CHAPTER VII.

Notice of certain denominational peculiarities—a Comprehensive Church for our age and country practicable-no existing Christian denomination should be excluded from the Comprehensive Church, neither Protestant Episcopalians nor non-Episcopalians—a question for pious non-Episcopalians.

We have noticed the principles upon which the Comprehensive Church must be organized. And we inquire: Is the construction of such a Church in the nineteenth century, and in the United States, impracticable? Is there any natural impossibility or hindrance to prevent the formation of such a Church which may unite the various and now opposing denominations of Christians in our country? We think not. Such a Church may be constructed upon the principles which have been just laid down, even if none such does now, as we believe such does, exist.

To illustrate our view: One denomination holds that the apostolical and regular ministry of the Church is in three orders-Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons. Others are of the opinion that any particular arrangement of the ministry is unimportant, so long as the essential idea of a ministry—or, as with some, of a ministry of Presbyters-is preserved. The same denomination holds that on certain occasions the public use of a precom

posed Liturgy is necessary to stability, and edification, and harmony of the Church. Others have never been habituated to the use of a Liturgy on any occasions; and some lay great stress upon the advantages of extemporaneous prayers, and of various social meetings for religious improvement. A second denomination thinks that the government of the Church should be mainly in the hands of the clergy; a third, that it should be mainly in the hands of the laity. A fourth contends that only adults should be baptized, and then by immersion; while others think that infants also may be baptized, and that sprinkling or affusion of water is equally justifiable with immersion or with dipping. Some contend that no creeds should be required of men to admit them to the benefit of the Christian Sacraments. Others suppose that creeds are important in the arrangements of a well-ordered Church. Not to extend the illustration, it will be perceived that there are a great many points upon which the various denominations are agreed, and that the distinctive idea in each sect is a prominence of some one particular point of ecclesiastical belief or discipline.

Furthermore, the one distinctive point in each of these various denominations is generally a truth. Each has gone off upon a single idea, and this a true one, but made disproportionally prominent among the many ideas to be embraced in a body designed to represent the one universal Church. St. Augustine has uttered the aphorism: "Nulla falsa religio sine veritate—there is no false religion without a truth in it." And it is this truth which sustains the system that holds it as well as the errors associated with it in the system. Much

more does the aphorism apply to the several Christian denominations which hold the main articles of the Christian faith as contained in the Apostles' Creed. Each accepts and testifies to some one truth of belief or of order, which it emphasizes, and in reference to which it has been established. Thus Presbyterianism is based upon the idea of the power of presbyters in the government of the Church. Congregationalism or Independency is constituted upon the power of the laity in the same. Methodism affirms the liberty of the worshipper in the assemblies of believers. Quakerism gives its testimony to the essential necessity of the spiritual and subjective element in genuine religion. Romanism asserts a compact discipline, and the natural need of an objective cultus. Unitarianism is an organized protest against the unjust minutiæ and over-particularity of creeds. The United Presbyterians stand for a purely Scriptural worship. The Baptists maintain that a personal and conscious confession of Christ is vitally involved in the Christian baptism. Pedobaptists contend that infants and little children are proper subjects of Christian baptism. Now each one of these several ideas expresses a great truth. They seem to a careless observer to be inconsistent with each other, and positively irreconcilable. But they do really harmonize. They ought, all of them and every one of them, to be exhibited and combined in the one Church. Why may not all these denominations slide into one Comprehensive Church, that shall recognize and reconcile them all-in which each man, while he is indulged with his own favorite idea, shall allow to his brother a similar indulgence—in which no man shall sacrifice anything

deemed by him essential, but all shall have what all hold to be essential? We think that we can be so united.

Reminding the reader of the conclusion to which we have arrived that it is possible to unite all the existing Christian denominations of our country into one Church

-we wish to lead his mind to the same conclusion by yet another short path, by suggesting the question: Shall any of the existing Christian denominations of our country be excluded from the Comprehensive Church?

Shall any one of the denominations of non-Episcopalians be excluded?

Of course, they will, in answering each for themselves, say they ought not any of them to be excluded. And we, as a Protestant Episcopalian, say they have answered rightly; they ought not to be excluded—for every disciple of Christ (according to the theory of the Protestant Episcopal Church) should be welcome to all the privileges of His Church.

Shall the Protestant Episcopal Church be excluded?

We suppose that Protestant Episcopalians are to be included in any plan of Christian unity; for they are Christians; and, if so, their peculiar traits must be found in the united Church. They are willing to compromise, if need be, in a thousand matters comparatively unimportant. But they wish to be considered, and expect to be indulged in what they hold to be essential to the constitution of a regular Christian Church. And they ought, upon the fair principles of union, to be so considered and indulged, certainly when others believe their ministry to be essentially sound, or at least look upon their peculiarities as among the matters of indifference.

This inference, that in the united Church there must be a recognition of their main peculiarities, is unavoidable, if they are to be included in the plan of union. And shall they be excluded? Shall a body of Protestant Christians, so extensive, and having in it so much of intelligence, and learning, and piety, as is acknowledged in their case, be excluded from the plan of unity, be unchurched by their brethren, not more intelligent nor more learned nor more pious, simply because they are conscientiously persuaded that a ministry of three orders is apostolical and Scriptural, and that the use of a Liturgy on certain public occasions is primitive and reasonable, while all the time, too, their brethren look upon these matters of their conscience as non-essentials? Surely, they must be included in the plan of unity.

The reader will recollect that it was stated in our sixth chapter, and illustrated in a note by several Scriptural examples, to be the duty of the Church of Christ even to tolerate prejudices and error, if they be harmless, or not essentially in the way of human holiness and salvation. To apply this principle, as supported by the examples there adduced, to the unity of the Church, we argue that if any are very strenuous, conscientiously persuaded, on some point not deemed essential by others, then it is the duty of the free to bear with the weakness or error of their brethren, and indulge them. Thus, if Protestant Episcopalians are conscientiously persuaded of the necessity of three orders to a regular ministry (and in fact, this is the only point to be pressed, the use of a Liturgy not being held, even by Episcopalians, to be essential in the theory of an Episcopal Church), and if others recognize in their orders the essential idea of a