of the conjunction that, may occasion ambiguity, if not a total misapprehension of the meaning. P. 17. "Doctrine renders him destitute of holiness." Incorrect. P. 83. "Nature of things concur." (concurs.)

A SHORT METHOD WITH DEISTS, Containing the substance of the justly celebrated publication

of LESLIE, bearing that title, is added to this work; and is a most valuable appendix. The title however should have been altered so far, as to designate the abridgment or selection. The Synecdoche, which puts a part for the whole, though a legiti mate figure of speech, is here inadmissible.

GENTLEMEN,

YOUR "Review" of my sermon, in the Panoplist of August, 1808, is not a very fair account of the discourse you have examined. Justice to myself, and proper respect to public opinion, require me to expose, through the same channel, some of your misconstructions.

You

Before you take particular notice of the sermon, you make those remarks which are calcu. lated to prejudice the reader against its author. To these we must pay some attention. say, "The doctrines, designated as the doctrines of the reformation, the doctrines of grace, evangelical and orthodox, have a distinctive character, and are generally known." If you mean to intimate that the reformers were agreed in their sentiments, we think you incorrect. Luther and Calvin, though great, and, we trust, good men, did not form the same ideas about all the doctrines of grace; but I see no reason why their different opinion about them should be deemed an essential defect in the faith and character of either. Those,

These

<< have

who now appropriate to them. selves the character of orthodox, are not united in sentiment. If I am not in a mistake, they differ very materially in their interpretation of some of the doctrines, which you say "have a distinctive character." doctrines, you tell us, always been opposed." True; but we cannot so readily admit, that the opposers have generally known that they are truly evangelical and orthodox, or, in other words, that they are in fact the doctrines of the gospel. If they know this, their opposition is extremely wicked. But, gentlemen, if they know only, that you and I esteem them evangelical, while they are persuaded we have misunderstood the scriptures, I confess I do not see that their opposition is so very reprehensible. But by evangelical, perhaps, you do not mean doc. trines clearly revealed in the gos. pel, but those contained in some human creed, which is said to be a summary of the christian relig. ion. The spirit of your view" almost forces me into this supposition. To say the least,

Re

it is as candid a one as your conclusion that, in the estimation of your opponents, "the very essence and perfection of christianity consist either in believing in no doctrines whatever, or, which amounts to the same thing, in holding all religious sentiments to be equally scriptural and good." I have heard no representations, made by any who as sume the christian name, that justify this conclusion. You know, gentlemen, that they, who differ from you, do not think your "religious sentiments to be equally scriptural and good" with their own. You, however, haz ard the remark, apparently with a view to make your readers believe the opposition to creeds a. rises from total indifference about religious sentiments.

"Creeds, therefore," you say, "and confessions of faith are all to be utterly discarded, as unwarrantable, unscriptural, and of most disastrous tendency."

The fair amount of your argument is this:

In the estimation of some, the 'perfection of christianity consists in believing in no doctrines whatever, 'or in holding all religious sentiments to be equally scriptural and good: Therefore, these same persons, though indifferent to all religions 'sentiments, utterly discard creeds and confessions of faith, which, in 'their own view, contain sentiments that are scriptural and good, as unwarrantable, unscriptural, and of 'most disastrous tendency.'

To me it is matter of some surprize that men so totally indifferent, as you represent them, to all religious sentiments, should be kindled into such zeal against the adoption and acknowledgment of particular sentiments. Perhaps you can explain the whole business, and show by

what motives these men are actuated.

The "Review" again:

"It is well understood, that the adversaries of evangelical truth have nothing to lose by the general demolition of creeds, for they have none to be demolished."

But

I think, gentlemen, it may very easily be understood, that the enemies of the gospel have no particular system of evangelical truth to be demolished; and I wish it were as well understood, that the true friends of the gos pel have nothing to lose by the general demolition of all human creeds, which are established as rules, standards, or tests, of christian faith. The Bible would be an excellent substitute. do you mean, gentlemen, that they, who oppose creeds, as rules, or tests of faith and doc. trines, are "adversaries of evangelical truth?" Or that, because they have not subscribed some of the numerous creeds extant, they have no religious sentiments? If you do, you implicate a very considerable number of orthodox gentlemen, who are, or have been, as much opposed to the establishment and imposition of human creeds, as the author of the sermon in review. Your insinuations will be duly estimat. ed without my applying to them You evithe proper epithets. dently intend to include among the adversaries of evangelical truth" the author of the sermon, and those who with him resist the imposition of human creeds, as tests of sound doctrine, or of evangelical truth. Let us attend to the true ground of this charge. In this same sermon I urge people to study and embrace all the doctrines of the gospel, and to

receive them from the oracles of God, unadulterated by human mixtures. Others have done the same, and in a much better manner. But we have had the temerity to deny the authority of human creeds in determining what these doctrines are, and the impudence to say, that neither you, gentlemen, nor any other body of men, have a right to impose such creeds upon your fellowchristians. For this high presumption, though we hold in our hands the gospel of Christ, and in the most explicit manner declare our full belief in whatever we find it contains, we are denominated "adversaries of evangelical truth!" I could hardly have expected you would have hazarded so high and general a charge, on so slender ground, to avenge an affront offered to the authority of human creeds.

The "Review" again:

"It is in orthodox churches only, with perhaps a very few exceptions, that confessions of faith are to be found. The popular cry, therefore, though specious in its pretensions, we can view in no other light, than that of a masked attack upon the doctrines of grace. In general it is aimed at the prostration of evangelical truth. Though the strong holds of truth are not to be carried by open assault, the hope is probably entertained, that they may be taken by stratagem."

This is a very observable pas

sage:

'Confessions of faith are found mostly, if not exclusively, in orthodox churches: Therefore, the pop*ular cry against confessions, can be viewed in no other light, than that of a masked attack upon the doctrines of grace, aimed at the prostration of Evangelical truth, in hope of effecting by stratagem what cannot be done "by open assault.

Are confessions of faith, then, in whatever church they may be found, essential to the existence of the doctrines of grace? Does evangelical truth in general depend on these confessions? And is opposition to any of these confessions an expression of hostility to evangelical truth? The churches denominated orthodox, have not all the same confession; nor do they all hold the same doctrines, at least not in the san e

sense.

But the cry against the different confessions of faith in orthodox churches, made without the least idea that they constitute the essence, truth, or evi.. dence, of the doctrines of grace, if I understand the Review, is to be considered a masked attack upon these doctrines. I have supposed these doctrines were the great subject of divine revelation, that they are supported by its authority, and that evangelical truth is not to be prostrated by the demolition of human creeds.

The charge which you, gentlemen, advance against the popular cry, and evidently against the author of the sermon in reis a serious one. very Do view, you believe that I, or the opposers in general to the establishment of human creeds, ever meditated an open or masked attack upon the scripture doctrines of grace, or that we have aimed at the prostration of evangelical truth, in hope of taking its strong holds by stratagem? If you are acquainted with me, as your profession of great personal respect implies, I think your consciences must acquit me of such charges. But I submit it to your own judgment, whether there be not something in your

remarks, that looks like stratagem. My sermon is before the public. It may have some effect. How shall this be prevented? Why, alarm the good 'people, and induce a belief that Dr. K. is an adversary of the . great and ever to be admired 'doctrines of grace, aiming in this sermon at the prostration of evangelical truth!'

I do not say this was your design; but I ask you, gentlemen, I ask every reader, whether your remarks do not bear this appearance?

To the result of my first enquiry you say, that you have nothing to object ;" and you "readily admit, as sound and good, the reasons offered in support of the claims, which the scrip. ture has to this high distinction." One of these reasons is, because the scripture is an adequate and perfect rule of christian faith and duty, the only standard by which the disciples of Jesus, his ministers in an especial manner, are to form their own, and test the religious doctrines of their fellow-christians." If this be, as you concede, a sound and good reason for adhering to the inspired scripture, as the only rule of faith, and standard by which sentiments are to be formed and

tested, why any zeal to introduce some other test of a man's soundness in the faith? But you insinuate, that I contend for mere words. You say,

"To contend 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."

In answer to this let the sermon speak for itself:

Page 11. "The gospel contains the commission and instruction of Christ's ambassadors; and unless they observe the letter and spirit of it, according to their own apprehen sion, they can never feel that they are faithful, or act by authority from him."

Page 20. "There is a want of proper attachment to the faithful word,

when there is not a sincere desire to understand and embrace its doctrines, imbibe its spirit, and let every truth have a practical influence."

Page 21. "Holding it fast, as of God, who spake as they were taught by Christ, and by "holy men moved by the Holy Ghost," implies not only general acquaintance with the letter of it, but entering into the spirit of it, and a readiness to embrace the whole truth, so far as we may be able to discover it."

Pages 21 and 22. "The divine oracles are to be examined, not to find something that may appear to support the sentiments of a party, or to confirm preconceived opinions, but to learn what is the mind and will of the Lord, what the hope of our calling, what doctrines they teach, and what duties they enjoin."

Let every candid reader now judge whether I contend for the mere words of scripture, and whether my "ground is gone at once," if I admit, as I readily do, that not the mere words of scripture, but their sense, or the mind of the Spirit in them," is to be held fast according to our best understanding. No man can adhere to the scriptures, as the rule of his own faith, in any other sense, than that in which they appear to his mind; and if he have an absolute and complete right to judge for himself what is their true sense, his brethren can have no right to impose upon him their interpretation. contend, indeed, that scripture language is the best to convey just ideas of the doctrines of grace, or to communicate evangelical truth; for it carries with

I