The comprehensive church

Front matter

ft£

" O GOD, THE CREATOE AND PRESERVER OF ALL MANKIND, MORE ESPECIALLY WE PRAY FOR THY HOLY CHURCH UNIVERSAL ; THAT IT MAY BE SO GUIDED AND GOVERNED BY THY GOOD SPIRIT, THAT ALL WHO PROFESS AND CALL THEMSELVES CHRISTIANS MAY BE LED INTO THE WAY OF TRUTH, AND HOLD THE FAITH IN UNITY OF SPIRIT, IN THE BOND OF PEACE, AND IN RIGHTEOUSNESS OF LIFE. AND THIS WE BEG FOB JESUS CHRIST'S SAKE. AMEN.'"

Book of Common Prayer.

Preface To This Edition

In the year 1841, thirty-seven years ago, the first edition of this book was published by the late H. Huntington, Jr., at Hartford, Conn. The book was read, in the manuscript, by the then Bishop of Connecticut, the Rt. Rev. Thomas Church Brownell, D. D., LL. D., ever to be revered, by whom it was approved and commended. The Rev. George Burgess, afterward the distinguished Bishop of Maine, then rector of Christ Church, Hartford, a very dear and lifelong friend of the author, who was compelled to be absent from that city, read the proofs for him, and kindly saw the book through the press. It had his hearty endorsement.

The phrase adopted as the title of this book was in those days seldom if ever heard ; and the conception embodied in it was little understood or appreciated. The editor of the New York Churchman, the late Dr. Samuel Seabury, a personal friend, of one school in the Church, denounced it, as representing the Church to be an ecclesiastical omnibus, rashly inviting everybody to

18 PREFACE TO THIS EDITION.

a place in it ; while, from an opposite side, the then newly-elected Bishop of Massachusetts, Dr. Eastburn, also a personal friend, belonging to another school in the Church, pnt his brand upon it with his characteristic honesty, as representing the Church to be altogether too democratic. The Church did not then apprehend the receptive capabilities of her divinely catholic constitution. It was not up to the idea presented in this book. The prevailing conception of the Church in those days was, if likened to some sort of vehicle, as the Church thunderer * of that day likened it, that it was a sort of private and proprietary carriage or ecclesiastical hack, in which a few select friends of elective affinities might ride together; or else a sort of ecclesiastical sulky, like those formerly much used in hilly New England, which could carry only one. The idea of The Comprehensive Church is now quite generally accepted, and the phrase is becoming decidedly familiar.

In the course of these years the book, still surviving in a few hands, has been quietly doing a good work, calling the attention of some thoughtful readers to the true character of the Lord's one Church ; and there are at this moment several — a considerable number — of the older clergymen in our communion, who were attracted or aided to their present ecclesiastical relations by its perusal.

* The New York Churchman.

Preface To This Edition. 19

The author has very often, especially during the last fifteen years, while this subject of the extent or of the limits of Church comprehension has been forcing itself upon the consideration of Christian men, been solicited to republish the book ; but the constant pressure of onerous duties in his large missionary diocese has occupied the time required for such an undertaking. Within the last year or two these requests have been so urgently repeated that he has consented to comply with them, and now offers it once more to the public as expressing the unchanged and still more matured convictions of a life already somewhat extended.

The author may be pardoned for saying that, if he was a pioneer in the development of this vast subject of Church comprehension, he has never gone back upon his early record, and can claim at least the award of self-consistency. If lie was somewhat in advance of the majority of his brethren, and has paid some penalty for being so, he has " bided his time," by God's grace, and welcomes, with thanks to God, the new day of tolerance and charity.

The book is printed from the first edition. The references to the canons have been adapted to our more modern Digest up to the General Convention of 1877. The substance of the book remains as it was first published, with only those verbal and minor emendations — the removal of redundancies or the clearer

20 PREFACE TO THIS EDITION.

presentation of ideas — which the limce mora has warranted, and which a review after so long a time has suggested.

The special design of the book is to be borne in mind by the reader. It is not to discuss Church history, nor is it to elaborate what are called Church principles. It deals with no question of the de jure. It touches only the de facto. It takes the Church, as Bishop Brownell expressed himself, " as it is" simply as it finds it to-day, without any hypotheses, assumptions, or explanations — simply as an actual existing system and institution. It does not inquire as to its annals or its theories. It finds it different, as it is, from all other existing systems, in its comprehensiveness ; and the argument of the book is based upon this fact. There are other arguments for the Church as strong as this, perhaps stronger, based upon history or upon abstract principles, or upon Scriptural or patristic investigations. They are all weighty in their places and lines of thought ; but they are not in this book, which follows its own single and independent line of inquiry. Some may appreciate this argument who may not appreciate those. Let us search for the truth wherever and however it may be learned.

Finally, when we have analyzed this present system of the Protestant Episcopal Church as it is, and find it so comprehensive in all its parts, and so admirably ar-

PKEFACE TO THIS EDITION. 21

ranged as a basis for Christian unity and ecclesiastical union, we ask, Who made this system ? Where did it come from ? Churchmen did not invent it nor make it. Many of them do not grasp it. Some of them in spirit are very alien from it. They inherit it from their fathers, and these again from theirs, back to the beginning. If it be not man-made, may not this Comprehensive Church have come, for gathering back into one the scattered flock of Christ, from the Hand and Will of God ? In other words, looking at this system among the other systems around it, and as compared with those of (what the preface of our Prayer- Book calls) "the different religious denominations of Christians in these States," is not its comprehensiveness, which is its distinguishing characteristic, a very strong evidence of its Divine Original ?

But let the reader draw his own conclusions. Any judgment is worth nothing to him, except as it is sincerely, patiently, disinterestedly, and positively his own.

" O GOD, THE CBEATOE AND PEESEEYEE OF ALL MANKIND, . . . MOEE ESPECIALLY WE PEAY FOE THY HOLY CHUECH UNIYEESAL ; THAT IT MAY BE SO GUIDED AND GOVEENED BY THY GOOD SPIEIT, THAT ALL WHO PEOFESS AND CALL THEMSELVES OHEISTIANS MAY BE LED INTO THE WAY OF TBUTH, AND HOLD THE FAITH IN UNITY OF SPIRIT, IN THE BOND OF PEACE, AND IN EIGHTEOUSNES8 OF LIFE. . . . AND THIS WE BEG FOE JESUS CHEIST's SAKE. AMEN."

Prayer for all conditions of men.

Contents

CHAPTEE I.

PAGE

No Christian Union without Ecclesiastical Unity— a Comprehensive Church apparently impracticable — desired by all — one to be proposed in this volume — principles of unity in the Apostolical and Primitive Church — Eornan Catholic and Protestant non-Episcopal Churches all consolidated — not comprehensive — ought to return to primitive principles — a bad habit of the public mind — the true idea of a Church 35

Chapter I

No Christian union without ecclesiastical unity — a Comprehensive Church apparently impracticable — desired by all — one to be proposed in this volume — principles of unity in the apostolical and primitive Church — Koman Catholic and Protestant non-Episcopal Churches all consolidated, not comprehensive — ought to return to primitive principles — a bad habit of the public mind — the true idea of a Church.

The little work here addressed to the Christian public proposes a plan of union to the various denominations of Christians in our country. The writer is convinced that Christian union can never be effected except upon some plan of ecclesiastical unity — some system of a Church broad enough to allow all sincere and humble-hearted disciples of our Lord to unite upon it — a comprehensive system, which shall combine naturally and harmoniously the chief peculiarities of the various denominations in our land.

At first sight it seems impossible that a model of a Church can be proposed which shall bring together into one the systems which now conflict — the very " distinctive peculiarities " which have hitherto separated sects. If, however, a model like this referred to can be found, it will commend itself, of course, to the consideration and approval of all Christian people ; for we are fain to believe that none are desirous to perpetuate the unhappy dissensions of the religious community, and all would be glad to further any plan which warrants a reasonable expectation of unity. Such a model will, in due time, be proposed in this volume.

The grand principles upon which the apostolical and primitive Church was organized seem to have been all embodied in that familiar but noble maxim : " In necessariis unitas ; in non necessariis libertas ; in omnibus caritas " — unity in essentials ; liberty in non-essentials ; love in everything. As far as we can learn from the history of the New Testament, and from the topics discussed in the writings of the earliest fathers, and from the few historical records of the first centuries, this maxim appears to have been very fully and beautifully illustrated.

But the desire of power so natural to man began directly to manifest itself, and the principles embodied in that maxim were soon departed from ; and the long history of the Christian Church, from a very early period, has proved the folly and the danger of leaving the true principles of its organization. From that period to the present there has been a valuable lesson taught to them who will receive it. Would that the lesson may be profitably learned ! It is, that there must be a unity in the Christian Church, and this must be unity in essentials / and that to attempt to go beyond this, and accomplish unity in non-essentials, is inevitably to destroy the purity and the glory of the

Church, and to introduce the most lamentable evils. The lesson has been exemplified most clearly, although differently, in the two great epochs of ecclesiastical history — that which preceded the Protestant Reformation, and that which has followed the Reformation ; it has been exemplified first in the history of the Roman Catholic Church, and next in that of Protestant Christendom, as we will briefly elucidate.

It is evidently a Scriptural truth that the Church must be " one body," both in respect of its external unity and of its infernal unity; and this truth has been acknowledged as a practical and necessary principle by Christians of every name and in every age, the present as well as the past. But the fault, in the case of Protestants* and Roman Catholics alike, has been that their idea of unity has been erroneous and excessive ; that they all have aimed at too much unity ; that in their conceptions they have substituted consolidation for unity ; and that, instead of striving to form simply a united Church, they have been continually striving to make a consolidated Clmrch. Thus if the mind of Christendom had always adhered to its first principles, and had never forgotten that, in order to have " unity in essentials," there must always be allowed "liberty in non-essentials," the monstrous and long - continued scheme connected with the Papacy would never have been originated ; or if it had been possibly originated, it could never have been consummated. The whole scheme of the Roman Catholic Church was a legitimate creation, a gradual result, of the false conception of unity. The Roman Catholic Church was not a united, but a consolidated Church.

So, too, if Protestants (at least in the second generation after the Reformation) had gone back to primitive principles, and had never persisted in their attempts, each to compel the others into an exact agreement with itself, upon points not indispensable to the great end of the Chnrch — the preservation and extension of gospel truth, and the conforming of Christ's disciples to His image — there never would have been the divisions which have sullied the lustre of Protestantism. The countless and conflicting sects of an age in other respects free are the immediate products of the same false conception of unity. Each sect is not a united, but a consolidated Church.

Is it too late to return to first principles ? Is there no wisdom in the history of the past which we may apply to the benefit of the present age ? Ought not the effort at consolidating the Church to be immediately and forever abandoned, when the experience of ten centuries of Papal supremacy, and that of three centuries of Protestant dissension, have given their common and conclusive testimony that the effort is not only abortive but ruinous % Cannot the Church once more have true unity, and, in its future experience, be ever warned to its safety by the two-fold teachings of the past %

In the view of the writer there is a fundamental difficulty, which, it would seem, needs only to be exposed in order to be removed ; and it is that the idea of a Comprehensive Church is, in our day, a new idea. "We have been so much in the habit of looking at churches through the medium of sectarian prepossessions, that the idea seems complicate and difficult of apprehension. The habit of the whole community, through the influences of sectarian education, is invariably to associate contractedness with the mention of a church ; to suppose that there can be no such thing as an ecclesiastical organization except it be exclusive and arbitrary. This is a bad habit ; and it is not one of the least evils of sectarism that it has wrought such a mistake upon the public mind. We wish our readers to lift themselves above this habit, to form in their minds clearly the thought that there can be a Comprehensive Church.

What is a Church % It is an association of all the true disciples of Christ, acknowledging His gospel for their rule of faith and practice, of every variety of personal opinion and talent and temperament and condition. To our mind the very name of a Church suggests the most comprehensive idea. But the. habit of the public thought is different, and we lament the fact. The object of a Church is the continuing and extending of the worship and service of God, according to the gospel ; and when this, the only object of an ecclesiastical system, is effected, all other things should be left in the liberty of nature. A Church founded upon these principles is the only one, we confess, which commends itself to our sympathies ; and we cannot acknowledge one which rests upon a narrower foundation as illustrating the true idea of a Christian Church. We believe there is truth as well as beauty in the pious philosophy (partially quoted on our title page) of the eloquent Lactantius, where he writes : " The only Catholic or universal Church is that which retains the true cultus. This is the fountain of truth, this is the home of faith, this is the temple of God. But, since there are many associations of separatists, who all think that themselves are especially Christians, and each of whom thinks that his own is the Catholic Chnrch, let it be known that only that is the true Chnrch in which are confession and penitence, and which is able to cure the manifold sins and sufferings to which the imbecility of the flesh is subject."

One mark of a true Church must always he its comprehensiveness. This is the prominent idea in that old maxim familiar to controversialists that, one of the marks of a true Church is its catholicity / and for this characteristic, which qualifies it for the accomplishment of Christian unity, we love the ecclesiastical system to which the patient attention of the reader will be presently solicited.

CHAPTEE II.

The Church described in the New Testament as one — proved by Ephesians 4 : 4.

It is proper to remind the reader, in the very beginning of our reasonings, that there is but one Church recognized in the Scriptures, and that in the apostolic age there was no such person known as a Christian who was not a member of this one Church ; the terms were then synonymous. When, at the very first, the doctrines of Christ were preached, and men became converts to his faith, we learn that " the Lord added to the Church daily such as should be saved " (Acts 2 : 47) ; and, at the close of his long and laborious life, St. Paul writes to the Christian believers : " We are all baptized into one body " (1 Cor. 12 : 13) ; and he tells us, in many passages of his epistles, that " the Church is the body of Christ" (Eph. 1 : 23 ; Col. 1 : 24 ; 1 Cor. 12 : 27). It is clear enough, from these and other similar passages, that St. Paul and the other writers of the JSTew Testament did regard the Church as one external society in the midst of the world, testifying to the one Christ and Lord ; and that they never contemplated but one, except as it consisted of local congregations in the unity of one external fellowship.

To dwell upon only a single passage, which is decisive, and is enough, as the Word of God, to compel our assent, we refer to that which is onr motto : " There is one body" (Eph. 4 : 4). St. Paul was exhorting the Ephesian disciples to Christian unity : " I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you, that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace." This exhortation he enforces by several powerful considerations : " There is one body, and one spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling ; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." Here are no less than seven reasons, supposed to be familiar and admitted, for the enforcement of Christian unity. At the head of these stands our motto, " There is one body."

There was, then, but one Church recognized by these Ephesian disciples, and in this fact was a constraining motive to unity. The phrase "one body" lias reference to the external organization of the Church, its outward unity and discipline ; for the word " body " is never employed in reference to any internal emotion or affection ; and, besides, it is followed by the assertion, " there is one spirit," as a separate and independent idea. For still another reason, it cannot mean " one body " in respect of affection, because the fact of there being " one body " is adduced for the very purpose of recommending a unity of affection, and there would be no argument at all, if the apostle is supposed to say : " Be ye all united in affection, because ye are all united in affection." St. Paul was never so weak, so inconsistent, as this. The phrase refers to the external unity of the Church, and thus the argument has great force : " There is one body, that is, one Church. Christ intends to have only one body, and his disciples must therefore keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace, and not divide or rend the body by dissensions, and thus thwart the purpose of Him who is the one Head over all things to the Church, which is His body." Thus this passage is unanswerable evidence that in the inspiration of St. Paul there is not, and ought not to be, but one outward visible Church.

Reminding the reader that the Sacred Scriptures recognize but one Comprehensive Church, and that what the inspired apostles and founders of the Church maintained as great principles of duty have lost none of their force by the lapse of time or by the prevalence of discords (for " heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word," says the Lord, " shall not pass away "), we invite him still to accompany us in the further course of our reflections.

CHAPTEE III. -

Definition of Sectarisra — what it is not — what it is — essentially hostile — not realized.

The Word of God declares that there is not, and ought not to be, but one Church. We propose to show that only one Church is necessary; and indeed, that more than this one, or rather that divisions of this one, prevent entirely the fulfillment of the objects of the Church. We propose then to show, what would otherwise have been appropriate in this place, the principles upon which the one outward and visible body of Christ — the one Comprehensive Church — must be organized.

In the mean time, we wish to illustrate in the present chapter that which is the opposite of the one Christian Church, to define what is meant by sectarism.

What is sectarism ?

It is not diversity of religious opinions. This may co-exist with unity.

It is not diversity of religious customs. This may co-exist with unity.

It is not the association of " elective affinities " — i. e., the intimate communion of persons of similar habits and feelings and characters. This may co-exist with unity.

It is simply a departure from the unity of Christ's one Church ; a forming of a new fellowship of believers, separate from the united fellowship of the previously existing body of believers ; the establishment of a new model of a Church.

No body of men can be called sectaries in any reprehensible sense, until they have proceeded beyond protestation, and even beyond non-communion, to the overt act of constructing a new Church. In this is the essence of sectarism — the rending or dividing of the " one body " of Christ, by the formation of another and (not only separate, but in its nature necessarily)' opposing ecclesiastical organization.

Sectarism originates in a most gross and grievous misapplication and abuse of the Scriptural principle, and the natural desire of unity. It looks for absolute unity, in disregard of the causes which limit the operation of the social principle. It tends to continual separation, in order to secure the most exact assimilation. It looks for agreement in all things ; and when carried out in theory, as it is carried out in fact, it would make each man the single representative of his own sect, whose unity would be a unit.

Contrariety or opposition, hostility, destructiveness toward others, are included in the very nature of sectarism, as may be easily proved. For there is but " one body." The sect is designed to be the model of this one body. The sect is the perfect model ; for if any other had been perfect, there had been no occasion for it. All other churches are defective, unfit to accomplish the legitimate objects of the Church of Christ ; so much so, that all the inconveniences and dangers of a universal change are to be encountered in order to supply the deficiency. All others, being so defective, should be abandoned for the perfect model — should be destroyed ; and the new sect is presented as the one true Church for all.

It may be denied that hostility, as we have represented it, is implied in the very nature of the sect. It may be said that sects are not opposed to each other, but exist harmoniously, one being adapted to one class of human opinion and character, and others to other classes. But all this adaptation of circumstances to the varieties of human opinion and personal character may be found in unity ; so that for it sects are not necessary. And why must there be a new ministry, and new sacraments, and a new Church, and new terms of admission into it, and of communion with it ? And why may not a man join one without being obliged to abandon the others ? And why may he not be a member, in regular standing, of two or more sects at the same time, as he is of all separate local societies or churches of his own sect •? Because sects have no reciprocal sympathies with each other, although Christians have. Because, although Christians desire to love each other, the sects, which hold them captive, are hostile.

This, as we have described it, is sectarism, and these its consequences. Yet we do really believe that the great majority of the Christian people of our land have never troubled themselves to analyze the matter, and have not realized the consequences implied in their sectarian divisions.

CHAPTER IV.

No necessity of divisions in our day — apology for the Continental Reformers — reply to several alleged advantages of divisions and objections to unity — the "Word of God decisive — importance of considering the subject — a state of division a state of sin — indifference the cause of its continuance — Christians should be in earnest to do their duty.

There is no necessity, either of duty or of circumstances, in our age and in our country, for sectarian divisions. There is no reason why there should be more than one Comprehensive Church, at this time, in the United States.

We do not intend, in these pages, to dispute the point whether there ever has been a necessity for divisions in times past ; although we are willing to state our opinion that, if the full scope of the duties of Christian forbearance and of faith in the providence and promises of God be considered, divisions can in no case be excused. But God forbid that we should blame the Continental Reformers ! They were Christian heroes and had glorious hearts. They were men who felt that they had a great work to do ; and they were willing, for its accomplishment, to " jeopard their lives unto the death." Eo wonder if, in their agonizing impatience for the triumph of truth and liberty, they did sometimes err. They were men who, like " the three mighty " of David, were willing to dare thick hosts alone, for the Captain of their salvation ; and if, in a single case, like those valiant ones, these purchased a blessing too dearly, we must remember for their justification that these also had heard the voice of their Captain, saying sorrowfully : " O that one would give me drink of the water of the well of Bethlehem ! "

But, granting for the occasion that in the Kef ormation there was a necessity, in the instances referred to, for a departure from the unity of the Church (and only on this plea of an absolute and unavoidable necessity did the Continental Eef ormers excuse their proceedings), we assert that, in our age and country, there is no sufficient cause nor apology for perpetuating the divisions which are rending the body of Christ. The Word of God commands unity, and there can be no possible good to counterbalance the evil of disobedience.

Not to enlarge, however, upon this supreme authority (one, be it remembered, of tremendous significance, and decisive upon the topic), it will be in order to allude to the position, that various good effects are incidentally accomplished by the diversities of sects. We can conceive of none which shall warrant the violation of the divine command.

Besides, there is abundant reason to believe that these incidental advantages of schism, which are so much boasted of, may after all be accomplished to a much greater extent in a state of unity.

Thus, for an illustration, the preservation of the integrity of the Scriptures, which, some think, is aided by the opposition and watchful jealousy of sects, might be equally secured by unity ; for in a state of sectarian controversy there are multiplied temptations to pervert and corrupt the Scriptures. The zealous sectarian, who should discover some ancient and rare manuscript, might destroy it or change it to suit his purpose — a circumstance which would not be so likely to happen in a state of unity. Indeed, Biblical scholars, who are familiar with the collation of the various readings of the New Testament manuscripts, know that the chief difficulties in settling the sacred text have been occasioned as often by the corruptions of sectaries as by the emendations of critics or the negligence of scribes.

Thus, to take another illustration, the zeal which is said to be the product of divisions is often perverted into extravagance and superstition, and still oftener overmatched by the coldness and skepticism which are another product of the same divisions ; while the history of the first three centuries shows that the most active and heroic zeal is perfectly compatible with the unity of the Church.