faith of some. And now, in the 21st verse, be adds-" If a man shall purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work." "A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition reject." 1 Tim. vi. 5-"From such withdraw thyself." 2 Thess. iii. 6-"Now, we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received from us."

I am fully aware how my friend, Mr. Carlisle, will criticise these texts, and endeavour to show that they are inapplicable to our circumstances. He may do so. Yet I feel it necessary to suggest to him the following questions. Was the duty of Timothy, a Christian minister, intended as an example to other Christian ministers? Was it not his duty to purge the church of the erroneous teaching of Hy. meneus and Philetus? Is Arianism, or is it not, heresy? I confess I dislike the use of the word heresy, because it has been so abused by the church of Rome; yet, as it is a Scriptural term, I take it as I find it. I use it in no invidious sense, but merely to obtain a plain answer to a plain question. I ask farther, if we are commanded to withdraw ourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, even in the common concerns of life, are we to remain united with those who walk disorderly in the church of Christ? I put the question home to my orthodox brethren, are the doctrines of Arianism according to the tradition received from Paul? If they are not, do not they who preach them walk disorderly? And is it not our duty to withdraw ourselves from them?

I have thus, Sir, endeavoured to take and illustrate some of the Scripture grounds upon which we rest our cause. And I come now to exhibit the reasonableness of the means by which, under the good providence of God, we propose to advance the purity of this church.

The first of those means to which I shall advert is, a Scriptural, plain, and publick declaration of the doctrines which we teach. This will apply to the examination of entrants to the ministry, and to the continuation of communion with those who are already ordained.

A publick confession of a church's faith should never be a test to be imposed upon any man But it is a publick declaration to all men of what that church believes, that they may know upon what terms, and on what professed principles, they enter her communion.

As the church I have already shown to be a witness for God, so a publick confes

VOL. VII. Ch. Adv.

sion of her faith is necessary, to let the nature of her witness be known. In this way we know what the church of Scotland testifies, what the church of England testifies, what the Greek or Italian churches testify-and we are enabled thus to judge into what communion we can enter with a good conscience, and the hope of edification. I may be told that all this information may as well be received in the present state of this Synod, for we all allow that the Bible is our confession. Granted. But 1 ask you what Bible is your confession? Is it the Trinitarian Bible, which we consider announcing that the "Word was God?" or is it the Arian Bible, which announces the "Word was Divine?" or is it the Socinian Bible, which, I believe, has it "Reason was Divine?" Answer me what Bible is your confession, and then I shall understand you. But, until this be done, to say that the Bible is our confession, is a mere casting of dust into our eyes, which we must either avoid by closing them altogether, or getting, as speedily as possible, into a more salubrious atmosphere.

Another use of publick declarations of faith is, to show how far we and other churches can agree. This is a most desirable object. I rejoice to see how essentially we coincide, on all important doctrines, with churches that stand distinguished from us by many barriers of mere external discipline. We are not within the same enclosure; but we are sowing the same seed; we are labouring for the same master; we are actuated by the same spirit. We know what we are, because we have mutually declared our sentiments; and we rejoice that our declarations have demonstrated our kindred and agreement.

There is still another important use of publick declarations of faith, in the vindication which, at present, they afford, and in time to come they may afford, to the religious character of those churches by which they are exhibited. The Protestant churches of Germany, Switzerland, Scotland, England, &c. &c. found it absolutely necessary, at the period of the reformation, to give confessions of their faith, in order to vindicate themselves from the many and injurious charges that were brought against their principles. The ancient church of the Waldenses have found their publick confessions of great importance, towards vindicating the character of their forefathers from the grossest aspersions; and the time may come, when the Presbyterian church, comprising the Synod of Ulster, may find an equal vindication of her religious character, in the open confession of the principles of her faith. Foreign churches can

P

know nothing of our religious character, but by the religious opinions we publish and avow. And future times can know nothing of what we have been, but by the record we leave behind us of the faith we have embraced.

I am fully aware that, in this age of li berality, the man who stands up as the advocate of creeds or confessions, exposes himself to a thousand hostile attacks, For the liberals of this age are only liberal to themselves-with one exception, indeed, that they are most liberal of abuse to every man who dares to lift the hand of opposition against them. Well, be it so. I only pray that I may be enabled to bear misrepresentation or invective with composure and forgiveness; and that God may enable me now, and at all times, to vindicate the cause of truth, and exhibit the fallacy and inconclusiveness of the arguments by which it is assailed.

That an improper use has often been made of creeds and confessions, I willingly admit; but when I have admitted so much, I have only said, that, in the hands of men, every thing has been abused. Reason, the word of God himself, the Lord's Supper, and every good gift of God, have been abused; and so evident is this fact, that it has passed into a logical proverb-that we are not to argue from the abuse of any thing. Taking it, then, for granted, that every honourable opponent will argue from other principles than the abuse of creeds, I shall proceed to explain the sole purpose of church creeds, and then vindicate their use from the objections now urged against them.

Every man has a creed, for every man believes something; and a creed is merely what a man believes.

The sole purpose of a creed, then, is to show what a man believes, or what a church believes. Every thing beyond this comes under the head of abuse. When we call upon a man then for his creed, we merely ask, what does he believe? and I confess I can see no principle, either of politeness or religion, that forbids the question, nor any principle of honesty that entitles any man to refuse a reply.

I have given to the subject all the attention in my power, during the entire progress of the discussion; and the arguments urged against reference to creeds, seem to me reducible to the following arrangement. I shall state them in order, that I may meet them with a refutation:

1. It has been argued, that "we wish to impose a test." There is a double fallacy in this argument. We impose nothing; for imposition implies power, with pains and penalties for refusing compliance. Thus, in popular use, the word test, signifies something to be taken, in or

der to qualify for office; and which, if taken, the right to the office follows. Confessions of faith have been so abused

but any such abuse must be far from our minds. Were a man to sign a confession of faith again and again, I should not consider him one whit better quali fied for the ministerial office than before his signature. My conviction of the sin cerity of his profession, the scripturality of his views, and the sanctity of his life, would, in my mind, be his sole qualifications: for the signing of a creed I consi der not as a test-I merely view it as a means of putting to a man this plain question, What do you think?

2. The second argument against the use of any creed is derived from the danger of binding men to any uninspired phra seology. On this subject, let me explain the practice, and vindicate the conduct, of the General Synod of Ulster. At an early period of the Synod's history, it was found, that some persons scrupled to admit certain phrases in the Westminster confession, the acknowledged record of the faith of the Synod. These scruples arose, not from opposition to the doctrines of the confession, but from the phraseology in which some of them were expressed. The Synod, therefore, enacted-that persons, when required to make a declaration of their faith, might have liberty to explain, in words of their own, the sense in which they understood any particular phrases; at the same time satisfying the Presbytery that they did not reject the doctrine, but merely scrupled at the phraseology. This order of Synod was called, "The Pacific Act;" and has been the ordinary law in subscribing Presbyteries down till this time. For my own part, I would not wish to bind any man to express his faith in any particular, uninspired phraseology whatever. I would leave him to the free and unrestricted selection of his own words, where he could not adopt mine; but I would beg him to fur. nish me with such words as would clearly enable me to comprehend his meaning.

3. But if you are willing to sanction a man's selection of phrases, then why not be contented with mere Scripture phrases? Here let me remark, that all the opponents of creeds and confessions would, I believe, at once surrender and throw down their arms, were churches to accept of their declarations of faith in mere Scripture phrases. And why are they not contented with such declaration? Why, just because it is no declaration. Let me respectfully beg your attention to this point. A confession in Scripture phrases is indeed a declaration of what God has said, but not an account of the meaning man attaches to God's sayings. Mr. Montgomery has undertaken to show, that he holds no

opinions inconsistent with the Word of God. In other words, as he is generally understood to be an Arian, and as he may fairly be considered as the representative of the entire body of the Arians of this Synod, Mr. M. undertakes to prove that Arianism is consistent with the Word of God; and that by consequence, the faith of Trinitarians is inconsistent with that Word. Now, how does Mr. M. effect this demonstration? Why, by declaring that he believes his Bible. This is a specimen of that form of sophism, which, by proving too much, is found to prove nothing. I know Mr. M. abhors Socinianism as much as we do. Now, a Socinian will join Mr. M. in declaring that he believes the Bible. Therefore, on Mr. M.'s principles, the faith of the Socinian is also consistent with the Word of God. That is, the Arian and Socinian creeds, which are inconsistent with one another, are yet both consistent with the Word of God.

But let us examine Mr. Montgomery's confession of faith a little more minutely. When Philip, says he, baptized the Ethiopian nobleman, it was upon this simple declaration, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." "And I," said Mr. M. "do most decidedly believe this." Mr. Montgomery has also undertaken to prove that Arians hold all the doctrines that can justly be required of them, in order to church-fellowship with Trinitarians. The text adduced to prove this was 1 John iv. 14: We do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world; and whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God." "Most cordially," said Mr. M., "do we believe this doctrine; we subscribe to it with all our hearts and consciences." Now, all this looks very fair, and sounds most orthodox, and after all contains not one word to the purpose. Had we asked Mr. M. what the Bible had called Christ, he had answered rightly, "The Son of God." But we ask him not what the Bible says, we ask him what he thinks the Bible means by "Son of God." Does it mean that he was "God manifest in the flesh," or does it mean that he was an angel or created spirit; or does it mean that he was a man of like infirmities with ourselves?-When Mr. Montgomery has answered these plain questions, we shall then be able to estimate the amount of an Arian confession.

And I do appeal to Mr. M., by the va lue he puts upon simple truth, whether the use of equivocal language be worthy of the character of an honest man? The language of Scripture is not, indeed, naturally equivocal. But the introduction of Arian and Socinian doctrines have made it so. Must not then every man, upon

the principles of common honesty, employ such explanations as will show to every one the real sense and meaning he attaches to the divine Word. Ramohun Roy, a Bramin, and sort of a Socinian, will immediately adopt Mr. Montgomery's creed, Christ, he will tell you, was the Saviour of the world, for he saved men from error by his use of excellent preceptsChrist, he will tell you, was the "Son of God;" for by "Son of God," he means merely a good man. Let it then be remembered, that when we ask a man for his profession of faith, we ask him not for the words of the Bible, but for an honest declaration of the meaning he attaches to these words.

4. To the use of confessions it has been ingeniously objected by Mr. Fletcher Blakely, that we require first to understand the Bible, and then we make a confession a rule for understanding the Bible; which we are presumed to understand before the confession was made. To this I answer-a confession is no rule for understanding the Bible; a confession is a mere declaration of what we believe to be the meaning of the Bible.

5. The same individual has argued, that by a confession we add to the Bible. Did the gentleman but weigh this charge, I am convinced he would retract it. What! does he mean to bring us under that awful sentence pronounced in the book of Revelation, against those who add to the word of God! I cannot believe him so liberally uncharitable. His charge arises from his continual mistake about the nature and purposes of creeds. They are not made to add to the word of God, or to have any authority as the word of God; they are merely intended to declare what we believe to be the meaning of the word of God. They are not to be considered an authoritative declaration of what God has said, but of what we believe to be the import of his saying.

6. He has likewise charged us with an invasion of the rights of private judgment. In answer to this I shall suppose that Mr. B. subscribes to my description of "private judgment;" and if he do, I deny that the making of a confession of faith is an invasion of private judgment. I aver that it is an exercise of private judgment. An individual comes to the Bible, and by every means which God has bestowed upon him, he endeavours to ascertain its meaning. He propounds this meaning to others; and on a similar examination, they agree with him. This agreement is a mere aggregate of private judgments. Well, in their union of private judgments, they determine that persons denying doc. trines which they bold to be fundamental and essential, shall not be considered of

their company. Ah! replies the objector, if you deny me admission, you invade my private judgment. It may be so, reply the others; but if you intrude, you invade our private judgment. We leave you, Sir, undisturbed, to the choice of your own companionship; nor shall we intrude upon you farther than by our opinion, if you will listen to it. If we cannot convince you of your error, and our correctness, we beg to part, and to part in charity. But surely, Sir, if your private judgment be to overturn our private judgment, this is not liberality, but tyranny over our own consciences.

7. From the same quarter we are charged with presuming to express matters better than God. Another awful charge, and just as unfounded as the foregoing. What is it we presume to express? Not what God should have said, but what we believe he meant, by what he did say. I have yet to learn that there is any presumption in telling, in the plainest language, what opinions we do hold; or in giving our best interpretation of any portion of the divine word. A creed is merely such a statement, such an interpretation. Were the objector to carry his imaginary principle to its legitimate consequences, he would never preach another sermon. The moment he would commence an interpretation of Scripture, a statement of what he believes the Scriptures to mean, he would be horror struck with the idea of attempting to express the matter better than God; and his entire services would consist of a mere recitation of the words of the Bible.

8. We are charged with putting our creeds into the place of the Bible. I answer, we do no such thing. But as different persons understand the Bible in different senses, we declare, by a confession of our faith, in what sense we understand it. 9. We are charged with claiming infallibility. I pause not to argue the church's infallibility. But I shall fearlessly announce, that there is a Scriptural sense, in which every true believer is infallible. This I learn from Jesus Christ, the Lord. -John vi. 45. "And they shall be all taught of God."-Now I know that God must be an infallible teacher, and that every one, taught of him, must, in the Scriptural sense, be infallible. But in declaring our creed we claim not to be infallible interpreters of God's meaning, but honest interpreters of our own; or, if you will so have it, infallible interpreters of our own meaning. I do believe that every honest man is able infallibly to declare what he believes-what he disbelieves or where he is in doubts. Now, this is all that we, by a declaration of our faith, propose to do. It is not fair to con

jure up the phantom of Romish infallibility, and charge us with all the enormities committed under its guidance. We disclaim all connexion with its origin and principles. But, without presumption, it will be admitted, that we know our own opinions, and that we can honestly, that is infallibly, declare them to the world.

10. But, as in all cases, the appeal to matters of fact must form the strongest ar guments, so we have an open and bold appeal to the condition of those churches that have adopted publick confessions, The church of England, we have been told, is overrun with Arianism, notwithstanding the orthodoxy of her thirty-nine Articles. For any thing I know, this may be the case; but so far as my personal knowledge extends, it is totally untrue. My acquaintance with the ministers of that church is certainly not very extensive, yet it is far from being inconsiderable. And I am bold to aver, that within the entire circle of my acquaintance, there is not an individual that I believe to be either Arian or Socinian

The church of Scotland has also been adduced as an example of the inutility of publick confessions. We were told last year, by a member of this house, who may be presumed to be well acquainted with the state of the Scottish church, that it is infested with the diseases of Arianism, of even Socinianism, to no inconsiderable amount; and is as much diversified in religious sentiment as we ourselves can possibly be.

I cannot presume to speak of the church of Scotland as matter of personal know. ledge. Yet I know most of the ministers of Edinburgh, either personally or by religious character-I have a similar ac quaintance with many of the ministers of Glasgow, and its neighbourhood-and so far as my acquaintance extends, and it is not inconsiderable, I feel enabled to enter against the statement alluded to my decided protest. I have no doubt the individual who made it, did honestly believe it-yet I am bound, on the knowledge I have of the church of Scotland, to say, I do not believe it. Such a statement about the church of Scotland appears to me to rest much upon the same kind of evidence on which rests the statement concerning one of her greatest ornaments; I mean Dr. Chalmers; which statement was not only made in this Synod, but formed into a foundation for two arguments. And yet it has no foundation of truth, beyond the imagination of the individuals by whom it was originally propagated. It was, Sir, openly stated, last year, in this house, that Dr. Chalmers, when a minister of the church of Scotland, had been a Socinian!! 1 have since made inquiries upon the sub

ject from a source that cannot be doubt ed: and I can tell to this house that the statement is totally erroneous. Dr. C. was at all times of his ministry a Calvinist. True, he has said, in his Address to the people of Kilmeny, that he had tried upon them, for years, the influence of "a moral experiment;" but this merely alluded to the more legal form of his preaching, previous to his adoption of that evangelical strain which has since delighted and enlivened the hearts of listening thousands. A Calvinist may preach the law, and give it a prominence over the doctrines of grace; and this is the sole foundation for the charge of Socinianism in the distinguished individual with whom the character of the Scottish church was involved. I do then say that those churches, in proportion as they have openly, uprightly, and determinately, employed their acknowledged creeds, have, in that proportion, preserved their doctrinal purity, while we who have connived, like Geneva, at the neglect of our creeds, have, in the proportion of our neglect, been invaded with Arianism, or occasionally, Socinianism; and are found, at this day, not going hand in hand with one mind and one judgment, but contending, like children, about the first principles of the faith, and wasting in polemical debates the blessed days that should be dedicated to the higher purposes of edifying the body of Christ.

(To be continued.)

STATE OF RELIGION IN THE NORTH OF GERMANY.

(Continued from p. 61.) At the beginning of the 19th century, irreligion had attained such an ascendancy over the manners of the higher classes of society in Berlin, that a man might mingle with them in all the relations and intercourse of life, without hearing any conversation which had the remotest connexion with piety; without meeting any individual who ventured either to reprove or resist the prevailing vanity and thoughtlessness of mankind; and without hearing of any publication, calculated to awaken the mind, coming from the press, to carry alarm into the soul of the sinner, and rouse him from his delusive and deadly self-confidence. Religion, if it existed at all, consisted in occasion

ally visiting, for the purposes of ridicule, the church of some poor despised orthodox clergyman. The best educated of the priesthood appeared to have no other end in view, but to render the duties of their office inefficient and nugatory. They made religion subservient to their own views of morality; they professed to exalt the soul to a state of independence, in the exercise of its powers; and thus to constitute it its own legislator. In this imaginary state of exaltation, they acknowledged reason alone as their supreme guide in all the concerns of life, and dispensed with the aids of religion-Just as a full grown man dispenses with the leading strings of childhood. They preached up the autonomy of reason, that is, its sovereign legislative power, adequate to all the wants of man. On a certain occasion, one of these preachers rose up, and harangued an audience of thirty or forty persons, against the prejudices generally entertained in favour of crowded churches; because, said he, a man might be a very good citizen, and a very acceptable servant of the Most High, though he did not attend church.

In the Universal History of Becker, the most widely circulated of all his historical works, the Old Testament is daringly turned into ridicule; and Jesus Christ is described as a hair-brained enthusiast, who, along with John the Baptist, had formed the mad design of establishing a terrestrial theocracy; but perceiving the project to be impracticable, that he endeavoured to withdraw from the visionary enterprise with a good grace, by representing all his views as having a relation solely to a spiritual kingdom. Now there are perhaps very few families in Berlin, who do not possess this book, and by whom it is not used as the text book of all the historical instruction given to children.

Religious instruction was very partially attended to, and but few