iiiiiiiiifflMSiiiiii 
 
 ,1^ 
 
 
 
 ^■TT'TJTfT/'iT^^} 
 
^^fSvOFPRlNCf}; 
 
 A3 
 
TO 
 
 DR. MILLER'S LETTER 
 
 TO 
 
 A GENTLEMAN OF BALTIMORE, 
 
 IN REFERENCE TO THE CASE OP 
 
 THZ REV. Ma. DuxrcAxr. 
 
 BY JOHN M. DUNCAN, 
 
 Pastor of the Presbyterian Church, Tammany street, Baltiimri 
 
 Yet the children of thy people say, The way of the Lord is not equal: 
 but as for them their way is not equal. — Ezek. xxxiii. 17. 
 
 UaltCmou: 
 
 PUBLISHED BY CUSHiNG & JEWETT. 
 1826. 
 
JOHN D. TOY, PRINTER, 
 
 Corner of St. Paul Sf Market sts. 
 
£^^ ^^*^^^-^:^c^^ 
 
 — ^ 
 
 REPLY, &c. 
 
 *^A gentleman of Baltimore," whose name does 
 not appear, feeling, no doubt, a very deep interest 
 in their general subjects, has supposed himself war- 
 ranted to solicit from Dr. Miller's pen, some notice 
 of my ' 'Remarks on the Rise, Use, and Unlawful- 
 ness of Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the church 
 of God." The '^'uncommonly clear and powerful 
 review," which ''the venerable editor of the Chris- 
 tian Advocate" had furnished, it was understood, had 
 not been generally read by those, who felt some re- 
 gard, both for the parties concerned, and the subject 
 under discussion. There seemed, therefore, to be 
 a necessity that Dr. M. should again appear as 
 the defendant of the creed-cause. His correspon- 
 dent had suggested the alternative of addressing 
 him privately, or answering his communication 
 through the medium of the press: and Dr. M. pre- 
 ferring the latter course, has issued a long letter, 
 ostensibly designed to elucidate my ecclesiastical 
 circumstances, and to counteract the effects of my 
 heretical aberrations. This correspondence has de- 
 volved upon me the unwelcome task of preparing 
 the following sheets for the press. 
 
I am discarded, however, by the letter-writer, as 
 ••acontrovertist by no means to his taste." And 
 had he consulted his own inclinations, or addressed 
 his correspondent privately, instead of canvassing 
 my writings with so much freedom, and criticising 
 them with so much tartness, I might have been spar- 
 ed the troublesome, and almost unnecessary, work 
 which he has now obtruded upon my feelings and my 
 leisure. Dr. M. could not have supposed, that my 
 cause had been so entirely crushed, and the citadel 
 of refuge for a vanquished foe had been so nearly 
 demolished, that nothing more was wanted save the 
 finishing stroke of desolation from his generous 
 hand. I conclude then, that in rejecting the res- 
 pondent as a champion not at all \yorthy of his supe- 
 rior tactics, he has fancied the public mind \.o be 
 his antagonist; and, as I do by no means covet the 
 high honour he refuses, I augur that there is some 
 hope that the present controversy will soon be 
 stripped of all offensive personalities. — So be it. 
 But the letter before me must be taken as it is; and 
 the worthy professor may, in any future publication . 
 discuss the subject in the form which he may con- 
 sider best suited to general edification. 
 
 In arranging the present remarks, they shall be 
 thrown into sections, according as the nature of the 
 ^subjects may admit, or as their importance may re- 
 quire. My intention is to take up the most impor- 
 tant particulars which the letter has suggested, and 
 on which its author reposes with most confidence 
 and com_placency, Some observations, however, on 
 
the character of the ^^Remarks/' with which the 
 Doctor has prefaced his more serious discussions, 
 must first be noticed: and to these I shall devote 
 the first division of my reply. 
 
 SECTION I. 
 
 Dr. M. has been pleased to say, that the ^^conclu- 
 sive reason/' why he has ^ ^forborne to make any 
 answer'^ to my book, *^is that it really requires no 
 answer."^ — ^^He, (Mr. D.) is so far from having in- 
 validated, or even weakened, any of the arguments 
 in favour of creeds, urged in my Introductory Lec- 
 ture, that he has hardly so much as touched them. 
 I have conversed repeatedly with some of the most 
 acute and enlightened men in our country, and so- 
 licited their candid judgment as to the real force of 
 Mr. D's book. And they have all, with a single 
 exception, united strongly in the opinion, that he 
 has written nothing which impairs, in the least de- 
 gree, the strength of my reasoning; nothing which 
 possesses such a degree, even of plausibility, as to 
 demand a reply. Why then should I write again, 
 when all my original positions remain, not only un- 
 shaken, but really unassailed." These are good, 
 round, assertions: almost enough to make ahy man 
 lay down his pen in despair. But then there is one 
 **most acute and enlightened" man, who does not 
 think so meanly of the ^'Remarks:" and a suspicion 
 darts across my brain, that the remainder might 
 have been the advocates of the ereed-systeno. I 
 1* 
 
make no doubt, however, that they expressed their 
 honest opinions, and I regret that they have been 
 brought across my path, as a passing remark may 
 unintentionally wound a friend, whose feelings my 
 heart would hold sacred.^ It seems, moreover, that 
 Dr. M. has after all thought it necessary to ^Svrite 
 again;" and to urge once more the very points so 
 strongly pressed in his "Introductory Lecture;" and 
 that too on the apparently unobtrusive solicitation 
 of a ^'gentleman of Baltimore." 
 
 It may be necessary here to state, that the ^'Re- 
 iiiarks" were pledged to do nothing more, than fair- 
 ly and respectfully to controvert the principles of 
 Dr. M's ^'Lecture." He was not followed step by 
 step in the arrangement he thought proper to make. 
 I chose to shape the subject for myself, according 
 to my best apprehensions; and to take up the prin- 
 ciples of the ^^Lecture," merely as they might be 
 fairly introduced in the order of discussion. This 
 course put the reader to the trouble of analysing my 
 ^'Remarks," in order to range them along with Dr. 
 M's arguments. If he did not please to do this, 
 but to leave it as undeserving of his effort, which 
 Dr. M. appears to have done in his reply, then I 
 had conducted him, as far as personal ability and 
 my time allowed, through the whole of the subject, 
 as I apprehended it. Perhaps this was an ill-judg- 
 ed course. But then it seems, that throughout the 
 greater part no presbyterian antagonist could be 
 found; that almost all the propositions advanced 
 were sound^ and the facts stated indisputable; and 
 
that it was useless to labour through so many pages 
 in proof of things which no one denied. Yet, 
 Dr. M. has thought proper to reply; the synod has 
 thought proper to refuse forbearance; and the book 
 is reviled as most heretical, and of most injuriouji 
 tendency. There is a veil over these representa- 
 tions, which I shall not attempt to penetrate; — a mist, 
 which time may disperse. 
 
 In sustaining the assertions already quoted, Dr. 
 M. says — '^Mr. D. is also fighting without an ad- 
 versary in all that he has said, at so much length, 
 and with so much laboured rhetoric, respecting the 
 character of many of the christian clergy, within 
 the first three or four hundred years after Christ." 
 Afterwards, when he would throw, what he appa- 
 rently supposes to have been, my argument from the 
 brief review that was taken of the history of the 
 primitive church, into an * 'abridged syllogism," he 
 states it thus: — ''Many of the clergy began, very 
 early, to manifest an overbearing and grasping spi- 
 rit; therefore,, it is unlawful for the church, at pre- 
 sent, to take any measures to prevent her ministers 
 from falling into the same evil courses, and, for this 
 purpose, to ascertain their soundness in the faith, 
 and guard the purity of their principles." — I feel as 
 if it would be doing Dr. M. a most serious injustice, 
 to believe that he saw nothing more in the deduc- 
 tions, made from the historical extracts in question. 
 But he has said so, and I may not dispute his word. 
 However, he may be assured that there was a vast 
 deal more implied; than he appears to have disco= 
 
8 
 
 vered, of which the following observations mavr 
 perhaps, convince him. 
 
 The fifth argument of the '^Introductory^ Lec- 
 ture" in favour of creeds, was expressed in the fol- 
 lowing proposition: — *'The experience of all ages 
 has found them indispensably necessarj^" If this 
 proposition be true, it verily required some hardi- 
 hood of adventure to undertake what, in the '*Let- 
 ter," has been denominated a '^confessional battle.'^ 
 The doctrine of the ''Remarks" is, that the proposi- 
 tion is not true, and the argument was designed to 
 make it appear untrue. The reader will please to 
 notice the following particulars: 
 
 1. Dr. M. in illustrating his proposition, had be- 
 gun with the apostolic age, and discovered, if I un- 
 derstood him, an ecclesiastical creed in use among 
 the apostles. By an ecclesiastical creed, let it be 
 remembered, is to be understood "an accredited, 
 permanent, public document" — "a summary of 
 christian doctrine" — "a formulary," other than 
 the scriptures — "a test" of orthodoxy. Now the 
 apostles had no such thing, and I undertook to show 
 that they had not. The scriptures have not stated 
 the fact, that any such document was used by them j 
 and history affords not the slightest proof that they 
 left any such instrument behind them, for the use 
 of the churches after they were gone. There has 
 existed in the church a small schedule, which has 
 been denominated the apostles' creed; and about 
 this there has been considerable discussion. Some 
 have supposed that the apostles did actually pen it 5 
 
that they held a solemn convocation in order te 
 draw it up; and that each apostle inserted his par- 
 ticular article. Others have combated this as a mere 
 figment, — stating, that it was near four hundred 
 years after Christ before it was ever heard of; 
 that neither Luke in his history of the apostolical 
 transactions, nor any ecclesiastical author before 
 the fifth century, has made any mention of any 
 assembly convened for such a purpose by the apos- 
 tles; that none of the early councils made any men- 
 tion of such a document, nor referred to it as their 
 standard, or basis, or test; that ^^there could not 
 have been a stronger or more convincing proof 
 brought against heretics, than to have referred to 
 such a creed;" and that, '^if the apostles had made a 
 creed, it would have been every where the same 
 throughout all churches, and in all ages; all chris- 
 tians would have learnt it by heart; all churches 
 would have repeated it after the very same manner; 
 in fine, all authors would have expressed it in the 
 same terms" — the contrary of all which is evident. 
 If this detail is true, what becomes of Dr. M's gene- 
 ral proposition, and particularly his first specifica- 
 tion under it? — Or will he say, that his position has 
 been neither assailed nor shaken? 
 
 2. Dr. M. in carrying on his illustration, had 
 said, that in the second and third centuries, not 
 only were these creeds ''more formally drawTjb 
 out,^^ but they were ^^more minute, and more ex- 
 tensive, than those of earlier date." This too was 
 explicitly denied in the '^Remarks/' and historical' 
 
10 
 
 proof was advanced to show that it was not correct. 
 In those early ages, or previous to the council of 
 Nice, no such formulary is to be found: but after 
 this council, creeds abounded so much, that Socrates 
 speaks of their '^confused multitude,'' and Hilary 
 tells us, that they ^'did nothing but make creeds" — 
 that they made them arbitrarily, and explained them 
 as arbitrarily. During the period anterior to this 
 famous assembly, there was no one part iciilar form 
 made use of. Du Pin, says — "In the second and 
 third ages of the church we find as many creeds as 
 authors; and the same author sets down the creed 
 in a different manner in several places of his works; 
 which plainly shows, that there was not any creed 
 that was reputed to be the apostles', nor even any 
 regulated and established form of faith. ^^ St. 
 Justin, and St. Irenoeus observe, that in those days, 
 they had the faith ^ ^deeply imprinted on their 
 minds." Jerome says, that it *Svas not written on 
 paper, or with ink, but was engraved on the fleshly 
 tables of the heart. " — Moreover, some of the exam- 
 ples of early creeds, to which the ' 'Lecture" had re- 
 ferred, were quoted, that they might speak for them- 
 selves, and demonstrate to every candid mind, that 
 there was not then even the form of an established 
 creed. And did not all this touch the proposition, 
 which was controverted? Or was nothing more 
 done by the respondent, than to play the part of an 
 humble and undesired amanuensis, to record over 
 again the degeneracy of those unhappy times, and to 
 / infer that we should d^ nothing now to prevent a 
 
11 
 
 fike *^wide spreading degeneracy?" Is there no 
 difference between the assertions, that ^Hhe friends 
 of orthodoxy had been in the habit of framing creeds 
 from the earliest ages," and that the friends of or- 
 thodoxy never framed such an instrument until the 
 fourth century? And is there no importance \Xi 
 the historical testimony, which established the lat^ 
 ter assertion, when the former had been made? 
 
 3. The doctrine of the * ^Remarks," most dis- 
 tinctly and most carefully stated, was, that creeds 
 are authoritative instruments, imposed upon the 
 human conscience, by being erected into terms of 
 communion in spiritual ordinances. The historical 
 proof adduced, was intended to establish this doc- 
 trine; by manifesting that until ecclesiastical power 
 was acquired by ambitious ecclesiastics, there were 
 no such formularies in the church: but that when 
 synods and councils were introduced in the second 
 century, they hastened to the supreme control over 
 divine ordinances; and that in the fourth century, for 
 the first time, they drew out and established such a 
 test. Synods and councils are the framers and defen- 
 ders of these instruments now: so that human creeds 
 are still the creatures of ecclesiastical power. More- 
 over, the historical proof was adduced to show, that, 
 at first, the churches were all independent of each 
 other, and therefore were not in circumstances at 
 all favourable to the sy.stem of making or imposing 
 creeds; and that if churches were independent of 
 each other now^ as they were then, they would not 
 feel these creeds to be * 'indispensably necessary'^ 
 
i2 
 
 now, more than they did then. Did not these facts, 
 with the instantaneous conclusions which were de- 
 duced, ^4n the least impair the strength of Dr. M's 
 reasoning.^' — He appears to me, not only to be 
 sporting with my feelings, but to be trifling with 
 his own reputation. 
 
 4. The habit of appealing to these early ages, as 
 Dr. M. had done, was objected to in the * 'Remarks" 
 as unbecoming in christian divines, and as altogether 
 irrelevant to an argument like the present. This 
 same objection Dr. M. had made, under correspond- 
 ing circumstances, and when sustaining the presby- 
 terian cause, against his prelatical adversaries. He 
 seemed then to think, that the degenerate character 
 of those ages, gave great force to his objections. In- 
 deed, so important was that circumstance, in his es- 
 timation, that he would not consent to go beyond 
 the second century, which was quite anterior to 
 the period of introducing creeds; and he condescen- 
 ded to go, even that far, merely as an act of grace, 
 thinking that when he had the Bible in his hand, 
 nothing more was wanted. The * 'Remarks" fol- 
 lowed the very same track; because that the ''Lec- 
 ture," in sustaining its argument, had committed 
 the same sin, for which he had censured episcopa- 
 lians. And is there nothing unseemly in referring 
 to a degenerate age for proof and testimony, in fa- 
 vour of any of the ecclesiastical institutions in our 
 own day, when we have the Bible in our hands? — 
 Or is it no argument against creeds that they were 
 the offspring of a degenerate age? And would it not 
 
IS 
 
 follow, that instead of being * ^indispensably neces- 
 sary" to make instruments by which to sustain their 
 ill-gotten power, the ecclesiastics of that age ought 
 rather to have retraced their steps, and surrendered 
 their usurped sovereignty? Or having such an ex- 
 ample before us, ought we not to profit by their 
 mistake, and freely part with that which we are not 
 entitled to hold? 
 
 Again: The fourth argument advanced, in fa- 
 vour of creeds, in the * ^Introductory Lecture," 
 was, that 'Hhey are friendly to the study of chris- 
 tian doctrine, and of course to the prevalence of 
 christian knowledge. " This position too was con- 
 troverted in the ^'Remarks," and very opposite 
 ground was taken. Creeds were considered as un- 
 friendly to the acquisition of christian knowledge, 
 because they take divine truth out of its bibli- 
 cal connexions; throw it into scholastic forms; sub- 
 stitute abstract propositions, as disputable as they 
 are philosophical, for plain practical law; and inter- 
 fere with the varied operations of different minds, 
 by forcing a unity of sentiment at the expense of 
 free inquiry. This view of creeds, which every 
 man may see exemplified in the controversies of the 
 present day, was traced up to the same degenerate 
 ages, when scholastic theology, as correlative with 
 ecclesiastical power, was introduced as another ac- 
 tive cause, creating the indispensable necessity for 
 these instruments. Thus history, instead of passing 
 any eulogy upon their power to extend spiritual 
 erudition, proclaims them from the first to have 
 2 
 
14< 
 
 been mere tests of philosophy, and therefore the 
 ministers of strife and controversy. Such they have 
 always been, and such they are now. This train of 
 argugient it was thought proper to undertake; and if 
 it can conclusively be made out, every candid reader 
 must feel, that the position it assails is fairly 'de- 
 molished." I did the best I could at the time, and 
 shall not here resume the subject, — Dr. M. having 
 in this case, as in almost every other, unceremo- 
 niously passed by every thing that was said. 
 
 It may be proper here to state— as, after having 
 read the '^Letter," it seems difficult to say what 
 amount of explanation is not necessary — that I do 
 not indiscriminately condemn all who lived in the 
 early ages, to which this argument refers. Angus-* 
 tine, Gregory Nazianzen, Irenaeus, Jerome, and 
 others, entered their serious protest against the sec- 
 tarian measures of their own day. And no doubt 
 there were many, belonging to the class of private 
 christians, — men of good common sense, and sound 
 moral judgment, — who expressed their noiseless 
 and ineffectual testimony against the inroads of ec- 
 clesiastical power. Such men there are in every 
 society, both political and religious. Their voice is 
 seldom heard in the ferments of a popular policy; or 
 ; when the public mind has sunk into indolence and 
 sluggishness, subdued and paralysed by the success 
 ^of a party. Such individuals, however, are gene- 
 rally found, though they may be unfrequently called 
 out, to be the redeeming corps of a declining commu- 
 nity; and happy is it for that community, when 
 
15 
 
 they have moral courage enough to meet their mo- 
 ral responsibilities. Calvin has happily expressed 
 this condition of human society, in reference to ages 
 preceding him, in the following language: — *^Letu.* 
 now return to human laws. If they tend to intro- 
 duce any scruple into our minds, as though the ob- 
 servance of them were essentially necessary, we 
 assert, that they are unreasonable impositions on the 
 conscience. For our consciences have to do, not 
 with men, but with God alone. And this is the 
 meaning of the well-known distinction, maintained 
 in the schools, between a human tribunal and the 
 court of conscience. When the whole world wa,-^ 
 enveloped in the thickest shades of ignorance, this 
 little spark of light still remained unextinguish- 
 ed, so that they acknowledged the conscience of man 
 to be superior to all human judgments. It is true 
 that what they confessed in one word, they after- 
 wards overturned in fact; yet it was the will of God. 
 that even at that time there should remain some 
 testimony in favour of christian liberty, to rescue 
 the conscience from the tyranny of men." The 
 misfortune, however, is, that such men too often 
 ' retire from public view, and, doubting their compe- 
 tency to hold in check a growing evil, leave it to 
 cure itself. 
 
 In making up the historical testimony, intended 
 to support the doctrine of the '^Remarks," I took 
 the liberty of summoning Dr. M. himself as a wit- 
 ness; and quoted several extracts from letters, pub- 
 lished by him, a few years ago, on the points in- 
 
16 
 
 volved in the episcopal controversy. The language 
 of some of these extracts has been. thought, by ma- 
 Dy, to be inconsistent with the phraseology of the 
 ' 'Lecture;" and to show, that Dr. M. inferring 
 from the degeneracy of the early ages that their 
 testimony was worth nothing, and rejecting all hu- 
 man testimony, in or dermore fully to sustain his 
 inference, had retreated, not to his creed, but to the 
 Bible alone. I thought so too. Dr. M. howe- 
 ver, is very much surprised that any inconsistency 
 should for a moment be supposed to exist. It is 
 never very pleasant to foil an opponent by his own 
 weapons; and it might be rude now to press the 
 controversy in that form, especially as he has une- 
 quivocally declared his present opinions, and seems 
 to mourn that it is impracticable for our Bible so- 
 cieties to send the confession of faith along with the 
 Bible. I beg leave, however, to offer some reasons, 
 why it is supposed that the extracts in question are 
 somewhat contradictory. 
 
 1. In the ''Letters" he speaks of the Bible alone-^ 
 of the word of God as being the sole standard — of 
 the traditions and inventions of men, as not to 
 be followed — of our having but one master, even 
 Christ — of our obligation to call no man, or body 
 of men, masters, on earth, &c. i. e. I supposed him 
 to be maintaining, in all its integrity, this argument 
 against the episcopalians, — that it was death to any 
 cause which could not be sustained by the Bible 
 alone. To quote some new extracts: — Thus he 
 smiles at a prelatical concession: — *^In other words,. 
 
17 
 
 they confess, that the scriptures, taken absolutely 
 alone, will not bear them out in their claims. But 
 they suppose, and insist, that the facts which are 
 mentioned in the sacred history, taken in connexion 
 with the writings of tlie early fathers, decidedly 
 support this claim. That is, the New Testament, in 
 its own divine simplicity, is insujfficient for their 
 purpose; but explained, and aided, by the writings 
 of fallible men, it declares positively in their favour. 
 Is it so.^ — What is this but saying, that the Bible is 
 not a rule either perfect, or sufficient for the 
 church? What is this but embracing a principle 
 ivhich makes human testimony co-ordinate with 
 that of God; and which must involve us in all the 
 mazes and uncertainty of tradition."* Thus also 
 he quotes the declaration of the celebrated Chil- 
 lingworth with great commendation: — ^^I, for my 
 part, after a long, and, as I verily hope and believe, 
 impartial search of the true way to eternal happi- 
 ness, do profess plainly, that I cannot find any rest 
 for the sole of my feet, but upon this rock only, viz. 
 the Scriptures. I see plainly, and with my own 
 eyes, councils against councils; some fathers against 
 other fathers; the same fathers against themselves; 
 a consent of fathers of one age against the consent 
 of fathers of another age; and the church of one age 
 against the church of another age," — ^^But it is 
 needless," continues Dr. M. ^*to multiply reason- 
 ings, or authorities on this subject. The sufficient 
 cy and infallibility of the scriptures alone, as % 
 * Letters, vol. l.p. U9**-20, 
 2^ 
 
18 
 
 rule of faith and practice, was assumed as the granJ 
 principle of the reformation from popery, and is ac- 
 knowledged to be the foundation of the protestant 
 cause.''* Now Dr. M. does not speak in this plain 
 manner in his ^'Lecture.'' He does not come out 
 unequivocally, and say that the Bible is the only 
 rule — the sole standard. On the contrary, he speaks 
 of the Bible as the only infallible rule; and then 
 employs all his argument to show that this only in- 
 fallible rule is not sufficient, but that we must have 
 2i creed to explain and aid the Bible;— a co-ordi- 
 nate instrument. He even goes so far as to speak 
 of the grand principle of the reformation from pope- 
 ry, the acknowledged foundation of the protestant 
 cause, being properly understood; as if there was 
 any difficulty in understanding it, saving that it is 
 not very easy to perceive how authoritative creeds 
 can be introduced into protestant churches, consis- 
 tently with its evident import; and as if it had not 
 been framed, purposely to shut out the decisions of 
 synods and councils. 
 
 To lay two sentences alongside of each other, and 
 to show that Dr. M's attempt to explain does not re- 
 lieve him: — In the '^Letters concerning the order 
 and constitution of the christian ministry," he says: 
 *^As the christian ministry is an office deriving its 
 existence and its authority solely from Jesus Christ, 
 the King and Head of his church, it is obvious that 
 his word is the only rule by which any claims to 
 this office can properly be tried, and the duties and 
 
 ^ Vol. 1. p. 26. 
 
19 
 
 powers of those who bear it, ascertained/'* In hi& 
 letter to '^a gentleman of Baltimore," he says:— **I 
 say, how is she (the church) to ascertain that this is 
 the character of her candidates for the holy minis- 
 try, when, according to the brother whom I am con- 
 strained to oppose, she is forbidden to employ a7iy 
 other test than that which the most corrupt and un- 
 qualified will bear, (the Bible) just as well as the 
 niost excellent; and which is, of course in reference, 
 to the point to be decided, no test at all."! 
 Ah! pudet, pudet! 
 
 2. When Dr. M. was conducting his argument 
 with episcopalians, he found it necessary to object 
 to human testimony, in which the strength of their 
 reasoning lies, as beneath the grave and solemn sub- 
 ject on which he wrote. But as human testimony 
 has so much to do with all the sectarian varieties 
 that exist in the church, he steps forward, like a 
 candid man, and discards the whole, as an unhal- 
 lowed intrusion upon sacred things, and appears to 
 view the sanctuary as God's own tabernacle. He 
 could not sustain his cause on any other principle; 
 because his antagonist would not suffer him to de- 
 cry human testimony, and then to introduce just as 
 much of it as suited himself. Now let us suppose 
 some episcopalian really convinced by the Doctor's 
 argument, and conscientiously brought over to the 
 presbyterian cause. The convert had, or had not, 
 been previously an officiating minister. He how- 
 ever wishes to be so employed in the new associa- 
 
 *Vol. I, p. 25. - t Page 24. 
 
so 
 
 tion which he has been induced to join. Dr. M. 
 hands to him the confession of faith, and coally 
 asks^ — '^Do you sincerely receive and adopt the 
 confession of faith of this church, as containing tha 
 system of doctrine taught in the holy scriptures?" — 
 '^The confession of faith of this church! Pray Sir, 
 is this the Bible?" — ^'This confession, my friend," 
 replies Dr. M. "is a summary of the Bible; it con- 
 tains whatever is important in the Bible, ar- 
 ranges religious doctrine much better, and is a more 
 effectual test of orthodoxy. It is well calculated 
 to extend *the prevalence of christian knowledge;' 
 it is a tribute to truth and candour, which we owe 
 to other churches and to the world; and it is 'a 
 depository, a guardian, and a witness of the truth;' 
 all of which is lost, if we take the Bible alone; so 
 that if you reject this, or hesitate to receive and 
 adopt it, you will necessarily become a latitudina- 
 rian and a heretic; for these have been the most 
 zealous opposers of such ^excellent standards.' " — 
 *'Ah, but Dr. M. did you not lell me, that *as the 
 christian ministry is an office deriving its existence 
 and its authority solely from Jesus Christ, the King 
 and Head of his church, it is obvious that his word 
 is the only rule by which any claims to this office 
 can properly be tried? And when I objected to 
 you, that your liberality, in sustaining such a pro- 
 position, seemed to me to involve you in a collision 
 with this confession of faith, did you not tell me 
 that we had but 'one master, even Christ,' whose 
 word was our sole standard; and wind up your 
 
reply, by awakening all my fears, when you said — 
 *Happy will it be for us, if we can appeal to the 
 great searcher of hearts, that we have not followed 
 the traditions and inventions of men, but the 
 sure word of prophecy, which is given us to be a 
 light to our feet, and a lamp to our path, to guide 
 us in the way of peace?' Is not my human testi- 
 mony as good as your human testimony?'' 
 
 Dr. M. must finish the dialogue, as I am unable 
 to sustain the consistency for him. The case sup- 
 posed may indeed be altogether the product of a 
 delirious imagination; for episcopalians think as 
 much of, and differ as much about, their ecclesiasti- 
 cal formularies, as presbyterians do. But in the 
 judgment of charity the case has been supposed; as 
 presbyterians do not always reason illogically, and 
 episcopalians are not always proof against a good 
 argument. Moreover, thus much I thought proper 
 to say, by way of explanation. Dr. M. may not, 
 perhaps, be inconsistent with himself, and the 
 reader may see, that the Bible alone, and the 
 Bible with a creed, mean the same thing. But I 
 thought, when the * 'Remarks" were penned, that 
 these were very different things, and I think so 
 now. 
 
 SECTION II. 
 
 In continuing his objections. Dr. M. says — ^'A 
 still more remarkable charge to which Mr. D's 
 book is liable, is, that while he maintains, with so 
 ipuch zeal and vehemence, the utter unlawfulness 
 
22 
 
 of all creeds and confessions, he distinctly allo^^'^ 
 the indispensable necessity of having a confession 
 of faith, and confesses that he has, and employs one 
 himself" — I beg leave, very respectfully, to say, 
 that the charge is most remarkable; so much so, 
 that it is far from being correct. One of the 
 necessary qualities of a good controvertist is, that 
 he should carefully endeavour to understand his 
 opponent; and most scrupulously avoid misrepre- 
 senting words, or plirases, or sentences, which it- 
 would require some ingenuity to misunderstand.-^ 
 I did not condemn all creeds, taking the term creed 
 in its literal sense; but I did condemn all creeds, 
 taking the term creed in its ecclesiastical sense, i. e. 
 as expressing a rule of faith and manners, composed, 
 authorised, and enforced by a voluntary association. 
 I did not confess that I employed a creed, in the 
 ecclesiastical sense of that term; but did confess 
 that I had one, in the literal sense of the term; and 
 admitted that every man must have one, as far a« 
 he has investigated, to his own satisfaction, any set 
 of subjects which may be proposed to his belief. 
 It is difficult to perceive how my meaning could 
 have been mistaken, or not to be grieved by the 
 use of such unfair artifice in argument. — I must 
 explain myself again. 
 
 Faith is one of the great distinguishing attributes 
 of the christian: and faith. Dr. M. himself would 
 define to be, reliance upon the testimony of God. 
 God has revealed certain truths in the Bible, which 
 he calls upon men to believe,, and which they are 
 
23 
 
 explicitly required personally to examine and ap- 
 prehend, in order that they may believe them. 
 Every man who has obeyed the divine command- 
 ment, and received as true the things revealed, has 
 formed a creed; — in other words, he believes what 
 the Holy Spirit has revealed. Without this he 
 cannot be a christian, but plunges, as an obstinate 
 rebel, into everlasting perdition. The sentence 
 is — '^Ile that believeth not shall be damned:" — 
 **He that believeth not the Son, shall not see life; 
 but the wrath of God abideth on him." To 
 save men from this awful issue, and to bring home 
 to their hearts the truths, which are addressed, in 
 the scriptures, with so much plainness and point to 
 the human mind, the comforter is sent: — ^^He shall 
 reprove the ivorld of sin, because they believe not 
 on me." Most indubitably then, every real chris- 
 tian has a creed — or certain things which he believes. 
 In making this declaration, may it be considered, 
 in any sense, as conceding the point in controversy? 
 Do I thereby allow, that men may form voluntary 
 associations, and frame articles of belief for one 
 another? Or that, our fathers, being good, wise, 
 and holy men, far more so than any of their chil- 
 dren, had a right to form a test of orthodoxy, com- 
 prising certain abstract propositions, which in their 
 apprehensions were certainly true? No, verilj'. 
 Did not our fathers examine for themselves, and 
 form a creed for themselves? And may we not^ 
 with equal freedom, and equal confidence, do the 
 same thing, each for himself? If the fathers had 
 
24 
 
 possessed the talents of as many archangels, would 
 their superiority over our little capacities, entitle 
 them to usurp the prerogative of the Lord Jesus, 
 and tell us what we must believe, on pain of for- 
 feiting gospel privileges? 
 
 Further, I have supposed, that as the word of 
 God is intended for the human family, and as they 
 may all have the Holy Spirit as their common 
 . teacher, there will be found a certain coincidence 
 of sentiment, at least in regard of the first princi- 
 ples of Christianity. This coincidence I ventured 
 to represent as something like a social creed: that 
 is, that the Bible being so plain a book, as Dr. M. 
 himself will admit, there are certain truths which 
 men will embrace in common, from the very nature 
 of the case. Truths which no test of orthodoxy 
 can make more plain; truths which may be brought 
 into dispute by the manner in which such tests may 
 express them; and truths which the different sects 
 may and do fully embrace, notwithstanding their 
 tests may be exceedingly varied. Some of these 
 truths, I undertook to state, and Dr. M. has, as he 
 supposes, caught me tripping. But nevertheless, 
 in the primitive church, as Irenaeus reports, chris- 
 tians throughout the world believed these things, 
 as though they had inhabited a single house, while 
 they had no permanent, accredited, document, in 
 the shape of an ecclesiastical creed. 
 
 One sentence occurring in the ^ ^Remarks, ^^ on 
 this subject, has struck Dr. M. as peculiarly unfor- 
 tunate for my argument. It is as follows; «*Here- 
 
"25 
 
 ticks were censured and avoided by common con- 
 sent, under the operation of that inherent power, 
 which religious society has, like all other societies, 
 to regulate itself according to its own constituent 
 principles." This sentence, it seems, needs some 
 explanation. When I wrote it, my impressions 
 were of this kind: that when certain elemental 
 truths should be necessarily adopted by any com- 
 munity, or by society at large, any man, who would 
 undertake to question them, would be condemned 
 by every tongue; and thus hereticks would be kept 
 out by the force of enlightened public opinion. 
 So it was in the primitive church. So it should be 
 now, without the help of an ecclesiastical creed: 
 and so it is, in certain things, independently of all 
 these arbitrary rules. Public opinion is always to 
 be respected and consulted, and that too just in pro- 
 portion as it is enlightened. It will eventually over- 
 turn every thing which opposes it, and establish 
 its own enlarged and liberal principles. I supposed 
 then, that in the case specified, the integrity of these 
 elementary truths would have been sufficiently prO" 
 tected, without the interference of ecclesiastical pow- 
 er; and that ecclesiastical power could only give 
 importance to the opponents of such truths, by 
 making a fuss about them, or by undertaking for- 
 Tually to chastise them. *'It was not necessary, ^^ 
 says Dupin, "to assemble councils in order to own 
 the truth and condemn error." 
 
 Again, my impressions were, that this coinci- 
 dence of sentiment, would naturally extend itself, 
 3 
 
26 
 
 by the habitual intercourse to which it would lead- 
 Union is not only the basis of communion, but com- 
 munion promotes union. There is no more com- 
 mon result from the operations of society than this 
 very one. Separate men into ecclesiastical or poli- 
 tical communities, and they acquire a sectarian like- 
 ness. They will have common sentiments, common 
 language, and common habits. Indeed, one of the 
 great evils flowing from our voluntary associations, 
 is, that they divide men into small classes on unna- 
 tural principles; and so prevent that spiritual unity 
 which might exist, by narrowing the intercourse 
 which christians ought to have with each other. 
 The practical virtues of believers, in the exercise of 
 which they might exert a reciprocal influence of the 
 most happy character, have not their full play; but 
 are often metamorphosed into those offensive quali- 
 ties v/hich party contests require. If then society 
 was left to feel the full force of whatever virtues its 
 members might have, instead of being diverted to 
 secure or sustain some sectarian objects, not only 
 might any heretical influence be speedily repressed, 
 but social virtue would be increased. In other words, 
 if men would cease to interfere with one another, 
 quit their **doubtful disputations,'' and honestly 
 seek to promote each other's spiritual welfare, we 
 should have more unity tha^i all the synods and 
 councils on earth ever have produced, or ever can 
 produce. 
 
 Once more. It was my impression, that even 
 when a hi2;h excitement occurs, the more mildnes5 
 
27 
 
 I 
 
 that is displayed, the sooner that excitement will 
 subside; the different combatants will the more 
 speedily rise, or be reduced, to their own level ; and 
 that it is an extreme case, when mere power must be 
 introduced, and all arguments be answered hy force. 
 In religious matters, no disputant is at liberty to 
 suppose such an extreme case; because church go- 
 vernment is a mere matter of moral influence, to 
 be sustained by mere moral means, and leaves all 
 beyond to the arbitration of the Lord Jesus. The 
 union between church and state has begotten differ- 
 ent ideas, and ra^r^ power has been solicited to settle 
 a m.oral question. Ecclesiastical creeds belong to 
 this progeny; and, as might have been supposed, 
 controversy has been prolonged, not settled. So, 
 after the council of Nice, it was long before the 
 orthodox could settle what the creed ought to be, 
 and Arianism has not been banished yet. Hence 
 also the contests between Calvinists and Arminians 
 have been perpetuated to the present time, and we 
 are invited to sustain all the prejudices of ages past; 
 ages which were thrown into commotion, by combin- 
 ing religious and political principles together in one 
 common mass. Such is the effect of power, when 
 it is summoned to decide a moral question. At last 
 it will be found, in pursuing such a course, that the 
 civil arm cannot sustain an ecclesiastical domination. 
 The world has at length discovered the mistake; 
 politicians, who have any insight into the principles 
 of their science, feel the difficulty; and while the 
 nations of the earth are marching through the great 
 
28 
 
 revolution, we Americans have some antedated 
 documents to ^^nail to the cross." Our eccle- 
 siastical rulers, however, do not yet understand, 
 that religious society can regulate itself, under the 
 blessing of the Head of the church; but they must 
 be continually coveting a supremacy, which under- 
 takes to correct the errors of others, while they 
 never look at their own. A few years ago, there 
 were two great political parties in these United 
 States. What if they had written out their respect- 
 ive political creeds; and, forming assemblies to give 
 importance to their sentiments, had regularly train- 
 ed up their children in the faith, which the wisdom 
 of their fathers had prescribed! Would they not 
 have perpetuated their strife? Changing terms, such 
 has been the value of the different creeds of differ- 
 ent ecclesiastical parties. And, as in the one case, 
 society has regulated itself, so would it have done 
 in the other. 
 
 Dr. M. has made it necessary for me to offer 
 some other explanations, in consequence of the fol- 
 lowing assertion: — ^^Spectresof monstrous form are 
 constantly flitting before his (Mr. D's) eyes; and 
 though most other people see them to be spectres 
 only, he cannot be persuaded to believe that they 
 have not a real existence. On such a feverish judg- 
 ment, I have little hope of making an impression; 
 but to you, (a gentleman of Baltimore,) my dear 
 isir, allow me to appeal, and to ask, whether the 
 doctrine of creeds, as held by me, has been fairly 
 represented in Mr. D's page§." 
 
29 
 
 Passing by the character of these assertions, or 
 rather of the language in which they are expressed, 
 I have to say, that if I have misrepresented Dr. M. 
 in any tiling, I am very sorry for it. It was done 
 very unintentionally. But it must be recollected^ 
 that we had both taken up a subject of general in- 
 terest to society; and that all the reasonings must be 
 conducted in a manner to meet its actual connex- 
 ions with society. At least such were my convic- 
 tions; and I made use of Dr. M's * 'Lecture," not 
 for the sake of s} stematically answering its state- 
 ments, but to meet its general principles, so far as 
 he had, according to my apprehensions, brought for- 
 ward the subject in that form; and in defence of 
 views, charged against me, which I could not deny. 
 His own definition of a creed, was given in his own 
 words; and the following observations were ap- 
 pended. — ''This definition, perhaps, states the sub- 
 ject in its Tnildest and least offensive terms. But 
 whether it will convey a full and entire view of a 
 creed or confession of faith to the minds of his read- 
 ers, is very questionable; or rather it is absolutely 
 certain it will not, and cannot. The second part of 
 it does, indeed, partialis/ express the matter of op- 
 pression, against which we protest; and it does this 
 in the least objectionable form: but it does not de- 
 clare the ^sore eviP ^?^ broad terms and in plain 
 language,^^ This was surely affording a fair cover 
 for Dr. M's peculiarities in defining the matter in 
 controversy. And I cannotimagine why he should 
 complain of any unfair representation. It is true, 
 
30 
 
 that some of his expressions, which were thought a 
 little uncourteoiis and dogmatical, were quoted in 
 proof of a much harsher doctrine, than his defini- 
 tion expressed. But how could that be avoided? 
 If Dr. M's phraseology was inconsistent with his 
 mild, and comparatively inoffensive definition, that 
 was no fault of mine. But when a man comes up 
 to me with burning words like these, — '^subscrib- 
 ing a church creed is not a mere formality; but a 
 
 VERY SOLEMN TRANSACTION, WHICH MEANS MUCH, 
 AND INFERS THE MOST SERIOUS OBLIGATIONS. For 
 
 myself, I know of no transaction in which insince- 
 rity is more justly chargeable with the dreadful 
 sin of lying to ike Holy Ghost than in this,^^ — it 
 is surely enough to make one look about, and ascer- 
 tain where he is standing. Annanias and Sapphira 
 start up before the view, in forms frightful as angels 
 of darkness, with their hideous aspects and clanking 
 
 chains. Perjured minister broken ordination 
 
 vows — and such like phrases, follow with eA^ery 
 breeze; and as heaven or hell, souls redeemed or 
 souls lost by ministerial influence, form alternatives 
 of no small consideration, one almost feels as if the 
 feet of the young men were at the door." I entreat 
 Dr. M. to illustrate his subject in a different man- 
 ner, if he wishes my nerves to lie still under his 
 milder views of creeds, or of the obligation which 
 they imply. 
 
 But to the subject itself. How far do my oppo- 
 nents intend to carry the obligation of their creeds? 
 I cannot understand them. Do they design, that a 
 
31. 
 
 creed, which a man subscribes, should be obligatory 
 on his conscience? The reader knows, that an 
 honest man's creed ought to lie very close to his 
 conscience. But I have heard some say, that the 
 creed of the presbyterian church is not obligatory 
 on the conscience of those who subscribe it. Can 
 this be? Others have said nothing about that 
 delicate matter. And others again have talked 
 about a minister's leaving the church, where he has 
 been, and still is, successful in his labours, and 
 o;oing elsewhere to seek for people who might agree 
 with him; as if there were no moral considerations 
 to be weighed — nothing but the ecclesiastical forms 
 of a voluntary association to be consulted; and as if 
 a minister had no preliminaries to such a step, to 
 settle, between his conscience and his Master. But 
 suppose an individual, thus circumstanced, should 
 depart to meet a more congenial settlement; would 
 he escape censure? His opponents v/ould, perhaps, 
 rejoice to witness the removal. But would they 
 forget his defection the sooner, or condemn him the 
 less? Perchance ecclesiastical rules mio-ht be foro-ot- 
 ten; and the nature of a moral compact, formed 
 between sanctified hearts, on the pledge of a com- 
 mon hope, or between a father and his spiritual 
 children, by ties which they mutually understand to 
 be eternal, might be then called up into warm discus- 
 sion. And rather let me meet the censure of an 
 ecclesiastical body, than the glance of a redeemed 
 spirit, whose confidence in my moral integrity has 
 
32 
 
 been disappointed, or who has detected me, at the 
 altars of God, destitute of a '^natural affection." 
 
 I do not understand my brethren, nor Dr. M. 
 speaking in their name. If the creed of the presby- 
 terian church is a mere summary of scriptural doc- 
 trine, not obligatory on the conscience, why not 
 say so in words which are perfectly intelligible? If 
 it be not obligatory on the conscience, why have 
 they treated me as they have done, because I threw 
 it oiT from my conscience? — If it be obligatory on 
 the conscience, why do they talk of a mere sif??i~ 
 mari/, and tell us that the only question in dispute, 
 is about the practical itsefulness of such an instru- 
 ment? Why do they make it a term of communion, 
 when in 'Hhe Holiest of all" they confer with 
 a devoted youth, about his entering into 'Hhe holy 
 ministry?" Why do they trace out any scruples, 
 which a tender conscience may feel on the sub- 
 ject, — and that after they have clearly ascertained 
 that no heterodoxy exists, even upon their own 
 principles — into a necessary opposition to some 
 things which the word of God has indisputably es- 
 tablished, and into an obligation, resting on such 
 an individual, to break up all his social relations — 
 to go into the wide world, and seek companions 
 wherever he may find them? 
 
 The ^ ^Remarks" were explicitly directed against 
 creeds, as asserting authority — as tests, whereby 
 men's claims to evangelical privileges are to be de- 
 termined — as rules, by which faith and practice are 
 to be tried. That this is the use to which they are 
 
3f3 
 
 put, eveiy ecclesiastical movement of church courts 
 most abundantly demonstrates. Dr. M. calls them 
 tests, and ardently pleads for them, in that form; 
 and so far as he adopts this view, the ^^Remarks" 
 were directly opposed to his principles. The ground 
 occupied, was precisely that which he took in 
 his controversy with episcopalians, when he said — 
 '*But although my opponents discover so much re- 
 luctance to be judged by the law and the testi- 
 mony, I hope, my brethren, we shall never so far 
 forget our character as christians and protestants, as 
 to suffer our faith or practice to be tried by any 
 OTHP,R TKfiT.^^ That is, my whole argument was 
 employed against the almost universal practice of 
 using other tests, than the law and the testimony. 
 Did I then misrepresent Dr. M's doctrine of creeds.^ 
 Or when he calls them by another name, and speaks 
 of them as summaries of the leading doctrines of 
 the gospel, does he, even in his '^Letter," disclaim 
 the use of them as tests? And if not, why am I 
 thus accused, as though I were beating the air.^ 
 
 Dr. M. moreover says, that ^^after the most ample 
 explanation and assurance has been given to the 
 contrary,^^ I still insist on representing his doctrine 
 of creeds, ^^as placing them above the Bible." 
 Now I do most certainly know, that my brethren 
 will unequivocally declare, that they do not make 
 their creeds equal to the word of God. I have 
 charged them with no criminal intentions; but do 
 believe them to be perfectly honest in the declara- 
 tion^ and in the * ^Remarks'' I had gone so far as^ 
 
34 
 
 to say, ^'vve know full well, that no protestanl will 
 dare to represent them (creeds) as paramount" to 
 the scriptures. Who douhts this? So Calvin says, 
 that **the schools acknowledged the conscience of 
 man to be superior to all human judgments:" but 
 then he adds, *Svhat they confessed in one word, 
 they afterwards overturned in fact." In like 
 manner these brethren act. After they announce 
 their opinions concerning the unrivalled excellence 
 of the holy scriptures, they turn round and make 
 their creed the rule of admission into ministerial 
 privileges. After they have declared the sufficien- 
 cy of the Bible, they, in almost the same breathy 
 assert that with the Bible alone the church cannot 
 live. After they have ascertained that men have 
 common principles with them, — something very 
 far beyond a laconic declaration of their general 
 belief in the Bible — they immediately refuse com- 
 munion with them, unless they consent to receive 
 iheir'creed. Now, if the church cannot live simply 
 with her Bible, but may flourish with her creed — 
 if the Bible affords no effectual guard against the 
 inroads of heresy, while a creed does — if the privile- 
 ges of the ministry are to be determined, not by the 
 Bible, but by a creed, — then is not the on^ practi- 
 cally put into the place of the other? Is not one 
 practically better than the other, insomuch as it 
 does what the other cannot do? In short, is it not 
 the supposed practical usefulness of creeds, which 
 has obtained for them all the laboured eulogy they 
 have received? — I can assure Dr. M. that there are 
 
35 
 
 more than frightful spectres flitting before a man, 
 when a church court undertakes to censure, to con- 
 demn, and to eject him, because he has declared 
 that his conscience is not amenable to their authori- 
 ty. And while facts are so glaring, it is in vain to 
 say, that these ecclesiastical tests are of secondary 
 iipportance; or, that in being rules of ecclesiastical 
 proceedings, when men's doctrines and morality 
 are to be tried, they yet are not rules of faith and 
 practice: or still farther, that, when both doctrines 
 and morality remain unsuspected in making the 
 Bible a test, they still are sufficient to utter a judi- 
 cial sentence, — they are not practically made par a^ 
 mount to the word of God. 
 
 SECTION III. 
 
 , Dr. M's third charge against the ''Remarks'' is, 
 that the ''principal conclusions are not only as per- 
 fectly illogical as they can possibly be, but, so far 
 as they go, theTj prove by far too much'' for my- 
 self. Under such circumstances, any writer would 
 be truly unfortunate; and ought to feel himself 
 really foiled by his adversary, if the charge can be 
 substantiated. How does Dr. M. establish his 
 assertion? 
 
 In my argument, he supposes me to reason,— I 
 must state the doctrine of the "Remarks" as I 
 intended it, because Dr. M. most certainly uses 
 words to suit himself,— that if the Bible be the only 
 rule of faith and practice, then it clearly follows,- 
 
36 
 
 that when the church forms an authoritative creed 
 or confession, and presents it to a candidate for the 
 ministry for adoption, she commits sin; for she at- 
 tempts to add something to Ood's own rule. His 
 remark on this argument is, that it would equally 
 prove all preaching to be sinful, and every com- 
 mentary on the Bible to be a monument of rebel- 
 lion against God; in short, "that every attempt, on 
 the part of ministers or others, in whatever form, 
 to illustrate, explain, and apply the truths of 
 scripture, is a presumptuous interference with the 
 authority of God over the conscience!" — These are 
 very serious '^conclusions;" and well may Dr. M. 
 ask his correspondent, whether we are prepared for 
 them? 
 
 For one, I am ready to say, that I am very far 
 from being prepared for them; and Dr. M. very 
 fairly intimates that he knows I would shrink from 
 them. My idea, however, is, that these conclu- 
 sions do not follow from the doctrine of the '*Re- 
 marks;" and I suppose, that in making them out in 
 the ' 'Letter," the writer has felt his ingenuity 
 fairly taxed. He has anticipated objections, and 
 thus put his reader in the possession of principles, 
 which refute his charge in the most demonstrable 
 form; and that too, when they are in his own hands. 
 I must, however, discuss these principles, briefly, 
 for myself. 
 
 1. Is an ecclesiastical creed, a mere explanatory 
 document? Does not every christian know the 
 difierence between the creed of any denomination. 
 
37 
 
 and the sayings of any of its ministers or commen- 
 tators? If a creed be a mere matter of explanation, 
 then it has been conceded, that a church court may 
 make an annual creed, if it pleases, and on its own 
 responsibilities; provided that, when made, it is 
 not imposed upon others, or used as a term of com- 
 munion in religious ordinances. But is this the 
 fact? What hosts of ministers have passed away 
 to tlieir last account, since the Westminster Assem- 
 bly met! How commentators have been multi- 
 plied — falling or rising according as public opinion 
 may have sanctioned or condemned them! But 
 their creed — it would well nigh break all the pres- 
 byterian churches to pieces, to part with it! Sure- 
 ly then Dr. M. will not tell me, that all these 
 different matters are one and the same thing; be- 
 cause he knows better. — What an immense differ- 
 ence between the occasional declaration, or passing 
 sentence, of a minister of the gospel, and a perma- 
 nent, accredited document! The one is not 
 remembered from Sabbath to Sabbath, though its 
 savoury impression may remain through eternit}^; — 
 the very fact that it is nuncupative^ leaves to the 
 divine spirit, who searches all these deep spiritual 
 things, to employ the moral essence of a truth, 
 which has been encompassed by human infirmities, 
 while the mistakes of words and phrases are entirely 
 forgotten. The other is a manual, designed for 
 common use, perpetuating its abstract propositions, 
 and clustering around it the best affections and the 
 strongest feelings of human beings. Often have I 
 4 
 
3S 
 
 heard a talc of personal experience, traced up to a 
 sermon, whose words were all forgotten, or to an 
 ordinance, made more spiritual by an ^^expressivc 
 silence." But with ten-fold frequency have I 
 heard angry and protracted debates about the strong 
 and forbidding phrases of a catechism or confession 
 of faith. And is there no difference? Or will Dr. 
 M. tell me that, in condemning a sectarian institu- 
 tion of bad tendency, my reasoning equally rejects 
 a moral one, under the immediate care of the Spirit 
 of God? Will he tell me that an abstruse compend, 
 exhibiting philosophical speculations far beyond the 
 reach of ordinary mortals, is equal to that provi* 
 dential superintendence which scatters a multitude 
 of mercies over all God's works, — makes his sun to 
 shine upon the evil and upon the good, and sends 
 his rain upon the just and the unjust? Can an 
 ecclesiastical creed be compared with the ministe- 
 rial institution for one moment, either in respect of 
 its good, or of its bad qualities? . The mistakes of 
 the apostles themselves are long since forgotten, 
 and their sermons exist no more, but in the hearts 
 of beings passed either to heaven or to hell, or in 
 the records of the Judge of all the , earth. You 
 might almost as well re-inter the body of Moses, and 
 w^rest it from an angel's grasp, or confound us with 
 a piece of the Redeemer's cross — a nail that pierced 
 his blessed feet — as to give us an abstract of an 
 apostle's sermon. Their su7nnia?ucSy framed un- 
 der the direction of the Holy Spirit, during the 
 hour they spoke, have all been forgotten; but their 
 
39 
 
 I ' ' ' ' 
 
 inspired epistles gather fresh laurels in this lately 
 discovered land, and are now borne on Angelic 
 wing to earth's remotest bound, and darkest cor- 
 ner. — And is there no difference? Are ministerial 
 sermons and permanent documents correlative mat- 
 ters? No, verily, no. 
 
 The great objection against ecclesiastical creeds, 
 was, that they formed authoritative rules, and are 
 practically used in that way. If, knowing that a 
 civil constitution has made the legislative and ex- 
 ecutive powers distinct branches of government, I 
 should argue that the executive officers had no right 
 to make laws; would it thereby be inferred, that 
 professional counsel, which society recognises and 
 the law allows, is equally inadmissible, or that trea- 
 tises on law would be rebellion against the legisla- 
 tive power? Certainly not. But if a class of 
 civilians, should so far contravene the principles of 
 the constitution, as to resolve themselves into a co- 
 ordinate branch of legislators, then the supposed 
 inference could not only not be evaded, but it ought 
 most freely to be admitted. In like manner, if 
 ministers, stepping from their pulpits, where they 
 might have poured in full stream their most gener- 
 ous feelings around the altar of the church's service, 
 should enter a church court, and undertake to ex- 
 ercise legislative power, after God has given us his 
 Bible as the only rule, then Dr. M's inference 
 would fairly be applied. In truth, this is the very 
 thing against which we inveig'h. Ministers, erect- 
 ing themselves into ^V.ourts of Review and Con- 
 
40 
 
 //o/," as Dr. M. himself says, do use a power, 
 which the Bible, as the great constitution of the 
 ohurch, has not entrusted to them. Nay more, as 
 ihis power has very frequently been usurped before 
 tlie canon of scripture was closed, and as inspired 
 Fuen foresaw that it would be usurped afterwards, 
 <*xpress provision has been made against it in the 
 scriptures themselves. — This being the doctrine of 
 the * 'Remarks/' Dr. JVPs reasoning is wholly in- 
 conclusive. 
 
 In relation to * 'commentaries on the Bible," his 
 argument is, if possible, still more defective. They 
 may not be altogether harmless, and the church, 
 upon the whole, might do as well, if not better, 
 without than with them. For the most part they 
 manifest very little intellectual independence, and 
 are the depositories of the dogmas and notions of 
 tlie day in vv^hich they were written. But still, no 
 man is obliged to own or read them; no church 
 court will try heresy or immorality by their inter- 
 pretations; there is no difficulty in exchanging 
 them, and no censure implied in rejecting them^ 
 But what of ecclesiastical creeds? Are they thus 
 lightly esteemed? Do christians consider them as 
 mere commentaries? Would Dr. M. listen for a 
 moment to any overture, which would propose so to 
 treat them? — Let men write as many creeds as they 
 please, and publish them as often as they please, 
 But let it be done on their own responsibility, and 
 let ministers and christians read them or not, at 
 their own option. On these terms our controversy 
 
41 
 
 would soon be over. —Dr. M's third charge there- 
 fore is wholly unfounded. 
 
 2. I reply to this charge, by saying that preach- 
 ing is a divine ordinance; and if Dr. M. can say as 
 much for ecclesiastical creeds, I yield the dispute. 
 And certainly he has been often enough called upon 
 to do it. But how can the doctrine, that the Bible 
 is the only rule of faith and practice, lead to the 
 destruction of the ministerial office, when this only 
 rule creates that office? In sustaining the one, I am 
 executing the other. So that the fair conclusion is 
 directly the reverse of that drawn by Dr. M. This 
 charge has been often made before, and it was dis- 
 tinctly taken up in the < 'Remarks;" where the mi- 
 nistry was represented, not merely as a divine ordi- 
 nance, but as a favourite institution, which Jehovah 
 proffered to take under his own habitual inspection. 
 <*We have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the 
 excellency of the power may be of God and not of 
 us.^^ That is, God would consecrate ministers as 
 his own immediate agents: he would supply them 
 with every needful grace; and give them an ''in- 
 crease'' in the end. The living teacher, thus quali- 
 fied, goes forth under those same provisions of mer- 
 cy, which guaranty the moral consequences of the 
 Bible itself; and the special charge given to him, in 
 order that he may obtain the increase, is not to as- 
 pire after dominion. < 'Whosoever will be great 
 among you," said the Master to his disciples, ''let 
 him be your minister; and' whosoever will be chief 
 among you, let him be youT servant. " How then 
 4* 
 
42 
 
 <ioes the position, that the Bible is the only rule of 
 i'aith and practice, lead to the abolition of the minis- 
 ferial office, when those, who -are inducted into it, 
 are prohibited from making any other rule? The 
 scriptures themselves, which we may not suspect of 
 any inconsistency, have put the two things together. 
 They declare their own perfection and consistency, 
 and then create the office, under the limitation which 
 such a view of their character supposes. So that Dr. 
 M's criticism w^ould reach a little higher than he 
 wishes — his argument proves too much. 
 
 But suppose some inconsistency did exist. Is it an 
 uncommon thing that one general principle should 
 limit another, or that an exception should be admit- 
 ted under a general rule? Must v/e laugh at every 
 intermediate rest between two extremes? Are cir- 
 cumstances unworthy of being considered, when a 
 lawgiver would enact laws? Or would Dr. M. 
 from the fact that the ministerial institution has been 
 created, infer that it must have a legislative charac- 
 ter? Does not his own confession declare the Bible to 
 be the only rule of faith and manners, and will he in- 
 fer from that the destruction of the ministerial office? 
 Or how will he escape the same conclusion from hig 
 own definition, that the Bible is the only infaUihlc 
 rule? Will not a fallible rule be as inconsistent with an 
 infallible one, as any secondary agency may be with 
 an only rule? In short — even if his reasoning were 
 logical, would I be irreverent in saying along with 
 Moses, — "Would God that all the Lord's people 
 v/ere prophets, and that the Lord would put his spv 
 
43 
 
 rit upon them:'* or in supposing, that finding a ne- 
 cessity, from the nature of the case, to form a se- 
 condary institution, he has carried this delicate 
 matter of legislation as far as it ought to be carried? 
 I do not see the justness of Dr. M's observations on 
 this subject, in any view that can be taken of them. 
 
 Dr. M. after having admitted that preaching is 
 called for by a divine ordinance, immediately asks — 
 *'And have we not an equally clear and unquestiona- 
 ble divine warrant for taking effectual care, that 
 those who are candidates for the important offices of 
 teachers, guides and rulers in the churcfh; who are 
 to dispense ^the word of life,' and to separate be- 
 tween the precious and the vile; do really under- 
 stand and embrace the Hruth as it is in Jesus,' that 
 they will not teach for doctrines the commandments 
 of men; and for this purpose to receive their assent, 
 in some form or another, to all the leading doctrines 
 of the Bible?" The reader may see the reasoning 
 more at length by consulting the "^^Letter" itself. 
 
 Does Dr. M. mean to say that we have a divine 
 ivarrant for dividing the church into voluntary as- 
 sociations^ and to authorize each party to frame its 
 own rules or laws, by which to judge of the preten- 
 sions of a candidate for the ministiy? If he does 
 not, then the divine warrant he pleads does not co- 
 ver the subject on which he writes: and of course 
 his argument fails to accomplish his object. The 
 remark will be found frequently in the course of 
 these observations, — and there is a glaring necessity 
 for its repetition — that Dr. M's reasonings rest up- 
 
44 
 
 on the assumption, that we have a right to constrr.cl 
 the church in the form of voluntary associations. — 
 But this is not granted; on the contrary, it is most 
 explicitly denied. Establish this, and the favou- 
 rite conclusions, on which the * ^Letter" insists, 
 may follow; but without it they cannot be sustain- 
 ed, because the premises are incorrect 
 
 Dr. M. has not given one single train of reason- 
 ing, which his readers could feel to be scriptural. 
 That his views are political, or meet the state of 
 religious society, certain things being granted, is 
 abundantly:; evident. If this be all that is necessary 
 on a subject of such high, and commanding moral 
 importance, I might pause; because I need no in- 
 struction in order to see the whole argument. But 
 if scriptural law is to decide the controversy, and 
 moral principles are preferable to sectarian provi- 
 sions, then I cannot consent, for an instant, to his 
 doctrine. Let him change his course, and take this 
 ground; for if his principles be, by one tenth part, 
 as important as they are represented to be, it is im- 
 possible that the scriptures should have left them un- 
 noticed: nay impossible that they should not have 
 fully disclosed the whole system. If this cannot 
 be done, that simple circumstance shakes the sys- 
 tem to its centre. And if Dr. M. should ever re- 
 sume his pen in this controversy, I hope he will 
 take up the subject in this form, and demonstrate 
 his positions, as though he was benevolently rea- 
 soning for the good of human beings, who, though 
 
45 
 
 they cannot yield to his^ creed, will bow to scriptu- 
 ral authority with the utmost cheerfulness. 
 
 When Dr. M. makes use of such scriptural phra- 
 ses as these — ^Hruth as it is in Jesus'' — *^sound in 
 the faith" — *Heach for doctrines the commandments 
 of men," he must remember, that though they may 
 be uttered in dulcet tones to a pious ear, yet among 
 sectarians, ail parties may use them with equal free- 
 dom, and with equal impropriety. They refer to 
 the most desirable objects; but the question is how 
 may all these things be determined, particularly un- 
 der an evangelical law, which is defined as a "per- 
 fect law of liberty?" For example, I think, and I 
 believe most correctly too, that the creed system 
 inculcates "for doctrines the commandments of 
 jnen:" — if a number of individuals combine toge- 
 ther, call themselves a church court, and put me 
 down, it does not follow that / am fairly condemn- 
 ed, as "teaching for doctrines the commandments of 
 men. " And yet this is the precise import of a creed. 
 If I am as correct as they are, and more so, as I take 
 myself to be, how is the scriptural object secured? — 
 In like manner, soundness in the faith, means, 
 among sectarians, correspondence with their creed. 
 But then it is abundantly evident, that parties, which 
 are thus contending, may be equally "received by 
 God;" nor only so, but if theoretic opinions were 
 not so strongly insisted upon, and the fruits of righ- 
 teousness, by which, the Redeemer says, his people 
 are to be known, were more considered, there would 
 Ise a corresponding judgment on the part of men. 
 
46 
 
 For certain it is, that the different sects admit each 
 other to be christians, and each other's ministers to 
 he servants of Christ, while their respective creeds 
 form impassible barriers to their mutual fellowship. 
 Define the scriptural objects clearly, and then let it 
 be answered, whether they may not be acquired 
 without these voluntary associations, and sectarian 
 formularies? This subject I will refer to a distinct 
 section. 
 
 SECTION IV. 
 
 Dr. M. has ascribed to creeds certain '^important 
 ends," which, he says, cannot possibly be obtained 
 without them. In illustration of this position, he 
 asks, **how the church can take effectual measures 
 to exclude Pelagians, Semi-Pelagians, Swedenbor- 
 gians, Universalists, Arians and Socinians from her 
 ministry, without the use of creeds and confessions 
 in some form?" *^Here," he declares, speaking of 
 my ^'Remarks," ^^here his doctrine labours most 
 deeply and fatally. Until he shall relieve it from 
 this difficulty, he will have accomplished nothing. 
 It is a mill-stone about the neck of his cause, which, 
 unless detached, must sink it irrecoverably." — 
 Though I am very far from supposing this to be the 
 most important part of the controversy, yet, as Dr. 
 M. is pleased so to represent it, and as it is one of 
 the most common topics of argument on his side of 
 the question, it would be a serious omission not to 
 give it a distinct consideration, in a reply to his "Let- 
 
47 
 
 ter. '' This is undertaken; not without a hope of suc- 
 cessfully parrying the blow, which he imagines to 
 be fatal to my cause; and with some degree of con- 
 fidence, that the argument will not **miss the point," 
 which is so omnipotently destructive. 
 
 To present the subject in its full force to the rea- 
 der, I must refer to a case, on wliich Dr. M. him- 
 self dwells with considerable fondness; — the case of 
 Arius before the council of Nice. ^'We can scarce- 
 ly conceive," says Dr. M. ^^of a more striking ex- 
 emplification of the real importance of this point, 
 than that which is furnished by the proceedings of 
 the council of Nice, in the fourth century, in rela- 
 tion to the heresy of Arius." In reference to this, 
 he asks, ^'what would Mr. D. have done, with his 
 doctrine, had he been a member of the council of 
 Nice? — ^Had he been there, he would, no doubt, 
 have done — just nothing." This seems to bring 
 the matter close home, and affords to the author of 
 the Letter a fine opportunity of awakening all the 
 suspicions of the community against his opponent, 
 an opportunity which he does not fail to improve 
 with his utmost skill, by tlirowing out a variety of 
 hints, which are either unintelligible or unkind. 
 
 When asked, what course I would have pursued, 
 had I been a member of the council of Nice, I confess 
 there is considerable ditBculty in framing an answer. 
 You might almost as well '^draw a diameter through 
 the periphery of the divine plan, and ask me how 
 God should make a world out of the other half. I 
 answer, I do not know." The human mind, it is 
 
48 
 
 presumed, always derives its own peculiarity of 
 character from the combination of circumstances un- 
 der which it is developed. How my mind might 
 have been affected in that age, when a synodical 
 test of orthodoxy was for the first time formed, and 
 when the church deserted her Master's providence, 
 to shelter herself under the patronage of an earthly 
 jprince, I cannot tell. What would Dr. M. with 
 his doctrine, — unfavourable, it is supposed, to an 
 union between the church and the state, — have done, 
 when Constantine appeared to settle religious dis- 
 putes by the potency of the civil arm? Just nothing? 
 Or would he have persevered ill making the creed, 
 and then humbly craved the royal signature? 
 
 Some men always go with the majority. The 
 sword is often a powerful argument, and I can as- 
 sert nothing for my own courage, further than as it 
 has been tried. I might then have been on the side 
 of the council, and perhaps have approved of Arius* 
 being sent into exile without a tear. But if this 
 question is to form a sort of test for my doctrine, as 
 held in the present age, w^here men may think for 
 themselves; and under a government, which though 
 **^rich in woods, and groves, and coppices," yet * ^re- 
 fuses to spare a single faggot for an auto de/e,^^ 
 then, I reply, that I must be an opponent of the mea- 
 sures of that unwise and slavish assembly. And, 
 though Dr. M. with all his unfriendly hints, and 
 the synod of Philadelphia, with all their exuberant 
 zeal, cannot fasten dow^n upon me tlie charge of 
 Arianism, yet, in all probability, I should have been 
 
49 
 
 banished with the heretic into lUyricum. I judge 
 this latter consequence must have followed, from the 
 inseparable connexion which my opponents suppose 
 to exist between Arianism and the denial of the au- 
 thority, or usefulness, of human creeds; from the 
 conduct of the synod, which tried every practicable 
 expedient to banish me from the heritage the Lord 
 had given me; and from the many invitations 1 had 
 received to leave the communion of presbyterians: — 
 The ivhole world, says Dr. M. is before you. 
 
 My doctrine would have compelled me to have 
 protested against the authority of the council, as a 
 mere human contrivance; and as having no divine 
 warrant, nor justifiable plea, to take cognizance in 
 the case. I should have objected to the interference 
 of the temporal prince in spiritual matters, as the 
 great Head of the church had never committed them 
 to his political management, nor in any sense con- 
 secrated him as an evangelical officer. I should have 
 urged the utter incompetency of the imperial man- 
 date to restore peace to the church; or indeed, to 
 do any thing else but spoil the beauty of the whole 
 evangelical association, and defeat '^the important 
 ends" for which the church has been instituted. I 
 should have inveighed against the artifice of making 
 an authoritative creed, inasmuch as, if a man cannot 
 be condemned by the scriptures, he is not to be con- 
 demned at all. A judicial sentence must rest on 
 testimony, clear and unequivocal — ' 'Against an 
 Elder," saith the word of God, ' 'receive not an ac- 
 cusation, but at the mouth of two or three witnesses.'' 
 5 
 
30 
 
 And finally, taking advantage of subsequent history, 
 the knowledge of which the question supposes me 
 to have possessed, I should have, with prophetic 
 voice, forewarned the council, that they were giv- 
 ing form and size to a controversy, which should last 
 until the Millennium should come round. Would 
 I have been wrong in any of these views? 
 
 To illustrate my meaning a little farther, I will 
 ask the privilege of relating an interesting story, 
 whose circumstances are connected with the history 
 of the council of Nice. The reader may find it in 
 Cave's life of Athanasius, or in Milner's church his- 
 tory. '*The bishops, before they formally met in 
 the solemn council, spent some days in preliminary 
 discourses and disputations; wherein they were at- 
 tacked by certain philosophers; men versed in sub- 
 tilties, and the arts of reasoning, whom either curi- 
 osity had drawn thither, or, as some suspect, Arius 
 had brought along with him to plead his cause, and 
 to retard and entangle the proceedings of the synod. 
 One of which, priding himself in the neatness and 
 elegancy of his discourses, reflected with scorn upon 
 the fathers of the council. A piece of insolence so 
 intolerable, that an ancient confessor, then in the 
 company, a man plain, and unskilled in the tricks 
 and methods of disputing, not being able to bear it, 
 offered himself to undertake him. For which he 
 was laughed at by some; while others, more modest 
 and serious, feared what would be the success of his 
 entering the lists with so able and famed a disputant. 
 The good man, however, went on with his resolu- 
 
51 
 
 tion, and bluntly accosted his adversary in this man- 
 ner. *In the name of Jesus Christ, philosopher, give 
 ear. There is one God, maker of heaven and earth, 
 and of all things visible and invisible, who created 
 all these things by the power of his word, and rati- 
 fies them by the sanctity of his Holy Spirit. This 
 word, v/hich we call the Son of God, pitying the 
 apostacy and brutish state of mankind, condescend- 
 ed to be born of a woman, to dwell amongst men, 
 and to die for them; who shall come again, to sit as 
 judge upon whatever we do in this life. These 
 things we plainly believe. Strive not, therefore, 
 to no purpose, to endeavour the confutation of what 
 we entertain by faith, or to find out how these things 
 "may, or may not he; but answer me if thou dost 
 believe.^' The philosopher, astonished and thunder- 
 struck with the zeal and plainness of the old man^s 
 discourse, answered that he did believe, and thank- 
 ing that conqueror that overcame him, yielded up 
 himself to his sentiments and opinions, jjersuading 
 his companions to do the like; solemnly affirming, 
 that it was by an unspeakable power, and not with- 
 out immediate direction from heaven, that he was 
 brought over to be a christian. " 
 
 Could I whisper into Dr. M's ear, I would say— 
 **My brother, such are the consequences to which 
 my doctrine Jeads. A doctrine, for which you ven- 
 ture to consider me as delirious, and on whose ac- 
 count your presbyteries and synods have treated me 
 as an alien from the commonwealth of Israel. A 
 doctrine, which rather covets the conversion of 
 
52 
 
 sinners, than harshly casts out christians from the 
 communion of saints. A doctrine, which solicits 
 divine power as its aid, rather than the subtilties of 
 scholastic theology, or the ingenious schemes of ec- 
 clesiastical rulers." 0, that our old men and minis- 
 ters, w^ere like this ancient confessor, and that they 
 would go forth with the Bible in their hands, pray- 
 ing that their preaching might be the wisdom of. 
 God, and the power of God unto salvation! 
 
 Shortl}^ after, and in that very council, where thi^ 
 old man spoke with such divine eloquence, a creed 
 was made. What did it effect? Was Arius con- 
 verted, convinced, or silenced? Very far from it. 
 Contentions abounded, angry debates were protrac- 
 ted, and Arius was banished. A little while after 
 Arius was recalled, and subscribed the creed, re- 
 maining still unchanged in his heretical sentiments j 
 so that this * 'important end," of excluding Arius 
 from the ministry, was not secured even by a creed. 
 
 Nor did many years roll by, until a bishop of 
 .Rome was guilty of an equally disgraceful manoeu- 
 vre. Pope Liberius, **about the middle of the fourth 
 century, when the Arian controversy was at its 
 height, intimidated by the power of the reigning 
 emperor Constantius, whom he knew to be a zea- 
 lous disciple of Arius, declared publickly in favour 
 of that party, and excommiinicated t/ithaiiasius, 
 whom all the orthodox regarded as the patron and 
 defender of the catholic cause. This sentence he 
 soon after revoked, and after revoking it, his le- 
 gates, at the council of Aries, overawed by the em* 
 
03 
 
 peror, concurred with the rest in signing the con- 
 demnation of Athanasius, yielding, as they expres- 
 sed it, to the troublesome times. Afterwards, in- 
 deed, Liberius was so far a confessor in the cause of 
 orthodoxy, that he- underwent a long and severe 
 banishment, rather than lend his aid and counte- 
 nance to the measures, which the emperor pursued 
 for establishing *^rianism throughout the em,pire. 
 But however firm and undaunted the pope appeared 
 for a time, he had not the magnanimity to persevere, 
 but was at length, in order to recover his freedom, 
 his country, and his bishoprick, induced to retract 
 his retraction, to sign a second time the condem- 
 nation of Athanasius, and to embrace the %firian 
 sym,bol (creed) of Sirmium. Not satisfied with 
 this, he even wrote to the Arian bishops of the east, 
 excusing his former defence of Athanasius; imputing 
 it to an excessive regard for the sentiments of his 
 predecessor Julius; and declaring, that now, since 
 it had pleased God to open his eyes, and show him 
 how justly the heretic Athanasius had been con- 
 demned, he separated himself from his communion, 
 and cordially joined their holinesses, (so he styled 
 the Arian bishops) in supporting the true faith. 
 Before he returned from exile, meeting with the 
 emperor, who was by this time turned semiarian, 
 the pliant pontiff, impatient to be again in posses- 
 sion of his see, was induced to change anew, and 
 subscribe the semiarian confession.''^ — Will Dr. 
 M. who has so earnestly arsked me what I would 
 have done, with my doctrine, as a member of the 
 5* 
 
54 
 
 council of Nice, look at the contrast, and candidly 
 answer to himself, who ^ ^missed the point" — the 
 ancient confessor or the creed-makers? 
 
 Dr. M. must now listen to a question from me, 
 which was asked in the ^'Remarks," and which he 
 has not deigned to answer. Admitting that he may, 
 by his creed, exclude Pelagians, Semi-Pelagians, 
 Sw^edenborgians, Universalists, Arians and Socinians 
 from the ministry, by what authority does he ex- 
 tend its operation, and exclude from the ministry, 
 in his voluntary association, men who are contami- 
 nated by none of these heresies? Men against whom 
 he has not a word to say, but that they oppose the 
 exercise of human authority in the church, and are 
 scrupulous to preserve the rights of the human con- 
 science, and the supremacy of the Lord Jesus, as 
 King and Head of his church? Will he permit me 
 respectfully to return his own words to him: — 
 *^^Why this almost entire silence concerning a part 
 of the argument, which, first of all, and above all, 
 demanded his whole strength? Not, I am persua- 
 ded, because he had not discernment enough to see 
 the full front and force of the difficulty; but because 
 he had nothing to say. Here his doctrine labours 
 most deeply and fatally. Until he shall relieve it 
 from this difficulty, be will have accomplished no- 
 thing. It is a millstone about the neck of his cause, 
 which, unless detached, must sink it irrecoverably." 
 I make not this quotation in the spirit of retaliation. 
 But Dr. JVPs words very clearly express my opi- 
 nion in relation to the subject to which they are 
 
55 
 
 applied; and in using them, I hoped to escape the 
 charge of ^^dogmatizing with peculiar positiveness.'^ 
 The case is drawn out at length in the "Remarks/*^ 
 and not one explanatory observation is made to 
 meet it. It is now returned with deeper feeling 
 than ever, as one which rises with ten-fold impor- 
 tance over that of the heresiarch, condemned by the 
 council of Nice. 
 
 Still, however, the question remains unanswered, 
 it may be said. — I must then turn to show, in a 
 more systematical and formal manner, how this ' 'im- 
 portant end" of securing the purity of the church 
 is to be obtained, without imposing a human creed 
 as a test of orthodoxy. An attempt to do this, 
 will lead to a variety of observations; some of 
 which may, perhaps, incur full as much censure as 
 the doctrine they are designed to defend. I ask 
 for them a candid consideration, from all those who 
 propose the question under examination, in a man- 
 ner sincere and frank. 
 
 1* One of the best methods of ascertaining how a- 
 difficulty is to be removed, is to trace it to its 
 origin. If .the circumstances which gave rise to it 
 can be discovered and corrected, the remedy is at 
 once provided. This was a principal object in the 
 first part of the ' 'Remarks," which Dr. M. has 
 laboured to discard as a piece of declamatory writ- 
 ing, or inconsequential reasoning. But, with all 
 due deference to his higher pretensions, it is a much 
 better mode of discussing so interesting a subject, 
 *PaKe 49—63. 
 
56 
 
 than dwelling with great pertinacity upon minor 
 details; which must necessarily be entirely altered, 
 by abandoning the false principles from which they 
 proceed. 
 
 The present difficulty, the existence of which is 
 considered to be so very important an argument in 
 favour of the creed cause, and so destructive to the 
 Bible cause, may be traced to a double source. 
 The Jirst is, the establishment of ecclesiastical 
 jjoiver; contests for vvhich have been the true 
 secret of our sectarian divisions. All Dr. M's 
 reasonings are founded upon the assumption, that 
 christians have a right to transform the church into 
 a volvntary association. This assumption re- 
 jected, the difficulty, w^hich is supposed to be so 
 m.ighty, dwindles into utter insignificance. A ma- 
 jority of the cases of discipline, which have occur- 
 red in the church, have originated here. The 
 synod of Philadelphia, for example, never pretend- 
 ed to justify their high-handed measures by the 
 scriptures; nor on the broad principle, that the 
 Lord Jesus Christ, being King and Head of the 
 church, had commanded them to do what they did 
 do. Neither does Dr. M. in his letter, pretend to 
 set up such a defence for them. Had they gone no 
 farther than the scriptures warranted them to go, 
 their reasonings would have been of a very differ- 
 ent character, and their decisions would have been 
 reversed. Let the church be constructed on her 
 own principles; let the law which Christ has given 
 her take its own proper place, and exert its own 
 
57 
 
 proper influence; let room be afforded for the due 
 display of the christian's personal graces,— love, 
 humility, gentleness, forbearance, &.c. — and there 
 will be v^ery little controversy. The conclusion 
 will follow, that there can be no need for multiply- 
 ing facilities, by which members of the church shall 
 be ejected from her communion. If Dr. M. then 
 inquires, how heretics are to be kept out, I reply, 
 abandon those ecclesiastical schemes, which divide 
 the church into voluntary associations, and intro- 
 duce continual contests about the power of the 
 keys. Let christians learn to seek a "godly sim- 
 plicity,'' rather than that outward show of secta- 
 rian superiority, which brings in the kingdom of 
 God "\Y\i\\ observation." Let both ministers and 
 people interest themselves about the spread of "pure 
 and undefiled religion," rather than indulge them- 
 selves in pride and complacency, while they tell ot 
 '^seventeen or eighteen hundred congregations be- 
 longing to our hody.'^ But if, instead of this, they 
 will still sustain their voluntary associations, then I 
 admit, as was done in the ^^Remarks," that, ^'the 
 priesthood being changed, there is made of necessi- 
 ty a change also of the law." The difficulty thus 
 changes proprietors; and Dr. M. is left to do with 
 it what he pleases; and that too in connexion with 
 the fearful responsibility that belongs to an instruc- 
 tor of the rising ministry. 
 
 If the christian community in Baltimore should 
 be of the Methodist persuasion; — if the community 
 in Philadelphia should be of the true Presbyterian 
 
58 
 
 order; — if the community in New York, should be 
 endowed with high prelatical privileges; and a 
 christian, agreeing with either, or with none, of 
 them in their peculiarities, should visit any of these 
 cities, in what rektion does he stand to the mem- 
 bers of any of these sects? Is he a brother, or is 
 he not? If he is a brother, may they undertake to 
 cast him off as an alien? May they refuse him a 
 seat at the table of their master? Or may he de- 
 cline to obey his Lord's commandment, do this in 
 remembrance of me? Extend these questions as 
 far as they may be carried; i. e. as far as Jehovah 
 awards evangelical privileges to his own people, 
 and what would become of these voluntary associa- 
 tions? The ecclesiastical idol would totter on his 
 base, and Dagon like, perish before the ark of the 
 Lord. But is this extended communion admitted? 
 Are there no sects in the church in open and un- 
 blushing collision with its spiritual principle? 
 How long is it since this subject has been fairly 
 exhibited to the christian public in America? Who 
 did not, but the other day, apprehend the most 
 fearful consequences from its introduction? But 
 as ft has proceeded in its march, has not controver- 
 sy subsided? As it goes still farther on, will it not 
 continue to hush angry contests? And is it deli- 
 rious to expect, that even the heretical speculations, 
 which Dr. M. so frequently calls up like ^ ^spirits 
 from the vasty deep," may presently be merged 
 and forgotten, and each combatant learn the lessons 
 of pure Christianity? — If men would but quit their 
 
59 
 
 •strife, errors would be comparatively few; the 
 Lord God would reign in the midst of them, and 
 his i)rofessing people would have common feelings, 
 and wear a common image. ''For where envying 
 and strife are, there are confusion and every evil 
 work." 
 
 A second source to which this difficulty may be 
 traced is scholastic theology. This too was very 
 distinctly exhibited in the ''Remarks," which yet 
 in Dr. M's judgment, left all his original positions 
 unshaken and unassailed. This system, or rather 
 the jarring systems, which fail under the general 
 designation of theology, convert religion into a 
 human science; or make philosoph}^ and metaphys- 
 ics the test of orthodoxy. Did not Origen thus 
 perplex the church in his day, and leave his philo- 
 sophic mantle a pernicious legacy behind him? 
 Did not Arianism start up here, and is she not the 
 mere child of subtle speculation? Do not christians 
 of different denominations in the present day agree 
 more fully than they appear to do? Are not the 
 principal subjects of their controversy the mere 
 bequests of their fathers, and are not the people re- 
 signing them to their ministers; perhaps, after a 
 little, to resign their ministers along with them? 
 
 Dr. M. sometimes refers to classes of men in 
 different parts of our country, who "reject every 
 thing like confessions, and boast that they take the 
 BIBLE, simply, as their rule." He inquires after 
 the orthodoxy of these individuals; and remarks — 
 "^'Ah! it is death to his (Mr. D's) cause to take a 
 
60 
 
 look into this part of the ecclesiastical statistics of 
 our country!" These churches must he left to de- 
 fend themselves. I have had no opportunity of 
 knowing them. But let the fact be admitted, and 
 still Dr. ]VPs conclusion, in the humble opinion of 
 the respondent, is a complete non sequitur. He 
 himself designates them by controversial names, 
 and in doing it, would go through the whole range 
 of heretics. It seems then that they have all the 
 accredited creeds of the different parties in their 
 heads, instead of a sketch or summary on paper. 
 The example goes a little farther than Dr. IVI. in- 
 tended it should, and serves to reveal the pitch of 
 refinement to which his system can be carried. 
 And is not the presbyterian church on the high 
 road to like preferment? The people in the first 
 place can do without the book altogether; and then 
 the ministers, if we may believe the report of a 
 sermon lately addressed to the students at Prince- 
 ton, are greatly troubling the church, to which they 
 belong, by their difference in sentiment; so that 
 the confession of faith in the presbyterian church is 
 not in fact the creed of the members of that church. 
 And in truth, if all the written creeds in the world 
 were committed to the flames, there is scholastic 
 theology enough to yield immortality to their dif- 
 ferent items. Dr. M's example then proves entire- 
 ly too much for him, and only serves to show how 
 perfect the system has become. 
 
 If then the question is again pressed, how shall 
 we exclude heresies and their advocates from the 
 
61 
 
 church, I reply, — Let christians quit their scholas- 
 tic strife, and seek after nothing but biblical theol- 
 ogy. Let young men, while in training for the 
 ministry, be turned to the study of the Bible, and 
 taught to learn for themselves what Jehovah has 
 said. Systems of theology will always produce 
 heretics; for they are always creating matters of 
 * ^doubtful disputation,*' and ranging parties in hos- 
 tile array. Few men examine every thing which 
 belongs to any given system ; and many men de- 
 clare a vast deal more than they know. A prin- 
 ciple is taken for granted^ and then its legitimate 
 consequence is boldly defended; whereas, both 
 should be discarded, if the first were candidly and 
 fairly considered. Let young men be taught to in- 
 vestigate for themselves; to turn their attention 
 to the scripture page, and declare no more than 
 what they learn from prayerful and diligent inquiry. 
 When this is done, the * 'millstone," which we are 
 endeavouring to detach, shall roll to the bottom of 
 the floods; and Dr. M. and myself, with our Bibles 
 in our hands, shall rise to the paradise of God, to 
 differ no more for ever. There we shall see as we 
 are seen, and know as we are known; and charity, 
 the greatest of all christian graces, now so loosely 
 seated on our hearts, will adorn us with her mantle, 
 while eternity shall last. 
 
 The foregoing remarks do not evade the point, 
 
 but they state the real difficulty: — a difficulty, which 
 
 a lover of the Bible may rather desire to see re^ 
 
 moved, than expect that it will be; done in his day, 
 
 6 
 
62 
 
 I am not so feverish as Dr. M. is inclined ta 
 represent me. My physician, I fear, does not un- 
 derstand my disease; at least, the patient has no 
 confidence in the prescription* I see **the full 
 front and force*' of his objection; and the Conclu- 
 sion to the ^'Remarks" derived all its peculiarity 
 from the distinct perception of all the embarrassing 
 circumstances in which the church has been involv- 
 ed. It was therefore that I wished not to be cut 
 off, or forced to withdraw, from brethren, with 
 whom the providence of God had associated me, 
 both in joy and sorrow. A revolution, like that 
 which has been so briefly described, is not to be 
 accomplished in an hour. A generation may pass 
 away before any very deep impression may be 
 made. Perhaps Dr. M's prophecy may prove but 
 too true, and something like another babylonish 
 captivity — a season of awful darkness, which may 
 break many hearts, — be necessary to bury in deep 
 oblivion the fearful mistakes of ecclesiastical com- 
 batants. My forebodings are often as gloomy as 
 Dr. M's prospects are bright* The Lord reigns. 
 and Zion is his dwelling place. 
 
 2. How did the primitive church exclude here- 
 tics? Before the council of Nice there was no such 
 permanent document as we call a creed or confes- 
 sion of faith; — what was done without it? Irenseus 
 sayS) "as the sun is one and the same throughout the 
 whole world, so the preaching of the truth shines 
 every where, and enlightens all men who are will- 
 ing to come to the knowledge of the truth. '^ The;* 
 
63 
 
 who were * •trained up in the faith, had it so deeply 
 imprinted on their mindy^^ as Justin and St. Ire- 
 naeus observe, ^Hhat they were alwa3^s ready to give 
 an account thereof, and as often as they should be 
 required to do it, ivithout making use of any one 
 particular form; and from thence proceeds the 
 difference of the creeds that are set down by the 
 fathers." St. Jerome says, <*that the faith of the 
 rreed, which is an apostolical tradition, ivas not 
 ivritien on paper ^ or ivith ink, hut was engraved 
 on the fleshly tables of the heart.^^ Dupin af- 
 firms, that '*every bishop instructed his own people 
 in the faith of the church, and refuted errors by 
 the authority of scripture and tradition." And 
 further he asserts, **the errors of those heretics 
 created horror in all christians; they looked upon 
 the authors of them, and those who maintained 
 them, as people excommunicated and separated 
 from the church, without their beinp; expressly 
 condemned in synods." Such was tlie manner 
 in which the early christians acted. Why should 
 v/e not act in the same way? It might be as effec- 
 tual a plan in our day as it was in theirs: and a 
 coincidence in sentiment, as well as a harmony of 
 feeling, might be as general now, as Irenseus de- 
 clares it to have been then. Dr. M. has asked — 
 now? He is answered by a simple detail of his- 
 torical facts; — of facts which should have remain^ed 
 with all their prominence and interest to the present 
 hour, had the church adhered to her divine consti- 
 tution, instead of yielding to that wretched ambi- 
 
64 
 
 tion, which changed her whole face, and gave lier 
 a new form; and had she preserved the simplicity 
 of her faith, instead of conniving at those philoso- 
 phical speculations, which corrupted her doctrines. 
 
 Perhaps it may be objected, that the primitive 
 church became very much degenerated. This fact 
 the letter under consideration declares will not be^ 
 disputed. But what then? Was it for want of a 
 **form of sound words?" What a pity, that som^ 
 3uch test had not defended the altars of the sanctu- 
 ary, when Origen drew nigh to philosophize over 
 the mysteries of redeeming love! What a pity, 
 that some such impassable barrier had not arrested 
 Arius, as he approached the throne to pluck the 
 crown from Immanuel's brow! The objection 
 is a mere figment. The love of power, and an 
 unhallowed zeal in doctrinal disputation, corrupt-^ 
 ed the church then, as they have often done since, 
 and as they are doing at this present hour, to 
 the shame of those who are so engaged. Creeds 
 were brought in as an ecclesiastical recipe, and with 
 the professed design of restoring peace; and they 
 liave aggravated tho evil they sought to cure, as 
 they should haye done at an earlier period, had 
 they been sooner introduced. 
 
 In the scriptures, there are some fundamental 
 principles of Christianity very distinctly stated, and 
 which must immediately strike every candid mind. 
 The man, who is willing to come to the knowledge 
 of the truth, cannot' mistake them. About these, 
 even now, christians agree; which is one of the best 
 
65 
 
 proofs that could be offered in favour of the sim- 
 plicity of those principles. Is there no security 
 for the peace and prosperity of the church, in this 
 happy consideration? Was it not in this very thing 
 that the primitive church might have gloried so 
 much? Would not an apostle have descended cheer- 
 fully to this level, and have said — -^*If any man be 
 in Christ Jesus, he is a new creature; and as many 
 as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, 
 and mercy, and upon the whole Israel of God?'' 
 And might not we, with like liberality of feeling, 
 follow the same course, and so attain the * ^impor- 
 tant end," so greatly to be desired? Such things, 
 however, do not satisfy us, and every step we go 
 beyond them involves us in controversy: — contro- 
 versy which is always embittered by becoming 
 identified with a party. And until we revert to 
 this ground, which has been so long abandoned, we 
 can never attain the important end that is sought 
 for, either with, or without, a creed, 
 
 I beg that I may be understood. No intention 
 is felt to circumscribe christian inquiry. The 
 minister, with his Bible before him, may lay out 
 all his mind and heart, in analysis, in exposition, in 
 argument, in exhortation. But let him do it under 
 a sense of personal responsibility, and as detached 
 from every sectarian corps. Let him conscien- 
 tiously feed the church with the bread of life, 
 dividing to each saint his portion in due geason; 
 and, as a scribe, well instructed unto the king- 
 dom of heaven, bring out of his treasury things new 
 
66 
 
 and old. Let him speak wisdom among tiie perteci. 
 as well as frame lessons suited to babes. But let 
 him not do this with wisdom of words, nor with 
 the zeal of a partizan. The people in like manner 
 must be thrown upon their responsibilities, and 
 urged diligently to inquire after wisdom and truth, 
 whose price is above rubies. They must be ex- 
 horted to practise, rather than to quarrel about what 
 they know; and to love one another, rather than to 
 glory over each other on account of their sectarian 
 privileges. In all this there is not one atom of 
 heresy. There is nothing but a little, plain, prac- 
 tical Christianity. Nor can a better method be 
 devised to keep out heresy. A common interest 
 will thus be created; common feelings will be cher- 
 ished; angry passions will be extinguished; party 
 intrigues will be abhorred; knowledge will be in- 
 creased; and thus religious society, like all other 
 kinds of society, will, under the divine blessing, 
 whatever Dr. M. may think of the assertion, fix its 
 own social principles, ^'by an inherent power to 
 regulate itself." To that happy result is every 
 thing now tending, while the great practical move- 
 ments of christians are in direct collision with all 
 sectarian theories. The love of truth in the heart, 
 combined with social virtues in the life, will become 
 a principle of reform, as omnipotent and resistless as 
 the blessing of Jehovah can make it: while, on the 
 other hand, if we *'bite and devour one another," 
 we shall as certainly be "consumed one of another." 
 Adhering to fundamental principles, without 
 
67 
 
 which Christianity cannot at all exist, aridua regaitf 
 of which, unanimity of sentiment does even now 
 prevail far beyond the lines of our sectarian divi- 
 sions, the primitive church did live and floiirisli. 
 Nor did she ever lose her spiritual image, until hei 
 sons began to philosophize about her doctrines, and 
 to intrigue for dominion. Then a necessity for 
 CREEDS was felt or supposed, and the attempt was 
 made ^Ho hatch a counterfeit life with the crafty 
 and artificial heat of jurisdiction." What followed, 
 all the world may know: — agreeably to an ancient 
 observation, '^religion brought forth wealth, and 
 the daughter devoured her mother;" or according 
 to ecclesiastical traditions, when Constantine's libe- 
 rality was extended and accepted, a voice was heard 
 from heaven, crying aloud, *^this day is poison 
 poured into the church." Let us then revert to 
 her original ground, and the important object under 
 consideration will be secured; as the experiment, 
 difficult at first, and having many apparent contra- 
 rieties to adjust, will in the end demonstrate. 
 
 3. The question, how heresies are to be preclu- 
 ded, will be fairly met by throwing ourselves under 
 the protection of God^s word and Spirit. Dr. M. 
 judging from the extract, which he has given in his 
 letter, from the Savoy confession, and the warm re- 
 commendation with which it is pressed upon my 
 notice, would appear to think that these are rather 
 equivocal guardians of the church and her ordinan- 
 ces. Indeed, his whole reasoning is founded upon 
 their supposed insufficiency. On this point he has 
 
68 
 
 certainly a very awkward argument to maintain. 
 Sometimes indeed he does venture to break away 
 from its trammels, and then he tells us, — '*In the 
 mean time, the bible alone is sufficient, I have 
 no doubt, and has actually been found sufficient, in 
 many thousands of cases, when accompanied by 
 that Spirit who inspired it, to make men Hvise unto 
 salvation. ' " That is, if I understand him, now, while 
 christians are circulating the Bible ^Svithout note 
 or comment,^' the nations, from pole to pole, who 
 shall thus be evangelized, shall find the Bible alone 
 sufficient, w^hen Fanctified by the Holy Spirit. It 
 is true he contemplates the introduction of creeds 
 afterwards, together with voluntary associations, 
 and all their glorious appendages. What? Are no 
 heresies introduced in the mean time? How are 
 they kept out? By the Bible alone, accompanied 
 by that Spirit who inspired it? Will Dr. M. say 
 all this, and then laugh at my absurdity for suppos- 
 ing that we christians, who have every spiritual 
 privilege, might do the same thing? The convert- 
 ed heathen, in all the simplicity of their first love, 
 m^y present an exhibition of the primitive church; 
 but WE must strive and contend. The concession 
 yields the whole principle; and God forbid that his 
 prospect of recovering it, when this ^^mean time" 
 jshall have passed away, should ever be realized. 
 
 Can we conceive of any better guardians than 
 the Bible and the Spirit? ^^To the law, and to the 
 testimony," say the scriptures themselves. — *'A11 
 scripture is given by inspiration of God^ apd is pro- 
 
69 
 
 fi table for doctrine, for reproofs for correction ^ 
 for instruction in righteousness, that the man of 
 God may be perfect, thoroup;hly furnished unto 
 
 all good works." ^^Not by might, nor by power, 
 
 bict by iny spirit, saith the Lord of Hosts." The 
 Spirit ''will reprove the world of sin, and of right- 
 eousness, and of judgment." The Spirit of truth 
 **will guide you into all truth." Now what 
 more can the church want? Where is the chris- 
 tian's faith? Is God no more unto Jerusalem ''a 
 wall of fire round about?" Will he be no more 
 "the glory in the midst of her?" Shall his people 
 call upon the Egyptians for help? Shall the minis- 
 try, like Uzzah, put forth their hand to the ark of 
 the Lord? Does Dr. M. inquire who is to defend 
 the church from her enemies, as though it had not 
 long ago been revealed, that ^'the Lord will create 
 upon every dwelling place of Mount Zion, and 
 upon her assemblies, a cloud and smoke by day, 
 and the shining of a flaming fire by night; for upon 
 all the glory shall be a defence?" Is there any 
 < ^restraint to the Lord, to save by many or by 
 few?" Why all this diffidence about results, which 
 the providence of God stands pledged to secure; or 
 these fears about the church, which he has * ^pur- 
 chased with his own blood ?'^ I may not coincide 
 with the advocates of creeds in their practical unbe- 
 lief, nor share in councils which question the divine 
 faithfulness. 
 
 But it is to be apprehended, that Dr. M's ques- 
 tion does not propose the real difficulty, To refraiu 
 
70 
 
 from fellowship with men who deny the Lord that 
 bought them, is not the object for which human 
 creeds, as they are now employed, make provision: 
 and to accomplish which the word and Spirit are 
 represented as so insufficient. There is a mucli 
 more serious difficulty pressing upon our secta- 
 rian ingenuity, which creeds are called in to re- 
 move; and that is, — how may living christians be 
 excluded from our communion? Or, how may 
 presbyteries and synods avoid extending forbear- 
 ance to those who do not exactly agree with them 
 in sentiment? It is no matter of w^onder that human 
 legislation should be resorted to, in order to invent 
 an expedient to meet such a case; for the Bible is 
 altogether insufficient, to teach us how we may 
 safely contend with one another; or issue mutual 
 sentences of excommunication. The scriptures call 
 for forbearance, and all its kindred virtues, and for- 
 bid ^Moubtful disputations," with all their kindred 
 evils. Such passages as Dr. M. quotes with so 
 much ease, — separating betw^een the "precious and 
 the vile," — are altogether aside of the subject. The 
 separation is between those who are not vile, but who 
 are the Lord's people, having "one Lord, one faith, 
 one baptism, one God and Father of all." Or, to 
 say the very least, the whole church is thrown into 
 dissention and confusion; the most fearful animosi- 
 ties are cherished; and controversies, under false 
 sanctions, are handed down from father to son as a 
 spiritual legacy of the most costly value; in order 
 that heresies and heretics mav be excluded from 
 
71 
 
 the church. Is this not plucking up the wheat with 
 the tares, and undertaking to do what the Master 
 has commanded us all to leave to his own arbitre- 
 ment at the judgment day? 
 
 To repeat here a question, which was earnestly- 
 pressed in the ^^Remarks;"— if these ecclesiastical 
 creeds are so very necessary, that the church cannot 
 possibly do without them, why did not the Master 
 furnish us with them? "It seems to us to be a very 
 Strange problem, that such instruments should be so 
 indispensable, and that yet neither the Lord Jesus, 
 nor any of his apostles, should ever have given 
 them to us.'' It cannot be replied, that the occasion, 
 or a difference in human sentiments, on which the 
 whole argument rests, was not afforded: for never 
 was there an age, when the controverted points 
 were of more vital importance, than when the apos- 
 tles themselves lived and preached. Yet, no annual 
 synods were called, neither were any human creeds 
 erected into tests of orthodoxy. Nor can it be re- 
 plied, that they were unapprised of the difficulties 
 of the coming times, or that they carelessly suppos- 
 ed that their epistles would settle all controversies, 
 and for even For they foretold the endless here- 
 sies, which should creep in after their decease, and 
 have described, not only Antichrist— huge, un- 
 sightly, and deformed,— but they have spoken of 
 many antichrists * 'already in the world." Yet no 
 human creed was formed, which in our day is re- 
 presented as a sovereign remedy. And why not? 
 To me it would seem, that it was because thpv Lo^ 
 
no right to make one, or that they kftew that it would 
 be good for nothing when it was made. I may be 
 mistaken. Theii why did not the Lord Jesus, or 
 some of the apostles, give us a creed, seeing the 
 church must perish without it? 
 
 The argument, involved in the observations im- 
 mediately preceding^ if it be not too positive to say 
 so, I consider unanswerable, at least by Dr. M. — 
 He cannot throw it back upon me, as being incon- 
 siderable, or undeserving of attention. For, in his 
 Letters on the episcopal controversy, he makes a 
 very confident use of it himself; as, I doubt not, ma- 
 ny advocates of creeds have done before and since 
 those letters were ushered into the world. He had 
 occasion to refer to * 'public prayer," and observes 
 in a note;-^'*By the w^ay, it is not a little remarka- 
 ble that the apostle should content himself with giv- 
 ing Timothy only general directions with respect 
 to public prayer, and even these only with regard 
 to some of the objects of petition. Where were the 
 liturgies of those times? Had forms of prayer been 
 so indispensably necessary, or, at least, so pre- 
 tminently important, as our episcopal brethren 
 tell us they are, and always have been, why did 
 not Paul, or some other of the apostles, furnish the 
 churches with liturgies written by themselves, and 
 under the immediate inspiration of the Holy 
 Ghost? How shall we account for it^ that instead 
 of sending Timothy a form, he only laid down for 
 him a few general words of direction? But this is 
 not the only instance in which the apostles appear 
 
73 
 
 to have been of a different mind from some modera 
 churchmen.''* For example, creeds. — But I will 
 not press too hard. I leave this argument to his 
 calm and serious reflection. The '•^important end," 
 under consideration, is to be obtained by a due and 
 faithful use of God's word and spirit. Such is the 
 divine arrangement, which no system of human 
 policy can amend or improve. 
 
 4. There are certain things which men cannot 
 «scapejf they would. They may often meliorate 
 what they cannot cure; and they will only aggra- 
 vate an evil by attempting to prevent, what the pre- 
 sent condition of society places above their reach. 
 Can you hinder a man from thinking? ^^I will not 
 my,'' said lord Thurlow, ^^that your majesty is un- 
 grateful, but I think so." — In religion, above all 
 other things, the heart belongs unto the Lord, as a 
 matter subject to his own inspection. Can you con- 
 jure away from me the images of eternity, or ex- 
 tinguish in my soul the idea of God? If ajnan's 
 impressions on topics of such high concern are false 
 
 can you alter tliem by the gibbet or the sword? 
 
 When religious sects possess the royal ear, and are 
 supported by the royal decree, multitudes may 
 change their visible professions, or suffer their con- 
 sciences to become seared, from calculations of a secu- 
 lar character. But in a free land, where the civil 
 arm would be paralysed by an effort to establish 
 mental slavery, different consequences must follow;. 
 Why then undertake to control thought, or to iu-. 
 * Vol. 2. p. 88—9. 
 
74 
 
 troduce a system of legislation, founded upon the 
 absurd assumption that men must think alike? Or 
 when divine providence is, with mysterious pur- 
 pose, diffusing the varieties of human character over 
 the world, and thus making men mutual aids, why 
 should we separate and class them according to some 
 arbitrary rule of a fancied similarity? 
 
 In the parable of the tares of the field, to which 
 I before alluded, this subject is most beautifully 
 illustrated. Human talent is not competent to the 
 task of distinguishing accurately, between the dif- 
 ferent degrees of religious impressions, which men 
 may receive. *^In the multitude of counsellors, 
 there is safety," says Solomon: and yet, even un- 
 der these favourable circumstances, such an experi- 
 ment has uniformly and completely failed. Synods 
 and councilsj with all their supposed wisdom, have 
 never produced unanimity of sentiment in the 
 church: though they have often ejected from all 
 spiritual communion under their jurisdiction, those 
 who loved the Lord Jesus; and have called upon 
 the arena of their unhallowed conflicts, hostile sy- 
 nods to oppose their unrighteous measures. The 
 wheat and the tares, it seems, must still grow to- 
 gether, by a moral necessity, which men have not 
 sagacity, nor power enough, to remove. **Offen- 
 ces must needs come." Wo, indeed, unto the 
 man by whom they come; but still \h^y inust come. 
 Such is the situation of human things, and the fact 
 should teach ecclesiastical politicians to make large 
 allowances for the infirmities of human nature; to 
 
75 
 
 mingle their censures with something of ««the milk 
 of human kindness;" to substitute charity for invec- 
 tive; to be gentle and forbearing, considering them- 
 selves lest they also be tempted; and to do a 
 thousand other things, which would betoken the 
 high origin of their ministerial commission. 
 
 To be plain. There is a vast deal too much legis- 
 lation in the church. There would be more harmo- 
 ny and more purity, if there were fewer courts and 
 fewer laws. There are many things in the world, 
 which never thrive so well as when they are let 
 alone. And religion, comparatively speaking, is 
 one of those things. That is, it is not the resuU of 
 an enlarged, and continually enlarging code of laws: 
 but it is of the operation of God upon the heart; and 
 never bursts forth with greater fulness or beauty up- 
 on the wt)rld, than when it is tenderly cherished in 
 private. You might as well expect to make or test 
 a philosopher by a set of by-laws in an academy, as 
 to make or test a christian by synodical decrees. — 
 By such a course, politicians have ruined human 
 society-; until a reaction has occurred, heaping revo- 
 lution upon revolution. And by the same course, 
 theologians have reached the appalling maxim— Ig- 
 norance is the motlier of devotion. It is, and it 
 must necessarily be, the result, that mankind shall 
 be injured by interfering with freedom of thought. 
 The human mind can never be what it ought to be, 
 without liberty. Its perceptions are never so accu- 
 rate; its views are never so enlarged; its decisions 
 are never so prompt; its reasonings are never so 
 
76 
 
 ingenuous; its approaches to God are never So close: 
 as when, free and untrammelled, it learns from the 
 prospects of the life to come, the duties of the life 
 that now is. Virtue and liberty go hand in hand: 
 at least men begin to thiuk so, and every day accu- 
 mulates testimony that it is so. Give us religious 
 liberty then, and what becomes of heresy. If on 
 the one hand, * 'liberty produces virtue, order and 
 stability;" and on the other, ' 'slavery is accompa- 
 nied by vice, weakness, and misery," as Sidney 
 would tell us, and as might easily be demonstrated 
 by an induction of facts, as it has been by Sidney, why 
 all these apprehensions — these fearful prognostics 
 of the disastrous consequences of religious liberty?^ 
 I should be very much disinclined to suspect Dr. 
 M. of an attempt to drive me into this wretched ex- 
 treme. But then such is the nature of his question, 
 and cf all the reasonings by which it is illustrated: 
 such is his argument in relation to the ministerial 
 office, which has already been shown; and such is 
 the character of his prophetic impulses^ when he 
 argues that the ' 'no-creed system," as he would call 
 il, rushes headlong into the wildest independency. 
 All this, no doubt, he fully believes. But as I mean 
 to act according to my own creed, I refuse to move 
 one step, without my own consent. Men may use 
 their * 'liberty for a cloak of maliciousness," and 
 often have done it: but that they must necessarily 
 do it, or that such is the unavoidable consequence of 
 moral freedom, is another proposition altogether; 
 which it would require more than the erudition of 
 
77 
 
 a Salmaslus, or the effrontery of a Filmcr, to estab- 
 lish. Many such prophecies were tumultuously 
 uttered by the enemies of the American revolution, 
 in their hurried zeal; but time and facts have prov- 
 ed them hasty and untrue. 
 
 *^Ariosto tells a pretty story of a fairy, who, by 
 one mysterious law of her nature, was condemned 
 to appear, at certain seasons, in the form of a foul 
 and poisonous snake. Those who injured her during 
 the period of her disguise, were forever excluded 
 from participation in the blessings which she be- 
 stowed. But to those, who, in spite of her loathsome 
 aspect, pitied and protected her, she afterwards re- 
 vealed herself in the celestial and beautiful form 
 which was natural to her, accompanied their steps, 
 granted all their wishes, filled their houses with 
 wealth, made them happy in love, and victorious in 
 war. Such a spirit is liberty. At times she takes 
 the form of a hateful reptile. She grovels, she 
 hisses, she stings. But wo to those who, in dis- 
 gust, shall venture to crush her! And happy are 
 they, who, having dared to receive her in her degrad- 
 ed and frightful shape, shall at length be rewarded 
 by h«r in the time of her beauty and her glory! 
 
 ^^There is only one cure for the evils which newly 
 acquired freedom produces — and that cure is free- 
 dom. When a prisoner first leaves his cell, he can- 
 not bear the light of day: — he is unable to discrim- 
 inate colours, or recognize faces. But the reme- 
 dy is, not to remand him into his dungeon, but to 
 accustom him to the rays of the sun= The blaze of 
 7* 
 
78 
 
 Li'iith and liberty may at first dazzle and bewilder 
 nations, which have become half blind in the house 
 of bondage. But let them gaze on, and they shall 
 soon be able to bear it. In a few years men learn to 
 reason. The extreme violence of opinions subsides. 
 Hostile theories correct each other. The scattered 
 elements of truth cease to conflict, and begin to coa- 
 lesce. And at length a system of justice and or- 
 der is educed out of the chaos." Or, as was stated 
 in the "Remarks," — '^in society individuals will 
 approximate to, or recede from each other, in their 
 modes of thinking and habits of action; an assimila- 
 tion may occur, by an inherent or an accidental 
 power in society to regulate itself, and thus some so- 
 cial principles will be adopted by common consent." 
 It may be urged in reply, that our fathers have 
 long since tried the experiment of these liberal prin- 
 ciples, and found them wanting. Ah, me! What 
 absurdity have not our fathers demonstrated to be 
 just and rational? They have demonstrated that the 
 nations ought to be governed by hereditary kings. 
 They have demonstrated that the church should be 
 regulated by diocesan bishops; or, rising according 
 to a duly graduated scale, that at last the pope, as 
 universal bishop, is entitled to universal obeisance. 
 They have demonstrated that church and state should 
 be identified together, under a common constitu- 
 tion. But what has their posterity said to these 
 several demonstrations? On all these subjects Dr. 
 M. would reject their testimony with unmingled in- 
 dignation, and shelter himself under the reformation 
 
79 
 
 motto — the Bible is the religion of protestants. Is 
 it then only in making creeds that any reliance is to 
 be placed on their judgment? Or have we not alter- 
 ed^ revised, amended, enlarged, rejected, the creeds 
 they made? Has their wisdom dwindled away into 
 insignificance in every thing else, and may we safely 
 take the Bible in one thing and not in another? 
 
 Dr. M. however, very confidently urges the ex- 
 perience of others, who have lived before us, as af- 
 fording a very decisive argument. The following 
 rernarkahle declaration, he quotes from the preface 
 to the Savoy confession, and facetiously enough 
 presses it upon my serious and frequent perusal. — 
 "Hitherto there have been no associations of our 
 churches, no meetings of our ministers, to promote 
 the common interest. Our churches are like so ma- 
 ny ships launched singly, and sailing apart and alone 
 in the vast ocean, in these tumultuous times, exposed 
 to every wind of doctrine; under no other conduct 
 tlian the word and spirit; and our particular elders, 
 and principal brethren, without associations among 
 ourselves, or so much as holding out a common light 
 to others, whereby they may know where we are.'' 
 After reading this passage, according to the wishes 
 of my adviser, I can see nothing remarkable in it, 
 but what is truly objectionable. There is nothino- 
 Very remarkable in attempting to correct supposed 
 evils by false remedies. There is nothing very remar- 
 kable in the circumstance, that men should ima- 
 gine that church courts are highly useful, and 
 ecclesiastical power very desirable. All such things 
 
80 
 
 are common, wherever the creed cause has prevail- 
 ed, and might very easily creep in among classes of 
 ^^Independents," who might soon learn to reason 
 like their ncighhours, and fancy a necessity to exist 
 to copy their example. The sons of Samuel go- 
 verned Israel in a mischievous and immoral manner, 
 and the people inferred from this evil, that they 
 must have a king: — '^Nay; but we will have a king 
 over us; that we also may be like all the nations." 
 Change terms, and the Argument is as good in one 
 case as in the other. So also in the second century, 
 the primitive church would have councils; because^ 
 as Dr. Mosheim intimates, their great utility was 
 soon perceived. And yet, what evils have not coun- 
 cils produced in the church, from that day to this? 
 But that which I do consider as remarkable in this 
 extract is, that christian ministers should speak in 
 such a disrespectful manner of God's word and spirit: 
 and lament so mournfully that they had no better 
 pilots to direct them to the haven of peace; that 
 they found no refuge from the storm in the protec- 
 tion of the King of kings; that they so bitterly wailed 
 their fate, as though their brethren neither saw, nor 
 cared for, their distress; and above all, that Dr. M, 
 should laud them so highly, and prematurely triumph 
 in the demonstration, that a creed, being able to ef- 
 fect what the word and spirit of God could not do, 
 is above all praise. 
 
 Dr. M. is fully aware that quotations may be 
 made on both sides; and that sometimes, the best 
 answer that can be given to the opinion of one fa- 
 
81 
 
 thei'j is to lay alongside of it the opinion of another 
 father. I would avail myself of the privilege, and 
 offer, very respectfully, the following extract to 
 the serious consideration of my worthy opponent. 
 I do not apprehend that he is not aware of its exist- 
 ence, or that he has not read it ^^again and again:" 
 but it serves me at the present juncture, and may 
 meet the eye of some reader, who never saw it be- 
 fore. It is from the pen of Hilary, bishop of 
 Poictiers, in Aquitania, who flourished in the fourth 
 century, and is as follows: — ^*It is a thing equally 
 deplorable and dangerous, that there are as many 
 creeds as there are opinions among men; as many 
 doctrines as inclinations; and as many sources of 
 blasphemy as there are faults among us; because 
 
 WE MAKE CREEDS ARBITRARILY, AND EXPLAIN 
 
 THEM AS ARBITRARILY. And as there is but one 
 faith, so there is but one only God, one Loi^d, and 
 one baptism. We renounce this one faith, when 
 we make so many different creeds; and that diver- 
 sity is the reason why we have no true faith among 
 us. We cannot be ignorant, that since the 
 COUNCIL OF Nice, we have done nothing but 
 MAKE CREEDS. And wliilc wc fight against words, 
 litigate about new questions, dispute about equivo- 
 cal terms, complain of authors, that every one may 
 make his own party triumph; while we cannot 
 agree, while we anathematize one another, there is 
 hardly one that adheres to Jesus Christ. What 
 change was there not in the creed last year! The 
 ftrst council ordained a silence upon the homoou- 
 
82 
 
 sion; the second establislied it, and would have us 
 speak; the third excuses the fathers of the council, 
 and pretends they took the word oiisia simply; the 
 fourth condemns them, instead of excusing them. 
 With respect to the likeness of the Son of God to 
 the Father, which is the faith of our deplorable 
 times, they dispute whether he is like in whole, or 
 in part. These are rare folks to unravel the 
 secrets of heaven. Nevertheless it is for these 
 creeds, about invisible mysteries, that we calum- 
 niate one another, and for our belief in God. 
 We make creeds every year; nay every moon we 
 repent of what we have done, we defend those that 
 repent, we anathematize those that we defended. 
 So we condemn either the doctrine of others in 
 ourselves, or our own in that of others; and, recip- 
 rocally tearing one another to pieces, we have 
 been the cause of each other's ruin." — The reader 
 will find this extract partially quoted in ^'Gibbon's 
 Decline and Fall," &c. and given entire, as here 
 copied out, in ^^Locke's new method of a common 
 place book." If he please, he may compare it with 
 the preface to the Savoy confession, and observe 
 how much men, wlio cannot be directed by the 
 word and spirit of God, gain by making creeds. 
 
 I cannot, however, part with this extract without 
 a remark or two. 
 
 1. It proves that the account given of the rise of 
 creeds, in the * 'Remarks," and which traced them 
 to the council of Nice, is perfectly correct. 
 
83 
 
 2. It shows that creeds from the first have been 
 the mere instruments of division; and that they 
 did not produce, in those days, either the harmony 
 or purity, which, from Dr. M's view of the coun- 
 cil of Nice, the reader might be inclined to imagine 
 they did. — -^^For these creeds," says Hilary, ^'zve 
 talumniate one another.'*^ — ^^Reciprocally tearing 
 one another to pieces, we have been the cause of 
 each other's ruin." — Such was the utility of creeds 
 then. 
 
 3. Dr. M. discovers in the ^'Remarks" some 
 phrases, which have a terribly heretical squint: 
 such as, — *'the council of Nice was riven by a dis- 
 pute ABOUT words:" — then ^^speculation was ar- 
 rayed against speculation." But are not the de- 
 clarations true? Hilary, living in that day, vouches 
 for their truth:"— for he says— ^Sve fight against 
 words" — we ^'dispute about equivocal terms" — ^ 
 one council required ^'silence upon the homoou- 
 sion,^^ and another would call for deliberate declara- 
 tions; — one would take *Hhe word oiisia simply," 
 and another would not; — they were "rare folks to 
 unravel the mysteries of heaven." 
 
 4. Hilary was not an Arian, but was a zealous 
 champion for orthodoxy: though by the rules of 
 ratiocination, now-a-days adopted, he might justly 
 be considered as such. And so may a thousand 
 others: Dr. Watts, for example, to a charge against 
 whose orthodoxy on the subject of the Trinity, 
 many in the presbyterian church are exceedingly- 
 sensitive, — who says, «^No bishop, or presbyter, 
 
84 
 
 710 synod or council, no church nor assembly of men^ 
 since the days of inspiration, hath power derived to 
 them from God, to make creeds or articles of faith 
 for us, and impose them upon our understandings. 
 We must all act according to the best of our own 
 light, and the judgment of our own consciences, 
 using the best advantages which providence hath 
 jriven us, with honest and impartial diligence to in- 
 quire and search out the truth: for every one of us 
 must give an account of himself to God. To be- 
 lieve as the c/nirch, or the court believes, is but a 
 sorry and a dangerous faith: this principle would 
 make more heathens than christians, and more pa- 
 pists than j)rotestants; and perhaps lead more souls 
 to hell than to heaven; for our Saviour himself has 
 plainly told us, that if the blind will be led by the 
 blind, they must both fall into the ditch.^' 
 
 This section is long. It has necessarily been so. 
 Dr. M. hinges the whole controversy upon its 
 subject, and esteeming his propositions demonstra- 
 ble, he argues nothing less than destruction to my 
 cause. I was anxious to * ^detach the millstone," 
 that he hangs on my neck, and escape free and un- 
 trammelled to the land of liberty, on whose ver- 
 dure every christian may love to look, and on 
 whose fruit every minister of the gospel should 
 delight to regale. Though there be abundant room 
 still to enlarge, yet, fearing that further illustration 
 might be tedious to my reader, I leave the whole 
 subject to his judgment, perfectly willing that he, 
 or Dr. M, or any other '^neighbour," may search 
 
85 
 
 out this cause, which is indisputably right in mv 
 own eyes. 
 
 SECTION V. 
 
 The ^ ^Remarks/' it seems, have in no form dis- 
 dosed how the church can -be a depository of 
 truth," or -bear testimony, from age to a-e, in 
 favour of the truth,'' without adopting and publish- 
 ing ecclesiastical creeds:— which is another -im- 
 portant end" of these instruments, that had been 
 distinctly noticed and strongly urged in the "Lec- 
 ture." How far this charge may be sustained, I 
 will not stop to inquire: but turn immediately to 
 its subject. 
 
 Is it not strange that God should have construct^ 
 ed his church in such a manner, that she cannot be 
 a depository of truth, or bear testimony to truth, 
 unless men should mend her form, and unite a hu- 
 man contrivance with her sacred institutions.^ Is 
 not an assertion like this, a presumptuous reflection 
 upon divine wisdom.^ Might it not, with equal 
 propriety, be said, that the church can have no visi- 
 ble fellowship with her glorious head, without forms 
 of prayer.^ If an ecclesiastical creed was so in- 
 dispensably necessary, where has the Redeemer re- 
 ferred to its important consequences, or where has 
 he prescribed the rules, according to which it is to 
 be found.^ The subject of communicating truth, has 
 not been overlooked in the scriptures. The Master 
 himself is the true and faithfurwitness, who came 
 to bear testimony on earth, as having the truth 
 
 o 
 
8B 
 
 committed to him; the law and the prophets are re- 
 presented as giving witness to him; the ministry of 
 reconciliation are described as his witnesses; the 
 Holy Ghost, first as the Spirit of prophecy, and 
 now in all his official operations, is styled a witness 
 for the truth; mention is made in general terms of 
 Christ's *^two witnesses" who shall be slain; and the 
 church is the light of the world — a city set upon a 
 hill that cannot be hid. So varied are the scriptu- 
 ral representations on the subject of exhibiting 
 truth, transmitting it from age to age, and carrying 
 it to all the nations of the earth, that Jehovah seems 
 to have left no means unemployed, which are con- 
 sistent with man's infirmities, or with his free- 
 agency. And yet not one word is uttered about 
 ecclesiastical creeds. How then Dr. M. can under- 
 take to say, that the church cannot "fulfil one great 
 purpose," or ^^fiiithfully discharge one great duty, 
 for which she was instituted," unless she writes 
 out these authoritative acts and testimonies, I cannot 
 see. If these things were so inestimably precious, 
 the Master would have told us about them in some 
 part of the sacred volume; would have calculated 
 the happy consequences which should have resulted 
 on the one hand, from their adoption, and the evil 
 consequences, on the other, which must necessarily 
 be produced by neglecting them; and above all, he 
 would have designated the church courts, from 
 whose legislative wisdom they should proceed. 
 Nothing of all this has he done; and the fact that 
 
87 
 
 he i\Rs not, is most decisive evidence, that Dr. M. 
 rests his argument upon a mere assumption. 
 
 Further, it is evident that the scriptures have 
 constructed the church's testimony on very dif- 
 ferent principles. Her influence is to be purely 
 moral, and must derive its efficiency from the 
 divine blessing. All human agents are secondary. 
 God sustains the operation of his scheme of redeem- 
 ing love by the power of his Spirit. To mould 
 human hearts anew, is not a task for human hands. 
 The Ethiopian might first change his skin, or the 
 leopard his spots. The Lord Jesus has sent forth 
 his Spirit, to convince the world of sin, of right- 
 eousness, and of judgment; which are the great 
 moral subjects belonging to the gospel. What 
 higher, what better, what more effectual testimony 
 to truth can be desired? In the apostolic age, both 
 Jews and Gentiles received the gospel as thus at- 
 tested, and that too under circumstances far more 
 forbidding and difficult than ours can be. 
 
 The subordinate agents are presented to us, as 
 operating under laws equally simple. Ministers 
 are required to search the scriptures diligently, 
 honestly, and prayerfully, and to go forth with a 
 *'Thus saith the Lord.'' Christians, in every situ- 
 ation, must have the truth deposited in their hearts, 
 out of which are the issues of life. Their walk and 
 conversation must be their testimony, by being a 
 visible and consistent exhibition of righteousness 
 peace, and joy in the Holy Ghast," which are the 
 moral qualities of the personal characters of Christ's 
 
88 
 
 siJi'vants; — alid says Paul, "he that, in these things, 
 serveth Christ, is acceptable to God, and approved 
 of men.'' ^ They must let their "light so shine be- 
 fore men," that men may see their ^oo^ works^^xi^ 
 glorify their Father which is in heaven: or as Peter 
 expresses it, — "Having your conversation honest 
 among the gentiles; that whereas they speak against 
 you as evil doers, they may by your good works 
 ivhich they shall behold, glorify God in the day 
 of visitation.^' Will Dr. M. say, that this is not 
 bearing testimony to truth, and that before the 
 world too? Can any one say, that thus divine truth 
 cannot be handed down from age to age? Or can 
 it be denied, that, even now, with all our voluntary 
 associations, this is a better and more efifectual tes- 
 timony, than all the ecclesiastical creeds in the 
 world? Can ministers ever be more useful, than 
 when, in their pulpits, or "from house to house," 
 tliey preach the simple things of the gospel, in the 
 name of their Master? Do not christians accom- 
 plish every thing by their frank conversation and 
 consistent example? Are not worldlings thus induc- 
 ed to commend and imitate them, and are not the 
 minds of the rising generation, thus formed and cul- 
 tivated? Do not professors, and that too just in 
 proportion as they make a noise about their creeds, 
 injure their master's cause more deeply by their un- 
 holy tempers, and unworthy lives, than by any thing 
 else they may do? And have not the contentions 
 about the different creeds, entailcJ more practical 
 
89 
 
 injury to the cause of truth, than can be compensa- 
 ted by any of their supposable advantages? 
 
 It seems necessary to observe, step by step, that 
 the doctrine of ''voluntary associations" has chang- 
 ed the whole face of the church ; and that it is only 
 in relation to this unhappy state of things, that any 
 of the ''important ends,'^ referred to in the "Lecture'' 
 or "Letter," are at all to be presumed. This doc- 
 trine being admitted, the question immediately 
 arises, how shall these voluntary associations exert 
 their ecclesiastical influence? In other words, it 
 may instantly be asked, how now shall the king- 
 dom of God come with "ohservation^^ — with ex- 
 ternal pomp and parade? But deny this doctrine, — 
 let the church resume her simple form, and lay off 
 the gorgeous apparel of a civil jurisprudence; let 
 evangelical law have the force which Jesus ascribed 
 to it, when he said, "the kingdom of God is within 
 you;" and a moral influence is immediately formed, 
 by which every believer becomes, in his own place, 
 a glorious witness for the truth. This moral influ- 
 ence, employed and seconded by the Holy Spirit, 
 is the very way by which the church can, and by 
 which alone she can, fulfil every great purpose, and 
 faithfully discharge every great duty, for which she 
 was instituted. And by this means she does these 
 things now, and not by her ecclesiastical creeds. 
 Passing by these arbitrary lines, which vohmtary 
 associations have drawn, her members now meet to- 
 gether on common christian ground; and under 
 auspices so purely moral, the Bible and the living 
 8* 
 
90 
 
 teacher, the great witnesses for truth, are carrying 
 the gospel from city to city, and from nation to 
 nation. 
 
 But the church is a social body, and her social 
 testimony is the object of inquiry. The preceding 
 observations may be considered as in this respect 
 deficient, and amounting to nothing in the present 
 controversy. Though I should feel such a criticism 
 to be trifling, yet the general principle may be ap- 
 plied most distinctly to the social movements of the 
 church. Paul, when writing to the Corinthians, 
 severely censured them, because they acted on sec- 
 tarian, rather than on moral, principles. One said — 
 ^'I am of Paul,'' and thus ht bore his testimony to 
 truth. Another said — ''I am of Apollos," and thus 
 he bore his testimony to truth. Another said — "I 
 am of Cephas," and thus he bore his testimony to' 
 truth. Another, far purer than all the rest, said — 
 "I am of Christ," and thus he bore his testimony to 
 truth. Now did any of them bear testimony to 
 truth, by their party distinctions? Or can we sup- 
 pose, that the whole together, made the church the 
 depository^ or the guardian^ or the witness of 
 truth? Alas, no. Paul tells us that there was no 
 spirituality about such proceedings, — and yet truth is 
 spiritual. He tells us, that they were carnal, — and 
 yet truth is not carnal. He tells us, that they were 
 babes, — and yet, directed by the truth, they might 
 have been full grown men; those perfect ones, 
 among whom he might have spoken wisdom. I 
 know it may be said, the cases are not parallel; for 
 
91 
 
 such a reply is very common. But why are they 
 not parallel? The Corinthians had some different 
 ideas or forms, or ceremonies, when they maintain- 
 ed such different pretensions. There was some rea> 
 son why they thus preferred different ministers. 
 They could say as much in their own defence, as 
 modern sects can say in their defence. They lived 
 in a very remote age; we cannot enter into their 
 feelings, nor fully define their difference; and be- 
 sides, we have an apostolical sentence against them. 
 Now the different sects are continually moving in 
 the whirlwind of their own passions; their prejudi- 
 ces are in full force; and their party distinctions are 
 kept in full view. And here is all the difference. 
 As little testimony to truth is afforded now, as then. 
 For how canpresbyteriaoism, episcopacy, and inde- 
 pendency be all true? How can Calvinism, arminian- 
 ism, hopkinsianism, &c. be all true? Or how can 
 their ecclesiastical creeds, embracing their respec- 
 tive peculiarities, be all a testimony to truth? 
 
 Again. The Corinthians behaved in a scandalous- 
 manner, in regard of the exercise of their spiritual 
 gifts. When they came together, every one had a 
 psalm, had a doctrine, had a tongue, had a revelation, 
 had an interpretation. And what sort of moral im^ 
 pression would this confusion have made upon a by- 
 stander? Should not an unbeliever, or one unlearn- 
 ed, have said that they were mad? But if they had 
 exercised their spiritual gifts in a decorous and con- 
 sistent manner, then an unbeliever should have been 
 convinced of all, should have been judged of all; thus 
 
92 
 
 the secrets of his heart would have been made mani- 
 fest, and so falling down, he would have worshipped 
 God, and reported that God was among them of a 
 truth. Such is the moral influence which the church 
 exerts, when she acts consistently with the principles 
 of her own institution. Thus, in her public assem- 
 blies, she bears testimony, effectual testimony, to the 
 truth as it is in .Tesus; and the world feels the force 
 of what she says: while, with this ecclesiastical in- 
 fluence, exerted by voluntary associations as such, 
 and in defence of their own peculiarities, the world 
 has been continually at war. I do not say, that the 
 world is not corrupted, or that her sons are ready 
 to receive religious truth; but I do say, that these 
 sectarian divisions have afforded to unbelievers a 
 most powerful argument against religious truth, 
 while these contending parties bear their lordly and 
 contradictory testimonies in her favour. 
 
 The public and accredited ordinances of the 
 church— what is the principle of their operation? 
 What is the value of the sacramental supper, if its 
 moral references be not understood, or if a spiritual 
 influence be not realized? Of what other use is bap- 
 tism, than as it is an external symbol of a moral bene- 
 fit? What rational calculations caji a preacher form, 
 when he does not feel himself to be a moral agent, 
 under the superintending care of the Holy Spirit? 
 Or why have we public assemblies at all, convened 
 for any public celebrations, if it be not to throw spi- 
 ritual things into a visible form, and exhibit a moral 
 Spectacle, which may charm the eyes and convince 
 
93 
 
 the understandings of those who see? Why that 
 profession? Why those touching appeals? Whence, 
 the savoury impressions that are left? Is not the 
 church in all this a depository of truth? In all this 
 does she bear no testimony to truth? Is the practi- 
 cal demonstration, that God is in the midst of his 
 own sanctuary, to pass for nothing? 
 
 In addition, it may be asked, how did the primi- 
 tive church fulfil the great purposes of her institu- 
 tion? Neither in the apostolical age, nor until three 
 centuries had rolled past, had she any such document, 
 as that which, in this controversy, is denominated 
 an ecclesiastical creed. This is a demonstrable fact, 
 according to all the evidence which I have seen. 
 Was the primitive church not a depository oi iruih} 
 Did she bear no testimony to truth? Was not truth 
 transmitted from age to age? How did she dis- 
 charge her important duties? How did it happen 
 that she preserved the same faith, as though she in- 
 habited a single house, and had but one heart and one 
 soul? How did it happen, that, ^^with all perfect har- 
 mony," she proclaimed, taught, and handed down 
 the faith, as though she had but one mouth? How 
 did it happen, that her ministers could compare the 
 preaching of the truth to the sun, shining one and 
 the same throughout the whole world? How did 
 it happen, that ''the basis of her communion was 
 laid so broad, in the vital doctrines of the gospel, 
 that all who 'held the head,' in whatever spot of 
 the globe, might join, as tJiey had opportunity, in 
 the reciprocation of christian kindness, and the en- 
 
94 
 
 joyment of christian privileges?'' Such is not tlie 
 condition of the church now, with all her creeds. 
 She bears no such harmonious testimony to the 
 truth. An '^unbeliever," or <*one unlearned,'' 
 might suppose that the different denominations wor- 
 ship different gods. These facts are surely sufficient 
 to expose the fallacy of Dr. M's reasonings on this 
 subject; and to show, that ecclesiastical creeds, in- 
 stead of making the church a depository of truth,, 
 make her the depository of sectarian dogmas; or, 
 that, instead of elevating her as a witness for truth, 
 they divide her members into so many parties, hold- 
 ing testimonies against each other. 
 
 The same argument applies with equal force to 
 another * 'important end," which Dr. M. supposes 
 to be obtained by ecclesiastical creeds; i. e. that 
 they are so many tributes to truth and candour^ 
 which the different churches owe to one another. 
 This seemingly valuable purpose, on which Dr. M. 
 descants in his ''Lecture," with very great confi- 
 dence, amounts, as I understand it, to this: — when 
 one party says, I am of Paul, — another, I am of 
 Cephas,— another, I am of Apollos, — and another^ 
 I am of Christ, truth and candour require each par- 
 ty to explain to the others, what its peculiarities are. 
 All this may do very well, if there was not a pre- 
 vious question to be decided; — is it spiritual, oris 
 it carnal, is it wise, or is it childish, to divide the 
 church into parties, or voluntary associations? — 
 If this be not right, then there is no use in talking 
 about a tribute to truth and candour, resting on 
 
95 
 
 the presumption that it is right. — I believe this is 
 logical. 
 
 There is however a second question, which fol- 
 lows on the admission of the antiscriptural premi- 
 ses, just stated: — are these creeds really a tribute to 
 truth and candour? Do the different churches real- 
 ly adhere to their respective creeds? Have they 
 settled among themselves what their creeds mean? 
 As far as I am acquainted with the various denomi- 
 nations, I know not one whose members are not 
 differing with each other about the articles of their 
 creed? How many matters, contained in the West- 
 minster confession of faith, are not subjects of con- 
 troversy among presbyterians? Are the "thirty- 
 nine articles" caivinistic or arminian? And so on.^- 
 When I look back, over the history of subscrip- 
 tion to church articles, I do not find any difference. 
 The members of the council of Nice were not satis- 
 fied w^ith their own creed. The members of the 
 Westminster assembly would not subscribe their 
 creed. Bishop Burnet says, — ^'The requiring sub- 
 scription to the thirty-nine articles, is a great impo- 
 sition: I believe them all myself; but as those, about 
 original sin and predestination, might be expressed 
 more unexceptionably, so I think it is a better way, 
 to let-such matters continue to be still the standard 
 of doctrine, with some few corrections, and to cen- 
 sure those who teach any contrary tenets, than to 
 oblige all, that serve in the church, to subscribe 
 them: the greater part subscribe ivithout ever ex- 
 amining ihein; and others do it because they must 
 
96 
 
 do it, though they can hardly satisfy their consci- 
 ences ahout some things in them." Lord Chatham 
 said, in the face of the bishops of his day — ^'We 
 have calvinistical articles, an arminian clergy, and 
 a popish liturgy." Now if these things be so, how 
 can these ecclesiastical creeds be, in any sense, tri- 
 butes to truth and candour? Cannot every reader 
 see, that there is a palpable sophism in Dr. M's ar- 
 .gument? 
 
 I here close my observations upon the ^'important 
 ends," which Dr. M. has ascribed to ecclesiastical 
 creeds. The whole argument, if I mistake not, may 
 be found in the '^Remarks," arranged under some 
 of the diflferent articles of discussion there consider- 
 ed. It was intentional on my part, that Dr. M's 
 arrangement was not followed. Having formed my 
 own opinions, without reading any of the contro- 
 versial pieces, which have been written on the gen- 
 eral subject, excepting Dunlop's work and Dr. JVPs 
 * ^Lecture," I penned my own reasons and argu- 
 ments for the doctrine, of whose truth I am every 
 day more and more convinced. And if Dr. M. had 
 left the whole controversy with ^Hhe sober and 
 thinking part of the community," who, he suppo- 
 ses, neither need nor wish ^*a continuance of the dis- 
 cussion," I should have left it there too. But as 
 he was not willing to leave the subject, as far as it 
 had been argued, with the good sense of the com- 
 munity, which he so confidently bespeaks in his 
 own favour, the respondent feels no reluctance t» 
 plead the cause at the bar of the public mind. There 
 
97 
 
 k must finally be settled. No church court, in a 
 free land, is, or can be, competent to decide the 
 question in controversy. And society, at present, 
 is in a situation so peculiar, that, it appears to me, 
 Dr. M. is prophesying "smooth things" at a ven- 
 ture.— I shall wait in patience, and, I trust, with 
 good humour, for the verdict of the public mind^, 
 whatever it may be. 
 
 SECTION VL 
 
 Br. M. has thought proper to appear as the advo- 
 cate of the synod of Philadelphia; and to justify 
 their late proceedings, without any modification or 
 reserve. He seems, from motives of delicacy, to 
 have felt considerable hesitation about undertaking 
 the task. But as a prominent controversialist, in 
 relation to the general subjects involved in those 
 proceedings, he has done right not to be too fastidi- 
 ous, and in waving considerations of that kind. His 
 correspondent had transmitted correct information, 
 when he reported, that the conduct of the synod 
 was esteemed by many as high-handed and tyranni- 
 cal. "The fundamental principles of church gov- 
 . ernment," by which such judicial acts are to be 
 .sustained, really need eclaircissement; and certain- 
 ly, no one, it is to be presumed, could be a more 
 competent expounder of ecclesiastical law than the' 
 professor of church government! Falling so pre- 
 cisely within his official range, and requiring, in this 
 free land, as luminous demonstration as the creed 
 9 
 
98 
 
 system itself, Dr. M. is not at all to be censured as 
 stepping out of his sphere. Moreover, when the 
 abstract case was carried up to the assembly by the 
 presbytery of Baltimore, every member of the as* 
 sembly fully understood to what it referred. All 
 parties knew that it grew out of the publication of 
 my * ^Remarks," which were written in reply to 
 the principles of Dr. M's ^'Lecture." When a com- 
 mittee was appointed to devise a remedy which 
 might cover the case, Dr. Miller was made chair- 
 man of that committee; and thus my opponent be- 
 came my judge. 1 then, for my own part, con- 
 sider it to be quite consistent that Dr. M. should 
 become the champion, and advocate his own mea- 
 sures. 
 
 In undertaking to discuss this unpleasant subject, 
 it may not be amiss to detail the circumstances of 
 the case. — Mr. McLean and myself formerly be- 
 longed to a presbytery, which was in connexion with 
 the Associate Reformed Church; and which, after 
 the union between the General Synod of that 
 church and the General Assembly of the Presbyte- 
 rian Church, chose to retain its own distinct organi- 
 zation, under the name of the Second Presbytery of 
 Philadelphia. This presbytery, in a short time, 
 "judging the interest of the churches under their 
 care, no longer to require their continuation as a 
 presbytery" — "unanimously agreed to suspend their 
 functions as a presbytery, from and after the 9th 
 day of April, 1825;'' and ^^granted testimonials to 
 their members, licentiates and candidates, to become 
 
99 
 
 connected with such presbyteries belonging to tht- 
 Oeneral Assembly as they might desire." These 
 testimonials were unhesitatingly given to us by our 
 brethren, though they were fully apprized of our 
 sentiments on the subject of creeds. 
 
 Our certificate was presented to the presbytery 
 <Df Baltimore, to which our application was made at 
 our own choice. An opposition was quickly, and 
 somewhat unexpectedly, started; and our creden- 
 tials were not sufficient for the purposes for which 
 they had been given. In a body, where formalin 
 tie^ pass for so much, it appeared strange to see 
 one court, sitting in judgment upon the official pro- 
 ceedings of another court, which had been entirely 
 its equal An overt-act, it may indeed be said, 
 had been committed in the mean time, by the pub- 
 lication of the '^Remarks." But then the substan- 
 tial form of any crime, which that act implied, had, 
 according to the representations which have often 
 been made, existed long before the second presby- 
 tery of Philadelphia h^d been dissolved^ and thai 
 too within the knowledge of both courts, and of the 
 whole ecclesiastical association to which they be- 
 longed. The assembly, however, has decided 
 «ince, that the presbytery had the privilege to de- 
 cline receiving us;— and that decision who may dis- 
 pute? 
 
 The plan on which the presbytery of Bal timore, 
 immediately began to deliberate, was to refer the 
 ■application to the General Assembly for advice. 
 
100 
 
 This we readily foresaw would involve the church 
 courts in controversy, as facts have since evinced. 
 And as we could easily forbear with our brethren, 
 if they could forbear with us, we shrunk from any 
 agency in so unhappy a transaction; and preferred 
 to stand alone, the charge of our Master's provi- 
 dence, rather than to become in any measure acces^ 
 sary to it. Consequently we deliberately and 
 earnestly protested against the adoption, of what 
 we supposed to be so injurious a course. Finding 
 this in vain, we then desired our certificate to be 
 returned to us; and addressed to the brethren the 
 following note, in the hope thereby to stay any fur^ 
 ther proceedings, 
 
 '*'To the Moderator and other brethren of the. 
 Presbytery of Baltimore. 
 
 The subscribers, unwilling to involve themselves 
 in any judicial litigations, and the courts of God'is 
 house in any embittered discussions, respectfully 
 request that their certificate may be returned to 
 them. — They cannot consent to refer the case to the 
 General Assembly: they cannot consent that their 
 names should be held up any longer before the 
 public, as applicants for admission into the presby- 
 tery; nor can they consent to be received, even 
 with their certificate, but on the most unequivocal 
 terms. Should the Presbytery resolve on any 
 other course, or refuse to return them their certifi- 
 cate, the subscribers do hereby distinctly decla^e.^ 
 
101 
 
 that they do not hold themselves in- any form 
 amenable to the authority of presbytery. 
 
 John M. Duncan, 
 
 C. G. McLean. 
 May nth, 1825. 
 
 « 
 The certificate was returned. The proceedings 
 
 of the presbytery, however, did not terminate. 
 With, or without, our consent, the subject they 
 would, and did, carry up to the General Assembly, 
 in the form of an abstract question; and thus those 
 embittered discussions were ensured, which wo 
 thought it desirable to avoid. In the mean 
 time, by withdrawing our certificate from the pres- 
 bytery, and refusing to be a party to any litigation 
 before other church courts, we considered ourselves 
 to have withdrawn from our ecclesiastical connexion, 
 diS peaceably as we could, and in the most formal 
 manner the nature of the case would admit. 
 The application never was renewed; it was never 
 transferred to any other presbytery; neither we, 
 nor our people, made any reference, nor protest, 
 nor appeal in any form, by which the connexion 
 could be sustained. 
 
 The Assembly, taking up the overture thus made 
 to them, referred it to a committee, of which, as 
 has already been observed, Dr. Miller was made 
 chairman. This committee reported sundry reso- 
 lutions, which are minute enough in their provi- 
 sions to show, that the w-hole circumstances in 
 which the reference originated^ had been fully can- 
 
vassed. They were evidently designed to make 
 way for the interference of the Synod, on the pre- 
 sumption that the presbytery was * 'incompetent to 
 conduct process in an impartial and efficient man- 
 ner. " Under cover of these resolutions, judgin*:; 
 from one of the papers laid on the table of the Sy- 
 nod, subsequent transactions were commenced, and 
 carried to an issue, suited to another age and ano- 
 ther country; and as unbefitting the ministry of 
 reconciliation, as they are inconsistent with biblical 
 law. 
 
 When the Synod met, we appeared, not as mem- 
 bers, but as individuals; who, supposing themselves 
 to have been injuriously treated, had previously 
 withdrawn from the ecclesiastical connexion, and 
 were yet willing to enter into any conference with 
 their brethren about any plan of a re-union, which 
 would protect their consciences. A committee was 
 appointed to confer with us, who treated us like 
 brethrefi; and on our interview with whom, we 
 never can reflect but with the most unfeigned plea- 
 sure. For myself I speak — I did most distinctly 
 inform the committee that I did not consider my- 
 self as a member of the Synod; I did as explicitly 
 r.iake a like declaration on the floor of the Synod 
 Itself, and that too before any committee was ap- 
 pointed. Some of the members expressed the 
 same views, while others dissented; and though 
 the question wasagitated, whether we w^ere, or were 
 not, members of the court, it was never synodically 
 i^letermined; but by a mere gratuitous assumption an 
 
103 
 
 the part of the majority, 'the proceedings were 
 zealously and unrelentingly conducted to their 
 close, as though we had belonged to a presbytery, 
 and were thus entitled to the privileges, and amena- 
 ble to the authority, of the Synod. 
 
 The committee reported a resolution, which ac- 
 cording to the reasoning in the preamble, was 
 based upon views which they thus expressed. 
 ^^Your committee — are entirely of opinion that 
 forbearance will be the duty of Synod in their 
 case.'^ The arguments, for and against, were di- 
 rected to this point. And Dr. M. who, it is to be 
 presumed, understands the whole matter, says,— 
 *Hhe Synod passed a vote, which most imequivo- 
 mlly expressed, as the opinion of a large majority, 
 that he (Mr. D. ) could not regularly retain his con- 
 nexion with the Synod, in consistency with the 
 opinions he had avowed." When then the '^re- 
 port" was rejected, or not adopted, the Synod re- 
 fused to forbear with us and our opinions. For- 
 bearance being denied to us, what could we do? 
 We wished no further conference with the Synod, 
 as our opinions could not be surrendered, and we 
 saw no other alternative. For myself I ao-ain 
 speak— I once more informed the Synod that I did 
 
 not consider myself as a member of the Synod 
 
 that I came there for the purpose of brotherly con- 
 ference — and that being so injuriously treated, I 
 should again withdraw. 
 
 There had been another resolution proposed, 
 whi«h in all probability would have been called up 
 
104 
 
 next, and which, no douht, will be thought by 
 many, d fine ecclesiastical measure, minglirigagreat 
 deal of gentleness with a great deal of dignity. It 
 is as follows: — ^'Now then, that this Synod may 
 perform its constitutional duty, and may know 
 whether the said Rev. John M. Duncan, and Rev. 
 Charles G. McLean ought to be attached to any of 
 the presbyteries under the care of this Synod; — 
 Resolved., that each of them be asked, by the 
 Moderator, if he still adheres to the profession of 
 faith, which he made at the time of answering the 
 formula of questions for ministers at their ordina- 
 tion,' which were proposed to him by the presby- 
 tery which ordained him; and if he is now willing 
 to be attached to any one of the presbyteries under 
 the care of the General Assembly, as a minister of 
 the gospel, subject to the established constitution of 
 the presbyterian church in the United States of 
 America?" 
 
 To this resolution I should not have made a sin- 
 gle allusion, had it not been printed. But as it is 
 before the public, I shall make a passing remark or 
 two. — I am not sure, for my own part, that I fully 
 understand it. What does the ^'profession of faith," 
 of which it speaks, mean? Was it intended to ask 
 us whether we had altered our views on the great 
 doctrines of the gospel? Our orthodoxy was not 
 questioned by the Synod, so far as we know. The 
 committee said in their report, that they felt them- 
 selves warranted to state, that we entertained no 
 opinions materially different from those exhibited 
 
105 
 
 in the * 'standards." With this interpretation, the 
 resolution was altogether irrelevant to the matter in 
 hand. The subject which the Synod had before 
 them, merely covered our ideas of the illegality of 
 any ecclesiastical control over human consciences: 
 and of course it had nothing to do with the general 
 "profession of faith," made at the time of ordina- 
 tion. 
 
 Was the resolution intended to obtain a promise 
 of unequivocal subjection to the constitution of the 
 presbyterian church? This we had declared we 
 could not give them, by every step we had taken, 
 and by our interview with the committee. For- 
 bearance might have been asked, should have 
 been cheerfully extended, and was actually proffer- 
 ed. That is, we should have peacefidly suffered 
 the brethren to have carried out their rules, on their 
 own responsibility to the Master; and should have 
 acquiesced in their measures, as far as we conscien- 
 tiously could have done it. Might the synod then 
 abruptly turn round, and ask the entire surrender 
 of our principles to the arbitrary laws of a sect? 
 
 But the question further demanded, whether we 
 were "willing to be attached to anyone of the presby- 
 teries under the care of the General Assembly?" 
 What does this mean? Was it their design to separate 
 us by way of neutralizing our heresy? We heard some 
 such proposition out of doors. And were the mem= 
 bers of the synod proprietors of the soil, and could 
 they send its tenants where they pleased, without 
 consulting their gwn inclinations and feelings? Thij^ 
 
106 
 
 would not only have required the surrender of ou? 
 opinions, but it would have made our condition 
 worse than it originally was. For, after the disso^ 
 lution of the second presbytery of Philadelphia, we 
 might have applied to any presbytery we pleased. 
 Our application to the presbytery of Baltimore was 
 a mere matter of our own choice, which we were 
 under no obligation to have made; and which that 
 presbytery had no right to use, as throwing us under 
 their power. Some calculations of the kind here 
 supposed, I should also infer from Dr. M's reason- 
 ings; for he intimates that a majority would speedily 
 have been formed in our favour, had we been at- 
 tached to the presbytery of Baltimore. Our oppo- 
 nents are adroit politicians, We had never counted 
 "votes ^ nor arranged any plans on such a principle. 
 We should simply have availed ourselves of the 
 privilege of respectful argU7nent, when cases 
 might make it necessary:- — well understanding that 
 no man benefits his own cause by going too far 
 ahead of the community, with which his official re- 
 lations may be established. And should a majority 
 really have been secured? Then the synod, by 
 adopting such a resolution, would have undertaken 
 to control the religious impressions of this commu- 
 nity ; and like the Superior of an order of Jesuits, 
 might have commanded their members to go or 
 eome, at their pleasure. And are these the princi' 
 pies of legislation in the nineteenth century? 
 
 Perhaps the question was merely intended to. 
 inquire whether in any thing we had chajiged our 
 
107 
 
 opinions? — Ask men whether they have changed 
 their opinions, since they were boys? Or whether, 
 after having spent a dozen or more years, in the 
 active employments of professional life, they had 
 learned any thing new to them, or had corrected 
 the erroneous impressions of their youth? And 
 that too, when the evidence of such a change was 
 in printed documents; when every man who knew 
 them was a prompt and competent witness of the 
 fact. 1 am forcibly reminded of a question, put to 
 an intelligent young man, by one of these classical 
 assemblies, when preparing to ordain him over one 
 of their most important congregations — "Pray, sir, 
 who made you?^' 
 
 After all, it is not of much importance, what the 
 question really does mean, as the synod did not act 
 upon it. Though still it appears as evidence, that 
 other proceedings were contemplated; that the 
 synod had not finished with our case; and that we 
 withdrew, perhaps, too hastily. When forbearance, 
 however, was denied, all conference was at an end, 
 and nothing but the exercise of authority remain- 
 ed, which we never attended on their meeting to 
 recognize. The resolution, under consideration, or 
 some such like measure, — an equal sophism in judi- 
 cial law — was necessary. There was no other in- 
 termediate step between forbearance and a formal 
 trial. Forbearance they denied, and a formal trial 
 they were not competent to conduct. The trial of a 
 minister, by their own constitulional principles, must 
 commence in the presbytery to which he belongs, 
 
108 
 
 atid the synod had no '^general" jurisdiction, being 
 only a court of review; and could take no order in 
 siich a case, unless in conformity with the word of 
 God and the established rules. Nor could the Ge- 
 neral Assembly empower them to erect themselves 
 into an original court; for they could legally give no 
 '^advice," nor ''instruction," in any case submitted 
 to them, but ''in conformity with the constitution 
 of the church." They did not formally cast us 
 out; for we saved them that trouble. But they did 
 take our case into their judicial consideration, — 
 t<3rms by which their own book describes the last 
 effort of removing an offence. There was as much 
 said as could have been said; and, morally speaking, 
 as much done as could have been done, had they 
 conducted a formal trial. 
 
 The circumstance of the synod's not formally 
 excluding us,seems to have a very important bearing 
 on the whole transaction. I have seen several fine 
 speculations in print on this subject, brought for- 
 w^ard with great complacency in defence of the 
 synod. And some equally fine argument has been 
 urged against us; because, that when we withdrew 
 from our ecclesiastical connexions, by requiring the 
 restoration of our certificate from the presbytery of 
 Baltimore, it was not formally done. And yet, in 
 such a case, mercy, which is so closely allied to 
 forbearance, and which ^uglit always to temper 
 juridical proceedings, not only in (he state, but more 
 especially in the church, would award the privilege 
 to an accused party. I pretend not to say that we 
 
109 
 
 w^r^ formally ejected; for the whole proceeding 
 was the most informal thing I ever saw; and could 
 not have been admitted at all, had we not supposed it 
 to be founded on a moral confidence, which ought al- 
 ways to exist among the ministers of a prince, whose 
 "kingdom is not of this world. '^ As to the eject- 
 ment, we had felt the fhurg, and did not think 
 proper to wait for the word. So far then, the act, 
 as Dr. M. says, was our own, and it was ^ ^prompt- 
 ly followed up," as Dr. M. further observes, by 
 acts purely synodical. 
 
 I was, for my own part, perfectly willing to 
 have preserved christian silence on all these pro- 
 ceedings; and to have left those concerned in them 
 to the judgment of God, of society, and of their 
 own consciences. But for some reason, Dr. M. 
 has felt it incumbent on him to defend them; and it 
 devolves, therefore, on me, to meet what he has 
 N said. This I shall do, so far as I feel it to be neces- 
 sary, and leave the rest to make any impression, 
 which it may be capable of producing. 
 
 I must again observe, that the whole- of Dr. M's 
 argument rests upon a mere assumption. He takes 
 it for granted, that the church has a right to resolve 
 herself into a voluntary association; adopt a suita- 
 ble constitution; and judge of the various circan>- 
 stances of her members, by laws of her own enact- 
 ing. Now this is the very point in dispute. Hence, 
 while on one side a plea is set up for the simple do- 
 minion of moral law, which the Master has given; 
 on the other much ingenious and plausible argument 
 10 
 
110 
 
 Is used, merely to sustain the consistency of eccle«» 
 siastical law, or of the sectarian manuals of different 
 parties. Dr. M. has very skilfully selected his 
 position, as a controvertist, on a sectarian sum- 
 mit, and takes a commanding view from thence of 
 the whole ecclesiastical field. Lest I may be sup- 
 posed to do him an injustice, let the reader review 
 his argument for himself; and then say, whether he 
 has found one scriptural principle of the Master's 
 kingdom, or one single line of biblical law, brought 
 forward in his defence of the synod. And yet one 
 scriptural statute, fairly and candidly applied, would 
 have been worth more than the whole argument, 
 w^iich he has so carefully elaborated. Why then 
 has he not done this? Why did he not carry us over 
 the scripture page, and show^ us '4ine upon line, and 
 precept upon precept," in favour of a measure, which 
 he tells us was founded upon the ^'fundamental 
 principles of church government?" Are not these 
 fundamental principles laid down in the Bible? 
 Can they not be easily educed, — are they not 
 always at hand? Particularly when it is consider- 
 ed, that so large a portion of the New Testament 
 w^as written to meet the circumstances of times 
 greatly agitated ; — times when heretical sentiments, 
 and heretical teachers, so much abounded — is there 
 not one line, which even the professor of church 
 government could bring forward to settle this dis- 
 pute? And that too, when the synod, transcending 
 their ordinary modes of procedure, and undertaking 
 a more ^'general" superintendence, were expressly 
 
lit 
 
 vequired, by their own constitution, to act *<in con- 
 formity with the word of God?" Is it not stran-e? 
 Of what amount is it that the General Assemhiy 
 had adopted certain resolutions? Can the General 
 Assembly make laws to regulate God's house?— 
 Were not these resolutions reported by Dr. M. him 
 self? And did he collect them from the sacred page, 
 or was he simply meeting a question of ecclesiasti 
 cal politics? Or could the General Assembly em^ 
 power the synod, in conducting a more than usual- 
 ly enlarged administration, to go aside of the consti- 
 tutional law, which required them to act "in con- 
 formity with the word of God?" And yet, neither 
 Dr. M. nor the synod, had one single word to bring 
 forward from the scriptures. And why all this shy- 
 ness, or unwillingness to give us their Master's com- 
 mandment? Why so hasty and uniform a retreat 
 into old established habits, or sectarian principles, 
 which the church has outgrown? I take it to be a 
 very plain fact, that if they could plead scriptural 
 law, they would do it; and that the very circum-^ 
 stance of their not so doing, after having been so 
 frequently called upon to do it, is full proof that it is 
 not in their power. And then the embarrassing 
 question stahs up, and with no diffident air,— how 
 can they declare their creed to be a summary of 
 scriptural doctrin£s, when they considered it to 
 require measures which cannot be sustained by 
 scriptural testimony? Immediately follows 'the 
 more embarrassing challenge— "To the law, and to 
 
112 
 
 the testimony, if they speak not according to this 
 word, it is because there is no light in them. " 
 
 It is true that Dr. M. does sometimes bring for- 
 ward scriptural phrases, in application to some part 
 of his argument; such as — '^bear witness to the 
 truth" — ^ ^contend earnestly for the faith" — when 
 error ^*comes in like a flood," the church must **lift 
 up a standard against it," by ^^holding forth the 
 word of life" — ^^sound in the faith" — ^^truth as it 
 is in Jesus" — ^ ^teaching for doctrines the command- 
 ments of men" — **if any man bring any other gos- 
 pel unto you, than that ye have received, let him be 
 accursed." But it is manifest that they have no ap- 
 plication, by which the synod can be relieved; nei- 
 ther would he himself so use them. Now, under 
 such circumstances, why does Dr. M. so tartly re- 
 proach me, as he does in the following language: — 
 ^'Neither is it a sufficient answer to say, that the 
 cases are not parallel in another respect: — that in 
 preaching and expounding holy scripture, we do not, 
 either really or virtuall)'^, set up another rule of 
 faith; but that we only explain and apply the divine 
 rule itself: whereas, in forming a confession of faith, 
 and in asking a candidate for the ministry to adopt 
 it, we are not only proposing a new rule of faith, 
 but even setting it above the scriptures. Mr. D. 
 after the most ample explanation and assurance has 
 been given to the contrary, still insists on repre- 
 senting my doctrine of creeds in this light; as plac- 
 ing them above the Bible; as giving them authori- 
 ty to bind the conscience independently of the Bi- 
 
113 
 
 bie; nay, as imposing on men an obligation to be- 
 lieve that which the Bible never taught." Now, 
 most surely, I am willing to believe the assurances 
 of my brethren. They are ^'incapable, I am per- 
 suaded, of designedly misrepresenting any thing." 
 But then, when I look back to the synod, or read 
 over Dr. M's defence of their proceedings, what 
 shall I do with the facts? If, by the Bible, they 
 could not refuse forbearance to their brethren, and 
 yet, according to their standards they could, which, 
 I ask, is the authoritative book? Which has the 
 pre-eminence? Are not the decisions of councils 
 elevated above the decisions of the word of God? 
 The last is my controversial weapon — can|Dr. M. 
 turn its edge against me? 
 
 Thus say the scriptures: — '^Walk worthy of the 
 vocation wherewith ye are called, with all lowliness 
 and meekness; with long suffering, forbearing 
 one another in love; endeavouring to keep the uni- 
 ty of the spirit in the bond of peace." — ^^Put on 
 therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, 
 bowels of mercy, kindness, humbleness of mind, 
 meekness, long suffering, forbearing one another. " 
 *^The servant of the Lord must not strive, but be 
 gentle to all men, apt to teach, patient, (forbear- 
 ing) in meekness instructing those that oppose them- 
 selves." — ^'Him that is weak in the faith receive ye^ 
 but not to doubtful disputations.^^ — ^^Who art 
 thou that judgest another man's servant?" — ^^Let 
 us not therefore ywfl^g'e one another any more; but 
 
 judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling 
 10* 
 
114 
 
 block, or an occasion to fall, in his brother's way.'' 
 **Let us therefore follow after the things which 
 make for peace, and things wherewith one may 
 edify another." — *'He shall have judgment with- 
 out mercy, that hath showed no mercy; and mer- 
 cy rejoiceth against judgment. " — But where should 
 I stop? There is nothing more highly commended, 
 more urgently pressed, or more frequently present- 
 ed in the scriptures, which is the .book of love. 
 than the social virtues, which should adorn every 
 christian man. How then came the synod to re- 
 fuse forbearance to their brethren? Have they 
 any decision of the Assembly to defend them? — 
 Then is not that decision put above the word of 
 God? Is there any law of their sect requiring such 
 a measure? Then is not their law framed inde" 
 pendent of the word of God? Does their creed call 
 upon them to believe such things to be right? Then 
 docs not their creed impose upon them that which 
 is not in the w^ord of God? — What defence can pos- 
 sibl)^ be set up for the synod on scriptural princi- 
 ples? Did they not judge, if not formally, yet 
 morally and really — did they not judge their bre- 
 thren, though the scriptures had peremptorily forbid- 
 den them so to do; and though the apostle, with 
 4n indignant frown, had asked — *^who art thou that 
 judgest another man's servant?" 
 
 There is no escaping from the preceding observa- 
 tions, by accusing me of a forced interpretation, in 
 applying the texts to the case in hand. They are 
 used in the scriptures in direct reference to certain 
 
115 
 
 controversies, existing at the time tiiey were writ- 
 ten; and they were professedly designed to recon- 
 cile alienated brethren, and to correct the irregu- 
 larities of their ecclesiastical intercourse. The Jews 
 and the gentiles, in the apostolic age, seemed to be 
 in perpetual collision; and their contentions involv- 
 ed, both points of evangelical doctrine and princi- 
 ples of external church polity. They too had a high 
 regard for established habits and ancient traditions. 
 Their prejudices were strong, their passions quick, 
 and their jealousies easily roused. Their fathers 
 were wise, good, and holy men, and their heredita- 
 ry privileges were inestimably precious. The di- 
 viding lines between episcopalians and presbyte- 
 rians, between the acknowledgment and the rejec- 
 tion of ecclesiastical creeds, are not more broad and 
 plain, than \vere the distinctions in those days. Hu- 
 man nature is pretty much the same in all ages, and 
 must be controlled or regulated b}^ the same moral 
 principles. In fact, if there were no differences, 
 where would be the necessity or room for forbear- 
 ance, or any of the social virtues of that class? So 
 that my scriptural quotations were fully as applica- 
 ble to the synod, as to any other dominant party 
 which ever has existed, and render any attempt to 
 defend them, purely chimerical. And such volun- 
 tary associations cannot afford stronger evidence of 
 officious interference with spiritual things, than 
 when their sectarian laws are at variance with the 
 social virtues of christian character. 
 
116 
 
 Neither may it be said, that such texts do not ap- 
 ply to social bodies, but to the private intercourse of 
 christians. The scriptures make no such distinc- 
 tion. Social bodies are as strictly required to be 
 virtuous, as individuals are. The Pharisees do not 
 appear one whit better, when, as rulers, they cast 
 out of the synagogue, the man ^'who.had received 
 his sight" than they should Have done,, had they in 
 their private characters spoken evil of him, or, meet- 
 ing him "by the way," had crossed to the other side 
 to avoid exchanging looks or words. The one sin 
 is perhaps a little more "splendid" than the other. 
 Its turpitude may not be so quickly seen, and its 
 evil consequences may be more extensive, and not 
 so easily remedied. But there is no other differ- 
 ence. That social bodies have their peculiarities I 
 readily admit; and so every individual has his pe- 
 culiarities, both in character and circumstances; but 
 then they must not be opposed to social virtues; and 
 particularly to that class of social virtues, whose 
 very existence is created by those peculiarities. — 
 The synod, then, had their Master's commandment 
 to forbear, and why did they not do it? 
 
 Such proceedings would have been condemned in 
 jthe early ages of Christianity, degenerate as they are 
 represented to have been; and that, too, after eccle- 
 siastical creeds had been introduced. — ^'I most sin- 
 cerely wish," says Calvin, '*that every person 
 would observe the method recommended by Augus- 
 tine, in his third book against Maximinus. For 
 with a view to silence the contentions of that here- 
 
117 
 
 tic respecting the decrees of councils, he says, — - 
 ^I ought not to object to you the council of Nice? 
 nor ought you to object to me the council of Arimi- 
 num, to preclude each other's judgment by a pre- 
 vious decision; I am not bound by the authority of 
 the latter, nor you by that of the former. Let cause 
 contend with cause, and argument with argument, 
 on the ground of scriptural authorities, which exclu- 
 sively belong to neither party, but are common to 
 both.^' 
 
 Such proceedings are equally inconsistent with 
 the principles of the Reformation. Protestants did 
 not merely say that the Bible is the only rule, but 
 their argument spread itself out over all the circum- 
 stances which made the term only, necessary. They 
 reasoned against all other rules, and would submit 
 neither to the civil arm, nor to ecclesiastical coun- 
 cils, as pretending to, or really exercising, autho- 
 rity over human consciences. Indeed, it was im- 
 possible that they should reason on one side, without 
 taking up the other. And yet, at this late hour, the 
 synod founded their proceedings upon resolutions 
 adopted by the General Assembly, and never pre- 
 tended to advance any scriptural authority for what 
 they did. In truth, the subject of forbearance, is 
 merely the old subject of toleration ov6r again, 
 which, it might be supposed, had been sufficiently 
 argued in the church, to be understood in the pre- 
 sent day. It admits of, and it call^ for, precisely 
 the same train of argument. ' 
 
118 
 
 Much, very much, do I admire the following re- 
 marks, made by Augustine, and which are not un- 
 appropriate to the present discussion. — ''We were 
 oi opinion, that other methods were to be made 
 choice of; and that to recover you from 3'^our errors, 
 we ought not to persecute you with injuries and in- 
 vectives, or any ill treatment; but endeavour to 
 procure your attention, by soft words and exhorta- 
 tiohs, which would show^ the tenderness we have 
 lor you, according to that passage of holy writ,-^ 
 'The servant of the Lord ought not to love strife 
 and quarrels; but to be gentle, affable, and patient 
 towards all mankind, and to reprove with modesty 
 those who differ from him in opinion.' — Let them 
 only treat you with rigour, who know not how dif- 
 ficult it is to find out the truth, and avoid error. 
 Let those treat you with rigour, who are ignorant 
 liow rare and painful a work it is calmly to dissi- 
 pate the carnal phantoms, that disturb even a pious 
 mind. Let those treat you with rigour, who are 
 ignorant of the extreme difficulty that there is to 
 purify the eye of the inward man, to render him 
 capable of seeing the truth, which is the sun, or light 
 of the soul. Let those treat you with rigour, who 
 have never felt the sighs and groans that a soul must 
 have before it can obtain any knowledge of the 
 divine Being. To conclude, let those treat you 
 with rigour, who never have been seduced into 
 errors, near akin to those you have been engaged in. 
 I pass over in silence that pure wisdom, which but 
 3, few spiritual men attain to in this life; so that 
 
119 
 
 though they know but in part, because they ar^ 
 men; yet, nevertheless, they know what they do 
 know with certainty: for, in the catholic church, it 
 is not penetration of mind, nor profound know- 
 ledgej but simplicity of faith^ which puts men in a 
 state of safety. " 
 
 So much then for the conduct of the synod, in 
 denying forbearance to us. After we had with- 
 drawn and declined any farther conference with 
 them, they proceeded to other acts, at least equally 
 reprehensible. By what right could they dissolve 
 the connexion between us and our congregations? 
 How can a synod, the offspring of political plans 
 formed in the second century, and not recognized 
 in the scriptures, break up social relations, formed 
 in the Providence of God, and on which his bless- 
 ing had long rested? How could the synod per- 
 form acts, which;, if justifiable at all, must have con- 
 stitutionally been done by the presbytery, as an 
 original court; and when their official relation to the 
 church was that of a court of review? How could 
 they proceed to such lengths, when they were ex- 
 plicitly told, that one congregation had never been 
 formally united to them? When they were expli- 
 citly told that the other congregations, had /b;*- 
 mally declared their willingness to retain their 
 pastor, after he had frankly told them that he was 
 connected with no denomination whatever? Did 
 not our people know what were the opinions of 
 their ministers? Did they ever call upon the 
 presbytery of Baltimore, or any other presbytery, 
 
120 
 
 or upon tlie synod itself, to interfere for their re- 
 lief? Has not their deportment since sufficiently 
 evinced, that the resolutions of the synod were 
 oificious and uncalled for? And did not the synod 
 thereby leave, what they had no right to touch, in 
 a happy train for more vigorous dispute, and open 
 the door, as far as they could, for the entrance of 
 another power — exciting appeals to the civil 
 arm? — Verily if synods or presbyteries may thus 
 interfere to distract congregations, which have nei- 
 ther asked their counsel nor sought their aid, it is 
 high time that the fundamental principles of such 
 church government should be fully known, deliber- 
 ately canvassed, and for ever abandoned; for they 
 are utterly inconsistent with scriptural law, and 
 destructive of christian liberty; and they leave not 
 to the freeman of the Lord one foot of ecclesiastical 
 ground on which to stand, unless what these lords 
 over God's heritage may graciously allow to him. — 
 Did the synod of Jerusalem, as it has been confi- 
 dently enough called, do deeds like these, even 
 when special messengers went and related to them 
 the circumstances of the church at Antioch. 
 
 Dr. M. however, goes clear through w^ith his 
 defence of the synod, and justifies even these far 
 stretched acts of power. His argument, as usual, 
 is constructed on the assumption that the church is 
 a voluntary association. And notwithstanding the 
 congregation never did declare their approbation of 
 the union, he infers from the fact, that because the 
 session sent an elder to the Second Presbytery of 
 
121 
 
 Philadelphia, and because that presbytery sent that 
 particular elder to the assembly, therefore the con- 
 gregation did voluntarily place themselves under 
 the discipline of the Presbyterian church. Indeed! 
 Was this doing the thing formally; or formally 
 enough to justify the synod in such high handed 
 measures? We withdrew far more formally, when 
 our note, which was read in the synod, was addressecf 
 to the presbytery of Baltimore. Want oi formality 
 is every thing, it seems, in one case, and it is no- 
 thing in the other. What we had done was not 
 formally done, and therefore the synod would not 
 recognize the act. One congregation had done no- 
 thing formally, and yet they would recognize them; 
 the other congregations had acted formally, but 
 Still they were not safe. This defence which Dr. 
 M. has set up will not answer. It ought to be put on 
 moral grounds simply, or on the principle of eccle- 
 siastical formalities simply; and yet in neither case 
 can it be substantiated. And the looseness, ecclesi- 
 astically speaking, in which these things were found, 
 providentially gave to the synod an opportunity to 
 leave our congregational relations undisturbed, un- 
 til the people themselves had applied for their pro- 
 tection. Had they retired in this peaceful man- 
 ner, they would have been guilty of no incon- 
 sistency with their own constitutional laws, and 
 might have prevented many unpleasant consequen- 
 ces that have followed. 
 
 I feel tired of this argument, which is so much 
 
 connected with personal circumstances. But Dr. 
 II 
 
122 
 
 l\l. in his statement, having said some other things, 
 from being misinformed, or from reasoning rather 
 too rapidly, I am obliged to pursue it a little far- 
 ther. ^'The brethren,'' (Mr. McL. and myself) 
 he says, *^had shown themselves iiidefatigable in 
 the propagation of their hostile sentiments." I do 
 not know on what authority this assertion has been 
 made; but I do know that it is not correct. Mr. 
 McL. had delivered a discourse at the opening of a 
 session of the second presbytery of Philadelphia, 
 which was, by special appointment, addressed to 
 his brethren in the ministry. In like manner, by 
 special appointment, I had delivered a discourse at 
 Princeton, intended for the consideration of the 
 ministry. And may not ministers he preached to? 
 Is there any presumption in a brother's venturing 
 earnestly to exhort them to study their Bibles, or 
 carefully to guard them against the influence of hu- 
 man authority? Or having done it, with a spirit 
 frank and generous, shall they raise a clamour, en- 
 list their church courts, proceed to cast us out of 
 the church, and then complain that we have griev- 
 ously troubled their Israel? — My discourse, in con- 
 sequence of being defamed by common report, was 
 sent to the press, that the public might know where 
 to find me. Mr. McL. was arraigned before his 
 presbytery, and they refused to censure him. 
 There the matter should have ended. But Dr. M. 
 wrote and published a long lecture, running the 
 whole range of the subject of creeds, as far as the 
 argument afforded by voluntary associations wa* 
 
123 
 
 concerned; Dr. Green followed with a long and 
 harsh review; — must I be silent, and suffer myself 
 thus to be brought before the public as heretical 
 and wicked? The book appeared in reply. Dr. 
 G. undertook to answer in a second review, more 
 offensive than the first; church courts began to play 
 their part, and our ecclesiastical relations were vio- 
 lently assailed; the public newspapers were em- 
 ployed, and our names were published from village 
 to village, and from state to state, as men condemn- 
 ed and rejected by a very conscientious and gene- 
 rous synod. Any of these occurrences afforded us 
 an opportunity again to write and publish; but wc 
 have borne it all in silence. Is this being inde- 
 fatigable in the propagation of our hostile senti- 
 ments? 
 
 We have never carried the controversy to our 
 own pulpits, nor to other pulpits. We have not 
 gone from house to house, seeking proselytes. 
 Young men, under our care, have been left to the 
 enjoyment of their own sentiments; and we have 
 done nothing with them, but to endeavour to lead 
 them into the habit of analyzing the scriptures for 
 themselves. Is this being indefatigable? — Or if we 
 had done all that is ascribed to us, if we had created 
 opportunities of exhibiting our sentiments, could 
 any man wonder? Have we not been preached at 
 from pulpit after pulpit, — our sentiments misrepre- 
 sented, and our motives traduced? Has there not 
 been every species of effort tried, which ingenuity 
 could invent, or civil law sanction, in order to 
 
124 
 
 ©verthrow and crush us? Have we not been sim- 
 ply defending ourselves against our indefatigable 
 opponents? 
 
 Dr. M. further says, that in our conference with 
 the committee, we ^^claimed a right freely to ex- 
 press our opinions on all occasions, on which we 
 should think it our duty so to do, and to act ac^ 
 cordingly.^^ And what is there strange in all this? 
 What else could honest men do? Must they sur* 
 render their opinions, or not do their duty? — We 
 have freely allowed others to have consciences, and 
 never made the denial of creeds a term of commu- 
 nion with us. But it is because we demand for our- 
 selves the rights of conscience, that all these un- 
 manly assaults, and ungenerous proceedings, have 
 been commenced and carried on. 
 
 Dr. M. reasons out our claim to its conclusion^ 
 and tells the church, that ^ 'every time a candidate 
 was to be licensed or ordained by the presbytery, 
 with which we should have been connected, a con- 
 fessional battle" would be fought. I do not know 
 for which party Dr. M. intends this augurial decla- 
 ration. If he designed to foretell our course, we 
 are happy in the consciousness of possessing feelings 
 considerably elevated above such manoeuvres. 
 
 We stipulated with the committee in the first place 
 for the freedom of the press. This was done, be- 
 cause we supposed that the whole subject ought to 
 be kept out of church courts, and that it would be 
 brought to a speedier, and a safer, issue through the 
 press: and because that others had written, and 
 
125 
 
 would perhaps again write, on the other side of the 
 subject. We candidly informed the committee, that 
 at that time we had no intention of writing any 
 thing farther, as we knew of nothing that demand- 
 ed a reply from us. But I must frankly say, that 
 I very frequently thought, that after the decision of 
 the synod should be known, Dr. M. would follow 
 it up as he has done; and I had no idea of commit- 
 ting the censorship of the press to the synod of Phi- 
 ladelphia, or of covenanting away my right to answer. 
 As to the presbytery of Baltimore, we promised 
 to leave them as much, or as little, of the confession 
 of faith as they pleased, and to act with them as far 
 as we conscientiously could. The following cases 
 were stated as illustrations of our views: — 1. If a 
 young man applied for licensure or ordination, who 
 could receive the confession of faith without a scru- 
 pie, we would not interfere; but we would take nc 
 part in that licensure or ordination, unless libert\^ 
 was granted to us to make it understood, that we had 
 nothing to do with his receiving that instrument. 
 If this privilege was refused, v/e would then leave 
 the presbytery to conduct the ceremony in their own 
 way, and on their own responsibility, — as they can 
 do now. 2. If a young man applied for licensure 
 or ordination, who could not take the confession 
 on his conscience, then we would ask for the 
 same forbearance to him that was extended to 
 ourselves. If this had been denied, we would 
 affectionately and respectfully plead his cause: 
 and in case of a failure, we would leave the pres- 
 11^ 
 
12B 
 
 bytery to answer to their Master for the consequefl- 
 ces. At the same time, should the individual so 
 aggrieved carry his cause to the synod, or the 
 assembly, we would consider ourselves as at full 
 liberty to have pleaded his cause there. — A con- 
 fessional battle, under such circumstances, should 
 then have been waged by the presbytery in with- 
 holding forbearance. 
 
 Such a course requires some honourable feelings, 
 and some sympathies with the difficulties of human 
 society, which we were supposed not to possess: and 
 yet for which we were willing to give our brethren 
 full credit. But as a member of the second presby- 
 tery of Philadelphia, I had, (Mr. McL. was not 
 present) advocated the cause of a young man on 
 such principles: and had undertaken to defend my 
 own, when, though moderator, I could not consci- 
 entiously ask him to receive or adopt the confession 
 of faith. ''Happy," say the scriptures, ''is he that 
 condemneth not himself in the thing that he allow- 
 eth. And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, be- 
 cause he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not 
 of faith is sin." The presbytery consented almost 
 unanimously, after having examined the candidate 
 as much as they thought proper. No trouble was 
 Created by it, as Dr. M. says, but what our oppo- 
 nents have created by refusing to sustain his licen- 
 Siure; or to ordain him, when a congregation, flour- 
 ishing under his care, and tenderly loving his minis- 
 trations, called for his services. And if, when Paul 
 says, "judge not a brother^ — for God has received 
 
127 
 
 him," he means, that a blessing from Jehovah, 
 poured out on a man's ministerial labours, should 
 protect him from church censure, his busy and zea- 
 lous opposers had better let him alone; and Dr. M. 
 might have spared him the pain of the unkind allu- 
 sions he has made. Success in such a case is worse 
 than defeat. 
 
 A very few months after, we joined with the 
 same presbytery in the ordination of another young 
 man, who had none of these scruples, it being un- 
 derstood that we, for ourselves, did not, in any shape, 
 impose the confession upon his conscience. Though, 
 by the way, it is not a little remarkable, that, in the 
 region of country where it took place, and where 
 there are several congregations under the care of 
 the General Assembly, after inquiry was made, 
 there was not a single copy of the Confession of 
 Faith to be obtained. There w\is of course, some 
 argument, growing out of this latter circumstance, 
 but there was no interruption to the harmony and 
 good feeling of the presbytery. 
 
 Such a course. Dr. M. contemplates, should have 
 ultimately made the presbytery of Baltimore 
 anti-confessional, and ^ ^converted it into a machine 
 for multiplying its own advocates, to an indefinite 
 extent, and sending them all over the church." I 
 cannot disguise my feelings, when our opponents 
 themselves thus bear a tribute of respect to the po- 
 tency of our principles, and to the accuracy of our 
 judgment. This statement, which Dr. M. makes, 
 demonstrates that society only asks for an opportu- 
 
128 
 
 nify to throw off these ecclesiastical shackles, and 
 she will do it. I believe he is rights and my heart 
 exults in the prospect, whenever it is not too timid 
 to realize its approach. And does Dr. M. suppose 
 that our being detached from the synod will prevent 
 that result? No verily; such measures, however de- 
 fended, only aggravate the evil; present it in more 
 visible form ; and give to men such thoughts as they 
 never had before. If we have not obtained a single 
 friend to go with us to the whole length of our opin- 
 ions, as he intimates, there are many, as his corres- 
 pondent informs him, who unequivocally condemn 
 the measures of the synod, and whose voice ma^ be 
 heard, when silence can no longer be endured. — 
 **The present paroxysm of feeling and of clamour," 
 by which Dr. M. so handsomely describes the re- 
 ligious sympathies of the community in which he 
 dwells, may not ''pass away" as soon as he expects. 
 But if it does, then it will only be to burst forth, 
 with greater power, at a later, but more auspicious 
 period, when this cause, for which we plead, will un- 
 veil all its beauty, and extend its influence from pole 
 to pole, and from the rivers to the ends of the earth. 
 It is ImmanuePs dominion over the human mind, 
 to be sustained by the light of his word and spirit, 
 for which we plead; and which angels in heaven 
 will league with the redeemed on earth to carry, like 
 a horn of divine munificence, to pour out its spiri- 
 tual bounties on all the nations of the world. 
 
129 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 In concluding tliese observations, there is one 
 other view of the general subject, which, as Dr. M 
 observes, certainly deserves very ^^grave considera- 
 tion.*' **You give me to understand," says Dr. M. 
 to his correspondent, ^Hhat, although you are your- 
 self friendly to creeds and confessions under cer- 
 tain limits; that yet you have been constrained to 
 doubt whether any creed, intended to be subscribed 
 by all candidates for office in a church, ought ever 
 to contain any other articles than those which are 
 strictly fundamental, " 
 
 In venturing briefly to remark upon this view of 
 the subject, I must say, at the outset, that I consi- 
 der ecclesiastical creeds to be injurious in every 
 form. If they are reduced in size, they may be, 
 proportionally, less hurtful: or perhaps they may 
 be equally oppressive. There are some small, as 
 well as some large, creeds in the church; and the 
 one seems to serve the purpose of ecclesiastical 
 dominion, or of governing a voluntary association, 
 as well as the other. And besides, the different 
 points of theological controversy may be expressed 
 within a very narrow compass, and the church be 
 kept in turmoil and distraction to the end of time, 
 unless her great Head prevent. The early creeds, 
 at the council of Nice and afterwards, were small. 
 But the contentions, to which they gave interest 
 and form, have lasted until the present hour. And 
 
130 
 
 the fact must ever be the same, until the church 
 becomes, what her Master intended she should 
 be, — a purely moral association; distinguished by 
 principles, which I have never shown any disposi- 
 tion to surrender, and which Dr. M. happily de- 
 scribes as being * ^absolutely essential to christian 
 character;" and devoted to sustain a conflict with 
 sin in the world, by weapons that are not ^^carnal,'' 
 but spiritual or moral. Such is my candid opin- 
 ion; and for myself, I must protest against an ec- 
 clesiastical creed, of any mould or size, being 
 pressed upon my conscience, or the conscience of 
 any other man, who may scruple the propriety of 
 such a measure. And this I say, not from any de- 
 sire to avoid giving "a reason for the hope that is 
 in me," for that has been frequently and fully done; 
 and those, with whom I have heretofore been asso- 
 ciated, have as much personal knowledge on that 
 subject, as they have either right or necessity to 
 demand. 
 
 At the same time others may think differently. 
 They may conceive ecclesiastical creeds to be both 
 necessary and useful: and they may plead con- 
 science with as much earnestness and candour as I 
 can do. The feelings and habits of society ought 
 to be respectfully treated, and patiently borne with. 
 On this principle was based my conference with the 
 committee, appointed by the synod; and on this 
 same principle should I continually feel myself 
 called upon to act with my fellow men. If then 
 the present illustrations shall be found to coincide 
 
131 
 
 with the suggestion which Dr. JVPs correspondent 
 has made, these previous explanations may protect 
 them from being misunderstood. 
 
 I have been grossly misinformed, if there are not 
 many, in the presbyterian church, who think their 
 excellent standards to be very much too large. 
 They seem to think that the writers in the present 
 controversy are all astray; and that a middle course 
 ought to be taken. Why then do they not propose, 
 and advocate, such a reform? It certainly rests 
 with them to remonstrate against an evil which 
 they see, and to provide a remedy which they think 
 should be effectual. The fact, however, that such 
 ideas are cherished, if it be a fact, deserves very 
 serious consideration; as it presents an opportunity 
 of affording very extensive, if not entire, relief; and 
 may call forth a good deal more biblical investiga- 
 tion than is common. 
 
 Dr. M. does not, however, favourably receive 
 such an overture. His opinion is, that an ecclesi- 
 astical creed, '^not only lawfully may, but always 
 ought, to contain a number of articles besides those 
 which are fundamental." Of this opinion he offers 
 various illustrations; and the cases which he speci- 
 fies, are not without their force, though they ai'e 
 far from being insuperable. Differences of opinion, 
 it must be conceded, have always existed; and they 
 always must exist, while men have different talents, 
 and are placed in different circumstances. But can 
 human creeds obliterate these differences? Or do 
 they not rather perpetuate them, and, by creating 
 
132 
 
 parties, extend the collision? In the present eondi- 
 tion of the church, while divided into voluntary 
 associations, and zealously contending for sectarian 
 articles, is there any likelihood that a reconciliation 
 will very speedily take place? Is there any proba- 
 bility of such a happy issue, on any other principle 
 than this, — that, divested of the prejudices of a 
 party, men should be constrained to study the Bi- 
 ble for themselves? To my mind this seems to be 
 the only feasible plan, in consistency with human 
 free-agency. It might be slow in its operations, 
 but it would be certain and eifectual: and would 
 save society from those dreadful judgments, which, 
 reasoning from the history of past ages, may ere 
 long overtake her; and which will devolve upon 
 generations yet to come the duty of remodelling 
 our social institutions on simple and better princi- 
 ples. The proposition, made by ^^a gentleman of 
 Baltimore," might prove to be, if adopted, the 
 beginning of better days, and the harbinger of an 
 entire redemption from the control of sectarian law. 
 Each successive generation Avould learn to find truth 
 somewhere else than in theological subtleties, or 
 external forms. That which is substantial in mo- 
 rals would every day appear more important and 
 desirable; an extended intercourse, with a more 
 candid exchange of sentiments, would occur; and 
 the direct consequence would be, a much greater 
 degree of assimilation than now exists even in the 
 same denominations. Such is the effect of chris- 
 
133 
 
 tian love, which the scriptures themselves warrant 
 us most distinctly to state. 
 
 The first case which Dr. M. adduces, in order to 
 exemplify his meaning, is the following: — '^The 
 presbyterian church, and most other denominations, 
 who have a regular system of government, be- 
 lieve that the christian ministry is a divine ordi- 
 nance. — Yet there are very pious, excellent men, 
 who have adopted the sentiments of some high- 
 toned Independents, who verily think that every 
 *^'gifted brother," whether ordained or not, has as 
 good a right to preach as any man; and, if invited 
 by the church to do it, to administer the sacra- 
 ment^" — The question between these differing opin- 
 ions, Dr. M. says, is not fundamental, and that 
 no ^'sober-minded presbyterian" would consider it 
 so. Now, if it were not that our ecclesiastical creeds 
 interfered to prescribe certain sectarian notions, 
 there might be some opportunity afforded to argue 
 this question, and very much to the moral advantage 
 of religious society. 
 
 If our creeds were not in the way, I should say, 
 that a '^gifted brother," whose services the people 
 needed and solicited, ought to preach, and that this 
 is the '^divine ordinance." Perhaps, after throw- 
 ing their minds, untrammelled by sectarian re- 
 strictions, upon the scripture page, this matter 
 might be conceded. — What! And may every man 
 then preach, without any reference to a ministerial 
 distinction? I did not say so. There may be ex- 
 travagances on all sides. If none but men of clas- 
 12 
 
134 
 
 sical education, according to our sectarian ideas, 
 may go into the pulpit, how might we suppose a 
 man, occupying moral grounds, to reason under 
 circumstances like these? I do desire the office of 
 a bishop — my * 'bowels yearn" over multitudes 
 perishing around me — I am confident that I under- 
 stand the gospel, and that I can tell my fellow men 
 what they should do to be saved — I ventured late- 
 ly, under the pressure of circumstances, and after 
 much earnest prayer, to address them — my fellow 
 sinners tell me their eyes have been opened, and 
 that they wish to hear more — by a divine blessing 
 many have become ''hopefully pious" — no regular- 
 ly ordained minister is on the spot — the streams 
 from theological seminaries are like drops to the 
 ocean — now what shall I do? Apply for ordination 
 to a presbytery? I have no theological learning, 
 and I shall be refused. Must I leave these poor 
 sinners and their little ones to perish, when I 
 can tell them what they ought to do? — I can readi- 
 ly conceive that sectarian law may become relaxed 
 under such a moral urgency; for there are some 
 such cases, which scarcely any sectarian can stand. 
 He has resolved to preach, and a blessing comes 
 down upon his labours. Christ's ministers may not 
 have ordained him, but the Master himself has 
 done it. Is there any wonder, that human beings, 
 who so often reason wrong, should, out of an occur- 
 rence of this kind, inconsiderately manufacture a 
 general law? And if our creeds did not prevent 
 us from reasoning in a compassionate and feeling 
 
135 
 
 maiiAer about the moral necessities of our race, 
 might not this whole difficulty be easily removed? 
 Besides. Is not the presbyterian church itself, 
 often compelled to employ a **gifted brother," to 
 meet certain conditions of human society, where a 
 learned brother is not to be obtained? Do notpres- 
 byterians see, that divine providence very often 
 makes a minister, and one most gloriously success- 
 ful too, who never had the advantage of a theologi- 
 cal education? And would it not very much 
 contribute to the enlargement of the presbyte- 
 rian church, and to the salvation of the souls of 
 men, if a multitude of these ' 'gifted brethren" 
 would arise in the midst of our numerous vacan- 
 cies^ and direct men on the road to heaven? But 
 the presbyterian standards call for classical qualifi- 
 cations; and without men, who have been drinking 
 at the fountain of science, their vacancies must be 
 vacancies still. This case, by which Dr. M. would 
 exemplify his meaning, grows out of the moral 
 condition of society; and if there was no other rea- 
 son why our sectarian regulations should be abolish- 
 ed, the existence of such cases is a sufficient one. — 
 In the very form in which Dr. M. states his own 
 example, it is only a lesser evil controlling a greater 
 one; and one too, which, if, in such cases, it be an 
 evil, seems to be protected from censure by the 
 happy consequences which have followed. When 
 our fixed creeds shall have lost their commanding 
 influence, this interesting subject may display its 
 own importance to the eyes and consciences of pro- 
 
136 
 
 t'essing christians; and the extravagances on all 
 sides may be very easily corrected. 
 
 A second example is stated in the ^^Letter." — 
 ^'The question between presbyterians and prelatists 
 is generally acknowledged not to be fundamental. — 
 Still is it not plain, that a body of ministers, entire- 
 ly differing among themselves as to this pomt^ 
 though they might love, and commune with each 
 other, as christians, could not possibly act harmo- 
 niously together in the important rite of ordination; 
 whatever they might do in other religious con- 
 cerns?" Perhaps there has no severer, and yet less 
 profitable, controversy existed in the church, than 
 that to which Dr. M. here alludes; and it appears 
 to be no nearer an amicable settlement now, than it 
 was centuries ago. I am not an episcopalian. I 
 am dipresbyterian; notwithstanding Dr. M. thinks 
 it a '^burlesqueuponevery principle of ecclesiastical 
 nomenclature, "to call myself such; and though I am 
 no advocate for synods or councils, or presbyterian 
 '^courts of review." Yet I do not think that this 
 controversy is worth half as much as has been made 
 of it: but that, when the pretensions of the two par- 
 ties are fairly sifted, they are not very far apart 
 They arc arguing, in a great measure, a mere ques- 
 tion of ecclesiastical politics; such as 'S'oluntary 
 associations" are continually agitating with each 
 other; — a mere matter of form, which may admit, 
 or exclude, the moral operation of the gospel on 
 either side. What is the real difference between 
 hearing a bishop preach, and hearing a presbyter 
 
137 
 
 preach, provided they alike preach the gospel? Can 
 either the one or the other make any thing more ol 
 it than simply this — hearing the gospel? Does not 
 divine providence equally bless their ministrations, 
 in so far as they act consistently with the gospel? — 
 Or what is the real difference between a bishop's 
 diocese, and a presbyterial district — a state con- 
 vention, and a particular synod — the general con- 
 vention, and the general assembly? Are not the 
 ecclesiastical principles very nearly the same, 
 and do not the results perfectly correspond with 
 each other? 
 
 Now is it an improbable result, that if both par- 
 ties should lay aside their sectarian prejudices, so hv 
 that they might respectively examine the scriptures 
 for themselves, instead of quoting the fathers; or if 
 they should seek to construct the church on a moral 
 basis, rather than to become the advocates of eccle- 
 siastical power, — is it an improbable result that they 
 might coalesce? Would not a host of ceremonies be 
 thereby swept away, and the forms of social com- 
 munion speedily grow more simple and natural? 
 Has not Dr. M. himself informed us, ^^thatall;9?*e^- 
 byterians, without exception, a great majority of 
 the best prelatists themselves, and all moderate, 
 sober-minded protestanfs, of every country, ac- 
 knowledge that this point of controversy is one 
 which does by no means affect christian character 
 or hope," — or that it is not fundamental? After 
 such a concession, mutually^ and generally made, 
 where is the difficulty? Is it not, rather to their 
 12* 
 
138 
 
 common reproach, than any thing else, that this co- 
 alition has not long since been effected? Did not 
 Archbishop Usher again and again propose a scheme 
 of the * ^episcopal and presbyterian church govern- 
 ment conjoined?" Nay, if I mistake not — I cannot 
 now make my reference, — did he not permit pres- 
 byters, of a presbyterian sect, to unite with him in 
 the ordination of a presbyter? — Once more, I ask, 
 where is the difficulty? Is there any thing to pre- 
 vent, save the indefensible doctrine of voluntary 
 associations, or the dominion of ecclesiastical creeds, 
 which have transmitted to us some of the worst, 
 and left out some of the best, ideas and practices of 
 ages past? Do not the scriptures evidently contem- 
 plate such simplicity and harmony, when they sim- 
 ply require that elders should be ordained in every 
 city? And are there not moral feelings enough in 
 every community speedily to accomplish the whole, 
 if an opportunity was offered? But while the minis- 
 try make these things, which are not fundamental, as 
 important as if they were fundamental, and so po- 
 sitively assert them in their ecclesiastical creedsj or 
 demand them by their ecclesiastical laws, how can 
 a reconciliation be effected? How can peace be es- 
 tablished where strife is, or where angry feelings 
 are restrained only by a mere lack of opportunity to 
 express them? 
 
 Dr. M, gives a third example. — **No man in his 
 senses will consider the question, which divides the 
 Pedobaptists and Antipedobaptists, as a fundamen- 
 tal one." — I approach this subject with a very dif- 
 
139 
 
 ferent set of feelings from those elicited by either of 
 the other cases. There is no form of controversy in 
 the church, which T so deeply regret. It makes its 
 appeal to the finest affections, and not unfrequently 
 invades the tenderest joys, of the parental heart. 
 But might it not be argued mildly and respectfully? 
 Might not the Antipedobaptist consent, that his 
 brother should peacefully enjoy a privilege he so 
 highly prizes, and leave him to hold what he has 
 taken as a scriptural pledge from Him, who is ^'the 
 resurrection and the life,'' that the little ^4amb," 
 which has been taken from his bosom, the great 
 Shepherd has mercifully folded in his own? Is it 
 right to disturb the exercises of faith, so calmly re- 
 posing on the Redeemer's faithfulness? And on the 
 other hand, might not the Pedobaptist consent that 
 his brother should forego what he feels not to be a 
 privilege, and which he thinks his Lord has not 
 commanded? Is there any requisition that the indi- 
 vidual, whose child is not baptized, should be ^^cut 
 off from^among his people?" And after all, is this 
 not one of those v?ry subjects, in which a similarity 
 of sentiment might eventually be brought about? 
 When christians mortify their controversial tem- 
 pers^ and submit their minds to the simple influence 
 of the scriptures, light often breaks in unexpectedly: 
 the Spirit teaches an honest and prayerful inquirer 
 whatever his soul earnestly desires to know, and 
 which is necessary to the discharge of his own du- 
 ties; He who is the covenant God, not only of the 
 righteous, but of their seed also, has some tender 
 
140 
 
 lessons to teach a believing parent even on this sub- 
 ject; and a difference, wliich cannot be reconciled 
 by that species of argument, which has been used, 
 might perhaps be readily healed by that affectionate 
 intercourse which divine ordinances are designed to 
 cultivate. — The reader will remember, that my doc- 
 trine requires me to make large calculations on the 
 influence of God's word and spirit. 
 
 Dr. M. presses this apparent difficulty with con- 
 siderable ardour. I will state a parallel case, and 
 apply his own argument to it. In the apostolic 
 church, there w^as considerable difficulty concerning 
 the lawfulness of eating certain ''meats." Paul 
 argues on the subject frequently in his epistles, and 
 states the question uniformly as involving nothing 
 fundamental. ''Meat," says he, "commendeth 
 us not to God: for neither if we eat, are we the bet- 
 ter; neither if we cat not, are we the w^orse.*' Yet 
 there was much, and very hurtful, controversy about 
 this point. Ministers disagreed as well as private 
 christians: apostles themselves, seem sometimes on 
 opposite sides: and the whole interests of the Jew- 
 ish and the gentile churches, as being introduced into 
 a common heritage, were jeoparded by their con- 
 tentions. Now to apply Dr. M'S argument: — 
 "What would be the situation of a church equally 
 divided, or nearly so, on this point; ministers as 
 well as private christians continually differing among 
 themselves; members of each party conscientiously 
 persuaded that the others were WTong; each laying 
 great stress on the point of difference, as one con- 
 
141 
 
 cerning which there could be no compromise, or ac- 
 commodation; all claiming, and endeavouring to 
 exercise the right, not only to reason, ):i\it to act, 
 according to their respective convictions; and every 
 one zealously endeavouring to make proselytes to 
 his principles and practice? Which would such a 
 church most resemble — the builders of Babel,when 
 their speech was confounded; or a holy and united 
 family, 'Svalking together in the fear of the Lord, 
 and in the consolation of the Holy Ghost, and edi- 
 fying one another in love?" 
 
 This statement most accurately and minutely des- 
 cribes the condition of the apostolic church in rela- 
 tion to '^meats." Dr. M. reasons right, when he 
 foretells the consequences of such proceedings. Now 
 for the conclusion: — They certainly ought to have 
 separated, as they could not be ^'comfortable in the 
 same ecclesiastical com.munion:" they should have 
 erected differentrvoluntary associations, and framed 
 creeds, in which they might have asserted their own 
 particular belief on this subject, which was not fun- 
 damental: one should have taken Paul for its head; 
 and another should have taken Peter for its head, 
 every where spreading abroad, how rudely Paul had 
 treated Peter, in reproving him for his dissimulation. 
 Most assuredly this is the legitimate conclusion from 
 Dr. M's premises. But is it scriptural? Did Paul 
 urge such a course? Or, when it was likely to be 
 adopted, did he not exert all his influence to crush 
 this rising schism? Did he not forbid their doubt- 
 ful disputations? Did he not solemnly warn them 
 
142 
 
 not to ''judge one another?'' Did he not affection- 
 ately exhort them to cherish that ''love which work- 
 eth no ill to his neighhour;" and which is the "ful- 
 filling of the law;" and to seek "to be like-minded 
 one towards another, according to Christ Jesus," 
 that they might, ''with one inind and one mouth, 
 glorify GodV^ Did he not command them — "Re- 
 ceive ye one another, as Christ also received us, to 
 the glory of God?" Did the apostles at Jerusalem 
 decide that it was better for these disputants, more 
 conducive to peace, and more likely to fulfil the 
 great purposes for which the church was instituted, 
 that they should be separated? And down even as 
 late as the days of Justin Martyr, did he not feel 
 himself warranted to say, concerning Jewish converts 
 that adhered to Mosaical rites, "that if they did this 
 only through their weakness and imbecility, and 
 did not persuade other christians to the observance 
 of the same Judaical customs, that he would receive 
 them into church fellowship and communionV 
 And would not like reciprocal love and forbearance, 
 produce like happy results, and make the mainte- 
 nance of the unity of the church equally practica- 
 ble? Why not? Human beings are the same now 
 that they ever have been: or if they are not, the 
 advantage should certainly be found Avith us, seeing 
 we have every privilege which our fathers had, and, 
 in addition, the benefit of their experience to guard 
 us against their mistakes. 
 
 I see not then, why an ecclesiastical creed, if 
 such a thing there must be, should not be redu- 
 
143 
 
 ced, so as to embrace merely fundamental mat- 
 ters, or those items which are * ^absolutely essential 
 to christian character." Real Christianity will al- 
 ways sustain itself. If men will only obey her 
 dictates, whether they be in the ministry or not, 
 nothing need be apprehended for the result. But 
 when ecclesiastical influence is the prize to be won, 
 then any evil may follow^ and all the ecclesiastical 
 creeds which may be made, cannot prevent the evil. 
 But if a course thus lenient, and evidently called for 
 by the circumstances of the church, some, at least, 
 of the advocates of creeds themselves being judges, 
 cannot be admitted, then they who may, but will 
 not, afford relief, must take the consequences. There 
 is another tribunal before which we must all appear, 
 and where the law of God itself, unfettered by our 
 arbitrary explanations, will form the rule of judg 
 ment. Not to act according to the word of God 
 now, surely argues want of preparation for the ar- 
 bitrement of the last day. — Reader, beware. Pause 
 and reflect. Ecclesiastical policy is not redeeming 
 love. Ecclesiastical creeds are not the rules of the 
 Master's procedure. The Bible is his— sectarian 
 formularies are our own. Lo! He cometh quickly, 
 and His reward is with him, to give every man ac 
 cording as his work shall be. I pray you, '^stand 
 fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us 
 free, and be not again entangled with the yoke of 
 bondage. '' ''Hold fast what thou hast, that no man 
 take thy crown." 
 
 THE END. 
 
Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 
 
 1 1012 01114 1605