ers of it," have drawn it up for a particular purpose. They wish to "unite in church fellowship," and having drawn out their instrument of communion, they make that instrument the RULE of their fellowship in the ordinances which Jehovah has established. Have they any right to do so? Who gave them such a right? Has not the Lord Jesus given a RULE of "church fellowship?" If he has not, by what authority do these framers of a creed undertake to enact one? If he has, by what authority do they frame another? Has a servant of the Son of God, who came to proclaim the ONLY gospel by which sinners can be saved, no reason to demand an answer? And if these framers of an uninspired rule of " church fellowship," who have narrowed the sphere of that fellowship, cannot show their warrant, will they persist in their perverseness? or expect that the Master's providence will sanction such proceedings? Suppose that a certain number of the citizens of the United States should do, in view of the general constitution of the country, what these "citizens of the commonwealth of Israel" have done, in view of the charter of that spiritual kingdom. What would politicians say to such individuals? Suppose them to have broken up the American community into so many sects and parties, none of which are contemplated by the constitution I say contemplated by the constitution; for if thebible, as the charter of the church, provides for the divisions recognised in Dr. M's definition of a creed, I have no objection to make-and each party, without any reference to local circumstances or territorial lines, to be composed of those who have agreed together, in relation to the fundamental principles of the republic: or suppose the two great political parties, which so long agitated the country, and whose distinctions have passed away under the action of living intercourse, to have framed political creeds and catechisms, and transmitted them from generation to generation:-let all this be done, for the avowed purpose of maintaining the good order of the community, and the peace and prosperity of the nation: what would be the estimate which politicians would form of such doings? Would not these things be supremely ridiculous? And yet is not this the very thing which ecclesiastical men have done in the church? which church Jehovah has constituted one kingdom under law to himself. And have they not done it without any authority from their Lord? nay directly in the face of his authority? And have not their divisions been the subject of universal taunt and reproach? At this very hour, is not the world astonished at their bickerings? 2. Dr. M. has described a CREED to be an exhibition of scriptural doctrines, drawn out in regular order. Then those doctrines are not so drawn out in the scriptures themselves. And why have the framers of the creed undertaken to do it? Did not Jehovah know how to make a bible? Has he given to his church a deficient instrument? Has he committed a mistake in his mode of giving instruction? Was he ignorant of the character of the human mind? Did he not foresee the future circumstances of the church, when her children should file off under differ ent leaders? and her ministers should become philosophers and politicians ? Again. Is Dr. M. sure that the scriptural subjects are not in their regular and proper order, as they now stand on the sacred page? The original constitution --the mediatorial institute antediluvian infidelitypostdiluvian idolatry-the covenant with Noahwith Abraham - with the people of Israel—the testimony of the Spirit of prophecy-law-gospelare they not arranged according to providential proceedings? and as they should be? Can any man mend the order in which all these things stand; sustained by their own historical facts, and illustrated by the combination of external circumstances which introduced them? True, there is no systematic arrangement of dense, abstract propositions, which metaphysical theologians are pleased to call DOCTRINES. But is Dr. M. sure that a compend of such abstract matters is a better manual for general use, and for the purpose of "church fellowship," than a varied, glowing, and general exhibition of moral subjects; in which allegory, incident, and changing circumstances, abound? Is he sure that such a compend is better for the schools of metaphysicians? It is certain that the Master thought not so: and I am greatly mistaken, if an honest mind, quitting such abstractions, and undertaking to study scriptural subjects in their own order, and in their own language, would not very soon learn the superiority of the biblical arrangement. Besides there have been a great many framers of these "doctrines in regular order," and they have not all given, either the same "doctrines," or the same "order." Which is right? which is wrong? are any of them right? How much better have they made the matter, when, as they suppose, the confusion of the bible has disappeared? and its chaotic materials have all been properly classed? When parties arise in a denomination, and high church and low church distinctions appear, what is "regular order" then? what are the true "doctrines" then? What has the popular mind gained by a creed? what have metaphysicians themselves gained? Would it not have been better if these instruments had never been framed? if theologians had honestly declared biblical subjects in their own form? and if an appeal had been made to the Master? who had promised to give his Spirit to lead mankind into all truth, and had described his bible as a competent instrument of moral reformation. Look to the church, as she has been under the administration of creeds; or as she is now, when different parties are contending about the meaning of their own standards, and the order of their own doctrines. The whole system has proved itself to be an egregious and ruinous mistake; and has shown ecclesiastical rulers to be over-zealous politicians; instead of being moral statesmen, who knew how to read both society and the bible. 3. In this definition Dr. M. has not included those examples of a creed, taking that term in its literal sense, which, in my preliminary explanations, have been excepted from this discussion, and, in view of which he so earnestly labours to prove my argument -- inconsistent. He makes no reference to a man's individual belief or creed-to his expressing that belief or creed in private conversation or in public preaching to his writing, printing and publishing that belief or creed in a book a treatise - an essaya commentary. Taking the term CREED in its ecclesiastical sense, the Doctor describes it in view of its ecclesiastical purposes, or as a document intended to regulate "church fellowship ;" and as drawn out by a number of individuals, who, either of their own motion or by delegated authority, would frame an ecclesiastical compact, with which no one has any special concern but themselves. The CREED, of which he writes, of which I complain, and in relation to which this controversy has originated, is "an accredited, permanent, public document"-"a summary of christian doctrine"-"a formulary," other than the scriptures"A TEST" of orthodoxy. No individual, unless it be his holiness the Pope, can frame and bring into the church such an instrument. No commentary is so employed. Neither Calvin's institutes, Dwight's theology, nor any other work of like pretensions, has ever reached such an eminence. Should Dr. M. address a series of LETTERS to presbyterians, in which he should elaborately show his opinions, and vividly expose the inconsistencies of his brethren, could he thereby furnish to his denomination an instrument of "church fellowship?" a TEST of ortho- doxy? Or might not the whole sect disregard his efforts? and remain in statu quo-orthodoxy and heterodoxy mingling in sad confusion, the very thing |