*m m LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. Chap. Copyright No«_. ^lie!l J EL44- i 5S4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. m JwffJ^K Seven Lectures DELIVERED IN Grace Church, Louisville, Ky. DUBIHOf LENT, A. D. 1889, / GEORGE G. BETTS; RECTOR. ^i\VO t^ NEW YORK : CHURCH KAI.KNDAR COMPANY, 1895- Thb Library op Congress WASHINGTON -$&* COPYRIGHTED By the Rev. George C. Betts/ \k ' / 1889. A.SSIGNED AND RE-ISSUED TO Church Kalendar Company, New York, 1895- Contents* page I. Introductory, 9 II. Romanism (1), 23 III. Romanism ('J) 43 IV. Presbyterianism, 61 V. Methodism. - 83 VI. Baptists and Campbellites, 109 VII. Unitarians and other Infidels, 131 Qtofc + The true Eirenikon is the Battle-Gage. The hope of Christian Unity lies, not in the accommodating of differences nor in compromises of any sort as between bodies having equal right to exist, but only in the unconditional surrender of Sectarianism to the authority of the Catholic Church This we may not hope to secure, or promote, by any system of coaxing, nor by the establishment of a Mutual Admiration Society. The one is distrusted, the other is despised, and both are hollow, deceitful and false. Better by far, the plain, if unwelcome, enunciation of truth. The following Lectures were delivered without manuscript, and appear here from the Stenograph- er's report. They are not published because they are elegant, eloquent, or incomprehensible. They were intended for the people, and in some sense also in reply to criticism, and these may account for a greater freedom of speech than might have been chosen had they been written beforehand ; as too, for some repetitions necessary to the driving home ot truths. In all great struggles, men like to know where their leaders stand : and that passion for reality and definiteness will forgive a seemingly harsh word uttered in the shock of engagement. It is not claimed that there is anything new in these Lectures beyond the method employed. As the delivery of them was found to have been useful, it is hoped the publication of them may extend that usefulness, and promote the Glory of God. G. C. B. Ztjct "For Ziorts sake luill I not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem's sake will I not rest, until the righteousness thereof go forth as brightness, and the salvation thereof as a lamp that burneth" — Isaiah lxii, 1. 3ttfrobucforj> + My brethren, I begin with the simple question, Is the Christianity of the nineteenth century per- fectly fulfilling its divine Mission? What is that divine Mission? 'J he last prayer of our Blessed Lord for His disciples, and for those who should believe on Him through their teaching sets forth His idea of that first, most mysterious, most divine Mission, the sending forth of Jesus Christ from the glory which Me had with the Father, into this world for a distinct purpose. He said just before entering into His agony, "That they all may be one that the world may know that Thou hast sent Me." Every theological student knows that one of the chiefest of the subjects upon which he is to expend time and thought, and with regard to which, he must be examined before he can take orders, is entitled " the Evidences of Christianity." There are, I was about to say, and I think I may safely say, hundreds of volumes written upon what are called the Evidences of Christianity. But the Divine, the only convincing evidence, is not now seen : ' That they all may be one: as Thou Father art in Me and I in Thee that the world may know that Thou hast sent Me." The world, according to our Lord's judgment, can only know that the f on has been sent by the P'ather in the fact that Christians are at one with each other. Am] that indeed is the idea of the word atonement- at-one-ment — making those who are separated to be at one in Jesus Christ. Has that been accomplished? Is the picture which Christendom presents to-day oneness in faith, 10 INTRODUCTORY. oneness in hope, oneness in love, oneness in prac- tice? All working together as friends and com- panions — being, as the Apostle terms it, of one mind, of one heart, of one way? I have heard it said in justification of what are popularly called union meetings, that it is a beautiful thing to see ministers and members of various denominations meet together and with one mouth glorify God. I say that that is no evidence whatever of a correct conception of Christianity; and that nowhere in Holy Scripture are men commanded merely with one mouth to glorify God. It is stated that they may with one mind and one mouth glorify God. But if there be seven minds, or seventy minds, or seven hundred minds diverse from each other, working from different data, or even from the same data to differing conclusions, though the central intention may be to glorify God, the end is not ac- complished. For you can always discover a factor present there, which is not of Divine origin or by JMvine sanction, and that is personal and diver- gent self-will : the exercise of which is incompatible with the glory of God. Now we are brought face to face with the fact that Christendom is not only not one, but that it does not seriously desire to be one There is now and then a make-believe effort for what men call Chris- tian Unity. But we know in our souls that it is only make-believe and that there is no reality what- ever about it. Men may mean to do what is right perhaps, but they cannot bring themselves to aban- don their own self-interest and their own self-will to accomplish it. Any of us who have been present at, or have heard of, the efforts of Christian people of various religious names in what are known as joint protracted meetings, or joint religious ser- vices of any kind, understand distinctly that not- withstanding all the veneering of affection — Yes, I use the word veneering, and advisedly too ; I say that notwithstanding all the veneering of affection, INTRODUCTORY. ll the saying of pleasant tilings, what are called courteous things, no one really expects to find be- neath the surface absolute agreement between the various sects which are now dividing Christendom. Each continues to pronounce its own shibboleth in its own way and each is absolutely positive that its way is the best way. That any one Minister among them does not say this before the joint con- gregations is solely because he shrinks from declar- ing in plain Saxon that there is but one way, and that he is the teacher of it. Because thinks he, people will say that it is presumptuous on my part — that I am assuming a good deal. And yet, we who profess to be followers of Jesu* Christ, who declare that salvation is only to be found in His Name ought to be ashamed of our- selves if, believing these things to be true, we have not courage enough to say so, and say so very posi- tively, and to say so of our individual presentation of truth. But is it not sad to come to human souls that are struggling through the wilderness of this life — to come to poor human souls who are tossed about by doubt, staggered by the inSeience of un- belief, bewildered by philosophy, confounded by so called science — and say, " Well I do not like to ex- press myself positively. I do not like to say that this is the only true Church, the only way of salva- tion I do not like to seem to cast a doubt upon the value of the ministrations of other men, al- though I myself would not admit these others to the Holy Communion. And, perhaps after all God intended, chat for the various types of minds, there should be various forms of worship, and various systems of belief, and so long as one sincerely be- lieves something that has some little reality and is in some way, however remote, related to what is called the essential beliefs of Christianity, I would not like to say that he was not all right." Now, is not that the language of the Christianity of to-day? And so then, in answer to the question I have al /2 INTRODUCTORY. ready propounded ; Is the Christianity of the nine- teenth century perfectly fulfilling its divine mission? I say emphatically No. And the best reason why 1 hold she is not perfectly fulfilling her divine mis- sion is, that the sons, aye and the daughters too, of devout Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists, Campbellites, Unitarians and others, are to-day infidels and utter disbelievers in the Christian re- ligion. They say "We are bewildered by the jarring voices and the different phases of religious belief that meet us. We do not know what to think or what to believe. 1 ' One declares : — " Hrought up in the straitest sect of the Christian religion I have come to doubt some of its cardinal beliefs, and find that this doubt of mine is shared by multitudes of the same communion. I find that as years go on the body with which I am affiliated is coming into accord with what is called Anninianism, or the or- dinary Evangelical Christianity of the day, which I had been taught to shun as an imposture." And I say to myself "If our fathers and grandfathers labored and fought for a faith which now their chil- dren have modified and their grandchildren are re- jecting, where is certainty to be found ? ; ' Take this City. Does any one expect to find the vast body of intellectual and gifted men in church on Sunday morning ? Were there — I ask } t ou gen- tlemen, — were there, do you think as many men in any church this morning, (I mean in any Protestant house of worship in this City,) as there are here this afternoon? Where do the men go on Sunday — our young men, our strong men, our intellectual men ? Where do they go on Sunday? Are not the various religious societies honeycombed with un- belief? Is there a strong dogma held strongly anywhere? Men have come to say that there are what are called essentials of Christianity, and non- essentials of Christianity: essentials of faith, and non-essentials of faith. I say for myself, and I be- INTRODUCTORY. 13 lieve I speak for my Church too, that there are no such things, and can be no such things, as non- essentials in the faith of Christendom. There may be dogmas that do not sound to the ear as import- ant as others — there may be doctrines that do not appear to till so large a space of thought as some others, but there are no non-essential parts of faith, for faith — all of faith — is of God. What is there non-essential about God ? Shall we — as some of the sectarians attempt to do — shall we distinguish between the vastness of God's justice and the boundlessness of God's love? Shall we array His awful dignity in one color and in a less inviting color some other attribute — what we call attribute — of His existence ? [God has no at- tributes in Himself. We, indeed, distinguish be- tween certain characteristics of God, but that is because we have not brains to comprehend God. If we had there would be no need of a God. The man whose little mind can comprehend the Eternal mind knows quite as much as the Eternal mind, and is God enough for himself. We distinguish between certain acts of God, but in God Himself there is no distinction or partition of attributes.] But because men have fancied that they can do this thing and can make distinction between what they call the essential and the non-essential, they have attempted to say: "I believe in the exist- ence of God as the one great and essential fact." Another says : " I believe in a God of three per- sons and that is the great and essential fact." "Not so," says somebody: "that is not revealed." " Well, at all events we must believe, " says some one else, "in the Divinity of Jesus Christ, that, surely is an essential thing." But some so-called Christian says: " I am not sure about it. What do you mean by Divinity? I, too, believe He is Di- vine. But then, so am I divine; so is every im- mortal soul divine. I am not sure about what you call His Divinity." Then let us at least agree to be- l4 INTRODUCTORY. lieve that the Personality of the Holy Ghost is xa essential of faith. ' ' Well I am willing to concede, " somebody will say, " that there is a manifestation of God which we call the Spirit or the Holy Ghost: but when you say we must acknowledge the Per- sonality of the Holy Ghost as an essential part of Christian faith I am not quite sure that I can agree with you." You see in the very things that most men call Fundamentals there is divergence at the outset. Again, men assume to speak of certain facts as the minor matters of faith; such as that God has a special way of dealing with mankind, that He made a revelation of that way; and some men ask, If orod made a revelation where is it? Now, there are a great many excellent people of all names who agree that God has a way of dealing with mankind, and that, moreover, He has revealed that way; and if I should ask where is this revelation, they will say, of course, in the Bible. But another im mediately says, I do not see that it is; of course you are entirely mistaken. God was revealed be- fore the Bible was written. God was known to the people before Moses or before there was such a race as the Hebrews. God was known, worshipped, loved and adored by men, and men died in the knowledge and faith of God, and there was no Moses, no Hebrew race, not a line of the Bible written. The Hebrews had not come out of Egypt nor indeed had they even gone down into it. The Pentateuch was not in possession of anybody. Yet all this time people worshipped God according to some form, some dispensation, some revelation. Where is it? Then again, so far as Christianity is concerned, it is held by some that the Church was in existence long before there was a line of the New Testament written. Therefore, you must excuse me if I say hat I cannot quite take in the idea that God's relation of how He would be worshipped ?s INTRODUCTORY. 15 solely, or perhaps, even primarily, in the Bible. Other people say : " If it be granted that there is a revelation in the Bible, yet you misapprehend the scope of it. God did not put forth such hard and fast rules as that He should be worshipped in any particular way. He left it pretty much to loving hearts, and some people picked up one way and some another. All that God desires is that man shall worship Him in some way." Very beautiful this if it were true, but inasmuch as many think it is not true — inasmuch as it is all denied by the disordered condition of Christendom to-day I take it upon myself to affirm that such is the lie upon which Protestantism is built. Protestantism is built up, not upon the Bible, but upon a lie, and that lie is, that God leaves man to judge for himself as to the way in which the Eter- nal shall be worshipped and as to the things which shall be believed with regard to Him. How other- wise can Protestants excuse their various relig- ions? We find one body of people who say (and this is called its arrogancy) that unless authority descends in regular succession from the time of the Apostles until now there can be no Church. That this same body is exclusive enough to say that it and it alone is the Witness and Keeper of Holy Writ, that Holy Writ belongs to it and to nobody else, that it alone is the interpreter of Holy Writ, and that its priests alone can administer true Sa- craments, that to it and it alone God has given his promises and with it alone He made His covenants, that Jesus Christ is the Husband of that Bride, and that she and she only is His Bride. Now that body calls itself the Catholic or Episcopal Church. I find another very respectable body that claims that the Atonement — observe: their books claim it (I shall come to that later on if I live) — that the Atonement of Our Lord was only intended for a certain portion of mankind and not lor all man- kind, but only for the elect; that God from all eter- 16 INTRODUCTORY. nity chose out those whom He would save. These, thus chosen from all eternity, are in due process o> time wrought unon by His Divine Spirit, brought to conversion and a better life, and to the acceptance of the teachings of that particular kind of Chris- tianity. That these are preserved amid tempta- tions, raised up again when they fall, kept until the end, and at last ushered with shouts of ever- lasting joy into the presence of God Himself, the moment the breath of this life Las left their bodies. This is called Calvinism. Another religious body that rises up in opposi- tion to the foregoing declares that such a dogma is soul dastroying — soul destroying, mark you, and If these are not the teachings of Christ at all; tnat a man is not likely to be saved who holds them, (I am not speaking of what they preach on ounday, but what their books teach), and that the very opposite of Calvinism is true. Another body believes that there is quite a dif- ferent way of making people members of Christ, children of God, ami inheritors of the Kingdom of Heaven, than that which has been practiced un- quest : onect for centuries. That this way — its way — of administering Baptism is alone Baptism, and is alone authorized. No one can be a Christian unless he has accepted this particular way of being made a Christian, and this, of course, if it be true, ruins the hopes of millions of human beings who are not so persuaded, and have not so been united to Christ. X find another body which rejects formulated creeds, positive statements of faith ; which leaves each man absolutely free to interpret Holy Scrip- ture for himself; which is bound by no universal rule: tied down by no authoritative utterance of dogma or confession of faith, and this is declared to be the original way in which God wills to be served, and in which alone He would be worshipped. And then, there are people who take these state- INTRODUCTORY. IT ments of Holy Scripture, that have been relied on as facts by millions of other people, to be only alle- gories, and declare that the things which are re- garded as historical facts, things which are said to have absolutely taken place, never did really take place, but are parables, mere fairy tales like those in the ''Arabian Nights Entertainments" or in some of those exquisite oriental stories one reads, where beautiful imaginings and lofty aspirations and high ideals are clothed in a realistic form to give them strength, and that that is the best that can be said for them. This Christian body — observe, Christian body — apologizes for almost every page of Holy Scripture, and would seem to regret that it had not the opportunity of revising it as it was passing through the hands of the Evangelists and Apostles. And as the result of this divided Christendom, these organizations which are not simply other than each other (if I may use such an extraordinary phase), but are rivals of each other and necessa- rily so. Rivals and bitter rivals at that. And we have as a consequence, indifference as among the least of the evils. Ah! is it not an awful, a solemn thing, to think of the multitudes that are absolutely indifferent to the claims of Christianity, that are in doubt as to whether there be claims at all or not! We have, I say, indifference; but we have Skepticism, too. I am not saying one hard word against the skeptic. I hope please God, to say many words against the skeptic-makers who call themselves Christian men. For the skeptic, I have the sincerest sympathy. There are men who have come to deny the claims of Christianity on the ground that where the teachers of a philosophy — if Christianity be a philosophy — where the teach- ers of a philosophy cannot come to airy settled conclusion, it must be that some of the factors in their system are wrong, and so there follows upon failure to agree, first doubt, then absolute denial to 13 INTRODUCTORY. men who feel themselves too brilliant, too intelli- gent to be taken in by the pretentions of the Chris- tianity of the nineteenth century. And (except for reasons which I hope to mention later on) I would say that no man can altogether blame — I doubt if God will altogether blame — the men who have thrown overboard the kind of Christianity, the emasculated Christianity, which the nineteenth cen- tury generally presents to them. To what is this condition due? Making every allowance for human fraility still there is a cause. Well, to put it in one word that cause I think, is cowardice. Men could not be found to stand faith- fully for Christ and the Church. Of course ail error has its root in pride, the first movement of error finds its place in pride, but speaking broadly the more immediate cause of this defection is cow- ardice. Christian priests did not dare to stand in the gap and to say, "This is the way walk ye in it. Turn ye neither to the right hand nor to the left. If ye go out of this way ye are lost." Men did go out of the way; fond affection, perhaps, fol- lowed them when conscience and judgment were against them, and when the matter was presented to loving hearts in this way: " Do you believe that I will be lost?" there was no one brave enough to say promptly, "yes, my friend, I believe you will." On the contrary it was said, "Well, I do not know; let us hope for the best. Perhaps all this is not necessary to salvation." All that was done was most likely to draw up one's shoulders and look doubtful. What was the end? It simply made the man persist in his opposition because he saw doubt where there should be strong conviction; he became an enthusiast, he gathered to himself others; they came to his way of thinking, and be- fore it was suspected almost, a new church was born into the world. The doubter of Orthodoxy became the apostle of Heterodoxy. Xow I propose to examine during the succeeding INTRODUCTORY. 19 Sundays in Lent some of these chief departures from the original type. It is a very delicate task, but I want to do it fairly, justly, and fully as time will permit. And I want to say in concluding this lecture something of the spirit in which I hope this inves- tigation, in which we shall engage, may be con- ducted. I hold that we should bring to our dis- cussion calm judgment. I shall try for my part to be as calm as possible. I do not expect to over- come all the infirmities of human nature, and per- haps that peculiar human nature with which I may be gifted. I do not expect that you will be alto- gether calm. I fear that some of you will be any- thing but calm. But let us try, let us try at least, to bring to this investigation as much calmness, as much evenness of temper, and as much fairness of judgment as is possible for poor human beings who are only imperfectly gifted at the best. And let me say that no matter how this investigation may result, whether in pleasing or displeasing us, it ought to be beneficial for all of us. If in examin- ing the claims of some of the chief organizations which we find in the land I shall discover one more beautiful, more certainly God-given than the one of which I am a priest, I pledge you my word of honor I shall not remain five minutes longer in the communion ot the Church in which I am— not five minutes ! I would not remain out of the true Church if Christ for all that this world could give me! And wherever I can find that true Church — for I am sure she must be somewhere— If I am not already in her I will go to her. A nd it ought to be benefi- cial to you as well as myself. It will give you an opportunity for reviewing the position of those who are not in the same Church, it may give you an opportunity of reviewing your own position. We must all admit that a very large number of the people are not adequately taught in the doctrines and the discipline of the various bodies with 20 INTRODUCTORY. which they are connected. I am quite sure that there are hundreds of Romanists that never read the Catechism of the Council of Trent nor examined some recent decisions. I am positive that there are hundreds of Presbyterians who never committed to memory the Confession of Faith of the Westminster Assembly of Divines. I am quite sure that there are numbers of Presbyterians that are heartily sorry that they ever did commit it to memory. Some of them at least have said so to me. I am quite sure that there are numbers of Methodists who never studied their Discipline, :aid numbers of Baptists who never read the Baptist Directory. Our Campbel- lite friends have nothing to read because they say they have no confession of faith. I give them credit for reading the New Testament; but there is one part of it which I am afraid they do not read, which says, "Hear the Church," and then as for our Unitarian friends — well, well, we must wait for them until the last lecture! We want to examine foundations. We want to get down to the root of these matters. I want you to know why you ere where you are, and whether your position is a tenable one. And in doing this we will have always before us the one idea of try- ing to reach the standard of Divine Truth. Of course I trust you understand that in seeking this end, I am seeking only the glory of my crucified Lord. We are at this season of the Church's year entering upon the shadow which gloomed His earthly life and which culminated in the awful, the mysterious, the horrible blackness of Calvary; there He died that men might be one in Him. Through the murk and mist, aye, even through the darkest shades of that awful Good Friday as He hung upon the Cross, some gleam of light and hope flashed forth from that bloody throne as from those lips that spake such words of gentleness and love to little children, of forgivness to poor Mary, that pade devils flee from human souls, restoring hear- INTRODUCTORY. 21 ing to the deaf and sight to the blind; those poor lips of His now fast purpling in death, there came theory, " Father forgive them for they know not what they do." Surely He included in that all prevailing " Father forgive them," not only the Roman soldiers who parted His garments among them and cast lots upon His vesture, but also those, who through all the centuries, straying from His one fold, falling away from that embrace of His, should, like them, crucify Him afresh and by their divisions rend His sacred garments again and cast lots upon His vesture. Yes, I believe from that Altar of Sacrifice, that throne of Infinite love, His prayer will one day be answered, and for that day I am looking and hast- ing and praying that His Divine Will may have speedy accomplishment and His Kingdom come. In entering, therefore, upon this work of recon- ciling men to God it is the one thought of my heart, the one desire of my soul, that He may bring into the way of truth all such as have erred and are deceived. II. (Romanism* a). I want, first of all, to dispose of two criticisms which I heard during the past week, in reference to myself, if I may be pardoned for speaking of such here. One was: "This man believes his Church to be the best Church in existence." I re- ply: Of course I do, that is the reason I am in it. And in this, I presume, I am quite in accord with every minister, authorized or unauthorized, of every religious body on the face of the earth. I take it for granted that every man is honest in this belief, if he be not he is either a hypocrite or a traitor, or what is quite as bad, a coward. And if he does believe that the religious body which he serves is the best in existence he is just as arrogant as I am, neither more nor less. The second criticism was something akin: " You oelieve your Church to be the only Church on earth. " To this I reply: That is true and it is not true. It is true in so far as that I hold there is but one Church on earth — the Holy Catholic Church — and that this is a part of it. It is not true in that I believe there are other National Catholic Churches, with some of which we are not in visible communion, but which still bear the marks and tokens of the true Church. And it may be permitted me to add, that no reasonable man can object to an earnest en- deavor on my part to bring every one that J can influence in.o the unity of that Church which I be- lieve to be the only true Church on earth. As to the best way of accomplishing that object, I sup- pose men will gene -ally disagree. But my experi- 24 ROMANISM. I. ence has been that it was always the men who stayed at home, and never saw the war, who were the only people who knew how that war ought to have been conducted. Now I begin to-day with Romanism, not because this is St. Patrick's Day, h jwever. I begin with Romanism because it is the most dangerous of all the various religious bodies represented on this continent. I am speaking now, of course, of Chris- tian bodies. And the reason why it is so danger- ours is because it is so near — so very near — the truth. The error which can scarcely be distin- guished from the truth, is always the most subtle, the most dangerous. For, busy people are not apt, and lazy people dislike, to spend much time thinking about the foundation of things. They are affected more by what they see than by what they merely hear, and our Roman Catholic friends have a most adroit and ingenious way of pushing their Catholicity, which no one denies, to the front, and, by means of it covering up the Romanisms which lie beneath ; and yet these very Romanisms attract distracted Protestants as much as the Catholicity of that bodj (strange as that may sound), from the inability of the Protestant mind to distinguish between them. One of the greatest charms which Romanism presents to the undisciplined Protestant mind is the appearance of external unity which it man- ifests. Here they, the Protestants, arc brought lace to face with an almost perfect Bystem of gov- ernment, and an almost perfect form of faith. Go where you will, into the quiet country place, or the iittle village, or the crowded city, and you will find, whether it be built of wood, or brick, or stone, or marble, the Roman Catholic Church presenting pretty much the same appearance to the eye. In one place it is poor, in another wealthy, but always the first thing which strikes you as you enter the hnilding is the Altar vith its Tabernacle, it* Cruci- ROMANISM. I. 25 fix and its Candles. The Altars vary in magnifi- cence. Some are built of cheap wood and badly painted; some are tawdry and offensive to good taste; some are of richer wood and handsomely carved; some are of stone and marble and brass, and are gemmed and decked with precious stones; diamonds sparkle from the Altar Cross and from the Chalice, and costly gems make the candlesticks themselves ablaze; but the same external appear- ance is there, and that is a great thing. Then again, the priests present, very mueh, the same appearance. Whether in a poor Church or in a stately Cathedral the vestments are generally the same. And each article of apparel which the priest wears, when conducting the service, has its special meaning and significance; and so the ob- server thinks to himself, "This is very proper, this is most appropriate. The God who reigns on high, and is adored, and loves to be adored, by human beings, must look not merely with complacency, but with pleasure, upon the services where all the surroundings speak of Him, and of Him only; where everything proclaims His sovereignty and His grandeur, and where the gestures, the lights and songs and vestments and incense, all declare that sense of God's greatness and man's littleness, which rebukes pride, and effectually establishes the proper relation between God and man." And Pro- testants, strangely enough, are very susceptible to these things. Theoretically, they are opposed to them. Practically, they rejoice in them; for they recognize, and reproduce as far as possible, the ef- fects which they imagine should flow from these causes, and imitate, with more or less painful ef- fort, what they suppose to be the causes of that which they observe and desiderate, while far from penetrating the true secret of their astonishing in- fluence. I hope before this lecture closes, but if not in this, then in some other lecture, to show you the £6 ROMANISM. I. way in which these ceremonies come to recom- mend themselves to the reason, and above all, to the faith and love of men, and that this has had a great deal to do with modifying Protestantism, both in its theories and practices. Then again, the Roman Catholic system is mar- velously compact in its discipline. The people are generally obedient to their Priests — that is a strange thing— and the Priests to their Bishops— that too, is strange — the Bishop to the Archbishop, the Archbishop to the higher authorities, and the high- er authorities to the Pope of Rome. And so when presenting to disorganized Christianity this method of management they represent themselves as being the only body that possesses it, the statement is ac- cepted by Protestantism, not with a good grace, perhaps, but still as an unqustionable fact. Then again, she encourages the entire devotion of men and women to God's service. Is there a man who desires to devote himself body and soul to the service of God ? Be he priest or layman, Rome has a place for him. In some one or other of the orders or congregations or monasteries, she will find him an opportunity to spend his life. It" a man is drawn toward the splendid example of S. Francis, the Franciscans open their arms to him: if enamoured by the teaching of S. Dominic, the Dominicans greet him. If he is drawn toward controversy, the Paulists are on the spot. If his desire is to the contemplation of the Passion of our Lord, the Passionists welcome him. If to be a subtle metaphysician is his aim, are not the nits ready? So that, whether as priest or layman, Rome can find a place for him. And that is as it should be. If a woman, filled with devotion, loving God and loving men, seeks to give herself entirely to the service of God and man, there are a thousand eon- vents open to her. Does she exhibit patience, gen- tleness and unweariedness, they will make her a B0MAN1SM. I. 27 nurse. Is she gifted with brains, they will make her a teacher. Does she undersand music, she can be employed in this direction. And in any and every direction she is taught to believe that she is equally serving God and working out her soul's salvation; and so she is. I have nothing but the most unbounded praise for the opportunity thus afforded to human souls to work for God ami hu- manity; all the converted nuns to the contrary not- withstanding. Then Rome appeals, in almost every city, to prac- tical men in her works of charity. For instance: Here is a town just started. A railroad has just been projected through it. By and by some poor fellow is injured in an accident, and must be pro- vided for. The city has no hospital and scarcely a physician. The priest (God bless him) gets a few loyal souls together, a house is rented, some beds are put up, some sisters are soon on the spot, and they spend their days and nights in taking care of the sick and wounded, and so approve themselves to men by their love and devotion. They deserve all the credit that they are likely to get. Moreover, this attention is not directed alone to the body. Take the poor fellow in some western city, far from home and friends, who is injured in 6ome accident, and longs for the tender hand and voice of wife, or mother, or sister. The Sister of Charity waits on him by day and night, coming in her gentle way to speak the words of comfort which seem even better from her lips than from the priest's. If he must pass down into the valley of death, she is the nearest to him now, and the last of this earth to him is her sweet face and broken voice bidding him God speed as he crosses the mysterious river. No wonder the remembrance or the relation of such scenes should have their almost omnipotent influence. If on the other hand he may be won back io life, it is her face and voice that furnish encouragement 28 ROMAKlttM. I. to him. She improves every hour. Perhaps he had not thought much of religion, or he had strayed from a religious home and life ; and in this practical benefactress he finds the hand that leads him back to trust in God and to a greater faith in humanity. And so, when life comes back to him he becomes, if not indeed a member of the Roman Catholic Church, yet he becomes a champion of it; and who can blame him? And when he finds him- self sinking into the gloom of death he, I was about to say, most naturally turns to the faith of the kind soul who tended him so lovingly when friends and relatives were far away. These things we know, and therefore you see I am beginning what I have to say by saying the very best that can be said of this organization. Now if Protestantism had nothing to deal with but the Romanisms of the Roman Catholic Church, the battle would have been decided long since and in favor of Protestantism. But Romanism plus Ca- tholicity is more than a match for all the Protest- ant sects combined. Take the best posted preacher among the Metho- dists, Presbyterians, Baptists, Campbellites, Unita- rians or any of them that you please, put him in controversy against a half-educated Roman Catho- lic priest, and the Romanist will make mince-meat of him in half an hour. Because Protestantism against Catholicity has not a leg to stand on. Pro- testantism set out to uproot Romanism, but could not distinguish between Romanism and Catholicity. It regarded, and does still, popularly, regard the words as synonyms. Well, of course it cannot touch Catholicity. It might just as well abandon the struggle. It cannot do it. It began under the most favorable circumstances in Germany and met with disastrous failure. It tried it in Scotland and England and again it failed. It is trying it day by day in this country and is always failing. Roman- ism because of its Catholicity, remains, so far as ROMANISM. L 29 that Catholicity is concerned, just where it was any time in the last four hundred } ears. More, it adds, because of that powerful friend, dogma to dogma in spite of all the efforts of Protestantism. Were the various sects to unite for the purpose of uprooting Romanism, they might succeed, pro- vided they became Catholics to do it! But until they shall unite, and by that word I mean until they shall have corporate unity, there is not the least possible chance for them in this world, and in Heaven they will not be known. Now the position of the Church of England, and our Church in this country is, from one point of view, a most unhappy one. From another, it is occupying just the place, I think, which Our Blessed Lord would have it occupy. (I speak of them as one for brevity's sake.) She is the prey of both of these bodies. The Romanist attacks her because she has renounced the Romanisms of that body. The Protestant sects attack her because she persistantly emphasizes her own Catholicity. There- fore, standing as she does, midway between these, and being what I believe you call in politics the third party, she ought to have the balance of power, and she can safely say that she is i he natural center of unity. After hundreds of years Protestantism has made no perceptible advance. Now observe, I do not mean to say that Protestant sects have not grown numerically, although I believe I am correct in say ing that they are by no means keeping pace either with their earlier efforts or the population of the country. I am speaking of the "ism." Protest- antism has made no perceptible advanee. On the contrary I insist that its motion is retrograde. It has deliberately given up positions which were assumed at first by its various sects, and positions which were deemed vital. It has therefore de- barred itself from the right of assailing Rome for the addition of dogmas. To take from, is equally as bad as to add too. 30 ROMANISM. T. Now, one can understand a part of the Catholic Church feeling its cause and itself aggrieved by unauthorized addititions to the Faith once for all delivered to the Saints, but that a sect which had abandoned the unity of the Church, and thereby one of the chief articles of the faith, and which, moreover, had consciously relinquished the par- ticular doctrine which it set out to teach, and which in fact was the reason for its being, should lift up its voice in condemnation, is something worse than incomprehensible. But this is precisely what it does, and it is hardly necessary for me to attempt the proof since your own minds must bear me out in the statement that Protestantism in its various forms has deliberately abandoned doctrinal positions assumed at the be- ginning. To-day, Protestantism pretends to simply ignore and avoid the Roman >jLtholic Chm-ch. It effects to treat it, as school-girls treat each other when offended, that is, with silent contempt. But in spite of all, Romanism goes right on and gath- ers in her converts every day from the ranks of the staunchest Protestants because it has something definite and they have not. And Protestants are the great allies of the Ro- man Church. They aid her far more than they know by that one matter to which I alluded: — the inability to distinguish between Romanism and Catholicity. 1 cannot press this too strongly upon you. Even in our own communion where an ever increasing effort is made to preserve this distinc- tion I very much fear that were some one to ap- proach some Episcopalian who was suffering from a too free breathing of Protestant atmosphere, and ask, — Where will I find a Catholic Church? He would reply: — "On Brook street; or Fifth and Walnut,' 7 instead of " on Gray street, between ?. : syi and Preston. " So in this way you perceive, you neip ths Romanist in the dissemination of his ROMANISM. I. 31 news, and your children learn your language and will perpetuate your error, as you your forefather's. The Roman Catholic Church is clearly right and truly Catholic in her order, and in so much of her present faith as is contained in the Nicene Creed. The two great marks of the Catholic Church are: Faith and Order. The Faith, or code of belief, is contained in what is generally known as the Nicem Creed. The Order of the Church is her Ministry of Bishops, Priests and Deacons in regular succes- sion from the Apostles' days until the present. These Rome has, and so she is a true Church. A trne Church, however, is not necessarily a pure one ; and this distinction must be kept in mind. A pure Church must, of course, be a true Church. And here is where certain schismatic bodies find their excuse ; for, convinced of the purity of their motives, their sincere desire to promote the glory of God a. "* the good of men, they have not looked upon matters which, in their judgment, dealt only with order and form as a necessity of existence. It is quite conceivable that a religious body may hold the Nicene Faith, with but one exception, and even differ as to that exception from the true Church, by interpretation only, and yet, on that account, not be a Church at all, because it lacks the Order of the Church. But of this again. But in the case of Rome, we charge upon her that she has added to this deposit of Faith, which was not to be increased or diminished, which came from the hands of its divine Original complete and irreformable, various matters which were unknown to the Catholic Church of the first centuries after Christ as of faith and are therefore erroneous. Let me here explain what I mean by that word 44 erroneous ". I do not mean that eac'h addition is necessarily false in itself. I want, if I can, to show you that whether true or false in itself, it is equally an error to adopt it into the Body of Belie! Which is necessary to salvation. You say: How 32 ROMANISM. I. can that be true ? I say, simply because that par- ticular item was not set forth by the Apostles, was not authorized by a lawful (Ecumenical Council, and because not so set forth in the beginning cannot possibly be needful for salvation, for which no new terms can be set without a new revelation. Why, some of the sorest tria's the Church has been called on to endure were due to attempted addi- tions, one of them, at least, so small as a single letter, and that the smallest in the Greek alphabet. The separation between the Eastern and Western Churches (commonly spoken of as the Greek and Latin) was due mainly to the introduction of one word into the Creed. Some of these comparatively recent additions were for a long time held by theologians and devout people as what are called pious opinions. So long as they remained only opinions nobody took any great trouble about them. The - might be true or not true. They were perhaps extravagant in ex- pression, but that extravagance was put down to extreme devotion, and inasmuch as they were not matters of faith they were not anathematized. But by-and-byc these came to be taught under some kind of authority as matters of faith; that is to say. this portion of the Church, the Roman Church, set them forth as belonging to the deposit of faith, and demanded that her people receive and believe them as necessary to salvation, and there you see at once the difficulty arose. I might for myself believe that a certain opinion or devotion would not only be no disadvantage to me, but very valuable for the growth of piety in me, or in others ; but to say in my place here as a priest of the Church that such is absolutely neces- sary to salvation and a part of the faith once for all delivered to the saints, I would grievously err, even though the act, or devotion, or opinion were good. Now the chief of these, for of course you under- BOMANISM. I. 8& stand that I cannot go into the detaL i , daeh of them, are: Papal Supremacy, Transutetsantiation, the Immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, a certain view concerning Purgatory, the worship of the Blessed Virgin and other Saints, and Papal Infallibility. It is the genius of Roman Catholic theologians to mix things together, the true and the false. It is the genius of Protestantism to reject the true with the false. For instance, the Roman Catho\ic Church speaks of the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and also of the Supremacy of the Pope as if they were one and the same thing ; and by juggling with these words she makes it very difficult for ordinary people to tell whether there is any real difference between them at all, and the impression conveyed to the Protestant mind is that there is no difference. But they are as wide asunder as the poles. The Church in England or America might not have insuperable objection to the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome. The Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome is utterly rejected as anti •'tathcjks if not positively anti-Christian. The Primacy of the Bishop of Rome is merely that condition in which an officer is first among his •3-quals. The Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome is where a man is elevated above all other men and has no equal. He stands alone, sovereign above all. This, you perceive, is an altogether different matter. In any body of men, met for deliberative purposes, some one must be first, not that he is wiser or better, or because he has a wider juris- diction, but merely from the necessity of the case; that is a primacy, a primacy of honor, of courtesy, it may be, and in this way our own Communion, following the habit of the earliest Councils of the Church, has a Presiding Bishop, who, however, Iocs not arrogate to himself any special spiritual powers on account of that selection. He may be eaUed, as he is in fact, the Primate of the Amerv o4 HUMANISM. I. can Church. Similarly, when all the Bishops ot the Anglican Communion throughout the world are in session at Lambeth, the Archbishop of Canter- bury presides. He is the Primate of the English Church, and because of the relations subsisting between that body and our own, he may be said to be the Primate of the whole Anglican Communion. But this invests him with no authority dejure, nor even de facto, to say nothing of the still higher claim affected by the Bishop of Rome. When the Bishops met tor Council in the earlier centuries, the Bishop of Rome was esteemed first among his equals, nothing more. Not because Rome was the mother and mistress of all churches, for she was not ; but because Rome was the avail- able centre of learning, of influence, and of power; and for these reasons, conjoined to an early ambi- tion, which does not appear to have diminished with the diminution of either power or respect, the Bishop of Rome came to preside among his brethren. But this did not give him the lordship over the whole Church throughout the world. Now, however, the Pope no longer regards himself as a Bishop among Bishops, or indeed merely of the Episcopal order, but rather as though a higher Order had been revealed or revived for his especial use, an Order of sole supreme special jurisdiction, not to be confounded with the Episcopate, tin- source of all mission, not only to all other Bishops, but to the minor clergy as well, and which virtuallj degrades the Episcopates into a mere Arch-Pres- byterate. I now read the exact words in which this is set forth, and I ask your close attention to them : — u The Pope has authority over temporalities or Kings and Princes and that he has a right to de- throne heretical Princes and absolve their subjects from allegiance, because he possesses the temporal as well as the spiritual sword over every creature upon earth." ROMANISM. I. This is their own statement, observe ; and be- longs to That is called the Royalties of S. Peter, and every Bishop, even though he be an American citizen, must, before he can be consecrated, take an oath to maintain and stand by the Royalties of S. Peter. - And this is claimed in virtue of the fact (?) that the pope is the successor of whom? 8. Peter! Imagine S. Peter on the day of Pentecost, or on any other day, claiming authority over the tem- poralities of kings and princes. Imagine S. Peter on his missionary journeys, making such a prepos- terous spectacle of himself. Why the idea never entered the minds of a human soul in the ancient Church. There is not a word about such claim in che Fathers. And if any priest or layman can show me a single statement in any of the accredited writ- tings of the Ante-iVicene Fathers where this Su- premacy was even hinted at, as a prerogative 01 the Roman Pontiff, I will make my submission to the Roman Catholic Bishop of this city at once. But no such hint will be found, either there or in Holy Scripture. There is absolutely no certain mention of it until about the sixth century, when the Popes began to grow in power because the con- trol which Rome had begun to acquire, gave fre- quent occasions for appeal to the decisions of the Bishop of Rome, and he gradually beeame a sort Oi universal abitrator. The first grasp alter temporal power was made in the year 752, when the king of France ceded some provinces to the Pope. Authority began to be asserted over princes in the eighth century and very largely at the instigation of rival prin- ces, and Rome easily learned the diplomatic art of playing them against each other. This demor- alizing power reached its height in the eleventh century under Gregory, then, on account of the im- moralities—the horrible lives of some of the clergy -this constraint that had been placed upon Chris- 36 ROMANISM. I. tian princes, and which had been resisted for cen- turies, was now regarded as a menace to liberty; until at last the blow was struck which inaugurated a strife that ended in the downfall of the temporat power of the Pope. Nevertheless, he makes the claim to-day just as stoutly as ever, and as the claim must have some show of authority and antiquity, certain alleged canons, or decrees, are produced and exhibited as being genuine articles which chronicle the deriva- tion and bestowal of this more than regal claim. Oh ! sagacious Mother ! When has any imposture failed of divine or quasi-divine testimony when became necessary to bolster up pretention ? These authorizations are called the Decretals of Isidore. The Roman Catholic Church might with great propriety, and perhaps greater truth, be called The Isidorian Church. I need not speak at length about these Decretals, because they are well known to be not only false but foolish. They are forgeries, long detected and exposed. No Roman Catholic historian of the least respectability will deny that they are anything else than forgeries. And on the strength, or weakness, of these the whole theory is based. As the Popes saw the temporal power slipping away from them it became necessary to find some- thing which should take its place, in some measure at least. As one after another discovered that his name did not start a ghost in every land, and that e^'e:: Rca»«L Cathclic kings and princes could and did withstand him, some less get-at-able position must be assumed. Earth was gliding from him, could not the powers of Heaven be invoked ? Yes ! the prop for the waning power was, if not ready-made yet capable of being made to order. Strange to say, it was made to order, but our friends now insist that it was always ready-made. It is called Papal Infallibility. This dogma which sprang into existence in the ROMANISM. I. 37 year 1870 is at once declared to have been through all ages since Pentecost the belief of the faithful, and at the same time to be only another Protestant invention, the object of which was to prejudice peo- ple against the true Church. It has bec;t asserted again and again by Priests, authors of catechisms, and controversialists that I'apal Infallibility was not a dogma of the Roman Communion, but on (he contrary was a mere fig- ment of the Protestant brain intended to bring the Roman Church into disrepute. I have now in my scrap book part of a catechism in which it is de- clared that the statement that Catholics believe the Pope to be infallible is a Protestant invention. I have also the statement of a priest in Cincinnati that to say that the Church claims that the Pope is infallible is "foul slander. " But what can be said of the morality of a man who declares that to be a " foul slander " to-day, which to-morrow is necessary to salvation ? Oh ! the smartness of these excellent people ! Oh ! the adroitness of these defenders of the faith 1 Of course it was not a dogma until it was decreed, but if it had always been believed it must have always been taught, and shall a priest declare that what the Church had always taught was a " foul slan- der?" Yet so it is. • This now, is the definition of the dogma of Infal- libility. " We define and teach that it is a dogma divinely revealed that the Roman Pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in the discharge of the office of Pastor and Doctor of all Christians, by virtueof his supreme apostolic authority, he de- fines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Kedeemer willed that the Church should be endowed for de- fining doctrine with regard to faith and morals: and that therefore such definitions of the Roman 38 ROMANISM. I. Pontiff are irreformable of themselves and not from the consent of the Church.' 1 There it stands. In their own words. Observe: 11 We teach and define. " Who teach and define ? The Council ? Where then was the infallible Pope ? Why wait until this late day to utter the tremend- ous truth of his own infallibility ? Or, why permit such a matter so vital to faith to be uttered by a Council when his own utterance is irreformable of itself and not from the consent of the Church ? Again behold the tactics of Rome. The definition declares that ''the Divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed with infallibility." That proposition might receive a ready assent. But is the Pope the Church ? Is he even the mouthpiece of the Church? Now, the Romanists have a most agile way of skipping about, like that peculiar insect which is at once the affinity and the torment of the Irishman. Almost captured at one moment, he springs up fresh at another. If you say: — "Why this is endowing a man with the attributes of God Himself;" he will reply:— '-You do not understand the doctrine; infallibility is only when he defines something " ex cathedra." To define a dogma, is not very difficult to the understanding; but to define it "ex cathedra" ah! there's the rub. That word has a sound which is perfectly triumphant ! the argument is ended ! It is the word u ex cathedra 11 that does it all! If you should say:— " Is it not conceivable that a man, even a Pope, might make an incorrect statement with regard to faith or mor- als ?" They reply:— "But his statement must be with the consent of the Church. " But we object: It is not so stated in the bond. It is distinctly de- clared that his definitions are irreformable of them- selves and not from the consent of the Church. He alone may announce dogmas, in effect he is the voice of God to humanity; and although this may not be put into words, yet this is precisely the idea ROMANISM. I. 39 conveyed by the Priests to the ordinary people of that communion at all events. My friends, this dogma, like the doctrine of the Papal Supremacy was utterly unknown to the ancient Church. There is no trace of it. I chal- lenge the production of one passage from the an- cient fathers in support of it. It is even now the very despair of theologians among themselves. In making converts it is kept out of sight as long as possible, unless the new-born and unusual ardor, or the extreme guUibility of the 'vert makes it easier to explain than to one born and bred within the Roman communion. Were it true the most in- famous lives might be correct. I perceive that I have reached the limit of time I had set for this address and must postpone to another occasion what I desire to say with regard to others of the errors of this Church, such as Ma- riolatry, Purgatory, and the Eucharist. Of such additional lecture due notice will be given. I close now by saying that if the Popes have al- ways been infallible, when speaking Ex Cathedra, then there are decisions which, acccepted and pro- claimed by one Pope, have been condemned and anathematized by another. That which has been set forth by one as the undoubted truth of God, has been declared by another a blasphemous error and a dangerous deceit. And here I challenge denial. There are deplorable divisions among Protest- ants, but there are divisions also among Roman- ists. Nothing amuses me more than to hear some Roman theologian talk of the differences of opin- ion that obtain in our own Church, and cite this as a proof of its illegitimacy; while all while he knows, or ought to know, that the most disgraceful divisions in Christendom were, and still are, the feuds which obtained, and still obtain, within his own communion, as for instance between the Domi- nicans and the Franciscans, and between both of these and the Jesuits. When an infallible Pope 40 KOMANISM I. burned a lot of Franciscans, was he then act- ing under divine guidance ? One point more: — It is hardly necessary that I should do more than mention the politi- cal menace which these dogmas present to every country, and to none more than to our own. Here is where Rome has her power. It is not in the doctrine of Transubstantiation, though to hear people, who are wild on this subject, you would really think that that was the only serious evil in the Roman Catholic Church. She knows well how to draw fire and dissipate attack. Just so long as she can get Protes- tants to quarrel over the metaphysical points in the doctrines of Transubstantiation and Pur- gatory, she will not worry herself; she is drawing off your thought from those themes which, pondered on, might startle thought. To learn that there is a supreme power which has such sway over conscience in matters that do not concern religion, as that it may oblige a man on peril of his salvation to speak and act in ordinary and worldly affairs as he may be dictated to by this huge, overshadowing authority ; is not this, I ask, a menace to liberty? Well, the histories of the past show how that supremacy was wielded ; and it is the boast of the Romanist that his Church has never abandoned a single prerogative. He be- lieves that that right is hers now. To stand by the Royalties of S. Peter is a part of the oath of every bishop of her communion, though he be an American citizen, and in the very nature of things, it makes every Roman ROMANISM L 43- Catholic a citizen, first of Home, and afterwards, if Borne do not direct otherwise, of the partic- ular country in which he lives. Let ns for a brief moment suppose that the growth of Boman Catholic influence should be as great in the next fifty years as in the fifty years past, what will become of you, poor Prot- estants, who have no common standing ground among yourselves ? You would rather strug- gle over the unknowable and wearisome doc- trines of Election and Predestination ; over the form of Baptism, or some other little ques- tion, than to unite yourselves in the only way and with the only Body that holds the key of the situation, against a foe and a power with which you may be likely brought, one day, face to face, in bloody war ! I say, when you rec- ollect that every Boman Catholic man will in all human probability vote as his bishop di- rects, and the bishop will vote as the Pope directs, and that he will also very likely fight for that for which he votes, you have the argument. li. (Romaniettw (2). In the former lecture on the subject which I am about to treat to-night, I dwelt at length on the doctrines of Papal Supremacy and Papal Infalli- bility, because in my judgment they are the more monstrous of the errors of Rome/ and all other errors, doctrinal and practical, may be said to have their root in them. For this reason: — If I shall speak of a doctrine, which it is plain is erroneous either as to its original conception, or as to the ap- pearance which it now presents alter undergoing a process of development familiar to theologians of the Roman Catholic communion, I will be met at once ana estopped by the statement " It is set forth on the authority of the Pope, and the Pope is in fallible, and therefore is not to be questioned. 1 ' It some practice of the Roman Catholic communion shall seem to be offensive to the truth of Christian doctrine or to the purity of the Christian faith I shall also be estopped by the statement, ' ' but it has the consent and approval of the Pope, and the Pope is infallible; and whether he be or be not su- preme in temporal things he ought to be and is in spiritual things." Now to-night I want to say something in regard to some other doctrines and practices of that com- munion. Let me refresh your minds as to some- thing which I said upon a former occasion to this effect. The Roman theologians have away of mix- ing things together, the true and the false, so that while they are seeming to deline truth which no one doubts, they are inculcating the false. While 44 ROMANISM. II. appearing to define what is old and venerable, and has the consent of Catholic antiquity, under cover of that they are introducing things new and un- known either to the primitive age or to the centu- ries immediately succeeding that age. Take for instance that view of the Holy Eucha- rist which by Roman theologians is denominated Transubstantiation. In any exposition of that doctrine which 1 have seen in any Roman Catholic work of late years, I find that more than four-fifths of the argument is devoted to proving the doctrine of the Real Presence of Our Blessed Lord under the forms of bread and wine, which no true Chris- tian disbelieves. Under cover of setting forth this doctrine plainly, asserting it in the language ol the fathers, by a dexterous twist of the theological wrist it is made to appear that Transubtantiation and it are identical. Let me see if I can make the distinction between these as clear as such a subject permits me. There are three views commonly held with regard to the Holy Eucharist. One is the view entertained by sectarians generally. I say generally, because ihe Lutheran body has a view of its own. The other is the view held by the Roman Catholics of the present day. The third is the view taught by the Catholic Church in all ages of the world, not the Roman Catholic but the Catholic Church, you understand. The view, of which I need not say much now. of the sectarians is, that the Lord's Supper is merely a commemorative rite. A feast instituted on the night in which Our Lord was be- trayed, surrounded by memories of Himself and His loved and loving Disciples; the last feast that Our Lord and His Apostles had together before He entered into His agony, and therefore very dear to them. As often as the Lord's Supper is celebrated in the religious houses of these people, they call to mind, doubtless, the sufferings and death of Our Lord, and what He did for men. And it is a siijn ROMANISM. II. 46 and token of love and friendship that Christian people ought to have for each other. It is there- fore invested with a great deal of sacredness, but its most sacred aspect falls very far short of what the Catholic Church intends. The Roman Catholic communion holds now, that in the Lord's Supper by command of our Divine Redeemer, the bread and wine cease to exist. The substance of the bread and the substance of the wine disappear, are removed, and in the place there- of comes the physical Body, Blood, Soul and Di- vinity of Jesus Christ. That what appears on the Altar is appearance merely, and not reality in any sense. That the substance has departed, and only what scientific people, let us say metaphysical peo- ple, call the accidents or appearances or phenomena which attach to substance, remain. Thus while the consecrated Species undergoes no change which is apparent to the eye in shape or in color, or to the taste, or by feeling, or to the sense of smell by odour, nevertheless these have no essential pro- perties of themselves but are simply accidents, ghosts of what was once bread and what was once wine, but which are not so any longer. Now I am stating exactly the position. This view of the Ro- man Catholic communion was never heard of before the year 850. The term Transubstantiation was never employed until the beginning of the thir- teenth century at the fourth Lateran Council in the year 1215. Up to that time all Catholic theolo- gians united in declaring that under the form or veils of bread and wine were the Lord's Body and Blood, but that the bread remained bread in all its natural and essential qualities, and the wine remained wine. The distinction of accidents and substance vrere never heard of. The bread was uot mere bread, as the sectarians taught; the wine was not mere wine; Iml under their form or veil was the Body and Blood of Christ, incomprehensible to the human mind, but yet really and truly there, 4tf ROMANISM. II. sacrainentally present. Of course the introduction of the word itself caused a great deal of contro- versy. It required all the authority which Rome possessed to establish the word itself. Now let me see if I can in a few words give you some idea of what may be called accidents and sub- stance. Of course I am speaking to those of you who have not thought much about the matter. For instance I say of this wood that it is loug, dark, hard. But these terms are only qualities applied to that which is, but which are not themselves the substance of the wood which is itself long, dark or hard. Now it is utterly incredible, it is absolutely unthinkable that a substance shall disappear and leave its qualities behind. That shadow shall ex- ist where there is no substance to cause the shadow. It is equally unthinkable that qualities shall appear where there is no substance. Whichever way you treat it it is simply dumbfounding that a substance shall be without its appropriate qualities, or that qualities shall be without the appropriate substance which is the cause of them. For if it be insisted that the flesh which walked in Galilee, the hands that blessed children, the feet that were weary and sore, the body that was hungered and tortured is present upon the Altar in all ways just as when our L were sinners, but because having been saved by gract they desired for them that increase of happi- ness which God vouchsafes until the day when their bliss shall be consummated. A most comfortable, beautiful doctrine as the Church holds it. Those who have passed away with the Sign of Faith have gone into the land of peace, the Paradise where Our Blessed Lord's Soul went after He had been crucified upon the Cross, they are gaining more and more of the light and knowledge, the sweet- ness and fulness which comes to enfranchised ROMANISM. II. 55 spirits separated from the impediments of the body. That is a most comforting doctrine. There are our children and our loved ones as the days go by to us, learning more and more of that love of God which passeth understanding, and drinking deeply of that inexhaustible cup of divine know- ledge, and divine grace, which is freely offered them in that land " which no mortal may know.'' Yes, this is a most beautiful doctrine ; but this is not the Roman Catholic doctrine concerning Purgatory. The Roman Catholic doctrine concerning Purga- tory is, that there is a place into which, souls go who have not paid all the penalties for sins that have been committed in this life, and where they are tormented by fire which differs in no sort from the torments of Hell, the place of final punishment, in any other way than as to duration. The one is eternal, the other is not. In regard to this there are only a couple of pas- sages in Holy Scripture which are produced to support it and which have no bearing whatever upon the subject. It was an innovation which grew to the Church just like the doctrines of which I have been speaking, and out of it there arose that system of Indulgences which brought about the awful schism in Germany so fatal to the peace and happiness of the Church ever since. The doctrine of Indulgences is defined to be, " That out of the treasury of the infinite merits of Christ, and the super-abundant merits of the saints, the Pope by the power invested in him as succes- sor of St. Peter, can transfer to human souls such merits as they may acquire by performing certain duties to which these merits or indulgences are at- tached. " Of course you will perceive at once that it is taken for granted that the saints did more than was needed for their own salvation. That it was perfectly possible for a human being to do not only such good works on this earth as would merit his salvation at God's hands, but that he should 56 ROMANISM. II. also do such other and unnecessay good works as might be put to the credit of poor human souls in the treasury of Heaven. Now suppose that was true— which of course it is not; it was utterly unknown to antiquity— but sup- posing it to be true the next point is, that out of this treasury the Pope and the Pope alone, has the right to take merits and apply them to certain in- dividuals whom he knows or does not know. And in fact these merits are drawn out of this treas- ury with his knowledge and yet without his know- ledge. Observe, they cannot be taken from this treasury without his authority. He alone has power to transfer them to human souls. But all over the world everywhere, here in Louisville to- night souls are appropriating these merits to them- selves, gaining certain indulgences and the Pope does not know of it. Then he must be using the keys of the treasury in a very remarkable manner. He must, in the ages away back, have unlocked this treasury and left it open so that every body could help himself. Because you will observe, there are hundreds and hundreds yea, thousands of cases to which indulgences are applied and which are entirely at the will of the individual who chooses to take them. There is not a book of devo- tion in the Roman Catholic Church which has not some statement of this nature: "For the use of this prayer (so many times) an indulgence of one hundred days is granted.'' '-For the use of this prayer (so many times) an indulgence of forty years will be granted." or "If this particular prayer be read at a particular place or time, five hundred years' indulgence will be granted." What does that mean ? You see how one could manage. A Roman Catholic could start in the morning after confession, and by a skillful use of his time in a city blessed with many altars which have indul- gences attached, he might put to his credit thous- ands of years before night. What does that mean? B0MA3ISM. II. 67 Why it means, as per Roman theology, that ac- cording to the ancient discipline of the Church, had it been put in force, a man for a particular sin might have incurred a hundred days penance, or a hundred years penance if you can fancy such a penance, but that, by the use of this particular prayer that penalty is thereby remitted and the over- plus of days or years is put to his credit. But a man you perceive, can in a few hours place to his own credit not only a hundred days, or two hun- dred days, or five hundred days, but he can put to his credit a thousand years. And now, while of course any modern Roman Catholic utterly repudiates the idea of persons pay- ing for these Indulgences, yet what caused the Revolutiou in Germany and indeed gave birth to this modern repudiation ? I think you know very well, at least those of you who hear me often, that I am not in love with Martin Luther, and no one would accuse me of sitting up at night studying a meditation upon the beauties of his character. But what was it that stopped the sale of Indulgences ? For all history must be false if they have never been sold. Our Roman Catholic theologians have a way of inventing history which is very remarkable. These Indulgences were sold as every body knows that knows anything. They were the cause that is, the sale of them, was the cause of the greatest scandal in Christendom. If there can be any excuse for the wrongs which that man brought upon the Chui ch and upon the world it was to be found in the system of Indulgences, in regard to which no Catholic theologian knew anything in the days of antiquity. I think that I have now covered all the ground that I intend to cover. May I say a word with regard to the true Catholic Church now that I have finished with, I will not say the false, but the stained Catholic Church. 1 had occasion when opening my sermon on this subject to say all the 58 ROMANISM. II. good that I could think about the Catholic part ol the Roman Catholic Church. Were it not that she has a Catholic side, the world would have risen long since against her. But she has a Catholic side, a most beautiful Catholic side, and sad it is that she presents to us the strange appearance of a lovely creature united — let us hope not for life — to an awful monster. It is only by what she calls the ''doctrine of development" that she has ever reached her present position. There is a true de- velopment and there is also (and this unfortunately is what has come to the Roman Catholic Church) a false development. There is that development, as one says, by which the face of the child broad- ens into the face of the man, the natural develop- ment of the flower from its own particular bud. But the development of which the Church of Rome is the champion, no, I mean the Roman Church (there is a very great difference between the Church of Rome and the Roman Church) the development I say of which the Roman Church is the champion, is the development which gives us three eyes, two noses, or seven fingers. Not the natural orderly development from what was there before, but the unnatural development, if it can be so called, of adding something heretofore unknown to what was well known. Now there is another picture that my soul de- lights to honor. The Catholic Church whose every word to-day is fragrant with the odor of true Cath- olic antiquity. Whose every act is set forth in the most beautiful age of the Church the age that was fruitful of saints. A liturgy so beautiful, so digni- fied, so refining that it is not excelled by any on the face of the earth. A Ministry that comes down to us from the beginning, with Sacraments pure and undefiled. She stands before the people of this coun- try midway between Romanism and Protestantism. She says to the bewildered sects on the one hand, " Here is a center of unity strong with authority, ROMANISM. II. &9 beautiful with a service in a tongue < understanded .1 the people,' graced with all the divine Sacra* inents duly and properly administered." And to Rome, on the other hand, she presents a picture of what Rome herself was in the seventh, and sixth, and fifth, and fourth centuries of the Christian era. The Roman Catholic theologian can see the picture of his own Church more certainly and more per- fectly in the Auglican Communion to-day, than he cau in the modern Roman Catholic Church whic\ is just as unlike the Catholic Church of the seventh, sixth, and fifth centuries as earth is unlike Heaven. One word and I am done. Some people have been kind enough to send me in the last three or four days something in the neighborhood of twenty- five or thirty communications. Very kind of them I am sure and I fully appreciate it. Some of them are earnest appeals for my safety. I return heart- felt thanks. Some are praying for me. I beg to say that I desire the prayers of all good people. I will be very glad to have the prayers of the saints, too. I pray God to give me every help in every way myself. Let my good friends who were good enough to sign their names to the letters which have been sent me take this, and what I have said before, as my reply. I am a very busy man just now, 1 would not like to do you the discourtesy of not replying to your letters, but it would occupy me more days than I have at my disposal. I thank you for your attention to-night. This is by no means pleasant work to me, bnt it is a needed work, and as done for God and His Church I may humbly hope to have His blessing as I pray for His help. Note. — This additional lecture was delivered the fourth in order on Wednesday, March 27, but is printed here for the sake of convenience to the reader. IV. I am not bound in honor or in courtesy, to notice the numerous communications which have reached me during the week, and, yet, as I gather from one of them that the writer will be here to-day, I desire to say (whether it be man or woman I can- not tell ; I am not accustomed to deal with persons who do not give their names) that it is very far lrom my intention, the very farthest from my inten- tion, to deliver sensational addresses. If there is one thing that my soul abhors in him who minis- ters at the Altar, it is mere sensationalism ; and God forbid that I should lend myself for one moment co what might be justly called sensationalism. I simply notified my congregation that I intended to dwell upon certain features of sectarianism lor their instruction and warning. I made no extraordinary effort to bring the matter into public notice. Had I desired to create a sensation only I might have done so by announcing that I would lecture on Rob- ert Elsmere, Daniel Deronda, Shakspeare, or any of the vulgarities in which Protestant ministers delight to indulge. But, for myself, I esteem my high calling so far above the sensational monstrosi- ties of the day, that to speak the truth of God in the name of God, is greater to me than all the ap- plause of men, aye, or than all the scorn of men. I am here simply to speak what I do know and to make effort to settle the faith, so far as that may be done by man, of those for whose souls I must give account to Almighty God. For the rest — the others who come— well, I shall be glad if they shall learn in any way. I am to-day to meet the charge of arrogance, ex- 12 PRE8BYTERIANISM. clusiveness, and uncharitabieness so vigorously hurled at the Church by Presbyterians. Last Sun- day when I spoke about our Roman Catholic breth- ren I had, I presume, the general consent of those who heard me, because Protestantism, foolishly euough, prides itself upon the fact that whatever else it is. it is not Roman Catholic, thank God. Protestantism may be wrong, very wrong, but it blesses God that at all events, no matter into what error it may fall, it is not Roman Catholic. And that reminds me of the cry of the Pharisee who thanked God that he was not an extortioner, nor unjust, nor proud, nor an adulterer, nor even like the Publican. The sins of extortion, of pride, and adultery were minor sins iu his judgment perhaps to the sin of being like this Publican. And that is the position which Protestants appear to hold to- wards Roman Catholics. I want to say right now that I do not share that feeling at all. That I am not a Roman Catholic is because of the Romanisms of that Church. That I am a Catholic is most un- doubtedly true. But as between being Roman Catholic, were the compulsion laid upon me, and being a member of any of the Protestant sects, God who knows my heart knows that between these two I should undoubtedly be a Roman Catholic. I could be a Romau Catholic. I never could be a sectarian. I>ow that is plain and I hope that it is perfectly satisfactory. The Roman Catholic Church is the common prey of Protestant Christianity. It has a thousand virtues which are not heeded. It has a few faults which are very much heeded. Be- cause of its thousand virtues I can love it ; because of its few faults I am opposed to its Romanism. Nevertheless, were the struggle to come between Catholicism, pure or impure, and sectarianism, I am on the side of Catholicism, because on that side is Christ, on that side are the holy Angels, on that side all antiquity is arrayed. On the other side there is nothing but humanity — men and very weak . PRESBYTERIANISM. 63 men at that. Now I am about to assail the founda- tion of Protestant sects, and first must pay atten- tion to the spirit of Sectism in general. I begin with Presbyterianism for several reasons although she is not the first chronologically, yet in point of influence, in point of education, in point of number, Presbyterianism may be ranked first, and certainly she is the fruitful mother that has given birth to a whole swarm of very pestilent sects. Out of her pregnant womb came forth a multitude of bodies that in the past three hundred and odd years have lifted their heel against their mother, just as she despised and rejected the womb that gave her rebellious people Christian birth. She, primarily, is responsible for the chief defec- tions from Christianity ; she, primarily, is responsi- ble for the infidelity of the day; she, primarily, is responsible for the utter denial of Christianity that has come to so many children in the years that have gone by as in the present. We are a people who live very much in the pres- ent. Our knowledge comes to us in newspaper ar- ticles, and in pamphlets, and in isolated scraps from here and there. We are a busy people, a peo- ple who cannot take time to go down to the roots of things, or to read very closely for ourselves. We are a people who trust, more than perhaps any other people, in our clergymen, and our clergyman doles oat to us from the first Sunday in January un- til the last Sunday in December pleasant little es- says on religious matters that nobody ever dreamed of denying, when he does not deal in generalities or sensationalisms. The years come and go ana we find ourselves no further on the road to knowl- edge than we were years ago. There are gray headed men that I am talking to now, who cannot say conscientiously that they know one whit more about the teachings of the religious body to which they are attached, than they did thirty or forty years ago. There are old gray headed men here who re- H4 PRESRYTERIANISM. member that there was a time when they took some interest in controversial questions, but now all is past and they are simply content to float down the stream until death puts an end to their ques- tionings, and the dawn of a new morning ushers them into the place where there are no question ings. Aud yet all around them are strong men, and young men, and even more than this, women, who are to be mothers of children, who are dis- tracted by the different and conflicting voices of Christendom. They ask, as Pilate asked, "What is truth ?" They speak, and, behold! the confusion of tongues which arises on every side! It is not one answer, as one would expect, to such a straight- forward, momentous question that meets them— but, behold, every sect which has a footing in the land has its own reply. Lo! here is Christ, lo! there is Christ! until bewildered, distracted, mad- dened almost, they know not where to turn nor to whom to give credence. Conflicting voices are in the air, and what determines them ? Is it the claims of religion conscientiously considered by them? Is it the conclusion that they have reached after careful search? Is it the utterance of what is called the infallible voice of God? No, no, none of these. They are determined in the education of their souls by friendship; by the genius oi the min- ister who speaks to them. They are determined in the education of their souls by family relations. They are determined in nuny instances, against the voices of their souls, by the rule of husband or wife. Is it any wonder, when some poor wife, who longs to train her children in the Christian religion and would desire, deeply desire, to train them in her own form of religion, is beset and crowded by the will of the husband that she loves, though she believes him to be mistaken — is it any wonder that she should arrange the instruction which she gives (if she give any) so that it may not be absolutely offensive on the one hand, nor yet on the other be PBESBYTEBIANI8M. 65 absolutely declarative of anything? Is it any won- der that some poor woman who really longs for communion with God, and who greatly desires to bring her children up in the true faith, should seek such devious paths as to make it possible (poor, mistaken soul) to obtain the favor of God. and yet not lose the favor of her family? And how under such conflicting circumstances, can the truth be taught strongly or boldly? How is it possible to convey truth so that it shall be received without question and held firmly by children? Yet this is happening around us every day, and what is the result? We have as the result children who have grown up under this loose management, going now to their father's church and now to their mother's church holding the views of neither strongly, and by and by, when business separates them from their homes, and they must go out into the world to battle with it for themselves they absent them- selves from all religious worship, on the ground that everything has been higgledy-piggledy. There has been a sort of jumbling of ideas in their minds the result of which must be the anarchy of ideas, and each says to himself "I abandon the whole affair." I say that there is no minister of any religion in the land who has not had a similar experience to my own. To me, again and again, people have come and said : " My mother was a Churchwoman, my father was a Presbyterian. The result was, as they both were very much set in their ways I went with my father to the Presbyterian church in the morning and was compelled to spend Sunday after- noon learning the Shorter Catechism. In the even- iag I went with my mother to the Episcopal church. My father told me on Monday morning that the Episcopal church was all form and ceremony. And inasmuch as I saw lorm and ceremony there, I took him at his word. My mother told me that forms and ceremonies were God's way of embodying true religion in a pure body, just as the human soul is 66 PRESBYTERIANISM. contained in the human body. Then I doubted somewhat my father's wisdom for I loved my mother. The next day my father assured me all was cola for- malism in the Episcopal Church and I fell into his belief. My mother assured me that underneath all these symbols and ceremonies there was a great deal to love and believe in, and even to become en- thusiastic over, and I remember that when I went into the Episcopal Church I felt very differently from the way in which I was affected when I went into a Presbyterian church. When I went iuto a Presbyterian church I looked around to greet ac- quaintances, there was a little buzz and stir, and the great occasion of the day was the preacher and the sermon. When I went into the Episcopal Church I remember the hush and solemnity that seemed to be upon the people, and my mother put her hand upon my arm and said, ' Be still : for yonder is God's Altar.' And so I oscillated between these two until, absolutely, there were no two consecu- tive days in the week when I knew what I was. A Presbyterian on Monday ; my mother talked to me and I was an Episcopalian on Tuesday. On Wed- nesday my father argued with me and I was a Pres- byterian again. On Thursday my mother talked with me again, and again I was an Episcopalian. When Sunday came my condition was if anything a little worse. A Presbyterian in the morning, and an Episcopalian in the evening. Now I have aban- doned all. I never hear sermons on these subjects. I am likely to go to my grave in doubt whether the Episcopal or the PresWterian is the worship of the Blessed Lord.'' Brethren, I believe I am using the language of your own thoughts. And if I have said '• Presbyterian" remember that I am talking about them to-day. Substitute your own religious name and you have the same argument. Now I want first of all to discharge myself of the thought of uncharitableness. It is said that I am waging war upon the " sects." Yes, please God, PRESBYTERIANISM. 67 that is true. That is what I am here for. That is what I was ordained for. For the express purpose of driving away all erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to God's Word. I was commissioned for that purpose; and that is why I am living and working here. It is said that I am simply desiring to cast scorn upon the religious bodies that are all around us. No. I have no scorn for anybody. I have neither malice nor uncharitableness for any man. I am here to speak simply and truly the things that I do know. But there is no man I trust, please God, who would more reodily meet one who differs from him with the heart of love and the hand of fellowship than I would. Why, I was once a Methodist preacher myself. I know the loveli- ness of many Dissenters of almost every name. I know their sincerity, their truth, their worth. God forbid that I should have uncharitableness in my heart, and, above all things, God forbid that I should have malice. I am simply trying to do my duty according to the terms of the prayers offered here from day to day, and inasmuch as we pray that it may nlease God to lead into the way of truth all those who have erred and are deceived I am trying to accomplish that, in the very best way that I know. I >id it ever occur to you that at least a majority of the clergy of our Church in this country is drawn from the sects? I do not know how it may be to- day, because there has been a wonderful growth both as to communicants and ministers of our Church, but I do know that twenty-five years ago it was clearly shown that the majority of the clergy in our Church were once ministers of the various religious sects about us. If one enquire how many men educated in our ministry have become ministers of various religious bodies outside the Church he would have very little difficulty in discovering that they are very, very few, very few indeed. The ministry of our Church, til PRESBYTERIANI8M. or rather let me say, our Church herself, has had a most wonderful and attractive influence for men. Men have flocked to her under circumstances most unpropitious for themselves. Men who were occu- pying high positions elsewhere, who were deriving large incomes elsewhere, have voluntarily resigned their livings and come into the ministry of the Church, and been perfectly willing to take very humble places in her service, conscious that they were fulfilling the will of God, and that they were making the best proof of their ministry right there. Why is this? Why is it that men seek her and come to her from the various religious bodies around, while so few of our men go to them ? It is because there is a passionate longing in every hu- man heart for the definite and the positive. If any sect has grown it has been because of the urging of some definite, positive statement. Men have come to us because there was a settled position as- sumed, and positive statements made, with regard to faith and doctrines. We are dealing with tre- mendous issues and therefore we have no time in which to dissipate thought, and speak simply of generalities. The greatest foe we have to contend with to-day is the division within the Christian fold. Infidelity has no terror compared with this. Take up any newspaper of the day and you will see mul- titudes of senseless appeals made to Christian men, urging them to condone their differences, and unite for the overthrow of infidelity. Why infidelity is no foe. We are not afraid of theoretical infidelity. When a man tells me that he is an infidel, with that superior nineteenth century air so jauntily assumed, I regard him as I regard any other crank. I smile at him. When a man with an assumption of great knowledge tells me that, " Oh! well ! he has examined the whole Christian position and has dismissed it all as untrustworthy," I say to him, " My dear fel- low you are a great man! a very great man! The difficulty is that you were born fourteen or fifteen PEESBTTERUSISM. 09 jandred years too late. At that time they might iave made a god of you. You would then have keen in your proper place. Remarkable fellow! So you do not believe iu a God. Marvellous man! I might ask how do you know there is not a God? The rest of mankind does believe and you do not • and you think you are a wonderful fellow!!! I do not. " I have exactly the same idea that the Psalm- ist had when he said, "The fool has said in his heart there is no God." I cannot take time to ar- gue with fools. No, I am not troubled by infidelity so much. That is not what chiefly troubles Chris- tian men, or ought to chiefly trouble Christian men just now. When I hear the many appeals coming from the papers and the pulpits of to-day, saying, "Oh! here in the presence of this awful infidelity, this dreadfu- agnosticism which is eating into the neart of Christian life, you ought to be united." I say: — What! Infidelity eating into the heart of Christian ^fe r Agnosticism eating into the heart of Christian hfc ? Poor little miserable creatures! If a million of them were put into a nutshell, as some one has said, they would not come within speaking distance of each other. Poor little idiots. Nobody need think anything about them at all. There are Infidels and infidels, but the nineteenth century has not begotten a new or more dreadful class than any other century, and we simply stultify ourselves when we speak with bated breath of the extraordinarily intelligent infidelity which is the peculiar product of this particular century. Why, in pity one might let them have their day. That is not what troubles a Christian man. In fact, agnostics are mere baga- telles to him ; and when you hear this cry in the newspapers and the pulpits of the day, it is some- thing to arouse your laughter and not your con- cern. The chief foe of Christendom (and we shoul.1 fight only with the king), the one foe of Christen do* is the division in Christendom. Why, if Chi is tandom were united no foe could stand before kei 70 PRESBYTERIAN ISM. to-day. She has education, she has influence, she has every resource on her side. United Christen- dom could do as she pleases with the world. But the foe of Christendom is division in her own house- hold. Trie father is against the son, the son is against the father, the mother disowns the child of her womb, the child his own mother. It is the jar- ring and conflicting voices of Christendom that ruin her enterprises and delay her hopes. Consider for a brief moment; The great God who is above all and looks down upon all men, hears the feeble men that here and there declare they do not believe in His existence. Well! well! I think to myself that the dear Lord looks with almost for- giveness upon them. He says " My children I do not wonder that you should be tossed about, I do not wonder that you should disbelieve And yet look at yourselves. What a very small fragment of the world you are !" Ah! that is not what troubles God I think. But looking down from Heaven upon multitudes of His Cross-signed people, scattered over various countries, and upon many continents, and in the islands of the ocean, to Him one people, to us of many nations, of many colors, of many kinds, to Him all one. He looks down upon them and sees Christian against Christian, Christian creed against Christian creed, Christian hand against Christian hand. His divine Word taken up by rival societies absolutely. Think of it. The Divine Word of God taken up by societies who are not merely not auxiliaries to each other, but literal- ly rivals of each other. He looks down upon His soldiery and sees dissension and mutiny and dismay through all their ranks. Imagine some general gifted with the ability to read the hearts of the multitude of all his soldiers scattered in various brigades, upon the field of battle, and to know the thoughts of their captains and officers; and discov- ering their plans to be utterly variant and at vari- ance with his; the only idea in common being that PRESBYTERIANISM. 71 they can still fight while every man may choose his own way. What must be the result? Well "this is the picture of Christendom. The Presbyterians will only go out in this direction. The Methodists will only go out in that direction. The Baptists in this and the Lutherans in that di- rection; The Campbellites roam as guerrillas and bushwhackers, skirmishing around, heaven only knows where, and the Unitarians; well! what are they but spies and traitors. Smile as you please at the picture, this division is here, and this division is apparent. You know very well that there is no sort of real unity between the Christians of this city, or any other city. It becomes therefore a grave question for us to con- sider where in all these various bodies is there a centre of unity. I do not make the assertion which I am about to make, absolutely beyond fear of contradiction, but I make the assertion, and I think it will be uncontra- dicted, that outside of the Church of which I am a priest there is no religious body that makes it its duty to pray in terms from day to day for those who oppose it. I repeat the statement, that this Church offers here from day to day twice, yes, three times every- day, the prayer that God may bring into the way of truth all such as have erred and are deceived. And so I say I do not know of another religious body in this town that does this thing. So much in general on the spirit of Sectism. Now let me define Presbyterianism. I place Pres- byterianism first, becarse I think she is the mother of all wrong. I do not mind your smiling, if it is a relief. The term Presbyterian has sole relation to church government; although in these latter days it has come to be a name applied in the minds of many people, to a system of doctrine. The word Pres- byterian has sole relation to matters of church government. V2 PRESBYTBRIANISM. It was the teaching of Christ Himself, it is the teaching of the Catholic Church that the govern- ment and ministry of the Church is administered and exercised only by Bishops, Priests and Dea- cons. This second order which we call Priests is, sometimes though less properly called Presbyters. In the Prayer Book the word used is solely" Priest." But the term Presbyter has been used in history, and in Scripture too, and therefore I receive it. The government then, as it was set forth at first is, in our j udgment, by Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons. We hold that a threefold Order of the Ministry is necessary to the existence of the Church on earth. We hold that Almighty God has always set forth a ministry in a threefold form and in the Christian dis- pensation that form is found in Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons. There were other names employed, but these three Orders were always there. Now the Presbyterian theory, first formulated in the early part of the sixteenth century, (just fifteen hundred and odd years after the Ascension of our Blessed Lord, ) is, that there is but one order in the ministry, and that Order (the second as we teach) is called Presbyters. Hence they hold that Presby- ters, and not Bishops observe, that Presbyters, and not Bishops, are the officers who perpetuate them- selves in the Church; that Deacons are an order of iaymen for the management of the temporal affairs, s,nd for the dispensing of charities. Many of you have no doubt imagined that the term Presbyterian applies to a system of church doctrine. That is a mistake ; it applies solely and wholly to a system of church government. But latterly it has been taken to set forth a system sX church doctrine as well. Now suppose the claim were true that the succession— for our good Pres- byterian friends are just as much committed to the doctrine of the Apostolic Succession as we are. (This is news to a number of Presbyterians, but I have a document here which goes to show that the PRESBYTERIANISM. 73 Presbyterians are just as settled on the subject of Apostolic Succession as the highest High Church Episcopalian in the land.) Now suppose it were true, that the lawful succession comes through the Presbyterian Order in the Ministry, that is the sec- ond Order, and not through the Bishops the first or Episcopal Order, as we call it, (the word Episco- pal means Bishop) even then our Presbyterian friends cannot show the Apostolic Succession, and for this reason, they were born fifteen hundred and fifry years too late. That is all. A little accident of fifteen hundred and fifty years cui s them out of it, notwithstanding their claim, even supposing that claim were true. But now as I know that my time is short and I cannot supplement all the lectures, I want to give you the proof of this. The Catholic position is that in the ancient Jewish Church there were the High Priest, the Priest, and the Levite, three or- ders; nobody ever dreams of denying it. Our po- sition is that when our Lord came upon the earth He, the great High Priest, chose to Himself the special twelve whom He named Apostles, and He also sent forth seventy who were called disciples. None of these, whether disciples or Apostles, were chosen by the people. There were then seventy disciples sent forth by Him, and twelve Apostles and Himself. That just before the time of His As- cension into Heaven He communicated the power which He Himself had to the Twelve. He said, "All power is given unto Me in Heaven and in earth. As My Father has sent Me even so send I you." He addressed Himself not to the Seventy, but to the Twelve. " As My Father has sent Me," clothed with all power, u so send I you. Whose sins thou dost remit, they are remitted. Whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained." And then, that they might have authority to commit this trust to other men, He said, "Andlo! I am with you alwav unto the end of the world." 74 PRESBYTERIANISM. So, on the descent of the Holy Ghost at Pente- cost, one of the very first acts was the direction by these Apostles of Our Lord, now raised to the first place in the Ministry, to " Seek out for yourselves seven men of repute (deacons) whom we (not ye) shall appoint over this business.*' And right here I wish to say that the body known as Congrega- tionalists (Presbyterians under another name) a good many years ago published an edition of the Bible, in which, adroitly, they changed one single letter which had it not been exposed would have discredited the whole idea of the Episcopal theory. Had that Bible gained circulation, the Episcopal Church, I imagine they fancied, would be nowhere. But the providence of God led to its discovery and the Congregationalists with shame withdrew it. Some of these Bibles are still extant. They chang- ed the word "we" into the word "ye," changing a W into a Y, so that the passage reads, ' ' Whom ye may appoint over this business." As every one of course knows that nobody but the Apostles had the appointing power, the theory of the Church was all at sea. But the original is, u Whom we may appoint over this business." So then we have Apostles, Elders, and Deacons. Moreover, we dis- cover that when St. Paul writes to St. Timothy he directs him to ordain elders in every city and ad- monishes him to be careful with regard to those upon whom he should lay his hands. If he were only an Elder, and if there were no other Order in the ministry, this would be a most remarkable statement to make. The same is true with regard to the others in Crete, where there were, perhaps, numbers of Elders. Then again, remember, that lor fifteen hundred years no one ever heard of such a theory as was then propounded, and is now main- tained by the Presbyterians. Now they say that because the terms bishop and presbyter are occa- sionally used interchangeably in Holy Scripture, and here and there in some of the ancient Fathers, PRESBYTEMANISM. 75 therefore there was but one Order in the Ministry. Well nothing can be simpler than that. The words indeed have been used interchangeably just as to- day. Our bishop is a priest when discharging the functions of a priest, and a bishop when discharg- ing the functions of a bishop. Every bishop is a priest, every priest is not a bishop. Bat in order that this matter might be fully set- tled in the minds of candidates for ordination, the Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Princeton, Dr. Miller, prepared a Manual of Church History. He also delivered lectures on Church History. Dr. Miller in the Princeton Theological Seminary was guilty of garbling the ancient Fathers in a way that would have shamed a forger. I make this statement without the least fear of contradiction. Following his unhappy lead, the Methodists and others have dropped into the fashion of it. And any one who desires to examine the original can do so in any public library, or in my library so far as that is concerned. Observe, quoting Ignatius, who himself lived in the time of the Apostles, he says, ' ' in like manner let all reverence the Pres- byters as the Sanhedrin of God, and college of the Apostles." On this he builds up the argument thnt the Presbyters are the lawful, and only lawful suc- cessors, of the Apostles. Now what Ignatius did say is this, ' ■ In like manner let all reverence the Deacons as Jesus Christ, the Bishop as the Father, and the Presbyters as the Sanhedrin of God and College of the Apostles. Without these there is no Church." Fancy such a forgery as that by a re- spectable professor in a large college! Again, quoting the same Ignatius, he says, ' ' Be subject to your Presbyters as to the Apostles of Jesus Christ our hope," showing again that the Church was to be subject to Presbyters, not to Bishops. What did Ignatius really say? Ignatius really said, " It is therefore necessary that as ye do, so without your Bishop ye shall do nothing. 76 PRESBYTERIAN ISM. Also, be subject to your Presbyters as to the Apos- tles of Jesus Christ our hope with whom if we live we shall be found in Him, the Deacons also as be- ing of the mysteries (ministers) of Jesus Christ rev- erence." Again, another extract from the Fathers by this forger Professor of History at Princeton is, " Follow the Presbyters as the Apostles." In re- ality Jgnatius said, u Follow your Bishops as Jesus Christ did the Father, and the Presbyters as the Apostles, and reverence the Deacons as the com- mended of God." What can any one think of this? There are hundreds of others which I have here, but which time utterly forbids that I should quote, but which I am ready to quote at any moment, at any time. Never was forgery more palpable or outrageous. The Apostles, as they passed out of this life, ap- pointed successors to themselves, and all antiquity with one voice distinctly declared that fact. Nor was there ever heard of such a thing as a Presby- terian form of worship until the unhappy move- ment in Germany arose against the Church. (I see that my time is up. I pity the people who are standing and yet I know that I shall not have strength or opportunity to extend this lecture, if I stop now. And I dislike to leave the matter half done. I shall try to be as rapid as possible. I was compelled in the nature of the case to spend some- time on the evils of schism in general.) The first movement arose with Martin Luther. Martin Luther is regarded as a saint by many peo- ple. Some historians of the Reformation place him almost upon a pinnacle side by side I was about to say, with the Deity. Martin Luther, while no doubt he was perfectly right in protesting against the monstrosities of Rome, was himself a libertine and, as I think, in the natural sequence of his destruc- tion of lawful authority, and overcome by tempta- tion of the flesh he broke his vow of celibacy and induced a nun to break her vow. He was a man PRESBYTERIANISM. U of strong passions and strong will. The Church had given him a chance to make himself famous. Licentiousness ran riot. He set out at first to bat- tle against this, strange as that may sound, and so besides the question which I but barely touched last Sunday alter noon and which was the real bone ol contention, he had great opportunities, which, however, he grossly misused. He did not attempt to blot out the evils he deplored, as they gained strength in the Church, but he abandoned the Church. He sought to overthrow one sin by com- mitting another. He threw overboard its succes- sion and undertook to establish a church for him- self, and to do so, he must fortify himself, of course, by the adoption of an entirely new theory. By whom was he at first assisted, then opposed and finally suc- ceeded in this work? By John Calvin. John Cal- vin, a man of iron will and iron heart ; a man who by his very constitution impressed himself upon people. At that time the whole European world was in a ferment. He found many friends amongst English and Scotch people who fled from strife, political and ecclesiastical, and who went over to Geneva. John Calvin infused them with his own views of theology. He pushed his own interests inasmuch as he set forth those horrible five doctrines, those dreadful statements, that have been the despair of thousands of men from that day until this. Amongst these people was Jonn Knox, a man of his own temper. John Knox, of whom Sunday school books make a saint, and history a devil. I come between the two. I am sure he was not a saint, but I am willing to acknowledge that he was not such a devil as many people think. But John Knox started forth in Scotland with the most determined purpose. Like all men of such character he drew men to him. Who does not that is positive? He went not as a minister of love with the Cross iu both hands, but with a sword to slay men. He 78 PBESBYTERIANISM. tore down altars, demolished beautiful windows, desecrated churches, ran riot over men and glut- ted himself in the blood of his enemies. And John Knox impressed upon Scotland Calvin's views. And what were those views? That the Divine Lord had — but why should I tell you? Here is the Confes- sion of Faith. [Let me say, parenthetically, that in reaching conclusions I do not judge by the things that are said about people by others, I take what they say about themselves. ] This book says that ' ' by the decree of God, for the manifestation oi His glory, some men and angels are predestined to everlasting life and others are foreordained to everlasting death. These angels and men, thus predestined and foreordained are numbered and un- changeable. Their number is so certain and defi- nite that it can neither be increased nor dimin- ished." And so, my brethren, I might goon and quote you passage after passage from this Confes- sion of Faith of the Presbyterian church, and yet not convey to your minds a clear idea of all the points in them. Let me tell you what they are. The firrt is "Election or Reprobation." That God, by an unchangeable decree of His will elected out of mankind a certain number whom He intended should be saved, the rest should be damned.- The second is "particular Redemption." Particular Redemption means that our Divine Lord suffered upon the Cross not for all men, as you poor sinners have imagined, not for all men, the Presbyterian says, but only for the elect. And inasmuch as no one knows who is of the elect how shall any man know that Christ died for him or not. How shall I, standing here a priest of God, know that Christ died for my salvation at all inasmuch as I cannot tell, until after death, whether I am of the elect or not ? For it is distinctly declared in the Confes- sion of Faith that "though men be called especial- ly to the ministration of the Gospel unless they have been elected by God, they wUl not be saved. " - So PRESBYTERIANISM. T9 then, a man may believe that God has called him to the ministry — the Church may think it — yea, even God may have called him, and yet God may have always intended to damn him. Why, that is not set forth with regard to Judas Iscariot. So also our Lord did not suffer in order that all men might be saved. He suffered in order that the elect only should be saved. The next is the < l Bondage of the Will. " That is their own expression, not mine, observe. The " Bondage of the Will" is, that God so moves upon the spirit, that human will is no longer free — that i< is only free in the sense that it does what God impels it to do, not otherwise. So then, as a necessary consequence, all prayer is unnecessary. All Sacra- ments are unnecessary. All ministrations of Chris- tianity are unnecessary. For if God through all eternity has elected out of mankind a certain num- ber that shall infallibly be saved whether they know it or do not know it, where is the use of any minis- tration ? If all the rest of mankind are passed by and have been reprobated to damnation what is the use of trying to be saved ? Why restrain a man's self? Why should he not say, as the elect of God, 11 No matter what I do, I shall be saved. " Or as a reprobate "It matters not what I do, I shall be damned. " Then the fourth doctrine is l ' Irresistible Grace. " That is, that God irresistibly compels men to walk in that path which will ultimately lead them to sal- vation. That is not the meaning as taught in the present day but as it used to be taught, for, thank God, it is not often taught so now. You will not hear any Presbyterian minister in this town preach this doctrine; unless this lecture may compel some feeble utterance of it, Intelligence rebels against it. But still it was the doctrine of Calvin and the doctrine of Knox. It was the doctrine of the early Presbyterians, it is the doctrine of their books. That it is not preached now, is solely because men 80 PBESBYTERIANISiL dare not preach it. The fourth point I say is ' ' Ir- resistible Grace. " That God compels men by the almighty power of His will to receive grace. Therefore what can a manly man answer should God say at the last day " Well done thou good and faithful servant. Thou hast been faithful over a few things I will make thee ruler over many things." What could an honest man say to that, when he could not have been otherwise than faithful inasmuch as he was irresistibly impelled to it? Would not any man going up to judgment, who had been dragged as it were to grace in this way, would he not feel that there was something unnatural in saying to him " Well done thou good and faithful servant?" But when God would say to a man " Inasmuch as ye did it not unto the least of these, ye did it not unto me" what would a manly man say under such circumstances? The whole idea of judgment is that God give3 every man an opportunity. There is question and answer. There is the scrutiny of the mind? of men. There God deals with His creatures as sensible and reasonable beings and does not condemn a man without giving him an op- portunity of defending himself if he can. There, our Blessed Lord distinctly declares, that there shall be an examination. "I was ar hungered, and ye fed me, thirsty, and ye gave me drink" and they shall say ''Lord when wast Thou hungry and we fed Thee, or thirsty and wo gave Thee drink ?" To those on the left hand He will say ' ' I was an hun- gered and ye fed me not, thirsty and ye gave me not drink." And they shall say "When wast Thou hungry and we fed Thee not, thirsty and we gave Thee no drink ? " And He shall say " Inasmuch as ye did it not unto the least of these ye did it not unto mo. " What could a man say to this I ask but " Why, how could I do it? Did not your irre- sistible grace take my neighbor here and impel him to lead the better life for which you now crown him ? And did not the with-drawal or with-holding PRESBYTERIANISM. 81 of the same grace compel me to the opposite course for which you now condemn me f " Where is there justice, to say nothing of paternity, of mercy, compassion, love, or any of the gracious attributes in God ? Where is that justice that God should irre- sistibly, by some with-drawal or with-holding of His Spirit, compel me to an evil life, and say inas- much as I did it not unto the least of these, my portion is to be with the sinners that burn in the lake ? It is an awful blasphemy ! And then, the fifth point is " Final Persever- ance, " but I am not going to dwell upon that. Now as I began so I close. If Presbyterianism be plausible in its theory it is fifteen hundred and fifty years too late, and that alone is fatal to its truth. It began with Calvin and Knox, and not with Christ and the Apostles. But its history proves it to be false. Did you ever try to count up the number of Presbyterian churches so-called to be found in this land ? And the sects evolved from Presbyterianism ? I should weary you by reciting them. They fill up pages of the Encyclopedia. Beginning with the Cameronians and the Presby- terians United, the United Presbyterian, the Free Church, the Secession Church, the Relief Church— all along the line numberless sects appear that have parted from them in this country. Their name is legion and absolutely bewildering to any sensible man ! I make the assertion now, that the Catholic Church in this land has suffered less than any other religious body in the way of division or secession since that woeful time called the Reformation period. And I hold that it is of the genius of sectarianism to disintegrate; and it was never bet- ter illustrated than in the history of Presbyterian- ism, for, among other evils, if to-day a man travel- ing in England were to announce himself a Presby- terian he would most likely be mistaken for a Uni- tarian — a denier of the Divinity of our Divine 6"l PRESBYTERIANISM. Lord. I make this statement and I challenge con- tradiction. I say that the natural tendency of sect- arianism, or P'-esbyterianism, for the ideas are synonymous, is 1 to the destruction of faith and the denial of the Divinity of our Divine Lord. Let me tell you that there are hundreds and hundreds of men who fancy themselves to be orthodox upon this particular question of the Divinity of our Lord that are anything but sound if they were pushed to the wall for reasons. Men do not know why they are what they are, because they have never taken the trouble to examine. And if as the result of these lectures that I am delivering this Lent they are brought to examine the foundation of their faith, we shall all have great reason to thank God. If God shall trouble their minds, so that they shall make inquiry into the foundation of the true faith, thank God. Whatever the issue is, thank God, because, as it is the one desire of my soul in delivering these lectures to arouse thought and examination, so I believe God will grant me the desire of my soul. I shall be looking forward to that unity for which our Lord s j '.ffpred "and died, and for which to-day and every day, He pleads and for which His Church joins her petitions with every Sacrament offered on her divine .Altara. V. (WU#dbtettt+ in all the nineteen centuries which have passed away since our Divine Lord ascended into Heaven. I do not believe that there was ever a religious body conceived by the wit of man so noble in its origin, so holy in its purpose as the Methodist so- ciety. And when I have said that, which is the conviction of my heart as well as of my understand- ing, I have also stated my objection to it. I said that it was conceived by the wit of man. The position of the Methodists is absolutely unique. Perhaps it were better that I had said the position of the Methodists as it was up to the year 1784, was absolutely unique. It was unlike any other sect. It was never intended to be a sect , I* drifted into the sect condition against the earnest entreaties of its projector. That it became a sect was the misfortune — one could hardly say the fault of— Mr. Wesley. In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred the origin of religious bodies is to be found in error, pride, ambition, licentiousness, or infidelity, or some other cause or combination of causes which carries with it the death-knell of the sect. With the Methodists it was quite a different thing. Originally a few young men gathered together in a room of one of their number, a clergyman, and a fellow of one of the colleges of Oxford. They were moved to this coming together because of the r ; 3llg ions apathy which was everywhere to be observed. The Clergy of the Church of England, mistaking their calling had almost abandoned the spiritual care of their flocks. The growth of the establish- ment, the decadence of individual piety, the easi- 84 METHODISM. ness of living, the indisposition to self-examination, all this brought about a carelessness in the admin- istration of the rites and ceremonies of the Church. Holy days were unknown, Fast days were laughed at. The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was grievously neglected. The appointed prayers were hurried over with carelessness. The sermons had little or nothing in them. In this, as in many other instances, the priests were most careless in their living. These few men were stirred to the heart as they observed the decay of true piety. Of course you understand that I speak now of matters in general. Always, thank God, there were holy souls, excep- tions to the rule ; but then, very sad it was that it should be said they were exceptions. These men not only touched by the Spirit of God, illumined by the reading of His Holy Word, but also thoroughly acquainted with the ancient history of the Church, saw that it was not lack of spirituality in the Church — in the system of the Church — that brought matters to this condition. The Church herself was blameless. The Church's formularies were most urgent in the observance of all that could make men holy. It was merely that the servants of the Church, individual men, here and there, who neg- lected their parts and abandoned their duties, and had forsaken the food that God gave them, to wan- der in the wilderness without the Church's food. Now I say that these men, after narrowly inspect- ing the Church's system, and carefully reading an- cient authors, came to the conclusion that a revival of religion was necessary, and that that revival of religion must take place within the bosom of the Church. They joined themselves together, a little band, pledging themselves to observe the celebration of the Holy Eucharist, to be present at services on Holy days, to see that service was said on Holy days; by frequent meeting and reading of God's METHODISM. 85 Word ; by meditation and prayer ; by exciting other people to use these means of grace ; they sought to stir up people to a sense of their condi- tion, and to the use of the untouched treasures which were in the Church for the salvation ot hu- man souls. And this they did with more or less regularity and enthusiasm until Mr. Wesley and his brother felt called upon to come to this country. Mr. Wesley made a very short stay here. He was rector of one of the Churches in Georgia. Some incidents ot his stay there, which must be interest- ing to you, but with which I cannot now trouble your mind, exhibit something of his character. He was an enthusiast, consequently you would suppose a man most disposed to suit the Methodists. But this is a mistake. He was indeed an enthusiast, a man inflamed with the love of God and the love of human souls ; such a man as to-day would be called a fanatic. And yet with all that he had a keen sense of justice. He had an unswerving fidelity to what he conceived to be duty. And so when a cir- cumstance arose that brought him face to face with the necessity of exercising discipline upon persons whom he loved, he did not hesitate to do it, though it cost him the affection of all his people, and drove him from the country. He returned to the old country, spending a little while, however, on the continent where he imbibed some views not alto- gether foreign to those which already possessed him, but which pointed out to him a new field for thought. Returning to England those old friends of his gathered together once more. And now the work seemed to grow upon his hands. His room no longer contained the people who came to him for advice and assistance in spiritual matters. They therefore determined to find a place in the city where he might meet them in larger numbers. No rules were at this time adopted. Wesley was the sole rule of the people whom he met, and these peo- ple had no more idea of abandoning the Church S6 METHODISM. than Mr. Wesley had, or than any man now warp*r ly attached to the Episcopal Church could possibly have. It was never in their thoughts. It was not until afterwards, when these societies increased and there came what seemed to be necessity for for- mal gatherings at other points, that some difficult questions arose. How was this to be managed? Who was to take charge of them? Were they to be taken charge of by anybody? Should persons other than authorized priests of the Church expound Holy Scripture to them? Was that liberty which had been enjoyed in the seclusion of the room in Oxford, or in the larger room in the Foundry — that liberty of uniting and pouring out their hearts in prayer to God, to be denied to them now? In fact they were confronted with the question, " What is to be the formal arrangement of these meetings ?" Now, up to this time, Wesley was simply re- garded by his brother priests as a warm-hearted, enthusiastic man who was running ahead of the times. He was what is now popularly called a ritualist. You would hardly suspect that of the originator of the Methodist Society. He was an avowed High Churchman, a man who believed in keeping the Fasts and Feasts of the Church, and absolutely received Holy Communion once or twice a week. Strange to say he had that curious notion which High Churchmen and ritualists have ever had, that the prayers of the Church were intended to be said daily and that the Church should have a real hold on the spiritual life of the people. Was it any wonder that he should arouse strife among his brethren ? Where in all the ages has there ever been a man who attempted against the popu- lar voice to conscientiously perforin his duty that has not been the victim of vituperation. Of course he was persecuted, and his foes were the foes oi his own household. It was the men who were priests with him, perhaps ordained at the same time with him, that rejected him. Mr. Wesley wag METHODISM. 87 not a Parish priest, that is to say, he had no Par- ish in which he could himself officiate. A priest who has a Parish has very little difficulty in the ar rangement ot such matters. He has certain free- hold rights. He could celebrate Holy Communion as often as he pleased, and might explain the Church's system in any way that he desired- He would simply be regarded as fanatical. No steps could be taken to prevent him from dealing with spiritual subjects in whatever way he deemed best within the limits of the Church's liberty. But he was what is known as a Fellow of one of the col- leges of Oxford, consequently he had no Parish. He was entirely dependent upon the courtesy of his brethren for opportunity to preach in the settled churches of a place. It was a mere matter of po- liteness on their part to ask him to preach. Being stirred up as he believed by the Spirit of God he broke out in denunciation of the deadness in the Church, and tried to stir up Churchmen to some sort of vigor in religion. It was when he preached of saving truths, truths that deal with men's souls, as well as with men's opinions, that the clergy said, "lam very much obliged for your sermon, but you cannot preach here again." So one after another of the various churches to which he turned from time to time were closed against him. Knowledge of him went throughout the country. Of cours^ people talked about him. It was not easy sailing with Mr. Wesley in those days ; for you may imag- ine, multitudes thronged around him to hear the words from his lips, yet there were multitudes that 2bllowed him with every kind of disorder ; there were here and there godly people, or people who desired to be godly, for I have no doubt that a pas- sionate desire to be godly lies in every human heart, that followed him as he went from place to place preaching the gospel of God, so there were also multitudes stirred up either by men whose sins he was exposing to the public gaze, or by lazy priests 88 METHODISM. in the Church, who persecuted him from place to place. And when we remember the character of his ministrations: when we remember the tender love in which he addressed these gatherings from time to time, exhorting his people to patience and perseverance, how they were honored by Al- mighty God in being thus stoned from place to place, and treated as outcasts, that he should in- deed feel in his soul that he was an evangelist rais- ed up by God, (and I believe he was, ) an extraor- dinary messenger to provoke ordinary messengers to their duty, as he afterwards spoke of his own lay preachers. You see, he simply adopted in that early day what has since come to be so fashionable amongst ourselves. I suppose I have been asked a hundred times "When will you have a mission here?" I know I have given missions a dozen times. I know that all over this land as well as in the old country, missions have been given again and again. And what are missions ? They were set on foot by those people known as ritualists, and were simply the means employed to carry the Gospel to the masses, since the masses would not come to the Gospel. To preach plain truths to plain people. It was, by singing hymns with which people were familiar and with fervent, honest words to inflame their zeal, to arouse Cheir enthusiasm, to quicken their con- sciences to stir their hearts: then to press home upon them some truths of the Gospel with all the force that God could give his priests : and then to insist upon a rigid examination into individual con- sciences, and the particular state of grace in which that person found himself. This Mr. Wesley aid. And when you hear of Parishes to-day that indulge in these mission meetings you find people that are simply following in the footsteps of that great and good man. The modern revival- no, no: the revival has ceased to be modern — but the revival as it was twenty-five years ago—the rr METHODISM. 89 vival as it was fifty years ago, is only a slight exagger- ation of the missions of the present day, and the meetings which Mr. Wesley had in the early days. Now in entering upon this matter I want to be just as impartial as 1 can. Of course you under- stand that I am trying to teach my own people about it, I am not here for the purpose of solely lauding the Methodist society, but I do want to be perfectly impartial if God will enable me to be so, and give to every man his just due, and what I have said is no more than the just due of the Methodists. The name itself was an expression that clung to these young men who gathered to- gether in Oxford. Originally Mr. Wesley called them the United Society: but some people in deri- sion used the term which had been used in France with relation to a body who desired to reconcile the Huguenots to the Church. It was also applied to a body of physicians who had certain methods for treating diseases, and so the term Methodists originally applied by way of derision was assumed by Mr. Wesley and his immediate friends. The avowed purpose of this society was for the promotion and practice of piety within the Church of England. It never occurred to Mr. Wesley to separate from the Church ; it never occurred to his immediate followers. On the contrary the rules laid down were of such nature that separation from the Church would be simply impossible. They were: that they should never assemble in the Church hours on Sunday ; that they should not presume to administer any of the Sacraments or other rites and ceremonies of the Church; that they should resort to the Church constantly for the Sacraments; that they should attend it with great care; that they were not to observe niceness in hearing, but should listen to whatever was said; that even the worst preacher would have something for them that might be valuable. The first difficulty that occurred to him was the METHODISM. necessity of providing places in which these people should meet. They had now outgrown the possibility of being gathered into one place and it was arranged that places should be built, where the clergymen might meet with them. So a few chapels were built, rather what they called preaching houses for they were particularly careful to avoid the word u Church ' in connection with them. They would not even call the places they built Ci meeting houses " least anyone might in some way confound them with Presbyterians, for whom, by the way, they had then, and still maintain, a hearty horror. They built these preaching houses, and now and then found clergymen of the Church friendly enough to them who would come there and assist them with services and counsel and some ministra- tions. But so great was the movement throughout the whole country, so rapidly did these societies multiply that the necessity for appointing some per- sons to look after the spiritual interests of these peo- ple presented itself. Now arose the subject of lay oreachers. Mr. Wesley was well read in ancient history, and he knew that it was not at all uncommon for laymen to be appointed to preach the Gospel; he did what lay in his power to secure in such men persons of dis- cretion, good common sense, and then with what assistance they could get from others, he had some reason to believe that the Gospel would be preach- ed and that prayer would be made and that the ousiness of the societies would be conducted with- out any extravagance or wrong. The rules which I have already mentioned lo you were re-affirmed ^gain and again. I cannot take time now to go into all the matter? which greatly affected Mr. Wesley's career and the society of the Methodists, because that would! take altogether too much time. One of the gravest was the separation between Whitefield and Wesley Whitefield having adopted Calvinistic ideas, there METHODISM. 91 was necessity of a separation between them which both regretted and which never was healed. And so almost at the very beginning there was a split in the society created by this defection of Whitefield. I do not know whether it is right to call it a defection inasmuch as they were co-ordin- ate, but they separated, the one becoming a Calvin- ist adopting the Calvinistic theories which were then being taught all over the country, and Wesley for his part and those who held with him becoming Arminian. And now in some country places large numbers of persons who did not belong to the Church began to connect themselves with the Methodist society, and this was the origin of all the evil which has since resulted. I say all the evil, because their own men have acknowledged that evil did result, from the fact that persons were admitted who were not of the Church of England. The idea came to be received that a man might connect himself with the Methodist society without forfeiting member- ship in that particular body to which he belonged. In this way, persons who were not attached to the doctrines and worship of the Church of Eng- land, came to have some influence in the councils of the Methodist society, and by and by and here and there, some very controlling influence. Little by little the question arose whether in places where the Church services were not said on Sunday it might not be lawful for them to meet at that hour. Of course there were very many places where Church services were only said occasionally, per- haps once or twice a month. Now the question arose, " Are we as Methodists bound to observe this law in regard to Church hours in places where the Church services are not said?" That was a very difficult question to answer. Mr. Wesley was so exceedingly anxious to keep them to the strict rules which he laid down, that at last it was agreed that such persons should only meet during Church hours, 92 METHODISM. when the trustees of that particular preaching house were entirely agreed, and when the advice of Mr. Wesley had been previously sought; but in case they did meet then that services of the Church must be said. And so to this day the Wesleyan Methodists, who now meet at the same hour as the Church, do use in the morning the regular service of the Church. Mr. Wesley also had it in mind to prepare and did subsequently set forth a form of prayer partly for use in that country, but chiefly for use in this country. Now leaving the condition of the Methodists in the old country, let us consider the condition of Methodism here at that time. A number of lay preachers came over to this country and under the direction of Mr. Wesley gathered together congre- gations of Methodists. I have here a rare book which I was able to secure by the assistance of a friend, which contains the minutes of the Metho- dist Conferences from the year 1773 to the year 1813 inclusive. I am not going to read the whole book to you, although, I assure you, it would be very instructive. I intend however to read the titles of some of these minutes and also one or two paragraphs. "Minutes of some conferences be- tween the preachers in connection with the Rev- erend John Wesley in Philadelphia, 1773." (You will think of the date and you will think of the political difficulties which were about the people of this country at that time. ) The following questions were proposed to every preacher. "Ought not the authority of Mr. Wesley and that of Conference to extend to preachers in America as well as in Great Britain and Ireland?" Answer "Yes." "Ought not the doctrines and discipline of the Methodists as contained in the minutes, to be the sole rule of our conduct ? " Answer ' ' Y r es. " The following rules were agreed to by all preachers. " Every preacher who acts in connection with Mr. METHODISM. 9§ Lesley and the brethren who labor in America are strictly to avoid administering Baptism and the Lord's Supper. " Observe to avoid administering the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper. "The people among whom we labor to be earnest- ly exhorted to attend the Church and receive the ordinances there. And in a particular manner to press the people in Maryland and Virginia to the observance of this minute. " "No person or persons to be admitted to our love-feast twice or thrice unless they become members. " This was the first conference. It is not until 1785 that the form is changed. The form of the Methodist society then ceases to exist and the Methodist Episcopal Church comes into its place. Now let us review the situation. You are aware that the Revolution had taken place. The clergy in England are compelled at their ordination to take an oath as to the supremacy of the sovereign of England. Every clergyman of our communion then laboring in America had taken this oath, which was equivalent to an oath of alle- giance. The question now arose, "How do we stand affected by that oath ? " Some men felt that they were bound by that oath to remain loyal to Britain, so either returned to England or went to Canada. Others felt that they were in sympathy with the Colonies and remained in this country, but never- theless felt that their oath so bound them that they could not release themselves from it, and therefore ceased to minister and went into secular life. Others felt that the change in government was God's ordering of human events and therefore they were absolved from the oath of allegiance to the British power, and so could lawfully remain here. You will see then there were very, very few clergy- men in this country. The disposition of the clergy towards the Methodists was of the most favorable kind. The statement is over and over again made 94 METHODISM. in history that the Methodists did not suffer for lack of Sacraments where it was possible for the clergy to give them. Of course you know the country grew rapidly. Multitudes came here. The oersons going from place to place were not the best, and so there grew up naturally a strong desire, particularly in this country, for a separate orgrui- zation. Something besides moved them to this. It was conceived that the relation of the Church of England in America to the people was inimical to a republican form of government, and that sooner or later the clergy of the Church would have an influ- ence in weaning the people from their allegiance to a republican form of government and would ulti- mately restore the country to England. Of course this was all foolish, as the events proved. But still there was an idea that we were naturally an aristocratic people. I heard the other day that we were still thought to be an aristocratic people. After a hundred years have passed the Episcopalians are still thought to be aristocratic. The Methodists outnumbered the Church people; of course they were Church people too at the time, but I mean taken apart from those persons who only attended Church and did not go to Methodist meetings, they outnumbered them. Then pressure was brought to bear upon Mr. Wesley. He was getting old, he was wondering what would become of the societies after he passed out of life. Men of some prominence as preachers had grown up under his hand. These were clamor- ing for a separate organization. Against this he set his face as a flint. But fearful that he might not be doing just what was the will of God in the matter he looked across the Atlantic and saw this country, as he believed, providentially released from the established Church, and he wandered within himself if it would not be right for him to assist them to maintain this independence. So, very late in life he committed an act which we hold METfldDISM. 95 to be an act of great sin, and which has perpetuated a schism between ourselves and the people, for whom we ought to have, and, speaking for myself, for whom I think we have, the most warm and affec tionate feeling, an act which has been the scandal of religion and the delay of that Christian unity fcr which our Lord prayed. Now this is the language employed. Mr. Wesley wrote a letter to Dr. Coke, Dr. Asbury and his brethren in North America as follows : "By a very uncommon train of providences many of the provinces of North America are totally disjoined from the mother country and erected into independent States. The "English government has no authority over them, either civil or ecclesiasti- cal, any more than over the States of Holland. A civil authority is exercised over them, partly by the Congress, partly by the provincial assemblies. But no one either exercises or claims any ecclesiastical authority at all. In this peculiar situation some thousands of the inhabitants of these States desire my advice; and, in compliance with their desire, I have drawn up a little sketch." (You see Mr. Wesley was under the impression that the clergy had abandoned them.) "Lord King's account of the primitive Church convinced me many years ago that Bishops and Presbyters are the same order and consequently have the same right to ordain. For many years I have been importuned from time to time to exercise this right by ordaining part of our traveling preachers. "But I have still refused, not only for peace sake, but because I was determined as little as pos- sible to violate the established order of the National Church to which I belonged." "But the case is widely different between Eng- land and North America. Here there are Bishops who have a l<>gal jurisdiction. In America there are none, neither any parish minister. So that for some hundreds of miles together there is none 96 METHODISM. either to baptize or to administer the Lord's Supper. Here, therefore, my scruples are at an end: and I conceive myself at full liberty, as I violate no order and invade no man's right by appointing and send- ing laborers into the harvest." "I have accordingly appointed Dr. Coke and Mr. Francis Asbury to be joint superintendents over our brethren in North America, as also Richard Whatcoat and Thomas Vasey, to act as elders among the people by baptizing and administering the Lord's Supper. And I have prepared a liturgy, little differing from that of the Church of England (I think the best national Church in the world), which I advise all the traveling preachers to use on the Lord's Day in all the congregations, reading the Litany only on Wednesdays and Fridays, and pray- ing extempore on all other days." "I also advise the elders to administer the Supper of the Lord on every Lord's Day. " "If any one will point out a more rational and Scriptural way of feeding and guiding these poor sheep in the wilderness I will gladly embrace it. At present I cannot see any better method than I have taken." ht It has, indeed, been proposed to desire the Eng- lish Bishops to ordain part of our preachers for Amer- ica. But to this I object. 1. I desired the Bishop of London to ordain one, but could not prevail. 2. If they consented, we know the slowness of their proceedings; but the matter admits of no delay. 3. If they were to ordain them now, they would ex- pect to govern them. And how grievously would this entangle us. 4. As our American brethren are now totally disentangled from the State and the English hierarchy, we dare not entangle them again, either with the one or the other. They are now at full liberty to follow the Scriptures and the Primitive Church. And we judge it best that they should stand fast in that liberty wherewith God has so strangely made them free. John Wesley." METHODISM. 97 But here you will observe that Mr. Wesley claims that he has discovered through Lord King's account of the Primitive Church that Bishops and Presby- ters are the same order, and either of them have the right to ordain. Dr. Coke was already a Pres- byter of the Church of England, and therefore whatever Mr. Wesley did to him he certainly could not or did not make him a Bishop, nor was there any necessity for it. If Bishops and Presbyters were the same order, then Dr. Coke, who was a Presby- ter already in the Church, was equal with himself, because he was already of the same order. Mr. Wesley never was a Bishop; he was only a priest in the Church. And therefore that one priest of the Church should assume to ordain another priest of the Church to something else which he declared was not anything else, will exhibit the absurdness of the position. On Mr. Wesley's theory, Dr. Coke was as much a Bishop before as after the act of so- called ordination. Now I hope you see it clearly. He says that Bishops and Presbyters were the same order, and had the same right to ordain. Dr. Coke was a Presbyter: yet Mr. Wesley says that he lays his hands on Dr. Coke and makes him a super- intendent. The Methodists in America regarded him as a Bishop and called all his successors Bishops. But Mr. Wesley declares that Dr. Coke was equally of the same order with himself: there- fore there would be no necessity for him to make him a Bishop. He was one already if Bishops and Presbyters were of the same order. What he did was this; he gave him authority to represent himself as being the chief officer of the Methodists iu this country. Now let me prove this to you. When Dr. Coke came to this country and began to organize the Methodist Episcopal Church, he came to have some very serious doubts as to his commis- sion. It seemed to him to lack proper authority. Mr. Asbury was an entirely different man. You will notice that in all the early minutes of theMeth 98 METHODISM. odist Church Mr. Asbury seems to have the chief place and that Dr. Coke was the assistant. It will be observed in this letter which Mr. Wesley writes to Mr. Asbury that he had an entirely different idea of the position of these men in America from that which Mr. Asbury and the Methodists in this country have. Be said: ''But in one point, my dear brother, I am a little afraid that the doctor (Coke) and you differ from me. I study to be little, you study to be great. I creep, you strut along ; I found a school, you a college, — nay, and call it after your own names. O, beware. Do not seek to be something, Let me be nothing and Christ all in all." "One instance of this your greatness has given me great concern. How can you — how dare you suffer yourself to be called a Bishop ? I shudder — I start at the very thought. Men may call me a knave, or a fool a rascal, a scoundrel, and I am content: but they shall never by my consent call me a Bishop. For my sake — for God's sake — for Christ's sake, put a full end to this. Let Presbyte- rians do as they please: but let Methodists know their calling better." 1 f Thus, my dear Franky, I have told you all that is in my heart, and let this, when I am no more seen, bear witnesss how sincerely I am your affec- tionate friend and brother. Jokn Wesley. And Dr. Coke was brought face to face with some of the difficulties of his position. A great many men were accounted preachers who had very little education. They were borne with because they were good men. They were borne with be- cause they were earnest men: and yet nevertheless it was well known that their methods were rather rude, perhaps owing to the condition of the country or something of that kind; but Coke saw to what this thing was likely to grow, so he addressed a letter to our Bishop, Bishop White, in which he asked from him episcopal cod seer ation. METHODISM. 99 " Right Reverend Sir," he says, "Permit me to intrude a little on your time upon a subject of great importance. "You, I believe, are conscious that I was brought up in the Church of England, and have been or- dained a Presbyter of that Church. For many years past I was prejudiced even, I think, to bigotry in favor of it; but through a variety of causes or incidents, to mention which would be tedious and useless, my mind was exceedingly biassed on the other side of the question. In consequence of this I am not sure but I went further in the separation of our Church in America than Mr. Wesley, from whom I had received my commission, did intend. He did indeed solemnly invest me, so far as he had a right so to do, with Episcopal authority, but did not intend, I think, that an enti e separation should take place. He being pressed by our friends on this side of the water for ministers to administer the sacraments to them (there being very few clergy of the Church of England then in the States) he went further, I am sure, than he would have gone if he had foreseen some events which followed. And this I am certain of— that he is now sorry for Ihe separation." " But what can be done for a re-union, which 1 must wish for ; and to accomplish which Mr. Wesley, I have no doubt, would use his influence to the utmost ? The affection of a very considerable number of the preachers and most of the people is very strong towards him, notwithstanding the ex- cessive ill usage he received from a few. My in- terest also is not small; and both his and mine would readily and to the utmost be used to accom- plish that (to us) very desirable object, if a readi- ness were shown by the Bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church to re-unite." "It is even to your Church an object of great importance. We have now above 60,000 adults in our Society in these States, and about 250 traveling 103 METHODISM. ministers and preachers, besides a great number of local preachers, very far exceeding the number of traveling preachers, and some of those local preachers are men of very considerable abilities. But if we number the Methodists as most people number the members of their Church, viz., by the families which constantly attend the Divine Ordi- nances in their places of worship, they will make a larger body than you probably conceive. The Society, I believe, may be safely multiplied by five on an average to give us our stated congregations, which will then amount to 300,000. And if the calculation which I think some eminent writers have made be just, that the three-fifths of mankind are un-adult (if I may use the expression) at a given period, it will follow that all the families, the adults of which form our congregations in these States, amount to 750,000. Al)out one-fifth of these are blacks." 11 1 he work now extends in length from Boston to the south of Georgia; and in breadth from the Atlantic to Lake Charaplain, Vermont, Albany, Redstone, Holstein, Kentucke, Cumberland, etc/' '•But there are many hindrances in the way. Can they be removed ? I. Our ordained ministers will not; ought not; to give up their right of ad- ministering the Sacraments: I don't think that the generality of them, perhaps none of them would refuse to submit to a re-ordination if other hin- drances were removed out of the way. I must here observe that between sixty and seventy only out of the two hundred and fifty have been ordained Pres- byters, and about sixty beacons (only). The Pres- byters are the choicest of the whole." *' 2 The other preachers would hardly submit to a re-union, if the possibility of their rising up to ordination depended on the present Bishops in America. Because tho' they are all, I think I may say zealous, pious, and very useful men, yet they are not acquainted with the learned languages. METHODISM. 101 Besides they would argue, if the present Bishops would waive the Article of the Learned Languages, yet their successors might not." "My desire of a re-union is so sincere and earnest that these difficulties almost make me tremble: and yet something must be done before the death of Mr. Wesley, otherwise I shall despair of success. For tho' my influence among the Meth- odists in these States as well as in Europe is, I doubt not, increasing; yet Mr. Asbury, whose influence is very capital, will not easily comply: nay, I know he will be exceedingly averse to it. " 1 ' In Europe, where some steps had been taken tending to a separation, all is at an end. Mr. Wesley is a determined enemy of it, and I have lately borne an open and successful testimony against it, " " Shall I be favored with a private interview with you in Philadelphia ? I shall be there, God willing, on Tuesday the 17th of May. If this be agreeable I beg of you just to signify it in a note directed to me at Mr. Jacob Bakers, merchant, Market street, Philadelphia, or if you please by a few lines sent me by the return of the post at Philip Rogers, Esquire, in Baltimore, from yourself or Dr. M'Gaw. We can then enlarge on these sub- jects." And so on. Now the upshot of this was, that Bishop White did not see his way clearly as to the proposition made by Mr. Coke and the Methodist Church, and so, as he says himself, he was compelled to decline entering into the matter. Coke bore the matter a little longer, but in 1801 he went back to Europe. In these minutes a question is asked, " Who are the superintendents this year ? " And for several years it reads "Coke and Asbury," and alter a while a note appears in all the minutes from 1809 to the end of the volume. (This note appears imme- diately after the mention of the superintendents' names.) " Dr. Coke, at the request of the British 102 METHODISM. Conferences and by consent of our General Confet. enee, resides in Europe ; he is not to exercise the office of superintendent among us in the United States until he be recalled by the General Confer- ence, or by all the annual Conferences respectively. " Now one word with regard to what Charles Wesley thought of all this, and then a few words in relation to the system. Charles Wesley wrote a letter to the Rev. Dr. Chandler, who was about to come to this country, and only a little while before his death, in which he alludes to this very matter and gives his opinion of this action of his brother. He says that he was compelled to withdraw from him in his old age so far as their partnership in the Methodist Society was concerned, although he could never withdraw his friendship and his love. Charles did a great deal toward helping John Wesley by paying his debts and otherwise, but always opposed him on this question of the Meth- odist preachers in this country claiming the title of Bishop for their superintendent. Ton remember that couplet he composed : "Bishops are now so easy made By man or woman's whim, Wealey his hands on Coke hath laid, But who laid hands on him ? " He speaks of it as being a schism, something which up to that time they so steadily set their faces against, and still up to the death of Mr. Wesley set. their faces against, so far as the old country was concerned. Not until after Mr. Wesley's death did anything like separation take place between the Methodists and the Church in England, and then solely because of some uneasy men who had risen to prominence during the last year of his life, and now had control of matters. What was the result? The Methodists split up into ten or twelve frag- ments in the old country. In this country, notwith- standing the adoption of an episcopal government as being the best form, it has split up into a dozen fragments. METHODISM. 103 Its system was almost complete. I suppose it would be almost unheard of to say that the Methodists were particularly strong on the sub- ject of confession. And auricular confession at that. Somebody will say that is not so. That I am slandering the people whom I profess to love with all my heart and soul. But the first rule was to gather members of the society into what was called Bands. Each person was here to state ex- plicitly and clearly, not merely the sins he had com- mitted during the week past, but the temptations to which he had been exposed, and how he met them. Members were to be asked specific ques- tions on this subject. It was the duty of the per- sons in charge of the bands to know the spiritual condition of every man and woman connected with the band. On account of the character of their sins the men met in bands by themselves, and the women by themselves. But this feature of Method- ism did not last long. This was an entirely differ- ent thing from what is popularly known as the Class Meeting. A class meeting was a larger body in which persons related, not their sins but, their ex- periences, and God's way of dealing with them, how they stood with God, etc. After a while these recitals became almost stereotyped as to language. Little by little the Bands ceased to be, because it was a too searching way of dealing with the peo- ple, and too public. As long as the bands held to- gether I believe Methodism was absolutely impreg- nable. As a society in the bosom of the Church for searching each other's consciences, as they did, requiring specific statements of sins, and the temp- tations that led to the sins, the way of dealing with temptations, it was a marvellous power to arouse the Church from the deadness into which she had fallen. The clergy sprang into a new life by the in- fluence of these people. So that to-day the Church of England owes very much under God to the Methodists, because the clergy were stirred out of 04 METHODISM. the lethargy into which they had fallen. They learned to appreciate the beauties of the matchless liturgy of the Church, the importance of observing Holy Days, the frequent and reverent reception of the Lord's Body and Blood: increased atten- dance at the Church, the faithful baptizing and teaching of children. The first symptom of the decay of real piety amongst the Methodists came with the loss of Bands; then the carelessness of attendance at Class meetings. There was a time not so long ago, when Methodists must attend Class meeting if they were to be considered in good standing. That day has passed. In great cities there are but very few classes, and it is the very young and enthusiastic, or the very old who go to them. Another matter which tended to its great strength was its itinerancy: its system of Circuits. In the early days the Methodist preacher had no abiding place. He could really say in the words of their own poet. " No foot of land do I possess, Nor cottage in this wilderness." He could not say that there was any spot on earth that was his own: he could only wait for the opening of the door to his home in the mansions of Heaven. That day too has passed. Then the preachers had no dwelling place. Later on they came to stay three months at one place, then six months, then a year, then two years. It is but a little while, ago that the length of residence was extended and there is even now, I believe, a move- ment on foot to further extend the term. Another thing, too, was the revival system. The Methodists had great faith in what was called instantaneous conversion. With the assumption of the right to administer Holy Communion them- selves there came, singularly enough, a neglect of its administration. I wish you to think of that. While the Methodists remained in communion with METHODISM. 105 the Oharch, one of the chief ideas was the frequent reception of the Holy Communion. So soon as the Methodists ceased to be in communion with the Church, and had ministrations of their own, came the neglect of the Holy Communion, the very re- verse of what you would expect from their theory. Now you will observe however, that having min- isters of their own to satisfy their wants, with their professed admiration for the ordinances of the Church, and their desire to have Holy Com- munion administered every Sunday — it might rea- sonably be expected that one of the very first things in the Methodist Discipline would be to re- quire that the Holy Communion should be admin- istered every Sunday at least. It is only admin- istered once a quarter now: except, perhaps in some city Churches, and even then it is administer- ed in many ways not unlike the Presbyterians. But observe: the Methodists have always clung to a liturgy, this may be denied in some quarters; but it is a fact. Mr. Wesley prepared a prayer book for them. Only a few copies of it are still extant. It was prepared for the Methodists in this country, and was suppressed ostensibly because sufficient copies could not be carried around in the saddle- bag of the itinerant. Really however, I know, that it was feared that it might train people for the Church. Nevertheless there is a fragment of liturgy in the book which is called the book of Dis- cipline. There is the solemnization of Matrimony, Baptism of children, Baptism of those of riper years, the Lord's Supper and the Burial of the dead, Che language taken almost word for word from the book of Common Prayer. Here and there a few expressions are omitted, and prominence given to extemporaneous prayer, still the origin of the book is visible. I was very much amused on hearing of a Methodist who stepped into a book store, and picked up a book of Common Prayer. After studying it, attentively for a few minutes ha 106 METHODISM. exclaimed, "Why the Episcopalians have stolen our form of service ! " Now the question which confronts us is just this: What is there that stands in the way of Union be- tween ourselves and the people from whom doctrin- ally we have so little difference ? The Methodists are now the Low Churchmen of the Episcopal Church without valid Bishops. How are the mighty fallen ? With the neglect of the Sacra- ments of which I spoke, there came the loss of the idea of regeneration by Baptism, and hence there came the adoption of the sectarian meaning applied to that word. In the mind of the Church regener- ation is not synonymous with conversion: but with the Methodise, these words for the most part are synonymous. Regeneration is, with us, an act not necessarily a state. With the Methodists, it is now (it was not in the beginning) a state, not an act. We hold that by Baptism a man is born again into the family of God: an act which may not necessar- ily change his nature: we hope it does, but it may not neccssarilly do so. Willi the Methodists, re- generation is that spiritual condition which we call conversion. Conversion means with us, a state of being turned to God. In the minds ot the Method- ists it means an act. The two things are reversed exactly. In our judgment men are always being converted to God, always turning to God; always getting nearer to him. With the Methodists it is an instantaneous act. A man may be guilty of sin for, say thirty years of his life: he may come to the mourner's bench and after some prayers and certain subjective means he is told that God has forgiven his sins. The very men who object to absolution by priests of the Church pour absolution over a whole congregation and tell poor souls that if they only ask for forgiveness they are forgiven. The Church does not teach that doctrine. The Church holds that something else depends upon conversion than merely being sorry for your sins : there must be METH0DI8M. 107 the undoing of sin as far as possible. The thief must restore what he has stolen: the slanderer must clear the name of those whom he has slan- dered, even at the expense of his own good name : the adulterer shall in some way make compensation for the wrongs he has done. In every way there must be something done by the man, as well as feeling sorry for his sins. And consequently there has come to be what is known as backsliding; men are converted and two-thirds of them become back- sliders during the year and are re-converted the next winter in a revival, or during the summer at a camp-meeting. Why, religion has been brought into contempt by these means. Men come to think oi it as a mere surface thing, a subjective thing altogether. If a man happens not to feel it this month maybe he will the next month or next year. Now what stands in the way of union with the Church? Pride. The Methodists have become a great body, a marvellous body, with many holy people and ex- cellent institutions, and to acknowledge that their ministers are not lawfully ordained would be a very, very hard thing to do. Perhaps they may fancy it would be to come again into bondage to profitless ceremonies. Why it is just as impossible to separ- ate forms and ceremonies from true worship, as it is to separate the soul from the body without death. You cannot do it. The God that gave to the immor- tal soul a body, gave to religion its body, and who among us shall say, " Which of these is superior ?" In fact we have come to fancy that the soul is su- perior to the body, and believe that this question of religion has only to do with the soul. God gave us both soul and body; Christ died for them both; it is in our body we are to be judged, and these bodies are the very same that are to be clothed with crowns and which are to walk in the streets of the New Jerusalem with harps and palm branches, shouting ''Victory." This is Methodist theology, and very jood theology it is. 108 METHODISM. Now, what is to hinder their coming back to us ? Pride, I say. Who is to lead, who is to give up ? I am willing to give up anything possible. I would be almost willing to give up my candles if the Meth- odists would come into the Church in a body, were that concession essential to the union. But to give up the thing which is absolutely at stake, my priestly authority, that is to ask something which is not in the power of man to do. The Methodist minister has no authority. The only authority that he exercises is derived from the consent of the people to whom he ministers. That he does his duty, or what he conceives to be his duty, in the very best way known to him, and with desire for the salvation of many souls, I do not doubt in the least. That is not the point. There were holy men, Koran, Dathan and Abiram, sanctified men, who presumed to execute the work of the priestly office, whom God for his own honor was compelled to punish with death. And so the Methodist body is being punished. She sees on every hand the abandonment of almost all the principles with which she set out. I need not recite them to you. You know them. ' * The reading of those books, or sing- ing of those songs that do not tend to the knowl- edge or love of God. The using of many words in buying or selling, taking those amusements that cannot be taken in the name of the Lord Jesus, the wearing of gold and silver and costly apparel, the braiding of the hair, the softness of living and needless self-indulgence." We see change and decay on every hand. These points are fast losing their hold upon Methodist minds, and, to be short, the Methodist Episcopal Church of to-day is only another name for Presbyterianism without its Cal- vinism. VI. \gapt\Bts *i in your esteem, when I assure you that I do not intern) to talk to you in either Latin or Greek. A great mistake on my part no doubt. But I will not talk in Latin or Greek to-day. For ny pan I do not care whether the individual is baptized *itl/ three BAPTISTS AND CAMPBELLITES. Ill drops of water or with three thousand oceans. It is not a question that disturbs me at all. Asd let me tell you, that for fifteen hundred and odd years it never disturbed anybody. All the tumults that have been created about the quantity of water that was necessary for the regeneration of the human soul, have been the product of a very few years in- deed. Now and then water has been turned on full head by some reformer, but, ordinarily, nobody ever was troubled about this matter until a very little while ago. A Church that has existed for eighteen hundred and odd years does not trouble itself about the little ripples that appear upon its surface in a century or two. First of all, I want to meet the charge which is hurled so persistently and gratuitously at our Church. I learn partly from some among the mul- titudes that come here Sunday after Sunday, and partly from that organ which imagines itself more infallible than the Pope of Rome, the daily press, that I am attacking somebody. I say here and now that I have never opened my lips with regard to any religious body which has not within the past three months, particularly and by name, leveled its shafts against the Church of which I am a priest, and, if I must be personal, at the particular Church of which I am the rector. .1 speak from absolute knowledge. So that in fact instead of being an attacker I am on the defense. The charge of arrogancy made against our Church is most generally made by Campbellites and Baptists, in which they declare that we are exclusive — that we unchurch all other churches: that we do not admit ministers of other religious bodies to our pulpits: that, in fact, we despise the work of Christian enterprise which they have or hand. That is the popular statement. I reply by say- ing, that it is true the Church does not acknow- ledge that any man is a priest who has not been oss 112 BAPTISTS AND CAMPBBLLITBS. dained in regular apostolic succession, and in a communion of which Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, have from time immemorial been officers. It is true that we believe that all the ministers of the various Protestant bodies about us are schismatic, and that they cannot administer the Sacraments, that their hands profane the Blessed Sacrament, and that they are blind leaders of the blind, and that they are a peril to men's souls, and that as they teach erroneous and false doctrine it is the bounden duty of every priest of the Church by every means in his power not merely to resist it when it ap- proaches him but, if necessary, to go out to meet it, and repel it, as something inimical to the salva- tion of mankind. But, as for arrogancy, if any body desires to see arrogancy in its naked unlove- liness, commend me to the Baptists. With the ex- ception of the Campbellites, there is not a body upon the face of the earth more arrogant, more im- pertinent, more exclusive than the Baptists. Now, strike but hear. If it is said we unchurch other denominations, it is truly said of the Baptists, that they de-Christianize every man outside their own sect. Now did you get that expression cor- rectly ? It is not that they unchurch other people, but that they refuse to believe that they are Chris- tians at all! You are thinking now that I am making a very unwarranted statement, and young gentlemen who may be present and are candidates for the Baptist ministry will fancy that I am going beyond the beyonds. But they are entirely mis- taken. I can show from their books, that they hold no man outside of the Baptist communion to be a Christian at all. Unless the English language can be perverted into something which is absolutely impossible to conceive, that is their distinct, posi- tive statement; not by imputation, not by inference, but in exact language. Let us take their defini- tions. T have made it a rule of my life not to take what BAPTISTS AND CAMPBELLITES. 113 somebody else says about people. I take what they say about themselves. I now hold in my hand the Baptist Church Directory. I am about to ask the question "What is a Church?" And this is the answer. " A Christian Church is a congrega- tion of baptized believers in Christ worshipping to gether." I say here that I have no objection to that definition. I ask you however, to remember every word of it- "A Christian Church is a con- gregation of baptized believers m Christ worship- ping together." Let that get into your minds. Now of course we are desirous of knowing who are the "baptized believers" that constitute this ( ' Christian Church. " I hold here in my hand a vol- ume entitled "Missiles of Truth." A missile, ac- cording to Mr. Webster, is something that is thrown out with the intention ot hitting something. These are Baptist missiles thrown out, with the inten- tion of hitting somebody. I learn here on page 139 what constitutes scriptural and valid Baptism. 1 ' First, The scriptural action, that is immersion in water in the name of the Holy Trinity. Second, The scriptural subject, a penitent be- liever in Jesus Christ who is conscious of pardon. Thirdly, The scriptural design, not a condition or means of obtaining remission of sins, but an emblematic or symbolic declaration of fact- Fourth, A scriptural administrator or regularly ordained minister of the Gospel. The want of any of these four things invalidates the ordinance and renders it null and void. And certain it is that not any one of these four essentials is more important than the administrator by whom the ordinance is performed, and without whose agency Baptism could not exist.'' This is the statement made in what is called the "Missiles of Truth." It does not exactly correspond with the utterance of the Baptist Church Directory, which on page 36 says, speaking ol Baptism and the Lord's Supper, "Both ordi- nances are usually administered by ministers; but 114 BAPTISTS AND CAMPBELLITES. should the church so direct, would doubtless be valid if administered by a private member of the church." A great point to be considered is, that the Bap- tist Church here lays stress upon the fact that the administrator must be a regularly ordained minis- ter: no one else, not even a baptized layman, is en- titled to administer these Sacraments. I make this statement in the nice of the fact that in another book it is also declared that a private member of the church may do it. But if there is one thing shown more clearly in the utterances of the Bap- tists, it is that a regularly ordained minister, and nobody else, must administer this Sacrament. And moreover the Baptist Church declares in its publi- cations that no one but a Baptist minister is a regularly ordained minister of the Gospel. If it be charged upon me that I am now making a statement which is not carried out in truth and in fact, I appeal to their own books. When you see Baptist ministers who are willing to acknowl- edge that there are such things as Presbyterian ministers and Episcopalian ministers, though they do not like to admit that there are such things, and even Oampbellite ministers, they do so in distinct violation of the publications they put into the hands of the young men who are being trained for their ministry. They hold that no man can be a regularly ordained minister of the Gospel unless he is a Baptist; and that not even their brothers-in- law, the Campbellites, are ministers in any sense. In fact I am compelled, to believe from my read- ing of their books, that while they would be willing almost to shake hands with me, they would have nothing whatever to do with the Campbellites. I was surprised! I thought — I thought they were in the habit of taking half-holidays together, and en- joying themselves! But I was mistaken. Now as a proof of that let me read you some extracts from fckdir book*. "The founder and first ministers of BAPTISTS AND CAMPBELLITES. 115 Campbellisra were all Pedobaptists and brought these errors with them, and unfortunately some Baptists have incautiously adopted Campbellite and Pedobaptist phraseology on these points and hence the world imagines that we hold the same errors in regard to Christ's kingdom. Baptism to be valid must be scriptural in its mode, in its subjects, its design and its administrator, and such baptism can be found only in Baptist churches. " I am now reading from page 180 of the " Missiles of Truth" by Gardiner. "Scriptural ordination is essential to valid administration of the ordinance and none but regular Baptist churches can confer such ordination. All admit that an apostate church is not a church of Christ and therefore can- not confer valid baptism and ordination. The Roman Catholic Church is confessedly an apostate church." (I do not know who confessed it. It could not have been the Campbellites; they are op- posed to confession of any kind, even to a confes- sion of their faith. ) * ' The Roman Catholic Church is confessedly an apostate church" (if the reporters will put a query after that I will be satisfied), "and all protestant Pedobaptists received their baptism and ordination from that Church. Therefore pro- testant Pedobaptists are destitute of valid baptism and ordination, and consequently they are not in the visible kingdom of Christ, though many of them are fit subjects for baptism." How happy, how grateful I am to think that though I have never been baptized, and never been ordained, yet that, may be, of course only may be, by a stretch of the charity of the good Baptist brother on the other square, I may be a fit subject for Baptism! But to resume. "Now all agree that valid baptism is indispensable to visible Church member- ship, and if Pedobaptists be destitute of such bap- tism they are not members of Gospel churches. As we have shown, all Christ's churches are in His kingdom and composed of citizens o/that. kingdom 116 BAPTI8T8 AND CAMPBELLITES. and if Pedobaptists (the word Pedobaptist means persons who baptize infants) — if Pedobaptists be not in Christ's kingdom they cannot be His church- es. They may be subjects of His kingdom in heart, and as such fit subjects for admission, but being destitute of valid baptism they are neither mem- bers of the kingdom nor members of Gospel churches." You see I am not only not a minister, but I am not even a member of Christ's Church, ac- cording to the Baptists. And this in fact is the correct reason why Baptists cannot and ought not to commune with others at the Lord's Table; for it is a Church ordinance, as all admit, and none but Church members have a right to partake of it. On page 253 of these u Missiles of Truth" it is said, lt We can and do hold Christian communion in all scriptural ways with those of other denomi- nations whom we regard as Christians, but we do not and never can regard Campbelhtes and Pedo- baptists as qualified communicants, or their churches as Gospel churches, which we do by in- tercommunion." Now you will observe the utter inconsistency of these people. In order that it may be absolutely apparent to you I read now from the Baptist Church Directory, page 152, "All evangelical Christian churches profess to take Holy Scripture as their only and sufficient guide in mat- ters of faith and doctrine." I am only concerned with the first four words, il All evangelical Chris- tian churches." They have just declared that there can be no evangelical Christian Church other than the Baptist church. They hold that in order to become a Christian you must be baptized. I hold that also. But in order to be baptized you must be immersed. If you are not immersed you have not been baptized. If you have not been baptized you are not a Christian. And notwithstanding the fact that multitudes of people outside of their own communion have never been immersed, they still talk here in their Directory of, evangelical Chris- BAPTISTS AND CAMPBELLITES. 117 tian churches! All mere buncombe, of course. Why, the j do not believe that there is any such thing as an evangelical Christian Church, inasmuch as a Christian Church must be made up of Chris- tian people, and there are no Christian people unless they have been immersed. Now as the enormous majority of people calling themselves Christians have never been immersed, therefore the inference is absolutely clear that no pei-sons are Christians but those of their own sect. I am proud of the Baptists that they stand so faithfully by their colors. I am ashamed that their colors are no bet- ter than they are. Regarding the claim of the Baptists, what is the logical inference? The logical inference is, in order to prove that they have a right to exist, they must show an apostolic succession, or else they must acknowledge, that Christ's promise to be with His Church unto the end of the world has failed, and it will never do to acknowledge that Christ's promise has failed. Therefore I say it is absolutely incumbent upon them to show some kind of Apostolic succession. Now I suppose a good many of you people, who are not already within the bounds of this highly ar- rogant and exclusive church called the Episcopal Church; I say a great many of you fancy that no- body, outside of the Catholic Church or the Roman Catholic Church, ever dreamed of claiming Apostol- ical Succession. But you are entirely mistaken. The most urgent clamorersfor Apostolic Succession are our Baptist brel hren ! Now you think I am misstating facts do you not ? I here pledge my honor in saying, that in the book published by Mr. Ray, entitled "Baptist Succession" he is most positively desirous of tracing the succession of the Baptist Church back to the Apostles, but I need not go beyond the little manual which I have here in my hand. You have no idea how I enjoy these little manuals of our brethren around! 118 BAPTISTS AND CAMPBELLITES. The Baptists themselves recognize the necessity of showing some mark of succession. It was in- cumbent upon them, because, as there could be no Christian man unless he was immersed, as he could not be immersed unless — (I would not have that Missile lost for the world), [here a book fell from the pulpit] — unless there is a regularly ordain- ed minister to baptize him, and as the regularly baptized minister must have been himself baptized by a regularly baptized minister, and as this must have gone back to the beginning (and by the way I believe they claim John Baptist as their originator) why it is necessary they should show a succession and, behold, they do ! They do not want to do it. But as they must do it, behold, they have an embarrassment of riches 1 The Baptist Church is fortunate: it has more than it wants. They do not want an Apostolic succes- sion for they can get along without it. Not be- cause they cannot authenticate it. For here they they say, on page 244 of the Baptist Directory, that they trace their origin during the first two centuries through the Messalians, the Euchites, and the Montanists 1 In the third, fourth and fifth centuries through the Novatians and the Donatists ! In the seventh century through the Paulicians! And all these, they claim, profess to hold the New Testament as the only rule of faith and practice, and to live by its teachings, and therefore held the views of the Baptists ! ! ! Well let us enquire for a moment. (I must not forget my dear friends to whom I am coining.) Who are these Euchite3, through whom the Bap- tists claim succession? They were people who re- jected Baptism ! They believed that every man was born with a devil, and they prayed to the devil ! Most worthy ancestors indeed ! The Montanists were a sort of Methodists. Good people, fanatics, but good. They baptized their people in the name of the Father, the Son and BAPTISTS AND CAMPBELLITES. 119 Montanus, their leader, whom they claimed was the Paraclete or Holy Ghost. This is another body through whom the Baptists claim succession ! Novatians, through whom they claim succession, taught that there was no salvation, if a person fell into sin after Baptism ! The Donatists, through whom they claim succession, baptized infants, were very strong Episcopalians, and would have been thunder-struck to learn that the Baptists claimed any sort of relationship with them ! They claim connection with the Apostles through the Pauli- cians. The Paulicians believed in the essential evil of matter. They denied the inspiration of the Old Testament, and utterly abolished the Euchar- ist ! These are the sects through whom the Bap- tists claim Apostolic Succession ! See the absurdity of the position on their own showing. Well now, take any historian you please, and you will find that for centuries, for centuries ob- serve, there was no such thing known as non-bap- tism of infants. The Baptists claim that infants no matter how they are baptized whether by sprink- ling, or pouring, or immersion even, are not truly baptized. Worse than that. The Baptists will not receive Baptism from a Campbellite preacher on the ground that it is " alien immersion?" and that they are utterly and thoroughly opposed to alien immersion. I learn that from the " Missiles." Now what is the true history of the Baptists ? Simply this. They grew out of one of Ihe most turbulent and fanatical sects that ever disgraced Christendom, the Anabaptists. They do not like to acknowledge that now, and they disown their father or mother — I do not know which it was — but they disown their parent whichever it was. They re- ject the idea that they came out from the Anabap- tists, yet nothing is more absolutely certain in his- tory. I had a controversy once with a Baptist preacher, in which he said that ecclesiastical his- torians declare that the history of the Baptists is 120 BAPTISTS AND CAAIPBELLITES. so old that it was hidden in the remote depths of antiquity. I acknowledged that Mosheim searched the remotest antiquity without discovering any history of the Baptists, but that Mosheim never said anything of the kind and, in fact, he never alludes to the Baptists as such, other than in connection with Anabaptists. The Baptists of to-day are violently opposed to the union of their names with the Anabaptists, be- cause they know them to have been a vile and de- graded sect. John Smith — charming name — in the time of Charles the First, was the originator of the Baptists in England, and John Smith never was baptized by a regularly ordained minister, nor by one who had received baptism by immersion. And in this country although, now, they try to escape it, Roger Williams, who was immersed by an unim- mersed layman, and who in turn immersed the lay- man, was the real originator of the Baptist church in this country. Oh ! I have a number of things here; but I must get on to my other friends the Campbellites. You observe I put the books away; the Camp- bellites have no books. The one desire of every modern sect is to show in some way or another its existence in Apostolic days. It is you observe, an unconscious testimony to the doctrine of the Apostolic Succession. It is that groping in the dark after something to bind this age to the age of the Apostles. Now we are told by Mr. Campbell, that the one desire of his soul — and I give him credit for it — was to abolish sectarianism. And in order to abolish sectarian- ism he founds a sect ! But Mr. Campbell was a wise man, a godly man, and a very prince of con- troversialists. [Talk about a Clergyman of the Church desiring controversy ! Why— why the babies in a Compbellite family learn to debate. It is born in their bones. They will answer your question with another.] I say that he saw the BAPTISTS AND CAMPBELLITIS. 121 folly of trying to reach the Apostolic age by strug- gling backward through all the centuries. It was too much for him. There are two ways of traversing a great river. One is by starting at the mouth and going towards the source. The other is by beginning at the source and going towards the mouth. Very different things. Different scenery altogether. Mr. Campbell saw how impossible it would be in the nineteenth century, to go back to Apostolic times by traversing the centuries to our Blessed Lord's ascension into Heaven. What does he do? He says himself, that his method was to project himself into the Apostolic days, and then argue out what a Church ought to be from the circumstances of the times and the surroundings. That was heroic, was it not ? One of the great difficulties must have been that he was not one of the eleven Apostles. He says that he did project himself into those times, and tried to consider with- in himself just what a condition the Church was in at that time. And then he said to himself, ''The wisest method of development is in such and such a direction." He thought he saw where evils crept into the Church. He thought he saw how evils might have been prevented from creeping into the Church, if only the churches of that time had had the assistance of his most valuable advice. But he determined that in arranging for his church, he would cause its development to move along the lines that he would have chosen, had he lived in the first century. It was ingenious and it was very bold. But singularly enough the Church did not develop in that way from the first century. What was Mr. Campbell's stock in trade ? There was a popular creed amongst the people at that time, started by the way, by a clergyman of our Church (Mr. Campbell is indebted to a clergyman of our Church for the backbone of his institution. ) That creed 122 BAPTISTS AND CAMPBELUTES. was "The Bible and the Bible only is the only religion of Protestants." These words were the utterance of Mr. Chillingworth not of Mr. Campbell. And that became the very backbone of their institution. It was an easy thing to go out before the world, and he thought it was a grand thing too, and to say "The Bible, the Bible only is the religion of Protestants." It may have been a grand thing, and it was certainly an easy thing for this reason: People are always ready to accept the statement that this book is the Bible. And for a man to say, ' ' Here is a book which all nations, all men acknow- ledge to be the word of God. Now let us reject all creeds and confessions of faith and settle ourselves down upon this book." Of course it was what peo- ple might call, if they were inclined to sneer, a catch- penny trick, a very taking one — immensely taking; — showing great knowledge of human nature, ex- hibiting great wisdom on his part, provided, — pro- vided, — that he could prove it But how did Mr. Campbell come to know that this book is the Word of God ? I ask you, if there are any members of that religious body here, how do you know that this is the Bible ? Have you ever asked that question at all of yourselves ? Did he ever ask it of himself? Did he ever write about it, or speak about it? He might have done so, but the question will bear repeating. "How did he know that this is the Bible?" How does any man know that this is the Bible ? On whose authority is it received and believed ? He says that it is the inspired Word of God. Who authenticates this Book ? Who sets it forth with such marks of ap- proval as that it can be compelled upon the consci- ences of men? That is the great question to be considered. Now I make a statement. In this I am open to correction; I have the impression that our good friends of what is known as the Christian Church, the Campbellite Church have very little use for the Old BAPTISTS AND CAMPBELUTES. 128 Testament, that it relates to a system and a time that have gone by. It is only the New Testament that they stand by. I am told too, that they are great Bible students. I wonder if they really read the Bible ? First of all I call to mind the fact that eighteen hundred and odd years ago there was no such thing as printing. I want you to take that into your minds now. Eighteen hundred years ago we had no volume of the Bible printed. Eighteen hundred years ago the vast masses of mankind could not read the Bible, if the Bible had been given to them to read. Get that into your minds. In the next place the Gospels and Epistles that compose the book that we call the New Testament, were written at various times and were directed to various people. There is no state- ment whatever in Holy Scripture that they were intended to be collected together to form what is now called the New Testament. Try now to think of that. And I think that these undoubted facts are fatal to your position ! That there was an Epistle written to the Corin- thians, another to the Romans, another to the Ephesians; and so on, to the Philippians, Galatians, Thessalonians, and to some individuals Timothy, and Titus; that they were sent at different times to different places, and different individuals; that all was in manuscript; that there was little inter- communion between these places, and that the last of these books was written very close to the year 100 A. D. Take also into consideration, that in the New Testament there is no system of theology at all, no dogmatic system whatever. That the Gospels are simply stories of our Lord's life, giving a very few of His works and words, and declaring that it they were all recorded the world itself could not contain the books. With regard to the Epistles they were written for specific purposes. Eacli for a specific purpose to a specific people. The idea, of circulating them amongst the 124 BAPTISTS AND CAMrBELLITES. Churches grew up afterwards. Remember that for more than three hundred years there was no such thing in existence as the New Testament as it ap- pears to-day. Now turn that over in your minds. Three hundred years is a good slice of human ex- perience. Now if our Campbellite friends had no code of faith, no formal creed, and nothing to ap- peal to, and if our Lord instituted just such a Church as the Campbellite church, and if He pro- mised that " The gates of Hell should not prevail against it," how did they get along for over three hundred years without a scrap of foundation to stand on ? I do not suppose that even the longest lived Campbellite minister — and I have seen some very old ones — I do not suppose the longest lived of them lived more than three hundred years. What do you suppose they did all that time for some idea of doctrine and faith ? And how did a Campbellite get along without the New Testament in his hand, while the Baptists who were represent- ed by the Euchites, the Messalians, and the rest of them, were disputing the ownership of the King- dom of Heaven with him ? Then when the New* Testament was settled, who settled it ? Was it the Campbellite ministers ? No. No, it was the Bishops, Priests, and Deacons of our Church; I defy that to be challenged. We are responsible for the statement of the inspiration of Holy Scripture. There were dozens of books float- ing around through the country, and read in var- ious churches, as of equal importance with the books we now call canonical. The inspiration of Holy Scripture means that God the Holy Ghost did cause men to write these words. God did not come down from Heaven with a voice stating what books were to be received as inspired. There is no reve- lation in the New Testament as to which books are inspired. The inspiration or question of inspira- tion was taken up and debated, and it was agreed that this book was inspired and that that book was BAPTISTS AND CAMPBELLITES. 1& not i aspired. And mat agreement and judgment was made by the Ministers of the Catholic Church, and not by any sect on the face of the earth; even such a sect as the Campbellites. The Campbellites in common with most other sects, declare that their Church is founded upon the Bible. We reject such a theory for ourselves as unscriptural. What ! Found the Church upon the Bible ? Why the complete Bible was not in ex- istence, the New Testament was not in existence, for hundreds of years after the Christian Church was in full sway. The Church of the Living God is founded upon Jesus Christ, and not upon any book, even so grand a book as the Word of God. The Word of God is the utterance of the Church, not the thing on which the Church is founded. That ought to be thoroughly understood. Then again the Bible does not set forth any system of theology. It is used for proving a sys- tem, but it sets forth no system. Now look at the absurd position of our good brethren. They hold that not only is the Bible, and the Bible only, the religion of Protestants, but also that each man is his own interpreter of it. I have in my possession now the Testament trans- lated by Mr. Campbell himself. It differs in a good many ways from what is popularly called the •• authorized version." When we consider that even s'c email a thing as a single letter or puncuta- tion mark may grievously change the faith of a community, you can imagine how exceedingly jeal- ous we should be about the translation of Holy Scripture. But by what right did Mr. Campbell translate for his followers the New Testament? His theory is that each man is supreme in himself. Each man must take the New Testament in his own hand and reading it be governed, not hy its contents, but by what he supposes to be its contents. Well, so does the Unitarian; so does the Universalist; so 126 BAPTISTS AND CAMPBELUTES. does the Baptist; so does the Presbyterian, and Methodist, and Quaker. These, who are utterly opposed to each other, all find warrant for their existence in the New Testament, to say nothing of the condemnation of their neighbors. By what right then can Mr. Campbell or anybody else say to a man, that his interpretation of Holy Scripture is alone correct ? He claims no more lor himself, surely, than he is willing to give to another man. You perceive therefore that each man must be a church for himself. Did I hear some one speak of arrogancy ? And now another thing. Did it ever occur to you that the New Testament as it appears in our Bible is not (strictly speaking) the New Testament at all ? Now do not think that I am making a very rash assertion. Did it ever occur to you that this is not the New Testament at all ? That it is only a translation of the New Testament ? When there- fore Mr. Campbell advised his people to take the New Testament in their hands, and each man, without a formal creed to guide and limit him, to go forth for himself, he meant to demand that every man shall be a Greek scholar ! There is no alternative. Now all you good people who belong to the Campbellite church who cannot read Greek for yourselves, know very well you are not in the church in which you ought to be; because, accord- ing to Campbellite theory, you have no right to take anybody's statement of what God says. If you do so you are accepting that man's creed, and you are a body of people that refuses to have a creed; and if you take my translation of what Holy Scripture says you are undoubtedly taking my creed. If you are baptized on that judgment your baptism is by faith in the competency of the minis- ter who translates Holy Scripture for you, and not in Jesus Christ. Think of that. Moreover as the Testament of original Greek was written in uncial characters, and without marks of BAPTISTS AND CAMPBELIJTES. 127 punctuation, or division of chapters and verses, you must have been able to read these to know how to make the divisions for yourselves. And then after you have done all that, the ground is cut from under your feet, for you discover that without the Old Testament you cannot get along at all ; the New Testament is absolutely nothing without the Old. For when our Lord admonishes His followers to search the Scriptures, to what Scriptures did He refer ? The New Testament ? Not a line of it was written. It was of course the Old Testament. When St. Paul commends Timothy for his know- ledge of the Scriptures; what Scriptures did he mean ? It could not have been the New Testa- ment, it was not written. It was the Old. When St. Paul disputed for many days out of the Scrip- tures, and showed out of the Scriptures that Josus Christ must necessarily come and suffer, and die, and rise again, in order that the prophecies might be fulfilled what Scriptures did he quote? The New Testament was not written. It must have been the Old. So that you cannot get along with- out the Old Testament, and in order to know it you must know the Hebrew language. So then the Campbellite church, whether it is so, or not, ought to be the finest thing in creation; for it should not have any unintelligent persons in it, and of course it could never have children, (but I believe they do not want children.) It should not have persons that cannot read and understand both Greek and Hebrew, not only as it is now written but as it was written then, but then, it could not be a Church, for some provision must be made for the unlearned. Moreover as its members never can be sure from anybody's judgment (since they reject ours) that this is Holy Scripture, they must have access to the original manuscripts; and there are no such things now, upon the face of the earth. All that there now is are the copies of these manuscripts, and I do not suppose that any two of them perfectly agree. 128 BAPTISTS AND CAMPBELLITES. Now you will observe that it was absolutely necessary there should be an authorized voice — some authority to say what was Holy Scripture, to say whether it was inspired or not, and to send it forth for the Church. And these people who are founding their hopes of salvation upon our say so, as to what books are inspired, are the people that reject our decisions with regard to the interpreta- tion of these books. You will observe here is ab- solute chaos, Hiaos in discipline and in doctrine. I am told each congregation is independent in it- self, that all shades of opinion are harbored in its several congregations, as of course, there must be, since no farther demand can be made of any one on becoming a member beyond, '-Do you believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of Goi ?" This is thought to be very beautiful on account of its simplicity. It is most bewildering on account of its simplicity. For as the various sects of protestantism differ, so wide- ly, so fundamentally, while claiming the immediate guidance of the Bible, so each congregation of Campbellites may. and in fact does differ from its fellow. Nay more, the individual differs from his brother in the same congregation, and as a fact the body is honeycombed with infidelity, the result of varying opinions; literally eaten out with the no- tions that have gained possession of it, and as is "well kuown, longing for a constitution, or for some- thing which can hold it together and save it from absolute dissolution. This last is an open secret. Finally there is no possible appeal from any de- cision of a Campbellite congregation. No matter what evil it does, there is no appeal. Almost every religious body has some court of appeal to which injured persons may resort. Here the supreme authority rests in the congregation. The congre- gation selects its own minister: from the congrega- tion his authority comes and not from Almighty God. An exact reversal of the original. Just the same precisely as if a district school were to meet BAPTISTS AND CAMPBELLITES. 129 together and elect one of their number to be their teacher. You can see how chaos must necessarily descend upon such a conglomerate mass. I have not exposed all the dreadful evils of this body by any means. It is not a pleasant thing to undertake. I have chosen rather to confine my self for the most part to the one matter of the ridi- culous assumption of the right of each man to for- mulate a creed for himself while denying that he has a Creed; and to interpret the Word of God, as his learning or ignorance may dictate. That a large number of people has been deceived by this gross imposition is only to say that men are human, and that some men will not hesitate to ' ' rush in where Angels fear to tread. " On the other hand, and in spite of the system, if system it can be called, there are doubtless many holy souls among them, whom may God of His Infinite mercy bring into the way of Truth. VII. Q^ifatfan* an& oifytt ^nfiUte* This day, my brethren, is called in the Church Palm Sunday, because it is esteemed the anniver- sary of that day when our Divine Lord made His triumphal entry into the city of Jerusalem. His coming had been predicted by prophets of old and the people were all expecting Him. It was only difficult for them to identify the man of Nazareth with the promised Messiah. It was hai'd for them to think that this man, born in obscurity, of mean parents, should be the Hope atid Desire of Israel, the Sent of the Father, the Messiah, the Incarnate GOD. True, He performed many wonderful works and hope struggled against doubt. By one means or another He made His divine mission apparent to some of them, and yet there were always doubting hearts, not bad hearts you understand, but doubt ing hearts, that said: — "If we were only quite sure how gladly would we welcome Him." Ah ! there *-ss the rub. When God sent His only-begottei 6on into the world, why did He permit men tc doubt His Deity ? Why did there not come such a olaze of glory, such a manifestation of His Godhood, of His identity with the promised Messiah that no place would have been left for doubt? Well, He did come with a blaze of glory, Angels heralded Mis birth with song, wise men travelling from afar brought tribute to His feet, Priests directed the feet of worship to his manger-throne, a King deso- lated a nation because of Him Surely there was no lack of attestations to His greatness, but doubt and disbelief are not easily satisfied. God. in His inscrutable wisdom, has not oftel 132 UNITARIANS AND OTHER INFIDELS. plainly informed men as to the ways and means which it pleases Him to employ in His dealings with men, and we are therefore thrown back upon the question Why did he not do this ? It is the cry of our rebellious and unsatisfied hearts. And yet, from considerations of our nature and of His, of our relation to Him, it does seem as if even our own unaided intelligence might discover an answer which should reasonably satisfy us. Does not His dignity demand our obedience where our intelli- gence cannot follow ? Is it not a necessary conse- quence of His Godship, necessary for Him as for us ? Where would be our dependence, the exercise of our faith, our trust; were every proposition first submitted to the assent of our understanding ? Again what joy can equal the commendation of God ? Could any happiness be greater than the being praised by God ? But see how we would rob ourselves of this delight were we only to do or believe those things to the doing or believing of which we are compelled by an Almighty Master. So He committed His Divine Son to the free, un- compelled love of human hearts, to the faith that should surmount all difficulties, that would not say: "So far as I can see God, and am thoroughly in- formed of His purposes, so far will I trust Him but no farther." Now this day as I said is Palm Sunday. You ob- serve all around you the signs of rejoicing. It is toward the close of our Lenten season, the time when, ordinarily, we are bewailing with our Blessed Lord the sins and misfortunes that afflict humanity; and, following Him step by step as He goes from His temptation through His life to His crucifixion, we try to share in His mysterious sorrow. And yet Holy Church breaks in upon the gloom of this time by commemorating this one day of solemn triumph in which our Lord entered into the city of Jerusalem. A most typical entry, foretold by the UNITARIANS AND OTHER INFIDELS. 138 Prophets not of a man merely but of a God. And we take up the gladsome strain and like those who cast palm-branches in His way we shout: — "Bless- ed is He that coiaeth in the Name of the Lord: Hosanna in the Highest," praying God at the same time to preserve us from that fickleness, that hypoc- risy which induced some of those who shouted " Hosanna" at His entry into Jerusalem, to cry "Crucify Him" on the Friday which followed. Although I had no intention in my mind of setting the particular consideration of this subject for this day, yet He Who orders all things makes it, I be- lieve, accord with the spirit of the day, and I see in this an undesigned coincidence, whereat I re- joice. I am to speak to-day of Infidels, and particularly, of those persons who, calling themselves Chris- tians, are the most awful of Infidels — the Unitar- ians. I am very conscious that the word is ungentle in the ears of men. I use it however, with a full consciousness of its meaning, nor do I see for the life of me, how any man professing the faith of Christ can think it improperly applied, as I apply it. If I speak of Unitarians as Infidels only, I am n fact showing much more consideration for their feelings than I am warranted in doing, Holy Scrip- ture being the judge. For, while we can under- stand how an open enemy can stab his foe to the heart, we can scarcely understand how an Apostle, like Judas, could betray his friend. And yet, better the kiss of Judas, truer were the kiss of Judas, than the affected love of men who, in this XIX century, call themselves Unitarian Christians and deny Christ. Any day would I prefer Judas, because to him there was sorrow, regret, remorse. It is with- in the possibilities of charity to believe that Judas may have thought that our Lord would escape from His enemies, or that he fancied he might pre- cipitate the public recognition \ K ' His Kingship, as 134 UNITARIANS AND OTHER INFIDELS. some theologians believe, but what can be said of men to whom the testimony of the ages has brought no conviction of that power, and who resist the, but for themselves, universal conviction of the con- science of the whole Christian world. To my mind the Pagan, the Mahommedan, the man who knows nothing whatever of Christianity has some hold upon God because he comes to Him in ignorance for which he may not be responsible ; but to a man born in a Christian community, breath- ing at every inspiration a Christian atmosphere, hearing on every side the message of the Gospel and the voice of Christian prayer; who is brought face to face with what Christ has done and is doing for mankind, and who yet rejects the Deity of Jesus ; for that man — for such people — well, well, God help us, it is very hard ; for some of us are married to them, and some of us take them by the hand every day, and we look into their faces — it is a terrible thing, my brethren, but oh ! may there not be more hope for Judas Iscariot in the day of judgment than for them ? I see that the statement is still persisted in that I am attacking the various religious bodies, and that this uncharitable work is to culminate to-day. For my own part I do not care for all the statements that all the newspapers in America can make in a thousand years ; they may amuse themselves as they please, but I am unwilling that you should entertain a false idea as to the motive that prompted these lectures. I state here in my place, that so far from being the attacker I am the defendant. I am simply replying to attacks which, within the past year, have been freely made upon the Church from almost every sectarian pulpit in the city. Is there any breach of truth or charity in what I have now said with regard to the Unitarians? Who shall convict me of it ? Not the various so- called li Evangelical bodies," unless they be untrue to their own standards. UNITARIANS AND OTHER INFIDELS. 135 But first, a word as to this question of charity in general. There is a sort of mawkish sentiment- ality that passes for charity which deserves to be exposed. There is nothing real about it. It is a kind of drivel thac excuses any sort of disaffection towards God, but which would not for a moment ex- cuse the least disloyalty towards ourselves. Nobody believes in it, and nobody believes less in it than the weak creatures who use it. I think you will do me the justice to believe that I have not attempted in the preceding lectures of this course to appeal to your passions in any way, and that when I showed you the utter hollowness of this mis-named charity I was only speaking that that you yourselves do know. I showed you from their own statements that the Methodist denounced the Pres- byterian, and the Presbyterian the Methodist. The Baptist utterly rejects the Campbellice and the Camp- bellite the Baptist. And that he may have a dis- tinction in this work of repudiation, the Baptist de- christianizes the whole of the rest of the world. I defy contradiction. Nevertheless, you will observe that there are so-called " Ministerial meetings" in which all of these brethren meet, excepting, of course, the Unitarians, and they speak soft, sooth- ing words to each other, metaphorically tickling each other's ribs, and easily deluded people fancy that they arc very much in love with each other. And yet every man with brains knows that they can have no real fellowship with each other ecclesiasti- cally ; that the whole thing is a sham ; and that the tacit understanding that they have agreed to disagree is a compact which however it may claim the inspiration of the devil, was certainly never begot- ten of God. Yet, when a priest of the Church ven- tures to speak of these matters in which they differ, behold he is a firebrand. I may denounce Roman- ism, and every one is with me ; but when I come to speak, as now, of people whose theological stand- point is unknown except in the one dreadful direction t«6 UNITARIANS AND OTHER INFIDELS. of denying the Deity of our Lord, I am expected to walk softly, and because of their refinement. and culture forsooth, ignore the horrible insult to my God and Saviour. I will not do it. Unitarians understand very well the odium which attaches to a too plain pronouncement on this sub- ject. And they are adroit too. To illustrate : I opened a volume of sermons written by a Unitarian the other day, and I found it full of the most beauti- ful, most poetic utterances on Christian charity. One would suppose that the blessed Apostle himself could not have expressed himself on this point more lovingly. To my surprise I also found expressions of devotion to our blessed Lord, and such terms used as would lead one to believe that the writer adored our Saviour with all the homage which a God could demand. It was just such a sermon as might be preached from this pulpit on any ordinary occasion to set forth the Divinity of Christ. The words of adoration seemed to be so spontaneous, the piety so fervent that, were one not forewarned, it might easily pass for orthodoxy. But a little close inspection showed that it was written for a purpose, and an unworthy one at that, to deceive the reader as to the position of Unitarianism on this very point. There was another sermon setting forth the loveliness of the character of Christ in such glowing terms that I confess to you the thought came to me to use it here to-day for the sake of the amusement it would afford me in seeing it torn to pieces to-morrow morning, as this address will be, as a weak and unworthy attack upon a respectable Christian body. Now, I class the Unitarians with Infidels. What is the meaning of the word Infidel ? An Infidel is simply defined to be one who has not the Faith. What faith ? In this land and in this age the ordi- nary application of the word is to one who denies the Christian religion, by which is commonly meant the belief in the Deity of Jesus Christ. But I am UNITARIANS AND OTHER INFIDELS. 13T not Here to-day to prove that Unitarians are Infi- dels. 1 assume that they are, and that they are so upon their own confession. They have not, nor do they claim to have, the Apostles' doctrines, instead, 1 am here to repel a charge which our long-suffering people have endured with a courage unknown to these so-called Christians. I am here to repel a charge hurled against us by Unitarians, and which we have been all too slow to repel. One of the most infamous in the catalogue of sins. Now compose yourselves, nor fancy that I am ro- mancing. Do you not think that it would be a most arrogant thing for one person out of a thousand persons to declare that the nine hundred and ninety- nine were all wrong, and that he alone was all right ? You have aU iieard, no doubt, of that singu/ar jury- man who so ia.nented that he had been housed up with eleven stubborn men who would not come to a right view of the question ? You have laughed over it, of course. You have thought that perhaps there was something to be said on the other side. Per- haps you thought that the twelfth was the stubborn man and that it might be wise for him to change his mind. Now observe : Unitarianism charges upon a still larger proportion of people who profess and call themselves Christians the horrible sins of Idolatry and Blasphemy against the Most High God ! Millions and millions of the living baptised, mil- lions upon millions of our sainted dead, are thus branded by this mere handful of arrogant pretend- ers ! Have you ever thought of that ? My Brethren, this is no fanciful statement, made in the heat of passion ; it is not the incautious utter- ance of frenzied controversy. It is a sad fact, only too susceptible of proof. Before its dreadful pro- portions my classification of Unitarians with Infidels sinks into utter insignificance. God forgives many sins ; but there is one sin whick He does not readily forgive. It is the sin of con- 138 UNITARIANS AND OTHER INFIDEIa,. scious Idolatry. He declares again and again that He will not suffer His glory to be given to another — that He is a jealous God — that lie will not have any other worshipped after His Name. Now, the whole Christian world, except that infinitessimal portion called Unitarians, who have even less right than the Jews to be called Christian, worship and adore Jesus Christ as God. They deny that He is God. Upon this point we have absolute clearness. Whatever haziness attaches to other questions, here there is positive affirmation on the one side and a? positive denial on the other. I am not. going into the argument : I content, myself with the mere state- ment of the question. Jesus Christ is God or He is not God. That surely is simple. If He be not God, we are convicted Idolaters ; there is absolutely no escape from the charge, and from the punish- ment. If He be God, then to speak of Unitarians as Infidels is being absolutely mild. Now, I do not mean to go into a discussion as to the Deity of our Lord. The odium of being unchari- table, of being arrogant, of having rashly accused my brethren, who are certainly as good as myself, is upou me, and very naturally I desire to show that so far is that from the truth that instead of being the assailant, I am only too considerate, weakly considerate, of their feelings. I have no doubt that you were all perfectly satis- fied when I spoke the other day of the Romanists, who are believed to give to the Blessed Virgin the homage which should be given to God alone. Who, under cover of the three forms or grades of worship, Dulia. Hyperdulia andLatria offer a homage, which in the two last-mentioned grades cannot be distin- guished from each other. But in all the ages there has never been a distinction in the mind of the Church between the worship which should be given to God the Father and God the Son. Think of the millions of prayers that have been directed to Jesus Christ as God Think of the wor- UNITARIANS AND OTHER INFIDELS. 139 ship, both of body and soul that has been offered Him as God. Think of the multitudes of holy souls that have passed out of this world, resting all their hopes of salvation upon Jesus Christ as God. Think of the vast army of men that to-day turn their eyes filled with the light of an undying love to the cross of Jesus Christ, in the full belief that He who suf- fered thereon was no other than the God who made and redeemed them, and then consider the awful doom of these millions if Unitaiianism be right, and there be any place of future punishment at all ; and, if they be not right, the gross insult perpetrated upon such a mass of humanity. For they say He is not God. But we have cer- tainly elevated to the place of God One who in their mind is but a creature. It matters not how excell- ent a creature. It can make no difference whatever whether He were man or angel ; whether He came by ordinary generation or by miracle ; whether He were the greatest prophet or the highest Archangel, or whether He were a special creation, if He be not God then are we Idolaters and Blasphemers and there is no escape from the consequences ; for we worship and adore Him with Divine homage. For, between the Seraph that wings his way about God's throne and God Himself there is a distance so vast, a gulf so impassable that there is no possible con- ception of a bridge. Between the greatest in the kingdom of heaven, whether prophet or Archangel and God Himself there is a space more infinite than the distance of this planet from the farthest star that sentinels the outpost of the Universe. Now, when the question is of arrogancy as between Uni- tarians and ourselves, when the question is of ex- clusiveness, I am willing to leave it to the decision of even a fair-minded Unitarian, though I frankly acknowledge that would be a hard creature to find. I want you to think over these matters for your- selves, my dear brethren, and say who is the stub- born juryman. 140 UNITARIANS AND OTHER INFIDELS. But the Unitarian is disingenuous. The same difficulty is experienced in dealing with him, so far as theology is concerned, as with the Campbellite. Nobody knows just where to rind the Campbellite on any other matter than Immersion, and so also no one can discover the whereabouts of the Unitarian on any other point than the denial of the Godhood of Jesus Christ, and in many instances one has to push him very closely to the wall before he will acknowledge his real position on this point. Generally speaking, each Unitarian is a law to himself. Thus he can best escape criticism. He has adroitly managed to superinduce a sort of nebu- lous light over his theology so that the unthinking are charmed by the vagueness which comes of an affected learning. He does not know much of Holy Scripture, but then he is thoroughly up in tne Vedas and other sacrc 1 books of the Orientals. For Com- mentaries he has a kind of indulgent contempt, but for the German philosophers a wonderful regard. Yet he is careful too not to shock the superstitions of his less well-learned neighbor. The inaccuracies of the translators of the Bible are ever before him. The unlikelihood of some of its statements are his stock-in-trade. The " Light of Reason" is his Sun, the comprehension of his brain the Moon ; and front both of these he is prepared to enlighten mankind. Still, notwithstanding the general haziness of ex- pression, a sort of classification may be entered upon. They are usually divided into the Conserva- tive and the' Radical. The Conservative is gradu- ally disappearing, except in localities where a pre- judice against Infidelity exists, or where old age has dispelled the illusions which braggardism begot. In thriving centres, he is being rapidly replaced by the Radical. For instance : I knew a Unitarian minister, a very lovely man (except for this sin) de- vout and pure-minded he seemed to be. One might listen to him for a dozen years, and unless one had been previously told, one could scarcely discover UNITARIANS AND OTHER INFIDELS. 141 that he did not believe with the most orthodox par- son in the city. Evidently he did not dwell upon the distinctive features of his sect. He ?lung to themes which related to the sentiment — the subjec- tivity — of religion. He might have passed for an old time Methodist preacher. But he was too old ank was succeeded by a smart young man who affected to be a Hegelian. That, you know, was captivating. He was a philosopher, and therefore if he were a little difficult to comprehend, so much the better. I remember him very well. Whatever modesty the old man showed in giving utterance to his views on knotty points, was certainly unheeded by his suc- cessor. He had no scruple in airing his views as to the Deity of Christ. Some of his own people told me that such were not the teachings they were ac- customed to hear, that they were sorry he had taken this particular stand, it was hardly prudent in such a community and so on, but I am free to say that I could better tolerate the younger man, strange as that may sound, for after all, the Deity of Christ- being denied by both (as must have been the case) he at least was honest and did not deceive nor appear to deceive his neighbors as to his real position. Again, as might have been expected, there is lit> tie real unity between these classes. The Radical rather despises his somewhat timid co-religionist. The Conservative, in his opinion, has not yet been altogether emancipated from the bondage of some show of regard for Poly Scripture and Christian institutions. He has not riseu into that clearer atmosphere where any sort of reverence for the ancients of the Bible is considered a kind of barba- rism not yet sufficiently infused with the spirit of a higher criticism to overcome the superstitious in- fluence of fairy tales, myths, ghosts and hob-gob- lins. Perhaps his feeling is best described as that of an amused pity that his brother can only abandon the old moorage one at a time, and still cling, 142 UNITARIANS AND OTHER INFIDELS. though reluctantly, to a few of the coinages of Pen- tateuch and the Gospels. The Conservative is rather afraid of the Radical as an extremist, but on the whole is trying to stand with as little aid as possible from the old beliefs. Still, with a worldly wisdom, he tries to touch the ordinary Christian life with one hand while he stretches the other toward the exalted plane on which his altogether enfranchised brother stands. He will get there after awhile. At present he gilds the infidel pill for the feebler folk, and exhibits somewhat brighter spots and a more graceful sinu- osity amongst the unwary. It is almost refreshing to hear either of them say when assailed u You have altogether mistaken the genius of Unitarianism, you do not understand it." And yet it does not appear to be so enigmatical after all. I have read its history, and there is nothing so profound there : certainly nothing to make an ordinary understanding despair. One may confess to some contusion as to its doctrines for there a point is touched with regard to which they have as much difficulty of comprehension as the proudest metaphysician amongst them can desire. Its history is scarcely one hundred and fifty years old. It is the lineal descendant of the Socinians. but has acquired a boldness of unbelief that even that rather bold body shrank from. As regards what it professes to teach, although as I said each man is his own theologian, yet some- thing of a scheme may be observed. The Radical gravitates toward the abstruse and the unknowable, consequently he is the more learned of the two. He delights in Hegel, is enraptured with the researches of Blavatsky, talks of Theosophy and Ethical culture, and takes his chance of the future, if there be one. The Bible is useful for fur- nishing pithy texts, and now and then an instruct- ive allegory, or affecting scene. But that the storj of Noah's Ark, or the drying-up of the Red Sea, or UNITARIANS AND OTHER i*r£DELS. 143 the lali of Jericho, or that Balaam, or Samson, or Elijah, or Elisha were all real, and were and did and said as recorded is too preposterous for the XlXth century. Nevertheless the system of the Kabbalah, the sacred books of the Brahmins, the Persians, the Egyptians, ah ! when you speak of books, these demand attention. Oh ! that the pro- phets had been educated in Boston ! The Conservative, while not going quite so far as yet, avoids in his public utterances much of this questionable literature, and so his theology may be said to be the Religion of Gush. He does not dis- card Miracles, he smiles at and explains them. He does not distinctly deny a peculiar kind of birth in Christ, nor a fortuitous concurrence of events sur- rounding the close ol his life, but the phenomena maybe scientifically adjusted without destroying the pathos of the beautiful occasions. Oh that the Apostles had read Robert Elsmere 1 On the confines of both these forms of Unitarian- ism alike, Agnosticism and Atheism sit waiting for their prey. Now with regard to the other Infidels who have hot formed themselves into bodies professing any kind of Christianity, however emasculated, I shall have but little to say now. They have never been as dangerous as those I have been dealing with to- day. Christian men are not greatly troubled over theo- retical infidelity. Much more does the practical infidelity of believers give cause for sorrow. And although, strictly speaking, the Infidel may not be an Atheist ; yet the term has been generally extended to include Atheists. The position of the Atheist is so unusual that there is even less trouble in disposing of him than of the mere infidel. Upon him lies the burden of proof that there is no God. We are not called to prove it. To us there is proof sufficient for a rational man in the universality of the idea, in the general acknowledgment of His sovereignty, and of 144 UNITARIANS AND OTHKR INFIDELS. our accountability. The witnesses with which He has surrounded Himself, both within us and without, material and immaterial, are abundant and constant in their testimony, and therefore we may unhesi- tatingly accept the statement of the Psalmist that it is "the fool that saith in his heart there is no God." For how shall a man know that there is no God, in opposition to the instinct of the enormous majority, nay the almost unanimous voice of the whole creation ? No testimony will avail against the universal cry of humanity through all the ages ; nor could the imagined experience of all the Atheists combined outweigh the testimony, for you cannot imagine an experience of that which does not exist. To know that there is no God each man for himself must have traversed every land and sailed over every sea ; nay, he must have inspected each parti- cle of matter, and studied every drop of water in every ocean. He must have climbed up to every star and searched through every sun, for in that spot which had escaped his individual observation might have been found a God, or the idea of a God. The Infidel, or Agnostic (which is now the polite term for the same thing) is not far behind his more daring neighbor. He does not venture an unquali- fied denial, but he reaches the end all the same. He is not much concerned a» to the majesty of human reason in the mass, as he is positive it appears in himself. His mind must be satisfied. Why should there be a God whom he cannot comprehend ? It does not seem to occur to him that an Infinite God comprehended by a finite mind, and perhaps not the very best mind in the world either, would be nobody's God, not even his own. For the one difficulty on the Believer's side there are a thousand on the side of the Infidel. As I bring these lectures to a close I want to say a few words. I began them, primarily, for my own people. I made no undue effort to call public at- tention to them, nor other effort than was expressed UNITARIANS AND OTHER INFIDELS. 145 in the ordinary announcement of the services of the Sundays. But public attention has been called to them, and the multitudes that have thronged to this church Sunday after Sunday, have given me reason to believe that the discussion of the questions in- volved lies very near the heart of intelligent men and women. Nevertheless, it has pleased some people to take exception to my course. I have been charged with wantonly outraging the feelings of Christian people who do not agree with the position of the Church. I take it for granted that such is inevitable to the presentation of any opinions that traverse the judg- ment of other persons. The setting forth of Roman- ism, of Presbyterianism, of Methodism, of Camp- bellism, or of Unitarianism would doubtless be at- tended with statements obnoxious to me. I, too, have feelings. And it may be permitted to me to say that I can scarcely be charged with having in- augurated this fight. I have carefully noted that within the past year the Church which I have the honor to serve has been gratuitously attacked, and thoroughly abused. Not a single sect, named by me, has failed to pay her the attention of its vitu- peration as a formalist body, without vital piety, as an arrogant, exclusive and diminutive sect, some parts of which (this particular Church in which your humble servant ministers amongst others) are bound for Rome. Here, within the walls of my own Church, I have thought it good to warn my people of the evils of sectarianism. In doing so I have as far as pos- sible avoided personalities — I have named no living man, certainly not one of this city. I have spoken of Organizations, of Systems, not of men; ami here I have dealt better with my opponents than they have with me; fori have been informed that the Rector of this Church has been made the theme of addresses within the last six months by several of the representatives of the bodies named by me. 146 UNITARIANS AND OTBER INFIDELS. Moreover, in examining the systems of the vari- ous sects I did not speak of the points which are uppermost in people's minds, with perhaps one ex- ception. I did not undertake to prove the Divinity of Christ as against the Unitarians, but simply showed that they charged us with Idolatry. IS'oi the iu validity of Immersion as against the Baptists and Campbollites, but merely that they could not stand on Holy Scripture for a foundation because they were not all Greek and Hebrew scholars, and had not access to the original manuscripts, as their system demands. I was particularly kind to the Methodists and infinitely more so than one of their preachers in this city was to me. Even the Pres- byterians had little cause of complaint, for I barely more than mentioned Calvinism, and only engaged them on the subject of garbling the Fathers, which theft I fear they cannot deny. The Romanists were the only people that might have reasonably felt hurt, because I tried to cut every prop from beneath their system. ' Another thing : I do not believe that any of the religious bodies that I have spoken of, make it a rule to pray statedly for me; but the Church here directs me to pray tor all these whether I like to do so or not. I desire, however, to record the fact that I perform this duty with great pleasure and sincere love. Everyday, twice a day in this place, I pray that God may lead into the way of truth all such as have erred and are deceived ; and that all who profess and call themselves Christians may be led into the way of truth ; and next Friday, the day on which we commemorate the crucifixion of our Divine Lord, we will specially pray lor all Jews, Turks, Infidels and Heretics, that God may convert and bring them home. And by the way, I am reminded that I forgot to say to you that the immediate forefathers of the Unitarians made overtures to the Mahommedans to join with them, as indeed was only consistent, but UNITARIANS AND OTHER INFIDELS. 147 the Mahommedans refused on account of a little difficulty which arose on the subject of the plurality of wives and with regard to which the English had some peculiar prejudices. This is an historical fact, however, as you will find if you can spare the time to look it up. In contrast with all these confusing systems, I have tried to show you, rather by inference than by exact statement, how truly the Church fulfils all the requirements of man's nature and God's demands. That she must stand first in His regard because our Divine Lord stands first in her regard. She is built upon Him not the Bible, and though her love and reverence for His sacred Word exceeds all that men can write or say of it, yet she does not profess to place it as her foundation stone, nor is it alone the rule of faith and practice to that body that lis- tened to the words that fell from His lips and the lips of His holy Apostles. That she honors the Bible above all things else may be inferred from the fact that more than five times as much of its sacred language is used in the assemblies of the Chu/ch on a Sunday than in any other body of pro- fessing Christians. Indeed it is her testimony to its authenticity that makes it possible for sectar- ians to lift up their heel against their mother. And why, with this wealth of power have we, Christian people, not been able to effect the salva- tion of all people who speak our mother tongue? We talk of Christian Unity but we do not believe in it. Were even the people of this city to be of one heart and of one way in the service of (>od what a marvellous change for the better would come to even her material interests. We would attract the attention of the world. But see, dear brethren, the divided Christianity that can scarce oppose the inroads of infidelity. Creed warring against creed. Sect against sect. Will some one show a single grace, or virtue, or liberty in Christ which is not possessed by the 148 UNITARIANS AND OTHER INFILaLS. Church of which I am a Priest? A single one that is necessary to a man's salvation. Why should you remain apart from her ? Is not the Gospel preached? Are not the Sacraments duly admin- istered ? Is it because devout prayers are not of- fered? No, no, for here more than amongst any other people do prayers go up to God, and the Blessed Sacrament of His Body and Blood is cele- brated with every rising sun. Here day by day, not alone in this Lenten season when we follow Him in His sufferings, but through all the year, in the days of His glory and of His triumph as well, we plead His merits and voice His praise. If now we are called to think of those who rent His gar- ments and cast lots upon His vesture, yet the dnys come when we bless Him that His chief vestment was untorn, the symbol of an united Christianity, and we long to hasten the hour of His coming and the ingathering of His elect. O! Divine Jesu! Who on this aay entering into Jerusalem, didst weep over the faithlessness of its people, because they knew not the time of their vis- itation, we humbly implore Thee to turn and soften the wicked, arouse the careless, recover the fallen, restore the penitent, heal all schisms, bring back the wandering, make all men to be of one heart and of one mind, that every soul acknowledging Thee as the one Lord may at last be received by Thee into the one kingdom of Thy eternal love, who with the Father and the Holy Ghost livest and reignest God, world without end. Amen. PreservationTechnologies A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATIOI 1 1 1 Thomson Parte Drive Cranberry Township, PA 16066 (724)779-2111