name. They do not believe their own standards; they profess this faith, only that they may more effectually deceive the pious public, and secure "the advantages gained by assaulting truth under the shelter of an orthodox creed." In the ear of earth and heaven, Dr. Lord proclaims these allegations-these subjective phenomena of himself. The moral question of evil-speaking we shall leave his conscience and the judgment-day to settle; we simply say, that he has uttered these calumnies, without the slightest effort to prove their truth. Though bitter, they are very harmless words. The speaker has once upon his oath of office and character disaffirmed them all. They much more surprise than grieve us.

We are well aware, that the Dr. may say that all these charges are supported, because the "New School" do not explain every word, phrase, and sentence of the Confession of Faith, according to his ideas; because they do not adopt his philology and philosophy as part of the word of God. When he will give us suitable proofs of his inspiration, or his infallibility as a philosopher or a philologist, then we shall be prepared to take things upon his authority, asking no questions. When he will show his right to speak ex cathedra, in expounding the standards, we shall try to pay all due respect to the same. Is it necessary to be in exact conformity to him, in order not to be justly the subject of his accusations? Has not the General Assembly, the final judge of the standards, in more than one instance, decreed judgment against the Dr.'s present self, his former self once aiding in that decree? Is it indispensable to an honest subscription to the standards, that we take the ipse dixit of Dr. Lord for their import? Alas! which of his ipse dixits must we adopt? History informs us that he has uttered more than one. Must we assume, in the outset, that his version of the Westminster confession is the Westminster confession; or be justly obnoxious to the charges of heresy and dishonesty?

will not adopt the Dr. as our exegetical oracle, will he indicate his displeasure by resorting to the old game of a hue and cry? To illumine his perceptions on this subject, we propose to make a brief extract from the Biblical Repertory, an authority he will not call in question.

Speaking of a subscription to the standards, as contended for by some, who" are disposed to interpret it so strictly as to make it not only involve the adoption of all the doctrines contained in the confession, but to preclude all diversity in the manner of receiving and explaining them;" the authority thus proceeds: "They are, therefore, disposed to regard those who do not in this sense adopt the Confession of Faith, and yet remain in the church, as guilty of a departure from moral honesty. This, we think, an extreme and a mischievous one. Because it tends to the impeachment of the character of many upright men, and because its application would split the church into innumerable fragments."

"It

is making the terms of subscription imply more than they literally import. Two men may, with equal sincerity, profess to believe a doctrine, or system of doctrines, and yet differ in the mode of understanding and explaining them. Such a degree of uniformity never was exacted, and never has existed. The Confession, as framed by the Westminster divines, was an acknowledged compromise between two classes of theologians. When adopted by the Presbyterian church in this country, it was with the distinct understanding that the mode of subscription did not imply strict uniformity of views. And from that time to this, there has been an open and avowed diversity of opinion, on many points among those who adopted the Confession of Faith, without leading to the suspicion of insincerity or dishonesty. It is clearly impossible that any considerable number of men can be brought to conform so exactly in their views, as to be able to adopt such an extended formula of doctrine precisely in the same sense.' From the same high authority we learn, that there is a distinction to be made between the leading or essential, and the merely explanatory parts of a confession. "There are, with regard to every doctrine, certain constituent, formal ideas, which enter into its very nature, and the rejection of which is the rejection of the doctrine; and there are certain others which are merely accessory, or explanatory," that is to say, the human philosophy pertaining to the doctrine, in regard to which a subscription does not "imply strict uniformity of views." It may serve further to eclaircise this subject to the Dr.'s perceptions, if we refer him to what President Davies says of the practice in his day. "We allowed the candidate to maintain his objections against any part of the confession, and the judicatures judged whether the articles objected to were essential to Christianity; and if they judged they were not, they would admit the candidate, notwithstanding his objections." A farther elucidation of this subject may be drawn from what is historically known as the "Adopting Act," of the synod of Philadelphia, in 1729. "And we do, also, agree that the Presbyters shall take care not to admit any candidate but what declares his agreement in opinion with all the essential and necessary articles of said confession. And in case any minister or candidate shall have any scruples with regard to any article of said confession or catechisms, he shall declare his sentiments to the Presbytery or Synod, who shall, notwithstanding, admit him to the exercise of the ministry within our bounds, if they shall judge his scruples or mistakes to be only about articles not essential and necessary in doctrine, worship, and government. And the Synod do solemnly agree, that none of us will traduce, or use any opprobrious terms, 1 Bib. Rep., vol. iii., p. 521, 522, 523, cited in Barnes' Defence, p. 130, 131. Cited in the Christian Spectator for March, 1835. Article: "Remarks on the Act and Testimony."

THIRD SERIES, VOL. V. NO. 1.

2

971

towards those who differ from us in those extra-essential, and not necessary points of doctrine, but treat them with the same friendship, kindness, and brotherly love, as if nothing had happened." As observed by Dr. Parker," the collisions" between the "Scotch party" and the "Puritan party," in the Presbyterian Church, happily subsided by the force of this " Adopting Act;" to be renewed again, however, on the part of the former, leading to a "schism of the Presbyterian church in 1741, and to the formation of the Synod of New York in 1745." These two Synods were united in 1758, agreeing" to adopt the Confession of Faith, Catechisms, and Directory, as they had been adopted in 1729;" so that, as Mr. Barnes correctly observes, "the act of the Synod" (the " Adopting Act" of 1729) "was the basis of union in 1759; and this proviso has never been withdrawn or repealed; and is, in fact, an essential part of the standards of the Presbyterian Church."

We have indulged in this brief digression, not to concede or deny that Dr. Lord is nearer the true meaning of the Confession, "as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures," than are the "New School Presbyterians." He thinks he is much nearer, no doubt; he evinces a new theory on this whole subject, embracing the following assumptions: namely, that he has exactly the animus imponentis in subscribing to the standards, and that all who do not adopt them precisely after him as a model, are heretics and insincere, against whom it is lawful for him to launch accusations at his pleasure. Were he to apply his theory to his "Old School" brethren, it is quite likely that "the General Assembly" would need another "dismemberment ;" and were he to pursue the work, he might in the end constitute himself into "the Presbyterian church," solus in loco. It is the Dr.'s heresy in regard to the animus imponentis, coupled with a little item of selfassumption, that in these modern days has opened his battery. Cure this disease; and his diction will at once be more lovely, while the ideas will not be the less luminous. If we must be in exact conformity to him, though he gives no proof of his inspiration, no evidence of his infallibility, no acts of the General Assembly authenticating his interpretation of the standards; or bear the weight of his accusations; then between two evils, one of which we must suffer, it will be wise to choose the least. If logical gravity will turn the other way, to give the Dr. a full opportunity to have his say, then of course mundane particles must take care of themselves, and the "New School" among the rest. If "New School Presbyterians" refused to subscribe to the Confession, then, of course, the Dr. would cite the refusal as proof of heresy. If, on the other hand, they adopt it, then they do so only 'Taken from the "History of all the Religious Denominations in the United States."-p. 612.

• Barnes' Defence.-p. 125.

in name, and that too on account of "the advantages gained by assaulting truth under the shelter of an orthodox creed." To say that we look with a profound abhorrence upon this part of the Dr.'s performance, is no greater sin than simply to speak the truth.

Here we should be glad to pause, and let the reader exert his fancy for the balance of the "Introductory Chapter," if we could, and do justice to the work we have undertaken. Duty, however, requires us to go on; and we proceed to subjoin to the revelations some specimens to which we will apply no severer epithet than that of mere mistakes. We design to look at three of these.

The first mistake we attribute to the Dr. is that the New School Presbyterians" are theologically the same sort of people as the Romanists of the sixteenth century. He informs us, "that the theological contest between the Reformers and the Romanists in the sixteenth century is the same now waged between Old and New School Presbyterians." "The doctrines maintained by all the reformed churches have been rejected by them (the New School," for the theological tenets of the Papacy." This is the Dr.'s thesis; and upon his authority we proceed to infer, that "New School Presbyterians" hold to the supremacy of the Pope, the doctrine of apostolic succession, transubstantiation, canonization of the saints, penance, the seven sacraments, the use of images in Christian worship, &c., &c.! All "under various disguises!" A curious secret to be kept secret so long! Let us see how the Dr. makes out this wonderful discovery.

Be not surprised, reader, (let nothing surprise you,) when you learn that "The ability for which Eck and the Romanists contended against the Reformers, is precisely, both in form and substance, the same as that insisted upon by the New School divines." -p. 8. To say nothing of the matter, observe the beauty of the formal logic! The "New School" agree with Eck and the Romanists of the sixteenth century in maintaining "the ability;" therefore, the "New School" hold "the theological tenets of the Papacy!" General principle :—whoever agrees with another in one particular, agrees in all particulars. Specific example :-Dr. Lord agrees with Leo X. in having eyes; therefore, Dr. Lord agrees with Leo X. in being the Pope of Rome, or exactly like him. Alas! for the Reformers, the Dr. himself not excepted, when such logic fulminates in their rear! The Dr. has not told what is the nature of this "the ability," whether natural or moral, whether "the ability" to be justified by works of self-merit, or to comply with the terms of the gospel, so as to be justified through Jesus Christ, that proves the theological identity of Romanists and "New School Presbyterians." It is "the ability!" The "New School" are Romanists; there you have it! Distinctions are very troublesome, where ambiguities will better serve a turn.

1 Page 8.

To clinch this modern discovery, and make it sure, the author, in the manner of a rhetorical flourish, refers to one or two short passages in D'Aubigne's History of the Reformation. Had he consented to give us the volume and the page where said passages could be found, it would have saved us the trouble of looking for them in vain. We presume they are there; but we have not succeeded in finding where, after some time spent in the search. We ask, why did not the author tell us, in precise and accurate terms, what "the ability" was for which the Romanists contended? also, what "the inability of man" was which Luther and the Reformers asserted in opposition to the Romanists? This knowledge plainly is indispensable to the proof of the doctrinal identity of the "New School" and the Romanists, even on this single point. Was it a legal, meritorious ability? an ability to be justified by self-merit? The Romanists, we know, greatly mutilated the gospel on this point, and the Reformers shed the true light, in teaching the scriptural doctrine of justification by faith in Christ, without creature-merits of any kind or grade. Well, does the Dr. mean to imply, that on this point the "New School" are identified with the Romanists? We hope not, simply for his own credit. He has the most ample means of knowing that such an implication would be grossly false; and for such a blunder the most elastic partiality could hardly consent to hold him innocent. "The substitution of a scheme of merits in place of the grand truth of grace and amnesty" by Jesus Christ, the "New School" repudiate with as much earnestness and honesty as Dr. Lord himself, even in his most orthodox moments. They hold to the absolute "inability of man,' touching this vital question, and we challenge him for the shadow of a proof to the contrary.'

Again, was "the ability" in question, the ability of free agency? We will not distress the reader's patience with an historical or metaphysical account of the doctrine of free-will, as developed in the contest between the Romanists and the Reformers. We have a more appropriate place for the discussion of this subject. Suffice it to say, that the "New School," with the orthodox divines of New England, and nearly all Presbyterians in all past time, hold to

'The Dr. informs us that "New School" men “seem to think the whole gospel is in the dogma of human ability, as though the atonement was a free, full, and sufficient sacrifice, not in its own nature, but in the nature and ability of man himself."-p. 11. This fling (for it is nothing more,) depends upon the Dr.'s confusion of ideas. "New School" men do not hold, that "human ability," in the strict sense, is any part of the gospel. If it be a reality at all, it is a reality in the nature of man; and however perfect or imperfect it may be, it cannot avail for his salvation, for two reasons; first, the fact that he is a sinner; secondly, that no sinner, immaterial what are his powers as a moral agent, can be justified by the works of the law. However strongly "New School" men may hold to an ability, in opposition to Dr. Lord, they hold to no ability of self-justification, superseding the atonement; they teach no such doctrine.