christian people: and we readily admit, as sound and good, the reasons offered discourses. It is aimed entirely against creeds and confessions of faith; and if not with greater felicity and effect, yet at least with greater zeal and exertion, than we have commonly seen. And on this account chiefly it is, that we deem it deserving of particular notice. The passage chosen by Dr. K. for his text, is, Titus i. 9. "Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine, both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers." After an introduction, not remarkably appropriate or concise, referring to his text, our author observes, "The apostle it will be conceded had in view some standard of truth, which the elder is to observe in teaching and ruling in the church, and which he conceived an adequate rule of christian faith and ministerial duty. What this rule is, and its claim to the character of the faithful word; by whom, and for what reasons, it must be held fast; and when it is suitably regarded, will be the lead. ing subjects of our enquiry." The result of his first enquiry the Dr. expresses as follows: "The inspired scripture is the rule of faith intended, the faithful word to be held fast, as taught by holy men of God, who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." To this we have nothing to object. We hold the "inspired scripture to be the rule of faith, the faithful word to be held fast" by all christian ministers, and which the scripture has to this high distinction. But we cannot so readily admit, that the words of scripture only, without reference to any sense, or interpretation of them, are to be held fast; for, "as a rule of faith," we can form no conception of the use of words, whether such as "man's wisdom teacheth," or even such as "the Holy Ghost teacheth," any farther than the true sense or interpretation of them is regarded. To contend therefore, for the mere words, and not for the true doctrine, or mind of the Spirit in the scriptures, to us, appears idle and preposterous, This however, if we do not misapprehend him, Dr. K. has done. There is indeed a great ambiguity, and want of precision in his manner of expressing himself on this subject. He involves himself continually in circumlocutions, universalities, and qualifying phrases. But the whole drift of his discourse evidently proceeds upon the assumption, that the letter, the mere words of scripture, and not any particular meaning, or interpretation of them, are to be held fast as the standard of faith." It is upon this ground precisely, that we find his fortified camp; and it is here that he has planted his battery against creeds and confessions of faith. If it be admitted, that not the mere words of scripture, but their sense, or the mind of the Spirit in them, in whatever form of words it may be truly expressed, is to be regarded as the rule of faith," the Dr.'s ground is gone at once, For the support of his grand It is yet further to be observed, that the elder is to "hold fast the faithful word, as he hath been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers." But who are these gainsayers? Are they infidels only, or those who deny the scriptures altogether? Are they not those rather, who, though they admit the words, yet deny the true doctrines of scripture? But how But how are these gainsayers to be convinced, if, not the true sense, but only the mere words of scripture, are to be held fast? And farther, whatever may be their doctrines, or opinions, so long as they do not deny the words of scripture, why should any attempt be made to convince them, or of what are they to be convinced? But the elder is enjoined to "hold. "fast the faithful word, as he hath been taught; that by sound, 'uncorrupt doctrine, he may be able both to administer comfort to believers and excite them to their duty, and to confute the errors of all opposers, silence their cavils, and rebuke their perverseness."* A . tainly intended in the text, than Something more then is cera steady adherence to mere words. Indeed, we are almost constrained to believe, that the apostle, would have had no great objec tion to the elder's adhering to a good confession, concisely and properly expressing what he had been taught to receive, as the true doctrines of scripture. But our author says, Holding fast the faithful word, as he hath been taught, does not intend that a candidate for the minis. try should tenaciuosly adhere, withimpressed on his mind by early edu. out farther examination, to sentiments cation, or by his assistants in the study of divinity; but that he is always to keep his thoughts upon the divine word, as the standard of truth, it." and prove or correct his opinions by Very good, but what then? The question is not whether in all cases, 66 a candidate for the ministry, or the inducted minister, is to adhere to the sentiments, which, by whatever means, have been "impressed on his mind;" but is he, in any case, thus to adhere? Is he required to embrace the truth, as taught in the scriptures, and, See Dr. Guise on the text. confes having embraced it, to hold it fast? This is the great question. For if the candidate, or minister, is required to embrace the true, doctrines of scripture, and to adhere to them; then certainly, he is to do something more, than merely to hold fast scripture words and phrases. He is to hold fast the true sense of scrip. ture, in whatever words express-plain, that "honest enquirers afed, and to "teach no other doctrine." And if so, why may he, not be required, or at least allowed, to confess his faith explicitly, and in such words as most definitely express the scripture doctrines, in which he believes? Is it then because sions of faith are less plain, less intelligible and definite, than the scriptures, that they are opposed? This we confess, we had not until now understood. But if this be not the fact, where does the objection lie? If with respect to "important points of " doctrine" the scriptures are so But here Dr. K. again ob serves: "The perfections and professed design of the Author of our holy religion forbid the supposition that essential doctrines, the belief of which is necessary to the true christian, are not plain, but hidden mysteries, to honest enquirers after the truth. Can it be that the word of God, professedly revealed from heaven, to be "a light to our path," is so imperfect, mysterious and unintelligible a rule of faith, respecting important points of doctrine, a belief of which is essential to every true christian, that something more explicit and definite, if not altogether of human origin, yet of human modification and language, must be made the touch. stone, by which the correctness of a man's sentiments, and even the purity of his religious affections are to be tried?" Such is the emphatical man. ner in which our author is pleased to express himself, upon the plainness of the scriptures. But who could have imagined that the great plainness of the scriptures would ever have been urged, as an objection against confessions of faith! ter truth" can find no difficulty in ascertaining what they are; then surely the "honest" believer in the truth can have no objection to declaring what he understands them to be. Does it not follow, as a fair inference, that those, who are unwilling to subscribe to a confession of faith, in which the plain doctrines of plainly expressed, are not "honthe gospel are concisely but est?" But will Dr. K. abide this inference? Plain as the scriptures are, is it not, however a fact that they are differently and even oppositeIs it not a fact, ly construed? as notorious at it is melancholy, that there have always been in the world "men of corrupt minds, not enduring sound doc"trine," but disposed to "pervert the scriptures, and privily to bring in even damnable heresies?" Has not christendom, in all ages, been deluged with errors, even by those who profess to hold fast the words of inspired scripture? And if so, ought not the true churches of Christ, and the friends of truth generally to distinguish themselves, as "the light of the world," as "a city upon an hill." Is it not prop er and important, that, amidst abounding errors and corruptions, they should let it be known, that they still hold fast the faithful word as they have been taught" and are not ashamed of the doctrines of the cross? Thus they lift up the standard of the gospel in the most conspicuous manner, as the grand point of union among themselves, and as “au ensign to the people?" And that they be so prepared, that "if any come unto them, and bring not this doctrine, they may not receive them," and that they may detect those," who say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie?" If, as our author represents, the great doctrines of the gospel are so plainly expressed in the scriptures, that no "honest enquirer" can mistake them; what objection can there be to having them drawn up for occasional use, in the plain and concise form of a creed, or confession? And if plain, as the scriptures are, they are nevertheless so misconstrued and perverted, that men may profess a belief in them, and yet deny or explain away their most important doctrines; may not creeds or confessions, be not only warrantable, but of great use for the security and fel. lowship of the churches, and for the honor and advancement of the Redeemer's cause? But, says our author, "the nature of the case requires each to judge for himself what are the doctrines of revelation." True; and having judged for himself what the doctrines of revelation are, may he not also confess his belief in them in such manner and form, as he shall deem correct and proper? If two or three, after judging for themselves, coincide in their views, why may not they adopt the same form of confession? And VOL. 1. New Series if a church, or any "associated body," after judging several. ly for themselves, harmoniously concur in the leading doctrines of the gospel, why may not they, also, thus far agree in the same confession of faith, and if they deem it proper, declare their agreement to the world? But our author again : "Must we concede to them the right to associate, and, by a plurality of votes, to fix upon a creed, composed in words which their own, or some other man's wisdom teacheth; to which we must assent or be denied their charity and fellowship, and subjected not only to inconvenience, but to the charge of heresy?" A hard case truly. But can we deny their "right to associate," and to adopt, in the manner they judge most proper, such "a creed," as, in their view, is consonant with the word of God? May not individuals, may not ministers and churches, as many as are disposed, regularly associate for the purposes of mutual edification, and of promoting the general interests of truth and religion, and publicly confess their agreement in the great and essential articles of our holy religion? Shall they be denied this privilege? Shall they for us. ing it, be charged before the world, with "invading the rights of conscience," and with "feeling no very strong objections to papal authority, if they might choose in what hands it shall be placed?" If the creed which they adopt be not consentaneous with the lively oracles; then let it be fairly opposed and exploded. But if it truly express the great doctrines of Christ; then let it stand; and let all the R friends of truth rejoice, that in a degenerate age, so many are found to hold fast the faithful word, as they have been taught." But, “By adopting a human standard, or test, of religious opinions, we tell the world by fair implication, that we have not entire confidence in the scripture, as a rule of faith for any who do not believe just as we do, or that all who differ from us are either weak or dishonest." or We have not been accustomed to regard creeds confessions, as standards of faith, paramount to the scriptures: we have considered them only as an open, concise, and definitive expression, of what are supposed to be the leading doctrines, which the scriptures contain. If a confession "teach for doctrine, the commandments of men," let it be denominated “human," and rejected. But if a confession only express in other words, the true doctrine of scripture, it cannot, we believe, be justly branded as a mere "human standard." Neither does the adopting of such a confes. sion imply any want of proper "confidence in the scriptures." It may, indeed, imply that we suppose the scriptures, though perfect in their design, are yet liable to perversion: and that they are liable to perversion, who will undertake to deny? Are we not, indeed, warned by the Spirit of truth himself, that men may "wrest the scriptures even to their destruction?" And shall we, then, be chargeable with disrespect to the scriptures, if we only use proper means to save them from being perverted, or to guard ourselves and others against the pernicious conse quences of their perversion ? It is important, we think, to be observed, that it is not against creeds and confessions only, that Dr.K.'s arguments and objections lie; they lie with equal force, of the against all exposition scriptures, against preaching, and against expressing any views of religious doctrine on any occasion, or in any manner, otherwise than in scripture words and phrases. The words of scripture, merely, are to be held fast. The scriptures are plain and easy to be understood, and every one is to judge for himself of their sense. For any person, therefore, or number of persons, to undertake to express the doctrines of revelation, or to say what they are, in any other than scripture language, is arrogant and presumptuous, is an infringement of the rights of conscience, is disrespectful to the spirit of inspiration, and is uncharitable to our fellow men. This, if we do not misconceive, is the sum of the whole. But if all this be correct and valid, then ministers have only to go into their pulpits, and rehearse the words of scripture without comment and exposition, and more privately "to reprove, rebuke and exhort" in scripture language; and people have only to hear and read, and talk over their scriptures. The man who expresses a religious sentiment in any other, than scripture language, commits an of. fence at once against God and his fellow men: and especially if he endeavours to bring others to believe in his views of divine truth, expressed in his own words, as being more correct than theirs, he gives ground for the "suspicion, that he feels no |