LETTER II.

REVEREND SIR,

I proceed to notice your remarks on my Second Letter to Professor Stuart. I hope you, and your adherents, will accompany me in this examination. I shall be as brief as the nature of the controversy will permit.

I. REFORMERS.

Most of your remarks on my statements under this section, are either mere quibbles, or relate to questions of no consequence to our controversy. But two of your assertions seem to me worthy of an answer.

1. Speaking of the religious sentiments of Zuingle, I asserted that "his views were exceedingly liberal, not differing essentially, except in one or two points, from the liberal Christians of the present period." You attempt to show the incorrectness of my statement, by a quotation from Mosheim. Your extract is greatly garbled, and also made from an unfaithful translation. You wish to make your readers believe that Luther was perfectly satisfied with the sentiments of Zuingle, except in one or two particulars. I will prove that your assertion is not true, by several quotations from these Reformers themselves, and also from their friends and followers. My first extract will convince you that Luther was a determined enemy to Zuingle. The version of the Scriptures, made by Zuingle, was presented to Luther. He returned it with abuse, and uttered these remarkable words: "I will not read the works of these people who are out of the church of God, and are not only damned themselves, but drawing with them many miserable persons. While I live I will make war upon them by my PRAYERS and my writings." On another occasion he uttered these words: "Zuingle is dead and damned, wishing as a thief and a seditious person to constrain others by force of arms to follow him." Brentius, the friend and follower of Luther, whose controversial writings are contained in eight folio volumes, makes this striking de. claration: "The doctrines of the Zuinglians are devilish, full of im

piety, depravity, and calumny; the error of Zuingle upon the Eucharist has led to many others yet more sacrilegious; the Zuinglians will soon introduce into the church of God the heresy of the Nestorians; the different articles of our religion will disappear one after another, and in their places will be substituted the superstitions of the Pagans, the Talmudists, and the Mahometans." This, Sir, is the writer whom the English Bishop Jewel calls "the serious and wise old man." But above all, take the following opinion expressed by a full synod of the Lutheran church. "The Zuinglians write that we regard them as brethren; this is a fiction so foolish, so impertinent, that we cannot be sufficiently astonished at their impudence. We do not even accord them a place in the church, and are far from recognising as brothers, the men we see filled with the spirit of lying, and uttering blasphemies against the Son of Man." Is not this enough to convince you that neither Luther nor any of his early followers were perfectly satisfied with the religious sentiments of Zuingle and his disciples? If not, then I will furnish you with some evidence more decisive.

On the other hand, I will show you that Zuingle and his followers were not perfectly satisfied with Luther and his religious sentiments. Zuingle makes this remark concerning Luther. "It is not rare to see Luther contradict in one page what he said on another; and to see him in the midst of his followers, you would think him besieged by a phalanx of devils." One of the friends of Zuingle makes this declaration concerning Luther. "God, to chastise the pride and arrogance of Luther, which shows itself in all his writings, withdrew his spirit from him, abandoning him to a spirit of error and lying, which will always possess those who follow his opinions, until they renounce them." And above all, hear the opinion of the Zurich church concerning Luther. "Luther treats us as an execrable and damned sect, but let him take care that he does not prove himself an arch-heretic, for this reason, that he will not and cannot associate with those who confess Christ. But how this man suffers himself to be carried away by demons! His language is filthy and his words are full of the devils of hell! He says the devil dwells now and for ever in the bodies of Zuinglians; that blasphemies are exhaled from their very devilish, more than devilish, superlatively devilish bosoms; that their tongue is a lying tongue, moved at the will of Satan, and deeply saturated, more than saturated, superlatively saturated in his infernal venom. Saw you ever such discourse from a furious demon?" Are these extracts sufficient to convince you that neither Zuingle nor his friends were perfectly satisfied with either Luther or his doctrines? If not, then I will furnish you with evidence more decisive. I wait your answer. Letters, p. 103. Review, p. 17. Luther's Works, fol. vol. 11. p. 36. Brentius' Works, fol. In Recogn. Prophet. et Apost. In Bullingeri. Coron. etc. Ans. to Luther's Con. fol. Book 11. pp. 454, 381. Conrad on the Lord's Supper, Book II. Church of Zurich against Confession of Luther, p. 61.

Your inference is was not printed, Bolsec and Gro

2. Calvin. I made a quotation from one of Calvin's letters, in which his determination to destroy Servetus is clearly expressed. Your answer to this statement is contained in the following sentence. "Mr. Whitman quotes a letter from Calvin, without suggesting a doubt as to its authenticity; which is not printed among his other letters, and which it is improbable he ever wrote." You say this letter is not printed among the other letters of Calvin. No one ever said it was. You then infer that he never wrote such a letter. without foundation. The facts are these. The letter but preserved in Paris. "Mr. D'Artiguy affirms this. tius saw the original letter. Utenbogardt had a copy of it taken from a collection of manuscript epistles, and Calvin's admirers have not been able to deny it." Varillus and Sorbieve with others speak of the letter. And above all Sennébier, who wrote a book in defence of Calvin, quotes from the letter. If this is not enough to establish the authenticity of the letter, then I will furnish more convincing evidence. Letters, pp. 105, 106. Review, p. 20. Wright's Servetus, pp. 130, 131. General Repository, vol. iv. p. 48. La Roche, Mem. of Lit. vol. iv. pp. 50 – 51. III. PILGRIMS.

Only two of your remarks on my statements under this division deserve an answer. 1. I asserted that our Pilgrim fathers did not hedge up the entrance to the Lord's Supper with doctrinal creeds. In proof of my assertion, I gave the covenants adopted by three of the first New England churches. In answer to all this evidence, you ask one or two questions. And first, you wish to know if I "really believe our fathers were averse to a public confession of faith." Certainly. Besides the satisfactory reasons for this belief which I have already advanced, I will now give you an article from the laws of our fathers on this very subject. This is the important enactment. "Sec. 6. No injunction shall be put upon any church, church officer, or member in point of doctrine, worship, or discipline, whether for substance or circumstance besides the institution of the Lord.". You also ask if I do not know that some of the early churches "were very strict in the admission of members." Certainly. I know there were narrowminded men at that day as well as at the present; and that they violated their own fundamental principles, as well as the plain teachings of the Scriptures. I also know that great men among them bore faithful testimony against these unchristian usurpations. Take one specimen from the celebrated Cotton Mather. These are the words. "And let the table of the Lord have no rails about it, that shall hinder a godly Independent, and Presbyterian, and Episcopalian, and Antipædobaptist and Lutheran, from sitting down together there. Churches that will keep up instruments of separation, which will keep out those that have the evident marks and claims of them that are one with Christ upon them, are in reality but combinations of men, who, under pretence

of religion, are pursuing some carnal interests. Their Diana is very visible. It is a complicated profanity and hypocrisy, that these churches are to stand indicted for. It is to be lamented, that more churches than one have the guilt of a very sinful schism to be charged upon them, for their chasing from their communion, and the annexed encouragements and emoluments, many of the righteous nation, which have the gates of heaven standing open for them; and yet such is the mystery of iniquity, that at the same time they make outcries of schism against the conscientious people, for keeping out, while they violently shut the doors upon them." Are your questions satisfactorily answered? Let me then ask you one. Did you know that a goodly portion of the people in those days were liberal on this subject of communion, and that they only waited to know their strength in order to rise against such bigoted priests as then endeavoured to rule? Let this question be answered by the same orthodox divine. "There are concurring with you, hundreds of thousands of generous minds, in which this apprehension lies now shut up as an aurum fulminans. But it will break forth more and more, as the day approaches, and as men improve in manly religion, in explosions that will carry all before it. And the mean, little, narrow souls, that know no religion but that of a party, and their secular interest, will become deserted objects, for the disdain and pity of them, who have taken the way that is above them." Is Cotton Mather among the prophets?

Of the same opinion was the pious and orthodox Richard Baxter. These are his precious words. "Two things have set the church on fire, and been the plagues of it above one thousand years. 1. Enlarging our creed, and making more fundamentals than ever God made. 2. Composing and so imposing our creeds and confessions in our own words and phrases. When men have learned more manners and humility than to accuse God's language as too general and obscure, as if they could mend it, and have more dread of God, and compassion on themselves, than to make those to be fundamentals or certainties which God never made so; and when they reduce their confessions, first, to their due extent, and second, to scripture phrase, that dissenters may not scruple subscribing, then, and I think, never till then, shall the church have peace about doctrinals. It seems to me no heinous Socinian motion which Chillingworth is blamed for, viz.; Let all men believe the Scripture, and that only, and endeavour to believe it in the true sense, and promise this, and require no more of others, and they shall find this not only a better, but the only means to suppress heresy, and secure unity. Shall men be judged Socinians for advancing the Scriptures as the only rule?"

2. I asserted that the third fundamental principle of the Pilgrims was, the "perfect independence of every congregational church." Your answer to this statement is contained in the following sentence. "If

he means by this that our fathers considered every individual church as in all respects independent of the neighbouring churches, acknowledging no formal connexion with them, or responsibility to them; or if he means that our fathers considered and styled themselves Independents, he is greatly mistaken." Now you knew perfectly well the meaning of my proposition. You knew that I meant neither of your statements. Our fathers disclaimed the name of Independents; and this every one must know who ever read their writings. They acknowledged their connexion with sister churches, so far as to live on terms of union and fellowship. But they considered each church as perfectly independent. In proof of your assertion, you have made two quotations. One is from the apologists of the Westminster Assembly. Now in the name of common sense, what has the opinion of these men to do with the independency of the New England churches. You might as well have quoted from the proceedings of the Council of Trent. Did you bring forward this extract through ignorance, or to blind the eyes of the more ignorant of your own denomination?

Your other quotation, you ascribe to Increase Mather. You have given no reference to the place where it is to be found. I believe you have perverted his meaning; for I find no such sentiment in any of his writings; and I find the place from which your other quotation is taken. And in that very connexion, Increase Mather is disclaiming the name of Independents, and at the same time advocating the independency of congregational churches. I will give you a few sentences from this very place, which must put you to shame and confusion. "The principles of those, who are for the congregational discipline, are such as these. 3. That a particular church has power given to them from the Lord Christ, to choose their own officers, viz. pastors, teachers, ruling elders, and deacons. 5. That a particular church being furnished with elders, at least with a teaching elder, has full power to exercise discipline within itself, without depending on any other superior jurisdiction. The famous Mr. Paul Baine affirms particular churches are equal and independent on one another. It is very unreasonable, that for this, congregational men should be nicknamed Independents. A late author says, that in the primitive times every particular church was independent, that is, that it had a sufficient right and power in itself to punish all its delinquencies, without the concurrence of other churches. There is then no reason why such as are for the congregational discipline, should be reproachfully called Independents." All this was written by Increase Mather in his seventyeighth year; and as you perceive, is designed as a defence of the independency of the congregational churches. But this is not all. I will give you another extract from his works, written when he was eighty-one years old. These are his words. "That the churches of New England have been originally of the congregational persuasion