^' IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-S) 1.0 I.I !filM IIIIIM III 2.2 I:; IM III 1.8 1.25 1.4 J4 < 6" — ► p /; Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ I I Pages detached/ r~j Showthrough/ I I Quality of print varies/ I I Includes supplementary material/ I I Only edition available/ D Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalemant ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont M film6es A nouveau da fapon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film6 au taux de reduction indiquA ci-dessous. lOX 14X 18X 22X 26X XX J^ 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X D 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to thv: generosity of: Harold Campbell Vaughan Memorial Library Acadia University L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grflce d la g6n6rosit6 de: Harold Campbell Vaughan Memorial Library Acadia University The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the or'qinal copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back covn; when impropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol ^^> (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are fiimed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les images suivantes ont 6x6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, sompte tenu de la condition et de la nettetd de l'exemplaire film6, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimde sont film6s en commengant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont filmds en commengant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole — ^ signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole V signifie "FIN". Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre filmds 6 des taux de reduction diffdrents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul clichd, il est film6 6 partir de Tangle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche 6 droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mdthode. 1 2 3 4 5 6 ■■"*«JJP '^i Churches I i 164 l^St^ *«►! litl THEIR ORIGIN AND CLAIMS ^Lectures bie REV. SAMUEL HOUSTON, M.A. y£C TAMEN CONSUMEBATORr :ii 2.80 .H81 KINGSTON, ONT. : JOHN HENDERSON d CO. >y» A. Mr* I 1 1 I CHURCHES: THEIR ORIGIN AND CLAIMS. LECTURES BY REV. SAMUEL HOUSTON, M.A. NF.C TAMRN COXSUMF.BATUR." KINGSTON, ONT. : JAMES HENDERSON & CO 1892. PREFATORY NOTE. Some two or three months ago, a course of what was called '' Lenten Lectures" was delivered in Kingston, in the lecture room of St. George's Church. In the first of these lectures, all that are not in Anglican communion were pronounced as out of the Church, without a ministry and with no valid sacraments ; with disregard for truth and history, we were all stig- matized as Dissenters. Such unfounded exclusiveness provoked a newspaper controversy, in which the lec- turer had a considerable share. During the course of the controversy, the following lectures were prepared, and were delivered in Cooke's Church. Those that heard them were so earnest in their wish to have them published that I could not well refuse. As they were hastily got up, and as my time is largely occupied in other duties, no very great erudition and no finished style are claimed, as cultured people will at once see. There is just a word that may be said from another point of viev/. If'' Protestant peace " is to be respected, and no one prizes that more than I do, it must be based on mutual acknowledgment of an honourable ^;i ^ 6 kind. If one section of the Catholic Church malrk, His and the "J^ow we Terence :> some, inistry, 'e also is the ime as ngland t may words, m not. I as to nd the lether words they ^ dif- •p ex- ' than refer- ■ our I, the apostle Paul is represented as sendin- for the pres- byters or ciders of Epl^esus to come and meet him at Miletus, and during the course of the address that he gave them, he speaks of these same elders as bishops In the same way the apostle, in writing the l>astoral Epistles wliich are acknowleged to be the latest written 'books of the New Testament except the Revelation, uses the two terms as interchangeable. The tenor of the Epistles is wholly in favour of the theory which we hold, for while we in one place find bishops and deacons, and in another, presbyters and deacons, we in no place find bishops, presbyters and deacons. This position as regards the teaching of the New Testament books is not disputed by the best and the most candid scholars of the Church of England. Men like Alford and Lightfoot and others freely con- cede it It was conceded in the letters that lately appeared in the newspapers. That is all we ask to fortify our position ; we having that testimony are on a safe and sound foundation ; we rest on the nnprcg- nable rock of Scripture. Before going further, let me call attention to a term that is in use, and because of its ambiguity it leads to needless controversy. The term I mean is Episcopate. The churches that make so much of bishops, that seem not to be able to exist without bishops, reproach us because we arc destitute of an Episcopate. Now we beer to say that such a contention is wholly an error •''it is based on an ambiguity. Our Churches are Episcopal Churches ; we have the Episcopate. Our pastors, being overseers of the congregations over 16 \ which they arc set, arc New Testament bishops, and wc say so. Possibly we have not been persistent enough in saying so ; we have not laid sufficient emphasis on it. The word bishop at the time of the Reformation had come to be used in a sense very dif- ferent from that in which it was used in New Testa- ment times, and was, therefore, a word of ambiguous meaning. It was, therefore, dropped out of use by most of the Reformers. It had come to mean the bishop of a diocese with many congregations under him, and presbyters as the pastors of these congrega- tions. This is not the New Testament sense, which was simply the pastor or overseer of a single congre- gation. We shall see before we have done that the scriptural sense did not pass out of use before the ninth or tenth centuries, and very likely not until much later. You will therefore be particular to note that a bishop in the New Testament sense is one kind of officer, and a bishop in the diocesan sense of later times is a very different kind of officer. To be accurate, we should call the latter a dio- cesan bishop, or perhaps the word prelate would be better. If such exactness as this were aimed at, there would be less controversy, less of mere logomachy. I will, therefore, use the words prelacy and prelate as I go on, and so endeavour to avoid ambiguity. The champions of the Church of England, while admitting that at first bishops and presbyters meant the same thing, contend that very soon there was a development into what I have called prelacy. It is alleged that before the first century passed away a A 4 a ops, and ersistent >ufiFicient ( e of the :' /ery dif- '4 V Testa- > 'i biguous ' '? ■•r^ use by ean the s under ngrega- % which congre- ■?' hat the ore the ^ t until i to note is one 1 sense officer. a dio- Jld be .J , there t hy. I if ,■<■ 4"4 te as I •?4 while '5 meant was a It is t vay a 1 17 distinction >^egan to be observed between bishops and presbyters, and a strong effort is made to show that the distinction began to be made in a mild form before all the apostles passed away. This position is not always very boldly maintained; there is a doubtful hesitancy, a disposition to assume it rather than prove it. The only semblance of an argument that can be adduced in its favour rests on the ambiguity of the word bishop. They find the word occurring, and they would fain read into it the modern meaning of prelate, whereas it undoubtedly bears the New Testament meaning of pastor or overseer of a congregation. We admit tiie abuse soon began to creep in, but not in the first century, hardly even in the second century. The earliest writer that speaks of bishops in the prelatical sense is Ignatius, and it cannot be said that any of his Epistles is undoubtedly genuine. The best critics are divided as to whether some two or three of the shorter form were really written by Ignatius, or whether none at all were. Hence the testimony that is borne by that writer is of a very doubtful character. Prelacy entered very gently and grew somewhat slowly, and at length it developed into full-grown Popery. But Popery as we see it took centuries to come to maturity ; indeed, it has taken on new phases in our own day ; to wit. infallibility. And while pre- lacy was developing century after century, and pas.smg by an imperceptible process into Popery, the original Presbyterianism of the New Testament continued for many an age to show itself in a vigorous form. In- deed, we have the best of evidence to show that it was 18 not wliolly rooted out until the Reformation, when it put forth new shoots and bc^an a new era of Hfc with the Hible translated into the vernacular and put into the hands of the people. We may now say a word or two about that word Catholic which has been and still is so often misused. It is a very good word, but it is almost hopeless now to get it put on its proper footing and restored to its true use. Like many other words, it has a history, and we cannot do it justice without knowing its his- tory. It was first use to distinguish Christianity from Judaism. Judaism was particular, that is, for one nation and race ; Christianity was Catholic or uni- versal, that is, meant for all men, for every tribe, tongue and people. By and by it came to mean the orthodox Church as distinguished from the sects, from Monotheism, Arianism, Novatianism, Montanism, and so forth. Then when the Church was split in twain over the Easter controversy and the Filioque controversy, there were two Catholic Churches, one western or Roman, the other eastern or Greek. Now we have all these bodies clamouring each to be the exclusive Catholic Church, namely, the Greek Church, the Church of Rome, and the High Church section of the Anglican Church. If the adjectives Greek, or Roman, or Anglican be prefixed or put before Catholic, then Catholic has no meaning at all in the true sense. There is a sense in which all Christians recognize the decisions of the first four General Councils, and so far there is Catholicity. We all in such a sense can say, and we do say, " We believe in the Holy Catholic I 19 n, when it f life with put into hat word misused. 2less now red to its history, g its his- lity from for one or uni- ry tribe, nean the cts, from ntanism, split in Fih'oque hes, one Now > be the Church, ction of 'eek, or 'athoh'c, e sense, nize the :i so far :an say, Catholic Church," and wc have the ri^^ht to say it. That creed, very ancient, but by no means Apostolic, is the com- mon hcritaL,^c of Christians everywhere, and for any Church to claim a monopoly of it or of the word Catholic is supreme impcrlincnce. I know I am using a strong word, but I do it deliberately : I do it on the best of grounds. Now for some references to the early history of Christianity among our fathers in the old land. As we cannot tell who first preached the gospel in RcMTie, and founded a Church there ; so we cannot tell who first were missionaries in the British Isles. We find a Church at Rome when the apostle sent a letter there, say less than a ciuarter of a century after the crucifixion of our Lord. There were strangers from Rome at Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost, and we may sup- pose that they carried the good news to the imperial city when they went home, and so the Church was formed. We find traces of Christianity in Britam .some time in the second century. The very fact that we have no reliable history of the diffusion of Chris- tianity in either Rome or Britain is in.structive in a most important sense. It shows how utterly foolish the position is of those who make everything depend on what they call the Historic Episcopate, what we more correctly call the tactual transmission of prelatical grace or orders through what is assumed to be diocesan bishops. There were no diocesan bishops for gener- ations after, therefore, the tactual transmission of orders so dear to some people is an historical myth instead of an historic episcopate, a mere figment. Ml 20 I There was an early British Church, there were repre- sentatives from it said to have been present at councils on the Continent, there were martyrs in the heathen persecutions of those days, the most prominent being Alban, from which we have the name St. Alban's. Our knowledge of that Church is not very definite, the picture presented is shadowy. Whatever there was of it seems to have })erished in the Saxon invasion, for when the Saxons came over they were rude worship- pers of idols. If anything survived of that old Brit- ish Church, it disappeared among the mountains of Wales, whither the Britons who escaped extinction withdrew before the war-like Anglo-Saxons. Green says that when Augustine came, sent by Gregory, the very memory of the old British Church had per- ished. We now refer to another source of Christianity, that with which Patrick is connected, and through him, Columba, who founded the institution of lona. Mere, too, as in what is now called England, there is much that is shadowy. Legends have gathered around the early narratives, and it is impossible to separate accurately the fictitious from the real. We are not sure of the birthplace of Patrick, whether it was Scotland or France. He was taken captive when a lad and enslaved in Ireland for a time. He herded cattle in what is now my native '^ounty. There is a conical mountain in full view from the house of my birth and early years, and it was around that mountain that the days of his slavery were spent. Having gained his liberty he fitted himself for being a mis- sionary to the people of the land where his slavery was 1 1 ro rcprc- couiicils heathen -nt bcingr Alban's. finite, the re was of ision, for worship- old Brit- itaiiis of tinction Green ^iregory, lad per- stianity, through >f lona. there is athered iible to 1. We ether it e when herded 3re is a of my untain laving a mis- y was 21 spent. Ills father was a deacon, and his grandfather a presbyter, so he was of Aaronic descent in da)'s when celibacy of the clergy was not prevalent. In- deed, I'atrick and his mission and the Church of Ireland for centuries after that had nothing to do with Rome. The Roman supremacy was not completed much before the time when the whole island was handed over by the Pope to Henry the Second in the twelfth century. This, however, is aniicipating. It is not probable that Patrick was the first to preach Christ in Ireland ; he was the first to reduce the whole people from heathenism to Christianity. His labors were most -bundant, the difficulties to be overcome were very great, but by the blessing of God his efforts were crowned with success. Ireland became not onl)' Christian and civilized, but it became the greatest centre of missionary zeal in the then Christian world. The Irish missionaries went every wlicre, to Great Britain and the Continent of Europe, and made great conquests in the cause of the gospel. Religious houses were established in many localities, and some of these became famous. Here again I have to guard you against identifying these religious houses with the monasteries of later times. The inmates of them were not separated from the world ; they were not recpiired to take a vow of chastity ; there is evidence of some of the residents beinij^ married. In some cases the offices of Abbot passed from father to son for geiierations. The chief characteristic of these houses, as of lona, of which we will speak further on, was that they were seats of learning, colleges, as we would say, where ill 22 i ■ i young men were trained for the sacred office. The heads of the establishments are called by later writers Abbots and Senior Monks or Presbyters, but if we use modern terms to apply to them it would be much more suitable to call the Abbot the President, and the Senior Monks Professors in the seat of learning. They were not lazy idle monks that were found in those houses, but hard-working teachers or professors. We need not doubt that part of their time was spent in working with their hands, whether on the lands that were around the buildings, or in such trades as were useful and profitable. The accounts that are given of the number of bish- ops appointed by Patrick are very puzzling to the mod- ern advocates of prelacy, and great efforts are made to lessen the value of such testimony as has been handed down regarding that point. You have seen the allega- tions that were put forward to destroy the force of the argument that rests on the large number of bishops. There is only one writer, we are told, that mentions that, Nennius, who lived several hundred years after the event, and therefore untrustworthy. It is a legend- ary account, and no reliance is to be placed on it. If in the eighth or ninth centuries a man was disposed to exaggerate the number of bishops, it is a proper ques- tion to ask, what motive was there for doing so ? Was that an age when Presbyterian principles were po- pular? Was Nennius one that wished to manufacture evidence in favour of bishops of the New Testament order? Why, the motive was all the other way. If facts were to be shaped so as to support a theory, then t Iffice. The ter writers t iT we use be much ^» and the learning, ^ound \x\ rofessors. was spent ands that > as were r of bish- the mod- made to fi handed e aJIega- force of bishops. mentions rs after legend- it. U osed to »* ques- Was fe po- acture iment ^. \{ > then 1 •23 the shaping would have been in the direction of lessen- ing the number, rather than of increasing it. The whole trend of events in that age was in the direction of prelacy, rather than in favour of the identity of the presbyters and bishops. But he does not stand alone as alleged. There are other pi oofs in favour of a large number of bishops being in the country. There is a catalogue of the saints of Ireland first published by Archbishop Ussher, and supposed to have been written not later than the middle of the eighth cen- tury, and the following words arc found in it : " Tlie first order of Catholic saints was in the time of Patrick, and then they were all bishops, famous and holy,a!id full of the Holy Ghost, three hundred and fifty in number, founders of churches." Philip Smith, himself belong- ing to the Church of England, so far as I know, in his Students' Ecclesiastical History, and all the Smith series of books are regarded as of high standing, says in a note, part of which is a quotation from Burton : •* The bishops consecrated by St. Patrick in Ireland were reckoned by hundreds. One of the most moder- ate of the estimates makes them 365, one for each day in the year. When Ireland was subjected to the Papacy, these were converted into rural deans." There are other witnesses that might be brought forward, but what we have put on the stand are enough. It is a notorious fact that for centuries after bishops were numerous in Ireland, and as the Papacy gradually acquired control of the Church tne efforts that were strenuously put forth were to lessen the number and 24 bring them more and more into the position of diocesan bishops, which they were not before, but were over single congregations. Even Dr. Reeves, himself one of the most noted of the antiquarians among the prelates of Ireland, confesses that the territory under a bishop in Down was more like a parish than a diocese. That our friends in the late controversy were so desperate, I might almost say unscrupulous, in discrediting the statement of Nennius, shows how much importance they attached to such a fact. Whether Nennius was reliable or not was of trifling importance with me. As we base our doctrine and polity on the Holy Scrip- tures, I had nothing at stake, but it seemed to be a matter of life and death with them. You see, there- fore, how his statement is corroborated by several others, and that by witnesses who would fain have it otherwise. The inferences to be made arc obvious. These bishops of Patrick's time, and for centuries afterward in the Irish church, were bishops of the Nevv Testa- ment type, not prelates or diocesan bishops, as bishops have been in later times. They were pastors of con- gregations, and each had a number of presbyters, or elders, under him. Thus we have a testimony that cannot be overthrown by any cross-examination in favour of the continuance up to that time of the New Testament polity of bishops and presbyters being in- terchangeable terms, as we shall see it was far from being a solitary instance of that early polity. We will find the same in Scotland, and the same is found in France, where it is possible Patrick came from. -J 2.5 of diocesan were over iself one of he prelates r a bishop :ese. That desperate, diting the nportance nnius was ^ me. As 'ly Scrip- d to be a ee, there- '/ several 1 have it These fterward ^ Testa- bishops of con- /ters, or ny that Ltion in ic New ing in- r from Ve will und in You will also notice that the Church of Rome has no claim whatever on Patrick and the work done by him and the church that he established by the blcss- ini^ of God. It was centuries after that before the Church of Rome ^^ot a footing in the Island, and the strug£,^lc that the Irish Church made to maintain its indepl-ndcncc was long and fierce. How long are we of the Reformed Churches by our silence and inaction to allow the Church of Rome to monopolize the patron saint of Ireland? Many, it is to be feared, do not know the facts of the case as I have stated them very briefly here, and many others are careless to inquire. This should not be so. We should take pains to acquire and diffuse information of this kind, and be ever asserting our rights. We should never let an opportunity slip of declaring what we believe to be the true history of the early Irish Church, and of Patrick in particular. We now go on to tell of the missionary labours of the followers of Patrick, and particularly of Columba and the Collegiate institution he set up in the Island of lona, a mission that was the means of spreading the Gospel all over North Britain and even into the northern parts of iMigland. lie is better known to many by the name of Columbkille. lie was born in County Donegal, and after he was forty years of age, he with twelve others set sail for Dcrry in a rude boat of the time, and reached Scotland, where in some way the Island of li or lona was given him for a settle- ment. Here was the centre of his labours for the rest of his life, and for many generations it was a great 26 centre of learning and of Gospel light for far and wide. The religious house which he founded was not a monastery as monasteries were known at the time of the Reformation, but of the kind I spoke of as abound- ing in Ireland. The inmates were not bound by vows of chastity, and they could go and come as they pleased. It was simply a college of the kind suited to those primitive times, and numerous youths were trained in it, and sent out to evangelize among the Picts and Scots, and to act as ministers or bishops of the apostolic kind. The presbyter-abbot and his monks ordained, and many bishops were under the jurisdiction of the college, or as we would call it in modern times, the college faculty, with the abbot as the president or principal. Other institutions of the same kind were founded in various parts of Scotland, the following being but a few of the places that might be mentioned : Abernethy, Dunkeld, Brechin, Dun- blane, St. Andrews and x^berdeen. Some of these survived until the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. There was a great conflict before they were reduced under the authority of the Church of Rome. There arc many testimonies that might be given from Roman Catholic writers bearing on the purity of the character of the Culdees, as they came to be called. As regards the doctrines that were taught, and their persistent opposition to Romish influence, so much opposed were they to the Roman emissaries, that presbyter-abbots who were bishops of the New Testa- ment type, and were often called so, refused even to eat at the same table with the clerics that the Pope sent. I far and wide. 1 was not a t the time of fas abound- und by vows tne as they ind suited to souths were among the bishops of »ot and his i under the d call it in le abbot as tions of the f Scotland, that might =hin, Dun- e of these centuries, e reduced e. There ven from rity of the be called, and their so much ries, that ■\v Testa- ^en to eat ope sent. ^1 As in Ireland, so in Scotland, the heads of the Culdee houses were given preferment in the Church, m order to win them over. They were not wholly suppressed until within a measurable distance of the Reformation itself and there is no doubt that the teachings of the Culdees had some influence on that great movement, and especially on the thoroughness with which it was effected in North Britain. The missionaries rom lona were the first to win the Saxons of the north of England to Christ, and the first bishops of that region .at their ordination from the presbyters of lona. When it was suggested in the late newspaper con- troversy that lona gave bishops to England, it was very sturdily denied, but the evidence from many sources is too strong to admit of its being questioned. Fven Lightfoot, the late Bishop of Durham which is the region where Aida.n, Colman and others from lona laboured, admits it. There has been no prelate m England for generations of greater rank in scholar- ship or c.en judgment and sagacity superior to Bisl^op Lightfoot. They who deny the facts of history here referred to, show either their ignorance or then- prejudice in favour of a theory to which they are wedded. Here again we have incontestable evidence that the establishment at lona and all her daughters and missionaries were irreconcilable in their opposition to Rome I cannot do better here than quote Light- foot's own words on this point : " The independence of the Celtic missionary is a patent fact, and stands out in strong contrast to later evangelistic movements in western Europe. Rome neither initiated nor con- 28 trolled these Celtic missions. The missionaries owed allegiance not to the bishop of Rome, but to the presbyter-abbot of lona. There is no evidence that they sought or accepted any authoritative direc- tions from the Roman mission in the south of Eng- land. Their usages were different in many respects from the usages of Rome. When these came under discussion, and it was a question between allegiance to lona and allegiance to Rome, they unhesitatingly chose the former. It is probable, indeed, that if asked they would have granted a certain precedency to the great patriarch of the west, the bishop of the world's metropolis, though of this there is no evidence ; but it is quito plain on the other hand that in their eyes he had no constitutional right to command them. Ro- man direction is treated as absolutely valueless by them ; Roman wishes are disregarded. Sooner than abandon the traditions and customs of lona for those of Rome, they retire altogether from the field, leaving the rich fruits of their labours to others at the very moment when the harvest is fully ripe. The abbot of lona, the successor of Columba, is their acknowledged ruler, the ruler even of bishops, though only a simple presbyter, their superior in ecclesiastical office, though their inferior in spiritual functions. From him they receive their commission, though not their consecration; and to him they render their account. The bishop of Rome is in no sense their master." You will see that in these latter statements the impartial scholar and historian is subordinated to the Churchman who is wedded to prclac}'. There is not the slightest aries owed Ibut to the dencQ that ive direc- th of Eng- ly respects me under allegiance esitatingly at if asked ^cy to the he world's ce; but it ir eyes he em. Ro- u el ess by ^ner than for those '> leaving the very abbot of >\vledged a simple . though Jm they aeration; 'shop of >ee that lar and who is Jghtest 20 evidence to show that they did not receive their con- secration from lona ; all the evidence is in the opposite direction, as we shall now see. Mere again you will see fresh illustration of the fact already alluded to that Rome had nothing to do with Patrick and the found- ing of the Irish Church, and can claim no credit in that good work. The establishment of lona was by a child of the Irish Church. Columba went from Ire- land, and the date of his crossing over in the rude coracle boat was about a century after the death of Patrick. Columba's labours continued for about thirty years, and the account that wc have of his death is touching and pathetic as well as beautiful. It is in these words that Professor Mitchell, of St. Andrews, describes his end : " The day before he died, ascending the hill which overlooked the monastery and its little farm, he stood surveying it for some time, and, lifting up both his hands, bestowed on it his parting blessing. Returning to his hut, he resumed his daily task in transcribing the Psalter, and proceeding t(j the place where it is written, * They that seek the Lord, shall not lack any good thing,' ' Mere,' he said, at the close of the page, ' I must stop : what follows let Baithene write,' indicating him apparently as his successor. After some time he lay down to rest, but when the bell for matins rang, he hastened to the church, and, ere the brethren could join him, he had fainted before the altar. Unable to speak, he made a feeble effort once more to raise his right hand to bless them, and with joy beaming in his face, passed to his rest and reward." We now come to discuss the tjuestion as to whether 111 irder, must ^rnit that presbyter- dispute is lot ordain bh'shment ismit the of of the article of definite 31 statement made by an old writer that there was no bishop at lona. Of course the statement was made in that form in an age when Vjisliops were thought of in the diocesan sense, that is, as bishops are regarded in the Anglican and Romish Churches. In the simple, imaffectcd age when Columba lived, and on until emissaries from Rome came on the scene, the presbyter was regarded as possessed of all the rights and privi- leges which in later days belonged exclusively to prelates. They speak as a matter of course, as if it were an every-day occurrence when the abbots and elders ordained and even consecrated, if we are at liberty to use two such words of the usages of those times. To ordain a priest and to consecrate a bishop is the language that is used now in some cjuartcrs. The strong presumption is that at that time but one term was used, and that was appoint, or designate, or ordain ; the word consecrate, as it is used now by pre- latical churches, was unknown to the professors of lona and the Culdees that came after. And the bishops themselves who were appointed and sent forth to be missionaries, so far as we have any traces of their writings, always speak of having come from the elders of lona, and when their work is done, whether successfully or unsuccessfully, they go back and report to the college of elders, no reference being ever made to a bishop that consecrated them, or to whom they report as being lords over God's heritage. The bishop, if there was one in the diocesan sense, is uniformly ignored ; he is kept in the background. The fact is, there was no such bishop, and so there was no need to 32 speak of him, to make any reference to him. And mark the force which the testimonies of later writer^ have, a force that they themselves never dreamed of, and therefore it is all the more telling ; in fact the more we study it the more overwhelming it is. The later writers, Henry of Huntingdon and others, lived in days when prelacy was all but universal, when, except in out-of-the-way places, there was nothing else, and in their simplicity and straightforwardness they speak of the facts they record as being strange. As early as the time of Bede we are told that for an abbot to have jurisdiction over bishops is a very strange custom. It is something he cannot understand, and of which he can give no explanation. It was not so very strange, however, if his knowledge of things in neighbouring countries had been wider. The custom of earlier times had not died out in France, for instance, when Bede lived. But strange as the custom was, he sets it down, when, if he had had his will, the custom would not have been allowed to continue. He would fain have had it otherwise, but he does not hesitate to put down what he knows, and so far as he knows it. And so with others. There is no attempt to manipu- late facts to fit in with theories. No, such a thought never entered the minds of the men of that age. They give no hint of a bishop that was kept for the purpose of consecrating or ordaining, and the reason why no reference was made to such a bishop is the best reason that can be given : there was none. If in the ninth or tenth centuries there had been any of those trouble- some fellows, the Presbyterians, those obstinate, self- to him. And of later \vritcr> r dreamed of, S ; in fact the ig it is. The I others, h"ved I i versa!, when, was nothin^r It forwardness ^^n-ig strange. 1 that for an I very strange ierstand, and ■ was not so of things in The custom , for instance, tom was, he the custom He would t hesitate to e knows it. to manipu- ^ a thought tage. They the purpose on why no best reason he ninth or se trouble- tinate, self- t •f 33 willed fellows that are as blind as not to see any particular grace in the touch of prelates' hands, those that make up bodies, but not worth)' of being called churches, then they might have been charged with making such history as we have in these matters, especially as to the absence of a bishop at lona. Well, there were some Presbyterians even then — they bore the title of Culdees— but the witnesses that are brought forward are not of that class. The witnesses are Bede, who was a good Catholic, as some of our neighbours would say, the writer of the Saxon Chronicle who was the same as Ikde, and Giraldus Cambrensus, who was made a prelate in Wales in the twelfth cen- tury. And still another, John of Fordun, testifies that, " The Scots had as teachers of the faith, and administrators of the sacraments, only presbyters and monks, following the custom of the primitive church." At a later age a prelate was very angr}- with Fordun for saying so, calling him a " dreaming monk." It was the same monk that wrote that "Columbawas held in such pre-eminence among the inhabitants of Ireland that he is said to have confirmed and consecrated all the Irish bishops of his time." In conclusion, let me refer in a word or two to a strange doctrine that was set forth in a letter that appeared in one of the papers a few days ago. It was assumed that as there are hundreds of sects, and all of them appealing to the Bible, we might as well give up the notion of making it a standard of doctrine and life. And what is it that he will substitute as a standard which he assumes will produce agreement ? 3 ! 1 34 Why, history ; of all things in the world, history ! I have two good and sufficient reasons for not accediii<,r to the proposal. The first is that we arc not ready yet to abandon the Scriptures as an authority— I ha\ < no intention of doing that— to the law and the testi- mony. That is my main reason. The .second is that there is not the slightest reason to expect that history would produce any more unity than at present. Is history free from bias ? The best of our histories are full of the men that write them, and they cannot be otherwi.se. The historian does his best to represent facts, but he also puts his impress on them. And 1 might add a third reason. The gentleman who puts forth this panacea for all the ills of division in religious matters has appealed to history, and his theory is not much helped by it yet. His security, on which he laid so much stress, is not any more secure than it was. I fear it has suffered somewhat in the controversy. Let us cultivate a spirit of fairness in all that we do ; let us give facts their due place and due importance, and pray for heavenly aid; and while we may differ in some things, we will, as regards essentials, reach, as indeed we have reached, a far greater degree of unit}- than many suppose. )rld, history ! t for not acccdiii" : arc not rcacl\ ithority — I haw ' and the testi e second is that >cct that history at present. Is iir histories arc :hey cannot be St to represent them. And I man who puts sion in reh'gious is theory is not in which he laid than it was. I itroversy. Let lat we do ; let nportance, and may differ in itials, reach, as egree of unit}- LECTURE SECOND. CHURCHES: THEIR ORIGIN AND CLAIMS. ^]hH LECTURE SECOND. CHURCHES: THEIR ORIGIN AND CLAIMS. T N my former lecture I bc^an by proviaj; th.a the 1 polity of theCburcb. to vvhich wc bclont; is founclod, as to its main features, on the Word of God. An es-=ential of that polity is the equal rank of mmisters, and in favour of the scriptural authority of that pos.fon wc appeal to the inspired Scriptures of the New Testa- ment We have seen tli^t those writinjjs ^'ivc no un- certain sound as to the identity of the presbyter and bishop The best scholars of the Church of En^rland arc at one with us as to Scripture teaching' on that point Alford, Dean of Canterbury; I.itjhtfoot, th.e late liishop of Durham ; Jacob, one of tlie latest V titers on Kcclesiastical l'oUt>-, and many others sup- port us there. When we arc told that, on appeal to Scripture on such a point as that, we arc treadnig on stale -round, we think that a strange and unwarrant- able statement to make. Is Holy Scripture and what is plainly taught there ever to be callcc stale ? 1 hat misht be lansjuage to be expected fron, , ibehevers or eve,i sceptics, but when it co.rtes from a minister of a Christian Church, it is hard to give it a just charac- terization. The Bible and the Bible alone is the reli- .S8 "J I gion of Protestants, so a well-known divine of the Church of England said, and we endorse that. There is no dispute then, as we have seen, as to that point. What is disputed, but not to any very serious extent, is as to when prelacy took its rise and what character it bore. In other words, when did people begin to make a distinction between bishops and presbyters, and what was the nature of that distinction ? To what extent did the rank of a bishop exceed that of a presbyter? It is admitted by all Vvhose opinion is worth regarding that there was no difference when the era of inspiration ended ; in fact, one of the proofs given by Bishop Lightfoot of the identity of the two officers we have named is taken from Clemens Romanus, who was of the generation succeeding the apostles. It is claimed, however, that the Episcopate in the later sense, began to take on some " rudimentary " forms before the first century passed away, at least in the Jewish part of the Church, but not at all so early as that among Gentile Christians. Where a difference of that kind began in a sort of imperceptible way, and the growth vvas slow, it is impossible, as all can see, to fix down a date and say absolutely that before this there was no trace of it, but after this, and from this point, there are rudimentary traces to be discerned. As re- gards the growth of what we may call the prelatical idea, it could not well be put better than it is done by Bishop Lightfoot. There is hardly a word that he says on the subject of the growth that we need hesi- tate to endorse. lie speaks of three stages clear and marked that lie between the rudimentary beginning [ivine of the hat. There that point. •us extent, is character it gin to make '^Vters, and ? To what that of a opinion is ce when the proofs given two officers •manus, \vht> )stJes. It is b later sense, :>rms before the Jewish arly as that snce of that ly, and the ' see, to fix ^ this there this point, ■d. As re- prelatical is done by 'd that he need hesi- clear and beginning .39 and the full-blown prelacy as it showed itself These three stages arc represented by Ignatius, Ireneus, and C)'pricin respectively, and two generations of time separate these men in each case. In the first stage, the bishop was no more than a /wnti of /nntj> ; he was the first among eciuals, a sort of permanent moderator, the idea being that such superiority would give more coherence to the system in the face of persecution from without and threatened divisions from within. In the second stage the bishoj), as distinct from the presb)tcr, was the representative of what was alleged to be (i/^ostoiic tcachin^q, what might more directly be called apostolic tradition. In other words, there was added to the rule which Ignatius represented an authority in matters of doctrine, and of this step forward Ireneus is the representative. The third stage, represented by Cyprian, two generations further on in time, is quite a stride further forward, when the bishop be- comes so pompous and important a person as to claim to be Christ's viccgeroit on earth. It is not alone apostolic order and apostolic teaching that are claimed, but the power of Christ Himself Mere is not only prelacy, but the bud of Popery itself, and so we migl.t fo.low up and discern the steps that led to Ponery. \W rieed not wait to discuss the need for a prelate, the necessity that was in the stress and strain of the times for something different from or a development out of the primitive order of Paul and those that were associated with him. There we are dealing with what is of human authority and human expediency, and all that is in contrast with the inspired writings, or may — ~~l ^ 40 : i; in a sense be a sort of development out of what Paul and other apostolic men laid down. Our position is that we go back behind the fathers and their surround- ings and dangers, and plant our feet on the inspired Word of God. Scripture is sufficient for us, and it is the only sufficiency and only surety. If so then we may be asked, why refer to history at all ? We reply that we never appeal to history as an authority ; we appeal to it as history, nothing more. But for what purpose ? As illustrative of two things. First, we see an illus- tration of how men, when they resort to expediency and mix • ^'innan philosophy with the gospel, depart far from pri v ^'^ a "bare shadow of that even ho is pre. '^s bishop, at he ever respectable •stoiic suc- Ji'storian of ^ %ment ■''e proved h Church, and upon. ^<^ an axe •e used in "e came, in what n Terence hops or i'hnitive ig- to do reds oi 45 the Welsh monks were murdered by the Saxons, it \iras looked upon as a just judj^ment on them because they did not submit to Aup^ustine, and it was regarded as in accord with a prophecy of Augustine at the time. So much for succession from that quarter. Freeman's testimony is of the same nature as Green's. He regards the Church of England as even more the child of Rome than any Church on the continent of Europe. And then supposing that the succession from the old British Church could be proved, there would be a difficulty of the same kind, if not greater, to con- nect the historical steps of conversions in Britain with the apostles. The thing is utterly unhistorical. What does Bishop Lightfoot say of the first bishops of Rome, as some call them, or the first Popes, as others call them, and the historical basis on which they rest ? As regards discrepancies in lists that are presented by early writers, he says " they may be explained by assuming two distinct Churches in Rome — a Jewish and a Gentile community — in the first age ; or they may have arisen from a confusion of the earlier and later senses of Episcopos " (that is the word which is translated bishop). Further on he says : " With the many possibilities of error, no more can be safely assumed of Linus and Anecletus than that they held some prominent position in the Roman Church. But the reason for supposing Clement to have been a bishop is as strong as the universal tradi- tion of the next ages can make it. Yet, while calling him a bishop, we need not suppose him to have attained the same distinct isolated position of authority 46 i I which was occupied by his successors, Eleutherus and Victor, tor instance, at the close of the second century, or even by his contemporaries, Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna. He was rather the chief of presbyters than chief over the presbyters. Only when thus limited can the episcopacy of St. Clement be reconciled with the language of his own epistle, or with the notice in his younger contemporary Hermas." When commenting on other names that follow, coming to near the middle of the second century, he says : " With Pius the next in order, the office, if not the man, emerges into daylight." That is to say, the links of tactual transmission in the judgment of Bishop Lightfoot have no clearness for at least seventy years after the death of Peter and Paul, and what is essential to the theory of such transmission is not into daylight even then. It is only the office, not the man that is in the light, so even here we are far from being on safe ground. If that be surety to rest on, we do not envy those who find consolation in such surety. I am confident those who are present here, as well as thou- sands of others in this city, find a better surety in the Word of God, and it is at the same time simpler and more easy of attainment than the search through such doubtful lists. But I have not done with what writers of the Church of England have to say on the matter. This is what Jacob says : " If from the consideration of the conclusive argument, derived from the absence of all scriptural authority, we turn to matters of fact and historical experience, we may see some who pro- fess to have this apostolic succession, teaching vain 47 th )f m )e )r »> traditions and gross errors instead of apostolic truth : and some, who make no pretensions to it, and are not even episcopally ordained, altoi^^ether sound in doctrine and in practice, and witli as true seals of their ministry among their people as St. Paul had of his apostleship among the Christians at Corinth." *' Of an apostolic succession which is not commanded by the apostles, nor nicntioned in the New Testament, which professes to transmit powers, never, as far as we know, by the apostles either received or given, which secures no soundness in the faith, but lends itself to error, as readily as to truth, which can exclude the best as well as include the worst of ministers, and which would leave every Church in doubt about the validity of its ministrations and very existence ; it is surely not too much to say that it "is a fond thing vainly in- t^ented," and grounded on no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God." These are a very few of the testimonies that may be adduced from the very best of Church of England divines in regard to the apostolic succession, and they prove two things which I ask all to note carefully and remember hereafter when talking with neighbours, namely : first, that the theory is utterly baseless, an imagination, a figment, a delusion ; and, secondly, it is not a doctrine of the Church of England. Although our neighbours presume to speak for that Church, they do not speak for it; what they teach is repudiated by a multitu.'f of the best men in it and by the authoritative standards of that Church. Here, as is the rule in other cases, one error rt i 4 48 leads to other errors. Back of the theory of the succession lies sacerdotah'sm, which means that, in- stead of a Christian ministry whose work it is to de- clare the counsel of God, we would have a priesthood that would stand between the people and God. I am aware that there is a comparatively harmless use of the word priest, while there is a use of the word that is revolting to all true Christians, and ought to be. In the Church of England the words presbyter and priest are used as interchangeable terms, and etymologically they arc the same word, but the word priest, as used by an evangelical member of a prelatical Church, has one sense, that is, as differing nothing of any import- ance from what we mean by a minister, while it is used by one ritualistically inclined in a very different sense, that is, as a priest in the Old Testament sense, a man who comes between the soul and God, and repre- sents the laity, so called, before God. In other words, the priest in the latter sense is a man who offers sacrifice and burns incense. That is the position that the full-blown ritualist assumes, such men as we have had to deal with in this controversy. I do not hold the Church of England or any of her daughters directly respon- sible for this, that is to say, any further than that Church has passively permitted such sacerdotalism to be practised within her pale. Whether the prelatical Churches were justified in allowing such an abuse to go on under the shelter of their wings, it is not for me to say. I prefer to leave such questions to be settled by these Churches themselves. 1 am aware of the diffi- culties that are in the way, and I know how faithfully 49 ;t many individuals of those Churches, both oftheclci^y and the laity, raise their voices acjainst the evil. According to the best authorities of the prelatical Churches themselves such priestly functions were not assumed by the Christians of at least the first two centuries. According to Lightfoot, Tertullian was the first to put forth openly such a claim as may be called priestly, and he was not converted until the last de- cade of the second century. The same writer ascribes the evil leaven to Greek influence, in other words, to heathen importation, but Jacob is inclined to think " it was in part, at least, Jewish in its origin." Where- ever it came from, it was subversive of the true spirit of Christianity as it is now when taught and practised by those of the ritualistic school. All who hold Chris- tianity dear should be careful to resist in every way in their power the introduction of a priest between the soul and the Lord Jesus Christ. Such a leaven is fatal to the New Testament idea of salvation, and to the teaching that all the people of the I>ord now are a spiritual priesthood. If the priesthood be sanctioned, the confessional and absolution are not far off; and, indeed, in some quarters are not in any wa)- disguised. Where is the man that has anything of the man in him, that will for a moment think of having his wife or daughter or sister pass through the cesspool of a confessional ? You will all hold up your hands in pro- test against such a practice. The apostolic succession, the priesthood, the confessional are never far apart from one another. Let each be treated as a part of an organized whole that embraces all and a great deal more than I have mention '^d above. 4 i ; / I 60 Having disposed of the claim as to apostolic succGiJ- sion, we may be permitted to say a few words as to the claims of antiquity which some people of the Church of England make as compared with that of the Church of Scotland. Let it be understood that we are not very anxious to count the number of grey hairs that are on our venerable mother's head — I mean the Church of Scotland — we did not raise the question. It is when a slight is attempted to be put on us in that connection that we are inclined to resent it, of course in a piayial way. If some of those who pre- tend to speak for our sister church were not so in- clined to take airs to themselves because of their age and aristocratic pedigree, we would hardly think it worth while to say a word. At any rate the aristo- cratic feeling in the matter of Church relations might be allowed to rest. We thought that the writer of the Epistle of James had settled such a question as that long ago. There are people in this world that set a great deal on tone, as it is called, as regards Churches, but when it comes to the great day of account it is very doubtful, or rather, it is not at all doubtful if tone will count for much. The aristocracy that is so large in the eyes of some here will be very small in some cases there. Well, then, v/hat is to be said on such an important topic, now that it is forced upon us ? We have heard in letters that we have read that a certain institution is nearly 1900 years old, and that a perfect identity has been maintained all that time. " Men may come and men may go, but I go on for ever." We are just the same as we were nearly 1900 years 61 ago. We were called Popish for some centuries. We gave a good deal of adulation to Ronie ; we for cen- turies sent a good many pence to the so-called vicar of Christ there, and then we were called Protestantj;, but that is a misnomer ; people spoke of a Reformation, but that is a word which we repudiate ; at least, we do not like it, we do not speak often of it, and we would be glad if you did not say much of it. There was, of course, a R' formation on the Continent, and there was one up north there in Scotland among those half-bar- barians, with their unspeakable Scotch lingo, but in England there was no revolutionary Reformation ; a little change only, a ripple on the surface, that was all. Lanfranc wai: in Canterbury, so was Cranmer, and so on with the others that were before as well as after that nasty man whose name we do not want to name, Henry the Eighth. But seriously, t«here must be lopped off a little from that 1900 years that have been dinned into our ears. I do not want to be anything but court- eous, but I do not feel disposed to go further back than Augustine, and I concede a good deal when I do that. We'll say, A.D. 597, that is, in round numbers, thirteen centuries instead of the nineteen. But the Church of Scotland on the same principle has as good grounds for going back to the settlement of Columba in lona, and beginning her age then. In that case we arc older by more than thirty years. Columba's settlement dates from 565. We are quite willing to have this question adjudged for us by impartial and unprejudiced umpires ; we are prepared to leave it to arbitration. What is there that can be said of the claims of the one, to begin with r K f ..- i 52 Augustine, that cannot be said of the claims of the other, to begin with Columba ? The Church of England is the legal heir of the status, buildings, income, and so forth, of the Church that was in the country before the Refor- mation ; in like manner the Church of Scotland is the legal heir of the Church that was in the northern part of the Island prior to the Reformation. It is true tb. wealth of the northern Church was very much dim- inished at the Reformation because of greedy and graspinfT nobles who laid unholy hands on a part of it, and wc arc sorry for it ; that, however, was not the fault of the Church, though it was her misfortune. That cannot be held to affect the succession, however, and here we are not speaking of the succession that consists in tactual transmission of episcopal grace , it is altogether another kind of succession we are speak- ing of. If those who advocate the claims of the southern Church point to a succession of men who in dark days were more or less evangelical in their preaching, and who were resolute in their endeavour to limit the foreign ecclesiastical domination, those that speak for the northern Church can point to no less, but more, of the same kind; they can take pride in the Culdees and the Lollards who, up to the very eve of the Reformation, were more or less loyal to Gospel truth and resolute in their resistance to foreign ecclesi- astical tyranny. In all modesty, wc think that the claim we make for being fully the equal of our sister in antiquity is successfully made out, and we move the court of arbitration for judgment on our behalf. As regards those thirty odd years that are in our ji 53 favour, we promise that we will not put on too many airs, we will be a modest sister, no more. But re- member, there are c'. be no more disownings of us as in time past ; no more of that arrogance which was as unmannerly and ill-timed, as it was ill-founded. We stipulate that no more coy advances be made towards Italy or Constantinople, for you have been snubbed enough from those quarters, and it is true our sister should know and recognize a rebuff when she receives one from creatures that are of none the best of char- acter. With such lovers, pure maidens, even though they be somewhat advanced in life, should have no dealings whatever. When we come to look at the Reformation in the two countries and make, as we may make, a candid, friendly and frank criticism of what in the providence and orrace of God was actually accomplished, we have this to say, at least, that what came out of it in England cannot be affirmed to be superior to what came out of it in Scotland. In north Britain the principle that the Re- formers set before them was to cut off and uproot all that Scripture did not positively warrant, while in south Britain everything not positively forbidden was allowed to remain. Consequently, the work was much more thoroughly done in the north than in the south. There were in England many that were disposed to go a great deal beyond what was done ; men that were represented afterwards by the Puritans. This large section were heart and soul with the Reformers on the Continent and their brethren across the border, but they were restrained by the Crown. The intolerant and il 54 bigoted obstinacy of the Tudors, and at a later date of the Stuarts, was such that the free action of the reforming party, the party that was really leavened with the Gospel, was hampered, and the progress was arrested when they had gone little more than half way. The legislation that was effected put a yoke around the neck of the Church, and it has in large part hung there to this day, to the wounding of many both within and without the Church of England. If the tolerance of later days had been understood and practised, if the Puritans had been retained instead of driven out, and at one time very little would have sufficed to keep them, what a blessing it would have been for the country at large as well as for the world? If the leading churchmen had only been of the temper of Archbishop Ussher, and the ministers of the Crown, or even the sovereign himself, had been different, the schisms would have been avoided. In that case the two tendencies would have reacted on one another, and the Church of England would not have had the bitter foe she has to-day in the powerful and influential body of Dissent that is in the land, and that is more and more a great factor in legislation. As the Church is so much thecreature of parliament, the punishment of formersins tells all the more on her. When all this is considered, our neighbours, instead of assuming superior airs should be humble ; instead of unchurching others, they should be very thankful that they are not unchurched. If we stood on stepping stones with her and remem- bered the persecutions our fathers endured at the hands of their fathers ; if we called to mind the 65 twenty-eight years of the " kilh'ng time," we would have nothing to do with them for their fathers' sake. That we are willing after all to acknowledge her as a sister ought to elicit a response of a very different kind. That we do so should encourage them to aim, at having the remaining shackles of an irksome kind stricken from her limbs, so that she may stand forth in true freedom as a spiritual Church, no longer leaning on the crutches of Acts of Parliament. A Church, we think, should legislate for herself, and not be depen- dent for legislation on an assembly of men, many of whom are hostile to her, and some of whom are not believers in the Christian religion. Another phase of the history of the two Churches is seen in the character of the secessions that have gone out from them. As we look at these secessions in the one country and the other, may we not reach con- clusions which bear both on the characteristics of the two peoples, and the extent to which in each case the people were leavened by the principles of the Refor- mation ? The secessions that took place in England are represented by such Church bodies as the Congre- gationalists, the Baptists and the Methodists. We need not here refer particularly to the Presbyterians, though in Wales there is a strong, numerous and influential Church of that persuasion. In Scotland there are such secession Churches as the Free Church, the United Presbyterian Church, and a number of smaller Churches of the same order. Now mark the relation in which dissent stands in each country towards the national Church. In north Britain those that dissent are no ■■*■ 56 less Calvinistic in doctrine and Presbyterian in govern- ment than the national Church is, but more ; at least the claim that they make is that they are more that than the mother Church from which they broke off. In breaking off from the State they believed, and their descendants now believe, that there is a better oppor- tunity to work out both doctrine and polity in Free Churches than when hampered by State control. Of course, I am not concerned here as to whether they were right or wrong in the view that they take as to the State and its influence. The point that I want to make is that the Scotch people show no dis- position to break off from Presbyterian polity ; those that arc out of the national Church, with but few ex- ceptions, are as warmly attached to the doctrine and polity that John Knox and others set up, as founded on and agreeable to the Word of God, as those that are within the national Church. Contrast that with the state of things in south Britain. In not one of the dissenting Churches is prelacy retained. Whether the Congrcgationalists, the Baptists, the Methodists and others were right, or whether they were wrong in casting from them that feature of polity is not what we are discussing now. That they did cast it off is the fact that is before us, account for it as we may. What seems to be the case is this, that t^e English people of the Reformation, as soon as they broke off from State control and State restrictions, were deter- mined to be wholly free from every rag and remnant of Popery, of whatever would remind them of the bondage to Rorne that sat on their fathers as a night- 57 mare for centuries, say, from the be-innin- of the seventh century to the be^rinnin^r of the sixteenth, nuie long centuries. When they went out they shut the door behind them, and showed a stern resolve not to go back to what they at least regarded as beggarly elements. These contrasts between the two countries and the people that Hve in them and the trend of religious thought, as well as of the forms of Church life, are remarkable, are well worthy of study, and if they can be accounted for in a philosophical way, let an attempt be made to do so. I take it that in this there is suggested the strongest possible pre- sumption that if the people of England had been free to act in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, that is, if the free action of the people had not been blocked by the arbitrary intervention of the Crown, the out- ward form of the Reformation in that country would have conformed more closely than it did to the shape it took in the Continent of Europe generally and in Scotland in particular. Whether that on the whole would have been a greater good or a greater evil, it is not our province at this moment to discuss or attempt to determine. We may conclude this lecture with an examination ot the idea of the Church put forward by our neigh- bours in the course of this controversy. Here, indeed, in a way we get down to the root of the whole matter. As we look at the statements made, not in a veiled way but broadly avowed, we cannot help saying that the position taken up, as well as the arguments brought forward in support of it, is essentially the position that 1^ 58 Rome takes with re^^ard to the Church. All Protes- tants hold that there are two aspects of the Church, one that we call invisible, and the other visible. It is to the invisible only that the promises absolutely apply. To no visible Church can these promises of Christ's presence and absolute protection apply. The Scriptures properly understood do not endorse the claims that Rome or any imitator of Rome makes. Churches have erred, and may err, and they may err to such an extent that the Lord Jesus Christ may spew them out of His mouth. Here is where Romish theologians make a mistake in claiming for the visible Church the promises that are made to what we call the invisible Church. So with her imitators who lay so much stress on orders and successions. You would think, to hear these people speak, that the Church existed for the bishops, priests, and deacons, whereas the bishops, priests and deacons exist for the Church. The Church is made up of individuals who believe in Christ, that is the essential thing. When you have men who are in loving union with Christ you have the Church. Some order is necessary, but that order is merely an incidental thing ; the spiritual union with Christ is the main thing. If you have what is essential, it is of but little moment what kind of office- bearers you have, and what name you call them. What is called ordination, or what is called con- secration, are matters not worth fighting about, un- less insufferable exclusiveness and intolerance be associated with the theory that is put forward. What Dr. Jacob, himself a minister of the Church of T 59 England, says, is so well put, that I quote it here : " The authority of the Christian minister in any place is given to him by the Church in which and for which he acts, and this authority is apostolic if his teaching is sound in apostolic truth ; this authority is from Christ, if His Church is a legitimate Christian com- munity formed in obedience to Christ's command." We can all endorse such teaching as that, and nothing else is either conformable to Scripture or to common sense. We may very well test a theory by demanding how it will work in certain cases that are quite suppos- able in the world's experience. You cannot have a church without bishops, we are told ; you cannot have valid sacraments without apostolic order in the trans- mission of episcopal grace ; you cannot be sure of the position wherein you stand in relation to the salvation of the soul. Very well, we say ; we grant that to be an hypothesis for the moment, let us see how it works in certain cases. Here is an island in a remote part of the world. The people that dwell on it were not long ago heathen, without the knowledge of God or of Jesus Christ the Saviour of the world. In some way or other the Holy Scriptures in their own tongue fall into the hands of these idolaters ; they read those Scriptures ; they are touched by what they read ; by the blessing of God's Spirit they come to see Jesus Christ the Son of God as in some measure we see Him, and they trust in Him. Their lives are changed step by step. They turn from their former sinful courses and their lives, as a rule, arc marked by the purity that the Bible enjoins. By and by the best informed 60 amon^ the converts arc in some rudimentary way set apart as ministers, and ordinances are observed, the Word is preached, prayer is offered in public, and the sacraments are administered. Men and women among them die rejoicing in the Saviour, whose blood re- deemed them. Dare any man say that there is a truer Church on earth than the community of believers on that island ? Let us say that when a generation passes away a bishop comes along of the modern kind, and he confirms the converts there and ordains pres- byters over them, is there a higher kind of holiness as the result of that episcopal visit ? Do those that die after that have any more joy in Christ, and look more confidently for a resurrection than those that died previously ? When we look at the picture, which is by no means overdrawn, and ask what is essential to a Church, and what is merely accidental or incidental to a Church, what is the answer that any reasonable, im- partial person will give? Will the answer not be that the salvation of souls is the main thing, and that office- bearers are but incidental ? Or snopose another case which possibly is a more common thing than what we have just referred to. Supposing that it was not a copy or copies of the Holy Scriptures, or, at all events, nor these alone that in God's providence and grace came in the way of the people on that island ; supposing* say, that in a shipwreck, or on board a castaway, a sailor with his Bible was thrown on that island. He himself is an humble Christian, and without intending to be a missionary, he by the force of circumstances becomes one. As he read his Bible and prayed over it for years in the forecastle, and his spiritual life uncon- 61 I sciously developed, he never dreamed of the work that was before him. Had anybody suggested such a des- tiny, he would have shrank back in horror from the undertaking. He was of slow lip and stammering tongue. Here, however, he is cut off from all the world he knew and prized. He begins to learn the tongue of those among whom he is cast, and as he and they come to understand one another he communicates to them in the smallest of morsels what he knows and can express of the Christian religion. After a time, and very slowly, the truth begins to tell. The belief in idols gets shattered ; the practice of idolatry is given up. A different kind of life from what used to be common begins to be lived ; the faintest buddings of a pure Christian life begin to appear, and these are ever more and more manifest. The leaven spreads, and before that shipwrecked sailor ends his days the moral and spiritual wilderness is blossomingas the rose ; the desert has become a fruitful field. Is that com- munity of believers not a Church, a true Church, a Church planted and nourished by God Himself? The means were very humble. It may be that generations pass away before the boldness is assumed of administering the sacraments ; but whether they are administered or not there are saved souls there, and that is the main thing ; and if, after much thought and amidst much trepidation, some do at length ven- ture to baptize in the name of the Triune God, and to break the bread and pour out the wine, and to hand it to the disciples in the name of Christ, as emblems of His death, who will say that such an observance is less valid in the si ght of God than a sacramental observ- et ance in St, Paul's, London, or in the Minster in York, where all outward order is observed as it has been for centuries ? I ask again, as we study this picture, what is essential to a Church, what is it without which a Church is an utterly empty thing, a mockery ? Is it not that souls be saved, that lives be purified, that natures be sanctified? If such fruits be present, you have all that is needed to make a Church of the living God. On the other hand, you may have office-bearers from the Pope himself, with all his pretensions to be vicegerent of Christ, down through an endless grade of office-bearers, patriarchs, primates, archbishops, bishops, archdeacons, deans, priests, and deacons, down to aco- lytes, and if there be any humbler than that put them .1 if you please,and be destitute of the presence of the Spirit of God with His converting and sanctifying power. I say it is possible to have this, though I trust such emptiness of real spiritual power is not often found, and if so, what then ? May I not say everything in its order, and that order the order of importance in God's sight ? What is of most importance is surely that which all evangelical vChurches have in common ; what is of least importance is that wherein good men differ. But is there a sillier thing to do than when one Church proceeds to unchurch all others, not because of doc- trines that are essential, but because of mere orders ? Can a more contemptible thing be thought of than that men who profess to be followers of Jesus and the apostles should dare to tell other men, " Except ye have the apostolic order as we understand it, and we claim to have it, ye are not a Church at all, and your chances of salvation are very slight ? "