All means are in his hands. He commits no mistakes. His reliance is on moral influence. Of this his disciples may have a low opinion. They may not have courage to meet danger, nor patience to wait for results. But such is the policy of the mediatorial prince; and its wisdom has been demonstrated by the experiment. The rich and the powerful were not called in. A moral revolution made "the first last, and the last first ;" and the twelve apostles, so small, so illiterate, so timid, sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. - Whenever rich men and ecclesiastical politicians appeared, they spoiled the whole.

Having placed my exposition of this interesting incident above the reach of fair objection, I shall gather from it the general attributes of ministerial character, of which I am in search; and remark,

1. That wealth and power and literature are secondary matters in the constitution of the ministry. When they can be obtained on correct moral views they may not be rejected. Every thing is good used lawfully. On the present occasion the master was to be made perfect through sufferings, and his disciples must partake in his baptism. Our ecclesiastical hierarchies reason differently. Like the disciples, they see not how the enterprise can be sustained by moral influence.

2. Men of moral worth men whom he could love -the Master sought for. Those whose social character was good-who kept the second table of the law-and who could rule their own houses.

3. Men who can catch the spirit of their age, and meet all the difficulties of their office and times,who are entirely devoted to his service, in the

form which his providence prescribes who prefer conscience to interest, and truth before established dogmas -- these he would consecrate as his ser

vants.

The whole subject appears fair enough; one perfectly manageable; and one, in which ecclesiastical politicians have uniformly gone astray. The difficulty which the advocates of creeds suggest, is one of their own making; one which they have never been able to control; and one from which there is no escape but by returning to the ground which they have abandoned. Their tests of orthodoxy are useless and mischievous instruments, which may as well be papal as protestant, and protestant as papal; with the exception, that as protestant there is less power and more liberty, and consequently more intelligence. The PRINCIPLE of both is the same.

The argument I have now closed, might be pursued on analogous principles in relation to the admission of private members; and thereby a deal of superstition might be moved away from the church. But I have no room to pursue the illustration in that direction, and must leave it with the reader. Other parts of the general subject now claim my attention.

CHAPTER XI.

The Bible- The Human Mind.

THE inspiration of the bible,-understanding it to include the scriptures of the old and new testaments, agreeably to the protestant view - must be taken for

granted in this essay. I seek for a starting point on some common ground; and therefore assume, as commonly admitted, the apostolic declaration,-"All scripture is given by inspiration of God." If this declaration be true, it would seem to be a very fair inference, that the scriptures are competent to meet and secure their own object — whatever that object may be. If they are incompetent to meet that object, it might readily be conceded that they would acknowledge their incompetency; and prescribe some way, or point out some legislative provisions, by which their deficiencies might be supplied.

Certain it is that ecclesiastical politicians have not found the bible to be sufficient for the objects which they have had in view. TRADITION has occupied a very large space in the history of the church. The protestant community has brought in the doctrine,The BIBLE is the ONLY rule of faith and practice: and then, as though they doubted the correctness of their own maxim, they have immediately turned round and formed CREEDS and CONFESSIONS OF FAITH. The modern version of the protestant maxim is-The bible is the only INFALLIBLE rule of faith and practice; and that maxim has been thus modified, as I conceive, to cover the introduction of FALLIBLE rules; and these are creeds and confessions of faith.

The controversy between the advocates of tradition and creeds, technically so called, properly viewed, is, as I understand the subject, which of these two is the BEST? The principle of the two is precisely the same, and they introduce like results. The advocates of tradition, have a CREED- the advocates of creeds, are always appealing to the FATHERS. CREEDS them

selves are tradition; i. e. they are fragments, or systems in "regular order," of scriptural doctrines, as those doctrines were believed in other ages. If, under the system sustained by TRADITION, councils have convened, and if the papal power has risen under the auspices of CREEDS, councils still regularly assemble; and in some general synod, or assembly, or conference, or convention, the supreme power is lodged. In the protestant world we have "many Masters," while in the papal world there is but one. Had it not been for the division of the protestant church into sects and parties, it is exceedingly probable, that long ere now, we should have had a protestant POPE. And had it not been that a supreme power had been acknowledged in the papal church, which is its UNITY, that church had long since passed away. An entire uniformity of opinion among enlightened men, of different gifts, and differently circumstanced, is not to be looked for; unless some other views of divine truth, than have yet been received, either in the papal or protestant churches, should be presented to the consideration of the human mind.

If, under the regulation of a church sustained by tradition, errors in doctrine and worship have arisen, the same result has followed under the creed system. This is abundantly evident to any mind that has power enough to let go sectarian dogmas, and to compare any of the creeds with the bible: and to the mind that possesses not that power, the fact is rendered evident by the contrariety of creeds, and the controversies of sects. If papal fathers and councils have said and en-. acted improper things, protestant fathers and councils have erred in the same way. The parallel may be

drawn very far. If protestants have not gone to the same lengths with catholics, it is because the experiment has not been tried long enough, and the power exercised has not had a fair opportunity of extending its claims. The principle has been the same in both, and the question between them is, which is the best? The maxim that the bible is the only rule of faith and practice, which-whether true or not-has been asserted by one of these parties, yet has been practically sustained by neither. No protestant sect, in the peculiar features of its organization, can be defended by biblical statute, any more than the papal church. All are away from scriptural ground, and must retreat alike into TRADITION or EXPEDIENCY:- The bible is the ONLY RULE to none of them.

Can it possibly be the duty of any man, who is under a direct allegiance to the Lord of Glory, according to the principles both of nature and gracewhose interests, for time and for eternity, depend essentially upon the formation and development of his own character-who, as a thinking being, is accountable for his personal gifts, and is required to "be fully persuaded in his own mind" -- and to whom God has given a specific revelation in a popular form, with the promise of the Holy Spirit to dwell in and enlighten him can it be the duty of any man, to turn away from that bible? to withdraw his confidence from that Spirit? and waste his time and energy in comparing "the confused multitude of creeds," or in laboriously searching after "the unanimous consent of the fathers?" If it be impossible for either ministers or people, with but few exceptions, to engage successfully in such intellectual toil, must they take truth on