tures under no obligation to their Maker to act reasonably.

On the presumption of this doctrine's being true, it was impossible for any of the posterity of Adam ever to have committed one sin had they been left in their natural state; and it will follow as a consequence, that all the sin committed by them was occasioned by the mediation of Christ. It will also follow, that if most men finally perish, the mediation of Christ, or, which is much the same thing, the grace given by him to every man, will occasion more men to be damned than saved. Another consequence would be, that Christ came not to redeem men from the curse of the law, but from the 'misfortune of being children of Adam; putting them first into a capacity of sinning, and then into a capacity of being saved or damned.

Would it not be much better frankly to acknowledge this to be a subject we do not understand? Or rather to take the account we have of it in the sacred Scriptures, without any of our presumptuous comments on the subject?

There are some men amongst us who go a step farther, and deny the agency of the Holy Spirit in a work of conviction and faith in Christ. They assert that men never receive the Spirit of God until they believe. Here I think they are guilty of equivocation: others, as they know, when speaking on this subject, by the Spirit mean a divine agent, the third person of the adorable trinity: but they mean a holy disposition, and then prove their doctrine by scripture; but do it in such a

way as induces us to think they do not believe in the distinct personality of the Holy Ghost.

Others profess to have advanced to a state of perfection. Perfection in holiness is the object of the ardent desire and pursuit of every good man, But to mistake that for perfection which is not such, may prove dangerous, and even fatal.

One class of these, in order to maintain their notion of perfection, acknowledge it does not consist in a complete conformity to the moral law; but call it a perfection in love. They do not seem to mean comparative, but sinless perfection. Perfection, if the word is properly used, must mean that they love God just as constantly, as purely, and as ardently, as he requires them to do, and their neighbours as themselves; without this their love is imperfect: and if their love is imperfect, they are not perfect in love; and of course want that very perfection which the law and gospel both demand.

The moral law is the standard of perfection for moral agents. It was so formerly, and is so still; for Christ came not to destroy the law or the prophets: but as the perfection of which we now treat falls short of this standard, it must necessarily be a kind of solecism in morals, an imperfect perfection. Set aside the standard God has given, and it is easy for the self-righteous, self-flattering heart of man to admire its own attainments and think itself perfect. Men may boast of perfection while they manifest to others great imperfection in knowledge and virtue. T

Another class seem to have come by their perfection in a different way. Their inward feelings or ex

ercises of soul, which they think are all from the Spirit of God, they call the Spirit within them, or Christ formed in their hearts: and taking these to be an infallible guide, if they can keep them up from day to day, and act under their influence, they think them, selves perfect.

These, I am informed, profess to give the Holy Ghost to others. Is this information true? If so, they must suppose that their inward feelings are the Spirit of Christ within them; and if they can by their pious ap pearance and tender addresses excite similar feelings in others, this is giving the Spirit. Others, receiving from them these pious impressions, imagine, sure e nough, that they receive the Holy Ghost from them. Is satan here transformed into an angel of light? Or, are men so completely transformed into credulous dupes as to become the sport of every daring impostor?

Is it true that some of these encourage men to confess all their sins to them by a promise of pardon? If this be a fact, I should suppose they think, or rather pretend, that Christ is within them, and they the organs by which he acts, or agents employed, by him; and he, we know, has power on earth to forgive sins. Are these men insane enough to believe they have this power? Are they playing with the credulity of man. kind? Or labouring to sink the christian religion into contempt? I know not which of the two is the most astonishing, the arrogance of the pretenders, or the credulity of their disciples.

Is it true that a certain man professed a kind of triumph in the absurdities of these people, as being hap

pily calculated to expose christianity to contempt? Does this gentleman believe that those absurdities, which christianity evidently condemns, prove it to be absurd? Is that law, which condemns all murderers to be hanged, calculated to countenance murder? Or will the perpetration of murder reflect disgrace upon the law? If he imagine so, there is reason to apprehend that he also is smitten with a partial insanity. On this subject the rules of logic in his brain are inverted, and he, as well as the fanatics he admires, has become insanus secundum quid.

Some set aside a number of the precepts of heaven, I mean those relating to baptism and the Lord's supper; and some of the precepts of morality, that is, those which refer to the marriage relation, and how many more I know not, and this must pass for a greater degree of holiness and refinement in morals than others have obtained. Do such plead they are not subject to ordinances? That they are like unto the angels in heaven, who neither marry nor are given in marriage? And is not this establishing perfection at the expense of God's word, and the duties therein enjoined on human créatures? Holiness does not consist in eradicating the principles of nature, but in governing them agreeably to God's word, so as to answer the ends designed by our Creator.

Do they say they have resurrection bodies? And do they know what they mean by this? If they mean incorruptible bodies, like the saints in glory, does any body believe them? Can it be believed that their bodies are like unto Christ's glorious body, when we see

in them all the common marks of weakness, decay, and corruption? Do we believe their word in contradiction to our own senses and our reason? And why de we believe them? Because they are such pious holy meu!!! Satan clad in the shining robes of a Seraph would still be the father of lies, and his doctrines like himself would be abhorrent to faith.

In the midst of all this error and confusion, many of our professors are mere lifeless, orthodox formalists, who are more inclined to expose error with violence, than to humble themselves and pray for a reformation. They boast of the soundness of their principles and strong attachment to them, but at the same time in practice deny the power of godliness. They exclaim much against the passions, are unfriendly to all intense concern about their souls, and excuse their coldness by the irregular or excessive heats of others. By the doctrine of the imperfections of God's people, and by the extravagant pretensions of others, they excuse themselves in the neglect of many duties, the badness. of their tempers, or the irregularity of their lives, esteeming these the common imperfections of the best christians. They cannot well bear the doctrine of assurance in this life, and seem to think it a comfortable evidence of the truth and reality of their religion, that they doubt whether they have any or not.. But professors of this character have so long existed in our country, and their character and conduct been so frequently and justly exposed, that it is unnecessary to enlarge up

on them here.