Letters on the ministry, ritual, and doctrines of the Protestant Episcopal church addressed to the Rev. Wm. E. Wyatt ... in reply to a sermon exhibiting some of the principal doctrines of the Protestant Episcopal church in the U. S.

Front matter

•

Jztj?. W°l -Si '

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Letter I. On The Ministry Of The Episcopal Church

Reasons for discussing the subject — Our Saviour gave no instructions respecting any particular mode of church government — Said nothing of three orders of ministry — The first church at Jerusalem was governed by the apostles, elders, and brethren — Deacons — The ceremony of ordination was performed by any officers of regular standing in the church — Paul and Barnabas were ordained by "prophets and teachers " — Opinions of Kuinoel, Rosenmuller, Hammond, and Le Clerc — Episcopalians fond of quoting the Fathers — Authority of the Fathers — Opinions of Milton and Jeremy Taylor — Ignatius' epistles — Testimony of the Fathers against episcopacy — Opinions of Paley, Locke, the bishop of Lincoln — Ecclesiastical government essentially a government of the people. p. 9

Letter II. On The Ritual Of The Church

Baptism — Church form not scriptural — Sign of the cross — Confirmation — These forms nearly the same as in the Catholic church — Ordination service — Expediency and utility of forms of prayer — Their disadvantages — Origin of Saints' days — Bossuet. p. 51

Letter III. On The Authority Of The Church In Controversies Of Faith

Our Saviour gave no authority to any man, or body of men, to judge others for their religious opinions — Christians have no other rule of faith than the Bible — Chillingworth — Athanasian creed — Historical sketch of the first conventions of the American episcopal church after the revolution — Injurious tendency of creeds and articles, both on the clergy and the people — Many christians cannot conscientiously worship according to the liturgy of the church — Inconsistency of holding to the authority of tradition, and rejecting infallibility — How creeds keep schism out of the church — Milton's opinion. p. 74

IV

Letter IV. On The Doctrinal Character Of The Thirty-nine Articles

The fundamental doctrines of Calvinism fully set forth in the articles and homilies — Ninth article — Homilies — Seventeenth article — Bishop Burnet's exposition — Opinions of the first re- _ formers calvinistic — Nowel's catechism — Latimer's sermons — Bishop's Bible — Oxford theses — Ridley's letter on election and predestination — Lambeth articles — Heylin — University of Cambridge—Synod of Dort — English delegates were all calvinists — Strange doctrine of the eighteenth article — Arminian mode of interpreting the articles indefensible — Proposed summary of faith. p. 100

Letter V. Doctrine Of The Trinity As Held By The Episcopal Church

Litany — The worship it inculcates — Doctrine of the trinity contained in the articles — Opinions of learned episcopalians — There is one true God — The Lord Jesus Christ is not this one true God, but a subordinate being — Doctrine of two natures — The Holy Spirit is not the true God — Jews had no conceptions of any threefold distinction in the Deity— Nor had the disciples of Jesus — Nor did the apostles preach any such doctrine after the ascension of Christ — The christians of the first century were principally, if not entirely, unitarians — Origin of the doctrine of the trinity. p. 129

Letter VI

EXPOSITION OF CERTAIN TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE SUPPOSED TO FAVOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

Objections answered — Use of reason — Mysteries — Burgh's Reply to Lindsey — Jones on the Trinity — His singular mode of interpreting the scriptures — All the texts considered in which Christ is called, or supposed to be called God — None of these proves him to be the Supreme Being — Texts, which are thought to ascribe such properties or powers to Christ, as could belong only to God — How Christ and the Father are one — Christ possessed the attributes of God in a limited degree — God the only object of religious homage — Form of baptism — Communion of the Holy Spirit — Concluding remarks. p. 175

Letter I. On The Ministry Of The Episcopal Church

Reverend and dear sir,

When your late discourse on the ministry and doctrines of the Protestant Episcopal Church first appeared, I engaged with much interest in its perusal. The design, which you proposed, of explaining at large the principal doctrines, and distinguishing characteristics of this church, led me to anticipate much pleasure and improvement from the execution. If I have been disappointed in some of my expectations, I could not fail to be gratified with the spirit of candor and good intentions which pervades your discourse ; and, if it has failed to produce conviction, I hope I have not read it without profit.

In the remarks I am about to make, I have no design to state any charge of intentional misrepresentations, or to question your motives. Nor is it so much your own private opinions with which I am concerned, as the doctrines and principles you have attempted to explain and defend, and which you represent as forming the most striking features of the church to which you belong. Among these I cannot but think there are many errors ; and not a few, which can have no other than an injurious tendency on the cause of truth and pure religion. As you have thought it your duty to undertake a public explanation and defence of these doctrines, you cannot be surprised, that I should think it 2 mine, to adopt a similar mode of expressing my opinions, and of stating my objections.

I propose first to consider what you have said on the ministry of the Episcopal Church ; and afterwards to examine its ritual and doctrines.

I confess I was not entirely prepared to find, at this advanced period of moral and intellectual improvement, any member of a protestant religious society, and especially in this country, who would seriously engage in the attempt to establish the divine origin of any particular form of church government, and claim its lineal descent from the apostles. I had thought the long agitated controversy, about the divine right of episcopacy, was generally allowed to be at rest, even in those countries where the civil, as well as ecclesiastical interests are intimately concerned in the result. In more scholastic times, when the world was busied in visions and dreams as unprofitable as they were imaginary, this was a theme sufficiently obscure to interest the lovers of speculation, and sufficiently pretending to engage the ambitious. Few at this day, I supposed, could be found, who would not at least consider it a doubtful cause ; and still fewer, who would, think it of sufficient moment publicly to engage in its defence. The termination of the controversy which was carried on a few years ago in New- York on this subject, was not such, one would think, as to warrant in the friends of episcopacy a desire for its renewal.

In my estimation the subject in itself is of very little importance, because I am convinced, that the grounds which you and some others take, are unscriptural, and consequently untenable. Yet in its consequences it is by no means unimportant. If any order of men can prove to the satisfaction of the people,that, as an order, there are lineal descendants from the apostles, and inherit a right to their office by virtue of this descent, they will almost necessarily possess an influence over the minds and opinions of the weak and credulous, which, unless their pretensions are well founded, they ought not to possess. In religion, if in anything, the mind should be left unshackled. The right of private judgment should be held sacred, and no improper means should be used to restrain inquiry, or enlist credulity.

As we are all accountable beings, and accountable only for ourselves, it is our duty to judge for ourselves. But when we are made to believe, that any man is endowed with a portion of the inspired intelligence of the apostles, and is, from the nature of the office he sustains, more holy than other men, shall we not be in danger of fors-ettins: our obligations to ourselves, and be likely in our religious concerns to yield up the highest prerogatives of our own nature — those of thinking, and reasoning, and judging ? What merit can we claim for thinking and acting right, if we do not think and act from our own understanding and freedom ? To believe articles, because others have believed them, can scarcely be called a religious faith. That faith can be worth very little, and have little efficacy on the life, which is not built on personal knowledge and conviction.

Another evil consequence of believing in a divinely protected succession of officers in the church, is the perpetuity of error. Among protestants I believe there are no advocates for infallibility. In the christian church, as in every thing else, error has always been mingled with truth, and it does not appear, that the edicts of emperors, the decrees of councils, or the mandates of popes have been able to preserve a pure, a uniform, or consistent system of faith. If such a system had been transmitted without change from the primitive ages, and it were certain, that it is the one now adopted by your church ; I should, then say, that your scheme of episcopacy is a good one, and the notion of its divine origin would add to its value. It would be the best means, that could be devised, for perpetuating such a form of faith, and fixing it in the minds of the people.

But is it not obvious, that such a system would have a tendency equally strong to perpetuate any form of belief, whether false or true ? And are not all articles of faith, which are not expressed in the language of scripture, subject to be more or less clouded with error ? If episcopacy be of divine origin, why has it not preserved a pure and consistant faith. The Greek church is episcopal, and so is the Roman, and still they differ in many essential points from each other, as well as from the English church. And does not the episcopal church of the United States reject some parts of the old Book of Common Prayer, which are thought so important in the English church, as to be commanded by the laws to be publicly read at stated times ? Why are the Athanasian Creed, and some other parts of the Liturgy left out, unless it be, that they are thought unscriptural ? The creeds of episcopal churches have changed essentially from time to time, and at present they differ essentially among themselves. It is evident, then, that these churches have many errors in their articles of belief, and my position is, that the scheme of episcopacy is peculiarly calculated to perpetuate these errors.

There is another consideration of some importance to me, and to all, who do not agree with episcopalians on the subject of church government. If you are right, we are all wrong. If, as you say, " to the order of bishop alone belongs the power of ordaining ministers," then no ministers out of the pale of episcopacy have ever been ordained. They have usurped an office, which did not belong to them ; they have undertaken the discharge of duties, for which they were not qualified ; they have been guilty of a rashness, which nothing ut thsir obstinacy could account for, or their ignorance excuse. The positive ordinances of the church, administered by them, have been invalid, and unaccompanied by any of those good effects for which they were designed. Baptism performed by them has had no efficacy ; and the celebration of the Lord's supper, although done in compliance with the express commands of our Saviour, has been rather a dishonor to his name, than a means of procuring spiritual comfort, and the rewards of obedience for his followers. These, you will allow, are serious considerations, not only to ministers, but to the people of their charge, who, if your statement be correct, are ignorantly entrusting their spiritual concerns to an unauthorized and unprofitable ministry.

It certainly cannot be thought strange, that any clergyman, who is implicated in this charge, should feel it his duty to assert and maintain what he conceives to be his just claims, and show the fallacy of such pretensions, as arrogate to any class of men the exclusive character of being descendants from the apostles.

The first part of your discourse is taken up in proving, that the episcopal church is the ontytruechurch,that its ministry originated with the apostles, and has descended down to the present time, " through an vnbroken and divinely protected succession" and that ordinations, performed by any other persons than bishops, are " devoid of every degree of validity and efficacy in conferring spiritual office and power." This shall be the subject of my first letter.

I agree with you, that " when the gospel enjoins us i to be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh us a reason of the hope that is in us,' and i to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints ;' it equally obliges us to ascertain and thoroughly understand what the characteristics of that faith may be." It is true, if we do not 2*

14 MIINISTRY OF THE

ascertain, we believe without knowledge ; and if we do not understand, we believe without evidence. Faith without knowledge, or evidence, can scarcely be called a rational faith ; and to believe what we do not understand, if it be possible, is useless. A religious faith is meant to be the guide to a religious life, and if its objects are unintelligible, it must indeed be a blind guide. The same may be said of the faith of prejudice, or of ignorance. I unite with you cordially in the opinion, therefore, that its characteristics should be thoroughly understood.

In the scriptures are contained the only grounds of this faith. No mode of Church government can be considered of divine origin, which is not enjoined in the most absolute terms in the scriptures, and no articles of faith can be considered of divine authority, which are not there explicitly stated. Possible designs, and probable inferences, are not here to be taken. We must have plain arguments, positive proofs, direct conclusions, before we can venture to pronounce any scheme of government, or any summary of articles, to be built on divine authority. The decrees of councils, and the traditions of the church can be of no weight, and ought not to be quoted on these points, while we have the scriptures in our hands. In discussing this subject, therefore, I shall not think it important to resort to any other authorities, than such as are contained in the word of God. The plain truths of scripture will always remain the same, whatever may have been, or may still be, the opinions of men.

Your first proposition, in regard to the ministry of the episcopal church, is as follows. " This ministry consists of three distinct orders, bishops, priests, and deacons. From the promulgation of the gospel by Jesus Christ, these three orders were apparent, designated by different names, and possessing and exercising different powers."

These orders you represent to have consisted of our Saviour, the apostles, and the seventy, who were sent forth to preach. Now, is it not a little remarkable, if Jesus intended the ministry of his church to consist of three orders, and to be transmitted in this form through all succeeding ages, that he should not have given some directions on so important a subject ? Is it credible, that, if he intended a particular class of persons only should be qualified for administering the ordinances of his religion, he would not have given some positive instructions in regard to the nature of their qualifications ? But what is the truth ? Not a hint is found in the whole four gospels, that he designed either to establish or perpetuate any such form of church government, as the one you have mentioned. His last commission to his disciples is given in the following words ; " Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." Matt, xxviii 19, 20. He never mentioned three orders, or any number of orders of priesthood. He never spoke of bishops or deacons. He pointed out no particular modes of ordination, nor designated any description of persons by whom this ceremony should be performed.

What is the natural conclusion, except that he did not think it important what mode his followers should adopt to preserve the outward forms of his religion, provided they were careful to embrace its doctrines, imbibe its spirit, and live by its precepts ? Whatever conclusion we may draw, we must rest in this certainty, that our Saviour left no instructions respecting any particular form of church government. We have no other scripture authority on this subject, than what we derive from the writings and example of the apostles after the resurrection of Christ. I will next examine your statements as drawn from that source.

You go on to observe, " when our Lord had ascended up on high, the apostles ordained the seven deacons to discharge the inferior offices of the ministry, and to preserve the system inviolate" What System ? Our Lord had not mentioned any system. And even if he had commanded his disciples to preserve the three orders, which you suppose he established, would they not have chosen some one to supply the place, which had become vacant ? Would it not be the most rational to believe, if it were intended they should keep the " system inviolate," that they whould have appointed some person to constitute the order, which had ceased, when Christ ascended to Heaven ; and to take charge of the general concerns of the church, as he had done while on earth ? How else could the orders have been regularly preserved ? But what is the fact respecting the seven officers, whom you call deacons ? For what purpose were they chosen ? Instead of being appointed to superintend the concerns of the church, or indeed to supply any order of the ministry, their office does not seem to have been designed even for an ecclesiastical purpose.

The reason for this appointment is seen in the following text. " And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration." Acts vi. 1. Here the Gentile, or more properly the Hellenistic converts complain, that they were neglected by the Hebrew officers, whose duty it was to provide for the poor.* The apostles immedi-

* The " Grecians," or Hellenists, mentioned in the text, were probably proselytes to the Jewish religion from among the Greeks, or the descendants of such persons, who had embraced Christianity. See Kenrick's Exposition, vol, iii. p. 109. and Newcome, in loc. It s well known, that these proselvtes did not enjoy the same civil privileges in Judea, as the native Israelites. This caused prejuately advised them to choose a certain number of persons, to whom this duty might be entrusted, intimating that it was not an office, with which, in the exercise of their more important calling, they ought to be troubled. The people accordingly chose seven from among themselves, who were approved and appointed to the office by the apostles.

But this office did not constitute a new order. They were chosen to aid others, who had neglected to do their duty. Their appointment was merely a matter of expediency, or convenience, to afforg 1 more extensive relief to the poor, and to prevent the jealousy and complaints, which had begun to spring up among the Hellenistic and Hebrew converts. It was in no respect an office for spiritual purposes, and certainly cannot be considered as forming a part of the christian ministry. One of them, Stephen, is represented as "a man full of faith, and of the Holy Spirit ;" and Philip, in another place, is called an evangelist, but in no connexion with this office. Why you call them deacons, I cannot tell, as no such name is given them. Neither is the word used in the whole book of Acts.

Let us proceed to your next statement of the orders of the ministry. After the appointment of the seven officers just mentioned, you say, a there were then the apostles and those associated with them, as Titus, Timothy, &c. being the first order ; the seventy, bishops, elders, or presbyters, as they were promiscuously called, being the second order ; and the deacons, the third order.'''' Do you mean to consider Timothy and Titus on an equality with the apostles ? If

dices to be kindled among them, which were not entireiy removed after their conversion to Christianity. We may hence see the reason of the complaint in the text. The Hebrews attended to their own poor, and neglected those of the proselyte converts. This is the more probable, as Nicolas of Antioch, one of the seven officers, was a proselyte.

a line of distinction existed any where, between the different officers of the ministry, could any be more strongly marked, than that which separated those persons, who had been the companions of our Lord, and had been the special messengers of his gospel, from all who were afterwards chosen or appointed by them ? Were Timothy and Titus ever called apostles ? Why then should you assign to them the same rank ? If being " associated " with the apostles entitled them to a place in the first order, why were not all bishops, or elders, equally entitled t% this place ? They were all associated with the apostles in the great work of preaching, and teaching, and extending the kingdom of Christ. In this respect they all composed but one order.

As you allow the words bishop, elder, and presbyter to be used promiscuously for the same thing, I should not stop to prove so obvious a fact, were it not denied in the book of " Festivals and Fasts," which is a manual in the church, and which you recommend very highly to your readers. In remarking on the testimony of Ignatius, the author, or editor, observes, " from this unequivocal testimony it fully appears, that in the apostolic age, there were three orders in the ministry, bishops, presbyters, and deacons, distinct and subordinate, deriving their commission from God, and claiming the reverence and obedience of the people." And the American editor also states, in a note, that this testimony is express and decided in support of the superiority of the bishops to the presbyters. If you adopt this statement in connexion with your own, you must allow at least four orders instead of three, namely, apostles, bishops, presbyters, and deacons.

That elders, presbyters, and bishops were the same, is evident from the twentieth chapter of Acts In this chapter, Paul is said to have " sent from Miletus to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church j" and among his directions, after they were collected, he told them, " to take heed unto themselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Spirit had made them overseers" or, as the word is everywhere else rendered, bishops. In the first chapter of Titus the words bishop, and elder, are used in different places for the same person. According to Macknight, the name elder {rroio^vrsooc) was applied in the primitive age, as a general term, to all who exercised any sacred office in the church.*

They seem to have been called elders, because they were chosen from among the first converts, or perhaps from among those, who were more advanced in age, and whose experience and gravity of manners gave weight to their character.

We do not read in the scriptures of any distinction of rank among these officers ; but we are often told of their acting in concert with the brethren, with each other, and with the apostles. In the discussion about circumcision, " the apostles and elders came together to consider of this matter." And when " chosen men " were sent with Paul and Barnabus to Antioch, they received their commission from the " apostles, and elders, with the whole church." The letter, which they took, commenced as follows ; " The apostles, and elders, and brethren, send greeting to the brethren, which are of the Gentiles in Antioch, and Syria, and Cilicia." Acts xv. 6, 22, 23. Nothing is more clear, than that the government of the church at this time rested in a mutual council, composed not only of the apostles and elders, but also of the brethren at large. We hear nothing of any particular ranks among the officers. The apostles themselves assumed no authority above the elders, or even the brethren. They acted only with their advice, and in concert with them. Letters were written, and ministers sent out, in the name of the whole body of the church.

* Macknight on the Epistles, vol. iv. p. 245,

This was the mode of government in the first church at Jerusalem, and it appears to have been the same, as far as circumstances would permit, in all the primitive churches. Where you find any grounds, in the transactions of this first church at Jerusalem, for the " three distinct orders of bishops, priests, and deacons," it is not easy to discover.

The deacons, who compose your third order, are not mentioned in the proceedings of this church. But is it probable, if such an order of the ministry then existed, that it would have been overlooked in proceedings so important as these, in which even the brethren at large were allowed to take an active part ? I confess I can discover nothing in the account of the church at Jerusalem, or in any part of the New Testament, which would lead me to suppose the deacons, in the time of the apostles, sustained any office, which should entitle them to be considered a distinct order of the ministry. The word, in its English dress, is used only three times, and in no instance with reference to any definite office, or duties. In the original use of this word in the New Testament, it has a variety of meanings. Its radical signification is servant, and it is thus used for the most part in the gospels. In the epistles it generally means what we understand by minister and sometimes magistrate. Rom. xiii. 4. Paul speaks of himself and brethren being made " able ministers (deacons) of the new covenant." " Wherefore I was made a minister (deacon) according to the gifts of the grace of God." " Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but able ministers (deacons) by whom ye believed ?"* Quotations of a similar kind might be multi-

* The word diaxovog is used in thirty places in the New Testament. In eight of these places, it is rendered, in our common version, servant, and seems to have precisely the same meaning as deXog. In nineteen places it is rendered minister ; and in three only it is translated deacon.

plied ; but these are sufficient to show, that the term deacon, instead of designating a particular order of men, was frequently applied to the apostles themselves. The apostles were servants, deacons, or ministers of Jesus Christ.

St. Paul writes to the " bishops and deacons " at Phillippi, as it is expressed in our common version. But the Syriac translator renders it " elders and ministers ," # and this translation is in accordance with the general use of these words, as is seen by the above quotations. In his first letter to Timothy, the apostle describes the qualifications of deacons, but nothing is said in regard to the nature of their office. These qualifications are almost precisely the same, as those of a bishop, which are mentioned in the same place- In the letter to Titus, instead of deacons, he calls them "aged men ;" and I can find no passage in scripture, from which it would appear, that these men were distinguished, in respect to their office, from the elders, or presbyters. And whatever the office of a deacon may have been, it is evident, that it was not appropriated to a particular order of men ; for Paul, Apollos, Epaphras, and the magistrates are called deacons.

The opinion, which was adopted in some of the earlier churches, and which is still retained in yours, respecting the office of deacons, seems to have originated in a fancied resemblance between the deacons mentioned in the first epistle to Timothy, and the seven officers appointed by the apostles, soon after the ascension of our Lord. But we have already seen what were the duties of those men. We have seen, that the}^ were never called deacons, and that their office was wholly of a temporal nature.

Among the duties, which you enumerate as belonging to the office of a deacon, are the following. " In addition to

* Senioribus et ministris. 3 their care of the poor, the deacons officiated in distributing the sacramental emblems ; they were emplo} 7 ed to preach and baptize ; they were set apart to their office by prayer and imposition of hands ; and they were forbidden to follow any secular employments." In what part of the scriptures you find any of these characteristics of the office of a deacon, I cannot conceive. After a careful examination, I do not find a single text, which would imply either directly or remotely, that the deacons mentioned in the epistles to the Phillippians and to Timothy, were especially designed for any of these duties. The truth is, nothing is said in scripture about the nature of the office, or about the duties of any class of men designated by the title of deacons. As this name was often applied to the apostles, bishops, and presbyters, it is not unlikely, that it was at first used as a general title to denote a teacher of the gospel.