obvious difference between them, and the infpired writers. The last do fuppofe always that there is such a thing as truth, which is attainable by men; and which, 'when attained, they ought to hold faft, as being of the utmost importance in order to their eternal salvation: whereas the others feem to look upon truth as a vague uncertain thing, which no body can ever be fure he is in poffeffion of.ded in the words of the Confession, where They seem likewife to think it of little or no confequence whether it be truth or falfehood that is embraced; error being, in their opinion, as fure a road to falvation as truth. Which of these ways of thinking does most honour to, and implies the greatest regard for truth, let any one judge. And I may add, how little comfort would true believers expect to find in fuch a faith? But this being the cafe, it is no wonder that the one do not lay the fame stress as the others do upon ABIDING in the doctrine of Chrift; being eftablished in the truth; rooted and established in the faith; continuing in the doctrine; holding foft the form of found words; continuing in the things which we have learned, and have been affured of; and that a character which is inarked by the apostle with a note of infamy feems not to be regard. ed by them in the fame light, ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. have erred," the difference between that expression, and another used by him that founds fomewhat like it, would have been more vifible. In applying the words of the Confeffion to the fynod of Weftminfter, which, he obferves, is not excepted, he substitutes a different phrafe, "it may have erred." Now, though this were to be admitted, it certainly is not inclu If then the doctrines of this church, as expreffed in the Confeflion of Faith, have been maturely confidered, as they ought to be by every one who pretends to be a teacher of them; and if they ap. pear to him to be founded on and agree able to the word of God, (without which he, furely, ought not to fay, they do); if this is the cafe, why may he not promife a constant adherence to them? where is there, in all this, the leaft fhadow of contradiction to the very book he profeff. es to fubfcribe? A fort of demonftration of this inconfiftency feems, however, to be aimed at by S. D. by which he thinks he has rendered it unquestionable. Let us follow the fteps of his demonstration, and fee whether, in order to make it out, he is not put to the fhift of artfully fhuffling more into his premifles and conclufion, than what, by the laws of fair reafoning, can be allowed. The Confeflion, he obferves, declares, That "all councils and fynods fince the apoftles time may err." Why did he omit what follows? If he had added their next words, "and many he was to find the contradiction. For by faying ALL may err, and MANY have erred, they plainly make a distinction, the noticing of which was not for his purpofe. All are included in the firft, but all are not included in the second affertion. So that there is no neceffity of applying the fecond affertion to any particular affembly. Nay, I could fay, even of the Westminster affembly, if I faw any ground for it, not only that they may have erred, but that they actually have erred, in a perfect confiftency with approving the Confeflion of Faith; as that was only a part of their actings. Where is the inconfiftency in saying, they have erred, but not in that part of their procedure which is the object of my approbation? Again, how does he connect other two steps in his demonstration? Is it the fame thing, to say, that one, in fome things that are particularly fpecified, has not erred; and to say, that he is infallible? Yet this is what be takes for granted; though it is the step upon which his conclufion chiefly depends. Ought he not to have known, that po. fitive terms, fuch as, unquestionable, plaineft manner imaginable, &c. will not pafs with every one inftead of a proper medium to connect the steps of an argument? For, furely, it may be faid, that a perfon has spoken the truth in fome particular inftances, i. e. that therein he has not erred, without faying that he is infallible. Had the words of the Confeffion been, "all must err, and all have erred in every thing;" it might have anfwered his purpose: but as they ftand, it is impof fible that the flyeft arts of the most ingenious difputant can ever be able to make appear the least fhadow of a contradiction. Let us try the force of this demonftration, by applying it to any other ordinary cafe of the fame kind. Did this gentleman ever hear, or read, a fermon, of his own or of another's compofition, fo conformable to his principles, (if he has any fixed ones), that he could fay, there Was was nothing in it, from the beginning to the end, but what was founded on and agreeable to the word of God? I am fure, I have heard many fuch; and fome of them longer than the Confeffion of Faith, which, in the acts of parliament printed in 1690 fills but twelve leaves, with all the interval spaces oocafioned by its divifion into thirty-three, chapters. But if he fhould fay fo, what would he reply to his own argument, if it were retorted upon him? Why, "all preachers fince the apostles time may err : nor will you except this preacher. You are there fore obliged to believe that he may err, or may have erred. But by declaring the whole doctrine contained in his fermon to be the truth of God, you fay, in the most express and positive terms imaginable, that he has not erred. Thus you profefs to believe him to be, at the fame time, fallible and infallible; and if, unmindful of the former of thefe qualities which belong to him, you fay that his fermon is wholly and absolutely the truth of God, you do, unquestionably, put it on a footing with the fcriptures." I doubt not but he will know his own words again. It is really fo odd an imagination, this of your two correfpondents, as if there was no paffing a judgement upon any human composition, or believing it to be founded on and agreeable to the word of God, without putting it on a level with the fcripture; or, in other words, that faying we believe the truth of certain particular doctrines, neceffarily implies a perfuafion that the collector of them never did, or could fay any thing else but what was true likewife; this is fo very extraordinary, that one cannot help, upon fuch an occasion, cafting about, and forming conjectures, what could have led the gentlemen into it. And I can think of but two fuppofitions. The first is, That they have confidered the Confeffion, not as a collection of certain particular doctrines therein specified only, but as a fort of perfon, to whole authority they, by fubfcription, fubject themselves, even it was to impofe upon them as many more. Or, fecondly, That they imagine there are doctrines contained in the Confeffion, which are contrary, not only to their own views of things, but also to the views of every one elfe, and which it is impoffible that any body can believe. This laft is, indeed, fo inconfiftent with that charity they would be thought to have for those who differ from them, (fuch VOL. XXX. as the members of the Westminster affembly, and of the parliament and affembly at the revolution, as well as all thofe who ftill profefs to believe what they fign), that I would never have thought of imputing it to them, if their manner of reasoning could poffibly be accounted for on any other fuppofition. Your correspondent S. D. feems to have no doubt, that it will eafily be allowed on our fide, that a man who acts with confcience will not fign the Confeflion of Faith but in fo far as it is agreeable to the fcriptures." This propofition is capable of two fenfes. The fit is, That a man of confcience will not fign the Confeffion of Faith, unless he really believes it is agreeable to the fcripture; or at leaft, if he has any exceptions to make, he will not fign it without fpecifying these exceptions. This is the only fenfe in which the above propofition can be admitted on our part. But then it is obvious, that, in this fenfe, it cannot, in the least, ferve the purpose of his argument. In order to do him any fervice, he must needs proceed upon the fecond of the above fuppofitions; and the feofe must be, That a man of confcience, though he do figa it flump and clear, (it is his own phrate, for which we have no manner of occasion, or the ideas conveyed thereby; if he has, I am forry for it), he cannot be understood by any body to mean, that he really believes it flump and clear for all that: his meaning can be no more, but that it is agreeable to the fcripture fo far as it is agreeable to it. To fuppofe that the propofition will be admitted by his opponents in this fenfe, is plainly begging the question. Yet fo confident is the gentleman that every body must have the fame views of the matter, that he adds "No body is deceived; every body underftands what the man does in figning." And from thefe premiffes, (his own fenfe being impofed upon us), he then with fome more plaufibility infers A. B.'s conclufion, that there is no neceflity of expreffing that qualification, which every body cannot but fuppofe. Of the fame opinion likewise must PHILANTHROPOS be, when he calls their plan "the only poffible mean of rational and ingenuous fubfcription;" as if it were impoffible that any body could truly and honestly fay, that they really believe the doctrines contained in the Confeflion; not even the compilers themfelves, it C feams; feems; as the thing is impoffible. Upon this laft paffage, I cannot help obferving the prodigious power of prejudice. We have feen it ufed as an argument in defence of fome people's fubfcription, that what they fign appears to them to be a contradiction; an argument which, one would be apt to think, could never have procured the approbation even of prejudice itfelf. And now we fee here again, it can bring one who feems not to be deftitute of human understanding, to regard that fort of fubfcription as the most rational, which reduces what they fign to downright nonfenfe in the ftricteft meaning of the word, no fenfe, [it is agreeable fo far as it is agreeable]; and as the mof ingenuous, when one folemnly affirms what he knows to be falfe, and promifes what he has no intention to perform. He fays that it ought not to be cruelly cenfured." I confefs it would be almoit cruel to repeat their very words, and, without a cruel neceflity, to impute their avowed tenets to any that ever pretended to be honeft men. Why then does he lay us under fuch a hardship, by patronising a practice which cannot be placed in its true light, or handled even in the tendereft manner, without the appearance of cruelty? Cruelty, however, it can only be, upon a fuppofition which I will by no means admit, viz. that they do not lie open to conviction; and that, let the abfurdity and difingenuity of a plan be made ever fo manifeft, they are refolved to defend it as the most rational and ingenuous. If they are in a difpofition to abandon whatever appears to be wrong, it can be no cruelty, fure, to difabule them and therefore, in hopes of its having fome effe, fuffer me to reprefent likewife, in a stronger light, perhaps, than fome eyes may be able to bear, their conduct with relation to the difcipline of this church. Befides the direct attack upon it in the letter figned A. B. Mr Ferguson, and his adherents in the fynod, did in fift, that a profecution upon a fama clamoja was an unjustifiable part of our conftitution; and that, let a scandal be ever fo flagrant, and as manifeft as can be fuppofed before any trial, yet not the Jeaft notice of it ought to be taken in the way of difcipline, unless a private profecutor gives in a libel. Now, if it is the very fcandal itfelf, or, in other words, the fuma clamofa, that is the wound given to religion, whereof the exercise of difcipline is the only cure ; whoever places our discipline on any other foundation, defeats the defign of it, and labours to undermine and fubvert it altogether. Befides, whoever knows any thing of the endless trouble and expence a private profecutor would be involved in, especially now when it is fo apparen what a powerful oppofition he would meet with, must be fenfible, that no body who is fit for the office, and acquainted with these matters, or who has any thing to lose that is worth the keeping, will ever undertake it. It is certain, that church-judicatories are the only profecutors that, in our conftitution, are obliged ex officio to be fo; and that if none of them do it, it will not be done to any purpose. To infift, therefore, that no procefs for cenfure fhould ever be begun without a particular accufer, especially when there is most occafion for it, i. e. when corruption is fpreading, and zeal languid, is, in effect. to maintain, that every man, yea every minifter, fhould be left without the least restraint, to fay and to do what he pleafes; or, in other words, that the leaft fhadow of any fort of difcipline ought to be utterly abolished among us, and that the rapid progress of corruption in doctrine and manners ought not to meet with the fmalleft difcouragement from any church-judicatory. In order to form a juft idea of this conduct, it is to be observed, that minifters, at their ordination, are taken folemnly engaged, "that they will firmly and conftantly adhere to, and in their ftation, to the utmost of their power, affert, maintain, and defend, not only. the doctrine, but likewife the difcipline now fo happily (as they then profels) eftablished in this church, and which they own to be founded upon the holy fcripture, and agreeable thereto; and that they will never endeavour, directly or indirectly, the prejudice or fubverfion of the fame." After fuch folemn profeffions and engagements, to make fo direct an attack upon the difcipline which they promifed firmly to maintain and defend, is furely fomewhat extraordinary in men who have any pretenfions to common honefty; especially when it is done (if not directly by them all, at leaft indirectly) with a view to the prejudice and fubversion of the very doârine to which they likewife gave their affent, and pro mifed mifed to affert, maintain, and defend. Is this like an Ifraelite indeed in whom there is no guile? What ties can be fuppofed capable of binding men, if thefe are allowed to be of no more force than a thread of tow when it toucheth the fire? After all, I must own, that the cafe of many students of divinity is really an object of my compaffion. If the prefent age, fond of changes in doctrine as well as fashions, and lying under an inundation of objections againft, and ridicule upon, the most important doctrines of Christianity, from both open and difguifed infidels, is running fast into the Socinian theology, whereby the truth of revealed religion is admitted with the one hand, and all the distinguishing tenets of it retracted with the other; if this is the cafe, there are but few young people who have strength enough of mind to resist the torrent, but are easily carried along in the prefent prevailing ftream, however they may be flattered with the direct contrary imagination. Perhaps there are but few of them that have those serious and humbling impreffions of the corruption of their nature, and their need of a Saviour and a Sancti fier, which seldom fail to lead to the orthodox way of thinking; for this is the Strait gate, and the narrow way, and few there be that find it. Perhaps most of the companions they converfe with, being in the most unhumbled period of life, tickled with the novelty of doctrines fo different from what they were taught in their catechifms, and mistaking that difference for an increase of knowledge that fatters their vanity, help to carry on the deceit. Perhaps most of the books that fall in their way, are either books of mere entertainment, written by men who have no true impressions of religion, or the late writings of English divines, recommended by the beauty of a modern ftyle, and all confpiring in vain attempts to render Chriftianity palatable to a corrupt world, which true religion will never be; while the old orthodox divines, far fuperior to them in learning, are never mentioned without a fneer. If this is a just representation of things, what wonder, if being by fuch a train of circuritances led away with the error of the wicked they fall from their own ftedfaltnefs? and yet, being bred with a view to the miniftry in this established church, they cannot be admitted with cot renouncing the errors they have embraced, and profefling to believe doc trines which they have been accustomed to defpife. The cafe is truly pitable. But furely they are not their truest friends, who furnish them with fophiftical reafonings to varnish over and harden them in an act of grofs dishonesty. I would use a fofter word if I knew of any that could exprefs the idea fuggefted by a practice that has fo many defenders. It is very natural for the opponents of an established religion, to foothe with good words those who stand up for maintaining it, into a quiet and peaceable fuffering of them to accomplish their defign with as little refiftance as poflible; and therefore it is no more than what may be expected, to find the writings on that fide full of moderation and charity, and fuch plaufible expreflions as tend to lull us afleep till our religion be undermined. Moderation, when rightly understood, and feasonably exercifed, is a doty incumbent upon every Chriftian, and is of ten of great importance in promoting the intereft of religion. Yet it is certain, that there are cafes where moderation would be a fault. If one was hotly purfued by an enraged enemy with a drawn fword, would it be right advice to hịm to ride moderately, and not overheat his horfe? Is there no good thing in which it is good to be zealously affected and ought we not to contend earnestly for the faith which was once delivered to the faints, when there are certain men crept in unawares ready to undermine it? In contreverfies concerning the external circumftances of religion, which do not directly ftrike at the method of falvation revealed in the gospel, of which fort of differences the Apoftle treats in the 14th chapter of the Romans, or that arife from the ufe of different words or phrafes only, and may perhaps be refolved into logomachies, in all fuch cafes, moderation is properly and feafonably exerciled. But when the most important articles of Christianity are op poled, there the charity to be exerciled (for charity is due to every man at all times) is of a very different nature fron that which is recommended by your correfpondents. Let any one but attend to the behaviour of the apofties upon fuch occafions, by confulting (befides the pages already referred to) the epistle of Jude, the 2d and 3d epiftles of John, the 2d chapter of his first epiftle, the 2d chapter of 2 Peter, with many other paffages in the Epifles, too tedious to be now men C 2 tioned ཡིང ས ད 1:|:|:ཀ ལ toned, and he will fee how the apostles But is all our charity to be confined to There is one thing alledged by S. D. but from this very inftance of the conduct always been the principle of this church; What is above obferved of the act 14. 1736, furnishes a fufficient answer to the laft paragraph of S. D's letter. If he could diflinguish between the laws and conftitutions of a church, (which is what we call established regulations), and the decifion of particular caufes in a judicative capacity, the egregious mistake he here falls into had been prevented; and he could not have had the leaft fhadow of ground for alledging, that the folemn farce of ordaining a minister to bare walls or merely to a ftipend, is an established regulation of this church. PHILALETHES. A letter of her Imperial Majefty of all the Ruffias, to Count Wolodinier Orloff, director of the academy of Sciences at Peterburg. Monf. Count Orloff, fummer of the year 1769 the planet of |