For certain it is, that the different sects admit each other to be christians, and each other's ministers to be servants of Christ, while their respective creeds form impassible barriers to their mutual fellowship. Define the scriptural objects clearly, and then let it be answered, whether they may not be acquired without these voluntary associations, and sectarian formularies? This subject I will refer to a distinct section.

SECTION IV.

Dr. M. has ascribed to creeds certain "important ends," which, he says, cannot possibly be obtained without them. In illustration of this position, he asks, "how the church can take effectual measures to exclude Pelagians, Semi-Pelagians, Swedenborgians, Universalists, Arians and Socinians from her ministry, without the use of creeds and confessions. in some form?" "Here," he declares, speaking of my "Remarks," "here his doctrine labours most deeply and fatally. Until he shall relieve it from this difficulty, he will have accomplished nothing. It is a mill-stone about the neck of his cause, which, unless detached, must sink it irrecoverably." Though I am very far from supposing this to be the most important part of the controversy, yet, as Dr. M. is pleased so to represent it, and as it is one of the most common topics of argument on his side of the question, it would be a serious omission not to give it a distinct consideration, in a reply to his "Let

ter." This is undertaken, not without a hope of successfully parrying the blow, which he imagines to be fatal to my cause; and with some degree of confidence, that the argument will not "miss the point," which is so omnipotently destructive.

To present the subject in its full force to the reader, I must refer to a case, on which Dr. M. himself dwells with considerable fondness;-the case of Arius before the council of Nice. "We can scarcely conceive," says Dr. M. "of a more striking exemplification of the real importance of this point, than that which is furnished by the proceedings of the council of Nice, in the fourth century, in relation to the heresy of Arius." In reference to this, he asks, "what would Mr. D. have done, with his doctrine, had he been a member of the council of Nice?-Had he been there, he would, no doubt, have done-JUST NOTHING. "" This seems to bring

the matter close home, and affords to the author of the Letter a fine opportunity of awakening all the suspicions of the community against his opponent, an opportunity which he does not fail to improve with his utmost skill, by throwing out a variety of hints, which are either unintelligible or unkind.

When asked, what course I would have pursued, had I been a member of the council of Nice, I confess there is considerable difficulty in framing an answer. You might almost as well "draw a diameter through the periphery of the divine plan, and ask me how God should make a world out of the other half. I answer, I do not know." The human mind, it is

presumed, always derives its own peculiarity of character from the combination of circumstances under which it is developed. How my mind might have been affected in that age, when a synodical test of orthodoxy was for the first time formed, and when the church deserted her Master's providence, to shelter herself under the patronage of an earthly prince, I cannot tell. What would Dr. M. with his doctrine, unfavourable, it is supposed, to an union between the church and the state,-have done, when Constantine appeared to settle religious disputes by the potency of the civil arm? Just nothing? Or would he have persevered in making the creed, and then humbly craved the royal signature?

Some men always go with the majority. The sword is often a powerful argument, and I can assert nothing for my own courage, further than as it has been tried. I might then have been on the side of the council, and perhaps have approved of Arius' being sent into exile without a tear. But if this question is to form a sort of test for my doctrine, as held in the present age, where men may think for themselves; and under a government, which though "rich in woods, and groves, and coppices," yet "refuses to spare a single faggot for an auto de fe," then, I reply, that I must be an opponent of the measures of that unwise and slavish assembly. And, though Dr. M. with all his unfriendly hints, and the synod of Philadelphia, with all their exuberant zeal, cannot fasten down upon me the charge of Arianism, yet, in all probability, I should have been

banished with the heretic into Illyricum. I judge this latter consequence must have followed, from the inseparable connexion which my opponents suppose to exist between Arianism and the denial of the authority, or usefulness, of human creeds; from the conduct of the synod, which tried every practicable expedient to banish me from the heritage the Lord had given me; and from the many invitations I had received to leave the communion of presbyterians:The whole world, says Dr. M. is before you.

My doctrine would have compelled me to have protested against the authority of the council, as a mere human contrivance; and as having no divine warrant, nor justifiable plea, to take cognizance in the case. I should have objected to the interference of the temporal prince in spiritual matters, as the great Head of the church had never committed them to his political management, nor in any sense con-, secrated him as an evangelical officer. I should have urged the utter incompetency of the imperial mandate to restore peace to the church; or indeed, to do any thing else but spoil the beauty of the whole evangelical association, and defeat "the important ends" for which the church has been instituted. I should have inveighed against the artifice of making an authoritative creed, inasmuch as, if a man cannot be condemned by the scriptures, he is not to be condemned at all. A judicial sentence must rest on testimony, clear and unequivocal-"Against an Elder," saith the word of God, "receive not an accusation, but at the mouth of two or three witnesses."

And finally, taking advantage of subsequent history, the knowledge of which the question supposes me to have possessed, I should have, with prophetic voice, forewarned the council, that they were giving form and size to a controversy, which should last until the Millennium should come round.

I have been wrong in any of these views?

Would

To illustrate my meaning a little farther, I will ask the privilege of relating an interesting story, whose circumstances are connected with the history of the council of Nice. The reader may find it in Cave's life of Athanasius, or in Milner's church history. "The bishops, before they formally met in the solemn council, spent some days in preliminary discourses and disputations; wherein they were attacked by certain philosophers; men versed in subtilties, and the arts of reasoning, whom either curiosity had drawn thither, or, as some suspect, Arius had brought along with him to plead his cause, and to retard and entangle the proceedings of the synod. One of which, priding himself in the neatness and elegancy of his discourses, reflected with scorn upon the fathers of the council. A piece of insolence so intolerable, that an ancient confessor, then in the company, a man plain, and unskilled in the tricks and methods of disputing, not being able to bear it, offered himself to undertake him. For which he was laughed at by some; while others, more modest and serious, feared what would be the success of his entering the lists with so able and famed a disputant. The good man, however, went on with his resolu