Christian observer

              NEW SERIES, NO. 253.
FOR THE DIFFUSION OF TRUTH AND THE SUPPORT OF THE PRINCIPLES OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES.
S. RELIGIOUS TELEGRAPH.
A. CONVERSE, EDITOR:—NO. 10 SOUTH FIFTH ST.
PHILADELPHIA,  FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 22,  1844.
■
VOL. XXIII. NO. 47.
CHRISTIAN OBSERVER.
For thc Christian Observer.
AN   EXAMINATION   OF   THE    MUTILA¬
TIONS matte by tlie AMERICAN TRACT
SOCIETY,
In D'Aubigxk's History of the Refor¬
mation.
IIistout of thf. Great Refoujiatiox of thk
SiZTEK-TH Ckxtuht ix GerM-ST, Swit-
-KitT.ixn, &c. nr J. H. Meiile D'Auiuone,
Publi.sheJ by the American Tract Society.
We rejoice that the attention of the pub- j case before him ?
lie is beginning to be turned to this muti¬
lated edition of D'Aubigne. Much surprise
lias been felt in various quarters at the al¬
most unbroken silence ofthe religious presy
in reference to it. There has been no
want of watchfulness or of a disposition to
speak out in regard to individual attempts
to change, even in the slightest degree, the
pages of this work. An edition in which
a few of the less important notes were
omitted, did not escape censure. But in re¬
ference to this mutilated edition, nothing
scarcely has been said. This silence is
neither just to individuals, nor is it for the
public good. The fact that such an edition
lias been published by one of our benevo¬
lent societies, ought not, we think, to shield
it from criticism, or the work of mutilation
from censure, if it bc deserved. It will be
a dark day in the history of the church,
and a day of degeneracy in the action of
the human mind, when the acts ofour be¬
nevolent societies come to be considered
too sacred for examination—too hallowed
lo be spoken of, except in the language of
unmeasured eulogy. We have no sympa¬
thy with any such position, nor do we be¬
lieve there is any in the bosoms generally
of those who are more immediately con¬
cerned in the management of our benevo¬
lent institutions. Let there be no conceal¬
ment—no reluctance to have any act fairly-
tried. Examination will neither lessen nor
impede the influence of what is right.
The History of the Reformation by
D'Aubigne has been extensively circulated
and read, and greatly admired, both in Eu¬
rope and in this country. The appearance
of the work was very opportune, and, as
we feel, most providential. No work in
our day has exerted a wider or more salu¬
tary influence in favor of truth and right¬
eousness. We have rejoiced in its rapid
and almost unprecedented sale, and have
ever been ready to second any effort, how¬
ever humble, to give it a still wider and
more extensive circulation. None, we sup¬
posed, except those who sympathize with
that faith whose abominations it so fully
and ably exposes, or those whose tenden¬
cies are strongly towards Rome, and who
therefore look upon the Reformation as
wrong, and upon the great doctrine of jus¬
tification by faith, proclaimed by Luther, as
one ofthe worst of heresies, could be found,
who would object to the work as presented
to the world by its talented, judicious,
most candid, and catholic author. We "Were
not a little surprised, therefore, when Ave
saw it announced that the American Tract
Society was about to publish an edition of
this work with some omissions. We knew,
indeed, that the compound sieve of that So¬
ciety is so made, as not to allow any thing
peculiar to any one of its different threads,
to pass through it. But we knew not how
to believe that there was a single sentence
in D'Aubigne, which could be offensive to
any element in a Society of such boasted
catholicity. Our surprise may easily be
imagined, therefore, by the reader, when
he sees, as we have, what had first to be
sifted out of this work, ere it could appear
with the imprimatur of the Tract Society
upon it.
Before we speak, however, of the al¬
terations made in this edition of D'Au¬
bigne, we have something to say concern¬
ing the notices of it published by thc So¬
ciety. In the Messenger of December,
1843, the following information was given
to the public: " The Society will issue,
early in December, D'Aubigne's History of
the Great Reformation, in three volumes,
with the notes complete, except that a few
sentences unessential to the integrity of
the work, are omitted." On page 2d of
vol. I., it is stated that " in this edition a
few sentences, not essential to the integri¬
ty of the work, are omitted." Again, in
their last annual report, page 12, it is said
that " a few passages, incidentally touch¬
ing points on which evangelical Christians
differ, have been omitted," antl that these
omissions are " entirely unessential to the
great object and general bearing of the I gion of man
work."  Now, in several important particu- j nipt heart ?
sages omitted" are " entirely unessen¬
tial to the great object and general bear¬
ing of the work." This, we think, is no
great compliment to the learned and dis¬
criminating author. His "great object"
was to give us the History of the Reforma¬
tion, and are we to conclude that he has
introduced into his History four pages of
matter wholly irrelevant to thc great end
which he had in view—entirely unessen-
I tial to his "great object 1" Who is to be
j the judge of this ? The Secretary of the
Society for foreign correspondence, or the
learned author, with all the facts in the
And besides, who that
has read the work of D'Aubigne, has found
there passages which are entirely unessen¬
tial to the great object of the book? The
sentences omitted are essential to the ob¬
ject of thc writer, as the reader will see.
But there is another assertion yet in
these notices which is still more strange. It
is that these " few sentences omitted," are
"not essential to the integrity of the
work." "What does this mean? How
much may we take from a work without
affecting its integrity ? As this is a
matter of some importance, we will give
it a moment's attention. The word integ¬
rity comes from the Latiu, (in and tago i.
e. tango,) and denotes the state or condi¬
tion of that which is untouched—of that
from which nothing has been taken away.
Thus we speak of the integrity of a year,
or of territory, meaning thc whole of it.
If you take a single day from the year, or
a single foot from the territory of our coun¬
try, you affect its integrity. If we were to
publish an edition of the Bible, and were
to leave out the most unimportant sen¬
tence in the whole book, could we say that
we had omitted nothing essential to the in¬
tegrity of the Scriptures ? Never. We
might as well affirm that the whole of a
thing does not include all its parts. The
integrity of a book means its wholeness-
its condition when untouched—when no¬
thing has been taken from it. The word,
therefore, does not admit of subtraction.
To omit even " a few sentences" in it, and
yet say that we have done nothing which
affects its integrity, is entirely incorrect,
and leaves a wrong impression on the
minds of men. The integrity of the work
of D'Aubigne is deeply affected by these
changes. It is no longer the work, as it
came from his hands. It does not speak
at least, as he speaks in his History ofthe
Reformation, as first published in this
country. Its integrity is gone. We are
sorry to say this, but the facts in the case
force it from us. We are sure that the con¬
victions of the reader will fall in with our
own, when once we have placed before
him a sample even of the changes which
have been made in it. This is all that our
limits will permit, and all that we prepose
to do.
In our examination of this mutilated edi¬
tion, we shall compare it with the work of
D'Aubigne, as first published iu this coun¬
try. We begin with the Preface. On page
8, " the flel uf the "hierarchy" is changed
into that of the " Roman Church," that is
a part of the truth, is put in the place of]
the whole of it. Again, on page 9, the au¬
thor says, " I apply tbe words religion of
God to the truth, such as God himself has
given it." This is made to read thus : "I
apply the words, religion of God, to the
gospel, with ils ordinances, as God him¬
self has given it." Here again the mean¬
ing of the author is abridged. The gospel
denotes the glad tidings of salvation, re¬
vealed to man through a Mediator, includ¬
ing the character, actions, and doctrines of
Christ, with the whole scheme of salvation,
as revealed by him and his apostles. " The
truth" is a much more comprehensive
term, and embraces all revealed truth.
Besides, what does the gospel, with its or¬
dinances, mean ? Are not these ordinances
a part of the gospel? Can they be omitted
without affecting the " integrity" of the
gospel ? We have heard of gospel ordi¬
nances, and the ordinances of the gospel
—but •' the gospel, with its ordinances,"
is new to us.
The author goes on to illustrate more
fully what the three kinds of religion, of
which he has spoken, are. " Hierarchism,"
he says, "is the religion of the priest;
Christianity, the religion of God ; and ra¬
tionalism, tbe religion of man." This sen¬
tence is omitted. But why omit it ? Is it
not true that hierarchism is the religion of
the priest, that it is devised by the priest,
is for the glory of the priest, and in which
a priestly caste is dominant ? And is it
not also true, that rationalism is the reli-
the creature of his own cor-
Why then conceal the fact?
lars, these notices mislead the reader. We' And especially, if it be true, as the au-
do not say, nor do we at all believe, that' thor asserts, that there is no salvation,
they were so intended. But they do con- ■ either for man or society, in hierarchism,
vey a wrong impression. I or in rationalism ?    Is  there a system of
In thc first place, we should conclude,! hay, Avood, and stubble, that the (ires of
from the language here used, that the omis-1 the judgment will consume, which the
sions are confined to the notes. The So- ! Tract Society is unwilling to point out to
ciety says it is about to publish tbe work] the deluded inhabitants ofthe earth? Is there
in three volumes, with the notes complete, | an error so fundamental as to exclude all
except, &c. Here it is the notes which are j who embrace it from eternal life, which
complete, with the exception of a few sen- j that Society cannot touch ? Is its arm so
tences.   But this is not the fact, as will be I short that it cannot reach the delusions of
hierarchy and of rationalism ?
We leave the Preface, and pass on to the
seen.
Again, it is asserted that  " a Jew sen¬
tences are omitted." We do not believe | body of the work. In vol. L, p. 20, the au-
that thc impression made by this language J thor says : " The doctrine of k the church,'
will ever, in a single instance, correspond [ and of the necessity for its visible unity,
with that which would be made on the ' which had gained footing, as early as the
mind by a full exhibition of all the altera- I third century, favored the pretensions of
tions in the work. In repeated instances,! Rome." This sentence is thus mutilated:
nearly the third of a page is omitted, and « The doctrine of the visible unity of the
in one case a whole page i3 blotted out.' church was made to favor the pretensions
These omissions amount in a\\ to about | of Rome." Here the doctrine of " the
four pages when brought together. The church" is excluded. The author is not
reader, therefore, does not get the correct, allowed to tell us how early this iron bed
impression of the extent of these changes began to be formed in the church, nor is he
from the language here used in reference to permitted to say that this doctrine of" the
them. I church," and of the necessity for its visi-
It is moreover asserted that only " a few j ble unity, did favor the  pretensions of
Rome.    His remark is tortured into this :
sentences are omitted." Any one would
conclude from this, that the changes are
confined simply to omissions. No one
would ever dream of any other alterations,
of the substitution of one word for ano¬
ther, or of one sentence for another. The
impression made on the mind is simply
that a few things have been left out, not
that any thing new has been introduced.
But this impression is not in accordance
with the facts in the case, as will be seen
hereafter. The work is altered in various
ways. In some instances the author is not
permitted to say what he does say; in
others he is made to assert what he does
not assert. The notice therefore conveys
an erroneous impression to the mind of the
reader.
It is also stated here that the " few pas-
o'f it is, therefore, that this " idea" soon
became paramount to the living faith in the
heart! All allusion to the causes which
originated and developed this idea is omit¬
ted, because the causes themselves are to
be excluded. We give the paragraph here,
as it shows the peculiar sensitiveness that
prevails in certain quarters, and which ruled
out these historical facts. " Men," says the
author, "accustomed to the associations
and political forms of an earthly country,
carried their views and habits of mind into
the spiritual and everlasting kingdom of
Jesus Christ. Persecution, powerless to
destroy, or even to shake the new commu¬
nity, compressed it into the form of a more
compacted body. To the errors that arose
in the schools of deism, or in the various
sects, was opposed the truth, " one and
universal," received from the apostles, and
preserved in the church."
On the same page the author says, that
when faith in the heart no longer knit to¬
gether in one all the members of the
church, " then it was that other ties were
sought, and Christians were united by
means of bishops, archbishops, popes, mi¬
tres, ceremonies, and canons. The living
church, retiring by degrees to the lonely
sanctuary of a few solitary souls, an exte¬
rior church was substituted in place of it,
and installed in all its forms as of divine in¬
stitution—salvation no longer flowing forth
from that word, which was now hidden."
This whole paragraph is blotted out, the
connection between what precedes and fol¬
lows it is broken, and thus the full mean¬
ing of the author is hidden from the eyes
of men. And what reason is there for this
omission ? The facts here are facts—are
admitted historical truths. Why conceal
them ? They are essential to a full and cor¬
rect understanding of the modus in quo of
this visible unity of the church.
D'Aubigne connects another error, di¬
rectly with the one just mentioned, as its
legitimate consequent. " As soon," he
says on page 21, "as the notion of a sup¬
posed necessity for a visible unity of the
church, had taken root, another error be¬
gan to spread—namely, that it was need¬
ful that there should be some outward re¬
presentative of that unity." The connec¬
tion of this error with that which preceded
it and caused its existence, is omitted, and
the sentence trimmed down into this,—
" Anoiher error soon began to spread—
namely, that it was needful that there
should be some representative of that out¬
ward unity." The author makes " out¬
ward" qualify representative. The Tract
Society has transferred it to the word " uni¬
ty." The connection of these two errors is
a most important historical fact. The author
makes the former the cause of the latter.
" As soon," he says, " as the one had
taken root, the other began to spread."—
Why, we ask as Protestants, why -conceal
this truth ? Why not permit the reader to
see how the Pope succeeded to an author-
offensive to some element in the Tract
Society. They are, therefore, wholly ex¬
cluded from this edition, as far as we can
see, though they frequently occur in the
original work, and are essential to a correct
understanding of the author, and of the
history ofthe times described by him. In
the place of these well known historical
terms, we have " the enthusiasts of the
day"—" the fanatics of the times," and
other like circumlocutions. These changes
often obscure the meaning, and in other
ways do signal injustice to the author.
But ihis is not all. He is not even allow¬
ed to state the historical fact that " a new
baptism" was one of the things insisted
upon in the preaching of these "' fanatics,"
and that it was " the instrument" by which
" they gathered their congregations." All
allusion to this subject is suppressed, no
matter what chasm it makes in the narra¬
tion of facts, or what connection it breaks
in the reasoning of the author. Hence, on
page 59, we are told ihat " Melancthon's
perplexity and uneasiness continued to in¬
crease." But the cause of this fact is con¬
cealed. " It was not so much the visions"
of these " enthusiasts," " as their doctrine
concerning Baptism, that disturbed him."
Why withhold this simple historical fact ?
On the next page, the author tells us that
" Carlstadt did not receive many things
taught by the new teachers, and especial¬
ly their Anabaptist doctrine." The
words here in small capitals are thrown out
by the Society, and the sentence rendered
wholly indefinite, and the object of its in¬
sertion taken away. On page 308, the
author calls George Jacob " the impetuous
Anabaptist." The Tract Society digni¬
fies him with the title of "the impetuous
leader." The writer says, that this man
constrained many " to receive his baptism"
—which is changed to the words, " to join
him." The author informs us that Gre-
bel, one of these fanatics, came to St. Gall,
" and, on Palm Sunday, proceeded to
the banks of the Sitta, attended by
a great number of his adherents, whom he
there baptized."—In this sentence, all
the words in small capitals are omitted, and
thus the meaning of the author is entirely
changed. On the same page we have the
important and definite piece of information
that Zuingle, resolving to oppose the dis¬
orders of these fanatics, " composed a j
tract," but on what subject the reader is j
not permitted to know. The author says
that "he composed a tract on Baptism."
But this fact is concealed by the Society.
It is singular to what straits the Society
has been driven, in order to accommodate
" the enthusiasts of the day." The Ana¬
baptist, who exclaims, on p. 309, "Give
us the Word of God," has his name chang¬
ed into " one" who was present. And
again, when the Anabaptists cried out,
"Away with the book,"—it is " the multi¬
tude" who do this. It is not quite certain,
however, that they were the multitude on
this pass.    On
ily which Peter never possessed? how he ! that occasion—but we let this pass
J "of the i the same page, thc autnor says, that near
St. Gall there lived an aged farmer, John
obtained, as the pretended "heir
fisherman of Galilee," his dominion over
men—his lordship over a spiritual heri¬
tage ? . It is indeed a_ fact,_painfyl to. some,
but still a fact of mighty warning—that the
union of Christians by means of bishops,
archbishops, mitres, ceremonies, and ca¬
nons, brought Popery into being—caused
Schucher, with his five sons, and that the
whole family, including the servants, had
received " the new baptism." The words
in small capitals are changed into " the new
religion," by the Society. The author,
moreover,   informs   us that  •* on Shrove
the existence of that spiritual despotism, j Tuesday they invited a large party of Ana-
which for so many ages has set its crush- ! baptists to their house. This is trimmed
ing foot upon the neck of prostrate mil- J down to " a large party" simply, but of
lions.    The dearest -*-*----*-* Xe &'**.*  .*, I whom w
The doctrine of the visible unity, &c, was
made to favor these pretensions, i. e. by
being perverted. This, we take it, is not
what the author asserts.
In the same connexion, D'Aubigne says,
that originally a living faith in the heart
was the great bond which bound the mem¬
bers of the church together, and by which
all were joined to Christ as their one
Head, and adds, " But various causes ere
long conspired to originate and develope
the idea of a necessity for some exterior
fellowship." This is mutilated so as to
read thus: " The idea of a necessity for
some exterior fellowship soon became pa¬
ramount." But paramount to what?
There is no other " idea" in the context to
1 which this became superior.   The amount
interests of men in
time and eternity, demand that this fact be
proclaimed over the wide earth.
On page 31, the author says that " all
Christians," at first, " were priests of the
living God, (1 Pet. ii. 9,) with humble
pastors for their guidance." These " hum¬
ble pastors" are changed by the Society
into humble " apostles and teacher'-,"—
and " peculiar privileges in the sight of the
Lord," elevated into " divine preroga¬
tives." We wonder almost why the So¬
ciety did not substitute for " pastors," the
three orders of " bishops, priests, and
deacons." It would not have been a whit
more unwarrantable, than the liberty which
has been taken.
In Vol. II., p. 87, we are told that
Luther shook, to its very foundation, the
papal monarchy. But we are not permit¬
ted to know how he did this. "The truth,
which had been hidden from the church,
even from its first ages," is concealed from
us by the Society—" the truth, which
Luther powerfully set forth at the outset,"
and by which he shook Popery into the
dust, namely, "that there is no such
thing," in the Church of Christ, " as a
priestly caste." We have the agent and
the result of his action, but the means by
which he gained that result is withheld
from us.
Page 111, Luther, after explaining the
true nature of the Lord's supper, says the
author, " passes on to baptism; and it is
here especially that he establishes the ex¬
cellence of faith, and makes a powerful
attack upon Rome. God, he says, has
preserved to us this sacrament alone pure
from human traditions. God has said, he
lhat believeth and is baptized shall be
saved," We should expect in this con¬
nection that Luther would speak of infant
baptism, and so he does, but not in the
Tract Society's edition of this work. The
paragraph directly connected with what
precedes it, and intended to affect the posi¬
tions he had taken—and one in which he
fully justifies infant baptism by reference
to the word of God—is thrown out. By
this omission, Luther is made to confine
baptism to believers. This suppresio veri,
therefore, is in effect a suggestio falsi.
On the next page, Luther continues, " If
the Christian really finds all his salvation
in renewal by baptism, through faith,
what need has he of the prescriptions of
Rome ?" Here the words •" by baptism"
are omitted, and the passage thus stripped
of its import and its object, might as well
be thrown away.
In Vol. III., 32, the author says—" It is
the Episcopal authority itself that Luther
calls to the bar of judgment, in the person
of the German primate." Here the words
in italics axe changed into " the authority
of Rome," and changed too, we must say,
at the expense of historical truth. Again,
on page 36, half of the meaning and force
of Luther's remark about the Archbishop
is taken away, by rejecting the words " and
his Episcopal state," and the Reformer
is made to exclude that dignitary from the
way of salvation, for simply " holding on
to his pretensions as Cardinal," which is
but a part of the truth"
The words " Anabaptist" and " Anabap
, tism,"  as it would seem, are
whom we are not informed, nor are we J
allowed to find it out from anything stated '
in reference to the bloody scene, which oc¬
curred on that occasion. Hence, we have
on the next page, "Their father, brothers,
and others of the company," and not the
other Anabaptists, as D'Aubigne states it.
On page 312 of this mutilated edition,
we are told that " undoubtedly a spirit of
rebellion existed."—But where did it
exist ? Among whom ? This fact is con¬
cealed. The reader is not even told that
it existed among, the « enthusiasts of the
day," "the fanatics of the times," nor
among " the Independents," nor " the mul¬
titude," nor " others of the company," nor
" those," nor " these," nor any other of
the names or circumlocutions, by which
the Anabaptists are here called. The
author says it existed among the Anabap¬
tists. This makes all plain, and leaves
thc guilt of rebellion where it " undoubted¬
ly existed,"—separates the innocent at
once from the guilty.
On page 316, the author states, that
" when Luther saw enthusiasts, who pre¬
tended to inspiration, destroying images,
rejecting baptism, and denying the pre¬
sence of Christ in the Eucharist, he was
affrighted. This sentence is altered so as
to read thus, " When he saw enthusiasts,
who pretended to inspiration, attacking the
external ordinances of the Church, he
was affrighted." This, we think, caps the
climax. Is this.may we ask, the meaning
of the author? Is "destroying images"
thesame as " attackite the external ordi¬
nances of the Churc-t?" Is a denial of
"the presence of Christ in the Eucharist"
an attack upon the ministry of the word?
But we are not quite sure that we under¬
stand what " the external ordinances of the
church" are. We are accustomed to speak
of the ordinances of the Gospel, meaning
those institutions which are of divine ap¬
pointment, and which relate to the wor¬
ship of God, such as baptism, the Lord's
supper, the preaching and hearing of the
Gospel, public prayer, singing, thanks-,
giving, and the like. But " the external
ordinances of the church," is an ex pres-
sion to which our ear is not familiar. We
should also like to ask what the external
ordinances of the Church are in distinction
from the internal. Perhaps in the next
edilion of this work, which is soon, as we
learn, to be issued by the Society, our ig¬
norance may be enlightened.
But we have yet more serious matters to
dispose of. On page 307 of this altered
edition, we find the following declaration,
" The baptism of infants is a horrible
abomination—a flagrant impiety—invented
by the evil spirit and by Pope Nicholas
II." Reader, pause here a moment, and
look at this terrible sentence—Infant
Baptism an Invention of the Devil !!!
And this, too, in a book published by the
American Tract Society!—a Society that
has altered this work at will—that has not
allowed one syllable in favor of infant
baptism to remain in the book—that has
blotted out the fact even that Luther was
baptized in infancy—that he believed in
this doctrine—and that Zuingle even wrote
a tract on baptism ! But we have not yet
reached the climax of this injustice. The
on page  310, that a
I
peculiarly I author informs us
public discussion took place at Zurich, "in
order to content the Anabaptists, who were
constantly conplaining that the   innocent
were condemned unheard."    In the So¬
ciety's edition, it is to content " those,"
who were constantly complaining, &c,t—
and leaves it   wholly  indefinite  who the
complainants were.   We are told that there
was a discussion, but the subject of that
! discussion is withheld.    The author says
{that " The three following theses were put
j forth by Zuingle and his friends, as sub-
| jects of the conference, and triumphantly
maintained by them in the council hall:
" The children of believing parents are
I children of God, even as those who were
j born under the Old Testament; and con¬
sequently they may receive baptism.
" Baptism is, under the New Testament,
I what  circumcision   was   under   the Old.
Consequently, baptism is now to be ad¬
ministered  to   children,   as   circumcision
j was formerly. _. .
" The custom of repeating baptism can¬
not be justified either by examples, pre¬
cepts, or arguments drawn from Scrip¬
ture; and those who are re-baptized,
crucify Jesus Christ afresh."
All this is suppressed.—And  yet the
fanatics, 'whose errors these theses were
| intended to meet and refute, are allowed to
j denounce  infant baptism—to   call  it  " a
j horrible   abomination—a   flagrant   im-
! PIETY, INVENTED BY THE EVIL   SPIRIT, AND
by Pope Nicholas II."    We complain of
| this as singular injustice.    Five-sixths of
I the denominations represented in the Tract
j Society believe  in  infant baptism—look
' upon it as an institution of Jesus Christ—
and yet for the sake of the one-sixth, the
feelings of all  the  rest are wounded and
insulted by the blasphemy, that infant bap¬
tism is an invention of the devil! To com-
| plete this injustice, we are told, in the next
! paragraph,  that " they  did   not   confine
j themselves" (in this discussion) " to ques¬
tions purely religious."  But to whom does
the word " they" refer ? As it here stands,
j it may refer to the disputants on that occa-
' sion.   This, however, is true only in part.
, D'Aubigne says, " the Anabaptists did not
j confine  themselves   to   questions   purely
! religious."    This is plain, and shows us
j who in that discussion "flew the track,"
' and coveredjtheir retreat by interposing be-
I tween thenTand their opponents the hay,
wood and stubble of things foreign to the
questions before them.
We close our examination of this edition
of D'Aubigne, with one more instance of
singular injustice. We refer to the ordina¬
tion of Farel, on pages 437 and 438. It
is stated that Farel had not regularly en¬
tered the ministry, when he received a
call to labor in a particular sphere—that
CEcolampadius pressed him to accept this
call, and, calling upon the Lord, ordained
him. So much is stated—but the rea¬
sons for this act its—justification—is sup¬
pressed. We give this omission entire,
that the reader may see the glaring in¬
justice which it does alike to the author,
to (Ecolampadius and Farel, and to the
cause of truth. . " If in order to a valid
ordination, Rome requires the imposition
of the hands of a bishop deriving uninter¬
rupted succession and descent from the
Apostles, she does so because she sets
the tradition of men above the authority of
the Word of God. Every church in
which the supremacy of the Word is not
acknowledged, must needs seek authority
from some other source—and then, what
more natural than to turn to the most re¬
vered servants of God, and ask of them
what we do not know that we have in God
himself? If we do not speak in the name
of Jesus Christ, is it not at least something
gained to be able to speak in the name of
St. John, or of St. Paul ? One who has
with him the voice of antiquity, is indeed
more than a match for the rationalist, who
speaks only his own thought. But Christ's
minister has yet a higher authority. He
preaches—not because he is the successor
of St. Chrysostom or St. Peter—but be¬
cause the word which he proclaims is
from God. Successional authority—-ven¬
erable as it may-appear—is no more than
a thing of man's invention, in place of
God's appointment. In Farel's ordination,
we see nothing of successionally derived
sanction. Nay, more, we do not see in it
that which becomes the congregations of
the Lord—among whom everything should
be done " decently and in order," and
whose God is " not the God of confusion."
In his case there was no setting apart by
the church; but then extraordinary emer¬
gencies, justify extraordinary measures. At
this eventful period, God himself was inter¬
posing, and Himself ordaining, by mar¬
vellous dispensations, those whom he
called to bear a part in the regeneration of
society; and that was an ordination, that
abundantly compensated for the absence
of the Church's seal. In Farel's ordina¬
tion, we see the unchanging Word of God
entrusted to a man of God, to bear it to the
world ; the calling of God, and of the peo¬
ple, and the consecration of the heart.
And perhaps no minister of Rome, or of
Geneva, was ever more lawfully ordained
for that holy ministry."
We pause here. We have by no means
exhibited all the alterations made in this
edition of D'Aubigne; but we have adduced
enough to show the character and extent
of the changes. And in view of what has
been shown, we ask if the several state¬
ments in the notices of this work be cor¬
rect ? Are the changes confined to the
notes, or to omissions ? Have a few sen-
tences only been left out? And do these
changes not affect the integrity of the
work? Jf such changes as we have ex¬
hibited do not, in the view of the Tract
Society, affect the "integrity" of this
work, what confidence can the community
repose in the judgment of those who con¬
duct its affairs ? If the words and senti¬
ments of an author may be changed—-if he
is not permitted to say what he does say ;
and if he is made to assert what he does
not assert, and'yet the position be true, that
nothing has been done Which detracts from
'• the object," or affects the " integrity" of
the work,—then what; can be done that will
do this?
We cannot forbear asking another ques¬
tion in this connections Why have these
changes been made? for whose sake ? Are
we to take these as a specimen of what
any one of those denominations represented
in the Tract Society would do with the
pages of history, if it coul<0. \ What one
of them will say that these alterations
have been made at its bidding ? No one
—we venture to say. They have not
[been  made  to   please  the   Presbyterian
and Congregational denominations. That
the Episcopal and Baptist demand such
changes, we will believe only when forced
to do so by their open declaration to that
effect. Thc leading papers which advo¬
cate the interests of these two denomina¬
tions have spoken of D'Aubigne's History,
as first published in this country, in terms
of the highest commendation. The Epis¬
copal Recorder, of March 12th, 1842,
thus speaks of the author and his work;
" As a man of learning and enlightened
piety, having access to all the great libraries
of Europe, and availing himself of many
unpublished documents and manuscripts,
belonging to the sixteenth century, which
have been carefully preserved for these
two hundred years, he seems eminently
qualified to bring out a history of this sort.
The times demand a new evolving and
revision of the facts connected with the
Protestant Reformation. We particularly
rejoice at the appearance of a work on this
subject, coming from so gilteu* a pen as
that of D'Aubigne's. There are some
things, in which we should not agree with
the opinions of the writer. But we be¬
lieve his facts are truly stated and are to
be relied on. Take him all in all, he cer¬
tainly is a very candid historian, and ex¬
ceedingly catholic in his feelings. We
hope that these volumes will be very ex¬
tensively circulated and read."
The Baptist Advocate, of the same year,
thus notices thc work: " The candor,
impartiality and discriminating judgment,
are manifest on every page. We are not
accustomed to employ such unqualified
terms, but we doubt not that the reader of
the work will find them justified by its
excellences. Few works of equal merit
have ever been published." Other papers
of these denominations have spoken of the
work in terms of similar commendation.
Why then we ask, these omissions and
alterations * For whose sake have these
pages of history been mutilated ? Who
objects to the circulation, by the Tract
Society, of this work unchanged ? It is
time the community knew this. If there
be a denomination among us, which would
thus put its effacing fingers on the pages
of history, if it could do it with impunity,
let it not find that impunity in the bosom
of the Tract Society. Aye, if the facts of
history bear hardly upon it, and give it
trouble, let it not seek to avoid this by
blotting out those fa.ts. It may borrow
comfort from whatever quarter it pleases.
It may forget the pain by fixing the
thoughts upon that which it would have
to be true.    If it chooses, it
" May wallow naked in December's snow,
By thinking: on fantastic Summer's heat;
Or hold, if it can, a fire in its hand
By thinking of the frosty Caucasus."
But let it not, in its nakedness, attempt
to conceal that snow, however cold it may
be to its limbs. Let it not, in its parox¬
isms of pain, try to smother up or extin¬
guish that fire. No. There is fire there,
and it will remain there, and burn on, till
it blazes up to heaven, and fills the world
with its light and its heat.
There is a great question of morality,
as we think, concerned in this matter. Is
it right, we ask, thus to mutilate the work
of any man ? If we publish the work of
any one, and call it his work, let it be his
work. To mutilate it—to suppress a part—
to make him say what he does not say—
and what perhaps he never would have
been willing to say—is, as we view it,
wholly unjustifiable. It does evil, and
only evil. The man who reads such a
book can feel no confidence in its state¬
ments. For they may be the statements
of the author, or they may not. Doubt,
therefore, may exist, where he wants cer¬
tainty. The man who reads the Tract
Society's edition of D'Aubigne, is told in
the beginning that " a few sentences, not
essential to the integrity of the work, are
omitted." Of course he concludes that all
that he reads is from the author—but this
is not true, as we have seen. The reader
is therefore, deceived; and deception is
wrong. In all respects then, we say, let
a man's work remain as it is. Mutilation
we abhor, and especially that which has
been made in the present case. A founda¬
tion, which is not long enough and broad
enough to accommodate the whole of
D'Aubigne, is no praise to the catholicity
of the nineteenth century—and no honor
to the spirit of Protestant Christianity.
But it has been asked with apparent
surprise, " Why all this stir about the al¬
terations in D'Aubigne? It is nothing new.
It is just what we have always done with
the books, which we publish." Very well;
if this be so, and most fully do we believe
it, we are glad that the mutilations of this
work by the Tract Society are beginning to
open the eyes of men, and are leading them
to see the wrong in this case and to con¬
demn it. But it is said, moreover, in vin¬
dication of these changes in D'Aubigne,
that " the alterations are few"—that " they
do not in all exceed four pages," and this
in " a work of some thirteen hundred
pages." This, as it seems to us, is a very
weak defence. How much of omission or
alteration would it require to change the
whole face of history ? Alterations to the
amount of four pages, might falsify a thou¬
sand. The omission of a single word may
change the whole bearing of a sentence.
How much of a change would be neces¬
sary in order to blot out the doctrine of
the Trinity from the Bible? The ques¬
tion is not, therefore, so much as to the
amount blotted out or mutilated, as to what
has been omitted or altered. It is not
upon the quantity taken by any one from
the Bible, that the tremendous issue in the
close of Revelation turns—but upon the
question whether he takes anything at all
from the pages of inspired truth. If he
may take away one syllable, with impu¬
nity, he may take away the whole. On
the same principle, if the Tract Society
may "with propriety, omit one sentence, or
change one line of an author, it may omit
or change his work to any extent. The
amount changed does not affect the mo¬
rality of the act.
A word more, and we have done. To
the Tract Society, confined within its
appropriate sphere, we have none but the
most friendly feelings. We like it as a
Tract Society, and will ever be ready, as
we always have been, to the extent of our
ability to sustain it. But we must say
candidly, that if it is to become a book
mutilating society, as it has to some ex¬
tent become, then, for one, we can have
J nothing at all to do with it In this feel-
| ing wc know that we are not alone.
alterations made by the society in D'Au¬
bigne, have given serious offence to some
of its best friends. And if such work be
continued, we predict that ere long there
will be " none so poor as to do it reve¬
rence." Nollekins.
■ ******** ******	
TH- DOCTRINE OF" K-.KCTION.
We copy the following from the interesting Me¬
moir of the late Dr. Nettleton:
An individual said to Dr. Nettleton,
" I cannot get along with the doctrine of
election." "Then," said he, "get along
without it. You are at ltberty to get to
heaven the easiest way you can. Whe¬
ther the doctrine of election is true, it
is true that you must repent, and be¬
lieve, and love God. Now what we tell
you, is, that such is the wickedness of
your heart, that you will never do these
things, unless God has determined to re¬
new your heart. If you do not belive that
your heart is so wicked, make it manifest
by complying with the terms of salvation.
Why do you stand caviling with the doc¬
trine of election? Suppose you should
prove it to be false; what have you gain¬
ed? You must repent and believe in
Christ after all. Why do you not imme¬
diately comply with these terras of tho
gospel ? When you have done this, with¬
out the aids of divine grace, it will be soon
enough to oppose the doctrine of election.
Until you shall have done this, we shall
still believe that the doctrine of election
lies at the foundation of all hope in your
case."
PRUSSIAN
MINISTKR AT
SOP-E.
CONSTANT!.
The-
It is stated that Rev. Mr. Major, for¬
merly a missionary to the continent from
the United Secession Synod, has accepted
an appointment from the King of Prussia
to be Protestant Minister at Constantino¬
ple. This connection with the Associate
Synod, as its missionary has, of course,
been dissolved, The Committee, how¬
ever, with the view of aiding in the evan¬
gelizing of the continent, have granted a
donation of twenty pounds to the Rev. Dr.
Malan, of Geneva, to assist him in print¬
ing and circulating tracts in some of the
continental States, in which work he is
very extensively engaged.
FRUITS OF SPIRITUAL TYRANNY*
During the reign ef Charles II., nearly
eight thousand Protestant Dissenters per¬
ished in prison, for no other crime than
that of dissenting from the Church of
England. This is not a random or guess,
but a list of the suffers earefully collected
at the time, by a Mr. White; who re¬
ceived the thanks of the bishops for not
exposing the black record in the succeed¬
ing reign of James, when it might have
been made the instrument of terrible retri¬
bution upon the Episcopal party.
From the London Patriot.
THE   TAHTTIAN  MISSION EXTINCT.
Under the French protectorate, if tran¬
quility even were restored, it would be im¬
possible to maintain a struggle against the
demoralizing influences which will speed¬
ily replunge the island into barbarism.  The
French journalists style the Tahitians sa¬
vages and  semi-savages; and under  the
lessons   of the   Romish  priests   and   the
French civilisers, they will relapse into
idolatry and profligacy as dark and gross
as those of their Pagan ancestors.    Those
natives who remain proof against the cor¬
rupting influence brought to bear  upon
them, if they escape the French guns, must
forsake the island.   Their Queen is a fugi¬
tive.    Their teachers have been expelled.
Their island is in the hands ofthe enemy.
If a harbor of refuge presented itself, under
British protection, they would gladly repair
to it, and leave the French spoilers to tri¬
umph in the desolation they have spread.
But what security is there for the natives of
the other islands of the Archipelago, or for
the Protestant missions ?   Tahiti is not tho.
first island in which the French have plant¬
ed themselves. The Gambier Islands were
first selected. In August, 1834, two French
priests,   in   company   with    Murphy,   an
Irishman,  established  themselves on the
little island of Akena, which was regarded
as the gate of all Polynesia.    They were
followed, May, 1835, by Rouchouse, who
had been   appointed   Vicar  Apostolic   of
Eastern Oceania, and six  other priests.
Murphy was then sent, disguised as a car¬
penter, to the Sandwich Islands, to prepare
lor the introduction  of Popery in those
quarters. The first visit of Laval and Caret
to Tahiti, took place at Murphy's sugges¬
tion, in 1836.    The next step on the part
ofthe French, was the seizure ofthe Mar-
queses.    In 1838, Du Petit Thouars land¬
ed two Roman missionaries at the Protest¬
ant missianary station at Santa Christina,
one of that groupe, in spite of the remon¬
strance  of Mr. Stall worthy, the English
missionary, who pointed out other islands
unoccupied, and other districts of the same
island.    The Captain informed Mr. Stall-
worthy, that it was his intention to esta¬
blish Roman missionaries at all points.   In
the following year, ten additional Roman
missionaries were landed at Santa Chris¬
tina, five of whom afterwards repaired to
Nukuhiva.    After continuing amid many
privations, much suffering, and great dis¬
couragement, to labor there, chiefly in in¬
structing the young, Mr. Stallworthy and
his colleague, Mr. Thompson, at the close
of 1841, in concurrence with the opinion
of the missionaries at Tahiti, felt it their
duty to retire from the island;   and Du
Petit  Thouars  has since   taken forcible
possession of the groupe, in fhe name of
the King of the French.
The occupation of Tahiti was the third
step on the part of the French, in the stea¬
dy prosecution of the avowed object of
subverting the Protestant missions. It can¬
not be said, therefore, that we had not ample
warning of their enterprise. As long ago
as 1838, the Queen and Chiefs of Tahiti
addressed a letter to the Queen of Eng¬
land, earnestly imploring the protection of
the British flag.
There is now a talk of sending Mr.
Pritchard to reside, in the capacity of Bri¬
tish Consul, at one of the Samoas or Na¬
vigators' Islands; but if the British Con¬
sulate could afford no guarantee of protec¬
tion to the Tahitians, what security would
Mr. Prichard have, or any of the mission¬
aries there, against a visit from Du Petit
Thouars, followed by the same farce.ofa
Protectorate, with the treacherous acqui¬
escence of Lord Aberdeen ? Therefore the
friends of Protestant missions should be