1 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 THE LIBRARIES 
 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 
 
 I 
 
 i 
 
 E^ nniffuflrpjOffuillTunfruiin^ 
 
■"or. COL]. 
 VINDICATION u>j>VRY 
 
 «r THE / , / I . 
 
 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 
 
 IN A SEKIES OF BETTERS ADDRESSED TO 
 
 THE REV. SAMUEL MILJ.ER, D. D. ^ / Q 
 
 IK heplt to 
 
 LATE WKHINGS ON THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY, AND TO THE CHARGES 
 CONTAINED IN HIS LIFE OF THE REV. DR. RCDGERS- 
 
 PBELIMINAEY REMARKS. 
 
 BY THOMAS Y. HOW, D. D. 
 
 Assistant Rector of Trinity Churehj New- York. 
 
 J^EW-TORK 
 
 Published by Eastburn, Kirk, & Co. T. & J. S\vords, 
 and P. A. Mesier. 
 T. & J. Swords, rrinters, No. ICO Pearl-strec?, 
 
 1810. 
 
i^ 311 i 
 
PREIMMINARY REMARKS 
 
 X HE author of the present work is not unaware 
 of the great dislike which manj persons entertain 
 of religious controversy. ¥/hatever may be the me- 
 rits of a book, the single circumstance of coming 
 forward in a controversial shape, is almost enough 
 to discredit it. Feeling, very deeply, the imper- 
 fections of this performance, he cannot but be 
 extremely solicitous to guard it from that odium 
 which the term controversy carries with it; and 
 would, therefore, entreat an indulgent attention 
 to a few brief remarks. 
 
 It is the object of controversy to defend the 
 truth, and to repel error. Of course it implies 
 debate, and opposition. These, no doubt, may 
 be carried so far as to degenerate into furious con- 
 tention, to the great injury of Christian charity^ 
 Like every thing else, controversy is often per- 
 verted from its legitimate purpose ; for it is too 
 much the practice of the contrgvertist to seek 
 
 01 94B 
 
iy PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 
 
 victory rather than truth. And even when the 
 object which the controvcrtist proposes to him- 
 self is a lawful one, he, very frequently, in guard- 
 ing against error, forgets the still more sacred ob- 
 ligation of promoting brotherly love. But these 
 are the abuses of controversy ; not its necessary 
 concomitants. Of the argument against contro- 
 versy, however, derived from its abuse, I do not 
 enter into a consideration here; since it will natu- 
 rally present itself to our attention in a subsequent 
 Jpart of these remarks. 
 
 1. Let us appeal to Scripture on this subject. 
 Does it forbid us to discuss, to controvert, to 
 contend ? Very far from it. We are to hold fast 
 the form of sound words ; we are to try the spiriti^^ 
 whether they are of God; we are to contend ear- 
 nestly for the faith once delivered to the saints. Il 
 any man come to us, and bring not the true doc- 
 trine of Christ, we are not to receive him into our 
 house, nor to wish him God speed ; such as wish 
 him God speed being partakers of his evil deeds. 
 What plain and unequivocal language is this! 
 Earnest contention surely amounts to controversy ; 
 if so, controversy is enjoined upon us by the in- 
 spired Writers, in the most positive terms. We 
 icannot suppose that such language was used acci- 
 dentally. No, surely, it was well weighed ; for it 
 is evidently delivered as a permanent rule of 
 
PRELIMINARY REMARKS. V 
 
 conduct for the disciples of Christ. Indeed it is 
 the divinely appointed method of propagating re- 
 ligious truth. Force is not to be employed. Chris- 
 tianity is to win her way by the power of argu- 
 ment, not of the sword. Did not our blessed 
 Lord himself irresistibly address the understand- 
 ings of his hearers ? It is true, he appealed chiefly 
 to the evidence of miracles, in proof of his di- 
 vine mission ; but still he frequently addressed the 
 Jews in the way of argument; endeavouring to 
 convince them of his real character, by an ex- 
 amination of their own sacred books. Look again 
 at the Apostolical epistles ! Are they not highly 
 argumentative ? What a profound logic does St. 
 Paul employ in confuting the Jewish errors! How 
 anxiously does St. John apply himself to the de- 
 nial of those false doctrines, which, even in that 
 primitive age, began to be propagated with so 
 much zeal ! Here is an example for the imitation 
 of Christians through all succeeding time. The. 
 Apostles not only exhibhed the evidence of mira- 
 cle in proof of the divine origin of Christianity, 
 but laboured to guard it from corruption by pro- 
 found and accurate discussion. They at once de- 
 fended the truth by argument, and adorned it by 
 example. Was controversy necessary, in the 
 Apostolic age ; and is it unnecessary now ? The 
 evidence of miracle having ceased, it is only by 
 
VI TRELIMINAUY REMARKi^, 
 
 the evidence of reasoning that the faith can be pre- 
 served. AVhal, indeed, is the Christian ministry 
 hut a controversial establishment ? And but for 
 the impregnable bulwark of argument and learn- 
 ing, erected bv the labours of the clerical order, 
 the Christian Church must long since have sunk 
 beneath the formidable assaults ^vhich the de- 
 praved passions of the human heart have conti- 
 nued to direct against her m every age. The mi- 
 nistry was founded emphatically for the support of 
 the truth. They are to defend it at once from 
 open and from secret attack; to preserve it alike 
 from being violently overwhelmed, or treacher- 
 ously undermined. And, accordingly, by profound 
 research and unanswerable argument, they have 
 not only com|)lctely established the divinity of 
 Scripture, but have so successfully explained its 
 language, as to guard it, equally, from the mis- 
 apprehension of the well meaning Christian, and 
 irom the sneer of the licentious free thinker. 
 
 But is not this robbing God of the glory r 
 By no means. Every good gift comelh down 
 from the Father of lights; but he chooses his own 
 method, and prescribes his own condition, of dis- 
 pensing his blessings. God, indeed, has preserved 
 the Christian faith; but he has preserved it through 
 the instrumentality of a learned and pious mi- 
 nistry. This faith, in order that its excellence 
 
PRELIMINARY REMARKS. Vil 
 
 aiul beauly may be perceived and felt, must be 
 the subject of constant discussion. 
 
 2. There is a close analogy between the con- 
 dition on wliich we hold spiritual and temporal 
 blessings. What is there that we can either ac- 
 quire or preserve without care and labour? Man 
 is to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow. 
 Property, health, character, would all leave us if 
 we did not make their preservation an object of 
 constant and solicitous attention. 
 
 How have we arrived at scientific truth, and all 
 the blessings which it carries in its train? By 
 anxious thought, by persevering and painful la- 
 bour. Without that exercise of the mental facul- 
 ties which results from the collision of controversy, 
 society must have remained for ever in a state of 
 comparative barbarism. Truth has gradually won 
 her way in the conflict of jarring opinions. Even 
 in those branches of science in which philosophers, 
 disputing for ages, have appeared to be employed 
 only in exchanging one system of error for an- 
 other*, the contest, nevertheless, has been of in-* 
 calculable advantage ; for, beside keeping the cu- 
 riosity of the mind awake, and preserving the vi- 
 gour of its faculties, it has, at length, after carry- 
 ing men through the entire circle of error, led 
 them to the true theory of nature. We have been 
 accustomed to look up with reverence to Lord 
 
Viii PRELIMINAUY REMARKS. 
 
 Bacon as the father of experimental philosophy. 
 And, undoubtedly, no other individual has ever 
 conferred such signal benefits upon science. But 
 the rules which Lord Bacon laid down for the dis- 
 covery of physical truth, were not less the natural 
 result of the state of the science at the period in 
 which he lived, than of his own transcendant ge- 
 nius. There is hardly a rule prescribed by him, 
 of which some trace may not be discovered in 
 the writings of his predecessors. The merit of 
 Bacon lay in embodying into a regular system, 
 those hints and rules which before may be said to 
 have existed, but in an insulated, and therefore, 
 comparatively, an unproductive form. If Lord 
 Bacun had never lived, thu jusl method of philo- 
 sophic investigation, and the true theory of na- 
 ture, would, still, have been discovered. Physi- 
 cal science had arrived at that point which, in 
 the regular order of things, was to be succeeded 
 by the true mode of inquiry. Hypothesis had 
 been practised until its futility as an organ of dis- 
 covery was perfectly apparent; and it was, parti- 
 cularly, by observing the absolute nothingness of 
 the speculations conducted upon this plan, after 
 a thorough trial of its merits had been made, that 
 Lord Bacon was led to direct his attention to some 
 new mode of investigation, and to recommend 
 experiment and observation a§ the only way to 
 
PRELIMINARY REMARKS. iX 
 
 arrive at an accurate knowledge of the laws of 
 nature. The controversies, then, carried on in 
 the schools, apparently altogether worthless, were 
 productive of the most substantial advantages. 
 They were one stage in the progress of the human 
 mind;-— a stage through which it w^as necessary 
 to pass to arrive at the splendour of the present 
 day. We are tempted to smile when we observe 
 the ardour with which the studies of alchemy and 
 astrology were pursued. But these studies kept 
 the human mind employed, gave rise to a great 
 multitude of experiments and observations, and, 
 finally, led to the successful cultivation of two of 
 the noblest branches of physical science. 
 
 The same train of remark is applicable to the 
 perverse disputations of the schoolmen, in the 
 departments of logic and metaphysics. Ridicu- 
 lous and unprofitable as these controversies seem 
 to be, they, nevertheless, display great mental 
 vigour; and they gradually led to the inductive 
 method of prosecuting the science of mind, which 
 now prevails, and which has begun to introduce 
 into this department, a clearness that promises to 
 rival the certainty bestoued by the labours of 
 Bacon and Newton upon natural philosophy. 
 
 We may take a similar view of the theological 
 disputes which were carried on in the dark ages. 
 They not only served to keep the religious mind 
 
 b 
 
X PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 
 
 in action, but gradually prepared the way lor a 
 better system. 
 
 3. If we look into the history of the Christian 
 Church, we shall find that the faith has been 
 preserved from corruption, or has been restored 
 to purity, by the influence of controversy. A 
 copious detail of facts might be given in proof 
 of this assertion; but a very general view will be 
 suflicient for our purpose. We have seen that 
 pernicious heresies began to infest the Church in 
 the earliest ages. What if the truth had been left, 
 according to the fashionable prejudice of the pre- 
 sent day, to take care of itself? In other words, 
 what if no opposition had been made to error; 
 if no controversy had been entered into with 
 its authors? Would the faith have been pre- 
 served in its purity ? No, not even in that mira- 
 culous age. The Apostles acted a very different 
 part; esteeming it a duty to attack error as often 
 as it presented itself to their view. Hence the 
 cogent reasonings of St. Paul; hence the explicit 
 declarations of St. John, which are now appealed 
 to as decisive on the fundamental doctrines of the 
 Gospel. AVhen the Arian heresy became so power- 
 ful in the Church, would it have done, think you, 
 for the orthodox to slumber on their posts ? Was 
 it not absolutely necessary that they should rouse 
 ihcmseives to the most vigorous exertion; that 
 
PRELIMINATtY REMARKS. Xl 
 
 they should call into exercise all the powers and 
 all the affections of their nature? Who can look 
 upon St. Athanasius, witliout recognizing in him 
 the great and glorious champion of the cross? 
 But, descending to a comparatively modern pe- 
 riod, how was the dreadful yoke of popery bro- 
 ken, and tlie Church purified from those foul cor- 
 ruptions which threatened entirely to obscure the 
 lustre of the Gospel, and to terminate in an uni- 
 versal apostacy from the faith r If there had been 
 no reformation from popery, Christianity must 
 have been lost ; and the reformation from popery 
 was the result of that enlargement and invigora- 
 tion of the human mind, produced by constant 
 debate and inquiry. It was by the sword of con- 
 troversy that the Romish system of fraud and folly 
 was destroyed. Calculated for an age of darkness, 
 its only hope of security rested on the inaction of 
 the human faculties. It is consistent enoudi in 
 the bigoted Papist to decry controversy, and to 
 urge implicit submission to the dictates of autho- 
 rity ; but this is a sort of language not at all be- 
 coming in a Protestant, the distinguishing spirit 
 of whose religion it is to inquire accurately and 
 deeply into the doctrines which are proposed to 
 our faith, and to bring every thing to the test of a 
 most strict comparison with the infallible standard 
 of Scripture. 
 
Sll rRELIMINAKY REMARKb. 
 
 Descending from the ?era of the Reformation 
 to tlie present clay, who can doubt that religious 
 light has been continually increasing; that the 
 Sacred writings are getting to be better and better 
 miderstood; that the system of doctrine which 
 promises to be most prevalent is more and more 
 purified from conflicting errors? Pelagianism is 
 retiring on one hand; Calvinism on the other. 
 Man is utterly incapable, by his own unassisted 
 erTorts, of working out his salvation. He stands 
 in absolute need of the enhghtening and sanc- 
 tifying influences of the Holy Spirit. At the same 
 time, he has a real agency in the work of his 
 salvation; and is not, as the Calvinists will have 
 it, a mere passive recipient of irresistible grace. 
 The great doctrine of redemption is equally vin- 
 dicated from the attacks of the Socinian, who 
 denies the necessity of redemption on one hand; 
 and from those of the Calvinist, who limits 
 the eflicacy of redemption to a few arbitrarily 
 elected favourites, on the other. The absurdities 
 of Calvinism, like those of Popery, if left unop- 
 posed, would have produced universal infidelity. 
 And to wiiat are we to ascribe the decline of 
 this pernicious doctrine, which may be consi- 
 dered as one of the most conspicuous of the 
 religious signs of the present times? It is to be 
 ascribed, unquestionably, to the prevalence of 
 
PRELIMINARY REMARKb. XIll 
 
 enlightened discussion. The controversy relative 
 lo the points of Calvinistic divinity, has led to a 
 most thorough investigation of the sacred writ- 
 ings; and this investigation has terminated in the 
 estabhshment of the blessed doctrine of the re- 
 demption of fallen man through the blood of Christ, 
 on foundations not to be shaken by the eftbrts of 
 the Pelagians and Socinians on the one hand, or 
 of the Calvinists and Antinomians* on the other. 
 Look at the history of the Church of England, 
 and you will constantly see a host of scholars 
 
 * It would be very unjust not to admit that many, who hold the 
 Calvinistic doctrines, are strenuous in urging- the indispensable neces- 
 sity of obedience to the divine law — of holiness of heart and life — to 
 our salvation. Such persons are equally zealous with their opponents 
 in reprobating the shocking tenets of Antinomianism ; and it must be 
 a subject of sincere regret to the friends of vital piety, that persons 
 who agree, at once, in ascribing the entire merit of redemption to 
 Jesus Christ, and in insisting upon conformity to the whole law of 
 God as necessary, on the part of man, should wrangle with one an- 
 other on the subject of supposed secret decrees; instead of uniting 
 their force in opposing the common enemy. At the same time, can- 
 dour oblig s me to add, that the genuine tenets of Calvinism appear to 
 me to lead, directly and irresistibly, to the most immoral and blas- 
 phemous consequences. So the great Melancthon viewed the matter; 
 for he did not hesitate to give to the speculations of Calvin, tiie title 
 of " stoical necessity," and to brand their author as the Zeno of his age. 
 Still the principles in question are viewed in a different point of light 
 by those who hold them ; and while such persons unite in urging a 
 strict conformity to the whole law of God as necessary to salvation, if 
 is, let it be repeated, a subject of sincere regret that they should bf- 
 arranged in opposition to their brethren by the dark tenets of a meta- 
 physical system. When these tenets are brought forward, however, it 
 is absolutely necessary that they should be opposed. Calvinism dc 
 stroys the beauty and loveliness of the Christian system, and infallibly 
 prepare* the way for tk« introduction of infidelity. 
 
%IV PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 
 
 throwing llic shield of learning and piety before 
 the true Aiilh ; at one time defending it against 
 the assaults of papal superstition, at another 
 ^igainst those errors both of doctrine and discipline 
 into vvhicli many of the Reformers were led by a 
 well meaning but intemperate zeal. And not 
 content with preserving the purity of the faith from 
 the contagion of superstition on one hand, and 
 of fanaticism on the other, you behold the unri- 
 valled scholars in question repelling, at all times, 
 wdth equal sagacity and vigour, the secret and 
 the public assaults of the boasted champions of 
 infidelity. 
 
 Yes, if the present fashionable prejudice, on 
 the subject of controversy, had governed the con- 
 duct of Christian scholars, we might have con- 
 tinued to grope in the darkness of papal error 
 — the faith would never have been recovered 
 from the mass of corruption with which Rome 
 had encumbered it; or if recovered, it must, after 
 being first defaced by fanatical extravagance, 
 have finally perished under the attacks of a licen- 
 tious scepticism. 
 
 4. The experience of this country furnishes abun- 
 dant evidence of the beneficial effects of religious 
 discussion. Suppose, for a moment, that, from 
 the original settlement of the country, no contro- 
 versy had taken place relative to the principles 
 
PRELIMINARY REMARKS. XV 
 
 which discriminate the Episcopal Church from 
 other religious denominations. Beyond all ques- 
 tion, she would have perished. Her distinctive 
 principles being forgotten, and her spirit of corps 
 extinguished, she would have been gradually ab- 
 sorbed by other societies of Christians. Very 
 many Episcopal congregations have actually dis- 
 appeared in this way, and all would have disap- 
 peared but for that enlightened zeal for her insti- 
 tutions which controversy has enkindled. Mind 
 gravitates towards mind, not less than matter to- 
 wards matter. The planets would immediately 
 rush to the sun if there were no principle to coun- 
 teract the force of attraction. And the Church would 
 infallibly have merged in the larger religious so- 
 cieties around her, if she had pursued the policy, 
 30 often recommended to her, of seeking peace 
 by forgetting every circumstance of distinction 
 between them and her. No body of men will 
 grow without contending for their principles; nor 
 will any attachment be preserved for principles 
 which it is made an object to keep systematically 
 out of sight. Under such circumstances the laity 
 would soon become entirely ignorant of the peci'e- 
 liar doctrines of the Church; the clergy would. 
 in time, become ignorant of them also;— then 
 would follow a complete interchange of religious 
 offices; and this could not fnil ultimately to draw 
 
XVI PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 
 
 after it an incorporation of the respective bodieb. 
 Of course, the entire mass would assume the 
 shape and features of the larger division; especi- 
 ally if that division should happen to be deeply 
 impregnated with its own separate and peculiar 
 spirit. 
 
 Thus all the doctrines and institutions of our 
 Church; nay, her existence itself, would be sacri- 
 ficed to a spurious liberality. 
 
 The progress and present state of our Church 
 in Connecticut, will furnish a complete exempli- 
 lication of the truth of these remarks. A century 
 ago she had scarcely an existence in that State; 
 consisting principally of about seventy or eighty 
 families, in the towns of Stratford, Fairfield, Nor- 
 walk, Newtown, Repton, and West-Haven.* While 
 the Church was in this low and feeble condition, 
 an event occurred which has been productive of 
 most important consequences. Some Congrega- 
 tional ministers, of distinguished talents and piety, 
 being convinced, upon mature investigation, of 
 the invalidity of Presbyterian ordination, resigned 
 their places, went to England for holy orders, 
 and became most useful and zealous clergymen 
 of the Episcopal Church. In this number were 
 Dr. Timothy Cutler, and Dr. Samuel Johnson, 
 
 ' r\MivAV^\ T/^- of Dr. Johnson, p. 26, 39 
 
rRELIMINATlY REMARKS* XVli 
 
 two men greatly celebrated in their day, and whose 
 lianies will ever be conspicuous in the history of 
 the early literature of this country. An event of 
 this kind could not fail to excite much attention ; 
 it gave rise to a controversy relative to the consti- 
 tution of the Christian Ministry, in which the sub- 
 ject was ably discussed* The Church grew; her 
 members became better acquainted with her dis- 
 tinctive principles, and felt a greater attachment 
 to them. The controversy in question has conti- 
 nued, at intervals, from the time of Dr. Johnson, 
 to the present day. The result is, that the subject 
 of the constitution of the Christian Church is 
 thoroughly understood by the great body of the 
 clergy of that diocess, as well as by many en- 
 lightened laymen ; the Church there, is animated 
 by a high degree of zeal for her distinctive prin- 
 ciples; and bids fair, in the opinion of compe- 
 tent judges, to become, at no very distant period^ 
 the predominant religious society. 
 
 The Church of Connecticut has grown up in the 
 midst of perpetual discussion. She is, literally, 
 the child of controversy. 
 
 Trace, now, for a moment, the progress of this 
 business. The Church was extremely low in 
 Connecticut ; — she scarcely supported a feebje 
 and precarious existence. How was she revived 
 and strengthened ? By the disinterested conduct 
 
 c 
 
XViil PRELIMINAKY REMARKS. 
 
 of those excellent men who sacriticed, with a 
 truly Apostolic spirit, every prospect of temporal 
 comfort and prosperity, to the discharge of their 
 Christian duty. How were these men led to in- 
 quire into the nature of the Christian Church r 
 How did they attain to those correct views of the 
 subject under the influence of which they acted, 
 in changing their religious profession? The li- 
 brary of the College at New-Haven contained 
 the works of some of the most distinguished 
 divines of the Church of England. By the dili- 
 gent study of these, under the divine blessing, 
 their prejudices yielded to the force of truth. They 
 examined the subject most thoroughly; reading 
 the principal authors on each side, and comparing 
 them minutely with one another. Thus it is that 
 a faithful discharge of the duty enjoined upon us 
 in Scripture, of contending zealously for the truth, 
 is followed by beneficial consequences from age 
 to acce. If the illustrious divines of the Church 
 of England had yielded to the influence of thai 
 spurious liberality which is now so much con- 
 tended for, the interesting event, just mentioned, 
 would never have occurred ; and, probably, it is 
 not going too far to say, that if the change of Dr. 
 Johnson, Dr. Cutler, and their friends, with the 
 spirit of inquiry which it excited, had not taken 
 place, the Episcopal Church would, at this day. 
 
PRELIMINARY REMARKS. \IX 
 
 have been extinct in Connecticut. What a con- 
 trast to this do we now behold! — A powerful and 
 increasing Cluuch, animated by the spirit of her 
 institutions and services; presenting religion in a 
 shape which will endure the test of severe inves- 
 tigation, and thus affording an asylum to those 
 whom the absurdity of Calvinism would otherwise 
 lead, first to Socinianism, and then to open infidel- 
 ity. It is not less unreasonable to expect religious, 
 than natural fruit, where you cast no seed into the 
 earth. Use the means which God has pointed 
 out; contend for the truth in the spirit, at once, of 
 meekness, and of zeal; and, rely upon it, God will, 
 sooner or later, grant the increase. 
 
 But it is not merely from the experience of the 
 Church in the diocess of Connecticut that we 
 derive our opinion as to the beneficial effects 
 of free and manly discussion^ Every where we 
 have found our Church to languish, when the 
 policy has been pursued of keeping her distinctive 
 principles out of sight; — every where she has grown 
 and flourished when she has had zeal and energy 
 enough to proclaim and defend those principles. 
 Do they, who so severely condemn religious con- 
 troversy, know that a large proportion of the cler- 
 gymen of our Church, now settled in the diocess of 
 New- York, are converts from other denominations : 
 This important fact is in the place of a volume oi 
 
XX PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 
 
 argument, to prove that the Church can have no- 
 thing to fear, but every thing to hope, from enlight- 
 ened and zealous inquiry. The attention of the 
 persons alluded to, was drawn, at different times, 
 to the subject of the constitution of the Christian 
 Church, by the public controversies carried on 
 in this country, relative to the divine institution 
 of Episcopacy. Perceiving it to be their indis- 
 pensable duty to give the subject a full and dis- 
 passionate examination, they entered sincerely 
 upon tlie task. The result, in very numerous 
 cases, has been a perfect conviction of the inva- 
 lidity of Presbyterial ordination, and a consequent 
 application for holy orders in the Episcopal Church. 
 Deprive our Church in this diocess of the clergy- 
 men who have joined her from other denomina- 
 tions, and she would be left, indeed, in a very 
 desolate condition. This places the utility of re- 
 ligious controversy in so palpable a shape before 
 us, as scarcely to aiTord room for a difference of 
 opinion. But, indeed, the case is not less clear 
 in point of principle. For, in one word, did any 
 body of men ever grow, who were too sluggish, 
 or too cautious to contend for their distinctive 
 principles ? The thing is impossible — so plainly 
 so, that a state of indifference like this, in any 
 society, is universally regarded as an infallible 
 symptom of approaching dissolution. 
 
PRELIMINARY REMARKS. XXl 
 
 5. The only consistent way of answering all this, 
 is to take the ground, at once, that all opinions 
 are equally good ; at least that the distinctive 
 principles and institutions of our Church are not 
 worth contending for. Doctrines that are kept 
 systematically out of sight can never be valued, 
 and must soon be lost. It would seem to be im- 
 possible, therefore, that any person who cordially 
 embraces the doctrines of our Church, should 
 be opposed to the public discussion of them. At 
 all events, as the Apostle expressly commands us. 
 to contend earnestly for the faith, to hold fast the 
 form of sound words, and to declare the whole 
 counsel of God, they who so decidedly condemn 
 all defence of the principles which discriminate 
 our Church from other Christian societies, must 
 be reduced to the dilemma of saying either that 
 the peculiar principles of our Church are unscrip- 
 tural, or that the injunction of the Apostle is not 
 to be obeyed,* 
 
 * It is our duty to declare tlie whole counsel of God — The distinc- 
 tive principles and institutions of our Church are part of this counsel 
 — Therefore the distinctive principles and institutions of our Church 
 are to be declared. There is, obviously, no way of escaping this con- 
 clusion but by denying either the major or minor proposition. To 
 deny the latter, is to say, that the distinctive principles and institutions 
 of our Church are unscriptural ; to deny the former, is to say, that the 
 Apostolic command need not be observed. 
 
 It will be objected, perhaps, that the Apostle directs us to feed with 
 milk such as will not bear strong meat; and, generally, to administer 
 to the people their spiritual food in r/wf season. Undoubtedly, a cer- 
 
xxil PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 
 
 It seems, then, that all the peculiar principles 
 of our Church are to be kept entirely out of sight* 
 I say all the peculiar principles; for the objection 
 is not to the discussion of this or that principle, 
 but to controversy simply. Have the opposers of 
 controversy reflected on the great variety of reli- 
 gious subjects from which the advocate of the 
 Church will be excluded by the objection in ques- 
 tion? Have they considered that it renders al- 
 most the whole of Christianity forbidden ground? 
 
 We must not introduce, for example, the sub- 
 ject of infant baptism, nor touch the question re- 
 lative to the mode of administering the ordinance. 
 This would involve a controversy with our Baptist 
 brethren. If we urge the duty of receiving the 
 sacraments, or point out the necessity of an ex- 
 ternal commission to a valid Gospel Ministry, we 
 
 t.ain latitude is allowed on tliis subject. It may be necessary gradually 
 to prepare the mind for the reception of truths to which a disinclina- 
 tion, at any particular period, may exist. But where the stewards of 
 f;hrist thus distribute weak instead of strong food, it is always to be 
 taken for granted that they will labour to prepare the people for those 
 scriptural truths, to which they may be, at the moment, opposed; and 
 that the purpose for which they give milk is, emphatically, to fit th« 
 feeble Christian, to whom they give it, for the strong meat which ho 
 must ultimately receive. It is the duty of Christ's ministers to make 
 known his wliole will; gradually, to be sure, if necessary; but to 
 make it known. They have no dispensing power here. 1 he injunction 
 is express and unqualified. Now, the doctrine, relative to controversy, 
 which I am opposing, would exclude the distinctive principles of our 
 Church from discussion at all times, and under all circumstances. 
 The objection is not, simply, to tlie time of discussion ; hvX to the tii^ 
 cuman itsslf. 
 
PRELIMINARY REMARKS. XXiil 
 
 are at war with the Quakers. Nay, we must not 
 even set forth the sacred volume as the sole stand- 
 ard of the Christian, in as much as this would 
 amount to a direct attack upon the Quakers, who 
 are peculiarly distinguished by the opinion that 
 the light within is superior even to the written 
 word. 
 
 Do we, following the standards of the Church, 
 inform our people that Almighty God, by his UoW 
 Spirit, has appointed the orders of Bishops, Priests, 
 and Deacons in his Church ; and has given to the 
 highest order the exclusive power of transmitting 
 the sacerdotal office by ordination ? This is no- 
 thing less than an attack upon the whole body of 
 our Christian brethren who may have laid aside 
 Episcopacy for Presbytery, 
 
 To avoid offending the Calvinist we must never 
 assert the universality of redemption; or call in 
 question the infallible perseverance of the Saints. 
 And to avoid offending the Socinian we must 
 keep the doctrine of the propitiatory sacrifice of 
 Christ out of view, and all the fundamental prin- 
 ciples with which it is connected. 
 
 Why not go on and say that not a word is to 
 escape us which may imply disapprobation of anv 
 of the gross errors or corruptions of popery ? 
 
 6. But religious controversy is so often con- 
 ducted in an unchristian spirit — it is so grossly 
 
XXiV PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 
 
 abused. This is, indeed, most true. But when the 
 abuses of controversy are objected to us, we have 
 to reply, first, that they are the abuses of a thing 
 which it is impossible to dispense with, and, of 
 course, must be borne ; secondly, that they are by 
 no means necessarily connected with it; and that 
 the conclusion to which such a mode of reasoning 
 leads is, not that we should cease from religious 
 discussion, but that we should conduct it in the 
 proper temper. 
 
 What has been more grossly abused than Christi- 
 anity itself! How many crimes have been per- 
 petrated in its name ! What a system of civil and 
 religious tyranny was erected upon it in the dark 
 ages ! Shall we lay aside Christianity because it 
 has been, and may still be perverted to wicked 
 purposes? No, we must endeavour to guard it 
 from corruption, and thus secure its unmingled 
 blessings. 
 
 It is, indeed, most painful to reflect on the spi- 
 rit in which Christians have disputed with one 
 another. The glorious sera of the Reformation 
 we look back to, on many accounts, with feelings 
 of exultation and delight ; it places human nature, 
 in some respects, in the most illustrious point of 
 view. But if we attend to the style in which re- 
 ligious discussion was conducted, we shall find 
 cau?e for deep regret and humiliation. The po- 
 
PRELIMINARY REMARKS. XX\ 
 
 leniical writings of the greatest and best men 
 among the Protestants were marked with a viru- 
 lence which excites our astonishment. It is true, 
 they had long sulTered under a most odious and 
 unrelenting tyranny ; the pubUc mii]d was deeply 
 agitated ; and there was no possibility of shaking 
 the enormous and disgusting mass of popery, but 
 by a strong address to tlic passions, as well as the 
 understanding. But even when we make the al- 
 lowances which this view of the subject imperi- 
 ously requires, we start back from the intempe- 
 rance of abuse which Luther and Calvin poured 
 out upon their adversaries. The worst feature, 
 indeed, in the writings of these men, is the acri- 
 mony with which they attacked their Protestant 
 brethren who differed from them. Still they were 
 sincere, zealous, and undaunted in the cause of 
 Christ; ready, at any moment, to seal their at- 
 tachment to it with their blood. Eminently pious, 
 however, as every impartial inquirer must admit 
 them to have been, they were, nevertheless, un- 
 der the dominion, in no inconsiderable degree, of 
 passions which the Gospel should have taught 
 them to subdue. But, disgraceful as much of 
 the contention that marked the period of the Re- 
 formation is to our common Christianity, will any 
 reasonable man deny that the keen discussions of 
 that period produced a most salutary effect upon 
 
 d 
 
XXVI PRELIMINARY REMARkS. 
 
 the human mind, and prepared the way for that 
 diffusion of rehgious light which distinguishes the 
 present age? In consequence, indeed, of this 
 diffusion of religious light, controversy itself has 
 been greatly improved in its spirit. The subject 
 of religious toleration, has come, at length, to be 
 thoroughly understood ; and men begin, in their 
 theological disputes, to approach much more nearly 
 to the evangelical temper. 
 
 The result, then, is, as we have already ob- 
 served, not that we should cease to discuss re- 
 ligious subjects, but that we should discuss them 
 in the spirit of Christian meekness. When con- 
 troversy is conducted in this way, we cannot very 
 well have too much of it. In fact, it was de- 
 signed by God to be the great mean of purifying, 
 and of guarding the faith. 
 
 What course of conduct, then, is it our duty to 
 pursue towards our fellow Christians of other de- 
 nominations? We should cherish for them the 
 most sincere good will. Bound, as we are, te 
 wish well to all men, it is especially our duty to 
 view with an eye of affection, those who profess 
 the name of Jesus, and unite with us in the cor- 
 dial reception of those precious doctrines of the 
 cross which constitute the very life blood of the 
 Gospel. This is the true spirit of Christian cha- 
 rity — a spirit perfectly consistent with the zealous 
 
PRELIMINARY REMARKS. XXVll 
 
 prosecution and defence of what we esteem the 
 cause of rrligious truth. We are to display the 
 meekness and affectionateness of the Christian 
 temper in our intercourse with our brethren of 
 other denominations ; but we are not to sacrifice 
 our principles to theirs : — ^nay, we are not to be 
 afraid to contend firmly against what we conceive 
 to be error, even at the hazard of deeply offend- 
 ing those by whom it is embraced. The Apostles 
 were surely animated by the true spirit of the 
 Gospel. They resisted error with a firmness which 
 nothing could shake; and propagated truth with 
 an unwearied and inextinguishable zeal. Jt is a 
 false charity that places all opinions and ail com- 
 munions upon a level — a charity which religion, 
 reason, and common sense, equally disclaim. 
 It may be proper even to avoid all situations in 
 which we should be in danger of compromiting 
 our principles, or of having our attachment to our 
 distinctive institutions weakened. There is no 
 narrowness of spirit in this. If we are persuaded 
 that our principles are true and important, it is 
 Qur sacred duty to guard them by all prudent and 
 honourable means. This is perfectly consistent 
 with the utmost good will towards those with 
 whom we decline to unite, and a readiness to do 
 full credit to their honourable efforts in a good 
 ■cause. We may contribute to the same noble 
 
XXVlil PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 
 
 object in a mode that shall be attended with no 
 danger to our peculiar principles. If we thus act, 
 we shall grow and flourish. But should Episco- 
 palians place themselves in situations where they 
 w^ill be led to depart from the principles solemnly 
 declared by their Church, it is to be apprehended 
 that very fatal consequences will ensue. It is 
 quite natural, and, therefore, excusable in our 
 brethren of other denominations, to endeavour to 
 draw us into situations which Avill lead us practi- 
 cally to renounce the principles which distinguish 
 us from them, and to act as if no important doc- 
 trine was involved in our peculiar institutions. 
 But shall we suffer our kindness of temper to get 
 the better of the love of our Church, and the 
 conviction of her superior truth and excellence ? 
 She is a pure and primitive branch of the mystical 
 body of Christ. They who have separated from 
 her are bound to return to her bosom. This is the 
 language which she should hold. Let her never 
 suffer a specious liberality to induce her to relax, in 
 the smallest degree, in the maintenance of her dis- 
 tinctive principles. If she acts up to the purity of 
 these principles, her destiny on this continent will 
 be high aiid glorious. She is noAV rising rapidly 
 in public estimation. Her numbers are increas- 
 ing; she is imbibing more and more deeply the 
 spirit of her admirable institutions and services; 
 
PRELIMINARY REMARKS. XXIX 
 
 and the period is not far distant, if she be faithful 
 to herself, when she will be the bulwark of the 
 faith in this new world. Heresy and schism 
 have their day. Nothing is permanent but truth. 
 Nothing will endure to the end of the world but 
 the Apostolic Church. How did those powerful 
 and turbulent schismatics, the Novatians, the 
 Arians, the Donatists, notwithstanding their num- 
 bers and fiery zeal, at length pass away; leaving 
 the Apostolic Church to hold on her steady course, 
 and to encounter new heresies from age to age. 
 The Presbyterians in England, in the reign of 
 Queen Ann, composed two thirds of the whole 
 dissenting body; now they amount to scarcely a 
 twentieth part of that body.* 
 
 What God has joined together, let not man put 
 asunder. Tlie Church was established by its di- 
 vine Author, as a pillar and ground of the truth. 
 It was, emphatically, declared to be but one; 
 and all men were commanded to be of its com- 
 munion. The sum of religion consists in obedience 
 to the will of God. When man undertakes to be 
 so wise as to strike out into paths of his own, the 
 consequences never fail, ultimately, to be most 
 pernicious. Accordingly, it will be found that 
 the Church and the faith mutually flourish in pro- 
 portion as they are united with each other. Look, 
 
 * Quarterly Review, vol. x. p. 126. 
 
XXX PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 
 
 for a moment, at the condition of the Christian 
 world. Papal Europe is overwhelmed with infi- 
 delity.* S'hismatic Protestant Europe has de- 
 clined very much into Arianism and Socinianism. 
 The Apostolic Church of England was the bul- 
 wark of the Reformation, and she is now the 
 bulwark of the orthodox faith. What has become 
 of those societies which were dissatisfied with her 
 wise and prudent reformation from popery, and 
 left her communion; setting up Presbyterial go- 
 vernment, extempore prayer, and Calvinistic doc- 
 trine ? They first became Arian, and now are, 
 very generally, Socinian. The people who would 
 not be contented with the 39 Articles, because 
 not sufficiently Calvinistic, have thrown off the 
 absurdities of Calvinism only to rush into apos- 
 ta-y from the faith. But such is the law of our 
 nature. Extremes beget their contras. A per- 
 nicious error seldom fails to plunge its advocates, 
 after a time, into the exactly opposite error. 
 
 The union of the true faith with the true Church 
 is most strikingly exemplified in England. It is, 
 and, in all probability, will continue to be no less 
 strikingly exemplified in this country. What an 
 alarming defection from the peculiar doctrines of 
 Christianity has taken place in Massachusetts! 
 
 * The Papists have separated thcmsclres frem the Apostolic Church, 
 and are in a state of sghisra. 
 
PRELIMINARY REMARKS. XXXI 
 
 The leaven is at work in the other parts of New- 
 England; and it is mnch to be apprehended that 
 a great proportion of the Congregationalists of 
 that country, will, sooner or later, embrace the 
 errors of Arius and Socinus. The evil, after 
 pervading the Congregational societies, will be 
 very apt to find its way into the Presbyterian 
 body. So that here, not less than in Great-Bri- 
 tain and on the continent of Europe, the Apos- 
 k)lic Church and the Apostolic faith will be found 
 in a slate of intimate union.* If God has es- 
 tablished a Church as the guardian and keeper of 
 the faith, all separation from this Church, it may 
 
 * The Churches of Sweden and Denmark were reformed upon Epis- 
 copal principles. They retained the Apostolic constitution of the 
 ministry. According'ly, they have preserved the great and distin- 
 guishing doctriiies of the Gospel. But how lamentably have Protest- 
 ant Germany, Protestant Holland, Protestant Switzerland declined 
 from these doctrines ! Even in Scotland — to which Presbyterians ap- 
 peal for the salutary influence of their system ; although, in truth, 
 the effect has been produced, chiefly, by the admirable institution 
 of parochial schools — the editors of the Christian Observer tell us 
 that the rigid system of the established Church has had the effect of 
 dividing the literary population into the two great classes of bigoU- 
 and sceptics ■\ This will ever be the case where the peculiarities of 
 Calvinism are inculcated. In those who embrace them they will pro- 
 duce a contracted and severe spirit; while such as finaliy shake ofi^ 
 the yoke, will be likely to pass far beyond the line wliich separates 
 Calvinism from pure Christianity, and to reject even the fundamen- 
 tal doctrines of the cross. 
 
 \ Not having before me the number of the Christian Observer which coi^- 
 tains this statement, I can only refer generally, to the Review of a fHrevell 
 address of the Rev. Mr. Cliftlmers to his people. In this review will be foiind 
 somQ admirable remarks on the practical effects of C'alviuism, 
 
XXXll PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 
 
 be taken for granted, will be likely to terminate 
 in infidelitj. This proposition, so reasonable in 
 itself, is abundantly confirmed, as has been al- 
 ready shown, by the state of the Christian world. 
 
 Let lis, then. Episcopalians, elevate our minds 
 to the high and momentous duties which are be- 
 fore us. We are under an awful responsibility. 
 Upon us the preservation of the true faith, on this 
 continent, under God, depends. And we shall 
 never fulfil our sacred trust unless our minds be 
 penetrated with a deep sense of the superior ex- 
 cellence of the doctrine and worship of our Church, 
 and vvith a sincere conviction of the Apostolic 
 claims of her ministry. 
 
 Let us never be afraid to proclaim the truth; 
 but let us always endeavour to proclaim it in the 
 spirit of Christian love. Many of those who have 
 separated from us adhere with a noble zeal to the 
 distinguishing doctrines of the cross. They are 
 still our brethren in Christ. We may love their 
 persons, while we strenuously oppose their errors. 
 Adorning the doctrine of God our Saviour by a 
 holy zeal for his truth and his Church, mingled 
 with that spirit of meekness and brotherly affec- 
 tion, without which the most exact conformity to 
 external institutions, or even the most strict ad- 
 herence to the orthodox faith will profit us nothing; 
 tvo may hope that the blessing of God will sig- 
 
PRELIMINARY REMARICS. XXXlli 
 
 nally crown our labours, and look forward to the 
 period when, Christians being gathered into one 
 fold, the Church shall exhibit the heavenly spec- 
 tacle of a society at union with itself. 
 
 That period of blessedness to the Church, which 
 the Prophets so particularly foretel, will be dis- 
 tinguished, we are taught to believe, by a much 
 more general connexion of Christians in one com- 
 munion. And the tendency toward this connex- 
 ion may be expected to increase as the happy 
 period in question shall approach* There are not 
 wanting circumstances, at the present moment^ 
 which give reason to hope that the Apostolic 
 Church is about to be greatly enlarged, not only 
 by the extension of her system to regions which 
 are now sunk in the darkness of paganism, but 
 also by the return of many of those who ought 
 never to have been separated from hen* Certain 
 
 * The work of converting- the Heathen is likely to go on with suc- 
 cess in India. From the connexion which subsists between Great- 
 Britain and that country, there is reason to believe that the great 
 body of the Christians of India will be regularly organized upon Epis- 
 copal principles. The vast efforts which England is making for the 
 diffusion of Christianity throughout the world, will, probably, assume, 
 more and more, the same primitive direction. The conversion of the 
 Jews has actually commenced. A society, having this object in view, 
 was established, some time since, in London ; and has published several 
 annual reports. When converts began to be made to Christianity, it 
 became necessary to organize them into regular congregations. The 
 tjuestion presented itself— upon what plan shall the organization pro- 
 ceed ? Very much to the honour of the Dissenters who v/ere niembers 
 of the society, tliey perceived the propriety of the business being con. 
 
 e 
 
^XXiv PRELIiMINARY REMARKS* 
 
 it is, that the Church differs from what her great 
 Head intended her to be in proportion as she is di- 
 
 ducted upon the plan of the established Church, and clieerfully as- 
 sented to it ; engag-ing-, at tlie same time, to continue their patronage 
 of the institution. A.n event of this kind opens the most delightful 
 prospect to the friends of primitive order and piety. 
 
 A national society has lately been established in England for the 
 purpose of educating the v/hole body of the poor, upon the new sys- 
 tem invented by Dr. Bell, in the principles of the established Church. 
 It is proceeding with great zeal and success. Vast sums have been 
 subscribed towards its funds, and there is every reason to believe that 
 it will be able to conduct its operations upon a scale as extensive as its 
 title and constitution imply. There was an addition, during the yeav 
 ending with June, 1814, of upwards of twenty thousand children to its 
 different schools. Children are admitted into its schools without re- 
 ference to the religious profession of tlieir parents : it is, however, 
 the established rule of the institution that tlie children belonging to it 
 shall attend public worship in the national Church ; subject to suck 
 exceptions, indeed, as the managers may think proper to make in parti- 
 cular cases. Numerous instances have occurred in which the children 
 of Dissenters, being sent to these schools, have attended the Church of 
 England, and, in a little while, have been followed by their parents. 
 In this way the society will, probably, have a very powerful effect in 
 promoting ecclesiastical union. The Church of England, indeed, is 
 rousing herself to the most extended and vigorous exertions. A few 
 years since, the Dissenters appeared to be gaining ground so fast as to 
 threaten ultimately to overwhelm her. The pressure has happily 
 served greatly to augment her zeal, and her efforts. The tide is 
 turned ; and the prospect now is, that the Church will di*aw back a 
 considerable portion of the separatists to her communion. 
 
 The Episcopal Church of Scotland is increasing rapidly in numbers 
 and in influence. The same may, certainly, be said of the Protest- 
 ant Episcopal Church of the United States. Her progress within the 
 last twenty years has been uncommonly great. In Connecticut she bids 
 fair soon to become the predominant religious society; and in every 
 diocess of tlie union she is advancing in strength and respectability. 
 The period, also, is approaching when prophecy gives us reason to ex- 
 pect 'Kit the Greek Church and the Roman Catholic Church, purified 
 from their errors and corruptions, will return, in a good degree, to the 
 piety of the primitive times. Almost the whole of tlie Christian world 
 will then be arranged upon the model of the Apostolic Church. Those 
 dissenting societies which have departed from the Apostolic ministry. 
 
PRELIMINARY REMARKS. XXXV 
 
 Tided into hostile societies. It was never the de- 
 sign that altar should be raised against ahar. On 
 the contrary, this is forbidden by our Lord in the 
 most express and solemn terms. History, ac- 
 cordingly, will inform us that nothing retarded 
 so much the progress of the Gospel, as the dis- 
 graceful sects that sprung up, from time to time, 
 in the primitive Church. And, in every age, the 
 division of Christians into separate and conflicting 
 societies, with the horrible cruelties to which such 
 division has given rise, has contributed more, 
 perhaps, than any other cause, to prevent the ac- 
 complishment of the dying prayer of our Lord to 
 his Father — " Neither pray 1 for these alone, but 
 for them also which shall believe in me through 
 their word: That they all may be one ; as thou, 
 Father, art in me, and I in thee ; that they also 
 may be one in us: that the world may be- 
 lieve THAT THOU HAST SENT ME."* 
 
 v/ill, probably, diminish in number; some of their members i*eturnlng 
 to the bosom of the Church, and others going- over to Arum ism, Soci- 
 nianism, and open infidelity. So that at the conclusion of the scene, 
 the true Church and the true faith will be closely connected ; and 
 schism will be proved to be the undoubted parent of heresy. The 
 whole course of events will lead to the conclusion that the happi- 
 ness, not less than the duty of man lies in unvarying conformity to the 
 divine law ; all departure therefrom never failing, sooner or ia.ttr, to 
 terminate in confusion and ruin. 
 
 * St. John, chap. xvii. 20, 21. The prayer of our Lord for the 
 unity of his followers, was offered, we see, upon the express ground 
 that the world might be thus led to believe in his divine mission. Is 
 there not, then, full reason to conclude that the diffusion of Chris- 
 
ttXVl PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 
 
 Who will refuse to join in hailing the trium- 
 phant period when Christians, embracing each 
 other as members of one fold, shall fulfil the 
 prayer of their Lord ? For which blessed purpose, 
 may all prejudice be taken away on one side, all 
 loftiness on the other ; and all parties be disposed 
 toward that teachable temper which forms the 
 character of the true followers of the humble and 
 holy Jesus! 
 
 tianlty throughout the earth, and the return of believers to that Apos- 
 tolic communion of which they were all required to be members, 
 will, in a great de|^ee, keep pace witli one another ? 
 
A VINDICATlON.^^fc: "•— "^ 
 
 /COL.GOLL 
 
 LIBRAK^ 
 
 Ts ^ OP K 
 INTRODUCTORY LE^fT^R * 
 
 Sir, 
 
 I^EVERAL years have elapsed since the piibli 
 cation of your second volume on the " Constitu- 
 tion and Order of the Christian Ministry." I 
 formed the determination of replying to this work 
 immediately upon reading it; and proceeded, 
 without delay, to make preparations for carrying 
 my determination into effect. When I had nearly 
 finished my answer, a Series of Letters, addressed 
 to you by a learned divine* of our Church, was 
 published, which appeared to me to contain so 
 full a refutation of the most important parts of 
 your book, as to render any further notice of it 
 unnecessary. Accordingly, I came, pretty much, 
 to the conclusion to remain silent ; especially as 
 you had declared your intention to take no further 
 part in the Episcopal controversy.! But you con- 
 tinued to renew the attack, in different forms, on 
 the doctrines and order of our Church ; publish- 
 ing, in 1811, a Sermon on the subject of lay el- 
 
 • The Rev. Dr. Bowden. f Continuation of Letters, p. 431- 
 
b INTRODUCTORY LETTER. 
 
 ders; and, in 1813, a Life of the Rev. Dr. Rodgcrs; 
 both of which contain matter which the sincere 
 Episcopalian must regard, not only as inaccurate 
 in itself, but as very pernicious in its tendency. 
 Now, when a particular system of doctrines or in- 
 stitutions is strongly opposed from the press, it is 
 of very little consequence in what precise shape 
 the opposition appears. Upon seeing you thus 
 persevere in your animadversions upon our Church. 
 I resolved to finish my reply to your work on the 
 ^* Constitution and Order of the Christian Minis- 
 try," and to connect wdth it a brief examination of 
 some of the assertions and charges in your liife 
 of the Rev. Dr. Rodgers. This last publication, 
 especially, had given great offence to many Epis- 
 copalians, and was thought to require notice. Do 
 not misunderstand me. I am far from intending to 
 find fault with you for continuing to defend the 
 principles of your own religious society, or to op- 
 pose those of the Episcopal Church. I mean 
 merely to say that you have thought proper to 
 prolong the discussion, and that the publication 
 of the present work has thus been rendered ne- 
 cessary. 
 
 In the present imperfect state, controversy is 
 unavoidable; being, indeed, the only w^ay of disco- 
 vering and preserving truth. It should ever be con- 
 ducted with the utmost frankness. We are not at 
 liberty to soften down the truth in order to avoid giv- 
 ing offence. It is our most solemn duty to oppose 
 what we deem pernicious error. We are to take 
 care that our zeal proceed from the right motive 
 
INTRODUCTORY LETTER. 7 
 
 — a sacred regard for the purity of divine truth, 
 and for the best interests of man, as connected 
 with it. A distinction is ever to be made between 
 error itself, and the persons who embrace it. To 
 the first we may be intolerant; but, with respect 
 to the last, we must remember that they are our 
 brethren, and allow no feelings to arise in our 
 minds towards them, but those of Christian be- 
 nevolence; for we are, above all things, to love 
 one another. If this distinction be kept constantly 
 in view, we may contend zealously for truth; 
 while we freely exercise charity. I know there 
 is great difficulty in doing this. That I shall in- 
 variably observe the distinction in the ensuing 
 pages, it would betray an improper confidence 
 absolutely to promise; but I can, at least, say that 
 I am conscious of no other feelings towards you 
 than those of sincere good will, and that I should 
 deeply regret any thing that should interrupt a 
 friendly intercourse. Some parts of your works, 
 on which I am to remark, 1 regard, I will can- 
 didly confess to you, as highly exceptionable. 
 I hope, however, I shall not forget to make 
 due allow^ance for those exaggerations and obli- 
 quities to which even good men are liable in 
 the ardour of discussion, and that I shall con- 
 stantly keep it in mind, that the forbearance, 
 which I feel called upon to exercise towards 
 others, may be necessary, even when self-love 
 may tell me I am blameless, to be practised 
 towards myself. Entertaining a high respect for 
 the virtues and piety of many, both among the 
 
8 liNTRODUCTORY LETTER. 
 
 « lergy and laity of your religious body, nothing 
 could be more painful to me than the reflection 
 that I had given them just ground of offence. 
 I wish to plead the cause of primitive truth and 
 order with firmness, but with humility. God for- 
 bid that any defender of our Church should be 
 disposed to assume airs of triumph in reference 
 to such of our Christian brethren as have departed, 
 according to our view, from the Apostolic com- 
 munion! Far be from us all such unworthy 
 feelings! — No — While it is impossible for us to 
 consent to the slightest modification of our doc- 
 trines, or to abstain from a free and explicit 
 declaration of them out of delicacy to others; 
 we would wish, by our manner of declaring 
 them, to evince to our Christian brethren that 
 we are governed by a sacred sense of duty, and 
 that our strenuous opposition to their religious 
 system, has not had the effect of obliterating those 
 sentiments of affection which should ever unite 
 Jhe followers of the same blessed Master. 
 
( 9 ) 
 
 LETTER II. 
 exterj^Mj order. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 JGiXTENSIVE currency has been given to very 
 inaccurate ideas in relation to the External 
 OjiDER of the Christian Church. 
 
 The subject is highly important, and it will be 
 impossible to place it in a just point of light, with- 
 out descending to considerable minuteness of dis- 
 cussion. 
 
 The advocates of Episcopacy have, certainly^ 
 no small reason to complain of the unfair treat- 
 ment which they have received. Their principles 
 have been greatly misrepresented, and are now 
 very far from being correctly understood. Let me 
 beseech your indulgence, while I endeavour to do 
 them a little justice. Repeated explanations have, 
 indeed, been already given ; but they have been 
 almost entirely disregarded. 
 
 I propose to institute a full comparison be- 
 tween the language and principles of our respec- 
 tive societies on the subject of External Order. It 
 will appear, I think, from the detail into which I 
 shall enter, that the Presbyterial doctrine on this 
 subject is much more strict and exclusive than the 
 Episcopal doctrine. It will appear, also, that the 
 defenders of the Church, in the allowance which 
 they make for error, cany their charitable ideas to 
 
10 EXTERNAL ORDER. lET. IV 
 
 an extent to which their opponents utterly refuse 
 to follow them. 
 
 Let me entreat the candid Presbyterian to ac- 
 company me in an examination of the standards 
 of the religious society to which he belongs, and 
 of the writings of some of its most distinguished 
 members. 
 
 1. Thfire is a visible society^ called the Churchy 
 'instituted by Christ and his Apostles, of which all 
 men are commanded to become members. 
 
 This is the Presbyterial doctrine. Indeed it is a 
 doctrine which we meet with in every part of the 
 sacred writings. The whole language of Scripture 
 supposes the existence of an outward or visible 
 Church. Take a few examples — '' Feed the 
 Church."* " Tell it unto the Church"—" if he 
 neglect to hear the Church."t " God hath set 
 some in the Church ; first, apostles ; secondarily, 
 prophets ; thirdly, teachers."t " Give none offence 
 to the Church of God."^ " The Lord added daily 
 to the Church such as should be saved."|| 
 
 It is clear, then, that there is an outward or vi- 
 sible society called the Church, and that this so- 
 ciety is of divine institution. So plainly is this 
 doctrine recorded in the sacred volume, that Chris- 
 tians almost unanimously subscribe to it. Autho- 
 rities need scarcely be quoted to show that such is 
 the language of the Presbyterial society; but as I 
 wish to prove every thing that I state, in reference 
 to those who may not be aware of what their own 
 
 '* Acta XX. 28. f Matt, xviii. 17. i 1 Cor. xii. 28. 
 
 $ 1 Cor. x. 3^. Acts ii. 47 
 
LET. II. EXTERNAL ORDER. 11 
 
 religious articles say on the subject of External 
 Order, I must beg you to excuse the tedious detail 
 which it will render necessary. 
 
 " The visible Church is the kingdom of the Lord 
 Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of 
 which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation." 
 
 This is the express language of the Westmin- 
 ster Confession of Faith, which the Presbyterian 
 Church, and the Associate Reformed Church in 
 the United States, have adopted as their standard 
 of doctrine.* 
 
 The Confession of Faith of the Reformed Church 
 in the Netherlands, which is the standard of doc- 
 trine of the Reformed Dutch Church in North- 
 America, speaking of the visible Church, uses the 
 following language — " Out of it there is no salva- 
 tion." " No person, of whatsoever state or con- 
 dition he may be, ought to withdraw himself, to 
 live in a separate state from it; but all men are in 
 duty bound to join and unite themselves with it, 
 maintaining the unity of the Church, submitting 
 themselves to the doctrine and discipline thereof." 
 " All those who separate themselves from the same, 
 or do not join themselves to it, act contrary to the 
 ordinance of God."t 
 
 The same language is held by Presbyterian au- 
 thors. You expressly describe the visible Church 
 as " that household of God to which his gracious 
 
 * Presbyterian Confession of Faith, chap. xxv. sect. 2. Constitution 
 and Standards of the Associate Reformed Church, p. 145, 146, 
 
 t Confession of Faith of the Reformed Church in the Netherlands^ 
 article xxviii. 
 
12 EXTERNAL ORDER. LET. IL 
 
 jDromises, ai>d his life-giving spirit are vouchsaf- 
 ed."* The Editor of the Christian's Magazine en- 
 ters into a long and systematic argument to prove 
 the existence of one CathoUc visible Church — 
 " the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ upon earth, 
 where he has deposited his truth, and instituted 
 his ordinances.-'t 
 
 2. God has established a ininlstiij in the Churchy 
 which he has made essential to its existence. 
 
 Clergymen are ambassadors of heaven.J They 
 are stewards of the mysteries of God. They are 
 ministers of Jesus Christ.^ It is not sufficient to 
 form a Church that there be a body of people 
 united by the profession of the same faith, and 
 holding communion with one another. There must 
 be agents commissioned of God, having authority 
 to sign and seal, to bless and absolve, in his name. 
 
 Such is the Presbyterial doctrine. 
 
 " Unto this Catholic visible Church Christ hath 
 given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, 
 for the gathering and perfecting of the saints in 
 this life to the end of the world. "|| " The Lord 
 Jesus, as King and Head of his Church, hath there- 
 in appointed a government in the hand of Church 
 officers, distinct from the civil magistrate." " To 
 these officers the keys of the kingdom of Heaven 
 are committed ; by virtue whereof they have power 
 respectively to retain and remit sins, to shut that 
 
 • Letters, p. 342. f Christian's Magazine, vol. i. p. 57 — 73, 
 ^ 2 Cor. V. 20. § 1 Cor. iv. 1. 
 
 II Presbyterian Confession of Faith, chap. xxv. sect. 3. Constitution 
 and Standards of the Associate Reformed Church, p. 147. 
 
cLET. TI. EXTERNAL ORDER, 13 
 
 kingdom against the impenitent, both by the word 
 and censures; and to open it unto penitent sin- 
 ners, by the ministry of the Gospel, and by abso- 
 lution from censures, as occasion shall require."* 
 
 Attend to the language of Calvin — " Neither the 
 light nor heat of the sun, nor meat and drink are 
 so necessary to nourish atid sustain this present life, 
 as the office of the apostles and pastors is necessary 
 to preserve the Church. ''f 
 
 But let me refer you to a modern authority, on 
 which you bestow very high praise. " Her minis- 
 try enters into her very being. Had the ministry 
 ever been destroyed, the Church would have been 
 destroyed too. "J 
 
 The doctrine, that a ministry is essential to the 
 existence of the visible Church, may be proved to 
 be the Presbyterial doctrine by the following short 
 process of reasoning. 
 
 We can be admitted into the Church only by 
 the sacrament of baptism.^ It follows, that the 
 Church cannot exist without baptism ; otherwise 
 
 * Presbyterian Confession of Faith, chap. xxx. sect. 1, 2. Consti- 
 tution of the Associate Reformed Church, p. 164, 165. 
 
 t Calvin's Institutes, Book IV. chap. iii. sect. 2. 
 
 t Christian's Mag-azine, vol. i. p. 219. 
 
 § " Baptism is a sacrament ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the 
 solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church, but 
 also," &c. Presbyterian Confession of Faith, chap, xxviii. sect. 1. 
 
 " Sacraments put a visible difference between those that belong- unto 
 the Church, and the rest of the world." Ibid. chap, xxvii. sect. 1. 
 
 By the sacrament of baptism we are admitted into the Church ; and 
 the sacraments dlsting-uish those who belong to tli£ Church, from those 
 who belon,? to the world. Of course baptism is the oiihj mode of ad- 
 mission into the Church :for, if there be any other mode of admission. 
 It cannot possibly be said that the sacraments distinguish the World 
 and the Church from eacJi other. 
 
14 EXTERNAL ORDER. LET. IL 
 
 there may be a society without the possibility of 
 members; which is a contradiction. What is a 
 society, but an organized collection of individuals ? 
 What is a Church, but an organized collection of 
 Church members? To say, then, that there may 
 be a Church without baptism, is to say that there 
 may be an organized collection of Church mem- 
 bers where there cannot possibly be a single Church 
 member. Baptism, of course, enters into the very 
 being of the Church. But baptism can be admi- 
 nistered only by a clergyman lawfully ordained.* 
 
 The Church cannot exist without baptism ; there 
 can be no baptism without a ministry; of course 
 there can be no Church without a ministry. 
 
 But, independently of this process of reasoning, 
 it is the undoubted doctrine of the Presbyterial 
 standards, and of Presbyterial authors, that a mi- 
 nistry, divinely commissioned, lies at the very 
 foundation of the visible Church. 
 
 3. An external commission is necessary to consti- 
 tute a minister of Christ, 
 
 It is not sufficient to justify a man in entering 
 upon the sacerdotal office that he fancies himself 
 to be internally called to the work. He must be 
 outwardly set apart, ordained, or consecrated, by 
 imposition of hands. What would be the conse- 
 quence if persons, imagining themselves qualified 
 for the ministration of holy things, were at liberty, 
 
 " " There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in 
 the Gospel, that is to say, baptism and the supper of tlie Lord : neither 
 of which may be dispensed by any but a minister of the Word^ laiofully 
 ordained." Presbyterian Confession of Faith, chap, xxvii. sect 4- 
 
LET. 11. EXTERNAL ORDER. 15 
 
 without further ceremony, to assume the clerical 
 character? The Church, it must be immediately 
 seen, could not exist under such circumstances. 
 She would be overrun with clergymen total!y unfit, 
 both as to knowledge and as to character, for their 
 sacred function. No society, indeed, can exist 
 without the power of judging of the qualifications 
 of its officers. The language of Scripture, on this 
 subject, is, accordingly, very explicit. " No man 
 taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is 
 called of God, as was Aaron. ""'^ Now, Aaron was 
 visibly consecrated, or set apart to his office. So, 
 therefore, must every Christian minister be set 
 apart. Further — Even our blessed Saviour " glo- 
 rified not himself to be made an High Priest. "f 
 He entered not upon his public ministration until 
 he had received a regular external commission. 
 Who, then, shall undertake to officiate in his 
 Church without a similar commission? Of the 
 internal or spiritual qualification of our blessed 
 Saviour for the work of the ministry there could 
 be no doubt. For what purpose, then, did he sub- 
 mit to an external ordination, but that he might 
 set an example for the instruction and government 
 of all succeeding ages ? They, who undertake to 
 act as clergymen upon the mere strength of a sup- 
 posed internal call, not only violate the express 
 command of Scripture, but make themselves wiser 
 than the divine Head of the Church himself J 
 
 * Heb. V. 4. f Heb. v. 5. 
 
 t No person, certainly, should enter upon the sacred office unless he 
 believes himself to be drawn to it by the Holy Ghost. This is the ex- 
 
16 EXTERNAL ORDER. LET. II. 
 
 On this subject the Presbyterial standards speak 
 a very decided language. " There be only two 
 sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the 
 Gospel, that is to say, baptism and the supper of 
 the Lord; neither of which may be dispensed by 
 any but a minister of the Word, lawfully ordained."* 
 " No man ouglit to take upon him the office of 
 a minister of the Word without a lawful calling." 
 " Ordination is always to be continued in the 
 Church." " Ordination is the solemn setting apart 
 of a person to some public Church office." " Every 
 minister of the Word is to be ordained by imposi- 
 tion of hands and prayer, with fasting, by those 
 preaching Presbyters to whom it doth belong. "t 
 
 press doctrine of (Xir venerable Church. All who apply for orders are 
 required to declare that tliey consider themselves called by the Holy 
 Spirit to the work of the ministry. But then it is not left to an indivi- 
 dual to judge for himself. There is a tribunal which is to inquire into 
 the fitness of candidates When a person is considered by this tribunal 
 as possessing' the requisite qualifications, he is to be solemnly set apart 
 by a regular ordination; the ordaining Bishop acting- as the minister of 
 Christ, and thus conveying the sacerdotal office from our blessed Savi- 
 our himself, the divine Head of the Church, and the source of all power 
 in it. The necessity of an outward ordination arises from its being pre- 
 scribed in Scripture; and the reason of the prescription must immedi- 
 ately present itself to any one who will recollect that, without suitable 
 provision for the appointment of proper officers, no society, civil or ec- 
 clesiastical, could possibly subsist. 
 
 * Presbyterian Confession of Faith, chap, xxvii. sect. 4. Constitution 
 of the Associate Reformed Church in North-America, p. 154. 
 
 I The form of Presbyterial Church government agreed upon by the 
 Assembly of Divines at Westminster; examined and approved, anno 
 1645, by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. 
 
 In the Constitution and Standards of the Associate Reformed Church 
 in North-America, this language of the Westminster Divines, and of 
 the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, is adopted, word for 
 word. Constitution and Standards, p. 497. 
 
LET. II. EXTERNAL ORDER. 17 
 
 Such is the language of the Westminster Divines, 
 and of the General Assembly of the Church of 
 Scotland. It is the true Presbyteriai doctrine rela- 
 tive to outward ordination. We meet with it ex- 
 pressly and repeatedly in your Letters — " None 
 are regularly invested with the ministerial charac- 
 ter, or can with propriety be recognized in this 
 character, but those who have been set apart to 
 the office by persons lawfully clothed with the 
 power of ordaining." " We suppose that ruling 
 Elders and Deacons are not authorized to labour 
 in the word and doctrine, or to administer either of 
 the Christian sacraments."^ 
 
 4. Presbyterians admit no ordination hut the Pres- 
 byteriai to he either scriptural or valid. 
 
 Nothing can be more explicit than your lan- 
 guage upon this subject. '^ It is only so far as any 
 succession flows through the line of Presbyters 
 that it is either regular or valid. It is the Irying 
 on of the hands of the Presbytery that constitutes 
 a scriptural ordination; and it is because Epis- 
 copal Bishops are Presbyters, and assisted in all 
 ordinations by other Presbyters, that we consider 
 (heir ordaimng acts, on the principles of Scripture 
 and primitive usage, as valid."t 
 
 Precisely similar is the language held by your 
 friend Dr. M'Leod. '^ A person who is not ordain- 
 ed to office by a Presbytery, has no right to be 
 received as a minister of Christ: his administra- 
 tion of ordinances is invalid: no divine blessing is 
 
 * Letters, p. 8, 9. f Ibid, p. 347. 
 
13 EXTERiNAL OKDER. LET. II. 
 
 promised upon his labours : it is rebellion against 
 the Head ot' the Church to support hi:n in his pre- 
 tensions: Christ has excluded him in his provi- 
 dence from admission through the ordinary door ; 
 and if he has no evidence oi' miraculous power to 
 testify his extraordinary mission, he is an impos- 
 tor." " It is improper to countenance the usurpa- 
 tions of prelacy, or the irregularities of indepen- 
 dency; but since the Bishop, who claims exclusively 
 tlie right of ordination, does, in/act^ relinquish it, 
 by associating other ministers with him in the im- 
 position of hands; and seeing Independents also 
 relinquish their claim of right of ordaining, each 
 congregation its own pastor, by giving up the work 
 into the hands of those who are ordained, the or- 
 dinances administered in the Episcopal and Inde- 
 pendent Churclies are held valid: the ministry is 
 essentially Presbyterian, and upon this principle 
 there is no necessity for re-ordaining or re-baptiz- 
 ing any who have had these ordinances in the 
 communion of the Independent or Episcopal 
 Churches."* 
 
 The claims set up in the Catechism of Dr. 
 ArLeod, and in your Letters, it vvili immediately 
 be seen, are as exclusive as language can make 
 them. It would be unreasonable to find fault with 
 you, however, since you do nothing more than lay 
 down the true Presbytcrial doctrine, as set fortli 
 by the Westminster Divines, and the General As- 
 sembly of the Church of Scotland, '' Ordination 
 
 • M*Lcod's Ecclesiastical Catechism, p. SJ9, 30. 31 
 
LET. 11. EXTERNAL ORDER. 19 
 
 iS the act of a Presbytery. '' '" Preaching Presby- 
 ters, orderly associated, either in cities or neigh- 
 bouring villages, arc those to whom the imposition 
 of hands do appertain, for those congregations 
 witliin their bounds respectively."* In proof of 
 these doctrines the First Epistle of Paul to Timo- 
 thy is quoted, and thus Presbyterial ordination is 
 placed on the ground of Scripture. 
 
 The Associate Reformed Church in North-Ame- 
 rica adopts the foregoing language of the Westmin- 
 vSter Divines.t Still further — " Presbyterial Church 
 government is the true and only form of govern- 
 ment which the Lord Jesus Christ hath prescribed 
 in his Word."t Now, ordination is one of the 
 powers of government. It can be exercised, of 
 course, only in the Presbyterial mode. Any other 
 mode of exercising it is inconsistent with the ordi- 
 nance of the Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 Language of the same character is to be found 
 in the standards of the religious society to which 
 you belong. " It is absolutely necessary that the 
 government of the Church be exercised under 
 some certain and definite form. And we hold it 
 to be expedient, and agreeable to Scripture^ and 
 tlie practice of the primitive Christians^ that the 
 
 * Form of Presbyterial Church governmsnt ageed upon by the As- 
 sembly of Divines at Westminster ; examined and approved, anno 1645, 
 by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. 
 
 t Constitution of the Associate Reformed Church in Norlh-Amcnc?. 
 n. 497, 498. 
 
 ■ Ibid. p. 4r5. X 
 
20 EXTERNAL ORDER. LEI. IL 
 
 Church be governed by Congregational, Presbyte- 
 rial, and Synodical assemblies."* 
 
 The same standards admit the existence of but 
 one order of gospel ministers. To this order they 
 represent the power of ordination as confined. The 
 power is exercised by a Presbytery. " The pre- 
 siding Bishop shall, by prayer, and with the lay- 
 ing on of the hands of tlie Presbytery, according 
 to the apostolic p.rample^ solemnly ordain him to the 
 holy office of the gospel ministry."t 
 
 Thus the Presbyterial form of Church govern- 
 ment is placed on the ground of Scripture. Ordi- 
 nation is represented as the act of a Presbytery, 
 and this is referred to the authority of apostolic 
 example. 
 
 But I am dwelling unnecessarily on this part of 
 the subject. The exclusive validity of Presbyterial 
 ordination is the fundamental principle of the Pres- 
 byterial association. 
 
 Mark, then, the following simple train of pro- 
 positions. 
 
 1. There is a visible society, called the Church, 
 instituted by Christ and his apostles, of which all 
 men are commanded to become members; 
 
 2. To the existence of this Church a divinely 
 appointed ministry is essential; 
 
 3. There can be no ministry without an external 
 ordination ; 
 
 • Form of fiovcrnment of the rreshyterian Church in the United 
 Sta'cs, chap. vii. sect. 1. 
 I Ibid. chap. xiv. sect. 17 
 
LET. H. EXTEKiN/iL ORDER. 21 
 
 4. And no ordination is valid unless Presbyteri- 
 ally performed. 
 
 Thus Presbyterial ordination is the basis on 
 which the whole fabrick of the Church visible is 
 made to rest.* 
 
 It is utterly impossible to set aside the foregoing 
 plain statement of facts. 
 
 To say that there can be no Church without a 
 ministry, and that there can be no ministry with- 
 out Presbyterial ordination, is plainly to say that 
 there can be ilo Church without Presbyterial ordi- 
 nation. The Westminster Divines, the General 
 Assembly of Scotland, tlie Associate Reformed 
 Church in North-America, the particular society 
 to which you belong, unite in declaring the mi- 
 nistry to be essential to the Church, and Presby- 
 terial ordination to be essential to the ministry. 
 They all, then, make the very existence of the 
 Church of Christ to depend on ordination by the 
 hands of a Presbytery. You go to the full extent 
 of this doctrine in the Letters which you have 
 addressed to your Christian brethren ; inveighing 
 against the exclusive claims ol your neighbours in 
 the very breath with which you issue claims as 
 exclusive as language has the pow er of express- 
 ing. 
 
 * I am aware that you admit Episcopal ordination to be valid. But 
 you do not admit it to be valid as contradistinguished from Presbyte< 
 rial ; nay, you represent it as substantially Presbyterial, and rest its va- 
 lidity on tliat circumstance alone. Were it not for this, you would 
 deem it necessary, as Dr. M'Leod expressly tells us, to re-baptize Epis- 
 copal la}Tnen, and to re-ordain Episcopal priests. But this subject 
 %vill be fully considered in my next letter. 
 
( 22 ) 
 
 LETTER in. 
 EXTERKJiL ORDER 
 
 l^ET 113 now endeavour to ascertain the degree 
 of value which Prcsbyterial standards and Presby- 
 terial authors attach to communion with the visible 
 Church; thus depending on ordination by Prcsby- 
 terial liands for its very existence. We shall then 
 know precisely how far your society carries its 
 pretensions, and the exact degree of importance 
 which it 2;ives to External Order. 
 
 The standards of Prcsbyterial societies expressly 
 declare that there is no covenanted possibility 
 
 OF SALVATION OUT OF THE VISIBLE ChURCH. 
 
 Take the following passage from the Confession 
 of Faith of the Church of Scotland: " The sa- 
 craments, as well of the Old as of the New Testa- 
 ment, were instituted of God not only to make a 
 VISIBLE difference betwixt his people and those 
 that were without his league, but also,"* &c. 
 
 League signifies agreement, or covenant. The 
 sacraments of the Church, then, put a visible dif- 
 ference between those who are in league or cove- 
 
 Tlic confession of the faith and doctrine believed and professed 
 by the Protestants of Scothind, exliibited to the esiates of the sanie in 
 Parliament; and ratified and established by act of Parliament, 1567, 
 im the public and avowed Confession of Faith of the Church of Scot- 
 ' - ^ Article xxi. of the Sucramcnts. 
 
LET. III. EXTERNAL ORDER. 23 
 
 nant with God, and those who arc not in league or 
 covenant with hiin. 
 
 We will now attend to the language of the Con- 
 lession of Faith set forth by the Westminster Di- 
 vines. 
 
 " The visible Church is tlic kingdom of the 
 Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God^ 
 out of which there is no orilinary possibility of 
 salvation."* 
 
 It w^ould be difficult to attach greater importance 
 to the visible Church than is implied in the above 
 passage. There is no ordinary possibility of sal- 
 vation out of this Church. If persons not belong- 
 ing to such Church be saved, it must be in some 
 extraordinary way, of which we know nothing. 
 Communion with the visible Church, as far as we 
 see or know, is the only method in which salvation 
 is to be attained. Such is the express language 
 which you yourself use in commenting on this very 
 passage.f Now, I humbly conceive that the or- 
 dinary way of salvation is the covenanted way. 
 You surely will not assert that the covenanted plan 
 of salvation is a plan which is extraordinary and 
 unknown to us; while there is some other plan, 
 different from the covenanted, that is the ordinary 
 plan of salvation. It is clear, then, that your 
 Confession of Faith confines all covenanted title to 
 salvation to the members of the visible Church. 
 
 Bear with me, however, a few moments longer, 
 
 * Presbyterian Confession of Faith, chap. xxv. sect. 2. Constituiion 
 of the Associate Reforinccl Church in North-America, p. 145, 146, 
 t Continuation of l^-.-fiv^^, p, 44, 
 
24 EXTERNAL ORDER. LET. III. 
 
 " A sacrament is an holy ordinance, instituted by 
 Christ m his Church, to signify, seal, and exhibit 
 unto those that are within the covenant of 
 GRACE, the benefits of his mediation; and to dis- 
 tinguish THEM FROM THOSE THAT ARE WITHOUT." 
 
 " Baptism is not to be administered to any that 
 are out of the visible Church, and so stran- 
 gers FROM THE COVENANT OF PROMISE, Until they 
 
 profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to 
 him."* 
 
 * Constitution of the rresbytcrlan Church in the United States 
 Larger Catechism, questions 162 and 166. Constitution of tlie Associate 
 Reformed Church in North-America, p. 372, 373, 375. 
 
 Mark this well ! Wc are ** out of the visible Church, and so stran- 
 gers from the covenant of promise, until we profess our faith in Christ." 
 Then it is possible to have faith, and yet be without a covenanted title 
 to salvation; for we are first supposed to profess our faith in Christ; 
 and, upon the strength of this profession, are placed within the cove- 
 nant by the ordinance of baptism. Faith, therefore, does not, of it- 
 self, put us within the covenant, but merely renders us fit subjects of 
 admission. 
 
 Let us now attend to the language which you employ on this subject. 
 
 You represent it as the universal doctrine of Calvinistic Presbyteri- 
 ans, that all who have sincere faith in Christ are in covenant with God, 
 whether members of the visible Church or not ; in short, to use your 
 own pointed phraseology, even supposing them never to have seen a 
 Church officer in their lives.f 
 
 Pray, Sir, were th6 Westminster Divines Calvinistic Presbyterians ? 
 They hold, as we have seen, a very difTcrent language ; telling us, in 
 so many words, that all who are out of the visible Church are strangers 
 to the covenant of grace, and providing that persons shall first have 
 faith in Christ, and profess that faith; after which they are to be ad- 
 mitted within the covenant by the holy ordinance of baptism. The 
 Westminster Catechism is the catechism of your own religious society ; 
 which society, I presume, you will, without hesiUtion, acknowledge 
 to be Calvinistic. 
 
 In the chapter of your Confession which treats of saving faitli, it i? 
 not said that faith plaees a man within the pale of tlie covenant of grace. 
 
 t Continuation of Letters, p. 58, 59, 60. 
 
LET. III. EXTERNAL ORDEK. 2fe 
 
 The position, that the standards of Prcsbyterial 
 societies confine all covenanted possibility of sal- 
 
 If it were so suid, the only consequence would be, that your relig-jous 
 standards would be inconsistent. The passages, from the catechism, 
 which I have quoted, are as precise as lang-uage can make them. Pro- 
 iluce opposite passag-es equally precise, and it will certainly be impos- 
 fcible to tell what your religious standards mean. But such passages 
 you cannot produce. Any expressions that may ascribe ^eat import- 
 ance to faith, representing it as unitmg the soul to Christ, and giving 
 Ml interest in his favour, must be so construed as to be made consistent; 
 with the other parts of your religious articles, which speak a language, 
 relative to the visible Church, so express as to admit of no qualifica- 
 tion whatever. You will recollect, also, that your society acknowledges 
 no faith to be true and saving unless it contain within itself a principle 
 of obedience. It must be supposed, therefore, to lead men to unite 
 themselves with that visible society where God has deposited his cove- 
 nant; and, by receiving the seals of such covenant, to acquire a legi* 
 timate title to its promises. 
 
 In page 62 of the Continuation of your Letters, you represent sincere 
 piety as giving to all its possessors a covenanted title to heaven; and 
 this you declare to be the universally received Calvinistic opinion. Now, 
 Sir, was there ever a pious heathen ? To answer this question in the 
 negative, is to consign the heathen world to indiscriminate perdition ; 
 for, surely, without piety, no man can see God. 
 
 Piety, you say, gives a covenanted title to heaven as a matter of 
 course.* As then the heathens, according to you,-j- are without such 
 covenanted title, it follows, that heathen piety is a thing impossible ; 
 and heathen piety being impossible, heathen salvation must be equally 
 so. If, to escape from this monstrous doctrine, yoTi admit that there 
 may be piety among the heathen, you will be directly at war with your-* 
 •self; for you represent the heathen as destitute ol; all covenanted title 
 to salvation ; whereas, to have sincere piety, and to have a covenanted 
 title to salvation, you make to be precisely the same thing. 
 
 Sincere piety gives the Christian a covenanted title to heaven — Since 
 piety gives the heathen a covenanted title to heaven — Then the Christian 
 and the heathen, as to covenanted title to heaven, are precisely on a 
 footing. The question of such title has nothing to do with signs and 
 
 * " The si?icere piety, and, of course, the covenant title to heaven" Coa- 
 unuation of Letters, p. 62. 
 
 \ ** On tlie same principles as to the heathen; that is, not in virtue of any 
 covenant engagement, or explicit prcmis;;', but on the footing of general un- 
 pledged luercy." Ibid- p. ?7. 
 
 4 
 
26 EXTERNAL ORDER. LET. IIL 
 
 vation within the pale of the visible Church, is 
 thus completely established; the passages cited 
 
 4>eals. Piety is its sole criterion. This is one alternative. If you do 
 not like this, take the other. The heathen have no covenanted title to 
 heaven; which, by the way, is your express doctrine.* Then there 
 can be no such thing as sincere piety in the heathen world ; and, of 
 course, the heathen world must indiscrinninately perish. 
 
 On one side of the dilemma lies the total destruction of the visible 
 Church, and of the covenant of grace as a solemn transaction, distin- 
 guished by appropriate seals ; on the other lies tlie terrific sentence — 
 ** none can be saved who have never heard of Christ, however diligent 
 to frame their lives according to the light of nature."f 
 
 Again — Can any thing be more absurd than to represent piety as 
 placing a man, of itself^ within the covenant of grace ? The covenant 
 of grace is a solemn transaction, distinguished bf characteristic signs 
 and seals. To be within these signs and seals, is to be within the cove- 
 nant ; to be without them, is to be without the covenant. Was any per- 
 son within the Abrahamic dispensation of the covenant without circum- 
 cision ? Surely n»t. •' This is my covenant — Every man child among 
 5'ou shall be circumcised. And the uncircumcised man child shall be 
 cut off from his people."^: To be circumcised was to be put within the 
 Abrahamic dispensation of the covenant of grace. Baptism having suc- 
 ceeded circumcision as the visible seal of the covenant of grace, it is 
 by baptism that we are placed within the pale of the Gospel dispensa- 
 tion of that covenant. On all this subject, your religious standards 
 hold the exact language which I have just been using. What, then, 
 becomes of your assertion, that every person of sincere piety is, simply 
 by virtue of his piety, Virithin the pale of the covenant of grace. It is 
 us inconsistent with your religious standards as one thing can be with 
 anotlier ; and it is not more inconsistent with your religious standards 
 than with common sense. 
 
 You remark, that " the seals of the covenant do not form the cove- 
 nant itself; the seal on a bond not being itself the contract, but only 
 the evidence of it."(| The true question is, whether a person can be 
 said to be within the covenant until he is within its seals. The very 
 purpose of seals is to discriminate a covenant transaction from that 
 which is not a covenant transaction; to determine who are witliiii the 
 
 • Continuation of Letters, p. 37. 
 
 f Constitution of the Presbyterian Churcli in the United States. L<»rge" 
 Catecliisra, <iut:3tion 60. 
 i Genesis xvii. in, 14. 
 'I Continuation of Letters, p. 51» 
 
LET. in- EXTERNAL ORDER. 27 
 
 being of so very marked a character as to leave 
 no room for evasion. 
 
 covenant, and who are not. If this be not the purpose of seals, wha\ 
 is their purpose ? And if persons may be completely within a covenant, 
 independently of the appropriate seals of that covenant, what end are 
 seals to answer ? 
 
 " The seal on a bond is not itself the contract, but only the evidence 
 of it" True— But what is it that converts an unmeaning piece of writ- 
 ing into a covenant binding upon the parties ? It is the signing and 
 sealing. The signing and sealing are essential to the very existence of 
 the covenant. Until signed and sealed, the paper has no obligatory 
 force. 
 
 The covenant you represent as a mere act of the mind. But publico* 
 tion is essential to the very idea of a covenant. It is an abuse of lan- 
 guage to talk of a covenant that is confined to the mind of the party. 
 If this language is ever used, it can only be in the way of figurative 
 allusion. Covenant, it is true, supposes an act of the mind : such act 
 is one essential part; but of itself it can never amount to a covenant, 
 And although the covenanting transaction, with its signs and seals, is 
 not the act of the mind, abstractedly considered,- yet it is the act of the 
 mind embodied, and rendered visible. Nothing, indeed, but an assent of 
 the mind, made known by the appropriate solemnities of publication, 
 is ever entitled to the name of a covenant. 
 
 Here, Sir, lies the source of all the error into which you run on this 
 subject. Faith you make every thing. The moment a man has faith, 
 he is ascertained to be of the elect ; and once an elect person, always 
 an elect person, is the Calvinistic rule. Well, if we are within the 
 .decree of election, we must have the highest title to heaven that God 
 can possibly bestow. Thus the absurd doctrine of unconditional elec- 
 tion and irresistible grace leads the Calvinist to talk in a most contra- 
 dictory manner; undervaluing all visible institutions, and providing 
 some secret method of entering into covenant with God. 
 
 The only way. Sir, in which you can be reconciled, on this point, 
 with your standards, is by supposing it to be your opinion that Church 
 membership is essential to faith ; in other words, that a man cannot 
 have faith without arriving at it through the gate of external order. 
 You say that faith gives a covenanted title to salvation — Your standards 
 say that none but the members of the Church have such covenanted 
 title. Unless, therefore, you suppose tliere can be no faith without 
 Church membership, you contradict your religious articles. Dut this 
 doctrine would involve you in another difficulty; for, to make fuith ne- 
 cessarily dependent on outward in«;titutions, is to represent those instj- 
 
28 EXTERNAL ORDER. LET. IIL 
 
 Let mc now remind you of the language which 
 is held by Presbyterian authors on this subject. 
 
 My first quotation shall be from the Christian's 
 Magazine. Speaking of the visible Church, Dr. 
 Mason says, " all the ordinances are given to it- 
 all the promises are made to it."^ 
 
 The next authority to which I would refer you 
 is that of the late learned President of the college 
 of New-Jersey. In his Discourse on Baptism, Dr. 
 Smith constantly represents the visible Church as 
 that household of God to which is committed the 
 covenant of grace, with all its promises and bles- 
 sings.t Take a single passage — " Between the 
 baptized and unbaptized infant, dying in infancy, 
 there is this difference, that, to the one, the inherit- 
 ance of eternal life is conveyed by covenant from 
 God, under his appointed seal; the other is left to 
 his free, indeed, but uncovenanted mercy.J" 
 
 Let me now call your attention to the language 
 repeatedly used in your own Letters. 
 
 The visible Church is " that household of God 
 to which his gracious promises and his life-giving 
 spirit are vouchsafed."^ Here, Sir, you represent 
 the promises of the Gospel as confined to the vi- 
 sible Church. Such is, unquestionably, the fair 
 
 "tutlons as constituting^ the completion of the Christian character. It 
 is, too, to run directly ap^ainst the cardinal principles of Calvinism. 
 Besides, your religious articles suppose a man to have faith before he 
 is admitted into the Church; for they make such faith the very ground 
 of his admission. 
 
 * Vol. i. p. 156. 
 
 •f See Discourse on Baptism tliFOUghout. % Ibid. p. 34 
 
 $ Letters, p. 342. 
 
LET. III. EXTERNAL ORDER. 29 
 
 construction; especially as the conclusion which 
 you draw, from tlic fact of the gracious promises 
 of God and his life-giving spirit being vouchsafed 
 to the Church, is, that more virtue and holiness 
 will ever be found within thon without her pale. 
 If the promises of the Gospel arc not particularly 
 given to the visible Church, your mode of expres- 
 sion is very strange, and your reasoning altogether 
 unintelligible. 
 
 Again — You represent the existence of unaffect- 
 ed piety out of the visible Church as a difficulty 
 of no easy solution;* and you expressly declare, 
 that if mercy is extended to any who are not mem- 
 bers of that Church, it must be in some extraor- 
 dinary and unknown way.f Now, the covenanted 
 way is surely the ordinary way in which God dis- 
 penses mercy. To say, then, that if mercy is ex- 
 tended to persons out of the visible Church, it 
 must be in some extraordinary mode, is to say that 
 none but the members of that Church have a co- 
 venanted title to salvation. 
 
 Let this subject be presented in another point 
 of view. 
 
 It is the express doctrine of Presbyterial authors, 
 and of Presbyterial standards, that remission of 
 sin is to be obtained only by communion with the 
 visible Church. 
 
 Mark the strong language of Calvin : " Forgive- 
 ness of sins is a benefit so proper to the Chi^rch. 
 
 * Letters, p. 344. 
 
 f Coutinuatien of Letters, p. 44. 
 
56 EXTERNAL ORDER. LET. Ill, 
 
 that we cannot otherwise enjoy it, but if we abide 
 in the communion thereof. It is distributed unto 
 us by the ministers and pastors, either by preach- 
 ing the Gospel, or by ministering of the sacra- 
 ments. Wherefore let every one of us think this 
 to be his duty, no where else to seek forgiveness 
 of sins, than where the Lord hath left it."* 
 
 The Confession of Faith of the Enghsh congre- 
 gation at Geneva, treating of the visible Church, 
 has these words — " Wherein standeth only remis- 
 sion of sin. "t This confession, let it be recollect- 
 ed, was received and approved by the Church of 
 Scotland. 
 
 W^e will now refer to the language of your own 
 Confession of Faith, as drawn up by the West- 
 minster Divines. " The Lord Jesus, as King and 
 Head of his Church, hath therein appointed a go- 
 vernment in the hand of Church officers, distinct 
 from the civil magistrate. To these officers the 
 keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed, by 
 virtue whereof they have power respectively to 
 retain and remit sins ; to shut that kingdom against 
 the impenitent, both by the word and censures ; 
 and to open it unto penitent sinners, by the mi- 
 nistry of the Gospel, and by absolution from cen- 
 sures, as occasion shall require."}: 
 
 The language used by Presbyterial societies, in 
 <^xcommunicating unworthy members, and in re- 
 
 • Calvin's Institutes, book iv. chap. i. sect. 32. 
 
 I The Confession of Faith used in tlie English congreg-atiou at Gc- 
 iieva; received and approved by the Church of Scotland, article iv. 
 '. Westminster Confession of Faith, chap. xxx. sert. 1, ? 
 
JLET. III. EXTERNAL ORDER. 3i 
 
 storing them upon repentance, shows, in a very 
 striking manner, the vakie which they attach to 
 the communion of the visible Church. " Excom- 
 munication is the judicial excision of an offender 
 from the visible Church of Christ, and a pronounc- 
 ing him to belong to the kingdom of Satan."* 
 
 The same doctrine is laid down in the standards, 
 of the religious society to which you belong.f 
 
 The form of excommunication used by the As- 
 sociate Reformed Church in North-America con- 
 cludes with the following expressions — " Therefore 
 we did, and hereby do, in the name, and by the 
 authority of the Lord Jesus Christ, actually excom- 
 municate the said A. B. casting him out of the 
 communion of the Church of Christ, and deUv er- 
 ing him unto Satan, for the destruction of the flesh ; 
 that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord 
 Jesus."t 
 
 The form of restoration in use in the religious 
 society to which you belong, is in these words — 
 " I do receive you into the communion of the 
 Church, that you may be a partaker of all the be 
 nefits of the Lord Jesus to your eternal salvation.^^^ 
 
 It is, then, the Presbyterial doctrine that pardon 
 is to be obtained only in the visible Church ;|| that 
 
 '^ Constitution and Standards of the Associate Reformed Church in 
 ■North-America, p. 525. 
 
 I Presbyterian Confession of Faith, chap. xxx. sect. 3. Directory for 
 Worship, chap. x. 
 
 I Constitution and Standards of the Associate Reformed Church in 
 JJ^onh-America, p. 580. 
 
 § Directory for Worphip, chap. x. sect. 8. 
 
 II This is laid down generally. It is not meant to say that pardon and 
 salvation are represented hv Prcsbvteriaiis as impossible out of the vi- 
 
52 EXTERNAL ORDER. LET. III. 
 
 the officers of that Church have power to remit 
 and retain sins, to open and shut the kin2;dom of 
 heaven; and that the excommunication of an of- 
 fender is a formal delivery of him to Satan. 
 
 We see now the precise degree of importance 
 which is attached by your society to Prcsbyterial 
 ordination. As the visible Church is made to rest 
 upon Presbyterial ordination, the value which is 
 given to the one, must, of course, be given to the 
 other. Now it is only in the visible Church, ac- 
 cording to the standards of your society, that re- 
 mission of sin can be obtained, or. that there is 
 any covenanted title to salvation. Pardon and sal- 
 vation, then, are secured by covenant to such 
 societies as are founded on Presbyterial ordina 
 tion, and to such only. 
 
 In perfect consistency with these principles, Dr. 
 M'Leod expresses himself in the following very 
 pointed language: ^' A person w^ho is not ordained 
 to office by a Presbytery, has no right to be re- 
 ceived as a minister of Christ: His administration 
 of ordinances is invalid: No divine blessing is 
 promised upon his la])ours: It is rebellion against 
 the Head of the Church to support him in his pre- 
 tensions : Christ has excluded him in his provi- 
 dence from admission through the ordinary door; 
 and if he has no evidence of miraculous power to 
 
 i.iblc Church, but merely that they state it as the general rule of thr 
 divine economy, that pardon is dispensed, and salvation bestowed only 
 through the medium of that Church. This is also the Episcopal doc- 
 trine, r is the obvious doctrine of Scripture. Greater stress no Pro- 
 testant has ever laid upon communion with the visible Church than is 
 laid upon it in the standards of Presbyterial societies 
 
♦ ET. 111. EXTERNAL ORDER. 3S 
 
 testify his extraordinary mission, he is an impos- 
 tor."* 
 
 Is it possible, Sir, to imai^ine claims more ex- 
 clusive than those which arc set up by Presbyte- 
 lial authors, and by the standards of Presbyterial 
 associations? 
 
 You tell us, it is true, that wherever certain in- 
 ternal qualifications are to be found, there the vi- 
 sible Church is to be found. But this is absurd. 
 X VISIBLE Church distinguished by invisible 
 marks! If internal qualifications will constitute a 
 Church, the Church may exist without either mi- 
 nistry or ordinances. The standards of your so- 
 ciety are perfectly correct on this subject. They 
 make the Church a visible society: they represent 
 the ministry and ordinances as essential to its ex- 
 istence. In talking of a Church made up of inter- 
 nal qualifications, you are directly at war with 
 Scripture, with the standards of your society, and 
 with common sense. 
 
 But you have a way of presenting this part of 
 the subject which it is necessary particularly to 
 consider. You make no scruple in admitting the 
 validity of Episcopal ordination; and this you 
 never fail to plead in proof of your great liberality. 
 But let us place the subject in its true point of 
 light. You admit the validity of our mode of or- 
 dination. But upon what ground do you admit it? 
 Simply on the ground that it is in fact Presbyte- 
 HivL. As far as Presbyterianism extends, valid. 
 
 * 3''irrlesif»stira] Catechism, p. V^, ,91^. 
 
.i4 EXTERNAL ORDER. LET. Ill, 
 
 ordination extends: the moment Presbyterianism 
 ceases, valid ordination ceases. Thus you say ex- 
 pressly — " It is only so far as any succession flows 
 through the line of Presbyters^ that it is either re- 
 gular or valid. It is the laying on of the hands of 
 the Presbytery that constitutes a scriptural ordina- 
 tion; and it is because Episcopal Bishops are 
 Presbyters, and assisted in all ordinations by other 
 Presbyters, that we consider their ordaining acts, 
 on the principles of Scripture and primitive usage, 
 as vaKd."* 
 
 No clerical succession is regular except that 
 which flows through the line of Presbyters. It is 
 only by the laying on of the hands of the Presby- 
 tery that a scriptural ordination can be performed. 
 Ordination in the Episcopal Church is valid only 
 on the ground that it is performed by a Presbyter, 
 with the assistance of his fellow Presbyters. And 
 it is in this view of the subject alone that you 
 regard ordinances Episcopally administered as of 
 any significance. " It is improper to countenance 
 the usurpations of prelacy, or the irregularities of 
 independency; but as the ministry is essentially 
 Presbyterian, upon this principle there is no ne- 
 cessity for re-ordaining or re-baptizing any who 
 have had these ordinances in the communion of 
 the Independent or Episcopal churches."t 
 
 This, Sir, is not less your doctrine than the 
 doctrine of Dr. M'Leod; indeed it is, and ever 
 has been the fundamental principle of the Presby- 
 
 ' Letters, p. 347. f Ecclesiastical Catcclusin, p. 31 
 
LET. HI. EXTERNAL ORDER. 36 
 
 terial association. The Westminster Divines lay 
 it down in the most express terms; and in that 
 part of the standards of your society which pre- 
 scribes the mode of ordination, the ground is un- 
 equivocally taken of apostolic example* In fact, 
 so rigidly is the principle of ordination by a Pres- 
 bytery insisted upon among you^ that you will not 
 admit the validity of an ordination performed by 
 a sinfrle clergyman, on any other ground than that 
 which may be furnished by a case of necessity. 
 For this, too, no passage from your standards can 
 be adduced. You merely throw out the idea as 
 one, which, you suppose, if the case should occur, 
 would receive the sanction of your brethren.t 
 
 * Form of Government, chap. xiv. sect. 12. 
 
 f " Althoug-h Presbyterians, wishing to conform as perfectly as pos 
 sible to scriptural example, require a plurality of ministers to be pre- 
 sent, and to lay on their hands in ordination ; yet / have no reason to 
 suppose that any Presbyterian minister or church would consider an or- 
 dination performed, in a case of necessity ^ by a single Presbyter, as 
 null and void."t 
 
 All this is extremely guarded. We may venture, therefore, to con- 
 clude that no case has ever occurred in which your society hps sanc- 
 tioned, either expressly or impliedly, the principle that ordination may 
 be performed by a single Presbyter. The language of Presbyterian 
 standards on this point is free from all ambiguity. " The power of 
 ordination is in a Presbytery." " The act of ordination is the act of a 
 Presbytery." Now a Presbytery consists of a number of members. 
 Ordination, of course, cannot be performed by a single clergyman. 
 Indeed, in placing the thing upon the ground of necessity, you plainly 
 mark it as a departure from all the laws of Scripture, and of your re- 
 ligious society. Nor do you venture to say that the irregularity in 
 question would be cured even by the necessity of the case ; you have 
 only no reason to think otherwise. This is very cautious indeed. In a 
 word, it is the fundamental doctrine of Presbyterianism, thai ordina- 
 tfion can be validly performed only by a plurality of Presbyters — a dcr- 
 
 - Ccntinnation of Letters, p. 8P. 
 
36 EXTERNAL ORDER. LET. III. 
 
 '' If any preceding or subsequent passage in our 
 public standards had asserted, or even intimated, 
 that no minister is lawfully ordained but one who 
 has been set apart cxacthj in our mode^ there would 
 be some pretext for this cavil. ''^' 
 
 It might be difficult to ascertain the precise idea 
 which you mean to convey in this passage. The 
 w^ords, " cxacibj in, our mode^'^'' are carefully mark- 
 ed in italics. Well, Sir, if you do not represent 
 it as essential to the validity of ordination that it 
 be performed exactly in the Presbyterial mode, you 
 at least require that it be performed subsiantially 
 in that mode. Unless, then, ordination be sub- 
 stantially Presbyterial, it is good for nothing. If 
 a religious society happen to possess this mode of 
 ordination, it may be admitted to be a Church : 
 
 trine, as I shall presently show, which leaves not, when pursued to its 
 legitimate consequences, a single Clu'istian Church upon the face of 
 the earth. 
 
 * Continuation of Letters, p. 44. 
 
 " Exactly in our mode" Why did you not leave out tiie word " r.v- 
 ACTLT ?'* There may be very many circumstances in an ordination no 
 way essential to its validity. These non-essentials you have here in 
 view ; but your people may be led to suppose that some very generous 
 idea is concealed under the words. Now, Sir, if 1 were disposed to 
 imitate you on this occasion, I would say tiiat we do not liold it to be 
 neceasary to the validity of ordination that it be performed exactly 
 in our mode — It is quite sufficient that the mode be substantially Epis- 
 copal. 
 
 Will you say that the standards of )-our society neither assert nor in- 
 timate that a clergymun is not lawfully ordained unless set apart by the 
 laying on of the hands of the Presbytery ? How unworthy, then, of a 
 candid disputant, to attempt to evade the true state of the fact, by 
 having recourse to a form of expression, to which it is difficult for your 
 readers to tell what precise idea you intend should be annexed ' 
 
LET. III. EXTERNAL ORDER. 31 
 
 if not, its pretended clergymen are impostors, and 
 they who attend upon then* ministrations are guihy 
 of rebellion a,i2;ainst God. True — Episcopal ordi- 
 nation is valid; but it is Presbyterianism that 
 makes it so. There is a great deal of corruption 
 about it; but it has, neverthelc^ss, a Presbyterian 
 tincture; just enough of that tincture to preserve 
 it from absolute putridity. Let it be remembered, 
 too, that in admitting the validity of our mode of 
 ordination, you act under the impulse of an im- 
 perious principle of necessity. You are seceders 
 from the Episcopal Church. The founders of your 
 society v*^ere ordained by Bishops. If, then, Epis- 
 copal ordination be a nullity, you have no minis- 
 ters, and, of course, no ordinances. In fact, you 
 are obliged to take the validity of our ordination 
 for granted; it being the foundation on which your 
 whole fabrick rests. Episcopacy has always been 
 branded by your society as antichristian. The 
 Westminster Divines, and the General Assembly 
 of Scotland, denounced it as a popish and wicked 
 hierarchy. By the Associate Reformed Church in 
 this country the epithets iinscriptural and antichris- 
 tian, are, without ceremony, applied to it. You 
 fail not to express yourself very freely on the sub- 
 ject; charging our venerable Church with having 
 departed widely from the primitive model; and 
 representing the imparity of her ministry as the 
 corrupt result of ecclesiastical intrigue and ambi- 
 tion. But still you are all under the hard neces- 
 sity of recognizing the validity of Episcopal ordi- 
 nation; having no other method of saving your- 
 
53 EXTERNAL ORDEK. LET. Ill, 
 
 selves from destruction. And for the pure purpose 
 of self j)resorvation you admit us to be a Church; 
 a very corrupt one, truly, but still a Church. We, 
 unfortunately, are not able to return the compli- 
 mcnt. Well — you represent us as a corrupt Church ; 
 and \\c hold you to be schismatics; utterly deny- 
 ing that you have either ministry or ordinances. 
 
 So far from admitting Episcopal ordination, as 
 rontradistin^uished from Presbyterial^ to be valid, 
 you brand it as an act of rebellion against God. 
 Now, the standards of our Church regard the Bi- 
 shop as a superior officer, who alone conveys the 
 ministerial authority: the Presbyters being associ- 
 ated with him merely to guard the exercise of the 
 power, and on no other ground than that of eccle- 
 siastical usage. It is the express doctrine of our 
 Church that the Bishop ordains by virtue of his 
 Apostolic character. All this you exclaim against 
 as corrupt and monstrous. Thus, viewed with a 
 Presbyterial eye, our clergymen are ministers of 
 Christ; viewed with an Episcopal eye, they are 
 presumptuous intruders into the vineyard of the 
 Lord. By this mode of double construction, you 
 save yourselves from all harm; while you consign 
 us over as rebels and apostates. 
 
 Do you bring such conduct, Sir, in proof of the 
 very low nature of your pretensions ? 
 
 I appeal to every man of candour whether claims 
 more exclusive could possibly be set up. 
 
 Presbyterianism is the source from which all 
 valid administration of divine ordinances is deriv- 
 ed. Where only a partial departure from the Pres- 
 
LET. III. EXTERNAL ORDER. ^9 
 
 byterial mode of ordination has taken place, the 
 clerical office is not absolutely lost; it not being 
 necessary that such mode be exactly followed. \L^ 
 under such circumstances, the ordination be valid, 
 it derives its validity from being suhstantially Pres- 
 byterial. Where the departure from Presbyterian- 
 ism is substantial^ the clerical office is lost; the 
 Church is lost; and there is nothing to rely upon 
 but uncovenanted mercy. 
 
 But I shall now proceed to show, that, in the 
 business of unchurching, you go infinitely beyond 
 those against whom you direct so much virulent 
 declamation. 
 
 1. You unchurch the Quakers. 
 
 The ministry and ordinances you make essen- 
 tial; and the Quakers have neither ministry nor 
 ordinances. You must either say, then, that the 
 Quaker association is not entitled to the name of 
 Church, or you must admit that the Church may 
 exist without either ministry or ordinances ; which 
 will be directly to contradict the Presbyterial stand- 
 ards, and to make the Christian Church, jiiore- 
 over, an invisible society. 
 
 When pressed vv^ith the question, whether you 
 acknowledge the Quakers to be a Church, you 
 display a great want of manly candour; in fact, 
 you seem afraid of making any reply. The ques- 
 tion, you tell us, is not a practical one ;* seeing 
 the Quakers do not pretend to have either ministry 
 
 * Continuation of letters, p. 56. 
 
-iO KXTERiXAL OKDEK. LET. IT!- 
 
 or sacrauicnls. Hut lliey clniin to be ii true Church 
 of Christ : they claim to be in a state of covenant 
 Mdth God. Will vou admit them to be a true visi- 
 ble Chinch? You have not ventured to say so;* 
 imcandidly evading the question In' a mere play 
 upon words. J3csides, your religious articles, and 
 your distinguished writers, make a ministry so es- 
 sential, that the Church cannot possibly exist with- 
 out it. Will you admit tlie Quakers to be in a state 
 of covenant? The standards of your society con- 
 fine all covenanted title to salvation to the visible 
 Church. " Out of the visible Cliurch, and so stran- 
 gers from the covenant of promise,^^ Such also is 
 the current language of Prcsbyterial authors. 
 
 Upon what principle, then, do you inveiglj 
 against us for refusing to you what you make no 
 scruple of refusing to the Quakers? Cease to 
 complain of our want of liberality, while you treat 
 others precisely as we treat you.f 
 
 * Conlinuation of Tetters, p. 56. 
 
 T Very crude opinions are entertained by many on the hackneyed sub- 
 ject of liberality; the criterion of which is made to consist in lowering 
 the standard both of doctrine and order as much as possible; in think- 
 ing well of all kinds of reli,c^ious opinions and ceremonies. But if we 
 have a divine system for our .government, it is worse than absurd to let 
 a pretended liberality lead us in any way to surrender its claims. True 
 liberality of mind v/ill show itself in maintaining* our opinions with mo- 
 desty, and in a perfect willingness that Christians of other denomina- 
 tions should possess the same freedom of thoug-ht and speech with 
 ourselves. It will show itself in charitable allowance for the errors 
 of our fellow men ; in supposine^ that error may be often combined with 
 sincere piety. But I am obliged to go over tlic points discusscil in this 
 letter, in order to prove the injustice and inconsistency of your treat- 
 ment of Episcopalians, even upon the ground of your own opinions 
 and principles. 
 
LET. HI. EXTERNAL ORDER. 41 
 
 2. Yoii excommiinicate the whole Greek Church, 
 
 coutaiiiitii^ more members than the Protestant 
 work! united. 
 
 No ordination is admitted hy your religious so- 
 ciety to be valid unless performed by the laying on 
 of the hands of the Presbytery. It is not sufficient 
 that a single clergyma.. mpose hands. The 
 power, according to the Westminster Divines, is 
 in a Presbytery ; and you expressly tell us that or- 
 dination by a single clergyman could be recogniz- 
 ed as valid only in a case of necessity.* Now, 
 ordination, in the Greek Church, has ever been 
 performed by the iJibliop alone ; and as necessity 
 cannot possibly be pleaded for this, it follows, that 
 ordination, as practised in the Greek Church, is 
 unscriptural and void. Thus, ordination being 
 essential to the ministry, and ordination, as prac- 
 tised in the Greek Church, being entirely un- 
 authorized, it follows, that that Church has no 
 ministry. But the ministry, according to the Pres- 
 byterial doctrine, enters into the very being of the 
 Church. Thus, that large body of Christians^ 
 known by the name of the Greek Church, is plac- 
 ed, by you^ in a state of complete excommunica- 
 tion. 
 
 3. The Deacons of our Church are ordained by 
 the Bishop alone. Of course they have no autho- 
 rity to act in the name of Christ. Ordinances ad- 
 ministered by them are invalid ; the Divine bles- 
 sing not being promised upon their labours. In 
 
 "' Cnntlnnation of Lettcir., d. 89. 
 
4gl EXTERNAL ORDER. LET. III. 
 
 short, Episcopal Deacons are impostors, and all 
 who wait upon their ministratioa are guilty of re- 
 bellion against God.* 
 
 4. The practice of Presbyters imposing hands 
 with the Bishop in ordination was not introduced 
 into the Latin Church until the fourth century. 
 We can point out the very Council by which the 
 canon, enjoining such practice, was passed.f Your 
 doctrine, then, that ordination can be performed 
 only by a Presbytery, completely destroys the 
 Latin not less than the Greek Church; thus un- 
 churching, in fact, the whole Christian world. If 
 the ordinations, performed in the Latin Churchy 
 in the fourth century, were invalid, all subsequent 
 ordinations, being grounded on them, must, of 
 course, be invalid also. Thus, Sir, in your rigid 
 adherence to Presbyterial ordination, you have 
 not left a Christian Church upon the face of the 
 earth. t 
 
 But, perhaps, you will deny the fact, that ordi- 
 nation in the Western Church was performed, un- 
 til the fourth century, by the Bishop alone. The 
 fact is completely proved by the most authentic 
 evidence. But lay it out of the question — still, 
 you represent our Deacons, and the Deacons of 
 
 ' INI'Lcod's Ecelesiastical Catechism, p. 29, 30. 
 
 f Fourth Council of Carthag-e. 
 
 i There are, it is true, some Christian societies which do not fall un- 
 der the head either of the Latin or of the Greek Church. I am not ahle 
 to ascertain, at present, whether the statement, made above, relative 
 to the practice of ordination in the Greek Church, and in the Latin 
 until the Fourth Council of Carthage, applies to them also. The 
 4rong probability, however, certainly is, that it does. 
 
LET. in. EXTERNAL ORDER. 43 
 
 the Romish Church, as destilule of all clerical 
 power; and you completely unchurch the Quakers, 
 and the whole Greek Church. 
 
 Mark, now, Sir, the very rigid character of the 
 principle which lies at the foundation of your reli- 
 gious society ! Sooner than yield the point that a 
 plurality of clergymen is necessary to constitute a 
 scriptural ordination, you unchurch a denomina- 
 tion comprehending more members than all the 
 Christian societies in Europe, Episcopal and non- 
 Episcopal, put together. 
 
 It is in vain to attempt to evade this plain state- 
 ment of facts. Your society expressly says that 
 there can be no Church without a ministry, and 
 that there can be no ministry w ithout Presbyterial 
 ordination ; it in no place recognizes the validity 
 of ordination by a single clergyman ; and you tell 
 us that such ordination would not be received as 
 valid, unless the ground of necessity could be 
 fairly taken. In the Greek Church, ordination is 
 alw^ays performed by a single clergyman; and no 
 plea of necessity can possibly be set up. It fol- 
 lows, irresistibly, that the Greek Christians have 
 no ministry, and, of course, cannot be considered 
 as in a Church state. 
 
 In the business of unchurching, then, you go 
 very far beyond your opponents. It is but a small 
 portion of the Christian world that is destitute of 
 Episcopal ordination; in fact, that mode of ordi- 
 nation prevailed universally until the time of the 
 reformation ; and Presbyterians now constitute the 
 inferior number even among Protestants, 
 
( 4i ) 
 
 LETTER IV. 
 EXTERJ>rAL ORDEE. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 J-iET ns now endeavour to ascertain how far 
 Episcopalians and Presbyterians agree, and how 
 far they differ, on the subject of the visible 
 Church. 
 
 1. They agree that our Lord and his Apostles 
 instituted a visible Church, of which they com- 
 manded all men to become members; and that 
 the promises of the Gospel are exchisively made 
 to this Church; in other words, that out of this 
 Church there is no covenanted title to salvation.* 
 
 2. They agree that there is a divinely instituted 
 ministry in the visible Church, which is essential 
 to its existence. 
 
 3. They agree that no person can be considered 
 as invested with the clerical character until regu- 
 larly set apart by an outward and visible ordina- 
 tion. 
 
 Now, Sir, at what conclusion have we airived? 
 
 * We are very far from saying- that there is no possibility of salva 
 tion out of the visible Church. God forbid ! It is, indeed, in the visi- 
 ble Church alone that God has deposited his covenant; such as fail to 
 enter that Church, therefore, cannot be considered as in a covenanted 
 state. Still they arc in the hands of a merciful lleing", who makes due 
 allowance for the errors of his frail creatures; pardoning and receiving 
 al! wlio sincerely desire and endeavour to know and to do his will. But 
 this point will be fully considered in a future letter. 
 
LET. IV. EXTERNAL ORDRR. 46 
 
 That outward ordination is essential to the exist- 
 ence of the Church, and, of course, to all cove- 
 nanted title to mercy. This conclusion it is ut- 
 terly impossible to evade. Outward ordination, 
 then, lies at the foundation equally of the Episco- 
 pal and of the Presbyterial creed; in eacli of these 
 creeds it is made the only regular and appointed 
 CHANNEL through which remission of sin and eter- 
 nal life are to be obtained. Hence for the one 
 society to inveigh against the stress laid by the 
 other upon communion with the visible Church 
 must ever be the extreme of inconsistency. 
 
 In what, then, do Episcopalians and Presbyte- 
 rians differ on the subject in question ? 
 
 They differ, simply, as to the tribunal in ^vhich 
 the power of ordination is lodged. Episcopalians 
 maintain that the great Head of th^ Church in- 
 stituted a ministry consisting of distinct and sub- 
 ordinate orders : giving to the highest order the 
 exclusive power of ordaining. They, of course, 
 2:0 on to the conclusion, that ordination is valid 
 only when performed by the highest order of the 
 ministry; such ordination alone possessing the 
 sanction of Divine authority. Presbyterians main- 
 tain that the great Head of the Church instituted 
 a ministry upon the footing of equality; rendering 
 ordination the work of a Presbytery. They, of 
 course, go on to the conclusion, that ordination 
 performed by a Presbytery is alone valid; such 
 ordination alone being stamped with the authority 
 of God. In short — Episcopalians say, that Epis- 
 copal ordination is the divinely instituted mode; 
 
46 EXTERNAL ORDER, LET. IV. 
 
 — Presbyterians say, that Presbyterial ordination 
 is that mode. 
 
 It is true, Presbyterians are obliged to admit 
 the Episcopal Church to be a real Church of 
 Christ; but they take care to protest against what 
 they call her corruptions, and to admit her to be a 
 real Church only in consideration of what they 
 call her Presbyterial features. The ycry thing, 
 which, in her own yiew, gives her the character 
 of a Church, they represent as an invention of 
 the great adversary. So much virtue, liowever, 
 do they suppose to reside in Presbyterianism, that 
 wherever they regird it as only substantially exist- 
 ing, they consider all impurities and corruptions 
 as cured; and, without hesitation, acknowledge the 
 character of Church to be possessed. But the 
 Greek Christians they excommunicate at once; 
 and for no earthly reason, saving that they ordain 
 by the imposition of hands of a single clergy- 
 MAxN, instead of ordaining by the imposition of 
 hands of a Presbytery. 
 
 The two societies, then, lay equal stress upon 
 the rite of outward ordination ; differing only as to 
 the tribunal by which it is to be performed. Each 
 society insists upon its own mode of ordination as 
 of exclusive validity. So far Episcopalians and 
 Presbyterians would seem to attach precisely 
 equal value to what may be called matters of Ex- 
 tern rd Order. 
 
 But 1 proceed to state some facts, at which the 
 reader, if the subject be new to hira, will, pro* 
 bably, be not a little surprised. 
 
LET. IV. EXTERNAL ORDER. 47 
 
 The error of carrying points of External Order 
 too far has ever been a sectarian error. It is an 
 unquestionable fact, that Presbyterians, on this 
 subject, go mu> h beyond their Episcopal breth- 
 ren. Thus, not content with representing their 
 own particular method of ordination as essential 
 to the existence of the Church, and to all cove- 
 nanted title to salvation, they openly tell us, that 
 the lohole frame of their ecclesiastical goverjiment 
 is set forth in Scripture^ and is of Divine and un- 
 alterable OBLIGATION. 
 
 " It is lawful and agreeable to the word of God, 
 that the Church be governed by several sorts of 
 assemblies, which are composed of pastors and 
 other elders, and are congregational, classical, 
 and synodical. The government of the Churchy 
 by these several sorts of assemblies, in a just sub- 
 ordination, is called Presbyterial Church Go- 
 vernment ; and is the true and only form of govern- 
 ment which the Lord Jesus Christ hath prescribed 
 in his word."^ " The Synod do solemnly receive 
 the form of Presbyterial Church government, pre- 
 fared by the Assembly of Divines at Westminster^ 
 as being in substance the only form of government 
 which the Lord Jesus hath prescribed to his 
 Church."t 
 
 But let the Westminster Divines speak for them- 
 selves. " Christ hath instituted a government, and 
 governors ecclesiastical in the Church." '^ It is 
 lawful and agreeable to the word of God that the 
 
 * Constitution and Standards of the Associate Reformed ChiMTii, \n 
 North-Americji, p.47'4, 5.^ ' tibid. p. 47? 
 
4ii EXrtU-N AL ORUir.K. LET. IV. 
 
 Church be liovornecl by several sorb of assem- 
 blies, ^vhich are Congregational, Classical, and 
 Synodical."' " The Scripture doth hold out a 
 Preslntery in a Church — A Presbytery consisteth 
 of ministers of the word, Lc^ " The Scripture 
 doth hold out another sort of assemblies for the 
 government of the Church, which we call Syno- 
 
 dic'cil.''" 
 
 Thus, then, the whole frame of Presbyterial 
 Churcli government, consisting of Congregational, 
 Classical, and Synodical assemblies, in just sub- 
 ordination to each other, is declared to be drawn 
 out in Scripture, and so placed upon the ground 
 of divine institution. ,The society to which you 
 belong, it is well known, have taken the West- 
 minster Divines as their guides, w ith respect both 
 to doctrine, and government; in fact, your Con- 
 fession of Faith, and your Articles of Government, 
 you expressly tell us, were drawn up by those Di- 
 vines. Accordingly, upon recurring to your stan- 
 dards, 1 find the following unequivo al declaration: 
 -' We hold it to be expedient, agreeable to Scrip* 
 ture, and the practice of the primitive Christians, 
 that the Church be governed by Congregational, 
 Presbyterial, and Synodical assemblies.*'! 
 
 Let me refer you, for a moment, to your own 
 letters. " The Presbyterial form of Church go- 
 vernment 16, in the NeAV Testament, distinctly 
 
 • The form of Presbyterial Church government agreed upon by the 
 assembly of divuies at Westnninster, with commisiigners from the 
 Church of Scotland. 
 
 t Form of Government, cliap. vii sect, I. 
 
lET. IV. EXTERNAL ORDER. 4y 
 
 pourtrayed." " This is the truly primitive and 
 apostolic form."* " Christians, in all ages, are 
 bound to make the apostolic order of the Church, 
 with respect to the ministry, as ivell as other points j 
 the model, as far as possible, of all their ecclesi- 
 astical arran2:ements."t 
 
 It is, then, the Prcsbyterial doctrine, that the 
 Lord Jesus hath prescribed a particular form of 
 government to his Church; that this form consists 
 of Congregational, Classical, and Synodical as- 
 semblies, in a just subordination; that it is bind- 
 ing in all places, and throughout all time. 
 
 In short, Prcsbyterial government is prescribed 
 by a divine law; habitual disobedience to any of 
 the divine laws will exclude from the kingdom of 
 Heaven :t — it follows, that habitual disobedience 
 to Prcsbyterial government will exclude from that 
 kingdom. Thus the whole Episcopal Church, 
 throughout the world, whether Protestant, Greek, 
 or Papal ; all classes of dissenters, Congregation- 
 alists. Independents, Methodists, Baptists, Qua- 
 kers ; in a word, all societies, not Presbyterially 
 constituted, unless they can plead unavoidable 
 ignorance, or involuntary error in their excuse, are 
 consigned to perdition. 
 
 * U^tters, p. 70. f Ibid. p. 8. 
 
 + This is tlie express language of the Christian's ^Nfng-azine ; indeed, 
 it must be the language of all who believe that there is a God, and that 
 he has prescribed laws for the government of his creatures. A merci- 
 ful God will, doubtless, m;ike alluWitnce for error. Still, it is true, as 
 a general rule, that habitual disobedience to any of the divine laws 
 will exclude from the kingdom of Heaven. Such is the declaration of 
 Scripture — '* whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet oftend hi 
 one point, he i;> f^uilty of all.'* James ii., 10, 
 
 7 
 
50 EXTEK'biAL ORDER. LET. IV^ 
 
 How will you escape from this conclusion?—- 
 You expressly say, that Presbyteiial government is 
 prescribed by a divine laAv — You expressly say, 
 that hibitiril disobedience to any of the divine 
 laws will exclude from the kingdom of Heaven- 
 It is very tri>e, you do not make conformity to 
 Presbyterial government so rigid a condition, that 
 God will pardon none who may fail, through ig- 
 norance or error, to perform it. The amount ot 
 y3ur doctrine, then, is, that none can be saved 
 who depart fram Presbyterial Church government, 
 unless they can plead excusable ignorance or 
 ciTor for their departure. I do not blame you for 
 this conclusion; but, surely, you should cease 
 to inveigli against the claims of the advocates 
 of Episcopacy. They have never made com- 
 munion with the true visible Church more than a 
 general condition of salvation. They have never 
 failed to express their belief that God will pardon 
 thosCy who, through excusable error, depart from 
 his positive institutions. They insist no more 
 upon conformity to Episcopal ordination than you 
 insist upon conformity to Presbyterial ordination; 
 nay, they lay, substantially, no more stress upon 
 conformity to Episcopal ordination than you lay 
 \\[)o\\ conformity to the whole frame of your ec- 
 clesiastical government. Ought you not, then, to 
 apologize for the opprobrious limguage which you 
 ha\(* permitted yourself to apply to your oppo- 
 nents in this controversy? 
 
 " The ideas of Episcopalians, on the subject 
 of ecclesiastical government, are very different 
 
¥.ET. rV. EXTERNAL ORDER. 61 
 
 from those of their Presbyterian brethren. They 
 contend, simply, that the ministry is of divine 
 institution; and that this ministry is in distinct 
 grades, with appropriate powers. They deny that 
 there is a form of government for the Church 
 sketched out in all its parts in Scripture. The 
 ministry, in distinct grades, with appropriate 
 powers, as instituted by Christ and his Apostles, 
 being preserved inviolate, they hold that man is 
 left at liberty to exercise a sound discretion as to the 
 particular mode of managing ecclesiastical affairs^ 
 and of governing the Church ; or, in other words, 
 that there is no precise model for governing the 
 Church laid down in Scripture, from which it is 
 unlawful to depart."* 
 
 " The single thing contended for, is, that there 
 are, by divine institution, three distinct grades 
 of ministers, with appropriate authorities. As to 
 the rites and ceremonies of public worship, the 
 forms of discipline, and the particular organization 
 of that authority by which canons are passed for 
 the government of the Church, the Scriptures 
 prescribe no model ; leaving the matter to the ex- 
 ercise of human discretion. Even the laity may 
 be, and, in this country, are associated in the 
 management of ecclesiastical affairs ; and, in Eng- 
 land, there are various officers for the same pur- 
 pose ; which the Scriptures no where either pro- 
 hibit or enjoin. But none of these can touch the 
 sacerdotal authorities of preaching, of bapti/jn^; 
 
 * Z!o'\v's T-.etter'' to Millar, p. S*!^, 
 
52 EXTERNAL ORDER. LET. I\v 
 
 of administering the eucharist, of confirming, of 
 ordaining; such authorities being reserved to an 
 order of men expressly set apart as ministers of 
 Christ; empowered to act as his ambassadors, to 
 sign and seal in his name. A divine commission 
 is necessary to quahfy them for their work; it be- 
 in,:^ no other than that of taking men into cove- 
 nant with God, by administering to them the ap- 
 pointed seals. The ministry cannot be changed. 
 Why ? Because it is a divine institution ; being 
 established as the mean of vibible intercourse be- 
 tween God and man. God acts by his agent, and 
 thus takes man into covenant with himself. It is 
 the divine commission that gives validity to the 
 act performed ; rendering it the act of God. If, 
 then, you take the priesthood from the order of 
 luen to whom the great Head of the Church has 
 given it, and place it in the hands of a different 
 order, it ceases to rest upon a divine foundation. 
 The sacerdotal powers are exercised by the agents 
 of men, not by the ministers of Christ. 
 
 " This mode of reasoning is equally conclusive 
 to prove that laymen cannot baptize, and that 
 Presbyters cannot ordain. And it is just as ridi- 
 culous to inveigh against the arrogance of Epis- 
 copalians for insisting upon the necessity of Epis- 
 copal ordination, as it would be to inveigh against 
 the arrogance of Presbyterians for insisting upon 
 the necessity of clerical baptism. Both equally 
 believe in a priesthood; differing only as to the 
 manner of its constitution. And why there should 
 be more bigotry in thinking that the priesthood is 
 
LET. IV. EXTERNAL ORDER. ' 63 
 
 established upon the principle of subordination. 
 than upon that of equality, I am utterly at a loss 
 to comprehend. 
 
 " Thus, then, the Episcopal Church simply con- 
 tends for a ministry, as of divine institution: which 
 ministry she believes to consist of distinct orders, 
 with appropriate powers. The arrangement of 
 these powers being made by God, cannot, she 
 holds, be altered by any human authority. But 
 as to-the ceremonies of public worship, the forms 
 of discipline, the particular organization by which 
 authority is exercised in passing canons for regu- 
 lating the aflairs of the Church, she believes, in 
 opposition to the Puritans, that no precise model 
 is laid down, and that man is left to exercise a 
 sound discretion; provided, always, that nothing 
 be done contrary to the word, or the spirit, of the 
 sacred oracles."''^ 
 
 From what has been said, it appears, that Epis- 
 copalians and Presbyterians attach precisely the 
 same value to the visible Church; that they equally 
 make outw ard ordination essential to its existence ; 
 and that each society insists upon the exclusive 
 validity of its o\\ n mode of ordination. But, while 
 Episcopalians content themselves with setting forth 
 the doctrine that there is a visible Church, to whose 
 existence an outwardly ordained ministry is essen- 
 tial, Presbyterians do not thus content themselves, 
 but go further, and represent the w^hole frame of 
 their ecclesiastical government as of divine and 
 unalterable obligation. 
 
 * How's Letters to 3Iiller, p. 43, 44. 
 
54 BXTERNAL ORDlR. LET. IV. 
 
 The reader can be at no loss to determine which 
 society carries External Order to the greatest ex- 
 tent. He can be at no loss to pronounce on the 
 correctness of the epithets which you and your 
 coadjutors have so liberally applied to the advo- 
 cates of Episcopacy. 
 
 But I have not yet done with this part of the 
 subject. 
 
 There is a sect of Presbyterians, commonly 
 distinguished by the title of Covenanters, whose 
 doctrines, relative to Church government, I pro- 
 pose very briefly to consider. The Covenanters 
 profess to be Presbyterians of the true and pure 
 character. Let us, then, see how far they extend 
 their views on the subject of Presbyterial order. 
 Dr. M'Leod, a distinguished clergyman of the 
 society, will inform us. " The radical principles 
 of Presbyterianism are essential to society." " No 
 systejn can preserve order in any society, civil 
 or ecclesiastic, except so far as it proceeds upon 
 the principles of Presbyterianism. The reason is 
 obvious, these are the principles which the Author 
 of human nature hath rendered essential to human 
 society." " Every other system is both inade- 
 quate and impossibhy* 
 
 Here Dr. M'Leod scruples not to represent Pres- 
 byterial order as essential to lawful society in the 
 STATE, not less than in the church. 
 
 But let us consult the standards of the deno- 
 rnination to which Dr. M'Leod belongs, and we 
 
 * EcoUsiaeUcal Catechism, p. 128, 129. 
 
lET. IV. EXTERNAL ORDER. 65 
 
 shall be able to judge of the extent to which thej 
 go in the practical application of their principles. 
 
 They hold that none but " Christian rulers, ap* 
 pointed to office according to a righteous civil con- 
 stitution, have authority from God to rule in sub- 
 serviency to the kin^lom of Christ, and are to 
 be conscientiously supported." " There are mo- 
 ral evils essential to the constitution of the United 
 States, which render it necessary to refuse die- 
 giance to the whole system. This constitution is, 
 notwithstanding its numerous excellences, in many 
 instances, inconsistent, oppressive, and impious." 
 " Presbyterian Covenanters, perceiving immorality 
 interwoven with the general and states constitution 
 of government in America, have uniformly dis- 
 sented from the civil establishments."* 
 
 But I hasten to bring this part of the subject to 
 a conclusion. 
 
 The error of carrying External Order too far, I 
 repeat it, has ever been a sectarian error. — You 
 are not ignorant. Sir, of the dispute between the 
 Church of England and the Puritans on the sub- 
 ject of rites and ceremonies. Read the third book 
 of Hooker's incomparable work on Ecclesiastical 
 Polity, and you will see the absurd extreme to 
 which the Sectaries carried their ideas. They 
 maintained not only that the organization, ac- 
 cording to which ecclesiastical power is to be ex- 
 ercised, is completely drawn out in Scripture ; but 
 that no rites or ceremonies are to be admitted in 
 
 " Refbrmjitiwn Principles, part ii. p, .106, part \ p, l.'jG, 154 
 
56 EXTERNAL ORDER. LET. IV, 
 
 public worship, unless specifically commanded in 
 the word of God. Accordingly, they declaimed 
 against kneeling at the eucharist, against bowing 
 at the name of Jesus, against the sign of the Cross 
 in baptism, the use of tlie ring in marriage, the 
 particular vestments of the clergy, and many other 
 such matters, as not expressly prescribed in Scrip- 
 ture ; and, therefore, refused to submit to them 
 as inconsistent with their Christian hberty. Thus 
 the Puritans held, that all the minute and parti- 
 cular forms of proceeding in public worship, and 
 in the conducting of ecclesiastical affairs, are 
 positively set down in the sacred volume ; declin- 
 ing to conform to any regulation whatever,, unless 
 a precise Scriptural warrant for that identical regu- 
 lation could be produced. Nor will you deny, I 
 suspect, your adherence, in a good degree, to 
 these rigid ideas. For example, you will not ad- 
 mit, I venture to say, a power in the Church to 
 require the elements of bread and wine, in the 
 Lord's supper, to be received in a kncehng pos- 
 ture. You will not admit a power in the Cliurch 
 even to regulate the vestments of her Clergy. 
 These matters, nevertheless, you acknowledge to 
 be, in themselves, indifferent; in other words, to 
 have nothing in their nature which is forbidden 
 by the divine law; for, you expressly say, that a 
 Presbyterian clergyman would have no hesitation 
 to administer the Lord's supper to persons who 
 might choose to receive it kneeling; and you scru- 
 ple not to wear a dress very much like that which 
 the Episcopal Churgh has thoudit proper to pre- 
 
LET. IV. EXTERNAL ORDER. 57 
 
 scribe to her clergy. The objection to prescrip- 
 tions of this sort, then, must be, simply, that 
 they are not to be found in Scripture; and, such 
 being the case, that the Church can have no au« 
 thority to enjoin them upon her members. Thus, 
 in fact, you not only insist that the form of eccle- 
 siastical organization is settled in Scripture, but 
 that there is so far a system of rites and ceremo- 
 nies prescribed therein, that the authority of the 
 Church is not competent to enjoin upon her 
 members the observance of any rites and cere- 
 monies, without producing for them a precise 
 Scriptural direction.^ 
 
 * The remarks just made, it may be said, cannot, possibly, be 
 ©orrect ; inasmuch as Presbyterians establish various rules in religious 
 worship, for which no precise direction of Scripture is pretended to 
 be shown. This, however, only proves that Presbyterians are incon= 
 sistent with themselves; opposing institutions and practices of the 
 Episcopal Church upon the very principle to which they, at other 
 times, find themselves obliged to have recourse, in defence of their 
 own conduct. The same inconsistency is observable in the history of 
 your predecessors, the Puritans. They declaimed, violently, against 
 particular rites and ceremonies of the Church of England, on the 
 ground, that, not being specifically set down in Scripture, the Church, 
 in requiring the observance of them, was guilty of a flagrant violation 
 of the law of Christian liberty. But when this rigid doctrine was 
 shown to be fatal to some of their own prescriptions, they could relax 
 it so far, as merely to require that such prescriptions be fairly 
 grounded, if not on special precepts^ yet, at least, on the general rules 
 of Scripture. This, in effect, was giving up their very cause itself. 
 But the Puritans could not be prevailed upon to cease from their un- 
 reasonable and intemperate opposition to the Church of England ; 
 although, in order to sustain that opposition, they were under the ne- 
 cessity of advancing principles too absurd to be possibly acted upon. 
 The perception of such absurdity and impossibility, should have led 
 them to withdraw their objections, and unite themselves to the Church. 
 Their prejudices, however, were too deep, and their spirit too fiery, 
 ^o pertnit this. Thus tbey went on, declaiming against, ^nd refusing 
 
 8 
 
58 EXTERNAL ORDER. LET. IT. 
 
 Still further — The Puritans went so far as to 
 maint lin, " that the Scripture of God is in such 
 sort the rule of human actions, that simply what- 
 soever we do, and are not by it directed thereunto, 
 the sa ne is sin." Hooker exposes, very fully, the 
 absurdity of this doctrine. " In every action of 
 common life to find out some sentence clearly and 
 infallibly setting before our eyes what we ought 
 to do, would trouble us more than we are aware."* 
 " Make all things sin which we do by direction of 
 nature's light, and by the rule of common discre- 
 tion, without thinking at all upon Scripture ; admit 
 this position, and parents shall cause their chil- 
 dren to sin, as they cause them to do any thing 
 before they come to years of capacity, and be 
 ripe for knowledge in the Scripture. Admit this, 
 and it shall not be with masters as it was with 
 him in the Gospel; but servants being command- 
 ed to go, shall stand still till they have their er- 
 rand warranted unto them by Scripture."! 
 
 We may deduce from the principle in ques- 
 tion, Hooker justly observes, the complete suf- 
 ficiency of Scripture, as well for the exact ma- 
 
 to conform to the ceremony of kneeling at the eucharist, that 0/ the 
 cross in baptism, of the ring in marriage, the observance of particular 
 festival and fast days, and many other such matters, as not particu- 
 larly enumerated and required in the plain letter of Scripture; while 
 they could run into the glixring inconsistency of prescribing rules, which, 
 uot being able to defend, as exactly pointed out and enjoined by the 
 very words of holy writ, they rested upon its general rules or canons ; 
 not recollecting, or not caring to consider, that the Church of England 
 neither used nor needed any other defence of the very ceremonies 
 which they alleged a.s the ground of their separation from her. 
 ' Ecclesiastical Polity, vol. i. p. 342. t ^^^^^- P- ^42, 348* 
 
LET. IT. EXTERNAL ORDER. 59 
 
 nas^ement of civil concerns, as for the specific re- 
 gulation of the various parts of public worship. 
 Indeed, it was the avowed opinion of all the en- 
 thusiastic sectaries of the age, that the sacred 
 writings exhibit a perfect system, not only of spi- 
 ritual instruction, but even of political ivisdom. 
 ^' Under the influence of this wild notion, the co- 
 lonists of New-Plymouth, in imitation of the pri- 
 mitive Christians, threw all their property into a 
 common stock, and, like members of one family, 
 carried on every work of industry by their joint 
 labour for public behoof."* 
 
 The Anabaptists expressly contended, that it is 
 inconsistent with the liberty wherewith Christ hath 
 made us free, to submit to any law except the law 
 of the Gospel; thus striking at the foundation of 
 all civil government.! And the Puritans, we have 
 seen, maintained not only that God hath deli- 
 vered in Scripture, a complete, particular, and 
 immutable form of Church polity ; but also, that 
 " the Scripture is in such sort the rule of human 
 action, that simply whatsoever we do, and are 
 not by it directed thereunto, the same is sin.'-t 
 
 The influence of this enthusiastic spirit is felt 
 even at the present day. For example — The so- 
 ciety of Covenanters, who call themselves the 
 only consistent Presbyterians, adhere very closely 
 to the old Puritanic ideas; contending that the 
 
 ■" Robertson's America, vol. iv. p. 276. 
 
 ■}■ Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, vol. iv. p. 100. Ih'id. — H.'jtor 
 of the Anabaptists. 
 -■■ Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, heok. v 
 
60 EXTERNAL ORDER. LET. IV. 
 
 scheme both of civil and ecclesiastical organiza- 
 tion is prescribed in Scripture ; and refusing alle- 
 giance to the Constitution of the United States, 
 because not perfectly conformed to the heavenly 
 pattern. And the denomination to which you be- 
 long unequivocally assert the divine institution of 
 an immutable system of ecclesiastical government. 
 Thus it nppears, beyond all question, that the 
 Church of England has ever occupied the true 
 and middle ground between sectarian strictness 
 on the one hand, and universal latitudinarianism 
 on the other. She maintains, that the ministry is 
 of divine institution ; that it is in distinct and sub- 
 ordinate grades ; and that, being thus established 
 by God, it cannot be changed by man. She de- 
 nies that '' God hath delivered in Scripture a 
 complete, particular, immutable form of Church 
 polity." Still more does she discard the absurd 
 doctrine, that the sacred writings contain a minute 
 AND SPECIFIC DIRECTORY for the regulation equally 
 of spiritual and of temporal concerns.* To talk, 
 therefore, of the stress which Episcopalians lay 
 upon External Order, or of the extent to which 
 they carry their ideas of the Scriptural character 
 of their own particular system, is always to be- 
 tray extreme want of information, or extreme 
 want of candour.f 
 
 • See passag-es quoted from Hooker in a preceding' l>ag«. 
 
 ^ The Purilans, it has been shown, contended that Cod hath pre- 
 scribed in Scripture a complete form of ecclesiastical organization, 
 and also an exact and immutable system of rites and ceremonies; 
 while the Church of England maintained the negative of each of these 
 propositiong. It is furtho;- to be remarked, that ibe Puritans laid 
 
LET. IV. EXTERNAL ORDER. 61 
 
 We will here put down, in opposite columns, 
 l^egging the reader to pardon the repetition which 
 
 much more stress than the Cluuxh of England did, upon a precise ob- 
 servance of rites and ceremonies in reference to final salvation. This 
 will appear from the language held by the celebrated Cartw right, who 
 distinguished himself so much on the Puritanic side of the controversy- 
 — " We offer to show the discipline to be a part of the Gospel, and 
 therefore to have a common cause ; so that in the repulse of the disci- 
 pline, the Gospel receives a check.'* ♦* You which distinguish be- 
 tween these, and say, that matters of faith and necessary unto salva- 
 tion may not be tolerated in the Church, unless they be expressly con- 
 tained in the word of God, or manifestly gathered; but that ceremo- 
 nies, order, discipline, government in the Church, may not be received 
 against the word of God, and, consequently, may be received if 
 there be no word against them, although there be none for them ; 
 you, I say, distinguishing or dividing after this sort, do prove your- 
 self an evil divider. As though matters of discipline, and kind of go- 
 vernment, were not matters necessm^ to salvation, and of faith." 
 " These things, you seem to say, when you say that matters necessary 
 to salvation, and of faith, are contained in Scripture, especially when 
 you oppose these things to ceremonies, order, discipline, and govern- 
 ment."* 
 
 It is not less amusing than instructive to look back at the contro- 
 versies between the Charch of England and the Puritans. The aeal 
 ©f the latter for their pretended holy discipline knew no bounds. It 
 was the institution, they said, of God, and unalterably binding upon 
 all Christians, Societies differently constituted were synagogues of 
 Satan, in which it was impossible to be saved. Was any attempt 
 made to point out the evil consequences that would result from the 
 establishment of the discipline in question ? It was immediately re- 
 plied, that the discipline, being an absolute commandment of God, 
 must be received, even if it should turn the world upside down.f 
 
 Let us rejoice that so much progress has been made among all de- 
 nominations, since the period referred to, towards a truly catholic 
 spirit. It augurs most favourably to the cause of Christian unity and 
 peace; indeed, it may well be considered as among the symptoms of 
 the approach of millennial harmony and blessedness. Let us not for- 
 get, then, while we contend zealously for what we conceive to be truth. 
 V> make the greatest allowance for, and sincerely to love one another 
 
 * Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, vol. i. p. 399; 362. 
 t Ibid. vol. i. p. 175, 176. 
 
62 
 
 EXTERNAL ORDER. 
 
 LET. IV. 
 
 it may involve, the Episcopal and Presbyterial 
 doctrine on the subject of External Order. The 
 result of the tedious investigation into which we 
 have been obUged to enter, will then appear at a 
 single glance. 
 
 Episcopal doctrine, 
 
 1. Our Lord and his 
 Apostles instituted a vi- 
 sible Church, of which 
 they commanded all 
 men to become mem- 
 bers; and out of this 
 Church there is, ordi- 
 narily, no remission of 
 sin, and no covenanted 
 title to salvation. 
 
 2. A ministry is essen- 
 tial to the existence of 
 the visible Church. 
 
 3. Outward ordination 
 is essential to the minis- 
 try. 
 
 4. The Episcopal 
 mode is essential to out- 
 ward ordination. 
 
 5. Of course, w^ith- 
 out Episcopal ordination 
 there can be no Church, 
 and no covenanted title 
 to salvation. 
 
 Presbyterial doctrine. 
 
 1. Ibid. 
 
 2. Ibid. 
 
 3. Ibid. 
 
 4. The Presbtterl\l 
 mode is essential to out- 
 ward ordination. 
 
 5. Of course, without 
 Presbyterial ordination 
 there can be no Church, 
 and no covenanted titlf 
 to salvation. 
 
JLET. IV. 
 
 EXTERNAL ORDEK. 
 
 63 
 
 G, Presbyterial ordi- 
 nation is invalid; and 
 the societies which have 
 adopted it have no mi- 
 nisters and no ordinan- 
 ces. It should be ob- 
 served, however, that a 
 difference of opinion ex- 
 ists, on this point, among 
 Episcopalians. Some 
 hold that societies, Pres- 
 byterially constituted, 
 although they are Chris- 
 tian denominations, can- 
 not be regarded as 
 Churches of Christ: o- 
 thers are disposed to con- 
 cede the Church charac- 
 ter to Presbyterial socie- 
 ties, but consider them 
 as Churches in an imper- 
 fect and unsound state/^ 
 
 6. Episcopal ordina- 
 tion is valid ; being, in 
 fact,Presbyterial. There- 
 fore, the Episcopal so- 
 ciety, being in substance 
 a Presbyterial society, 
 is a true Church. But 
 her Deacons have no 
 authority, and such as 
 wait upon their minis- 
 trations are guilty of re- 
 bellion against God. 
 The whole society of 
 Greek Christians, being 
 destitute of Presbyterial 
 ordination, are in a state 
 of excommunication.f 
 The Roman Catholic 
 societies, too, according 
 to the general language 
 of Presbyterial authors, 
 so far from beingChurch- 
 
 * See note at the end of tlie volume. 
 
 t It is an unquestionable fact, that the very men who complain of 
 tJie Episcopal Church for unchurching* other denominations, unchurch 
 an hundred Christian professors where she unchurclies one such pro- 
 fessor. Episcopalians unchurch all who have laid aside Episcopacy.* 
 Presbyterians unchurch the Greek Church, containing' more members 
 than the whole Protestant world. Besides, the dissenters from Epis- 
 copacy sprung- up less than three centuries agt);. whilst the Greek 
 Church has existed from the early ag-es of Christianity. Now multi- 
 ply the immense number of Greek Christians by the number of g-ene- 
 rations that have passed since the period mentioned, and you will have 
 
 1i It has been already stotiitj that Episcopalians differ soitK^what on this point. 
 
64 
 
 EXTERNAL ORDER. 
 
 LET. ir. 
 
 7. No precise form of 
 Church government is 
 set forth in Scripture. 
 The ministry, as insti- 
 tuted by Christ and his 
 Apostles, being preserv- 
 ed inviolate, man is at 
 liberty to exercise a 
 sound discretion as to 
 the proper method of 
 organizing ecclesiastical 
 power, and regulating 
 ecclesiastical affairs. 
 
 es of Christ, are, in fact, 
 synagogues of Satan.* 
 
 7. PresbyterialChurch 
 government, consisting 
 of Congregational, Clas - 
 sical, and Synodical 
 assemblies, is of divine 
 and unalterable obliga- 
 tion. 
 
 the number of Christian professors who arc unchurched by the Presby- 
 terian doctrine. Compare this number with the number of dissenters 
 from Episcopacy, multiplied by the number of generations that have 
 passed since Episcopacy was laid aside, and you will be able to form some 
 opinion of the matter in question. It will be seen that, in the business 
 of unchurching, you exceed your Episcopal opponents at the rate of 
 at least an hundred to one. 
 
 But the Presbnerial doctrine, I repeat it, unchurches the whole 
 Christian world. What is this doctrine' — Simply, that the power of 
 ordination is vested in a Presbytery. — Now, ordination has always been 
 performed in the Greek Church by the Bishop alone; and was so per- 
 formed in the Latin Church until the time of the fourth Council of 
 Carthage. If the ordinations performed before the fourth Council of 
 Carthage were invalid, those performed since must, of course, be in- 
 valid also. — Presbyterians, then, must cither give np their fundamen- 
 tal principle, that " the power of ordination is in a Presbytery," or 
 stand charged with unchurching the whole Christian world. 
 
 • " The Puritans affirmed the Church of Rome to be no true Church, 
 and all her mini»tration» to be superstitious and idolatrous : they re- 
 nounced her communion, and durst not hang the validity of their ordi' 
 nationt upon an uninterrupted line of succession from the Apostles, 
 througk their hands." Neal's History of the Puritans, vol. i. p. 145 
 
LET. IV. 
 
 EXTERNAL ORDER. 
 
 65 
 
 8. Neither Episcopacy 
 nor Presbytery has any 
 thing to do Avith a law- 
 ful I v constituted State, 
 
 9. No perfect system 
 of rites and ceremonies 
 is set forth in Scripture. 
 Every Church is vested 
 ^vith a discretionary 
 power in this respect ; 
 provided always that 
 nothing be done contra- 
 ry to the word or the 
 spirit of the sacred ora- 
 cles. 
 
 8. Presbyterianism, 
 some societies of Pres- 
 byterians say, is essen- 
 tial to all lawful society 
 in the State ^ not less 
 than in the Church, 
 
 9. An immutable sys- 
 tem of rites and cere- 
 monies is prescribed in 
 Scripture; and to this 
 system all are bound to 
 conform. 
 
 Such was the doctrine 
 of the Puritans; and such 
 is now the doctrine of 
 the most strict among 
 their descendants. In- 
 deed the Puritans ex- 
 tended the principle 
 even to civil concerns; 
 holding " Scripture to 
 be in such sort the rule 
 of human action, that 
 simply whatsoever we 
 do, and are not by it di- 
 rected thereunto, the 
 same is sin." 
 
 It will be proper, before leaving this part of the 
 subject, to offer a few remarks by way of pre- 
 venting misconception. 
 
 The great design of religion i^ to make man a 
 9 
 
66 EXTERNAL ORDER. LET. IV. 
 
 spiritual being. " Fear God, and keep his com- 
 mandments, for this is the whole of man." — " Thou 
 shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, 
 and Avith all thy strength, and with all thy mind — 
 This is the first and great commandment — and the 
 second is like unto it, thou shalt love thy neigh- 
 bour as thyself. On these two commandments 
 hang all the law and the prophets." If, then, we 
 possess these spiritual qualifications, we cannot 
 fail to be acceptable in the Divine sight ; and it 
 must be of little consequence whether we conform 
 to any particular system of external institutions. 
 Such is a very common mode of thinking, and of 
 arguing. But, let it be recollected, we are to ke-^n 
 the commandments of God. This is, indeed, tnt- 
 verv definition which is given in Scripture of true 
 religion. If God has thought proper to prescribe a 
 [)articular system of ordinances, can it be matter 
 of indilTerence whether we conform to them? 
 What! is it of no consequence whether we keep 
 or violate the Divine law? — " Are not Abana and 
 Pharpar, rivers of Damascus, better than all the 
 >vaters of Israel ? May I not wash in them and 
 be clean?" Such was the reasoning of Naaman. 
 His error consisted in making himself wiser than 
 the inspired messenger of Heaven ; and the same 
 error lies at the foundation of the language, rela- 
 tive to forms and ordinances, which is so common 
 at the present day. If we love God and man, 
 of what consequence can it be whether we belong 
 to tliis or that society of Christians ? But admit 
 timt God has established a visible Church in the 
 
LKT. IV. EXTERNAL ORDER, 67 
 
 world, and appointed in this Church a priesthood 
 to act in his name; is it not our duty to enter this 
 Church, and to wait upon the ministrations of his 
 authorized agents? To answer this question in 
 the negative, is to say, that it is immaterial whe- 
 ther we seek the kingdom of Heaven in a Avay of 
 our own devising, or take the course pointed out 
 by infinite wisdom ; it is to refuse to be directed 
 by God in the momentous business of our salva- 
 tion. Of what consequence can it be, exclaims 
 the Quaker, whether we conform to tlie carnal 
 ordinances of baptism and the Lord's supper, pro.-- 
 vided the heart be right ? — But there is a previous 
 question — Are the ordinances of baptism and the 
 supper of divine institution? If they are, it is im- 
 pious to ask what purpose they can answer. There 
 is no end to the absurdities in which the mode of 
 reasoning in question must involve us. Our first 
 parents thought it of little consequence whether 
 they eat or abstained from eating a particular fruit. 
 So, indeed, it was ; considering the thing in itself, 
 and without reference to the Divine command. 
 The deist, too, may say — If I love God, it is iu}- 
 material whether I embrace Christianity or not — 
 God requires me to give him my heart. But ^\Q. 
 are first to inquire whether there is suOiciont evi- 
 dence of the divine origin of Christianity. Admit 
 it to be of divine origin, and the conclusion im- 
 mediately follows, that v/e are to make it our rule 
 of faith and life. 
 
 God proposes to us a certain end, and points 
 out the means by which it may be attained. I\Ian 
 
€8 EXTERNAL ORDER. LET. IV. 
 
 is very well pleased with the end; blithe thinks 
 the means injudiciously chosen: He, therefore, 
 sets iumself to work to devise a different system. 
 
 There must, necessarily, be forms in religion ; 
 for man is a being compounded of body and soul. 
 Still, these forms are to be regarded as means to 
 an end. God requires us to use them with a view 
 to those qualifications of the heart which they 
 are designed to produce. To neglect to use them 
 is one error — to use them without reference to the 
 end is another. The sincere Christian proposes to 
 himself universal conformity to the Divine law. 
 It is his supreme desire to imbibe the spirit of his 
 Redeemer. He sighs for deliverance from the do- 
 minion of sin; and he uses all the means of grace 
 which God has pointed out to him, without un- 
 dertaking to inquire whether they are of a nature 
 to do him good. Holiness of heart and life is the 
 great object of his pursuit. He pursues it, how- 
 ever, not in a way of his own choosing, but in 
 humble submission to the Divine direction. 
 
 Every good and perfect gift is from above, and 
 Cometh down from the Father of lights. But he 
 chooses his own method, and prescribes his own 
 condition of dispensing his blessings. He grants 
 the end only to such as use the appointed means. 
 This is, evidently, the general rule; although a 
 merciful being may be expected to bestow the 
 promised blessing on those whose departure from 
 the regular method of seeking it is not wilful, 
 but the result of frailty. " He knows whereof we 
 are made, and remembers that we are but dust." 
 
LET. IV. EXTERNAL ORDER. 69 
 
 But the allowance, which may be expected to 
 be made for error, with the opinions of our re- 
 spective societies on the subject, will engage our 
 attention in the next letter. 
 
( 70 ) 
 
 LETTER V. 
 CHARITABLE ALLOWANCE FOR ERROR. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 A Have shown, beyond the possibility of dispute, 
 that the Presbyterial doctrine is quite as strict and 
 exclusive as the Episcopal, on the subject of out- 
 ward ordination. I have shown that, in all other 
 points connected with External Order, our Pres- 
 byterian brethren are distinguished by a very rigid 
 turn of thinking ; carrying their ideas to an extent 
 which the Church has ever disclaimed as equally 
 inconsistent with Scripture, and with common 
 sense. For every thing advanced explicit and 
 unequivocal passages from the standards of Pres- 
 byterial societies, and the works of Presbyterial 
 authors, have been literally quoted. In opposi- 
 tion to all this, of what avail are your naked as- 
 severations? How could you venture to say, that 
 all the Presbyterians of whom you have ever 
 heard, consider salvation as secured by covenant 
 to such as repent and believe, whether connected 
 with the visible Church or not? I look. Sir, for the 
 Presbyterial doctrine, not to your unauthorized 
 assertions, but to the standards of Presbyterial 
 societies. In those standards I find it expressly 
 declared, that there is no ordinary possibility of 
 salvation out of the visible Church; that, to be 
 out of such Church, is to be a stranger to the co- 
 
LET. V. ALLOWANCE FOR ERROR. 71 
 
 venant of promise. Upon consulting Presbytcrial 
 authors, with whom you are well acquainted, I fmd 
 it expressly declared, that the promises of the Gos- 
 pel are all made to the visible Church ; and that 
 the distinction between a baptized and an un- 
 baptized person, lies in the one having a cove- 
 nanted title to mercy, while the other is left to 
 such as is without covenant. To what, then, shall 
 I ascribe the very extraordinary manner in which 
 you have permitted yourself to write on this sub- 
 ject? Without producing one word of proof, you 
 indulge in a strain of assertion which is contra- 
 dicted by the express and unequivocal language 
 of your public standards ; and this, too, for the 
 purpose of fixing the charge of gross misrepre- 
 sentation upon your opponents in the present con- 
 troversy. 
 
 Let us now take some notice of the allowance, 
 which, in the opinion of our respective societies, 
 is to be made for error. Here, Sir, it will be 
 found that you fall far short of your opponents ; 
 although you have thought proper to stigmatize 
 them as intolerant bigots, with whom it is difficult 
 to live upon terms of Christian intercourse.* 
 
 A better illustration of the subject cannot be 
 given than by considering the case of the Quakers, 
 in reference to the ordinances of baptism and the 
 sacred supper, which they are well knonn to dis- 
 card. 
 
 Letters, p. 19, 351. 
 
72 ALLOWANCE FOR ERROR. LET. V. 
 
 We believe that these ordinances were esta- 
 blished by Christ, and that the observance of them 
 is enjoined upon all his followers. " Go ye and 
 make disciples of all nations, baptizing them, 
 &c." " He that believeth, and is baptized, shall 
 be saved." " Repent, and be baptized for the re-* 
 mission of sins." With respect to the sacrament 
 of the supper, the language of Scripture is equally 
 express — " This do in remembrance of me." — 
 The Quakers, then, are in the practice of habi- 
 tually neglecting a positive command of God; 
 and universal obedience to the Divine law is pre- 
 scribed as the condition of salvation. But God 
 is a merciful being, who makes allowance for the 
 errors of his frail creatures. Wilful opposition to 
 the ordinances of the Gospel, or, indeed, to any of 
 the Divine laws, must exclude from the kingdom 
 of Heaven. This is a dictate of common sense. 
 But departure from the institutions of God of- 
 ten proceeds less from a spirit of disobedience 
 than from involuntary error. Here, then, we lay 
 down the general principle, that where there is a 
 sincere desire to know and do the will of God, all 
 violations of his commands, proceeding from ig- 
 norance or infirmity, will be pardoned. It is im- 
 possible to go further than this, Avithout giving up 
 divine truth and divine right altogether. Submis- 
 sion to the laws of God is certainly necessary to 
 salvation. To call in question the truth of tiiis 
 proposition, considered as a general principle, is 
 to say that we may as well go to Heaven in the 
 way of transgression as in that of obedience. 
 
LKT. V, ALLOWANCE FOR ERROR. 73 
 
 Well, the Quakers have laid aside particular ordi- 
 nances, the observance of which is expressly enjoin- 
 ed by Jesus Christ upon all his followers. In this 
 the Quakers are under a great error, for which 
 they must answer to God. So far as the error is 
 the result of culpable causes, it will be a subject 
 of condemnation; so far as it is the result of in- 
 finnity, it will be pardoned. We pretend not to 
 judii;e in any individual case ; leaving all judgment 
 to him who perfectly knows the heart. Thus, 
 while we contend, on the one hand, that the sa- 
 craments are of indispensable obligation, and that 
 persons who depart from them must answer to 
 God for so doing; on the other, we lay down a 
 general principle, which extends the mercy of 
 God to all who sincerely desire and endeavour 
 to know and do his will, whatever violations of 
 his commands they may commit through involun- 
 tary error. 
 
 Precisely the same style of remark is applicable 
 to those who depart from the true Church as in- 
 stituted by Christ and his Apostles. Of this 
 Church all men are commanded to become mem- 
 bers. In refusing to become membersof it, there- 
 fore, they violate the law of God. So far as their 
 conduct is to be traced to unavoidable ignorance 
 or involuntary error, it will be excused ; so far as 
 it is the result of pride, passion, negligence, or 
 any other culpable cause, it will be ground of 
 condemnation. Cvod only can tell when enor pro- 
 ceeds from a criminal, ^vlien from a pardonable 
 source: IT^ o!»]v can tell, in each indSvidurd 
 
 10 
 
74 ALLOWANCE FOR ERROR. LET* V. 
 
 case, how I'ar the heart is sincere, and iiow far 
 allowance is to be made for the ignorance, the 
 mistakes, and the prejudices of his frail creatines. 
 Fnrdier than this H is impossible to go, without 
 giving up aUogether the right of thinking for our- 
 selves; fuilhcr it is impossible to go, without re- 
 nouncing the doctrine, to which almost all deno- 
 minations of Christians subscribe, that God has 
 established one visible Church upon earth; re- 
 quiring all men to enter it, and to obey its laws. 
 
 While we contend that ordinances, irregularly 
 administered, are, in themselves, void ; yet, w^here 
 the irregularity is the result of excusable error, 
 we believe that the ordinances will be blessed to 
 the recipient. God will bestow the graces an- 
 nexed to his sacraments, on the humble and the 
 penitent, who receive them from unauthorized 
 men; and even such unauthorized 4iien he w^ill 
 bless and sanctify, where the violation of his 
 laws is the result of frailty; not of indifference, 
 or of pride. To such, indeed, as suffer a self- 
 sufficient spirit to get the better of that singleness 
 of heart, and of that conscientious love of truth, 
 which should characterize every disci[)le of Christ, 
 nothing can be held out, consistently with the 
 express language of Scripture, but the awful threats 
 of an offended God ; and in proportion as such 
 men are instrumental in leading the uninformed 
 into error, will the weight of their condemnation 
 be increased. 
 
 Thus, then, while the ordinances of the Gospel, 
 adniinistered by unauthorized men, are, in them- 
 
LET. V. ALLOWANCE FOR KRUOR. /O 
 
 solves, void, and no divine promise is annexed 
 to their reception; yet, where there is unfeigned 
 sincerity of hearty God, we trust, ^vill pardon the 
 irregularity for the sake of the sincerity. To use 
 a trit<3 mode of expression, he will take the icill 
 for the deed. AUhough the ordinances are void, 
 being administered by a void authority, still God 
 will accept them as valid, and make them chan- 
 nels of his grace. Those influences of his Spirit, 
 to which there is no covenanted claim^ he will, ne- 
 vertheless, bestow by way of special favour. 
 
 Let it not, however, be supposed that we run 
 into the absurd doctrine, that, provided a man be 
 sincere, it is immaterial what opinions he enter- 
 tains, or with what denomination of Christians he 
 connects himself. The divine laws derive their 
 obligatory force from the authority by which they 
 are enacted* not from any opinion which man 
 may happen to entertain of them. If we are in 
 error as to the injunctions of the law of God, it 
 is, at all events, our misfortune ; and it becomes 
 MS most seriously to take care that it be not our 
 crime. A man may be in error from his own 
 fault. He has neglected, perhaps, the means of 
 information : he has been altogether careless about 
 the truth : the commands of God have not been 
 of sufficient weight with him to lead him seriously 
 to inquire into his situation. Sometimes error is 
 the consequence of a vicious course of life, which 
 has blinded the understanding, and corrupted 
 the heart; very frequently it proceeds from a 
 self-sufficient spirit, which cannot bring ilsclf to 
 
76 ALLOWAiNCE FOR LRROK. LET. V. 
 
 submit to the mortification of its high chiims. A 
 man is never to blame for doing what his con- 
 science tells him it is his duty to do ; but he may 
 be very greatly to blame for having an erroneous 
 conscience. The mistake under which lie la- 
 bours, on the subject of his duty, may be the 
 result of apathy, which will not inquire ; or of pas- 
 sion, which will be gratified. At the same time, 
 there are innumerable circumstances which give 
 a bias to the mind; and we often find sincere 
 piety connected with no small portion of error. 
 A merciful God will make allowance for the 
 weakness of reason, for the force of prejudice, 
 for the defects of education, and even, in some 
 degree, for the frailty of passion. We are ex- 
 pressly told, that God will not be strict to njark 
 what is done amiss; that, where there is a will- 
 ing heart, he will accept us according to what 
 we have, not according to what we have not; 
 that he knows whereof we are made, and remem- 
 bers that we are but dust. Still there is an im- 
 mutable distinction between truth and error; it 
 can never be matter of indifi*erence which of them 
 we embrace. 
 
 The connexion between princi}>le and practice 
 is most inthnate. What, indeed, is practice but 
 embodied principle ? The characters of men are. 
 every where, formed, in a greater or less degree, 
 hy the opinions which they entertain. Among the 
 various sects of ancient philosophers, how con- 
 stantly do we see their principles exemplified in 
 their lives ! In truth, the doctrines which any parti- 
 
LET. V. ALLOWANCE FOR KHROR. 77 
 
 ciihir society may embrace, will, in time, mould and 
 determine the character of tiiat society. Haughty 
 principles, as a general rule, will produce haughty 
 conduct : licentious principles will produce licen- 
 tious conduct : virtuous principles will j)roducc 
 virtuous conduct. Truth is in order to goodness. 
 To promote the cause of error^ is to promote that 
 of vice; for it will, undoubtedly, hold, as a ge- 
 neral rule, that in proportion as a country or an 
 age declines from truth in its maxims^ it will de- 
 cline from virtue in \i^ practice. Some errors, in- 
 deed, are, in'' a very slight degree, pernicious, 
 when compared with others ; but all error is, in a 
 greater or less degree, pernicious. Still there arc 
 exceptions to every general rule ; and, in perfect 
 consistency with what has been said, you will 
 often find men whose practice is better than their 
 principles, or whose principles are much more 
 correct than their practice. Indeed, in comparing 
 men together, it is not uncommon to find one per- 
 son superior to another in the purity of his opi- 
 nions, and, at the same time, much inferior in the 
 regularity of his life. 
 
 The train of remark in which we have in- 
 dulged, will show the very great importance of 
 embracing the system of doctrines which is re 
 vealed in the Gospel, and of conforming to the 
 positive institutions which are therein established. 
 The doctrines are infallibly true. The institutions 
 are, beyond all question, divine institutions. But, 
 in the case under consideration, independently of 
 the native tendency of truth to perfect, and o^ 
 
78 ALLOWANCE FOR ERROR. LET. V. 
 
 error to pervert the human inintl, God has im- 
 posed upon us the express obligation of embrac- 
 ing his Gospel, and of obeying its laws. He has 
 marked out to us the exact path in which we are 
 to travel to his heavenly kingdom. This path, in 
 the opinion equally of Episcopal and of Presby- 
 terial societies, is the one visible Church to which 
 God has given the ministry, oracles, and ordinan- 
 ces, which are the means of grace. The Church 
 is the body of Christ. It is enlightened and sanc- 
 tified by his Spirit. Its members stand in a cove- 
 nanted relation to God; they have 2itovencmted title 
 to eternal life. Such as depart from the Church 
 lose this covenanted title ; wandering from the true 
 path marked out to conduct them to the kingdom 
 of Heaven. Still, it is not sufficient to be in the 
 true path: we must dihgently use the means of 
 grace. The circumstance of having a covenanted 
 title to Heaven, if we perform not the conditions 
 upon which the title is suspended, will only ag- 
 gravate our condemnation. Many, who are in 
 the true road, will never reach the end of their 
 journey, from the want of diligence on the way; 
 whilst others, notwithstanding they may have wan- 
 dered from the true road, will finally arrive at the 
 great object of their pursuit, by the sincerity and 
 zeal of their cfi*orts to attain it. Yet it will never 
 ilo to go on to the ( onclusion, that, provided a 
 man be sincere and zealous, it is immaterial what 
 course he takes to Heaven. A course having 
 been marked out for us by God, we are all under 
 the most sacred obligation to pursue it; turning 
 
LET. V. AI.LOWANCE FOR ERROR. 79 
 
 aside iieUher to the right liand, nor to the left. 
 It is not siiflicient that a man be persuaded in liis 
 own mind; it is necessary that he embrace the 
 Gospel of Jesits Christ, and walk in his laws. 
 Under such circumstances alone, can he have any 
 covenanted claim to mercy ; although it may please 
 God, in many instances, where he se^s unfeigned 
 sincerity, to bestow mercy, to which no federal 
 transaction may have secured a regular title. Let 
 every man be firmly persuaded in his own mind: 
 let every man, at the same time, be careful that 
 he seek the truth in singleness of heart. If, in- 
 stead of honestly labouring to subdue prejudice 
 and passion, we suffer indifference, pride, self- 
 sufficiency, or a bitter spirit of sectarianism, to 
 blind our understanding, and render us obstinate 
 in error, we must take the consequences of our 
 conduct. 
 
 There are two senses in which a condition of 
 salvation may be termed indispensable. The first 
 has reference to the right of man to comply with 
 the condition or not as he may see proper; the 
 second, to the question, whether there is reason 
 to supix)se that the condition will, under any cir- 
 cumstances, be dispensed with by God. It will 
 readily be seen that a condition may be indis- 
 pensable in one of these senses, when it is far from 
 being so in the other. The positive ordinances of 
 religion, as far as human authority and power 
 may be concerned, are of unalterable obligation. 
 
 Without holiness no man sliall see God. Here 
 is a condition of salvation which is, in every sense 
 
;jO allowance for ekkor. let. v. 
 
 of the word, indispensable. The positive institu- 
 tions of religion, however, are not to be viewed 
 in precisely the same point of light. Inchspensa- 
 ble, strictly speakinc:, as far as the autliority of 
 man is concerned : God, nevertheless, has power 
 to dispense with theni, and, under proper circum- 
 stances, will exercise the power. 
 
 On all this subject Episcopalians and Presby- 
 terians entertain l^ut one opinion. They agree 
 that the positive institutions of the Gospel are 
 unalterably binding upon man. They agree that 
 departure from such institutions will exclude from 
 the kingdom of Heaven, unless it proceed from 
 excusable error. The allowance which Presbyte- 
 rians make for departure from Presbyterial ordina- 
 tion, is precisely that which Churchmen make for 
 departure from Episcopal ordination. Nay, it can 
 be unanswerably shown, that your opponents do 
 not carry the doctrine of Episcopacy further, in 
 reference to future happiness, than you carry the 
 rigid doctrine of absolute unconditional election 
 and reprobation. For example — Eternal life is 
 secured by the covenant of grace to those who 
 embrace the Gospel of Christ.* The doctrine of 
 unconditional election and reprobation is a fun- 
 damental doctrine of the Gospel; so fundamental, 
 that without it you " would be plunged into dark- 
 ness and despair ;" and " the whole plan of sal- 
 vation would be nothing better than a gloomy 
 system of probabilities and peradventurcs : a sys- 
 
 • Continuation of Letters, p. SB, 59. 
 
LET. V. ALLOWANCE FOR ERROR. 81 
 
 tern, on the whole, nearly, if not quite, as likely 
 to land the believer in the abyss of the damned, 
 as in the paradise of God."^ 
 
 Well — eternal life is secured by the covenant 
 of grace to such as believe the Gospel ; of which 
 the doctrine of unconditional election and repro- 
 bation is a most important, indeed, an essential 
 feature. To refuse to believe in this doctrine, is 
 to refuse to do that which the covenant of grace 
 requires us to do in order that we may be saved. 
 Now, Sir, will you venture to say that your oppo- 
 nents have ever attached greater importance than 
 this to the doctrine of Episcopacy ? It is true, 
 you suppose that God will make allowance for 
 those who are so unfortunate as to dissent from 
 the peculiarities of Calvinism ; but have not your 
 opponents invariably expressed their decided be- 
 lief that God will pardon the rejection of Episco- 
 pacy, where such rejection is the result of invo- 
 luntary error ? Wilful opposition to Episcopacy is 
 certainly rebellion against God, and must, there- 
 fore, exclude from his presence. Can you say 
 less of wilful opposition to the peculiar tenets of 
 Calvinism ? If these tenets constitute important 
 doctrines of the Gospel, then we are commanded 
 by God to believe in them. Wilful rejection of 
 them, therefore, is rebellion against God ; and 
 rebellion against God must involve the destruc- 
 tion of the soul. In short, your opponents say 
 Hiat wilful rejection of Episcopacy will exclude 
 
 ConHnuatlon of Letter?, t>. 33' 
 11 
 
r>2 ALLOWANCE FOR ERROR. LET. V 
 
 o 
 
 from the kingdom of Heaven : you say that wilful 
 rejection of Presbytery — nay, even of the peculi- 
 arities of Calvinism, will exckide from that king- 
 dom : and the very same allowance which you 
 4nake for error in the one case, your opponents 
 make for it in the other. 
 
 Having considered the allowance which our re- 
 spective societies make for error, in reference to 
 the system of external institutions ; we will pro- 
 ceed to inquire, for a few moments, into the 
 allowance which they make for it in matters re- 
 lating more particularly to the doctrines of the 
 Gospel. 
 
 Here we shall see Calvinism in its genuine 
 character. 
 
 Presbyterians* represent faith as a condition of 
 salvation, in every sense of the term, indispen- 
 sable ; in other words, they hold that God will, in 
 no case, and under no circumstances, pardon a 
 fundamental departure from truth as it respects the 
 scheme of Christian doctrine. This results, ne- 
 cessarily, from the principle which lies at the foun- 
 dation of the Calvinistic creed; that salvation 
 depends upon an eternal, unconditional decree of 
 God : of an interest in which decree faith is the 
 sole and infallible assurance. Error on any fun- 
 damental point of Christian doctrine proves that 
 the person entertaining it is not a subject of the 
 decree of election ; and, not being a subject of 
 that decree, he is, of course, without hope. Nay, 
 
 * I mean Calvinistic Presbyterians. 
 
LET. V. ALLOWA^X*E FOR ERROR. 85 
 
 SO far do the Calvinists cany Ihcir ideas of llie 
 necessity of faith, as to consign the heathen worhl 
 
 lO INDISCRIMINATE PERDITION. 
 
 This I shall prove beyond the possibility of dis- 
 piite. 
 
 " Redemption is certainly applied, and effectu- 
 ally communicated, to all those for whom Christ 
 hath purchased it; who are, in time, by the Holy 
 Ghost, enabled to believe in Christ according to 
 the Gospel." " They who having never heard 
 the Gospel, know not Jesus Christ, and believe 
 not in him, cannot be saved, be they never so di- 
 ligent to frame their lives according to the light of 
 nature, or the laws of that religion which they 
 profess; neither is there salvation in any other, 
 but in Christ alone, who is the Saviour only of 
 his body, the Church."* 
 
 Let us consider these passages in detail. 
 
 " Redemption is certainly applied, and effectu- 
 ally communicated, to all those for whom Christ 
 hath purchased it ; who are, in time, by the Holy 
 Ghost, enabled to beheve in Christ according to 
 the Gospel." Here the doctrine of partial redemp- 
 tion, contrary to the whole tenor of Scripture, is 
 unequivocally set forth. Our blessed Saviour 
 " tasted death for every man." " He is the pro- 
 pitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but 
 also for the sins of the whole world." Christ 
 
 * Westminster Catechism, questions 59, 6a Constitution of the 
 Presbyterian Church in the United States— Larger Catechism, ques- 
 tions 59, 60. Constitution a)id Standards of the Associate Reform.e*) 
 Church in North-America— Larg-er Catcchismj questions 50, 60. 
 
84 ALLOWANCE FOR ERROR. LET. V. 
 
 hath redeemed all men from the curse of the law; 
 that is, he hath made an atonement for the sins 
 of all men ; thus taking them from under the curse 
 of a violated covenant, and placing them in a 
 state in which it is possible for them, with the as- 
 sistance of Divine grace, to work out their salva- 
 tion. Universal redemption is one thing — univer- 
 sal salvntion is another. All men are redeemed ; 
 all men are placed in a salvable state; but final 
 salvation depends upon the conduct of each indi- 
 vidual under the means of grace which he may 
 have enjoyed. In opposition to this, Christ is 
 represented, in the passage under consideration, 
 as having purchased redemption only for those who 
 will be finally saved ; that is, for the elect. " Re- 
 demption is certainly applied^ and cffectualhj com- 
 municated to ALL those for whom Christ hath pur- 
 chased it.'''' In other words, all who are redeemed 
 will be finally saved. The elect alone are re- 
 deemed* — the elect alone will be saved. To 
 complete the doctrine, the passage goes on to 
 state, that those for whom Christ hath purchased 
 redemption, " are, in time, by the Holy Ghost, 
 enabled to believe in Christ according to the Gos- 
 pel." Thus the heathen Avorld is completely cut 
 cjfl'; belief in Christ, according to the Gospel, 
 being represented as the invariable characteristic 
 of the redeemed. And, to place their meaning 
 beyond the reach of dispute, the framers of the 
 Catechism proceed, in the veiy next passage, to 
 
 • (( 
 
 Neither are any other redeemed by Christ but the elect only? 
 I'l^sbyteiian Conf(;8>sion cf i'althj chap. in. sect. 6. 
 
LET. V. ALLOWANCE FOR ERROR. 85 
 
 say — '' They who, having never heard the Gospel, 
 know not Jesus Christ, and believe not in him, 
 cannot be saved, be they never so diligent to 
 Irame their lives according to the light of nature." 
 
 Will it be said that the design of the passage in 
 question is simply to lay down the fundamental 
 doctrine, that salvation is only through the death and 
 sufferings of Christ ? But this is evidently absurd. 
 If it had been the design of the framers of the Ca- 
 techism merely to express such an idea, they would, 
 doubtless, have adopted a very different language : 
 they would have said plainly, that there can be no 
 salvation for fallen man but through a Redeemer. 
 Instead of this, they declare expressly, that such 
 as have never heard of Christ cannot possibly be 
 saved. 
 
 Mark the language of the Eighteenth Article of 
 our Church! — " They also are to be had accursed 
 that presume to say, that every man shall be 
 saved by the law or sect which he professeth, so 
 that he be diligent to frame his life according to 
 that law, and the light of nature. For holy Scrip- 
 ture doth set out to us only the name of Jesus 
 Christ ivhereby men must be saved." Here all 
 is perfectly clear and easy; the evident design 
 of the article being to declare the doctrine of sal- 
 vation through the blood of a crucified Saviour. 
 They are condemned who presume to say that 
 man may be saved by the law under Avhich he 
 lives. Doqs the article assert that none can be 
 saved who have never heard of Christ? By no 
 means—It merely sets forth the death of Christ;, 
 
36 ALLOWANCE POU ERROR. ^ET. V. 
 
 as the only meritorious cause of justification; as 
 that alone by which we may be saved.^ Accord- 
 ini^ly Episcopalians believe that none can be saved 
 but through the merits of Christ; at the same 
 time that many will be saved through his merits, 
 who have never heard of his name. But the lan- 
 guage of your religious standards is of a very dif- 
 ferent character, expressly consigning those who 
 have not actually heard the Gospel to indiscriminate 
 perdition. 
 
 Of the language in question you have not ven- 
 tured to take the slightest notice. And how do 
 you contrive to pass it by in silence ? You repre- 
 sent me as quoting a clause from the Presbyterian 
 Confession of Faith, distant an hundred pages 
 from the sentence which I really did quote ; and 
 having thus got rid of the passage, you enter into 
 an argument to prove that the language of the 
 Presbyterian Confession of Faith is precisely the 
 language of the Eighteenth Article of the Episcopal 
 Church.t Passing this by for the moment, I pro- 
 
 * At tlie time the Articles were formed, there were persons who 
 contended that the profession of Christianity is a thin^ indifferent ; 
 that the sole criterion of the favour of Heaven, is our conformity to 
 the particular law which we may choose to embrace ; and that the in- 
 quiry will be, not whether we range ourselves under the law of Christ, 
 of Moses, of Mahomet, or any other teacher ; but simply how far we 
 have obeyed tlie particular law which we may have thought proper to 
 adopt as our rule of life. It is this most pernicious opinion, Dr. Lau- 
 rence informs us, that the Article so decidedly opposes ; setting forth 
 the law of Christ as that which we are bound to make our rule of life, 
 and his merits as the only ground of salvation. But the Article goes no 
 further tlian this. It is very far, indeed, from asserting that an actual 
 knowledge of the person and character of Jesus Christ is absolutely 
 necessary to salvation. 
 
 t See the whole of this master explained at the close of this letter: 
 
LET. V. ALLOWANCE FOR ERROR. S7 
 
 ceed to examine the section of your Confession of 
 Faith which was not even alluded to in my Letters, 
 but which, nevertheless, you represent me as 
 shamefully altering, in order to make it speak a 
 language that might suit my views. 
 
 " Much less can men, not professing the Chris- 
 tian religion, be saved in any other way whatso- 
 ever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives 
 according to the light of nature, and the law of 
 that religion they do profess."* 
 
 In order to perceive the true meaning of these 
 words, we must take them in connexion with a 
 few sentences by which they are immediately 
 preceded. 
 
 " Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regene- 
 rated and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who 
 worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth. 
 So also, are all other elect persons, who are in- 
 capable of being outwardly called by the minis- 
 try of the word. Others not elected, although 
 they may be called by the ministry of the word, 
 and may have some common operations of the 
 Spirit, yet they never truly come to Christ, and 
 therefore cannot be saved : much less can men 
 not professing the Christian religion, be saved in 
 any other way whatsoever, be they never so dili- 
 gent to frame their lives according to the light of 
 nature, and the law of that religion they do pro- 
 fess."t 
 
 Now, the heathen world, I venture to assert. 
 
 * Presbyterian Confession of Faitl), chap. x. sect. 4. 
 t Ibid, chap. s;. .sect. 3, 4. 
 
88 ATJ.OWANCE FOR ERROR. LET. V. 
 
 is consigned, in this passage, to indiscriminate 
 perdition. Let us examine it in detail. 
 
 " Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regene- 
 rated and saved by Christ through the Spirit." 
 To speak of elect infants, is to admit that there 
 are reprobate infants. If it had been the inten- 
 tion of the framers of your Catechism to say, 
 tliat God will mercifully receive all persons dying 
 in infancy, they would have stated the doctrine in 
 express terms — " All persons dying in infancy, 
 being elect, are regenerated and saved by Christ 
 through the Spirit." A clause of this kind would 
 have been full to the purpose. But no such idea 
 was in the mind of the Westminster Divines ; they 
 intended to say that there are reprobate infants. 
 Such, indeed, is the genuine Calvinistic doctrine ; 
 and the moment we admit the idea that salvation 
 depends upon an arbitrary, unconditional decree^ 
 without reference to any thing in the creature mov- 
 ing thereunto, but resolvable solely into the sove- 
 reign pleasure of God, there is no sort of difficulty 
 in supposing that many of those who die in in- 
 fancy will be eternally lost.* The plain matter 
 
 » The distinction between elect and non-elect infants was entirely 
 unknown to the primitive Church ; not having been introduced, indeed, 
 until the time of Calvin, of whose peculiar theory of predestination it 
 is a natural result. Accordingly, Calvin did not hesitate to draw the 
 conclusion, although it appears to have cost him some effort to do so.j 
 Bcza, the disciple and successor of Calvin, expressed himself on this 
 
 f Scclnstitutcs of the Christian Rp!i};ion, book i v. ch.-ipter xvi. sections 17, 
 IS, 2» ; where Cilvin appears to liave a constant rcftrfnce In his raind to the 
 distinction between elect and non-elect infants, without, however, venturing 
 formally to dt- tl«rc it 
 
LET. V. ALLOWANCE FOR ERROR. 89 
 
 of fact is, that God has elected some infants, and 
 has passed by others. And why not pass by in- 
 fants as well as adults ? For adults are elected, 
 or reprobated, without reference to any thing in 
 them moving God to choose or reject them ; but 
 simply in the exercise of sovereign power. After 
 consigning all persons dying in infancy, with the 
 exception of an elect number, to perdition, there 
 can be no great difficulty in placing the whole 
 heathen world out of the reach of mercy. The 
 two doctrines are, equally, the genuine result of 
 the cardinal principle of Calvinism. 
 
 But let us proceed — '^ Elect infants, dying in 
 infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ 
 through the Spirit. So also are all other elect 
 persons, who are incapable of being outwardly 
 called by the ministry of the word." Here it is 
 merely said, that persons, not externally called 
 by the ministry of the word, may be of the num* 
 ber of the elect. But a man, without being thus 
 called, may be informed of Christ, and believe in 
 him. Accordingly, in speaking of the passage in 
 question, you say, it " recognizes the possibility 
 of some being saved, who have not had an op- 
 portunity of hearing the Gospel preached,'''' How 
 very cautious is this mode of expression ! Does 
 any part of your religious standards recognize th^ 
 possibility of salvation to those who have nev^r, '}J). 
 
 subject in the most positive and unequivoeHl lanj^uage. In a publip 
 conference htld with tlie Lulherans, in the year 1586, speaking of Bap- 
 tism, he s:t3s, " Which many millions of infants receive, who, not- 
 withstanding", aae never regenerated, but everlastingly perish." 
 
90 ALLOWANCE FOR ERROR. LET. V. 
 
 any shape, heard of Christ ? The positive preach- 
 ing of the Gospel is not the only way of bringing 
 men acquainted with the person, character, and 
 work of the Saviour. His person, character, and 
 work may be known to such as have never had an 
 opportunity of listening to a preacher in the course 
 of their lives. 
 
 The passage, therefore, is perfectly consistent 
 with the indiscriminate perdition of the heatheri 
 world. 
 
 Besides, it must not be so interpreted as to con- 
 tradict the express declaration, " they who, hav- 
 ing never heard the Gospel, know not Jesus Christ, 
 and believe not in him, cannot be saved, be they 
 never so diligent to frame their lives according to 
 the light of nature." Take the two passages to- 
 gether, and it is evident that the Westminster 
 Divines, in speaking of " elect persons who are 
 incapable of being outwardly called by the minis- 
 try of the word," meant to designate those who^ 
 cut off from access to the ministry and ordi- 
 nances, nevertheless hear of Christ, and believe 
 in him. 
 
 The Divines in question were far from intending 
 to declare, that persons who have never heard of 
 Christ may still be saved. To annex such a 
 meaning to the passage under consideration, is 
 not only to do violence to language, but it is to 
 render the different standards of your society in- 
 consistent and unintelligible. 
 
 " Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regene- 
 rated and saved by Christ through the Spirit. Sch 
 
X-ET. V- ALLOWANCE FOR ERROR. SI 
 
 (dso are all other elect persons^ ivho are incapable of 
 being outwardly called by the ministry of the fVord.^"^ 
 
 The elect persons, here spoken of, have heard 
 of Christ, or they have not heard of him. If they 
 have heard of him, the passage is perfectly con- 
 sistent with the indiscriminate perdition of the 
 heathen world. If they have not heard of him, 
 it is directly at war with the declaration in the 
 Larger Catechism of your society : " They who, 
 having never heard the Gospel, know not Jesus 
 Christ, and believe not in him, cannot be saved, 
 fee they never so diligent to frame their lives ac- 
 <:ording to the light of nature." 
 
 " Others, not elected, although they may be 
 called by the ministry of the word, and may 
 laave some common operations of the Spirit, 
 jet they never truly come to Christ, and there- 
 fore cannot be saved: much less can men, not 
 professing the Christian religion, be saved in any 
 other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent 
 to frame their lives according to the light of nature, 
 and the law of that religion they do profess." 
 
 Is it the simple design of this passage to declare 
 that none of our fallen race can be saved in any 
 other way than through the merits of Christ? 
 Surely, if such had been the idea intended to 
 be conveyed, a very different mode of expression 
 would have been adopted. No, Sir, the West- 
 minster Divines had no such object in view. Let 
 us analyze the passage, "• Others, not elected, 
 although they may be called by the ministry of 
 the word, and may have some common operp.- 
 
92 ALLOWANCE FOR ERROR. LET. T. 
 
 tions of the Spirit, yet they never truly come to 
 Christ, and therefore cannot be saved." Tlie 
 persons here spoken of, hear of Christ, but do 
 not truly come to him; in other words, do not 
 truly embrace him by faith; and are, therefore, 
 lost. " Much less can men, not professing the 
 Christian religion, be saved in any othet way ivhat- 
 soever^ be they never so diligent to frame their 
 lives according to the light of nature, and the law 
 of that religion they do profess." 
 
 How arc the words, " in any other w^ay whatso- 
 ever," to be understood here? Their meaning 
 is rendered perfectly plain by adverting to the first 
 part of the paragraph—" Others, not elected, al- 
 though they may be outwardly called by the mi- 
 nistry of the word, yet they never truly come to 
 Christ;" in other words, never truly believe in him, 
 " and therefore cannot be saved." Then follows 
 the clause — " Much less can men, not professing 
 the Christian religion, be saved in any other way 
 whatsoever;" in any other way than by coming to 
 Christ, that is, believing in him, or having faith 
 in him ; " be they never so diligent to frame their 
 lives according to the light of nature, and the law 
 of that religion they do profess." The passage, 
 then, does unequivocally m.ake salvation impossi- 
 ble to all who have never heard of Christ. Such 
 is the only construction which the words will bear. 
 I repeat it, if the Westminster Divines had in- 
 tended merely to set forth the doctrine of salvation 
 through the merits of Christ, they would have used 
 a very different form of rxpre==*ion. 
 
/ 
 
 LET. V. ALLOWANCE FOR ERROR. 93 
 
 The meaning of the whole passage may be 
 thus briefly expressed — Persons not elected, al- 
 though they may be outwardly called by the mi- 
 nistry of the word, yet not having true faith in 
 Christ, cannot be saved — Still less can they be 
 saved who have never heard of his name ; for faith 
 in ;him, under such circumstances, is impossible. 
 — ^And this, besides being the natural interpreta- 
 tij3n of the passage, is the only one which can 
 iliake it consistent with the other parts of your 
 Mublic formularies. 
 
 / But I have entered into an unnecessary detail. 
 ' The single passage, so often quoted from the 
 / Westminster Catechism, puts the subject perfectly 
 at rest ; proclaiming indiscriminate perdition to 
 the heathen world in words as positive and unam- 
 biguous as language can supply. " They who, 
 having never heard the Gospel, know not Jesus 
 Christ, and believe not in him, cannot be saved, 
 be they never so diligent to frame their lives ac- 
 cording to the light of nature, or the law of ]that 
 religion which they profess,"* 
 
 You have been so prudent as not to notice this 
 passage ; although, to avoid noticing it, you were 
 under the hard necessity of having recourse to an 
 artifice which must injure you in the estimation of 
 every correct and delicate mind.f 
 
 But the doctrine of the indiscriminate perdition 
 of the heathen world is the doctrine even of your 
 own Letters. 
 
 * Westminster Catechism, question 60. 
 f See the concluding part of this letter. 
 
i 
 
 •J4 ALLOWANCE FOR ERROR. LET. V. 
 
 " It is to be hoped that Presbyterians understand 
 the Gospel too well to speak of uncovenanted mercy 
 at all. Fallen creatures know of no mercy but 
 that which is promised or secured by the covenant 
 of grace, in Christ Jesus our Lord."* 
 
 Now, you expressly assert that the heathen 
 are aliens from the covenant of grace. " These 
 writers exclude us from the covenanted mercy of 
 God. They represent mercy as extended to Pres- 
 byterians, in the same manner, and on the same 
 principles, as to the heathen ; that is, not in vir- 
 tue of any covenant engagerrwnt; but on the foot- 
 ing of general, unpledged mercy."t 
 
 Well, Sir, fallen creatures know of no mercy 
 but that which is promised or secured by the cove- 
 nant of grace : but mercy is not secured to the 
 heathen by virtue of any covenant engagement ; 
 therefore there is no mercy for the heathen; in 
 other words, the heathen must be indiscriminately 
 lost. And as your religious standards expressly 
 declare all but the members of the visible Church 
 to be strangers from the covenant of promise, it 
 follows, upon the principle which you have laid 
 down, that there can be no possibility of salvation 
 out of that Church. You tell us that there is no 
 mercy but covenanted mercy — the standards of 
 your society declare that there is no covenanted 
 title to mercy out of the visible Church — it fol- 
 lows, inesistibly, that none but the members of 
 the visible Church can be saved. 
 
 • Continuation of Letters, p. 57, 58. 
 f Contmaation of Letters, p. 36, "7 
 
LET. V. ALLOWANCE FOR ERROR, 95 
 
 Besides, you give us to understand^ that it is 
 faith alone that puts a man in a state of covenant 
 with God. — " Seals," according to your idea, " are 
 the constituted meaas of recognizing a covenant 
 transaction supposed to have previously taken 
 place in secret, when the person receiving the 
 seal embraced the Gospel."* In embracing the 
 Gospel, then, we enter into covenant with God.f 
 
 * Continuation of Letters, p. 59^ 60. 
 
 f Whenever I am under the necessity of citing your strange opinions, 
 I think it proper immediately to contrast them with the express lan- 
 guage of those public standards to which you are canonically bound to 
 conform. Salvation, you tell us, is secured by covenant engagement 
 to all who have faith in Christ, whetlier members of the visible Church 
 or not.a Compare this with the language of your religious society — 
 " Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible 
 Church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they pro- 
 fess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him.* " Out of the visible 
 Church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise." And after 
 a man professes faith in Christ, so as to satisfy the governors of the 
 Church that he really possesses it, still he is out of the visible Church, 
 and a stranger to the covenant of promise, until he is initiated into 
 the one, and thereby placed within the other, by the sacred ordinance 
 of baptism. 
 
 Besides, as I have more than once shown already, you are completely 
 at war with yourself; for you tell us that " the visible Church is that 
 houseliold of God to which his gracious promises and his life-giving 
 spirit are vouchsafed ;"c that the existence of unaffected piety out of 
 this Church is a difficulty of no easy solution ,d and that if persons 
 not belonging to the visible Church, are saved, it must be in some 
 extraordinary and unknoivn way.^ 
 Thus inconsistent are the different parts of your writings. 
 The promises of the Gospel are made to the visible Church — The 
 promises of the Gospel are made, not to the visible Church, but to thp 
 pious. 
 
 Salvation is to be attained by fallen creatures only in tlie way of co- 
 
 o Continuation of Letters, p. 59. 60. 6 Larger Cat,eclihru, rueslion ICo. 
 < Letters, p. 342. d Ihj,] p. ^45., 
 
 c Continuation of Letters, p. 44. 
 
96 ALLOWANCE FOR ERROR. LET. V. 
 
 In the same way, you tell us, that " salvation is 
 promised, that is, secured by covenant engage- 
 ment, to all who sincerely repent of sin, and un- 
 feignedly believe in the Lord Jesus Christ."* And 
 when, in setting forth the utmost extent of your 
 charitable ideas, you say, that men may be in 
 covenant with God who have never seen a Church 
 officer in theh lives; still, you make it necessary 
 that they should have been so situated as to hear 
 of Christ, and to believe in him.f 
 
 Thus, Sir, you consign the heathen world to 
 Indiscriminate perdition. 
 
 There is no mercy but such as is secured by 
 covenant engagement — Mercy is secured by co- 
 venant engagement only to those who believe in 
 the Lord Jesus Christ— of course, they who, " hav- 
 ing never heard the Gospel, know not Jesus Christ, 
 and believe not in him, cannot be saved, be they 
 never so diligent to frame their lives according to 
 the light of nature."! 
 
 This, as I have repeatedly observed, is the true 
 Calvinistic doctrine. In addition to the proof 
 drawn from the Westminster standards, let me in- 
 troduce to you a few passages from Presbyterian 
 authors. The first author to whom I shall call 
 your attention, is the very learned Dr. Wither- 
 spoon. " Thus I have endeavoured both to ex- 
 
 venant. Salvation may be attained in an extraordinary or uncovenanted 
 way. But I purpose, in a future letter, to bring your numerous con- 
 tradictions into one view. 
 
 * Continuation of Letters, p. 58, 60. f Ibid. p. 59 
 
 Presbyterian Catechism, question 60 
 
LET. V. ALLOWANCE FOU ERROR. ^1 
 
 plain and confirm the assertion in the text, that 
 there is no salvation in any other but Christ. 
 There is, however, one question upon it which I 
 would willingly pass over in silence, but that the 
 omission of it might, to some intelligent readers, 
 weaken the conclusion, and make them reckon 
 the subject incompletely handled. The question 
 is, whether an objective revelation and explicit 
 discovery of Christ, and what he hath wrought, is 
 necessary to salvation ? or if his undertaking may 
 not be the ground of acceptance for many who 
 never heard of his name."* This question Dr., 
 Witherspoon thus resolves — " To whomsoever the' 
 true God is revealed in any measure, as merciful 
 and gracious, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and 
 sin; however obscurely he points out the merito- 
 rious cause of pardon, if they believe his word 
 and accept of his mercy, they shall be saved. 
 As to any others, if they are in absolute ignorance 
 of the true God, we must say, that there doth 
 not appear, from Scripture, any ground on which 
 to affirm, that the efficacy of Chrisfs death extends 
 to themy\ The author proceeds to observe — '• A 
 change must be v»rought in the heart and temper 
 of the sinner, so great as to be termed a new crea- 
 tion and a second birth. Now, I would beg leave 
 to ask, how and where is this to be expected ? It 
 cannot surely proceed from the influence of fabu- 
 lous deities, or be the effect of idolatrous rites."{ 
 
 * ^Vitherspoon's Works, vol. i. p. ^7Z^r-^. t 'ih'ul. p. 274 
 
 i Ibid. p. 278. 
 icy 
 
98 ALLOWANCE FOR ERROB. LET. V. 
 
 The learned author expressly tells us, that the 
 efficacy of the death of Christ extends to none 
 who are in ignorance of the true God — He ex- 
 pressly tells us, that thefre can be no mercy for 
 those to whom the meritorious cause of pardon is 
 utterly unknown — He expressly tells us, that that 
 state of heart, which is essential to salvation, can 
 never exist where fabulous deities are believed in, 
 or idolatrous rites prevail. The heathen world, 
 then, must be totally and indiscriminately lost. 
 In a word, " none can be saved who have never 
 heard of Christ, however diligent to frame their 
 lives according to the light of nature." 
 
 Let me next refer you to the authority of the 
 Christian's Magazine. The editor of this work 
 represents faith in Christ as a condition of salva- 
 tion indispensable in the most strict and absolute 
 sense : in other words, he makes faith in Christ 
 so necessary, that God will, under no circumstan- 
 ces, pardon the want of it; so necessary, that, 
 without it, salvation is utterly impossible. 
 
 " Faith in the Lord Jesus, as he is exhibited in 
 the Gospel, is the indispensahle condition of sal- 
 vation."* 
 
 The editor of the Magazine censures Dr. Ho- 
 bart for representing communion widi the true 
 Church, through a duly authorized ministr}^, as 
 an indispensable condition of salvation. It is pro- 
 per to remark, that Dr. Hobart intended simply to 
 say, that communion with the true Church, through 
 
 * CUr'uitian's Magazine, vol. i. p. 98. 
 
.r.ET. V. ALLOWANCE FOR ERROR. 99 
 
 a duly authorized ministry, is a condition with 
 which man has no right to dispense. It never en- 
 tered into his view to limit the mercy of God; on 
 the contrary, he expressly lays down the general 
 principle, that all who sincerely desire, and endea- 
 vour to know aud do the will of God, will be par- 
 doned and accepted by him, whatever violations 
 of his commands they may commit through invo- 
 luntary error.* And Dr. H. makes particular pro- 
 vision for cases of departure from the lawful mi- 
 nistry of the Christian Church. But Dr. Mason 
 chooses to consider the term indispensable as ca- 
 pable of being used only in an absolute sense: 
 and, under such idea, indulges in the following 
 train of remark. " This sweeping sentence of 
 proscription is softened by representing it as ' not 
 inconsistent with that charity which extends mercy 
 to all who labour under involuntary error.' But 
 we have no ground to expect this very precarious 
 mercy but the charity of Dr. H. and his brethren. 
 Warrant from the word of God they have produced 
 none, and have none to produce. No: if the 
 condition be indispensable^ they who reject it must 
 perish. And if they who reject it may still be 
 fsaved, it is not indispensable: othermse the defi- 
 nition might run thus ; an indispensable condition 
 is that which may be dispensed with."t 
 
 If Episcopacy be an indispensable condition of 
 
 * When error is excusabte, and when not, we pretend not to de - 
 termine. God alone can decide in every individ'irfl case. We leave i* 
 to him. 
 
 + Christian's Magazine, vol. i. p. 94, 95 
 
iOO ALLOWANCE FOR ERROR. LET. T. 
 
 future happiness, the only alternative is that of 
 Episcopacy or perdition. Admit Episcopacy to be 
 an indispensable condition, and it irresistibly fol- 
 lows that tliey who reject it are \\ithout hope. 
 There is no escape. " The very idea of an escape, 
 HOWEVER TO BE EFFECTED, is repugnant to that of 
 an indispensable condition." No allowance can be 
 made for error. Doctor Hobart and his brethren, 
 in making allowance for error, have acted wholly 
 without warrant from the word of God. Now let 
 this be compared with the observations of Doctor 
 Mason on the subject of faith. " The inquir}^, 
 whether a man shall go to Ilt^aven or to Hell, the 
 Scriptures have fixed to this point — whether he 
 was a beUever in the Lord Jesus Christ. Faith in 
 the Lord Jesus, as he is exhibited in the Gospel, 
 is the indispensable condition of salvation."* 
 
 Faith in Christ is the indispensable condition of 
 salvation : an indispensable condition is one that 
 can, under no circumstances, be dispensed with ; 
 therefore, without faith in Christ, salvation is im- 
 possible. 
 
 Will it be said that, in the passages which have 
 been cited from the Christian's Magazine, Dr. 
 Mason is speaking exclusively of persons to whom 
 the Gospel has been proclaimed r On the con- 
 trary — He expresses himself in terms the most 
 general and absolute. He makes no provision for 
 the case of the heathen. The plain amount of 
 ivhat he says, is, that none can be saved who 
 
 * Chrjsliau's Magazine, vol. i. p. 98'- 
 
LET. V. ALLOWANCE FOR ERROR. 101 
 
 Imve never heard of Christ; and I am well per- 
 suaded that Dr. Mason will not hesitate to ac- 
 knowledge that such is his deliberate opinion. 
 Certain it is, that, in refusing to acknowledge it, 
 he would be guilty of direct opposition to those 
 standards of doctrine to which he is canonically 
 bound to conform. 
 
 I might go on to furnish you with extracts from 
 the writings of many other Divines on this subject; 
 but it cannot be necessary. And I have particu- 
 larly called your attention to the declarations of 
 modern authors, that it may be seen that the de- 
 cided language of the Westminster Divines con- 
 tinues to be used, in all its plainness, to the pre- 
 sent day. 
 
 It has been shown that the Westminster stand- 
 ards unequivocally present the idea that there are 
 infants in hell. It has been shown that they ex- 
 pressly consign the heathen world to indiscriminate 
 perdition; and that the same language is held, on 
 this point, by distinguished Calvinistic authors. 
 
 It^ has been shown that the doctrine of the in- 
 discriminate perdition of the heathen is the un- 
 questionable doctrine of your own Letters. You, 
 in no place, express a belief that the heathen 
 may be saved: on the contrary, in setting (orth 
 the utmost extent of your charity, you P<2ver fail 
 to limit the possibility of mercy to s«ch as may 
 have heard of Christ. Besides, you tell us, ex- 
 pressly, that mercy is not secured to the heathen 
 in the way of covenant engagement; and that 
 
i02 ALLOWANCE FOR ERROR. LET. V. 
 
 there can be no mercy but such as is thus se- 
 cured.* 
 
 Let U3 now attend to the language of those ad- 
 vocates of Episcopacy to whom you have felt 
 yourself at liberty to apply so many severe and 
 degrading epithets. 
 
 1. What do they say on the subject of faith? 
 They agree with their Presbyterian brethren, that 
 it is the leading condition of salvation, and the 
 basis of all other Christian graces and virtues; 
 but they do not think themselves authorized to as- 
 sert that there are no possible circumstances in 
 ^vhich God will extend mercy to such as labour 
 under fundamental error. Let the subject be il- 
 lustrated by a reference to the great doctrine of 
 the divinity of Jesus Christ. This doctrine is ab- 
 solutely fundamental to the Christian system : such 
 as reject if are in a great and most dangerous 
 error; and, as a general rule, must be considered 
 to be without hope. J3ut here I stop, not feeling 
 myself at liberty to say that there are no possible 
 circumstances in which God will pardon the error 
 of the Socinian, and receive him to mercy. On 
 the contrary, I would lay down the general prin- 
 ciple.^ that all who sincerely desire and endeavour 
 to kitow and do the will of God, will be crowned 
 with hi» blessing; and I am by no means disposed 
 to assert, ikat real piety and fundamental error 
 may not be co-existent. Much more disposed 
 
 ' Contiouati^n of Letters, p. 37, 57, 58. 
 
LET. V. ALLOWANCE FOR ERROR. 103 
 
 should I be to unite with Bishop Horsley in the 
 following most excellent observations, which do 
 equal honour to the head and heart of that illus- 
 trious man. 
 
 " Though truth, in these controversies, can be 
 only on one side ; he will indulge, and he w ill avow, 
 the charitable belief that sincerity may be on both. 
 And he will enjoy the reflection, that, by an equal 
 sincerity, through the power of that blood which 
 was shed equally for all, both parties may at 
 length find equal mercy. In the transport of thi== 
 holy hope, he will anticipate that glorious con- 
 summation, when faith shall be absorbed m 
 knowledge, and the fire of controversy for ever 
 quenched. When the same generous zeal for 
 God and truth, which too often, in this world 
 of folly and confusion, sets those at widest vari- 
 ance, whom the similitude of virtuous feelings 
 should the most unite, shall be the cement of an 
 indissoluble friendship; when the innumerable 
 multitude of all nations, kindred, and people, 
 (why should I not add of all sects and parties] 
 assembled round the throne, shall, like the first 
 Christians, be of one soul and one mind ; giving 
 praise, with one consent, to him that sitteth on 
 the throne, and to the lamb that w^as slain to re- 
 deem them by his blood."* 
 
 Will you carry your charity to this extent ? Far, 
 very far from it ! You w ill not admit the possi- 
 
 » Charge to the Clergy of St. Albans, in defence of the dlvin-'y of 
 Ciaht, against the attack of Dr. Piirgtler 
 
101 ALLOWANCJ?: FOR ERROR. LET. V, 
 
 bility of salvatiorij in any circumstances, to such 
 as may be in fundamental error; for, you make 
 salvation, as I have already observed, to depend 
 on the eternal and unconditional decree of Godf 
 of an interest in which faith is the sole and in- 
 fallible assurance. Of course, fundamental error 
 proves the individual entertaining it, not to be 
 within the limits of the predestinating decree. 
 
 2. What opinion do Episcopalians entertain 
 with respect to those who are in utter ignorance 
 of the Gospel? Do they consign, them to indis- 
 criminate perdition? God forbid! They shrink 
 vith horror from the thought. Let me briefly 
 state their ideas on this subject. 
 
 Salvation is only through the death of Christ ^ 
 3ut the merits of his death may extend to those 
 vho have never heard of his name. 
 
 The edicacy of our blessed Saviour's passion is 
 set forth in the sacred volume as of boundless ex- 
 lent. " He died for the sins of the whole world." 
 *' He tasted death for every man." " He gave 
 himself a ransom for all." By his death, there- 
 fore, all men are placed within the reach of mercy. 
 To say, that a Redeemer was indispensable to 
 tlie restoration of the human race to a state of 
 favour with God, is one thing; — to say, that it is 
 absolutely necessary to salvation to have positively 
 heard of that Redeemer, is quite another. 
 
 Man, by transgression, had sunk into a state of 
 c-^ptivity to sin and death. In this state he must 
 have remained had not a Mediator inteiposed ; it 
 bemg utterly impossible for him, by any effort of 
 
LET. V. ALLOWANCE FOR ERROR. 105 
 
 his own, to avert the penahy of the violated law. 
 Jesus Christ, by his siifierings and death, expiat- 
 ed the guilt of transgression ; thus procuring an 
 act of grace to be passed in favour of fallen man. 
 This act is to be traced simply to the mercy of 
 God. But the act of pardon, although freely and 
 graciously passed, prescribes certain conditions 
 to be performed by man. The performance of 
 the conditions, however, does not entitle him to 
 claim the promised reward as his due; but is, 
 simply, indispensable to his being put in actual 
 possession of the blessings to which the sufferings 
 of the Saviour constitute the only title. 
 
 Where the Gospel is proclaimed, obedience to 
 the commands of Christ, wrought through faith, 
 is the condition of salvation : where the Gospel is 
 not proclaimed, men will be judged by the parti- 
 cular law under which they may have been placed. 
 All are subject to the law of conscience ; and this 
 law, where no revealed system has been vouch- 
 safed, will be the standard of decision. " As 
 many as have sinned without law," says St. Paul, 
 *' shall also perish without law ; and as many 
 as have sinned in the law, shall be judged by the 
 law.'*" Or, to use the emphatic words of our 
 blessed Saviour himself — " that servant, which 
 knew his Lord's will, and prepared not himself, 
 neither did according to his will, shall be beaten 
 with many stripes: But he that knew not, an^ 
 
 ' Romans ii. 12. 
 
 14 
 
106 ALLOWANCE FOR EKROK. LET* V. 
 
 did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be 
 beaten with few stripes."* 
 
 Such are the ideas entertained by the advo- 
 cates of Episcopacy, with respect to the salvation 
 of the heathen. They believe that the blood of 
 Christ was shed for all mankind; extending not 
 less to such as have never heard of his name^ 
 than to those who live under the full light of 
 his Gospel. The uninstructed pagan will be tried 
 by the law of that reasonable nature which God 
 has given to the whole human race ; and a mer- 
 ciful Judge will make all proper allowance for 
 tlie difficulty of the circumstances in which he 
 may have been placed. Compare this with the 
 stern sentence of your public formularies — " They 
 who having never heard the Gospel, know not 
 Jesus Christ, and believe not in him, cannot be 
 saved, be they never so diligent to frame their 
 lives according to the light of nature."t 
 
 Will you still inveigh against the contracted 
 spirit of your opponents ; or boast of the enlarged 
 and liberal character of your own mind? 
 
 3. As to the case of infants, the advocates of 
 Episcopacy have no hesitation in beheving that 
 all persons, dying before the commission of any 
 actual crime, will be saved. You, on the con- 
 trary, have subscribed the Westminster Confes- 
 sion of Faith, which unequivocally gives us to 
 imderstand that there are infants in hell. You 
 
 • Luke xii. 4r, 4». 
 
 t Larjj^er Catechism, question 60 
 
LET. V. ALLOWANCE FOR ERROR. 107 
 
 profess to be a devoted admirer of Calvin, who 
 divides infants into the two classes of elect and 
 reprobate ; representing the latter as brought into 
 the world simply that they may be for ever de- 
 stroyed.* 
 
 On the subject of charity, Sir, your lips should 
 be closed for ever, 
 
 4. Let me say a few words upon the case of 
 the modern Jews. 
 
 The standards of your society consign them 
 to indiscriminate perdition. For example — The 
 Westminster Catechism cuts off the heathen from 
 the very possibility of mercy, on the simple ground 
 that they have not faith in Christ. Now, the hea- 
 then cannot believe in Christ ; having never heard 
 of him. How, then, can there be a possibility of 
 escape for the Jews ? It cannot be said of the Jews 
 that they have never heard of Christ : on the con- 
 trary, they have actually rejected him. If the hea- 
 then, who, simply, have not heard of Christ, must 
 universally perish, the Jews can have no hope ; 
 their case being much stronger than that of the 
 heathen, inasmuch as they have not the same ab- 
 solute impossibility to plead in their excuse.f 
 
 ♦ This, surely, is not too strong a mode of expression. If persons 
 dying in infancy perish, they must come into the world under an abso- 
 lute necessity of perishing; and if they come into the world under 
 an absolute necessity of perishing, they must be created simply that 
 they may be deslroyed. All this follows, at once, from the admitted 
 fact, that we are not free agents until we are capable of distinguishing 
 between right and wrong. 
 
 f This mode of reasoning proves also that the standards of your so- 
 ciety deny the 'vei^i/ posdbility of mercy to Arians and Socinians, and all 
 -other heretics, who may labour under any fundamental error. If " (h^y, 
 
108 ALLOWANCE FOR ERROR. LET. V. 
 
 What are the ideas entertained on this particu- 
 lar subject by the men of whose charitableness of 
 temper vou appear to think so very unfavourably? 
 
 Do they hold the opinion that the Jews who 
 
 who, having never heard the Gospel, know not Jesus Christ, and believe 
 not in him, cannot be saved, be they never so dilig-ent to frame their 
 lives accordini^ to the light of nature," it is very certain that no circum- 
 stances Will induce Cod to purdon such as, living under the light of the 
 Gospel, nevertheless fail to receive Christ in his true character. 
 
 The heathen labour under an absolute impossibility of believing in 
 Christ; and yet they indiscriminateUi perish. Jews, Arians, and Socmi- 
 ans do not believe in Christ, and have no absolute impossibility to plea4 
 in excuse. Therefore, Jews, Arians, and Socinians must indiscrimi" 
 natehj perish. The conclusion is inevitable. 
 
 See, Sir, what a system of divinity you have embraced ! 
 There are infants in hell. 
 
 The countless myriads who have never heard of Christ, constituting 
 by far the largest portion of the human race, will be indiscriminately 
 lost. 
 
 All the Jews who have lived since the coming of Christ, with all the 
 Arians and Socinians that have ever existed, will perish eternally. 
 
 Of tliis immense multitude not an individual will be spared. God 
 vrill shut up his bowels of compassion ; making no allowance for the 
 force of prejudice, for the circumstances of education, or even forigpio- 
 ranee tliat is absolutely invincible. 
 
 The severe and contracted opinions which now prevail among Calvinis- 
 tic Presbyterians, have regularly descended to them from their Puri- 
 tanic ancestors. It was one of the charges preferred by Travers against 
 the excellent and liberal Hooker, " that he doubted not hut God v>as 
 merciful to save inany of our forefathers, living heretofore in popish su- 
 perttiti»n ,- forasmuch as they sinned ignoruntly.''^ Travers maintained 
 the utter impossibility of salvation within the limits of the Papal 
 Church. So gloomy and bitter, indeed, was the spirit of the Puritans 
 on this point, that the person who preached the funeral sermon of 
 the Queen of Scots, was reviled for not " being positive far her dam- 
 nation^** 
 
 Indeed, Sir, you should have abstained from reproaching the advo- 
 rates of Episcopacy with the narrowness and bigotry of their temper 
 and principles. 
 
 • HookevV Ecclcsiaslieal Polity, \>j], j. \,vi^% 57_, 58. 61. €L\ 6s, OvfnrA fidirion. 
 1703. 
 
LET. V. ALLOWANCi: FOR ERROR, 109 
 
 have lived in Christian countries since the incar- 
 nation of our blessed Saviour, must, without excep- 
 tion, perish? God forbid! Salvation, as I have 
 more than once observed, can be only through the 
 blood of a crucified Redeemer. They to whom 
 .Tesus Christ is proclaimed, are required, as a con- 
 dition of eternal life, to believe in him ; and such 
 as reject him must perish. This is undoubtedly 
 true as a general rule. The question is, whether 
 there can be any circumstances in which a failure 
 to receive Christ in his proper character will be 
 pardoned. Your religious society takes the ground 
 that there can be no such circumstances; for, in 
 the very strongest case, that of persons who use 
 the utmost diligence in improving all the advan- 
 tages they possess, and fail to believe in Christ 
 from invincible ignorance, the Westminster Cate- 
 chism expressly declares salvation to be impos- 
 sible. Of course, there are no circumstances in 
 which a Jew may be pardoned and received to 
 mercy. 
 
 Your opponents hold on this subject a very dif- 
 ferent language. — The Jews are in a great and 
 most lamentable error, for which they must render 
 account ; but God forbid that we should undertake 
 to limit the Divine mercy, by saying that no allow- 
 ance will be made for the particular circumstances 
 in which the Jews are placed, and that they must 
 indiscriminately perish for ever. No — we most sin- 
 cerely believe that God will make great allowance 
 for those strong prejudices w^hich the Jews of the 
 present day imbibe from their tenderest infancy. 
 
110 ALLOWANCE FOR ERROR. LET. V. 
 
 iie is a merciful being, and remembers that we 
 are but dust. 
 
 " The times of this ignorance," says the Apos- 
 tle, speaking of the corrupt and idolatrous Gen- 
 tiles, " God winked at" — In other words, God 
 will not judge the Gentiles with the strictest seve- 
 rity: He will make allowance, to a certain degree, 
 even for their idolatry : or rather he will suffer it to 
 be somewhat excused by the ignorance in which 
 they were sunk. And, in the same way, we have 
 reason to believe that God will judge many of the 
 Jews in mercv in reference to the almost uncon- 
 querable prejudices of their education. 
 
 Let it not be supposed that, in holding this lan- 
 guage, we undervalue the fundamental doctrines 
 of the Gospel. Far from it ! — Those doctrines are 
 the power of God unto salvation : such as reject 
 them lose all covenanted title to mercy ; and, as a 
 general rule, must perish. All we contend for is, 
 that a merciful God will make allowance for the 
 errors of his creatures, and that there may be 
 rases in which a failure to receive Christ in his 
 true character may be so far excused by ignorance, 
 by prejudice, by frailty, as not to draw after it in- 
 evitable destruction. Thus far we are warranted 
 in going by the word of God. 
 
 Let the candid reader compare these two sets of 
 opinions ; and, if he has not learned to be sur- 
 prized at nothing which he may meet with in this 
 strange world, I think he will be filled with some 
 degree of wonder when he is told, that the advo- 
 cates of the former are never weary of declaiming 
 
tET. V. ALLOWANCE FOR ERROR. Ill 
 
 against what they are pleased to call the naiTow 
 and unciiaritable spirit oC tlie advocates ot" the 
 latter. 
 
 In the second letter of your work you have made 
 an attack upon my character as a clergyman and a 
 man, which, in gross and wanton injustice, has, 
 scarcely, I am inclined to think, its parallel in the 
 annals of controversy. 
 
 I have promised to lay the case circumstantially 
 before the public ; and I now proceed to tlie exe- 
 cution of the task. 
 
 In my Letters, addressed to you, I took the 
 liberty of stating, that the standards of your reli- 
 gious society consign the heathen world to indis- 
 criminate perdition; and I quoted a passage as 
 being express to the purpose. " They who having 
 never heard the Gospel, know not Jesus Christ, 
 and believe not in him, cannot be saved, be they 
 never so diligent to frame their lives according 
 to the light of nature." 
 
 It is true, I marked the passage as belonging to 
 the Confession of Faith ; whereas it really belongs 
 to the Larger Catechism of your society. Of this 
 mistake you avail yourself, to conceal from your 
 own people the true doctrine of their articles, and 
 to heap upon me an odium which you knew to be 
 unmerited. Some excuse might be made for you^ 
 if I had not marked the very page in which the 
 cited passage is contained. This circumstance 
 takes from you all apology for one of the most 
 cruel slanders that ever dishon^nncd t^e pres'^. 
 
112 ALLOWANCE FOR ERROR. LET. V. 
 
 Let US descend to particulars. 
 
 In pages Gil, 63, and 64 of the Continuation of 
 your Letters, you thus write — " Mr. How, in his 
 zeal to prove that Presbyterians are even more 
 uncharitable than such high-churchmen as him- 
 self and others, endeavours to throw great odium 
 on a clause in the 10th chapter of our Confession 
 of Faith^ which is in the following words — ^ Much 
 less can men, not professing the Christian religion, 
 be saved in any other waij ivhatsoever, be they 
 never so diligent to frame their lives according to 
 the light of nature, and the law of that religion 
 they do profess ; and to assert and maintain that 
 they may, is very pernicious, and to be detested.' 
 All that these words are intended to assert, is, 
 that none of our fallen race can be saved in 
 any other way than through Christ. The slightest 
 perusal is sufficient to ascertain that this is their 
 real meaning." 
 
 " The doctrine, then, of the passage alluded to 
 by Mr. Hoiv^ is simply this. That it is false and 
 pernicious to teach that men may be saved in any 
 other way than through the atoning sacrifice and 
 sanctifying spirit of Christ. A position in which, 
 one would imagine, all professing Christians, ex- 
 cept Socinians and Universalists^ must, without 
 hesitation, concur. But Mr. Hoiv exceedingly dis- 
 likes it, and is determined to hold it up to detesta- 
 tion and abhoiTence, as asserting that none \^i^ 
 have not been favoured with the preaching of the ^ 
 Gospel can possibly be^ saved , and as consigning 
 
f.teT. V. ALLOWANCE FOR ERROR. 113 
 
 the whole heathen world to inevitable perdition.^' 
 By what management does he attempt to do this ? 
 By faithfully transcribing the clause, and laying it 
 before his readers in a fair and unmutilated form ? 
 Not at all. Had he done this, his purpose would 
 have been defeated. Every reader would instantly 
 have recognized in the language of our Confession 
 of Faith, a perfect coincidence with that of the 
 Scriptures.t But by a contrivance, which, it will 
 hereafter be seen, is not unusual with this gentle- 
 man, he first essentially alters the passage, and 
 then presents it, regularly marked with inverted 
 commas, as if it were the real language of the ar- 
 ticle. What that language in fact is, you have 
 already seen, Mr. How declares that it is as fol- 
 lows — ' They who having never heard the Gospel, 
 know not Jesus Christ, and believe not in him, 
 cannot be saved, be they never so diligent to 
 frame their lives according to the light of nature.'^ 
 Having thus taken out of the passage an important 
 clause which it does contain, and added to it what 
 it does not contain, he holds it up to his readers 
 as consigning to inevitable perdition the whole 
 heathen world. And, assuming this as the ac-^ 
 knowledged construction, he vehemently declaims 
 against it as ' uncharitable,' ' cruel,' a ' position 
 
 * The tenth chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith has: 
 been fully examined, and proved to consign the heathen world to indis- 
 criminate perdition. It is impossible to reconcile the languag-e of the 
 chapter with the doctrine that salvation may be possible to those who 
 have never heard of Christ. 
 
 f See particularly Act-^ iv, 12. John xiv. 6. John xvii. :;. Gal, i, 6, 7, 8. 
 
 i l<etters, p, 25. 
 
 1,^ 
 
114 ALLOWANCE FOR ERROR. LET. V, 
 
 of deep loncfl horror,' and calculated to ' fill the 
 rational mind with dismay." 
 
 You charge me with a most dishonourable at- 
 tempt to mutilate your religious standards in order 
 to fix upon them an odious sense ; and, to make 
 good your accusation, you introduce a passage of 
 those standards distant an hundred pages from 
 that which I had cited. My quotation is literally 
 correct ; there is not the variation even of a 
 comma. It is a serious business to make an at- 
 tack upon private character. No one, properly 
 impressed with a sense of moral obligation, or 
 actuated by that delicacy which belongs to virtu- 
 ous minds, will ever indulge in remarks which 
 touch the fair fame of his neighbour, until he has 
 taken all practicable methods to ascertain their 
 truth. When you looked into the tenth chapter 
 of vour Confession of Faith, and found there a 
 passage so very different from that introduced in 
 my Letters, you should at least have paused be- 
 fore you proceeded to the conclusion, that I had 
 corrupted it to answer a dishonourable purpose. 
 The pause of a moment would have led you to 
 examine the page quoted by me. If, upon ex- 
 amining that page, in one edition of your reli- 
 gious standards, you had not found the passage in 
 question, you should have examined another edi- 
 tion; and had your search still proved fruitless, 
 you should have consulted me.^ I was on the 
 
 » The quotation la the 29th page of my Lettere is from the edition 
 by lionsal Sc Nilcs, 1803. This edition contains the diflTcrent Presby- 
 terian Standards, the Confession qf Faith, tlie Larger aod Smaller 
 
LET. V. ALLOWANCE FOR ERROR. 115 
 
 spot; and you had called upon me in relation to 
 a comparatively unimportant matter, to ask my 
 authority; observing, however, a scrupulous si- 
 lence upon the point under consideration. Can it 
 be imagined that you were ignorant of the clause 
 of your religious articles which 1 quoted in the 
 25th page of my Letters ? This, surely, is a most 
 inadmissible supposition. Besides, I had marked 
 the quotation with so much particularity as to 
 render mistake impossible. 
 
 But, not content with accusing me of a disho- 
 nest alteration of the language of your religious'? 
 articles, you proceed to hold me up to public 
 execration, as a traitor to the Church in which I 
 minister. The injury which you have thus done 
 me, as many of your people will never read this 
 reply, is, in no small degree, irreparable. 
 
 In pages 04 and 65 of the Continuation of your 
 Letters, you use the following language — " But 
 the most wonderful part of the story is yet to be 
 told. It is a fact, that one of the Thirty-nme Ar- 
 ticles of Mr. Hoiv^s own Church, contains pre- 
 cisely the same declaration that he, with so much 
 violence, condemns in our Confession of Faith. 
 The article referred to is the eighteenth^ which is 
 in the following words : ' They also are to be had 
 
 Catechism, and the Directory for Worship ; hut it is marked on the 
 back, simply, " Confession of Faith." I referred, accordingly, to the 
 Presbyterian Confession of Faith, p. 140. The passacfe is in that pag-e, 
 word for word : it happens to be a part, however, not of the Confes- 
 sion of Faith, but of the Larg'er Catechism. 
 
 Such is the mistake that has exposed me to so many severe accnsu- 
 tions. 
 
iliy ALLOWANCE FOR ERROR. LET. V* 
 
 accursed, that presume to say, that every man 
 shall be saved by the law or sect which he pro- 
 fesseth, so that he be diligent to frame his life 
 according to that law and the light of nature. For 
 holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the name 
 of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved.' 
 The only difference worthy of attention is, that 
 the Presbyterian Confession of Faith pronounces 
 the doctrine, that men may be saved otherwise than 
 by Christ, 'pernicious,'^ and to be 'detested,'^ Where- 
 as, the Episcopal article more harshly declares, 
 the persons who hold it are to be had accursed. 
 This article Mr. How has solemnly subscribed, 
 and the doctrine contained in it he has canoni- 
 caUy sworn to preach and support: and yet he 
 declares ' he has no power to express the feelings 
 with which this most detestable doctrine fills his bo- 
 som.' To what can we ascribe this conduct? I 
 am unable to think of it without the deepest asto- 
 nishment and horror!"* 
 
 The Eighteenth Article of our Church has been 
 compared with the Presbyterial standards. They 
 have been proved to speak a very different lan- 
 guage ; our article simply setting forth the doctrine 
 of salvation through a crucified Redeemer, while 
 your standards inexorably pronounce damnation 
 upon the whole heathen world. Presbyterian au- 
 thorst express themselves most unequivocally upon 
 this subject. The very words of Dr. Witherspoon 
 liavc been quoted ; and the Christian's Magazine, 
 
 * Miller's Continuation of Letters, p. 64, 65. 
 
 r Or ratliT r'ah-''i:\!r- a'ltiinrs pvnrfss thpnisfl'.Ti 9r>. 
 
LET. V. ALLOWANCE FOR ERROR, T17 
 
 and your own Letters, have been clearly shown to 
 exckide the heathen world from all possibility of 
 jnercy. 
 
 But my concern, at present, is with the attack 
 which you here make upon my character as a mi- 
 nister of the Episcopal Church, and as an honest 
 man. 
 
 The bulk of your readers will unquestionably 
 suppose that I detest the doctrine of salvation 
 through a crucified Redeemer; and that I make 
 no scruple in publicly declaring my detestation of 
 it. They will regard me, of course, as a violator 
 of my canonical vows, and as a man lost to all 
 sense of virtue. You have so expressed yourself, 
 that your readers can draw no other conclusion : — 
 nay, you have made a direct and positive asser- 
 tion, leaving no conclusion to be drawn upon the 
 subject. And, to mark your own strong sense of 
 the enormity of my conduct, you declare, that you 
 are " unable to think of it without the deepest 
 astonishment and horror." This is a sort of lan- 
 guage applicable only to a case of the very grossest 
 depravity. You have, therefore, unequivocally 
 charged that depravity tipon me. 
 
 You know, perfectly well, the opinions which I 
 entertain on the subject of the divinity and satis- 
 faction of Christ. I had expressed myself so fully 
 in my Letters to you, as to leave no possibility of 
 mistake. " The meritorious cause of justification 
 is the blood of Christ. In all that man can do or 
 believe, there is no merit. By grace he is saved. 
 But conditions are prescribed to him, upon the 
 
118 ALLOWANCE FOR ERROR. LET. V. 
 
 performance of which, his salvation, through 
 Christ, depends. And even these conditions he 
 cannot, of himself, fulfil. The death of Christ, 
 being an atonement for sin, brings all into a salva- 
 ble state ; but those only will be saved who com- 
 ply with the conditions prescribed; and the influ- 
 ences of the Holy Spirit are so far given to all, as 
 to enable all to comply." " How are we saved? 
 By free grace — by an act of unmerited mercy. 
 How are we judged ? By the deeds done in the 
 body. Nothing in man can lay a meritorious 
 ground for acceptance with God ; such ground be- 
 ing exclusively laid in the sufferings of the Savi- 
 
 our.^' 
 
 I found fault with the Presbyterial standards, not 
 for setting forth the doctrine of salvation through 
 a crucified Redeemer, but for peremptorily con- 
 sio-ning the heathen to indiscriminate perdition. 
 Of this you are fully aware ; and yet you expressly 
 tell your readers that I speak of the doctrine of 
 salvation through the merits of Christ in terms of 
 the utmost detestation. 
 
 You comj)lain, very seriously, of the harsh epi- 
 thets which your opponents frequently permit 
 themselves to apply to you. It is true, we 
 have spoken of your conduct with pointed dis- 
 approbation. Justice demanded that we should 
 do so; and, moreover, there can be no difficulty 
 in proving that you have indulged, to say the 
 least, in an equally liberal use of severe express 
 
 • Ifou'B Letters to MHler, p. 26, 27. 
 
LET. V. ALLOWANCE FOR ERROR» 119 
 
 sions. But all this is pretty much a matter of 
 course in every controversy. Persons who feel 
 strongly are apt to speak strongly. There are cer- 
 tain limits, however, within which the man of 
 principle is most anxious to confine himself: He 
 Is particularly circumspect in the language which 
 he uses when the character of his opponent is to 
 be deeply affected by it; so guarding his words, 
 that there may be no possibility of putting a wrong 
 construction upon them. You have brought a di- 
 rect charge against me, which you knew to be to- 
 tally unfounded ; and a rhargp, which, if true, 
 must mark me out, in the view of every honest 
 man, as a worthless hypocrite. 
 
 But I forbear from those animadversions which 
 the nature of the case would most fully authorize, 
 and leave the subject to your own silent and dis- 
 passionate reflection. 
 
( 120 ) 
 
 LETTER VI. 
 CHARGE OF AGGRESSIOJ^. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 The most superficial reader of your Letters must 
 perceive a constant desire in you to address the 
 prejudices and passions of the community. You 
 never cease to tell us how^ peaceful your own tem- 
 per is ; or to represent your opponents as actuated 
 by a spirit full of persecution and strife. You 
 charge us with carrying on a system of unprovoked 
 attack upon our Presbyterian brethren: indeed, 
 if you are to be credited, we have dExNounced and 
 PROSCRIBED* them with all the wantonness of ma- 
 lice. You even point to the year in which this 
 system of proscription was formally commenced, 
 and to the publications in which it is contained.f 
 
 " The formal and open commencement of this 
 system may be dated in the year 1804. Previous 
 to that period, indeed, several sermons, and other 
 fugitive pamphlets, had evinced a disposition on 
 the part of some individuals, to revive and urge 
 certain claims, as unfounded in Scripture as they 
 are offensive to hberal minds. But in that year 
 there appeared, in the city of New-York, the first 
 
 * Continuation of Letters, p. 15 — 35. 
 
 I The Companion for the Altar, and the Companion for the Festivals 
 and Fasts of tlie Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States d* 
 America, published in the year 1804.> by tlie U&v. Dr. Hobart. 
 
LET. VI. CHARGE OF AGGRESSIOxN. 121 
 
 of a series of larger puljjications, which evidently 
 had for their object a system of more bold and 
 decisive proscription than had been ventured upon 
 for a considerable time before.*" 
 
 This charge of denunciation and proscription 
 had been urged in your former work with great 
 vehemence.! The Christian's Magazine, also, 
 had been very loud and clamorous upon the same 
 subject. Indeed, every effort had been made to 
 preclude a dispassionate consideration of the real 
 merits of the case, by holding up the advocates 
 of Episcopacy to public scorn, as wanton distur- 
 bers of religious peace. 
 
 This matter has been placed in its true light, I 
 flatter myself, in the remarks offered by Dr. Bow- 
 den and myself upon your first Series of Letters ; 
 ^nd Dr. Hobart, in defending himself against the 
 violent attack made upon him in the Christian's 
 Magazine, has entered into a detailed view of 
 facts, which cannot iliil, I should suppose, to sa- 
 tisfy every unprejudiced mind. J 
 
 But, without taking the slightest notice of the 
 explanations which have been given, you renew 
 the charge with augmented virulence ; and, as it 
 is of a very odious nature, I shall be pardoned for 
 examining it with some degree of minuteness. 
 
 May the advocates of Episcopacy, then, be 
 fairly accused of carrying on a system of bfnun- 
 eiATioN and proscription airahisL their brethren 
 
 ■' ContinimtTon of I.ttlcrs, p. 15. j Letters, p. 19, 350, 55.^. 
 
 + IIobiTTt's .Apology, T.ct<.er V. 
 
122 CHARGE OF AGGRESSION. LET. VI. 
 
 of Other denominations? Have they displayed 
 an intolerant and persecuting spirit ? 
 
 Let these questions be candidly examined : 
 And take care, Sir, that I do not prove you guilty 
 of the crime with which you so violently charge 
 your opponents ; guilty of it, too, while engaged 
 in the very act of imputing it to others. 
 
 1. A stranger, upon reading your book, would 
 naturally suppose that the advocates of Episco- 
 pacy had represented the religious society to which 
 you belong as unfit to be tolerated, and had open- 
 ly taken the ground that it should be suppressed 
 by law^ What less could subject them to the 
 charge of wanton denunciation and proscription r 
 But is such the real state of the fact ? So far 
 from it, that we do nothing more than claim the 
 right of thinking for ourselves on the subject of 
 the constitution of the Christian Church. 
 
 We believe that there is a divinely instituted so- 
 ciety, called the Church, of which all men are 
 commanded to become members ; that a ministry 
 is essential to the very existence of this society ; 
 that Jesus Christ established a ministry consisting 
 of distinct and subordinate grades, giving to the 
 highest grade the exclusive power of ordaining; 
 and that ordination, of course, can be valid only 
 when regularly performed, by virtue of his au- 
 thority. Such, therefore, as have laid aside or- 
 dination by the highest grade of the ministry, 
 and substituted in its place ordination by the se- 
 cond grade, have lost the sacerdotal otlice ; and. 
 this office being essential to the very existence of 
 
LET. VI. CHARGE OF AGGRESSION. 
 
 125 
 
 the Church, they can no longer be regarded as in 
 a Church state. ^ 
 
 These opinions we have had the presumption 
 to entertain, and to defend. Will it be believed 
 that such is the amount of what you call a system 
 of denunciation and proscription against our dis- 
 senting brethren ? Especially when it is stated 
 that, in contending for what we deem the true 
 constitution of the Christian Church, we make 
 the greatest allowance for the mistakes of our fel- 
 low men ; expressly declaring our belief, that God 
 will receive all who sincerely desire and endea- 
 vour to know and do his will, whatever violations 
 of his commands they may commit through invo- 
 luntary error? 
 
 And what will the reader say, upon being told 
 that the very man who thinks fit to indulge in such 
 a style of remark upon his Episcopal brethren, 
 not only carries Presbyterial ordination to the pre- 
 cise extent to which they carry Episcopal; but, 
 in speaking of the anti-Calvinistic doctrine, which 
 they embrace, takes the liberty of calling it " a 
 gloomy system of possibilities and peradventures ; 
 nearly, if not quite, as likely to land the believer 
 in the abyss of the damned, as in the paradise of 
 God?"t Surely, if you may say to us, that our 
 religious system is, in itself, quite as likely tg 
 
 * Indeed, Dr. Hobral, ui the works wliich have been so m\icli found 
 fault with, went no further tlian to represent Episcopacy as a divine 
 institution, without wliicli the Church cannot e\\st in a sound and 
 perfect state. 
 
 f C'jntiiiuntion of Letters, p. 339. 
 
124 CHARGE OF AGGRESSION. LtT. VI. 
 
 carry us to Hell as to Heaven; we may say to you, 
 without danger of giving offence, that, in laying 
 aside the divinely instituted method of ordination, 
 we consider you as having lost the sacerdotal 
 power. Pray, Sir, in which case would you con- 
 sider your neighbour as taking the greater liberty 
 with you; if he should tell you that he conceived 
 an important opinion entertained by you to be er- 
 roneous ; or, that the whole scheme of your doc- 
 trine was of so horrid a nature as to be quite as 
 likely to plunge you into the abyss of the damned, 
 as to fit you for the paradise of God? 
 
 It is true, you do qualify this rough and terrible 
 portrait by admitting that the consequences, which 
 you draw from the anti-Calvinistic system, are 
 not to be imputed to the advocates of the system, 
 w^ho view it in a very different point of light; and 
 you even express a belief that many, who reject 
 the peculiarities of Calvinism, may finally reach 
 the kin2:dom of Heaven,* 
 
 * Continuation of Letters, p. 339, 340. 
 
 It is possible for an anti-Calvinist to be saved. He is better off, 
 then, in your view, than the heathen, who infallibly perishes ; or tlie 
 reprobate infant ordained from the womb to tl\c pains of eternal death. 
 But let us not calculate too largely. The hope which you express on 
 this subject, extends to those only who reject the Calvinistic doctrine 
 ** in WORDS." Truly, you are one of the most cautious of men. After all 
 you have said of the possibility of salvation to those who dissent from 
 the dogmas of Calvin, it turns out that r^thing is permitted but a ver- 
 niT. dissent. A substantial dissent, then, from the peculiarities of 
 Cdvinism, partial redemption, unconditional election and reprobation, 
 and irresistible grace, must draw after it inevitable perdition. In fact, 
 it is scarcely going too far to say, that you confine all hope of salva- 
 tion to yourself and your Calvinistic friends. They who have never 
 ^c^rd of Cliris'. will be indis'.yimiaatdy lo.^t. Tb'.ts you cut off by fyr 
 
LET. VI. CHARGE OF AGtiRESSlON. 125 
 
 But I have already very particularly inquired 
 into the allowance which our respective societies 
 make for error ; and have shown that we go to an 
 extent on this subject, which you unequivocally 
 condemn. 
 
 Thus Episcopalians simply claim the right of 
 thinking for themselves on the subject of the Chris- 
 tian ministry, and of decently expressing and de- 
 fending their opinions. 
 
 In what, then, consists their offence ? Surely, it 
 will be said, these men must have been guilty of 
 some outrageous attack upon their fellow Christi- 
 ans, or an author of common honesty would never 
 have felt himself at liberty to apply to them such 
 opprobrious epithets. Denouncers! Proscribers!* 
 Wanton disturbers of religious peace ! Men with 
 whom it is difficult to live upon terms of Christian 
 
 tbe largest portion of the human race from the very possibility of mercy* 
 For the whole body of Jews, Arians, and Socinians, tliere is no hope. 
 And when you come to express your charitable ideas, in reference to 
 those who adopt all your views of divine truth, except in the single ar- 
 ticle of the peculiarities of Calvinism, you take care to limit that hope 
 to such as reject Calvinism " in w^ords ;" thus clearly presenting the 
 idea, tliat a substantiai rejection of the system must be fatal to the 
 soul. Say not that I misrepresent you — Every word here uttered 
 is supported by the standards of your religious society, and by your 
 own unequivocal language. At all events, if you do not mean to 
 say that none can be saved who siibstantiaUy reject the Calvinistic 
 scheme, it follows, that you really know not how to express yourself in- 
 telligibly upon the plainest subject. The fact, I fear, is, that you wished 
 to appear very liberal ; and, at the same time, felt the necessity of be- 
 ing extremely guarded; so as to pass for a great deal in ti/ov/s, while, 
 upon a critical investigation, you will be found to steer clear of the 
 error of setting the gates of Heaven more open than is consistent with 
 the views of that gloomy class of theologians to which you belong. 
 * Letters, p. 19, "^50, 352. Continuation of Letters, p. 15. 
 
126 CHARGE OF AGGRESSIOls. LET. Vi. 
 
 iiUercouise !* Miserable bigots, who are to be 
 viewed ill the same hght with the worshippers of 
 images, or the blind advocates of the supremacy 
 and infallibility of the Pope If — What have we 
 done to merit all this at your hands ? 
 
 2. Perliaps we have broached some new and 
 strange doctrine, never before heard of in the 
 Christian world; and this bold and unauthorized 
 conduct you have felt it a duty to mark with the 
 most decided reprobation. 
 
 The reader, disappointed in his first conjecture, 
 will naturally adopt this, as furnishing the true 
 reason of the extreme harshness of the epithets 
 in which you have thought proper to indulge your- 
 self. What will be his surprise, when he is told, 
 that the institution for which we contend, is as 
 old as Christianity itself! — Even the most learned 
 opponents of Episcopacy are obliged to admit that 
 it prevailed in the very first ages of the Gospel. 
 Campbell and Chauncy date its rise at so early a 
 period as the close of the second century. Blondel 
 and the Westminster Divines carry the period of 
 its commencement up to the middle ; Doddridge 
 and Salmasius, to the beginning of that age. 
 Baxter, Chamier, and Du Moulin, acknowledge 
 that Episcopacy prevailed even in the first cen- 
 tury, and before the death of the last of the 
 Apostles. 
 
 Thus, then, upon the statement of our oppo- 
 nents themselves, we have contended for no new 
 
 ' Letter?, p. 19. t Ib'^- P- '^^y 21- 
 
LET. VI. CHARGE OF AGGRESSION. 127 
 
 doctrine; but one rendered venerable by a |3re- 
 scription of seventeen hundred years.* 
 
 The Church of England, when she threw off 
 the yoke of Popery, unequivocally took the ground 
 of the divine institution of Episcopacy ; forming 
 her offices expressly upon this principle. This 
 appears from the Ordinal, which prescribes three 
 distinct offices for the ordination of Bishops, Pres- 
 byters, and Deacons; and which positively de- 
 clares that divers orders of ministers were es- 
 tablished by God himself.f Accordingly, the 
 Church of England has always insisted upon 
 the necessity of Episcopal ordination to a valid 
 ministry; and has never suffered any persons, 
 without such ordination, to officiate as clergymen 
 within her limits. J Thus, Mosheim, speaking of 
 
 * None pretend to date the rise of Episcopacy at a later period than 
 the fourth century. You acknowledge that it existed in that age. Thus, 
 according to your own account, Episcopacy took its rise within some- 
 thing more than two hundred years from the Apostolic age ; and can 
 plead a prescription of nearly fifteen centuries. 
 
 t " Almighty God, who, by thy Divine Providence, hast appointed 
 bivehs oKDERs OF MiNisTEus in thy Church." The prayer represents 
 Deacons as one of the orders of ministers appointed by God.§ 
 
 *' Almighty Cod, giver of all good things, who, by thy Holy Spirit, 
 hast appointed diveus ordehs of mikistehs in thy Churcli."|j 
 
 " Almighty God, giver of all good things, who, by thy Holy Spirit, 
 hast appointed divehs onDEns op mixisteks in thy Church."^ The 
 prayers in the above offices represent Bishops and Priests as divinely 
 appointed orders of the ministry; and the power of ordination is 
 given by the Ordinal to the Bishop alone, 
 
 ^ " No man shall be accounted or taken to be a lawful Bishop, Priest, 
 or Deacon, in this Church, or suffered to execute any of the said func- 
 
 § Office for ordering of Dcacr.ns. y Office for onk lins of Priosls. 
 
 iy Office lor ftrde-in.? of Bishops. 
 
128 CHARGE OF AGGRESSION. LET. VI, 
 
 the Church of England, says, " it constantly in- 
 sisted on the divine origin of its government and 
 disciphne, and scarcely allowed the other reformed 
 communities the denomination of a true Church."* 
 Upon the same principles has the Protestant 
 Episcopal Church of this country invariably acted. 
 Without going back to the earliest period of her 
 history, let me remind you of the conduct pur- 
 sued by Doctors Johnson, Cutler, Chandler, and 
 many other worthy and learned men in the State 
 of Connecticut ; who, convinced, upon mature 
 examination, of the Divine institution of Episco- 
 
 tions, except he be called, tried, examined, and admitted thereunto, 
 according- to the form hereafter following-, or hath had EnscoFAE con- 
 
 8ECKATI0X OR 0ni>IXATI0>-."-}- 
 
 • Ecclesiastical History, vol. iv. p. 437. 
 
 Mosheim should have said, that the Church of Eng-land constantly 
 insisted upon the divine origin of the different orders of the ininistry. 
 She never held tliat tliere is any particular form of government and 
 discipliric which is exclusively of divine rig-ht. Upon this point, indeed, 
 she carried on a long- dispute with the Puritans, who contended, that 
 " God hatli delivered in Scripture a complete, particular, immutable 
 form of Church Polity." Mosheim, however, meant to say, that the 
 Church of England has constantly insisted upon the divine institution 
 of distinct and subordinate orders of the priesthood, and upon the ne- 
 cessity of Episcopal ordination to a valid ministry. He has expressed 
 himself inaccurately in using- the terms " government and discipline ;*' 
 for, although these include the form of the ministry, yet they include 
 many other things which are not particularly fixed by any divine law, 
 but are left to be regulated by human prudence. Such are the cere- 
 monies of public worship, the forms of discipline, and even the parti- 
 cular method of organizing that ecclesiastical power by which canons 
 are passed for the government of the Church. Of these no specific and 
 immutable system is drawn out in Scripture ; but man is left to exer- 
 cise a sound discretion ; provided, always, that nothing be done con- 
 trary to the word or the spirit of tlie sacred volume. 
 
 t Preface to the book of Consecration of Bishops, a"nd of onicrin^' of Priests 
 ^nd Deacons 
 
i,ET. VI. CHARGE O^ AGCiRESSION. 129 
 
 |;acy, ceased to act as congregational clergymen, 
 in vvhicli capacity tliey had officiated Ioy some 
 years, went to England for the purpose of obtain- 
 ing a valid commission, and became most zeal- 
 ous and powerful advocates for the cause of pri- 
 mitive truth and order. From the time of Dr. 
 Johnson to the present day, the subject of Epis- 
 copacy has been discussed in this country by a 
 succession of able writers. Previous to the revo- 
 lutionary war the Episcopalians here were desti- 
 tute of Bishops. This was an intolerable griev- 
 ance; and the American Church struggled lono* 
 and unsuccessfully to get it redressed. Her ap- 
 plications to the English Bishops gave rise to an 
 animated controversy, in which the whole subject 
 of the constitution of the ministry was entered 
 into, and the divine right of Episcopacy strenu- 
 ously and unanswerably maintained. 
 
 So far, then, from broaching any new and ex- 
 traordinary doctrine, the institution for which we 
 contend, even by the admission of its most learned 
 antagonists, has prevailed for the long space of 
 seventeen hundred years. And not one of its op- 
 ponents pretends to date its rise at a less distant 
 period than the fourth century ; within two hun- 
 dred years of the very age of the Apostles. To 
 all which, it is to be added, that the Church of 
 Kngland has put the principle in question at the. 
 very foundation of her reformation from popery ; 
 that the Episcopal Church of this country, ^vhen 
 the revolutionary war had placed us in a state of 
 independenro. formally adopted the articles and 
 *17 
 
130 CHARGK OF AGGRESSION, LET. VI. 
 
 offices of the Church of England, and has imi- 
 farmly lefiised to admit any persons assuming to 
 be ministers of Christ, within her altar, until 
 they had been regularly consecrated according to 
 those offices; and that, from the very period of 
 emancipation from papal tyranny, the doctrine of 
 the divine right of Episcopacy has been maintain- 
 ed, both in Great-Britain and in this country, by 
 a succession of as enlightened scholars, and as 
 eminent saints, as ever adorned the Christian 
 name. 
 
 It is by you and your brethren, Sir, that new 
 and strange principles have been introduced. And, 
 not content with separating from that divinely in- 
 stituted ministry, which, from the Apostolic age, 
 has been considered as an essential ingredient 
 of the Church of Christ,"" and thus plunging into 
 the sin of schism ; you brand with the most oppro- 
 brious language all who have the firmness to point 
 out the nature of the sin, or to defend the cause 
 of primitive truth and order. What is this but 
 the very spirit of intolerance ? 
 
 3. Further — The persons, whom you censure, 
 have incurred your displeasure in the discharge of 
 a sacred duty. 
 
 * " It was the general received persuasion of the ancient Christian 
 world, that Ecclesia est in EpiscopOy the outward being of a Churcli 
 consisted in the having of a Bishop." " Nor was tliis order peculiar 
 unto some few Churches, but the whole world universally became sub- 
 ject thereunto ; insomuch as they did not account it to be a Church 
 ■which -was not subject unto a Bishop" Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity., 
 vol. iii. p. 125. 
 
LET. VI. CHARGE OF AGGRESSION. 131 
 
 It has been shown that tlie standards of our 
 Church expressly declare that there have been 
 three orders of ministers from the time of the 
 Apostles; that these orders are Bishops, Priests, 
 and Deacons ; that Almighty God, by his Holy 
 Spirit, did institute them; and that no one can 
 be received by her as a Christian Minister, unless 
 invested with that character by a person clothed 
 with Episcopal power. These standards we have 
 subscribed. It is our duty to defend them. It is 
 our duty to bring the truths which they set forth 
 to the view of our people, that they may know 
 the doctrines of their Church, and thus be preserv- 
 ed from wandering after self-constituted teachers, 
 who have no authority to administer the ordinances 
 of Christ, or to expound his word. If, through 
 our neglect, the people, over whom we have 
 charge, are led into practices which the Church 
 pronounces to be schismatical, how shall we an- 
 swer it to our consciences, or to our God ? This 
 is a very solemn consideration, and ought to sink 
 deep into the heart of every Episcopal divine. 
 
 In speaking of one of the articles of our Church, 
 you take the liberty of observing, that we are ca- 
 nonically bound to preach and support the doc- 
 trines it contains ; expressing the astonishment 
 and horror with which our failure to preach and 
 support them has filled your bosom. Well, Sir, 
 we are as much bound to defend one of the 
 standards of our Church as another. Now, it is 
 undeniable that our Church sets forth the divine 
 institution of Episcopacy; requiring such clergy 
 
13^ CHARGE OF AGGRESSION. LET. VI. 
 
 men as are desirous of joining her Ironi Fresbytc- 
 rial societies, belbre they approach her altar, to 
 be re-ordained. In neglecting to enforce these 
 truths, then, we should run into that very ollence 
 which you censure with sucli extreme severity. 
 
 You tell us that our articles are Calvinistic ; and 
 that, in neglecting to preach Calvinism, we violate 
 our canonical vows. Well, the ordinal of our 
 Church, you will admit, places Episcopacy upon 
 the footing of divine right: We are bound, then, 
 to maintain the divine right of Episcopacy. 
 
 If ^ve fail to mEiintain a doctrine of our stand- 
 ards, you accuse us of a breach of plighted faith. 
 
 If we set forth the divine right of Episcopacy, 
 which you will not venture to deny to be a doc- 
 trine of those standards, you brand us as bigots 
 and disturbers of religious peace, with whom it 
 is difficult to live upon terms of Christian inter- 
 course. 
 
 Surely you are the most unreasonable, or we 
 are the most unfortunate of men. 
 
 In a word, the doctrine which has given you 
 so much offence, is as old as Christianity itself: 
 it has been constantly acted upon by the Church 
 of England, and by the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church of this country ; and ^ve are under a sa- 
 cred obligation to explain and defend it upon all 
 proper occasions. 
 
 4. Whatever may be our claims on the subject of 
 external order, it is at least very certain that they 
 fall far short of those which are set up by the Pres- 
 byterial association. This. I flatter mvself, I have 
 
LET. VI. CHARGE OF AGGRESSION. 133 
 
 completely proved. You make a ministry abso- 
 lutely essential to the very existence of the Church ; 
 and the exclusive validity of Presbyterial ordina- 
 tion is the fundamental principle on which your 
 whole society is erected. The Westminster Di- 
 vines tell us that the power of Ordination is in a 
 Presbytery, and quote the very passages of Scrip- 
 ture which they consider as bearing them out in 
 their assertion. The j^articular association to 
 which you belong, in describing the mode of or- 
 dination, expressly rests it upon Apostolic exam- 
 ple. In your Letters, the laying on of the hands 
 of the Presbytery is declared to be the only Scrip- 
 tural or valid mode of conveying the sacerdotal 
 office. Thus you put the ministry at the founda- 
 tion of the Church, and Presbyterial ordination 
 at the foundation of the ministry ; while you are 
 in the very act of inveighing against the exclusive 
 claims of others. 
 
 Again — the standards of Presbyterial societies 
 expressly declare the whole frame of their eccle- 
 siastical government in Church Sessions, Presby- 
 terial Assemblies, and Synodical Assemblies, to 
 be of Divine and unalterable obligation ; while 
 Episcopalians hold that there is no form of go- 
 vernment for the Church drawn out, in all its 
 parts, in Scripture. Nay, some of the Presbyte- 
 rial associations go so far as to represent the prin- 
 ciples of their ecclesiastical government as essen- 
 tial to lawful society in the state, not less than 
 in the church ; and yet, strange as it may appear, 
 leadhig individuals in such societies are violent in 
 
134 CHARGi: OF AGGRES&IOxN. LET. VI. 
 
 their censure of the Episcopal Church, because 
 she presumes to think distinct and subordinate 
 grades of ministers to be of ApostoUc institution.* 
 
 ^Vhat now shall we say of your attempt to hold 
 up the advocates of Episcopacy as wanton pro- 
 scrioers of their brethren of other denominations ? 
 The Episcopal Church asks only to be indulged 
 in thinking for herself, and in decently express- 
 ing and maintaining her principles. This privilege 
 you are unwilling to allow^ her. If she ventures to 
 exercise it, you raise an outrageous clamour against 
 her, and endeavour to overwhelm her with public 
 odium. You are to be permitted to " write, 
 preach, and print, your testimony against her cor- 
 ruptions ;" and to set forth, in positive terms, the 
 exclusive validity of your own method of ordina- 
 tion ; while the least attempt, in any of her clergy, 
 to state or defend her principles, however tempe- 
 rate their language, and however they may qualify 
 their claims by allowance for the errors of their 
 fellow men, is to draw upon them all the weight 
 of your displeasure, and all the virulence of your 
 invective. 
 
 .5. It seems that the system of proscription, as 
 you call it, was formally commenced in the year 
 1804. Thus Dr. Hobart is marked out as the ori- 
 ginal aggressor, and in terms calculated to expose 
 
 •^ I have not cited authorities in proof of the assertions here made, 
 because the subject has been fully considered in the 3d, 4th, and 5th 
 Letters, where the reader will find all that is now said fully established 
 by quotations from tiie standards of Presbyterial societies, and tlie 
 works of Presbyterial authors. 
 
LET. VI. CHARGE OF AGGRESSION. 135 
 
 hira to the view of the public as a wanton viola- 
 tor of the religious rights of others. A very brief 
 statement of facts will cnal^le tTie reader to jutlg<^ 
 how far, in this attack upon Dr. Hobart, your con- 
 duct possesses the sanction either of consistency 
 or of truth. 
 
 In the year 1804, Dr. Ilobart published two 
 works, entitled, a " Companion for the Altar," 
 and a " Companion for the Festivals and Fasts of 
 the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United 
 States." These works are addressed solely to 
 Episcopalians, and contain a brief statement and 
 defence of the doctrine of their Church on the 
 subject of the Christian Ministry. The subject is 
 discussed with very great mildness. Indeed, it is 
 not even pretended that the works in question are 
 marked by any intemperance or severity of style. 
 On the contrary, the utmost allowance is, on all 
 occasions, made for error. 
 
 The reader will now see the amount of what 
 you are pleased to denominate a system of attack 
 and proscription. Dr. Hobart explained and de- 
 fended an acknowledged doctrine of the Episcopal 
 Church, in works addressed solely to the members 
 of that Church, and composed in a spirit of the 
 utmost mildness and decorum. Surely, no can- 
 did man would see, in a case of this kind, any 
 thing more than the exercise of an unquestionable 
 right, or rather the discharge of a sacred duty. 
 
 You will permit me to express my surprise that 
 you should have confined your view, on this sub- 
 ject, within so very limited a period. If the jvin- 
 
136 CHAUGE or AGGRESSION. LET. VI. 
 
 cipics \v]]ir]i you apply to the case of l)i. ITobartbc 
 at all correct, it will be easy to show thai tlie Epis- 
 copal Church has been long since grossly and wan- 
 tonly assailed. Indeed, I might reler you to the 
 conduct of the Westminster Divines, and of the 
 (^jcneral Assembly of Scodand : both of wliich ex- 
 pressed themselves, habitually, in the most vio- 
 lent terms on the subject of Episcopacy; openly 
 and repeatedly denouncing and abjuring it, in 
 their public and solemn acts, as a popish and 
 wicked hierarchy. And the war carried on by 
 these botlies against Episcopacy, has been con- 
 tinued, by their friends and admirers, to the pre- 
 sent day. But I will not refer you to a period or 
 country so distant. Let me f>im[)ly point out to 
 you the recent conduct of Presbyterial Societies, 
 and Presbyterial authors, within the United States. 
 
 Take the following passage from the Constitu- 
 tion and Standards of the Associate Reformed 
 Church in North- America. 
 
 '^ The Scripture acknowledgeth no degrees of 
 rank or dignity among the ministers of the word: 
 but hath established them in a perfect e({uality of 
 ofTice and authority. The distinction of superior 
 and inferior clergy, under whatever form or pre- 
 text adopted, is highly unscriptural and anti- 
 Christian."" 
 
 The standards from which this passage is taken, 
 were published several years before the appear- 
 ance of those works of Dr. Ilobart wliicli have 
 
 • Vx^Q A77. 
 
i^ET. VI. CHARGE OF AGGRESSION. 137 
 
 given you so much offence. Let me not be mis- 
 understood. I am far from intending to find 
 fault with the Associate Reformed Church on this 
 occasion. Notwithstanding, indeed, they have 
 used such strong language, even applying to our 
 Church the opprobrious epithet of anti- Christian ; 
 still. Episcopalians have never complained. But 
 they have surely had reason to consider themselves 
 as most deeply injured and insulted, if there be 
 any correctness in the view which you take of thi3 
 subject. 
 
 Dr. Hobart contends that Episcopacy is a di- 
 vine institution, and that all Christians are sacred- 
 ly bound to conform to it. This, according to 
 your view, is a gross attack upon other denomina- 
 tions. It follows, irresistibly, that the Associate 
 Reformed Church, in branding all subordination 
 in the ministry as anti-Christian, have committed 
 an outrage upon their Episcopal brethren ; and 
 ^s the standards of this Church were published 
 long before the works of Dr. Hobart, it is pre- 
 posterous to represent the system of proscriptioa 
 as commencing with him. 
 
 The association to which you belong represents 
 its own mode of ordination as the Apostolic one,^ 
 and sets forth its own particular form of ecclesias- 
 tical polity as possessing the sanction of Scripture 
 and primitive usage.f What is this but declaring 
 Episcopacy to be founded in corruption and usur- 
 
 •* Form of Government, chap. xIt, sert. 1'2. 
 f Ibiti. chap. vii. sect. 1. 
 
 18 
 
l^S CHARGE OF AGGRESSION. LET. VI. 
 
 pation ? Indeed, you tell us expressly, that Episco- 
 pacy is the offspring of ecclesiastical intrigue and 
 ambition:* you admit that Presbyterians have 
 been in the habit of " writing, preaching, and 
 printing, their testimony against the corruptions of 
 the Episcopal Church.^t 
 
 But the standards of your society declare its 
 charity in reference to those who differ from it on 
 the subject of ecclesiastical government. Very 
 true. But does not Dr. Hobart expressly declare 
 his belief that God will bestow his grace on those 
 who, through excusable ignorance or error, depart 
 from his external institutions; that he will mer- 
 cifully receive all who sincerely desire and endea- 
 vour to know^ and do his will? The amount of 
 the matter, then, is this— Your religious society 
 admits no ordination to be scriptural or valid, but 
 such as is performed by the laying on of the hands 
 of the Presbytery : Dr. Hobart admits no ordina- 
 tion to be valid unless Episcopally performed. 
 Your society expresses its charity for those who 
 differ from it in opinion : Dr. Hobart expresses a 
 similar charity. And while your society consigns 
 the heathen world to indiscriminate perdition, and 
 unequivocally sets forth the doctrine that there are 
 infants in hell, Dr. Hobart turns with disgust and 
 horror from such opinions, as alike repugnant to 
 every view which reason can take of the attributes 
 of God, and to the express declarations of the 
 sacred volume. 
 
 ' LcUcra, p. 11. 
 
 i Continuation of Letters, p. 51 
 
LET. VI. CHARGE OF AGGRESSION. 13^ 
 
 If, then, the language of Dr. Hobart may be 
 truly represented as the language of " attack and 
 proscription," it follows, that the Episcopal Church 
 has been long since attacked and proscribed in the 
 public standards of most of the Presbyterian so- 
 cieties of this country. 
 
 Let me now remind you of the language which 
 individual authors of your profession have been in 
 the habit of using. 
 
 Mark the following passage from Dr. Mason's 
 Letters on Frequent Communion, published in the 
 year 1798! 
 
 " We reject in a mass the corruptions of Popery, 
 and of her ape, Prelacy. We renounce the reli- 
 gious observance of Christmas, Epiphany, Easter^ 
 Ascension, &c. and the festivals in honour of a 
 troop of saints and saintesses^ as superstitious, 
 and inconsistent with Gospel worship, how grace- 
 ful soever to the anti-Christian calendar."* 
 
 I do not quote this for the purpose of complain- 
 ing of it. Dr. Mason had a right to express his 
 opinion on the subject of the institutions of the 
 Episcopal Church. I certainly think that he has 
 exercised the right with great roughness ; ahd that, 
 in talking of Prelacy as the ape of Popery, and 
 of the Festivals of our Church as superstitious 
 corruptions of Gospel worship, he has given his 
 name to a very absurd accusation. Clear it is, if 
 your ideas be correct, that Dr. Mason must stand 
 charged with having commenced, in tlie year 
 
 ; Pag-e 89 
 
14© CHARGE OF AGGRESSION. LET. VI. 
 
 1798, a system of gross " attack and proscription" 
 against the Episcopal Church. It would be dif- 
 ficult to find words more expressive of contempt 
 and abliorrence than those which Dr. Mason uses. 
 You will search in vain in the productions of Dr. 
 Hobart for language of so coarse a character. 
 
 Let me next refer you to a discourse delivered 
 by the Rev. Dr. Livingston before the New-York 
 Missionary Society, and published by order of 
 that society. In this discourse you will find the 
 following very free expressions : 
 
 '• Ecclesiastical dignitaries, spiritual Lords, and 
 all the pageantry of the hierarchy, in its various 
 modifications^ which have debased the Gospel, and 
 metamorphosed the kingdom of Christ to a king- 
 dom of this world, will be finally trampled in the 
 dust, and despised by Christians."* 
 . The constitution of the Episcopal Church is 
 here spoken of in terms of the utmost severity, 
 the time being joyfully anticipated when it will be 
 at once despised and detested throughout the 
 Christian world. Language of this sort is no w here 
 to be found in the works of Dr. Hobart which you 
 esteem so very reprehensible. While Dr. H. con- 
 tends strenuously for the distinctive principles of 
 his Church, he carefully abstains from every con- 
 temptuous form of expression. The discourse of 
 Dr. Livingston was preached and published pre- 
 viously to the year 1804. 
 
 It is extremely painful to me to occupy so much 
 
 ' Pa^c 21*. 
 
LET. VI. CHARGE OF AGGRESSION. 141 
 
 time in this way; but you have advanced a most 
 luijust and bitter charge against the F^piscopal 
 Church, from which I feel it a duty to defend her. 
 This it is impossible to do, without entering into 
 an unpleasant detail of facts.^ 
 
 6. It is really amusing to compare what you say 
 of the works of Dr. Hobart with the manner in 
 which you speak of your own Letters. These 
 being addressed exclusively to Presbyterians, it 
 was your expectation, you tell us, that they would 
 not be considered as of the polemic character; 
 but would be suflfered to pass without notice ;t 
 and you accordingly proceed to charge us with 
 intruding into your Church to attack you in the 
 peaceable performance of your official duties.J 
 
 But is it not remarkable that it should never 
 have occurred to you to apply your new principle 
 to the publications of Dr. Hobart ? They are ad- 
 dressed solely to Episcopalians; and, from their 
 very nature, can be intended for Episcopalians 
 alone. 
 
 Your Letters, being addressed solely to Presby- 
 terians, are a mere private affair ; and no man can 
 publicly animadvert upon them, without commit- 
 ting an offence against your rights and privileges. 
 The works of Dr. Hobart, as limited in their ad- 
 
 * The foregoing facts are also stated in Dr. Hobart's Apology for 
 Apostolic Order, where the charge of aggression is unanswerably con- 
 futed.§ 
 
 t Continuation of Letters, p. 19. ^ Ibid. p. 35. 
 
 § Apology, p. 32—39. 
 
142 CHARGE OF AGGRESSION. LET. VI. 
 
 dress and intention as your Letters, amount, ne- 
 tertheless, to a public attack upon other societies 
 of Christians, which they are bound to repel with 
 contempt and indignation. 
 
 Will you never cease to be at variance with 
 yourself ? 
 
 But let it be further observed, that Dr. Hobart 
 confined himself to a discussion of principles. He 
 did nothing more than set forth and defend the 
 admitted doctrines of the Church to which he be- 
 longs. There is not a single personal remark in 
 his publications. Have you followed his example ? 
 Very far from it! Subordination in the ministry 
 you continually represent as the offspring of Ec- 
 clesiastical ambition :* you tell us that our Church 
 has deviated far from the simplicity of the Gospel :t 
 you " write, preach, and print, your testimony 
 against her corruptions."t But of all this I make 
 no complaint. If you think our Church corrupt, 
 you have a right to say so. Without a privilege 
 of this kind, free discussion would be impossible. 
 But you are not content with representing our 
 Church as corrupt and unscriptural ; you go on to 
 indulge in personal invective against her advo- 
 cates. They are wretched bigots, with whom it is 
 difficult to live upon terms of Christian inter- 
 course ;^ they are no better than the worshippers 
 of images ;|| they are to be viewed in the same 
 
 * Letters, p. 11. j Ibid. p. 10, 11. 
 
 r Continuation of Letters, p. 51. $ Letters, p. 19, 351. 
 
 II Ibid. p. 21. 
 
LET. VI. CHARGE OF AG*GRESSION. 143 
 
 light with those who hold that the Pope is infal- 
 lible, and that there is no possibility of salvation 
 out of the Church of Rome.* The narrowness 
 of their views, and the slenderness of their in- 
 formation, it always delights you to dwell upon. 
 
 See, then, the true state of the case ! 
 
 The standards of Presbyterian societies had 
 declared the Episcopal Church to be unscriptural 
 and anti-Christian in her ministry: they had ex- 
 pressly set forth their own mode of ordination as 
 the only Apostolic or valid mode, and their own 
 form of ecclesiastical polity as of divine and un- 
 alterable obligation. Presbyterian authors had 
 spoken of the Episcopal Church in terms of the 
 greatest contempt ; they had represented her wor- 
 ship as superstitious, and inconsistent with the 
 purity of the Gospel ; they had declared Episco- 
 pacy to be the ape of Popery, and had hailed the 
 period, as rapidly approaching, when it would be 
 trampled in the dust, and universally despised: 
 They had never ceased to " write, preach, and 
 print, their testimony against the corruptions of 
 the Episcopal Church." In this state of things, Dr. 
 Hobart published two works, entitled " A Compa- 
 nion for the Altar," and " A Companion for the 
 Festivals and Fasts of the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church in the United States." In these works, 
 addressed solely to Episcopalians, he stated and 
 defended the doctrine of Episcopacy, as declared 
 in the standards of the Church of which he is sl 
 
 ♦ T-etters, p. 21. 
 
144 CHARGE OF AGGRESSION. LET. Vi. 
 
 minister; making always, however, the greatest 
 allowance for conscientious error, and indulging 
 in not a single personal remark. Immediately an 
 outrageous clamour is raised against him ; he is 
 branded as a bigot and a fool; an anonymous 
 writer attacks him with shameful intemperance in 
 the public prints ; he is charged with setting on 
 foot a system of odious denunciation and proscrip- 
 tion. When it is stated that his publications are 
 addressed solely to Episcopalians, and are de- 
 signed for their instruction in the acknowledged 
 principles of their Church, the plea is rejected 
 with contempt ; his w^orks are declared to be 
 nothing less than a public assault upon his neigh- 
 bours. 
 
 Look now at the other side of the matter. 
 
 Dr. Miller addresses to his people a Series of 
 Letters on the Constitution and Order of the 
 Christian Ministry, in which, not content with 
 branding Episcopacy as the corrupt result of ec- 
 clesiastical fraud, and with setting forth the exclu- 
 sive validity of Presbyterial ordination, and of 
 Presbyterial Church government, he goes on to 
 indulge in the utmost severity of personal remark. 
 Is an attempt made to refute his reasoning, and to 
 repel his charges ? He very piteously tells us, that 
 his Letters are a private affair between himself and 
 his people, of which no one has a right to take 
 any notice. 
 
 Dr. Hobart explains and defends the arknowr^ 
 lodged principles of his Church, in a style free 
 from all intemperance, and without tlie slightest 
 
LET. Vlf CHARGE OF AGGRESSION. 145 
 
 intermixture of personal remark. This is a deli- 
 berate system of proscription. The author is an 
 outrageous disturber of religious peace: he is a 
 bigot and a fool. 
 
 Dr. Miller contends most zealously for the ex- 
 clusive validity of Presbyterial ordination, and of 
 Presbyterial Church government; and not satis- 
 fied with perpetually telling his readers how far 
 the Episcopal Church, through the influence of 
 prelatical fraud and ambition, has wandered from 
 scriptural purity, continually vents himself in the 
 application of the most injurious epithets to the 
 persons of her advocates. This is a mere private 
 affair ; so much so that it is an act of positive rude- 
 ness to take any notice of it. 
 
 What a specimen of consistency and of candour ! 
 7. But where will all this sort of complaint and 
 crimination lead us ? If the view which you take 
 of this subject be correct, theological discussion 
 must be entirely given up. Has the Quaker a 
 right to complain because the sacraments are in- 
 sisted on as of indispensable obligation? Is the 
 Socinian denounced and proscribed whenever the 
 doctrine of the divinity of Christ is represented as 
 fundamental to the scheme of the Gospel ? Surely, 
 it is possible to exercise charity at the same time 
 that we contend for truth. Men should never be 
 considered as guilty of attack upon their fellow 
 Christians simply for bearing testimony against 
 what they conceive to be pernicious error, it 
 is a solemn duty to expose error, and to recom- 
 mend truth. It mav be the highest act of charitv 
 ' 19 ^ 
 
146 CHARGE OF AGGRESSION. LEiT. VI. 
 
 to warn our fellow men of the danger of their 
 situation. If the language of menace or insult 
 be made use of, then, indeed, religious liberty 
 mav^ be considered as invaded. It is to the spirit 
 with which controversy is conducted, rather than 
 the particular principles contended for, that we are, 
 in this view of the subject, to attend. To be sure, 
 if men openly take the ground that such as differ 
 from them in opinion ought not to be tolerated, 
 they may fairly be regarded as the common ene- 
 mies of the Christian world. But there is a very 
 wide difference between strenuously urging a doc- 
 trine upon the understandings and consciences of 
 our fellow men as of vital importance, and calling 
 upon the civil magistrate to crush, by the force of 
 his authority, all who refuse to receive it as an 
 article of faith. 
 
 Let then Christians of all denominations be 
 considered free to maintain what they conceive 
 to be tmth, and oppose what they conceive to be 
 error, with all the zeal and energy which the sub- 
 ject may seem to them to authorize. Let this be 
 regarded as nothing more than a fair exercise of 
 t'he rights of conscience. At the same time, let 
 all recollect, in the midst of their zeal, that they 
 are fallible ; and thus be led to respect in others 
 that right of judgment which they claim for them- 
 selves. Had you acted in the spirit of this rule, 
 your Letters on the Christian Ministry would have 
 met ^\it]i a very different reception from those 
 against whose opinions they are levelled. But 
 ill tluj lofty confidence with which you advanced 
 
LET. VI. CHARGE OP AGGRESSION. 147 
 
 your own views of ecclesiastical order, you ap- 
 peared entirely to forget that your opponents bad 
 quite as much right to be positive as yourself. In 
 the spirit of your work, Prcsbyterial order is set 
 up as a sort of idol, before which we are, at least, 
 to be compelled to be dumb, if not to fall down 
 and worship. For what great difference can there 
 be between attempting to silence an antagonist 
 by the sword of the executioner, and by branding 
 him as a ferocious bigot, who denounces and pro- 
 scribes all that presume to reject his dogmas? 
 Had you permitted us to maintain the divine right 
 of Episcopacy as freely as you maintain the divine 
 right of Presbytery, we should have regarded you 
 as a candid controvertist, and should have ab- 
 stained from that severity of animadversion, of 
 which, in the Continuation of your Letters, you 
 so bitterly complain. But, Sir, in replying to your 
 work, we considered ourselves not only as con- 
 tending against pernicious error, but as grappling 
 with an adversary, who openly professed his de- 
 termination to reduce us to abject submission. 
 What wonder that intolerance of this kind, in the 
 nineteenth century, should call forth a spirit of 
 indignant resistance ! 
 
( 148 ) 
 
 LETTER VII. 
 OPIXIOXS OF THE REFORMERS. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 X Do not think it necessary to follow you in the 
 exact order which you have pursued: indeed, 
 this would interfere with a regular and perspicuous 
 discussion. In the present letter, I propose to ex- 
 amine what you have said of those illustrious men 
 who purged the Church from the foulness of the 
 papal corruption. We will direct our attention, 
 in the first place, if you please, to the reformers 
 of the Church of England. 
 
 *' The Fathers of the Reformation in England 
 were Presbyterians in principle." " It does not 
 appear that any of them thought of placing Epis- 
 copacy on the footing of divine right."* 
 
 To this statement you strictly adhere in your 
 second publication.f 
 
 It appears from your Letters that you are not 
 unacquainted with the ordination offices of oltr 
 Church, nor with the fact that those offices were 
 drawn up by the very men whom you represent as 
 Presbyterians in principle.J Besides, your atten- 
 
 * Letters, p. 219. { Continuation of Letters, p. 225—236. 
 
 + You tell us expressly, that Archbishop Cranmer had a principal hand 
 ;n drav.'inpr up ♦tc forms of ordination of the Church of Englandfj 
 
 ;i Letter!'. ]». VCIC. 
 
LfT» VII. OPINIONS or THE REFORMERS. 149 
 
 tion was particularly directed, by Dr. Bowden and 
 myself, in our reply to your first Series of Letters, 
 to tlie Ordinal of the Church of England. You 
 very prudently decline, in your second work, all 
 notice of this authentic document, while you still 
 adhere to the statement which you had previously 
 given as perfectly correct. You, therefore, can- 
 not plead either ignorance or error. 
 
 Let us examine the Ordinal^ and see how far 
 you are correct in asserting that it was drawn up 
 by Presbyterians. 
 
 We will look, in the first place, at the preface: 
 '^ It is evident to all men diligently reading Holy 
 Scripture, and ancient authors, that, from the 
 Apostles' time, there have been these orders of 
 ministers in Christ's Church ; Bishops, Priests, and 
 Deacons."* 
 
 A Presbyterian, then, is one who believes that 
 the three distinct orders of Bishops, Priests, and 
 Deacons, have existed from the time of the Apos- 
 tles, and of course w ere established by them. 
 
 Again — " No man shall be accounted or ta- 
 ken to be a lawful Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, 
 in the Church of England, or suffered to execute 
 any of the said functions, except he be called, 
 tried, examined, and admitted thereunto, accord- 
 ing to the form hereafter following, or hath had 
 formerly Episcopal consecration, or ordination."t 
 
 * Preface to the Book of Consecration of Bishops, and of ordering of 
 Priests and Deacons, 
 t Ibid. 
 
150 OPINIONS OF THE REFORMERS. LET. VII. 
 
 A Presbyterian, then, considers Episcopal or- 
 dination as absolutely essential to the exercise of 
 a vahd priesthood; refusing to wait upon the 
 ministrations of any man who has not been com- 
 missioned by a diocesan Bishop. 
 
 But let us proceed to the Ordinal itself. And 
 here we are immediately struck with the fact, that 
 it prescribes three distinct offices ; one for the ordi- 
 nation of Deacons, one for the ordination of Priests, 
 and one for the ordination of Bishops. When a 
 Deacon is raised to the office of Priest, he receives 
 a new commission : when a Priest is raised to the 
 office of Bishop, he receives a new commission. 
 
 A Presbyterian, then, is one who believes that 
 a Presbyter is made a Bishop by being again or- 
 dained. 
 
 Still further — The first prayer in the office for 
 ordering Deacons, commences thus: " Almighty 
 God, who, by thy Divine Providence, hast ap- 
 pointed divers orders of ministers in thy Church." 
 
 The same kind of language occurs in the office 
 for ordering Priests: " Almighty God, giver of all 
 good things, who, by thy Holy Spirit, hast ap- 
 pointed divers orders of ministers in thy Church." 
 
 In the office for the consecration of Bishops, we 
 have the very same words : " Almighty God, giver 
 of all good things, who, by thy Holy Spirit, hast 
 appointed divers orders of ministers in thy Church." 
 
 Is it possible to find language more full, or more 
 expUcit? Three orders of ministers have existed 
 from the Apostles' time — these orders are Bishops, 
 Priests, and Deacons — Almighty God, by his Holy 
 
LET. VII. OPINIONS OF THE REFORMERS. 151 
 
 Spirit, did institute them: And to preserve the 
 distinction, thus divinely established, no man is 
 to be esteemed a lawful minister unless Episco- 
 pally ordained. Still, the reformers who drew up 
 the Ordinal, you tell us, were " Presbyterians in 
 principle;" not one of them entertaining the 
 " thought of placing Episcopacy upon the footing 
 of divine right." 
 
 But how do you establish your assertion, that 
 the reformers of the Church of England were 
 Presbyterians in principle? Do you refer your 
 readers to the Ordinal which these venerable men 
 composed, and endeavour to prove, by a critical 
 examination of its contents^ that it speaks the 
 language of parity? Very far from it! The Or- 
 dinal contains the matured and final opinions of 
 the English reformers on the subject of the minis- 
 try : they composed it as a permanent standard of 
 practice for the Church ; and, accordingly, it has 
 continued to be her guide from the Reformation 
 to the present day. 
 
 Aware of the difficulty which the Ordinal throws 
 in your way, you resolved to surmount it by a bold 
 assertion. Thus you speak in your first Series of 
 Letters: " Those who wish to persuade us that the 
 venerable reformers of the Church of England 
 held the divine right of Diocesan Episcopacy, re~ 
 fer us to the ordination service drawn up by them. 
 But those who insist on this argument, forget that 
 the ordination service, as it now stands, differs 
 considerably from that which was drawn up by 
 Cranmer and his associates. If I mistake not, 
 
152 OPINIONS OF THE REFORMERS. LET. Mt 
 
 that service, as it came from the hands of the re- 
 formers, did not contain a sentence inconsistent 
 witli the opinions which I have ascribed to them. 
 Above an hundred years afterwards, in the reign of 
 Charles II. this service was revised and altered."* 
 You could not venture to be positive. " If I 
 mistake not." And not only do you substitute 
 hypothesis in the place of fact, but you give us 
 no authority for what you say. Thus we are to 
 take your conjectures for established truths. The 
 fact is, that the Ordinal was not altered, in the reign 
 of Charles the second, in any thing at all material.f 
 
 * Letters, p. 224, 225. 
 
 t The act of Parliament for drawing- up an Ordinal, passed in the 
 yp-ar 1549, not lon^ after the accession of Edward VI. to the throne. It 
 begins thus — " It is requisite to have one uniform fashion and manner 
 for making and consecrating of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons." We 
 see, therefore, that the act of Parliament, under which the Ordinal 
 was drawn up, expressly recognizes the distinction in the orders of tlve 
 ministry. Accordingly, in the preface to the Ordinal, and in the 
 prayers of the ordination offices, divers orders of ministers arc for- 
 mally declared to be of divine institution. 
 
 In the Ordinal set forth in Edward's reign, the words in tlie office for 
 consecrating a Bishop are — " Take the Holy Ghost, remember that 
 thou stir up, &c." The words in the present Ordinal are — " Receive 
 the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Bishop." 
 
 The alteration was made in consequence of a cavil of the Papists, 
 in which they were jomed by the Puritans, that tl^ word Bishop not 
 being used, it was impossible to determine to what office the person, 
 on whom hands were laid, was intended to be consecrated. Perhaps 
 a more ridiculous criticism was never employed. The two offices for 
 consecration of Bishops and of Presbyters, are perfectly distinct. A 
 person who had been ordained Presbyter according to the one form, if 
 raised to the office of Bishop, was again consecrated according to the 
 other. It could not but be known to what office an individual was or- 
 dained; there was, literally, no possibility of mistake in t!»e case. But 
 factious men arc ever ready to dispute, and make trouble. Accord- 
 ingly, Ihc Papists raised the difficulty, which has been just mentioned. 
 
LET. VII. OPINIONS OF THE REFOllMCRS. 153 
 
 Every word which I have f [noted stood in the old 
 Ordiuiil precisely as it stands in the present: the 
 prayers of the ordination offices were exactly 
 the same. This was stated by Dr. Bowden and 
 myself in our reply to yoin- fir-:t publication. We 
 called upon you to establish your assertion, that 
 the Ordinal had been materially changed in the 
 reign of Charles II. To all this you make no 
 reply; passing by the whole subject of the or- 
 dination offices of our Church, although they are 
 the very hinge on which the particular point in 
 controversy turns, ^vithout a word of notice. 
 
 Well — you asserted that the ordination service 
 was materially changed in the reign of Charles 
 II. — we denied your assertion, and called for 
 your proof. In your reply you produce no proof, 
 but leave the subject entirely unnoticed. Your 
 assertion, relative to a change in the Ordinal, 
 then, is to be considered as given up. But still 
 you persevere in making Presbyterians of the 
 English reformers. 
 
 Let us, then, draw out your account of a Pres- 
 byterian into a full definition. 
 
 He is one who believes that Almighty God, by 
 his Holy Spirit, did inslitule divers orders of mi- 
 nisters; that these orders are Bishops, Priesis, and 
 Deacons; that to the highest of these the power 
 of ordaining exclusively belongs ; and that no per- 
 
 and the Puritans were not ashamed to join them in it. I'he ultcraticn 
 ■was inlroductd to l::ke livvuy all prcteiict: for the cavil. 
 
 This subject is very fully expiitincd by Dr. Bovvdcn, in his second 
 volume ot; Episcopacy, Letter Xl\. 
 
 20 
 
T54 OPINIONS OF THE REFORMERS. LET. VII, 
 
 ^on can be considered as a lawful minister of 
 Christ without having received Episcopal ordina- 
 tion or consecration. 
 
 Instead of endeavouring to ascertain the opinions 
 of the reformers in question, from those public 
 forms of ordination which they established for the 
 permanent regulation of the practice of the Church, 
 you perplex and confuse the reader with a mass 
 of extrinsic evidence. 
 
 You quote " The Institution of a Christian 
 Man," and " A necessary Doctrine and Erudition 
 for any Christian Man;" two books which were 
 composed and published by the English reformers 
 several years before the Ordinal appeared — You 
 refer to the conduct of Archbishop Cranmer upon 
 the death of Henry VIII. — You introduce an ex- 
 tract from the Questions and Answers of " a se- 
 lect Assembly of Divines," called for " the reso- 
 lution of several questions relative to the settle- 
 ment of religion." All this is of a date prior to 
 
 the vcar 1550, in which the forms of ordination 
 and consecration were solemnly fixed in the Church 
 of England. 
 
 You go on to derive evidence from events sub- 
 sequent to the period above mentioned ; referring 
 us to an act passed in the thirteenth year of the 
 roign of Elizabeth ; to the conduct which the Eng- 
 lisli relbrmers observed towards some eminent 
 foreign Divines, particularly Calvin; and to the 
 license granted by Archbishop Grindal to John 
 Morrison, a Presbyter of the Church of Scotland. 
 
 N^w, Sir, on all this I have two observations 
 
LET. VII. OPINIONS OF THE REFORMERS. 165 
 
 to make. In the first place, if the documents and 
 facts, to which you refer, really speak the language 
 which you labour to make them speak, it is no- 
 thing to the purpose : in the second place, they 
 do not speak that language ; but, when properly 
 examined, militate against the very positions which 
 you bring them to confirm, and establish the very 
 doctrines which you bring them to overthrow. 
 
 In the first place, then, if the documents and 
 facts, to Avhich you refer, really speak the lan- 
 guage which you labour to make them speak, it 
 is nothing to the purpose. Admit that the Eng- 
 lish reformers, when they composed the " Insti- 
 tution, and Erudition of a Christian Man,'' and 
 when the select Assembly of Divines was con- 
 vened, were really favourable to the doctrine of 
 ministerial parity; the only consequence is, that, 
 upon more full investigation, they found reason 
 to change their opinion. At the time of drawing 
 up the Ordinal, they unquestionably believed in 
 the divine institution of distinct and subordinate 
 orders of ministers, with appropriate powers. " Al- 
 mighty God, who, by thy Holy Spirit, hast ap- 
 pointed divers orders of ministers in thy Church.'*' 
 Here we have the conclusion in which the English 
 reformers rested when they had completed their 
 inquiries. How unfair is it, then, in examining 
 into the opinions which these men entertained on 
 the subject of the ministry, to pass, without notice^' 
 
 * You take not the slightest notice of the Ordinal in your second 
 work ; and in the first, you only very briefly refer to it, for tlie iMiqiose 
 of making an assertion which yon ought to have known to br uVci'.v 
 
156 OPINIONS OF THi: PtEFORMERS. LET. VII. 
 
 the authentic document from which alone those 
 opinions maybe fully, and with absolute certainty, 
 discovered, and dwell on partial extracts of books 
 put out for temporary use in the infancy of the 
 Reformation, and with respect to which it is well 
 known that very different accounts are given by 
 opposing writers ! 
 
 Airain— if it be admitted that the facts, to which 
 you refer, of a dale subsequent to the year in 
 which the Ordinal was established, are exactly as 
 you represent them, the only consequence would 
 be, that the history of the Church of England 
 furnishes instances of the violation of her princi- 
 ples by secret enemies, or injudicious friends. 
 Is there a Church on earth whose history will not 
 present us with similar examples ? When a Church 
 expressly lays down a principle in her standards, 
 is it not preposterous to point us to cases in which, 
 through the ditficulty of the times, she was led to 
 infringe that principle ? 
 
 Tiie reformers of the Church of England, you 
 tell us, were Presbyterians. We answer, that these 
 reformers, in the standards which they drew up 
 for the perpetual government of the Church, ex- 
 press! v declare that Bishops, Priests, and Deacons 
 are distinct and subordinate orders of the ministry, 
 and that to the highest of these orders the power 
 of ordination is exclusively given. What reply do 
 
 unfoun<lr<l ; and when called upon to prove the assertion, you remain 
 perfectly silent. You do not attempt to prove, and still you have no* 
 thc mag-nanimity to retract. TJiis, too, with respect to a fact on which 
 the txutU of an important head of your book wholly turns 
 
LET. VII. OPINIONS OF THE REFORMERS. 157 
 
 jou make? Why, you tell us that Archbishop 
 Grindal, m the reign of Elizabeth, many years 
 after the Ordinal was established, gave a preach- 
 ing license to John Morrison, a Presbyter of the 
 Church of Scotland. You say not a word about 
 the Ordinal, which can alone determine the ques- 
 tion, but put us off with the loose conduct of an 
 Archbishop who was called to an account by the 
 Privy Council for his irregularity. The case of 
 Grindal you have not fairly staled; but take the 
 fact to be precisely as you give it, and it amounts 
 simply to this, that Grindal violated the standards 
 of the Church to which he belonged. Thus, then, 
 although the reformers of the Church of England 
 expressly declare, in a standard wliich they deli- 
 berately composed for the government of that 
 Church, that Episcopacy is a divine institution, 
 you pass by this standard without a word of notice, 
 and assert, that they were Presbyterians, because, 
 in the reign of Elizabeth, John Morrison, w^ho 
 had never been Episcopally ordained, was, never- 
 theless, permitted, by Archbishop Grindal, to preach 
 and administer the sacraments. In the same way 
 you might prove that the English reformers re- 
 jected the whole doctrine of the authentic call 
 and commission of the Gospel ministry, from the 
 circumstance of laymen, in the difficulty and 
 confusion of the times, having the address to get 
 into livings in the Church. 
 
 Suppose it to be admitted that Calvin never 
 received ordination — would it follow that the Pres- 
 byterians do not believe in the necessity of an 
 
158 OPINIONS OP THE REFORMERS. LET. VIl. 
 
 outward commission to a valid ministry? Just as 
 much as it follows, from the irregularity to which 
 Archbishop Grindal was prone, that the reformers 
 of the Church of England were not Episcopalians. 
 
 In the second place, the documents and facts, 
 to which you refer, do not speak the language 
 which you endeavour to make them speak; but, 
 w hen properly examined, militate against the very 
 positions which you bring them to confirm, and 
 establish the very doctrine which it is your design 
 to overthrow^ 
 
 It is not my intention, however, to enter mi- 
 nutely into this part of the subject. Having shown 
 that the standards, which the Enghsh reformers 
 established for the perpetual government of the 
 Church, set forth, in the plainest and strongest 
 terms, the divine institution of Episcopacy, it is- 
 not material to inquire into the progress of their 
 opinions. It is sufficient to know the conclusion 
 in which their investigations terminated. Besides, 
 a tedious detail of quotations would be necessary ; 
 and it is my earnest wish to prevent the present 
 work from swelling to an inconvenient size. I 
 should, however, consider it a duty to follow 
 you, step by step, for the purpose of showing 
 how little reliance can be placed upon your state- 
 ment of facts, or citation of authorities, had not 
 the task been most fully and ably executed by Dr. 
 Bowden.* He has left nothing for me to say. It 
 is by presenting partial quotations that you give 
 
 * Bowdcn on Episcopacv, vol. ii. letters 14 ajid 15. Vol. iii. letter!^. 
 
 I 
 
LET. VII. OPINIONS OF THK REFORMERS. 159 
 
 to the early declarations of the English reformers 
 the appearance of being favourable to the doc- 
 trine of parity. Dr. Bovvden has laid the whole 
 evidence before the reader, and has thus driven 
 you at once from a position, which you evidently 
 considered as of great importance, and which, 
 with characteristic positiveness, you had repeat- 
 edly pronounced to be impregnable. 
 
 Before leaving this part of the subject, however, 
 I think it proper to take a little notice of what you 
 have said relative to Archbishop Cranmer. Let 
 me solicit your attention, in the first place, to the 
 very inconsistent accounts which you give of the 
 venerable Primate. 
 
 You declare, expressly, that Cranmer w^as a 
 Presbyterian in principle; believing Bishop and 
 Presbyter to be the same by divine right, and 
 regarding the doctrine of ministerial parity as 
 the doctrine of Scripture, and of the primitive 
 Church.* 
 
 Now, see how you speak of the Archbishop in 
 another part of your work! " The first consists 
 ©f those who believe that neither Christ nor his 
 Apostles laid down any particular form of ecclesi- 
 astical government, to which the Church is bound 
 to adhere in all ages. That every Church is free, 
 consistently with the divine will, to frame her 
 constitution agreeably to her own views, to the 
 state of society, and to the exigences of particular 
 
 * T.Ptters, p. 119,243, 244. 
 
160 OPINIONS OF THE REFORMERS. LEI. VIL 
 
 lines.'' ^' This is well known to have been the 
 opinion of Archbishop Cranmer."* 
 
 Here Cranrner is represented as a perfect latitu- 
 dinarian; believing the whole constitution of the 
 Christian Church to be a mere human affair, and 
 subject to alteration, from day to day, as prudence 
 may dictate. The ministry is thus placed upon 
 the footing of siinple expediency; for, being part, 
 indeed the principal part, of the constitution of 
 the Church, it is of course liable, according to 
 the language of this passage of your Letters, to 
 be perpetually varied to suit " the exigences of 
 particular times." Still, you tell us, in a subse- 
 quent page,t that Cranrner considered Bishop and 
 Presbyter as the same by divine right. This is to 
 place the clerical office on the footing of divine 
 institution. And if the clerical office be of God, 
 how can it be said that the constitution of the 
 Church, of which that office is the chief ingre- 
 dient, is a mere affair of expediency, and subject 
 to perpetual alteration by human authority? 
 
 At one time you assert that Cranrner viewed the 
 whole constitution of the Christian Church as a 
 creature of human policy, and liable to incessant 
 change ; at another, that he considered the great 
 and leading principle of that constitution as fixed 
 by God himself. 
 
 When authors are in very eager pursuit of vic- 
 tory, it is extremely difficult for them to steer clear 
 of contradiction. Cranrner, according to the hu- 
 
 • X-eUcrs, r 1.? f Ibid. p. 219. 
 
LET. VII. OPINIONS OF THE REFORMERS. 161 
 
 moiir you happen to be in, is now an Erastian ; 
 now a Presbyterian ; but never an Episcopalian, 
 although he drew up the standards which lie at the 
 foundation of the Church of England, and which 
 impart to her her Episcopal character. 
 
 But there is further evidence of the opinion en- 
 tertained by the venerable Archbishop on this 
 subject. 
 
 He compiled a Catechism, in which, according 
 to Bishop Burnet, he " fully owns the divine in- 
 stitution of Bishops and Priests;* and, in his well 
 known sermorf on the Power of the Keys, which is 
 considered as containing high Church notions, he 
 uses precisely the same language. " And so th6 
 ministration of God's word was derived from the 
 Apostles unto others after them by imposition of 
 hands, and giving the Holy Ghost, from the Apos- 
 tles down to our days. And this was the con- 
 secration, orders, and unction of the Apostles, 
 whereby they, at the beginning, made Bishops 
 and Priests, and this shall continue in the Church, 
 even unto the world's end." 
 
 Let us see how you interpret this plain and 
 unequivocal passage. " It speaks of the Apostles 
 making Bishops and Priests. And does not every 
 Presbyterian grant that there w^ere many Pres- 
 byters in the Apostles' days who had no pastoral 
 charge, and who were, of course, no Bishops."! 
 
 Thus you obstinately persevere in making a 
 Presbyterian of Cranmer. The Archbishop tells us 
 
 • History of the Reformation, vol. ii.page 7* 
 X Continuation of Letters, pag-e ?"'?. 
 
 21 
 
16*2 OPllSIONS OF THE REFORMERS. LET. TIL 
 
 that the Apostles, in the beginning, appointed 
 Bishops and Priests, Well, we are to understand 
 hinn as speaking in the prevalent language of his 
 day. In his time Bishops and Priests were dis- 
 tinct orders; they had been distinct orders, you 
 expressly admit, from the fourth century to the 
 time of the Reformation, throughout almost the 
 whole extent of the Christian world. Cranmer 
 himself w^as a Bishop, and exercised power over 
 Presbyters. He had been raised from the office of 
 Presbyter to that of Bishop by a new ordination; 
 and in the Ordinal he expressly ascribes the crea- 
 tion of the distinct orders of Bishops, Priests, and 
 Deacons, all possessing clerical power, to the 
 Holy Spirit. 
 
 The liberty which you take is contrary to the 
 established laws of criticism, and would lead 
 to endless uncertainty. Unless an author is to 
 be construed according to the usage of the pe- 
 riod in which he lives, how shall we ever ascertain 
 his meaning? Words are perpetually changing 
 their signification. If we abandon the period m 
 which the individual wrote, to what period shall 
 we go? Shall we wander back five, or ten, or 
 fifteen centuries? Cranmer tells us that Bishops 
 and Priests were appointed by the Apostles. He 
 i!:ive3 us no hint that he means to be understood 
 in a sense different from the received sense of the 
 words in his time ; he is, of course, to be under- 
 stood as saying that the Apostles established dis- 
 tinct and subordinate orders of the priesthood. 
 This, however, does not accord with your system ; 
 
LET. VII. OPINIONS OF THE REFORMERS. 163 
 
 and, in attempting to reconcile the language of 
 the Archbishop to your views, you not only run 
 into the gross absurdity which I have just been 
 exposing, but contradict yourself, by setting at 
 naught a principle which lies at the foundation 
 of your religious society, and which it is the great 
 object of your whole book to defend. " Does not 
 every Presbyterian grant that there were many 
 Presbyters in the AposUes' days who had no pas- 
 toral charge, and who were, of course, no Bi- 
 shops?"* Now, the very cardinal principle of 
 Presbyterianism is, that Bishop and Presbyter, in 
 the New Testament, arn convcrtiblG titles; a Pres- 
 byter being a Bishop, and a Bishop a Presbyter. 
 Upon this ground the whole argument, from the 
 community of names, obviously proceeds. But 
 it turns out that Bishop and Presbyter always 
 mean distinct things; a Presbyter being a clergy- 
 man without a pastoral charge, and a Bishop be- 
 ing a clergyman with one. If they have this dis- 
 tinct signification, how can they be convertible 
 terms ? 
 
 But let us see whether you are consistent with 
 yourself. " The Apostles gave the name of El- 
 der to the pastors and rulers of the Churches 
 which they organized."t Ii^ this passage we are 
 informed, that the Presbyters spoken of in the 
 New Testament, were the pastors and rulers of 
 
 * Continuation of Letters, p. 232. Cranmer says that the Apostles, m 
 the beginnin,^, established liisiiops and Piuestu. Poh! He only meant 
 that the Apostles appointed some Presbyters with livinj^s, ani some 
 Presbyters without them. Arc yon s^r^on*; ' 
 
 •j; Letters, p. .^4. 
 
164 OPINIONS OF THE REFORMERS. LET. Vii 
 
 particular Churches; but it now appears that 
 Presbyters, in the Apostohc age, were persons 
 who had no pastoral charge. 
 
 Again—" These terms are uniformly employed 
 in the New Testament as convertible titles for the 
 same office. An attentive consideration of the 
 following passages will establish this position be- 
 yond all doubt. The first which 1 shall quote is 
 found in Acts xx. 17, 28. ' And from Miletus he 
 sent to Ephesus^ and called the elders (or Pres- 
 byters, U^ic^vn^ovg) of the Churclu And when they 
 were come to hhn^ he said unto them, Take heed unto 
 yourselves, and to all the flock over ivhich the Holy 
 Ghost hath made you overseers, (or Bishops, E7r<f)w- 
 TTouf) to feed the Church of God which he hath pur- 
 chased ivith his own blood.^ In this passage, it is 
 evident that the same persons who, in the 17th 
 verse, are styled Elders or Presbyters, are, in the 
 28th, called Bishops.''^'' 
 
 Here you tell us, and tell us truly, that the 
 Apostle addresses the Presbyters of the Church of 
 Ephesus as the pastors of that particular Church. 
 But now you assert that Presbyters in the Apos- 
 tolic age had no pastoral charge, and were not 
 
 Bishops.t 
 
 The Presbyters of Ephesus were the Bishops 
 of Ephesus ; in short, the Presbyters and the Bi- 
 shops of Ephesus were one and tlie same body of 
 men, with a double name. Yet the Bishops of 
 Ephesus had the pastoral charge of the Church 
 
 • Ixtters, p. 34. 7 Continuation of Letters, p. 232. 
 
-i.ET. VII. OPINIONS OF THE REFORMERS. KJ5 
 
 there, and the Presbyters had not the pastoral 
 charge of it; in other words, one and the samn 
 body of men, at one and the same point of lime. 
 were the pastors of the Church of Ephesus, and 
 were not its pastors. 
 
 I might go on to produce other passafies in 
 which you are equally at war with yourself on iiut 
 point in question. For example, in commenting 
 upon 1 Peter v. 1, 2, you say — " The construc- 
 tion of this passage is obvious. It expressly re- 
 presents Presbyters as Bishops of the flock, and 
 solemnly exhorts them to exercise the powers, and 
 perform the duties of the office. In short, the 
 title of Bishop, as applied to ministers of the Gos- 
 pel, occurs only four times in the New Testament. 
 In three of these cases there is complete proof 
 that it is given to those who are styled Presbyters; 
 and in the fourth case there is strong presumption 
 that it is applied in the same manner."* 
 
 Here you say that Presbyters are Bishops of the 
 fliock; that is, pastors of particular Churches, pos- 
 sessing all the powers, and subject to all the duties 
 connected with a fixed charge ;t nay, you go so 
 far as to affirm, that the word Bishop, in every in- 
 stance in which it occurs in the Neio Testament^ is 
 applied to Presbyters; yet now you tell us that 
 Presbyters, in the Apostolic age, were clergymen 
 without a pastoral charge, and Bishops clergymen 
 with one. The term Bishop, in every instance in 
 
 * Letters, p. 38, 39. 
 
 f The very definition which you give of a Scriptural Bishop is, tha'. 
 he was a clergyman with a partlcul.'ir pastoral charge. 
 
1G6 OPINIONS OF THE REFORMERS. LET. VII, 
 
 \vhich it is used in the New Testament, is applied 
 to the Presbyter, and yet the Presbyter was not a 
 Bishop. 
 
 The Presbyters of the Apostolic age were not 
 Eishu})3 of the flock.^' The Presbyters of the 
 Apostolic age were Bishops of the flock.f 
 
 Again — " The case of the Elders of Ephesus is 
 still more decisive. The government of this 
 Church is evidently vested in the Elders."! Here 
 you expressly say that Presbyters were persons 
 who had the care and government of a particular 
 Church. Now you as expressly say that Presby- 
 ters were persons who had not the care and go- 
 vernment of a particular Church. || 
 
 In your attempt to make Presbyterians of the 
 English Reformers, you call Raignolds, StilUng- 
 ileet, and White, to your aid. But the standards 
 drawn up by the Reformers in question, expressly 
 assert that the orders of Bishops, Priests, and 
 Deacons, with distinct and subordinate powers, 
 were established by Almighty God. Of what 
 consequence, then, is the dictum of Raignolds, 
 Stillingfleet, or White? Raignolds was a noted 
 and violent Puritan. You have not pointed us to 
 the page of the Irenicum of Bishop Stilhngfleet in 
 which the opinion you ascribe to him is expressed. 
 I think it extremely probable that you have mis- 
 understood him. However, be this as it may, it 
 is well known that the Irenicum was published by 
 Stilliiigfleet al the early age of twenty-four, and 
 
 * Contiimalion of Letters, p. 232. f Lc^^ters, p. 38. 
 
 1 iWd. p. 44'. \] Continuation of Lettei*s, p. 232. 
 
LET. Vir. OPINIONS OF THE REFORMERS. 16*7 
 
 that he afterwards retracted, most fully and ex- 
 plicitly, the leading opinions which it contains. 
 Your statement relative to Bishop White is ex- 
 tremely inaccurate. This excellent Prelate takes 
 divine right in the most rigid sense, as founded. 
 on some positive precept, and as admitting of no 
 alteration or modification even in cases of neces- 
 sity. The great design of his pamphlet was to 
 show that, in the necessity to which the Episcopal 
 Church of this country was reduced, a temporary 
 departure from Episcopacy would be perfectly 
 proper. It was his express proposition^ that the 
 departure should continue only until the lawful 
 succession could be obtained. And whenever 
 he speaks of the Reformers, or other leading 
 divines of the Church of England as admitting 
 that Episcopacy is not of divine right, he under- 
 stands divine right as extending only to insti- 
 tutions founded on some explicit and positive 
 command of God himself.* In this sense no per- 
 son has ever pretended that Epiajcopacy is a divine 
 ordinance. Its advocates represent it as an insti- 
 tution established by the Apostles^ acting in con- 
 ibrmity to the will of Christ, and under the guid- 
 ance of the Holy Spirit: they do not pretend 
 that there is any passage of Scripture command- 
 ing, in so many words, that there shall be three 
 distinct and subordinate orders of the ministry 
 
 * The Case of the Episcopal Churches in the United States consi- 
 dered, l2mo. Philadelphia. 1782. Let the pamphlet be carefully read 
 through, and it will be found tlrat I hate ^iv&n a oovvrrt 'icy of i^:f 
 i'dotWB of its aatlroF. 
 
168 OPINIONS OF THE REFORMERS, LET. VII. 
 
 On this subject Bishop White is perfectly cor- 
 rect. 
 
 " There having been an Episcopal power lodged 
 by Jesus Christ with his Apostles, and by them 
 exercised generally in person, but sometimes by 
 delegation, as in the instances of Timothy and 
 Titus; the same was conveyed by them, before 
 iheir decease, to one pastor in each Church, which 
 generally comprehended all the Christians in a 
 city, and a convenient surrounding district. Thus 
 were created the apostolical successors."* 
 
 Bishop White, then, in representing the English 
 Reformers as giving up, in reference to Episco- 
 pacy, all claim of divine right, takes the words in 
 a strict and absolute sense, as implying positive 
 precept, and excluding all departure from the suc- 
 cession even in cases of necessity. He is very far 
 from saying that the English Reformers did not 
 consider Episcopacy as an Apostolic institution. 
 He is very far from saying that they did not regard 
 it as established under the guidance of the Holy 
 Spirit, and in conformity to the will of Christ. 
 How could he tell us any such thing with the Ordi- 
 nal of the Church of England before his eyes ! 
 
 Thus you misrepresent Bishop White alto- 
 gether; retailing to us his words, but in such a 
 way that your readers will not understand them in 
 the sense which they were intended to convey. 
 
 The Church of England, then, was reformed 
 upon Episcopal principles. She retained that con- 
 
 C.-x^v: of the Episcopal Chtirches considered. 
 
Let. viu opiiMons of the reformers. 169 
 
 stitution of the ministry which had been esta- 
 blished by Christ and his Apostles, and which had 
 prevailed for the long period of fifteen hundred 
 years, throughout the whole extent of the Christian 
 world. This single fact is of more weight than 
 all the testimonies which are cited in your book. 
 In the Cliurch of England the Reformation was 
 conducted with the most profound deliberation. 
 The eminent men to whom this important work 
 was committed examined. the subject slowly, 
 calmly, maturely. They felt their ground at every 
 step; testing all the doctrines and institutions 
 to which their attention w^as turned by the stand- 
 ard of Scripture, and of the primitive faith. Their 
 progress from error to truth was gradual: We are 
 enabled to trace it with considerable distinctness 
 by the books which they put out, and by interest- 
 ing transactions in which they participated. 
 
 In England, the Reformation was begun by the 
 government, and by the higher orders of the cler- 
 gy; of course, there was no impediment in the 
 way of a thorough investigation of the whole 
 subject, or of any system of measures which that 
 investigation may have pointed out as proper to 
 be adopted.* In the countries in which a parity 
 
 * The superstitions and arbitrary temper of Henry YITI. indeed, eni' 
 barrassed the Refjrnners, and prevented tliem from pursuing' that course 
 which their own superior wisdom would have dictated. It required, 
 time, however, for the emancipation of the Reformers themselves from 
 some of the errors of popery. When the inimitable youth, Edward VI. 
 ascended the throne, tiling's had become ripe for a thorough change, 
 Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, and tlieir fellow labourers, were, at lengthy 
 'lelivered frorr. the abs\irditie3 of popery ; and th^ir exoell^-nt Savereio-u 
 
 09. 
 
170 OPIiNIONS OF THE REFORMERS. LET. Vli. 
 
 in the ministry was set up, the Reformation was 
 commenced by the inferior orders, in opposition 
 to the existing government, both of Church and 
 State. The situation of things was not favour- 
 able to sober and disjjassionate inquiry : on the 
 contraiy, it led to precipitation and irregularity. 
 The Reformers, who were thus circumstanced, 
 not being masters of their own conduct, were un- 
 able to proceed with that calm and collected tem- 
 per which so eminently distinguished their English 
 brethren. Accordingly, the Church of England 
 has ever been regarded as the ornament and bul- 
 wark of the Protestant cause. The Church of 
 Rome has always viewed her with an eye of par- 
 ticular jealousy, and directed against her the most 
 systematic and persevering opposition. 
 
 Rut it was not in England alone that the primi- 
 tive and scriptural form of the ministry was retain- 
 ed. The same course was pursued in the Churches 
 of Sweden and Denmark. " The internal go- 
 vernment of the Lutheran Church is equally re- 
 moved from Episcopacy on the one hand, and 
 from Presbyterianism on the other; if we except 
 the kingdoms of Sweden and Denmark, who re- 
 tain the form of ecclesiastical government that 
 preceded the Reformation, purged, indeed, frorw 
 
 was always ready to give liis sanction to every thing tliat tended to tiic 
 purity of religion. There was, indeed, a most fortunate concurrence 
 of circumstances. And after the dark interval of Mary's reign, the 
 wise Eliz'ibeth, and her faithful counsellors, made it their object to 
 restore things, as neaMy as possible, to the stHte in which they had 
 Heen left by the primitive Reformers. 
 
LET. VU. OPINIONS OF THE RKFOUMKUS. 171 
 
 the superstition and abuses that rendered it so 
 odious."* 
 
 The account which you give of the Church of 
 Denmark and Sweden is totally inconsistent witli 
 that of Mosheim. lie distinguishes between the 
 Church of those kingdoms, and the Lutheran 
 Church, as it is constituted in Germany; the latter, 
 he tells us, has seceded equally from Episcopacy 
 on the one hand, and Presbyterianism on the other: 
 while the former has not thus seceded, but is 
 Episcopal, having retained the form of ecclesias- 
 tical government which preceded the aera of the 
 Relbrmation. But, if your account be true, there 
 is no difference between the Bishops of Sweden 
 and Denmark, and the Lutheran Superintendents. 
 Mosheim, and his learned translator, McLean, 
 could not have been ignorant on this point, i 
 must, therefore, rest in the account which they 
 have given. Besides, it appears from your own 
 statement, that the Presbyter, in the Churches of 
 Denmark and Sweden, is raised to the office of 
 Bishop by a new ordination.f This is not the case 
 with the Lutheran Superintendent, and it marks 
 a substantial difference between him and the Swe- 
 dish or Danish Bishop. If there be no distinction^ 
 by divine right, between the Bishop and Presbyter, 
 why should a new ordination be thought neces- 
 sary to convert the one into the other? Surely 
 this would present, if your supposition be correct^ 
 a most strange and flagrant inconsistency. 
 
 * MosheiTO*s Ecclesiastical History, vol. iv. p. 287, f LetlPrs, p. 24? 
 
172 OPINIONS OF THE REFORMERS. LET. VII, 
 
 When you tell us that the first Archbishops and 
 Bishops of vSweden were set apart to their offices 
 by mere Presbyters, I would take the liberty of 
 asking on what authority you make the assertion. 
 You have given no authority ; and yet it is a point 
 of so much importance, in reference to the con- 
 stitution of the Swedish Church, that you must 
 have been anxious to place it beyond the reach of 
 controversy. Doubtless, therefore, you had no 
 authority to produce. If you will take the trouble 
 «f examining what Mosheim has said on this sub- 
 ject, you will find that the Bishops of Sweden and 
 Denmark were compelled, by the civil power, to 
 submit to the Reformation.^ The Churches of 
 those kingdoms, then, were, at no time, without 
 a valid Episcopacy ; and thus your attempt to 
 pl.ice them upon a Presbyterial foundation has 
 totally failed. 
 
 Even admitting that it is customary, in the Swe- 
 dish and Danish Churches, for Presbyters, in the 
 absence of the Bishop, to ordain Presbyters, the 
 only consequence is, that the persons thus ordained 
 are destitute of all clerical power. Still the Epis- 
 copal succession may remain uncorrupted. If it 
 be customary for Presbyters to ordain Bishops, 
 then, indeed, the succession is lost ; at least it is 
 lost in all those cases in which it may be neces- 
 sary to trace it through any other than the first or- 
 der of the priesthood. 
 
 If, in the Swedish and Danish Churches, the 
 
 • -Mosheim, vol. iv. p. 78 — S/t 
 
LKT. VII. O PINIONS OF TlIK REFORMERS.- 11 
 
 order of Presbyters be considered as erjiial, or 
 rather synonymons, by divine right, with the or 
 der of Bishops, it is certain that Mosheim and 
 McLean have presented a very erroneous view of 
 the subject. For Mosheim, after expressly teUing 
 us that the Churches of Denmark and Sweden 
 have not departed from Episcopacy, proceeds thus 
 — " The Lutherans are persuaded that there is no 
 law of divine authority which points out a dis- 
 tinction between the ministers of the Gospel, with 
 respect to rank, dignity, or prerogatives; and, 
 therefore, they recede from Episcopacy.^^* The 
 term Episcopacy, then, is here used by Mosheim 
 as marking a distinction, by divine righty between 
 the order of Bishops and that of Presbyters; of 
 course, according to his statement, the Churches 
 of Sweden and Denmark recognize this distinc- 
 tion, and are founded upon it. 
 
 In England, Denmark, and Sweden, the Re- 
 formation proceeded with more calmness, regu- 
 larity, and deliberation, than in any other part of 
 Europe. The civil power in Denmark and 
 Sw eden conducted the business ; in England it 
 was conducted by the Bishops, under the protec- 
 tion of the civil power. The same favourable 
 state of things did not any where else exist. Ger- 
 many, for example, exhibited a scene of the most 
 dreadful contention. Luther and his followers 
 were opposed not only by the ecclesiastical au- 
 thority, but by the imperial government. The 
 
 * 'Mosheim's Ecciesias!lc;il History, vol. iv. p. 288 
 
174 OPINIONS OP THE REFORMERS. LET. VII. 
 
 Reformation being commenced by the inferior or- 
 ders of the clergy, and by the people, Episcopacy 
 was, of course, laid aside. Had Luther been a 
 Bishop when he entered upon his opposition to 
 the Papacy, the Lutheran Church, without doubt, 
 would have been reformed upon primitiv^e ground ; 
 but being opposed by the whole Episcopal order^ 
 Luther and his fellow labourers were reduced, as 
 fhey alleged, to the necessity of founding their 
 ecclesiastical system upon new principles.* Not 
 being able to procure Bishops, they established 
 Superintendents, with all the powers of Bishops, 
 and wanting nothing but consecration to invest 
 
 * It may not have been absohitely impossible for the foreig-n Reformers 
 to procure Bishops; undoubtedly there was great difficulty in the way; 
 and the Reformers themselves considered the difficulty so great as to 
 plead the necessity of their situation in excuse for their departure from 
 Episcopacy. The circumstances of the case, therefore, can be con- 
 sidered only as excnain^^ not as justifying^ the conduct of the Reform- 
 ers. Indeed, it is no easy matter to determine the degree of difficulty 
 in procuring Bishops that existed at the period of which we are speak- 
 ing. The civil government, in some of the countries of Europe, was 
 extremely hostile to the Reformation, and, under the influence of the 
 Papal court, immediately adopted measures of violence towards any 
 Bishops who showed a disposition favourable to the cause of the Pro- 
 testants. This was particularly the case in France and Germany. 
 Whether the Reformers were justifiable in proceeding upon the basis 
 of Presbyterial ordination, even supposing them to have laboured under 
 an absolute impossihiUly of procuring Bishops, is a question into which 
 I do not choose at present to enter. At all events, they were bound to 
 adopt the Episcopal constitution as soon as they had the power of doing 
 no. But it is extremely difficult for men to retrace their steps ; parti- 
 cularly wlien tljey are wandering from the true course. A thousand 
 obstacles immediately occur to prevent a change. We can never, there- 
 fore, be too careful in avoiding all departure from divine institu- 
 tions ; for it is impossible to c.dculate the extent of the evil which 
 eyen a slight departure may ultimately produce. 
 
LET. VII. OPINIONS OP THE REFORMERS. l1^ 
 
 them with the full Episcopal character. Did 
 these men believe in ministerial parity as the doc- 
 trine of Scripture and of the Primitive Church? 
 (f such were their opinion, why did they not es- 
 tablish parity, and make it the basis of their ec- 
 clesiastical system ? Besides, in adopting the 
 plan of distinct and subordinate orders of the mi- 
 nistry, Luther and his friends represented it as 
 necessary to prevent schism, and to secure the 
 peace and order of the Church. Let it be recol- 
 lected, too, that they established the system of 
 imparity as the permanent system of their associa- 
 tion. If, then, they believed the Scriptural sys- 
 tem to be a system of parity, it follow s, that they 
 thought themselves wiser than the Apostles, and 
 that they regarded a departure from the divine 
 law as absolutely necessary to preserve the Church 
 from destruction. It is impossible to evade this 
 conclusion. If, indeed, the plan had been a tern- 
 porarij imparity in the ministry, to be quickly suc- 
 ceeded by a permanent parity, the conclusion might 
 not so irresistibly follow. But to say that Luther 
 regarded ministerial parity as the doctrine of Scrip- 
 ture, while, at the same time, he established im- 
 parity as the perpetual rule of his ecclesiastical 
 system, is, certainly, to place him in no very fa- 
 vourable point of light. 
 
 But I undertake to assert, that Luther and Me- 
 iancthon were desirous of reforming the Church 
 fully upon Episcopal principles. Evidence of thi?» 
 is to be produced which you will find it, I presume. 
 .110 easy matter to resist. 
 
'17B opinions of the reformers* let. vh* 
 
 Luther professes that if the Popish Bishops 
 would cease to persecute tlie Gospel, ••' we would 
 acknowledge them as our Fathers, and willingly 
 obey their authority, which we find supported bij the 
 ivord of God,'^'^ The same doctrine is advanced 
 by Luther in a tract entitled his Resolutions.f 
 
 Mark the following striking passages from tlie 
 Augustan Confession, and the Apology for that 
 Confession, both of which were drawn up by Me- 
 iancthon ! " The Bishops might easily retain the 
 obedience due unto them, if they urged us not 
 to keep those traditions which we cannot keep 
 with a good conscience. "t " We have oft pro- 
 tested, that we do greatly approve the ecclesiasti- 
 cal polity and degrees in the Church, and, as 
 much as lieth in us, do desire to conserve them. 
 We do not mislike the authority of Bishops."^ 
 " I would to God it lay in me to restore the go- 
 vernment of Bishops. For I see what manner of 
 Church we shall have, the ecclesiastical polity 
 being dissolved. I do see that hereafter will grow 
 up a greater tyranny in the Church than there 
 ever was before."|| " By what right or law may 
 we dissolve the ecclesiastical polity, if the Bi- 
 shops will grant to us that which in reason they 
 ©ught to grant? And if it were lawful for us to do 
 
 * See Chandler's Appeal Defended, p. 239. 
 
 t Vol. i. folio, p. 309. Probo quamlibet civitatem habere debere 
 Episcopum proprium jure divinoy quod ex Paulo ad Titum ostendo 
 dicente — hujus rei gratia reliqui te Crelse, &c 
 
 t Augustan Confession, p. 109. 
 
 § Apol. Augustan Confession, p. 363. 
 
 I Apol. An|fu«t5ui ('nnri-ssion, p. G?** 
 
LET. Vri. OPINIOMS OF THE REFORMERS. 177 
 
 SO, yet surely it were not expedient. Luther was 
 ever of this opinion."* 
 
 The following stroni^ hmguage is contained in 
 a letter written by Melancthon to Luther, in the 
 year 1530. " Zuingle has sent hiUier, in print, 
 his Confession of Faith. You would say neither 
 more nor less, than that he is not in his senses. 
 At one stroke he would abolish all ceremonies, 
 and he would have no Bishops y\ 
 
 The careful historian Strype, after stating that 
 in the Reforj nation, as conducted by Cranmer, 
 the Ecclesiastical Polity w as retained, adds, " which 
 the wise Melancthon did so approve of, that he 
 professed he had often propounded it in Diets of 
 the German nation." " And this I add," con- 
 tinues Strype, " that it might be observed how 
 Archbishop Cranmer went by the same measures 
 in the Reformation of the Church of England; 
 maintaining the Hierarchy, and the revenues, 
 dignities, and customs of it, against many in those 
 times, that were for the utter abolishing them, 
 as relics of Popery. Such a correspondence there 
 was between our Archbishop and the wisest, mo- 
 deratest, and most learned Divines of Germany.";: 
 
 It is clear, then, from the evidence which has 
 been adduced, that the Lutheran Reformers were 
 decidedly opposed to the system of ministerial 
 parity; indeed, that they considered it as utterly 
 inconsistent with the peace and order of the 
 
 * Melanct. Camerarius Hist. Con. August, p. 389. 
 
 t See Milner's History of the Cliurchof Christ, vol, v. p. 577 
 
 i Strype*5 Memoriais of Cranmer, p, 287, ?H8 
 
 23 
 
178 OPINIONS OF TME REFORMKRfe. LET. VII* 
 
 Church. It is equally clear that they were ex- 
 tremely desirous of retaining the Episcopal con- 
 stitution of the ministry, and of founding all their 
 proceedings upon it. They repeatedly offered to 
 receive Bishops, and to place them at the head of 
 their system. When all this is taken in con- 
 nexion with the very pointed language of some of 
 the extracts which have been exhibited, it is diffi- 
 cult, if not impossible, to resist the conclusion, that 
 the Lutheran Reformers considered Episcopacy as 
 a primitive and Apostolic institution. Accordingly, 
 not being able, as they supposed, to procure Bi- 
 sho[)3, they established Superintendents with Epis- 
 copal authority, and wanting nothing to make 
 them real Bishops but a regular consecration. 
 Still, on the other hand, it would certainly appear, 
 from some of the testimonies which you have 
 cited, that the^Lutheran Reformers really consi- 
 dered ministerial parity as the primitive and scrip- 
 tural doctrine. Indeed, it is no easy matter to 
 ascertain the precise ideas which they entertained 
 on the subject in question ; their views, it is very 
 probable, were not a little fluctuating. The true 
 conclusion, upon a fair view of the whole subject, 
 is, perhaps, this. If Luther and Melancthon had 
 been Bishops, they would have reformed upon 
 Episcopal principles, and the doctrine of the di- 
 vine right of Episcopacy would have been the 
 unequivocal doctrine of the Lutheran Church. 
 But being nothing more than Presbyters, they la- 
 boured, in vain, to procure the Episcopal succes- 
 sion. Oi)posed by the whole Episcopal order in 
 
lET. VII. OPINIONS OF THE REFORMEUb. 17!? 
 
 Germany, they were reduced, as they siip]wsed, 
 to the necessity of proceeding without it : thej 
 did proceed without it, and set on foot Presbyte- 
 rial ordination ; to wliich they probably reconciled 
 themselves, in the first instance, on the ground 
 that necessity will justify a departure from gene- 
 ral laws. But the irregularity of their practice 
 soon began to produce some effect upon theii 
 opinions. Having adopted Presbyterial ordina- 
 tion, they defended it on the ground of neces- 
 sity; but gradually, from the well known con- 
 stitution of the human mind, proceeded to talk 
 of Bishop and Presbyter as being one in the New 
 Testament, and at length to represent the supe- 
 riority of the Bishop to the Presbyter^ as founded 
 in mere human policy. This is the natural course 
 of things. An irregular example being set, it is 
 at first excused, then justified, and finally clothed 
 with a divine sanction. In this way, too, the 
 fluctuating and contradictory language which 
 occurs in the writings of some of the original 
 Reformers, is to be accounted for. Having de- 
 parted from the scriptural and primitive constitu- 
 tion of the Church, they found themselves in a 
 perplexed and embarrassed situation. It is natu- 
 ral even to the best men to attempt to place their 
 own conduct in the most favourable point of light : 
 hence, having acted on the ground of Presbyte- 
 rial ordination, the Reformers, although they 
 pleaded necessity at first, and recognized Episco- 
 pacy as a primitive institution, still were not dis- 
 in(;lined to find arguments in Scripture that migh/ 
 
180 OPINIONS OF THE REFORMERS, LET. VII. 
 
 sanction ordination by the hands of Presbyters. 
 There are few, if any, minds sufficiently powerful 
 to resist this tendency of our nature: so that a 
 temporary departure, on alleged principles of ex- 
 pediency or necessity, from an institution ac- 
 knowledged to be divine, will seldom fail to lead 
 in the end to a total and permanent departure from 
 such institution. 
 
 These observations are applicable to Luther 
 and Melancthon, but in a still greater degree to 
 Calvin, whose conduct and opinions 1 shall nov/ 
 proceed, with all possible brevity, to consider. 
 
 In page 243 of your I^etters you thus write — 
 
 " The whole body of the Reformers, with 
 scarcely any exceptions, agreed in maintaining 
 that ministerial parity was the doctrine of Scrip- 
 ture and of the Primitive Church." And in page 
 237 of the same work, speaking of Calvin, you 
 say — " he totally rejected all ministerial impa- 
 rity." 
 
 It was for the purpose of testing these positions 
 that I entered into a view of the conduct and 
 language of the Reformers. We will now briefly 
 examine how far they are applicable to the case 
 of Calvin. 
 
 1. It is capable of being completely proved 
 that Calvin did not profess to lay aside the order 
 of Bishops, because he preferred the Presbyterial 
 system, but that he pleaded necessity in excuse 
 for his conduct ; declaring his perfect readiness, 
 indeed,' his strong desire, to embrace Episcopacy, 
 whenever he should be able to procure it without 
 
LI.T. VII. OPINIONS or illi: lUlFORIVfKRJ^, ioJ 
 
 submilling to llie corniptionp^, and the aibifunv 
 claims of the Church of Koine. 
 
 See the explicit language which he ii3cs in the 
 Confession of Faith wliich he composed in the 
 name of the French Churches. 
 
 " In the mean time, we would not have the 
 authority of the Church, or of tliose Pastors, or 
 Superintendents, to whom the charge of govern- 
 ing the Church is committed, taken awa/. We 
 confess, therefore, tliat these Bishops or Pastors 
 are reverently to be heard, so far forth, as, accord- 
 ing to their function, they teach the word of God."* 
 
 In one of hh Epistles, Calvin discusses the 
 question — " \\ liat is to be done if a Popish Bishop 
 shall be converted to the Reformed Rclisrion ?" 
 He thus decides — " It is such a Bishop-r3 part to 
 do his utmost, that all the parishes that belong to 
 his bishoprick be purged from all errors, and 
 from the w'orship of idols ; showing himself a pat- 
 tern to all the Curates of his Diocess, and induc- 
 ing them to admit that reformation to which we 
 are invited by the word of God; and which alto- 
 gether correspondeth to the state and practice of 
 the Primitive Church." Calvin concludes, that 
 the possessions and authority of the converted 
 Bishop should be left with him.f 
 
 * Confes.s. Fidel nomine Gall. Eccles. 
 
 -j- Calvin. Epist. p. 466. See, on this point, Bishop Hall's Divin<; 
 Right of Episcopacy, part 1. sect. 2. where tlie good Brsliop breakr; 
 out—" Thus he. wisely and moderately: Not first of all, stripping liim 
 of .his Episcopal power, as some hot heads wcyAd have done. You 
 hear how judicious and moderate Calvin's opinion was then; and had 
 ^le been in vojjv lute pretended Vssemldv at Clas"-ow, or this of Ediii 
 
182 (iPlNlOlNJ) OF THE REFORMERS." LET. VII, 
 
 Calvin severely censures the* Prebends and 
 Clergy of Collen, for endeavouring to put their 
 Archbishop out of his place, inasmuch as he had 
 declared in favour of reformation.* Writing to 
 Ithavius, a Polonian Bishop, whom he styles illus- 
 trious and reverend Lord J3ishop, far from advis- 
 ing him to lay aside his Episcopacy, he exhorts 
 him to consider what place he holdeth, and ivhat 
 burden is imposed upon him.f In his Epistle to 
 the king of Poland, Calvin expresses his approba- 
 tion of all the degrees of the Hierarchy of the 
 Ancient Church, even including the order of Pa- 
 triarchs ; and he seems to advise the king to in- 
 troduce the system into his own dominions.! 
 
 The Duke of Somerset, Protector of England, 
 in the minority of Edward VI. wrote to Calvin on 
 the subject of the Reformation of the English 
 Church. What was Calvin's reply ? Did he con- 
 demn the office of Bishop, as unfounded in Scrip- 
 ture ? Did he advise that Episcopacy should be 
 laid aside, and Presbyterial order substituted in its 
 place ? Very far otherwise — Not a word escapes 
 liim in disparagement of the Episcopal office : on 
 the contrary, taking the ground that the Bishops 
 
 burg-li, AvnaL vote he would have given. How happy were it for yooi" 
 Churches if all among you, wlio so much honour his name, would as 
 readily submit to his judgment. Sure I am, had it been so with you, 
 you had been as far from defying Lpiscopacy in holy professors, as you 
 are now from truth and peace." 
 
 • Calvin. Epist. p. 517. 
 
 f Johannes Calvinus illustri et revendo Domino Jacobo Ithavio Epl^ 
 copo Epist, p. 28r. 
 
 4 Calvin. Sereniss. llegl Polon. 
 
LET. VII. OPINIONS OF THE REIORMEIlS. 183 
 
 ought to keep their place in the Rcrormcd Church, 
 lie thus writes : 
 
 " They must all of them 1)c sworn, the Bishops 
 themselves as well as the Hectors of every parish, 
 to deliver no other doctrine in their sermons, but 
 Such as is contained in the Articles of Religion."^ 
 
 It would appear, indeed, from a well attested 
 fact, that Calvin made an actual attempt, at one 
 period, to introduce the Episcopal constitution 
 into the Church of Geneva. 
 
 Take the following passages from the excellent 
 and accurate historian, Strype. " How Calvin 
 stood affected in the said point of Episcopacy, 
 and how readily and gladly he and other heads of 
 the Reformed Churches would have received it, 
 is evident enough from his writings and Epistles.'-f 
 " They (the foreign Protestants) took such great 
 joy and satisfaction in this good king (Edward VI.) 
 and his establishment of religion, that Bullinger, 
 Calvin, and others, in a letter to him, offered to 
 make him their defender, and to have Bishops in 
 their Churches, as there were in England ; with a 
 tender of their service to assist and unite together."! 
 This scheme apj:)ears to have been defeated by a 
 forgery of the Papists. The last letter of Calvin 
 on the subject was intercepted by Bonner and 
 Gardiner, two Romish Bishops, who returned an 
 ungracious answer, which offended Calvin, and 
 led him to give up the project. This is asserted 
 
 * Calv. in Eplst. ad Ang-llze Protectorem. 
 
 f Strype's Life of Archbishop Parker, p. 69, 7(^- 
 
 ^ Strype's Memorials of Cranmer, p. 2^?, 
 
iSi. OPINIONS OF THE REFORMER^. LET. VII. 
 
 in a paper in the hand writing of Archbishop Ab- 
 bot, found among the manuscripts of Archbishop 
 Usher, and published by the historian Strype.^ 
 
 In perfect agreement with this is the celebrated 
 passage in Calvin's work on the necessity of 
 reforming the Church. '' If they will gi\e us 
 such an Hierarchy, in which the Bishops have such 
 a pre-eminence as that they do not refuse to be 
 subject unto Christ, &c. &c. then I will confess 
 
 * " Perusing some papers of our predecessor M.itthew Paiker, we 
 find tliat John Calvin, and others of the Protestant Ciuirchesof Germany 
 and elsewhere, would liavc had Episcopacy, if permitted. And whereas 
 John Calvin had sent a letter in King Edward VI. reign, to have con- 
 ferred with the Clergy of England about some things to this effect, two 
 (popish) Bishops, viz. Gardiner and Bonner, intercepted tlie same; 
 Tvhereby Mr. Calvin's offcrture perished- And he received an answer, 
 as if it had been from the reformed Divines of those times ; wherein 
 they checked him, and slighted his pi-oposals. From which time John 
 Calvin and the Church of England were at variance in several points i 
 Vi'hich otherwise, through God's mercy, had been qualified, if those pa- 
 pers of iiis proposals had been discovered unto the Queen's majesty 
 during Joiin Calvin's life. But being not discovered until, or about 
 ilhe sixth year of her majesty's reign, her majesty much lamented they 
 were not found sooner: v.hicli she expressed before her council at the 
 same time, in the presence of her great friends, Sir Henry Sidney, 
 and Sir V/illiam Cecil."! 
 
 T'he important fact, above stated, corresponds with the part acted 
 by Calvin at the conferences which were held at Worms, by order of 
 the Emperor Charles V. Calvin accompanied the delegates who were 
 .sent by the Protestants to that assembly. In the articles drawn up by 
 these delegates on this occasion, is the following sentence. " Our 
 learned men have expressly yielded ordination to Bishops, if there may 
 be a Reformation." Thus it appears that Luther, Melancthon, and 
 Calvin, were quite disposed to reform the Ciiurch on the ground of 
 Episcopacy — that they deliberately offered to do so — and that they finally 
 proceeded on a different system, from the difficulty of procuring Bi- 
 >1iop.=: without yielding to the demands of the Cluirch o? Rome. 
 
 t Str^'l).•'s Jnif' of P/rkf . p. 7h- 
 
l.E'r. VII. OPINIONS OF THE REFORMERS. 185 
 
 that they are worthy of all anathemas, if any such 
 shall be found, who will not reverence it, and 
 submit themselves to it with the utmost obedi- 
 ence."* 
 
 Does not tJic evidence thus cited abundantly 
 prove that Calvin preferred the Episcopal consti- 
 tution ; that he was desirous of seeing it universally 
 established; that he regarded it as the solemn 
 duty of all the Reformers to adopt it; and, indeed, 
 that he even viewed all those who should refuse 
 to submit to it, where it could be procured, as 
 unworthy of the Christian name? 
 
 The testimony which I have brought forward 
 is of the most unequivocal character. Neverthe- 
 less, you shrink not from the arduous task of ex- 
 plaining it away. Let us see, for a moment, how 
 far you ha\^e succeeded. On the striking passage 
 from the work of Calvin, de Necessitate Ecclesiae 
 Reformandse, you thus comment — " It is only say- 
 ing that Calvin stood ready to approve of a scrip- 
 tural and primitive Episcopacy, whenever it should 
 be introduced. And would not all Presbyterians 
 say the same thing ? Nay, it is the happiness of 
 our Church, that we have such an Episcopacy." 
 " The venerable Reformer meant no other. "f 
 
 Permit me to ask you whether you seriously 
 propose this as a correct interpretation of the pas- 
 sage in question? Inveterate prejudice has truly a 
 wonderful power in blinding the understanding. 
 
 * Joannis Calvini tracts tus thecloglcl omnes, in nnum volumert ccrtis 
 classibus congesti, &c. p. 69. 
 
 t Confmaation of Tetters, p. 303. 
 
 2\ 
 
1§G OriMON3 0F THE UEFOKMEKS. LET. Vil. 
 
 Calvin was in [)05session of the Presbyterial form 
 of Church government, which you style the only 
 scriptural and primitive Episcopacij : to tliis form he 
 had aiready submitted. Wlien cliarged with de- 
 parting from the primitive Episcopal constitution 
 of the Church, he replies — (Jive me an Episco- 
 pacy in which the Bishops shall not refuse to be 
 subject to Christ, and I will most reverently re- 
 ceive it; — that is, according to your interpreta- 
 tion, give me Presbyterial Episcopacy, to which 
 I have already conformed, and I will conform to 
 
 it. 
 
 After this specimen of your manner of getting 
 lid of the testimony of Calvin, it can hardly be 
 necessary to detain the reader w ith your explana- 
 tions of other passages, of a similar character, 
 from his works. 
 
 2. 13 ut I go much further, and undertake to 
 aho^v that Calvin regarded Episcopacy as an in- 
 stitution of the Apostles, and, therefore, binding 
 upon all Christians; insomuch that nothing but 
 the greatest urgency of circumstances could ex- 
 cuse those who should fail to conform to it, from 
 the charge of deep criminality. The last part 
 of til is proposhion, is, indeed, proved incontesti- 
 bly l)y the single passage from the treatise on the 
 Reformation of the Church : Let us see whether 
 the first part of the proposition is not susceptible 
 of being established with equal certainty. 
 
 In sj)eaking of Jerome's comment on Isaiah vi. 
 Calvin uses these words — " The Bishop was not 
 §0 abwvG the rest in honour and dignity that he 
 
1.ET. VII. OPINIONS OF Till'- niu'OUMnr.s. 115? 
 
 had dominion over his fellows. But what odicc 
 the Consul had in the Senate^ to propose matters, 
 to ask opinions, to go before the others with conn- 
 selhng, admonisliing, and exhorting, to ^oirm //?/^ 
 whole matter ivit/i his authority, and to put in exe- 
 cution what is decreed by common counsel, the 
 same office hath the Bishop in the assembly of 
 Priests." " But if the Bishops," to use the lan- 
 guage of the judicious Hooker, " were so far in 
 dignity above other ministers, as the Consuls of 
 Rome, for their year, above other senators, it is 
 as much as we require." 
 
 In the same spirit, Calvin represents it as highly 
 probable that St. James was Prefect of the Church 
 of Jerusalem.* A Prefect is a chief officer or 
 governor. It is quite absurd to compare him with 
 a Presbyterian Moderator, who is nothing more 
 than a mere temporary chairman, appointed for 
 the purpose of keeping order in debate. 
 
 Further — " We learn also, from this place, that 
 there was not then such an equality among the 
 ministers of the Church, but that some one pre- 
 sided in authority and counsel."! 
 
 Here Calvin is treating of the Church as it ex- 
 isted in the time of the Apostles, and as it is or- 
 ganized in Scripture. Well — He expressly dis- 
 claims the idea of ministerial parity — He declares 
 that some one presided in authority and counsel. 
 And how do you get over this explicit language? 
 Why, you tell us that Calvin merely means to say. 
 
 * Jn Oalat. c. ii. v, 9. t Com. on Titus i. J 
 
188 OPINIONS OF THE REFORMERS. LET. VII. 
 
 that the passage in question recognizes the legality 
 of the Presbyterian practice of choosing a Mode- 
 rator to preside in Presbyteries and Synods. What 
 authority has a Presbyterian Moderator over his 
 fellow Presbyters? None. He merely presides and 
 keeps order during the sitting of the Presbytery. 
 Does he preside in authority as Paul represents 
 Titus to have presided in the Church of Crete r 
 The supposition is an insult to common sense 
 itself. 
 
 Take the passage precisely as translated by 
 yourself,* and the whole object of it is to show, 
 not that Titus was a Presbyterian Moderator, but 
 that he was not sole and absolute ruler in Crete ; 
 
 * *' It may be objected, that too much power seems to be given to 
 Titusy when the Apostle commands him to appoint ministers over all 
 the Churches. This, it may be said, is little less than kingly power ; 
 for, on this plan, the right of choice is taken away from the particu- 
 lar Churches, and tlie riglit of judging in the case from the college of 
 Pastors ; and this would be to profane the whole of the sacred disci- 
 pline of the Church. But tlie answer is easy. Every thing w;is?iof en- 
 inisted to the will of Tttus as an individual, nor was he allowed to 
 impose such Bishops on the Churches as he pleased ; but he was com- 
 manded to preside In the elections, as a ModeratoVy as it is necessary 
 for some one to do. This is a mode of speaking exceedingly common. 
 Thus a Consul, or Regent, or Dictator, is said to create Consuls, be- 
 cause he coiivenes assemblies for the purpose of making choice of them. 
 So also Luke uses the same mode of speaking concerning Paul and 
 Barnabas, m iht Jicts of the Jipostles ; not tliat tliey alone, authorita- 
 tively appointed Pastors over the Churches, without their being tried 
 or approved; but they ordained suitable men, wlio had been ekcted, 
 or chosen by the people. We learn also, from this place, thai there 
 •was not, then, such an equality among the ministers of the Church, 
 as was inconsistent with some one presiding in authority and council. 
 This, however, is nothing like the tymnnieal and unscriplural p7-elaqf 
 which reigns in the papacy. I'lie plan of the Apostles was extremely 
 different." Miller's Continuation of Letters, p. 294, 295, 296. 
 
LET. VII. OPINIONS OF THE REFORMERS. 189 
 
 that his power might be checked and limited by 
 that of the people on one side, and of the Pres- 
 byters on the other. Calvin illustrates the sub- 
 ject by comparing the power of Titus in the Church 
 of Crete, to the power of a Consul, Regent, or 
 Dictator, who convenes deliberative assemblies, 
 and presides in them. He illustrates the subject, 
 also, by comparing the power exercised by Titus 
 Ti Crete to tlie power of ordination exercised by 
 ^aul and Barnabas in the Churches which they 
 visitefcV These Apostles, Calvin tells us, did not, 
 ])y their sole authority, select persons to be or- 
 dained, and without any trial or approbation, im- 
 pose them upon the Churches ; but an election or 
 approbation on the part of the people was neces- 
 sary before the Apostles could exercise the ordain- 
 ing power. With the accuracy of Calvin on this 
 point of popular election, in the time of the Apos- 
 tles, I am not now concerned ; but the compa- 
 rison proves that he regarded the distinction be- 
 tween Titus and the Presbyters under him^ as 
 similar to that between Paul and B-arnabas and 
 the Presbyters and people of the cities in which 
 they administered the rite of ordination. Paul and 
 Barnabas were not absolute on this point; they 
 could not ordain such persons as they might please, 
 independently of every other tribunal : the peo- 
 ple were entitled to be heard as to the fitness of 
 candidates. So Titus was not an absolute ruler; 
 his power being limited by that of the Presbyters 
 and people over whom he authoritatively presided. 
 Such is the reasoning of Calvin. It can never be 
 
190 o^INIO^*s ep the hkfoiimers. let. rn, 
 
 made to refer lo a mere Presbyterian Moderator- 
 fthip. 
 
 That I have interpreted Calvin accurately, in 
 this instance, will further ajipear from the word^ 
 which immediately follow the passage imder con- 
 sideration. " We learn, also, from this place, 
 that there was not then such an equality among 
 the ministers of the Church, but that some one 
 presided in authority and counsel. This, how- 
 ever, is nothing like the tyrannical and unscriptu- 
 ral prelacy which reigns in the papacy." Now, 
 Calvin expressly declared, that if he could have 
 such an hierarchy as that of the Church of Eng- 
 land, he would embrace it, and submit to it with 
 the utmost affection and reverence. The passage 
 under consideration, therefore, can be regarded, 
 certainly, as nothing less than an explicit acknow- 
 ledgment of the apostolic institution of distinct 
 and subordinate orders of ministers in the Church 
 of Christ. Titus is admitted to have been the 
 supreme governor of the Church of Crete, with 
 power to direct and control, in certain respects, 
 the other ministers of the word. 
 
 One passage of this kind is sufficient to out- 
 weigh a thousand vague and indirect testimonies. 
 I shall, therefore, trespass on the patience of the 
 reader no further, on this point, than in presenting 
 a single declaration of the same unequivocal cha- 
 racter, from a letter written by Calvin to an old 
 friend, who had become a Bishop in the Church 
 of Rome. In this letter, although it is very long, 
 Viot a word occurs unfriendly to the office of Bishop: 
 
LET. VH. OPINIONS OP THE REFOKMERSt 191 
 
 on the contrary, the ofTice is expressly recognized 
 as of divine institution.* 
 
 What, now, if you should be able to cite de- 
 clarations of Calvin which seem to be of a differ- 
 ent spirit and tendency? We must come to one 
 of two conclusions. Either Calvin was perpetu- 
 ally contradicting himself, or his early and unbi- 
 assed opinions in favour of Episcopacy, gradually 
 yielded to that pernicious influence which irregu- 
 lar conduct seldom fails to exercise, even over 
 well constituted minds. 
 
 You undertake, indeed, to prove, that the ear- 
 liest opinions of Calvin were on the side of mi- 
 nisterial parity, and for this purpose quote several 
 passages from his Institutes of the Christian Reli- 
 gion. Some of the passages militate against the 
 very cause which you bring them to support:! For 
 example, Calvin tells us that the Presbyters in 
 every city chose one out of their own number to 
 whom they specially gave the title of Bishop, and 
 he cites Jerome as testifying that this practice pre- 
 vailed in. Alexandria, from the time of Mark the 
 Evangelist; that is, from the time of the Apostles. 
 And what authority had the Bishop ? Let Calvin 
 answer. " The office which the Consul had 
 
 * See Durell's View of the Foreign Reformed Churches, p. 162— where 
 i3ie followintr passage from the letter, is introduced. Episcopatus ipse 
 a Deo profectus est. Episcopi munus Dei authoritate constitutum est 
 et legibus definitum. 
 
 t Tlie rest are vague, and fairly admit of an interpretation consist- 
 ent with the doctrine, that Episcopacy was a primitive and apostolic- 
 institution : indeed, they must be construed in iKrs way, to preserve 
 C'eir author from palpable contradiction, 
 
192 OPINlOxNb OF THE REFORMERS. LET. Vil. 
 
 m the Senate to propose business; to collect opi- 
 nions; to preside in consulting, admonishing, and 
 exhci'ting; to direct by his authority^ the whole pro- 
 cess of business; and to put in execution that 
 which was decreed by the common counsel of all; 
 the same office had tlie Bishop in the assembly of 
 Presbyters."* What if Calvin seems to say, after 
 this, that the superiority of the Bishop to the 
 Presbyter rested upon human custom ? Why, the 
 result is, that he is inconsistent with himself; in 
 his eagerness to defend the system of ministerial 
 parity, upon which he had so long acted, suffer- 
 ing his ingenuity to pervert his judgment. I say, 
 the system upon which he had so long acted; for 
 you run into an error on this subject which it will 
 ha proper to point out. You begin your extracts 
 from Calvin with his Institutions, which, you tell 
 us, were his first theological work, and were pub- 
 lished so early as the year 1536, before he had ever 
 seen Geneva; intending in this way to make it 
 out that his earliest opinions were on the side of 
 the divine institution of the system of ministerial 
 paritv. It has, indeed, been shown, that the lan- 
 guage of the Institutes is often decidedly hostile to 
 the Presbyterial doctrine ; but, after so frequently 
 charging your opponents with utter ignorance of 
 the works of Calvin, and of the incidents of his 
 life, are you so uninformed as not to know that the 
 first edition of the Institutes, published in the year 
 1535, was a mere sketchy and that it did not ap- 
 
 • Institutes, b<3ok iv obap. 4. 
 
r.ET. Vn. OPINIONS OF THl: REFORMERS. 193 
 
 pear in its present enlarged state until the year 
 1558 ? Beza, in speaking of the original edition, 
 calls it, " operis longe maximi rudimentum."* 
 The work, as it appeared at first, consisted of but 
 twenty-one chapters ; and thus it continued in all 
 the editions through which it passed until the year 
 1558, when it came forth in its present form, di- 
 vided into eighty chapters, and four books. If you 
 will consult Bayle's Dictionary, you will find these 
 facts distinctly stated.f And yet you quote the 
 enlarged edition of the Institutes to show the 
 opinions of their author in the commencement of 
 his theological career. How do you know that the 
 passages which you quote from the present edition 
 of the Institutes were in the original sketch, 
 published in the year 1535? You surely have no 
 right to take it for granted. 
 
 See how Calvin was understood by his ad- 
 mirers ! 
 
 Mons. Daille, a French Protestant divine, speaks 
 thus explicitly :— " Calvin himself honoured all 
 Bishops that were not subjects of the Pope, &c. 
 such as were the Prelates of England. We con- 
 fess that the foundation of their charge is good 
 and lawful, established by the Apostles according to 
 the command of Christ J'^X 
 
 * Beza, in vita Calvini, p. o67. 
 
 f " The last edition, either French or Latin, revised by the author, 
 is of 1558. In that edition the work was divided into four books, and 
 each book into several chapters, of which there are in all fourscore. 
 The edition of 1550 is divided only into one and twenty chapters.*' 
 Bayle's Dictionai-y, vol. iv. London^ printed by James jBeUe?ihamy 1736. 
 
 f Bingham's French Church's Apology for the Church of Enj^lasd. 
 
 25 
 
194 OPliNIONS OF THE REFORMERS. LET. VIH 
 
 Monsieur De Le Angle, another divine of the 
 .French Protestant Church, in a letter addressed 
 to the Bishop of London, writes thus: — " Calvin, 
 in his treatise of the necessity of the Reformation, 
 makes no difficulty to say, that if there should be 
 anv so unreasonable as to refuse the communion of 
 a Church that was pure in its worshij) and doctrine, 
 and not to submit himself with respect to its go- 
 vernment, under pretence that it had retained an 
 Hpiscopacy qualified as yours is; there would be 
 !iio censure or rigour of discipline that ought not 
 1o be exercised upon them."* 
 
 Jacobus Lectins, a Senator of Geneva, and 
 Public Reader in the University, in a book dedi- 
 cated to the Syndics and Senate, uses the follow- 
 ing language: — " We maintain that those are true 
 and lawful Bishops whom St. Pant describes in 
 -his Epistles to Timothy and Titus ; and we do 
 not deny but that there were such formerly in that 
 great kingdom of Great-Britain, and that at this 
 very day there are such Bishops there." " Nei- 
 ther was there any of our divines, I think, who 
 ever denied it to be a most ancient custom in the 
 Church, fro7n the very times of the Apostles; to wit, 
 that one should have the chief care of the Church, 
 sitting, as it were, at the helm of the sacred ship. 
 And they did so treat of the limitation of that 
 pre-eminence according to the word of God, that 
 Ihey have professed, by their public writings, that 
 it was madlike to think meanly of the order of 
 
 ' Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation. 
 
LET. VIJ. OPINIONS OF THE REF0UMEI\3. 196 
 
 orthodox Bishops, to whom, therefore, our men, 
 and amongst them, Calvin, Bucer, Jieza, Sadeel, 
 and others, have deferred all manner of honour 
 and affection.'"^ 
 
 After all, there is no little difficulty in ascertain- 
 ing the precise opinions of Calvin on the subject 
 ot the constitution of the Christian Church and 
 ministry. He is not always consistent with him- 
 self. Perplexed and embarrassed between the 
 system which he had adopted in practice, and 
 the irresistible evidence of ministerial impaiity, 
 presented both by Scripture and antiquity, he 
 knew not how to extricate himself from his owa 
 labyrinth: He found himself unable, probably, 
 either to form or to express any perfectkj definite 
 ideas. It is certain, however, that he rejected, 
 unequivocally, the doctrine of absolute parity 
 among the ministers of the word, and that he de- 
 clared his readiness to submit to such an Episco- 
 pacy as that of the Church of England ; denounc- 
 ing the heaviest anathema against all who should 
 refuse to follow his exam pie. t 
 
 Beza, the friend and successor of Calvin, thus 
 
 * Durell's View of the Foreign Refornxed Churches, p. 169, 170. 
 
 I Dr. Durell, after carefully examining- the writinj^s of Calvin, with 
 particular reference to his opinions on the subject of the ministry, 
 gives the following as the result — " For all that I have either read of, 
 or in him, or seen produced out of his writings, I am of this mind, 
 that Episcopacy was the government that he approved most, and that 
 he took it to be, as it is undoubtedly, of apostolical institution ; tliough 
 his opinion was, that the Church, according to her exigences, in re- 
 lation to places, times, and other circumstances, may dispense with 
 it." DureWt Vie~o of the Government and Worship in the Forei^-n lii;- 
 formed Churehes, p. 161. 
 
196 OPINIONS OF THE REFORMERS. LET. VII. 
 
 expresses himself in a letter to Archbishop Whit- 
 gift : — " In my writings touching Church govern- 
 ment, I ever impugned the Romish hierarchy, but 
 never intended to touch or impugn the ecclesias- 
 tical polity of the Church of England."* Beza 
 further speaks of the Episcopacy of the Church 
 of England as a singular blessing of God, and 
 prays that she may ever enjoy it.f He uses, in 
 the same treatise, the following strong language, 
 which is entitled to your very particular attention : 
 — " If there are any who reject the tvhole order of 
 Episcopacy^ God forbid that any man of a sound 
 mind should assent to the madness of such men." 
 
 Tried by the declarations of Calvin and Beza, 
 you and your friends would certainly be condemn- 
 ed as inexcusable schismatics. 
 
 The celebrated Martin Bucer, one of the most 
 learned and judicious of the original Reformers, 
 thus speaks of the authority of Bishops : — " By the 
 perpetual observation of all Churches, even from 
 the Apostles^ times j we see, XhdX it seemed good to 
 the Holy Ghost ^ that among Presbyters, to whom 
 the procuration of Churches was chiefly commit- 
 ted, there should be one that should have the 
 care or charge of divers Churches, and the whole 
 ministry committed to him ; and, by reason of that 
 charge, he was above the rest ; and, therefore, the 
 name of Bishop was attributed peculiarly to those 
 chief rulers. "J 
 
 * Life of Whitgift, printed by Snodbam, 1612 
 I Heza. Ilesp. ad Sarav. cap. IP 
 4 De cura. curat, p. ^51. 
 
LET. VII. OPINIONS OF THE KLlOllMKUS. VJ7 
 
 It is not going too far to say that the diflirnlty 
 which the Reforniers found in procuring Bisliops 
 alone prevented Episcopacy from being univer- 
 sally retained. The Romish Church was ex- 
 tremely vigilant upon this point. The moment 
 a Bishop showed any disposition to join tlie Re 
 formers, he was made the subject of bitter per- 
 secution. This is particularly apparent in the his- 
 tory of the Protestant Church of France, to which 
 1 would now take the liberty, for a few moments, 
 of soliciting your attention. 
 
 Peter Du Moulin, an eminent professor of this 
 Church, thus writes: — " Our adversaries unjustly 
 accuse us to be enemies of the Episcopal Order. 
 For we must be altogether ignorant in history, if 
 we do not know that auuquity speaks honourably 
 of that degree. Eusebius, in his Chronicle, wit- 
 nesseth, that a year after our Lord's death, James, 
 our Lord's brother, was established Bishop of Je- 
 rusalem ; and that ten years after, Euodius was 
 created Bishop of Antioch, and that after James 
 succeeded Simon in the Bishoprick of Jerusalem, 
 from whence descended the succession of Bishops 
 in Jerusalem. St. Jerome, in his book of ecclesi- 
 astical writers, saith, that Polycarp, St. John's dis- 
 ciple, was by that Apostle made Bishop of Smyrna. 
 In the same book he saith, that St. Paul esta- 
 blished Timothy Bishop of Ephesus, and Titus 
 Bishop of Crete. And Tertullian, in the thirty- 
 second chapter of the book of Prescriptions, cal- 
 ieth those Churches Apostolical Churches, and 
 buds and sprigs of the Apostles, whose Bishops 
 
198 OPINIONS OF THE REFORMERS. LET. VII. 
 
 were established by the Apostles," fee. " If some- 
 times we speak against the authority of Bishops, 
 we condemn not Episcopal Order in itself, but 
 s|>eak only of the corruption which the Church of 
 Rome has induced into it,-' &c.* 
 
 It is to be observed that Du Moulin here un- 
 dertakes to speak in the name of the French 
 Church : thus speaking, he admits that there are 
 instances of Episcopacy in the apostolical practice, 
 and that it agrees, moreover, with the practice of 
 all antiquity. The fair inference from the language 
 of Du Moulin is, that the French Church would 
 readily have submitted to Bishops, if Bishops had 
 been its reformers. Indeed, he expressly says that, 
 " God having permitted the work of reformation to 
 be carried on only by t\ie inferior clergy, they 
 thought it meet to keep themselves within the 
 bounds of the order of Priesthood ; thai if ever it 
 were God's will that the Bishops themselves should 
 reform and embrace the true doctrine, there might 
 be no contestation with them for jurisdiction and 
 pre-eminence, but all manner of readiness, on the 
 reformed ministers part, to submit to the Bishops, 
 and to acknowledge them for their lawful superiors 
 and prelates." " As for me, I nothing doubt but 
 those things were so ordered by them, according 
 to the exigency of the times, because their con- 
 <lition did not permit them to do otherwise. "t 
 
 Monsieur Caches, one of the ministers of Cha- 
 renton, thus writes in a letter to Dr. Brevint: — 
 
 • Moulin's Buckler of Faitli, p. 345, Lond. Edit. 1631. 
 t Durell's View of tlie Fore ig-n Reformed Cliuixhes, p. 119, 
 
LET. VII. OPINIONS OF THE REFORMERS. 199 
 
 " Would to God we had no other diilerences with 
 the Bishops of France, but their dignity: How 
 cheerfully should I subnnitm} self to them ! although 
 you know that their yoke is heavy, far heavier 
 than that of the Bisiiops of England. How comes 
 it to pass then that those of your Presbyterians 
 that are great, understanding, and wise men, have 
 such an aversion against moderate Episcopacy? 
 And why do they refuse to have communion with 
 Ignatius, Poly carp, Cyprian, Chrysostom, and all 
 that holy company of the purest antiquity?"* 
 
 Monsieur De Le Angle, in a letter to Dr. Bre- 
 vint, uses the following strong language: — '' I 
 cannot tell what these haters of the peace of 
 the Church mean, that prattle up and down, and 
 talk as if the French Churches were great ad- 
 versaries of the Episcopal order. God forbid, 
 Sir, that we should have such a perverse and 
 rash opinion. I am sure that neither Monsieur 
 Daille, nor Monsieur Amiraut, nor Monsieur Bo- 
 chart, nor any of my colleagues of Rouen ever 
 approved of it." " An Episcopacy, framed after 
 the model which was exercised with so much suc- 
 cess by those Prelates of the Apostolic Churches^ 
 which Christ calls angels, such as Clemens, Poly- 
 earp, Ireneus, Cyprian, Athanasius, Chrysostora, 
 and Austin, and many others of the like kind, who 
 have been in the Church the sweet savour of 
 Christ ; it is a most sacred and most ancient order, 
 and if the Apostles themselves were not the au- 
 
 * DiireU'g View of thoForeifrn Reformed Churches, p. 125. 
 
200 OPINIONS OF THE REFORMERS. LET. VH. 
 
 thors of it, certainly it was instituted by apostolic 
 men, who might say of their ordinances of this 
 nature the same that the Apostle said sometimes, 
 after he had gravely resolved some questions, 
 about which he had no express command from 
 God — " Ithlnk^ also^ that I have the Spirit of God,^''* 
 
 But we have much more decisive evidence on 
 this point. Take the following passage from a 
 letter of the celebrated Peter Martyr to Beza: — 
 '^ The Church of Troyes is very great, and in- 
 (Teascs daily : the Bishop thereof is now become 
 a zealous promoter of the kingdom of Christ, and 
 instructs his flock in the purity of the Gospel." 
 '^ He sent for the Elders of the Reformed Church, 
 and desired them to consult among themselves 
 prudently and piously, whether they might accept 
 of him as their Bishop. If they did, he would 
 then go on, as he had begun, to edify and aug- 
 ment to the utmost of his power the Church com- 
 mitted to his charge. But if they thought him not 
 qualified for so great a work, they should deal 
 freely and plainly with him : for in that case he 
 was resolved to resign his Bishoprick, and live as a 
 private Christian among them." " He was unani- 
 mously acknowledged and received by them all as 
 a true Bishop : and his authority and piety did 
 great service to the Church of Christ. Praised be 
 God, who takes these methods to govern and ad- 
 vance the kingdom of his Son."t 
 
 Here is a most decided testimony of the readi-. 
 
 * Durell's View of the Foreign lit- formed Cluirchc^, p, 14?; 144 
 fPet. Mv:t Ep. 57, ad J^ezam, p. J HP 
 
y.F.T. VI r* OPINIONS OF THE REFORMERS. 201 
 
 iiess oi' the French Protestants to adopt the Epis- 
 copal constitution of the ministry. But mark the 
 issue! The Papists^ greatly alarmed, commenced 
 a severe attack upon the Bishop of Troyes, and 
 finally succeeded so far as to prevail upon the 
 king of France to expel him from his diocess. 
 For this we have the testimouy of the French his- 
 torian Thuanus.* 
 
 But further — Several of the Bishops of France, 
 about the same period, evinced a disposition fa- 
 vourable to the Reformation; in consequence of 
 which they were accused of heresy, and sum- 
 moned to appear before the Consistory of the In- 
 quisition at Rome. Three of them were deprived, 
 and the rest suspended until they should vindicate 
 themselves from the charge of heresy. Unfor- 
 tunately, most of them returned to the Church 
 of Rome; but Cardinal Castilion, Sangelasius, 
 and the Bishop of Troyes, embraced the Protes- 
 tant faith ; continuing to act as Bishops until they 
 were forced to withdraw by the civil power. The 
 historian Spondanus gives us this information ;t 
 and he compiled his history from writers who were 
 contemporary, or nearly so, with the events which 
 they relate.} 
 
 Of the same character is the testimony of Dr 
 Du Moulin, son of the celebrated Peter Du Mou- 
 
 * Thuan. torn. ii. lib. 23. p, 48. 
 -1- An. 1563, p. 21. 
 
 i Thuamis, lib. 35. Moir.erus Tortora Hist. Frcinc. lib. 3. Cabti- 
 ius Vit. Pii 5. lib, 2. cap. l Ciitcllus Ubi\. Orcltan. Onimhri'-.s Vit 
 
 2r, 
 
^02^ OPINIONS OF THE KEFOUMEllS. LET. VII. 
 
 lin, whom we have already mentioned. " How 
 soon both pastors and people may be brought to 
 submit to Bishops, hath been tried by the Bishop 
 of Troyes, and that of Meaux, who, as soon as 
 tbey began to forsake the errors of Popery, were 
 acknowledged by the Protestant Churches within 
 the verge of their jurisdiction for their Diocesans. 
 The Archbishop of Vienna and Bishop of Orleans 
 were once about to have done as much, and 
 would have found the like obedience from the 
 Protestant party ; but the great stream of the 
 state proved too strong for them to swim against." 
 " There was a time when some of their prime 
 men feeling the inconveniences that follow the 
 want of ecclesiastical subordination, moved Car- 
 dinal Richelieu to place it among them by his 
 authority, pretending that it would bring them 
 nearer to the Roman Church: But he flatly de- 
 nied to give way to it, and told them, if you had 
 that order, you would look too like a Church."* 
 
 Accordingly, the celebrated Mons. Du Bosc 
 expressly says that the Protestants of France fol- 
 lowed the Presbyterian system, " because neces- 
 sity obliged them to it ; because Reformation 
 having been begun by the people and by inferior 
 churchmen, the places of Bishops remained filled 
 vvith men of a contrary religion, so that they 
 were constrained to content themselves with mi- 
 nisters and elders as well as they could. If Bi- 
 shops had embraced the Reformation at first, I 
 
 ' Preface to his FatUer's book, culled the Novelty of Popery, p. 2, S 
 
LET. VIL OPINIONS OF THE REFORMERS. 203 
 
 make no doubt but that their order had been 
 maintained in the ecclesiastical polity."* 
 
 It is clear, then, that the Protestants of France 
 were anxious to reform the Church upon Episco- 
 pal principles, and that they were prevented from 
 doing so, simply by the difficulty which they 
 found of procuring Bishops.f 
 
 The Papists understood their business too well. 
 They determined that the Protestants should not 
 possess the advantage of an Apostolical ministry ; 
 and, unhappily, their efforts were attended with 
 no small degree of success. On the continent of 
 Europe they prevailed by measures of violence; 
 and in England, where the Reformation was pa- 
 tronized by the civil government, they put in ope- 
 ration a system of the most shameful intrigue, to 
 produce separation from the established Church. 
 A specimen of Papal fraud I have already men- 
 tioned, in the case of Bonner and Gardiner, who 
 intercepted a letter from Calvin, Bullinger, and 
 other Reformers, offering to receive Bishops; to 
 which they forged an ungracious answer, and 
 thereby defeated the measure. It is, besides, a 
 notorious fact, that the Papal court constantly 
 employed agents, in the reign of Elizabeth, to 
 travel through England, declaiming against the 
 
 * Diirell's View of the Government and "Worship of the Reformed 
 Churches, p. 122, 123. 
 
 ■\ For many of these f^icts and quotations relative to the Protestants 
 of France, see Bing-liam's French Ch'irch's Apolng-y for the Church of 
 Fingland, book iv. cliap. 4. 
 
204 OPINIONS OF THE REFORMEllb. LET. VIU 
 
 established Church, and crying out for further 
 reformation. 
 
 The most eminent divines of the Reformed 
 Church of Holland excused their departure from 
 Episcopacy on the ground of necessity: Nay, 
 they expressed a perfect readiness to submit to 
 the Episcopal constitution — they declared it to 
 be their ardent wish to see that constitution re- 
 stored — they even went so far as to pledge them- 
 selves to take all practicable measures to effect 
 its restoration. But the civil government was op- 
 posed to the thing; the reason of which opposi- 
 tion is thus stated by the historian Collier: — " The 
 States, upon their revolt from the king of Spain, 
 destroyed seven Sees, and applied the revenues 
 to the public service. The names of them are 
 these; the Bishoprick of Harlaem, in Holland; 
 of Middleborough in Zealand; of Lewarden, iu 
 Friezland ; of Groninguc, in Gronningen ; of De- 
 venter, in Overyssel ; of Ruremonde, in Guel- 
 derland ; and the Archbishoprick of Utretcht ; to 
 which the Bishops of the other Sees, above men- 
 tioned, w^ere suffragans. 
 
 " Thus, 'tis possible, the gain of sacrilege pre- 
 vailed to break the Apostolical government. Those 
 at the helm might be averse to the continuing 
 Episcopacy, for fear some of the old endowments 
 should be expected to maintain it."'^ 
 
 * Collier's Ecclesiastical History, vol. ii. p. 718. 
 
 Nor was it in Holland alone tliat difficulties of this kind wot 
 thrown in the way of a primitive rcfornjation of the Church ; tl)o 
 same spirit was strong-Iy at work in England. 
 
 " Another sort cf men tlicrc arc, which liave been contcj)^ to nin or 
 
f.ET, VII. OPINIONS OF THE REKOUAn;R.^. 2{Vy 
 
 Hiiis in Holland, as in France, Episcopacy was 
 put down by the violence of the secular power. 
 
 The truth of all this will fully appear from the 
 accounts which have come down to us, relative to 
 the fiimous Synod of Dort. 
 
 Bishop Carleton, one of the English delegates 
 to that Synod, gives the following statement : — " I 
 openly protested in the Synod, that it was a strange 
 proposition which had been inserted in said con- 
 fession, namely, that Christ institiitecl an equality 
 among the Ministers of the Gospel, I publicly de- 
 clared that it could no where be shown that Christ 
 had ordained such an equality ; that he had cho- 
 sen twelve Apostles and seventy disciples, and that 
 those Apostles were invested with an authority 
 and superintendency over all others, and that the 
 
 with the Reformers for a time, and to make them poor Instruments of 
 their own designs. These are a sort of godless politics, who, per- 
 ceiving the plot of discipline to consist of these two parts, the over- 
 throw of Episcopal, and the erection of Presbyterial authority ; and 
 that this latter can take no place till the former be removed, are con- 
 tent to join with them in the destructive part of discipline, bearing- 
 them in hand, that in the oUier also, they shall find them as ready. 
 But when time shall come, it m.ay be, they would be as loth to be 
 yoked with that kind of regiment, as now they are willing to be re- 
 leased from this. These men's ends in all their actions, is distraction ; 
 their pretence and colour, reformation. Those things, which, under 
 this colour, they have effected to their own good, arc, I. By main- 
 taining a contrary faction, they have kept the clergy always in awe ; 
 and thereby made tljcm more pliable and willing to buy their peace- 
 2. By maintaining an opinion of equality among ministers, they have 
 made way to their own purposes for devouring Cathedral Churclies 
 and Bishops' livinc^s." Geortre Crmimer's Letter to Mr. Richard 
 Hofjk'cr, prefixed to the firs-' -•'jJume ofi the " Ecclesiastical VoUlyC^ p. 107 
 Pxfi)^^d ^diticn, \793. 
 
'tJ06 OPINIONS OP THG RKPORMERS. LET. Vl€, 
 
 Church had constantly and uninterruptedly main- 
 tained the same subordination. I appealed in this 
 adair to all the ancients, and to all men of learning 
 of the present age; yea, I earnestly challenged 
 any man in the Synod to prove tne contrary. The 
 Lord Bishop of Salisbury is my witness, and all 
 the doctors that were with me, for I was the 
 mouth of them all ; and there was not one man in 
 the assembly that pretended to contradict me : 
 from whence we justly concluded that they were 
 all of our opinion." 
 
 Bishop Carleton adds, that in a conference with 
 some of the most learned divines of the Synod, 
 he told them " the cause of all their troubles was 
 the want of Bishops:" to which, " their answer 
 was, that they had a great honour for the good 
 order and discipline of the Church of England, 
 and heartily wished they could establish them- 
 selves upon this model : but they had no prospect 
 of such a happiness; and since the civil govern- 
 ment had made their desires impracticable^ they 
 hoped God would be merciful to them."* 
 
 In perfect correspondence with this is the ac- 
 count given by Bishop Hall, another of the Eng- 
 lish delegates to the Synod. " When the Bishop 
 of LandafTe had, in a speech of his, touched 
 upon Episcopal government, and showed that the 
 want thereof gave opportunities to those divisions 
 which were then on foot in the Netherlands, Boger- 
 
 • Trandt's History of the Reformation, vol. iii. p. 288L Collier's 
 Ecclesiastical History, vol. ii. p. 717, 718. 
 
LET. VII. OPINIONS OF THE REFORMERS. 207 
 
 mannus, the president of that assembly, stood up, 
 and, in a good allowance of what had been spoken, 
 said, Doniine, nos non sumus adeo feiices. Alas, 
 my Lord, we are not so happy. Neither did he 
 speak this in a fashionable compliment, (neither 
 the person, nor the place, nor the hearers were fit 
 for that) but in a sad gravity, and conscionable pro- 
 fession of a known truth ; neither would he, being 
 the mouth of that select assembly, have thought 
 it safe to p;ss those words before the deputies of 
 the States, and so many venerable divines of fo- 
 reign parts (besides their own) if he had not sup- 
 posed this so clear a truth as that Synod would 
 neither disrelish nor contradict. What, do I sin- 
 gle out a few ? All the world of men, judicious, 
 and not prejudiced with their own interests, both 
 do, and must say thus, and confess with the 
 learned Casaubon, Fregevill, and Saravia, that 
 no Church in the world comes so near to the 
 Apostolic form as the Church of England."* 
 
 The British delegates to the Synod of Dort, 
 then, expressly asserted, in the Synod, the divine 
 institution of Episcopacy ; appealing to the an- 
 cients, and to all men of learning, and challeng- 
 ing the members of the Synod to disprove 
 what they had said. And what was the result? 
 " Not one man in the assembly," says Bishop 
 Carleton, " pretended to contradict me: from 
 whence, we justly concluded, that they were all 
 of our opinion." Here we have the positive de- 
 
 * Bishop Hall's Divine Ricrht of Episcopacy, part i. sect. 4 
 
208 OPINIONS OF THE KEFOUMERtS. LET. VIJi 
 
 ciaratioii of Bishop Carletoii, that the members 
 of the Synod of Dort were regarded by the Eng- 
 lish delegates as universally admitting the divine 
 institution of Episcopacy. What, now. Sir, shall 
 we think of the very contemptuous terms in which 
 you have thought proper to speak of the ignorance 
 displayed by me relative to the proceedings of 
 the Synod in question?^' In the strongest of my 
 
 * " Mr. How has allowed himself to speak on this subject in a way 
 for which I really feel at a loss to form an adequate apolog-y."* Mr. 
 How has simply spoken the language of the English delegates to the 
 Synod of Dort. Bishops Carleton, Hall, and Davenasit, are the persons 
 to whom your lofty charges of ignorance and disingeniiousness must 
 be applied. " It never occurred to me, before I saw Mr How's pam- 
 phlet, that it was possible for any well informed man, who valued hi:; 
 reputation, to give such a statement as that gentlem.'in has done, of 
 the sentiments of the principal divines of the Reformed C!mrches."f 
 It would be easy to mention a number of veiy learned and excellent 
 men who have spoken of the Reformers in stronger terms tlian those 
 which you so bitterly complain of in my Letters. But let me refer you, 
 for a moment, to the language of the well known, and universally re- 
 spected and admired. Bishop Hall. 
 
 " But first, ere we enter the lists, let me advise you not to deceive 
 \ourselves vainly with the hope of hiding your heads und^er the skirt 
 of tlie authority of those Divines and Churches abroad, which retain 
 that form of government whereto you have submitted ; for know, 
 •heir case and yours is far enough diifi-rent : they plead to be, by a 
 hhtd of necessity f cast upon that condition which you have ioilli7itfIy 
 chospn. They were npt, they could not be, what you were, and might 
 btill have been. Did any of them forsake and abjure that function of 
 lipiscopacy which he might freely have enjoyed, with the full liberty 
 of professing the reformed religion ? Did ever any wise man or Chris- 
 tian Church condemn that calling for itself? Yea, if the last Bishop 
 of Geneva had become a Protestant, and conseiUed in matter of doc- 
 trine to Calvin, Farret, Viret, have you, or any man living, just cause 
 It) tliink tliat the city would not gladly have retained his government 
 
 ' C^ntinllation of I.tVfrs. n ^64. " lL>iJ- p. 380. 
 
LET. VI [. OPINIONS OF THE REFORMERS. 209 
 
 observations I am completely supported by the 
 unequivocal testimony oi' the English delegates* 
 
 otilj, and thouglit themselves happy under such a protection ? Would 
 they luive cjecteil liim :is an enemy whom they might have enjoyed as 
 a patron ? Would they have stood upon his Episcopacy, while tliey had 
 his conrMircncc in tlie truth of relii^non ? jYo mem that hath either brain 
 or forehead ~.vill affirm it ; since the luorld knorjs the quarrel -was not at 
 his dignitu, but at his opposition to the intended reformation. Hear what 
 Calvin himself suith for himself and his co-partners."* Bishop Hall 
 proceeds to quote various passages from the writings of Calvin, which 
 have heen already given, and then adds—" Uo you hear your doom 
 from your own oracle ? Make account, therefore, of the merit and 
 danger of Calvin's just anathema." 
 
 " And that the French Reformers may not herein be thought to go 
 alone, take notice, I beseech you, what tl»e German divines of the 
 Augsburg confession have freely professed to this purpose." The 
 liishopgoes on to present a number of passages relative to the German 
 Reformers, particularly Melancthon and Luther, and then says—" See 
 now, I beseech you, how willing these first Reformers were to main- 
 tain and establish Episcopal government; how desirous to restore it, 
 how troubled that they might not continue it : might they have enjoyed 
 the Gospel, they would have enjoyed Episcopacy. In whose steps 
 then do you tread while you defy it ? Certainly if the Genevan and 
 German prelacy w^ould have but tolerated a reformation of the Papal 
 corruptions, there had never been either a parity of ministers, or a lay 
 Presbyter in the -world to this </ay."+ 
 
 I have never used language so pointed and strong as this; and yet 
 you talk of my " astonishing ignorance, misconceptions, and misre- 
 presentations." For all I have said, I can appeal to the authority of Bi- 
 shop Hall, whom you style an " eminently learned and pious divine."^ 
 Bishop Hall, too, it will be recollected, lived shortly after the Refor- 
 mation, and had full opportunity of knowing the opinions and acts of 
 its original conductors. He tells us that the foreign Reformers, with 
 one voice, pleaded the necessity of their situation in excuse for their 
 departure from Episcopacy; that they expressed the most anxious 
 desire to retain it; thr.t they pronounced the heaviest anathema upon 
 all who should voluntarily depart from it; that all this is so notorious 
 that " no man who hath either brain or forehead" will call it in ques- 
 tion ; in fine, that if the original Genevan and German Reformer-^ 
 
 * Hall's Divine Right of Kpisco])acr, part i. sclI. Q. f Ibid. T>i.it \. sect. C, ." 
 
 i Miibr's Letters, p. ^^vO. 
 
 07 
 
ilO OPliNlONS OF THE KEFORMEKS. LET. VH. 
 
 But why did not the Reformed Church of Hol- 
 land adopt Episcopacy, and place it at the foun- 
 dation of her ecclesiastical system? The divines 
 of tlie Synod of Dort shall answer the question. 
 " We heartily wish we could establish ourselves 
 upon this model : but we have no prospect of 
 such a happiness; and since the civil govern- 
 ment has made our desires impracticable, we 
 hope God will be merciful to us." Here, then, 
 was the difficulty. The civil power would not 
 suffer the Episcopal constitution to be restored. 
 And the historian Collier gives us the reason. 
 " The States, upon their revolt from the King of 
 Spain, destroyed seven Sees, and applied the 
 revenues to the public service." " Those at the 
 helm might be averse to the continuing Episco- 
 pacy, for fear some part of the old endowments 
 should be expected to maintain it."* 
 
 But does not this cast great discrdit upon the 
 venerable Synod of Dort ? I can only say, I am 
 not bound to vindicate the character of the Sy- 
 nod — I state the facts, and the testimony — The 
 reader will judge for himself. In truth, Sir, the 
 Synod of Dort was a political engine ; being so 
 contrived as to act always in subserviency to the 
 views of the State. It is impossible to read the 
 excellent history of Brandt,t without being forci- 
 
 liad been Bishops, Uie system of ministerial parity would never have 
 had existence. Will you talk to us, then, of the " astonishing igno- 
 rancc, misconceptions, and misrepresentations" of Bishop Hull ? 
 
 • Ecclesiastical liistory, vol. ii. p. 718. 
 
 t Uistory of the Ueformation in and about the Lovr Countries, in 4 
 vols, folio — a work celebrated for its impartiality 
 
LET. VII. OPINIONS OF THK REFORMKRS* 211 
 
 bly Struck with this fact. '^ The Synod," said 
 Martiniiis, one of its most dislin<2;uished members, 
 " is nothing more than a political farce or comedy, 
 in which statesmen act the chief parts."^' To 
 the same effect is the language of the celebrated 
 Lewis Du Moulin — " The civil magistrate will 
 suffer none to appear at the council but such as 
 approve of their doctrine." " If the States Gene- 
 ral had been on the side of the Arminians, they 
 might, without doubt, have easily procured a 
 Synod that would have been entirely Arminian."t 
 And the very distinguished Marcus Antonius de 
 Dominis, whom Brandt calls a miracle of learning, 
 expressly says — " Th« Synod of Dort was governed 
 by human views and designs, and its chief care 
 was, that the party of Barnevelt should not be 
 supported by the remonstrants, nor prevail over 
 the opposite faction. Away with such Synods, 
 and such synodical decrees."! 
 
 Thus we see how Episcopacy came to be laid 
 aside in Holland. The civil power was opposed 
 to it, and the members of the different Synods 
 yielded to the necessity of their situation: — " Since 
 the civil government has made our desires im- 
 practicable, we hope that God will be merciful to 
 
 U9."^ 
 
 * 3 Brandt, p. 283. f ^^''^^^- P- ^03. 
 
 i Ibid. p. 309. It would 'be easy to multiply testimonies on this 
 subject ; but the reader, who wishes for full information, is referred to 
 the third volume of Brandt's History, already mentioned. 
 
 § Before taking leave of the Churcli of Holland, permit me to in- 
 troduce to you the testimony of its most ilhistrious ornament — thf 
 immortal Hug-o Grotins. " Kpisronary had il--^ beginning' in the r.pos- 
 
212 OPINIONS OF THE REFORMERS. LET. Vll. 
 
 The people of Geneva would most willingly 
 have embraced Episcopacy, if they could have 
 procured it without submitting to papal authority. 
 Of this the following fact will furnish abundant 
 proof. The Duke of Savoy, while besieging the 
 city of Geneva, sent an ambassador, with pro- 
 mises of favour and protection to the inhabitants, 
 upon the condition of their forsaking the reformed 
 religion, restoring the images, turning out the 
 ministers, and receiving again their Bishop. What 
 was the reply ? That they would willingly receive 
 their Bishop if he would remember his name and 
 place, and do the work of a Bishop, according to 
 the word of God; as for the rest, they were to 
 obey God rather than men, and would never, as 
 long as they remembered that they were free and 
 consecrated to God alone, set up any thing tend- 
 ing to superstition.^ Accordingly, we have seen 
 Biahop Hall expressly declaring, that the Gene- 
 vans wM3uld most readily have submitted to their 
 Bishop, if he would have consented to a reforma- 
 tion ; that their opposition was not to his office, 
 but to the corrupt doctrine which he espoused: 
 
 tolical times. This is testified by the catalogues of Bishops left us 
 by Ireneus, Eusebius, Socrates, Theodoret, and others, who all begin 
 from the apostolical age. But to depart from the faith of such wri- 
 ters, and so agreeable to one another in their assertions, in an histori- 
 cal matter, is the pirt only of an irreverent and obstinate mind. It 
 is as much as if you should deny that to be true, which all the Ro- 
 man histories deliver, that the consul ir authority began upon the 
 driving out of the Tarvquins." Tie Lnperio summarum J'otestatum : 
 apud Brett. 
 
 • Durell's View, &c. p. 160. 
 
LTF/r. VII. OlMNIONS OF THE REFORMERS. 213 
 
 all which, Bishop Ifall adds, is so notorious, that 
 no man, who has either brain or forehead, will 
 deny it. 
 
 If, instead of stigmatizing Dr. Dmell as igno- 
 rant and disingenous, you had carefully read his 
 valuable work, you would have found that the 
 Bishop of Geneva was not expelled by the Pro- 
 testants, but by the Papists themselves, before 
 the Reformation had been established in the city. 
 It was a political, not a religions struggle, that 
 obliged him to fly; the whole town and senate 
 continuing addicted to popery for two years after 
 his departure. So much was this the case, that 
 the Senate, during the absence of the Bishop, 
 passed a decree for the preservation of the old re- 
 ligion , in which all profession and countenance of 
 the Lutheran doctrine were strictly prohibited. 
 When the Bishop withdrew for the last time, 
 many professors of the reformed religion were 
 driven out of the city ; and the translated Bibles, 
 whether in French or Dutch, were ordered to be 
 committed to the flames.* 
 
 * See Dr. Durell's View of llie Government and Public Worship ol 
 God in the Reformed Churches beyond tlie Seas, p. 151 to 161. 
 
 It is a common error to suppose that the Reformers of Geneva ex- 
 cited a popular tumult, by which the Bishop was expelled both from 
 liis civil and ecclesiastical power; whereas the fact is, as Dr. Durell 
 completely proves, that the expulsion in question was the work of 
 the Papists ; that the Reformation connnenced durint:^ the absence 
 of the Bishop; and that the circumstance of the Reformers proceeding- 
 without Episcopacy was thus the result of necessity, not of choice. 
 What more decisive evidence of this could be g-iven tlian the express 
 declaration of their readiness to receive their Bishop, upon the sin- 
 .^le condition of his embracing- the reformed doctrine ! In truth, 
 Episcopacy was never deliberately and voluntarily laid aside bv w\ bodA 
 
?14 OPINIONS 6P THE REFORMERSc LET. VII, 
 
 In short — the whole Christian world was Epis- 
 copal until the time of the Refornicition. " VV^e 
 require you," says the profoundly learned Hooker, 
 " to find out but one Church, upon the face of 
 the whole earth, that hath been ordered by your 
 discipline, or hath not been ordered by ours, that 
 is to say, by Episcopal regiment, since the time 
 that the blessed Apostles were here conversant.'* 
 How conclusive is this ? And shall we be told, 
 in the face of such a fact, that ministerial parity 
 is the doctrine of Scripture, and of the primitive 
 Church? What! a doctrine never acted upon 
 until the sixteenth century, and acted upon then 
 on the express ground of necessity?* Yes, I re- 
 peat it, the Reformers, wherever a free choice 
 existed, adopted the Episcopal constitution of the 
 ministry; and when they departed from this con- 
 stitution, they invariably pleaded the necessity of 
 
 of men except the English and Scotch Presbyterians. Even the first 
 Puritans, indeed, entertained .o scruples w ith respect to the lawfidness 
 of Episcopal government ;-\ it was not until after some years of furious 
 contention that it came to be denounced as a wicked and anti-Chris- 
 tian hierarchy. 
 
 * The only ex imples of Christian Societies, Presbyterially consti- 
 tuted, which you attempt to produce, previously to the 16th century, 
 are those of the Waldenses, and of the Bohemian brethren. But here 
 Mosheira is directly against you.t In fact, the evidence of the Epis- 
 copal constitution of the Churches of the Waldenses, and of the Bo- 
 'lemian brethren is clear and decisive ; at all events, the case is a dis- 
 puted one. But Dr. Bov/den has fully examined this subject, and with 
 his usual ability : I shall, therefore, barely refer the reader to what 
 he has said. See Bosudeii's Letters to Miller ^ vol. it. p. 77 — 81. ?•«/. Hi 
 p. 331—347 
 
 I Robertson's America, vol. iv. p. 259, 260. 
 
 1 MosSdm's Ecclesiastical History, v«^ iii p 12?. 
 
LET. VH. OPINIONS OF TME ItEPORMERS. 215 
 
 the case as their excuse. In England, where the 
 Reformation was conducted with marked deHbe*- 
 ration, Episcopacy was retained as an apostolic 
 institution, and placed at the very foundation of 
 the established Church: three distinct offices of 
 ordination were composed for the distinct orders 
 of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons ; and these dis- 
 tinct orders were expressly declared to be of di- 
 vine authority. In Denmark and Sweden the 
 civil government was decidedly favourable to the 
 Reformation: accordingly, in those countries the 
 Church was reformed upon Episcopal principles. 
 The Lutheran Churches of Germany, not able, 
 as they supposed and declared, to procure the 
 Episcopal constitution of the ministry, retained, 
 nevertheless, the forms of Episcopal government; 
 the Superintendents of those Churches exercising 
 all the powers of Bishops, and wanting nothing 
 to make them real Bishops but a regular consecra- 
 tion. Luther and Melancthon excused their de- 
 parture from Episcopacy on the ground of neces- 
 sity alone; they repeatedly expressed the most 
 earnest wish to have Bishops in their Churches — 
 '^ I would to God," says Melancthon, " it lay in 
 me to restore the government of Bishops."* " li 
 it were lawful for us to lay aside Bishops, yet 
 surely it were not expedient. Luther was ever oi 
 this opinion. "t Calvin, in the early part of his 
 aareer, declared his perfect readiness to submit 
 
 * Apol. Aug". Con. p. 305. 
 
 I Melanct. Camerarius, Hist. Con. Aug-ust. p. 389. 
 
 The Church of Scotland was originally reformed upon a principle 
 
216 OPINIONS OF thj: UEFORMERS. Lhl. VIU 
 
 to an Episcopacy like that of the Church of Eng- 
 land, and pronounced all who would refuse to 
 submit to it as deserving of being anathematized. 
 Nay, he wrote to Edward VI. solemnly offering 
 to receive Bishops; and in his comment on Titus 
 i. 5, published so late as the year 1.349, he 
 expressly disclaimed the doctrine of ministerial 
 paritij as contrary to Scripture. The Protestant 
 Church of France, we have seen, was perfectly 
 ready to reform under the authority of Bishops. 
 When the Bishop of Troyes embraced the true 
 faith, the Protestants of the district immediately 
 received him as their Diocesan, and continued to 
 obey him as such until he was expelled by the 
 civil government. Cardinal Castilion, and San- 
 gelasius acted also in the same way, and endured 
 the same persecution. It was owing to Papal 
 fraud and violence that the Church of France 
 was not reforn^ed upon primitive principles. AVe 
 have seen, also, that the most influential divines 
 of the Church of Holland pleaded the difficulty 
 of their situation in excuse for their depi-rture 
 from Episcopacy. When Bishop Carleton main- 
 tained the divine right of Diocesan Episcopacy 
 before the Synod of Dort, Bogerman, the cele- 
 brated President of that Synod, emphatically re- 
 
 oF imparity. Superintendents were established witli Episcopal power, 
 and wanting nothing but consecration to make thenr\ Bishops. Thus 
 matters continued from 1560 to 1580, when, partly by fraud and partly 
 by violence, Presbyterianism was introduced. This whole subject is 
 fully examined by Dr. Bowden, in the third Tolumc of his I.-citers, to 
 '.vhiqli the reader is referred — p. .'^52 — 3^4. 
 
LEX. VII. OP1NION3 OF THE REFORMERS. 211 
 
 plied — '^ Domine, nos non sum us adeo felices''-— 
 " My Lord, we are not so happy." Even in the 
 reformation at Geneva, Episcopacy was not ranked 
 among the corruptions of Popery ; the peofile ex- 
 pressly engaged in their negociations with the 
 Duke of Savoy to submit to the authority of their 
 Bishop if he would impose upon them no super- 
 stitious observances. 
 
 The truth, briefly, would seem to be, that the 
 Reformers were universally disposed, in the first 
 instance, to adopt the Episcopal constitution of 
 the Priesthood, and were prevented from doing 
 so by the diificulty of procuring Bishops; a diffi- 
 culty which was in a great measure created by 
 the artful policy of the Papal court. Supposing 
 themselves reduced to the alternative of giving 
 up the cause of Reformation, or of proceeding 
 independently of the Episcopal power, they pre- 
 ferred the latter; declaring, at the same time, their 
 readiness to receive Bishops, acknowledging their 
 authority to be primitive and apostolic,* and ex- 
 
 * W^at a striking confessirui is that of the celebrated David Blonde^ 
 who was pavticukrly employed by tlie Assembly of Divines to plead 
 the Presbyterian cause! He concluded his Apologia pro Hieronymi 
 sententia thus : — " By all that we have said to assert the rights of t'fie 
 Presbytery, we do not intend to invalidate the qncieni and apostolical 
 constitution of Episcopal pre-eminence. Hut we believe that whereso- 
 ever it is est.tblished conformable to the ancient Cajnons, it must be 
 carefully preserve<l ; and wheresoever by some heat of contention or 
 ot.herwise, ifhath been put down or violated, it ought to be reverently 
 restored." * Kut that book having been written at the earnest request 
 ©f the Assembly of JJirine^ at Westminster., and of the Scots especially, 
 who had their agents at Paris to strengthen their party, by misinform- 
 ing the Protestants of France, and wirming tliem to their side. When 
 '.h€Ke agents saw the conclusion of Mr. Blondel'^ manuscript, thc^ 
 
 28 
 
^18 OPINIONS OF THE REFORMERS. LET. VI!, 
 
 ciising the departure from such authority on the 
 ground of necessity alone. This, probably, was 
 the first stage of the business. But, having acted 
 upon the system of Presbyterial ordination, the 
 natural principles of the human mind began to 
 operate in the Reformers; disposing them to view 
 with a favourable eye all such arguments as might 
 give countenance to the course which they had 
 taken. At length they were inclined to consider 
 Episcopacy as a venerable and ancient institution, 
 rery conducive to order and discipline, but as 
 resting on no other foundation than that of human 
 appointment. This was the second stage of the 
 progress. And here some of the Reformers con- 
 tinued ; whilst others finally proceeded so far as 
 to declare ministerial parity to be the scriptural 
 and primitive institution. 
 
 Such is the natural effect of irregular example. 
 Let us beware how we innovate upon divine in- 
 stitutions! It will seldom, if ever, fail to lead us 
 into the depths of error and of folly. If Luther, 
 Melancthon, and Calvin had been Bishops when 
 they entered upon their glorious career, the Pro- 
 testant Churches would have been preserved from 
 that lamentable division which has mingled the 
 inestimable blessings of the Reformation with so 
 much of strife and of bitterness. 
 
 expostulated witli him very loud, for roaring all the good he had done 
 in Ins book, and never left importuning him, till they had pre- 
 vailed upon him to strike out that conclusion.' This piece of intelli- 
 gence was given to Dr. du Moulin by Archbishop Usher, Anno 1651. 
 (Chandler's Jippeal D^ended, /». 241. 
 
( 219 ) 
 
 LETTER VIll. /^COL.COLL. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 A Proceed to notice that part of your work which 
 treats on the subject of Calvinism. 
 
 From the manner in which you speak, your 
 readers will draw the conclusion that, in what I 
 have said on this point, I have transgressed every 
 rule of decorum. I am not afraid of being con- 
 demned by any of your candid parishoners who 
 will take the trouble of reading all those parts of 
 my Letters in which the peculiarities of Calvinism 
 are mentioned. It is true, I have spoken freely and 
 strongly of what I conceive to be a most erroneous 
 and pernicious scheme of doctrine; but I have 
 indulged in no personal reflections. Far otherwise ! 
 Let me refer you to the following passage from the 
 thirtieth page of my Letters — " While I speak thus 
 strongly of the pecuhar tenets of Calvinism, I can 
 say, with perfect truth, that for many, who ar- 
 dently embrace them, I entertain the sincerest 
 respect and veneration." Now, while we thus 
 liberally give credit to the supporters of a doctrine, 
 if we may not strongly condemn, and even repro- 
 bate, the doctrine itself, there must be an end of 
 all manly discussion. You, certainly, will admit 
 that the Papal Church has been adorned by men 
 of eminent learning and piety. The modern his- 
 
220 CALVINISM. LET. VIII. 
 
 tory of Christianity can produce few names more 
 truly venerable than those of Massilon, Fenelon, 
 and Pascal. But, surely, you feel yourself at li- 
 berty to speak of the Romish doctrines in terms 
 of deep abhorrence. Well, I sincerely think that 
 the peculiarities of the Calvinistic scheme are not 
 less repugnant to the spirit of the Gospel, and 
 not less marked with absurdity and horror, than 
 the grossest errors or the foulest corruptions of 
 the Papacy ; and, while I make no attack upon 
 the personal characters of Calvinists, much more 
 when 1 speak of them with the utmost respect, in 
 thus strongly condemning their opinions, I trans- 
 gress not, in the smallest degree, the rules of 
 lawful rontroi^orsy Tlie principle which will 
 justify you in marking the Romish system of 
 doctrine as replete with nonsense, idolatry, and 
 blasphemy, will more than bear me out in the 
 strongest epithets which I have permitted myself 
 to apply to the scheme of your great ecclesiasti- 
 cal master.* 
 
 Besides, is it not strange that you should com- 
 plain of the liberty which I give myself in refer- 
 ence to the system of Calvinistic divinity, when 
 you take such high ground in its favour, and pro- 
 nounce upon the opinions of those who dissent 
 
 • I bet^ to be particularly understood here as speaking of G;^enuinc 
 unmixed Calvinism ; such us it appears in the Institutes of Calvin, and 
 in the Westminster Confession of Faith. Its peculiarities arc, absolute, 
 unconditional election and reprobation^ partial redemption, irresistible 
 ^race, and final perseverance. This system, even the editors of the 
 Christian Observer, it will be shown, speak of in terms of strong- con 
 demnation. 
 
LET. VIII. CALVlNtSM. 221 
 
 irom it, in terms so extremely inagisterial ? You 
 represent the consequences which flow from the 
 rejection of Calvinism as to the last degree shock- 
 ing and absurd. You declare the doctrine of your 
 opponents to be " inconsistent with itself^ dishonour- 
 able to God^ and comfortless to man ;" You brand 
 it as " a gloomy system of possibilities and per- 
 adventures, nearly, if not quite, as likely to land 
 the believer in the abyss of the damned, as in the 
 paradise of God."* In what part of my Letters 
 e I indulged in equal freedom of expression ? 
 Still, I find no fault with this portion of your work. 
 1 am the advocate of frank discussion. And had 
 you abstained, on all occasions, from persona/ attack^ 
 I should have been very far from applying to you 
 
 tii^everity of language, which, however painful 
 it was to me to employ it, I considered as imperi- 
 ously called for by the rules of truth and justice. 
 
 Again — Have I given so much as the slightest 
 hint that there can be no salvation for those who 
 embrace the Calvinistic doctrine ? God forbid 
 that such a sentiment should ever enter into my 
 heart ! And yet, in that part of your work in which 
 it appears to be your object to set forth the utmost 
 extent of your charitable ideas, you go no further 
 than to admit the possibility of salvation to those 
 who reject the Calvinistic doctrine in ivords;\ thus 
 consigning all who reject it not merely in ivords, 
 but in substance, to inevitable perdition. After 
 this, you will permit me to express my astonish - 
 
 * CoiUinuation of Letters, p. 338, 339. f I^'^- P- 24<^ 
 
222 CALVINISM. LET. Ylll, 
 
 ment that you should suffer yourself to say a sin- 
 gle word as to the freedom of expression in which 
 I have indulsfed on the subject before us. 
 
 You assert, in the most positive terms, that the 
 doctrines of Calvinism are the doctrines of the 
 Church of England. If this be so, it must follow 
 that the great body of the Episcopal clergy of 
 the United States are traitors to the sacred cause 
 which they have expressly pledged themselves to 
 maintain. This, indeed, is a charge which Cal- 
 vinists omit no opportunity of bringing against 
 them. It is of the utmost importance to ascertain 
 how far it is founded in truth. Let me solicit the 
 attention of candid Pr^ sbyterians to a very brief 
 investigation of the subject. 
 
 We must, in the first place, ascertain precisely 
 what Calvinism is. 
 
 This is the more necessary from the pains which 
 have been taken to hide the true features of the 
 system from the public view. So abhorrent are 
 the distinguishing principles of Calvinism from the 
 best feelings of our nature, and so contrary to the 
 whole tenor of Scripture, and to common sense, 
 that its advocates seem afraid to set it forth in its 
 naked simplicity. It is only in some disguised 
 form that they can hope to give it currency. Ac- 
 cordingly, they dwell upon the corruption of man, 
 -and upon the fundamental doctrines of. the Cross, 
 in a way evidently calculated to lead the public to 
 suppose that they form the line of distinction 
 between Calvinists and other professing Chris- 
 tians. This is extremely uncandid and unjust. 
 
LET. VI [I. eALVlNISM. 22^ 
 
 The distinguishing cloctrincs of the Cross liav^ 
 notliing to do with the peculiarities of Calvinism. 
 Until the fourth centur)', these peculiarities were 
 utterly unknown; being introduced, in the first in- 
 stance, by St. Austin, who was very far, however, 
 from carrying matters to the same extreme with 
 the adventurous Reformer of Geneva.* 
 
 Were 1 called upon to point out that fundamen- 
 tal principle, which may be considered as com- 
 prising the sum and substance of Christianity, 
 and as being essential to its very existence, I 
 should fix, w ithout one moment's hesitation, upon 
 the great doctrine of redemption from sin and 
 death by the blood of a crucified Saviour. This 
 doctrine is not less characteristic of the Old Tes- 
 tament than of the New. The great difference, 
 indeed, between the two Testaments, lies in this ; 
 that the first directs the eye of the faithful to a 
 Saviour, who, in the fulness of time, is to appear 
 in the flesh ; while the last describes a Saviour 
 who has actually appeared in the flesh, and has 
 actually ofl'ered up, in his own proper person, a 
 full, perfect, and suflicient sacrifice, oblation, and 
 satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world. Un- 
 der both Testaments, man is described as in a state 
 of captivity to sin and death. Under both, he is 
 described as ransomed by the blood of sprinkling, 
 which speaketh better things than that of Abel. 
 
 So far is it from being true, that Calvinists are 
 
 * The later works of St. Austin, in fact, contain opinions and argu. 
 ments which are absolutely inconsistent with the system of Calvlu 
 This is shown by Dr. Laurence in his Bampton Letters, 
 
224 CALVINISM. LET. VIII. 
 
 distinguished from other professing Christians by 
 their attachment to this great doctrine, that they 
 are to be known, emphatically, by the limitation 
 which they give to the doctrine, in confining the 
 efficacy of the blood of Christ to a few elected 
 favourites of an arbitrary sovereign. It is not by 
 their adherence to the genuine doctrines of the 
 Cross, but by the corruptions which they endea- 
 vour to graft on those doctrines, that the faithful 
 historian must describe them. 
 
 Let the system in question be now fairly stated, 
 and compared with the public formularies of the 
 Church of England. 
 
 Our first parents, in transgressing the law of 
 God, brought actual guilt, not only upon them- 
 selves, but upon their posterity. The human race 
 was summed up in Adam. His sin was imputed 
 to his descendants, so as to become the proper and 
 personal sin of each one of them, by the positive 
 decree of God. Thus, all men, the moment they 
 enter the world, are, strictly speaking^ sinners; 
 have actual guilt upon their heads; for which they 
 are bound over to the wrath of God, and justly 
 made subject to death, with all miseries, spiritual, 
 temporal, and eternal. 
 
 Out of this condemned mass of mankind, thus 
 doomed, for the sin of Adam, to eternal wo, from 
 the moment of their birth, it has pleased God to 
 select a certain portion by an absolute and irresist- 
 ible decree; such decree fixing the precise num- 
 ber, and ascertaining the very individuals that are 
 to be saved. For this elect part of the human 
 
LET. VIH. 
 
 CALVINISM. 225 
 
 race alone did the Saviour die ; to it alone is ef- 
 fectual grace given ; which irresistibly and infal- 
 libly converts the soul to God. Conversion is 
 wholly a divine work; — man is absolutely passive 
 therein. And, finally, the elect, being thus brought 
 to God by the operation of irresistible grace, can- 
 not permanently fall away, but will certainly per- 
 severe to the end, and be saved. 
 
 The reprobates remain in that condemned state 
 in which they came into the world. No Saviour 
 is provided for them 5 no effectual grace is ever 
 given to them. The conversion of the soul to 
 God being entirely the result of special grace, and 
 this grace not being vouchsafed to the reprobate, 
 it follows that their conversion is a thing impossi- 
 ble. In short, they come into the world under an 
 absolute necessity of perishing. 
 
 Listen to the language of the Westminster Con- 
 fession of Faith ! 
 
 " Our first parents being the root of all mankind, 
 the guilt of their sin was imputed to all their pos- 
 terity." " Every sin, both original and actual, 
 doth, in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner, 
 whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God, 
 and so made subject to death, with all miseries, 
 spiritual, temporal, and eternal."* " By the de- 
 cree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, 
 some men and angels are predestinated unto ever- 
 lasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting 
 death.f " These angels and men, thus predesti- 
 
 * Westminster Confession of JPaith, chap. vi. soct. 3. 6 
 t Ibid. char), iii. sect. 3. 
 
i26 CALVlNlbM. LET. VIII. 
 
 nated and foreordained, are particularly and un- 
 changeably designed ; and their number is so cer- 
 tain and deQnite, that it cannot be either increased 
 or diminished."* " Those of mankind that are 
 predestinated unto life, God, before the founda- 
 tion of the world was laid, according to his eter- 
 nal and immutable purpose, hath chosen in Christ, 
 unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace 
 and love, without any foresight of faith ^ or good 
 work's^ or perseverance in either of thern^ or any 
 other thing in the creature^ as conditions^ or causes 
 movins him thereunto.^^\ " None are redeemed 
 by Christ, eifectually called, justified, adopted, 
 sanctified, and saved, but the elect only^l " Ef- 
 fectual caUing is of God's free and special grace 
 alone, not from any thing at all foreseen in man, 
 who is altogether passive therein."^ " They 
 whom God hath accepted in his beloved, effectu- 
 ally called and sanctified by his Spirit, can nei- 
 ther totally nor finally fall away from the state of 
 grace ; but shall certainly persevere therein to the 
 end, and be eternally saved. This perseverance 
 of the saints depends not upon their own free 
 will, but upon the immutability of the decree of 
 election."|| " The rest of mankind, God was 
 j)leased, for the glory of his sovereign power over 
 Ins creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to 
 dislionour and wrath for their sin, to the praise 
 qf his glorious justice."1I 
 
 • Wcstminsler Confession of Faitli, chap. iii. sect. 4. 
 ■\ Ibul. cliap. iii sect. 5. t Ibid chap. iii. sect. 6. 
 
 § Ihid. chap. x. sect. 2. \\ Ibid. chap. XYii. sect. 1, i. 
 
 ^ Ibid, chap. iii. sect. 7. 
 
LET. VIll. CALVINISM. 227 
 
 Listen lo the words of the man tVom wlioni the 
 system in question has derived its name. 
 
 " God not only Ibresavv that Adam woukl fall, 
 but also ordained that he should.''^* " All men arc 
 not created in like estate ; but some are foreor- 
 dained to eternal life, others to eternal damna- 
 tion.^t " God of his will and pleasure so ordains, 
 that amongst some men, some should be so born 
 as to be devoted from the womb to certain death, 
 who, by their destruction, might glorify his name." 
 " Whom, therefore, he hath created unto the 
 shame of life, and destruction of death, that they 
 should be instruments of his wrath, and examples 
 of his severity, that they may come to their end ; 
 at one time he deprives them of the power of 
 hearing his word ; at another, he the more blinds 
 and stupifies them by the preaching of it. "J " Be- 
 hold God calls to them (the reprobates) that they 
 may be more deaf: He kindles a light, that they 
 maybe more blind : He brings his doctrine to them, 
 that they may be more confounded ; and applies 
 the remedy to them, but that they may not be heal- 
 ed."§ " The reprobates w ould be thought excus- 
 able in sinning, because they cannot avoid the 
 necessity of sinning; especially since such ne- 
 cessity is cast upon them by the ordination of God. 
 But we deny that they are thence rightly excused, "jj 
 The difference between the elect and the reprobate. 
 
 * Institutes, lib. ili, clinp. 4. Also Calvin de Prccics. p. 607.. 
 t Institutes, lib. iii. chop.'?!, rj ibid. lib. iii oliap..?!>. 
 
 ^ Ibid, lib, iii. chap. 24. \\ Ibid.. T-l) <n 
 
228 CALVINISM. LET. VIII. 
 
 Calvin resolves solely into the arbitrary will of 
 God.* 
 
 We have thus shown, from the most authentic 
 evidence, what Calvinism really is. 
 
 We will now set down, in a few brief proposi- 
 tions, the principles in which Calvinists and anti- 
 Calvinists agree, and in which they differ; and 
 then test the leading tenets of Calvinism by the 
 standards of the Church of England. 
 
 1. They unite in the great doctrine of redemp- 
 tion from sin and death by the blood of a cruci- 
 fied Saviour. They regard the death of Christ as 
 a real, propitiatory sacrifice for sin ; enabling 
 God, in consistency with the essential perfections 
 of his nature, to receive transgressors to mercy. 
 They believe that Christ not only taught the effi- 
 cacy of repentance and faith, but that he actually 
 imparted to them whatever efficacy they possess, 
 by his death and sufferings ; that he not only in- 
 formed sinners of the manner in which salvation 
 is to be obtained, but that he absolutely purchased 
 this salvation for them by his meritorious passion. 
 
 Thus, in the great and fundamental doctrine 
 of satisfaction for sin by the cross of Christ, Cal- 
 vinists and anti-Calvinists unite ; and it is this 
 doctrine that principally distinguishes them from 
 all tliose professors of Christianity who deny the 
 divinity and atonement of our blessed Lord. 
 
 2. They agree that the human race has inher- 
 ited from its parents a corrupt and depraved na- 
 ture. 
 
 • Institutes, lib. iii. chap. 23 
 
LET. VIII. CALVINISM. 229 
 
 3. They agree that man ^^ cannot turn and 
 prepare himself, by his own natural strength and 
 good works, to faith and calhng upon God;"^ 
 that the assistance of the Holy Spirit is necessary 
 to begin, to carry on, and to perfect, the work of 
 sanctification. And thus they are opposed to the 
 corrupt doctrine of Pelagius, which gives to man 
 the powder of working out his salvation by his own 
 unassisted efforts. 
 
 The divinity and atonement of Christ, the cor- 
 ruption of man, and the necessity of supernatural 
 influence to his conversion and sanctification, arc 
 doctrines, then, which are common to the two 
 classes of persons of whom we are speaking. 
 These are the great and fundamental truths of 
 Christianity ; they are the truths which make the 
 Gospel, emphatically, a system of grace. But 
 Calvinists are not content with these simple doc- 
 trines of Scripture. Actuated by a prying and 
 curious spirit, they labour to be wise above what 
 is written ; they boldly attempt to fathom the un- 
 revealed counsels of the Godhead. 
 
 All the leading truths of the Gospel Calvinists 
 debase, by mingling with them their own inven- 
 tions. Thus they corrupt the doctrine of the 
 atonement, by limiting it to a few arbitrarily elected 
 favourites, in opposition to the plain and con- 
 atant language of Scripture, which extends it to 
 the whole human race. The doctrine of the fall 
 and consequent depravity of man they corrupt by 
 
 • Article X. of « Free W^ill" 
 
230 CALVINISM. LET. VIU. 
 
 asserting that he is wholly averse from all good, 
 and wholly inclined to all evil ; thus making him to 
 be a perfect fiend. And the doctrine of the super- 
 natural influence of the Holy Spirit upon the mind 
 they equally corrupt by representing that influence 
 as absolutely irresistible ; thus destroying at once 
 that free agency which alone can constitute us 
 moral and accountable beings. 
 
 But we will now put down, in brief propositions, 
 and in opposite columns, the points which distin- 
 guish Calvinists and anti-Calvinists from one ano- 
 ther. 
 
 Calvinisiic doctrine. Anii-Calvinistic doctrine. 
 
 1. The human race 1. The doctrine of the 
 
 was summed up in A- imputation of Adam's 
 
 dam; being in his loins, guilt to his posterity is 
 
 it virtually assented to contrary both to Scrip- 
 
 his act of disobedience, ture, and to common 
 
 Thus his guilt is imput- sense. It is utterly im- 
 
 ed to all his posterity, possible that the proper 
 
 It follows that all men, and personal guilt o( one 
 
 the moment they enter man should become the 
 
 the world, are, strictly proper and personal guilt 
 
 speaking, sinners; hav- of another. We inherit 
 
 ing actual guilt upon a corrupt nature from 
 
 their heads, as much as our first parents, but we 
 
 Adam had upon his inherit no actual guilt 
 
 violation of the divine from them. When men 
 
 command. And it would enter the world they are 
 
 be perfectly consistent perfectly free fn^m posi- 
 
LET. VIII. 
 
 eALVINISM. 
 
 231 
 
 With both tlie justice 
 and the mercy of God, 
 to consign infants, in 
 consequence of the sin 
 of Adam, which is their 
 sin by imputation, to 
 eternal perdition.* 
 
 tive sin, which, indecdj 
 they can commit only 
 when they become ca- 
 pable of distinguishing 
 right from wrong. God 
 will never condemn us 
 for the sin of our first 
 parents. We shall be 
 called to answer only 
 for our own actions. It 
 would not be consistent 
 with the justice of God 
 to consign infants to 
 eternal misery for the sin 
 of Adam. 
 
 * The doctrine of the imputation of Adam's guilt to his posterity may 
 ■a'ell be considered as the basis of the Calvinistic scheme ; indeed, it 
 seems to be necessary, as a ground work for the decree of unconditional 
 election and reprobation. And yet it was not taught by Calvin, but 
 was added by his followers, who perceived that it was wanting to render 
 the system complete. The foundation of what now passes under the 
 name of Calvinism was laid by St. Augustine, in the fifth century ; from 
 which period the doctrine of an arbitrary predestination has existed, in 
 a greater or less degree, in the Church of Rome. Calvin carried the 
 system further than St. Augustine, and made it more complete and 
 consistent. Still it was not brought to the state in which it now is, 
 resting on the imputation of Adam's guilt to his posterity as its funda- 
 mental principle, until some time after Calvin's death. The system is 
 now worked up into a consistent whole — a system not less artificial nor 
 less distant from the simplicity of scriptural truth, than \he Romish 
 doctrine of the merit of works, by which, immediately before tlie re- 
 formation, the great doctrine of redemption through Christ was super- 
 seded and lost. The creed of the schoolmen, and the Calvinistic creed 
 of partial redemption and irresistible grace, may be considered as the 
 opposite extremes, between which lies the scriptural doctrine of re- 
 demption through the merits of Christ. 
 
 Dr. Laurence, in his Bampton Lectures, proves, by quotations from 
 the works of Calvin, that he denied the doctrine nf imputation. Sep 
 not© 13, on Sermon III. 
 
232 CALVINISM. let/viii. 
 
 2. Out of the human 2. The doctrine of 
 race, thus justly expos- absolute, iniconditionaU 
 ed, by the guik of its election and reprobation 
 parents, to eternal n'o, is totally unfounded in 
 it pleased God to select Scripture. Election is 
 a certain portion by an a word which often oc- 
 eternal decree; such de- curs in the sacred writ- 
 cree fixing the precise ings; but it marks the 
 number, and ascertain- appointment of nations 
 ing the very individuals or bodies of men to spi- 
 to be saved. This de- ritual privileges ; not the 
 cree is altogether arbi- eternal predestination of 
 trary and absolute; be- one set of persons to 
 ing totally independent happiness, and of ano- 
 of, and unconnected ther to misery. Even 
 with, any " foresight of admitting that the words 
 faith or works, or any election and predestina- 
 other thing, in the crea- Hon, as used in Scrip- 
 ture, as conditions or ture, are properly ap- 
 causes moving thereun- plicable to individual 
 to." persons, still, ft is not 
 
 The rest of mankind an absolute and uncon- 
 
 are, in the same arbi- ditional election or pre- 
 
 trary and unconditional destination that is set 
 
 way, reprobated ; that forth, but an election or 
 
 is, they are doomed, or predestination founded 
 
 decreed, or predestinat- on the divine foreknow- 
 
 ed, from all eternity, to ledge of the use or abuse 
 
 perdition. which individuals would 
 
 make of the means of 
 grace. 
 
 The eternal decrees 
 
LET. VIII. 
 
 CALVINISM. 
 
 233 
 
 3. For this elect por- 
 tion of the human race 
 alone did the Saviour 
 die. The reprobate have 
 nothing to do with him. 
 He made no atonement 
 for their sins. They are 
 
 of the divine mind ron- 
 stitute a subject which 
 we are wholly unable 
 to fathom. Our busi- 
 ness is to attend to the 
 revealed will of God; 
 being well assured that 
 his secret and his reveal- 
 ed will cannot possibly 
 be inconsistent. And as 
 he expressly calls upon 
 all to come unto him, 
 and declares it to !)e his 
 will that none should be 
 lost, we may rest satis- 
 fied that there is no 
 eternal, unconditional 
 decree consigning the 
 bulk of mankind to in- 
 evitable perdition. To 
 suppose such a decree, 
 is to ascribe to God a 
 secret will in direct op- 
 position to his revealed 
 word. 
 
 3. Our blessed Savi- 
 our died, not merely 
 for the elect, but for all 
 mankind. " He is the 
 propitiation for our sins, 
 and not for ours only, 
 but also for the sins of 
 
 30 
 
254 CALVINISM. LET. VIII. 
 
 as utterly destitute of all the whole world." "He 
 interest in his blood as gave himself a ransom 
 if it had never been for all." " He tasted 
 shed. death for every man." 
 
 By the atonement of 
 Christ all men are 
 brought into a salvable 
 state ; in other words, 
 salvation is rendered 
 possible to all; it is 
 placed within the reach 
 of all. Every individu- 
 al, by the assistance of 
 the Holy Spirit, which 
 is denied to none who 
 ask for it, may work out 
 his own salvation. We 
 are all equally interest- 
 ed in the blood of Christ 
 — that is, the blood of 
 Christ was so far shed 
 for all, as to extend 
 equally to all the possi- 
 bility of salvation. All 
 are called ; — they alone, 
 who refuse to come, are 
 rejected; and none la- 
 bour under any impossi- 
 bility of coming. The 
 Holy Spirit is so far 
 given to all, as to enable 
 all to repent and be 
 
tET. VIII. CALVINISM. 235 
 
 saved. Thus it is that 
 Christ died for the sins 
 of the whole world. 
 4. The elect are, in 4. The doctrine of zV- 
 due time, effectually resistible grace has no 
 called ; that is, they are foundation in Scripture, 
 irresistibly converted to God deals with us as 
 God Such conversion free agents. It is no part 
 is wholly a divine work; of his system to corn- 
 man being absolutely pel us either to believe 
 passive therein. And his word, or to obey hi^ 
 the elect, being thus law. He exhibits suffi- 
 converted, in the first cient evidence for thq 
 instance, by irresistible one, and proposes ade- 
 grace, are, afterwards, quate motives for th^ 
 held by the mighty pow- other; leaving us free 
 er of God. It is ab- to believe or disbelieve 
 solutely impossible for in the first case, and to 
 them to fall away from obey or disobey in the 
 a state of grace, and pe- last. Man, therefore, is 
 rish. They will infalli- not absolutely passive in 
 bly persevere to the end, conversion. In short, 
 and be saved. conversion and sanctifi- 
 
 cation are partly a divi7ie 
 work, and partly a hu- 
 man ivorL Something 
 is left for us to do. We 
 are not impelled by ir- 
 resistible grace as mat- 
 ter is impelled by phy- 
 sical force. Of our- 
 selves we can do no- 
 
23S 
 
 CALVINISM. 
 
 LET.VIIK 
 
 5. To the reprobate 
 salvation is impossible. 
 As no atonins: blood was 
 ever shed for them, so 
 no elTectual grace is ever 
 given to the n. 
 
 Left to ourselves, we 
 inevitably parish. Ttie 
 repro ) te are left to 
 themselves. That as- 
 sistance of the Spirit, 
 without ^vhich we can- 
 not repent and live, 
 is absolutely withheld 
 from them. In short, 
 they are doomed from 
 all eternity to perdition. 
 And God, so far from 
 giving them the means 
 of salvation, absolutely 
 inclines them to evil, 
 and fits and prepares 
 them, as vessels of wrath, 
 for the display of his 
 glorious justice, in the 
 torments of never end- 
 ing despair. 
 
 6. Infants, as well as 
 
 thing. Through Christ 
 strengthening us we can 
 do all things. 
 
 5. As Christ died for 
 all men, so sufficient 
 grace is given to all men. 
 In other words, the in- 
 fluences of the Holy 
 Spirit are so far given 
 to all, as to enable all to 
 work ou t their salvation . 
 Irresistible grace is con- 
 ferred on none; — suffi- 
 cient grace is denied to 
 none. For all God gave 
 his Son; to all he sends 
 his Spirit ; and the sin- 
 ner is never finally re- 
 jected until he rejects 
 his God. 
 
 6. All persons dying 
 
LET. VIII. 
 
 CALVINISM. 
 
 237 
 
 adults, are divided into 
 the two classes of elect 
 and reprobate. The 
 former are saved; the 
 latter jierish. 
 
 7. " They who, hav- 
 ing never heard the 
 Gospel, know not Je- 
 sus Christ, and believe 
 not in him, cannot be 
 saved." The heathen 
 world will be indiscrimi' 
 nately lost. 
 
 in infancy are received 
 to the mercy of God. 
 
 7. Salvation is possi- 
 ble to the heathen. 'J'hey 
 will be judged, not by 
 the law of the Gospel, 
 of which they are total- 
 ly ignorant, but by the 
 particular law under 
 which they may have 
 been placed. Still, sal- 
 vation is, in all cases, 
 and under all circum- 
 stances, through the 
 blood of Christ. 
 Let us now very briefly compare some of the 
 cardinal principles of Calvinism with the Articles 
 and other Standards of the Church of England. 
 We will begin with the fundamental doctrine of 
 
 IMPUTATION. 
 
 The Westminster Confession of Faith positively 
 declares that the sin of our first parents is imputed 
 to their posterity ; that it brings guilt upon them ; 
 that it binds them over to the wrath of God, and 
 makes them justly subject to eternal death.* 
 
 In what part of the Standards of our Church is 
 this doctrine to be found ? 
 
 * Chapter VII. 
 
2SB CALVINISM. LET. VIII. 
 
 The ninth Article defines original sin to be 
 ^' the fault and corruption of the nature of every 
 man whereby he is very far gone from original 
 righteousness." Does the Article say, in the lan- 
 guage of the Westminster Confession of Faith, 
 that the sin of our first parents is imputed to their 
 posterity, that it bmigs guilt upon them, and hinds 
 them over to the wrath of God? By no means. 
 The Article declares, simply, that we derive from 
 our first parents a fallen and corrupt nature, in 
 professed opposition to the Pelagian idea, that we 
 come into the world in a state as pure as was that 
 of Adam before his fall. — But the Article goes on 
 — " And, therefore, in every person born into this 
 world it deserveth God's wrath and damnation." 
 The word it here refers to the corrupt nature of 
 man. This corrupt nature, then, is said to de- 
 serve God's wrath and damnation; in other words, 
 to be odensive in his pure and holy sight. The 
 term damnation, at the time the Articles were 
 composed, signified, simply, condemnation, dis- 
 approbation, displeasure. The ninth Article, then, 
 merely asserts that we inherit from our first pa- 
 rents a nature positively corrupt, and that this 
 corrupt nature is offensive to God: it by no 
 means asserts that man, in consequence of the 
 corrupt nature which he brings into the world, 
 deserves, or will incur eternal damnation ; which 
 is the doctrine of the Westminster Confession of 
 Faith.* 
 
 * If the posterity of Adam, bein^ in his loins, assented to his act 
 of disobedience, and thus sinned in hici, or if the original transgrcs- 
 
LET. VIII. 
 
 CALVINISM. 239 
 
 In order to understand the Article in question, 
 we must refer to the Popish errors against which 
 
 nion of Adam is imputed to his ofFsprlng-, so as to bring- g'uilt upon 
 tliem ; it must follow that we are bound to repent of the disobedience 
 in question. The conclusion is inevitable. Now, can any thing b« 
 more absurd than the idea of calling' upon men to repent of an act 
 committed before tliey were born ? Is not the bare statement of such 
 a proposition enough to cover the whole doctrine with ridicule ? Tran- 
 substantiation itself is not quite so preposterous. 
 
 The constant language of Scripture is, that we shall be judged by 
 the deeds done in the body; — not a word is said of our responsibility 
 for the sin of Adam. The thing, indeed, is absolutely incredible and 
 impossible in its own nature, and, therefore, could never be admitted 
 to be the genuine doctrine of Scripture, even if passages could be 
 produced, in which it might seem to be contained. We must have re- 
 course to a figurative interpretation, where it is necessary to preserve 
 us from absurdity. What can be more explicit than the language. 
 This is my body— this is my blood ? But are we to believe that the 
 bread is flesh, and the wine blood, in opposition to the irresistible 
 conviction of our senses, that they are not blood and flesh, but wine 
 and bread? Surely not. — This is my representative body — This is my 
 representative blood. And when Scripture says, ** By one man's dis- 
 obedience many were made sinners," are we to believe that the pos- 
 terity of Adam assented to his act of disobedience, and thus actually 
 sinned in him, so as to become positively guilty before God ? What, 
 is there no way of construing the passage so as to prevent it from be- 
 ing at variance with the immediate and irresistible dictates of the hu- 
 man mind? Guilt can be brought upon us only by acts of omission oP 
 of commission to which we expressly or impliedly assent. It is just as 
 great a violation of the established laws of our rational nature, to say 
 that we are guilty, in reference to the sin of our first parents, as to 
 say that two and tWo make fire, or that the whol- is superior to the 
 sum of its parts. 
 
 How, then, are we to understand the passage — " By one man's dis- 
 obedience many were made sinners ?" It points to that curse of death 
 which the sin of Adam brought upon his posterity ; they were m^de 
 subject to death, the penalty of sin. That this is the true sense, is 
 evident from the context; and such was the interpretation put upon the 
 passage by the Christian Fathers. 
 
 The view taken of the subject of original sin, by the Reformer 
 Zuinglius, is peculiarly just and liappy — " Sin is, properly, trans- 
 ffressioa of a law ; and where thara is no law, there i,s uo transgression. 
 
240 CAtVlNlSW. LET. YllU 
 
 it was designed to guard. At the period of the 
 Reformation, a very artificial system of divinity 
 prevailed in the Church of Rome ; the fruit of 
 the metaphysical disquisitions of the schoolmen. 
 They maintained, aTiong other things, that the 
 soul comes pure and immaculate into existence; 
 the corruption induced by the fall being con- 
 fined entirely to the body. Original sin is the 
 loss of original righteousness. Now, the school- 
 men regarded original righteousness as forming 
 no part of man's nature in his state of innocence, 
 but merely as an adventitious ornament, of which 
 he might be deprived without forfeiting his inte- 
 grity. Hence they considered fallen man as the 
 object of divine displeasure, not fro?n any thing 
 in him positively offensive ; but simply from the 
 loss of an acceptable quality. The doctrine of 
 the depravity of our nature was, in this way, com- 
 pletely superseded ; and, on the basis of the un- 
 imp. ired purity and energy of the soul, was 
 erected that system of merit, according to which 
 man was represented as able by his own natural 
 strength to deserve the grace of God, and then 
 
 Our great ancestor sinned ; but which of us mecklled -vrith the forbid- 
 den fruit? There is then no denying- that orig^inal sin, as it exists in 
 us, the descendants of Adam, is not properly nin. It is a disease ; it is 
 a condition. It may be called sin, but it is not so in strictness of speech. 
 Thus a perfidious enemy, when taken in war, may deserve to be made 
 & slave. His children also become slaves, hut the fault was in the fa- 
 ther. The children are not to blame, yet they suffer for the sin of 
 their father; and if you choose to denominate their state of slavery- 
 sin, because by sin they were broug-ht into that state, 1 shall not ob- 
 ject : It is, however, in this sense, that we are by nature the children 
 of wrath." See Milner's Church Mistory^ vl. v. p. 577- 
 
LET. VI n. CALVINISM. 241 
 
 by the aid of such gnice to deserve eternal life. 
 Thus the atonement of Christ was rendered su- 
 perllaoiis, and man became in reality his own 
 saviour. 
 
 In opposition to all this, the Ens^lish Reformers, 
 treading in the steps of their Lutheran predeces* 
 sors, maintained that original sin is the loss, not 
 merely of an adventitious ornament, but of the 
 primitive innocence and rectitude of our nature; 
 in consequence of which we are inclined to evil. 
 Accordingly, they held that our nature is posi- 
 tively corrupt and ofifensive in the sight of God; 
 but they did not go on and declare that this cor- 
 rupt nature, with w hich we ;ire born, brings actual 
 guilt upon us, and thereby justly subjects us to 
 the sentence of perdition. 
 
 By adverting, in this way, to the errors which 
 prevailed at the period of the Reformation, we 
 are enabled clearly to understand the language of 
 the ninth Article of the Church of England.* 
 
 The soul of man, notwithstanding the fall, con- 
 tinues pure and unvitiated ; the loss of original 
 righteousness being the loss not of a connatural 
 quality of the mind, but merely of an unessential 
 ornament. 
 
 Thus spoke the schoolmen.— 
 
 With a distinct reference to this grossly erro- 
 neous system, the English Reformers declared 
 the nature of man to be vitiated in soid not less 
 
 • See Laurence's Bampton Lectures, where this subject ia fully in- 
 restigatcd aiiJ e?:plained. 
 
 31 
 
242 CALVINISM. LET. Vlir* 
 
 than ill body; to be positrvelj corrupt, and there- 
 fore oflensive to a Being of infinite purity. 
 
 Bat this is widely diiferent from the Calvinis- 
 tic doctrine of the iinputctlion of the sin of our 
 first parents to their posterity, so as to render 
 them actually guilty before God, and deserving, 
 ap.nt from all positive transgression, of eternal 
 punishment. There is not a trace of this doc- 
 trine in the formularies of the Church of England : 
 indeed, it was not taught even by Calvin himself, 
 but was invented by his followers, long after his 
 death, with the view of supplying a palpable de- 
 ficiency in his theological scheme. 
 
 In the fundamental point, therefore, of the im- 
 putation of Adam's guilt to his posterity, the Ar- 
 ticles of the Church of England, and the West- 
 minster Confession of Faith, which is one of the 
 great standards of Calvinistic divinity, are clearly 
 at variance.^ 
 
 With the doctrine of the imputation of Adam's 
 guilt to his posterity is naturally connected that 
 of an arbitrary predestination of one part of the 
 
 * It may be well to mention here that the Calvinists, in the year 1643, 
 when they were triumphant in England, set about revising and alter- 
 ing the Articles, for the purpose, to use the language of Neal, ** of 
 making them more express and determinate in favour of Calvinism "f 
 The article o( Original Sin they altered thus — " Original Sin standeth 
 not in the following of Adam, but f together with his Jirst sin imputedj 
 it is the fault, &c." 
 
 This shows tliat our Articles, even in the opinion of Calvinists them- 
 selves, do not teach the doctrine of the imputation of Adam's guilt lo 
 iiis posterity. 
 
 t Hiitory of the Puritans, vol i. V- *% edition 1754- 
 
LET. VHI. CALVINISM. 24S 
 
 human race to eternal happiness, and of another 
 to eternal misery. \Vc are told that we come in- 
 to the world under the burden of positive guilt : 
 for which, inde|)endcnt]y of all personal trang- 
 gression, it would be just in God to consign us to 
 perdition. The way is thus cleared for the de- 
 cree of God electing some individuals, and re- 
 probating others. This decree is entirely abso- 
 solute; being " without any foresight of faith or 
 good works, or any other thing in the creature, 
 as conditions or causes moving thereunto."* Now, 
 in what part of the formularies of the Church 
 of England is such language to be found? The 
 Liturgy not only says no such thing, but holds 
 an opposite language, and breathes an opposite 
 spirit in every page. There is not a trace of 
 the doctrine in the Homilies. But the seven- 
 teenth Article, entitled, " of Predestination and 
 Election," is always triumphantly produced by 
 tlie Calvinist as decisive evidence. Well, here are 
 the words predestination and election; of course 
 the Church of England is Calvinistic, In this 
 very superficial way do most of those proceed 
 who are continually reproaching us with a depar- 
 ture from th€ standards of our faith. No one de- 
 nies that the words, election, predestination, are to 
 be found in Scripture; but the Calvinist is bound 
 to prove, first, that these words, as used in Scrip- 
 ture, and in the seventeenth Article of our Church, 
 refer to the future and eternal state of individuals ; 
 
 * Presbyterian Confession of Faith, ch;ip. i!i. sect. 5. 
 
244 GALVINtSM. tfci. viiu 
 
 and, seron'^lr, that the prerleslination of indivi* 
 duals to life or death is entirely independent of all 
 personal qualification f^ ; being resolvable solely into 
 the absolute sovereignty of God. 
 
 Let us admit, for a moment, that predestina- 
 tion is to be taken, not in a collective^ but an indi^ 
 vidual seme ; — still, the question arisee, is it con- 
 ditional, or is it absolute ? Calvin thus answers 
 ^!— " All are not created in likfe estate, but to some 
 eternal life, to others eternal death is foreap- 
 pointed."* " But those whom he appointeth to 
 damnation, to them, we say, by his just and ir- 
 re[)rehensible, but also incomprehensible judg- 
 ment, the entry of life is blocked up."t " There- 
 fore if we cannot assign a reason why he should 
 coiifer mercy on those that are his, but because thus 
 it pleaseth him; neither, indeed, shall we have 
 any other cause in rejecting of others, than his own 
 will."t Not less positive is the language of the 
 Westminster Confession of Faith. " By the decree 
 of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some 
 men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting 
 life, and others foreordained to everlasting death." 
 ^^ Their number is so certain and definite, that it 
 cannot be either increased or diminished." " They 
 are chosen without any foresight of faith or good 
 works, or any other thing in the creature, as con- 
 ditions, or causes moving thereunto." " The rest 
 of mankind God was pleased, for the glory of his 
 
 * Institutes, lib. iil. cliap. 21, sect. 5. f Ibid. chap. 21, sect. 
 4 Ibid. chap. 32, sect. 11. 
 
LET. VIII 
 
 eALViNISM. 2^i5 
 
 sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, 
 and to ordain them to dishonour and wratli."* 
 
 Thus God unconditionally saves some, and 
 destroys others, by an eternal decree. Having 
 decreed to save, he decrees to sanctify-t Arbi* 
 imry will and irresistible power are the only fea* 
 tUres which appear. Effectual callins^, or conver* 
 ^ion from sin to holiness is entirely a divine work; 
 the creature being absolutely passive therein. J 
 None but the elect are effectually called; and the 
 elect cannot possibly perish, being preserved by 
 the infallible decree of God.§ Thus, by irre* 
 sistible power, the sinner is at once converted, 
 sanctified, and fina4ly saved. The amount of the 
 whoie matter is simply this— God decreed to form 
 a number of machines, and to endow them with 
 the capacity o^ enjoying pleasure, and sufifering 
 pain— he decreed to prepare some for the one 
 ^tate, and some for the other — the former he 
 forces into Heaven, the latter he thrusts into Hell; 
 arbitrary will discriminating, and resistless power 
 Executing. 
 
 * Constltutian of the Presbyterian Church ui the United States. Con. 
 fcssioii of Faith, chap iii. sect. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. 
 
 f *' All those whom God halh predesiinuted unto life, and those only 
 he is pleased, in his appointtd and acceptetl time, effectually to call, 
 hy his Almighty power deternaining- them to that whtrh is g-ood, and 
 effectually druwihg them to Jesus Christ." Constitution of the Presbyte- 
 rian Church in the United States. Confession of Faith, chap. x. sect. I. 
 
 i "This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not 
 from any thing at all foreseen in man, who is altogether fassivb therein." 
 ^id. chap. X. sect 2. 
 
 § "This pei^severance of the saints depends not upon tlieir own free- 
 will, bui upon the immutability of the decree of election." /bid. chap. 
 jYii. pect. 2. 
 
246 CALVINISM, LET. VIII. 
 
 Very different is the language of those who hold 
 the Hnrtrine of a conditional predestination. They 
 connect ihe decree of God with his prescience; 
 supposing him to determine to bless where he 
 foresees faith and obedience ; to destroy where 
 ho foresees unbelief and impenitence. Thus God, 
 according to this view of the subject, decrees to 
 create a number of free agents, and to deal with 
 them according to the moral and responsible na- 
 ture which he gives them. He places before them 
 good and evil ; with the assistance of his Holy 
 Spirit) which is sufficiently given to all, they have 
 the power of choosing the one and rejecting the 
 Qther : — the obedient are saved ; the disobedient 
 perish. Here all is beneficent and lovely; the 
 rewards which are bestowed in the one case, and 
 the punishments which are inflicted in the other, 
 being consistent alike with the attributes of justice 
 and of mercy. Such is the difference between 
 an arbitrary and a conditional predestination. Now 
 the seventeenth Article is couched in general 
 terms; the predestination which it sets forth is 
 not declared to be absolute ; nay, we are expressly 
 required to " receive God's promises in such wise 
 as they are generally set forth to us in holy Scrip- 
 ture." Will any one deny that the promise of fu- 
 ture happiness is suspended on the condition of 
 our obedience to the law of God ? Will the im- 
 penitent be saved ? Is not penitence, then, a con- 
 dition of salvation ? The predestination of God 
 must be consistent with his promises; the latter 
 being conditional, the former must be conditional 
 
LET. VIII. CALVINISM. 247 
 
 also. Besides, the Articles of our Church must 
 be understood in a sense which is consistent with 
 her Liturgy ; and the Liturgy, it is well known, 
 preaches conditional salvation from beginning to 
 end. 
 
 In addition to all this, it is to be observed that 
 the seventeenth Article is totally silent on the sub- 
 ject of reprobation ; of course the doctrine of an 
 eternal decree of reprobation forms no part of the 
 faith of our Church. Now, your great master, 
 Calvin, expressly tells us that election, without re- 
 probation, cannot stand.* 
 
 But, in fact, the words, predestination^ election^ 
 as used in the seventeenth Article, are to be taken 
 in a collective^ not in an individual sense.f The 
 venerable Reformers of the Church of England 
 did not intend to lay down the doctrine of an eter- 
 nal decree of God fixing the future condition of 
 
 * Institutes, lib. iii. cap. 23, sect. L 
 
 \ Election^ purpose^ foreappointment, predestinated, never relate, ci- 
 ther in the Old or New Testament, to the future state of individuals; 
 but are always applicable to collective bodies. This Whitby hits proved 
 beyond the possibility of dispute. The Jews are consvnutly denomi- 
 nated the elect people ; and in the New Testament the term is used in 
 a general way to signify Christians, persons converted to the faith of 
 the Gospel. The Apostles address large bodies of Christians, and style 
 them tlie elect. The doctrine of ubsoUite decrees, fixmg the future 
 and eternal state of individuals, was violently opnosef! when originally 
 advanced by St. Augustine, and the author charg<d with heresy ^^ h. n 
 Calvin revived the doctrine, it met with the most dever mined resis- 
 tance, and was not established, without a severe strujigle, even in his 
 ©wn territory of Geneva. From the very period of i's origin, it has 
 not failed, at times, to perplex, disturb, and even convulse the Church. 
 But the g.-eat body of Christians have always firmly believed in the 
 doctrine of universal redemption, and the doctrines connected with it ; 
 and, of course, h,ave been anti-Calvinists. 
 
^48 CALVINISM. VET. VHI. 
 
 individuals, but iimply to give a, geueral descrip- 
 tion of the sclicine of redemption and salvation 
 througli the covenant of grace in Jesus Christ. 
 
 It is impossible to avoid being struck with the^ 
 dilTerence between the language of the Article, re- 
 lative to God's election, and that em|)loyed by 
 Calvin ; the tormer appearing to refer it to a col- 
 lective body, while the latter expressly applies it 
 to individual persons.* 
 
 Calvin declares that the unconditional predesti- 
 nation of some individuals to eternal life, is neces- 
 sarily connected with the unconditional reproba- 
 tion of others. And, indeed, this is obviously the 
 case. iN^ovv, the seventeenth Article says not a 
 word of any decree of reprobation. If, then, it had 
 been the design of the Article to declare the doc- 
 trine of a predestination of individuals to eternal 
 life, the corresponding and necessarily connected 
 doctrine of reprobation w^ould have been expressly 
 introduced This is a further very probable cir- 
 cumstance to show, that the predestination spoken 
 of in the Article relates to the covenant of grace 
 in Jesus Christ; for, in this view of predcGlinalion, 
 it has no connexion whatever with the Calvinistig 
 tenet of reprobation. 
 
 • The divine decree, according to Calvin, is «* de unoquoque ho- 
 mine:t while the English Reformers refer it to those "whom God 
 liath chosen in Clirist out of mankind." Mclancthon holds the same 
 lan^niajre with the Church of England ; considering the decree of tiod 
 as having for iU object a Church collected from among tlie human 
 race. 
 
 t Institates* Ub. iu« chap- U sect. 5'. 
 
LET. Vnr. CALVINISM. 249 
 
 We shall be confinned in this view of the sub- 
 ject if we direct our attention for fi rnonicnt to the 
 baptismal service of the Church of England. In 
 that service God is expressly represented as favour- 
 ably receiving all who are brought to him in bap- 
 tism ; it is declared, in so many words, that he ad- 
 mits them into the number of his children. Now, 
 as the Church of England must be supposed to 
 speak a consistent language in her dilTerent stand- 
 ards, we can be at no loss to discover the sense in 
 which the words, election, predestination, are in- 
 tended to be used by her. It is evident, from the 
 baptismal service, that she considers tiiem as re- 
 ferring to a collective body, and as marking the 
 designation of that body to spiritual privileges in 
 this world. All baptized persons are taken into 
 covenant with God, and thus elected. 
 
 In the view of the Church of England, then, the 
 doctrine of election is connected with the ordi- 
 nance of baptism ; and the baptismal service re- 
 presents God as the common and impartial Father 
 of all, electing us as Christians, and finally reject- 
 ing those only who forfeit the privileges of their 
 election, by fliiling to perform its conditions. 
 
 Thus, interpreting the seventeenth Article by 
 the baptismal service, we perceive that the predes- 
 tination spoken of in the former, does not relate to 
 the future state of individuals, but marks the eter^ 
 nal purpose of God to place fallen man under a 
 new dispensation of mercy through Christ, and the 
 election of a Church out of the world as the de- 
 pository of his covenant and his grace. It is, at all 
 
 32 
 
25© CALVINISM. LET. Vlli. 
 
 events, most certain that the Church of England 
 rejects the idea of an arbitrary* selection of indi- 
 uriduals as the objects of divine favour ; that she 
 regards God as mercifully embracing all who are 
 brought to him in baptism ;t w ithdrawing, never- 
 theless, from them his favour if they violate their 
 baptismal engagements ; — it not being sutTicient 
 that we be made in baptism the children of God 
 by adoption unless we be daily renewed by his 
 Holv Spirit, and so be rendered meet, by sanctifi- 
 cation of heart and holiness of life, to be received, 
 through the merits of Christ, into the Kingdom of 
 Glory. 
 
 But the limits of this work forbid me to enlarge. t 
 
 * The Editor of the Christian's Magazine undertakes to prove, by a 
 minute comparison of passages from the Westminster Confession of 
 Faith and the Articles of the Church of England, that they hold the 
 same language relative to predestination. But he leaves out that sec- 
 tion of the Confession of Faith in which predestination is declared to be 
 absolute i the very section to which, more than to any other, those who 
 deny the alleged coincidence of the Westminster Confession with the 
 Articles of the Church of England, on the point in question, are in the 
 practice of appealing. Surely this is uncmdid in the extreme. 
 
 f In the rubric after the office of " Public Baptism of Infants'* in the 
 Church of England, it is declared to be " certain by God's word that 
 children which are baptized, dying before they commit actual sin, are 
 saved." How totally inconsistent is this with the Calvinistic doctrine 
 of an unconditional appointment of some adults and infants to eternal 
 life, and of others to eternal death, by a secret decree ! 
 
 Let it not be supposed, however, that the Church of England denies 
 salvation to infants that die without baptism. God forbid ! She has re- 
 ference, in the rubric in question, to the covenanted mercy of God, and 
 is declaring what she considers as positively revealed. She is silent on 
 the subject of unbaptized infants, because she supposes Scripture to be 
 silent. She leaves such infants, therefore, to God's free but uncove- 
 nanted mercy. 
 
 % Persons who wish to see the Church of England completely vindi- 
 cated from the charge of Calvinism, are referred to tlic writings of Bull, 
 
LET. VIII. CALVINISM. 251 
 
 With the doctrine of unconditional election hy 
 an eternal decree, is naturally connected that of 
 partial redemptmi. Accoi'dingly, it is a fundamen* 
 tal tenet of Calvinism, that Jesus Christ died onljr 
 for the elect. Let it suffice to appeal to the West- 
 minster Confession of Faith — " Neither are any 
 other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justi* 
 fied, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect 
 only."* This spirit pervades the whole work- 
 It is for the elect that Christ purchases reconcilia* 
 lion ;t to them alone are the benefits of redemption 
 commvnicated.X 
 
 Now mark the emphatic language of our public; 
 formularies ! " The offering of Christ once made, 
 is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satis- 
 faction, for all the sins of the ivhole ivorld^ both ori- 
 ginal and actual. "§ " 6oth in the Old and New 
 
 W-'lerland, Winchester, Tucker, Kipling, Hey, Daubeny, Pearson; and 
 particularly to two late works. Dr. Laurence's Bampton Lectures, and 
 Bishop White's "Comparison of the Controversy between the Calvinists 
 and the Arminians, with the Doctrines of the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church." The production of Bishop Whiteconsistsof four parts, viz. A 
 Comparison of the Calvinistic and Arminian Controversy; 1st, with the 
 Epistle of St. Paul to tlie Romans ; 2d, with the rest of Holy Scripture ; 
 3d, with the Faith of the Primitive Church; 4th, with the Doctrines of 
 the Protestant Episcopal Church. The two first parts have been pub* 
 lished, and the last part is now publishing in tlie Churcliman's Maga- 
 zine. VVe hope the learned author will soon give the entire work to the 
 world in a separate volume. It is, certainly, a most able and original 
 performance 
 
 The question, relative to the Calvinism of our Articles, is discussed 
 with great perspicuity, in a Sermon delivered at the Consecration of 
 Trinity Church, Newark, in the year 1810, by Doctor, now Bishop Ho- 
 bart. We cannot but embrace the opportunity of recommending this Ser- 
 mon to all who wish to see the question completely settled in a few pages 
 
 * Chap. iii. sect. 6. ■\ Chap. viii. sect. .5. 
 
 ^ Chap. viii. sect. 6. § Article :wxi. 
 
252 CALVINISM. LETfVIII. 
 
 Testament, everla^^tinglife is offerefl io mnnhindhy 
 Christ."* In the Catechism, Jesus Christ is ex- 
 pressly declare 1 to have "redeemed all mankind f'^ 
 in (he Co nmnnion Service he is stvled " a full, 
 pcfect, an(i siilficient s irrifice, oblation, and satis- 
 faction for the sins of the whole world.'''' 
 
 It vvonM be impossible to find lano^uage more 
 directly at war with the cardinal principle of Cal- 
 vinism. 
 
 The doctrines of iincon htional election and par- 
 tial rede nption, naturally draw after them the doc- 
 trine of irresistible grace. Accordingly, the West- 
 minster Confession of Faith declares " effectual 
 calling," or conversion from sin to holiness, to 
 be enfirely a divine work ; man being " altos^ether 
 passive therein."! The call is vouchsafed only to 
 the elect, who are determined to that which is 
 good, and effectually drawn to Jesus Christ by Al- 
 mighty power.J The sinner is not only converted^ 
 but preserved by irresistible grace : " He can nei- 
 ther totally nor finally fall away, but shall certainly 
 persevere to the end, and be eternally saved. "§ 
 
 Is such the doctrine of our Church ? God for- 
 bid ! The creature is no where said to be passive 
 in conversion ; grace is no where said to be irre- 
 sistible ; — on the contrary, the co-operation of man 
 with the influences of the Spirit, is expressly set 
 forth. God is represented as '' working with us."(| 
 
 The Calvinistic doctrine of the final perseve- 
 rance of the saints is entirely unknown to the 
 
 * Article vii. f Chap. x. sect. 2- i Chap, x. sect. 1. 
 
 § Chap. xvii. sect. 1. || Article x. 
 
LET. VIII. CALVINISM. 
 
 253 
 
 / 
 
 Church of England. " After we have received the 
 Holy Ghost, we may depart from grace given, and 
 tall into sin, and by the grace of God we 7naii arise 
 again, and amend our lives."* How very differ- 
 ent is this from the language of the Westminster 
 Confession of Faith ! The elect cannot finally fall 
 away — they shall certainly persevere, and be eter- 
 nally saved. To say that we may arise, is to admit 
 that we may not arise ; — it is a sort of language that 
 could not possibly have been used by the advo- 
 cates of the doctrine of final perseverance.f 
 
 The doctrine of total depravity naturally goes 
 along with that of personal election and irresisti- 
 ble grace. In the Westminster Confession of 
 Faith, man is, accordingly, described as " ivholly 
 
 * Article xvi. 
 
 f There is a passag-e in the Burial Servlre vvMrli slmu-s very clearly 
 that the doctrine of final perseverance is not held by the Church of Eng- 
 land : " Suffer us not, at our last hour, for any pains of death to fall from 
 thee." — The pretence that this passage alludes to a possible fall from a 
 fictitious faith is, certainly, unworthy of an answer. 
 
 It would be easy to trace the sentiment, contained in the passage just 
 cited, through the whole History of the English Reformation. In the 
 Bishops* Book, for example, put out in the reign of Henry Mil. the 
 following sentence occurs — " Keep us from the enticements of the De- 
 vil, that he, by no suggestions, bring us from the right faith, neither 
 cause us to fall into desperation, now, nor on the point of death." p. 91. 
 In the King's Book, published also in the reign of Henry, the same idea 
 is presented : — " In the sacraments instituted by Christ we may con- 
 stantly believe the works of God in them to our present comfort, and 
 application of his grace and favour, with assurance also, that he will 
 not. fail us if we fall not from him."^ There is an admission in Cran- 
 mer's Catechism, of the possibility of perishing in the /j/>7/r ofajliction 
 and death, p. 210. See Laurence* s Bampton Lectures, p. 445, 446. 
 
 I need not say how opposite all this is to the doctrine of the infallible 
 perseverance of the saints. 
 
 t Article of Faith. 
 
254 Calvinism. let. vin. 
 
 defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and 
 body ;"* as " altogether averse from that which is 
 good ;"t as " utterly indisposed, disabled, and 
 ma'lc opposite to all good, and ivhoUij inclined 
 to all evil."t 
 
 There is no such language as this in the standr 
 ardsof the Church of England; — on the contrary, 
 she must be considered as expressly disclaiming, 
 in her ninlh Article, the doctrine of total depravity ; 
 for in that article she describes fallen man as 
 " very far^^^ not as wholly " gone from original 
 righteousness.'^^ 
 
 * Chap. vi. 2. | Chap. ix. 3. * Chap. vi. 4. 
 
 5 The tendency of the human mind to pass from one extreme to an- 
 other, strikingly appears in reference to the subject of original sin. 
 The Pelag-ians maintained that man comes into the world with a nature 
 as pure as that of A.dam before his fall, and that he is, therefore, ca- 
 pable, by his uwii uuumoiatcJ |jo-»»-ct3, of working' out his salvation. 
 The Romish schoolmen represented the corruption of our nature, in- 
 duced by the fall, as a mere bodily taint ; the soul only losing an 
 adventitious ornament, which it might lose without prejudice to its 
 native powers. In consequence of this, they held that the mere natu- 
 ral man, without any divme assistance, is capable of preparing him- 
 self for ^Tace, and thus of meriting it ; not so, indeed, as to lay God 
 under a strict obligation oi justice to bestow it, but at least so far as 
 to render it fit and proper that it should be bestowed, and that God 
 could not withhold it consistently with his attributes. The schoolmen 
 went on to assert, that the mere natural man, having prepared himself 
 for grace so as infallibly to receive it, can then attain, by the assistance 
 of the grace thus secured to him by his own unaided efforts, to the 
 higlier merit of condii^mty ; which entitles him to the joys of Heaven. 
 Thus did the scholastics completely put out of their system the doc- 
 trine of salvation by the sole merits of Christ, and of sanctification by 
 the Holy Spirit; making man, in reality, his own sanctifier, and his 
 own saviour. This was, perhaps, the worst error of the Romish Church; 
 poisoning the Christian doctrine and practice, at once, in their very 
 fountain ; not only superseding the vital principle of the (iospel scheme 
 of salvation, but laying tlie foundatian of that infamous traffic in in- 
 
LET. VIII. CALVINISM. 255 
 
 What now sliall we think of your very peremp- 
 tory assertion ? — " The Articles of the Church of 
 
 dulgences, by which such ridicule and shumc were brought upon 
 the Cliristian name. 
 
 It is not to be wondered at, that some of the Reformers, in their 
 abhorrence of a doctrine so pernicious and detestabk-, should pass to 
 the contrary extreme. Calvin set up the doctrine of tetal depravity : 
 alleging- tliat the divine image, in which man was created, was utterly 
 defaced by the fall; that he is now -wholly averse from all good, and 
 ■wholly inclined to all evil. Thus, according to Calvin, the human 
 race became, in consequence of the fall, an vmningled mass of corrup- 
 tion ; and the entire change of the sinner from a state of total depravity 
 to ii state of sanctificalion and favour before Cod, is tlie result, simply 
 and exclusively, of irresistible grace ; man being absolutely passive 
 from the beginning to the end of the process. 
 
 It would be easy to multiply passages to this effect from the writ- 
 ings of Calvin ; but it cannot be necessary. 1 will content myself with 
 introducing one or two sentences in which the doctrine of human co-ope- 
 ration is indignantly rejected, and the irresistibility of the divine election 
 unequivocally set forth — " Duo autem errores hic cavendi sunt: quia 
 noniiulli co-operarium Deo faciunt hominem, ut suffragio suo ratam 
 electionem faciat: ita secundum eos voluntas hominis superior est 
 Dei consilio."* •* An assertion," says Mr. Munt, " which runs counter 
 to the whole tenor of the Bible ; annulling its commands and exhorta- 
 tions ; its promises and threats ; all its commendations of the good, 
 and all its judgments on the wicked."f 
 
 In the third chapter of his second book, Calvin not only asserts the 
 doctrine of irresistible grace, but accompanies the assertion with a 
 censure of the language held on the subject by all the Christian wri- 
 ters that flourished b«fore the time of Austin. He condemns, particu- 
 larly, the declaration of Chrysostom, that when God draws us, it is 
 with our coilsent ng will. — ** lllud toties a Chrysostomo repetitum, re- 
 pudiari necesse est, quem trahit, volentem trahit.'* 
 
 Calvin represents some infants is carrying with them their damna- 
 tion from their mothers' womb; and, as to adults, he scruples not \.o say 
 that all but the elect are uninterruptedly inclined to all manner of wick- 
 edness, and would be always positively engaged in the perpetration of 
 horrible crimes, if God did not, through the influence of .-ome selfith 
 motive, restrain them. — " The Lord cures those diseases (meaning 
 vicious propensities) in his elect. In others, with a bridle thrown 
 •ver, he restrains them, only lest they should boil over ; so far forth 
 
 * lustitutes, lib. iii. cap. ii, s«ct. 3. t Bampton Lectures, p. 273. 
 
256 CALVINISM. LET. VIII. 
 
 England are undoubtedly Calvinistic — this is prov- 
 ed by the bare inspection of them."* 
 
 Is it proved by a bare inspection of the thirty- 
 
 as he sees it to be expedient for the conservation of all thing's. Hence 
 some are restrained by shafne ; some by fear of the laws. Thus God, 
 by his providence, bridles the perversity of nature, but does not 
 cleanse wilhin/'f 
 
 Here, now, we have the two extremes — the system of Pelagius and 
 the Romish schoolmen, on the one side — and that of Jolm Calvin on the 
 other. 
 
 It is impossible, on this subject, too much to admire the moderation 
 and wisdom of the Reformers of the Church of Eing-land. The Pela- 
 gian error they entirely avoided, by dtclaring- original sin to be the 
 fault or corruption of our nature; that we are born into the world with 
 it; ynd that from this state of corruption we are incapable of deliver- 
 iog ourselves by our own unassisted efforts. In the same way they 
 guarded against the Romish doctrine of merit; maintaining that the 
 services of man are all imperfect; that after his best performances, he 
 is an unprofitable servant, and can never set up any claim of riglit, iij 
 reference either to grace or salvation ; and that lie must be content to 
 receive pardon and eternal life, not as a reward due to him, but as 
 the fi'cte. .y^ift of God's mercy, through the great atonement. The corrup- 
 tion induced by the fall, the English Reformers, in opposition to the 
 schoolmen, lield to be no innocuous quality, but a real taint, extend- 
 ing not merely to the body, but to the soul ; weakening and perverting, 
 though not totally depraving' its diflferent faculties and affections. They 
 stopped short of the doctrine of Calvin, that human nature, in conse- 
 quence of the fall, became an entire mass of corruption and damnation, 
 and was thus doomed, with the exception of an elect number, to be 
 converted by irresistible grace, to inevitable perdition ; maintaining 
 that man is very far, not totally gone from oi-iginal righteousness; that 
 lie is not passive in conversion, but co-operates with the Holy Spirit 
 in every part of the religious life; and that i.od, instead of converting 
 an elect member by an exertion of omnipotent strength, imparts so much 
 assistance to every man, as to enable every man to lay hold on eternal 
 life. 
 • Continuation of Letters, p. 330. 
 
 t Institutes, book ii. chap. 3, sect. 3. The passage is here given as ren- 
 dered \y liisljop \\'liite, in lii=? pxamination (if " the rontroversy between the 
 CiiUinists and Anninians ;"— a work not more remarkiihle for the < luistian spirit 
 in vhicli it is sviiuen, than for the deplli and aculonoss uith which every parf 
 ^f the subject is discussed. See Churchman's J\iagaxine, v. viii. p. 34. 
 
lET. Vni. CALVINISM* 257 
 
 first Article, that Christ died only for the elect ? 
 " None are redeemed by Christ l>ut the elect onlyy* 
 " The olTering of Christ is a perfect redemption, 
 propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of the 
 ivhole world^ both original and actual."t Not one 
 of the peculiarities of Calvinism is to be found in 
 the formularies of our Church. Do you meet 
 there with the doctrine of total depravity ? " Man 
 is very far^'' not totally " gone from original right- 
 eousness." Is it asserted that the saints cannot 
 possibly fall from grace? " VVewiay fall from grace, 
 and we maij rise again.'' Is grace ever declared 
 to be irresistible, or the creature ever represented 
 as passive in conversion ? The tenth Article ex- 
 pressly speaks of the grace of God as working icith 
 us; — of course we are not passive.! Besides, in 
 
 • Westminster Confession of Faith. f Article xxxl. 
 
 t It has been observed that the Articles of the Church of Ent^land 
 frequently cannot be correctly understood without referring to those 
 errors of the Church of Rome, to which they were intended to be op- 
 posed. This remark will particularly apply to the tenth Article, entitled 
 ** of Free Will." " The condition of man, after the fall of Adam, i» 
 such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his owo natural 
 stren,^th and g-ood works, to faith and callin^^ upon God. Wherefore, 
 we have no power to do good works, pleasant and acceptable to God, 
 without the g-race of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have 
 a good will, and working with us when we have that good will " 
 
 This Article, even when strictly construed, goes no further than to 
 assert the great principle, that man cannot act, in any part of the reli- 
 gious life, independently of the Spirit of God; it by no means repre- 
 sents him as the passive instrument, at any period, of irresistible 
 grace. Such is the fair interpretation of the words, considered ia 
 themselves; but when we recollect the Romish error oi congruous 
 merit, we see, with clearness, the object which the English Ktformers 
 had in view. The sclioolmcn contended that man, by the exercise of 
 his 7iative and unassisted po~^'ers, can prepare himself for grace ; per- 
 forming works pleasant and acceptable tc* God, and so meriting grace 
 
 33 
 
258 CALVINISM. LET. VIll. 
 
 the prayers, we implore the continual help, not 
 the irresistible influence of the Holy Spirit. How 
 different is this from the Calvinislic doctrine, 
 
 aft his hands. Upon this doctrine the English Reformers mtended to 
 put a decided n€g;itive. " Man cannot turn and prepare hin^self, by 
 His own natural strength." " We have no power to do good works 
 jyleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of Cod by Christ 
 preventing (going before) ns." The scholastics made man his own 
 sanctifier. By his natural strength, according to them, he can merit 
 ffracc, so that God cannot, consistently with his attributes, witljholJ it; 
 K\d then, with the help of the grace thus infallibly secured to him by 
 his own unaided powers, he can fit himself for Heaven. The English 
 l^eformers went back to the pure doctrine of Scripture, and of the pri~ 
 mitive Church ; representing the religious life, in every part, as the 
 joint work of man and of the Holy Spirit ; in equal opposition to the 
 creed of the schooFiSfen, who derogated from the agency of the Holy 
 Spirit on the one hand, and to that of the Calvinists, who ascribed to 
 him the sole agency, on the other. 
 
 There is, in the article under consideration, a distinction of grace 
 into preventing and co-operating. " We have no power to do good works 
 pleasant iind acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ 
 preventing us, that we may have a good will, and loorking -with ut when 
 we have that good will." rhe article declares tluit we cannot turn to 
 God without the grace of God by Christ preventing us; in other 
 words, the assistance of the Holy Spirit must precede the act, and 
 contribute to it It is not said that the act xa the sole and undivided 
 work of the STpirit; the opposite of this, indeed, is necessarily implied 
 bv the whole language of the article. W^e cannot turn to God without 
 fee grace of Christ; — of course, with that grace we can turn to him. 
 This, surely, supposes man to exert his own powers, and not to be 
 the mere passive subject of a foreign influence. " And working with 
 us when we have that good will." The grace of Gdd by Christ, not 
 only assists in giving us a good v/ill, but must continue afterwards 
 lo co-operate with us. 
 
 Now, this whole distinction of preventing and co-operating grace, 
 was decidedly rejected by Calvin;* and as the distinction is made 
 not only in the Articles of the Church of England, but also in her Li- 
 turgy, we see how little ground there is for the supposition, that Cran- 
 mer and his i\ ilow labourers proposed Calvin as their guide in the 
 work of Reformation. 
 
 • Sec Irstitalcs, lib. ii. cap. C 
 
LET. VIII. CALVINISM. 259 
 
 that ill conversion man is alisolntel)^ passive ; and 
 that even after conversion, his perseverance in 
 grace depends, not upon his own will, but upon 
 the immutability of the decree of election, and 
 the irresistible power of God!* Where is it u^ 
 eerted in our standards, that the righteousness 
 of Christ is imputed to believers, or that the sio 
 of Adam is imputed to his posterity ? There i^ 
 ttot a trace of either of these doctrines in our Arti^ 
 cles, our Homilies, or our Prayers. The terrible 
 decree of reprobation, which forms so prominer^ 
 a feature in the writings of Calvin, and in the 
 Westminster Confession of Faith, is altogether 
 unknown to our Church ; and the predestinatioi(i 
 of which the seventeenth Article treats, is nojt 
 declared to be arbitrary ; — nay, the last clause, in- 
 structing us to receive God's promises as they 
 are generally set forth in Holy Scripture, obligeB 
 us to consider predestination, if it must be limited 
 to an individual sense, as founded on prescience ; 
 a principle totally and unequivocally disdain jed 
 by Calvin, and by all those societies which have 
 adopted his ideas. But, in truth, the seventeenth 
 Article declares the eternal purpose of God, tp 
 place fallen man under a dispensation of mercy 
 through a Redeemer; and marks the election of a 
 body of men to spiritual privileges, not that of in- 
 dividuals to eternal life. 
 
 I repeat it, not one of the peculiarities of Cal- 
 vinism is sanctioned by the formularies of our 
 
 * Westminster Confe«sion of Faiib, chap. xvii. sect, 1, 2. 
 
260 CALVINISM. LET. VIII, 
 
 Church ; so far from it, they are all, either ex- 
 pressly or impliedly, disclaimed. 
 
 You proceed, with great positiveness, to assert, 
 that the Reformers, who drew up the Articles of 
 the Church of England, were known to entertain 
 Calvinistic opinions.* Now, of the pages which 
 you give to the subject, there is but a single sen- 
 tence that professes to state the sentiments of the 
 Reformers ; the remainder being entirely taken up 
 in detailing circumstances of a subordinate nature. 
 How very like to the course which you pursued in 
 the attempt to prove the English Reformers Pres- 
 byterians ; when you deliberately passed by the 
 decisive and authentic evidence, and perplexed 
 your people with a variety of coUateril and extrin- 
 sic matter ! Not a single passage have you pro- 
 duced from the writings of the Reformers; al- 
 though they left behind them works which speak, 
 on the point in question, a very unequivocal lan- 
 guage. 
 
 The limits, which I have prescribed to myself, 
 will not permit me to enter fully into this subject: 
 I hope to be able, in a few pages, however, to pre- 
 sent evidence which will convince every dispas- 
 sionate reader, that you have done great injustice 
 to I he venerable Reformers of the Church of Eng- 
 land. 
 
 The Reformation in England was a progressive 
 I'Fork ; ii commenced under Henry VIll. and waS 
 
 ♦ Continiation of Letters, p. 330- 
 
LET. VIII. 
 
 CALVINISM. 261 
 
 compietcd in the reign of his successor, Edward 
 VI. Tlien came the fiery persecution under Mary, 
 when Popery was again introduced ; but in the 
 re-settlement, under Elizabeth, the Articles drawn 
 up by Cranmer and Ridley,* were adopted with- 
 out any alterations, as far as Calvinism is con- 
 cerned, that are at all material.f If, then, private 
 opinion is to be brought in illustration of the sense 
 of the Articles, it is evident that we are to ap- 
 peal to the sentiments of the Reformers under 
 Edward, by whom the Articles were originally 
 digested and prepared. This course, however, 
 you studiously decline, and present us with a num- 
 ber of facts of a very posterior date. Permit me 
 to lead you for a few moments to the true sub- 
 ject of discussion. Did the original Reformers of 
 the Church of England, Cranmer, Ridley, Lati- 
 mer, Hooper, entertain those peculiar tenets which 
 constitute what is now termed the system of Cal- 
 yinism ? The negative of this question may be 
 
 * Cranmer, it would seem, drew up the Articles, but with the advice 
 and assistance of Ridley. Fox's Mariyrolog-y, p. 1317, 1704. 
 
 I In the seventeenth Article, the following alterations were made — 
 " Whom he hath chosen [in Christ] out of mankind." " They are 
 made sons of [God by] adoption." " They are made like the ima^e of 
 the [his] only begotten [Son] Jesus Christ." The words in brackets 
 were added in the re -settlement, under Elizabeth. The last clause, as 
 drawn up under Edward, ran thus — " Furthermore, [though the de- 
 crees of predestination be unknown to us, yet] we must receive God's 
 promises in such wise as they be generally set forth to us in Holy Scrips 
 ture." At the re-settlement, under Elizabeth, the words in brackets 
 were omitted. All these alterations are entirely immaterial ; they ap- 
 pear to have been dictated by a wish to keep, on this mysterious subject, 
 as near as possible to the very letter of Scripture. Set Winchester on 
 the seventeenth Article, p. 18, 19, 20. 
 
262 CALVINISM. LET. Vlll. 
 
 established by a force of evidence which no can- 
 did mind can resist. 
 
 1. If the English Reformers were Calvinists, 
 would they have drawn up such a set of Articles? 
 What I men believins; that Christ died to redeem 
 the elect oaly^ expressly assert that his death was 
 a " perfect redemption for all the sins of the 
 whole world f"*^ What! Calvinists draw up Articles 
 in which their fundamental tenet of reprobation is 
 whoib' onitted, and in which predestination is 
 not applied to individual destiny; or, if so applied, 
 is not declared to be independent of all foresight 
 of the qualifications possessed by the creature ? 
 What! Calvinists fail to set forth their darling 
 doctrines of the imputation of Adam's guilt to his 
 posterity, of the imputation of Christ's righteous- 
 ness to believers, or of the infallible perseverance 
 of the saints ? What ! Calvinists tell us that man 
 is not totally drpraved by nature, '' but only very 
 far gone from original righteousness ;" that the 
 Holy Spirit ivorks with ns, and is our continual 
 help^ not acting irresistibly upon the mind, and 
 effectually drawing us by Almighty power? Cal- 
 vinists draw up a set of Articles in which not 
 one of their peculiar principles is asserted, and 
 in which some of those principles are expressly 
 disclaimed? 
 
 2. Look again at the two books of Homilies, 
 published in the reign of Edward VI. and of 
 Elizabeth, and expressly designed to form the 
 faith both of the clergy and the people ! Surely, 
 if Calvinists were the authors of these books, wc 
 
LET. VIII. CALVINISM. 565 
 
 may expect to find in them the great principles of 
 Calvinistic divinity. But, " not one of the peculiar 
 doctrines of Calvinism is mentioned in either of 
 the two books of Homilies. The word predes- 
 tination does not occur from the beginning to the 
 end of the Homilies. The word election occurs 
 only once, and then it is not used in the Calvinistic 
 sense. The word reprobation docs not occur at 
 all. Nothing is said of absolute decrees, partial 
 redemption, perseverance, or irresistible grace."* 
 
 Would Calvin have drawn up a set of discourses, 
 in onler to form the faith of clergy and people, 
 and have left the great principles of his system 
 undefended, and even unnoticed? Would the 
 Westminster Divines? No — If the English Re- 
 formers had been Calvinists, thev would have 
 filled the Homilies with unconditional election, 
 partial redemption, irresistible grace, and final 
 perseverance. What! Calvinists frame a set 'of 
 discourses for the purpose of inculcating the true 
 scriptural doctrine, and entirely omit those car- 
 dinal principles without which " the whole plan 
 of salvation is nothing better than a gloomy sys- 
 tem of possibilities and peradventures ; nearly, 
 if not quite as likely to land the believer in the 
 abyss of the damned, as in the paradise of God."t 
 
 But still further — The Homilies are in many 
 places as decidedly anti-Calvinistic as language 
 can make them. I will detain you with only a 
 few passages on redemption; the universality of 
 
 • Bishop of Lincoln's Charge to his Clergy, in I8O0. 
 f Continuation of Letters, p, 339. 
 
264 CALVINISM. LET. V211. 
 
 -which is thus unequivocally declared — " So well 
 pleased is the Father, Almighty God, with Christ 
 his Son, that for his sake he favoured us, and will 
 deny us nothing. So pleasant and acceptable 
 was this sacrifice of his Son's death, which he so 
 evidently and innocently suffered, that we should 
 take it for the only and full amends for the sins of 
 the whole world* " This deliverance cr redemp- 
 tion was not partial, intended only for a few, but 
 general and universal for all mankind.^^ " The 
 promise and covenant of God made unto Abraham 
 and his posterity, was to deliver mankind from the 
 bitter curse of the law." " The promised Mes- 
 siah was to make perfect satisfaction by his death 
 for the sins of all people.'i " Now, he gave us 
 not an angel, but his Son. But to whom did he 
 give him? He gave him to the whole world; that 
 is to say, to Adam and all that should come after 
 
 him.n 
 
 You speak in the highest terms of the Reformers 
 of the Church of England; but their conduct 
 in prescribing such books of Homilies amounted, 
 if your view of Scripture be correct, to little less 
 than apostacy from the faith. 
 
 3. But let us proceed to the evidence which is 
 to be derived on this subject from the private 
 writings of the English Reformers. 
 
 See the strong language which Cranmer uses 
 in his answer to Gardiner ! " By his own oblation 
 he satisfied the Father for all men's sins^ and 
 
 • Homily for Good Friday. t Homily for the Nativity. ^ Homily 
 of the Pasaion- 
 
LET. Vnr. CALVINISM. 265 
 
 reconciled mankind into his grace and favour." 
 " And as he, dying once, was olFcred for a//, so, 
 as much as pertained to him, he took all rnen^s 
 sins unto himself"* " What ought to be more 
 certain and known to all Christian people, than 
 that Christ died once, and but once, for the re- 
 demption of the worldy\ 
 
 The following passage from the book, entitled, 
 " Necessary Doctrine and Erudition for any Chris- 
 tian Man," will show us the earliest opinions 
 of Cranmer on the subject under consideration. 
 *' Although our Saviour Christe hath offered hym- 
 selfe upon the crosse, a sufficient redemption and 
 satisfaction for the synnes of all the world, and hath 
 made hymselfe an open way and entre unto God 
 the Father for all mankind^ yet none shall have the 
 effect of the benefyte of our Saviour Christe, and 
 enjoye everlasting salvation by him, but they that 
 take such ways to atteyn the same, as he hath 
 taught and appointed by his holy word."! In 
 these sentiments the venerable Primate persevered 
 to the end of his course — " Christe made a sacrifice 
 and oblation upon the crosse, which was a full re- 
 demption and propitiation for the synnes of the 
 whole worW^ And in his final prayer at the 
 stake, he thus expresses himself — " O God the 
 Son, thou wast not made man, this great mystery 
 was not wrought for few or small offences, nor 
 
 '= Answer to Gardiner, p. 372. f Ibid. p. 393. 
 
 T Winchester on the seventeenth Article, p. 35. 
 § Cranmer on the Sacrament. Preface, London, 15^0. Se» Winchc9- 
 tev on tbf seventeenth Article, p. >3. 
 
 34 
 
266 CALVINISM. LET. VIII.. 
 
 thou didst not give thy Son unto death, O God the 
 Father, for our little and small synnes only, but 
 for all the greatest synnes of the worW* 
 
 Bishop Ridley, who, after Cranmer, had most 
 influence in reforming and settling the Church of 
 England, uses, in the preface to his disputation at 
 Oxford, a little before his martyrdom, the follow- 
 ing unequivocal language — " Ex epistola ad He- 
 brseos patit unicam esse oblationem et unicum vere 
 vivificum sacrificium, oblatum in ara crucis, qui 
 fuit, est et erit in perpetuum propitiatio pro pec- 
 catis totius mundi."t 
 
 Bishops Hooper and Latimer were next in influ- 
 ence to Cranmer and Ridley in the English Re- 
 formation. Mark the following strong language of 
 Bishop Hooper, in the preface to his Declaration 
 of the Ten Commandments ! " As far extendeth 
 the virtue and strength of God's promise to save 
 men, as the rigour and justice of the law for sin to 
 damn men ; for as by the sin and off*ence of one 
 man, death was extended, and made common 
 unto all men unto condemnation, as St. Paul saith, 
 (Rom. V.) so by the justice of one is derived life 
 unto all men unto justification." " Cain was no 
 mo^e excluded, till he excluded himself, than 
 Abel ; Saul than David; Judas than Peter ; Esau 
 than Jacob." 
 
 The language of the venerable Latimer is not 
 less decisive. " The promises of Christ our Sa- 
 viour are general: wherefore then should any man 
 
 ' Wincbcslcr on the seventeenth Article, p. 39. f Ibid. p. 39 
 
£:ET. VIII. CALVINISM. 267 
 
 despair, or shut himself out from the promises of 
 Christ, which be general^ and pertain to the whole 
 world. Christ shed as much blood for Judas as 
 he did for Peter : Peter believed it, and therefore 
 was saved. Judas did not believe, and therefore 
 he was condemned; the fault being in him only, 
 find in nobody else."^ 
 
 I have thus presented you with a few passages 
 from the writings of the Reformers of the Church 
 of Efigiand, which speak a decidedly anti-Calvin- 
 istic language. It would be easy to quote from 
 Ih^m much more extensively, but it cannot be 
 necessary to do so ; beside that it would not be 
 consistent with the limits of this work. I have 
 confined myself, too, to the single point of the 
 universality of redemption; although passages 
 equally express might have been produced on 
 other points of the controversy.f 
 
 * Sermon on the third Sunday after Epiphany. 
 
 \ Permit me to trespass here one moment longer on your patience 
 in a brief comparison of the sentiments of Hooper and Latimer, with 
 those of Calvin and Gomarus on the subject of the irresistibility of 
 grace. 
 
 Calvin severely censures St. Chrysostora for saying" that God draws 
 us with a consenting will. — " Quem trahit, volentem trahit, quo insi- 
 nuat Dominum porrecta tan turn manu expectare an suo auxilio juvari 
 nobis adlubescat."t Gomarus expressly puts the question *' whether 
 the grace of God be given in an irresistible manner ; that is to say, 
 with such an efficacious operation, that the will of him who is to be 
 regenerated, hath not the power to make resistance r" To which \\i^. 
 answers — " I believe and profess it to be so."|) 
 
 How different is the language of Bishop Hooper! " Many under- 
 stand these words — no man coineth to mct except mv Father dra-.v him — ; 
 
 ^ Institutes, lib. ii. cap. 3. 
 ! f>^e Heyllu's Quinquarticiilar Histoiy, part ii. chap. 10, sec ^ ', 
 
268 CALVINISM. LET. VIIK 
 
 The attempts to make Calvinists of the English 
 Reformers, derive all their plausibility from ver- 
 bal ambiguities. These Reformers sometimes 
 use the words, electa predestinate; — of course they 
 were Calvinists. The question between Calvin- 
 ists and anti-Calvinists, let it be repeated, is not 
 whether the sacred writings speak of election and 
 predestination, but whether the election and pre- 
 destination, of which they speak, are to be un- 
 derstood in an individual or a collective sense : and 
 if they are to be taken in an individual sense, 
 whether they are, or are not represented as found- 
 ed on prescience. To draw the conclusion, there- 
 fore, that the English Reformers were Calvini^ts^ 
 because they occasionally used the words in ques- 
 tion, is simply taking for granted the point in dis- 
 pute; but the passages, which I have quoted 
 from these Reformers, are so precise and une- 
 quivocal as to place the subject of their opinions 
 beyond the reach of controversy. It is not pos- 
 sible to imagine language more decidedly anti- 
 
 in a wrong sense, as if God required no more in a reasonable man, 
 than in a dead post, and mnrk not the words which ioWov:— Every man 
 that hearethy and learneth of my Father, cometh unto me— God draweth 
 with uis word md the Holy Gliost, but man's duty is to hear and 
 learn; that is to sav, to receive t!ie grace offered, consent to tlie pro- 
 inis% and not to impugn the God that calleth."* The language of 
 the ve arable Latimer is equally strong—" God*s salvation is sufficient 
 to save all mankind. But we refuse the same, and will not take it 
 when 'tis offered unto us." " Such men are the cause of their own 
 damnation, for God would have them saved, but tliey refuse it like 
 Judas the traitor, whom Christ would have had to be saved, but he 
 refused his salvation."-|- 
 
 * Heylin's Qoinqiiarticular History, part iJ. chsp. 10, sect. 8. t ^^**^' 
 
LET. VIII. CALVINISM. 260 
 
 Calvinistic than thai just produced from the writ- 
 ings of Cranmcr, Ridley, Hooper, and Latimer.* 
 
 * See the strong- laiip;n!ȣ;-e used in ti.e preface to the edition of the 
 Book of Homilits wliich was published in the year 1562, the very year 
 in which the Articles, as they now stand, were formally ratified! 
 The desig-n of the publication is declared to be " that all the people 
 may learn iiow to invocate aiul call upon the name of God, and know 
 what duty they owe both to God and man, so that they may pray, be- 
 lieve, and work according to knowkd^^e, while they shall live here, 
 and after this life be with him, that with his blood hath bought ut 
 
 ALL." 
 
 In the year 1572, ten years after the ratification of the Articles^ 
 Archbishop Tarker publislied an edition of the Bishop's Bible, in the 
 preface to wliich the Archbishop thus writes — " To all belongeth it 
 to be called unto eternal life — no man, woman, or child, is excluded 
 from this salvation. For he that hath care of all, accepteth no man's 
 person : his will is that all men should be saved." 
 
 This lang-uage is, surely, utterly inconsistent with the doctrine of 
 the unconditional election of some individuals, and the unconditional 
 reprobation of others, by an eternal decree of God. 
 
 In reply to this, it has been said that the notes to Archbishop Par- 
 ker's edition of the Bible are Calvinistic; if so, the work must be very 
 inconsistent with itself. But let us examine the case which has been 
 adduced as evidence of the Calvinistic complexion of the notes in 
 question, and which is, no doubt, one of the strongest that could be 
 selected for the purpose. •* Have I any desire that the wicked should 
 die, saith the Lord God ?"f JCote. " He speaketh this to commend 
 God's mercie to poor siimers, who rather is ready to pardon than to 
 punisli, as his long suffering declareth. Albeit, God in his eternal 
 counsel appointed the death and damnation of the reprobate, yet the 
 end of his counsel was not their death only, but chiefly his own glory.** 
 Is this a declaration that God, by an unconditional decree, having no 
 reference to faith or works, or any other thing* in the creature, elected 
 some men to life, and consigned others to deatli ; converting and sanc- 
 tifying the former by irresistible grace, and withholding from the 
 latter those influences of the Spirit without which they must necessa- 
 rily perish ? By no means — It amounts simply to a declaration that 
 God determined, from all eternity, to inflict the punisliment of ever- 
 lasting death upon the wicked. The words import no more; and vc 
 are never to put a construction upon the language of an author, if it 
 
 t Ezckicl xviii, C3. 
 
27D CALVINISM. LET. VIII. 
 
 4. I proceed to mention a fact, which shows 
 most conclusively that the Church of England was 
 very far from intending, in her Articles, to esta- 
 blish the doctrines of Calvinism. 
 
 Early in the reign of Edward VI. the paraphrase 
 of Erasmus was ordered to be kept in every 
 parish for the general instruction of the people. 
 Now, the opinions of Erasmus on the subject of 
 free will and of absolute decrees are perfectly well 
 known ; on these points he wrote professedly against 
 Luther. If the Reformers of the Church of Eng- 
 land had been Calvinists, would they have select- 
 ed a decidedly anti-Calvinistic paraphrase of the 
 Gospel for the general instruction of the people ? 
 It is clear, from the circumstance in question, that 
 the English Reformers, in the early part of Ed- 
 ward's reign, were not in the least degree tinctured 
 with the peculiar tenets of Calvin. Their opinions, 
 on these points, indeed, appear to have been quite 
 uniform. Nothing can be more decisive than the 
 language of the work, entitled, " Necessary Erudi- 
 tion for any Christian Man," published in the 
 reign of Henry VIII.; shortly after the decease 
 of Henry, the general use of the Homilies was 
 enjoined, and the paraphrase of Erasmus set up 
 in the parish churches ; — so that from the early 
 
 can possibly be avoided, which will make him contradict himself. 
 The extract from the preface to Archbishop Parker's edition of the Bi- 
 ble can never be reconciled with the doctrine of absolute uncondi- 
 tional election and reprobation ; while the note on Ezekiel by no means 
 asserts that doctrine, but merely sets forth God's eternal purpose to 
 punish those who resist the repeated calls to repentance, by persever- 
 ing' in their sins 
 
LET. VIII. CALVINISM. 271 
 
 period of the Reformation to the regular settle- 
 ment of the Church under Edward VI. nothing 
 like the confined ideas of Calvin on the subject of 
 election, predestination, free will, prevailed among 
 the English Reformers. 
 
 5. This is the proper place for mentioning an- 
 other important circumstance to show that the Re- 
 formers of the Church of England were at all times 
 free from any thing like a Calvinistic tendency. I 
 allude to the extremely pressing invitations which 
 were repeatedly given to Melancthon, in the reigns 
 both of Henry and of Edward, to settle in England. 
 At the very time the Articles were preparing, the 
 Theological Professorship of Cambridge was kept 
 open for his acceptance. Now it is well known 
 that Melancthon opposed the Calvinistic tenets 
 with the greatest vehemence. He openly branded 
 Calvin as the Zeno of the age, and gave to his 
 speculations the title of " stoical necessity."* 
 From a copy of the Articles of concord between 
 the Churches of Zurich and Geneva, he indig- 
 nantly expunged the Article de electione ; of 
 which Calvin bitterly complained. Now, if the 
 Reformers of the Church of England had been 
 Calvinists, would they have been so solicitous for 
 the presence of the great opposer of their favour- 
 ite doctrines ? Surely they would have been dis- 
 posed to seek the aid of Calvin, not that of his dis- 
 tinguished antagonist.f 
 
 * Melanct. Epist. lib. iv. ep. 796, p. 923. See Brandt, vol. ii. p. 314. 
 See also Laurence's Bampton Lectui-es, p. 418, &c. 
 t Luther and Melancthon, in the early part of tlieir lives, v,cr? de- 
 
272 CALVIM;5M. LET. VII f. 
 
 6. The English Reformers were far from follow- 
 ing implicitly any human guide. They examined 
 the sacred writings with the most profound and 
 deliberate attention; in the interpretation of which, 
 they had great reference to the flxith of the primi- 
 tive Church, as ascertained by the testimony of an- 
 tiquity. They drank not at a distant point of the 
 stream, but ascended to the fountain itself. As 
 far, however, as they respected or followed any 
 modern authority, the Lutheran Church of Ger- 
 many was their guide. There was a very inti- 
 mate intercourse between Molancthon and Cran- 
 mer ; they had the greatest respect and affection 
 for each other. Cranmer had formed an extensive 
 acquaintance in Germany when he visited the con- 
 tinent on the subject of Henry's divorce ; be had, 
 too, married a niece of one of the Lutheran Re- 
 formers. 
 
 But we have much more decisive evidence of 
 the Lutheran prepossessions of the chief conductor 
 of the English Reformation. He translated a 
 Lutheran Catechism, which he dedicatf'd to the 
 King, and recommended as a manual for forming 
 
 cided fatalists ; they inculcated the doctrine of an infallible necessity. 
 But they soon became more wise. The doctrine in question wus re- 
 nounced by them so early as the year 1527, before the ('oiifcssion of 
 Aug'sburg-, which is constructtd upon very different principles. Me- 
 lancthon expunged the doctrine from his celebrated work, the '* Loci 
 Theologici," and inserted the opposite doctrine of contin^ncy in it« 
 place. In a letter to Cranmer, he speaks of the horrid speculations 
 which had prevailed in Germany concerning- a stoical fate, and entreats 
 the Archbishop to guard against a similar evil. He branded the doc- 
 ti'ine, indeed, as ilike pernicious to morals, and dishonourable to God. 
 StT La-"renc<^9 Hampton L''ctw^^. J^otc 21 to Scrmov 2. 
 
LET. VIII, GALVINISM. 273 
 
 the principles of the rising generation. All the 
 publications in the reign of Henry, indeed, were 
 of a decidedly Lutheran complexion; and when 
 the Articles were drawn up and authoritatively set- 
 tled, shortly after the accession of Edward to the 
 throne, the most copious assistance was derived 
 from the Confession of Augsburg, the admirable 
 production of Melancthon's pen. The first and 
 second of the English Articles are copied, almost 
 word for word, from the first and second of the Arti- 
 cles of Augsburg; the ninth, sixteenth, twenty- 
 fifth, twenty-sixth, thirty-first, and thirty-fourth 
 Articles, are also evidently derived from the same 
 source. When the Church was re-settled, in the 
 reign of Elizabeth, the principal additions and elu- 
 cidations, excepting on the subject of the Eucha- 
 rist, were taken from the Lutheran Confession of 
 Wirtemberg.* At the time of the adoption of the 
 Articles under Edward, Calvin and Calvinism had 
 attracted very little notice ; indeed, Calvin was 
 principally indebted for his celebrity to the dispute 
 on predestination, in which his first tract did not 
 appear until the year 1552; — the very year in 
 which the Articles of the Church of England were 
 agreed to in Convocation.f 
 
 Of the small comparative space which Calvin 
 occupied, at this time, in the public eye, a most 
 
 ♦ The reader who wishes to pursue this subject is referred, particu- 
 larly, to the first and second Sermons of Dr. Laurence, with the notes 
 annexed to them. The different Articles, above mentioned, are there 
 minutely compared with the passages of the Augsburg and W'irtem- 
 5>erg Confessions, from which they were derived 
 
 t See Strype*s Life of Cranmer, p. 272. 
 
 35 
 
274 CALVINISM. LET. VIII, 
 
 decisive proof may be derived from the work of 
 Fox, the celebrated Martyroiogist. Fox was a 
 zealous Calvinist ^ and yet, in the accounts which 
 he gives of the Martyrs who suffered during the 
 persecution of Mary, we find tlicm in no instance 
 accused of the heresy of Calvin, but invariably of 
 that of Luther or Zuingle. Fox, too, dwells at 
 much length upon the merits and writings of Lu- 
 ther and Zuingle, while Calvin is passed without 
 particular notice. 
 
 Calvin made an offer of his assistance to Cran- 
 mer in the great work of reforming the Church of 
 England. But what was the result? The Arch- 
 bishop knew the man, and declined the offer.* 
 And we find Calvin expressly complaining, in a 
 letter to some of those who fled from the persecu- 
 tion of Mary, of the little attention that had been 
 given to his counsels. " But I speak in vain to 
 them which perchance esteem me not so well, ae 
 they will vouchsafe to admit the counsel that Com- 
 eth from such an author.' f 
 
 7. Conclusive evidence that the Articles of the 
 Church of England are not Calvinistic is to be de- 
 rived from the conduct of the Calvinists them- 
 selves. The case of the Lambeth Articles, whicb 
 yon have been so imprudent as to rite, goes directly 
 to this point. Undoubtedly, at the time the Lam- 
 beth Articles were drawn up, Calvinism prevailed, 
 to a considerable extent, among the Clergy of the 
 Church of England, and particularly in the L ui- 
 
 • IIc\ViTi'.s History of the- Reforn.alion, p. 65. 
 
 f Winchester on the seventeenth Article, p. 41, 42. 
 
LET. VIII. CALVlNISWr. 275 
 
 versity of Cambridge. The divines of this Uni- 
 versity, by whom the Lambeth Articles were com- 
 posed, being Ciilvinists, were dissatisfied with the 
 Standards of the Church of England. If they he- 
 lieved the Articles of the Church of England to be 
 Calvinistic, why did they wish to make any change ? 
 But what was the issue ? The Lambeth Articles, 
 so far from receiving the sanction of the Church of 
 England, were ordered to be suppressed ; so great 
 was the dissatisfaction excited, that the divines 
 concerned in drawing them up, were threatened 
 with a premunire ; and so complete was the sup- 
 pression, that not a copy was to be met with for a 
 considerable period afterwards.* 
 
 Now, what does this case of the Lambeth Arti- 
 cles prove ? It proves, first, that the divines of 
 Cambridge, who drew them up, were Calvinists; 
 secondly, that they regarded the thirty- nine Arti- 
 cles as not Calvinistic; and, thirdly, the rejection 
 and suppression of the Lambeth Articles, prove 
 completely that the Church of England was nei- 
 ther believed nor intended, by those in authority, 
 to rest upon a Calvinistic foundation. 
 
 Upon the accession of James I. to the throne, 
 the Lambeth Articles were again attempted to 
 be introduced. This was at the celebrated con» 
 
 * Collier's Ecclesiastical History, vol. ii. p. 644, 645. The Lambeth 
 Articles gave gTv^at offence not only ut court, but in tlie university also. 
 The Calvinists, it is true, appear to have had the ascendency in Cam- 
 bridge at this period: but there was a strong party In opposition tc^ 
 them ; at the head of which was the celebrated Or. liaroe, Mar^are^. 
 rrt>fessor of Divinity, 
 
276 CALVINISM^ LET. vm* 
 
 ference at Hampton Court. Dr. John Reynolds, 
 the spokesman of the Calvinists, moved his Ma- 
 jesty " that the nine assertions orthodoxal," as hd 
 termed them, " concluded upon at Lambeth, might 
 be inserted into the book ol' Articles." Reynolds 
 also moved that the words " yet neither totally nor 
 finally" should immediately follow the clause of 
 the sixteenth Article — " after we have received 
 the Holy Ghost, we may depart from grace."* 
 Both these propositions failed.f The history of 
 the conference in question, proves, first, that the 
 Calvinists, at that time, were dissatisfied with the 
 thirty-nine Articles, as not sufficiently Calvinistic; 
 and, secondly, that there was no disposition on 
 the part of the Church of England to admit alter- 
 ations that should give her a Calvinistic com- 
 plexion. 
 
 But what was the conduct of the Calvinists 
 when they got" into power? They immediately 
 set about a Reformation '' of the errors and im- 
 perfections of the Church, as well in matter of 
 doctrine as disciphne." The first fifteen Articles 
 were revised by " the Assembly of Divines," " with 
 a design," in the language of Neal, " to render 
 their sense more express and determinate in fa- 
 vour of Calvinism."! And what alterations did 
 
 • See the account of the Hampton Court Conference, in Collier's Ec- 
 clesiastical History, vol. H. p. 672 to 684. See also Laurence's Bamp- 
 ton Lectures, p. 181 — 184. 
 
 f Tlicy were opposed by the commissioners who attended on the part 
 of the Church ; consisting- of the Archbishop of Canterbury, eight Br* 
 ahdps, seven Deans, and two Doctors. 
 
 t History of the Purit^s, vol. i. p. 48, edit, of 1754 
 
LET. VIIL CALVINISM. 277 
 
 the Assembly of Divines introduce P The ninth 
 Article, on original sin, they amended thus — 
 " Original sin standeth not in the following of 
 Adam, as the Pelagians do vainly talk, but (toner 
 ther with his first sin imputed) it is the fault and 
 corruption of the nature of every man that na- 
 turally is propagated from Adam, whereby man is 
 (wholly deprived of*) original righteousness, and 
 is of his own nature inclined (only) to evil — yet 
 the Apostle doth confess that concupiscence and 
 lust (is truly and properly 5m. "jf 
 
 Here was an attempt to introduce into the ninth 
 Article the doctrines of total depravity, and of the 
 imputation of the guilt of our first parents to their 
 posterity; and the attempt involves a confession 
 that those doctrines are not taught by the Article 
 in its present form. 
 
 The tenth Article, upon free will, was altered 
 llius — " We have no power to do good works, 
 pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace 
 of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have 
 a good will, (and working so effectually in us, as 
 that it determineth our will to that which is good^) 
 and working with us when we have that good 
 will." 
 
 Do the x\rticles of our Church teach the doc- 
 trine of irresistible grace ? We have here a fail 
 acknowledgment that they do not, from the Cal- 
 vinists themselves. 
 
 • " Very far gone from," are the words of ttxe Article. 
 
 f The words of the Article are, •♦ hath of itself the nature of sin. 
 
278 CALVINISM. LET. Vlli, 
 
 In the €-leventli Article, upon justification, the 
 doctrine of the imputation of Christ's righteous- 
 ness to believers, was introduced by an insertion 
 of the following clause — '' his whole obedience and 
 satisfaction beinq by God imputed unto 1/5." So 
 that, by the admission of Calvinists themselves, 
 our Articles are not less free from the doctrine of 
 the imputation of Christ's righteousness, than from 
 that of the imputation of Adam's guilt. 
 
 " That the Assembly of Divines," to use the 
 words of Dr. Laurence, " proceeded no further in 
 their labours than to the review of the fifteenth 
 Article, might be owing to a persuasion of the at- 
 tempt being hopeless, from the incorrigibility of 
 the ancient creed; or perhaps to a prospect, which 
 then began to open rapidly upon the Puritanical 
 cause, not merely of reforming the Church, but 
 altogether of subverting it."* 
 
 Of the pages in which you profess to prove that 
 the Reformers of the Church of England were 
 Calvinists, but a sin2:le sentence bears upon the 
 original Reformers under Edward, by whom the 
 Articles were drawn up, and the Church was or- 
 ganized^t This sentence contains a palpable mis- 
 
 * Bampton Lectures, p. 185. 
 
 The i.eneral Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in thlt 
 country adopted the Articles of the CImrcli of Englaud by an unani- 
 mous vote ; and yet tht-re was not a single Calvinist i|) the body. 
 
 f The Articles drawn up under Edward, it lias bien already men- 
 tioned, were not altered in any thing at all mateDul, as far as Calvinism 
 is concerned, upon the re-settlement of the Church in the reign erf 
 Elizabeth 
 
LET. VIII. CALVINISM. 27^ 
 
 «5talemciit; and oi* the remainder of your book, 
 which relates to the sentiments of the Reformers 
 and other Clergy of the Church of England, it is 
 not going too far to say that there is not a line 
 whicii is free from error. 
 
 But let us descend to particulars. 
 
 ^' The illustrious Reformer and Martyr, Brad- 
 ford, a short time before he suffered, wrote and 
 published a decidedly Calvinistic work on election 
 and predestination^ which he sent to Archbishop 
 Cranmer^ and to Bishops Ridley and Latimer, who 
 all gave it their approbation.''^* 
 
 This is the whole of what you say relative to 
 the opinions of the original Reformers. 
 
 Let us see how far it corresponds with the fact. 
 
 Bradford complained that his treatise on Pre- 
 destination had not received the sanction of Cran- 
 raer, Ridley, and Latimer; to which Bishop Rid- 
 ley replied—" Where you say, that if your request 
 had been heard, things (you thinke) had been in 
 better case than they be : know you that concerning 
 the matter you meane, I have, in Latin, drawne 
 out the places of the Scriptures, and upon the 
 same have noted what I can for the time. Syr, 
 in those matters 1 am so fearful, that I dare not 
 speak farther, yea almost none otlierwise than the 
 very texte dothe (as it were) lead me by the 
 hand."t 
 
 The fact, therefore, turns out to be in direct 
 opposition to your statement. Bradford's treatise 
 
 * CoiUlnuation of Letters, p. 351. f Martyr's Letter?, f, 64. 
 
280 ftALVINISM. LET. VIi;. 
 
 ivas condemned by Cranmer, Ridley, and Lati- 
 mer, as carrying the point of predestination fur- 
 ther than Scripture will warrant.* 
 
 In consequence of the disapprobation thus ex- 
 pressed by Ridley, Bradford suppressed his treatise 
 . — " Hitherto I have not suffered any copye of the 
 treatise above specified to go abroade, because I 
 would suppresse all occasions so farre as myghte 
 be of any breach of love."t This shows conclu- 
 sively that the treatise had not been sanctioned by 
 the holy Martyrs to whom it was sent; for if their 
 sanction had been afforded, its author would un- 
 doubtedly have given it all possible circulation. 
 
 From the circumstances of this case, it clearly 
 appears that the seventeenth Article was not un- 
 derstood by the Reformers who composed it in a 
 Calvinistic sense If the Article had been framed 
 upon the principles of Calvin, Cranmer and Rid- 
 ley could not possibly have refused their sanction 
 to the treatise of Bradford ; and Bradford would 
 not have failed to urge the Article as a conclusive 
 reason for the approbation which he requested at 
 their hands, t 
 
 * This is evidently implied in the words of Ridley's Letter—" Where 
 you say, that if your request had been heard, things had been in better 
 case than they be." The Bishops, then, had not given their sanction 
 to Bradford's Treatise. They considered him as indulging in specula- 
 tion on a subject, with respect to which, man can safely go no further 
 than the plain letter of Scripture will carry him. How wise is the re- 
 mark of Ridley ! What contention and scandal have not the rash spe- 
 culations of Calvin and his followers, on a subject far beyond the reach 
 «f our limited faculties, given rise to in the Christian world! 
 
 T Martyr's Letters, p. 473. 
 
 + Ihe u'hole of the transaction in question accords exactly with tlie 
 view wliich lias been presented of the seventeenth Article, as inten^d 
 
LET. VIII. 
 
 CALVINISM. 281 
 
 But further, Bradford was not a thorough Cal- 
 vinist ; for, in the treatise of which we are speak- 
 ing, he asserts the doctrine of universal redemp- 
 tion ;* and in his '* Meditations on the Lord's 
 Prayer," he represents the sins of the reprobate 
 as the cause of their reprobation.f 
 
 You do not give with accuracy the statement of 
 the historian Strype, relative to the transaction 
 between Bradford, and the Bishops Ridley, Cran- 
 mer, and Latimer. 
 
 The passage of Strype is in the following words 
 — " Upon this occasion Ridley wrote a treatise of 
 God's election and predestination. And Bradford 
 wrote another upon the same subject, and sent it 
 to those three fathers in Oxford for their approba- 
 tion ; and theirs being obtained, the rest of the 
 eminent divines, in and about London, were ready 
 to sign it also."t Strype does not say that the 
 London divines actually signed the treatise — they 
 were only ready to sign. And the clause " theirs 
 being obtained, the divines in and about London 
 were ready to sign also," amounts simply to this — 
 that the divines of London were ready to sign 
 Bradford's treatise in case it should receive the 
 approbation of Ridley, Cranmer, and Latimer. 
 
 to declare Cod's eternal purpose to deal with fallen man in mercy 
 through a Redeemer ; and his election of a Church out of the world 
 as the depository of his covenant and his grace. So far Scripture may 
 fairly be said, on this subject, to "lead us by the hand." All Ije- 
 yond is human speculation. 
 
 * See Winchester on the seventeenth Article, p. 71. 
 
 f See Laurence's liampton Lectures, p. 458, 4.59. 
 
 t Memorials of Cranmer, p. 350. 
 
282 CALVINISM. LET. VlII, 
 
 Now it does not appear that the London divines 
 ever signed the treatise in question ; if they had 
 actually signed it, Strype would have said so : — 
 the obvious conclusion, therefore, from Strype's 
 own account is, that Bradford's treatise never re- 
 ceived the approbation of the Bishops. This in- 
 terpretation, too, and this alone, makes Strype 
 consistent with the letters of the Martyrs; which 
 are in fact, the only authentic evidence on the 
 subject.* 
 
 * Bradford, in tlie letter which he wrote to Cranmer, Ridley, and 
 
 Latimer, says " the prisoners hereaboutes have sene it and rede it, 
 
 (his treatise on God's election) and as therein they agree with me : so 
 they are ready and will be to si^ifie it as tliey shall see you give them 
 example:'-^ On this passage Strype grounds his declaration, " their 
 consent being obtained, the rest of the eminent divines in and about 
 London were ready to sign also.** It is evident, therefore, as well from 
 the authority on which Strype makes his statement, as from his mode 
 of expression, that he did not mean to assert that Cranmer, Ridley, 
 and Latimer gave their sanction to Bradford's treatise ; but merely that 
 the prisoners were ready to sign it in case it should meet with the ap- 
 probation of those Prelates. Now compare this with the decided lan- 
 guage which, you employ— " The illustrious Reformer and Martvr, 
 Bradford, wrote and published a decidedly Calvinistic work on election 
 and predestination, which he sent to Archbishop Cranmer, and to Bi- 
 shops Ridley and Latimer, who all gave it their approbation ; after 
 which it received the approbation of the eminent ministers in and about 
 
 London."^ 
 
 Your statement is erroneous in all its parts. Bradford's treatise was 
 condemned instead of being sanctioned by Cranmer, Ridley, and Lati- 
 mer ; in consequence of which it was never signed by the other Clergy, 
 but was quickly suppressed by its author himself. 
 
 Strype's account of the disputes between the Protestants who were 
 confined in prison during the reign of Queen Mary, is far from impar- 
 tial; being founded entirely on the testimony of tlic predestinarian 
 party. The whole matter is fully explained in Dr. Laurence's Bamptoa 
 
 f Martyr's Letters, p. 358. 
 
 ^ For allUiis you quote Strype'a Life of Cranmer, p. 350, as your auihorr^T 
 
LET. VIII. CALVINISM. 283 
 
 " The convocation which drew up the thirty- 
 nine Articles, reviewed, corrected, formally ap- 
 proved, and ordered to be published, as it now 
 stands, the celebrated Catechism of Dr. Nowell. 
 This Catechism is acknowledged, by the worst 
 enemies of Calvin, to be decidedly Calvinistic."*^ 
 
 Let me refer you, on this subject, to the excel- 
 lent Life of Nowell, lately published by Ralph 
 Churton, and particularly recommended by the 
 Quarterly Reviewf for the minute and laborious 
 attention which the author appears to have paid 
 to original authorities — " He studiously avoids the 
 absolute, and, as Calvin himself calls it, ^ horrible 
 decree,' by which it is said that God, without any 
 regard to faith and obedience, has elected some 
 to life, and doomed others to perdition ; and that 
 Christ died, not for the whole world, but for the 
 elect only. In contradistinction, or rather in con- 
 tradiction to these uncharitable and shocking te- 
 nets, he teaches expressly, that * God the Son 
 hath redeemed the whole race of mankind.'t He 
 gives preescientia as an equivalent and purer term 
 for prcedestinatio ; he says that * those who are 
 steadfast, stable, and constant in faith, they are 
 
 Lectures, from a manuscript now existing in the Bodleian library. It 
 would appear, by this manuscript, that the charge of Pelagianism 
 brought against the anti-predestinarians was a calumny, and that they 
 were anxious to adhere strictly to the doctrine of the Church, as settled 
 in the reformation under King Edward, Stnpe had, doubtless, never 
 seen the manuscript in question ; but was obliged to derive his infor- 
 mation altogether from exparte statements. 
 
 * Continuation of Letters, p. 3*0, 331. f Vol. iii. p. 112. 
 
 * " Deum filium qui me, et universum genus humanum redemlt." 
 Smallest Catechism. 
 
284 CALVINISM. LET. VIII. 
 
 elected and appointed, and (as we term it) pre- 
 destinated to happiness,' (making election the 
 consequent, not the antecedent or cause, of be- 
 lief and obedience ;) and plainly supposes, with 
 the Apostle, that ' the weak brother may perish, 
 for whom Christ died."* 
 
 " By the confession of Heylin himself, an im- 
 placable enemy of Calvin, the great body of the 
 Bishops and other clergy of the Church of Eng- 
 land were doctrinal Calvinists, for more than half 
 a century after the Articles were formed."t This 
 is a total misrepresentation. It would take se- 
 veral pages fully to explain those parts of Heylin 
 on which the above passage of your Letters is 
 grounded— I shall content myself, therefore, with 
 referring the reader to Daubeny's Vindicia) Eccle- 
 siae Anglicanae,t where he will find that Heylin's 
 design was to contradict the very position which 
 Overton, from whom you have borrowed on the 
 occasion, had cited him to establish. 
 
 The British delegates to the Synod of Dort un- 
 doubtedly held some of the Calvinistic opinions; 
 but they strenuously opposed others. Attend to 
 
 • Churton's Life of Nowell, p. 375, 376. 
 
 The following passage is contained in a Sermon preached by Nowell 
 in the year 1566: — " It shall be more tolerable for them (Tyre, 8ic.) 
 in the day of judgment, than for tliis people, -which is the elect of God.'* 
 This proves, first, that Nowell used the word elect not in ixn individual, 
 but in a collective sense; and, secondly, that he believed it possible for 
 the elect t<. perish § Is this the language of Calvinism ? 
 
 •^ Continuation of Letters, p. 332, 333. 
 
 i Page 122—127. 
 
 $ Chuilon's Life of NowclJ, p. 130. 
 
LET. vni 
 
 CALVINISM. 285 
 
 the following propositions oflcred to the Synod by 
 those venerable men! — " God, having compassion 
 on the sinful race of men, sent his own Son, who 
 gave himself a ransom for the sins of the whole 
 world." " As, according to the evangelical pro- 
 mise, salvation is offered to all men; the adminis- 
 tration of God's grace in the Church is such as is 
 sufficient to convince all impenitent and incredu- 
 lous men, that they have perished, and forfeited 
 the benefits offered to them, through their own 
 voluntary fault." 
 
 In the writings of the venerable Bishop Hall, 
 to whom you more than once allude, the doctrines 
 of partial redemption and irresistible grace are 
 expressly disclaimed.* 
 
 You represent the great Hooker as a Calvinist. 
 But, among the unsound doctrines which the Cal- 
 vinist, Travers, charged Hooker with preaching, 
 are the following: — ^' Predestination is not of the 
 absolute will of God, but condiiionaiy " The do- 
 ings of the wicked are not of the will of God 
 positive^ but only permissive.^^ " The reprobates 
 are not rejected, but for the evil ivorks which God 
 did foresee they would commit."t 
 
 Will you still claim Hooker as a Calvinist ?t 
 
 * A more particular notice will be taken of the opinions of Bishop 
 Hall in the concluding letter of this work. 
 
 f See the Life of Mr. Richard Hooker, prefixed to his works, vol. i. 
 p. €7, Oxford edit. 1793. 
 
 t It was not until the latter part of the reign of Queen Elizabeth 
 that Calvinism became powerful in the Church of England. For this 
 we liave the explicit testimony of Strype — " Calvin, the great foreign 
 Reformer, his way of explaining the divine decrees of predestination 
 was not entertained by many learned men in the university of Cambridge. 
 
386 CALVINISM. LET. VIII. 
 
 But even Overton, and the Editors of the Chris- 
 tian Observer, from whom you have derived so 
 much on this subject, expressly declare — " No- 
 ting is further from our purpose than to infer that 
 the precise theological system of John Calvin, in 
 all its parts, and to its full extent, was intended to 
 be established in the thirty-nine Articles to the 
 exclusion of every milder sentiment. To say the 
 least^ our established forms do not teach directly 
 several doctrines which are contained in Calvin's 
 Institutions. They do not, with his work, affirm 
 that the fall of Adam was the effect of a divine 
 decree. They do not use the language it does, 
 respecting the extent of Christ's redemption. They 
 are silent concerning absolute reprobation, which 
 is here taught expressly."* 
 
 Again — " If Calvinism be nothing less than a 
 precise conformity with the peculiar system of 
 Calvin, it would be difficult to find any person 
 who contends for the Calvinism of our Articles. 
 
 But it noTv (1595) about the latter times of the Queen's reign, prevailed 
 strongly there, having the countenance of some of the chief heads."f 
 Strype adds, that even the Calvinists themselves did not maintain that 
 the Articles were necessarily to be understood in a Calvinistic sense. 
 This, indeed, is very evident, from the repeated attempts to add the 
 Lambeth Articles to the Standards of the Church of England, and 
 from the Calvinists proceeding, when they got into power, to introduce 
 material alterations, so as to make the Articles conformable to their 
 ideas. Speaking of the period in question, Dr. Waterland observes — 
 " Calvinism appears to have prevailed at Cambridge beyond what it 
 had formerly done. The seeds had been sown by Cartwright, while he 
 \vas M^rgiret Professor there, and the learned VVIi.tacre verj much 
 promoted their growth." Case of Jirian Subscription, p. 45. 
 • Christian Observer, vol. ii. p. 430. 
 
 t Ui'v of Wliitgift, p. 435. 
 
LET. VIII. CALVINISM. 287 
 
 Mr. Overton expressly denies such an agreement 
 between the doctrine of our Church, and the 
 creed of Geneva.''* 
 
 Take these passages in connexion with the 
 following, and it will be difficult to find a stronger 
 condemnation of the system of Calvin, and, of 
 course, of the Westminster Confession of Faith, 
 than that passed upon it, at least by necessary im- 
 plication, in the Christian Observer. " We take 
 this occasion of stating our wish to have it une- 
 quivocally understood, that when the Christian 
 Observer expresses its opinion, that the Calvinis 
 tic system is consistent with the Articles and 
 other public standards of the Church of England, 
 and by no means liable to those heavy charges of 
 heterodoxy and immorality which some of our 
 contemporaries prefer against it, we mean to 
 speak of that system of doctrine which pervades 
 and animates the writings of Bishop Hall."t 
 Thus the Editors of the Christian Observer, after 
 repeatedly telling us that they do not embrace the 
 precise system of Calvin, and that it would be dif- 
 ficult to find a person who contends for the full con- 
 formity of the Articles of the Church of England 
 to that system, do not scruple to say, that when 
 they represent Calvinism as by " no means liable 
 to the heavy charges of heterodoxy and immo* 
 rality," they refer, not to the creed of Calvin as 
 contained in his Institutes, but to that moderate 
 system of doctrine of which Bishop Hall is the 
 
 * Christian Observer, vol. i. p. 597" f ^^'^^' ^o^- ii- P- 484, 48"; 
 
288 CALVINISM. LET* VIU- 
 
 advocate. So that they not only disclaim the sys- 
 tem of Calvin and of the Westminster Confession 
 of Faith, but even all attempt to defend it from 
 the heavy char2;es of heterodoxy and immorality 
 whi^h arc brought aciainst it in the works of Dau- 
 beny, Kiplinii;, and other contemporary writers. 
 
 It is, therefore, doing great injustice to the Edi- 
 tors of the Christian Observer to represent them 
 as the disciples of Calvin ; indeed, the number of 
 such disciples in the Church of England is ex- 
 tremely small.* 
 
 You mean by Calvinism, doubtless, the system 
 of doctrine taught in the works of Calvin, and 
 in the Westminster Confession of Faith ; which is 
 the Contcssion of the particular religious society to 
 which you belong. If you do not, it is incumbent 
 upon you to tell us precisely what you do mean 
 by it; otherwise, all your observations on this 
 suhject must be quite unintelligible. 
 
 The account which you give of the influence 
 of Calvin with the Reformers of the Church' of 
 England, is not supported by the authorities w^hich 
 you cite. 
 
 For example, you say, referring to Strype for 
 proof, that '' the services of Calvin were expressly 
 and warmly solicited by Archbishop Cranmer;" 
 
 * Dr. Hawker and Sir Richard Hill are real followers of Calvin ; hut 
 tnere are very few persons of their stamp in the Church of Ejigland. 
 I take this opportunity of observing once more, that when I speak in 
 .nrong terms of reprobation of the system of Calvinism, I have refer- 
 ence to the Institutes of Calvin, the Westminster Confession of P'aith. 
 ini the Y^'riMngrsof such men as Dr. Hawker and Sir Richard Hill. 
 
I.KT. VIII. CALVINISM. 289 
 
 ,'ind " that the Archbishop contanlly consulted 
 him, oil all the leading questions connected with 
 the Reformation."* Now Strype is very far from 
 bearing you out in these assertions. It appears 
 from Strype that there had been a long and par- 
 ticular intimacy between Melancthon and Cran- 
 iner; and we know that many of the Articles of 
 the Church of England, as drawn up by Cranmer, 
 were copied almost literally from the Augsburg 
 Confession, of which Melancthon was the author. 
 But there is no evidence of intimacy between 
 Calvin and Cranmcr. Strype informs us that 
 Cranmer, having it in view to draw up a system 
 of faith in which the whole Protestant world 
 might unite, wrote to the most influential Re- 
 formers on the Continent — among the rest, to 
 Bullinger, Calvin, and Melancthon — requesting 
 their approbation and support. Some correspon- 
 dence appears to have taken place at this time 
 between Cranmer and Calvin, in which Calvin, 
 amid many complimentary expressions, took the 
 liberty of gently reproving the Archbishop for 
 too slow^ a progress in the work of reformation. 
 Strype represents this censure as injudicious and 
 unfounded; but observes, that Cranmer, being of 
 a very mild temper, took no exception at the re- 
 buke, but continued his esteem for the writer. 
 Strype also states that Cranmer bestowed much 
 approbation upon a particular letter of Calvin to 
 the King, the design of which was to encourage 
 
 '* Contimiatiou of Letters, p. 312, Sll, 
 
 37 
 
290 CALVINTSM. LET. VIII. 
 
 and excite the royal youth in the cause of reli- 
 gion.^ Such is the amount of what Strype says. 
 The reader will judge how far it supports you in 
 the assertion, *' that the services of Calvin were 
 expressly and warmly solicited by Archbishop 
 Cranmer," and that " the Archbishop constantly 
 consulted him on all the leading questions con- 
 nected with the Reformation."t 
 
 Before leaving this part of our subject, it may 
 be well to take a little notice of the arguments by 
 which you attempt to defend the system of Cal- 
 vin, and to repel its assailants. 
 
 It is curious to observe the manner in which 
 you set out on this point — " But you will, perhaps, 
 ask, are there no difficulties to be encountered in 
 embracing that system of evangelical truth, which 
 is usually styled Calvinism? It ought not to be 
 disguised that there are in this system real diffi- 
 culties, w^hich, probably, no human wisdom will 
 over be able to solve. But are the difficulties 
 which belong to the system of Arminianism, either 
 fewer in number, or less in magnitude ? Instead 
 of this, they are more numerous, and more seri- 
 ous ; more contradictory to reason, more incon- 
 sistent with the character of God, and more di- 
 
 * Strype's Memorials of Cranmer, p. 407 — 413. 
 
 t The preceding view of the opinions of the Reformers is necessa^ 
 rily brief. In the concluding letter of this work, which will be de- 
 voted to an examination of certain charges and statements coiitHined 
 in your life of the Rev. Dr. Rogers, tlie opinions in question will be 
 somewhat further inquired into. 
 
LET. VIII- CALVINISM. 291 
 
 rectly opposed both to the letter and the spirit of 
 his word."* 
 
 Here you appear to admit that the Calvinistic 
 and Arniinian systems are both incapable of be- 
 ing reconciled with either reason or Scripture. 
 But you embrace the Calvinistic system, it would 
 seem, as the least erroneous of the two. Thus a 
 doctrine may be " inconsistent with the character 
 of God, and opposed both to the letter and the 
 Spirit of his word," and still be worthy of all ac- 
 ceptation. No other construction can possibly be 
 put upon your language; and yet I cannot bring 
 myself to believe that such is the idea which you 
 intended to convey. The passage, then, may serve 
 as a specimen of the confusion of thought and of 
 expression, which is so characteristic of your 
 book. 
 But let us proceed. 
 
 " It is easy and popular to object, that Calvin^ 
 ism has a tendency to cut the nerves of all spiri- 
 tual exertion ; that if we are elected^ there is no 
 need of exertion, and if not elected, it will be in 
 vain. But this objection lies with quite as much 
 force against the Arminian hypothesis. Dr. Bow- 
 den^ and Mr. How^ and all Arminians, though 
 they reject the doctrine of election, explicitly 
 grant that, while sotne will, in fact, be saved, 
 others will, in fact, as certainly perish. Now it 
 is perfectly plain that this position is just as liable 
 to the abuse above stated, as the Calvinistic doc- 
 
 * Continuation of Letters, p. 335. 
 
292 CALVINISM. LET. VIII. 
 
 trine. For a man may sny, * I shall either be 
 saved, or I shall not. If I am to be saved, no 
 anxiety about it is necessary; and if I am to pe- 
 rish, all anxiety about it will be useless.' Would 
 these gentlemen consider this objv?clion as a valid 
 one against tlieir creed? I presume not. But it 
 has no more validity against o?«r5."* 
 
 There is a very marked difference between the 
 Calvinistic and anti-Calvinistic systems in this 
 particular. 
 
 Anti-Calvinists believe that Christ died for all 
 men, and that effectual^ grace is given to all ; they 
 consider the passion of om* Saviour as placing sal- 
 
 • Continuation of Letters, p. 336. 
 
 f Wlien Calvinists speak of effectual ^ace, they mean irresistible 
 grace -, — anti-Calviniits mean by it sufficient grace ; that is, such a por- 
 tion of divine aid as will secure to us eternal life, provided we yield a 
 sincere and zealous co-operation. But, according to the Calvinistic 
 system, the whole work of conversic.^ and sanctification is effected by 
 the power of God He decreed, from eternity, to save an elect number; 
 and this elect number he decreed to convert and sanctify. It is com- 
 pletely, therefore, a mechanical process ; the elect being- created sim- 
 ply to be saved, and the reprobate simply to be damned Salvation is 
 forced upon the former; damnation upon the latter: — the former cannot 
 possibly avoid going to Heaven ; the latter are equally unable to avoid 
 going to Hell. Calvin expressly declares, not only that the reprobate 
 are doomed from all eternity to perdition, but that Cod uctualh fits 
 them for it; blinding their understandings, and hardening their hearts. 
 " Whom, therefore, he hath created unto the sliame of life and de- 
 struction of death, that they should be instrumints of his wrath, .and 
 examples of his severity, that they may come to their end; at one time 
 he deprives them of the power of hearing his word ; at another, Ive 
 the more blinds and stupifies them by the preaching of it. Ht-hold I 
 God calls to them but for the purpose of their l>cing made more deuf ; 
 he s( ts his light bt fore them, but in order that tluy may be rendered 
 rcore blind ; he holds forth doctrine to them, but that tiny may he 
 rendered more stupid by it ; he applies a remedy to them ; but not that 
 
l.KT. VIII. CALVINISM. 29o 
 
 vation within llu reach of every individual ; — so 
 thalj in their view of the subject, man is the fa- 
 
 tliey may be healed."* " Tlicy (the reprobate) cannot avoid the ne- 
 cessity of sinning; such necessity is cast upon them by the ordination 
 
 Gf C()d."t 
 
 Conjarus did not hesitate to declare, in the Synod of Dort, that God 
 predestinates man to death, and to sin as the only way to death. 
 
 " Gomarus, who saw that his iron was in the fire, beg-an to tell us 
 that Episcopius had falsified the tenet of reprobation ; that no man 
 taut^ht that God absolutely decreed to cast man away without sin ; but 
 as he did decree the end, so he did the means ; that is, as he predes- 
 tinated man to death, so he predestinated him to sin, the only way to 
 •ieath : and so he mended the question, as tinkers mend kettles, and 
 made it worse than it was before." Ilales^s Letters from Dorf. G. R. 
 p. 4.15. 
 
 ■ Zanchius asserts that "the reprobate are bound by the ordinance 
 of God under the necessity of sinning-;" Beza, that "God hath predes- 
 tinated, not only unto damnation, but also unto the causes of it, whom- 
 soever he saw meet;" Perkins, that " God hath most justly decreed 
 even the wicked works of the wicked;" Knox, that ** the wicked are 
 not only left by God's suffering, but are compelled to sin by his power;" 
 Piscator, that " God so absolutely and efficaciously determines the will 
 of every man, that he cannot do more good than he really does, nor 
 omit more evil than he really omits."^: 
 
 Here is Calvinism — pure, unadulterated Calvinism, as set forth by 
 its founder, and his most distinguished companions and followers. 
 Truly, the Romish doctrine of merit was bad enough ; but Calvinism 
 is worse: — the former made man his own sanctifier, but the latter re- 
 presents God as creating intelligent beings in order first to fit them 
 for perdition, and then to plunge ihem into it. How lamentable it is 
 that the human mind should so frequently pass from one extreme to 
 another ! And how deeply are we indebted, under God, to the wisdom 
 and moderation of the illustrious Reformers of the Church of England* 
 
 * InstltiitOR, Look ill. chop. C-k f Ibid. Imok iii. 
 
 ;j: For the i)assagcs (juoteil fiom Ivnov and PerkiiiS, see IUvIIm's Qninqu.irti- 
 cnlar Uistorv, p;irt ii. cliaj). 10, part iji. «;hap. '-0; and for tliose from Zan- 
 ehius, r.i'Z', and Piscator, see Mant'.s liamplon Lt'otnrtf?, p. 194, 11'5, 196. 
 Xot havin:.» ronvnieiit access to the oi i<;inals, 1 (juote from Hey'.in and M;fnt, 
 who give the titles rf the hook?^, t'.ic pai^cs, and indectl the very psssi-.gcs iij 
 •^vhich th.c f)lno.\ious sentinieiitf-- aie advancd. 
 
294 CALVINISM. LET. VIII. 
 
 bricator of his own destiny ; such destiny depend- 
 ing upon the use or abuse of the means of grace. 
 The wicked perish, not because no Saviour is 
 provided for them, and no elTectual grace is ever 
 vouchsafed to them; but because they neglect to 
 profit by the grace which they receive, and refuse 
 to lay hold on eternal Hfe purchased for them by 
 the atoning sacrifice of the cross. This system, 
 it is easy to see, presents the strongest motives to 
 spiritual zeal and diligence that can possibly be 
 brought to act upon the human mind. Upon our- 
 selves it depends whether we shall be eternally 
 happy, or eternally miserable. A Saviour is pro- 
 vided for us, and the Holy Spirit is ever ready to 
 afford us all necessary assistance. There is no 
 absolute decree of God to shut us out of Heaven. 
 
 But, according to the Calvinistic system, salva- 
 tion depends upon the eternal and unconditional 
 decree of God. The whole human race is divided 
 into the two great classes of elect and reprobate, 
 the former of whom will infallibly be saved, and 
 the latter infallibly perish. The elect, for exam- 
 ple, are, in due time, effectually called; that is, 
 they are seized and converted by irresistible 
 grace. Conversion is wholly a divine work; 
 man is absolutely passive therein. The repro- 
 bate, on the other hand, are never eftectually 
 called ; they cannot possibly turn unto God ; they 
 must infallibly perish; an arbitrary unconditional 
 decree shuts them out of Heaven. 
 
 AVilh a man who believes all this there can be 
 no possible motive for exertion. 
 
LKT. VIII. OALVINISM. 295 
 
 The Calviniat will naturally argue thus: — 
 My salvation or coudeinnation is immutably and 
 eternally fixed by God himself. It is in vain for me 
 to strive and pray. If I am one of the elect, God, 
 in his good time, will effectually call me. My 
 conversion, if it ever take place, will be produced 
 by [RRESiSTiBLE gracc *, I shall bo altogether 
 passive; — the work will be wholly a divine 
 work.* All effort in me, therefore, to turn from 
 sin to holiness, must be both vain and impious; — 
 vain, because conversion is an affair in which 
 man is entirely passive ; impious, inasmuch as it 
 would be an attempt to effect, by my own efforts, 
 what I know is effected exclusively by divine 
 power. Thus, the primary operation of the prin- 
 ciple in question, is to produce stupid ease and 
 indifference. There is nothing left to rouse the 
 
 • Calvinists, in consistency with the positive language of the Westv 
 minster Standards, represent conversion as the work of God alone. 
 They tell us, in so many words, that man is absolutely passive in the 
 change. The principle will be found, in all its strictness, in the Chris- 
 tian's Magazine. " All these doctrines may be summed up in that 
 one grand, fundamental, essential truth, of a radical, total change of 
 heart by the almighty power of the Holy Ghost. In this change, the 
 principles of spiritual life are implanted in the sinner, so that he arises 
 from his death of sin, and walks before God in nexmess of life. The 
 change itself is -wrought by God — the sinner is the jiere recipient."^ 
 Here the whole work of conversion and sanctification is represented as 
 performed by the almighty power of the Holy Ghost. The individual 
 himself does not co-operate, in the slightest degree, in the change 
 which he undergoes. He is a mere passive recipient of irresistible- 
 grace; and is just as much, therefore, an inert lump of matter, as any 
 piece of mechanism framed by the hand of man, and constantly kept 
 in motion by the application of physical force. 
 
 t Christian's Magaziae, vol frt. p. 0.?. 
 
296 CALVINISM, LET. VIJI. 
 
 human mind into action. But the moment you 
 admit that sufficient grace is given to all to enable 
 them to turn to God, and that conversion is a work 
 in which the agency of man must co-operate with 
 divine grace, you present the subject in a point of 
 light calculated to touch the most anxious and 
 most powerful feelings of the soul. Man has 
 something to do; it rests with himself to improve 
 the grace vouchsafed, by turning unto God, and 
 thus securing eternal life; or to abuse it by per- 
 severing in wickedness, and thus sealing his per- 
 dition. 
 
 Thus, w^hile the Calvinist may suppose that his 
 conversion has not yet taken pla e, the genuine 
 principles of this system will lead him to wait, 
 with perfect tranquillity, until God's time shall 
 arrive. His own efforts, he knows, can neither 
 hasten nor retard a period fixed by an eternal and 
 immutable decree; — nay, as he is to be wholly 
 passive in the change, any effort to turn from sin 
 to holiness would not only be absurd, but could 
 be regarded in no other light than that of an at- 
 tempt to alter what God has unchangeably or- 
 dained, and to effect, by his own co-operation, 
 what is produced exclusively by the irresistible 
 power of the Holy Ghost. The man has no more 
 concern in his conversion than a block of marble 
 has in its transformation into an elegant statue. 
 The marble undergoes a change; the man under- 
 goes a change. The marble is altogether passive : 
 the man is altogether passive. The marble is 
 <:han^ed solely by the operation of human hands ; 
 
LET. VIII. CALVINISW. 297 
 
 the man is changed solely by the operation of tlie 
 divine power. What dill'erence is theie, then, be- 
 tween the man and the marble? To talk of a 
 genuine Calvinist, who really acts ii|)()n his prin- 
 ciples, being solicitous as to his conversion, or 
 striving to forsake his evil ways, is just as ridicul- 
 ous as to talk of a block of marble striving to be 
 changed into a finished production of art. AVhat 
 can be more truly absurd than the idea of a man, 
 who knows he must be absolutely passive in an 
 operation, labouring to accomplish that operation 
 by his own active power! 
 
 I repeat it, then, a consistent Calvinist, who 
 supposes that his conversion has not yet taken 
 place, will give himself no trouble about the mat- 
 ter, but wait as patiently for the transforming 
 power of the Holy Ghost as a block of marble 
 will wait for that human operation which is to 
 strip it of its rudeness, and invest it with artificial 
 beauty. 
 
 Further — Let us suppose a Calvinist, at some 
 unusually serious moment, to imagine that the 
 period of his conversion has actually arrived. He 
 will argue thus: — I am one of the elect; it is ab- 
 solutely impossible, therefore, that I should pe- 
 rish: — God has chosen me from all eternity by an 
 unconditional decree, and no human act can pos- 
 sibly frustrate his decision in my favour. 
 
 Do you inform him that no one without holiness 
 can see the Lord? His answer is ready — The 
 decree of God is absolute and infallible: Christ 
 ])ath expressly declared that not one of the elect 
 
 .18 ' 
 
2$$ CALVINISM. LET. VUU 
 
 shall ever be plucked out of his hand; if I fall 
 into gross sin, God will surely restore me; — in 
 fact, the elect cannot finally be otherwise than 
 holy. 
 
 Thus docs this wretched system of doctrine de- 
 stroy all the motives to spiritual diligence. A 
 Calvinist, who supposes that he has not yet been 
 converted^ will, of course, wait patiently for the 
 arrival of the appointed time; knowing that con- 
 version is a business in which he must be alto- 
 gether passive : a Calvinist, who supposes that he 
 has been actually converted^ will feel confident of 
 salvation ; it being the leading doctrine of his 
 creed that the elect can never perish:^ — So that 
 
 • Neal, in his History of the Puritans, informs us that Oliver Crom- 
 well, when he was on his death bed, asked Ur. Goodwin, -whether a 
 man could fall from grace? Upon receiving an answer in the neg-ative, 
 Cromwell replied, " Then I am safe, for I am sure I was once in a 
 ftate of grace.'* 
 
 When the injurious tendency of their system is urged upon Calvinists, 
 they frequently defend themselves by saying that the decree of God to 
 save, according to their doctrine, is always accompanied with a decree 
 to sanctify ; so that the only evidence which a man can have that he is 
 one of the elect, must be derived from the holiness of his heart and life 
 This answer, it must be admitted, is not without a degree of force. 
 The qualification of the doctrine of election in this way, certainly tends 
 to guard ligainst its evil effects : Still, however, the operation of the 
 doctrine cannot be otherwise than pernicious. How apt is self-love to 
 blind the understanding ! There is no point on which men are so prone 
 to deceive themselves as that of their spiritual condition. Let it be 
 received as an unquestionable truth, that the human race is divided 
 into the two great classes of elect and reprobate, by an eternal decree, 
 founded on no foresight of the gnali/i cations of the creature, but entirely 
 arbitrary, and men of warm imaginations and forward tempers, if they 
 at any time take a religious turn, will seldom fail to imagine themselves 
 within the decree of election; while persons of a different cast of cha- 
 racter will be no less apt to think themselves of the number of the re- 
 probate, and, therefore, without hope. Men of a certain temperament,. 
 
LET. Vni. CALVINISM. 299 
 
 indolence in the first instance, and security in the 
 last, are the genuine fruits of the system. 
 
 v€n' easily persuade themselves that they are religious, while the worst 
 passions rankle in their hearts, and even while open violations of the 
 law of God disgrace tlieir lives. The supposed decree of election seta 
 the imagination at work; and this, under the stimulating- influence of 
 self-love, will almost always lead the individual to a favourable conclu- 
 sion on the subject of his spiritual state. 
 
 But see how even the modern teachers of Calvinism can talk! 
 
 " Every idea of moral goodness, as a qualification for obtaining par- 
 <lon, mercy, and peace from God, is done away."* " No demerit on the 
 part of believers can arise to defeat the operation of Cod's grace."f 
 " The present life is not a life of probation and trial."t " All that the 
 Father giveth. Not one, or two, or ten tliousand : but ALL. And 
 they shall come. What, if they do such and such duties ? Not a word 
 of the kind. What, if tliey perform such obligations ? Not a syllable 
 like it. It is an absolute promise of the Lord Jesus, founded in his own 
 absolute power. Here are neither ifs nor buts. No conditions nor 
 terms. They shall come : and if they themselves will not, the Lord 
 will make them imlling in the day of his power "J 
 
 " As it was not any loveliness in elect persons which moved God to 
 love them at first, so neither shall their unlovely backslidings deprive 
 them of it."|j 
 
 " Suppose a believer to be taken away in his sin, and hath not time 
 to repent of it, there was that in him that would have repented, and 
 God reckons of a man according to that he would do.*' " Though a 
 believer be black as hell, polluted with guilt, defiled with sin, yet ia 
 Christ he is all fair without a spot; free from sin, as viewed by Cod ia 
 Christ, fully reconciled to God, and standing without trespasses before 
 him."^ 
 
 " God did not barely suffer, but positively intended and decreed 
 them, (the reprobate) to continue in their natural blindness and hard* 
 ness of heart." ** He does not only negatively withhold from the 
 wicked his grace, which alone can restrain them from evil ; but occa- 
 sionally, in the course of his providence, he puts them into circum- 
 stances of temptation, such as shall cause the persons so tempted ac- 
 tually to turn aside from the path of duty to commit sin." " The sen- 
 
 • Hawker's Prop to Despair, p. 1 1. f Hawker's Zion's Pilgiini, p fiO. 
 
 % Hawker's Zion's Pilgi-im, p. iCO. k) Hawktr's I'rop to Despair, p. 15, 16. 
 
 il Coles on Cod's Sovereignty, edited hy Koiiinine, p. ^1)4. 
 1[ Mason's spiritual Trcasur>', edited and reeommended by Romainc, p. 1 il 
 and 20G. 
 
300 CALVINISM. LET. VIIK 
 
 The anti-Calvinistic system, on the other hand, 
 represents the whole process of sanctification as 
 
 tence of Gjd, which rejects the reprobates, is so fixed and immutable, 
 tbit it is impossible they should he saved, though they have performed 
 all tlie works of the saints: and, therefore, it is not true, that those 
 vthn perish throuj^h their own fault, misrht have been saved throu.^h 
 grace, if they had not ceased labouring for saving grace." 
 
 " The salvation of every one of the elect is certain, and can by no 
 me ins be prevented."* 
 
 - " David stood as completely justified in the everlasting righteousness 
 of Christ at the time when he caused Uriah to be murdered, and was 
 committing adultery with his wife, as he was in any part of his life. 
 For all the sins of the elect, be they more, or be they less, be they past, 
 present, or to come, v'ere for ever done away. So that every one of 
 the St'-, elect stand spotless in the sight of God."f 
 
 " If Christ has fulfilled the whole law, and borne the curse, then all 
 debts and cl .ims against his people, be they more or be they less, be 
 they small or be they great, be they before or be they after conversion, 
 are for ever and for ever cancelled. All trespasses are forgiven them. 
 Taey are justified from all things. They already have everlasting life."^ 
 " Though I believe that David's sin displeased the Lord, must I there- 
 fore believe that David's person was under the curse of the law? 
 Surely no. Like Ephraim, he was still a pleasant child: though he went 
 on fi-owardly, he did not lose the character of the man after God's own 
 heart."$ " Nt faults or backslidings in God's children can ever bring 
 them again under condemnation, because the law of the spirit of life 
 in Ciirist Jesus hatti made them free from the law of sin and death."|j 
 
 Sucli, after all, is the true, unsophisticated conclusion from tlie doc- 
 trine of absolute decrees. It is proper, nevertheless, to state, that many 
 piirsons who call themselves Calvinists would be far from sanctioning 
 the language contained in the preceding extracts. Viewing it, however, 
 ns nothing more than a fair exposition of the consequences which result 
 from the Calvinistic theory, we cannot but regard the persons just 
 alluded to as shrinking from the horrors of their own system. 
 
 Such, too, is tiie weakness of our nature, that we sometimes meet 
 with men of real piety, whose principles nevertheless lead directly and 
 
 • Tooldcly on Pre.lesti nation, p. 53. See also " The Result of fiilse Piinn- 
 pl-s. or '-irrnr cnnvicl*-^! Iry its own KviiUnce, extracterl fi om the original of 
 Dr 'Vomath, sometime Lord Bisho]) of St. David's.'' Kdit. 1790, p. 78. 
 
 t M-. U- Jlill. 
 
 i quoted from Su' Richard Hill, in Fletcher's Tliiit'. Ch^ck to Antinouii- 
 BJUiism, p. 8->. $ Ibid. p. T'^i. || Ibid. p. 80. 
 
LET. VIII. CALVINISM. 301 
 
 the joint work of man, anil of tho Holy Spirit. 
 God does not act irresistibly upon the human 
 mind; his influence is exerted in a way which re- 
 (|uircs our own co-operation; and unh.'ss we sin- 
 cerely and zealously co-operate, we must perish. 
 The anti-Calvinist, then, can never, consistently 
 with his principles, sit down and indolently wait 
 until his heart shall be chani^ed by the almiiihty 
 power of the Holy Ghost: and, when he may have 
 reason to suppose that his heart has underg;one a 
 real change, he cannot flatter himself with the 
 idea that his salvation is absolutely secure; for 
 the doctrine of the infallible perseverance of the 
 saints he rejects as equally unscriptural and ab- 
 surd. 
 
 But, if the tendency of the Calvinistic system 
 be such as I have described it, how happens it 
 that many of its professors are scrupulously dili- 
 gent in the use of the means of grace? The an- 
 swer is easy. Calvinism has often produced all 
 
 strong-ly to the grossest licentiousness of practice. To use the words 
 of a late excellent writer — " Some minds indeed there may be, and 
 such unquestionably thei*e are, of superior quality, whose love ol God 
 is too devout, and their piety too ardent, to suffer them to use their 
 tenets as a license for carelessness or immorality; and who nmain, 
 as Tully testified of the disciples of Epicurus, virtuous in spite of 
 their principles."* But what must be the effect of the language in 
 question upon the minds of the g-enerality of men ! Calvinism will 
 ultimately lead, through a deplorable bigotry, to a licentious scep- 
 ticism. If Christianity were never exhibited in any other than a Cal- 
 vinistic shape, the whole Christian world would, sooner or later, be- 
 come infidel. 
 
 * Mant in his Banipton Lectures; to -which the reader is refciTed for the 
 passages died in the above note, ii. 134 to 1 ii. 
 
302 CALVINISM. LET. VIIL 
 
 the practical effects which have been mentioned; 
 and these effects would always flow from it, were 
 there not, happily, a strong counteracting princi- 
 ple in the constitution of the human mind. The 
 Calvinistic doctrines are repa2;nant to common 
 sense. They contradict the irresistible feelings of 
 our nature. 
 
 The Calvinist believes that the elect are mdivi- 
 dually ascertained by an eternal and immutable 
 decree of God; that their conversion is effected, 
 at the ordained moment, by irresistible grace; and 
 that this grace will infallibly preserve them from 
 perishing. In all this system man is evidently an 
 inert being; he does nothing toward his conversion, 
 or toward his eventual perseverance; the whole 
 is the sovereign and unconditional work of God. 
 But, while the force of prejudice leads the Cal- 
 vinist, in speculation, to one conclusion; the un- 
 conquerable dictates of nature lead him, in prac- 
 tice, to another. He is conscious of a power over 
 his conduct. He feels that he was intended for 
 an active being. He is prompted by the very con- 
 stitution of his nature, as well as by the positive 
 commands of Scripture, to use the means of 
 grace. 
 
 Thus the baneful tendency of the system in 
 question is, in a degree, corrected and controled 
 by the structure of the human mind.* 
 
 • Calvlnists do not, generally speaking, openly deny the liberty of 
 man ; indeed, they will admit him to be a free agent ; but the admis- 
 sion turns out, sooner or later, to be merely verbal. A free agent, who 
 IS absolutely passive in conversion, and whose perseverance in grace 
 
LET. vin. 
 
 CALVINISM. 303 
 
 Whenever men are so unfortunate as to embrace 
 a doctrine which is contrary to common sense, 
 
 depends solely upon the immutability of the decree of election ! A free 
 agent, wl»o is determined to that which is good, and effectually drawn to 
 Jesus Christ, by almightv power ! A free agent, who is the subject 
 of irresistible grace ! Of what value is a liberty thus fettered ? What 
 would you think of a man who should so load you with chains that 
 you could not move a muscle of your body, and then tell you to 
 rise and walk? If, in our conversion from sin to holiness, we are 
 absolutely passive, and if our perseverance in the ways of righteous- 
 ness depends altogether upon the divine decree, where is our free- 
 dom of choice, or of action ? But many distinguished Calvinists posi- 
 tively deny liberty of cuoTrx; the only liberty which they admit lies in 
 the power of acting according to choice. Thus our choice is determined 
 by necessity : in other words, we have no choice. Now, if the deter- 
 mination of the will be out of our power, the act consequent upon such 
 determination must be so too. The determination of the will is the 
 first part of the act, and that upon which its moral character wholly 
 depends. But, according to the theory in question, the determination 
 of the will does not depend upon ourselves, but upon something not 
 under our control. Then the act does not depend upon ourselves, but 
 upon a foreign cause. We deliberate whether we shall perform a par- 
 ticular action — we finally determine to perform it — the performance 
 follows. Now, constituted as we are, the power of determination is 
 the power of performance ; the author of the determination is of course 
 the author of the action. There can be no control over the action, 
 where there is none over the determination. Jl determines to kill S ;. 
 he has no power to determine to do it, or to determine not to do it ; he 
 cannot possibly avoid the determination to commit murder. In what 
 then consists his liberty ? Why, simply in the power to carry the de- 
 termination into effect. The liberty of .4, in this case, therefore, lies 
 simply in a physical power to kill B/ and it is precisely the liberty 
 which a musket ball possesses. The ball flies upon the pulling of the 
 trigger ; and Jl strikes B with a deadly weapon upon his will being de- 
 termined to do so. The ball has just as much control over the trigger, 
 as A has over the determination to kill B; and the kilhng of B is not 
 less certainly the result of the determination of A to kill him, than the 
 flying of the ball is the result of the pulling of the trigger. 
 
 Thus, this liberty, not of choosing, but of acting according to choice^ 
 is not a power to act, but simply a capacity to be acted upon. 
 
 The advocates of the doctrine which denies to man all power over the 
 dct^minatioiw of his will, assert that the rery supposition of such a 
 
o04 CALVINISM. LET. VIII 
 
 their practice must always more or less contradict 
 their theory. Berkeley and Hume denied the ex- 
 istence of a material world ;— still they acted like 
 other people; taking for granted, in the general 
 course of their conduct, the very fact which they 
 la joured so strenuously in speculation to disprove. 
 Just so it is with the Calvinist. He will insist that 
 man is absolutely passive in conversion; and that, 
 after conversion, he cannot permanently fall from 
 grace; being preserved by the almighty and irre- 
 sistible power of the Holy Ghost. Still he acts, 
 commonly, as if his salvation depended, in some 
 degree, upon his own efforts. He uses the means 
 of grace — he strives and prays. But what can be 
 the. meaning of this, if we are, in the first instance, 
 converted by irresistible grace, and then infallibly 
 preserved by omnipotent power? Thus it is that 
 the demoralizing tendency of Calvinism is, in a 
 degree, corrected by its very absurdity. 
 
 Your remaining observations, under this head, 1 
 must notice more briefly. 
 
 power InTolves an absurdity and a contradiction. A power over the di- 
 terminatioas of ttie will, s^y they, is a power to will a thing if we will; 
 so that every determination must necessarily imply a prior determina.- 
 tion, thus running on to infinity; which is absurd. But this is nothing 
 more than a pi ^y upon words. The determination of my will is an effect 
 which must have a cause; either I am the cause» or some other being 
 is the cause. 1 he one proposition is just as conceivable, and just a.s 
 free from contradiction and absurdity as the other. 
 
 Again, it has been said, nothing is in our power but what depends 
 upon the will ; of course the will itself cannot be in our power. Hut if 
 we have power over what depends upon the will, we mtist have power 
 over the will itself; otherwise we may have power over the cTuf, an<^ 
 -ynX owcT iht necessartj means ; which is a contradiction. 
 
I.ET. VIII. CALVINISM. ^05, 
 
 " Another objection is equally common and 
 popular. It is said, if none but the elect will be 
 iiavetl, how can God be considered as sincere in 
 making the oflers of mercy to ail? The Arminian 
 is just as much bound to answer this question as 
 the Calvinist. He grants that all men will not, in 
 fact, be saved ; he grants, moreover, that God 
 foreknew this from eternity ; and that li>2 not only 
 ioxeknew ihQ general fact ; but also the particular 
 persons who will, and who will not, partake of 
 salvalion. How^, then, we may ask the Arminian, 
 is God sincere, on his plaii, in urging and entreat- 
 ing all to accept of mercy?"* 
 
 The Calvinists tell us that God, by an eternal 
 and unconditional decree, hath ordained one part 
 of the human race to happiness, and the rest 
 to misery; that no Saviour is provided for the 
 latter, and that no effectual grace is given to 
 them. It is absolutely impossible for them, then, 
 to repent, and be saved. The impossibility, 
 too, arises from the decree of God ;t ibr he brings 
 
 * Continuation of LetterSj p. 336, 337^ 
 
 J The doctrine, that we come into the world Under the burden of ac- 
 tual guilt, for which it would be perfectly just in God instantly to coii- 
 sign us to eternal despair, is as diabolical as it is absurd. It is the ex- 
 press doctrine of the Westminster Confession of Faith, that infants 
 are divided into elect and reprobate, and that the latter, in consequence 
 ef the sin of Adara, which is made their sin by imputation, indiscri- 
 minately perish. Such is the horrible principle which Calvinists have 
 invented as a necessary basis for that arbitrary decree which sends 
 some unconditionally to Heaven, and others unconditionally to Hell. 
 Common sense tells us that infants can have contracted no positive 
 guilt. It is evidently impossible that the sin of one man should be- 
 come the proper and personal sin of another. The disobedience of 
 Adam could no more be made to bring posiUve guilt upon his posterity, 
 
 59 
 
SOS CALVINISM. LIT. VIII. 
 
 them into the world with a corrupt nature, and 
 withholds from them that assistance without 
 which they must inevitably perish. In short, he 
 invites them to partake of eternal life, and yet 
 has doomed them, by an unconditional decree, to 
 eternal death. Is not this the very essence both 
 of falsehood and of cruelty ? But, upon the anti- 
 Calvinistic system, a Saviour is provided for all 
 men, and elTectual grace is vouchsafed to all. 
 The way to Heaven is not barred up by an uncon- 
 ditional decree. God not only invites but enables 
 all to come to him. He does not pass an immu- 
 table and irresistible decree that certain indivi- 
 duals shall peribh, and then call upon those very 
 individuals to defeat the omnipotence of his power, 
 and live. Upon the anti-Calvinistic system, all 
 is consistent ; all is full of mercy and truth. None 
 perish^but they who obstinately refuse to be saved ; 
 and none refuse to be saved because God withholds 
 from them the efficacious assistance of his Spirit. 
 Whereas, Calvin represents the Divine Being as 
 decreeing the damnation of the reprobate, as 
 blinding their understandings and hardening their 
 hearts, to fit them for their doom, at the very time 
 that he is addressing to them the most importu- 
 nate calls of mercy. 
 
 The anti-Calvinist admits that God foreknows 
 all things. But is there no difference between 
 foreknowing that men will abuse the means of 
 
 than a thinp could be made to he and not to be at the same time. In 
 both of these cases a contradiction is necessarily involved ; they are of 
 eour&e no objects of power. 
 
LET. VIII. CALVINISM* *^07 
 
 grace, and ordaining thai ihey shall abuse them ; 
 between foreknowing that tlicy will perish, and 
 ordaining that they shall perish ? God exists with- 
 out reference to time and space ; he filleth im> 
 mensity, and inhabiteth eternity; past and future 
 have no meaning when applied to him. Any dif- 
 ficulty, therefore, which may exist in reconciling 
 the prescience of God with the free agency ot 
 man, arises from our limited view of things in 
 reasoning from human to divine power,* But if, 
 
 * There has been great dispute on the question whether it be possi- 
 ble that free actions should be foreseen, if the question be determined 
 in the negative, it will follow either that the Deity dots not foresee his 
 own actions, or that he is not a free agent. But we know that God is 
 both a free, and an omniscient being; it follows, irresistibly, that free 
 actions are capable of being foreseen. 
 
 Are we able to give any reason for supposing that a contingent event 
 may not be foreseen, but that we cannot exactly understand how it 
 can be foreseen ? This is a reason, however, which supposes human 
 power tobe upon a level with divine. Can we exactly understand or con- 
 ceive how God knows the secrets of all hearts ? And shall we draw 
 the conclusion that he does not know them ? Can we form any clear 
 conception how God created the universe without materials out of 
 ■which to create it I No — And this very circumstance led the ancient 
 philosophers, universally, to the doctrine of the eternity of matter. 
 
 God foresees all events, and as we cannot conceive or understand how 
 contingent events should be foreseen, it follows that all events are ne- 
 cessary. 
 
 God formed the universe, and as we cannot conceive or understand 
 bow he could form it without materials out of which to form it, it fol- 
 lows that such materials had existed from eternity. 
 
 Such, when properly analyzed, is the philosophy of the ancient spe- 
 culations relative to the eternity of matter, and of the modern specu- 
 lations about the consistency of freedom witli prescience. 
 
 The ancient philosophers found no difficulty in admitting that God 
 might create the universe if furnished with materials. Man has a power 
 similar to this — He can erect a house if you give him the materials for 
 the purpose ; and he therefore readily conceiveb tliat the Deity may, in 
 the same war, have erecied the universe. It is only the exercise of a 
 
.-^O^ CALVimSAI. LET. YUl. 
 
 as the Calvinists tell us, God has eternally aad 
 unchangeably ordained every thing that comes to 
 
 power similar in kind to that of the exercise of which he is conscious 
 in himself. But having no power of positive creation, he can form no 
 clear conception of the exercise of such a power, and so is prone to re- 
 gard an act of positive creation as impossible. 
 
 In the same way, we readily admit that God may foresee necessary 
 events, inasmuch as we are able to calculate exactly events that arc to 
 be brouj^ht about by mechanical operation ; but having- no ficulty by 
 whic'ii we can, with absolute certainty, penetrate conting-ent events, we 
 find it difticult to conceive of such a faculty in any being-, and so are 
 apt to draw the ^conclusion, that prescience and contingency cannot 
 exist togetlier. 
 
 If, then, we are to conclude that all events happen m the way of ne- 
 cessity, because we cannot conceive how conting-ent events should be 
 foreseen, we must equnUy conclude that God formed the universe out 
 of pre-existing materials, because we cannot conceive how he should 
 have formed it without tliem. The fallacy, in each case, lies in mea- 
 suring- divine by liuman power; in making our capacity of conceiving 
 or understanding hoxv a thing is to be done, the test of its possibility 
 with God ; a mode of reasoning which would plunge us at once into 
 atheism, indeed into universal scepticism. The phenomena of the ma- 
 terial world are facts which we are capable of ascertaining and classing 
 by attentive observation ; but how these phenomena are produced we 
 know not. We know that they are produced by an efficient cause ; but 
 the manner in which this efficient cause produces them, is a mysterv' 
 which we have no faculties that will enable us to penetrate. How does 
 the grass grow in the field ? How does the acorn spring into the oak, 
 or the boy into the man ? We have nothing to do here but confess our 
 ignorance. And the remark will hold with respect to all the physical 
 phenomena which fall under our observation. In the same way, we are 
 conscious that we hear, see, remember, reason ; but how we perform 
 these operations we are utterly ignorant.' So that if we make our ca- 
 pacity distinctly to conceive or understand how an operation is per- 
 formed, the criterion of its possibility, we lay down a principle which 
 must lead us to deny the reality of all the phenomena both of the pliy. 
 aical and the mental world ; a degree of scepticism never reached even 
 >jy the chief of sceptics, Mr. Hume. He denied the existence of matter 
 and of mind, but still admitted the reality of those ideas and impres- 
 sions which are the objects of consciousness. 
 
 God foresees the future free actions of man — God formed the uni- 
 verse oat of nothing.. There is no palpable contradiction in these pro- 
 
LET. Till. CALVIN 1S!VT. 309 
 
 pass, it is a complete contrad'ction to talk of free 
 agency. The two tilings are utterly inconsistent. 
 If God has ordained, by an irrcsistUde decree, 
 that certain individuals shall commit certain sins, 
 and perish, no choice is left to those individuals. 
 They must commit the sins — they must perish. 
 To deny this conclusion, is to give to man the 
 power of defeating the omnipotence of God ; — 
 to admit the conclusion, is to renounce the doc- 
 trine of free agency altogether. 
 
 Upon the anti-Calvinistic system, then, I re- 
 peat it, God may well be supposed to urge his 
 creatures to turn unto him and live. He has put 
 salvation within their reach. But the Calvinistic 
 
 positions which leads the human mind immediately to reject them as 
 impossible and absurd. The whole is superior to the sum of its parts 
 — A thing- may be and not be at the same time. Here we see absurdity 
 at once; w^e find it absolutely impossible to yield our belief But with 
 respect to the propositions — God foresees the free actions of man — God 
 formed the universe out of nothing- — the whole of our difficulty is that 
 of conceiving- or understanding- how the operations which they ascribe 
 to the Deity are performed; and we find difficulty in this, simply be- 
 cause we never perform such operations ourselves. If we were desti- 
 tute of the faculty of memory, we should find it equally difficult to 
 conceive liow God should be able to remember the past. We can no 
 more tell, indeed, hoTo God remembers tlie past, than ho-w he foresees 
 the future; but being perfectly familiar with the act of remembrance, 
 there seems no mystery about it ; we are led to think we understand 
 perfectly Ao-a» it is performed; while the infallible foresight of future 
 contingences, being an act of mind of which we have no experience, 
 we are apt, at first view, to be staggered and perplexed with it as a 
 thing impossible. Bui, upon reflection, we perceive that the whole 
 difficulty is resolvable into our own ignorance; that this ignorance, in 
 fact, extends equally to the mode in which those mental operations are 
 performed with which we are perfectly familiar; and that we really 
 deceive ourselves when we suppose that we knoT more about the otie 
 than the other. 
 
310 CALVINISM. LET. VIU. 
 
 system can never be reconciled with that inviola- 
 ble sincerity vvhich is essential to the Divine na- 
 ture. Upon this system, as has been already ob- 
 served, God ordains a certain portion of the hu- 
 man race from all eternity to perdition. Unless 
 an atonement be made for our sins, and effectual 
 grace be afforded to us, we must perish. For the 
 sins of the reprobate no atonement is made ; to 
 them no effectual aid of the Divine Spirit is given. 
 From the moment of their birth, therefore, to the 
 moment of their death, they labour under an ab- 
 solute impossibility of turning unto God; — and 
 this in consequence of his eternal and uncondi- 
 tional decree vvhich dooms them to perdition. 
 
 " Again, it has been frequently asked, ' If none 
 but the elect will be saved, is not God a partial 
 master, and a respecter of persons f^ But it may 
 be quite as plausibly and confidently asked, ' How 
 can we reconcile it with the impartiality and the 
 benevolence of God to save only a part of man- 
 kind?' If salvation be his work, then, why does 
 he not save all? Why does he make a distinction? 
 And if it be not his work, then men save them- 
 selves. Will even Mr. How^ with all his inveteracy 
 against Calvinism^ go this length ?"* 
 
 The Calvinistic system undoubtedly makes God 
 a partial master, and a respecter of persons. How ? 
 The whole human race, in consequence of the 
 transgression of Adam, is in a fallen state. We 
 are all sinners. We all stand in equal need of 
 
 • Gontinuati»n of Letters, p. 337 
 
LET. VIII. 
 
 CALVINISM. 311 
 
 mercy. Of the mass of mankind, thus situated, 
 God selects, it is said, a certain portion, for whom 
 he provides a Saviour, and whom he converts and 
 sanctifies by irresistible grace ; — the rest he or- 
 dains to perdition. The distinction made be- 
 tween the elect and the reprobate, is altogether 
 independent of virtue in the one, or vice in the 
 other. It is not founded, to use the language of 
 the Westminster Confession, on foresight of faith 
 or w^orks, or any other thing in the creature, as 
 the moving cause ; but is to be resolved solely 
 into the sovereign pleasure of God. Now, surely, 
 to represent God as distinguishing, unconditionally^ 
 between those who stand on precisely the same 
 ground, is to make him a respecter of persons. 
 
 " How can we reconcile it with the impartiality 
 and the benevolence of God, to save only a part 
 of mankind?" 
 
 Your question amounts simply to this — How 
 can we reconcile it with the divine attributes to 
 create a moral and responsible being? A free 
 agent being created, it follows, as a matter of 
 course, that the promised blessings will be be- 
 stowed on the obedient, and that the threatened 
 punishment will be inflicted upon the disobedient 
 So far is it from being inconsistent with the divine 
 impartiality, to save the good, and to condemn 
 the wicked, that it is in this very thing that the 
 essence of impartiality consists. 
 
 " If salvation be his work, then, why does he 
 not save all ? Why does he make a distinction ? 
 And if it be not his work, then men save them- 
 
312 CALVINISM. LET. VIIL 
 
 selves. Will even Mr. How, with all his invete- 
 racy against Calvinism, go this length ?" 
 
 Here salvation is evidenlly represented as the 
 i'o/t' and undivided work of God: — of course, man 
 is a complete machine; and the scriptural ex- 
 hortation, " work out your own salvation," ought 
 never to have been addressed to him. Thus the 
 Calvinist, talk as much as he may about iree 
 agency, never fails, in one way or other, to come 
 back to the doctrine of the absolute passivcness 
 of man, and the irresistibility of divine grace. 
 
 The scriptural view of this subject is as plain 
 as words can make it. Salvation is the work of 
 God — It is the work of man himself. The A\hole 
 merit of redemption belongs to Christ ; — our bles- 
 sed Saviour fulfilled the law, and satisfied the 
 claims of justice. In this point of view, salva- 
 tion is the work of God alone. Besides, the in- 
 fluences of the Holy Spirit are absolutely neces- 
 sary to our conversion and sanctification; of our- 
 selves we can do nothing. Here again our salva- 
 tion is effected by the divine agency. But God 
 deals with us as moral and responsible beings. 
 The influences of his Spirit incline and persuade, 
 but do not compel us to turn unto him ; of course 
 we have an active concern in the business of our 
 conversion and sanctification. Thus salvation is, 
 in one sense, the work of God; in another, the 
 work of man himself. God provides a Saviour 
 for all, and dispenses sufficient grace to all ; but 
 while God works in us both to will and to do, it 
 remains with us, by co-operating with the gra* 
 
tET. VlII* CALVINISM. 31S 
 
 cious influences of his Spirit, to work out our own 
 salvation. So that, in a proper sense, men do 
 save themselves ; and, it is perfectly plain, that 
 if there be no sense in which men contribute to 
 their own salvation, they must be absolute ma-' 
 chines. 
 
 " If I could bring myself to believe that the in- 
 finite and eternal God has laid no plan iti the 
 kingdom of his grace, but has left all to be de^ 
 cided by chance or accident."* 
 
 How does it follow from the anti-Calvinistic 
 system, that God has laid no plan in the kingdom 
 of his grace? According to this system, Christ 
 died for all men, and dispenses (^sufficient grace 
 to all; according to the Calvinistic system, he 
 died for the elect, and bestows effectual grace 
 upon them alone. In each case, the idea of a 
 plan is presented. If the doctrine, that Christ 
 died for a part of mankind, supposes the Divine 
 Being to act upon an established system, surely 
 the doctrine that the atonement extends to the 
 whole human race, equally supposes it. The 
 only difference between the two cases, is, that 
 the one presents the Deity to us as an impartial 
 and merciful parent; the other, as an arbitrary 
 and capricious tyrant. 
 
 " Left all to be decided by chance or accident." 
 
 Man is active in his conversion from sin to ho- 
 liness ; the Holy Spirit inclines and persuades, but 
 does not force the will ; — Christ died for the whole 
 
 * flontinnation of Letters, p. S37. 
 
 40 
 
314 CALVINISM. LET. VIH. 
 
 world. Then, says the Calvinist, every thing is 
 thrown to chance and accident. It is all chance 
 and accident, unless man be perfectly passive in 
 conversion; unless the Holy Spirit acts irresisti- 
 bly upon the will ; and unless the death of Christ 
 be of partial efficacy: That is, all is chance and 
 accident unless man be a machine ; for it is a 
 manifest contradiction to talk of the moral agency 
 of a being, who is altogether passive in his con- 
 version from sin to holiness, or to ascribe freedom 
 to the human mind while under the operation of 
 an irresistible power. Accordingly, Calvinists, as 
 I have before observed, scruple not to deny to 
 man all control over the determinations of his 
 will. And if we have no control over our deter- 
 minations, we can have none over the conduct 
 which is consequent upon those determinations* 
 He who is master of our vohtions, is master of 
 
 our actions.* 
 
 " If I could believe that the purposes of Jeho- 
 
 * ^ poicer not of choosing, but of acting according to choice. A maa 
 who can compel me to choose to do a thing which I have the physical 
 power of doing-, can compel me to do the thing". I will to stretch out 
 my arm — the arm is immediately stretched out. My power here, it is 
 said, is not that of willing to stretch out my arm, or not to stretch it out, 
 but simply of stretching it out after the determination has been pro- 
 duced by some other cause. But is not this plainly absurd ? AVhere the 
 requisite physical power exists, the determination to perform a parti- 
 cular act, is as invariably followed by the act, as snow is dissolved by 
 heat, or any other natural effect follows its cause. This power of act- 
 ing ;tccording to choice, is just the power which a clock possesses. 
 Some efficient being determines to wind it up, and when wound up, 
 it goes until it runs down; then it must be wound up again. So after 
 some efficient being has made us will to do a thing, we go on until the 
 thing is done ; and then the being must will for us again. 
 
LET. VIII. CALVINISMS 315 
 
 vah, instead of being eternal, are all formed in 
 time; and instead of beinj^ immutable, are all 
 liable to be altered by the changing will of his 
 creatures."* 
 
 Why may it not as well be the eternal and im- 
 mutable purpose of God to give his Son a ransom 
 for the sins of the whole world, as for the sins of 
 ^ part? to incline Viud persuade ^ as to force the hu- 
 man mind ? — in short, to make man a free agent, 
 and to treat him as such, as to construct him, 
 and deal with him upon mechanical principles? 
 
 The very idea of a free agent, in the system of 
 an omnipotent being, seems to confound and baffle 
 all the faculties of your mind. Every event, you 
 appear to think, must be fixed by unconditio7ial ap- 
 pointment, and accomplished by irresistible power. 
 Surely, Sir, a system formed upon such principles, 
 can be none other than a system of fatalism. The 
 amount of the whole matter, therefore, is, that 
 you cannot imagine how a creature, endowed 
 with the moral power of free choice, should find 
 its way into the work of an eternal and immu- 
 table Being. And, indeed, the whole difficulty 
 in which Calvinists involve themselves upon this 
 subject, arises from metaphysical speculation upon 
 a topic which is too large for the grasp of the 
 human faculties. We have nothing to do with 
 the secret decrees of the Divine Council. So far 
 as revelation speaks of the decrees of God, we 
 may safely go ; beyond that it is our duly to b^ 
 
 * Continuation of Xctters, p. 337. 
 
316 CALVINISM. LET. VllU 
 
 §ilent, and adore. And, surely, every one who 
 reads the Bible, without prejudice, will admit that 
 it constantly represents mm as capable of either 
 co-op3ratia^ with, or of resisting the Spirit; and 
 that it invariably holds out general promises of 
 ^lercy, suspended upon particular conditions. 
 
 '* if I could suppose that after all the Redeemer 
 has done and sudered, the work o{ redemption can- 
 not be completed, unless perishing mortals choose 
 to lend their arms to its aid.''* 
 
 Here, surely, you are arguing without an anta- 
 gonist It cannot be necessary to inform you that 
 anti Calvinists ascribe the whole work of redemp- 
 tion to Jesus Christ. Human nature, in conse- 
 quence of the transgression of Adam, had sunk 
 into captivity to sin and death. Out of this state 
 it was redeemed by the meritorious passion of 
 Christ. Man had nothing to do with redeeming 
 himself; if he could have redeemed himself, the 
 interposition of a Mediator would have been un- 
 necessary. 
 
 " If I could admit the idea that God has done 
 nothing more than decree, in general, to save all 
 who may happen to believe ; without any deter- 
 mination^ or, which is the same thing, without any 
 certaintf/^ whether few, or manyy or none, would 
 Ije thus blessed." 
 
 The principle upon which this argument turns, 
 is, that God can foresee nothing but what he may 
 have decreed to accomplish by an exertion of hi5= 
 
 * Continuation of. Letters^ p. Ct3f. 
 
LET. VIII. CALVINISM. 317 
 
 omnipotent power. You thus take for granted the 
 very point in dispute. Having already said a good 
 deal on this subject, 1 shall not here enlarge. 
 Prove to us that God cannot foretell how a free 
 agent will exercise his power of choice ; in other 
 words, that freedom of choice and prescience are 
 inconsistent with each other, before you proceed 
 to draw conclusions from the principle. I would 
 barely repeat to you, that if the principle be true, 
 it must inevitably follow, that God does not foresee 
 his own future actions, or that those actions are 
 necessary. It is not sufficient, in your view, that 
 God should determine to save those who believe 
 and obey. He must first determine uncondition- 
 ally to save some, and reprobate others ; and then 
 he must determine to convert and sanctify the 
 former by irresistible grace, and to leave the others 
 under that inevitable necessity of perishing, in 
 which they enter the world ; — or, to use the lan- 
 guage of Calvin, he must blind their understand- 
 ings, harden their hearts, and lay them under a 
 necessity of sinning, in order that they may be 
 fitted for their doom. 
 
 But 1 for.^ear to follow you through the few re- 
 maining objections which you urge against the 
 anti-Calvinistic doctrine; indeed, the answer to 
 those objections has been anticipated in the ob- 
 servations already made. 
 
( 318 ) 
 
 LETTER IX. 
 
 TAnTTrUL.!in COMPARISOX of 7)R. MTTjLEU 
 WITH THE STAXIURItS OF HfS RELIGIOUS 
 SOCIETr, AJS'I) HITH HIMSELF. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 X HE most important part of my reply to your 
 Letters, you have thought it proper to pass with- 
 out a word of notice. I allude to the part in which 
 your four general presumptions are considered, 
 and in which you are shown to be at variance, on 
 the subject of the visible Church, with the sacred 
 writings, w^ith the standards of your religious so- 
 ciety, and with yourself. In reference to all these 
 points, you content yourself with saying that your 
 opponent does not understand the Presbyterian 
 Confession of Faith. If I have misinterpreted the 
 standards of your society, you should have pointed 
 out the misinterpretation. This would have been 
 at once to put me to shame. It cannot, therefore, 
 be very difficult to conjecture the true cause of the 
 concise mode of reply which you have preferred 
 on the occasion. 
 
 I entered into a long and particular statement 
 to show that your principles are destructive of the 
 very existence of a visible Church, and that they 
 militate directly with the express and repeated 
 declarations of your public formularies, not less 
 than with the constant tenor of holy writ. To 
 
LET. IX. COMPARISON OP DR. MILLER, fec. 319 
 
 vindicate yourself IVoin charges of so very serious 
 a nature, it might well have been supposed, would 
 be your first object. The laws of controversy gave 
 you but a single alternative. You were absolutely 
 bound either to defend your doctrine, or to confess 
 your error. 
 
 It will now be my purpose to bring you to a 
 strict comparison with the standards of your reli- 
 gious society, and with yourself. Particular in- 
 stances of contradiction have*been already pointed 
 out; but I will now, craving the indulgence of the 
 reader for the repetition which it may involve, 
 endeavour to collect the most important heads of 
 your inconsistency into one view. 
 
 And, in the first place, you shall be compared 
 with those public standards which you have sub- 
 scribed, and to which you are under the most sa- 
 cred obligations to conform. 
 
 I. " Presbyterians, (I speak now of all that I 
 have ever known or heard of, particularly the most 
 rigid among them) Presbyterians, I say, believe, 
 that according to the tenor of the Covenant of 
 Grace^ salvation is promised^ that is, secured by 
 covenant engagement^ to all who sincerely repent 
 of sin, and unfeignedly believe in the Lord Jesus 
 Christ. Of course they consider all who bear this 
 character, to whatever external Church they may 
 belong, or even if they bear no relation to any vi- 
 sible Church, as in covenant with God."* 
 
 • ^ I repeat it, then, the doctrine of all Calvinistic 
 
 * Continuation Qf Letters, p. 5«. 
 
320 COMPARISON OF DR. MILLER LET. IX. 
 
 Presbyterians is, that every one who loves the 
 Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity, and maintains a 
 holy life, whatever may be the mistakes into 
 which he may fall, or the prejudices against par- 
 ticular parts of evangelical truth and order which 
 he may entertain; whatever the disadvantages 
 under which he may labour, with respect to his 
 ecclesiastical connexions; or even if he were 
 placed in circumstances in which he never saw a 
 place of public worship, a minister of the Gospel, 
 or a Church ofHcer of any kind, in his life ; that 
 every such person is m covenant with God."* 
 
 " The sincere piety^ and of course the covenant 
 title to Heaven.^'^f 
 
 Now, Sir, let all this be tested by the language 
 of your public standards. 
 
 " A sacrament is an holy ordinance instituted 
 by Christ in his Church, to signify, seal, and ex- 
 hibit unto those that are wixHtN the covenant of 
 GRACE, the benefits of his mediation, and to dis- 
 tinguish them from those that are without."} 
 
 " Baptism is not to be administered to any that 
 are out of the visible Church, and so strangers 
 FROM the covenant OF PROMISE, till they profess 
 their faith in Christ, and obedience to him."§ 
 
 To the same purpose speaks your Confession of 
 Faith. " The visible Church is the kingdom of 
 the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of 
 God, out of which there is no ordinary possi- 
 
 • Continuation of Letters, p. 59. f l^id. p. 62. 
 
 t Larger Catechism, question 162. § Ibid, question 166. 
 
LET. IX. WITH HIS RELIGIOUS STANDARDS. 52J 
 
 BiLiTV OF SALVATION."* By Ordinary possibility 
 of salvation, is here evidently meant covenanted 
 possibility; otherwise it must follow^ that the co- 
 venanted way of salvation is not the ordinary 
 way; which will scarcely be pretended. Besides, 
 in one of the passages of Scripture, referred to in 
 support of this section of your Confession of Faith, 
 the members of the visible Church are spoken of 
 as being in covenant with CJod.f Ordinary pos- 
 sibility, then, is only another name for covenanted 
 possibility. And this, it will be observed, only 
 makes your Confession of Faith speak the same 
 language with the other standards of your society. 
 
 You tell us that salvation is secured by covenant 
 engagement to all who believe and repent, even 
 supposing them never so much as to have seen a 
 Church otlicer in their lives. Your standards tell 
 us that a man may have repentance and faith, and 
 still be a stranger to the covenant of promise; and 
 that after he may have satisned the governors of 
 the Church of his faith, and of the sincerity of 
 his purposes of obedience, it remains to put hira 
 within the covenant by administering to him the 
 ordinance of baptism. 
 
 According to the Presbyterian Confession of Faith^ 
 a covenant supposes a visible transaction, in which 
 it is signed and sealed. According to you^ it is a 
 simple ailair of the mind, without any external 
 
 * Confession of Faith, chap. xxv. sect. 2. 
 
 f " And I will establish my covenant between me and thee ; and thf 
 seed after thee, in their generations, for an everlasting- covenant.** 
 Gen. svii. 7. 
 
 41 
 
322 COMPARISON OF DR. !\fILLER LET. IX. 
 
 ceremony, in which it is either published or con- 
 firmed. 
 
 The Confession of Faith declares that the visible 
 Church is the only medium through which a cove- 
 ii>anted title to salvation is to be obtained. You 
 declare that such covenanted title depends, not at 
 all upon visible Church membership, but simply 
 wpon the state of the mind and heart. 
 
 If it had been your express purpose to contra- 
 dict the religious articles of your society, I see 
 not how you could have done it in a manner more 
 precise or unequivocal. 
 
 li. " Wherever the unfeigned love of our divine 
 Saviour, a humble reliance on his atoning sacri- 
 fice, and a corresponding holiness of life, pervade 
 any denomination of Christians, we acknowledge 
 t?hem to be a true Church."^ 
 
 " It is certainly contrary to the genius of the 
 Gospel dispensation, to place forms of outward 
 order among those things which are essential to 
 the very existence of the Church."t 
 
 Thus it appears that the Church may exist with- 
 out either ministry or ordinances; that she is inde- 
 pendent of every thing external ; in short, that no- 
 thing is essential to her existence but the posses- 
 sion of particular internal quaUfications. 
 
 How does this correspond with your public 
 Standards ? 
 
 1. The ministry, according to the Presbyterian 
 Confession of Faith, is essential to the very exist- 
 ence of the Church. 
 
 • Letters, p. 344. f Ibid. p. 14. 
 
LET. IX. WITH HIS RELIGIONS STANDARDS. 32S 
 
 " Unto this Catholic visible Church, Christ hatl^ 
 given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, 
 for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in 
 this life, to the end of the world."* 
 
 " The Lord Jesus, as King and Head of his 
 Church, hath therein appointed a government in 
 the hand of Church officers, distinct from the civil 
 magistrate. To these officers the keys of the king* 
 dom of Heaven are committed, by virtue of which 
 they have power respectively to retain and remit 
 sins, to shut that kingdom against the impenitent, 
 both by the word and censures; and to open it 
 unto penitent sinners, by the ministry of the Gos- 
 pel, and by absolution from censures, as occasion, 
 shall require.' "t 
 
 Here, then, you are again irreconcilably at va- 
 riance with your religious articles. According to 
 them^ the Church cannot possibly exist without a 
 ministry, which is matter of external order. Ac- 
 cording to 2/ow, the existence of the Church is in- 
 dependent of every thing external. 
 
 2. " There be only two sacraments ordained by 
 Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Bap- 
 tism, and the Supper of the Lord ; neither of which 
 may be dispensed by any but a minister of the 
 word, lawfully ordainedyX 
 
 Ordination, then, is absolutely necessary to the 
 conveyance of the sacerdotal office. Thus, the 
 ministry being essential to the Church, and out- 
 
 * Presbyterian Confession of Faith, chap, xxvii. sect. 4. 
 f Confession of Faith, chip. xxv. sect. 3. 
 i Ibid. chap. xxx. sect, 1, 2. 
 
324 COMPARISON OF DR. MILLER LET. IX. 
 
 ward ordination being essential to the ministry, 
 it follows that outward ordination is the basis 
 on whi'h the Church visible must rest. Such is 
 the doctrine of your puhlic standards. But yo2i 
 assure us that it is contrary to the spirit of the 
 Gospel dispensation, to make the existence of 
 the Church depend upon outward forms. If your 
 idea, therefore, be correct, that part of your Con- 
 fession of Faith, which asserts the necessity of 
 external ordination to the ministry, and of course 
 to the Church, is Hable to the charge of setting 
 forth erroneous doctrine ; indeed of being repug- 
 nant to the very genius of Christianity. 
 
 3. Still further — Your standards not only make 
 outward ordination essential to the ministry, but 
 they make the laying on of the hands of the Pres- 
 bytery essential to outward ordination ; thus plac- 
 ing- Presbyterial ordination at the very foundation 
 of the Church. For example, in your form of 
 Church government, the power of ordination is 
 declared to be vested in a Presbytery ; the act of 
 ordination is declared to be the act of a Presby- 
 tery ; — and all this is rested on the ground of 
 Apostolic example.* 
 
 According to the articles of yotir society^ Pres- 
 byterial ordination, being essential to the ministry, 
 is essential to the Church. According to 7jou, the 
 Church, being made up of internal qualifications, 
 cannot possibly depend for its existence upon any 
 thing external. 
 
 • Form of fiovernmcnt of the Pres])ylcriun Churcli in the United 
 States, chap. ix. sect. 5. chap. xiv. sect. 12. 
 
LET. IX. WITH HIS RELIGIOUS STANDARDS. S25 
 
 4. " Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the 
 covenant of grace, immediately instituted l>y God, 
 to represent Christ and his benefits; and to con- 
 firm our interest in him; as also to put a visible 
 difference between those that belong unto the 
 Church, and the rest of the world."* 
 
 The sacraments distinguish those who belong to 
 the world, from those who belong to the Church. 
 But how can this be, if internal qualifications 
 will make men members of the Church, inde- 
 pendently of all conformity to outward ordinan- 
 ces ? 
 
 If =iuch associations as possess the sacraments 
 are Churches, and such associations as lay them 
 aside are not Churches, then the sacraments put 
 a visible difference between the Church and the 
 world ; but if religious associations, which dis- 
 card the sacraments altogether, may be still 
 Churches of Christ, the sacraments cannot be 
 said to put any visible difference between the 
 Church and the world, and, of course, the doc- 
 trine of your Confession of Faith is unsound. 
 
 The standards of your society thus represent the 
 external forms of baptism and the supper, as the 
 criterion by which the world and the Church are 
 to be distinguished from one another; whereas 
 you declare that the Church mav exist without 
 any external forms, and that the true criterion of 
 its existence is the aggregate saintship of a reli- 
 gious association. 
 
 * Presbyterian Confession of Faith, chap, xxvii. sect 1 
 
326 COMPARISON OF DR. MILLER LET. IX. 
 
 5. See the definition which your standards give 
 of a particular Church I " A particular Church 
 consists of a number of professing Christians, 
 with their offspring voluntarily associated together, 
 and submitting to a certain form of government. ^^* 
 
 What is the Catholic visible Church but a 
 collection of particular visible Churches? Here, 
 then, the very existence of the visible Church, is 
 made to depend on a system of outward govern- 
 ment. But you assert that any collection of in- 
 dividuals, possessing particular internal quaUfica- 
 tions, is, simply by virtue of these qualificationSj 
 a re2;ular Church ; and that to make outward 
 order or government essential to the existence of 
 the Church, is contrary to the very genius of the 
 Christian system.f 
 
 III. It is the plain doctrine of your Letters that 
 aaintship is the test of Church membership. 
 
 " Wherever the unfeigned love of our divine 
 Saviour, an humble reliance on his atoning sa- 
 crifice, and a corresponding holiness of life, per- 
 vade any denomination of Christians, we hail 
 them as brethren in Christ; we acknowledge them 
 to be a true Church."t All associations are com- 
 posed of individuals. The qualities, therefore, 
 w hich make an association a Church, must make 
 an individual of that association a Church member. 
 It follows, according to your account of the mat- 
 ter, that all holy persons are members of the visi- 
 
 • Form of Government of the Presbyterian Church in the United 
 States, chap. i. sect. 4 
 
 t Letters, p. 14, 341 I Letters, p. 344 
 
LET. IX. WITH HTS RELIGIOUS STANDARDS. 327 
 
 ble Church of Christ, simply by virtue of their 
 holiness. 
 
 But further — Speaking of the visif)le Church, 
 you say, — " All real believers are one I'xxly in 
 Christ."* " Every believer in Jesus^ who is a par- 
 taker of the grace of God in truth^ is a member of 
 the true Church, to whatever denomination of 
 Christians he may belong.''t 
 
 Let us now turn to the public standards of 
 your society. 
 
 " The purest Churches under Heaven are sub- 
 ject both to mixture and error."t 
 
 It follows that the Church is a society consist- 
 ing of good and bad members. Besides, the pa- 
 rables of the net, and of the tares, are referred 
 to, in proof of this section of your Confession of 
 
 * Letters, p. 20. f Ibid. p. 24. 
 
 It is impossible to escape by saying' that these passag-es refer to the 
 invisible Church. The visible Church is the subject of your whole 
 work. Besides, your object is to prove that Presbyterians .^re mord 
 liberal than Episcopalians, inasmuch as they admit all Christian socie- 
 ties, that possess real piety, to be entitled to be considered as regular 
 visible Churches of Christ ; while Episcopalians are unwilling to con* 
 cede so much. Now, if the invisible Church be ti.e subject referred to, 
 your argument must run thus — Presbyterians are more liberal tlian Epis- 
 copalians, for while the former freely admit that all pious ' hnstiant 
 are members of the invisibi-e Church, the latter do not admit that all 
 pious Christians. are members of the visible Chukch. But apart from 
 this — the passages, " Every believer in Jesus is a member of the trutf 
 Church"—** all real believers are one body in Christ" — exactly co- 
 incide with the language which you habitually hold on the subject of 
 the visible Church — " Wherever the unfeigned love of our divine Sa- 
 viour, &c. pervade any denomination of Christians, we acknowledge 
 tliem to be a true Church." Your doctrine, then, unqutstionably, is, 
 that piety, of itself ^ puts us within the pale of the Chfbch viiiBiF. 
 * Confession of Faith, chap. xXv. sect. 5. 
 
328 COMPARISON OF DR. MILLER LET. IX. 
 
 Faith ; which parables have ever been considered 
 as marking the union of the virtuous with the 
 wicked, in the Church mililant. 
 
 As^ain — •' Baptism is a sacrament of the New 
 Testanent, ord.dned by Jesus Ciirist for the so- 
 lemn admission of the party baptized into the vi- 
 sible Church."* 
 
 Here baptism is made the criterion of Church 
 membership ; and you will hardly contend that 
 baptism and saintship always coincide. 
 
 Further — " Baptism is not to be administered 
 to any that are out of the visible Churchy and so 
 strangers from the covenant of promise^ till they 
 profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to 
 
 him.^t 
 
 Thus, a person who wishes to be admitted into 
 the visible Church, is first required to make pro- 
 fession of faith and obedience. The governors of 
 the Church are to be satisfied that he is a peni- 
 tent believer; and even after they are thus satisfied, 
 he is still regarded as an alien from the visible 
 Church, and from the covenant of promise, until 
 he is placed within the one, and becomes interested 
 in the other, by the instrumentality of an external 
 ordinance. 
 
 Still further — The " sacraments put a visible 
 difference between those that belong unto the 
 Church, and the rest of the world."! Not so, you 
 
 • Confession of Faith, chap, xxviii. sect 1. 
 
 f Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in the United States^ 
 Larger Catechism, question 166. 
 
 ^ Confe&sion of Faith, ckap. xxvii. sect 1. 
 
LET. IX. WITH HIS RELIGIOUS STANDARDS. S29 
 
 tell us; for a saint is a men ber of the Church, 
 simply by virtue of his saintship. The sacraments, 
 then, cannot possibly distinguish the Church from 
 the world, since men may be members of the 
 Church independently of the sacr menls. 
 
 IV. " Presbyterians understand the Gospel too 
 well to speak of uncovenanted mercy at all." *' Fal- 
 len creatures know of no mercy but that which is 
 promised or secured by the covenant of grace."* 
 
 Now, your Confession of Faith, in confining all 
 ordinary ox covenanted possibility of salvation within 
 the visible Church, obviously admits that salvation 
 may be had out of that Church in an extraordinary 
 ox uncovenanted way. In commenting on this 
 very language of your public standards, you speak 
 of them as " making provision for the exercise of 
 mercy, in ways extraordinary, and therefore un- 
 known to us."t So that by your own admission, 
 in page 44 of your Continuation of Letters, the 
 Presbyterian Confession of Faith recognizes mercy 
 which is uncovenanted ; whereas, you expressly tell 
 us, in pages 57 and 58 of the same work, that Pres- 
 byterians know of no mercy but such as is secured 
 by covenant. Here, then, you palpably contradict 
 both your religious standards, and yourself. 
 
 Again — Your Confession of Faith speaks of 
 " elect persons who are incapable of being out- 
 wardly called by the ministry of the word." Such 
 persons, plainly, cannot be members of the visible 
 Church; so that, according to the standards of 
 
 Continuation of Letters, p. 57, 58. f ^^i^- P- ^ 
 
 42 
 
,330 COMPARISON OF I>R. MILLER LET- IX, 
 
 your society, there are persons who will infallibly 
 be saved, although, " being out of the visible 
 Church, they are strangers from the covenant of 
 promise."* 
 
 According to you, there can be no mercy for 
 fallen creatures but in the regular method of cove- 
 nant engagement. 
 
 According to the standards of your society^ the 
 visible Church is the only medium through which 
 a covenanted title to salvation may be obtained;! 
 but fallen creatures, not members of that Church, 
 and so not possessing any covenanted title to salva- 
 tion, may, nevertheless, in an extraordinary or un- 
 covenanted way, be admitted to mercy. 
 
 I submit it to candid Presbyterians, whether you 
 have not been proved, in points of fundamental 
 importance, to be in direct inconsistency with 
 those public articles which you have subscribed, 
 and to which you are under the most solemn obli- 
 gations to conform. Let the passages cited from 
 your Letters, and from your religious standards, 
 be fairly compared ; and the former must certainly 
 appear a very strange vindication of the latter. 
 
 The candid and enlightened advocates of Pres- 
 
 • Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in the United States. 
 Larg-er Catechism, question 166. 
 
 f You fix upon your standards the odious charg-e of consigning all but 
 the members of the visib'.,^ Church to inevitable perdition. 
 
 There is no mercy but such as is secured by covenant. Dr. Jililler. 
 
 Mercy is secured by covenant only to the members of the visible 
 Church — " Out of the visible Church, and so strangers from the cove- 
 nant of promise." Presbyterian Standards. 
 
 Put the two propositions together, und it follows, irresistibly, that 
 none but tlic members of the visible Church can possibly be saved. 
 
)Ll2T. IX* WITH HIMSELF. 33j 
 
 byterial order will never acknowledge you as their 
 defender. 
 
 But you are not more at variance with the arti- 
 cles of your society than with yourself. 
 
 I. You assert that all pious persons, whether 
 members of the visible Church or not, are, simply 
 by virtue of their piety, in a state of covenant 
 with God.* In this you literally trample, as I have 
 abundantly shown, upon the Westminster Cate- 
 chism and Confession of Faith,t which it is your 
 sacred duty to believe and to defend. 
 
 But you also contradict yourself on the subject. 
 
 1. The visible Church you entitle " the house- 
 hold of God, to which his gracious promises, and 
 his life-giving Spirit are vouchsafed-''^ 
 
 If the visible Church be the household of God, 
 it must be in a state of very special relation to him. 
 Will you be so good as to inform us what that rela- 
 tion is ? Surely it can be none other than a cove- 
 nant relation. Now, to say that the visible Church 
 stands in a covenant relation to God, is to say that 
 aliens from that Church do not stand in such rela- 
 tion; for it would be absurd to speak of the Church 
 as particularly connected with God in the way of 
 covenant, if piety be the simple thing which brings 
 
 * Continuation of Letters, p. 58, 59, 62. 
 
 I "The visible Church is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, our 
 of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation." Freshyteriuv. 
 Confession of Faith, ohap. xxv. sect. 2. " Out of the visible Church, 
 and so strangers from the covenant of promKc." Larger CatccMfR'u 
 Question 166. 
 
 * Letters, p. 342. 
 
332 COMPARISON OF DR. MILLER LET. IX. 
 
 mca into covenant with him, without reference to 
 the consideration of Church membership. 
 
 But it is to the visible Church that" the pro- 
 mises of God, and his Hfe-giving Spirit are vouch- 
 safed " What is the meaning of this? Surely it 
 is your desi'^n to represent the visible Church as 
 possessing a peculiar claim to the promises of God, 
 and to his life-giving Spirit. Now, if this pecu- 
 liar claim be not a covenant claim, will you be so 
 good as to inform us what kind of claim it is ? 
 
 2. " If the Presbyterian Church is the only real 
 Church on earth, and alone in covenant with Christ 
 the head."^ 
 
 Hare vou appear to take it for granted, that the 
 only method of entering into covenant with God, 
 is through the medium of the visible Church. 
 Upon no other construction is it possible to give 
 meaning to the passage. The Presbyterian society 
 being admitted to be the only real Church, you 
 see n to regard it as a natural and necessary con- 
 sequence, that that society alone is in covenant 
 with God. This being so, it must follow that, in 
 representing piety as the test of a covenanted state, 
 you are quite inconsistent with yourself. 
 
 3. You inform us, that if mercy be extended to 
 such as do not belong to the visible Church, it 
 must be in some extraordinary and unknown way.f 
 
 Members of the Church are saved in a regular 
 and covenanted way : aliens from the Church are 
 saved, not in a regular and covenanted way, but 
 
 • Lttitrs, p 314. f Continuation of Letters, p. 44. 
 
LET. IX. WrXH HIMSELF. 333 
 
 in a way extraordinary and unknown. Such is the 
 true interpretation of your language, or it will not 
 admit of interpretation. Now, it will be granted, 
 that none but the pious can be saved. Thus, then, 
 you speak to us of pious persons who are saved in 
 an uncovenanted way ; in other words, who are in 
 an uncovenanted state. Still, it is one of your 
 leading positions, that all pious persons, simply by 
 virtue of their piety, are in covenant with God. 
 
 4. " If the extravagant doctrine," that Episco- 
 pacy is essential to the existence of the visible 
 Church, " be admitted ; then no man can be in 
 communion with Christ, unless he is also in com- 
 munion with the Episcopal Church."* See how 
 you argue! It is only through the medium of the 
 visible Church that communion can be holden 
 with Christ; if, therefore, Episcopacy be essential 
 to the existence of the visible Church, it must follow 
 that none can be in communion with Christ but 
 the sect of EpiscopaHans. That communion with 
 Christ can be only in the visible Church, is, then, 
 the fundamental principle on which your argu- 
 ment rests. Now, to say that communion with 
 Christ can be only in the visible Church, is equi- 
 valent with saying, that to that Church alone all 
 
 * Letters, p. 16. 
 
 Your four general presumptions are directed against the principle, 
 that Episcopacy is essential to the existence of the visible Church. 
 Speaking of those Episcopalians, against whose exclusive claims you 
 are about to advance your presumptions, you say, " They contend that 
 one form of government for the Church is unalterably fixed by divine 
 appointment ; that this form is Episcopal ; that it is absolutely essentia! 
 to the existence of the Chui"ch.*' Letters, p. 13- 
 
334 COMPARISON OF DR. MILLER LET. IX. 
 
 covenanted title to salvation is confined. You must 
 give up, therefore, either your doctrine or your 
 argument. Do not tell us that piety will, of itself, 
 put men in a state of covenanted communion 
 with God, and then proceed to reason upon the 
 principle, that covenanted communion with God 
 can be only in the visible Church. 
 
 II. It has been shown, that, in making saint- 
 ship the criterion of Church membership^ you de- 
 part from the habitual language of your public 
 standards. Let us see whether you have the me- 
 rit of being consistent with yourself on the sub- 
 ject. 
 
 You admit that the Church of Christ contains 
 many unworthy individuals, and that we must al- 
 ways expect to find much corruption within her 
 pale.* 
 
 How, then, can saintship be her criterion of 
 membership? 
 
 Further — You inform us that there are persons, 
 belonging to no visible Church, who are in the 
 sure road to Heaven, and who will, without doubt, 
 be finally saved.f Persons, who are in the sure 
 road to Heaven, and who will, without doubt, be 
 
 » Letters, p. 342. 
 
 f *' Presbyterians consider all who repent and believe, even if thei> 
 hear no relation to any visible Churchy as in the sure and certain road to 
 Heaven "^ Here are penitent believers, in the sure road to Heaven, who 
 are, nevertheless, aliens from the Church of Christ upon earth. What 
 arf)nrjmeiit upon your repeated declarations that all pious persons are 
 members of the Church of Christ, simply by the force of their piety ! 
 
 \ Continuation of Letters, p. 58. 
 
LET. IX. WITH HIMSELF. 3.S5 
 
 saved, must be pious persons. But how is this r 
 Saintship is the test of Church membership ; and, 
 still, many bad men belong to the Church, and 
 many saints do not belong to it. All saints are 
 Church members; but many saints are not Church 
 members. 
 
 III. " It is contrary to the genius of the Gospel 
 dispensation, to place forms of outward order 
 among those things which are essential to the very 
 existence of the Church."* 
 
 Any body of men may he considered as fairly 
 entitled to the name of Church, if they possess a 
 particular sort of internal qualifications.f 
 
 Such is your doctrine. It has been compared 
 with the language of your public standards. Let 
 it now be compared with the language of other 
 parts of your own Letters. 
 
 1. Pray, how are we to understand you when 
 you speak of the Church as the household oi GodPJ 
 This, surely, presents the idea that it is an outward 
 and visible body. A household cannot possibly 
 be a mere invisible thing. You are the first per- 
 son, I believe, that ever discovered a household 
 made up of internal properties. 
 
 2. " None are regularly invested with the mi- 
 nisterial character, or can, with propriety, be re- 
 cognized in this character, but those who have 
 been set apart to the office, by persons lawfully 
 clothed with the power of ordaining."^ 
 
 Here, the form of outward ordination is made 
 
 » l^ettere, p 14. f \h\i\. p. 344. i Ibid, p- 34-?. $ Ibid. p. 8 
 
3S6 COMPARISON OF DR. MILLER LET. IX, 
 
 essential to the whole bushioss of preaching the 
 word, and administering the sacrainents of Christ, 
 That which is essential to the whole business of 
 preaching the word, and administering the sacra- 
 ments of Christ, may fairly be considered as es- 
 sential to the Church. So that in one page of 
 your Letters we meet with a Church which de- 
 pends, absolutely, for its existence, on the laying 
 on of hands in clerical ordination ; in another 
 page, a Church is presented to us, which is totally 
 independent of outward forms; requiring nothing 
 for its existence but faith and holiness. And, dur* 
 ing all this time, it is one and the same commu- 
 nity that you are professing to describe. 
 
 3. " It is certainly the duty of every man to 
 keep the whole law of God ; yet as we do not 
 deny that an individual professor is a real Chris- 
 tian, because we perceive som6, imperfections in 
 his character; so neither do we deny a Church to 
 be a true Church of Christ, because she is not, in 
 all respects, conformed to our ideas of scriptural 
 purity."* 
 
 The words, in all respects, you have very care- 
 fully marked in italics. Now, Sir, how will yoii 
 make yourself consistent ? To say that a religious 
 association, in order to the possession of the Church 
 character, need not be conformed, in all respects, 
 to the Prcsbyterial plan of discipline, is to say, 
 that, in some respects, it must be conformed to 
 that plan: so that you first tell us, that the Church 
 
 ♦ LetUrs, p. 344, 3^5. 
 
1.ET. IX. WITH HI.MSELr. 337 
 
 may exist without any external form; and then, 
 that a Corin, substuntiallij Pnshyter'wl^ is essential 
 to her existence. And, in confornii.y with this 
 last idea, you refuse the name of Church to the 
 jociety of Quakers.* You admit the Quakers to 
 be sincere Christians. How happens it, tlien, 
 that they are not a Church? Tliey have the in- 
 ternal qualifications; but this, uliich answers very 
 well in one page of your Letters, will not answer 
 at all in another. Ah! the Quaker society is not 
 constructed siijficienilij upon Presbyterial princi- 
 ples. This is the secret of the whole business. 
 
 5. 1 declare, most sincerely. Sir, that, of all the 
 inconsistent writers I have ever met with, you ap- 
 pear to me to be the most inconsistent. Scarcely 
 two pages of your book can be made to agree; 
 indeed, it is no uncommon thing to meet with ra- 
 dical contradictions in a single sentence. 
 Take the following as a specimen — 
 " Wherever the unfeigned love of our Divine 
 Saviour, an humble reliance on his atoning sacri- 
 fice, and a corresponding holiness of life, pervade 
 any denomination of Christians, we hail them as 
 brethren in Christ; we acknowledge them to be 
 a true Church; and although we may acknow^- 
 ledge and lament imperfections in their outward 
 government, we consider them as truly in cove- 
 nant with the King of Zion as ourselves."t 
 
 In the first part of this sentence, we are ex- 
 pressly told that faith and holiness will constitute 
 
 ' Continuation of Letters, p. 56. f Lr Iters, p. 344. 
 
 13 
 
338 COMPARISON OF DR. MILLER LET. IX. 
 
 any religious assembly a true Church. After- 
 wards, indeed, the idea of an outward govern- 
 ment is presented 5 and although it is not posi- 
 tively assorted that this government is essential, 
 yet its existence seems to be taken for granted. 
 If the existence of an outward government be 
 taken for granted, it is absurd to talk of a Church 
 made up of individuals possessing invisible qua- 
 lities. These individu uls, beside their faith and 
 holiness, must, it seems, be bound together by 
 external institutions. The government, too, must 
 be of a particular kind. For example, a civil 
 government would, surely, not answer; to say 
 the least, the government must be ecclesiastical ; 
 and, by the time we have arrived at the top of 
 your next page, it becomes indispensable to have 
 this ecclesiastical government constructed, sub^ 
 stantialhjy upon the Presbyterian model.* 
 
 Thus do you literally say and unsay in the very 
 same breath. 
 
 In the first clause of a paragraph, every thing 
 shall be as free and liberal as the most ardent la- 
 titudinarian can desire — All good Christians are 
 members of the Church — Let us have no invidi- 
 ous distinctions — We are all brethren — But before 
 we arrive at the close of the paragraph, the scene 
 is completely changed ; all these fairy ideas vanish ; 
 
 • " Presbyterian Church g'overnmenl was the primitive model; and 
 it is the duty of every Church to conform to this model. Vet we do 
 not deny a Church to be a true Cliurch of Christ, b<craise she is not, 
 in ull rrsi'ircte, coiifurmewl to our ideag of scnpturai purity." Letters, 
 p. 344, 345. 
 
LET. IX. WITH HIMSELF. 839 
 
 and we find ourselves literally shut up in a Pres- 
 byterian conventicle. 
 
 IV. One of the objections which you urge 
 against the doctrine of Episcopacy, is, that it 
 does not rest upon express warrant. And, in 
 speaking upon the subject of express warrant, 
 you use the following language — " I readily grant, 
 that every observance which the great Head of 
 the Church enjoins by express precept, is indis- 
 pensably binding."* 
 
 Thus you openly take the ground that no exter- 
 nal observance, or institution, is binding upon 
 Christians, unless it can be shown to be enjoined 
 by an express and literal command of Scrip- 
 ture. Now, you contend that Presbyterial ordi- 
 nation, and Presbyterial Church government, in 
 Church Sessions, Presbyterial Assemblies, and 
 Synodical Assemblies, are of divine and unalter- 
 able obligation; while you admit, in so many 
 words, that no express warrant can be produced 
 for either the one or the other. 
 
 Here are the proofs. " As the Christian minis- 
 try is an office deriving its existence and its au- 
 thority solely from Jesus Christ, it is obvious that 
 his word is the only rule by which any claims to 
 this office can properly be tried, and the duties 
 and powers of those who bear it, ascertained. 
 Let us, then, examine what the Scriptures say 
 on the point in dispute. And here it is proper to 
 premise, that whoever expects to find any formal 
 
 * Letters, p. 14, 
 
540 COMPARISON OF DR. MILLER LET. IX. 
 
 or EXPLICIT decisions on this subject, delivered by 
 Christ or his Apostles, will be disappointed."* 
 Still, in the face of this unequivocal admission, 
 you expressly say that Presbyterial ordination is 
 essential to the ministry, and to the validity of 
 the scriptural ordinances; and that PresViyterial 
 Church 2;overnment is the primitive form, and 
 binding upon Christians in all places, and through- 
 out all time.f 
 
 An express and literal command of Scripture is 
 necessary to render any outward institution bind- 
 ing.! Presbyterial Church government does not 
 rest upon any express command of Scripture.^ 
 But Presbyterial Church government is of divine 
 and unalterable obligation. || 
 
 Nothing but a very bad cause, Sir, could pos- 
 sibly run you into such gross contradictions. 
 
 * Letters, p. 25, 26. 
 
 •f " None are regularly invested with the ministerial character, or can 
 with propriety be recoi^nized in this character, bill those who have been 
 set apart to the office by persons lawfully clothed with the power of or- 
 dainin.e:."'^ " It is only so far as ant/ succession flows through the line 
 of Presbyters, that it is either regular or valid. It is the laying on of 
 the hands of the Fresbytery, that constitutes a scriptural ordination."* 
 
 Thus the PresbUerial mode is necessary to outward ordination, and 
 outward ordmation is necessary to all ministerial acts. 
 
 "Christiaiis, in all ages, are bound to make the Apostolic order of 
 the Church, with respect to the ministry, as well as other points, the 
 model, as far as possible, of all their ecclesiastical arrangements."*^ 
 *' Tlve Presbyterian form of Church government is the truly primitive 
 and Apostolic form."'^ So that Christians are under a divine and un- 
 alterable obligation to conform to Presbyterial Church order. 
 
 * Letters, p. 14. $ Ibid. p. 2G. 
 
 jj Ibid. p. 70, connected with p. 8. 
 
 <* Letters, p. 3. A ibid. p. 437. '^ Ibid- p- S. d Jhij. p, 70. 
 
LET. IX. WITH HIMSELF. 341 
 
 V. At one time, you speak of outward forms 
 in a very dispara2;ing way ; at another, you not 
 only represent them as in :|)orlant, but go so far 
 as to make them essential to the existence of 
 piety. You fmd fault ^\ith your opponents for the 
 stress which they lay upon external order, and 
 yet you lay more stress upon it than any Episco- 
 palian that ever lived. 
 
 For example — after admitting that some reli- 
 gious associations, which are not organized exactly 
 upon the Presbyterian model, display, neverthe- 
 less, an unalTected piety, you use the following 
 language: — " If we undertook to maintain that 
 the Presbyterian Church is the only real Church 
 on earth,* and alone in covenant with Christ the 
 head, such a fact would indeed present a diffi- 
 culty of no easy solution. "t 
 
 The principle here recognized, is, simply, that 
 the existence of unaffected piety out of the visible 
 Churchy if it be not a thing impossible, is, at least, 
 one for which it must be very difficult to ac- 
 count. 
 
 * It Is quite in vain for you to say that you do not make the Presby- 
 terian Church the only real Church upon earth. The ministry is ne- 
 cessary to the Church ; outward ordination is necessary to the ministry ; 
 the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery is necessary to outward 
 ordination. N;iy, Sir, struggle not — you have no escape : — it is perfectly 
 clear that you and your religious standards make Prtsbyterial ordination 
 absolutely necL-ssary to the existence of the Church, and lo all cove- 
 nanted possibility of salvation. If we happen to have Tresl yti-rial or- 
 dination, it is very well ; if not, we are aliens from the coinmomiealti 
 of Israel, and strangers to the covenant of promise. 
 
 With what exquisite consistency do complaints of the exclusive 
 claims of others flow from your lips ! 
 
 I Letters, p. 344. 
 
342 coMPAKiaoN of dr. miller let. IX. 
 
 Now, Sir, how is it possible to attach greater 
 value to external order? So much value has cer- 
 tainly never been attached to it by the advocates 
 of Episcopacy. While they contend that the vi- 
 sible Church is Episcopal ; that it is the duty of 
 all men to enter this Church; that her institutions 
 have a greater tendency to promote real piety 
 than institutions not validly administered, even 
 supposing such invalidity to be the result of invo- 
 luntary error; ihey, nevertheless, freely admit 
 that unaffected piety may exist among those who, 
 through excusable ignorance or prejudice, are in 
 a state of separation from her ; and are very far 
 from regarding the existence of piety without her 
 pale as a phenomenon extremely difficult to be 
 understood. 
 
 Thus inconsistent are you with yourself; in one 
 page treating external order as a matter of very 
 little importance; in another, representing it as 
 almost essential to true devotion. And it is per- 
 fectly clear that you lay greater stress upon it than 
 those whose pretended predilection for it, fur- 
 nishes you with so frequent a subject of declama- 
 tion. 
 
 VI. To the doctrine that Episcopacy is essen- 
 tial to the existence of the visible Church, you 
 object, that it places a point of external order 
 upon a par with the essence of religion.* 
 
 » "While they (the advocates of Episcopacy) grant that God has left 
 men at liherty to modify every other kind of government according to 
 rircimistunces, they contend that one form of government for the 
 CUurcli is unalterably fixed by divine appointment ; that this form is 
 
LET. IX. WITH HIMSELF. 343 
 
 Now, this proceeds upon the supposition, that 
 the visible Church and the essence of rchgion 
 are synonymous; at all events, that they stand 
 upon precisely equal ground. For, surely, the 
 doctrine that Episcopacy is essential to the ex- 
 istence of the visible Church, cannot place Epis- 
 copacy upon a par with the essence of reliirion, 
 unless the visible Church be upon a par \vith that 
 essence. But the visible Church, its ministry 
 and its ordinances, are all outward matters 
 
 External order is not upon a par with the es- 
 sence of religion. This is the language of your 
 objection. 
 
 External order is upon a par with the essence 
 of religion. This is the principle of your objec- 
 tion. 
 
 Thus you ground your argument upon the very 
 doctrine which you bring it to overthrow. 
 
 VII. There is a strange and complicated incon- 
 sistency in what you say on the subject of unin- 
 terrupted succession. 
 
 You give us to understand that it is very doubt- 
 ful whether an uninterrupted succession be essen- 
 tial to the ministry ;* and still assert in the most 
 
 Episcopal ; that it is absolutely essential to the existence of the Church ; 
 that, of course, wherever it is wanting, there is no Church, no regular 
 ministry, no valid ordinances.** « Against these exorbitant claims, 
 there is, prior to all inquiry into their evidence, a strong general pre- 
 sumption for the following reasons: First — It is placing a point of ex- 
 ternal order upon a par with the essence of religion." Letters, p. 13, 14. 
 * " I shall not attempt at present to discuss the question whether un- 
 interrupted succession is essential to the Christian ministry. On this 
 question the most learned and pious Episcopal divines have been di- 
 vided in opinion. But witlmut entoring^ into the controversy, I vviH 
 
34^i COMPARISON OF DR. MILLER LET. IX. 
 
 positive terms that the ministerial office can be 
 perpetiiatcvl only in the way of outward ordina- 
 tion, received through that succession which flows 
 in the line of Presbyters.* But, surely, if it be 
 doui.'tful whether succrssion be necessary to the 
 ministrv, it must be equally doubtful whether 
 Presbi/terial succession be necessary. How can it 
 be crrtain (hat a particular succession is essential 
 to the conveyance of the sacerdotal office, Avhen 
 it is (loub'fid whether any succession be essential 
 to its conveyance ? 
 
 It is one of the simplest rules of logic, that 
 there be nothing in the conclusion but what is 
 contained in the premises; inasmuch as the con- 
 clusion is derived from the premises. 
 
 Ordination is essential to the ministry — the lay- 
 ing on of the hands of the Presbytery is, and ever 
 
 take for granted that the uninterrupted succession is essential; that it 
 is the only cU mncl through wliich ministers of the present duy can have 
 the \p istolic commission transmitted to thcm."f 
 
 This is evidently the languai^e of doubt and of hesitation. 
 
 * " "iVe believe that none are regularly invested with the ministerial 
 character but those who have been set apart to the office by persons 
 lawfully clotlied with the power of ordaining."t "The right of ordi- 
 nation, according to Scripture and primitive usage, belongs to Presby* 
 ters." " It is the laying on of the hands of the Prcsb} tery that consti- 
 tutes a Scriptural ordination." " It is only so far as any succession 
 flows through the line of Presbyters, that it is either regular or va- 
 
 Ud.''§ 
 
 What can be more explicit ? Outward ordination is necessary to con- 
 stitute a minister of Christ. This ordmation can be validly performed 
 only by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery. The succession 
 by whi-.h the 'sacerdotal office is conveyed from one generation to an^^ 
 ihcr, is confined to the Presbyterial line. 
 
 t Letters, p. 345, 346. + Ibid. p. 8. § Ibiil. p. 347 
 
LET. IX. IVTTH HIMSELF. S45 
 
 has been essential to ordination; — of course, the 
 laying on of the hands of the Presbytery is and 
 ever has been essential to the ministry. Now, to 
 lose that which is essential to the ministry, is to 
 lose the ministry itself; as to lose that which is 
 essential to life, is to lose life itself. Thus to lose 
 the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery, 
 which is necessary to the ministerial office, is to 
 lose the ministerial office. And what is this but 
 saying that an uninterrupted succession of Pres* 
 byterial hands is essential to the ministry.'^ 
 
 So that whether we attend to your express decla* 
 rations^ or to the obvious consequences of the po- 
 sitions which you lay doivn, we have you in one 
 page doubting whether any succession be essential 
 to the ministerial office, and, in another, vncquivo- 
 cally asserting that the Presbytcrial line of succes* 
 sion is essential to that office. 
 
 Further—" That the succession in this ministry 
 will be kept up in the same exact manner in every 
 age, I consider neither Scripture nor common 
 sense as requiring me to believe."^ 
 
 If we consult your first Series of Letters, we 
 find that the ministerial office can be bestowed 
 only by the laying on of the hands of the Presby- 
 tery; that it can be conveyed from one generation 
 to another only through the line of Presbytcrial 
 succession; — but all this is rejected in your second 
 Series of Letters with contempt; for there we are 
 told, that the idea of an exact manner of keepings 
 
 " Continuation of Letters, p. 425 
 
 44 
 
34:6 COMPARISON OF DK. MILLER LET. IX- 
 
 up the succession from age to age, is repugnant 
 both to Scripture and common sense. 
 
 Still further— After expressly declaring that " it 
 is the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery 
 that constitutes a scriptural ordination," and that 
 " it is only so far as any succession flows through 
 the line of Presbyters that it is either scriptural or 
 valid,"* vou scruple not to use the following very 
 extraordinary language—" I have no hesitation in 
 saying, that if it were to be discovered, that, about 
 two hundred or five hundred years ago, the regular 
 succession of our ordinations had been really in- 
 terrupted by some ecclesiastical oversight or dis- 
 order, I should not consider it as in the least de- 
 gree affecting either the legitimacy of our present 
 ministry, or the validity of our present ordi- 
 
 nances."t 
 
 Can I be blamed for saying that I am abso- 
 lutely unable to determine what your opinions 
 really are ? 
 
 Ordaining acts are valid only when performed 
 by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery ; 
 succession is valid only when it flows through the 
 line of Presbyters ;! and yet it is entirely imma- 
 terial whether this succession has been interrupted 
 or not. 
 
 The only scriptural or lawful method of con- 
 veying the sacerdotal office, is external ordination, 
 received in the Presbyterial line of succession; 
 and still it is of no kind of consequence whether 
 
 • Letters, p. 347. f Continuation of Letters, p. 425. 
 
 ^ Letters, p. S'iT- 
 
IrET. IX, WITH HIMSKLF. 347 
 
 this line of succession has or has not become ex- 
 tinct * 
 
 I might now proceed to institute a strict com- 
 parison between the views which you present of 
 the visible Church and its ordinances, and the 
 doctrines which are set forth in the sacred writ- 
 ings; but this has been very much anticipated in 
 the comparison already run between yoii and the 
 standards of your religious society; for, the points 
 in which you differ, in this respect, from your 
 public formularies, are those in which you differ, 
 also, from the language of Scripture. Without 
 pursuing this part of the subject, therefore, I here 
 relinquish the unpleasant task of pointing out 
 your inconsistencies, and bring the present letter 
 to a conclusion. 
 
 * The succession of the ministry will never perish, because Godlias 
 expressly promised to be with it unto the end of the world. But admit, 
 for the sake of testing a principle, that the succession should be inter- 
 rupted — How would the priestly office be to be conferred ? There would 
 be no person on earth, according to the supposition, possessed of the 
 ordaining- power. It follows that the sacerdotal office would perish un- 
 less God should be pleased again miraculously to interpose. To call 
 this proposition in question, is to take the ground that man possesses 
 the intrinsic power of creating ambassadors of Christ. Suppose we 
 should lose all the copies of the Bible — Could we make another Bible 
 for ourselves ? Is it not evident that the Bible would be lost, except 
 so far as it might be accurately retained in the memory, until God should 
 think proper supernaturally to restore it ? There is a perfect analogy, 
 in this particular, between the Bible and the Priesthood. An uninter- 
 rupted succession of true copies is necessary to the former ; an uninter- 
 rupted succession of true ordainers is necessary to the latter. If either 
 succession be realli/ interrupted, the interruption must be fatal until 
 God shall be pleased to interpose; for man can no more supply the loss 
 of the Priesthood than the loss of tlie sacred volume. It is not more 
 the prerogative of Christ to reveal his own will, than to constitute his 
 own agents. We have just as much right, surely, to declare his plea- 
 .^ire, as to transact his business. 
 
( 348 ) 
 
 LETTER X. 
 MISCELLJi?rEOUS. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 X Have noticed, I believe, the most important 
 parts of your book which relate to me ; but 1 pro- 
 pose, now, in a miscellaneous way, to remark on 
 some things which could not well have been in" 
 troduced under any specific head, and to comment, 
 particularly^ upon various passages of your Letters, 
 to which a general attention has already been paid. 
 This last will, doubtless, involve a degree of re- 
 petition. I flatter myself, however, that it will be 
 the means of presenting the subject in some new 
 points of light, and of exposing, more minutely, 
 those arts of evasion to which you have had re- 
 course, for the purpose of concealing the true doc- 
 trine of your religious standards, as well as of im-r 
 puting tenets of a peculiarly obnoxious character 
 to your opponents in the present controversy. 
 
 In the seventeenth page of your first Series of 
 Letters, you took the liberty of speaking of some 
 late and distinguished writers in Great-Britain, 
 in a way calculated to expose them, and the 
 Church of which they are the advocates, to uni- 
 versal contempt and scorn. 
 
 " Several distinguished writers in Great-Britain, 
 who have lately espoused, with much warmth, 
 the exclusive Episcopal notions under considera- 
 
LET. X. MISCELLANEOUS. 349 
 
 tion, do not srmple to adopt and avow this infer- 
 ence, at least in substance. They assert that all 
 who are in communion with the Episcopal Church, 
 are in the sure road to salvation. And, accord- 
 ingly, they turn into riihcule every attempt to dis- 
 tinguish between a professing Episcopalian and a 
 real Christian. It is scarcely necessary to add 
 that many of the divines of their own Church re- 
 ject tliis doctrine with al.horrencc, and have pub- 
 licly pronounced it to be as repugnant to Scrip- 
 ture, as it is dangerous to the souls of men."* 
 
 This is a most cruel misrepresentation. 
 
 Every professing Episcopalian must, of neces- 
 sity, be a saint. All who are in communion with 
 the Episcopal Church will, infallibly, be saved. 
 Such is the construction which nine out of ten 
 of your readers will put upon your language; it 
 is, in fact, the only construction which your lan- 
 guage will admit. And, accordingly, you mark 
 the doctrine as of a nature to excite sentiments of 
 deep abhorrence in every virtuous bosom. Indeed, 
 supposing your representation to be correct, I 
 should pronounce the writers in question not bigots^ 
 hut fools; not absurd devotees^ but perfect madmen. 
 You here impute to the authors whom you attack, 
 a degree of airogance and folly which can scarcely 
 be charged upon the most hardy advocates of the 
 Romish Church, in the darkest and most supersti- 
 tious periods of its history. What defender of the 
 papacy ever went so far as to say that every pro- 
 fessing Catholic is, of necessity, a saint; or, which 
 
 * Letters, p. ir. 
 
350 mSCELLANEOUS. LET. X. 
 
 follows as a matter of course, that none who arc 
 in communion with the Romish Church can pos- 
 sibly fail of salvation ? I am astonished that you 
 should not have seen, in a moment, that the 
 charge under consideration, refutes itself by its 
 very absurdity. 
 
 The writers in question go no further than the 
 Presbyterian Confession of Faith; saying, with 
 that Confession, that " there is no covenanted pos- 
 sibility of salvation out of the visible Church."* 
 On this point, then, not the smallest difference of 
 opinion exists between the individuals to whom 
 you allude, and your own religious society. That 
 the promises of the Gospel are made exclusively 
 to the visible Church, is the common doctrine of 
 both. And you very well know, that the Chris- 
 tian's Magazine, on which you bestow so high 
 praise, lays down the same principle in the most 
 explicit terms — " All the ordinances are given to 
 the visible Church — all the promises are made to 
 it."t 
 
 So far from alleging that the members of the"' 
 visible Church cannot fail of salvation, the writers 
 in question expressly represent that Church as 
 composed of good and bad individuals, and ex- 
 pressly declare that the membership of the latter 
 will only aggravate their condemnation. So far 
 from saying that every professing Episcopalian is 
 a real Christian, in other words, a saint, they la- 
 
 • Presbyterinn Confession of Faith, chap. xxv. sect. 2. Larger Ca- 
 techism, questifnis 162 and 166. 
 
 f Christian's Mugazine, vol. i. p. 150. 
 
LET. X, MISCETLANEOUS. sjbl 
 
 ment, that too many members of the Episcopal 
 Church, tail to imbibe the spirit of her excellent 
 institutions; thus having a name to live, while, in 
 reality, they are dead. 
 
 In my first Series of Letters, I took particular 
 notice of the charge under consideration, and 
 called for your proof. What is your reply ? " I 
 have not only not intentionally misrepresented 
 any one, but am also still persuaded that I fell 
 into no real error. But, however, this may be, 
 all that I said was advanced on the authority of a 
 respectable divine of the Church of England, now 
 living, who expresses himself in the following 
 words."* 
 
 Thus you make a violent attack upon the cha- 
 racter of Daubeny; imputing to him opinions the 
 most absurd and detestable, and, w^hen called 
 upon for your proof, you have nothing to furnish 
 but an extract from the w^ork of his professed op- 
 ponent. This extract, too, gives us no specific 
 passages from the writings of Daubeny ; it merely 
 exhibits the distorted constructions of a very un- 
 candid adversary. The works of Daubeny are 
 easily to be procured in this city. Why did you 
 not give us the very passages in which the obnox- 
 ious opinions, that you impute to him, are set 
 forth ? The fact is, Daubeny not only expresses 
 no such opinions as Overton has thought proper 
 to ascribe to him, but openly and unequivocally 
 disclaims them as equally detestable and absurd. 
 
 * Gontinuation of Letters, p. fC 
 
35^ MISCELLANEOUS. LET. X* 
 
 ** Even admitting, (what we cannot admit, for 
 we know the contrary,) that the question whe- 
 ther Episcopacy was, in fact^ the primitive con- 
 stitution of the Church, were decided in favour 
 of our Episcopal brethren ; still another ques- 
 tion remains, viz. Is a compliance with that con- 
 Utitution so unalterably and indispensably binding 
 on the Church, that there can be no Church, no 
 ministry, no ordinances, without it ? These ques^ 
 tions are totally distinct, and never to be con- 
 founded. Yet Dr. Bowden and Mr. Hoic almost 
 uniformly confound them ; and seem to think that 
 if the former question be answered in the affirma- 
 tive, the latter must of course be answered in 
 a similar manner. In a few instances, indeed^ 
 they admit the distinction to which I allude, and 
 assert, that their only object is to establish the 
 Apostolical institution of Episcopacy, without un- 
 dertaking to pronounce on the consequences of 
 rejecting it. But it is evident that, for the most 
 part, they entirely lose sight of this distinction, 
 and write as if the establishment of the fact, that 
 prelacy existed in the primitive Church, must ef* 
 fectually destroy the character of all Churches 
 not found in possession of that form of govern* 
 ment. Whether these positions, so totally dis- 
 tinct, are so generally confounded by my oppo- 
 nents for want of clear and dislinguishing views, 
 or with design, I presume not to say. But every 
 discerning reader will be on his guard against im- 
 position from either source."* 
 
 • Continuation of Letters, p. 23, 24 
 
LET. X. MISCELLANEOUS. 353 
 
 This passage really surprises me. I am sure 
 you would not wilfully misrepreseut. You must, 
 tlien, have read the works to which you allude 
 with very strange eyes. In truth, the whole of 
 what you here say, is without even the shadow of 
 a foundation. 
 
 The great object of Dr. Bowden is to prove the 
 Apostolic institution of Episcopacy: he expressly 
 and repeatedly says tliat it is not his purpose to 
 inquire into the consequences of the doctrine. If 
 Episcopacy be of divine institution, such socie^ 
 ties as lay it aside, must be, at all events, in an 
 unsound and imperfect state. Whether in laying 
 it aside they actually lose the Church character, 
 is a question which Dr. Bowden, more than once, 
 tells his readers he does not undertake to discuss. 
 Thus, the two questions, which you represent 
 Dr. Bowden as perpetually confounding, he al- 
 ways separates, and always treats as distinct. 
 
 You have strangely misunderstood him. 
 
 Nor have you less misunderstood my Letters. 
 
 Of the two principles, which you charge me 
 with invariably confounding, I show, by a regular 
 course of argument, that the one follows irresisti- 
 bly from the other. 
 
 Thus — The ministry is essential to the existence 
 of the visible Churcli ; but no man can be a mi- 
 nister of Christ without a regular external com- 
 mission ; and this commission can^ be bestowed 
 only by vijlue of authority from Christ. Now, 
 our blessed Saviour constituted the Apostles, 
 Prief^ts and Governors of his Church ; emppw^er- 
 
 45 
 
^54 MISCELLANEOUS. LET. X. 
 
 ing them to regulate its aflViirs, and to provide for 
 its continuance. The Apostles, acting under the 
 commission, and in conformity to the will of 
 Christ; guided, moreover, by the supernatural 
 influence of the Spirit, established distinct and 
 subordinate grades of ministers; giving to the 
 highest grade the exclusive power of ordaining. 
 Thus, Episcopacy is the divinely instituted me- 
 thod of perpetuating the sacerdotal office. 
 
 The sacerdotal office is essential to the exis- 
 tence of the Church ; Episcopal ordination is the 
 divinely instituted method of perpetuating the sa- 
 cerdotal office ; therefore Episcopal ordination is 
 essential to the existence of the Church. 
 
 We do not rest the obligation of Episcopacy on 
 the ground of its existence in the primitive Church, 
 but on the ground that the Apostles, acting under 
 the commission, and in conformity to the will of 
 Christ, established it as the regular s.nd permanejit 
 method of conferring the sacerdotal power. Un- 
 til, then, a change be made by divine authority, 
 Episcopacy and the sacerdotal power cannot be 
 separated ; having been connected by Jesus Christ, 
 by him only can their connexion be dissolved.* 
 
 * To say that the Apostles, acting- agreeably to the commission and 
 to the will of Christ, established Episcopacy, is to say that Christ es- 
 tablished it. 
 
 Well, tlie supposition is, that Christ established distinct grades of 
 miiAisters, and conferred upon the highest grade the exclusive power of 
 ordaining. When a minister of the highest grade, then, ordains, Christ 
 ordains; when a minister of the second g-rude ordains, it is not Christ 
 that ordains, but man. Thus Episcopal ordination confers the sacerdo- 
 tal office ; Presbyterial ordination does not If, therefore, the former 
 or^inaVion be laid aside, and the latter be substitllted in its place, the 
 
LET. X. MISCELLANEOUS. 355 
 
 Thus, instead of confouiidinj^ the principle oi' 
 the apostolical institution of Episcopacy with that 
 of its necessity to the existence of the Church, I 
 show, by a train of reasoning, tliat the one leads 
 directly to the other. When a man states two 
 principles distinctly, and makes it his object to 
 prove that the one flows from the other, how ab- 
 surd is it to charge him with confounding them! 
 
 " These gentlemen, indeed, themselves assert, 
 with the whole body of Episcopal writers, that 
 the Apostles never intended to lay down a model 
 
 sacerdotal office must cease to exist ; and as thei'c can be no Church 
 without a ministry, the Church must cease to exist also. 
 
 Man can no more make a minister of Christ than he can make a Bi- 
 ble. The sacerdotal power can come only from the great Head of the 
 Church ; and it can come from him only in the way of his appointment. 
 A person who undertakes to exercise power in the name of another, 
 must show a commission from him, or from some one whom he has au- 
 thorized to give commissions. Now, if Episcopacy was established by 
 the Apostles, in conformity to the will of Christ, Episcopacy is the 
 method which Christ has appointed to convey his own power; and it 
 must continue until he shall think proper to alter it. If a man should 
 appoint three distinct orders of agents, and give to the first order the 
 exclusive power of appointing other agents, all persons appointed by 
 such order would be his lawful officers ; but if the second order of his 
 agents should undertake to appoint inferior agents, the persons so ap- 
 pointed would not be his lawful officers, and could not possibly bind 
 him by their acts. The principle is perfectly clear and simple. Christ 
 possesses the fulness of the sacerdotal authority ; of which the power 
 of ordination is a part. He may delegate it or not, as he pleases. He 
 may delegate it to whom he pleases. If he has, according to the sup- 
 position, appointed three distinct grades of officers, and given the ex- 
 clusive power of ordination to the first grade, he has established a par- 
 ticular method of conveying his own power ; and his power can be ob- 
 tained only in that method until he shall think proper to appoint a dif- 
 ferent method. So that Episcopacy is binding, not because it was the 
 practice of the primitive Church, but because the power of Christ 
 must be derived from Christ, and his power can be obtained only m 
 the way whi©li he has appointed for bcstov/ing it. 
 
 \ 
 
556 MISCELLANEOUS. LET. X. 
 
 of Church government, which should be, in all 
 its parts, perpetually binding; and, of course, that 
 the Church is not bound to be, in all respects, 
 conformed to the apostolic model. I am not now 
 inquiring whether this doctrine be correct or not. 
 But if it be, how can the want of prelacy destroy 
 the character and even the existence of the 
 Church? In what part of Scripture is it said, 
 that every other part of the apostohc government 
 of the Church is mutable, and may be modified 
 by human wisdom ; but that dispensing with the 
 single point of Bishops is fatal to the whole?"* 
 
 " I am not now inquiring whether this doctrine 
 be correct or not." Mark this ! You advocate the 
 ri2:id doctrine, that a form of Church government 
 is drawn out, in all its parts, in Scripture ; and 
 that Christians, in all places, and throughout all 
 time, are under the most sacred obligation to con- 
 form to it. You tell us, expressly, that the form of 
 Church government, thus drawn out in Scripture, 
 is the Presbyterial format and so maintain that all 
 Christians are bound to manage their ecclesiastical 
 concerns in the precise way of Church Sessions, 
 Presbyterial Assemblies, and vSynodical Assem- 
 blies. Is it not, then, very surprising that you 
 should complain of the extent to which Episcopa- 
 lians carry their ideas of outward order ? But on 
 this part of the subject I have already said more 
 than enough: I notice it here, simply to show that 
 you never sutler the subject to pass without either 
 
 • Continuation of Letters, p. 24. f Letters, p. 70. 
 
\ 
 
 LET. X. MISCELLANEOUS. 3o7 
 
 decisively expressing your opinion, or, at least, 
 entering a solemn protest, which shall protect you 
 from being considered as entertaining the slightest 
 doubt of (he divine and unalterable o])ligation oi 
 the whole frame of your ecclesiastical polity. 
 
 But the paragraph before us presents a curioup 
 specimen of reasoning. 
 
 The Apostles did not intend to lay down. a mo- 
 del of Church government which should be bind- 
 ing in Af,L ITS PARTS ; therefore, they did not in- 
 tend to lay down a model which should be bind- 
 ing in ANY OF ITS PARTS. 
 
 It is not necessary that the Church should be 
 conformed, in all points, to the Apostolic mo- 
 del ; therefore, it is not necessary that she should 
 be conformed in any points, to that model. 
 
 Such is the reasoning upon which the paragraph 
 before us is founded. 
 
 Let us try whether we can find its parallel. 
 
 All the truths of Scripture do not enter into the 
 essence of the Christian scheme; therefore, none 
 of the truths of Scripture enter into the essence 
 of that scheme. Belief of every individual truth 
 of Scripture is not necessary to salvation; there- 
 fore, belief of no truth of Scripture is necessary 
 to salvation. 
 
 Thus your reasoning would annihilate all dis- 
 tinction between things; placing all Apostolic 
 practices upon precisely the same lev^el, and mak- 
 ing all scriptural truths to be of exactly equal 
 importance. 
 
 The advocates of Episcopacy, you tell your 
 
3o?j MISCELLANEOUS. LET. X. 
 
 readers, admit that the Apostles did not establish 
 a form of Church government with the intent that 
 it shoukl, in all its parts, be of permanent obli- 
 gation. How, then, you exclaim, can the want 
 of prelacy destroy the character, and even the ex- 
 istence of the Church ? In the name of common 
 sense, what connexion is there between the pre- 
 mises. and the conclusion ? Might not the Apostles 
 establish a ministry, and make it essential to the 
 existence of the Church, without instituting a 
 precise system of rites and ceremonies, or fixing 
 the exact mode of regulating the detail of eccle- 
 siastical affairs? If this be, in its own nature, pos- 
 sible, as it undoubtedly is, your reasoning must 
 be absurd. 
 
 Our Church has ever held, that the sacred writ- 
 ings set forth no immutable system of' rites and 
 ceremonies, and no complete and particular form 
 of ecclesiastical polity; but she has always most 
 strenuously contended that our blessed Saviour 
 and his Apostles created a spiritual community, 
 to continue to the end of the world, and that they 
 established, in this community, a priesthood as 
 one of its essential constituents. You have dis- 
 covered, however, that these opinions are incon- 
 sistent ; in other words, that our Saviour and his 
 Apostles could not possibly institute a permanent 
 ministry, without instituting, at the same time, an 
 unchangeable system of riles and ceremonies, and 
 fixing even the precise method of passing all kinds 
 of ecclesiastical laws. This, certainly, is limit- 
 ing the divine power in a very strange way. 
 
LET. X. MISCELLANEOUS. 359 
 
 " In what part of Scrip! ure is it said, that every 
 other part of the ApostoUc government of the 
 Church is mutable, and may be modified by hu- 
 man wisdom ; but that dispensing with the single 
 point of Bishops is fatal to the whole r" 
 
 The Episcopal constitution of the ministry may 
 not be changed, because it is immutably fixed 
 by divine authority ; the rites and ceremonies of 
 public worship, and the particular mode of exer- 
 cising ecclesiastical power, may be changed, be- 
 cause they are not immutably fixed by divine au- 
 thority. All this we have proved by a very full 
 examination of Scripture, and of antiquity. But 
 you are not satisfied. You require us to produce 
 specific passages of Scripture, in which the doc- 
 trine we contend for is laid down in so many ivords. 
 
 You charge us with inconsistency. And in what 
 does our inconsistency consist ? We maintain, it 
 seems, that the priesthood is unalterable, while 
 we admit that the precise method of organizing 
 ecclesiastical tribunals, and exercising ecclesias- 
 tical power, are not particularly fixed in Scripture, 
 and may, therefore, from time to time, be changed. 
 And how do you prove that there is inconsistency 
 in this ? Do you examine into the nature of the 
 respective establishments, and show that they 
 cannot exist in a state of separation? Do you en- 
 deavour to prove that the divine and unalterable 
 institution of a priesthood, necessarily draws after 
 it the divine and unalterable institution of an en- 
 tire scheme of ecclesiastical polity ? Do you en- 
 
360 MISCELLANEOUS. LET. X. 
 
 tleavoiir to prove that a power of change, in the 
 business of rites and ceremonies, necessarily sup- 
 poses a power of cfiange in the fundamental ar- 
 ticle of the ministry? 
 
 If you couhi establish either of these proposi- 
 tions, you would, indeed, fasten upon us the charge 
 of inconsistency. But you do not even make an 
 attempt at this. What, then, is the amount of 
 your proof? The Scriptures no where speak thus — 
 Rites and ceremonies may be changed^ but the priest- 
 hood is unalterable. 
 
 Now, this mode of reasoning rests upon the 
 principle, that no institution can be binding upon 
 the Church, and that no power can be exercised 
 by her, unless there be an express warrant enjoin- 
 ing the institution, or delegating the power, in so 
 MANY >voKDs; — a principle which must involve 
 the faith, the ordinances, and the ministry of the 
 Church in promiscuous ruin. There is, certainly, 
 no express passage of Scripture in which the doc- 
 trine of the Trinity is, in so many words^ laid down. 
 We prove, from an examination of different parts 
 of Scripture, that divine attributes are ascribed to 
 three distinct persons, and that these distinct per- 
 sons possess one common and undivided nature. 
 Again — There is no express warrant for infant bap- 
 tism, for the Sabbath of the first day, or even for 
 the priesthood; that is, there is no passage of the 
 New Testament in which it is said, in so many 
 words^ that infants shall be baptized, that the first 
 day of the week shall be substituted for the se- 
 
LET. X. MISCELLANEOUS. 361 
 
 ventli, as the Christian Sabbath f or, that there 
 shall be an order of priesthood in the Church, as 
 
 • You venture to pronounce that tlicrc is express -u-arrant for Infant 
 Baptism, and for the Sahl)ath of the first day; hut inst{ad of producing 
 a pjissag-c of Scripture, declaring-, in so many words, that inlants sliall 
 be baptized, and tliat the first day of the wtclc shall be substituted for 
 tlie seventh, as a sacred day, you enter into a rcf^ular arj^ument on the 
 subject. You lay down two propositions, which, you say, may be 
 proved from Scnpture ; and from these propositions the divine right of 
 infant baptism is to be deduced. Having gone through the argument 
 relative to infant baptism, you proceed to obsei-ve, " Scarcely less evi- 
 dent is the scriptural warrant for the Christian Sabbath."f Pray, Sir, 
 what do you mean by express wanvmt? Your phraseology is so ex- 
 tremely loose, that it is impossible to ascertain the precise ideas which 
 you intend to convey. Now, nothing will serve as a basis for a divine 
 institution but an exprc'ss warrant of Scripture ; now, it is quite suffi- 
 cient if the institutio:i I>e capable of be'mg fairly proved from Scripture. 
 Is there no difference between fairly proving a thing by a critical exa- 
 mination and comparison of the different parts of the sacred volume, 
 and producing for it what is called an express ivarrant ? Express -war- 
 rant stands opposed to implicaiion, inference, a7ialogy ,- it supersedes the 
 necessity of reasoning altogether. When we have express warrant, we 
 are uot obliged to travel out of the passage which contains it; we hare 
 only to appeal to tlie passage, and tile dispute is at an end. Well, I 
 call upon you to furnish me with an express warrant for infant baptism. 
 Do you refer me to any passage of Scripture which expressly prescribes 
 this institution? Not at all. You say that the divine rigiit of infant 
 Church membership, and the divine right of baptism to all Church 
 members, can be proved from Scripture. The antipadobaptist would 
 differ from you on this subject. Besides, I do not ask you what can be 
 proved from Scripture ; I call upon you to show me an express ivarrant, 
 which puts an end to all dispute, and makes reasoning superfluous. 
 
 You say that express -warrant is necessary to render an institution 
 binding, and then proceed to prove infant baptism by inference and 
 analogy. 
 
 You say that there is no express warrant on the subject of ecclesias- 
 tical government, and yet that Presbyterial Church government is bind^ 
 ing upon all Christians, throughout all ages. 
 
 We must produce express warrant for Episcopacy, but you are under 
 no obligation to produce it for I'resbytcry ; although you carry tlie la*, 
 tev much further th,';n we carry the fc rmer. 
 
 t l-ettcrs, p. IQ?. 
 
SG'HL MISCELLANEOUS. LET. X. 
 
 distinct from its other members. All these things, 
 doubtless, may be fairly proved from Scripture ; 
 and so it may be fairly proved, that the ministry 
 is a permanent institution, which man has no au- 
 thority to change, while rites and ceremonies, 
 as well as the peculiar organization, according to 
 which ecclesiastical power is to be exercised, are 
 not fixed upon any unalterable system, but are 
 left to be adapted to times and circumstances, 
 by the exercise of human discretion. 
 
 Again — Is there any passage of Scripture which 
 expressly enumerates the canonical books, and 
 commands us to believe them ? Where is it said 
 that the four Gospels were written by Matthew, 
 Mark, Luke, and John ; or that they are divinely 
 inspired? Now, if an express warrant be ne- 
 cessary to render any institution obligatory upon 
 the Church, surely such warrant must be indis- 
 pensable in the important article of ascertain- 
 ing those genuine records from which all her 
 doctrines and all her ordinances are to be de- 
 rived. But there is no such express warrant 
 with respect to the canon of Scripture ; and thus 
 the infidel, with the weapons which you put into 
 his hands, would destroy, with perfect ease, the 
 very foundations of the Christian faith. 
 
 Still further — You maintain that Presbyterial 
 gcyvernment, in Church Sessions, Presbyterial As- 
 semblies, and Synodical Assembhes, is of divine 
 and unalterable obligation ; but you will not pre- 
 tend that there is any specific passage of Scrip- 
 ture like the following — *' Ecclesiastical aflairs, in 
 
LET. X, MISCErXANEOUB. 36S 
 
 all parts of the world, and throughout all timCj 
 shall be governed by Church Sessions, Presbyterial 
 Assemblies, and Synodical Assemblies." Indeed, 
 you scruple not to admit, in so many words, that 
 our Saviour and his Apostles have given no formal 
 or explicit decisions relative to the ministry and 
 the government of the Church. " VVhile the Scrip- 
 tures present no formal or explicit decisions on this 
 subject, we find in them a mode of expression^ and 
 a number of facts ^ from which we may, without 
 difficulty, ascertain the outlines of the Apostolic 
 plan of Church order."* 
 
 You appear never to perceive the full extent of 
 the reasoning which you direct against your op- 
 ponents. In the case under consideration, your 
 logic, if it be of any value, completely destroys 
 your own doctrine relative to ecclesiastical polity, 
 and, what is much worse, overthrows Christianity 
 itself, by depriving us of the very canon of Scrip- 
 ture. 
 
 " Mr. How endeavours to represent my work as 
 an unprovoked attack on the Episcopal Church, 
 and to throw upon it all the odium of aggression.^t 
 The advocates of Episcopacy, when your first 
 Series of Letters appeared, had stated and de- 
 fended the principles of their Church, in publica- 
 tions addressed to their own people ; or they had 
 vindicated their own character and conduct against 
 a violent attack which had been made upon them 
 in the public prints. In doing this, they had used a 
 
 * ly'tters, p, 27. f Continuation of I.ettn-s, p. 26. 
 
364) MISCELLANEOUS. LET. X. 
 
 language which is not even pretended to be excep- 
 tionable; and, while they contended strenuously 
 for the divine institution of Episcopacy, and for all 
 the doctrines connected with this principle, they 
 made every allowance for error that the most ex- 
 tensive charity can claim ; placing within the arms 
 of mercy all conscientious inquirers after truth. 
 It is to be recollected, too, that the opponents of 
 Episcopacy had been loni^ in the habit of directing 
 against it the most contemptuous expressions. 
 
 Now, what is the treatment which we have re- 
 ceived at your hands, for this temperate exercise 
 of a sacred and universally acknowledged right? 
 
 You have represented us as wanton disturbers of 
 religious peace ; nay, you have held us up to the 
 cotnmunity as odious proscrihcrs of our fellow 
 Christians of other denominations: and the direct 
 tendency of your whole work is to impress the 
 opinion that we maintain the infamous tenet, that 
 salvation is absolutely impossible to all who may 
 be out of the pale of our own Church. 
 
 Your Letters, then, merit to be considered as 
 an " unprovoked attack.'^'' It is doing them nothing 
 more than justice to entitle them an " ag^ression.'^^ 
 
 " Another charge which these gentlemen concur 
 in urging, is no less unexpected and extraordinary. 
 It is, that I have written with great bitterness, and 
 that even my moderation is affected and insidious. 
 This is a point concerning which no man can be 
 an impartial judge in his own case. But, after 
 receiving so many respectable suiTrages in favour 
 of the mildness and decorum of my stvle; after 
 
LET. X. MISCELLANEOUS. 365 
 
 receiving the acknowledgments of so many mo- 
 derate and candid Episcopalians in diQercMit parts 
 of the United States, both cleii^ymen and laymen, 
 that I had avoided asperily to a very unusual de- 
 gree; it is impossible to avoid suspetting that 
 these gentlemen (who, so far as I know, stand 
 alone in making this charge,) have felt irritated hy 
 statements which they could not (\eny, and by ar- 
 guments which they could not refute ; and that they 
 have mistaken both for bitterness and abuse."* 
 
 I have conversed with a number of pt^raous who 
 have thoroughly examined your Letters. They 
 unanimously regard them as conceived in a style 
 of extreme positiv^eness, and as displaying a se- 
 verity of temper, which, notwithstanding the stu- 
 died effort to conceal it, is constantly visible. 
 And I do most conscientiously declare, that they 
 appear to me to possess these qualities in a con- 
 spicuous degree. At the same time, 1 : cknovv- 
 ledge that they have been frequently spoken of as 
 remarkable for the spirit of Catholicism which 
 they breathe. But this is easily accounted for. 
 The bulk of men examine things superlicially ; 
 especially things in which they feel no very deep 
 interest ; — and, in such circumstanctes, profession 
 has a wonderful power. Your Letters are full of 
 profession. You perpetually tell us how very li- 
 beral and charitable you are; — you entreat u? to 
 consider you as actuated by no spirit o(^ hostility 
 to the Episcopal Church. 
 
 ♦ Continuation of Letters, p. 27, 28. 
 
J66 MISCELLANEOUS. LET. X, 
 
 The most dangerous enemy is he who conceals 
 himself under the garb of a friend. No temper 
 is so truly unamiable as that which fills the mouth 
 with professions of kindness, while the spirit of 
 animosity possesses the heart. 
 
 Such, then, as have examined your Letters 
 carefully, pronounce them to be remarkable for 
 positiveness and bitterness. Persons who do not 
 feel a sufficient interest to search attentively, are 
 caught by mere profession. Believe me, Sir, this 
 is the true pxplanation of the compliments which 
 may have been paid to your forbearance. 
 
 It is very painful to me to be under the neces- 
 sity of addressing you in this style ; but when you 
 tell the world of the great mildness and inoffen- 
 siveness of your Letters, and of the outrageous 
 attack which they, nevertheless, brought upon you, 
 it is proper and necessary that the matter should 
 be placed in its true point of light. In giving the 
 explanation of the praises, which, you say, have 
 been bestowed upon your liberahty, I am only 
 defending Dr. Bowden and myself, from a cen- 
 sure that must derive all its force from the spirit 
 of kin'lness by which your Letters on the Chris- 
 tian Ministry are supposed to be distinguished. 
 
 " These gentlemen, in the course of their stric- 
 tures, have allowed themselves, frequently, to 
 en J ploy language of which I cannot forbear to ex- 
 hibit a specimen."* 
 
 You go on to introduce quotations, consisting 
 
 • Continuation of Letters, p. 32. 
 
LET. X. MISCELLANEOUS. 367 
 
 of a few words in a place; so that the reader is 
 unable to form a judgment of the subject to which 
 they are applied, or of the qualificMtions with 
 which they are accompanied. You omit, too, all 
 notice of those passages in which we give you 
 credit for good intention, or in which we speak 
 with respect of the religious denomination to 
 which you belong. This is not dealing fairly with 
 your people. 
 
 Fortunately you have fixed upon a passage of 
 my Letters, which you have thought proper to 
 present at full length ; and you introduce it in a 
 way which shows that you consider it as involv- 
 ing an excessive departure from all the rules of 
 propriety. " On one occasion he permits himself 
 to address me thus:* ' You could not possibly 
 have adopted a mode of address more calculated 
 to sour the minds of your readers, or better fitted 
 to indulge the bitterness of your own heart. It 
 is indirect and insidious; covering, under the 
 mask of moderation and kindness, all the loftiness 
 of pride, and all the rankling of passion."t 
 
 This passage you have selected as the most ex- 
 ceptionable and offensive part of my Letters. 
 
 Let us see to what it referred. 
 
 " Such persons (the advocates of Episcopacy) 
 are to be viewed in the same light with those who 
 conscientiously believe (and no doubt there are 
 many such) that transubstantiation is a doctrine 
 of Scripture; that the Pope is infallible; that 
 
 » Continuation of Letters, p. 33. f How's Letters to Miller, p. 1 6. 
 
368 MISCELLANEOUS. LET. X. 
 
 ima2:es are a great help to devotion ; and that 
 there is no salvation out otMhe pale of the Church 
 of Rome."* 
 
 " After reading the foregoing sheets, I trust you 
 will be prepared to receive such charges and such 
 denunciations, with the same calm, dispassionate, 
 conscious superiority, that you feel when a parti- 
 zan of the papacy denoimces you for rejecting the 
 suj)remacy of the Pope, and questions the possi- 
 bility of your salvation out of the Church of 
 
 Rome."t 
 
 " Let me warn you against being partakers with 
 our opponents, in the positiveness and bigotry 
 which some of them manifest." " Remember 
 that you are not free from a criminal bigotry, if 
 you have not learned to hrar with bigots. It is a 
 diificult lesson ; but we are required to learn it."t 
 
 I freely submit it to the reader whether I ex- 
 ceeded the Umits of a just retaliation. The passage, 
 particularly, in which you entreat your people to 
 learn the hard lesson of bearing with bigots, is 
 truly characterized when it is styled insidious. 
 ** We are constrained, however reluctantly," says 
 Dr. Hobart, " to commend Mr. H. for that manly 
 dignity and feeling with which he tears the mask 
 of plausibility from Dr. M.'s perlormance, and 
 proves that it indulges frequently in an arrogance 
 and bitterness, more injurious and reprehensible 
 from the insidious professions of moderation with 
 which they are covered."^ 
 
 * Letters, p. 20, 21. f Ibid. p. 350. t Ibid- p. 351. 
 
 $ Churchman's Magazine, vol. v. p. 134. 
 
LET. X. MISCELLANEOUS. 369 
 
 " Two of the gentlemen whose attacks I am 
 called upon lo repel, accuse me of misrepresent- 
 ing the high-toned Episcopal doctrine which they 
 avow, and endeavour to maintain. They impute 
 to me a desire to excite prejudices against them, 
 by insinuating that they exchide all but Episco- 
 palians from salvation. Mr. How, in particular, 
 brings forward, and ur2:es this accusation with 
 great zeal. I utterly deny the charge. I never 
 intended to convey such an insinuation; and am 
 persuaded that my Letters do not contain a single 
 sentence which can be fairly construed as express- 
 ing it."* 
 
 You have my sincere thanks for being thus ex- 
 plicit ; still, you will permit me to observe, the 
 direct tendency of your Letters was to lead your 
 people to believe that the advocates of Episco- 
 pacy confine all hope of salvation within the limit? 
 of their own religious profession. But, as gene- 
 ral assertion is of little weight, I will submit one 
 or two passages to the inspection of the reader. 
 
 " Such persons (the advocates of Episcopacy) 
 are to be viewed in the same light with those who 
 conscientiously believe that transubstantiation is 
 a doctrine of Scripture; that the Pope is infalhlle; 
 and that there is no salvation out of the pate of the 
 Church of Rome.^^-f " After reading the foregoing 
 sheets I trust you will be prepared to receive such 
 charges and such denunciations, with the same 
 calm, dispassionate, conscious superiority, that 
 
 * Coatinuution'of Letters, p. 36. j LeUcrs, p. 2C, 21, 
 
 17 
 
S70 MISCELLANEOUS. LET. X. 
 
 you feel when a partizan of the papacy denounces 
 you for rejecting the supremacy of the Pope, and 
 questions the possibility of your salvation out of the 
 Church of Roine.^^* 
 
 Now let it be recollected that the idea had 
 been diligently circulated, and prevailed not a 
 little, in different parts of the country, that the 
 advocates of prelacy shut out all non- Episcopali- 
 ans from the very possibility of mercy. Knowing 
 this, and you could not but know it, you have 
 tvritten in a way exactly calculated to counte- 
 nance and confirm the injurious impression. A 
 large proportion of your readers, I am quite per- 
 suaded, will be led to conclude that we consign 
 all but the members of our own society to in- 
 evitable and indiscriminate perdition; for, inde- 
 pendently of the particular passages, which I have 
 just cited, the general spirit of your work, in re- 
 ference to the point in question, is of this unge- 
 nerous tendency. 
 
 Besides, there are passages, in your last publi- 
 cation, of the same exceptionable character. 
 
 " But these gentlemen insist, that however high 
 and exceptionable their claims may be considered, 
 we, on our part, advance claims as high and as 
 offensive as theirs; and, therefore, on our ow» 
 principles, have no right to complain."! 
 
 You go on to repel this by extracts from your 
 standards ; after finishing which, you say — " Im 
 these chapters, every line is marked with wisdom, 
 
 • Letcurs, p. 356. j eontinuation of Letter*, f, 37. 
 
LET. X. MISCELLANEOUS. 
 
 371 
 
 moderation, and charity." " They are so far from 
 maintaining that there is no salvation out of tJu 
 pale of our Churchy that they could scarcely have 
 found words more strongly to express an opposite 
 opinion, without running into unlimited latitudi- 
 
 narianism."* 
 
 Again — " Does this look like pronouncing out 
 precise form of Church order indispensal>le to a 
 regular ministry, to valid ordinances, or to final 
 salvation.^^f 
 
 Now, what is the amount of all this ? You are 
 proving that the Presbyterial claims are much less 
 offensive than the Episcopal. And how do you 
 proceed ? Why, you tell us that the Presbyterial 
 standards do not assert the impossibility of salta- 
 tion out of the pale of the Presbyterial Church, 
 What is this but to say that the advocates of pre- 
 lacy DO ASSERT the impossibility of salvation out of 
 the pale of the Episcopal Church? 
 
 Presbyterians are less offensive in their claims 
 than Episcopalians. Why? Presbyterians admit 
 the possibility of salvation out of the Presbyterial 
 Church, while Episcopalians do not admit the 
 possibility of salvation out of the Episcopal Church. 
 
 Such is the simple interpretation of your words. 
 
 From this dilemma you cannot be extricated 
 but at the expense of your discernment, or your 
 candour. Either you really did not perceive the 
 obvious import of what you were saying, or it 
 was your object dexterously to insinuate what 
 
 • Continuation of Letters, p. 43. t Ibid. p. 4f 
 
372 MISCELLANEOUS. LET. X. 
 
 you had not courage openly to declare. You 
 must pardon me for using this plain language. It 
 is so unmanly, so unjust, so cruel, to impute to 
 us, expressly or impliedly, the horrid opinion hi 
 question, that I should be justified in directing to 
 you some of the severest epithets which language 
 can supply. Let the idea prevail, that we cut off 
 all but the members of our own Church from all 
 hope of mercy, and we shall be regarded, and 
 justly regarded, as monsters of impiety and arro- 
 gance, unfit to be tolerated among men. If a 
 disposition exist not in the public mind to hunt us 
 from society, we owe it to the enlightened spirit 
 of the times; not to the forbearance of you and 
 your fellow labourers in the Calvinistic cause. 
 And, when it is considered that we extend our 
 charitable ideas to a point which almost fills you 
 with horror; that we place all infants in the arms 
 of mercy, while you give many of them to per- 
 dition; that we admit the possibility of salvation 
 to the conscientious heathen, while you expressly 
 take the ground that " none can he saved who have 
 never heard of Christy however diligent to frame their 
 lives according to the light of nature f'^* there is 
 something so shameful in the attempt to hold us up 
 to the public view, as gloomy and unrelenting bi- 
 gots, that, in dealing with the authors of so gross 
 a calumny, we can scarcely be considered as 
 bound by the laws of ordinary and honourable 
 controversy. But I will suppress what I presume 
 to call a virtuous indignation, and proceed. 
 
 • Presbyterian Catechism, question 60. 
 
LET. X. MISCELLANEOUS. 373 
 
 I asserted, in my former Series of Letters, that 
 the Presbyterial claims are more extensive than 
 the Episcopal, on the subject of exlernal order. 
 This you strongly deny ; and you attempt to sup- 
 port your denial by specific passages from the 
 standards of your society. 
 
 " To show that Mr. How, in writing thus, un- 
 justly accuses our Church, nothing more is neces- 
 sary than to transcribe the following chapters from 
 our Confession of Faith, and Form of Government. 
 They are given entire^ that there may be no sus- 
 picion of concealment or mutilation; that the se- 
 veral sections of each chapter may explain one an- 
 other ; and, I will add, that Mr. How, if he should 
 ever happen to look into these pages, may have an 
 opportunity of reading them, which, after perusing 
 such remarks as are ciuoted above, I cannot sup- 
 pose he has ever yet done."* 
 
 Here is a great display of candour ; but, I am 
 sorry to be obliged to add, it is nothing more than 
 a display. You introduce passages of your stand- 
 ards that are entirely irrelevant, and omit others 
 which are absolutely necessary to make out the 
 series of proof. For example, you present us 
 with the passage which confines all covenanted 
 title to salvation within the limits of the visible 
 Church, and with that which declares an out- 
 wardly ordained ministry to be essential to the 
 existence of this Church. But, surely, this is very 
 far from exhibiting a complete view of the case^ 
 
 * Continuation of Letters, p. 40. 
 
574 MISCELLANEOUS. LET. X, 
 
 Yoli should have added the passages which make 
 the Fresbyteriahnode essential to outward ordination; 
 then we should have had the whole subject fairly 
 before us. 
 
 You bring against me the charge of gross mis- 
 representation of the doctrine of your religious ar- 
 ticles ; you assert that the claims of your society^ 
 on the subject of external order, are much less 
 extensive than those of the advocates of Episco- 
 pacy; you make a great parade of quotation; 
 telling your reader, in plain terms, that you pre* 
 sent him with every passage which bears upon 
 the point in question. Will it be believed that, in 
 the midst of all this, you scruple not to mutilate 
 the language of your standards ? Those passages 
 which speak of the visible Church, generally con- 
 sidered, you introduce ; but the moment you come 
 to the sections which set forth the Preshyterial 
 character of this Church, you stop.* 
 
 Conscious of having acted unfairly, you endea- 
 vour to excuse yourself. 
 
 " These gentlemen, however, insist, that in the 
 chapter of the Confession of Faith, (chap. 27) 
 which treats of the Sacraments, it is formally de- 
 clired, that ^ neither of the sacraments may be 
 disftensed by any other than a minister of the 
 word lawfully ordained,'^ But what is this to the 
 purpose? Who is a ' Minister of the word law- 
 
 * You omit the passage which declares tlie power of ordaining- to be 
 in the Presbylerial Ass' mMy, i»nd that which rests the method of or- 
 dination by the laying on of tlic hands of the Presbytery on Apostolrc 
 Cxampk. 
 
LET. X. MISCELLANEOUS. 375 
 
 fiilly ordained ?' If any preceding or subsequent 
 passage in our public starularcls had asserted, or 
 even intimated, that no minister is lawfully or- 
 dained, but one who has been set apart exactly in 
 our mode, there w^ould be some pretext for this 
 eavil."* 
 
 Do not your religious standards say that the 
 Presbyterial Assembly is a tribunal of divine in- 
 stitution? Do they not say that the power of or- 
 daining is in this assembly ? Do they not ex- 
 pressly rest the particular method of ordination 
 by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery, 
 upon apostolic example ? Have you forgotten your 
 own positive language ? "It is only so far as any 
 succession flows through the line of Presbyters, 
 that is either regular or valid. It is the laying on 
 of the hands of the Presbytery that constitutes a 
 scriptural ordination." Have you forgotten the 
 Ecclesiastical Catechism of Dr. M'Leod? "A 
 person who is not ordained to office by a Presby- 
 tery, has no right to be received as a minister of 
 Christ. It is rebellion against the Head of the 
 Church to support him in his pretensions."t What 
 is the language of the Westminster Divines, and 
 ©f the General Assembly of Scotland? " The 
 power of ordination is in a PreshyteryP " The act 
 of ordination is the act of a Presbytery,'^'* 
 
 " Exactly in our mode.^^ And do you hope to 
 escape thus ? Will you venture to assert that the 
 power of ordination is possessed by any other tri- 
 
 * Centinimtien •f.L-etteys, p. 44 i Rccle. Cat, p. ?9, 30. 
 
n 
 
 76 MISCELLANEOUS. LET. X. 
 
 biinal than a Presbyterial Assembly ? Will you 
 admit ordination to be valid which is not per- 
 formed by the laying on of the hands of the Pres- 
 bytery? Will you receive any man as a lawful 
 minister of Christ who has not been ordained, 
 substantially, in the Presbyterial mode? No, no : 
 " Exactly in our mode." Pray, what do you mean 
 by the term " exactly f'^ 
 
 It must be a weak cause which requires to be 
 thus supported. 
 
 Again — You tell us, by way of apology, it would 
 seem, for the strictness of your principles, that 
 your standards represent the visible Church as 
 including all who may be professors of the true 
 religion.* This is, to be sure, a definition iu 
 which nothing is defined. Until it be ascer- 
 tained what the true religion is, such a mode of 
 describing is, literally, putting the reader off with 
 empty sound. But we are to have recourse, doubt- 
 less, to the standards of your society, to know w hat 
 the true religion includes. Very well ! Those stand- 
 ards tell us that a ministry outwardly ordained, 
 is essential to the very existence of the visible 
 Church, and that the power of ordination can be 
 validly exercised only by a Presbyterial Assembly. 
 So that, go where we will, we are brought back 
 to Presbyterial ordination as the criterion of all 
 lawful ecclesiastical order. 
 
 Besides, your standards make the peculiar doc- 
 trines of Calvinism a most important part of the 
 
 * Continuation of Letters, p. 43. 
 
f.ET. X. MISCELLANEOUS. 377 
 
 true religion : — of course, without tlic profession 
 of these doctrines, there can be no Church. How 
 will you get rid of this conclusion? If the visible 
 Church consists of those who profess the true 
 religion, and if the principles of Calvinism be a 
 part of the true religion, it must follow that none 
 can be really members of the Church but such 
 as embrace those principles. And as your stand- 
 ards tell us, une(|ui vocally, that there can be no 
 covenanted title to salvation without the pale of 
 the visible Church, it Ibllows that Calvinists alone 
 are in covenant with God. Now, you expressly 
 declare that there is no mercy but such as is 
 secured by covenant transaction.* So that we 
 are fairly brought to the following train of con- 
 clusions — No true religion without Calvinismf— 
 
 * Continuation of Letters, p. 57, 58. 
 
 f Apart from the peculiar doctrines of Calvinism, " the whole plan 
 of salvation," according to you, " is a gloomy system of possibilities 
 and peradventures ; a system, on the whole, nearly, if not quite, aa 
 likely to land the believer in the abyss of the damned, as in the para- 
 dise of God."* Surely, then, the doctrines in question must be of the 
 very essence of Christianity ; there can be no true religion without 
 them. In saying, therefore, that the Church consists of all those who 
 profess the true religion, you only say that it consists of the Calvinists. 
 The definition which your standards give of the visible Church is thus 
 so yagucj that we must look through the whole of your religious for- 
 mularies before we can understand it. In examining these formula- 
 ries, we find nothing more prominent than the doctrines of partial re- 
 demption, of absolute unconditional election and reprobation, irresisti- 
 ble grace, and final perseverance. In the writings of distinguished 
 Presbyterian divines, the doctrines are equally conspicuous; with you 
 they are so important, that Christianity, without them, would quite as 
 well deserve to be called a scheme for our destruction, ajs. for our «d- 
 vation. 
 
 i Conticiiation of Letters, p. SCy'.l 
 
 48 
 
373 MISCELLANEOUS. LET. X- 
 
 No Church without the true religion — No cove- 
 nanted title but in the Church — No salvation with- 
 out a covenanted title. Thus is it Hterally made 
 out that none but Calvinists can be members of 
 the Church, and that none but members of the 
 Church can be saved. 
 
 Put you and your religious articles together, and 
 we have a scene of never ending inconsistency. 
 
 " And lest the phrase, the true religion^ might 
 be construed to mean an exact conformity with 
 their own standards, they declare that they consi- 
 der as included in the visible Catholic Church, 
 many Churches less pure than their oim.^^^ 
 
 There is no such declaration as this in the ex- 
 tracts which you have given us from the standards 
 of your society, nor in any other part of those 
 standards. It is merely said that the Church may 
 exist in different degrees of purity; and I humbly 
 apprehend that a religious society may be Pres- 
 byterial in its structure, without being absolutely 
 perfect either in its creed or its practice. 
 
 But you embrace, in the spirit of charity, those 
 Christians who differ from you upon the subject 
 of ecclesiastical order.f So do we. We embrace 
 all men in the spirit of charity — we make allow- 
 ance for what we conceive to be error — we extend 
 the divine favour to all conscientious inquirers 
 after truth. 
 
 " Our Confession of Faith and Articles of Go- 
 vernment, were drawn up by the Westminster 
 
 * Continuation of Letters, p. 44. | Ibid. p. 44. 
 
LET. X. MISCELLANEOUS. 379 
 
 Divines. And it is remarkable, Unit all of llicse 
 divines, exrcpling about seven or eic^ht, had re- 
 ceived Episcopal ordination, and no other. Is it 
 credible that these men, assembled as ministers, 
 judicially deliberating and acting as ministers, 
 could have intended to pronounce their own ordi- 
 nation null and void?"* 
 
 It is very much to be lamented, Sir, that you 
 tvill continue to be so extremely disingenuous. 
 Who has ever pretended that you deny the validity 
 of Episcopal ordination? You, surely, are too 
 wise to unchurch your own religious society. 
 Episcopal ordination is the basis upon which that 
 society must ultimately rest. But, Sir, you admit 
 the validity of this mode of ordination, as I have 
 already more than once observed, only on the 
 ground that it is i7ifact Preshyterial ; and even this 
 poor concession in favour of Episcopacy, is ex- 
 torted from you by the hard principle of necessity. 
 
 As Episcopal clergymen, we are innovators, in- 
 truders, rebels. But you are pleased to view^ us 
 with a Presbyterial eye ; and instantly, as by the 
 power of magic, we become real ministers of 
 Christ. There must be prodigious virtue in the 
 spirit of Presbyterianism to purge away the dross 
 of so much corruption, and to convert rebels and 
 impostors into the ambassadors of Heaven. 
 
 You charge me w ith grossly misrepresenting the 
 opinions of Drs. Mason and M'Leod ; in doing 
 which you use the following very severe language 
 
 * Continuation of Letters, p. 45. 
 
380 MISCELLANEOUS. LET. X. 
 
 — " Althoiig;h both Dr. Mason and Mr. M'Leod 
 mav hold some opinions concerniniz: the Christian 
 Church in which I do not entirely concur with 
 them ; yet there cannot be greater injustice than 
 to speak of them and their writings in the man- 
 ner in which Mr. How has permitted himself 
 to do. To what this misstatement of their opi- 
 nions is to be ascribed, it becomes not me to say. 
 I dare not impeach the integrity of Mr. How. 
 For acquitting his honesty at the expense of his 
 understanding, he woukl not thank me: And to 
 suppose that he has allowed himself to speak with 
 so much positiveness of their tenets, without any 
 acquaintance with them, would be as offensive as 
 either."* 
 
 Thus do you permit yourself to speak, without 
 specifying a single case, or advancing a single 
 argument in proof of your charge. 
 
 I have not misrepresented Di*s. Mason and 
 M'Leod in the slightest degree. The opinions 
 which 1 have ascribed to them, they scruple not, 
 in the most public manner, to avow and defend. 
 They maintain that the ministry is essential to the 
 very existence of the visible Church ; that out- 
 ward ordination is essential to the ministry; and 
 that valid ordination can be performed only by the 
 laying on of the hands of the Presbytery. That 
 is, they maintain that Presbyterial ordination is 
 the basis upon which the whole structure of the 
 Church visible must rest. Drs. Mason and MTiCodj 
 
 • Continuation of Letters, p. 47 
 
LET. X. mi9cellam:oi;s. -381 
 
 I am persuaded, will never charge me with hav- 
 ing inisrepresentod their o[)inions upon this subject. 
 Agreeing with yon in the most rigid |)rinci[)les of 
 Prcsbyterianism, they liave the merit of adhering 
 to them with much greater consistency. 
 
 " But are there not some Presl)yterian3 who 
 hokUiliat_their form of Church government was 
 the apostolic and primitive form? Undouljtedly, 
 many. And are there not some also, who go fur- 
 ther, and insist that this form is binding on the 
 Church, under all circumstances and states of 
 society, and, of course, ought to be adopted in 
 all ages ? There are certainly some who go even 
 this length. Well! my opponents will reply, is 
 not this holding to the divine right of Presbyterian 
 government ? It is. And is it not, of consequence, 
 going the whole length with us, and denying that 
 there can be any true Church, or valid ordinances 
 without it ? Certainly not. The conclusion has 
 no more connexion with the premises, than with 
 the most remote object in creation."* 
 
 " It is to no purpose to say, ' that if these be 
 the opinions of jure divino Presbyterians, they are 
 inconsistent with themselves; for that a belief that 
 Prcsbyterianism was the apostolic form of Church 
 government, necessarily carries with it, on every 
 principle of sober reasoning, a belief that there 
 can be no Church, no ministry without it.' This 
 conclusion is as illegitimate in reasoning, as it is 
 false in fact."t 
 
 • Continuation of Letters, p. 47, 48. t I^^^- P* ^^> ^^- 
 
3S':i MISCELLANEOUS. LET. Xs. 
 
 " Thus it appears, that the charge brought 
 against Presbyterians, thnt they unchurch all who 
 reject the Tresbyterian government, is perfectly 
 unfounded," and that the authors of the charge are 
 guilty of " calumniathig our venerable Church."* 
 
 The whole of this is a mere evasion, founded 
 on the vague meaning of a phrase. Who has ever 
 said that you represent the entire frame of Pres- 
 hyterial government as essential to the existence 
 of the visible Church ? No, Sir, the point of 
 the argument is not here. Let us, for a mo- 
 ment, substitute " ministry" for " government," 
 and then see whether you can escape so readily. 
 Tell me, therefore, do you believe, with your re- 
 ligious standards, that an outwardly ordained mi- 
 nistry is an essential ingredient of the Christian 
 Church ? Do you believe, with the same stand- 
 ards, that the power of ordination has been dele- 
 gated by the great Head of the Church to a Pres- 
 bjterial Assembly, and that it can be lawfully ex- 
 ercised by such an assembly alone? Afraid to 
 meet the doctrine directly and manfully, you re- 
 tire under cover of the vague term government. 
 This is your constant practice. 
 
 Presbyterianism is the Apostolic form of Church 
 government — therefore, without Presbyterianism, 
 there can be no ministry, and no Church. 
 
 This is very lame indeed. We are not quite 
 such Tyros in the art of reasoning. In holding us 
 out to the public as arguing in this way, you do 
 
 * Continuation of Letters, p. 54, 55 
 
LET. X. MISCELLANEOUS. '38i> 
 
 injustice, I assure you, to our lo^^ical powers. 
 But if we only say, the ministry bcini^ necessary 
 to the Cliurch, and ordination by a Presbyterial 
 Assembly being necessary to the ministry, it 
 must follow, that, without a Presbyteiiid Assem- 
 bly, there can be no Church — our reputation 
 lor dialectic skill, perhaps, will not be totally 
 ruined. 
 
 If you had been contented with extricating 
 yourself from a ditlicult situation by the inge- 
 nious use of ambiguous phrases, it might have 
 been set down to the account of excusable frailty; 
 but when you venture to represent your opponents 
 as making themselves ridiculous by their igno- 
 rance, and even to brand them as calumniators, 
 in reference to the point under consideration, you 
 are guilty of an outrage which must excite the 
 indignation of all honest men. 
 
 " The most rigid Presbyterians have, at differ- 
 ent times, both as individuals and judicatories ; 
 both by their writings and their decisions, expli* 
 citly acknowledged different denominations of 
 Christians to be true Churches of Christ. They 
 have acknowledged our Congregational brethren 
 in New-England; the regular Independents in va- 
 rious p.irts of Great' Britain; the Episcopalians 
 in England and America; the Lutherans in Ger- 
 many and the United States; and the Methodist 
 and Baptist denominations, as all Churches of 
 Christ. They consider all these, indeed, as more 
 or less corrupt; and have, ac( ordingly, at differ- 
 ent times, and without reserve, written, preached. 
 
o84 MIfcCELLAMiOUa. LEX. X. 
 
 and printed their testimony against those corrup- 
 tions.''* 
 
 Ordhialion, as practised by all these societies, 
 you consider as substantially Prcsbyterial, and 
 thcretbrc vaUd. But what becomes of the Qua- 
 kers? You do not venture to [)ut ihem down as a 
 true Church. The Greek Christians, too, more 
 numerous tlian all the societies of Protestants 
 united, you excommunicate merely because ordi- 
 nation is performed among them by a single clcr- 
 gyman, instead of being perforrhed by a plurality 
 of clergymen. So rigid is your adherence to the 
 principle of the exclusive validity of ordination by 
 the hands of a Presbyterial Assembly. Indeed, Sir, 
 it would be wise in you to keep this subject out 
 of sight. Turn and disguise it as you please, it will 
 still be apparent that your principles relative to 
 external order, are more strict than those of your 
 opponents, and that they exclude from the visible 
 Church a much greater number of professing 
 Christians. 
 
 '' This simple statement also refutes another 
 assertion, which Mr. How permits himself, with- 
 out the smallest foundation, to make and repeat. 
 The assertion to which I allude, is conveyed in 
 the following terms. ^' All of you declare bap- 
 tism and the supper to be general conditions ofsal^ 
 vatio7i; representing them as seals of the cove- 
 nant of grace, without which, it is impossible to 
 hav^ any ordinary or regular claim to the bless- 
 
 ^ Contlnaatlon of Letters, p. 51. 
 
LET. X, MISCELLANEOUS. 385 
 
 ing^ of that covenant. '^ — " Mr. How assorts that 
 all Presbyterians behevc and speak thus. But can 
 he find one that does ? I know of none ; and am 
 confident there is none. Our Confession of Faith 
 says no such thing. On tlie contrary, it expressly 
 declares, that persons to whom these ordinances 
 are never administered, may he saved; and that 
 those who do receive them may perish^* 
 
 Was there ever such a refutation ? 
 
 Does not God require us to be baptized ? And 
 is not obedience to his laws a condition of salva- 
 tion ? To be sure, a merciful Being will make 
 allowance for the errors of his frail creatures. 
 Wilful departure from his institutions must infal- 
 libly exclude from the kingdom of Heaven; but 
 not so, we humbly trust, with such as proceeds 
 from ignorance or prejudice: — therefore, we say, 
 baptism is a general condition of salvation. To 
 this you answer, that unbaptized persons may he 
 saved. Surely, Sir, you understand the distinc- 
 tion between a general condition, and a condition 
 that can, under no possible circumstances, be 
 dispensed with. The assertion that your standards 
 represent " baptism and the Lord's Supper, as 
 general conditions of salvation," must be consi- 
 dered, then, I believe, as remaining firm. 
 
 " But," says Mr. How, " your Confession of Faith 
 fepresents baptism as the only mode of admission 
 into the visible Church ; it declares that out of 
 the visible Church, there is no orJmary possibility 
 
 ♦ Continuation of Letters, p. CQ. 
 
 49 
 
386 MISCELLANEOUS. LET. X. 
 
 a( salvation ; and it maintains that baptism ought 
 not to be administered by any but a minister of 
 the Gospel lawfully ordained Does it not follow 
 then, that without baptism, there is ' no ordinary 
 possibility of salvation?' " No, it does not fol- 
 low. His premises are incorrect, and his conclu- 
 sion is equally so. With all his confidence he 
 blunders at every step. Every one who has read 
 our Confession of Faith, knows its doctrine on this 
 subject to be, that all who profess the true religion, 
 are members of the visible Church ; that the chil- 
 dren of such persons, by virtue of their hirth^ and 
 of course anterior to baptism, are also members of 
 the Church; and that baptism is only the ap- 
 pointed seal, or solemn recognition and ratification 
 of their membership. This is perfectly plain ; and 
 it cuts up by the roots every pretence for the state- 
 ment which Mr. How has made."* 
 
 Let me refer you to the following passages from 
 your Confession of Faith : — " Baptism is a sacra- 
 ment of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus 
 Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the 
 party baptized into the visible Church, &:c."t " Sa- 
 craments are holy signs and seals, &c. immedi- 
 ately instituted by God, he. to put a visible differ- 
 ence between those that belong unto the Church, and 
 the rest of the loorW^X 
 
 It is, then, the clear doctrine of your Confession 
 of Faith, that baptism is the only mode of admisr 
 
 • Continuation of Letters, p. 61. 
 
 f Presbyterian Confession of f aitli, chap, xxviii. sect. 1- 
 
 t Ibid. chap, xxvii. sect. i. 
 
LET. X. MISCELLANEOUS. 387 
 
 sion into the visible Churcli ; otherwise, how can 
 it be said, that the sacraments distinguish the 
 world and the Church from each other ? 
 
 Baptism admits us into the Church, and distin- 
 guishes us from the world ; and yet we may be 
 members of the Church, and so distinguished 
 from the world without baptism. 
 
 Is not this imputing contradiction and absurdity 
 to your religious formularies ? 
 
 But what shall we say to the passage to which 
 you allude — " The visible Church consists of all 
 those, throughout the world, that profess the true 
 religion, together with their children."* 
 
 Unless w^e consider this passage as simply set- 
 ting forth the right of the children of Christian 
 parents to baptism, it will be impossible to recon- 
 cile it with the other parts of your Confession of 
 Faith, or with common sense. It is very clear 
 that we cannot be members of the Church until 
 we are admitted into it. If the children of Chris- 
 tian parents are admitted into the Church, and 
 distinguished from the world by their natural birth, 
 it can never be said that baptism admits them 
 into the Church, and distinguishes them from the 
 world. But your Confession of Faith expressly 
 says that children are admitted into the Church 
 and distinguished from the world by baptism; 
 therefore it does not mean to say that they are 
 thus admitted and thus distinguished by their na- 
 tural birth. Either, then, the construction which 
 
 ♦ Presbyterian Confession of Fsith, chap. xxv. sect. 2. 
 
588 MISCELLANEOUS. LET. X. 
 
 I have given to the passage under consideration ia 
 the true one, or your Confession of Faith is incon-^ 
 sistent with itself. 
 
 *' Baptism is only the appointed seal^ or solemn 
 recognition and ratification of their membership." 
 Does your Confession of Faith hold this language .^^ 
 Far from it. Baptism is ordained by Jesus Christ, 
 says that Confession, as the mode of admission 
 into the Church, not as the mode of recognizing a 
 previous admission. 
 
 It is not Mr. How that " blunders," then, but 
 Dr. Miller, that makes his own religious standards 
 both contradictory and absurd. 
 
 " With respect to Mr. How's direct and repeated 
 assertion, that Calvinistic Presbyterians make a 
 belief in the doctrine of ' election,' and the other 
 ^ rigid peculiarities of Calvinism^^ essential to our 
 being in covenant with God, and that they repre- 
 sent all who do not receive these ' peculiarities' 
 as given up to uncovenanted mercy, it is difficult to 
 answer it as it deserves, without speaking of its 
 author in a manner in which I cannot permit iwy^ 
 gelf to speak of a Christian minister."* 
 
 This is very harsh language. To give the reader 
 an opportunity of judging how far 1 have merited 
 it from you, 1 will present at full length the prin- 
 cipal pass.ige of my Letters on which it is founded. 
 ^' What if 1 should show that we do not carry 
 Episcop icy further than you carry the doctrine of 
 particular, unconditional election and reprobation? 
 
 • Continuation of Letters, p. Gl, 6?., 
 
LET. X. MISCELLANEOUS. 389 
 
 " We say, with you, that the visible Church is 
 the ' househoUl of Go I, to which his gracious pro- 
 mises and his life-giving spirit are vouchsafed;'* 
 and that out of this visible Church, in the lan- 
 guage of your own Confession of Faith, there is 
 no ordinary, in other words, no covenanted possi- 
 bility of salvation. Persons who depart from the 
 Church, as I have before observed, we suppose to 
 be in a great error; but we judge them not; leav- 
 ing them in the hands of a merciful God, who will 
 deal both justly and graciously with them. All 
 who sincerely desire, and endeavour to know and 
 do the will of God, will be accepted by him; and 
 fundamental error will not shut out from mercy 
 the truly devout and penitent soul. Even irregu- 
 lar and invalid ministrations will be blessed, to the 
 fahhful and humble recipient, as channels of grace, 
 and means of salvation. Men must answer to 
 God for their errors; and error wall be a subject 
 of condemnation just so far as it is fairly imputable 
 to the individual who cherishes it. This can be 
 known only to Omniscience. Pardon my repeti- 
 tion : I think it necessary frequently to state the 
 principle to you, as in your animadversions upon 
 the doctrines and reasoning of your opponents, 
 you appear to have entirely overlooked it. Nor do 
 we run into the absurdity of maintaining the inno- 
 cence of error; or, that provided a man be sincere, 
 it is immaterial what profession he is of. Far 
 from it. They who reject revealed truth^ reject 
 
 • Letters, p. 342. 
 
o9Q MISCELLA^EOU3. LKT. X. 
 
 it at their peril; losing all covenanted title to sal- 
 vation; and the hope whicli we cherish is founded 
 on the nature, and the language of God, who has 
 given us abundant reason to believe that he will 
 make great allowance for human frailty; pardon- 
 ing the errors of the head, where the heart is 
 truly sincere ; knowing whereof we are made, 
 and remembering that we are dust. There is 
 no reason why the same general principle should 
 not be applied to incorrect opinions, as well as 
 to improper actions. 
 
 " Error is, indeed, almost always, in this im- 
 perfect state, more or less mixed with sin ; being 
 the result of neglect, which will not use the means 
 of information; of pride, which will not submit 
 to the mortification of its claims; of bad passions, 
 which have been indulged until they have cor- 
 rupted the whole habit of the soul. At the same 
 time, not a little, we humbly trust, will be to be 
 traced to a more venial origin. God only knows 
 when error proceeds from a criminal, when from 
 a pardonable source; and he only can tell what 
 degree of allowance may be made for it consist- 
 ently with the claims of justice. That this allow- 
 ance will be far from inconsiderable, we hope and 
 believe. 
 
 " Now, Sir, let us see how far persons of your 
 way of thinking carry the rigid doctrine of parti- 
 cular unconditional election and reprobation ; that 
 doctrine upon which you place so high value, 
 never ceasing to enforce it from the pulpit and 
 from the press. 
 
LET. X. MISCELLANEOUS. 391 
 
 ^' Faith you represent as necessary to salvation; 
 and you hold the doctrine of unconditional elec- 
 tion and reprobation to be a most important ar- 
 ticle of faith ; considerins; the rejection of it as 
 flowing from pride, and as indicatinc; an unre- 
 generate state of the heart. In refusing to believe 
 this doctrine, then, we refuse to believe divine 
 truth, and so ^^r violate the conditions of the covenant. 
 And upon what ground do you place us? You 
 say we are in the hands of a merciful God, who 
 knows whereof we are made, and remembers that 
 we are but dust. This is the express language 
 used by Calvinistic writers. They place those 
 who reject the doctrine of particular unconditional 
 election and reprobation on the ground of the 
 general mercy of God; cherishing the hope that 
 he will, in condescension to human frailty, pardon 
 their error. A stranger to the subject would really 
 suppose, upon reading your book, that your op- 
 ponents deny the very possibility of salvation out of 
 their own Church. After all, they lay no more 
 stress, in reference to future happiness, on com- 
 munion with the visible Church, than you lay 
 upon the rigid peculiarities of Calvinism."* 
 
 It is not here asserted that Presbyterians repre- 
 sent a belief of the peculiar doctrines of Calvin- 
 ism as necessary to our being in a covenanted 
 state; on the contrary, in saying that Presbyte- 
 rians regard persons who reject the doctrines in 
 question as violating the conditions of the cove 
 
 < Hov^'fi Letters to MVller, p. IT, 1.9, 
 
392 MISCELLA.NEOUS. tET. X. 
 
 nant, it is taken for granted that they consider 
 them as being within its pale. Well, then, Pres- 
 byterians admit that anti-Calvinists may be within 
 the covenant; but deny that they can fulfil its con- 
 ditions.* Now, surely, it would be better never 
 to enter the covenanted state, than to be thus in- 
 capacitated to perform ihe conditions on which its 
 blessings are suspended. 
 
 The case is made worse for you by explanation. 
 
 • Faith is one of the conditions ; and the peculiarities of Calvinism 
 you represent as an essential branch of the Christian sclieme— so essen- 
 tial, that without them, " the whole plan of salvation is nothing better 
 than a gloomy system of possibilities and peradventures ; nearly, if not 
 quite, as likely to land the believer in the abyss of the damned, as i» 
 the paradise of God." Continuation of Letters y p. 2>2)9. 
 
( 393 ) 
 
 LETTER XI. 
 
 EXAMIXATIOJ^ OF DR. MILLER'S LIFE OF 
 DR. RODGERS. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 XN the conclusion of your last Series of Letters 
 on the Christian Ministry, you declare the object 
 for which you had taken up your pen to be com- 
 pletely attained, and express a firm resolution to 
 engage no more in the Episcopal controversy. 
 I do not think you have kept this resolution. In 
 a life of the Rev. Dr. Rodgers, published in the 
 year 1813, you go out of your way to renew 
 the attack upon the Church and her advocates ; 
 asserting, among other things, that the Refor- 
 mers were almost all decided Presbyterians; that 
 Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer were doctrinal 
 Calvinists, and drew up Calvinistic articles as a 
 perpetual standard of faith for their Church. When 
 we are held up to public view as opposers of those 
 religious articles which we are sacredly bound to 
 observe, is it of much consequence, think you, 
 whether this be done in an epistolary or a biogra- 
 phical form ; in a work addressed to the Presbyte- 
 rian Churches in the city of New-York, or one de- 
 dicated to the Ministers of the Presbyterian Church 
 in the United States? Besides, there are many 
 passages in your Life of Dr. Rodgers, which do 
 great injustice to the Episcopal Church ; and 
 
 50 
 
394 EXAMINATION OF DR. MILLEr'S LET. XU 
 
 many topics arr introduced, which every principle 
 of concihation, not less than of consistency and 
 of poUcy, should, in my humble judgment, have 
 led you to keep entirely out of sight. 
 
 I have already endeavoured to show, at some 
 length, that the Reformers of the Church of Eng- 
 land were decided Episcopalians, and decided 
 anti-Calvinists ; but still 1 think it proper to take 
 a short notice of the very positive assertions which 
 you advance on this subject in the work now 
 under review. 
 
 " An impression seems to have been received 
 by multitudes, that Luther and Calvin differed 
 materially on important points, particularly on the 
 subject of the divine decrees, or the doctrine of so- 
 vereign election. Nothing can be more erroneous 
 than this impression. Excepting in the single 
 article of Christ's presence in the Eucharist, 
 there w^as the most entire harmony of opinion be- 
 tween these two great Reformers." " Indeed, all 
 the eminent Reformers, both in Great-Britain and 
 on the continent of Europe^ were agreed on these 
 points. The leading men among them were all 
 doctrinal Calvinists."* 
 
 This is most positive, and most unqualified lan- 
 guage. Shall I be blamed for saying that no man, 
 even moderately acquainted with the subject, 
 would thus have committed his reputation? You 
 will recollect. Sir, how frequently you take occa- 
 sion to speak of the limited views, and slender 
 
 *' Life of Dr. Uodgers, p. 32, 33. 
 
LET. XI. LIFE OF DR. RODCJERSi 396 
 
 information of your opponents. AVhcn, therefore, 
 you display the most palpable ignorance of ob- 
 vious facts, connected with the great event of the 
 Reformation, we must be excused for reminding 
 you of your own unpleasant language. 
 
 The leading Reformers were Zuingle, Luther, 
 Melancthon, Cranmer, Ridley, Calvin. 
 
 Was Zuingle a Calvinisti^ 
 
 Let me refer you to the explicit testimony of 
 Mosheim.* " The absolute decree of God with 
 respect to the future and everlasting condition of 
 the human race, ivliich made no part of the theology 
 of Zuingle, was an essential tenet in the creed of 
 Calvin."t 
 
 But an authority still more to our purpose, and 
 one, to which, I am induced to think, you will at- 
 tach even greater value than to that of Mosheim, 
 is the Ecclesiastical History of Isaac Milner, the 
 present Dean of Carlisle, and President of Queen's 
 College in the University of Cambridge. 
 
 " On a careful perusal of his voluminous writ- 
 ings, I am convinced, that certain peculiar senti- 
 ments, afterwards maintained by Calvin, concerning 
 the absolute decrees of God, 7nade no part of the 
 theology of the Siviss Reformer.^^ " The lament- 
 able rupture among the first Reformers was not oc- 
 casioned by disputes concerning predestination. "J 
 
 The historian here pronounces an opinion per- 
 fectly coincident with that of Mosheim : — he pro- 
 
 * I have not access to the writing's of Zuing'le. 
 
 f Century 16, book II. sect. iii. part 3. 
 
 t Milner's History of the Church of Christ, toI. v. p. 570, 57U 
 
396 EXAMINATION OF DR. MILLEr's LET. XI* 
 
 nounces it, too, in the most unhesitating terms, 
 and after a thorough investigation of the subject. 
 Mark the force of his language. ** Certain pecu- 
 tiAii sentiments, aftf:r wards maintained by CaU 
 t>m." The author seems to discriminate Calvin 
 from all the other Reformers, and to represent the 
 predestinarian scheme as originating with him ; 
 especially when we take the sentence just quoted 
 in connexion vvith one which immediately follows 
 it — ^^ the rupture among the first Reformers was 
 not occasioned by disputes concerning predestina- 
 tion." 
 
 Pecitliar sentiments of Calvin-^sentiments af- 
 terwards maintained by Calvin — sentiments upon 
 ivhic/i the disputes among the first Reformers did not 
 turn. 
 
 The following unequivocal passage is in the Li- 
 turgy of the Church of Zurich, of which Zuingle 
 was the founder. " Consider, therefore, that it is 
 the will of God our Saviour, that all men should 
 attain unto the knowledge of his will, through oui 
 only mediator Jesus Christ, who gave himself up 
 for the redemption of all mankind.'^^^ 
 
 Were Luther and Melancthon Calvinists? 
 
 This question has been briefly touched already; 
 but its iiJiporlance demands a more full examina- 
 tion. 
 
 Luther and Melancthon at one period held the 
 doctrine of a strict philosophical necessity. The 
 followers of Luther, however, strenuously contend 
 
 • Liturgia Figurina, London, 1693. 
 
r.Et. %l. LIFE OF Ol{. K0DGER9. 397 
 
 that even the harshest of his opinions cannot be 
 luiderstood in a sense favonraljle to the Calvinistic 
 system.* Be this as it may, the opinions in ques- 
 tion were entertained by Luther and Melancthoa 
 only hi the very earhest part of tlicir career; they 
 soon became convinced of their error, and did 
 liot hesitate formally to confess and renounce it. 
 So early as the year 1527, a form of doctrine was 
 drawn up by Melancthon, for the Churches of 
 Saxony, in which the free will of man in acts of 
 morality was expressly asserted. This work was 
 afterwards re-published by Luther, with expres- 
 sions of his approbation; insomuch, that Erasmus, 
 upon seeing the work, thus remarked upon it — 
 " The Lutheran fever daily grows more mild; sd 
 much so, that Luther himself writes apologies for 
 several things, and, among the rest, for the very 
 one on account of which he has been held to 
 be a heretic and a madman.'^t Luther, indeed, 
 did not scruple to confess that at the commence- 
 ment of the Reformation he had not completely 
 settled his creed ;t and in his last work of im- 
 
 • See Pet. Haberkornii Solida et Necessaria Vindicatio, Lib. Art. 
 Luther. For this, and for every thing- relative to the opinions of Lu- 
 ther iind Mehmcthon, on points connected with the predestinarian con- 
 troversy, I beg^ leave, once for all, to refer to Dr. Laurence's Bampton 
 Tjectures, where the subject is fully discussed, and the different au- 
 thorities are minutely quoted. It would swell the present work to much 
 too great a size to give numerous extracts from the writing's of Luther, 
 Melancthon, and others ; T, therefore, content myself with referring 
 the reader to the lectures before mentioned, in which he will find full 
 satisfaction. 
 
 ■j- \nno 1528. Epistolx, lib. xx. ep. 63. Erasmus and Luther ha^ 
 previously been engaged in controversy on tlie subject of th© will 
 
 i Opera Witteb. vol. vii. p. 139. 
 
398 EXAMINATION OP DR. MILLER's LET. XJ. 
 
 portance, the Commentary upon Genesis, he ex- 
 pressly apologizes for his former opinions.* Me- 
 lancthon appears, from his letters, to have re- 
 nounced and condemned the doctrine under con- 
 sideration, as early as the year 1529, which was 
 previous to the session of the Diet of Augsburg.f 
 Before that Diet was laid, as is well known, the 
 famous Lutheran Confession, drawn up by Me- 
 lancthon; in this Confession, the obnoxious tenets 
 alluded to do not appear. The celebrated work 
 of Melancthon, entitled, " Loci Theologici," fur- 
 nishes decisive evidence of a change in his opi- 
 nions : in the first edition of this work, the doc- 
 trine of fatality is asserted; but in the year 1533, 
 a new and enlarged edition appeared, when the 
 obnoxious tenet was exchanged for the opposite 
 one of contingency. The doctrine of the co- 
 operation of man with divine grace in the act 
 of conversion, is most unequivocally asserted in 
 the " Loci Theologici."t Luther, indeed, never 
 went so far as to deny, in some sense, this co- 
 operation, even in his controversy with Erasmus; 
 — a fact which Erasmus himself confesses.^ 
 
 The universality of grace is clearly declared in 
 the correspondence and other writings of Luther. 
 For this I may refer you to the celebrated German 
 historian, Seckendorf, who supports his declara- 
 tion on the subject, by extracts from Luther's 
 
 • Opera, vol. vi. p. 355. j Epist. Lib. Lond. p. 407. 
 
 * See the chapter De Libero Arbitrio. 
 
 $ Opera Brasmi, vol. x. p. 1480. ed. Lug. Bat, 1706. 
 
LET. XI. LIFE OF DR. R0DQER8. 399 
 
 writings.* Indeed, the idea of grace being of- 
 fered to all, but bestowed only on a few, Luther 
 reprobated with the utmost severity of language.! 
 The same doctrine was repeatedly advanced by 
 Melancthon. Both these eminent men also ex- 
 pressly and strongly maintained the defectibility 
 of grace; condemning the opposite doctrine in 
 the most pointed terms. They held that our fall 
 from grace may be both total and finalX It may 
 be well to present you with a short passage from 
 Melancthon on this point. " They who are led 
 by the Spirit of God, are the sons of God; but 
 when they act wickedly, they grieve and expel 
 the Holy Spirit ; then they cease to be the sons of 
 God."^ " I affirm that many falling into great 
 wickedness, drive from them the Holy Spirit, and 
 become again justly exposed to eternal punish- 
 ment ; some of whom, however, again becoming 
 penitent, as Aaron and David, return to God, and 
 are received into his favour ; many do not return^ 
 but fall into eternal misery.''|| 
 
 The language held by Luther and Melancthon 
 on the subject of predestination is widely different, 
 indeed, from that of Calvin. Let me once more 
 refer you to a testimony, to which, I persuade my- 
 self, you will attach high value ; that of the learned 
 and pious Dean of Carlisle, in his very interesting 
 Ecclesiastical History. " Content with what 
 Scripture had revealed, he never undertook to ex- 
 
 * Seckendorf, vol. i. lib. ii. sect. 43. f Post ilia Domestica, p. '7 ■ 
 
 i Luth. Oper. vol. v. p. 405. Ibid. vol. vi. p. 98. 
 
 5 Lo<ri Thcologici, p. 280, !| opera, vol. i. p, 37'}. 
 
400 EXAMINATION OF DR, MILLER's LET. XI. 
 
 plain this difFicult subject with any thing like a 
 systematic precision; much less did he ever think 
 proper to propose the arduous speculations con- 
 cerning the divine decrees, as necessary articles 
 of a Christian's faith.*'* " He argues that God 
 chose, and seriously decreed from eternity, the 
 possibility of the salvation and everlasting happi- 
 ness of all men."t Calvin, on the contrary, ven- 
 tures to speculate with great precision on the 
 secret decrees of God; setting forth a complete 
 system upon the subject, and representing it as 
 of vital importance in the Christian scheme. So 
 far from admitting a possibility of salvation to all, 
 he holds, that God, by an eternal and uncondi- 
 tional decree, consigned the great body of man- 
 kind to inevitable perdition. It is impossible to 
 find a more fervent dissuasive than is contained 
 in the writings of Luther, from those intricate 
 speculations, concerning the divine decrees, which 
 constituted the favourite occupation of Calvin. 
 ^' Many have perished in the indulgence of such 
 curious inquiries; it is a temptation which leads 
 even to blasphemy."! " The thought of investi- 
 gating causes is pernicious and pestilent; bringing 
 with it inevitable distruction; especially when 
 we ascend too high, and undertake to philoso- 
 phize upon predestinatiofi.'^^^ " Those stoical dis- 
 putations," said Melancthon, ^' are to be exe- 
 crated, which some introduced, who imagine, 
 that the elect always retain the Holy Spirit, even 
 
 • Milner's History of the Church of Christ, vol. v. p. 571. 
 
 ^ ISiH. T«»l. V. p. S7i. t Ibid. p. S7'2. * Opera Lutheri, vol. vi. p. 204. 
 
LET. XI. LIFE OF DR. RODGERS. 401 
 
 when they commit atrocious crimes — Let us not 
 confirm in fools security and bhnchiess."* 
 
 Perfectly conformable to these wise reflections 
 was the doctrine of predestination, as held by the 
 celebrated men of whom we are speaking. In 
 order to understand it properly, it is necessary to 
 have reference, for a moment, to the scholastic 
 doctrine, on this subject, which they so strenuously 
 opposed. 
 
 In the Church of Rome, immediately before 
 the Reformation, the doctrine of an individual 
 predestination prevailed — that is, the predestina- 
 tion of certain persons to future happiness; but 
 this predestination was represented as conditional, 
 and founded on foreknowledge. The radical error 
 of the Chufch of Rome on this point, however, 
 consisted in connecting the doctrine of human 
 merit with that of predestination. She held a 
 predestination of one man to future happiness m 
 preference to another, not by an absolute decree, 
 but on the ground of his foreseen worthiness. 
 The power of man to merit grace, and, by the 
 help of merited grace, to merit Heaven, was ond 
 of the foulest corruptions of the papacy; striking 
 directly at the fundamental doctrine of salvation 
 through the sole merits of Christ. Against thi» 
 corruption. Luther and Melancthon never ceased 
 to inveigh. But, in rejecting tlie doctrine of the 
 predestination of particular persons to happiness 
 as the meritorious objects of merey,, they were very 
 
 * Loci Theologlci, p. 17,S, 126^ 
 nl 
 
402 EXAMINATION OF DK. MILLER's LET. XI. 
 
 far from going into the contrary extreme of de- 
 crees consigning ti specific number of persons to 
 happiness, and a specific number to misery, with- 
 out reference to faith, or works, or any other 
 thing in the creature, moving thereunto. This 
 desperate extreme was reserved for the adventur- 
 ous ambition of Calvin; both Luther and Melanc- 
 thon warned their followers to beware of it in the 
 most urgent and affectionate terms. They as- 
 sumed the Gospel promise, which they expressly 
 represented to be universal, as the basis of pre- 
 destination; considering predestination, not as 
 fixing the future state of individuals, but as relat- 
 ing to the Christian Church viewed as a collective 
 body. In a word, while the Church of Rome 
 held the doctrine of a predestination of individu- 
 als to grace J on the ground of congruous merit; and 
 to glory ^ on the ground of condign merit; Luther 
 and Melancthon contended that the only predes- 
 tination revealed in Scripture, is a gratuitous pre- 
 destination of a collective body to spiritual privi- 
 leges in this life ; of the Christian Church to her 
 connexion with Clirist, her supreme Head. 
 
 The following passages from Melancthon will 
 place his sentiments and those of Luther, on the 
 subject before us, in a very clear point of light. 
 
 " There are two things to be considered in the 
 promise of the Gospel, to wit — that it gratuitously 
 offers mercy, and that the offer is universal. For 
 these two things, at present, greatly exercise the 
 minds of men. One while there is a dispute 
 about nitfit^ it being said that we are not elected 
 
LET. XL LIFE OF DR. RODCKUS. -MKi 
 
 because we are unworthy. At another, the dis- 
 pute is about particularity ; it is said that even if 
 we were worthy, still God has elected his own 
 particular ones, to whom he will be especially 
 favourable. And, tlierefore, it is denied that sal- 
 vation is to be hoped for by us because we may 
 not be in that number. Both of these imagina- 
 tions are to be rejected, and it is of the utmost 
 importance that pious minds should be diligently 
 fortified against them. We ought neither to lay 
 stress upon our worthy nor convert the universal 
 promise into a particular one."* 
 
 ^' Concerning the effect of election, let us hold 
 out this consolation, that God, not willing that 
 the whole human race should perish, always of 
 his mercy, and on account of his Son, calls, 
 draws, and collects a Church, and receives those 
 who assent, and thus always wills that there 
 should be perpetually some Church which he 
 assists and saves."t " But you will say, this con- 
 solation is so far a benefit, that I know that a 
 Church is preserved for others ; but perhaps that 
 profits me nothing, and how can I know who are 
 the elect. I answer. This general consolation is 
 beneficial to you also, because you ought to be- 
 lieve that the Church is preserved for you also, 
 and the command of God is eternal and immuta- 
 ble, that you also should hear his Son, should ex- 
 ercise penitence, and believe that you are to be 
 received on account of the Mediator."! 
 
 * Loci Theologlci, de Prscdest. ed. 1535. f Ibid. 
 
 ^ Opera Melanctb. vol. ir. p. 161. 
 
404 EXAMINATION OF DR. MILLER's LET. XI. 
 
 The following passage from Bucer, relative 
 to Melancthon's doctrine of predestination, will 
 show how that doctrine was originally understood. 
 " The question is to be repelled — Are we predes- 
 tinated ? For, as has been said, he who doubts 
 of this, cannot believe that he is either called or 
 justified ; — that is, he cannot be a Christian. It 
 is, therefore, to be assumed, that wc are all fore- 
 known, pre-appointed, separated by God from the 
 rest, and selected for this end, that we n^ay be 
 eternally preserved, and that this purpose of God 
 cannot be changed; and hence all our thinking 
 and care should be directed to this point, that we 
 may answer to this predestination and calling of 
 God, that we may co-operate to eternal life, ac- 
 cording to the strength which the Lord hath ever 
 
 supplied Certainly, those whom God calls, if 
 
 they do but folloiv the call^ he hath predestinated 
 and foreknown ; he will also justify and glorify."* 
 
 '' As the preaching of repentance is universal, 
 50 also the promise of grace is universal. Let us, 
 therefore, remove from Paul stoical disputations 
 
 which ov^erturn faith and prayer Against these 
 
 imaginations let us learn the will of the Deity 
 from the Gospel. "f *' I have often said that the 
 consideration of universality is necessary, so that 
 every one should include himself in the universal 
 promise, nor ascribe to the Deity a respect of per- 
 sons, or contradictory wills.'^'X 
 
 It is truly astonishing that any man possessing 
 
 • Eiiar. Epist. ad Rom. p. 359. ed. 1536. 
 
 t Loci Thcologici, dc Pr2:'iei.t. eel. 1545. + Opera, vol. ir. p. 168. 
 
LET. XI. LIFE OF DR. RODaERS. 405 
 
 the si lightest knowledge of (he history of the Re- 
 formation, should venture to ])r()nounce Melanc- 
 thon a Calvinist. Enough has, probably, been 
 already said on this point ; but evidence so de- 
 cisive and so particular remains yet to be pro- 
 duced, that 1 must be excused for trespassing 
 somewhat longer tipon your patience. 
 
 '' In the beginning (of the Reformation) the 
 stoical disputes among us concerning fate, w-erc 
 too horrid, and they were injurious to discipline. 
 Wherefore, I beseech you not to think of any 
 such formula of doctrine."* 
 
 '^ I am no stoic ; but contend more strongly 
 with the family of Zeno concerning fate, than 
 our warriors have fought %t the Danube and the 
 Elbe."t " Let us, therefore, remove from the 
 Deity this stoical seventy, and let us consider it 
 as certain that we are beloved by him."t " I un- 
 derstand there are some who are about to make 
 war upon me concerning this stoical necessity, 
 and if they move the subject I shall think it a duty 
 I owe to God and the Church to refute those con- 
 tumelious ravings against God."^ " Those stoi- 
 cal disputations are to be execrated which some 
 bring forward, contending that all sins are equal, 
 and that the elect always retain the Holy Spirit, 
 even when they allow themselves in atrocious 
 lapses."|| . 
 
 This, it will be admitted, is very strong lan~ 
 
 • Melan. Eplst. 44, lib. 3. f Epist. Lond. p. 370. Ubid. p. 55^. 
 § Adiio 1555. Ibid. p. 458. See also, p. 266, 271, 405, 463. 
 U liOci Theolog-ici, p. 126. 
 
406 EXAMINATION OF DR. MILLER's LET. XJ. 
 
 2:nage. Now, it is certain that Melancthon, in the 
 use of this language, had a particular reference 
 to the opinions of Calvin. On more than one oc- 
 casion he did not scruple to brand Calvin as the 
 Zeno of his age. 
 
 " Lelius writes to me, that so great are the 
 disputes at Geneva, about stoical necessity^ that a 
 certain person venturing to differ from Zeno^ has 
 been shut up in prison. Oh unhappy state of 
 things ! The true and wholesome doctrine is ob- 
 3cured by disputes foreign to it."* 
 
 Beza, in his life of Calvin, expressly tells us, 
 that Melancthon, in the year 1552, began to mark 
 the Reformers of Geneva as the introducers of a 
 stoical fate: — *' Genevenses Stoicum fatum in- 
 vehentes notare."t In perfect consistency with 
 this, was the conduct of Melancthon, when the 
 Articles of Concord, drawn up in the year 1549, 
 between the Churches of Zurich and Geneva, 
 were presented to him: — He indignantly erased 
 the article, de electione % 
 
 But the radical difference of opinion, on this 
 subject, between Calvin and Melancthon, will 
 abundantly appear from their correspondence. 
 
 A life of Calvin, written by a clergyman of your 
 own religious society,^ is now lying before me; 
 with translations of some of his letters annexed. 
 
 • Epist. IvOncL p. 390. f Vita Calvini, anno 1552. 
 
 t " We carefully teach tliatGod does not exert his power proiniscu- 
 »usW upon all wlio receive the sacraments, but only upon the Electa 
 .IrticU 16. 
 
 $ The Rev. Elijah Waterman, Pastor of the Presbyterian Congfregfa- 
 tioD, JJridgeport, Connecticut. 
 
LKT. XI. LIFE OP DR. RODGKRS. 40? 
 
 Let me present you with a few extracts frora 
 these translations; they will be of greater weii^ht 
 with you, probably, than any translations that 
 might be made by myself; be:=;ide thai I shall be 
 saved the trouble of a tedious examination of the 
 originals. 
 
 " Calvin to Melancthon. 
 
 •^ I havo been told that you were so much of- 
 fended at some of my too free admonitions, that 
 you tore my letter to pieces before several wit- 
 nesses. The person who related this was not in- 
 deed worthy of much credit; but as it appeared 
 to be confirmed by various signs for a long time, I 
 was at length constrained to suspect that some 
 part of it might be true."* " It is no small grief 
 to me, that our method of teaching is manifestly 
 
 observed to be too discordant I candidly confess, 
 
 that religion prevents me from acceding to you on 
 this point of doctrine; as you appear to me to 
 dispute too metaphysically concerning the free- 
 dom of the will It cannot be attributed to an 
 
 oversight, that a man of your acuteness, caution, 
 and thorough knowledge of the Scriptures, should 
 confound the election of God with those pro- 
 mises which are common to all. Nothing is more 
 evident than that the preaching of the word is 
 promiscuously common to all persons ; but that 
 the spirit of faith is given by special privilege tt3 
 
 * Waterman's Life of Calvin, p. 367 
 
40S EXAMINATION OF DK. MILLER's LKT. XI. 
 
 tlie elect alone I hear, when you received the 
 
 forriiula of our union with the Church of Zurich, 
 taking a pen, you erased the sentence, which 
 cautiously and soberly distinguishes the elect from 
 the reprobate. This was totally different from 
 vour usual moderation, not to say more."* 
 
 Still you tell us, in the most peremptory lan- 
 o-uage, that a perfect harmony of opinion existed 
 between Luther, Melancthon, and Calvin on the 
 subject of the divine decrees; indeed, that all 
 the leading Reformers, both in Great-Britain and 
 on the continent of Europe, were doctrinal Cal- 
 vinists. The very reverse of this is the truth, 
 Calvin stood almost alone among the Reformers 
 on this subject. Some of the opinions, which 
 pass under his name, prevailed, in a degree, from 
 the beginning of the Reformation ; but he greatly 
 added to them, and embodied them, finally, into a 
 regular system. In the language of the ecclesias- 
 tical historian, Milner, the opinions concerning; 
 the absolute decrees of God were peculiar to Cal- 
 vin; they were maintained by him, long after the 
 time of Zuingle ; the rupture among tlie first Re- 
 formers had no connexion with disputes upon the 
 subject of predestination.! Indeed, it is not only 
 true that Calvin was the first of the Reformers wuo 
 adhered to the scheme of absolute predestination; 
 there is further strong reason to believe, th;.t he 
 did not himself embrace that scheme until the 
 latter part of his career. See the langimge which 
 
 • Waterman's Life of Calvin, p. 370, 371. 
 
 f Milner's History of the Chtirch of Cbrist, vol. v. p. 570, 57t, 
 
LET. XI. LIFE OF DR. RODGERS. 409 
 
 he uses in the preface to a Frcncli translation of 
 the New TestanieMt, published Uy him in the year 
 1535. " Our Lord, Jesus Christ, the Mediator, was 
 the one, true, eternal Son of God, whom ihe Fa- 
 ther was to send into the world to collect all mea 
 from that horrible state of devastation and dis- 
 persion occasioned by the fall At length, v^hen 
 
 the fullness of time pre-ordained by the Lord, 
 was come, the Messiah, so much desired lor so 
 many ages, made his appearance; and he fully 
 performed all those things which were necessary 
 
 for the redemption of all men By one C hrist 
 
 the whole human race was to be reconciled to God, 
 as is set forth, and most amply demonstrated in 
 
 the writings of the new covenant All are called 
 
 to that inheritance without any respect of persons, 
 
 No one is excluded from this inheritance who 
 
 admits and embraces Christ, as he is ofiered by 
 the Father for the salvation of alV^ 
 
 Calvin avoided this mode of expression in his 
 subsequent works. 
 
 But the opinions of Calvin, you will say, are 
 most fully set forth in his Institutes of the Chris* 
 tian religion, published so early as the year 1335. 
 
 I have already pointed out an error, relative to 
 the opinions of Calvin on the subject of Episco- 
 pacy, into which you have been drawn by a mis- 
 take connected with the publication of his Insti- 
 tutes. It is true, the Institutes were first published 
 in the year 1535; but they appeared then in a very 
 small and imperfect form. Beza, in his life of Cal- 
 vin, calls the publication of 1 535, a mere sketch 
 
410 BXAMINATION OF DR. MILLEr's LET. XI. 
 
 of the great work as it came forth in 1558. Then 
 it consisted of four books regularly divided into 
 eighty chapters; whereas, in the year 1535, the 
 number of chapters which it contained was no 
 more than twenty. Now, the question is, whe- 
 ther the predestinarian scheme, as it appears in 
 the edition of 1558, was contained in that of 
 1535? You, certainly, cannot prove that it was; on 
 the contrary, evidence is to be produced that it 
 was not contained in the edition of 1535, which 
 will go far, 1 think, towards satisfying an unpre- 
 judiced mind. We know, for example, that Cal- 
 vin, in works published at the same time, held a 
 language quite inconsistent with that of his Insti- 
 tutes in their present state,* 
 
 Further — Light is thrown on this subject by the 
 proceedings of the Council of Trent. It was the 
 practice of this Council to connect, with the de- 
 crees which they published, a condemnation of 
 opposite errors. Now, Father Paul, in his His- 
 tory of the Council of Trent, expressly says — 
 *' in the books of Luther, in the Augustan Confes- 
 sion, and in the Apologies and Colloquies, there 
 was nothing found that deserved censure," rela- 
 tive to predestination, " but much in the writings 
 of the Zuinglians." But Calvin had published hie 
 Institutes, with a most eloquent and remarkablie 
 dedication to Francis I. in the year 1535; and the 
 work possessed, from the moment of its ap- 
 pearance, no little celebrity, both in the scientific 
 
 • Witness his preface to the Trench translation of the New Testa- 
 ment, just mentioned. 
 
LBT. XL LIl^ OP DR. R01>UER3. 411 
 
 and religious world. The proceedings of ih^ 
 Council of Trent, to which we have alluded, look 
 place in the year 1546. Is it probable that the 
 Council, in censuring error relative to predes- 
 tination, would pass by the work of Calvin, and 
 fix upon works of no reputation, whose authors 
 Father Paul has not even thought it ne( essary 
 to preserve from oblivion by mentioning their 
 names?* 
 
 Still further — The dispute relative to predestina- 
 tion did not break out until the year 1551. Then 
 we find Calvin engaged in a violent controversy 
 with Bolsec and Castellio ; nor did he succeed in 
 introducing his doctrine even into the Church of 
 Geneva until after a severe struggle. A difference 
 arose, at the same period, between Calvin and 
 Melancthon; the latter styling Calvin Zeno, and 
 indignantly erasing the article, De Electione^ from 
 the Form of Concord between the Churches of 
 Geneva and Zurich. Calvin, in his letters to 
 Melancthon, complains bitterly of this, and urges 
 him to modify his sentiments; to which Me- 
 lancthon, however, makes no reply. But, if the 
 peculiar opinions of Calvin, on the subject of 
 the divine decrees, were published in the year 
 
 • This fact is stated with a similar view, by Bishop White, in his 
 "Comparison of the Controversy between the Calvinists and Arminians 
 with the Doctrines of the Protestant Episcopal Church."f I know no 
 works which place the question, relative to the Calvinism of our Ar* 
 tides, in so just and striking* a point jf light as those of Bishop White 
 and Dr. Laurence. 
 
 t Sec Clinrchman's Magazine, new series, vol. ili. p. 13. 
 
41:^ EXAMINATION OF DR. MILLER'S LET. XI. . 
 
 1535, how happened it that there was no contro- 
 Ter'^v about til em until 1551 ? 
 
 There is an addilional fact on this subject which 
 is worthy of being mentioned. 
 
 It appears, from the correspondence between 
 Melancthon and Crannicr, that the latter con- 
 sulle I the for ner, in the year 1548, on the sub- 
 ject of a public standard of faith for the Church 
 of England. Melancthon, in reply to the letter of 
 Cranmer, conjured the Archbishop to extend the 
 benefit of his labours beyond the limits of the 
 Ena:lish Church, and to draw up a Confession in 
 which the whole Protestant world might unite.* 
 In conformity with this advice, Cranmer addressed 
 letters, in the year 1551, to several of the conti- 
 nental Reformers; among the rest, to Calvin and 
 Bullinger. Now, is it probable that either Me- 
 lancthon or Criinmer would have applied to Cal- 
 vin, on such a subject, after he had exhibited, at 
 full len2:th, and in a deliberate work like the In- 
 stitutes of the Christian Religion, that system of 
 doctrine which Melancthon branded as Stocism, 
 and for which he marked Calvin as the Zeno of 
 the age ? Could any hope have been entertained 
 of union with a man w ho brought forward, as of 
 the essence of Christianity, a principle which Me- 
 lancthon indignantly expunged from a public do- 
 cument, and of which he warned Cranmer, in the 
 most urgent terms, to beware ?t 
 
 Such, then, are the circumstances which induce 
 
 • Eplst. Llhri. I^iv.l. Epist. 66, lil). 1 
 j Ibid. Fpist. 4i, lib. 3. 
 
LET. XI. LIFE OF DU. RODGERS. 413 
 
 a belief that Calvin did not advance his pernliar 
 opinions on the subject of |)redestinati()n until the 
 latter part of his life. 
 
 1. In a work published by him, in the year 1535, 
 we meet with language very different from that 
 whicli is held in the present edition of his Institutes. 
 2. The Council of Trent, in censuring error rela- 
 tive to predestination, pass by the Institutes of 
 Calvin, and select the works of some obscure fol- 
 lowers of Zuingle. 3. There was no dispute among 
 the early Reformers on the subject of predestina- 
 tion ; in the correspondence of Calvin and Me- 
 lancthon no trace of a dilTerence between them, re- 
 lative to the divine decrees, iippears previous to the 
 year 1552.* It was not until 1551 that the violent 
 
 * I hasten to lay before you the following" passage in the correspon- 
 dence of Melancthon and Calvin, which I have just met with .f 
 
 " As to the question of Predestination, 1 hud, at I'ubingeii, a friend, 
 the learned Francis Stadian, who used to say, that he approved of these 
 two points : That all thing-s came to pass, as divine Providence had 
 decreed; and yet that all thing's were conting-ent. These cannot be re- 
 conciled with each other. I hold the hypothesis, that God is not the 
 cause of sin, nor docs he -will sin. I admit also conting-ency, in this 
 our infirmity of understanding-; that the common people may know 
 that David fell freely by his own will ; and I think that he, when he 
 had the Holy Spirit, might have retained it, and that in the strugg-le, 
 there was some action of the will. Although these thing-s may be dis- 
 puted with more subtlety, yet when proposed in this nir.nner, they .ap- 
 pear accommodated to the government of our minds Let us a^'cuse our 
 own will when we fall, tmd not seek, in the counsels of God, an ex- 
 cuse for lifting ourselves up against him. Let us believe, that God 
 will afford assistance, and be present with those who strive. Mcvsr 
 -5-ex>)<rov KdLi ©so? ^gtsiTravTi, on ft/ •will, and God idll niifct thee uith help, 
 
 t It is given as transbitcd by Ihc Rev. EIjmU Watcnnan, Pastor of tlie Pres- 
 byterian Congregation at Uri(.l;;ei)ort, Coimci-ti-^ut. 
 
ill EXAMINATION OF DR. MILLER'S LET. XI. 
 
 dispute broke out in Geneva, where Bolsec openly 
 attacked Calvin as the introducer of heretical opi- 
 nions, in consequence of his preaching the doc- 
 says Basil. Attention, therefore, should be awakened in ourselves, and 
 the immense gtiodncss of God should be praised, since he has promised 
 and administers assistance to those who seek, as says the Lord, that 
 is, to those who take heed to the promise. For we must be g-overned 
 by the word of God, not opposing the promise, but assenting to it, and 
 
 that without any previous controversy I do not write these things 
 
 with the intention of delivering precepts to a man the most learned 
 and experienced in the exercises of piety. For I knoto that these 
 things Of rtftf with your opinions."* 
 
 Thus Melancthon addressed Calvin in the year 1543. Of course, 
 Calvin had not then declared that, " God not only foresaw that Adam 
 would fall, but also decreed that he should ;" that " God blinds the 
 understandings and hardens the hearts of the reprobate to fit them for 
 their doom;" thnt "the necessity of sinning is cast upon the repro- 
 bate by the ordination of God." He had not then censured Chrvsos- 
 torn for asserting that when God draws us, it is ** with our consenting 
 will." He had not then declared that human nature, in consequence 
 ©f the fall of Adam, became an unminglcd mass of corruption, and 
 that the sinner, in the change which he undergoes in conversion, 
 it the mere passive recipient of irresistible grace. He had not 
 then declar<^d that all but the elect are uninterruptedly inclined to all 
 manner of wickedness, and would be SiW ays positively engasred in the 
 perpetration of horrible crimes, if God did not, for the preservation 
 of burnin society, restrain them through the influence of some sel/ah 
 Biotive.-j- 
 
 It may, therefore, be taken for granted, that in the year 1543, the 
 date of Melancthon's letter, Calvin had not published his predestinarian 
 theorv, as it now appears in his Institutes of the Clii'istian Religion If 
 he had published that theory, Melancthon never would have said to 
 
 him " I know that these things agree with your opinions." When, in 
 
 thf year 1552, Calvin published his first tract in the Predestinarian 
 Controversy, Melancthon did not hesitate to brand him as tlie Zeno of 
 bis age . and, in the same year, he expunged, with indignation, the arti- 
 cle, De Elections, from the Form of Concord which Calvin bad drawn 
 up between the Churches of Zurich and Geneva. 
 
 • Wutprnmn's Life of Calvin, p. fiOS, 306. 
 
 I See Lctt.r viii. of this work, whtre all these opinions arc shown to b6 
 rintninetl in the present rdition of CalTin'.** Iirstitntes- 
 
LET. XI. LIFE OF DR. R0DGER9. 414 
 
 trine of absolute predestination. 4. In the year 
 1548, Melanctlion advises Cranmer to compose 
 a system of Articles to which all Protestants 
 might subscribe; and in the year 1551 Cranmer 
 writes to Calvin on the subject; — which he would 
 never have done if the peculiar system of Calvia 
 had been previously made known. 
 
 It has been already mentioned that the doctrine 
 of absolute decrees was strongly resisted in Ge- 
 neva itself, when preached there by Calvin, in the 
 year 1551. Great opposition was also made in 
 the Churches of Switzerland. For this we have 
 the unexceptionable testimony of Turretin, who 
 derived his information from the original docu- 
 ments, as preserved at Geneva. In a letter to Arch- 
 bishop Wake, Turretin expressly says — ^* Calvin 
 was not satisfied with the letter of Bullinger;* he 
 complained of it to Bullinger, who attempted to 
 justify himself; but he maintained his opinion al- 
 ways in very general terms, and with vague ex- 
 cuses "t 
 
 The answers from Berne and Basle were equally 
 unsatisfactory to Calvin; indeed, the latter con- 
 tained the following strong and explicit language. 
 " It is the wish of God that all men should come 
 to the acknowledgment of the truth, and be saved. 
 He is the common Lord of all, Jesus Christ is 
 the common Saviour of «//."{ 
 
 * This wag the answer sent from Zurich to the circular which had 
 been addressed by the Ministers of Geneva to the Helvetian Churches. 
 
 t Acta Eruditorum, Supp. t. vii. sect. 3. Also, Biblioth. Germ. vol. 
 ;iiii. p. 208. 
 
 i See Laurence's Bampton Lectures, p. 341—245. 
 
416 EXAMINATION OF DR. MILLEr's LET. XI. 
 
 It further ap})ears, from Beza's Life of Calvin, 
 that the opposition to his system of doctrine was 
 so strong in Switzerland in 1555, that a combina- 
 tion of Ministers was formed against him, and 
 that the preaching of absohite predestination was 
 even obstructed in the Canton of Berne by pub- 
 lic authority. Tliis, with the opposition of Cas- 
 telUo and Melancthon, deeply affected Calvin's 
 mind. " These things grievously affected him, 
 as they were likely to do; and they affected him 
 the more severely as at that time the prevalence 
 of error was so great that he was hindered by pub- 
 lic authority from proclaiming the truth."* 
 
 It lias been already observed, that the Church 
 of England reformed herself, as far as she followed 
 any modern authority, not upon a Calvinistic, but 
 upon a Lutheran model. This subject, however, 
 merits a more full and distinct consideration. 
 
 1. During the period in which the Church of 
 England was engaged in reforming her offices, 
 and settling her creed, the Lutheran Church of 
 Germany was a mature establishment, and in the 
 full splendour of her reputation. To her the eyes 
 of the friends of true religion were steadily di- 
 rected. Calvin, at this time, did not possess the 
 celebrity which he finally attained: his system 
 was still in its infancy; — a feeble luminary when 
 compared with the Lutheran Church, which was, 
 emphatically, the Sun of the Reformation. Of 
 the truth of these assertions, no on6 who has ex- 
 
 • See Laurence'3 Bamptoii Lectures, p. 241. 
 
LET. XU LIFE Ot^ DR. RODGERS. 417 
 
 amincd tlie history of the jicriod in question, can, 
 for a moment, doubt. Calvinism had not yet 1)0- 
 come a cliaracteristical appelhition. Fox, the 
 Martyrologist, dwells, at great length, u()on the 
 writings and merits of Luther and Zuingh*, but 
 the name of Calvin he does not particularly dis- 
 tinguish. It appears, too, from tiie history of Fox, 
 that the martyrs, who suflered in the reign of JViary, 
 were charged, not with the heresy of Calvin, but 
 with that of Luther, or of Zuingle. AVhat more 
 conclusive evidence could be farnished that Cal- 
 vinism, at the period of the Reformation under 
 Cranmer, was in the infancy of its reputation and 
 its influence? * 
 
 Evidence of the same decisive character may 
 be derived, on this subject, from the proceedings 
 of the Council of Trent. It is quite clear, from 
 those proceedings, that Calvin was not regarded, 
 at the time, as a person of distinguished import- 
 ance; frequent mention being made of Luther and 
 his system, vvliile Calvin is not i^^ticed. Ac- 
 cordingly, Mosheim, who had thoroughly exa- 
 mined this subject, expressly tells us, that at the 
 rise of the Predestinarian controversy, in 1551, the 
 influence of Calvin was very limited. 
 
 It is, then, in its own nature, probable that the 
 English Reformers would fix their eyes upon thQ 
 splendid system in Germany, rather than upon the 
 feeble and unimportant establishment at Geneva. 
 
 But let us pass from this general reasoning to 
 such as is grounded on specific facts. 
 
 2. Cranmer, it is well known, was the chief 
 53 
 
4l8 EXAMINATION OF DR. MILLER's LET. XI. 
 
 conductor of the English Reformation. It is of 
 no little importance, therefore, in the considera- 
 tion of the question before us, to ascertain what 
 his predilections were. Now Cranmer formed an 
 early acquaintance with the Reformers of Ger- 
 many, and he kept up a constant correspondence 
 with them for a course of years.* He was particu^ 
 larly intimate with the great and excellent Melanc- 
 thon. The correspondence between these two em- 
 inent Refomiers began early, and continued long* 
 We find a letter from Melancthon to Cranmer, under 
 date of the year 1535, in which he submits to the 
 judgment of the Archbishop, a work which he had 
 prepared for the press, with ^ dedication to king 
 Henry.f Cranmer seems, too, to have consulted 
 Melancthon in every case of importance con- 
 nected with the Reformation of the Church. Ther©^ 
 is a letter from the Archbishop to Melancthon, 
 dated May, 1548, in which he asks his opinion oh 
 the subject of a public creed. This was precisely 
 the time wh^ the English Liturgy was preparing. 
 Melancthon, in his reply, urged Cranmer to draw 
 up a Confession that should embrace the whole 
 Protestant world-t In the same year we find Me- 
 lancthon anxiously entreating the ArcHbishop to 
 beware of those stoical disputations, by which, at 
 <jn early period, the'Lutheran Reformers had been 
 so much disturbed. Now, where is the proof of 
 intimacy between Cranmer and Calvin? The cor- 
 respondence between them was extremely short, 
 
 ♦ Sp- Strype's Memorials of Cranmer, p 285—288. 
 
 t BpistoUrum Lihri Lend, p, 521. * Ibid. Epist. 66. lib, f 
 
LET. XI. LIFE OF WR. RODGERS. 419 
 
 There is no evidence of more than three or four 
 letters having been written by Calvin to Crannier; 
 and two of these were in reply to that general let- 
 ter which the Archbishop addressed to him, in 
 reference to the plan, suggested by Melancthon, 
 of a Confession of Faith for all Protestants. This 
 letter to Calvin, it will be recollected too, \tas 
 prior to the developement of his peculiar system 
 on the subject of the divine decrees; whereas the 
 intimate correspondence between Cranmer and 
 Melancthon, continued after the latter had avowed 
 those opinions, on the subject of grace and free- 
 will, which led him to brand Calvin with the most 
 opprobrious epithets, and to erase, indignantly, his 
 doctrine of election from a public document. 
 
 3. But the bias of the English Reformers to- 
 wards the Lutheran model will still more strikingly 
 appear from the repeated and earnest efforts which 
 were made to induce Melancthon to settle in Eng- 
 land. There is evidence of an iavitation hav- 
 ing been given to him to this effect, even in the 
 year 1534; for, in a letter written in that year, he 
 says, " I am just now called to England by other 
 letters."* And in the ensuing year, he informs 
 his correspondent: — " I am again invited, and in- 
 deed importuned, not only by letters, but also by 
 embassies from England."t He was solicited a 
 third time in the year 1538; when Henry wrote 
 an urgent letter to the Elector of Saxony on the 
 subject.! Nor was the wish of the English 
 
 • Bpist. p. 717. t Epist. Libri Londini, p. 733. 
 
 ^ Seckendbrf Histor, l.tither. lib. in. 
 
?^ 
 
 420 EXAMINATION OF DK. MILLEU'S LET. XI. 
 
 Reformers less strong in the ensuing reign. In 
 the year 1549, Latimer, in a sermon preached 
 before the King, speaks thus— '^ 1 heard say, 
 Master Melancthon, that great clark, should 
 come hither. I would wish him, and such as he 
 is, to have two hundred pound a year. The King 
 shouhl never want it in his coffers at the year's 
 end." In a letter to J. Camerarius, dated May, 
 1550, Melancthon says — " 1 am once more invited 
 to England;''* and again, to the same person, im- 
 mediately before the death of Edward, in 1553 — 
 " I am invited to England by letters from the King, 
 which were written in the month of May."t In 
 addition to all this, let it be mentioned, that the 
 theological professorship at Cambridge was kept 
 open for Melancthon from February, 1551, to the 
 spring of 1553; the precise period during which 
 the Articles of the Church of England were in 
 preparation. 
 
 Now, was application made to Calvin to settle 
 in England for the purpose of assisting in the work 
 of Reformation ? No. Was his advice ever asked 
 in the business ? No. licylin, indeed, tells us 
 thai he tendered his assistance to Cranmer, but 
 that the Archbishop, knowing the man, declined 
 the offer.J The leller from Cranmer to Calvin, 
 dated 1551, which has been so much relied upon, 
 related simply to the ])roject of a general standard 
 of faith for Protestants ; it was, indeed, a circular 
 
 • Epist. Eondin. p. 915. lib. iv. epist 780. 
 f HjkI. p. 930 iil). iv. cpibl. 813. 
 
 * History of the Ueformation of the Church of England, p .<55. 
 
LET. XI LIFE OF DR. RODGERS. 421 
 
 Jcitter written to a number of eminent foreign Re- 
 formers, in pursuance of the advice of Melancthon, 
 already mentioned, and written, too, before Calvin 
 had advanced those opinions, rchitive to the divine 
 decrees, which produced so violent a rupture, the 
 moment they were advanced, even in Geneva 
 itself. 
 
 What is the inevitable conclusion from all these 
 facts? That there was no tendency in the Re- 
 formers of the Church of England to those pe- 
 culiar dogmas, which constitute what is now called 
 the system of Calvinism. The opinions of Melanc- 
 thon, when he was so urgently and perseveringly 
 solicited to settle in England, were perfectly well 
 known. Speculations on the subject of indivi- 
 dual predestination he held in utter abhorrence. 
 He maintained both the universality and the de- 
 fectihility of grace. So far from believing in the 
 doctrine of the perseverance of the Saints, he ex- 
 pressly asserted, that the Saints may fall from 
 grace both totally and finally,* The theological 
 professorship of Cambridge was still kept open for 
 his acceptance, even after he had warned Cran- 
 mer to beware of those stoical doctrines which he 
 imputed to Calvin, and for which he did not 
 hesitate to characterize him as the Zeno of his 
 time.t 
 
 * This has been already proved by distinct references to the works 
 of Melancthon and Lutlier. 
 
 f The theoloj^ical professorship was kept open for Melancthon froro 
 1551 to 1553, and his letter to Cranmer, relative to the importance of 
 gnardmj^ ag:ainst the doctrine of n stoical fate, was written in 1548, 
 
422 EXAMINATION OF DR. MILLER's LET. XI, 
 
 But we have evidence of a much more decisive 
 character on this subject; — evidence which must 
 place the question before us, with all dispassionate 
 inquirers, entirely beyond the reach of dispute. 
 
 4. In the whole progress of the Reformation of 
 the Church of England, we find great reference to 
 Lutheran standards, and to the works of Lutheran 
 authors. Jt will conduce to a clearer view of the 
 subject to divide the English Reformation into se- 
 veral distinct periods: — L From its commence- 
 ment to the year 1551, when Cranmer was di- 
 rected to draw up a book of Articles. 2. The pe- 
 riod during which the Articles in question wer6 
 digested and prepared. 3. The re-organization of 
 the Church upon the accession of Elizabeth to the 
 throne. 
 
 In the year 1536 the fir^it public attempt at a re- 
 formation of religious opinion was made in Eng- 
 land. A code of doctrine was then set forlhy 
 entitled, " Articles devised by the King's High- 
 ness Majesty, to stablish Christian quietness and 
 unity among us, and to avoid contentious opinions; 
 which Articles be also approved by the consent 
 and determination of the whole Clergy of thi^ 
 realm." 
 
 Now, it is remarkable that this measure was 
 adopted in compliance with the advice given by 
 Melancthon, in a letter to King Henry, in the 
 preceding year — " Nor do I doubt but that these 
 
 In the year 1552, Melancthon styled Calvin Zeno, m letters to his cor- 
 retpontlents, and struck the article, De Electione, out of the Form of 
 Concord between the Cliurches of Zurich and Genera. 
 
LET. XI. LIFE OF DR. RODGERS. 488 
 
 religious controversies might be softened, if your 
 Royal Majesty would exert your authority to in- 
 cline other Kings to moderation, as well as deli- 
 berate with learned men concerning the true kind 
 of doctrine. For there is not the least doubt that 
 certain abuses, too flagrant to be concealed, have 
 crept into the Church; neither have Kings taken 
 proper care that there should be set forth a simple 
 
 and explicit form of doctrine D. Antonius, (Dr. 
 
 Barnes, then Henry's ambassador in Germany, 
 and afterwards a martyr) hath discoursed with us 
 concerning articles of faith, with the utmost confi- 
 dence and attention, concerning which I have 
 given him, at full length, my opinion in writing."" 
 The articles drawn up in consequence of this 
 letter, were Lutheran in their character. On the 
 important subject of justification, the very lan- 
 guage of Melancthon was literally translated — 
 " The word justification signifieth remission of our 
 sins, and our acceptation or reconciliation into the 
 grace and favour of God."t Now mark the lan- 
 guage of Melancthon on this subject — " Justifica- 
 tio significat remissionem peccatorum, et reconci- 
 liationem, seu acceptationem personae ad vitam 
 
 8eternam."t 
 
 In the year 1537, was published what is called 
 the Bishops' Book, as having .been composed 
 chiefly by the Bishops of the Church; and in the^ 
 year 1543, the King's Book, or, " A necessary 
 Doctrine and Erudition for any Christian Man." 
 
 Epist.Londin. p. 11. f Articles drawn up in 1536. 
 
 ^ Loci Thtolojfici de €»Mtia et ^nstific. 
 
124 CXAMINATION OF DR. MlLLER^S LET. Xf* 
 
 These works are admitted to hold a language, on 
 the subjects of redemption, grace, free-will, funda- 
 mentally different from the language of Calvin. On 
 the contrary, they will be found, upon minute exa- 
 mination, says Dr. Laurence, to have adopted " not 
 only the ideas, but sometimes the very language of 
 the Lutherans."* Now, where are we to look for 
 the reformed doctrine of the Church of England, as 
 held in the reign of Henry VIII. ? Undoubtedly to 
 the work published in 1543, entitled, " Necessary 
 Doctrine and Erudition for any Christian Man ;" a 
 work full, as we have seen, of Lutheran ideas, and 
 even of Lutheran language. It is true, this work 
 contains a good deal of Romish superstition. 
 The progress from error to truth was gradual. But, 
 on the subjects connected with the CalviniStic 
 controversy, precisely the same language was held 
 during the ensuing reign; the doctrine of the 
 Church under Henry VIII. continued to be her 
 doctrine under Edward VI. In reference to tran 
 substantiation, and some other popish errors, the 
 English Reformers changed their opinions; but 
 their language relative to redemption, predestina- 
 tion, grace, and free-will, was uniform from the 
 very earliest stages of the Reformation to its com- 
 plete settlement in the year 1553. 
 
 This brings ue to the second period — that in 
 which the Articles of the Church of England were 
 finally prepared and adopted. And here the refer- 
 
 • It would occupy too much space to give the nccess.ary extracts. 
 1 iicy may be seen in Ur. Laurence's J^ampton Lectures ; particularly jh 
 nutc 17 to strmon fifth. 
 
LET. XI. LIFt OF L)R. RODGERS. 425 
 
 ence to Lutheran authorities was ample and deci- 
 sive. Cranmer appears to have kept his eye stea- 
 dily fixed upon the noble Confession of Augsburo:, 
 the production of Mehmcthon ; whom he admired 
 and vahied more than any of the Reformers. Some 
 of the Articles of the Church of England, it has 
 been already shown,* were copied, almost lite- 
 rally, from the Confession in question; while, in 
 others, we meet with the doctrine of that Confes- 
 sion, if not its precise language.! 
 
 * See Letter viii. of this work. 
 
 •j- It is asserted in the Christian Observer, t tliat " the qualifying 
 clause of the seventeenth Article is nearly copied from Calvin's Insti- 
 tutes ;" and that " the latter part of the clause is a literal translation of 
 that Reformer's caution ag-ainst the abuse of the doctrine of predestina- 
 tion." But no authority is g-ive» fortius assertion; it is rested simply on 
 a comparison of the lanj^uage of two passages of Calvin's Institutes 
 with the Englisli translation of the seventeenth Article. Let us put 
 down tog-ether the words of the Latin Article, and tlie passages cited 
 from Calvin by the Christian Observer, and we sliall find such a differ- 
 ence between them, as repels, instead of leading to, the conclusion, 
 that the one was copied from the other. 
 
 " Deinde promissiones divinas sic amplecti opportet, ut nobis in sa« 
 oris Uteris ^eneraHter propositae sunt, et Dei voluntas in nostris ac- 
 tionibus ea sequnda est, quam in vcrbo Dei habemus dlserte revelatam.'* 
 Latin Article. 
 
 " Suis promissionlbus (Dens) vult nos esse oontentos neque alibi 
 quxrere an futurus sit nobis exorabilis."§ " Proinde in rebus agendis 
 eaest nobis perspicienli Dei voluntas quam verbo suo declarat."|j 
 
 Tlie whole complexion of the seventeenth Article differs, funda- 
 mentally, from the laugtiage of Calvin's Institutes. The Article is si- 
 lent on the subject of reprobation. Put Calvin sets fjrlh the decree of 
 reprobation just as explicitly as the decree of election; asserting that 
 the one cannot possibly stand without the other. With Calvin, the 
 decree of God is, '* de unoquoque homine ," it fixes the fate of each 
 individual person.lf But mark the collective character of the language 
 
 A Vol. Hi. p. 438. § Instiii. '24. 5. |j Ibiil i. 17. 5. 
 
 ^ " Prseilestinationem vocamus cteniuni Dei tlocret.ini, quo apud se consti- 
 tutum habuit, quid de unociuoque homine fieri vellct." Just. lib. Hi. cap. 2l» 
 sect. 5. 
 
 54 
 
426 EXAMINATION OP DR. MILLER's LET. XI. 
 
 If we pass to the third period — that of the re- 
 organization of the Church under Elizabeth— we 
 
 used by our Church. Predestination she considers as relating to "those 
 whom God hath chosen in Christ out of mankind."—" Quos elegit ex 
 liominum genere." Language of this kind frequently occurs in the 
 writings of Melancthon and Luther ;— never in those of Calvin. We 
 can be at no loss, therefore, to determine with whom the English Re- 
 formers symbolized on this important subject. Let me present you 
 with a few passages from the works of Melancthon, and beg you to 
 compare them with the Latin Article of the Church of England, 
 
 quoted in the preceding page. " Quod Pater xternus in genere 
 
 humano elegerit sibi Ecclesiam." Loci Theoligici, Art. de Deo, p. 22. 
 
 " Recte dicitur causam election is esse misericordiam in voluntate Dei, 
 qui non \ailt perire totum genus humanurn, sed propter Filiian coUigit et 
 servat Ecclesiain, . . . Sed tamen in accipiente concurrere oportet appre- 
 hensionem promissionis, seu agnitionem Christi. Nam idea electi sumus, 
 quia efficinmr membra Christi." Ibid. p. 473. And again, in a passage al- 
 ready alluded to : " Revelavit arcanum decretion de remissione pecca- 
 torum propter Filium, et coUigit sibi ex tarn corrupta massa humani 
 generis Ecclesiam." Disput. Lnth. Opera, vol. ii. p. 505. 
 
 " Et si alia subtiliter de electione disputari fortasse possunt, tamen 
 prodest piis tenere, quod promissio sit universalis. Nee debemus de 
 voluntate Dei aliter judicare, quam juxta verbum revelatnm, et scire 
 
 debemus, quod Deus prseceperit, ut credamus Nos igitur simpli- 
 
 citer interpretamur banc sententiam universalitery * Deus vult omnes ho- 
 mines salvos fieri,' scilicet, quod ad ipsius voluntatem attinet" Opera, 
 vol. iv. p. 498, 499. " Hxc universalia dicta de promissione teneamus, 
 et opponamui tentationi de particularitatCy cum disputant mentes, an 
 iint in numero electorum ? Ab hac disputatione ad revelatam Dei vo- 
 luntatem in Evangelio deducamur, et credamus cxpresso verbo Dei, et 
 nos in universalem promissionem includamus, sciamus earn ad nos quo- 
 que pertinere, sciamui Filium Dei veracem nuncium esse, per quem 
 prolata est promissio ex sinu xterni Patris, nee Jingamus de eadem re 
 contradictorias voluntatcs in Deo, quia Deus verax est. Hanc consola- 
 tionem sumptam ex verbo espresso teneamus, ncc ipsos inextricubi/ibut 
 labyrintlus disputationum implicemus, qua Jidem evertunt." Vol. iv. p. 
 80. " Item. Rom. viii. * Quos elegit, hos et vocavil.' Dulcem, aalnta- 
 
 rem, et multiplicem sonsolationem continet hxc setentia Secunda 
 
 consolatio est, quod monet hxc sententia non removendum esse vocati- 
 onem a consilio election is. Elegit Deus, qui vocarc nos ad Filii agni- 
 lioncm dt$revitf et vult gencri humam siuun voluntatem et sua benefinm 
 
LET. XI. LIFE OF DR. RODOERB. 427 
 
 find the same reference to Lutheran authori- 
 ties. The Articles, which had been established iu 
 the reign of Edward, were adopted, in general, 
 ivord for word ; and the few additions, which were 
 made, were borrowed, not from aCalvinistic quar- 
 ter, but from the Lutheran Confession of Wirtera- 
 bergh. The original document itself is still in 
 existence; exhibiting the emendations of Ed- 
 ward's Articles, apparently in the hand-writing of 
 Archbishop Parker himself, with the autographs 
 of the respective members of the convocation. 
 This instrument, says Dr. Laurence, " is nothing 
 more than an interlined and amended copy of the 
 formulary which had been adopted in the preced- 
 ing reign."* 
 
 We see, then, the state of things in England 
 in the year 1562. In the re-modelling of the 
 
 innotescere. Approbat igitur et digit obtemperantes vocationi." Zo^t 
 Theolog. de Prxdest. p. 475. See also p. 473. 
 
 Mark the striking resemblance between the language of the seven- 
 leenth Article, relative to the danger of viewing the predestination bf 
 God as fixing the fate of individuals, and tliat held by Luther. " Unde 
 illos," says the article, " diabolus protrudit, vel in desperationein, vel 
 in ceque perniciosam impurissimx vitx securitatem." On the same subject 
 Luther thus writes — " E contra ii, qui sentiunt Dei voluntatem ncMi 
 esse, ut bmnes salventur, ant in desperatioiiem ruunt, ant in ^ecurissimam 
 impietatem dissolvuntur.'" P^ostill. Domest. p. 58. 
 
 The following language of Bucer, in explaining Melancthon's doc- 
 trine, harmonizes perfectly with our seventeenth Article — •* Qui de 
 hoc (viz. de predestinatione) dubitat, nee vocatum se et justificatum 
 esse credere poterit, hoc est, nequit esse Christian'is. Presumendum 
 igitur, ut principium fidei, nos omnes a Deo esse prje>citos, prxfinitos, 
 separates a reliquis, et selectos in hec, ut eternum servemur, Aocque 
 propositum Dei mutari non posse." Enarrat. m JittmaTif p. 360. Sre 
 Laur€nce*s Bampton Lecturesy p. 428 — 435. 
 
 * IJampton Lectures, p. 41, 332. 
 
428 EXAMINATION OF DR. MILLEr's LET. XI. 
 
 Church at that period, no reference was had to 
 Calvin or his doctrine, but to Lutheran authori- 
 ties. The system originally established by Cran- 
 nier, in coinpiling which he had borroAved very 
 largely from the Lutheran Confession of Augs- 
 burir, was restored, with very few and immaterial 
 alterations. Articles were adopted which do not 
 sanction a single peculiarity of Calvinism, and in 
 which some of its most important peculiarities are 
 expressly contradicted ; so much so that at a later 
 period, when Calvinism became more powerful, 
 its advocates laboured strenuously to alter the lan- 
 guage of the Articles, as adopted in 1562, and to 
 introduce additional Articles setting forth the dis- 
 tinguishing doctrines of their favourite creed. In 
 fact, Calvinism did not become formidal;le in 
 England until towards the close of the reign of 
 Elizabeth. The accurate historian, Strype, ex- 
 pressly tells us that " Calvin's way of explaining 
 the divine decrees was not entertained by many 
 learned men in the university of Cambridge be- 
 fore the year 15'J5."* Originally introduced from 
 Geneva by the English Refugees upon their re- 
 turn to their native country, it was zealously pro- 
 pagated by Cartwright while Margaret Professor 
 01 Divinity at Cam ridge, and its growth greatly 
 cherished and promoted there, by the learned 
 "Whitaker. At length, it succeeded so far as to 
 become the prevailing doctrine at Cambridge. 
 But what v\us the consequence ? No sooner did 
 
 • Life of Whitgift, p. ^35. 
 
LET. Xr. LIFE OF DR. RODfiERS. 429 
 
 the Calvinisis at Cambridge perceive tlieir stren2:tli, 
 than they began to show their dissatisractiori with 
 the standards of the Cliurch of England, by draw- 
 ing up the Lambeth Articles, and endeavouring to 
 get them established by public autiiority. Not 
 lono; after was held the celebrated conference at 
 Hampton Court, where another unsuccessful at- 
 tempt was made by the Calvinists to procure the 
 adoption of the Lambelh Articles. Proceeding 
 forward a few years we come to the period of the 
 famous Synod of Dort. The state of opinion 
 among the clergy of the Church of England, at 
 this time, will appear from the following passage 
 from Mosheim. " Scarcely had the British di- 
 vines returned from the Synod of Dort, and given 
 an account of the laws that had been enacted, 
 and the doctrines that had been established, by 
 that famous Assembly, than the King, together 
 with the greatest part of the Episcopal Clergy, 
 discovered, in the strongest terms, their disFike of 
 these proceedings, and judged the sentiments of 
 Arminius, relating to the divine decrees, prefera- 
 ble to those of Gomarus and Calvin."* 
 
 5. I proceed to notice, distinctly, a very import- 
 ant fact on this subject; a fact, indeed, which is, 
 of itself, sufficient to determine the controversy. 
 
 Cranmer was ordered to draw up a book of Ar- 
 ticles in the year 1551. The book was compiled 
 and laid before the Bishops of the different dio- 
 cesses in the same year, and was finally published, 
 
 * Ecclesiasticra History, vol. v, p. 372, 375, 
 
430 EXAMINATION OF DR. MILLER's LET. XI, 
 
 with authority, early in the year 1553. Now the 
 peciiUar opinions of Calvin were not promulged 
 until late in the year 1551, when he was attacked 
 in open Church by Bolsec, for preaching the doc- 
 trine of absolute decrees. His first tract on the 
 subject of Predestination was not pubHshed until 
 the year 1552.* Thus it appears, from a compa- 
 rison of dates, that the peculiar system of Calvin 
 could not possibly have had influence upon the 
 Reformation of the Church of England ; the Arti- 
 cles of that Church having been drawn up before 
 the system in question had been communicated to 
 the world. 
 
 6. The circumstances, attending the preparation 
 of the Liturgy of the Church of England, furnish 
 additional evidence that her Reformers were under 
 a Lutheran, rather than a Calvinistic biass. In 
 purifying the offices of the Church, they followed, 
 in a great degree, a Liturgy that had been re- 
 cently prepared by Melancthon and Bucer for the 
 Archbishoprick of Cologne. Where the forms of 
 the Enghsh Liturgy vary from the ancient forms, 
 they are generally fashioned after those which 
 were used, as above mentioned, in the Arch- 
 bishoprick of Cologne \ indeed, they are often lite- 
 ral translations from them.f Calvin, while set- 
 tled at Strasburg, used, in public worship, a li- 
 turgy of his own composition : after translating it 
 into Latin, and introducing some alterations, he 
 
 • It has been shown, in tliis letter, that the Institutes of Calvin, as 
 first published, could not have contained his predestinarian scheme. 
 t Sec Laurence's Bampton Lectures, p. 197 — 801, 282, 283. 
 
LET. XI. LIF15 OF DR. R0D6BRS. 431 
 
 established it as the public form of the Church of 
 Geneva in the year 1545. The EngHsh Liturgj 
 first appeared in 1548. Now it is to be particu- 
 larly observed, that the EngHsh Liturgy of 1548^ 
 bears no resemblance whatever to the prochiction 
 of Calvin ; and we have just seen that it was in a 
 great measure derived from the Liturgy of Cologne, 
 prepared by Melancthon. But further — A new 
 translation of the work of Calvin, with alterations 
 and additions, was made in the year 1551, by 
 Valerandus PoUanus, who then resided in Eng- 
 land. The English Liturgy was revised and re- 
 published in 1552; and it is a very important fact 
 that many of the additions and alterations, then 
 introduced, were derived, or, at least, the hint of 
 them was taken, from the work of Pollanus. For 
 example, the Introductory Sentences, Exhortation, 
 Confession, and Absolution were added to the 
 English Liturgy at the revision, in 1552; as were 
 also the Ten Commandments, with the responses 
 subjoined to them, at the beginning of the Com- 
 munion Service. All this was suggested by the 
 translation of Pollanus, not by that of Calvin* 
 for the decalogue and an office of absolution are 
 contained in the former, and not in the latter. 
 The circumstances just detailed prove either that 
 the English Reformers were unacquainted with 
 the work of Calvin, or that they did not think it 
 a fit subject of imitation.* 
 
 7. InthePteformation of the Church of England 
 
 * See Laurence's Bampton Lectures, p. 197, !98, 199, ^S"^. 
 
132 EXAMINATION OF Dli. MILLER's LET. Xb 
 
 under Edward, an article was adopted, asserting 
 the descent of Christ, into Hell. Now this is a 
 tenet against which Calvin had declared with 
 great violence; being so enraged with his friend 
 Castellio for embracing it as even to banish him 
 from Geneva.* 
 
 8. The English Reformers differed materially 
 from Calvin as to the ground on which they rested 
 the canon of Scripture. 
 
 The Church of Rome referred the question of 
 the canonicalness or uncanonicalness of any book, 
 not simply to the testimony of the Church, but to 
 her decisive authority. Calvin rejected this crite- 
 rion altogether, and substituted for it the testi- 
 mony of the Spirit. For, in reference to the 
 question — who shall determine whether this or 
 that book is to be received — he thus writes — " Be- 
 cause religion, with profane man, is seen to stand 
 only in opinion; least they should believe fool- 
 
 * The followinj^ language of Ecza will show that he was far Irom 
 considering the Reformation of the Church of Ergland as fashioned 
 upon a Calvinistic model. 
 
 " As to what regards tlie English Reformation, when you say that 
 it was established with the advice, and according to the mind of Bucer, 
 you do a great injury to this excellent man, who, when he was in that 
 kingdom, at the beginning of the evangelical reformation there, deeply 
 lamented that a greater degree of rationality in discipline and purity 
 of rites had not been observed in organizing the Church. In certain 
 letters to a very dear friend in Canterburj', on the 12th Jan. 1550, he 
 thus writes — As to what you say with respect to the purity of the rites, 
 
 know that no foreigner here is consulted about these matters " He, 
 
 (Bucer) a little before his d#ath, wrote these things, that he by no 
 means acquiesced in the English form, of which you falsely and impu- 
 <kntly make him the author." fiez<t Tractationes Theolo^ictt, vol. a. 
 
LET. XI. LIFE OF DR. RODGERS. 43S 
 
 ishly or lig:iitly, they desire and demand to be 
 proved to them by reason, that Mosea and the 
 Prophets spoke with divine authority. But 1 an- 
 swer that the testimony of the Spirit is better than 
 any reason. For as God alone is a sufilciont wit'» 
 ness of himself in his word; so likewise, the word 
 will not find faith in the hearts of men, before it 
 is signed to them by the inward testimony of th« 
 Spirit." 
 
 The same test is adopted in the Belgic and 
 Westminister Confessions, but in no Confession 
 of the Lutheran Church, nor in any of the writ- 
 ings of her great Reformers. If the Lutheran 
 Church had adopted such a test, she would hav© 
 inserted it, of course, in the Augsburg Confession; 
 and the Council of Trent, in their decrees relative 
 to the Holy Scriptures, would not have failed to 
 point it out as an heretical innovation. 
 
 The English Reformers, with their usual mo- 
 deration and good sense, avoided the different ex- 
 tremes on this subject. They declared the Church 
 to be " a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ;" 
 thus resting the canon of Scripture neither on the 
 mere authority of the Church on the one hand, 
 nor on the simple testimony of the Spirit on the 
 other. 
 
 In this fundamental point, then, the Church 
 of England agrees with the Lutherans, while she 
 totally differs from Calvin ; — which is a very strong 
 circumstance to show that she did not propose 
 Calvin as her doctrinal guide in the work of Re* 
 formation. For, " that the said Church," to use 
 
 55 
 
434 EXAMINATION OF DR. MILLER's LET. XL 
 
 the language of Bishop White, " in framing her 
 Articles, should take this Reformer for her guide 
 on predestination and its kindred points ; and yet 
 run so ^vide of him as to the source from which alone 
 light is to be gathered concerning these matters 
 and all others, seems altogether improbable."* 
 
 9. The very great respect paid by the English 
 Rerformcrs to the Paraphrase of Erasmus, is, of 
 itself, sufficient to decide the question relative 
 to the supposed tendency of those Reformers to- 
 ward the pecuHar tenets of Calvinism. By a 
 royal injunction, issued in the beginning of Ed- 
 ward's reign, the Paraphrase of the Gospel was 
 ordered to be placed in every parish Church, that 
 the people might have an opportunity of reading 
 it; while another injunction directed that the whole 
 Paraphrase should be in the hands of all the clergy 
 below the station of Bachelors in Divinity, and 
 that they should, moreover, be examined in it by 
 the Bishops. This is a circumstance the force of 
 which can never be eluded.f It is positively ri- 
 diculous, in the face of such a fact, to talk of the 
 Calvinism of the English Reformers. 
 
 10. The Church of England varies more fronr 
 
 * churchman's Magazine, new series, vol. iii. p. 20, 21. 
 f The attention paid to the Paraphrase of Erasmus was distinctly 
 noticed in the eighth Letter of tliis work ; but, in an enumeration of 
 circumstances which prove that the English Reformers were under a 
 Lutheran, and not under a Culvinistic biass, it seemed proper again to 
 mention the fact. 1 might go on to show the opinions of the English 
 Reformers from their private writings ; but, beside that this has been- 
 sufficiently done already, my object now is briefly to state some ot 
 tliose public circumstances which point out the true character and ten- 
 dency of the English Keformation. 
 
LET. XI. LIFE OF DR. RO DGERS. 43^5 
 
 that of Geneva, in point of government and disci- 
 pline, than from any other of the continental 
 Churches. Now, what can be more improbal^le 
 than that she should have adopted as her model, in 
 point of doctrine, a Church from which she dif- 
 fers, in respect of government and discipline, so 
 fundamentally. To be sure, a presumption of this 
 kind must yield to positive evidence of a contrary 
 nature; but no such evidence has over been pro- 
 duced. The correspondence between Calvin and 
 the English Reformers was very limited; it took 
 place, moreover, before he had brought forward 
 his peculiar theory of Predestination. Besides, 
 there is evidence of much greater intimacy be- 
 tween the English Reformers and Calvin's great 
 opponent — the wise Melancthon. 
 
 In proof of your position that the English Re- 
 formers were doctrinal Calvinists, you go on to 
 speak of the very great respect which was paid to 
 Calvin's Institutes, in the universities of England, 
 " for a number of years during the reigns of Eli- 
 zabeth and James." 
 
 You surely know that the Articles were origin- 
 ally established while Edward VI. was on the 
 throne, and were re-established, after the Marian 
 persecution, in the early part of the reign of Eli- 
 zabeth. Elizabeth came to the throne in the year 
 1568, and died in the year 1603. The Calvin- 
 istic opinions, it is very true, became somewhat 
 powerful in the Church of England toward the 
 dose of her reign; but it would appear, from th^: 
 
436 EXAMINATION OF DR. MILLER's LET. Xi, 
 
 most accurate testimony, that they were not em- 
 braced by many learned men of the University of 
 Cambridge until so late as the year 1595, and that 
 they were not then understood to be certainly 
 the sense of the Articles even by those by whom 
 they were most zealously espoused.* 
 
 How very singular, then^ is your mode of proof! 
 You assert, positively, that the leading Reformers 
 of the Church of England were doctrinal Calvin- 
 lets, and, by way of proof, relate an event belong- 
 ing to the latter part of the reign of Elizabeth, 
 and to the reign of her successor James, — a period 
 posterior by more than thirty years to the re-set- 
 tlement of the Church under Elizabeth, and by 
 more than forty years to its original Reformation, 
 in the reign of Edward VI. Instead of bring- 
 ing forward the opinions of Cranmer, Ridley, and 
 Latimer, or those of their illustrious successors 
 who re-organized the Church upon the death of 
 Queen Mary, you refer to a fact the only ten- 
 dency of which is to throw light on the opinions 
 which prevailed in the Church of England in the 
 last years of the sixteenth century, when the 
 original Reformers under Edward were certainly, 
 and their successors in the commencement of the 
 reign of Elizabeth were probably in their graves. 
 But, to do you justice — " Let those who deny 
 the Calvinism of the early Reformers and stand- 
 ards of the Church of England, impartially con- 
 sult Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, the Lambeth Ar- 
 
 * Sec Strype*« Life of Whitpift, p. 435. 
 
LET. XI. LIFE OF DR. UODOERS. 437 
 
 tides, the writings of Hall, Davenant, and Hors- 
 ley, and they will perceive, and be ashamed ol 
 their mistake." 
 
 Well, Sir, where is your proof of the Calvinism 
 of Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer? Not one word 
 have you, or your guide, Mr. Overton, ventured 
 to produce from their writings. 1 call upon you to 
 substantiate your assertion. No, Sir, the English 
 Reformers were decidedly opposed to the shock- 
 ing principles of Calvin. Not one of those prin- 
 ciples did they embrace. This has been com- 
 pletely proved from their private writings, and 
 from the Articles and Homilies which they pro- 
 vided for the government and instruction of the 
 Church.* 
 
 " The Lambeth Articles" — Suppose Archbishop 
 Whitgift did declare these Articles to be consistent 
 with the formularies of the Church of England. 
 This would only prove that the Archbishop was 
 tinctured with Calvinism, and disposed to see the 
 standards of the Church through a Calvinistic 
 medium. But you have forgotten to inform your 
 readers that the Lambeth Articles gave great of- 
 fence, that they were immediately ordered to be 
 suppressed, and the Divines concerned in drawing 
 them up threatened with a premunire. So far 
 from proving, therefore, that the Reformers in 
 1652, and 1562, nearly half a century before, 
 were Calvinists, the case of the Lambeth Articles 
 does not even prove that the Church of England 
 was Calvinistic at the time the Articles were com- 
 
 * See Letter viii. of this work, 
 
i38 EXAMlNATlOiN OF DR. MILLER's LET. XC. 
 
 posed. It is, indeed, evident, from the affair in 
 question, that Calvinism prevailed to a considera- 
 ble degree ; but it is equally evident that it was 
 not triumphant: — on the contrary, it appears to 
 have been viewed, both at court and in the uni- 
 versity, wilh deep disapprobation. 
 
 You appeal to the writings of Hall and Dave- 
 nant in proof of the Calvinism of the early Re- 
 formers of the Church of England. Now, Hall 
 and Davenant, you surely know, were not of the 
 number of those Reformers. Bishop Hall was 
 born in the year 1574, and Bishop Davenant in 
 1576; w^hereas the Church was settled under Ed- 
 xvard in 1552, and re-settled under Elizabeth in 
 1562. 
 
 But perhaps Hall and Davenant have written 
 unanswerable treatises to prove the Calvinism of 
 the English Reformers — Nothing of the kind, I be- 
 lieve, has ever been pretended. 
 
 Admit that Hall and Davenant were Calvinists 
 — Does it follow that the great men who reformed 
 the Church of England before Hall and Dave- 
 nant were born, were Calvinists also? 
 
 But Hall and Davenant were very far from 
 being disciples of Calvin. No other proof of this 
 need be cited than the part which they acted in 
 their attendance upon the Synod of Dort. They 
 there publicly opposed the rigid doctrines of Cal- 
 vinism ; maintaining the universality of Redemp- 
 tion, and the sufficiency of grace for the conver- 
 sion and salvation of all men.* Is it not absurd 
 
 • Sec Brandt and Collier. 
 
LET. XI. LIFE OF DR. RODGERS. 431H 
 
 to call such men disciples of one who held that 
 Christ died simply for the elect, and that eilec- 
 tual grace is given to them alone? 
 
 Of the strong dislike of Bishop Hall to the vio . 
 lent opinions and language of Calvin, there is 
 abundant evidence on record. Let nic present 
 you with a short specimen — " When we say Christ 
 died for mankind, we mean that Christ died for 
 the benefit of mankind. Now let this benefit be 
 distinguished, and contentions hereabouts will 
 cease. For if this benefit be considered as the 
 remission of sins, and the salvation of our souls; 
 these are benefits obtainable only upon the condi- 
 tions of faith and repentance: on the one side, no 
 man will say, that Christ died to this end to pro- 
 cure forgiveness and salvation to every one, whe- 
 ther they believe and repent, or no. So, on the 
 other, none will deny that he died to this end^ 
 that salvation and remission should redound to all 
 and to every one, in case .they should believe and 
 repent. For this depends upon the sufficiency of 
 that price which our Saviour paid for the re- 
 demption of the ivorld?''^ 
 
 " If some Divines shall defend the rigid opi- 
 Hions of predestination, surely the Church is a col- 
 lective body, so it hath a tongue of her own, 
 speaking by the common voice of her Synods^ 
 ef her public Confessions, Articles, Constitutions, 
 Catechism, Liturgies: what she says in them 
 must pass for her own; but if any single persoE^ 
 
 * Hail's Woiks, val. ili, p. 574 
 
440 EXAMINATION OF DR. MILLER's LET. Xf. 
 
 shall take upon himself, unauthorized, to be the 
 mouth of the Church, his insolence is justly cen- 
 surable."* 
 
 " The secret things belong unto the Lord our 
 God, but those things which are revealed belong 
 unto us, and to our children for ever, that we 
 may do all the words of this law :" wherein our 
 main care must be not to sever in our conceit the 
 end from the means, and withal to take the means 
 along with us in our way to the end. It is for the 
 heavenly Angels to climb down the ladder from 
 heaven to earth: it is for us only to climb up from 
 earth to heaven. Bold men ! what do we begin 
 at God's eternal decree of our election, and then 
 descend to the effects of it in our effectual calling, 
 in our lively and steadfast faith, in our sad and 
 serious repentance, in our holy and unblameable 
 obedience, in our infallible perseverance. This 
 course is saucily preposterous. What have we 
 to do to be rifling the hidden counsels of the Most 
 High: let us look to our own ways. We have his 
 word for this, that if we do truly believe, repent, 
 obey, persevere, we shall be saved : that if we 
 heartily desire and effectually endeavour, in the 
 careful use of his appointed means, to attain unto 
 these saving dispositions of the soul, we shall not 
 fail of the desired success. What need we to 
 look further than conscionably and cheerfully to 
 do what we are enjoined, and faithfully and com- 
 fortably to expect what he hath promised."! 
 
 • Hall's Works, vol. iii. p. 45. 
 
 I Bishop Hall't Remedy of Profanencss, sect, xviii. vol. iii. p. 89 
 
LET. XI. LIFE OF DR. RODGERS. 441 
 
 " Neither doth God only admit, but lie invites, 
 but he entreats, but he iin[)oitunes men to be 
 saved. What could he do more, utiless he would 
 offer violence to the will, which were no other 
 than to destroy the best piece of his own work- 
 manship. It is the way of his decree and pro- 
 ceedings to dispose of all things sweetly, neither 
 is it more against our nature than his to force 
 his own ends : and when he sees that fair means 
 will not prevail to win us from death, he is pleased 
 feelingly to bemoan it as his own loss : " Why will 
 ye die, O house of Israel r"* 
 
 Bishop Hall did not hesitate to distinguish the 
 rigid notions of predestination maintained at the 
 Synod of Dort, by the title of the " Belgic Dis- 
 ease;" and in speaking of the unsound and un- 
 scriptural comments and glosses of the strict fol- 
 lowers of Calvin, he contemptuously represents 
 them as fished out of the lake of Geneva. 
 
 No, Sir, no — The Reformers of the Church of 
 England were very far from being disciples of 
 Calvin — They were very far from establishing 
 Calvinistic Articles of Faith. Instead of the eter- 
 nal and unconditional ordination of some persons 
 to future happiness, and of others to misery, they 
 taught a predestination of fallen man to the mer- 
 cies of God in Christ ; or, if individual destiny 
 was in their view, they taught simply a predesti- 
 nation to life founded on prescience. Instead of 
 the doctrine of partial redemption, they set fortlr 
 
 " Bishop Hall's Remedv of Profaneness. spcf^. xv vol, ill, p, 9^ 
 
 5G 
 
442 EXAMINATION OF DR. MILLER's LET. SI. 
 
 the death of Christ as a propitiation for the sins 
 of the whole world. Fallen man they described 
 as /ar, not as totally gone from original righteous- 
 ness. To the doctrine of irresistible grace, and 
 its necessary concomitant, the passiveness of man 
 in conversion, and his perseverance in grace, not 
 from his own will, but from the immutability of 
 the decree of election, they were utter strangers; 
 for they expressly taught that God worketh with us 
 and is our continual help; and that after falling 
 from grace we may, and of course may not arise 
 again and amend our lives. " When the Reform- 
 ers spoke of the ruin occasioned by the fall, they 
 modestly hesitated to define the precise extent of 
 this ruin, and seemed still to recognize in some of 
 those natural graces which survive the fall, certain 
 relics of divinity — as the noble fragments scat- 
 tered here and there in the ' marble waste,' in- 
 dicate the original majesty of the fallen city 
 
 When they spoke of the influences of the Holy 
 Spirit, they feared to paint man as an inert mass, 
 waiting for a ray from Heaven ; but urged all to 
 seek the aid which all need. The rebellionists, 
 on the contrary, presented a coarser exhibition of 
 these doctrines. As to original sin, they described 
 us not as men but as devils. As to faith, they 
 taught its necessity, but left accident, or human 
 corruption, to describe its effects. They taught 
 the efficacy of the Spirit, but would have men 
 merely wait in passive tranquillity for the impulse 
 of hght."* 
 
 ' British Review, vol. iii. p. 489, 490. 
 
L£T. XI. LIFE OF DK. KODGERS. 44S 
 
 For what purpose have you introduced the name 
 of Bishop liorslcy ? We arc to peruse his writ- 
 ings, it seems, and be ashamed to doubt of the 
 Calvinism of the Reformers and Articles of the 
 Church of England. This is, certainly, very ex- 
 traordinary language. One would naturally sup- 
 pose that Bishop Horsley had expressly declared 
 the Articles of the Church of England to be 
 Calvinistic, and had expressly admitted the Cal- 
 vinism of her Reformers. But not a word of 
 the kind is to be found in his writings. Was 
 Bishop Horsley himself a Calvinist ? It is evi- 
 dently your design to induce the reader to sup- 
 pose so, although you have not thought proper to 
 assert it in so many words. Until you become 
 more explicit, and refer us to some particular part 
 of his writings in proof, it will be sufficient simply 
 to say that Bishop Horsley was not a Calvinist.* 
 
 In your Letters on the Christian Ministry you 
 assert, in very positive terms, that the Reformers 
 were all Presbyterians in principle ; most of them 
 regarding Episcopacy as a corruption, and all 
 viewing it as an institution founded in human 
 policy. But you have not ventured to go quite 
 so far in the work which we are now examin- 
 ing. You make, indeed, the same broad and 
 unqualified declarations with respect to all who 
 have in any age protested against the corruptions 
 of the Romish Church, with the single exception 
 
 * This can be very easily and abundantly proved. 
 
444 EXAMINATION OF DR. MILLER's LET. XI. 
 
 of the Reformers of the Church of England. In 
 your Letters you did not hesitate to say that Cran- 
 mor, Ridley, liatimer, Hooper, were Presbyterians 
 in principle. This assertion you have been for- 
 bearing enough not to repeat; passing the English 
 Relc)rfncrs without notice. How much more be- 
 coming would it have been, to have confessed and 
 retracted your error I After telling us that men 
 who expressly declared, in standards which they 
 drew up for the permanent government of the 
 Church, that Almighty God, by his Holy Spirit, 
 did institute the three orders of Bishops, Priests, 
 and Deacons, were Presbyterians, it is a very poor 
 compensation to the cause of truth and candour, 
 merely to abstain from repeating the assertion. 
 An ingenuous disputant would have been eager 
 to acknowledge and apologize for so great a mis- 
 statement.* 
 
 I proceed to notice some of the statements, con- 
 tained in your Life of the Rev. Dr. Rodgers, which 
 are of a nature to reflect great discredit on the 
 Episcopal Church in this country. 1 deeply re- 
 gret that you should have thought it necessary to 
 introduce them. Having made inquiry into the 
 circumstances to which they relate, I feel autho- 
 rized to declare that they are extremely inaccu- 
 rate and unjust. 
 
 • Your assertions relative to the Presbyterianism of the continental 
 RefoMners are full of inaccuracy; but tliis subject has bicn already 
 pr. iiy fully discussed in the seventh letter of this Mork, to which I 
 refer you. 
 
LET. XI. LIFE OF DR. RODGEllS. 4^15 
 
 " In the year 1760, in the midst of Mr. Rod- 
 gers' uscfuhiess at St. Geor2;e's, an event occurred, 
 which not a little niorlified him and his friends, 
 and which made considerable noise in the eccle- 
 siastical circles of America. There resided in 
 Philadelphia, at this time, the Rev. William Mc 
 Clenachan, an Episcopal clergyman, whoso preach- 
 ing was considered as more evangelical than that 
 of the generality of his brethren of the same de- 
 nomination. While this circumstance endeared 
 him to a considerable number of the Episcopalians 
 of Philadelphia, and rendered them earnestly desi- 
 rous of retaining him as their minister; it excited 
 the opposition of a still greater number, and 
 threatened to produce his exclusion from the Epis- 
 copal Church in that city. During a meeting of 
 the Synod of New-York and Philadelphia, in 
 May, 1760, the character, difficulties, and pros- 
 pects of Mr. Mc Clenachan, happening to be the 
 topic of more general and more w^arm conversa- 
 tion than usual, a number of the members of the 
 Synod were so deeply impressed with the excel- 
 lence of his character, and the probable useful- 
 ness of his ministry, and felt so much interest in 
 his continuing to reside in Philadelphia, that they 
 determined to attempt something in his behalf: 
 and accordingly addressed a letter to the Archbi- 
 shop of Canterbury, requesting him to exert his 
 official influence, in favouring Mr. Mc Clenach^ui's 
 wishes, and those of his friends, that he might 
 retain his place."* 
 
 * Life of Dr. Rodgers, p. 105, 106. 
 
4i^i tXAM [NATION OF DR. MILLER's LET. XI. 
 
 Mr. Mc Clenachan was a zealous and exem- 
 plary clergyman. In his public ministrations he 
 v/as more fervent, and insisted more upon the 
 '*vangclical doctrines of the Cross than the gene- 
 rality of his brethren. This rendered him obnoxi- 
 ous to the majority of the Episcopalians of Phila- 
 delphia, and led them to take measures to expel 
 him from the Church. 
 
 Such is vour statement. 
 
 Never was there a grosser misrepresentation of 
 facts. The conduct of Mr. Mc Clenachan was, in 
 a very high degree, reprehensible. He was not 
 only extremely factious in his temper, and inde- 
 cent in his conduct ; but there was serious ground 
 for questioning his private as well as his ministe- 
 rial integrity. Let me present you with a few 
 extracts from the letter of remonstrance addressed 
 to him by the excellent Archbishop Seeker. 
 
 " You speak of your behaviour as a Missionary; 
 and I follow you in that the more readily, as it re- 
 lates to the Society. You were appointed March 
 21, 1755: and your salary commenced from 
 Christmas preceding: But you did not embark for 
 America till August. You say it was for want of 
 a ship: And I make no objection, though the time 
 seems long. You landed at Boston October lOth, 
 and there you stayed till May following, because 
 you did not think it safe to carry your family, on 
 the eve of pointer, to the place of your mission, 
 where no house was provided for you. But might 
 not you have gone without your family, as you did 
 at last, no house being still provided for you? 
 
LET. XI. LIFE OF DR. R0DGCR3. 447 
 
 However, I pass over this also. Nor will I enter 
 into wliat hath been repurted of your hiring a 
 house at Boston for a year, some say for tlircc 
 years, as if you proposed to fix there; or of your 
 attempting; to procure a settlement in Ur. Cutler's 
 Cliurch, till you were forbidden his pulpit.... You 
 first went to Virginia; of which I shall take notice 
 afterwards; then to Philadelphia: from which city 
 you sent, June 22d, 1759, your first notification to 
 the Society of your resigning your mission; and 
 desired to have your salary paid till midsummer, 
 alleging that it wanted but two days of the time. 
 This the Society granted of course; not suspect- 
 ing that you had left the place of your mission six 
 months before, which you ought fairly to have told 
 them. And thus you received your salary for four 
 years and an half, besides gratuities of 201. and 
 were but two years and an half upon your mis- 
 sion." 
 
 " You say, that you are cruelly and umvarranta^ 
 oly thurst out of the Church, meaning Dr. Jenney's, 
 Now, from what he and others have said, 1 rather 
 conceive, that cruel and unwarrantable steps have 
 been taken to thurst you into it. But certainly 
 you v>^ere not thurst out ; for you were never legally 
 admitted." 
 
 " Yet your followers professed great zeal for the 
 peace of the Church; and you profess great grief, 
 that it is wounded; and declare in your own name 
 and theirs, that you will strictly adhere, not onl> 
 to the Liturgy and Doctrines, but to the Discipline 
 of the Charch of England. Pray, Sir, consider ; 
 
448 EXAMINATION OF 1)K. MILLER'S LET. XI, 
 
 Can you adhere to tlie Discipline of the Church 
 of England, whilst you act in defiance to the Bi- 
 shop, the Minister of the Parish, and the Vestry, 
 on principles that tend to the dissolution of all 
 Churches, and the subversion of all ecclesiastical 
 order? How could such an imagination come into 
 your mind ? And how can you request me to coun- 
 tenance such proceedings?" 
 
 ^' On what grounds do you affirm, that the doom 
 arc shut against you for teaching the doctrines of the 
 Gospel? I hope you do not account your Bishop 
 an enemy to them: And besides, his reasons for 
 declining to license you are not in the least 
 founded on the doctrines which you teach. Nor, 
 I believe, have you been charged in any letter to 
 him, nor certainly are you charged in Dr. Jenney's 
 letter to the Vestry on your dismission, with false 
 tenets, but with railing accusations. And of this 
 charge you have, in your letter to me, gone a great 
 way towards proving yourself guilty." 
 
 " Ought it not to give you a further distrust of 
 your proceedings, that no one clergyman of the 
 Church of England in America hath declared 
 himself to approve them : And that the conven- 
 tion of clergymen, which met at Philadelphia last 
 May, have strongly expressed their disapprobation 
 of your behaviour both in that convention and out 
 of it ; and have signified that they would not suf- 
 fer you to preach in any of their pulpits? Which 
 is the more probable presumption of the two? 
 That you are in the wrong, or that all the rest of 
 the Clergy are?" 
 
LET. Xr. LIFE OF dh. kodgers. 4UI 
 
 "But, for the sake of an infinitely more import- 
 ant interest, I beg you would consitler the solemn 
 promise, which you have made, ' reverently to 
 obey your Ordinary, and other chief Ministers to 
 whom the charge and government over you is 
 commiitedj' and ^ to maintain and set forwards 
 as much as in you lieth, quietness, peace, and 
 love amongst all Christian people.' But if you 
 turn a deaf ear to this entreaty, I must then beg 
 your followers, for whose perusal, as well as yours 
 this letter is intended, to remember and observe 
 St. Paul's rule, ^ Mark them which cause divi- 
 sions and offences, and avoid them.' As I have 
 written these things, if I know my own heart, in 
 the spirit of meekness, I hope you will read them 
 with the same; and not be kindled by them into 
 that ' wrath of man,' which ' worketh not the 
 righteousness of God.' Part of them, I am sen- 
 sible, must give you pain. But ' faithful are the 
 wounds of a friend:' and I am very sorry, that 
 you have allowed me no other w^ay of approving 
 myself 
 
 " Your sincere friend 
 
 " THO. CANT." 
 
 You had free access, I know, to the book con- 
 taining this letter of the Archbishop, with tUe 
 other documents relating to the subject. That you 
 should sulTer yourself, with full knowledge of the 
 true circumstances of the case, to advance such a 
 charge against the Episcopalians of Philadelphia, 
 and the Episcopal clergy of the state of Pennsyl- 
 vania generally, is to me most astonishing. J 
 
 57 
 
450 EXAIvnNATIOiN OF DR. RTILEER's LET. XE* 
 
 am far from referring it to a disposition to misre- 
 present—No, Sir, I sincerely believe that it pro- 
 ceeds from a force of prejudice, which completely 
 blinds you on every subject connected with the 
 Episcopal Churrh. 
 
 Before leaving this subject, I must do you the 
 justi e to say, that you condemn, in very decided 
 terms, the improper interference of the Presbyte- 
 rian ministers in the affair of Mr. Mc Clenachan. I 
 can also add, with perfect sincerity, that I believe 
 the address of the ministers in question to the 
 Archbishop of Canterbury was the result simply 
 of ill-regulated zeal. The address is conceived 
 in very respectful terms, and is far from breathing 
 an unfriendly spirit. 
 
 " About the year 1754, Capt. Jeremiah Owen, a 
 native of England, who had long been an exem- 
 plary member of the Presbyterian Church in New- 
 York, died, and left a legacy of 750 dollars, the 
 interest of which he directed to be applied annu- 
 ally toward the instruction of paor children of that 
 congregation, in reading, writing, and the use oi* 
 figures. Capt. Owen, having been long intimate 
 with Mr. William Ludlow, a respectable inhabit- 
 ant of the city, and a member of the Episcopal 
 Church, appointed him his executor. This le- 
 gacy, of course, with the other portions of the 
 testator's estate, came into Mr. Ludlow's hands. 
 The gentlemen who were in the habit of manag- 
 ing the temporal concerns of the Presbyteriaa 
 Church, called, soon afterward, on Mr. Ludlow, 
 and requested the payment of the money. He 
 
LET. XU LIFE OF DR. RODGERS. 451 
 
 declined complying with their request, allepring 
 that, as the Church was not incorporated, no per- 
 son or body of persons, could legally receive the 
 legacy, or give him a discharge for the same; 
 The applicants, not knowing how to remove this 
 difficulty, suspended the prosecution of their claim 
 until some more favourable opportunity might 
 arise. 
 
 " I« the mean time, the Vestry of Trinity 
 Church, being informed of the legacy, and that 
 the Trustees of the Presbyterian Church had ap- 
 plied for it in vain, made every effort to get it out of 
 Mr. Ludlow's hands, and appropriate it to their own 
 use. They entreated, remonstrated, and threat-? 
 ened ; but without success. Mr. Ludlow declared, 
 that, although he was a zealous Episcopalian; 
 yet as the money was committed to him in trust, 
 and for a very different purpose, they should neve? 
 possess it, unless they took it from him by force. 
 Finding his honesty and honour too inflexible to 
 admit the hope of getting the legacy into their 
 hands, the Vestry next proposed to Mr. Ludlow^, 
 that he should send those children, the expense 
 of whose education the interest of the legacy 
 would defray, to their charity-school, where they 
 might be instructed at the ordinary rate. But this 
 proposal also Mr. Ludlow pointedly rejected, ob- 
 serving, that Capt. Owen was a Presbyterian, of 
 long standing, and of known principle ; and that, 
 although he had not mentioned it, or made it one 
 of the conditions in his will ; it doubtless was his 
 intention, ihdii the children instnicted . by means 
 
'i52 EXAMINATION OF PR. MILLER'S LET. XI. 
 
 of his legacy, should be educated in the Presby- 
 terian faith, and attend the Presbyterian Church: 
 whereas, if the proposal of the Vestry were ac- 
 cepted, the children instructed at their scliool 
 jnust of necessity attend their Church. The 
 members of the Vestry appointed to conduct this 
 negociation, by way of answer to these remarks, 
 asked him, somewhat tartly, ' Are you not a 
 Churchman^ Sir?' ^ Yes,' he replied, M am a 
 Churchman; but I am also an honest man^ and am 
 determined to fulfil the intention of Capt. Owen, 
 to the best of my knowledge and ability.' 
 
 " The Vestry at length, despairing of success, 
 abandoned the pursuit of this legacy ; and it re- 
 mained a number of years in Mr. Ludlow's hands. 
 This gentleman, how^ever, with characteristic pro- 
 bity and honour, though he could not pay it to 
 any corporation, nor to any body of persons en- 
 titled by law to receive it, determined to employ 
 it, while in his hands, most rigidly in conformity 
 with the will of the testator. He was, therefore, 
 in the habit, for near ten years, of selecting poor 
 Presbyterian children, placing them under the 
 care of Presbylcricin school-masters, and defray- 
 ing the expenses of their instruction with the 
 avails of this legacy. Things continued in this 
 state until the year 1765, when Mr. Rodgers be- 
 came the pastor of the Church; and when the 
 bequest of Capt. Owen was destined to become 
 the i'oundaiioii of an important charity-school es- 
 tablishment."* 
 
 • Life of Dr. Rodgers, p. 167, 1G8, 169, 170. 
 
LET. XI. LIFE OF DR. RODGERS. 453 
 
 This, it will be admitted, is a most extraordi- 
 nary narrative. We nuturally call for the cv hhince- 
 on which it rests; but not a jjarticle of evidence 
 is produced. You tell us, indeed, that the history 
 wjiich you give of the Presbyterian Church in 
 Xew-York, is compiled from documents which 
 were prepared by Dr. Rodgers himself, and put 
 into your hands by him several years before his 
 decease.* But where are these documents? Sure- 
 ly, in advancing such a serious charge, and one 
 calculated deeply to wound the feelings of the 
 whole body of Episcopalians, you must have been 
 aware that proof would be demanded capable of 
 enduring the test of the strictest examination. 
 Still you offer no proof; — speaking, indeed, of 
 documents; but giving your reader no opportunity 
 of inspecting them. Dr. Rodgers settled in the 
 city of New- York some years after the transaction 
 in question is represented to have taken place. 
 Of course, it was only matter of hearsay with 
 him. Some one told it to him, and he told it to 
 you. Such is the ground upon which you have 
 felt yourself at liberty to cast the foulest aspersion 
 upon a body of men who have ever maintained 
 the most unimpeachable character. 
 
 Here, then, I might dismiss the subject. The 
 common rules of justice require us to believe a 
 man innocent until he is proved guilty. A naked 
 charge only reflects disgrace upon him who ad- 
 vances it. 
 
 ♦ l^ife of Dr. Bodgers, p. 173 
 
454 EXAMINATION OF DR. MILLER's LET. XL 
 
 But your narrative is incredible upon its very- 
 face. Suppose as much baseness as you please in 
 the Vestry of Trinity Church, and only admit that 
 they were not absolute idiots, and they never 
 could have been guilty of the foul conduct which 
 you impute to them. It must have exposed them 
 to the contempt and derision of every decent man 
 in the community. What! a rich and most re- 
 spectable corporation throw away their character 
 for the paltry sum of seven hundred and fifty dol- 
 lars? What absurdities will not the keen spirit of 
 sectarian jealousy digest! No, Sir, no — your state- 
 ment is too ridiculous to be credited by a single 
 man of common understanding united with com- 
 mon charity. If there be any foundation what- 
 ever for the story, the circumstances must be so 
 entirely perverted in the narrative as to lose all 
 resem fiance to the reality. How easy is it, even 
 by a very slight departure from the exact facts of 
 a transaction, completely to change its whole 
 complexion ! Take your narrative as strictly ac- 
 curate, and the Vestry could not have displayed 
 a more profligate disregard for all the rules of ho- 
 nesty if they had appointed a committee to plun- 
 der Mr. Ludlow's house. At the period in ques- 
 tion, the Rev. Dr. Barclay was Rector of Trinity 
 Church — a man who has bequeathed a most pure 
 and exalted character to his posterity. Would 
 Dr. Barclay, think you, have engaged in such a 
 base scheme of robbery ? Would the highly re- 
 spectable men who composed the Vestry? I find, 
 upon inquiry, that none of the members of the 
 
LET. XI. LIFE OF BR. RODGERS. 455 
 
 Vestry at present in tlie city, had ever heard a syl- 
 lable of the charge in question, until it appeared 
 in your Life of Dr. Rodgers. A venerable gentle- 
 man, who was a member of the Vestry before the 
 revolutionary war, and who is now upwards of 
 ninety years of age, remarkable for his knowledge 
 of the affairs of Trinity Church, could give me iw 
 information upon the subject. It was perfectly 
 new to him. When I stated the case, after as- 
 suring me that he had never heard of any such 
 transaction previously to the publication of your 
 work, he added, that he had never known the 
 Vestry to show a disposition to invade the property 
 of others — on the contrary, their distinguishing 
 trait of character had always been that of libera- 
 lity, in the gratuitous distribution of their own. 
 
 The minutes of the Vestry, from the year 1754 
 to the year 1764, have been strictly examined, 
 and the following is the result. 
 
 Having examined icith strict attention the minutes 
 of the Vestry from the year 1754 to 1764, do not 
 find the name of Mr. William Ludlow^ or a Mr, 
 Owen once mentioned ; or a committee appointed to 
 wait upon or to treat with William Ludloiv^ on that^ 
 or any subject ivhich has the least reference to whai 
 is inserted in Dr. Miller^ Life of Dr. Rodgers. 
 
 ^THO. BARROW. 
 
 Here, Sir, is the best evidence which the na- 
 ture of the case will admit. You have no way of 
 obviating it but by charging the Vestry with muti- 
 lating their records. Men who would be guilty of 
 so baie an act as that which you impute to the 
 
466 EXAMlNATIOiN Ol DR. MILLtR'b LET. Xf, 
 
 Vestry of Trinity Chiircb, would not hesitate, cer- 
 tainly, to destroy the evidences of their guilt. 
 
 Unless you had unanswerable proof to produce, 
 the rules oi^ common decorum required you to be 
 silent. In bringing forward such a charge, with- 
 out a single document to support it, with nothing, 
 as appears from the very face of the story, to rest 
 it upon but mere hearsay, you have offered an in- 
 sult to every respectable man in the community. 
 
 You mention one other attempt made by Epis- 
 copalians to seize the property of their Presbyte- 
 rian brethren. It occurred in the village of Ja- 
 maica, Long-Island, where the Episcopal congre- 
 gation, according to your statement, took violent 
 possession of a building for public worship, erect- 
 ed by the Presbyterians; and also contrived to get 
 the parsonage house into their hands. It seems, 
 however, that they were finally defeated in their 
 dishonest attempt. 
 
 There is great difTiculty, in these cases, to get 
 at the exact truth. We can never rely upon the 
 statement of one of the parties. Take the case pre- 
 cisely as related by you, and the Episcopalians of 
 Jamaica acted most unworthily; but it is fair, and 
 quite natural to suppose that they had some ex- 
 planation to give, or some justification to offer, 
 which, if we could have access to it, would pre- 
 sent the thing in a very different point of light. 
 
 Do you think the minute relation of such small 
 controversies calculated to render any service to 
 the cause of religion? At all events, was it not 
 your duty to accompany this uarrative, and others 
 
LET. XI. LIFE OF DR. R0DGER3. 457 
 
 of a similar nature, with the re naric, no less cha- 
 ritable than true, that the genuine principles of 
 religious toleration were not pro[)erly understood, 
 or acted upon, at that period, by any denomina- 
 tion of Christians? To assort or insinuate that 
 there was a peculiar dispositioi] in Episcopalians 
 to treat their fellow Christians of other denomi- 
 nations with severity, would be doing them very 
 great injustice. I pass this part of your work with 
 the single remark, that if the Episcopalians of 
 this country have sometimes inflicted pecuniary 
 injury upon Presbyterians, they have much more 
 frequently, and much more seriously suffered it at 
 their hands. There would be no difficulty in de- 
 scending to particulars. But I dismiss an odious 
 subject, which I deeply regret that you should 
 have thought it expedient to introduce. 
 
 You give a very particular account of several 
 unsuccessful applications which were made to the 
 British govern mnnl, by the Wall-street congrega- 
 tion, for an act of incorporation; ascribing the 
 failure, in a great measure, to the influence of the 
 Episcopalians of this country, and especially t© 
 that of the Vestry of Trinity Church. 
 
 This, like most of the charges contained in 
 your book, is a mere ex parte statement, resting 
 very much on tradition. There can be no doubt 
 that unsuccessful applications were made by the 
 Wall-street congregation for a charter; but that 
 these applications failed in consequence of unjust 
 and ungenerous practices of the Episcopal Church 
 of this country, may well be set down as a c*« 
 
 58 
 
458 EXAMlxNATlON Oi DK. MILLER's LET. Xfc. 
 
 jumny of lier opponents, ratlier than as an aulhea- 
 ticated historical fact. 
 
 The charge under consideration was urged with 
 much warmth in the controversy which took place, 
 in this country, previously to the revolutionary 
 war, on the subject of an American Episcopate, 
 The following is the notice taken of it by Dr. 
 Chandler, in his Reply to Dr. Chauncy. 
 
 ^' The disappointment of the Presbyterians in 
 New- York, with regard to a charter, he had men- 
 tioned in his former pamphlet ; and enough was 
 said in answer, to show that they have, upon the 
 whole, no great reasons for complaint. Among 
 other things, it was observed in the Appeal De- 
 fended^ that ^ it was the belief at home, that the 
 Church of England had been treated with pecu- 
 liar malevolence, by some of those very persons 
 whose names were annexed to the petition. It 
 was therefore not unnatural to suspect, that any 
 additional power put into thp hands of such per- 
 sons, would, as opportunity should offer, be ex- 
 erted against the Church.' If nothing farther could 
 be said, yet so long as this was believed to be the 
 case, whether justly or not, it was of itself a suf- 
 ficient reason — not for abridging the religious li- 
 berty — but for not enlarging the power, of the 
 Presbyterians in New- York. And yet Dr. Chauncy 
 takes not the least notice of this observation, nor 
 of any thing I said relating to the subject; but 
 sounds a false alarm to all the Colonies, to pre- 
 pare for a defence, against the oppressive designs 
 of the Church of England. 
 
LZT. XI. LIFE OF DR. RODGERS. 45^ 
 
 " But the refusal of favours by the government, 
 to particular persons who had made themselves 
 obnoxious to government, by a supposed scurril- 
 ous abuse of the national establishment, which 
 ought always to be trertted with decency, is no 
 proof of the ill teuiper of Episcopalians, nor an 
 argument of the unwillingness of government to 
 grant favours to other persons, although of the 
 same religious denomination, that have not dis- 
 covered the same disposition: — Much less does it 
 prove any design to deprive such persons of any 
 privileges, of which they are in fair and legal 
 possession. If the conduct of the Presbyterians 
 in New-York has been mistaken, or misrepre- 
 sented, let it be made to appear. If they, or 
 their friends, can prove, or make it probable, that 
 they have not publi<:ly vilified and abused the na- 
 tional Church, and that they have been free from 
 all secret intrigues and combinations against it: 
 in my opinion, they, as well as other Protestants, 
 are entitled to all favours from the patrons of the 
 Church, that are consistent w^rth safety, or the 
 constitution. But, on the other hand, if they are 
 conscious of their o^Yn ^vil intentions and prac* 
 tices against the Church of England, and know 
 that some of them have been actually discovered; 
 it is surprising that they can expect, much more 
 that they can have th'e assurance to ask, particular 
 favours, to the granting of which, the consent of 
 those, who regard the interest and honour of 
 the Church, is necessary. I will not enter farther 
 into the conduct, oi the case of the Pxesbyterian<^ 
 
460 EXAMINATION OF DR. MILLER's LET. XI. 
 
 in New-Yoik. Let them but clear themselves of 
 the charges and suspicions with which they are 
 loaded ; and then, if any reasonable favours are 
 refused them, barely ort account of their religious 
 principles, the dissenters throughout the colonies 
 will have just reason to expect the same treatment, 
 and not betbre."* 
 
 1 will not undertake to defend the conduct of 
 the British government on this occasion. It would 
 probably have been more coirect, as well as more 
 liberal to have granted the petition. Of the exact 
 force of the reasons assigned for the refusal in the 
 work of Dr. Chandler, it is extremely difficult, 
 however, now to judge. But, complaint, at all 
 events, comes w^th a very ill grace from you; for, 
 in the same publication in which you prefer the 
 complaint, you scruple not to justify the violent 
 op})osition made by the dissenters to the applica- 
 tion of the Episcopalians of this country, to have 
 Bishops settled among them. It is a fact, that 
 although the Episcopal Church was the esta- 
 blished Church of England, it was not placf/d, 
 in her American colonies, upon equal ground with 
 dissenting societies. It could scarcely, indeed, 
 be said to enjoy the full benefits of religious tole- 
 ration. Being destitute of Bishops, it had not 
 the means of exercising those powers, and dis- 
 pensing those ordinances, which, in its view, 
 constitute very important parts of the Christian 
 dispensation ; while its dissenting brethren pos- 
 
 • Appeal farther Defended, p. 228, 229, 230. 
 
LKT. XI. LIFE OF DR. RODGEUS. 461 
 
 sessed all the olTicers, and all the ordinances ad- 
 mitted or recognized in their pu!)lic forniularies. 
 This was a state of things not niure unnatural 
 than it was unjust. There can be no doubt tliat 
 the British government w^as principally influenced, 
 in the part which it acted in this business, by the 
 fear of inflaming the dissenters of this country, 
 ^vho opposed the measure with the utmost vio- 
 lence. Collect, Sir, the examples of intolerant 
 conduct on the part of the American Episcopali- 
 ans towards their dissenting brethren, which his- 
 tory may really furnish, and this single case of the 
 furious opposition made by the dissenters, to what 
 may in fact be called the toleration of the Epis- 
 copal Church in this country, will infinitely out- 
 weigh them all. At the same time, I have no he* 
 sitation in expressing my belief, that no inconsi- 
 derable part of the opposition, in question, pro- 
 ceeded less from a spirit of injustice or persecu- 
 tion, than from misapprehension and prejudice. 
 But, amid all the charges w hich you bring against 
 your American fellow Christians of the Episcopal 
 Church, if we look for any charitable allowance 
 grounded on misapprehension, prejudice, or even 
 the universally prevailing errors of the age, w^e 
 look in vain. 
 
 Indeed, Sir, it was not without some reason 
 that your opponents represented you as writing 
 with bitterness. 
 
 You proceed to relate, very minutely, a journey 
 of Mr. Rodgers to Virginia, and the severe treat- 
 ment which he met with from Episcopalians there. 
 
462 EXAMINATION OF DR. MILLEr's LET. Xl. 
 
 The journey of Mr. Rodgers to Virginia, took 
 place in the year 1748. The Episcopal Church 
 being then the established Church of Virginia, 
 the privileges of dissenters were regulated by an 
 act of the British Parliament, entitled the " Act 
 of Toleration." Under the construction given to 
 this act, at the period in question, in Virginia, li- 
 censes could be demanded for regular congrega- 
 tions of dissenters. Accordingly, it appears from 
 your own account, that Mr Davies was licensed 
 as the regular pastor of four congregations ;* but 
 Mr. Rodgers not being called to any particular 
 congregation, but intending to pass through the 
 State as an itinerant preacher, his case seems to 
 have been considered as not coming within the 
 terms of the " Act of Toleration," and his appli 
 cation for a license was, accordingly, refused. 
 
 This treatment was certainly very much at va- 
 riance with the ideas and practice of the present 
 day, both in Great-JSritain and the United States. 
 We should consider such conduct now as ex- 
 tremely oppressive ; but we shall not do justice to 
 our forefathers, if, in judging of their acts, we 
 forget to make allowance for the ideas and spirit 
 of the age in which they lived. Take as at least a 
 complete set off against the treatment of Mr. Rod- 
 gers hy the Episcopalians of Virginia, that which 
 Mr. I'inley received from the Congregationalists 
 of Connecticut. The case of Mr. Finley is inci- 
 dentally mentioned in your work. " The Legisla* 
 
 • Life of Dr. Rod^cr.f, p. 47, 4« 
 
LET. XI. LIFE OF DR. R0DGER3. 4^3 
 
 ture of Connecticut passed a law, about this time, 
 prohibiting itinerant preachers from entering pa- 
 rishes in which a minister was settled, unless by 
 his consent. For violating this law, by preaching 
 to a congregation in New-Haven, the Rev. Dr. 
 Finley, afterwards President Finley, was arrested 
 by the civil authority, and carried, as a vagrant, 
 out of the Colony."* 
 
 Now the treatment which Mr. Finley received 
 was much more humiliating than that of Mr. 
 Rodgers ; the former having been arrested and 
 earried away as a vagrant, while the latter was 
 merely refused a license to preach. And yet the 
 one case is dwelt upon by you at much length, 
 as an intolerable grievance, and an evidence of 
 the persecuting temper of Episcop dians; whereas, 
 in mentioning the latter, you drop not the slight- 
 est hint of disapprobation. 
 
 It is a most wanton violation of justice to re- 
 present the Church of England as remarkable for 
 her intolerance. No Church in Christendom, in- 
 deed, can pretend, in this particular, to be en- 
 tirely guiltless. All Christian societies have, in a 
 greater or less degree^ persecutqd.t But thus far 
 
 » Life of Dr. Rodgers, p. 80. 
 
 I The historian of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ven- 
 tures to contrast the intolerant spirit of Christians with the mild 
 tfemper of Heathenism. But, in doing- this, he has certainly wundered 
 very far from a correct representation of the fact. In truth, the 
 principles and practice of religious intolerance, were derived frera 
 Pagan to Christian Rome; and it is matter of profound humiliation to 
 us that they should have retained, for so lorg :i period, their power 
 over the human mind. The ciroumstonce which Voltaire smd Gibbon 
 
4G4 EXAMINATION OF DR. MILLEr's LET. XJ. 
 
 I will, with confidence, assert of the Church of 
 England, that she was remarkable, even among 
 
 adduce as evidence of the mild spirit of Heathenism is very far from 
 ppaving that individuals were freely indulg-ed in religious practices, 
 and in the expression of religious opinions, that were decidedly at 
 variance with t!ie established modes, either of faith or worship. It 
 was the common idea of the Pagan world, that each couniry had its 
 particular divinities, who presided over it. Accordingly, when the 
 Uomans proposed to reduce any country under their subjection it 
 was their general practice to invite the tutelary Gods of such country 
 to abandon it, and to promise them a much more spKndid worship 
 in the city of Rome. In consequence of this practice. Home became 
 filled with an infi lite multitude of gods, who were worshipped with 
 an endless variety of rites. But, surely, it is very absurd to dignify 
 this with the character of religious toleration Were individuals per- 
 mitted to judge for themselves, and, thus judging, publicly to oppose 
 tlie established creed, or publicly to depart from the established forms 
 of worship ? Nothing can be more express than the testimony of the 
 great Roman historian, I/ivy, on this subject. He tells us that the 
 pro]x:r magistrates were frequently charged to prohibit the introduc- 
 tion of any foreign religion, and to suppress every mode of sacrifice 
 that differed from the mode which was established. And what is the 
 reison which Livy givrs for this ? Simply that all departure from the 
 regtilar modes of sacrifice must prove destructive to religion.* Livy 
 also informs us of an express edict issued by the Pretor, under a de- 
 cree of the Senate, forbidding, in the most positive terms, all public 
 sacrificing in any otlier than the customary modes.-j- This, it appears 
 from Livy, had been the Roman practice from the beginning. He re- 
 cords an (M'der given at a very early period of the Roman history, en- 
 joining the iEdiles to take care that none but the Gods of Rome should 
 be worshipped, and that they should be worshipped only in the esta- 
 blished form.t 
 
 The true character of the Roman temper upon this subject, is evi- 
 dent from the conduct pursued by the imperial government upon the 
 introduction of Christianity. Here was a case exactly fitted to test 
 the mild spirit of toleration which V^oltaire and Gibbon have so freely 
 conceded to l*ag.4n Rome. The religion of the state was publicly op- 
 posed ; idolatry in all iis shapes being denounced as a heinous crime. 
 But it was soon found that opposition to the religion of tlie empire 
 would not be suffered for a moment : the blood of the Christians was 
 
 • Liv. lib. xxxix. cap. IG- f H'i'^- lib. Iv. cap. 30. t Ibid. Kb. ir. cap. 30» 
 
LET. XI. LIFE OF DR. RODGERS. 465 
 
 Protestants, for the mildness and tolerance both 
 of her principles, and her practice. As the Pro- 
 testants have much less to answer for, on this sub- 
 ject, than their Romish adversaries, the Church 
 of England inflicted upon her dissenting brethren 
 much less persecution than she suffered at their 
 hands. It is impossible, all circumstances con- 
 sidered, to survey the conduct of the enlightened 
 and excellent Reformers of this Church without 
 sentiments of the sincerest admiration. Never 
 had men a more arduous task to perform. While 
 engaged in purging the Church from papal error 
 and corruption, and in defending her against the 
 fury of the court of Rome, a set of men arose 
 within her bosom to distract and convulse her by 
 
 shed in torrents. The true idea of toleration seems never to have been 
 conceived by the Pagan mind ; all positive departure from the religion 
 of the State being universally considered as subversive of the funda- 
 mental purposes of society. The same mode of thinking continued to 
 prevail after the empire became Christian. The religion of the prince 
 was expected to be the religion of the subject. Thus the principle of 
 persecution was derived from the Pagan to the Christian government of 
 Rome; from the State it passed to the Church; and it required the 
 long period of fourteen hundred years to purge it off. Such is the 
 true source of the laws against heretics, which disgrace the codes of 
 all Christian nations. Without dwelling on the blood-stained history 
 of the Church of Rome, if we descend to the period of the Reforma- 
 tion, how are we grieved at finding Protestants dividing into hostile 
 parties, and, notwithstanding all they had suffered from the fiend of 
 papal persecution, displaying so little of the Christian temper in their 
 treatment of one anotlier ! Freely conceding, as we do, tlje praise of 
 eminent learning and piety to your great master, Calvin, how do we 
 •hudder, at the same time, in witnessing the flaming intolerance of 
 his spirit; especially when we behold him, with inquisitorial fury, 
 bunting Servetus to the stake. But far be it from us to mark out Cal- 
 vin as an object of particular reprobation. He breathed, in common 
 with other great and good men, th/s noxious spirit of the age. 
 
 59 
 
466 EXAMINATION OF DR. MILLER's LET. XL 
 
 their intemperate zeal. It ought here to be men- 
 tioned that the Reformation of the Church of Eng- 
 land was conducted in so enlightened a spirit that 
 there was no separation from her, even by the Pa- 
 pists themselves, during the reign of Edward ; 
 and, upon the re-establishment of the Protestant 
 faith, under Elizabeth, the great body of the Ro- 
 mish clergy continued to conform ; most of them, 
 indeed, being influenced by the motive of retain- 
 ing their places in order to exercise the power, 
 thence to be derived, in furthering, whenever a 
 suitable opportunity should offer, the designs of 
 the Church of Rome. No such opportunity, how- 
 ever, w^as suffered to occur; and thus the cor- 
 rupt views of individuals were overruled to the 
 benefit of the cause which it was their secret wish 
 to destroy. At length, the more sagacious of the 
 Romish clergy began to perceive that the policy, 
 which they were pursuing, would very soon pro- 
 duce a separation of the Church of England from 
 that of Rome, as complete as tranquil. It was 
 evident that the great body of the people would 
 be weaned, in a few years, from their supersti- 
 tious prejudices ; and that, at all events, the ris- 
 ing generation would be lost to the Church of 
 Rome for ever. Under this view of things, they 
 began to withdraw from the Reformed Church, 
 and to hold separate meetings. The first schism 
 in the Church of England was thus produced by 
 the Papists. But the example was soon followed 
 by those violent men, among the Protestants, whom 
 nothing less would satisfy than a system, not of 
 
LET. XI. LIFE OF DK. RODGERS. 467 
 
 reform, but of utter revolution. The baneful 
 spirit was caught at Frankfort and Geneva, to 
 which places a number of English exiles resorted 
 during the persecution of Mary, and where those 
 divisions commenced which afterwards lead to so 
 dreadful a catastrophe. It is most humiliating to 
 reflect on the manner in which the artful pohcy of 
 Rome was thus forwarded by the ill-judged vio- 
 lence of her enemies. She immediately fell in 
 with the views and complaints of the separatists; 
 constantly employing agents to travel through 
 England, charging the Reformed Church with be- 
 ing still infected with the worst errors of popery, 
 representing her form of worship as no better than 
 the Romish mass book, and crying out, with the 
 utmost fury, for a further, and complete reforma- 
 tion. The court of Rome acted, in this particular, 
 upon the express principle of destroying the Church 
 of England, through the instrumentality of her 
 own divisions; and it was confidently calculated, 
 by the papal advocates, that, the Church of Eng- 
 land being overwhelmed, the Sectaries would 
 soon exhibit such a scene of division, of violence, 
 and of folly, as would compel all sober men to 
 seek refuge even under the yoke of spiritual bond- 
 age. In this calculation, the court of Rome 
 showed its intimate knowledge of the human 
 character. The Presbyterian, Edwards, gives an 
 account, in his Gangrtena, of no less than sixty 
 sects that poured, like a turbid torrent, into Eng- 
 land, when the barriers of a primitive Episcopacy 
 were thrown down. " Things grew daily worse and 
 
468 EXAMINATION OP DR. MILLER S LET. XI. 
 
 worse Instead of reformation, we are grown 
 
 from one extreme to another; fallen from Sylla to 
 Charybdis ; from popish innovations, superstitions, 
 and prelatical tyranny, to damnable heresies, hor- 
 rible blasphemies, libertinism, and fearful anarchy. 
 Our evils are not removed and cured, but only 
 changed ; one disease and devil hath left us, and 
 another as bad is come in his room."^ 
 
 The natural result of all this must have been 
 the revival of Romish superstition and tyranny. 
 But, by the good providence of God, the Church 
 of England again reared her head ; and thus pre- 
 vented a relapse into popery, by presenting Chris- 
 tianity in her primitive features, equally removed 
 from popish absurdity on the one hand, and sec- 
 tarian extravagance on the other. Now, let us 
 figure to ourselves the Church of England, pressed 
 by the Romanists, shaken by the intemperate 
 clamours of blind zealots, and endeavouring to 
 preserve the pure faith and worship of primitive 
 Christianity against their united assaults. It is 
 only when we take this view of her situation, that 
 we are able to appreciate the spirit by which 
 she was actuated, or to make the proper allowance 
 for the severe measures, to which, it must be ad- 
 mitted, she did not scruple, in a greater or less 
 degree, to resort. 
 
 Besides, in estimating the struggle between the 
 Church of England and the Puritans, we must 
 always bear in mind the object which the latter. 
 
 • Edwards's Can^xna, Epist. ded 
 
LET. XI. LIFE OF DR. RODGERS. 469 
 
 according to their own confession, were labouring 
 to accomplisli. It is not uncommon lor people to 
 say, the Church should have tolerated the Puri- 
 tans. — I grant it most freely. — But it was not tole- 
 ration that the Puritans demanded. They held it 
 in abhorrence. They required nothing less than 
 the complete establishment of their own particular 
 system, and the enforcing of it upon the CM^n- 
 sciences of all men by the civil power. — Where 
 are the proofs ? — They are so abundant as to put 
 the most obstinate credulity to silence. 
 
 When Sir Francis Walsingham, who was their 
 friend, offered the Puritans, in the Queen's name, 
 the abolition of those ceremonies to which they 
 were most opposed — kneeling at the Communion, 
 wearing the surplice, and the cross in baptism,— 
 they indignantly replied — ne ungulam esse relin^ 
 quendam — " They would not leave so much as a 
 hoof behind." From that time, Walsingham aban- 
 doned them ; seeing that nothing less would satisfy 
 them than the entire subversion of the Church. 
 
 " They maintained, that they themselves were 
 the only pure Church ; that their principles and 
 practices ought to be established by law; and 
 that no others ought to be tolerated. It may be 
 questioned, therefore, whether the administration 
 at this time could with propriety deserve the ap- 
 pellation of persecutors with regard to the Puri- 
 tans. Such of the clergy, indeed, as refused to 
 comply with the legal ceremonies, were deprived 
 of their livings, and sometimes in Elizabeth's 
 reign were otherwise punished: And ought any 
 
470 EXAMINATION OF DR. MILLER's LET. XI. 
 
 man to accept of an office or benefice in an es- 
 tablishment, while he declines compliance with 
 the fixed and known rules of that establishment ? 
 But Puritans were never punished for frequenting 
 separate congregations ; because there were none 
 such in the kingdom; and no Protfistant ever as- 
 sumed or pretended to the right of erecting them."* 
 " Toleration had hitherto been so little the prin- 
 ciple of any Christian sect, that even the Catho- 
 lics, the remnant of the religion professed by 
 their forefathers, could not obtain from the Eng- 
 lish the least indulgence. This very House of 
 Commons, in their famous remonstrance, took 
 care to justify themselves, as from the highest im- 
 putation, from any intention to relax the golden 
 reins of discipline, as they called them, or to 
 grant any toleration: And the enemies of the 
 Church were so fair from the beginning, as not to 
 lay claim to liberty of conscience, which they 
 called a toleration for soul murder. They openly 
 challenged the superiority, and even menaced 
 the established Churrh with that persecution which 
 they afterwards exercised against her with such 
 
 severity."t 
 
 " That Laud's severity was not extreme, ap- 
 pears from this fact, that he caused the acts or re- 
 cords of the high commission court to be searched, 
 and found that there had been fewer suspensions, 
 deprivations, and other punishments, by three, 
 during the seven years of his time, than in any 
 
 • Hume's History of England, vol. v. p. 172. f Ibid. vol. vl. p. 79. 
 
LET. XI. LIFE OF DR. RODGERS. 471 
 
 seven years of his predecessor Abbot; who was 
 notwithstanding in great esteem with the House 
 of Commons. Troubles and Trials of Laud, p. 
 163. But Abbot was little attached to the court, 
 and was also a Puritan in doctrine, and bore a 
 mortal hatred to the Papists."* 
 
 It is impossible to peruse the history of those 
 times without perceiving, at every step, the ac- 
 curacy of these remarks of Hume. The sectaries 
 affected no concealment of their sentiments on the 
 subject of toleration, or of the purpose which they 
 intended to accomplish. See the plain style which 
 they employed in admonitions solemnly addressed 
 to the government. 
 
 " That the State did not show itself upright, 
 allege the parliament what it will ; that all honest 
 men should find lack of equity, and all good con- 
 sciences condemn that court; that it should be 
 easier for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judg- 
 ment, than for such a parliament: that there is 
 no other thing to be looked for than some speedy 
 vengeance to light upon the whole land, let the 
 politic Machiavels of England provide as well as 
 they can, though God do his worst: and finally, 
 if they of that assembly would not follow the ad- 
 vice of the first admonition, they would infallibly 
 be their own carvers in it, the Church being 
 bound to keep God's order, and nothing to be 
 called God's order but the present platform."t 
 
 Is this the language of men claiming hberty of 
 
 * Hume's History »f Enghnd, vol y\. p 483. f Ac!mon. p. 61. 
 
472 EXAMINATION OF DR. MILLEr's LET. XI. 
 
 conscience, or pleading for the sacred rights of 
 toleration? Is it not perfectly evident that they 
 had no idea of toleration ; and that their object was 
 to overthrow the establishment for the purpose of 
 planting their own system upon its ruins? 
 
 See further the solemn protestation which they 
 required of every person whom they admitted 
 into their congregations. " Being thoroughly per- 
 suaded in my conscience, by the working and by 
 the word of the Almighty, that these relics of 
 Antichrist be abominable before the Lord our 
 God; and also, for that by the power, mercy, 
 strength, and goodness of the Lord our God only, 
 I am escaped from the filthiness and pollution of 
 these detestable traditions, through the knowledge 
 of our Lord and vSaviour Jesus Christ ; and last of 
 all, inasmuch as, by the w^orking also of the Lord 
 Jesus, his Holy Spirit, I have joined in prayer, 
 and hearing God^s word, with those that have not 
 yielded to this idolatrous trashy notwithstanding 
 the danger of not coming to my parish Church, 
 &c. — Moreover, I have now joined myself to the 
 Church of Christ ; wherein I have yielded myself 
 subject to the discipline of God's word, as I pro- 
 iXiised at my baptism, which if I should again 
 mistake, and join myself with their traditions, I 
 should forsake the union wherein I am knit to the 
 body of Christ, and join myself to the discipline 
 of Antichrist. For in the Church of the tradi- 
 tioners there is no other discipline than that which 
 hath been maintained by the antichristian Pope 
 of Rome, whereby the Church of God hath al- 
 
LET. XI. LIFE OF DR. RODGERS. 473 
 
 ways been afflicted, and is until this day. For 
 the which cause I refuse them. God give us grace 
 still to strive in suffering under the cross, that the 
 blessed word of our God may only rule, and have 
 the highest place, to cast down strong holds, to 
 destroy or overthrow policy or imaginations, and 
 every high thing that is exalted against the know- 
 ledge of God, and to bring into captivity or 
 subjection every thought to the obedience of 
 Christ "* 
 
 Thus were the Puritans bound together by a 
 solemn oath, to abjure, hate, and destroy both 
 the government and worship of the Church. It 
 was, indeed, their uniform language that " the 
 constitution of the hierarchy was too bad to be 
 mended; that the very pillars of it were rotten; 
 that the structure ought to be raised anew, and 
 that they were resolved to lay a new foundation 
 though it were at the hazard of all that was dear 
 to them in the world."t 
 
 I repeat it, then, the question between the 
 Church of England and the Puritans, was not 
 whether the latter should be tolerated — toleration 
 at this time was not at all understood — but whe- 
 ther the whole fabric of the Church should be 
 overthrown, and the Calvinian system, both of 
 doctrine and discipline, forced upon the people of 
 England by the civil power. In addition to the 
 public documents which have been cited, let me 
 
 • See Collier's Ecclesiastical History, vol. ii. p. 544. 
 
 t See Wilson's History and Antiquities of Dissenting Church<»«:. 
 
 60 
 
474 EXAMINATION OF DR. MILLER's LET. XIV 
 
 direct your attention, for a few moments, to the 
 language used by the leading men among the Pu- 
 ritans in their sermons ant! addresses. " If mi- 
 nisters," says the zealous Presbyterian, Edwards, 
 ^' will witness for the truth and against errors, they 
 must set themselves against toleration, as the prin- 
 cipal inlet to all error and heresy ; for if toleration 
 be granted, all preaching will not keep them out. 
 If a toleration be granted, the devil will be too hard 
 for UB, though we preach ever so much against them. 
 A toleration will undo all. It will bring in scep- 
 ticism in doctrine and looseness of life, and af- 
 terwards all atheism. O let ministers, therefore, 
 oppose all toleration, as that by which the devil 
 would at once lay a foundation for his kingdom to 
 all generations: witness against it in all places: 
 possess the magistrate ivith the evil of it, yea, and 
 the people too, showing them how if a toleration 
 were granted, they could never have peace any 
 more in their famihes, or ever have any command 
 of wives, children, servants Toleration is de- 
 structive to the glory of God, and the salvation 
 of souls ; therefore, whoever should be for a to- 
 leration, ministers ought to be against it. If the 
 parliament, city, yea, all the people, were for a 
 
 toleration of all sects yet ministers ought to 
 
 present their reasons against it, preach and cry 
 out of the evil of it, never consent to it, but pro- 
 test against it, and withstand it by all lawful 
 means within their power, venturing the loss of 
 liberties, estates, lives, and all in that cause, and 
 
LET. XI, LIFE OF DR. RODGERS. 475 
 
 inflame us with zeal against a toleration, the great 
 Diana of the sectaries ! ! !"*' 
 
 Listen to the hmguage of Calamy before the 
 House of Commons ! — " If you do not labour, 
 according to your duty and power, to suppress 
 the errors and heresies that are spread in the king- 
 dom, all these errors are your errorsi, and these 
 heresies are your heresies." Hear Baxter ex- 
 claiming — " Oh Heavens ! We intended not to dig 
 liown the banks, or to pull up the hedge and lay 
 all waste and common, when we desired the pre- 
 lates' tyranny might cease My judgment I 
 
 have always freely made known; I abhor unlimited 
 liberty or toleration of all." Hear again the whole 
 body of London ministers, in their protest against 
 the great Diana of the Independents, crying out 
 — " We detest and abhor the much endeavoured 
 toleration. Our bowels are stirred within us 
 when we call to mind how long and sharp a tra- 
 vail this kingdom hath been in for many years to- 
 gether, to bring forth that blessed fruit of a pure 
 and perfect reformation; and now, at last, after 
 all our pangs, and dolours, and expectations, this 
 real and thorough reformation is in danger of be- 
 ing strangled in the birth by a lawless toleration^ 
 that strives to be brought forth before it." Or, 
 the still stronger language of the ministers and 
 elders of one of the provincial assemblies of the 
 Presbyterians. " Toleration would be the putting 
 a sword in a madman's hand; a cup of poison 
 
 * Gangrxna, parti. K>ir>. 
 
476 EXAxAIINATlON OF DR. MILLER's LET. XI. 
 
 into the hands of a child ; a letting loose of mad- 
 men with firebrands, and appointing a city of re- 
 fuge in men's consciences for the devil to fly to." 
 
 Such were the principles of the Puritans. — 
 What was their practice r Did they, after ob- 
 taining power, grant toleration to other denomi- 
 nations ? — The little finger of Presbytery soon 
 proved itself to be heavier than the very loins of 
 Prelacy. 
 
 Of the spirit in which the reformation was con- 
 ducted in Scotland, under the auspices of Knox, 
 a judgment may be formed from the law which 
 was enacted, that ^' if any person should either 
 say mass, or be present at it, he should for the 
 first fault forfeit all his goods, and undergo such 
 corporal punishment as the magistrate should 
 think fit to put upon him ; the second fault is ban- 
 ishment ; and the third death."* 
 
 See the spirit by which the Scotch Reformers 
 continued to be actuated at a much later pe- 
 riod ! One of them declared " that as the wrath 
 of God was never diverted from his people, until 
 the seven sons of Saul were hanged up before the 
 Lord in Gibeon ; so the wrath of God would 
 never depart from that kingdom, till the twice 
 seven prelates, (the number of the Scotch sees) 
 were hanged up before the Lord there." Another 
 did nut scruple to assert that " the bloodiest and 
 sharpest war, was rather to be endured than the 
 least error in doctrine and discipline."! 
 
 • kJcc Hume'.-. lIist.ory of Engla.id, vol. iv, p. 175. 
 
 t See Churciiman's MemonaJ, General Introduction, p. 104- 
 
LET. XI. LIFE OF DH. RODfiERS. 477 
 
 One of the first acts of the Puritans, >vhcn they 
 had partly risen into power, was to institute an 
 impeachment in the House of Commons, against 
 Dr. Richard Montague, for writing a treatise against 
 the Calvinistic opinions, and proving that they 
 were not the doctrine of the CImrch of Endand. 
 This irregular and violent act afforded a very clear 
 prognostic of what was to follow. Accordingly, 
 no sooner did the Puritans completely succeed in 
 their efforts to get into pow^r, than they abolished 
 Episcopacy, plundered the Church, expelled all 
 the clergy who would not perjure themselves by 
 taking the solemn league and covenant, and 
 perpetrated the most horrible cruelties. 
 
 When, therefore, the severities, exercised by 
 the Church of England, are referred to, we must 
 always recollect that toleration Avas not at that 
 time understood or practised by any denomi- 
 nation of Christians ; that the Puritans openly 
 avowed their abhorrence of it, and hesitated not 
 to declare their intention of putting dow^n Episco- 
 pacy, for the purpose of establishing their own 
 system in its place.* It is absurd, then, to say, 
 
 » Nothing- would be more humiliating to our species than a Listen 
 of "Toleration." Until a very late period it was deemed the unques- 
 tionable rig-ht of the civil magistrate to compel conformity to his own 
 religious system, both of discipline and doctrine. Kings were in the 
 habit of regarding all departure from their prescriptions, in this parti- 
 cular, as not less offensive than even questioning tlieir title, or rebel- 
 ling against llieir authority. The most profound philosophers consi- 
 dered religious conformity as so essential to the purposes of society that 
 governments were bound to enforce it by the severest penalties. Upon 
 this very principle the great Lord Bacon held that no toleration could. 
 
478 EXAMINATION OF DR. MILLER's LET. XI. 
 
 the Church should have tolerated the Puritans. 
 The truth is, they woukl not tolerate the Church. 
 
 with safety, be given to sectaries;* and, at a much later period, we 
 find tlie President Montesquieu maintaining that the civil magistrate 
 ought to repress the frst attempts towards a departure from the esta- 
 blished religion, and grant toleration only to such sects as had already 
 become numerous and powcrful.f Even Mr. Hume uses the following 
 hesitating language — " It is very questionable whether persecution can, 
 in any cause, be justified.*'? When we consider all this, and recollect, 
 at the same time, that a persecution unto death of Papists was strenu- 
 ously urged by the Puritans, and that they almost disdained to conceal 
 their intention of demolishing the cstablislied Church, for the purpose 
 of planting the arbitrary system of discipline which Calvin had intro- 
 duced into Geneva upon its ruins, have we not reason to admire the 
 moderation of tlie Church of England ? It is very certain that she has 
 always been the mildest and most tolerant in her spirit of any Church 
 in Christendom. Let me refer you, on this subject, to the language 
 of the Editors of the Christian Observer — men upon whom you and 
 your friends have been in the habit of bestowing much praise, and 
 who certainly discover, on all occasions, a spirit of great impartiality 
 towards their dissenting brethren. 
 
 *' There is no historical truth, we believe, more clear, no fact 
 more incontrovertible, than that the real design of the Puritans was 
 not the general grant of religious liberty, but the establishment of 
 their own peculiar platform : and if we might be allowed an apparent 
 paradox, though with a far greater approach to truth than any doc- 
 trine suggested by Mr. Brook can boast, the established Church 
 of England, particularly during the first portions of its reign, was the 
 real stickler and advocate for religious liberty against the close spirit, 
 jealous designs, and unattainable discipline of the Puritan school. 
 
 " When we speak of religious liberty, we must be understood, in- 
 deed, to mean something rather different from that term in its modern 
 use : for we believe it in this sense to have been wholly unknown in the 
 period of which we are now speaking." 
 
 *' Religious liberty, be it understood by our readers, meant in those 
 days, if it had any meaning at all, the most liberal and comprehensive 
 Church establishment. The question, during the whole period to which 
 wc allude, was not, whether there should be any establishment at all ; 
 but what that establishment should be. It was no part of the contro- 
 
 • Sec his cssfiy De Unitate Ecclesiec. 
 
 j Sec Spirit of La^s, book xxv, chap. x. 4 Vol. vi. p. -iSi. 
 
LET. XI. LIFE or DR. RODGERR. 47i) 
 
 If she acted with unwairrmtuble severity towards 
 them, it was in defondiiii!; hniself ai^ainst their 
 
 versy, whether the civil power should be exercised or not In the main* 
 tenancc of religion ; and when even the Puritans began to refuse its 
 headship, which was not from the beginning, it was still to be em- 
 ployed as a servant for the support and advancement of the Church." 
 
 *' Botli parties were fully agreed in the main, that some establisli- 
 ment was necessary; that the alliance between the Church and the 
 State was a benefit by no means to be trifled with or quitted by the 
 former; that the State had full authority and power not only to impose 
 rites and ceremonies, but to enact a wholr body, both of doctrine and 
 discipline, provided it were according to tbe word of Cod, and fully to 
 establish it by law as the uniform religion of the realm ; that obedienco 
 to these enactments ought by no means to be optional, but absolutely 
 compulsory. 
 
 " So far were the Puritan Reformers from seeking a general rer 
 laxation of penal statutes in cases of conscience, that we should be at n 
 loss to point out the time when even the infamous and detestable wril 
 de heretico cumburendo* was made a subject of complaint, or in any dc- 
 g-ree animadverted upon, by the disciples of Geneva. Let their illus- 
 trious master, Calvin, himself explain the reason and pursue the tale. 
 
 ** To us, we must confess, as we have hinted before, the real and 
 substantial difference, the point at issue between the Church of Eng- 
 land and the Puritan party, appears to hare been the degree of strict- 
 ness in conduct, and largeness in sacrifice absolutely to be required 
 in the true reformed profession of religion. I'lic established Church 
 required less — the Puritan Reformers required more. In the violent 
 disruption from Popery, Episcopacy was content to bleed a little — 
 Presbyterianism was ambitious of bleeding mucli. The submission to 
 a few easy and indifferent ceremonies was, as Mr. IJrook oJaserves, all 
 that was requisite to qualify a Church of England minister for his 
 office (in addition to the doctrinal subscriptions which both required 
 alike); but the Geneva school demanded the establishment of t?.g 
 godly discipline.** 
 
 " After all, does it appear, that the established Churcli ever pro- 
 ceeded much beyond those measures of severity which at tltat time 
 appeared to be necessary fur the maintenance of h-^r honour, and eveii 
 of her life? She was most evidently * set in the midst of many and 
 great dangers.* She plainly saw what even the most peaceable non- 
 conformity tended to, as well as what the more stubborn pro'^'cted. 
 
 * It was rfpralcd, Ar. D. Ifirr, 1.v r.|,ai1c3 TT.^ PprllaTncnf. 
 
480 EXAMINATION OF 1)K. MILLEr's LET. XI. 
 
 assaults, made with the avowed purpose of crush- 
 ing her by force. 
 
 I misiht iro on to describe the conduct of the 
 
 On one side, she saw the dupes, on the other the ringleaders, of a 
 most determined confederacy against the whole frame and texture of 
 !ier government. 
 
 ** Under these convictions, what did tlicy do ? Ke -kindle the fires 
 of Smitlifield, or rc-set the instruments of torture in the inquisition ? 
 Did IJonner and Gardner revive in the persons of Whitgift, Aylmer, 
 or even Laud ? No ! they in the main contented tliemselves with 
 what every establishment claims the privilege of doing. They sus- 
 pended and deprived disobedient ministers : they took means for 
 ascertaining their practices and opinions, particularly in respect to 
 those ceremonies which were the point in dispute ; and they animad- 
 verted the most severely upon the neglect of these, because these hap- 
 pened to be the very touchstone of the Churchman's attachment to the 
 establishment which fed him. So far they did what was perfectly justi- 
 fiable on every principle. They set out well. And if they were after- 
 wards betrayed Into violence, and enforced some enactments for the 
 discouragement of Puritanism, which a man might have warrantably 
 declined, and peaceably awaited his punishment for so doing, (we may 
 particularly allude to the Act of Charles I. for reading the Book of 
 Sunday Sports), it was partly owing to the wretched temper of the 
 t imes on all sides, and partly to the abundant provocations given to the 
 prelacy at large, by the most unheard-of series of coarse insults, inju- 
 rious calumnies, and wanton attacks, on their authority and dignity, 
 their office and very existence. 
 
 " It should never be forgotten, that the earliest persecutora of tlie 
 Puritans were, like themselves, Calvinists in doctrine."* 
 
 Even Mr, Brook, the professed and zealous eulogist of the Puritans, 
 is obliged, in his history of them, to make the following reluctant 
 confession — " The Puritans of these times were not without their fail- 
 ings, being men of like passions with their adversaries : yet while they 
 opposed the Episcopal impositions and oppressions, if they had accom- 
 plished their wishes, there is cause to fear that they ivoidd have impotcd 
 their own discipline. Their notions of civil and religious liberty were 
 confused, and their principles and behaviour sometimes rigid.'* ^rook-'c 
 Lix-et of the Puritantf vol. i. p. 59. 
 
 • See Review of TJrook's Lives e.f the Puritans in Christian Observer, fpr 
 
 .''in.-. 'RJ- 
 
LET. XI. LIFE or DR. RODOER3. 4Sft 
 
 separatists from the Church of England after their 
 arrival on this continent. It is well known that, 
 both by their writings and their acts, they showed 
 themselves lamentably ignorant of the true prin- 
 ciples of religious toleration. How easy would it 
 be to present a long and disgusting account of 
 the cruelties which they practised toward the so- 
 ciety of Quakers ! Many of these unfortunate peo- 
 ple w^ere publicly whipped; others were branded; 
 others had their ears cut off. Great numbers were 
 confined in loathsome prisons ; some were trans- 
 ported ; — a few were put to death. Nor did the 
 persecution stop until King Charles II. sent a 
 peremptory order for the purpose to all the go- 
 vernors of New-England. 
 
 I assure you, Sir, I have no pleasure in relating 
 these facts. But when attempts are made to ex- 
 hibit the Church of England, and her daughter, 
 the Protestant Episcopal Church of this country, 
 in an odious point of light ; what remains but to 
 place the subject fairly before the reader? Dr. 
 Holmes, in his " American Annals," offers, as aa 
 excuse for the cruelties inflicted upon the Quakers 
 in New-England, " the prevalent opinion, among 
 all sects of Christians at that day, that toleration 
 is sinful." And this, indeed, is the true palliation. 
 Is it not, then, most unjust and ungenerous, to 
 dwell upon the severities exercised by the Church 
 of England in Europe or this country; while 
 keeping out of sight the intolerant principles openly 
 avowed and acted upon by her adversaries, as 
 well as the universally received maxims of the 
 
 61 
 
482 EXAMINATION OF DR. MILLER's LET. XF. 
 
 age ? — I repeat it, Sir, the Church of England 
 has ever been the most mild and tolerant Church 
 of Christendom. An impartial inquiry will lead 
 us to this conclusion ; direct it to what period you 
 please. 
 
 But it is time to forget the cruelties of former 
 days; except so far as the recollection of them 
 mav serve to humble us, and to lead us to bless 
 God for the superior light and the improved spirit 
 of the present period. This is, comparatively, 
 an age of Catholicism. Prejudice is declining: 
 sectarian asperity is wearing off; and a bright 
 prospect of religious unity is beginning to dawn 
 upon us. It is a prospect full of consolation to 
 the followers of the blessed Jesus. What would 
 we not cheerfully undergo to restore peace and 
 unity to his mystical body ? There is no sacrifice 
 which we are not ready to make for securing so 
 great and glorious an object, except that of yield- 
 ing an important point of faith, or jeopardizing 
 those institutions which our Lord has established 
 as essential ingredients of his Church, Indeed, 
 if the world is ever to behold the blessed specta- 
 cle of a return of Christians to one fellowship, it 
 can only be upon primitive principles, and in the 
 bosom of an Apostolic communion. Recollecting 
 that the Church and the Faith have been united 
 by Jesus Christ, we shall always esteem it a sa- 
 cred duty to bear our testimony against every sys- 
 tem that would put them asunder. We conceive 
 it to be particularly incumbent upon us, at the 
 present period, to adhere with augmented zeal to 
 
LET. XI. LIFE OF DK. RODGERS. 483 
 
 that divinely inslitiited ministry without which 
 there can be no Christian Church ;* not re- 
 proaching our fellow Christians who depart from 
 us on this point, but desiring to contend for what 
 we esteem important truth in the spirit of meek- 
 ness; and oflering to God the feiTent prayer that 
 Christians may be induced more and more to ex- 
 amine into the constitution of that Church which 
 the Redeemer sanctifies with his spirit, and which 
 he purchased with his blood ;t and thus be led 
 back to the order, not less than the doctrine of 
 Apostolic Jimes; — so that " keeping the unity of 
 the spirit in the bond of peace," they may be- 
 come, truly, " one fold under one shepherd." 
 
 In the spirit, I am willing to hope, of this prayer, 
 I would now subscribe myself, with the sincerest 
 wishes for your temporal and eternal felicity. 
 Your obedient humble servant 
 
 THOMAS Y. HOW. 
 
 * ** Neither the light nor heat of the sun, nor meat and drink are 
 ao necessary to nourish and sustain this present life, as the office of 
 the Apostles and Pastors is necessary to preserve the Church." Cal- 
 vi7i*s Institutes, book iv. chap. iii. sect. 2. " Her ministry enters into 
 lier very being-. Had the ministry ever been destroyed, the Church 
 would have been destroyed too." ChristiaTi's Magazifie, vol. i. p. 219. 
 
 f " Out of which (the visible Church) there is no ordinary possibi- 
 lity of salvation." Presbyterimi Corifession of Faith, chap. xxv. sect. 2. 
 
 " Out of the visible Church, and so strangers from the covenant of 
 promise." JPresbyterian Larger Catechism, ans^ver to question 166. 
 
 ** All the ordinances are given to it (the visible Church) ; all tlte 
 •>romises arc made to it." f'hi.'jf ion's Magazine, vol i.p. 156. 
 
NOTE 
 
 REFERRED TO AT PAGE 6X 
 
 Persons who make tlie distinction between the esse and the bene esst 
 of the Church, defend it, I believe, solely upon the principle of nc. 
 cessity. They admit that the Apostles, acting under the commission, 
 and in conformity to the will of Christ, established the three orders of 
 Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, and gave to the first of these 
 orders tlie power of conveying the ministerial office by ordination. 
 They admit, with the single exception of cases of necessity, that 
 Episcopal ordination alone is valid. But necessity, it would seem, 
 is not so much a rule to help us to ascertain what the law is, as a cir- 
 cumstance to excuse our departure fr»m the law. It can never make 
 that valid which in itself is void. The supposition is that God has 
 given the power of ordaining to Bishops, and that he has not given it 
 to Presbyters. Then ordination by Bishops clothes the person or- 
 dained with divine authority ; ordination by Presbyters does not. The 
 authority of God can be derived only from himself, and it can be de- 
 rived from him only in the way which he has appointed for bestowing 
 it. But in the case before us, the instituted mode is admitted to be 
 by imposition of Episcopal hands. Now, if it be declared in Scrip- 
 ture, either in express terms, or by clear implication, that where or- 
 dination by Bishops cannot possibly be had. Presbyters may ordain ; 
 ordination by Presbyters, under such circumstances of necessity, would 
 be as regular and valid as ordination by Bishops confessedly is in all 
 cases. Presbyters would then be commissioned by God to ordain in a 
 specific case— the case of necessity. But, as far as the information of 
 the writer extends, defence of Presbyterial ordination in this way 
 has never been attempted. If it had been the intention of the great 
 Head of the Church that Presbyters should, in the case supposed, 
 exercise the ordaining power, it is to be jfresumed that such inten- 
 tion would, either expressly or impliedly, have been declared in Scrip- 
 ture. The position, then, in favour of the validity of Presbyterial or- 
 dination, in the circumstances supposed, is to be made out solely by ab- 
 stract reasoning, grounded on the necessity of the case. But reasoning 
 of this kind, it is conceived, goes not to the point of proving the validity 
 of Presbyterial ordination, but to that of excusing a departure from the 
 livin*' plan, and to the lawful indulgence of a humble hope that God, 
 
486 NOTE. 
 
 under the urgency of the case, will accept mhiistratlons in tLemselves 
 void, and make tliem channels of his grace. 
 
 It need scarcely be observed that this argument of necessity is just 
 as strong for ordination by Deacons, or by Laymen, as for ordination 
 by Presbyters ; since Presbyters, Deacons, and Laymen, in the article 
 of ordination, stand precisely upon the same ground in Scripture. The 
 power is given to none of ihem either expressly or impliedly ; — and 
 the general principle of necessity would as much justify the exercise 
 of the power by one as by another. 
 
 It may be proper to add that the plea of necessity cannot possibly 
 be urged for Presbyterial ordination at the present day in any part of 
 the Christian world. Of course, the distinction taken between the 
 bene esse and the esse of the Church, will not apply to Presbyterial so- 
 cieties now ; inasmuch as Episcopal ordination is, and has long been 
 perfectly within their reach. 
 
 The Episcopal Church, it is true, no where says, in so many -words, 
 that Episcopal imposition of hands is necessary to outvv^ard ordination ; 
 or, which is the same thing, that the visible Church cannot exist 
 without Episcopacy. She has not thought it necessary or proper for- 
 mally to make such a declaration ; but that this is the fair and inevit- 
 able conclusion from her standards, would seem scarcely to admit 
 of a reasonable doubt. For example — it is her doctrine that the vi- 
 sible Church cannot exist without a ministry, and that the ministry 
 cannot exist without a regular external ordination. She declares that 
 Almighty God, by his Holy Spirit, has appointed the orders of Bi- 
 shops, Priests, and Hpacons ; and has given the power of ordination 
 to the order of Bishops. In other words, she declares Episcopal ordi- 
 nation to be the divinely instituted method of conveying the ministe- 
 rial office : — And, accordingly, on this ground of the divine institil-^ 
 tion of Episcopal ordination, as the method of conveying the ministe- 
 rial office, she expressly provides that no person, without Episcopal 
 consecration or ordination, shall be permitted to officiate as a minister 
 of Christ within her limits. Thus we are fairly, and irresistibly 
 brought to the conclusion that Episcopacy is essential to the exist- 
 ence of the visible Church. — Xo Church without a ministry — No mi- 
 nistry without external ordination — the divinely instituted method of 
 ordination is by Episcopal imposition of hands. 
 
 Without Episcopal imposition of hands, then, there is no Church. 
 Or, in the language of Christian Antiquity — ** Ecclesia est in Epis- 
 copo — the outward being of a Church consists in the having of a Bi- 
 shop." Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity^ vol. iii. p. 125. 
 
 It has been shown, in the same way, that Presbyterial standards 
 make ordination by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery essen- 
 lial to the very existence of the Church of Christ. 
 
 The conduct of Archbishop Bancroft, when the Episcopacy was 
 
couteyed by the Church of England to that of Scotland, has been cited 
 to show the extreme care of the former Churcli to avoid brinj^ing the 
 validity of the ministry in theforei.^n Reformed Churches into question. 
 Different accounts are g-iven of the lang-uape and conduct of Ban- 
 croft on this occasion. Bisliop Andrews urped that the persons pre- 
 sented for consecration as Bishops of the Church of Scotland, should 
 first be ordained Priests, on the ground that they had never yet re- 
 ceived Episcopal ordination. Archbishop Bancroft, Spotswood tells 
 us, replied, " that wliere Bishops could not be had, orders given by 
 Presbyters must be reckoned lawful ; that unless this was granted, 
 the calling and character of the ministry in most of the Reformed 
 Churches might be questioned." According to Heylin, however, Ban- 
 croft acted upon the principle that it is not necessary to pass through 
 the intermediate offices of Deacon and Presbyter, but that a person 
 may be made Bishop by a single consecration. Of this there are 
 some examples in ecclesiastical history. Indeed, the practice of pass- 
 ing through the orders of Deacon and Presbyter before entering upon 
 the office of Bishop, would seem to have arisen, not from any requisi- 
 tion of Scripture, but simply from considerations of general prudence. 
 The intent was, that persons should not be advanced to the important 
 office of Bishop until they had been well tried in inferior stations. 
 Under peculiar circumstances, however, the rule was dispensed with. 
 Accordingly, Ambrose was made Bishop of Milan, Nectarius of Con- 
 stantinople, Eucherius of Lyons, without passing through the prepa- 
 ratory stages of Deacon and Priest. Indeed, departure from the ge- 
 neral rule, in extraordinary cases, was expressly permitted by the 
 Apostolical canons. 
 
 It is most true that the Church of England exercised, in reference 
 to the foreign Reformed Churches, great caution and delicacy; avoid- 
 ing all explicit declaration of the necessity of Episcopacy to the ex- 
 istence of the Christian Church ; contenting herself with asserting itj 
 divine institution, and with buffering none but clergymen Episcopal!/ 
 ordained to officiate within her pale. The primitive Christians, it has 
 been seen, did not think it necessary to practise a similar reserve. 
 " Ecclesia est m Episcopo'' was their avowed maxim. But the ChurcIi. 
 of England was very peculiarly situated. In the admiration expressed 
 of her forbearance, in the particular under consideration, the write? 
 of this does not hesitate, therefore, cordially to unite. But it is 
 very much to be regretted that divines of the Church of Eno-. 
 land, although zealous supporters of the divine institution of Episco 
 pacy, should have gone so far as to admit the validity of Presbvterial 
 ordination. It is true, they confine the admission to cases of necessit; . 
 StUl this admission has furnished a weapon against which it is not. 
 easy to defend the established doctrine or practice of the Church; aud 
 i't may b^ ^uestianed whether the conce^sioits made by divines 9f the 
 
.im NOTK. 
 
 Churcli of Eng-Iaiid, irt consequence of the peculiar situstlioft in which 
 this Church was for some time placed, have not had the effect of con* 
 firming" many persons in their error on the subject of Church communion^ 
 and of thus injuring- the cause of Christian unity and order. The neces- 
 sity of Episcopal ordination, however, to the existence of the Chris- 
 tian Church, although not declared, in so many ivordsy by the Church 
 of Eng-land, follows, we contend, irresistibly, from the language of 
 her standards. 
 
 It would not appear, therefore, to be accurate to say that the Church 
 of England, at the time of the Reformation, took very moderate 
 ground on the subject of Episcopacy. She took the ground that the 
 ministry is necessary to the Church, and that outward ordination is ne- 
 cessary to the ministry. She took the ground that Almighty God, by 
 his Holy Spirit, has appointed the orders of Bishops, Priests, and 
 Deacons ; and has given to the highest of these the ordaining power- 
 She prescribed it as a sacred rule to herself to recognize no person as 
 a minister of Christ, who had not received Episcopal consecration. 
 It follows, irresistibly, as we have seen, from all this, that Episcopal 
 ordination is essential to the very existence of the Christian Church. 
 The Church of England, it is true, did not think it necessary formally 
 to draw the conclusion, and thus throw it, if I may so speak, in the 
 faces of the foreign Protestants. This would have been treating them 
 unkindly. But does the Church of England any where admit, either 
 expressly or impliedly, that Presbyterial ordination is valid even in 
 cases of necessity ? No. Does she any where admit that Episcopacy 
 is not essential to the existence of the Church ? No. What founda- 
 tion, then, is there for saying that she touk rcrj moderate ground on 
 this subject ? There is nothing but the simple circumstance of her 
 not formally drawing that conclusion which results necessarily from 
 the plain and unequivocal language of her standards. In short, she did 
 not declare, in so many -words — there can be no Church -without a Bishop ; 
 contenting herself with declaring it »« substance. It was surely not 
 necessary for her to say to her Protestant brethren, you have laid aside 
 Episcopacy, and, therefore, although you are Christian societies, you can- 
 not, fairly and properly, be considered as a Christian Church. If she 
 had not been thus delicately situated with respect to the foreign Pro- 
 testants, it is very probable that she would have ybrma% adopted the 
 primitive language — Ecclesia est in Episcopo. But if the Church of 
 England no wliere says, in so many words — there can be no Church 
 without a Bishop ; she is very far from saying, either expressly or im- 
 pliedly, there may be a Church without a Bishop. 
 
 In proof that Episcopacy is not binding upon Christians in all times 
 and places, and is not necessary to the very being of the visible Church, 
 reference is sometimes had to the authority of the great Hooker. It 
 may be well to inquire into kis opinions upon this subject somewhat 
 particularly. 
 
WOTB. ^9 
 
 *' Let U9 not fear to be herein bold and peremptory, that If any thing 
 In tJie Ciinrch's g-ovemment, surely tlie first institution of Bishops was 
 from heaven, was even of God ; the /foly Ghost -was the author of it.^^ 
 Ecclesiastical Folitif, hooh viii. sect. 5. *' I may securely, therefore, 
 conclude, there are, at this day, in the Church of England, no other 
 than the same degrees of ecclesiastical orders, namely, Bishops, Priests, 
 and Deacons, which had their beg-inning; from Christ and his blcanfd 
 .ipostles themselves." Ibid, booh v. sect. 78. 
 
 Hooker, then, believed most fully in the divine institution of Epis- 
 copacy. It is impossible to imagine language more express than tha^. 
 which he employs upon this subject. 
 
 But did Hooker regard Episcopacy as perpetually binding upon tlie 
 Ghurch, so as to be unalterable by human authority? 
 
 *' We hold, that God's clergy are a state, which hath been, and will, 
 be, as long as there is a Church upon earth, necessarily by the plain loord 
 of God himself; a state whereunto the rest of God's people must be 
 subject, as touching things that appertain to their soul's health,'* 
 '* We hold there have ever been, and ever ozight to be in such case, at 
 leastwise, two sorts of ecclesiastical persons, the one subordinate unto 
 the other; as to the Apostles in the beginning, and to the Hishops al- 
 ways since, we find plainly both in Scripture, and in all ecclesiastical 
 records, other ministers of the word and sacraments have been." ** A 
 number of particularities there are, which make for the more conve- 
 nient being of these principal and perpetual parts in ecclesiastical po- 
 lity, but yet are not of such constant use and necessity ui God's Church. 
 Of this kind are, times and places appointed for the exercise of reli- 
 gion, &c." " Novir, although that which the Scripture hath of things 
 iin the former kind be /or ever permanent i yet, in the latter,'* &c. Ibid-, 
 hook Hi. sect. 11. 
 
 Hooker, therefore, not only represented Episcopacy as a divine insti- 
 tution, but maintained the general principle of its permanent obliga- 
 tion. He admitted, indeed, that it ii proper, where ordination by Bi- 
 shops cannot possibly be had, to resort to Presbyterial ordination rather 
 than suffer the worship and ordinances of the Church entirely to cease. 
 And upon the same principle he would, no doubt, have held it to be 
 lawful, where clerical ordination is entirely inaccessible, to have re- 
 course to ordination by laymen. But Hooker goes so far as to say 
 
 " When the exigence of necessity doth constrain to leave the usual 
 ways of the Church, which otherwise we would willingly keep : where 
 the Church must needs have some ordained, and neither hath nor can 
 have possibly a Bishop to ordain; in case of such necessity, the ordi- 
 nary institution of God hath given oftentimes, and may give place. 
 And therefore we are not, simply, without exception, to urge a lineal 
 descent of power from the Apostles by continued succession of Bishops 
 in crery ffeetnnl ordination. These cases of inevitajjle ne^e^^itv alonv 
 
4^ NOTE. 
 
 excepted, none may ordain but only Bishops.** Eecleniastical PnlitVy 
 hooh vii. sect. 14. Tims Hooker not only concedes the expediency of 
 resorting to Presbyterial ordination in cases of necessity, but seems 
 to admit Presbyterial ordination, under such circumstances, to be 
 really valid. Whether the learned author, in this, has not gone beyond 
 the strict line of consistency, I will not here presume to examine. 
 But it is perfectly clear, from the passages which have been cited, that 
 Hooker maintained, exi)ressly and unequivocally, the general principles 
 — that distinct and Subordinate orders of ministers were established 
 by divine authority — tliat the right of ordination is exclusively in the 
 order of Bishops — and that this was intended by its divine author as a 
 permanent mstitution, which man should have no power to change. To 
 these general principles Hooker admitted but a single exception — that 
 of inevitable necessity ; — where the worship and ordinances must ceasCj 
 or Episcopal ordination be dipensed with. 
 
 With the single exception, just mentioned, it was the undoubted 
 doctrine of Hooker that Episcopacy is essential to the vei^y being of 
 the Christian Church. For example, he held the ministry to be es- 
 bcntial to the existence of the Church, and outward ordination to be 
 essential to the ministry.* The power of ordination he represented 
 as peculiar to the order of Bishops — ** The power of ordaining both 
 Deacons and Presbyters, the power to give the power of order unto 
 others, this also hath been always peculiar iinto Bishops. It hath not 
 been heard of that inferior Presbyters were ever authorized to ordain.** 
 Thus we have the general principles asserted — Episcopacy is essential 
 to outward ordinntinn — outward ordination is essential to the ministry 
 the ministry is essential to the Church. 
 
 But wc will not rely simply upon constructive evidence, however 
 irresistible it may be. " Nor was this order peculiar unto some few 
 Churches, but the whole world universally became subject thereunto; 
 insomuch as they did not account it to be a Church which was not 
 subject unto a Bishop. It was the general received persuasion of 
 the ancient Christian world, that Ecclesia est in Episcopo, the outward 
 being of a Church consisted in the hai>iiig of a Bishop.^* Ecclesi- 
 astical PolitUy book rii. sect. 5. 
 
 Hooker would have been the last person to call in question a doc- 
 trine that could plead the universal reception and practice of the pri- 
 mitive Church. But, apart from this, he evidently mentions the opi- 
 nion with approbation ; and, of course, adopts it as his own. 
 
 Thus Hooker clearly made Episcopacy a fundamental of the Christian 
 Church ; — that upon which she depended not merely for her tvcll being, 
 but for her very being. 
 
 Vrofoundly as we venerate the memory of Hooker, we would tj^e 
 
 • Ecclesiastical Polity, book iii. sect. 2 
 
A OIK. t9i 
 
 vue iibcrt), wn'u gicut uctcrencc, to express tiie upiiuou, mat, in ad- 
 mitting-, as lie seems to admit, Prcsbyterial ordination to be reallit 
 valid in cases of necessity, he lias not accurately stated the operation 
 of the principle in question; but lias been led, by his amiable feel- 
 ings toward his brethren, the non-Iiplscopal Protestants, to recog- 
 nize tUem as trvie Churches of Christ, in direct inc<»nsi3tency witii 
 his own deliberate assertion — Eccletsia eat in Episcopo — tlie outward 
 BEiXG qf a Church consisted in the havixg op a Hibiiup. (ireat as 
 may be the authority of Hooker, it must certainly yield to the univer- 
 sal practice and persuasion of the primitive Church. We may add, 
 that the charitable admission of Hooker falls short of its object. He 
 expressly confines his admission of the validity of I'resbyterial ordina* 
 tion to cases oHnevitable Jiecessity. Now, it may be questioned wliethcr u 
 case of Presbytcrial ordination ever occurredMial could fairly be broutj^i^i 
 within this description. The Reformers might have found great diffi- 
 culty in procuring Episcopal ordination; but, certainly, history v/ill 
 not warrant us in saying that there was any actual itnpossibidty in the 
 case. With proper efforts and proi)er sacrifices the business might have 
 been accomplished. But anxious as the Reformers were to procure 
 Bishops, their zeal was not of that thorough kind which is checked 
 only by an absolute impossibility of attaining its object. Whatever 
 may have been the circumstances of the original Jicformers, tlie plea of 
 necessity can be of no avail to modern separatists. 
 
 Real charity, let it be repeated, does not consist in lovrcring the 
 standard of Christian doctrine or order to avoid hurting the feelings 
 of others. Religious truth is of too much importance to be accom- 
 modated to tl»e feelings of any set of men, however respectable or 
 excellent. (;harity consists in love to our fellow creatures; in a sin- 
 cere wish and endeavour to do them good. It will dispose us, no 
 doubt, to think favourably of the intentions of one another ; to che- 
 rish the delightful belief that real piety exists among all deno- 
 rainations of Christians ; and that, wherever it exists, even fundamen- 
 tal error will not intercept tlie mercy of heaven. At the same time, 
 ;t is of the utmost importance that we should, in every respect, em- 
 brace the truth as it is in Christ. Sincerity in error cannot possibly 
 i)e so acceptable to God as sincerity in the truth; otherwise truth 
 and error must be precisely upon a level in his view. We must an- 
 swer to God for our errors, not less than for our actions. It may be 
 our own fault that we are in error? and just in proportion as error 
 is the result of culpable causes, will it be a subject of condemnation. 
 This, in any individual case, can be known only to God ; with whom 
 all judgment sliould, accordingly, be left. All we are at liberty to do 
 is to lay down such general rules as may be fairly collected from Scrip, 
 ture ; in the exercise of which liberty we may venture to say that re- 
 sponsibility for error will be great in proportion as it is entertained 
 
i9Z r;OTE 
 
 under abundant opportunities of accurate information, and as the con • 
 sequences resulting- from it are likely to be deeply injurious to the 
 beat interests oFthe Church of Christ. Even in such cases, a merciftil 
 God will, we have reason to trust, make allowance for the force of pre- 
 judice, and of early impression. But what shall we say of those who 
 continue in pernicious error from apathy that will not inquire, or from 
 pride tliat will not submit to the mortification which a renunciation of 
 former opinions is supposed to involve ? It is constantly represented 
 m Scripture as a serious and deep offence to rend the body of Christ. 
 Imposition of sinful terms of communion seems to be the only justifi- 
 •ation that can be pleaded. Persons, officiating- as clerg-ymen, are 
 particularly bound to subdue all prejudice and passion, that they may 
 ascertain, by calm and thorough investig-ation, whether they have a 
 valid commission from Christ; or are ministering-, without any autho- 
 rity from him, in holy things. Inquiry, thus conducted, we do humbly 
 think, would produce the most happy effects on the unity of the- 
 Christian Church. 
 
 THE END. 
 
 ERRATA. 
 
 Paga 19, first line of the notes, for " ageed" read agreed. i 
 
 83, last line, for " 50" read 60. ^ 
 
 434, line 8, for " Rerformers" read Reformers. 
 447, lines 21, 24, and 25, for " thurst" read /An/r. 
 
00355J9S5 '*' 
 
 937«73 
 
 0.1 
 
 BRITTLE DO NOT 
 PHOTOCOPY