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.