2. Principles of the Reformation. In the second place what are the grand principles of the Reformation? They are the fundamental points of difference between the Catholics and Reformers. They are the very pillars of Protestantism. They are those self-evident truths in which the Reformers were fully agreed in theory. They are but two in number. What then is the first, great, essential principle of the Reformation? I cannot express it better than in your own words. "THE SRIPTURES ARE THE SUFFICIENT AND ONLY RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE." Now which denomination adheres most firmly to this grand pillar of Protestantism? Let facts decide.

Does the orthodox denomination make the Scriptures the SUFFICIENT and ONLY rule of faith and practice? Let us descend to particulars. When you induct a Professor into his responsible office in your theological seminaries, do you make the Scriptures the sufficient and only rule of faith and practice? No. Look at Andover and Princeton. Let the Professor elect adhere to the Scriptures ever so firmly, still you will not permit him to enter upon the duties of the station, unless he will first profess his hearty belief in all the articles of a long human creed, and his solemn determination to teach his pupils no opinions contrary to its published statements. And unless he will renew his sacred obligations every five years, he must be excluded from the institution, and followed into the world by the reproaches and persecutions of the leaders of your party, although he still retains his Christian character, and his firm adherence to the Scriptures. When you admit a believer to the ordinances of Christian baptism and the Lord's Supper, do you make the Scriptures the sufficient and only rule of faith and practice? No. Look at the terms of admission and excommunication in orthodox churches. Let the candidate for membership adhere to the Scriptures ever so firmly, still you will not admit him to your communion, unless he will first profess his hearty belief in all the articles of a long human creed. And should a prayerful perusal of the sacred writings lead him to reject any of its statements, you will neither give him a dismission from your body, nor a recommendation to a more liberal church, but proceed to excommunicate him for heresy, although he still retains his Christian character, and his firm adherence to the Scriptures. When you determine the principles of ministerial intercourse, do you make the Scriptures the sufficient and only rule of faith and practice? No. Look at the proceedings in Baltimore and especially in Massachusetts. Let the minister be orthodox in sentiment, and adhere to the Scriptures ever so firmly, still you will not welcome him to pulpit exchanges, unless he will subscribe to the articles of a long human creed. And if he should either deny the utility of human creeds, or refuse to enter the exclusive system, he is shut out from your society and sympathy, and either his pulpit declared vacated, or unhallowed exertions are used to render his church vacant, although he

still retains his ministerial character, his orthodoxy, and his firm adherence to the Scriptures. When you settle the terms on which the proprietors in your meeting-houses may vote for their own ministers, do you make the Scriptures the sufficient and only rule of faith and practice? No. Look at those churches which you have lately endeavoured to chain down to orthodoxy with the everlasting fetters of trust-deeds. Let the owners of the house adhere to the Scriptures ever so firmly, still you will not allow them to vote for the pastor they must maintain, unless they will first profess their hearty belief in all the articles of a long human creed. And if a prayerful perusal of the Bible should compel them to dissent from the declarations of this human standard, they must forfeit their right of voting for their own preacher, and look to their wiser neighbours to place one over them, although they still retain their Christian character, and their firm adherence to the Scriptures. Many more instances of a similar character might be mentioned; but these are sufficient to convince the public, that the first, great, fundamental principle of the Reformation, is palpably, and habitually, and systematically violated by the leaders of the orthodox denomination.

On the other hand, does the unitarian denomination make the Scriptures the SUFFICIENT and ONLY rule of faith and practice? Let us refer to the same class of particulars. When they induct a Professor into his responsible office in their theological seminaries, do they make the Scriptures their sufficient and only rule of faith and practice? Yes. Look at the Divinity School at Cambridge. The Professor elect is required only to profess his firm belief in the Scriptures, his determination to study them with prayerful attention, and his desire to communicate to his pupils the result of his honest investigations. And should his persevering inquiries into the meaning of the sacred writers render him wiser next year than this, still his increase in religious knowledge will not subject him to the loss of his situation, or to the blighting suspicions and cruel insinuations of his whole denomination, so long as he adheres scrupulously to the only infallible standard of divine truth. When they admit a believer to the ordinances of Christian baptism and the Lord's Supper, do they make the Scriptures their sufficient and only guide of faith and practice? Yes. Look at the terms of admission and excommunication in their churches. The candidate for membership is required only to profess his firm belief in the Scriptures, his determination to search them with candor and prayerfulness, and his intention to make them his sole standard of divine truth. And should any circumstance cause him to change his religious opinions, he will be neither excommunicated nor persecuted, but may receive a dismission, and a recommendation to another church, so long as he retains his Christian character and his firm adherence to the Scriptures. When they determine the principles of their ministerial intercourse, do they

make the Scriptures the sufficient and only rule of faith and practice? Yes. Look at their system of pulpit exchanges. If a minister sustains a fair reputation, and endeavours to make the Scriptures his standard of divine truth, and is acceptable to their hearers, and observes the golden rule when preaching and praying in their pulpits, they will welcome him to ministerial intercourse. And should he believe a little more or a little less than they do themselves, still they will not exclude him from their fellowship, so long as he keeps his peculiarities to himself when addressing their parishioners, and retains his ministerial character and firm adherence to the sacred Scriptures. When they settle the terms on which the proprietors of their meeting-houses may vote for their own ministers, do they make the Scriptures the sufficient and only rule of faith and practice? Yes. Look at the uniform practice of their congregations. If a person owns a seat in their houses of public worship, he is entitled to vote in the choice of a pastor whom he must aid in supporting. And this right can never be legally taken from him, neither will he surrender it, so long as he preserves any selfrespect, or any proper estimate of the value of Christian institutions. Do not these and similar facts fully prove, that the unitarian denomination adheres most firmly to the first great principle of the Reformation? Will you say that they pervert those very Scriptures which they pretend to make their standard of truth and duty? Remember that they have the same right to bring this charge against your party, that you have to cast it upon theirs; and be assured, that they can do it with equal reason, sincerity, and truth. For they really feel as confident that you are the very persons who depart from the plain teachings of revelation, as you can possibly be, that they are the perverters of inspired truth. So that this accusation will not relieve you from the conclusion to which facts have brought us. Must you not then admit, that while unitarians adhere scrupulously to the first principle of the Reformation, the orthodox depart from it most widely in all important particulars? I see not how you or any one can possibly avoid this result of our state

ments.

And what is the second grand principle of the Reformation? I cannot better express it than in the words of another. "ALL MEN HAVE AN EQUAL RIGHT TO STUDY AND UNDERSTAND THE SCRIPTURES FOR THEMSELVES." Were the Reformers agreed in this principle? In words they were. What is the declaration of Luther? "We have not received any authority or power to compel belief. If you are willing to believe, yours will be the benefit; if you refuse to believe, the choice is free to you, and yours alone is the responsibility. We do not unsheathe the sword, neither do we resort to force. Words and arguments are the only weapons of our warfare." This looks well on paper. And what was the assertion of Calvin? "Now since the consciences of the faithful, being privileged with the liberty which we have de

scribed, have been delivered by the favor of Christ from all necessary obligation to the observance of those things, in which the Lord hath been pleased they should be kept free, we conclude they are exempt from all human authority." To say that Calvin openly violated this remark both in word and deed, is to publish the literal truth. Now which denomination adheres most firmly to this second pillar of Protestantism? Let facts decide.

Does the orthodox denomination allow all men an EQUAL right to study and understand the Scriptures for themselves? Let us descend to particulars. When those learned, virtuous, and pious ministers in Connecticut were obliged by a prayerful study of the Scriptures to renounce certain articles of a human creed, why did their orthodox brethren form themselves into an ecclesiastical tribunal; summon these peaceable, faithful, and beloved pastors before them to answer to the charge of heresy; proclaim to the world that they had renounced the Scriptures, denied the Messiah, made shipwreck of the Christian faith, and disqualified themselves for the gospel ministry; and then dissolve their ministerial relation with their several congregations? Was this granting them an equal right to study and understand the Scriptures for themselves? No; and had they been the majority, would they not have possessed an equal right, and as much reason, to call the selfstyled orthodox preachers to account, and punish them for the same crimes in a similar manner? But had they so conducted, would you not have charged them with infringing the rights of private judgment? When those learned, virtuous, and pious divines in this Commonwealth and in New Hampshire were obliged by a prayerful study of the Scriptures to renounce certain articles of a human creed, why did their orthodox brethren form themselves into ecclesiastical courts; exclude them from their councils and associations; condemn their publications as false and heretical; and hold them up in the public prints as objects of fear and persecution? Was this granting them an equal right to study and understand the Scriptures for themselves? No; and had they been the majority, would they not have possessed an equal right, and as much reason, to call the self-styled orthodox preachers to account, and to punish them for the same crimes in a similar manner? But had they so conducted, would you not have charged them with infringing the rights of private judgment? - When some hundred ministers and societies in Massachusetts were obliged by a prayerful study of the Scriptures to renounce certain articles of a human creed, why did their orthodox brethren pronounce upon them sentence of condemnation; deny them the Christian name, rights, and privileges; call them emissaries of Satan, Devils, and worse than the Devil; and consign them to endless torments in hell? Was this granting them an equal right to study and understand the Scriptures for themselves? No; and had they been the majority, would they not have possessed

evidence. Will you admit the testimony of the learned and orthodox Dr. Campbell? Well, here you have his own words. "It is admitted also as undeniable, that the Reformers, who arose about the same time in different places, differed on several articles in the doctrine which they taught. As long as they confined themselves to the abuses which had, from worldly motives, been introduced into the church, there was a wonderful harmony among them all. The sale of indulgences, the celibacy of the clergy enforced by canon, the withholding of the eucharistical cup from the people, the religious service in an unknown tongue, the worship paid to images and relics, the invocation of saints and angels, the clerical usurpations of secular power, the rendering of church censures subservient to the avarice and ambition of ecclesiastics, were practical corruptions in worship and discipline, wherein all the Reformers agreed. As long as they confined their declamation to church tyranny, to the correction of superstitious and idolatrous practices, to those clerical artifices for enhancing power and wealth, which were subversive of sound morality, they concurred harmoniously in every thing; but no sooner did they enter on the endless and unprofitable discussion of abstruse and unedifying questions, of which holy writ has either said nothing, or given no decision, than their harmony was at an end. They subdivided immediately. They alarmed those who were inclined to think favorably of their cause. They made many retreat who had made advances. They supplied their enemy with arms against them, and made enemies of friends; inasmuch as many became enemies to one another. Then arose the distinction of Lutheran, and Zuinglian, and Calvinist, and Sacramentarian, and Ubiquitarian; the first three as implying, not barely the disciples of such particular teachers, but the partisans of DIFFERENT SYSTEMS." Does not this extract establish the truth of my positions most conclusively? But I have much more evidence directly to the point. Will you take the testimony of the great and learned Erasmus, who was in reality a distinguished Reformer, and when invited by the others to join their company, returned the following answer? "You all appeal to the pure word of God, whereof you think yourselves true interpreters. Agree then among yourselves about its meaning, before you pretend to give laws to the world." Will you take the evidence of Calvin himself? Here you have his affidavit. "It is of importance that no suspicions of the divisions which are amongst us descend to future ages; for it is RIDICULOUS BEYOND IMAGINATION, that, after having broken with all the world, we should, FROM THE BEGINNING OF OUR REFORMATION, AGREE SO ILL AMONG OURSELVES.' More quotations might be introduced; but these are sufficient to convince the public, that there was no agreement among the Reformers, in any particular set of reformed doctrines.

But perhaps you will ask if the Reformers were not agreed in the great doctrines of the trinity, the deity of Christ, the atonement,