A study of early missionary work among the North American Indians—unless over-long for such an occasion as this—must be of limited scope. One may not, even in the most hurried way, notice the labors of the heroic Jesuit Fathers in Canada or New York, whose self-sacrificing devotion deserved a larger success; nor may the study safely extend beyond the close of the seventeenth century.

A firm grasp of the principles of evidence is essential to the success of the historian. When an alleged miracle is to be verified the questions at once arise, “Are miracles differently proved from other facts?” “Do they demand the same amount of testimony?” or “Are more witnesses required than for an ordinary event?” In 1883, the Jesuit De Smedt wrote in his Critique Historique as follows: “The possibility of a miracle never troubles seriously the judgment of Catholic critics …, they know that they must demand a superabundance of proofs, which they do not ask for when the facts are entirely in accord with physical laws.” For an illustration of the application of this rule, he refers his readers to the process of canonization as practised by “the tribunal, the most respectable in the eyes of Catholics.” Of course he refers to the Congregation of Rites and Ceremonies.

The layman's power in the Episcopal Church is equal to that of the clergy and the bishops. Not only in the management of the parish, as a member or a vestryman, but in the legislation of the Diocese, in the Diocesan Convention, and in the legislation of the Church as a whole, in the General Convention, all action must be taken with his consent. There must be a concurrence between the clerical and lay vote. In the Diocesan Convention each parish is represented by the clergyman and the lay delegates; and in the General Convention, each diocese is represented by four clergymen and four laymen and the bishop. This procedure is such a radical departure from the law of the Church of England, which planted the Church in the Colonies that an inquiry into its development and growth may be of value in analyzing American conditions and tendencies. Dr. S. D. McConnell in his history says: “The provision in its fundamental law for the admission of the laity into the Church's governing body as an independent estate is an arrangement which had not been in operation for fifteen centuries. It was a return to a practice of the most primitive period, and had no contemporary illustration.”

The decades clustering about the year 1700 were unusually important in reference to the subsequent ecclesiastical history of New York. The previous history of the Church in that province, except during the political episode of the Leisler troubles, had been comparatively tranquil; but in the decades alluded to, new elements were introduced and complications ensued, which modified all former conditions, and caused not a little friction in ecclesiastical affairs down to the Revolution. Nevertheless, new phases of Christian activity were also thereby developed, which became very influential; and the discussions which ensued clarified the atmosphere in reference to the proper relations of Church and State and prepared the way for their separation. In order to get a proper background for the consideration of the period alluded to, permit a brief reference to some antecedent conditions.

The Mercersburg Theology derived its name from the town of Mercersburg in Franklin County, Pennsylvania. Here was the seat of Marshall College from 1835 to 1853, and of The Theological Seminary of the Reformed Church in the United States from 1837 to 1871. While Mercersburg gave the institutions “a local habitation and a name,” they owed their distinctive doctrines to the genius of the German and the Swiss Reformed people in America and to the influence of the contemporary German philosophy and theology.

In his Narrative of Surprizing Conversions, Edwards wrote: “About this time began the great noise that was in this part of the country, about Arminianism.” The context shows that the time in mind was about 1734. On the basis of this and similar allusions and because of Sereno Dwight's comments and Whitefield's invectives, it has been believed that before the Great Awakening the Congregational churches and ministers had to some degree adopted Arminian views. An investigation of this matter may contribute to the spiritual history of New England.

With hundreds of visitors the writer recently visited St. Anne de Beaupré, twenty miles out from Quebec, Canada, where over 150,000 pilgrims annually seek physical health or spiritual help at the noted French Catholic church. An onlooker is thrilled by the implicit faith of the pilgrims in the efficacy of the water bottled from the fountain at Beaupré and the life-giving power of relics in the hands of officiating priests, which relics the devotees devoutly kiss, seeking succor of some kind. The same uncritical spirit held even greater sway in the days of St. Francis, and is to the present day in evidence in the writings on Francis and other saints by Goerres, Edward Vogt, Montalembert, de Malan, Cotelle, M. Bihl, Beissel, Gassenmeyr, and others.