and work is a mystery-a great mystery. But does not the Apostle say that, "without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." True, the natural man cannot understand this doctrine, neither can he receive it because it is spiritually discerned. But does not the Scripture teach "that no man can say that Jesus is THE LORD, but by the Holy Ghost." And on another occasion are we not told "while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, saying, what think ye of Christ? Whose son is he? They say unto him: The son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit (or by direct inspiration) call him LORD, saying, The Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then called him Lord, how is he his son? And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions." Are we not told "His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns, and he had a name written that no man knew but he himself." And does not Christ himself declare that "He is in the Father and the Father in Him," -that "He and the Father are one," and that so inconceivable to human reason is this mystery, that "no man knoweth the Father but the Son, neither knoweth any man the Son but the Father and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him."

Does not Christ, when Peter called him by the title of the Son of God, declare "that the fact affirmed by Peter was not properly apprehended but by divine instruction;" "Happy art thou, Simon, son of Jonas, for flesh and blood" (a well known Jewish idiom, denoting the unassisted principles and powers of human nature) "hath not revealed (it) unto thee; but my Father who is in the heavens." But surely it required no such divine influence to enable a man, who had so copiously witnessed the evidences of the claims of Jesus, to perceive the rational conclusion from those evidences. Peter needed but the common understanding of men to receive the proof of the Messiahship of Jesus; and yet this is all that Dr. Gilman comprehends in the gospel and the basis of saving faith. The fact asserted by the Saviour, of a special divine influence enabling Peter to make his good confession, suggests also to us the strong probability that the Apostle did not, at the time, comprehend the full import of the declaration which he made. The subsequent teachings of the Holy Spirit would bring it to his

ง

remembrance, with a much higher measure of knowledge and understanding.

It is further worthy of being observed, that Christ on this occasion immediately connects his being the Son of God with. the exercise of sovereign authority and power, in relation to the salvation of men and to matters of moral obligation, yet this is the sole province of Deity. "I will build my church, the gates of hell shall not prevail against it: I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Let a man seriously reflect on the magnitude of his work, the power requisite to accomplish it, and the nature of the ground of certainty here assumed that it should be accomplished; and can he refuse to exclaim: "From Jehovah is this: It is marvelous in our eyes!"*

Oh yes, Jesus who saves sinners from their sins, is "Emmanuel God with us"-"God over all and blessed forever"-"The mighty God, the Everlasting Father and the Prince of Peace" -"The Word who was in the beginning with God and who is God" "Who being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God." He is an eternal, immutable, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, all wise, all merciful, living and sympathising Saviour, and "able therefore to save to the very uttermost, all who come unto God by Him."

I have dwelt thus long, my hearers, on this point, because the ultimate object of this discourse of Dr. Gilman is evidently and avowedly twofold, first "to secure his people from the danger of being entangled in what seems to him a heavy yoke of bondage, a system of confused, unpractical and unscriptural speculations;" and secondly, to press home the urgency of his powerful appeal "upon every believer in Jesus, on every reflecting, sensitive, inquiring man."

This discourse, I shall shew, was prepared without any challenge made to Unitarianism, preached at the public "service of the Unitarian Church," published at the instance of the Unitarian Book and Tract Society in a daily paper, and circulated by many additional hundreds, and addressed "to all who are interested in religion." He claims for "the Unitarian," the faith, humility, and every other grace pourtrayed by Dr. Humphrey. He glories in the great number who have become Unitarians in France, in Holland, in Germany, in England, in the United States, and even in Geneva. "The destiny of a universally popular and acceptable religion is still in reserve *See Smith's Testimony to the Messiah.

for some system which shall only embrace, like the teachings of Jesus Christ, a very few plain and powerful principles comprehended by every intellect, necessary to every condition, and welcome to every eager heart."

This discourse is, therefore, an assertion of the religious system known by the name Unitarian, and an aggressive attack upon the doctrines and polity of the Presbyterian Church.

Nor is it a feeble effort. It is characterized by the utmost ability of this talented writer, and by all the candour, honesty and sincerity, for which this most amiable and generally esteemed representative of his fellow-believers is so eminently distinguished. The cause could not have fallen into better hands, nor received an abler advocacy. And if just occasion had been given for this onslaught made upon the Presbyterian Church, we might well have been regarded as having merited the unmitigated severity of this public and most unlooked for reprobation. That no such provocation, however, was given, I will endeavor to shew by some remarks on the discourse of Dr. Humphrey, which has, I think, been made by Dr. Gilman the inappropriate "medium" for "unburdening his mind" against a system regarded by him with such aversion and disgust.

I remark, then, in the first place, that the discourse of Dr. Humphrey was delivered only in the usual way of opening our General Assembly, and was altogether an expression of the individual taste, talent, prudence and views of its author.

I remark, secondly, that the publication of this discourse was purely a matter of private enterprise on the part of the editor who undertook to report the proceedings of the Assembly. It was unknown and unexpected, and occasioned by its immediate appearance, no doubt, the surprise and delight of every member of that body.

In the third place, I remark that the General Assembly in no way committed itself to the sentiments or statements of that discourse, either directly or indirectly.

I remark, fourthly, that while the discourse of Dr. Humphrey was listened to with breathless admiration;-while it enkindled by its eloquence, power and pathos, the most soulstirring enthusiasm;-while in substance it was, and is regarded as a truthful exposition of the principles and practical developments of our system; and while by all it was considered as nearly faultless as a composition; nevertheless it is also true

that immediate exceptions were taken to the discourse by many who heard it.

These exceptions referred, first, to the statement, as a part of our doctrinal system, that "the purpose of God is the cause of creation, sin and redemption." This statement, as now worded, implies that God's purpose is the cause of sin, in the same sense in which it is the cause of redemption and creation, that is actively, self-originated, exclusively and efficiently. Now, taking Dr. Humphrey's language in this sense, it is impossible to frame a declaration more positively and directly opposed to the full, frequent and emphatic language of our standards. Our confession of faith recognizes God as "the first cause of all things," but it recognizes just as clearly, "the liberty and contingency of second causes." It holds to the former only so far as it does not "take away but rather establishes the latter," "so that neither is violence offered to the will of the creatures," "neither is God the author of sin." (Ch. III, §1.) It teaches that God created men, "having the law of God written in their hearts and POWER TO FULFILL IT, and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will which was subject unto change." (Ch. 4, § 2.) It teacheth that God ordereth all things to come to pass, "according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily (if material) or "freely and contingently" if moral agents. It teaches that "God maketh use of means," and that while God's providence extendeth itself even to the first fall and all other sins of angels and men, "yet it hath joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and other wise ordering and governing of them in a manifest dispensation, to his own holy ends; yet so as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God, who being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin."

Those quotations might be multiplied in reference to all the points in which God stands related to man and in and to God, both as it regards the kingdom of nature, of providence, and of grace, to shew that in every aspect our standards recognize man as a free, moral, accountable being, personally and consciously sinful, guilty and condemned, addressed as a reasonable being, wrought upon by motives, saved, if saved, by a personal faith in Christ, and lost, if lost under the gospel, by a personal rejection of the "great salvation." The statement, therefore, of Dr. Humphrey, which forms the basis and runs. through all the strictures of Dr. Gilman, is not only unauthor

20 Vol. IX.

ized, but is in plain and manifest contradiction to the standards of our Church.

It is but fair, however, to add that having very early called Dr. Humphrey's attention to this statement before any public notice could be made of it, he at once saw and admitted the incorrectness of the language, and authorized me, should the discourse be printed in pamphlet form, which was then privately thought of, either to omit the word "sin" altogether, or to introduce the words "either efficiently or permissively," to qualify the term cause.

A second exception taken to Dr. Humphrey's sermon by many, was the leading idea contained in it that the various characteristics by which he designated our system were developments of our creed.

Now, in reference to this fundamental and permeating idea of the discourse it is, we believe, the doctrine of our standards, of our fathers, and of all the leading divines during all ages, that the duties of religion and the organization, charter, rights, privileges, functions, offices and officers of the Church, in all that is fundamental to their essence and character, are just as truly, just as necessarily, and just as immediately, derived from divine warrant, authority and command of God-as these are revealed in the light of nature, scripture examples, divine approbation, divine acts and divine precepts, as the articles of our creed. This is what is meant by that altogether misconceived and misstated doctrine of divine right* which with such amazing indiscrimination Dr. Gilman confounds with the terrible-the terrible doctrine of the Romish Church, by which she claims exclusive and absolute jurisdiction in the church on earth, and power to declare what is scripture, what is truth, what is duty, and to open and shut purgatory, hell and heaven, to curse and grant indulgences, to punish bodily and spiritually, temporally and eternally, according to her own arbitrary will.

We believe that the truth of scripture doctrine is better preserved under the forms of scripture polity than any other, and that there is a harmonious analogy and adaptation of the one to the other, yet we are far from believing that our practical duties or our ecclesiastical polity are the developments of our doctrine, or that they are a test and standard by which those doctrines are to be judged. In reference to both and to all

*These are the very grounds on which a divine right is established by the divines of the Westminster Assembly, as seen in the celebrated work "The Divine Right of Church Government."--see ch. II-V, and The Divine Right of the Gospel Ministry. Lond. 1654, 3d ed.