debased. And Christ's church shall live, though the infallibility of her priesthood shall be demonstrated by their vices to be a childish fable, borrowed from days and years of degrading superstition; though, as catholics say of protestants, and protestants say of catholics, and the Spirit of prophecy foretold at large, . many false prophets and false teachers should arise. This CHURCH, based on the broad principles I have defined, shall live and flourish, shall arise and put on her beautiful garments; when voluntary associations, with popery at their head, shall sink down, in prophetic language, fallen, and covered with worms, amid the shoutings of the gates of Hades.

If I have rightly judged the matter, then these voluntary associations are an assumption of Jehovah's prerogative to ELECT a church; and a presumptuous imitation of his high "purpose of election," which has been described as "the mystery of HIS WILL." By what scriptural warrant have any class of christians proceeded to take such a step? And on the other hand, as election implies REPROBATION, by what scriptural warrant have they undertaken to reprobate their fellow saints as unworthy of "church fellowship?"

My idea of the CHURCH may probably provoke a smile. But do away these voluntary associations, for which no divine warrant can be produced, and see if the thing would not be as has been described? The objection, that there are a great many vicious people in christian lands, would not sustain the smile. For such persons abound in voluntary associations, their own advocates being the judges. Nay with all their varied policy, and different creeds, how far can they get away from the ground I have sketched out? Can

any one tell what is the difference, or whether it amounts to any thing, when a priest, a bishop, or a presbyter preaches? when a minister is ordained by the imposition of the hands of one man, or those of half a dozen? When the affairs of a congregation are = managed by a vestry, a session, a committee, a board of stewards, or a circle of deacons? Between a state convention a state synod, a state conference, and a state association? or between a general convention, a general synod, a general assembly, a general conference, and a general association? Between men who love the Lord Jesus, believe in his name, and keep his commandments; or those who love God with all their heart, with all their soul, with all their mind, and with all their strength, and love their neighbour as themselves; when called episcopalians, presbyterians, methodists, &c.? The public mind is deceived; not intentionally, yet most grossly deceived. The likeness is necessari=ly a common one. Do away these voluntary associations,and it will grow more distinct and lovely. "Church fellowship will restore order, harmony, and a thousand good offices, which are now absorbed in the selfishness of sect. Endless jealousies and animosities are the fruit of a proselyting spirit, which merges the church in a party. And the grasping ambition, which cherishes the lust of numbers, and floats on the stream of public curiosity, annual statistics of a boasted growth, awakes the fear of a union between church and state. what sectarianism is doing, amid loud pretensions to wisdom and purity. Is it right? Have christians a RIGHT to do these things in a free country? Has God commanded them? Is Christ divided?

See

If I have taken one step off from biblical ground,

or aside of facts, which any man may see, I submit to be rebuked. But if my statements are correct, and may be investigated, the reader must search for himself, and may not reprove until he has examined. To our own Master, we severally stand or fall; and may that Master abundantly bless his own CHURCH, and bestow the Spirit- not of voluntary associations- but of unity and truth on all her MINISTERS.

THE proposition at present under consideration is "That the experience of ALL AGES has found creeds indispensably necessary." The first fact in proof of that proposition, has been professedly brought from the scriptures, and avers that the apostles themselves used an ecclesiastical CREED, and directed the churches and their officers to employ it as a test of orthodoxy. In this way a DIVINE WARRANT, in EFFECT at least, has been confidently asserted to exist; i. e. a summary of scriptural doctrines has been supposed to have been found before the scriptures themselves were written; and while the apostles themselves were learning, under the teaching of the Spirit, and from the experiment they were making, what the doctrines of evangelic truth and of the new testament association really are.

The reader must have seen, as I have been passing through the foregoing chapters, that all, which the advocates of creeds can say in that direction, is mere assumption; and by comparing the whole with certain

circumstances growing out of the nature of the case, and recorded by the inspired writers, such as, the election of men to superintend the daily ministration, -the discussion at Jerusalem on the binding obligation of the Mosaic law, the contest between Paul and Peter, the comments which Peter passes on the epistles of Paul- the appeals made to apostolic pens by various churches the controversies that were common at that period, and on fundamental principles too, he must be fully satisfied that no apostle was competent to frame a CREED. Each apostle was himself a learner; was a student of the old testament; was an observer of circumstances as they occurred; and was permitted to go no farther than as the Spirit gave him utterance. While the Lord himself was on earth, and was engaged in teaching his disciples the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, he told them no more than they were "able to bear;" but proceeded gradually and waited for the development of circumstan

-ces.

And when those disciples became "ambassadors in his stead," his Spirit suffered them not to treat the world more inconsiderately than they had been treated themselves. It was impossible, therefore, that an ecclesiastical CREED could have been framed by these patriarchs of the new dispensation. The new testament scriptures were furnished by them as an exhibition of the doctrines to be preached by their successors, and no other "summary" drawn out by them can any where be found.

But if the apostles did not frame a CREED, other than their epistles, perhaps the succeeding age supplied the deficiency. It must soon have appeared, according to the argument it has fallen to my lot to re

view, that the bible alone, - ABSOLUTELY ALONE, was not sufficient, seeing that the most corrupt, as well as the most excellent, could have such a test. The apostolical fathers would quickly assemble, heresies would abound, unitarianism would prevail, infidelity itself would trample down the ineffectual barrier, and nothing but the interference of some ecumenical council could save the sinking church. Accordingly Dr. M. tells us "In the second century, in the writings of Irenæus, and in the third, in the writings of Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Gregory Thaumaturgus, and Lucian the martyr, we find a number of creeds and confessions, more formally drawn out, more minute, and more extensive than those of earlier date. They were intended to bear testimony against the various forms of error which had arisen; and plainly show, that, as the arts and corruptions of heretics increased, the orthodox church found more attention to the adoption and maintenance of these formularies indispensably necessary."* this, I hope to show, in reference to the subject of the present controversy, is mere verbiage. But first, the reader may consider with himself, how far such facts, even if they testified all they are adduced to prove, are worth?

All

It is doubtless a most unhappy circumstance, that the corruptions of society, both ecclesiastically and politically, can be traced back to so early a period. If the decisions of such mighty chieftains as Alexander or Cæsar were final in all controversies involving the question of civil liberty, what would political phi

*Lec. pp. 26. 27.