in that catechism the text of lectures, we substitute a human composition for the holy scriptures-nay, that we even set the words of men above the word of God. This objection, like the former, rests, we are confident, entirely on a false assumption. And if those who urge the objection do not know that the assumption is false-as we would fain believe they do not-they must, at least, be chargeable with great ignorance. They could not read even the second answer of the catechism on which I am to lecture, without seeing that a fundamental point which we are to maintain is, that nothing has any authority in religion but the revealed will of God— "That the word of God, contained in the scriptures of the Old and New Testament, is the ONLY RULE to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him." It would be strange indeed, if in the very act of teaching that the scriptures are the ONLY rule of faith and practice, we should set up another and a superior rule, in their place. No, my young friends, it is no doctrine of our church, nor of any member of it ever known to me, that its Confession of Faith and Catechisms are superior to the Bible, or that they make any addition to it, or are any thing without it. On the contrary, not only in the answer I have recited, but in various other places, they teach and inculcate that the scriptures alone are to be considered as authoritative, in all that relates to religion, and in all that is binding on conscience. No men that ever lived were more strenuous advocates for these sentiments, than those who formed our religious standards. Hence they took care to have that done, which has not been done by some other Christian communions-I mean, that the scripture proofs should be added, point by point, to every clause of their Confession and Catechisms; that it might be seen that the whole rested, as they believed, on the word of God; and to enable every reader to see and judge for himself, whether the doctrines they laid down were not supported by a clear scriptural warrant. And I take this opportunity to say to you distinctly, that you ought to compare all that you will hear from me, carefully and candidly, with the word of God. I shall endea

vour to give you plain scriptural proof for the doctrines I teach. But judge of my quotations from the scripture yourselves. If they do not amount to proof, let what I say, as grounded on them, stand for nothing. But if they amount to proof, then remember, that the doctrine is not mine, but that of our common Lord and Master, which none of us can reject but at our peril. It would be perfectly practicable for me to take plain passages of scripture, as texts for all that I propose to say; and then to give the answer in the Catechism, as the expression of the doctrinal truth of those texts, and proceed to discourse upon it accordingly. This is a method which has been, I think, adopted by some, and has been matter of deliberation with myself. But on the whole, it seems to me a method by far the most natural, brief, and easy, to state the doctrine or proposition, in the first place, and then to allege the proofs from scripture, for the several parts of it in detail. This is certainly not a method inconsistent with fair and conclusive reasoning. It is a method precisely similar to this, which is pursued in all mathematical demonstrations. It is also the very method adopted in our courts of justice; where the advocate first states what he expects to prove, then brings forward and examines his evidence, and afterwards reasons to show that the evidence adduced has established his position. In a word, when it is admitted on all hands, as in the case before us, that the doctrine and the scriptural proof must go together, it would seem to be a very cavilling spirit, which makes it matter of offence, or objection, that the proof is not stated before the doctrine, rather than the doctrine before the proof.

The framers of our Catechism unquestionably had texts of scripture directly in view, in every answer they formed; and from a careful consideration of those texts they framed the answer-exactly as a preacher now raises a doctrine from the text which he reads. We only take the reverse order, and first repeat the doctrine, and then support it by the texts. But the truth is, that those who contend with us here rely chiefly on a

Third objection, which is, that no creed or catechism ought to be formed, or taught, or explained, but what consists of the very words of scripture. This it is supposed is strong ground, which those who take believe they can maintain against all opposition. We think otherwise, and are prepared to assign our reasons for believing it right, that every Christian denomination should have a formula of faith, expressed, generally, in different words from those of the sacred text. For this we think it a sufficient reason, that such a formula as we contemplate-such as our Catechism is in fact-is favourable to harmony, order and peace, among those who endeavour to walk together in Christian fellowship; and that it does, in fact, no more than secure-as far as it can be secured-the right which every Christian possesses, to know whether his brother holds what he esteems the fundamental truths of Christianity; and, of course, whether there can be real communion or fellowship between them, or not.

Every sect that bears the Christian name professes to take the scriptures as the rule of faith, and to derive its religious tenets from them. And could a community, I ash, formed out of all these sects, walk together in Christian fellowship and church order? The thing, as I apprehend, is absolutely impossible; because in instances not a few, a part of this community would maintain as essential truths and duties, what another part would strenuously oppose, as the grossest error and the most abominable impiety. A Roman Catholick, for example, would hold communion with none who denied, that the sacramental elements, after consecration, become the real body and blood of Christ; and the Protestant, to say the least, would not choose to commune with any one who maintained this tenet. The Trinitarian would insist on paying divine honours to his Saviour; and the Unitarian would denounce this as idolatry. The orthodox would contend that the atonement of Christ is the only safe reliance of a sinner for acceptance with God; and in this he would be contradicted by those who reject the doctrine of atonement as one of the worst corruptions of Christianity. One party would be zea

B

lous for the baptism of its infant offspring; and another as zealous in opposing it. One section of this strange community would insist that no ordinances were valid, which were not administered by men tracing their authority in a direct succession from the apostles; and another would assert that the ascertaining of such a succession was altogether absurd and impossible.

It seems to me, that not one of the parties concerned could⚫ be happy or contented, in such a connexion. If any could, it is certain that those could not who hold-as many do holdthat they cannot, and ought not to receive to Christian communion, or recognise as Christians at all, those who reject what they believe to be the fundamentals of religion. To say that this is mere narrowness and bigotry, is to take for granted the whole matter in dispute. The opposite party maintain that they are bound to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints," and that they do no more than this, in refusing communion with those who are known to hold radical and ruinous errors. There must be, then, some mutual understanding among the members of a religious communion, as to the manner in which they interpret the language, and receive the doctrines and ordinances of revelation. Accordingly, there is not, so far as my knowledge extends, a religious sect in Christendom, the existing members of which do not, in some form or other, take measures to ascertain whether an individual, hitherto a stranger, and now proposing to become one of their number, holds those things which they deem essential to his being a good and profitable member of their community. They satisfy themselves of this, at least before they admit him to all the rights, privileges, and influence, of complete membership. This is effected, in some communions, by each individual, before partaking of the Lord's Supper, giving a statement, either verbally or in writing, of the leading articles of his belief, and his views of a Christian profession; of which his brethren judge, and receive or reject him accordingly. But this, you perceive at once, is no more than requiring every individual to make a Confession of Faith for

himself. We think it far preferable to have one that has been drawn up, with the greatest deliberation, by men of eminent ability and piety-which every one may examine at his leisure, and before he adopts it, weigh every part of it with the utmost care. As to forcing this creed on those who dislike it, none are more opposed to it than the members of our church; and none do more sincerely rejoice, that we live in a country where no civil pains or penalties can be inflicted for refusing any creed whatsoever. At the same time, we do regard it as utterly unbecoming the spirit of a man and of a Christian, for any individual to disguise his religious opinions, and by so doing to obtain a standing in our church; or to retain a standing and influence already acquired, when he is conscious that he is decidedly hostile to some of the leading articles of our faith and ecclesiastical order. In a word, then, our Catechisms and Confession of Faith are intended to declare the manner in which we understand the scriptures-a declaration which every church has certainly a right to make-which we have seen must be made, and is in fact made, in some way or other, by all religious denominations, with a view to secure unanimity and cordiality. Those who are agreed with us in our understanding of the scriptures, we take into communion, as brothers and sisters; and those who cannot agree with us we leave, with the common privilege of forming a communion for themselves, with those with whom they can harmonize. Is this a bigoted, narrow, or unreasonable system? We think not.

We will now examine, a little more closely, the system of those who admit-not however, it would seem, without some reluctance that summaries of faith and duty may be framed, provided that in making them, nothing but the very language of scripture be employed. In accordance with this system, summaries of religious truth have been formed, by simply bringing together, from various parts of the sacred volume, a large number of what have been considered apposite texts. Now, although this plan seems to me to require such a regard to mere language, as is not required either by reason or re