prostitution of the sacred office of the ministry, which is not in the mere proposal of opinions in common conversation or in books. Thirdly: It cannot be pretended that in the private reading of a book published by an erroneous teacher, there is any public countenance given to him in the character of a church officer or any sort of church communion with his followers, as there certainly is in attending on his public ministrations. Fourthly: The private reading of books is of the nature of that private communication of sentiments to one another which is previously necessary in order to a state of church communion. Thus reading is a proper means of acquiring the information which is needful to determine us whether we ought to join in a particular church communion or not. If we find in the use of this and other means that we ought not to attend on the public administrations of any particular church, we should, according to the opportunities of our place and station, warn others of the danger of attending on them. Hence the examination of erroneous books, so far as it is performed with honesty and judgment, is a real service to the church of Christ." See Dr. Anderson's Appendix to his Discourses on Psalmody, on the article "Of Occasional Hearing," page 386, foot note.

3. It is said, we ought to try the spirits, and after proving all things hold fast that which is good. To hear a sermon at a time, in any society is not a probable way of ascertaining the orthodoxy of those who belong to it. A Socinian or Arminian may preach the truth when he is discoursing on a subject which has not a connection with his Socinian and Arminian sentiments. In the church of Rome there are some of its clergy, who in regard to the doctrine of justification by faith in the imputed righteousness of Christ, and some other doctrines connected with the free grace of God, are not so far wrong sentimentally, while in other things they must necessarily, according to the peculiarities of that church, be far from the truth, if they do not run counter to their own belief, in the doctrine of imputed righteousness and the free grace of God as reigning in our salvation, as when they pray to canonized saints or angels, or admit the use of relic worship, &c. The more certain way of ascertaining the orthodoxy of any church society, is by its public creeds and confessions, and the accordance of its public teachers with these creeds, in their private writings, and also a readiness manifested by that society to investigate the principles and conduct of its teachers when their orthodoxy becomes questionable, and a refusing to commune with those who hold error. One minister, in a society maintaining or allow

ing errors, may be evangelical; another, may not be so. And one may be orthodox at one time, who at another time may not be orthodox; so that an occasional sermon cannot be a true specimen of what the general views of any church are, and of the doctrines generally held by them, as a body. Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. "This is most proper," says a certain writer. "But how is this to be done? Not surely by simple hearing. We may suppose a person goes in at random to a Unitarian chapel, or to a Romish cathedral. In the former, he may hear a discourse on the unity of the divine nature: In the latter, he may hear one on the trinity, and both unexceptionable. Then, if one is to judge of a party by simply hearing, he may become a Unitarian, a Papist, or a member of any community, according as he happens to hear an cloquent preacher. To rear a profession upon simple hearing, is rearing a superstructure without searching for a foundation." "I will suppose," says another, "a pious and ingenuous individual about to form his religious connexions for life. He looks round to the churches to which he has most access, and is desirous of deciding with which of these he can be most comfortable. I will suppose that, in this survey, he turns his eyes toward the truly scriptural and primitive church, to which it is our happiness to belong. [With the writer's opinion of the Presbyterian church in the United States, we have nothing to do at present; but with his argument, which is good. Doubtless all the different denominations of Presbyterians had their original foundation in a "truly scriptural and primitive church," but many have departed from the faith.] He is anxious to know the doctrine, as well as the order, which he may expect to find in connexion with our body. How is he to know this? Certainly not by going from church to church throughout our whole bounds, and learning the creed of every individual minister from his own lips. This would be physically impossible, without bestowing on the task, a degree of time and toil which scarcely any man could afford. He could not actually hear for himself the doctrines taught in a twentieth part of our pulpits. And if he could, he would still be unable to decide, from this source alone, how far what he heard, might be regarded as the uniform and universal, and especially as the permanent, character of the church; and not rather as an accidental exhibition. But when such an enquirer finds that we have published a creed, declaring how we understand the scriptures, and especially stating in detail the great truths which we have

agreed to unite in maintaining; he can ascertain in a few hours, and without leaving his own dwelling, what we profess to believe and practice, and how far he may expect to be at home in our communion."*

4. It is said, hearers may take the good and leave the bad: That divine command, that we cease to hear the instruction that causeth to err, renders it unlawful for us to attend the ministry of any from whom we may expect to hear any thing bad, as an unwarrantable exposing of ourselves to danger, and as we should be sinfully countenancing such a person in the errors he maintains. Instead of laying ourselves in the way of danger, we are to watch against it. Persons often make themselves a ready prey to temptation, by laying themselves too easily in its way: the Lord in righteous judgment, leaving them to fall before it, to punish or correct them for their folly. And in this very case, it has not unfrequently happened that those, who once promised fair in their religious profession, and appeared to be sound in the faith, yet not being sufficiently established, and having gone to hear the instruction that causeth to err, have become a prey to error through this means. Apostacy from the truth has most generally commenced here. Persons are more ready, from the very nature of man, as having moral depravity about him, to receive the evil than the good, without any design; and it is a tempting heaven, which has favoured us with a revelation of himself in the scriptures, for persons to expose themselves to the danger of going where they know or have reason to believe something is taught contrary to what is contained there.

5. It is said that, in opposing it, we count all wrong but ourselves: If we think any equally as right as ourselves, who are in a state of separation from us, we and they ought to be together: not in occasional acts of church communion, but in constant communion. In such a case, we are sinfully apart. That person only is consistent with himself in making a public profession, who believes that he stands upon more scriptural ground, as a professor of religion, than any do who differ from him; or, in plain words. that he is right, and they are wrong, in the points of difference between him and them. If he thinks otherwise, he is certainly playing the hypocrite, in so far as the impression he makes, and proves himself to be an unfaithful witness for God and truth.— Such language is often cast into the teeth of Seceders, by way of reproach, who are disposed to act consistently, on this part of

* Miller of Princeton, on Creeds and Confessions.

their religious profession: But certainly with very great injustice; for if others, in our estimation, are not wrong in those things wherein we differ from them; or if others do not think us wrong, while that difference in profession between us and them subsists, why are we at all apart? Both would be guilty of sinfully rending the church of Christ without a cause, were this the case. The things which divide betwen us and them, must either be matters of importance, or matters of mere indifference. If they are matters of indifference, we are wrong in pertinaciously adhering to them, so that they and we cannot be associated together in our public religious profession. If they are matters of importance, we must maintain the truth at all hazards, and must prefer the honour of divine truth to a fellowship with those who are engaged in a stated opposition to it, in any respect whatever: for the divine command to us is, that we buy the truth and sell it not. Division in the chuch, is always wrong; so that when we stand apart from others, we conclude it is upon grounds which sufficiently warrant us to separate ourselves from them, and we must necessarily be supposed to think that they are wrong,-that they have caused the division, and that it becomes our duty to mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine we have learned, and aviod them.

(Remainder in our next.)

Selections.

FROM THE CHRISTIAN ADVOCATE.

SPEECH IN THE GENERAL SYNOD OF ULSTER. (Concluded from vol. 5, page 552.)

There is one topic connected with this subject on which Mr. M. has been peculiarly impressive. He accuses us of " attempting to infringe on the rights of the people." This is a fine topic for a declamation; but it is quite unfit for an accusation against the Orthodox members of this Synod. I trust I shall not be accused of unpardonable egotism when I tell this house, that the only instance in which the original rights of the people have yet been restored, was effected by myself, aided by my Orthodox friends, after many a hard and uncompromising contest for the ground, which was yielded to us only inch by inch-a case in which also we enlarged the privileges and opportunities of our Probationers, as well as restored the rights of our congregations—I alfude to the manner in which vacant congregations were formerly

supplied with preaching. They were made the absolute monopoly of each Presbytery. And in cases of Arian Presbyteries, with Arian Probationers, and some Orthodox vacancies, the people know full well how their religious interests were neglected. Such congregations were compelled to receive, from week to week, those very Arian Probationers, without the possibility of relief, till they could ask some candidate upon trial. After much contending, however, we have introduced a law whereby a vacant congregation may select the Probationers of any Presbytery for their supplies. By this means, the varied merits of our young preachers have a field of exercise, and our people an unconfined opportunity of making a selection of their minister.-This is no proof of our being adverse to the "rights of the people;" and I hope we shall maintain them in possession of this right, in opposition to every effort by which its curtailment may be attempted.

But Mr. M. says we will not allow the people to select, except from the favoured number sealed with our approbation. I totally and unequivocally deny the charge. I should certainly advise the people to choose from those we had approved-but if they did not take my advise, I should as certainly leave them to select where they pleased. But then, says Mr. M., you would not ordain. Certainly we would not. We leave the people to their freedom-but the people must leave us to our freedom. They are not our serfs: we are not their thralls. They owe us no allegiance beyond the bounds of their consciences; we owe them no compli ance beyond the limits of ours. But they would not get the royal endowment, says Mr. M., except they submitted to your authority. And why should they not? Does not the Presbytery of Antrim, which is Arian, enjoy the royal endowment? Is not the Synod of Munster, which is nearly Arian and Socinian, even somewhat more liberally endowed? And should any of our congregations turn Arian, and contrary to our recommendation, make wilful choice of an Arian ministry, I wonder would either of those two bodies shut their doors against their entrance; or would we act so oppressively as to refuse them permission to retire? I trust such an event may never occur; but if it did occur to-morrow, we should allow to the people the same liberty of choice which we ourselves enjoy. They are not bound to elect at our recommend ation-we are not bound to ordain at their election. But as they are voluntary members of a voluntary association, they are at liberty to dissolve when they please a connexion which their will alone has formed, and to seek from others, those ministers or ordinances which we may feel bound to refuse.