5 *0 - <*'_/*. : % LIBRARY OF GRESS. Shelf ..GjSl UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. ^ PURITANISM NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. BEING A REVIEW OF « THE PURITANS AND THEIR PRINCIPLES, BY EDWIN HALL." BY THE REV. A. B. CHAPIN, M. A STANFORD AND SWORDS, 139, BROADWAY. 1847. 9h Entered according to the Act of Congress, in the year 1847, by STANFORD & SWORDS, in the Clerk's office of the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New-York. John R, M'Gown, Printer. CONTENTS. Introductory Letter *• • . • «. } Nature and importance of the question - - - 17 Misstatements of it - - - - - - 19 Romish view of the Church - - - - -25 of tradition - - - - - 28 Reformers' view of the Church - - - - 26 of tradition ----- 27 Agreement of the Reformers 28 Romish view of Justification - - - - - 31 Protestant view - - - - - - - 32 its foundation - - - - 33 its consequences - 34 Sense of Scripture, how determined 35 Who are true Protestants - - - - - 36 Puritanism a disease of Protestantism - - - 37 Summary of Puritan Principles - - - - 38 Deviations of Puritanism from the Reformation - 39 (1) Justification - - - - - 39 (2) Interpretation of the Bible - - 41 (3) Legislative power of the Church - - 42 1* iV CONTENTS. (4) Authority of the Church - - 43 (5) Nature of the Church - - - 44 (6) Nature of the Ministry 47 (7) Nature of the Sacraments - - - 47 (8) Sin of Schism 49 Results of - - - 50 Our agreement with the Reformers 52 (1) Interpretation of Scripture - - - 53 (2) Private judgment - - 53 (3) Church authority - 54 (4) The Church the medium of grace - 54 (5) Baptismal Regeneration - - - 54 (6) The Real Presence - - . - - 55 (7) Authority of General Councils - - 57 (8) Household Baptisms - - - 57 (9) Representative character of the Ministry 59 (10) Absolution 58 (11) Justification ----- 60 Ground of its necessity - - 61 Puritanism cannot understand the Reformers - - 61 The reason why - - - - 62 Why the Reformers said no more of the Church - 63 Divine institution of the Ministry in three orders - - 64 The Ordinal - - - - 65 Apostolic Succession - - - - -65 What must be shown to prove that Churchmen have departed from principles of the Reformation - 67 Mr. Hall's Proof. (1) The Institution of a Christian man 68 (2) A paper forming a part of third book 68 (3) The erudition of a Christian man 60 (4) Stillingfleet's Irenicum - - 69 His Puritan education 69 His account of its design - - 70 His maturer judgment - - 71 Mr. Hall's misrepresentation of him 71 Stillingfleet's own mistakes - 73 A mistake of Burnett - - 74 Points of agreement with the Reformers - - - 75 Disagreement of Continental Reformers - - 76 Lutheran rites and ceremonies - - - - 78 Objections to the English Reformation (note) - The work of the State - 77 Gradual in its character - - - 80 Development of Ritual - - - - 81 Its canonical character 85 Puritanism has changed, not we - - - - 86 Boasts of having changed 87 Mr. Hall's view of Antiquity. (1) Irenasus - - 90 (2) Clement of Rome 92 (3) Justin Martyr, Polycarp and Ignatius - 95 (4) Clement of Alexandria - - - 97 (5) Jewel and Stillingfleet - - 99 Mr. Hall's views of Scripture. (1) Schism 99 (2) The incestuous Corinthian - 101 (3) Our Lord's language at the last Supper 101 (4) Ordination of Timothy - - - 103 (5) Andronichus and Junia - - - 103 (6) Ordination of Titus 104 Points of difference between us. (1) The Church - 107 (2) Baptismal Regeneration - - 108 (3) The Real Presence - 109 (4) The Ministry - - - - 110 (5) Absolution - - - - -111 (6) Apostolical Succession - - - 111 Mr. Hall's account of the Church and her theologians 113 The sincerity of it - 114 The fancied result - - - - - - 116 General character of the work - - - - 117 VI CONTENTS. History of Puritanism ; Toleration of Churchmen - 119 Exemplified at Stratford - - - - 120 at Fairfield ; law of 1727 - 123 Practice under that law : (1) Greenwich - 125 (2) Simsbury 125 (3) Waterbury 125 (4) Reading 127 (5) Churchmen exempt from public acts - 127 (6) Not allowed to tax themselves - 127 Taxation without representation - - - - 128 Political tendencies - - - - - - 129 Religious establishments in the Colonies - - - 129 Change in Connecticut - - - - - 132 Episcopalians and the Government - 133 Toleration and new Constitution - - - - 135 Connecticut « Blue laws" 137 " Tables turned " 141 Puritan kindness - - - - - - 142 Episcopacy in New- York 143 Gregson Glebe ----..- 145 APPENDIX. Sympathy of the Reformers - - - - 151 English Reformation and Melanchthon - - - 152 Formula of Concord - - - - - - 153 Episcopacy in Germany - - - - - 154 Hermann's Plan of Reformation - 155 Sympathy of Reformers - - - « - -156 Lutheranism and the Reformation - - - 156 School of the Pietists 157 of Ernesti and Semler - - - - 158 of Rationalism - - - - - -159 of the Supernaturalists - - - - 160 New Lutheran 160 CONTENTS. Vll Neanders defects as a Church historian - - 163 New Lutheran view of the Sacraments - 168 Baptism. Rev. Dr. Hengstenberg - 168 Christianity Sacramental - - - - 169 One Sacrament in two parts - - - - 170 Difference of the two - 171 Rev. Dr. Martensen 171 (1) Baptism in an organic body - - 172 (2) Essentially infant Baptism - - 174 (3) Sacramental Predestination - - 175 (4) Sacrament of Regeneration - - 177 (5) Sacrament of Faith - - - - 179 Fapers which passed between Charles I. and Rev. Al- exander Henderson 183 ERRATA. Page 109, line 12, for " shall see," read have seen. " 121, " 8, for " 1780," read 1708. INTRODUCTORY LETTER. To the Rev. Wm. Cooper Mead, D. D. Reverend and Dear Sir : In presenting the following Review to the public, it is my duty and desire to acknowledge, that, should it be of any service to the cause of truth, no small share of the thanks will be due to yourself, — for calling my attention to the subject, — for aiding me with many valuable suggestions, — and for securing it a ready entrance upon the literary world. This statement is made, not with the wish or intention of avoiding any responsibilities which the course of argument here pursued devolves upon the author. For the positions, facts, and logic of the Review, the author is alone answerable. But since it w T as owing to your partial kindness, that I was led to undertake this subject, it is my desire to state briefly some con- siderations that led me to the course of argument here adopted. But first, it should be observed, that I do not 2 10 INTRODUCTORY LETTER. propose to write an answer to The Puritans and their Principles, but only a review of those facts which bear upon what the author of that work evi- dently regards as its leading and most important fea- ture, the Protestant character of Puritanism. In doing this, it has been necessary to make a prelim- inary inquiry, — to ask, What is Protestantism ? not as understood by the ten thousand sectaries, who cloak themselves under its mantle, but as under- stood by the Reformers themselves. The necessity of this inquiry does not seem to have occurred to our author, and he has been content to adopt certain vague and popular notions in regard to it, which are floating up and down in his own denom- ination, without making any effort to ascertain their truth or accuracy. Indeed^ he does not seem to be aware of the diversity which exists between the principles of the Reformation and the principles of Puritanism. The first object of the following pages has been, therefore, to ascertain from unobjectiona- ble sources, what are the true principles of Protest- antism, as they were held by the Reformers. The next step is to try Puritanism by that standard ; and finally, to see how far our author's objections against the character of the Episcopal Church, as anti-Pro- testant, are sustained by the facts. The propriety, if not the necessity of this course, will be apparent from a brief history of the Episco- pal controversy in this country. When that contro- INTRODUCTORY LETTER. 11 versy commenced, the Congregationalists of New- England called themselves Presbyterians, and insisted that the Presbyterian form of the ministry was an original divine institution, of perpetual and binding obligation, and from which it was schism to separate. The first publication in this country, which called that fact in question, so far as we know, was by a layman of Boston^ (1723,) for which he was indicted as a libel on the government. From this time the Episcopal controversy was carried on with great vigor for near twenty years, (1723-1739,) by Dickinson, Foxcroft, Graham, and Wiggles- worth, on the Presbyterian side ; and by Johnson and Beach, on the Episcopal side ; and the evidence to be derived from Scripture, Antiquity, and the Reformation, was pretty thoroughly scanned. The doctrine of Apostolical succession, as a matter of fact, however, was not debated, as both parties held it, one deriving it through the line of Bishops, the other through that of Presbyters. The effect of these discussions not arresting, as was hoped, the progress of the Church, but evidently accelerating it, the assailants left the worship and discipline, and turned to the doctrines of the Church. A ten years controversy (1739 — 1749) followed touching election, predestination, universal redemp* tion, baptismal regeneration, and other kindred doc- trines, of which Dickinson was the principal cham- pion of the Calvinistic opinions, and to which were 12 INTRODUCTORY LETTER. opposed Johnson, Beach, and Wetmore. This dis- cussion, like the preceding, adding numbers and strength to Episcopacy, was abandoned, and the old ground of the divine right of Presbyterianism re-as- serted. During the next twenty years, (1749 — 1768,) the constitution, worship and discipline of the Church were very thoroughly examined by Hobart, Chauncey and Wells, on the Presbyterian side, and Johnson, Beach, Wetjiore, Caner, and Lea?.i- ing on the Episcopal side. A collateral discussion was also carried on, touching the right of the Society for Propagating the Gospel in Foreign Parts, to send Episcopal missionaries into places where there were Presbyterian ministers, by Hobart and Mayhew, against Johnson and Apthorp. Every one of these discussions increased the numbers, and strengthened the hands of the Episcopal Church ; until there was some prospect of obtaining what they had long desired, a Bishop to reside among them. A new element of debate was now brought out — the right of the English Church to send a Bishop to this country, and the propriety of doing so, in- volving of course the whole theory of the Church ; and the subject was thoroughly canvassed by Chauncey and Chandler, (1768-1774) over their own names, and by a host of anonymous scribblers, in the periodicals of the day. In the meantime, the INTRODUCTORY LETTER. 13 Presbyterian ministers, not satisfied with the aspect of things, formed a " Convention of Delegates," in 1766, for the alleged purpose of" defending the cause of religion against the attacks of its various ene- mies ; " by which was understood, as the sequel shows, the design of opposing Episcopacy. Among the most active men of this body were Messrs. Hobart, Wells, and Goodrich, of Connecticut, Rogers of New-York, etc. This Convention spared no pains to create a prejudice against the Church, and was in no small degree instrumental in fomenting the difficulties between the colonies and the mother country. During these various controversies, the Church and her ministers were assailed by every species of warfare, by book and pamphlet, by song and satire, by ballad and poem, by men in their own names, without any names, and under assumed names, by legal process and by illegal process, now upon one point, and now upon another, until the whole field of controversy had been carefully survey- ed, and Churchmen became thoroughly informed as to the distinctive principles of the Church. These discussions and controversies served to confirm the Churchmen of the northern Colonies, (to which they were mostly confined,) in their at- tachment to the Church, and to the mother country, so that when the Revolution broke out, the Episco- palians, when they took an active part, were gener- ally found attached to the royal cause. For this, 14 INTRODUCTORY LETTER. Churchmen universally suffered every species of in- dignity and insult, thousands had their estates con- fiscated, many were imprisoned, and some suffered death ; to escape which, others abandoned their country and their possessions, and fled to the British provinces. The close of the Revolution, therefore, found the Church weak, and poor, and despised, de- prived of most of her clergy, and many of her laity, and for some time she seems to have ceased to be an object of jealousy ; and an occasional essay on the subjects so sharply debated before, ficrn Sea- bury, Leaming and Bowden, attracted little or no attention. But the cause which rendered Churchmen so odious in the Revolution, was the salvation of the Church. That love and devotion to it, which led them to submit to privation and degradation, during the Revolution, preserved it in its completness after its close. From this time, (1785,) a period of twenty years was suffered to elapse before any considerable assault was made upon the doctrines or discipline of the Church. A controversy was then (1805) com- menced, as was generally supposed, by concert among a great body of anti- Churchmen, which continued for several years, in which the principal writers on the Presbyterian sile. ; were Linn, Mason, and Miller, and on the Episcopal, White, Hobart, Beasley, How and Bowden ; the effect of which was to make more and sounder Churchmen. INTRODUCTORY LETTER. 25 The controversy in New- York coming to a close, it was renewed in Connecticut, about 1819, and the Church was exposed for several years to a series of assaults, which have been occasionally renewed from that time to the present. Most of the productions have been anonymous, and very few of them have attempted to discuss any important princi- ple, their general aim having been to excite prejudice against the Church, while some have assumed the false character of Churchmen, with the hope of be- traying the more successfully. The main questions, which have been debated in the controversies of the last century, have related to the character and claims of the Episcopal Church, as sustained by Scripture, antiquity, and the opinions of the Reformers. Churchmen have generally been content with maintaining their own cause, without car- rying the warfare into the enemy's country. But the time has now arrived, when the cause of truth requires, that the character of Puritanism should be investigated, that Puritanism itself should be put to the proof of its claims. These, so far as they de- pend upon Scripture and antiquity, have been inci- dentally considered in all those works which have been written in defence of Episcopacy. But there is another point which all Puritan writers assume, and which has been tacitly conceded by its oppo- nents, that requires to be investigated anew, — the true Protestant character of modern Puritanism ; 16 INTRODUCTORY LETTER. is it the form of life of Protestantism, or rather one of its diseases ? These are the chief points of inquiry in this Review. The other topics are only incidental, and important for the particular purposes mentioned. The authorities quoted on these points, are mostly anti- Episcopal, in order to obviate an objection that Puritan writers are always making against Churchmen, of wanting in fairness towards them. We trust that the facts and arguments here adduced will satisfy the candid and intelligent of all sects and parties, of a most certain fact, to wit, that modern Puritanism has little or nothing in common with genuine Protestantism ; and that Puritan ca- lumniators of the Church, will see that they have something to do to sustain their own character and claims. Trusting that this discussion may tend to advance that unity which should prevail in the Church of Christ, I have the honor to be, Rev. and dear Sir, your obedient servant, A. B. CHAPIN. New-Haven, Oct. 1, 1846. PURITANISM GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. NATURE AND IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION. "The great question of the age," says a learned and thoughtful writer of the German Reformed Communion, " undoubtedly is that concerning the Church. It is evidently drawing to itself all minds of the more earnest order, more and more, in all parts of the world. When it comes to be apprehended in its true character, it can hardly fail to be of absorb- ing interest ; nor is it possible, perhaps, for one who has become thus interested in it, to dismiss it again from his thoughts. Its connections are found to reach in the end, through the entire range of the Christian life. Its issues are of the most momen- tous nature, and solemn as eternity itself. No ques- 2* ] 8 PURITANISM tion can be less of merely curious or speculative in- terest. It is in some respects, just now, of all prac- tical questions, the most practical. In these circum- stances, it calls for attention, earnest, and prayerful, and profound." * To the truth of this representation, the history of the age bears abundant .testimony. The new life so recently infused into the Romish Communion, the discussions going on in the Church of England and America, the recent birth and vigorous life of the new Lutheran and Reformed theology, as well as the turbulence of all the sects and parties in Chris- tendom, go to prove that the question of the Church and of our relation and duty to it, is the great question of the age. That great issues depend upon the proper settlement of this question, no one at all conversant with the history of the world and the Church, can for one moment doubt. And no man, xvho understands and appreciates the importance of the results depending thereupon, can approach the subject with other than a deep feeling of responsi- bility, and a solemn sense of the consequences which may flow from the manner of its treatment. By such, no word will be lightly or inconsiderate- ly spoken. No argument will be pressed beyond *Rev. JolinW. Nevin, D. D., Introd. to Dr. Schhaf, on the " Protestant Principle, as related to the present state of the Church," p. 26. NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 19 the limits of sound logic — no statement ventured that is at all questionable. Nothing will be said for mere effect — nothing done which truth does not de- mand. Appeals to passion and prejudice will not be permitted. All declamation will be forborne, and misrepresentation most carefully avoided. When, therefore, we find one employing any mere ad captan- dum declamation ; any palpable sophistry, any plain misrepresentation of facts, or of an opponent's po- sitions or his arguments ; any appeals to passion^ prejudice, or ignorance ; any unscrupulous asser- tions unsustained by proof ; but above all, when we find one resting his whole case on mere second-hand or second-rate authorities, and in doubtful points quo- ting disputed and oft-refuted works, without any re- ference to the fact, we must conclude, either that he is intellectually deficient, not understanding the sub- ject, or which is worse, morally deficient, fighting for victory, not for truth ; insensible to the high and holy claims of the subject under consideration. MISSTATEMENTS OF THE QUESTION. Owing to some or all of these causes united, the popular mode of stating the question has been, and still is, in this country, to a great extent, monstrously false. Thus we are told by one class, that the great point of conflict and debate is, whether we shall have a religion of forms, or a religion of the 20 PURITANISM spirit.* Such claim to be the friends of inward, liv- ing, practical piety, and often charge upon others, a secret dislike to all religion of the heart and life, and represent them as wishing to exalt the letter above the life, to substitute the sign for the substance. But this issue is false. The condition of humanity, renovated as well as depraved, is not body or soul, but body and soul. Religion too, in its application to man, must have body as well as soul, form as well as life ; and he w T ho would be a spirit- ualist only, is as far from the truth as the most thor- ough-going formalist. The question relates not to the existence of forms in religion, but to their nature and extent. It is not whether religion shall have an outward form or body, but what that form and body shall be. So, too, we are told, that the great question of the day is whether salvation be the individual concern of every sinner, or something which comes to him only through the Church ; whether it is the result of a pri- vate, separate transaction of the sinner with God's Word and Spirit, or whether it comes to him through the comprehensive, but inexplicable minis- tration of the Church, which is the body of Christ, and especially in and through the Sacraments, j* *Nevin's Introd. 11 — 13, where the same view is taken of this and the two following statements of the controversy. t The New-Englander, I. 545 — 555, has urged this charge with all its strength. NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 21 This issue is also false. Mere Churchism, which denies all individualism is an error, a great error. But the substitution of mere individualism in its stead, is no les? an error. If the doctrine of spirit- ual individuality be so held, as to exclude the depen- dence of the individual spiritual life, upon the gen- eral life of the Church, it necessarily becomes one- sided and false. Individualism, without the Church, is as little to be trusted, as Churchism without individ- ual experience. It is the union of the two that con- stitutes the truth, and he who holds one side, to the exclusion of the other, is preparing the way for re- action in favor of the exclusive predominance of the opposite error. Again it is said, that the momentous question with which Christendom is now laboring, is be- tween the liberty of private judgment and the au- thority of the Church. This statement, too, is equal- ly false, * Nor is the matter mended when the ques- tion is represented as being between the Bible and the Church. In the language of the author already quoted: "It is indeed an abominable usurpation, when the Church claims to be the source of truth for the single Christian, separately from the Bible, or the absolutely infallible interpreter of the sense of the Bible itself; and so requires him to yield his judg- * The New Englander, II. 66 — 81, in a miserably false and feeble article, represents this as one form of the contro- versy, 22 PURITANISM ment blindly to her authority and tradition. But it is a presumption equally abominable for a single indi- vidual to cast off all respect for Church authority and Church life, and pretend to draw his faith immedi- ately from the Bible, only and wholly through the narrow pipe-stem of his own private judgment. No one does so in fact. Our most bald, abstract sects, ever show themselves here as much under authority almost, as the papists themselves Such a thing as an absolute, abstract, private judgment, we meet with in no denomination, party or sect. But if we had it what would it be worth ? For at last what sort of comparison can there be between the naked judgment of a single individual, and the general voice of the Church?"* our author's view. The author of The Puritans and their Princi- ples, j* enters fully into this false and one-sided view of things, bringing up and urging in every variety of shape against his opponents, every one of these ab- surd and erroneous assumptions, endeavoring to sustain them by every species of false argument we have noticed. He even goes so far as to say, with especial reference to the Episcopal Church, that the battle of the Reformation is once more to be fought with those who once gloried in the style of Protes- * Nevin's Introd. 13. t [Rev.] Edwin Hall, [of Norwalk, Conn.] NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 23 tant, but who are now beginning to be weary of the name.* And he marches forth, the boasted cham- pion of those great principles which he supposes to be in danger. But before we can accept his championship, or allow his charges, we must be as- sured of two things ; first, that he knows what were the points at issue in the Reformation — what was disputed and what not ; second, that he himself holds every one of the doctrines held by the Refor- mers, as they held them. If he is wanting on either point, or if, as we suppose, he is wanting on both, if he neither knows what they believed, nor believes as they did, he cannot be permitted to enter the lists in their defence, nor can his charges against others, of having departed from the principles of the Refor- mation, be allowed to have any weight, unless sus- tained by the most undoubted proof. OUR OWN POSITION COMPARED WITH THE REFORMERS. Since then, there is so much ignorance, and er- ror, and misrepresentation in the very statement of the question at issue, by the author of The Puritans and their Principles, it becomes important in the first instance to ascertain the true nature of the ques- tion to be considered, in order that we may deter- mine whether in his zeal against those he supposes to have departed from the principles of the Reformation, * p. 307. 24 PURITANISM he has not flown in the face of the Reformers them- selves ; and also lest while we are attempting to pull down the strong-holds of an enemy, we be ignorant- ly ministering to his strength. That the questions now at issue, are the same as those which called the Re- formation into being, that we are called upon to fight over the same battles which Luther and Melancthon, which Crammer and Ridley and Latimer fought, is so often and so loudly reiterated by our author and oth- ers, that none of our opponents will call the fact in question. But though many of the points at issue are the same, the enemies are not altogether the same. On the one side, it is true, we have, as the Reformers had, Romanism, with its claim to an authoritative infallible Churchism, swallowing up and destroying the proper individuality of its members ; but on the other side we have a more thorough-going Sectar- ism than they had, with its claim to a no less infal- lible individualism, swallowing up and destroying the Church altogether. * They fought with their eye chiefly, oftentimes only, on the papal mon- ster ; we are obliged look out for the dragon's teeth that are continually springing up around us. While, therefore, the language of the Re- formers is always guarded on the one side, it is not always so on the other ; and he who over- looks or forgets this fact, as our author does at See New Englandism, 41 — 42. NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 25 every step, will never be able to do them justice, as he can neither enter into, nor appreciate their feel- ings. In order to understand, therefore, the true na- ture of the all absorbing questions which now oc- cupy the mind of the Christian world, we must in- quire, briefly as possible, what is the Romish idea of the Church, and of our relation and duty to it, and what was the idea opposed to it by the Reformers, and the consequences resulting therefrom ; and what is the sectarian idea of the same, which stands in the opposite extreme from Romanism itself; and how that view agrees with, and differs from the view of the Reformers. ROMISH VIEW OF THE CHURCH. The Romish system teaches that "the visible Church of Christ is the Son of God himself, ever- lastingly manifesting Himself among men in a hu- man form, perpetually renovated and eternally young, the permanent Incarnation of the same."* " The Church," therefore, with the Romanist, " is the body of the Lord, it is, in its universality, His visible form ; His permanent, ever renovated humanity ; His eternal revelation." f Conse- quently, " the authority of the Church," to use the language of one of its ablest modern defenders^ " is the medium of all which in the Christian reli- * Moehler Symb. 333. t Moeh. 351. t Moeh. 340. 26 PURITANISM gion resteth on authority, that is to say, the Christian religion itself, so that Christ himself is only so far an authority, as the Church is an authority." Out of this Church it holds that there can be no salva- tion.* ROMISH VIEW OF TRADITION. This view of the Church compelled Romanism to regard the Church as the primary source of all religious knowledge, the foundation upon which even the Scriptures themselves must rest for author- ity ; and tradition, w T hich it regards as the living consciousness of the Church, must be independent of the Scriptures, and co-ordinate with them in au- thority.-)* reformers' view of the church. The Reformers could not accept this idea of the Church, but taught to use the language of a living writer of the German Reformed, that " the visible Church is the body of Christ," that it is " an institu- tion founded by Christ, proceeding forth from his loins and animated by his Spirit ; through which alone, as its necessary organ, the revelation of God in Christ becomes effective in the history of the world, and that " out of the Church, as there is no Christianity, there can be no salvation ;" that "as the life of the parent flows forward in the child, so * Creed Pope Pius IV.* t Coun. Trent. Sess. IV NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 27 the Church also is the depository and continuation of the earthly human life of the Redeemer, in his threefold office, of Prophet, Priest, and King," and " like her divine founder, has a divine and human, an ideal and real, a heavenly and an earthly nature." In regard to " single Christians, the Church is the mother from which they derive their religious life, and to which they owe, therefore, constant fidelity, gratitude and obedience ;" and that " only in such regular and rational subordination, can the individ- ual Christian be truly free, and his personal piety can as little come to perfection, apart from the in- ward and outward communion with the life of the Church, as a limb separated from the body, or a branch torn from the vine."* reformers' view of tradition. With this view of the Church they could do nothing less than reject the Romish notion of tradi- tion. But they were far from rejecting tradition al- * Schaf. " Theses for the Time," §3,4, 6, 7, 11, 12. This language is more precise and formal than any that can be found in the writings of Luther, or generally, in those of Me- lanchthon, and yet it is the only view that can give logical consistency to the doctrines which Luther taught ; his idea of baptismal regeneration, of absolution, of the real presence, wo .Ad be idle phantoms without it. But though the phrase- ology is not that of Luther, it is but the scientific develop ment of what he actually taught. 28 PURITANISM. together, as many seem to suppose. The thought of substituting their own private whims and fancies, for the general voice of the Church, never entered their minds. With them, tradition was, to use the language of the same author, " not a part of the divine word, separate from that which is written, but the contents of Holy Writ itself, as apprehended and settled by the Church ; not an independent source of revelation, but the one fountain of the written word, carried forward in the stream of Church con- sciousness."* AGREEMENT OF THE REFORMERS. According to our author, this opinion is the doc- trine of the Church of England and her daughter in America, and we may add, that it is the doctrine of the old and the new Lutheran schools, both in Europe and America,*)* though not of the middle * Schaf. Prot. Principle, 82, 87. Chemnitz Exam. Coun. Trent. Part I. 120. t See Dr. Nevin's Sermon before the German Reformed Triennial Convention, 1844, referred to in Schaf. 170. The doctrines of the New Lutheran School are the undoubted doctrines held by Luther, though his language was not al- ways consistent with them. Indeed, it would be expecting more than we have any right to ask, to require, that a man, educated as Luther had been, circumstanced as he was, with enemies like those about him, should always, in all situations, in public and in private, speak with entire accuracy or even NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 29 schools of dogmaticism, indifferentism and rational- ism,^ and that it pervades extensively the Reform- consistency on every point. The latest deliberate acts of such a man, must be regarded as his maturest opinion — as the best exposition of his own doctrines. But these Luther was not permitted to carry out. " Much," says a learned English writer, u both in the internal and external circumstances of the German Reformation, occurred to prevent its full and adequate development. Had this been perfected in the spirit in which its great instrument might have completed it, if per- mitted tranquilly to finish his work, or supported by others, acting in his own principles, and surveying the whole system of Revelation with the comprehensive and discriminating view of his master mind, the history of the German Church had probably been altogether different ; the results which it is now reaching, after centuries, [in the new Lutheran school,] and at which it is arriving through a fearful transi- tion, might have been even then attained." Pusey's Germ. Theol. I. 7. * This remark is true of the whole period, from the adop- tion of the Formula of Concord, A. D. 1580, to the rise of the new Lutheran School, of the orthodox, as well as of others. Though this Formula was composed almost entirely in the words of Luther, it did not fairly represent his sentiments, inasmuch as it embodied ideas hastily thrown out in contro- versy, and oftentimes subsequently recalled or modified, along with his maturer judgments. From the adoption of the For- mula, until the rise of the New Lutheran School, the ortho- dox scarcely spoke, except in the language of the Symbolical Books, and those who, as did Calixtus, referred to primitive antiquity as a secondary authority, were persecnted without mercy. No writers of this period, therefore, can be received as fairly representing the opinion of the Reformers. The 30 PURITANISM ed Communions of Germany and their descendants in America.* But though this was the common doctrine of all the Reformers, the Church of Eng- land alone so incorporated it into her system, as to be able to retain it in practical life, and has, there- fore, been able to retain entire, that objective tra- dition, which is " that aggregate faith of the Church through all ages, as exhibited in external historical testimonies, "■(• which all other bodies have, writers of the first age were too dogmatic — those of the next, too indifferent to enter into the feelings of the Reformers. The Pietists, who sprung from the school of Spener, could not do it for want of ability, nor the later Supernaturalists, for the same reason. Even those who were among the most learned and orthodox, as for example, Storr and Flatt, and Rheinhard, seldom rose above the lowest sense of the Bible and Symbolical Books. They had no sense of the Holy Ghost in the Church, and many of them endeavored by va- rious compromises to make Christianity as agreeable as pos- sible to the natural man. They treated with the enemy, in fact, until many of them fairly fell over to his side, as in the case of Schott, Ammon, and Bretschneider. Wingard Rev. Church, 182, 183. Schaf, 147. Pusey Germ. Theol. I. 7—25, 125-186, II. 119—313, 382—422. Sack's Lett, to Pusey, 11. Bretschneider's reply to Rose, 27-42. For the peculiarities and the influence of the Rationalistic School, see New England- ism not the Religion of the Bible, 22 — 33. And for some of the causes that have contributed to the introduction of the im- proved condition of things, the State of Religion in England and Germany Compared, 34 — 38. * Dr. Nevin's sermon, ubi supra, t Comp. Moeh. 352, Schaf. 7.45. NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 31 in a greater or less degree, lost. Even the Con- tinental Reformers themselves, from the peculiarity of their situation, and the supposed necessity of the case, were led to give up one important point, which they acknowledged to be part of this " ag- gregate faith of the Church in all ages" — the ne- cessity of Episcopacy to the well-being, if not to the being of a Church,* and all the evils arising from other sources, in those communions, have, no doubt, been increased and perpetuated by the ab- sence of this safeguard. ROMISH VIEW OF JUSTIFICATION. But there is another principle which, so far as the Reformation was concerned, is more important and vi- tal than this one, which called it into being, and which gave it that moral power that has enabled it to with- stand all the attacks upon it, from within and with- out — the doctrine of justification by faith. It was this which made Luther invincible, and which nerved the martyrs of England for the stake. The Church of Rome holds > that the natural state of man since the fall, is one of weakness, not of positive corruption ; so that the power of willing and doing good works, though weakened, is not destroyed, and that they * That the Continental Reformers would have retained the Episcopacy, if they could, at firsts has been so often shown, that no proof need be added. 32 PURITANISM co-operate in the sinner's justification. Conse- quently, when these powers are invigorated by the gracious calling, the sinner disposes himself to the acquisition of the same, so that God's grace and the human will work in conjunction ; the one by illumi- nation, the other by freely consenting and moving towards God.* Justification, according to the teach- ing of Romanism, is not accomplished at once, but is the work of time, — is not the accounting, but the mak- ing of us righteous, — is not the act of God alone, but the conjoined effect of God's grace, along with faith and works on our part. And it carries its estimate of human virtue so far, as to teach, not only the possibility of a perfect fulfillment of the whole law, but also of super-meritorious works, which are deposited in the treasury of the Church, to help out the short comings of less obedient souls. f Nor is the grace by which we are justified, in connection with faith and works, apprehended by faith alone, but communicated, in part, if not wholly, by the sacraments. £ PROTESTANT VIEW OF JUSTIFICATION. To this view the whole body of Reformers op- * Coun. Trent, Sess. VI. cc. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, Can. 5, 6, 7, Moeh. 134—142. Comp. Schaf. 56, 57. Views of Gospel Truth, 1 9, 23. t Coun. Trent, ubi sup. Hooker on Just. §3 — 5. Moeh. 168—201. Views of Gospel Truth, 42—45, 78, 79. t Coun. Trent, Sess. VI. cc. 7, 8, 15. Sess. VII. c. 1. NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 33 posed the primitive and scriptural doctrine, of man's entire alienation from God and his justification by faith only. Thus all merit on the part of man is set aside, and all ability of man to co-operate in the work of justification, forever set at rest. ITS FOUNDATION. The great principle of the Reformation, there- fore, — that which has with much truth and propriety been called the Protestant Principle, is that of justification by faith, and which, as taught by all the Reformers, both English and Continental, was based on the assumption, that man by the fall, " lost not only the image of God, but also all power and ability, either of willing or doing works, pleasing and acceptable to God, in consequence of which the heart became wholly estranged from God, and con- tinually prone to evil."* Hence they deduced that prime article of the Reformation, the absolute neces- sity of the sinner's justification before God, by the merit of Christ alone, through faith. \ * Schaf. 60. Views of Gospel Truth, 17—19. Augs. Conf. Art. 2, 4, Smalk. Art. 3 : 1. Helv. Conf. ii. 8, 9. Heidi. Cat. Ques. 7, 8. Gall. Conf. Art. 10, 11. Belg. Conf. Art. 15. Can. Syn. Dort. cap. Ill art. 1, 2,3. t This is the full statement as given by Schaf. Prot. Prin. p. 54. The New Englander, the champion of Puritanism, says " the fundamental principle of Protestantism," that is, Puritanism, " is that the Bible is authority, and the only au- 3 34 ptmiTANisM ITS CONSEQUENCES. This doctrine, viewed in relation to the material or life-principle, is the doctrine of the justification of the sinner before Gob, by the merit of Chkist alone, through faith. Viewed in relation to the formal or knowledge-principle, and it is the proposi- tion, that the Word of God, as it has been handed down in the books of the Old and New Testaments, is the pure and proper source, as well as the only cer- tain measure, of all saving truth.* ihority in religion, the sole and sufficient rule of faith and practice." N. E. II. 66, — a position that is contradicted by every page of history relating to the Reformation. " It is a very current idea," says Schaf. Prot. Prin. 53, " particularly in the Reformed Church, that the doctrine of the exclusive authority of the Sacred Scriptures, forms the proper center and root of Protestanism. But this we can not admit, al- though the Christian life of the Reformers was shaped from the beginning by the Scriptures. For this principle is formal only, and so secondary, presupposing the presence of a defi- nite substance which it must include. In order that the Scriptures may be taken as the exclusive source and measure of Christian truth, it is necessary that the faith in Christ of which they testify, should be already at hand, and that their contents should have been made to live in the heart, by the power of the Holy Ghost, accompanying the word and the Church" This is all for which Churchmen contend. * Schaf. 71. The Puritans say, " the sole fountain, stand- ard and judge" and the Romanist charge the same upon the Reformers. Comp. N. E. II. 66, and Moeh. 382. The Re- formers said " source and measure" not judge, NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 35 SENSE OF SCRIPTURE, HOW DETERMINED. Thus far there is no controversy among true Protestants. Nor was there any controversy among the Reformers, as to the further question, how the sense of these books is to be ascertained and de- termined. The boasted right of 'private judgment, in the modern sense of the language, never entered their thoughts. They held, that while faith alone justi- fies, it produces good works, as its necessary fruit ; so also, that while the word of God is the only fountain and source of knowledge, it flows forward in the Church, and comes there continually to clearer and deeper consciousness ; * and that the interpretation which we are bound to receive on all great points of doctrine, and by which we are to abide, is that sense which has been apprehended and settled by the Church.f Hence, the Catholic Creeds ; the de- cisions of all General Councils, that could properly be called such ; and the consent of the early Church, were considered as binding on us, in all important questions of doctrine. :(: * Schaf. 71. t Schaf. 81, 87. t This is substantially the view of all Churchmen, though it is one which has given Mr. Hall so much trouble. It is evident that he neither knows the nature of the rule of Vin- cent of Lerins, which is applied to all such inquiries, nor un- derstands the principle of its application. Had he known th ; s, he would have seen, that it matters little whether we 36 PURITANISM WHO ARE TRUE PROTESTANTS. This being the true Protestant principle, those only are true, are genuine Protestants, who con- tinue to hold and teach the same ; those only who do this, are prepared, or even able to fight over the battles of the Reformation ; they alone can enter into the feelings and understand the language of the Reformers. And it was the agreement of the Eng- lish and Continental Reformers, upon these great and fundamental principles, that produced the sympathy between them,* and not as our author supposes, a want of attachment to the primitive and apostolic organization that had been retained in England, but reluctantly given up on the Continent.-)- confine ourselves to two, three, four, or more centuries — that we must come to the same result. The rule is, " first the Bible, next the teaching of the Church Catholic ;" — that this teaching applies only to " what has believed every where, al- ways, and by all" Vine, on Heresy, etc. i. 1, 3. The three tests of Catholic teaching are, Universality, Antiquity, and Consent. When our author comes to understand the nature and application of these tests, he will be relieved of his diffi culty. * See on this subject Appendix, Note A. t On p. 279, our author, in reply to a passage in the Primi- tive Church, says, " it is notorious that the English Reform- ers uniformly treated the non-Episcopal Foreign Churcheg and ministers, as true Churches and ministers." If this ia 81 notorious," he should have specified some instances, not considered and disproved in the " Primitive Church." Until NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 37 PURITANISM A DISEASE OF PROTESTANTISM. We are now prepared to to inquire whether Pu- ritanism be genuine Protestantism ; whether it can fairly be employed as a standard by which to judge of the Reformers and the Reformation ; whether it is to be regarded, as we suppose, as one of its diseases ; or whether, as our author imagines, it is to be consid- ered as the form of its life. The author of The Pu- ritans and their Principles, with all his co-laborers, regards it as the purest form of Protestantism, as its most living, active, vital representative. On the other hand, the profound and eminently learned Dr. Schaff, this is done, his wholesale assertions must go for mere decla- mation. He has given us nothing but the opinions of indi- viduals. We want the acts of the Church. But if we were to allow the facts to be as he alleges, it would by no means follow that we have departed from the principles of the Reformers. If our author desires to see what would have been then thought of such notions of the Church and the ministry as he holds, we would refer him to the history of Lewis Hetzer, John Campanus, Michael Servetus, Valentine Gentilis, and Loelius Socinius, all of whom were put to death by the Con- tinental Reformers, for teaching doctrines which we suppose our author would pronounce orthodox. Bayle III. 151, IV. 338. V. 168, Moeh. 536. If the Reformers put men to death as heretics for holding similar opinions to those of modern Puritanism, it by no means follows that we are to fellowship those doctrines now, because those who hold them, ignorantly suppose them to be the genuine doctrines of the Reforma- tion. 38 PURITANISM fresh from the new Lutheran School of Germany, and now Professor of Church History and Biblical Lit- erature in the Theological Seminary of the German Reformed Church at Chambersburgh, Pennsylvania, does not hesitate to classify it among the things pro- duced by one of the "diseases ofProtestanism" — the Sect-system ; which he tells us, " must be considered the more dangerous, [i. e. than Rationalism, its other disease,] because it ordinarily appears in the imposing garb of piety — Satan transformed into an Angel of light." * SUMMARY OF PURITAN PRINCIPLES. The principles of Puritanism, as stated by our author, and by which he judges of our departure from the principles of the Reformation, are— justifi- cation by faith alone, the fundamental principle of the Reformation ; the Bible alone, the rule of faith and duty ; Christ alone, the sole law-giver of his Church ; no human traditions in proof for matters of faith ; no human inventions to be imposed as essen- tial parts of divine worship ; these were the origi- nal principles for which the Puritans contended. *(* This may be Puritanism, but it is very far from being genuine Protestantism, as that was understood by the Reformers themselves. What they would have said to such an unchurchly view of Church principles, * Schaf. 117 t Hall. 30. NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 39 those familiar wi'h their writings can easily guess. They would have inquired for the Church, for the Ministry, and for the Sacraments. They would wished to have known why nothing was said of the body of Christ, why the sacred office of God's min- istry had been overlooked, and how the holy Sacra- ments could have been forgotten ? The presentation of such a summary of principles as a Protestant Creed, would have subjected the proposer to the anathema of every Reformer, from Cranmer to Zuingle. DEVIATIONS OF PURITANISM FROM THE REFOR- MATION— (1.) JUSTIFICATION. They taught the doctrine of "justification by faith alone, " but as a consequence of their view of man's depravity. Had any then taught, as many now do, that man's natural state, subsequent to the fall, is one of spiritual weakness and debility, but not of positive corruption, they would have been handed over to the Romanists without ceremony. * They * The case of Victorin Strigel, a pupil of Melancthon, a clergyman of Weimar, and Professor in the University of Jena, is a case in point. For teaching that man still retains ability to repent and turn to God, and that he is not entire- ly passive in conversion, he was imprisoned three years, from 1559 — 1562, and was finally released through the interpo- sition of foreign princes. Mosh. III. 16, Pusey, L 16, Moeh. 144. 40 PURITANISM knew no middle ground. A being whose spiritual powers had been destroyed, and his nature corrupt- ed, could do nothing to merit pardon, nothing towards his justification : one whose powers had only been weakened, and whose nature was not sinful, might do something towards both. The difference was heaven-wide ; it was the difference between Prot- estantism and Romanism. We should be glad to know where our author stands in this respect. The old Puritans would not have left us in the dark upon so important a point. If he stands on the true Protes- tant ground, why is he silent? If, on the contrary, he stands on new Calvinistic ground, * he has giv- en up the foundation on which the "Protestant Prin- ciple" rests, and is no longer a a true Protectant. WHAT IS THE BIBLE. There is a very important or fundamental inqui- ry arising in this place, which our author seems to have overlooked ; what is the Bible ? We refer not now to the proper mode of determining the sense of Scripture, but how are we to know what books should compose the canon. Our author says (p. 253) " The Bible is complete its canon is fixed and unalterable." But he adds, " no research has been able wholly to separate the spurious writings attribu- * As he is said to do, see Calendar II. 26, and Views of Gospel Truth, 59 — 75, for the New Calvinistic opinions. NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 41 ted to the Fathers, from the true." One knows not which of these assertions imply the greatest want of information. We have no doubt on the subject of the Canon, for the Church has settled the ques- tion for us. But " the private judgment" of our au- thor's associates is so far from being settled, that there is scarce a book in either Testament, that some of them do not doubt ; though there is a gen- eral agreement among them as to which of the Fathers are genuine.* (2.) INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. The Reformers, too, received the Bible alone as " the source and fountain of all saving truth." But they never dreamed of the modern notion of making that blessed book, as construed by every man's whim and fancy, as interpreted by every man's pri- vate judgment, the rule either of faith or duty. They believed in a living, Christian consciousness, mani- fested in the Creeds and Confessions of the early Church, in the decrees of those General Councils that could properly be called such, and in the consent of primitive antiquity, which was binding on us ; and they continually appealed to all as proof f They * See New Eng. not Rel. Bible, 23—27. t Luther himself appealed from the Pope to a General Council, and the other Reformers did the same. Scott's Lu- ther, I. 106. Schaf. 81. Cranmer also made an " Appeal from the Pope to the next General Council," and so did the Reformers generally. 3* 42 PURITANISM aimed at making no discoveries, and pretended to no discoveries. They only desired to wipe off the accumulated dust of ages, and to restore the body of Christ to its primitive brightness and purity, in doctrine and discipline. Puritanism on this point, as represented by our author, is as diverse from Prot- estantism, as from Romanism itself. (3.) LEGISLATIVE POWER OF THE CHURCH. The Reformers, too, in common with Romanists also, believed Christ to be the source and fountain of all power in the Church ; in the highest sense, "the sole law-giver of his Church." But that man can know little of those men or the history of their times, who imagines that they did not allow a subordinate legislative power in Christ's Church, acting in His name, and by His authority, in things not contrary to the revealed Word. And this power was exercised in every Reformed community, in framing Articles of Religion, and prescribing forms of worship.* * Augsbnrgh Confession, 1530. Confession of Basle, 1532, re-adopted 1561. Helvetic Confession, 1536. Smalkaldic Ar- ticles, 1537. Confession of Wittenberg, 1552. Gallic Con- fession, 1559. Belgic Confession, 1566. Bohemian Confession, 1573. Our author himself, in another place, (p. 307,) allows the principle of a limited legislative power in the Church, but supposes it to reside in each particular congregation, ra- NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 43 (-4.) AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. The Reformers too, Continental as well as English, admitted " human traditions,' • as our author calls them, as "proof in matters of faith." They received and bowed submissively to the testimony and tradition of the early Church, as expressed in the Council of Nice, in regard to the relation borne by the Son to the Father ; — that of the Council of Con- stantinople, in regard to the character and office of the Holy Ghost, and that of other later Councils on other important points of doctrine ; * and they even ther than in National Synods, or General Councils. And he quotes the opinion of Neander, whom he styles " the most distinguished ecclesiastical historian of the present day," as conclusive authority on this point. Our author seems not to be aware that he has conceded the whole point at issue, in regard to the existence of a legislative authority in the Church, reducing the inquiry simply to the place where that authority is lodged, and that the authority of Neander cannot help him. The General Association of Connecticut has been very express upon this subject. In a report on the subject of Councils, it is said, " though Christians have differed much in opinion as to what constituted the supreme judicature [of the Church,] yet in every form of Church government, there has been this supreme tribunal, whose decision has been es- teemed final." Proceedings, 182*2, p. 23. See Note B. • " The Lutheran and Reformed Churches have unhesita- tingly appropriated to themselves the ecumenical symbols, as true expressions of Church consciousness." Schaf. 88, 9. 44 PtTRITAlttsM want so far as to appeal their own cause from the judgment of the Pope, to that of a General Council. They also retained, in Geneva and Germany as well as in England, many things in public worship which our author would consider as " human inven- tions."* (5.) NATURE OF THE CHURCH. But the difference between Puritanism and Pro- testantism, is even more clearly seen in the different views entertained by them, in regard to the Church, the ministry, and the sacraments. We have already seen that Protestantism regards the Church as the body of Christ, as an institution founded by Him, proceeding out of His loins, anointed by His Spirit, the medium by which His life is conveyed to its members, the continuation of the earthly human life of the Redeemer, in His threefold office of Prophet, Priest, and King, - )* — and that it is the ful- ness of Him that filleth all in all.J But Puritanism, * The Lutherans retain the gown, the cross, the crucifix, the wafer, candles upon the altar, make the sign of the cross, and practice confession, etc. etc. t But our author exclaims with astonishment at this very idea. 302, 355. t Our author expressly denies (p. 281) that Eph. i. 23, from which this language is quoted, and also Epk. v. 25, 27, has any thing to do with the Church as an organized or visi- ble body. But Eph. iv. 11, 12, he applies to the visible NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 45 as represented by our author and his cotemporaries, knows nothing of ail this, — believes nothing of all this. It denies the existence of any such body, and can form no idea of any such means of communicat- ing grace. It begins by dividing off the whole body of the truly pious, into a distinct and independent regiment, united to Christ, not by means of the Church which is His body, but by some invisible bond, directly to the head itself, conferring upon these individuals, all spiritual blessings and graces,* thus leaving the invisible Church, poor, and wretch- ed, and naked, so far as any spiritual office, blessing, or object is concerned, f And having done this, — having dwelt upon this beggarly idea of a Church, human in its origin, authority, and power, until it is incapable, by its own confession, even of understand- ing the language of the Reformers and of those who truly represent their sentiments,^: they turn round and gravejy charge those who stand in the old paths, with having departed from the teaching of those eminent men of God, with idolatry almost, with superstition quite, in believing that "the Church is Church, (p. 282.) By what rule of logic or law of exegesis he applies the beginning and end of a narrative to an invisi- ble bod}', and the middle to a visible body, we are not told. * Hall, 281, et. seq. New Englandism not the Religion of the Bible, 38, 39. t Views Gospel Truth, 97—99. X Dick Lect. Theol. XCI. 46 PURITANISM the Mother from which the Christian derives his religious life, and to which he owes constant fidelity, gratitude, and obedience." And such are the men who charge Churchmen with having departed from the faith of the Reformers, and with being anxious to return to the embrace of the "mother of harlots." Because the ideas entertained by these men of the Church, are gross and carnal, they cannot un- derstand those who have entered into any thing like a full comprehension of the deep mystery of " Christ and his Church." They have lost sight of that doc- trine, so precious in the sight of the Reformers and the primitive Christians, that to those who have been justified by faith, through the merits of Christ, " a new nature has been imparted also, by an actual communication of the Saviour's life over into his person," through the medium of the Church. They know nothing of that blessed doctrine, "that the very life of the Lord Jesus is found reaching over into the person of the renewed man, and gradually transfusing it with its own heavenly force." They can not even conceive how that "the life of the be- liever involves a communion with the body of Christ, as well as with His Spirit."* Nor can they imagine how bald, and barren, and unsatisfac- tory is the modern Puritan view of the Church, to those who have felt the power of the true faith in their inmost souls. NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 47 (6.) NATURE OF THE MINISTRY. The Reformers also taught the divine institution and perpetual obligation of the sacred ministry, " and they attached, as every one knows," says a learned and judicious writer of the present day, " an impor- tance and sacredness to the office of preacher, which we are apt to consider extravagant ; and not without reason, if the circumstances of our own day are to regulate our belief."* With these exalted notions of the ministry, the Puritanism of our author and his cotemporaries, has nothing in common.")* Nor would it be consistent or reasonable to confer any spiritual functions upon the officer of such an unspir- itual body as is the Church, according to their opinion. (7.) NATURE OF THE SACRAMENTS. And with the un spiritualizing of the Church and the degrading of the ministry, we also find among the modem Puritans, a degradation of the Sacra- ments also. " The idea of the inward union on the part of the believer, with the entire humanity of Christ, has in all ages," says a learned writer of the German Reformed Communion, " entered deep- ly into the consciousness of the Church Hence the earnestness with which the Reformers * Maurice, 103. t Views Gospel Truth, 100. 48 PURITANISM generally maintained the doctrine of the real presence in the sacraments."* Indeed upon no two doc- trines were the Reformers more universally united and none were urged, next after justification by faith, with more zeal, than those of Baptis- mal Regeneration, j* and the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist.:): Up- on both of these points, modern Puritanism has de- parted so far from the principles of the Reformation, that it charges those who retain them with heresy, and finally confesses itself unable even to attach * Nevin's Sermon, 198. t Maurice, 94, 106. " This at least is certain, — that the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration was held by Luther, not in conjunction with that of justification by faith, (as he might have held any doctrine which belonged to the natural philosophy of his age,) but that he grounded the one on the other" lb. 255. For the opinion of Calvin see Institutes, b. IV. xv. 1, 2, 5, 6. xvii. 1, and New Eng. not Rel. Bib. 44, 45. " It works remission of sins." Luth. Short Cat. c. iv. §4, 2. " Imparts regeneration and forgiveness of sins." Muensch. Dog.Hist. Part II. c. ii. §199. But " the sacraments do not produce justification as a matter of course," " without faith." Augs. Conf. XIII. Luther also held, that the spiritual work begun in baptism, continues through life. " Where- fore also baptism, to xovrgov tn; avctxcLivaxretos, (as Luther says,) must be brought into operation throughout the whole life." Titt. Syn. N. T. 109. Compare Maurice, 249. " Bap- tism is not a momentary act but a perpetual sacrament." t Schaf. 88. Nevins, 198. Moeh. 400. Luther to Albert of Prussia. Calvin Inst. IV. xvii. 5, 8, 9, 10, 11. HOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 49 any meaning to the language applied to the Sacra- ments. (8.) SIN OF SCHISM. Another point upon which Puritanism is at war with the principles of the Reformers, is that of schism. "The object of the Reformers," says the learned author of The Protestant Principle, "was not to overturn the Church, and break the regular course of its historical life : but to restore it once more to the clear light and sure rule of God's word ; not to emancipate the individual to uncon- trolled freedom, but to bind him to the definite ob- jective authority of God's truth and grace. Luther exhibited the doctrine of justification as precisely the true ground of Christian union, and fought with all the strength of his gigantic spirit against the fanati- cal and factious tendencies of his time. His last wish, as that of Melancthon also, was for the unity of the Church Calvin utters himself against sectaries, with his own peculiar, cutting severity, and repulses the reproach that Protestantism itself was a sect, in the strongest terms." * But this is not the character of Puritanism. It has, says the same author, " a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. Inflamed against the despotism of bad forms, and the abuse of such as are good, it * Schaf. 119, 120. 50 PURITANISM makes war upon form in every shape, and insists upon stripping the spirit of all covering whatever, as though the body were the work of the Devil."* "It has no respect for history, "j* "It furnishes no security against sects. They make their appeal collectively to the sacred volume ; the devil himself does the same when it suits his purpose. Strongly also, as Puritanism and Congregationalism, in their theocratic state-Church period, endeavored to se- cure a religious and civil union of its members, a subordination of the individual to the general, the system is clearly impotent in this direction. It in- cludes no limitation for the principle of sects. It is, in its own nature, unhistorical and one-sidedly spiritualistic, and has no reason on this account to require or expect that its children should be bound by its authority, more than itself had been bound by the authority of its own spiritual ancestry.":]: RESULTS OF SCHISM. After describing the effect of these principles in the history of our country, this author gives the fol- lowing painful, but graphic account of the present state of things. " Thus we have come gradually to a host of sects, which it is no longer easy to number, and that still continues to swell from year to year. Where the process of separation is destined to end, * Schaf. 112. t Schaf. 113. X Schaf. 115. NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 51 no human calculation can foretell. Any one who has, or fancies that he has, some inward experience and a ready tongue, may persuade himself that ho is called to be a reformer ; and so proceed, at once, in his spiritual vanity and pride, to a revolutionary rupture with the historical life of the Church, to which he holds himself immeasurably superior. He builds himself of a night accordingly a new chapel, in which now for the first time since the age of the Apostles, a pure congregation is to be formed ; bap- tizes his followers with his own name, to which he thus secures an immortality, unenviable it is true, but such as is always flattering to the natural heart . rails and screams with full throat against all that re- fuse to do homage to his standard ; and with all this, though utterly unprepared to understand a single book [of the Bible,] is not ashamed to appeal con- tinually to the Scriptures, as having been sealed en- tirely, or in large part, to the understanding of eighteen centuries, and even to the view of the Re- formers themselves, till now at last, God has been pleased to kindle the true light in an obscure corner of the new world. Thus the deceived multitude, having no power to discern spirits, is converted, not to Christ, but to the arbitrary fancies and baseless opin- ions of an individual, who is only of yesterday. Such cow-version is of a truth only per-version, such Geo- logy, neo-logy ; such exposition of the Bible, wretch- ed im-position. What is built is no Church, but a 52 PURITANISM chapel, to whose erection Satan himself has made the most liberal contribution."* Such were the principles of the Reformers, as drawn, not by a " bigoted High- Church Episcopa- lian," nor by an "illiberal ultra-orthodox Lutheran," but by the more free and liberal pen of a German Reformed writer. Such also are the principles of Puritanism according to our author, and such its tendencies according to the views of those who might be expected to have the greatest sympathy with them, the German Reformed of Europe and America. How diverse the one is from the other, we need not describe. We shall now proceed to com- pare the doctrine of the Episcopal Church, in this country, as represented by our author, not with the false standard of Puritanism, but with the real doc- trines and principles of the Reformers, in much the same order in which he has stated them. We shall thus acertain whether we have departed from the old paths of the Reformation, as our author alleges, or whether his charges are based on ignor- ance and misrepresentation of them. OUR AGREEMENT WITH THE REFORMERS, WHERE PURITANISM DIFFERS. On p. 30 — 32, our author has made a summa- ry of some of those principles, which he says are * Schaf. 116. NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 53 maintained by the Episcopal Church, against which the Puritans are waging war, with their utmost strength and power. Some of the principal of these alledged errors are : (1.) INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE. That we only receive " the Holy Scriptures as they were interpreted by the Church" So did all the Reformers, Continental as well as English, so does the Episcopal Church, and so, also, do the Lu- theran and Reformed Communions. But Puritan- ism pronounces this treason against God. * (2.) PRIVATE JUDGMENT. That we consider their " notions of private judg- ment erroneous ; so did all the Reformers, and so do all those who have not cut themselves loose from * We should like our author's opinion on the following Reso- lution of the General Association of Connecticut, passed June, 1812. " Resolved, that a profession of faith, made in the words of Scripture, is no definite exhibition of the real faith of the professor, since all persons who acknowledge the divine origin of the Scriptures, would, although some of them in faith are directly opposed to others, make the same profession in the same words." Proceed, relative to A. Ab- bott, p. 20. This doctrine was not peculiar to that session. It is taught in express terms by the Association of New Haven County, in their proceedings against Rev. John Hub- , 1770. o4 PURITANISM the life of the Church — Episcopalians, Lutherans, and Reformed — yet Puritanism glories in it. (3.) CHURCH AUTHORITY. That we hold that they are " without any suffi- cient bond of union," and that receiving " the Bible alone to the exclusion of all Church authority," must result in the " production of most incongruous sects." No language could be more in accordance with that of the Reformers. No doctrine more clearly theirs. Nor is it peculiar to the Episcopalian ; Lutheran and Reformed, respond a hearty "Amen," yet this doctrine is one of the most vital principles of Puri- tanism. (4.) THE CHURCH THE MEDIUM OF GRACE. That we consider "The Church the great me- dium of communicating divine grace" .... That we teach that " The revelation of God offers salva- tion only through the Church" That we hold, that " The true Church of God is our only ark of safety." True or false, so taught, so held the whole body of the Reformers, and so do Lutherans and Reformed, as well as Churchmen now teach. But Puritanism pronounces it heresy. (5.) BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. Again it is said, that the "doctrine of baptismal NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 55 regeneration, is directly opposed to the fundamental principles" of Puritanism, [pp. 31, 137.] But it was the doctrine of Luther,* of Calvin, and, indeed, of all the Reformers, and it is the authoritative teach- ing of all the old Puritan standards themselves. And yet modern Puritanism calls it heresy.f (6.) THE REAL PRESENCE. Again, the doctrine of the " real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, is set down as among the dogmas which we teach, (pp. 136, 137,) and which Puritanism is endeavoring to subvert.:): But Luther * Augs. Conf. 2, 11. "The Lutheran divines discovered in the sacraments, the medium by which grace operates." Muensch. Dog. Hist. Part II. c. ii. §198. " Baptism impart* ed regeneration and forgiveness of sins." lb. §199. " It works forgiveness of sins, redeems from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all that believe." Luther's Short Catechism, c. iv. §2. Calvin says: " In baptism God regenerates us." Inst. IV. xvii. 1. See also IV. xv. 2, 5. New Englandism, 44, 45. Scot, and Pres. Conf. xxviii. 6. Camb. and Say. Conf. xxix. 6. For the doctrine of the new Lutheran school see Note C. t New Eng. 46. X This " reai presence," necessarily requires a consecra- tion, and necessarily makes the elements more than mere emblems, even " effectual means, as well as authenticated signs of grace," as our author allows, pp. 352, 371. Conse- quently his objection against us, is an objection against the Reformers themselves, 56 PURITANISM also taught it, and Calvin also taught it. Yet these men had a controversy on the subject, the effects of which remain to the present day, because Calvin did not, in the opinion of Luther, teach it in terms sufficiently strong and explicit.* * This controversy related to two points, (1) as to the ubiqui- ty of Christ's glorified body, which Luther asserted (Muensch. lb. § 201) but Calvin denied, (Inst. IV. xvii. 30, where he calls it a " monstrous notion,") and (2) whether the body of Christ was imparted to the worthy recipient of the Eucha- rist, along with the elements, as Calvin held, or whether it was also consubstantiated with them, and thus conveyed by them, as Luther held. The bitterness of this controversy may be judged of by its effects. Hardenberg, a minister of Bremen, was deposed and banished in 1561, for teaching the Calvinistic opinion, and his followers excommunicated. Peu- cer, a physician, was imprisoned ten years for recommending for the theological chair at Wittenberg, a man who held sim- ilar sentiments. Pusey, I. 16, 17. The Dutch and German Reformed Churches in Europe and America, also teach it in strong and emphatic terms. The Heidleberg Catechism, the only common symbol of the Ger- man and Dutch Reformed Churches, (Pusey, 11.391,) says: M His crucified body and shed blood, are the true meat where- by our souls are fed unto eternal life. We are as really par- takers of his true body and blood (by the operation of the Holy Ghost) as we receive by the mouths of our bodies these holy signs in remembrance of him." Quest. 79. See also the Confession of the Reformed Churches of the Ne- therlands, adopted by the Dutch Reformed in this country- Art. XXXV, and Rev. Dr. Nevin's Sermon so often quoted. NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 57 (7.) AUTHORITY OF GENERAL COUNCILS. Again, he calls the proposition, often made by Churchmen, to refer the unhappy state of the Church to a "General Council," "a holy alliance to de- throne the Lord Jesus Christ, and to give his seat and sceptre into the hands of a human hierarchy ! A holy alliance to throw down the Bible from the al- tar of God, and to exalt a mingled creed, the fruit of an incestuous compromise between truth and false- hood." (p. 278.) And yet Luther made and repeat- ed this appeal ; Crammer made the same appeal among his last acts ; and the great body of the Re- formers, English and Continental, did it over and over again. But Puritanism will hear of nothing of the kind. (8.) HOUSEHOLD BAPTISM. Again, he objects to the introduction, of all the people of any parish, city, or nation, by baptism in- to the Church of God ; and the doing of it, he re- gards as making "void an acknowedged ordinance of Christ." (pp. 291—293.) National Churches, of course, come under a strong condemnation, (p. 292.) And yet the Reformers held differently on both points. They believed it was the duty of all to receive the ordinances of the Gospel, and if any re- fused, it was the duty of the magistrate to compel them ; and there was not a country where the Re- formation prevailed, that religion was not establish- ed by law. But Puritanism rejects both. 4 58 PURITANISM (9.) REPRESENTATIVE CHARACTER OF THE MINISTRY. Again, he says that we make the clergy Christ's " representatives," as well as his " ministers," and calls it a most " extravagant claim." (p. 302.) But the Reformers made the same claim. Calvin says : " We must now treat of the Order which it has been the Lord's will to appoint for the government of his Church ...... as he dwells not among us with his visible presence, so as to make an audible de- claration of his will to us . . . . he uses the min- istry of men, whom he employs as his delegates . ... he choses from among men, those who are to be his ambassadors to the world, to be the interpret- ers of his secret will, and ever to act as his person* al representatives " * And Luther, with his high no- tions of the sacraments, could not do otherwise than hold the same doctrine, though his language, espe- cially at first, is not always consistent with it. (10.) absolution. Again, another serious objection in the mind of our author, against the Episcopal Church, is the doc- trine and practice of "Absolution." (pp. 139, 369.) But he is not aware that in his zeal against us, he equally condemns all the Reformers. "In regard to Confession," says Luther, in the Augs- * Inst. IV. iii. 1. NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 59 burgh Confession, " our Churches teach that private absolution ought to be retained in the Churches." Art. 11. Again, "Confession is not done away in our Churches, for the body of the Lord is not de- livered to any except they are first examined and absolved. And the people are most diligently in- structed in the faith of absolution, of which before this time there was little mention. The people are taught to hold absolution in great esteem ; because it is the voice of God, and pronounced by his com- mand and that God requires faith that we should give credence to that absolution as to a voice sounding from heaven." Art. 25. Calvin also taught it, though in terms less positive and explicit.* And it was the doctrine of all the early Protestant bodies.")* We see, therefore, that on the points touching the Church, the ministry, and its representative cha- racter, the sacraments, baptismal regeneration, the real presence in the Eucharist, the authority of the Bible and of tradition, the propriety of household baptism, and the authority of general councils, upon which our author charges us with having departed from the faith of the Reformers, we now hold the very same doctrine as that which was taught by them all, Continental as well as English. And we may add, that we also agree with the new Lutheran * Inst. III. iv. 14. IV. i. 22. t Bing. b. XIV. French Church Apol. III. ix. 60 PURITANISM School, and the Reformed, upon these very points. That we differ from Puritanism upon every one of them, we are free to confess, and this our author takes to be the same thing as differing from the Reformers. Indeed, he seems not to be aware, that Puritanism is totally diverse from the Protestant- ism of the Reformation, or that many of its friends claim no more than that it is the Reformation re- formed ; we should say rather, the Reformation re- volutionized, (11.) JUSTIFICATION. We also agree with the Reformers, in placing the material, or life-principle of the Reformation, — that of the justification of the sinner before God by the merits of Christ alone, through faith, before the formal, or knowledge-principle, which Puritanism places first. The fundamental principle of the Pu- ritan faith, what it calls " the Protestant Principle," is, on the contrary, that " the Bible is the only au- thority in religion, the sole and sufficient rule of faith and practice ;"* thus putting the external and formal, the secondary and subordinate, above the internal, spiritual, and fundamental. We agree with the Reformers also, in regard to the mode in which the sense of Scripture is to be determined, * New Eng. II. 66. NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 61 abiding by that which has been " apprehended and settled by the Church ;" while Puritanism, (theo- retically, at least,) refers the whole to the " private judgment" of any individual.* AND THE GROUND OF ITS NECESSITY. We also agree with the Reformers in deducing the necessity of our "justification by the merits of Christ alone, through faith," from man's utter inability to do any thing towards it himself. This foundation, on which justification by faith itself must rest, has been given up by all New Caivini3tic Pu- ritans, and how long they will continue to hold the faith resting upon the rejected foundation, no human foresight can telLf PURITANISM CANNOT UNDERSTAND THE REFORM- ERS. But when we have said that Puritanism is not the Protestantism of the Reformation, we have not said all that truth requires. Puritanism does not, and cannot, understand the Reformers. It has cut itself loose from the life of the Church — has sunder- ed the bond which binds all in one great whole ; and, standing in an exterior relation to the body it- self, can neither understand nor appreciate what is * New Englandism, 41, 42. t See Wingard, 191, 192, for the effect of such an aban- donment in Germany. 62 PURITANISM passing within. It judges erroneously, therefore, because it sees but a portion of the evidence, and is incompetent to judge of the remainder, even could it be made to see it. It looks at the Reform- ers as it looks at itself. It considers each individu- al as an independent isolated atom, bound to the throne of Jehovah, as by a general law of gravi- tation ; not as a single member of one great body, united to the Head by joints and bands which min- ister nourishment to every part. And it considers union between the parts as resulting merely from elective affinity, not from a law of life. THE REASON WHY. But the Reformers held no such meagre and lifeless doctrine. They realized the great law of corporiety every where visible in God's dealings with man,* but especially with his Church. They regarded not themselves as mere individuals, each one acting for himself alone, but as a member of that body from which they could not depart without peril to their souls, — whose unity they could not rend without being guilty of heinous sin, and to which, as well as to God, they were responsible for all their acts. This Church they knew they might not touch. It was Christ's body, animated by His Spirit, the medium of communicating His life to * " Corporiety is the scope of God's ways." Oetinger. NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 63 men, especially in and through the sacraments of his own institution, by a ministry of his own ap- pointing. These were holy and sacred, things which might not be dispensed with, or set aside. All their acts were done under a sense of this high and mysterious relation ; and it is indispensable, when considering the Reformation, that these things should be borne in mind. Otherwise we can never understand either their language or their conduct. But this Puritanism does not, and can not do. It dwells merely upon what they did — considers mere- ly the act, and judges of the motive by its own false standard. It is incapable of feeling as the Reformers did, in regard to the Church and sacra- ments, and would not if it could. WHY THE REFORMERS SAID NO MORE OF THE CHURCH. The true reason, therefore, why so little was said of the Church, was, not that it was disregarded or undervalued, but, that its character and import- ance were not called in question. Every thing was done on the assumption of its reality and power. They aimed at reformation, not at revolution. Let any one read the Augsburgh Confession with the feeling that Luther and Melancthon had when they wrote it, and it will seem a very different thing from what it would, if interpreted by Puritan exe- 64 PURITANISM gesis. No Puritan could have written that docu- ment, and no mere Puritan can understand it. It recognizes feelings that Puritanism has rooted out of its system, and breathes a spirit that Puritanism re- gards as hostile to the genius of true religion. The same remark is also true when applied to the XXXIX Articles. DIVINE INSTITUTION OF THE MINISTRY IN THREE ORDERS. There is one other point upon which our author charges Churchmen with having departed from the faith of the English Reformers, which demands a distinct consideration. We refer to the subject of the ministry. That the ministry in the Church, was of divine appointment, all the Reformers held, but, from tenderness towards those who were labor- ing in a common cause, or, for some other reason, they rarely spoke out in explicit terms, in any au- thoritative document, as to the form in which that ministry ought to be perpetuated. And yet it could not be otherwise than, as the Reformers must have foreseen, that those, who carried out their own prin- ciples, should conclude, that a divinely constituted ministry must be a ministry in some form. And as a matter of fact, we find each community concluding, that its oiim ministry was that divinely appointed form. The Lutheran and Calvinistic, taught that NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 65 that form was Presbyterian, — the Churchmen, that it was Episcopal. Now it would by no means fol- low that we departed from the principles of the English Reformers, when we assert the divine in- stitution and perpetual obligation of Episcopacy, had they not said a syllable on the subject. THE ORDINAL. But they did not leave us in doubt ; they prepa- red and published an Ordinal, or solemn form of ordination, which tells us of a ministry of divine institution, perpetuated from the beginning, in three orders ; under which they proceeded to perpetuate the same ministry by the same orders. This, then, was the solemn judgment of the English Reformers, and it is all the highest Churchman can ask. It is the carrying out of the principles of the Reformers, by the Reformers themselves. APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. Another charge of departing from the faith of the Reformers, is based upon the same facts, viewed in reference to their consequences, in re- gard to the fact and necessity of an Apostolic Suc- cession ; a thing which our author pronounces " false in fact, corrupt in doctrine," " the very source of all the abominations of Popery." (pp. 371, 376)-— 4* 66 PURITANISM. Now if the Reformers believed in a divinely ap- pointed ministry, in any form, and also believed that that ministry had been perpetuated by the reg- ular calling of those who had filled it, they believed in the Apostolical Succession, That they did be- lieve both of these points, the Ordinal most expli- citly affirms. Consequently, no opinion of any in- dividual can be allowed to contradict this solemn decision of the Church. Even our author himself allows that those he condemns are but carrying out the principles of that Prayer Book which the Re- formers left us. It is, he says, the system, the doc- trine of the Church itself, (p. 370.) And yet he charges those who he confesses are faithfully carry- ing out the system of the Church, with departing from the sentiments of those who formed and per- fected that system. Whatever consequences are involved in this doctrine, are consequences which the Reformers must have felt and seen, and whether the principle be true or false, there has been no de- parture from their sentiments. Nor is it necessary to a belief in this doctrine, that we should hold to the necessity of being able to trace the list of Epis- copal governors ; the law of the Church being a sufficient guaranty of the fact, whether we could discover every link in the chain or not. Our abili- ty, however, to trace the succession, adds certainty to the fact. If either of these points are unproved, it must be easy to show it. And it would be much NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 67 more to the purpose, for our author to point out such defect of proof, than to rest so much upon the opin- ion of men who have never examined the subject. WHAT MUST BE PROVED TO SHOW THAT CHURCH- MEN HAVE DEPARTED FROM THE PREACHING OF THE REFORMERS. Those, therefore, who would convict Churchmen of departing from the judgment of the English Re- formers, should show, either that this Ordinal does not mean as they suppose,* or, that there is some- where a proviso or condition which allows others to come in and claim the same privilege. No amount of extrinsic evidence whatever, can overrule or set aside this document, unless it gives to the language employed in it, a sense different from what we at- tach to it. But our author has not attempted this. He has seen fit to pass over the Ordinal entirely, and if his readers are not so fortunate as to hear of it from some other source, they will have no know- * This Mr. Powell, in his work " on," or rather against the " Apostolical Succession," has attempted to do, and he gravely argues, that when the Reformers said that " from the Apostle's time there had been these orders of ministers in Christ's Church, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons," and when they said that all these were of " divine" appointment, they only meant that there were two distinct orders by divine ap- pointment, and one office of human origin. § VII. pp. 144, 168. Our author has very wisely eschewed such a task, and in this respect has been more wise than his masters. 68 PURITANISM ledge of its existence. We might, therefore, pass by his whole array of testimonies, as totally irrele- vant to the point of inquiry. But waving this privi- lege, we shall notice his several proofs, in order to gee what they would be worth, if there were nothing else in being on the subject. OUR AUTHOR'S PROOF. (1.) THE INSTITUTION OF A CHRISTIAN MAN. His first testimony is from " The Institution of a Christian Man" published 1538. (2.) A PAPER WHICH FORMS PART OF THAT BOOK. And his second, from a paper incorporated into that book, both of which contain this passage : "In the New Testament there is no mention made of any degrees or distinctions in orders, but only of Deacons (or ministers,) and Priests or Bishops."* But unfortunately for our author, this is the opinion of these men as Romanists, not as Reformers, and the same book establishing every doctrine of Roman- ism, save the supremacy of the Pope.f And unfortu- nately for our author's fairness, he knew the fact. (3.) THE ERUDITION OF A CHRISTIAN MAN. His third testimony is The Necessary Erudition of a Christian Man, published 1540, which con- * Hall, 45. I Prim. Church, 401, 402, 2d edition. NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 69 tains a similar sentiment.* This was merely a new and enlarged edition of the former work, revised by some of the Bishops, and also corrected by the King, and the doctrine of purgatory only being now omitted.f In other respects it taught genuine Romanism. (4.) stillingfleet's irenicum. The remainder of his proof is all copied second- hand from a single work, — Stillingfleet's Irenicum. A brief account of the man and his work is therefore necessary, in order to understand the force of this evidence. stillingfleet's puritan education. Edward Stillingfleet, afterwards Bishop of Worcester, was born at Cranbourn, Dorsetshire, April 17, 1635, and educated at St. John's College, Cambridge, under the Puritan dynasty, and in 1653, was elected, by the Puritan authorities, to the first fellowship that became vacant after taking his bache- lor's degree. HIS IRENICUM PUBLISHED UNDER THE PURITAN DYNASTY. In 1657, he was presented to the parish of Sut- * Hall, 46. * Prim. Church, 402, 403. 70 PURITANISM ton, Bedfordshire, but was ordained by Bishop Brownrigg, the ejected bishop of Exeter ; and in 1659,* being then twenty-four years of age, he pub- lished his Irenicum, or A Weapon Salve for the Church's Wounds, etc. etc. The design of this work has been variously represented. HIS OWN ACCOUNT OF ITS DESIGN. The Puritans seem to have regarded it as a sort of apology for their principles,*]* but the au- thor himself some twenty years after, gives a very different account of the matter. In an Epistle Dedicatory, to an ordination sermon preached at St. Paul's, dated March 15, 1685, under the assumed name of "P. D.," he says it was written with the design of promoting the cause of the Church of England, and declares, in the most emphatic terms, that there is nothing in the book, which, when fairly and honestly interpreted, can serve the cause of faction or schism. He also says, " I believe there are many things in it which, if Dr. Stillingfleet were to write now, he would not have said, for there are some which show his youth and want of due consideration, and ethers which he * Neal, IV. 350, with his usual inaccuracy, says " 1661," but the life of Stillingfleet prefixed to the folio edition of his works, 1707, says, « 1659." t Neal, IV. 353. NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 71 yielded too far, in hopes of gaining the dissenting parties to the Church."* HIS MATUEER JUDGMENT. In that discourse he says : " There is as great reason to believe the apostolical succession [in the line of Bishops,] to be of divine institution, as the Canon of Scripture, or the observation of the Lord's Day."f But this youthful book, thus publicly re- canted by the maturer judgment of manhood, is our author's favorite witness. The usual answer to this is, that when Stillingfleet was made a bishop, he changed his mind. But this, beside being un- worthy of the man, is untrue, as he was not elected bishop until 1689. OUR AUTHOR'S MISREPRESENTATION OF HIM. But leaving these circumstances out of considera- tion, we proceed to consider so much of the evidence as is at all pertinent to the point at issue. Mr. Hall represents Stillingfleet as saying, that several di- * Life, I. 3. Stillingfleet had said two years before, (1683,) in the preface to this his Unreasonableness of Separation, " If any thing in the following treatise be found different from that book, [Irenicum,] I entreat them to allow me that, which I heartily wish to them, that in twenty years time, we may arrive to such maturity of thoughts, as to see reason to change our opinion of some things, and I wish I had not cause to add, of some persons." t See Bow. Lett. I. 241. 72 PURITANISM vines were called together by the King's " special order ; " that certain questions were propounded to all, in answer to which, each gave his opinion in writing, and that " when all was agreed upon, the result was recorded in Cranmer's own hand" (pp. 46, 47.) He tells us however, that he can give us only a part, and refers " those who would see it in its whole extent, to Stiliingfleet's Irenicum, where it is to be found." (p. 47.) Now the whole of this descrip- tion betrays an ignorance of the facts, which can only be accounted for, by supposing our author had nev- er seen the Irenicum, but quoted second-hand, from some untrust- worthy authority. For, first, Stilling- fleet does not profess to give the conclusions which had been "agreed upon," but only Crammer's own answers, except to a single question, of which our author has taken no notice. And second, he does not pretend to give the " whole extent" even of Cran- mer's answers, but only a part of the answers to a single set of questions. And third, what is given as the answer to the fourteenth question, was the answer to the thirteenth. * The substance of these answers, is, that Bishops and Priests were original- ly the same — that they might be made by each oth- er, or the people, or by the sovereign — that no con- secration was necessary, election or appointing be- ing sufficient. But this was the solitary opinion of * Irenicum, in Works, fol. 1707. II. 397—400. NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 73 Cranmer, who in his early life had some singular notions ; in this respect, not a single Bishop or Doctor agreeing with him. But had they all agreed with him, it would have proved nothing concerning the judgment of the Church, as it all took place be- fore the Ordinal was published, even according to the account of the Irenicum. STILLINGFLEET 5 S OWN MISTAKES. But there is another circumstance connected with these papers, which goes to show "the youth and want of due consideration" of the author. When the History of the Reformation came to be carefully investigated by Burnett, he found that the manu- script which Stillingfleet used, and which is without date, belonged not to the reign of Edward VI. as he supposed, but to that of Henry VIII. ; that its true date was 1540, and not 1549 ; that it was the opin- ion of these men as Romanists, and not as Reform- ers ; that it was one of the papers on which the Erudition of a Christian Man was based.* And it is * Comp. Iren. (Works Still.) II. 397—400. Burn. Hist. Ref. Vol. I. Part i. p. 373. Part ii. p. 256. Col. No. 21. Vol. II. Part i. pp. 61, 62, 81. Part ii. p. 141. No. 16, p. 160. No. 25. The author of The Puritans and their Principles will now be able to understand why the author of the Primitive Church said that the Erudition of a Christian Man, published in 1540, was the last public document of the Reformers which taught the original parity of Bishops and Presbyters. 74 PURITANISM a fact worthy of notice, that in four years after the publication of the first volume of the History of the Reformation in 1679, Stillingfleet publicly recanted the opinions expressed in the Irenicum. All the evidence quoted by our author from the Irenicum, or given in the Irenicum itself, is that of a few soli- tary individuals, not among the list of Reformers, against the solemn decision, and uniform practice of the Church, and can weigh nothing in determin- ing their opinions and judgment. A MISTAKE OF BURNETT. But even Burnett's account of this matter does not do Cranmer foil justice. The answers which Cranmer gave in, first, contained the singular opinions already mentioned. But at some period during the discussion, Cranmer was led to change his opinion, and to subscribe the answers of Dr. Leighton, to the eleventh and twelfth questions, in which it is asserted, that Bishops might make Priests, though they ought not to do it without the King's li- cence, if a Christian country ; that they knew of no example, nor any authority of Scripture for any other course, and that consecration by the imposi- tion of hands was required by the example of the Apostles.* Cranmer's subscriptions to these an- swers, were inadvertently omitted by Burnett in * Bur. vol. I. par. ii. ; Rec. No. 21; Durell's Vind. I. 289 in Chand. Appeal Defended, 27. NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 75 printing this paper, a fact which entirely changes the complexion of affairs in regard to Cranmer's opinion. POINTS OF AGREEMENT WITH THE REFORMERS. But our author is not content with charging us with having departed from the principles of the En- glish Reformers, he goes on to say that the Reforma- tion was not carried far enough in England ; not so far, even, as the Reformers themselves w r ould have carried it, had they been permitted. Puritanism, of course, is the carrying out of that Reformation. Some of these points have been considered already. We have already seen, that the Reformers, Conti- nental as well as English, agreed in regard to the nature of the Church and its office, the nature, au- thority, and character of the ministry, though not as to its orders, — baptismal regeneration, the real pres- ence, the authority of the Bible and tradition, though most of their descendants have, until recently, depart- ed from them all. Consequently the great question with our author is, whether the ministry should be perpetuated in three orders, or in one order. The Church of England decided in favor of three, and re- tained the Apostolical succession. The Church in Sweden did the same. The Church in Denmark retained the three orders, but has probably lost the succession. In Germany, Switzerland, France, and 76 PURITANISM Holland, one order only has been retained. The question has been so often, and so thoroughly dis- cussed of late, in regard to the ministry, that Ave shall not enter at all into the argument at present. Those who wish to examine it, will find books ready at hand, adapted to all their wants. DISAGREEMENT OF CONTINENTAL REFORMERS. In regard to other doctrines, our author should have told us, who he would have had us follow; which of the Continental Reformers, he would have had the Church of England taken for its standard : — whether we should assert the ubiquity of Christ's glorified body, with Luther,* or deny it with Calvin ;f whether we should hold that the elements in the Eu- charist contain, and thus convey the Body and Blood of Christ, with Luther, ^ or that they represent, but do not convey them, with Calvin, § or, that to the faithful, they convey^ without containing them, with Melancthon, and Bucer, and Peter Martyn ; || * Muensch. Dog. Hist. Per. III. par. ii. § 202. t Inst. IV. xvii. 30. X Muensch. lb. 198. § Muensch. lb. 198. || Mosheim says Melancthon " agreed with Luther in re- gard to the Lord's Supper, though he says he wished to use ambiguous terms and phrases in regard to it." III. 165. But Bucer, son-in-law of Melancthon, affirms the contrary* Bayle IV. 190. The doctrine of the Lutherans seemed to Bucer to attribute too much [corporeal] reality to the presence XOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 77 whether we should hold to unconditional election, with Calvin, * or deny it with Luther ; f whether we should hold to universal redemption, with Luther, J or deny it with Calvin ; § whether we should pro- fess our faith in " one holy Catholic Church," with Calvin: || or, in "one Christian Church,"1T with Lu- ther ; or whether in the various points of difference, we should reject both, and follow the teachings of Zuingle.** of Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, he could not digest the consequence of it ; but he thought also, that the opinion of Zuingle was too narrow, and did not come up to the ideas which the Scriptures and ancient tradition imprint on our minds." Bayle II. 177. Bucer also, as well as his master, Melancthon, was charged by the Calvin- ists of employing " ambiguous and obscure phrases in regard to it." J. Simber, cited by Hetta— Bayle II. 177. " Peter Martyn, conformed himself for some time to Bucer's lan- guage," and while " in England was exhorted [by Calvin] to speak more fully and clearly concerning the Eucharist." — Bayle II. 178. These men were for taking ground, interme- diate between the Lutherans and Calvinists, and hence nei- ther party could understand them. * Inst. III. xxi. § 5, 7. xxv. 12, 14. t Moeh. III. 212. X Angs. Conf. Art. III. § Inst. III. xxi — xxv. || Inst. IV. i. 2. IT .Short Cat. Sec. II. Ans. 3. " Eine heilige Christliche Kirche." This is adopted even in Sweden. Wingard, 143. ** One cannot avoid smiling at the manner in which the 78 PURITANISM LUTHERAN RITES AND CEREMONIES. But his remarks on this point, seem to refer rather to rites and ceremonies than to doctrines, for he says that the English Reformers " were by no means of the opinion of some at the present day, that all was done, which a regard for purity in worship demanded." (p. 54.) Perhaps he would have these things conformed to the Lutheran pattern, and would have us restore the high altar, and wear the embroidered surplice, burn lights upon the altar in the communion, use the wafer in its administration,* make the sign of the cross in consecrating the el- ements, as well as in baptism, have the cross on the outside, and in the inside of the Churches, the cru- cifix on the altar, chant the Liturgy, pray with the back to the people, and bow at the name of Jesus, whenever it occurs ; practices which prevail to a greater or less degree in all the Lutheran Churches to the present day. j* names of such " Reformers as Luther, Calvin, and Zuingle" are associated by the New Englander, II. 232, as though they all taught the same doctrine. * This was done in Geneva for a long time — Mas. Vind. by Linds. 505. It was abolished in 1623. Spon. Hist. Gen. 373. in Bayle III. 343. t Hoppu's Sketches, 74, 118. Jarvis' No Union with Rome, 13, 21. Pusey Germ. Theol. II. 402. NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 79 OBJECTIONS TO THE ENGLISH REFORMATION (1.) THE WORK OF THE STATE. But the greatest objection of all, against the Eng- lish Reformation, seems to be, that it was the work of the " State and not the Church." (pp. 54—62.) The articles he confesses w T ere " such as the Reform- ers would have them," (p. 58,) but the " Liturgy" and " offices" were the work of " the State," (pp. 58, 62,) and only " so left by the Reformers for the present, w r ith the hope of further amendment when the time would allow it." (p. 58.) These objections, in the mouth of a Romanist, might have some sem- blance of intelligent sincerity ; but in an avowed champion of the Reformation, they sound strangely enough ; for, if the English Reformation is to be censured, because the State took an active part therein, the German and Swiss must also be placed under the ban. Luther gave himself very little concern with any thing but doctrine, and it was not until the accession of John of Saxony, 1525, that any decided measures were taken to organize a dis- tinct Church. A confession of faith was drawn up by Luther and Melancthon, at the request of the Prince, and presented to the Diet at Augsburgh, 1530, by the Prince and Duke of Saxony, the Earl of Bradenburg, the Duke of Lunenburg, the Land- grave of Hesse, the Prince of Anhalt, the Senates of Nuremburgh, and Reutlingen, — together with a 80 PURITANISM list of " the corruptions of the Catholic Church, corrected by the Reformers. "* The same interposi- tion of the civil authorities was also practiced in Geneva,f Denmark, and Sweden.:): GRADUAL IN ITS CHARACTER ; DIFFERENCE OF THE ENGLISH AND CONTINENTAL. Another fact which our author appears to con- sider a serious objection to the English Reformation was the gradual and cautious manner in which it was conducted. And here it must be confessed, that the English and Continental Reformations were con- ducted on totally different principles. The English Reformation was characterized at every step, by the deliberation and inquiry, which should precede any change. It was the gradual dawn of the morning light upon those who had long been groping in dark- ness, but were anxiously looking out for the coming day. It was the result of prayerful study, and careful research. Nothing was conceded to passion — nothing left to chance — nothing rejected that could claim the sanction of the Bible and primitive antiquity — no- thing retained but what might; and nothing done, but * See App. to Am. Ed. of Burnett, on XXIX Articles, N. Y. 1842, or Schmucker's « Elements of Popular Theol." &c. And. 1843. But the work of Dr. S. does not contain the entire confession. t Beza's Life of Calvin. t Mosheim, B. IV. Cent. XVI. § 1, v. 4. NOT GENUINE TROTESTANTISM. 81 as the laws of the Church Catholic directed.* On the contrary, Luther was the creature of circum- stances. He believed that he was fighting the Lord's battles, and he left the whole direction of external matters to the hand of an overruling Provi- dence. Deeming himself the mere instrument of a higher power, he took no precaution to prevent the evils that might result from his own indiscreet or misguided actions. f Consequently his views were * Prim. Church, 401, and Bar. I. 372. Ogilby's Lec- tures on the Church, 133—208. t No one can read Scott's Life of Luther, but especially D'Aubigne's History of the Reformation, without feeling this fact in regard to Luther, continually. Having alluded to the history of D'Aubigne, it seems to be incumbent on us to mention certain circumstances relative to that work, which materially detract from its authority. We say nothing of the fact, that being a strict Calvinist, the author could hardly be expected to enter fully into the views and feelings of Luther ; but we allude to the doubtfulness of the claim set up in the preface of the book, to originality. The au- thor says: " this history has been drawn from original sour- ces, with which a long residence in Germany, the Low Coun; tries and Switzerland, has made me familiar. Down to this time we possess no history of that remarkable period." The impression which this language will naturally convey to eve- ry reader is entirely erroneous ; for it could only be true of the French, (if of them.) that they had no such history; and by " original sources," he can mean no more than German histories, for a learned German tells us that it is, " in its main parts, a skillful working up of German material, especially 82 rUKiTAXistt always more or less one-sided. Taking his stand " in the element cf God's unwritten word, and ani- mated by the one all regulating principle of justifi- cation, he uttered his judgment against certain parts of the Canon [of Scripture, the Epi<=tle of St. James, and that to the Hebrews,] because they seemed to him to be in conflict with that [unwritten] word," — " not being able to find in them, his cardinal truth, justifi- cation by faith only."* That one idea was the all in all with him, and had it not been for the interven- tion of the State, and the labors of his friends, Lu- theranism would either have had no being at all, or have presented a very different character and aspect, from what it has hitherto done. It was the same one-sided view of things that, led Luther to say : " could I, with the writings of Moses, the Psalms, Isaiah, have also the same Spi- rit* I could then make a New Testament as well as the Apostles who wrote it. 5 'y It was the same view which led him, in his controvei h the Papacy, to rest every thing in the Christian ministry upon the History of the Reformation, by Marheinecke, "which still remains superior to it in the estimation of all competent judges." Schaf.. 166. And Dr. S. adds, "We have been really surprised to see how Dr. Merle [D'Aubigne] allows himself to plunder German authors ;" which charge lie sus- *%TDS by other proofs. Schaf. 55. Pusey, II. 67, on authority of Bretschneider. NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 83 " internal ordination," a doctrine which, later in life, ho abandoned.* Hence, also, the seeming inconsistencies in his life and writings. One point was pushed to the ex- treme, regardless of its bearing upon another, until he found his own arguments turned against himself, by those who wished to pull down what he was building up.f And the history and character of the two Churches, have been as different as the means of their Reformation were dissimilar. DEVELOPMENT OF RITUAL. And here it is proper to mention another distin- guishing feature of the English Reformation. We mean the care taken in developing the ritual as well as in settling the doctrinal of religion. All the Re- formers agreed, in making doctrine the basis of their system.:): But while Luther left the ritual to devel- ope itself, as circumstances might call it forth, the English Reformers acted upon the principle that it should be developed by the Church, as well as in the Church. Hence, the ritual was labored with the same care as the doctrinal, and the result was, a sys- tem that has no equal for its purity of doctrine and * Authorities quoted in Moeh. Synb. 392, 393. t This was especially true in regard to the Church and the ministry. X Views Gospel Truth, 91—97. 84 PURITANISM propriety of worship ; a system that has endeared it- self to all her children, by its adaptation to the wants of their spiritual nature, and commanded the homage of the good and the great, of every name and nation, for its simplicity, propriety, and beauty. And it is no doubt owing, under God, to this close correspon- dence of principle and development — of doctrine and ritual — that both have been preserved in so much in- tegrity and purity, while the other reformed bodies have so sadly departed from one or both.* The English Reformers agreed, therefore, with the Continental, in regarding the doctrinal of reli- gion as the basis of their system — in asserting man's utter inability, since the fall, to do any thing by which to prepare himself for repentance and faith ; and the necessity, therefore, of his " gratuitous justification for Christ's sake, through faith,"f in making the Bible the only sure fountain and certain measure of divine truth, in receiving that sense of it, which had been apprehended and settled by the Church, and in regard to the character of the Church, the divine ap- * The Church in Sweden must be excepted from this re- mark, which, though strictly Lutheran in doctrine, is Episco- pal both in form and fact ; and which has suffered no serious inroad from the Rationalism of her German neighbors. Abp. Wingard's Church of Christ, 205. Denmark, which is Epis- copal in form but not in fact, has been very deeply imbued with Rationalistic principles. Wing. 196. t This is the language of the Augsburg Confession. Art. 4. NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 85 pointment of the ministry, the nature and design of the Sacraments. But they differed from the Conti nental, iu regard to the manner in which the conse- quences of the fall were effected — as to the manner and consequence of man's renewal — as to the orders by which the ministry should be perpetuated — as to the connection between the doctrinal and ritual o religion, and the importance of the proper develop- ment of the same. The English Reformation also differed from the Continental, in the means by which it was effected? and the manner of its accomplish- ment,* and consequently has been widely different from the others, both in its character and results. ITS CANONICAL CHARACTER. There is another circumstance connected with the English Reformation, which our author affects to treat with contempt, but which, nevertheless, is de- serving of careful consideration. The author of the. " Primitive Church," had attempted to show, (c. 29,) that the English Reformation was Canonical, inas- much as no change was made, either in doctrine or discipline, without the consent of clergy and laity, according to the requirements of the law of the Church Catholic, while the retrogression made by Mary, was uncanonical, being done in violation of those Canons. But, without any attempt at disprov- * Sweden is an exception ; Denmark partially so. 86 PURITANISM ing the facts or principles there stated, our author sneers at the idea of a Canonical Reformation under Edward and Elizabeth, and in the same breath as- serts, that " Mary too, made a Canonical Reforma- tion, when she carried the Reformation back to Rome." (pp. 272 — 274.) The most favorable con- struction which charity can put upon this conduct, is, to suppose him ignorant of the meaning of the word " Canonical," as used by historians and Canonists. But however much Puritanism may affect to despise this feature of the English Reformation, no man can disregard it, who enters into the views of the Re- formers themselves, Continental as well as English, in regard to the Church. No right-minded man will be willing, for any slight cause, to break away from the life of the Church, and cast himself, a lone and withered branch , upon the bleak and barren hills of sin and death. And no man who understands the history of the Church, will think lightly of a " Canonical Reformation." PURITANISM HAS CHANGED, NOT WE. This brief survey of the Reformation, is sufficient to demonstrate that on all the points upon which we are charged with having departed from the faith of the Reformers, it is Puritanism that has changed, and not we ; that all those points of doctrine which were held in common at that time, are held by us NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 87 now, and that the discipline of which our author complains, is, by his own confession, a faithful and honest carrying out of the principles which the Re- formers established.* On the other hand, it is no less evident, that while Puritanism has retained substantially the same form of discipline as that es- tablished by the Genevan Reformers, it has departed from the doctrines of the Reformation, until it has scarcely a point in common with the Protestantism of the Reformers themselves. Under these circum- stances, no one can hesitate to say, that Puritanism is not geunine Protestantism. BOASTS OF HAVING CHANGED. Indeed in the same breath in which Puritanism charges us with having departed from the principles * We do not say, the " principles of the Reformers/'' but, " the principles which the Reformers established ;" for, our author holds that the public documents set forth by those men, with the single exception of the XXXIX Ar- ticles, do not express their sentiments, nor set forth their principles. Our author's account of the origin of our Prayer- Book, is a real curiosity. He tells us, that "the offices of the Prayer-Book, (p. 58,) all but the Articles, were "framed from the old Mass books," (p. 60,) by " the State, and not the Church," (p. 62,) for the express purpose of " keeping Papists in the Church," (pp. 58, 78.) Hence he says, " its origin was neither divine nor ecclesiastical," (p. 62 ;) and he adopts the language of another, who said, " It was but an ill-mumbled mass," (p. 58.) Any other feeling than that of pity towards such a man, is impossible. 88 PURITANISM of the Reformers, it boasts of doing the same thing itself. Thus our author, speaking of Wickliffe, says ; "With the Bible in his hand, and taking that alone for his guide, he advanced further into the field of Apostolic truth and order, than Luther and his im- mediate coadjutors. He reached hold on results, which after a lapse of centuries, and after an age of suffering and research, the Providence of God un- folded once more to the eyes of the Puritans." (p. 29.) And the New Englander, the avowed and ac- knowledged organ of the latest form of New Cal- vanistic Puritanism, said in 1844 : " Notwithstand- ing their [the Reformers'] wisdom and piety and zeal, there was some serious defects in their man- ner of conducting the controversy of their age We can conduct the Reformation of our times to an issue more glorious and enduring than was even anticipated by the Reformers of the sixteenth cen- tury. ' ? * With two years more of development and it says : " The great battle for religious liberty is yet to be fought. The idea of religious liberty — which is yet to be the great idea of our age — has yet been but slowly developed. The Reformers did not possess it. Even the Puritans did not fully grasp it, if we except him who does not need a statue, because he would not wear a crown ; whose truest, New Eng. II. 232. NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 89 noblest title is the Man, — Oliver Cromwell."* And yet for us to doubt the perfection of that work, * New Eng. IV. 418. This application of that name to Cromwell, which has been applied to Christ alone, and which is true of him alone, is in good keeping with our author's appropriation of the epithet of " the Great Repub- lican" applied to our Lord by the infidel De La Mennais. If tliis be not the spirit of Rationalism, it is the spirit of infi- delity. The history of Puritanism it is not now our present pur- pose to consider ; but we cannot forbear an apt quotation from a learned and impartial writer — neither Puritan nor Churchman ; we quote from a Discourse delivered before the Historical Society of Philadelphia, Feb. 21, 1842, by Job R. Tyson, Esq., one of the Vice-Presidents. He says, — " Cromwell, who, with many points of greatness, was an usurper and a tyrant — not satisfied with an untin- selled Protectorate, sighed for the pomp and glitter of a regal sceptre Subsequent events prove, that the voice of the people was as effectually drowned by the din of arms, when Cromwell rose to the supreme power, as that of justice had been stopped, in the solemn mockery of the monarch's trial." — p. 17. We add another extract, from a stanch Puritan, relating to the same period- — the late Noah Webster, Esq., LL.D # " To be a tyrant with any tolerable degree of safety, a man must be possessed of the confidence of the people. Charles I. of England, extended the royal prerogative to an unwarrant- able length — and lost his head ; but that prince could not have sent a detachment of three hundred men, to drive the Commons of England from their hall, and have effected his purpose. That act of despotism was reserved for the repub- 5* 90 PURITANISM is to abandon all truth, to become semi-papists at once. Proh pudor ! our author's view of antiquity. (1.) Iren^us. After the specimens we have had, of our author's intelligence and candor, it can hardly be necessary for us to add more. But as he has attempted to dis- cuss the question of the Church on the ground of antiquity, it seems to be proper to examine his qualifications for the task, as exhibited in the work before us. His first attempt is on p. 275, where this passage occurs, as his first quotation from the Fathers of the " second and third centuries ;" given to show how far they had departed already from his draught of the Apostolic model. " Thus Irenaeus says, 8 Wheresoever the Bishop shall appear, there also let the people be.'" There is no reference to the place where this language occurs, and we can find no such passage in Irenaeus ; though there is just such a passage in the Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrneans, c. 8. Again on the same page, we find his second quotation reading thus : — " The same Father says, ' See that ye follow your Bishop, even as God the Father ! ' " Nor is there any refer- ence to the place where this occurs, nor can we find any such passage as this in Irenaeus ; though there lican Cromwell — the friend of the people /" — Orat. 4th July, 1802, p. 23. NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 91 is one in Ignatius which seems to have been the original. It occurs in the Epistle to the Ephesians, (c. 6.) out of which it was manufactured, and reads thus : " See that ye follow your Bishop, as Jesus Christ the Father." The original, there- fore, is an exhortation to follow the Bishop as Christ followed the Father, not to follow the Bishop as though he were God. Then follow two genuine quotations from Ignatius, properly ascribed to him, placed there apparently with the supposition that Irenseus preceded Ignatius. And this is ren- dered probable, by the fact, that on p. 339, he says that Ignatius " comes too late by a whole hun- dred years" to testify of the primitive Church. We could hardly conceive of a writer of Mr. Hall's apparent reading, so ignorant as not to know that Ignatius was the disciple of St. John, that he was for many years cotemporary with him, and died only seven years after that Apostle. Nor can we imagine how he came to put the language of Ignatius into the mouth of Irenssus, nor how he could make such an egregious blunder, as to enthrone the Bishop in the place of God ; unless he has been led into the error by quoting second hand, from untrustworthy sources. Indeed, it must be perfectly evident, to every one, at all conversant with the Fathers, that our author has no personal acquaintance with the writings of the primitive Christians. 92 PURITANISM (2.) CLEMENT OF ROME. Another example of his acquaintance with the Fathers occurs on p. 334. When speaking of Clement of Rome, he says, in his Epistle to the Corinthians "he uses the words Pastors and Bishops repeatedly, and throughout as synonymous." What he means by "repeatedly," we know not, as we recollect no instance where the word "Pastor" occurs in the Epistle ; and the word Episcopus, (Bishop^) is found only three times, and that in a single sentence. In one instance it cannot signify "Bishop" in the official sense, and we have shown in another place, that there is no probability he intended to use it so in the other two cases.* He then proceeds to quote the address of the Epistle, and follows it by the forty -second chapter, as though it were the beginning of the Epistle. He also tells us that Clement " uses the words Bishop and Pres- byter as synonymous," (p. 325,) but he has offered no proof of the assertion, and we know of none that could be offered.*)* * Prim. Church. 226. t On pp. 336, 337, our author charges upon Perceval, in his work on the Apostolical Succession, with " barefaced trickery," — with a " piece of arrant fraud," — -for quot'ng a passage from Clement of Rome, in which he speaks of the High Priest, the Priest, and the Levites, as indicating that NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 93 Our author supposes that the work of Clement is of paramount authority among the Fathers, because ; there were then three orders in the Christian ministry ; and very charitably imagines that the author of the " Primitive Church " has " stumbled into this ditch dug by Perceval ;" for he " cannot for one moment suppose, that he knowingly concurs in so gross a piece of deception." But our author is too charitable in this respect, as he is unjust in charging the Primitive Church with omitting certain testimony of Clement. He can hardly be ignorant of what Beveridge said as early as A. D. 1690, (Cod. Can. II. xi. 9.) inasmuch as he tells us that he has " searched very extensively into the standard writings of Prelacy," (p. 285.) After two quotations, in which he (Beveridge) thinks a distinction is clearly made between the "Propositus and Presbyters," he says: " In another place he intimates that the same three distinct Grders of the sacred ministry are established in the Christian Church, equally with the Jewish." Then quoting the passage in question, he goes on to say: "Who can doubt, that before these words were written, the distinction of orders in the ministry had been as certainly established in the Christian ministry, as in the Jewish." Nor ought he to be ignorant that the Rev. Dr. Learning quotes the same passage, in the same way, for the same purpose as Perceval, in a work published in 1766, (Defence of Episcopacy ;) or, that the same sense has been given to it, from that day to this. That there are some difficulties attending the language of Clement, is granted : but we cannot admit the Presby- terian construction of his language ; because, (1.) it sup- poses him to be guilty of the absurdity of talking to the Gentile converts, as though they were Jews ; (2.) because it makes him guilty of misinterpreting Scripture, when nothing 94 PURITANISM " it is not two centuries since it was dug up from the dust, after having been lost and unknown for a thousand years ;"* for he supposes " that oblivion was its protection from the mutilations, the changes, and interpolations, which were inextricably mingled is to be gained by it ; and (3.) it makes him speak of things past, in the present time. The hypothesis of the Primitive Church makes Clement consistent with himself, and intelli- gible to others — which no other has been able to do. But, as our author rejects the interpretation of the Primi- tive Church, we wish to inquire whether he believes Clement understood Is. lx. 17, to which he refers, as describing the names of offices in the Christian Church ? If so, will he tell us why Clement did not quote the passage as it reads — not substituting Episcopous, and diacouous, for archontas, and Episcopos ? According to our interpretation, Clement merely referred to the passage, as proof of a principle, and gave the sense, without regard to the words. According to the Presbyterian interpretation, Clement first mis-quoted the passage, and then mis-interpreted it. Is this representation of Clement's proceeding, to be regarded as a specimen of Puritan exegesis ; for it is only by this double perversion, that he can be made a Puritan authority ? * An accurate man would not have spoken as Mr. Hall has done. The Epistle of Clement was certainly known to Photious, as late as 850, and was published at Oxford in 1633. The two dates, it will be seen, are not more than " a thousand years " apart, while the last was more than "two hundred years ago." There are no terms which a Christian gentleman may use, descriptive of our author's mode of treating primitive antiquity, especially on pp. 253 —256. NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 95 up with such works as monks and priests were able to lay their hands upon," (p. 253.) One would natu- rally expect from this account of the matter, that the Bible, which was in the keeping of the " monks and priests," and who were almost its sole copyists, would be the most corrupt of all. But whatever this argu- ment proves for the Epistle of Clement, it proves just the same for the shorter Epistles of Ignatius, which were for a long time in the same predicament. (3.) JUSTIN MARTYR, POLYCARP, IGNATIUS. Again, it would be a hopeless task for any one to attempt to find the language attributed to Justin Martyr, on p. 338, and none but those familiar with the writings of that Father could guess what was the original of which the statement was manufac- tured. His remarks on Polycarp,* (p. 338,) and Irenseus, (pp. 343, 344,) are the old Presbyterian * The assertion which our author makes upon the probable supervision of Polycarp, over the Church at Philippi, (p 338,) is more than uncandid. He says, the author of the Primitive Church " conjectures" that the Bishop of Philippi is dead ; and " conjectures" that " Polycarp had been invited to take the provisional oversight over them, though no history shows it, and Polycarp does not intimate any such thing." Yet the whole argument of the Primitive Church actually turns upon Polycarp's own language. Whatever Mr. Hall might think of the strength of the argument, he could not fairly and honestly use the language he has, 96 PURITANISM argument, reasserted as though it was entirely new with him, and without any notice of its repeated re- futation. His view of the testimony of Ignatius, (p. 343,) by which he makes the Presbyters, suc- cessors of the Apostles, will be as new to most of his readers, as it would have been to Ignatius himself;* * The representation of our author in regard to the mode suggested in the Primitive Church, for ascertaining the true text of Ignatius, (p. 340,) is as uncandid as it is unscholarlike. The suggestion was not the hypothesis of the author of the Primitive Church, but of a German historian, not even of the orthodox school ; and what is there given, is not the conjectural, but the " certain text." But it was as far as possible from our author's representation of it. The idea of collating " interpolated and altered copies with forged ones," for the purpose of ascertaining the genuine text of an author, is worthy only of its real paternity, and must be classed among the " Curiosities of Literature." The alleged " ana- chronisms and absurdities" contained in those Epistles, we confess ourselves unable to discover. We have read them carefully — weighed every word and syllable contained in them — and the internal evidence alone would leave no doubt on our mind, that they must have been written by a person situated as Ignatius was, and that they could not have been written at any later age than the second century. Who those " deeply learned " persons are, of whom our author speaks, that " do not hesitate to pronounce them for- geries," he does not tell us ; and Coleman, who appears to be his authority, mentions but one man, and that man is an Unitarian. Of those who have rejected these Epistles, we know of no one who was not in reality a Socinian, or an opponent of Episcopal government. In conclusion, we com- NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 97 as new as it was to us to hear that St. James the Greater was ever supposed to be Bishop of Jerusa- lem, as our author informs us, p. 314.* (4.) CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. The representation given of the testimony of Cle- ment of Alexandria, (p. 344,) may also be classed among the " Curiosities of Literature." Clement, in speaking of the true Gnostic, or model Christian, says : "There are two kinds of servicef paid to men ; one emendatory, as the medicaj art to the body, — philosophy, to the soul ; the other minis- terial, as that paid by children to parents, and sub- jects to rulers. In like manner, in the Church, the mend to our author's attention, the following opinion of Leslie : " It is impossible for any, not prejudiced against all convic- tion, to read the Epistles of St. Ignatius, and to doubt any longer that Episcopacy was the government of the Church at that time." — (Letter to Parker, inserted in the Preface of his translation of Euseb. Ecc. Hist. 4to. Lond. 1729.) * A slight acquaintance with the history of the Church, would have shown our author, that though St. James the Greater was not himself Bishop of Jerusalem, he was one of the consecrators of James the Just, being assisted by St. Peter and St. John. — (Euseb. Ecc. Hist. ii. 1. 23. Prim. Church, 185, 277.) t The Greek word is 6s/>at^s;st, which may signify the act of serving, worshipping, or healing. See Kay's Clem. Alex. 205. 98 PURITANISM Presbyters perform the emendatory, the Deacons the ministerial office. The angels minister in both capacities to God in the dispensation connected with earthly things ; and the Gnostic does the same, ministering to God, and exhibiting to men an emendatory contemplation."* Oar author renders therapeia, by " orders in the ministry," cuts off the beginning and omits the end of the passage, and renders the remainder thus : "just so in the Church, the Presbyters are entrusted with the dignified min- istry, the Deacons with the subordinate, "f And hence he infers that there were but " two orders in the ministry," notwithstanding Clement had said in the preceding book : "For the degree (7rpaK07rai, literally progressions,) in the Church, of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons are imitations of the angelic glory, and the economy of their dispensations."^: And this is all the evidence he could find to sustain the assertion that " Clement repeatedly shows that as yet there are properly but two orders in the min- istry." (p. 344.) One can hardly help smiling at his rendering of Prokatliedria^ in this connection, — the "first seat in the Presbytery," and in truth, our author himself seems to be ashamed of it, for he * Strom, vii. 700, 701, and Kay's Clem. Alex. 205. t We imagine this blunder is not original with our author, as the language seems to be copied from another writer on the same subject, without credit. X Strom, vi. 667. 6 Protokathedrial Strom, vii. 667. NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 99 credits it to Coleman, from whom he copied what precedes, without credit. (5.) JEWELL AND STILLINGFLEE T. Again, the passages quoted from Jewell and Stil- lingfleet, (pp. 381, 382,) display the same want of acquaintance with the history and Fathers of the Church. Our author quotes a passage from Jewell, in which the argument turns upon the authority of a book now acknowledged on all hands to be a forgery, without seeming to be aware of the facts, and another from Stillingfleet's Irenicum, which shows " the youth and want of due consideration," of the author, being a total misapprehension of the sense of a passage in book third, chapter four, of Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History. These examples must suffice to show our author's qualifications for discussing any question touching the early Church, and the dependence to be placed upon his conclu- sions. Indeed, it has never fallen to our lot, to pe- ruse a work making so much display of proof, which had so little that was pertinent to the real points at issue, or, that, while making great pretensions to accuracy, manifested such a glaring want of ac- quaintance with original sources. OUR AUTHOR'S VIEWS OF SCRIPTURE. (1.) SCHISM. But though our author neither understands the prin- ciples of the Reformers, nor the history of the early 100 PURITANISM Church, it may he supposed that he will be at home in the Bible, since the Bible alone is his professed stand- ard. A few examples will enable us to see. One of his earliest attempts at exegesis, is found in his view of the Scriptural doctrine of schism. With him, schism is a not " splitting, rendering, and dividing " of the body of Christ, according to the original meaning and ordinary use of the word ; but " internal dissen- sion, within the bosom of the same Church." (p. 279) " Dissension," according to our author's interpreta- tion, is schism, but not disunion and separation. " Breaking away from the customs or rule of the Catholic Church," is not schism. Refusing " con- formity to a National Church," is not schism. " De- parting from the authority of a Diocesan Bishop," is not schism, (p. 270.) But sharp and earnest discus- sion of doctrine, such as we have in the Episcopal Church, is schism, because it does not produce di- vision, (p. 280.)* * Our author quotes (p. 271,) what he is pleased to call " a remarkable concession," from a letter of the present au- thor to a parishioner, on the subject of joining in " Sectarian Worship." And yet he cannot think it a " concession." He ought to know that it is a principle with Churchmen, and hence they do not hesitate to avow the belief, that " if we have no more Scripture warrant than other denominations, we are guilty of schism." This was claimed by the early Congregationalists, and conceded by the early Churchmen of Connecticut, as one may see by looking into the contro- versies of that period. NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 101 (2.) THE INCESTUOUS CORINTHIAN. Again, on p. 297, speaking of the case of the incestuous Corinthian, he says that St. Paul's deci- sion was not a " sentence," not a judgment, in a "judicial sense," but a mere "laying down the law." But Professor Robinson, among other signi- fications, defines the original word (xpiva,) " to judge, in a judicial sense," and refers to this very passage as one of the places where it has this sense.* (3.) our lord's language at the last supper. Again, on p. 352, he calls the interpretation given to Luke xxii. 29, by the author of the " Primitive Church," (p. 173,) "a monstrous claim," beyond which " the horrid impieties of Popery could go to no greater length of extravagance." He objects that our Lord did not make over to his Apostles, " as by demise or bequest, the kingdom which the Father had appointed or committed to him." And yet that is the meaning given to the original word by Professor Robinson. He objects that they were not to " sit on thrones, as the emblems of power," though Robinson says "as the emblem of regal * Our author's comment on the argument of the Primi- tive Church is pointless, as St. Paul's " sentence" was a judgment passed upon a case of " conceded facts," not of mere suspicion. 102 PURITAXIS3I authority." He objects also that the language does not signify "judging, in a judicial sense ;" though this is the precise language of Robinson, in refer- ence to this very place. And finally he objects that it cannot mean as we suppose, because " there is no transferring of Christ's kingly power, and no allusion to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper contained in it at all." (p. 353.) He then proposes to give " the whole passage," in its connection, begin- ning just at the place where it was requisite to keep out of sight, the most important fact that it was part of the address of our Lord to his Apostles at that sacred Supper, In lieu of this he gives us the meager and lifeless interpretation of the Rationalistic Rosen- muller : and the exalted language of that solemn occasion is degraded to such unmeaning jargon as this : " As my Father hath appointed me a kingdom to be acquired by endurance of adversities : so I appoint you a glory like unto royal majesty, to be acquired in a similar way"* * We might naturally infer, from our author's treatment of Scripture, that his sympathies would be with the Rational- izing theologians of Germany ; but we were not prepared to find him adopting the opinions of so thorough -going a Neologist as Rosenmuller, on such a topic as this. Those who wish to know the character of the doctrinal theology of this commentator, may consult the Biblical Repository , III. 213—215, or Home's Introd. Bib. Ap. IV. Par. ii. c. 4. An estimate of the man's works by a German, may be found NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 103 (4.) ORDINATION OF TIMOTHY. Again, on p. 324, he says " the criticism about meia and dia (juLtrot and hot) [adopted in the Primi- tive Church] is both erroneous and contemptible," and so " thoroughly exposed by Dr. J. M. Mason, that it was forty years ere Episcopacy ventured to revive it again." But it is the language of Profes- sor Robinson, quoted verbatim from his Greek Lex- icon of the New Testament ; a work which we are surprised our author should hold in such light es- teem.* (5.) ANDRONICHUS AND JUNTA. Again, on p. 317, he says that " Junia," men- tioned with Andronicus, Rom. xvi. 7, as one of the Apostles, or of note among the Apostles, " was be- in Hengstenberg on the Authenticity of the Pentateuch, Bib. Rep. XL 425—429 ; XII. 484, 485. The Rev. Dr. Nevins says, in a work which has been received since this Review was put to press, " Who now, of any true theological culture, thinks of taking the Rosenmullers, &c. for his guide in the study of the Scriptures ?" — Mystical Presence, 146. * Professor Robinson also gives the very sense to dia, in Acts ii. 5, 15, 22,23,43; iv. 16; xii. 9, etc.; and to meta. in Acts xiv. 27, (the passages referred to by Dr. Ma- son.) and at which he, and our author after him, sneers so contemptuously. We commend to his attention on this point, Stuart's Grammar of the New Testament Dialect, 104 PURITANISM yond all proper question a woman ;" and quotes Rosenmuller in proof. But Luther and Calvin both read Juntas, and of course considered it the name of a man. So did Hammond, and so do Professors Stuart and Robinson. But Hall tells us that " Chrysostom, Theophylact, and several other Fathers . . . take Junia for a woman." (p. 317.) But he forgot to mention that they changed the name to Julia, before supposing it to be feminine.* (6.) ORDINATION OF TITUS. Another specimen of our author's exegesis and logic, is found in Titus i. 5, " and ordain elders in every city." (p. 321.) In order to show that the word used " in the original has no possible reference to any ceremony or mode of ordination," which no one ever supposed or pretended, he tells his readers, that it is the same word, " as that used in the passage ' by one man's disobedience many were made sinners.'" (Rom. v. 19.) Then follows this piece of Puritan Rationalism. " There is no more §§ 84, 149 ; Buttman's Greek Grammar, § 147 ; and Hist. and Crit. View of Ind. Eur op. Cases. (Quar. Chris. Spec.) IX. 115, 426. It would not be necessary to tell most theo- logians that the primary signification of the words is not the same, nor that no word can signify two different things, when the same subject is viewed under the same aspect. * Wells' Vindication, p. 67, on the authority of Blondel. NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 105 reference to a mystic ceremony of ordination in the case of Titus, than there is of a mystic ordination to make men sinners." This citation of Rom. v. 19, as evidence of our author's own view of Titus I. 5, is a very good illustration of his own remark, (p. 390,) that " pernicious doctrines, like other ra- venous beasts of prey, are not wont to go solitary." He adopts low notions of man's primitive state, low notions of the consequences of the fall, and then follows, necessarily, low notions of the necessity of the ministry, and consequently, of the ministry itself.* These must be sufficient as specimens of our author's treatment of Scripture. But there is one topic connected with the present point of inquiry too important to be passed without notice. Puritanism claims to be in an especial manner the champion of the Bible. Its watchword is, the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible ; and our author has been careful to reiterate it continually, as though fearful that it might be forgotten. And yet on nearly every point of dispute between us, Puritanism does not take the Bible in its plain, literal sense ; it does * Our author's grammar is in good keeping with his logic. Though the word in both passages is a verb from the same root, it is not in the same mood and tense, nor subject to the same construction, nor expressive of the same sense. The parallel passages are Luke xii. 14; Acts vii. 10, 27,35; Heb. vii. 28 ; from which any reader may satisfy himself of the meaning of the word in Tit. i. 5. 106 PURITANISM not allow the Bible to interpret itself.* On the con- trary, it insists upon interpreting the obvious mean- * Our author does not seem to understand what the Re- formers meant by the Bible's being the source and measure of saving truth, nor in what sense they regarded it as the " Rule of Faith," (which, by the way, was not their mode of describing it,) nor how it is to be its own interpreter, as his whole chapter on " The Rule and Judge of Faith," abundantly shows. The motto of the Reformers was, " Scrip- ture, its own interpreter." But how its own interpreter? It could not be so, in any reasonable sense, unless the ex- pression was understood to embrace the religious, the histo- rical, and the grammatical elements. If the Bible is to be understood from itself alone, the reader must possess a mind kindred to its Author — must have a nice discrimination of the language he employed — and be able to transport himself into the writer's stand-point, so as to be able to view things in the same order, connection, and relation, in which the writer viewed them. It was a strong sense of the import- ance of the religious element, that led Luther to say, " Had I as much of the Holy Spirit as St. John, I could write such a Gospel." — (Quoted in Pusey, II. 67.) And a strong sense of the importance of the grammatical element, that led him to say, " The best grammarian is the best theo- logian." — (Titt. Syn. N. T. 3.) It was also a strong sense of the value and importance of the historical element, that led them to appeal to antiquity, and the judgment of the Catholic Church. This appeal was no idle declamation, as may be seen in the works of Melancthon, and his disciple, Chemnitz. When our author comes to understand the views and principles of the Reformers on this subject, he will not accuse us of having departed, from them, NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 107 ing of the language out of it, before it is willing to receive it ; and that upon the very points where our author charges us with "monstrous or inexcusable perversion of the words of Holy Writ," (p, 335,) with " anti- scriptural " and "horrid" impiety (pp. 276, 356,) we follow the plain literal sense of the Bible, which Puritanism rejects. The chief points of difference are the five following. The others are incidental to these. (1.) THE CHURCH. We suppose that the body of Christ, which is the Church spoken of by St. Paul in his Epistles, especially to the Ephesians and Colossians, in which there is " one Lord, one faith, one baptism," to which he gave some Apostles, and some Pro- phets, and some Evangelists, and some Pastors and Teachers, for the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the ministry, [i. e. of reconciliation,] for the edifying of the body of Christ," and for which he " gave himself, that he might sanctify and cleanse it by the washing of water,"* to be the Church to which these very Epistles are addressed, ac- * This " washing of water," we understand literally, and suppose it to refer to baptism. And so Robinson, Gr. Lex. 487, refers it to the same ; and Calvin does the same, Inst. IV. v. 2 ; and Luther also, Larger Catech.; but our author can do no such thing. 108 PURITANISM cording to the plain and obvious meaning of the Apostle's language. But our author says no, that the Apostle meant no such thing, that he was talk- ing of some " invisible Church," (p. 280,) though the Apostle himself has been careful not to intimate any such thing, and seems to have had no know- ledge of any thing of the kind, in the modern Puri- tan sense of the term. (2.) BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. We suppose that when our Saviour said : " Ex- cept a man be born of water and the Spirit, he can- not enter into the kingdom of God," he meant to be understood just as he said, and that he referred to that new birth by water which we receive in baptism,* and we know no right to separate it from the new birth by the Spirit. We also suppose that when St. Paul spoke of " the washing of regenera- tion, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost," he referred to baptism, and that we have no right to separate it from the renewal by the Holy Ghost.*(" * " The Fathers of the Church," says Tholuck, " and after them the interpreters of the Roman and Lutheran Churches, almost universally take v$up here in the sense of Christian Baptism only : and this, in fact, is the sense which most readily offers itself to the reader." — Com. on John hi. 5. tSo Luther understood this passage. — Short Cat. and Calv. Inst. IV. xv< 2. But our author, of course, rejects this view. Tholuck speaks of the " intimate connection in which baptism and regeneration are generally placed in the New NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 109 But Puritanism, as we shall see, regards this as fundamental apostacy. (3.) THE REAL PRESENCE. We suppose that when our Saviour said : " Ex- cept ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you," and when he said of the Holy Eucharist, " This is my body, and this is my blood," that he meant precisely what he said, and that he intended to teach a real presence in the Eucharist, and a real participation of that divine life which dwells in his glorified nature.* But Puri- tanism, as we shall see, can find no words sufficient- ly strong to express its abhorrence of this literal meaning of our Lord's language. Testament— Eph. v. 26 ; 1 Pet. iii. 21 ; Tit. iii. 5 ; Com. John iii. 5. And yet our author says, (p. 373,) that Paul " makes a distinction heaven-wide, between baptism and regeneration." All of the foregoing passages are quoted by Luther in his Catechisms, and Calvin in his Institutes, as referring to baptism ; and are referred to in Heidelberg Catechism, the common symbol of the Dutch and German Reformed Churches. * So taught Luther, Short Cat. c. 5. Appendix, quest. 13—20; and Calvin, Inst. IV. xvii. 5—10; and the Re- formed Heid. Cat., quest. 75 — 79. It is immaterial for ou present purpose, whether we consider John vi. as spoken directly of the Eucharist, as many commentators have done from the earliest times, (Thol. on John vi. 51,) or as includ- ing it as the general includes the particular. 110 PURITANISM (4.) OF THE MINISTRY. We suppose, that when the Apostle said, that " the ministry of reconciliation " had been given to them, and that " the word of reconciliation " had been committed to them, and when in pursuance of that ministry, they said ; " Now then we are am- bassadors for Christ ; as though God did beseech you by us, we pray you in Christ's stead, Be ye reconciled to God," he meant just what his language seems to signify; that they were the personal repre- sentatives of Christ, charged with the important mission of reconciling sinners to God ; that their office was in fact, " ministerial intervention, that sins might be forgiven," through the conjoined opera- tion of the word and sacrament. But our author recognizes no difference between the " ministry" and the " word of reconciliation,"* (p. 373,) and denies that the ministry acts as Christ's " personal representatives."! (pp. 302, 303.) * Tittman (Syn. N. T. 179—182,) has well shown, what no competent writer ever doubted, that the fiu&ovietv ths KcLra,K\a,y>is, and xoyov ths KctTAWetyncy are distinct things; and also, what many have overlooked, that the " SIclkcviclv nm$ KATdLXXiiyiis is not the office of teaching the doctrine of the remission of sins ; but [that] it is the office itself, .... the office of effecting the KATuKKctyn; :" the office of recon- ciling sinners to God. t For the opinions of the Reformers on this point, see ante. NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. Ill (5.) OF ABSOLUTION. We suppose, that when our Lord said to his Apostles; "Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained," that he meant precisely what he said, and that he thereby gave to his ministers the power of absolving repenting sinners.* But our author condemns this opinion as the "wildness of fanaticism, the depths of delusion, the ravings of madness.''' (p. 370.) (6.) OF APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. We suppose that when our Lord said to his Apostles : "Lo I am with you always, even unto the end of the world," that he meant just what his language imports ; that he would be with them, and those who succeeded them in their office, unto the end of the world. But our author says, that "this doctrine of Apostolical succession is, as to its very basis, fundamentally contradictory, both to Scripture and to reason ; that the dogma upon which it is built, is subversive of the true gospel, the funda- mental dogma of popery," (p. 372,) "as a doctrine, unfounded in Scripture, and contradictory to it . . . as a fact, ten thousand times over a falsehood." (p. 389.) * For the opinions of the Reformers on this point, see ante, 112 PURITANISM There is one point, however, on which Puritan- ism follows the literal language of Scripture ; and thus our author quotes, (p. 256,) with characteristic exultation, the passage (Ps. cxix. 100,) " I have more understanding than all my teachers, for thy testimo- nies are my meditation. I have more understand- ing than the ancients, because I keep thy precepts." When, therefore, we tell them, in the language of the Psalmist, (xiii. 15,) that in speaking thus "they offend the generation of God's children," and that it is our duty to " stand in the ways and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, that we may walk therein," (Jer. vi. 16,) and that we ought to follow that tradition which we have from the Apostles, — they reply, in the language of certain men who lived in the days of Irenseus, " that they are wiser than, not only the ancients, but the Apos- tles also." — (Adv. Hser. iii. 2.) It will be seen from the foregoing, that upon every one of the great points touching the Church, the Min- istry, Baptismal Regeneration, the Real Presence, and Absolution, and against which our author in- veighs with so much bitterness, we hold to the plain and literal import of Holy Writ, from which Puritan- ism has, in every instance departed ; and that, for doing the very thing which Puritanism boasts of do- ing itself, we are denounced in the most unmeasured terms, and every epithet which the odium theologicum can command, is bestowed upon us without reserve. NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 113 Our Church* is an " usurper and schismatic," (p. 264,) guilty of "horrible usurpation and tyranny, of the grossest tyranny, of insult to God, and outrage upon the dearest rights of man," (p. 266,) "of crim- inal usurpation" (p. 269,) that our teaching in re- gard to schism " lays Christianity on the altar, a scacrifice to prelacy, — putting Christ's laws and the people beneath the feet of the prelates," — "that it is anti-christian ; a part of the mystery of ini- quity;" (p. 276,) that we would erect "a Holy Al- liance to dethrone the Lord Jesus Christ and to throw down the Bible from the altar of God," (p. 278,) that we have " subverted the very genius and spirit of the polity of the Christian Church," (p. 301,) that we assert the " dreary principles of spiritual despotism," (p. 308,) "the beggarly ali- * Her theologians are treated in a similar manner. Rev. Dr. Jarvis is guilty of " folly and superstition," (p. 273 ;) Rev. Dr. Hawks, of " usurpation and perversion," (p. 298 ;) the Hon. and Rev. Mr. Perceval, of " arrant fraud and barefaced trickery," (pp. 336, 351 ;) and Mr. Chapin "stumbles into the ditch dug by Perceval" (p. 337.) The Rev. Dr. Coit is especially the object of his hate, (pp. 411 — 440,) because of the unpleasant truths brought to light by his work on Puritanism. The task of Dr. Coit was an unpleasant one ; but it was due to truth and history to exe- cute it ; and he deserves the thanks of every truth-loving historian for the able and thorough manner in which he has performed it, whether approving of all the language em- ployed or not. 6* 114 PURITANISM ments of superstition," (p. 307,) that our claims are " worse than simple error ; they are injurious to Christ, and subversive of the entire truth of the Gospel," (p. 350,) guilty of monstrous and inexcusa- ble perversion of the words of Holy Writ," (p. 355,) urging " unscriptural and horrid ideas," (356,) that " we have an abundance of Popelings, but scarcely in all, one decent Pope," (p. 357,) that "there is nothing in Popery more destructive to truth, to freedom, and to true religion, more arrogant, more impious toward God, or more injurious to man," (358,) that our sys- tem " is essentially the system of Popery," " a pes- tilent superstition ; the sum and essence of the great anti- Christian apostacy of Rome," beyond which no "wildness of fanaticism," no "depths of delusion," no "ravings of madness," can go. (p. 370.) THE SINCERITY OF THIS DESCRIPTION. Such are some of the choice epithets bestowed upon us by the author of The Puritans and their Principles, for accepting the literal sense of Scrip- ture, and holding firmly to the principles of the Re- formers; and they leave no doubt of our author's descent or his principles. Indeed, the work in ques- tion, is one of the best illustrations of Puritanism we have seen in a long time ; its recklessness of asser- tion, and its bitterness of spirit, are genuine marks of its paternity. Yet one hardly knows whether to NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 115 attribute such language to ignorance, or uncharita- bleness, or to both. That any intelligent man, in his sober senses, can believe one-half that our author has imputed to the system of the Church, is incon- ceivable.* It is impossible to believe, that he really supposes that such a system was set forth by Cran- mer, and Ridley, and Latimer, and held by such men as Bull, and Butler, and Beveridge, and Bram- hall, and Howe, and Hooker, and Hammond, and Heber, and Jebb, and Kenn, and Leslie, and Nelson, and Pearson, and Taylor, and Wall, and Wilson ; or that he supposes that it was of such a system, that such men as James Angell James, and Henry Cooke, and J. W. Morgan, and Robert Hall, and Richard Watson, and Adam Clarke, and Albert Barnes, and Leonard Bacon, have spoken in terms of high com- mendation ; unless we also suppose, that knowledge is alone with our author, and that wisdom will die with him.f * We can conceive of no more deliberate and wilful mis- representation (charity requires no milder language,) than that which says, that the Church teaches that we " cannot be justified by faith alone ;" that we " must have the help of a human priesthood, with its valid sacraments, or you can- not be saved." — (p. 373.) t For the languages of these and other prominent dissent- ers, see The State of Religion in England and Germany compared, 12 — 24. 116 PURITANISM THE FANCIED RESULT, But whether these men were right or wrong, w r hether they understood whereof they affirmed or not, is now no matter of consequence ; as the ob- ject of their hopes and their wishes, of their joy and their praise, is no more. Our author has seen, to copy his chaste and classic style, " the mighty fabric of Episcopacy tumble to the ground," (p. 321,) he has seen Prelacy die, " though in the last ditch," (p. 325,) and nothing now remains but to sing the requiem of its departed greatness. Yea more than this, he has discovered that this " mighty fabric " was no fabric at ail; he has searched, he says, " clear down through the Scriptures, and found not a trace or fragment of Episcopacy," (p. 333,) he has followed, he says, " the pretensions of Prelacy to her haunts and strongholds, in the deep-tangled wild-wood of the Fathers," (p. 333,) in search of Bishops, but they were so " very noiseless and shy, that nobody [in the second century,] seemed to know any thing about them, and no footstep or trace is left either of their name or existence," (p. 339c) and that what has heretofore been considered by the greatest and best of men, as conclusive evidence on the subject, turns out to be no more than " a few .arrant perversions, and some two or three chains of NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 117 modern guesses." (339.) All labor and controversy must therefore be at an end. Our author has swept away " the claims of prelacy, as with the besom of destruction;" (p. 349.) and the truth, we are told, now " stands forth clear, consistent and uni- form, affording no manner of support to the Episco- pal claims." (p. 349.) And now, since the accom- plishment of such a feat, our author can well afford to compose himself to rest, beneath his towering laurels, sure of an immortality not unlike that of the knight of La Mancha, because of some of his famous exploits. But we advise him to drink deep at the fountain of Lethe, lest the airy monster should after all prove to be something more substantial than the baseless fabric of a vision, rising Phoenix-like, and invigorated by its conflict, should again afflict his waking hours, and nightly dreams, to the dissipation of all his fancied greatness. GENERAL CHARACTER OF THE WORK. We have now gone over with so much of our author's work, as properly belongs to our present inquiry. Not that we have exposed all his mis- takes and errors ; but that we have considered all the leading points which he has made, the character of the evidence which he employs, and his mode of using it, and have thereby been able to form a proper estimate of its accuracy and value. To do more 118 PURITANISM than this, to follow him through the whole volume, and point out every mistake, and correct every error, would require a volume as large as the work itself. This w T ill be apparent from a statement of those cha- racteristic features of the work which must be obvi- ous to all familiar with the subject. These are, — ignorance of original sources of information in regard to the topics discussed ; — ignorance of the character of authorities employed, and want of fairness in using them ; — ignorance or misrepresentation of the real sentiments of those he is opposing; — un- scrupulous assertion unsustained by proof on the most important points in dispute ; — concealment of the place where his authority is found when proof is attempted ;— quoting second-hand from books he has never seen, without acknowledging the inter- mediate source ; — appeals to passion, prejudice, and ignorance, with an utter disregard of the rights and feelings of others. To point out every departure from truth and propriety in such a work, and correct every misrepresentation, would be as tedious as useless. For those who understand the subject, no answer at all is required. Those who do not already under- stand it thoroughly, and wish to see it proved more in detail, will find the materials for so doing, in the au- thorities indicated in the margin of this review. NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 119 HISTORY OF PURITANISM. Of the general history of Puritanism we have said nothing, partly, because it does not fall within the scope of our present inquiry ; and partly, because that subject has been so thoroughly discussed of late, especially by the Rev. Dr. Coit, that it is unneces- sary. Our object has been to examine the claims of Puritanism to be the genuine representative of the Reformation ; and to show that its charges against us of having departed from the principles of the Re- formers, are based upon its own deviations from, and ignorance of those principles. There are, how- ever, a few points, relative to Puritanism and Epis- copacy in Connecticut, not elsewhere fully explained, and not well understood, which seem to require a brief notice. TOLERATION GRANTED TO EPISCOPALIANS \ OUR author's ACCOUNT. This is a point on which our author dwells with peculiar delight, in order to show the superiority of the Puritans over all other nations and sects ; and he gives a brief synopsis of history in proof of his posi- tion. His statement of the case is this. " The first Episcopal church in Connecticut, was established in 1723. It was only four years from this period, before a law of the Colony provided, that whatever 120 PURITANISM tax was paid for the support of religion by any per- son belonging to, and worshipping with an Episco- pal church, it should be paid over to the clergyman of the Church of England upon whose ministry such person should attend. Those who conformed to the Church of England, were authorized to tax them- selves for the support of their clergy, and were ex- cused from all taxes for building meeting-houses, and for other purposes of the Churches of the pre- vailing denomination. This relaxation in the laws, made so soon after dissent assumed a regular form, and probably on its first application to the Legisla- ture for relief, shows that there prevailed in Connec- ticut, at the time, no serious disposition to persecute or oppress the people of other denominations."* (p. 402.) In order to obtain a just view of this evi- dence, we must consider the history of the law of 1727, and the practice of the Colony under it. EXEMPLIFIED AT STRATFORD. The Parish of Stratford was first duly organized about 1708, and the Rev. Mr. Muirson appointed mis- * This same story is told in pretty much the same way, by the Rev. Dr. Bacon, in his Review of Colton on the Religious State of the Country.— Quar. Chris. Spec. VIII. 495—499. Also, by Prof. Kingsley, in his Historical Discourse on the 200th Anniversary of the Settlement of New-Haven. — Note I, 94 — 98, from which our author has copied his account. NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 121 sionary there. But he died before entering upon his duties.* After the organization of the parish, the members thereof objected to paying taxes to the Congregationalists, on the ground that they were legally exempt by the laws of England ; and upon their refusal, Timothy Titherten, one of the church- wardens, and John Marey, one of the Vestrymen, were arrested about midnight, December 12, 1780, and compelled to walk eight miles to jail, where they were confined without fire or light, until they paid the sums demanded. Again, on the 14th of January, 1709, David Shelton, William Rawlinson, and Archibald Dunlap, were arrested on the same ground, and taken to jail. On the way there, Shelton begged permission to stop and warm himself at a house on the road, and not being quick enough to satisfy his keepers, was taken and laid across the back of a horse, and so carried. These also paid the sums demanded, on condition that the money should remain in the hands of the Lieutenant- * The spirit of the Puritans at Stratford may be inferred from a single fact. Not long after the death of the Rev. Mr. Muirson, Isaac Nell, one of the Churchwardens there — a man of unblameable conversation — also died, whereupon some doggrel verses were written and circulated there, hav- ing these lines — "Isaac Nell is gone to hell, To tell Mr. Muirson that his Cbureh is well," 122 PURITANISM. Governor, subject to the order of the next General Court of the Colony. Several other persons also paid such taxes, on similar conditions, and the pro- perty of others was sold at auction to pay them. But no order could be obtained. During the year 1709, William James, who had been appointed an Agent of the Society for Propagating the Gospel in Foreign Parts, went to a town meeting in Stratford, where such taxes were to be levied, and for himsell and fellow-members of the Church of England, and in behalf of the Society in England, protested against being thus taxed, and asked to have the protest re- corded, which was refused. Again, in May, 1710, the said James, as Agent of the said Society, pre- sented a petition to the General Court at Hartford, to be relieved from taxes, and to have the money in the hands of the Lieuienant- Governor disposed of, but without any effect. Our author, therefore, is mistaken by several years, both as to the time of the formation of the parish, and also as to the time of the first application to the Legislature for relief. The effect of this persecution was, to drive a large share of the Churchmen from Stratford, and the parish remained without a resident clergymen until 1722. This year the Rev. Mr. Pigot was sent there as a missionary, and a house of worship was built the year following. Mr. Pigot was succeeded by Rev. Samuel Johnson, in 1723. NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 123 AT FAIRFIELD ; LAW OF 1727. In 1725, a parish was formed, and a house of wor- ship built at Fairfield, and the same course of levying on property of Churchmen, and selling at the post to pay the salaries of the Congregationalist ministers, was also pursued there. In May, 1727, "Moses Ward," one of the War- dens of the parish of Fairfield, together " with the other Wardens, Vestrymen, and brethren " of that parish, presented a memorial to the Colonial Legis- lature, setting forth, that they were a legally organ- ized Society, under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of London, and bound by obligations to the Honorable Society for Propagating the Gospel in Foreign Parts, to sustain public worship according to the rites of the Church of England ; but that, notwithstanding this, taxes had been levied upon them, and their property taken and sold; praying that the money which had been taken thus illegally from them, might be returned. At the same time reminding the Legis- lature what a hardship the Puritans had regarded it, when obliged to pay taxes to the Church of England. The officers of the Church appeared before the Legislature by attorney, and declared their intention to prosecute the thing to effect. They proposed, how- ever, to withdraw their memorial, and to renounce all claim upon the money, if the Legislature would 124 PURITAXISM release them from all future claims of the kind. In the meantime, the opinion of the King's Attorney- General, and of the Bishop of London, against the legality of the Congregrational establishment, had been obtained. Under these circumstances, the General Court of the Colony passed a law in May, 1727, permitting the taxes of such members of the Church of England as belonged to a parish having a resident clergyman " in Orders," to be paid to such clergyman ; the taxes, until 1746, being levied, however, by the whole town ; after that by the Con- gregationalists alone.* The members of such parishes were also exempt from taxes to build "meeting-houses," and allowed to tax themselves for the support of a clergyman. This history of the law will enable any one to see what " disposition " the Puritans of Connecticut entertained towards those of other denominations. The practice under it will confirm this conclusion. * The letter of this law was most rigidly enforced ; and no Parish was allowed the benefits of it unless they had, at the time, a resident clergyman " in orders ;" and the spirit of it was continually evaded by Puritan contrivance. This was done in two ways : in one case the General Court levied a Colonial tax, which was to be paid by all persons ; and then the taxes of certain towns were given directly to the Congregational Society. In the other case, the Colonial taxes of the Congregationalists in a particular town were abated, while Churchmen were required to pay them. NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 125 PRACTICE UNDER THAT LAW. (1.) GREENWICH. Ill October, 1738, the Churchmen of Greenwich and Horseneck, being members of a Church of England parish, adjoining them, in the Colony of New- York, petitioned the General Court to be al- lowed the benefit of the law of 1727, but were re- fused, because they had no resident minister in their own town, notwithstanding our author's assertion to the contrary. (2.) SIMSBURY. In May, 1742, the parish of Simsbury, being duly organized, and having a regular Catechist appointed by the Society in England, but no clergyman " in orders," and then erecting a church, petitioned the General Court to be allowed the benefit of the law of 1727, but were refused, and were compelled not only to pay the ministerial tax, but also a tax for building a " meeting-house." A similar petition was presented to the same body in May, 1743, with the same result. (3.) WATERBURY. In October, 1744, the parish of Waterbury peti- tioned the General Court for liberty to tax its own 128 PURITANISM members, for building a church, but were denied the liberty, although our author tells, "they were al- lowed to tax themselves." (4.) READING. In October, 1745, the Parish of Reading petitioned the General Court to have certain taxes remitted, which had then been remitted to the Congregation- alists in that place for fourteen years, but no action could be obtained. Three years after they petition- ed again, when the prayer of the petition was re- jected.* * The public taxes of all the Congregationalists of Read- ing were remitted by the Court of Connecticut, for more than twenty years, for the purpose of enabling them the better to support the Congregational Ministry among them. This was a very common practice, being done in many towns. In other instances, money was actually appropriated out of the public treasury for that purpose. Thus in May, 1734, the General Court appropriated two hundred pounds (,£200) to the Congregational Society in West Haven, for the same purpose, the reason assigned being the declaration of Mr. Arnold, their Minister, for Episcopacy — his prede- cessor, Mr. Johnson, having done the same. In October, 1736, the General Court appropriated forty pounds (£40) a year for four years, to the same parish, for the same purpose ; and in May, 1737, authorized them to sell fifty acres of public lands for the purpose of a parsonage. NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 127 (5.) CHURCHMEN EXCLUDED FROM BENEFITS OF PUBLIC ACTS. In October, 1748, a public Act was passed direct- ing how houses for public worship should be built, from the benefits of which Churchmen were ex- cepted.* (6.) CHURCHMEN NOT ALLOWED TO TAX THEM- SELVES. In October, 1749, the Churchmen in the State generally, petitioned the General Court for liberty to tax themselves, for all purposes touching public worship. The petition was continued to the next . session, and then, " given the go-by." In May, 1752, a similar petition was presented to the same body, for the same purpose, which passed the " Lower House," but in the " Upper House," continued to October. In October it passed the "Lower House " again, but was rejected in the "Upper House." In May, 1759, the Parish of Simsbury petitioned the General Court for liberty to tax its own mem- bers, which was denied. * The words of the law are, " those, only tolerated by the laws of this colony, and dissenting from us, excepted." This use of the word " tolerate," enables us to understand what the Puritans meant by toleration ; to wit, liberty to live in a country, without enjoying its privileges, 128 PURITANISM TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. These facts in regard to the 'practice of the Con- necticut Puritans under the law of 1727, will enable all to see the spirit with which the law was passed, and what might have been expected, had nothing but Puritan sense of justice been concerned in it.* It should also be remarked, that a few years after the law of 1727, (May, 1746,) an act was passed, prohibiting those who were exempt from paying taxes to the established order from voting, when taxes for ecclesiastical purposes were levied. The practical effect of these laws was, that when the Congregationalists taxed themselves they taxed every body else also, though none but their own order were allowed to vote ; and this taxation without represen- tation^ was practised by the Puritans upon all other denominations until the Revolution."!* * In " The Connecticut Dissenters' Strong Box," publish- ed in 1802, we find this comment upon the effect of Mr. Ward's petition. " The hierarchy [of Connecticut] cried aloud, • religion is in danger ! ' But the British Lion growled and the petition was granted, though not without more ifs, and ands, if so be, provided that, and so forth, than were ever interlarded into the fable of the lawyer's bull and farm- er's ox."— pp. 28, 29. t This was precisely what the Puritans objected to in the English Parliament, at the very moment they were doing it themselves, and for which they revolted. " Great Britain," NOT GENUINE TROTESTANTISM. 129 POLITICAL TENDENCIES OUR AUTHOR'S VIEW. This is a subject upon which our author dwells with much apparent delight, and he seems to ima- gine that here, in particular, the glory of Puritanism is manifested. He tells us, with no small exulta- tion, that " Prelacy, as a system, is naturally, and ever has been, hostile to civil liberty ; [and that] the principles of Puritanism and civil liberty rose and flourished together." — (p. 401.) Again he says, (p. 407,) " The present entire equality of all sects of worshippers, which characterizes our Amer- ican institutions, was as sure to result from these principles [i. e. of Puritanism] as the sun is to break through the shadows of a misty morning." And much more, to the same effect, is scattered through the whole book. RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE COLONIES. It is not our intention, however, to write the his- tory of either party ; but we cannot refrain from re- ferring our author to a careful inquiry into the Ori- gin and Progress of Popular Liberty, published in volume II. of the New-York Review, where he will says John Adams, " concocted the plan of raising a revenue within the Colonies, by authority of Parliament, for the avowed or pretended purpose of protecting, securing, and defending them." — Letter of John Adams to Dr. Cal- koen, of Amsterdam, October 4, 1780. 7 130 PUEITANISM find that the principles of our institutions had their origin centuries before Puritanism was thought of. We must also remark, in passing, that if these prin- ciples had resulted from Puritanism, we should have expected to have seen the results first when Puritan- ism itself prevailed. Yet history does not confirm this supposition. Puritan Massachusetts, and Puri- tan Connecticut, had their religious establishments. But Roman Catholic Maryland never had any, nor any test acts, except in the time of Cromwell.* Quaker Pennsylvania never had any.f Baptist Rhode -Island never had any 4 Episcopal and Dutch Reformed New- York never had any.§ Epis- copal South-Carolina, and Presbyterian New-Jer- sey never had any.|| Episcopal Virginia once had an establishment, but it was given up in 1785. IF The principle of a religious establishment was first * Pitkin's Hist. U. S., I. 56, 57. Tyson's Hist. Disc. 37 t Tyson 41—50. t Calender's Hist. Disc. 103, 104. See also Laws of 1647, in Hist. Col. R- I. IV. 229. § " The Highflying Churchman stript of his legal robe," p. 7. That the cases of Presbyterian suffering, to which our author refers, in New- York, must be received with many grains of allowance, it would be easy to show, were it within the province of our inquiry. || lb. p. 7. Pit. Hist. U. S. I. 59. IT Hawk's Hist. Church Virg. 175, NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 131 given up in Connecticut in 1818, and in Massachu- setts in 1834.* It would seem, therefore, that the Principles of Puritanism flourished better among Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, Baptists, Quakers and Presbyterians, than among the real Congrega- tional Puritans. Indeed one cannot avoid the con- clusion drawn by Mr. Tyson,")" that " it may be doubted, if all the Colonies had been peopled by men of similar views and policy with those of New- England, whether the angelic form of religious free- dom, now our presiding and guarding genius, had ever descended to crown the happiness, or bless the social charities of the present United States."^: * Wingard, 155. t His. Disc. 50. X Those who wish to see Puritan ideas of freedom, as ex- emplified in Connecticut, not towards the " minor sects," but towards each other, should read the History of Congregation- alism in Hartford, from 1650 to 1664, (Trumb. I. 296—213,) of Rev. Philemon Robbins, of Branford, and of the whole period from 1730 to 1748, (Trumb. II. 134—164,) and of the great " Walling ford case," 1758 to 1765 — (Trumb. II. 480 — 526.) After the New Church had been organized by the Association in Wallingford, and a new house commenced, the builders were retarded for some time by the opposition of the members of the old society, who drove off the workmen . so that, literally, they fought with clubs over the sills of the new meeting-house. Seventy years after this, the house and land for which this new society contended became the prop- erty of the Episcopal church in that place, — the present 1 32 PURITANISM REV. DR. BACON'S VIEW. We have seen that the ecclesiastical establish- ment of Connecticut was only completely set aside in 1818, and we propose to inquire into the history of that event ; or in other words, how the revolu- tion of that period came to take place. Rev. Dr. Bacon, hi his review of Colton. eays that it was the Congregationalists that made it, because they were the majority ; that all the minor sects united, were but a fraction of the people of Connecticut." The comparative numbers of the "minor sects," and the " standing order," are not here fairly repre- sented ; but, as that is nothing to our present pur- pose, we let it pass, and proceed to consider the real history of that occurrence."!* church standing on the same premises as the old " Well's Meeting-house." * Quar. Chris. Spec. VIII. 500— 503." t Dr. Bacon's authority in that article, for the early statis- tics of Churchmen in Connecticut, and for the manner in which the "minor sects" were treated, was a manuscript from the pen of Rev. Dr. Goodrich, of Durham. Those papers now turn out to be part of the documents prepared by that " Convention" of Presbyterian and Congregational min- isters, who, from 1766 to 1775, were fomenting difficulties, in order to be sent to London to prevent the introduction of Bishops here. One of the means was, to appoint a commit- tee to " obtain all the instances of Episcopal oppression they could in Virginia, Maryland, Georgia, and the Carolinas" — NOT GENUINE PR0TESTANTIS3I. 133 EPISCOPALIANS SUPPORT THE GOVERNMENT. The Episcopalians of Connecticut had, from the very first, gone upon the principle of yielding obe- dience to the laws under which they lived. They did this before the Revolution, the great body of them did it during the Revolution, and they did it universally after the Revolution. Consequently, when the Democratic party arose in the United States, they remained true to the government of their own State, which v. as decidedly a Federal State. During the harsh political conflicts between Democratic and Federal Congregaticnalists, and between all the other parties that arose in opposi- tion to the State government, Churchmen remained true to the government. This state of things re- mained until 1814. SEASONS OF WITHDRAWING IT IN CONNECTICUT. In the spring of this year, (1814.) a petition was presented to the Legislature at Hartford, asking for a charter of a bank, with a capital stock of a mil- lion and a half of dollars, for which they proposed to pay a bonus of sixty thousand dollars, which was (Min. Conv. 29.) The whole number of Episcopalians in the state, was estimated by that Convention, in 1774, at 9,966, (p. 63.) which was probably less than half of the real number, as in 1784 we find Bishop Seabury estimating them at 20,000. 134 PURITANISM to be given, if the Legislature saw fit, to Yale Col- lege, the Medical College, and the Bishop's Fund. This petition passed the lower house, but was rejected in the upper. Some time after, a charter substantially like the one asked for passed both houses, requiring a bonus of fifty thousand dollars. At the same session, twenty thousand dollars of the bonus was granted to the Medical College. The upper house also voted ten thousand dollars to the Bishop's Fund, which was refused by the lower house. In the fall of the same year, a similar ap- propriation was made in the upper house, but lost in the lower. A similar vote passed the upper house in the spring of 1815, but was again lost in the lower house. In the fall of the same year the upper house wheeled about, and voted down the appropria- tion by the same majority which they had given before in its favor. CHARACTER OF THOSE REASONS. Now, it must be borne in mind, that the lower house, which uniformly voted against the ten thou- sand dollars for the Bishop's Fund, did, in the first instance, pass a charter, which made a similar ap- propriation for the same purpose. At the same session both houses voted twenty thousand dollars to the Medical College, " in pursuance of the Act incorporating the Phoenix Bank ;" and the upper house voted ten thousand dollars to the Bishop's NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 135 Fund, at three consecutive sessions, upon the same principle. The grounds upon which the claim of the Episcopalians was put off in the lower house, was, at first, that the country was at war, and the funds of the treasury low. After the peace, when this ground could be urged no longer, they told Churchmen in plain terms that they should not have the money. ORIGIN OF THE TOLERATION PARTY. Thus, money which had been paid into the State treasury, in a great measure by Churchmen, with an implied condition that a portion of it should be applied to the Bishop's Fund, the right to which had been three times directly acknowledged by the up- per house, and indirectly, twice by the lower house, was withheld from those to whom it justly belonged, in a manner directly calculated to rouse every spark of indignation which might be lurking in their bo- soms. This course of duplicity was ably exposed by a writer in the Connecticut Herald, published at New-Haven, soon after the rising of the Assembly, under the significant name of Toleration, which from that moment became the title and watchword of a party. SUCCESS NEW CONSTITUTION. And now the whole body of Episcopalians, who had heretofore submitted to all the impositions of 136 PURITANISM the standing order, disgusted with the treatment their petitions had received, and goaded by those who had refused them justice, felt called upon, in self-defence, to assert their rights against the gov- ernment. Consequently, in 1816, they formed a new party, called the Toleration Party, which re- ceived so many accessions frcm the Baptists, Me- thodists, and Democratic Congregationalists,* as to * Those only who lived at the time, or have carefully stu- died the history of New-England, from 1796 to 1818, can imagine how ready they would be to do this. The case of a single individual must suffice as an example and illustration of the spirit of that period. The Rev. Stanley Griswold, a Congregational minister of New-Milford, embraced demo- cratic sentiments, and immediately his character became suspicious, and stories of every sort were reported concerning him. In 1797, those brethren who composed the Associa- tion of the south part of Litchfield county, secretly concocted charges against him, and without any previous steps of dis- cipline, and without ever intimating to him that they had aught against him, arraigned him before their own body, to answer to charges, of which he was wholly ignorant until the service of the citation, about three weeks before the trial. Mr. G. denied the propriety of their course, and their juris- diction in the case, but sent to the Association a written an- swer to the charges against him. This letter the Associa- tion refused to receive, returned without opening it, and pro- ceeded to vote him out of their body, without hearing or trial, with the full knowledge that his defence was within their reach, and against the solemn protest of the church and con- gregation against the doings of that body. NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 187 constitute the majority in 1817 ; and in 1818 a Con- vention was called to frame a Constitution, in which were some of the most prominent Episcopalians in the State. The instrument drawn up by that body separated entirely Church and State, abolishing the last relic of a religious establishment.* When it was presented to the people, it received the votes of every Episcopalian but two that voted on the sub- ject.")* We see, therefore, that Dr. Bacon's state- ment, that the Congregationalists made that change, must be received with many qualifications. CONNECTICUT " BLUE LAWS " OUR AUTHOR^ ACCOUNT. The subject of the " Blue Laws," is one on which our author is particularly sensitive. Thus, he says, (p. 17,) "How many people in these Uni- ted States, and even here in our midst, confidently believe that the famous code entitled Blue Laics of Connecticut, once had a place among the statutes of this Colony. Yet our fathers knew nothing about them. They are a sheer fabrication, for * This constitution separated entirely the legislative, exe- ecutive, and judicial departments of government, and created the first independent judiciary in Connecticut. * So the author was told many years since, by the late Burrage Beach, Esq., of Cheshire, who was one of the two that voted against it. 7* 138 PURITANISM which the world is indebted to Peters' History of Connecticut, the work of an Episcopal clergyman." And again, (p. 406,) "They talk about that mass of impudent forgeries so often set forth, and so exten- sively believed — the ' Connecticut Blue Laws ' — just as though the code set forth under that name had once a real existence, as a part of the Connecti- cut laws. The wonder is, that the very name of Blue Laws does not blister the tongue of every Pre- latist, when he remembers the origin of that lying history, in which the code of Blue Laws had their first introduction into the world,"* HIS DESCRIPTION DOES NOT APPLY TO PETERS. One who understands the facts in regard to this subject, cannot help pitying the man's ignorance, and smiling at his folly. In the first place, the " code " of laws published under the title of " Blue Laws of Connecticut," " were nothing more than the early laws of Connecticut, and which did not contain a single law known anciently as a Blue Law."*)" And that " code," instead of being the "fabrication of an Episcopal clergyman," was com- piled by a Congregational layman. In the next place, the " Blue Laws " published by Peters, ac- » * An account somewhat similar to this is given by Profes- sor Kingsley, Hist. Disc. 104 — 108. t Pref. vii. Hinman's Blue Laws. NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 139 cording to his own account of the matter, were never digested into a "code," and "were never suf- fered to be printed."* Now, New-Haven was first settled in 1638, and the first code of laws published by the Colony, was that of Governor Eaton, in 1656. Of course the account of Peters must be limited to these eighteen years, from 1638 to 1656. The synopsis which he gives, and gives, too, from memory, includes forty-five brief heads, one-fourth of which are merely political regulations, and such as are not ordinarily placed upon the statute book, most of which are known to have existed at New- Haven. Another quarter of these, are substantially the same as the enactments of Gov. Eaton's code of 1656. One-half the laws which Peters gives, there- fore, are faithful representations of the regulations of the New-Haven Colony, at that early period. Some other regulations, similar to those described by Peters, must have existed at that time, as is evi- dent from the judicial records of the Colony. So much for this " mass of impudent forgeries," which " ought to blister the tongue of any Preiatist." ARE MUCH OLDER THAN THE TIME OF PETERS. But our author seems to know as little of the his- iory as of the character of the " Blue Laws." He supposes them to have been "the fabrication" of * Pet. His. 97. 140 PURITAXISM Peters, and to have "had their first introduction into the world " in his " lying history." The first edition of Peters' History of Connecticut was pub- lished in England, in 1781. Consequently, if our author's history be true, no one could have heard of the " Blue Laws " before 1781. And yet the Hon. William Smith, who was graduated at Yale College in 1745, thirty -six years before the publication of Peters, says, that when he visited New-Haven, as one of the Commissaries from New- York, in 1767, fourteen years before the publication of Peters, he requested to see the " Blue Laws," and that instead of finding them to "consist of many large volumes," as they had been represented, " a parchment cover- ed book, of demi-royal paper, was handed him for the laws asked for, as the only volume in the office passing under this title."* This testimony to the belief in the existence of these laws, near half a century before the time of Peters, and that of a man w T ho had lived some time in New-Haven itself, may possibly serve to relieve Churchmen from the odium of participating with Peters in the sin of their " fab- rication." What gave rise to the story of the " Blue Laws," no one can now tell ; but one thing is per- fectly certain, that Churchmen had nothing to do * How onr author could be ignorant of these facts, if he consulted the books he quotes, it is difficult to imagine. See N. Y> Hist Col. Vol. IV. in King. 105. NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. l4l with " fabricating " either the laws, or the story of their existence. If our author should be visited with the judgments be would invoke upon Church- men, he will receive our pity, although it might re- lieve us for a time from his abusive slanders. U THE TABLES TURNED" EPISCOPACY IN VIRGINIA. Our author has a section with this emphatic head- ing, " The Tables Turned," in which he attempts to show, that when "American Prelacy " " had the power," she was even less tolerant than the Puri- tans. His first evidence is, that in 1618 a law was enacted in Virginia, requiring every one to attend church on Sundays and Holy Days, or " to lie neck and heels one night," or be " a slave to the Colony a week;" for a second offence a month ; and for a third a year and a day. But it does not appear that this law applied to any but Churchmen. His sec- ond is, that in 1642 a law was enacted, forbidding any but Episcopal clergy officiating in the Colony, (p. 403,) while Presbyterianism, as our author tells us, first appeared in Virginia a century after, in 1743. Its first preacher was a Mr. Robinson, whose labors, our author says, produced many inquirers. He then proceeds — " The celebrated Messrs. Ten- nent and Finley, obtaining license of the Governor, began to preach to those inquirers in 1745." — (p. 403.) Here, then, was the intolerance of Episcopal Virginia — no Presbyterian minister could officiate 142 PURITANISM there without license. And this only two years after the passage of the obnoxious law. Let us see how these same men fared in Puritan Connecticut. CONNECTICUT AND VIRGINIA— MR. FINLEY. In 1739, a portion of the Congregational Society In Milford, withdrew, and forming themselves into a Presbyterian Society, procured this same Mr. Finley to preach to them ; for which, in 1740, he was arrested, tried, found guilty of vagrancy, and transported, as a vagrant, from town to town, until he was out of the limits of the Colony. He peti- tioned the Legislature for redress, but it would not listen to his petition. He went from Puritan Con- necticut, branded as a vagrant, to Episcopal Vir- ginia, where he was received as a minister, licensed, and permitted to preach unmolested.* PENNSYLVANIA AND VIRGINIA — -MR. TENNENT. The same Mr. Tennent visited Connecticut in 1749, but confining himself entirely to those towns where he was invited by the " New Light " minis- ters of the " standing order," the "orthodox " Puri- tans were unable to lay their hands upon him.f t Trumb. II. 177. Allen's Biog. Die. 386. Ecc. Rec. Conn. X One of the publications against him was entitled " The Examiner, or Gilbert against Tennent" by Rev. John Han* NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 143 Had he not done this, he, too, would have been transported from the Colony as a vagrant. As it was, he was publicly censured by the Synod of Phi- ladelphia, of which he was a member, for his vio- lence and uncharitableness. In 1745 he went to Episcopal Virginia, with the hatred of Puritan Connecticut, and the censure of Pennsylvania Pres* byterianism, and was there licensed to preach. CONNECTICUT — -MESSRS. POMEROY AND OWEN. We may also mention, that the Rev. Benjamin Pomeroy, of Hebron, was brought before the Legis- lature of Connecticut, for a similar cause, found guil- ty of disrespectful language towards the authorities, in regard to their persecutions, deprived of his sal- ary, put under bonds for good behaviour, and com- pelled to pay £32 10s. 6d. costs of prosecution* The Rev. John Owen, of Groton, was also arraign- ed before the same body, for the same cause, but let off upon paying the costs of prosecution. EPISCOPACY IN NEW-YORK. The remainder of our author's evidence of the vindictive spirit of American Prelacy, relates to cock, of Braintree, Mass., (1743,) a man who sympathized strongly with the majority of Connecticut ministers, and which Rev. Dr. Chauncy, of Boston, announced to Rev. Mr. Chauncy, of Durham, as " well calculated to do service."— MS. Lett March 16, 1742-3. 144 PURITANISM New-York, and consists of the following allegations — -facts we dare not call them, without better proof. That the Presbyterians of Jamaica, L. I., had built a church and procured a parsonage, before 1702 ; that the Episcopalians of the place attempted to get the church, and actually got the parsonage ; that the first Presbyterian minister that preached in New- York was arrested, tried, for what he does not tell, and obliged to pay the costs of prosecution ; that for a long time Presbyterians were obliged to pay taxes to the Episcopal Church, and that for years they were prevented by the Episcopalians of New- York from obtaining a charter of incorporation.* One unacquainted with the facts, would not ob- tain much idea of the true state of things in New- York, from the representations of our author. The case at Jamaica was briefly this. A tract of land had been set apart by the town, in 1897, for a par- sonage, and in 1700 a church was erected. In 1702, the Governor, Lord Cornbury, took up his residence there, and occupied the parsonage during his stay. When he left, instead of delivering pos- session to the Presbyterian minister, he gave it to the Episcopalians, who had then become quite mi- * The opposition which our author charges upon the Epis- copalians of New- York, was at the time charged upon the " Bishop of London." Chauncy Ans. to Chad. Appeal, p. 187. Appeal Def. 333* NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 145 merous, who claimed it, or a right in it, as public property. The whole affair seems to have origina- ted with the Governor, and all that was done was under his protection, and probably at his instigation. The whole transaction is in pretty good keeping with that relating to the New-Haven Gregson Glebe, which we shall add as a counterpart of the story. As to the affair of the Presbyterian minister's imprisonment, we have no positive evidence ; but it seems to be one of the cases in which Lord Corn- bury caused the minister to be imprisoned for preaching without license, and against the wish of the Presbyterian congregation there, at the re- quest of a single individual. The application of the Presbyterians in New- York for a charter, a. d. 1759, which our author says was " defeated by the strenuous opposition of the Episcopal Church," was at the time attributed to the Bishop of London, not- withstanding the Board of Trade reported that it was against general policy to grant them greater privileges than were allowed by the Act of Tolera- tion ; and it was held to be contrary to the corona- tion oath. But these are exceedingly small matters, and only worthy of notice, as showing our author's want of knowledge, or candor, on every point in debate. NEW-HAVEN GREGSON GLEBE. This is one of the subjects which has been im- 146 PURITANISM mortalized by Peters, and as he tells the story, is about as near the truth as our author's account of the Presbyterian persecutions. Indeed, we know of no two authors more alike than Peters and Hall. The account of Peters is, in brief, that Mr. Greg- son came and settled at New-Haven, but not being pleased with all things there, advertised his property for sale, when he found he could not sell it without permission of the civil authorities, and that this could not be obtained ; that he then made a will and sailed for England, but died on the passage ; that the will, which contained a devise for the support of an Epis- copal clergyman in New-Haven, was proved and recorded ; and that afterwards, the leaves of the re- cord, where it was recorded, were carefully glued together, and not discovered until 1768, when Peter Harrison, Esq., discovered it, and immediately com- menced suits for the recovery of the land; and that when the occupants found how things were situated they resigned the lands to the Church. This account is very far from the truth. But there was something out of which to make the story, — more, it would seem, than Professor Kingsley supposed, (Hist. Disc, 87 — 90) — something which goes to qualify the epithet of " stupendous falsehood," applied to it by the Rev. Dr. Bacon. This will appear from a detail of facts, relative to the land in question. The statement is compiled from authen- tic manuscript documents now in existence. NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 147 DETAIL OF FACTS RELATING TO IT. Thomas Gregson was one of the original set- tlers of New-Haven, being there in 1639 if not in 1638. In 1643, his family consisted of six persons, and his list amounted to £600.* When he died, he gave all his property to his wife Jane, to be dis- posed of at her discretion. She died in 1691, ma- king a will, and giving the property now known as the Glebe in New-Haven, to her daughter Daniels, during her life, and then to Richard Gregson, her son, who had long resided in London, and in case of his death, to his son, if any. William Gregson, Sen., son of Richard, born in 1670, died 1735, inherited the property willed to his father, Richard, by his grandmother, Jane. In 1707, Joseph Whiting, of Hartford, (son of Rev. John Whiting, of Hartford, and Phebe Gregson, his wife,) wrote to his cousin, William Gregson, giving him a depreciating account of the land here, and asking him [W. G.] to give him [J. W.] the prop- erty. But Gregson, who had received a different account of the property, both as to quantity and qua- lity, imagined that Whiting was dealing dishonestly with him, and saying so, gave offence to Whiting and his friends. * Mr. Bacon says he died at sea, 1646. Hist. Disc. 313. — Prof. Kingsley, that he sailed for England 1647. Hist. Disc. 89. 148 PURITAXISM William Gregsox, Jr., was born in 1699, and lived in London, as did also his father. In 1716, twenty-Jive years after the settlement of the last will and testament of Jane Gregson, this Joseph Whiting somehow contrived to obtain letters of administration on the estate of Thomas Gregson, who had then been dead, according to Mr. Bacon, seventy years, and administered on the same prop- erty disposed of by Jane Gregson twenty-five years before. In the division then made, the same piece of property was again set to Richard Greg- son. Very soon after this the property of Richard Gregson was entered upon by Daniel Thompson and Joseph Whiting, who took possession and oc- cupied it for many years. In 1729, William Greg- son, Sen., received an offer for the land from Gov. Belcher, but the difficulties at New-Haven prevent- ed the bargain. On the 26th of March, 1736, William Gregson, (the second of the name,) made a deed of gift of the property to the Rev. Jonathan Arnold, the mission- ary at New-Haven, and his successors in office,* in trust for a church and parsonage in that town. Mr. Arnold was also authorized and empowered to settle * The only church then in New-Haven, and for some time after, was what is now Christ Church, West-Haven, of which Mr. Arnold was then the minister. NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 149 the whole matter, and furnished with the requisite proof and papers. After Mr. A.s return to Amer- ica, Whiting contrived to obtain clandestine posses- sion of Mr. Arnold's papers, which were never re- turned, and he was not allowed to search the records for other proof in regard to it. He applied to the public authorities for redress, but could procure no aid. About 1740, the Rev. Mr. Arnold sailed for Eng- land, as is supposed on this business, but was lost on his passage. In May, 1765, Mr. Ingersoll, the stamp-master of Connecticut, was in England ; and while there he told Mr. Gregson, who had requested him to assist Mr. Dyer, of New-London, in prosecuting those who had entered upon Gregson's land in New-Ha- ven, that he " married that Mr. Whiting's daughter who took possession of Mr. Gregson's land ; that he would take a letter to Mr. Dyer, but begged to be excused from assisting in any other manner, as it was against his brother-in-law, who was then clerk of the records ; said he had searched the records, but could not find Gregson's first title." In October of the same year, (1765,) Timothy Bonticu and Isaac Doolittle, Wardens, and Chris- topher Kirby and Stephen Mansfield, Vestrymen of Trinity Church, New-Haven, and the rest of the members of the Episcopal Church in New-Haven, received a deed of release of Enos Ailing, who was 150 PURITANISM then in possession of the " Glebe ;" and in October, 1768, William Gregson released any right which he might then have to the same property, to the same persons. Both these cases were the acts of individuals, by which the respective bodies were deprived of their just rights — one under pretence of law, the other without law — and both had their origin in the intolerance of the age. The story is told merely to show what our author indirectly denies, that the Puritans were men, subject to like passions as other men, and when opportunity offered guilty of the same acts of which they so loudly complained in others. APPENDIX. NOTE A. LUTHERAN CHURCH AND THEOLOGY. SYMPATHY OF THE REFORMERS. That a much stronger sympathy existed between the English and Continental Reformers, especially those of Ger- many, than has ever existed between the Churches in the two countries at any later period, every one conversant with the history of both will readily allow. But the reason for the decline of this feeling seems not to be well understood ; though it must be obvious to those who consider the history of both bodies carefully. The fact, however, of this change of sen- timent, is a fruitful theme of declamation on the part of our author, and those like him, who desire to fix upon us the charge of having departed from the faith of the Reformers. It is necessaiy, therefore, to a proper understanding of this subject, to sketch a brief outline of the Lutheran Church and Theology, in order to show why this sympathy declined, why it has never revived, and why the Reformation itself came to be misunderstood, through Lutheran misrepresenta- tion of it. Our remarks are confined to Germany, because, notwithstanding the correspondence kept up by Cranmer and some others with Calvin, and the great respect entertained for him among other eminent foreigners, no real sympathy existed between the Church of England and Geneva. That which did exist, belongs not properly to the Reformers them- selves, but to the generation that succeeded them, and had respect rather to doctrine than men or discipline. The period that elapsed between the publication of the Augsburg Confession, in 1530, to the adoption of the For* 152 PURITANISM mula of Concord, in 1580, has besn called the " creative pe- riod of the Lutheran Church "* During the whole of this time considerable liberty of opinion was allowed among the Lutherans, both as regarded doctrine and discipline ; t for Luther himself, before his death, became considerably soft- ened on some points of doctrine. Melancthon, who was Lu- ther's bosom friend and trusty counsellor, held many senti- ments to which Luther would not assent, especially touching the organization and discipline of the Church, being willing* if not desirous, to retain the ancient regimen. He also differ- ed from Luther somewhat in regard to the relation of faith and works, and also in regard to the importance of the Sacra- mental controversy.! After the death of Luther, in 1546, to the death of Melancthon, in 1560, he was the leading Ger- man Reformer, and efforts were made, both by him and his friends, to secure greater uniformity of sentiment among the reformed, and if possible to bring about a union between them and the Catholic Church of Germany. § Failing in these attempts, and being persecuted by his brethren because of them, he gladly " hailed death as a refuge from the frenzy of the theologians." || ENGLISH REFORMATION AND MELANCTHON. It was after the death of Luther, and while Melancthon was "the head and leader of the Theologians of the Luthe- * Schaf. 98. tPusey I. 18—26. Muenscli. 133, 134. Mosh. III. 175—178. + Mosh. III. 165. § Melancthon made this attempt by means of a Conference held at Worms, so late as 1557, only three years before his death; but was prevented from accomplishing any thing by the violence of the parties. —Scott. Luther, and Luth. Ref. II. 281. Bur. Ref. II. 455, 456. || Bayle Hist. Crit. Die. IV. 137, "a rabie Theologorum," were his words before he died, as one of the reasons why he ought not to be sorry to die. Pusey 1. 11. Schaf. 120. Life Melanc. Am. Encyc. VIII. 392. NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 153 rah Church,"* that English Reformation was effected. And no foreigners opinions had as much influence in England as Melanchthon's. He was repeatedly invited to England, by Cranmer himself; and even the King wrote in his own name requesting him to come.t But though Melanchthon could not be prevailed upon to leave Germany, some of his friends and associates were obtained, who aided essentially in the work of Reformation. Now, if we compare the doctrines and disci- pline of the two Churches, it will be found that the English and Lutheran differ exactly where Luther and Melanchthon differed, and that the preference is always given to the opin- ion of Melanchthon. The sympathy of the English Reformers would therefore have been with Melanchthon and his friends, rather than with Luther himself, had he been living ; and hence it must necessarily follow, that the sympathy of the English Church itself would be with the Melanchthonian school of the Lutheran Church. These points of sympathy, in addition to those which necessarily arose from their being engaged in a common cause, were chiefly preference for the primitive regimen of the Church, milder statements of doc- trine, with moderate and cautious measures in Reformation, so as not to rend the unity of the Church. MELANCHTHONIAN SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY— FORMULA OF CONCORD. These opinions seem to have gained ground after the death of Luther, and vigorous measures were taken by those who claimed to be the representatives of genuine Lutheranis?n } to prevent their increase. The most important and effective of these, was the Formula of Concord, adopted in various coun- tries, from 1576 to 1580, which was composed with an espe- cial reference to the dangers which were supposed to threaten pure Lutheranism, and which eventually rooted out the * Mosh. III. 164, f Massingberd. Eng. Ref. 105. 154 PURITANISM school of Melanchthon from the Lutheran Church.* The Lutheran Church now received a fixed character, beyond all probability of change, and its theology was shut up within the narrow limits of its symbolical books. It changed, in fact, the character of the Reformation. Though speaking the words of Luther, it had no sympathy with his free spirit, nor any of the mild and cautious prudence of Melanchthon. Thenceforward it " appeared under the guise of an intricate scholastic system, and breathed a narrow sectarian spirit."t NEGLECT OF EPISCOPACY IN GERMANY. There was another circumstance which must have tended to the same result : a strange, and in some respects an unac- countable inconsistency in the Continental Reform ers, the fatal effects of which are felt to this day. It is well known that these men never pretended to seek the overthrow of the ancient regimen of the Church, but to desire its restoration to the primitive and Episcopal model, for which they always professed great respect. And it has been supposed that they would have retained it had it been possible. But while this is true in regard to some individuals, in regard to the great body of them it is doubtful, Once committed to an error, it was hard to break away from it. That the Epis- copal form of government might have been retained in Ger- many, and would have been retained in the Arch-Diocese of Cologne, but for the interference of the civil rulers, is evident from the history of Archbishop Hermann, who was ejected from his See in 1546, for adopting the principles of the Re- formation. He lived in retirement until 1552, when he died, aged eighty. Also, from the history of Frederic, brother of the Archbishop, and Bishop of Munster, who resigned his * Muensch. 133. Mosh. III. 178. Pusey I. 20, II. 363. tPusey I. 21. Scliaf. 130. Muensch. 138. Mosh. III. 172—180. NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 155 See in 1532. and died in 1553. He lived an exile in his own city, dependant upon the charity of its citizens.* Hermann's plan of reformation, and the English. Hermann's scheme of Reformation, drawn up by Bucer, with the aid of Melanchthon and Pistorius, and carefully re- vised by the Archbishop himself, was substantially that pur- sued afterwards in England, for which it seems to have served as a model, as it was translated into English, and twice published in London — the last time in 1548.T Had that scheme been adopted by the German Reformers, that coun- try would no doubt have been saved many of the dire evils which have since oitlicted it. The neglect of it, and of the men who had sacrificed all for it, could not fail to produce an influence in England, when the time came for reflection and consideration. natural decline of sympathy. We might have expected that this state of things would have effectually sundered every bond of sympathy which had heretofore subsisted between the two Churches, and which naturally arose out of their similarity of doctrine, had the Church of England remained precisely where it was in the days of Edward VI. But this was impossible. Though all * Scott's Luther and Luth. Ref. II. 142—152. t Bayle's Hist, and Crit. Die. Art. Bucer, II. 171, withCalvinand Vos- sius's Epistles there quoted. Scott, 149. A similar case of inconsistency- occurred in France, in 1561, showing the force of custom, when once men are committed to an error which their judgments at first con- demned. John -ntony Carraccioli, Bishop of Troyes, publicly em- braced Protestantism in 1561, whereupon a Convention of the Clergy of the Reformed Church met to consider his case, and after a full dis- cussion acknowledged him as a true Bishop. But no effort seems to have been made to perpetuate the ofiice.— Life of Carraccioli, inBayle, Hist. Crit. Die. II. 313, Note A. 156 PURITANISM the great principles of the Church, both of doctrine and ritual, had been established by the Reformers, it required time to carry them out in all the details of their practical operation, and without this they could not be judged of as a system. The two systems, therefore, would prove to be much farther apart, in their details, than they had seemed to be from the mere statement of their principles; and consequently, the more thoroughly the two systems were developed, the less ground there would have been for sympathy, had the For- mula of Concord never been adopted FORMULA OF CONCORD ITS EFFECTS. That instrument tended, also, not only to extinguish the sympathy existing be \ ween the two bodies, as such, but would stand in the way of its revival, so long as it remained the authoritative exponent of Lutheran doctrine. The de- parture from the primitive organization of the Church, which Melanchthon dep'ored, and which was justified at first only on the ground of necessity, was now upheld as a matter of right ; and this of itself would have prevented official minis- terial intercourse, had the bonds of sympathy, in other re- spects, been ever so strong. We see, therefore, that the decline of sympathy between the Church of England and the foreign Churches, was not the result of any change of opinion on the part of the Church of England, but of the altered circumstances of those foreign bodies ; and also that the same cause which led to its decline has prevented its revival. LUTHERAN MISREPRKRENTATION OF THE REFORMATION. There is still another cause why this sympathy could never revive, arising out of an erroneous estimate of the Lutheran Reformation, through Lutheran misrepresentation of it. We do not mean by this that there has been any intentional mis- NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 157 representation, but simply that the Lutheran Church never has been a true representation of the real sentiments of Lu- ther even, to say nothing of Melanchtiion, and that her theo- logians and historians have seldom presented it in its true light. From the time of the Formula of Concord, every theologian was shut up within the narrow bounds of the sym- bolical books, and no man was permitted to go beyond, or fall short of it in any particular.* The consequence was, that ecclesiastical history became comparatively useless, and was very generally neglected, and thorough and independent Bib- lical Exegesis unnecessary, if not dangerous. Polemics usurped the place of theology, and for a century most of the doctors of the universities, and a great body of the clergy, were occupied in explaining and defending the tenets and dogmas of the Church. t SCHOOL OF THE PIETISTS. It must be obvious that persons thus engaged could neither exemplify the principles of religion, nor of the Reformation. Some of the evils arising from this state of things, the Pie- tists, who sprung from the school of Speuer, (born 1629, died 1705,) attempted to remedy. But though they saw and felt the neglect of ecclesiastical history and b blical interpretation, they did not pursue tkem with sufficient energy or accuracy to gain a thorough apprehension of them ; and the school itself either degenerated into mysticism, or passed over into unbelief, t The collisions of the Pietist and orthodox schools, however, produced some men of eminence, among whom * Pusey I. 20--26. M uensch. 133. tPusey I. 26-40, 139-147; II. 54-87, 119-127, Mosh. 15. IV. cent. XVII. §2. Part II. c. 1; though the latter cannot 1 e said, in every respect, to he an impartial witness. See, also, Schlegei's Notes on the same. Those interpreters of this period who still retain their value, either he- Ion ^ed to the school of Melanchthon or partook of its mild spirit. | Pusey I. 68-110. 153 PURITANISM Mosheim is extensively known in this country, through his ecclesiastical history.* SCHOOLS OF ERNESTI AND SExMLER. But these efforts were not without effect, as they ultimate- ly led to the establishment of two different schools, both of which have ministered largely to unbelief; that of Ernesti, which pursued the " grammatical," as opposed to the doc- trinal system of interpretation ; and that of Sender, which proposed to follow the " historical interpretation " of the sa- cred record. The principle of the Reformers, that the Bible was to be its own interpreter, includes within itself the reli- gious, historical, and grammatical elements ; and consequent- ly the schools of Spener,t and Semler,} and Ernesti, all failed of apprehending the true Protestant ground, inasmuch as they pushed (often ignorantly, always unscientifically,) one element to an extreme, regardless of the consideration due to the other two.§ * Much praise is due to this author as a historian, since he was the first who raised ecclesiastical history in Germany above the charac- ter of a chronicle, (Pusey I. III.,) though we cannot give him the credit ofbeing always impartial; especially in the early ages of the Church. No one familiar with the subject can read a chapter touching the Church, without seeing the bias of his theological opinions. Nor at a later period can he always be trusted, as is clear from his mutilation and misrepresentation of St. Eligius, Bishop of Noyon, in the seventh century. Comp.B. II. cent. VII. Part ii. c. ii., with Waddington's Chur. Hist. 141, 251. There is also a gross error running through his work, that has done a vast amount of mischief: the continued misrepresen- tation that the vices of the early clergy led to the degradation of Christianity, which deepened through descending centuries. Pusey [I. 130. It is high time he was laid aside as authority in this country, as he has long been in Germany. Schaf. 166. t Schaf. 99. Pusey I. 27, 81. X Schaf. 100. Pusey I. 142, 143. § Schaf. 163. Pusey 1. 132. NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 159 SCHOOLS OF RATIONALISM. Out of this state of things arose the RationaVsm of Ger- many, whence proceeded its Neology, or New Theology, the supporters of which are divided by Bretschneider* into four classes. The first regard all revelation as superstition, and Jesus Christ, (if he ever existed,) as a well meaning fanatic or impostor. These were the lineal successors of the Eng- lish and French Deists and Infidels, embracing in the first instance no theologians ;t and second, those who regard Chris- tianity as a sort of republication of natural religion — allowing Christ a real existence, but no divine authority — making him a sort of mystagogue. To this class belong such men as Bahrdt, Venturini, and Brennecke, among the theologians, and Reimaur and others not of the clergy. The third class are those which especially assume the name of Rationalists. These allow Christianity to be a divine, benevolent, and po- sitive appointment for the good of mankind, and that the word of God is contained in the Scriptures, and that Jesus was a messenger of Divine Providence ; but deny any thing miraculous, and separate that which they regard as local and temporary from that which they consider universal and per- petual in Christianity. To this class belong the philosophers Steinbert, Kant, Krug ; and among theologians, W. A. Tel- ler, Loffler, Thiess, Henke, J. E. C. Schmidt, DeWette, Paulus, Wegscheider, Rohr, etc. The fourth class, who dislike to be called Rationalists, but are in reality such, allow the Bible and Christianity to be divine — in a higher sense than the avowed Rationalists — allow " a revealed operation of the power of God," but "distinguish between the Bible and word of God," and insist upon establishing the divine * Bretschneider's Ans. to Rose. 30-32. t Strauss Bruno Baur, and Fuerbach, seem properly to belong - here. 160 PURITANISM nature of Christianity upon internal proofs, rather than upon miracles. To this class belong Doederlin, Morus, ReinharcU Armmon, Schott, Niemeyer, Bretschneider, &c. SCHOOL OF THE SUPERNATURALISTS. There was also another party, which Bretschneider does not mention by name : the remnant of the old Orthodox Lu- therans, commonly known as the Supernaturalists, which he describes as being very small in numbers — the greater share of clergy and laity belonging to his fourth class — which he dignifies with the name of " Evangelical."* Some of the men whom he reckons as belonging to this class, were once Supernaturalists ; but they endeavored, by means of various compromises, to make Christianity as agreeable as possible to the natural man. They treated about peace — they made concessions — they retrograded so far, that in the end they fairly fell over to the enemy's side, as was the case with Armmon, Schott, and Bretschneider, or exchanged names with their opponents, and became Rational- Supernatural- ists, as in the case of Reinhard.t Some of the peculiarities of this ic Evangelical " school, may be inferred from Bretschnei- der's representation of the teaching of the early Church ; for he says, up to the year 325, we find nothing of the " Trinity, Original Sin, man's inability to do good, or the satisfaction [atonement?] of Chejst ;" t assertions it is diffi- cult to reconcile with the reputed learning of those men. NEW LUTHER SCHOOL. But these schools have had their day, and are on the decline. The half-infidel, half-pantheistic philosophies of Schelling and Hegel, led the way to a restoration of the * Bret. 35, 36. t Wingard, 183. Schaf. 147. + Reply, 32. NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 161 belief in the Incarnation and Alonemev,* and other impor- tant doctrines, naturally followed in their train ; especially a belief in a unity of the Church, and the importance and effi- cacy of the Sacraments Out of all this collision and dis- cussion, out of the joint influence of religion and philos- ophy, combined with various other causes, has arisen a new school of German theology, which is now the most preva- lent. It is not Rationalism, but orthodoxy resuscitated, with new life from its ruins. With the decision, power and fervor of the Old Church faith, it unites more scientific freedom, greater disentanglement from prejudice, and more fullness and roundness of method.! But we must not yet be too sanguine as to the result. The whole " Evangelical Church of Germany is at present in an interimistic state, involved in a process of fermentation and transition, whifch brings along with it necessarily a measure of uncertainty and experi- ment." t Men's minds are much in the dark. Philosophy holds too absolute a sway ; and often a philosophy of more than a doubtful character. The language of its theology is too human. It addresses itself too much to the man, to the neglect of the Christian. It bows too obsequiously to hu- man reason. § Hence why it is that the writings of the most orthodox often contain things which cannot fail to give pain to every right minded Christian, and which could hardly fail * Schaf. 150. The philosophy of Schelling has its chief theological representation in Daub ; that of Hegel inMarheiuecke, (Pusey 1. 115;) but Rothe, Dorner, Martensen, Hoffman, and Hasse, are more or less ruled by it, (Schaf. 148 ;) Tholuck is half a convert to it,(Stowe. Bib. Rep. 3d Series, I. 86 ;) Hengstenberg regards it as the very concentration of Atheism and falsehood, (Sto*ve, lb.;) while Paulus considers that it only serves to make darkness more visible. (Stowe lb. I. 89.) t Schaf. 147. 148. J Schaf. 155. § See a graphic picture of the present state of things in Germany, by Professor Stowe. Bib. Rep, 3d Series,!. 86-96, 8* 162 PURITANISM. to minister to unbelief if transplanted here, whatever may be their influence at home. Still, amid all this darkness there are signs of hope. It breathes the free spirit of Luther, and the mild spirit of Me- lanchthon, associated with the orthodox sentiments of both, accompanied by truer views of the Church and the Sacra- ments, the importance of her unity, and the sin of schism, than could have been found at any time before, since the adoption of the Formula of Concord. With these men, or rather with these opinions, Churchmen can again have sym- pathy, notwithstanding their erroneous sentiments in regard to the form of the ministry ; while Mr. Hall and his asso- ciates, if they ever come to understand the sentiments of those men, will regard them in no better light than they do us. + But, in addition to this, there is a decided, and we believe, an increasing wish in many parts of Germany, to restore the Episcopal form of Church government. Sweden always has been Episcopal, in fact and form. Denmark is so in form, though (probably) not in fact. In Prussia an approximation has been made to Episcopacy in form, and so late as 1843 the periodicals said : " The state of ecclesiastical matters is yet unsettled in Prussia. Whether Presbytery or Episcopacy will prevail is uncertain. The tendency is rather towards the latter, and that High Churchism."* And Dr. Schaf, who may be regarded as representing the most orthodox the- ologians of the Evangelical Church of Germany, says : " I have all respect for the Episcopal system. It possesses, in fact, many undeniable advantages ; and by its antiquity, be- sides, must command the veneration of all who have any right historical feeling."? In this we see the wish of Me- lanchthon revived, and may we not hope, about to be realized. * Bib. Rep. X. [N, S.] 499. t Prot. Principle, 126. NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 163 NOTE B. NEANDER'S DEFECTS AS A CHURCH HISTO- RIAN. The great reputation which Neander has obtained as a historian, and in many respects justly, renders it important that those who follow him as a guide, should know before- hand what are his deficiencies, and where he cannot be safely trusted. And it is precisely as a Church historian that his opinion has the least weight, and this because of his er- roneous notions in regard to the Chmch, and because he is deficient in Church feeling. In the history of the Church, says Rauch, (Church Historians in Germany — Bib. Rep. X. 302,) " much depends upon what the historian understands by the Church. His notion of it may be considered his fun- damental view, upon which he raises the superstructure of his history." It is important, therefore, that the historian's views, both of the Church and its doctrine, be sound ; which is more than can be said of Neander on either point. In re- ligion he belongs to the school of Schleirmacher, (Schaf. 148,) who, according to Professor Stuart, (Bib. Rep. V. 266,) " aimed too much at system and theoretical perfection, of orderly and logical analysis and development in obtaining which he appears to have occasionally left out of sight some of the plain and practical deductions of the Scrip- tures." * In philosophy Neander is a disciple of Jaeobi, (Rauch, lb. 314,) and regards faith as " a rational instinct, a knowing from immediate feeling, a direct perception of the supersensible, without any intervening proof."— (Murd. Ger. * And whom the Rationalistic Bretschneider says adopted the " Church system, in order to cloak a philosophical system under it," (Rep. Rose, 36.) 164 PURITANISM Philos. 131.) That this "feeling differs in everyone, and must be peculiarly characterized in each Christian," and con- sequently would be cramped and impeded in its development by symbolical books and confessions. Hence, with him " it matters little whether a man is an Arian, a Nestorian, or a Calvinist, if he be only pious." He is opposed to any estab- lished Church, and allows no constitution to it, as a visible body.— (Rauch, lb. 313, 314.)* In the language of the New- Englander, (II. 270.) " His views of the authority of certain books in our Canon of the Scripture, and on some topics of dogmatical theology, would not harmonize with the profes- sions and sentiments of our religious community." While, therefore, Neander has great learning, and thorough ac- quaintance with antiquity, he cannot be trusted as a Church historian. His fundamental view is more or less erroneous, and his views of the connection between the Jewish and Christian Churches altogether faulty. He may develope the piety of individuals well, but he has no proper idea of life in the Church. He may describe the separate parts of the system, as existing independently of each other, but he can- not put them together, so as to show the proper working of the whole body. He must ever be deficient as a Church historian, because his views of the Church must ever render him deficient in proper Church feeling. — (Schaf. 166.) And it is this very feature of his work, this unchurchly view of things, that recommends him so strongly to the unchurchly sects of our own country. * Educated as a Jew, he went to the opposite extreme, as indeed his philosophy would be likely to carry him, when he became a Christian. As he formerly failed of apprehending the spirit of the old dispensa- tion, so now he fails of apprehending- the form of the new : regarding the former as altogether " outward and visible," the latter as merely "internal and spiritual." (Intd. Coleman's Prim. Ch. 14.) His theolo- gical opinions arc also unsound. NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 165 These defects of Neandcr will be more apparent upon con- trasting his view of the Church with the more orthodox New Lutheran views of the present day. The idea of the Church, according to those, is to be found in the God- Man, Jesus Christ, it being founded in the Incarnation itself. In its divine, ideal, and heavenly nature, it is eternal, invisible, and unchangeable. In its human, real, and earthly nature, it is developed m time, in doctrines, discipline, and rites, and is the continuation of the earthly human life of the Redeemer, in his threefold office of prophet, priest, and king. This idea of the Church, as existing in Christ, is necessarily that of a unity — a whole — without difference or opposition. The Church, which is the body of Christ, is Christianity — abso- lute in its nature, sacramental in its character — so that with- out the Church there can be no Christianity. But though the idea of the Church implies a perfect unity, which shall one day be realized in its outward manifestation, its proper development has hitherto been impeded by the circumstances by which it has been surrounded, so that its true unity has never been fully realized since the primitive age. So, too, though Christianity is in itself the absolute religion, and in this view admitting of no improvement, its manifestation in the world has not come up to the perfection of the original. The apprehension of it by the Church, and its appropriation by individual Christians, have been more or less imperfect or faulty ; so that the world has seen no example of a perfect Christianity save in the life of its founder. To this standard of unity and truth the Church, under all its diversified forms, and amid all the conflicts through which it has to pass, both from within and without, is constantly advancing, even when it seems to be retrograding, under the multiplied evils brought to bear upon it.* ■ Rauch, Bib. Rep. X ? 314—316, Schaf, 177 — 180, Heagstenberg, in Note C. 166 PURITANISM But Neander's view of things is as wide as possible from this. He makes the idea of an invisible Church the principle of historiography, and maintains that the visible Church on earth is at variance with this, instead of being a development from it. Consequently, the visible Church bears no relation to the invisible, being the product, merely, of those combina- tions of opinions, actions, and circumstances, by which Chris- tians have been surrounded. It is in no sense, therefore, a medium of grace, and consequently he can conceive of no such thing as life in the Church. Truth, therefore, is to be " apprehended" by individuals, not by the Church; and to be developed in the history of individuals, not in that of the Church. What, therefore, we have been accustomed to regard as heresy, is mostly the peculiar apprehension of re- ligious truth by particular individuals, modified by the pecu- liarities of position, place, circumstance, and temperament of each.* With the former, the Church is (to adopt their own lan- guage) organic ; " the organism of Christ," and the princi- ple of " corporiety," or that of organized life, is the law of its being — the " idea " t existing anterior to its development — * Ranch, X. 314—316. t A few words seem to be necessary concerning the sense in which the Germans employ the term idea, especially those who are at all influenced by the philosophy of Hegel, as out of it arises the doctrine of development. They do not use it to signify merely the intellectual apprehension of a fact, nor to signify " habitual judg- ments " in regard to facts, as Mr. Newman supposes, (Theory Devel. c. i. §1.,) but to denote the abstract essence of an entity as it exists, in and of itself; that generic essentia which, though invisible itself, may be seen in every individual development. These developments are re- lated to the idea, as specie to genus. Every development, therefore, must partake of the nature and essence of the "idea " from which it is developed ; and no single development can ever come up to the " idea " itself, as that includes all specific developments, which together consti- tute the genus. Consequently, we cannot learn the character of the NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 167 the whole preceding the parts. With the latter, the visible Church, is an " atomic " compound of independent, (and for this purpose,) isolated individuals, and results from the mere choice of its individual members. With the former, the min- istry is " the organ of Christ," knowing itself to be incorpo- rated in the " organism of Christ," and bearing testimony from out of the common life of the Church. With the latter, every individual Christian is " a private organ of Christ," and may bear testimony from out of the particular spiritual life communicated to itself. With one, each individual is united to the body, in order that, by virtue of such union, it may partake of the life and spirit of the same. According to the other, each individual receives life, in order that it may be qualified for companionship with other living individ- uals. " idea " from the developments— of the genus from the species — until all specific developments are known. In regard to Christianity and the Church, we have the " idea" itself, in the God-Man, Christ Je- sus, made known in Holy Writ, at once the model of the Church and the example of the Christian, and the truth of all developments is to be determined by their correspondence to that; until the Gospel shall be fully apprehended by the Church, and its influence have pervaded every walk of life and every department of society. The Romish and Pantheistic applications of this doctrine are both false and unscientific. Truly applied, it is the foundation of all that is true, in what is some- times called the sacramentality of nature, by which is meant the union of the Word and Element, and the correspondence of the external and visible with the invisible and spiritual, 168 Puritanism: NOTE C. NEW LUTHERAN VIEW OF THE SACRA- MENTS. REV. DR. HENGSTENBERG. We have already seen what views the orthodox Lutherans of the present day entertain of the Church, and it will be in- teresting to see what are their opinions in regard to the Sa- craments. For this purpose we shall make a series of quota- tions from two living orthodox Lutherans, whose learning and piety entitle them to the highest consideration. Our first quotations are from an article in Evangelisch-Kirchen Zei- tung for March, 1846, edited by Rev. Prof. E. W. Heng- stenberg, D.D., the acknowledged leader of the New Luth- erans, and whose name is familiar to the theologians of this country. The article is entitled " The mystery of Baptism." We quote from a translation made for the Irish Ecclesiasti- cal Journal for May and June, 1846. " THE MYPTERY OF BAPTrSM. " Every evangelical Christian, who has been baptized, has herewith been also gifted with the desire, and placed under the obligation, of continually searching deeply into the mys- tery of holy Baptism. The desire each must feel according to the measure and manner of his calling, if he does not suppress it through carelessness or through design. The obligation no one can deny, without disowning the Baptism itself, which has been conferred on him. " 'Ah ! dear Christian ! let us not so carelessly regard and treat such unutterable gifts ! Baptism is surely our only comfort, and admission to all divine gifts, and into the Com- munion of Saints. May God assist us ! Amen ! ' XOT GENUINE PEOTESTAXTISM 169 In Luthers larger Catechism this exhortation is repeated, pressingly and often : ' Every Christian has, therefore, during his whole existence, enough to learn and to practice in refer- ence to Baptism j for he has continually to take care that he firmly believe what it promises and confers, viz., the victory over death and the Devil, Remission of Sins, the Grace of God, the full participation of Christ, and the Holy Ghost with His gifts. In fine, it is so superabundant, that if feeble na- ture could reflect, it would certainly question whether the fact could be true.' " Our Catechism itself introduces us to the mystery of holy Baptism, which no baptized person can exhaust. The Cat- echism directs us, at the same time, to the Scripture -doc- trine of Baptism."' [Here he quotes Matt, xxviii. 19. Mark xvi. 16. Rom. vi. 3, 4. Col. ii. 12. Eph. v. 25, 26. 1 Pet. iii. 21. Tit. iii. 5—7. Heb. x. 21,22. Gal. iii. 27. 1 Cor. xii. 13.; when he proceeds.] " In these passages a good lesson is given to each for his entire life, in order, as Luther says, to carry on the work of Baptism, which remains with us, and works forward, although the Sacrament itself cannot be repeated." CHRISTIANITY SACRAMENTAL. " ' "Without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness. God was manifest in the flesh.' ' The word was made flesh.' On this mystery Christianity depends. Christianity, on this account, is essentially sacramental ; for a Sacrament im- plies this, that the Word comes to the Element {das Wort zum Elemente kommt.) On the mystery of the Incarnation of God in Christ the Christian Church is founded — nay more, the very marrov: of the Church, the innermost mystery of the Church — the Sacrament — for the Sacrament is the real ap- propriation (Leibhaftige Aneignung) of the God-Man." 170 PURITANISM ONE SACRAMENT IN TWO PARTS. "As there is only one Church of Christ, so also there is only one Sacrament. But as the one universal Church com- prehends within itself several degrees and divisions, so also the Sacrament consists of two degrees and divisions, each of which contains the Sacrament whole and undivided : ■ There is one body and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of our calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.' — (Eph. iv 4 — 6.) One body, founded on one be- lief in one Spirit, in one Lord, in one God the Father, with the Son and the Spirit, through one Baptism. The Apostle Paul names only one Sacrament, and that manifestly Bap- tism ; but in and with Baptism also the Sacrament of the Supper (des. Abendmalds.) Baptism is, like the Supper, a communion of Christians with Christ, and with the body of Christ, wiiich is the Church — and that, too, Sacramental Communion — Communion through the Word in the Ele- ment. " In Baptism, also, the Supper has been already included, for we who are baptized are baptized into the death of Christ. In the Supper, the baptismal bond is also renewed, for ' the cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the com- munion of the blood of Christ ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ.' " difference between the parts. " Christ is in both Sacraments undivided, as in one. The distinction to be drawn in the first place, amounts only to this, that the Christian, through baptism, enters into commu- nion with Christ and his body, which is the Church ; there- fore, Baptism can only once be administered to each man : 1 He that is washed, needeth not save to wash his feet, but is NOT GENUINE PKOTESTANTISM. 171 clean every whit.' In the Supper, however, his pilgrimage is con tinned still further ; and at each participation he renews this same communion, until he partake of it anew with Christ in the kingdom of the Father. The second distinc- tion is this, that in Baptism the Sacrament — or, in other words, the real uniting of the triune God with man — comes to the man ; whilst, in the Supper, man approaches to the Sacrament. For this very reason, Baptism? as a Sacrament, is administered but once ; while the Supper, as being the renewal of the baptismal bond, is held forth to us as often as we approach. There is the grace which hastes to meet us — here that which fully prepares." REV. DR. MARTENSEN. Such is the language of Hengstenberg's Evangelical Church- Journal. We proceed to give another series of Ex- tracts from the same paper, not original with it, being a par- aphrastic translation and abridgment of a little work, entitled K * Christian Baptism and the Baptist Question," by Rev. H. Martensen, D. D., Professor of Theology in the University of Copenhagen. The extracts already made, speak the language of the New Lutherans of Prussia, the following may be regarded as representing the opinions and sentiments of those in Denmark ; approved, also, by Rev. Dr. Heng- stenberg. It will be seen, that both Dr. Martensen and Dr. Hengstenberg suppose many other important doctrines to be immediately connected with Baptism." PLAN OF DR. M.'S WORK. " The little work [of Dr. M.] is divided into five sections ; for it seeks (always with respect to the erroneous doctrine of Baptism) to prove, from the idea of Baptism, according to Scripture — 1st. That Baptism consolidates the Church, pub- lic worship, and preaching in the Church, and proportionably, 172 PURITANISM the faith also: 2d. That it is essentially designed for child- ren ; and besides these, for such persons only who have not been baptized as children, and who are therefore baptized by way of addition — solely, however, on the supposition that they are related to it as children: 3d. That it bestows itself as true, in other words, as sacramental Predestination : 4th. That it is the Sacrament of Justification and Regeneration, and consequently already contains the essence (das Wesen) of Justification and Regeneration : 5th. That it commences objectively with the Apostolic Confession of Faith : and sub- jectively in Confirmation is put into action, and authenti- cated." BAPTISMAL ELECTION INTO AN ORGANIC BODY. " I. What the personal election of Christ was for the first band of disciples, the same is Baptism for the succeeding community ; namely, the Divine Act, whereby Christ gives individually to his Church the true, the eternal beginning ; whereby he also propagates the Church in the unending course of the method of Salvation. And this Act is not doc- trine, is not preaching, but a Sacrament, by me^ns of which Christ gives Himself For this very reason must the Chris- tian preacher, who administers the Sacrament in Christ's name, know himself to be the organ [or mmisteri A represen- tative] of Christ; and as such he can only know himself so far as he is himself incorporated in the organism [or organ- ized body] o' Christ, or the Church. For only through the [organic] whole (das Qanze,) is Christ related to the indi- vidual; and every true Communion with Christ is only a Comm union with Him as the Head of the Body." THE CHURCH, ACCORDING TO Tl E SECTSj \ "O TIC " This ' Church, those Secte m which regard the Church as the result, as the product only NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 173 of the individual members, and not as pre-assuming their existence. The Sects wish to produce the whole, through an atomic [or individual] compound of its [independent] parts : white, on the other hand, this is the secret of Organ- ism, that the whole precedes the parts ; and thus the Com- munion 0*" Saints precedes the existence of individual mem- bers. But to this Organism the Church attains through the Sacrament of Baptism, by means of which she places Chris- tians, before they are yet conscious of it, in the most intimate relation of Communion with Christ, and among themselves, just as each individual man also in every respect is placed (even before he could give his assent) in determined rela- tions. The Sacrament of Baptism is, therefore, at once the opening point of all worship, and the door of Faith." WORSHIP AND BAPTISM. " Worship is to be understood not merely as the service of God, or as Communion in order to edification ; this is but one side of worship, according to which Christ is only its object : according to the other side, Christ is also the sub- ject of worship ; it is He who founds the Communion, who is the Eternal High Priest, who himself is present, and himself officiates ; the King, who perceptibly goes through the ranks, and causes his presence to be felt. This conception of the eternal Kingdom is precisely that fundamental mystery on which the Church reposes." FAITH AND BAPTISM. " In the same degree Christian Faith is not only faith on Christ, but also (and indeed in the first instance) faith through Christ ; and for that very reason, in the third place, faith in Christ. In this manner, faith (according to its Sac- ramental genesis) comes forth from Baptism, in which it is imparted through Christ, within his Organism." 174 PURITANISM PREACHING AND BAPTISM. " When it is written, ' Faith cometh by preaching,' (aus der Predigt,) by this statement the exoteric side of truth is in the first place laid down. For it is added, in close con- nection, * Preaching comes by the word ' — (die Perdigt kommt aus dem Worte :) this is the esoteric side of truth. Baptism is the Word in, with, and under the water sprinkled by a priestly organ of the Church. It is, however, certainly not the final commencement of faith, which also comes by preaching, through the medium of one's own perception and determination of will." THE SACRAMENT ESSENTIALLY INFANT BAPTISM. " II. Because the Sacrament of Baptism institutes the Church, and then introduces into the Church, for ' Except a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God — (John iii. 5) — so it is essentially (wesentlicli) Infant Baptism.'-' ADULTS RECEIVE IT AS INFANTS. "Again, the adult candidate for Baptism cannot be con- sidered as an independent personality, with reference to the Redemption and the Kingdom of God. All his independence is, when confronted with Baptism, a greatness which van- ishes away. He, who is about to be born into the new world of Christianity, descends to the level of the child. But in consequence of this very fact, that the Sacrament of Bap- tism lays hold of man before he can independently lay hold of it, it proves by the efficacy of preventing Grace its sacra- mental nature." NOT GENUINE TROTESTANTISAI. 175 GROUND OF INFANT BAPTISM. " By virtue of tliat need of Redemption innate in the child, it longs, indeed, for sacramental union with God, but it is conscious of no impulse of the will directed towards that union, still less does it exhibit a manifestation of the will : therefore Infant Baptism is not a proceeding conditional on the individual's choice. The child does not make the elec- tion at his own direction, but is, in the first instance, elected : thus the Church intervenes, in order to oppose the atomism (der Atomistik) of sectarian Baptism." SACRAMENTAL PREDESTINATION. " III. By this denial of self-actuated volition, Baptism exhibits itself in a striking manner, as the Sacrament of Pre- destination. Sacramental Predestination consists in this, that the child does not exhibit itself as the subject, but is treated as the vessel of Grace — as the material (als die creaturliche Stoffe ) out of which Christ will form a work. In Baptism it is Christ who assimilates to himself the natural man, in order, at a later period, in the Holy Communion, to cause Himself to be assimilated by man, through the means of faithful participation. But the child appears, at the same time, in Baptism, as the subject in which the beginning is made. Therefore, this effectual objective predestination is not complete, for from the election of grace in Baptism springs the call of grace to liberty. Our election stands fast through Baptism : the development of the fruit of Baptism, the appointed use of the gift of grace is, however, conditional on watching and prayer, on the living in communion, and on the Holy Supper. Sacramental Predestination is of a speci- fic and more intimate nature, in opposition to that universal predestination, according to which God wills that assistance should be given to all men. Between the former and the 176 PURITANIC! latter there exists the same relation as between the Word which has become flesh, and the same Word which existed in the beginning. But what sacramental predestination is to the succeeding Christians, such was the original authoritative faith (Autoritatsglaube) for the original disciples, which es- sentially consists in this, that they did not make their choice, but were chosen — that they were embraced before they could embrace it. In our time it is particularly important to draw attention to the deep import of authoritative faith" HOW DISTINGUISHED FROM CALVINISTIC AND ARMINIAN PREDES- TINATION. " Hence this sacramental predestination has for its oppo- site extremes, on the one side the fatalist, i. e. the Calvinistic particular election ; and on the other, the Pelagian predesti- nation, accerding to which the subject predestinates itself. The Apocatastasis also, (i. e. the restoration of all moral beings to a life of bliss in God,) rests on the very same point as the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination which is opposed to it — namely, on that natural necessity to which, according to both doctrines, moral beings are subjected. The Apoca- tastasis has only this advantage, that it invests with the form of unity the Calvinistic dualism — that separation be- tween the happy and the condemned already decreed from the beginning. According to the doctrine of sacramen- tal predestination, however, happiness alone has been be- stowed thetically — i. e. by virtue of original determination, while there is no decree of condemnation ; w T hich latter can, however, follow hypothetically, or, in other words, possibly. Nay, condemnation is to be regarded as a necessary hypoth- esis — in other words, as an unavoidable possibility — inasmuch as baptismal grace contains in itself no final, no magical, no doomed predestination. NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 177 SACRAMENT OF REGENERATION. 11 IV. If the Sacrament of Infant Baptism contain, in the full meaning of the words, not alone the call, but also the election — without any prejudice, be it observed, to the free- dom of the subject — it is also, at the same time, the Laver of Regeneration, in which the baptized * put on Christ.' Thus we read in the holy Scripture ; thus too Reason confesses when enlightened by Faith. Baptism is the Act, whereby Christ imparts to the child (undoubtedly in a sacramental manner) his icill, which confers justification on man. Through Baptism the child is really a participator in the righteousness of Christ, as the substantial, fruitful prin- ciple of a new life in the general community. 5 ' justification communicated in baptism, received by faith. " It is to be carefully remarked, that the gracious will of God in Christ is the principle of all justification, the com- munication of which takes place through Baptism, the recep- tion of which takes place through Faith. Thus it remains an unalterable fact, that it is Faith alone which justifies the sinner, and attains to regeneration ; but it is precisely in Bap- tism that this Faith, on, and through, and in Christ, is sac- ramentally received, according to its essence and according to its substance. Therefore, even Luther, the preacher of justification through Faith only, says in his larger Catechism, 1 Undoubtedly Faith alone makes happy : but the blind will not see this, that Faith must have something which it can believe, which actually exists, and on which it may fasten and take its stand. Now Faith depends on the water, and believes that Baptism is that in which there is nought but bliss and life ; not, indeed, by virtue of the water itself, but through this, that it is incorporated with God's word and ordinance, and that His name cleaves thereto. If I now 9 178 PURITANISM believe this fact, on what else do I believe than on God, as on Him who has herein given and planted His word, and proffers to us this outward thing, whereby we can lay hold of such a treasure? But now men are so beside themselves that they separate from each other the Faith, and the thing on which Faith fastens itself, and to which it is bound, albeit that thing is external/ NECESSITY OF BAPTISM. " By these principles we at once answer the question, ' Is Baptism necessary for salvation ? ' Here is the reply : Bap- tism, as the Sacrament by which Christ is made (angee ; g- net) the Christian's own, is Christianity itself; but, otherwise than through Christ, none can come to God. It is also the appointed rule , that this Sacrament should be adminis- tered through water and the Word. Even Paul caused himself to be baptized, (Acts ix. 19,) and his sins to be washed away (Acts xxii. 16.) And the Apostles, who had 'seen, heard, looked on, handled ' Jesus in the form of a servant* were in the strictest sense baptized, ordained, predestinated, purified, through the means of water, by the Word of Life, by the personal Sacrament, by the Word in the Flesh (John xiii. 10 ;) they were elected by the Word, (John xv. 3,) with- out having made their own election, (John xv. 16,) and at last were filled with the Spirit (Acts ii. 4.) Since that pe- riod Baptism in water and the Word is sacramental initiation, (Acts ii. 41.)" ITS CAUSE. " The rule, however, does not exclude the exceptions. He who comes to the Faith, has either been already baptized, or will still receive, or, at any rate, desire Baptism, in order to be engrafted into the body of the Lord, for Christianity is no private matter. But he who does not believe — that is, who NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 179 does not accept the grace actually offered to him — that man, be he baptized or not, is condemned By these principles, likewise, the Baptism of necessity* is justified, and every neglect of it is a transgression of the ordinance of the Church. It is the ordinance and rule, that they to whom the command has been given should not depend on exceptions which con- cern not them, but the Lord alone. The notion of the pos- sibility of infinitely numerous and different means of grace can possess only a dialectical validity within the reality of the ordained economy of Revelation, and on the presupposi- tion of the necessity of its means of grace. Thus the truth of the Baptism of necessity (Nothtaufe) lies midway between the extremes of an unconditional necessity of the sensuous act, and the freedom of that spiritual Baptism maintained by the Baptists. So it is also, to regard the matter through the bare medium of sense, (ist es auch eine baare Sinnlichkeit,) when the super-sensuous Idealists do not acknowledge in the sensuous act of the Sacrament God's invisible Being : but it is also a using of the bare medium of sense, when the Realists regard God's invisible Being as materially united to it. Christ obliges us to it — this is the reply to the super- sensuous Idealists : but not Himself — this is the reply to the material Realists." OBJECTIVE CONFESSION OF FAITH IN BAPTISM. " V. For this reason Faith belongs to the child in the con- gregation, through Baptism. For this reason the Apostolic Confession of Faith is proposed to the Sponsors as the Faith of the child, in order to their professing it on its behalf. For this very reason the mystical union of the community exhi- * Baptism of necessity is given as the translation of the technical phrase die Nothtaufe, i. e. Baptism performed, in cases of urgency, by females or laymen, a practice allowed by the Lulherang. 180 PURITANISM bits itself in Baptism, in the child who is incorporated in the community ; and this organic uniting of all the members into one body, is also in Baptism the blessing of communion, in contraposition to which all separation appears atomistic. But for this reason, also, Baptism, as a Sacrament, is com- pleted objectively by means of the administration, and re- quires, as the Act of Christ, no further completion, but, merely that it be developed in the subject on whom it has been bestowed. Therefore, Confirmation is neither a comple- tion, nor even a ratification of Baptism, but merely a rati- fication of its subjective development in the child." SUBJECTIVE IN CONFIRMATION. " Hence, therefore, Confirmation is for the subject of no less importance. It certainly possesses, at different periods of the Church, different degrees of importance ; while Baptism, regarded in its sacramental character, remains always iden- tical with itself: but although Confirmation does not move precisely parallel with the Sacrament, it is, nevertheless, when regarded as an acknowledgment on the part of the subject of the Baptism administered to him, and as an ac- count which the subject gives of it in the presence of the congregation, at all times of great (in times like ours of the very greatest) importance. For at present there has arisen among very many members of the Christian Church a wide opposition, a mighty separation, between Baptism and the subjective Confession. And yet even they have been bap- tized who have fallen from their baptismal vow." CATECHUMENS. In the case of such persons, Baptism is not wanting, but Confirmation is. The Church, therefore, may not give up her baptized, but she must regard them as catechumens — as such persons who, either through the fault of the Church XOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM 131 herself have not preserved their Christian illumination, or who have made themselves under age [umnundig] in an ecclesiastical sense. Such persons are to be regarded as baptized, but in an unconfirmed point of view. They are baptized catechumens — baptized, because they have been baptized once for all by Water and the Word — unconfirmed^ (however solemnly they may have been confirmed a long or a short time ago," because they do not profess their Bap- tism, and consequently are to be regarded as catechumens afterwards, as well as before, who require the particular care of the Church ; and to this care belongs especially catecheti- cal and apologetical instruction." DR. HENGSTENBERG's COMMENT. " The Sacrament of holy Baptism reminds us once more of the mystery of the organism in which the Church subsists. This organism of the Church, and the Sacrament of Bap- tism, stand in such a mutual relationship, that the one can- not exist without the other. From the organism of the general congregation the Sacrament of Baptism proceeds : the Sacrament in its turn, it is, which founds the organism in every new member, while it incorporates the latter in the former: in the next place, the Church itself; and this, we repeat, is the organic body whose head is Christ as the God- Man : but the head is not merely the object, it is also the organic head of the body. Therefore, the more unadorned faith on the God-Man — that only treasure — shall come to life and to consciousness among our contemporaries, with so much the more vitality shall the mystery of the organism of Christ again wake up — that mystery now almost effaced from the consciousness of the community, and which has become a stranger not to the infidel alone, but even to the private Christian. By means of such a revival of the Church, considered as the Body, both the individual who administers 182 PURITANISM the Sacrament as the organ, and as the ordained servant of the Church, as well as the sponsors as members of the col- lective body, would arrive at their true position, as well with reference to the mystery of that organism, as also, in an especial degree, to the Sacrament itself : for out of that organism alone does the Sacrament of Baptism, in its full and real importance, disclose and expand itself as * the en- trance into all divine blessings, and into the Communion of Saints.' " NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 183 NOTE D. The following correspondence, relating to a period upon which Mr. Hall has dwelt at much length, will be read with interest by all. It is the state of things as viewed by the parties themselves. We thought it better to permit the men of that age to tell their own story for themselves, than to make a formal answer to such a tissue of absurdities as Mr. Hall has penned concerning the men of those times. In 1646, Charles I. fled from Oxford, and took refuge with the Scottish army, then at Newark, and afterwards was conducted by them to Newcastle. Clarendon, in his History, &c, vol. III. p. 31, gives the following account of the circumstances connected with these papers : " Then they employed their Alexander Henderson, and their other clergy, to persuade the King to consent to the extirpation of Episcopacy in England, as he had in Scotland; and it was, and is still believed, that if his Majesty could have been induced to have satisfied them in that particular, they would either have had a party in the Parliament at Westminster to have been satisfied there- with, or that they would thereupon have declared for the King, and have presently joined with the loyal party in all places for his Majesty's defence. " But the King was too conscientious to buy his peace at so prophane and sacrilegious a price as was demanded, and he was so much too hard for Mr. Henderson in the argu- mentation, (which appears by the papers that passed between them, which were shortly after communicated to the world,) that the old man himself was so far convinced, and con- verted, that he had a very deep sense of the mischief he had himself been the author of, or too much contributed too, and lamented it to his nearest friends, and confidents, and 184 PURITANISM died of grief, and heart-broken, within a very short time after he departed from his Majesty." Papers which passed between his majesty charles i. and mr. alexander henderson, concerning the change of church government. At Newcastle, 1646. I. His Majesty's First Paper for Mr. Alexander Henderson. Mr. Henderson, — I know very well what a great dis- advantage it is for me, to maintain an argument of divinity with so able and learned a man as yourself, it being your, not my profession ; which really was the cause that made me desire to hear some learned man argue my opinion with you, of whose abilities I might be confident that I should not be led into an error, for want of having all which could be said laid open unto me. For, indeed, my humour is such, that I am still partial for that side which I imagine suffers for the weakness of those that maintain it, always thinking that equal champions would cast the balance on the other part. Yet, since that you (thinking that it will save time) desire to go another way, I shall not contest with you in it, but treating you as my physician, give you leave to take your own way of cure ; only I thought fit to warn you, lest if you (not I) should be mistaken in this, you would be fain (in a manner) to begin anew. Then know that from my infancy I was blest with the king my father's love, which, I thank God, was an invalu- able happiness to me, all his days ; and among all his cares for my education, his chief was, to settle me right in reli- gion ; in the true knowledge of which he made himself so eminent to all the world, that I am sure none can call in NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 185 question the brightness of his fame in that particular, with- out showing their own ignorant base malice. He it was who laid in me the grounds of Christianity, which to this day I have been constant in. So that whether the worthi- ness of my instructor be considered, or the not few years that I have been settled in my principles, it ought to be no strange thing, if it be found no easy work to alter them ; and the rather, that hitherto I have (according to St. Paul's rule, Rom. xiv. 22.) been happy in not condemning myself in that thing which I allow. Thus having shewed you how, it remains to tell you what I believe, in relation to these present miserable distractions. No one thing made me more reverence the reformation of my mother, the Church of England, than that it was done (according to the apostle's defence, Acts, xxiv. 18,) " neither with multitude nor with tumult," but legally and orderly, and by those whom I conceive to have the reform- ing power ; which, with many other inducements, made me always confident that the work was very perfect as to essen- tials ; of which number church government being undoubt- edly one, I put no question but that would have been like- wise altered if there had been cause. Which opinion of mine was soon turned into more than a confidence, when I perceived that in this particular (as I must say of all the rest) we retained nothing, but according as it was deduced from the apostles to be the constant universal custom of the primitive church ; and that it was of sueh consequence, as by the alteration of it we should deprive ourselves of a law- ful priesthood ; and then, how the sacraments can be duly administered is easy to judge. These are the principal rea- sons which make me believe that bishops are necessary for a church, and, I think, sufficient for me (if I had no more) not to give my consent for their expulsion out of England. But I have another obligation, that to my particular is a no 9* 186 PURITANISM less tie of conscience, which is, my coronation oath. Now if (as St. Paul saith, Rom. xiv. 23,) " He that doubt eth is damned, if he eat," what can I expect, if I should not only give way knowingly to my people's sinning, but likewise be perjured myself? Now consider, ought I not to keep myself from presump- tuous sins? and you know who says, " What doth it profit a man, though he should gain the whole world, and lose his own soul V Wherefore my constant maintenance of Epis- pacy in England, (where there was never any other govern- ment since Christianity was in this kingdom,) methinks, should be rather commended than wondered at, my con- science directing me to maintain the laws of the land ; which being only my endeavours at this time, I desire to know of you, what warrant there is in the word of God for subjects to endeavour to force their king's conscience, or to make him alter laws against his will. If this be not my present case, I shall be glad to be mistaken ; or if my judg- ment in religion hath been misled all this time, I shall be willing to be better directed ; till w T hen, you must excuse me to be constant to the grounds which the king my father taught me. C. R. Newcastle, May 29, 1646. II. Mr. Alexander Henderson's First Paper for His Majesty. Sir, — It is your majesty's royal goodness, and not my merit, that hath made your majesty to conceive any opinion of my abilities, which (were they worthy of the smallest testimony from your majesty) ought in all duty to be im- proved for your majesty's satisfaction. And this I intended in my coming here at this time, by a free, yet modest, expression of the true motives and inducements which drew my mind to the dislike of Episcopal government, wherein I NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM:. 187 was bred in my younger years in the university. Likeas, I did apprehend, that it was not your majesty's purpose to have the question disputed by divines on both sides, which I would never (to the wronging of the cause) have undertaken alone, and which seldom or never hath proved an effectual way for finding of truth, or moving the minds of men to relinquish their former tenets, Dum res transit a judicio in effectum ; witness the polemicks between the Papists and us, and among ourselves about the matter now in hand, these many years past. 1. Sir, when I consider your majesty's education under the hand of such a father, the length of time wherein your majesty hath been settled in your principles of church gov- ernment, the arguments which have continually, in private and public, especially of late at Oxford, filled your majesty's ears for the divine right thereof, your coronation oath, and divers state reasons which your majesty doth hot mention, I do not wonder, nor think it any strange thing, that your majesty hath not at first given place to a contrary impres- sion. I remember that the famous Joannes Picus Mirandula proveth, by irrefragable reasons (which no rational man will contradict) " That no man hath so much power over his own understanding, as to make himself believe that he will, or to think that to be true which his reason telleth him is false ; much less is it possible for any man to have his rea- son commanded by the will or at the pleasure of another." 2. It is a true saying of the schoolmen, Voluntas imperat intellectui quoad exercitium, non quoad specificationem ; mine own will, or the will of another, may command me to think upon a matter, but no will or command can constrain me to determine otherwise than my reason teacheth me. Yet, Sir, I hope your majesty will acknowledge (for your paper professeth no less) that, according to the saying of Ambrose, Non est pudor ad meliora transire, it is neither 1 88 PURITANISM sin nor shame to change to the better. Symmachus, in one of his epistles, (I think to the emperors Theodosius and Valentinian,) allegeth all those motives from education, from prescription of time, from worldly prosperity, and the flour- ishing condition of the Roman empire, and from the laws of the land, to persuade them to constancy in the ancient Pagan profession of the Romans, against the embracing of the Christian faith. The like reasons were used by the Jews for Moses against Christ, and may be used both for Popery and for the Papacy itself against the reformation of religion and church government, and therefore can have no more strength against the change now than they had in for- mer times. 3. But your majesty may perhaps say, that this is petit io principii, and nothing else but the begging of the question ; and I confess it were so, if there can be no reasons brought for a reformation or change. Your majesty reverences the reformation of the Church of England, as being done legally and orderly, and by those who had the reforming power ; and I do not deny but it were to be wished that religion, where there is need, were always reformed in that manner, and by such power, and that it were not committed to the prelates, who have greatest need to be reformed themselves, nor left to the multitude, whom God stirreth up when princes are negligent. Thus did Jacob reform his own family, Moses destroy the golden calf, the good kings of Judah reform the church in their time ; but that such reformation hath been perfect I cannot admit. Asa took away idolatry, but his reformation was not perfect ; for Jehosaphat removed the high places, yet was not his reformation perfect ; for it was Hezekiah that brake the brazen serpent, and Josiah de- stroyed the idol temples, who therefore beareth this eulogy, that like unto him there was no king before him. It is too well known that the reformation of King Henry VIII. was NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 189 most imperfect in the essentials of doctrine, worship, and government ; and although it proceeded by some degrees afterwards, yet the government was never reformed ; the head was changed, dominus non dominium, and the whole limbs of the antichristian hierarchy retained, upon what snares and temptations of avarice and ambition, the great enchanters of the clergy, I need not express. It was a hard saying of Romanorum Malleus, Grosthed of Lincoln, that reformation was not to be expected, nisi in ore gladii cruentandi. Yet this I may say, that the Laodicean luke- warmness of reformation here hath been matter of continued complaints to many of the godly in this kingdom ; occasion of more schism and separation than ever was heard of in any other church, and of unspeakable grief and sorrow to other churches, which God did bless with greater purity of reformation. The glory of this great work we hope is re- served for your majesty, that to your comfort and everlast- ing fame the praise of godly Josiah may be made yours ; which yet will be no dispraise to your royal father, or Ed- ward the VI. or any other religious princes before you ; none of them having so fair an opportunity as is now, by the supreme Providence, put into your royal hands. My soul trembleth to think and to foresee what may be the event, if this opportunity be neglected. I will neither use the words of Mordecai, (Esth. iv. 14,) nor what Savonarola told another Charles, because I hope better things from your majesty. 4. To the argument brought by your majesty, (which I believe none of your doctors, had they been all about you, could more briefly, and yet so fully and strongly, have ex- pressed,) " That nothing was retained in this church but according as it was deduced from the apostles to be the con- stant universal practice of the primitive church ; and that it was of such consequence, as by the alteration of it we 190 PURITANISJI. should deprive ourselves of the lawfulness of priesthood, (I think your majesty means a lawful ministry ;) and then how the sacraments can be administered is easy to judge." I humbly offer these considerations : — First, What was not in the times of the apostles, cannot be deduced from them. We say in Scotland, " It cannot be brought but, that is not the ben :" but (not to insist now on a liturgy, and things of that kind,) there was no such hierarchy, no such difference betwixt a bishop and a presbyter in the times of the apos- tles, and therefore it cannot hence be deduced: for I con- ceive it to be as clear as if it were written with a sunbeam, that presbyter and bishop are to the apostles one and the same thing ; no majority, no inequality or difference of office, power, or degree, betwixt the one and the other, but a mere identity in all. Second, That the apostles intending to set down the offices and officers of the church, and speaking so often of them, and of their gifts and duties, and that not upon occasion, but of set purpose, do neither express nor imply any such pastor or bishop as hath power over other pastors ; although it be true, that they have distinctly and particularly expressed the office, gifts, and duties of the meanest officers, such as deacons. Third, That in the min- istry of the New Testament, there is a comely, beautiful, and divine order and subordination ; one kind of ministers, both ordinary and extraordinary, being placed in degree and dignity before another, as the apostles first, the evangelists, pastors, doctors, &c, in their own ranks ; but we cannot find, in offices of the same kind, that one had majority of power, or priority of degree, before another ; no apostle above other apostles, (unless in moral respects,) no evange- list above other evangelists, or deacon above other deacons : why then a pastor above other pastors ? In all other sorts of ministers, ordinary and extraordinary, a parity in their own kind, only in the office of pastor an inequality. Fourth, NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 191 That the whole power, and all the parts of the ministry, which are commonly called the power of order and jurisdic- tion, are by the apostles declared to be common to the presbyter and bishop ; and that (Mat. xviii. 15, 16, 17,) the gradation in matter of discipline or church censures, is from one to two or more ; and " if he shall neglect them, tell it to the church:" he saith not, tell it to the bishop; there is no place left to a retrogradation from more to one, were he never so eminent. If these considerations do not satisfy, your majesty may have more, or the same farther cleared. 5. Secondly, I do humbly desire your majesty to take notice of the fallacy of that argument, from the practice of the primitive church, and the universal consent of the fathers. It is the argument of the Papists for such tradi- tions as no orthodox divine will admit. The law and testi- mony must be the rule. We can have no certain knowledge of the practice universal of the church for many years : Eusebius, the prime historian, confesseth so much ; the learned Josephus Scaliger testifieth, that from the end of the Acts of the Apostles until a good time after, no certainty can be had from ecclesiastical authors about church matters. It is true, Diotrephes sought the preeminence in the apostles' times, and the mystery of iniquity did then begin to work ; and no doubt in after times, some puffed up with ambition, and others overtaken with weakness, endeavoured alteration of church government ; but that all the learned and godly of those times consented to such a change as is talked of alerwards, will never be proved. 6. Th'rdly, I will never think that your majesty will deny the lawfulness of a ministry, and the due administration of the sacraments in the reformed churches which have no dio- cesan bishops, sith it is not only manifest by Scripture, but a great many of the strongest ckampions for Episcopacy 192 PURITANISM do confess, that presbyters may ordain other presbyters ; and that baptism administered by a private person, wanting a public calling, or by a midwife, and by a presbyter, although not ordained by a bishop, are not one and the same thing. 7. Concerning the other argument taken from your ma- jesty's coronation oath, I confess that both in the taking and keeping of an oath (so sacred a thing is it, and so high a point of religion) much tenderness is required : and far be It from us, who desire to observe our own solemn oath, to press your majesty with the violation of yours. Yet, Sir, I will crave your leave, in all humbleness and sincerity, to lay be- fore your majesty's eyes this one thing, (which, perhaps, might require a larger discourse,) that although no human authority can dispense with an oath, quia religio juramenti pertinet ad forum divinum; yet, in some cases, it cannot be denied but the obligation of an oath ceaseth, as when we swear homage and obedience to our lord and superior, who afterwards ceaseth to be our lord and superior ; for then the formal cause of the oath is taken away, and therefore the obligation, sublatd causa tollitur effectus, sublato relato tol- litur correlatum : or when any oath hath a special reference to the benefit of those to whom I make the promise, if we have their desire or consent, the obligation ceaseth ; because all such oaths, from the nature of the thing, do include a condition. When the Parliaments of both kingdoms have covenanted for the abolishing or altering of a law, your ma- jesty's oath doth not bind you or your conscience to the observing of it ; otherwise, no laws could be altered by the legislative power. This I conceive hath been the ground of removing Episcopal government in Scotland, and of remov- ing the bishops out of the Parliament of England. And I assure myself that your majesty did not intend, at the taking of your oath, that although both houses of Parliament should NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 193 find an alteration necessary, although (which God Almighty- avert !) you should lose yourself and your posterity and crown, that you would never consent to the abolishing of such a law. If your majesty still object, " that the matter of the oath is necessary and immutable ;" that doth not be- long to this, but to the former argument. 8. I have but one word more concerning your piety to your royal father and teacher, of happy memory, with which your majesty does conclude. Your majesty knows that King James never admitted Episcopacy upon divine right ; that his majesty did swear and subscribe to the doc- trine, worship, and discipline of the Church of Scotland ; that in the preface of the latter edition of Basilicon Doron, his majesty gives an honourable testimony of those that loved better the simplicity of the gospel than the pomp and ceremonies of the Church of England, and that he con- ceived the prelates to favour the Popish hierarchy ; and that (could his ghost now speak to your majesty) he would not advise your majesty to run such hazards for those men who will choose rather to pull down your throne with their own ruin, than that they perish alone. The Lord give your ma- jesty a wise and discerning spirit to choose that in time which is right ! June 3, 1646. III. His Majesty's Second Paper for Mr. Alexander Henderson. A reply to his Answer to my First Paper. June 6, 1646. Mr. Henderson, — If it had been the honour of the cause which I looked after, I would not have undertaken to put pen to paper, or singly to have maintained this argument against you, whose answer to my former paper is sufficient, without farther proofs, to justify my opinion of your abilities ; but it being merely (as you know) for my particular satisfac- 194 PURITAXISM tion, I assure you that a disputation of well chosen divines would be most effectual ; and, I believe, you cannot but grant that I must best know how myself may be best satis- fied, for certainly my taste cannot be guided by another man's palate ; and indeed I will say that when it comes (as it must) to probations, I must have either persons or books to clear the allegations, or it will be impossible to give me satis- faction. The foreseeing of which made me at first (for the saving of time) desire that some of those divines which I gave you in a list might be sent for. 2. Concerning your second section, I were much to blame if I should not submit to that saying of St. Ambrose which you mention, for I would be unwilling to be found less in- genuous than you shew yourself to be in the former part of it ; wherefore my reply is, that as I shall not be ashamed to change for the better, so I must see that it is better before I change, otherwise, inconstancy in this were both sin and shame, and remember (what yourself hath learnedly en- forced,) that " no man's reason can be commanded by an- other man's will." 3. Your third begins, but I cannot say that it goes on with that ingenuity which the other did ; for I do not under- stand how those examples cited out of the old Testament, do any way prove that the way of reformation which I commend hath not been the most perfect, or that any other is lawful, those having been all by the regal authority ; and because Henry VIII.'s reformation was not perfect, will it prove that of King Edward and Queen Elizabeth to be im- perfect ? I believe a new mood and figure must be found out to form a syllogism whereby to prove that. But, how- ever, you are mistaken ; for no man who truly understands the English reformation will derive it from Henry VIII., for he only gave the occasion ; it was his son who began, and Queen Elizabeth that perfected it. Nor did I ever aver that NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 195 the beginning of any human action was perfect, no more than you can prove " that God hath ever given approbation to multitudes to reform the negligence of princes," for you know there is much difference between permission and ap- probation. But all this time I find no reasons (according to your promise) for a reformation or change, (I mean since Queen Elizabeth's time.) As for your Romanorum Malleus his saying, it is well you come off it with, " yet this I may say ;" for it seems to imply, as if you neither ought nor would justify that bloody ungodly saying : and for your comparing our reformation here to the Laodicean lukewarm- ness, proved by complaints, grievings, &c, all that doth and but unhandsomely petere principium ; nor can generals satisfy me ; for you must first prove that those men had reason to complain, those churches to be grieved, and how we were truly the causes of this schism and separation. As for those words which you will not use, I will not an- swer. 4. Here, indeed, you truly repeat the first of my two main arguments ; but by your favour, you take (as I con- ceive) a wrong way to convince me : It is I must make good the affirmative, for I believe a negative cannot be proved. Instead of which, if you had made appear the practice of the Presbyterian government in the primitive times, you had done much ; for I do aver that this gov- ernment was never practised before Calvin's time, the affirmative of which I leave you to prove, my task being to shew the lawfulness and succession of Episcopacy, and, as I believe, the necessity of it. For doing whereof I must have such books as I shall call for, which possibly upon perusal may, one way or other, give me satisfaction ; but I cannot absolutely promise it without the assistance of some learned man, whom I can trust, to find out all such cita- tions as I have use of; wherefore blam» me not if time be unnecessarily lost. 196 PURITANISM 5. Now for the fallaciousness of my argument, (to my knowledge,) it was never my practice, nor do I confess to have begun now. For if the practice of the primitive church, and the universal consent of the fathers, be not a convincing argument, when the interpretation of Scripture is doubtful, I know nothing ; ^or if this be not, then of neces- sity the interpretation of private spirits must be admitted ; the which contradicts St. Peter, (2 Pet. i. 20.) is the mother of all sects, and will (if not prevented) bring these kingdoms into confusion. And to say that an argument is ill because the Papists use it, or that such a thing is good because it is the custom of some of the reformed churches, cannot weigh with me, until you prove these to be infallible, or that to maintain no truth. And how Diotrephes' ambition, (who directly opposed the apostle St. John) can be an argument against Episcopacy, I do not understand. 6. When I am made a judge over the reformed churches, then, and not before, will I censure their actions ; as you must prove before I confess it, " that presbyters without a bishop may lawfully ordain other presbyters." And as for the administration of baptism, as I think none will say that a woman can lawfully or duly administer it, though when done it be valid ; so none ought to do it but a lawful presby- ter, whom you cannot deny but to be absolutely necessary for the sacrament of the eucharist. 7. You make a learned succinct discourse of oaths in gen- eral, and their several obligations, to which I fully agree ; intending in the particular now in question, to be guided by your own rule, which is, " when any oath hath a special reference to the benefits of those to whom I make the prom- ise, if we have their desire or consent, the obligation ceaseth." Now, it must be known to whom this oath hath reference, and to whose benefit. The answer is clear, only to the Church of England, as by ike record will be plainly made appear. NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 197 And you much mistake in alleging that the two houses of Parliament, especially as they are now constituted, can have this disobligatory power ; for (besides they are not named in it) I am confident to make it clearly appear to you, that this church never did submit nor was subordinate to them, and that it was only the king and clergy who m&h the reformation, the Parliament merely serving to help to give the civil sanction. All this being proved (of which I make no question) it must necessarily follow, that it is only the Church of England, in whose favour I took this oath, that can release me from it ; wherefore, when the Church of England, being lawfully assembled, shall de- clare that I am free, then, and not before, shall I esteem myself so. 8. To your last, concerning the king my father, of happy and famous memory, both for his piety and learning, I must tell you, that I had the happiness to know him much better than you ; wherefore I desire you not to be too confident in the knowledge of his opinions ; for I dare say, should his ghost now speak, he would tell you, " That a bloody reformation was never lawful, as not warranted by God's word," and that preces et lachrymal sunt arma ecclesice. 9. To conclude, having replied to all your paper, I can- not but observe to you, that you have given me no answer to my last query. It may be you are (as Chaucer says) like the people of England, " What they not like, they never understand ;" but in earnest, that question is so per- tinent to the purpose in hand, that it will much serve for my satisfaction, and, besides, it may be useful for other things. C. R. Newcastle, June 6, 1646. 198 PURITAjTCSM IV. Mr. Alexander Henderson's Secold Paper for His Majesty. Sir, — The smaller the encouragements be in relation to the success, (which how small they are your majesty well kno\jp,) the more apparent, and, I hope, the more acceptable will my obedience be, in that which in all humility I now go about at your majesty's command ; yet while I consider that the way of the man is not in himself, nor is in man that walketh to direct his own steps, and when I remember how many supplications, with strong crying and tears, have been openly and secretly offered up in your majesty's behalf unto God that heareth prayer, I have no reason to despair of a blessed success. 1. I have been averse from a disputation of divines, — 1st, For the saving of time, which the present exigence and extremity of affairs make more than ordinarily precious. While Archimedes at Syracuse was drawing his figures and circlings in the sand, Marcellus interrupted his demonstration. 2d, Because the common result of disputes of this kind, answerable to the prej udicate opinions of the parties, is rather victory than verity ; while tanquam tentativi dialectici, they study more to overcome their adverse party than to be over- come of truth, although this be the most glorious victory. 3d, When I was commanded to come hither, no such thing was proposed to me nor expected by me ; I never judged so meanly of the cause, nor so highly of myself, as to venture it upon such weakness. Much more might be spoken to this purpose, but I forbear. 2. I will not farther trouble your majesty with that which is contained in the second section, hoping that your majesty will no more insist upon education, prescription of time, &c, which are sufficient to prevent admiration, but (which your majesty acknowledges) must give place to reason, and are NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 199 no sure ground of resolution of our faith in any point to be believed ; although it be true, that the most part of men make these and the like to be the ground and rule of their faith ; an evidence that their faith is not a divine faith, but an human credulity. 3. Concerning reformation of religion in the third section ; I had need have a preface to so thorny a theme as your ma- jesty hath brought me upon. 1st, For the reforming power: it is conceived, when a general defection, like a deluge, hath covered the whole face of the church, so that scarcely the tops of the mountains do appear, a general council is neces- sary ; but because that can hardly be obtained, several king- doms (which we see was done at the time of the Reforma- tion) are to reform themselves, and that by the authority of their prince and magistrates. If the prince or supreme magistrate be unwilling, then may the inferior magistrate and the people, being more rightly informed in the grounds of religion, lawfully reform within their own sphere ; and if the light shine upon all or the major part, they may, after all other means essayed, make a public reformation. This be- fore this time I never wrote or spoke ; yet the maintainers of this doctrine conceive that they are able to make it good. But, sir, were I worthy to give advice to your majesty, or to the kings and supreme powers on earth, my humble opinion would be, that they should draw the minds, tongues, and pens of the learned, to dispute about other matter than the power or prerogative of kings and princes ; and in this kind your majesty hath suffered and lost more than will easily be restored to yourself or to your posterity for a long time. It is not denied but the prime reforming power is in the kings and princes ; quibus dejicientibus, it comes to the inferior magistrates; quibus deficientibus, it descendeth to the body of the people ; supposing that there is a necessity of refor- mation, and that by no means it can be obtained of their 200 PURITANISM superiors. It is true that such a reformation is more imper- fect in respect of the instruments and manner of procedure ; yet, for the most part, more pure and perfect in relation to the effect and product. And for this end did I cite the examples of old, of reformation by regal authority ; of which none was perfect, in the second way of perfection, except that of Josiah. Concerning the saying of Grosthed, whom the cardinals at Rome confessed to be a more godly man than any of themselves, it was his complaint and prediction of what was likely to ensue, not his desire or election if reformation could have been obtained in the ordinary way. I might bring two impartial witnesses, Juel and Bilson, both famous English bishops, to prove that the tumults and trou- bles raised in Scotland, at the time of reformation, were to be imputed to the Papists opposing of the reformation both of doctrine and discipline, as an heretical innovation, and not to be ascribed to the nobility or people, who, under God, were the instruments of it, intending and seeking nothing, but the purging out of error and settling of the truth. 2d, Con- cerning the reformation of the Church of England, I con- ceive, whether it was begun or not in King Henry VIII.'s time, it was not finished by Queen Elizabeth: the father stirred the humours of the diseased church ; but neither the son nor the daughter (although we have great reason to bless God for both) did purge them out perfectly : this perfection is yet reserved for your majesty. Where it is said, " that all this time I bring no reasons for a further change ;" the fourth section of my last paper hath many hints of reasons against Episcopal government, with an offer of more, or clearing of those ; which your majesty hath not thought fit to take notice of. And learned men have observed many defects in that reformation ; as, that the government of the Church of England (for about this is the question now) is not builded upon the foundation of Christ and the apostles, NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 201 which they at least cannot deny, who profess Church govern- ment to be mutable and ambulatory, and such were the gteater part of archbishops and bishops in England, content- ing themselves with the constitutions of the Church, and the authority and munificences of princes, till of late that some few have pleaded it to be jure divino : that the Eng- lish reformation hath not thoroughly purged out the Roman leaven ; which is one of the reasons that hath given ground to the comparing of this Church to the Church of Laodicea, as being neither hot nor cold, neither Popish nor reformed, but of a lukewarm temper betwixt the two ; that it hath depraved the discipline of the Church, by conforming of it to the civil policy; that it hath added many Church offices, higher and lower, unto those instituted by the Son of God, which is as unlawful as to take away offices warranted by the divine institution ; and other the like, which have moved some to apply this saying to the Church of England, Multi ad perfectionem pervenirent, nisi jam se pervenisse crederent. 4. In my answer to the first of your majesty's many argu- ments, I brought a breviate of some reasons to prove that " a bishop and presbyter are one and the same in Scripture ;" from which, by necessary consequence, I did infer the nega^ tive, therefore no difference, in Scripture, between a bishop and a presbyter ; the one name signifying industriam curia pastoralis, the other, sapentics maturitatem, saith Beda. And whereas your majesty avers, " that Presbyterian gov- ernment was never practised before Calvin's time ;" your majesty knows the common objection of the Papists against the reformed Churches, Where was your Church, your refor- mation, your doctrine, before Luther's time ? One part of the common answer is, " That it was from the beginning, and is to be found in Scripture." The same I affirm of Pres-. byterian government. And for the proving of this, the* 10 %Q2 PUBITAMSM Assembly of Divines at Westminster have made manifest, M that the primitive Christian Church at Jerusalem was governed by a presbytery:" while they shew, 1st, That the Church of Jerusalem consisted of more congregations than one, from the multitude of believers, from the many apostles and other preachers in that church, aud from the diversity of languages among the believers. 2. That ail these con- gregations were under one presbyterial government, because they were for government one church, (Acts, xi. 22, 26,) and because that church was governed by elders, (Acts, xi. 30,) which were elders of that church, and did meet together for acts of government ; and the apostles themselves, in that meeting, (Acts, xv.) acted not as apostles, but as elders, stating the question, debating it in the ordinary way of dis- putation ; and having, by search of Scripture, found the will of God, they conclude, " It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and us ;" which, in the judgment of the learned, may be spoken by any assembly upon like evidence of Scripture. The like Presbyterian government had place in the churches of Corinth, Ephesus, Thessalonica, &c, in the times of the apostles ; and after them, for many years, when one of the presbyte^ was made episcopus pra'ses, even then Connnuni presbyter arum consilio ecclesice, gubernabantar, saith Je- rome ; and, Episcopus magis consuetudine quam disposi- tionis divines veritate presbyter is esses majores, et in com- mune debere ecclesiam r eg ere. 5. Far be it from me to think such a thought, as that your majest3 r did intend any fallacy in your other main argument from antiquity. As we are to distinguish between intentio operantis et conditio operis, so may we, in this case, con- sider the difference between intentio argument ant is et con- ditio argumenti. And where your majesty argues, that, if your opinion be not admitted, we will be forced to give place to the interpretation of private spirits, which is contrary to NO DIB PROTEST a the doctrine o. -tie Peter, and will prove to be of dangerous consequence : I humbly offer to be considered by your majesty, what some of chief note among the Papists themselves have tan That the interpretation of Scrip- lures, and the be called pricate in a three:: —1st, Ratione persona, if the interpreter be or a private condition; '2\. Ratione modi et med. hough not private, use not the public means which are n for finding out the truth, but follow their owi the inter- pret tical to bind others, but is intended for c Tht first is not to be des] icond is to be exploded, and is con demned by the Apostle Peter : tight not to be cen- sured : but that interpretation which is :I. and of supreme anthoj man's conscience is bound to yield unto, is of an higher nature. And although the general council should resolve it. and the consent of the fathers should be had unto it, yet there must always be pi left to the judgment of discretion, as Davenant, late Bishop of Salisbury, t here, hath learnedly made ap- pear in his b: dice controversiarum ; where also the power of kings in matters of religion is solidly and im- partially determined TV o words only I add. One is. that notwithstanding all that is pretended from antic bishop having sole power of ordination and ztion will never be found in prime antiquity. T : the fathers did, unwittingly, bring forth that A:. was conceived in the times of the apostles, and a are competent judges in the question erarchy. And upon the other part, the lights of the Christian Church at and since the beginning of the Reformation, have discovered many secrets concerning the Antichrist and his hierar which were not kn . nner aofes : and divers of 204 PURITANISM learned in the Roman Church have not feared to pronounce, That whosoever denies the true and literal sense of many texts of Scripture to have been found out in this last age, is unthankful to God, who hath so plentifully poured forth his Spirit upon the children of this generation ; and ungrateful towards those men who, with so great pains, so happy suc- cess, and so much benefit to God's Church, have travailed therein. This might be instanced in many places of Scrip- ture. I wind together Diotrephes and the mystery of ini- quity : the one as an old example of Church ambition, which was also too palpable in the apostles themselves, and the other as a cover of ambition, afterwards discovered ; which two brought forth the great mystery of the Papacy at last. 6. Although your majesty be not made a judge of the reformed churches, yet you so far censure them and their actions, as without bishops, in your judgment, they cannot have a lawful ministry, nor a due administration of the sacra- ments. Against which dangerous and destructive opinion, I did allege what I supposed your majesty would not have denied. 1st, That presbyters without a bishop may ordain other presbyters. 2d, That baptism administered by such a presbyter, is another thing than baptism administered by a private person or by a midwife. Of the first your majesty calis for proof. I told before, that in the Scripture it is man- ifest, (1 Tim. iv. 14.) w Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by the prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbyter ;" so it is in the English trans- lation. And the word presbytery, so often as it is used in the New Testament, always signifies the persons, and not the office. And although the offices of bishop and presbyter were distinct, yet doth not the presbyter derive his power of order from the bishop. The evangelists were inferior to the apostles ; yet had they their power not from the apostles, but 1S T 0T GENUINE PROTESTANTISM 205 from Christ. The same I affirm of the seventy disciples, who had their power immediately from Christ, no less than the apostles had theirs. It may, upon better reason, be averred that the bishops have their power from the Pope, than that presbyters have their power from the prelates. It is true, Jerome saith, Quid facit, excepta ordinatione, epis- copus, quod non facit presbyter ? But in the same place he proves from Scripture, that episcopus and presbyter are one and the same ; and therefore, when he appropriates ordina- tion to the bishop, he speaketh of the degenerated custom of his time. Secondly, Concerning baptism, a private per- son may perform the external action and rites both of it and of the eucharist ; yet is neither of the two a sacrament, or hath any efficacy, unless it be done by him that is lawfully called thereunto, or by a person made public, and clothed with authority by ordination. This error in the matter of baptism is begot by another error, of the absolute necessity of baptism. 7. To that which hath been said concerning your majes- ty's oath, I shall add nothing, not being willing to enter upon the question of the subordination of the Church to the civil power, whether the king or parliament, or both, and to either of them in their own place. Sueh an headship as the kings of England have claimed, and such a supremacy as the two Houses of Parliament crave, with the appeals from the supreme ecclesiastical judicature to them, as set over the Church in the same line of subordination, I do utterly dis- claim, upon such reasons as give myself satisfaction ; although no man shall be more willing to submit to civil powers, each one in their own place, and more unwilling to make any trouble, than myself. Only concerning the application of the generals of an oath to the particular case now in hand ; under favour, I conceive not how the clergy of the Church of England is, or ought to be, principally intended in your 206 PURITANISM oath. For although they were esteemed to be the represen- tative Church, yet even that is for the benefit of the Church collective, salus populi being suprema lex, and to be princi- pally intended. Your majesty knows it was so in the Church of Scotland, where the like alteration was made. And if nothing of this kind can be done without the con- sent of the clergy, what reformation can be expected in France or Spain, or Rome itself? It is not to be expected that the pope or prelates will consent to their own ruin. 8. I will not presume upon any secret knowledge of the opinions held by the king your majesty's father of famous memory, they being much better known to your majesty ; I did only produce what was professed by him before the world. And although prayers and tears be the arms of the Church, yet it is neither acceptable to God, nor condueible for kings and princes, to force the Church to put on these arms. Nor could I ever hear a reason, why a necessary de- fensive war against unjust violence is unlawful, although it be joined with offence and invasion which is intended for de- fence, but so that arms are laid down when the offensive war ceaseth ; by which it doth appear that the war on the other side was, in the nature thereof, defensive. 9. Concerning the forcing of conscience, which I preter- mitted in my other paper, I am forced now, but without forcing of my conscience, to speak of it. Our conscience may be said to be forced either by ourselves, or by others. By ourselves, 1st, When we stop the ear of our conscience, and will not hearken, or give place to information, resolving obstinately, Ne si persuaseris, persuadebis ; which is no less than a resisting of the Holy Ghost, and the hardening of our hearts. 2d, Or when we stop the mouth and sup- press the clamours of our conscience ; resolving rather to uffer the worm to gnaw, and the fire to burn inwardly, than o make profession of that we are convinced to be truth. NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 207 3d, Or when we sear our conscience as with an hot iron, that it bccometh senseless, which is the punishment of the former ; nnto which is opposed the truly tender conscience, such as Josiah had, (2 Kings, xxii. 19.) Again, our con- science is said to be forced by others, 1st, When they obtrude upon us what is in itself evil and unlawful ; which if we admit against our own conscience, we sin two ways : one is, by doing that which is in itself evil and unlawful ; the other is, by doing it against a dictate of conscience, which is a contempt of God, whose vicegerent it is. 2d. Or when others urge us to do that which is in itself good, or may lawfully be done, but through error of conscience we judge it to be evil and unlawful ; in this case, if we do not that which is pressed upon us, we sin, because the thing is good and lawful ; and if we do it, we sin, because we 'do against our conscience, which in this case bindeth, but obligeth not And yet there is a way to escape out of this labyrinth, it be- ing repugnant to the equity of the will of God to lay a necessity of sinning upon any man : the only way is, to lay aside such a conscience, it being a part of the old man which we are commanded to put off; otherwise, we being suffi- ciently informed, and yet cleaving to our old error, we rather do violence to our conscience ourselves, than suffer violence from others. The application, for answering the query, I leave to your majesty. Newcastle, June 17, 1G46. V. His Majesty's Third Paper for Mr. Alexander Henderson, in reply to his Second Paper. June 22, 1646. 1. It were arrogance, besides loss of time, in me to vie preambles with you, for it is truth I seek, and neither praise nor victory ; wherefore I shall only insist upon those things which are merely necessary to my own satisfaction, in order 208 PURITANISM to which I desired the assistance of some divines ; where- upon I will insist no farther, save only to wish that you may not (as I have known many men do) lose time by being mistaken in the way to save it ; wherein I have only sought to disburthen myself, but to lay no blame upo.i you, and so I leave it. 2. Xor will I say more of the second than this, that I am glad you have so well approved of what I have said con- cerning my education and reason ; but then, remember, that another man's will is at least as weak a ground to build my faith upon as my former education. • 3. In this there are two points ; first, concerning the re- forming power, then, anent the English reformation. For the first, I confess you now speak clearly, which before you did but darkly mention, wherein I shall mainly differ with you, until you shall shew me better reason. Yet thus far I will go along with you, that when a general council cannot be had, several kingdoms may reform themselves, which is learnedly and fully proved by the late Archbishop of Can- terbury in his disputation against Fisher ; but that the infe- rior magistrates or people (take it which way you will) have this power, I utterly deny ; for which, by your favour, you have yet made no sufficient proof to my judgment. Indeed, if you could have brought, or can bring authority of Scrip- ture for this opinion, I would, and will yet, with all reverence submit ; but as for your examples out of the Old Testament, in my mind, they rather make for me than against me, all those reformations being made by kings : and it is a good probable (though I will not say convincing) argument, that if God would have approved of a popular reforming way, there were kings of Judah and Israel sufficiently negligent and ill to have made such examples by ; but, on the con- trary, the 16th chapter of Numbers shews clearly how God disapproves of such courses. But I forget this assertion is NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 209 to be proved by you ; yet I may put you in the way : wherefore let me tell you that this pretended power in the people must (as all others) either be directly or else declara- torily by approbation given by God ; which how soon you can do, I submit ; otherwise you prove nothing. For the citing of private men's opinions (more than as they concur with the general consent of the Church in their time) weighs little with me, it being too well known, that rebels never wanted writers to maintain their unjust actions ; and though I much reverence Bishop Juel's memory, I never thought him infallible. For Bilson, I remember well what opinion the king my father had of him for those opinions, and how he shewed him some favour in hope of his recantation, (as his good nature made him do many things of that kind ;) but whether he did or not, I cannot say. To conclude this point, until you shall prove this position by the word of God, (as I will regal authority,) I shall think all popular reforma- tion little better than rebellion ; for I hold that " no authority is lawful but that which is either directly given, or," at least, " approved by God." Secondly, Concerning the English reformation, the first reason you bring why Queen Elizabeth did not finish it, is, " because she took not away Episco- pacy," the hints or reasons against which government you say I take no notice of: now I thought it was sufficient no- tice, yea, and answer too, when I told you a negative (as I conceived) could not be proved, and that it was for me to prove the affirmative ; which I shall either do, or yield the argument, as soon as I shall be assisted with books, or such men of my opinion who, like you, have a library in their brain. And so I must leave this particular, until I be furnished with means to put it to an issue ; which had been sooner done if I could have had my will. Indeed, your second, well proved, is most sufficient, which is, That the English Church government is not builded upon the 210 PURITANISM foundation of Christ and the apostles ; but I conceive your probation of this doubly defective. For first, albeit our arch- bishops and bishops should have professed Church government to be mutable and ambulatory, I conceive it not sufficient to prove your assertion ; and secondly, I am confident you cannot prove that most of them maintained this walking position, (for some particulars must not conclude the gene- ral,) for which you must find much better arguments than their being content with the constitution of the Church, and the authority and munificence of princes, or } T ou will fall extremely short. As for the retaining of the Roman leaven, you must prove it as well as say it, else you say little. But that the conforming of the Church discipline to the civil policy should be a depraving of it, I absolutely deny ; for I aver, that without it, the Church can neither flourish nor be happy. And for your last instance, you shall do well to shew the prohibition of our Saviour against addition of more officers in the Church than he named ; and yet in one sense I do not conceive that the Church of England hath added any, for an archbishop is only a distinction for order of gov- ernment, not a new officer, and so of the rest ; and of this kind I believe there are divers now in Scotland, which you will not condemn, as the moderators of assemblies, and others. 4. Where you find a bishop and presbyter in Scripture to be one and the same, (which I deny to be always so,) it is in the apostle's time ; now I think to prove the order of bishops succeeded that of the apostles, and that the name was chiefly altered in reverence to those who were immedi- ately chosen by our Saviour, (albiet, in their time, they caused divers to be called so, as Barnabas and others,) so that I believe this argument makes little for you. As for your proof of the antiquity of Presbyterian government, it is well that the Assembly of Divines at Westminster can do NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 211 more than Eusebius could, and I shall believe when I see it : for your former paper affirms, that those times were very dark for matter of fact, and will be so still for me, if there be no clearer arguments to prove it than those you mention : for because there were " divers congregations in Jerusalem ;' Ergo, what? are there not divers parishes in one diocese? (your two first I answer but as one argument,) and because " the apostles met with those of the inferior orders for acts of government :" what then? even so in these times do the deans and chapters, and many times those of the inferior clergy, assist the bishops. But I hope you will not pretend to say, that there was an equality between the apostles and other presbyters, which not being, doth (in my judgment ) quite invalidate these arguments. And if you can say no more for the churches of Corinth, Ephesus, Thessalonica, &c, than you have for Jerusalem, it will gain no ground on me. As for St. Jerome, it is well known he was no great friend to bishops, as being none himself ; yet take him alto- gether, and you will find that he makes a clear distinction between a bishop and a presbyter, as yourself confesses : but the truth is, he was angry with those who maintained dea- cons to be equal to presbyters. 5. I am well satisfied with the explanation of your mean- ing concerning the word fallacy, though I think to have had reason for saying what I did ; but by your favour, I do not conceive that you have answered the strength of my argu- ment, for when you and I differ upon the interpretation of Scripture, and I appeal to the practice of the primitive Church, and the universal consent of the fathers, to be judge between us, methinks you should either find a fitter, or sub- mit to what I offer ; neither of which (to my understanding) you have yet done, nor have you shewn how, waving those judges I appeal unto, the mischief of the interpretation by private spirits can be prevented. Indeed, if I cannot prove 212 PURITANISM by antiquity that ordination and jurisdiction belong to bishops, (thereby clearly distinguishing them from other presbyters,) I shall then begin to misdoubt many of my former founda- tions ; as for Bishop Davenant, he is none of those to whom I have appealed, or will submit unto. But for the exception you take to fathers, I take it to be a begging of the question ; as likewise those great discoveries of secrets not known to former ages, I shall call new invented fancies, until particu- larly you shall prove the contrary ; and for your Roman authors, it is no great wonder for them to seek shifts where- by to maintain noVelties, as well as the Puritans. As for church ambition, it doth not at all terminate in seeking to be pope ; for I take it to be no point of humility to endeavour to be independent of kings, it being possible that Papacy in a multitude may be as dangerous as in one. 6. As I am no judge over the reformed churches, so neither do I censure them, for many things may be avow- able upon necessity, which otherwise are unlawful ; but know, once for all, that I esteem nothing the better because it is done by such a particular Church, (though it were by the Church of England, which I avow most to reverence ;) but I esteem that Church most which comes nearest to the purity of the primitive doctrine and discipline, which I be- lieve this doth. Now concerning ordination, I bade you prove that presbyters without a bishop might lawfully ordain which yet I conceive you have not done ; for (2 Tim. i. 6.,) it is evident that St. Paul was at Timothy's ordination ; and albeit that all the seventy had their power immediately from Christ, yet it is as evident that our Saviour made a clear distinction between the twelve apostles and the rest of the disciples, which is set down by three of the evangelists, whereof St. Mark calls it an ordination, (Mark, iii. 15 ;) and St. Luke says, " and of them he chose twelve," &c. (Luke, vi. 13 ;) only St. Matthew doth but barely enumerate them NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 213 by their name of distinction, (Mat. x. 2 ; ) I suppose out of modesty, himself being one, and the other two being none, are more particular. For the administration of baptism, giving, but not granting, what you say, it makes more for m« than you ; but I will not engage upon new questions not necessary for my purpose. 7. For my oath, you do well not to enter upon those ques- tions you mention, and you had done as well to have omitted your instance ;. but out of discretion I desire you to collect your answer out of the last section ; and for your argument, though the intention of my oath be for the good of the Church collective, therefore can I be dispensed withal by others than the representative body ? certainly no more than the people can dispense with for any oaths I took in their favours, without the two Houses of Parliament. As for future reformations, I will only tell you that incommodum non solvit argument um. 8. For the king my fathers opinioiij if it were not to spend time (as I believe needlessly) I could prove, by living and written testimonies, all and more than I have said of him, for his persuasion in these points which I now main- tain ; and for your defensive war, as I do acknowledge it a great sin for any king to oppress the Church, so I do hold it absolutely unlawful for subjects, upon any pretence whatsoever, to make war, though defensive, against their lawful sovereign ; against which no less proofs will make me yield but God's word: and let me tell you, that upon such points as these, instances as well as comparisons are odious. 9. Lastly, you mistake the query in my first paper to which this pretends to answer ; for my question was not concerning force of argument (for I never doubted the law- fulness of it,) but force of arms, to which, I conceive, it says little or nothing, unless (after my example) you refer me to 214 FURITAM^r the former section : that which it doth, is merely the asking of the question, after a fine discourse of the several ways of persuading rather than forcing of conscience. I close up this paper, desiring you to take notice, that there is none of these sections but I could have enlarged to many more lines, some to whole pages : yet I chose to be thus brief, knowing you will understand more by a word than others by a long discourse ; trusting likewise to your ingenuity, that reason epitomized will weigh as much with you as if it were at large. C. R. June 22, 1646. VI. Mr. Alexander Henderson's Third Paper for His Majesty, concerning the authority of the Fathers and Practice of the Church. July 2, 1646. Having, in my former papers, pressed the steps of your majesty's propositions, and finding by your majesty's last paper, controversies to be multiplied (I believe) beyond your majesty's intentions in the beginning, as concerning the re- forming power, the reformation of the Church of England, the difference betwixt a bishop and a presbyter, the warrants of Presbyterian government, the authority of interpreting Scripture, the taking and keeping of public oaths, the forc- ing of conscience, and many other inferior and subordinate questions, which are branches of those main controversies ; all which, in a satisfactory manner to determine in few words, I leave to more presuming spirits, who either see no knots of difficulties, or can find a way rather to cut them asunder than to unloose them ; yet will I not use any tergi- versation, nor do I decline to offer my humble opinion, with the reasons thereof, in their own time, concerning each of them; which, in obedience to your majesty's command, I NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 215 have begun to do already. Only, sir, by your majesty's favourable permission, for the greater expedition, and that the present velitations may be brought to some issue, I am bold to treat that the method may be a little altered, and I may have leavs now to begin at a principle, and that which should have been inter pracogniia, I mean the rule by which we are to proceed, and to determine the present con- troversy of Church policy, without which we will be led into a labyrinth, and want a thread to wind us out again. In your majesty's first paper, the iS universal custom of the primitive Church " is conceived to be the rule ; in the second paper, section 5, the " practice of the primitive church, and the universal consent of fathers," is made a convincing argument, when the interpretation of Scripture is doubtful ; in your third paper, section 5, "the practice of the primitive Church and the universal consent of fathers " is made judge : and I know that nothing is more ordinary in this question than to allege, " antiquity, perpetual succession, universal consent of the fathers," and the " universal practice of the primitive Church," according to the rule of Augustine, Quad universa tenet ccclesia, nee a Concilio institutum, sed sem~ per retenium est, non nisi auilioritate apostolicd traditum rectissime creditur. There is in this argument, at the first view, so much appearance of reason, that it may much work upon a modest mind ; yet, being well examined and rightly weighed, it will be found to be of no great weight : for beside that the minor will never be made good in the be- half of a diocesan bishop having sole power of ordination and jurisdiction, there being a multitude of fathers who maintain " that bishop and presbyter are one and the same order ;" I shall humbly offer some few considerations about the major, because it hath been an inlet to many dangerous errors, and hath proved a mighty hindrance and obstruction to reforma- tion of religion. 216 PURITANISM 1. I desire it may be considered, that whiles some make two rules for defining controversies, the word of God and antiquity, (which they will have to be received with equal veneration,) or, as the Papists call them, canonical authority and catholic tradition, and others make Scripture to be the only rule, and antiquity the authentic interpreter, — the latter of the two seems to me to be the greater error ; because the first setteth up a parallel in the same degree with Scripture, but this would create a superior in the higher degree above Scripture. For the interpretation of the fathers shall be the Aioti, and accounted the very cause and reason for which we conceive and believe such a place of Scripture to have such a sense ; and thus men shall have " dominion over our faith," (against 2 Cor. i. 24.) " Our faith shall stand in the wisdom of men, and not in the power of God," (1 Cor. ii. 5.) "And Scripture shall be of private inter- pretation , for the prophecy came not of old by the will of man," (2 Pet. i. 20, 22.) Nisi homini Deus placuerit) Deus non erit ; homo jam Deo propitius esse debebit, saith Tertullian. 2. That Scripture cannot be authentically interpreted but by Scripture, is manifest from Scripture. The Levites gave the sense of the law by no other means but by Scripture itself, (Neh. viii. 8.) Our Saviour, for example to us, gave the true sense of Scripture against the deprivations of Satan, by comparing Scripture with Scripture, and not by alleging any testimonies out of the Rabbins, (Mat. iv.) And the apostles in their epistles, used no other help but the diligent comparing of prophetical writings ; likeas the apostle Peter will have to compare the clearer light of the apostles with the more obscure light of the prophets, (2 Pet. i. 19.) And when we betake ourselves to the fathers, we have need to take heed that, with the Papists, we accuse not the Scrip- tures of obscurity or imperfections. NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 217 3. The fathers themselves (as they are cited by Protes- tant writers) hold this conclusion, that Scripture is not to be interpreted but by Scripture itself. To this purpose, amongst many other testimonies, they bring the saying of Tertul- lian, Surge, Veritas, ipsa scripturas tuas interpretare, quam consuetudo non novit ; nam sit nossit, non esset : if it knew Scripture, it would be ashamed of itself, and cease to be any more. 4. That some errors have been received and continued for a long time in the Church. The error of free-will, be- ginning at Justin Martyr, continued till the time of reforma- tion, although it was rejected by Augustine, as the divine right of Episcopacy was opposed by others. The error about the vision of God, " That the souls of saints departed see not the face of God till the judgment of the great day," was held by universal consent. The same may be said of the error of the Millenares ; and which more nearly toueh- eth upon the present question, the ancients erred grossly about the " antichrist " and " mystery of iniquity," which did begin to work in the days of the apostles. Many other instances might be brought to prove such universal practice of the Church, as was not warranted by the apostles, as in the rites of baptism and prayer, and the forming up and drawing together of the articles of that creed that is called symbolum apostolicum, the observation of many feasts and fasts both anniversary and weekly. 5. That it is not a matter so incredible or impossible as some would have it appear to be, for the primitive Church to have made a sudden defection from the apostolical purity. The people of Israel, in the short time of Moses his absence on the mount, turned aside quickly, and fell into horrible idolatry, (Exod. xxxii.) Soon after the death of Joshua, and the elders that had seen the great works which the Lord had done for Israel, there arose another generation 218 PURITANISM after them, which did evil in the sight of the Lord, (Judges, ii.) Soon after the building of the temple, and setting of religion by David and Solomon, the worship of God was defiled with idolatry : when Rehoboam had established the kingdom, he forsook the law of the Lord, and all Israel with him, (2 Chron. xxii. 1.) And the apostle says to the Gala- tians, (Gal. i. 6,) "I marvel that you are so soon removed unto another gospel." Why then shall we think it strange, that in the matter of discipline there should be a sudden de- fection, especially it being begun in the time of the apostles? I know it is a common opinion, but I believe there be no strong reasons for it, that the Church which was nearest the times of the apostles was the most pure and perfect Church. 6. That it is impossible to come to the knowledge of the universal consent and practice of the primitive Church : for many of the fathers wrote nothing at all, many of their wri- tings are perished, (it may be that both of these have dis- sented from the rest,) many of the writings which we have under their names are supposititious and counterfeit, espe- cially about Episcopacy, which was the foundation of papal primacy. The rule of Augustine aforementioned doth too much favour traditions, and is not to be admitted without cautions and exceptions. Many the like considerations may be added, but these may be sufficient to prove, that the unanimous consent of the fathers and the universal practice of the primitive Church, is no sure ground of authentical interpretation of Scripture. I remember of a grave divine in Scotland, much honoured by King James of happy memory, who did often profess that he did learn more of one page of John Calvin than of a whole treatise of Augustine. Nor can there be any good reason (many there be against it) why the ancients should be so far preferred to the modern doctors of the reformed NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 219 churches, and the one in a manner deified, and the other vilified. It is but a poor reason that some give, fama mira- trix scnioris avi, and is abundantly answered by the apolo- gist for divine providence. If your majesty be still unsatis- fied concerning the rule, I know not to what purpose I should proceed, or trouble your majesty any more. VII. His Majesty's Fourth Paper for Mr. Alexander Henderson. July 3, 1646. I shall very willingly follow the method you have begun in your third paper ; but I do not conceive that my last paper multiplies more controversies than my first gave occa- sion for ; having been so far from augmenting the heads of our disputation, that I have omitted answering many things in both your papers, expressly to avoid raising of new and needless questions, desiring to have only so many debated as are simply necessary to shew, whether or not " I may, with a safe conscience, give way to the alteration of Church gov- ernment in England." And, indeed, I like very "well to begin with the settling of the rule by which we are to pro- ceed and determine the present controversy ; to which pur- pose (as I conceive) my third paper shews you an excellent way, for there I offer you a judge between us, or desire you to find out a better, which, to my judgment, you have not yet done, (though you have sought to invalidate mine ;) for, if you understand to have offered the Scripture, though no man shall pay more reverence, or submit more humbly to it than myself, yet we must find some rule to judge betwixt us, when you and I differ upon the interpretation of the self- same text, or it can never determine our questions. As for example, I say you misapply that of 2 Cor. i. 14. to me, (let others answer for themselves,) for I know not how I make other men to have " dominion over my faith," when I make 220 PURITANISM them only ser\ r e to approve my reason. Nor do I conceive how 1 Cor. ii. 5. can be applied to this purpose ; for there St. Paul only shews the difference between divine and hu man eloquence, making no mention of any kind of inter- pretation throughout the whole chapter, as indeed Peter does, (2 Pet. i. 20.) which, I conceive, makes for me : for, since that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private inter- pretation, first, I infer that Scripture is to be interpreted, for else the apostle would have omitted the word private ; secondly, that at least the consent of many learned divines is necessary, and so, a fortiori, that of the catholic Church ought to be an authentic judge, when men differ. And is it a good argument, because (Matth. iv. 4, 7, 10,) Scripture is best interpreted by itself, therefore that all other interpre- tations are unlawful ? Certainly you cannot think it. Thus, having shewed you that we differ about the meaning of the Scripture, and are like to do so, certainly there ought to be for this, as well as other things, a rule or a judge between us, to determine our differences, or at least to make our proba- tions and arguments relevant ; therefore evading for this time to answer your six considerations, (not, I assure you, for the difficulty of them, but the starting of new questions,) I desire you only to shew me a better than what I have offered unto you. C. R. Newcastle, July 3, 1646. VIII. His Majesty's Fifth Paper for Mr. Alexander Henderson : A Particular Answer to Mr. Alexander Henderson's Third Paper. July 16, 1646. Until you shall find out a fitter way to decide our differ- ence in opinion; concerning interpretation of Scripture, than the consent of the fathers and the universal practice of the primitive church, I cannot but pass my judgment anent yOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM!. 221 those six considerations which you offered to invalidate those authorities that I so much reverence. 1. In the first, you mention two rules for defining of con- troversies, and seek a most odd way to confute them, as I think ; for you allege, that there is more attributed to them than I believe you can prove, by the consent of most learned men, (there being no question but there are always some flattering fools that can commend nothing but with hyper- bolic expressions,) and you know that supposito quolibet, sequitur quidlibet. Besides, do you think, that albeit some ignorant fellows should attribute more power to presbyters than is really due unto them, that thereby their just rever- ence and authority is diminished ! So I see no reason why I may not safely maintain that the interpretation of fathers is a most excellent strengthening to my opinion, though others should attribute the cause and reason of their faith unto it. 2. As there is no question but that Scripture is far the best interpreter of itself, so I see nothing in this, negatively proved, to exclude any other, notwithstanding your positive affirmation. 3. Xot in the next ; for I hope you will not be the first to condemn yourself, me, and innumerable others who yet un- blameably have not tied themselves to this rule. 4. If this you only intend to prove, that errors were al- ways breeding in the Church, I shall not deny it ; yet that makes little (as I conceive) to your purpose. But if your meaning be, to accuse the universal practice of the Church with error, I must say, it is a very bold undertaking, and (if you cannot justify yourself by clear places in Scripture much to be blamed : wherein you must not allege that to be universally received which was not ; as I dare say that the controversy about free-will was never yet decided by oecu- menical or general council; nor must you presume to call 222 PURITANISM that an error which really the catholic Church maintained (as in rites of baptism, forms of prayer, observation of feasts, &/C.) except you can prove it so by the word of God ; and it is not enough to say that such a .thing was not warranted by the apostles, but you must prove by their doctrine that such a thing was unlawful, or else the practice of the Church is warrant enough for me to follow and obey that custom, whatsoever it be, and think it good : and I shall believe that the apostles' creed was made by them (such reverence I bear to the Church's traditions) until other authors be cer- tainly found out. 5. I was taught that de posse ad esse was no good argu- ment ; and indeed, to me, it is incredible that any custom of the catholic Church was erroneous, which was not con- tradicted by orthodox learned men in the times of their first practice, as is easily perceived that all those defections were (some of them may be justly called rebellious) which you mention. 6. I deny it is impossible (though I confess it difficult) to t3ome to the knowledge of the universal consent and practice of the primitive Church ; therefore, I confess, a man ought to be careful how to believe things of this nature ; wherefore I conceive this to be only an argument for caution. My conclusion is : that albeit I never esteemed any autho- rity equal to the Scriptures, yet I do think the unanimous consent of the fathers, and the universal practice of the primitive Church, to be the best and most authentical inter» preters of God's word, and consequently the fittest judges between me and you, when we differ, until you shall find me better. For example, I think you, for the present, the best preacher in Newcastle, yet I believe you may err, and pos- sibly abetter preacher may come ; but till then I must retain my opinion. -C. R. Newcastle, July 16, 1646* !\0T GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 22B NOTE E. LIST OF CONTROVERSIAL PUBLICATIONS ON THE DOCTRINE AND DISCIPLINE OF THE CHURCH, PUBLISHED IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE THE REVOLUTION, AS FAR AS KNOWN. 1723. Cheekley, Mr. John, afterwards Rev. Discourse concerning 1 Episcopacy, &c. 1724. 1 The Modest Proof of ike order of the Churches. 1724. Dickinson, Rev. Jonathan. (Pies.) Elizabethtown, N. J. A Defence of Presbyterian Ordination, in reply to The Modest Proof Sec. 1725. Dickinson, and Rev. Samuel Johnson, D. D. (Epis.) This year a discussion was carried on, in writing, between a parish- oner of Dr. J. and Mr. Dickinson, Dr. J. writing the answer of his parishoner. Mr. D. subsequently published his articles, revised and enlarged, when Dr. J. published his replies. Wigglesworth, Rev. Edmund, D. D., of Cambridge, Mass o Answer to Modest Proof &c. 1727. Foxcroft, Rev. Thomas, of Boston, (Pres.) stepped ill and published A Defence of Presbyterian Ordination. Johnson, Rev. Dr. S„ published a Reply to the same. 1728. Cheekley, Mr. J., Speech upon his trial for libel, &c. Fisher, Rev. Hugh. (Epis.) The Right of Private Judgment, A Sermon. 1730. Smith, Rev. Josiah. (Pres.) The Divine Right of Private Judgment. 1732. Graham, Rev. John, (Pres.) Southbury, Conn. The Church of England. A Ballad. 1733. Johnson, Rev. Dr. S. Plain Reasons for conforming to the Church ; a reply to Mr. Graham. 1734. Graham, Rev. J. Reply to Plain Reasons. Johnson, Rev. Dr. S. Answer to the Reply , &c. 1735. Graham, Rev. J. Rejoinder to the Answer, &c. Johnson, Rev. Dr. S. A third tract, fyc, which ended this dispute. 1736. Dickinson, Rev. J. In a sermon, The Vanity of hitman insti- tutions in the worship of God. Beach, Rev. John. (Epis.) A Vindication of the worship of the Church of England. 224 PURITANISM 1737. Dickinson, Rev. J. A Defence of his Sermon against the exceptions of Mr. Beach. Beach, Rev. J. An Appeal to the unprejudiced, in a Supple- ment to the Vindication, <^c, in reply to Mr. Dickinson. 1738. Dickinson, Rev. J. The reasonableness of nonconformity to the Church of England in points of worship ; a reply to Mr. B. Beach, Rev. J. On the duty of loving our enemies, which seemi to have ended this controversy. 1743. Dickinson, Rev. J. On the nature and necessity of regeneration with remarks on Dr. Waterland' 's Discourse on regeneration. 1744. Wetmore, Rev. James, of Rye, N. Y., some time a Congrega- tional minister in North Haven, Conn. A Defence of Water land's Discourse on Regeneration. Johnson, Rev. Dr. S. A Letter from Aristodes to Anthades on the divine sovereignty and promises. 1745. Beach, Rev. J. A Sermon on Rom. vi. 23, on the freeness and fullness of salvation. 1746. Johnson, Rev. Dr. S. A system of morality, &c, designed to check the progress of enthusiasm. 1747. Dickinson, Rev. J. A vindication of God's sovereign free grace, &c, against Mr. Beach, with remarks upon Dr. J.'s letter of Aristodes to Anthades. Beach, Rev. J. Reply to the Vindication, &c. Hobart, Rev. Noah, (Pres.) of Fairfield, Conn. Presbyterian Ordination. A Sermon preached at the ordination of Rev. Noah Wells, of Stamford. Wetmore, Rev. J. A Vindication of the Professions of the Church of England, in reply to Mr. Hobart. 1748. Dickinson, Rev. J. A second vindication of God's sovereign free grace, against the same. Hobart, Rev. N. A serious Address to the members of the Episcopal Separation in New England, in repty to Mr. Wetmore. Wetmore, Rev. J. The Englishman directed, a general reply to the subject of Mr, Hobart's Address. 1749. Beach, Rev. J. A calm and dispassionate Vindication of the Professors of the Church of England. Wetmore, Rev. J. Appendix, &c, to the same. Caner, Rev. H. A Second Appendix, fyc, to the same. 1751. Hobart, Rev. N. A second Address to the members of the Episcopal Separation, in reply to the above. 1752. McSparran, Rev. Dr. America dissected, in a series of letters. NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 225 1756. Beach, Rev. J. A Continuation of the Vindication of the Professors of the Church of England. 1762. Chauncy, Rev. Charles, D. D., (Pres.) Boston. The Validity of Presbyterian Ordination, a Dudleian Lecture. 176*2. Johnson, Rev. Dr. S. A Sermon, on the beauties of holiness in the worship of the Church of England. 1763. Apthorp, Rev. East, (Epis.) Cambridge, Mass. Considerations respecting the Society for Propagating the Gospel, 6fC. Mayhew, Rev. Jonathan. D. D. (Pres.) Observations on the Charter and conduct of the Society,