foul. Be my opinions what they may, I had hoped that my integrity was not to be impeached. It is surprising that Dr. G. should have alluded to the subject at all; because he knows, that there are in his own denomination, and in every other denomination; and that there are in the Board of Directors of the Seminary at Princeton, ministers and laymen, who espouse very different sentiments. In differing from one another, do none of them differ from the Confession of Faith, which they have alike subscribed? If Dr. G. intended that these brethren should feel the pungency of his remark, he should have told all the truth, and let the whole Christian Church know how far subscription to Creeds and Confessions is desolating our moral feelings; that, if her sons have any magnanimity left, they might rise in their majesty, and put these polluting things out of God's holy sanctuary.

He has thought proper to give the public the following information:-"Mr. D. did this too," "that is, violently impugn all Standards of Faith, we speak of what we witnessed-within four or five hours after he had himself, in the most solemn manner, subscribed a formula, by which he pledged himself faithfully to endeavour to carry into effect all the articles and provisions of the plan of that Seminary; one article of which declares, that the Institution is intended to sustain, in their integrity, the Standards of the Presbyterian Church." And in a note, after copying out the formula, which the Directors

subscribe, he remarks,-"This was the formula which Mr. D. first read, deliberately and audibly, in the presence of the Board, and then subscribed his name to a copy of it, in a book kept for the purpose.

Now all this is, what some writers would call, a false fact: For this formula I had subscribed about twelve months before, instead of "four or five hours;" and that in the city of Philadelphia, and not at Princeton; and on a loose piece of paper, and not "in a book kept for the purpose. Dr. G. will certainly not tell the Presbyterian Church, that the Directors of the Theological Seminary are all sworn in every time they meet; nor can he justify himself, considering the high ground he has taken, in making the assertion he has, with such circumstantial phrase. The affair, as it occurred at Princeton, is as follows. The book was handed to me for my signature. I stated that I had a year before subscribed a formula, preparatory to occupying a seat at the board. To this it was replied, that my subscription had been given on a loose piece of paper, which might be lost; and that it was desirable to preserve the names of the Directors together. With these explanations, I transcrib

ed

my name, never suspecting that I was involved in the repetition of an oath. Had such an idea been suggested, the loose paper must have served for my time of service. For I do think it to be a deep disgrace to the Church, that her ministers must be so continually harrassed with tests and oaths, as though they had forfeited every claim

to the character of honest men; and could not be trusted in ecclesiastical matters, which are yet so deeply interesting to themselves, without continually swearing to be faithful. Such views of the ministerial character, carried out into practice, will destroy all ministerial influence. A minister's ordination to office, includes his oath, and the whole Church should be satisfied with it. Their yea should be yea; and their nay should be nay.

But still, "four or five hours," or twelve months, may not materially affect the morality of the transaction. A difference might indeed exist, if a man was ever permitted to alter his opinions, when he is convinced that they are wrong; and if twelve months would not be too short a period for such a change, which might probably take place even "within four or five hours." This, however, is not consistent with the confessional system. According to its dictates, a man is not at liberty to throw his doctrinal views into any new form: he must preserve them inviolable until his latest hour, and then transmit them unimpaired to his children, Or, if he should be so eccentric as to acquire different ideas, as he advances in life, and extends his researches after truth, then he must leave the Church, which possesses every association of his youth, and whose interests have been entwined with every fibre of his heart.-Thus, the difficulty is only removed one step farther, and there it must be met in all its ugliness.

What then must the Directors of this institution promise to do? Dr. G. it is presumed, has placed their duties in the clearest light; for he has shown considerable anxiety to prove his charge, and to make it speak audibly. According to his quotations, their official aim must be-"To form men for the Gospel ministry, who shall truly believe and cordially love, and therefore endeavour to propagate and defend, in its genuineness, and simplicity, and fulness, that system of religious belief and practice which is set forth in the Confession of Faith, Catechisms, and Plan of Government and Discipline of the Presbyterian Church; and thus to perpetuate and extend the influence of true evangelical piety and gospel order." How far all this might be affected in a single discourse, it is not easy to see. The decision of that question must depend upon the character of the discourse itself. In relation to that one which has fallen under his censure, it is abundantly evident that the very front of its of fending is, that it has honourably and honestly maintained, that the Bible is the only rule of faith and practice, a proposition which the Confession v of Faith has again and again asserted; and it therefore states an essential principle of that system of religious belief and practice, which the Directors are bound to preserve in its integrity. Does Dr. G. question this proposition? If he does, then let him disburthen himself of the charge he deals out to others. Does he not question it? Then why so severely condemn others?

Does the Confession contradict itself? Then abandon it; for if the Directors are sworn to reconcile contraries, the matter of their oath is unlawful, because it is impracticable. Most assuredly, if the Confession of Faith itself declares, that God is the only Lord of conscience, and the Bible the only rule of faith and practice, it occupies as high ground, as the Discourse which has provoked so much ire. The truth is, the Confession of Faith never was intended to express what some of the brethren wish to make out; they have added something of their own to it in their rules of order, and the two things do not, and never will, harmonize; one or the other must be given up. For the advocates of Creeds and Confessions, after admitting that the Bible is the only rule of faith and practice, have the trouble of proving that there is another rule of faith and practice; and so little do they like the trouble, that they will not express a proposition on the subject in plain language. It is true, they call a human Creed a test of orthodoxy, without which no Church ever lived in peace for half a century: but is this test of orthodoxy a rule of faith and practice? They make a distinction also between an infallible, and a fallible rule; but who wants a fallible, when an infallible, rule is to be obtained? So that the whole of this argument has yet to be made plain: let the brethren make themselves clearly understood.

To sustain the charge of the Reviewer, perhaps some great and distinguishing doctrine of