"^'^O
1^ liETTERS ^^^
CONCERNING
THE CONSTITUTION AND ORDER
ST^e eDtif^tian JWinls^tt©:
ADDRESSED TO THE
MEMBERS OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCHES IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK.
TO WHICH IS PREFIXED,
A LETTER
PRESENT ASPECT AND BEARING OP THE EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY.
ElOVEl
BY SAMUEL MILLER, D. D.
PROFESSOR OF ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY AND CHURCH GOVERNMENT IN THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY AT PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY.
SECOND EDITION.
TOWAR, J. & D. M. HOGAN— PITTSBURGH, HOGAN U CO.
C. SHERMAN & CO. PRINTERS.
1830.
Eastern Distrid of Pennsylvaniat to wit;
Be it remembered. That on the fifth day of October in the fifty -fifth year of the Independence of the United States of America, A. D. 1830, TowAR, J. 8c D. M. HoGAN, of the said district, have deposited in tliis office the title of a book, the right whereof they claim as proprietors, in the words following-, to wit;
Letters conc^ning- the Constitution and Order of the Christian Ministry: Addressed to the Members of the Presbyterian Churches in the City of New York, To which is prefixed, a Letter on the present Aspect and Bearing- of the Episcopal Controversy. By Samuel Miller, D. D. Professor of Ecclesiastical History and Church Government in the Theological Seminary at Princeton, New Jersey. Second Edition.
In conformity to the Act of the Congress of the United States, en- titled "An act for the encouragement of learning, by securing the copies of maps, charts, and books to tlie authors and proprietors of such copies during the times therein mentioned." And also to the act entitled "An act supplementary to an act entitled "An act for the encouragement of learning, by securing the copies of maps, charts, and books to the authors and proprietors of such copies during the times therein mentioned,' and extending the benefits thereof to the arts of designing, engraving, and etching historical and other prints." • D. CALDWELL,
Clerk of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
PRELIMINARY LETTER, - '-. - - " V
PART I.
Letter I. Introductory, 1
II. Testimony of Scripture, - - - 14
III. Testimony of Scripture continued, - 45
IV. Testimony of the early Fathers, - 80
V. Testimony of Some of the Later Fathers, 110 VI. Testimony of the Reformers, - - 135
VII. Concessions of Eminent Episcopalians, 15*7
VIII. Rise and Progress of Prelacy, - 183 IX. Practical Influence of Prelacy, &c, - 214
PART II. Letter I. Introductory, - ^ - . ;^30 II. Presbyterian and Episcopal Claims com- pared, ----- 242
III. Testimony of Scripture reviewed, - 265
IV. The office of Ruling Elder considered, 292 V. Testimony of the Fathers reviewed, 311
VI. Testimony of the Reformers reviewed, 351 VII. Testimony of Calvin examined, - 389
VIII. Testimony of the Successors of the Re- .
formers, _ _ _ . 428 IX. Rise and Progress of Prelacy reconsi- dered, 453
X. Episcopal Concessions — Uninterupted
Succession, . - - - 474
TO
THE MEMBERS
OF THE
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES.
CHRISTIAN BRETHREN,
I TAKE the liberty to inscribe this volume, in its present fornij to you. The original publication was addressed to those^united churches in the city of New York, of which I was, at the time of its date, one of the pastors. And although I still cherish the memory of that relation with grateful and affectionate respect, and still continue the address which ^was at first adopted; yet, as the circum- stances which induce me to present the work a second time to the public, are of wider extent than the demands of a few single congregations ; I wish to bespeak the attention of the whole ecclesiastical body, with which I have the hap- piness to be connected, to the subject here discussed :-^ a subject which the unscriptural and exorbitant claims of a particular denomination among us have invested with an interest beyond that which intrinsically belongs to it. It is the duty of Christians in every age, not only to make themselves well acquainted with important religious truth, but also to arm themselves against surrounding errors; especially those which, from the plausibility and confidence with which they are advanced, are peculiarly fitted to *^ deceive the hearts of the simple.'^
The following " Letters'^ were originally published in two separate volumes; — the first in the year 1807; the 2
Vi PRELIMINARY LETTER.
second in 1809 ; the latter being an examination of the strictures of several friends of prelacy on the preceding volume. They have both been out of print for a number of years; and although frequent inquiry has been made for them, it was not supposed, until lately, that the demand was sufficient to warrant a second edition. Recent circum- stances, however, have led to the belief that a new and corrected impression would be seasonable, and not unac- ceptable to the friends of primitive truth and order.
The original publication was made, with much reluctance, in consequence of repeated, long-continued, and violent attacks from some high-toned advocates of prelacy, chiefly of the state of New York, where I then resided. Of its reception by my episcopal neighbours, I will here say nothing. But I have the satisfaction to know that many others, whose good opinion I highly prize, considered the work as a service of some value to the cause of truth. It answered, in a good measure, the purpose which I intended. It satisfied and confirmed numbers, who had been either surprised or perplexed by the confidence of episcopal state- ments, and for whose instruction I was bound to provide Having accomplished this design, I was quite willing that the work should pass into oblivion, with the controversy which had called it forth. And I can truly say, that one reason why I felt so little disposed, several, years ago, to comply with urgent solicitations to reprint this manual, was, that I was unwilling to take any step which might prove the means of reviving or extending a dispute, which I cannot consider as either very honourable, or very pro- fitable to the church of God.
And, as the original publication of the following Letters was prompted by unprovoked and violent attacks, and was made merely in self-defence ; so their appearance in this new form is occasioned by a similar cause. After reposing in quietness for more than twenty years, they have been, recently, again called up to public view, and subjected to
PRELIMINARY LETTER. yii
attacks marked by great vehemence and confidence. Of these attacks, it is not deemed necessary to take any fur- ther notice than to say, that their violence and their oflfensive imputations have created a new demand for the vs^ork, and thus afforded an opportunity of presenting it again to the public in a more convenient form. This is the only reply that I at present intend to give to any recent assailant. And I hope that every candid reader, after attentive consideration, will be of the opinion that more was not called for.
In preparing the work for a second edition, T have revised the whole with as much care as my circumstances allowed. And, although the further reading and reflection of twenty years, have enabled me to detect some mistakes, and to reconsider and modify the statements in a few places ; — yet I can truly say, that the amount of my modification has generally been, to urge my former reasonings with new confidence ; to array my old authorities with addi- tional, instead of diminished force ; and, in general, to manifest what I have really felt,— a greatly augmented assurance of the soundness of my original conclusions.
With regard to my quotations from the fathers, and other writers, I think it proper to say, once for all, that I have endeavoured to make them with all the fidelity of which I am capable. Those who are familiar with such matters need not be reminded, that, frequently, out of a folio page, not more than half a dozen lines have any direct bearing on the purpose of the extract; and that if these are exhibited without any uncandid wresting from their connection, the real spirit of the author is set forth with sufiicient accuracy. If in any instance, in the follow- ing pages, an offence has been committed against this sound principle, it has not been done intentionally. It is, indeed, as common as it is easy, when an adversary is incommoded by a quotation in the way of authority, to complain of it as unfaithfully made, or as disingenuously separated from its
viii PRELIMINARY LETTER.
proper connection. But of the truth of such complaints, every intelligent reader must judge for himself. I can sincerely declare, that after an attentive review of every page, I have permitted nothing to retain its place but what I verily believe may be firmly sustained ; and that if I had possessed time and health to make further alterations, they would have been employed in adding what I honestly deem new evidence of the relevancy and force of every thing that I have advanced.
Nothing, my Christian friends, is further from my inten- tion, in any thing which you will find in the following pages, than to attack the episcopal church. I have no hostility to that denomination of Christians. Those who prefer Prelacy to Presbyterianism, are cordially welcome, for me, and, I am perfectly confident, for the whole Presbyterian church, to the enjoyment of all the advantages which they see or imagine in that form of ecclesiastical government. I have not the least doubt, indeed, that prelacy is an unscriptural error; an anwarranted innovation on apostolic simplicity: but such an innovation as a man may adopt with zeal, and yet be an excellent Christian, and an heir of eternal bless- edness. To all such Episcopalians as Whitefield and Her- vey in former times, and as Newton, Scott, and others of similar stamp in later periods, I can cordially " bid God speed," and sincerely rejoice in their success. Were the world filled with such men, I, for one, should be ready to say : Let their spirit reign from the rising to the setting sun ! With the utmost sincerity, then, can I declare, that no feeling of animosity toward Episcopalians, as such, has prompted me to speak in the language of the following pages. It is my unfeigned desire, and a desire which becomes stronger as I advance in life, that all who have '^ received like precious faith through the righteousness of God, and our Saviour, Jesus Christ,^' may live together " as one body in Christ, and every one members one of another." And I can further declare that it always gives me sensible
PRELIMINARY LETTER. ix
pain to engage in any controversy, even in self defence, which tends to produce even temporary alienation among those who ought to be united by the bonds of our common hope.
But when Episcopalians belong to that part of their denomination — a very small part, as I hope and trust — who not only believe that prelacy is a divine institution, but that every other form of ecclesiastical government must be rejected as rebellion against God : when they persuade themselves, not only that the human invention which they embrace, is truth, but that nothing else can be truth ; that where there is no ministry episcopally ordained, there is no church at all, no ministry, no valid ordinances, no people in covenant with God, and, of course, no warranted hope of divine mercy through our Lord Jesus Christ ; when, as a native and necessary consequence of these opi- nions, they consider it as unlawful to indulge in any religious intercourse with non-episcopalians ; and regard it as an act of fidelity to Christ to stand aloof from all who do not belong to their own body, however pious their spirit and exemplary their lives ; nay, however manifestly, in all other respects, they may bear his image, and do his will ; when they think it incumbent upon them to decline every act which would imply acknowledging as brethren in Christ the most devout and heavenly-minded Christians who do not stand in their particular line of fancied ecclesi- astical genealogy ; and to refuse all communion and co- operation with them, even in the most hallowed work of Christian benevolence ; and, further, when they think it a duty to take every opportunity, in public and private, to de- nounce non-episcopalians as aliens from Christ, and call upon them to renounce their principles, and attach them- selves to their sect, under the heaviest penalties ; I say, when Episcopalians take this ground, it is difficult to tell wherein their principle differs from the corresponding principle of the papists. They evidently take a stand hos-
X PRELIMINARY LETTER.
tile both to the letter and spirit of the Bible, They ad- vance claims alike presumptuous, unreasonable, and mis- chievous. They teach doctrines which have an obvious tendency to place an outward ceremonial above the " weightier matters of the law 5" and to turn away the minds of men from the vital spirit of our holy religion, to ** fable and endless genealogies, which minister questions rather than godly edifying.'^ In short, they contend for principles, the tendency of which is to beget narrow views, sectarian pride, and blind superstition ; and to bring back the darkness and the thraldom of those ages when fallible mortals undertook to be the vicars of Christ upon earth, and to make their followers believe, that they held in their hands the spiritual rights, and the immortal hopes of their fellow men.*
I rejoice, my respected brethren, that Presbyterians have never been chargeable with attempting to maintain opi- nions so unscriptural and pernicious. I rejoice that our ecclesiastical formularies, as well as our private sentiments, are, universally, alien from such unfounded claims. It gives me pleasure to know, that we have never un-churched other denominations; never denied the validity of theirordinances; never consigned them to the uncovenanted mercies of God ; never stood aloof from any churches which we considered as holding the fundamental doctrines of our common sal- vation ; but have long been in the constant habit of recog- nizing as brethren in Christ, and holding communion with, all denominations who manifest any practical regard to the precious truth, and the holy living, which the Bible repre- sents as essential to the Christian character. To this state-
* Those who desire to see the ground on which this exhibition of high church doctrine rests, are referred not only to the statements in the following letters ,- but also to the various episcopal publications circulat- ing in every part of the United States, both practical and controversial, which, by either open avowal, or unavoidable inference, will fully sustain all that is here advanced.
PRELIMINARY LETTER. xi
ment, I am not aware, at present, of a single exception. I know, indeed, that we are often stigmatized as an austere and bigoted denomination. But this has never been owing ta our denying the church character of any of our neigh- bouring sisters ; but to our contending for what we deem the pecuh'ar and fundamental doctrines of the gospel, and endeavouring to enforce, in our communion, that purity of life, and that abstraction from the fashionable pleasures of the world, which some other denominations do not so care- fully discountenance. The truth is, Presbyterians, as such, have so little of the spirit of sect; are so ready to join with all Christian churches in carrying on any enterprize of piety and benevolence ; so ready to take to their bosoms all, of every sect or name, who manifest the spirit of Christ; and so little disposed to question the standing of any eccle- siastical body, on account of its external organization, or to contend about church government at all, that they have scarcely enough of the sectarian spirit to defend themselves. It gives me unspeakable pleasure to contemplate this fea- ture in our character as a church. It forms one among the numerous evidences that we walk in the footsteps of the primitive believers ; that we have imbibed something of the spirit of Him, who, when one of his disciples said, "Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and " we forbade him, because he followeth not with us ;'^ re- plied, " Forbid him not, for he that is not against us is for us ;" — the spirit of that holy Apostle, who could say, " Some, indeed, preach Christ even of envy and strife, ** and some also of good will. What then? notwithstand- " ing every way, whether in pretence or in truth, Christ is '* preached ; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.^' But, although Presbyterians will not yield to any other class of professing Christians whatever, in liberality to other denominations ; yet when their principles are assailed, there are limits beyond which they consider silence as in- consistent with duty. When they are denounced as " aliens
xii PRELIMINARY LETTER,
from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the co- venant of promise ;" when they are declared, as Presbyte- rians, to be no church of Christ, to have no ministry, no sacraments, no warranted hope in the mercy of God ; when every attempt either to dispense or receive ordinances by Presbyterian hands, is pronounced an act of rebellion against the Head of the Church ; when we are even repre- sented as in a worse condition than the heathen, because equally out of God^s covenant, and resisting greater light than they j surely it cannot be wrong to say a word in de- fence of our principles ; surely it cannot be criminal to "give an answer to any one that asketh a reason of the *' hope that is in us, provided we do it with meekness and "fear.'^ Placing out of view all regard to our own reputa- tion, as a Church, fidelity to our Master in heaven, as well as fidelity to those who look to us for instruction, undoubt- edly requires, that we show, if it be in our power, that " we " have not followed cunningly devised fables," but can appeal " to the law and the testimony'^ for all that we teach the people.
Allow me, then, my christian friends, before you enter on the perusal of the following Letters, to state, with bre- vity, in this preliminary address, a few considerations, in- tended to show why those high and exclusive claims which our Episcopal neighbours are in the habit of urging with a zeal and confidence worthy of a better cause, ought to be, and must be rejected. And,
L We cannot find the least warrant for any such exclu- sive claims, in the word of God. If Prelacy had been a divine institution, and especially, if it had been regarded by the inspired writers as the fundamental and essential matter which modern high-churchmen represent it, — could they have been silent respecting it? Can it be ima- gined that they would have left the subject in obscurity or doubt ? When they had occasion to speak so frequently concerning the christian character and hope; concerning
PRELIMINARY LETTER. xiii
the church, its nature, foundation, Head, laws, ministers and interests ; it is truly marvellous that they should be expli- cit on every other point than precisely that whichjwre dl- vino prelatists consider as the most vital and important of all I Yet is not this manifestly the case, the friends of •the claim in question themselves being judges? Have they not been constrained a thousand times to confess, that this claim is no where distinctly presented or maintained in the New Testament ? When the inspired writers undertake to tell us what those things are which professing Christians ought sacredly to regard, in order to make good their ap- propriate character, on what points do they dwell ? Do they insist on a particular line of ecclesiastical succession, or represent every thing, or, indeed, any thing, as depend- ing on a certain form of official investiture ? Do they tell the humble inquirer after the way of holiness and salvation, that he must be careful, first of all, that he re- ceives the sacraments from duly authorized hands; and that, whatever he does, he must be found in communion with some bishop, who holds his office by regular descent ? Is there a syllable which has the most distant resemblance to such counsel ? Assuredly there is not. No ; the points every where insisted on, as manifesting that the character and the hopes of men axe " such as becometh the gospel,'' are genuine faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, repentance unto life, love to God and man, and habitually endeavouring to imbibe the spirit, to imitate the example, and to obey the commands of the Redeemer. The directions given are every where such as the following : " He that believeth on "the Son of God hath everlasting life, and shall not come " into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life ; " but he that believeth not on the Son of God shall not see " life, but the wrath of God abideth on him. There is, "therefore, now no condemnation to them that are in " Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the ** spirit. If ye love me, keep my commandments; for he 3
XIV PRELIMINARY LETTER.
" that saith he loveth me, and keepeth not my cbmmand- " ments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. Let the " wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his " thoughts, and let him return to the Lord, and he will have *' mercy upon him, and to our God, and he will abundantly ^'pardon him. Not by works of righteousness which we " have done, but according to his mercy doth he save us, ''by the washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the " Holy Spirit. As ye have received the Lord Jesus, so '' walk ye in him; rooted and built up in him, and estab- " lished in the faith, which is according to godliness, and "abounding in those works of righteousness which are by " Jesus Christ unto the glory and praise of God."
Now, I ask, is it conceivable that this could have been the tenor of the directions given by the Saviour and his inspired Apostles, to inquirers after the. way of christian obedience and hope, if they had coincided in opinion with modern high-churchmen ? I will venture to say, it cannot be, for a moment, supposed. Can we imagine that infinite wisdom, and infinite benevolence would undertake to in- struct the members of that great community, denominated the Church, in their essential duties, and yet say nothing about that great point, without which, as some think, all her privileges would be a nullity, .and all her hopes vain ? Can we believe that the Bible was given for the express purpose of being ''a light to our feet, and a lamp to our path," in reference to the great interests of Christians, as individuals, and as a body ; and yet that it should not con- tain one word of explicit instruction in regard to that which is alleged to lie at the foundation of the visible church, and to be essential to its very existence, and, of course, to the validity of all its acts ? That be far from a Being who tadapts means to ends with infinite skill, and who does no- thing in vain ! The simple and undeniable fact, then, that he particular organ ization of the visible church ; the per- sons invested with the ordaining power ; and the uninter-
PRELIMINARY LETTER. xv
nipted succession in a line of prelates^ are not so much as mentioned — or, to say the least, make no such figure, in the New Testament, as in many volumes of modern episcopal origin, — ought to be considered as decisive in this contro- versy. Had these principles been entertained at the time in which the New Testament was written, and regarded by the inspired writers in the same light in which they are regarded by some ecclesiastical men at the present day ; they could not have been silent respecting them, without forfeiting all claim to christian benevolence, nay, to com- mon honesty. They would have dwelt upon them in every connection ; have repeated them at every turn ; and have made this subject clear, whatever else was left in the dark. Now, as they, by universal confession, have not done THIS ; as NO ONE of their number has done it ; it is as plain as any moral demonstration can be, that the principles and claims in question were then unknown, and, consequently, have no divine warrant.
II. Another strong presumptive argument against the claim of modern high-churchmen, may be drawn from the well known fact, that almost every part of the outward ceremonial of the visible church has actually been CHANGED, FROM TIME TO TIME, without affecting the ex- istence or order of the spiritual community. During the first, or patriarchial dispensation, those who ministered in holy things, received, so far as we are informed, no formal ordination at all. Yet their services were considered as valid, and were accepted of God. When the Mosaic, or ceremonial economy was introduced, the first investiture of the high priest was, by divine direction, conducted by Moses, who was not a high priest, nor even a common priest, himself. On all subsequent accessions of the high priest, he was inducted into ofiice in a different manner; such an officer as Moses having never afterwards officiated on a similar occasion. Before the coming of Christ, the regular line of hereditary succession was repeatedly broken;
xvi PRELIMINARY LETTER.
yet this was not considered as affecting the validity of the high priest's ministrations; and even the Saviour and his apostles, notwithstanding this, repeatedly acknowledged, from time to time, the existing authority of that oiFicer. When the New Testament economy was introduced, a method of investing men with the sacred office was adopted, which had never been connected with the Aaronic priest- hood. This was " the laying on of the hands of the pres- bytery ;" for we never find an instance, in apostolic times, of an ordination performed without the presence and co- operation of a plurality of ordainers. Yet still there was diversity even here. Sometimes we find ordinations perform- ed by apostles ; sometimes, during their lifetime, by ecclesi- astical men who were evidently not apostles. Similar changes and diversity of practice have taken place, from the earliest times, in reference to many other ordinances : and yet the visible church, from the family of Adam to the present day, has not ceased to be the same in substance. Nay, it is one of the principle&>of '^ecclesiastical polity," in which the friends of prelacy, and especially the highest toned among them, have always agreed with the "judicious Hooker," as he is commonly styled, that the Church has power to decree, alter, and modify rites and ceremonies at pleasure. I shall not now stay to inquire whether this opinion be correct or not. It is quite sufficient for my purpose that the most zealous advocates for high toned prelacy, fully believe and maintain it ; and insist that every part of the external organization of the church, may be added to, or dispensed with, at the discretion of the church herself, excepting the single feature of the transmission of ecclesiastical office and authority in the line of prelates. Now, I ask, what good reason can be given why this mat- ter should form the only exception ? If various other things, confessedly found in the New Testament, may be altered or omitted, without destroying the being, or even the well- being of the church ; why should the point of prelacy be
PRELIMIMARY LETTER. xvii
alone unalterable ; especially when we find that the mode of investing with the sacred office, has been, in fact, again and again altered, and the integrity of the church still pre- served ? Even supposing then, that we actually found pre- lacy pourtrayed in the Nevv Testament, as a historical verity in the apostolic age, which we are very sure is not the case ; still, according to the general principle of our Episcopal brethren, the church, if she thought proper, would have just as much right to alter this, as any other part of her external arrangements. Besides, let it be considered that ministers of the gospel who are not prelates, are empowered, in the Episcopal church, to preach, and administer the ordinance of baptism. Now, in this ordinance, according to the doctrine of high churchmen, the recipients of it are regenerated; that is, not only brought into a new relation to the church, but "born again, '^ by the power of the Holy Ghost. Does it require less power, then, to regenerate men, than to set an individual apart to the sacred office? Is that man who is qualified to proclaim the message of salvation, and to administer the sacraments of Christ's house, and thus to separate between the precious and the vile, destitute of power to participate in the work of inducting into office one who shall be equal to himself, and qualified to perform the same duties'? There is, surely, a wonderful inconsistency here! I am not ignorant that learned and eloquent Episco- pal writers have attempted, and, as they supposed, with success, to demonstrate, that, while all the other parts of the external administration of the visible church are mutable, and may be altered at the pleasure of the church, the method of successive ordinations in the line of prelates, cannot be touched without destroj/ing the very, existence of the church. I am, however, so far from being satisfied with their reasoning, that I am more and more convinced that it leads to the grossest absurdity and error. That which God has commanded, is immutable, until he is pleased to change it; and nothing else is beyond the reach of modifi-
xviii PRELIMINARY LETTER.
cation and change by the church, excepting what h thus enjoined. To take any other ground, may be very con- sistent for Papists ; but for Protestants, is a high-handed departure from their essential principles. Now, the highest toned prelates acknowledge, unanimously, that there is no express command in the New Testament, establishing or enjoining diocesan episcopacy. The utmost that they con- tend for is, that there are facts stated by the inspired writers which indicate that this form of church government then existed. Even this allegation is wholly unfounded. No such statement is made, as has been often demonstrated. But if it ivere, historic fact is not divine command. To maintain, then, that, even if prelacy could be proved to have been at that time in actual use, it must for ever re- main in use, and can never be dispensed with, without de- stroying the very being of the church, is surel}^ a doctrine which comes with a very ill grace from those who assert that every thing else relating to the order of the visible church, however plainly represented in scripture as exist- ing in the apostolic age, may be changed without incurring any such penalty.
III. Another consideration is worthy of notice here. The original reformers of the Church of England, were so far from maintaining the divine right of prelacy, that their avowed opinions, and their whole conduct evinced a diflferent belief. In the sixth letter of the first series, in the following volume, some evidence in- support of this position will be found ; and a greater amount of testimony might be arrayed, to almost any extent. The truth is, the first reformers of that church were substantially Presby- terians in principle, and earnestly wished to conduct the reformation of their church after the model of the reformed churches on the continent of Europe. And when they ac- cepted a system of discipline and order much less remote from the popish system, and much less conformed to the Helvetic and other continental churches than they wished,
PRELLIMINARY LETTER. xix
it was only on the plea of temporary accommodation to the prejudices of the times, and with the hope of obtaining a more apostolic and thorough reformation afterwards. This is so unequivocally testified by the laborious and impartial Episcopal historian, Sirype, and by the candid Bishop Burnet, as well as other historians of undoubted reputation, that it can be doubted by no one who has taken the proper means to inform himself on the subject. • With this fact accorded the whole of their treatment of the foreign re- formed churches, all of whom were Presbyterian in their ordination. With those churches the original reformers of England maintained the most respectful and affectionate intercourse; recognized them as beloved sisters in Christ; took their ministers by the hand as validly invested with the sacred office ; admitted them in various cases, without re-ordination, to preferment in their own church ; and con- sulted them on the various measures of the day with the utmost deference. But if the English reformers had be- lieved in the doctrine of modern high-churchmen, and had been, at the same time, honest, consistent men, could they possibly have maintained this fraternal intercourse with the foreign Protestants ? I do not ask whether we can consider such a course 2iS prohahle, but whether we can conceive it as possible? The firm integrity, and ardent piety of those venerable reformers have been much celebrated. Their adherence to the dictates of conscience and of God, with the courage and constancy becoming martyrs of Christ, has long been the theme of admiration and praise. But if they had taken the same views of prelacy with many of their modern eulogists, and yet acted as they did with respect to non- Episcopal Churches, we should be reduced to the necessity of branding them as men altogether regardless of principle. But they took no such views. The proof of this is com- plete. It was reserved for their successors, as they de- parted from the apostolic spirit of the reformers, to fall
XX PRELIMINARY LETTER.
into opinions, and prefer claims, as thoroughly popish in their character, as they are pernicious in their consequences.
The foregoing statement, moreover, is fully confirmed by the principles and reasonings which the immediate suc- cessors of the original reformers advanced, when they began to contend for the several parts of the system which they thought proper to establish. It is well known that in the early part of the reign of queen Elizabeth, when the Puritans plead for still further reformation, and when the leading points of difference between them, and the court reformers, were disclosed, the following fundamental principles were avowed by the two parties respectively.
In the first place, it was agreed on all sides, that the Holy Scriptures were a perfect rule oi faith; but the bishops and court reformers did not allow them to be a standard of disciplineov church government-, affirming that our Saviour and his apostles left it to the discretion of the civil magis- trate, in those places in which Christianity should obtain, to accommodate the government of the church to the polity of the state. But the Puritans contended that the Holy Scriptures ought to be regarded as a standard of govern- ment and discipline as well as of doctrine; at least that nothing should be imposed as necessary but what was ex- pressly contained in them, or deduced from them by neces- sary consequence.
In the second place, the court reformers maintained, that the practice of the church for ih^ first four centuries, was a proper standard of church government and discipline ; and in some respects a better standard than that of the apostles, which, according to them, was only accommo- dated to the infant state of the church, while it was under persecution ; whereas the model of the third, and especially the fourth century, was better adapted, as they thought, to the grandeur of a national establishment. On the other hand, the Puritans were for keeping close to the Scriptures in all the main principles of church government, and for
PRELIMINARY LETTER. xxi
admitting no church officers or ordinances but such as are evidently found in scripture. They maintained that the form of government ordained by the apostles was accord- ing to the model of the Jewish Synagogue, and was designed as a pattern for the church in after ages, not to be departed from in any of its main principles. And, therefore, they rejected all the customs of the Papacy, and the practice of the first three or four centuries, excepting so far as they corresponded with the scriptures. •
In the third place, the court reformers maintained, that the church of Rome was a true church, though corrupt as to some points of doctrine and government; that all her ministrations were valid ; and that the Pope was a true bishop oi Rome, though not of the universal church. They thought it necessary to maintain this, for the support of the authority of their bishops ; who could not otherwise make out a line of succession from the apostles. But the Puri- tans affirmed, that the Pope was antichrist ; that the church of Rome was not a true church ; and that all her ministra- tions were superstitious and idolatrous. They, therefore, renounced her communion, and utterly declined founding the validity of their ordinations and ordinances upon any such uninterrupted line, through them, as their opponents considered as indispensable.
Finally, the court reformers maintained, that things in- different in their own nature, which are neither commanded nor forbidden in the scriptures, such as rites, ceremonies, &c., might be settled, determined, and made necessary by the command of the civil magistrate ; and that, when thus commanded, it was the indispensable duty of all good sub- jects to observe them. On the other hand, the Puritans contended, that those things which Christ had left indif- ferent, ought not to be made necessary by any human laws ; but that it is the privilege of Christians to stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free ; and, fur- ther, that such rites and ceremonies as had been abused to 4
xxii PRELIMINARY LETTER.
idolatry, and manifestly tended to lead men back to popery and superstition, were no longer indifferent, but were to be rejected as unlawful.*
No discerning mind can possibly mistake either the scope of the foregoing principles, or the plain inferences which they warrant. It is manifest that the court reformers did not venture, did not even pretend, to make their pri- mary appeal to scripture, in support of the form of church government, which they ultimately adopted ; nay, that they thought the state of the church in ihe /ou9'th century y when supported by the imperial government, a more suit- able model for a church established by law, than its state in the apostolic age, and as exhibited in the New Tetament. In other words, they virtually conceded, that the plan of church government which they thought proper to adopt, was not founded in the word of God, but in human pru- dence and the will of the civil magistrate. Conscious that they were governed in the course which they pursued more by the dictation of the Queen, than by the laws of Christ, they openly maintained the principle, that it was not necessary, or even proper, to take the scriptures as their guide in the government of the church. This was, evi- dently, placing the whole matter on a footing which would warrant Presbyterianism or Independency, just as well as Prelacy, if either should happen to be preferred by the monarch. It is hoped that, none who have the least re- spect for the memory of those venerable men, who adorn- ed the early history of the Protestant church oi Engl and y and several of whom laid down their lives in maintaining what they deemed the truth, will ever think again of plead- ing their authority in favour of principles so earnestly con- tended for by modern high churchmen. They were either dishonest, time-serving men, or they were strangers to doctrines so entirely at war with their whole conduct.
♦ Neal's HistoTy of the Puritans^ Vol. I. p. 96, 97. 4to. edition.
PRELIMINARY LETTER. xxiii
Those who are acquainted with their history, will not hesi- tate a moment in adopting the latter alternative.
IV. But further; the principles and conduct of the lead- ing divines of the Church of England^ who immediately SUCCEEDED THE ORIGINAL REFORMERS, will provo, on ex- amination, equally instructive and decisive. A particular discussion of this point will be found in more than one of th,e following letters. But some further testimony on the same subject is at hand, and worthy of the most grave con- sideration.
When such divines as Bishop Hall, Archbishop Usher^ &c., men of colossal weight and strength, as pillars, in their day, of the church to which they belonged, could declare, as the latter at least did, that he could, with all readiness and affection, receive the sacraments from the hands of Presbyterian ministers; and, of course, considered their ministrations as entirely valid; and when the former could consent to sit for several months as a member of the Pres- byterian synod of Dort, and commune with that body in prayer, preaching, and the holy Eucharist; it is perfectly impossible that they should have maintained the opinion concerning Prelacy, which it is the object of this volume to oppose. But on this point I shall not dwell. It is well known that in the day of the great and good men whose names have been just mentioned, their monarch, Charles I., was involved in conflicts with the parliament which, in a few years afterwards terminated in his decapitation. In the course of these conflicts the king was urged to consent to a proposed act of the parliament for abolishing Episco- pacy. This he utterly refused, alleging among other things, that Episcopacy was more friendly to monarchy than Presbytery was, and pleading " conscience," against a consent to the proposed measure. Writing on this subject to his devoted Episcopal friends and counsellors, Lord Jermyn, Lord Culpepper, and Mr. Jishburnharriy he ex- presses himself thus : —
xxiv PREJJMINARY LETTER.
" Show me any precedent wherever presbyterial govern- " ment and regal was together, without perpetual rebel- " lions ; , which was the cause that necessitated the king, " my father, to change that government in Scotland. And " even in France, where they are but upon tolerance, *« (which in likelihood should cause moderation) did they " ever sit still so long as they had power to rebel ? And it " cannot be otherwise, for the ground of their doctrine is " anti-monarchical. Indeed to prove that clearly, would ** require more time, and a better pen than I have. I will " say, without hyperbole, that there was not a wiser man " since Solomon, than he who said — no bishop, no king." To this the enlightened and cordial friends of the monarch, and of the Church of England just named, made the fol- lowing reply. ^* If by conscience your meaning is, that '' you are obliged to do all that is in your power to support " and maintain that function of bishops, as that which is '' the most ancient, reverend, and pious government of the " church — we fully and heartily concur with you therein. '< But if by conscience is intended to assert, that episcopacy " Injure divino exclusive, whereby no Protestant (or ra- " ther Christian) church, can be acknowledged for such " without a bishop, we must therein crave leave wholly to '^ differ. And if we be in error, we are in good company ; " there not being (as we have cause to believe) six per-
" SONS OF THE PrOTESTANT RELIGION OF THE OTHER OPIN-
<* ION. Thus much we can add, that, at the treaty of JJx- '' bridgCy NONE of your divines then present, (though " much provoked thereunto) would maintain that (we «* MIGHT SAY uncharitable) OPINION ; no, not privately " among your commissioners."
The men who wrote thus, were intelligent, well in- formed men, true sons of the church, and intimately con- versant with the leading ecclesiastics as well as civilians,
* Clarem.ox^s State Papers, Vol. ii. p 260. 2r4. 202.
PRELIMINARY LETTER. xxv
in the kingdom. And yet they could say, with confidence, that they did not believe there were " six persons of the protestant religion" who entertained the exclusive opinion which they reprobate.
The truth is, as long as doctrinal orthodoxy, and piety had a general prevalence in the Church of England^ which, it is well known, was the case prior to the administration of Archbishop Laud, the high-church claims which I am opposing, had very few advocates among the truly learned and respectable divines of that church. It was only when evangelical truth and spirituality greatly declined, that claims so much at war with reason, with scripture, and with the communion of saints, began to be popular. And I have no doubt that it may be maintained, as a gene- ral position, that, from that time to the present, the doc- trine in question has found most favour with the worldly and heterodox part of the English establishment; and been most disbelieved and opposed by the truly evangelical and exemplary portion both of the clergy and people.
V. Again ; the advocates of the high church and exclu- sive doctrine which is here opposed, will appear, when their case is examined, liable to the charge of extreme PRESuMPTuousNEss. When we see a very small sect, in a great religious community, turning'away, like the Pharisees of old, from all contact with the rest of their brethren ; alleging that their little body alone is in the right way, and that all the rest of mankind are outcasts and reprobates ; — we, instinctively, recoil from such a claim as arrogant and presumptuous in a high degree ; and demand that the evi- dence in its support be uncommonly clear and unquestion- able. It is very possible, indeed, that a small minority may be right, nay, the only body in the world that is right. This was actually the case with the « little flock" which the Saviour gathered in the days of his flesh, and who were '« every where spoken against." But then that " little flock" was armed with a power and an evidence which
xxvi PRELIMINARY LETTER.
ought to have convinced the whole world. But when every thing of this kind is wanting : — when without evi- dence, nay, in spite of the strongest evidence to the con- trary, a small body, with the narrowest prejudices, and the most determined exclusiveness, sets up a claim which not only virtually, but formally and necessarily places all the immense majority who differ from it, in the situation of aliens from all the gracious promises of heaven ; — every impartial judge will pronounce such a body liable to a charge of presumptuousness as offensive as it is groundless. When the reformation from popery took place, it became a question with all the reformed churches, throughout Eu- rope, what form of government they would adopt ? It would have been just as easy for them to adopt the pre- latical as any other ; nay easier. It was that to which they had been all accustomed for a number of centuries. And there was no difficulty in the way of their prelates, if they had chosen to have them, obtaining a regular canonical in- vestiture. There was a sufficient number of bishops who came over from the Romish church to the Protestant, to have peopled the whole ecclesiastical world with their order, if it had been deemed desirable. What, then, was the fact? Why that all the reformers on the continent of Eu- rope, without one solitary exception, declared in favour of the doctrine of ministerial parity, as the truly primitive and apostolic doctrine ; acknowledged prelacy to be a human invention ; universally sanctioned the principle of Presbyterian ordination ; and when any of them gave to certain ministers a kind of superintending power, uniform- ly declared, that they did not consider it as founded at all in scripture, but as a mere matter of human prudence, adapted to the secular circumstances in which particular communities were placed. To this statement in reference to the reformers on the continent of Europe, I cannot recol- lect a single exception. Now, I ask, could men have been possibly placed in circumstances more favourable to an in
PRELIMINARY LETTER. xxvii
telligent and impartial decision of this question ? For, in the first place, they were learned men ; a number of them transcendently so. Then the great body of them were fer- vently pious, devoted men, who gave abundant evidence that they searched the scriptures dih'gently, and were in- capable of departing from their conscientious convictions of truth and duty. Men who evinced so much of the spirit of martyrs, cannot be suspected of compromising what they honestly believed to be the will of God in this concern. Again, they were placed in circumstances which left them perfectly unshackled in their decision of this matter. The civil rulers, every where, so far as I have been able to learn, left them at perfect liberty to adopt that form of ec- clesiastical government which they judged to be most for edification. Yet, in these circumstances, they all — all — Lutherans and Reformed, came to the same conclusion. I repeat it — these learned, godly, devoted men — whether in Germany or France, whether in Holland or Switzer- land, whether in Sweden Denmark ov Scotland, — with- out any particular concert, and while they difiered widely on some other points — in reference to this came to the same conclusion ; — all agreed that the primitive, apostolic plan was that of ministerial parity ; that Presbyterian ordination was not only just as valid as any other, but most con- formed to the scriptural model ; and that wherever this model was in any degree departed from, the variation was, ot course, to be referred merely to human prudence, which a majority of them supposed might lawfully be ex- ercised in modifying and arranging matters of church go- vernment. Now these are, verily, most marvellous facts, if, as modern high-churchmen tell us, the evidence in fa- vour of prelacy, from scripture and early antiquity, is clear, undoubted, and such as all honest, impartial inqui- rers cannot but see and acknowledge. Were all the great and good men who conducted the reformation on the Eu- ropean continent so smitten with blindness, or so perverted by prejudice, as not to be able to perceive that which some
xxviii PRELIMINARY LETTER.
would persuade us is as clear to every sober inquirer as the light of day ; or, seeing it, were they so unprincipled as to set conscience and divine authority all at defiance ? While this universal and most wonderful concurrence of opinion in favour of ministerial parity, as taught in scripture, pervaded the reformed churches on the continent of Europe, without a single exception, and also in North Britain; England stood alone in adopting a different plan of ecclesiastical government ; and the reasons of her adopting this plan are too manifest to be mistaken by the most superficial inquirer. In that country the movements in favour of the reformation were begun by the monarch; not, as all the world knows, from any love to truth or piety, but under the impulse of his pride and voluptuous- ness. Having, from these unworthy motives, broken off from the papal see, and made himself pope in his own dominions, instead of the Roman Pontiff*, he ordered every thing, in the church as well as the state, with despotic sway, and received no more of the principles of the enlight- ened and holy men on the continent than suited his own blind and unworthy policy. When Henry VIII. died, which was not until the year after Luther had finished his work in Germany, and gone to his blessed reward ; Eng- land might still be said to be a popish country ; Protestant, indeed, in name ; but really and effectually disburdened of no important part of that mass of superstition in doctrine and order which had so long depressed and corrupted Christendom. Some progress in the hallowed work of reformation was made in the next reign ; but by reason of the minority and feebleness of the amiable king, every thing was in the hands of the bishops and nobles, who would naturally be disposed to retain that form of ecclesi- astical government to which they had been accustomed, and especially which they were tempted to prefer as involving the continuance of their own honours. The reformation could not really be said to be established in England until
PRELIMINARY LETTER. xxix
Elizabeth, who began to reign in 1558, had been some time on the throne. This Queen, haughty, despotic, super- stitious, and passionately fond of show and parade in eccle- siastical as well as civil affairs, was so far from being dis- posed to carry the reformation further than it had been carried in the reign of her brother Edward, that almost every movement was rather the other way. The bishops and court clergy were naturally inclined, as rnight have been expected to retain prelacy, in other words, their own pre-eminence : but even if they had been otherwise mind- ed, the Queen would have controlled their inclination ; as she manifested a strong desire for a splendid hierarchy, and restored several of the superstition^ of popery which had been set aside in the reign of Edward. Can any one be surprised that in these circumstances, prelacy was retained in the Church oi England! To suppose that a set of pre- lates would be likely, of their own accord, to prefer a plan destructive of their own powers and emoluments, is, of all suppositions, one of the most improbable. But they could not have carried into execution such a plan, even if they had been disposed. And yet high-churchmen gravely tell us, that the circumstance of the reformation in England, from its rise to its consummation, being in the hands of the bishops, affords the strongest presumptive proof of its being conducted on sounder principles than on the continent, where none of the leading reformers were prelates. This is, surely, one of the most extraordinary positions ever attempted to be maintained ! The presumption is, mani- festly, all the other way. The principal reformers on the continent, were more deeply learned than those in Eng- land. That they were at least as pious, and as heroically firm in acting agreeably to their conscientious convictions, no impartial judge will hesitate to admit. The fathers of reform on the continent, in rejecting episcopacy, resisted the strongest temptations of worklly ambition, for they might have had it if they pleased ; and if they had chosen 5
XXX PRELIMINARY LETTER.
to restore it, can any one of them have doubted, or can any thinking mind now doubt, that all eyes would have been turned to themselves as candidates for the prelacy ? whereas the fathers of the Protestant Church of England, in retaining the prelatical feature of their government, yielded to the plainest dictates of selfishness. The course they took was in support of their own authority and ho- nours. The continental reformers were at full liberty to follow their own judgment in this matter. But those of England, at every step, were restrained, if not coerced, by the hand of despotic power in the state. And, finally, we have conclusive evidence, as T have shown elsewhere, that even the English reformers, while they thought best to establish prelacy in the church over which they presided, by no means considered it as resting on the footing of di- vine right, but regarded it as a matter of human expediency alone. Now, when the facts were notoriously as has been stated ; when England, among all the protestant churches stood absolutely alone in retaining the prelatical system ; and when even she regarded it, in the beginning, not as an apostolic institution, but as an ancient, venerable, and con- venient human one, and cheerfully acknowledged as breth- ren those who rejected it ; the high-church doctrine now so confidently maintained by some, having never been thought of by one of their number ; I say, when these are are unquestionable facts, on which side does the presump- tion lie ? Surely i'f human authority is of any value in this matter: if the talents, . learning and piety of those who were instrumental in founding the several reformed church- es, are to have any weight in our present inquiry, the presumption is extreme in favour of the side of ministerial parity ; and those who conclude that this side must be wrong, when only a single nation adopted the opposite: and even that nation disclaimed adopting it on the principle of divine right — must be considered as chargeable with a presumptuousness which it is difficult to estimate.
PRELIMINARY LETTER. xxxi
VJ. The high-church doctrine is, further, in the opinion of some of the wisest and best men in our land, as irra- tional as it is, presumptuous. That is, it so palpably con- tradicts some of the most obvious dictates of reason, and some of the most settled principles of our common Chris- tianity, that we run no risk in saying, on this ground alone, it cannot possibly be true.
The man who can really believe that there is some won- derful influence flowing from the hands of a diocesan bishop, which can be imparted by those of no other eccle- siastic ; that those who are fully authorized to preach the gospel, and administer the sacraments appointed by Christ, have yet no power to admit others to equal authority with themselves ; that there is a mystical and indelible character impressed by a prelate's touch ; that the validity of all official ministrations in the church of G-od depends on an " uninterrupted succession" of canonical ordinations, following in a regular line from the apostles to the present day ; and that of course, the validity of all gospel ordinan- ces, and the warrant of all hopes in the covenanted mercy of God, are suspended on a point of ecclesiastical genealogy, which no man living can ascertain, and which not one pro- fessing Christian in ten thousand istompetent to examine; I say, the man who can really believe all this, and, conse- quently, rest every Christian's comfort and peace, — not where the Bible has placed them, — but on the disputable and varying formalities of fallible men ; such a man, it appears to me, is prepared to swallow any absurdity. He has put his understanding under lock and key. To say, that he departs from the whole tenor of Christian character and confidence, as laid down in the Bible, is to express but part of the truth. He turns his back on reason, as manifest- ly as he does on the spirit of holy scripture. He is in a fit state of mind to receive and dige&t any notion, however preposterous, that superstition or sinister design may pro- pose to his acceptance.
xxxii PRELIMINARY LETTER.
VIL The high-churcli doctrine which it is the design of the following pages to oppose, cannot fail of being discre- dited, in the view of all serious and impartial inquirers, by ^he UNHALLOWED CONNECTIONS in which it is commonly found. By this is meant, that the greater part of those who hold this exclusive and unscriptural doctrine, are found to associate with it, as parts of the same system, a variety of principles of the most delusive and mischievous kind. It is not asserted, that the principles to which I allude are always found in connection with the doctrine under consideration ; but that this is generally the case, and that there is, beye.id all question, a natural alliance between them.
The principles referred to are such as these : — that bap- tism is regeneration : — ^na the ordinances of the gospel, when administered by the proper hands, have a kind of opus operatum, as it has been technically called, or neces- sary and immediate influence, depending upon the admin- istrator being in the regular succession from the apostles x- — that the church, as such, is the only authorized interpreter of the Bible : — that there can be no acceptable or valid in- tercourse between heaven and earth, but through the me- dium of a canonical priesthood : — that the sacraments are necessary to salvation : — and that the external exhibition of them is a guaranty of saving grace to all who receive them. Such doctrines ss these are naturally, I had almost said necessarily, connected with the high-toned notions of prelacy, which some modern Episcopalians.ehtertain. For if ecclesiastics of a particular description are the only au- thorized negotiators between God and man ; and if none, however devout and exemplary, can have any access to the mercy seat, but through their official agency ; and if all who enjoy this agency with outward regularity, are of course safe ; — then I scruple not to aver that all the princi- ples which I have mentioned follow of course. No won- der, therefore, that they are commonly found, in a greater
PRELIMINARY LETTER. xxxiii
or less degree, in union with the offensive claim in ques- tion. These principles, however, ought, with all sober minds, utterly to discredit the doctrine from which they naturally flow. Corruption and delusion are stamped upon them with a distinctness not to be mistaken. They are grossly superstitious. They tend to put rites and forms, in place of the Saviour as the ground of hope. They are, of course, adapted to deceive and destroy. Their reception is a revival of the claims of " the man of sin, the son of perdition,'' who professes to be the only authorized vicar of Christ upon earth. Their tendency,' so far as they pre- vail, is to bring back the darkness and the thraldom of those ages, when haughty ecclesiastics undertook to be sovereign dispensers of the grace of God, and to make men believe, that they held in their hands all the spiritual privileges, and all the eternal hopes of their fellow men !
Can there be any thing presumptuous, my Christian brethren, in deciding that a claim which bears such rela- tions, and leads to such unhallowed results, cannot be a scriptural one ? No ; if our Saviour's test be safe and in- fallible ; if we are to know principles as well as men *^by their fruits ;" then we may confidently pronounce, that the claim in questson is destitute of all divine warrant, and of every character which ought to recommend it to sober minded Christians, who wish to be able to " give a reason'^ for that which they believe.
VIII. The claim under consideration, will further appear altogether inadmissible, if we consider its manifest and of- fensive UNCHARiTABLENESs. It uot ouly virtually, but formally and avowedly shuts out from the visible church, and from all the " covenanted mercies of God," the whole protestant world, excepting the members of the Episcopal church. I know, indeed, that a very difierent impression is (jften attempted to be made by the ardent advocates of this claim. They have sometimes represented as if they were pleading the cause of almost every church on earth.
xxxiv PRELIMINARY LETTER.
But nothing can be more delusive, or more entirely at war with notorious facts. The truth is, when we come to scru- tinize with care the real operation of this claim, it is to ex- clude from the visible church of Christ, and from all the promises of divine mercy, — the whole Lutheran denomi- nation, in every part of the world ; — all the reformed churches in Germany^ France^ Holland^ Switzerland, and Scotland, without exception ;— perhaps nearly one half the population of England itself ; and probably nine- teen twentieths of the whole population of the United States; including not only all classes oi Presbyter ians, but also the Congregational, Methodist, and Baptist churches, with many other less numerous portions of pro- fessing protestant Christians, in every part of the European and American world : — all these when traced to their original organization, and their subsequent practice, have no other than Presbyterian ordination ; and of course, all of them the high-toned prelatists unequivocally denounce ; not merely as defective in their views and organization ; not merely as labouring under serious error of doctrine or order; (such a charge might be consistent with the purest charity:) butas absolutely aliens from the church of God and from all his covenanted mercies 5 — nay, as was before remarked, in a situation worse than the heathen, inasmuch as the heathen, having no light , cannot be said to have re- sisted it ; but non-Episcopalians, in a Christian land are more guilty, enjoying the means of information, and, of course, being altogether without excuse. Such then, is the real state of this wonderful case. We have a comparative- ly small body of professing Christians ; not, certainly, a tenth part of the population of protestant Christendom, undertaking to exclude from all the warranted hopes of the
gospel, ALL THE REST OF THEIR FELLOW PROTESTANTS ;
declaring them out of covenant with Christ ; and, however eminent their piety, or fervent their zeal, or abundant their services in the cause of the Redeemer, yet, notwithstanding
PRELIMINARY LETTER. xxxv
all, aliens from his family, and having no divine promises of which they have a right to lay hold. In short, we have here the extraordinary spectacle of a body of professing Christians, virtually avowing, that no piety, however elevated, no obedience, however pure, without communion with prelates, can avail any thing in reference to Christian character : — that they are all nothing — literally nothing, so far as a gracious relation to God, and hopes in his pre- cious promises are concerned, unless connected with a point of external order, of which the Bible does not give the smallest intimation, and a reliance on which is contrary to the whole genius of the gospel !
It may be safely affirmed, that there is no parallel to this in the whole religious world, excepting in the PAPACY. It is true, there are portions of the protestant church, both in and out of our own country, which are each in the habit of laying much st7^ess on their respective peculiarities, representing them as highly important, and holding them fast with great, and sometimes, no doubt, with excessive tenacity. But they all, with one accord, grant that there may be genuine, acceptable piety, out of their own pale ; and they all, with equal unanimity, ac- knowledge, that wherever sincere faith in Christ, cordial repentance, and holiness of life exist, the happy subjects of them will be accepted of God, and made for ever happy with.J;iim, just as certainly as if they belonged to their own denomination : — nay, that this will assuredly be the case, even when these truly pious individuals were never con- nected with any visible church in their lives. To this statement I know only of one exception in the whole protestant world, and that is formed by the exclusive pre latists of whom 1 am speaking. This comparatively small body feel no hesitation in consigning to " uncovenanted mercy'' nine-tenths of all protestant Christendom 5 stig- matizing them as schismatics, rebels, presumptuous usurp- ers of that to which they have no right; aliens from the
Xxxvi PRELIMINARY LETTER.
commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenant of promise." But can there be the least countenance found in the Bible for this uncharitable proscription ? Can it be that all the blessed reformers on the continent of Europe, who laboured and suffered more for the cause of truth and piety than any others in their day ; and all the precious ministers and private christians who have flourished from that day to the present, in the churches founded by them ; ALL deserved to be considered in this light ; — all to be regarded as aliens from that Saviour to whom they conse- crated all they had, and in whose service they lived and died indefatigably labouring ? No, it cannot be. It is a sentence as unreasonable as it is dreadful. No such sen- tence was ever thought of by the Cranmers, the Hoopers, the Bidle^s, the Jewels, and the Grindals of former times ; nor can it be now pronounced without an offence, as odious as it is criminal, *' against the generation of the righteous."
IX. The doctrine of the exclusive prelatists is, beyond
all doubt, UNFRIENDLY TO CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.
There is, probably, no principle more familiar to the in- telligent Christian who has formed his sentiments from the Bible, than that the genuine religion of Jesus Christ has ever been, and ever must be, essentially favourable to all our choicest rights, as men and as Christians. It represents all men as standing, by nature, on a level before God, having equal privileges and equal responsibilities. IFt for- bids men to put their consciences or their hopes in the keeping of others, but imposes upon every man the duty of inquiring, judging, believing, and obeying for himself. It secures to every one the right of private judgment, and represents the exercise of this right as essential to the pro- per intercourse between God and the soul. It teaches the Christian, that the opinions of his fellow-men are no law to him ; but that " to his own Master he standeth or fall- eth." In short, it turns away the minds of men from the
PRELIMINARY LETTER. xxxvii
dictation, and unwarranted claims of both civil and eccle- siastical oppressors ; and calls upon them to acknowledge the sovereignty of truth alone, and to regard the Bible as the only statute book of Christ's kingdom, — the. only infal- lible rule of faith and practice.
Now, to all these principles, it is manifest that the spirit of the exclusive prelatists is decidedly unfriendly. I am far from affirming, indeed, that a man may not cordially prefer the Episcopal form of church government, and yet receive and love all these principles. Many may, and doubtless do, possess this decided preference, v\^ho are yet warm friends of both civil and religious liberty. I do not even affirm that every high churchman is, in reality, unfriendly to religious freedom ; and far less, that he avows to himself this unfriendliness. But my position is, that the doctrine of the exclusive and thorough-going prelatists, when traced to its legitimate, and, indeed, unavoidable conse- quences, naturally leads the minds of men, in proportion to the degree in which it is received, to all those impres- sions and habits which are connected with mental servitude. This doctrine introduces human mediators as essential to intercourse between Christ and the soul. It attaches indis- pensable importance to the agency and authority of "privi- leged orders" in the church. It represents a mere man as a vicar of Christ, as a keeper of the human conscience, and as the only channel of grace. According to this doctrine, there is no access to God, but through a certain " order of priesthood ;" this order hold in their hands all the means of approach to heaven ; and their's is the prerogative to impart or withhold the " covenanted mercies" of God. When such a doctrine is once admitted, there are no bounds to the power which it involves, or the unhallowed domi- nion over the conscience to which it naturally leads. It is the fundamental principle on which the whole super- structure of Papal tyranny has always rested. Hence the claim of that corrupt body to be the only authorized inter- 6
xxxviii PRELIMINARY LETTER
preter of the Scripture ; to prohibit its perusal ; to dispense pardons and immunities at pleasure ; to add to the rites and ceremonies enioined in Scripture; and enforce their observance to any extent which she may think proper. In a word, to this doctrine, traced out, I will not say, to its legitimate, but certainly to its natural consequences, we may refer the haughty triumph in past ages, of the eccle- siastical over the civil power; — the bulls and interdicts which have carried not only terror, but the most formidable privations to rulers, and even kingdoms ; and all that array of ghostly penalties and coercions, of which the history of the world gives so many mournful examples. The truth is, the moment we quit the gospel plan of approaching God, and obtaining acceptance with him ; the moment we assign to the agency of man in intercourse with heaven, that paramount and indispensable character which the Bible no where warrants ; that moment we encroach on the great principles of religious liberty ; we commence an invasion of Jehovah's prerogative, of which no one can esti- mate the mischief, or see the end.
But it will, perhaps, be asked, do no other classes of pro- fessing Christians, besides exclusive prelatists, contend for the importance of the Christian ministry, and represent its agency as necessary to the regular course of ecclesiastical administration ? Certainly they do. It will be seen in the following pages, that Presbyterians, and most other non- episcopal denominations maintain decisively that the gospel ministry is an ordinance of God ; that its functions ought not to be usurped by those who have not been regularly called to them ; and that it is the ordinary means of impart- ing saving knowledge to the minds of men, and building them up in faith and holiness unto salvation. As such, they bless God for the ministerial office; they highly value it; and consider it as the duty of all men to avail themselves of its faithful services, as they may have opportunity. But further they do not go. Precious as the Christian ministry
PRELIMINARY LETTER. xxxix
is in their view, and inestimable as are the offices which it dispenses, they do not consider either as necessary to sal- vation. They credit the divine declaration which pro- claims, *' Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt *< be saved. He that believeth on the son of God hath '* everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, *' but is passed from deatk unto life." And, accordingly, they are persuaded and teach, that wherever there is one who has genuine faith in the Redeemer, and, consequently, a vital union of spirit with him, such an individual is as completely in a state of acceptance with God, though he should never see a church officer in his life, and as sure of covenanted mercy, as if he enjoyed the most unquestiona- ble ordinances, dispensed by the most regular minister on earth. Now those who adopt this great gospel principle, and act upon it, cannot be subjected to the reign of spiritual domination. They own no master but Christ ; no media- tor but Him who *'' came to seek and to save that which was lost ;'^ no infallible statute book but the Bible ; no real dispenser of grace but that '^ holy Spirit of promise'^ who alone can give efficacy to means by whomsoever adminis- tered, and who can find his way to the heart without means. The Presbyterian, and those who think with him, take no view of the ministerial character which ne- cessarily gives it any official power over the consciences or the hopes of men. yNo certificate or intercession of a " priest" is needed to obtain access to the mercy seat. There is a wide, I had almost said, an infinite difference between all this, and maintaining that the agency of an " authorized priest" is necessary to salvation ; and that, as he may, at any time, withhold this agency at his pleasure, sg an obnoxious individual from whom he chooses to with- hold it, may be unavoidably lost, however pure and ele- vated his personal piety ; nay, that a nation may incur this dreadful penalty in the gross, if unfortunately laid under the bar of an ecclesiastical interdict, such as spiritual tyranny
xl PRELIMINARY LETTER.
has often imposed. In short, upon the high church principle, carried out to its legitimate consequences, " the need of the priest as an intercessor is incessant, and depend- ence upon him absolute and extreme."
X. The exclusive claims of prelacy are further refuted by the voice of history. That is, the practical influ- ence of this system, as recorded in the annals of the church, has never justified or sustained the pre-eminence to which it lays claim.
It is always an arduous task, and to delicate and benevo- lent minds, a painful one, to compare with each other dif- ferent denominations of Christians, and to attempt to award the comparative claims of each to purity and spirit- uality. It is a task in which sectarian feeling is so apt to interpose, and sectarian prejudice to blind the judgment, that few minds, animated by a proper spirit, will engage in it, unless compelled; yet it is sometimes necessary ; and the case before us seems to be one in which it becomes unavoidable.
If a confident and arrogant individual, in setting forth his claims to the Christian character, should allow himself to say : '^ I only am in covenant with God. I only, of all " my fellow professors, maintain a life of real communion " with him. All around me are aliens and reprobates. I " alone walk in the light, and in the favour of heaven :" would not every discerning neighbour be disposed, and with the utmost reason, to say to him : '' Where are your " testimonals? Bring forth fruits corresponding with this " high claim. If you would make it good, we shall ex- " pect you to be more devoted, more spiritual, and more " exemplary in every branch of Christian obedience, than *' any around you. Where, then, is your evidence of the " pre-eminent character which you arrogate to yourself ?'' Would such a demand be deemed either uncandid or un- reasonable ? By no means. It is a dictate of common sense. It is the very test which the Saviour himself pre-
PRELIMINARY LETTER. xli
scribes. " Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." And it is very certain that, in all rational society, such a claimant, unless he could sustain himself by appealing to a temper and conversation in some measure becoming his assumption, could not fail of incurring universal contempt. It may be truly said, that this is a simple, unexaggerated picture of the case before us. It cannot be alleged, indeed, that ALL Episcopalians prefer a claim of the character sup- posed. Many of them, I hope a large majority, though decided in their preference of Prelacy, are as inoffensive in their claims, as Presbyterians, or any other denomination of Christians. But the assumption of the high-church Pre- latists is precisely analogous to that of the individual ima- gined ; and, therefore, there can be nothing unjust in mak- ing the demand which I have stated. They tell us, that their^s is the only true church ; that Episcopalians alone are in covenant with God ; that they alone have an author- ized ministry, and valid ordinances ; that all others are schismatics, rebels and outcasts, having no share in the promises of divine mercy. Now, surely, there ought to be more piety, more holy living among the peculiar people of God, than among rebels and reprobates. Surely, it is not unreasonable to demand, that those who are in covenant with Christ, and enjoy all the privileges of his holy family, should exhibit more of the " spirit of Christ'^ than those who are t' none of his.^' Demonstration itself cannot be more unquestionable. To represent this as an unfair and odious comparison between two or more churches, is wholly deceptive. Nothing can be further from the truth. For, according to the high-church doctrine, the comparison between their body and other denominations, is a compari- son between the only true church, and the " world which lieth in wickednessJ^ Now, that there should be more genuine, consistent, and truly spiritual religion in the for- mer than in the latter, every one who believes that the church is Christ's family, and that to belong to it is a pri-
xlii PRELIMINARY LETTER.
vilege of any real value, will, without hesitation, acknow- ledge.
What, then, in reference to this subject, is the fact ? To those who have had an opportunity of surveying and comparing different denominations of professing Christians, let the appeal be made. Are the members of the Episco- pal Church, and especially those who contend for high- church principles, distinguished, above all other professors of religion, for their piety, zeal and universal holiness of practice ? Are they more devout, more prayerful, more exemplary in abstaining from every appearance of evil, and in maintaining a conversation becoming the Gospel ? When we look over Episcopal congregations, do we find them every where drawing to their solemn assemblies the most truly serious, spiritual and devoted classes of professors ; and as manifestly repelling from their communion the giddy, the worldly, and the licentious ? It is not denied, that there are many noble examples of Christian character in that denomination ; but are they more numerous than in any other ? Is it, or is it not notorious, that the great body of Episcopal churches in our land, instead of excel- ling all others in the strictness and purity of their religious example, are inferior to many other denominations, in those characteristics which are universally allowed to belong essentially to the spirit of Christ ? Where is the Lord's day most carefully sanctified ? Where does the spirit of prayer most manifestly abound ? Where do revivals of religion most frequently occur ? Where, in general, is there the greatest amount of sympathy for those who are '^ sitting in darkness, and in the region and shadow of death," and of effort and sacrifice to send them the light of life ? Where, in a word, is there the most withdrawment from the maxims and habits of a vain world, and the great- est activity and zeal in every good word and work.-^ I ask again — Is there more of all these among Episcopalians than among other denominations ? I do not believe there is an
PRELIMINARY LETTER. xliii
Episcopalian in the United States, of common discernment and common honesty, whose conscience will allow him to answer this question in the affirmative.
Again ; how shall we account for the fact, that those who are devoted to worldly pleasure, ambition and splendour; those who hate faithful preaching, and strict discipline; those who wish to bear the Christian name, but not to have the trouble of any anxious thought, inquiry, or self-denial on the subject ; those who lean to the utmost laxity of re- ligious principle, but yet do not choose openly to take their station with Unitarians and Universalists ; those, in a word, who content themselves with " the form of godliness with- out the power thereof;'^ how, I say, shall we account for the fact, that all these are found, in general, resorting to the Episcopal, in preference to other churches, wherever there is one of that denomination at hand ; and this not because they have examined the peculiar claims of that church, and found them firmly sustained ; but because they find less to disturb them in their course of worldly pleasure ?
It is painful to present interrogatories of this kind ; but our neighbours have compelled us. I am aware, indeed, that this whole argument is often indignantly repelled by those to whom it applies, as odious and unjust. But I will venture to say, that there never was an appeal more legiti- mate, reasonable or resistless ; and that the advocate of high-church principles can never dispose of it but by so- phistry or evasion. If the fact be as I have stated ; and I rather suppose it will not be questioned by any well-in- formed and candid Episcopalian ; then, of all wonderful facts, it is one of the most inexplicable, on the supposition that Episcopalians are the only people in covenant with God ; the only people who know any thing of holy com- munion with the Saviour, or who have any interest in " the exceeding great and precious promises" of his word !
XI. Another consideration occurs of deep and growing interest at the present day. It is, that the claim which I
xliv PRELIMINARY LETTER.
oppose is altogether hostile to that harmony of peel- ing AND EFFORT FOR THE SPREAD OF THE GOSPEL, WHICH CHARACTERIZES THE PRESENT AGE.
Perhaps there is no feature of the period in which we live, more gratifying to the pious mind, and more promis- ing with respect to the future, than the fact, that Chris- tians of different denominations are more united in spirit than formerly ; more disposed to feel as " one body in Christ,'^ and to act together in those great plans which have, for their object the diffusion of Christian knowledge, and the extension of the Redeemer's kingdom. We have witnessed the delightful spectacle of ministers of the gospel, and private Christians, of various ecclesiastical connections, who, until lately, stood aloof from each other, coming to- gether with fraternal affection, and cordially co-operating in efforts to send the book of God, and the glad tidings of salvation throughout the world. We have seen these noble coalitions in our own land, in Bible Societies, Missionary Societies, Tract Societies, and other associations for pro- moting the temporal and eternal welfare of men. And we have heard of pious, warm hearted missionaries of the Presbyterian, Methodist, and Baptist denominations, and even, in one or two cases. Episcopalians (in whom the love of Christ and his cause happily triumphed over the love of sect), meeting on foreign shores, taking sweet counsel, and communing together as brethren in Christ, with heart-felt affection and delight. That such truly refreshing scenes are becoming more frequent, every Christian ought to rejoice, and to pray that the spirit which produces them may fill the world.
But with this spirit the high church doctrine is utterly and irreconcilably at war. Its language, even to the most pious and devoted individual breathing, out of its own pale is, "Stand by, for I am holier than thou." It refuses to co-operate with non-episcopal Christians in anything. Even in circulating the Bible, " without note or comment," it declines to take any
PRELIMINARY LETTER. xlv
part, unless its own sectarian forms can accompany every copy of the word of life. Nay, even amidst the darkness and misery of perishing millions, it can deliberately say, " Let nothing be done if it cannot be comprehended in our " own enclosure. Let every plan of mercy be suspended, " every effort of Christian benevolence abandoned, rather " than run the risk of departing from the 'uninterrupted " succession ;' rather than suffer gospel ordinances to be ** distributed otherwise than in conformity with rigid " ' canonical regularity.' " I do not mean that this is the language often uttered by the lips of high churchmen ; but that it is the unavoidable and unequivocal language of their principles ; and that these principles lead to corresponding practical results. Indeed, there is reason to fear that, in some cases even low churchmen have caught something of the infection, and manifested a spirit closely allied with that of which I speak. One professedly of this class, has been known to offer his services to a respectable missionary association for a foreign mission ; but at the same time distinctly to announce, that if he should be sent forth in company with other missionaries, not Episcopally ordained, he could not possibly, when he should arrive on the foreign field, receive the sacramental symbols from their hands, but only when dispensed by himself! The missionary association in question, of course, thought it wise to decline annexing such an individual to a body, all the other mem- bers of which were of one heart, and one soul. This oc- currence would not have been, thought worthy of notice, did it not serve to illustrate the fact, that even some low churchmen are beginning, contrary to all their former pro- testations, to disclose some leaning to the high church doctrine, or, at any rate, to act upon it. In truth, when they are once, in any degree, entangled in the toils of the prelatical claim, it is easy to see that they can scarcely fail of finding themselves involved in embarrassments of the most serious kind. 7
xlvi PRELIMINARY LETTER.
Is it not evident, then, my Christian brethren, that the high and exclusive claim under consideration, is peculiarly unfriendly to the spirit of the .present day ? — a day in vv^hich the union of effort to spread the knowledge of the Gospel is manifestly increasing; when the spirit of our common Christianity is beginning, if I am not deceived, to be better understood, more deeply felt, and more divested of human additions ; — when Christians are beginning to distinguish more accurately than formerly between the essentials and the forms of religion, and to see that many things, which once kept them apart, ought no longer to do so. In such a day as this, the spirit of high-church, which was always antichristian, is peculiarly unseasonable and odious; unfriendly to the universal spread of the Gospel; utterly inconsistent with harmonious effort in this great cause ; fitted to create difficulty and obstacle at every step ; calculated to degrade our holy religion in the eyes of the heathen ; or to tempt the heathen to exchange one super- stition for another, a little more decent and respectable, but, when made the ground of hope, quite as delusive and fatal as their most miserable idolatries.
Such, my respected Christian brethren, are some of my objections to the high and exclusive claim which it is the object of the following pages to disprove. It is utterly destitute of all warrant from Scripture. It is entirely unsupported by an appeal to the earliest uninspired records of the Christian church. It is, undoubtedly, an innovation on the primitive model of ecclesiastical order. The original reformers in England did not receive it. In the best and purest period of the reformed church in that country, it was unknown ; and did not obtain a footing until orthodoxy and piety had both grievously declined. It is a claim pre- sumptuous, unreasonable, uncharitable ; generally found in connection with other errors of very unhappy tendency ; unfriendly to civil and religious liberty ; unsupported by
PRELIMINARY LETTER. xlvii
any benign and practical inflt«nce ; and unfavourable to affectionate union of effort in evangelizing the world. That which is manifestly liables^to all these objections, cannot be of God, and ought not be encouraged by those who desire the real prosperity of the Redeemer's kingdom.
To every Presbyterian, then, in the United States, I would say. Be not deceived with the idea that the doctrine contended for by high churchmen is a mere innocent specu- lation ; erroneous, indeed, but likely to do little harm, even if extensively embraced. If the foregoing repre- sentation be correct, this is an entire mistake. It is a doctrine founded in important error, and replete with prac- tical mischief. If, therefore, my beloved brethren, you wish well to the cause of Christ in our land ; if you desire to see a spirit of harmony and love growing among Chris- tians ; if your hearts warm with the hope of seeing pure and scriptural revivals of religion pervading every part of our country ; if you would guard against every thing in- imical to Christian liberty, and cherish every thing friendly to the diffusion of the genuine spirit of the gospel ; — then beware of the delusion of these men. I charge them with no sinister intention ; but their doctrine and claim, when traced to their legitimate consequences, are undoubtedly calculated to bring back the reign of Popery, and re-esta- blish that thraldom of ecclesiastical domination, of which the world has already seen so many mournful examples. It is adapted — whether they design it or not — to arrest the progress of all that is simple and scriptural in principle, of all that is holy in practice, and of all that is diffusive, unshackled, fraternal, and affectionate in Christian inter- course and Christian effort.
I am aware that my character among those who know me, is that of a firm, and even zealous Presbyterian. This character I am willing to own. I have no doubt that the substance of Presbyterianism is to be found in the Bible ; that it continued to prevail in the primitive church, two
xlviii PRELIMINARY LETTER.
full centuries after the dajusiof the apostles ; and that it is unspeakably better adapted than any form of church go- vernment, to bind the body of*Christ together in truth, love, holy living, and universal edification. Yet, I am free to say, that, much as I love this form of ecclesiastical or- der, I consider it as a trifle when brought into competition with the great interests of vital piety, and the salvation of the souls of men. I have no more doubt that a church may exist and flourish under a different form, than I have that a man may be pious, without being a Calvinist in his doctrinal belief. When I meet with an Episcopal brother, who, though he decisively prefers prelacy, and thinks he can find it in primitive antiquity ; yet forbears to put his bishop in the place of the Saviour, and preaches the truth in love — I regard him with cordial affection, and can un- feignedly wish well, not only to his person, but also to his ministry. Nay, I consider the success of any religious party ; the triumph of any external denomination, as un- worthy of regard, when compared with the great object of " turning nien from darkness to light, and from the power " of Satan to the kingdom of God's] dear Son. ^' If I am not utterly deceived, I love a pious, warm hearted, exem- plary Episcopalian, more, far more than a cold, formal worldly Presbyterian. Nor have I the smallest desire that Episcopalians should surrender their decided prefer- ence for prelacy, or their firm belief in its apostolic origin, for the sake of pleasing other denominations. This would be an unreasonable demand. All I lament, is, that they lay a degree of stress on an outward form which the Bible knows nothing of; and that they adopt a principle, without the slightest warrant, which necessarily leads to a system of proscription, denunciation, and war toward all other Protestant churches. I abhor the thought of making the form of ecclesiastical polity a fundamental of Christianity. You may be zealous Presbyterians, and yet not real Christians. And just in proportion to the degree in which
PRELIMINARY LETTER. xlix
you possess the genuine spirit of Christ, will you disap- prove of the error, in whomsoever it is found, of placing rites and forms among the«essentials of religion.
Allow me to say, my respected friends, that this is the Presbyterianism which I would earnestly recommend to you. Not that inordinate attachment to a name and a form which is the offspring of narrow views, sectarian feelings, and blind prejudice; but that candid, sober preference, which places ecclesiastical order where it ought to be placed, as a secondary matter ; — and which recognizes the fact, that men may entertain different views on this subject, and yet be equally pious believers, anfl, of course, equally safe in their hopes of heaven. This, I have reason to be- lieve, is the prevailing sentiment, both among ministers and people, of the body to which we are so happy as to belong. May it ever be one of our laudable distinctions ! Let no- thing tempt you to depart from this sentiment. Never per- mit even the sectarian violence of other denominations to drive you into an imitation of their unhallowed spirit. Let them denounce your ministry, and sneer at your ordinances and your hopes. Be it your resolution to return good for evil ; and to love and honour them as brethren in Christ, as far as they appear to bear his image, although they may reject and vilify you. Remember that their acknowledging you, or refusing to do it, is nothing, if Christ acknowledge you. When the Judaizing teachers, in the days oi Paul, urged an adherence to the ceremonial observances of the old economy, as necessary to salvation ; the apostle, who had been better taught, instead of manifesting any anxiety for the safety of himself, and his fellow disciples, who re- jected the Jewish doctrine and who were thus denounced, seemed chiefly concerned for the welfare of those who were carried away by this delusion, and to guard others against its influence. In like manner, so far from being doubtful whether you may be saved out of the Episcopal church, my deep conviction is, that the danger is all the other way ; —
1 PRELIMINARY LETTER.
that there is real danger — not in being found in an Episcopal church, as such ; for there I have no doubt there may be as ardent piety, and as precious, well founded hopes as in the Presbyterian or any other : but real danger in being found in an ecclesiastical inclosure in which the high church doctrine, with all its usual spirit and accompanying errors, form the prevalent system. But even toward the advocates of these, guard against a spirit of acrimony or retaliation. Compassionate their error. Pray without ceasing for their illumination. And endeavour to win them by the patient exercise of a kind, respectful, and fraternal spirit. However the manifestation of such a spirit may be received by them, it will promote your own comfort and benefit, both with God and man. No good effort was ever lost; no holy temper was ever exercised in vain.
Let none say, that the design of these remarks is to cast odium on a large, and, certainly, very respectable denomina- tion of Christians. I again declare, that nothing is further from my design. Against Episcopalians, as a^ody, I have not the smallest disposition to eay a word. With respect to them, as well as various other denominations around me, whom I can respect and love while I difier from them: I would say — may God bless and prosper them in all their honest endeavours to bring men to the saving knowledge, love, and obedience of the truth! But episcopacy, as a form of ecclesiastical government, and the decided preference and use of it, as marking a sect of Christians, Tnay be dis- tinguished, and must be distinguished from the doctrine and spirit of high-churchmen. They were distinguished by Cranmer, Grindal, Mhot, Hall, and Usher, in for- mer days of the church of England ; and by Tillotson, TVake, Seeker, Newton, Scott, and others, in later times. All these were Episcopalians, and most of them eminent prelates ; none of them, however, were high-churchmen, but renounced and abhorred their doctrine, and the claim resulting from it, as much as we do. And one of the most
PRELIMINARY LETTER. li
learned of them all, Archbishop Wake, expressly stigma- tizes the advocates of this doctrine as ** madmen.^^ With such Episcopalians, every contemporary Presbyterian lived in peace; and with such men, we may and do live in peace now. There are points of difference between us ; but nothing to interfere with Christian love and good neighbourhood. But the doctrine which is sometimes found among Episcopalians ; which attained very little currency or popularity in the church of England, until the time of Archbishop Laud, of inglorious memory; which, from that time to this, we have reason to be thankful, has been the doctrine of only a minority of the Protestant Episcopal Church ; and which it is really an imposition on public credulity to identify with that church, as a Chris- tian denomination ; — this doctrine, which but faintly dis- guises its Popish character, is odious, and ought to be so considered ; and I do not deny that it is my intention to hold it up to public odium whenever I have occasion to speak of it. It is a system of belief, and of action, which not only declares war against all other denominations ; but its very element is war, and so far as the views and wishes of those who wage it go, nothing less than a war of extermination. Is it inconsistent with either Christian can- dour or charity to represent such a system as worthy of being held up to public odium ?
It militates nothing against this representation to allege, that the men who advocate this exclusive system are honest in their convictions, and benevolent in their intentions. This is not denied or doubted. But so, unquestionably, is the serious Romanist, when he proclaims eternal perdition as inevitable to all who are not in communion with the bishop of Rome ; and denounces the same penalty against all who reject the penances and absolutions dispensed by his " priesthood." But neither the sincerity of his belief in what he tells us, nor the kindness of his intentions in warning us of a danger which he unfeignedly considers as
Hi PRELIMINARY LETTER.
real, can alter the odious character of the dogmas which he urges; or diminish the obligation resting upon every one who loves the happiness or the liberty of his country, to set himself against them with fixed and firm opposition.
With the intentions of high-churchmen we have noth- ing to do ; but the spirit and tendency of their claims we are bound, as members of the Church of Christ, to under- stand, and to place in a proper light before ourselves and others. Fidelity to our Master in heaven demands this of us. The best interests of our children, who may be mis- led by their plausible confidence, demand it of us. The duty which we owe to our truly primitive and apostolic Church requires it at our hands. Nay, we are called to this duty by the obligations which, as patriots, we owe to the rights and privileges of our beloved country. Never was there a country or an age, in which the claim in question was less in accordance, than that in w^hich our lot is cast. The happy civil constitutions under which we live, re- garding with equal eye all denominations, call upon our several Churches, in the most emphatic language, to live in peace with one another. The great movements in the re- ligious world which mark the beginning of the nineteenth century, proclaim as loudly and solemnly as the events of any period ever did, that all the real friends of Christ ought to be united against the common enemy, and in sup- port of their common Christianity. Is this a country, and is this a day in which the very thought can be admitted, that professing Christians should spend their time in *' doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof come envy, raiUngs, evil surmisings, and corrupt disput- ings ?" Is this a time for '^ Judah to vex Ephraini, and Ephraim to vex Judah,^^ when there is so much common ground on which both may peacefully stand ; and when the importunate cries of a dying and supplicating world — cries which ought to move the hearts and summon the energies of all Christians, to the great work of sending the bread
PRELIMINARY LETTER. Hii
and the water of life to famishing millions ? Whatever others may do, my Christian friends, be it far from tou to indulge a spirit unworthy of the name you bear. Be it your constant care to " study the things which make for peace, and the things wherewith one may edify another." And then, whatever may become of this controversy, as a matter of logical discussion, you will be certain of the best of all victories, — a victory over unhallowed tempers and practices ; a victory over strife and division ; and oyer every thing that interferes with the union and edification of the body of Christ.
I am, my Christian Brethren,
Your affectionate servant in the Gospel,
SAMUEL MILLER.
Princeton, Sept. 16 th, 1830.
LETTERS
covcEBiriNa
THE CONSTITUTION AND ORDER
OF
^siis ©iMiEa^^iiAi^ umiii^iBir^
BY SAMUEL MILLER, D. D.
PART I.
L.ETTERS
THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.
LETTER I.
INTRODUCTORY.
CHRISTIAN BRETHREN,
Religion is the common business of all men. Its duties cannot be performed by delegation. Every man is required to examine, to believe, and to obey the gospel for himself, and for himself to receive the promised reward. We may commit other concerns to the wisdom and fidelity of our fellow-men : but the care of his own soul belongs to each individual ; and if he neglect it, no solicitude, no exertions on the part of others, can possibly avail him.
But although religion be a concern which equally belongs to every man, yet it has pleased the all- wise Head of the Church to appoint an order of men more particularly to minister in holy things: not to supersede the attention of other individuals to this object, but to stimulate, to guide, and in various ways to assist them in this attention. For when this divine Instructer ascended up on high, he gave some to he prophets, and some apostles, and some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.
Prophets and apostles are no longer continued in the Church ; because the immediate inspiration, and the miraculous powers with which they were endowed, are no longer necessary in dispensing the gospel. But though the age of inspired men, and of miracles be past, the Redeemer still continues the ministry of reconciliation. He still continues to raise up and send forth a A
2 LETTER I.
succession of ambassadors, to declare his will, and to offer pardon and life to a fallen race.
The office sustained by ministers of the gospel is designated in scripture by a variety of names. They are sometimes called Bishops, because they are overseers of the flock committed to their charge. They are frequently styled Presbyters, or Elders, which are words of the same import, because, if not really advanced in age, they are bound to maintain the dignity and gravity of ecclesiastical rulers. They are denominated Pastors, because it is their duty to feed the flock of God. They are called Doctors and Teachers, because they are required to instruct those commit- ted to their care, in the doctrines and duties of religion. They are said to be Ambassadors, importing that their duty is to declare the will of their Sovereign, and to negotiate a peace between the offended Majesty of heaven and guilty men. They are represented as Ministers or Servants, because in all that they lawfully say and do, they act under the authority of a Master, whose declared will is their guide. They are Stewards of the mysteries of God, having the spiritual provisions of his house committed to them to be dispensed. They are Watchmen, being placed to guard the welfare of Zion, to give notice to men of their danger, and to exercise a vigilant care over all the interests of the Redeemer's kingdom. They are Shepherds, inasmuch as they are appointed to feed, protect, guide, and govern the flock, under the direction of the Chief Shepherd. And, finally, according to the language of scripture, they are Workmen and Labourers, because they have a particular task assigned them; and because a faithful discharge of their duties requires diligence, exertion, and persevering labour.
Every thing relating to the Christian Church is important, and worthy of our serious attention. But it too often happens, that, on account of particular states of society, or other peculiar circumstances, some portions of the system of revealed truth are less regarded and examined than their relative importance demands. Accordingly, it has appeared to me, for several years past, that the order of Christ and his apostles respecting the Christian Ministry, is a subject which has received less of your attention, and is, by many of you, less understood than it ought to be by those who profess to be members of that holy community, which
INTRODUCTORY. 3
ministers are appointed to serve and to govern. If all the interests of the Church are precious in the view of every enlightened Christian, it is evident that the mode of organization cannot be a trivial concern ; and if the Saviour, or those who were immediately taught by his Spirit, have laid down any rules, or given us any information on this subject, it behoves us carefully to study what they have delivered, and to make it our constant guide. Under these impressions, I have determined to request your candid attention to some remarks on the doctrine held by our Church respecting the Christian Ministry, and especially as to the points in which we differ, on this subject, from our Episcopal brethren.
You will do me the justice to acknowledge, that, in the course of my ministry among you, I have never manifested a spirit of bigotry or disputation. Indeed, some of you, I know, have considered me as too reluctant to engage in the public discussion of various subjects disputed between our Church and those of other religious denominations. My great attachment to peace among Christians, and ray earnest desire to promote that charity without which faith and hope are vain, have always rendered me unwilling to embark in controversy. My readers, therefore, will do me great injustice if they suppose that any thing in the following sheets is dictated by a spirit of anim.osity or bitterness towards any portion of the religious community, or is intended to cherish such a spirit in others. My object is, not to intrude into another society for the purpose of making proselytes ; not to disturb the convictions, or irritate the feelings of any who are fixed in a different creed from mine ; but to inform and satisfy you, who are not only of my own denomination, but more particularly committed to my charge, that you have not followed cunningly devised fables; that you are connected with a Church as nearly conformed to apostolic and primitive order as any on earth ; and that Christian ordinances come to you in a channel at least as pure and legitimate, and in a manner at least as agreeable to the simplicity that is in Christ, as to those who make the most extravagant and exclusive claims.
In the discussion of all controverted subjects it is of the utmost importance to ascertain, at the commencement, the precise state of the question. Much has been said and written on the main subject of dispute between the Presbyterian and Episcopal
4 LETTER I.
Churches, without understanding, or, if they were understood^ without distinguishing, the points in which these denominations agree, and in which they diflfer. To guard against mistakes here, it will be proper to state explicitly, in what respects their opinions are at variance.
We agree with our Episcopal brethren in believing, that Christ hath appointed Officers in his Church to preach the word, to administer sacraments, to dispense discipline, and to commit these powers to other faithful men. We believe, as fully as they, that there are different classes and denominations of officers in the Church of Christ ; and that, among these, there is, and ought to be, a clue subordination. We concur with them in maintaining, that none are regularly invested with the ministerial character, or can with propriety be recognized in this character, but those who have been set apart to the office by persons lawfully clothed with the power of ordaining. We unite with such of them as hold the opinion, that Christians, in all ages, are bound to make the apos- tolic order of the church, with respect to the ministry, as well as other points, the model, as far as possible, of all their ecclesiastical arrangements. And, finally, we contend, equally with them, that both the name and the ojice of Bishop were found in the primi- tive Church, and ought to be retained to the end of time. Many Episcopalians of narrow views, and of slender information, seem to take it for granted that we discard Bishops in every sense of the word; and therefore, when they find this term in scripture, or in early uninspired writers, they exult, as if the word established their claim. But nothing can be more unfounded than this triumph. We all acknowledge that there were Bishops in the days of the apostles, and that there must be Bishops in every regularly con- stituted Church in every age.*
But we differ from that denomination of Christians in our views
* In the Form of Government of the Presbyterian Church, the pastors of Churches are expressly styled Bishops,- and this title is recommended to be retained, as both scriptural and appropriate. The same may be proved with respect to most, if not all the Ileformed Churches. I am sensible that this title, as applied to ordinary pastors, has been the sub- ject of much ridicule among the friends of prelacy; a ridicule, however, which recoils with double force upon those who thus betray a want of acquaintance with the primitive application of the word.
INTRODUCTORY. 5
of the character and 'powers of Church officers. They suppose that there are three orders in the Christian ministry, viz. Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons : The first possessing the highest eccle- siastical power ; the second invested with authority to preach and administer both sacraments; and the third empowered only to preach and baptize. We suppose, on the other hand, that there is, properly speaking, but one order of gospel ministers; that there are, indeed, two other classes of Church officers, viz. ruling Elders, and Deacons ; but that neither of these are authorized to labour in the word and doctrine, or to administer either of the Christian sacraments. We suppose that there is a plain distinc* tion made in scripture between Elders who only rule, and Elders who, to the power of ruling, join also that oi teaching and admin- istering sealing ordinances. And we believe, that the friends of modern Episcopacy, in considering Deacons as an order of Clergy, and in empowering them to preach and baptize, are chargeable with a departure from the apostolic pattern.
But we differ from our Episcopal brethren, principally, with respect to the character dindi poioers of the scriptural Bishop. They contend that Bishops are an order of ministers superior to Pres- byters, having a different ordination, different powers, and a different sphere of duty. That while Presbyters have a right, by virtue of their office, to preach the word, and administer sacra- ments, to Bishops exclusively belong the powers of ordination, confirmation, and government. On the other hand, we maintain, that there is but one order of ministers of the gospel in the Christian Church ; that every regular pastor of a congregation is a scriptural Bishop; or, in other words, that every Presbyter, who has been set apart, by the laying on of the hands of the Pres- bytery, and who has the pastoral charge of a particular Church, is, to all intents and purposes, in the sense of scripture, and of the primitive Church, a Bishop; having a right, in company with others, his equals, to ordain, and to perform every service pertaining to the Episcopal office. We can discover no warrant, either from the word of God, or from the early history of the Church, for what is called the Diocesan Episcopacy, or the pre- eminence and authority of one man, under the title of Bishop, or any other title, over a number of Presbyters and Churches : On the contrary, we are persuaded and affirm, that Christ and his
6 LETTER I.
Apostles expressly discountenanced such claims of pre-eminence 5 and that all those forms of ecclesiastical government which are built upon these claims, are corruptions of apostolic simplicity, and deviations from the primitive order of the Church.
This being the case, you will readily perceive the necessity of clearly marking and keeping in view a distinction between the primitive and the modern sense of the word Bishop. Accordingly, in the perusal of the following sheets, you are earnestly requested to recollect, at every step, that by a scriptural or primitive Bishop f is always meant a Presbyter, Minister, Pastor, or whatever else he may be called, who has the pastoral care of a particular congre- gation ; 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 modern 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.
It ought further to be understood, that among those who espouse the Episcopal side in this controversy, there are three classes.
li\iQ first consists of those who believe that neither Christ nor his Apostles laid down any particular form of ecclesiastical govern- ment, to which the Church is bound to adhere in all ages. That every Church is free, consistently with the divine will, to frame her constitution agreeably to her own views, to the state of society, and to the exigencies of particular times. These prefer the Episcopal government, and some of them believe that it was the primitive form ; but they consider it as resting on the ground of human expediency alone, and not of divine appointment. This is well known to have been the opinion of Archbishops Cranmer, Grindal, and Whitgift ; of Bishop Leighton, of Bishop Jewel, of Dr. Whitaker, of Bishop Reynolds, of Archbishop Tillotson, of Bishop Burnet, of Bishop Croft, of Dr. Stilling fieet, and of a long list of the most learned and pious divines of the Church of England, from the reformation down to the present day.
Another class of Episcopalians go further. They suppose that the government of the Church by Bishops, as a superior order to Presbyters, was sanctioned by apostolic example, and that it is the
INTRODUCTORY. 7
duty of all Churches to imitate this example. But while they consider episcopacy as necessary to the perfection of the Church, they grant that it is by no means necessary to her existence ; and accordingly, without hesitation, acknowledge as true Churches of Christ, many in which the Episcopal doctrine is rejected, and Presbyterian principles made the basis of ecclesiastical government. The advocates of this opinion, also, have been numerous and respectable, both among the clerical and lay members of the Episcopal Churches in England, and the United States. In this list appear the venerable names of Bishop Hall, Bishop Downham, Bishop Bancroft, Bishop Andrews, Archbishop Usher, Bishop Forbes, the learned Chillingioorth, Archbishop Wake, Bishop Hoadly, and many more, whose declarations on the subject will be more particularly detailed in another place.
A third class go much beyond either of the former. While they grant that God has left men at liberty to modify every other kind of government according to circumstances, they contend that one form of government for the Church is unalterably fixed by divine appointment 5 that this form is Episcopal ; that it is absolutely essential to the existence of the Church ; that, of course, wherever it is wanting, there is no church, no regular ministry, no valid ordinances 5 and that all who are united with religious societies, not conforming to this order, are " aliens from Christ," " out of the appointed road to heaven," and have no hope but in the " uncovenanted mercies of God."
It is confidently believed that the two former classes taken together, embrace at least nineteen parts out of twenty of all the Episcopalians in Great Britain and the United States 5 while, so far as can be learned from the most respectable writings, and other authentic sources of information, it is only the small remaining proportion who hold the extravagant opinions assigned to the third and last of these classes.
Against these exorbitant claims there is, prior to all inquiry into their evidence, a strong general presumption, for the following reasons :
First — It is placing a point of external order on a par with the essence of religion. I readily grant, that every observance which the great Head of the Church enjoins by express precept, is indis- pensably binding. But it is certainly contrary to the genius of the
8 LETTER I.
Gospel dispensation, which is pre-eminently distinguished from the Mosaic economy by its simplicity and spirituality, to place forms of outward order among those things which are essential to the very existence of the Church. We know from scripture, that the visible form of the Church has been repeatedly altered, without affecting her essence.
Secondly — Against this doctrine there is another ground of presumption ; because it represents the rite of ordination as of superior importance to the whole system of divine truth and ordinances, which it is the duty of Christian ministers to dispense. According to this doctrine, Preshyttrs are fully authorized to preach that Gospel which is the power of God unto salvation to every one that helieveth ; to admit members into the Church by baptism ; to administer the Lord's supper 5 and, in short, to engage in all those ministrations which are necessary to edify the body of Christ : but to the regular introduction of a minister into office, by the imposition of hands, they are not competent. Is not this, in other words, maintaining, that the Gospel is inferior to its ministers ; that the sacraments are less solemn and elevated ordinances than a rite, which all Protestants allow not to be a sacrament ; that the dispensation of God's truth is a less dignified function, than selecting and setting apart a servant of the truth ; that the means are more important than the end ? If so, then every man of sound mind will pronounce, that, against such a doctrine, there is, antecedent to all inquiry, a reasonable and strong presumption.
Thirdly — If it be admitted, that there are no true ministers but those who are episcopally ordained ; and that none are in commu- nion with Christ, excepting those who receive the ordinances of his Church from the hands of ministers thus ordained ; then Christian character, and all the marks by which we are to judge of it, will be placed on new ground; ground of which the scrip- tures say nothing ; and which it is impossible for one Christian in a thousand to investigate. When the word of God describes a real Christian, it is in such language as this — He is bo7m of the Spirit ; he is a new creature; old things are passed away ; behold, all things are become new. He believes in Christ and repents of all sin. He crucifies the fiesh with the affections and lusts : he c/e- lights in the law of the Lord after the inward man : — he strives
INTRODUCTORY. 9
against sin : he is meek, humble, full of mercy and good fruits : he loves his brethren whom he hath seen, as well as God whom he hath not seen: he is zealous of good works: and makes it his constant study to imbibe the Spirit, and to imitate the example of the Redeemer. These are the evidences of Christian character which fill the New Testament, and which meet us wherever the subject is discussed. According to this representation, the only essential prerequisite to holding communion with Christ, is being united to him by a living faith; that faith which purifies the heart, and is productive of good works. But if the extravagant doctrine which we oppose be admitted; then no man^ however abundantly he may possess all these characteristics, can be in communion with Christ, unless he is also in communion with the Episcopal Church. That is, his claim to the Christian character cannot be established by exhibiting a holy temper and life ; but depends on his being in the line of a certain ecclesiastical descent. In other words, the inquiry whether he is in covenant with Christ, is not to be an- swered by evidences of personal sanctification ; but resolves itself into a question of clerical genealogy, which iQw Christians in the world are capable of examining, and which no mortal can certainly establish. There is no possibility of avoiding this conclusion on the principle assumed. And I appeal to you, my brethren, whether a principle which involves such consequences, has not strong pre- sumption against it.
Fourthly — If the doctrine in question be admitted, then we vir- tually pronounce nine-tenths of the whole Protestant world to be in a state of excommunication from Christ. I know it has been often said, by zealous writers on this subject, that the great body of the Protestant Churches are Episcopal; and that those who adopt the Presbyterian government make but a very small portion of the whole number. But I need not tell those who are acquainted with the history of the Church since the reformation, and with the present state of the Christian world, that this representation is wholly incorrect- The very reverse is true ; as I shall more fully show in a subsequent letter. Are we then prepared to adopt a principle which cuts off so large a portion of the Protestant world from the visible Church, and represents it as in a state in some respects worse than that of the heathen ? It is to be presumed that every considerate man will require the most pointed evidence of B
10 LETTER I.
divine warrant, before he admits a principle so tremendous in its consequences.
It is not asserted that these considerations prove the extravagant episcopal doctrine from which they flow to be false. A doctrine may be unpalatable, and yet true. Whatever is plainly revealed in scripture, we are to receive without any regard to consequences. But when a principle is repugnant to reason, contradicts the analo- gy of faith, and involves consequences deeply wounding to the bosom of charity, we may safely pronounce that there is a pre- sumption against it, antecedent to all inquiry; and that before we embrace such a principle, the evidence of its divine warrant ought to be more than commonly clear and decisive.
With the great body of Episcopalians in this country, and elsewhere, it is extremely easy to live on the most friendly terms. Though attached to the peculiarities of their own denomination, they extend the language and the spirit of charity to other Churches. We, of course, think them in error, because we are persuaded that Episcopacy, in the form for which they contend, is an inno- vation. Yet as long as they keep within the bounds of that liberal preference and zeal for their own forms, both of government and worship, which every man ought to cherish for the Church with which he connects himself, we must approve of their sincerity, while we cannot unite with them in opinion. But with those (and and we have reason to be thankful that the number is very small) who make exclusive claims, of a nature nearly allied to the doc- trine of Popish infallibility; who declare that their own Church and the Roman Catholic, are the only Churches of Christ among us ; who embrace every opportunity of denouncing all other minis- ters, as presumptuous intruders into the sacred office, their minis- trations a nullity, and those who attend on them as aliens from the covenant of grace ; with these it is not so easy to live in that harmonious and affectionate intercourse which is highly desirable among Christians of different denominations. But even toward thesCy it is your duty to cultivate a spirit of forbearance and charity; and while you are careful to arm yourselves with the means of defence against their attacks, remember that you are bound to make allowance for their prejudices, to forgive their uncharitableness, and to pity their delusion. Among depraved and erring mortals, differences of opinion will ever exist. The
INTRODUCTORY. 1 1
most pious and exemplary Christians cannot always agree, espe- cially on subjects of minor importance connected with religion. Make it your study, then, to be unanimous in affection towards Christians of every name, however you may be compelled to differ from many of them in opinion. Never forget, however others may act as if they forgot, that all real believers are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. It is my earnest wish that this sentiment may be deeply impressed on my own heart while I write, and on yours while you read. For though, with respect to the subject on which I am about to address you, I am fully persuaded in my own mind; and though I confi- dently believe that our views of the Christian ministry are not only jusl, but also highly important in their practical influence; yet I have no doubt that many who differ on subjects of this nature, are followers of the same master, are building on the same foundation, and will finally dwell together in that world of perfect love, where men shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of our Father, You will, perhaps, ask me, whether those who sincerely hold the high-toned Episcopal notions which have been mentioned, can be reasonably blamed for endeavouring to propagate them ? Nay, whether it is not as much their duty as their right to do so, while they entertain these convictions ? I answer, such persons are to be viewed in the same light with those who conscientiously believe (and no doubt there are many such) that transuhstantiation is a doctrine of scripture; that the Pope is infallible ; that images are a great help to devotion ; and that there is no salvation out of the pale of the Church of Rome. Persons who hol5 these opinions are not to be blamed for wishing to disseminate doctrines which they regard as true and important ; but they are to be both blamed and pitied for believing them, when the means of gaining more correct views are within their reach; for setting up a standard of duty and of Christian character which the Saviour never knew ; and teaching for doctrines the commandments of men, Paul, when he was persecuting the Church of Christ and wasting it, verily thought within himself that he was doing God service; yet we have the best authority for saying that this miserable mistake did not render him blameless in the sight of heaven.
12 LETTER I.
The truth is, every sect of Christians must be considered as having a right to maintain and propagate those opinions, which they sincerely believe to be true ; and others have an equal right, and are equally bound, when they see errors propagated, to examine, and, with a suitable spirit, to expose and refute them. Nor are discussions of this kind by any means to be regarded as useless. When conducted with the meekness and benevolence of the Gospel, they are productive of various substantial benefits. Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall he increased.
Had any of the numerous works which have been published on the subject of these letters been in general circulation among you, or had it been easy to put them in circulation, I should have thought it unnecessary to ask your attention to the following sheets. But as most of those works are too voluminous to be generally read; as several of the best of them are in a language not generally understood ; as many of them contain much matter inapplicable to the state of our country ; and as others, being intended to answer particular purposes, are too confined in their views, I have thought myself justifiable in attempting to lay the subject before you in a form somewhat different from that of any work with which I am acquainted. And in doing this, I am not without the hope, that you will be disposed to receive with some partiality, and to peruse with a kind interest, an address from one who has laboured sincerely, though with many infirmities, for many years, to promote your spiritual interest, and who has no greater pleasure than to see you walking in the truth.
To treat the question considered in the following pages, in all its extent, and even to present the principal arguments with a fulness desirable to some readers, would be to fill several volumes. In contracting the discussion, therefore, within the limits of this little manual, I have laid myself under the necessity of being every where extremely brief, and of totally excluding many topics, both of argument and illustration, which might be profitably introduced. But, amidst this unavoidable brevity, I hope you will do me the justice to believe, that no assertion will be made but what I conscientiously consider as susceptible oftbe most abundant proof; that no arguments will be stated, but those which I believe to have stood immovably solid, after every attempt to answer them ; that no authorities will be produced, but those which are generally admitted to be of the most respectable character; and, in a word.
INTRODUCTORY. 13
that the whole subject will be presented as fairly and impartially as I am able to present it. With respect to authorities, indeed, I have endeavoured, in all cases in which I could obtain access to them, to quote the most distinguished Episcopal writers themselves. The concessions of learned and wary adversaries, in favour of our doctrines, carry with them peculiar weight.
But before I conclude this introductory letter, suffer me, my dear
brethren, to remind you,^that the names and powers of Christ's
ministers, and the form of government adopted in his Church,
though objects of inquiry, on various accounts, highly interesting,
are yet to be numbered among the externals of religion. You may
entertain perfectly correct opinions on these subjects, and yet, after
all, have no just claim to the Christian character. You may be
connected with the purest Church on earth, and may receive all its
ordinances, from the hands of the most regular and valid ministry
in Christendom, and yet be aliens from the commonwealth of
Israel, and strangers to the covenant of promise. It is true, the
externals of religion have a closer connexion with its spirit and
power than is commonly imagined ; but still they are externals
only, and must not be suffered to usurp a disproporlioned share of
our regard. The scriptures speak to us frequently respecting the
outward organization of the Church ; but they speak to us much
more frequently ; they dwell with much more fervent and solemn
emphasis, on that faith, which unites the soul to Jesus Christ ; that
repentance which is unto life ; and that holiness of temper and
of practice, without which no man can see the Lord, Let me
beseech you, then, to remember, in every stage of this discussion,
that, in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor
uncircumcision, hut a new creature ; and that, while one saith, I
am of Paul, and another, I am of Apollos, and another, I am of
Cephas, unless we are all of Christ, united to him by a vital faith,
and built upon him as the only foundation of our hope, we cannot
see the kingdom of God. " Every believer in Jesus," says an
eminent Episcopalian, " who is a partaker of the grace of God in
'* truth, is a member of the true Church, to whatever particular
"denomination of Christians he may belong ; without this, Popes,
<^ Bishops, Presbyters, Pastors, or Deacons, are but the limbs of
" Antichrist and of the Synagogue of Satan ; and belong to no
" Church which the great Shepherd and Bishop of souls will
" acknowledge for his own."
( 14 )
LETTER n.
TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE.
CHRISTIAN BRETHREN,
In all disputes relating either to the faith or the practice of Christians, the first, and the grand question is, What saith the Scripture? This is the ultimate and the only infallible standard. Whatever is not found in the Bible cannot be considered, in any sense, as essential either to the doctrine or the order of the Church. This maxim is especially applicable to the subject now under discussion. As the Christian ministry is an office deriving its existence and its authority solely from Jesus Christ, the King and Head of his Church, it is obvious that his Word is the onli/ rule by which any claims to this office can properly be tried, and the duties and powers of those who bear it, ascertained. Every other standard is unauthorized, variable, and uncertain. On the word of God alone can we with confidence and safety rely for direction in things relating to his spiritual kingdom. The declarations of two eminent Episcopal writers on this subject are just and weighty, " The Scripture," says Dr. Sherlock, " is all of a piece 5 every *^ part of it agrees with the rest. The Fathers many times contra- " diet themselves and each other." In the same strain speaks the celebrated Chillingworth. — " I, for my part, after a long, and (as t " verily hope and believe^ impartial search of the true way to " eternal happiness, do profess plainly, that I cannot find any " rest for the sole of my feet, but upon this rock only, viz. the " Scripture. I see plainly, and with my own eyes, councils against " councils, some Fathers against others, the same Fathers against " themselves, a consent of Fathers of one age against a consent of " Fathers of another age, and the Church of one age against the " Church of another age." — But it is needless to multiply reason- ings or authorities on this subject. The sufficiency and infallibility of the Scriptures alone, as a rule of faith and practice, was assumed
TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 15
as the grand principle of the Reformation from Popery, and is acknowledged to be the foundation of the Protestant cause.
Let us, then, examine what the Scriptures say on the point in dispute. And here it is proper to premise, that whoever expects to find any formal or explicit decisions on this subject, delivered by Christ or his apostles, will be disappointed. It is true, the dis- courses of the Saviour, and the writings of those who were inspired with the knowledge of his will, contain many observations and instructions concerning the Christian ministry : but they are chiefly employed in prescribing the qualifications, and urging the duties of those who serve God in the Gospel of his Son, rather than in defining their titles, in settling questions of rank and pre- cedence among them, or in guarding the immunities and honours of their office. The necessity of knowledge, piety, zeal, diligence, self-denial, meekness, patience, fortitude, and eminent holiness, in ministers of the Gospel, is urged with a frequency, a minuteness, and a force, which evince that, in the estimation of infinite Wisdom, they are regarded as of primary importance. While questions re- specting priority, and grades, and privileges, are never once for- mally discussed, only occasionally alluded to, and then in a man- ner so indistinct and cursory as to show that they were considered as objects of inferior moment. What are we to infer from this want of absolute explicitness in the sacred writings? Not that Church Government is a matter of small importance. It would be easy to prove that this is a very mischievous extreme. But we certainly must infer, that the Spirit of God does not teach us to lay so much stress on points of ecclesiastical order, as on those pre- cious doctrines which relate immediately to the Christian charac- ter and hope, which " form the essence, and fill the volume of the sacred records."
But while the scriptures present no formal or explicit decisions on this subject, we find in them a mode of expression and a num- ber o( facts, from which we may, without difficulty, ascertain the outlines of the apostolic plan of Church order. By a careful attention to this language, and to these facts, if I mistake not, it will be easy to show —
That Christ gave but one commission for the office of the Gos- pel ministry, and that this office, of course, is one.
That the words Bishop, and Elder, or Presbyter, are uniformly
16 LETTER 11.
used in the New Testament as convertible titles for the same office.
That the same character and powers which are ascribed, in the sacred writings, to Bishops, are also ascribed to Presbyters ; thus plainly establishing the identity of order j as well as of name. And finally,
That the Christian Church was organized by the apostles after the model of the Jewish Synagogue, which was unquestionably Presbyterian in its form.*
If these four positions can be established, there will remain no doubt on any candid mind how the question in dispute ought to be decided.
I. It is evident that Christ gave but one commission for the office of the Gospel ministry, and that this office, of course, is one.
The commission which our Lord gave to his apostles, and in them to his ministers in every age, is expressed in the following words — And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost — Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you : and lo 1 am with you always, even unto the end of the world.f Then said Jesus to them again. Peace be unto you : As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost — whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained.\ These passages form the grand com- mission under which all lawful ministers have acted from the mo- ment in which it was delivered to the present time ; and under which they must and will act to the end of the world.
This commission, it is confessed on all hands, was originally given to one order of ministers only, viz. the eleven Apostles. The
* Though the word Presbyterian Is commonly used to designate those Churches, which are governed by Presbyteries and Synods, as the Churches of Geneva, Holland, Scotland, and those of this denomination in the United States,- yet all those Churches are, in the leading sense of the word, Presbyterian, in which Presbyters ordain, and are regarded as holding the highest ecclesiastical office.
t Matth. xxviii. 18, 19, 20. + John xx. 21, 22, 23.
TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 17
seventy disciples had been employed on a temporary service, and that, strictly speaking, under the Jewish dispensation. For as the Christian Church did not receive its distinct constitution till after the resurrection of Christ ; as tlie Apostles were made fixed officers of the Church, by virtue of this new commission, and not of any former appointment ; and as no such new commission was given to the seventy disciples, it is manifest that they are not to be considered as ministers of the New Testament dispensation at all. The Saviour, then, in this last solemn interview, addressed the eleven only. To them he committed the whole ministerial authority in his kingdom. The commission, therefore, when it was first delivered, certainly constituted no more than one order of Gospel ministers.
That this commission embraces the highest and fullest ecclesias- tical power, that has been, is, or can be possessed by any of the ministers of Christ, all Protestants allow. And that it conveys a light to preach the word, to administer sacraments, and to ordain other men to the work of the ministry, Episcopalians, as well as others, grant. Now this commission either expired with the apostles, to whom it was originally delivered, or it did not. If it did expire with them, then no miaisters of the Gospel, since their day, have had any commission, for there is no other left on record. But if it did not expire with them, then it is directed equally to their successors in all ages. But who are these successors r Demonstrably all those who are authorized to perform those functions which this commission recognizes, that is, to preach, and to administer the sealing ordinances of the Church. Every minister of the Gospel, therefore, who has these powers, is a successor of the apostles, is authorized by this commission, and stands on a footing of official equality with those to whom it was originally delivered, so far as their office was ordinary and perpetual.
It is remarkable, that, in this commission, dispensing the Word of life J and administering Sacraments, are held forth as the most prominent, important, and solemn duties of Christian ministers. The power of ordaining others is not mentioned at all ; and we only infer that it is included, because the commission recognizes the continuance of the office and duties of ministers to the end of the world. Must we not infer then, that all who have a right to preach and 6ap<2«e, have a right, of course, to ordain ? Does i< C
18 LETTER II.
comport with the spirit of this commission, to represent the former functions, which Hre mentioned with so much distinctness and solemnity, as pertaining to the lowest order in the Church; and the latter, which is only included by inference, as reserved for a higher order ? Those who are confessed to have the most important and distinguished powers conveyed by a commission, must be considered as possessing the whole. What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
There seems to be no method of evading the force of this argument, but by supposing, that the ministerial powers conveyed by this commission, were afterwards divided; and that, while some retained the lohole, others were invested with only a part of these powers. In other words, that the same commission, since the days of the apostles, makes some Bishops, clothed with the highest powers, and other Presbyters, with powers of a subordinate kind. But does not this supposition carry with it its own refutation ? Can one form of investiture constitute different orders ? Formal reasoning cannot be necessary to set aside such an absurdity. But were the supposition which has been stated ever so legitimate on the score of reasoning, it is altogether unsupported in point of fact. Where is the evidence of this pretended division of ministerial powers ? When was it made ? By whom ? In what manner were the powers in question divided ? The commission itself gives no hint of such a division. No subsequent passage of scripture suggests any thing of the kind. Nothing that so much as seems to warrant such a supposition, is to be found in all the book of God. Nay, the contrary most manifeslly appears. For when, after our Lord's ascension, we find the apostle Paul, and other inspired writers, giving instructions concerning the ministerial office and duties, they always speak in the spirit of the original commission ; and represent teaching men the way of salvation, edifying the Church, and administering the seals of the covenant, as the highest functions belonging to this office. These are ever the principal objects to which their precepts and exhortations are directed, and which they evidently regard as paramount to all questions of precedence and privilege.
Until, then, the friends of three orders in the Christian ministry produce, from Scripture, some other commission than that which we have seen ; or find some explicit warrant for a threefold
TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 19
division of the powers which this one commission conveys, we are compelled to conclude, that our Lord contemplated but one stand- ing order of Gospel ministers in his Church ; and that all who are empowered to preach his Word, and administer his sacraments, belong to this order.
.11. That Bishops are not, by divine right, diflferent from, or superior to, Freshyters^ is further evident, because the terms Bishop and Presbyter are uniformly used in the New Testament, as convertible titles for the same office.
The Greek word (s-jnCxo'Troj) which we translate Bishop^ literally signifies an Overseer. This word appears to have been adopted by the apostles from the Greek translation of the Old Testament (generally called the Septuagijii) which was in common use among the Christians of that day. In this celebrated version, the word is employed frequently, and to designate officers of various grades and characters, civil, military, and ecclesiastical. The inspired writers of the New Testament, observing that this word, as a title of office, was much in use, and familiarly understood among those who had the scriptures in the popular language in their hands, thought proper to adopt and apply it to the officers of Christ's spiritual kingdom.
The word (ir^ed^vrs^og) which the translators of the New Tes- tament render Elder, and which precisely answers to the word Presbyter, literally signifies an aged person. But as among the Jews, and the eastern nations generally, persons advanced in age were commonly selected to fill stations of dignity and authority, the word Presbyter, or Elder, became, in process of time, an established title of office. The Jews had rulers called by this name, not only over their nation, but also over every city, and every synagogue. To a Jew, therefore, no term could be addressed more perfectly intelligible and familiar. The apostles finding this to be the case with most of those among whom they ministered, gave the name of Elder to the pastors and rulers of the Churches which they organized ; and the rather because these pastors were generally in fact taken from among the more grave and aged con- verts to the Christian faith.
From this statement it will appear, that Presbyter, if we attend to its original meaning, is a word of more honourable import than Bishop. Presbyter is expressive of authority, Bishop of duty.
20 l^ETTER II.
The former implies the dignity and power of a ruler ; the latter conveys the idea of work, or of executing a prescribed task. But whatever may be the comparative degrees of honour expressed by these terms, it is certain that they are uniformly employed, in the New Testament, as convertible titles for the same office. An attentive consideration of the following passages will establish this position beyond all doubt.
The first which I shall quote is found in Acts xx. IJ. 28. Jnd from Miletus he sefit to Ephesus, and called the Elders (or Pres- byterSf •tt^so'^uts^ou^) of the Church, And when they were come to him, he said unto them, Take heed unto yourselves and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers (or Bishops, S'jfifTxo'jfovg) to feed the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood. — In this passage it is evident, that the same persons who, in the 17lh verse are styled Elders or Fres- hyters, are in the 28th called Bishops. This, indeed, is so incon- testible, that the most zealous Episcopalian, so far as I know, has never called it in question. It is further observable, that in the city of Ephesus there were a number of Bishops, who governed the Church in that city as co-ordinate rulers, or in common coun- cil. This is wholly irreconcilable with the principles of modern episcopacy; but perfectly coincides with the Presbyterian doc- trine^ that scriptural Bishops are the Pastors of single congrega- tions.*
• It has been much controverted whether, in each of the larger cities, in which Christianity was first planted, such as Jerusalem^ Ephesus^ An- tioch, Corinthy &c. there was more than one congregation of Christians. In other words, whether by the Church at Ephesus we are to understand, a single congregation, or several separate societies, as the Presbyterian Church in New-York comprehends several congregations? — From the multitudes that are said to have believed in those cities, it is probable there were several thousands of Christians in each of them; and as the places in which they assembled for public worship were small, perhaps most of them apartments in private dwellings, we cannot suppose that they were all able to assemble at the same time and place. The expe- dient, therefore, of dividing themselves into small associations, would seem natural, and even unavoidable. We know that in the days of the apostles there were a number of Bishops in each of the cities of Ephesus zud Philfppi. It is most probable that these were pastors of so many different congregations. We are by no means to suppose,
TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 21
The next passage to our purpose is the address of the apostle Paul to the Philippians, in the introduction of his Epistle to that Church. Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus, which are at Philippi, with the JBishops and Deacons. Here, as well, as in the case of Ephesus, just mentioned, we find the inspired writer speaking of a number o{ Bishops in a single city. It is true, Dr. Hammond, an eminent Episcopal writer, to avoid the force of this fact, so unfriendly to modern Episcopacy, would persuade us that Philippi was a Me- tropolitan city, and that the Bishops here spoken of, did not all belong to that city, but also included those of the neighbouring cities, under that Metropolis. But this supposition is not in the least degree countenanced by the apostle's language; the plain, unsophisticated meaning of which evidently refers us to the Bishops and Deacons which were at Philippi, and there only. Besides, Dr. Whitby, a later, and equally eminent Episcopal divine, assures us, that Philippi was not, at that time, a Metropoli- tan city, but under Thessalonica, which was the Metropolis of all Macedonia, Dr. Stillingjleet has also clearly shown, that there are no traces to be found within the first six centuries, of the Church at Philippi being a Metropolitan Church. Dr. Maurice, another zealous and able writer in favour of diocesan episcopacy goes further. He acknowledges that Dr. Hammond stands alone, in the solution of the difficulty above mentioned ; that he cannot undertake to defend it ; and that " he could never find sufficient " reason to believe these Bishops any other than Presbyters, as " the generality of the Fathers, and of the Church of England " have done."*
The third passage to be adduced is in Titus i. It is as follows. For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain Elders, {Presbyters^ in every city, as I had appointed thee. If any be blameless, the
however, that in those days of persecution and peril, when Christians were almost afraid of appearing in public, and when their meetings were often held under the cover of midnight, that their division into parishes, or even into congregations, was as regular and as precisely defined as at present; or that the same principles of reasoning in all cases apply to those small house-churches, as to modern congregations. * Defence of Diocesan Episcopacy, p. 29.
22 LETTER II.
husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused ofriot, or unruly. For a Bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not self-willed, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre, &c. Here the apostle, in directing Titus to ordain Elders, enjoins upon him to choose those officers from among the most temperate, blameless, and faithful believers; and the reason he assigns for this injunction is, that a Bishop must he blameless ; evidently meaning, that Presbyter and Bishop are the same office. On any other construction, the different parts of the address are unconnected, and the whole destitute of force. But these are charges which no man who is conversant with the writ- ings o( Paul, would ever think of bringing against them.
This passage also establishes another point. It not only shows that the Elders here to be ordained, were considered and denominated Bishops, thereby proving the identity of the office designated by these names; but it likewise proves, beyond controversy, that, in apostolic times, it was customary to have a plurality of these Bishops in a single city. We have before seen that there were a number of Bishops in the city of Ephesus, and a number more in the city o( Philippi : but in the passage before us we find Titus directed to ordain a plurality of them in every city. This perfectly agrees with the Presbyterian doctrine, that scriptural Bishops were the pastors of single congregations, or Presbyters, invested, either separately or conjointly, as the case might be, with pastoral charges ; but it is impossible to reconcile it with the modern notions of diocesan episcopacy.
There is one more passage, equally conclusive in this argument. It is that which is found in 1 Peter v. 1,2. The Elders (or Presbyters) which are among you, I exhort^ who am also an Elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed. Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof (s'jrio'xo'n'ouvTSj, that is, exercising the office, or performing the duties of Bishops over them), not by restraint, but willingly ; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind. The construction of this passage is obvious. It expressly represents Presbyters as Bishops of the flock, and solemnly exhorts them to exercise the powers, and perform the duties of this office.
In short, the title of Bishop, as applied to ministers of the Gospel,
TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 23
occurs only four times in the New Testament : in three of these cases, there is complete proof that it is given to those who are styled Presbyters; and in the fourth case, there is strong presumption that it is applied in the same manner. On the other hand, the Apostle Peter, as we have just seen, in addressing an authoritative exhortation toother ministers, calls himself a Presbyter. The same is done by the Apostle John, in the beginning of his second and third epistles— 27*6 Elder {Presbyter) unto the well beloved Gains —The Elder unto the Elect Lady, &c. Could more complete evidence be desired, that both these titles belonged equally, in the days of the apostles, to the same office ?
But it is not necessary further to pursue the proof that these names are indiscriminately applied in scripture to the same office. This is freely and unanimously acknowledged by the most respecta- ble Episcopal writers. In proof of this acknowledgment, it were easy to multiply quotations. A single authority shall suffice. Dr. Whitby confesses, that " both the Greek and Latin Fathers do, " with one consent, declare, that Bishops were called Presbyters^ " and Presbyters Bishops, in apostolic times, the names being then "common." Notes on Philip^ i. 1.
I know that many advocates for diocesan episcopacy have affected to make light of the argument, in favour of the parity of of ministers, drawn from the indiscriminate application of these , scriptural names. Indeed, some of them have attempted, by florid declamation and ludicrous comparisons, to turn the whole into ridicule. This is an extremely convenient method of evading the force of an argument which cannot be fairly answered. But to evade an argument is not to refute it. Besides, have those who reject all reasoning drawn from the application of scriptural names, considered whither this principle will lead them? Have they reflected how large a portion of those weapons with which they defend the Divine character, and the vicarious sacrijfice of the blessed Redeemer, against the attacks of Socinians, and other heretics, are necessarily surrendered, if the names and titles of scripture are so vague and indecisive as they would, in this case, represent them ? Will they venture to charge the great Head of the Church, who dictated the scriptures, with addressing his people in a language altogether indistinct, and calculated to mislead them ; and that too on a subject which, they tell us, lies at the foundation
24 LETTER 11.
not merely of the welfare, but of the very existence of the Church ? Surely these consequences cannot have been considered. The argument, then, drawn from the indiscriminate application of the names Bishop and Presbyter to the same persons, is conclusive. It was pronounced to be so, by the venerable and learned Jerome^ more than 1400 years ago; and his judgment has been adopted and supported by some of the greatest and best divines that have adorned the Christian Church, from that period down to the present day.
But we have something more to produce in support of our sys- tem, than the indiscriminate application of the names in question to one order of ministers. We can show,
III. That the same character , duties, and powers, which are ascribed in the sacred writings to Bishops, are also ascribed to Freshyters ; thereby plainly establishing their identity oi order as well as of name.
Had Bishops been constituted, by the great Head of the Church, an order of ministers different from Presbyters, and superior lo them, we might confidently expect to find a different commission given ; different qualifications required 5 and a different sphere of duty assigned. But nothing of all this appears. On the contrary, the inspired writers, when they speak of ministers of the Gospel, by which ever of these names they are distinguished, give the same description of their character; represent the same gifts and graces as necessary for them ; enjoin upon them the same duties ; and, in a word, exhibit them as called to the same work, and as bearing the same office. To prove this, let us attend to some of the principal powers vested in Christian ministers, and see whether the scriptures do not ascribe them equally to Presby- ters and Bishops.
I. That Presbyters had, in apostolic times, as they now have, authority to preach the word, and administer sacraments, is uni- versally allowed by Episcopalians themselves. Now, if we consult either the original commission, or subsequent instructions given ministers, in various parts of the New Testament, we shall find these constantly represented as the highest acts of ministerial authority ; as the grand powers in which all others are included. Instead of finding in the sacred volume the smallest hint, that ordaining ministers, and governing the Church, were functions of
TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. ^5
an higher order than dispensing the word of eternal life and the seals of the everlasting covenant ; the reverse is plainly and repeatedly taught. The latter, we have already seen, are the most prominent objects in the original commission ; they formed the principal business of the apostles wherever they went ; and all the authority with which they were vested is represented as being subservient to the promulgation of that Gospel which is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth. Preaching and administering sacramentSy therefore, are the highest acts bf ministerial authority; they are far above ordination and govern- ment, as the ewe? is more excellent than the means ; astheswfts^awce is more important than (he form.
If, then, Presbyters be authorized, as all acknowledge, to per- form these functions, we infer that they are the highest order of Gospel ministers. Those who are empowered to execute the most dignified and the most useful duties pertaining to the ministerial office, can have no superiors in that office. The Episcopal system, then, by depressing the teacher ^ for the sake of elevating the ruler, inverts the sacred order, and departs both from the letter and the spirit of Scripture. The language of Scripture is. Let the Pres- byters who rule well be counted worthy of double honour, espe- cially THEY WHO LABOUR IN THE WORD AND DOCTRINE. But the
language of modern episcopacy is, that labouring in the word and doctrine is a lower service in the Church, and government a more exalted f that bearing rule is more honourable and more important than to edify — a language which to be refuted needs only to be stated.
From these premises T am compelled to conclude, that the offi- cer of the Christian Church who is authorized to preach and administer sacraments, cannot be an inferior or subordinate officer, but must be equal to, or rather the same with, the scriptural Bishop. And in this reasoning I am supported by the judgment of Bishop Burnet, who declares — " Since I look upon the sacra- ** mental actions, as the highest of sacred performances, T cannot " but acknowledge those who are empowered for them, must be of " the highest office in the Church."*
2. The power of government, or of ruling the Church, is also
* Vindication of the Church and State of Scotland, p. 336. D
26 LETTER II.
committed to Presbyters. Tiiis is denied by Episcopalians 5 but the Scriptures, expressly affirm it. The true meaning of the word Presbyter, in its official application, is a church ruler or governor^ as Episcopalinns themselves allow. Hence the " over- sight" or government of the Church is in Scripture expressly assigned to Presbyters as their proper duty. The Elders to whom the Apostle Peter directed his first epistle, certainly had this power. To them it is said. The Elders ivhich are among you I exhort. Feed the jlock of God, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly ; neither as being lords over God^s heritage, but as ensamples to the flock. Scarcely any words could express more distinctly than these the power of ruling in the Church. But, as if to place the matter beyond all doubt, these Elders are exhorted to use this power with moderation, and not to tyrannize, or " lord it over God's heritage." Why subjoin this caution, if they were not invested with a governing authority at all ?
The case of the Elders of Ephesus is still more decisive. — When the Apostle Paul was about to take his final leave of them, he addressed them thus : Take heed, therefore, unto yourselves, and to the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood, &c. The word here translated feed, is crojjuiajvejv, which means taking such care as a shepherd does of his flock; and, of course, implies icatching over, guiding, and ruling, as well ns feeding. Here the government of this Church, then, as well as ministering in the word, is evidently vested in the Elders. No mention is made of any individual, who had the "whole ruling power vested in him, or even a larger share of it than others. Had there been a Bishop in this Church, in the Episcopal sense of the word, that is a single person of superior order to these Elders, and to whom, of course, they were in subjection, it is strange that, in this whole account, we do not once find the most distant allusion to him.* When the Apostle was telling the Elders that they should never see his face more, and that dissen-
* The reader will bear in mind, that the zealous advocates for Epis- copacy suppose and assert that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus at this time. On what grounds this assertion is made will be seen in ihe next letter.
TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 21
sions and difficulties were about to arise in their Church, could there have been a more fit occasion to address their superior, had there been such a man present? To whom could instruction have been so properly directed, in this crisis, as to the Chief Shepherd ? On the other hand, supposing such a superior to have existed, and to have been prevented by sickness, or any other means, from attending at this conference, why did not the Apostle remind the Elders of their duty to him ? Why did he not exhort them, in the strife and divisions which he foretold as approaching, to cleave to ihe'ir Bishop f and submit to him, as the best means of unity and peace ? And, finally, supposing their Bishop to have been dead, and the office vacant, why did not the Apostle, when about to take leave of a flock so much endeared to him, select a Bishop for them, ordain him with his own hands, and commit the Church to his care? But not a word of all this appears. No hint is given of the existence of such a superior. On the contrary, the Apostle declares to these Elders, that the Holy Ghost had made them Bishops over the Church at Ephesus ; he exhorts them to rule that Church ; and when about to depart, never to see them more, he leaves them in possession of this high trust.
But the passage just quoted from 1 Tim. v. is absolutely conclu- sive on this point. Let the Elders thai rule well be counted tvorthy of double honour,^ especially they ivho labour in word and doctrine* Here the power of government in the Church is ascribed to Presbyters in terms which cannot be rendered more plain and decisive. Here, also, we find officers of the Church who are not recognized in the Episcopal system, but who are always found in the Presbyterian Church, viz. riding Elders, or those who are appointed to assist in governing the Church, but who do not preach or administer sacraments. But this is not all : bearing rule in the Church is unequivocally represented in this passage as a less honourable employment than preaching, or labouring in the word and doctrine. The mere ruling Elder, who performs his duty well, is declared to be worthy of '^ double honour;" but the Elder who, to this function, adds the more dignified and important one of preaching the Gospel of salvation, is declared to be entitled to honour of a still higher kind.
As this passage is directly hostile to the claims of modern Episcopacy, great exertions have been made to set aside its
28 LETTER I.
testimony. To effect this the most unnatural glosses have been adopted. Instead of formally stating and answering these, I will content myself with delivering the opinions of three distinguished divines, whose judgment on such a subject will be despised by none. Dr. Owen declares — " This would be a text of uncontrolla- "ble evidence, if it had any thing but prejudice and interest to "contend whh. On the first proposal of this text— TAa^ the " Elders who rule well are worthy of double honour, especially " they who labour in word and doctrine^ a rational man, who is " unprejudiced, who never heard of the controversy about ruling " Elders, can hardly avoid an apprehension that there are two " sorts of Elders, some that labour in the word and doctrine, and " some who do not do so. The truth is, it was interest and prejudice " that first caused some learned men to strain their wits to find out " evasions from the evidence of this testimony ; being so found, " some others, of meaner abilities, have been entangled by them." The language of Dr. Whiiaker, a zealous and learned Episcopalian, is equally strong and decided, with regard to this passage. " By " these words," says he, " the Apostle evidently distinguishes be- " tween the Bishops and the inspectors of the Church. If all who rule " well be worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the " word and doctrine, it is plain there were some who did not so " labour ; for if all had been of this description, the meaning " would have been absurd ; but the word especially points out a " difference. If I should say, that all who study well at the " university are worthy of double honour, especially they who " labour in the study of theology ^ I must either mean that all do " not apply themselves to the study of theology, or I should speak <' nonsense. Wherefore I confess that to be the most genuine sense *< by which pastors and teachers are distinguished from those who " only govern." — Frcelect. ap. Didioclav. p. 681. Equally to our purpose is the opinion of that acute and learned Episcopalian Dr. Whitby, in his Note on this passage. " The Elders of the Jews," says he, " were of two sorts; 1st. Such as governed in " the Synagogue ; and 2dly. Such as niinistered in reading and i' expounding their Scriptures, &;c. And these the Apostle here " declares to be the most honourable, and worthy of the chiefest " reward. Accordingly, the Aposlle, reckoning up the offices God
TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 29
" had appointed in the Church, places teachers before governments. « 1 Corin. xii. 28."
3. The Scriptures also represent Pres%^ers as empowered to ordain, and as actually exercising this power. Of this we can produce at least three instances of the most decisive kind.
The first is recorded in Acts xiii. as follows. Now there were in the Church that was at Antioch, certain prophets and teachers, as Barnabas, and Simeon, that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the Tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the liord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And lohen they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. This is the most ample account of an ordination to be found in Scripture ; and it is an account which, were there no other, would be sufficient to decide the present controversy in our favour. Who were the ordainers on this occasion ? They were not Apostles. Lest this should be supposed, their names are given. They were not Bishops, in the modern sense of the word ; for there were a number of them ministering together in the same Church. They were the Prophets and Teachers of the Church at Antioch. With respect to these Teachers, no higher character has ever been claimed for them than that of Presbyters, labouring in the loord and doctrine. And as to the Prophets, though the precise nature of their endowments and office be not certainly known ; yet there is complete evidence that they did not sustain that particular[ecclesiastical rank, with which Episcopalians contend that, in the days of the Apostles, the power of ordaining was connected. Still these ministers ordained; and they did this under the immediate direction of the Holy Ghost, who cannot be supposed to have sanctioned any departure from an essential principle of Church government.
To invalidate this reasoning, some Episcopal writers have suggested that the ordination here recorded was performed not by the Teachers, but by the Prophets only. But nothing like this appears in the sacred text. On the contrary, its plain and simple import forbids such a construction. The command to ordain Paul and Barnabas was directed both to the Prophets afid Teachers ; and we are told that they proceeded immediately to the performance
30 LETTER II.
of the solemn act to which they were called. To suppose, therefore, that the Teachers either did not engage in this ordination ; or that, if they did participate in the transaction, it was rather as witnesses expressing consent, than as ordainers conveying authority, or ratifying a commission, is a supposition as illegitimate in reasoning, as it is repugnant to the sacred narrative.
Another plea urged against this example is, that it is not to be considered as an ordination at all 5 that both Paul and Barnabas had been recongnized as ministers of the Gospel several years before this event ; and that it is rather 10 be regarded as a solemn benediction, previous to their entering on a particular mission among the Gentiles. It is readily granted that Paw/ and Barnabas had been engaged in preaching the Gospel long before this time. But there is no evidence that either of them had ever before been set apart by human ordainers. It seemed good, therefore, to the Holy Ghost, that before they entered on their grand mission to the Gentiles, they should receive that kind of ordination, which was intended to be perpetual in the Church. No example of such an ordination had yet been given. If the practice were ever to be established, it was necessary that a beginning should be made. And as these missionaries were about to travel among a people, who were not familiar with the rite of ordination by the imposition of hands, so well understood by the Jews, it was judged proper by infinite Wisdom to set this example for imitation in all subsequent periods. And as if to give the strongest practical declaration of ministerial parity, Faul, with all the elevation of his gifts, and all the Instre of his apostolic character, submitted to be ordained, together with his brother Barnabas, agreeably to the regular principles of Church order, by the prophets and teachers of the Church of Antioch.
It may further be observed, that if this be not an ordination, it will be difficult to say what constitutes one. Here were fasting prayer, the imposition of hands, and every circumstance attending a formal investiture with the ministerial office, as particularly stated as in any instance on record. And, accordingly,^ Dr. Hammond, one of the most able and zealous advocates for Episcopacy, does not scruple to pronounce it a regular ordination ; though for the sake of maintaining his system, he falls into the absurdity of supposing, without a shadow of proof from_any source,
TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 31
that Simeon, Lusius and Manaen, were diocesan Bishops; a supposition wholly irreconcilable with the diocesan scheme, since they were all 7ninistering in the Church at Antioch. Bishop Taylor, another eminent Episcopal writer, considers this transaction as a regular ordination ; for speaking of Paul, he says—" He had " the special honour to be chosen in an extraordinary way ; yet " he had something of the ordinary too; for, in an extraordinary " manner he was sent to be ordained in an ordinary ministry. His " designation was as immediate as that of the eleven apostlies, *' though his ordination was not," This also was the judgment of the learned Dr. Lightfoot. " No better reason," says he, " can be <* given of this present action, than that the Lord did hereby set " down a platform of ordaining ministers to the Church of the " Gentiles in future times." And, finally, Chrysostom, one of the early Fathers, delivers the same opinion. He asserts that " Faul was ordained at Antioch,^^ and quotes this passage from the Acts of the Apostles in support of his assertion.
But, after all, it does not destroy the argument, even if we concede that the case before us was not a regular ordination. It was certainly a solemn spparation to the work to which the Holy Ghost had called them. This is the language of the inspired writer, ' and cannot be controverted. Now, it is a principle which pervades the scriptures, that an inferior is never called formally to pronounce benediction on an official superior. Did any man ever hear, in a church organized upon prelatical principles of Presbyters under- taking, on any occasion, to set apart a Bishop, or a group of Bishops, to a particular service, by solemn prayer and the imposition of hands ? On this principle alone, then, whether it relates to a regular ordination or not, the narrative before us appears utterly to subvert prelacy.
The next instance of an ordination performed by Presbyters, is that of Timothy, which is spoken of by the Apostle Paul, in the following terms. 1 Tim. iv. 14. Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery. All agree that the Apostle is here speaking of Timotlvfs ordination ; and this ordination is expressly said to have been performed with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery— i\i^i is, of the Eldership, or a council of Presbyters. To this instance of Presbyterian ordination it is objected, by some Episcopal writers, that although a council o( presbyters up-
32 LETTER II.
pear, from this passage, to have laid their hands on Timothy upon this occasion, yet the ordination was actually performed by the Apostle alone, who elsewhere addresses Timothy in this language : Wherefore I put thee in remembrance, that thou stir up the gift of God which is in thee, by the putting on of my hands. 2 Tijn. i. 6. They contend that, as Paul speaks of the ordination as being performed by the putting on of his hands, and with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery, we are to infer that the power was conveyed by him only, and that the Presbyters only imposed their hands by v/ay of concurrence, and to express their approbation.
But the Apostle, in speaking of a gift conveyed to Timothy by the putting on of his hands, either refers to the ordination of that young minister, or he does not. Some have supposed that he does not refer to that transaction at all, but to an occasion and a solemnity altogether different, when, by the imposition of his hands alone, he communicated to Timothy the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, to impart which, by the laying on of hands, belonged, as is generally supposed, exclusively to the Apostles. If this supposition be admitted, and some of the greatest divines that ever lived have adopted it, then the objection before us totally falls to the ground, and it follows, that the presbyters alone were the ordainers in this instance. If, on the other hand, we suppose that the Apostle, in both passages, is speaking of the ordination of Timothy, and that he and the Presbytery both participated in the transaction, the suppo- sition will be equally fatal to the Episcopal cause. For let it be remembered, that all Episcopalians, in this controversy, take for granted, that Timothy was, at this time, ordained a Diocesan Bishop. But if this were so, how came presbyters to lay their hands on him at his ordination } We know xhdX presbyters in the Episcopal Church, are in the habit of laying on their hands, with those of the Bishop, in ordaining presbyters ; but was it ever heard of, in the Christian Church, after the distinction between Bishops and presbyters arose, that those who admitted this dis- tinction suffered presbyters to join with Bishops, by imposing hands in the consecration of a Bishop ? No ; on Episcopal princi- ples, this would be an irregularity of the most absurd and inadmis- sible kind. To this our opponents reply, that the Presbyters in this case joined with the Apostle in the imposition of hands, not
TEiSTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 33
as ordainers, but merely to express their concurrence and appro- bation. But do FreshyterSj even in this sense, unite in imposing hands in the consecration of a diocesan BisJiop ? Or were they ever known to do so in Episcopal Churches ? Besides, after all, the whole idea of some laying on their hands in ordination, not as ordainers, but merely to express their approbation j is a conceit without any foundation in scripture ; contradicted by the earliest and best records of the primitive Church ; and manifestly invented to evade the force of an irresistible argument. I challenge any one to produce me a single passage from the word of God, or from any Christian writer within the first three hundred years after Christ, which gives the least countenance to this fanciful supposition.
But it is still urged, that the mode of expression is different with respect to the imposition of the Apostle's hands, and those of the Presbytery ; that Timothy is said to have received his gift by the former, and with the latter. And accordingly much ingenious criticism has been wasted on the prepositions (J<a and jasra, in order to show, that the former expresses agency, while the latter more commonly signifies mere concurrence: from which it has been inferred that Paul alone was the real ordainer, or, in other words, conveyed the ministerial authority by the imposition of his hands ; while the Presbyters laid on their hands only as witnesses, and for the purpose of giving their countenance to the transaction. I forbear to apply to this criticism those epithets which it has always appeared to me to deserve ; nor shall I detain you by attempting to expose the weakness of that cause whose advocates fly for suc- cour to a quibble, founded on the doubtful interpretation of two Greek particles. It is enough for me to assure such of you, my brethren, as are not able to judge for yourselves in this matter, that the criticism and quibble in question are wholly unworthy of your regard ; that these words both frequently signify by as well as with, and express agency, as well as concurrence ;* and that the
• It is remarkable that the learned Jerome^ more than 1400 years ag'o, adopted the Presbyterian construction of this passage. He thus trans- lates 1 Tim. iv. 14. Noli negUgere gratiam quasin te est, quse tibi data est prophetia, per impositionem manuum Preshyterii : and expressly adduces the passage to prove that Bishops and Presbyters are, by divine right, equal. The same construction of the passage has been adopted by the most learned and judicious commentators ever since. E
34 LETTER IL
objection founded on any supposed difference of meaning in their application to tills case, lias not received tlie countenance of some even of the most learned and respectable advocates for diocesan Episcopacy.
Some Episcopal writers, in order to avoid the difficulties above slated, have taken the liberty of supposing, that by the word Frsshytery (■jr'gerf^uTSgjov) in this passage is to be understood, not a council of Freshyters^ but the College of the Apostles. But this supposition is adopted without the least proof or probability. No instance has been, or can be produced, either from the New Tes- tament, or from any early Christian writer, of the Apostles, as a collective body, being called a Presbytery. On the contrary, this word is always used, in scripture, in the writings of the primitive fathers, and particularly in the writings o( Ignatius, (who is of the highest authority with our opponents in this dispute,) to signify a council of Presbyters, and never in any other sense. But, allowing the word Presbytei^y to have the meaning contended for, and that Timothy was ordained by the bench of Apostles, how came the modest and humble Paul to speak of the whole gift as conveyed by his hands, and not so much as to mention any other name ? Were all the rest of the Apostles mere concurring spectators, and and not real ordainers, as before pleaded ? Then it must follow, not only that Paul claimed a superiority over his brethren, which was never heard of before ; but also that one Bishop is sufficient for the regular ordination of another Bishop, which is opposed to every principle of Episcopal government, as well as to the estab-* lished canons, so far as I know, of every Church on earth.
Finally, it has been urged by some, against this instance of Presbyterian ordination, that the word here translated Presbytery, signifies the ojice conferred, and not the body of ministers who conferred it. Though this construction of the passage has been adopted by some respectable names,* it is so absurd and unnatural,
* Among those names, that of the great and venerable Calvin appears, who, when he wrote his Institutes^ adopted this unnatural sense, and expressed himself in the following terms — " Quod de impositione ma- " nuum Preshyterii dicitur, non ita accipio quasi Paulus de seniorum *' collegio loquatur ,- sed hoc nomine ordinaiionem ipsam intelligo." Instit. lib- iv. cap. 3. sect. 16. Such an interpretation of a plain passage of scripture, even from so great a man, deserves little regard. But Calvin^
TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE, 35
and so totally inconsistent with every rational principle of inter- pretation, that it scarcely deserves a serious refutation. Let us see how the text will read with this meaning attached to the word in question. Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which mas given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of thine office. If this be not nonsense, it is difficult to say what deserves that name. But suppose we make a monstrous inversion of the whole passage as no rule of grammar will justify, and read it thus — Neglect not the gift of the Presbyterate which is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of hands. It will then follow, that the office conferred upon Timothy was the Presbyterate, or the office of Presbyter ; but this, while it entirely coincides with the Presbyterian doctrine, will prove fatal to the Episcopal scheme, which constantly takes for granted that Timothy was not a mere Presbyter, but a diocesan Bishop.
The last instance that I shall mention of ordination performed by Presbyters, is that of Paul and Barnabas, who, after having been regularly set apart to the work of the ministry themselves, proceeded through the cities of Lystra, Iconium, ^c. And luhen they had ordained them Elders in every Church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on luhom they had believed. Our adversaries will perhaps say, that Paul alone per- formed these ordinations in his apostolic or episcopal character; and that Barnabas only laid on hands to express his approbation of what Paul did. But the inspired writer, as usual, speaks a different language. He declares that they, both of them, ordained. Perhaps it will be said, that Barnabas was himself an Apostle, as he is so styled. Acts xiv. 14. and that he joined with Paul in or- daining Presbyters, in virtue of this superior character. We all know that he was not one of the Apostles, strictly so called, and, of course, that none of that pre-eminence which belonged to their character can be claimed for him. The word Apostle signifies
soon afterwards, when he came to write his Commentary, and when his judgment was more mature, gave a very different opinion. *' Preshy- ** ierium.] Qui hie colledivum nonien esse putanit pro collegio Presbyiero- *• rum positum, rede sentiunt meojudicio." Comment, in loc. The truth is, the word Preshyterium is borrowed from the Synagogue, and was in familiar use to express the bench of Elders or Presbyters, ever found in the Synagogue system.
36 LfJTTER II.
simply a Messenger^ a person sent. It was in use among the Greeks, and also among the Jews, before the time of Christ. The Jewish Apostles were assistants to the High Priest in discussing questions of the law ; and were sometimes employed in inferior and secular duties. Barronii Annales, An. 32. Accordingly, be- sides the twelve apostles appointed by Christ himself, there were, in the primitive Churches, apostles, or messengers, chosen either by the twelve, or by the Churches themselves, to go to distant places, on special services. In this vague and general sense, the word apostle is repeatedly used in Scripture. In this sense Barnabas and Ejpaphrodittts are called Apostles. In this sense John the Baptist is called an apostle by Tertullian. And in the same sense this name is applied by early Christian writers to the seventy disciples, and to those who propagated the Gospel long after the apostolic age. From this name, then, as applied to BarnahaSy no pre-eminence of character can be inferred.* Besides, the supposition that he bore an ecclesiastical rank above that of presbyter, is effectually refuted by the fact that he was himself ordained by ih^ presbyters of Antioch. As a Presbyter, therefore, he ordained others 5 and the only rational construction that can be given to the passage, renders it a plain precedent for Presbyterian ordination.
IV. A fourth source of direct proof in favour of the Presbyterian plan of Church Government, is found in the model of the Jewish Synagogue, and in the abundant evidence which the Scriptures afford, that the Christian Church was formed after the same model.
At Jerusalem alone, where the Temple stood, were sacrifices offered, and the Mosaic rites observed. But in almost every town and village in Judea, Synagogues were erected, like parish Churches of modern times, for prayer and praise, for reading and expounding the Scriptures. The Temple worship, as will be afterwards shown, was, throughout, typical and ceremonial, and of course was done away by the coming of Christ. But the *S7/ncr^o^?/e worship was
* The translators of our Bible very clearly recognize this distinction between the appropriate and the general sense of the word Apostle. Thus in 2 Cor. viii. 23, they render the phrase efrroToKoi iKKXHs-mv^ the messengers of the Churches. And in Philip, ii. 25, they translate the word KTToroxoc as applied to Epaphroditus, messenger.
TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 37
altogether of a different nature. It was that part of the organized religious establishment of the Old Testament Church, which, like the decalogue, was purely moral and spiritual, or at least chiefly so; and, therefore, in its leading characters, proper to be adopted under any dispensation. Accordingly we find that our Lord him- self frequented the Synagogues, and taught in them; and that the apostles, and other Christian [ministers in their time, did the same. It is well known, also, that in the city of Jerusalem^ where the Gospel first began to be preached, after the resurrection of Christ, and where the New Testament Church was first organized, there were, if we may believe the best writers, several hundred Synagogues. It is equally certain that the first converts to Christianity were Jews ; that they came into the Christian Church with all the feelings and habits of their former connexions, and mode of worship strongly prevalent; and that they gave the apostles much trouble by their prejudices in favour of old establishments, and against innovation. It was probable, therefore, beforehand, that, under these circumstances, the apostles, who went so far as to admit circumcision, in particular cases, for the sake of keeping peace with some of the first converts, would make as little change, in converting Synagogues into Christian Churches, as was consistent with the spirituality of the New dispensation. To retain the ceremonial worship of the Temple, they could not possibly consent. To join the Priests in offering up sacrifices, when the great Sacrifice had been already offered up once for all; to attend on the typical entrance of the High Priest, once a year, with the blood of the sacrifice, into the Holy of Holies^ while they were, at the same time, teaching that all these things were done away, and that the great High Priest of our profession had finally entered into the holiest of all, even into heaven for us ; would have been an inconsistency not to be admitted. But no such inconsistency could be charged against a general conformity to the Synagogue model. And, therefore, as might have been expected, we find that this conformity was actually adopted. This will appear abundantly evident to every impartial inquirer, by attend- ing to the following considerations.
1. The words Synagogue and Church have the same significa- tion. They both signify an Assembly or Congregation of people convened for the worship of God ; and they both signify, at the
38 LETTER II.
same time, the place in which the assembly is convened. This community of signification, indeed, is so remarkable, that in the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, the Hebrew word for expressing an Assemhhj, is thirty-seven times rendered Synagogue (2uva;k'wy7] ) and seventy times translated Church, (ExxXTjCia), the precise word employed in the New Testament to express a Christian assembly. In fact, in one instance, a Christian congre- gation is by an inspired writer denominated a Synagogue. The Apostle James snys— My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ the Lord of glory, jcith respect of persons. For if there come into your assembly, (in the original your Synagogue) a man with a gold ring,8ic. I am aware that this coincidence in the meaning of these words is not absolutely conclusive; but it is one among the numerous concurring facts which prove that our Lord and his Apostles adopted that language which was familiar to the Jews, and to all who were acquainted with their Scriptures ; and especially to those who frequented the Synagogue service.
2. The mode of worship adopted in the Christian Church by the Apostles, was substantially the same with that which had been long practised in the Synagogue. In the Synagogue, as we learn from Maimonides, and others, divine service was begun by the solemn reading of a portion of Scripture, by a person appointed for that service ; to this succeeded an exhortation or sermon, by the Ruler of the Synagogue, or Bishop, whose office will be hereafter noticed. The sermon being finished, solemn prayers were offered up, by the same ruler, at the end of which the people said. Amen- Now, if we examine the New Testament, and those writings of the primitive Fathers, whose authenticity has never been questioned, we shall find, not only a striking similarity, but r.lmost a perfect coincidence, in the mode of conducting the worship of Christian assemblies. That the ministers of the Christian Church, in like manner, made a practice, in their religious assemblies, of reading the Scriptures, delivering discourses and offering up solemn prayer, at the close of which the people gave their assent, by saying. Amen, is expressly stated in Scripture. And when Justin Martyr gives an account of the Christian worship, in his day, it is in the following terms— '* Upon the day called Sunday, all the " Christians, whether in town or country, assemble in the same " place, wherein the commentaries of the Apostles, and the writings
TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 39
<* of the Prophets, are read, as long as the time will permit. Then " the reader sitting down, the President of the assembly stands up " and delivers a sermon instructing and exhorting to the imitation " of that which is comely. After this is ended, we all stand up to " prayers : prayers being ended, the bread, wine, and water, are " all brought forth ; then the President again praying and praising " according to his ability, the people testify their assent by saying, *'Amen." Here we see no material difference between the Synagogue and Christian worship, excepting the introduction of the Lord^s Supper into the latter.
3. The titles given to the officers of the Synagogue were trans- ferred to the officers of the Christian Church. In every Synagogue, as those who are most profoundly learned in Jewish Antiquities tell us, there were a BisJiop, a bench of Elders^ and Deacons. The first named of these officers was called indifferently, Minister, Bishop, Pastor, Presbyter, and Angel of the Church*. The presbyters or Elders in each Synagogue, according to some writers, were three, and, according to others, more numerous. And the Bishop was called a presbyter, because he sat with the presbyters in council, and was associated with them in authority. It is remarkable that all these titles were adopted in the organiza- tion of the Christian Church, as will appear, on the slighest perusal of the New Testament. And it is still more remarkable that not only the same variety, but also precisely the same interchange of titles, in the case of the principal officer of the Synagogue, was retained by the Apostles in speaking of the Pastors of Christian congregations.
4. Not only the titles of officers, but also their characters, duties, and powers, in substance, were transferred from the Synagogue to the Christian Church. The Bishop or pastor who presided in each Synagogue, directed the reading of the Law ; expounded it when read ; offered up public prayers ; and, in short, took the lead in conducting the public service of the Synagogue. This description applies with remarkable exactness to the duties and powers of the Christian Bishop. The bench o( Elders in the
* Maimonides, the celebrated Jewish Rabbi, who lived in the 12th century, in his learned work, Be Sanhed. cap. 4. decribes the Bishop of the Synagogue, as " the Presbyter who laboured in the word and doctrine."
40 LETTER II.
Synagogue had entrusted to them the general powers of government and discipline ; and in like manner, the Elders or presbyters^ in the Christian Church are directed to rule the flock, and formal directions are given them, for maintaining the purity of faith and practice. The bench of Elders, in the Synagogue, appears to have been made up of two classes ; of those who both taught and ruled, and those who, in fact, whatever their authority might have been, were employed only in ruling. And accordingly, in the Christian Church, we read of Elders who labour in the word and doctrine, as well as rule ; and of other Elders who rule only. In the Synagogue the office of the Deacons was to collect and distri- bute alms to the poor. In conformity with which, the Deacons of the Christian Church are represented, in the si^th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, as appointed for the purpose of ministering to the poor, and serving tables.
5. Finally, the mode of ordaining o^cevs in the Synagogue was transferred to the Christian Church. In the introduction of men to the ceremonial priesthood of the Jews, or into the offices per- taining to the Temple service, there was no such thing, strictly speaking, as ordination. Both the Priests and Levites came to their respective offices by inheritance, and were inducted or installed, simply by being brought before the Sanhedrim, and receiving the approbation of that body. But, in the Synagogue service, the officers were solemnly elected, and ordained by the imposition of hands. Every presbyter, who had himself been regularly ordained, was authorized to act in the ordination of other Presbyters : and to make a valid ordination in the Synagogue, it was necessary that three ordainers should be present, and take part in the transaction. In like manner, we learn from the New Testa- ment, that in Apostolic times, as well as ever since, the ministers of the Christian Church were ordained by the imposition of hands; that Presbyters, as well as the Apostles themselves, were empowered to ordain ; and that in the first ordination of ministers of the Gospel recorded by the inspired writers, there were always a plurality of ordainers present, and engaged in the solemnity.
Thus I have given you a very brief sketch of the evidence that Christian Churches were organized by the Apostles, after the model of the Jewish Synagogues. I have shown that the mode of worship adopted in the Church, the titles of her officers, their
TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 41
pmoerSf duties, and mode of ordination, were all copied from the Syn?igogue. This evidence might be pursued much further, did the limits which I have prescribed to myself admit of details. It might easily be shown, that m all those respects in which the service of the Synagogue differed from that of the Temple, the Christian Church followed the former. The Temple service was confined to Jerusalem; the Synagogue worship might exist, and did exist wherever there was a sufficient number of Jew$ to form a congregation. The temple service was restricted with regard to the vestments of its ofiScers ; while in the Synagogue there was little or no regulation on this subject. And, finally, it is remarkable, that the mode in which the Bishop and Elders of each Synagogue were seated during the public service, was exactly copied into the Christian assemblies. With regard to these and many other particulars which might be mentioned, the Christian Churches in piimitive times, it is well known, departed from the ceremonial splendour of the Temple, and followed the simplicity of the Synagogue. In fact, there is ample proof, that the similarity between the primitive Christian Churches, and the Jewish Syna- gogues was so great, that they were often considered and represented by the persecuting Pagans as the same.
In support of the foregoing statements, it would be easy to pro- duce authorities of the highest character. The general fact, that the Christian church was organized by the inspired apostles, not on the plan of the Temple service, but after the Synagogue model, is amply shown, by the celebrated John Selden, in his work, De Synedriis; by Dr. Liglitfoot, a learned Episcopal divine, in his Horce Hebraicce ; by the very learned Grotius, in several parts of his Commentary ; by Dr. (afterwards Bishop) Stillingjleet , in hislrenicum; and, above all, by Vitringa, in his profound and able work, De Synagoga Vetere — to which the author has givea this bold tide — " Three books on the ancient Synagogue; in which it is demonstrated, that the form of government, and of the minis- try in the Synagogue was transferred to the Christian Church." If there be any points concerning the history and polity of the Church, which may be considered as indubitably established, this, unquestionably, is among the number. Out of many more modern writers, who concur in the same testimony, I shall content myself with three, whose opinion no adequate judge will disregard. F
42 LETTER II.
The first is the celebrated Augustus Neander, Professor in the University of Berlin, and generally considered as, perhaps, more profoundly skilled in Ecclesiastical History, than any other man now living. He is, moreover, a minister of the Lutheran Church, and, of course, has no sectarian spirit to gratify in vindicating Presbyterianism. After showing at some length that the govern- ment of the primitive Church was not monarchical or lordly, but dictated throughout by a spirit of mutual love, counsel, and prayer, he goes on to express himself thus — " We may suppose that where " any thing could be found in the way of Church forms which was *' consistent with this spirit, it would be willingly appropriated by " the Christian community. Now there happened to be in the " Jewish Synagogue a system of government of this nature, not " monarchical, but rather aristocratical, (or a government of the " most venerable and excellent. A council of Elders, tlD^Jp] " 'ff'gso'/^uTS^oi, who conducted all the affairs of that body. It seemed " most natural that Christianity, developing itself from the Jewish " religion, should take this form of government. This form must also " have appeared natural and appropriate to the Roman citizens, " since their nation had, from the earliest times, been, to some " extent, under the control of a senate, composed of seniors or " elders. AVhen the Church was placed under a Council of Elders, " they did not always happen to be the oldest in reference to " years; but age here, was, as in the Latin Senalus, and the " Greek ys^ovdia, expressive of worth or merit. Besides the common " name of these overseers of the Church, to wit, it ^s(f^vT£^oi, there " were many other names given, according the peculiar situation " occupied by the individual, or rather his pecuhar field of labour ; " as 'KoiiJ^svsg, shepherds, yiyovixsvoi, leaders, "r^ostfrwrsg rcjv atf£X(pwv, " rulers of the brethren, and scrjjo'o'Ti'o;, overseers.*
Of the same purport, is the judgment of the celebrated German Commentator, Professor Kuinoel, of Leipsic, as exhibited in his Commentary on the 20th chapter, and 28th verse, of the Acts of Apostles. After showing conclusively that the very same persons, who in the New Testament are called Bishops, and Shepherds, are also called presbyters, which he says, " some have rashly " denied, dreaming of a difference between Bishops and Presbyters
* Klrcbengeschichte, p. 283— 28 ^
TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 43
" in the primitive Church ;" he goes on to say, that the Christians in the time of the Apostles, established in the Church a form of government and discipline similar to what prevailed in the Jewish Synagogue. It was the duty, he says, of the rulers of the Synagogue to preserve discipline, superintend the external concerns of the respective societies over which they were placed, and also to teach and explain the law. In the same manner it was the duty of the bishops or presbyters to superintend the government of the Church, and to teach the doctrines of the Christian religion. They were both governors and teachers. The rulers of the Synagogues were confined to particular societies, and so were the first bishops or presbyters. No one had any control, except in the single society over which he had been appointed.
Rosenmullerj a far famed critic and commentator, also of Germany, delivers, with great confidence, a^similar opinion, with respect to the conformity of the order of the primitive church to the model of the Synagogue. And asserts, with equal confidence, that presbyters and bishops, in the time of the apostles, were the same; but that afterwards, bestowing the title of bishop upon one, by way of eminence, was brought in by the custom of the Church.*
Unless I deceive myself, I have now established the four positions which were stated at the beginning of this letter, viz. That the scriptures contain but one commission for the Gospel ministry, and that there is no evidence of the powers conveyed by this commission being afterwards divided between different orders of ministers: — That the words bishop and presbyternre uniformly used in the New Testament as convertible titles for the same office : - — that the same character and powers are also, in the sacred writings, ascribed interchangeably to Bishops and presbyters, thus plainly establishing their identity of order as well as of name : — And that the Christian Church was organized by the Apostles, after the model of the Jewish Synagogue, which was undeniably Presbyterian in its form.!
These positions, thus established, decide the controversy. Such
* D. J. G. Rosenmulleri. Scholia N. T. in Ada Aposiol. vi. 3. xi. 30. xiii. 1. XX. 17. 28.— In Epist. 1 ad Tim. v. 17.
f See the subject of the Jewish Synagogue farther treated in Letter III. of the second series, included in this volume.
44 LETTER II.
a concurrence o( language and af facts in support of the doctrine of ministerial parity, is at once remarkable and conclusive. I mean conclusive as to the simple fact, that this was the system adopted in the Apostle's days. With respect to the question, how far the apostolic model of Church order is unalterably binding in all ages, in all nations, and under all states of society, it is wholly a different inquiry. On this point men equally pious and learned have entertained different opinions. My own opinion on the subject has been expressed in a former letter. But I see not how any one can peruse the New Testament, with an impartial mind, without perceiving that the Presbyterian form of Church govern- ment is there distinctly pourtrayed. This is the " truly primitive and apostolic form." And the more closely vve adhere to this form, the more we testify our respect for that system which was framed by inspired men, sanctioned by miraculous powers, and made pre-eminently instrumental, in the midst of a frowning and hostile world, in building up the Church in holiness, through faith, unto salvation.
( 45 )
LETTER III.
THE ARGUMENTS DRAWN FROM SCRIPTURE IN FAVOUR OF DIOCESAN EPISCOPACY, STATED AND EXAMINED.
CHRISTIAxV BRETHREN,
You have seen what ihe Scriptures declare in support of our doctrine of the Christian Ministry. I might safely rest the cause on this testimony. But as it is my wish to do full justice to our opponents, and not to overlook or suppress a single plea urged by them, which has the most distant appearance of plausibility, I will now proceed, with all the candour I can exercise, to examine the principal arguments in favour of their system, which they suppose are to be found in the word of God.
In examining these arguments, I must again request you to keep steadily in view the doctrine for which our Episcopal brethren contend, and the nature of that proof which it is incumbent on them to adduce. They appeal to Scripture to prove that Bishops are an order of Clergy superior to Presbyters ; that their superi- ority rests on the appointment of Christ ; and that with this superioi order alone, are deposited all the treasures of ministerial authority and succession. To support such a claim, we demand express warrant. We require those who make the appeal, to produce passages of Scripture which contain direct precept, plain undoubted example, or at least some established principle, from which their conclusion necessarily flows. On a subject so funda- mental as they represent thhs to be, we cannot be contented with gratuitous assumptions, or ingenious analogies, which have nothing to support them but human authority. We must have a warrant, decided and clear; a warrant which would be indubitable and satisfactory, if all books, excepting the Bible, were banished from the Church. Let us see whether our claimaints are prepared with testimony of this kind.
I. The first argument urged by the friends of prelacy is, " That, *^ as the mosaic economy was intended to prefigure the Gospel
46 LETTER JIf.
" dispensation, we may reasonably suppose the Christian ministry " to be modelled after the Jeivish Priesthood ; and that, as " there were, in the Temple service, an High Priest, Priests, and " Levites, so we may consider it as agreeable to the will of Christ, " that there should be the corresponding orders o( Bishops, Priests, " and Deacons, in the New Testament Church."
After the ample proof adduced in the foregoing Letter, that the Christian Church was organized by the Apostles, not after the model of the Temple, but of the Synagogue service, I might with propriety dismiss this argument, as sufficiently refuted by the establishment of that fact. But as much stress has been laid upon the argument in question, and as some cautious inquirers may wish to see it further discussed, let us proceed to a more particular examination of its merits.
You will observe the form of this argument. It may " reasona- bly be supposed" that such a correspondence of orders should exist. But why " suppose" it ? Does the Word of God, the great Charter of the Christian Church, say that this is the case? Is there a single passage to be found in the sacred volume, which asserts, or gives the least hint, that such a likeness or analogy either does, or ought to exist ? I will venture to say, there is not. I have met, indeed, with much animated declamation in favour of this analogy, urging it as a " supposable" thing — as a " reasonable " thing, &c. &;c. but I have never yet heard of a single passage of scripture, which is even pretended to teach the doctrine in question. For the gene- ral position, that many of the Old Testament institutions had a reference to, and were intended to prefigure New Testament blessings, it will be instantly seen by every discerning reader, is nothing to the purpose.
But this is not all. There is not only nothing to be found in Scripture which bears the least appearance of support to this ar- gument ; but there is much to be found which contradicts and destroys it. It is impossible to read the New Testament without perceiving, that the Jewish Priesthood was atypical and temporary institution, which had both its accomplishment and its termination in Christ. This is taught in passages loo numerous to be quoted ; but, more particularly, at great length, and v/ith irresistible force of argument, in the Epistle to the Hebrcws^^ in which the sacred
* See especially the vli. viii. ix. and x. chapters.
TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 47
writer declares, that since Christ the substance is come, the types which prefigured him are done away ; that the Levitical priesthood was chiefly employed in offering sacrifices, and attending on other ceremonial observances