Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

LETTER III.

SIR,

I HAVE been employed, thus far, in noticing the harsh

language which you apply to your opponents, and in shewing that the charges alledged are unjust; or, if just, that they apply, directly, to the tenets and practice of your own society. You maintain the exclusive validity of Presbyterial order. I blame you not for it. Why will you not allow to others the same liberty which you exercise yourself! "What temptation can there be in this country to cultivate a spirit of bigotry or contention !" "Why can we not quietly and meekly enjoy our privileges together!"* In all this I cordially join you, and am only surprised that you should consider your privileges as violated when any person finds it impossible to agree with you in opinion; or, that you should angrily declaim against the exclusive pretensions of others, while you are setting up exclusive pretensions of your own.

I proceed to a particular examination of the facts, and the reasoning, contained in your letters.

Suffer me, however, first, to take a little notice of the manner in which you set out, and in which you conclude.

"In the perusal of the following sheets, you are earnestly requested to recollect, at every step, that by a scriptural or primitive Bishop, is always meant a Presbyter, Minister, Pastor, or whatever else he may be called, who has the pastoral care of a particular congregation; and that by scriptural or primitive Episcopacy, is meant that government of the church, by such Bishops, which existed in pure apostolic times, and for near two hundred years afterwards. And, on the other hand, that by modern Bishops, and mod

* Your own language.....Letters, p. 354.

ern Episcopacy, is meant that government of the church by Prelates, which took its rise from ecclesiastical ambition, long after the days of the Apostles, and which, with other innovations on primitive order, has since claimed to rest on the authority of Christ."*

Was that like a philosopher? In the very statement of the question to summon to your aid every prejudice of the understanding, and every passion of the heart! The system, which you oppose, is, at once, reprobated as the offspring of ecclesiastical intrigue, and tyranny. What more could be necessary to preclude a dispassionate consideration of the case! And, sir, was it decorous, before advancing a single argument, peremptorily to tell your readers, that the system, which you advocate, is certainly scriptural; while that of your opponent, is, no less certainly, the result of wicked priestcraft! This, methinks, is a very authoritative style of dealing with your parishioners; being no less than commanding them to surrender up their judgement to your absolute direction.

In the same lofty spirit you conclude.

"After the exhibition of testimony so various, abundant, and explicit, I cannot suppose, my brethren, that any of you have a remaining doubt."

This is winding up nobly. You seem determined that there shall be no deficiency, at all events, of positive asser. tion; and, that if your book fail of effect, it shall not be from the want of being well recommended. It might have been as respectful, and as prudent, perhaps, to have left your readers to pass judgement, without decisively telling them that the work is irresistible.

But we have more in the same style.

"After reading the foregoing sheets, I trust you will be prepared to receive such charges and such denunciations, with the same calm, dispassionate, conscious superiority, that you feel when a partizan of the papacy denounces you for rejecting the supremacy of the Pope, and questions the possibility of your salvation out of the church of Rome."S

And will you still talk, sir, of the positiveness of your opponents; or of their cruel denunciations! The above is

* Letters, p. 11.

And yet you allow Episcopalians nothing more than a simple preference of their particular form of the ministry. Letters, p. 350.

Letters, p. 349.

not the only passage in which you hint that the Episcopal church denies the possibility of salvation out of her own pale. That your readers will be very apt to draw such a conclusion from your work I am persuaded. But I have already placed this matter in a just point of light. I make no comments, therefore, here; freely leaving it to all dis passionate men to decide what degree of credit such insinuations reflect on your understanding, or your heart.

The modesty of the passage, too, is striking. The Epis copal claims are, doubtless, destroyed; and such men as HOOKER, as TAYLOR, as Law, as LESLIE, as POTTER, as HORNE, as JONES, as HORSELY, and a thousand others, equally distinguished for eminent genius, and profound erudition, must hide their diminished heads. Be it so. But whatever may be the merits of your work; its praise might have been left to furnish some other brilliant genius, with a brilliant theme.

You divide Episcopal writers into three classes.

I shall, now, take some notice of this division; and, then, proceed to the four general presumptions which, antecedently to all argument, you consider as lying against the doctrine which you oppose.

On your division of Episcopal writers I must be brief; being destitute of many of the works which it would be necessary to consult in order to enter minutely into the subject; beside that a detailed examination would swell the present address to an inconvenient size. I shall, however, go far enough to shew that your statement is most grossly erroneous, and to throw discredit, if I am not deceived, upon all those parts of your book which are occupied in detailing the opinions of others.

Let us first see what the standards of the Episcopal church say upon the subject in question.

"It is evident to all men diligently reading holy scripture, and ancient authors, that from the Apostle's time, there have been these orders of ministers in Christ's church; Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. Which offices were evermore held in such reverend estimation, that no man might presume to execute any of them, except he were first called, tried, examined, and known to have such qualities as are requisite for the same; and also by public prayer, with imposition of hands, were approved and admitted thereunto by lawful authority. And, therefore, to the intent that these orders may be continued, and reverently used and esteemed,

in the church of England; no man shall be accounted or taken to be a lawful Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, in the church of England, or suffered to execute any of the said functions, except he be called, tried, examined, and admitted thereunto, according to the form hereafter following, or hath had formerly Episcopal consecration or ordination." Preface to the ordination offices.

Three orders of ministers have existed from the Apostle's time; in other words, three orders of ministers were established by the Apostles; and, of course, you yourself being judge, rest on divine right. The evidence of this is contained in holy scripture, as well as in ancient authors. Can language be more explicit? How is it possible that the church should more unequivocally express her sentiments! The three orders are Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. Bishops and Priests, then, are distinct orders. And to preserve the distinction, thus established by the Apostles, and evidenced by holy scripture, it is provided that no man shall be accounted a lawful minister without Episcopal ordination. He who can read the preface to the ordinal, and deliberately say, that the church of England does not maintain the divine institution of Episcopacy, must be altogether out of the reach of reasoning. Indeed it is an insult to common

sense to raise any dispute about the matter.

Proceeding to the ordinal itself, we find a separate office for each order of ministers. We find it expressly declared, in each office, that Almighty God, by his divine providence, or by his Holy Spirit, did establish distinct orders of minis ters in his church.*

The ordination service. you say, was materially changed in the reign of Charles II. You give no authority for this; merely asserting, with a most unbecoming positiveness,

* "Almighty God, who by thy dívine providence hast appointed divers orders of ministers in thy church."-Office for ordering Deacons.

[ocr errors]

'Almighty God, giver of all good things, who by thy holy spirit, hast appointed divers orders of ministers in the church." Office for ordering Priests.

66

Almighty God, giver of all good things, who by thy holy spirit, hast appointed divers orders of ministers in thy church."Office for ordering Bishops. Almighty God has established distinct or ders of Ministers. He established these orders by his holy spirit. You speak of "good judges," in whose opinion, "the ordination service of the church of England does not, even now, assert the divine institution of Episcopacy." These "good judges" must think that a thing done by God is not divinely done. In other words, they must think that God is not God.

2

that considerable alterations were made, and that the ordinal, as it came from the hands of the reformers, did not set forth the divine institution of Episcopacy. Now, sir, all this is as wide of fact, as of modesty. The old ordinal did set forth the divine institution of Episcopacy. The alterations made at the restoration were not considerable. Do you suppose, sir, that your ipse dixit is to pass for evidence? Prove to us that the old ordinal placed Episcopacy on ground different from that on which it is placed in the new. Where are your authorities? Produce them. When you attempt this, I pledge myself to shew that your assertion is utterly unfounded. Till something more than your own empty declaration is given, I deem it unnecessary to enter into the subject. In the mean time, suffice it to observe that the compilers of the old ordinal expressly declared, in its very front, their belief of three distinct orders in the church, and that they composed a separate office for the ordination of each of these orders.

2

The natural conclusion is that the ministers of a church believe in her standards to which they have subscribed; and this conclusion is to prevail until the contrary be decisively proved. It is not sufficient to produce a few passages which, by ingenious construction, may be made to favor a particular idea. No author can be so circumspect as always to avoid a latitude of expression, which, considered without reference to his writings in general, and tortured by subtle interpretation, may lead to consequences that he would strongly disclaim. When, therefore, Episcopal divines are introduced, as admitting the validity of Presbyterial ordination, we call for unequivocal evidence. And the admission ought to be made out by a general view of their writings, not by a strict examination of detatched passages. Have you, sir, pursued this course? Far from it.

In pages 246 and 247 of your letters you thus speak. "When I exhibit Episcopal divines as making concessions in favor of our doctrine, none, certainly, will understand me as meaning to assert that they were Presbyterians in principle." "Neither will you understand me to assert that none of these writers say anything in other parts of their works inconsistent with these concessions."

[ocr errors]

These passages present your conduct in the true point of light; shewing how little reliance is to be placed upon your statement of the opinions of others. It is to be recollected,

« AnteriorContinuar »