THE

MERCERSBURG REVIEW .

SEPTEMBER, 1852 .

VOL. IV.----NO . V.

CYPRIAN .

Third Article

CYPRIAN'S doctrine of the CHURCH We have found to be

fundamental to his whole theology and religious - life . In pro
portion as this is the case, it becomes important to understand
well in what relation it stood to the faith and life of the Chris
tian world generally in the first ages. To do justice to the
man, as well as to judge properly of the doctrine, we must in
quire how far this was peculiar to himself and to the time when
he lived, or is to be regarded as having come down by legitimate
inheritance and tradition from a still older period, as part of the
faith which was supposed to have been originally, delivered to
the saints. To feel the full significance of such an inquiry, we
need only to bring to mind distinctly the leading features of the
Cyprianic doctrine of the church , and to observe at the same
time the broad contrast and contradiction in which they may be
seen at once to stand , with the thinking of a large portion of
the modern so called evangelical world on the same subject .
What is most necessary to be kept in view in the Cyprianic
VOL. IV.NO. V. 27.
508 Evangelical Radicalism . [SEPTEMBER ,

EVANGELICAL RADICALISM.

THE CHURCH MEMBER'S MANUAL OF ECCLESIASTICAL PRIN

CIPLES , DOCTRINE AND DISCIPLINE : Presenting a syste
matic view of the structure, polity, doctrines, and practices
of Christian Churches, as taught in the Scriptures . By
WILLIAM CROWELL, & c. Boston : Gould and Lincoln . 1852.

A truly interesting and suggestive book--though not exactly

in the way of its own intention . The author is a Baptist, who
proposes to set forth a scheme of the Church to suit the ration
alistic standpoint of his own sect ; " his only desire being to fol
low truth, wherever it may lead . " To answer the question ,
" What and where is the church ?" he scorns the thought of
taking counsel of the Church itself. " I might as well go to
Delphi or Dodona," he tells us, " or the shrine of Jupiter Am
mon, to inquire who is the god , and where is his temple ." Pa
gan and Christian theocracies, it seems, are alike without truth
and entitled to no trust. The whole appeal must be " to the
Bible ;" which means, of course, to the Bible as read by Wil
liam Crowell and his Baptist brethren, in distinction from the
reading of Presbyterians, Lutherans, &c . , &c . , as well as from
the sense attached to it by the ancient Fathers and the Catholic
Church of all past ages. " Hitherto Baptists have paid but little
attention to the subject of church polity ;" too busy with the
interests of " spiritual Christianity in its primitive form," to
give much attention to any such outward concern . We will
not pretend here to go minutely into the theory now concocted
out of the Bible, for their special accommodation and use, by
this Church Member's Manual Suffice it to say, that it is pre
eminently rationalistic. The idea of a general church, save in
the sense of a mere abstraction , is discarded ; the only true
order in the case , is that of many distinct churches, each per
fectly original and independent in its own sphere. A church
thus is simply an association of believers, who join together in
this way for their common advantage in the Christian life, un
der the pledge of baptism " Men have a natural right to asso
ciate by mutual agreement for the accomplishment of any in
nocent or useful purpose . In this way civil government was
first formed, and God owned the institution as one of his own
appointment. The disciples of Christ have the right to unite
themselves together in churches, for the promotion of their piety
and the spread of the Gospel , unless he has forbidden them in
his revealed word. This he has not done. It is, therefore
1852.1 Evangelical Radicalism . 609

from the nature of the case, proper that men should unite in a
mutual, voluntary covenant for religious purposes . The objects
in view are more important than those attained in the civil com
pact, in which men unite in a mutual covenant for a common
benefit ; and the act is as reasonable and as necessary in itself."
-P. 55 , 56. Every particular church, so formed by social con
tract, holds its powers directly and exclusively from Christ, who
alone is head over all things to the churches, without the inter
vention of Pope, Bishop , or General Assembly. " Each one ,"
as the celebrated Dr. Wayland dogmatizes the matter, " is a
perfect and complete system. The decisions of one are not
binding on another. Each one is at liberty to interpret the laws
of Christ for itself, and to govern itself according to that inter
pretation . Each church is therefore as essentially independent
of every other, as though each one were the only church in
Christendom."-P. 80. So runs this Bible scheme of the Bap
tists. We have no room here to go into any close consideration
of its merits. But it speaks for itself. Only think of Rous
seau's theory of social contract, deliberately applied to the grand
and glorious mystery of the HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH.
The scheme is completely at war, it will be readily seen , with
what was held to be Christianity in the first ages. Of this its
patrons may not feel it necessary to make any account . Enough
that they can pretend to have the Bible at all events on their
side. Weighed against such authority, of what worth or force
is Christian antiquity-even though it should reach back to the
very age next following that of the Apostles ? Still however
the fact is one, which ought to be distinctly seen and acknowl
edged . Let it pass for what it may, it deserves to be fully un
derstood and held up to view. This Baptist theory of Christi
anity is not what was held to be the " mystery of godliness," in
the early church . Neither is the difference circumstantial only
and accidental. It goes to the heart of religion. It has to do
with its universal system . We have in the two cases actually
two gospels, two altogether different versions of the Christian
salvation . In one case, all rests on the Creed ; in the other this
fundamental symbol is charged with heresy and falsehood . In
one case, the church is made to be supernatural , and is honored
as the real medium of salvation to her children ; in the other
she is treated as a " figment" in every such view, and falls into
the conception of a social contract. The ministry in one case
holds its commission. and its powers from God ; in the other case
it is the creature of man. In the one case , the sacraments are
seals and bearers of heavenly grace ; in the other, they possess.
510 Evangelical Radicalism . [SEPTEMBER,

no such mystic force whatever. The creed of the ancient

church, this modern system openly turns into a lie. What all
antiquity believed, it takes a pride in refusing to believe ; and
affects to be spiritual, by treating with contempt the real myste.
ry of the Spirit's presence , in the only form in which it was to
all Christian antiquity an object of faith . How can too such
contrary systems be considered for one moment the same ? They
exclude each other. If one is to stand , the other must fall.
Brought before the tribunal of this modern system , the ancient
Christianity is found to be altogether wrong and false. We
have only however to reverse the procedure, by bringing the
modern system to the bar of the ancient, and at once the false
hood and wrong fall just as conclusively over to the other side.
The two schemes are completely at issue. The contest between
them is one of life and death . When the modern system chal
lenges our faith , it asks us in fact to renounce all connection
with the faith and religious life of the Church of the first ages.
And so on the other hand if we feel it necessary to hold fast to
the communion of this primitive piety-if we cannot bear the
thought of giving up all spiritual fellowship with the martyrs ,
confessors, fathers and saints, of the early ages, and are not will
ing to set them all down for fanatics and fools- if we tremble
to stigmatize the Christianity that conquered the Roman world
as the invention of Satan , root and branch-we must not, and
dare not, shrink from the responsibility of declaring the ration
alistic unsacramental system now before us a dangerous delusion ,
which all who value the salvation of their souls are bound relig
iously to avoid. It would have been so regarded , beyond all
controversy, by the universal church in the beginning. There
would have been as little patience with it precisely, as there was
with Gnosticism . It would have been branded openly as a vir
tual denial of the entire mystery of the Gospel . Of this, we
say, there can be no doubt, and in regard to it there should be
no equivocation or disguise.
Shall we be told then , that it is harsh to think and speak as
we do of the religious system now under consideration , because
it embraces a large amount of respectable Christian profession at
the present time, and is nothing more in fact than the last phase
of what is called orthodox Puritanism , which many hold to be the
very perfection and ne plus ultra of evangelical religion ? We
reply by asking, How is it to be helped ? We are shut up to a
sore dilemma here, from which there is no possible escape . We
must break with this modern Puritanic system, or else break
with the whole Christianity of the first ages. No sophistry can
1852.1 Evangelical Radicalism. 511

cause them to appear the same. The Creed of the one, is the
Lie of the other. What was the mystery of godliness in the
old church, this new faith unblushingly declares to be the mys
tery of iniquity. In such circumstances we have no choice,
except to say with which of the two interests we hold it best to
make cominon cause. To justify the one, is necessarily to
condemn the other. To show respect towards this new faith,
because it is outwardly respectable, must we cover with reproach
and disgrace the old faith from the days of Polycarp and Igna
tius to those of Ambrose and Augustine ? Do we owe no re
spect also, and no charity, to the first Christian ages ? What
right indeed can those have to demand our tenderness and for
bearance, in so grave a case, who make no account whatever of
the reputation or credit of whole centuries of past Christian his
tory, but modestly require us to set them all down as heretical
and false over against themselves ? What is the peculiar merit
of this Baptistic Puritanism , a thing comparatively of yesterday,
that it should be allowed thus to insult all Christian antiquity,
and have full exemption at the same time from every unfavora
ble judgment upon its own pretensions and claims ? " What !"
we may well say to it in the language of St. Paul, " Came the
word of God out from you ; or came it unto you only ?" Who
art thou, upstart system ! that thou shouldst set thyself in such
proud style above the universal church of antiquity-the imme
diate successors of the Apostles, the noble army of martyrs, the
goodly fellowship of the fathers, the vast cloud of witnesses that
look down upon us from these ages of faith- charging it with
wholesale superstition and fully, and requiring us to renounce its
creed , the whole scheme and habit of its religious life , and to
accept from thy hands, in place of it, another form of belief,
another scheme of doctrine altogether, as infallibly true and
right ? Who gave thee this authority ? Whence came such
infallibility ?
With immense self-complacency , the system lays its hand on
the Bible, and says : This is my warrant. Aye, but who is to
interpret this written revelation ? Reason, replies the system .
" The Bible is the church's supreme law, reason is her court.
The Bible is the compass ; reason , lighted by the Spirit of God ,
is the binnacle lamp. " There we have it . Reason , every man's
reason for himself, the world's private judgment and common
sense with such religious illumination as it may come to in its
own sphere, is the court, the tribunal, by which the law in this
case is to take the form of truth and life. Is that not rational
ism almost without disguise ? What more could the worst radi .
 512 Evangelical Radicalism . [SEPTEMBER,

calism ask or want ? But for the present, let that pass. Bap.
tistic Puritanism appeals to the Bible. We now boldly deny,
that it has the Bible on its side. This goes on the contrary full
as much against its claims and pretensions throughout, as Chris
tian antiquity itself. When it seems to have any part of the
Bible in its favor, it is only by reading into it in the first place
its own sense, by begging before hand the whole question in
debate, by taking for granted what is to be proved , and by mak
ing its own rationalistic hypothesis in this way the standpoint
from which is taken afterwards every observation of the Divine
text. Even then the result is at best but a lame and forced con
struction. The New Testament is as far removed , as it well
can be, from the Baptistic and Independent habit of mind. It
proceeds throughout on the assumption, that Christianity is a
mystery, a constitution above nature , objectively at hand under
a real historical form in the world , to which men must submit
by faith in such view in order to be saved. This of itself in
volves the whole doctrine of the Church, with its Divine juris
diction and heavenly powers, its ministry starting from Christ,
its grace bearing sacraments, its unity and catholicity , the uni
versal course of the new creation , we may say, as it is made to
pass before us in the Creed. Only let the standpoint of this
old faith be taken, in reading the Scriptures, the same that was
occupied by the church in the beginning, and it will soon be
found all that is needed , to expose the huge illusions of the
Baptistic exegesis, and to set the Bible before us in a wholly
different light and sense.
And why should not this old standpoint be taken, when we
thus approach the Bible ? Why should we renounce the pos
ture of faith in which the ancient church stood, and take, at the
bidding of Puritanism , what must be considered as compared
with it a posture of infidelity or no -faith, that we may be sup .
posed to study God's word to purpose and effect? The absurdi
ty of such a requirement is greater than can be easily expressed.
Its most enormous presumption may well fill us with wonder
and surprise .
J. W. N