In what sense except an extremely _general one_ are the Romish,
Episcopalian, Methodist and Presbyterian clergy of one class? Not that
there is much fraternity, fellowship or agreement among them; nor even
that there is any general sympathy, harmony or co-operation; nor that
they are engaged in _one work_. They belong to separate kingdoms. In
their official acts they never act together. If they act together at
all, it is not officially, nor in any sense, only on certain occasions,
to be friendly, courteous and polite toward each other, but with the
distinct understanding that it is _not official_. Their actions are
as distinct as those of a United States Congressman and a member of
the British Parliament. They are both _officers of State_, and so far
on _common ground_, and, as such, treat each other with respect and
courtesy; but, in their official acts, they have no fellowship, and are
not under the same government. In the same way the clergy of the
different parties we have mentioned, in their official acts never act
together, and have no fraternity. They are not acting under the same
government, nor are they officers in the same kingdom. The official
acts of one of them are not regarded by another at all.
In what sense, then, are they _classed together_, or what is it that is
_common_ among them? Simply that they are _ministers of religion_, or
men whose lives are devoted to religious instruction, and matters of
church. But not of the same order, nor of the same church; not of the
same religion; not of the same faith, nor of the same practice. They
do not speak the “same thing,” nor are they of the “same mind and the
same judgment,” or “perfectly joined together.” They are not of the
“one fold and one shepherd.” They are not “one as we” (the Father and
the Son) “are one;” nor were they “all baptized into one body,” nor are
they in “one body,” with “one Spirit” and “one hope,” under “one Lord,”
and with “one faith,” and “one baptism,” and “one God and Father of
all, who is above all, and in you all.”
We have not a railing accusation to bring against these men as a
class, nor do we hate or denounce them; nor have we an unkind feeling
toward them. We can recognize every good trait they have; all the
moral influence, the learning and intelligence, as well as their
devotion to their several causes. We can make all reasonable allowance
for early training, association and education, and admit all their
good intentions. We can treat them with all the common courtesies and
civilities of an enlightened and a refined age, as gentlemen, and moral
and orderly men. All this and much more we can do. What we can not do
is not from any unkind feeling toward them, nor because they have
treated us with a special indignity, or given us any personal offence,
or anything of the kind. But it is because we can not, without
setting aside principle that we are as certain is correct as we are
that the Bible contains a revelation from God, recognize their airs,
pretensions and claims. We can not without ignoring, overriding and
utterly disregarding matters of the most vital, fundamental and central
importance. It is not the class of men that we denounce, or that we
speak against, but the _positions they assume_, the work they are doing
and the obstruction they are in the way of the work of Christ.