tained in the essential article of our Creed, as stated above, could scarcely have done it more effectually and explicitly, than they have studiously attempted to do. According to them, the atonement (a word not found in the doctrinal part of the Standards of our church) did not consist in "Christ, by his obedience and death, fully discharging the debt of all those that are justified; and by making a proper, real and full satisfaction to his Father's justice in their behalf." All this is most unequivocally denied. It is explicitly asserted that Christ did not endure the penalty of the violated law of God, in behalf of his people; and of course did not discharge their debt-That the atonement is merely an exhibition of the displeasure or wrath of God against sin, and was made for all mankind alike and equally; was an offering made for the race; did not by itself secure the salvation of any one; and consequently did not make a proper, real and full satisfaction to the justice of God in behalf of all those that are saved; for these men profess to reject the doctrine of universal salvation. In a word, all ideas of substitution, or that Christ took the sinner's place, and obeyed and suffered in the room and stead of his people, are completely, and by some indignantly, rejected. And as to his righteousness, consisting of his active obedience to the law of God, and passive endurance of the penalty-being imputed to his people, as the meritorious cause of their justification, it is regarded and treated as an absurdity, and even as an impossibility. The old orthodox terms, of atonement, justification, and the righteousness of Christ, are retained; for what purpose we know not, if it is not to blind the populace, and leave them impressed with the belief that there is no real difference between the sentiments of these men and their orthodox brethren. We wish it to be understood, that a principal part of our purpose, in making the exhibit that we are now closing, is, to let our readers see what is the doctrinal difference, between the parties that now divide and distract the Presbyterian church. Let them look at it, and consider it well: And when they have done so, we ask 1. Is there not only a real, but a wide difference? To us it does seem, after the most serious and impartial view that we have been able to take of the whole matter, that here are two systems-two systems which, in their characteristic features, are directly opposed to each other. If we understand the doctrinal system of our Confession of Faith and Catechisms, the principle of IMPUTATION is fundamental, and essential to the whole. Deny the imputation of Adam's covenant breaking sin, with its consequences, (as specified in our Standards) to all his posterity; deny the imputation of the sins of believers to their Surety Saviour, and the full satisfaction which, when imputed, he made for their sins, to divine law and justice; and deny the imputation of the finished righteousness of Christ to his people, for their justification before God, and their title to eternal life-and you deny a very large part of the very essence of the doctrinal standards of our church. But the party contemplated do unequivocally deny all this; as well as the other fundamental principle of regeneration, as being exclusively the work of the Holy Spirit.-The most frank and candid among them will tell you so expressly. Question them on each of the points to which imputation applies, as stated above, and they will tell you, that they do not hold this, that, or the other. Yet they will preach, after all, in such a manner as to lead the people to believe, and many of their ministerial brethren to believe, that they cannot be far wrong-that the most of the difference between them and their brethren, is only a difference Ch. Adv.-VOL. XII. E in language-a dispute about words-that in reality they all think alike -or as professor M. has it," are sufficiently near to the Scriptures and to each other, in respect to all the essentials of truth, to be comfortably united in Christian fellowship and co-operation.' Great was the delight which this declaration gave to the whole party. It was the very thing which they wished, and which they still wish and labour to have believed. It gained an admission of the letter which contained it, and a few of the succeeding ones, into their periodicals. But they found, after a while, that they must treat the professor pretty much as a Quaker preacher treated Whitfield, when he had spoken a short time in one of their meetings-"Friend George, said the Quaker interrupting him, I think thee has said about enough"-and so no more of the professor's letters, so far as we have seen or heard, have appeared in any of their papers. 2. Is it credible that "nineteen-twentieths of the ministers of the Presbyterian church, are sufficiently agreed in all the essentials of truth, to be comfortably united in Christian fellowship and co-operation?" We take it for granted, not only from what we personally know of professor M., but from what he says in immediate connexion with the quoted passage, that those who materially disagree, in relation to the points which we have exhibited from the Constitution of our church, cannot be comfortably united in Christian fellowship and co-operation. It follows necessarily, that his estimate is, that not more than one in twenty of our ministers, hold the obnoxious system which we have endeavoured to expose. Now, without stating any calculation of our own, we shall offer a few reasons briefly, why we think the professor's estimate must be exceedingly erroneous. We first mention the free and fearless manner in which the advocates of unsound doctrine preach and publish their opinions. Would they do this, if they were not well assured, that far more than one in twenty are prepared to stand by them? Or if they would still state, preach and print as they do, could they do it, without suffering discipline? No, assuredly-They well know that there is a large party-in the General Assembly of the church, probably a majority-who either through fellowship with their errors, or reluctance to offend those who are in such fellowship, will see them safe and sound through any jeopardy into which the orthodox may endeavour to bring them. Again. Look at the Theological Seminaries in our land, that send forth their pupils to become, and who actually and immediately become, ministers in the Presbyterian church. Are nineteen-twentieths of these, substantially sound in the faith? Have the professors of the Seminary in which Dr. M. sustains his office, been able to prevent many of their pupils from maintaining and advocating, through their whole course, several of the obnoxious sentiments to which we have adverted; and from preaching and publishing them, after they have left the institution? We know they have not. But let us not be misunderstood. We believe the professors in that Seminary have honestly and faithfully laboured to embue the minds of their pupils with sound doctrine; and that they sincerely lament that they have too often laboured in vain. We firmly believe the evil arises from the minds of some of the youth being so preoccupied with wrong views before they enter the Seminary, and from knowing that popular opinion is much in their favour, that they can neither be convinced of their errors from all the lectures they hear, nor restrained from defending, and even endeavouring to propagate them, in the institution: And others, who leave the Seminary, apparently and avowedly sound in the faith, find so many clergymen opposed to their sentiments, and the popular current in the places where they are located so strongly set against them, that at length they yield and swim with the tide. Could this take place, to half the extent to which it has taken place, if nineteen-twentieths of our ministers were substantially orthodox? We are confident it could not. Once more, and finally-Whether it is known to professor M. or not, it is known to us, that on one side there are strong hopes, and on the other side strong fears, that in the event of the death of any one of the present professors of the Princeton Seminary, a man of the same, or similar theological tenets with the defunct, could not be chosen in his place. "Nineteen-twentieths" of our clergy substantially sound in the faith, when this is the case! Impossible-We fear that even a majority will not be found so, or not found so with sufficient firmness and decision, whenever another professor is to be elected in that Seminary. We are ready to weep over the prospect; although it is probable we shall not live to see the event. Our duty, we think, consists in making known the danger, that measures may, if possible, be taken to prevent its being realized. (To be continued.) BRIEF NOTICES OF RECENT PUBLICATIONS. AN ADDRESS, delivered before the the day of the Annual Commencement of the College, September 25, 1833. By John Sergeant, LL. D. Published by request of the Association. Princeton. Printed by Baker and Connolly. 1833. We have read this address with unqualified pleasure and approbation; and we should wonder how a gentleman so weightily and constantly occupied, as we know its author to be, with important professional engagements, should have acquired such an accurate and minute knowledge of the whole process of a right education, if he had not shown so satisfactorily, in this composition, what an amount of information, on subjects not professional, may be acquired by one who loses no portion of his timeThis reveals the secret. We wish that many may be benefited by the disclosure. The address before us is calculated to be profitable, not merely to the alumni of Nassau Hall, and to other proficients in literature and science, to whom it was orally delivered. It is eminently calculated to instruct all parents; and espe cially those of some intellectual attainments, and who are able to give a liberal education to their children. It is also equally adapted to profit all young persons, who love and seek mental improvement. We know not what number of copies have been printed, but we hope they are numerous, and that they will be widely distributed. Our space is precious, but we must give two short quotations; and the nature of our work determines us, in making extracts, to select the following: day of rest-putting aside all serious con"For encroaching upon the appointed siderations-there is no excuse at all. It is not an evidence of industry in one's avocations, but the contrary. It is not profitable, even upon a mere worldly estimate, but injurious. It is commonly the refuge of laziness and disorderly habits, which, neglecting things when they ought to be done, suffer them to accumulate, with the expectation that the arrears will be cleared off on Sunday. A man who yields to this temptation, does not labour seven days-he allows himself seven days to do the work of six, and after all, the work is not done. The thief procrastination will be sure to steal more than one day out of the six, and leave to the seventh an undue proportion of work, even though its own proper duty be at the same time left entirely unperformed. What was said by Sir Matthew Hale in 1662, doubtless he would have been able to repeat in 1833. 'I have found by a strict and diligent observation, that a due observance of the duty of this day hath ever had joined to it, a blessing upon the rest of my time; and the week that hath been so begun, hath been blessed and prosperous to me.' But apart from the considerations which governed that pious man, and deserve the deep attention of every one, no one who seriously reflects, will fail to be convinced, however paradoxical it may appear, that more work can be done in six days, than in seven. The fact is believed to support the argument. Speaking as a witness, after some experience, and careful observation, I can say, that many of the most industrious, and, in their respective walks, the most eminent men I have known, have been those who refrained from worldly employment on the Sabbath. But to return to the point under discussion-how do those who promise themselves a period of rest and of rational enjoyment, after the fatigues of a long day of uninterrupted labour, propose to spend it, if in the course of Providence it should be mercifully granted to them? I will not attempt to answer the question, but leave it for those to reflect upon, whose experience and studies have enabled them to decide what the chances are, that the buds, and the blossoms, and fruit, which in the order of nature are the ornament and delight of the season of genial warmth, will come forth in the frosts of winter." "Of all the blows that can be levelled at this good cause, there is none so deadly and destructive, as that which aims to sever or to weaken the union of learning and religion. Our fathers thought them inseparable. When they were to build up an edifice for instruction, they laid its foundation in piety, and they humbly invoked the Divine aid to fill the whole structure with the light of truth. Nor did they neglect the appointed means. Within its walls they fixed an altar, not like that in Athens, inscribed to the Unknown God,' but to Him, who having always manifested Himself in the works of creation and providence, has also made Himself known by the revelation of His attributes, and of His holy will. Around this altar they thought it right to assemble daily the youth committed to their care, and to endeavour to provide that its fire should be fed, and its services be performed, by pious and learned men:-that so the perfume of its offerings might fill the atmosphere of the nursery of youth all human learning be accompanied with the spirit of devotion, and the recollection of our dependence, and our duties be con tiuually present with the effort to improve the faculties of the mind. Such an institution was to be an Alma Mater. It was to fulfil a mother's duty, not only with a mother's affection, but with the deep religious sense that is seated in a pious mother's heart, to guide and govern that af fection, so beautifully exhibited, in the first lessons of childhood, when the little hands are upraised towards heaven, by the mother's side, before the tongue has power to give utterance to praise or thanksgiving. But now, there are those who would separate religion from learning, who would exclude the altar from the nursery of youth, and leave the place of instruction without any visible manifestation or acknowledgment of duty to our Maker. If such a proposal were limited to scoffers at religion, to such as indulge in sneers and sarcasms at all that is serious, to men who vainly imagine they make themselves giants, by raising their puny hands against heaven, it would not be surprising, and, comparatively, it would be harmless. They are few in number, and of little weight. The real matter of astonishment, not unmixed with deep concern, is, that it should find favour with any one else. That it can be entertained for a moment must be owing to ignorance or thoughtlessness. Here, then, the body of educated men must take their stand. By all the means in their power they must endeavour to avert the pestilent mischief of desecrating the places of instruction, of separating the culture of the heart from that of the mind; and, under the pretence of a liberal morality, of rejecting the only morality that is clear in its source, pure in its precepts, and efficacious in its influences-the morality of the gospel. All else, at last, is but idolatry— the worship of something of man's own creation, and that thing imperfect and feeble like himself, and wholly insufficient to give him support and strength." THE NATURE, LAWFULNESS AND PROPER USE OF CREEDS. A Sermon, by Ezra Fisk, D. D., a Professor in the Western Theological Seminary. The appropriate text of this sermon, is 2 Tim. i. 13.-"Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith, and love, which is in Christ Jesus." This discourse appears as the twentieth, in a series published monthly at Pittsburgh, Pa., under the title of The Presbyterian Preacher-which we take this opportunity earnestly to recommend to the members of the Presbyterian church, as worthy of their patronage. We have here the last publication of its lamented author. At his request, we put into his hands the copy now before us, which he had not previously seen in print; and while he was apparently convalescent, we saw him perusing it, lying on his bed-alas! it was his death-bed. The discourse may be considered as his legacy to the Presbyterian church; which we devoutly pray may be valued and regarded as it ought to be. The subject is treated in that clear, argumentative, and convincing manner, which characterized all the productions of Dr. Fisk. We give two important quotations; one near the Sse of the sermon, and the other the concluding paragraph. By these, our sainted brother "being dead, yet speaketh;" and O, that what he here says could reach the ears and the hearts of every member of a church judicatory in the Presbyterian church. "My next remark is, that the same firm and consistent adherence to our creed, which this subject demands of us as presbyters, we are bound to exact of those who unite with us. "If a man is to hold fast the summary of gospel doctrine, which he professes to receive, the transaction involves the adoption of both the form and the sentiment. This tampering with a creed, adopting a part and rejecting a part, receiving some of its contents according to the obvious meaning of its terms, and others in a sense opposite, or entirely different from the common and obvious meaning, is introducing a confusion into the church. Are not the facts so at this hour? Are there not many presbyteries in great difficulty, from having neglected to require an adherence to the standard of faith in its obvious sense? It is passing strange, how men, claiming to be honest, can adopt a creed, many of whose essential features they do not believe, and by which they do not consider themselves at all bound. Such cases have doubtless occurred. We ought to guard against the admission of such persons. We ought to exact of every man, who would enter our connexion, an agreement with us in the essential and important articles of our confession. The right of presbytery to examine every man, who seeks admission as a member, is just as clear as the obligation of the man so admitted to hold fast "the form of sound words" which he adopts. Can there be any doubt on this subject? every presbyter is bound, intelligently, Certainly consistently, and firmly, to hold the confession of faith which he has adopted. He adopted a summary of faith from the inowes it to his divine Master. Has he spired directions of his Lord, and is he not bound by it? If obligation can bind a conscience, it reaches him. But he owes it to the church, and to his brethren who bear office in the church. They have a right to know what he believes, and what they may expect him to teach. The church looks to that form of sound words, which he has said he "sincerely receives gospel truth. To hold a sentiment oppoand adopts," as his pledge to teach them site to this would subvert all confidence, and destroy all security that the church will not become the sport of philosophical ples of verity, soundness, and peace Are speculation-it would unsettle the princiministers of the same communion and fellowship, bound to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace, and yet are they to have no common principles of union, no recognised test of soundness, and no admitted basis of peace? The supposition is absurd and ruinous. Every minister who adopts the confession, owes to the church the fulfilment of his pledge, and the judicatory is bound to exact it, both from all who unite with it, or come under its care as religious teachers. At such a time as this, the presbytery would be untrue to its responsibility, in neglecting to exact of its candidates for admission, this adherence to the standards of the church. "Another remark may here be made; whenever a minister changes his views of religious doctrine, and abandons the creed he had formerly adopted, he ought to leave that branch of the church, and give his presbytery the earliest notice of his change of sentiment and instruction. "Plain, simple honesty, demands all this of him. The pledge which a man gives when he unites with a judicatory, is not a declaration that he is infallible. I admit that a man may honestly change his theological views, and embrace doctrines at variance with his formerly adopted creed. But the same conscientious honesty should induce him peaceably to withdraw from the connexion, and connect with some other branch of the church. The principle and object of the creed demand this honest course. It also follows from the same premises, that those who abjure their formula, and at the same time refuse to withdraw, must be treated according to the rules of discipline adopted along with the creed. "Such cases of change and refusal, we |