ed by the law of the gospel; their salvation depending on compliance with the terms which that law prescribes. Not so with those to whom the gospel has never been offered, or proclaimed. Such will be judged by the law of that reasonable nature which God has given to the whole human race. To say that men will be condemned for not performing the conditions of a law which was never given to them, and of which it was impossible for them to know anything, is an outrage upon common sense.

Salvation is, in all cases, and under all circumstances, through the blood of Christ.

The rule of decision is the law under which the individual is placed.

The

The whole of this subject is illustrated in the parable of the talents, followed by the description of the general judgement; the former relating to the members of the Christian church, the latter to the rest of the world. A distinct process is evidently marked out in each of these cases. man, going into a far country, and delivering to his own servants, his goods, is our blessed Savior going to heaven, after his resurrection, leaving with his own servants, the members of the Christian church, his gospel of reconciliation. This is the talent, by the improvement of which, they, and all to whom it shall be offered, to the end of the world, will be judged. After this follows a description of the judgement in relation to the nations, the Gentiles, the heathen, as contradistinguished from the Christian church. The method of proceeding is, here, different; judgement being regulated, not by the improvement of a special talent, but by the performance of those general duties which the light of conscience is adequate to discover, and the law of conscience. to enforce.

In connection with all this, take the words of St. Paul"As many as have sinned without law shall, also, perish without law." The words, "without law," do not designate a state utterly destitute of law of any kind; for, sin being the transgression of the law, where there is no law there can be no sin, and, of course, no ground of condemnation. The plain meaning of the passage, therefore, is, that those who are without the written, or revealed law, shall not be judged by that law. Again-" As many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law." Rom. ii, 12. That is, as many as sin under the written or revealed law of the gos pel shall be judged by such written or revealed law.

To the same purpose are the words of our blessed Savior himself. "That servant which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes: But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes." Luke xii, 47, 48.

The servant, punished with few stripes, is not to be considered as ignorant of all law. No It was, merely, of the written or revealed law that he was destitute. The servant, punished with many stripes, had a plainer rule to direct him; and, having sinned under such rule, was condemned to a severer punishment.

It is evident, from these passages, that the rule of proceeding is the law under which men are placed; and, consequently, that those, to whom the gospel has not been giv en, will not be judged by it. "Unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required." For, "God is not a hard master reaping where he has not sown, and gathering where he has not strawed."*

Permit me, here, to trouble you with a brief recapitulation. Episcopalians and Presbyterians differ in opinion as to the state of those who are without the Christian pale; the former holding that the blood of Christ is as effectual an atonement for their sins, as for the sins of those who live under the gospel, and that they will be judged by the particular law which God may have given them; the latter contending

*This subject is placed in a very clear point of light, in two discourses, on the parable of the talents, and on the general judgement, by that most excellent divine, and truly exemplary christian, the late Bishop Seabury.

I cannot but express my unfeigned astonishment that men should be found capable of consigning all who have never heard the gospel to indiscriminate perdition. Surely the doctrine is a frightful one. It is contrary to the plain letter of seripture. It is repugnant to every moral attribute of the divine nature.

Ah! how many souls may not such tremendous systems have driven from the cross!

I express myself freely. I respect the right of others to judge for themselves. God forbid that I should question their motives, or assail them with intemperate language. Within such limits, it is lawful, it is proper, to speak freely of doctrine. Without such privilege, indeed, it is impossible to carry on a firm, or manly in vestigation of truth.

that none can be saved who have never heard of Christ, "however diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature."*

Let men of sense and candor judge which of these doctrines is most conformable to the nature of God, or to his sacred word. Let men of sense and candor judge which of them is most replete with christian benevolence; which most indicative of a narrow, bigotted and rigid spirit.

With respect to those who live under the gospel, or to whom the gospel has been offered, Episcopalians and Presbyterians agree in considering faith as a condition of salvation; but, while the latter represent it as so indispensable that God will make no allowance for unavoidable ignorance, or involuntary error, sweeping all, without a single exception, who believe not particular doctrines, to endless perdition, the former do not feel authorized to use this bold presumptuous, I had almost said, blasphemous language; believing, on the other hand, that allowance will be made, by a merciful judge, for the innumerable circumstances that give a bias to the mind; that sincere devotedness to God may consist even with fundamental error; and that there may be cases in which such error will be pardoned through a Savior's blood.t

*†These remarks are, of course, general, and liable to exceptions on both sides. A more accurate distinction would be that of Calvinists and Anticalvinists. The doctrines, that all who have never heard of Christ must be indiscriminately damned, and that faith is a condition of salvation so indispensable that God either cannot, or will not, make the slightest allowance for involuntary error, have naturally grown out of the system of particular unconditional election and reprobation. Many Presbyterian clergymen reject the peculiarities of Calvinism; while some Episcopal clergymen embrace them. It is necessary, therefore, that the distinction, which I have taken, should be received with exceptions. Thus far, however, it is strictly correct, that the Presbyterian standards are founded on the system of unconditional election and reprobation, while the Episcopal standards unequivocally reject it. I know this has been denied. But, blessed be God, the articles and liturgy of the Episcopal church speak a language as different from the frightful system of Calvin as day is different from night, as truth from error, as virtue from vice. No-The Episcopal church is as primitive and apostolic in her creed, as in her ministry. It was not until the time of St. Austin that the doctrine of particular election was introduced. The primitive church knew nothing of it. Mosheim, upon whom you place much reliance, says so expressly and repeatedly.

While I speak, thus strongly, of the peculiar tenets of Calvinism, I can say, with perfect truth, that for many who ardently embrace

Here again, sir, let men of sense, and candor, say whether you have any right to inveigh against the narrow, illiberal, and unchristian spirit of others. Such comparisons are not pleasant to me. I am forced into them by the unjust reproaches which pervade your letters.

As to outward order, Episcopalians and Presbyterians agree that there is a visible church; that to this church a visible ministry is essential; that, without external ordina tion, there can be no ministry; and that, out of this visible church, thus depending on a visible clergy, and a visible commission, there is no covenanted possibility of salvation. Presbyterial ordination is carried by the one society just as far as Episcopal ordination is carried by the other; each thinking the particular mode which it has adopted to be the divinely instituted mode, and, of course, essential to a lawful ministry. But Presbyterians go further, and tell us, that ecclesiastical government, in a large sense, as including the particular organization by which the affairs of the church are managed, is of divine right; that their own particular

them, I entertain the sincerest respect and veneration. Unaffected piety may consist with even fundamental error. And I do consider the error, in question, as a fundamental one; marring the whole beauty of the Christian scheme. It represents Christ as having died only for the elect; making salvation possible to them alone. Now I know no doctrine more expressly laid down in scripture, or more fundamental to the system of the gospel, than that Christ died for the sins of the whole world, and that, through him, salvation is rendered possible to every man. To confine the blood of Christ, and the possibility of salvation, to a certain number of persons, elected by an eternal decree, without any foresight of faith, or works, or anything, in the creature, moving thereunto, is to construct a system, widely, fundamentally, different from the gospel which our blessed Savior published to the world.

Of decrees, in the divine council, we know nothing; but this is certain, that they must be consistent with the will of God as revealed in his word. Let us, then, instead of bewildering ourselves in metaphysical reasoning on the divine foreknowledge, take the plain language of scripture for our guide. Christ tasted death for every man. He died for the sins of the whole world. All are called-All, therefore, can come. This is sufficient "to satisfy an humble, simple hearted, bible Christian."

It ought to be mentioned that there are Armenian, Arian, and Socinian, as well as Calvinistic, societies of Presbyterians. In the points of difference, between Episcopalians and Presbyterians, to which this note refers, the Calvinistic Presbyterians are, alone, in view.

plan is the only apostolic one, and that those who depart from it, saving the allowance to be made for involuntary error, will be excluded from the kingdom of heaven. Presbyterial ordination they make essential to the very existence of the church, and, of course, to all covenanted title to mer, cy. They do not go thus far as to the particular arrangement of church sessions, presbyterial assemblies, synodical assemblies, and general assemblies; but they say it is the law of God's house, and that habitual disobedience to any of the divine laws will exclude from the kingdom of heaven; giving no relief, but that of involuntary error, at which they spurn, with such haughty disdain, when extended to them by others.*

Once more, sir, let the good, and the candid, say, what consistency, what justice, what decency, even, there can be in such charges, as pervade your book from such a source,

In what is here said of the extent to which Presbyterians carry their ideas of the particular form of government prevailing in their society, I must be understood as speaking generally. There are, no doubt, numerous exceptions. Many Presbyterian clergymen have admitted the apostolic institution of Episcopacy. Others contend that there is no form of the ministry, exclusively, of divine right; but, that man is left to model the whole system, and to change it, from time to time, according to the exigency of circumstances. But the standards of Presbyterian societies declare the whole frame of their government to be of apostolic institution; and, of course, binding in all places, and throughout all time. This, too, will be admitted to be the prevailing doctrine of Presbyterian writers. Doct. Miller adopts it in the most express terms.