STRICTURES, &c. CHAPTER IV.

111

THE reasonings from the writings of Augustine and Calvin, and from facts in the history of the church, in support of the principles of the Plea, are erroneous and inapplicable.

---

THE Author of the Plea, in appealing to the conduct of the church of God in past ages, has undoubtedly addressed Christians on a subject that will at once find its way to their hearts. No intelligent believer will be inclined to despise, or even to regard with indifference the example left by the saints in former days; he will delight to trace their steps, and to listen to their counsels, expressed or implied in their living or dying testimony, in order to give honour to their memory, to refresh his faith, and to assist himself in ascertaining and walking in the good and holy ways of God. But it is believed, that the Author of the Plea has in vain referred to “the cloud of witnesses” to bear him out in the principles for which he contends—no living or dying testimony will be found from the saints in his behalf. They speak to another purpose: their language has uniformly been, “let “us go forth without the camp bearing his re- “proach,” and this peculiarly and constantly the reproach of his “words,” despised or resisted by

112

the world; the footsteps of the flock point out another course than that marked out by him. “Contending earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints,” we see them resisting error in every form, holding fast the truth in every form, and esteeming even their blood an easy and ready price for victory, in the service of bearing witness for Christ. Theirs was not a faith so easy to gain, or so easy to hold, as the faith exhibited in the Plea; and, instead of countenancing the dangerous security which is here commended, their tears and sufferings will go a great way in encouraging and supporting those who, in these days, pray in secret, and in public labour for the truth of God.

To ascertain the mistake made by the Author of the Plea, in appealing to orthodox writers of eminence, such as Augustine and Calvin, and to the history of the church, in support of his plan of communion, it is necessary to keep in view the principles he has held up, or, if you please, the creed he has stated, as comprehending the doctrines sufficient to salvation, and, therefore, to church communion, and inquire whether there is any thing in the testimony to which he has appealed to support such a system. It is not denied, that there will be found in this testimony, earnest endeavours to promote Christian communion, to reunite and bind together the divided churches of Christ; sincere and hearty grief at the divisions which have, in every age since the time of the apostles, distracted the church, and many well-meant plans and attempts to secure the

113

visible union of the body of Christ. But, then, it is denied that such cases as furnish a legitimate example to Christians, or such writers as Augustine and Calvin particularly, to which an appeal is made, have any tendency to recommend or countenance the system of communion held up in the Plea; it is asserted that this communion is a very different one, and is very inferior to that communion which all such testimony contemplates. On the other hand, it is admitted that there have been many unlawful attempts to effect a union between all professing Christians, which, indeed, give countenance to the present undertaking; but whoever will be at the pains to examine them, will see that their tendency was to dishonour God, and Christ, and his truth, and to destroy his church.*

_____

* Dr. M. mentions one, at least, of this nature, as an example which he recommends to the imitation of churches now, but which, I hope, upon further reflection, he would disapprove—Plea, p. 201. In this instance, it was agreed, “1. To avoid the Arminian controversy.” Whatever was the issue of that attempt, and whatever the subsequent conduct of some who were concerned in it, was it faithful to avoid that controversy? So did not Augustine—so did not Calvin—so did not the Synod of Dort—so did not the apostle Paul, nor any faithful ambassador of the cross since his day. Another instance of a similar attempt at communion, was that projected by Arminius himself. “In the last will made by this eminent man, a little before his death, he plainly and positively declares, that the great object he had in view, in all his theological and ministerial labours, was to unite in one community, cemented by the bonds of fraternal charity, all sects and denominations of Christians, papists excepted.” Then follows a quotation from the will, and the historian proceeds:— “These words, in their amount, coincide perfectly with the mo-

114

This general observation respecting the mistake of the Plea, is necessary, to guard the writer of these pages from being misunderstood, and to show what is the precise object of this chapter, which is to prove, not that the faithful have never desired and attempted to unite the church in truth, peace, and order; but that they did not attempt a union on such principles, and on such a foundation, as is pleaded for in the work under examination. And in order to a full refutation of the reasonings of the Author of the Plea, it will not be necessary, nor will it answer any valuable end, to go into an examination of every particular testimony or fact to which he has referred. It will be quite sufficient to select some of the most distinguished, and show that their sentiments and conduct have not been justly represented, when they were brought to support the system under which they have been here enrolled. The only subjects of examination, therefore, will be the testimony from the writings and conduct of Augustine—those of Calvin—and the conduct of the Synod of Dort. After this a few remarks will be made on the conduct of the English divines at and about the time of the Westminster Assembly, a particular consideration of them being the less impor-

_____

[continued from the previous page] dern system of Arminianism, which extends the limits of the “Christian church, and relaxes the bonds of fraternal communion in such a manner, that Christians of all sects, and all denominations, whatever their sentiments and opinions may be, papists excepted, may be formed into one religious body, and live together in brotherly love and concord.” Mosheim’s Church Hist. Vol. v. p. 439. Charlestown, 1811.

115

tant as it has been shown that Dr. Mason’s principles are absolutely inconsistent with a faithful adherence to the doctrines of their Confession of Faith.

We are in the first place then, to consider the testimony drawn from the writings and conduct of AUGUSTINE. This derives its importance not so much, indeed, from its bulk and the space it occupies, for the quotations from him in the Plea are not very copious, as it does from his name, and from the fact that his principles and his conduct certainly illustrate the prevailing character of the church in his time, on this subject. But previously to an examination of the testimony itself, it will be worth while to consider that Augustine lived in an age remarkably corrupt; in which it is plain the way was preparing for those defections which not very long after ended in the great apostacy foretold in the Scriptures. This is absolutely necessary, to guard us against the influence of the principles and conduct of so great a man, in relation to church order and government; and it is but just, for the greatest minds will be tinctured with the prevailing character of the time in which they live. Happy, eminently happy he, who keeps his garments unspotted. The friends of Episcopacy look to the time in which Augustine lived, as a part of that period which is to instruct the church in relation to her government and worship, and hence they have drawn stores of argument to maintain the hierarchy of the English nation. Dr. Mason appeals to

116

this period for a purpose somewhat similar, viz. to have all those things then prevailing, and now existing in the church of England, that relate to government and worship, considered as matter of forbearance and indifference—which is the next step to making them binding, this having been the course of the church of England herself in relation to these matters. She first demanded that they should be submitted to and allowed, as matters of indifference, and then pronounced all who would not comply, schismatic and disorderly. And what is very remarkable, Dr. Mason, Plea, p. 77, has gone into an elaborate and successful demonstration of the scriptural authority of presbyterial government, of the convictions of great men on this subject at that time, of the great departure of the church from the order appointed by her head, and yet produces this very state of things as an argument for an equal toleration, unconcern, and indifference now. But to take off the effect, in some degree, of this appeal to the age of Augustine, and to Augustine himself, we ought to consider the real character of that age. To illustrate this, the reader’s attention is requested to a few quotations from Mosheim. After a general view of the magnificent ecclesiastical establishment of that time, erected by the emperor Constantine, he says,

“In the episcopal order, the bishop of Rome was the first in rank, and was distinguished by a sort of pre-eminence over all other prelates. Prejudices, arising from a variety of causes, con-

117

tributed to establish this superiority, but it was chiefly owing to certain circumstances of grandeur and opulence, by which mortals, for the most part, form their ideas of pre-eminence and dignity, and which they generally confound with the reasons of a just and legal authority. The bishop of Rome surpassed all his brethren in the magnificence and splendour of the church over which he presided; in the riches of his revenues and possessions; in the number and variety of his ministers; in his credit with the people, and in his sumptuous and splendid manner of living. These dazzling marks of human power, these ambiguous proofs of true greatness and felicity, had such a mighty influence upon the minds of the multitude, that the see of Rome became, in this century, a most seducing object of sacerdotal ambition.” Cent. iv. Part ii. Chap. ii. Sect. v.

“The additions made by the emperors and others to the wealth, honours, and advantages of the clergy, were followed with a proportionable augmentation of vices and luxury, particularly among those of that sacred order who lived in great and opulent cities; and that many such additions were made to that order after the time of Constantine, is a matter that admits of no dispute. The bishops, on the one hand, contended with each other, in the most scandalous manner, concerning the extent of their respective jurisdictions; while, on the other, they trampled upon the rights of the people, violated the privileges of in-

118

ferior ministers, and imitated, in their conduct, and in their manner of living, the arrogance, voluptuousness, and luxury of magistrates and princes. This pernicious example was soon followed by the several ecclesiastical orders,” Ibid, Sect. viii.

“An enormous train of different superstitions were gradually substituted in the place of true religion and genuine piety. This odious revolution was owing to a variety of causes. A ridiculous precipitation in receiving new opinions, a preposterous desire of imitating the pagan rites, and of blending them with the Christian worship, and that idle propensity which the generality of mankind have towards a gaudy and ostentatious religion, all contributed to establish the reign of superstition upon the ruins of Christianity. Accordingly, frequent pilgrimages were undertaken to Palestine, and to the tombs of the martyrs, as if there alone the sacred principles of virtue, and the certain hope of salvation were to be acquired. The reins being once let loose to superstition, which knows no bounds, absurd notions and idle ceremonies multiplied every day. Quantities of dust and earth, brought from Palestine, and other places remarkable for their supposed sanctity, were handed about as the most powerful remedies against the violence of wicked spirits, and were sold and bought every where at enormous prices. The public processions and supplications, by which the pagans

119

endeavoured to appease their gods, were now adopted into the Christian worship, and celebrated with great pomp and magnificence in several places. The virtues that had formerly been ascribed to the heathen temples, to their lustrations, to the statues of their gods and heroes, were now attributed to Christian churches, to water consecrated by certain forms of prayer, and to the images of holy men. And the same privileges that the former enjoyed under the darkness of paganism, were conferred upon the latter by the light of the gospel, or rather under that cloud of superstition that was obscuring its glory.” Ibid, Ch. iii. Sect. ii.

Here is a representation of the state of the church in the fourth century. Augustine flourished just at the end of that century and the beginning of the fifth; (he died A. D. 430;) and as, it is well known, corruption constantly and rapidly increased till the full establishment of popery, things could have been no better in his time. It will not be difficult to believe, then, that his sentiments on church order and government were tinctured with the spirit of his age, and that they are to be received with the greatest caution. And when this is considered, very few will be disposed to approve either of his conduct or his sentiments concerning the Donatists, cited in the Plea, to support the system of Dr. M.; especially when it is remembered that they separated on account of fraud and injustice in the appointment of one of their superior officers. They were

120

free from heresy, and the crimes which were committed by many of their name, (and which, in Dr. Mason’s quotation from Augustine, are unjustly charged upon their society,) had no sanction from the respectable part. “The doctrine of the Donatists was conformable to that of the church, as even their adversaries confess, nor were their lives less exemplary than those of other Christian societies, if we except the enormous conduct of the circumcelliones, which the greatest part of the sect regarded with the utmost detestation and abhorrence.” Mosh. Cent. iv. Part ii. Ch. v. Sect. 8.

All these, then, are circumstances which must take from Augustine’s testimony, on the order and government of the church, much of the weight which his distinguished name (which, doubtless, will be known and revered wherever true learning and piety flourish) is calculated to give. In an age when the church was remarkably corrupt in her ministers, worship, and government, when, as we have seen, the true Antichrist was rapidly assuming his distinct features in the pre-eminence, pride, and luxury of the bishop of Rome; when “wealth, honours, and advantages, were attended with an augmentation of the vices of the clergy;” when “an innumerable train of superstitions was substituted in the place of true religion;”* when

_____

* Augustine himself says somewhere, that in his time they were under a yoke of ceremonies as heavy or worse than that of the Jews. “He complained, that in his time the commands of God

121

there prevailed “a ridiculous precipitation in receiving new opinions, and a preposterous desire of imitating the pagan rites, and of blending them with the Christian worship;”—in such an age, I say, it certainly does not manifest very correct and scriptural views of the order and government of the church to insist upon union with her. To be found enlisted on such ground, (although it is known Augustine did not go all lengths with the defection of the times,) against a people resisting injustice and corruption, suffering severely—for they felt the power of the civil arm—unimpeachable in their doctrine and lives, “regarding, with the utmost abhorrence and detestation, the enormous conduct” of some who had united themselves to them, and in danger of being driven to extremes by violence and persecution;—to be found enlisted on such ground, rather requires apology and explanation—it requires the forbearance due to human infirmity, but not commendation, nor the honour of furnishing an example to the future ages of the church of God.

But supposing all the authority which Augustine’s sentiments on this subject are thought to possess be

_____

[continued from the previous page] were neglected, and every thing was so full of presumption, that “a person was more severely censured for having touched the ground with his bare feet, within eight days of his baptism, than for having drowned his senses in intoxication. He complained, that the church, which the mercy of God intended to place in a state of liberty, was so grievously oppressed, that the condition of the Jews was more tolerable.” Calvin’s Institutes, B. iv. Ch. x. Sect. 13. Can the church, in such an age, and under such circumstances, be an example for us?

122

just, yet it is denied that he gives any testimony whatever in favour of the cause which he is brought to support. Tinctured as he may have been with the influence of the time in which he lived, as it regarded exteriors and matters of subordinate importance, his name is connected, imperishably, with the dearest truth of God’s church, and gives no countenance to a plan of communion which leaves out the contested points, the very peculiar doctrines of grace, concerning original sin, election, predestination and perseverance, the illustration and defence of which distinguish his life and writings. These, we have seen, are either omitted or expressed with obscurity in the creed of the Plea. Augustine would never have consented to be silent, indifferent, or even obscure in his language and conduct in relation to them. It is well known that it was in his time Pelagius lived and broached the heresy which goes under his name. This, however differently it may be expressed, and whatever modification of it different ages and circumstances may cause, is still the same—it always leads to the abandonment and rejection of the same principles of truth, and to the support of the same erroneous tenets. By Pelagius it was introduced, with great art, and after many years of confidence, among the faithful. “In his” (Pelagius’) “first writings his erroneous views of grace were so artfully expressed, and so guarded with cautious terms, that Augustine owns he was almost deceived by them. But when he saw his other writings of a later date, he discerned that he

123

might artfully own the word GRACE, and, by retaining the term, break the force of prejudice and avoid offence, and yet conceal his meaning under a general ambiguity.” Milner’s Church History, vol. 2. p. 359. Boston, 1809. It is unnecessary to give a full and minute account of this controversy; a very brief view will give us enough of Augustine’s sentiments on this subject. It appears that Pelagius, and his coadjutor, Coelestius, had both, for many years, enjoyed a high esteem among the faithful in different parts of the church. Even Jerome, who is known to have been jealous in the extreme, ready to discover and expose, with the greatest severity, every attempt at perverting the gospel, was highly delighted with Pelagius in particular. These circumstances show that they must have been in the habit of teaching a doctrine greatly conformable in appearance to the received doctrine of the church. Yet it was at length discovered that they were secretly perverting the truth and corrupting the minds of the people. It became immediately necessary to use more discriminating terms, and to enter into an explanation of the meaning of those which were then in common use. And then it was seen that the great points of controversy were the scripture doctrines of original sin, grace, and predestination. These very subjects, which men are often disposed to pronounce doctrines of doubtful disputation, are the very elementary principles of divine truth, and a correct and clear exhibition of them is of the first importance; nor can any hesitation, or

124

obscurity, or indecision be countenanced by those who would be faithful to the trust committed to them in the gospel. This Augustine showed; he was convinced that there were controversies of equal importance with that which related to the doctrine of the Trinity, or the godhead of Christ. He, together with a friend, had written a letter to a lady of distinction, cautioning her against the new heresy in general terms. “She thanks them,” says the historian, Milner, (vol. 2. p. 285. Boston, 1809,) “for the admonition, but appears to insinuate that it was unnecessary to their family, which had never been infected with any heresy. She seems to mean the errors relating to the Trinity, and to have had no clear idea of the Pelagian heresy, then new in the world.” They reply, (it is transcribed by Milner on the next page,) “We well know how sound you are in the doctrine of the Trinity, but there are evils of another kind than those which affect that article of the Christian faith, evils which injure the glory of the whole Trinity.” And what “evils” are these but such as strike at the glory of the divine Sovereignty, in the denial of election and predestination? such too as strike at the glory of the divine power and grace, when under vague and general terms, man’s real guilt and sin, and the nature and extent of divine influences in regeneration, are left undetermined or in their truth denied? These are evils which do certainly “injure the glory of the whole Trinity”—these were the evils which were broached

125

by Pelagius—and it was against these that Augustine set himself with all his heart, employing many years, exerting all his influence, and leaving, as a testimony of his concern for the great doctrines to which they stand opposed, writings which have been constantly appealed to by the learned and pious in every subsequent age. The issue of his labours was that Pelagius, for his errors and obscurities on the doctrines of grace, was condemned as a heretic, and has ever since been held as such by the church of God. It is not to be imagined then, that he who toiled and laboured in such a cause would yield his support to a creed and communion, in which these principles are some of them wholly omitted and others vaguely expressed—especially when this creed and communion are offered in the place of such as have these doctrines stated with the utmost plainness and precision. Would he not conclude that this change was proposed to consult the inclinations of men who disliked these truths, and immediately demand that they should be distinctly inserted and recognised? If the life, the writings and the labours of a man, can give a reply in the present instance, it must be yes—It is admitted, indeed, that in the Plea more satisfactory terms in appearance are used than those which were employed by Pelagius. But this is nothing to the purpose. “Grace” at one time, is as significant an expression as “renewing and sanctifying operations of the Holy Spirit” at another, and both require distinct explanation. The Arminians of the present day will not be back-

126

ward to use the last expression—they were not backward to use it at the synod of Dort,—but they hold it to be entirely consistent with their dangerous tenets concerning the freedom of the will, with their denial of irresistible grace, and of the eternal predestination of the condition of men by the decree of God: sentiments which, however expressed or disguised, we are sure Augustine would have regarded with abhorrence, since it is with the truth on these points, that his name and writings are imperishably linked, and through the lapse of fourteen centuries, he has been regarded by the church as the distinguished advocate of the doctrines of grace. With this creed therefore, which abandons the contested points, Augustine would have had nothing to do—and it is evident that with what zeal soever he censured separation from the church, he would not only have commended the separation, but urged and accomplished the expulsion of men holding such errors as may here be tolerated—that however he urged men to return to the bosom and communion of the church, he would never have received into her embrace men who denied the truth on such points as these, and that his name furnishes the Author of the Plea no support whatever. And, to conclude, the principles and conduct of Augustine illustrate the prevailing character of the church in his time. In Palestine, Italy and Africa, the sentiments of Pelagius were successively condemned by the highest authorities in the church, after repeated and laborious examination by ecclesiastical judica-

127

tories assembled for that very purpose, showing by common consent, that she regarded with the utmost abhorrence, and watched with the most scrupulous care, every thing like indecision on the peculiar doctrines of grace.

We proceed to the testimony from the writings and conduct of CALVIN. In the quotations which are offered from the writings of this great man, it is acknowledged that there is, at first view, an appearance of great countenance to the sentiments which they are brought to support. But, it is believed, that when these passages are fairly examined in their connexion, and the sentiments of Calvin in other parts of the work, from which these quotations are made, together with his conduct on various occasions, very different conclusions will be formed. In order that the reader may judge the more correctly, and with the greater facility, the two first paragraphs quoted by the Author of the Plea, are here transcribed—the remainder, it may be observed, speak a similar language.*

“Where the preached gospel is reverently heard, and the sacraments are not neglected, there, during such time, there is no deceitful nor ambiguous appearance of a church, of which no man is permitted to despise the authority, to disregard the admonitions, to resist the advices, or to mock her chastisements, much less to revolt from her, and break her unity. For the Lord lays so much stress upon communion with his church,

_____

* Plea p. 169.

128

as to account that man a fugitive and deserter from religion, who shall contumaciously alienate himself from any Christian society, which only cherishes the true ministry of the Word and Sacraments. He so recommends her authority, as to reckon the violation thereof a diminution of his own,” which 1 Tim. iii. 15, and Eph. i. 23, v. 27, are produced to prove. Calvin then proceeds.* “Whence it follows, that a departure

_____

* Here is a very remarkable omission, which, as I think it has a very material influence in illustrating Calvin’s meaning in this passage, and likewise in illustrating and confirming the representation already given of the system of the Plea, I shall here supply. “He so recommends her authority as to reckon the violation thereof a diminution of his own;” thus far Dr. M.’s quotation. “For,” Calvin continues, “it is not a trivial circumstance that the church is called ‘the house of God, the pillar and ground of truth.’ For in these words Paul signifies, that in order to keep the truth of God from being lost in the world, the church is its faithful guardian, because it has been the will of God, by the ministry of the church, to preserve the pure preaching of his word, and to manifest himself as our affectionate father, while he nourishes us with spiritual food, and provides all things conducive to our salvation. Nor is it small praise that the church is chosen and separated by Christ to be his spouse, not having spot or wrinkle,’ to be ‘his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.’” Why was this omitted? This is the very place in which the great characteristic of the church, and which gave importance to union with her in Calvin’s mind, was stated. She is “the faithful guardian of the truth,” appointed by God “to keep the truth from being lost in the world.” But is it the characteristic of the church to which Dr. Mason invites communion? Is it not rather one, in which the truth is and must be, in many important points, obscured, relinquished, and lost? Besides, it is the very character which Calvin gives the church that explains the inference with which Dr. Mason resumes the quotation— “Hence it follows that a departure from the church is a denial of

129

from the church is a denial of God and of Christ. Wherefore we ought to be the more on our guard against so wicked a dissention. Because while we endeavour, as much as in us lies, to effect the ruin of God’s truth, we deserve to be crushed with the lightnings of his wrath. A more atrocious crime cannot be imagined than to violate, with sacrilegious perfidy, the conjugal union which the only begotten Son of God has deigned to contract with us.” Institutes, Book IV. ch. 1. s. 10.

Again, “Our assertion, that the pure ministry of the word and the pure celebration of the sacraments, is a sufficient pledge and earnest of our safety in embracing as a church the society in which they shall both be found, goes so far as this, that she is never to be renounced so long as she shall persevere in them, although in other respects, she may abound in faults. Even in the administration of doctrine or sacraments, some defect may possibly creep in, which yet ought not to alienate us from her communion. For all the heads of true doctrine are not of the same rank. Some are so necessary to be known that they must be fixed and

_____

[continued from the previous page] God and Christ;” and that in so doing “we endeavour, as far as lies in our power, to effect the ruin of God’s truth.” But who does not see that departing from the church merits such denunciation only in proportion as that church holds the truth, and that to recommend a communion relinquishing the truth, or one in which the church was forfeiting her character as the faithful guardian of the truth, was the last thing Calvin had in view? Justice to that great man, but above all justice to the great concern Dr. M. was handling, required the insertion of the omitted clause.

130

undisputed by all as the characteristic points of religion: Such as that ‘there is one God’—that ‘Christ is God and the Son of God’—that ‘our salvation depends upon the mercy of God,’ and the like. There are others, which although subjects of controversy among the churches, do not destroy the unity of the faith. If, for example, one church without the lust of contention, or obstinacy in asserting its own opinion, should think that the souls of believers departing from the body speed their flight immediately to heaven; another not daring to determine any thing about their place, holds it, nevertheless, for certain, that they live to the Lord. What two churches should fall out on such a matter as this? When Paul says, ‘Let us as many as are perfect be of one mind; if in any thing ye are of different mind, the Lord shall reveal this unto you,’ does he not sufficiently indicate that disagreement in things not so very necessary, ought not to be a source of division among Christians? To agree throughout is indeed our first attainment; but since no man is perfectly free from the clouds of ignorance, we either shall leave no church at all, or we must forgive mistakes in those things where ignorance may prevail without violating the substance of religion or hazarding the loss of salvation. I would not here be understood to patronise even the minutest errors, nor to express an opinion that they ought to be cherished in the slightest degree by flattery or connivance. But I say that we

131

may not, on account of smaller disagreements, rashly forsake any church wherein is preserved, sound and unhurt, that doctrine which forms the safeguard of piety, and that use of the sacraments instituted by the Lord.”*

It is admitted without hesitation, that these are sentiments which appear at first view strongly to countenance the cause they were quoted to support, and I doubt not, were so considered by the Author of the Plea. But a little examination will show that they have been too hastily adduced, and that he was certainly premature in the triumphant strain of the paragraph which follows. What does Calvin mean, it should be inquired, by “the pure ministry of the word and the pure celebration of the sacraments?”—by “preserving safe and unhurt that doctrine which forms the safeguard of piety, and that use of the sacraments instituted by our Lord?” When he asks what two churches should fall out on an occasion in which one modestly asserts that the souls of believers at their death immediately pass into heaven; and the other, not daring to determine any thing about their place, holds it certain that they live to the Lord—are we to believe he would be equally indifferent in the case of two churches, one of which absolutely denied, or artfully corrupted, the doctrines of election, invincible or irresistible grace and perseverance, and the other firmly believed them? Besides, the very severity of the terms which he uses should have led the Author of the Plea to consider

_____

* Id. ibid. sect. 12.

132

whether Calvin had in view the same description of men with those who are opposed by himself. Those whom Calvin speaks of, he says, were men “who despised the authority, disregarded the admonitions, resisted the advices, and mocked the chastisements of the church, in which the true gospel is reverently heard and the sacraments are not neglected”—who are chargeable “with a denial of God and of Christ”—who “are endeavouring as much as in them lies to effect the ruin of God’s truth.”—These, and many other such expressions, I imagine, Dr. M. himself would hardly declare applicable to those christian communities with whom he has entered into controversy, and should therefore have led him to examine whether the principles he asserts were the same with those asserted by Calvin—whether his system of communion and Calvin’s were the same—and whether, while both he and Calvin appear to plead so much alike for communion with the church, it was for a communion founded on principles exactly the same. This he has not done—this, it is believed by the writer of these pages, could not be done, and he will now endeavour to show that in two respects Calvin had objects in view very different from those of the Author of the Plea.

1. He intended a communion founded on an intelligent and honest union of sentiment concerning the great and disputed doctrines of grace especially, together with a cordial subjection to the legitimate order of the church of Christ.

That this was Calvin’s object is argued from the

133

manner in which he introduces the discussion of “the church” in the chapter from which these quotations are made. For undoubtedly it is to be concluded, that in opening the subject he lays down the general principles by which all that follows is to be interpreted. In these quotations we have seen, he urges union with the church, and inveighs against separation; it is plainly, therefore, of the first importance to a right understanding of the import of his exhortation and censures, previously to ascertain what church it is and what the communion is which he has in view. Without this clue to his sentiments there is no telling what application may be made of them; the wildest enthusiasts who have ever lived may turn them against the most sober advocates of truth and order. And the character in general of the church he had in view, is described in the remarkable passage which we have seen Dr. M. has entirely omitted in his quotation of the tenth section. In that he describes it as “the faithful guardian of the truth, by which it is preserved from being lost in the world.” (See note, p. 128, of this work.) But there are many others of the same decisive nature, from which the following are selected.

“This article of the creed (the church) relates in some measure to the external church.” Of this external or visible church he observes: “The community asserted is such as Luke describes, that ‘the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul,’ Acts 4. 32—and Paul when he exhorts the Ephesians to be one body and one

134

spirit, even as they are called in one hope.”—“Now it highly concerns us to know what benefit we receive from this, (i.e. union to the church.) For we believe the church, in order to have a certain assurance that we are members of it. For thus our salvation rests on firm and solid foundations, so that it cannot fall into ruins, though the whole fabric of the world should be dissolved. First, it is founded on the election of God, and can be liable to no variation or failure, but with the subversion of his eternal Providence. In the next place it is united with the stability of Christ, who will no more suffer his faithful people to be severed from him, than his members to be torn in pieces. Besides, we are certain as long as we continue in the bosom of the church, that we shall remain in possession of the truth. Lastly, we understand these promises to belong to us. ‘In mount Zion shall be deliverance.’ ‘God is in the midst of her; she shall not be moved.’* Such is the effect of union with the church, that it retains us in the fellowship of God.”† Nothing can be more plain than that Calvin is here stating the benefits of union with the visible church, having closed the consideration of the invisible church with the preceding section, and introduced this by observing that “this article of the creed relates in some measure “to the external church, that every one of us may maintain a brotherly agreement with all the chil-

_____

* Joel, ii. 32. Obad. 17. Psalm, xlvi. 5.

† Institutes, B. iv. Ch. 1. Sec. 3. Translated by John Allen.

135

dren of God, may pay due deference to the authority of the church, and in a word may conduct himself as one of the flock.” Now then we see the church he had in view, and what the communion was for which he contended in the subsequent part of the chapter quoted by Dr. M.; one in which, it is perfectly plain, the doctrine of “election” was to be distinctly recognised, that the children of God might know the firm and solid foundation on which their salvation rested—and in the next place, the doctrine of a special, spiritual and indissoluble union with Christ, involving the certain perseverance of the saints, so that they might know their salvation to be united with his stability, and that he would “no more suffer his faithful people to be severed from him than his members to be torn in pieces.”—In a word, the whole system of grace inseparably connected with these fundamental principles, so well defended by himself, embraced in all the ecclesiastical standards of the Reformation, and since so nobly exhibited in the Westminster Confession of Faith.

This I think will be confirmed by going to the next chapter of the Institutes, the title of which is, “The True and False Church Compared.” Here, it is evident, we are to expect more precision in his description of the church, and the communion he had in view. Section 1, we have the following: “As soon as falsehood has made a breach in the fundamentals of religion, and the system of necessary doctrine is subverted, and the use of the sa-

136

craments fails, the certain consequence is the ruin of the church, as there is an end of a man’s life when his throat is cut or his heart is mortally wounded. And this is evident from the language of Paul, when he declares the church to be ‘built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.’* “If the foundation of the church be the doctrine of the apostles and prophets, which enjoins the faithful to place their salvation in Christ alone, how can the edifice stand any longer, when that doctrine is taken away? The church, therefore, must of necessity fall, when that system of religion is subverted, which alone is able to sustain it. Besides, if the true church be ‘the pillar and ground of truth,’ that certainly can be no church where delusion and falsehood have usurped the dominion.”†

No person, who is acquainted with Calvin’s writings, can be at a loss to know what points of doctrine he considered as fundamental. The passage previously quoted makes it very plain; and it should be remembered that the great charges brought by him and the Reformers against the church of Rome, were for corrupting the doctrines of original sin—election—justification by faith—perseverance; and that in their connexion one with another, and in their proper meaning. And, indeed, falsehood no where makes a more evident and dangerous breach on the very fundamentals of religion,

_____

* Eph. ii. 20.

† Institutes, B. IV. C. ii. Sect. 1.

137

than when the doctrine of eternal election is denied or clouded by evasion. That election itself is called the “foundation of God.” 2 Tim. ii. 19. Falsehood here mars the glory of his grace, and inevitably disturbs the consolation of his people, and administers a ruinous security to the ungodly.

Again, section 5 of the same chapter: “With respect to the charge which they (the church of Rome) bring against us of heresy and schism, because we preach a different doctrine from theirs, and submit not to their laws, and hold separate assemblies for prayers, for baptism, for the administration of the Lord’s Supper, and other sacred exercises; it is, indeed, a most heavy accusation,” (whoever has read the Plea, will, perhaps, understand this,) “but such as by no means requires a long or laboured defence. The appellations of heretics and schismatics are applied to persons who cause dissention, and destroy the communion of the church. Now, this communion is preserved by two bonds, agreement in sound doctrine, and brotherly love. Between heretics and schismatics, therefore, Augustine makes the following distinction; that the former corrupt the purity of the faith by false doctrines, and that the latter break the bond of affection, sometimes even while they retain the same faith. But it is also to be remarked, that this union of affection is dependent on the unity of the faith as its foundation, end and rule.”

Can language be stronger, I stop to ask, than

138

this, to demonstrate that Calvin had in view an intelligent and honest communion in sentiment, concerning the great doctrines of Christianity? Unity of affection, he says, among the professing people of God, is not merely connected with, but dependent on unity of faith, in the first place, as its foundation—that is, it is as dependent upon it as a building is for its safety upon the foundation on which it rests—remove unity of faith, and union of affection falls to the ground. It is dependent on it also as its end—that is, one great end of union of affection among Christians is a further acquaintance with the truth: that “speaking the truth in love they may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ.”* Finally, he says it is dependent on it as a rule—that is, true christian love will be regulated by the acknowledgment of the truth; thus, it is “for the truth’s sake,”† as that Apostle said, who best understood and most correctly described it in all its properties, relations and effects.

He proceeds: “Let us remember, therefore, that whenever the unity of the church is enjoined upon us in the scripture, it is required, that while our minds hold the same doctrines in Christ, our wills should likewise be united in mutual benevolence in Christ. Therefore Paul, when he exhorts us to it, assumes as a foundation, that there is ‘one Lord, one faith, one baptism.’‡ And when he incul-

_____

* Eph. iv. 15.

† Second Epistle of John, 2d verse.

‡Eph. iv. 5.

139

cates our being like-minded, and having the same “love, being of one accord, of one mind,* he immediately adds that this should be in Christ, or according to Christ, signifying that all union which is formed without the word of the Lord is a faction of the impious, and not an association of the faithful.” Once more, (Sec. 12.) “We only contend for the true and legitimate constitution of the church, which requires not only a communion in the sacraments, which are the signs of a Christian profession, but above all an agreement in doctrine.”

I cannot imagine clearer evidence to prove, that Calvin contemplated an object very different from that contemplated in the Plea. We have the necessity of agreement in faith, and that especially in the great and disputed doctrines of grace, asserted over and over again, on every occasion on which he can introduce it—its importance insisted on in various ways, and its necessity to real Christian love, and to the legitimate constitution of the church asserted to be indispensable and supreme. Now can it be possible, then, that in the arguments and the vehemence with which he pressed communion with the church of God, in the quotations contained in the Plea, he considered such a basis of communion as that book contains? can it be possible, that it was thus Calvin was contending for a communion, destitute of agreement in doctrine, on these very points which he most laboured to declare

_____

* Phil. ii. 2, 5.

140

and maintain, and which to this day seem to adorn his name?

To this it may be objected, that the language of Calvin himself in one of the former quotations, is more loose and indeterminate on the great principles on which communion should be established and allowed than even that of Dr. Mason. He speaks as if the following heads of doctrine were sufficient—“that ‘there is one God’—that ‘Christ is God and the Son of God’—that ‘our salvation depends on the mercy of God,’ and the like.” But, what is an important fact, these words are found toward the conclusion of a work written purposely to exhibit and vindicate the great doctrines on which the church is founded, and these are stated with remarkable care. But in vain do you look through the Plea for an explanation of the Author’s sentiments on the momentous subjects he so briefly handles, and the lamentable circumstance is, that this is to set aside the use of a system of truth most plain, definite and comprehensive, which leaves, on those subjects which have divided Calvinists and Arminians at least, neither friends nor enemies at a loss to understand its meaning.* But the explanations, which you seek in vain in the Plea, are at hand in the Institutes. Calvin allows then, that the faith that there is one God, is one of the important heads of true doctrine. A follower of Socinus might be moved with gloomy satisfaction at hearing of such a concession from such a quarter. But in another part of the same work (B. I. Ch.

_____

* The Westminster Confession of Faith.

141

xiii. Sect. 2.) he says, “While God declares himself to be but one, he proposes himself to be distinctly considered in Three Persons, without apprehending which, we have only a bare and empty name of God floating in our brains, without any idea of the true God.”—Again, in another part of the same work he explains his assertion, that “Christ is God and the Son of God,” and shows how dangerously it may be misunderstood and abused. Speaking there of the divinity of Christ he says—“Unable to resist the clear testimony of the scriptures, Arius confessed Christ to be God and the Son of God, and, as though this were all that was necessary, he pretended to agree with the church at large. But at the same time he continued to maintain that Christ was created and had a beginning like other creatures. To draw the versatile subtlety of this man from its concealment, the ancient fathers proceeded further, and declared Christ to be the Eternal Son of the Father and consubstantial with the Father. Here impiety openly discovered itself when the Arians began inveterately to hate and execrate the name ὁμοούσιος (consubstantial.*) But if in the first in-

_____

* It is on this very ground that Dr. Watts must be classed as a writer with these ancient heretics. “It is hard,” he says, “to suppose that the eternal generation of the Son of God, as a distinct person, yet coequal and consubstantial, or of the same essence with the Father, should be made a fundamental article of faith——” “Nor, indeed, can I find it asserted or revealed with so much evidence in any part of the word of God, as is necessary to make it a fundamental article of my faith.” Works, vol. 6. p. 199, 200. Lond. edit. 8vo. 1813.

142

stance they had sincerely and cordially confessed Christ to be God, they would not have denied him to be consubstantial with the Father. Who can dare to censure these good men, as quarrelsome and contentious, for having kindled such a flame of controversy, and disturbed the peace of the church on account of one little word?—that little word distinguished Christians who held the pure faith from sacrilegious Arians.”* Another head of doctrine which is expressed in such general terms is, that “our salvation depends on the mercy of God.” This he explains with equal precision. “We shall never,” he says, “be clearly convinced as we ought to be, that our salvation flows from the fountain of God’s free mercy, till we are acquainted with his eternal election, which illustrates the grace of God by this comparison, that he adopts not all promiscuously to the hope of salvation, but gives to some what he refuses to others.”† Now shall we believe that Calvin would have been contented with words?—while he required these things as the basis of communion, and thus insisted upon an acknowledgment of the doctrines of grace, would he be satisfied with passing them over in expressions of doubtful import? Let his conduct speak. His system of doctrine he maintained, as is well known, with a nervous discipline, in the exercise of which he showed his purpose to uphold the dignity

_____

* Institutes, B. I. Ch. xiii. Sect. 4.

† Institutes, B. III. Ch. xxi. Sect. 1. where is more to the same purpose.

143

of God’s truth, by all the power the Redeemer left in his kingdom. One Jerome Bolsec, who had dwelt some time at Geneva, on friendly terms with Calvin, being recommended by an apparent friendship to the Reformation, began at length to feel the sharpness of the Reformer’s doctrine, and showed his dislike of the doctrine of predestination. This became more open and ended in a very rude violation of the decorum of the church, on account of that doctrine. After having been cast into prison for his heresy and misconduct, he was banished, never to return upon pain of being whipped for his impieties and ill life.* Other instances of a similar nature occurred, manifesting equal determination on this very point. Can it be conceived, then, that he is justly brought to support a communion, which leaves in uncertainty the very points on which in all his conduct he was most scrupulous, vigilant and determined,—and that too when this communion is proposed as a substitute for another, in which these points were stated with the utmost precision and energy?†

_____

* Mosheim’s Ch. Hist. Cent. xvi. sect. 3. part 2. ch. 2 sect. 41., or vol. 4. p. 419. Charlestown edit. 1811. Waterland’s life of Calvin, p. 70, 71. Hartford edit. 1813. Toplady’s Works, vol. 1. p. 95. Lond. 1794.

† Still it may be objected, that it is unreasonable thus to refer to Calvin’s explanations;—“Can a discreet man suppose that a plain Christian shall be acquainted with the whole doctrine of the Institutes—the work of a divine second to none in the world?—which condenses the learning and literature of his life, and covers the whole ground of didactic and polemic theology? Is it a reasonable expectation, that every plain Christian, however unletter-

144

To as little purpose has the Author of the Plea (p. 181.) referred to Calvin’s letter to the Lord Protector of England as he has to the Institutes. From the manner in which it is introduced, it is difficult to understand Dr. M. in any other way than as endeavouring to open the way to communion with Episcopacy as it now is. However this may be, admitting that Calvin was disposed to tolerate episcopacy for the time then being, and the expectations and labours of the pious of that day, and all Calvin’s writings, his conduct and his disciples, (for it was in the Geneva school that the firm and intelligent advocates of Presbyterianism, as of divine authority, and the resolute enemies of episcopacy were formed,) all these, I say, show that it was merely a toleration of a remnant of Popish corruption for a time; admitting this, yet, when we turn to the doctrinal attainments of that church, at that time, we have an explanation of Calvin’s conduct, at once necessary, and subversive of the end for which his name is adduced. The prevailing system of doctrine under Edward VI. was Calvinism; this was well known. The celebrated Augustus Toplady, (Works, vol. 1. introduction to the historic proof

_____

[continued from the previous page] ed, should be able to grasp a work like this; to distinguish its “numerous propositions, and to fathom their sense?” Such complaints are natural enough, yet they need not prevent any Christian, however plain and unlettered, from endeavouring to become acquainted with the “Institutes of the Christian Religion;” and he is assured, if he loves the truth, he will be abundantly repaid for his trouble. The only reply given to the objection is, that when Calvin’s language is quoted, his explanations should accompany it.

145

of the doctrinal Calvinism of the Church of England, p. xx. Lond. 1794,) says, “In the reign of Edward VI. the Calvinistic points were necessary steps to advancement.” In a note in the same work (ibid. p. xxii.) the same author states, that “In the reign of Edward VI. all free-willers were then accounted dissenters, and openly professed themselves to be such. Certain salvos for duplicity, which have since been adopted, were not then invented.” In another note (page xxv.) he says, “In the reign of king Edward, i.e. from the very first establishment of the Protestant Church of England, Pelagianism, or holding and maintaining the doctrine of free will and its connected principles, was punished with imprisonment.” “I acknowledge,” he adds, “that such a method of dealing with the ‘free will men’ reflects very great dishonour on the moderation of those times. It demonstrates, however, the high Calvinism of the Church of England.” This explains the approbation with which Calvin speaks of the state of things in that church, the cordiality with which he embraced her as a true church, and his ardour to bring about a closer union. Those points, which are passed by in silence, or obscurely expressed in the Plea, were distinctly avowed by the Church of England at that time. These were the great points of truth on which Calvin’s heart, and the hearts of all the Reformers were set; and union—cordial, open union in them, opened the door for cordial and open union in all things else. Mark, then, the communion

146

for which Calvin contended so earnestly; it was for one founded, as has been made most evident, on real intelligent communion in sentiment; and this especially, as both his writings and his conduct show, on the great points of the person of Christ, the Trinity of Persons in the Godhead, of original sin, grace, predestination and perseverance to eternal life. No silence, obscurity or hesitation was to be sanctioned on any of these.

2. In his remarks on the imperative duty of being united to the church, and in his severe censures on separation, he had particularly in view the duty of private individuals, and the disorderly conduct of certain turbulent men in his day, not the objects nor the persons contemplated in the Plea.

It was certainly of importance, in quoting such vehement language as the passages from Calvin in the Plea contain, both concerning duty on the one hand, and sin on the other, to consider what these things comprehended, and what there was in the character and circumstances of Calvin’s time, to which they were probably and properly applicable. This the Author of the Plea has not done; but has left his readers to suppose that the venerable reformer was pressing the indiscriminate admission of all who laid claim to the character of Christians, without a serious examination of the validity of their claims; or was urging the indiscriminate communion of churches upon such a precarious and dangerous foundation as that exhibited in the Plea; and that the heavy censures and the

147

severe epithets they contain, were applicable to the different communities of Christians, with whose principles Dr. Mason is at war. The manner in which he has quoted them can make no other impression on the mind of the reader, but that he meant to lash his opponents with a whip taken from the hand of Calvin. But these things are entirely misapplied. In the first place, in urging so vehemently the duty of communion with the church, Calvin had reference mainly to the duty of individuals, then, as in the present day, grievously neglected. This naturally occurs to the mind from the very title of the chapter from which Dr. Mason’s quotations are made: “The True Church, and the necessity of our union to her, being the mother of all the pious.” Here it is obvious, at the first view, that he did not contemplate the union of different churches; and that this is afterwards introduced only in its connexion with the doctrine of the unity of the church of Christ, and the obligation on all her members to endeavour to maintain that unity in form, as it certainly exists in spirit. But, “the necessity of union with the church,” on account of “her being the mother of all the pious,” certainly holds forth, as the principal object, the indispensable duty of individuals to unite themselves to the church, putting themselves under the nurture of the word and sacraments, and under the direction and government of her pure discipline, in order to the cultiva-

148

tion of personal piety. But his meaning will appear from a few sentences from the chapter itself.

“That by the faith of the gospel Christ becomes ours, and we become partakers of the salvation procured by him, and of eternal happiness, has been explained in the preceding book. But, as our ignorance and slothfulness, and, I may add, the vanity of our minds, require external aids, in order to the production of faith in our hearts, and its increase and progressive advance even to its completion, God has provided such aids, in compassion to our infirmity; and that the preaching of the gospel might be maintained, he hath deposited this treasure with the church. He hath appointed pastors and teachers, that his people might be taught by their lips; he has invested them with authority; in short, he has omitted nothing that could contribute to a holy unity of faith, and to the establishment of good order. First of all, he hath instituted sacraments, which we know, by experience, to be the means of the greatest utility, for the nourishment and support of our faith. For as during our confinement in the prison of our flesh, we have not yet attained to the state of angels, God hath, in his wonderful providence, accommodated himself to our capacity, by prescribing a way in which we might approach him, notwithstanding our immense distance from him.” Again, in the same section, “I shall begin with the church, in whose bosom it is God’s will that all his children should be collect-

149

ed, not only to be nourished by her assistance and ministry during their infancy and childhood, but also to be governed by her maternal care, till they attain a mature age, and at length reach the end of their faith.”*

Certainly the expressions throughout this passage point plainly and primarily to one object, the advantage and the duty as it respects individuals of being united to the church. This union, of which the writer speaks, is made necessary by our “ignorance “and slothfulness”—it is to promote our instruction in the truth by pastors and teachers whom God has appointed—it is to have our faith strengthened by the use of the sacraments—and on this account it is necessary to be united to the church, and to be united from our infancy till we have reached the end of our faith—this is a necessity affecting individuals, and points out their duty. Thus, in the very introduction to the examination of this subject, we are admonished of the particular object which Calvin had in view. But we proceed to the fourth section.

“As our present design is to treat of the Visible Church, we may learn even from the title of mother how useful and necessary it is for us to know her, since there is no other way of entrance into life unless we are conceived by her, born of her, nourished at her breasts, and continually preserved by her care and government, till we are devested of this mortal flesh and become like angels.

_____

* Institutes, Book IV. Ch. i. Sect. 1.

150

For our infirmity will not admit of our dismission from her school, we must continue under her instruction and discipline to the end of our lives. It is also to be remarked, that out of her bosom there can be no hope of the remission of sins or any salvation, according to the testimony of Joel ii. 33. and Isaiah xxxvii. 35., which is confirmed by Ezekiel, where he denounces, (chap. xiii. 9,) that those whom God excludes from the heavenly life shall not be enrolled among his people.” Soon after follows a quotation from Psalm cvi. 4, 5, on which he makes the following remark—“In these words the paternal favour of God and the peculiar testimony of the spiritual life are restricted to his flock, to teach us that it is always fatally dangerous to be separated from the church.”

It is not possible to mistake this language. By a very beautiful figure, and very beautifully maintained, he represents the church as a maternal nurse—by whose constant and tender care the children of God must be prepared for their Father’s house. “There is no other way of entrance into life” but by the church—“our infirmity will not admit of separation from her school”—“we must continue under her instruction and discipline to the end of our lives”—“out of her bosom there is no hope of the remission of sins”—“it is always fatally dangerous to be separated from the church—from the moment of our existence till we are devested of this mortal flesh we must continue in her care.” What could be possibly meant by all

151

this, but the representation in a very convincing light of the necessity and duty of all who desire salvation, to be united to the church and carefully and reverently submissive to her doctrine and discipline to the end of their present life. It is evident, therefore, what infinitely important objects Calvin contemplated—escape from eternal destruction and preparation for eternal salvation and happiness through the means of divine institution. But does this bear any resemblance to the objects contemplated in the work in which he is quoted?—an indiscriminate intercourse of Christians by name, however contradictory their sentiments on most important points, in the sacrament of the body and blood of Jesus Christ?—an intercourse which demands silence and obscurity on great and important doctrines, and a great reduction, if not an entire disregard of discipline and government? So far from this, it is evident, from the spiritual personal benefits Calvin contemplated, that union to the church for which he contended would require the person who sought it to look with the utmost circumspection for a very sacred regard to the pure truth of God contained in that word by which we are “born again”—and for a vigilant government and discipline maintained by pastors who would truly “take heed to the flock” and “watch for their souls as those who must give account.”*

_____

* 1 Pet. i. 23. Acts, xx. 28. Heb. xiii. 17. This circumspection in the acknowledgment of any church, Calvin plainly inculcates: “To prevent imposture from deceiving us, under the name of the

152

Besides, it is asserted that in his severe censures on separation, he had particularly in view the conduct of certain disorderly men in his time. And there was much need for such remarks. Multitudes, as the history of the Reformation makes very plain, as soon as the Reformers separated from the church of Rome, and threw off the trammels of her usurped and unrighteous authority, thought themselves at liberty to rush into every disorder. Mistaking licentiousness for freedom, they threw off all ecclesiastical subjection and order, some taking advantage of the confusion of the times to excuse and cover their infidelity, abandoned even the form of piety in a connexion with the church, and gave themselves up to the pursuit of the world, becoming lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God—living without God in the world.*—Others, on pretences of superior holiness, set up separate communions, founded on principles false and corrupt, by which they were in reality “endeavouring to effect the ruin of God’s truth.” Of this last class, the Ana-

_____

[continued from the previous page] church, every congregation assuming this name should be brought to that proof, like gold to the touchstone.” Ibid. Sec. 11.

* Eph. ii. 12. αθεοι εν τω κοσμω “atheists in the world,” regardless of the being, the worship, and the service of God. When one considers the immense number of baptised persons in this country, who sustain this very character, and, under various pretences, are truly mocking the authority, and resisting the advices of the church—and, like profane Esau, despising their birthright—departing from the church, and, in reality, denying God and Christ—it is enough to make him ask, in consternation, what will be the end thereof?

153

baptists and the advocates of free will, were the most numerous. With respect to the first, no person tolerably acquainted with ecclesiastical history need to be informed, that their mistaken notions of saintship or personal holiness, and its title to church membership, formed one of the main grounds of their distinct establishment and separation from the church.* With respect to the last, viz. the advocates of free will, there is evidence sufficient that they were among the most conspicuous separatists of that time. Augustus Toplady, in the work already quoted, shows that these were among the very persons Calvin would have in view. He states that in different parts of England they separated from the then Reforming church, during the reign of Edward VI. producing confusion, and giving interruption to the Reformation. Let him speak in his own language.

“It is no novelty for the doctrines of grace to meet with opposition; and indeed, few doctrines have been so much opposed as they. Swarms of fanatical sectarists were almost coeval with the Reformation itself. Such is the imperfect state of things below, that the most important advantages are connected with some inconveniences. The shining of truth, like the shining of the sun, wakens insects into life, which otherwise would have no sensitive existence. Yet, better for a few insects to quicken, than for the sun not to shine.” “I shall not here review the tares which sprung

_____

* See Mosheim, Vol. 4, page 448, 452. Charlestown Ed.

154

up with the Protestant corn in Germany; but content myself with just observing, that there was one congregation of free willers in London, during the reign even of the pious King Edward VI. and notwithstanding the vigilance of our first Protestant bishops.”

“London, however, was not the only place in England where Pelagianism began to nestle, while good King Edward was on the throne. Some of the fraternity appeared likewise in two of the adjoining counties, viz. Kent and Essex. Observe, I call the free willers of that age Pelagians, because the new name of Arminians was not then known.”

“Before we proceed, let me interpose a short remark. So far is the Church of England from asserting the spiritual powers of free will, and from denying predestination, that the deniers of predestination and the asserters of free will were the very first persons who separated from her communion, and made a rent in her garment by gathering three schismatical congregations of their own.”*

Here, then, we have both on the continent and in England a class of men to whom Calvin’s remarks and language, quoted in the Plea, would apply with correctness. It is doubtless to men of this very description that he refers in his letter to the Lord Protector already mentioned. “Those

_____

* Toplady’s Works, vol. 1. Historic proof of the doctrinal Calvinism of the Church of England, sect. 1. p. 48.

155

fanatics,” he says, “who would wish to change the world into a licentious freedom, are expressly raised up by Satan, that through them the gospel may be reproached as if it were the cause of rebellion against rulers, and introduced into the world an unrestrained licentiousness.”* It was perfectly agreeable to Calvin’s principles and conduct to denounce such men as “fugitives and deserters from religion, who contumaciously alienated themselves from Christian society;”—it was perfectly consistent with his uniform character to say of such men, that “endeavouring, as much as in them lay,” (by promulgating the corruptions of free will and the disorders of Anabaptism,) “to effect the ruin of God’s truth,” they “deserved to be crushed with the lightnings of his wrath;”—their conduct, as it did indeed, comprehend in it both heresy and schism, merited the appellation of an “atrocious crime,” for “it violated, with sacrilegious perfidy, the conjugal union which the only begotten Son of God has deigned to contract with us.” And to put it out of all doubt who he meant, he tells us himself, “such are some of the Anabaptists who would fain appear to have made greater proficiency than their neighbours” in their pretensions to holiness, whilst the bulk of them were maintaining the most pernicious errors, and following the most disorderly practices.

_____

* Waterland’s Life of Calvin, p. 331. The whole remarkable paragraph, which is too long to be quoted, makes it evident that these are the men referred to.

156

But I would now inquire whether Dr. Mason, or any of the advocates of his views on communion, are prepared to assert a similarity in principle and conduct between the sectaries of free will and Anabaptism and those communities of Christians to whose sentiments he is opposed—who, in defence of the great doctrines of the Reformation, are this day maintaining standards which assert the very principles most immediately opposed to those sectarians, and which Calvin most earnestly contended for? After the explanations which have been given of the true character of the persons at whom he aimed, in the censures quoted from him in the Plea, shall we believe that he would have denominated the very persons who maintain, with most consistency, the doctrines opposed to the heresy of “free will”—and the order of government and discipline opposed to the tumultuous conduct of the Anabaptists?—shall we believe that he would have denominated such persons “fugitives and deserters from religion,”—and their conduct “a denial of God and Christ, and a perfidious violation of the conjugal union which the only begotten Son of God has deigned to contract with us?” Reason, common sense and truth must answer, no. As it is impossible, as it would be a plain contradiction to his principles as a divine and his conduct as a minister in the church, we have a key to explain those passages which the Author of the Plea has quoted to sustain his cause—we have the means of taking out of his hands, and off from the persons to whom he applied them, those severe

157

and awful denunciations of the great Reformer, and directing them against those who are this day shaking the foundation of the principles of truth and grace, and abandoning to destruction the fair and beautiful order of the church’s government and discipline.

But the evidence brightens as we approach our own times, and observe the effects of the reformation on the church, in her social character, in upholding the cause of truth, and detecting and chastising the advocates of error. Let us examine what is to be learned on this subject from the Synod of Dort. To this Dr. M. appeals with peculiar confidence; and in the conduct of the divines convened in that venerable assembly, he appears to imagine there exists triumphant evidence of the correctness of his principles. But it is worthy of observation that, although this was a most eventful and instructive occurrence, with respect to the very subject treated of by Dr. M., and would have justified a very particular consideration, he is exceedingly brief, and passes it over with language strong indeed, but very superficial. He does not once distinctly advert to the great design, nor the actual results of that synod, nor to any material event in its history disclosing its real character. And there is good reason for such silence. There is not an event in the records of the church, from the times of the apostles downward, which gives so decisive a blow to the frail system which Dr. M. has attempted to rear. Having been occasioned by the doubtful language,

158

evasions and heresies of Arminius and his followers, it lifts up the testimony of the church (convened from almost all quarters of Europe, laying aside all minor considerations) to this principle, that no silence, hesitation, or obscurity, shall be allowed on the doctrines of grace, properly so called, and that all who are not completely explicit on these points, should be expelled and excluded from her communion, as unworthy members. “Dutch, German, Genevese,” says Dr. Mason, “Swiss, all non-Episcopal, joined by an English bishop and other Episcopal delegates, met together to discuss and decide one of the most serious and shaking controversies that had ever agitated the church of God.”* Very true; and did not all these circumstances require an exact and impartial representation of the nature of that “serious and shaking controversy,” and of the conduct of this assembly? Does not the solemnity of such a convention demonstrate, too, how the preservation of the truth was then regarded—of what moment they esteemed a distinct and unqualified confession of it, as a title to communion in the church—and that these were the last men who should be appealed to, to countenance a confession just the reverse, indistinct, partial, and unsettled?

Dr. M. says, continuing from above, “Here they unite in the most solemn acts of ministerial communion. The public prayers are offered up by Presbyterians, in their own manner. By way of

_____

* Plea, p. 207.

159

showing their concord and confidence, they judge it expedient to have, now and then, sermons in Latin before the synod. They begin with requesting the foreign divines to undertake this service in order. And the very first man they place in the pulpit, is Dr. Joseph Hall, a high-toned Episcopalian,* then Dean of Worcester, and afterwards Bishop of Norwich. He preached to them from Eccles. vii. 16. In his sermon he calls the synod, thus composed, ‘a most holy assembly of the Prophets.’ The church of Holland, upon the supposition of her adhering to ‘the faith which she had till then received, and to the confession common to her with the other churches,’ he salutes ‘as the pure spouse of Christ.’ And then exclaims, ‘we are brethren, let us also be associates! What have we to do with the disgraceful titles of Remonstrants, Contra Remonstrants, Calvinists, Arminians? We are Christians—let us also be of one soul: we are one body—let us also be of one mind. By that tremendous name of the Almighty God—by the pious and gentle bosom of our common mother—by your own souls—by the most holy compassions of Jesus Christ our Saviour—aim at peace, brethren; enter into peace, that, laying aside all prejudice, party spirit, and evil affections, we may all come to a happy agreement in the same truth.’”

_____

* He had another feature in his character, not quite so fascinating in the eyes of Dr. M., perhaps, as the gaudy honours of Episcopacy, and certainly not so useful to his “Catholic Communion.” Dr. Hall was a high-toned Calvinist.

160

These sentiments are noble, dignified and Christian—they give honour to the assembly which possessed such a member, and knew how to value his worth. They place also in a very clear light the pre-eminent importance of these points of truth, for the sake of which, such an assembly was convened. But even in these brief extracts, which Dr. M. has cited for another purpose, we see the true spirit which pervaded that synod, and which he has wholly mistaken. To say nothing of the fact which he himself adverts to, that “the public prayers were “offered up by the Presbyterians in their own manner;” (a convincing evidence that the Presbyterians of that day were not so indifferent about a Book of Common Prayer as Dr. M. in another part of his work would make us believe;*) to say nothing of this, Dr. Hall salutes the church of Holland as “the pure spouse of Christ,” upon the supposition (they are Dr. M.’s words) of her adhering “to the faith which she had till then received.” That faith was decidedly Calvinistic; it was on this very account they were assembled. The “supposition” alluded to shows, that had she

_____

* Plea, p. 277, where we have this remarkable assertion, that the sentiment, “‘that the Book of Common Prayer, and of Bishops, Priests and Deacons, containeth in it nothing so disagreeable to the word of God, as maketh it unlawful to live in the peaceable communion of the church that useth it,’ accords entirely with the spirit of the English divines in the assembly at Westminster!” If this be true what explanation shall be given of the fact that numbers were suspended from their ministry, not only for refusing to give it their approbation, but for refusing absolutely to use it?

161

relaxed from her fidelity, and sanctioned the corruptions of Arminians, this “high-toned Episcopalian” would certainly have refused the salutation. He adds, too, the end of their deliberations at which they should aim, that “we may all come to a happy agreement in the same truth.” Is any thing more necessary to show how wholly inapplicable is this case to Dr. M.’s Plea?

But to ascertain the actual bearing which the conduct of this synod has on the question, it will be useful to consider a few facts in its history, exhibiting its rise and consequences. This will be done on the authority of the church historian, Mosheim, whose correctness in the representations, so far as they relate to the question before us, will not be disputed.

“Arminius, though he had imbibed in his tender years the doctrines of Geneva,* and had even received his theological education in the university of that city, yet rejected, when he arrived at the age of manhood, the sentiments concerning predestination and the divine decrees, that are adopted by the greatest part of the reformed churches, and embraced the principles and communion of those whose religious system extends the love of the Supreme Being, and the merits of Jesus Christ, to all mankind. As time and deep meditation had

_____

* Let no decline from early orthodoxy surprise us, or beguile us from the strictest examination of the principles and conduct which it may be used to recommend. Even “Arminius had imbibed in his tender years the doctrines of Geneva.”

162

only served to confirm him in these principles, he thought himself obliged, by the dictates both of candour and conscience, to profess them publicly when he had obtained the chair of divinity in the university of Leyden, and to oppose the doctrine and sentiments of Calvin on these heads, which had been followed by the greatest part of the Dutch clergy. Two considerations encouraged him in a particular manner to venture upon this open declaration of his sentiments; for he was persuaded, on the one hand, there were many persons besides himself, and among these some of the first rank and dignity, that were highly disgusted at the doctrine of absolute decrees; and on the other hand, he knew that the Belgic doctors were neither obliged by their Confession of Faith, nor by any other public law, to adopt and propagate the principles of Calvin. Thus animated and encouraged, Arminius taught his sentiments publicly, with great freedom and equal success, and persuaded many of the truth of his doctrine; but as Calvinism was at this time in a flourishing state in Holland, this freedom procured him a multitude of enemies, and drew upon him the severest marks of disapprobation and resentment from those that adhered to the theological system of Geneva. Thus commenced that long, tedious, and intricate controversy, that afterwards made such a noise in Europe.”*

_____

* Mosheim’s Eccl. Hist. translated by Maclaine. Cent. 17, Sect. 2. Part II. Ch. iii. Sect. 2. or vol. 5. p. 422. Charlestown, 1811.

163

Two facts of importance are discovered in this narrative. 1. Calvinism, particularly as it related to “predestination and the divine decrees,” was, at the commencement of the troubles occasioned by Arminius, “in a flourishing state in Holland,” and was “followed by the greatest part of the Dutch clergy.” 2. Their confession and ecclesiastical laws were not as yet very definite in asserting the Calvinistic points, and requiring from all in their communion a distinct approbation of these points; and thus men of corrupt principles might hide themselves under evasions, or even boldly avow the dangerous heresies which Arminius at length produced. The first of these facts shows us the true ground of the harmony prevailing among the delegates from the various churches afterwards assembled at the Synod of Dort.—It was a sincere, hearty and well understood agreement in the peculiar doctrines of grace as they were taught by Calvin, and were then disputed or obscured by Arminius and his followers. The second shows the precise object for which that synod was assembled—it was to weigh and determine the controversy between the Calvinists and Arminians—and thus to establish a confession and an ecclesiastical order requiring an explicit assent to the doctrines of grace, properly so called, removing a state of things in which the truth might be obscured by doubtful language, and men of corrupt principles maintain a place in the church by artful evasions.

To proceed:—The death of Arminius took place

164

in 1609, when the controversy he had raised began to produce the troubles which afterwards prevailed.

“After the death of Arminius, the combat seemed to be carried on during some years between the contending parties with equal success.—The demands of the Arminians were moderate; they required no more than a bare toleration for their religious sentiments; and some of the first men in the republic, such as Oldenbarneveldt, Grotius, Hoogerbeets, and several others, looked upon these demands as reasonable and just. It was the opinion of these great men, that as the points in debate had not been determined by the Belgic Confession of Faith, every individual had an unquestionable right to judge for himself; and that more especially in a free state which had thrown off the yoke of spiritual despotism and civil tyranny. In consequence of this persuasion they used their utmost efforts to accommodate matters, and left no methods unemployed to engage the Calvinists to treat, with Christian moderation and forbearance, their dissenting brethren.”*—“But these measures confirmed instead of removing the apprehensions of the Calvinists; from day to day they were still more firmly persuaded that the Arminians aimed at nothing less than the ruin of all religion; and hence they censured their magistrates with great warmth and freedom for interposing their authority to promote peace and union with such adversaries.

_____

* Some of these efforts were patronised by Maurice, Prince of Orange, who was at first friendly to the Arminians.

165

“And those who are well informed and impartial must candidly acknowledge, that the Arminians were far from being sufficiently cautious in avoiding connexions with persons of loose principles,* that by frequenting the company of those whose sentiments were entirely different from the received doctrines of the Reformed Church, they furnished their enemies with a pretext for suspecting their own principles, and presenting their theological system in the worst colours.”†

Here as we proceed let us observe—1. This controversy was carried on for many years without wearying the patience of the Calvinists, or inducing them to lose sight of the nature or the importance of the principles they contended for, and the influence of the most eminent men was employed in vain to divert them from their purpose. 2. All that the Arminians required was “a bare toleration for their religious sentiments”—and what they were pleased to call “Christian moderation and forbearance” towards themselves. And 3. That as these men advanced in the contest they disclosed in their conduct the pernicious influence of their religious principles, and gave the Calvinists too much reason to believe that “they aimed at nothing less than the ruin of all religion.”

The historian continues, and in the next section

_____

* This circumstance deserves remark. It shows the frequent connexion between loose principles and a careless life. Perhaps a future historian may record the same fact of the clergy of a later period.

† Mosheim, ibid. Sect. 3. or vol. 5. p. 424. ibid.

166

points out the exact ground assumed by the Arminians, the principles which they maintained, and on account of which they were expelled from the church. “It is worthy of observation, that this unhappy controversy, which assumed another form, and was rendered more comprehensive by new subjects of contention, after the Synod of Dort, was at this time confined to the doctrines relating to predestination and grace. The sentiments of the Arminians concerning these intricate points, were comprehended in five articles. They held, 1. That God from all eternity determined to bestow salvation on those whom he foresaw would persevere unto the end in their faith in Christ Jesus, and to inflict everlasting punishments on those who should continue in their unbelief, and resist unto the end his divine succours. 2. That Jesus Christ by his death and sufferings made an atonement for the sins of all mankind in general, and of every individual in particular; that, however, none but those who believe in him can be partakers of their divine benefit. 3. That true faith cannot proceed from the exercise of our natural faculties and powers, nor from the force and operation of free will; since man in consequence of his natural corruption is incapable of thinking or doing any good thing; and that therefore it is necessary to his conversion and salvation, that he be regenerated and renewed by the operation of the Holy Ghost, which is the gift of God through Jesus Christ. 4. That this di-

167

vine grace or energy of the Holy Ghost, which heals the disorder of the corrupt nature, begins, advances, and brings to perfection every thing that can be called good in man; and that consequently all good works without exception are to be attributed to God alone, and to the operation of his grace; that nevertheless this grace does not force the man to act against his inclination, but may be resisted and rendered ineffectual by the perverse will of the impenitent sinner. 5. That they who are united to Christ by faith are thereby furnished with abundant strength and with succours sufficient to enable them to triumph over the seduction of Satan, and the allurements of sin and temptation; but that the question whether such may fall from their faith and forfeit finally this state of grace, has not been yet resolved with sufficient perspicuity, and must therefore be yet more carefully examined by an attentive study of what the holy scriptures have declared in relation to this important point.”*

Such were the sentiments maintained by the followers of Arminius. It is believed this representation is sufficiently impartial—that it neither allows them more truth than they then pretended to, nor charges them with more error than they were certainly guilty of. Now to compare it with those principles which Dr. M. deems sufficient for communion in the church, and only essential to salva-

_____

* Ibid. p. 425, &c.

168

tion, the passage containing these principles is again transcribed.

“You cannot for one moment imagine that the question ‘whether Christ by his death purchased temporal benefits or not for all mankind?’ is like the question ‘whether or no he bought his people unto God by his blood, in making a true, proper, meritorious sacrifice for their sin, when through the Eternal Spirit he offered up himself?’—nor that the dispute ‘whether the covenant of redemption be different from the covenant of grace,’ or what is so called, being reality but one and the same covenant viewed under different aspects? is to be classed with the dispute ‘whether Jesus, the Lord our righteousness, is a mere man like ourselves, or the true God,’ and therefore ‘eternal life?’ In deciding on the relative importance of such points as these, there is no room for hesitation. Whatever degree of mistake may be reconciled with union to Christ, and an interest in his salvation, it is not, it cannot be a matter of doubt among those who have tasted his grace, that blaspheming his divinity, rejecting his propitiatory sacrifice, and the justification of a sinner by faith only in his mediatorial merits—denying the personality, divinity, renewing and sanctifying virtue of his Holy Spirit, and similar heresies, invalidate every claim to the character of his disciples.” Plea, p. 106.

Now what inquiry is there in this passage, containing the creed on which Dr. M. wishes to establish the whole visible church of God—what inqui-

169

ry is there in it which Arminians would hesitate to answer just as Dr. M. himself? They would surely acknowledge that they could “not for one moment imagine the question ‘whether Christ by his death purchased temporal benefits,’ &c. to be of equal importance to that ‘whether he bought his people unto God by his blood.’” &c. The same acknowledgment would be made to the succeeding assertion—they would have readily assented to the declaration with which the paragraph concludes, acknowledging all the doctrines it really affirms, and gladly availing themselves of the subterfuge provided in the term “similar heresies,” which suppresses the controversy between themselves and the Calvinists, and tacitly, but really grants all they claimed—for “they required no more than a toleration of their religious sentiments.” Behold, then, the correspondence between Dr Mason and the Arminians of the Synod of Dort!*—but a correspondence fatal to the communion for which he pleads. All the harmony, all the fellowship, all the weight of Christian principle in that synod, were directed against a system no worse than that which is now recommended to the churches. Let them both be examined with a careful and impartial eye. Is there any thing in the creed of Dr. Mason which distinguishes it in reality from that of the Arminians?

_____

* It would be a curious piece of modern church history, to know who was the individual in the Associate Reformed Synod, that obtained the removal of the word “tolerating” from the 109th answer of the West. Larger Catechism.

170

Does his furnish any more satisfaction or light to the mind than theirs, on those points on account of which that synod was assembled—one syllable on that ‘most serious and shaking controversy,’ as Dr. M. himself is pleased to call it? On the subject of predestination, Dr. M. is wholly silent. He is equally so on the subject of the perseverance of the saints, and thus tacitly sanctions the doubt and error of the Arminian creed. The doctrine of salvation by faith in Christ is asserted in both, and with no more perspicuity in one than in the other. The same remark applies to the nature and necessity of the work of the Holy Spirit. The reality of Christ’s atonement is declared as strongly by the Arminians as the other, and is represented as the only ground of pardon and acceptance; though they asserted the universality of the atonement, Dr. M. does not deny it; for the term “his people,” used by the latter, is one which they could not and would not have rejected, since it is literally scriptural, whilst they had then (as others have now) explanations to enervate the word of God. In what respects, then, do they differ, except it be in the force with which the doctrine of human corruption and inability is stated in the creed of the Arminians, while Dr. M. has passed it over in utter silence?

To conclude the review of this event—“The Arminians were pronounced guilty of pestilential errors, and condemned as the corrupters of the true religion. This sentence was followed by its natural effects, which were the excommunication

171

of the Arminians, the suppression of their religious assemblies, and the deprivation of their ministers.”*

With what views, then, could Dr. M. appeal to this synod for any justification of his conduct or his principles on the subject of communion? There is not a single period in its history which does not furnish counsels directly the reverse. They were assembled to determine the controversy which he leaves undetermined—on those points on which he earnestly pleads for forbearance, they declared there could be no forbearance allowed—and just such men as those with whom he sanctions communion, they solemnly, and after a long deliberation, excommunicated from the church. Here, therefore, is the voice of the church of God, assembled from almost every part of Europe, in an age which surely makes her venerable for zeal and purity, lifted up against that system of communion which Dr. Mason is urging upon all the churches of the present day: her testimony pronounces such a system to have sprung from “the corrupters of religion,” and both its authors and itself absolutely intolerable.

With a very few remarks on the conduct of the English divines, at and about the time of the Westminster Assembly, I shall conclude this chapter. Dr. M. has produced a long list of names of men highly respectable, with numerous quotations from their writings. Among these, however, are some

_____

* Mosheim, Vol. v. p. 433 and 436.

172

whose conduct cannot be considered as a legitimate example to the church of Christ; these are BAPTISTS and INDEPENDENTS. Many of them separated from the church on account of that order and covenant revealed and prescribed by the Lord Jesus to his people. But if men will be Baptists, if they will be Independents, and thus break the unity of the church, deny the covenant by which she is united to her God, and the government by which she is subject to Him alone, their footsteps are not to be followed, however great their reputation for learning or piety. “The church is subject unto Christ.” (Eph. v. 24.) Indeed, it is not to be expected that the greatest minds shall be always preserved from error, or that the most devoted to the cause of Christ shall be always superior to the influence of the world. Gideon, after having delivered Israel, was seduced by his ephod, which became a snare to the whole nation. Peter, after having borne testimony to Christ at Jerusalem, is swayed to dissimulation in an inferior matter at Antioch.”* We are never, therefore, to be influenced by names. Yet it ought to be remarked, even these are introduced with a bad grace into the support of a system which makes “the Apostolical Church,”† with all her parade, which they abhorred, and her tyranny, under which they suffered, a matter of indifference. Numbers of them declared that the Church of England was not only corrupt, but intolerable: many, therefore, fled to Holland,

_____

* Judges viii. 27. Galatians ii. 12, 13.

† Plea, p. 376.

173

others to New England, and endured all the sufferings arising from penury, a strange land, and a wilderness hitherto untrod by human foot, whilst numbers languished in prisons at home, or, hunted about from place to place, had scarcely “where to lay their head.” There is reason to believe that even the independency of many of them sprung from the violence with which they were scattered by their rulers, and that in a more settled state of the church they would have embraced more sober maxims.* However this may be, and although it was the case that some of both these principles communed with the Church of England, is it reasonable, is it even tolerable to assert that these men would have all fallen in with the loose, unmeaning system exhibited in the Plea? Will any person who has seriously read their history, assert that these men, who endured every species of sufferings for what they believed to be truth, would have united in a system so

_____

* It is known that some respectable Independent ministers have discovered their suspicions of the want of vigour in their system, and that one combining more social energy is desirable. President Edwards, in his “Work of Redemption,” has this remark on the state of things, which he believed will exist in the millennial glory of the church: “The true government and discipline of the church will then be settled and put in practice. All the world shall then be as one church—one orderly, regular, beautiful society. And as the body shall be one, so the members shall be in a beautiful proportion to each other.” What the sentiments of this man of God were on the subject of the government of the church, I do not know; but one can hardly avoid conjecturing his dissatisfaction with independency, from these words. (See his Works, vol. 2. p. 351. Worcester, 1808.)

174

deficient in its principles, and so undefined in its meaning, as to be capable of any extension and application, except to open Socinianism? Impossible. Theirs was a walk, though in many respects erroneous, greatly superior to the dishonourable path marked out in the Plea, full as it of concessions on every side, and calculated as it to secure a plenty of worldly ease. The finger of scorn, while it held up to ridicule, suspicion, and odium, even their “good “conscience”—“spiritual mindedness”—“self-denial”—“bearing the cross”—“following Christ”—could not deter them from the most open testimony against what they abhorred; and their sufferings, their imprisonments, and their exile, show that, though they in some instances communed with the Church of England, these exceptions sprung from necessity, or from a remaining hope of reformation, whilst they could never consent to be silent on the corruptions to which they were opposed. And if in these instances they did thus commune, does Dr. Mason seriously propose their example, with a view to lay aside all present distinctions, and return to the bosom of the Apostolical Mother Church? If not, what does he mean?

And as to the Presbyterian divines, whose names are introduced by Dr. M. with considerable exultation, he will find great difficulty, notwithstanding his eloquence and argumentative powers, (confessedly great,) in persuading any person tolerably well acquainted with their general history, to believe that they would have held up their hands for

175

a communion like that of the Plea. Employed day and night in laborious studies to draw from the Scriptures the pure and only doctrines of life—the worship which God has prescribed—the obedience due from the church to the Lord Jesus, as her only head—and defending and exhibiting these, at every peril—were they serious and sincere in their professions? If they were, how can they be introduced into the support of a system which tacitly and actually makes all these things of no importance? He would make us believe that this sentiment, (quoted from Baxter,*) “that the Book of Common Prayer, and of Bishops, and Priests and Deacons, containeth in it nothing so disagreeable to the word of God as maketh it unlawful to live in the peaceable communion of the church that useth it”—is a sentiment that accorded entirely with the spirit of the English divines.† In opposition to this, it is asserted that there will be hardly found one instance of individual or public complaint by the Puritan divines, from the reign of Elizabeth downwards,

_____

* Plea, p. 277.

† On this extraordinary assertion, the following fact is a sufficient comment. “The Puritan ministers being dissatisfied with the promiscuous access of all persons to the communion, and with several passages in the office for the Lord’s supper, some of them used to provide qualified clergymen to administer the ordinance in their room; this was now made a handle for their ejectment;” and consequently some were deprived.—Neal’s Hist. of the Puritans, Vol. 1. p. 373. Boston, 1816. This occurred in the reign of Elizabeth; and no material change took place, either in the system of the government or the feelings of the Puritans, till the Westminster Assembly.

176

which had not in it some complaint against the Book of Prayer. And how frequent these were, and that Baxter himself took a very conspicuous part in many of these complaints, must be known to every reader of English church history. We are told, likewise, by the author of the Plea, (p. 277,) that the English divines,* at the Assembly at Westminster, “were generally against abjuring episcopacy, as simply unlawful.” This was the case at the commencement of their deliberations, for the same reason that Luther was once opposed to casting off the authority of the Pope. But farther investigation and light led them to greater degrees of knowledge, and candour required that Dr. M. should have informed us of their final sentiments on so momentous a subject. The historian (Neal) assures us “that they voted the main foundations of the

____

* “The English Divines.” Is it not remarkable that Dr. Mason, himself descended from Scotland, acting in a church originating in Scotland, and in his Plea peculiarly addressing other churches of the same origin, is so remarkably silent concerning his and their forefathers? John Knox, after a brief notice, is dismissed, with the intimation (most correspondent with what we have seen) “that he had not freedom to administer the sacraments agreeably to the English liturgy.”—Plea, p. 185. Another is passed over with still less notice, while he is called “that holy man of God, Samuel Rutherford.” “Holy man of God!” Alas, “Ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them.” Why did not Dr. M. say a little more about him, and follow him to the prison where his faith, patience, and sufferings for Jesus Christ, cast shame upon the lukewarm, temporizing and worldly ministry of a later generation—and to his death-bed, where was a scene worthy of angels to behold, while almost with his last breath he bore witness to the “covenanted work of reformation,” for which he suffered?

177

presbyterial government to be of divine appointment, by a very great majority!”—Hist. of the Puritans, vol. III. p. 290. Boston, 1817.

But when we take a glance at the history of these men, what does it represent? The most unwearied exertions to promote sound doctrine, and family and personal religion. We see them exerting themselves to the utmost to prevent a promiscuous admission to the sacraments: we see them bearing the mockery and derision of a most ungodly age, rather than abandon their principles of doctrine, worship and government: we see them retiring from the ministry, rather than use the Book of Common Prayer: and, finally, nearly two thousand in one day, subjecting the church to a most awful calamity—themselves and their families to penury and distress—rather than approve the hierarchy of England, as agreeable to the Word of God. Now, can it be that these men would seriously and deliberately support the system to which their names are brought in the Plea? Say that many of them continued in her communion—was it not with bitterness of soul, and plainly the effect, not of choice, but of submission to circumstances which they could not avoid? And shall such a state of things be recommended to the church when she is freed from the arm of tyranny, and has the liberty of following, undisturbed, the truth which is according to godliness, and of worshipping her God agreeably to his word? And to look at the fact in the present day: All those dissenting churches in England,

178

who make any pretensions to being the successors of the Puritans, are in reality separatists from the Church of England—and this liberty they consider as one of the distinguished privileges secured by the revolution, and transmitted to them through the labours and sufferings of their fathers, the Puritans. There is, therefore, no period in the history of the Dissenters in England which, when fairly examined, will furnish Dr. M. any support. Their communion with that church was the result of necessity, not of choice; it was not attended with a silent relinquishment of the truth of God; it was connected with a zeal which carried them through shame, poverty, prisons,—often to an ignominious death; and, as soon as they could, we have seen them, in a modern period, live open separatists from a church from which they suffered so long.

NEXT