A reply to Dr. Miller's Letter to a gentleman of Baltimore, in reference to the case of the Rev. Mr. Duncan

Front matter

iiiiiiiiifflMSiiiiii

,1^

^■TT'TJTfT/'iT^^}

Section I

Dr. M. has been pleased to say, that the ^^conclusive reason/' why he has ^ ^forborne to make any answer'^ to my book, *^is that it really requires no answer."^ — ^^He, (Mr. D.) is so far from having invalidated, or even weakened, any of the arguments in favour of creeds, urged in my Introductory Lecture, that he has hardly so much as touched them. I have conversed repeatedly with some of the most acute and enlightened men in our country, and solicited their candid judgment as to the real force of Mr. D's book. And they have all, with a single exception, united strongly in the opinion, that he has written nothing which impairs, in the least degree, the strength of my reasoning; nothing which possesses such a degree, even of plausibility, as to demand a reply. Why then should I write again, when all my original positions remain, not only unshaken, but really unassailed." These are good, round, assertions: almost enough to make ahy man lay down his pen in despair. But then there is one **most acute and enlightened" man, who does not think so meanly of the ^'Remarks:" and a suspicion darts across my brain, that the remainder might have been the advocates of the ereed-systeno. I 1* make no doubt, however, that they expressed their honest opinions, and I regret that they have been brought across my path, as a passing remark may unintentionally wound a friend, whose feelings my heart would hold sacred.^ It seems, moreover, that Dr. M. has after all thought it necessary to ^Svrite again;" and to urge once more the very points so strongly pressed in his "Introductory Lecture;" and that too on the apparently unobtrusive solicitation of a ^'gentleman of Baltimore."

It may be necessary here to state, that the ^'Reiiiarks" were pledged to do nothing more, than fairly and respectfully to controvert the principles of Dr. M's ^'Lecture." He was not followed step by step in the arrangement he thought proper to make. I chose to shape the subject for myself, according to my best apprehensions; and to take up the principles of the ^^Lecture," merely as they might be fairly introduced in the order of discussion. This course put the reader to the trouble of analysing my ^'Remarks," in order to range them along with Dr. M's arguments. If he did not please to do this, but to leave it as undeserving of his effort, which Dr. M. appears to have done in his reply, then I had conducted him, as far as personal ability and my time allowed, through the whole of the subject, as I apprehended it. Perhaps this was an ill-judged course. But then it seems, that throughout the greater part no presbyterian antagonist could be found; that almost all the propositions advanced were sound^ and the facts stated indisputable; and that it was useless to labour through so many pages in proof of things which no one denied. Yet, Dr. M. has thought proper to reply; the synod has thought proper to refuse forbearance; and the book is reviled as most heretical, and of most injuriouji tendency. There is a veil over these representations, which I shall not attempt to penetrate; — a mist, which time may disperse.

In sustaining the assertions already quoted, Dr. M. says — '^Mr. D. is also fighting without an adversary in all that he has said, at so much length, and with so much laboured rhetoric, respecting the character of many of the christian clergy, within the first three or four hundred years after Christ." Afterwards, when he would throw, what he apparently supposes to have been, my argument from the brief review that was taken of the history of the primitive church, into an * 'abridged syllogism," he states it thus: — ''Many of the clergy began, very early, to manifest an overbearing and grasping spirit; therefore,, it is unlawful for the church, at present, to take any measures to prevent her ministers from falling into the same evil courses, and, for this purpose, to ascertain their soundness in the faith, and guard the purity of their principles." — I feel as if it would be doing Dr. M. a most serious injustice, to believe that he saw nothing more in the deductions, made from the historical extracts in question. But he has said so, and I may not dispute his word. However, he may be assured that there was a vast deal more implied; than he appears to have disco= vered, of which the following observations mavr perhaps, convince him.

The fifth argument of the '^Introductory^ Lecture" in favour of creeds, was expressed in the following proposition: — *'The experience of all ages has found them indispensably necessarj^" If this proposition be true, it verily required some hardihood of adventure to undertake what, in the '*Letter," has been denominated a '^confessional battle.'^ The doctrine of the ''Remarks" is, that the proposition is not true, and the argument was designed to make it appear untrue. The reader will please to notice the following particulars:

1. Dr. M. in illustrating his proposition, had begun with the apostolic age, and discovered, if I understood him, an ecclesiastical creed in use among the apostles. By an ecclesiastical creed, let it be remembered, is to be understood "an accredited, permanent, public document" — "a summary of christian doctrine" — "a formulary," other than the scriptures — "a test" of orthodoxy. Now the apostles had no such thing, and I undertook to show that they had not. The scriptures have not stated the fact, that any such document was used by them j and history affords not the slightest proof that they left any such instrument behind them, for the use of the churches after they were gone. There has existed in the church a small schedule, which has been denominated the apostles' creed; and about this there has been considerable discussion. Some have supposed that the apostles did actually pen it 5 that they held a solemn convocation in order te draw it up; and that each apostle inserted his particular article. Others have combated this as a mere figment, — stating, that it was near four hundred years after Christ before it was ever heard of; that neither Luke in his history of the apostolical transactions, nor any ecclesiastical author before the fifth century, has made any mention of any assembly convened for such a purpose by the apostles; that none of the early councils made any mention of such a document, nor referred to it as their standard, or basis, or test; that ^^there could not have been a stronger or more convincing proof brought against heretics, than to have referred to such a creed;" and that, '^if the apostles had made a creed, it would have been every where the same throughout all churches, and in all ages; all christians would have learnt it by heart; all churches would have repeated it after the very same manner; in fine, all authors would have expressed it in the same terms" — the contrary of all which is evident. If this detail is true, what becomes of Dr. M's general proposition, and particularly his first specification under it? — Or will he say, that his position has been neither assailed nor shaken?

2. Dr. M. in carrying on his illustration, had said, that in the second and third centuries, not only were these creeds ''more formally drawTjb out,^^ but they were ^^more minute, and more extensive, than those of earlier date." This too was explicitly denied in the '^Remarks/' and historical'

proof was advanced to show that it was not correct. In those early ages, or previous to the council of Nice, no such formulary is to be found: but after this council, creeds abounded so much, that Socrates speaks of their '^confused multitude,'' and Hilary tells us, that they ^'did nothing but make creeds" — that they made them arbitrarily, and explained them as arbitrarily. During the period anterior to this famous assembly, there was no one part iciilar form made use of. Du Pin, says — "In the second and third ages of the church we find as many creeds as authors; and the same author sets down the creed in a different manner in several places of his works; which plainly shows, that there was not any creed that was reputed to be the apostles', nor even any regulated and established form of faith. ^^ St. Justin, and St. Irenoeus observe, that in those days, they had the faith ^ ^deeply imprinted on their minds." Jerome says, that it *Svas not written on paper, or with ink, but was engraved on the fleshly tables of the heart. " — Moreover, some of the examples of early creeds, to which the ' 'Lecture" had referred, were quoted, that they might speak for themselves, and demonstrate to every candid mind, that there was not then even the form of an established creed. And did not all this touch the proposition, which was controverted? Or was nothing more done by the respondent, than to play the part of an humble and undesired amanuensis, to record over again the degeneracy of those unhappy times, and to / infer that we should d^ nothing now to prevent a fike *^wide spreading degeneracy?" Is there no difference between the assertions, that ^Hhe friends of orthodoxy had been in the habit of framing creeds from the earliest ages," and that the friends of orthodoxy never framed such an instrument until the fourth century? And is there no importance \Xi the historical testimony, which established the lat^ ter assertion, when the former had been made?

3. The doctrine of the * ^Remarks," most distinctly and most carefully stated, was, that creeds are authoritative instruments, imposed upon the human conscience, by being erected into terms of communion in spiritual ordinances. The historical proof adduced, was intended to establish this doctrine; by manifesting that until ecclesiastical power was acquired by ambitious ecclesiastics, there were no such formularies in the church: but that when synods and councils were introduced in the second century, they hastened to the supreme control over divine ordinances; and that in the fourth century, for the first time, they drew out and established such a test. Synods and councils are the framers and defenders of these instruments now: so that human creeds are still the creatures of ecclesiastical power. Moreover, the historical proof was adduced to show, that, at first, the churches were all independent of each other, and therefore were not in circumstances at all favourable to the sy.stem of making or imposing creeds; and that if churches were independent of each other now^ as they were then, they would not feel these creeds to be * 'indispensably necessary'^ i2

now, more than they did then. Did not these facts, with the instantaneous conclusions which were deduced, ^4n the least impair the strength of Dr. M's reasoning.^' — He appears to me, not only to be sporting with my feelings, but to be trifling with his own reputation.

4. The habit of appealing to these early ages, as Dr. M. had done, was objected to in the * 'Remarks" as unbecoming in christian divines, and as altogether irrelevant to an argument like the present. This same objection Dr. M. had made, under corresponding circumstances, and when sustaining the presbyterian cause, against his prelatical adversaries. He seemed then to think, that the degenerate character of those ages, gave great force to his objections. Indeed, so important was that circumstance, in his estimation, that he would not consent to go beyond the second century, which was quite anterior to the period of introducing creeds; and he condescended to go, even that far, merely as an act of grace, thinking that when he had the Bible in his hand, nothing more was wanted. The * 'Remarks" followed the very same track; because that the ''Lecture," in sustaining its argument, had committed the same sin, for which he had censured episcopalians. And is there nothing unseemly in referring to a degenerate age for proof and testimony, in favour of any of the ecclesiastical institutions in our own day, when we have the Bible in our hands? — Or is it no argument against creeds that they were the offspring of a degenerate age? And would it not

IS

follow, that instead of being * ^indispensably necessary" to make instruments by which to sustain their ill-gotten power, the ecclesiastics of that age ought rather to have retraced their steps, and surrendered their usurped sovereignty? Or having such an example before us, ought we not to profit by their mistake, and freely part with that which we are not entitled to hold?

Again: The fourth argument advanced, in favour of creeds, in the * ^Introductory Lecture," was, that 'Hhey are friendly to the study of christian doctrine, and of course to the prevalence of christian knowledge. " This position too was controverted in the ^'Remarks," and very opposite ground was taken. Creeds were considered as unfriendly to the acquisition of christian knowledge, because they take divine truth out of its biblical connexions; throw it into scholastic forms; substitute abstract propositions, as disputable as they are philosophical, for plain practical law; and interfere with the varied operations of different minds, by forcing a unity of sentiment at the expense of free inquiry. This view of creeds, which every man may see exemplified in the controversies of the present day, was traced up to the same degenerate ages, when scholastic theology, as correlative with ecclesiastical power, was introduced as another active cause, creating the indispensable necessity for these instruments. Thus history, instead of passing any eulogy upon their power to extend spiritual erudition, proclaims them from the first to have 2

14<

been mere tests of philosophy, and therefore the ministers of strife and controversy. Such they have always been, and such they are now. This train of argugient it was thought proper to undertake; and if it can conclusively be made out, every candid reader must feel, that the position it assails is fairly 'demolished." I did the best I could at the time, and shall not here resume the subject, — Dr. M. having in this case, as in almost every other, unceremoniously passed by every thing that was said.

It may be proper here to state— as, after having read the '^Letter," it seems difficult to say what amount of explanation is not necessary — that I do not indiscriminately condemn all who lived in the early ages, to which this argument refers. Angus-* tine, Gregory Nazianzen, Irenaeus, Jerome, and others, entered their serious protest against the sectarian measures of their own day. And no doubt there were many, belonging to the class of private christians, — men of good common sense, and sound moral judgment, — who expressed their noiseless and ineffectual testimony against the inroads of ecclesiastical power. Such men there are in every society, both political and religious. Their voice is seldom heard in the ferments of a popular policy; or ; when the public mind has sunk into indolence and sluggishness, subdued and paralysed by the success ^of a party. Such individuals, however, are generally found, though they may be unfrequently called out, to be the redeeming corps of a declining community; and happy is it for that community, when they have moral courage enough to meet their moral responsibilities. Calvin has happily expressed this condition of human society, in reference to ages preceding him, in the following language: — *^Letu.* now return to human laws. If they tend to introduce any scruple into our minds, as though the observance of them were essentially necessary, we assert, that they are unreasonable impositions on the conscience. For our consciences have to do, not with men, but with God alone. And this is the meaning of the well-known distinction, maintained in the schools, between a human tribunal and the court of conscience. When the whole world wa,-^ enveloped in the thickest shades of ignorance, this little spark of light still remained unextinguished, so that they acknowledged the conscience of man to be superior to all human judgments. It is true that what they confessed in one word, they afterwards overturned in fact; yet it was the will of God. that even at that time there should remain some testimony in favour of christian liberty, to rescue the conscience from the tyranny of men." The misfortune, however, is, that such men too often ' retire from public view, and, doubting their competency to hold in check a growing evil, leave it to cure itself.

In making up the historical testimony, intended to support the doctrine of the '^Remarks," I took the liberty of summoning Dr. M. himself as a witness; and quoted several extracts from letters, published by him, a few years ago, on the points involved in the episcopal controversy. The language of some of these extracts has been. thought, by ma- Dy, to be inconsistent with the phraseology of the ' 'Lecture;" and to show, that Dr. M. inferring from the degeneracy of the early ages that their testimony was worth nothing, and rejecting all human testimony, in or dermore fully to sustain his inference, had retreated, not to his creed, but to the Bible alone. I thought so too. Dr. M. however, is very much surprised that any inconsistency should for a moment be supposed to exist. It is never very pleasant to foil an opponent by his own weapons; and it might be rude now to press the controversy in that form, especially as he has unequivocally declared his present opinions, and seems to mourn that it is impracticable for our Bible societies to send the confession of faith along with the Bible. I beg leave, however, to offer some reasons, why it is supposed that the extracts in question are somewhat contradictory.

1. In the ''Letters" he speaks of the Bible alone-^ of the word of God as being the sole standard — of the traditions and inventions of men, as not to be followed — of our having but one master, even Christ — of our obligation to call no man, or body of men, masters, on earth, &c. i. e. I supposed him to be maintaining, in all its integrity, this argument against the episcopalians, — that it was death to any cause which could not be sustained by the Bible alone. To quote some new extracts: — Thus he smiles at a prelatical concession: — *^In other words,.

they confess, that the scriptures, taken absolutely alone, will not bear them out in their claims. But they suppose, and insist, that the facts which are mentioned in the sacred history, taken in connexion with the writings of tlie early fathers, decidedly support this claim. That is, the New Testament, in its own divine simplicity, is insujfficient for their purpose; but explained, and aided, by the writings of fallible men, it declares positively in their favour. Is it so.^ — What is this but saying, that the Bible is not a rule either perfect, or sufficient for the church? What is this but embracing a principle ivhich makes human testimony co-ordinate with that of God; and which must involve us in all the mazes and uncertainty of tradition."* Thus also he quotes the declaration of the celebrated Chillingworth with great commendation: — ^^I, for my part, after a long, and, as I verily hope and believe, impartial search of the true way to eternal happiness, do profess plainly, that I cannot find any rest for the sole of my feet, but upon this rock only, viz. the Scriptures. I see plainly, and with my own eyes, councils against councils; some fathers against other fathers; the same fathers against themselves; a consent of fathers of one age against the consent of fathers of another age; and the church of one age against the church of another age," — ^^But it is needless," continues Dr. M. ^*to multiply reasonings, or authorities on this subject. The sufficient cy and infallibility of the scriptures alone, as % * Letters, vol. l.p. U9**-20, 2^ rule of faith and practice, was assumed as the granJ principle of the reformation from popery, and is acknowledged to be the foundation of the protestant cause.''* Now Dr. M. does not speak in this plain manner in his ^'Lecture.'' He does not come out unequivocally, and say that the Bible is the only rule — the sole standard. On the contrary, he speaks of the Bible as the only infallible rule; and then employs all his argument to show that this only infallible rule is not sufficient, but that we must have 2i creed to explain and aid the Bible;— a co-ordinate instrument. He even goes so far as to speak of the grand principle of the reformation from popery, the acknowledged foundation of the protestant cause, being properly understood; as if there was any difficulty in understanding it, saving that it is not very easy to perceive how authoritative creeds can be introduced into protestant churches, consistently with its evident import; and as if it had not been framed, purposely to shut out the decisions of synods and councils.

To lay two sentences alongside of each other, and to show that Dr. M's attempt to explain does not relieve him: — In the '^Letters concerning the order and constitution of the christian ministry," he says: *^As the christian ministry is an office deriving its existence and its authority solely from Jesus Christ, the King and Head of his church, it is obvious that his word is the only rule by which any claims to this office can properly be tried, and the duties and powers of those who bear it, ascertained/'* In hi& letter to '^a gentleman of Baltimore," he says:— **I say, how is she (the church) to ascertain that this is the character of her candidates for the holy ministry, when, according to the brother whom I am constrained to oppose, she is forbidden to employ a7iy other test than that which the most corrupt and unqualified will bear, (the Bible) just as well as the niost excellent; and which is, of course in reference, to the point to be decided, no test at all."! Ah! pudet, pudet!

2. When Dr. M. was conducting his argument with episcopalians, he found it necessary to object to human testimony, in which the strength of their reasoning lies, as beneath the grave and solemn subject on which he wrote. But as human testimony has so much to do with all the sectarian varieties that exist in the church, he steps forward, like a candid man, and discards the whole, as an unhallowed intrusion upon sacred things, and appears to view the sanctuary as God's own tabernacle. He could not sustain his cause on any other principle; because his antagonist would not suffer him to decry human testimony, and then to introduce just as much of it as suited himself. Now let us suppose some episcopalian really convinced by the Doctor's argument, and conscientiously brought over to the presbyterian cause. The convert had, or had not, been previously an officiating minister. He however wishes to be so employed in the new associaso

tion which he has been induced to join. Dr. M. hands to him the confession of faith, and coally asks^ — '^Do you sincerely receive and adopt the confession of faith of this church, as containing tha system of doctrine taught in the holy scriptures?" — '^The confession of faith of this church! Pray Sir, is this the Bible?" — ^'This confession, my friend," replies Dr. M. "is a summary of the Bible; it contains whatever is important in the Bible, arranges religious doctrine much better, and is a more effectual test of orthodoxy. It is well calculated to extend *the prevalence of christian knowledge;' it is a tribute to truth and candour, which we owe to other churches and to the world; and it is 'a depository, a guardian, and a witness of the truth;' all of which is lost, if we take the Bible alone; so that if you reject this, or hesitate to receive and adopt it, you will necessarily become a latitudinarian and a heretic; for these have been the most zealous opposers of such ^excellent standards.' " — *'Ah, but Dr. M. did you not lell me, that *as the christian ministry is an office deriving its existence and its authority solely from Jesus Christ, the King and Head of his church, it is obvious that his word is the only rule by which any claims to this office can properly be tried? And when I objected to you, that your liberality, in sustaining such a proposition, seemed to me to involve you in a collision with this confession of faith, did you not tell me that we had but 'one master, even Christ,' whose word was our sole standard; and wind up your reply, by awakening all my fears, when you said — *Happy will it be for us, if we can appeal to the great searcher of hearts, that we have not followed the traditions and inventions of men, but the sure word of prophecy, which is given us to be a light to our feet, and a lamp to our path, to guide us in the way of peace?' Is not my human testimony as good as your human testimony?''

Dr. M. must finish the dialogue, as I am unable to sustain the consistency for him. The case supposed may indeed be altogether the product of a delirious imagination; for episcopalians think as much of, and differ as much about, their ecclesiastical formularies, as presbyterians do. But in the judgment of charity the case has been supposed; as presbyterians do not always reason illogically, and episcopalians are not always proof against a good argument. Moreover, thus much I thought proper to say, by way of explanation. Dr. M. may not, perhaps, be inconsistent with himself, and the reader may see, that the Bible alone, and the Bible with a creed, mean the same thing. But I thought, when the * 'Remarks" were penned, that these were very different things, and I think so now.

Section II

In continuing his objections. Dr. M. says — ^'A still more remarkable charge to which Mr. D's book is liable, is, that while he maintains, with so ipuch zeal and vehemence, the utter unlawfulness of all creeds and confessions, he distinctly allo^^'^ the indispensable necessity of having a confession of faith, and confesses that he has, and employs one himself" — I beg leave, very respectfully, to say, that the charge is most remarkable; so much so, that it is far from being correct. One of the necessary qualities of a good controvertist is, that he should carefully endeavour to understand his opponent; and most scrupulously avoid misrepresenting words, or plirases, or sentences, which itwould require some ingenuity to misunderstand.-^ I did not condemn all creeds, taking the term creed in its literal sense; but I did condemn all creeds, taking the term creed in its ecclesiastical sense, i. e. as expressing a rule of faith and manners, composed, authorised, and enforced by a voluntary association. I did not confess that I employed a creed, in the ecclesiastical sense of that term; but did confess that I had one, in the literal sense of the term; and admitted that every man must have one, as far a« he has investigated, to his own satisfaction, any set of subjects which may be proposed to his belief. It is difficult to perceive how my meaning could have been mistaken, or not to be grieved by the use of such unfair artifice in argument. — I must explain myself again.

Faith is one of the great distinguishing attributes of the christian: and faith. Dr. M. himself would define to be, reliance upon the testimony of God. God has revealed certain truths in the Bible, which he calls upon men to believe,, and which they are explicitly required personally to examine and apprehend, in order that they may believe them. Every man who has obeyed the divine commandment, and received as true the things revealed, has formed a creed; — in other words, he believes what the Holy Spirit has revealed. Without this he cannot be a christian, but plunges, as an obstinate rebel, into everlasting perdition. The sentence is — '^Ile that believeth not shall be damned:" — **He that believeth not the Son, shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." To save men from this awful issue, and to bring home to their hearts the truths, which are addressed, in the scriptures, with so much plainness and point to the human mind, the comforter is sent: — ^^He shall reprove the ivorld of sin, because they believe not on me." Most indubitably then, every real christian has a creed — or certain things which he believes. In making this declaration, may it be considered, in any sense, as conceding the point in controversy? Do I thereby allow, that men may form voluntary associations, and frame articles of belief for one another? Or that, our fathers, being good, wise, and holy men, far more so than any of their children, had a right to form a test of orthodoxy, comprising certain abstract propositions, which in their apprehensions were certainly true? No, verilj'. Did not our fathers examine for themselves, and form a creed for themselves? And may we not^ with equal freedom, and equal confidence, do the same thing, each for himself? If the fathers had possessed the talents of as many archangels, would their superiority over our little capacities, entitle them to usurp the prerogative of the Lord Jesus, and tell us what we must believe, on pain of forfeiting gospel privileges?