WE

CHAPTER II.

GENERAL OBJECTIONS.

E have several very serious objections to make against the general scope and method of Mr. Goode's work; and inasmuch as these could not be properly introduced in the detailed examination of his "arguments" and "facts," we deem it best to give them here in a group by themselves. They are as follows:

1st. The investigation has not been made in the proper manner. It is obvious that the doctrines of the Church can be established only by reference to her acknowledged standards. She is responsible for everything they contain, and not at all responsible for what they do not contain or plainly imply. Consequently Catenas are of no value, except as corroborative testimony. They can prove nothing against the standards, and as to the Church's doctrine they can prove nothing without them. But in the work before us, reliance is placed chiefly upon the opinions of individuals, while the formularies and other authentic sources of information are but slightly considered. The conclusion arrived at by such means could not be correct, except by chance.

But even in the mode which he has selected, Mr.

Goode does not conduct the argument clearly and fairly. It will be evident from what is subjoined, that the acknowledged laws of debate have not been regarded.

2d. The Author does not state precisely and fully the doctrine he wishes to maintain. The consequence of this is, that we are left to guess out his views a task which is not very easy; as now, he seems to be contending for a particular theory, and again, for a very different one. Thus: his pamphlet or book is really an argument for the full validity of Presbyterian ordination, yet he never says so distinctly. That theory necessarily involves the doctrine of Apostolical succession" (in the line of the Presbyterate); but he denounces Apostolical Succession without any reservation whatever, and suggests objections to it that would apply not merely to the Romish view, but to any other. At one time he acknowledges that Episcopacy is a "divine institution;" at another he deprecates the use of the word "divine," and speaks of Episcopacy as having "only" apostolical institution; thus changing his own ground, and suggesting a difference that has no existence. Even as "apostolical" he in one place speaks of it as binding, but in twenty others he quotes with, at least, tacit approval, passages declaring that it is not binding, but that every Church is left at liberty to adopt it or not, at pleasure. It is evident that, with looseness such as this, discussion cannot proceed agreeably, fairly, or with any prospect of ever coming to a conclusion.

3d. He does not state clearly and impartially the views of his opponents, while he frequently points

an argument or a quotation against some opinion. that they do not hold. He goes even farther than this. He attributes to those who differ from him, sentiments from which they would shrink with horror. For instance. He says their theory adds another to the two only sacraments which our Lord Christ hath ordained in his Church, "by raising Episcopacy to a level with the things commanded, such as Baptism and the Lord's Supper!" And again, he says, that by the same theory, they send "down alive into the pit such men as Luther and Baxter, Brainerd and Jonathan Edwards!"*

4th. He does not furnish exact definitions or explanations of several important terms that he employs almost continually, and he occasionally uses the same term in very different senses. This necessarily creates ambiguity, and perplexes the discussion. We have instances in the words "order," "office," "divine," etc., etc. Even to the epithet "High Churchman," which is in constant use, he does not appear to attach any very definite meaning. Ex. Gra.: He intimates, that for the last two centuries the Church has been wandering from the old paths, in consequence of some very important changes made by the "Laudean party," who it is "certain DID personally entertain those exclusive views" which he undertakes to combat. To those men, he says, the term "High

The reader will observe that the Reverend Author does not offer a particle of evidence in support of these weighty accusations. It would be interesting to know the name of the rigid Episcopalian who would fain send "down alive into the pit" men like Brainerd or Edwards. But it would be still more interesting to know how even the most "exclusive" theory of Episcopacy could lead to the perdition of men like Luther and Baxter, who were duly ordained by Bishops in the line of the Apostolical Succession!!

66

Churchman" was originally applied; and to them, and those who agree with them on the point debated, he professes to restrict it. But, on page 44, he tells his readers that, even the highest among our eminent High Church divines (as they are called) have NEVER advocated the extreme notions maintained by the Tractarians, and therefore were not High Churchmen!" This is certainly not a very logical conclusion from all the premises, nor a very favorable specimen of clearness and consistency.

"

5th. He does not allow the reader to form an unbiassed opinion from the facts and arguments as he himself presents them. They are preceded by an 'Introduction," in which the petitio principii, and the argumentum ad hominem are used in a manner that is totally indefensible. The question to be decided depends in a great degree upon another, namely: Whether the Church holds to the divine right of Episcopacy and the necessity for Apostolical Succession. But before entering upon the discussion he asserts that those doctrines are not taught by the Church; that they were unknown for at least a century after the Reformation, and have ever since been repudiated by our most eminent divines! But this is not all. He describes them as being "Anti-Evangelical;" as having a tendency to drive men away from the Church; as being at variance with the spirit of Christian charity and "the facts of God's providence;" as having no foundation in Holy Scripture, and as leading to consequences so dreadful that it is simply "monstrous" in any one to teach them!

Now all these descriptions and assertions might be perfectly correct, and yet the mere use of them in

such a position would suffice of itself to imperil Mr. Goode's reputation as a candid reasoner. How .much worse, then, does his employing them appear when they are, one and all, things which his opponents indignantly deny, and of which he tenders no proof. He enlists in his own behalf every principle and every prejudice that can be brought to bear upon the question, and assumes, as undeniable facts, the very things he has yet to prove. This attempt to preoccupy and bias the minds of his readers, makes it evident that he is unwilling to trust to his own "argument." But that is of little consequence; for if the "introduction " is believed, the rest will not be required.

6th. He does not always state facts correctly, nor quote authorities with fairness. As to the facts, we take it for granted that the reverend gentleman errs only through want of knowledge, or mistake; but when ample sources of information are within his reach, it is questionable how far such an excuse should avail, especially as regards matters that he makes the basis of argument and on which he speaks so dogmatically. As to the other point: We do Mr. Goode the justice to say, that he does not alter nor add to the words of any author he quotes. But he does occasionally take from them. Here let us be clearly understood. We do not require a writer, when quoting, to fill his pages with irrelevant matter because it happens to form the context of the pas sage he wishes to use. In every such case we prefer seeing only what relates directly to the subject; but we want to see all that does. We do not object, then, to Mr. Goode's omitting words or sentences (for in