system; the system itself is faulty, leaving out much that is essential, requiring much that is needless. Far too little attention has been paid to the complete interpretation of the Scriptures on the one hand, and to the studies required for the actual application of them on the other; far too much stress has been laid upon an acquaintance with the works of theologians who have written on points of controversy between Christians and Christians, or who have laboured to erect systems of dogmatical divinity. It is not enough considered, that the great matter of Christianity, the way of saving souls, must be learnt from the Scriptures alone; and that by getting at a full understanding of them we are getting at the only means of discovering Christian truth. Now if, after we have employed our utmost pains on the right understanding of the Scripture, there remain any doctrines fairly disputable, any practices the advocates or opponents of which equally can appeal to Scripture as justifying or condemning them; then we may be sure that those doctrines and practices are really unessential and indifferent, and that every man must be content with holding his own opinion about them, in perfect tolerance of the opposite opinion entertained by his neighbour. If this be not so, and if the sense of the Scriptures as to any important point may fairly be doubted by honest and sensible men, it seems to me no better than a mockery to call them the rule of faith; and it is imputing an obscurity to God's revelation, such as attaches to the works of no philosopher, and no human legislator; for where is the philosopher whose main principles are not to be clearly made out by his own disciples? where is the law whose main enactments are differently interpreted by those who honestly study them? But men, in their zeal for their own articles of faith, have insisted on their necessity in the first place; and then, if these cannot be proved beyond dispute from Scripture, they This call in tradition or the voice of antiquity to assist in establishing their truth. is done by the Roman Catholics boldly and consistently; by Protestants it is insinuated awkwardly, and in contradiction to their own great distinguishing tenet, that Scripture is the only authority in matters of revelation. Whereas the true way of reasoning reverses this order; it assumes nothing beforehand as to the necessity of this or that doctrine, but examines carefully the view of Christianity which God himself has given. What it finds prominently enforced in this, it considers as essential; what it finds clearly stated in it, it regards as certain; but what is noticed indirectly, or not so clearly as to prevent fair differences of interpretation, it regards as unessential and undetermined, as a means of trying men's love of truth together with their charity; their love of truth, in endeavouring to arrive at a probable conclusion for themselves as to the mind of the Spirit; their charity, in not presuming to force their own conclusions on others, nor condemning them for concluding differently. I leave it to those who think that by following this method we should sacrifice any essential point of Christian faith, to consider whether their faith stands upon the authority of God or of men. But for myself, I am fully convinced that a representation of Christianity, drawn solely from a faithful and sensible interpretation of the Scriptures, would abundantly justify the wisdom of God; and while it put aside the presumption of much of our actual theology, would set forth Christ crucified with power, and would lead Christ's people to a more perfect holding of the truth in love. Rugby, November, 1834. |