Williamson, W. W. Chastin, S. Alexander, J. Thompson. Of the Synod of Illinois.-W. W. K. Stewart, J. Matthews. From the Cincinnati Journal. THE PRESENT CRISIS. An attentive observer of the "signs of the times," doubtless sees much in the present state of the Presbyterian church, calculated to awaken the deepest interest and alarm. The "lovers of peace and friends of concord," have great reason to awake and bestir themselves, unless they are willing to see the church rent with endless divisions and it members engaged in a long and furious contest with each other, ending only in alienation of feeling, in a total prostration of all benevolent effort, and the entire suspension of revivals of religion. Things we fear are fast tending to this mournful result. And it seems to be the determinate aim of many, if we may judge from their conduct and conversation, to push matters to extremity. It is time therefore, to speak out on this subject. It is time the Christian community should know who are seeking and praying for the peace ef Jerusalem-who are most actively engaged in promoting revivals of re. ligion-in allaying jealousies-in healing divisions-in lengthening the cords and strengthening the stakes of Zion. And who, by insinuations of heresy and in other ways, are doing things which have a tendency to roll back the car of reformation and divide the Prscbyterian church. We accuse no one individual of doing all these things. But these things are done; and we fear their authors are shielding themselves from public censure and rebuke, under an affected zeal for the order and purity of the church. We have heard much said, and seen much published, recently, respecting the necessity of a division in the Presbyterian church. Do those who talk and write thus, really wish that the church should be divided! If a division takes place, they should remember it will be brought about by their means; and they must be the seceders, because more than ninetenths of the church, we are convinced, will frown upon every attempt to divide our ranks. But if they do not wish for a division, why do we hear so much said by a certain class of men respecting its necessity? Why do we sce constant appeals made in certain publications, calculated to preju. dice the mind of elders and people against their ministers, and destroy all confidence in their integrity and orthodoxy? Why do we find such indefinite charges made respecting the unsoundness of the great body of Presbyterian clergymen in several of our religious newspapers? Why do we hear such repeated calls upon elders to come out in open opposition to their pastors? Why is it now said openly and covertly that the general assembly has become so corrupt that no confidence can be placed in its decisions? Why do we see it so often insinuated that many of our most valuable and successful ministers have sincerely adopted the confession of faith, and are secretly enemies enemies of the Presbyterian church? Why is so much said about Unitarianism and Socinianism, Cumberlandism, and New Lights, in reference to a majority of Presbyterian ministers, if those who speak thus do not wish to divide the Presbyterian church? Now we ask, is it not time to speak out on this subject, and to speak boldly and fearlessly? If the things which are darkly hinted at, exist-if any minister, or ministers have become unsound in the faith-if Unitarianism, or Socinianism, or Cumberlandism, or New Lightism, have crept into the church, let the charges be fully and fairly made out against the identical persons who cherish such sentiments-let the individuals be named-let the proper judicatories be requested to take up the matter, and let every case be fairly adjudicated before the proper ecclesiastical tribunals. Every person who utters the cry of heresy should pursue this course, or forever remain silent. Christian integrity is violated, and ordination vows are profaned by a contrary course. The degree of D. D. was conferred, in UNION COLLEGE, at its last commencement, on the Rev. Archibald Mason, WISHAWTOWN, near Glasgow, Scotland, and by the WESTERN UNIVERSITY, the same honor was conferred on Rev. Andrew Symington, PAISLEY, S.T. P. of the Ref. Presb. Church in Scotland. SYNOD, Session xv. Philadelphia, 3d August, 1831. Resolved, To divide the Northern Presbytery into three presbyteries-the style is to be the Southern, Western, and Northern Presbyteries of the particular Synod of the EAST. The boundaries are, for the Southern, a line from east to west, through Kingston, Ulster co. ; for the Northern, the Hudson river on the west, except the city of Albany, which it includes; and for the Western, all to the north and west of said lines. The Western Presbytery mect in October-the Southern it is expected will meet early in November. Intimation will be given of the constitution of all the presbyteries agreeably to order of general synod, as soon as possible. The particular synod of the East are invited to meet in New York early in April, 1832. Extracts from the minutes of synod will appear in the October number. CHRIST A SURETY FOR SINNERS. (Concluded from p. 166.) Heb. vii. 22. By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament. II. Objections answered. This doctrine is of vast importance in the system of grace. Against it has error erected her batteries, and commenced a furious attack upon these walls of salvation from every quarter. To every objection we cannot now attend. Many have been already obviated in these discourses, and many will occur hereafter in the sequel of them. Armed with truths however, we may, though unequal in strength, engage every opponent of this principle. To a few of their arguments let us now, brethren, attend. I. Object." The principle of substitution is entirely inadmissible. However lawful it may be to exact of a surety the debt of another, to punish the innocent instead of the guilty is utterly unjustifiable. A human court of jurisprudence, that should act upon the principle of vicarious punishment, would be a grievance to society. Shall man be more just than his Maker.?" The sum of this objection is, man cannot deal with man, upon the principle of vicarious satisfac. tion for crimes; therefore it is inadmissible into the transactions of Christ with God. Some would dispute the principle of the objec. tion, but I have no hesitation to grant it in its fullest extent. But I shall attempt to show that it has no application to the point in disVOL. I. OCT. 1831. NO. 6. pute. The premises cannot support the conclusion. Reasoning from analogy is generally dangerous. We are often led to mistake illustrations for demonstrations. Analogical reason. ing is certainly conclusive as far as the analogy holds good: but further than this it is erroneous. A sober mind impressed with a sense of the divine greatness will hesitate to oppose a doctrine seemingly scriptural by argu ments drawn from human transactions. You say, my friends, it is unjust in a human judicatory to admit the execution of a virtuous member of society in the room of a criminal who has been legally convicted. I grant it. But why is this unjust? Produce the rea. sons, and be yourselves the judges whether they will apply to the sufferings of Jesus for our transgressions. The reasons you have to offer I presume are the following: 1. It is unjust in the court to admit one man to suffer for another, because no man has a right to give his life away. What he had no right to give, the law had no right to receive from him. 2. By such a substitution no end of importance is answered either to society in general or to the coustituted authorities. either case the law has but its sentence executed and society loses a member. Yea, 3. There is a real injury done to society by the execution of a virtuous member. His benovolence diffused happi. ness through the circle of his ac. 26 In quaintance, his example was an incitement to virtue, and his exer. tions were signally useful to his friends and the world. His loss is felt to be great. 4. This is not all, but the peace of society is again endangered by the return of the criminal into its bosom. And 5. He may by the perpetration of new crimes expose himself to justice and at last lose his life. Thus would both members be lost to the community. Will these reasons, which are indeed conclusive against the adoption of the principle into our courts, apply against the sacrifice of Immanuel to atone for a guilty world? You cannot pretend it. 1. He as the Lord of all had an indisputable right to assume the human nature and dispose of his life at pleasure. 2. The dignity of his character rendered the substitution honorable to the supreme authority and no society suffered by it. Nay, 3. So far from being a loser by the death of this glorious character, that wisdom determined it for their good. He did not suffer his exertions in behalf of society for a moment to cease. While they were buffet. ing and scourging him, while he suffered on the cross excruciating torments, yea, while lying in the grave, he regulated the most minute concerns of creation. His shoulders upheld the fabric of the universe. And 4. Instead of endangering the happiness of society by restoring into its bosom the criminal acquitted, there is provision made by the substitute for changing his principles of action, which, without possibility of failure, will render him a benevolent and an honorable member. And lastly, So far from there being any danger that the person acquitted shall again become guilty and suffer death, and thus society lose two of its members, that both the substitute and he for whom he suffered shall live for ever and ever. Instead of being lost to the general community, they shall shine brighter than the stars in the firmament-Jesus as the Head, and the former criminal as a constituent member, of the general assembly of happy rationals, world without end. Argue not therefore against the atonement of Jesus from the impropriety of introducing the principle of substitution into courts of human jurisprudence. II. Object. "The scriptures we confess represent Jesus making atonement, but it is universal. Redemption extends to all men, and to the whole world. Why then restrict to certain individuals that God has designed for all the race of Adam.?" The universal salvation to which this doctrine will lead has already been the subject of a particular discourse. We shall not now detain you with remarks on it. The leading features of Arminianism, have also been examined in the discourses already delivered on the plan of that covenant which is well ordered and sure. And in all our religious exercises, we endeavor to oppose the objections offered from that quarter to the system of grace. The application of the word all, in conversation or in writing is determined by the connection. You all hear me. By this I mean all that are in the house; not all the inhabitants of this city or of the whole world. "They who seek the Lord shall understand all things." Not that they shall ever be omniscient, but they shall understand all things the knowledge of which is necessary for their welfare. Keep this in remembrance, and you cannot be at a loss in carefully searching the scriptures, how to apply the expressions of universality which they contain. There are two covenants: that which gendereth bondage, and that which bringeth salvation. God the supreme Lord is a party in each. In the former the first ADAM is the head and representative of a certain number of intelligent beings, viz. all who descend by ordinary ge. neration from his loins. In the latter, Jesus the second Adam is the representative also of a certain number of intelligent creaturessuch of the human family as were given him to be his spiritual seed. When the context shows the reference of the universal adjective all, to be the first covenant, then certainly all mankind are includ. ed-but when reference is to the system of salvation, only those are included who belong to the latter establishment. Thus, as in Adam all die, so in Christ all shall be made alive. As the all who die in Adam is not all creatures but all his own posterity, neither is the all who shall live in Christ all Adam's posterity but his own seed. But what would be the conse. quence were the principle of the objection true? Jesus the surety of the better testament has made atonement for many who shall never be acquitted. He ransomed millions who shall never have their liberty. He purchased happiness for myriads who shall be forever miserable. Blessed Jesus, are such doctrines worthy of thee? Hast thou veiled thy divinity and become a humbled Mediator? Hast thou endured the complicated distress which arises from Satan's attack, the worlds obloquy, thine enemies' triumph,thy friends' desertion, thy Father's frowns ? Hast thou offered thy life in bloody torments as a sacrifice of atonement for sins, and shall the objects ofthy love be everlastingly wretched? Shall any of thy ransomed ones be for ever imprisioned in misery and despair? Has thine omniscience been deceived or thine omnipotent aim rendered ineffectual? No. Thus saith the Lord, "I know my sheep. They shall hear my voice. They shall never perish. My Father who hath given them to me, is greater than all, and none (no man, no devil,) is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand." III. Object." The doctrine of particular election, is essential to the Christian system. The doctrine of the atonement is a fundamental article of our faith. We do not contend for its universality; but it is indefinite. It satisfied justice and magnified the law. It opened a door through which God might honorably commence a treaty with sinners; but Christ paid no specific price exclusively for the elect. The person of the Mediator was a substitute, but he was not a substitue as a public representative. This would be to exclude the grace of the Father from the system of sal. vation." This objection is partly founded |