ceremonies, its own officers, and its own interests. The ministry of reconciliation, as such, have done more for the world than any other class of men, and have exerted a more extensive and efficient control. The press has been the agent of revolution in both church and state, and is even now teeming with the complaints which mankind are uttering against ecclesiastical and political oppression. That a mighty in-. fluence is thus gone abroad, pervading and controlling every thing, is not to be denied. And under it all, every man should remember his personal responsibility, take heed to himself that he be not deceived, and exert his utmost ability to know the truth. "I gave my heart," said Solomon, "to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven: THIS SORE TRAVAIL HATH GOD GIVEN TO THE SONS OF MEN TO BE EXERCISED THEREWITH. No unanimous consent of the fathers, no plea of pontifical infallibility, no benevolent and vicarious efforts of official men in making systems, or framing creeds, or writing learned.commentaries, can save mankind from this intellectual toil. Nay, even here, where every thing should be sincere and true, because every thing is sacred and momentous, ALL are required to be cautious-"Believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world." They must not be blindly led by "the spirit of the world," by the

press, by politicians, or by the clergy; but take good heed to themselves, that they cherish a good conscience, and be prepared to answer at the judgment

seat.

In conceding these things, I may again be charged with reasoning inconsistently. For now we have, not only a creed, but a man, and an official man too, proceeding to his place and duties in society, with his creed to direct him. The case, as stated, is, that every honest man, after having carefully inquired what is truth, and satisfied his own conscience on this question, goes forth to meet all the calls of his social position, and to fulfil his duties, according to his own convictions. And verily, if the advocates of creeds and confessions of faith, as ecclesiastical documents, can identify this case with their own, it is all folly to object to their doctrine. But no one, acquainted with the general subject, would have suspected them of so much puerility,if they had not inferred from the argument here delineated, that none should, agreeably to its principle, have any right to preach, and that a commentary or paraphrase is thereby altogether prohibited. What is there belonging to the ministerial office, or to a professed explanation of the scriptural text carried through the press, which is inimical to human liberty? These things may be, and doubtless have been, so abused. The master himself endeavored to protect his people from that very abuse, when he said-"Be not ye called rabbi; for one is your master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth for one is your Father which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you, shall be your servant." Notwithstanding these solemn charges, he yet commissioned his disciples to

go and preach the gospel to every creature. Was he inconsistent? Did it follow that the ministerial office was worth nothing; and that its exercise must be entirely prohibited, unless its incumbents for the timebeing shall be permitted to prescribe rules of faith and practice? and human beings shall be despoiled of their individual liberty? Or may not these servants write an epistle, or a book, because their Master solemnly charged them not to aspire after a lordship over his people? What did they actually do? They both preached and wrote. They spoke the thing which they believed, nor would they undertake to address the community on any other principle. And yet they themselves imitated their master, in exhorting the community to succumb to no lordship, by whatever plea it might be sustained, or whoever might pretend to it, which interfered with their allegiance to Jesus Christ as HEAD over all things.

It is curious to observe, how easily a slight acquaintance with the annals of controversy enables one to turn the tables in an argument like the present. Dr. Miller, for example, is exceedingly positive, in his letters on the claims of episcopacy, in asserting that the bible alone is sufficient for all ecclesiastical. purposes. At one time he observed-"I shall not now stay to ascertain what degree of respect is due to the writings of the fathers in general. It is my duty, however, to state, that we do not refer to them, in any wise, as a rule either of faith or practice. We acknowledge the scriptures alone to be such a rule. By this rule the fathers themselves are to be tried; and

of course they cannot be considered as the Christian's authority for any thing. It is agreed, on all hands, that they are not infallible guides: and it is perfectly well known to all who are acquainted with their writings, that many of them are inconsistent, both with themselves and with one another. We protest, therefore, utterly against any appeal to them on this subject. Though they, or an angel from heaven, should bring us any doctrine, as essential to the order and well-being of the church, which is not to be found in the word of God, we are bound by the command of our Master to reject them."* And again: "As the Christian ministry is an office deriving its existence and its authority solely from Jesus Christ, the king and head of his church, it is obvious that his word is the only rule by which any claims to this office can properly be tried; and the duties and powers of those who bear it, ascertained."+ With all this I cordially agree. But Dr. Miller was not writing on the authority of CREEDS when he penned these sentences; nor did he ever suspect that they would one day be quoted on that subject. Afterwards, when called to sustain the creed system, and in his letter to "a gentleman of Baltimore," he says "I say, how is she (the church) to ascertain that this is the character of her candidates for the holy ministry, when, according to the brother whom I am constrained to oppose, she is forbidden to employ any other test than that which the most corrupt and unqualified will bear, (the bible) just as well as the most excellent; and which is, of † Vol. 1, page 25.

Vol. 1, page 124-5

course, in reference to the point to be decided, NO TEST AT ALL." When opposing episcopalians, the bible is every thing; when arguing with an opponent of ecclesiastical creeds, the bible is nothing. In the one case claims may be tried by the word of God as the ONLY rule, and in the other it is NO TEST AT ALL. — So much for consistency. More hereafter..

CHAPTER II.

CREED-The sense in which the term is used in this Essay.

ner.

Having given the above explanations, I may now proceed to inquire after the ecclesiastical sense in which the term CREED is used? It is in this connexion, that the objections, which are offered to the consideration of the reader, arise. Dr. Miller answers the inquiry,what is a CREED? in the following man"By a CREED, OR CONFESSION OF FAITH, I mean an exhibition, in human language, of those great doctrines which are believed by the framers of it to be taught in the holy scriptures; and which are drawn out in regular order, for the purpose of ascertaining, how far those who wish to unite in church fellowship are really agreed in the fundamental principles of Christianity." Let us take this definition as it is; for the professor is intentionally precise, and would be offended if its order should be disturbed. I remark, in relation to it, 1. That by its own terms, a CREED is not a scriptural document. Certain individuals, styled "the fram