whatever imposing names or forms it may assume, whether of Presbytery or Bishop, is the mere shadow without the substance. The power of the Presbyterian Church was formidable till it was attempted to be exercised, then it became ridiculous. It might have existed a while longer, had it not been incautiously used. They tried it in Baltimore. But there they ruined their machinery by attempting to break down too hard a substance. They undertook to discipline Mr. Duncan for preaching against creeds. They tried to excommunicate him, and turn him out of his church. But so far were they from succeeding, that he fairly turned the tables upon them, and (as one of them afterwards facetiously confessed) excommunicated them. His congregation went with him, and instead of gaining a victory, they lost a church. Since then, in the words of Dr. Green, "discipline has been permitted to sleep."

We now come to notice the deplorable apostasy in doctrines of which the Doctor complains.

"In chapter vi. sec. iii. and iv. of our Confession of Faith, it is said, speaking of the fall of our first parents, and of their sin,They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by ordinary generation. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.' In chapter vii. sec. ii. it is stated, 'The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.' In questions 12, 16, 18, of our Shorter Catechism (to save space we omit the fuller statement of the Larger Catechism) we read as follows, 'When God had created man, he entered into a covenant of life with him, upon condition of perfect obedience. The covenant being made with Adam, not only for himself, but for his posterity, all mankind descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with him in his first transgression. The sinfulness of that estate, whereinto man fell, consists in the guilt of Adam's first sin, the want of original righteousness, and the corruption of his whole nature, which is commonly called original sin.' The eighty-second question and answer of this Catechism are as follows: Q. Is any man able perfectly to keep the commandments of God? A. No mere man since the fall, is able, in this life perfectly to keep

19

the commandments of God, but daily doth break them, in thought, word, and deed.'

"Let our readers mark well how many direct contradictions of the above extracts from the public authoritative Standards of our church, are at present publicly avowed, orally and in print, by ministers in the Presbyterian church, who have solemnly adopted those Standards at their licensure or ordination. (1.) It is explicitly and repeatedly stated, in the foregoing extracts, - That the first covenant made with man, was a covenant of works,' that it was made with Adam, not only for himself, but for his posterity.' But it is now denied that there ever was a covenant of works made with Adam, either for himself or his posterity. All the errors under this general head unavoidably involve this denial, whether made in explicit terms or not. The federal headship of Adam is discarded as an antiquated notion. (2.) It is explicitly declared, in speaking of the sin of our first parents, that 'They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed.' At present, in the Presbyterian church, the imputation of Adam's first sin to his posterity, is absolutely scorned. We will not say that nineteen-twentieths' of our clergy reject it, but we do seriously fear that at least a moiety of them disbelieve it. (3.) It is unequivocally declared in the Confession and Catechism, that the same death in sin and corrupted nature [of our first parents was] conveyed to all their posterity,' that the sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell consists in the guilt of Adam's first sin, the want of original righteousness, and the corruption of his whole nature, which is commonly called original sin.' These positions of our Standards are denied as openly and positively, although we hope not quite so generally, as that of the immediately preceding item. In regard to the quotation from the Catechism, we heard a clergyman in the Synod to which we belong, on being asked, before the Synod, if he believed it, answer categorically, 'I do not.' (4.) It is stated in the above questions from our Standards, that

6

From this original corruption [derived from our first parents] we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil,' and that this corruption of his [man's] whole nature is commonly called original sin.' This fundamental point in Christian theology, for which all the Reformers contended (and none so earnestly and ably as Calvin), which is called in some Formularies, 'Birth sin,' and in ours, as we have just seen, 'Original sin,' is now violently impugned and totally set aside, by not a few religious teachers, in both the Presbyterian and Congregational churches. Taking ground on some dogmas of their 'philoso

phy, falsely so called,' they maintain that all sin consists in voluntary action,-in man's own act of CHOICE; and consequently that infants, before they are capable of discerning good and evil as the objects of choice, are perfectly free from sin; as destitute of any moral taint as Adam was at his first creation, from whom, it is maintained, they inherit no corruption whatever, and to whom they sustain no other relation, than that which every infant now bears to his father. This is Pelagianism of the highest kind; and it is rampant, and spreading like a leprosy, in many portions of the Presbyterian church. (5.) Our quotation from the Confession of Faith affirms, that by man's original corruption' he is utterly disabled to all good,' as well as 'made opposite' to it, and 'inclined to all evil : And the Catechism teaches, that no mere man since the fall is able, in this life, perfectly to keep the commandments of God.' Now it has even become fashionable to deny this outright,—to maintain that man has natural ability to keep all the commandments of God, and to keep them perfectly. We have not long since seen it stated in print, by a Presbyterian minister, that Satan never invented a more successful artifice to ruin souls, than the preaching of the very doctrine of our Standards, - the natural inability of unsanctified men to obey the commandments of God.

"II. As our Confession of Faith and Catechisms teach the entire corruption, depravity, and impotence of man in his natural state, so they hold forth with equal clearness and explicitness, that his recovery to holiness and the divine favor, is wholly from the power and free grace of God. It is said, Confession of Faith, chap. vi. sec. iii., that Man by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the Covenant of Grace, promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.' And in the Larger Catechism, in answer to the sixty-seventh question, it is affirmed that 'Effectual calling is the work of God's almighty power and grace, whereby - he doth in his accepted time, invite and draw them [the elect] to Jesus Christ, by his word and Spirit; savingly enlightening their minds, renewing and powerfully determining their wills, so as they (although in themselves dead in sin) are hereby made willing and able, freely to answer his call, and to accept and embrace the grace offered and conveyed therein.' omit the answer to the question on effectual calling in the Shorter Catechism, which is of the same import as that here recited.

We

"The foregoing doctrine of our Confession of Faith and

-

Catechisms notwithstanding, we have heard a sermon from a Presbyterian minister, the avowed purport of which was to show, what God had done for the salvation of man, and that he had done all that was necessary and proper to be done; and yet the gift and work of the Holy Spirit was not mentioned, or alluded to, from the beginning to the end of the discourse. It was not intimated in all that was said, that in the great concern of renovation, and the acceptance of Christ as he is freely offered in the gospel, man needed the quickening influence and the special aid of the Spirit of all grace, nor indeed any assistance whatever, beyond the proper exercise of his own powers. That man is essentially active in regeneration, — in regeneration strictly considered, and as distinguished from conversion, is both proclaimed and printed; although our Standards explicitly declare that he is 'dead in sin.' In fact, the effective, and often, we believe, the intended impression, made on the minds of their hearers, by the preachers to whom we refer, is, that men are fully able to convert themselves, without any other divine aid than what every man, under the light of the gospel, already possesses. They are told that they can and ought to will it; and if they do, they will go away renewed in the temper of their minds. We have been credibly and recently informed, that a Presbyterian minister said,-we understood, publicly said, — that we ought not to pray that God would convert sinners, but that he would convince them, that they can convert themselves. And indeed this is only putting into words, the system which is substantially taught and inculcated, by the whole class of preachers and writers to whom we here refer.

"III. In the chapter on justification, in the Confession of Faith (chap. xi. sec. i.) it is said, Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth,- by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.' Again; in the iii. sec. of this chapter we are taught that Christ, by his obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to his Father's justice in their behalf.' In both the Catechisms the same doctrine is clearly laid down. — We quote only the Larger Catechism: Question 70. What is justification? A. Justification is an act of God's free grace unto sinners, in which he pardoneth all their sins and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight; not for any thing wrought in them or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them, and received by faith alone.'

"Now, there are preachers and writers in the Presbyterian church, who, if they had distinctly intended to gainsay almost every idea contained in the essential article of our Creed, as stated above, could scarcely have done it more effectually and explicitly, than they have studiously attempted to do. According to them, the atonement (a word not found in the doctrinal part of the Standards of our church) did not consist in Christ, by his obedience and death, fully discharging the debt of all those that are justified; and by making a proper, real, and full satisfaction to his Father's justice in their behalf.' All this is most unequivocally denied. It is explicitly asserted that Christ did not endure the penalty of the violated law of God, in behalf of his people; and of course did not discharge their debt, that the atonement is merely an exhibition of the displeasure or wrath of God against sin, and was made for all mankind alike and equally; was an offering made for the race; did not by itself secure the salvation of any one; and consequently did not make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to the justice of God in behalf of all those that are saved; for these men profess to reject the doctrine of universal salvation. In a word, all ideas of substitution, or that Christ took the sinner's place, and obeyed and suffered in the room and stead of his people, are completely, and by some indignantly, rejected. And as to his righteousness, consisting of his active obedience to the law of God, and passive endurance of the penalty, being imputed to his people, as the meritorious cause of their justification, it is regarded and treated as an absurdity, and even as an impossibility. The old orthodox terms, of atonement, justification, and the righteousness of Christ, are retained; for what purpose we know not, if it is not to blind the populace, and leave them impressed with the belief that there is no real difference between the sentiments of these men and their orthodox brethren." Christian Advocate for Jan. 1834, pp. 30-33.

Here we have the old and ominous charge of concealment and deception, so rife a few years ago against the Unitarians of New England. And if we had not seen the title of the book we should be almost persuaded that we were reading a Number of the Panoplist for 1815 or 1816. And if, as our reviewer says, "like causes produce like effects," the whole Presbyterian Church are within fifteen or twenty years of downright Unitarianism. He goes on to show that there is not only an apparent, but a real, radical difference between the two parties.

"We wish to be understood, that a principal part of our