which their CREED, adopted by common consent, has failed to correct, notwithstanding its boasted pretensions.

The framing of this ecclesiastical-creed is a social matter is the result of COMBINATION. According to the principles of the creed system itself, the right to make this rule of "church fellowship" depends upon a previous right to separate from the church, and to erect a VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION, in which those who agree shall live and worship together. This previous right to separate — to withdraw, if you please

-or to "secede," if an old technical term would not be offensive, I deny. The whole doctrine of voluntary associations, on which Dr. M's entire argument depends, is unscriptural. Jesus did not withdraw from the Jewish church-from the synagogue-from the temple. That church cast him out, assaulted his reputation, reviled his good name, misrepresented his doctrines, and crucified him on Calvary. His disciples did not withdraw from the Jewish church, though, like their Master, they did not AGREE with the Jews, either in " fundamental principles," or in ritual observances. You find them mingling with the nation, attending on the synagogue, going up to the temple, working while it was "called to-day," esteeming themselves "the light of the world," calculating that "a little leaven would," or might, "leaven the whole lump," and waiting, until, as Jesus foretold, they should be PUT OUT of the synagogue. Even the

pharisees and the sadducees, though they differed so essentially, did not dream of separating, or WITH

DRAWING, and forming a voluntary association. Dr. M. loves to trace things back to the early ages, and to quote the fathers. What does he think of the facts I have stated? or of the later and strongly expressed judgment of Jerome? who referred these voluntary associations to satanic policy.-"Before there were," says he, "by the instigation of the devil, parties in religion, and it was said among the people, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas (Peter), the churches were governed by the joint councils of presbyters." Was Jerome right or wrong?

If these VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS be scriptural, their law may be found on the scriptural page. But if their law cannot be found in the scriptures, why then, ecclesiastical politicians having "changed the priesthood," they must "of necessity change the law." The bible, not having contemplated these associations, has furnished no provisionary statutes for their regulation. As "Christ is not divided," there is but the one law of LOVE. As no leader of any party has been "crucified" for its members, the law of love could not originate in his claims. And as no other law, but that of LOVE, is competent to regulate intellectual beings, the law of DIVISION could not be sanctioned by the God of LOVE, or by the Governor of mankind. I apprehend Jerome was not far wrong in his explanations; or if his language be offensive, then let us use apostolic phrase. "For whereas there is among you envying and strife, and divisions, are ye not CARNAL, and walk as men? For while one saith, I am of Paul, and another, I am of Apollos, are ye not car

nal?"-Protestants know how to apply this argument to the papacy, which, as Peter was not crucified for its members, is confidently represented to be a CARNAL thing. The brethren, who advocate ecclesiastical creeds, should look more calmly at this mat← ter; for if the preceding remarks be true, their whole project is unphilosophical and treasonable.

4. This exhibition of scriptural doctrines, in human language, and in regular order, being completed; and its framers, desirous of uniting in church fellowship, having ascertained how far they are REALLY agreed in the fundamental principles of christianity; what USE will be made of this instrument? Dr. M. certainly intends that it shall serve a practical purpose. What does he mean shall be done with this CREED? Its "framers" and their adherents must subscribe it. SUBSCRIPTION is the technical term, and as such is used in this essay. For example. When the Westminster assembly had prepared that best compend of religious instruction, —if our presbyterian brethren are accurate in their statements-the shorter catechism, the Scots commissioners proposed that the answers should be subscribed by all the members. This was the next step in "regular order." But the proposition was rejected, after a considerable number had shown it to be an unioarrantable imposition. Conscientious men can not proceed very far in a path of error, without meeting some friendly monitor to arrest their attention, arouse their scruples, and call them back to duty. This matter of subscription, has always been exceedingly troublesome: yet it is

af

the very next thing to be done by creed-makers, ter they have penned their regular detail of the fundamental principles of christianity.

Let Dr. M. speak. In his introductory lecture he remarks"These formularies, if they be really

an epitome of the word of God and surely we think them so every minister is BOUND to circulate with unwearied assiduity among the people of his charge." It would seem that many of his brethren are of different opinions, and have cherished different feelings, unless they have been lately roused to do, what he declares they were formerly not in the habit of doing. "Why is it," says he, "that so many ministers of the presbyterian church, with a confession of faith, and catechism, which I verily believe, and which the most of them readily acknowledge, are by far the best that were ever framed by uninspired men ; and with a form of government and discipline, more consentaneous with apostolical practice, than that of any other church on earth, are yet so negligent, not to say indifferent, as to the circulation of these formularies? They, perhaps, do not take the trouble ever to inquire whether there be a copy of the volume that contains them, in every family, or even in every neighborhood, of their respective charges." Even these supremely excellent standards, better than all others, cannot then command SUBSCRIPTION. All the world knows that this thing, though in perfect good keeping with the system to which it belongs, has, as it ought to have done, created trouble every where.

But let Dr. M. explain farther. He remarks,—

"That SUBSCRIBING a church creed is not a mere formality; but a very solemn transaction, which means much, and infers the most serious obligations. It is certainly a transaction which ought to be entered upon with much deep deliberation and humble prayer; and in which, if a man be found to be serious in any thing, he is bound to be honest to his God, honest to himself, and honest to the church which he joins. For myself, I know of no transaction, in which insincerity is more justly chargeable with the dreadful sin of LYING TO THE HOLY GHOST, than this."*

Again- "It is truly humiliating and distressing to know, that in some churches it has gradually become necessary, to consider articles of faith as mere articles of peace; in other words, as articles, which he Who SUBSCRIBES is not considered as professing to believe: but merely as engaging not to oppose-at least in any public or offensive manner. Whether we

bring this principle to the test of reason, of scripture, of the original design of creeds, or of the ordinary import of language among honourable men;-it seems equally liable to the severest reprobation, as disreputable and criminal in a very high degree. Nor does it appear to be any alleviation, either of the disgrace or the sin, that many of the governors of the churches referred to, as well as those who SUBSCRIBE, publicly avow their adoption of this principle; admit the correctness of it; keep each other in countenance, and thus escape, as they imagine, the charge of hypocrisy.

Dr. Miller's Lec. p. 69.