remembering that we are dust. There is no reason why the same general principle should not be applied to incorrect opinions, as well as to improper actions. Error is, indeed, almost always, in this imperfect state, more or less mixed with sin; being the result of neglect which will not use the means of information; of pride which will not submit to the mortification of its claims; of bad passions which have been indulged until they have corrupted the whole habit of the soul. At the same time, not a little, we humbly trust, will be to be traced to a more venial origin. God only knows when error proceeds from a criminal, when from a pardonable source; and he only can tell what degree of allowance may be made for it consistently with the claims of justice. That this allowance will be far from inconsiderable we hope and believe. Now, sir, let us see how far gentlemen of your way of thinking carry the rigid doctrine of particular election and reprobation; that doctrine upon which you place so high value, never ceasing to enforce it from the pulpit, and from the press. Faith, you say, very truly, is a condition of salvation. The doctrine of election and reprobation is a most important article of faith; the rejection of it flowing from pride, and indicating an unregenerate state of the heart. In refusing to believe it, men refuse to believe divine truth, and so far violate the conditions of the covenant. And upon what ground do you place them? You say they are in the hands of a merciful God who knows whereof we are made, and remembers that we are but dust. This is the express language used by Calvinistic writers. They place those who reject the doctrine of particular election and reprobation on the ground of the general mercy of God; cherishing the hope that he will, in condescension to human frailty, pardon their error. A stranger to the subject would really suppose, upon reading your book, that your opponents deny the possibility of salvation out of their own church. After all, they lay no more stress, in reference to future happiness, on communion with the visible church, than you lay upon the rigid peculiarities of Calvinism. Once more. Let us see how far you carry Presbyterial ordination. Baptism is the only mode of admission into the visible church.* It is to be dispensed by none but a minister of * Presbyterian confession of Faith, chap. xxviii. 1. the word lawfully ordained.* No man can be a minister of Christ without an outward commission; and no outward commission is good but such as is Presbyterially bestowed.t Thus, then, without Presbyterial ordination, there is no such thing as being in covenant with God, or holding visible communion with him. For, it is in the visible church alone, you say, that there is any "ordinary possibility of salvation." Into this visible church baptism is the only mode of admission. Baptism can be administered only by a clergyman outwardly ordained. The only valid mode of outward ordination is by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery.§ How can you talk, sir, of the exclusive and arrogant claims of Episcopalians! In the very act of declaiming against the bigotry of your opponents you place Presbyterial ordination at the foundation of all covenanted title to eternal hope. The only way No sophistry can elude this conclusion. in which you attempt to elude it, as I have already observed, is by turning round and saying that nothing but holiness is necessary to constitute a church. But your confession of faith makes the church a visible one, and considers a visible ministry, and visible ordinances essential to its existence. It explodes the fanatical idea of saintship being the criterion of membership; and, yet, it is by running into this very fanatical idea, that you attempt to justify your indecent abuse of the defenders of Episcopacy. The Presbyterians unchurch the whole Greek and Armenian church, containing more members than the Protestant world united. They unchurch the Quakers. They unchurch every society Episcopally constituted; for they say that ordination, performed in such society, is valid only when viewed with a Presbyterial eye; and, that the Bishop being considered as a superior officer conveying the authority, on which ground the standards of our church place the matter, the ceremony is void; and not only void, but an act of rebellion against God. Now, sir, I submit to all candid men ; I submit, to yourself, the propriety of the style which you have thought proper to use in so many parts of your letters. Every charge recoils upon your own head. A Quaker might, with some plausibility, talk as you do. But, in an Presbyterian confession of Faith, c. xxvii. 4. † Letters, p. 347. ordained clergyman, believing in the authentic call and commission of the gospel ministry, the annals of human inconsistency do not present a case of more unqualified contradiction. If a Quaker should read your letters, and should be disposed to treat them as you have treated the writings of the Fathers, and of many Episcopal divines, he would, at once, cite you as a decided supporter of the principles of his society; requiring no other battery than that which you have furnished him to beat down the visible church, with its ordinances, and its ministry. Suppose he should cite that part of your work in which you represent certain internal qualifications as alone sufficient to constitute a church ;* proceeding to observe that no one could have the assurance to deny that the society of Friends possess these qualifications in a much higher degree than the Presbyterians; at all events, in an equal degree with them; and that, of course, a hireling ministry, and the carnal ordinances of baptism, and the supper, can have nothing to do with the church of Christ. What reply could you make? None; your lips being sealed up by the express admission that, wherever certain internal qualifications exist, there is the visible church. Yes, sir, genuine Quakers will read your book with triumph; hailing the time when, following up your principles to their true conclusion, you will lay aside all superstitious ceremonies; joining their association, where, the gospel, in its primitive and beautiful simplicity, pre vails. See, sir, to what an extremity you have gone! The explanation is easy. On the one hand, you will not give up the exclusive validity of Presbyterial order; on the other, you cannot refrain from angry declamation against your Episcopal brethren; and the unreasonableness of this staring you in the face, to get rid of the inconsistency, you destroy the very church of God. Why abuse Episcopalians for what you do yourself! Ah! You cannot unchurch them without unchurching your own association; seeing whatever sacerdotal authority you possess must flow through the Episcopal line. This fills you with perplexity, and with passion. In some shape or other you must admit the validity of our ordination. How is this to be done! You metamorphose us into Presbyterians; and, then, all is well. Letters, p. 344. Thus you look at us with two eyes. Viewed with a Presbyterial eye, our clergymen are ministers of Christ; viewed with an Episcopal eye, they are presumptuous intruders into the vineyard of the Lord. See how conveniently it is all arranged; by this mode of double construction saving yourselves from all harm, while you consign us over as rebels, and apostates! Surely this is the perfection of logic, and the sublime of charity. Poor miserable bigots, that we can neither perceive the one, nor admire the other! I have said that Episcopalians and Presbyterians lay equal stress upon external order. This is not exactly so. The latter carry their ideas, on the subject, much further than the former. Let us see how this is! Both denominations agree that there is a visible church instituted by Christ, and his apostles; and that this church is "the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation." Presbyterian Confession of Faith, chap. xxv, 2. Both denominations agree that the sacraments of baptism and the (6 supper are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God to confirm our interest in Christ, and to put a visible difference between those who belong unto the church, and the rest of the world." Pres. Con. Faith, chap. xxvii, 1. Both denominations agree that baptism is the only mode of "admission into the visible church; being a seal of the covenant of grace, and of ingrafting into Christ." Pres. Con. Faith, chap. xxviii, 1. Both denominations agree that baptism can be administered only by a clergyman outwardly ordained. Pres. Con. Faith, chap. xxvii, 4. Thus far Episcopalians and Presbyterians concur, perfectly, in sentiment. And at what conclusion have we arrived? That outward ordination is essential to church membership, and of course, to the church. By baptism we are admitted into the church; but baptism can be performed only by a clergyman; and there can be no clergyman without an outward commission. Outward ordination, then, according to both Episcopalians and Presbyterians, is essential to the very existence of the church, and, of course, to all covenanted title to salvation. But apart from this train of reasoning, each denomination expressly holds that the ministry is essential to the church, and that outward ordination is essential to the ministry. The only difference, on this part of the subject, relates to the particular method of outward ordination; Episcopalians contending that Christ and his apostles instituted distinct grades of ministers, giving to the highest grade the exclusive power of ordaining; and that, therefore, ordination, performed by an inferior grade, is without divine authority; Presbyterians contending that Christ and his apostles instituted but one order of gospel ministers, investing them with the power of ordaining, and that ordination, of course, is valid only when performed by ministers all acting as the equals of one another. Episcopalians say Episcopal ordination is the divinely instituted mode. Presbyterians say Presbyterial ordination is that mode. But upon external order, thus far, they lay equal stress; each denomination making a visibly commissioned clergy essential to the very existence of the church. How absurd, then, is it in Presbyterians to find fault with the importance which is given to external order; no persons going further than they in making the blessings of the gospel covenant depend on such order! It is dreadful, horrid, popish, unscriptural, antichristian, to represent Episcopal ordination, as essential to the ministry, and, of course, to the church. But Presbyterial ordination is quite another thing. This is scarcely an external. And all who deny it to be necessary to the ministry, and to the church, and to all covenanted mercy, are in a deplorable error. I proceed to observe that Presbyterians go much further than Episcopalians in their ideas of external order. Thus, not contented with making Presbyterial ordination essential to the existence of the church, and to all covenanted title to salvation, they tell us that Presbyterial government is, in all its parts, sketched out in scripture; that it is the duty of all christians to conform to it; and that, in refusing or neglecting to do so, they incur great guilt. The plan of ruling elders, and deacons, with mere temporal functions; the whole system of church sessions, Presbyterial assemblies, synodical assemblies, and general assemblies, they say, is prescribed in the word of God. In fact, it is impossible to carry external order further than these men carry it. See the language which they hold! Presbyterial government, in church sessions, Presbyterial assemblies, synodical as |