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 1 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 us." 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 has furnished accordingly a field for a more than ordinary diversity of constructions. Dr. H. and the Bible and Common Prayer Book Society of this City, would have acted wisely had they referred to Suiceri thesaurus Ecclesiasticus, under the word Erúλos, for some information on this subject. Had they done

276

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.

Here we have on the one side, the apostolick protestant Episcopalian Assistant Rector, gravely and peremptorily saying that the Church is the support and bulwark of "the truth," without which it (i. e. the truth) could not long continue to stand and on the other the apostolick Roman Council, saying that to the Church only, it appertaineth to judge of the sense and interpretation of Scripture. The former unquestionably means by "the truth of the Church," the Scriptures; and therefore as he insists that the Church supports and defends the Scriptures, he must unite with the latter in claiming for the Church the right of judging of the sense and interpretation of Scripture. We say that he must thus unite; we ought rather to say that he has thus united with the apostolick council; for his rule and that of the Bible and Common Prayer Book Society of this city, is "give not the Scriptures, i. e. the truth," without giving with it the Church, i. e. the liturgy of the Episcopal Church. If our author does not identify (in p. 20, 21, 22, 23) with Scripture, the above-mentioned liturgy, he reasons most strangely and absurdly. But we cannot mistake his meaning; inasmuch as he has been at such pains to be plain. He informs his hearers and readers," the Church supports and defends the truth." If they ask, what is the truth? his answer is the word of God, or the Scriptures. If, which denomination is the Church? Our's, i. e. the Episcopal, of course. If they prosecute the inquiry and desire to know, what constitutes your Church? The Episcopal liturgy, the Episcopal liturgy, the Episcopal liturgy, that is, the Church of the living God! But may not the word of God be given without the Episcopal liturgy? Oh no; for the latter, which is the Church, is the candlestick, and the former is the light. "The candlestick being taken away, the light is in perpetual danger of being thrown down and destroyed." How can that be? Because the Church, i. e. the Episcopal liturgy, the production of sinful, frail men, is the support and bulwark of the word of the infinite and holy God! Worthy is such a view of the Church, and the Scriptures, to be advanced by the man of sin; but utterly unworthy, when advanced by a protestant, boasting of the apostolical constitution and evangelical liturgy of his

Church. We refer him and his coadjutors, the Bible and Common Prayer Book Society of this City, to Whitby on this passage, who refutes the popish interpretation which they have adopted. Such interpretation, whether given by protestants or papists, wherever we meet with it, reminds us of a pleasant story, which amused us in early life. A Collier being asked, what he believed, answered, what the Church believes. Being again asked, what that was, he answered, what I believe. And again, when the inquiry was, "what do you and the Church both believe?" he replied, "the Church and I both believe the same thing." Thus it is that men roundly claim for themselves the faith of the Church. On examination, the faith of the Church is just what each of them believe. Hence Universalists, Arians, Socinians, Materialists, as well as Arminians, sign the articles of the Church of England.

5. We proceed lastly to consider the author's misrepresentations of Calvinistic doctrines. On this subject we shall not long detain the reader. The radical defect in the treatment of our doctrines, is the habit of our opponents to exhibit garbled extracts, or if any thing like a system, a caricature, so as to produce effect.

We have already extended this article to such a length, as to compel us to draw to a conclusion. We shall subject to the process of examination only two of the author's misrepresentations. The one is with respect to the heathen world. The Larger Catechism to which Dr. H. refers, does not determine the fact whether there is mercy for the heathen world; but it states the truth, that the light of nature cannot save. We do not pretend to limit the application of Christ's blood to the heathen in a manner of which we have no conception. In the third sect. of the tenth chapter of the West. Confess. it is assumed as a principle, " that persons incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the word, may be elect." But of this we shall say a little more under the next head.

The other misrepresentation relates to persons dying in infancy. Because elect infants are named in the Westminster Confession of Faith, it does not necessarily follow that there are reprobate infants. The word as used evidently alludes to such