and that it is nothing more than a human book, “in which noble and wise men of former times have laid up, entirely in the ordinary manner, the results of their own reflection.' *

But just so far as we allow the system of faith which we have adopted, or any thing else, to influence us in attaching to the words of Scripture a meaning which they cannot bear, when legitimately interpreted, just so far we verge towards this dismal extreme. For, the moment we vary the meaning, in the slightest degree, from what God intended to communicate, we act on a principle which, pursued up, would lead to the wildest extremes.

“ That no denomination in this country are willing to avow such principles of interpretation, we admit; but that every denomination is more or less influenced by them is the only fact that will account for the diversified systems which they contrive to extort from the inspired pages. Can it be supposed that God speaks to us in language so indeterminate as to admit of all these constructions? Would it not be an imputation upon his wisdom and veracity to indulge such a thought? That there should be diversities of opinion, to some extent, in regard to the meaning of the Bible, is to be expected from the constitution of the human mind and other causes, as we have before shown ; but it is hardly to be supposed, that the conflicting systems of faith and practice, which have so long competed for the public favor, could have been deduced from the inspired text, unaided by false principles of interpretation. How happens it that the millions of minds, who have first and last advocated these respective systems, should hit precisely upon that track of thought, in reading the sacred pages, unless some common influence operated upon them to produce this result?

“Though all men, even with correct principles of interpretation, might not deduce the same meaning from the language which the Holy Ghost teacheth,' yet it is hardly to be supposed, that one or two millions of each generation should hit upon

a

great divisions, is found in the Bible itself as legitimately interpreted, or in sources wholly extraneous to its pages ? And the very proposal of such a question, we imagine, will show every one that it comes from sources extraneous to the Bible. That is, these different bodies of Christians are each under influences, in judging of the meaning of the Divine Word, for which that word is not accountable, and by which their differences among themselves are produced. If they have all drawn more or less from the Bible, they have drawn enough from other sources to conduct them to widely different theoretical and practical results. And the indi. viduals of each of these bodies are willing to admit this fact of those in the others, but not in its application to themselves. We think, however, that it would be easy to show that each and all of them, so far as they are swayed by those systems to which they have attached themselves, entertain unphilological and erroneous views of the faith once delivered to the saints. The reason is, that they have all been concocted under influences, in judging of the word of God, which must necessarily lead to a distortion of its specific statements, as well as foreclose an impartial view of its teaching as a whole. Hence, all the systems, which give to Christianity its diversified forms in every generation, embody, with considerable truth, so much foreign matter as to prevent the dif. ferent classes attached to them from meeting on the simple ground of revealed thoughts. Brethren in Christ, this may seem sweeping, and perhaps we err; but we entreat you to work out the problem of our divisions candidly and impartially, and if the data of reasoning with which we are furnished from facts and truth do not give you this result, we must confess ourselves greatly disappointed.

“ Each of the systems, whether that of Calvinism, Arminianism, Pelagianism, or any other, rely for their support, not upon the Bible as a whole, but upon a certain class of passages and facts, of which they take such a view as makes it necessary for them to explain away, soften down, or variously modify another class of passages and facts that seem to look another way.'

- pp. 177-180. But we are exceeding our limits, and have room for only one or two more extracts. The Protestant cannot consistently take the Bible as the word of God on the authority of the Church. He is therefore obliged to rely chiefly for the evidence of its inspiration on its intrinsic character. But in the course of his inquiry he meets with passages which seem contradictory, and to which infidel writers appeal in their attempts to assail the authority of the Bible. These he considers it his duty to attempt to reconcile ; but the attempt, Mr. Church tells us, is often fatal.

“ O, could we read the fate of former adventurers in this region, we should doubtless find among them thousands, of the most flattering early promise, who have terminated their career in vice and atheism. After searching long for the grounds of harmony and coincidence between different revealed truths, they have at length discovered the impossibility of succeeding; but, alas, mistaking still the proper province of human knowledge, they have confounded that impossibility with the certainty that the Bible is false, and so have snapped the cords by which it bound them to virtue, and, like lions escaped from their cage, have gone to and fro seeking whom they might devour.

“ Others still, being less competent to judge of the difference between what they know and what cannot be known, have fallen into the supposition that they had discovered the secret connection and harmony of these irreconcilable truths, and thus have given battle to those whose superior discernment qualified them for controverting their positions, and, under a pretence that Christianity itself was equally concerned with themselves in the contest, have rallied all their forces only to make their defeat still more decisive and disgraceful.

“ And in addition to the former classes, there is another to whom Christianity is too dear to be sacrificed on account of their inability to reconcile its seemingly adverse statements; and hence, the ill effects of attempting it are confined chiefly to the time wasted upon that attempt, the distraction of mind which it occasions, and to its influence in diverting them from more important researches and more useful labors. But the worst consequence of supposing it necessary to ascertain the grounds of harmony be. tween the facts of religion is its influence in incensing and perpetuating the spirit of controversy." — pp. 101, 102.

Is it possible to read these extracts, and believe that the author has any confidence in the Bible alone as an available rule of faith? If we are to believe him, the very attempt to reconcile the apparent contradictions of the Scriptures and to harmonize their doctrines is time thrown away ; is to incense and perpetuate the spirit of controversy, - that is, dissent; to prepare one's self for a more decisive and disgraceful deseat, or for the plunge into vice and atheism! What more could he concede to the enemies of the Bible ? What more ample concession could he, as a Protestant, make to the unbelievers in our holy religion itself ?

The “ disturbing influences ” he points out are inherent in the nature of the case, and inevitable. No man can possibly escape them in his efforts to interpret the Bible. The mind must be formed, before it can approach the sacred text as NEW SERIES. · VOL. 1. NO. II.

24

a competent interpreter ; and if it is, it will have its habits, its doctrines, its preconceived notions, through the medium of which, by a law of its own nature, it must contemplate whatever it reads. Only the new-born babe is free from prepossession and the disturbing influences enumerated ; but, unhappily, the new-born babe wants the positive qualifications indispensable to a Biblical interpreter. What, then, is the remedy for sectarian dissensions? If we understand Mr. Church, his remedy resolves itself into abstinence from all attempts to form from the Scriptures a body of Christian doctrine, to take the Scriptures as they are, philologically explained, and to prepare, by doing good in an uncontroversial way, for understand

, ing their simple sense, and being contented with it.

The great cause of dissension, he says, is in the efforts to obtain a body of coherent and self-consistent doctrines from the Bible. The controversy does not turn on the simple facts or statements of Scripture, but on the conclusions which men draw, or the doctrines they attempt to deduce from them. But conclusions or deductions of reason from revealed data are not revealed truths, and should not be imposed or regarded as matters of faith. Therefore, they should not be drawn, or, if drawn, should not be insisted on as matters of faith. But however valid this reasoning might be in the mouth of a Catholic, who has already a body of faith drawn up and imposed by divine authority, it cannot be adopted by a Protestant ; for the simple reason, that he has no way to determine the revealed truth, but by conclusions or deductions from the written word. If he is denied the right to regard these conclusions and deductions as articles of faith, he has and can have no articles of faith at all. His belief becomes a mere vague belief in certain detached and incoherent statements or isolated and barren facts. This is evident from what the author himself says :

“ And one has only to look over the history of controversies among the people of God (sectarians], to convince himself that a large proportion of them have arisen from enforcing uniformity upon subjects which cannot be so perfectly settled by the Scriptures as to produce, in all cases, an identity of conviction. They have oftener had respect to deductions from the facts of the Bible than to the facts themselves. The point at issue has not been, whether this or that fact is stated in the Bible, but whether this or that principle is a legitimate deduction from those facts and statements which are alike clear to all. Take, for example, the con.

a

troversies which have existed in reference to the person of Christ, (and who can estimate the extent of talent and labor which, from the time of Arius to this day, have been exhausted upon it ?) and it will be found that they have not so much regarded what the Bible speaks, as the use to be made of its testimony. Let a So. cinian and Trinitarian of common capacity sit down to the task of reading together the statements of the New Testament concerning Christ, taking them one by one, and their understanding of them, unless previously determined by their systems, would be very nearly the same. That Jesus was baptized of John in the Jordan, - that the Spirit in the form of a dove descended and abode upon him, while a voice from heaven proclaimed him the Son of God, - that he was tempted forty days and nights in the wilder. ness, - that he raised Lazarus from the dead, - and that the words and works ascribed to him by his four biographers were spoken and wrought as represented, they would both agree. But let them undertake to make out from these facts what sort of a being Christ was, whether God, or man, or both, or neither, and they would be instantly thrown into the heat of controversy."

pp. 59, 60. Now, what sort of faith in Christ is that which leaves it undecided whether he was God, or man, or both, or neither ? Does Mr. Church suppose that men will consent to be mocked by having that called a revelation which reveals nothing? Can the human mind be contented to say two and two, two and two, without adding, are four ? He knows little of the human mind if he does. The abstinence he contends for is impracticable, and would be fatal, on the Protestant principle, to all theological belief, if it were not, and if it were observed.

Nor has the author more to hope from philology. Suppose he succeeds in raising the Scriptures to their “due position in our plans of education,” and has them interpreted by grammar and lexicon only, has he secured the interpreter against the disturbing influences he so well describes? Who will guaranty him that the grammarian and lexicographer have had no prepossessions, no preconceived

notions, no favorite doctrines, they wished to advance? The character of the first edition of Johnson's dictionary of the English language is not unknown, and the Hebrew of Gesenius is almost another language from that of the Buxtorfs. Nor is this all. What will guaranty him the purity and integrity of the sacred text? The text can be settled only by criticism ; and is he sure that the critic is free from all bias, and that his preconceived notions have had no influence in leading him to adopt one various reading and to reject another ? Philology is, no doubt, well

a