cles, but to pronounce them with a latitude which may both consist with substantial truth, and afford a due allowance to human misapprehension and infirmity; and especially, which may lessen, if not entirely prevent, the extreme danger of prevarication. To do this effectually, the language employed must be general, or such as may express, without doing it violence, the various meanings, or the various modifications of meaning, intended to be permitted; and this intention must be conveyed in a clear and unequivocal manner. Without these precautions, or without some mental reservation or exception, the compiler, I fear, must be content to subscribe his own articles alone; and from the variable state of the human mind, and the perpetual change of its views and perceptions, it is probable that even he himself could not subscribe them ex ammo, and in every jot and tittle, for two days together; though, as to the substance, and what they contained essential to faith and practice, he might hold them very uniformly, and with increasing 3. Whether the above precautions are sufficiently regarded in the creed of any modern church (for I omit the more ancient) may perhaps be fairly questioned. They are certainly not so regarded in those churches (if there be any such) that profess to establish their articles of faith according to one precise exclusive meaning; in which, however orthodox that meaning may be, it is morally impossible, as we have more than once noted, for any two persons, and consequently for ten, or ten thousand, exactly to coincide. Nor are they so regarded by those churches, in which a latitude of judgment is rather a matter of connivance than of express permission;, or in which this latitude is not so clearly and distinctly defined and expressed, as to leave no ground of reasonable doubt to the subscriber, whether his subscription falls within the prescribed limits. In the former case, no room is left for subscription at all; in the latter, it must often be ambiguous and captious, and ensnaring to the subscriber's conscience. This deceitful ambiguity has been charged cles, but to pronounce them with a latitude which may both consist with substantial truth, and afford a due allowance to human misapprehension and infirmity; and especially, which may lessen, if not entirely prevent, the extreme danger of prevarication. To do this effectually, the language employed must be general, or such as may express, without doing it violence, the various meanings, or the various modifications of meaning, intended to be permitted; and this intention must be conveyed in a clear and unequivocal manner. Without these precautions, or without some mental reservation or' exception, the compiler, I fear, must be content to subscribe his own articles alone; and from the variable state of the human mind, and the perpetual change of its views and perceptions, it is probable that even he himself could not subscribe them ex animo, and in every jot and tittle, for two days together; though, as to the substance, and what they contained essential to faith and practice, he might hold them very uniformly, and with increasing 3. Whether the above precautions are sufficiently regarded in the creed of any modern church (for I omit the more ancient) may perhaps be fairly questioned. They are certainly not so regarded in those churches (if there be any such) that profess to establish their articles of faith according to one precise exclusive meaning; in which, however orthodox that meaning may be, it is morally impossible, as we have more than once noted, for any two persons, and consequently for ten, or ten thousand, exactly to coincide. Nor are they so regarded by those churches, in which a latitude of judgment is rather a matter of connivance than of express permission;, or in which this latitude is not so clearly and distinctly defined and expressed, as to leave no ground of reasonable doubt to the subscriber, whether his subscription falls within the prescribed limits. In the former case, no room is left for subscription at all; in the latter, it must often be ambiguous and captious, and ensnaring to the subscriber's conscience. This deceitful ambiguity has been charged sembly, that I receive, approve, and embrace all the doctrine taught and decided by the national synod of Dort.—I swear and promise that I will persevere in it all my life long, and defend it with all my power, and never depart from it in my sermons, college lectures, writings, or conversation, or in any other manner, public or private. I declare also and protest, that I reject and condemn the doctrine of the Arminians, because, &c. So help me God, as I swear all this without equivocation or mental reservation?"." How these good men could bring themselves either to take or require so extravagant an oath, I shall not examine; certainly they must have been free-willers of no ordinary quality, notwithstanding all their zeal against the Arminians, ever to have dreamt of such an engagement. There are few however who can be supposed willing to undertake to such an extent, or who, if thus rashly engaged, would be able, with all their efforts, entirely |