CHAPTER IV. ORIGIN OF CREEDS. Have they a Divine warrant? In the preceding chapter nothing has been particularly observed concerning the scriptural character of the doctrines, professedly exhibited in an ecclesiastical creed. The mere documents themselves, as articles of a voluntary association, and as instruments of ecclesiastical power, have been brought into view. To have stated a second question would have only embarrassed the discussion, and would have taken away the mind of the reader from the simple principle, intended to be set forth; and which is equally applicable to those instruments, whether the doctrines stated be scriptural or not. - I am neither unwilling, nor afraid, to meet the second question; but have done it, at large, in my lectures on the first three chapters of Genesis, which, any one, who may take any interest in my views in that direction, may consult at his lei sure. In passing, however, it may not be irrelevant to suppose, that possibly the doctrines in question may not be scriptural. If such should be the fact, what fearful consequences must ensue! Error would then be sustained and perpetuated, and whole generations would be bound up under a fearful ecclesiastical spell. The supposition is not an improbable one. These CREEDS are entirely human. Certain "framers," who wish. to "ascertain how far they are really agreed," have drawn them out; and it belongs to man to ERR. opinions of mankind are very different in different ages. Their philosophy, their language, their habits, and The their circumstances, are ever changing. The creeds themselves vary. The Westminster confession has been modified, with the view of adapting it to the institutions of this country. Different parties arise under the same creed, - as in the church of England; in the church of Scotland; and in the presbyterian church, of which Dr. M. is a distinguished and honoured member. The inventions of men filled the heathen world with idols, the Jewish church with traditions, the papal church with gross absurdities, and all the protestant churches with contentions. It is then a very natural suspicion that the subject matter of these CREEDS cannot be sustained as scriptural, or vindicated to the common sense of mankind. It would be hard to reason with a man, who, apprised of these facts, sits down submissive and unsuspicious. Effectually chilled, mind is to him of no use, and free-agency is a name. — But this by the way. If these permanent and accredited documents be as needful and valuable as they are represented to be; and if, without them, the church cannot "bear witness to the truth," nor live in harmony, nor escape the pol lutions of error, then surely the scriptures themselves must have suggested the happy expedient. Otherwise Jehovah would have created a moral world, which his providence is not competent to sustain; and where even the simple philosophy of cause and effect would be most unaccountably overlooked. "The power of the keys" must have been lodged somewhere; or else ecclesiastical politicians, by claiming it unrighteously, have interfered with the liberty which Christ has granted to all. Have the scriptures furnished a warrant for these things? I follow Dr. M.; and should this essay ever fall into his hands, it is to be hoped that he will recognize his own sentences. On a former occasion he was pleased to say that his arguments had not been assailed, nor even touched. He observes that the "Church is a society; a society which, however extended, is 'one body in Christ,' and all who compose it, 'members one of another.' Nor is this society merely required to be one in name, or to recognize a mere theoretical union; but also carefully to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.' They are exhorted to stand fast in one spirit, with one mind.' They are commanded all to 'speak the same thing,' and to be of one accord, of one mind.' And this unity of spirit' is as essential to the comfort and edification of those who are joined together in church fellowship, as it is to a compliance with the command of their Master." Therefore-what? Why, as the bible is not a competent instrument of unity, the church may break up into voluntary associations; and those who agree may walk together under laws of their own, and on their own principles. Is this Dr. M's logic? From a command to UNITE, he infers a right to DIVIDE. But has he not said, that the church is -'a society,' which, however extended, is one body in Christ?' Is only ONE of these voluntary associations the church? or do they ALL belong to the one body in Christ ?? If only ONE is the church -then which ONE? The benevolence of the age, in forming a new series of voluntary associations, on broad principles, is all wrong. The articles of correspondence' between different churches are all wrong. The whole doctrine of UNION, in its popular sense, whose motto is "UNION IS STRENGTH," is wrong. If ALL these sects are attached to the 'one body of Christ,' then the statutes which Dr. M. so gracefully and hastily quotes, are applicable to the whole; and they solemnly require the different sects to quit their strife, and maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.' But Dr. M., instead of urging unity, calls upon christians to DIVIDE; and instead of the WHOLE being of 'one accord, of one mind,' and learning to 'speak the same thing,' he sustains the system by which they are allowed to agree together, how far they shall be of one accord and one mind; and defends the various creeds which do not 'speak the same thing.' For if, on the broad ground which these scriptural statutes sketch out, christians were 'of one mind,' or if the creeds did 'speak the same thing,' there would be no necessity to divide. The lecturer reasons inconclusively-he presses a mere non-sequitur as sound political sense and recites quotations which nullify the very system of which he has been, gratuitously, or ex cathedra, the warm and earnest advocate. It is a very easy, and unfortunately, a very common thing, to quote texts inconsiderately, or without looking at their connexions. A disputant seems to imagine that his readers will be satisfied with quotation marks, and never think of looking any farther. The religious community, he knows, are not readers of the bible; or they read it in a manner so loose, that they will seldom suspect that a text, properly viewed, will prove directly the reverse of that which it is advanced to sustain. For example: The scriptural declaration of christian duty-in which all are exhorted to 'speak the same thing,' and which has been adduced by Dr. M. in favour of the creed-system-who would suppose, when he considers the reputable pen that has transcribed it, that it occurs in the very heart of an exhortation against voluntary associations? Yet such is the fact. The passage is as follows- "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them that are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you but Crispus and Gaius; lest any should say that I had baptized in my own name." Another example: All are commanded to be "of one accord, of one mind." Who would ever suppose, considering the confidence with which the venerable lecturer employs the biblical phrase, that it is a direct prohibition of ecclesiastical contention? The apostle wrote his sentence thus "If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies, fulfil ye my joy, that ye be like-minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. Let nothing be done through strife or vain glory." He then goes on to describe the example of the Redeemer, who, by "making himself of no reputation, and being found in fashion as a man, humbled himself;" and thus consecrated, not an imperious and unyielding * |