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 reformers calvinistic-Nowel's catechism-Latimer's sermonsBishop'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.

LETTER V.

P. 100

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.

LETTER VI.

p. 129

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 any thing, 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 forgetting 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 pro tected 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