ment of each church should be conducted by a bench of elders, who are the representative church. This body, called the Church Session, and consisting of the pastor and ruling elders, is charged with maintaining the spiritual government of the congregation; and have power, in particular, to receive members into the church. The church itself has delegated this authority. If it be inquired, whether it is not further necessary that there should be a public setting forth of this new connexion, we reply, that it is highly proper that the names of all communicants should be read to the congregation, but that the actual participation in the sacrament is the most solemn and the only needful act declarative of full connexion with the church. This is true even in the case of those who have not been baptized in infancy; but children. born within the pale of the visible church, and dedicated to God in baptism, are already under the inspection and government of the church; and when they come to years of discretion, if they be free from scandal, appear sober and steady, and to have sufficient knowledge to discern the Lord's body, ought to be informed, that it is their duty and their privilege to come to the Lord's Supper. Nor do we admit any rite similar to confirmation, between baptism and the Lord's Supper, to qualify one who has been already examined by the session. Let us not, even in seeming, yield to the notion, that it is the part of the communicants, as a body, to receive members into the church, when this power is by an express declaration attributed to the church-session. Having once introduced the accidents of Independency, we shall be the less averse to the substance.

There is another part of this modern ceremony which we regard as evil. It is the rehearsing of a creed, or articles of faith, and the exaction of assent to this from the candidate, in the presence of the congregation. This also has come to us from Independent churches. Now, we do not object to this in those communions where it is necessary or usual, but it is not congenial to our habits. A public profession of faith, is not the object of our strictures, but the manner in which this is effected. Among the Independents, every church is at liberty, of course, to make its own creed, with any number of articles, from one to a thousand. It is natural and proper that those who are added to the original covenanting church should express their adherence to the same formulary. But + Form of Gov. chap ix. § 1. 6,

Form of Gov. chap. viii. § 1.

the same ceremonial becomes preposterous when dragged into the midst of our Presbyterian institutions. Our church has its constitution and confession of faith, solemnly adopted, ratified, and published; it recognises no other uninspired creed. There is no ecclesiastical function more delicate or more momentous than that of constructing a creed. Independency may, if it choose, leave this at the mercy of particular churches; but every principle of our own system must revolt against such a license. In point of fact, there have been hundreds of such creeds, varying with every change of theological latitude, and every wind of doctrine. These mutilated articles have often been printed, and, with the obligations assumed in a public profession of faith, have been incorporated in what is sometimes called the church manual. These creeds have not always contained heresy, but the truth may be sacrificed by omission; and the suppresio veri is not less fatal than the suggestio falsi. The question has been much agitated of late, how these abridged creeds may be regulated. Such a question could not have arisen in the Reformed churches of Holland or France, or in the Kirk of Scotland; it has come to us from New England. Presbyterianism flourished several centuries without either abridged creeds or congregational covenants. Instead of casting about for means of regulation, the search should be, in our opinion, for means of suppression. We should as soon think of regulating a wen or other offensive excrescence. If, indeed, the highest judicatory of the church should send down to the presbyteries a brief formulary, as an aid for the instruction and examination of candidates, we should think it a regular, even if not an expedient act; but for hundreds of hasty creeds, like Sibylline leaves, to fly through our country, various in their hues as the foliage of autumn, and, in a majority of cases, grossly defective, is an abuse which defeats one of the great ends of having any creed whatever. There is a striking tendency in all such creeds to become more and more meager. The rule for admitting church members seems to be, to remove out of sight all those truths which stain the pride of man, and in their place to introduce new doctrines of a legal kind; sometimes using impressive ceremonies for this purpose: in a word, to make the creed short, and the pomp long.

ART. III-A Discourse on the Latest Form of Infidelity, delivered at the request of the Association of the Alumni of the Cambridge Theological School, on the 19th of July, 1839, with notes. By Andrews Norton. Cambridge. Published by John Owen, 1839. pp. 64. A Letter to Mr. Andrews Norton, occasioned by his Discourse before the Association of the Alumni of the Cambridge Theological School, on the 19th of July, 1839. By an Alumnus of that School. Boston. James Munroe & Company, 1839. pp. 160.

Of

Our readers are probably aware that the Unitarian clergymen of Boston and its vicinity, priding themselves in the name of liberal Christians, have never professed to agree entirely among themselves in their doctrinal views. late, however, a portion of their number have advanced sentiments which, in the apprehension of the rest, exceed even the limits of the most liberal Christianity. Hence this Discourse on the Latest Form of Infidelity. The pamphlets before us, do not enable us to ascertain precisely what this new form of infidelity is, nor how far it is embraced by the Boston clergy. We know, indeed, that it has its origin in German philosophy, and that the Rev. Mr. Emerson delivered an address before the same Association which listened to Mr. Norton's Discourse, which was a rhapsodical oration in favour of pantheism. We know also that that oration called forth an earnest remonstrance and disclaimer from some of the friends and officers of the Cambridge school of theology. The public papers moreover informed us that Mr. Emerson delivered, with some applause, a series of popular lectures on the new philosophy, to the good people of Boston. We are, however, ignorant both as to the number of those who embrace this new philosophy, and as to the extent to which they carry it. It may be inferred from Mr. Norton's Discourse, that he considered his opponents as denying either the possibility of a miracle, or the truth of the New Testament history in reference to the miracles of Christ. Why else should he make the truth of the evangelical history, and the absolute necessity of a belief in miracles, in order to faith in Christianity, the burden of his discourse? "The latest form of infidelity," he says, "is distinguished by assuming a Christian name, while it strikes directly at the

root of faith in Christianity, and indirectly of all religion, by denying the miracles attesting the divine mission of Christ."* On another page, he says, "Christianity claims to reveal facts, a knowledge of which is essential to the moral and spiritual regeneration of men, and to offer, in attestation of those facts, the only satisfactory proof, the authority of God, evidenced by miraculous displays of his power." Again: "If it were not for the abuse of language that has prevailed, it would be idle to say, in denying the miracles of Christianity, the truth of Christianity is denied. It has been vaguely alleged, that the internal evidences of our religion are sufficient, and that the miraculous proof is not wanted; but this can be said by no one who understands what Christianity is, and what its internal evidences are."

These quotations are sufficient to exhibit the two prominent doctrines of the Discourse, viz: that miracles are the only satisfactory evidence of a divine revelation; and that the denial of the miracles of Christianity, is a denial of Christianity itself. These doctrines are not necessarily connected. For, although it is certain that if the former is true, the latter must be true also; it does not follow that if the former is false, the latter must be false. It may be incorrect, as it doubtless is, to make miracles the only satisfactory proof of Christianity, and yet it may be perfectly correct to say that a denial of the miracles of Christ, is a denial of the gospel, not because the only sufficient proof of the truth of the gospel is denied, but because the miraculous character of the gospel enters into its very essence. The advent, the person, the resurrection of Christ, were all miraculous. He cannot be believed upon, without believing a miracle. Revelation is itself a miracle. All the words of Christ suppose the truth of his miracles. They can, therefore, no more be separated from his religion than the warp and woof can be separated, and yet the cloth remain entire. The apostle expressly teaches us, that if the resurrection of Christ be denied, the whole gospel is denied. While, therefore, we dissent from Mr. Norton as to his first proposition, we fully agree with him as to the second.

The obvious objection to the doctrine, that miracles are the only adequate proof of divine revelation, is that the great majority of Christians, who are incapable of examining the

If

The

evidence on which the miracles rest, are thus left without any sufficient ground of faith. This objection does not escape Mr. Norton's attention. His answer is the same as that given by Catholic priests and high churchmen, every where, viz.—they must believe on trust, or as he prefers to express it, on the testimony of those who are competent to examine the evidence in question. As they are forced to believe a thousand things, without personal examination, on the testimony of others, he thinks it not unreasonable that they should receive their religion on the same terms. they believe that the earth turns round because astronomers tell them so, why may they not believe that the gospel is true because learned men vouch for the fact? It is hardly necessary to remark, that every Christian knows that such is not the foundation of his faith: he has firmer ground on which to rest the destiny of his soul. He does not believe Grotius or Paley; he believes God himself, speaking in his word. The evidence of the truth is in the truth itself. proposition, that the whole is greater than a part, is believed for its own sake. And to higher intellects, truths at which we arrive by a laborious process, appear in their own light, as axioms appear to us. So also with regard to morals. There are some propositions which every human being sees to be true, the moment they are announced. There are others which must be proved to him. And the higher the moral cultivation, or purity of the soul, is carried, the wider is the range of this moral intuition. So also with regard to religious truth. That God is a spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth; that he is not a Jupiter, or a Moloch, is believed with an intimate conviction which no argument nor external evidence can possibly produce. It is believed for its own sake. It cannot be understood or perceived in its own nature without the persuasion of its truth rising in the mind. No man believes that malignity is wrong on external authority; and no man believes that God is good, because it can be logically demonstrated. The ground of faith in moral truth, from the nature of the case, is the perception of the nature of the truth believed. It is seen and felt to be true. That one man does not see a proposition in morals to be true, can have no effect upon him who does perceive it. And the only way to produce conviction in the mind of him who doubts or disbelieves, is to remove the darkness which prevents the perception of the