whether the articles objected to were essential to christianity; and if they judged they were not, they would admit the candidate, notwithstanding his objections." Later practice has been the same. The Minutes of the Presbytery of New-York, and of many others, and possibly the Records of the Princeton Board of Directors, can inform us, that the same measures have been more recently adopted in relation to some articles embraced in the Confession of Faith.

> The views of the Puritan divines on this subject, are placed beyond all doubt, by the famous "Heads of Agreement," between the Presbyterians and Independents, in England, which also form a part of the Saybrook Platform. Strongly attached, as these divines were, to their extended Confessions, they declared it sufficient"in matters of faith," to" own either the doctrinal part of those commonly called Articles of the Church of England, or the Confessions or Catechisins, shorter or longer, compiled by the Assembly at Westminster, or the Confession agreed on at the Savoy." By this declaration, they expressly set aside, as unessential, a considerable number of statements of an "explanatory" nature, which are contained in the Westminster Confession, but are omitted in the Thirty-Nine Articles. My limits will not permit me to collate these two formularies at length. Suffice it to say, that the "Articles" wholly omit the doctrine of Adam's being our federal head; of his sin's being imputed to his descendants; of our being in him seminally, and thus sharing in his transgression :— the doctrine, that Christ's active obedience constituted a part of his atonement for sin; that the atonement operates in the way of discharging a debt, for those who are justified, and becomes effectual, by God's imputing to them the obedience and satisfaction of Christ; the doctrine, that regeneration is something antecedent to conversion, and is a change in which man is wholly passive. These, and other doctrines of an "explanatory" nature, contained in the Westminster and Savoy Confessions, were certainly regarded as important by the Puritan divines; but the ground taken in the "Heads of Agreement," shows beyond all question, that they neither considered them essential to soundness in the faith, nor necessary to be maintained, as the condition of ministerial confidence and co-operation.

But, waving all consideration of precedent and custom, it is plainly impossible, in the nature of things, to secure such conformity, in every minute article of doctrine, as is implied in any other construction of these creeds, than the one now given. The project would be perfectly chimerical. Select, for illustration, the Presbyterian church, and the Westminster Confession. Here you have a voluminous creed, embracing a vast number of doctrinal points, some essential, and some unessential, to salvation, expressed in form and language purely human, and consequently differing

from the form and language of the bible. Does any mortal man believe, that the whole Presbyterian church, embracing 2150 ordained and licensed preachers, and 247,964 communicants, could be pressed, by any moral machinery, into the same human mold? Such an effect might be produced in the Roman church, where the spiritual head thinks for all the members, and where its decrees or veto can be enforced by the iron arm of power; but among Protestants, where the current of thought is unrestrained and free, where religious investigation is not a sin, and where the bible is the only standard by which religious opinions, and even CREEDS themselves, are to be tried, no such thing is practicable. Let the question now be fairly met,-Shall every minister be deposed, and every church-member be excommunicated, who does not, ex animo, embrace every iota of every doctrine stated in this creed? The ground assumed and occupied by the "Act and Testimony" brethren, would seem to require it. Are they perfectly agreed among themselves? and are they quite sure, that there might not be a new war for orthodoxy, the moment the old one should be happily terminated? It might be well for them to think of this, lest a division, upon their principles, should seem to require a subdivision. But if the limited number who have subscribed this document, or given in their adhesion, (amounting to 350* ordained and licensed preachers, out of 2150,) are all perfectly agreed in every iota of doctrine, and receive the Westminster Creed, in the same sense in which they receive the bible, only, that they do not think it inspired; or, admitting they receive it with the same confidence with which they would receive the same amount of quotations from the bible; the same thing cannot be said of the Presbyterian church, as a body. What shall be done with those who disbelieve one point, or cherish a doubt on another? Shall they be cut off? Shall a minister be deposed, who rejects the doctrine of "eternal generation," and who does not believe, that this doctrine is taught in the passages referred to for proof, viz., John i. 14, 18, which were undoubtedly designed to teach the opposite sentiment? Or shall another be pronounced unsound, and be treated accordingly, who does not believe in the procession of the Holy Spirit, in his existence, from the Father and the Son; and who should dare to say, that this doctrine is not taught in John xv. 26, and Galatians iv. 6, where the mission of the Spirit into our world, and not his origin, or mode of existence, is evidently intended?† Questions of this character might be multiplied to any extent; but it is unnecessary to detain the reader. To attempt to bring a large body of men to entire con

* This is the number, according to "The Presbyterian,” Jan. 22, 1835. † See Confession of Faith, chap. ii, sec. 3.

formity in the extended creeds referred to, would be visionary, beyond a parallel, and was never attempted or anticipated by their framers.

Should it be said, that neither the Westminster Confession, nor the Saybrook Platform, is as large as the bible, and that we expect perfect conformity in the acknowledgment of each and every part of the bible, and why not in "the form of sound words," here presented? The reply is at hand. God made the bible, man the creeds. The first is the word of truth itself, the last is a human exposition, or commentary. These long creeds undertake to cover the whole ground of revelation; and how is it possible, that a human production, so extensive, and one that virtually professes to settle the meaning of almost the entire book of God, should be perfect in all its parts? But these are not the only disabilities under which extended Confessions of Faith lie, if they are to be considered, not as containing simply "the system" of orthodoxy, but as requiring a belief in every minute and specific sentiment they contain. The bible must be believed, whatever becomes of human creeds. Confessions of Faith, in order to be received and adopted, in all their minutiæ of statements, must not only correspond, in all their multifarious parts, with themselves, but also with the bible. Is it to be expected, that such will be the fact? This would be to make the framers more than men. But the trouble does not end here. The bible reveals facts and principles; and there they stand. These are, every where and at all times, the But is it so with human creeds? What are they? Not merely a recital of facts and principles, copied from the bible; but they aim at something more. They undertake to explain these revealed facts and principles. And this is done by mere men; by men uninspired. Hence human creeds are always strongly tinged with the philosophy of the age in which they are framed. It is not so with the bible. It borrows nothing from the reigning philosophy, because it has nothing to explain, nothing to reconcile. It rigidly adheres to one fixed purpose, and that is, to tell men what is truth. Hence the bible, like its author, can live the same through every age. But the sphere of human creeds, (I speak of the larger creeds, and not of categorical declarations of belief in relation to a few points,) is very different. They undertake to tell us the quo modo of the facts and principles of revelation; and consequently, the popular mental philosophy of the age will be incorporated with their very structure, and disclose itself in all their details. It is on this principle, and from not distinguishing between a Confession of Faith, that embraces a whole body of divinity, and is to be adopted as containing the true system of doctrine," and one which comprises a few prominent points, and is to be received totidem verbis, that the philosophical

same.

errors of one age become the theological errors of another. Add to all this, the proneness of man to pay a blind homage to antiquity, especially if its main features are grand, and good, and magnificent; and we are in possession of the real secret, why some men are almost conscience-bound not to receive a new idea on the subject of theology. Hence the cry against all improvements,all new light, in religion. We shall never have a new BIBLE; but we are to expect improvements in the mode of understanding and explaining the bible; and new light will continue to shine upon the holy page, with greater and greater intensity of brightness, while time shall last, and not improbably, while eternity rolls on its unwasting ages.

The question relative to the animus imponentis, may now be considered as settled, at least, so far as the intention or purpose is concerned. And who is the imposer of the confession, in the Presbyterian church, but the general assembly? And who but this body, has a right to decide upon the orthodoxy of its ministers? And this decision has been given again and again. It was the assembly, that directed the terms of subscription or adoption, and required the officers of the church to receive the Confessions of Faith in no other manner, than "as containing the system of doctrine taught in the holy scriptures." If any man receives and adopts the confession, in any other manner, he does something, that the imposer has not required. Ministers have, for a series of years, been received by the presbyteries, from the Congregational churches of New-England, and this reception has been sanctioned by the general assembly, the imposer of the creed, and the final judge in this case: and now, when a large proportion of its ministers are from this origin, it is too late to raise a question on this subject. Indeed the ASSEMBLY has never made any complaint. This authorized judge is satisfied with the orthodoxy of its ministers. Who, then, are these "Act and Testimony" men, that usurp the prerogatives of another, and shoulder aside the only legitimate authority, that they themselves may exercise dominion over the church, and measure its orthodoxy by their own private judgment, contrary to the first principles of the constitution? They are a few ministers and ruling elders, who believe more, and in this sense, may be considered more orthodox, than the imposer of the creed requires. These are the men who undertake, without any shadow of a claim, and unsolicited by the church, to stand forth as the conservators of the general assembly, and to become, with regard to orthodoxy and heresy, judge, and jury, and sole dictators, in every case. There is an anti-presbyterial bearing in this thing, which ought not to be looked for from any men who have not actually passed the Rubicon, and stand high and dry on the ground of secession. Taken in connection with the institutions

of the church to which they belong, there is an arrogance in this whole document, that borders upon effrontery.

The consequences of this course might well arrest the most adventurous footsteps, and cause the most fearless heart to misgive and tremble. This doctrine is the entering wedge of schism. Must, then, this large and lovely church be sundered? And for what? For nothing more than has existed, and been known, and tolerated, ever since its broad and deep foundations were laid in our native soil. Must the strong walls of this beautiful Zion be broken down, and the scattered fragments of her towers, and bulwarks, and palaces, cover the ground, and the ruins of her fallen greatness become the by-word of those who hate the Lord? Must her revivals cease, her songs be turned into wailing, and her peaceful sanctuaries be desecrated by the unhallowed scenes of contention and strife among brethren? And all this for what? For just what our forefathers tolerated in an age far less catholic, in its general spirit, than the present. If these brethren press this matter, a century cannot repair the waste their unnatural warfare will produce. The ruin will begin in the Presbyterian church, but it will not end there. The same spirit,—a burning zeal for orthodoxy, which absorbs every other feeling, and overlooks every other interest,-will produce the same effect in NewEngland. The churches there, too, must be split, on points of minor importance. Every interest in christendom must feel the shock. More than three thousand churches, and those the very churches, too, which have been most active and efficient in the distribution of bibles, and the printing of tracts, and the conversion of the heathen, must be rent, and distracted, and paralyzed. And for what? To gratify a chivalrous spirit of knight-errantry, in prosecuting a crusade against heretics who do not exist. A deed is about to be done, which will make the earth darker than it was before; which will dash the hopes of the far-distant heathen; which will be felt in the revenue that annually flows into the treasury of the Lord; which will cause the lovers of revivals to hang their harps high upon the willows, where, instead of mingling their melody with Zion's songs, their strings will sigh in the breezes; which, if sainted spirits have eyes that see our world, and the scenes that are enacted upon it, and those eyes were made for tears,-would cause a Rodgers, a Smalley, and a Dwight, to weep over the desolations that must follow. These good men, and a multitude of kindred spirits, now in heaven, differed on these same minor points, on earth, but they loved as brethren; and as brethren in our common Lord, they preserved THE UNITY of the church.

IOTA.