tion of Mr. Spring, if they did not believe he had written the sermon in haste, and would, on a little reflection, renounce the doctrines which it contained.-Mr. Ely being called on to give his opinion, said, that were he in Mr. Spring's case, he should desire to be recalled to the presbytery, that he might have an opportunity of explaining more fully his sentiments, of rectifying wrong apprehensions, and of ascertaining how far he differed from the persons, with whom he was about to be connected. He advised, therefore, that Mr. Spring should be sent for, before the final question was decided, for Mr. Ely was much in mistake, if Mr. Spring would not vindicate more strongly to-morrow, whatever sentiments he had designed to advance to-day."* This plan was not adopted. But at the suggestion of the commissioner, who prosecuted the call, it was agreed to call on Mr. Spring after his ordination, and endeavour to reclaim him from his errors, and teach him more perfectly the doctrines of salvation. This plan was adopted for the preservation of peace, and to save the people of the Brick church, who had made the call upon Mr. Spring, from a disappointment. Thus the presbytery ordained a man to the ministry, though they could not doubt that he held principles directly at war with those of that confession of faith, to which they demanded of him an assent, and a promise of adherence. It may seem strange that an honest man should make such a promise, but with the help of explanations, many men can promise support to almost any system. As it has happened in all other cases where truth and duty were compromitted for the sake of peace, the object was not gained. The introduction of Mr. Spring into the presbytery was the signal of war; the tocsin was sounded, and a perpetual scene of contest, has been ever since exhibited on this theatre. The harmony of the presbytery has fled, and seems resolved never to return.

At the instance of Dr. Samuel Miller and others Mr.

* History of Ecclesiastical Proceedings relative to the third Presby terian church in Philadelphia, &c,

Ely wrote a paper exhibiting a contrast between Hopkinsianism and the doctrines of the Genevan school. After it was written, he was advised to enlarge and publish it in the form of a book, which he did, under the title of "A Contrast between Calvinism and Hopkinsianism." This work contains a great deal of very interesting matter. The public confessions of the reformed churches, and the opinions of distinguished divines, are collated with each other, and contrasted with those of Dr. Hopkins and his followers. We see exhibited, in one view, the harmony of the former with each other, their discrepancy with the latter, and the disagreement of the latter with one another. To the chapters of the Contrast, the author has appended dissertations, in which he defends with decision the doctrines of the Calvinistic school. Mr. Ely could not but be aware of the onset which awaited him, but he generously planted himself in the breach, and braved every danger, with a heroism, that posterity will applaud, whatever may be thought of it by his lukewarm contemporaries. The Socinians, the Hopkinsians and the Methodists, magazines and pamphleteers, attacked him furiously from every quarter, while many lukewarm brethren either left him to struggle with his fate, or joined with his enemies in the outcry raised against him, as "a mover of sedition and a turner of the world upside down.” A great number, however, of the clergy, and that of the most respectable, warmly recommended the Contrast. But the approbation of a good conscience and of that Redeemer whose truth he defends are rewards, which far exceed all others, and incomparably more than counterbalance all that persecution has inflicted upon him.

The Contrast is so well written, that Dr. Joseph Lyman of Massachussetts declared in an Association of Hopkinsians, that Dr. Mason had written it; whereas he never saw a line of it until it was published. Others still ascribe it to some older man, under pretence that a youth at twentyfive could not have been the author of so able a work.

What Mr. Ely said respecting Mr. Spring's maintaining doctrines exhibited in his sermon before the presbytery was

fully justified by the event. He did not hesitate to avow all the opinions taught at the Andover school, and exerted all his energies to propagate them. The controversy raged in private families, and disturbed the peace of congregations. Hopkinsian books were circulated, and every machine put in motion to render prevalent the errors which they contained. Dr. M'Leod commenced a course of lectures from his pulpit on sabbath evenings, in which he gave a history of the origin and progress of Hopkinsianism, and combated the system with arguments drawn both from scripture and reason, with all the force of his eloquence. He was heard by crowded audiences, and a great interest was excited by his discussions. All the efforts, however, of the orthodox were not sufficient to arrest the progress of the errors, which were introduced at the door opened for them by the presbytery. It was not long until the Hopkinsian party obtained, by accessions from New England principally, a majority among the ministers of the presbytery. To the introduction of one of these, the Rev. Walter King, Mr. Ely gave the only dissentient vote; even though Mr. King was the intimate friend of himself and of his father; because the following dialogue was heard by the presbytery and recorded at the time.

Question by Mr. Ely. Can any man, strictly speaking, be declared guilty of original sin, excepting Adam?

Answer by Mr. King. No.

Mr. Ely. Have fallen men all that intellectual power which is requisite to perfect obedience?

Mr. King. Yes.

Mr. Ely. Has the sinner any union to Christ before saving faith in Christ is wrought in his soul?

Mr. King. Doubtful.

The last question was proposed because Mr. King had asserted that he had been himself the subject of saving repentance for several months before he had any saving faith in Christ. Many other questions were proposed which he declined answering. But let us not attribute to the presbytery too much blame, because they could not foresee the

future conduct of some who made an orthodox profession. One who became for a considerable time "Mr. Spring's bully of Hopkinsianism," was the Rev. Henry P. Strong, sometime pastor of a presbyterian church in Elizabethstreet, which became extinct under the blighting influence of his doctrines, in a few months after its organization. He came from Connecticut to New York in the character of a licentiate. While the presbytery had him under examination for ordination, Mr. Ely insisted on proposing to to him several propositions, that he might express to the presbytery his approbation or disapprobation of them. Mr. Spring requested a previous sight of them, and having read them objected to their being proposed; saying at the same time, that Mr. Ely, from his knowledge of the technical language of divinity in the north and south, was better able to entrap the candidate for ordination than any other member of the presbytery. The presbytery overruled the objection, and the following propositions were submitted to the consideration of Mr. Strong.

"I. The Holy Ghost unites a sinner to Christ, by working in him faith in God's testimony of grace.

"II. A person not united to Christ in this spiritual and mystical union, cannot be the subject of any one saving grace, any more than the branch can bear fruit without union to the vine.

"III. All the Christian graces will coexist in that person who has been made alive to God, by the saving belief of the truth as it is in Jesus.

"IV. In the decree of election, God gave Christ a definite number of our fallen race; and by the consent of the Son of God, appointed him to merit for them, by obeying the moral law and suffering its penalty for their sins, complete pardon, justification, sanctification and salvation.

"V. To fulfil this decree was the main object of the incar nation, obedience, suffering, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

"VI. The sins of the elect were legally imputed to Christ, so that he was actually made a curse for them, and was

punished for their sins, even to the utmost demands of the moral law.

"VII. That obedience which Christ performed to the law for the elect sinner, is legally imputed to him; so that God declares the sinner, who is personally unjust, to be legally just on account of the vicarious righteousness of his substi

tute.

"VIII. The law which the sinner has violated, is that very law in relation to which the sinner is pronounced, by vicarious obedience, to be just."

To the question, "do you believe each of these propositions to be true?" Mr. Strong gave publicly an affirmative answer, and then, either not understanding the force of language, or explaining it away, preached and taught Hopkinsianism, and particularly universal atonement, with boldness and assiduity. By such means any presbytery might be ruined. It is thought, however, that by exertions to procure a full representation from the sessions, the orthodox in the presbytery of New York could still have a majority, as the ruling elders are generally Calvinistic in their sentiments.

Each of the parties expressed a belief that it could command a majority in the general assembly. The subject of the atonement in relation to the controverted points, in three instances, had come before that body. One was from the west. The presbyterian church had become powerful beyond the Alleghany mountains. The first presbyterian minister settled in that country, was the Rev. (now Dr.) John M'Millan, who was ordained to the pastoral charge of a congregation on Chartiers creek in Washington county. In 1779, he opened a grammar school with a view to educate young men for the ministry. Many pious men received the rudiments of an education in this seminary, studied theology under Mr. M'Millan, were ordained to the ministry, performed missionary labours through the new settlements then forming, organized congregations, and were settled in the pastoral office. They were but superficially versed in human literature, and their study of theology