Presbyterianism was the apostolic form of church government, necessarily carries with it, on every principle of sober reasoning, a belief that there can be no church, no ministry without it." This conclusion is as illegitimate in reasoning, as it is false in fact. The Presbyterians of whom we are speaking, utterly disavow this doctrine which is, by inference, imputed to them; and declare, that, as it is not deducible from their principles, so it makes no part of their creed. The warmest advocates of the divine right of Prelacy admit that a church may depart in many respects, from the primitive model, without forfeiting the title of a church of Christ? They consider the church of Rome as a true church of Christ, though a degenerate and corrupt one. In one of the Homilies, of the Church of England, drawn up by Archbishop Cranmer, and the other Reformers, it is expressly declared, that that church is not only "idolatrous and unchristian ; "not only an harlot, as the scripture calleth "her, but also a foul, filthy, old withered harlot; "the foulest and filthiest harlot, that ever was "seen*. I do not contend for the decency of these epithets. That is no concern of mine. I state the real language of the church of England, as deliberately expressed in her Standards. And yet, while high-churchmen solemnly declare their belief in the doctrine of these Homilies, they ac *Homily Against Peril of Idolatry. Part III. page 216. Edit. Oxford, 1802. knowledge the church of Rome to be a church of Christ; trace their line of succession through her; and uniformly acknowledge her ministry and ordinances to be valid. In fact, it is on the principle that it is lawful to depart from the exact pattern of the primitive church, with respect to rites, ceremonies, and discipline, that the church of England vindicates many things in her own system, which she acknowledges were neither enjoined nor prac tised in the days of the Apostles. Nay, many of her sons, and especially those who advocate the doctrine of my opponents, do not scruple to affirm, that the whole system of ecclesiastical government and discipline is mutable *, and may be lawfully modified according to human wisdom, excepting the single part, so dearly beloved, which respects the three orders of Clergy. Every thing else, in the external organization, they suppose may be altered, without affecting the essence of the church; but to touch this part of the body, they consider as the invasion of its vital organ. Thus it appears, that the highest toned jure divino Presbyterians do not lay any thing like the stress on their form of church government, that Dr. Bowden, Mr. How, and other jure divino Prelatists do on the point of Episcopacy; that the charge brought against them that they un-church all who reject the Presbyterian government, is perfectly unfounded; not deducible from any of their * See Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, passim. principles, and totally disavowed by them; that their public standards, their judicial decisions, and their most esteemed writers, all with one voice, acknowledge that there are true churches, a regu lar ministry, and valid ordinances, where Presbyterianism is wanting; and, of course, that the allegations of Dr. Bowden and Mr. How, are not only unsupported by evidence, but brought forward directly in the face of all legitimate evidence. When these gentlemen, or either of them, shall produce a single volume or document, sanctioned by any Presbyterian church, or from the pen of any esteemed Presbyterian divine, which contradicts my statement, I shall then, and not till then, acquit them of calumniating our venerable Church. But these gentlemen will, perhaps, ask, " Do we not find in the writings of many Presbyterian divines, severe epithets, expressive of strong disapprobation, applied to the Episcopal hierarchy ? Have we not actually pointed out some instances of this kind?" Granted. And what then? May I not see an egregious fault in an acquaintance, and reprove him sharply for it, without deeming it so great as to expunge his name from the list of my friends, or to pronounce him a bad man? May we not consider and oppose as an error, that which we do not believe, at the same time, will destroy the character of a church? I am sure that no offensive language directed against Episcopalians, is to be found in the Confession of Faith of our church, and very seldom in our best writers. But if it were other wise, where shall we find language, to be compared on the score either of indelicacy or severity, with that which the church of England has formally directed against the church of Rome*, while at the same time she acknowledged, and does still acknowledge, her ministry and ordinances to be valid. Dr. Bowden and Mr. How make much use of the society of Quakers in this controversy. They ask me, whether, amidst all my professions of liberality, I can consistently with our Confession of Faith, acknowledge the Quakers as a visible church of Christ? And if not, how I can find fault with Episcopalians for not acknowledging us? My only reply to all their declamation on this subject shall be short. It is not a practical question. The society of Quakers do not profess to have an ordained ministry, at all, in the sense of most other denominations of Protestants.-The question, then, whether we can acknowledge their ordinations, ministry, and sacraments to be valid, can never come before us; for none e of these things make any part of their ecclesiastical system; and, of course, can never be offered to us to receive our sanction. I consider, therefore, all that my opponents have said on this subject, as a vain effort to obscure the merits of the real question, and as inconclusive as it is irrelevant to the controversy. Dr. Bowden and Mr. How speak much of COvenanted" and " uncovenanted" mercy. * See page 53. The latter candidly and repeatedly avows his belief, that all who are in communion with a church organized in the Episcopal form, are in covenant with God; and that all others, without exception, are aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, strangers to the covenant of promise, and have no hope but in the general uncovenanted mercy of God. We certainly can have no objection to his informing us what is his ereed, and we thank him for being so unreservedly communicative on the subject. But he goes further. He undertakes to say that Presbyterians, on their part, hold a similar opinion; that they exclude from the Christian covenant all but Presbyterians; nay, that they pronounce all who do not embrace "the rigid peculiarities of Calvinism," to be in an unregenerate state, and coolly consign them to "uncovenanted mercy." Had Mr. How asserted that all Presbyterians are zealous advocates of the divine mission of Mahomet, it would have been, rather more ridiculous indeed, but not a whit more remote from fact than this statement. His position is not only not true, but there is not a shadow of foundation for it; nor can he produce a single Presbyterian writer, of respectable character, who says any thing that can be reasonably construed as bearing the least resemblance to this doctrine*. The *It is to be hoped that Presbyterians understand the Gos pel too well to speak of " uncovenanted mercy” at all. phrase itself is unscriptural; and if it convey any meaning, it is an erroneous one. Fallen creatures know of no mercy |