their sanction, but Luther met the nuisance, to borrow an apt comparison, "as water meets fire." His condemnatory propositions published throughout Germany might be considered, in reference to the noon-tide of the Reformation, as the morning scattered on the mountains.

But were these the views of Luther alone? Was the Saxon professor the only man possessed of sufficient knowledge or courage to grapple with this abomination? Far from it: at precisely the same time, and without mutual concert, Zwinglius was opposing the sale of indulgences in Switzerland. He leavened the popular mind with anti-popish doctrines, and two years before the presentation of the famous Augsburg Confession (on the 25th of June, 1530, which is usually assumed as the date of the Reformation,) the canton of Berne had condemned the doctrines of purgatory and transubstantiation, the celibacy of the clergy, and image- worship. Thus it appears, that in the sixteenth century, the light of the Reformation broke out in different places at the same time. If there had been no Luther, there would still have been a Zwinglius; and the difference between these eminent men mainly consisted in the clearer views of the latter on the subject of the eucharist.

Let it not, however, be supposed that the system of Protestant doctrine, proclaimed by these holy men and their confederates, was, in any essential point, a novelty. Wherever the impression lingers, it ought to be dissipated, that our reformers objected to that which had enjoyed the uninterrupted assent of all previous ages. So far is this from the fact, that we have clear historical evidence, that pious and learned men have protested against the principal errors of popery for a thousand years.

What is known by the honoured title of "The Reformation,” takes its date, in ordinary compute, from 1530; but more than a century before, (viz. in 1415,) John Huss had been burned by order of the Council of Constance, for denying transubstantiation, and asserting the right of the laity to the cup. Indulgence never had a more strenuous opponent than in this martyr, who had derived what would now be called his Protestant opinions, from the writings of Wickliffe. Wickliffe, fifty years before Huss suffered, had condemned transubstantiation, and denounced the pope as Antichrist; and perhaps he would have been added to the noble army of martyrs, but that during the greater part of his career, two popes, or shall we say, in softer phrase, a pope and an anti-pope, were too busy in anathematising each other, to call the English Reformer to account. But we can go much further back. In the year 1019, Berengarius, archdeacon of Anvers, denied the conversion of the elements; and with yet clearer light, and at a far earlier date, (viz. about 823,) Claude, bishop of Turin, a Luther of his day, protested against images, relics, pilgrimages, and

(in the cautious language of Mosheim) "broached several other opinions that were quite contrary to the notions of the multitude, and the prejudices of the times." Thus, at the distance of ten centuries, do we find a leaven at work, which some suppose to have sprung into existence only three hundred years ago. The writings of Claude, still extant, and some of them in print, have been thought to contain the germs of all the great truths developed at the Reformation; and exhibit a remarkable agreement with the tenets of the Waldenses, of whom we have soon to speak.

In this hasty sketch it will be observed that we have referred to writers, and writers of note. Not one of these eminent men but had numerous followers, and left an impression of better sentiments on the world. How many there were who propagated similar principles by the easier vehicle of speech, it is impossible to say; but (to take a familiar example) we know that Wickliffe was not content to employ only his tongue and pen; he engaged a class of itinerant preachers in propagating scriptural doctrine throughout the country.

But it may be supposed that whatever theoretic objections might be broached against the papacy, Protestantism had never, till late times, been the faith of a church. So far is this from being correct that during the whole time which has passed under review various reforming sects have maintained a separate existence from Rome, some of them renouncing her communion, others being cast out to the end they might not live.

As if to humble that church which assumes the proud title of Catholic, there has been preserved from time immemorial a distinct protesting communion in Italy itself; we refer, of course, to the Waldenses. It is not pretended by any that they have been independent of the see of Rome for less than seven hundred years. A noted papal author conjectures that they were led off from the body of the faithful by Claude of Turin, which would carry their origin three centuries further back; while they themselves claim a strictly apostolical descent. It is interesting to know that a confession of their faith, admitted to be of the earlier part of the twelfth century, recognises only one Mediator between God and man, rejects the feasts and vigils of the saints, admits but two sacraments, condemns superstitious fasting, the doctrine of the mass, &c.

Not to mention a variety of less ancient and less noted sects, which have embraced and acted upon the principles now denominated Protestant, we have in the followers of Peter Waldo an instance of such a communion, known to have originated in the end of the twelfth century. According to Mosheim, Waldo, a merchant of Lyons, "being extremely zealous in the cause of piety and knowledge," about the year 1160, employed a priest in translating from Latin into French the four gospels, with other books of Scripture, and sundry religious

compositions. His awakened mind soon perceived that the Roman church differed widely from that instituted by Christ and his apostles. Struck with this glaring contradiction, Waldo abandoned commerce, distributed his wealth among the poor, and devoted himself to the inculcation of what would now be termed Protestant and reformed doctrine. His followers passed under the name of "the poor men of Lyons," and, as a sect, spread with incredible rapidity over Europe. They were characterised by the most irreproachable purity, and bore unparalleled sufferings for the faith. This interesting people maintained that the Romish church had declined from primitive purity under Constantine. They denied the pope's supremacy, rejected auricular confession, called indulgences the criminal inventions of avarice, repudiated the doctrine of purgatory, and consequently would allow of no masses for the dead.

A reference to the decrees in which these and similar sectaries were anathematised, and to the complaints of contemporary Romish doctors, proves (as a very moderate writer has remarked) "that dissent was very widely spread in the north of Italy and the south of France during the thirteenth century." Reiverus, who confesses himself to have been once a heretic, writing about 1230, brings two charges against them which undesignedly form their highest eulogy :-"They have translated the Old and New Testament into the vulgar tongues." And again, "They reject whatever is taught, if it is not demonstrable by a text in the New Testament."

Thus, as at the outset of this brief paper it was shown that popery had to encounter objections long before the great movement of the sixteenth century, it has now been proved that Protestantism had been actually embodied in the creed and discipline of wide-spread communions for ages before that event. In no sense, then, is Protestantism a novelty. In no sense is it difficult to meet the taunting question, "Where was your religion before Luther?"

But, independently of historic associations, there are internal marks of Protestantism which prove it to be essentially the old religion. It is so precisely as that reformed Judaism inculcated by our Lord, in the earlier part of his ministry, had it been practically carried out, though it would have passed for a novelty, would have been strictly speaking "after the pattern showed on the mount." The Prophet of Nazareth, while he observed every tittle of the law, repudiated every semblance of tradition. The Mosaic economy still remaining in force, his teaching had a tendency to raise up a kind of Protestant sect in the midst of the Jewish church-and in some measure did so ;-a sect which, in lieu of blind deference to authority, were called, even of their own selves, to judge what was right-which abated the frequency of fasting and of divers washings-which held that the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath-which shut up in secresy

duties before performed at the corners of the streets-which admitted not the principle of making (as in "Corban") robbery a burnt-offering-and which presumed to think, in defiance of all rabbinical authority, that the temple was greater than the gold, and the altar than the gift. To those who received for doctrines the commandments of men, nothing could seem more novel than Judaism as practised and taught by Him who magnified the law and made it honourable. And yet it was but a re-editing of the ancient religion; the greatest innovator was the greatest restorer of the day; "Think not (he could say) that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

Were a former inhabitant of one of our northern towns to rise from the dead, he might say, I can scarcely identify the pillars which rise to the lofty ceiling of my parish church, they look so changed, so slender, so new, the answer would be, Much has been removed from themmuch that marred their simplicity, without, however, making the least addition to their strength. The whitewash and the plaster which had long encrusted them are gone; but you must see them as they are now to realise the idea of their skilful and long-departed architect.

Much as Protestantism has laid aside, if we would see what the church originally was, and what her Lord intended her still to be, we must look to the scriptural faith and simple order of Protestant communions. If anything human remains, it is certain that nothing that is Divine is gone.

SIGMA.

NONCONFORMIST CONFESSIONS ON THE ORDINANCES OF BAPTISM AND THE LORD'S SUPPER.

[A contributor to our pages has collected the following passages from various symbolical writings of the Nonconformists, and which we insert, that our readers may have at one view the opinions put forth by our forefathers on questions of deep and growing interest.]

Ar the conference held at the Savoy, A.D. 1660, between Episcopalian and Presbyterian ministers, exceptions to the liturgy, &c. were presented in writing by the latter. In the summary given by Dr. Calamy, of these exceptions, (Abridgment of Mr. Baxter's Life and Times, vol. ii. p. 157) the following passage occurs :

"In the catechism, they excepted against the mentioning godfathers and godmothers as giving the name; against the intimation of regeneration as universally* attending baptism; against rehearsing the commandments any otherwise than according to the new translation;

against the mentioning two sacraments only as generally necessary to salvation, when there are two only; against seeming to found baptism upon actual faith and repentance, and that especially as performed by the promise of the sureties; and against the omitting a particular explication of faith, repentance, the two covenants, justification, sanctification, adoption, and regeneration."

The exception taken to the second answer in the Catechism, as set forth in the original document itself, is as follows:

"Answer second.-In my baptism, wherein I was made a child of God, a member of Christ, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven. "Exception. We conceive it might now safely be expressed thus:Wherein I was visibly admitted into the number of the members of Christ, the children of God, and the heirs (rather than the inheritors) of the kingdom of heaven.

'History of Nonconformity, as it was argued and stated by commissioners on both sides in 1661." London, 1704.

In "The Reformed Liturgy," drawn up by Richard Baxter, approved by the other Presbyterian ministers associated with him at the Savoy conference, and presented in their several names to the Episcopalian commissioners, the following passages occur, under "The celebration of the sacrament of baptism."

In an address to be directed to parents

"This covenant is to be solemnly entered into by baptism, which is a holy sacrament instituted by Christ, in which a person professing the Christian faith, or the infant of such, is baptized in water into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in signification and solemnization of the holy covenant, in which, as a penitent believer or the seed of such, he giveth up himself, or is by the parent given up, to God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, from henceforth, or from the time of natural capacity, to believe in, love, and fear this blessed Trinity against the flesh, the devil, and the world; and this especially on the account of redemption, and is solemnly entered a visible member of Christ and his church, a child of God, and an heir of heaven."

In the prayer to be offered before the rite of baptism is performedWe dedicate and offer this child to Thee to be received into thy covenant and church. We beseech Thee to accept him as a member of thy Son, and wash him in his blood from the guilt of sin, as the flesh is washed by the water. Be reconciled to him, and take him for thy child, renew him to the image of thy Son, make him a fellow-citizen with the saints, and one of thy household.”

In the Assembly's Shorter Catechism are the following questions and

answers:

"What is baptism?