really are of Dr. Murdock and the Christian Spectator; to the absurd and shocking dogma-be its author who he may-that God is the immediate or proximate cause of sinful volitions in men and devils; and to all who think that man's natural or moral ability is such that unsanctified sinners may convert themselves, without the immediate and special influence and aid of the Holy Spirit. But it must be entirely from the want of correct information, if any in the Presbyterian churchwhether of the Old School or the New-believe that these monstrous errors have pervaded and given character to the whole Theology of New England. We, and those with whom we have intercourse, are not so ignorant. No indeed-we are fully aware, and greatly rejoiced to know, that there is a large and efficient body of Theologians in New England, who abhor all the errors we have mentioned, as much as we do ourselves; and we unfeignedly love them as brethren, and highly esteem them as coadjutors in the arduous work of withstanding the innovations of heresy and false philosophy, which threaten to subvert the entire gospel system in our land; and to introduce in its place the detestable neology of Germany, in some of its ugliest features, and ultimately in its full length likeness. We know, indeed, that many of the New England brethren of whom we speak, differ from us in some unessential particulars; but this does not destroy our confidence in them, nor our at tachment to them. For himself, the writer can say, that for about five and twenty years before the death of the venerated Dr. Dwight, there subsisted between him and that excellent man, a warm and cherished friendship. A friendship of the same character he has recently formed with another distinguished Theologian, now living. There certainly have been minor points, in making out our Theological sys

tem, in which we did not, and do not, exactly agree with either of these eminent men. But none of these points touch any thing that is vital, or of high importance in doctrinal or practical religion; although we certainly deem them worthy of some regard-more on account of their tendency, as we apprehend, to introduce what is seriously objectionable, than because they possess this character while they remain stationary. On ecclesiastical order, or church government, it is known that the brethren to whom we have referred, are Congregationalists-practically we mean, for in opinion, some of them are decidedly Presbyterians. In relation to this, we can also say with truth, that we regard their churches as sister churches; and that if we were so circumstanced as not to have easy access to a Presbyterian church, we could conscientiously and comfortably commune with one of theirs, to the end of life. But sisters may have different households; and each may make certain arrangements, with which it would be improper and justly offensive for the other to interfere. This expresses our view pretty correctly, in regard to the "household of faith," as arranged and superintended by Presbyterians and Congregationalists. We say-" sister, we like the arrangement and order of our household better than we like yours. We doubt not you can say the same, and we are entirely willing that you should. Let us, then, each keep to her own. Two families generally maintain their friendship and affection best and longest, when they live wholly apart-they are exceedingly apt to get uneasy, and fall into contentions, if they attempt to amalgamate into one family. Let us therefore be good, and kind, and affectionate neighbours; but let us not attempt to mingle at all; and do not think it hard if we object to this altogether; and if we choose to manage

the great concerns of education and missions by ourselves, without interfering with others, or being will ing that they should interfere with us. We will afford you neighbourly help, and wish you success in all the good you attempt, but suffer us peaceably to order our own affairs in the way that we like best."

We have made the foregoing candid statement, in hope it may have some influence in correcting the false impression mentioned at the entrance. A formidable phalanx of errorists exist in our own church, of exactly the same character and the same principles, as those with whom our orthodox brethren in New England have to contend. They are a common enemy, and we ought to oppose them unitedly "with the whole armour of God." They would like to see us alienated from each other; and if they had not endeavoured to cherish this alienation, by spreading the false impression which we have endeavoured to remove, we are persuaded it would not have become so extensive as we know it has. "What!" we have heard it said, even by some who love us-" What! are you arraying yourselves against the whole Theology of New England ?" No-we have answered privately, and now answer publickly. No we are arraying ourselves against Taylorism, and Fitchism, and Murdockism, and Emmonism, and self-conversionism. But we thank God, this is not "the whole Theology of New England," and we hope and believe it never will be. We know that there is there a host of men sound in the faith, who dislike and oppose most decisively, this whole mass of error; and we hail these men, and love them as fellow labourers in the cause of sacred truth, and bid them God speed with all our hearts.

The second topick to which we wish to draw the attention of our readers is, the cry which began in the last General Assembly, and has

been continued ever since, that the Old School Presbyterians, are disturbing the peace of the church, and producing an unnecessary alarm, as to her danger. Now, that there are occasions when the peace of the church ought to be disturbed, and when the alarm of danger should be sounded, if her watchmen would be faithful to their trust, and the hope of rescuing or saving the church from deep corruption and final ruin, be not utterly hopeless and abandoned-are truths abundantly taught and inculcated in the oracles of God, and have been exemplified in the history of every reformation of religion, both before and since the completion of the sacred Canon. The proper questions then, in regard to this subject, can be no other than these. Is the Presbyterian church, at the present time, so corrupted, or in such danger of corruption, as to justify alarm? and if so, who are the criminal disturbers of her peace?

As to the first of these questions, we are aware that we and our opponents are completely at issue. We think that the Presbyterian church-taken in its extent, as under the supervision of the General Assembly-is already greatly corrupted, and in imminent danger of becoming more so, even to the total loss of her attachment to the doctrines of the Protestant reformation-to the truth as it is in Jesus. On the other hand, some of our opponents think that what we call corruptions are real improvements, evidences of the march of mind, and laudable indications of the spirit of the age, freed from the trammels and the bigotry of the ages which have gone by; and others, who do not go this length, still regard the novelties which are broached as no more than those varieties of opinion in regard to non-essentials, which may be safely let alone; or which at any rate should be combatted only in writing and speaking, and that their authors ought by

no means to be subjected to the discipline of the church. We shall not enter far at present into a discussion on this difference of opinion. One thing we think is clear -Things which were considered and treated as proper subjects of church discipline twenty years ago, are not so considered and treated now. Some of the doctrines of the Rev. W. C. Davis, promulged in a book entitled "The Gospel Plan," and condemned by the General Assembly of 1810, as contrary to the Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian church," and for which he was ultimately suspended from the gospel ministry, were the following "That the active obedience of Christ constitutes no part of that righteousness by which a sinner is justified-That obedience to the moral law was not required, as the condition of the covenant of works-That God could not make Adam, or any other creature, either holy or unholy-That regeneration must be a consequence of faith. Faith precedes regeneration-That faith, in the first act of it, is not a holy act-That if God has to plant all the principal parts of salvation in a sinner's heart, to enable him to believe, the gospel plan is quite out of his reach, and consequently does not suit his case; and it must be impossible for God to condemn a man for unbelief; for no just law condemns or criminates any person for not doing what he cannot do." [See Assembly's Digest, pp. 145, 6, 7.] Most unfortunate Davis!-he published his book twenty years too soon. Had he reserved it till 1831, he would not have been suspended from the gospel ministry. He might have been written against perhaps, but he would have received no disciplinary censure whatever; or if he had, the General Assembly would not have confirmed, but removed it. It is too notorious to admit of denial or to require proof, that some of his errors, greatly aggravated, and some worse than any

of his, are now preached and printed freely, without fear, and with little notice. He thought, for instance, that the active obedience of Christ, constitutes no part of his justifying righteousness. Now the doctrine is, that no part of Christ's righteousness has any thing to do with the sinner's justification-the sinner is never justified at all by Christ's righteousness; but in consequence of what Christ has done, the sinner is pardoned by a sovereign act of God, and remains to all eternity the same guilty creature that he ever was. So also in regard to the covenant of works, it is thought idle to talk about obedience or disobedience to that covenant, for there never was such a covenant. As to the rest of the condemned articles of Davis's doctrines, we have some of them in currency, almost exactly as he taught them, and others with vast improvements.

Now, when doctrines which were once considered so dangerous that the teacher of them was suspended from the ministry, are thought to deserve no censure at all, or at any rate not to require that their propagators should be disciplined at all, we think it follows unavoidably, that either the former judicatories of the church were criminally and cruelly severe, or that those that we now live under, are carelessly and censurably negligent of their duty. For ourselves, we do not believe that in the American Presbyterian church, there has ever been too rigorous a discipline. The complaint of our wisest and best men has always been, that we had too little discipline, and that little too lax: and when we see that little become less, and as to doctrine, almost extinct, we confess we are alarmed. Doctrines are the stamina, the vital parts, of every church system. Ecclesiastical order is chiefly valuable, for the sake of preserving doctrinal purity. Let doctrinal soundness be lost, and church

government may become even a curse, instead of a blessing. It may be rendered an engine of heresy and tyranny, to suppress vital piety and to persecute its friends. It is doing this very thing in the Swiss Cantons, at the present hour -doing it in churches formed and indoctrinated by Calvin himself. These churches took the precise course which we are taking. They relaxed their discipline as to doctrine, and one error came in after another, till the church has become Unitarian; and now, having retained their ecclesiastical order and power, the church authorities are denouncing, and ridiculing, and cruelly persecuting, the few orthodox men that remain, and even banishing some of them from their country. We have reason to be thankful to God, that church power in this country cannot inflict civil pains and penalties. But if our church loses its doctrinal purity, our ecclesiastical order and influence, whatever it may be, will all be turned against sound doctrine and evangelical piety: and when we have already gone so far that hardly any error short of avowed Unitarianism can be touched by discipline, and are in the very track which has always led to the introduction of that too, we think it is time to sound the alarm; and we only wish we could sound it, so effectually as to wake up every lethargick Presbyterian throughout our whole communion. Most sincerely do we deplore the present divided state of our church; but the existing affliction we regard as necessary to prevent-if prevention be yet possible-a thousand fold greater evil: and therefore we hesitate not to say, that we regard the present state of things as far less to be lamented than the apathy into which, three or four years ago, our church had sunk, and in which she was in danger of sleeping the sleep of death. Now if she perishes, it will be with her eyes at least parVOL. IX.-Ch. Adv.

tially opened. But we hope and trust in God that she will not perish-that she will see the gulf and avoid it.

In view of the foregoing statement, we think our second question who are the criminal disturbers of the church's peace? may be answered by the quotation of a single passage from the sacred volume: 1 Kings, viii. 17, 18. "And it came to pass, that when Ahab saw Elijah, that Ahab said unto him, art thou he that troubleth Israel? And he answered, I have not troubled Israel; but thou and thy father's house, in that ye have forsaken the commandment of the Lord, and thou hast followed Baalim." Protesting that we neither mean to intimate that those with whom we act are worthy to be compared with Elijah, nor that those whom we oppose are so unworthy as Ahab, but that the scope of the passage answers correctly, as we believe, the question before us, we leave the text without farther comment, and quit for the present this ungrateful subject.

A third topick, which we wish to notice a little in this miscellaneous number of our work, relates to revivals of religion. In the General Assembly of 1850, a particular friend came to us, and used in substance this language. "Those who oppose you, are circulating it among the members, that you are an enemy to revivals of religion. I know it is not true; but I wish you would take some opportunity to deliver your sentiments on that subject before the house." This took place within a few hours after we had read to the Assembly the copy of the letter, which was sent down to the churches, recommending a more general and devout observance of the monthly concert of prayer; every word of which was penned by the hand which writes this, and in which the importance of revivals of religion held a prominent place. This did, at the time, appear to us 4 M