'f. 
 
 ml % 
 
 Nei7-Enp:la,ndl sm 
 not 
 the Religion of the 
 Bible 
 
 
-'diUt^^. ^'^^, ^m. . uu ij. /^dn). 
 
 — ^ 
 
 NEW-ENGLANDISM 
 
 NOT 
 
 \ 
 
 THE RELIGION OF THE BIBLE : 
 
 BEING 
 
 AN EXAMINATION 
 
 OF 
 
 A REVIEW OF BISHOP BROWNELL'S FOURTH CHARGE 
 
 TO HIS CLERGY, IN THE NEW ENGLANDER 
 
 FOR JANUARY, 1844. 
 
 The distinctive religion of New England." 
 
 New Englander, II. 141 
 
 HARTFORD. 
 
 HENRY S. PARSONS 
 
 1844. 
 
FRED LOCKLEY 
 
 RARE WESTERN BOOKS 
 
 4227 S. E. Stark St. 
 PORTLAND. ORE. 
 
 Bxsq-^E 
 
/ 
 
 NEW-ENGLANDISM 
 
 
 THE RELKIIOI OF THE BIBLE 
 
 BEING 
 
 AN EXAMINATION 
 
 A REVIEW OF BISHOP BROWNELL'S FOURTH CHARGE 
 
 TO HIS CLERGY, IN THE NEW ENGLANDER 
 
 JOR JANUARY, 1844. 
 
 " The distinctive religion of New England." 
 
 New EngJander, II. H3. 
 
 HARTFORD. 
 
 HENRY S. PARSONS 
 1844. 
 
FEBRUAav 5th, 1844. 
 
 Rt. Rev. and Dear Sir, 
 
 The character of the article in the New Englander for the last 
 month, purporting to be a Review of your Charge, being such, that you 
 cannot, consistently with your self-respect, take any notice of it, and yet 
 being of such a nature as to need exposure, I have presumed to offer a 
 few words in examination of the Review, and in confirmation of the im- 
 portant facts and positions contained in the Charge. Trusting what I 
 have said will meet your approbation, 
 
 I have the honor to be, 
 
 Right Rev. and Dear Sir, 
 
 Your obedient servant, ^ 
 
 Juris Consultus. 
 To Rt. Rev. T. C. Brownell, D. D. LL. D. ) 
 Bishop of the Diocese of Connecticut. \ 
 
 Stanley <f- Chapin, Printers. 
 
/ / 
 
 EXAMINATION, &c. 
 
 If the importance of a document may be estimated Ly 
 the effect of its publication, the Charge of Bishop Brownell 
 on the " Errors of the Times" is one of th^ most import- 
 ant ever issued from the press. It seems to have thrown 
 consternation into the ranks of our opponents, or as Ter- 
 tnllian would have said, " into the camp of the rebels."* 
 And since they have recovered from the first shock, it has 
 been talked over in private circles, commented upon in lec- 
 tures, preached about in the pulpits, and railed against in 
 the newspapers.! Every species of warfare which wit, or 
 ridicule, or buffoonery could suggest, and every kind of 
 weapon, from the small arms of the Religious Herald, to the 
 heavy ordnance of the JVew Englandcr, has been brought 
 to bear upon it. In the meantime Churchmen have looked 
 on, quietly watching the terror and affright of those, who, 
 all at once had been caused to see themselves, as others see 
 them. We do not much wonder at the unqualified abuse, 
 and unmitigated hostility with which it has been honored, 
 for it must have been both difficult and painful for those 
 who had not kept their eyes upon the ancient land-marks, 
 to realize that they had drifted so far from their moorings, 
 
 * Praes. Heer. c. 41. This is the name given by him to those assemblies that 
 reject the Episcopate and Apostolic succession, and set aside the Apostolic tradi- 
 tions. 
 
 t Perhaps the reviewer will not allow^ that the Charge was the cause, though 
 it was the occasion of these things. Indeed, he represents his brethren as longing 
 for the onslaught, like hounds at bay, impatient for the chase. " Others we know, 
 and they are the many, hailed its [the Charge's] appearance as a deliverance with 
 real exultation. It eased them from the perplexity which had long tried their pa- 
 tience." p. 143. 
 
and were so near foundering amid shoals and quicksands.* 
 The surprize and, alarm naturally caused by the discovery 
 of their real situation, may properly be received as an 
 apology for the uncourteousness of the guerilla warfare 
 of their hebdomadals, but is no excuse for the deliberate 
 barbarity of the New Englander. 
 
 This Charge has now been before the public six months, 
 and has, in the mean time, been talked over, lectured 
 upon, and preached about, and been pronounced, by the 
 New Engender itself, (I. 546,) a document of sufficient 
 importance to demand a separate and deliberate considera- 
 tion. Consequently, this review is the " deliberate" pro- 
 duction of one of the ablest, (we may presume, for it is 
 anonymous,) of the contributors to that periodical, written 
 after months of consideration and reflection, and with all 
 the aid and assistance that his co-laborers could afford. f 
 It is an important document, therefore, not for its intrinsic 
 merit, but as an index to the tone, and temper, and spirit 
 of that periodical, as indicative of the mode of warfare 
 which the Church has to expect, and as an example of the 
 treatment which Churchmen are to receive at its hands. 
 And it must also be regarded, as the best answer that can 
 be made to the " Errors of the Times." 
 
 But there is a portion of the review, to which neither our 
 principles nor our taste wall permit us to reply. The style, 
 and manner, and spirit, are such as we desire not to imitate. 
 Yet we cannot do the reviewer justice, nor enable our read- 
 ers to form a proper estimate of his article, without giving 
 some specimens under these heads. And this they might 
 
 * The helmsman of their ship, seems to have been an unskilful mariner, think- 
 ing of nothing but keeping the masts before each other, without noting their bear- 
 ing with the polar star. And because the masts kept directly ahead, he seems not 
 to have .thought but the ship was also keeping straight on her course. 
 
 t The New Englander is determined, not to make any waste by its haste. It 
 took nine months in preparing a review of Chapin's Primitive Church, and six 
 months in preparing a review of the Bishop's Charge. 
 
expect for another reason, as it is'always satisfactory when 
 reading any book, periodical or review, to know something 
 of the intelligence, candor, and orthodoxy of the writer In 
 order, therefore, to reflect the moral and intellectual phases 
 of New-Englandism, and to show the reviewer in a light, 
 in which he seems ambitious to appear, we shall draw out 
 a few of the leading features of his mind, as _he has de- 
 lineated them in this review. 
 
 1. Of the reviewer's taste and style. He has given us a 
 sure index of his taste, and a clue to the source from whence 
 he has drawn his models of style, at the very opening of 
 his article. The Bishop, seated in the chancel, under the 
 most solemn vow which man can make, to banish and drive 
 away all erroneous and strange doctrine, solemnly address- 
 ing his Clergy on the " Errors of the Times," brings up no 
 association in the mind of the reviewer, but that of the 
 mock tragedian " Bottom," in Shakespeare's Midsummer^ s 
 JYight Bream. And the " roaring" of that " Nightingale 
 of a Lion," as Bottom described himself, the reviewer tells 
 us, abode by him in his " first reading of the Charge," and 
 even when he had " set down to the solemn office of 
 review," was still " sounding in his ears."* But he might 
 have spared himself the trouble of proclaiming it to his 
 readers. It is evident on every page. No man, but one fa- 
 miliar with the character of Puck, and Bottom, and Bar- 
 dolph, and Pistol, and Nym, could have manifested such fe- 
 
 * The editor of the Church Chronicle suggests, and we think very appropriate- 
 ly, that the reviewer in order to complete the scene, had attempted to act the char- 
 acter of Bottom's associate, Puch, as described by himself ; and certainly, had the 
 poet been a prophet, he could not have more accurately described the character of 
 the reviewer in this article, than he has done in the following passage : 
 " I'll lead you about, around. 
 
 Through bog, through bush, through brake, through brier ; 
 
 Sometime a horse I'll be, sometime a hound, 
 
 A hog, a beardless bear, sometime a fire ; 
 
 And neigh, and bark, and grunt, and roar, and bum, 
 
 Like horso, hcg, hound, bear, fire, at every turn." 
 
licity of expression, in their peculiar dialect. Everything 
 he sees and hears, reminds him of some appropriate expres- 
 sion of theirs. Thus the language and figures in which he 
 describes the doctrine of tradition, as " the foul old dogma 
 of the Papacy, which now reveals its last stage of putrition 
 in the Oxford fer men f (p. 148), and which reaches through 
 all the filth of Church history" (p. 152), was evidently sug- 
 gested by FalstafF's account of his situation in the "buck- 
 basket," with sundry " foul, greasy, stinking," unmention- 
 ables. 
 
 So the ideas and epithets employed in his description of 
 Episcopacy, — " the witch-broth style of Episcopacy ; patch- 
 es and scraps — a lock of St. Ignatius, and finger of St. Cyp- 
 rian — a tooth of Laud, and dead men's bones from every 
 region ; simmered and stirred by the anointed wisdom, and 
 magic authority of a successor of the Apostles" (p. 172), 
 was evidently borrowed from the witch-song in Macbeth.* 
 And the imagination, that " the ghosts of all the Popes had 
 come back to howl and gibber" (p. 148) in the Charge, is 
 equally classic. Indeed, one familiar with Shakespeare, es- 
 pecially the lowest and most vulgar of his comedies, might 
 no doubt discover the original of very much of the review. 
 
 But there are things in it which were not copied, things 
 which Willy Shakespeare would have been ashamed to have 
 written, and which remind us of the ^lang of a Kentucky 
 boatman, or the lingo of St. Giles. A single example will 
 
 * We subjoin a specimen, to show the correspondence between the reviewer and 
 his authorities : 
 
 " Fillet of a fenny snake, 
 In the cauldron boil and bake ; 
 Eye of newt , and toe of frog, 
 Wool of bat, and tongue of dog. 
 Adder's fork, and bllnd.worm's sting, 
 Lizard's leg, and owlet's wing. 
 For a charm of powerful trouble 
 Like a hell-broth boil and bubble." 
 
 Macheth, Act IV. Scene 1. 
 
suffice. Thus he says, "our Churches may see," in the 
 Charge, "the dry bones [of Connecticut Episcopacy] un- 
 covered, the dead flat of Pharisaism is spread out before 
 them, the ghastly grin of spiritual death stares them in the 
 face" (p. 144). With the exception of a bad parody on 
 Milton's— 
 
 " Grinned horribly a ghastly smile," 
 
 this passage is the real German Rothwalsch, which is ele- 
 gantly rendered into English by " Thieves' Latin." 
 
 The purify and delicacy of his style, is in good keeping 
 with his taste. For example, the " exploding" of the Bish- 
 op's Charge, as its delivery is called by our militant review- 
 er, is compared to " a whizzing sound heard at the" ■ 
 
 " of the gun" (p. 146) . The apostolical succession is com- 
 pared to "breathing over the breath of the apostles and the 
 line of popes in regular succession" (p. 161), transmitted 
 we suppose, from another illustration of the same thing (p. 
 162) by placing them in contact, heads and points, like the 
 poles in a series of galvanic batteries, when a shock is to 
 be communicated to a great distance. On one half page he 
 applies the following epithets to the Church and Church- 
 men, " foul, polluted, putrition, ferment, gibber, howl, ar- 
 rant fanatic, carnally inflated, senseless zeal. Church-mad 
 inspiration" (p. 144). And in other places, not included in 
 the quotations under any other head, he employs epithets 
 like these, in describing us, and our doctrines, " vituper- 
 ation, apostacy, lust, rapacity, going after lovers, Jesuits, 
 Popes, magic potency, incantations," &c. &c. But we can 
 neither spend time, nor spare room to copy a tithe of the ex- 
 amples under this head. We commend the whole article to 
 the study of those who are desirous of perfecting them- 
 selves in the use of Billingsgate. 
 
 2. Of the reviewers courtesy. The foregoing specimens 
 would properly come under this head, were there any stand- 
 ard of taste. But, as the maxim says, "there is no dispu- 
 
8 
 
 ting about tastes," we regard tliem merely as exhibitions of 
 intellectual and moral preferences, having no bearing on 
 the question of courtesy. Some of his readers may possi- 
 bly think, that he designed to be uncourteous, but we lay no 
 such sin to his charge, and as he gives us to understand that 
 he is a " Congregational Minister," we look to him for a 
 specimen of what he deems appropriate to the character and 
 office of such a functionary. 
 
 It is conceded by the revievv^er himself, that the Bishop, 
 is " habitually cool and moderate, respectable and respected 
 hitherto, for his official discretion, and the general courtesy 
 of manners to Christians of other names" (p. 146). Yet it 
 is consistent with his ideas of Christian intercourse and 
 Ministerial courtesy, to say that he " has had the audacity 
 to insult every habit, prejudice, and principle in their bo- 
 soms" (p. 148), as " intending to insult them," and " taking 
 malignant pleasure in the insult" (p. 147), and that by his 
 "gratuitous insult," he has " put himself beyond the pale of 
 civilized warfare, and sacrificed every claim to personal cour- 
 tesy or official respect" (p. 147), so that " any expression of 
 respect on their part, however qualified, is an act of mercy, 
 rather than of justice" (p. 147). The cause of this offence, 
 which has thus put the Bishop out of the pale of civilized 
 society, was simply calling them Bissenters^ as has been the 
 constant practice in this State for more than a hundred 
 years. 
 
 The Charge^ notwithstanding the importance given it 
 by the New Englander itself, this reviewer characterizes 
 as a " ludicrous thing" (p. 149), " a flat and malignant at- 
 tack upon the distinctive religion of New England" (p. 143), 
 a thing of " exquisite absurdity" (p. 158), " an ecclesiasti- 
 cal jumble of scrap reasoning" like " the sweepings of the 
 streets" (p. 162), the " doctrine impious," the argument a 
 piece of " fallacy and wickedness" (p. 150), " a tissue of 
 errors, at once feeble and pernicious." How he reconciles 
 these statements with each other, and with the importance 
 hitherto attached to it, is more than we know. 
 
To these examples of courtesy to an individual who is ac* 
 knowledgedto be a " mild spirited," (p. 143,) "courteous'' 
 (p. 146) man, we add a few specimens of the epithets applied 
 to others. Thus he speaks of the "rapacious ravening wolf-^ 
 hood, miscalled by the epithet clergy of England — the Lord 
 Bishops acting Dives in their fine linen, at the rate of three 
 hundred thousand a year, the younger sons of noblemen, 
 parcelled off to their riotous 'livings,^ acting the prodigal, 
 without either acting or teaching his repentance, and escap- 
 ing the husks by tithing the corn, — a race of priestly extor- 
 tioners in the name of ChrIst Jesus, hunting, drinking, 
 gaming, and swearing, under cover of the Apostolic succes- 
 sion, — not novices in doctrine, because they have not ad- 
 vanced so far,— stealing their sermons to supply the want of 
 the head, and plundering the poor to fill the want of the 
 body — piercing to dividing asunder of soul and spirit, not 
 by their arguments, but by their extortions, — examples to 
 Iheir flocks, only as they show them, by example, how to 
 wear the fleece." (p. 154.) Such is his picture of the Eng- 
 lish clergy, which he says " the clergy in this country are 
 endeavouring to imitate." (p. 146.) And the Church itself 
 he describes as " a synod of foxes united by firebrands — 
 Calvinistic ministers, priestly drones and nothingarians — 
 Arrainian Bishops, who have not so much as learned from 
 Arrainius the notion of a spiritual religion, — sentimental 
 formalists, formalists without sentiment, (save the love of 
 money and good living.) Oxfordizing and Romanizing doc- 
 tors, all kennelled together under the standard of faith and 
 worship in the Book ot Common Prayer." (p. 156.) 
 
 When reading such things as these, we are reminded of a 
 passage in the inimitable ScotchPoet: 
 
 " O ye wha are sae guid, yoursel, 
 
 Sae pious and sae holy, 
 Ye've naught to do but mark and tell 
 
 Your neebor's faults and folly 1" 
 
 2 
 
10 
 
 3. Of the reviewer's orthodoxy. The reviewer describes 
 himself as a Congregational minister in this State, and 
 hence he may expect us to take his orthodoxy for granted. 
 Yet he cannot but be aware, that the orthodoxy of very 
 many of that school to which he belongs, has been more 
 than suspected, even by their own brethren. Had not 
 this been the case, we could not close our eyes to the evi- 
 dent sympathies manifested in the present article. Thus, 
 speaking of the German and Swiss Churches, he says, " with 
 all their heresies and frigid neologisms, their state is yet 
 greatly to be preferred to that of the A.nglican Episcopal 
 Church. And if we were this day to import a religion, we 
 should not hesitate a moment to make out an order on Ger- 
 many in preference to the English Episcopate." (p. 154.) 
 Of the present state of the English Episcopal Church, it 
 can hardly be necessary for us to speak; certainly not in its 
 defence against a writer who is so ignorant on the subject 
 as the reviewer. It is not pretended, even by the reviewer 
 himself, that there is any general heresy^ or apostacy in that 
 Church. But what the German heresies are, and what is 
 their extent, is not generally as well known, and a few speci- 
 mens will be added by way of illustration, showing what 
 are the doctrines and principles preferred by our reviewer, 
 to those of the English Church. 
 
 " It cannot be denied," says Tennemann, " that Fichte's 
 [who died in 1814] idealism had great influence on the spirit 
 of his age."* According to the " religious pliilosophy" of 
 this author, says Tennemann, " we need no other God than 
 the order of this world It is not possible to as- 
 cribe intelligence and personalitiy to God without making 
 him a finite being like ourselves."! Here, then, we have 
 one calling himself a Christian philosopher, whose " relig- 
 ious philosopy," denied "intelligence and personality" to 
 
 * Hist. Philos., p. 505, in Murdock'S Germ. Philos., p. 103. 
 tTenn.p. 502, Murd.p.lOl. 
 
. 11 
 
 the Deity, ami which acknowledges no God but " the order 
 of this world"! 
 
 One of the admirers of Fichte's philosophy, one who 
 has given the world a system of his own, and who is 
 probably now living, is Schellbig. His system is called the 
 Docirine of IdenlUy, (Identiiatslehre,) because he maintains 
 the perfect identity of the knowledge of things, and of the 
 things themselves. It is also called The All-one-doctrine ^ 
 (Mleinheitsiehre, or Mleiiislehre,) " because," says Dr. Mur- 
 dock, " it maintains that the Universe is God, and God the 
 Universe, or that God developing himself in various forms, 
 and according to general laws, is the only existence."* 
 " This pantheistic principle of Spinoza,! which," says Dr. 
 Murdock, " Schelling revived and made the basis of his 
 philosophy, was eagerly adopted by vast numbers in Ger- 
 many, and many who did not follovv' Schelling's opinions on 
 other points, embraced this doctrine as true. "| Among the 
 leading German Philosophers who have adopted Schelling's 
 views, either with or without modification, are Bouterwek, 
 Bardili, Esbhenmayer, Wagner, and Krause. 
 
 Another leader in the Schools of German philosophy was 
 Hegel, who died in 1831. He was at first a follower of 
 Schelling, and always taught " the indentity of God and 
 the Universe. "§ He differed from his master, inasmuch as 
 Schelling taught that God or the Universe, was " a real 
 substance," whereas Hegel regarded " ideas, or concep- 
 tions as the only existences." This school had many dis- 
 ciples and followers. We cannot give a better account of 
 the view taken of Hegel's religious philosophy by his coun- 
 
 « Murd. p. 104. 
 
 t For an account of the Philosophy of Spinoza, see Norton's Remarks on a 
 late Pamph., 11-27. Am. Encyc. XI. 596. Murd. Germ. Philos. pp. 26-29. 
 
 t ?4urd. III. Schcllinjj has recently modiiied his Philosophy. Biederniao. 
 Germ. Philos. II. c. 7. 
 
 & iMurd. 118. 
 
13 
 
 trymen and cotemporaries, than by copying an extract from 
 the pantheist, Eschenmayer. He says;* " Hegel has a 
 God without holiness, a Christ without free love, a Holy 
 Ghost without illumination, a Gospel without faith, an 
 Apostacy without sin, wickedness without conscious guilt, 
 an atonement without remission of sin, a death without an 
 offering, a religious assembly without divine worship, a re- 
 lease without imputation, justice without a judge, grace 
 without redemption, dogmatic theology without a revelation, 
 a this side without a that side, an immortality without a 
 personal existence, a Christian religion without Christiani-!- 
 ty, and in general a religion without religion." 
 
 Our readers may possibly imagine that these men were 
 infidels, that it is impossible they should profess to be Chris- 
 tians. Yet so it was, " not one of them," says Dr. Mur- 
 dock, " professed either atheism or materialism, .... or 
 showed himself a disbeliever in the great principles of nat- 
 ural religion."! They were philosophers, so called, Chris- 
 tian philosophers! And these are the doctrines and opinions 
 with which our reviewer sympathizes. Well may we expect 
 him, then, to dislike the principles of the English Church. 
 
 But perhaps the reviewer may say, that it is the religion 
 of Germany, not the " religious philosophy" with which he 
 sympathizes. If so, we will give a few specimens of their 
 religious tenets. One of the most active, admired, and in- 
 fluential clergymen of Germany, in the first part of the 
 present century, was Schleirmarcher.t He taught that "the 
 idea of a personal God was pure mythology. "§ He was 
 
 * Hegel's Rel. Phllos. Comp. with princ. of Christianity, 100, Murd. 126. 
 
 t Murd. p. 13^. We hope a better day is dawninjj on German Philosophy. — < 
 Since 1832 the pantheism of Schelling and Hegel have been giving place to the 
 more practical philosophy of Herbert and other common sense writers. Bied. II. 
 C.6. 
 
 t Am. Encyc. XI. 243, 244. 
 
 § Norton's Latest form of Infidelity, p. 44. See Nort. Rem. etc. ST-.'ia, for an 
 account of Sciileirmarcher. 
 
13 
 
 a philosopher, apparently of the Schelling School, and 
 like him, held to the pantheism of Spinoza, whom he pro- 
 nounces, a man " full of religion and of a holy spirit." 
 And this, in a book, professedly written through " a divine 
 call," " a heavenly impulse."* 
 
 Another prominent German professor of theology, and 
 one of the most distinguished German theologians, is Paulus, 
 the commentator on the Bible. In his Preface to an Edi- 
 tion of theworksof Spinoza, he speaks of" the superstitious 
 and ridiculous horror of the atheism, so-called, of Spino- 
 za."! The last development of this liberal Christianity, 
 for which our reviewer expresses so much regard, is found 
 in the Life of Jesus, critially treated, (2 vols, 8vo.,) by 
 David Frederic Strauss, one of the German professors of 
 theology, in which he denies the existence of any such be- 
 ing as Jesus Christ, and teaches that Christ is not to be 
 regarded as an individual, but as an idea."l 
 
 Another German doctor and professor of divinity is the 
 celebrated commentator De Wette. " The greatest and 
 most pregnant idea of the Nevv^ Theology," says this man, 
 " the establishment of which has been the main business of 
 my theological life, is, that what is proposed for religiDus 
 faith, must contain nothing metaphysical, or only so much 
 as is necessary for a clear understanding of the faith, that 
 its essence is not in propositions which are the object of 
 knowledge, .... not resting the truth of the Christian 
 faith .... upon common, naked, historical truth, .... 
 especially," he says, " let us renounce .... the poor and 
 unscientific appeal to miraculous evidence. "§ 
 
 We will not say that the man who can speak, as our re- 
 
 * Nort. Lat. form Infid. 43. t lb. 44. t lb. 46. 47. 
 
 § lb. 40-42. De Wette's mode of reasoning in regard to miracles is after this 
 manner : — " Common sense determines that such miracles [as recorded in the Pen- 
 tateuch] arc impossible. It may, however, be inquired whether some events did 
 not really happen which to eye witnesses and co-temporaneous seemed to be mi. 
 raculous." Introd- O. T. h li5. Jahn Introd. O. T. Par. II. § 12. n. 
 
14 
 
 viewer has done, of German theologians, does, of necessity, 
 belipve as they do. But we must say, that the approval he 
 gives them, is clear proof that they have his sympathies 
 to a very great extent. Indeed, we should be tempted to 
 believe that the reviewer had already made " an importation 
 of religion from Germany," did not his article lead us to 
 doubt whether he knows anything of it, except at second 
 hand. 
 
 Nor is his sympathy with the Socinianism of Germany, 
 less marked and striking. Indeed, so mildly does he look 
 upon that soul-destroying heresy. — that God-denying apos- 
 tacy, that he will not believe the Unitarianism of Hon. Mr. 
 Everett, had anything to do with the disturbances at Oxford, 
 at the conferring of his degree, (p. 145,) though unfortu- 
 nately for his argument, no objection was made to it, after 
 he had given his assent to the Creed of the Church of 
 England. 
 
 To these specimens of the author's taste, style, courtesy, 
 and orthodoxy, we ought to add some showing the richness 
 of that rhetoric, which enables him to perform more won- 
 derful acts than the transmigrations ol the Hindoo me- 
 tempsychosis, — which enables him, on a single page, 
 (p. 156,) to liken the clergy of the Church, to " foxes and 
 fire-brands," to " lambs and wolves," to " doves and vul- 
 tures," dwelling in " kennels" and caught in " nets." We 
 ought, also, to offer a word on the subject of that reverence^ 
 which leads him to introduce " Christ" and " Bottom" in- 
 to the same paragraph, (p. 103,) and the " Hot.y Ghost" and 
 the " devil," (will our readers pardon the impiety, we only 
 quote?) at once into the same passage, (p. 144.) But we 
 cannot afford space, and we shrink from the almost blasphe- 
 my of the reviewer. Suffice it to say, that he has earned a 
 reputation which ought hereafter to place him in the same 
 category with the New York Herald and New York Evan- 
 gelist. 
 
 It may be asked, then, why answer such a production 7 
 
15 
 
 Simply because it appears in a periodical that professes to 
 be respectable, the Editor of which is a respectable man, 
 and has united with him respectable men as his associates. 
 The appearance of an article in such a work, entitles 
 whatever there is of argument in it, to a respectful consid- 
 eration, even though under other circumstances, we might 
 have supposed the writer an infidel in disguise. To the 
 arguments we shall now turn our attention, unmindful of the 
 sneers, and scoffs, and blackguardism of the writer. 
 
 The several subjects considered and commented upon by 
 the reviewer, are mainly the following: 
 
 I. The right of private judgment. 
 
 II. The state of the Episcopal Church, as compared with 
 other Protestant denominations. 
 
 III. The design and mission of the christian Church, in- 
 cluding baptism and the " New Light Theology." 
 
 The first point, or the right of private judgment, would 
 perhaps, be more appropriately entitled the right use or the 
 extent of private judg7nent, this being the real question at 
 issue. Our first business should, therefore, be, to inquire 
 what is meant by " the right of private judgment ?" " The 
 general exercise of private judgment," says the Bishop in 
 his Charge, and of the freedom of the wall, is the natural 
 and inalienable right of every man. But he is responsible 
 to God, and in a minor degree to his fellow-men for the 
 manner in which he exercises these faculties. He may not 
 rightly set them up in opposition to the word of God. He 
 may not rightly exercise them in a spirit of vanity, perver- 
 sity, or self-conceit. He may not rightly exercise them in 
 a way injurious to the peace and order of society, nor with- 
 out due veneration lor the judgment of the Church and its 
 ministry; — so far as that is supported by primitive tradition 
 and usage, and is in conformity to the divine word. We 
 deem him self-sufficient who pays no respect to public opin- 
 ion, even though that opinion be founded on the caprice 
 
16 
 
 df the day. Much less is he to be commended who sets at 
 naught the opinions which have stood the scrutiny of ages, 
 and which have for centuries received the sanction of the 
 Universal Church." (p. 7, 8.) To this the reviewer assents^ 
 and adds, " this is exactly our opinion and the opinion of 
 all sensible christians in the protestant world." (150.) On 
 this point, therefore, there is no disagreement, and it is 
 *' the opinion of all sensible christians in the protestant 
 world," that " he is not to be commended, who sets at 
 naught the opinions which have stood the scrutiny of ages, 
 and which have for centuries received the sanction of the 
 Universal Church," as for example Episcopacy and forms 
 of prayer. 
 
 But if men are " not to be commended" who set at naught 
 these things, what deference is to be paid to their authority"? 
 The Bishop says, " the Holy Scriptures, as they were in- 
 terpreted by the Church during the two first centuries after 
 the ascension of Our Saviour, not as they may chance to be 
 interpreted by the wayward fancies of individuals, consti- 
 tute the only sure basis to rest upon." (p. 5.) To this the 
 reviewer replies with much caution. " So far," says he, 
 *' from setting aside the [Fathers of the] first two centuries, 
 we claim them on our side, in every question between us." 
 But lest it should be difficult to substantiate this claim, he 
 adds, " though without any such opinion of their infallibili- 
 ty as to bind ourselves to an implicit submission to their 
 authority." (p. 150.) Here then is the real point at issue; 
 is there any supposable case, in which the unanimous consent 
 of all of the fathers of the first and second centuries may com^ 
 mand our assent? The reviewer would say JV*o, the Bishop 
 Yes.* 
 
 * The reviewer's pretence that the Bishop holds their doctrine of private judg- 
 ment, (p. 151,) is a very strange one. The Bishop asserts distinctly, that tlie 
 unanimous consent of the Church, asset forth in the fathers of the f5r?t and second 
 centuries, on any matter of fact, whether of doctrine or discipline, is binding, as 
 the lawyers would say in furo fonsctentite. This the reviewer denies in toto. 
 
17 
 
 To suppose a case. IrenEEus, Bishop of Lyons in Gaul^ 
 from A. D. 176 to 202, was the pupil and disciple of Poly- 
 carp, and Polycarp was the pupil and disciple of the Apos- 
 tle St. John. Now Ireneeus knew what was the faith of 
 the Gallican Churches in his day, on the 'subject of the 
 Trinity, and he knew from Polycarp, what was the faith of 
 the Asiatic Churches in his day on that subject, and Poly- 
 carp knew from St. John what was taught by the inspired 
 Apostles, in regard to the same. And when we inquire con- 
 cerning the faith of the other primitive Churches, we find 
 them all agreeing on these two points, — that a belief in the 
 Trinity was universal, and that it was held to have come 
 down from the Apostles. According to the principles of the 
 Church, as brought out in the Bishop's Charge, no amount 
 of subsequent testimony, no philosophical or metaphysical 
 reasoning can set aside this doctrine, and we hold ourselves 
 as much bound to believe it, as a juryman is to believe the 
 honest testimony of a credible witness to a matter of fact 
 within his knowledge. Will the reviewer say the same? 
 If he will, and abide by the decisions of the fathers of the 
 first and second centuries, he will give up his present post, 
 and no more attempt to execute an office which the primitive 
 Church would tell him he had iio business to meddle with. 
 But if he will not, and while he is a Congregationalist he 
 can not take that ground, where is his pretended deference 
 for their authority? He must, and in practice, does re- 
 serve the right to set aside any and every oj)inion of the 
 primitive ages, however universal, and h wever impor- 
 tant, whenever it happens to conflict with his own notions 
 or interests. And if this be not interpreting scripture 
 " according to the wayward fancies of individuals," we 
 know not what would be. If there be no authority to 
 which it is our duty to submit our judgments in this matter, 
 then the fancy, or opinion, of every individual, or whatev- 
 er else we may please to call it, must be his guide. 
 
18 
 
 We do not say that Congregationalists always act upon this 
 principle, but we do say, that so far as they are consistent 
 Congregationalists, they are bound to do it, and it is certain 
 that they make their boast of doing it. That they fre- 
 quently depart from it in practice we know. They quote 
 the fathers, it is true, when they make for their side, but 
 when they make against it, they are set aside without cere- 
 mony. It is also true, that many writers have claimed all 
 the " fathers of the two first centuries," as on their side. 
 But those well informed on the subject know better. In- 
 deed, it is confessed in a late work entitled A Congre- 
 gational Catechism, got up by the Editor who published the 
 article under consideration, with the advice of such men 
 as Rev. Drs. Murdock, and Hawes, and Bacon, that the 
 fathers of the second century prove the existence of Dio- 
 cesan Episcopacy, in their days, and that they held it to be 
 of divine institution. 
 
 The real point of difference is this ; Churchmen hold, 
 that the uniform consent and teaching, or what is the same 
 thing, the unanimous consent of all the fathers, of the two 
 first centuries, to any matter of fact, whether relating to 
 doctrine or discipline, is binding on us. This our reviewer 
 denies, and he claims the right, in common with all his 
 brethren, to set aside, and he does set aside, this unanimous 
 consent, whenever it does not agree with his " wayward 
 fancy," as any one at all conversant with their writings, 
 knows. Indeed, the reviewer himself denominates the 
 opinions of the fathers " patristic absurdities," (II. 151,) 
 and his predecessor, has pronounced them " blind guides." 
 (I. 417.) So deep rooted has this prejudice against the fa- 
 thers been, that the Congregational minister, who, thirty 
 years ago, should have been known as a student of them, 
 would have been considered as little better than beside him- 
 self. Even within much less time than that, they have made 
 
19 
 
 their boast, that they were not to be refuted " by musty- 
 quotations from the fathers."* 
 
 Again the reviewer represents the Bishop as at variance 
 with other writers on this subject, because he confines him- 
 self to the " two first centuries," while some include 
 " three," or " four," or even " seven." (11. 149.) But this 
 is of no sort of consequence. The rule is semper, ubique, et 
 ah omnibus; a doctrine or practice, to be binding, must have 
 been recevied " at all times, every where, and by all." If, 
 therefore, no trace of it is found before the end of the sec- 
 ond century, the " all times," is not made out, and the doc- 
 trine or practice is not binding. The advantage of including 
 more than two centuries, is, that universality may often be 
 proved more conclusively and satisfactorily. 
 
 But, says the reviewer, " there is no one opinion of the 
 first two centuries which can, with any propriety, be con- 
 sidered an opinion of the Church; for the Church was not 
 so organized as to have any joint action, or to unite in a 
 common expression of any kind." (II. 149.) We should 
 deem this a very strange assertion, if we supposed the wri- 
 ter spoke intelligently. Was not that the opinion of the 
 Church, which every orthodox Church held, whether there 
 had been any formal decree on the subject or not? And 
 were not practices and opinions, which were constantly ap- 
 pealed to as authoritative, because coming down from Apos- 
 tolic days, the practices and opinions of the Church, before 
 any formal decree had been made in regard to them? Does 
 the reviewer intend to say, that nothing of this kind exist- 
 ed? We would recommend him to read, for once, Tertul- 
 lian's book on Prczscription against Heretics ; to ponder 
 what he says concerning the rule of faith, the mode of refer- 
 ence to it, its universality and apostolicity, — the improbabilty 
 that the whole Church should agree in error, the priority of 
 
 * Bacon's Man. p. 43. 
 
20 
 
 the doctrine of the Church, and the later date of heresy, 
 the universal appeal to the apostolic Churches, and the 
 apostolic succession by all orthodox Churches, and he will 
 find some thing which will probably be new to him. Above 
 all, we beg him to ponder the following extract from that 
 work, so eminently descriptive of the heretics and schismat- 
 ics of all ages. 
 
 " In the first place, it is doubtful who is a catechumen, 
 who is a believer: they have all access alike, they hear 
 alike, they pray alike. Even if heathens come in upon 
 them, they will cast that which is holy unto dogs, and pearls, 
 false though they be, before swine. They will have the 
 overthrow of discipline to be simplicity; and the care of it 
 amongst us they call pandering. They huddle up a peace 
 with all every where. For it maketh no matter to them, 
 although they hold different doctrines, so long as they con- 
 spire together in their siege against the one thing, Truth. 
 All are puffed up: all promise knowledge. Their Catechu- 
 mens are perfected before they are taught Their 
 
 o-dinations are careless, capricious, inconsistent. At one 
 time they place in office novices, at another men tied to the 
 world, at another apostates from us, that they may bind 
 them to themselves by vain-glory, since they can not by 
 truth. No where is promotion readier than in the camp 
 of rebels, where, even to be there, is a merit. Wherefore 
 one man is Bishop to-day, another to morrow; to-day Dea- 
 con, who to- morrow will be Reader: to-day Presbyter, 
 who to-morrow will be Layman; for even to laymen they 
 commit the^ priestly offices." — c. 41. 
 
 Now that this is descriptive of vast numbers at the present 
 day, is unquestionably true. Their " Catechumens " or as 
 the dissenters style them, their" converts," are " perfected 
 before they are taught," that is, their conversion makes 
 them at once leadeis and teachers. If we may judge by 
 their conduct, they have " conspired together against the 
 
Church." " Their ordinations are careless, capricious, in^ 
 consistent." They often place " novices," that is " new 
 converts," in the office of teacher, and " even to laymen 
 they commit the priestly offices." Had Tertullian written 
 for these times, he could not have better described the 
 course of many of our opponents, than he has done. 
 
 Let him also look into Irenseus, and he will find a simi- 
 lar, and equally accurate description. The same pretence 
 to special divine illumination, the same professions of su- 
 perior sanctity, the same charges of making too much of 
 forms, the same rejection of the apostolic succession, that 
 is so common at the present day, the same pretence of wis- 
 dom, even above the Apostles.* Indeed, had some of our 
 opponents lived in the primitive ages of the Church, they 
 would have been set down as heretics, without hesitation 
 or qualification. They would not have been called dissent- 
 ers^ merely, but heretics, enemies to the Church, and reb- 
 els against God. So far, therefore, from its being an act 
 of discourtesy for us to call those dissenters^ who set aside 
 the Episcopate, reject the apostolic traditions, and conspire 
 against the Church, it is an act of special kindness to them. 
 Were we to call them heretics, it would only be speaking in 
 the language of the " first two centuries," but then they 
 might have more show of reason for complaint. 
 
 But there is another point of view in which this unlimit- 
 ed exercise of private judgment must be considered. We 
 must look at its tendency, and at the consequences result-^ 
 ing from it. One of thf? earliest, if not the very earliest of 
 those sects who carried out the ^doctrine of this unlimit- 
 ed exercise of private judgment, were the Gnostics, who led 
 the way in corrupting the true doctrine of the Church,! 
 among whom are to be reckoned the Cerinthians,| the Sa- 
 turninans,§ the Marcionites,|| the Bardensanes,1T the Ta- 
 
 • Adv. Hffir. iii. 1, 2, 3. t Murd. Mosh. I. 110. \ lb. 116. 
 
 ^ lb. 171. II lb. 172. t lb. 173. 
 
22 
 
 tiansists,* the Basilidians,t the Carpocratians,J the Valen- 
 tinians,§ the Adamites, and Cainites, and Abelites, and 
 Sethiles, and Florinians,]! and Serpentinians.H Besides 
 these, there were the Praxeans, and the Artemonites,** and 
 the Montanists,tt all of whom appeared before the end of 
 the second century, and were condemned by the unanimous 
 voice of the whole orthodox Church, even though the re- 
 viewer may have what he calls " a sweet incapacity" of not 
 understanding the facts. 
 
 But we must pass over the long interim between the 
 second century and later days, and look at the influence 
 of this principle in modern times. The Presbyterians in 
 England became so, by setting up their opinion against the 
 Church of England, the Independents, by setting up their 
 opinion against that of the Presbyterians, the Unitarians, 
 by setting up their private judgment against that of the 
 Church. Indeed, it is impossible to point to a single here- 
 sy that has afflicted the Church, either in primitive or mod- 
 ern times, that has not resulted from an unlimited exercise 
 of private judgment. 
 
 Another consequence of this unlimited exercise of pri- 
 vate judgment, maybe seen by examining the history of the 
 Canon of Scripture. The true and the usual mode of set- 
 tling the Canon of Scripture, is to inquire what books were 
 received in the age immediately succeeding the Apostles, as the 
 genuine productions of inspired men? And such books, — 
 which have the unanimous consent of the Fathers of the 
 first and second centuries, we are bound to receive. We 
 do, in fact, receive several that had not this unaniinous con- 
 sent, though they had the consent of the major part, as the 
 epistles of James and Jude, the second of Peter, and the 
 second and third of John.Jt To see the influence of this 
 
 * Murd. Mash. I. 174. t lb. 175. I lb. 177. 
 
 § lb. 177. II lb. 180. IT lb. 181. »»Ib. 182. 
 
 tt lb. 184. It Enseb. iii. 25. 
 
23 
 
 principle in regard to this subject, we must glance at the 
 history of those who have set up their own judgment against 
 that of the Church, — who have exercised the unlimited right 
 of private judgment in regard to the Canon of Scripture. 
 
 The first of these were the Gnostics, who arose in the 
 first century, and who either rejected the books of Scrip- 
 ture entirely, or else put an interpretation upon them dif- 
 ferent from the one received by the Church.* In the second 
 century, among others were the Tatianists, \\ho substituted 
 water for wine in the Eucharist, and forbade matrimony,! — 
 the Severians, who rejected the Acts of the Apostles and 
 all the Epistles,! and the Artemonites who mutilated all 
 Scriptures. § In the third century arose the Manicheans^ 
 who rejected the Old Testament, and the Acts of the Apos- 
 tles, doubted the genuineness of the Gospels, and held the 
 Epistles to be adulterated. |[ All these were accounted 
 heretics by the primitive Church, and have been regarded so 
 in all subsequent times. 
 
 But we cannot dwell upon the early periods of the 
 Church, and coming down to modern times wall confine our 
 attention mainly to the opinions of German theologians and 
 commentators, with whom the reviewer expresses so strong a 
 sympathy, in doing which we shall see w^hat are some of 
 the peculiarities of the German faith. We say " German 
 faith," because what they hold in common with all chris- 
 tians, cannot be considered as peculiar to them. 
 
 We begin with the Pentateuch. Among the modern Ger- 
 man theologians, the genuineness of the Pentateuch, as the 
 work of Moses, has been denied altogether by De Wette, 
 t)octor and Professor of Theology at Basle, who tells us that 
 it is a mythos, possessed of no historical value. IT In this 
 opinion he is followed by Bauer, Divinity Lecturer at Tu- 
 
 * Murd. xMosh. I. 112. t Iren. i. 30. Esub. iii. 29. Mosh. I. 174. 
 
 % Euseb. iii. 29. § lb. v. 28. || Mosh. I. 323. 
 
 H Introd. O. T. § 149, etc. Hist. Crit. Introd. O. T. ^ 397, etc. 
 
24 
 
 bingen,* VonBohlen, late Professor of Oriental Languages 
 at KfEingsberg.t Vatke, Divinity Lecturer in the University 
 of Berlin,! Hartmann, Professor of Theology at Rostock, § 
 all of whom are said to have followed in the steps of the 
 infidel Volney.]] Others allow that Moses wrote a part of 
 it, IT as Eichorn, Lecturer on Biblical criticism at Gottin- 
 gen,** Stauedlin, Professor of Theology at Gottingen,tt 
 Herbstjjt Bleek, Professor of Theology at Bonn,§§ arid 
 Jahn, Professor of Biblical Archrology at Vienna. ||1! 
 
 It is common to ascribe this spirit of scepticism to the 
 superior learning of the Germans, but Hegstenberg, one of 
 their own countrymen, says that it arises from a " shallow 
 criticism," and " pantheistic tendencies," and that thei man 
 who should employ such arguments against the authentici- 
 ty of a profane author would be a laughing stock to men of 
 science. IT fl 
 
 And those who have proceeded so far with the beginning 
 of the Bible, have gone on in like manner with the remain- 
 der. Thus De Wette tells us, the book of Joshua was not 
 written until long after his death.*** Spinoza and Le Clerc, 
 
 * Hengstenberg's Auth. Pent, in Bib. Rep. XII. 486. 
 
 t Gen. Introd. O. T. § ^i, etc. lb. " Von B. was a rationalist of the mud- 
 diest water." Bib. Rep. [N. S.] IX. 495. 
 
 t Bib Theol. § 183, etc. § Hengstenberg. ubi sup. 
 
 \\ Jahn Introd. O. T. Par. II. § 13. n. North. Am. Rev. X. 117, where" the 
 origin of this " German Divinity" is traced to the English infidel writers. The 
 same view is taken by Dr. Pusey in his Historical Inquiry, &c. p. 124, etc., and 
 in Stauedlin, Hist, of Ration, and Supernat. 110—118, 284—287, and by Rose, 
 State Prot. Germ. 50—54. 
 
 IT This is the view of Hobbcs, Leviathan, Par. III. c. xxxiii. p. 200. 
 
 »* Introd. O. T. § 234, etc. 
 
 tt Genuineness Laws of Moses Defended. III. § 225 — 237. Contrib. Philos; 
 Hist. Rel. II. § 235, etc. 
 
 tl Hengsten. Auth. Pent, ubi sub. 
 
 §§ Contr. Investig. Pent. Bib. Rep. (1824) 1, etc. 
 
 nil Introd. O. T. Par. §§ 15— 18. 
 
 tir Auth. Pent. Bib. Rep. XL 418, 437, XII. 453. 
 
 *** Introd. O.T.§§ 166, 167. 
 
25 
 
 that the book of Judges was not written till the tinf\e o^ thd 
 Babylonish captivity.* Bertholdt, that the book of Ruth 
 is a fictitious narrative. f Semler, De Wette, Bauer, and 
 others, that the two books of Chronicles are not to be credit- 
 ed. | De Wette, that the book of Esther ought not to have 
 been admitted into the Canon. § Vogel, that Ezra, JYehe- 
 miah and Chronicles are to be rejected. || Stauedlin, that 
 the book o^ Job was not written until the time of Solomon. TT 
 Taylor, that many of the Psalms are merely translations 
 of Syro-Phcenician odes.** Eichorn and De Wette, that 
 Solomon was the compiler, not the author, of the book 
 of Proverbs.ii Eichorn, that the Song of Solomo7i was 
 composed much later than his time. || De Wette and Kno- 
 bel, that the book of Ecclesiustes was written, not by Sol- 
 omon, but by some one after the return from the Babylonish 
 captivity. §§ Koppe, Gesenius, Doederlin, Eichorn, Paulus, 
 Rosenmuller, De Wette, and Bertholdt, that some portion 
 of the book of ISaiah, at least, is not genuine. HH Grimm, 
 that the book of Jonah is a dream. TTH Semler, Michaelis, 
 Herder, Nieraeyer, and Eichorn, that it is a parable.*** 
 These are the opinions of those critics who stand at the 
 
 * Jahn Introd. O. T. Par. II. § 51 , n. t Introd. O. T. S. 2237. 
 
 t Jahn Introd. O. T. Par. II. § 56, n. Semler was Doctor and Proffessor of 
 Theolog-y at Halle, and also at the head of the Theological Seminary. 
 
 § Jahn Introd. O. T. § 68, n. || Schroek, VIII. 
 
 IT Contrib. Philos. Hist. Rel. II. § 235, etc. 
 
 ** Diegesis, 159. This man was not a German, but an admirer and disciple of 
 them. tt Eich. Introd. O. T. § 635. De Wette Introd. O. T. § 281. 
 
 - n Introd. O. T. § 218. 
 
 §§ Knob. Com. on Escles. This author is Professorof Divinity at the Universi- 
 ty of Breslau. 
 
 nil Jahn Introd. O. T. Par. II. § 104. Doederlin is Profesfcor of Divinity in 
 the University of Jena. Paulus is Professor of Theology in that of Heidleburg. 
 
 HIT Proph. Jonas. § 61. 
 
 *** Sem. Appar. Lib. Interp. O. T. 271. Michael. Trans. O. T. XI. § lOI. Her. 
 Stud. Thcol. § 136. Nieme. Charac. Bib. Eich. Introd. IV. § 352, etc. Michaelis 
 and Herder were Theologians and Professors at Gottmgen. Niemeyer at Halle.- 
 
 4 
 
26 
 
 head of the liberalists, or rationalists of Germany, — opin- 
 ions, which form the characteristic of that German theology, 
 for which the reviewer avows his preferences. Nor has the 
 New Testament fared better at their hands. Schulz,* 
 Schultus,t WilkcjJ and Fischer, § have doubted the genu- 
 ineness o{ Matthew. Gratz,|] supposes it to be a mere trans- 
 lation of a Syro-Chaldaic gospel, while Gieseler attempts to 
 prove that it was copied from an oral gospel, or complied 
 from tradition, II and Tholuck concedes that Matthew^ Mark, 
 and Luke were all compiled from tradition.** Evanson 
 rejects Matthew^ Mark and John., entirely. ft GratzJJ 
 and Bertholdl§§ imagine that the gospel of St. Luke has 
 been much interpolated and altered. Bretschneider|||| de- 
 clares that the gospel of 5"^. John was not written by the 
 Apostle whose name it bears, nor indeed by an eye-witness, 
 and we cannot be sure of his accuracy. And Vogel, Horst, 
 Balenstadt and Cludius have advanced the same opin- 
 ions. ITTT De Wette*** has his doubts and suspicions in 
 regard to the Acts of the Apostles. Semlerftf rejects 
 the fifteenth and sixteenth chapters of the Epistle to the 
 Romans, while SchottlH supposes them to be fragments 
 of some other Epistles, added to this, piece by piece. Sem- 
 ler§§§ and Weber|||[|| divide the second Epistle to the 
 Corinthians into several shorter ones, written at different 
 times. SchleiermarcherHHH denies that St. Paul wrote the 
 
 * Christ. Doct. of the Holy Euch. 1824. This author is Professor of Theology 
 at Breslau. 
 
 t Bib. Exeget. Repert. 1824. t Winer's Journal, 1826. 
 
 § Introd. Dogmat. 1828. || Essay on Orig. Three first Gospels. 1812, 
 
 IT Essay Crit. Hist. Orig. etc. IBIS, in Hug. Par. ii. § 22. 
 ♦* Introd. Com. Evan. John, §5. tt Dissonance Gospels, 1792. 
 
 n Orig. Gosp. and Hist. Crit. Com. Mat. 1821. 
 
 §§ Introd. Hist. Crit. III. § 329. ||i| Prob. Evang. and Ep. John, 1S29, 
 
 ^ir Stuart's Notes on Hug. Introd. N. T. 722. *** Introd. N. T. § 114. 
 
 ttt Introd. N. T. § 59. Ht Diss. doub. Ep. Rom. §§§ Paraphrase 2d Cor. 
 mill Program. Num. Ep. Cor. 1798. 
 ir'Hir Ep. Paul. Timo. 1837. 
 
27 
 
 first Epistle to Timothy, and Eichorn* tells us that St. Paul 
 could not have written either of the Epistles to Timothy, nor 
 that to Titus. Lutherf doubted the genuineness of the 
 Epistle of St. James, declaring it to be " a downright strawy- 
 Epistle." The first Epistle of Peter has been doubted by 
 Cludiusl and De Wette,§ the second by Ulmann,|| and al- 
 so by Calvin, Schmidt, Welcker, Guerike and Eichorn. H 
 And finally, Strauss has attempted to show, that no such 
 person as Jesus Christ ever existed, that his history is a 
 mythos, a production or development of the religious mind 
 of the Christian Church, as Vatke had attempted to show, 
 that Moses was a production or development of the relig- 
 ious mind of the Jewish Church.** 
 
 A few specimens of the modes of interpretation adopted 
 by those men w^ho do not reject the Bible, as spurious, will 
 serve to throw additional light upon the orthodoxy of the 
 German theologians. Eichorn treats the command to offer 
 up Isaac, as a dream, and the discovery of the ram caught 
 in the bushes, as a lucky accident.ff The scene at the giv- 
 ing of the law in Mount Sinai, he degrades even more than 
 this. Moses, he says, went up and built a fire on the top ot 
 Sinai, v/hen there happened to come up a tremendous thun- 
 der shower, whereupon Moses gave out that the Lord had 
 spoken to him, and proclaimed the laws that he had com- 
 
 * Introd. N. T. III. Par. i. § 216, etc. 
 
 t Pref. Ep. James. " Elne Strohem Epistel." + Orig. Christ. 1808. 
 
 § Introd. N. T. in loco. || On 2d Ep. Peter, 1821. 
 
 IT Stuart's Notes on Hug. Introd, N. T. 772. 
 
 ** Hengsten. Auth. Pent. Bib. Rep. XII. 471. This doctrine of development 
 has made its appearance in Germany under various forms. In the philosophy of 
 SchelHng and Hegel, the Universe, is God developing HIMSELF, by a series of 
 eternal unfoldings. (Murd. Ger. Philos. 104. Transcendentalism p. 28, on theau- 
 thority of Rixncr, Marheineke, and Bretchsneider.) According to Vatke, Moses 
 is a development of the religious mind of the Jews, (Hengsten, Auth. Pent. Bib. 
 Rep.,) and according to Strauss, Jesus Christ is a development of the religious mmd 
 of the Christian, (Life of Jesus, &c.,) while, according to Moehler, the Roman, 
 ism of the nineteenth century, is a development of Christianity itself. (Symbolism 
 &.C.) ft Bibliothek. I. § 45. 
 
28 
 
 piled.* Ammon, a professor of theology at Erlangen, 
 represents the miracle of Christ's walking on the sea, as 
 wadingin as far as he could, and then swimming. f Thiess 
 makes the descent of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pen- 
 tecost, nothing but a sudden gust of wind accompanied by 
 a curious electric -phenomenon.! With him, too, the 
 cripple healed by Peter, was no cripple, and the Apostle, 
 by threatening, compelled him to walk.§ He supposes, too, 
 that Ananias fainted from fright, while some of his cotem- 
 poraries represent Peter as stabbing him.|| Paulus calls 
 the pretended miracle of the fish and tribute money paltry 
 and absurd,^ the five loaves and five thousand he teaches 
 was no miracle, as Christ only persuaded those who had 
 food to give to them that had none.** 
 
 The doctrine of Reserve in Communicating Religious 
 Knowledge^ has also been advocated in its worst forms. 
 Doederlin, Professor of Theology at Jena, virtually recom- 
 mends a system of fraud in hiding their intentions from the 
 people, especially in regard to explaining doctrines not fit 
 for the times, and attempts to defend his course, by the prac^; 
 tice of St. Paul, and even of our Lord himself-ft Wegschei- 
 der teaches, that it is enough, if their divines follow the 
 " newest and best views," notwithstanding their symbolical 
 books. t;}: And even the historian Schroekh, recognizes the 
 necessity of altering their " belief as often as any new 
 views require it."§§ 
 
 It would be interesting to inquire, particularly, what sysr 
 
 * Bibliolhek. § 76. t Pref. Ernest. Inst. Interp. p. 12. 
 
 X Com. on Acts, ii. § Com. on Acts, iii. 
 
 II N. T. Kopp. III. ii. 355-357. Those who wish to see numerous instances of 
 such interpretations, may consult State of Prot. in Germ., by Rev. H. J. Rose, 
 2d Ed. 125-166. IT Com. II. 157. ** lb. 300. 
 
 tt Opusc. Theol. p. 161. State Prot. Germ. 25. 
 
 X\ Inst. Theol. Crit. Dogm. in Prot. Germ. 24 
 
 $§ VIII. B. iii. Div. 4. Par. 3. 
 
29 
 
 tem of morals, such views of religion would beget. But 
 we can only speak with the utmost brevity upon this point, 
 A few short extracts are all we can give. Henke, Professor 
 of Theology at Helemstadt, says, that " monogamy [having 
 but one wife] and the prohibition of extra-matrimonial 
 connexions, [concubinage,] must be reckoned among the 
 remains of monachism, — that this doctrine rests on a blind 
 faith.* Cannibach, a Superintendent (Bishop in form, 
 but not in fact) in the Lutheran Church, says, " A moderate 
 sensual enjoyment of love out ot marriage, is no more im- 
 moral than in marriage, and that it is to be avoided merely 
 because it shocks the customs of the persons with w^hom 
 we live, and because the excesses committed in it are often 
 punished by the loss of reputation and health."! De Wette, 
 after the murder of Kotzebue, writing to the mother of 
 Sand, the murderer, says, that " the spirit of faith and con- 
 fidence with which the deed [the murder] was performed, 
 is a good sign of the times;" even though he admits, that 
 ^' the deed, considered in a general point of view, is immor- 
 al."! Comment on things like these, is unnecessary. A 
 state of public feeling that would tolerate such publications 
 by a " christian minister," must be as far from soundness, 
 as the men from orthodoxy. And yet, these are the men 
 who have the reviewer's sympathies! 
 
 These are specimens of the lengths to which the private 
 judgment of men reputed for their learning, has led them, 
 when they had thrown off all Church authority, and renounc- 
 ed their allegiance to the duly organized body of Christ. 
 Some of these, too, have adopted the religious philosophy 
 pf Schelling or Hegel, and resolve God into nature, and 
 
 * Euseb. Par. I. i. No. 3 in Rose. Germ. Prot, 171. 
 
 tCrit. Pract. Christ. 185. If the disciples acted in accordance with the teach, 
 ing of the master, there must have been, if not, " a ravening wolf-hood," at least, 
 
30 
 
 elevate Nature into the rank of the Deity.* And these 
 are the men for which the reviewer professes so much re- 
 gard, and with whom he manifests so much sympathy. 
 And these are the books which are brought to this country 
 by hundreds, and fill the Theological Libraries of the New 
 School Seminaries. These are the fountains from which 
 their theology is, in a great measure, to be drawn. f And 
 can we doubt the result? 
 
 It may be said that a better day has dawned upon Ger- 
 many, that many learned and able advocates of divine rev- 
 elation in its integrity, have arisen, and that we have some 
 of them translated into English. This is, to an extent, 
 true. But several of the most important and popular of 
 these works were written by Roman Catholics, as Jahn, and 
 Hug. But these are not uninfluenced by the general spirit 
 of unbelief of their countrymen. Neither Jahn nor Hug can 
 be implicitly followed by any orthodox Christian. So among 
 the popular Protestant writers of Germany, — Tholuck 
 
 * Biedermann, who is a philosopher, but not a theologian, is unwilling to allow 
 that the philosophy of Germany has produced any considerable effect upon its the- 
 ology. (Germ. Philos.) Hengstenberg, who is a theologian, is evidently of a dif- 
 ferent opinion, (Contrib. Introd. O. T.) And Ranch, who was both a philosopher 
 and theologian, distinctly asserts that the Wolfian, Jacobian, and Hegelian phi. 
 losophy has been felt in every department of theological literature, and that it is 
 perceptible m the Church Historians. (Bib. Rep. X. 307 — 314.) And that Rauch's 
 own theology was highly tinctured by the Hegelian philosophy, is perfectly cer. 
 tain. (Murd. Germ. Fhilos. 191— 201, and an ineffectual defence of Dr. R. in Bib. 
 Rep. [N. S.] X. 418 — 431.) It is believed, also, that Kant's religious philosophy, , 
 especially touching the interpretation of Scripture, aided the cause of Rational- 
 ism. State Prot. Germ. 184—190. 
 
 t Some of the works mentioned above, have been translated into English, others 
 form the materials, from which books are complied. This is the case with Cole- 
 man's Antiquities, based principally upon the works of Augusti. Some opinion 
 of his orthodoxy may be formed from an article in his Theological Journal, No. 
 IX. 196 — 207, (1801,) in which the writer takes the ground, that the pure doc- 
 trine of Christ is not found in the New Testament, that tlie Apostles often mis- 
 understood their master's meaning, — that (he documents of the New Testament 
 contain contradictions, and finally asks, whether it would not be better if we had 
 no written documents in regard to Christ ? 
 
31 
 
 was, and we suppose still is, a believer in the final restora- 
 tion of the ^vicked, and has declared the Trinity to be no 
 fundamental article of faith, but an invention of the School- 
 men.* And the learned and popular Neander holds all 
 the elements of pure fanaticism. His peculiar " religious 
 philosophy" is seen in all his works. Belonging to the school 
 of Jacobi, he regards faith " as a natural instinct, a knowing 
 from immediate mental feeling, a direct perception of the true 
 and supersensible, without any intervening proof."! In 
 other words he " makes faith rest on conviction, and con- 
 viction on feeling," — the very essence of all fanaticism. 
 Consequently, he does not acknowledge the idea of the 
 Christian Church, in the common sense of the term," — " is 
 in favour of no constitution," — " considers the use of sym- 
 bolical books [Creeds and Confessions] a misfortune, limit- 
 ing the free cultivation of individual piety." In his opin- 
 ion, " it matters little whether a man is an Arian, a Nestori- 
 an, or a Calvinist, if he be only pious;"f while he himself 
 is a believer in the Sabellian heresy. § 
 
 But there is another fact, worthy of careful notice, in this 
 connection. Coincident with the improvement in the Ger- 
 man Schools of Theology, was a revival of the study of 
 Christian Antiquity, and the approximation to orthodoxy, 
 
 * Doellinger Cont. Kortlig's Church Hist. 944. Mem. Moehl. 35. 
 
 t Murd. Germ. PhUos. 131. Ruuch on Church Histor. Germ. Bib. Rep. X. 
 313,314. 
 
 t Rauch, lb. Similar to this statement is the view taken by Neander, in his 
 Introduction to a forth coming; work on the Primitive Church, by Rev. Lymair 
 Coleman. What influence 'Ncdndei's early Jewish prejudices may have had upon 
 his mind, it is impossible to say, but it is a little remarkable that his conversion to' 
 Christianity should render his views of external polity, and organization, the very 
 antipodes of what they were before. The opinions of Neander, in regard to the 
 primitive Church, are echoed in the new " Congregational Catechism," just pub./ 
 lished. 
 
 § Doell. Church Hist. 344. Mem. Moehl. 35. 
 
32 
 
 ard of the primitive ages in questions of Church history, and 
 Biblical criticism.* It has been those same " musty fath- 
 ers," whom the reviewer denounces as " blind guides," 
 and which are so much slighted, condemned, and reviled by 
 his associates, that have been one principal cause in intro- 
 ducing this new era into German theology. But that com- 
 munity must be far, infinitely far, from a sound state of 
 Christian feeling, when the best talent it can afford, is 
 obliged to be summoned forth to defend the belief in the ex- 
 istence of a Saviour, against such Christians as David 
 Frederic Strauss. 
 
 Even so late as 1841, Bruno Bauer, a licentiate of Prot- 
 estant Theology at the University of Bonn, published a 
 work entitled " Criticism on the Evangelical History of 
 Synoptics," which, in its licentious impiety, entirely sur- 
 passes the infamous work of Strauss — in which he openly 
 advocates the pantheism of Hegel, — denies the personal 
 existence of God, the immortality of the soul, and of 
 course, the authenticity and credibility of the wHole Gospel 
 history. And yet, in the opinion of Marheineke, Professor 
 of Theology at Berlin, Middledorpf, Professor at Breslau, 
 and one half of the theological faculties of Koenigsberg and 
 Griefswalde, this work " is compatible with the essence of 
 Christianity, though opposed to its ecclesiastical develop*- 
 
 * Prof. Twesten, Divinity Lecturer at Berlin, tells us, " that the time is past, 
 in which Christian Antiquity furnishes materials only for the exercise of critical 
 acumen. Much has thus become intelligible to us, which hitherto was a sealed 
 book, and in the same proportion that it has been brought nearer to us, we feel 
 ourselves attracted by the character and efforts of antiquity." State Prot. Germ. 
 230. The revival of the study of the Fathers, in Protestant Germany, was so 
 entirely the work of Planck, who was appointed professor of Theology at Gottin- 
 gen, in 1784, that he has been said to introduce it. Mem. Moehl. 65. 
 
 Another important fact, which has tended to the restoration of Protestant ortho^ 
 doxy, has been the comparative soundness of the Roman Clergy, who have been 
 continually in their midst. Engelhardt Church Hist. i. 312. The Biographer of 
 Moehler, supposes this to be the main cause, p. 43. 
 
33 
 
 ment." * And these are the men, and this the theology, 
 •which commands the admiration of our reviewer ! The 
 praises of such a man are to be deprecated lest they render 
 one's faith suspicious. 
 
 II. The second point brought forward by our reviewer, is 
 the state of the Episcopal Church, as compared with other 
 Protestant denominations. The Bishop represents it, as 
 prosperous, vigorous, and upon the whole, united and peace- 
 ful. The reviewer on the contrary, would have his readers 
 suppose that it is all discord and strife, confusion worse 
 confounded — Bishop against Bishop — Convention against 
 Convention! — Priest against people, and people against 
 Priest. That there are no differences of opinion in the Epis- 
 copal Church, is not pretended. That these are not deba- 
 ted with warmth and vigour, and that they are not regarded 
 by the respective parties as highly important, is not preten- 
 ded. But to compare them with the schisms and discords 
 and strifes and divisions in the various Protestant bodies 
 around us, requires, if not what our reviewer calls " a sweet 
 incapacity of self-understanding," at least, an incapacity to 
 judge of the facts. In the Episcopal Church, difference's of 
 opinion are discussed, warmly, ardently, it may be, but they 
 produce no division. Not so in other Protestant bodies. 
 Asserting as they do, the unlimited right of private judgment, 
 and carrying it out in practice, every difference produces 
 division. Already there are nearly fifty kinds of Baptists, 
 towards a score of Presbyterians, half a dozen kinds of In- 
 dependents and Congregationalists, and as many sorts of 
 
 "* Opinion of the Evangelical Theological Faculties of the Prussian Universities 
 in case of Bruno Bauer, Berlin, 1842. And the suspension of Bauer has beense. 
 verely censured by many calling themselves Christians. Am. Quar. Jour. xv. 194. 
 
 t The passage (p. 156) " one diocese denounces the proceedings of another, 
 one Bishop travels the breadth of the land, to see if some leaven of the true gospel 
 may not possibly be saved in the diocese of another," exhibits a cliaracteristic dis- 
 regard of facts. Besides, whatever show of foundation there might be for the as- 
 sertion, arose subsequently to the delivery of the Charge, and even now has no 
 existence in Connecticut. 
 
 5 
 
34 
 
 Methodists. Among other Protestant bodies, we find Trin- 
 itarians, Sabellians, high Arians and low Arians, Socinians, 
 Unitarians, and Humanitarians, Universalists, Restoration- 
 ists and Annihilationists, Calvinistsof all sorts high and low, 
 Antinomians and Arminians, Pelagians and Predestinarians. 
 But the reviewer, in order to set aside the inference which 
 these divisions seem to authorize, tells us, that " the Con- 
 gregationalists, Presbyterians, Dutch Reformed, Baptists 
 and Methodists, hold a real substantial agreement of opin- 
 ion, as a generous and philosophic criticism would amply 
 show."* What the reviewer means by " a generous and 
 philosophic criticism" we do not pretend to understand. 
 But it would certainly be a " generous criticism," that 
 should show the " substantial agreement" of the believers 
 and disbelievers in a limited atonement, — in the bond- 
 age or freedom of the human will, — in the perseverance 
 of the saints and possibility of falling from grace, — in 
 man's activity or passivity in the great work of spiritu^ 
 al regeneration, — in the necessity of immersion in bap- 
 tism, — in the lawfulness of infant baptism, — in the ex- 
 istence of a divinely constituted ministry, or in no minis- 
 
 * N. E. II. 155. Whether the reviewer intends to include the German theolo- 
 gians, in this " substantial agreement," does not clearly appear. We can see no 
 reason why he may not, since his " generous criticism" can reconcile almost any 
 differences. In doing it, he would only have to adopt the reasoning of Marhei, 
 neke, Professor of theology at Berlin, of Middlcdorpf, Professor of theology at 
 Bre&lau, and of one half the entire theological faculties pf the Universities of 
 Koeningsberg, and Griefswalde, who have said that the Hegelian pantheism of 
 Bruno Bauer, and his open rejection of the authenticity and credibility of the whole 
 Gospel liistory, is compatible with the essence of Christianity. (Opin. Evang. 
 Theol. Facul. Prus. Univ. Berlin, 1842.) But if he excludes the Kationalists and 
 Pantheists, his " generous criticism" will still be needed, " for," as asks an emi- 
 nent German Protestant, " does not Neander teach very differently from Tholuck ? 
 And Tholuck differently from Hengstenberg ? And Hengstenberg differently 
 from Krummacher? And Kriunmacher differently from Draeske? And 
 Draeske differently from Harms ? And Harms differently from Ullman ? And 
 Ullman differently from Olshausen ? And so forth. We are wont to speak of a 
 Protesttint Church ; but where is it ?" Protestantism in its self-dissolution by a 
 Protestant. Shaffhausen, 1843. 
 
35 
 
 try at all. These are a few of the differences that are td 
 be brought into " substantial agreement" by " a generous 
 criticism." Where he can match them by any differences 
 of opinion in the Church, we know not. Certainly the 
 pamphlet to which he refers,* with all its unfairness, and 
 with its garbled extracts, presents no parallel. 
 
 But in the reviewer's own denomination, the agreement 
 of which he boasts, can be made out only by his " generous 
 and philosophic criticism." It is by this, that he proves 
 the '' substantial agreement" of New Haven Pelagianismj 
 with East Windsor Calvinism, of the doctrines of the 
 JYeio Englander, with those of the Bih'.ical Repertory, and 
 of those ministers of the same city who will not exchange- 
 pulpits, — and of the semi-Arianism of some, with the Trin- 
 itarianism of others. And it is this same " generous criti- 
 cism," which enables him to say that there is " more relig- 
 ious truth in Germany," than in the Church of England^ 
 (p. 154,) and that the " German ministry is not as corrupt 
 as the clergy of England." (p. 154.) 
 
 The reviewer, in common with his associates, denies one 
 important influence, attributed by Churchmen to the Book 
 of Common Prayer, — its tendency to j^reserve the Church from 
 heresy. (II. 156. etc.) This has been particularly urged 
 by some of his associates. Thus Rev. Dr. Hawesf says, 
 " the reformed Churches of Germany and Switzerland, 
 once had, and many of them now have, a correct creed, — s- 
 Scriptural formularies of doctrine, to which all who minister- 
 ed at the altar, or come to the communion, were required 
 to give their consent." And Rev. Dr. Bacon asks, J wheth- 
 er such formularies " have kept out error, at Geneva? in 
 Germany? in England? in Scotland?" And because error 
 has crept in, in spite of Creeds and Confessions, it is infer- 
 red that they are nd preservative against error. 
 
 * " One faith," or Bishbp Doaiie vS. Bishop Mcllvairlej &c., by a Presbyterian, 
 t Trib. Fil. (2d Ed.) p. 85. t Man. 177. 
 
36 
 
 This reasoning goes upon the mistaken notion, that sub- 
 scription to these Creeds and Confessions, is now requi'-ed. 
 As early as 1660, Frederick William, Elector of Braden- 
 burgh, introduced the practice of subscribing to the Sym- 
 bolical books,* " so far as they agree with scripture," 
 which was confirmed by Frederick I. of Prussia, in 1713, 
 for which, more recently, the promise to teach the people 
 according to Holy Scripture, without any reference to the 
 Symbolical books, has been substituted.! The Liturgy, 
 also of the Lutheran Church, has for some time been dis- 
 pensed with,' at the pleasure of the minister,! so that the 
 Churches of Germany, are in fact, and for a long time have 
 been without any Creeds or formularies, to which their as- 
 sent is required, or which are considered as binding on 
 those, even, who subscribe to them. 
 
 Similar, also, is the state of things in Geneva. The 
 Consensus, or " Form of Agreement," formerly subscribed 
 at Geneva, fell into disuse as early as 1706§. In 1725, the 
 Company of Pastors dispensed with the Canon requiring 
 candidates for the ministry to subscribe the Helvetic Con- 
 fession, and substituted a mere profession of belief in the 
 Bible. In 1788 the Catechism of Calvin was displaced 
 and another substituted, and in 1807 the Liturgy was ex- 
 purgated on Unitarian principles. || 
 
 Indeed, in both Germany and Geneva, one of the first 
 signs of doctrinal declension, was the setting aside, or ex- 
 plaining away subscriptions to Creeds or Confessions, or 
 subscribing " so far as they agree with Scripture," or " for 
 substance of doctrine." Of their present state we have 
 not time to speak, and we must leave this head with a 
 
 * These are the Confession of Augsburg, — Melanchtlion's Defence of it, — the 
 articles of Smalkald, Luther's two Catechisms, and the Formula Concordiee. 
 t Rose Germ. Prot. 15—20. Schroekh, Church Hist. VIII. 192. 
 t lb. 20, 21. § Mosh. Cent. XVII. Sec. II. Par. ii. c. 2, § 37, n. 
 
 II Encyc. Am. XII. 599. 
 
37 
 
 single quotation from Dr. Hawes, who tells us, that 
 *' most of those Churches, [i. e. of Germany and Geneva,] 
 with their ministers, have passed through all the vari- 
 ous grades of Arianism, and even Deism, and yet retain 
 the form of Christian Churches, and the name of Christian 
 ministers."* And these are the Churches, — these the 
 ministers, this the theology for which our reviewer professes 
 his sympathy! Similar to this, was the first step towards 
 Unitarianism in Massachusetts. What then, must we sup- 
 pose, will be the consequence in Connecticut, of subscribing 
 " for substance of doctrine"? 
 
 III. The third point brought out in the review, is the design 
 and mission of the Church. This is the important, — the 
 most important point in the whole article, — the key to 
 all the peculiarities of the system. It is this which consti- 
 tutes that which the reviewer describes as " the distinctive 
 religion of New England," (p. 143,) and which may, there- 
 fore, be properly called JYew-Englandism. All the other 
 peculiarities of that system flow from this one, and conse- 
 quently this is deserving of particular attention. The 
 Bishop says in his Charge; " The Church is the great in- 
 strument devised by infinite wisdom for the extension of 
 God's mercies to mankind. It has been essentially the 
 same, though modified by different dispensations, from the 
 beginning of the world to the present time. Through it alone 
 
 * Trib. Pil. 85, 86. The picture of the state of religion in Germnny, as drawn 
 by the Rationalistic Bretschneider, (1822,) is most deplorable. He says that 
 there is a general indifference to religion among all classes, that very many are 
 without the Bible entirely, that those who have it very generally neglect it, that not 
 one fifth of the inhabitants attend Church, that Sunday is not generally regarded 
 but made a day of business and pleasure, and that many ministers preach poUtics 
 and agriculture, instead of reHgion. Upon the Unchristian Character of the pres- 
 ent time. 3 — 47. State Prot. Germ. 197, 198. And the biographer of Moehler 
 adds to this, " the multiplication of divorce, and general demoralization." p. 34. 
 
 In Geneva, in 1839, there was not a Church belonging tc the establishment, 
 which was not Unitarian, and Unitarianism was increasing in the other Swiss Can.^ 
 ons. Christ. Exam. XXVI. [N. S. VIII.] 320, 321. 
 
38 
 
 are tendered all the divine promises of grace to a ruined 
 world." (p. 11.) This is a clear, distinct, and satisfactory 
 statement of a most important doctrine, but which the 
 Bishop's design did not lead hira to pursue in its details. 
 
 In reply to this position, however, the reviewer is evi- 
 dently somewhat at a stand. He seems not to be thorough- 
 ly versed in the fundamental doctrines of JYew-Englandism. 
 Still, it is evident that he belongs to the same school, and 
 after admitting that the Christian Church " was designed 
 to be a perpetual bond of unity, and a vehicle of grace to- 
 all future ages," (p. 159,) he hastens over the point, and 
 proceeds to the consideration of other questions. But this 
 omission, intentional no doubt, is fully supplied by an ar- 
 ticle in the preceding number of the same periodical, to" 
 which, therefore, we must have recourse. 
 
 It is a fundamental proposition of New-Englanuism, that 
 the Church which is " a bond of Catholic unity, and the 
 vehicle of grace," to which the promises and the covenants 
 are given, is not a visible, organized body, but an invisible 
 body, " that great spiritual community of chosen, redeem- 
 ed, forgiven, sanctified souls, of which Christ is the 
 founder and redeemer, and in which he is the prince or 
 head." (N. E. I. 552.) " This and not any outward or- 
 ganization," says New-Englandism, " is the true kingdom 
 of Christ, — the kingdom of God."* Or as it is stated 
 
 * N. E. 552. One of the favourite authors of the writer of the article from 
 which this quotation is made, is Planck. Bacon's Manual, p. 183, where Planck's 
 History of the Constitution of the Christian Society (Church ?) is referred to aS 
 unexceptionable authority. His views, as detailed in his work Upon Separation and 
 Re-union, are, that though Christ foresaw that a Church would arise in course 
 of time, and though he probably wished it might be so, yet he never intended that 
 the teachers of that Church should appear in the world as a visible society, or be 
 united by any external tie, confining themselves to an union of moral ties, — of 
 affections, inclinations, intentions and hopes. Baptism and the Eucharist, he 
 says are not essential articles of external worship, nor a necessary condition for 
 forming an intimate internal connexion. See State Prot. Germ. 168. Here is a 
 germ of the philosophy of New-Englandism in the Rationalism of Germany. 
 
39 
 
 in another place, " it is the dominion of truth and love, 
 the reigning of God in the hearts of men." (I. 400.) So 
 much of this as is applicable to "the mystical body of Christ 
 which is the blessed company of all faithful people," as 
 expressed in that most beautiful and touching thanksgiving 
 in our Communion service. Churchmen acknowledge and 
 believe. 
 
 But with them this is not all. There is a visible body of 
 Christ, — a Church, into which, through faith, we are en- 
 grafted by Baptism, and in which, by faith, we are fed and 
 nourished in the Holy Eucharist, thereby becoming one 
 with Him as he is one with the Father, — He dwelling in us 
 and we in Him. It is this Church, which is the dispenser 
 of God's grace and blessings to the world, — this Church 
 which is to be the bond of Catholic unity through all ages, to 
 which has been committed the oracles of God, to which 
 pertain the covenants and promises, and which is the pillar 
 and ground of the truth. 
 
 But not so the New Englander. Faith, and faith alone, 
 unites him to the living head. Baptism has no power to 
 engraft him into the body of Christ, for it denies the exist- 
 ence of any such visible body as we suppose. It is no more 
 than the " formal declaration of the fact, that the person 
 baptized belongs to Christ," or that he is " united to the 
 invisible congregation of the redeemed," (N. E. I. 554,) 
 but which after all may not be a fact. " Confirmation,'''' or 
 any other form of a public profession of religion, is a mere 
 recognition of the same fact, — " the fact of a union with the 
 invisible and universal congregation of Christ's redeem- 
 ed," (I. 554,) but which after all may not be a fact. And 
 the Eucharist, — alas, no place is found in the New-England- 
 er's gospel, for that holy sacrament ! At least, it was not 
 considered of sufficient importance to be mentioned, when 
 summing up the characteristics of " that distinctive relig- 
 ion,"- — the Gospel of New-Englandism. And that too, 
 
40 
 
 when contrasting it with a view of the gospel, In which this 
 sacrament is regarded as highly important. Such, then, 
 are the features of New-Englandism, as sketched by its 
 own organ. A body which has no visibility, a baptism 
 which is the mere recognition of an uncertain fact, a pro- 
 fession of religion which is another recognition of the same 
 uncertain fact, and a sacrament, (as we suppose, but) which 
 is not worth mentioning. Truly, this is " another gospel."* 
 
 But there is another aspect in which this feature of New- 
 Englandism must be considered. The gospel of the Church, 
 unites men to a body, in which there are certain divinely 
 instituted ordinances or sacraments, given to be aids to the 
 Christian in his spiritual warfare, — means of quickening 
 and invigorating that faith which is the foundation of his 
 Christian life, — sources of comfort and consolation to the 
 humble believer. It puts ixothing between the Saviour 
 and the sinner^s soul, as this same New-Englander absurdly 
 pretends, (I. 555,) though it furnishes the Christian with 
 aids to help him forward in his course. The sacraments, 
 the priesthood, even the Church itself, is for the Christian, 
 not for the sinner; though all are standing witnesses against 
 him. 
 
 But not so, New-Englandism. That cuts loose the 
 Christian from this organized body, making him a Church, 
 in and of himself, endowing him with all priestly power, 
 authorizing him to administer the ordinances of religion,! 
 
 * N. E. 1. 555. Dr. Pusey, in his Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, 
 speaks of the system of Geneva, as in final conflict with the principles of Catholo- 
 cism, which D'Aubigne adopts as true. And it is common to hear similar lan- 
 guage here. But whoever supposes New-Englandism to be the system of Gene, 
 va, meaning thereby the system of Calvin, is ignorant of the real character of one 
 or both. 
 
 t The Germans have carried this view one step further. In the language of 
 Moehler, (Sym. 100.) " In the consistent progress of things, [in Rationalism,] 
 every one considered himself in a wide circle, the representative of humanity, 
 
 redeemed from error at least, — a sort of microcosomic Christ As each 
 
 one redeemed himself, there was no longer a common redeemer." 
 
 1 
 
41 
 
 making him (for himself) the sole judge ot the truth, con- 
 ferring upon him an uncontrouled " individual responsibili- 
 ty," and an unlimited " right of private judgment."* To 
 such an one, the sacraments are next to nothing, and the; 
 Church is of little or no consequence. In his approach to 
 the throne of mercy, he asks for no helps, and refuses all 
 aids. There is no authority can bind the conscience, or 
 command the obedience of such a man, in any matter of 
 faith or practice. With him, the judgment of the Church 
 is nothing, — the united testimony of all antiquity touching 
 any article of faith, is nothing. He receives the Bible, 
 (perhaps,) as it has been preserved for him by others, but 
 in interpreting it he relies entirely upon his own " wayward 
 fancy" as the last resort. Such an individual is, in his 
 own proper person, what the papal Church is, with its pope, 
 and cardinals, and councils, and hierarchy. f The same 
 assertion of the same right, to set aside the testimony of an- 
 tiquity, to disregard the voice of the Church Catholic, and 
 in terms, if not in words, the same claim of infallibility.! 
 
 * The following terms, applied to this subject, are copied from the same worki 
 '' Denying the individual risrht to interpret the Bible for himself." (N. E. II. 67, 
 68.) " Personal responsibiltiy to God alone." (68.) " Pusillanimous surrender of 
 individual judgment." (69.) " The ennobling principle of individual interpreta- 
 tion." (69.) "Those [vital] truths the interpretations of individual Christians 
 will give us." (71.) And this they call " the Protestant principle" ! 
 
 t The reviewer almost uttered the truth when he spoke of the connectiori of 
 Episcopacy arid Romanism. Instead of Romanism being " a natural and propi 
 er development of Episcopacy," (157,) he should have said that it was " a natu- 
 ral result from setting private judgment above Episcopacy," sinte every corrup- 
 tion of Romanism originated in setting private judgment above the decisions of 
 the Church. Arid it is a most remarffeable fact, worthy of careful consideration, 
 that riearly every corruption of the Church of Rome, originated with some here- 
 tic, or body of heretics, and was subsequently adopted and defended by the Romish 
 theologians. See Sir Humphrey Lynde's Via Devia, for a demonstration of this 
 fact. That they subsequently received the sanction of large portions of the Church, 
 and were even approved by some councils docs not alter the case. 
 
 t This is asserted by the iVei0.i?/?^Zand'er. (11.71.) "The fallacy of this ar.; 
 gument [that in regard to primitive antiquity] lies in the assumption, that the 
 promise of Christ to be with his servants and preserve them from fatal error is 
 
 6 
 
42 
 
 It is not merely " individual responsibility," not merely 
 *' the right of private judgment" which this system of in- 
 dividualism proposes. It is the disjunction of the visible 
 body of Christ, the sundering of all the bands and ties, 
 a rending of those cords and ligaments which unite the 
 congregation of the faithful in one holy brotherhood. It 
 is the disintegration of the particles composing the body, 
 and an attempt to confer upon each atom, that which be- 
 longs to the body as the whole. Fearful indeed, will he 
 the responsibility thus devolved upon man, to those who 
 have any just ideas of the nature and importance of Christ 
 and the Church. 
 
 It will not be supposed, that this " distinctive religion of 
 New England" can be sustained and defended by those ar- 
 guments which have been employed to defend the religion 
 of the Bible. New arguments, of course, must be found 
 out. This is done by applying all or most of those passa- 
 ges of scripture which confer blessings and graces upon the 
 Church, to an invisible or mystical body, — passages, too, 
 which nearly the whole current of authorities, ancient and 
 modern, Romish and Protestant, have uniformly applied to 
 the visible body of Christ. That body into which we 
 are introduced by baptism, and of which Christ is the 
 head, is no longer a visible body. Baptism no longer in- 
 troduces us into that body, being no more than a " formal 
 declaration" that we are already in it. There is no longer 
 any baptism for the remission of sins, but a mere " formal 
 declaration," that they are already forgiven. The Eucha- 
 rist no longer imparts to the f^thful the body and blood of 
 Christ, serving no other purpose than to remind us of 
 them. Schism is no more division, no more separating 
 from this visible body, but mere hatred, ill-will, and secret 
 intention of the heart. Such are the necessary consequen- 
 
 madc to an organized body of Christians, and not merely [IT] to individual be- 
 lievers, and the mvisible community coinjjosed of them." 
 
43 
 
 ces of New Englandism, most of which are openly avowed 
 and defended, and the remainder clearly hinted at. 
 
 Another question of interest, as bearing directly upon the 
 other points tobe considered, and necessary to be noticed, is 
 the origin of the " distinctive religion," called New-Eng- 
 landism. This has been said to be Calvinism. And no 
 doubt the savins: is true. But how it has grown out of Cal- 
 vinism does not seem to be well known. Even the ad- 
 vocates of the system, do not seem to be well aware what 
 relation it has to Calvinism, It will be necessary, there- 
 fore, to delineate some of the leading features of that sys- 
 tem, so far as it relates to the question under consideration, 
 which we shall do in its own language. 
 
 " Wherever," says Calvin, " we find the word of God 
 purely preached and heard, and the sacraments administered 
 according to the institution of Christ, there, it is not to be 
 doubted, is a Church of God." (IV, i. 9,) This (>hurch in- 
 cludes all, " who profess to worship one God and Jesus 
 Christ, who are initiated into his faith by baptism, who 
 testify their unity in true doctrine and charity by a partici- 
 pation of the Lord's Supper, who consent to the word of 
 the Lord, and preserve the ministry which Christ has in- 
 stituted for preaching it," (IV. i. 7,) that "there is no oth- 
 er way of entrance into life, unless we are conceived by 
 her, [•' the visible Church,'] born of her, nourished at her 
 breast, and continually preserved under her care and govern- 
 ment, till we are divested of this mortal flesh and become 
 like the angels," that -'our infirmity will not admit our dis- 
 mission from her school, that we must continue under her 
 instruction and discipline to the end of our lives, and that 
 out of her bosom there can be no hope of remission of sins, 
 nor any salvation." (IV. i, 4,) And " so highly does the 
 Lord esteem the communion of his Church, that he con- 
 siders every one a traitor, and apostate from religion, who 
 perversely withdraws himself from any Chiistian society 
 
44 
 
 which preserves the true ministry of the word and sacra-, 
 ments." (IV. i. 10.) 
 
 In constituting the ministry of this Church, he says, 
 God " Chooses from among men, those who are to be his 
 ambassadors to the w^orld, to be the interpreters of his 
 secret will, and even to act as his personal representatives,'* 
 (IV. iii. I,) that this " ministry of men w^hich God employs 
 in the government ot his Church, is the principal bond 
 which holds the faithful together in one body. ... Whoever, 
 therefore, aims to abolish or undervalue this order, attempts 
 to disorganize the Church, or rather to subvert and destroy 
 it altogether.* For light and heat are not so essential to 
 the sun, nor any meat or drink so necessary to the nour- 
 ishment ot the present life, as the Apostolical and Pastoral 
 office is, to the preservation of the Church in the world,"! 
 (IV. iii. 2,) and that " the Church is the mother of all those 
 who have God for their Father." (IV. i. 1.) 
 
 This Church has two sacraments given into it, the design 
 of which are, " to promote our faith in Christ, and to tes- 
 tify our own confession before men," (IV. xv. 1,) that " in 
 baptism God regenerates us, incorporates us into the 
 society of his Church, and makes us children by adop- 
 tion," (IV. xvii. 1,) that '• the knowledge and assurance of 
 salvation is received in this sacrament," (IV. xv. 2,) that 
 in baptism " we are promised first, the gratuitous re- 
 mission of sins, and imputation of righteousness; and, 
 secondly, the grace of the Holy Spirit to reform us to 
 newness of life," (IV. xv. 5,) and it also "affords a certain 
 
 * This is the doctrine which the reviewer, in his usual courteous and lucid 
 manner, describes as " the magic potency, which discharged at will, from his [tl.e 
 ordainer's] fingers, can make the only true priest, and imparts the requisite power 
 to Christian sacraments." (p. 162.) Yet after all, this is an arrant plagiarism on 
 the review of Mr. Calvin Colton. Quar. Chris. Spec. VIII. 617. 
 
 X This is openly done by New-Englandism, (Congregational Catechism,) by 
 Neander, (ante p. 31.) and virtually by Tholuck, and Olshausen, (Kaufman's In- 
 trod. Thol. Com. on John, v.) 
 
45 
 
 testimony, that we are not only ingrafted into the life and 
 death of Christ, but are so united [to him] as to be par- 
 takers of all his benefits." (IV. xv. 6.) 
 
 In the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, " Christ of- 
 fers himself to us with all his benefits, and we receive him 
 by faith," (IV. xvii. 5,) '' our souls are fed by the flesh and 
 blood of Christ, just as our corporeal life is preserved 
 and sustained by bread and wine," .... and " though it 
 appears incredible for the flesh of Christ, from such an 
 immense local distance, to reach us, so as to become our 
 food, we should remember the secret power of the Holy 
 Spirit transcends all our senses, and what folly it is to ap- 
 ply any measure of ours to his immensity. Let our faith 
 receive, therefore, what our understanding is not able to 
 comprehend, that the spirit reallyunitesthingswhich are sep- 
 arated by local distance. Now that holy participation of 
 his flesh and blood, by which Christ communicates his 
 life to us, just as if he actually penetrated every part of 
 our frame, in the sacred supper he also testifies and seals; 
 and that, not by the exhibition of a vain or ineffectual 
 sign, but by the exertion of the energy of his Spirit, by 
 which he accomplishes that which he promises." (IV. xvii. 
 10.) 
 
 But Calvin held that there was another bond of union 
 depending upon election, including all the elect of God, 
 whether living or dead," (IV. i. 2,) from which arose 
 the " communion of the Saints," (IV. i. 3,) and which 
 was called by his followers, "the mystical union." It 
 consisted, as was supposed, in a spiritual conjunction, 
 "descending from Christ to all his members, — creating in 
 them the instrument of faith, whereby they apprehend him, 
 and make him their own, .... and being the ground of the 
 conveyance of all grace."* 
 
 * Perkin's Expos. Creed, 860, 3G1. 
 
46 
 
 It will be seen, therefore, that Calvin taught the doctrine 
 of baptismal regeneration, notwithstanding the sturdy deni- 
 al of -the reviewer; (p. 168,) though he did deny the Romish 
 doctrine of the opus operatum, (IV. xiv. 14, 26,) which the 
 reviewer by some strange misconception understands to be 
 the denial of something else.* But, reasons the reviewer, 
 Calvin, and Luther, and the Protestant Confessions which 
 followed their teaching, taught " the doctrine of spiritual 
 grace, absolute election, and limited atonement," (p. 170,) 
 and therefore, it is impossible that the doctrine of baptis- 
 mal regeneration should be the authoritative teaching of 
 those Confessions." But the reviewer forgets, that the 
 question is not what they ought to teach, to be consistent 
 with themselves, but, what do they actually teach? But 
 the inference of the reviewer is contradicted by the express 
 teaching of those formularies. The Scotch, Presbyterian, 
 and Savoy Confessions, the Cambridge and Saybrook Plat- 
 forms, all agree in saying, that " by the right use of the or- 
 dinance of baptism, the grace promised is not only offered, 
 but really [i. e. actually] exhibited, and [actually] CON- 
 FERRED by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age 
 or infants) as that grace helongeth wn/o."t The only ques- 
 tion, therefore, is, to whom does grace belong? And the 
 answer given by all those Confessions, as well as by Luther 
 and Calvin, is, to the elect. ^ That the Holy Ghost is act- 
 ually conferred upon the elect, in the'sacrament of baptism, 
 is the undoubted teaching of all the formularies in ques- 
 tion. 
 
 The doctrines of Calvinism remained for some time in 
 
 * The Bishop, in quoting from Calvin, gave several extracts from one chapter, 
 indicating the omissions in the usual manner, and the reviewer calls it a " disin- 
 genuous and garbled compilation," (p. 168,) and on the same page, in making a 
 quotation from the same author, the reviewer omits a passage without giving any 
 notice of the omission, and calls that honesty we suppose ! 
 
 t Scot, and Pres. c.xxviii. ^ 6. Csmh. and Say. xxix. ^ 6. 
 
47 
 
 their integrity, but the eagle-eyed metaphysicians of 
 New-England were not long in perceiving, that if the mysti- 
 cal union with Christ, was " the sole ground of the con- 
 veyance of all grace," that the Church and sacraments, if not 
 needless, were, at least, of secondrate importance,* and they 
 very soon ceased to be urged upon their hearers with any 
 degree of interest or fervour. But it was not until the ap- 
 pearance of what was called the " New Light theology," 
 in the last century, that this change became complete. With 
 Luther, and Calvin, and their followers, the Church and 
 Sacraments were, to the elect, important means of grace, and 
 were continually set forth and commented upon as such. 
 In the language of Calvin, " the faithful, w^henever dis- 
 tressed with a consciousness of their sins, should have re- 
 course to the remembrance of their baptism, in order to 
 confirm themselves in the confidence of their interest in that 
 perpetual ablution whichis enjoyed in the blood of Christ." 
 (IV. XV. 4.) And in the Eucharist, he says, we " are 
 quickened by a real participation of Christ," (IV. xvii 5,) 
 that he " makes the very flesh in which he resides, the means 
 of giving life to us, that by a participation of it we may be 
 nourished to immortality," (lb. 8,) so that " being made 
 partakers of his substance, we may experience his power, 
 in the communication of all blessings." (lb. 11.) 
 
 How unlike all these views of the Genevan Reformer^ 
 are the opinions of his modern followers, we need not point 
 out. But we must advert to some views taken by the New 
 School theologians of the last century, in order to mark 
 the transition from Calvinism to New-Englandism. In do- 
 ing this, we shall quote from a work by Rev. Dr. Bellamy, 
 confessedly one of the mildest, and most reasonable, of 
 all that school of theologians. His work is entitled, True 
 Religion Delineated. It was published in 1750, with a 
 
 * •' The community of Christ's disciples, is Christ's body, and all who belong 
 to it ... . are individually and personally united to him." N. E. I. 553. 
 
48 
 
 Preface by Dr. Edwards, and was reviewed and recommendeu 
 in the Quarterly Christian Spectator for September, 1830. 
 
 " As to a natural capacity, all mankind are capable of a 
 perfect conformity to God's law, .... and all our inability 
 arises merely from the bad temper of our hearts and our 
 want of a good disposition," (p. 107,) and "this want of a 
 good temper, .... is ALL that renders the immediate influ- 
 ences of the Holy Spirit so absolutely necessary, or indeed, 
 at all needful, to recover and bring us to love God with all 
 .our hearts," (p. 112,) that " the sinner is what he is, not 
 by compulsion, or through a natural necessity, but altogether 
 Doluntarily ," (p. 110,) that this "bad temper" results frorh 
 our wanting " the moral image of God," (p. 150,) and " that 
 we are born into the world, entirely destitute of this moral 
 image of God'," (p. 152^) vl'hence arises " a disposition, natu- 
 ral to all mankind, directly contrary to God's holy law, ex- 
 ceeding sinful, and the root of all wickedness," (p. 157,) 
 and that " we are naturally, entirely under the government 
 of these dispositions, in all things, and under all circum- 
 stances,'" (p. 156,) that " they have the full possession of 
 our souls, and the entire government of our hearts," (p. 154,) 
 that " conversion consists in our being recovered from our 
 present sinfulness, to the moral image of God," that this 
 "recovery" being against "the very grain of the sinner's 
 heart, his heart will make the utmost resistance it possibly 
 can," (p. 1S4,) and that those " influences of the spirit 
 which overcome these dispositions," and " recover us ttf 
 God," are immediate, irresistible and supernatural," (p. 
 190,) that those who have thus been converted " may be in- 
 fallibly certain that they have true grace," (p. 200,) and 
 vthat " the great change" Wrought in man " by conversion," 
 must be known to him at the time, being " perceptible' 
 to the mind," (p. 271,) and " that the way for a man to" 
 know that he has grace, is not to try himself by fallible 
 signs, but intuitively look into himself and see grace," brcI 
 
49 
 
 (p. 202,) and since " grace is, in its own nature, perce 
 and special, .... there is no need of the immediate wit- 
 ness of the spirit, in order to a full assurance." (p. 203.) 
 
 This is far enough removed from the teaching of Calvin, 
 on several important points. It asserts man's " natural 
 ability to repent" which Calvin denied, and it substitutes 
 the evidence of " feeling," that is, the individual's opinion 
 in regard to his spiritual state, for that of the witness of 
 the sacraments. But there were also other peculiarities of 
 the " New Divinity," of which Bellamy, and Edwards, 
 and Hopkins, and West, were " the fathers and support- 
 ers."* These, as enuraerated_by Rev. Dr. Bacon, were, 
 "the denial of the tendency or fitness of the means of re- 
 generation to accomplish their end; the hypothesis, that 
 sin, in all instances in which it occurs, is, on the whole bet- 
 ter for the Universe, than holiness would be in its place^ 
 and is, therefore, not merely permitted by the Father of 
 lights, but preferred to holiness in its stead, and introduced 
 
 by his positive efficiency; — and the dogma, that a 
 
 willingness to be damned for the glory of God, is an es- 
 sential condition of salvation."! 
 
 At a still later period we see the influence of this theolo- 
 gy, in a series of articles published in The Connecticut Evan- 
 gelical Magazine for 1806. In the December number for 
 that year, the writer gave a summary of the opinions advo- 
 cated in those articles. He says, (p. 204,) that " the change 
 of nature in the new-birth, is in a general sense, physical, 
 but in a sense more appropriate, it is moral, .... that the 
 cause which produces and perfects this change in the heartj 
 
 * Bacon's Hist. Disc. 273. 
 
 t Dr. West also held, that " volition is the production of God's immediate agen- 
 cy ; so that he represents man to be a passive instrument, a mere machine." 
 Allen. Biog. Die. 765. Dr. Emmons held, that God " is the efficieiit cause of 
 every event, both in the natural and moral world, that all hu«ian volitions, 
 the good and the bad alike, are produced by his irresistible and creative energy.*' 
 Exam. Dr. E's. Theory of Divine Agency. Bib. Repos. P • S.] X. 357. 
 7 
 
60 
 
 is the physical operation of the Holy Ghost, c-eating the 
 subject anew unto good works, without his [the individual's] 
 power, co-operation, or casual influence, physical or moral, 
 of which, for this work he is wholly destitute." Who 
 was the author of these articles, we know not, but the Ed- 
 itors of the work in which they appeared, were the Rev. 
 Drs. Nathan Williams, John Sraalley, Benjamin Trumbull, 
 Levi Hart, Isaac Lewis, Timothy Dwight, Nathan Strong, 
 Nathan Perkins, and the Rev. Messrs. Samuel J. Mills, Da- 
 vid Ely, Moses C. Welch, Zebulon Ely, and Abel Flint,— 
 a list of names sufficient to guarranty the soundness (in the 
 estimation of Congregationalists) of all that appeared upon 
 its pages. 
 
 This theology, therefore, according to the representation 
 given of it by its mildest advocates, makes " true religion" 
 to commence" in a sudden, physical change of heart, wrought 
 by the immediate, irresistible, and supernatural influences of 
 the Holy Ghost, without the instrumentality of any means 
 tending to produce this change, perceptible to the mind of the 
 person wrought upon, but wholly independent of the co-ope- 
 ration, power or influence of those who are the subjects of 
 it." This is the precise statement of the Bishop in his 
 Charge, (p. 20,) as to what he supposes to be the " popular 
 apprehension" of this theology, with the single exception, 
 that we have strengthened it by several additional epithets, 
 and deduced it from the most authoritative sources. And 
 this is the statement, which the reviev.'er says, exhibits an 
 " titter dereliction of truth in every sentence." (p. 172.) 
 Surely, he ought to study the fathers of Congregationalism, 
 if he does not the fathers of the Church! 
 
 That the natural, the inevitable tendency of such teaching, 
 if it produced any influence, would be, to undervalue if not to 
 set aside the Church, the ministry, and the sacraments, can 
 not be ques\ioned. And that the "New Light Theology" did 
 produce an exl^nsive influence, has been put beyond doubt 
 
51 
 
 by Dr. Trumbull.* And we have abundant evidence, that 
 its influence was seen, where we might expect, — in the un- 
 dervaluing, and consequent neglect of the sacraments. In- 
 fant baptism very soon fell into comparative disuse, which 
 was lamented, not by President Dwight alone, but by Dr. 
 Williams, in an elaborate pamphlet on the subject, and by 
 many others. And those who retained it, did so on new 
 and different principles. President Dwight and Mr. Wil- 
 liams, after the fathers of Congregationalism in New-Eng- 
 land, taught the doctrine set forth in their standards, hold- 
 ing that baptism was the rite of intiation into the Church, 
 and that all baptized persons were members of the Church. f 
 But anotherparty followed, headed by Rev. Drs. Hopkins and 
 West, who departed one step from this opinion,! to whom 
 succeeded another party headed by Rev. Dr. Emmons and 
 Rev. Cyprian Strong, departing still another step, deny- 
 ing that baptized children were members of the Church, or 
 members of a covenant with God, holding that it was to 
 be continued in token of the parents' good covenant stand- 
 ing,§ to which has succeeded New-Englandism, which makes 
 the baptism of adults, the uncertain recognition of an un- 
 certain fact, and the baptism of infants, we know not what. 
 Similar to this has been the downward course of the doc- 
 trine in regard to the Eucharist. The doctrine of personal 
 election taught by Calvinism, added to the " New Light" 
 doctrine of the mental perceptibility of divine grace, and 
 the consequent duty of complete assurance of justification, of 
 
 * HistrConn. II. 249—264. 
 
 t Williams' Inquiry concerning the design and importance of Christian Bap. 
 tism. 1792. Lathrop's Qualifications for Church Membership and Christian Fel- 
 lowship. 1 792. 
 
 t West's Inquiry into the ground import of Infant Baptism. Root's Letters, &,c, 
 
 § Dr. Emmons on Scriptural Qualifications and access to the Sacraments. Dr. 
 Hemmenway's Remarks on same. 1 794. Strong's second Inquiry into the nature 
 and design of Christian Baptism. 1796. 
 
52 
 
 necessity kept back those who lacked this assurance, iVoin 
 that ordinance, and though occasional efforts were made to 
 revive the practice of more general communion,* they were 
 comparatively unavailing, and it has gone down, down, 
 in the scale of orthodoxy, from a spiritual feast on a spir- 
 itual sacrifice,! to a feast upon a memorial of the cru- 
 cifixion,! then, to merely eating bread and drinking wine 
 in commemoration of the death of Christ, § and finally, 
 all mention of it is omitted in the New-Englander's gospel. 
 
 What the Church is, according to the teaching of New- 
 Englandism, we have already seen, and that it has resulted 
 from low views of the sacraments, can hardly be questioned, 
 for when the sacraments ceased to be means of grace, the 
 Church to which the sacraments belonged, should cease to 
 he the dispenser of grace. The Church of New-England- 
 ism is, therefore, the natural result of the " New^ Light 
 Theology," as that was a natural offshoot of Calvinism. 
 But it has nothing in common with the system of Geneva, 
 save its " mystical union," but without any distinct acknowl- 
 edgment of its election. The '' spiritual conjunction," 
 growing out of the Calvinistic idea of election, is, indeed, 
 the all in all of the " new gospel." If it does not formally 
 set aside the Church, the ministry, and the sacraments, it 
 renders them insignificant and useless, by stripping them of 
 all divine influence. This, we suppose, is what the review- 
 er means, when he boasts that their sacraments are " clear 
 of all priestly magic and incantatio.n." (p. 173.) 
 
 "When, therefore, the reviewer denies that he and his as- 
 sociates teach " a change of heart, wrought by the Holy 
 Ghost, without the instrumentality of means," (p. 173,) he 
 prates to no purpose. The Rev. Dr. Bacon tells him that 
 " Bellamy, and Edwards, and Hopkins, and West," did so 
 teach in the last century, and we have seen in what stroiig 
 
 • Lathrop's Qualifications, &,c. Hemmenway's Rem., &c. t Say. Plat. 3. 30. 
 t Dr. Murdock, Seimonon Eucharist, 1827. ^ Bacon's Manual, 58. 
 
53 
 
 language the first mentioned person expressed it. And 
 we have seen this taught, in the present century, with the 
 sanction of such men as Williams, and Smalley, and Trum- 
 bull, and Hart, and Lewis, and Dwight, and Strong, and 
 Perkins, and Mills, and Ely, and Welch, and Flint. So, 
 when he says that they do not call this " perceptible to the 
 mind," (p. 173,) they contradict all the Fathers of the 
 " New Light Theology," and go against, what a few yearsi 
 since, was the " popular belief." Whether any of them 
 teach that man " is the efficient agent in the work" of 
 spiritual regeneration, we could tell better, if the leaders 
 of that school would publish their opinions to the world. 
 That many of them teach, that " man is able to change his 
 own heart, independent of the assistance of the Holy 
 Ghost," is capable of the most abundant proof. 
 
 Whether they do, or do not say, that after this " sudden 
 change," there in no further need of the aids of divine grace, 
 no need of a Church, no need of a ministry, no need of 
 sacraments, — the work is finished," (p. 173,) is nothing to 
 the purpose as no such charge has been made. But that 
 JYew-Englandism does " abolish the ministry," as a divine 
 or apostolic institution, and thereby, as Calvin says, " sub- 
 vert and destroy the Church altogether," is certain. That 
 it reduces the sacraments to mere " formal declarations" 
 of an uncertain fact, (N. E. L 554,) " empty signs of an 
 absent body," is also certain. And what other " aids 
 of divine grace" there are, than such as are derived solely 
 through this " mystical union," we are at a loss to conceive. 
 
 Whether the Bishop was correct in describing this theol- 
 ogy as '^' a compound of excited feeling, with some of the 
 subtleties of Calvinism," (p. 20,) at which the reviewer 
 holds up both hands in astonishment, our readers will now 
 be able to perceive. Whether that description be true or 
 not, it is certainly the most charitable one that can be en-^ 
 tertained, for if it were not " excited feeling" that led men 
 
54 
 
 to deny, 
 
 ordained by God for " regeneration, to accomplish the 
 end," — and to teach that this change " must be perceptible 
 to the mind," and that " a willingness to be damned, for 
 the glory of God, is an essential condition of salvation," 
 it was certainly something worse.* 
 
 There is one point, to which we have incidcntaly advert- 
 ed, in the foregoing, but which requires a more careful 
 consideration; the subject of baptism. Yet if the clear 
 statements of the Bishop have failed of giving the review- 
 er any distinct idea on the subject, we should despair of 
 enlightening or convincing him. Still there are a few 
 points, on which, perhaps, we shall be able to make him 
 understand us. And first, all his flourish about the Bishop's 
 *' puritan baptism" might have been saved, the fact happen- 
 ing not to be so, as a writer careful for the truth should 
 have known, the charge having been long since publicly 
 denied. t 
 
 * The reviewer professes to be amazed at such a description of " theology," 
 especially as the theology of " Jonathan Edwards." That such was the theolo- 
 gy of those times we have abundantly shown, and that " Jonathan Edwards," the 
 elder, was one of the " New Light Theologians," iscertain, and that he endorsed all 
 the strange doctrines we have deduced from the writings of Bellamy, is al. 
 60 certain ; and that " Jonathan Edwards," the younger, was one of the " New 
 Divinity men," is no less certain. We have no disposition to detract from the 
 reputation of Edwards, but it is now conceded, to a great extent, as it has always 
 been claimed, that his system leads directly io fatalism, and we confess our ina- 
 bility, — granting his premises, to avoid those conclusions. Sec Examination of 
 Edwards onthe Will. Boston, 1770, [by Dr. Dana.] Tappan's Review of Ed, 
 wards, ^c, 1839. Bib. Repos. [N. S.J 11.257. Comp Review ofEd wards' On Lib. 
 frty and necessity. Bib. Repos. [N. S.] IX. 324. Dr. Dana regarded the funda- 
 mental principles of Edwards, as identical with those of the infidels, Hobbs, Spi- 
 noza, Leibnitz, and Collins, and in his appendix he has shown some of the coin- 
 cidences between them and those of the ancient and modern fatalists. See also 
 Allen's Biog.Disc. 361—369. 
 
 t An article to this effect was published in the Chronicle of the Church in Au- 
 gust, 1843, apparently on authority, in which it is stated, that " Bishop Brownell 
 never received any but adult baptism, and that he was baptized in Christ Church, 
 Schenactedy, by Rev. Dr. Stebbins, then Rector of that Church." 
 
55 
 
 Second, he is wanting in. honesty and courtesy both, when 
 he represents the Bishop as teaching that the sinner " must 
 undergo no sudden radical change of nature and principle, 
 which shall make him a new man in Christ Jesus." (p. 
 165.) Indeed the language which the reviewer, — in the 
 style and after the manner of the most thorough-paced in- 
 fidel, — has applied to a dying, godless wretch, just brought 
 to see his awful condition, was applied by the Bishop, so 
 far as he uses any such language, to the religious training 
 of children. Indeed, we know not, at which to be most 
 amazed, the dishonesty, or the impiety of the representa- 
 tion. 
 
 Again, if the reviewer really believes, as he pretends, 
 that " regeneration," is " the mere seminal power [principle?^ 
 of a new life,^' (p. 173,) and that infants have a " right to 
 baptism, as regenerate persons, before they have the dis- 
 cretion to ask it," and that, because it is presumed " they 
 are to grow up as spiritually regenerate," and are " mem- 
 bers of the Church, confided to its watch, and entitled 
 when they evince the necessary qualifications lo the Lord's 
 Supper," and if he " sees no reason why a principle of divine 
 life may not be imparted in infancy," (p. 174,) we cannot 
 see, either, why he cannot understand the Bishop, nor why 
 he need find fault with his positions. There must be a 
 time in the history of every real Christian, when " the semi- 
 nal principle of a new life," was implanted in the heart. 
 And if an infant is to " grow up a spiritually regenerate per- 
 son," the time, in his case, must be in infancy. And if in 
 infancy, why not in baptism? 
 
 We must now bring our examination of the New-England- 
 er to a close, which we cannot do, but with the most fearful 
 forebodings for the future religious prospects of its friends 
 and supporters. Its open and avowed sympathy with the 
 foulest heresies, — its justification of the most unwarranta- 
 ble schisms, — its rejection of many of the everlasting 
 
56 
 
 truths of the gospel,— its glorification of man, its abounding 
 spirit of self-righteousness, and the unlawful measures in 
 religion consequent upon it, raise within our bosoms, the 
 most fearful apprehensions for the future. May God grant, 
 that what now seems inevitable, — their speedy apostacy, 
 may be averted, and they themselves be saved, even 
 should it be so as " by fire." 
 
 O Almighty God, who has built thy Church upon the foundation of the Apos- 
 tles and Prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the Chief Corner Stone'; grant that, 
 by the operation of the Holy Ghost, all Christians may be so joined together in 
 unity of the spirit, and in the bond of peace, that they may be an Holy Temple 
 acceptable unto thee. And, especially, give them of the abundance of thy grace, 
 that with one iieart, they may desire the prosperity of thy Holy Apostolic Churcli, 
 and with one mouth, may profess the faith once delivered to the Saints. Defend 
 them from tlie sins of heresy and schism ; " let not the foot of pride come nigh to 
 hurt them, nor the hand of the ungodly to cast them down." And grant that the 
 course of this world may be so peaceably ordered by tliy Governance, that thy 
 Church may joyfully serve thee in all godly quietness ; that she may walk in the 
 ways of truth and peace, and at last be numbered with thy Saints in glory ever- 
 lasting, through thy merits, O blessed Jesus, thou gracious Bishop and Shepherd 
 of our souls, who art, with the Father and the Holy Ghost, one God, world without 
 end. Amen. 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 The following facts, in answer to the reviewer, and in reply also 
 to one of his associates, occupying too much space for a note, are 
 brought together in an Appendix. 
 
 INCOMES OF THE ENGLISH CLERGY. 
 
 The reviewer (II. 154) talks of the Lord Bishops with their 
 three hundred thousand pounds a year, and the other clergy ^\ith 
 their riotous livings. What these "riotous livings" are, and how 
 they are expended, the following facts will serve to show. They 
 M^ill also demonstrate the reviewer's intelligence and honesty in 
 this matter. 
 
 The Towns of England are about - - . 400 
 
 The Village Parishes about* - - - - 10.000 
 
 Of the Parishes of England and Wales, 6,681 have a population 
 
 ot less than 300 persons each, and 1,907 have less than 100 each.j 
 
 The Parishes in the cities and larger towns amount to about 590, 
 
 giving 10,584 benefices, in Englarfd and Wales, including Colle- 
 
 giate Churches. 
 
 Of these, t 
 
 
 
 
 
 13 are under 
 
 $45 
 
 1978 from $900 to 
 
 
 $1,350 
 
 19 f 
 
 •on: 
 
 $45 to 
 
 90 
 
 1326 
 
 " 1,350 to 
 
 
 1,800 
 
 39 
 
 >i 
 
 90 to 
 
 1.35 
 
 830 
 
 " 1,800 to 
 
 
 2,250 
 
 63 
 
 li 
 
 135 to 
 
 180 
 
 954 
 
 " 2,250 to 
 
 
 3,375 
 
 172 
 
 a 
 
 180 to 
 
 225 
 
 323 
 
 " 3,375 to 
 
 
 4,500 
 
 307 
 
 ii 
 
 225 to 
 
 270 
 
 124 
 
 " 4,500 to 
 
 
 6,750 
 
 317 
 
 ti 
 
 270 to 
 
 315 
 
 11 
 
 at 
 
 
 6,750 
 
 254 
 
 " 
 
 315 to 
 
 360 
 
 10 
 
 " 
 
 
 7,200 
 
 353 
 
 u 
 
 360 to 
 
 405 
 
 5 
 
 '' 
 
 
 7,650 
 
 400 
 
 (( 
 
 405 to 
 
 450 
 
 8 
 
 IC 
 
 
 8,100 
 
 402 
 
 t( 
 
 450 to 
 
 495 
 
 3 
 
 (( 
 
 
 8,550 
 
 295 
 
 u 
 
 495 to 
 
 540 
 
 9 
 
 u 
 
 
 9,000 
 
 318 
 
 '' 
 
 540 to 
 
 585 
 
 4 
 
 (C 
 
 
 11,250 
 
 298 
 
 '' 
 
 585 to 
 
 630 
 
 1 
 
 (C 
 
 
 13,500 
 
 289 
 
 (1 
 
 630 to 
 
 675 
 
 2 
 
 C( 
 
 
 15,750 
 
 329 
 
 a 
 
 675 to 
 
 720 
 
 2 
 
 " 
 
 
 18,000 
 
 290 
 
 i( 
 
 720 to 
 
 765 
 
 24B'prics, averaofing 
 
 each 22,000 
 
 245 
 
 a 
 
 765 to 
 
 810 
 
 lA'b 
 
 pric, (Canterbury,)§ 
 
 85,000 
 
 234 
 
 i( 
 
 810 to 
 
 855 
 
 
 
 
 
 247 
 
 (I 
 
 855 to 
 
 900 
 
 
 
 
 
 Besides the above, there are in England, 5,232 curates whose sal- 
 aries are paid by the beneficed clergy, averaging about $370 each, 
 amounting to $1,839,622. || The whole revenue of all the Church- 
 es in En£;land and Wales is as follows, 
 
 10,584 Benifices, - - ^ . ' $14,850,000 
 
 24 Bishoprics and 2 Archbishoprics, - 640,000 
 
 * Essays on Church, 45. 
 
 t Bishop of London, in Mcllvaine on Church of England. N. Y. R. III. 301. 
 
 t EngUsh Churchmen, 1841. The whole number of benefices in the Scotch 
 Presbyterian Church, is about 900, the poorest of which is worth over $900 a year. 
 Those in the largest towns range from f 1,575 to ,$7,875. The average of 872, 
 out of 900, is $1,153,50. And yet, nearly or quite two-thirds of the real estate 
 of Scotland which pays most of this, is cwned by Churchmen! Church Intelli- 
 gencer, 1843 ; Episcopal Magazine, 1838. 
 
 § Bishop Doane, in Burlington Gazette, 1842. 1| Enolish Churchmen, 1840. 
 8 
 
58 
 
 The whole income including the Cathedral and Collegiate reve- 
 nues not estimated in Collegiate Churches, is £3;490,000, or $15,- 
 705,000.'* It should also be remarked that the endowments of 
 Bishoprics and Parochial Benefices, were originally the gift of in- 
 dividuals, in the first instance mostly small, but increased in value 
 by the natural rise of property in England, f 
 
 Of these 10,584 benefices, 4,984 are smaller than the smallest 
 Scotch benefice, that is, less than $900 a year. Of the re- 
 maining 5.600, there are 5,232, w^hich pay salaries to curates, 
 averaging$370 each, which brmgs about 800 more benefices below 
 S900. Consequently, 11,000 out of the 16,000 Enghsh Clergy, have 
 smaller incomes than the poorest Presbyterian minister of Scot- 
 land, And these are the "riotous livings" ot our reviewer. 
 
 But there are other facts, which go to show how the revenues of 
 the Clergy, are, to a great extent, expended. The largest incomes 
 of the Bis'hoprics, are those of Canterburj', Durham and London. 
 The late Bishop Harrington, Bishop of Durham from 1791 to 1826, 
 expended over £200,000 or about §900,000 in public charities, one- 
 half of which went through his agent at London. And his suc- 
 cessor. Bishop Van Mildert, from 1826 to 1836, expended annually 
 over $33,000 in a similar manner. J Consequently, the Bishopric 
 of Durham has contributed in less than half a century, a million 
 and a quarter of dollars, to public charities, to say nothing of the 
 public improvements in the Diocese. 
 
 The present Archbishop of Canterbury, the Rt. Rev. William 
 Howley, Bishop of London, from 1813 to 1828, expended over 
 $200,000 in public improvements at Lambeth alone. § 
 
 Again, of the annual subscribers to five of the principal Church 
 Societies in 1834, including the Christian Knowledge, Propogation 
 and Church Building Societies, there were 14,152 clergymen, 10,884 
 laymen, and 5,275 females. 1| And of these clergymen, 5,719 had 
 salaries less than S500 a year. In 1841, there\vere over 14,000 
 clergymen, annual subscribers to the Pastoral Aid Society alone. 
 In 1837 the income of the additional curates fund, was 834,000, of 
 which, $6,830 was given by sixteen Bishops, and $16,600 by one 
 hundred and sixty-six clergymen.]! If this is what the reviewer 
 means by "riotous living" he was in the right of it. O^ seven 
 hundred subscribers to the National Education Society, in 1843, 
 
 * Padiamentary Returns, in Mcllvaine's Church of England, 271. 
 t This is coniesscd, substantially, by the Edinburgh Review, January 1834. 
 The whole sum appropriated to the various religious denominations in England, 
 Ireland, Wales and Scotland, from 1800 to 1842 inclusive, for the aid and sup. 
 port of the various religious denominations, according to the London Times, was 
 as follows, 
 
 Church of England and Wales, $11,210,411 
 
 " Ireland, 7,834,181 
 
 $19,044,892 
 
 Presbyterian Church of Scotland, $2,349,369 
 
 Protestant Dissenters, 4,588,211 
 
 Romish " 1,636,231 
 
 X Debates in House of Lords. Mcllvalne, 172. 
 
 ^Bishop Doane in Burlington Gazette, 1842. 
 
 (I Charge of Rev. Dr. Dealtry, 1834. If Mcllvaine, 27^. 
 
 $8,563,811 
 
59 
 
 over three hundred were Bishops and Clergy, and of one hundred and 
 ten subscribers of $500 each, eighty-one were clergymen. * 
 
 CHURCH OF ENGLAND AND MISSIONS. 
 
 Another topic alluded to by our reviewer, and especially urged 
 by one of his co-laborers, is the want of any missionary arrange- 
 ments in the Episcopal Church. (N. E. IL 133—135.) It could 
 not be unknown to either, that the Church of England was occu- 
 pied with both Foreign and Domestic Missions, holj a century be- 
 fore any other Protestant denomination. The success of these 
 efforts at present, as compared with those of the dissenters, may 
 be seen from the following tables. 
 
 In 1840, the number of Protestant Missionary Societies in the 
 world, with their total income, was estimated as follows,! 
 
 Societies. Income. 
 
 British, 614 $2,115,007 
 
 Continental, 178 113,000 
 
 American, 252 393,000 
 
 The whole amount contributed by the British Societies in the 
 year ending 1841, was not far from 84,000,000; contributed mainly 
 by the following Societies. J They are of three classes: Societies 
 sustained entirely by Churchmen; Societies sustained entirely by 
 Dissenters, and Societies sustained by both. Of this latter class, 
 it has been ascertained by examination, that Churchmen contri- 
 bute more than half. § 
 
 Church Societies, 1840—1, 
 
 Church Miss. 
 
 $443,638 
 
 Prop. Gosp. F. P, 
 
 445,007 
 
 Chr. Knowledge, 
 
 435,325 
 
 Pastoral Aid, 
 
 95,379 
 
 Clerical Aid, 
 
 37,917 
 
 Col. Miss. 
 
 8,428 
 
 Prayer B. and Homily, 
 
 13,971 
 
 Tract, 
 
 2,077 
 
 Trinitarian Bible, 
 
 12,885 
 
 National Education, 
 
 91.816 
 
 Reformation, 
 
 8,462 
 
 Foreign Aid, 
 
 6,197 
 
 Jews, 
 
 118.382 
 
 London Hibernian, 
 
 45,677 
 
 Eastern Fem, Ed. 
 
 8,098 
 
 11,773,259 
 
 Mixed Societies, 1840—1. 
 Brit, and For. Bible, $491,413 
 Religious Tract, 280,429 
 
 London Miss. 355,555 
 
 Naval and Military Bib. 16,062 
 Merchant's Seamen's Bib. 3^37 
 B. and F. Anti-Slavery, 19^550 
 B. andF. School, 29.816 
 
 B. and F. Sailors, 12^850 
 
 B. and F. Temperance, 2,693 
 New Temperance, 15,959 
 
 Brit, for Sup. Intemp. 3,971 
 
 Peace, 7.6OO 
 
 Lord's day Obs. 4,140 
 
 London City Miss. 23,390 
 
 District Visiting, 2,229 
 
 Christian Instruction, 6,172 
 
 London Irish, 20,015 
 
 Sunday School Union, 52,465 
 Ladies Negro Child. Ed. 7,883 
 Infant School, 9,241 
 
 ,365,160 
 
 * Church Intelliofcnccr. During the last ten years the London Church Building 
 Society has expended over $1,000,000, and forty-two new Churches have been 
 erected in that Diocese. t Miss. Herald, 1^41. 
 
 i Miss. Her. 18t2 ; Lond. Miss. Reg. 1841. 
 
 § Mcllvaine's Church of Eng. 1837. 
 
60 
 
 Church Societies, 1840—1. 
 Church Societies, $1,773,259 
 Half-Mixed Societies, 682,580 
 Am. Episcopal,* 67,594 
 
 Moravian,* 81,715 
 
 $2,605,148 
 
 Dissenters Societies, 1840—1. 
 
 Half-Mixed Society, $682,580 
 
 Wesleyan Miss. 437,384 
 
 Baptist Miss, 140,296 
 
 Edinburgh Bible, 14,105 
 
 Scottish Miss. 13,317 
 
 Church of Scot. Miss. 40,329 
 Church Scotland Jews, 17.411 
 
 Am. Dissenters,* 715,274 
 
 Continental " near, 200,000 
 
 82.258,696 
 
 Balance of Episcopal Church over all the rest of Protestant 
 Christendom, $346,452 ! And yet not more than one-Jiflh of the 
 Protestants are Episcopal. During the year ending 1S43, the 
 whole sum contributed by the British Societies, is estimated by 
 their journals, at $4,659,200. We give a feu' specimens. 
 
 1841. 1843. 
 
 Gh«.s<?h Missionary Society, $443,638 $511,111 
 
 Propagation Society, 445,007 512,127 
 
 Clerical Aid Society, 37,917 100,000 
 
 Increase of three Societies in two years, $196,676. 
 To show the influence of circumstances on the minds of 
 English Churchmen, we give the following facts. The Church 
 Missionary Society, which was formed in 1799, has had several 
 remarkable epochs in the increase of its funds. In the 14th year 
 of its existence, 1813, India was thrown open to missionaries by 
 the passage of the India bill, and the funds of the Society went 
 up from $16,000 to $52,650. In the 27th year, 1826, the West In- 
 dies vv'ere thrown open by the Emancipation bill, and the funds 
 rose from about $204,750 to nearly $235,000. The 30th year, 1638, 
 was remarkable for the outpouring of the Spirit at Krishnaghur, 
 some forty or fifty heathen villages renouncing heatlienism, and 
 the funds went up from $347,000 to 404,700.* And in the 44th 
 year, 1843, China was opened to missions, and the funds rose to 
 $511,111.1 These are facts which speak for thenselves, and we 
 commend them to the attention of the reviewer and his associates. 
 A similar increase has occured in the funds of some other Soci- 
 eties. Thus, in 1839, there were only 201 Parochial Associations 
 in aid of the Society for propogating the Gospel; in 1843, there 
 were 870, being an increase of 660 in four years. And the Mis- 
 sionaries have increased in six years, from 1837 to 1843, from 177 
 to 332, being an increase of 205. 
 
 * S. S. Jour. 1839. TJie contributions in 1840, were about the same. 
 + Speech of the Rev. J. Yenn, at C. M. Soc. May 3d, 1843. Two individaale,- 
 one £t clergymen, j^ave over $60,000, for the China Mission. 
 
 [copy right secured.] 
 
tSalanc- 
 Clinsti 
 
 Pin' 
 
PHOTOMOUNT 
 PAMPHLET BINDER 
 
 Manu/acluted by 
 
 [ ©AYLORD BROS. Iik. 
 
 Syracuse, N. Y. 
 
 Stockton, Calif. 
 
■B*.f 
 
 ,i,n.iijij jtmrf, 
 
 BX5935.N53 
 
 New-Englandism not the religion of the 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 
 
 012 00050 8624 
 
 
 .'1 
 
 <;* 
 
 ywMi* 
 
 s 
 
 \