But are we forbidden to exercise our own reasoning powers, on subjects contained in the Scriptures? By no means; provided our speculations are made to keep their proper place, in relation to the divine testimony. If they are not allowed to modify, or explain away scriptural truth; or to affect its credibility; if they are not offered, as a necessary supplement to the Bible; they may be allowed, as gratifying a rational curiosity; as giving to insulated doctrines a connected arrangement; as illustrating the harmony between the truth which the Creator has presented to us in his word, and the light which he has thrown around us in his works.

:

But what is to be done with those who bring forward their theories, in opposition to the doctrines of Scripture? They are undoubtedly to be met, either by exposing the fallacy of their particular views, or by doing that which is far better, convincing them, that a God of eternal truth is to be believed, whatever becomes of our theories and speculations. If you merely combat a man's particular sophistry, you will only induce him to shift his ground to substitute one false scheme for another for theories can be fabricated, as casily, and as abundantly, as the imagery of the poet. And many of them can be taken to pieces, with as much dispatch, as they have been put together. The work of mutually constructing and destroying them, is going on rapidly, at the present day. Theological combatants are fast demolishing each other's hypotheses; and thus furnishing most abundant proof, that philosophy is no sure foundation for religion truth. The assailants themselves are evidently beginning to be sensible, how much easier it is to prostrate the theories of others, than to give any firm support to their own. If we must be involved in unceasing controversy, we may find some relief from our fears, in observing how extensively, philosophical theology is applied to its appropriate use, that of confuting philosophical theology. It is well employed, when made to bear upon thosewho bring forward their own deceptive reasoning, in opposition to the statements of Scripture. Though the philosophy which is consistent with the Bible, may not be so important, as to call for any earnest contention; yet that which is opposed to revealed truth, ought undoubtedly to be wrested from the hand of the enemy, as a powerful and dangerous weapon. This should be done, however, for the purpose of converting those who are in error, not from one hypothesis to another; but from all their speculations, to a belief in the simple testimony of God. Defending the Christian faith, implies that all attacks upon it be firmly resisted. But opposition to scriptural truth, is to be carefully distinguished, from opposition to some philosophi

cal explanation, which has been added to the Scriptures. It is often the case, that a man is charged with assailing revealed truth; when his attacks have really been directed against some philosophical hypothesis: all the opposition in the case, being between one theory and another; when neither of them, perhaps, has any necessary connection with what God has declared in his word.

Some may inquire whether the doctrines of Scripture ought to be, or even can be, separated from the philosophy which belongs to them? To this I answer, that the philosophy which is found in the Bible itself, is as much a part of revelation, as the doctrines, the commands, or the predictions. We can no more be justified in rejecting any philosophical explanation contained in the Scriptures, than in setting aside their historical or doctrinal statements. I am not objecting to inspired philosophy; but to those inventions of men, which claim to be the guides of our faith, on points that have been settled by divine authority. If we must have theological philosophy, let it be the philosophy of Moses, of Isaiah, and of Paul; not of Plato, of Aristotle, and of Kant

;

The apostles, it may be said, have set us an example of philosophical discussion. They did not merely communicate the truths which they had received, by revelation from heaven; but they reasoned with those to whom they spakc. It ought to be considered, however, that much of their reasoning was addressed to unbelieving Jews or heathen; neither of whom admitted their claim to a divine commission. They were dealing not with Christians; but with infidels. These could be met, upon their own ground only. But in the epistles written to Christian churches, the reasoning is commonly founded on the Old Testament, which, at that time, constituted the volume of Scripture.

But is not philosophy necessary, in the interpretation of Scripture? Is not some previous knowledge requiste, to enable us to understand the language? Such knowledge, undoubtedly, as was common to the persons to whom it was originally addressed; the husbandmen, and shepherds, and fishermen of Judea. Such philosophy as that with which Peter, and Matthew, and John were familiar. The language of Scripture is generally the simple diction of common life. It must have been well understood, by those to whom it was originally spoken. But it by no means follows, that they were previously familiar with the truths which it was employed to communicate A distinct apprehension of the meaning of words, does not imply a knowledge of all the propositions which can be expressed in those words. An acquaintance with arithmetical numbers, and

their names, does not include all which can be known of arithmetic. A familiarity with the terms and definitions in Euclid's Elements, does not constitute all the knowledge of geometry. Several important doctrines which Christ himself taught, were in direct opposition to the previous opinions of his hearers. The most sublime and surprising truths may often be expressed in terms perfectly familiar. It was the very design of a revelation intended for all mankind, to make known the high and wonderful purposes of heaven, in the simple language of common life. A knowledge of this language, and of the meaning which it conveys, does not necessarily imply any special philosophical attainments; or any previous acquaintance with the truths to be revealed. Do you inquire, whether the foundation of our religious belief, must not be laid in a correct philosophy? The foundation of our religion ought not to be laid in any philosophy, but that which proves the Scriptures to be the word of God, and enables us to understand its meaning, "Other foundation can no man lay, than that which is laid."

4. Contending for the faith delivered to the saints, does not imply, that we undertake to free it from all the difficulties which may be connected with the truths revealed. A revelation respecting the purposes, providence, and moral government, of the infinite Ruler, must present many considerations, which are mysterious to the limited powers and attainments of man. The facts and the doctrines whichare stated, may be very plain. But we may start inquiries respect ing the causes of the facts, and the manner in which they exist, concerning points which are not revealed. Some difficulties may indeed, be explained. But many will remain, after all our endeavors to solve them. The explanation which is given of one mystery, will often bring others into view, which are still greater. The difficulties which we must encounter, in our investigations, instead of becoming less numerous, multiply upon us, as we advance in knowledge. The more a man enlarges the horizon of his mental vision, the broader is the circle from which he looks out upon an unlimited space, in which nothing is distinctly apprehended. As he ascends one height after another, it is to bring others into view, yet farther on, and still bounding his prospect.

If we suspend our belief, till we can free the truths of revelation from all mystery, we shall never believe them. The attributes of God, the purposes of his throne, the revelations of his vast and "No eternal kingdom, are too high to be fully comprehended by us. man can find out the work that God maketh, from the beginning to the end." Our cwn existence, the constitution of our minds, the

heavens and the earth, the allotments of providence, are full of inexplicable wonders. But in all these manifestations of unsearchable wisdom, we admit the facts, without waiting for an explanation of the mysteries with which they are connected. We give credit to the assertions of men, respecting events which are wholly unaccountable. And shall we call in question the testimony of God, till we can satisfy ourselves, that everything to which it refers, is, in all its relations, within the reach of our comprehension? If a man renounces his religious principles, whenever he meets with a difficulty respecting them; he must give up one point after another, till he arrives at atheism, which involves greater mysteries, than any or all other opinions.

5. Defending the primitive faith does not necessarily imply that we earnestly contend for every point which may be connected even with fundamental doctrines. Concerning the most essential truths of revelation, many inquiries may be started and many suggestions proposed which are comparatively unimportant. Whatever God has thought proper to reveal, respecting the fundamental truths of Christianity, we are bound to defend, against all opposition. But we are not under obligation to maintain, with the same earnestness, every point which our own ingenuity has brought into view. upon the same subjects. All which is in any way connected with essential truth, is not of course essential, even though it may be true. Some seem to think, that the fundamental doctrines of the gospel, have so hazardous a position, that if even the dust which has gathered upon these corner-stones be disturbed, the whole fabric will be shaken. Many erect for themselves a finely proportioned theological system, with its stories, and columns, and arches, and key stones; composed of materials partly taken from the word of God, and partly such as their own hands have wrought and when it is finished, they appear to be apprehensive, that if a little of their untempered mortar be removed, the entire structure will be in danger. It may be, that all the important parts of revealed truth, have such relations to each other, that to the view of omniscience, any one implies the whole. But our limited understandings cannot discover all the links of the chain which binds them together. Nor is this requisite for the establishment of our faith. When it is necessary to prove any point, by a course of argument independent of revelation, we must be able to trace its connection with something previously known. But God by his simple declaration, can give us the fullest assurance of the truth of any doctrine, without pointing out the relations which it bears to other parts of the Christian system. Nothing can shake the

foundation on which it rests, but that which goes to prove, that the Scriptures which contain the doctrine are not the word of God.

6. Contending for the Christian faith does not imply a defence of all the additions which have been made to this faith, with a view of supplying supposed deficiencies in the Scriptures. In our controversies with Papists, we frequently refer to the fundamental doctrine of Protéstantism, that the word of God is the only and sufficient rule of faith. But whatever may be our professions, I fear that we are far from adhering to this principle in practice.

Additions may be made insensibly, and without any design of corrupting the word of God. But they become, by degrees, so effectually incorporated with scriptural truth, that it is not easy to separate the alloy from the original material with which it is blended? And we often contend, with more ardent zeal, for our own additions, than for the pure word of God. Can this be justified upon Christian principles? When God has given us a revelation, with the express design of saving our fallen world; when He continued his communications to prophets and apostles, through successive ages, "that the man of God might be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works ;" and when, on bringing the inspired volume to a close, he pronounced so fearful a curse upon the "man that shall add to these things;" shall we declare, by our conduct, that we consider the book as, after all, defective insufficient for the purpose for which it was given? There may be religious truths which are not found in the Bible. But are they such as are necessary to salvation and holiness of life? Are they the truths which were used by the apostles, to bring the gentiles to repentance, or which are especially blessed by the Divine Spirit, to the conviction and conversion of sinners, the increasing sanctification of Christians, and reviving the power of godliness in the Church? Are they the great instrument by which missionaries, at the present day, are shaking the foundations pagan supersition? Are they the truths by which the departing spirit is sustained in the hour of death; and by which the world will be tried, at the judgment of the great day?

of