tions, to satisfy him that they are entirely consistent. We have not room to protract this discussion. Man is morally free in his fallen state. Whatever else he may have lost, he cannot have lost his mental liberty. He has lost power and goodness, privilege and happiness, but moral freedom he has not lost, and never can lose it, while he remains in possession of his mental faculties. There is one error on this subject which deserves some attention. It is the confounding of ability, and freedom. We design, in our next article, to examine the doctrine of power, and cannot now enter upon its discussion. But while men's minds are only vaguely and indefinitely informed on the subject of power, they often blend it with freedom, and are bewildered, and find it a profitless task to inquire into its consistency with some of the revealed doctrines of grace. The reasons of this confusion are these -men usually take their notions of power from the connexion between choice and external action, and their apprehensions of freedom from the same connexion; and when this is done, they transfer both together to their views of mental liberty. After all this, if they contemplate the commands of God, they seem to infer that liberty and ability are the same. But let a man take the definition of mental liberty as consisting simply in a connexion between pleasure and choice, and we think he will have separated many vague and perplexing thoughts which often improperly cluster with freedom. Agency or action supposes power; but the freeness of the agency respects not the power, only the manner in which it is employed. This is sufficient for our present purpose, hereafter it will be more fully examined. This doctrine of moral freedom conducts us to what may be called ⚫ the basis of accountability, respon sibleness, or moral obligation, in men. Primarily the faculties of knowing, feeling, and choosing, are the basis; and secondarily, the uni-. formly existing connexion between pleasure and choice. Take these together, and man is a fit subject of moral government, of obligation, of reward and punishment. Although liberty is not the basis of moral obligation, it is essential to its existence, in all cases where choice or external action is concerned. There are, it is true, some cases in which men are under moral obligation to perceive and feel, and so far as the specific duty is concerned, it includes no choice; but even in those cases there are inseparable duties associated which do include choice. To perceive the glory of God is a duty-to love it is a duty-but obedience is inseparably connected, although in the perception and the affection there is no act of will. No being can be a complete moral agent without this kind of liberty. His volitions must be according to the pleasure of his heart, in order that his agency should express his character, and procure objects that may promote his own happiness, or that of others. Let it here be remembered that we speak of those faculties as described in our previous articles. This is necessary to be recollected, lest it should be inferred from so summary a statement of the basis of responsibility, that all animals that perceive, feel and act, are proper subjects of moral obligation. Man has a faculty of perceiving moral relations, a faculty of feeling in view of them, and a faculty of choosing or refusing freely moral objects. This renders him a proper subject of responsibility. We conclude this article with a brief statement of the doctrine of moral obligation, corresponding with the above view of its basis in man. Obligation supposes a standard of right, which may be called its foundation. This must be in him to whom we are responsible. It supposes, also, proper qualifications on the part of those who are responsible, and a relation subsisting between them and him to whom they are obliged. But this is too abstract. Let us state it more fully. God's perfections are the standard of right for the universe. They are holy. We are fully authorized to say that holiness is the standard or principle of right, and as such the foundation of moral obligation. The faculties described in this series of articles, qualify men to perceive, feel, and choose, in view of laws which embody the standard: and qualify them to sustain a relation of responsibility. The sum of the matter is, therefore, that men are bound to be holy, because God is holy. This is the whole tenor of his law-"Be ye holy, for I, the Lord your God, am holy." Review. We have been delayed longer than we expected we should be, in fulfilling an intimation given in our September number, that we would before long, Deo juvante, review a Review in the Christian Spectator for June last, but published in the month of May-We are now to redeem our pledge. The Review on which we are going to remark, is entitled-"CASE OF THE REV. MR. BARNES.-The Way of Salvation, a Sermon by the REV. ALBERT BARNES." Now we certainly are not disposed to question the right of the Christian Spectator to review this sermon, or any other publication, and to express his opinion of its inherent merits or defects, with all possible freedom. But this paper, although appearing as a Review, is, in fact, and indeed without any disguise, a plea in favour of Mr. Barnes, against the censure passed upon him by the Presbytery of Philadelphia. and we might add of the Synod of Philadelphia too; for the Synod had participated in the measures which the Spectator condemns. Had the Review been of the ordinary character, it assuredly would have received no formal notice from us. But the doings of two judicatures in the Presbyterian church are deeply implicated by it; and it was sent abroad a considera F. ble time before the stated period of issuing the publication in which it appears, that it might be read, and have all its influence on the members of the General Assembly, before they should even hear the statement of the parties criminated, and on whose proceedings they were to pronounce a sentence either of approbation or censure. Was not this very much like a partial friend endeavouring to get the ear of judges or jurors, to impress them favourably in behalf of a party, before they hear the cause in which he is concerned opened in court? And where, in such a case, is the respect due to the court itself?-and in this case, the highest ecclesiastical court in the Presbyterian church? We verily think the hope expressed by the Spectator, that he would not be thought obtrusive," was an unreasonable and vain hope; a hope that must meet with complete disappointment from every candid mind. He expresses great solicitude that concord and fraternal feeling should be preserved between Presbyterians and Congregationalists; but if the course he has taken has any tendency to secure such a result, or rather, if it is not calculated to produce exactly an opposite effect, then we must acknowlege our utter ignorance of the principles of human nature. Men do not readily yield their affections and confidence to those who treat them with marked unfairness and disrespect. We have heretofore, in describing the state of the Presbyterian church, said that plan and preconcert were employed to render the last General Assembly what it actually was. The truth of our statement has been vehemently oppugned; but the proof that we have made no misrepresentation is fast coming before the publick, and will, ere long, be too strong to admit of plausible denial. And when the character of the Review before us, and the time and circumstances of its emission are considered, we think it is no violent presumption, to suppose that this formed a part of the plan-that it was a matter understood, if not distinctly agreed on, that the powerful writers of the Christian Spectator should throw in their mighty influence, at the critical juncture when their friend and fellow labourer might need its aid. The use of plan and preconcert to secure a majority in the Assembly, when no improper means are used to obtain it, is what we have never condemned; and we have truly wondered to see what industry and zeal have been employed to deny a fact, which, if admitted, was not in our judgment objectionable in itself that is, at a time when great interests were in conflict in our church. But we have objected most strenuously to the unconstitutional introduction into the Assembly of committeemen and mere church members; and we still more strenuously object to the calling in of foreign aid from the New Haven school of Theology, in order to secure a party decision. But we not only object absolutely to the interference of any other religious denomination in a controversy about doctrine and order, as taught in the standards of the Presbyterian church, while the cause is VOL. IX.-Ch. Adv. yet pending; but to nearly the whole of the statements of the Christian Spectator in the case before us. "We hope (says the reviewer) it will not be thought obtrusive in the Christian Spectator, to offer a few remarks designed to promote a spirit of concession upon minor points, between men who are all devoted to the same great cause of evangelical truth and holiness." What we think about his being "obtrusive," we have shown above; but here is a gratuitous assumption at once, in favour of Mr. Barnes and his friends, of the chief matter in dispute. They constantly plead, that all the difference between him and his opposers lies in some "minor points," and some peculiarity of manner in expressing his opinions. The entire review of the Spectator proceeds on this basis. He endeavours to show that Mr. Barnes differs from his opposers, not in substance, but only in words; and this is the favourite representation of the whole party throughout the country. "Why do we contend? We all think alike. Why should brethren differ about mere trifles, and different forms of expression " Such, or similar, is their common language. The design no doubt is to impress the publick with the belief that the orthodox are formal bigots, who would break the peace of the church by making a brother an offender for a word. Thus they seek to destroy our influence with all who turn with disgust from a strife about words, and especially with those who know that orthodox opinions may exist without vital piety and practical godliness, and who think the former of little account when separated from the latter. Hence too the claim point has been made by a religious body, After a decision on a controverted and is published to the world, we regard it as a fair subject of remark; and if the decision affects important points in the bent duty publickly to commend or to cenChristian system, it may even be an incum sure it. 4 N of this party to be the peculiar and exclusive friends of revivals of religion, and their endeavours to have it believed that the orthodox are real enemies to such revivals. Now we affirm that there is neither justice nor truth in any part of this representation. We affirm that not minor but essential points are the matter in dispute; for we believe that the doctrine of imputation is fundamental in God's revealed will; and this is denied in toto, by many of those whom we oppose. They avoid the very term, at least till they have told us that it is applicable only to something that is possessed before it is imputed. They deny not only the imputation of Adam's first sin to his posterity, but the imputation of the sins of believers to their surety Saviour, and the imputation of his finished righteousness to them, as the sole meritorious cause of their justification before God. If they dispute with us only about words, while their meaning is the same as ours, and they think that the whole dispute is useless and injurious, pray let them put an end to it at once, by using our words. We think the orthodox use of language on the subject is important; they say they do not; let them, then, give us a noble instance of concession, and restore the peace of the church without delay. No, the truth is, there is a radical difference of ideas and sentiments between them and us—a radical difference on the all important points we have mentioned; and we might go over the whole controverted ground, and show that their positions and ours are as opposite as any two points of the compass. A principal reason why this is not generally seen is, that they use the old orthodox terms, such as atonement, justification, &c., in a new sense of their own. Now, we believe that sound doctrine in the fundamentals of the revealed system is of vital impor tance to practical piety-that men may have, as we see in the Romish church, great apparent zeal in religion, and yet be destitute of that which will save the soul. We, indeed, undertake not to say, what is the maximum of error that is consistent with salvation—this we believe belongs only to God. But we believe that all important error in religion puts the soul in jeopardy; and that it is, therefore, a sacred duty of Christian charity to oppose it; and thus to endeavour to save our fellow sinners from its dangerous influence. We dissent, therefore, from the Spectator's declaration that "we are all devoted to the same great cause of evangelical truth and holiness." We do indeed most firmly believe that the connexion between truth and holiness is inseparable; and the reason why we have some zeal in this controversy is, that we think evangelical truth, in some of its vital parts, is perverted and set aside by our opponents; and that if the influence of their errors on practical holiness is not apparent at once, it will before long be seen and felt in the most sensible and lamentable manner. To real revivals of religion we claim to be better friends than those who reproach us as their enemies. At this hour-thanks, unspeakable thanks, to a gracious God! there are in the Synod in which Mr. Barnes was censured, and in which the favourite doctrines of the Christian Spectator are abhorred, and notwithstanding his intimation that our opposition to his notions would check these displays of divine mercy-such revivals of religion as we never before witnessed, and such as are not exceeded in power and in the happiest influence, in any part of our country; and there are those who hesitate not to suggest the thought, that God may have vouchsafed this unspeakable favour at this time, as a testimony of his approbation of the firm stand we have taken, in support of his truth against terests of the Redeemer's kingdom, both at home and abroad"-at home, for example, in the revivals of religion just noted-immediately adds, We state the subject thus strongly because any one, we suppose, understands that the case of Mr. Barnes is not that of an individual merely. The real question at issue is, whether New England Calvinism shall any longer be tolerated in the Presbyterian church of this country." Yes, truly, we do "understand that the case of Mr. Barnes is not that of an individual merely." This is just what we have always said. His case is identified with the New Haven school of Theology, and with the doctrines of the Spectator, to which he is known to be a favourite contributor. He and the Spectator are so much one, that if you touch one you touch the other of which the review before us affords palpable evidence. We also understand very well, that there are a considerable number in New England, and we fear not a much less number in our own church-some who have emigrated from the east, and some who, without emigration, have drank from the streams that flow from the fountain opened there-who symbolize and fraternize some perfectly, and some not perfectly but prevalently-with the Christian Spectator and his associates. These all had such a fellow feeling with the case of Mr. Barnes, that they determined to exert all their force, and did exert it at the last General Assembly, and with a measure of success, to shield him from censure. But we have a few words to say more particularly about "New England Calvinism," and whether it shall any longer be tolerated in the Presbyterian church of this country." Here we believe, as we have intimated in another place, is the origin of the rumour circulated far and wide, that the Old School Presbyterians are hostile to the whole Theology of New England, -a rumour credited, we suspect, pretty generally in New England, and to some extent in the Presbyterian church, by those who have not been informed as to the true state of facts. In our present number we have already said something to correct the false impression that has been made, and we shall now take the liberty to say something more-Our readers will forgive us the use of a little repetition. "New England Calvinism," then, -be it known to those who do not already know it-is of two kinds. One kind is that of Edwards, and Bellamy, and Dwight, with a tincture of Hopkinsianism, and perhaps with some other immaterial modifications. The men of this class we regard as real Calvinists, differing from us in some particulars, not regarded either by them or by us as the ground of any alienation. The second class of Calvinists-for they insist on being so called-consists of those who hold the system of the Christian Spectator, and of which we have already said enough to give a general view of its distinguishing features. Now the Calvinists of the first class in New England, think of those of the second class very much as we do. This is proved by a number of publications, in which the errors of Dr. Taylor and his associates are exposed, and the unspeakably dangerous tendency of their principles is set in a true and strong light. The quasi Calvinists, however, have a talent of showing, or of endeavouring to show, that they do not disagree either with their opponents in New England, or with the writers of the Biblical Repertory at Princeton, or with the Christian Advocate himself-although they publish pieces of no ordinary length and number, to prove how exceed. |