Page images
PDF
EPUB

to show that the very design of our doctrinal Standards is to make known how we understand the Scriptures; and which, be it remembered, is the understanding that every man who is licensed, or ordained in the Presbyterian church, solemnly declares to be his own. The advocates and propagators of unsound doctrine always profess to go right to the Scriptures-they sometimes even glory, in not being trammelled or restrained by any frame-work raised around the Bible. They well understand, that if they can be allowed to put their own licentious construction on the language of Scripture, the field is open for endless controversy, and for advocating any heresy which they may choose to adopt. They forget-we will not say they remember to forget-that they have already told the church how they do, or did, understand the Scriptures; that this understanding was the ground of their admission into the church; that if they abandon this ground they ought also to abandon the church; and that they violate their solemn engagements, while they keep their standing in the church, and yet set at nought the terms on which that standing was given them, and by which alone they can with good faith retain it. But although professor M. has used the language, we have no suspicion that he has adopted the principles of the latitudinarians. We are satisfied that he believes with us, that the whole authority of our publick Formularies is derived from the sacred Scriptures; that if they were not a just exposition of the leading truths of the word of God, they would have, and ought to have, no authority at all; but that as they do soundly expound, and clearly set forth, the doctrines of the holy oracles, in such a manner as to discriminate truth from the endless errors which men of corrupt minds have professed to derive from the volume of inspiration, these Formularies, taken in the obvious sense which their language bears, are solemnly obligatory on every minister of the Presbyterian church. In an argument with professor M. therefore, it is fair for us to take our acknowledged Standards as exhibiting "the essential truths of Scripture," as held both by him and by us.

In chapter iii. sec. vi. of our Confession of Faith, we find the following article" As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ, by his Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, and sanctified, and kept by his power through faith unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified and saved, but the elect only." The framers of this article appear to have intended it as a summary of doctrines, to be afterwards explained more at large; and have placed it under the general title of "God's eternal decrees." We take it for the very same reason that its authors composed it-as containing a summary; and one that exhibits, at a single view, the most of the important points that are now impugned by preachers and writers in the Presbyterian church. We mean also to add, from the Confession of Faith and Catechisms, a portion of what they contain on each of the topicks, in the general statement.

As we intend to state no points which we have not, with our own eyes and ears, seen or heard publickly opposed or denied, and which but for the space it would occupy, and the labour of transcription it would require, we should like to quote in the very language of the impugners, we shall not dwell on the doctrine of particular election. We do not

recolleet to have seen or heard a direct denial of this point, among the clergymen of our church; although of the laity we know that not a few make no hesitation in rejecting it avowedly and utterly; and although many clergymen do actually contend against doctrines which, by fair implication, necessaaily involve that of particular electionThe Methodists have had considerable success, in some parts of our church, in inculcating their notions on the private members of our communion; and it is well if a number of our clergy also, are not tinctured with their sentiments in regard to election, as we know they are on the subject of human ability.

I. Then, the elect, and of course the whole human race, have " fallen in Adam." The Confession of Faith, chap. v. sec. iv. says "The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God, so far manifest themselves in his providence, that it extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men*—yet so as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God, who being most holy and righteous, neither is, nor can be, the author or approver of sin." On this point we will depart from our general course, and make a quotation, which we think-although we do not say or believe that the writer himself thinks-directly contravenes the above important doctrine of our Standards. A professor of a Theological Seminary in the Presbyterian church has made a publication in the form of letters, in which he says (page 4) "God is properly the AUTHOR of that which is produced or brought about by his direct agency, the nature of which he approves, without any free agency coming between his agency and the event, so as to produce it." And again (page 8) he says-" Then according to Scripture and sound philosophy, to God alone belongs causation, and he alone is uncaused. While he is the HOLY EFFICIENT CAUSE of all our thoughts and volitions, there is no agent between him and these effects, causing them, and producing them. But before God could be the author of sin, his agency and causation must include an approbation of sin, and so be sinful; to suppose which would be blasphemy." Thus it appears, according to this theological professor, that the difference between God's being the Author of sin, and the efficient cause of sin, lies wholly in this -that the former terms imply God's approbation of sin, and the latter terms do not imply it, but leave room to maintain that he utterly disapproves of it. The position is, that sinful thoughts and volitions are creatures of God's own immediate production, which he utterly disapproves; that is, he forms, by his sole and direct efficiency, creatures which he hates the moment they are formed. It would be blasphemy to say that he loved these creatures, at any instant after he has formed them; but it is sound philosophy and theology to say that he hates these creatures of his immediate efficient power, from the very birth of their being. Now, in our humble opinion, this distinction between an author of a thing, and the efficient cause of that thing, is what no one would make or understand, without some sapient professor to teach him. To us it seems to be a distinction without a difference -And we have no doubt that whoever should say, without an explanation, that God is the immediate efficient cause of sinful thoughts and volitions, would be understood, by every one acquainted with the English

* We shall make our quotations by connecting only the clauses which bear on the points we touch. We shall endeavour, in no instance, to mutilate or vary the sense; and of this our readers will be able readily to judge for themselves, by the distinct references we shall always make.

language, and who had not heard of this theological system, as affirming, unequivocally, that God is the author of sin. We once heard a man say, when a strange thing was mentioned-it takes such things as that, to make some of all sorts. And so it is, in the variety of theological notions now afloat in the Presbyterian church-it takes such a system as the one we have just mentioned, to make up the assortment. Yet when the Executive Committee of the Board of Missions of the Presbyterian Church, refused to commission two young preachers who, it was well ascertained, had imbibed the sentiments above exhibited, they received a letter of severe reprimand from the teacher of those hopeful youth, and were threatened with a complaint to the General Assembly. Nor was the threat an idle one-The complaint was made, and very seriously discussed; and although the Committee at length escaped without censure, yet so also did the complainant. Nor have we ever heard, and do not believe, that this system of theological instruction has ever met reproof, from any judicatory in the Presbyte

rian church.

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 transgressionThe sinfulness of that estate, wherein to 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 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 publick authoritative Standards of our church, are at present publickly 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 men 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-" 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 "philosophy, 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.

grace

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 favour, is wholly from the power and free 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"-We omit the answer to the question on effectual calling in the Shorter Catechism, which is of the same import as that here recited.

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, publickly 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 con

« PreviousContinue »