Reformation conducted with more asperity and bitterness than in Scotland; and seldom are more cruelty and barbarity to be met with, in history, than are to be found during the war which was carried on in Scotland, and which was stigmatised under the name of Bellum Episcopale, because instigated mainly by the Bishops of the day, and in their own defence. Hence, the names Presbyterian and Presbytery were used by their. enemies, as meaning every thing that was reproachful and contemptible; and the term Presbyterian was applied to any one who manifested opposition to prelatical Episcopacy, or any of the dogmas or ceremonies peculiar to that system.

Another term of reproach was generally used in England, as applicable to those who opposed any of the rites and ceremonies which were left in the Established Church of England by Henry VIII, in his partial reformation. During the reign of that arbitrary monarch, whatever opposition was felt to his mongrel system of religion, it had to be smothered in silence for fear of his vindictive resentment. But, during the reigns of Edward VI and Elizabeth, a general desire was expressed to carry on the Reformation more in conformity with that which existed in other Protestant nations. Certain clerical vestments borrowed from Popery, and certain rites and usages which had been prostituted to superstitious purposes, were objected to by those who wished to see the Church assume more of its primitive purity; and the name of Puritan was fallen upon, as a sneer-> ing term of reproach, and applied to those scrupulous persons by their enemies. And, in England, the name of Puritan was applied to every one who adhered to the Calvinistic system of 'doctrines which characterized the creed and articles of that church at first, and who opposed her unscriptural rites and ceremonies. They were sometimes called Doctrinal Puritans, or Ceremonial Puritans, as they wished the application to be made.

Very little objection, at first, was made in England to the form of govern-i ment then in use-and if these Puritans could have been gratified in other matters, the most of them would have remained very peacefully in the Established Church. But the high church party, with Queen Elizabeth as its head, began to grasp at power, and assert high prerogrative rights, to such an extent that the ranks of the Puritans were rapidly filled up, and they soon became as much opposed to ecclesiastical domination and prelatical usurpation as their neighbors in Scotland. But it was not, primarily or mainly, Prelacy they were opposed to, so much as to its overgrown power and despotic assumptions. They could easily have been brought to submit to, and even approve of, a modified form of Episcopacy, such as was proposed by Archbishop Usher. But when this was denied them, they were called Puritans, or Presbyterians, as interchangeble terms.

Hence the loose and indiscriminate use which is so often made of these terms, which have bewildered and led astray so many persons, and which afford a pretext for those, who are hard run for better arguments, to resort to them, to answer a purpose. A quotation from Dr. Miller* will set: this matter in a clear light: "Although the title of Presbyterian is, in popular language, chiefly confined to the churches in Great Britain and Ireland, and those who descended from them who hold the doctrine of ministerial parity, and maintain a government by Presbyteries, yet the: term, as every well-informed reader knows, is much more extensive in its application. The Reformed Churches of Holland, France, Germany, and Geneva, were all as really Presbyterian as that of Scotland. That is, they all unanimously and decisively maintained the parity of Minis-> ters, and the Scriptural warrant of Ruling Elders, and the government of larger districts of the Church by Presbyteries and Synods-in other words, by a number of Ministers and Ruling Elders, sitting judicially, and deciding authoritatively on the general concerns of the Church in a kingdom or province. Nay, even the Lutheran Churches in Germany, Sweden, and Denmark, at the era of the Reformation, adopted the essential principles of the Presbyterian government." [This last is a favor ite expression of Professor Hodge, when he wishes to answer a purpose by it.] "They all maintained, and do to the present day maintain, the ordaining power of Presbyteries; and many of them have Ruling Elders in their churches. Luther himself, though only a Presbyter, ordained a number of Ministers, and declared ordination by Presbyters to be the Apostolic mode. In short, the whole Protestant world, excepting the Church of England and those who descended from her, at the period of the Reformation, either adopted Presbyterian principles in all their extent, or recognized and incorporated the essential parts of that system in their respective constitutions." A quotation or two shall now be given from Professor Hodge's late publication. Page 12. "With regard to church order, it is contended that our church adopted, from the beginning, and has ever continued to exercise, that form of government which had been previously adopted in Scotland, Ireland, Holland, and by the Protestants of France. This system was every where, in all its distinctive and essential features, the same." Again: page 26. "Of the Presbyterians there appear to be two divisions; the one strenuous for the whole system; the other willing to admit Archbishop Usher's plan, either from preference: or as a compromise." Let these statements now be analyzed, and see how they will hang together, and where they will lead.

Dr. Miller asserts that "the Lutheran Churches of Germany, Sweden, and Denmark, at the Reformation, all adopted the essential principles of Presbyterian government." What is it that makes one really a Presbyterian? "Decidedly to maintain the parity of Ministers, and the Scriptu ral warrant of Ruling Elders, and the government of larger districts of the Church by Presbyteries and Synods." So far from Dr. Miller. We shall now hear Professor Hodge. The system of Presbyterianism, which, he says, is every where the same, "requires the government of individual congregations to be vested in the Pastor and Elders, and not in the brotherhood. It requires the association of several particular churches, under one Presbytery, composed of Ministers and Elders. It provides for provincial and national Synods, composed of delegates from the lower courts and recognized as belonging to Synods, the authority of review and control, and the right to set down rules for the government of the Church.” 1. Ministerial parity, a warrant for Ruling Elders, and the government of the Church by Presbyteries and Synods, form the essence of Presbyterianism. Do Germany, Sweden, and Denmark govern their churches by Presbyteries and Synods? No! How then do they possess the essential principles of Presbyterian government? "They maintain the ordaining power of Presbyters, and many of them have Ruling Elders." Diocesan Bishops never ordain without the assistance of Presbyters. Are they, therefore, Presbyterians? And if some have Ruling Elders, while others have none, will that impart to the rest the essential properties of Presbyterianism? This is certainly very loose reasoning. Can Professor Hodge show us any Puritans who admitted that congregations ought to be govern ed by Pastors and Elders, without the brotherhood? Yet this is one of his essential features of Presbyterianism. Did the Cambridge Platform, in which he said all the essential elements of Presbyterianism predominated, contain this principle? Did the Saybrook Platform, which, he said, even went beyond Presbyterianism, admit any such principle? It is no wonder that this writer can find the essential elements of Presbyto rianism in so many nations, and among so many people, upon such loose principles of reasoning as these.

Professor Hodge admits that there are two kinds of Presbyterians—one strenuous for their whole system, the other willing to admit Archbishop Usher's plan. Did Archbishop Usher's plan contain the whole of the Scotch system of Presbyterianism or not? If it did, then there was but one kind of Presbyterians-if it did not, then there was a class of Presbyterians who did not admit all the essentials of the Scotch system...

Which of these systems is it that our Professor contends for, as being adopted by the Mother Church, and always practised upon, from the be ginning? Was it not the strict Scotch system? And was it not this

+

same strict system, which he says was professed by all the different colonists, from various nations, who first united in forming the Mother Presbytery? But hear him, once more. Page 31, note: "When the erroneous doctrines, the Popish ceremonies, and the exceeding tyranny of the high church party, under Charles I, had driven almost the whole of the better part of the Church, as well as the nation, into the ranks of the Puritans, there were among them many who were sincerely attached to Episcopacy, and who desired nothing more than the correction of the abuses of that system. With these, the Presbyterian Puritans were generally disposed to make a common cause, and to settle the Church on the plan that was called 'Primitive Episcopacy,' according to which the Bishop was little more than the presiding officer of a Presbytery-an episcopus præses, not an episcopus princeps, having the sole power of ordination and discipline. This is perfectly consistent with their decided preference for their own plan of government." It is asked, is this consistent with the Scotch system? Did the Scotch ever sanction such a system? It was once imposed upon them. Did they ever submit to it as a compromise? Was there any thing in the Act of Union of 1801 as offensive as this? Are not the essential principles of Presbyterianism the same at one time as at another?

Let the inquiry now be made, what was the Scotch system, of which we have heard so much of late, and from which authority is pleaded for the reforming policy which has unsettled and upturned our former peaceful Church. It is now contended that it is essential to that system that the Church should be governed by Church Sessions, consisting of the Pastor and Ruling Elders that these Ruling Elders must now be elected for life," and ordained in a certain form, or else the want of it will vitiate all that comes in contact with it. Though the Scotch Church sometimes chose Elders only from year to year, that is not the system now pleaded for. Again: There must be a Presbytery, composed of the Pastors and Delegates from the Elderships of many distinct congregations; there must be Synods, composed of three or more Presbyteries; and, to finish the system, there must be a General Assembly, composed of the delegates of the different Presbyteries, and a certain portion from the principal Towns and Boroughs, also from the Universities-the whole to be presided over by the King's Commissioner. This General Assembly to possess full powers to do whatever they may think conducive to the welfare of the Church, and to deal out such powers as the Assembly may please to the inferior courts; retaining the same to themselves, at the same time, when they may think proper to exercise them. That this General Assembly has not only the power to suppress popery, prelacy, heresy, schism, profaneness, &c. but are bound to do so; and if the civil

power will not aid them in doing this work, they have jure divino authority to do it notwithstanding. That no liberty or indulgence is to be given to those who may differ from them in opinion concerning doctrine, government, or practice. No intercourse or communion is to be held with other sectaries, nor will they, to this day, admit even one of their old school advocates, from this or any other country, into their pulpits, or to sit in their judicatories. The system will not, and never did, admit of compromise with any other. It will have the whole or nothing. They are consistent, if their Divine right claims can be made out. It is not to be wondered at, then, that even the aliens or retainers of this system should exhibit something of the same uncompromising and domineering spirit; for it is an essential element or principle of the system itself. Witness the Solemn League and Covenant, and its history and effects in Europe and elsewhere.

History does not

This Scottish system is essentially and necessarily illiberal and intolerant; it cannot be otherwise to be consistent, and it is made still worse by its connexion with the State, as established by law. afford a solitary instance of a compromise, or an act of tolerance, further than they were compelled by a power superior to their ecclesiastical courts. Such is the PATERNITY which Professor Hodge is anxious to establish for himself and his party. Gen. 49–5, 6. "Simeon and Levi are brethren. The instruments of cruelty are in their habitation, [system.] O my soul, come not thou into their secret! Unto their Assembly, mine honor, be not thou united, for in their anger they slew a man, [yea 60,000,] and in their self-will they digged down a wall," [even the bulwarks of our Constitution.]

Be it remembered, that it is only the Scottish system of church polity, according to Pardovan and Stuart, which has grown into such high favor of late, and which strenuous attempts are being made to bring into operation among us, that is now the subject of discussion and dissection. The Scotch, as a people and a nation, deserve to stand among the highest for intelligence, morality, and personal piety. No one can read the history of their wars and persecutions without the liveliest interest and highest respect; a more noble race of confessors and martyrs the world never produced; and more piety and heavenly mindedness are nowhere to be found. But while these feelings are excited by their great suffering, one cannot help wishing they had possessed more enlarged and enlightened views upon some subjects, especially religious freedom and tolerance, and that they had shewn more of the meekness of wisdom and the milk of human kindness. The greater part of their misfortunes proceeded from the contractedness of their views and system upon certain points. It was their illiberality, their exclusive and uncompromising principles, which over