No rule could be safer for the Church of Rome. It would have put an extinguisher on the Reformation. With`regard to the disputed doctrines, our author would have said, "Let "them alone. Leave them among the polemics and contro" versionalists, till they agree among themselves." Now, as they have not yet agreed among themselves, the Reformation would not have yet commenced; Dr. B. and his hearers would have been, at this very moment, stanch Catholics, in the warm embraces of the old mother church!-My readers will forgive me, if, impelled by the force of truth, I proceed still farther, and say: NO RULE COULD BE SAFER FOR THE KINGDOM OF SATAN. If universally adopted, it would have effectually secured the perpetuity of his reign, and the integrity of his empire. With great deference, I call upon Dr. B.-I call upon all the Arians in the world-to mention, if they can, one single truth, which Satan and his emissaries have not disputed. Under the Old Testament dispensation, Satan's emissaries, his false prophets, opposed and disputed those truths delivered by the prophets of the Lord. Would Dr. B. have said on this occasion, "Let those disputed truths alone, "till the prophets agree among themselves?" A safe rule, indeed, for Satan's kingdom! The Old Serpent himself could have invented none better. Again: In the commencement of the Christian era, Satan's false apostles opposed and disputed the doctrines taught by the true apostles of Jesus Christ. (2 Cor. xi. 13, 14, 15.) "For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, "transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an "angel of light. Therefore, it is no great thing if his "ministers also be transformed, as the ministers of right"eousness, whose end shall be according to their works." When the apostles of Jesus and those of Satan were thus disputing the great doctrines of the Gospel, would our author have said, "Let those doctrines alone. Leave them "among the polemics and controversionalists, till they have "agreed among themselves?" No rule in the world would have contributed more effectually to the safety and prosperity of Satan's kingdom! On the principle of this rule, the Christian religion could have never been propagated. As Satan had his false prophets under the legal dispen. sation, and his false apostles at the commencement of the Christian era, so in every subsequent period of the church, "The Lord's Supper is à disputed point: we will let "it alone.' Whether we commemorate the dying love of "Jesus or not, is a matter of no importance. We At "Secret prayer, family worship, social worship, public "worship, in a word, all divine ordinances, public and pri "vate, are disputed points: according to the safe rule of "our good minister, Dr. B., we will let them alone. "will neither worship God in public nor in private. "tendance on such ordinances can be of no importance. Particularly, we will let the Bible alone;' for whether "the laity should read it at all, has been matter of dispute; "and at present it is disputed whether we should read it "without note or comment. We will leave the Bible among polemics and controversionalists, till they agree "among themselves about the reading of it. 66 "We will let the moral law alone: for whether we are "obliged to keep it or not, is a matter of dispute among "learned divines. It is therefore a matter of no conse"quence, whether we study to keep the commandments of “God, or live in the open violation of them; whether we study purity in heart, speech and behaviour-or live in rioting and drunkenness, chambering and wantonnessgiving ourselves up to work all uncleanness with greedi ' ❝ness. Ac The difference cannot be great for some sects "have maintained that good works are so far from being necessary, that they are obstacles to our salvation. cording to the safe rule of our good minister, we will let "the moral law alone!" 44 But I must now stop. I cannot go farther into detail. To point out all the absurdities of this "SAFE RULE," would fill volumes. If this safe rule of the Doctor's be a good one, where are all our peculiar principles as Dissenters ? All these principles were disputed principles. They were, therefore, of little importance; and yet our forefathers shed their blood in defence of them. According to the Doctor's safe rule, they died as a fool dies !” Again: If the Doctor's "safe rule" be a good one, what becomes of all our peculiar principles as Protestants? What becomes of all the peculiar doctrines of the Reformation— those doctrines, which the martyrs sealed with their blood? They were all disputed doctrines, and, therefore, unimportant. The blood of the martyrs was shed in vain ! In one sense, indeed, the Doctor's rule must be acknowledged to be a safe one. No rule could be safer for the Church of Rome. It would have put an extinguisher on the Reformation. With`regard to the disputed doctrines, our author would have said, "Let "them alone. Leave them among the polemics and contro" versionalists, till they agree among themselves." Now, as they have not yet agreed among themselves, the Reformation would not have yet commenced; Dr. B. and his hearers would have been, at this very moment, stanch Catholics, in the warm embraces of the old mother church!-My readers will forgive me, if, impelled by the force of truth, I proceed still farther, and say: NO RULE COULD BE SAFER FOR THE KINGDOM OF SATAN. If universally adopted, it would have effectually secured the perpetuity of his reign, and the integrity of his empire. With great deference, I call upon Dr. B.-I call upon all the Arians in the world-to mention, if they can, one single truth, which Satan and his emissaries have not disputed. Under the Old Testament dispensation, Satan's emissaries, his false prophets, opposed and disputed those truths delivered by the prophets of the Lord. Would Dr. B. have said on this occasion, "Let those disputed truths alone, "till the prophets agree among themselves?" A safe rule, indeed, for Satan's kingdom! The Old Serpent himself could have invented none better. Again: In the commencement of the Christian era, Satan's false apostles opposed and disputed the doctrines taught by the true apostles of Jesus Christ. (2 Cor. xi. 13, 14, 15.) "For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, "transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And "no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an "angel of light. Therefore, it is no great thing if his "ministers also be transformed, as the ministers of right"eousness, whose end shall be according to their works." When the apostles of Jesus and those of Satan were thus disputing the great doctrines of the Gospel, would our author have said, "Let those doctrines alone. Leave them 66 among the polemics and controversionalists, till they have "agreed among themselves?" No rule in the world would have contributed more effectually to the safety and prosperity of Satan's kingdom! On the principle of this rule, the Christian religion could have never been propagated. As Satan had his false prophets under the legal dispensation, and his false apostles at the commencement of the Christian era, so in every subsequent period of the church, 66 at least till the time of the millennium, he has had, or will have, his false teachers. Our Saviour warned us against such seducers. (Matthew, viii. 5.) "Beware of false pro"phets, which come to you in sheeps' clothing; but in"wardly they are ravening wolves." The apostle Peter sounds the alarm, and puts the church on her guard against the intrusion of men, who would "come in unawares, and privily introduce damnable heresies, denying the Lord "that bought them, and bringing upon themselves and "their followers swift destruction." The apostles Paul, Jude, and John, all blow the trumpet and sound the alarm. Their injunctions to us are, "Beware! Beware! Be not "deceived. Let no man beguile you. Stand fast in the "faith. Contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to "the saints. Stand fast in one spirit and one mind, striving together for the faith of the Gospel." With these apostolic injunctions, the advice of Solomon is completely in unison; "Buy the truth, and sell it not." 66 From these observations, it is abundantly evident that "the Devil, our adversary, is still going about as a roaring "lion, seeking whom he may devour;" that he is still opposing the truths of the Gospel. The adoption of the Doctor's safe rule would be a base desertion of truth, and dereliction of duty. Instead of “resisting the Devil, that he may flee from us," it would be a surrendering to Satan at discretion. It would be leaving his emissaries in undisturbed possession of the field. No, Doctor Bruce! The friends of the Redeemer are not so cowardly. Rallying round the standard of truth, in the name of their God they will display their banners: nor will they leave the field till they see Satan falling like lightning from heaven to earth;" till they see truth bursting through the clouds of error, and "the knowledge and glory of the Lord covering "the earth, as the waters cover the sea." If the Doctor's safe rule be adopted, what becomes of all his own principles ?—his principles as a Protestant ?—as a Dissenter -as a Presbyterian ?—as a member of the Antrim Presbytery? What becomes of the doctrines taught in his volume of sermons-the same doctrines which were taught previously by "those eminent ministers, Halliday "and his grandfather, Drennan and Brown, Mackay and "Crombie"-the same doctrines which were taught for a century past, by the Presbytery of Antrim? These are all disputed doctrines; and this very circumstance, according to the Doctor's own acknowledgment, "must excite a suspicion that they may not be true." Why, then, should he preach those suspicious doctrines? Why did his boasted predecessors, for a century past, preach those suspicious doctrines? Why do all the other members of the Antrim Presbytery, as well as himself and his son, continue to preach those suspicious doctrines? What! the Presbytery of Antrim preaching, for a century, doctrines confessedly suspicious? Tell it not in Gath! publish it not in Askelon! lest Deists should rejoice, and Infidels triumph. I have dwelt the longer on the Doctor's safe rule, as I believe it to be a rule too generally adopted; and a rule fraught with incalculable mischief. Why are so many dissenters returning to the bosom of the church of England? Why are so many Protestants returning to the bosom of the church of Rome? I answer, our author's safe rule, and other kindred maxims, have a powerful influence in producing these effects. "No matter what we believe, if we are sincere." "Those doctrines, about which good men differ, cannot be important.” 46 "For modes of faith let graceless zealots fight: These have been the prevailing, fashionable maxims of the past century-maxims, as unphilosophical, as they are unscriptural-maxims, which separate theory and practice -maxims, which confound truth and error; absurdly representing both as equally favourable to virtue! Upon the principle of such maxims, it is natural to ask, Why did those graceless zealots, Luther, Calvin, Zuinglius, and the rest of our reformers, fight with the church of Rome about modes of faith? Why did they throw all Europe into flames for no purpose? "These graceless zealots"-may the patrons of such maxims say—" acted as fools by destroying the peace of Christendom; but we are men of pacific dispositions, and will show our superior wisdom, by returning to the bosom of our mother church," 46 "A part of all will be saved." "When we go to Heaven, it will never be asked, Are you Catholics, Churchmen, or "Dissenters?"-I ask any man of candour-any man capable of the slightest reflection-Have not such " safe rules" and liberal maxims a direct tendency to stop the |