3. We proceed to examine the fact, which Dr. How maintains, "that many of those societies on the continent of Europe, which laid aside the divinely-constituted order of bishops, have grievously fallen from the distinguishing doctrines of the cross." The Church of Holland, the Swiss Churches, the Reformed Churches of protestant Germany, and the Church of Geneva, must be meant by him. We say "must be meant by him," because he and his coadjutors claim the Lutheran denomination, as well as the Russian and Greek Churches, as Episcopal, in their controversy with Presbyterians. He and his friends may take their choice, for we are little concerned about the issue. As the High Church party have committed themselves, we, for the present, meet them on the position assumed by Dr. How, in this address, connected with the claim of the party of the Lutheran Church, on their side, as it respects the question of government.

The Church of Holland, which is purely Presbyterian, we do know, from correct information, has never departed from the true faith, in point of doctrine, as that true faith is described by Dr. How. Nor have the Swiss Churches departed from this faith, in the sense of our Author. In Geneva there have been defections, and sad ones, but never until Bishop Burnet, an Episcopal divine, succeeded in producing an abolition of the subscription to Calvinistic principles, by the authority of Geneva. With the Church of Geneva, as it now is, "that Church, which has an apostolical ministry and an evangelical liturgy," must settle the controversy, in reference to departure from the true faith, in Dr. How's sense.

We are aware of the fact, that, on the continent of Europe, there has been a sad and grievous departure from the truth. But, reader, be it known to you, that it is to be found among a denomination, whom the Episcopalians claim, as on their side, in the article of government Bahrdt, Eberhard, Dam, Teller, Semler, &c. were all Lutherans. These men, who supported "the impious system of Socinus," never had been Calvinists. So much for Dr. How's assertion, relative to the continental Churches, who have "laid aside the divinely-con

2

stituted order of bishops." p. 24. "Passing from one extreme to another," says the Doctor, "they have exchanged the absurdities of Calvinism for a system still more frightful"—" the impious system of Arius and Socinus." Besides the absolute and utter want of proof for this assertion, as it respects the Calvinistic Churches on the continent, there is an unfairness, as it respects the Lutheran Church. As a Church, they never have embraced the heresies of Arius and Socinus, though many of their ministers and professors are supporters of these heresies. Nay, more, we say, that "not a single society," if Dr. How means, by that appellation, a denomination of Christians, "not a single society," Presbyterian in their government, on the continent, have embraced the system of either Arius or Socinus. We challenge the Rev. Author to prove his assertion.

Not less unhappy, because equally incorrect, is his statement of the condition into which England was brought, when, as he is pleased to call them, "the barriers of a primitive Episcopacy," were thrown down, p. 24. We venture to say, and we appeal to the impartial histories of that period, that there were less "impiety and heresy" in the nation thền, than there were after the restoration of Charles, and since that time, until the rise of the Methodists. With all the canting hy pocrisy of the day, there was a high degree of external morality and attention to religion, throughout England. The scene was sadly reversed, when Charles ascended the throne. Did Episcopal authority interfere to prevent the debauchery of the nation? Let the reader cast his eye over Burnet's history of his own times, but particularly over his prefaces to the first and third editions of his Pastoral Office, and he will see what had been done by them so far down as his day.

4. We proceed to examine the dubious or incorrect use of Scripture which Dr. H. has made. We confine our remarks to the interpretation which he gives of Antichrist, and of the passage in Timothy, where the Church is called the pillar and ground of the truth.

us."

With respect to the first, viz. his view of Antichrist, we consider it to be dubious. It would not have been noticed by us, were it not for the positive and imposing manner in which the author states his view, Dr. H. well knew that all the old Protestant writers on prophecy, consider the Romish Church as Antichrist. Faber, however, has ably and conclusively corrected some of the mistakes of his predecessors, but has certainly failed in settling decisively the question concerning Antichrist. The word is found in only four places, all of them in John's epistles. We will present our readers with them in their connection. The first place is John ii. 18. "Little children, it is the last time; and as ye have heard that Antichrist shall come, even now are there many Antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of The second place is the 22d verse of this Chapter. "He is Antichrist that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father." The third place is 1 John iv. 3. "And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God; and this is that spirit of Antichrist whereof ye have heard, that it should come; and even now already is it in the World." The last place is 2 John 7. "For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an Antichrist." The discriminating character of Antichrist then, according to the beloved disciple, is, that he confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. The want of such a confession is exhibited as a denial of the Son; and whosoever denieth the Son, hath not the Father, and of course denies both the Father and the Son; for Christ and his Father are one. Moreover we are informed that there were many Antichrists in the disciples' days, who he says "went out from us, but they were not of us;" which description proves that they were apostates. Their apostacy, from the discriminating character marked by the disciple, to which we have just referred, related to this one grand point, that they confessed not that Jesus Christ was come in the flesh. That is, they rejected the incarnation of the Son of God, and consequently all the doctrines connected with, or flowing from his

incarnation, such as atonement for sin by the one sacrifice of himself on the cross, his essential divinity, or oneness with the Father, to make his atonement complete and satisfactory, and his Almighty power to apply effectually, his purchased redemption to the salvation of sinful men. Such rejection is strictly antichristian, because it is aimed at the essential part of the whole Christian system, which discriminates it from all other religions, viz. salvation purchased by the death of the Son of God. Thus the ancient Cerinthians, Artemonites, &c. and the modern Socinians, are Antichristians: and by way of eminence the Church of Rome, by the doctrine of her unbloody sacrifice of the mass, with the doctrines flowing from, or connected with this, is the Antichrist, since by these doctrines she rejects in fact, the one offering of Christ for sin; and thus confesseth not that Christ has come in the flesh. We state our difference of opinion on this subject, from Dr. H. not to charge him with heresy, but merely to observe that we do not consider Mr. Faber has succeeded in attempting a new explanation and application of the term Antichrist.

The passage from 1 Tim. iii. 15, from the use which our author makes of it, deserves particular animadversion. He has committed "the Bible and Common Prayer Book Society" of this City, as a body, with himself individually, as considering that "the Church is denominated in Scripture, the pillar and ground of the truth; whence the conclusion seems fairly to follow, that the Church being removed, the truth of which it is the support and bulwark, will not long continue to stand," p. 22. We shall first examine the premises assumed, and then the conclusion. The premises are found in the above-mentioned passage from Timothy. It is allowed by all the established biblical critics and commentators, that this is one of the most difficult passages in the New Testament, and bas furnished accordingly a field for a more than ordinary diversity of constructions Dr. H. and the Bible and Common Pray. er Book Society of this City, would have acted wisely had they referred to Suiceri thesaurus Ecclesiasticus, under the word Erúhos, for some information on this subject. Had they do ne

so, they would have avoided the awkward predicament in which they have placed themselves. Cameron, Schultetus, Bengelius, Griesbach, Heinrich, Doddridge, and the late Dr. J. Erskine, to mention no more names, consider the punctuation of the received text to be incorrect. They make the 15th verse to end with the words, "the Church of the living God," and the 16th verse to commence as follows, "the pillar and ground of the truth, and without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness, &c."

Those who consider the punctuation correct, differ among themselves. Procopius, Cyril of Alexandria, and Epiphanius, made Christ the pillar and ground of the truth. Others suppose that Timothy is meant, and in support of this opinion Chillingworth has given his name. Of those who refer the pillar and ground of the truth to the Church, we omit the opinions of Chrysostom and Theophylact, who gave one interpretation, Francis Junius another, and John Gothofredus a third, whilst we proceed to exhibit Dr. How's and his associates, which is their conclusion from the premises assumed. As the former are disputed by the best authority, the reader will not be surprised to find the latter not entitled to much credit. In fact it is the Popish doctrine, avowed by the council of Trent. We shall arrange the Dr. and the council in separate columns.

Dr. How.

"The Church is denominated in Scripture, the pillar and ground of the truth; whence the conclusion seems fairly to follow, that the Church being removed, the truth of which it is the support and bulwark, will not long conti nue to stand." p. 22.

Council of Trent.

"The Holy Church forbids all men whatsoever to explain the Scriptures, in things relating to faith, and the doctrine of manners, by trusting to their own lights according to their particular sense, contrary to the senses which our holy mother, the Church has held and does hold, to whom only it appertaineth to judge of the sense and interpretation of Scripture." Sess. IV. second decree: Dupin's Eccles. Hist. of the 16th Cent Book 3. chap. 1.