will judge of their spirit and temper by their modern productions. Let any unprejudiced person consult "A short account of the old Dissenters," and "An explanation and defence of their terms of communion," both published by the Reformed Presbytery in Scotland. Let him also consult the Act and Testimony published by the Covenanting church in America, Reid's pamphlet against Fletcher, and Longmoor's pamphlet against the Covenanters; and then let him say, if they do not breathe the manly, but, at the same time, mild and candid spirit of the Gospel.*

For a considerable time past, it has been in contemplation to revise some of our subordidate standards, particularly our Act and Testimony. In the mean while, I trust it will be distinctly understood, that it is not for words or phrases, but for principles, that Covenanters contend. If, in their Act and Testimony, or other public documents, the language employed is in any instance harsh, or calculated. to give unnecessary pain to any denomination of Christians, Covenanters do not approve of such language. Their object, however they may fail in its accomplishment, is, under a deep sense of unworthiness, fallibility, and imperfection, to testify against the evils of the age in which they live, in language calculated, not to irritate and mortify, but to conciliate and reform-in language calculated, not to widen, but to heal those breaches which so mournfully prevail.

The truth is, that if there be any want of harmony between Seceders and Covenanters, it is not to be attributed to their subscribing the same standards. It is not the identity, but the difference of their standards that has occasioned their disputes. Among Covenanters themselves, who all subscribe the same standards, has there not been from the earliest period of their history, an astonishing uniformity of sentiment? With them, doctrines the most heterogeneous and opposite are not exhibited from the same pulpit. One

The only exception with which I am acquainted, is a sermon entitled the Times, published by the Rev. Mr. Edgar, present Seceding Professor of Divinity. In this sermon the author has poured upon Covenanters a torrent of illiberal abuse. In less than half a page he has lavished upon them nearly a score of abusive epithets. The poison, however, is accompanied by the antidote. Such railing accusations against sister sects is strongly and repeatedly reprobated in the same The author assures us, that such a mode of supporting truth is wearing away. I believe it is. I hope that his own virulent inves tive may be safely regarded as the last expiring groans of parly spirit.

sermon.

does not teach that the Redeemer is the supreme God; another, that he is the highest of all creatures; and another, that he is nothing more than a mere man. One does not

teach, that the Redeemer's blood is a vicarious sacrifice ; and another, that it is only a beneficial attestation of the truth of his doctrine. One does not teach, that we are justified by our own righteousness, and another, that we are justified by the righteousness of the Redeemer. One does not ascribe our sanctification to the efficiency of the Holy Ghost, and another, to the self-determining power of the will. In a word, with them, one is not employed in destroying what the other builds. Neither, Sir, do Seceders differ among themselves, nor dispute with Covenanters about these great and important doctrines of our holy religion. With you a greater diversity of opinion prevails, than would obtain among Seceders, Independents, and Covenanters, were they all united into one community. Nor can you boast very much of your harmony; at least you have exhibited a very poor specimen. You represent two of your Presbyteries as guilty of the deepest dissimulation-as acting a solemn farce in setting apart candidates to the office of the holy ministry-as using the confession of faith in such a qualified manner as to render it a mere name, a piece of appearance! You represent a Rev. brother, whom, (if I mista.. not the object,) learning, talents, zeal, and popularity, have raised to the highest eminence, and rendered an object of envy-this worthy character you represent as so completely absorbed in self, that duty never predominates over interest-as "always in a strait between two, the opinions of his hearers and the laws of his master, whilst the former frequently turn the beam!" Were you to break cover, and come forth from your dark retreat, the general Synod, I have no doubt, would do its duty, by inflicting on you that chastisement, which such insolence, not to say malignity, deserves. Tell me, my friend, could you exhibit to the world no better specimen of the harmony which pervades the general Synod, or of that liberality and charity which characterise the enlightened enemies of creeds and confessions? Your quondam Rev. father, Dr. M. Dowal, of Dublin, has expressed himself thus : "A society made up of jarring principles is more likely to defeat the designs of the gospel than to promote them. It bears some resemblance to Sampson's assemblage of foxes, which being enclosed in the same field, with their heads looking different

ways, but fastened together by the tails, with firebrands betwixt them, snarled, bit, and struggled, drawing different ways, until they laid waste the pleasant field, and utterly destroyed the plentiful crop." Whether the Doctor would have regarded you as one of those foxes, bound to the Synod only by the tail, as he and I are not in the habit of corresponding, I am not at present prepared to determine, Nor can I say much about the fundamental bond of union. That it is not the confession of faith is evident, for this you have decently laid aside-that it is not the bible is equally plain; for it would not teach you to snarl, bite, and devour. What the fastening ligament really is, as the Doctor is silent on the subject, I shall leave to you and the public to decide. I confess, my dear sir, that, from your Battle of Dialogues, it is difficult to ascertain your real principles. You style yourself a Rev. Presbyterian-a title which you assure us exclusively belongs to the members of the general Synod. Your sentiments, as we have already seen, would sometimes lead us to conclude that you are a Covenanter; whilst other parts of your pamphlet would authorize us to infer, that you were neither more nor less than a good old Roman Catholic. For instance, you triumph over Layman for asserting that fallible men may produce [teach] infallible doctrine. This you represent as the greatest contradiction, and the rankest popery. Now, Sir, if this be so, I hope to prove, to your own satisfaction, that you are a rank papist. That we may not forget our logic, I shall prove it syllogistically, thus: Whoever teaches truth teaches infallible doctrine : But the Rev. Presbyterian teaches truth;

Ergo, the Rev. Presbyterian teaches infallible doctrine. You will not deny, I hope, that truth is infallible; and of course, that every true doctrine is an infallible doctrinenor will you deny that you sometimes teach truth, or in other words, that you sometimes teach infallible doctrine. Now, Mr. Aristotle, just one syllogism more, and I have done :

Whoever teaches infallible doctrine is a rank Papist ; But the Rev. Presbyterian teaches infallible doctrine; Therefore, the Rev. Presbyterian is a rank Papist. Do not blush, my good friend: you have not the least reason to be ashamed; you have performed a glorious achievement. You are surrounded on all hands with excellent company. All the ministers of the general Synodall Seceding ministers,-Covenanting ministers-Indepen

dent ministers-Methodist Ministers-in a word, all the Protestant ministers in Christendom are rank Papists! You have reclaimed them all-reduced them all to obedience to the Holy See! You have effected more by a few lines of your Battle of Dialogues, than all the anathemas of Rome than all the Pope's bulls-than all the tortures and executions of the holy Inquisition! A jubilee, not only at Rome, but a universal jubilee, will, no doubt, be immediately proclaimed: and, hark ye, my friend! when the chair of St. Peter becomes vacant, who is better entitled to fill it than your reverence ?—after death, whose name will be more deserving of a place in the calendar of Saints ?-whose shrine will be more generally visited than yours? that of St. Thomas-a-Becket, will be almost entirely deserted-it will sink into comparative contempt.

even "

Hail, universal peace and harmony! Animosities and divisions are now no more. All distinctions of sects and parties are entirely abolished. Heresy is completely annihilated. The term, heretic, will no longer be used—not as a bugbear to frighten children." The only heretic in the world is the Rev. Divine, your neighbour, who, you assure us, "is a teacher of words; but in no instance of truth." I confess, indeed, that I was of opinion there was no such teacher in the world-I thought that errors and lies, without any mixture of truth, were a dose by far too nauseous for human beings of any description; but in this, it appears, I have been mistaken; for your neighbouring clergyman, you assure us, is in no instance, a teacher of truth. Now, if this be so, (and who can doubt it, after you have asserted it?) if this be so, it is quite plain, that the preacher in question is no Papist. If he teaches no truth, he teaches no infallible doctrine-if he teaches no infallible doctrine, he is no Papist-if he is no Papist, he is a heretic,—and if he is a heretic, you know how to treat him. After you have ascended the chair, of St. Peter, by your Inquisitor General proclaim an auto da fe ; and by one decisive blow banish heresy for ever from the world.

Leaving you in the bosom of your old mother church, and congratulating you on the prospect of your advancement to the Papal chair, I am, sir, warmly attached to infallible doctrine, and at the same time,

Your sincere Friend, &c.

LETTER IX.

Rev. Sir,

Against Covenanters, both ancient and modern, you prefer the heavy charges of intolerance and persecution. "It is notorious," you assure us, "that numbers were banished and confined for non-comformity, and that many were put to death for denying some of the doctrines of the confession. Among those who were tried and hanged was a student of Edinburgh College, for speaking against the trinity and incarnation of Christ. He was denied the common place of interment, and was appointed to be buried in the same ground with notorious criminals and malefactors. Such was the manner in which the covenanted uniformity was prosecuted." I suppose, sir, you will not deny, that every man should be held innocent, till once he is proved guilty. This privilege is all I ask for our reforming ancestors. You are their public accuser: bring forward your evidence. You say numbers were banished-pray what number? You affirm that many were put to death-pray, how many? Such vague and indefinite language is indeed a very fit vehicle for slander and calumny, but is ill adapted for the ascertaining of truth. Please be a little more particular: quote your authorities: specify time, place, and other circumstances. The characters of our reforming ancestors, to whose magnanimous exertions we are indebted both for civil and religious liberty, are too precious and respectable, to be allowed to fall victims to your licentious, unauthenticated abuse. Remember, sir, you are publicly called on to substantiate your charges. If you fail in your evidence, or refuse to bring it forward, you must be content to be viewed as a public calumniator. {

I have no idea, that either the civil constitution or administration of our reformers was perfect. I am no way bound, nor do I feel disposed, to vindicate all their measures, acts of parliament, &c. In some instances they might be too severe in general, however, I am convinced they ruled, considering the circumstances of the times, with a very mild sceptre. Their measures were sometimes quite too lenient. So far were they from attempting, ac