them in the ministry, and even renewed their commission; while the Board reject Mr. Van Dyck from the ministry, not for denying any thing that Christ or the sacred writers have plainly declared—but for doubting what has been declared by philosophizing, speculating men, indulging in scholastic reasoning, and filling up chasms in their systems of theology, which God had left, perhaps on purpose to humble the pride of man, and repress his presumption and vain curiosity to pry into things too deep for him.

I must be excused for pressing this subject on the Board, as a matter of great moment in the future exercise of their offices; for I fear they will, like other transgressors, summon all their energies to resist the force of truth. The futility of flying for refuge to the rules of the church, and the necessity, for coming to a safe conclusion, of going at once to the original standard, has been plainly proved. Let me now ask you, what authority you had from the scriptures, to lay so great a stress on abstract matters of faith,-matters of faith that cannot influence the practice of preacher or hearer? Did not the inspired writers understand this subject? How little, comparatively, do they say of mere matters of belief? and how much of practice? Look at the list of qualifications again. Examine your Bibles to ascertain whether they have been faithfully digested-or rather, throw away the digest, and search the scriptures themselves, and learn thence the true qualifications of a gospel minister; and then declare wherein you found Mr. Van Dyck deficient. On what grounds, do you think, St. Paul, or the Lord Jesus Christ, would have rejected him? If you cannot answer these points to your satisfaction, do you think the Head of the Church will sanction your rejection of him? Or, is it a sin laying at your door, until acknowledged and repented of? You say of Mr. Van Dyek, that one thing he lacked, namely, a belief of the two points of doctrine so often mentioned. But where do you find this to be one of the qualifications of a gospel minister, that he should believe these doctrines? We have seen, or may see, by searching the scriptures, what doctrines ought to be preached and taught. Are these named among them?

1

The direction to Ezekiel, to declare the whole counsel of God, had no reference to abstruse doctrines, but only to the exact declaration of the message God sent by him to Israel. Be this as it may, where do you find your authority for making the belief of abstract points of doctrine an indispensable prerequisite? The important things to be taught are certainly to be found in the New Testament. It will not help your conduct to allege the difficulty of distinguishing between essential and unessential points of faith,-for then you must take the ground, that Christ or the apostles ought to have rejected from the ministry, all who did not believe every thing taught in the scriptures of the Old Testament. We have seen that the disciples of our Lord did not believe what the Prophets taught concerning the death and resurrection of the Messiah. He judged of the importance of their believing these doctrines, knowing, at the same time, their other qualifications. So it was for the Board to judge of the importance of the points of faith, on which Mr. Van Dyck hesitated; to consider his time of life; his other qualifications; the difference between disbelieving and doubting; and then solemnly to say whether, under all these circumstances, they could plead a warrant from the scriptures for rejecting him, and whether they could believe that the Saviour himself would have done it. If you say you have no discretion in case of disbelief or doubt of any of the doctrines which you believe to be taught in the Bible, but that in such case you are bound to reject; or, in other words, that you have no dispensing power as to any point of doctrine, then let me ask you, whether you have any dispensing power as to any other qualification? If so, where do you derive a power to dispense with any qualification as to character, conduct, temper, or any thing else distinct from mere matters of belief? Should an applicant for the ministry offer himself to you, whom you had reason to believe was not exactly temperate as to the quantity or quality of his food; or not exactly hospitable, rather soon angry, somewhat inclined to covet, or too much self-willed, rather impatient, not remarkable for meekness, not gentle unto all men, disposed to be unwatchful, or not possessing that gravity which would be desirable in a minister, or,

if you please, somewhat given to wine-being deficient in any one of these particulars, but possessing every other qualification, would you reject him? Then you require a perfect man. Well, then, if you can dispense with perfection in character or conduct, cannot you dispense with perfection in faith? Where do you find this distinction in the Bible? Do you find so much more stress laid in the Bible on matters of faith, than on matters of christian practice? If so, in what part of the Bible? Do you not, in fact, find much more stress laid in the scriptures, on matters of practice than on matters of faith? St. Paul was surely a theologian, yet you find him insist much more on practical qualifications than on those of speculative belief. Nay, he insists almost exclusively on the former. So the Lord Jesus Christ proceeded on the same principles. Let me make an explanation in this place: I do not contend that Christ would now, if on earth, license a man to preach, who disbelieved his atonement, or resurrection, or ascension. The evidence of the truth of these doctrines is so incontrovertible now, as that the denial or doubt of them would prove a man unconverted, and as not having received the message he is required to deliver, and unfit for a preacher of the gospel. But the great Head of the church, would, if now on earth, act on the same principles in licensing preachers, as he did when he commissioned his disciples. He would no more require faith in every truth, than he did then. Had a man then disputed his Messiahship, he would not have sent him forth to preach. So now a denial or doubt of the substance of the gospel, which a minister is required to preach, is a disqualification. Did Mr. Van Dyck believe the substance of the gospel, notwithstanding his doubts as to eternal generation and eternal procession? None but a bigoted partizan will ques ion it. How, then, do you justify your rejection of him from the ministry? You have not acted on the principles of Christ, nor of his apostles, nor decided the case on the ground of the qualifications required in the Bible. Then you have acted independently of the authority of God: and now take refuge to the institutions of men-to your doctrine of voluntary associations to the rules of the church-to the opinions of wise

men, and that for a succession of ages.

What but this was the justification on which the scribes, pharisees, and priests rested their conduct in the time of the Saviour? In their condemnation of the Saviour, they disregarded the scriptures of the Old Testament, confiding in the received interpretations of the Jewish Church; and Christ charged them with making void the law of God by their traditions, teaching for doctrine the commandments of men; while under the influence of that essential error, they crucified and slew him.

It is by disregarding the scriptures that errors creep into any church. But no church, so departing from the true standard, can keep the consciences of its members at ease without something which they are led to believe is of equal correctness with the Bible. So the Jews got their traditions. So the Papists got their doctrine of the infallibility of the church and pope; and so we, in our church, get what we call “our most excellent standards," and we keep repeating, in almost every report or document, that is presented to, or passes through, the hands of Classis, particular Synod, general Synod, and Magazine, expressions calculated to impress on the minds of laymen and clergy the full belief, that the scriptures and our standards are convertible terms. This process

of inculcation, continued for a length of time, tends to the keeping of the conscience as quiet in the disobeying, as in the obeying of God's word. The inventions of men, being taken for granted to accord with the word, are finally adopted as the rule of action, and the conscience rests quietly under it. The conscience of the papist feels as quiet, while he worships the Virgin Mary, as it would, had the first or second commandment never been promulgated. This is the legitimate consequence of setting too high a value on human standards. You, in the same proportion derogate from, nay, you reject, the word of God as the only standard of faith and practice.

I know the members of the Board, to justify themselves for adjudging the case of Mr. Van Dyck on the ground of the standards, will allege that they have in fact decided it on Scripture principles, in as much as the standards perfectly accord with the scriptures. This is the very point in dispute. They

K

say it is proved. Let us hear their arguments, and answer them.

In the first place, it is urged that the creed of the church has been the same for two hundred years past, and it is presumptuous now to call its truth in question. But the creed of the Roman Catholic Church has been the same it now is, for perhaps one thousand years. If the antiquity of our creed proves it true, the much greater antiquity of the Roman creed would establish that, if possible, to be much above the standard of truth.

Another argument is, that councils of very learned ministers, of different countries, have settled our articles of faith, and that the same articles have, from time to time, received the sanction of other councils, synods, and assemblies, not only in Holland but in this country. This argument also proves more for the Roman Catholic church than ours. They have had their councils from a period of greater antiquity. The Synod of Dort can bear no comparison with the council of Trent, as to the number of the members, or the extent of country from which they were collected. The council of Trent was composed of men of at least equal learning with those of the Synod of Dort, and continued their session much longer, namely, for nearly twenty years.

:

The third argument is drawn from the very superior wisdom of our ancestors; this is indeed the great argument always answering the purpose when all others fail.—It is seriously maintained, that the wisdom of the men composing the Synod of Dort was so very great, as to afford ample proof of the correctness of the articles they originated or revised. If I understand what is talked on this subject among us, there is claimed, for the men composing that synod, a species of inspiration little inferior in measure, or kind, to that which was vouchsafed to the writers of the Holy Scriptures,—a very dangerous sentiment, never, it is hoped, to be repeated again. From the declarations of some of our ministers, an uninformed layman would be led to suppose that the Synod of Dort was composed of a race of giants in theology, while the present generation of divines are, in the comparison, mere