discovered the system of Luther to be defective; to correct the errors of Calvin's system was the design of Arminius and Episcopius ;-and to improve or to correct some one or all of these older systems of theology, is the cause why sects innumerable are continually starting into existence. I am not vindicating the particular system of any one of these illustrious theologians; I only allude to these facts to show that they recognised the principle, that to guide men to the truth of Revelation, something besides Scripture is necessary; and that they did not consider the use of a theological system to imply, of necessity, an addition to Scripture. Whether the systems propounded by them did, peradventure, add to Scripture, is quite another question, to which allusion will be hereafter made. It is, indeed, a ridiculous self-deception for any parties to deny that they are influenced in the interpretation of Scripture by some system extrinsical of Scripture, merely because they do not formally subscribe to some confession of faith. For if they do not formally swear to the words of Luther, or of Calvin, or of Arminius, or of Socinus, they receive the system of some one or other of these theologians as a tradition: else, what is meant by the denomination they assume? What is meant, when a man calls himself a Calvinist, but that he adheres to Calvin's system, if not as read in his writings, yet certainly as received as a tradition in his sect or party? What is meant by an Arminian, a Wesleyan, an Irvingite, but one who adheres to the system of

interpreting and harmonizing Scripture to the general scheme of doctrine invented by one or other of these eminent men? Thus it is that all parties tacitly admit, if they do not, as we do, openly avow, that in order to ascertain what the Gospel really is, what the truths are which Scripture actually propounds, what it is that God in very truth reveals, the interpreters of Scripture require some system for their guidance, either written or traditional. And the real question is, not whether some system is needed, but what is the right system.

But our opponent still objects, that, even admitting this, the difficulty is not solved, for how are we to decide what the right system is? And I answer, Let prejudice be set aside, and common sense will suffice to direct us in our decision.

It will be plausibly said by some persons, that we must test any system proposed for our adoption by Scripture, and then abide by that which is scriptural. But what is one of the chief objects for which a system is required? is it not to guide the inquirer to the true sense of Scripture? To refer, then, to Scripture to prove that any particular system is the correct one, is merely to argue in a circle. You may be able to ascertain that it does not contradict the clear and undisputed statements of Scripture ; and if it do this, of course, you will at once reject it. But there are very few doctrines which are not disputed; and when you come to these, you must remember that each system that is presented to us

by Protestants professes to be scriptural. When you pronounce, then, on any one system, that it is exclusively scriptural, what is it that you do but beg the whole question, and assume, without proof, the very point which it is your business to prove? The very thing that the Arminian says of the Calvinist, on the points wherein they differ, is that the Calvinistic system is unscriptural; and this again is the very thing that the Calvinist predicates of the Arminian. Who is to decide? Will you take the decision upon yourself? But why should you be more infallible than he is, upon whom you presume to sit in judgment? Are you more learned, more wise, than Arminius or than Calvin, both among the most learned men of their respective ages? Will you say that you have prayed, and that therefore you feel sure that you are guided by the Holy Spirit unto the truth? But what is this but an uncharitable insinuation that he who takes a different view of Scripture truth from yourself has not prayed? And what right have you, with an uncharitable judgment, to assume this? We know it, as an historical fact, that most of the founders of sects and systems have declared that their prayer to be guided into truth has been earnest and frequent. What right have you, in any case, to assume that in saying so, one man was, and the other was not, a hypocrite? It is on the moral nature, not on the intellectual, except so far as the intellectual is influenced by the moral, that the Holy Spirit operates when he prepares our minds, not so

much to discover what the truth is, as to receive it with humility when discovered.

In order, then, to decide what system we ought to adopt, we must inquire into the general principle on which that system professes to be based-the principle by which those were influenced who drew up the system.

Now let us ask the Arminian on what ground he recommends his system: his answer is, that his system is the Scripture system, having been deduced from Scripture by Arminius, a great, a good, a learned, and a pious man; he prayerfully studied the Bible, and in that harmony of Scripture doctrine drawn up by him you may confide: true, is the reply; but Arminius was not infallible, and for embracing his system the Calvinist consigns me to perdition. But then what is the authority on which the Calvinistic system rests? The same answer is to be given, that Calvin was a great, a good, a learned, and a pious man; he prayerfully consulted the Scriptures, and his is the scriptural system: true, is the reply; but Calvin, after all, was but a fallible man; why should he be more right than Servetus, whom he condemned to death? We can only adopt one or other of these systems, either as a tradition,—a tradition of no value, since it originates merely in the dicta of uninspired man, or as a system originating in one whom we are willing, from certain circumstances, though directly in opposition to the plain injunctions of Scripture, to call our master; or as a system which we

--

12

I

take it upon ourselves to pronounce to be scriptural, which, as I have shown, is a mere petitio principii. I do not think, then, unprejudiced common sense would lead us to rely on these. With respect to the modern Unitarian, there is some difference, though it is more apparent than real. He says, take the Bible, and the Bible only, without reference or deference to any system; but in fact he defers to his own particular reason. Out of his own opinions he forms a system for himself, and thus makes his own opinions to be of equal authority with Scripture; and then, when he finds that the Bible and his own opinions do not accord, he has recourse to his Lexicons and all the apparatus of verbal criticism, to see if he cannot force upon Scripture a different meaning from that which it ordinarily bears'. The Romanist is as bad, if not worse; for he interprets Scripture according to the sense which his own particular Church has arbitrarily put upon it, either at or since the Council of Trent.

But now let us see whether there is not some system not liable to these objections, according to which we may obtain a certain sound,-a definite sense, from the Bible. Suppose we were desirous of ascertaining the meaning of some book, referring

1

By contending with “ Unitarians" on their own system, instead of attacking the system itself, those who defend the cause of orthodoxy, but not on Church principles, are, in their public discussions with "Unitarians," sometimes apt to do injury to the cause to the defence of which they have rashly come.