Timothy and Titus were evangelists, * * whose work, saith Eusebius, was to lay the foundations of the faith in barbarous nations and pass to other countries." " As to the great controversy," adds Whitby, " whether Timothy and Titus were indeed made bishops, the one of Ephesus, the other of Crete — I confess I CAif find NOTHING in any writer of the first three centuries, nor any intimation that they bore that name. If we are to understand," he continues, " that they took upon them those churches or dioceses as their Jixed and peculiar charge, I believe Timothy and Titus were not thus bishops."! " The office of an evangelist of old," says Dr. Scott, the Episcopal commentator, " should be con^, sidered as perfectly distinct from that of a bishop ;" and the same learned writer observes, "We cannot by any means infer "the divine right of Episcopacy from the au- thority exercised by Timothy, Titus and other evangelists, yet it is at least highly probable that it was very early found expedient * * * to have a stated presiding inspector, of approved wisdom and piety, who might * Comm. on 1 Tim. 4 : 14. 1 1 Tim. 1 : 3. X Preface to Comm. on Titus. " Certain it is," adds Dr. Camp- bell, " that in the first three centuries, neither Timothy nor Titus is styled bishop by any writer. Bishops Timothy and Titus. 125 superintend the pastors and the concerns of a few neigh- boring churches as moderator or censor, and be pecu- liarly attended to in the appointment of church offi- cers."* Such, we have already seen, has always been " the Consistory " of the French Protestant churches; and this is substantially Presbyterianism. " There is no proof," sa3's Dr. Scott, "that Timothy ever steadily re- sided at Ephesus." Com. on Rev. 2:1. There is also a chronological difficulty in the way of the prelatical assumption that Timothy was " diocesan bishop of Ephesus," or indeed that he made that city his permanent residence. The first Epistle was written to him at Ephesus, according to Dr. Scott and other accurate authors, in the year A. D. 60.t But in A. D. 61, we find Paul sending " from Miletus to Ephesus for the elders of the church" (Acts 20: 17), and address- ing them as " bish ops (episkopous) whom the Holy Ghost had made, to feed the church." But where was Tim- othy ■? " He was the only true Bishop of Ephesus," say the prelatists. But Paul does not so much as give a hint of any such arrangement, but calls the elders " bishops !" " Every impartial man must allow," says Dr. Scott, an Episcopalian, " that if Timothy had at this time been " Bishop of Ephesus," in the sense. for which some contend, the apostle would have given these elders (or bishops') some exhortation to pay a proper de- ference to his Episcoi)al authority." To escape from this difficulty. Dr. Hammond plunges into another. He supposes the " elders of Ephesus " were " the diocesan bishops of all the Asiatic churches !" But, as Dr. Scott well remarks, " this only exposes the cause it was meant to support." " How could these bishops (with all the impediments of that day,) have been got together at so short a notice?" "Did they all reside at Ephesus? Had they left the charge of their dioceses to others ?"f *Conim. 1 Tim. 5: 21, 22. t Dr. Lardner dates the first Epistle A. D. 56; Michselis, Gro- tius, Lightfoot, Cappel, Benson, refer it to A. D. 68. Others have placed it later, but the weight of testimony is in favor of tlie early date. t Scott's Comm. on Acts 20: 17-28. 12 126 High Church Episcopacy. But as Timothy was required to " do the work of an evangelist," there is not " a particle of evidence, either in or out of tlie Bible, that he ever resided at Ephesus in any capadii/, for twelve mouths at a time. We hear of him in Lystra, Phrygia, Galatia, Troas, Macedonia, Samothracia, Neapolis, Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, Athens, Corinth, Jerusalem, Rome— so that we have nearly as good evidence that he was bishop of a half dozen other places, as that he was Bishop of Ephesus."* We concede that a single apostle had, as au inspired man, the right to ordain, but it does not follow that Timothy or Titus exercised that power. Even an apos- tle, as wc have seen, laid hands on Timothy, not ignor- ing the rights "of the presbytery." But if the facts were otherwise ; if Titus, acting as an evangelist, had been directed " to ordain elders in every city of Crete," with- out any co-operation of " the presbytery," it is well known that a single minister of the Presbyterian Church may and often does ordain ruling elders and deacon*. The requirement of a plurality to ordain even a teaching presbyter, is regarded rather as a ])rudential rule than of necessary obligation . There are Presbyterian churches which consider ordination by a single pastor, i. e. scrip- tural bishop, as valid, and act accordingly !"t But the powers of Timothy and Titus as "evangelists," may be re- gurded as special and e.iiraordinary. And if Titus had, singly and alone, ordained other ministers of the gospel, so did Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14 : 20-28) at Lystra, Icouium and Antioch. It tbllows, therefore, that Paul and Barnabas were bisJwps of those cities, as really as that Titus was Bishop of Crete. Besides, when Paul says to Timothy, " I besourjht thee to abide still at Ephe- sus," why beseech a bishop to remain in his diocese ? If Ephesus had been the diocese of Timothy, would he have proposed to leave it when Paul went into Mace- donia (1 Tim. 1 :3), and thus made it necessary for Paul to beseech him not to abandon his Episcopal station, *Eib. Repertory, January, 1830. t Ibid., p 53. Circumstances cm readily be conceived in desti- tute regions, where these acts might be properly performed by a missionary or evangelist, himself ordained- OllUliSATIUN BY PjRESBYTEES. 127 but to remain in order to withstand certain false teachers? So wlicn Paul afterwards (2 Tim. 4:9) requested him, without delay, to come to him at Rome, to be his com- panion and a.-<.sistunt there— these are sfmnge things in the history of a pre/n.ticiil bishojy ; but they suit very well the character of an " evangelist." The same rea- soning applies' to Titus, v.'hom Paul directed to come to him at Kicopolis, where he had determined to winter. (Tit. 3: 12.) " Evangelists," says the judicious Hooker, " were presbyters of principal sufficiency, and only differ- ent from other presbyters, in not being settled in any charge."* They are indeed addressed personally (thozi, thee, &c.), but so Christ addressed Peter as representing the whole number of the ;!])ostlos. John 21 : 15. VII. Another example of ordination by a presbyter, is found in Acts 14: 23. "They (Paul and Barnabas) ordained them elders in every church." The fathers Clement, Eusebius and Epiphanius, say Barnabas was one of the " seventy." Certainly w^e have no informa- tion of his having been made an apostle, as Paul was. Hooker says the "seventy disciples" were presbyters. It is true, in Acts 14 : 14 we read of " the apostles Bar- nabas and Paul," and hence High Churchmen infer that there may have been numerous other apostles in the official sense of the term, besides " the twelve."t But the argument is sophistical. In 2 Cor. 8 : 23, 24, Paul uses the same term, "our brethren, the messengers (apostoloip of the churches," i. e says the Episcopal Dr. Scott, "messengers of the churches entrusted with the contributions of the Christians for their Jewish brethren," " this grace or gift," as Paul calls it, v. 19. So Christ is called "the apostle and high priest of our profession," in reference to his having been sent by the Father. There are many similar examples of the non- official use of the term.§ But when Paul assumes this *See his Eccles. Polity, bonk V, sec. 78. t Clergyman Looking, &c., p. 399. t The Greek term often meaning persons "sent forth" on any public or private duty. ? So in common plirase we speak of Wesley as the apostle of Methodism, &c. 128 High Church Episcopacy. official character, as one specially appointed, among nther most honorable offices, to be the penman of the Holy Ghost, and a witness for Christ, how marked the dis- tinction between himself and all others: "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Clirist, by the will of God, and Timo- thy our brother."* Such phraseology as the foregoing, in regard to " the messengers," &c., is a veiy flimsy foun- dation for a list of successors to the original apostolic college.t No one questions that several other persons are in the Scriptures designated by the terms " apostles," in the familiar and non-official sense, viz , as persons se7it to a particular place and on a special errand, and so we sometimes speak of " the apostle of Mormonism." But when Paul aimed to establish his divine mission as an " apostle of Christ," he appeals to the fact that " he harl seen Jesus Christ our Lord," and to the seals of his ministry; "are ye not my work in the Lord." (1 Cor. 9: 1.) "He, like the other apostles, could take up ser- pents and drink any deadly thing without harm," whiclr our modern apo.^f/rs ( diocesan bishops) do not pre- tend to perform ! In regard to tliose who are called " pi'ophets," Archbishop Potter admits that they were "one and the same order as the evangelists, but differently endowed." VIH. Similar difficulties beset the doctrine that James was " prelatical Bishop ol' Jerusalem." We have seen that no such order as distinct from presbytere is ever mentioned in the salutations of Paul to the churches, or in his address to the elders or bishops of Ephesus. It is equally obvious that both ordination and government, the two powers said to belong to bishops, are clearly invest- ed in presbyters: ''Obey them which have the rule over you," "feed the flock of God, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops," c. as l^efore expressed, "presbyters or elders." In the light of such facts, what plausible reasons can be derived from Acts 15 : that James was diocesan Bishop of Jerusalem ? (1.) "The apostles and elders (or presbyters) came * Coll. 1 : 1 ; 2 Cor. 1:1. f For a remarkable specimen of this sort of sophistry, see chap. 22 of '■ Clergyman Lonkins," Af- CoNCEKNiNG Bishop JAMEt^. 129 together to consider of tins matter," i. e. the matter of circumcision. They I'ormod but one cuuucil. How dif- ferent from an Episcopal "House of Bishops" and "a House of Lay-Delegates!" (2.) There is no evidence that even the apostles claimed the least pfc-emineuce as members of tlie Synod of Jerusalem, iu virtue of their apostolical character. High Churchism claims that tliey were the first and highest order; but here they mingled with "the ciders" as ordinary members of the Synod. They spake and reasoned, and advised as to the proper course to be pur- sued, and gave their judgment in the case. After there had been "much disputing," it "pleased the apostles and elders and brethren (the whole church, v. 22) to send chosen men of their own company, to Antioch, with Paul and Barnabas, &c." Prelatists have labored to make what iu our version is called James' "sentence," an " authoritative decision." Thus Archbishop Potter: " Peter addresses the council, but James enacts the law." But Dr. Mason has shown at length, that the Greek term here used, and translated "judgment," is the ordinary expression in Homer, Thucydides, &c., to ex- press the result of one's own refleetiong. So the apostle, "Seeing ye judge yourselves uuwortliy," Acts 13: 46. "The lov(> of ('lirisl constraiiii'th us, because we tlius judge," &c. Thi i'r i.< im autimrihitive seidence iu these and scores oi' siiuihii- exaiuplt's."' Besides, that "James did not ordain the law," js proved, chap. 16 : 4. " Paul and Silas delivered to the cities the decrees that were ordained," not by James, but "of the apostles and eld- ers." ^Of course James did not pronounce " the authori- tative sentence." More than this : these " decrees " were obeyed througliout the churches of Asia. Were they a^^ subject to James as the Bishop of Jerusalem? That council was not composed of persons belonging to . his diocese. What right had he, then, to pronounce an authoritative '• sentence " in the case ? And so in Paul's interview with James (Acts 21 : 18-25), " all the elders * James uses tlie very (brm by which the members of the Greek assemblies introduced the expression of their indivfdual opinion. See Thucydides. So Cicero in his orations, sic ceiiseo. 130 High Church Episcopacy. (or presbyters) were present." In referring to the acts of the Synod of Jerusalem, tbey say, " We have written and concluded," &c., &c. And they proceed to advise him to a particular course of conduct. But Bishop James meanwhile is left in the background! The apostolic hUhop does not open his mouth ! (8.) The office of apostle was incompatible with that of diocesan bishop. The former was chiefly extraordi- nary and temporary, the result of an immediate divine call and accompanied with supernatural gifts. The person was sent to lay the foundations of the church, his diocese " the world." To set an apostle down per- manently in a particular city, was to ignore in great measure his peculiar character and to nullify his broad commission. For such reasons as these, we deny that James Avas ever diocesan Bishop of Jerusalem. IX. But we are pointed to " an absolute demonstra- tion" of diocesan Episcopacy in "the angels of the seven churches" of the Revelation. These angels are said by High Churchmen to have been prelatical bish- ops beyond all question ! " Each of these seven churches," says Bishop Onderdouk, " is addressed, not through its clergy at large, but through its ' angel,' or chief minis- ter ; this alone is a very strong argument in favor of Episcopacy."* But the ver}' same thing takes place iu Presbyterianism, when " the moderator of a presbytery " or a pastor of a church is addressed on any topic ! Who ever thinks of addressing a presbytery or synod iu any other manner? So also in writing to a single church, who is addressed but the bishop or pastor? Dr. O.'s " very strong argument " will not bear inspection. But it is an Episcopal assumption that the term " angel " in these passages means " single men, never a society or number of men." " This," we are further told, " is its " constant vse in the book of Revelation." But here is a great mistake. " I saw," says John, " another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach," &c. Rev. 14: 6. The Episcopal Dr. Scott in- terprets the term angel " as an emblem of those who * Episcop. Tested, &c., p. 43. The Apocalyptic Angels. 131 first publicly erected tlie standard of Rcformatiou, *' * * * the Waldenses and Albigenses, who had the true gospel," &c. These communities were surely not " sin- gle men !" But there is sufficient evidence in the seven Epistles themselves, that they were not addressed to seven single men. "Behold," says Christ, "the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried, and ye shall have tribulation ten days."* This is addressed to " tlie angel of the church at Smyrna." Bishop Onderdonk shuns the snare into which others had fallen. He does not venture the broad assertion that the term "angel" is ''never applied to a society or number of men." " Observe," he says, the " emphatic use (not ' constant use ') of the singular number," and then he copies nearly a page of emphatic " tiious " and "thees!" And because Paul in writing to Timothy addresses him witli the personal thou and thee — ergo, reasons Dr. Onderdonk, Timothy, having been a ])rc- latical bishop, the angels must have been bishops like- wise ! ! This is the sort of reasoning which he calls a "very close approximation to demonstrative proof!"! Yet Dr. Scott, who avows his belief in moderate Episcopacy, assures us that "there is no proof that Timothy ever statedly resided at Ephesus." "Is it not evident," asks Bishop O., that "Timothy had supreme ]iower over the clergy there?" Evident fromAvhat? Wliy, from such phraseology as this, "These things write I unto thee," " this charge commit I unto thee,'' "that thoii mightest know," "against an elder receive not (. 64. 140 High CiiuKcn EpiscojeAcy. flocks, this overwhelraiug argument for popery, as de- rived from the liistory of the primitive church ! Hear the Romish Bishop of Aire un tliis topic ; " Your own theologians, no less than ourselves, have in their hands the ancient liturgies of the primitive church, and the works of the early ecdeskidiml writers." And then he flatly charges these Episcopal "theologians " with hase, deliberate fraud for reasons of interest, in withiiolding "the opinions whicli they (these "early writers") ex- press!"* He atErms that the advocates of Episcopacy dare not " bring the laity acquainted with such docu- ments !" Dr. Van D., indeed, resolutely affirms that "the pecidiariiies of the Romish system icere never heard of in the primitive church of the first three cen- turies." But the Romish disputants say they know bet- ter ! Theirs is "the church of thetirst three centuries;" for truth, they argue, is always the same. They scout the idea that papal supremacy, transubstantiation, the sacrifice of the mass, purgatory, prayers for the dead, invocation of the saints, and the whole rabble of their superstitions, cannot be proved to have existed until three hundred years after tlie death of Christ. When, there- fore, the Romanist tells High Churchmen that for base ends, they cautiously shun the exposure to their mem- bership of the testimony of " the ancient liturgies of ih-e primitive church " (of coui-sc " the church of the first three centuries " ) nm\ the works of the early ecclesiastical writers," we thank God that ne have no need of auysuch interpreters, infallible or otherwise, to decide what is " the law of the Lord, which is perfect," "a laiap to our feet and a light to our i)ath." "To this law and to this tes- timony — if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." 4. It is very natural, as a consequence from such po- sitions as those of Dr. Van D. and his brethren, that "the right of private judgment " should be in no very good odor with them. After reading several time? and with much care, what is said in these "Seven Sermons," we are by no means certain that we yet know what * Difficulties (.f RoiiKun^in, In- F:\hi-r. p. 12. "private judgment" is, in tlie Higli Church system. " Let each ex nkihh body 142 High Chukcu Episcopacv. (as Rome protends) to whose decrees men are bound to piihiuil tlicir fiinsciciitions views on points of faith and I'i li:i(iiis |ir;!< ti' ( . " ' AVc believe that "all Scripture is gik'i ii by iij.-i)ira(i(in of God, and is profitable for doc- trine, rcpi-oof, iiistruction in rifrbteousness, that the man of God may be jH'rfeet, thorongbly furnished unto all good works." This is Paul'.s view of the subject. Dr. Van I), and his Higli Cinuch brethren seem to think this hazardous ground. They propose "the church of the first three centuries " as " the body " to which we must submit these profitable instructions of Scripture. But what is the verdict of that ancient "body?" The Bishop of Aire and his Romish brethren say that "the primitive church as represented by her early writers," is so obviously in favor of popery, that High Church Episcopalians are driven to the shameful necessity of concealing their testimony in order to spare "their own embarrassment," and save their flocks from becoming papists ! On the whole, therefore, we recommend Dr. Van D. to adopt the following conclusion of his Episco- pal brother, George Stanley Faber: " AVhen a writer (even of the first three centuries) propounds a doctrine which rests not upon the firm basis of Scripture, I would reject it as a commandment of men," &c. t This is the only true principle. Test all other writings by "the writings of God," " for they are profitable, &c." If men differ in the interpretation of the Scriptures, so they do about the writings of the "first three centuries." Not only do papists differ from Episcopalians, but Episcopa- lians difler irreconcilably from each other, on this very point. "If any man," says Jesus, "will do my will, he SHALL KNOW of the doctrine {my doctrine, v. 6.) whether it be of God," John 7: 17. "I will not scruple to as- sert," says Bishop Horsely, oue of the most distinguished dignitaries of the Episcojial Church, " that the most illiterate Christian, if he can but read his English Bible, and will take the pains to read it in this manner (com- ])aring the parallel passages) without any other commen- tary than what the different parts mutually furnish for * See tills position nobly argued and maintained in Macaulay's " Keview of Gladstone's Churcli and State." f Diff. of Eomtinlsm, p. 63. fcjOKIFl'URE iNTEltl'KKTci lltiKLi'. 14o each otlier, will not only attain all that i)ractical knowl- edge wliich is necessary to salvation, but will become learned iu EVEKYrniNG ri'latiiig to his religion. He may safely be ignorant of all ]thil(is(i[>liy and all history V ;s, even of 'the tliree hrst centui-ii-s,' ; which he does ; .t find in the saei'ed books." So our blessed Lord, in ivasoning witli the yaddueees on the subject of the re- surrection, ajjpcals to the ticripture : "As touching the de,id that they rise, it aye ye not read in the books of Moses? * * * Ye do therefore greatly err." Mark 12 : 26, 27. And iu deciding his own claims to the Messiahship, he says to the Jews : " Search the Scrip- tures, * * * * for they are they that testify of me." John 5 : 39. " Blessed is he that readefh, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written thei'ein." licv. 1 : 3. 5. Admitting the excellence or at least the ]iractical use of this High Church rule, let us for argument's sake try to work with it. "Inquire lor the church of the Apostles and the tirst three centuries." " Let each ex- amine for himself." But here arise numerous knotty points. If the divine Author of the New Testament intended that we should interpret it by the uninspired records of "the eliurch of the iirst three centuries," is it not strange that alniost the only genuine uninspired document of the supposed purest pei'iod of the clnireh, which has been preserved, is a solitary letter of Clement of Kome. It is addressed to the church of Corinth and is of date about A. D. 96. It contains some very good advice, but nothing of this sort which in substance is not with equal clearness and far greater authority found in the New Testament. Of the value of this epistle as an in- terprdn- of Scripture, we may form some idea from the fact that, with all })()ssible gra,vity, Clement records the ridiculous story of "a certain iidnilous bird called the jihcenix," of wliich he minutely details the most mar- vellous legend."' But if we take Clement's account of *0f this betrayal of u-e;ikncss Milncv says: '■ His luistakein applying tlie siory ot tlu- i)h<;uiu.\-, h:is bucn, 1 tliiiik, too severely censured." "That Clemeut believed it, is no proof of weakness of judgment." Indeed ! illUU CilUUCil EpiiCtji'ACY. the state of religiou in the church of Corinth, it will not greatly tend to reconcile us to Dr. Van Deusea's method of iuturpretiag the Scriptures, much less attach us to that church of the first century as an object of imi- tation in establishing truth, morality and religiou I " Pride and a schismatical spirit," says the Episcopal Milner, ■' which were evils particularly Corinthian, de- face the agrooahle picture." Clement, he adds, severe- ly rebukid th.ii- " euvy, strife, dissension, persecution, disorder, war and desolation." "Righteousness and peace," says Cleiueut, " are far from you, because ye ALL leave tlie fear of God; aad your spiritual sight is become too dim to be guided by the faith of the gospel." " Ye ALL walk too much according to your own evil lusts, cherishing a malignant spirit of envy." Referring to Paul's Epistles to the Corinthians, he adds : Do take up tlie writmgs of the blessed Apostle. What did he say to you in the beginning of the gospel? Trul_y, by divine inspiration he gave you directions I" " These (the evils before mentioned) are shameful things, breth- ren, very shameful. * * * "pj^g Qame of God is blasphemed through your folly." Thus endeth the first lesson, which is concerning " the church of the first century." If we cannot understand the inspired records, will this document furnish much as- sistance in proving High Churchism ? Indeed in read- ing this epistle of Clement, we are almost tempted to thiuk we have by some mistake taken up Dr. Van D's. "Seven Sermons," and opened at his scathing description of the evils arising from " the variety of sects, and the workings of the sect spirit," as they everywhere prevail, except in his own denomination.* So far as the epistle of Clement weighs one way or the other, it is on our side. Mark how confidently he appeals to " the gospel" as delivered by Paul — to "the uritings which he jjenn'd by inspiration." Clement never seems to have dreamed of the danger of such exercise of " private judg- ment." More than this — he uses the terms bishop and presbyter interchangeably, just as though he were a * Sermon V, pp. 92, 93, 94. The Ei'iHTi.K oy ( 'lk.mknt. 1-15 Presbyteriau. Anxeept this one, which does any peculiar honor to tiie first century. ''f We thus ne.rrow Dr. Van D's. rule for interpreting the Scriptures, fmni " ! lieclinreh of the first three centuries". to " the church of tlu; second and /hird centuries " If the churches of Corinth, Rome. Ephesus, &c., were first or- ganized on High Church princi[!h s, we have no means of ascei'taining the fact except the Scriptures — and of course we must pass over the first one hundred years of apostolic purity and comedown (o the second ceiitur}', in order to work with the Pligh Church rule of interpreta- tion. The apostolic age says, "It is not in me." 6. In " in!|uiring for the cliurcli of the second and third centuries," we are inimedniiely bcst't wiih great embar- rassments. There are indeed a number of writers ; but as they wrote in the Greek or Latin language, few persons can read them except in a translation. Besicies, being quite voluminous, Viordy and extravagant, liow shall "each examine for himself?" The Scriptures are in everybody's hand, are comparatively small in bulk, and can be diligently studied, and eom))ared, oiic passage with another. But who shall undertake to '■ CKamine" the fifty or sixty folios of the fathers ? Especially, who *Acts20.1T, 28. tVol. I, p. 76. Tiie work of TTerinas, Milncr thinks, pr'hahly written by that person, l)at of infV-rinr ni"vit, nn'l innvnrtby (if rurllicr iiotice. 146 High Chukch Episcopacy. of the great mass of mankiud, who possess but little leisure lor such investigations, and whose learning is necessarily vi i y limiti' l As to the moral and relii;iou8 character of tin-: authur^, tlie Episcopal Milner candidly acknowledges that Iji rorc tiie close of the s2Cond century, " a dark shade was uuvelopinir the divine glories of primitive Christianity The Spirit of God was grieved already by the ambitious intrusions of self-rigliteousuess, argumentative refinements and pharisaic pride."* These are the men who are to teach us the meaning of our Lord and his inspired apostles! "The mystery of iniquity," says Paul the apostle, fifty years after the crucifixion, had already "begun to work,"t and soon developed " the man of sin and son of perdition in all deeeivableness of unrighteousness," in some of his dark features. But lest we should fall under a similar suspicion with that of the Romish Bishop of Aire about Episco- palians, viz., of being afraid of the testimony of these fathers, let us examine them. 7. About ffteen authors of the second and third cen- turies, parts of whose writings remain to us, and most of which were written in reply to heathen objections, or in refutation of heresies which are now universally consid- ered contemptible, are our sole dependence in judging of the views of the church of tiiose centuries. There are iii(li'!;il a very few l)rief coufessious by Irena;us, Ter- tullian ami Oi-l,L(eii, butthey are chiefly doctrinal, and as they recite almost exclusively the great fundamental truths of Christianity, they are the common property of Presbyterians and Episcopalians. Of course they decide nothing in regard to these differences. Again : As the corruption of the church made pro- gress towards the full stature of "the man of sin," the ruling party would naturally suppress and destroy what- ever r,'( Olds stood iu their way. Tiierecau be no doubt tliat even i,At^(;ic councils were employed in this expur- gation. Bishop Stillinu'tleet a^iinits that "the general council of Ariiuiuuni, consisting of about six hundred bishops, decided against the orthodox faith." And *Cent. ir, vol. 1, p. 137. t "2 TnfB^ 2 ; 7. Earj,v \VitiTi.\(is (_'()[? i;ui'TEi). 147 L.iihing is more ftimiliar to church history than tlie de- I isions of councils anatheiiiatizinp: books, because! they tan,i;ht sentinu-nts difiVrcnt from lln-ir own. Du Pin, a Koiiiariist liisloi-ian, conlcs^es tliat a rnuncil held A. D. ■'^40, pronounced the condemnation of Origen ; and a Greek treatise of Tertullian on baptism, Pamelius ad- mits to have been probably suppressed, because it con- tained the doctrine "that baptism performed by heretics ■was null and void." The remains of the early writers are admitted by Romanists themselves, to have been greatly mutilated and corrupted, and whole works have been forged in their names. Thus the more candid of the papists re- pudiate as rank forgeries more than one hundred and eighty treatises professing to be written by authors of the first six centuries. And Cave, Du Pin and others have demonstrated three or four times that number to be either shameless fabrications or at least of very doubtful authority ! That these corruptions did extend even to the genuine works of the early fathers, is proved by Augustine of the fourth century. In speaking of this charge brought against the works of Cyprian, he says : " The integrity and knowledge of the writings of any one bishop, however illustrious, could not be preserved by the variety of languages in which the Scripture is found nor by the order and succession of its rehearsal in the church ; against which, however, there have not been wanting tliose who have forged many tkiugs under the names of Ihe apodles." Thus also a work of Basil on the Holy Spirit, is acknowledged by Bishops Jeremy Taylor and Stillingfleet, at least more than half of the whole, or the last fifteen chapters, to be a forgery. Heretics and orthodox, Greeks and Latins, have made these charges and proved them true. All are familiar with the long and fierce controversy between East and West on the phrase //^t'ogufi in what is called the apostles' creed, and we need but mention the Index Expurgatorim of Rome, to suggest the argus-eyed vigilance with which for ages that apostate church has guarded against the circulation of errors, which she imagined she found in the fathers. Most cordially therefore do wc adopt the 148 High Chukch Episcopacy. conclusion of Mr. Goode, Episcopal minister of London : " It is both absurd and irreverent to the divine Author of Scripture, t(j be guided l)y an account of those doc- trines given us by fallible men, instead of going at once to the divine Word, and taking our views from thence." If the fathers of the second and third centuries were originally ever so correct, clear and luminous as inter- preters of Scripture, we can have no certainty that we possess their uncorrupted writings." This fact may per- haps suggest some apology for " the extraordinary facil- ity with which the best of thein seem to have admitted the most monstrous extravagancies and the most silly puerilities. A very moderate course of reading in pa- tristic allegories, conceits, visions, legends, miracles and superstitions of Barnabas, Hermas, Origen and Tertul- lian, &c., will be quite sufficient to reclaim any one of sane mind from the abasement of setting them up as guides." " The interval between the Scriptures and the very best of the fathers, is so immense, that not a few have testified that it forms to them the most convincing proof of the inspired origin of the former — it being in their judgment absurd to suppose that any man, much less a number of men, could have composed such a volume as the Bible, in an age in which their immediate successors, many of them possessing undoubted genius and erudi- tion, and having the advantage of their light to walk by, f ould fall into puerilities so gross and errors so mon- strous. We could sooner believe that Jacob Bcehmen could have composed the Novum Organum, or Thomas Sternhold the Paradise Lost." Such are the men to whom we are referred to tell us how to interpret the writings of God — " a set of men whose pages abound with manifest marks of error, absurdity and fantastic raving."* " The old Christian fiithers received from the Jewish rabbins the practice of mystical exposition. Origen denied even the literal truth of history. He held that it was absurd to suppose that the world was created in * Piisevism and the Oxford School. Edinb. Rev., July, 1843. Strange Erroes of the Fathers. 149 ;• ix days ; the creation signified the renovation of the soul, and the six days that it was gradual. Israel in Egypt was the soul living in error, and the seven plagues its purgations from various evil habits, the frogs denot- ing loquacity, the flies carnal appetites, the boils pride and arrogance."* 8. But there is much that is worse than this. In the language of Mr. Taylor : "we pronounoe these fathers to have grossly perverted the gospel, and to be amongst the very worst guides which the church can follow."! (1.) Origen, who was a Universalist, in his commen- tary on 1 John 1 : 3, says, " The Holy Spirit was made by the Logos," and repeats the statement. So says the Episcopal Goode. (2.) TertuUian, says the same authority, " taught that the Son was a derivation from the whole substance of the Father," and " that there was a time when there was no Son of God." He also interprets the " two_sparrows" (Matt. 10 : 29) of the soul and body. (3.) Mr. Goode affirms that the fathers of the fourth century had no scruples in calling in question the ortho- doxy of the earlier tathers, such as ( )rigen, and Dyony- sius of Alexandria. The latter was charged with "numbering the Holy Spirit with inferior beings, with created nature, &c." Jerome also says that " Lactantius altogether denied the entity of the Holy Spirit." "The faith," he adds, " is delivered by these authors, most im- perfectly and erroneously, and almost always mixed up with various strange notions and conceits."^ (4.) The Bishop of Down and Connor§ tells us that the "practice of praying for the dead had its origin in the curiosities of the second century, but with no other authority than custom." He quotes Tertullian as testi- fying also, that in his day " not a shoe could be put on without the sign of the cross." It was the age of super- stition. (5.) Irenseus, who says he had seen Polycarp, the dis- * McClelland on the Canon, p. 132. t Ancient Christianity. t Rule of Faith, vol. 1, p. 220-21. ? See Bricknell, p. 219. 11 150 High Chukch Episcopacy. ciple of the Apostle John, maintains in his writings that our blessed 'Lord lived to be an old man, and tbat his public ministry embraced at least ten years! Yet he was one of the wisest and best of the fathers — but cer- tainly no very safe guide in interpreting Scripture. 9. But if "the church of the second and third centuries" is so indispensable an interpreter of Scripture, it may be well to adduce a few further illustrations in order to diffuse so brilliant a light. "The ass and colt" (.Matt. 21 : 2), "for which Christ sent his disciples, Justin and others interpret severally of the Jewish and Gentile believers: Origen, however, rather expounds them of the Old and the New Testa- ments."* Well might Jerome say, " that it was more trouble to understand such expositors well than the very texts they undertook to explain." And this father, one of the most eminent of all, repeatedly tells us that " his own commentaries are interwoven with the expositions of Origen and others, who were in his day (fourth cen- tury) evil spoken of as men who had presumptuously foisted upon the world their own private opinions, fash- ioning (as he expresses it) the mysteries of the church out of their own private fancies." Jerome did not re- gard these early writers as very reliable interpreters of Scripture. This same father, however, interprets Paul's rebuke of Peter, not as though Paul really believed Peter blame-worthy, but only in pretence, to save ap- pearances If And as further examples of such pious fraud, he adduces the cases of Origen of the third cen- tury and others, who, he says, iu writing against the infidel scoffers Celsus and Porphyry, employed " slippery problems and argiunents," " not that which they be- lieved, but that which was most necessary to be said." And he seems to include in this condemnation Tertul- lian, Cyprian and others.";}; Such is Jerome's judg- ment concerning some of the wisest and best of Dr. Van Deusen's interpreters of Scripture and of " the church * Edinburgh Eev., Art. Pusevism, July, 1843. t It was a feigned business, purposely acted between Peter and Paul. JDaille, pp. 150, 151. Bright Lights of Antiquity. 151 of the first three centuries." Such were the men who, as Mosheim says, " deemed it not only lawful but com- mendable, to deceive and lie for the sake of what they considered truth and piety." Cj'priau held the opinion that "without baptism and the communion of the Lord's table, no man can come unto salvation or eternal life." And Ignatius, in speak- ing of fasting, said: " Whosoever fasts upon the Lord's day, or upon any Saturday, he is a murderer of Christ."1[ Well might Augustine, of the fourth century, say to Jerome: "I have learned to pay to those books of Scripture alone, now called canonical, such reverence and honor as to believe steadfastly that none of their au- thors ever committed any error in writing them." "As for all other n-riters," he adds, " I do not instantly con- clude that whatever I find is true, except they convince me either out of the said canonical books or by some probable reason." " Believe me not," says Cyril, " in whatsoever I shall speak, unless thou fiud the same things demonstrated out of the Holy Scriptures." Justin Martyr, in one of his apologies, says that David lived fifteen hundred years before tiie crucifixion, which is a mistake of near five hundred years, and the same early father states that Ptolemy, king of Egypt, sent ambassadoi's to Herod, king of Judea, in relation to the matter of tlie Septuagint translation of the Scriptures ; which is a mistake not only of the person to whom the embassy was sent, but also of more than two hundred and forty years in the time of the transaction. These early fathers interpret the Gihon, one of the rivers of Paradise, to be the Nile. Tertullian also maintains that plants have feeling and understanding. Ireujeus says the name Jesus is composed of two letters and a half, and adds that in the ancient Hebrew it signifies heaven. As to the ridiculous allegorical fancies of Tertullian, Jerome often complains of his wresting the text, and making the true sense of Scripture evaporate into nothing. Justin Martyr, moreover, was a millenarian. He fDaille, pp. 170, 173. 152 High Church Episcopacy. taught that after the resurrection of the saints, they would live and reign one thousand years in the city of Jerusalem, which would he rebuilt, enriched and en- larged, as Ezekiel and Isaiah had foretold ! The same father, in his Dialogue with Tryjiho the Jew, seems to deny that the essence of God is infinite, or that he Is that it was not the Father who rained fire and brim- stone upon Sodom, because he could not have been then in heaven ! Justin also, in explaining the reason why our blessed Lord commended his spirit to God, says it was because all the souls of the departed saints and prophets had previously fallen under the power of evil spirits, such as the spirit of Python. Irenjeus teaches that Christ was more than forty years old at his death, and that he did not at all know when the day of judg- ment should be! Origen, in very numerous passages, teaches that the pains of hell are designed only to purify, ' and consequently are not eternal, but will cease when the souls of the damned are thoroughly cleansed by the fire ! And both he and Justin Martyr teach that the angels fell in love with the first women, and they were led to reveal to the fair ones many secrets they ought to have concealed !* TertuUian not only attributes to the divine Spirit like passions with us, as anger, hatred, grief, but says he does not believe " there is any substance which is not corporeal, nor that any man will deny that God is a body." Cyprian held to the necessity of ad- ministering the Lord's supper to infants, supporting this fancy by the text, " Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." Origen, of the third century, taught that divine provi- dence extends only to universal causes, affirming that God has committed the care of particular things to the angels. And J ustin Martyr, Irenreus and TertuUian, all held to a sort of material heaven in this world, promising to * TertuUian also says that virgins should wear veils, because "it is necessary that so dangerous a fice should be veiled, which had scandalized even Heaven itself I" Origen al?o taught the pre-existence of human souls, and that the stars are animated beings. omnipresent. For this reason Patristic Puddles. 153 the faithful the delights and pleasures of a thousand years, the diaraoads aud sapphires of au earthly Jerusa- lem, &c., a fancy which Jerome and others of a later period pronounced fit to entertain only little children and such like. From such examples as these, we may well adopt the language of Pearson, Dean of Salisbury, England, in speaking of the "ancient fathers :" " Truth compels me to say that their piety was too often alloyed by superstition, and with some exceptions, their learning was neither accurate nor extensive. Their reasonings were often weak and inconclusive, their interpretations of Scripture fanciful aud unsatisfactory. * * * * Consequently, it is vain to look up to them as certain guides in theology, or as judicious and safe expounders of Holy Writ." * " To the testimony of Scripture," adds Musgrave, Bishop of Hereford, "and to that alone, the fa- thers were themselves in constant habit of appealing for decision of controversy." "In disputing with heretics they were often hasty and wrong. They frequently contradict themselves, or each other, and when supposed to express the sentiments of the church, are but delivering their OWN."t Well might the "Homily on reading Holy Scripture" exhort: "Let us diligently search for the well of life in the Old and New Testaments, and not run to the stinking puddles of men's traditions." " The drunk- en Helots never taught the Spartans a more wholesome lesson of temperance than the inimitable antics of these holy men teach the present age the folly of deferring to them as our spiritual guides." J It is far more easy on such authority to establish, for example, the apostolic origin of clerical celibacy, than to prove High Church Episcopacy. Our Saviour says, " Swear not at all," referring doubt- less to profaueuess in conversation. But Mr. Goode has demonstrated that Irenieus, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, Origen, Lactantius, and many other fathers, interpret the passage in the Quaker seuse, viz., to forbid the use of the oath in courts of law. *See his Chrirge, 1839. t Charge, 142. 1 Edinb. Rev., Art. Pussyism, 1S43 154 High Chuech Episcopacy. Tertullian says : " We account it a crime to kneel at prmjer on a Sunday." Justin Martyr quotes the blessed Irenseus, Martyr and Bishop of Lyons, as saying " this custom commenced /rom apostolical times," i.e. "the cus- tom of standing in prayer on Sundays." So the learned prelatist Bingham has asserted it to be " beyond dis- pute," that infant communion was the practice of the church for many ages." And Bishop Coxe, of the State of New York, says, " that in a little work by a Dr. Ullathorne, a Romish priest, he teaches that there is an unbroken chain of fathers for the immaculate conception !"* " Stinking jjuddles," indeed ! Papist and High Church can prove almost any monstrous absurdity from " the fathers," at least to their own satisfaction. Yet, these were the leaders and oracles of " the church of the three first centuries !" Well did Bishop Jeremy Taylor say : "The early Christian doctors were just such as one might expect to find in those who were looking onward towards that deep night of superstition which covered Eu- rope during the middle ages;" in other words, they early began to verge towards the great apostasy of Eome ; and so the spirit of prophecy had foretold of the mystery of iniquity, which in the days of the apostles " did already work." Let these illustrations suffice to prove how reliable " these fathers " are in regard to the true doctrines and usages of the Christian religion. " The Christian ■world REPOSED," we are told, "for at Icjist three unbroken centuries, under the undisjiuted watch and rule of Epis- copacy." f " But now," adds the §ame author, "look over the land and behold the multitude of sects," " apostate sects!" "See thelMethodist Episcopal sect, Pi-esbyterian Old School, and all the et ceieras, down to Mormonism." But suppose we serve this person with a dose of his own prescription. Who would imagine that while "the Christian world was repomng," as he hath it, " for three unbroken centuries, &c.," the " apostate sects" were such as these: Gnostics, Nicolaitaus, Corinthians, Nazarenes, Ebiouites, Ecclectics, Moutauists, Ecclesaites, Saturni- * Criterion, p. 115. t Clergyman Looking, &c., p. 343. No Unanisious Consent. 155 uians, Valeutiniaus, Monarchiaus, Patropassians, Millen- arians, Maniclieans, Noetiaus, Sabellians, Novatians, &c.* Certainly tlie repose of the church must have been a very deep sleep, if the clashiug of all these here- sies in her ears did not disturb the Episcopacy! No doubt the iiilidels and scoffers of tiiat period made themselves merry over "the sects," just as High Church- meu and Papists do at the present day ; and with about equal reason. Even Episcopacy, that grand panacea for all the ills the church is heir to, did not avail to prevent these disorders ! " To set the fathers up as guides must appear to every unprejudiced mind the most extraordinary fatuity." The Greeks associated insanity with inspiration, and the Mohammedans worship as saints those who are out of their senses : on something of the same principle cer- tain men regard with profound reverence the authority of the fathers as expositors of Scriptui-e." " Popery props up her superstitions by what she calls the unanimous consent of the fathers." But High Churchmen have not yet reached that ridiculous extreme of fatuity. Most of them repudiate the creed of Pope Pius IV, in which the Papist promises " never to take or interpret the Scriptures otherwise than b}' such unanimous consent." * We have named only seventeen — biU the Episcopal Dr. Hook, in his Church Dictionary, enumerates tiventij-scven disJtinct liei'e- siea in " the first three centuries." Art. Heresy. 15G High Chukch Episcopacy. CHAPTER XI. DIFFICULTIES IN REGARD TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. In the progress of our inquiry into "the church of the first three centuries" (in obedience to the counsel, "Let each examine for. himself"), enough has been said, if we mistake not, to satisfy every intelligent reader of the exceeding difficulty of proving High Churchism from such sources — perhaps we should say, the utter im- possibility. It may be replied, however, that though these writers of the first centuries are admitted to have been grossly in error in many important particulars, and as interpreters of Scripture to be blind guides, still as witnesses of facts — for example, of the early existence of the principles of High Church Episcopacy, and the ac- tive operation of such principles generally throughout the church, these primitive fathers must be received with great reverence, and their evidence as worthy of all acceptation. If they testify, as High Church Episco- palians affirm, to the universal prevalence and appropri- ate functions of the " three orders of the clergy" in the ages immediately succeeding that of the Apostles ; and if they agree further that this sort of exclusive Episco- pacy was delivered to them directly as established by those holy meu, the immediate followers of our Lord — surely the testimony of these fathers to such facts mast carry with it great weight, yea, amount almost to a de- monstration of the divine origin of the High Church system. We have thus stated the case fairly ; and if it could be clearly made out, we concede that it would present a very plausible lace. Let us examine it. I. It is of great importance at the outset, to ascertain accurately what are the precise principles whose univer- sal prevalence in the church is claimed as proved by the testimony of the fathers of the first three centuries. They are these : High Church Principles. 157 1. The bishops of the primitive church were a differ- ent order of clergy from presbyters; and superior to them. 2. That the primitive bishop, when he assumed his office, was set apart to it with a new and special ordina- tion. 3. That every such bishop was set over a number of congregations or churches, with their pastors ; and over tliese lie exercised govcniment, such, for example, as bishops of our day chiiin over their extended dioceses. 4. That such bishojjs, and fliey alone, possessed the right to ordain other ministers of tlie gospel. That this sort of Episcopacy was viewed by the; whole church as insti- tuted by Christ and established by the Apostles.* 5. That those are " essential, divine relations," and where they exist, and there alone, are found " the com- munion and fellowsliip of Christ and his Apostles" — without which, say many High Churchmen, we cannot " gain the divine reconciliation, peace of mind, triumph in death and bliss in eternity, "f — all other so-called churches being mere "sects," "human organizations," which we are bound to reject. And for these, except in cases of unavoidable ignorance, are reserved only " uncovenanted mercies," or as Bishop Mcllvaine right- ly interprets, " no mercies at all." These " five points," especially the first four, are dis- tinctive principles of High Churehism — and if the early fathers bear witness to the universal prevalence of that system, they can be shown to testify to these principles as taught in the Scriptures and generally received in the churches. Let the reader keep this in mind. Some, indeed, who are called High Church, do not teach ex- clusive salvation for such Episcopalians, but many do. II. It is conceded by the most learned prelatists, that at a very early period a great change was introduced in the style and titles which the New Testament adopts in speaking of the ministry. " The name ' bishop,' " says Dr. Onderdonk, "which now designates the highest grade of the ministry, is not appropriated to that ofiice in Scripture. That name is there given to presbyters." ^See Dr. Miller's Letters. t Cliristiaiiity in Rpp\il)., ]>\i. 2.5, 2(i. 158 High Church Episcopacy. Again : " It was after the apostolic age that the name ' bishop ' was taken from the second order and appro- priated to the first."* Again : " When we find in the New Testament the name ' bisliop,' we must regard it as meaning the bishop of a pai ish (pastor of a church) or a jorasbyter." Again, says another decided High Churchman : " Tliat ])rcsbytcr and bishop (in the New Testament) are convertible terms, our measure of learu- il'x - not permit us to debatc."f The New Testament pi("sl)yl( r is therefore the scriptural bishop, and High Cluirciiism is confessedly guilty of perverting, in her forms of ordination, tlie use of the term as employed by inspired men. It follows also that Presbyterians in styl- ing each pastor " a bisliop," adhere closely to the in- spired terminology. Again : "After the apostolic age" — how soon or how long after the death of the last apostle we are not told— the term " hishop," which inspiratiou had given to the i)rt'rove that at a very early period there were great departures from the inspired simplicity of the gospel. "A gloomy cloud," says Milner, " hung over the conclusion of the first century;" and before the close of the second, he tells us of the introduction of *' self-righteousness and superstition, obscuring men's views of the faith of Christ and darkening the whole face of Christianity " — " fictitious holiness disguised under the appearance of eminent sanctity " — " bodily austerities " — "self-righteous pretensions, faith in Christ miserably superseded by ceremonies and superstitions !" Well might he add, "a dark shade is enveloping the divine glories of religion." This was a fruitful soil for the production of the temper of "Diotrephes, who loved to have the pre-eminence." 3 John, 9. " Pharisaic pride," he tells us, "was busy;" and to the aspiring minds of ambitious presbyters, the simple style of God's in- spired word soon became insipid. They felt themselves to be far superior, it may be, to many of their fel- low ministers in talents, learning, eloquence, social position, jjersonal popularity, &c. Hence to be simple presbyter-pastors in common with others, was intoler- able. The indications of a change from scriptural parity — a disuse of " bishop " and "presbyter " as con- vertible terms, soon make their appearance among the fragments of the church records. This spirit would naturally develop itself earliest and in greatest vigor in the populous cities, among their large and wealthy churches. Their pastors soon learned how very pleasant it was from being the plain and usei'ul president or moderator of a presbytery to be greeted in the market and other places of public resort, as "bishop " this and " bishop " that. " In vain," says Milner, " will almost any modern church whatever (of course including his own) set up a claim to exact resemblance." " At first, and for some time, church governors were only of two ranks, presbyters and deacons, as at Philippi and Eph- esus ; and the term bishop was confounded with that 160 High Church Episcopacy. of presbyter. The church of Corinth coatinued long in this state, so far as one may judge by Clement's epis- tle."* But this scriptura,l and apostolic mode of gov- erning the church by two ranks or orders, presbyters and deacons, the former class (presbyters) often styled " bishops," soon yielded to the development of a very different spirit— a spirit which rested not until " the Bishop of Rome" claimed as his diocese the whole of the Christian world, and the whole hierarchy of the " man of sin," with the vast mummery of Popish super- stition and blasphemous fable, was securely established. Even in the third century, the learned historian Milner concedes that " the extent of a bishop's diocese was called paroikia (a parish). Some of these dioce-ses had a greater, others a less number of cliurches. " The practice (of the people electing their bishops) continued during at least the three first centuries.| On the other hand, I do not find that the people had any power in deposing a bishop." " To me," adds Jlilner, "it seems an unhappy prejudice (observe, " a prejudice !") to look on any one of the forms of church government as of divine RIGHT." " The pastoral character of bishops (in the primitive churches), together with the smallness of their dioceses, always adapted to pastoral inspection, made them more similar to the Presbyterian hierarchy."! This is the candid testimony of a learned Episcopal historian, who "inquired for tlie church of the first three centuries," largely quoting the fathers as witnesses to existing facts agreeably to the rule of " the Rector." And in the third century, he adduces what he calls " a most strik- ing proof that the ideas of episcopacy were too lofty, and that they had insensibly grown with the gradual in- crease of superstition."^ Episcopacy and sup^rstitioa, Mil- ner discovers', had grown together in intimate fellowship, so that already in the third century he tells us bishops were beginning tobe considered in the same light as apos- *Cent. II, chap. 1. f Did the people elect the three bishops of Pennsylvania, or any other of the bishops in this country ? X Cent. Ill, chap. 14. ? Ibid., chap. 13. Inflated Style of the Fathers. IGl ties !" Well might he denounce this " comparison as very unseemly !"' III. In conducting the inquiry whether the modern Episcopal organization is identical in form with that of " the first three centuries," we encounter a furtlier difii' culty. Of the authors of that period whose writings have come down to us, often in a very fragmentary state, none were employed in discussing the leading " points " of High Churchisra. Their attention was chiefly direct- ed to other suhjects of an entirely different nature — to the controversies with Jews and heathens, or to various topics of discussion which had sprung up among them- selves. Of course their allusions to the subjects which ■we are now considering are accidental. For this reason they do not state their views with the precision and cautious accuracy which are expected, and usually ex- hibited on the part of those who write expressly on these topics. Hence their style is often extremely rhetorical, they over-look obvious distinctions, and defy all logical arrangement. It is plain, therefore, that the testimony of such witnesses even to ecclesiastical facts, or in regard to the existing government and usages of the churches, is to be received with great caution, and with many grains of allowance.* To illustrate this loose and uncertain use of terms where they mean nothing, or at least mean something quite different from thei)' ordinary acceptation, we have a striking example in the history of " Methodist Epis- copacy" in this country. Near the close of the last century, Mr. Wesley sent Thomas Coke, one of his preachers, to America, to superintend the organization of churches, &c. In the course of some years this sim- ple transaction, in which, as Dr. Bangs expresses it, " Mr. Wesley set apart by prayer and imposition of hands, Thoj. Coke as superintendent of the Methodist societies in America," is announced to the public in '• the Book of Discipline," under the title, " Origin of THE Methodist Episcopal Church." How does the * Milner speaks of the '' too florid and tumid style" of certain narratives of the 2d century, and condemns this " tawdy garb in wliich thev clotlied evanfrelicnl and spiritual sentiments." 15 162 High Church Episcx)pacy. affair appear now ? In some twenty-four lines we find such phraseology as this : "Mr. Wesley preferring the EPISCOPAL mode of church government" — " letters of episcopal orders" — " episcopal office" — episcopal ordina- tion, &c.;" and all in reference to Wesley's appointment of Thos. Coke as superintendent, together with the fact of Coke ordaining others. And "the General Conference," we are assured, were "fully satisfied of the validity of their episcopal ordination !"* Yet, the Methodists recognize no third order, such as bishops, as distinct from presbyters by divine right. Now suppose such a fragment as this had come down to us, having originated within a few years after the death of the last Apostle. Of course one inference would be, that as these primitive Methodist« were competent " witnesses of said facts," and could hardly be mistaken in matters of such recent date, Mr. Wesley must have been a peelatical bishop, perhaps an archbishop ; since the Episcopal Church, of which he was a member, did not recognize the validity of ordination, except as performed by a bishop ! Yet it is well known that Mr. Wesley avowed that " Lord King's account of the primi- tive church had convinced him that bishops and elders (or presbyters) are the same order." And in writing to Mr. Asbury he said, in reference to his being called bishop : "For my sake, for God's sake, for Christ's sake, put a full end to this." And yet these " witnesses of facts" (the title which Episcopalians give to the early fathers) say that Wesley set apart Coke to the episcopal office, delivered to him letters of episcopal orders, and directed him to set apart Mr. Asbury to the same episcopal office !" But all kno * that Methodist Epis- copacy recognizes only " two ordei-s, presbyters and deacons," with a superintendent called a bishop. AVe can readily conceive, therefore, that as the pride of power, and the lust of high-sounding titles gradually * Book of Discip., p. 6. Mr. Wesley's fopinion of "bishops," as he saw them in England, may be learned from his letter to Mr. Asbniy, Sept. 20, 1787 — "Men may call me a knave, or a fool, a rascal, a scoundrel — but they shall never, with my consent call me a bishop " TiiE Testimony of Jkrome. superseded the simplicity of the gospel, and as the writers of " the church of the first three centuries" generally discuss topics not at all related to the prelati- cal controversy — they often give us the rhetoric of the subject, not its logic. Well, therefore, might the Episcopal Bishop Hurd say of the early fathers, who are appealed to as " wit- nesses of facts :" " Their writings were composed in so loose and declamatory, and often in so hyperbolical strain, that no certain sense could be affixed to their doctrines, and anything or everything might, with some plausibility, be proved from them." * IV. We have shown that the learned Episcopal his- torian, Milner, cannot work with Dr. Van D.'s rule, so as to discover High Church Episcopacy in "the first three centuries." But it has been said with great confidence, that we "can produce no record of a change from primi- tive simplicity, but are obliged to imagine it, that we are countenanced liy none of the recoixls of the early church, &c., &c."t To meet these bold assertions, let us go back some 1,500 yeai's and inquire whether the men of that period had any better success in their inquiries into " early church history," or that of " the first three centuries." In the year 331 was born Jerome, " the most learned of the Latin fathers, and eminent both for genius and industry " — " a man humble before God, and truly pious"J — -"without controversy, by far the most learned and eloquent of all theCh ristians, the prince of Christian divines " § — " the teacher of the world." Here is a man who can not be suspected of ignorance, nor be charged with blinding prejudice against the very church of which he was so distinguished a minister. Jerome, we will readily concede, during his long life of over ninety years, found many features of the modern Higli * Introduction to Study of Prophecy, p. 241. f •' Not a writer of antiquity has told us when or where or by what means the change took place, or who efiected it, or that such a change took place at all." Clerg. Looking, &c., p. 344. X Milner. ^ Erasmus, a learned Papist, says this of .Jerome. 164 High Church Episcopacy. Churchism already largely developed. A hundred years previously, in the days of Cyprian, Milner says, " the ideas of Episcopacy Avere too lofty " — " they had grown with the growth of superstition ;" and again, "the authority of the bishop was by no meam unlimited, but it was very great." This learned and pious father Jerome had been study- ing the Scriptures, especially Paul's epistles, and in pre- paring a commentary on Titus, he encountered that singular direction of the Apostle, chap. 1:5, "I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldst ordain elders (presby- ters) in every city, as I had appointed thee : if any be blameless, * * * * j^^ ^ bishop viust he hlameless, &c." This passage naturally led Jerome to inquire into the distinction between "bishop" and "presbyter," and whether in the church as established by the Apos- tles, there was any difference at all. The results of his investigations he has given us at length. 1. From the language of Paul (Tit , chap. 1 : 5-7) Jerome infers, " A presbyter is the same as a bish- op." Or, as he repeats in one of his epistles, "Apostolus perspicue docet, eosdem esse presbyteros quos et epis- copos," i. e., " The apostle clearly teaches that presbyters and bishops are the same."* What then becomes of the High Church dogma that "the primitive bishop be- longed to a different and a superior orderr of clergy," and that "he received a new and special ordination to mark his superiority over the presbyters as an inferior order." 2. Jerome unhesitatingly traces the government of bishops over large dioceses of numerous congregations, pastors and presbyters, not to divine authority, but to a very different source. Hear him : " Before that, through the instigation of the devil (diaboli instinctu), fancies (or parties) existed in religion, and it was said amongst the people, ' I am of Paul, I of ApoUos, and I of Cephas ;' the churches were governed by a common council of the elders" (or presbyters,) — communi pres- byterorum concilio ecclesise gubernabantur. This is sti'ong testimony against the government of bishops. * The Latin original in full may be . hich the cus- tom of the church (quae jam ecclesiaj usus obtinuit) has NOW brought into use, the office of bishop is greater than that of presbyter, nevertheless in many respects Augus- tine is inferior to Jerome."* It is worthy of note, that Bishop Jewel quotes this pas?age to prove that "the office of a bishop is above that of a priest, not by author- ity of Scripture, but after the names of honor which the custom of the church hath now obtained. "t The eloquent Chiysostora, at the dose of the fourth centriry, also bieaks " the dead silence of all antiquity " *Episl. 19 t Defence of his Apology, pp. 122, 123. The Presbyters Defrauded. 171 as follows: " Between bishop and presbyter there is not much difference ; for these (presbyters) also in like man- ner have had committed to them both the instruction and the government of the church. And what things he (Paul) has said concerning bishops, the same also he in- tended for presbyters. For they have gained the ascend- ancy over them (the presbyters) only in respect to ordi- nation ; and of this they seem to have defrauded the presbyters."* Chrysostom admits that in his day bishops were superior to presbyters in the matter of ordination — but he asserts that in this they had cheated them of their rights. The Greek word he employs, nhovexrecv, is the same as in 1 Thess. 4:6," That no man go beyond and defraud his brother."! In such terms of condemnation does he refer to the ambitious aspirings of church-men, whose aim seems to have been chiefly to promote their own aggrandizement. Even Theodoret of the following century says : " The Apostles call a presbyter a bishop, as we showed when we explained the Epistle to the Philippians ; which may also be leai-ned from 1 Tim. 3." These and other witnesses demonstrate the recklessness of the assertion so often and so positively made, "that none of the early historians or writers ever say one word about Presby- terian parity" — " not one word said about the matter (of its being set aside) * * * to account for it, or so much as to record it," " universal silence reigns," &c., &c. The gradual encroachment of the High Church assumptions, of which Jerome speaks, kept pace with other superstitions, as the Episcopal Milner truly affirms. Within ffty years after the apostolic age, uine in the sacrament of the supper was constantly mixed with wafer. Ireu?eus adduces in pretended proof of this bold innovation, the teaching and practice of Clirist, and both he and Cyprian affirm that it was received by tradition, and was a part of the primitive institution. So also, the absurd practice of a.dministering the Lord's supper to infants can be traced to a very early period. *Hom. II, on Epist. to Tim. t For a defence of this interpretation, see Bib. Eep. for 1830, |). f)I. 172 High Church Episcopacy. It existed, certainly, in the second century! Cyprian, in the third century, speaks of it as then no novelty, but a common practice. And even the great Augustine, of the fourth century, calls it apostolval tradition, and proves its propriety and necessity from John 6 : 53.* Why, then, does not "the Rector" conform to these "divine institutions ?" "They are of the three centuries !" Such is the steady, stealthy pace with which pernicious and absurd departures from the order of Christ's house gradually obtained admission and grew to vast and dan- gerous proportions. There was not as much or as decid- ed opposition made to these superstitions, as to the gradual introduction of Prelacy. Both very quietly insinuated their poison into the healthy, life-giving institutions of the church. These humiliating examples, especially when viewed in connection with the mon- strous, and not unfrequently ludicrous and contemptible interpretations of Scripture, adopted by the fathers of " the fii'st three centuries," are surely enough to convince any sane person of their character as guides ! " The church rej)osed for three centuries under the Episcopacy." Admitting, for argument, that it was so. The Church of England has reposed for three centuries under an Episcopacy. Can any man tell what she was in doctrine under Cranmer and Elizabeth, by what she is now ? Mr. Newman knew what he said, when he uttered the following : " In the English Church we shall hardly find ten or twenty neighboring clergymen who agree together; and that, not in non-essentials of religion, but as to what are its elementary and necessary doctrines ; or as to the tact, whether there are any necessary doctrines at all, any distinct and definite faith required for salva- tion."! Few things are regarded by High Churchmen as so absolutely necessary as the regular tactical succession of ordained bishops, who alone have a right, as they think, to ordain others, to administer "confirmation, &c." Yet Archbishop Whately, of Dublin, says : " Even in the * Except ye eat the fiesli and drink the blood, &c." Ergo, infants must "eat and drink" in order to he saved ! -Lectures, p. . 'JOS. An Unordained Bishop. 173 memory of persons now living, fliere existed a bishop, conceruing whom there was so much mystery and un- certainty, as to when, where, and by whom he had been ordained, that doubts existed in many minds whether he had ever been ordained at all.'" * And if such is the experience of an archbishop of the present period, how must this matter have been in the long night of ages ? Of course this unordained bishop could neither ordain nor confirm ! All those ordained by him were mei'e laymen ! That the breaking of even a single link in the long chain of tactual succession would introduce wide-spread confusion and disaster among High Church officials, is obvious from the following : The Episcopalian newspaper contains the sermon recently delivered by Rev. J. D. Wilson, of Pittsburgh, on his leaving his charge to unite with the " Reformed Episcopal Church." He says : " I myself have heard, in the presence of a bishop and several clergymen, a doctor in divinity declare that Presbyterians, Methodists and others did not possess the Holy Ghost. That doctor in divinity is now a professor in a Protestant Episcopal Theological Seminary. He held the dogma of apostolic succession, and held it con- sistently. Protestants, he argued, not being in the suc- cession, could not have a ministry, and so could not have sacraments, and could not have the Holy Ghost, who is communicated through sacraments. God forbid that I should charge all holders of the apostolic succes- cession with such a belief as this. I simply say he held it, and held it consistently. He did not trim and hedge, and shrink from the consequences of his own principles, as others do." * Kingdom of Christ. 16 174 High Church Episcopacy. CHAPTER XII. DIFFICULTIES FROM THE xVAMES AVT> FrJCCTIONS Of AN- CIENT BISHOPS— THE METHOD OF THEIR APPOIKT- ME>'T, AND THE LIMITED EXTEXT OF THEIR DIOCESES. From the evideuce cow adduced, it is not surprising that many of the most eminently learned and pious of the English clergy, as for example the Rev. William Goode, of London, entirely repudiate the High Church dogma, " that ordination by the hands of a prelatical bishop is indispensable to constitute a valid Christian ministry." Mr. Goode's learned and able chapter on this subject, in his " Eule of Faith," is -well known, and to all impartial minds is entirely conclusive. Even the Archbishop of Canterbury says ; " I hardly imagine there are hvo bishops on the bench, or one clergyman in fifty, irho would deny the validity of the ORDEUg of those pastors (foreign Protesrtant non-episcopal minis- ters), solely on account of their wanting the imposition of Episcopal hands." "So far as my own judgment serves," adds Bishop Broughton, " it leads me to conclude * * * that a min- istry derived by apostolic succession, though not indis- pensable to the maintenance of the church in being, is finally essential to its continuance in icell being." "The Reformers," adds Bishop Musgrave, as before quoted, " distinguished between * * * what is essential to the being, and what is essential to the u-ell being of a church — a wise distinction, which good sense and Christian charity should lead us all ever to keep in sight " — and " to spread abroad this (the opposite! notion would be to make ourselves the derision of the y:orld."'* We are now prepared to examine more closely the * See his Charge in Bricknell ToPLADV ON THE FaTHEES. ]7o testimony of tlie fathers of "the first three centuries," in order to disrover uhcthrr \hej tcacli tlie distinctive features of Hifrh Chiirchisni, viz., tliat "the bishops of the priniitivij church were ;i ili-/e primitiv^^- i-lnu ch regarded these prin- ciples as of divine institution —nay, ind i^penaabl eXhat where tliere was no diocesan bishop there was no church, and coidd be no Christians !* Hermas does indeed speak of "apostles, and bishops, and doctors, and ministers " — and a prominent Romish commentator finds here de- monstrated the four orders of his church — '"popes, bish- ops, priests and deacons !" But this will not help the High C'hurcli system. Hermas mentions in express terms, " tiie preshyters who presided over the church " of Home ; and bishops, according to him, arc only " the presidents of the churches." Deacons, he describes as tliose "who have the protection of the poor and the widows." It will certainly demand " optics sharp " to find here " throe orders," Ac.,&c. On such grounds as these, Presbyterian ministei-s were admitted to the cure of souls in the Church of England without re-ordination, from the period of the Reformation down to the Restoration of Charles II. Thus Strype, in his " Life of ( Iriudal," tells us that in 1582 the Vicar- General of the Archbishop of Canterbury granted a license to John Morrison in the following words : " Since you were admitted and ordained to sacred orders and the holy ministry, by the imposition of hands, according to the laudable form and rite of the Reformed Church of Scotland, we, therefore, approving and ratifying your form of ordination and preferment, grant to you, by ex- ])ress command of the reverend father in Christ, Lord Edmuud, Archbishop of Canterbury, to celebrate divine offices, to minister tlie sacraments," &c. And in IBiO, Bishop Cosin, a high authority with Prelatists, wrote from Paris as follows : " Therefore, if at any time a minister so ordained in these French churches came to incorporate himself in ours, and to re- ceive a public cliartre or cure of souls among us in the Church of England (as I have known some of them to *The title page of "Notes on Episcopacy," edited by Dr. AVainwright, of Is'^ew York, bears a Greek motto which may he rendered tliiiR: " Hoiv rniild voti Iip n riiriptinn, if Ihrrr vrrr vn Thk Primitivk Diocese a Pakisii. 183 have so done of late, imd can instance in many others before my time), our bishops did not re-ordain him be- fore they admitted him to his charge, as they must have "done if his former ordination here in France had been void."* These distinguished prelates certainly were not igno- rant of the church of the first century ! II. TESTIMONY OF THE SECOND CENTURY. The principal authors of this century are Polycarp, Ignatius, Justin Martyr and Irenteus. There are a few fragments of others of inferior note. In order to give method to our investigation, we shall classify their evi- dence under several distinct heads. 1. The names, titles and duties of church officers. — We do not deny that these writers often speak of certain indi- viduals as being bishops, and bishops of particular churches, as Paul had done ; nor do we question that " the ofiice of a bishop (i. e. pastor,) is of divine institu- tion." The Scriptures abundantly teach this truth, and so docs the Presbyterian Confession of Faith : " The person who fills the pastoral office, as he has the over- sight of the flock of Christ (i. e. the episcopate), is term- ed a bishop."! Even Bishop Onderdonk, as before quoted, acknowledges that " in the New Testament the term bishop means the bishop of a parish (i.e. a pastor) or a presbyter."!. Away forward in the third century, Milner, the Episcopal historian, is constrained to admit that "the bishop's diocese was called paroitia, a parish." But it appears that Kome had already taken large strides towards the " bad eminence " she afterwards at- tained : " Before the close of the third century," adds Milner, "the diocese of Rome had above forty churches, and under Cornelius the bishop, there were forty-six priests, or presbyters, forty-two acolyths, fifty-two exor- cists, &c." And in speaking of the government of the church of the second century, he admits that "at first Bishop Fleetwood's Jiulgmeiit of the Clmrch of England on ly^y-baptism. t Form of Govenniiont, eliap. IV. t Kvif. Tested, iitc , i>. 20. 184 High Church Episcopacy. or for some time, church governors were only of two ranks, presbyters and deacons, * * as at Philippi and at Ephesus, and the term bishop was confounded with presbyter. The church of Corinth," he adds, " continued long in this state, so far as we may judge by Clement's Epistle, &c." " A jeduced Episcopacy, in which the dioceses are of small extent, as those in the PRIMITIVE church undoubtedly were, &c."* Such, ac- cording to this learned Episcopalian, were the church officers called bishops in the second century — and even far on in the third century. " The president exercLsed a superintendency over ten or twelve presbyters of the same city and neighborhood-"! Something of this very sort was practised in the city of New York, before the establishment of an American Episcopate. There was for many years, but one rector (or president) over all the Episcopal churches of the city, amounting to several large places of worship, several presbyters and thou- sands of hearers. And something of the same nature now exists, as before stated, among the Protestant and Presbyterian churches of France, and so it has been substantially in that country ever since the Reformation. Yet they never had prelatical bishops. Thus we see that the frequent use of the title bishop by the writers of the second century proves nothing in favor of modern diocesan Episcopacy, but rather subverts it. 2. Mode of constituting bishops in the second century. It is clear that the people of " the parish " had much to do in the election of those called bishops. " The choice of bishops," says Milner, " and in part at least of pres- byters BY THE PEOPLE, Is a custom which seems natu- rally to have gi'own out of the circumstances of the charch at that time. The first bishops were appointed by the Apostles themselves." " As the judgment of the people matured, and especially as the grace of God was powerful among them, they were rendered better quali- fied to BE THE ELECTORS of their ecclcsiastical govern- ors. Precedents * ^ * qJ ^gj-y Mgh antiquity were set, and the practice continued during at least the jirst ■ Cent. TI, chap. 1. i Ibid. Early Bishops Elected by the People. 185 three ceiituries. On the other hand, I do not find that the people had any power in deposing a bishop."* "Undoubtedly," adds Milner, "the election of bishops devolved on the people. Tlieir appearance to vote on these occasions, their constraining of persons sometimes to accept the office against their will, and the determi- nation of Pope Leo long after, against forcing a bishop on a people contrary to their consent, demonstrate this."t Were these diocesan bishops such as the Bishops of the States of New York and Pennsylvania ? Is it not evi- dent that they were Presbyterian or parochial bishops ; in other words, "persons tilling the pastoral office?"! I* would puzzle Dr. Van Deusen to tell when and where the people elected the present Bishops of Pennsylvania! Yet both Mosheim and Neauder abundantly confirm the foregoing statements of Milner. The scriptural precedents for giving such power to the people were doubtless familiar to their minds. When the first deacons were appointed under the direc- tion of the Apostles and ordained by them, " the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them." " Look YE (the multitude) out seven men whom ?oe (the apos- tles) may appoint." "The whole multitude chose Stephen and Philip, &c.§ We shall search " the Prayer Book" from beginning to end without finding anything to correspond to this apastolic practice. We read " a priest shall present unto the bishop such as desire to be ordained deacons."|l The whole power confided to " the brethren " who may be present, is simply to make known any impediment or notable crime, " for the which the person or persons ought not to be ordained deacons." And does that fulfil the apostolic precedent? Are not the people robbed of their rights ? Not different was the practice in the election of * Cent. IIT, chap. 14. f Ibid. 1 Piesbytirian Form of Gov., chap. IV. I Acts 6 : 1-6. II Under the eye of the apostl&s, " they (the whole multitude) set tliem (the candidates for the deaconship) before the apostles." In the Prayer Book, " the priest" does it ! 17 186 High Cuurch Episcopacy. Matthias to be the twelfth apostle in place of Judas. Acts 1 : 15-26. " Without doubt," says Neander, the prince of historians, " not only the aix)stles but all the believers were at that time assembled. For though the apostles are primarily intended, yet the disciples col- lectively form the chief subject." So Chiysostom : " Peter," he says, " did everything (in this election) with the common consent, nothing by his own will and authority. He left the judgment to the multitude, to secure their respect to the elected and to free himself from eveiy invidious reflection." On the words " they appointed two," he says, " he did not himself, appoint them, it was the act of all." Such also is the judgment of Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage.* In view of these scriptural examples, we are prepared to find Clement of Rome, the companion of the Apostles and the earliest writer among " the fathers," assuming the existence of this popular custom. He speaks of the duty of " the flock of Christ to be in peace with the presbytens that are set over it," and admonishes them be- cause they had been led into " a sedition against their presbyters," had opposed and ill-treated them, and " cast them Old of their episcopate " or bishop's office. But on the supposition that diocesan episcopacy, with its modern claims and usages, was the government of the church of Corinth, much of this language is perfectly unintelligible. And to crown all this evidence that "the flock of Christ" elected their bishop, an old ecclesiastical law, probably framed in Italy, belonging to a collection styled "the Canons of Abulides, that is Hippolytus," and certainly dating back anterior to the middle of the third century,! speaks as follows: "The bishop is to BE ELECTED BY ALL THE PEOPLE." TllC bishop of primitive times was, therefore, merely the parochial shepherd, or pastor of a church. Which of the Episco- pal bishops of this country was " elected by all the peo- ple?" * Chrysostom's homily on tlie text. Cypri.m, Ep. 68. t T>r. Killen on the Ancient Church, p. 586. Bunsen's Ilii>- 5H.lytn=, vol. 2, pp. 351 -:«7. EXTEXT OF I'lIIO PRIMITIVK EPJSCOI'ATK. 187 This popular feature of primitive church governmeut is coDceded by some of the ablest of the defenders of prelacy. Bishop Burnet* admits that the right of elec- tion was takeu from the people in the fourth century." The Papist Bellarmiue concedes that the practice of the people and clergy (clerusetpopulus) electing the bishoj), was in use in the days of Chrysostora, Augustine and Ambrose ; and Cyprian of the third century, gives his judgment and that of a number of other bishops, that it is " the duty of the people to separate from a bishop morally unfit, and to elect another."-\ The 7th General Council by an express canon (16th) secured this right to the people. " When cities were at first converted tu Christianity," says the Episcopal Dr. Hook, "the bishops were elected by the clergy and people." " But as the number of Christians increased, this was found to be inconvenient ; for tumults were raised, &c. To prevent such disorders the emperors reserved the election to themselves." X This was about as good a reason for rob- bing the people of their rights as it would have been in Paul the Apostle to abolish the Lord's supper at Corinth, because some abused it. 3. Extent of the episcopate and number of bishops in the second century. " The bishops" whom Paul directed Titus " to ordain in every city" of Crete were obviously the same with " the presbyters." Titus 1 : 5-7. "At first," says Bishop Bui'uet, " every bishop had but one parish or paroikia^ as Milner also informs us. " All things continued thus," adds Burnet, " till towards the end of the second cen- tury." But it is well known that in England the Bishop of London has several millions of jieople in his diocese, and other bishops have several hundred thou- sand persons in their paroikas. How this matter stands in America all know. A whole State is certaiuly a pretty formidable paroilda! But "at the close of the first century," says Dr. Hawkius, " there is abundant * Vind. of Ch. of Scotland, p. 164. t Epis. G7. tChiircli Dictioiian', p. 67. ? Vhidic of Ch. of Scot., p. !«:!. 188 High Church Episcopacy. evidenee of the general practice of every church having its bishop as well as its presbyters (or elders ) and dea- cons.* "In that age of truth and danger," boasts another, " there was in every city and island and toicn ONE AND ONE ONLY, v.ho was known as tlie cliief pas- tor or bishop of the place. "f But agreeably to this "primitive Episcopacy," we ought to have a large num- ber of bishops in the single county of Allegheny ! And if " every city and town " in the seventy counties had its bishop, Pennsylvania alone would accommodate from ^five hundred to a thonmnd bishops!!! Of course there would be an equal number of dioceses! At present, with a population of between two and three millions of inhabitants,! our State is served by three bishops who have three dioceses ! Yet Dr. Van D. boasts that he and his brethren follow closely the pattern of the church of "the first three centuries !" If the primitive "bishop" in every city, toicn and parish was the pastor of the church, as Presbyterians maintain and the facts prove, the solution is obvious. But on the principles of modern High Churchism, all is " confusion worse con- founded," a perfect riddle. Nor would this difficulty prove less perplexing if applied to England. In 185-4 the Archbishop of Canterbury had under his care twenty h'lshoYis, and he of York,_/i!'e, or, including Wales, hventy-six bisho]JS.§ Tlie population of their dioceses is about sixteen or seventeen millions. The number of "cities and toirns" in England and Wales amounts to thousands, and if " every city and town " had its bishop, the island would of course require some twelve or fifteen thousand " loi-d bishops," instead of twenty-sir. Again : It is admitted by High Churchmen that some of " the fii-st dioceses were very .5»ia^Z." "It is a great misfortune to the Church of England," says Dr. Hook, " that her dioceses, compared with the population, are so extensive and so few." " If the church thought fit to add forty or a hundred more, she would not be without * Disc, on Apost. Sucffcssion. t Clersvinnn Looking, Ac., p. 341. tfViiMi'sof isr. l'.)7 A Bishop for each City and Town. 189 precedent in the primitive church."* But "the Vicar of Leeds" is far too cautious. If iu the primitive churcli tliere was " in every city and town oue known as the bishop," how would the addition of " a hundred " new bishops to the English hierarchy make even a dis- tant approach to primitive usage ? At a low calculation it would give not less than scores of " cities and towns " to each several bishop ! Verily we think, in opposition to Dr. Hook, this would certainly be " without precedent in the primitive church !" If "every town and city" had its bishop, this would bo parochial or Presbyterian Episcopacy — and this was doubtless the Presbyterian principle on which the primitive pastoral charges were constituted. How many inferior clergy, presbyters and deacons, would such a bishop need to assist him iu his ministrations? If each of the twelve or fifteen thou- sand bishops of England, thus constituted, had under him six clergy, which we believe is the lowest number admitted in a modern diocese, certainly the flock would be well fed! At least if a multitude of shepherds would suffice to secure that result. All these and simi- lar absurdities will be avoided by simply admitting with Archbishop Whately that " a church and a dio- cese seem to have been for a considerable time co-ex- tensive and identical."! * Church Dictionary, Art. Diocese. t Kingdom of Christ, p. 131. The smallest diocese in the United States is Rhode Island. Yet it would form a pretty large " church," according- to Archbishop Whately. This small diocese or church contains two hundred and seventeen thousand lieople, and covers thirteen hundred square miles of territory. 190 High Cuuech EpiscxjPAcri-. CHAPTER XIII. FURTHER DIFFICULTIES FROM THE EARLY RECORDS — CLEMENT AND IGNAT1TJ8 ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE PRIMITIVE BISHOP AND THE FIELD OF HIS LABORS. In the last chapter we endeavored to disprove the prelatical or High Church character of the primitive bishop : I. From the titles and functions ascribed to him. II. From the primitive method of constituting a bishop, in. From the extent of his diocese, and from the multitude of bishops occupying very limited terri- tory. The theory of High Churchism on these topics ■was shown to land its advocates in numerous absurdities, and the admissions of leading Episcopalians proved that the primitive bishop was the simple pastor of a church. Let us now look a little more closely into the recorded Jacts on the general subject. IV. Testimony of the earliest uninspired re- cords, as to the authority of the bishop and the field of his operations. 1. It is conceded by learned High Churchmen, that among the nations first converted to Christianity "dio- ceses were generally more numerous and not so large as at subsequent periods, say the middle ages." " The whole extent of Asia Minor," says Bingham, a standard Epis- copal authority, 630 miles by 210, is admitted to have been divided into '^almost four hundred dioceses."* These numerous dioceses occupied a territory about as large as the island of Great Britain, where there are now only about thirty dioceses. But in the middle ages, under the Popes, as we are further told by the same^ author, all Germany, which was twice as large as Asia Minor, had but forty dioceses; and iu all Russia, Bel- gium, Denmark, Swedeland and Poland, there were only ninety four. Bingham does not attempt to account for * Origines Ecclesiastice, p. 43. Numerous Bishops in Asia Minok. 191 this remarkable departure from primitive usages, but " leaves it to the curious and the learned." Milner, how- ever, has doubtless found the true key to unlock the difficulty. Even so early as the days of Cyprian, in the third century, this learned Episcopal historian tells us ' ' the ideas of Episcopacy were too lofty — they had in- sensibly grown with the increase of superstition."* If this were so at that early period, we can easily conceive to what a bad eminence " the ideas of Episcopacy " had attained in the three following centuries, and after that what gigantic stature they would reach in the middle ages under the dominion of " the man of sin." In the fifth century, according to the Episcopal Bingham, the single diocese of Theodoret comprised eight hundred parishes. The same learned writer proves from Chrysos- tom, who lived in the latter half of the fourth century and beginning of the fifth, that it was a common prac- tice to baptize (immerse) both men and women stark naked ! The same indecent superstition is clearly estab- lished by several other writers. One main part of the business of the deaconesses was to " assist at the baptism of (naked) women," " that no indecency might be com- mitted !" Besides, the baptisteries were commonly di- vided into two apartments for the difierent sexes. Let this suffice among numerous similar disgusting examples. Superstition, fanaticism and prelacy grew together and walked hand in hand in loving embrace. 2. Although the lordly supremacy and princely au- thority of the bishops grew rapidly in the general de- cline of primitive piety, many proofs remain of the early existence of a very different state of things. For ex- ample, Clement of the first century, claimed by Papists to have been a Pope, and by High Chui-chmen as " the bishop of Rome," in addressing the Corinthian church, how does he approach that disorderly people ? As " the Vicar of Christ?" As the Head of the universal church, the centre of unity, and even the great Bishop of the chief city of the empire ? No such thing. Hear him : "The cimrch of God which is at Rome to the church at ^Cent. Ill, vol. 1, 207. 192 High Church Episcopacy. Corinth, &c." "Let us honor those who are set over us." "Blessed are those presbyters (or elders) who having finished their course, &c." " Let the flock of Christ be in peace with the presbyters (elders) who are set o ver it." Not a whisper about " the chief pastor," &c., &c. At the beginning of the second century, as Dr. Barton, Professor at Oxford, admits, the very term " dio- cese" was not known; "though," he adds, "there may have been instances where the care of more than one con- gregation was commitled to a single bishop." "The name," he says, "which was generally applied to the flock of a single pastor, was one from which our word parish is derived, which signified his superintendence over the inhabitants of a particular place."* "At the period we are now considering (the third century)," adds Dr. Burton, a bishop's diocese was more analogous to a modern parish, and such was the name it bore. Each parish had, therefore, its own bishop, Avith a varying number of presbyters (elders) or priests and deacons.f So, also, Ignatius of the second century, in the epis- tles imputed to him, writes to the Ephesians, Smyrnians and Philadelphiaus. How does he address them ? Does he copy the style in Avhich the Lord Jesus commanded the Apostle John to approach these same churches? Rev. 3 : 2, S. " Write to the angel of the church, &c.," i. e., say High Churchmen, " to the diocesan bishop of each several church '!" Hoav does this " companion of the Apostles" express himself? "Ignatius to the church which is at Ephesus," "at Philadelphia," "at Smyrna," and even "at Eome," Avhere was the throne of "the Vicar of Christ," the Pope! Is not the presump- tion a fair, a strong, I had almost said an irresistible one, that there Avas no such diocesan "angel" at either place? On High Church principles, this departure from the divine pattern delivered to the Apostle John, is certain- ly very' remarkable! Whatever may have been the official character of " the apocalyptic angel," on the Pres- byterian theory the difticulty vanishes —whether he is viewed as a messenger betAveeu the inspired Apostle and *Hist Christian Church, p. 179. t Ibid., p. 2G3. T(iXATiAx Ei'isTi,F.s F()i!(ii-:i!ii:s. churches, or as more probably the pastor of each cou- gregation. 3. The very limited number and size of the authentic records of the first and second centuries — the fact also, that their testimony on these topics is always indirect and circumstantial, and the further fact tliat tlio most eminent scholars often differ greatly as to the real reading and rendering of certain passages — all tend to make their testimony not the most certain. Wo are thus driven to the necessity of gathering the then existing state of the church rather from occasional hints, tlian from express deliverances. Of the ecclesias- tical literature of the second century, for example, the Epistles of Ignatius originally, or when first discover- ed (i. e. in the 16th century), numbering fifteen, not to speak of an additional one from the Virgin Mary, addrpssed to Ignatius himself, are now acknowledged by all scholars to have baen more than half sheer forger- ies ! The seven shorter epistles, most Prelatists strenu- ously contend are authentic and genuine. The Christian Observer, however, well known as the English advocate of Episcopacy in its milder forms, candidly admits that six of these seven Ignatian epistles " will not be alleged by any capable and candid advocate for primitive Ej^is- copacy without great hesitation— by many they will be entirely rejected." * This writer says " he does not insinuate that the whole of the six is a forgery" — " but," he adds, of the particular passages which affect the present dispute, " there is not a sentence which I would venture to allege. The language, at the earliest, is that of the fourth century." More than this. No intelligent Protestant can read these seven Ignatian epistles without feelings of repulsion — I had almost said of disgust. Amid much that is just and true, because the plain sentiment of the Scriptures, there is a large and obvious interpolation of error and superstition, indicating with unerring certainty, in the language of Dean Swift describing the contents of the uiittcrs during a shower in London, " what place they conu! ii'oui by their sight and smell." v., I. 1 1, ,,.72:!. Jill JIkjii Cjruc II Ki'iscoi'Ac V. To exhibit this subject in its true light, as well as to show how far distiuguished scholars differ in their reading or translations of parts of the Epistles of Ig- natius, we present the following contrast. The first, or left column, is the rendering of the Archbishop of Canterbury.'" The right, is that of Professor Kiilen, in his recent work, "The Ancient Church." I Presbyterian. There was hidden from the ruler of this world the virginity of Mary and the birih of our Lord, and the mysteries of the shont, which were done in the quietness of God by means of the star, and here by the mani- festation of the Son, magic hc<'an to be dissolved. Epismpal. Now the virginity of Mary, and lie who was born of her, were kept secret from the prince of this world, as was also the death of our Lord: three of the mysteries the most spoken of (in tlie margin, mysteries of Twise,) througho\it the world, yet done in secret by God. How then was our Saviour manifest- ed to the world ? A star shone in heaven beyond all the other stars. * * * * Hence, all the power of magic became dissolv- ed, and every bond of wicked- ness waa destroyed. It is not necessary to decide which of these is the more correct and elegant rendering — since both are about equally instructive and cdifjnng! That these smaller Epistles of Ignatius have been, to say the least, greatly corrupted by the channel through which they have descended to us, is easily demonstrated. Could that pious father who had conversed with some of the Apostles, have uttered such puerile stuff as the following : " Ye are drawn up on high b}' the cross of Christ, as by an engine, using the Holy Ghost as the rope, your faith being 3'our support." Or as Dr. Killen ren- ders the words : " Ye are raised on high by the en- gine of Jesus Christ, which is the cross ; and ye are drawn by the rope wliicli is tlic Holy Ghost, and your pulley is your faith." Can any person in his right mind receive the foUnwiii'j; a< unli/ )i(d inspired? " The wore Calvin on Ignatian ErisTLE.s. 195 any one sees his bishop silent, the more let him revere him." " I have received the pattern of your love in your bishop, whose very look is instructive." * Yet of this sort of teaching we are told " a more admirable appendix to the pure word of God * * * cannot be conceived !"f These and numerous similar passages have led some of the most judicious moderns to reject all the Ignatian epistles as forgeries. Of the eight larger ones Calvin felt constrained to say, " there is nothing more abomi- nable than the trash which is in circulation under the name of Ignatius.J And Dr. Killen does not hesitate to declare the whole spurious,, and their real author "an anti-evangelical formalist, a puerile boaster, a dreaming mystic and a crazy fanatic." § Even Arch- bishop Usher greatly doubted the genuineness of one of the seven, that to Folycarp. Salmasius, Blondel and Dail lie pronounce them spurious. 4. But we cannot enter at large into this controversy. Lest, however, it should again be said, as heretofore, tliat our objections to these Epistles originate in their very favorable testimony to Prelacy, I will endeavor briefly to analyze their revelations on the main topic now under discussion. First. Do these seven epistles cleai-ly teach " the universal prevalence of an order of bishops, distinct from preaching presbyters, and superior to them ?" Admit that in addressing a particular church, the writer speaks of their " bishop, presbyters and deacons." This no more proves the existence of a prelatical or diocesan bishop in such church, than the same three classes of church officers prove the same to be taught in the Pres- byterian Confession of Faith. " The ordinary and per- petual officers in the church are bishops, ruling elders, i. e. presbyters, and deacons. "|| Again, " to the church which is at Smyrna," Ignatius is made to say : " Follow the bishop, all of you, even *E;piptlcs to Ephcs. and Trallians, sees. 9 and 103. fllook's Church Dirti.iiiniv. 1 TiiPt., Book I, chap. IS, sec. 29. i! Aiicieiil Church, p. 414. 196 High Church Episcopacy. a3 Jesus Christ the Father." But he instantly adds, " and the presbytery (or eldership) as the Apostles." Such authors and editors as Dr. Wainwright can discover here the superior " order " of bishops, * but surely " to follow the presbytery as the inspired Apostles," is equivalent to following them as God the Father — for the Apostles spake as " moved by the Holy Ghost." "I salute your very worthy bishop," he adds, "and your venerable presbytery." " Be subject to your bishop as to the man of God, and so likewise to the presbytery" (or eldership). "Obey," he again says, "your bishop and the presbytery (or eldership ; with an entire affection." " Hearken unto the bishop" — " submit to your bLshop with your presbyters and deacons." Except the foolish extravagance of language in part of these extracts, no Presbyterian would object to their counsel ; it will re- require " optics sharp, 1 ween," to find here the "distinct and superior order of diocesan bishops." Again, we read — " Let all reverence the deacons as Jqsus Christ, and the bishop as the Father, and the presbyters as the sanhedrim of God and the college of the Apostles."f Here the deacons are put first, but whether the reverence due to the three classes is designed to hav3 three degrees we cannot tell. To the Magnesians he says : " See that ye all reverence one another." Second. Do these Ignatian epistles clearly teacb that in all cases when a presbyter was elevated to " the order " of bishops, said presbyter received a new and distinct ordination f The term " order," as used in this discus- sion, is nowhere found in these epistles. Xeither is the word " ordain," or " ordination." This is so obviously tlie truth, that in the extended " Index" to the transla- tion by the Archbishop of Canterbury, these heads are entirely wanting! Is not this absolute silence very significant ? If as Dr. Wamwright teaches, " the three orders were received from the Apostles in fulfilment of many propiiecies of the Holy Spirit" — " a portion of the divine counsel and scheme for the salvation of sinners," yea, " A type also and present figure of the most Holy Notes on Episcopacy, p. 109. t Epist. to the Trallians, sec. III. Extravagant Notions of Pkelacy. 197 Trinity" — " so absolutely necessary, that those saiuts and martyrs (Ignatius for example) could as hardly have set tlieniselves to contemplate a religion without Oirist, as a church without (prelatical) bishops ;"* if, I repeat, anything so nearly approaching to blasphemy had ever entered tlie mind of this writer, would his seven epistles have contained no sucli term as " order," " ordain," " ordination ?" Let him believe it who can ! Yet we are assured that in these epistles all the three orders are clearly and exactly distinguished."! Third. Do these epistles ever intimate, even in the most distant manner, that the right to ordain with the imposition of hands belongs exclusively to " the order of bishops?" This is answered in the preceding remarks. We admit with the judicious Hooker, that "it is God that maketh bishops," i. e., in the New Testament sense; and " that the Christian fraternity standeth bound to obey them." But if the divine right of ordination was vested exclusively in " the order of bishops," and all ordination by presbyters was false and spurious, a mere mockery, the Ignatian epistles are certainly silent on the whole subject. We are expressly taught, on the other hand, that " the deacon is subject to the presbytery (not only to the bishop) as to the law of Jesus Christ" — that " the presbyters preside in the place of the coun- cil of the Apostles " — which presbyters we are required to " reverence as the sanhedrim of God and the college of the Apostles "■ — and "to follow as the Apostles," &c. Can any unprejudiced person seriously put on such passages as these the High Church construction, viz., that tlie order of bishops alone are empowered to ordain to the ministry of preaching the gospel and administer- ing the sacraments ? The same expressive silence is also observed in these epistles as to the exclusive right of " the bishop " to administer confirmation. Ignatius, whoever he was, appears to have known nothing about it! Yet Dr. Wainwright speaks of "the testimony of those who had set at the feet of the Apostles (including Ignatius) as unequivocal and decisive, believed in all * Notes on Episcopacy, p. 357. ^ Dr. Hook's Church Dictionary, p. 216. 18 198 High Church Eplscopacy. lands, and as unquestionable truth" — i. e., unquestion- able Prelacy ! Fourth. Do these Ignatian epistles teach in " the jilainest terms" the existence of " bishops having under their government a number of congregations with their pastors" — in a word, the prevalence of" diocesan epis- copacy ?" (1.) If Ignatius meant by the term "bishop," the spiritual governor of many pastors and congregations, could he have represented them as " coming together in one place?" Hear him : " For if the prayer of one or two be of such force, how much more powerful shall that of the bishop and the whole church be. He, therefore, that does not come together into the same place with it, is proved and has already condemned himself." Again : " For when ye meet fully together in the same place, &c.," — " that ye all by name come together in common, in one place" — " obeying your bishop and the presbytery with entire affection." Again : "Being cojie TOGETHER INTO THE SAME PLACE, have One common pirayer, one supplication." Again : " But come all together into the same place, with an undivided heart." Apply this language to any prelatical diocese in Penn- sylvania, and it evidently enjoins an utter impossibility. But suppose that the writer is speakiug of a Presbyte- rian bishop, i. e., a pastor of a single parish, and all is plain. Surely it needs no proof that those who thus worshipped in one assembly, were not " the eight hundred congregations " of one diocese ! Nor similar to the pre- sent " Diocese of Virginia," with its million and a half of population, and fifty thousand square miles of terri- tory ! (2.) In like manner, the Ignatian parish is commanded to unite " in one common prayer " — " breaking one and the same bread " — in other words, to unite together in the Lord's supper. Is this ever done in a modern Epis- copal diocese ? (3.) These epistles represent the bishop as present with the flock in all ordinary acts of public worship. Thus : " Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people (or multitude) also be." Again, we read of " the Duties of Ignatian Bishops. 991 rayer of the bishop and the whole church " — " he that 063 not come together in the same place is proud," &c. Again : " Neither do ye anything without your bishop and presbyters " — " but being come together in the same place, have one common prayer " — " wherefore come ye all together as uuto one temple of God, as to one altar," or communion table. This is very intelligible, if inter- preted of the pastor of a single congregation. But how could the Bishops of Pennsylvania obey such counsel as this ? Do the Episcopalians of the city of Erie, for ex- ample, " come together with their bishop and the churches of Pittsburgh?" Is there a "diocese" in the world at the present day, where such union is possible? (4.) But to place the question beyond all reasonable doubt, these Ignatian epistles proceed to describe at large the qualifications and duties of a primitive bishop. " Let nothing be done," Ignatius says to bishop Poly- carp, " without thy hioioledge and consent." Again : *'He that does anything without his (the bishop's) knowledge, ministers unto the devil" — or "worships the devil." This is the general rule. Let us look at the application. Igaatius says to Polycarp : " Let your assemblies be more foil ; inquire into all by name." Polycarp's diocese seems not to have been very exten sive! What folly in any person of sense, to exhort Bishop Stevens of Pennsylvania, for example, to " in- quire into all by name .'" He might as well counsel him to inquire into the place of the birth of all the people of his diocese ; and to give the precise stature in feet and inches of each of them ! Again : " Let not the widows be neglected " — " over- look not the men and maid-servants." We should like to inspect a catalogue of the names of " the men and maid-servants " in Pennsylvania, prepared by our bish- ops, to say nothing of the widows and other poor and destitute persons ! The pastor of a single congregation might perform such a work in a Presbyterian diocese — but what prelatical bishop either would or could do it ? Yet Ignatius exhorts the bishop of his day to " inquire into all" (not only "the widows and servants "), "by name." More than this — "marriage (was) not to be 200 High Church Episcopacy. made without the knowledge and consent of the bishop."* "It becomes all such as are married, whether men or women, to come together with the consent of the bishop, so that their marriage may be according to godliness, and not in lust." This complicates the matter still more. Apply this direction to the dioceses of Pennsyl- vani — suppose " a man-servant and maid-servant " in the city of Erie wish to marry. Of course they mast post off to Pittsburgh to get "the consent" of their bishop! This is tbe Ignatian method to have godly marriages, "not in lust." But it would be simply an impossibility that Bishop Kerfoot's " consent " should be sought and obtained in all such examples. The un- avoidable inference is, according to Ignatius, that most of the marriages in the Dioceses of Pennsylvania, and in- deed throughout the United States, are not of the primi- tive sort, because " without the knowledge and consent of the bishop !!" In view of such palpable evidence as this, it is not surprising to hear Bishop Stillingfleet say : " In all those thirty-five testimonies produced of Ignatius' epis- tles, I can meet with but one which is brought to prove the least semblance of an institution of Christ for Episco- pacy ; and if I be not much deceived, the sense of that place is clearly mistaken, too." " So that we see," he adds, "that Ignatius himself cannot give a doubting mind satisfaction of the divine institution of bishops. "t Such writers and editors as Dr. Wainwright can see in these epistles of Ignatius " enough to convince all (of the divine origin of Prelacy) except those whom his (Ignatius') judgment will be found to exclude from the communion of saints." Dr. W. and his brethren may continue to cherish the pleasing fallacy, "that the ques- tion of church government is settled by these epistles, and that this is a truism," i. e., too plain to be proved !t But it is very remarkable, that in citing from Ignatius what they regard as entirely demonstrative proof in their favor. Dr. Wainwright and the author which he edits, carefully exclude all this testimony about " inquir- * Archbishop of Canterbury's translation of Ignatius. t Irenicum, pp. 334, 335. X Notes on Episcopacy, pp. 109-113. No Distinct Orders of Ministers. 201 ing into all by name," "the widows," " men and maid- servants," "marriage," "the church meeting with the bishop iu one and the same place, having one prayer, &c. !" If they were to quote these passages, their "truism" would vanish. Their argument would open people's eyes. But it is alleged that Ignatius counsels submission " to the bishops, presbyters and deacons ;" and thus re- cognizes " these three orders as of divine appointment "* — or, as Bingham expresses it, " he speaks of bishops, presbyters and deacons as distinct degrees in the church, and the two latter as subordinate to the flrst.t" But this is going a little too fast. Admit that he speaks of three classes of church officers, what proof is there that he regarded the first as diocesan bishops, and the second as an inferior order ? Are these writers ignorant of the fact that every fully organized Presbyterian church has its bishop, its presbyters (or elders) and deacons ? Do they not know that the bishop (or pastor) is the president of the eldership (or jjarochial presbytery), and that in his Epistle to the Corinthians, one of the apostolic fath- ers exhorts the flock of Christ to be in peace with the elders (presbyters) that are set over iif Do they not know that Justin Martyr, of the same period with Igna- tius, uses similar language of one whom he calls " the president of Christian assemblies ?" (5.) But as to the " distinct degrees in the church," which Bingham claims as clearly proved by these Igna- tian epistles, as also the order of presbyters as " subor- dinate to the bishops," let us look at a few particulars. Does the "full and evident proof" consist in the ar- 1 angement of the titles bishop, priest, &c. ? But in this, Ignatius is not uniform. In one place, at least, he puts '■ the deacons" at the head of the list;J so that it reads, " deacons, bishop and presbyters ! "§ Again : Does the " evident proof" consist in his re- quiring " reverence to be paid to the bishop, as to the * Dr. Wainwright's Notes on Episcopacy, p. 13. tOrigines Ecclesiasticre, vol. 1, p. 53. i To the Trallians, sec. 3. 'i Polycarp, the disciple of the Apostle John, in his Epistle to the Philippians, leaves out the bishop entirely, and mentions only " presbyters and deacons !" 202 High Church Episcopacy. Father?" But in the same sentence he enjoins " to rev- erence the deacons as Jesus Christ." Again : Is " every one, especially the presbyters," en- joined to " refresh the bishop, to the honor of the Father, of Jesus Clirist and of the Apostles "f But is this more and better than " to reverence the deacons as Jesus Christ ;" and " the presbyters (elders) as the sanhedrim of God and the college of the apostles f Is refreshing the bishop '• to the honor of the apostles " stronger proof of " supe- rior order or degree in the church," than " fleeing to the apostles as to the presbytery of the church."* Further: Does "this full and evident proof" of a "su- perior order of bishops " consist in the exhortation " to obey the bishop," " submit to the bishop," " follow the bishop," and be " subject to the bishop ?" But is this stronger or better proof of superiority than, "be subject to your presbyters as to the apostles of Jesus Christ " — '• obeying the presbytery with entire affection " — " follow the presbytery as the apostles ?" Still further : Does this " demonstrative proof" that - ■ presbyters are of a lower order than bishops " consist in such passages as these : — " Neither do ye anything- without your bishop " — " continue inseparable from your bishop " — " do nothing without the bishop ?" But in the same sentence it is added — " Do nothing without your presbyters." Again : " He that does anything with- out bishop and presbyters and deacons, is not pure in his conscience." Ignatius, moreover, counsels the church of Smyrna thus : " Labor with one another ; contend together, run together, suffer together, sleep together and rise together." If that venei'able church had been composed entirely of shaven monks, this might have been sensible admoni- tion. But whether such a practical unity would have been desirable under all circumstances, may admit of considerable doubt. We have thus passed in review the chief passages from the Ignatian epistles, which the learned prelatist Bingham quotes as " testimony full and evident " that " the order of bishops always was owned to be superior *Totlie Philadelpliians, sec. 5. Duties of Early Presbyters. 205 to that of presbyters" — and which Dr. Wainwright thinks is made so plain as to be incapable of stronger proof — in other words, "a truism!" We, on the other hand, are constrained to think that these arguments demonstrate nothing so clearly as the extreme credulity of the prelates who prop their cause with such frivolous- testimony. If anything further may properly be ad- duced on so very plain a subject, it is the fact that as most of these seven epistles are addressed to particular churches, so we find each church furnished with its bish- op, its presbytery (or bench of elders) and deacons. The presbyters are represented as always present with the bishop and congregation, and as being equally insepara- ble from it. Thus to every altar or communion table there was attached one bishop and his prcbytery ; but there is no evidence in these epistles that these presbyters ever preached, or ministered the communion separate from the bishop or pastor. But even if it were ever so plain that presbyters did often preach and administer the sacraments, this would be in entire harmony with the Presbyterian system. There were in the primitive church, as all know, persons regularly ordained who had no pastoral charge, but were the assistants, or as prelatists say, the curates, of the bishop or pastor. These were not bishops, that name implying a pastoral oversight.. But they were assistant presbyters. But how to recon- cile all these facts with the prelatical and diocesan the- ory of bishops, is a problem which we decline to solve. The facts just stated also explain another thing which Prelatists have imagined to stand in the way of our argument. " In such large cities as Ephesus, it is said, there were doubtless, in the days of Ignatius, very many converts to Christianity, and probably several large congregations, with their several pastors. How then does it happen that Ignatius addresses one of these pastors as bishop, to the entire exclusion of the rest ?" The solution is easy. " The only bishop then known was the pastor of a single congregation or parish. That there were several worshipping assemblies in each parish is highly probable ; for then the edifices which we call churches were unknown. Chiustians were neither able nor permitted to erect them, and therefore separated 204 High Chuech Episcopacy. themselves for social worship into as many private houses, upper chambers, and even cellars and caves, as might be needful for their accommodation. Still, in each city or town they were considered one body, and had one pastor, one communion table, a common place of baptism, &c., united in common supplications."* Thus they considered themselves one church, and to serve so large a body of people, the bishop had one or more assistauts, who though presbyters, and some of them or- dained to preach, baptize and administer the Lord's supper, did not sustain the pastoral relation or oversight — thus, they were not bishops. These facts are abundant- ly established by Ignatius ; they are assumed as indis- putable by Stillingfleet and other learned and candid Episcopal authors. They render perfectly intelligible most of the language used by primitive writers, who must, on the prelatical or diocesan theory, stand con- victed of uttering sheer nonseme. Such evidence as the foregoing has compelled many of the most learned Epis- copalians to admit with Dr. Burton.f that even at the commencement of the third century " each parish had its own bishop, with a varying number of presbyters or priests and deacons " — " each parish a bishop." In one of the three dioceses of the State of New York, there are two hundred parishes and one bishop.'X Is this the "truly primitive and apostolic church ?" Does it bear even a distant resemblance to " the church of the first three centuries ?"§ How absurd would many of the Ignatian counsels appear, if addressed to the three bishops of Pennsylvania ? How impracticable must those directions be, if applied to the fifty-two bishojjs in the United States, having under their inspection some twenty-seven hundred parishes? According to these early writers, Ignatius and others, the Protestant Episcopal Church should have at least two thousand bishops, instead of fifty-two. * Biblical Eepertory, 1830, p. 56. t Eegius Professor at Oxford, Hist. Chris. Church, p. 179. i Church Almanac, 1874. 'i "Inquire for the church of the first three centuries "—" there must be identity proven satisfactorily." Dr. Van Deusen, pp. 104, 136. Testimony of Several Fathers. 205 CHAPTER XIV. DIFFICULTIES IN HARMONIZING THE TESTIMONY OF SEV- ERAL OTHER EARLY WRITERS WITH HIGH CHURCH PRETENSIONS. We have dwelt particularly upon the Epistles of Ignatms, because they are viewed as the stronghold of High Church Episcopacy. If the very citadel proves to be so rickety and unsafe a shelter, what confidence can be reposed in the minor dependencies ? Of the writers of the second century Papias next claims our attention. He is said to have been " a hearer of the Apostle John and a companion of Polycarp." Does this author teach the doctrine of a distinct and superior order of bishops, invested with the exclusive right to ordain and confirm, and with the government of an indefinite number of churches with their pastors? Does he teach that this sort of Episcopacy was of ex- clusive divine origin, and was so regarded by the whole primitive church ? Let us inquire. I. As quoted by the historian Eusebius,* Papias speaks of the first disciples of our Lord as presbyters, just as the Apostle John calls himself '"the elder," thus: "Ii I met with one who had conversed with the presbyters, I inquired after the sayings of the presbyters, what An- drew, Peter, Philip, Thomas or James had said, what John, or Matthew or any other disciples of the Lord were wont to say, &c." We may safely leave to every person of common sense to decide whether this passage teaches High Church Episcopacy. But if it were as express as its advocates could desire, there would still be a pretty serious obstacle to its reception. Eusebius adds that this same Papias professed to have " received by unwritten tradition from the disciples of our Lord, the doctrine of a certain millennium after the resurrection, *Ecc. Hist., p. 125. 206 High Chuech Episcopacy. and of a corporeal reign of Christ on this earth," and " sovie other matters too fabulous."* Such a writer cannot be trusted as a witness to any facts not otherwise sup- ported. But in calling the apostles presbyters (a title by the way which both Peter and John assumef), it will scarcely be imagined that he intended to express any official inferiority. II. The testimony of Justin Martyr, who flourished about the middle of the second century, furnishes but very feeble support for High Churchism. In speaking of " the place where the brethren are assembled for common prayers," and of the usual forms of public worship, he says: "Prayers being ended," "bread and a cup of water and wine are then brought to the presi- dent of the brethren,X and he receiving them," "continues long in giving thanks," " and the whole people having expressed their assent," viz., "by saying amen," those who are called among us deacons give to those who are present to partaka of the bread and wine, mixed with water," &c., &c. Prelatists strenuously contend that " the president of the brethren," spoken of by Justin, was certainly a prelatical bishop. But every such wor- shipping assembly had its bishop ! This is the Presby- terian doctrine. Again, says Justin : " Upon Sunday all who live in cities or in the countiy ^-a^Aer together to one place, and the writings of the Apostles and Prophets are read," " the president addresses them and exhorts them," " we then all rise together and pray," "bread and wine mixed with water are brought, and the president offers prayers and thanksgivings according to his ability, and the peo- ple assent, saying, amen. Those who are wealthy and willing, contribute as they are severally disposed, and it is deposited in the hands of the president, who succors *Euseb. Hist., p. 126. fl Peter 5: 1;2 Johnl: X The Greek term used by Justin for " president,'' TzposaTw; is of tlie same verb translated "over you in the Lord," (1 Thess. 6: 12), and "the elders that rule well," 1 Tim. 5: 17. The Episcopal Goode says: "They were overseers (bishops) of their particular flocks, and are said to preside." Eule of Faith, vol. 2, p. 47. Succession of Presbyteks. 207 orphans, widows, &c." The question now is, was this presiding minister who took the lead in these worship- ping assemblies, the pastor of each congregation? Or was he " a diocesan bishop," a member of " a superior order," with many congregations and presbyters under his control? High Churchmen, blinded by prejudice, may fancy they discover in such statements as these of Justin, "a striking confirmation"* of their views. Well might Milton demand, " are these the offices only of a (prelatical) bishop? Or shall we think that every congregation where these things were done, had a (pre- latical) bishop among them ?" III. IrenoEus, Bishop of Lyons, who flourished in the last quarter of the second century, is our next witness.! " We can enumerate," he says, " those who were con- stituted bishops by the Apostles in the churches, and their successors even to us." So also he tells us of " the succession of bishops," "the succession of the church which is from the A postles," " the bishops to whom the Apostles delivered the churches, &c." At these and similar forms of speech, the High Churchman greatly rejoices ! What can more clearly establish the Episco- pal claims than " the testimony of this reverend saint and martyr."! But our prelatical friends are common- ly in too great a hurry to reach their conclusions. What Presbyterian ever doubted that "the Apostles constituted bishops (i. e. pastors) in the churches?" " that they delivered the churches to these as their successors ?" The only question is, what were the qualifications and powers of these scriptural bishops f Were they diocesan bishops, or parochial bishops? Were they a distinct " order " from presbyters and superior to them, in virtue of their ordination ? These are the points to be proved. Again: What will High' Churchmen do with such pass- ages as these : " The apostolical tradition is preserved in the churches through the succession of the presbyter/^," " obey those presbyters in the church icho have succession, * Notes on Episcopacy, edited by Dr. Wainwright, p. 121. t Milner says, "His philosophy * * * * darkened some truths of Scripture — and he mixed the doctrine of Clirist with human inventions." Ch.Hist., vol. 1, p. 139. t Notes on Episcopacy, p. 128. 208 High Church Eplscopacy. as we have shown, from the Apostles ; who, with the suc- cession of the episcopate, received the gift of truth ;" " we ought to adhere to those presbyters* who kept the Apos- tles' doctrine and together with the order of the presby- ierate, show forth sound speech. Such pjresbyters the church nourishes, and of such the prophet says, ' I will give them princes in peace and bishops in righteous- ness?' " Thus it seems plain that " the bishops" insti- tuted by the Apostles as their " successors," were neither more nor less than i^resbyters, who are also styled their " successors." Further: Admit that Irenieus speaks of "the episco- pate of the church of Rome," and names Linus, Aua- cletus and others as having succeeded the Apostles. What does all this prove ? Does it possess the weight of a feather in favor of prelacy ? Let Irenaeus himself explain his meaning. In his epistle to Victor, Bishop of Rome, he says : Those presbyters before Soter, who governed the church which thou now governest — did not observe it " {i. e. Easter, on the day in which Victor observed it) — " and those presbyters who preceded you, though they did not observe it themselves, &c." And then he adds, " He (i. e. Anicetus, one of the Roman bishops') declared to Polycarp that the custom of the presbyters who were his predecessors should be retained," or as Eusebius expresses it, " Anicetus said (to Poly- carp) that he was bound to maintain the practice (ob- serving Easter) of the pjresbyters before him."t "That this testimony concerning the character and authority of jjresbyters is not at all to the taste of High Church- men, we need no other proof than this: such editors and authors as Dr. Wainwright omit it altogether. Dr. W. does not quote a single line from Irenseus where presbyters are so much as named !J Is not this " expres- sive silence?" * Hippolytus, a disciple of Irena?us, calls him (Irenaeus) " the blessed presbyter." Ref. of Heresy, ch. 3S. f Eccles. Hist., Book V., chap. 24. So in writing to Florinus, Irenwus speaks of certain false doctrine.s which "those who were jjres6.i//ers before us — those who had walked with (he Apostles did not deliver." Nothing about an " order " of bishops there. Milner, Cent. III. i Xote.= on Episcop.icy, pp. 127-l.S.S. Testimony of Victor and Clement. 209 To render this testimony of Irenseus still more con- clusive—after he had been bishop of Lyons for nine years, he was sent by certain eminent persons of the churches of France (Eusebius calls them " martyrs ") on a mission to Eleutherus of Rome. How do these martyrs speak of him? As " my lord bishop?" or as a bishop at all ? Hear them : " We have requested our brother and colleague to carry this epistle;" " we would certainly commend him among the first as a presbyter of the churrh."* And in referring to Polycarp, in his epis- tle to Florinus, Irenreus calls him " that holy and apos- tolical presbyter." Nothing appears in these extracts about Bishop Polycarp and Bishop Ireuseus. The rea- son was that the highest official dignity was that as- sumed by the Apostles Peter and Johu, simply presbyter. If the term bishop was sometimes employed, it indicated only the pastoral oversight by the presbyters. It was the title of labor and responsibility, not of peculiar honor, or of "a superior order." Since the death of the Apostles, Presbi/terian parity prevailed. IV. Victor, Bishop of Rome, of the same period, in a letter to Dionysius, Bishop of Vienna, holds the following language : " Thy holy fraternity were taught by those presbyters, who had seen the Apostles in the flesh, and governed the church until thy time " — " therefore, let thy fraternity write to the presbyters of Gaul, that they observe Easter with the followei-s, of the Apostles and preachers of the truth." We respectfully submit that to write thus of presbyters as " governing the church," and to address them in such important matters, to the neglect of " the superior order " of bishops, was bad treatment of the real successors to the apostolic office !! V. Nor does the testimony of Clement of Alexandria, who lived near the close of the second century, give any better support to the Prelatical doctrine. He was a pres- byter of the church of Alexandria, and president of the celebrated theological seminary in tliat city. That this father " cherished a deep conviction of the divine insti- tution of the thre '-fold order of the sacred ministiy," pre- * Eccl. Hist., Book V, chap. 4. 19 210 High Church Episcopacy. latists attempt to prove thus : " He speaks of the innu- merable precepts of Holy Scripture, which pertain to bishops, priests (presbyters) and deacons."* But there are two objections to this statement of the argument. In the same sentence he says of these innumerable pre- cepts of Scripture, " and some pertain to uidows !" More than this, while we admit that Clement, in another place, does speak of " bishops, presbyters and deacons," in the passage referred to he inverts the order and writes it "presbyters, bishops, deacons and widows !"'\ No doubt the Scripture contains directions for these four classes of persons ; but it may be well questioned whether a mau of sense, as Clement was, would thus jumble the three orders " ordained to be types of the celestial hierarchy !"| Again : Clement was & presbyter, nothing more. Yet he sayg, " we who have rule over the churches, are shepherds or pastors, after the image of the Good Shepherd." Could bishops be more or better than this ? And in the 11th chapter of his Pedagogue he gives the power of imposition of hands to presbyters : " On whom or what will the presbyter impose his hand?" If this means what is now called confirmation, which is very doubtful, it is here first mentioned in the records of antiquity, and be it observed it is by " the hand of the presbyter!" At the present day, it belongs exclusively to the bishop of a diocese. Again: In several places Clement omiti entirely the bhhops. Thus — " The presbyters are intrusted with the dignified ministry, the deacons with the subordinate."^ In reference to Paul's directions about marriage, 1 Tim. 5 : 1 4, he says: "He must be the husband of one wife only, whether he he presbyter or deacon, or layman, if he would use matrimony aright." " What can they say," adds Clement, "to these things, who inveigh against marriage, since the Apostle enjoins that the bishop to be * Notes on Episcop. bv Dr. Wainwright, p. 133. t;Psedagog., Book HI, chap. 12. j Notes on Episcopacy, p, 134. ? ",The dearoiis," he says, "maintain a .sfrnccni/c similitude, the jn-cib'/ters that which is most excellent." High Churchmen in the Clouds. 211 set over the church, be one who rules well his own house." Clement appears to have had no knowledge of a more dignified order than jyreili()p Potter interprets Tertullian : " When three are gatlieied together, they make a church, though they be all laymen ; and where no clergyman is present, lay- men may baptize and celebrate the Eucharist; the dis- tinction between clergy and laity being only of the church's app)ointmerd."X Few Presbyterians would be willing to adopt so radical a sentiment as this. We are far from teaching that the authority of Presbyterian bishops or pastors depends simply upon " the appoint- ment of the church." *Origines Ecclesiasticse, Book I, chap. 5. t For a very s;illy :ittt in])t to cnst ridicule upon th's doctrine, as in tlie la^r di"' a (.'iniiaiiv of Chri.stians cast on a de.''ert island," SCO Prcsl.. Uvra. &c., pp. 357-360. tCh. <;nvl .rha,., 1. p. 1 ll ^. CvpRiAN ON Early Cohruptions. 219 VII. Cyprian of Carthage, whose conversion took place A. D. 246, and whose labors and writings belong to the succeeding thirteen years, comes next under re- view. He lived in troublous times, and though one of the wisest and best of the early fathers, was driven from his city and cluirch for a season by a cruel and bloody persecution. It may serve to illustrate the nature of the bishop's office of that period, to copy the Episcopal Milner's account of his election by the church of Car- thage: " It was with no satisfaction that Cyprian ob- served the designs of the people to choose him for their bishop. He retired to avoid solicitation ; his house was besieged ; his retreat was rendered impossible. He yielded at length." * The part taken by " the people " iu this affair, finds little to correspond in "the Episcopal Prayer Book " of modern times. It may be well worth while to look for a moment at "the church of the third century," the boasted period of purity and the j^attern to modern times of truth and righteousness, to which High Churchmen direct atten- tion ! In Cyprian's treatise " concerning the lapsed," " we have," says Milner, "an affecting account of the declen- sion from the spirit of Christianity which had taken place before his conversion." "Each," says Cyprian, "had been bent on improving his patrimony." " The pastors and deacons each forgot their duty." " Works of mer- cy were neglected and discipline was at its lowest ebb. Luxury and effeminacy prevailed. Meretricious arts in dress were cultivated. Fraud and deceit were practised among, brethren. Christians * * * could swear not only without reverence, but even without veracity. * * * * Even many bishops who ought to be guides and patterns to the rest, neglecting the peculiar duties of their stations, gave themselves up to secular pursuits. They deserted their places of residence and their flocks. They travelled through distant provinces in quest of pleasure and gain, * * and were insatiable in their thirst for money. They possessed estates by fraud and multiplied usury." Such is Cyprian's picture of the •'Clinich History, Cent. II I. 220 High Church Episcopacy. state of religion in his day. "Avarice had taken deep root among the people, and when a persecution arose, vast numbers lapsed into idolatry. The crowds of apostates were very great," Cyprian tells us, and they even " importuned the magistrates immediately to he al- lowed to prove themselves heathen."* This is not a very bright portrait of " the three unbroken centuries of piety, miracle and martyrdom, under the watch and rule of Episcopacy '."f Nor was this all. Even so early as the middle of the third century, Milner affirms that "the corruptions of superstition in giving immoderate honor to saints and martyrs * * * j^ad already contaminated the sim- plicity and purity of Christian faith and dependence." And of Cyprian himself, he says : "This letter (Epistle 20) exhibits true grace tarnished with pitiable ignorance and super stition."X Yet, in answer to '' certain presby- ters," who had written to inquire his judgment on some difficult point, he says: "I determined to du nothing without your consent and the consent of the people. * * * * When I shall have returned (from banishment) we will treat in common of all these things."§ This is the style of the Synod of Jerusalem, as recorded Acts 15 : 22, 23. " It pleased the Apostles and elders, with the xvhole church, to send chosen men." "The Apostl&s, and elders and hreihren, send greeting, &c." Cyprian was obviously not a bishop after the type of the modern (so called) " successors of the AjDostles." So also in his Epistles he refers to the schism of Felicissimus and to the case of several others, which on his return to Car- thage, he promises to have settled, not only in the'pres- ence of his colleagues, but before the whole people — pre- sentibus et judicantibus vobis — secundum arbitrium quo- que vestrum et omnium nostrum commune consilium. * Milner, vol. I, pp. 165, 166. t Clergyman Looking for the Cliurch, p. 34?. X Ch. Hist., vol. I, pp. 173, 174. I Ibid, p. 169. In his 33d Epistle to his flock, Cyprian apolo- gizes for appointing Auretius to the oflSce of reader, from the nece.ssity of tlie case, and the impossibility of consulting his s,'fratri> carri^siini," as he was accustomed to do, "solemiis vos ante coiiMilfrt." Bishops alone Baptize. 221 It is difficult to believe that Cyprian viewed his own office of bishop as belonging to a distinct order of clergy from that of the preaching presbyters, and by divine right superior to them ; or that this superiority of order was preceded and created by a new and distinct ordina- tion, or that he had under him a number of congrega- tions with their pastors, whom he governed. "It is lawful," he says (Epistle 73), " for none but presidents (i. e. Episcopaily interpreted, bishops) of the church to diocese could our High Church bishops perform all these labors in addition to their other duties ? Again : In speaking of ordination and its right per- formance, he says : " The neig'nboring bishops of the same province meet with that flock to which the bishop is to be ordained, and the bishop is chosen in presence of the people. * * * This was done by you in the or- dination of Sabinus, our colleague; the episcopacy was conferred on him by the suffrage of the whole brother-hood and of the bishops who were met there." This corres- ponds very well with the supposition that Cyprian's bishop was the pastor of " one flock," by whom he was chosen — for he adds, " the flock or people has the chief power of choosing worthy priests and refusing unworthy ones," " wherefore a flock that is obedient to God's com- mands ought to separate from a wicked bishop, and not to join in the sacrifices of a sacrilegious priest." Again : Cyprian says " a church consists of a bishop, clergy, and all that stand fast in the faith." He repre- sents his own church as having a council of elders or presbyters, with whom as his " colleagues," he was ac- customed to consult ; and with whom and the flock he ordinarily united in the Lord's supper.* In the same church there were deacons, subdeacons, readers and acolyths, all of wliich were formally ordained! And it is remarkable that in writing to the presbyters of the church of Carthago, during his banishment, he en- joins upon them to perform the duties which he was ac- * Sacramenti veritatem omni fraternitate praisente, celebrare. Ep. 63. So also in Epist. 13, he speaks of himself as " pastor of the clmrcli." remission of sins." In how large a 20 222 JIiGii Cnui.cn HIpi.scoi'acv customed to discharge. So that it appears evideut that at least some of those eldei-s were authorized to preach, as well as administer the sacraments. That all of them were so qualified, there is no evidence. Such then was "the bishop of Carthage;" such his idea of the true bishop. He claims for him indeed a primacy of office as president, but not of order. He nowhere recognizes tbe existence of such an order as that of bishops having the sole power of ordination, govern- ment and discipline, as by divine right essentially dis- tinct from and superior to presbji-ers. He divides church officers into two classes, bishops and presbyters constituting one class, and deacons the other. He lays no claims to exclusive jwwer. He exercises no authori- ty over many congregations and pastors. He governs in common council with the presbyters, though as j/resi- dent and pastor he is called bishop or overseer. He is chosen by the people of his charge ; and plainly attri- butes to the bishop no greater pre-eminence than Peter held over the other Apostles.* It is not denied that at the period when Cyprian flour- ished, there had been a perceptible increase of the power and assumptions of the bishops, and the ecclesiastical system was verging more and more towards Popery. It had bec&me somewhat common to regard the Jewish hierarchy as the model of the Christian ministry, and very extravagant notions were coming in vogue in re- gard to the principle of unity as centreiug in the bishops. Even Milner, a devout admirer of Cyprian, admits "that there are expressions in his writings savoring of haughti- ness ; and that the episcopal authority, through the grad- ual groiuth of superstition, was naturally advancing to an excess of dignity." It is not surprising, therefore, to tind this father arrogating for the bishop's office pre-eminence even higher than the Scriptures give to the apostleship, viz., as "the sublime summit of the priesthood " — "the divine power of governing the church " — " the honor of the bishop and the honor of his priesthood and chair!" * See Cvprian de Unitate Eccles. for proofs of these points, and in Epistles 13, 3, 4, 72, 67, 38, 63. The English reader may con- sult Smyth on Prelacy, p. 382. Gradual Ai'pkoaches to Popery. 22'6 So also he orders a deacon who had giveu offence to a bishop, " with full humility or prostration to make sat- isfaction to him !" He says that " the bishop is in the church and the church is in the bishop ; and that if any is not in the bishop, he is not in the church " — that " the church is constituted upon the bishops " — and again, " that she is founded on Peter by Christ, the origin and principle of unity " — " founded upon one who also re- ceived its keys."* Nor is it surprising to find him teaching that " the baptism of infants is essential to their salvation" — " that almsgiving frees from death " — that it is necessary that he who is baptized should be an- ointed," " in order to become the anointed of God, and have the grace of Christ in himself" Thus, too, accord- ing to Cyprian, " the cup of the Lord consists not of water only, or of wine only, but both must be mixed " — and this mixture, he says, is as indispensable as " the mingling of water with flour to make the bread which he calls 'the body of the Lord.'" And worst of all, in one passage (Epist. 66) he talks of " praying for the dead " — " sacrificium pro dormitione ejus " — a sacrifice for his repose — as though it were already a not uncom- mon practice! It is an instructive lesson to observe how stealthily some of the worst errors and vices of the dark ages were growing into vigor side by side with the arrogant claims of the hierarchy. That this is only a fair view of the state of the church in Cyprian's day, we have the most iucontestible evi- dence. Of the " third century," Mosheim, the learned Lutlierau historian, says: "The fsice of things began now to change. The ancient method of ecclesiastical government * * by imperceptible steps varied from the primitive rule and degenerated towards the form of a religious monnrchy, i. e. Popery. The bishops aspired to higher degrees of power and authority — violated the rights of the people — made gradual encroachments upon the privileges of the presbyters. * * They published new doctrines concerning the nature of the church and of episcopal dignity. One of the principal authors of *Ei)islle 69. 224 High Church Episcopacy. these changes was Cypbian. Many of the clergy were sunk in luxury and voluptuousness, puffed up with van- ity, arrogance and ambition, * * addicted to many other vices. * * The bishops assumed in many places a princely authority — the splendid ensigns of temporal majesty. A throne surrounded with ministers, exalted sus, and sumptuous garments dazzled the eyes,"* &c. &c. Amid this vast array of corruption and superstition, the only wonder is that the writings of Cyprian still retain so many clear indications of primitive simplicity and purity. The testimony of Mosheim and Milner is abun- dantly confirmed by other impartial historians. This is the style in which, a.s we are told, " the church rejjosed for three centuries under the Episcopacy !" If this is the truth, it is certainly not greatly to the credit of the High Church system. The established Church of Eng- land was in a similar state at the period of the Wesleyau advent. VIII. A few authorities of the third century remain to be noticed. Origen, a little earlier than Cj'prian, sheds small additional light on the subject. Though only a presbyter, as all admit, he says in Horn. 7 : " We of the elerkal order, who preside over you," &c. And of cer- tain unworthy deacons, he say : " They go about to seize the high chairs— jrmnas cathedras—u{ presbyters. Some also attempt more, in order that they may be called bkhops " — and then i-eferring to Paul'.s description of a bishoj) (Tit. 1 : 6, &c.), lie adds, "though men should not give such n one <&>i Paul describes) the name of bish- op, yet he will be a bishop before GoD."t And of " the angels of the seven churches," he says : " Certain ruling presbyters {-posarwze:) were called an- gels by John in the Apocalypse."^ Firmilian, bishop of Cesarsea, and the friend of Origen *Cent. Ill, chaj). 2, see. 3, 4. t In Matt. 23 t De Orator., sec. 34. Origen here uses the very same Greek lerm employeil by Justin Martyr, TtpoeffToj^. This is the term used by Paul to qualify presbyters or elders, 1 Tiuj. 5 : 17— "The ciders tli;it lule Kell,"' &e. servant of the meek and lowly Je- Testimonv nF FiRMiiJA.N AXi) Geegort. 225 and Cyprian, in writing t» the latter, lias this remarka- ble testimony: "If they (heretics) separate from the elnirch, they eau have no power ol' grace ; since all power and grace are placed in the church where pres- byters PRESIDE, in whom is veded the power of baptizing and imposition of hands, and ordination " — ubi prcesi- dent major es naiu, qui et baptisandi, et manum imponendi et ordinandi, possident potestatem. This was the language of one bishop to another, both greatly distinguished in the church. Yet the plenitude of modern Episcopal prerogative is here vested in the presbyters ! There was still some virtue reniaiuiug in the church. Howev- er corrupt, proud and aspiring the bishops had become, yet when they were brought into conflict with ^' here- tic-i, they were constrained to revert to the simplicity of primitive truth and order. If any should doubt wheth- er by the phrase " majores-natu " Firmilian meant p-es- byters. Bishop Jewel shall answer — " Presbyter is ex- pounded in Latin by majoren-natu." Reeves, also, in his translation of the works of Justin Martyr, admits that majores-natu, as employed by Tertullian, is the same with ■" the presbyters that rule well," of Paul, in Tim. 5 ; 17. This is the admission of a zealous prelatist. Gregory Thawnatvrgus, the wonder worker, a pupil ©f Origeu, and whose life was written by Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, is our next witness. Fi'ora his life Bishop Burnet translates the following : " Being afraid to engage iu the pastoral charge, ho avoided all occa- sions of being laid hold of and ordained. This being observed by Phedimus, a neighboring bishop, — though Gregory was three days journey distant from him, — he (Phedimus) did by prayer dedicate him to the service of God at Neocesarea where there were then but seventeen Christians." This last fact was distinctly stated by Gregory himself This was the extent of his diocese. As to presbyters, he had none to govern, and but a soli- tary deacon ? Whether there may be " a church without a bishop " has been questioned, but here was pretty near- ly " a bishop without a church." The case of Novatus, a presbyter of Carthage, ccm- firms all that has been said. Novatus in the absence of 226 Hl(il£ ChUHCH P]piSCOPACY. Bishop Cyprian, had ordained Felicissimus to the office of deacon. According to modern High Church notions, this was a profane usurpation of the bishop's preroga- tive. Did Cyprian so view it? Far from it. He blames Novatus for not consulting him ; yet he did not depose either him or Felicissimus ; but in the following year speaks favorably and kindly of Novatus. And from the Epistles of Cyprian it is further manifest that even at this period the presbyters in common council continued to govern at Rome during any temporary vacancy of the bishop's office which might occur. Such, then, is the testimony of the iliird century. Making all due allowance for the acknowledged depar- tures from primitive simplicity and order, no candid mind can discover the divine right of prelacy in the statements of these early writers. We have thus reach- ed the limits of the model church of " the first three centuries," as held up to our admiration by Dr. Van D. and other High Churchmen. If it were desirable to extend the inquiry, many facts might be adduced even from the history of the fourth and fifth centuries, to confirm the foregoing argument. For example, " Fussala, a military station, had its bish- op, though only a castle." " In Augustine's time, there were four bishops of one party in one place, for one of the other," referring to the division of Catholics and Donatists. Augustine, speaking of the third century, tells of " nuiny thousand bishops then in the world ;" and at the Conference of Carthage, " he gives an account of near five hundred orthodox bishops and four hundred of the Donatist party," these all in a single province of Africa. " Theodoret also tells us of Paul, Bishop of Neocesarea, a castle or fort near the Euphrates." These were not bishops of the modern sort. DorriiiNE OF Ai'O.stotjcai. Succkssion. '^27 CHAPTER XV. DIFFICULTIES OF THE DOCTRINE OF APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. The High Church doctrine of " Apostolical Succes- sion " is so important a feature of the Episcopal scheme, that it demands special consideration. And, perhaps, in no other respect is that system more vulnerable, or com- passed with such insuperable embarrassments. It is proper to state at the outset the precise views of High Church on this topic, thus: "The prelates," says Dr. Hook, Vicar of Leeds, " who at the present time rule the churches of these realms, were validly ordained by others, who by means of an unhrokeyi spiritual descent of ordination, derived their mission from the Apostles. * * M * Q^J. ordinations descend in a direct unbro- ken line from Peter and Paul." " When a minister of the highest grade (a bishop) ordains," says Dr. How, of New York, "Christ ordains! When a minister of the second grade ordains, it is not Christ that ordains but man." In the latter case, he adds, " the sacerdotal ofBce must cease to exist, and as there can be no church toithout a ministry, the church must cease to exist also." "Wilful opposition to Episcopacy * * * must ex- clude from God's presence." We give these merely as specimen illustrations of this feature of High Church polity. A more logical exhibit is the following from an Episcopal source : 1. That the consecration of bishops by bishops is essential by divine authority, to render them capable of performing the duties of ordination and church govern- ment, and that whenever this chain of successional Epis- copal consecration is lost, there are none duly qualified 228 Hkjii Church P>iscoi>Acy. to preach the gospel, or administer the sacraments, aud that those who are not in Cdiuinuuion with this validly consecrated ministry form no jjarl of tlie church. 2. That the grace which Christ has appointed to be imparted through the sacraments, flows only through such Episcopally ordained ministers, and of course separate from them there is no communion with Christ, and only " mock sacraments." 3. That by such Episcopal ordination is conferred in all cases, the gift of the Holy Spirit to abide in the per- son ordained, and this is the doctrine of ministerial or Episcopal grace, derived bv succession from the Apos- tles.* Adopting these principles, the High Church are quite consistent in denouncing all other Protestant denomina- tions as "apostate sects," as "having no baptism," but mere "Jewish washings;" and even the Low Church Episcopalians are charged by these High Churchmen with combining with " the dissenter, the lawless and the infidel," "joining hands with parties just hanging over the precipice;" with aiming "to league with the sects, and losing the link with antiquity," and thus directing "millions iu dismay to Roinel"! Principles in them- selves so extraordinary and leading to such results, should be supported by conclusive logic. Let us inquire how this matter stands. I. If only prelatical bishop; have power from God to ordain other bishops and presbyters, so as to have a true and not a mock ministry, the question arises, "Who ordained the first bishops? The High Churchman readily answers, " the Apostles." Here, then, the ques- tion at once starts up, " Did the Apostles design by ordination to constitute an order of prelatical bishops? Did they mean these bishops to be so wholly and essen- tially diflferent from and superior to ' the order of pres- byters,' that without ordination by the hands of a bishop, no one is authorized or duly qualified to preach the word and administer the sacraments ?" In the fore- going discussion, we have shown that this is by no * Abridged from Goode's Rule of Faitli, vol. 2, p. 56. t Clergyman Looking for the Church, pp. 514, 51G. Bishops by Force of Custom. 229 means clearly demonstrated from the Scriptures, the in- spired records of the Apostles. Many of the wisest and most learned men that ever lived have strenuously de- nied that the Sacred Records teach any such distinction of order. All parties admit that the Scripture titles, bishop and presbyter, give no shadow of support to such a difference, and even Bishop Hooker, a prince among prelatists, concedes that " there may be sometimes very JUST AND SUFFICIENT REASON to allow ordinatiou made without a bishop." "Where the church," he says, "must needs have some ordained, and neither hath nor can have possibly a bishop to ordain, in case of such necessity the ordinary institution of God hath given oftentimes, and may give place." " And, therefore," he continues, " we are not simply withoiit exception to urge a lineal descent of power from the Apostles by con- tinued succession of bishops in every effectual ordina- tion."* Again, says the same "judicious" bishop: "Let them (t. e. bishops) continually be:'.r in mind that it is rather the force of custom whereby the church having so long found it good to continue under the regi- ment of her virtuous bishops, doth still uphold, main- tain and honor them in that respect, than that any such true and heavenly law can be showed by the evidence whereof it may of a truth appear that the Lord himself hath appointed presbyters for ever to be under the regi- ment of bishops." "Their (bishops) authority is a sword which the church hath power to take from them ."f The doctrine, therefore, which requires us to believe that the professed minister who has not been ordained by a bishop is nought but " a thief and a robber, who has climbed up some other than the right way," and that, too, notwithstanding he has maintained a most holy and upright life and conversation and been eminently useful in the pastorate ; but that, on the other hand, all ministers who have had the impress of Episcopal ordi- nation, no matter how objectionable on the score of morals and personal and official worth, are true minis- ters ; in a word that such men as Doddridge, Robert * Quoted by Macaulay, Kev. of Gladstone, Misc., |>. 394. f Ecc. Polity, (inotedby (ioode ; Rule of Faith, vol. 2, p. 71. 230 High Church Episcopacy Hall and Archibald Alexander were no true Christian ministers, but that Jon. Swift and Laurence Sterne were true ministers of the gospel, and the two Onderdonks were genuine successors of the Apostles — this doctrine is obviously very hard to believe! ■ The very basis on which it rests, the claim of prelacy to have undoubted apoetolical origin and authority, has been earnestly dis- puted by men of the largest erudition and acuteness ; and by many of equal integrity and piety, both in and out of the Episcopal denomination. n. This doctrine is simply the old Romish principle engrafted upon an English stock. It is curious to note the similarity of phraseology with which the papist de- nounces the advocates of the High Church system. Romish bishops and priests are "the true apostleship," " have tlie true commission of the ministry," "regularly commissioned and perpetuated," " none other can reason- ably arrogate to itself the power of performing the functions of that commissioned tribunal," " uninter- rupted succession of pontiffs and prelates," "their holy orders in a right line from the Apostles, &c.,&c."* But of this same apostate church, we are told, "her worship has become a gaudy display of heathenish idolatry !"t Yet it was through this filthy channel that for ages the modern " apostolical succession " descended ! The bishops of this country, we are informed, " derived their Episcopal character from the Church of England.^ And where did the Church of England derive her suc- cession? As to the merits of the Reformation from Popery in that country, " at the time when the tempest which Luther had awakened in other lands was purify- ing the long stagnant waters, England long remained the Dead Sea, the sea of Sodom." " Here were the most avaricious extortions from the laity, the widest stretch of priestly insolence, the most shameless expo- sure of clerical profligacy. The blood-thirstj' Wolsey was the incarnation of her piety and a royal monster * "The End of Controversy," by Mihier, the papist, t Church Review, quoted by Dr. Van Deusen. X Jubilee Sermon, by Bishop of Tennessee. "The Derision of the World." 231 became ' the defender of her faith.' "* Of the same meek character was the so-called " martyr," Archbish(jp Laud, whose distinction it was (among many other vir- tues) to have the pious Leighton condemned "to pay a fine of £10,000, lose both his ears, have his nose slit and his forehead bi'anded with the initial letters of the words seditious slanderer." We concede that wiser and better men at other times took part in the English Reforma- tion, but the continent Henry, the devout Elizabeth and the martyr Laud were fair representatives of the thor- oughness of that reform. We want no such succession. Whether Rome is more correct in unchurching Episco- pacy, than Episcopacy in unchurching others, are ques- tions of small importance to us. Let them settle it among themselves. We direct attention to the state- ment of Pearson, Dean of Salisbury, " that the asser- tion of the absolute necessity of the apostolic succes- sion of Episcopacy, though consistent with the system of Romanism, has never been assumed by the Church of England. "t " To spread abroad this notion " (" the necessity of apostolical succession in bishops and pres- byters") "as the only security for the efficacy of the sacraments, would be arrogantly to set up a claim which neither Scripture, 7ior the formularies and various offices of the church, nor the writings of her best divines, nor the common sense of mankind, will allow. To spread abroad this notion would be to make ourselves the derision of the world."X Accordingly, in the Book of Common Prayer, of which Cranmer was the chief au- thor, we find neither the name nor the thing which is thus scouted by a distinguished j)relate of the English EstablLshment. The very standards of the High Church system are silent as to this " notion." III. The rightful parentage of this doctrine belongs to Archbishop Laud. About the close of Elizabeth's reign (which occurred in 1603), " Laud and his party," says the historian Hallara, " began to preach the divine right or absolute indispensability of Episcopacy ; a doc- trine of which the fi^'st traces (in the English Church), * Edinburgh Review, Oct. 1836, to p. 231. t Bricknell's Judgment, &c., p. 330. i Miisgrave, Bishop of Hereford, 1842, Bricknell, p. 320. 232 High Church Episcopacy. as I apprehend, are found about this period.* They insisted on the necessity of Episcopal (i. e. prelatical) succession regularly derived from the Apostles, and as an inference, that ordinations by presbyters were in all cases null."t Of the numerous innovations introduced by Laud and his creatures, "all," adds Hallam, "were 80 many approaches to the Roman model;" among which he enumerates the following: "The communion table took the name of an altar and the crucifix was sometimes placed upon it," " the doctrine of a real (bodily) presence (in the Lord's supper) was generally held." Also, "invocation of saints," "prayers for the dead," " purgatory," " auricular confession ;" and he made public declaration, " that in the disposal of benefices he should, in equal degrees of merit, prefer single before man-ied priests." "Episcopal government," said the party, " is indispensably requisite to a Qiristian church. Hence they treated the Presbyterians with insolence abroad and severity at home." No wonder the papists "began to anticipate the most favorable consequences from this turn in the church," " sanguine and not un- reasonable hopes !"J Under such auspices, it was natural that the government, through the dictation of Laud, should " harrass the Dutch and Walloon churches in England," and disclaim all fraternity" Avith the un- episcopal churches of the continent. It had not been so before this period of Romanizing tendencies — for Elizabeth herself had corresponded with the Protestants of the continent, styling them " dear brethren, &c." There was evidently a great change, though Macaulay afiirms that " for 150 years after Henry VIII chose to become his own pope," " the Church of England con- * That the earliest founders of the Chiirch of England did not teach apostolical succession Ls evident. " They retained Epis- copacy," says Macaulay, " but not as essential to the welfare of a Christian society or to the efficacy of the sacraments. Cran- mer, indeed, on one occasion, avoweS that there was no distinc- tion between tishops and priests, and that the laying on of hands was altogether superfluous." Hist. Eng., vol. I, p. 39. t See Hal lam's Constitutional History of England, of which Macaiilay says, " it is the most impartial book he ever read." I Hallam. The Blessed Martyr, Laud. 233 tinued to be the servile handmaid of monarchy, the steady enemy of public liberty." A.s to the so-called " two blessed martyrs " of that church, the same elo- quent historian and essayist has proved, that " to repre- sent Charles I (who lost his head for tyranny and its associated crimes) as a martyr in the cause of Episcopa- cy, is absurd." He is of opinion that " the royal blood which still cries to heaven every 30th of January for judgments only to be averted by salt fish and egg-sauce, would never have been shed in such a cause," if it had not been, in Charles' opinion, indissolubly bound up with the royal prerogative, " the church the great bul- wark of monarchical power." And, among other proo's, he adduces'the act of Charles in 1641 : " He deliberate- ly confirmed the Scotch declaration, viz., that the gov- ernment of the church by archbishops and bishops was contrary to the word oj God."* Yet High Church " has converted this worst of kings into a " blessed martyr." As to the other " blessed martyr," Laud, Macaulay says : " We entertain a more unmitigated contempt for him than for any other character in our history. The fondness, indeed, with which a portion of the (English) church regards his memory, can be compared only to that perversity of affection which sometimes leads a mother to select the momter or the idiot of the family as the object of her especial favor." Instead of putting this idiot to death, " the severest punishment," he adds, ' which the Parliament could have inflicted on him would have been to set him at liberty and send him to Oxford," " there to minute down his dreams, counting the drops of blood which fell from his nose, watching the direction of the salt, and listening for the note of the screech-owl," &c., all which and many other equally edifying records he has left to posterity in his diary ! " Contemptuous mercy was the only vengeance which it became the Parliament to take on such a ridiculous old bigot." It was under the viild government of these "blessed martyrs," he tells us, " the Puritans were per- secuted with a cruelty worthy of the Holy Office, many *Rev. of Hallara, p. 85, 86. 21 234 High Church Episcoi'acy. forced to fly from the country, others imprisoned, whipped, their ears cut oflT, their noses slit, their cheeks branded with red hot iron." " Guided chiefly by the violent spirit of the primate (Laud), the government dis- played a rapacity, a malignant energy unknown to any former age." IV. Such was the suspicious ancestry in the English Episcopal Establishment, of the doctrine of apostolical succession. We proceed to look the thing directly in the face, and will have little difficulty in discovering a strong famil}' resemblance in the modern scheme. Are the spiritual blessings of the Christian religion re- stricted, except in the case of involuntary, unavoidable ignorance, to the ministrations of men who have been ordained by a prelatical bishop — since they alone are to be viewed as true ministers and all others as mere pre- tenders — these latter having no right from Christ to preach the gospel or administer the sacraments? " The theory is, that each bishop, from the apostolic times, has received in his consecration a mysterious gift, and which he alone can transmit to a presbyter or other bishops : that this gift is indicated in the offices of ordination by the words of the Prayer Book — ' Receive ye the Holy Ghost.' " " Thus the bishops become a sort of Leyden jar of spiritual electricity, transmitting this divine influence (by actual succession) through the persons of impure, profligate, heretical ecclesiastics, as ignorant and flagi- tious as any layman, and perfectly irrespective of their moral qualifications"* — "the Holy Ghost" making no distinction between a Borgia or a Hildebrand and a Cranmer, between a Laud and a Ridley ! The better sort of the " fathers," indeed, often insist ujiou purity of life and soundness of doctrine as necessary to a true minister of Christ ; but no one at all familiar with the ecclesiastical history of the middle or dark ages, can feel the least hesitation in admitting that simony, heresy, profligacy, &c., were no uncommon features of the clergy, not excepting the prelates and the bishops. And then, as to the teaching of our blessed Lord and his * Edinburgh Review, July, 1813. Leyden Jar of Spiritual Electeicity. 235 Apostles, this mysterious doctrine staggers our faith ex- ceedingly — for we find it hard to believe that Judas Iscariot was a true apostle, in the same sense and as really as Peter and Paul !* Can a man who is no Chris- tian, but an infidel or atheist, be a true minister of Christ, a main pillar of the church, a genuine successor of the Apostles ? Is it not impious to make any such as- sertion, involving the idea that the God of truth and holiness has pledged himself to impart the gift of " the Holy Ghost " to a heretic or vile profligate ! Yet from the eiglith century to the fifteenth, not less than eight of the Archbisops of Canterbury were consecrated by the laying on of the hands of certain Popes, among whom we find the murderer of the Albigenses, Innocent III, and other notorious instruments of " the man of sin," the Romish apostasy ! And as many more were conse- crated by the Pope's legates, or other authoritative agents of the Papacy ! The same is true to a considera- ble extent of the Archbishops of York, Bishops of Dur- ham, and Bishops of Winchester. V. The difficulties of this doctrine multiply as we ad- vance. Among the long lists of simoniacal, atheistical and profligate prelates, especially during the dark ages, what bishop or presbyter can have any cei-tainty that he and his predecessors in the same line have been duly consecrated? Well might Chillingworth say, that "of a hundred seeming priests (or presbyters), it was doubt- ful whether there was one true one," on prelatical prin- ciples. Omitting for the present all the disorders of the English Establishment after Henry VIII made himself Pope.t what evidence have we for the fifteen or sixteen centuries previously, that the strictest I'egularity was *It is true that the whole twelve are called "Apostles" (Luke 6: 13), but so Christ promised twelve thrones to the disciples, in- cluding Judas. So Jerusalem is called the " Holy City," though the prophets h id denounced it as " Sodom and Gomorrah." fSays Macaulay, "The king was to be the Pope, the vicar of God," &c. " He proclaimed that it was in his power to confer episcopal authority and to take it away." " There was no neces- sity, in the oijinion of Cranmer, for the imposition of hands. The king iniiiht, in virlne of aulhoritv from God, make a priest."— Hist. of Knghuul, vol. 1, p. 41. 236 High Church EnscoPACY. observed, so that episcopal functions were exercised ex- clusively by those who were prelatical bishops by apos- tolical succession? "In the first place," as the great essayist and historian, Macaulay, has said, "we have not full and accurate information of the polity of the church during the century that followed the persecution by Nero. That during this period the overseers of all the little Christian societies scattei'ed through the Roman empire, held their spiritual authority under ' holy or- ders ' derived from the Apostles, can be proved by no contemporary evidence nor by any testimony which can be i"egarded as decisive." " The question whether the primitive constitution of the church more resembled the Anglican or Presbyterian model," is one on which " a full half of the ability and erudition of Europe has, ever since the Reformation, been opposed to the High Church pretensions." As to the New Testament — in order to accommodate its teachings to that system, we have al- ready sliown that it must be in large part re-written. Nothing is clearer, from all the facts of history, than that the Romish Church was subject to innumerable dis- orders during tlie long night of the middle ages. " We read," says the historian ]Macaulay, " of episcopal sees of the highest dignity opeuly sold — transformed back- wards and forwards by popular tumult — bestowed some- times by a profligate woman on her paramour — some- times by a warlike barou on a kinsman still a stripling — of bisliops icii, or even/i'c years old — of many Popes who Wi re mvw boys, and who rivalled the frantic disso- luteness in morals of the monster Caligula." Roscoesays that Leo X, of the times of Luther, was ordained^at the age of seven, made an abbot at eight, and a cardinal at the age of thirteen ! Nor was the case at all better in England, iu regard to the literary qualifications and " aptness to teach " of these " successors of the Apostles." It was the com- plaint of King Alfred, " that not a single pried south of the Thames, and very few north, could read either Latin or English" — and these ignorant barbarians were "to instruct in tlic true religion "a rude and half heathen Broken Links in the Chain. 237 population! "* And as to Ireland, St. Bernard, one of the true Catholic saints, affirms " that througli the whole iskmd there was a total dissolution of ecclesiastical dis- cipline, and that instead of Christian liabits and customs, a cruel savageism was everywhere substituted " — pro consuetudiue Christiana sreva sub introducta l)arbarie3. Agaiu, the question whether " holy ordei's " have come down regularhj in the apostolic line, and with no broken link in the chain, depends ujion a large number of such puzzling problems as the following: " Whether, under King Etlielwolf, a stupid priest might not, while baptizing several scores of Danish prisoners, who had just made their decision in favor of the baptismal font rather than the alternative, the gallows, inadvertently have omitted to perform the rite on one of these pi-ose- lytes — whether, in the seventh century, an impostor, without consecration, might not have passed himself as a bishop on a rude tribe of Scots — whether a lad of twelve did really (and apostolically) by a ceremony huddled over when he was too drunk to know what he was about, convey the episcopal character (" the gift of the Holy Ghost) to a lad of ten !" Among the tens of thousands who iiave, since the first century, acted as bishops, one would suppose that such facts as these might reasonably cast a shade of doubt upon the ques- tion of transmission of " orders " to a bishop or presbyter of tlic present day directly from the Apostles! And what shall we say of tlie frequent impositions which, Judas-like, unprincipled men have practised upon liberal and simple-hearted Christians, as seems to have been the case of Peregrinus, in the third century. At Marseilles, says Macaulay, " he pretended to be a Christian, and was raised to the episcopal dignity, though never even baptized !" " Do we know enough," he adds, " of the state of the world and of tlie cliurch at that period, to be able to say that there were not twenty (or fifty) such pretended bishops," " successors of the Apostles !" Every such case snaps asunder many links *Iii Europe, Macaulay says, "not one man in five hundred could s|)ell his way through a psalm.'' This was from the end of the eleventh to the fourteeth century. Plist. Eng., vol. 1, p. 32. 238 High Church Episcwacv. of the boasted succession. The strength of any chain is only as the strength of its weakest link. Of course if any such break as Hooker admits to have been fre- quent, and very supposable from motives of cupidity, lust of applause, &c., took place — " if St. Patrick (if there ever was such a man), or Theodore of Tarsus, who is said to have consecrated, in the seventh century, the first bishops of England " — if any of the missionaries who first converted the wild inhabitants to Popery, had, by any such break in the chain, been either an unbap- tized hypocrite as some were, or without other ordination than that by presbyters — what, in such a casualty, must become of the certainty of " the apostolic orders " of modem clergymen, both in England and America? The obvious conclusion from such historical deduc- tions, is this : If it were proved, as it never can be, that the church had High Church orders in the third cen- tury, it would l)e impossible to prove that those "orders" were not so far lost in the long, dark night of Popery, that no ecclesiastic could be certain of the legitimate descent of his " spiritual office." Because, in the words of Chillingworth, " it is extremely improbable, and even closely allied to the impossible, that of ten thousand re- quisites, not one should fail." Such is the boasted unbro- ken series of High Church succession ! What prelatical bishop can have any certainty, under such circumstances, that his predecessors have always been duly ordained — what presbyter, that his bishop was not, in the long line of corruption aud disorder, the victim of some sad mis chance, such as we have seen so often occur? Who of modern prelatists will undertake to trace up his spirit- ual pedigree unbroken to the age of the Apostles? About as rationally set a corps of engineers to mark out with chain and compass the precise track of the Jewish tabernacle in its long journey through the wil- derness. Even the Episcopal Mr. Goode admits that " episcopal consecration " (i. c. by the hands of a bish- op), "as the seal of episcopal appointment," " was not universally practised in the primitive church;" and for proof he refers to "the records." He cites such au- thorities as Eutychius, Jerome and Augustine, aud No Prelvtioal Successiox. 239 others, showing " that appoiutmeut by the presbyters of a church is sufficient, so far as essentials are concerned, to entitle a presbyter to perform the duties of the episco- pal function. This was practised at Alexandria and other points as entirely regular. VI. Enough has uow been said to prove that of all uncertain things, " apostolical succession," in the prelat- ical sense, is one of the most dubious. It may, however, be proper to adduce some Episcopal authorities, to con- firm the points now stated. 1. In regard to the Romish origin of the English pre- latical succession. Dr. Hook, Vicar of Leeds, says: " Ours is the old Church of England ;" " the church re- mained the same after it was reformed as before, just as a man remains the same after he has washed his face," &c. He also speaks of " an uninterrupted series of valid* ordinations," which, along with "her peculiar doctrines and discipline, has always marked the distinc- tion between the church of Christ under the superintend- ence of bishops who regularly succeeded the Apostles." Thus, he adds, " the Church of England is distinguished from those sects of Christianity under self-appointed teach- ers." Yet the thirty-first of the thirty-nine Articles pro- nounces the doctrines of transubstantiation and the mass to be " blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits ;" and the Church Review, as quoted by Dr. Van Deusen, says "the Romish worship has become a gaudy display of hea- thenish idolatry !" Certainly it is no worse now than it used to be in England. See also Articles 22 and 11, which denounce the worship of images as " repugnant to the word of God," and the Romish heresy that "jus- tification is not by faith only," but by the merits of works along with faith. It is certain, from abundant records, that no other country in the world had been more devoted to all the worst errors and degrading su- perstitions of popery than England. And it is true that when Henry VIII became Pope, he designed his church, says Maeaulay, "to differ from the Roman Catholic on the point of supremacy, and on that point alone." Accordingly he proceeded " to burn as heretics those who avowed the tenets of the Reformers, and to 240 High Church Eplscopacy. hang as traitors those who owned tlie authority of the Pope of Rome." But the real " founders of the Angli- can Church," adds the same distinguished historian, " had not declared Episcopacy to he of divine institu- tion." " In the reign of Elizabeth, Bishops Jewel, Cooper, Whitgift and other eminent doctors * * never denied that a Christian community without a (prelatical) bishop might be a pure church." Li proof he cites, among others, such a notorious historical fact as this, " that in 1603 the Convocation of the province of Can- terbury solemnly recognized the Church of Scotland, in which episcopal control and episcopal ordination were then unknown, as a branch of the Holy Catholic Church of Christ." Verily, the old Romish " harlot " required something more than to have " her face washed," before she attained to this character of a virtuous mother. Under such eminent men as Cranmer and others, the Church of England "regarded the non-episcopal churches of the continent as of the same household of faith as themselves." This is so patent to every reader of his- tory, that the great labor of the Puseyites and other High Churchmen is to apologize for the deplorable fact. But to invent any plausil)Ie reason for it, is, on their principles, simply impossible. " Many of the English benefices," Macaulay says, " were at that period held by divines who had been admitted to the ministry in the Calvinistic (or Presbyterian) form on the continent ; nor was re-ordination thought necessary, or even lauftd!"* Such godly reformers as Jewel and his compeers held the view afterwards adopted by Bishop Stillingfleet : " The succession of Rome is muddy as the Tiber itself." " The succession so much pleaded for by the writers of the primitive chuach, was not a succession of persons in apostolical power, but a succession in apostolical doc- trine."! 2. Next, as to the " blessed martyr" Laud, and the fact that he was the father among English ecclesiastics, of High Church pretensions. He was plainly a papist at heart. Even Bishop Short admits that " he probably * Hist Eng., vol. 1, p. 57. t Irenicum, p. 297, &c. Muddy as the Tiber itself. 2^l wished to effect some sort of compromise with that (tlie Koioish) churcli." ' lie was twice offered a cardi- ual's hat " — proviiij;- that at Rome iiis services were duly appreciated! Yet of this creatine, Froude — not the historian, but the Oxford tractariau — says: "I adore King Charles and Bishop Laud !" But J;his martyr-saint, in his letters to Sti-afford, profanes his Maker's name in a most shocking manner. Yet the British critic boasts of this man as originating "a neiv development of the church." Of the Church of Rome, for which this saint felt so loving a regard, Bishop Horsely says : " She is corrupted with idolatry very much the same in kind and degree with the worst that ever prevailed among the Egyptians or the Canaanites." The Bishop of Llandaff says : " She has converted the simplicity of the gospel into a religion much more re- sembling the heathen mythology than the doctrines of Christianity." " Her frauds, impieties and superstitions far outnumber the pure ordinances and doctrines of the primitive church," &c. Even the Bishop of Oxford de- nounces her as retaining "ao almost incalculable amount of error and superstition " — "still as subtle, as dangerous aud as false as she has ever been, as shame- less a perverter of the truth and as cruel a perscutor," &c., &c. And Bloomfield, Bishop of Loudon, charges " that she is in a state of schism, if not of apostasy, having forsaken the true faith and defiled herself with supei-stitiou and idolatry."! Yet for the sake of making out some show of argument in favor of their succej- sional figments, High Churchmen are willing to trace their " apostolical ordei-s " through this filthy channel as it existed in its Knglish and most corrupt forms. And we are told, the Church of England only " washed her face " when she became reformed ! 3. Equally explicit are many of the wisest and best of the British prelates on the question of the necessity of " apostolical succession " to the validity of the min- istry and the eflicacj' of the sacraments. " We could *Short vvk-v-^ lo Ilovlin's Life of L:iud, in proof. iFor tlics,. j(i.|oi,„.|ii, (,f iIk- iiirnleni English bishoiw, see Brielcm-U's work, a r,.l|.iuli..u ..f lli,' cli;ir-«^ of lii )si; prolatcs. 242 High Church Episcopacy. not," says Sumner, Bishop of Chester, " in this land of light, maintain the fatal claims which the Koman priests assume, and which nothing but the darkness in which they shroud their people could enable them to preserve. We pity them, whether deceivers or deceived." There are other congregations of Christians (besides the Church of England,) which profess the same truths; we honor them also with brotherly feelings ; and gladly say, ' Grace be with all them that love the l^rd Jesus Christ in sincerity.' " And to his clergy he says : "To preach the word, to be instant in season and out of sea- son, to testify both publicly and from house to house re- pentance toward God, &c., this is to be the successors of the Apostles." Archbishop Whately is our next witness. " Our re- formers rest the claims of ministers, not on some sup- posed sacramental virtue transmitted from hand to hand in unbroken succession, in a chain of which if one link be even doubtful, a distressing uncertainty is thrown over all Christian ordinances, sacraments and church privileges for ever ; but on the fact of those ministers being tlie regularly appointed officers of a regular Chris- tian community." The opposite doctrine which High Churchmen "substitute," he pronounces "not only ob- scure, disputable, and out of the reach of the mass of mankind, but even self-contradictory, subversive of our own and every church's claims, and leading to the evils of doubt and schismatical division." Hear next Pearson, Dean of Salisbury, who denies that High Church " succession " has ever been the doc- trine of the English Church. " The absolute necessity of the apostolic succession of Episcopacy to the existence of a Christian church and the validity of the sacra- ments, I venture to affirm, without fear of successful contradiction, has never been assumed by the Church of England !" On the contrary he adds, "while lamenting as an imperfection and defect the want of the Episcopal order in some of the Reformed churches of the conti- nent, she does not excommunicate, nor on that account refuse to acknowledge them, while adhering to the or- thodox fiiith as all that is essential as true and liviuL' branrlirs of ChristV uuivorsnl church." High ChxiRch not Gkeat Divines. 243 Thirlwall, Bishop of St. David's, speaks of "apostoli- cal succession " as "a weaj^ou which (in controversy with those who are hostile to the church) would seem to be best kept in its sheath," " because it may tend to irritate an adversary, but not weaken him !" And as "to those who are already hostile to the church, they would only deem it an extravagant pretension," and " those who are indifferent to her more evident advan- tages, will hardly be attracted by one so questionable, and so remote from common apprehension that the belief in it is entertained with reluctance by many who admit it !" With still greater emphasis, the Bishop of Ossory, Ferns and Leighton, declares: "All our great divines * * * not only do not maintain that this ("succes- sion of episcopally ordained bishops from the Apostles' time") is absolutely essential to the being of the church, but are at pains to make it clear that they do not hold that it is."* It would be curious if not edifying, to contrast these official announcements from distinguished English dignitaries, the very sentiments of " all their GREAT DIVINES," with thosc SO resolutely put forth by the small divines of the prelatical sort on this side the Atlantic. From Bishop Hobart and Dr. Wainwright, down to Flavel S. Mines and others, the talk is : "How gain the divine reconciliation, triumph in death and bliss in eternity, if we refuse to enter the communion and fellowship of Christ and his Apostles," i. e. " the bosom of the church," "of which we are a link in a chain of generations," &c. " No bishop, no church," but " apostate sects," " mock sacraments and self appointed teachers of religion." Presbyterians "have no bap- tism," "a dead sprinkling," "Jewish washings," "no sacrifice but bread and wine," "they have lost the Eu- charist." " The three orders of the sacred ministry " (prelacy) are " a very type and present figure of the most Holy Trinity," cfecf *BrickneH, "Judgment of the Bishops," published at Ox- ford, England. The author is an Episcopalian. fThis last item is from ''Notes on Episcopacy," p. 357, edited by Dr. Wainwright, of New York. This is prelacy run mad. Well might the Bishop of Hereford say of such men, "(hey make themselves the derision of the world." 244 High Church Episcopacy. What, then, is the rational and scriptural doctrine of ministerial succession ? In nearly the language of the Episcopal Mr. Goode, "We contend for the apostolical succession of the ministry, but think that it is sufficient- ly maintained by confining the right of ordination to presbyters;" "that our Lord intended there should be a succession of pastors and teachers in his church to the end of time (Eph. 4: 10, 11, &c.); that he and his Apostles appointed the first, and intended that under all ordinaiy circumstances, all who followed them should receive their commission from them or their successors."* " Is it not evident," inquires a writer in the Episcopal Recorder for Jlarch, 1^63, " that Cranmer, Ridley and other coadjutors, if they believed in any doctrine of ministerial succession, regarded it as belonging to the order of presbyters by divine appointment?" And in proof he cites the notorious fact " that members of the order of presbyters held livings by law in the Church of England, who were ordained by presbyters alone, preaching and administering the sacraments to the members of that church for more than a century." In further proof he cites the fact that in the forms for or- daining, which were arranged by Cranmer and his friends, there is no difference in the words of ordination to dis- tinguish the office oj bishop from that of presbyter. " This distinction," he adds, '• was not made till one hundred years later, by the bishops under Charles II. Nor is there any evidence that the English reformers regarded the office of bishop as a distinct order derived from Scripture." It was certaiidy highly appropriate that " a distinc- tion of order," which uncliurches the great body of Protestant Christians throughout the world, should originate under such a saiyit as the profligate Charles II. * Kule of Faitli, vol. 2, pp. 54-57. . liioB AND Progress of Tractarianism. 21 CHAPTER XVI. HISTORY OF THE RISE OF OXFORD TRACTARIANISM — POPISH TENDENCIES OP "THE LITURGY." That the XXXIX Articles of the Church of Eng- land are intensely Protestant wherever they touch the topic of Romanism, is as plain as language can make it. Archbishop Cranmer, the author of the Aiticles, as well as Ridley and other noble martyrs for conscience sake, were burned at the stake in defence of the pi'inci- ples of the Reformation, under the reign of " bloody Mary ;" and it was not, as we have seen, until the cruel bigot Laud became the chief minister of the crowu, that the strongest tendencies to High Churchism and Popery under a Protestant ruler were developed. For this and other crimes. Laud, like his master Charl?s I, lost his head, and their scheme of apostasy to Rome was nipped in the bud. It is one of the strange phenomena of our fallen na- ture, that in the bosom of such a Christian institution there should have sprung up the system of the Oxford Tractariaus, whose avowed aim is, in the language of the Bishop of Ossory, " to unproteslantize the national church," or, as expressed by Bishop Wilson, " to under- mine the whole fabric of the Reformation, or rather of the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which that Reforma- tion had affirmed," thus in the words of other English prelates, " threatening the revival of the worst evils of Romish superstition," of " by-gone follies," " mediseval corruptions," " mischievous fopperies," &c., &c. Hence while the Tractarians, to use their own language, ac- knowledge "Calvin and his school to have been the master spirits of the Reformation," they affirm that " the full development of Calvinism waa stopped, only because the Reformation was stopped, and its peculiar doctrines remained the theology of their church till 246 High Chuech Episcopacv. Laud iipset them." So Rome is declared " to have im- perishable claims upon our gratitude," "is our elder sister," "our mother;" but " the reformers are hated and despised," and the Reformation of the sixteenth century is denounced " as a desperate remedy," " a fearful judg- ment," " a deplorable schism," and •' its principles, if it have any, are to be receded from more and more." In a word, one of their own prophets uses this language : " I say anathema to the princij^le of Protestantism, and to all its forms, sects and denominations, especially the Lutherans and Calvinists, and British and American Dissenters. Likewise to all persons who knowingly and willingly and understanding what they do, shall assert, either for themselves or the Church of England, the principle of Protestantism, * * * or shall communi- cate in the temples of the Protestant sects ; * * * to ALL SUCH I SAY ANATHEMA !"* This Very High Church- man should have been a member of the Council of Trent, where he could have exercised his gifts to hia heart's content. The nearest approach to such " apostol- ical benediction" that presents itself here is that of " the Presbyterian Looking for the Cliurch," Rev. F. S. Mines, who says of the Episcopal Church in the United States, "Except for her, thousands and tens of thousands would have no other home to flee unto from the apostate sects than to the bosom of Rome !" Similar is that of the Rev. Dr. Hook, Vicar of Leeds: "If it were not for her (the Episcopal Church) in the United States, NOTHING but the extremes of infidelity or fanaticism woxdd prevail !"'\ The reason he assigns is, "because no religion is established there!" Whether Dr. Hook would class his meek "mother " of Rome with the infidels or the fanatics, he leaves us in doubt. That " this revival of the exploded errors of Popery," call it Oxford Tractariauism,Puseyism, or New-7na?iza, as suits best, is simply the old Laudean scheme slightly modernized, is most obvious. Thus of the sacrament of * Til is extract is from William Palmer, Deacon in the Anglican Church. t See his Sermon before the (^ueen, on " Hear the Church," pp. 7, 8. EcJGs AND Cheese good Tractakian Diet. 247 the Lord's supper as Protestants celebrate it, the Trac- tarians say : " It is as irreverent as the Socinian heresy," &c. The sacrament, as they administer it, they on the other hand call " a miracle greater than that of Cana of Galilee ;" " the bread and wine are by priestly hands made a saving victim," "the bread turned by power divine into his body, the wine into his blood, &c." At first, indeed, they cautiously guarded against any sus- picion of a wish to Romanize the Church of England, so that even the London Quarterly Review, a High Church periodical, came out explicitly denying any such tendency of the Puseyite system. But the same keen critics were soon obliged to take all back, and acknowl- edge that they were deceived. "The Tracts for the Times," from No. 75 to No. 90, and other works, opened the eyes of all intelligent men. " Prayers for the dead," " the ancient form of sacrifice, wijtb the words altar and mass," " purgatory, indulgences, invocation of saints, the practice of anointing the sick, auricular confes- sion, &c.," were now openly defended as mattere of Rome boldly advocated, but Dr. Pusey published direc- tions for keeping Lent, apeing the ludicrous culinary specialties of Romish bishops : " Flesh meat * * on Tuesdays and Thursdays once only in the day," " eggs at the single meal on all days except, &c.," "cheese, under the same circumstances," " broths are to be ab- stained from, and butter not to be eaten," &c., &c. Also a " Christian Calendar for the members of the Es- tablished Church" made its appearance, showing on what Sundays they must "deck the altar in white; on which in violet, scarlet, black and green !" So also the weighty questions of "the dress of the clergy," whether white or black, surplice, gown, &c., &c., and of lights upon the altar, or communion table, and whether " ob- jectionable if the candles were not lighted," &c., of the "mani23le to hangover the priest's left arm, chasubles, copes, corporal cloth of delicate material, and marked with the five crosses, &c., &c." Thus, as Bishop Coxe, of Western New York, says, "the whole soul of the Tractarians was speedily concentrated in Rome, in the faith. Not only were superstitions of 248 High Church Episcopacy. introduction of Latinisms, candlesticks, chasubles and dalmatics, flower-pots and thuribles:" "a miserable apostasy followed and was checked."* He also quotes " one of the English Ritualistic papers, containing pas- sages which are mostly idolatrous," such as these: "And when to Jesus ye bow the knee. Cry, Ave Maria, ora pro me." "Hail, Mary, pray for me," is pure Popery. Along with these idolatrous forms, certain of the same school busied themselves with the great posture question, and arrived at the following sage conclusions, viz., "That, in reading prayers, the clergyman should look to the west; in reciting the creed, look towards the east; in reading the lessons, towards the south, and in burying a Dissenter, towards the north !" Such is a brief summary of the labors and purposes of the Oxford Tractarians. A volume might be filled with the details. And even after the Bishop of Oxford had told his clergy in one of his charges, that " the Tracts were brought to a close, and at my personal re- quest," several editions of Tract 90 and similar works have been published in England ; and a new edition of said No. 90 appeared in this country.f It is obvious that this effort to xmprotestantize the Episcopal Church both in England and in this land " is not dead," it can- not even be said, " it sleepeth." Some years since an English clergyman published in London a second edi- tion of the Direciorium Anglieanum,t which is circu- lated here. In reference to the Lord's supper, we read : " The one aim is to offer the Holy Sacrifice," " when the consecration and adoration of the said body are over," "after the consecration and adoration of the precious * Criterion, p. 10. f Ibid., p. 8. X This Directorium shows High Churchmen how " to use incense at Hiffh celebration of tlie Eucharist." " Thurifer presents him- self, puts on the cassock and cotta, celebrant puts incense into the thuriber, the deacon ministers the spom and holds the boat, priest blesses the incense, the celebrant is incensed, also the altar, the lectern is never incensed I" Compare this nonsense with Christ's first supper in Matt. 26: 26-30. Popish Gratitude for Tractarianism. 249 blood," "the chief assistant having incensed the body and blood of our Lord." The same Directorium gives instructions what to do, " before transubsiantiation and consecration of the sacrament." Well did Bishop Coxe say, " In connection with No. 90, such ritualism would soon finish the work of thoroughly Romanizing us." Nor were the English papists slow in discovering, as in the days of Laud, " a daily approach " towards Rome. In a published letter to Dr. Newman, Dr. Wiseman ten- dered " tlianks from his heart " for " the information that he and his friends were opening their eyes to the beauties and perfections" of Popery ! And Dr. Mc- Hale, of Dublin, declared "he would not be surprised that even the present generation should witness the au- gust temple of Westminster Abbey again lit up with the splendors of that (Romish) pure and ancient worship!" How far these anticipations of the high priests of Popery in England and Ireland are likely to be realized, it is of course impossible to decide. Some thirty of the bish- ops and deans have, for the most part in very emphatic terms, denounced the whole Tractarian movement ; but after all, their " charges " are, to a great extent, a mere brutum fulmen. Priestly authors of " the Tracts for the Times " have not been unfrocked — their popish senti- ments and practices have not been recanted — as regular " apostolical " teachers, they still eat the bread and enjoy the emoluments of the Church of England. Some of the most forward, indeed, have joined the Pope. That a system such as this, denounced by some of the highest dignitaries of the Church of England as mark- ing " one of the most eventful epochs of her history " — " undermining the gospel "— " substituting formality for devotion" — " cau.sing schism, discord and distraction," &c., &c. — that such a " revival of the worst doctrines and practices of the Romish superstition " should have found in England, and in the bosom of the Protestant Establishment, a fertile soil in which'to scatter its seeds and gather its harvest, is certainly a marvel. How shall we account for a result which almost makes us blush for humanity ? Let us examine. Can we ascribe the humiliating result to her " Calvinistic articles and 250 High Church Episcopacy. homilies 1" Hardly. Take the Presbyterian churches of Scotland and the United States — has any such down- ward movement ever made its appearance in those Cal- vinistic bodies? The Papists themselves know better the influence of " the great man of the Protestant rebel- lion." " Calvin," says the Romish Tablet, " organized the Reformation and gave it form, and his spirit has sustained it to the present day." " It is Calvinism that sustains Methodism, that gives what little life it has to Lutheranism, and that prevents a very general return of Anglicans to the bosom of the church." This witness is true. Can we logically trace " the revival of this oft-refuted system," which is " so disgraceful to the church," to her " Arminian clergy ?" We are constrained to answer, in part at least, in the aiBrmative. Here is the chief seat of the disease. Not only were the originators of the Oxford movement prominent clergymen of the Church Establishment, but their scheme of doctrine, the very virus of the whole, was the low Arminianism of Popery, especially on the subject of "justification and the merits of good works." " The views of Luther," " the common doctrine of all the first Reformers," " the corner-stone of the whole system of redemption, as taught in the 11th, 12th and 13th of the Articles of our church" (says Pearson, Dean of Salisbury), this foundation doctrine the Tractarians denounced as " radically and fundamentally monstrous, and anti-Christian." In this country, Bishop Mcllvaine ascribes it " to a secret hostility to the true principle of justification," viz., "salvation by faith iu Christ without the merit of works." From this danger- ous delusion on the subject of justification sprang the notions of "restraining sin by voluntary abstinence" — "the bishop washing, wiping and kissing the feet of those assembled for that purpose on Maunday -Thursday after vespers" — "abstinence iu Lent from an}'thing made of flesh, also all white meats as they come from flesh, eggs, milk, butter, cheese," the whole brood of "fopperies" and " fooleries " of Ritualism. Ecclesias- tics who have no true piety, naturally turn to the gaudy frippery of Formalism to satisfy the claims of an uneasy Tractaeian Postukes and Impostuees. 251 conscience, converting "the Christian religion into a religion of postures and impostures, of circumflexious and genuflexions, of garments and vestures, of ostenta- tion and parade." This was the verdict of Sidney Smith on Puseyism. The witty canon of St. Paul's, \n explaining the reasons of what he styles " the wretched ignorance and indifference of almost all in the country villages of England," charges it upon the clergy thus : "Why call in the aid of paralysis to piety ? Is it a rule of oratory to handle the most sublime truths in the dullest lauguage and in the driest manner ? Is sin to be taken from men as Eve from Adam, by casting them into a deep slumber .«"' His descriptiou of religion at the West End of London — the court end — is that " the con- gregations were almost entirely made up of ladies, and these in an appearance of listlessness, indiflTerence and impatience very little congenial to our ideas of a place of worship." " I am afraid," he adds, "that it must in some little degree be attributed to our forms of worship, and to the clergy themselves." Our surprise and indignation at the favorable reception of the Tracts and their anti-Christian sentiments by so large a portion of High Churchmen, is greatly increased when we glance at some of the performances of these Oxford interpreters of Scripture. How can we argue with men whose principles are so totally different from those commonly received among mankind? We pre- sent a few specimens fi'om their accredited writings. When we question the arrogant claims of the Episcopal clergy and ask by what authority thoy speak, the reply is, " He that despiseth you, despiseth me ;" when we treat lightly their doctrine of apostolical succession, the answer is, " Esau a profane person," &c. So the miracle of the consecration of the Eucharist, is " exalted above that of Cana;" and the words, " Do this in remembrance of me," they judge to be the most natural terms for our Lord to have used, if he meant to say, " sacrifice this in remembrance of me !" With such expounders of " the oracles of God," who can have serious controversy — with men who are so en- amored with the veriest dreams and whimsies of the ^62 High Church Episcopacy. fathers as to claim all reverence for that fancy of Justin and others, that "the ass and the colt " for which Christ sent his disciples, are to be interpreted severally of " the Jewish and Gentile believers," and also attach much weight to that of Origen, who rather expounds the said " ass and colt " of the Old and New Testament — with men wlio treat with gravity the various expositions of tlie fathers, of the " five barley loaves," some supposing tliem to indicate the " five senses," and others the " five books of Moses !" So the same exquisite teachers of Tractarian Chistian- ity profess to believe " that the true doctrine of baptism will prove a preservative against forming either a Nep- tunian or Vulcanian theory of geology," and that the " vertebral column and its lateral projections " were de- signed to afford " a type and adumbration of the cross ;" " that St. Anthony's nonsensical conflicts with devils may not unworthily be compared with the temptations of our Lord ;" but that there is " no reason to believe the private student of Scripture would ordinarily gain a knowledge of the gospel from it." Such men, whether in the ministry or not, were worthy converts and teach- ers of Tractarian religion. There is some relief, however, when we come to read their "Lives of the Saints" — for then our sense of the ludicrous takes the place of all other impressions. We hold our sides while reading of " a hyena asking absolu- tion of a hermit for killing a sheep, and of a woman turned by magic into a mare" — that "St. Hilarian successfully exorcised a huge Bactrian camel, .and that two lions came to assist St. Anthony in burying the hermit Paul, digging the grave with their feet, and then departing with the blessing of the saint ;" and of the same wonder-working saint, Mr. Newman relates with great gravity, that " hearing one day a loud knocking at his cell door, he found ' a tall, meagre person ' there, who gave his name as Satan. ' He had come,' he said, ' to beg a truce from the Christians, whose reproaches and curses,' as he admitted, ' had completely spoiled his trade and disarmed him of all power to do mischief.' " So of a certain wonder-working saint, by name Ambrose, A Saint Exorcises a Camel. 253 who fairly records of himself a deliberate ?ie, justifies it, and then exclaims, " O beatum mendacium — O blessed lie!" The lie was, "that he had instip;ated a certain bishop to burn a Jewish synagogue," which he admits to be a falsehood — the object being to induce tlie Empe- ror Thoodosius to reverse his sentence against said bish- op, that " he should rebuild the synagogue !" Now to " an Arminian clergy," especially those of them who were ready to approve such developments of superior wisdom and piety as these, the transition to Popery was most natural and easy. And if they had not soon collected a considerable body of followers, the result would have contradicted all past history of simi- lar impostures. To us, indeed, the whole seems a curious phenomenon — for " we seem to be transported into a new world, where truth and falsehood change nature ; where the three angles of a triangle are no longer equal to two right angles, and twice two do not make four ; and where ci-ime of unusual turpitude may be considered the most exalted virtue, so as to inspire absolute envy " — "a world with as different a set of inhabitants from our common sense bipeds, as those of Saturn, who, according to Voltaire's little tale, have seventy-two senses, ninety- six faculties of mind, and have discovered in matter no less than three hundred essential properties."* So the moral principles of these Tractarians, as stated by Mr. Newman, clearly justify, as Bishop Mcllvainef has proved, "falsehood," "the mask of deceit," "artifice," " fraud for curing diseases of the soul " — this " economy " Mr. Newman approves as " a safe guide for Christians." This is true Popery — for Dens' Theology says, " a priest may deny that he is one, because he tells only an official lie." Vol. 2, p. 65. Mosheim also convicts many of the early fathers of the doctrine that "fraud was some- times justifiable for a holy end — as an available auxili- ary to truth." * For these and otlier statements in tliese last paraj^raphf!, see the admirable articles on Puaeyism in the Edinburgh lleview for July, 1843, and February, 1845. The references in the margin to the several statements are, besides the Tracts for the Times, Sewell's Christian Morals, Froude's Eemains, Newman's Church of the Fathers, and British Critic. tSee his Charge, Sept., 1843. 25 i High Church Episcopacy. But the subject is not yet exhausted. Besides "the Calvinistic Articles " and '• the Arminian clergy," there remains "the Popish Liturgy." Here, at least, we de- tect the very " root and fatness " of the Tractarian upas. Other Protestant bodies have had an Arminian clergy, and still have ; but without an exception they look with as profound wonderment as Calvinists can do upon the strange developments of Oxfordism. The Earl of Chat- ham had good and sufficient reasons for styling his own Episcopal Prayer Book a " Popish Liturgy." This can be proved : 1. The defence of exclusive forms of prayer for pub- lic worship, surrenders that question as against all other Protestant churches, to the Romanists. Even Palmer, in his Origines Liturgicce, says " there is little doubt that Christian liturgies were not at first committed to writing ;" and that " several forms have been different from the most remote period." The Lord's Prayer, the only set form in the New Testament, was never used, so far as we know, by the inspired Apostles, though Christ says, " When ye pray, say, Our Father," &e. In the worship of the synagogue, the Old Testament gives no hint of forms of prayer. Did Solomon use a book at the dedication of the temple ? Philo and Josephus are equal- ly silent on the subject. As to the ancient fathers, Tertul- lian, in the latter part of century second, says : " Looking towards heaven, we pray without a monitor ; because we pray from the heart." " We praise God," says Jus- tin Martyr, of the same century, "according io our ability, with prayer and thanksgiving." " We pray," adds Origen, " closing the eyes of the senses, but lifting up those of the mind, according to our ability ;" and Justin says, " Christians rose up to pray." Other similar au- thorities might be given. 2. It was shown in Chapters V and VI, that the present Liturgy of the Church of England was compiled from five Romish mass-books, all different, though all used in separate bishoprics ; and Milner, the Episcopal historian, admits that up to the time of William the Conqueror, " every Romish diocese had its appropriate Liturgy." Vol. 2, p. 615. For these, among other rea- The Pope AccErxs the Prayer Book. 255 sons, Lord Chatham used the phrase, " Popish L'turgy." It was before shown that on the earnest representations of Bucer, Martyr and Calvin, "prayers for the dead, the use of chrism (or oil) and extreme unction, with other ineptise " (fooleries), were expunged ; but enough remained to predispose the people, especially unconvert- ed Arminians, to hanker after Popery — or at least to prepare their minds for it when presented by such Jes- uits as Drs. Newman, Pusey and other Tractarians. It is notorious, too, that the Papists have always expressed a kindly fellow-feeling for High Church Episcopacy, because of the points of resemblance to their forms of worship. Thus the sign of the cross in baptism, the ab- solution of the sick, the numerous festivals and lasts, the litany, kneeling at the Lord's supper, &c., are all imi- tations of the Popish mass-book services. While it is true that the notion of apostolical succession and its related exclusiveness is not formally asserted in the Prayer Book, yet " the three orders of ministers, bish- ops, priests and deacons," are pronounced to be " evi- dent to all men diligently reading holy Scripture and ancient authors." These are of the bone and sinew of Popery — so much so that there can be no doubt that as against High Church Episcopacy, she has the better of the argument in its chief aspects. It is a curious fact asserted by Strype, Burnet and Collier, that the Pojje, through his nuncio, offered to ratify " the Prayer Book " for England, if Elizabeth would own his supi'emacy ! Presb. Review, Jan., 1843. 3. " To this day," says Macaulay, " the constitution, doctrines and services of the Church of England retain the visible marks of the compromise from which she sprung." " Her prayers and thanksgivings derived from the ancient (Romish) breviaries, are very generally such that Cardinals Fisher and Pole might have heart- ily joined in them. A controversialist," he adds, " who puts an Arminian sense on her articles and homilies, will be pronounced by candid men to be as unreasonable as a controversialist who denies that the doctrine of bap- tismal regeneration can be discovered in her liturgy." 256 High Church Episcopacy. Toplady, an Episcopal presbyter, tells us that Arch- bishop Laud, who was " beheaded for the crime of treason, was the first Arminian primate since the Refor- mation." And in 1661 the commissioners under Charles II, appointed to revise the Liturgy, make this candid confession : " Our first Reformers, out of their great wisdom, did at that time compose the Liturgy so as to win upon the Papists and to draw them into their church communion, by verging as little as they could from the Romish forms before in use"* Well might the Papists boast " that the book was a compliance with them in a great part of their services, and were not a little confirm- ed in their superstition and idolatry." Hence at one period the House of Lords fouud it necessary to appoint a body of divines to take into consideration sundry inno- vations, &c. Among these were " turning the communion table altar-wise and calling it altar — bowing towards it, or to the east many times with three co/i^feea— advancing candlesticks upon the altar, and crucifixes and images upon the altar-cloth, so-called — the minister turning his back to the west and his face to the east, when he pro- nounces the creed or reads prayers," &c., &c. All these things show how easy it was, under Tractarian guidance, for liturgical worshippers to slide into the ex- ploded mummeries of Romish Ritualism. So Dr. Hook tells us " that under Elizabeth the rubric in King Ed- ward's book condemning the corporeal presence in the sacrament, was left out" — the reason he assigns was, " that the notion of a corporeal presence might remain a speculative opinion " — " the Queen desiring to unite the nation as near as possible in one faith!"! And Hallam says, " the words used in distributing the ele- ments were so contrived as to offend neither the Popish, or Lutheran, or Zwinglian communicants." Thus the form now stands both in America and England. Cer- tainly very accommodating. 4. These Popish tendencies have, both here and in England, derived additional force from the fulsome and * Coleman's Primitive Church, p. 441. t Church Diet., p. 331. Foolish Phvise of tiik Liturgy. 2-57 profane admiraition * awarded to the '• Book of Common Prayer" — and that not by Episcopalians exclusively. When a set of forms of human origin, with such a suspi- cious ancestry and questionable history, is characterized as " literally the language of angels " — " not a human composition" — "sublime strains of a holy liturgy" — • "perfection in worship " — " divine in its composition" — "golden language of our liturgy" — "if angels needed prayer, they might use it," &c. — all this, even from " the three oi-ders," is bad enough. But this is not the worst of it. Others, even some Presbyterians, have tacitly or formally consented to this foolish adulation, and a few, perhaps from not having read the whole book, have talked about the " beautiful liturgy," &c. Now we charge that these high praises are virtually given to Rome. For is not the " Book of Prayer " chiefly a translation of the Romish breviary ? And if such " perfection in worship " be found in that idola- trous and superstitious body, how easily follows the inference — " a bad tree does not produce a good fruit, nor a bitter fountain sweet water." Thus Rome is glo- rified, and her mummeries partially justified. It becomes necessary, therefore, to examine closely these claims of the Liturgy to eulogies which are seldom bestowed by their authors upon the word of God. Be it observed, tlien, that if a man or body of men have need of crutches, let them use them ; but when they gravely proceed to recommend such helps to others as * There are many exceptions, even among Episcopalians, to this excessive admiration of their Church Liturgy. Thus a me- morial, some years since, was laid before tlie Council of Bishops by a number of the clergy and laity, containing, inter alia, this: " Our church, rastricted to her present canonical means and ap- pliances, to her fixed and unvarying modes of public worship, her traditional customs and usages, is incompetent to do the work of the Lord in this land and this age — that is, she is too much bound up to certain set ways to work freely and easily beyond her spe- cial range. She is not equipped for availing herself of opportu- nities as they occur. She is encumbered by her own apparatus. She is like David in Saul's armor, but not like him expert in using the sling and the stone." " Thus there is fault in her modes and methods themselves, not simply the application of them." 2.3 258 High Church Episcopacy. far excelling nature's own instruments of locomotion, this is carrying the thing a little too far. An unfortu- nate dumb child may write his requests to a kind father and have them read, but he never undertakes to prove to others that this is better than the use of the organs of speech. Nor would be wish to be limited to the same written form for each day of the year. The volume is called "the Book of Common Prayer," but of the 362 pages of the copy before us, a compara- tively small portion m prayer at all. Of the first twelve pages, of the " order for daUy morning and evening prayer," not far from eight pages (including the creeds) are occupied with quotations from Scripture, made with more or less exactness, leaving four pages for prayers. Both "orders" are, to a great extent, in the same words for morning and evening service, but many of the Scripture texts having nothing of the nature of prayer ; as for example, " Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand," &c. Of course no objection can be made to the public reading of the Scriptures, but such texts are not prayer. Then follow four more pages of "prayers and thanksgivings upon several occasions," " for rain, for fair weather, thanks- giving of women after child-birth, &c.," on to page 20. From the 20th to the 100th page, we find nothing but extracts from the common translation of the Bible, to be read, and introduced, on each Sunday of the year and many saints days, by a little prayer, varying in length from Jive to fourteen lines, where each page of double column contains a hundred and six lines. There are eighty-six of these little prayers, a few of them repeated verbally, one at least three times. To the large extracts here made from the Holy Scriptures (not prayers), to be read to the people, none but Romanists and infidels can make the least objection. But to speak of the eighty- six little prayers, filling about eight of the eighty pages, as "the language of angels" "sublime strains," "not hu- man composition," &c , is utterly absurd. As to these little prayers being " inspired compositions," they are no more so than those of any of the numerous volumes of prayer in circulation. Take these examples : " Let Tautology of the Prayer Book. 259 tliy mercifid ears, O Lord, be open to the prayers of thy liurahle servant," s, except at funerals." He refers to Tertullian's Apologia, chapter 42, and Corona Militis, chapter 10: *' Afterwards it was used at the induction of magistrates and bishops, then in places of worship, to temper the bad air of crowded assemblies in hot countries ; and at last it degenerated into a superstitious rite."* Even Dr. Hook concedes that incense was not used by Chris- tians in worship until the sixth century .f Of course this practice is only additional homage to Popery and her mummeries — a species of "will-worship" which Paul would have indignantly repudiated. But says Bishop Hopkins, " the Jews used incense in the tabernacle and temple woi-ship." Ye3, and they also had bloody sacrifices — both by divine command. Prove that Christ or his Apostles gave any such direc- tions, and we will listen to you. But, adds the Bishop, " Malaclii says. Prom the rising of the sun to the going down of the same, in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, &c." Mai. 1 : 11. By such logic it would be easy to prove that animal sacrifices were not required under the old economy ; for does not David » Vol. I, p. 188. Note. + Church Diet.. Xrt. Incense. Incense and Bowing towards the Altar. 273 say, " Thou desirest not sacrifice ?" And on the other hand, it is quite as easy to prove the perpetual obliga- tion of those sacrifices — for is it not said of such servi- ces, "This shall be an ordinance /orever /" Tluis the Passover, the an(;inting of Aaron's posterity and even the sounding ofitant Churchman speaks boldly, as fol- lows : " There are many clergymen in the Protestant Episcopal Church whom we do not recognize in any sense as ' brethren in the ministry.' We might as well speak plainly on this point." A l)rilliant illustration of this " other gospel " is the following from an Episcopal source: " The celebrant was vested in a cliasuble; t!.e deacon wore a dalmatic, and the sul)-(leacou a tnnicle. Each wore a maniple, whicli is like a short stole, over the left arm. A laced alb was also worn, both by the celebrant and the deacon. The celebrant sang the communion office-" " The cele- brant (priest) sung the communion office," in other words, sung what corresponded to the following: " And as they did eat, Jesus took liread, and blessed and brake it, and gave to them, and said : Take, eat ; this is my body. And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them ; and they all drank of it." " Jesus said," but he did not use the devices of the tuneful Tractarians ! All this, be it observed, is toler- ated without any authoritative rebuke or discipline, in a church which makes large pretensions to " unity !" In this respect the Episcopal Church in this country follows pretty closely in the footsteps of her Anglican mother! " The state of the Church of Eugland," says Bishop Short,* " is that of a perfect toleration of religious * History Churcli of England, p. 437. Bethlehem Bread and Jerusalem Grapes. 279 opinions." "The absurd nature of our ecclesiastical laws," adds the bishop, " renders every species of dis- cipline over the laity nugatory," " it can hardly exist where universal dissent is tolerated." " With regard to discipline among ourselves (the clergy) there can be no doubt that it is much wanted;" " there is a total inabili- ty of our church to regulate anything within herself, and the great want of discipline over the clergy." So the English Episcopal Church quietly tolerates such Arians as Drs. S. Clarke, Iloadley and others ; as to Co- lenso, all know where to place him ! That church may say, " These are my jewels," all " successors of the Apostles! ' That these Tractarian fopperies have not met with any very great 02)position from many of the bishops in this country, is proved thus : At the great Pan-Anglican Convocation in England, the editor of the Protestant Churchman writes home, that " the Amer- ican eye has grown quite familiar with the ' Lord Bish- op ' prefix to our American prelates. The Bishops of New York and Illinois have adopted the Episcopal dress, of cassock shirt and knee-breeches, for official occasions; while the Assistant Bishop of Indiana has accepted the cassock shirt as part of his daily costume. We do not observe that any have adopted as yet the Episcopal looped hat." We learn from other sources that "the bread and wine used at the Pan-communion service were, the one from Bethlehem, and the other from Jerusalem grapes." A little holy water from the river Jordan or from Pio Nono would have completed the service. " Such a scene," says th j Protestant Churchman, " has never be- fore been presented — it had an immense significancy." In view of these developments it is not surprising that the Rev. Stephen H. Tyng, Jr., should write in a style of alarm, thus : " The anxieties of all lovers of Protestant truth are aroused lest this venerable communion should again be betrayed to its pre-Reformation foes. The steady ad- vance of Tractarian doctrine, the unresisted develop- ment of ritualistic practices, the growth of exclusive- ness towards other Reformed churches, and the ^manifest 280 High Church Eplscopacy. tendencies towards some sort of intercommunion with the Greek, if not the Roman, Church — all these facts comhine to produce doubtfulness among those within the dear old Protestant Episcopal Church." More than this : Both the elder Tyng and Bishop Mcllvaine have, in public addresses, maintained that High Church Tractarianism is forming a ready alliance with and taking to its arms, certain forms of infidelity, I. e. Rationalism. " In truth," says the Protestant Church- man, " it is a painful and significant fact, that the sac- ramentarian is ready to form alliance with any form of error that will seem to help him to fight against a dis- tinctly evangelical faith." Quite consistently, therefore, in some points they are already taking the lead of Rome herself. It is well known that the papists admit the validity of baptism when performed by laymen, even by a midwife in ex- tremis. But the Ejpiscopal Methodist records the follow- ing as occurring in the year of grace 1867: " The Rev. W. M. D. More testifies that he baptized, July 13th, a sick child at Smithville, North Carolina ; and that Rev. Mr. Watson afterwards re-baptized the same sick child. Surely Episcopalianism, in its High Church forms, is running mad." In contemplating a church composed of such ele- ments of discord as even this imperfect sketch comprises, especially when we also consider the fatal heresies thus cherished in her very bosom — with what shame and in- dignation must we read such a statement from one of their own papers as this : " The Low Church party has acted for years past as a feeder to its most active and unscrupulous partner, the connecting link between non- Episcopal denominations and an exclusive Ritualistic Episcopacy." Here, by the confession of a leading periodical of the Episcopal Church, all the pleasant words and kind greetings on our part have chiefly contributed to swell the tide of Ritualism, by inducing members to forsake other Protestaut communions for the Episcopal Low Church, and thence quickly to pass over to Ritualistic High Churchism. Yet Dr. Hugh McNeill, one of the Endless Varieties of Opinion. 2s 1 evangelical leaders in England, in speaking of the com- munion service at St. Alban's, employs this emphatic language : " I am so conscientiously persuaded that what is called the high celebration at St. Alban's, Hol- born, is idolatry, that I could no more consent to share in it, than I could be wilfully guilty of Sabbath-break- ing, adultery, or theft." Ho ! " Ye Babel sects " — " ye rival systems of man's device " — look here at " the uniformity of the doctrine of THE church!" In her light see your own "depar- tures from evangelical truth and order." Behold " her ONE UNIFORM FACE reflecting the light and glory of her Lord."* An exquisite illustration of this "uniform face " in the Anglican Church was given at the " Bi- centenary Commemoration " in 1862, by Dean Close. Whether matters are better here, is exceedingly doubt- ful. Said the dean : " It is a thing patent and not to be denied, that at the present moment we have among the clergy of the Church of England the representatives of almost evei-y opinion under heaven. This at least is my opinion. The varieties are so great and notorious, as to range from the very verge of the precipice of infidel- ity on the one hand " (Essayism, to wit), "to the very verge of Romish superstition on the other, and of course include all the colors, and complexions, and shades of opinion between one extreme and the other." So the " Churchman's Guide to Faith and Piety," published in England, has besides instructions for de- voutly receiving the holy Eucharist and assisting at the sacred mysteries, prayers for the faithful departed. The real presence and the sacrificial character of the holy Eucharist are expressed in the clearest possible manner. Thus, too, " the use of crucifixes and images, and es- pecially the image of the Virgin, holding her Divine Son in her arms, is by no means uncommon among the more advanced Ritualists ; and some clergymen are in the habit of blessing objects of devotion, such as medals and crosses, and even of blessing holy water. A corres- pondent of a London newspaper writes a letter of indig- * Van Deusen, Christian. Kep., Sermon VII, &c. 282 High Church Episcopacy. nant complaint about the Christmas celebrations at some of the ' advanced ' churches, in one of which he declares that ' numberless tapers shed their halo of glory upon a veritable Bambino,^ or figure of the infant Sav- iour lying in the manger." Justly has Bishop Coxe, who claims to be a High Churchman, declared of these Popish follies: "I oppose them on the ground that they are shockingly irreverent, that they degrade the worship of the church, and re- duce the august solemnities of the Lord's supper to a miserable pageant as ludicrous as it is in their power to make it." Yet our American ritualistic Tractarians do not seem to be quite keeping pace mth their lively mother of England. The Froiestant Churchman says that " there are one hundred and fifty churches in England where candles are regularly used in daylight worship ;" and twenty-one clergymen have sent to his Grace of Canter- bury a profession of their belief in the real presence, very much in the style of Romish transubstantiation. Thus they are prepared to adopt a doctrine which Bish- op South calls " the most stupendous piece of nonsense that ever was owned in the rational world ;" a doctrine by which, says Bishop Jeremy Taylor, " the same thing stays in a place and goes away from it ; removes from itself and yet abides close by itself and in itself and out of itself. * * * It is brought from heaven to earth, and yet never stirs out of heaven. It makes a thing con- tained bigger than that which contains it, and all Christ's body to go into a part of his body — his whole body into his own mouth, if he did eat the "Eucharist, as it is probable he did, and certain he might have done." Jlen who can believe that our blessed Lord took his own body into his hands and gave his whole self to each of the Apostles seated before him, have certainly credulity enough to be sound Papists of the strictest sort I So, in the evidence before the Ritual Commission, a clergyman testified that he was at the church three days in the week during certain hours for the purpose of hearing confession, &c.; and he acknowledged that it was usual to impose penances in all cases Advice to all " the Sects. 283 Our American High Churchmen must quicken their steps, otherwise they will fall in the rear ! Well may the London Quarterly Review say, that in the Anglican Church, " discipline "has ceased to be a reality." Is it better in this country ? Ho ! Ye " Babel sects !" "Ye apostate sects !" Be- hold " the Episcopal Church " — " one and the same — unaltered in her creed — undivided in her unity — every- where, always, indissolubly one !"* No wonder High Churchmen are becoming tired of the name " Protes- tant !" " Their ancient creed," they say, " can be writ- ten on your thumb-nail" — i. e-, the Apostle's creed, as it is falsely called — "and for the rest you may believe, salva fide, as you please .'"f All these things are bright illus- trations of what is called " the unbroken uniformity of the discipline and worship of the church !"J A late number of the London Quarterly tells of Rev. Samuel Wesley, Rector of Epworth, "dining with the mistresses of the Marquis of Normanby, who was his 'patron.'" It then adds, very quietly, " It was not to be expected that he (Wesley) should attempt to excommunicate his noble patron, the Marquis of Normanby!" The Quarterly assures us that matters of discipline are in a far worse state now than in the days of S. Wesley ! In 'regard to the latest developments of Ritualism in England, Mr. Spurgeon, who is a reliable witness, says : " They (Ritualists) have increased from a mere hand- ful to become certainly the most vital and dominant party in the Church of England ; and, to our intense surprise and horror, they have brought people to receive again the Popery which we thought dead and buried. If anybody had told me twenty years ago that the Witch of Endor would become Queen of England, I should as soon have believed it, as that we should have seen such a High Church development." In the same connection he says : " To me their creed is intolerable nonsense, and their proceedings are child- ish fooleries." * Clergyman Looking for the Church, p. 232. tlbid. tVan Deusen, p. 139. I