bliged and provoked by the refusal. But mark the sequel-This man, thus rejected for ignorance and heresy, repaired forthwith to the Presbytery from which he came the elective Presbytery of New York; and there has been received, and ordained, and appointed to perform pastoral duties, in which he is now engaged. Is this not an evil result, produced by the existence of an elective affinity Presbytery in New York? We do not put this question to the lovers of affinity Presbyteries. We have their answer-they approve of such proceedings; they obtain the establishment of elective Presbyteries for the purpose of being in readiness to do this very kind of thing; to be prepared, according to Mr. Paterson's honest confession, to license and ordain men whom other Presbyteries refuse or reject. But we ask those who still remember and regard their ordination vows; who "sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith, as containing the system of doctrines taught in the Holy Scriptures;" and who "approve of the government and discipline of the Presbyterian church in these United States"-we ask all the ministers of the gospel of this description now under the supervision of our General Assembly, whether here is not an evil result, of the most flagrant and alarming kind? Whether the very worst evil which the enemies of elective Presbyteries have ever foreseen and predicted, has not, in this instance, been brought out in practice-has not become a palpable and astounding fact? Whether a door has not here been shown to be thrown wide open, for the introduction of heresy in doctrine, and the prostration of all government and discipline in our church. Here is a man, rejected in one Presbytery for illiteracy and gross error, who has only to step into the adjoining Presbyteryfor the Presbytery of Newark joins on that of New York-and he is received and treated as a man sound in the faith, and qualified for ordination and pastoral duties. Yes-and by another wise act of the last Assembly, this very man may take his clean papers from the Presbytery that has whitewashed him, and step back again into the Presbytery of Newark, and there claim to be received as being in as good standing as any of those who have declared him an ignoramus and a heretic-Brethren of the Presbyterian church! we solemnly ask—whither are we tending?-what are to be "the results" of such proceedings? What kind of a church is that to which we belong?

In regard to the facts stated above, we have to say, that we have recently been on the ground where the occurrence to which we have referred took place; and our statement is made in strict correspondence with answers returned to inquiries made of the people of Hanover, and of some of the clerical brethren in that neighbourhood. We have only to add, that the rejection of the individual above referred to by the Presbytery of Newark, and his reception by the third, or elective Presbytery of New York, was probably known to many members of the New Light party in the Assembly, when the assertion was made and sanctioned, that the evils anticipated by the Protestants had not been realized in New York.

We now pass from the doings of the Assembly in regard to their Second Presbytery of Philadelphia, to what was done in providing for it a Synod, of which it should be nominally a part, but as to influence and control, the whole. We believe we are materially correct when we state, that on a request made in the Assembly to know the numbers, severally, of the Presbyteries of which the Synod was to be composed, the stated clerk informed the house, that the Second Prestery consisted of twenty-three members, the Presbytery of Wilming

ton of 11 or 12, and the Presbytery of Lewes of 3. Hence it appears that the Presbyteries of Wilmington and Lewes would, together, furnish the Synod with fifteen members, and leave the Assembly's Second Presbytery of Philadelphia with a controlling majority of eight members, over both of her sisters-Who can deny that the Synod was made for the Presbytery, or rather that the Presbytery was made a Synod?

There is another curious fact in regard to the formation of this Synod. The introductory part of the record relative to its formation reads thus

"The committee to whom was referred No. 8. viz. An application to have the Synod of the Chesapeake dissolved, and also applications from the Presbyteries of Lewes, Wilmington and Philadelphia Second, as constituted by the Assembly, to be constituted into a new Synod, made a report, which was accepted and laid on the table.

"The report on Overture No. 8, and the petitions for the erection of a new Synod, was taken up and adopted, and is as follows, viz."-See the resolutions in our No. for July, page 326.

Now we think we hazard nothing, in saying that any reader of this minute, (friend or foe to the measure of the Assembly under consideration,) would understand and believe that the three Presbyteries named had agreed to petition the Assembly to form them, the said three Presbyteries, into a Synod by themselves. We certainly had, most distinctly, this understanding of the minute, when we first read it; and we busied ourselves for some time in thinking how it could be, that these Presbyteries could have corresponded together before the meeting of the Assembly, and have agreed to unite in this petition. It seemed to us all but impossible; and it was not till a short time since that the thought occurred to us, that possibly the Presbyteries of Wilmington and Lewes did present petitions for the dissolution of the Synod of the Chesapeake, and for the formation of a new Synod, of some kind. We have since been told that they did thus petition; but not for such a Synod as was actually fabricated. On the contrary, we are credibly informed that the representative of the Presbytery of Lewes in the Assembly, voted against the formation of this Synod. Certain it is that he was one of the original signers of the Act and Testimony, while the Assembly was yet in session; and it is equally certain that another of the three members who compose that Presbytery, has since given in his adherence to that important paper; and we greatly mistake the principles and character of the remaining member, who is the present moderator of the Synod of Philadelphia, if he is more disposed than either of his co-presbyters to claim affinity with the Assembly's second Presbytery. It has been justly remarked that "a statement may be equivocally true, and yet manifestly false;" and such exactly is the character of the minute we have quoted. Scan the language, and it will indeed appear that it does not directly state that the three Presbyteries mentioned had petitioned to be formed into a Synod, of which they should form the constituent parts; and yet this is the construction that every reader will put on the minute till otherwise informed. Was it formed in this manner, we ask, to screen the Second Presbytery from the opprobrium of gross inconsistency? For in their plea against the act of the Synod of Philadelphia by which they were first amalgamated and then divided, they strenuously urged that they had not been consulted in this transaction, and had been disposed of contrary to their wishes. Yet in forming this Synod of Delaware, it was at their inCh. Adv.-VOL. XII. 3 G

stance that the Presbytery of Lewes were disposed of in this very manner. Nor are we by any means certain that the Presbytery of Wilmington are gratified, or even contented, with their new connexion. But the most glaring part of the inconsistency lies in the Assembly detaching two Presbyteries from the Synod of Philadelphia, with evidence enough before them that in the way they were doing this, they were acting contrary to the mind of the Synod-Thus declaring by this notable act, that what was wrong in the Synod of Philadelphia, was right when done by the Assembly in forming the Synod of Delaware, and favouring an elective affinity Presbytery.

But we are not yet quite at the end of the unconstitutional and preposterous doings of the Assembly in the matter under consideration. The act of the Synod of Philadelphia; namely, forming two Presbyteries by the dividing line of Market street-would not have taken place when it did, perhaps never, if the Assembly's affinity Presbytery had not been first amalgamated with the body from which it had been severed. The proceedings of the Synod in this business were in fact, and were intended to be considered, as so many parts of one continuous act. That act the Assembly set aside as unconstitutional-Then surely they set aside the formation of the Synod's second Presbytery; namely, that to the north of Market street. But this Presbytery is declared by the Assembly to still exist. By whose act then does it exist? By the act of the Assembly, and by that alone; for the Synod, we assuredly know, never intended to divide the Presbytery of Philadelphia, but as a sequel to the previous amalgamation, which was the basis of the whole procedure. The Assembly, therefore, have formed two Presbyteries in Philadelphia-Or perhaps we ought rather to say three; for the complaint and appeal which were sustained, set forth distinctly, that the Synod had left the old mother Presbytery in a state of complete annihilation; and as she still exists, her resuscitation must, according to what is asserted in the sustained appeal and complaint, be attributed to the powerful interposition and act of the Assembly-No greater mistake could be committed by our readers, than to believe that we have any pleasure in this exposure of the absurd and illegal proceedings of the highest judicatory of our church. We grieve over them, and we blush and are ashamed in presenting them to the public; and nothing should have induced us to do it, but a solemn conviction of the necessity which exists that the Presbyterian church should see the danger which impends, of an entire subversion of its principles, and prostration of its constitutional order.

(To be continued.)

THE PURITAN DIVINES.

Concluded from p. 375.

In examining the Puritan Divines, we cannot help remarking how the oblation of Calvary, the offices of the Saviour, the majesty of the law, and the obedience of the Surety are held up to view. We shall say nothing of the extent of the atonement, save that these good men avoided all loose expressions, and all terms of bold defiance. Men like Owen could not but stand appalled, at the sentiment that atonement was made in the same sense for all mankind; because this would

show an unwillingness on the part of the Spirit to apply the atonement, and carry out the benevolent designs of the Agent who atoned. Waving this subject then, we remark, that this oblation on Calvary was never absent from Puritan ministrations. They looked on it as furnishing pardon to the sinful, balm to the afflicted, justification to the guilty, and holiness to the unclean. They placed before their hearers a mirror, and they reared the hill of Calvary so that the crown of thorns, the reed, the spear, the Roman soldiery and the image of the disconsolate mother of Jesus, were thrown in continued waves of reflection on the people. In the same reflection, the orb of day was included, changing his orange hue into sackcloth, that he might shade the scene, and fill the mountain with twilight, while it was as yet but

the meridian hour.

The Puritan Divines examined all the titles given to Jesus in the Bible, with the minutest care. The author of Hora Solitariæ did not look into this subject more thoroughly than the humblest of these men; and the offices of the Redeemer came under their daily meditation.

But one of the most conspicuous truths in the theology of which we are speaking, is the doctrine of imputed righteousness. These men took enlarged views of the law. But to the claims of the law they opposed, as the refuge of the penitent sinner, the great truth, that the Lawgiver was made under the law. The perfect obedience of the Saviour was just what the law required, of all and each descendant of Adam. Measured by this standard, all flesh stands condemned. It is clear that the life of the Saviour must be connected with our salvation, otherwise he might have been put to death at his first manifestation. But his life illustrated the law, and showed the sinless obedience which it required. On that perfect obedience, the penitent sinner relies, and thus receives a righteousness commensurate with legal claims. This statement contains the essence of that imputed righteousness, for which the Puritans contended; and from which Usher of Armagh, Leighton of St. Andrews, and the judicious Hooker, did not dissent. This is what they meant by the garments of salvation and the robe of praise. This course of preaching they believed would humble the sinner, and show him that his salvation flows from the grace of God, without the least pretension to merit on the part of the subject of grace -Perhaps there is not a better specimen of this kind of theology than "Sibbs's Bruised Reed," or his sermon from the text-" Ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, who, though he was rich, yet for your sakes became poor"-In the ear of all their people, they made grace, rich grace, a familiar sound; and they spake much of the riches of grace.

The theology, of which an imperfect outline has been given, is not without some characteristics which ought to be stated. The first quality by which it is distinguished is, its accordance with the Scriptures. There never were more devoted students of the Bible than the Puritan Divines. They were not remarkable for variety of attainments. But many of them read the Bible in Greek, and some of them in the Hebrew. They had a facility in applying events in history, and sentiments in the Latin and Grecian poets, to spiritual truths. This is remarkably exemplified in the commentary of Matthew Henry. But they were men of one book. They were led every day by the Scriptures to Tabor, where they witnessed the transfiguration of their Lord; or to Gethsemane, where they beheld him prostrate before divine justice, receiving on his person some preliminary sparks from the mouth of that indignant fur

nace; or to Calvary, where they saw him slain; or to Olivet, from whence he went back to the glory which he had with the Father, before the world began.

This theology has the additional recommendation of being ancient. If it be scriptural, it is as ancient as the inspired records. The reformation was not intended to disclose new truths, but to revive truths which had been hidden from the eyes of men by papal delusion. The Puritan Divines did not seek for novelties in religion. A fondness for novelty is the characteristic of children, but these men were far from being children. Belzoni mentions that when he stood among the ruins of Thebes, he felt as if the city had been inhabited by giants; and when we stand among the works of the Puritans, we cannot escape the impression that they were reared by men of gigantic spiritual sta

ture.

Nothing can be more simple than this theology. Philosophy has often spoiled the simplicity of truth. Even the most eloquent of the church fathers, have not been exempt from the folly of making religion a compound. The fruit which is indigenous to religion, is delicious to the taste; but when the tree is engrafted all round with the buds and scions of a false philosophy, the genuine fruit becomes difficult of access.

Further-No theology with which we are acquainted has been so productive of good works. The Puritan Divines were men of prayer. Self-examination and watchfulness over their motives, formed much of their employment. It should not be forgotten that Franke, the founder of the orphan house at Halle, held this system. Nor ought it to be forgotten that the same system was the creed of Howard, the philanthropist. Aitkin, a Unitarian, published a life of Howard, from which work it is impossible to tell the sources from whence his actions arose, or the ultimate object to which they were directed. We should as soon take up the book to discover the sources of the Nile, or the termination of the Niger. But the recent life of the Philanthropist, compiled from his own journals, leaves no doubt as to the truths which he believed. We might here expatiate on the deeds of this excellent man. But we should be rebuked by the eulogium passed on him, by Edmund Burke, the most splendid of British statesmen.

This theology is moreover the basis of a sound experience. Religion is intended to sweeten our tempers and chasten our affections. This theology does indeed contain some bitter buds, but when once crushed by the hand of grace, they are transformed into fragrant flowers. It is often alleged, that the Puritan Divines were gloomy and formal. This point of character, however, was more the product of the external círcumstances in which they were placed than of their theology. They were hunted down by prelates and courtiers, and they would have been above the infirmities of our common nature, if they had not at times displayed a gloomy demeanour. But this was not the habit of their minds. If an unction of heavenly enjoyment is to be found any where, it is in the writings of Flavel, Howe, Goodwin, Calamy and Charnock. The mind of Flavel particularly seems to have been absorbed in heavenly and delightful contemplations. The man of letters is apt to associate with Devonshire the remembrance of Gay, Gifford, and Sir Joshua Reynolds. He thinks how often these distinguished men crossed its brooks, and were sheltered in its myrtle valleys. The same associations we indulge about the Puritan Divine of Dartmouth; and we always feel more holy by visiting his haunts, even in thought.