Q. 20. "Did God leave all mankind to perish in the estate of sin and misery?

A. God, having out of his mere good pleasure, from all eternity, elected some to everlasting life, did enter into a covenant of grace, to de liver them out of the estate of sin and misery, and to bring them into an estate of salvation by a Redeemer." Shorter Catechism.

Q. 21. "Who is the Redeemer of God's elect?

A. The only Redeemer of God's elect is the Lord Jesus Christ." lb.

REMARKS.-As obnoxious in their nature, and ruinous in their tendency, as are the doctrines of these catechisms, all parents who have their children baptized by Presbyterian ministers, are required to teach them to the poor little innocent creatures! What! teach little children a lie, and to cherish and believe a lie! What! teach a child that by the decree of election, a certain and definite portion of mankind are particularly predestinated to life-that this election is unconditional, without "any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance or any other thing"-that by the decree of reprobation a certain and definite portion of mankind are particularly predestinated to dishonor and wrath-and that this predestination is for the praise of God's most glorious justice! Reader, sooner teach your child that there is no God at all, than that there is such an atrocious God in existence, as the one described in these catechisms.

Once more: As false and unscriptural as are the above quotations, and also, all those quotations from the Confession of Faith, every ordained minister in the Presbyterian church, is nevertheless solemnly sworn, before God and the members of Presbytery, to both believe and preach them. By this solemn oath, I mean their oath of ordination: and this oath is as binding, if not more so, as any ever administered in a court of justice. But to the law and to the testimony. In the "Form of Government," chapter XV, page 378, it is stated that "when the day appointed for ordination is come," among other questions proposed to the candidate for orders, are the following:

"Do you sincerely RECEIVE and ADOPT the Confession of Faith of this church, as containing the system of doctrine. taught in the Holy Scriptures?

Do you approve of the government and discipline of the Presbyterian church (which require the zealous and faithful maintainance of its doctrines) in these United States?

Do you promise subjection to your brethren in the Lord?" When a Methodist preacher receives elders' orders, he is asked the following question among others, in the presence

of God and the whole congregation, by the bishop who ordains him:

"Will you be ready with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God's word?"

Neither a Methodist nor a Presbyterian minister, who has answered the above questions at his ordination, can, without an obvious dereliction of duty-alias false swearing, preach any other doctrine than that which is contained in the articles. of his own church, nor administer any other discipline than that which is recognized in the government of that church. For my own part, I have ever felt conscientious in this matter. I have been accustomed to preach controversy, or "with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrines;" and I never expect to preach a sermon while I live, wholly free from controversy. I have too much regard for my ordination oath, ever to cease opposing error. And I confess, I think very little of a Methodist preacher, who, for the sake of popularity, or promotion in some way, will either publicly or privately rail out against controversy, and plead up for union. And when an ordained Methodist preacher advances any doctrine contrary to the known and established doctrines of the Methodist Episcopal church, I unhesitatingly affirm, he is guilty of false swearing. So, when an ordained Presbyterian preacher advances any other doctrine than that of the Confession of Faith, and the other standard writings of his church, I say he is guilty of false swearing. That most of the Presbyterian ministers in Tennessee, are guilty of this species of perjury, will not be doubted by any who have heard them preach, and since read and examined the foregoing extracts. But it is time to bring this chapter to a close. If it has been lengthened out beyond what either my friends.or enemies have desired, they will find an apology in the goodness of the cause.

CHAPTER IV.

HOPKINSIAN CALVINISM, AS CONTAINED IN DOCTOR HOPKINS'S SERMONS, AND SYSTEM OF DIVINITY.

COULD the writer, whose name is placed at the head of this chapter, reconcile his theory, which he supposes proclaims the unwillingness of God to save every sinner in the uni

verse, with that part of his doctrine which declares the existence of an eternal decree which fixes, unchangeably, a de finite portion of the human family to an eternal hell, I would then hail him, and shake hands with him, in the open field of gospel grace, which contains

"Enough for all, enough for each

Enough for evermore."

But while he remains contented, among the rocks and shoals of Calvinistic decrees, or of Hopkinsian inabilities, I for one, can never give him the right hand of doctrinal fellowship.

The founder of the Hopkinsian system, was the Rev. Samuel Hopkins, D. D. an eminent American divine, who flourished about a half a century ago, and who, in his sermons and other writings, has made several additions to the sentiments first advanced by the celebrated Jonathan Edwards, late president of New Jersey College.

The Hopkinsians warmly contend for the doctrine of de crees, of particular election, total depravity, the final unconditional perseverance of the saints, &c.; and therefore, claim it as their just due, to use the language of Buck, "since the world will make distinctions, to be called Hopkinsian Calvinists." For a more enlarged view of this system, I would cite Adams's View of all Religions, Hopkins on Holiness, Edwards on the Will, Wests's Essay on Moral Agency, and Spring's Nature of Deity.

And when the foregoing works are examined, they will be found to agree, at least in every material respect, with Calvin's Institutes, Gill's Cause of Truth, Fuller's Calvinistic System, Toplady's Works, and the Assembly's Catechism.

Old fashioned Calvinists, however, have demurred against several of the leading points of doctrine in Hopkins's system, and a long and warm controversy was occasioned by them in 1810. Those who feel interested in the controversy, may be fully gratified by examining Dr. Ely's "contrast between Calvinism and Hopkinsianism." In bringing to view the opinions of this man Hopkins, I will commence with extracts from a volume of his sermons, in which the reader will perceive, he represents God as the efficient cause of sin. The following brief extracts will be sufficient:

"Every thing which is properly an effect, has its foundation in the purpose or decree of God, as its original cause, without which it could not take place. And every such effect is fixed and made sure of existence by the Divine decree, and infallibly connected with it."-Hopkins's Sermons, vol. 1, p. 85.

"The decrees of God are unchangeable; they are fixed from eternity, and cannot be altered, in any degree, or with respect to any thing, event or circumstance." Ib. vol. 1, p. 86.

"For the futurition or futurity of all things depends upon the decrees of God; and by these every created existence and every event, with all their circumstances, are fixed and made certain, and in consequence of their being decreed, they are the objects of foreknowledge, for they could not be known to be future, unless they were so, and they were made so by the Divine decree, and nothing else." Ib. vol. 1 p. 88.

"God has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass, and with his hand is executing his own wise purposes, in his governing providence, ordering and directing all the actions of men, even the most sinful as well as others, for his own glory and the general good, and his hand is to be seen in every event and in every action of man as really as if he was the only agent in the universe. Ib. vol. 1, p. 142.

"God has foreordained all the moral evil that does take place; and is in such a sense and so far the origin and cause of it, that He is said to bring it to pass by his own agency. lb. vol. 1, p. 161.

I will now direct the reader's attention to the Doctor's system of divinity, now lying before me. The Doctor spends about ninety octavo pages of the first volume, in speaking of the divinity of the scriptures, the attributes of God, the trinity of persons in the God-head, &c. He next enters on the "DECREES of God," and spends upwards of one hundred pages in trying to prove that God is the origin and cause of all events, both good and evil, that ever did, or ever will take place!

To notice all the Doctor has said, would not only be unprofitable to my readers, but likewise incompatible with the brevity of my design; I shall therefore, only notice the most prominent points. In order to bring the Doctor and his tenets fully before the reader, I shall give the following quotations from the first volume, which are introduced after some preliminary remarks:

"Indeed, every thing which is properly an effect, has its foundation in the purpose or decree of God, as its original cause, without which it could not have taken place. And every such effect is fixed and made sure of existence by the divine decrees and infallibly connected with it. "The assembly of divines, in their short catechisms, have given a concise description of the decree of God, which is both rational and agreeable to the holy scriptures; viz: The decrees of God are his eternal purpose, according to the counsel of his own will whereby for his own glory he hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass." page 84.

Again, page 85 he says, "If God's knowing all his works from eternity does not mean his purpose concerning them, it necessarily implies this; for how could he know what he would do if he had no will or purpose to do?"

He goes on to say, "It may be of some importance to observe here, that there is a distinction and difference between the decree of God, and his foreknowledge, as the words are commonly used. Divine foreknowl.

T

edge is God's foreseeing future existence and events, and knowing from eternity what would take place in all futurity, to eternity, or without end. This foreknowledge is not only to be distinguished from the decree, but must be considered as in order of nature, consequent upon the determination and purpose of God, and dependent upon it."

page 85. "Nothing can be the object of the divine foreknowledge, which is not fixed as certainly future." page 95.

From the foregoing extracts, the reader will perceive that the Doctor infers the necessity of events from their certainty, and the decrees of God, from his foreknowledge, than which nothing can be more preposterous. Indeed, the foreknowledge and decrees of God, is the basis of his whole system. There is not a more intricate point in polemic divinity than this. And really, if Hopkins's views of this subject be correct, God's foreknowledge is by no means perfect. For an event may as certainly take place by the agency of man, as it could by divine agency, and, if God's knowledge be perfect, he can as certainly see it.

The Doctor having, as he supposed, established the correctness of his position, in relation to God's eternal decrees, proceeds to speak of their END, in the following manner:

"As the decrees of God are most wise, this necessarily supposes some end in view, and that which is best, the most excellent, important, and desirable that can be: for wisdom consists in proposing and pursuing such an end, in ways and by means in the best manner adapted to accom plish that end." page 89.

Again;

"If it be inquired, what that best, most important, and desirable end can be, which can be proposed by infinite wisdom? The answer must be, that God himself, or that which respects him, is the end of his decrees and works." page 90.

"God makes himself his end, in his decrees and works, in being pleased with the exercise and expression, exhibition and display of his own infinite perfection and excellence." Page 81.- "This exhibition and display of the divine perfections, necessarily implies, and involves, as essential to it, the communication of his own holiness, and happiness to the greatest possible degree; which consists in effecting or producing the greatest possible moral excellence and felicity in his creation, or by his This consists in the highest possible good or happiness in creatures, whose capacities, circumstances, and their number, and all other things, circumstances and events are contrived and adapted in the best manner to answer this end." Ib.

works.

Once more;

"If he be pleased with the greatest possible exercise, communication, and exhibition of his goodness, he must be pleased with the happiness of creatures, and the greatest possible happiness of the creation, because the former so involves the latter, that they cannot be separated, and may be considered as one and the same thing." Page 91-2.

Having so freely animadverted on the Doctor's notions of