had occasion to notice. We lament that an extensive plan of this nature is apparently in operation. Ungrateful as the service may be, we deem it our duty boldly to raise our voice against all such fraudulent dealing with the public. Venerable men, long known and endeared to the church of God, ought not to be abused, by compelling them to lend the influence of their names, to propagate a system of religion, in which they never trusted, and which, as a substitute for the whole gospel of Christ, they would have viewed with abhorrence. Attempts of this nature, therefore, we cannot, without wronging our own consciences, suffer to pass, without an effort, on our part, to awaken the chris. tian public to the solemn imposition. If any of those "Ministers of the gospel, under whose" respec. table patronage the Christian Monitor is composed;" or the "Society for promoting christian knowledge, piety, and char. ity" whose agents they are,should feel themselves implicated in this review, our pages are open to their vindication; and happy should we be could we be authorized public. ly, to acquit them of any participation in the fraudulent management, on which we have been compelled to animadvert. Far be it from us to hinder, we would rather promote, their usefulness. We presume the "Society" at large were not privy to the fraud, which we have attempted to expose : and that when they understand it, they will join with us in its re probation. We trust indeed there is yet too much generosity, too much reverence for the illus trious dead, too much discern. ment of right and propriety, in the clergy, and in the public of our country, to sanction such a practice by their approval, or their patronage. REVIEW OF REVIEWS. Farther Remarks on the THEоLOGICAL INSTITUTION, in Andover, occasioned by the Review of its Constitution and Statutes, in the Monthly Anthology. (Continued from page 424.) THE Reviewers in the Anthology first endeavor to persuade their readers, that they are not biassed by the consideration of "the kind of opinions to be taught in the Seminary." Im. mediately after this attempt, the design of which cannot be mistaken, they labor abundantly to discredit the Seminary, by prov ing that its creed contains a certain kind of opinions. But it is to be remembered that, in their long labor to expose this creed, there is not the least attempt to prove any of its doctrines false. On the contrary, it plainly ap. pears, from several intimations, that they have no disposition to inquire, whether the sentiments of the creed are true or false. It must be confessed, that we are singularly situated, having un. dertaken a reply to Gentlemen, who set themselves to oppose a creed, not because the senti ments, which it contains, are erroneous, but because they are called by a particular name. The Reviewers finally state their 66 objections to the imposition of any creed whatever." These objections we shall now examine. Their first objection to the use of creeds is, that they are founded on the assumption, that the essential doctrines of christianity are not distinctly and explicitly expressed in the language of the volume which contains them. On this we remark, first, that if the objection prove any thing, it proves too much. It will operate directly against preaching the gospel, or explaining the truths of revelation by ministers. Of what consequence is the sacred office, if in the illustration of religious doctrines, or precepts, ministers confine themselves wholly to the expressions of Scripture? What is the value of preaching, if it consist in merely reading or reciting from memory, passage after passage from the Bible? How different from this was the conduct of Christ to his two disciples, whom he met on their way to Emmaus? The doctrines which related to himself, were clearly revealed in the Scriptures of the Old Testament. But how did he instruct his disciples in these doctrines? By merely quoting the words of Scripture? Far otherwise. AngunVevey, he expounded, or explained. Tα TEQÌ EαUTO8, the doctrines concerning himself. His conduct did not imply that the words of inspiration, expressing those doctrines, were ambigueus; but that his hearers were avonto, inconsiderate, thoughtless men, and βραδείς τε καρδιά, indocile, slow to perceive any thing in their own minds. And is not this the character of men in general? Take another ex. ample. Philip the Evangelist met the Eunuch, and found him reading the 53d chapter of Isaiah. This man felt the want of derstand what he read. Philip, an instructor, that he might unbeginning at that Scripture, preached unto him Jesus. But how? By repeating the passage, and others like it? How then could, he have instructed the Eunuch? Let it be recollected, that the Scriptures, which Christ and his apostles expounded, were given by inspiration of God. The doctrines revealed in them but the disciples and the Eunuch were not ambiguously expressed; needed instruction. In the same condition are the bulk of mankind, who enjoy the gospel. Now if a christian minister, in explaining the doctrines of revclation, may use other words, than those of Scripture, without which there can be no explanation; then it is evident, that the same kind of words may be used by a body of christians, to express their opinion of those doc trines. In order to prove the pro priety and necessity of creeds, it is sufficient to observe that, without them, or something equivalent to them, it is impossi ble to make an intelligible and satisfactory declaration of our sentiments, or a clear discovery of the sentiments of others. This is a plain fact; but it is not to be ascribed to the ambiguity or imperfection of the scriptures. When we undertake to express in a creed the doc. trines of religion, or by proper reasoning to defend them; we do it upon the supposition, that they are distinctly and unambiguously taught in the language of scripture. It is on this principle we contend, that the belief of certain truths is essential to the christian character; and that the denial of such truths, justly forfeits our christian confidence. How, then, is it to be accounted for, that the use of scripture words and phrases does not make known a man's religious sentiments? We account for it in this way. Although the words of scripture are in themselves sufficiently perspicuous and expressive; they have, by use, been greatly perverted from their true sense. Different men use them to express different and opposite opinions. So that, as they are used and understood by men, they are ambiguous and indeterminate in their meaning. Hence the difficulty and impossibility of making known our religious sen. timents by the use of scripture words. Whether a man be a Trinitarian, or Antitrinitarian, an Arian, or Socinian, a Calvinist, or Arminian, a Presbyterian, or Episcopalian, a Congregation. alist, or Baptist, a Methodist, Universalist, or Quaker, cannot be determined by his professing to believe the scriptures, or by his using scripture words and phrases. Because men of all sentiments unite in this same profession, and in the same use of scripture words. As circum stances are, it is absolutely impossible, by the use of scripture words, to make known our sen. timents determinately. Accord. VOL. I. New Series. ingly, there can be nothing more absurd or imposing, than for a man, whose opinions we wish to ascertain, to attempt to satisfy us by repeating passages of scripture. We already take it for granted, that he professes to believe the Bible, and is willing to repeat and subscribe any part of it. Our object is to know, in what sense he believes the Bible, and what construction he puts upon the passages, which he repeats. If he still continue to repeat scripture words and phrases, without explaining them, he does nothing, but disguise his sentiments, and mock our inquiries. It is in vain to urge the perspicuity and perfection of the scriptures, as an objection to creeds. It is a principle, for which we shall not cease to contend, that the scriptures plainly teach us the will of God, and af ford a perfect rule of faith and practice. Our zeal to defend this great Protestant principle will not, we trust, fall below the zeal of those, who oppose the use of creeds. We consider the scriptures, taken together, to be most wisely and graciously adapted to impart religious knowledge, and to conduct men to happiness. But the words of scrip ture are not adapted, and were never designed to make known to others, what views we enter tain of the doctrines of revela tion. Or, to express it in a dif. ferent manner; we cannot, by using the words of scripture, make known to others, how we understand those words. The question which, in this case, we propose, is not this; what passages of scripture relate to a particular subject; but, what mean3. M ing do men affix to those passages? If we wish to discover the mind of God, we inquire what the Bible says, and endeavor to ascertain its true sense. But if we wish to discover the sentiments of men, we inquire, how they understand the declarations of scripture. If passages of scripture, relating to a particular doctrine, never had been, and never could be understood in different and opposite senses; the mere repetition of those passages might be a sufficient declaration of a man's faith. But how is it possible to know, what a man's sentiments are, from his repeating scripture expressions, while we are wholly at a loss, whether he use them in one sense, or in another sense directly opposite? Such a different use of scripture expressions, we repeat it, is not owing to any uncertainty or ambiguity in the language of inspiration; but to the dishonesty, prejudice, and perverseness of men. If it be asked, what right we have to determine the sense of scripture; and how we know that the sense, which we adopt, is the true sense? Our reply is: we have a right to determine the sense of scripture for ourselves. We must determine for ourselves. Nor can we, as far as the essential truths are concerned, think this a difficult work. We cannot think our sense of scripture uncertain and questionable, because we believe the grand position of these Reviewers; that the essential doctrines of christianity are distinctly and explicitly expressed in the language of the Bible. If they assert that we ought, after all our examination, to feel doubtful, whether we have found the true sense of scripture; or if they assert that others, who adopt different and opposite senses, are as likely to be right, as we; they implicitly deny their own position, and so make the language of scripture ambiguous and unintelligible. If one doctrine, or one sense of scripture is as likely to be true, as another; or if we are to suppose that men, who embrace the various and opposite opinions of the present day, are equally candid, honest, and pious; then what becomes of the position, that the essential doctrines of christianity are distinctly and explicitly expressed in the language of scripture? After these remarks, and all that has lately been published in favor of creeds, but little need be added on the reasoning of the Anthology. "If the doctrines of the gospel," say these Reviewers, "are clearly stated in the scriptures, then surely there can be no comparison between the evil of using a few more words in order to retain the very language of inspiration, and the danger of error in substituting our own unauthorized diction." This is said in answer to the notion, that creeds are merely short and convenient compends of gospel doctrines. We should have no objection to using a few, or many more words, in order to retain the very language of inspiration, if by this the end of creeds could be answered. But the fact is, in what way soever we account for it, the indisputable fact is, that when we wish to discover a man's religious senti. ments, his using more words in order to retain the very language of inspiration has no effect, but to disguise his sentiments; unless he be willing fairly to explain to us, in what sense he understands the inspired language. The notion of these Reviewers on this subject, is totally inconsistent with the practice of all, who reject creeds. Do they, in preach. ing, in prayer, and in conversa. tion, take care to express all their religious sentiments scripture language? Do they on all occasions use 66 a few more words, in order to retain the very language of inspiration," rather than incur the danger of error by using their own unauthorized diction?" Are they distinguished from others by their profound reverence for the word of God? in The Reviewers proceed to state the subject in another manner. "Should it be asked: May not a christian society declare, in what sense it understands the words of scripture? we must take the liberty of bringing this plea also to a point. The doctrines concerning which the declaration is to be made, are either clearly revealed, or not. If clearly revealed in scripture; there can be no doubt of the true sense among honest men, and therefore the declaration is useless." But is it to be taken for granted, that all, who profess to believe the scriptures, are honest men? If among those, who call themselves christians, much prejudice, dishonesty, and enmity against the truth should be found; it must make some alteration in the argument. If there are many, who, like the Pharisees, formerly, pretend to respect the scriptures, and yet make void the word of God; it is not a matter of small consequence to the christian If it be said, that creeds are exposed to the same abuse and perversion with the scriptures, and may be assented to with the same dishonest views; it is grant. ed. We have no reply but this. If the terms of a creed should in process of time be so applied, as to become ambiguous, and ac cordingly afford no assistance in determining the sentiments of men; the christian world may consistently introduce other creeds, or employ other expres. sions of a more unequivocal sig nification. For while the scrip. tures are designed to be a universal and perpetual rule of faith and practice; a creed, like preaching, is limited in its design, and must be framed with reference to particular circum. stances. The word of God endureth for ever. But error is ever changing its shape and opererations, aud calls for corresponding measures in order to guard against its fatal influence. The second objection of these Reviewers is, "that creeds are directed against the honest and conscientious, and operate, as temptations and premiums to dishonesty." This we consider, as a very unguarded assertion. How are creeds "directed against the honest and conscientious?" The Reviewers seem to think, that honest men cannot believe what is contained in creeds. For if any honest man sincerely believes, and conscien tiously subscribes them; how is he injured? How are creeds directed against him? Their assertion cannot be true in any sense, |