menced the Presbyterian Church in America, about the beginning of the eighteenth century, were chiefly emigrants from North Britain and Ireland, so the Church of Scotland was more than any other, their model. Our whole arrangement of judicatories, and our whole ecclesiastical nomenclature, are with few exceptions borrowed from Scotland. What our ecclesiastical Mother and we call the "Church Session," most of the Presbyterians on the continent of Europe call the "Consistory;" and what we call the "Presbytery," they call the "Classis." But in general principles, we are all entirely agreed.

Although it is well known that Presbyterianism, in some parts of the old world, has been, and continues to be connected with the State; as in Scotland, Holland, Geneva, and some parts of Germany; yet this is by no means a necessary, or even a natural connection. It is deeply to be lamented that such a connection was ever formed in any case; having proved, it may be safely affirmed, in all cases essentially injurious. This form of ecclesiastical order existed in the days of the Apostles, not only without any alliance with the civil government, but in the midst of its most unrelenting persecution: and this continued to be the case for more than a hundred years after the last Apostle had gone to his reward. The same may be said of this form of ecclesiastical order, as it existed among the pious Waldenses. It was the object, in no case, of state-patronage, but of unceasing persecution. It is much to be regretted, that any portion of the Church of Christ, under any form of organization, has ever sought to be united with the state, or consented to receive support from the civil power. Such a union has never failed to be followed by disastrous consequences to the best interests of religion. It is undoubtedly better-far better for the spiritual welfare of the Church that she should be persecuted, rather than supported by the civil government.

Happily, the Presbyterian Church in the United States, has never formed or sought any kind of connection with the state. Nay, she has gone further. When, after the establishment of our national independence, it became proper to revise and modify our ecclesiastical formularies, our fathers threw out of them every thing relating to the interposition of the civil magistrate in the affairs of the Church, and introduced, in place of what was thus excluded, a solemn declaration against any particular class or denomination of Christians receiving any species of religious establishment, or preference from the civil government. So that our public standards contain an open, solemn,

and permanent Protest against any claim or attempt on the part of our own, or any other Church, obtaining the least patronage or pre-eminence from governmental favour. Nor is there any point concerning which a more firm and deep-rooted sentiment prevails, than on this point, throughout the Presbyterian Church. It is universally regarded as a settled principle, that scarcely any greater calamity could happen to our body, than that it should be, in any way, directly or indirectly, connected with the state.

It would be doing gross injustice to Presbyterianism not to state, before closing this historical sketch, that it has been found, in all ages, friendly to "the rights of man;" conducive to the advancement, rather than the destruction of civil and religious liberty. In making this statement, it is not meant to be maintained, that no Presbyterian has ever been chargeable with the spirit or practice of persecution; but simply to say, that the general characteristic of the Presbyterian Church, as a denomination, is, that it has ever shown itself friendly to the diffusion of knowledge, to the rights of conscience, and to the enjoyments of rational liberty. It has often, very often, been a persecuted, but never a persecuting Church. The few examples of a contrary aspect which have appeared, were, in almost all cases, traceable, either to individual mistake and infirmity, or to a momentary impulse of retaliation on bloody persecutors, when unexpectedly placed in the power of those who had been recently the victims of the most cruel oppression. The death of Servetus (even allowing all the agency in his death on the part of Calvin, which the enemies of that illustrious man have been fond of ascribing to him, but which every well informed and impartial person knows cannot be allowed) had no real connection with Presbyterianism. cases of undue severity exercised towards others, by Presbyterians in Great Britain, in the course of the seventeenth century were almost all referable to the maxim, that " oppression makes even wise men mad;" and seldom rose much above the point of self-defence.* And as to the fierce and unrelent

The

It is truly wonderful that intelligent and conscientious men, while they make such a hideous outcry concerning the affair of Servetus, and study to place in so odious a light the severities indulged towards some of the Episcopal clergy, by the Independents, in England, during the period of the Commonwealth, should entirely forget the instances of persecution, a hundred fold more frequent and more severe, practised by Prelacy. Archbishop Cranmer was immediately active in dragging at least four persons to the flames, of whom two were women. Let the flames which consumed the body of the amiable and pious Ann Askew, kindled through the misguided zeal of that prelate, confound those who would represent Calvin as the prince of persecutors. More than this,

ing oppression recently experienced by evangelical men in Geneva, it is notoriously the spirit and the work of Unitarianism; the same spirit which, in the sixteenth century, prompted the leading Socinians, when Francis David, one of their own number, who believed with them the mere humanity of Christ, and therefore thought that divine worship ought not to be paid him,-to throw him into prison, where he died.

66

Especially may it be said that, in our own country, during the one hundred and thirty years in which it has existed in an organized form, Presbyterianism has uniformly proved herself the friend of civil and religious liberty; and though often herself persecuted, has never been, in a single instance, chargeable with invading the rights of others. Nay, to the present hour she is, on every side, bitterly reviled and calumniated, as narrow, ," "sectarian," " ambitious," " aspiring at a civil establishment," &c., when it is notorious, that there is not a single denomination in our country so exempt from narrow sectarianism; so free from a proselyting spirit; so ready to unite with all evangelical denominations in enterprises of benevolence; and which has been so signalized by the most solemn protests, public and private, against every species of connexion between the Church and the civil government. When, with these unquestionable facts before our eyes, we hear the calumnies before referred to proclaimed on every side, can the most unbounded charity imagine that they are really believed, or that the motive which actuates their propagators can be a regard to truth?

in the reign of Edward VI., he is also confessed by the historians of his own church, to have " procured the death" of Joanna Bocher and George Paris, labouring, and with success, to overcome the scruples of the young king, in signing the warrant for burning them. Again: during the reign of James I., about twenty-five persons were hanged, drawn, and quartered for their religion, in England. (See Brook's History of Religious Liberty, Vol. II. p. 403.) During the same reign, (A. D. 1612,) Bartholomew Legate, and Edward Wightman, were burnt to death for the same cause; the former under the immediate administration and authority of Dr. King, Bishop of London, and the latter under the direction of Neile, Bishop of Litchfield and Coventry, who are acknowledged to have had an immediate agency in bringing them to the stake. One would think, that in more than half a century after the affair of Servetns, the prelates of England might have become a little more enlightened with regard to the rights of conscience. But the miserable oppressions and cruelty exercised by prelacy, and especially by Archbishop Laud and his coadjutors; and the still more cruel ejections, imprisonments, and massacres, both in North and South Britain, which marked the reigns of Charles II. and James II., are enough to sicken the heart, and ought for ever to impose silence on prelacy, with regard to persecution.

DOCTRINE OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH.

25

CHAPTER III.

DOCTRINE OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH.

The Presbyterian Church has been distinguished, in all ages, for laying great stress on the maintenance of PURE DOCTRINE. Such was eminently the case in primitive times, when it was enjoined upon them to "contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." And such was no less remarkably their characteristic when, under the name of Waldenses, for five or six hundred years before the Reformation, they maintained a noble testimony in favour of the truth, in the midst of the deplorable darkness and corruption of the Papacy. At the period of the Reformation, the same zeal for the true doctrines of the Gospel of Christ, led the faithful servants of God, in different parts of the Church, to form an publish their "Confessions of Faith," which remain to th present day as monuments of their fidelity to their Master's will The people of whom we speak, evidently regarded the pure doctrines of the Gospel as lying at the foundation of Christian character and hope; and while they attached no small importance to the government and discipline of the Church, they regarded, as of far more vital importance, those great, fundamental principles of our common salvation, which enter essentially into the character and life of Christian experience.

The system of doctrine of which the Presbyterian Church has solemnly declared her acceptance and belief, is comprised in the "Westminster Confession of Faith," and the "Larger and Shorter Catechisms." These we believe contain a summary of the doctrines taught in the Holy Scriptures; and, on this account alone, we profess to receive them, and require a solemn assent to the "Confession of Faith" on the part of all who are admitted to the pastoral office, or that of spiritual ruling in our body. This system of doctrine has received the distinctive title of Calvinism. Not because Calvin invented it; but because, among all the modern advocates of it, he was, undoubtedly, the most profound and able; and because it has suited the policy of some to endeavour to convey the idea that the system in question was unknown until Calvin began to propagate and defend it.

In the Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian Church, there are many doctrines in which we entirely agree with our brethren of other denominations. In regard to all that is embraced in that formula concerning the being and perfections of

God; the Trinity of persons in the Godhead; the divinity, incarnation, and atoning sacrifice of the Son of God, &c., we may be said to hold, substantially in common with all sects who deserve the Christian name. But with respect to the true state of human nature before God; the doctrine of sovereign unconditional election to eternal life; the doctrine that Christ died in a special sense for his elect people; the doctrine of justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ alone; of sanctification by the special and invincible power of the Holy Spirit, and of the perseverance of the saints in holiness,—we differ very materially from many who bear the Christian name. In short, with regard to what are commonly called the "five points," discussed and decided in the Synod of Dort, our Confession is opposed to Arminianism, and coincides with the Calvinistic system maintained by that body.

It may be safely said that no theological system was ever more grossly misrepresented, or more foully and unjustly vilified than this. It has been by multitudes defamed, as an abominable system, revolting to every dictate of reason; dishonourable to God; unfriendly to Christian comfort; adapted to beget discouragement and despair on the one hand, or presumption and licentiousness on the other. The gross misrepresentations with which it has been assailed; the disingenuous attempts to fasten upon it consequences which its advocates disavow and abhor; and the unsparing calumny which is continually heaped upon it, and its friends, have scarcely ever been equalled in any other case in the entire annals of theological controversy. Those who have been accustomed to listen to this blind and unhallowed abuse, are respectfully requested to weigh with serious impartiality the following considerations:

1. It is but justice to ascertain what the real system is which Presbyterians believe. The opponents of this system are wont to give the most unjust and shocking pictures of it. Whether this is done from ignorance or dishonesty, it would be painful, as well as vain, at present, to inquire. They allege, that it represents God as really the author of sin, and man as laid under a physical necessity of sinning, and then as damned for it, do what he can. They insist that our doctrine of depravity, and the mode of inheriting it, if true, destroys moral agency, reduces our race to the condition of mere machines, and, of course, makes all punishment of sin unjust and absurd. In short, they contend that the view which we give of the plan of salvation, makes it a system of heathenish fate, or of refined Antinomianism, equally destructive of holiness