Cause is that which produces effect. Metaphysicians and divines, it is true, have employed this word in a more extensive sense, and have, in order to prevent misapprehension of its meaning, coupled it with restrictive epithets. They, accordingly, say efficient cause, procuring cause, meritorious cause, moving cause, final cause, &c. &c. But cause and effect are correlates; and, in truth, meritorious cause is neither more nor less than condition-the terms on which the promised blessing is bestowed. The meritorious cause of the sinner's acceptance with God, and the condition of the sinner's acceptance with God, are accordingly synonymous. When the preacher, therefore, asserts that the effect is to be ascribed to the merits of the Redeemer, and immediately thereafter asserts that it is performed by the sinner, he contradicts himself, and obscures as much as possible the glory of the Gospel. Nor is the assertion in the sequel, that the condition is performed by the sinner in the "strength of the Holy Spirit," sufficient to rescue the discourse from the charge of anti-evangelical tendency. Supposing that correct ideas were connected with this expression by Dr. H. it would be only substituting gifts, communicated to us on account of Christ, in the room which is occupied in the system of grace exclusively by the righteousness of our God and Saviour. It would confound the blessing received, with the condition on which it was bestowed. But we are not to expect, from this preacher, that just ideas should be connected, even with orthodox expressions. He glories in teaching his hearers that we are not "utterly disabled" from performing this condition-that we are "co-workers "with the Spirit," and, indeed, that the influence of the Spirit is subordinate to the power of free-will*.

* Page 19, 20.

He also considers, himself, and teaches as a part of the Church's boasted "excellency," that the meritorious cause operates precisely alike upon all men*; and, accordingly, that the true cause of the difference between those who are saved, and the nations of them that perish, is, not what the Apostle asserts it to be, the grace of God; but man's own free-will. The meritorious cause is therefore altogether inefficient, and the efficient cause is in the sinner himself. As the principal glory of our salvation is certainly due to that cause which is most effectual, the inference is irresistible, that Dr. Hobart must, instead of singing Hallelujah, give the glory to the faculties of a sinful soul. The honour which he verbally ascribes to the Mediator and the Spirit, serves only as a cover to the attack which he makes on the Gospel. It was not fair, then, to inform his hearers that "professed Christians generally" were of one mind with the preacher on this subject. No. The perfect righteousness of the Redeemer is the meritorious cause, the condition, the sole condi tion of our acceptance with God. We disclaim, absolutely, any other. Faith in Jesus Christ, the gift of God, performed under the supernatural influence of the Holy Ghost, not violating human liberty, but effectually inclining us to embrace a Saviour, is the mean, the only effectual mean of union with Jesus in his righteousness, in order to be accepted of God. Repentance from sin, and the performance of holy duties, are effects flowing from union with our Saviour, and from that union certainly and only flowing. Salvation depends entirely upon our union with the Saviour, and it is inseparably connected with that union. Salvation is promised to faith, because by faith we are united to the Redeemer, in his justifying righteousness.

* Page 18. 31.

Salvation is promised to repentance and to good works, because they necessarily imply faith, and are the signs and the fruits of our union to that Lord who is our righteousness and our strength. Grace, holiness, eternal life, are inseparably connected together; and, instead of offering violence to the will of man, the Spirit makes us willing by his almighty power. The pride of man is humbled. The grace of God is glorified. To us belong the benefits, and to him the praise. This is the Gospel in which Christians rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory. It is the Gospel of God, whatever is the doctrine of the Episcopal Church.

The second class of doctrines respect, according to the discourse under review, "certain theoretical opinions of predestination, of redemption, of freewill, of grace, and of final perseverance."

Although the preacher's doctrine does not accord with the articles of his own Church, this is not decisive proof against it. It must stand or fall by its own merit. We have no intention, however, to take up, in this review, already extended far beyond the limits of our original design, the whole Arminian controversy. We shall, merely as a specimen, select for examination Dr. Hobart's opinion of election. It stands first in order.

His opinion, on this subject, appears to us to be as far from modesty as it is from truth. We are tempted to laugh, and yet we tremble in recording it. Predestination is represented by him to be God's eternal decree to bring certain men into the communion of the Episcopal Church; and, accordingly, the elect of God are the Episcopalians.

As we do not find this definition expressed in so many words in this sermon, we shall, before we proceed to offer any remarks upon it, and in order to bar all future equivocation, incontestibly prove that the 4 M

Vol. III.-No. XI.

sentiment is expressed by Dr. H. We would not, upon, slight grounds, charge any man with being the advocate of such absurdity; and we are confident that our readers will not readily admit, that any respectable man, in this age, would give the sanction of his name to pretensions, as ridiculous as they are extravagant. The only difficulty, however, which we anticipate in producing testimony, is, that any other man may, with equal facility, prove, from the Doctor's own writings, that he also thinks otherwise. So crude are the theological notions of this divine, and so devoid of precision his phraseology, epithets, and metaphors dancing with all the glittering irregularity of atoms in a sun-beam, that it is no difficult task to convict him of maintaining self-contradictory opinions-an error, into which any one may fall who writes without taking pains to understand. We proceed to the proof.

Dr. Hobart maintains that predestination is the eternal purpose of Jehovah to make some men members of the Episcopal Church; and that it secures nothing more than this to the elect.

In this proposition are involved three assertions, each of which is confidently maintained by Dr. H.

Predestination is God's eternal purpose respecting some only of mankind-the object of it is to make these persons members of the Church-that Church is exclusively the Episcopal Church.

1. It is God's eternal decree respecting some of mankind. Dr. Hobart approves, and quotes, as containing this sentiment, the 17th article; and holds it up to view as a part of the "excellence of the Church*."

"Predestination to life is the everlasting purposc "of God, whereby, before the foundations of the "world were laid, he hath constantly decreed by his

cc. counsel, secret to us, to deliver from curse and "damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ "out of mankind*.'

2. The end of predestination or election is to make Church-members. The words—“ to life,”. deliver from curse and damnation," &c. are mere expletives, or only employed to deceive the simple. To such lofty intellects as Dr. H.'s they convey no meaning. His words aret, "It maintains on a just con"struction, the only election declared in Scripture, "the election of Christians as a collective body to "the privileges of the Gospel. In like manner, all "Christians are now the chosen, the "elect" of God. "They are all by baptism taken out of the world, " and placed in God's holy Church; received into "Covenant with him." These words are sufficiently explicit. The elect of God are all who by baptism become Church-members. And we shall now see,

3. That these are, exclusively, the Episcopalians; for Dr. H. admits not the existence of any other bap tism, or any other Church in covenant with God, than that which is Episcopal. He will not deny this. It appears to be that doctrine, to the support of which he has devoted his life. It is not only contained in all his writings, but it is the soul of every thing which he has published. In this discourse, "the Church" is uniformly employed as synonymous with Episcopal Church; and "Churchman"as synonymous with Episcopalian. Dr. H. quotes with approbation the following words from an English prelate: "And "therefore, to speak modestly," (reader, what modesty!) "they must needs run a very great hazard "who cut themselves off from ours, and, by conse quence, from the Catholic Churcht." But we shall introduce Dr. H. in propria persona, to express himself on this subject. "Adhere to the government of