Fourthly: Whether the united sentiments of a Christian society be expressed in writing or not, is immaterial, provided they be mutually understood and avowed.-Some societies have no written articles of faith or discipline; but with them, as with others that have, it is always understood that there are certain principles, a professed belief of which is deemed necessary to communion.

The substance of the inquiry therefore would be, whether a body of Christians have a right to judge of the meaning of the doctrines and precepts of the gospel, and to act accordingly? That an individual has a right so to judge, and to form his connexions with those whose views are most congenial with his own, will not be disputed: but if so, why hath not a society the same right? If Christ has given both doctrines and precepts, some of which are more immediately addressed to Christians in their social capacity, they must not only possess such a right, but are under obligation to exercise it. If the righteous nation which keep the truth, be the only proper characters for entering into gospel fellowship, those who have the charge of their admission, are obliged to form a judgment on what is truth, and what is righteousness; without which they must be wholly unqualified for their office.

If a Christian society have no right to judge what is truth, and to render an agreement with them in certain points a term of communion; then neither have they a right to judge what is righteousness, nor to render an agreement in matters of practical right and wrong, a term of communion.

:

There is a great diversity of sentiment in the world concerning morality, as well as doctrine and if it be an unscriptural imposition to agree to any articles whatever, it must be to exclude any one for immortality, or even to admonish him on that account; for it might be alleged, that he only thinks for himself, and acts accordingly. Nor wonld he stop here: almost every species of immorality has been defended and may be disguised, and thus under the pretence of a right of private judgment, the church of God would become like the mother of harlots-the habitation of devils and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.

It is a trite and frivolous objection, which some have made against subscriptions and articles of faith, that it is setting bounds to the freedom of inquiry, and requiring a conformity of sentiment that is incompatible with the various opportunities and capacities of different persons. The same objection might be urged against the covenanting of the Israelites, and all laws in society. If a religious community agree to specify some leading principles which they consider as derived from the word of God, and judge the belief of them to be necessary in order to any persons becoming or continuing a member with them; it does not follow that those principles should be equally understood, or that all their brethren must have the same degree of knowledge, nor yet that they should understand and believe nothing else. The powers and capacities of different persons are varions; one may comprehend more of the same truth than another, and have his views more enlarged by an exceeding great variety of kindred ideas; and yet the substance of their belief may still be the same. The object of articles is to keep at a distance, not those who are weak in the faith, but such as are its avowed enemies. Supposing a church covenant to be so general as not to specify one principle or duty, but barely an engagement to adhere to the scriptures as a rule of faith and practice, the objection would still apply; and it might be said, One man is capable of understanding much more of the scriptures than another, and persons of more enlarged minds may discover a great deal of truth relating to science, which the scriptures do not pretend to teach why, therefore, do we frame articles to limit the freedom of inquiry, or which require a conformity of sentiment incompati ble with the opportunities and capacities of persons so differently circumstanced? The objection, therefore, if admitted, would prove too much. The powers of the mind will probably vary in a future world; one will be capable of comprehending much more of truth than another; yet the redeemed will all be of one mind, and of one heart.

Every one feels the importance of articles or laws, in civil society; and yet these are nothing less than expositions or particular

applications of the great principle of universal equity. General or universal equity is that to civil laws, which the Bible is to articles of faith; it is the source from which they are all professedly derived, and the standard to which they ought all to be submitted. The one are as liable to swerve from general equity, as the other from the word of God: and where this is proved to be the case in either instance, such errors require to be corrected. But as no person of common sense would on this account inveigh against laws being made, and insist that we ought only to covenant in general to walk according to equity, without agreeing in any leading principles, or determining wherein that equity consists; neither ought he to inveigh against articles of faith and practice in religious matters, provided that they comport with the mind of God in his word. If articles of faith be opposed to the authority of scripture, or substituted in the place of such authority, they become objectionable and injurious: but if they simply express the united judgment of those who voluntarily subscribe them, they are incapable of any such kind of imputation.

ON COMMENDATION.

It has been observed that sinful propensities are commonly, if not always, the original propensities of human nature, perverted or abused. Emulation, scorn, anger, the desire of property, and all the animal appetites, are not in themselves evil. If directed to right objects, and governed by the will of God, they are important and useful principles; but perverted, they degenerate into pride, haughtiness, bitterness, avarice, and sensuality.

By this remark we may be enabled to judge of the propriety and impropriety of bestowing commendation. There are some, who, for fear of making others proud, as they say, forbear the practice altogether. But this is contrary to the scriptures. We have only to hear what the Spirit saith unto the seven churches in Asia, to perceive the usefulness of commending the good for encouragement, as well as of censuring the evil for correction. Paul, in his Epistles, seldom deals in reproof, without applauding at the same time what was praiseworthy. This, doubtless, ought to be a model for us. Those who withhold such commendation for fear of making others proud, little think of the latent vanity in their own minds which this conduct betrays. If they did not attach a considerable degree of consequence to their own opinion, they would not be so ready to suspect the danger of another's being elated by it. A minister, fifty or sixty years ago, after delivering a sermon and descending from the pulpit, was accosted in rather a singular manner by another minister who had been his hearer. Shaking him by the hand, and looking him in the face, with a smile, "I could," said he, "say something, . . . . . I could say something, but, perhaps it is not safe; it might make you proud of yourself." No danger, my friend, replied the other, I do not take you to be u man of judgment.

.

Yet there is real danger of our becoming tempters to one another, by untimely and improper commendation. Man has too much nitre about him to render it safe to play with fire. Whatever may be said by worldly men, who have adopted Lord Chesterfield's maxims, and whose only study is to please, it is not only injurious, but by men of sense considered as inconsistent with good manners to load a person with praises to his face. Such characters are flatterers by profession, and their conduct is as mean as it is offensive to a modest mind; for what is flattery, but insult in disguise? Its language, if truly interpreted, is this, I know you to be so weak and so vain a creature, that nothing but praise will please you ; and as I have an end to answer by obtaining your favour, I will take this measure to accomplish it.'

·

The love of praise, has been called “ the universal passion," and true it is that no man is free from it. There are some, however,

1

who are much more vain than others. It is the study of a flatterer to find out this weak side of a man, and to avail himself of it: but good men are incapable of such conduct. If they see another covetous of praise, they will commonly withhold it, and that for the good of the party. It is true, I have seen the vanity of a man reproved by a compliance with his wishes, giving him what he was desirous of, and that in full measure, as it were, pressed down. He did not seem to be aware that he had thirsted for the delicious draft till the cup was handed to him; the appearance of which covered him with confusion. But this kind of ironical praise is a delicate weapon, and requires a quick sensibility in the person who receives the address, as well as in him who gives it. It is, however, hardly consistent with the modesty, gentleness, and benevolence of Christianity.

When two or more persons of a vain mind become acquainted, it may be expected they will deal largely in compliments; playing into each other's hands: where this is the case, there is great dan. ger of the blind leading the blind till they both fall into the ditch. To a wise and humble man, just condemnation is encouraging; but praise beyond desert is an affliction. His mind, sanctified by the grace of God, serves as a refiner to separate the one from the other; justly appreciating what is said to him, he receives what is proper, and repels what is improper. Thus it may be, we are to understand the words of Solomon: As the fining-pot for silver, and the furnace for gold, so is a man to his praise.

The scriptures never address themselves to the corrupt propensities of the mind, but to its original powers; or, to use the language of the ingenious Bunyan, they have "nothing to say to the Diabolians, but to the ancient inhabitants of the town of Mansoul." Men address themselves to our vanity; God to our emulation. If we follow this example, we are safe.

The occasion of all these reflections, Mr. Editor, was my finding the other day, among a number of old loose papers, the following tale which carries in it the marks of being a true one; and with which I shall conclude this paper:-"A young minister, (whom I shall call Eutychus,) was possessed of talents somewhat