_Dr.G.B.
Miller_ published his dissent from the Confession on some of its representations of baptism, (baptismal regeneration, as he contends,) and the _real presence_ in the Eucharist, in his Sermon before the Ministerium of New York, in 1831.
The same dissent was freely expressed by _Dr.Baugher_, in his Report on the "Doctrines and Usages of the Synod of Maryland," in which he thus describes his position and that of this Synod: "ON REGENERATION .-- We believe that the Scriptures teach that regeneration is the act of God, the Holy Ghost, by which, through the truth, the sinner is persuaded to abandon his sins and submit to God, on the terms made known in the gospel.

This change, we are taught, is radical and is essential to present peace and eternal happiness.
Consequently, it is possible, and is the privilege of the regenerated person to know and rejoice in the change produced in him." "OF THE SACRAMENTS .-- We believe that the Scriptures teach, that there are but two sacraments, viz.: Baptism and the Lord's Supper, in each of which, truths essential to salvation are symbolically represented.
We do not believe that they exert any influence '_ex opere operato_,' but only through the faith of the believer.

_Neither do the Scriptures warrant the belief, that Christ is present in the Lord's Supper in any other than a spiritual manner_." "OF THE SYMBOLICAL BOOKS .-- Luther's Larger and Smaller Catechisms, the Formula Concordiae, Augsburg Confession, Apology, and Smalkald Articles are called in Germany the Symbolical Books of the church.

We regard them as good and useful exhibitions of truth, but do not receive them as binding on the conscience, except so far as they agree with the Word of God." To this catalogue we might add the names of many others, who have avowed the same position of dissent from this venerable symbol, long before the Definite Platform was thought of.

No one in former times presumed to deny the right of our ministers and synods expressing this dissent, and proposing to form a new creed, if they deem it requisite.
To call the dissenting position of the _Definite Platform_ a new one, is therefore a historical error; and to attempt to cast odium on it by the charge of officiousness, is also an act of injustice.