The primitive and apostolical order of the church of Christ vindicated

Preface

Religious controversy is always painful, and by many serious persons, considered as always mischievous. Charity, they think, forbids us to examine or oppose the opinions of others; and gospel truth, they tell us, is too holy ever to be defended with polemical weapons. Such persons, of course, entertain a prejudice against all rehgious controversy, and allege that the cause of true religion was never promoted by engaging in it.

No position can be more unreasonable than this; none more contrary to the tenor of Scripture, or to the example of Christ and his inspired apostles. It cannot be doubted, indeed, that controversy, even when the defence of precious truth is its object, majj be, and often has been, commenced with an unhallowed spirit, and conducted in an unhappy and mischievous manner. So may didactic instruction. So may all attempts to enlighten the ignorant or reclaim the vicious. So may feeding the hungry and clothing the naked. But shall we, therefore, abstain from all these acknowledged duties, because they may be, and have been, abused, and 1* 5

PREFACE.

because tlie discharge of them is always, in fact, mingled with more or less imperfection?

The truth is, controversy is imavoidable, unless w^e would give up all truth, and allow the advocates of error to have their own way in every thing. Accordingly, the whole of the preaching of our blessed Saviour was strikingly polemical in its character. In almost every discourse he specified and denoimced the errors of the false teachers around him, and inculcated, with great solemnity, the opposite truth. Was this uncharitable? No Christian will dare to hint such a charge. Nor was this controversial character confined to the preaching of the divine Master himself His inspired apostles followed his example. Their writings and public discourses abound in the detection and condemnation of erroneous opinions, and in calling upon those whom they addressed to examine and hold fast the truth. Nay, they go a step further, and while their inspiration might seem to warrant them in being peculiarly confident and authoritative in repudiating one set of doctrines, and establishing another; they enjoin upon all the disciples of Christ, in all ages, to follow their example. Hence they proclaim — " Believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. Bejaot carried about with every wind of doctrine, and cunning craftiness, whereby men lie in wait to deceive. Contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints. Buy the truth, and sell it not. Hold fast the form of sound words

PREFACE.

which ye have heard in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus." In fact, the church was founded for the express purpose of preserving, defending, and propagating the truth and order revealed by Christ. And as this truth and order have ever been opposed by the world, she can only maintain them by conflict at every step. Accordingly, the whole history of the church has been one continued exemplification of the principle, that the truth ever has been, and, as long as this militant state continues, ever must be maintained by controversij. The church, in this conflict, may be compared to persons striving to ascend an agitated and rapid river, when the wind and the tide are both strong against them. They can advance only by hard rowing; and the moment they intermit their eflbrts they fall down the stream. The church has to fight for every inch of ground; and whenever she ceases to contend for the truth, she ceases to advance. She may contend with an improper spirit. If she does this, it is her mistake and her sin. But to contend no more, is to disregard the command of her Master in heaven, and betray his cause to the enemy.

But if it be the duty of the church, and of all her members, to resist the progress of error, whenever and by whomsoever promulgated, it is still more obviously a duty, when important truth is openly attacked, to defend it with firmness, and to endeavour to refute the vaunted error, as well as to establish the opposite truth. But even this, according to the doctrine of some, is not to be permitted.

PREFACE.

The writer of these pages is persuaded that there is much less of a sectarian spirit, properly so called, in the Presbyterian church, than in any other body of professing Christians in the United States, perhaps we might add in the world. The truth is, we have hardly enough of the esprit du corps — the spirit of denomination— to defend ourselves when attacked. And this, not because we have a less clear conviction than others of the truth of our system, but because our system itself is more pacific and charitable, and less exclusive than any other w^hich holds to the importance of truth at all. For one instance in which a Presbyterian minister says a word in the pulpit to invade the opinions or feelings of other denominations, I will engage to produce fifty examples of a like kind in the churches around us. And yet, strange to tell, there is no church in the land so frequently stigmatized as sectarian^ as the Presbyterian church. And, most strange of air, few, it is believed, have been more forward in repeating and circulating this charge, than some of the members of precisely those sects who have been themselves most narrowly exclusive in their spirit and conduct, and, of course, most justly liable to the very imputation which they so injuriously cast on us. Baptists, Episcopalians, Methodists, may all carry their peculiar opinions and claims into the pulpit every Sabbath, without offence to any one. It seems even to be expected that they should do so. But if a Presbyterian publicly express a preference for his own beloved church, or propose a plan for printing and circulating books adapted to explain and recommend her denominational opinions, an outcry is raised as if some great offence against Christian charity had been committed.

Why is this? The explanation is obvious and easy. In all ages popular sentiment has been more tolerant of every thing than of truth. And, hence, worldly politicians, v^hile they profess to be jealous over all the interests of civil liberty, have generally evinced that their prejudices v^ere ten-fold stronger against Presbyterians, v^^liose whole spirit and history have, for three centuries, heralded them, almost to a proverb, as the friends and uncompromising advocates of liberty, than against Papists, whose system is the very personification of mental thraldom, and spiritual tyranny. It is difficult to assign any other satisfactory reason for this wonderful fact, than that public sentiment is ever leagued against the truth; and that " the simplicity that is in Christ," is far less acceptable to the worldly taste than the inventions and " commandments of men." One of the many arguments in favour of the Calvinistic doctrines, and the pure ecclesiastical discipline professed by the Presbyterian church is, that the popular feeling and voice are strong against them; especially that all the tribes of w^orldhness, levity, scepticism, licentiousness, impiety, and frigid indifference — are found united in one loud clamour of opposition. Herod and Pilate, however alienated, are always ready to make friends for the purpose of crucifying Christ. Such is the reception of the truth and order of the church which the word of God teaches us to expect. The '' carnal mind" naturally dislikes them. And even those worldly minded persons who are bred up in their bosom, and with a prejudice in their favour, are ever ready to turn aside to a more flattering and alluring system, when the temptation is presented.

In regard to the controversy to which this volume relates, it has always been commenced by the friends of Prelacy. No system w^as ever more pacific and inoffensive than that of the Presbyterian church. No denomination of Christians was ever more slow to question the claims of others, or to employ the pulpit or the press as means of attack on their neighbours. They have ever been the invaded party. But there are limits beyond which forbearance and silence under assaults cease to be a duty. A deep conviction of this truth has prompted to the present publication. A brief history of the circumstances wdiich occasioned it, will serve, it is hoped, to satisfy the reader as to its real character.

More than thirty-five years ago, a distinguished clergyman of the Protestant Episcopal church in the United States, published and maintained, in a great variety of forms, the following opinions — ''Where the gospel is proclaimed, communion with the church by the participation of its ordinances, at the hands of the duly authorized priesthood, is the indispeiisahle condition of salvation. Separation from the prescribed government and regular priesthood of the church, when it proceeds from involuntary and unavoidable ignorance or error, we have reason to trust will not intercept from the humble, the penitent, and obedient, the blessings of God's favour. But great is the guilt, and imminent the danger of those who, possessing the means of arriving at the knowledge of the truth, negligently or wilfully continue in a state of separation from the authorized ministry of the church, and participate of ordinances administered by an irregular and invalid authority. They are guilty of rebellion against their almighty Lawgiver and Judge; they expose themselves to the awful displeasure of that almighty Jehovah who will not permit his institutions to be condemned, or his authority violated with impunity."*

Here, it will be perceived, by the most cursory reader, that Presbyterians, and all professing Christians, not connected with the Episcopal church, are represented as rebels, schismatics, altogether out of the church of Christ, and, unless they can avail themselves of the plea of involuntary ignorance and error, in the utmost danger of eternal perdition !

Such denunciations had, indeed, often been heard from Papists, and the devotees of their corrupt priesthood; and had been sometimes found in the controversial writings of high-church Episcopalians, on both sides of the Atlantic. But, since the civil establishment of any religious denomination in our country had been for ever terminated and prohibited by our

» Bishop Hobart's Companion for the Altar, p. 202, 204. - national independence, and our free constitutions, no such language, as far as is recollected, had been employed by any American Christians until then ; especially such language had, up to that time, been confined to controversial pamphlets, and had never, until then, been incorporated with books of devotion, and put into the mouth of every communicant in his nearest approaches to the throne of love and mercy.

The writer of this volume was, at the date of the publication alluded to, one of the pastors of the United Presbyterian churches in the city of New York. Some of the people of his charge were amazed ; others indignant ; and a third class perplexed at the claim so confidently urged. In these circumstances, when he and his church were virtually denounced and excommunicated ; when the name of a Christian church was denied us; when Presbyterians were warned to abandon the ministry of their pastors, under the penalty of being regarded as ^'rebels" and "schismatics" both by God and man — he thought himself called upon to say something in defence of those principles which he believed, and had long taught, as founded in the word of God. It was no bitterness against his Episcopal neighbours; no love of controversy; no restless ambition; no desire to intrude into another denomination for the purpose of making proselytes, that dictated an attempt to defend his beloved church. The attempt, as every one who was acquainted with the circumstances could bear witness, was purely defensive, and was demanded by every consideration of duty to the souls of men, and of fidelity to his Master in heaven.

Such was the origin of the " Letters on the Constitution and Order of the Christian Ministry," originally published in 1807, and addressed by the author of this manual to the members of the '' United Churches," of which he was then the collegiate pastor. Never was there a work more purely defensive. The author would never have thought of writing or publishing a line on the Episcopal controversy, had not he and his people been assailed in a manner adapted to rouse every feeling in support of the principles which he had taught, and which, as long as he continued to hold them, it was his duty, as a Christian and as a minister, to defend. It never would have occurred to him to complain that our Episcopal neighbours preferred Episcopacy, and thought proper on that principle to organize their church. But when they undertook to denounce res as guilty in the sight of God, and in danger of eternal perdition, for not adopting and acting upon the same principle; when their manuals containing this denunciation were formally sent to our houses; and when we were publicly called upon, in a great variety of forms, to say something, if we had aught to offer, in our own defence, it was, surely, time to give a reason for our principles and our practice.

Yet, wonderful to tell ! the calm and respectful defence just alluded to, was denounced, by those who undertook to answer it, as an "unprovoked attack" on the Episcopal church ! Nor was this charge confined to his immediate answerers. It was repeated and urged, in numerous instances, by others; and repeatedly, up to this day, made matter of reproachful complaint. He had made no "attack" on that denomination, unless it were an " attack" to show that the claims of Episcopalians to be the only true church, and their denunciations of Presbyterians, had no warrant either in Scripture or in history. He had not assailed his Episcopal neighbours as aliens from " the covenanted mercies of God." He had not denied that they were a true church, or that they had a valid ministry, and valid ordinances. Nay, he had formally disclaimed every allegation of this kind. He had simply shown that the ministry and ordinances of the Presbyterian church rested on grounds quite as solid and tenable as those of the Episcopal church. But all this was not enough. In the estimation of the high-church prelatists in this controversy, it seems that to refuse acquiescence in their claims and denunciations is to "attack" them; and to prove these claims and denunciations unscriptural, is an inexcusable and presumptuous of fence.

The same allegation of " unprovoked attack" has become the standing complaint on every occasion, and in every part of the country in which attempts have been, by w^homsoever, made to circulate any defence of Presbyterian church government. It appears to be claimed as the prescriptive right of prelatists to denounce and exclude from the " covenanted mercies of God" at pleasure ; but to attempt to show that this virtual excommunication has no warrant in the word of God is, it seems, uncharitable and not to be endured. Such extraordinary overacting must soon come, if it have not already come, to be well understood, and sxiitably appreciated by an impartial public. Let us illustrate the spirit of such conduct by a familiar example drawn from common life. Suppose one of my neighbours were to publish a pamphlet denouncing me and my family as aliens, and denying that we had the smallest claim to the rights and privileges of American citizens. Suppose I were to make a publication in reply, containing no abuse, and not calling in question his rights ; but proving in the clearest manner my citizenship, and showing that my claims to that character were, to the full, as strong and unquestionable as his own. And suppose, by way of rejoinder, he were to appeal to the public in such language as this : " See how this man is picking a quarrel with me, and attacking an inoffensive neighbour !" What would impartial bystanders think of such conduct ? Would indignation or contempt be their predominant feeling ? Now the supposed case is precisely analogous to the actual one before us. Never was there an instance in w^hich the charge of " unprovoked attack" was more unjust, or more perfectly preposterous.

In consequence of recent and repeated attempts to circulate with new zeal, in different parts of our country, those manuals which denounce and virtually excommunicate Presbyterians, the writer of these pages has been prevailed upon to present in a new and abridged form his views of the subject. In doing this he has not a thought or a wish to attack Episcopacy; but merely to show that Episcopacy has been VvTong — utterly wrong and unjust in attacking Presbyterianism.

It is due to candour also to say, that some late and extraordinary movements in the Episcopal denomination in the United States, have induced the writer of these pages, as a dutiful and devoted son of the church, and as a "watchman on her walls," to appear once more as an advocate of primitive truth and order. Most intelliorent readers will understand that there is a reference here to the " Tracts for the Times," lately published by certain writers in the University of Oxford, in England, and more recently reprinted, and extensively circulated, in the United States. The character of these tracts is beginning to be so well knovni, and so justly appreciated, that little need be said to apprize the public of their real aim and tendency. The truth is, they present such views of the character and powers of the Episcopal *' priesthood," and of the inherent efficacy of the Christian sacraments, when administered by Episcopal hands, as mark a rapid return to the principles of Popery, and as ought to be abhorred by every sincere Protestant. Among other things, little less exceptionable, they teach that their " priesthood" have the power of communicating spiritual life, by means of the sacraments, to those to whom they minister. They represent the act of ordination, by the bishop's hands, as conveying infaUibly the gifts of the Holy Ghost. They teach the doctrine of the presence of the real body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. They favour prayers for the dead. They speak of the Virgin Mary in language w^hich might w^ell befit Popish lips. They contend that we are justified before God, not by faith in the perfect righteousness of Christ, but by the participation of the sacraments. They distinctly convey the superstitious and awful doctrine that for sins committed after baptism, there is no promised forgiveness, even on repentance ever so sincere and deep. And, finally, that the most certain means of promoting the spiritual benefit of men is to exhibit to them, not the atoning sacrifice of the Redeemer as the ground of hope, but the external ordinances of the church.

The editors of the " Christian Observer," a popular periodical, known to be edited by zealous members of the established church of England, speak of the tracts not only with disapprobation, but with abhorrence ; and deliver as their deliberate opinion, that, if such principles as these writers aim to propagate become prevalent in that church, it ought no longer to be supported by a Christian people. The same estimate of the unscriptural character of these tracts is made by a number of the most pious and eminent dignitaries of the English establishment; and five or six, at least, of the bishops of the Episcopal church in our own country,

IS PREFACE.

are understood to regard them as not only containing error, but awfully dangerous error, the prevalence of which w^ould be deeply disastrous to the best interests of their denomination, and put in jeopardy the souls of such as should yield to them their credence.

Bishop Wilson, of Calcutta, speaks of these tracts, and of the system and aim of their authors, in the followinor stroncr lanD^uao:e :

"It IS to me, I confess, a matter of surprise and shame, that, in the nineteenth century, we should really have the fundamental position of the 7vhole systeyn of Popery virtually re-asserted in the bosom of that very church which was reformed so determinately three centuries since, from this self same evil, by the doctrine, and labours, and martyrdom of Cranmer and his noble fellow-sufferers. What ! are we to have all the fond tenets which formerly sprung from the ' traditions of men' re-introduced, in however modified a form among us ? Are we to have a refined transubstantiation — the sacraments, and not faith, the chief means of salvation— a confused and uncertain mixture of the merits of Christ and inherent grace in the matter of justification — remission of sins and the new creation in Christ Jesus confined, or almost confined, to baptism — perpetual doubt of pardon to the penitent after that sacrament — the duty and advantage of self-imposed austerities— the innocency of prayers for the dead — and similar tenets and usages which generate a spirit of bondage, again asserted among us? And is the paramount authority of the inspired

Scriptures, and the doctrine of the grace of God in our justification by the alone merits of Jesus Christ which reposes on that authority, to be again weakened and obscured by such human super additions, and a new edifice of 'will worship' and 'voluntary humility,' and the 'rudiments of the world,' as the apostle speaks, to be created once more in the place of the simple gospel of a crucified Saviour?"*

The au-thor of this manual is conscious of having reached an age when, according to the course of nature, he cannot be far from his last account, and wdien nothing ought to engage his attention, or employ his pen, but that which concerns the best interests of the church of God. The nearer he approaches to the end of his course, the greater is his aversion to controversy. Much rather would he spend his little remaining time in explaining and recommending those great fundamental truths which pertain to the wonders of redeeming love, and the precious hopes of sinful men for eternity. Were points of mere ecclesiastical polity involved in the questions to which he refers, his interest in them, though not small, would be by no means so intense. But when he perceives matters of infinite moment to be wrapped up in these questions; when he finds publications flooding the land which turn away the attention of their readers from the Saviour, as the only ground of confidence, and direct them to the fables, the genealogies, and the miserable revived superstitions of Romanism, as the only safe foundation of hope, he feels

* Charge to his Clergy, 1838.

bound to employ whatever little of strength old age may have left him in opposing such destructive errors, and directing the attention of as many as he can reach and influence to " the only foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself the corner stone laid in Zion." This is the great cause in the defence of w^hich, as God shall give him ability, he vrishes to live and to die. In this cause he never expects to give over more or less controversij^ irksome as it is, as long as he shall remain a member of the church militant here below. S. M.

Princeton, September, 1840.

PRIMITIVE ORDER, &c.

Chapter I. The Question In This Controversy Stated

In the discussion of all controverted subjects, it is of the utmost importance to ascertain, at the commencement, the precise state of the question. This has often been mistaken in relation to the subject before us; and hence have arisen vague, inaccurate language, and sometimes even entire misapprehension of radical principles. An attempt, therefore, will be made to state as clearly as possible, the main points concerning which we, as Presbyterians, differ from our Episcopal brethren.

We by no means deny, then, that there was, in the primitive church, a class of officers who bore the name of bishops. On the contrary, we maintain that there were bishops in the apostolic church, and that there ought to be bishops now. Both the name and the office are to be found in the New Testament, and ought to be retained to the end of time. Many Episcopalians of slender information, seem to take for granted that we discard bishops in every sense of the word; and, therefore, when they find this title in Scripture, or in early vminspired writers, they exult as if the word established their claim. But nothing can be more unfounded than this triumph. We be- Heve and acknowledge as fully as themselves, that ministers of the gospel bearing this title, are frequently spoken of in the New Testament; and that there must be bishops in every regularly constituted church in every age. Accordingly it is well known, that in the Form of Government of the Presbyterian church, the pastors of churches are uniformly styled bishops; and this title is recommended to be retained, as both scriptural and appropriate.

But we differ from that denomination of Christians in our views 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 ecclesiastical 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 aru authorized to labour in the word and doctrine, or to administer either of the Christian sacraments. We suppose that there is a plain distinction made in Scripture between elders who only rule, and elders who, to the power of ruling, join also that of teaching and administering 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 and powers of the scriptural bishop. On the one hand, they contend that bishops are an order of ministers superior to presbyters, liaving 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 sacraments, to bishops exclusively belong the powers of ordination, confirmation, and goverrnnent. 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 presbytery, 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 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 apostles expressly discountenanced such claims of pre-eminence; 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 In a word, we believe that the office of the gospel ministry is one, and that tlie New Testament does not admit of grades and orders in that office; that he who has received it, without being made the pastor of a particular church, is called a minister of the gospel, an ambassador of Christ, or an evangelist, according to circumstances ; that when he becomes related, by installation, to a particular church, as its pastor or "overseer," he is then a scriptural bishop. We do not suppose that in thus becoming a pastor or bishop, he is invested with a new office ; but that in his official character he is brought into connection with a particular flock. Thus, in the language of the Episcopal church, when a man is ordained a presbyter, he is said to be invested with priest's orders — when the same man is instituted the rector of a parish, he is not clothed with a new office, but is still only a presbyter, entrusted with a pastoral charge. So in the Presbyterian church, a presbyter without a pastoral charge, however excellent and venerated, is not a bishop. He is not the "overseer of a flock." But when he is called by a church to be its pastor, and is installed as such, he receives no new office; but is a presbyter placed in a pastoral charge, a scriptural bishop.

This being the case, the reader 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, he is earnestly requested to recollect, at every step, that by a scriptural or primitive bishop, is always meant a presbyter, minister, pastor, or whatever else he may be called, who has the pastoral care of a particular congregation; and that by scriptural or primitive episcopacy, is meant that government of the church, by such bishops, which existed in pure apostolic times

THE QUESTION STATE2), 25

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.