ifrec Disclaimer
OK
CERTAIN NAMES, VIEWS, AND WAYS,
IRRATIONALLY IMPUTED
To the Rector of Calvary Church, Memphis,
ANl) OTHER
MINISTERS OF THE CHURCH.
MEMPHIS:
TANNEHILL & BELL, PRINTERS.
1840.
3£mory Xtmttersitg Xibrarg
-free Disclaimer
of
CERTAIN NAMES, VIEWS, AND WAYS,
IRRATIONALLY IMPUTED
TO THE RECTOR OF CALVARY CHURCH, MEMPHIS,
and other
MINISTERS OF THE CHURCH.
MEMPHIS:
TANNEIiIILL £c bell, printers*
1846.
The church being closed for repairs, it so happened on Sun¬
day last that the Rev. Dr. Waller, formerly a distinguished
Methodist minister, and now a presbyter of the Diocese of Vir¬
ginia, heard a discourse elsewhere of which the Church was the
theme. In the afternoon he sought the preacher, and a colloquy
ensued, in the presence of two other Methodist ministers, and
other company, during which, to justify the tone of the discourse,
the characteristic personal traits were attributed to the Rector of
the Episcopal Church, to the Rev. Mr. Litton, and to Bishop Otey,
which it is the purpose of these pages to examine and disclaim.
This trouble is taken, solely because it is presumed that the Rev.
Mr. Starks is not singular in his misapprehensions, and that the
incident presents a good opportunity to rectify common mistakes,
and dispel current prejudices. I hear that public imputations of
the same stamp [see note B.,] are issuing from a different quarter:
and this is intended to serve as a general corrective.
The reader must remember that he has not in his hands a theo¬
logical essay, but a mere personal explanation. The question is
not whether Mr. Starks preached rightly of divine ordinances, but
whether he spoke justly of Mr. A., Mr. L. and Bishop 0. Those
are questions of immensely different gravity and moment, and in
their discussion, very opposite styles and moods are natural and
appropriate. The latter is the sole business, and it is not a serious
one by any means, either intrinsically, or in the writer's regard.
The pleasantry which is consonant to his own feelings, will be
more agreeable to the public ear, than the solemn air which in
matters of personal concern, betokens sternness and exacerba-
TO THE REV. SAMUEL WATSON.
Rev. and Dear Sir:
In a conversation held yesterday, in the
presence of yourself and others, between the Rev. Dr. Waller,
and the Rev. Mr. Starks, certain names, notions and sentiments
were ascribed to me by the latter, which I deem it not amiss, in all
kindness and good humor, to disclaim. It accords better with my
design and feelings to address a third person:—and none can be
more suitable than a Methodist minister, well known and esteem¬
ed in our community, and of whose courteous disposition I have
had pleasant experience.
1. I was denominated a Puseyite. What sort of creature
that may be, and what are the peculiarities which distinguish the
species, I have never been able to ascertain with any precision.
That it exists, seems to be as well established by newspaper report
as that the Sea-serpent haunts the coasts of New-England: but
a like indistinctness obscures its natural history. When I have
heard the term seriously employed, I have made it a rule to ask a
definition: and in every instance the person has wondered at my
ignorance—and disclosed his own. As popularly conceived, it is
a horrible obscure,
a fearful shape,
If shape it may be called that shape has none
Distinguishable in member, joint, or limb,
Or substance may be called, that shadow seems,
For each seems either; black it stands as night—
Fierce as ten furies
what seems its head,
The likeness of an Oxford skuli.-cap wears.
What definite idea, or whether any, is attached to the word in the
mind of Mr. Starks, I cannot say—but I can show conclusively,
that if he had called on my Virginian brother to behold in me the
embodied idea of Milton's death, the representation would not
have been a whit more fanciful, and savoring of poetic license.
A score and a half of English clergymen, (as the world is indus¬
triously informed, with the "keep it before the people" spirit of parti¬
san assiduity) have lately transferred themselves to the Roman
Church.—Mr. Stark argues from this fact, a tendency of the Eng¬
lish Church to move Rome-ward: which method of reasoning, in¬
stead of caring to rebut, I feel just now inclined to push forward,
by suggesting some considerations which may possibly impart to
his conclusions an uncomfortable velocity. As thus:—Since the
date of the Oxford agitation, more Methodist ministers have enter-
5
ed the American Church, in. proportion to the whole body, than
there have been English clergymen transmigrating to the Seven
Hills: and more Methodists, twenty to one, have become Episco¬
palians, than Church-people have become Romanists. Ergo, by
the rules of arithmetic harnessed to the logic of Mr. Starks, the ten¬
dency of Methodism Churchward, is twenty times as great as the
tendency of Episcopacy Romeward. And farther:—Whereas
Mr. Starks pronounces that the difference between Romanism and
the position of the Church is only the hair's-breadth hit of "the
cast of a left-handed Benjamite," he is safely landed on the con¬
clusion that the Romanizing tendency of Episcopacy is of minute
extent and consequence, and the Romanizing tendency of Meth¬
odism overtakes its results within a hair's breadth. A galloping
argument indeed!—like the steed renowned in song, that was
mounted with festive intent of getting down at Edmonton, but
would keep running on to Ware:
Away went Gilpin out of breath,
And sore against his will,
Till at his friend the calender's
The horse at last stood still.
But this by the way. I mentioned the Romanized clergymen, be¬
cause they were the people first called Puseyites.—Now I hum¬
bly suggest, that I am not what they are. I am very far indeed
from believing, with Mr. Starks, that their change matters but a
hair. I go, on the contrary, with John Wesley, when near the
close of his life he declared that the Church to which I cleave is
"the best constituted Church in the world," and that "none who
valued his judgment and advice would ever separate from her."
I am informed, indeed, that Mr. S., announced Dr. Pusey as the
"oracle of the Church of England:" and, so opining, it was cer¬
tainly a natural inference from that assumption, that I and all who
are pledged to maintain the standards of the Church, must hold
his authority oracular. But if he had announced me as the oracle
of the American Church, or himself as the oracle of the Metho¬
dist Episcopal Church South, he would have set forth an idea
not less grotesque to the mind of any intelligent Churchman.
Even for the thirt}7 Romanizers, Newman was the leader, and the
facts show that Dr. Pusey's influence availed nothing.—My esti¬
mate of the gentleman whose name has been so abused in the
world, is simply this:—that he is a man of great piety and loveli¬
ness of character, of very respectable learning for this age, rather
a perplexed and groping thinker, and a somewhat awkward and
muddy writer;—that dozens of American and English theologians
surpass him in clearness and reach of intellect, and that scores of
names adorn the past ages of Anglican theology, in comparison
with which his sheds but a feeble light. So far as I have had op¬
portunity to gather the opinion of my clerical brethren, they would
without a single exception, subscribe this estimate of Dr. Pusey's
6
authority in the Church.—Is it then proper, or civil, or sensible, to
call us Puseyites?—
In short:—If Mr. S. means by a Puseyite a setter forth of any
doctrines not in conformity with the standards of that Church of
which John Wesley died a presbyter some sixty years ago—any
doctrines not belonging to the general strain of her acknowledged
teaching for ages before Dr. Pusey was born, and fixed in my
mind before I ever heard of Dr. Pusey—then I affirm, that he may
call me a Methodist with equal truth and reason.
If, on the other hand, he means by a Puseyite, one who sincerely
embraces, and honestly proclaims to the best of his ability, the doc¬
trines of the Church—none other than those for which Papists burnt
four of her bishops at the stake, and sectaries beheaded another
on the scaffold; doctrines which have ever since the birth of dis¬
senting sects been the hackneyed subjects of their reproach, and
familiar as household words to her own people—why then, all I
have to say is this; that if any one could be absurd enough to call
me, after my brother, a Wcdlerite, or you after yours a Starksite,
those titles would be equally judicious and in good taste.
To dismiss this head of remark, I declare that I have an utter
repugnance to all manner of —isms in religion, and strenuously
disclaim fellowship with all manner of —ites.—I call no man Mas¬
ter. I know no "oracle" beside the oracles of God. I hold to no
Church whose history and institutions are of later original than
that to which the first believers pressed on the day of the Pen¬
tecostal outpouring, and wherein, to the end of the world, believ¬
ers are to "continue steadfastly in the Apostles' doctrine and fellow¬
ship, in breaking of bread, and in prayers."
2. I was also described to my Virginian brother as exclusive in
my sentiments—cruelly consigning all the sects to the "uncovenan-
ted mercies of God." I shall rip open this charge with some delib¬
eration, and see what material it is stuffed with.
When did the covenant of salvation originate, and the virtue of
the Great Sacrifice begin to be applied?—When our first parents
fell. Whom did the covenanted mercy embrace?—Them, and all
their posterity—any Methodist or Churchman is ready to answer:
and neither dreams that the great Covenant of salvation was
annulled, or shorn of its previous scope, at the promulgation of the
gospel. Consequently,—and since the declaration seems to be
necessary, I fully admit that the members ofthe MethodistEpiscopal
Church, (not indeed, as they are such members, but as they are souls
dead in Adam, and made alive in Christ) are embraced in the pro¬
visions of the Great Covenant; and that any one who "consigns
them to the uncovenanted mercies of God," in the sense, and
with the consequences, which that phrase is used to convey by those
who employ it, does not know what he is saying, or else does not
eare.
There have been, indeed, special covenants, scaling special
7
mercies and benefits, having visible limits, and implying particular
conditions. Such a Covenant is now, in the Church of God, where-
ever the sacramental seals may be administered in all those things
which of necessity are requisite to the same. All who hear the
gospel preached, are invited and required to approach the visibly
instituted channels of the divine benediction and grace. I con¬
scientiously believe, and so does Mr. Starks, that many earnest
Christians are mistaken in the sources to which they resort. Nei¬
ther of us would receive the communion at the hands of a follow¬
er of Mr. A. Campbell, or of anunordained member of his or my
congregation. We are both exclusive, whenever our views of
sacred things compel us to be so:—he, indeed, to a vastly great¬
er extent than I, inasmuch, as none but what are called Protes¬
tant sources, and by no means all of them, have any legal¬
ity in his account. The main question between us, however, re¬
spects the system of the Methodist Episcopal Church South:—and
in order that my exclusiveness on that head may be distinctly un¬
derstood, and duly judged, I shall propound it, first, as the corpo¬
rate organization of that system is concerned; then, as the people
who happen to acknowledge it are concerned; and lastly, as its
ministry is concerned.
And as for its abstract and corporate character, I declare that
i dispute no pretension whatever, that its advocates nowadays
assert for it.
Thus the case stands:—We believe, that there is a visible
Church, One, Catholic, and Apostolic, and that essential marks
of that Church are absent from the corporate organization of the
Methodist Episcopal Church South. They do not claim those
marks as its possession, but say there is no such Visible Church at
all. We deny that it has a ministry in the line of apostolic suc¬
cession: they do not claim one for it, but say there is no such min¬
istry. We regard its sacraments in the same light which they profess
to do. We deny that it has a baptism for the remission of sins,
and the incorporation of men into the Visible Church. They claim
no such baptism for it. We deny that the other sacrament is so ad¬
ministered, that the recipients may rightly believe that the bread
broken for them, and the cup blessed, are the communion of the
body and blood of Christ, "really but spiritually present to their
faith, as the elements are to their outward senses." They claim no
such Lord's Supper. They teach that its sacraments are but cere¬
monies:—we tully and unequivocally allow, that they are all they
profess to be. What can we do more? What do we, to "un¬
church" them, more than they do themselves?—Their notions are
exclusive of what we claim;—we concede all they ask of us:—and
this is the plain account of the matter.
Next, as the people are concerned—all praying and striving
persons, who hold the articles of the Christian faith, as contained
in the Apostles' creed, have access to the sacraments of the Church,
not as of courtesy, but as their indefeasible right, and my bounden
8
duty:—a right and duty which could have no existence, if they
were not previously included in "the covenanted mercies of God,"
as they understand that phrase.—Can Mr. Starks open a wider
door?
Then, as its ministry is concerned.—The Prayer Book says—
and it said ages before Mr. Wesley, a presbyter of the Church, was
over-persuaded in his extreme age to arrogate the ordaining func¬
tion—that "it is evident unto all men, diligently reading Holy
Scripture and antient authors, that from the Apostles' times there
have been these orders of Ministers in Christ's Church, Bishops,
Priests, and Deacons:" no man being ever accounted lawfully
ordained unless by the hands of a bishop in the line of Apostolic
succession.—Now, because one of her presbyters took it upon him¬
self to ordain, was the Church obliged on any foot of common
sense or Christian propriety, to expunge her antient standards,
and renounce her immemorial principles?—or, because Mr. Starks
has been ordained in a succession from that presbyter, am I obliged
on any foot of common sense or Christian propriety to disavow the
teaching of the Prayer Book, and renounce what I know to be the
ordinance of God, evident unto all men diligently reading Holy
Scripture and antient authors?—If not—my refusal is no just
ground of opprobrium or animosity, and the charge of exclusive-
ness conveys no reproach for an honest man to heed, or for a rea¬
sonable one to hurl.
Let us suppose a case precisely parallel. A number of Metho¬
dists, we will say, think proper to erect a new ecclesiastical plat¬
form for themselves, in the construction of which principles are
discarded, which the Discipline makes essential and indispensable.
Forthwith a spokesman of the new ism singles out Mr. Starks, and
with an ominous knitting of the brows accosts him thus:—"Sir, you
are an exclusive!—Sir, I have no doubt you are a Puseyite, if I only
had an advertisement of that animal to note its phiz, and com¬
pare yours with the description !—How dare you stick to this old
Book, after we have thrown it away?—Aren't you ashamed of
yourself, to hold this or that to be true and essential, when I say it
isn't true, and it isn't essential?—Sir, I feel hugely gravelled and
insulted, by your contumacious adherence to what were ever the
established principles of your Church, before our new plan was in¬
vented the other day!—Throw that Discipline to the dogs; dis¬
honor your reason; betray the Methodist Episcopal Church South;
—violate your conscience: if you don't, I—I'll throw a sermon at
you! I'll raise a hue and cry after you for a Puseyite, and hark on
the curs of popular prejudice to hunt you down—or at least bark
at you—for an exclusive !"
Let any reflecting Methodist imagine what would be his sensa¬
tions if so accosted, and he will realize what must be mine, as af¬
fected by the reproach of exclusiveness alleged against me by
his unreflecting brethren. Whether the system which he has cho-
9
sen, or that of the Church, is of divine institution, is a question for
which its intrinsic sacredness, to say nothing of mere courtesy, de¬
mands solemn and respectful canvassing: in no other spirit have I,
or can I, ever approach it. But the personal stigma of exclusive-
ness is an altogether different affair—a genuine bantling of Mo-
mus, which cannot be looked in the face without a "visum teneatis,
arniciV
3. It was alleged to Dr. Waller, in further evidence that the
Church in this place deserved what it got that morning, that the
strain of my professional teaching was abusive and denunciatory.
This is an accusation, which all who have attended the Church
need no words of mine to repel: and among them are intelligent
and respectable Methodists, who deem it altogether unfounded
and unjpst. All who cannot decide from personal knowledge,
have a ready resource for judgment in the fact that three ser¬
mons of mine, printed more than a year ago, are referred to as
the head and front of my offending. The pamphlet containing
them may be found at the book-stores; and another, being a re¬
ply to a Methodist review of Bishop Otey's sermons on the
Church:—and if any body will send me a copy thereof with any
passages underscored that a sensible and impartial man will
judge abusive, or denunciatory—any word or sentiment overpas¬
sing the limits of fair, and candid, and gentlemanly argument,—
I PLEDGE MYSELF TO ITS PUBLIC RETRACTATION.
Observe,—I deny not that I hold Church views of christian doc¬
trine and duty, and that I have had the audacity to maintain them,
in my own pulpit, and before the world, even though they be dis¬
sonant from the notions of Mr. Starks. I do not pledge myself to
retract those doctrines, or the reasoning by which they are main¬
tained. On the contrary, I certainly intend ever to use my best
exertions for their illustration and diffusion, regarding no authority
or check therein but the dictate of my own conscience and rational
discretion. But those very rules admonish me, that to abuse
people is a very, silly way of going about to convince them, that
misrepresentations are unlucky persuasives, and opprobrious epi¬
thets very sorry illustrations of Divine Truth. They also teach
me, that if I must indulge in obloquy, the pulpit is the last place
for its exhibition; and that the robes of a herald of the Gospel of
Peace are no fit costume in which to display a passionate pugnac¬
ity, to overleap the restraints of religion, and make fierce infringe¬
ment on the social decencies of life. Moreover, they warn me
that it is my duty as a faithful Christian teacher, neither to keep
in the dark particular themes of instruction, nor to give them an
exaggerated measure of attention, unmerited by their compara¬
tive importance, and uncalled for by the condition and circum¬
stances of my field of labor.—Whether all these monitions have
not been religiously observed, my hearers are able to pronounce :
and they know well that set controversial sermons have been few
10
and far between, as incidental statements and illustrations of
Church doctrine are frequent and continual; that it is my habit to
answer objections, and combat errors when occasion requires it,
with no more reference to systems apart from the Church, than if
none such existed:—and that scarcely in any instance has the
name of a Protestant sect been called, save in citing its standard
documents—or doctors;—not by any means to revile or disparage
them, but that they may give that recorded testimony against the
popular errors of the day, which their tongues would strenuously
proclaim, could they arise from their graves.
It is violence, detraction, and denunciation, which I acknow¬
ledge it a just debt to religion and the public morals to recant,
if any human ingenuity can justify the charge.
I make a similar pledge in behalf of my beloved brother, the
Rev. Samuel G. Litton, now of the diocese of Louisiana—of
whom a similar character was given to the Rev. Dr. Waller.
The information of Mr. Starks was erroneous, or his recollection
at fault, when he stated that Mr. Litton, in a Convention Sermon,
printed seven years ago, styled the members of the Protestant sects
Christian heathens. As a native of Ireland, Mr. L. has a conceded
birth-right to perpetrate bulls whenever he pleases; but such a
bald solecism betrays an origin any thing but Milesian. He would
as soon call Mr. Starks a three-cornered square, or a substantial
nonentity, as a Christian heathen. Nay, his mind would as soon
recognize the consistency of solemnly ordaining a man a bishop,
first asking him whether he thinks "he is truly called to this min¬
istration, according to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ," and
then laying hands on him, with the words"Receive the Holy Ghost,
for the office and work of a Bishop in the Church of God, now com¬
mitted unto thee by the imposition of our hands," and in the
same breath teaching the people whom he is to rule, that the said
episcopate is not "an office or ministration in the Church of God,"
nor "according to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ," but only an
arrangement of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, according
to human notions of expediency ! (See Note A.)
Doubtless the allegation has grown out of an inference from Mr.
Litton's reasoning, for which not his logic, but that of some sagac¬
ious critic, is responsible. In this way, many monstrous and for¬
bidden things are laid at our door, with the putative paternity of
which we are honored by the staring eyes ofreligious prejudice. An
amusing and notorious instance occurred two or three years ago.
Rumor sounded it abroad, and sectarian papers proclaimed it, with
a due lifting up of the hands and eyes in horror and indignation,
that Bishop Otey had pronounced marriages performed by sec¬
tarian ministers to be invalid, and the children of such marriages
illegitimate !—Time and place were specified, and witnesses
named who were prepared to testify the fact!—A fearful sentence
indeed ! especially as Bishop Otey himself was married by a Pres-
11
byterian minister, and his own family involved in the conse¬
quences. But of this the accusers were not aware; and when it
came to be known, what then ?—Why, it was reluctantly admit¬
ted, that Bishop Otey did not exactly say that sectarian marriages
were null, nor indeed make any allusion at all to them; but some
astute auditors opined that he might as well have said so! These
subtle reasoners proceeded on the assumption, that authority of
the same sort and source is requisite to the legality of marriage,
and the validity of sacraments: and as the Bishop's ecclesiastical
principles go to invalidate sacraments dispensed by unordained
ministers, he might therefore be plausibly charged with upsetting
marriages performed by them. Hence, also, we may shrewdly
conclude, that our respected friend, Mr. Rose, being undeniably
competent to perform marriages among us, and draw the knot as
close as you or I can do, is unreasonably modest in not also assert¬
ing an authority to baptize, and celebrate the Lord's Supper; and
you and I are bound in all Christian liberality to hold him a duly
authorized ambassador of Heaven, and steward of the Divine
Mysteries, by virtue of his commission from the Court Clerk of the
county of Shelby.
I make the same pledge in behalf of my Bishop. All who know
any thing of Bishop Otey, know also that Mr. Starks was griev-
iously mistaken in describing him as possessed by the spirit of vir¬
ulence and denunciation, and pointing to his Three Discourses as
sustaining the accusation. The Methodist Reviewer of those Dis¬
courses, whose work is inspected in one of the pamphlets above
mentioned, makes the reluctant admission that "the Bishop is very
guarded in his insinuations and assertions respecting those from
whom he differs." And on the first page of the pamphlet, there is
a comment which may serve to dismiss this count of the indict¬
ment. "In his (the Bishop's) discussion of ecclesiastical topics,
there is no froth of personal obloquy and impertinence to shock the
reader's sense of Christian propriety. And we do not point to this
exemption as entitling him to any special credit. We should be
sorry to believe the heart of any Church clergyman not so exempt:
—and if there be among us such an unfortunate, sure are we
that sharing the infirmity, he would also imitate the good taste of
the gentleman in the parable, who revolved his self-complacencies
to himself\ when he thanked God that he was not as other men;
and who—when the publican, realizing the presence of Him in
whose sight the heavens are not pure, felt and confessed himself
' a miserable sinner, '* did not step forward and express his judg¬
ment ' that there was too much truth and point' in the poor
man's acknowledgement."
* The Reviewer (in the S. W. Christian Advocate) had sneered at the humility of the
opening petitions of the Litany, and avowed his suspicion "that there was too much
truth and point in the acknowledgment" of Church people "'that they are miserable
sinners.
12
You will please observe, Sir, that the design and scope
of this letter is simply to remove personal misapprehensions.—■
When convincing my Virginian brother that the account giv¬
en him of my religious views and temper was a strange carica¬
ture, it occurred to me that what Mr. Starks had taken and circula¬
ted as genuine was probably a current imposture, and that it
might be worth while to stop the counterfeit. With his theolog¬
ical views and efforts I have no thought of interfering. So far as
I am concerned, he has the largest liberty to hold them and to
exhibit them, whenever and however he thinks proper. So far
as I have charge of the interests of the Church, he has entire li¬
cence to hack away at her character and institutions, whenever
he wishes to breathe himself in the broad-sword exercise of con¬
troversy. I pretend no reason or right to complain, merely be¬
cause doctrines taught in the Church are handled and disputed
in a Methodist or any other pulpit. Indeed, I honor the man,
who tries to protect the minds of his congregation from doctrines
which he conscientiously believes erroneous—if he only is '■'■guard¬
ed in his insinuations and assertions respecting those from whom he
differs;" taking care to understand the subject before he at¬
tempts to discuss it; never mistating or distorting facts; never
imputing to others doctrines and principles which they repudiate,
nor saddling senseless inferences on those which they really main¬
tain. I should esteem myself very unreasonable to take offence
at such an opponent, very imbecile to cry out when assailed in a
different mode; and in neither case would I think of resistance or
answer in behalf of the Church, except in peculiar circumstances,
which are now invisible.
But when an attack on the Church is justified on the alleged
score that I am a Puseyite and an exclusive—that I am abusive
of others, one of my brethren virulent, and my bishop denuncia¬
tory, I think I have a right to show that in attributing to us such
a character, the gentleman is mistaken: and having at this time
some leisure on my hands, I have amused myself with its exer¬
cise.
I trust you will pardon the appearance of your name as a wit¬
ness in a matter with which you have no other concern. You
heard the arraignment;—lam desirous that the disavowal should
have equal attention:—and should be willing to leave it to your
decision, with all confidence of a fair judgment.—I am, Sir, with
due respect and regard, your friend and servant in the Gospel,
PHILIP W. ALSTON,
Rector of Calvary Church, Memphis.
November 16th, 1846.
Note A.
See the "Form of ordaining a Bishop," in the Methodist Discipline: where the rea¬
der may further note, that the prayer builds itself on the fact that "Almighty God, by
His Holy Spirit, hath appointed divers orders in His Church;" that the Epistle and
Gospels read, imply the same assertion of an episcopacy of apostolic succession; and
the whole service is directly subversive of the position now discreetly taken, that the
Divine Wisdom instituted two orders only, but human wisdom suggests a third, and
is rather to be followed.
This is mentioned simply as fact, capable of no dispute. And in the same connec
tion it may be worth while barely to indicate some other things, which are not facts,
but headlong asseverations.
It is not a fact, that the Church asks no profession of a divine calling to the ministry.
Take a prayer-book, and refer to the first question in the ordination of a deacon—
"Do you trust that you are inwardly called by the Holy Ghost to take upon you this
office and ministry."
It is not a fact, but a most heinous outrage on common sense, as well as common in¬
formation, that the orders of the-American Church, are not recognized in the English.
Its egregious absurdity appears from the circumstance that they are the identical or¬
ders of the Church of England, derived from her own bishops. Its opposition to ac¬
tual circumstances is manifested by the whole intercourse of the two Churches, of
which the voyage of the Bishop of New Jersey, invited to assist in the consecration of
Dr. Hooke's church at Leeds, and the transfer of ministers of American ordination,
such as the celebrated missionary Wolff, and Prof. Caswall of Kentucky, to positions in
the English Church,—to say nothing of the constant experience of clerical travellers,
are evidence which stares the world in the face.
It is not a fact, that "Bishop Stillingfleet, the greatest controvertist of his age," ques¬
tioned the divine institntion of Episcopacy. Fdward Stillingfleet, an immature theo¬
logian of twenty-four years, hardly old enough to be ordained a priest, threw out such
an opinion in his Irenicujvi; which opinion whoever quotes, is bound in truth and honesty
to state its renunciation when Stillingfleet became older and wiser—provided the quo-
ter knows anything about the matter.
It is .not a fact that the Roman, the Greek, and other Eastern Churches let go the
principle of episcopal ordination and succession, and leave the British and American
Church alone (!) in its maintenance. As for the Greek and Armenian, the sectarian
prints are now in great ferment and fury, because our bishop Southgate is acknowledged
there, and their missionaries denied recognition as having no orders. For the other
eastern Churches, let Buchanan's "Researches" be consulted for the example of the
Christians of St. Thomas in India.—As for the Roman, the assertion merits no reply,
and none but the most astounding defect of information, and carelessness of procuring
it, could throw it out.
It is not a fact that the Epistles of Ignatius "from one end to the other, contain not
a single recognition of bishops as an order distinct from presbyters:"—on the contrary,
to any one who will spare ten minutes, I will show within the compass of 34 pages,
(in an edition of Ignatius edited by John Wesley himself) seventeen passages, which
make the distinct recognition, and of which these are specimens selected as the shortest,
and by no means the most remarkable:—"There is one bishop, together with his presby¬
tery, and the deacons my fellow-servants."—"He that is without, that is does anything
without the bishop, and presbyters, and deacons, is not pure in his conscience."
Which also shows how little the averment resembles a fact, that the Fathers never use
the copulative conjunction, speaking of bishop and presbyters, but the disjunctive—
bishops or presbyters! This is given as a sufficient specimen of the patristic lore ex¬
hausted on the subject. Pity that people who venture to introduce the Fathers will not
first get some acquaintance with them, and not rely with a confiding rashness on the
second-hand garblings of Mr. Powell.
It is not a fact that "Queen Victoria makes the bishops of the Church of England."
They are recommended for election by the Queen's Ministry,---then elected by the
14
cathedral clergy—and then not made bishops at all, until they are consecrated.—Mr.
Starks, as Dr. Waller informed him, is just as much a woman-made minister, having
been nominated by a "class" of men and women.
It is not a fact that the Council of Trent was held in the 15th century.
Enough of such work. It is like taking solemn pains to show the young idea that
the world is not a flat expanse, nor the moon made of green cheese. I have no idea of
controverting argumentation erected on such a romantic basis—any more than of refut¬
ing the very Christian-like controversial prayer, which connected "successionists"
with "sinks of iniquity," and clapped hands over the downfall which they had just got¬
ten.
Note B.
In the pulpit of another congregation, (but not, it should be noted, by the pastor)
it was put forth that some Churchmen "expected to be saved by a bishop!" that this
and other similar doctrine was preached not in Rome-—not in Europe only, but in our
own land, and in this town of Memphis: that the preacher meant his remarks only
for high Church people—as for the low Church, "he wished from his heart there
were more of them! "
If he ever meets with a famous controversy between Dr. Tyng and Dr. ^Barnes, or
any other scrap of information, he will be shocked to find that he has prayed for the
multiplication of people who hold the doctrine of apostolic succession, though not apt
to speak it out unless they are pinched, and iiave that particularity from whom they
receive the ordinances of the Gospel which he denounces as exclusiveness. This by
the way.
Expect to be saved by a bishop.—I am hugely obliged to the strange gentleman, for
for his very sincere and sage, very soft and very supererogatory statement of my teaching
of the way of salvation, delivered for the spiritual instruction of my Presbyterian friends;,
and fellow-citizens. Some of them, I know, did not thank him for it: and I should
wrong them and their pastor, if I held them as at all accessary to such an otltrage.
But I apprehend that a very inadequate and one-sided estimate of such things is en¬
tertained by many people; and to assist their perceptions, I will reverse the position of
parties, and suppose the other's ox to have been gored.
Only fancy that a strange minister should ascend the pulpit of the Episcopal Church,
and astonish my parishioners with the Christian information, that the mass of Presby¬
terians "expected to be saved by the Moderator of the Synod," or something alike silly
and calumnious:—that this doctrine was preached not in Geneva, not in'the Auld
Scottish Kirk only, but in our own land, and by the esteemed gentlemen who minister
in Memphis:—that he intended his remarks for the Old School Presbyterians,—as for
the New School, he wished from his heart there were more of them !
Is there a reader, who does not feel that such a scene in an Episcopal church is im¬
possible, and the supposition mronstrous? To say nothing of the blaspheming madness
of opprobium which we have fancied, did any body ever hear or dream of hearing a
Church clergyman concern himself with the internal variances of stature or of hue in
a sect, patronizing the green, and pummelling the blue, or make invidious allusion to
the personal character and views of the minister laboring in the same community?—
No! The idea strikes every mind, as an enormous and incredible compromise of the
credit of the gospel, and the dignity of the sacred office, not to mention minor con-
sideiations. And never may the day arrive, when a less rigid rule shall be the ac¬
cepted measure for judging us, and violations of charity and decency attract little or
no notice, because they are not deemed incongruous witli their source.
Note C.
MR. WESLEY'S CREED AT TIIE AGE OF 42. (See Wesley's works, vol.
iii, page 362, of the "Book Concern" Edition of 1831.
"We believe it would not be right for us to administer either baptism or the Lord's
Supper, unless we had a commission so to do from those bishops whom we apprehend
15
to be in succession from the Apostles. And yet we allow these bishops are the succes¬
sors to those who were dependent on the bishop of Rome."
"We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, (whether depen¬
dent on the bishop of Rome or not,) an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ,
and an outward sacrifice offered therein, by men authorized to act as ambassadors of
Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God."
"We believe that the threefold order of ministers (which you seem to mean by papal
hierarchy and prelacy,) is not only authorized by its apostolical institution, but also by
the written word."