FESSIONS. (Continued from p. 371.) their privileges as Englishmen, be- MR. DUNCAN ON CREEDS AND CONfore a court over which presided a Roman Catholick and a foreigner,one who naturally heard with indignation the most imposing services and most gorgeous ceremonies of his church denounced as abominable in the sight of God, and one who little understood the tone or spirit of Magna Charta and the Bill of Rights. Under such circumstances, it is not wonderful that the accused were hampered in their cross-examinations, and interrupted in their defence. It appears from the printed trial of Mr. Dawson,-in which he displayed promptitude, acuteness, talent, and eloquence, that would have done honour to the most accomplished and experienced counsel, that he was interrupted when he was proceeding to prove this proposition, so clear, yet so necessary, to the establishment of his innocence, "that, whether we consider the infinite offence to Almighty God which it includes, or the demoralizing influence and the injury which it entails upon society, idolatry is by far the most heinous crime of which man can be guilty." After some discussion as to his right to introduce quotations from the Homilies of the Church of England in his defence, he was finally stopped; and, under those circumstances, he declined making any defence, intimating his intention to appeal from the decision of the court. His appeal was not made in vain. The court-martial was severely censured for their injustice, and ordered to reassemble, to hear his defence, and to take it into their consideration. Their sentence was also so far mitigated, that, while they adjudged Mr. Dawson (as they before sentenced Captain A.) to be dismissed, they did not declare him, as they had done at first, "incapable of ever serving his majesty in any military capacity whatsoever." (To be continued.) In making his defence, Mr. D. appears to have been chiefly anxious to clear himself of the charge of wanting integrity, especially "in the matter of subscription." This, undeniably, was both natural and proper; and we sincerely wish that his attempt to show his innocence had been successful. Such of our remarks as we deem most important on this particular, have already mingled themselves, as we foresaw they would, with the examination, contained in our last number, of his strictures on his reviewer. We have still, however, something more to offer on this point, before we dismiss it altogether. Mr. D. writes, (pp. xiii. xiv.) "There is one circumstance, however, which the feelings of the publick will not suffer me to leave unexplained; though I had supposed at first, that I had been long enough engaged in their service to shield me from an aspersion so foul. Be my opinions what they may, I had hoped that my integrity was not to be impeached." On this we remark, that Mr. D.'s supposition that he had been long enough engaged in the service of the publick, to shield him against that impeachment of his integrity which he calls "a foul aspersion," savours strongly, either of ignorance or arrogance. The justice of this remark does not depend on the validity of what we, or others, may have said on the point in question. It depends on the nature of the monstrous assumption here made in the abstract, that his publick character and services should have rendered him unimpeachable. No mere man, since the fall of Adam, has ever given, or will ever give, such evidence of his inflexible uprightness, as to render a fall from it, and a very foul one too, impossible or incredible. The sad record of what has happened in the case of prophets and apostles, and of other eminently good men in every age, is proof enough of what we here assert. And does Mr. D. claim to have given better evidence that he would never do any thing unworthy of his character and profession, than has been given by all who have gone before him? If the fair import of what he has said does not go to this point, we do not understand him. A man's general character, we freely admit, is his very best shield against the shafts of slander. If that character be eminently good, and long established as such, no vague rumour to its disadvantage ought to be credited-The presumption against its truth is strong; and this is what none would inculcate more zealously than ourselves. But when the error or guilt of any man, however eminent for virtue, is distinctly specified, and accompanied with such proof as cannot be gainsayed or resisted, good men will mourn over the fact, that a brother has fallen; but they will neither deny nor disbelieve it. We have never attacked Mr. D.'s general character, nor wished to do it-Let it avail him as much as it will, and the more the better. We have not "travelled out of the record." We have confined ourselves to his sermon and his book, and to the unquestionable facts connected with them. Even in the review of his sermon, we gave him liberal praise for all which it contained, that was meritorious. He has, therefore, no reason to complain of any unfairness, because we have not treated him as if he was infallible or impeccable. What he calls "a foul aspersion," we consider, and know that many others consider, as an incontrovertible demonstration of a most grievous aberration from the straight path of duty and propriety-As such we confidently believe it will be regarded by the publick in general; unless he can vindicate himself, in a manner far different from that which he has adopted in the book before us. Mr. D. asks (p. xx.) "Did the students hear any thing contrary to the system of religious belief and practice' which had been drawn out in the Confession of Faith, as explanatory of seriptural doctrines? and if not, was the subscription invalid." Again, he writes (pp. xxi. xxii.): "Dr. G. and some others, who have been very liberal in their censure, must have forgotten what the system of religious belief and practice, proposed to the Directors of the Theological Seminary, really is. Apprehending, from the exquisite tenderness which is cherished for Creeds and Confessions, and which I have had abundant opportunity of knowing, that some such charge might be brought against me as a Director of the Seminary, before the discourse was prepared; and had deliberately formed the opinion, that there was nothing in it which the Confession itself did not distinctly assert. Often, and very often, have warm advocates of our excellent standards' argued against propositions, which those very standards themselves most explicitly declare. And no wonder, for many ardent friends of the Westminster Confession of Faith seldom or ever read it.-But still farther. Sup I had consulted the Confession of Faith pose the whole doctrine of subscription to our own church Creed had been assaulted, would the system_of_belief and practice, therein contained, have been thereby invaded and set aside? Then the Westminster Assembly itself, which made this book that Presbyterians so highly eulogise, must fall under the reviewer's lash; for that Assembly did declare, that to require subscription simply shorter catechism, was an UNWARRANTAto the answers to the questions in the BLE IMPOSITION-as shall be shown in its proper place, in the course of the following remarks." On these quotations we first remark, passingly, that we do consider as a gross slander, what Mr. D. here says about the warm advocates of" our excellent standards" arguing against propositions which those standards most explicitly declare; and that " many ardent friends of the Westminster Confession of Faith seldom or ever read it." This is said without one particle of proof or pretence of proof. Had Mr. D.'s integrity been assailed in this gratuitous manner, he might with great justice have complained of "a foul aspersion." But because his assertions go to assail, all at once, the truth, honour, integrity, and intelligence, of" the warm advocates of our excellent standards," in a body, he considers them as no aspersions at all. We conscientiously believe, that the broad statement here made by him, is absolutely false: and all that we shall farther say of it is, that we wish it may be noted, as one among a number of unequivocal proofs, that, as we have shown in our preliminary remarks, it is he who brings the war."That it was he who commenced, and who still continues an attack on the whole Presbyterian church, of which we are reluctantly compelled to be the defenders. But our main design, in placing the quoted passages before our readers, is, to give them, in Mr. D.'s own words, the strength of his defence of the course he has taken. He says a good deal of the same import, in various other places; but here we have the sum and substance of the whole, and it is this -that there is nothing in his sermon which really militates with any thing that is contained, either in the Formula he subscribed, or in the Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian church. We presume that Mr. D. himself would readily admit that this is his position, in the paragraphs before us; for if not, they contain nothing to his purpose. And in what manner does he attempt to maintain this position? Entirely, we affirm, by a wretched equivocation, in the use of the words Confession of Faith; and even this, we shall show, will not aid him in the least, so far as his subscription of the Formula is concerned. The book which goes under the popular name of The Presbyterian Confession of Faith, bears this title "The Constitution of the Pres byterian Church in the United States of America: containing the Confession of Faith, the Catechisms and the Directory for the worship of God: together with the plan of government and discipline, as amended and ratified by the General Assembly at their sessions in May, 1821."-Every part of this Constitution-the Form of Government and Discipline, as well as the Confession of Faith and Catechisms every minister of our church solemnly adopts and approves, at the time of his ordination. The second and third questions, put to candidates in the ordination service, are the following-" Do you sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith of this church, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures? Do you approve of the government and discipline of the Presbyterian Church in these United States?" To these questions, every individual receiving ordination, is required to return an explicit answer in the affirmative; for the constitution says expressly, that the presiding member of the presbytery "shall propose," among other questions, those which we have quoted, and that "the candidate having answered these questions in the affirmative, the presiding minister shall propose to the people," certain other questions, which are then specified. we apprehend that the cursory readers of Mr. D.'s book, especially as he repeatedly names the "standards" of the church, would naturally suppose that he meant to affirm, that his sermon contained nothing hostile to the Constitution of the Presbyterian church. Such, we confess, was our own impression, on the first reading of the passages which relate to this subject. But when we recollected that the constitution imperatively requires that questions shall be proposed and answered, by the answering of which every candidate adopts and approves both the creed and the Now, government of the church, and recollected, too, that the burden of Mr. D.'s sermon was, that no such requisition ought to be made, and that no creed should in this form be adopted-we thought that, in all his extravagance, he would not say, that his sermon harmonized exact, ly with the very things which it denounced as antichristian tyranny, and popish abominations. We therefore looked more closely at his language, and then found that there was the appearance of a careful wording, so as to make the verbal purport of what he says only this that he did not, in his sermon, oppugn any doctrine, or principle,, laid down in the Confession of Faith, taken separately from the other parts of the Constitution. The fair and full amount of his defence then, as contained in the quoted passages, stripped of its disguise and connected with the notorious facts of the case, is simply this-He has preached against the Constitution of the Presbyterian church in toto; but yet there is a part of that Constitution which contains doctrines, none of which he has opposed.-He has not opposed these doctrines, although he abhors the thought, that any one should use them as the expression of a creed-as every minister of the Presbyterian church is required to do, and actually does. If there is any thing here, better than a miserable equivocation, we will thank any one, who will show us what it is. Mr. D. himself seems to have had a little misgiving, in regard to the kind of arguing he had adopted. For he immediately puts, in the form of a supposition, what he had unquestionably done in fact. "Suppose (says he) the whole doctrine of subscription to our own church creed had been assaulted, would the system of belief and practice therein contained, have been hereby invaded?" What a question! The doctrine of subscription requires that you shall solemnly adopt a creed, and yet it is asked if you may not assail this requisition-revile it at pleasure-and yet not invade the system of belief and practice which contains it. It is no easy matter to get to the bottom of this man's absurdity. As to what he says, about the Westminster Assembly not requiring such a subscription as is required in the Presbyterian church in the United States, if his statement were admitted to be correct,-which we do not admit-what would it be to the purpose? Whether that Assembly required a subscription or not, our Constitution requires it; and every minister in the Presbyterian church, and Mr. D. among the number, has actually made it. But Mr. D.'s equivocation about the Confession of Faith, will avail him still less, if possible, in reference to the Formula, than to the Constitution of the Church. The Formula expressly mentions the "Plan of Government and Discipline of the Presbyterian Church," as well as the "Confession of Faith and Catechisms." Yet that part of the plan of government which indispensably requires the adoption of a creed by every candidate for the ministry, Mr. D. did, in the most open and unqualified manner, reprobate before the Directors, who, as well as himself, had actually adopted it; and before their pupils, every one of whom was shortly to be called on to adopt it-What was this, but to use his utmost influence to persuade those pupils not to do, what in his subscription of the Formula he had solemnly pledged himself to endeavour to "form" them to do, "cordially?"-What was it, but to do all he could to fill the minds of the youth with hatred to a system, which he had promised to engage them, so far as he could, “to propagate and defend, in its genuineness, fulness, and simplicity ?" We wish for Mr. D.'s sake, as well as our own, that his absurd defence had not called us again to expose him, by showing the glaring inconsistency--it deserves a severer appellation between his sermon, and the engagements by which he bound himself in the subscription of the Formula. Mr. D. professes (pp. vii. viii. ix.) to "explain the motives and views which animated the bosom of the preacher," when he composed and delivered the sermon which has led to so much controversy. These motives and views, as he states them, and as indeed they are indicated in the very title of his sermon-“ A Plea for Ministerial Liberty"-may all be resolved into a desire and intention to show that Christian liberty ought not to be trammelled, by a subscription to any creed or confession drawn up by uninspired men. If our space would permit we should quote him at length; but we think he will not deny that he represents this to have been his great aim; as it is plainly the very point which he has laboured, both in his sermon and his book. The question then is, was there any sufficient call, any necessity, for this service? We believe we have shown satisfactorily, that if there was, it was attempted by Mr. D. in a very improper manner-in a manner that does justly subject him to the charge of "doing evil that good may come." But we think it may be shown that his plea for ministerial liberty was in itself an unnecessary plea-that the members and ministers of the Presbyterian church had, and still have, as much Christian liberty as any reasonable being can desire. Let the Reviewer and Mr. D. be indulged with a short collo-. quy on this topick.-Mr. D. I hold that it is altogether wrong for uninspired men to form and require subscription to a creed. Reviewer. Well, we know you think it is wrong; but we as sincerely think it is right; and in this land of liberty, you will not deny that we may have a creed, and make a test of it too, if we choose to do so. Mr. D. You ought VOL. III.-Ch. Adv. not to impose this test on the conscience of any man-it is a dreadful snare. R. But pray remember, sir, that we do not impose it on the conscience of any man. All that you say on this subject is just so much of nothing to the purpose. We do not ask of any man to subscribe our creed, and take our test We do not wish he should, unless it is his own voluntary choice-the result of a deliberate conviction of his own mind that he ought to do so; and unless he applies to us, and not we to him, when he makes his subscription. Mr. D. But this adoption of a creed, formed by uninspired men, prevents free inquiry When a man has adopted it, he is afraid to examine freely, any article that it contains. R. No, sir, nothing can be farther from truth and fact, than your position here. We hold that the word of God is the only infallible standard of truth; and that every man may and ought to compare every sentiment and opinion he has adopted, whether it be contained in a written creed, or be the result of his own reasonings, with the revealed will of God; and if he find that in any way, or in any form, he has embraced error, he ought immediately to renounce it. Mr. D. Yes, but he may be afraid to renounce it, lest his brethren should censure him. R. He has a right to separate himself from his brethren. Mr. D. But they will censure him for doing that. R. Not if he does it peaceably; that is, without giving them or their system disturbance and opposition, till he has left their communion. Mr. D. Ay, but it is an ugly affair to leave all the associations of one's youth, and all the advantages of a good settlement in the ministry. R. We know it is-But this is the condition of things in this mutable world. For the sake of a good conscience, a man must often suffer loss-sometimes the loss of all things, and even life itself. A man cannot, with a good conscience, identify himself 3 G |