If- d ALUMNI LIBRARY, I - % THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, | PRINCETON, N. J. ^ I) SUvlf\ c 4 f0—\ / fri^<^/ /AV. I kr $ ^ ei />'^ >^ S' '0 LETTER t ^ Offentlcmatn of 2JaU(wove, IN REFERENCE TO THE CASE OF THE REV. Mn. DUIJOAN. BY SAMUEL MILLER, D. D. Professor of Ecclesiastical "istory and Church Government, in the Theolfi- gical Seminary, at Princeton, JV. /. The wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable. — ^James iii. 17. ^Irfnccton titpss : JPRIJSTTED BY D. A. BOfiliEJVSTEIjY. 1826 0- ^ »rttrr> &c. MY DEAR SIK, Your communication of the second instant reach- ed me a few days ago. For the many expressions of respect and kindness which it contains, I am very much your debtor. For the information which it gives me, I return you many thanks. And with the opinions which it intimates contrary to my own con- victions of truth and duty, I am by no means offend- ed ; but rather feel thankful that your lot and mine are cast in a land in which to every man the privi- lege is secured, " et sentue quse velit, et quae sentiat dicere." It has been, for some time past, my fixed pur- pose not to break siknce on the principal subject to which you refer. And to adhere to this purpose, is still my prevailing inclination. Yet to queries ofTer- ed with such a spirit, and for such an object, as those which appear to pervade your Letter, I cannot re- fuse a short reply; especially as you seem to think, and assure me that others have thought, that the cause of truth requires me to say something. I. Your first inquiry is, " Why I have so long delayed to take any publick notice of the Reverend Mr. Duncan's volume on ' Creedsv' published near- ly a year ago; and whether, as has been rumoured among some of my friends, it is my design to remain silent in reference to that publication r" In answer to this inquiry, i have to say, that I read Mr. D.'s book, in a short time after its appear- ance, with all that attention, which the deep impor- tance of the subject, and my own peculiar interest in the discussion, w^ere likely to excite. Whether my perusal was an impartial one, it becomes not me very confidently to pronoimce. But the issue oi it was a prompt and firm determination, unless some unexpected occurrence should lead to a different view of the subject, never to take the least publick notice of the work. The reasons which led me to form tliis determi- nation were the following. In the first jilare ; I have a native and strong aversion to controversy ; an aversion which increases with my age. In the next plrice ; my professional avocations are very pressing ; my heaiih is infirm ; and my mo- ments of leisure, of course, are very few. Tlw^.se mo- ments I am anxious to hushaii.l vvitli the utmost vi- gilance, for the purpose of executing;, if Providence permit, some plans which are with me peculiarly fa- vourite objects, and from which I feel unwilling to be diverted by the further pursuit of this contro- versy. Further; I had resolved, from the begih- mnz, to have no public dispute with Mr. Duncan. Every man, it is presumed, who is at liberty to choose his antagonist, will take care to make a choice which will suit himself. Now, I early discovered, or thought 1 discovered, that Mr. D. although en- dowed with many highly estimable qualities, which invite acquaintance, and command respect ; and ca- pable of a sort of rhetorical writing which is well calculated to make an impression on a large class of readers ; was still a (!ontrovertist by no means to my taste. He appears to me so singularly prone to miss the point of the argument w hich he undertakes to answer; and, at the same time, dogmatizes with such peculiar positiveness ; is so perfectly sure of his own infallibility; and seems so confidently to expect that this will go for argument ; that I felt in- superable reluctance to entering the lists with such a cham{)ion. Accordingly, when I prepared and published my " Lecture on Creeds," it was not with- out design that I excluded from it all reference, or even allusion to him. My purpose, for substance, remains the same. Nothing, that I can foresee, shall drive me from my resolution to involve myself in no publick controversy with that Gentleman. Again ; I can perceive no benefit as likely to arise from a continuance of the discussion on Creeds. The sober and thinking part of the community, it appears to me, neither need nor uish it ; — and, with respect to others, if ever so much were written, it "Would never be seriously read by them. But the final and conclusive reason why I have forborne to make any answer to Mr. D's book, is, that it really requires no answer. He is so far from having invalidated, or even weakened, any of the arguments in favour of " Creeds," urged in my "Introductory Lecture," that he has hardly so much as touched them. If this were my own opinion, merely, 1 might, with good reason, suspect it of in- correctness. For every man's cause is apt to be " right in his own eyes," until " his neighbour com- eth, and searcheth him out." But I have conver- se ! repeatedpy with some of the most acute and en- lightened men in our country, and solicited their candid judgment as to the real force of Mr. D's book. And they have all, with a single exception, united strong- ly in the opinion, that he has written nothing which impairs, in the least degree, the strength of my reasoning ; nothing which jjossesses such a degree, even of plausibility, as to demand a reply. Why, then, should I write again, even if I were ever so fond of theological warfare ; when all my original positions remain, not only unshaken, but really, un- assaileci ? Shall I array new arguments ? more are not necessary until the old ones are disposed of. Shall I repeat the old ones ? I cannot prevail on myself to think this duly respectful either to Mr. D. himself, or to the publick. And, at any rate, it would be, if I am not totally deceived in my vievr of the subject, as purely a work of superrogation as ever was undertaken. For such undertakings I have neither time nor inclination. I take for granted, indeed, that Mr. D. honest- ly views what he has done in a very different light. He, no doubt, believes that he has effectually de- molished the citadel of Creeds, and scarcely " left one stone upon another." This is evident from the bold and triumphant style in which he closes many of his trains of illustration and profess- ed reasoning. But I must be allowed to question whether reflecting readers, who are disposed seri- ously to examine this subject, and who look for so- lid argument from those who discuss it, will be sa- tisfied with such logick as that with which his book abounds. In order to convince you that I am nei- ther fastidious nor unreasonable, in saying, that I cannot and will not enter the lists of controversy with such a writer, let me beg that you will take another glance at what he has written — (a very cursory one will be sufficient,) and see whether he have not, most glaringly, laid himself open to the following charges. 8 1. It is evident tlot, in the warm appeals, and imposing cle( ianintion, which fili ihe greater part of his voluirse, he is contkinding without an ad- VKi^sAHY. When he labours, through so many pajies, to shew — That "the Bibk^ is the word of God;'*' — that as such, "it is obligatory on the hu- iTian conscience." — that " it is precisely suited to hi'man Icings as sinful and fallen, and embraces in its jnovisions all that is j)eculiar either in their char- acter or their condition ;" — that " the Scriptures have expressed their most poirited disap|)robation of all human institutions that interfere with the autho- rity ofGod over the conscience ;" that " the Bible is the paranK)unt and only infalible rule of faith and practise ;" — and that, of course, to attempt to put any other rule in its place, is direct rebellion against the Supreme Head of the Church:" — When he em- ploys, I say, so iiuich im|;assioned declamation to establish these positions, a cursory reader would be apt to suppose that the friends of Creeds altogether deny, or, at least, do not fully admit them. Yet IVir. D. knous, and every sol)erminded man in the com- munity kncnys, that this is not the fact. The advo- cates of Creeds p(Mfectl) agree with him in all these positions. There are no proli ssing ( hristians in the world who coiucnd more earuestlv than they do, for the divine excellence and supreme authority of the Scri}nur( s ; who deprecate more sincerely and un- ceasingly, the substiruiion of any other authorita- tive ride in the | lace of .tbe Scri|;tures; or who auuiii more reacii.yj that Creeds aad Confessions. as well as the opinions of those who form them, are to be tried by the Scrijitures, and to be received or rejected according to their agreement or non-agree- ment with this perfect test. All these principles are set forth, in the Confession of Faith and Catechisms of our church, with an explicitness and a solemnity which I should certaiidy suppose must preclude the possibility of misapprehension. Why, \\wn so aiiich formality of effort to establish them ? 1 cannot, and do not, admit the supposition, that a gentleman of Mr. D's honourable feelings wished to make the publick believe that the) were not allowed by those with whom he was engaged in controversy. But whatever might have been his motive, it is cer- tain that in all he has said on these jjoints, he has not a Presbyterian adversary in existence. Nay more ; not only are these principles avowt^d by our Church, in the most explicit m uuier, in her Symbolical Books; but she has uniformly acted in accordance with them. In ;di her pidiiick acts, she is in the constatit habit of referring to the Scriptures, as the only perfect and infallil)lt test of truth. In support of every clause in her Confession ot Faith, she formally adduces cpiotations from the Scripnucs ; and has never, to ni} know K dge, in any one instance, offered to set up any other test, either alK)ve them, or in competition with them. Of this a more strik- ing proof is not necessary than an extract from that very Formula by which oiu' candidates for Li ons, as these. They certainly lead to coiisecpien- ces, as before stated, which I should think, the. Brother could not have didy considered. But one consecjuence undoubtedly is, that if it be so, the Church can never publish any peculiar or dis- tino^uishing testimony in favour of the truth, even when most boldly attacked. For, according to tliis doctrine, all that she is at liberty to do, is to pro- fess her belief in the Bible ; — and it must be the . wiioLF. Bible; for no selections can be made; — no particular points, which have been specially at- tacked, can be marked as the objects of special de- • fence. She can only proclaim and reiterate that she believes the Bible, and, perhaps, publish, un- der her own name, a new edition of it! But to what does this amount? Are not the very worst he- reticks in the community in the constant habit of doing the same? What, then, becoines of the Church's testimony to the truth, as a distinctive 53 and useful service rendered to the cause of Christ in the world ? What do Christians, in this case, more than others ? Verily, it appears to me that Mr. D's plan would divest the Church of the whole efficien- cy of her character as a ivitness for the truth, and reduce her to the station of a tame spectator of the most furious attack of its enemies. • The pious TValdenses, and other witnesses for the truth, during the dark ages, according to this doc- trine,, did wrong in forming abstracts of Christiaa truth, to which they required the assent of those who were candidates for the sacred office among them ; by which they made known their holy faith to others ; and by mf'ans of which they " shone as lights in the world." They did what was not " re- quired at their hands." They ought only to have professed their general belief in the Bible, as the corrupt Papists around them did. But, then, where woidd have been their testimony ? How should we ever have known wherein they differed, or that they differed at all, from the Papists ? My dear Sir, my respect for Mr. D. prevents me from giving utter- ance to my impres^on of the length and breadth of the absurdity involved in this wonderful doctrine ! 5. A. still more remarkable charge to which Mr. D's. book is liable, is, that while he maintains, with so much zeal and vehemence, the utter unlawful- lyess of all Creeds and Confessions, he distinctly A-LLOWS THE INDISPENSABLE NECESSITY OF HAVIN* Q S4 A Confession of Faith, and confesses that he HAS, and employs ONE HIMSELF ! In page 99, he explicitly grants, if 1 understand him, that no man ought to be admitted to the com- munion of the Christian Church, who does not be- lieve in the Divinity and atonement of the Saviour ; and that the inspired apostles would never have baptized, and, of course, that a christian minister* now, ought not to baptize the child of one who did not receive the doctrine of the Trinity. In page 81, he concedes, that, in the primitive Church, " here- 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 prin- ciples.^"^ And again, in pages 100 and 101, he con- cedes, that there must be, in all churches, and that by Divine authority, a reception of certain funda- mental doctrines, "as a term of communion in spir- itual things." Now, I ask, does Mr. D. mean,that those who apply for the privileges of church com- munion shall be received, of course, when they pro- fess in ijeneral to believe the Bible ; while they are known, from private conversation, to be Arians or Socinians in sentiment ? Or does he mean that the Church, by her pastor or rulers, shall ascertain, by the use of human language, whether the applicants really adopt certain fimdaniental doctrines which the Church fully believes to be taught in Scripture ? The latter is plainly intimated. Hereticks, however 35 loud their general profession of belief in the Bible, are to be " censured and avoided by common con- sent, under the operation of that inherent power, which all religions society has to regulate itself ac- cording to its own constituent principles." In other words, religious society must be considered as hav- ing the power to interrogate those, who solicit her to receive them, whether they believe certain doc- trines which she considers as taught in Scripture, and as necessary to salvation ? If so, hoiv 7iiany of the doctrines which she deems highly important, and which she finds in Scripture, is she at liberty to make " a term of communion in spiritual things ?" And who is to judge for the church in this matter ? Must it not necessarily be left to her own judgment in the fear of God ? Mr. D. tells us, that he most readily allows the use of a Creed; but then it must be di Divine not a human Creed. L ask, Did ever any cliurch, calling itself christian, adopt a Creed, every article of which it did not fully believe to be taught in the word of God, and, of course, to rest on Divine authority ? The truth is, no church ever did, or ever can, get along, a single day, without a Creed, of more or fewer articles, and more or less formally exhibited. This I asserted in my " Introductory Lecture,"- and Mr. D. exemplifies and confirms the assertion. The principle is the same, whether the articles included in the Creed be few or numerous. No church, indeed, is at liberty to insert in her Creed, a single Jirticle that is not plainly taught in Scripture. Yet the 36 HUtnber of articles ou2;ht to depend very much oa the state of the world and of the church, and on the number and malignity of the heresies which may be prevalent when a given Creed is formed. And on these points, the church must be left, a5 I said, on her own responsibility, to judge. But I will ven- ture to say, that, however few and simple the articles, they must afl of necessity, be expressed and enforc- ed in human language. To exemplify my meaning. Suppose a church had a Creed of only one article, and that relating to the Divinity of Christ, and con- sisting simply of a literal copy of the most clear and decisive text in the whole New Testament in sup- port of that doctrine. And suppose a zealous Uni- tarian were to apply to be received into the ministry in that church. If he were called upon to assent to that article, as a term of admission, he might, on his principles, do it without scruple. For, professing to believe the ivhole Bible, he could, of course, adopt, as a part of his Creed, that particular text. If asked, however, whether he believed in the true and proper Divinity of Christ, he would naturally reply — " No, certainly, I believe no such thing. The text in ques- tion, as I understand it, does not teach that doctrine. Your construction is a mere human gioss. I am willing to subscribe to the text as a part of the Bi- ble, and in what I consider as its real meaning ; but not in conformity with your comment." A single case of this kind, — and such a case, or those analo- gous to it, might be supposed frequently to arise — completely proves, not only that Creeds may be 37 drawn up in human language, but that they must bcj if we would wish them to answer the purpose of ex- cluding those, who, while they profess to believe the whole Bible, may and do, notwithstanding, reject all its most fundamental and precious doctrines. Mr. D. th'cn, if I understand him, admits the gen- eral principle of Creeds : that is, though he will not allow a church to reduce to writing, in her own language, a series of doctrines, which she considers as drawn from the Scriptures, and require the as- sent to it of a candidate for her ministry ; nor, as it seems, will he allow a church to form a series of extracts from the Bible, and require assent to them for a similar purpose ; because this would be detach- ing the passages in question from the connection in which they stand in the Bible : — yet he does allow that every Church may have a Creed, and not only so, but that, keeping her own principles in view, she may and ought to exclude from her communion those whom she considers, according to the sense which she puts on Scripture, to be heretical. This is enough for me. It is virtually giving up the whole argument. But this is not the worst. It is placing the use of Creeds on the most dangerous possible footing. The questions by which it is to be ascertained whether the candidate for admission be heretical or not, are, of course, to be stated oral- ly. By whom ? No doubt by the minister or minis- ters who may be called to officiate in a j)articular case ; and just in that shape,and in those terms, which 38 mny suit the individual or individuals who propose them. Now, only suppose a deficiency of intellect, of prudence, or of principle, in the ministers who act in such a case, and it is evident that this nuncu- pative or oral Crimed may be emj)loyed either as an instrument of personal hatred, to exclude the most worthy ; or of equally base favour, to admit the most unqualified and vile. Commend me to a church whose terms of admission are known, publick and open ; who cannot employ her invisible and in- tangible Creed, with inquisitorial caprice and malig- nity on the one hand, or with worldly suppleness and accomodation on the other : who has digested, recorded, published Formularies, which all who choose may study at their leisure, and which, of course, can put no unexpected trap in the way of any 6. The sixth and last charge, which I shall men- tion, to which Mr. D's book appears to me to be lia- ble, is, that it is wholly irreconcileable with the con- stitution, not merely of ouk Church, but of any Presbyterian Church. I am of the opinion, that Mr. D's fabrick cannot stand, even on the principles of sober hidepeiidency. Nothing is more certain than that the late Rev. Dr. Fuller, of England, a warm friend to Independent church goverment, and surrounded by what might really be called the imposition of Creeds on the con- sciences of men — was yet wise enough to distinguish 39 between the use and abuse of them. He was a warm advocate of Creeds and Confessions, precise- ly on the principles of my " Lecture," and, very un- ceremoniously, pronounces some popular objections brought against them, in that view, as ''frivolous^ Many other distinguished Independents have taken the same ground. But that Mr. D's whole scheme is radically and essentially inconsistent with every form of real Presbyterianism I entertain not a shad- ow of doubt. Whatever else he may be, he is not a Presbyterian ; and to call himself, or his Congrega- tion by that name, is a burlesque upon every princi- ple of ecclesiastical nomenclature. The essential principles of Presbyterian chu'ch government— each of which may be considered as a sine qua non in the system, as such — are, the pa- rity OF Ministers— conducting the discipline in each congregation by a bench of Ruling Elders — and Courts OF Review and Controul. Where any one of these features in the plan is altogether wanting — there may be a church, and a very pious, exemplary, excellent church ; but it cannot, properly speaking, be considered as a Presbyterian Church. A number of particular churches, or congregations, may each conduct its internal government by Ruling Elders ; but still, if they be not all bound together by a system of regulation which embraces them all, and which, by a series of ascending judicatorieSj gives to a larger part of the church, the power of inspecting and regulating the proceedings of a small- 46 er, until we reach the highest judicatory, constitut- ed by representative from all the churches, and which forms the common bond of union, advice, and co-op- eration for the whole body ; they are, certainly, not organized upon Presb} lerian princijjles. It is not necessary, indeed, that there be any particular num- ber, or the same denominations of judicatories, in all cases, in order to form a Presbyterian Church. The Reformed Presbyterian, or Cameronian Church, had, a few years ago, only a single Presbytery in the United States. But although they had then, no higher judicatory, they were strictly Presbyterian ; because their Presbytery inspected all their Congre- gations, received appeals, when necessary, from all their church sessions, and judicially regulated the affairs of their whole body. They had no need of any higher judicatory, because their ministers were few, and could all meet in Presbytery. When this principle of joint representation of all the churches in their proper judicatories, and of mutual inspection, co-operation and controul, is abandoned, genuine Presbyterianism is abandoned. Just as in the civ- il government, if all the townships in Neiv-Jersey, or in Maryland, had a separate and independent con- stitution and system of laws ; each its own little executive, legislature and judiciary ; and each pursu- ino' its own views of interest, without any reference to the rest; and without any common government over the whole ; there would be a number of petty eommuities ; but there would no longer be, in the popular sense of that word, in our country, a State. 41 Just as necessary is it, in order to form a PresbyteF- ian Church, that there be a regular, acknowledged, and uniform judicial constitution, binding all the individual churches together in one iiomogeneous body. Now, it is not only evident, that Mr. D's whole book is hostile to this well-compacted and scrii)tural plan ; and that, while he calls himself a Presbyter- ian, he is really in principle and spirit an alien from at least one essential feature of the whole system ; but it-is no less evident that his " no cret^d" doctrine, in paiticular,suits only the most lax and wild Inde- pendency that can be conceived ; and cannot, indeed, be easily reconciled with anv other. It avowedly leaves every individual church to decide and to shrink from the task of defending the truth, when 1 see it really labouring ; for, such as I am, I have humbly endeavoured to consecrate myself to a course of labour in this vocation, to my latest breath. And least of all, because I consider any one of my argu- ments in favour of Creeds as having been refuted or even seriously assailed by that Brother. But be- cause I am perfectly persuaded that undertaking to reply to him would be a superfluous task. There is absolutely no need of it. If through a great part of 44 his book, he is labouring to prove that, which no body with whom he has any thing to do, denies ; if, with singular infelicity, he scarcely ever per- ceives or touches the real point of the argument, and when he does for a moment touch it, draws conclusions which reduce himself to absurdity ; if he has never yet condescended to tell us, how the all-important objects to the attainment of which Creeds have been hitherto considered as indispen- sable, may be attained without them ; if, after all, he admits, that every church that would exclude he- reticks from her bosom, must have and use a Creed ; and if, while he calls himself, and wishes to be con- sidered, a Presbyterian, he is opposing, and ex- erting himself to the utmost to subvert, some of the most essential principles of that form of church gov- ernment. If these things be so, it cannot be sup- posed that, in this community, such writing needs to be refuted. I will only add, before proceeding to another par- ticular, that if 1 could have persuaded myself that the uncommonly clear and powerful Review of Mr. D's work, by the venerable Editor of the " Christ- ian Advocate," had been generally read by those who take an interest in this discussion, I should cer- tainly have thought the foregoing detail altogether unnecessary. But, as you intimate that this, for various reasons, is not the fact, I have not scrupled to bring into view a number of points well treated in that able performance, for the sake of presenting a general survey of the subject. 45 II. You inform me, " that Mr. D. in the opin- ion of many people, bj his lar^^e quotations from my " Letters on the Christian Ministry," published a number of years a^o, has fixed on me the charo-e of inconsistency ; that he has arrayed me against myself, in a manner not very much calculated to gratify my feelings." I can only reply, that I perceive no such inconsis- tency as Mr. D. seems to triumph in exhibiting. On the contrary, I cordially thank him for givino- new and extended circulation to sentiments, which are as fully mine at this moment, and which 1 deem quite as important, as on the day when they were first penned. If I were now about to write and publish on the same subject, I should not wish to modify a thought, or to alter an expression, unless it were to express precisely the same sentiments with still more force and point. And 1 am amazed that Mr. D. should think that he finds any thing in those pages which does not fully quadrate with the contents of my " Introductory l^ecture." What is the amount of that which I maintain in the extracts referred to ? Why, — that the Bible is the only infal- lible rule of faith and practise; that the authori- ty of Christ can be claimed for notliing which is not found, in some form, in his own word ; that the apostolick church, or the church as it existed in the first century, and for a short time afterwards, ex- hibited a degree of simplicity and purity, which has perhaps, never since been equalled ; — that corrup- 46 tion both in doctrine and in practise, before the close of the second century, began to flow in on the Church, and, before the commencement of the fourth had made alarming progress ; — that the Sy- nods and Councils of the first two or three hundred years, were empU)yed by ambitious pastors as means of extending, their power, and of course, en- croaching on the rights of others ; that they very soon fell into the practise of postponing the decisions of Scripture to their own ; — that, consequently the early christian writers, called the " Fathers," can never be safely referred to as a rule either of faith or practise ; that, therefore, all the writings of the Fathers are to be brought to the test of the Bible, and to be judged by that test alone ; that their Creeds and Confession are entitled to no respect whatever from us, ex(;epting in so far as they agree with God's own word ; that, as a necessary in- ference from all these positions, historick fact, is not divine institution; — and that whoever attempts to establish the Divine authority of any thing be- cause it was early introduced, and extensively re- ceived, within the first three or four hundred years, abuses our confidence, and deserts the only infalli- ble rule. Such are the sentiments which Mr. D. finds me avowing, nearly twenty >ears ago, and with these sentiments he profesess to think my present doctrine concerning Creeds ulterly irreconcilable. But why so ? What is there in all this, that militates in the 47 least degree with either the letter or spirit of my " Introductory Lecture ?" Have I not defined a cor- rect Creed (and surely I plead for no otlier than a correct one) to he a "summary of Scriptural truths ;'''' to be worthy of respect only so far as it is a faithful extract from Scripture ; and to have no authority whatever, excepting that which it derives from the consideration that it speaks " as the oracles of God" speak? Now, in what respect the advocate of such a Creed can he considered as taking ground incon- sistent with the foregoing statements, I am utterly at a loss to imagine. I should just as soon have ex- pected to find myself charged with having abandon- ed the christian doctrine of Miracles, because I be- lieved in that of Prophecy. There is not the shadow of discrepance in the case. Nay, if I do not alto- gethe mistake, every phraseology which I employ, and every statement which I make, concerning Creeds, are so far from placing them above the Bible, from giving them any authority independ- ently of the Bible, or founding them on the deci- sions of Synods and Councils ; that the contrary is uniformly and strongly expressed. As Mr. D. however, has so totally failed of un- derstandino; the plain scope of those passages, which he has quoted from my former book ; and as it is possible that some others may blunder as much as he has done ; it may not be improper to make a re- mark or two, which will prevent the most careless reader from hereafter falling into a similar mistake. 48 Because in one hook, I have maintained, that the Fathers were all of them fallible men, and many of them actually erroneous ; that error and ambition early crept into the Church, and led muhitudes to teach for doctrines the coaimandments of men : — and in another booh, have asserted that Creeds and Confessions were found necessary in the Church, even in the Apostles' days ; and that they became more numerous, and more necessary, in the third and fourth centuries and onward, as heresies and schisms, multiplied to corrupt and disturb the church. Because I have made both these state- ments, I am charged with inconsistency. But wherefore ? Both are incontrovertibly true. If I had said, "the clergy of the third and fourth centu- ries formed and enforced certain Creeds, ergo those Creeds were souftd and scriptural," 1 should indeed, have been inconsistent with myself. But I said no such thing. My assertion was, that Creeds and Confessions have actually been found necessary, and have been constantly resorted to in every age of the church. This assertion I endeavoured to illustrate and confirm by a reference, particularly to the early history of the church. Now the cor- rectness of this general statement, in point of fact Mr D. himself does not deny. Nay he unequivocally vouches for it. But, then, he insists that as these Creeds were drawn up during a period when there were so many ecclesiasticks of questionable and suspicious character, we can by no means infer that they were all scriptural and orthodox : or even that 49 the practise itself of making such Creeds, is infalli- bly right. What is this to the purpose ? Who had made any such assertion ? Certainly I had not. Still may there not be something more than plausi- ble in the argumem, that a practise which began in Apostolick times ; which has prevailed in all ages and countries since the christian church had an or- ganized exisience ; and which retains a general pre- valence at the present hour ; — has, to say tiie least, very strong presumption in its favour? Nor- is this argument materially weakened by the fact, that as- piring ecclesiusticks have perverted Creeds to un- hallowed purposes, and even attempted to assign them an authority above that of the Scriptures. The existence of counterfeits, shows that there is some true coin. Mr. D. strangely misunderstands my meaning in another case. Having quoted my assertion, that it is evident from the Epistles of Ignatius^ that every particular worshipping assembly, in the time of that Father, was furnished with a Bishop or Pastor, a bench of Presbyters or Elders, and Deacons; he observes—" We understand this as asserting, what we have already expressed,— that, in those early ages, the Churches, though Presbyterian were inde- pendent.'''' 1 certainly had no thought of being un- derstood as Mr. D> has slated; and have no doubt that every impartial man who reads the work from which this extract is made, will consider me as main- taining that the Christian Church in the days of Ig- D 50 nntius^ as well as in the time of the Apostles, was sTt icTLv PutbUY 1 iHiAN : tliHi is, that, ill rlioM^ '''\ys while every particular ciiureh was iiniishcd wiili a BiNhop, Overseer, or Pastor (wliicli in tho^e toin- parativel} pure and simple tiiiifs, were convertible terms) - with a body of" Kidiii^i-LOIders, and with Deacons;— -all the Churches were united under one couimon faith, government, and s|iiit; — forming one Church — one Bod) — all taking care to '• speak the same thing," ^md to hold fast the same " form of sotmd words." The Apostolick Church, I then thought and still think, knew nothinti of Indepen- dency, in Mr. D's sense of the vvonl. That was a iigment of error, invented 1 know not when Let any man reao the account of the 8} nod of Jtiusa- lem, in the 1 5th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles ; and, in the next chapter, of the '"decrees" of that Synod being sent to all the Churciies, "to be kept ;" and he will see, in my opinion, the essential features of Presb\terianism as distinctly marked, as the warmest friend of that prin)itive and Apostolick form of church government can desire. Further ; \^ hen I say, in my " Introductory Lect- ure," that "the great Protestant maxim, that ihe Bible is the only infallible rule of taith and man- ners, is a precious, all-important truth, and cannot be too often re[ieat(d, if it bk pkopekly (jndkr- STt^oo;"— Mr. D. seems to thinkthat in the closing j)roviso, there is some mischievous, lurkinjr reserva- tion, wiiich by no means corres[*onds with the spir- 51 it of what he finds in the extracts from my former b()(.k. He snspeets that it is intended artftdly to make way for another rule, ro-ordinate with the Bi- b!«", if not siif)erior to it. Tiiis is a total (nisappre- hension. No such covert meaninir was intended, or thoiiiiht of The more literally and strictly the max- im in question is understood, the better it will suit my purpose ; and the only design of (he closinji pro- vision was, to give notice that it must be taken sim- ply and without perversion. Without such perver- sions, for example, as those of whi( h Mr. D. has too often given us specimens; in which t!ie plain import of word^?, and the manifest spirit of an argu- ment, are made to give place to the creations of a heated fancy. For although these perversions, whol- ly unintentional, !• believe, were not fully develop- ed until after my '• Lecture" had apjieared ; yet the g( rms of them were sufficiently manitested in his first publication. III. In reply to your request, that I would "give you my ojiinion on the proceedings of the Synod of Phii'adefplua, in the case of Mr. Duncan, and his Conjiregation, at their session in Baltimore, in Oc- tober last," 1 scarcely know what to say. I am not a menjber of that Synod ; and, of course, have no right to sit in Judgment on its acts. I was not pres- ent on the occasion referred to, and consequently cannot be supposed to know any thinn. with cer- tainty, respecting those acts, excepting what the prin- ted Minutes of the Synod contain. Pernaps even liie Dsi expression of my approbation, maybe considered by some as transcending the limits of that modesty and delicacy which peculiarly become a Minister of the Gospel, when a Judicature of Christ, with which he is only remotely connected, is concerned. Yet, as you hav^, with so much frankness, requested an ex- pression of my opinion, in regard to one or two points in the Sy nodical proceedings, I shall, with the same frankness, give you my judgment, trusting to the christian candour of my Brethren of that Synod to appreciate the motives by which 1 am actuated. Your first question, here, is—" Whether it would not have been quite safe — more conducive to peace — and better calculated to conciliate the feelings of the religious pul)lick generally, if Mr. Duncan had been permitted to remain in connection with the church, and with the Synod ?" — You are not alone, my dear Sir, in urging this query. "Where would have been the danger," others "have asked," of al- lowing him to retain his place? What harm could he have done ? He, and the Gentleman whose case was comiected with his, had they been received as members of the Presbytery of Baltimore^ would have been but a small minority of that Body; and, of course, could have carried no system of measures, hostile to our Confession of Faith ; and, as all al- low them to be men of piety and integrity, no vio- lent or dishonourable efibrts on their part, could ever have been apprehended." 53 It ought to be borne in mind, that Mr. D. was not, properly speaking, cast out of the Presbyterian Church ; but voluntaribj withdrew ^-duA declared him- self " no Ioniser a meinlxT of, or amenable to the Synod of Phikuielpkia^ nor to any Presbytery with- in its bounds, or under the care of the General As- sembly." It is true, indeed, the Synod had just be- fore passed a vote, which most tmequivocally ex- pressed, as the opinon of a laro;e majority, that he coidd not regularly retain his connection with the Synod in consistency with the opinions which he had avowed. Still they did not formally exclude him. The act which severed hi;- connection with our Body was, in the first instance, his oivn, and ought to be so understood ; although [)romptly followed up by an act of the Synod, ratifying and declaring the fact, that he was no longer to be considered as a Minister of the Presbyterian Church. Now I have no hesitation in acknowledsine: that, so far from thinkiiiii Mr. D's continuance in the Church likely to promote peace and union ; I am persuaded it is more safe, more conducive to har- mony, and more adapted to promote good feelings and edification on both sides, that he should be en- tirely separated from it. I know nothing; of the ar- guments which were employed on the floor of'the Synod, in favour of the course which was taken, nor of the manner in which they were uttered. But I argue thus : Mr. D. had published a book against Creeds and Confessions, which he avowed and jus- tified. He declared to the venerable Committee of 54 the Synod, a}3pointpd to confer with him, that he siili eiitt'itaiiied the opinions published in that book; tliat he clainied a right freelj to express them oq all occasions on v\hi(h he should think it his duty so to do, aiid to act accordmgly. His companion ia sentiment, and in conduct, the Rev. Mr. MacleaHj made, most unequivocally, the same avowals. In these circumstances, the Synod was called to decide, whether it was for the purity, peace ant edihcation of the church, to attach to one of their Presbyteries two Gentlemen who had avowed the most ardent opposition to all clerical subscriptions to Creeds and Formtdas ; who, a few months before, had actually concurred in licensiuj^ and sending forth mto the church a Preai her without requiring him to adopt our Confession of Faith, and had thereby occasion- ed nmch trouble ; and who, by their avowe I opin- ions and persevering conduct, had given every pledge that whenever any subscription of that kind was to be exacted from candidates, either for licensure or ordination, they would zealously o[ipose a com- pliance with that part of our ecclesiastical Constitu- tion. The Brethren in question, it is to be remember- ed, too, were of no mean or inactive minds. On the contrary, the} had shewn themselves, to be ar- dent, determined, eloquent and indefatigable in the propagation of their hostile sentiments ; and the candidate whom they had licensed without subscrip- tion, a few months before, was said to have manifest- ed peculiar and imremitling ardour in the same cause. Is it wonderful, then, that the Synod, even 55 if they had consultPfl nothing but " the tilings which make for peace," should feel an invinc'ible reluctance, to receiving into the bosom of one of their most iui- porrant Pres[)yteries, seeds of discord and strife, so vivid, and likely to be so fruitful ? Would they not have been likely to entail inces^aut warfare on that part of the Church, and eventually, perhaps, on the W hole of it, rather than to promote its " peace ?" But this is not all. The Presbytery of Balti- more is, as to numbers, a small body: so small in- deed, that on account of the advanced age and de- licate health of some of the members, aud th*' dis- tant residence of others from the usual place of meeting, it has been sometimes extremely difficult t( form a constitutional quorinu. It, therefore, not only might, by possibility, happen, but would be osten extremely likely, in present circumNtani es, in fact, to happen, that two individuals of Mr. U's sen- timents, near at hand, and punctual in their atten- dance, would form a majority of the Presbytery, and, of consequence, be able, in all such cases, to controid its proceedings. Now we have only to suppose two or three such cases actually to have oc- curred, and, on each occasion, one or two mem- bers, " like minded" with themselves to have been brought into the Presbjtcry, and the permanent controul of its proceedings would, of course, have accrued to an anti-Confessional majority. And w hen once a single Presbytery was completely secu- red and subjected to such a party, it is easy to per- 56 ceive. how it might be converted into a machine for multiplying its own advocates, to an indetinite ex- tent, and sending them all over the church. Can any reflecting man for a moment, wonder that the Synod should be unwilling to run the risk of such a result ? And all this, I am persuaded, my dear Sir, would strike you with much greater force, and present it- self to your mind with much more solemn interest, if you were more familiar than you can be supposed to be, with the early history of our church in this country. Nearly a century has now elapsed since the first painful struggle, in reference to the very- point of the present controversy, agitated to its centre the infant American Church. Some years after our ministers began to organize themselves into Presbyteries, they had no other bond of union than the Bible and their old habits : And as they came from different couniries, and their early habits had been in many respects, different, so they knew, perfectly well, that many good men interpreted the Bible very differently. They soon found, therefore, by painful experience, the necessity of some more ex- plicit test, or, in other words, of some explanatory statement, by the application of which they might ascertain in what manner candidates for licensure and ordination muhustood the Bible ; since all class- es, — the heretick equally with the orthodox — were ready to profess a general l)elief in the holy Scrip- tures, After much controversy on the subject, a 57 Hiajrtrity of the Synod of Pluladelphia, — then the only Synod in the American Coh)ni»'s, — in the year 1729, jDHssed what th^y called " l\\e. Adopting Act^^— which required all the actual Ministers within their bounds, as well as all candidates for licensure and ordination, to adopt the Westminister Confession of Faith, together with the Larger and Shorter Cate- chisms, as the confession of their'faith. This was accordingly done : and amidst all the conflicts and chaciges in our beloved church, from that day to the present, the same ecclesiastical Creed has held its place among us, and been sacredly regarded ; ex- cepting that in the Formula of subscription which was adopted in 1788, and which has been in use since that time, nothing is said resprctins; the Cate- chisms. We have known, then, as a Church, the inconvenience and the mischief* of being without a p!il)lickly adopted and accredited Confession of Faith. We have been hap[)y enough to adopt one, after considerable delay, and much painful conHict. It has been blest to ns, as a bond of union, and as a fence to keep out of the sacred fold many an unwor- thy person, who would otherwise have broken in. And shall we now be confident! v told, by those w!io have entirely forgotten, or w ho inner knew, all that has past, that our attachment to Creeds is a blind prejulice; that they nre mischievous rather than useful ; and that we ou they have published to the world, over those who voluntarily place themselves under that discipline^ and only so long as they voluntarily choose to submit to it To charge a judicatory faith- fully acting upon these principles, with ecclesiastical oppression, is surely something worse than absur- dity. The truly venerable and excellent members of the Committee of Synod, who were appointed to confer with Messieurs Duncan and Maclean^ and who reported in favour of retaining them as mem- bers of the Synod, have been considered and pro- nounced, by a number of ill informed persons, as " on the side of those Gentlemen ;" — and have re- ceived much praise, from certain quarters, evidently founded on this supposed fact. But there cannot be a greater mistake. The members of that Com- mittee, in their Report, on record, and now printed, most solemnly declare — " That they do not in the least concur with these Brethren in their opinion re- lative to Creeds and Confessions ; and most expli- citly avow their full belief of the utility of Confes- sions in the Church, and especially of the excellence of that to which the Church to which they belong, adheres." On this point, there seems to have been no diversity of sentiment. Messieurs D. and M. had not, it seems, even a solitary individual in the body who undertook to supj)ort tlieir opinions. The Synod was unanimous. The members differed only as to the safety and expediency of retaining in 63 their body the two Brethren alhided to, notvvith- stHiidiiii]; their opinions. And on this question a large majority decided in the negative. From the foregoing; remarks, you' will perceive my opinion to t)e, that the Synod, in the case of Mr. D. acted regularly, wisely, temperately, and with a dignified and steady adherence to their published rules. What the immediate consequences may be, it is not easj? to decide. — Perhaps painful, for a time^ to both parties — as is often the case when an un- welcome duty is faithfully performed. But thai the effect will be, in the end, salutary, I have no more doubt than I have that truth is mighty, and will prevail. IV. You give me to understand, that, although " you are yourself friendly to Creeds and Confessi- ons, under certain 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 whi(;h are strictly fimdamental:'''' — in other word's, whether we ought ever to insert among the terms of ministerial or christian communion, any more than some half a dozen items,, the reception of which is generally considered as ahsoliUely essen- tial to Christian character. This is a question of real importance, which certainly deserves grave consideration, and a candid answer. And, for one, I have no hesitation in saying, that, in my opinion, 84 church Creeds not only lawfully may^ but ahvf^vs oiiglit^ to contain a nmnljer of articles besides those which are fundamental. And to establish this, as it appears to me, no other pi oof is ne- cessary than* siu)ply to remark, that there are m my points confessedly not fundamental, concern- ing which, neverth(^less, it is of the utmost impor tance, to Christian peace and edification, that the members, and especially the ministers, of every church should be harmonious in their views and practise. As loug as the visille church of Christ continues to be divided into different sections or denominations, the several Creeds, which they etn- plov, if they are to answer auy effectual pmpose at all, must be so constructed as to exclude Irom each those teachers whom it conscieutiously believes to be unscriptural and corrupt ; and whom, as long as it retains this belief, it ought to exclude. To exemplify my meanins;. The Presbyterian Church, and most other denominations, who have a regidar system of government, believe that the christian Ministry is a divitie. ordinance, and that none but those who have been regidarly auth(Trized to discharge these functions, ought, by any means, to attempt to preac'h the Gospel, or administer the Sacraments of the Church. Yet there are wvy pious, excellent men, who have adopted the senti' ments of some high-ton*^d Independents, uho verily think that every "gifted brother," whether ordain- ed or not, has as good a right to preach as any man ; 65 and, if invitrd l>y the chnitli to do it, to administer the SHcrarnfMits. Now, no sober-niinried Preslj_)Te- riaii wiil consider this as a tundanienial question. Fnndrunental, indeed, ii is, to eeclesinstieal order ; but to the existence of christian character it is not. Men may differ entirely on this point, and yet be equMlly united to Christ by faitli, juid, of course equally safe as to their eternal prospects. But would any real, consistent Presbyterian be vvillins: to connect himself with a church, callinoj itself by that name, in which, while one portion considered none but a regtilar minister as competent to tiie discharge of the functions allud. d to ; as ujany of the other portion as chose, claimed and actually ex- ercised the right, to rise in the congregation, and preach, baptize, and dispense the Lord's Supper, when and how each might think proper; and not only so, but when the ordained ministers occupy- ing the pulpit in succession, differed no less entire- ly among themselves in reference to the disputed question ; some encour.tging, an(i others repressing, the efforts of these " gifted brethren ?" I do not ask whether such a church could be tranquil or comfort- able ; but whether it could possibly exist in a state of 'coherence, for twelve months together? Take another example. No man in his senses will consider the question which divides the Pedo- baptists and the Antipedobaptists as a fundamental one. Though I have no doubt that infant baptism is a doctrine of the Bible, and an exceedingly inipor- F 6Q tant doctrine ; and that the rejection of it is a mis- chievous error ; }et 1 have qiiiie as little doubt that some eminently pious men have been of a different opinion. But what would be the situation of a church equally divided, or nearly so, on this point ; ministers as well as private members constantly dif- fering among themselves; members of each party conscientiously persuaded that the others were wrong ; each la^ying great stress on the point of difference, as one concerning which there could be no compromise, or accommodation; all claiming, and endeavouring to exercise the right, not oidy to reason, but to act, according to their respective convictions ; and every one zealously endeavour- ing to make proselytes to his own principles and practise ? Which would such a church most re- semble — the builders of Babel, when their speech was confounded ; or a holy and united Atmily, *' walking together in the fear of the Lord, and in the consolations of the Holy Ghost, and edifying one another in love ?" Let me offer one i 'lustration more. The question between Presbyterians and Prelatists is generally ac- knowledged not to be fundamental. I do not mean that this is acknowledged by such of our Episcopal brethren as coolly consign to what they are pleased to call the " uncovenanted mercy of God," all those denominaiions who have not a ministry Episcopally ordained ; and w ho, on account of this exclusive sentiment are styled by Bishop Andrews, "iron 67 hearted," and by Archbishop Wake, "madmen:" but my meaning is, that all Presbyterians, without exception ; a great majority of the best Prelatists themselves ; and all moderate, sober-minded Protes- tants, of every country, acknowledge that this point of controversy is one which does by no means affect christian character or hope. Still is it not plain, that a body of ministers entirely differing among themselves as to this point; though they mijjht love, and commune with, each other, as Christians ; could not possibly act harmoniously together in the important rite of ordination ; whatever they might do in other religious concerns ? In all these cases, it is evident there is nothing fundamental to the existence of vital piety. Yet it is equally evident, that those who differ entirely and zealously concerning the points supposed, cannot be comfortable in the same ecclesiastical communion. But how is their coming together, and the conse- quent discord and strife, which would be inevitable, to be preventt^d ? I know of no method but so con- structing their Confessions of Faith as to form diff- erent families or denominations, and to shut out from each those who are hostile to its distinguishing principles of order. Perhaps it will be said, that all such precautions are unecessary ; that those who materially differ on such points as have been enu- merated, would never attemj)t )r desire to intrude, into churches with which the} could not substantial- ly co-operate. But the contrary has been found to 68 be most notoriously the fact in a multitude of rases. Nay, ue jiced no other example in point tlian ihe case of Messieurs Duncan and MaaW/Mhrmsrives. If we may judge from Mr. I) s book, they are. in principle, zealous JndepemUrUs ; a; any rate, tlu^v are utterly at war, as we h tveciearly seen, with one of the most jjrominent and conspieuous features in in our system of government. Yet thev applied to be received into one of our Presbyteries; and it was, in fact, nothing but our Confession of Faith which prevented their reception. Of the same thing, examples almost numberless might be pro- duced. One of the most remarkable that now oc- curs to my recollection, is that of the Kev. John Glass, founder of the sect commonly called Gtass- ites, or Sandemanians. Mr. Glass, a little less than a century ago, was a minister in good standing in the Church of Scotland; a man of excellent tal- ents, and of unblemished moral and religiotis char- acter. After a tiai^, he became a zealous, and even violent Independent; indulged, in public and in private, in the most unreserved vituperation of the Presbyterian form of Government, as anti christian and mischievous in a high degree ; and, when call- ed to an account for thus incessantly vilifying and endeavouring to degrade a religious community of which he had solemnly vowed to be an advocate and defender, he attempted to justify his condiut, and declared that it was his intention to continue to pursue the same course as often and as long as he saw cause. At the same time, lie professed 69 an earnest desire to remain in connection with the chdrch which he thus continually reviled aud op- posed ; and when excluded t'roni it, he bitterly com- plained of the act ot" exclusion, as an " oppres- sive" aiivl " persecuting" act ! The fact is, there are many reasons why men often wish to ttvev, or to re- main, in a church, the administration and order, and even doctrine of which, they entirely dislike. 'Ihey do not intend to act dishonestly, nor are they ci>n- scious of doing so ; but old habits, personal connec- tions, an agreeable settlement, the plea of doing more good, &c. led many to take and lo vindicate a course of conduct in relation to this matter, of which, in ref- erence to any othrr s^ubject, they would readily see the crookedness and criminality. I have even known a licensed preaclier remain for years in connexion with the Presbyterian church, from sucii considera- tions as were just mentioned — when his private con- victions were in favour of the nntipedobapt;st doc- trine ; but as he was never ordained, and, of course, was never called to administer the ordinance of Bap- tism, he thought it allowal)le to follow his inclina- tion, and remain in his original connection. It is plain, then, that unless Confessions of Faith contain articles not, strictly speakinii:, fundamental, they cannot possibly answer one |)rincipal purpose for which they are formed, viz. guarding churches which receive the pure order and discipline, as well as truth, of Scripture, from the intrusion of teachers, who, though they may be pious, yet could not fail 70 to disturb the peace, and mar the edification of the more correct and sound part of the body. V. You give me to understand, that many of your neighbours have received such impressions from the late proceedings of the Synod in Baltimore, that they are disposed to adopt, nay, that some of them have adopted the conclusion, that " the spirit of Pres- byterian church government is encroaching, tyran- nical, and utterly irreconcilable with the genius of American institutions, and with the liberal andjcon- ciliatory spirit of the day."— Never was there a more unjust charge. Let us judge of the spirit and character of Piesbyterianism as it appears in this Counthy, .where, for more than a hundred years, it has subsisted, in something like its primitive, and, truly apostolical simplicity ; wholly unconnected with the civil government ; never, in any case, seeking an alliance with it, or aided by it; repeatedly itself oppressed, but never oppressing; and every where commending itself to popular favour, to a degree, every thing taken into view, beyond any oihrr denomination in the United States; not by intrigue ; not by stooping to the arts of an accommodating and adulatory policy ; not even by sending out a host of Itinerants, to pene- trate into every nook, and corner, and neighbourhood of the land, to plant the standard of the cross, as some other rtispectt^d denominations have commend- ably done, and as \Y£. ought to have done, in obe- 71 dience to the command of our Lord : But, under the divine l)lessinji;, by the character of our eccle- siasiical government, and the spirit of our evangel- ical ministrations, commendiiio; themselves to the judgments and consciences of the people. Born and bred in the bosom of this church ; knowing it well, ever since I have been capable of knowing any thing ; and having been for more than thirty years a partaker, in its judicial transactions, I should be guilty of an act of gross injustice to my venerated spiritual Mother, if I did not declare that, so far as I know, there never was an ecclesiastical Body that intrigued less ; that encroached less ; that insisted less upon her own peculiarilies; that was less disposed to contend even for her rights ; and that manifested less of the sprit of sect, than the Presbyterian Church in the United States. Ever ready to meet other churches more than half-way in plans of intercourse and co-operation ; often forbearing even to defend herself, when there was a probability that defence would lead to controversy ; and constantly, as a church, expending her labour, and her funds, in send- ing the Gospel to the heathen and the poor, she has set as blameless an example of deference to the rights of cfnscience, and given as honourable a specimen of zeal for tlie welfare of all classes of her members, as any other church, to say the least, in this favoured land of liberty and privilege. Of all this, the very constitution of our Church affords, as far as any such thing can do, a solemn 72 pledge anrl guaranty. Our judicatories, from the hi:*nest to the lowest, are all made up o laymen as well as clergymen : and in all of ihem, excejjting the highest, if the theory of our government were car- ried into complete effect, there would be a larger nuaiher of the former than of the latter; and in the highest judicatory an equal number. This, of course, gives to the laity of our communion constant and intimate access to all our plans and measures, and all the opportunity that can be desired to exercise their full share of power in controuling those mea- sures. The people cannot be oppressd, unless thej conspire to oppress themselves ! And as the manner in which our judicatories are constituted, is well adapted to secure the rights of the people; so the principles upon which their juris- diction is founded and administered, equally preclude the possibility of oppression. They claim, as I said before, no authority over any minister or any con- gregation, excepting those who, after examining the published doctrine and order of the Church, and de- claring their approbation of the same, have volun- tarily placed themselves under that authority. And even while such ministers or congregations remain under their jurisdiction, they" claim no right to dic- tate to their consciences ; and recognize their entire liberty to withdraw from that jurisdiction the mo- ment they think the exercise of it no longer for their edification. In short, the sum total of their claim, on any minister or any congregation, is, that 73 as lon^ as they think proper to remain under their inspection nnd care, thev conforn) fliemselves to the rules of the ehun h,Hn{l treat with respect and kind- ness their end«avours to tjnard tiiem from error, and to promote their best interests. In otiier words, their sole object and claim are, to watch over the moral and spiritual welfare of those only who ex- PUESS A DK^IKE TO RECH^Ve THIS SEKVICE \T THEIK HANDS, and oulv AS LONG AS THEY CONTINUE to manifest a desire to receive it. Is this " ryran- jij?'' Is this " contrary to the «;enius of American institutions f" Is this " hostile to the liberal and coiiciliatory spirit of the day in which we live?" It is impossible, I will venture to sav, for a thinking man, who understands tlie subject, seri- ously to make such an assertion. On the cont-a- ry, it would be easy to show, by an induction of undeniable facts, thai oeimine Presbyterianism lias been, in all ages, friendly to free government, and an advocate of the rights of conscience ; and that instead of being hostile to the republican institu- tions of our coimtry, it is, under Providj-Uice, tiieir best pledge, and surest guardian. Accordin2;ly, who does not know, that this has been one principal ground of complaint, on the part *of monarchists, against Presbyterianism, ever since that truly primitive and Apostolick form of government was restored to the Christian church ? Other forms of ecclesiastical polity, indeed, have been justly cieemed congenial with aristocraiical G 74 and monarchical ^overnnient. Long bcforo James I. ill assigning a reason for wishing to put down Presbytery, and elevate Episcopacy, delivered, as a royal maxim, — " No liishop, no Kiug;''-:-the same mixim had been repeated, in substance, a thousand ti.nes, as a favourite and acknowledged principle, by the enemies of civil and religious liberty ; and from that day to this, the same class of people have been in the habit of repeating it a thousand times more, as one of the most indisputable of all doctrin(>s. In su|)portof this doctrine, an able writer in the Quar-» teily Review, who may be considered as one of the most substantial representatives of the friends of Prelacy, uses the following stmng language — " Cer- tain it is, that Monarchy and Episcopacy are much more nearly 'connected than v\ riters of bad Jaith, or little reflection, have sought to persuade man- kind." On the other hand, the natural alliance be- tween Presbytery and free government, has been al- ternately the theme of praise from its friends, and of reproach from its enemies, from time immemorial. On this fact, the same prelatical writer who was just quoted, goes on to make the following remark — " Besides theinscnsible but ^i«/«m/ inclination to- wards democracy, w hich arises Mm the principles of a popular church government, there was another cause why the current should set in that direction ; it was only under commonwealths that the Puritans saw their beloved discipline flourish. The suffer- ance which it had obtained in France .was won from the crown, and was exposed to continued and 75 imminent dangpr from its known enmity." In sup- port of the same fact, the livcsand writings of Jolin Calvin and John Knox, and liie nniform hi>tor3 of Pre.sbvterianism,;is exhibited in thechtnehes of Scot- und and GfUfva, of France and of Holland, afford the most overwhelming testimony. Buttiiereis no need of arraying this testimony. The enemies of Presbyterianism have, ahnost witli one voice, ac- knowledged the fact. Clarendon, and Hume, with all the bitterness of their hostility, acknowledge it. Indeed, I know of none, at the present day who deny it, excepting a few men of narrow views and sinister purpose, whose zeal outstrips their know- ledge, and who endeavour to confine their o.vu vision and that ('f the j)ul)bck to a minute point or two of reseml)lance, instead of littiu"; them to great and general principles. To this class, how- ever, candour constrains me to add, 1 have not the remotest suspicion that Mr. D. belongs. If we compare Presbyterianism with the hidepen- dent form of church government, its greatly supe- rior adaptation to secure, and maintain the rights of the people, will be most manifest. In all govern- ments conducted by men, even by good men, wrong may be done ; from ignorance ; from misapprehen- sion; from prejudice; or from passion. It is quite conceivable — would it were only conceivable — that this, wrong may find" its way into the church of Christ. An excellent church member, in a moment of popular excitement, maybe, without just cause. 76 condemned and excommunicated. Now, in an In- dependent church, wiiere is the remeo)- of such an oppressed memlVr? He ha^ none. There is no tri- bunal to which he can appeal* for relief. The sen- tence is final. He must sit down under the wrong; and may be held under it as long as he lives. Cases of this kind have actually occurred, not once or t^^ice, but jmany times, in Great Britain^ as well as in our own Country. But in the Presbyterian church, there is a reme- dy in all cases of this kind, as complete as the im- perfect state of human nature admits. All persons considering themselves as aggrie\ed by any act of discipline, have the right to appeal to a higher ju- dicatory, in which those who had no concern in the origin of the proceedings, are brought to review them, and to annul or confirm them as they see cause. And finally, the complainant may ap})eal to the whole church, in its highest assembly, where he will have every pledge' that the nature of the case admits, of an enlightened and impartial review of his case, and of the redress of every real griev- ance. And, accordingly, many cases arise, in which sentences of inferiour judicatories, are reversed, al- most unanimously, by the highest. The same re- medy is attainable, as it ought to be, when congre- gations oppress and injure ministers, or when min- isters brow-beat and injure congregations. On the plan of Independency, there is, in either of these cases, no remedy ; that is, their system provides 77 none; unless, indeed, it be that terrible one, com- ni'-nly denominated '" cbib-law," wliich lias been sometimes resorted to, but which is worse than the disease ; and which no true friend of the church or of human na.nrc, who has once witnessed its exhi- bition, will ever wish to see brought into use a se- cond time. It may, indeed, appear to some that there is an ample remedy in those special Councils, of which our Independent brethren s[)eak so much, as the grand means of settling ail difficulties amon^ them- selves. This remedy, iiowever, is more imaginary than real. A council, in a ijiven case of controver- sy, may be called or not, just as the parties please. * Either paity may be perverse or obstinate, and re- fuse to unite in calling it. If it do meet, it has no power but to ''give advice;" and when given, the parties may take it. or not, just as they please. But this is not the worst. Each party may call a sepa- rate Council. Comicil may be arrayed ajjainst Council. Nay, two or three Councils, called by different parties, may be sitting, and have been ac- tually known to be sitting, at the same time, within the bounds of the same Independent congregation, — deliberating on the same matter of controversy, — and all coming to opposite results ; so that the ad- vice of no two of then) could possibly be, thro"uo"h- ont, adopted. And, in the mean time, the peace, and comfort, and eveji rights of the people were bleeding at every pore. But there- was no remedy.* This can never happen in the Presbyterian church. For every controversy in our body, there is an ap- propriate tribunal ; and there is but one tkibumal. One, too, which all know, and all acknowledge ; in which every man, whether a minister or private christian, may be impartially judged by his peers; whose judgment can never be reversed but by a higher judicatory; and thus, in almost all cases, within the compass of a single year, ultimate justice may be obtainel, and controversy terminated. I ask, then, under which of these forms of ecclesiasti- cal administration, are the substantial rights, [)oih of people and of ministers, most likely to be secure? It is impossible, I should think, for any impartial man to hesitate a moment about tiie proper answer.* VI. When you ask me, " Whether my doctrine of the importance and necessity of Creeds, is really friendly to the circulation of the Bible, without note or comment?" I confess I am not a little surprized. * In the congregational churches of Connecticut, there is a reme- dy, in cases of this kind, which is found in the body called the " Consociation ;" and which is, in fact, as far as it goes, the sub- stance of Presbyttrianism. That body, according to a system adopted more than a century ago, is vested with the power of giv- ing, in all ordinary cises of controversy, judicial and authoritative decisions. This, however, is a perfd as the christian world is into so many different denomi- nations, where shall we find a commentary to send with the Bible, which will be ei|nally acceptable to all sects and parties ? It cannot be done. The mo- ment any thing of this kind shonld be proposed, it would be a signal for discord in the most harmoni- ous Bible Society in existence, and eventually for disbanding it. The only question, in reference to the thousands of Bible Societies with which Christ- endom is filled, is, whether the Bible shall be dis- tributed, " without note or comment," or not at ALL, For there is no doubt that millions of copies have been sent, and are sending in this form, which would never have been sent in any other. For my part, however others may answer this question, I can- not hesitate a moment to say — Let the simple, pure Hible be translated into all languages, and sent to every habitation and every mdividual under heaven! Happilv, in the distribution of this precious Book, all denominations of professing christians can fully CO operate, without the compromise of a single prin- ciple. Exertions to multiply and send forth its co- pies, may go on to increase, until they shall occupy every hand in Christendom ; ar.d that without neces- sarily interfering, in the smallest degree, with the exertions of any and every particular church to spread the knou ledge of its own doctrines and order as extensively as possible. In the mean time, the KiBLE ALONE Is sufficient, 1 have no doubt, and has 81 actually been found sufficient, in many thousands of cases, when accoinijanied by that Sjjirit who inspir- ed, it to make men " wise unto salvation." I am so far from l)elievii»fi, that it is necessary for him who is engaged in studying the Bible, to have Trudition, or the Fathers, or x\w e\|)lanati()ns of the Church, or the framers of Creeds and Confessions, al his el- bow, to enable him to understand it ; that I am per- suaded, without ihe shadow -of a doubt, that any plain, honest mrUi, who searclies the Scriptures with a sincere desire to know the truth, will be at no loss to find in them the way of salvation. Nor can I conceive that any thing but the blindest prejudice can suggest an inconsistt^ncy between this opinion, and at the same time believing, that sound preaching, good commentaries, well composed cate- chisms, orthodox creeds and confessions, and all truly pious books, which have for their o[)ject to ex- plain and enforce Bible truth, are not only lawful, but inestimably useful. If I coidd sent to the poor Hindoo, or [lottentot, or Tartar, a Bible, and with it a piotis, faithlul minister, to explain it, and to endea- vour to rouse his attention, and direct his inquiries in perusing it, there can be no doubt that this would be the best thing I could do for him. If 1 could not send the liviiig teacher with the inspired word, the next best accompaniment of it would certainly be, a sound, judicious, writtcMi exposition. But if I have it not in my power to send him either the liv- ing teacher, or the written exposition, shall 1 hesitate H 82 to send him that precious Volume, which alone may be made to him, as it has been made to mnhiiudes, "the power of God unto salvation?" Purely this is a question which those who love the Bible, and the souls of men, cannot take long to decide. Ac- cordingly I contemplate the multiplication of Bil)le Societies, and the daily extension of their plans and success, with heart-felt pleasure. And I have no hesitation in avowing myself to be among the num- ber of those who anticipate, from the distribution of the Bii)le, " without note or comment," the mightiest effects. That holy Book, if I mistake not, under the blessing of Him who gave it, is to be the means of regenerating the world ; of raising the intellectual and moral character of man ; of plant- ing on the most barbarous and inhospitable shores the seeds of civil and religious liberty ; of trans- forming the hearts and lives of millions ; and of pre- paring our globe for the universal reign of righteous- ness and peace. In all this, I am not conscious of holdinor or ut- tering a sentiment in the least degree hostile to my doctrine concerning Creeds. If I were, indeed, more anxious to make men Presbyterians than to make them Christians ; or, if I supposed that no one could be a real christian without being a Pres- byterian, I miifht, no doubt, feel and decide differ- ently. But as, I trust, 1 can utterly disclaim both with sincerity, it is my earnest desire to send the Bible to every human being, and to leave the result 8^ to Him who "has the- hearts of all flesh in his hands." If that result should prove i'riendl)' to the saving conversion of thousands, but, at the same time, unfavourable to the growth of mv own ciiureh, much as I love her, I should say, I hope from the heart, Be it so ! 1 h^ve, indeed, no apprehension of such a result. There is no christian denomina- tion in the world that has so little reason as ours, to be afraid of the consequences of a general study of the Bible, " without note or comment." But if it were otherwise, I should still say. Be it so ! Let the Body of Christ increase, even if Pn*sbyte- rianism decrease! When ^hose who have happily profited by reading the Bible, come to unite them- selves with the church of Christ; or, if it occur among the heathen, to be formed into a church; the question will arise, and to every conscientious man, a very serious and interesting question it is — with what particular denomination of (-hristiatis they sh II connect themselves? Then will naturally occur the question concerning Creeds, Confessions, and Forms of Church order, the utility and im[)ortance of which, in their proper place, it is hardly necessary to say, I should be the last man in the world to deny. Vn. From a clause of dubious import, toward the close of your letter, I should conjecture, my dear Sir, that you were under an erroneous impression with regard to one point. You seem to suppose that s»d)scription to our Confession of Faith is required of all the private members, as well as the oflicers, 84. of our church. This is by- no means the -^ase, 1 know of no instance in which any thing; of this kind has b(^en attempted. At any rate, if done at all, it is done on private responsibility, not being at all prescribed in the constitution of the Church. We require the subscription in question only of those who are candiuatks fok okkick ; who are to be teachers^ rulers, and guides in the house o! God ; " watchmen on the house \y{ Zion ;" " ensamples to the flock." Now that special measures ought to be taken to put to the test their "soundness in the faith," and their " ajttness to teach," as well as their piety and prudence, is what 1 presume no one who has ever read the New- Testament, will deny. All chinch members, indeed, ought to be orthodox as well as pious; and appropriate measures ought certainly to be taken, l)y pastors and riders, in the church, to promote this object. But the importance of securing these qualifif-ations in the pastors and ru- lers themselves, vvho are to watch over all, to instruct all, to preside in the exrrcise of discipline, and to regulate and govern all ; — is so evident, that no reasoning or illustration can render it more clear. From the high praise which Mr. D. so frequently bestows on the Congregational form of church gov- ernment, as, in his opinion, much more nearly con- formed to the Scriptural model than the Presbyter- ian ; you would naturally suppose that none of the Congregational churches of New England were in the habit of requiring their candidates for the min- 85 istry to give tlinir assent to any Confession of Faiih. 'IMie lact, however, is otherwise. A hifjhly respectable minister ot Connecticut^ makes ti'e fol- io Miig statement. " In this Association, before a candid.ite is Ucdised to preach the Gospel, he is carelully examined on the principal doctrines which are contained in the Savoy Confession of Faith, and in the Catechistns composed by the Assembly of Divines at IVistminiHttr; and when hv \s ordainrd, he is ex()res>l\ recpiired to assent to the " Say-brook Platform," w hicli ct)niains the Savoy Confession, the Heads of Agreement assented to by the Presbyteri- an and Coniiregational ministers of England, and a few general articles for the administration of church discipline. This, I believe is the practise of all the Associations in Connecticut, except the one in Windham Coimry, which never adopted the " Say- hook Platform." It may not be improper to state, in passing;, that the Savoy Confession, repeatedly s|)oken of in this statement, is, neither more imr less than an exact copy of the fVcstminstfr Confession of Faith at large, with a few verbal alterations to adapt it to In- dependency. It was adopted, by the Independents, at Savoy, in England, and [)refaced, at the time of its ado[)tion, by the following remarkable diu-lara- tion : — a declaration vvhich, if I were at Mr". D's elbow, little as he may be disposed to receive my ad- vice, I should most earnestly urge him to peruse again and again "Hitherto," say this conven- «6 tion of pious and enlightened Independents — " Hi- therto there have been no assorjations of our churches, no meetings of our ministers to promote the common interest. Our churches are like so many ships launched singly, and sailing a()art and ah)ne, in the vast ocean in these tumultnous times, exposed to every wind of doctrine ; under no other conduct than the Word and Spirit, and our particular Elders and j)rincipal brethren, without associations ;imong ourselves, or so much as hold- ing OUT A COMMON LIGHT TO OTHKK3, WHEKEBY THEY MAY KNOW WHEKE WE AKE." But, tO return to the practise of our Congregational breth- ren. While it is confidently believed. that there are some other Congregational churches in New Eng- land^ besides those of Connecticut^ who require their candidates for the ministry to adopt a Confes- sion of Faith, and who have, under God, by this means, remained comparatively free from the radical errors around them ; such as those of Vermont^ and New Hampshire: it is well known that there are many others, who reject every thing like Confessions, and boast that they take the the Bible, simply, as their rule. And what is the state of orthodoxy among them? Are they more pure and scriptural in their sentiments than any of their neighbours ? This must, of course, be the case, according to i\Jr. D's doc- trine. But is it so in fact ? Ah! it is death to his cause to take a look into this part of the ecclesias- 87 tical statisticks of our country ! The only churches, or aliuost ilie only churches, in the United States, in condiictingthe affairs of which, all Creeds are re- jected, are so far from hein^; uniformly pure in doc- trine, that they emhrace all manner ol heresy, from Semi-|jelaji;ianism to Socinianism. Almost the only thing that you are sure of not finding among them is a shred of ortho'loxy. They are scarcely agreed in anyone point, hut the innocence of error, and in proscribing and hating u hat we deem the truiri ! A goodly recommendation, truly, of the " no- creed" si'heme, as the promised means of, at once, purifying and uniting the uorld ! You ought to know, too, that a great majority of the orthodox Congregntiona! churches, throughout New- England, and especially those of Connecticut, GO FURTHEii THAN WE po, aud require all persons who join their churches, as private members, to adopt a Confession of Faith. This Confession is solemn- ly formed by the Church ; regularly recorded, as the creed agreeably to which they have covenanted to walk; formally read to the candidate at the time of his admission ; and assented to by him before he can take his place as a member. It con- sists, indeed, commonly of a small number of arti- cles, usually not more than ten or twelve of the leading doctrines of the Gospel ; and is expressed in a few words. Still it is a confession — a written confession — and expressed in human language ; and involves the principle, in all its extent, for which I 88 am contending. A few of our churches imitate our New-England brethren in this practise. This is confined, however, I think, to those churches, who were either originally constituted, for the most part, by emigrants from New- England, or have subsequently become composed of a majority of such members. On some other points brought into .view in your letter, you must excuse me if I forbear to speak. I know not that the discussion of them, even in the best manner, would minister to the great interests of " brotherly kindness and charity." At any rate, if they be touched at all, they must be treated at con- siderable length ; and for this, pnrdon me for again saying, 1 have not, at present, either time or inclina- tion. And now, my dear Sir, it is time to bring this long letter to a close. As you suggested to me the alternative of either addressing you in private, or answering your conimunication through the medium of the press ; 1 chose, for various reasons, the latter. Among the reasons which thus influenced my mind one is, that, although the subject of these pages may seem, at first view, to be one in which the parties immediitely imj)licated can alone have any interest, it is really far. otherv\ise. It is, in many respects, a common con( ern of all the friends of religion. It is a subject deeply interesting to every individual Avho loves the church of God ; to every ecclesiasti- 89 cal body who prize good order, and christian edifi- cation. In every chnrch, diversity of views, and temporary conflicts, even among o;ood men, will oc- casionally occur. "It is impossible but that offen- ces will come." When they do arise, every reflect- ing man, one would think, must see the importance of treating them, on both sides, with a spirit of mo- deration, forb( arance and charity ; and, at the same time, of adhering to the established rules by which the body in question has agreed to be governed. In the chnrch, as well as in the state, government ought to be the reign of law, not of iwni. I am aware that when almost any individual becomes a delin- quent wilh regard to ecclesiastical order, he seldom fails, in the first stages of excitement, to find in a large mass of the community, a prompt advocate, and, for a while, to \w almost canonized as a mar- tyr. That noble sentiment which dispos<'S men, anteriour to all examination, to fly to the n^licf of' those who are involved in difiicuhy, must and u ill have its course. Y't, nn'thinks, it is rather asking too nnich to demand, that the church, in order to gratify the feelinjjs of an individual, should abandon that order which she has published to the world, and virtually pledijed herself to maintain; that she should deliberately allow her laws and authority to be trampled under feet ; and, in a word, for the sake of avoiding the unjust impination of |)ersecnting /:r'j.