Superintendants. For what possible purpose could the Doctor have taken a copy while he had the original in his hands, and could not know that Mr. Van Dyck would ask it back? It is most strange; and our wonder will be yet increased when we read his communication of this matter to the Board.

That body convened at the Theological Hall, on the 11th July 1827, and, as soon as they were assembled, received Professor Milledoler's report, which was in the words following:

"Mr. Leonard B. Van Dyck, of the Senior class, presented "to me a paper on the 29th of June, purporting to contain "some doctrines on which his views differ from the ac"knowledged standards and ministers of our church. Ap"prehending that this document would be submitted to the "Board of Superintendants, Mr. Van Dyck called upon me, "on the 5th instant, to request the original, that he might ex"amine and remodify it. I gave it to him under the full im"pression of a loan, and that it certainly would be restored to Mr. Van Dyck has, however, since declined to return "it, and has presented, in its place, a substitute, under date of "July 7th. Having understood that this young gentleman " contemplates leaving New Brunswick, without submitting to "examination, and being desirous to avoid all misapprehen"sion, and to put the Board in possession of at least some of "the facts which have transpired in his case, I have deemed "it my duty to present both documents to the Board. "PHILIP MILLEDOLER.

"me.

"New Brunswick, July 11th, 1827."

He does not say that Mr. Van Dyck promised to return the first paper, but that he delivered it to him under the impression of a loan. This impression seems not very consistent with the assertion that Mr. Van Dyck apprehended the document would be submitted to the Board, and that therefore he called on the Doctor to request the original, that he might examine and remodify it. If Mr. Van Dyck feared the inspection of that paper by the Board, and wished therefore to remodify it, he must have expected that the modified, and not the original document, would have been laid before them;

and how he could imagine that the Professor would want the original it is difficult to conjecture. Nothing but the Professor's private views could have suggested "the full impression of a loan."

That the student had the right to withdraw a paper which he found to be misunderstood, one would suppose could hardly be questioned. There was nothing besides his gratuitous promise that rendered it obligatory on him even to write another paper. Had he been so disposed, he might have demanded the paper without promising to write another, and so have left the Professor to detect his suspected unsoundness on his public examination. There is no authority given expressly, or by implication, either in the constitution of the church, or the resolutions of Synod, to exercise this inquisitorial power over the students in the Theological School; and if there are, it is high time that there should be a revision, and such obnoxious powers abolished. It was most unkind, it was cruel, thus to treat a young man who had put himself under his care, unconscious of guile in himself, and not suspecting it in others.

Admitting that the Professor did believe in the first instance that Mr. Van Dyck intended only to borrow, and afterwards return the paper, and therefore thought he might with propriety communicate it to the Board, it was impossible that he should continue to think so, after he understood explicitly from Mr. Van Dyck that he had absolutely withdrawn it.

But the Professor of Didactic Theology, in his Report, has mentioned the reason for submitting the first paper to the Board; namely, that he had understood the young man contemplated leaving New Brunswick without submitting to an examination; and so deemed it his duty to submit both documents to the Board. Admitting that he really believed the student intended to escape from his grasp, and that of the Board, that could not authorize him to violate the plain rules of propriety, by communicating to the Board, as the confession of the student, what he had found to be misconstrued, and had therefore withdrawn, and substituted another. Had the Professor deemed himself a civil magistrate, and dealing with a felon, he could not have been more tenacious of documents

Here was his mistake: he did, in the exuberance of his orthodoxy, believe he was dealing with a criminal, whom with all the force of his arguments he could not bring, on all points, into the same belief with himself. This was a crime in the eyes of the Professor of Theology, and he seems to have feared, that the young heretic would make his escape. And what could have been the great injury, if he had effected what it was apprehended he meditated? He could not be licensed by any ecclesiastical body in the Dutch Church, without an examination before the Board; but he might apply to some association of congregationalists, or to some Presbytery, and possibly be licensed by them. Was it intended, by laying the matter before so powerful a body as the Board of Superintendants, and inducing them to advertise him as an heretical fugitive, to render it extremely difficult, if not impossible for him to obtain license any where? Or if he should yet apply for examination to the Board, must he come before them, under the imputation from his teacher, of having meditated a flight from justice?

Had Mr. Van Dyck left the seminary without applying for examination, surely neither the Professor, nor the Board, had any further business with him. Yet some, who pretend to be wise, assert that the student, after his entrance into the Theological School, remains under its jurisdiction for life; as much so, as a nun is subject to the convent after assuming the black veil. If this Popish doctrine is to be enforced, the student on entering the school, ought, at least, to have as ample notice of the consequences of his entrance, as the nun has of her taking the veil; or a student entering under the idea of remaining a freeman, will be sorely disappointed when he finds himself a prisoner or slave.

The Doctor must have supposed either that the two papers, although in substance the same, would be better proof of guilt before the Board, than a single one, by analogy to the rule requiring two witnesses to substantiate a fact; or he must have imagined he saw a material difference between them. On comparing the two together, an ordinary reader would pronounce them substantially the same, with the exception that

in the first he expresses certain views of the atonement which, under the apprehension of their being misunderstood, he expressed in the second paper in more general terms. And here is probably the secret of the case. These views of the atonement may have been very offensive to the doctor, not at all coming up to what he had taught in the Theological Hall. He had perhaps taught that the standards of the church required of her sons the belief, that Christ died in no sense, for the non-elect. Mr. Van Dyck, in the first paper, may have been understood to avow a contrary sentiment, though not expressly asserting his belief in the doctrine of unlimited atonement. Indeed, the student, when he wrote the papers in question, seems to have apprehended that on the subject of the atonement, he differed from the standards of the church; but afterwards discovered that he agreed with them.

The object of the Professor in presenting the case of Mr. Van Dyck to the Board, was to apprize them of his non-conformity to the doctrines taught in the Dutch Church. It was very easy of proof, that the student was not prepared to assent to the two points of eternal generation and eternal procession, as both his papers expressly declare the fact. The Professor did not choose to risk the chance of the student's rejection by the Board, on those points alone. He knew that among some of the ministers of our church, and among a goodly number of the members of the Board, there was a peculiar sensitiveness on the subject of the atonement, insomuch that they could not endure, with any degree of patience, a fellowminister's calling in question their construction of our standards. He might well imagine how they would receive such views, as the first paper contained, from a stripling not yet twenty-one years of age, in defiance of the whole force of a three years' tuition in the very school of orthodoxy. The Board might possibly overlook his doubts as to the eternal generation and procession, either on the ground that these were unimportant or unessential; or on the ground that the student's doubts might yet terminate in conformity to the standards. A few years of study with the advancing maturity of his mind, might enable him to perceive evidence of those doctrines which he

did not now perceive; and in the mean time he might be silent on them in his preaching, as almost every other minister of the gospel is. But the doctor knew that the views of Mr. Van Dyck, on the atonement, expressed in his first paper, would never be forgiven him, by some of the members of that Board -and therefore it was that he was so intent on submitting that paper; namely, to avail himself of the inveterate prejudices of individual members, and thereby to insure the young man's rejection.

These remarks may seem to the reader, if he is unacquainted with ecclesiastical history, perhaps not conclusively warranted by the facts of the case. It may appear to him strange that men educated to the ministry of the gospel, intrusted with the care of precious souls, continually conversant with holy things, presumed to be almost half of their time employed in prayer and reading the pure precepts of God's word, should have room left in their minds for harbouring anger, resentment, envy, or any evil passions-that any other sentiment than forbearance and love should actuate them in their converse with their fellow mortals. Alas! that stubborn facts should contradict this plausible theory: but it is even so. Ministers of the gospel are after all, mere men; of like passions with others. They are not peculiarly exempt from inordinate attachments to their own religious opinions. Indeed, it requires much reading of the sacred scriptures, and much of the grace of God, to preserve them from it. Teachers of theology are in a most special manner exposed to this temptation, from the nature of their employment. By the frequent repetition of their opinions, they become more and more convinced of the correctness of them, even to that degree as to become impatient of any contradiction. This contradiction is peculiarly irritating when it comes from his student, whom the Professor of course thinks so far beneath him. But this spirit is not confined to the schools, nor to the ministers. Any man who is pertinaciously attached to his religious sentiments, so as to be incapable to hear them discussed without having his equanimity disturbed, is a bigot. He must be, in the nature of things, intolerant of the opinions of others, which conflict with his