should have supposed the Board might have stopped. They had evidence in all conscience of a non-conformity in the mind of the student to the standards, provided doubt be equivalent to denial. But the Board had to proceed further; the order of the day was n t finished.-Mr. Van Dyck, the 11th article of the Confession of Faith, declares that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son from eternity. Now, in your papers you declare you cannot, from rational conviction, say that you do believe this. Are you now prepared to subscribe another paper declaring that you do believe this? Of course I am not prepared to say I do not believe, and that I do believe, in the same breath.-Again; the 13th Lord's day of the Heidelbergh catechism, declares Christ to be the eternal and natural Son of God. You say in your paper you are undecided, whether Christ is the Son of God from nature or from office. Now sir, are you prepared to subscribe to this 13th Lord's day, and so have your subscription stand to two opposite propositions? No. The torture is not yet completed. There are more questions yet. As far as we have gone, (the Board may have thought,) we have only convicted him of unwillingness to subscribe to the eternal generation and procession,-doctrines, concerning which, as ministers, we say very little, and which our people therefore may not think very important. And if we should reject the promising young man for doubting only unimportant doctrines, we may ourselves be arraigned for our conduct, before the bar of public opinion. We must therefore convict him of non-conformity to the doctrine of the atonement, as maintained by the church. Now, Mr. Van Dyck, we will read to you the 8th article of the canons, under the second head of doctrine, (see Constitution, page 157.) This article, sir, we understand as asserting the doctrine of limited atonement. After hearing it read, Mr. Van Dyck (no doubt much to the surprise and confusion of some,) answered that he was prepared to subscribe that article. But, asks a learned doctor, are you not mistaken as to your being able to subscribe that article? Did you attend closely when it was read, and weigh well the terms in which it is expressed? Let me read it to you, and emphasize it. This D

being done, the wicked student persisted in saying the article met his views. Then in answer to some other questions, he repeats the sentiment that man's inability is moral only, but that he applied the corruption of human nature to the understanding and affections, as well as to the will.-Here the Board doubtless thought it most prudent to stop: why so? . Were they afraid that in case they examined further, he would exhibit too much of orthodoxy to admit of his rejection with safety? They had been careful to read to him every article in relation to the eternal generation and procession; for they knew they could do that without any danger of his subscribing them. Why did they not do the same in relation to the atonement? Why did they not read to him the answer to the 37th question of the Heidelberg catechism, which asserts that Christ sustained the wrath of God, against the sins of all mankind? Was not this so favourite an article with the Board as that in the canons? or did they believe that the student would be willing to subcribe that, while they hoped and believed that he would not subscribe the one they did not read to him? Strange, that they should ask him to subscribe the article which they knew would least favour his views, and that they should omit to present him the one which they knew would most favour his views. The wonder vanishes if my belief be well founded, namely, that although the Board place the rejection of Mr. Van Dyck, on the ground of his refusal to subscribe the entire standards; yet that the reason which moved them to reject him, was not what the public were led to believe it was; but that his views of the atonement were the true moving cause. His sentiments in regard to natural or moral inability may also have had an influence on the motives of some, as that opinion thwarts some favourite notions respecting man's total helplessness or deadness: besides, the circumstance of the words moral inability not being found in our standards. For, to be purely orthodox, it is needful not only to conform to every word in our standards, but also not to go one letter beyond. If you go beyond, by using one word not there contained, you are said to violate "the form of sound words."

ན

The Board then not willing to let the deed rest on the ground of Mr. Van Dyck's rejection of the abstruse and unimportant articles of eternal generation and procession, and having, doubtless, their misgivings that he might not reject the articles in relation to the atonement, did yet reserve another ground on which they might justify what they were resolved to do. Let the reader look back at the resolution of the Board entered prior to the special examination of Mr. Van Dyck, and he will find that they intended to call on him, not only to declare whether he was prepared to subscribe the standards, but he was to be asked whether he had any explanation to make respecting his views on certain points of doctrine, as maintained by the Reformed Dutch Church. Now this is something quite distinguished from the standards. These standards, it seems, do not always speak a plain language. Some construe them one way, and some another. There is a certain portion of the ministry who assume to be at the apex of orthodoxy, that in such cases give tone to a certain construction. As they say, so are those certain points of doctrine said to be maintained by the Reformed Dutch Church; and if these sentiments can be repeated a few times by certain Doctors in divinity, or such as may be on the point of receiving that distinction, or inserted with approbation in "our Magazine," they become at once the doctrines of the Reformed Dutch Church. In these cases, the rule does not apply that you may not add one word to the standards. For to every rule there are exceptions, and these men have, by common consent, the same right to fabricate an additional “Form of Sound Words," as the Synod of Dort had. And these men have the further privilege of fixing the interpretation of the standards; so that their reading of the articles becomes the genuine reading of the Church. At all events, what is At all events, what is so authenticated may well be said to be doctrines maintained by the Reformed Dutch Church. But the Board fearing that Mr. Van Dyck would be rather disposed to adopt his own construction of the standards, as they had seen he was disposed to do in regard to the Scriptures, did not intend to let the matter of the atonement rest on his refusal to subscribe; but meant to reserve the op

portunity of alleging his unsoundness on that doctrine, as maintained by the Reformed Dutch Church. And accordingly, we find in the concluding resolutions of the Board, that they artfully mix up his difficulties on several important doctrines, with his refusal to subscrive the entire standards.

The Board then having finished the special interrogation of the theological student, again ordered the massy doors of the Hall to be closed, so that they might deliberate on the matter, without being under the inspection of the eye of man.

It is to me, strong proof of undue veneration for our standards, which are but the work of men; and of the want of a comparative estimation of the Holy Scriptures, that from the beginning of this business with Professor Milledoler, to the completion of it with the Board, neither he nor they seem to have thought of putting the matter on the ground of the Holy Scriptures. While the student puts his faith on the testimony of those Scriptures, and cannot consent to say yes, when he cannot find evidence of the truth of the proposition from the Bible, they constantly press upon him the standards of the Church. Dr. Milledoler represents to the Board the student's differences from the standards and ministers of the Church. The Board, in their first resolution after the report of the Committee, speak of his views and difficulties on certain points of doctrine, as maintained by the Reformed Dutch Church. In their interrogations they confine themselves exclusively to the Confessions of Faith, Heidelberg Catechism, and Canons. And now, in their concluding resolution, declaring their decision on the case of Mr. Van Dyck, they state as follows: "Whereas Mr. L. B. Van Dyck labours on several important doctrines, so that he cannot subscribe the standards of the Church, Therefore resolved, that he cannot be recommended by this Board to the professors for their certificate." Still nothing in regard to his scriptural qualifications. Now, if the Scriptures are silent on the subject of the qualifications of ministers of the gospel, the Professor of didactic theology, and the members of the Board, could not have any reference to them as a standard of their decision, and then from necessity they were confined to what man may have spoken on the

subject. But if the Bible contains sufficient on this subject to lead men of understanding to a sound determination from the Scriptures, then the Board have not obeyed God, in deciding this case on the authority of human standards. That they have decided the case exclusively on human standards, will hereafter be shown to the satisfaction of every intelligent and unprejudiced mind. That none of the doctrines on which Mr. Van Dyck laboured are of essential importance is most conclusively shown in that young man's pamphlet, and no answer has been given, nor will any be given to it. He did not refuse to subscribe any article except as to the eternal generation and eternal procession. That these are important doctrines, will not be advocated in print by any minister or layman of this Church. None will be found willing to stake his reputation for sound judgment and scriptural knowledge, on such a proposition. Dr. Miller, in his controversy with Professor Stuart, does not consider the doctrine of eternal generation so important, but that he could give him his hand as a brother notwithstanding his d nial of the doctrine. And as to the eternal procession, no one, it is presumed, ever dreamed of its being important, since the nicety of scholastic theology has been on its wane in the Church.

But admitting for a moment that a denial of these doctrines may be viewed as important, is the doubting of these either such a crime, or such a misfortune, as to disqualify a student from receiving a professorial certificate for examination before classis-Is doubting equivalent to a denial? It is so in the Roman church,-why? Because it at once evinces rebellion against the authority of the Pope, or decrees of council. What, say they, can induce a man to express a doubt, unless he is inclined to cast off the authority of the church? It is the creed of the church, and if he were not disposed to question its supremacy and infallibility, he would subscribe, although his judgment was not otherwise convinced. The same reasoning is adopted among ourselves. Our good men would address the student, and ask him, Do you deny the doctrines? He answers: No; I cannot say it is not so! Why, then really, it is replied, You might, I think, subscribe to the