but he has dared to declare, in a Presbyterian Association, and that too without any addition or qualification, that God alone is the Lord of conscience, and that his word is the only rule of faith and practice;-a declaration, which Dr Miller says, amounts to nothing; which every heretic in Christendom is ready to make, and eager to maintain. Indeed when a person insists much upon this subject, the Doctor thinks that it is a pretty certain indication, that he begins to slide with respect to orthodoxy.

We think there is something truly pathetic in the following passage from Mr Duncan's remarks.

Why should an honest and conscientious effort, to give truth a scriptural rather than a scholastic form, excite so many suspicions against him who makes it, and create so many heartburnings in christian assemblies. Suffer us to declare, (Mr Duncan as well as other presbyterian clergymen, is much in the habit of using the royal style, when speaking in the first person,) suffer us to declare what we have been made to feel on this subject. We have been made to feel, that we cannot disown the supreme authority of our fathers, and venture to think for ourselves on subjects of religion, without incurring the heaviest censures; that we cannot whisper a doubt as to the theological views of divines of olden time, or review the crude notions of our youth, by the severer thought of maturer years, without finding our change to be our reproach in the estimation of thousands, whose good opinion we value.'

This is certainly a hard case, and we think with our author, that the church of Christ ought to be delivered from such spiritual vassalage.

We shall not attempt anything like an analysis of Mr Duncan's book. Indeed we suspect that this would be no very easy undertaking; for it is sometimes confused and often irrelevant, and bears many marks of being rather a hasty performance. It contains a great deal of empty declamation, and a great deal of crude and immature thinking. The greatest fault in Mr Duncan as a writer, is a want of simplicity. He discovers on all occasions a most depraved taste, and there is often a sort of pompous inanity about his style, which disgraces the sentiment. He triumphs however in this controversy, and he triumphs, we think, by the strength of the ground, which he has taken. There are passages in the book of considerable vigour and beauty; a few of which we shall proceed to transcribe, that our readers may see how a Presbyterian talks about creeds.

It was not the mere existence of creeds, nor was it the fact, that they were proclaimed by different denominations of Christians, that first excited our alarm; but it was the actual oppression of church authority, in demanding a subscription to these sectarian articles, as a term of communion in the ordinances of God's house.' p. 41.

Aye, here the oppression lies, and we know not whether it is the greatest matter of wonder, that there should be in this age of the world, ecclesiastics bold enough to exercise it, or people abject enough to submit to it.

There is certainly no harm in the simple act of framing a creed, that is, of setting forth in a regular and systematic form, a summary of our views of scripture doctrine. But we should not forget that they are our views only, and that therefore, however carefully or conscientiously formed, there is at least a possibility that, in some respects, they may be erroneous. Another, in the exercise of equal advantages, equal diligence, and equal sincerity, may not be able to find in the Bible all the points, which compose our summary, or he may find, in some respects, different ones. Now, who is to judge between us? Which is to set himself up for orthodox, and excommunicate the other? Manifestly neither. This is a case where we can do nothing, and ought to do nothing, but exercise charity; that charity which believeth all things, and hopeth all things' favourably of those who differ from us. We may very reasonably prefer to converse, to associate, to worship, if you please, with those who agree with us in sentiment. But we have no right to exclude any one, who calls himself a servant of Christ, from communion in Gospel ordinances. We have no right to withhold from him the christian name, or to refuse to reciprocate with him the offices or civilities of christian fellowship. If the church were a human institution, and the terms of membership of human appointment, then we grant, the case would be different. Then we might say to an applicant, we cannot receive you into our church unless you will subscribe to our creed,-unless you will consent to walk with us upon our own principles. But while Christ alone is the master of Christians, we dare not reject any one from his church, merely because he cannot pronounce our shibboleth. But to return to our author.

'Dr Miller appears to think, that the great value of a creed is, that it is a test of orthodoxy. And what, pray, is orthodoxy? Is it defined in the Bible? If it is, then what other test do we want? The Bible is not a collection of riddles; it is a book

which every one may peruse,-the wayfaring man, though a fool, need not err therein. If then these doctrines are so plainly written in the scriptures, why all this alarm? If Calvinism, which we understand to be what is called orthodoxy, be truth, we have no doubt the spirit will establish it, by his own influences, to the belief of every man; and if it be not truth, the sooner the creed which contains it is abandoned the better.' p. 151.

Dr Miller observes, that it is the duty of Christians to hold those accursed, who preach another Gospel, and he rings a great variety of changes, in the course of the lecture upon the terms accursed' and another Gospel.' Upon this Mr Duncan remarks as follows.

6

Any who may thus indulge themselves in anathematizing their brethren, because they do not agree with them in their ideas, should seek to make 'assurance doubly sure,' as to their divine right to do so. Even when hard pressed in argument, they must be very cautious how they take refuge here.*** Are the orthodox party so perfectly sure, that they alone have the truth, and so perfectly sure that all others are wrong, that they may venture to utter this fearful anathema against all but themselves.**** The charge of preaching another gospel, or even an intimation that looks like it, must be supported by strong, numerous, and substantial vouchers. It must not be quickly, nor dogmatically made. It must not be taken up on vague report; on interested representations; on superficial reasonings; on uninformed conjecture; nor on angry suspicions. It is a charge of high treason, which must be proved and doubly proved-and hard must be the heart, degraded the mind, a world of iniquity' the tongue, that can harshly make it. If we should feel a charge like this, and feel it in all the bitterness of our soul, no man can be surprised. But after all, our simple crime is, that we are pleading for the authority of our master's law, against that which his servants have set up. If to maintain that the Bible is the only rule of faith and practice, be to introduce another gospel into the church, then evidently the gospel is a human contrivance.' p. 160.

On page 186 we find the following very just and liberal

sentiment.

The Bible is intended to be a system of practical morals. reveals not doctrines for the sake of doctrine, but as they may serve to fulfil practical purposes. It never was designed to establish theory independent of practice.

Mind must always wither, when it is enslaved. Men when they become Christians are still men; and religion, like every other human concern, is sustained by them on the common prin

ciples of their nature. If then they are compelled to acquire their ideas on religious subjects from the books of others; or have either from indolence or timidity learned that this is the easiest and safest way to meet the popular notions of their sect; how can they feel themselves unshackled and free?'

Mr Duncan here alludes to an objection against creeds, which ought to be well considered by those who undertake to enforce them. It cannot be denied, even by their advocates, that they are unfriendly to free inquiry. The moment a minister of the Gospel, for instance, has subscribed to any public formulary, all impartial examination of the Scriptures is, with him, foreclosed forever. He may study the word of God, but he is bound to see in every passage, only what his standard directs him to see; and if his understanding should not be sufficiently tractable to do this, then is his moral principle in danger. If during his researches, the Scriptures should disclose to him any truths, inconsistent with the system, which he has pledged himself, in the most solemn manner, to support, he must either conceal them, and close his mind against them, or he must be prepared to encounter suspicion and obloquy,to resign perhaps, his place and means of living, and cut himself loose from all his social and religious connexions. Is not a creed then a fearful instrument? Ought we not to make assurance doubly sure,' that we have the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, before we consent to bind ourselves, or seek to bind the consciences of others, by the decisions of weak and fallible men?

We have now closed our remarks upon Mr Duncan's book. We think he has done essential service to the cause of truth. We congratulate him, that he has become a freeman of the Gospel. We welcome him into that liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free. We are glad that this controversy is out among our Presbyterian brethren, and that it commenced under such circumstances of time and place. We think it cannot but have a favourable influence upon the free and generous minds of the young men, who belong to the interesting Seminary at Princeton. A few of them, we doubt not, will think, as we do, that the biblical student ought to feel himself under no dominion, when he approaches the word of God, but a generous love of truth, and that his only solicitude, in every case, should be, to learn what the mind and will of the Lord is.'

ART. XVI.-A Letter addressed to the King, by THOMAS THRUSH, on resigning his Commission as a Captain in the Royal Navy, on the ground of the unlawfulness of War. From the London Edition. Cambridge. Hilliard and Metcalf, 1825. pp. 24.

THE appearance of this pamphlet forms a somewhat curious, and certainly an interesting, phenomenon in the history of the human mind. It is interesting to the mere philosophical observer, as describing an important revolution of opinion in an individual, at a period of life when men's opinions seldom undergo any decided change. It is still more interesting to the Christian and philanthropist, as furnishing an example of a disinterested and courageous spirit, which acts upon a conviction of duty in opposition to strong temptations of present interest, and in contempt of the decision of the gay, unthinking, and worldly.

It is, too, an encouraging incident. It is evidence of the progress of humane and enlightened sentiments. That these sentiments will finally triumph, we see no cause to doubt. Their progress may be slow, but we consider it sure. The spirit of the age inspires pleasing hopes. The human intellect was never more active than at present. It has within a few years received a powerful stimulus, and the consequence has been, that many time hallowed opinions have been shaken, and many abuses long upheld by pride or power, indolence or bigotry, have been reformed. The mind is fast shaking off former prejudices; it is learning to confide more in itself, and exert its powers more vigorously than in some past times. Some incidental and temporary evils may have been the effect. Some excesses, and some extravagance of opinion may have been witnessed, to the regret of the sober and reflecting. Human opinions have seemed to be thrown into a violent fermentation; and much froth and sediment has therefore been formed. But the result, as might have been foreseen, has been happy. Many important principles have been established, and views confirmed, which have not been acknowledged and acted upon in former ages.

Indeed, we are among those, who think that everything is to be hoped from an active and fearless exertion of intellect. We consider that apathy in the public mind is more to be dreaded