« السابقةمتابعة »
hold to both Decrees and Self-determination, Calvinistic Arminians, or Arminian Calvinists; for as the scheme they have embraced, is both monstrous and absurd,' so ought to be the appellation by which they call themselves.
THE CONGREGATIONAL "WAY,' PREFERRED BY THE PRESEY
It is probably known to most of our readers, that the Rev. Albert Barnes, by publishing a Sermon, entitled the way of salvation,' which contained Hopkinsian sentiments, or 'New England divinity,' incurred the censure of a part of the Presbytery of Philadelphia. His case was carried up to the General Assembly in May last; by whom it was referred to a Committee. On this Committee the Moderator placed the Rev. Leonard Bacon of New Haven, who was present as a Delegate from the General Assosiation of Connecticut. For sitting and acting on this committee, Mr. Bacon was, it seems, censured in the Christian Advocate, by the Editor, Dr. Green of Philadelphia. The following is extracted from Rev. Mr. Bacon's Reply, published in the Philadelphian.
I supposed that the committee on which I was named, was appointed, not to try the case on presbyterian principles, but rather to act as a council for the settlement of the controversy, as we dispose of difficulties in our churches. I confess myself unskilled in the peculiarities of presbyterian discipline; but if I understand your book, your way is to try such a case by hearing not only the documents, but the parties, and to decide it, not by proposing terms of reconciliation, but by giving a direct, distinct and conclusive answer to every question involved in the reference, complaint or appeal. This I suppose would have been the presbyterian method of proceeding in the case of Mr. Barnes. But this course was not adopted. There was a reluctance, in a part of the Assembly, against a regular trial and decision of the case. I was not very well acquainted with members or parties; but this I know, the men who feared the result of a trial, were some of them men of great respectability. Not even the venerable editor of the Christian Advocate, will charge the venerable professor on whose repeated motion the Assembly at last consented to waive a regular trial, with being engaged in any conspiracy against the purity of the Presbyterian Church. Yet the fact was, Dr. Miller did earnestly deprecate the evils which would follow a regular trial and decision; and on that ground persuaded the parties to forego their constitutional rights, and to submit their case without a trial; in the expectation that the Assembly would endeavor to find some ground on which the parties might be at peace. I was disappointed at this,
and yet I rejoiced in it As a curious observer, I was disappointed, because I had expected to see the practical operation of your system of judicatories and appeals, in a case in which, if it has any superiority over our system of friendly arbitrations, that superiority would be manifest. As a christian brother, I rejoiced, because I verily thought that the proposal was a wise one, and that peace could be better secured thus, than by a judicial decision after a regular trial. I came to the General Assembly, disposed to learn what are the actual advantages of that towering system of ecclesiastical courts which constitutes the glory of Presbyterianism, and of that power to terminate all controversies which is supposed to reside in the supreme jndicature. Of course I could not but be at once astonished and gratified, to see that unconscious homage which was rendered to congregational principles, when presbyterians of the highest form, pure from every infection and tincture of independency, untouched with any suspicion of leaning towards New England, strenuously deprecated the regular action of the Presbyterian system in a case which, of all cases, was obviously best fitted to demonstrate its excellence. I was astonished. I had indeed expected that the voice which was to answer the complainants and the presbytery of Philadelphia, would answer out of the whirlwind; but I had supposed that consistency in those brethren would constrain, them to acknowledge that voice, even speaking from the whirlwind, as the voice of the only legitimate arbiter. I could not but ask within myself, what is this lauded system of power and jurisdiction worth-these judicatures, court rising above court in regular gradation, what are they worth, if you are afraid to try your system in the hour of need? Yet when I heard those brethren arguing in favor of referring the matter to a select committee which should endeavor to mediate between the parties, and to propose some terms of peace and mutual oblivion, in other words to act as a congregational ecclesiastical council would act in attempting the adjustment of any similar controversy, I was convinced that they were in the right. And when the Assembly and the parties at last acceded to that proposal, I supposed that the general conviction was, that it was best to go to work, on that occasion, in something like the congregational way, rather than in the presbyterian way.
Extract of a Letter from Rev. Dr. Cox, in the N. Y. Evangelist.
The order of election in the divine purposes, though a matter of great importance in my own view, and often wretchedly misstated as I must think, I forbear to consider in the present article, farther than to say that I view election in that order as placed after the fall, after the atonement, after the offer of salvation, and after
its rejection-its wanton, voluntary, wicked rejection, virtually or formally, by the whole species: that when it comes into effect, it infallibly secures the event; and this is mainly all we know of it. The purposes of God are not identified with the influences of the Spirit; but some of them render those influences effectual, according to the wisdom of eternal Providence. When the purpose of election takes effect, it violates not the laws of mind; the subject is not conscious of it, as such; he considers his ways, sees his danger, discerns his guilt, perceives his duty, dreads to be rejected, yields to the moral causes that persuade him to obedience, and engages himself to Christ forever. He may ther infer his eternal election of God, just as absolutely and certainly, as he can demonstrate his present piety. The inference is logical, right, and without one particle of impropriety; when correctly made, it glorifies God, promotes holiness, strengthens pious purpose, and subserves in a thousand ways that godly edifying which is in faith.' It gives stability to faith, superiority to devotion, fortitude to service, constancy to hope, and clearness as well as depth to spiritual vision. It appears to me not at all difficult to understand, in comparison of vulgar or decimal fractions, the calculations of political economy, or even the rates of exchange; not to mention a countless number of other matters, which merchants, mechanics, farmers and young ladies at school, often reduce to the full dominion of intelligence. Were it not for prejudice, pride and indolence, those mighty makers of unbelief, with ignorance to help them, the doctrine of election would be universally studied, understood, and received, to the delight and the infinite moral improvement of mankind.
From the Christian Soldier.
"The Roman Catholic faith is the faith of 170,000,000 of the present generation. This immense multitude is composed of 'all nations, and tribes, and people, and tongues; they are dissimilar in their habits; they are often influenced by opposite and conflicting interests: but on the subject of their faith, their union resembles the harmony of the heavenly bodies, &c.-to every unprejudiced mind, it must appear inconsistent to reject the united testimony of so many millions to favor the opinions of a comparative few," &c.
So says the first number of the Catholic Telegraph, at Cincinnati. If a copy of that paper stray to Calcutta, and fall into the hands of a Brahmical editor, he would probably thank Juggernaut and write as follows:
"The pagan faith is the faith of 500,000,000 of the present generation. This immense multitude is composed of 'all nations, and tribes, and people, and tongues.' They are quite as dissim
ilar in their interests and manners, and quite as united in their faith as the Roman Catholics. To every unprejndiced mind, it must appear inconsistent, to reject the united testimony of so many millions to favor the testimony of a comparative few," &c. --and if the article, thus altered, should get back to Cincinnati, the editor of the Telegraph must to be consistent, be converted to heathenism by it.
Two causes of alarm with respect to the progress of popery in this country, we believe, are overrated. One is, their 'increasing influence.' Can we doubt, that men who appeal to the testimony of one hundred and seventy millions as a sound argument, will tell as large stories as they dare about the number who adhere to them in this country? That they have all the influence which can arise from immense wealth, appropriated by European monarchs and nobles for the purpose of undermining our religious, and thus our civil liberty, and judiciously expended for that purpose by artful and unprincipled men, we have no doubt. But that they are making many converts, we are not yet convinced. Another error, is, the notion that the Jesuit priests are men of great learning. That they have been compelled in their boyhood to plod through a great deal of the mummery of the dark ages, which others neglect because it is worthless, is very possible; but that they really deserve the first rank as sound scholars, we have no suspicion of it. We much mistake, if a thorough examination before some of our sound Protestant scholars, who could not be browbeaten by their impudence, would not show many of them to be rather quackish.
From the Christian Offering,
ILLUSTRATION OF JOHN XIV. 8, 9.
By Rev. J. Chaplin, D. D. President of Waterville College.
"Philip saith unto him [Jesus,] Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us, Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father, and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?"
This passage I have long considered as clearly teaching the doctrine of our Savior's true and proper divinity. The train of thought by which I arrived at this conclusion, is substantially as follows: Suppose you descend into one of the salt mines of Poland, some of which are said to be several hundred feet below the surface of the earth, and that you converse with one of the inhabitants of that subterraneous world, and one who was born there, and who had never seen the light of the sun. You undertake to give him a description of fields, and pastures and forests, and mountains, and a variety of other things to be found on the earth's sur
face. You also attempt to give him some idea of the heavens, of the azure vault, and of the worlds of light with which it is bespan. gled and adorned. You speak particularly of the sun, and of the splendor and majesty in which he appears, when he marches through the heavens in a clear day. The man listens with profound attention; and at length exclaims, 'Show me that glorious sun and I shall be satisfied.' Suppose you now point him to one of the lamps which burn with a faint and feeble light in his dreary cavern, and say to him, 'Do you see that lamp?' 'I do, he replies, but what of that?' 'Why, say you, he that hath seen that lamp, hath seen the sun; and why do you say to me, Show me the sun? Should you speak thus to the inhabitant of the mine, how would you appear to him? And I may add, how would you appear to all men of sense? The application is easy.-The similitude, I admit, is in one respect imperfect. But that very imperfection is adapted to evince the truth of the doctrine which I suppose to be contained in the passage, namely, the doctrine of our Savior's divinity. There is some proportion between the light of a lamp and the light of the sun. Both are created, and therefore both are finite. But if Jesus Christ be not truly and properly God, there is an infinite disproportion between him and the eternal Father. Hence, if it would be absurd to say, 'He that hath seen a lamp hath seen the sun,' much more absurd must it be to say, 'He that hath seen Christ hath seen the Father,' unless Christ be truly and properly divine.
From the New England Artizan.
I PAID HIM WHAT I AGREED TO.
This is a saying frequently uttered by employers, by way of justification, when those that labor for them complain of loss in the completion of jobs. A person wants a quantity of labor performed, and instead of coming honorably forward, and employing men at a fair rate of compensation, he excites competition among laboring men, induces them to under bid each other, and finally obtains a contract for the execution of his work, at a price far below what he knows it to be worth. The poor man labors, perhaps a week, a month, or a year; expends all he receives, on the work itself; obtains nothing to supply the wants of his dependant family, honorably completes his job, and finds himself involved in ruin. Should he chance to complain, his employer exclaims, 'I have paid you what I agreed to.' This is true-Alas-too true—And with this plea he may justify himself to his own niggardly spirit, by lulling conscience to rest. But does it satisfy the demands of honor and justice, while he knows that he has pocketed that which ought to go to pay for a poor man's labor? Does it satisfy the demands of humanity, while he knows that the poor man has labored for