of Princeton College in New Jersey. His advice to his people on leaving them was not delivered from the pulpit, but published from the press, under circumstances of great solemnity and responsibility. Haste or inadvertency he cannot, and probably wishes not to plead in excuse for any sentiment contained in it. The extract is as follows:

"Before I dismiss this topic, there is one thing more which I must by no means omit. It is, that nothing will more contribute to your 'being at peace among yourselves,' both when vacant and at other times, than keeping strictly to the principles and forms of the Presbyterian church, as laid down in our public standards of doctrine and government. By these standards try carefully all doctrines, and conduct scrupulously all your proceedings.' "*

Bold and unwarrantable as is this sentiment for a Protestant divine, he goes an to anticipate the shock which some minds might feel at this return to the great principle of popery, and seems determined that no one shall find any consolation in ambiguity of meaning. "Esteem it no hardship, or oppression," he says, "esteem it as an unspeakable privilege, that these standards are given for your direction and control."

"These standards:" What are they? The scriptures? No. The oral explanations of Christ or his apostles, handed down by authentic tradition to regulate the interpretation of the written word? No. These belong to the see of Rome, not to the see of Philadelphia. Do these standards claim high antiquity, and thus demand our reverence? No. They were originally made about the middle of the seventeenth century by that assembly of rational and unprejudiced divines, who met at Westminster; they were "amended and ratified" by equally authorized and infallible interpreters of scripture, "the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church," in the United States, "at their sessions in May 1805." The last "improvements" upon these standards, which, being perfect at first, must now be something more than perfect, claim the high antiquity of eight years! When they get into their teens, perhaps they may find room to be "amended and ratified" again. It seems that the "improvements" made at Andover have already cut off as apocryphal • Page 6. † Constitution of Pres. Chh, &c. Philadelphia, 1806,

the "Confession of Faith," and the "Larger Catechism,” leaving only the "Shorter Catechism," as canonical, and this as not genuine without such explanations as make it speak a different meaning from that of the framers.

That wicked, popish Council of Trent never dared to impose

quite so bold a claim upon the people's faith, but plead the au- heade

thority and antiquity of their traditions even from Christ and the Apostles. They say "The truth and discipline of the Catholic church are comprehended both in the sacred books and in the traditions, which have been received from the mouth of Jesus Christ himself, or of his Apostles, and have been preserved and transmitted to us by an uninterrupted train and succession."

When a man under the circumstances of Dr. Green, and in the maturity of his mind, formally sets up another standard of faith than the Bible, or a standard additional to that, and this is all the papists do, however strongly he may assert that the two harmonize, it is time for protestants to awake, to speak plainly and boldly, and to act also, in defence of their only written standard of faith, the Bible. It is time to apply the rebuke, which Christ gave to the Scribes and Pharisees:-"Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your traditions." "In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."*

"These standards are given for your direction and control." This language really looks like intending something more than the inspiration of superintendency, and even to hint at the inspiration of suggestion. "Are given:" why did he not say, we voted them in for our own convenience; and not frighten the minds of his poor flock with this mystical impression of something more than human authority? "Direction and control:" We hope his people will have sufficiently the spirit of Christians to answer him, we will use them so long and so far only as we like them, and as they aid regularity in our public proceedings; we will never yield our faith to their authority; we will try them, as we are bound to try your sermon, and all your sermons, by the Bible; we will give all due weight to their ar• Matthew, xv.

guments and their evidence; but to use them for the purpose you teach us would be contempt and disobedience to the "direction and control" of him only, who is our Master in the Church, and whose words only, by himself or his apostles, "are given" for this purpose.

The President says in a note-"I would recommend that every family in the congregation make it a point of Christian duty to keep a copy of our Confession of Faith," &c.-Whatever subordinate uses obedience to this recommendation might serve, in promoting regularity in the public proceedings of the Presbyterian churches; yet for the purposes and with the spirit of the advice, we consider it unlawful for Dr. Green's late people to obey his direction, and we have no hesitation in declaring it to be, in our view, though probably not in his own, one of the most undisguised attempts at corrupting the rule of Christian faith, that we have ever seen in so many words from the pen of any Protestant divine in our country. Even at new translations, and at one of the New Testament, which the Eclectic Review, a very respectable Calvinistic work in England, recommended as a tolerable substitute for Griesbach, Dr. Mason cries out "amended Bibles"-amended Bibles; "Timeo Danaos."-But Dr. Green goes further, and at least recommends a supple. ment, if not a substitution, for the Bible. If he does not forbid us to bring our old Bibles with us for communion, he at least implies that we shall not be received as sound, unless we bring also the Westminster Confession as "amended.”

We now close our examination of the Letters and the extract from Dr. Green. A few important inferences from them we will suggest, and then proceed to our view of religious parties.

1. We here see an unequivocal violation of the spirit of the following instructions from our Lord's own mouth. “Be not ye called Rabbi; for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man Father on earth; for one is your Father, who is in heaven. Neither be ye called Masters,

for one is your Master, even Christ.”*

"One is your Master, even Christ." Upon this Doddridge

• Matthew xxiii. 8-10.

observes:~~"It is remarkable that this occurs twice in the very, same words. Our Lord knew how requisite it would be to attend to it, and how ready even his Ministers would be to for get it."

The Commentator was not mistaken. The names of not a few ministers are connected with this review, who either forget or disregard better "advice and exhortation," as to the rule of faith, than were given to the second Presbyterian congregation in Philadelphia. They talk of "the doctrines of Calvinism," as they ought to talk of the doctrines of Christ only: they speak of inconsistency with these, as they ought to speak only of inconsistency with the gospel: they make Calvin a "Master," as they should make no uninspired man: and they introduce, as tests of faith, standards avowedly conformed to his sentiments.

2. It is melancholy indeed that the decisions of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, in what was, in some respects, one of the most tumultuous, fanatical, and disgraceful pe riods of English history, should now be made the standard of faith with any body of Christians in this land of religious freedom; and that non-conformity to these should be stigmatized as criminal heresy. Our readers may turn to the Cyclopædia as a convenient book of reference, and see that "this Assembly consisted of one hundred and twenty one divines and thirty laymen, celebrated in their party for piety and learning." They sat between five and six years; and after "being changed into a committee for the examination of such ministers as presented themselves for ordination or induction into livings, broke up without any formal dissolution, when the long parliament was turned out of the house by Oliver Cromwell." "The several parties in this Assembly were composed of Presbyterians, Erastians,* and Independents." They

"The Erastians formed a party in the Assembly of Divines in 1643, and the chief leaders of it were Dr. Lightfoot, Mr. Colman, Mr Selden, and Mr. Whitlock: and in the House of Commons there were beside Selden and Whitlock, Oliver St. John, Esq. Sir Thomas Widdrington, John Crew, Esq.. Sir John Hipsley, and others of distinguished reputation." Rees' Cyclopædia.

carried the question of the divine right of Presbyterian gove ernment, and then the Independents and Erastians, among whom were their most distinguished men, particularly Lightfoot and Selden among the Erastians, deserted them. Baxter says, the assembly was composed of men of great learning and piety; but "Lord Clarendon says, that about twenty of them were reverend and worthy persons, and episcopal in their judgments; but as to the remainder, they were but pretenders to divinity some were infamous in their lives and conversations, and most of them of very mean parts and learning, if not of scandalous ignorance, and of no other reputation than of malice toward the Church of England." Both these accounts are probably exage gerated by the feelings of party; but Neal, who was desirous of giving to the assembly all justifiable praise at least, allows that "their sentiments in divinty were in many instances too narrow and contracted;" that they had "a persecuting zeal in religion," and that "they grasped at coercive power or jurisdiction over the consciences of men." It was indeed a fine age and a Ane assembly to establish a rule of faith for all succeeding generations, who should be admitted to the favor and communion of the self-styled evangelical and orthodox! It is too gross an imposition on the public to be told, that by the votes of such a body at such a time they must "try carefully all doctrines.”

3. In the opposition between the Presbyterian and New England Calvinists, and in the spirit and denunciations of the Letters, we have an interesting and practical comment upon the mischiefs, resulting from the attempt to produce uniformity of faith by the substitution of human creeds for the Bible. The par ties, now brought before the public with all their jealousies, different confessions, rival interests, and the charge of one party upon the other of preaching "in' some very material points another gospel indeed," are equally pertinacious in claiming and vindicating the title of Calvinist; they equally quote their Master's works for authority in attack or defence; they make an equal parade of their attachment to the great doctrines of the Reformation; and they unite in demanding subscription to the Assembly's Shorter Catechism in order to admission into the pale and immunities of orthodoxy; a catechism, which Dr. Ma