誓

*

with the precision of a New Testament writer*-Moses esteemed the reproach of Christ greater riches, than the treasures of Egypt†— David describes him, in his sufferings, in hist exaltation, and in his dispensations, in these divine songs, which, I fear, an unhappy prejudice has prevented some masters in our Israel from understanding. And yet, wonder. ful to tell, these saints knew nothing of this personage, as the way to the Father! Did these writers understand that Confession which they subscribed, and were they sincere, when they professed to believe its articles, and vowed to teach its doctrines? This document teaches, that "The justification of believers under the Old Testament was, in all respects, one and the same with the justification of be. lievers under the New Testament."'|| This symbol, in the same chapter, teaches, that

Faith, receiving and resting upon Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification." But, when a point is to be gained, subscriptions, vows, consistency, and truth, all in unison, oppose, too frequently,

&c.

Job, 19. 25-276 † Heb. 11. 26. Psal. 68. 22. 110. 118. 1 Conf. of the Presby: Church, Chap. XI.

but a feeble obstacle to the aroused passions

of imperfect man.

How bitterly, it is to be lamented, that ministers of the word of God, should vituperate a most interesting portion of that word! Holding it forth, as depriving the Son of God of di vine honor directly tending to make heresy triumphant as favorable to Arianism, and as properly suited to such a perversion of truth! By such vituperation, the imitation, and hymns of Watts, have been forced upon the unwarys and, so far as a defence of the usurpation is undertaken, it is made by the same weapons. Say, ye who fear God, and tremble at his word, is not the cause a desperate one, that I shall not say requires, but, that tolerates, such support? To be told all this, to hear it repeated, and to see it presented in varied forms, by men occupying the place of ministers in the Church of the Lord, and eulogized by others, and remain unmoved, would argue a species of apathy, by which no virtuous mind should wish to be characterized. If from another quarter, it would call forth a well tempered indignation; as it is, grief takes the place of in

dignation, and expresses itself in the tears of affliction.

These sentiments, indeed, appear to carry us so far beyond the regions, where mistaken saints are wont to stray, that, when I read them, I imagine myself on the confines of infidelity. Has" The age of reason" spoken more reproachfully of the Book o Psalms, than these writings, which I now review? The o pinions are so often repeated, turned up in so many forms, and appear in so many connexions, that we are forbidden to ascribe them to a lapsus calami, an oversight in composition. Is not their tendency to corrupt the mind, and shake the public faith, in the inspired page, If, indeed, any portion of the Book of Psalms have such tendencies, as have been ascribed to it, ought it not to be torn from our Bibles, and excluded from our churches? Tell me, is it not dangerous to read, as well as to sing, those portions of scripture, that "darken our sight of God the Savior?—that tend to give heresy a triumph, and that were properly suited to a perversion of truth"? Was it well done to imi tate such a book? If the original be so dangerous, can the imitation be safe? By what rule

น

shall we know those portions of the word of God, that have such evil tendency, from those parts that are still profitable? And how account for the fatal omission, of the great Prophet of the Church, and of his inspired messengers, in never hinting to us these dangers from the use of the Book of Psalms? These perplexing questions croud upon us-They should have been obviated by those Evangelical illuminati, who have cast such a shade of doubt on this venerable Book, which prophets composed, which apostles admired, and which saints in every age have most devoutly sung.

That such sentiments were indulged, among any of the professed disciples of christianity, even in the heat of angry controversy, can be accounted for, only by the fact already mentioned: the progress of infidelity. The period, when the opinions of Watts were broached, was the age in which the publications of Herbert, Shaftsbury, and Bolingbroke, came abroad, recommended by the fascinations of wit, of eloquence, and a pretension to lofty thought. From causes already mentioned, it was the age, too, of extinguished zeal, and lit

K

A

tle scriptural religion. The floodgates of infidelity were raised, the torrent encreased, and, in its impetuous course, carried public opinion along. Its deadly waters washed our shores. Untaught to confide in ourselves, and to draw upon our own resources, we depended as much on Europe, for the opinions we should entertain, as for the robes we should wear. Political revolutions unsettle the public mind, lead to connexions unknown before, and afford faciilties for the active apostles of error, to accomplish their designs. The history of our times, and of our country, amply verifies this remark.

When the controversy of which we now treat, was first agitated in this country, the imposing port assumed by infidelity, may be well remembered, while as a monster it stalked our streets. That was The age of Reason." The public ear was familiarized to the supposed contradictions of the word of God.But now, that these tumultuous waters are assuaged, that the reign of infidelity has ended, and that we live in the age of Bibles, when every one seems ready to atone for the wanderings of other years, I cannot persuade myself that,