ed they have knowledge enough of human nature to retain their popularity, they may carry their people with them wherever they choose to lead. We appeal on this subject to the test of experience; and to the experience too of the people of New England. It is a well-known fact, that the fathers of New England were, to a man, doctrinal Calvinists; and that one of the charges preferred by them against the great body of the church of England, from which they separated, was, that they had utterly subverted "the faith in the important points of predestination, free-will, justification, perseverance, and some other things which that church requires all her children to give their assent and consent unto." Mather's Magn. b. i. c. v. sec. 3. Mather refers his reader for a description of the religion of the first settlers, to the account by governour Winslow, who, he says, "gives us to understand that they are entirely of the same faith with the reformed churches in Europe, only in their church government, they are endeavourous after a reformation more thorough, than what is in many of them." Magn. b. i. c. iii. s. 7. They had no idea of any further reformation in doctrine, but only in discipline.* An attempt has been made, by the unitarians, to press the Leyden pastor, John Robinson, into their service, by quoting his famous address to the Plymouth colony, as an evidence that in his opinion there would be further light thrown on the subject of doctrine. But whoever considers the language of Mr. Winslow, above quoted, and other passages in Mather's Magnalia, (see especially b. ii. c. i. s. 3, 7.) will perceive, we think, that he had reference only to a further reformation in church government and discipline. "For my part," said Robinson, "I cannot sufficiently bewail the condition of the reformed churches, who are come to a period in religion; and will go at present no further than the instruments of their first reformation. The Lutherans cannot be drawn to go be. yond what Luther saw; whatever part of his will our good God has imparted and revealed unto Calvin, they will rather die than embrace it. And the Calvinists, you see, stick fast where they were left by that great "It was once," says Mather, "an unrighteous and injurious aspersion, cast upon the churches of New England, that the world knew not their princi. ples; whereas, they took all the occasions imaginable, to make all the world know, that in the doctrinal part of religion, they have agreed entirely with the reformed churches of Europe; and that they desired, most particularly, to maintain the faith professed by the churches of old England, the country whereto was owing their original." B. v. p. 1. s. 1. Such was the state of the churches of New England in the year 1680; but if we look forward fifty or sixty years, we shall find that the ministers, and consequently their congregations, had generally become what is now popularly known by the name of moderate Calvinists. We say popularly,for, in strictness of speech, there can be no such thing as moderate Calvinism. The five points are so intimately connected, that one cannot be relinquished without dissolving the system. What was termed moderate Calvinism, consisted, in fact, of a cautious abstinence from perplexing and bewildering speculations on the subject of divine decrees and human free agency. In a word, the divines of New England had assimilated very much in doctrine to the clergy of the church of England. They were what the venerable Dr. Lathrop, of West Springfield, was, within the recollection of many of our readers. The sermons of that pious and excellent man, are, man of God, who yet saw not all things." The term Calvinist was applied in various senses, according to the subject of controversy. The Lutherans called them Calvinists who opposed Luther's doctrine of consubstantiation. Those who maintained the presbyterian form of church government devised by Calvin, were called, on that account, discipline Calvinists. Robinson thought the Calvinistick form of church government an improvement upón Episcopacy, but still he did not think it sufficiently scriptural. As to the doctrine of the Calvinists, he agreed with them, and had no idea that on this point any reformation was needed. we conceive, a fair specimen of what the old and respectable ministers of New England generally taught, before the coming of Mr. Whitfield; and they are very much like the sermons which are preached at this day in the Epis copal churches of England, Scotland, and America. But the arrival of Mr. Whitfield produced a very great change in the state of things. Numbers of the New England ministers were captivat ed by his preaching, and espoused his doctrine, concerning the mode of the Holy Spirit's operation upon the mind of man. Hence they were called the new lights, and the ministers who opposed the innovations and extravagances of Mr. Whitfield, were called the old lights. Now in what manner were the people affected by these divisions among the ministers? Did not the congregations of the new light ministers become new lights? And did not the congregations of the old light ministers remain old lights? Whatever the ministers were, such were the people. And, we ask again, is not such the case at the present day? We have not sufficient information, respecting the actual state of the orthodox ministers, to know how many of them retain the old light character; but we ask, whether those religious revivals which are common in all the congregations of the new light ministers, are not in an equal degree uncommon where the minister does not happen to be of the Whitfieldian class? If so, it exhibits evident proof of the personal influence of the minister in directing the faith of the congregation. At the first introduction of the new light system, some of the old light ministers were led by their opposition to it, into an extreme beyond the point of moderate Calvinism, and under the name of Arminians, began to lean at least towards the Arian and Pelagian heresies. But there being no liturgy, and no test by which their religious sentiments could be tried, the change went on imperceptibly, till at length the publication of a pamphlet con in 1815, taken from Mr. Belsham's life of Theophilus Lindsay, and entitled, American unitarianism, developed the fact, that a great proportion of the congregational ministers in Boston, and in many of the adjacent towns, had become unitarians.* Till this time, the great mass of their gregations did not dream that they had forsaken the tenets of their forefathers. In the language of one of the wits of Boston," the weathercocks had turned several points, while the swallows sat contentedly on their respective vanes, without being sensible of the motion." And what was the fact when the discovery was made? Did their congregations desert them, as the publishers of that pamphlet expected? On the contrary, they warmly espoused their cause; what was before conducted in secret, and by negative means, is now done openly and with the most energetick activity. There are a few perhaps, who are discontented with the change, but these are retiring, one by one, to other places of worship, while the great body are ranging themselves under their respective leaders, despising and ridiculing the faith which their forefathers venerated. These facts, we think, exhibit striking proof how little the laity are disposed to avail themselves of what the Worcester committee call "the independent exercise of their Christian liberty." Whether it arise from indifference about religious truth, or from confidence in their pas tor's wisdom and integrity, we pretend not to say; but so it is, that the great body of those congregations which have no publick written formularies, *When we use the term " unitarians," in this article, we do it merely from courtesy to Dr. B. and his friends. Properly speaking, no Christians are so strictly unitarian,as those who maintain the trinity in unity. Dr. B. should call himself a "duarian," for though he denies to our Saviour what he is pleased less admits that he is called God in some into call "the supreme Divinity," he nevertheferiour sense. What is this, after all, but making two Gods? dard. are disposed to consider their minister right of communion, on the ground as their standard of doctrine. The that they do not come up to his stanquestion, then, is, not whether the laity are to have formularies, but whether they are to have written formularies. Formularies of some kind they must have. Wherever two or more persons agree in any particular exposition of scripture, the tenets, which they hold in common, may justly be called their creed. And this creed generally depends upon the representations made to them by their minister. If then, from the very nature of the case, the minister of each congregation will have some system of religious doctrine, in which he will instruct his people, a written formulary can restrain no liberty excepting that of the pastor. And we think we shall be able to show that such a restraint will increase the liberties and preserve the privileges of the laity. In our number for January, we presented to our readers a collation of the apostles' creed, with the correspondent passages in the scriptures, by which every article of it may be proved. This creed is not an exposition of scripture, but merely a summary of the principal points of Christian faith in the very words of scripture. This is the profession of faith, made at baptism, and consequently the terms of lay-communion. It has been received as such, from so early a period, and has been so generally and so universally maintained, that we know not a single Christian nation, or a single denomination, of all who profess and call themselves Christians, the unitarians excepted, which has not received and assented to it. This creed, then, being established as the standard of communion, in the church, the laity know from it their privileges. They cannot be excluded from communion because on speculative points they are followers of Calvin, or of Luther, of Arminius, of Hopkins, or of Wesley. Let the minister be of what sentiments he may on these subjects, he cannot deprive the laity of their The Nicene creed is nearly the same with the apostles' creed, excepting that it is more enlarged with respect to the divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost. If Dr. B. affirms that this is the establishment of a doctrine not found in the scriptures, we only say that he assumes, as usual, the very point to be proved. On the credit of his own belief, he has led his congregation to receive it as a fact, that the doctrine in this creed was first "publickly asserted," in the council of Nice; (p. 179.) and he has the assurance to call the commencement of the fourth century, "an ignorant age of the church." It is really some exercise of patience, to read such assertions. After the immense learning with which bishop Bull has defended the Nicene faith from the charge of novelty, comes Dr. Bancroft with his whisk and sweeps down the whole fabrick, to the entire satisfaction of his Worcester committee, with the simple expression of his belief. As an evidence how totally unfounded are such assertions, we shall lay before our readers the following extract from the works of Irenæus, who was born about the year ninety-seven of the Christian æra, and who is the earliest of the writers now extant, whose subject led him to speak of a summary of the Christian faith. "The church," says that apostolick bishop, "although dispersed over all the world, from one end of the earth to the other, received from the apostles and their disciples, the belief in one God, the Father, Almighty, Maker of hea ven and earth and sea, and all things in them: And in one Christ Jesus the Son of God, who was incarnate for our salvation: And in the Holy Ghost, who preached, by the prophets, the dispensations [of God,] and the advent, and nativity of (or from) a virgin, and passion, and resurrection from the dead, and the incarnate ascension of in the central point of the earth,) held his beloved Son, Christ Jesus our Lord, or taught any other faith. But as one into heaven, and his coming again from and the same sun enlightened all the heaven in the glory of the Father, to world; so the preaching of this truth sum up (ávaxtaλairardas) all things, shone all over and enlightened all men and raise the flesh of all mankind, that that were willing to come to the knowlaccording to the will of the invisible edge of the truth." Christian reader, Father, every knee should bow, of which are we to believe? Irenæus or things in heaven, and things in the Dr. Bancroft? Irenæus, who, though a earth, and things under the earth, to French bishop, was a native of SmyrJesus Christ our Lord, and God, and na, and the disciple of Polycarp, the Saviour, and King, and that every bishop of his native church, who was tongue should confess to him, and that also the disciple of St. John; or Dr. he should exercise just judgment upon Bancroft, who has told us himself that all, and send spiritual wickednesses, all his knowledge is derived from and the transgressing and apostate" Mosheim, Priestley, Campbell, and angels, with all ungodly, unrighteous, the appropriate articles in Rees's Cylawless, and blaspheming men, into clopedia!" everlasting fire; but granting life to So far, then, were our reformers from all righteous and holy men, that keep "establishing" the creeds" his commandments and persevere in his love, some from the beginning, others, after repentance, should confer on them immortality, and invest them with eternal glory. "The church, having, as we have before said, received this preaching, and this faith, though she be dispersed over the whole world, diligently guards the same as inhabiting one house. And, in like manner, she believes them as having one heart and one soul, and harmoniously preaches, and teaches, and transmits them down as having one mouth." Irenæus, adv. Hæres. lib. i. cap. x. 1, 2. Let our readers compare the Nicene creed with this extract from Irenæus, and then let them judge whether Dr. Bancroft was not guilty of some temerity, when he asserted that the Nicene faith had never been "publickly declared" before the year 325, in which that council held its session. Irenæus asserts, that "neither the churches founded in Germany, nor those in Iberia, (Spain.) nor those among the Celts, (France,) nor the Eastern churches, nor those in Egypt, or Libya, nor those founded in the midst of the world, (by which he meant Jerusalem,and the aljacent churches, then supposed to be as the test of orthodoxy on their own authority," that they established them (if indeed the term establish is to be applied to what is only retained) because "they may be proved by most certain warrants of holy scripture." And so far were they from presuming to give any interpretation of the scriptures of their own devising, that they give that only which the Christian church from the beginning, and wherever dispersed throughout the world, has constantly received. In opposition to the doctrine of an unwritten word of God, the belief of which was necessary to salvation, they maintained the sufficiency of the scriptures; but they never meant to say, either that the scriptures required no interpretation, or that in that interpretation every individual was to follow his own private fancy. This appears to be Dr. Bancroft's sense of the right of private judgment, concerning which, we shall now proceed to make a few observations. The church of Rome maintains that the scriptures, being obscure, need an interpreter; that God being their author, there are often two senses, a literal or historick, and a spiritual or mystick sense. The spiritual sense, though to be found in both testaments ten whole sentences, will bear different meanings. Serm. iv. p. 60. "The natural understandings of men differ, their education is dissimilar, and their course of life is various. These circumstances lead to different views of religion and of all other subjects. A truth that is plain and evident to the man of ten talents, may be unintelligible to him who possesses but one. Serm. i. p. 23. is not to be found in every sentence of ourselves to the expressions of Dr. B. them. Concerning the literal sense, "Language," says he," is necessarily doubts arise from two causes; first the ambiguous. Particular words, and ofambiguity of the words themselves, and secondly, where the meaning of the words is clear, the uncertainty whether the sentence is to be taken in a simple or figurative sense. But the true sense of the scriptures must be understood by the author of the scriptures, the Holy Spirit. This Spirit, say they, is to be found in the church, that is, in a council of bishops confirmed by the pope, or in the pope himself, as the visible head of the church. On this latter point, they are at variance; some maintaining that the pope alone is ena. bled, by the Holy Spirit, to be an infallible judge; others, that this infallibility resides in a general council act ing by his summons and under his authority. Bellarm. de verbo, Dei. lib. iii. cap. iii. To this sentence, when once passed, every private Christian must submit under pain of eternal damnation in the world to come, and of punishment in this world, as a rebel against this authority, if he makes any overt declaration of his dissent, or attempts to promulgate his sentiments to the disturbance of the peace of the church. On the other hand, Dr. R. and his associates maintain that the language of the scriptures being ambiguous from the causes assigned by the Romanists, the reason of every individual is to decide in what sense it is to be interpret ed; and as God has given to every man a certain degree of the reasoning power, he will never condemn any one for interpreting the scriptures in that sense which appears to him most rational, even supposing it to be, in fact, erroneous. We think we have fairly stated the views of this subject, taken generally, by those who call themselves rational Christians." We could show this, perhaps, more explicitly, from the language of other writers, but as we presume it will not be contested that such is their principle, we shall confine "Reason and revelation, I think, warrant the position, that every man who seriously endeavours to acquire the knowledge of divine truth, and habitually practises according to the dictates of an enlightened conscience, will be accepted at the final judgment; but the individual who complies with this condition of acceptance, can be positively ascertained only by him who knows the heart. p. 22. "Though we do not pretend to com prehend God in his attributes, in his works or ways, yet we say that our duty extends no further than our capacity for knowledge extends; and that we cannot consistently admit any position as a doctrine of divine revelation which consists of a set of terms conveying no distinct ideas to the mind." p. 27. It will be seen, then, that the Roman church, and these "rational or liberal Christians," agree as to the total ambiguity of words and sentences in the holy scriptures, and differ only as to the judge in the case. The Holy Spirit, say the Romanists; human reason, say the unitarians. The pope or a general council, say the Romanists; the reason of every individual,say the unitarians : be who trusts to the decision of the pope, and implicitly follows it, say the Romanists, will never be condemned for so doing, because he trusts in him whom God hath set in his church as the infallible judge of all controversies: he who trusts to his own reason, say the unitarians, will not be condemned |