their own light; such as the sin and ruin of man, salvation by Christ Jesus, the divine glory of his person, and the freedom of his grace, faith in Him, adoption by his Spirit, the necessity of holiness, and the certain and final condemnation of every unbeliever. To read controversies which would seek to set aside these points, is like reading an elaborate proof that two and two make five. Life is too short, and its work too important to be trifled away. But there are other points where good men have differed, and which yet are of considerable importance. Many books might have been spared; many erroneous statements would never have appeared; much serious division and contention might have been prevented, had persons known the whole of a controversy before they publicly avowed their sentiments. When once committed by the statement of an opinion, we shrink from the humiliation of retractation, and so error is perpetuated. We would not recommend much study of controversial works, thinking it prejudicial; but if you read Whitby on the five points, read Dr. Gill's reply ; Dr. Crisp's sermons led to Daniel Williams' Gospel Truth; if you read that, read also Chauncy's Neonomianism Unmasked; Neale's History of the Puritans, should be studied with Bishop Madox's Vindication; Goodwin's Redemption, with Kendal's and Owen's Replies; Toplady's Historic Defence, with Nicholl's Calvinism and Arminianism; Bishop Mant Baptismal Regeneration, with Scott's or Biddulph's Reply. From the very beginning, in order that we should call no man master, it has pleased God

on

to permit mistakes by good men, even in most useful treatises. Anselm observes even in his day, In the books of holy teachers, which the church

H

reads as authentic, things corrupt and heretical are sometimes found, but the books and authors are not to be condemned for this.' We have seen similar defects in human writings in our day. Take, for instance, Hervey's Theron, and Aspasio. Few books have been so useful, yet, like every human writing, it is not free from error; though substantially right, are not hope and assurance sometimes confounded with faith? Bellamy writes his Dialogues with some asperity, but with talent and piety to point out what he thought erroneous; but he mistakes Hervey, and makes needless difficulties in the way of the sinner's return to God: Mr. Scott, in his Warrant of Faith shows this: it is a valuable tract; but after all, with a few exceptions, the clear statements of divine truth in Hervey's Theron and Aspasio, and his Christian addresses, full of kindness and affection, gentleness and sweetness of spirit, draw out your best feelings and win you over to evangelical principles. It is an advantage, however, to compare such writers and read them together. A person who reads both sides, comparing all with the scriptures, and with a heartanxious only after scriptural truth, may derive great instruction from each side. Let us endeavour to find out, and guard against our constitutional or acquired prejudices which arise chiefly from our limited and contracted views. Do. not, however, yield to party feelings; the parties engaged have a natural tendency to become special pleaders, for their own views, and be so filled with a sense of the danger of one extreme as to fly to another. Ordinarily the truth is

to

"

See some excellent remarks in Cecil's Remains, on judging justly.

revealed but in part to any. How valuable then are the scriptures where all is simple truth!

Beware of ARTIFICIAL SYSTEMS OF DIVINITY. That the scripture contains an harmonious system, and that there is connexion, and dependance, and proportion, of the several parts of truth is unquestionable. But to discern this system clearly in every component part, requires an eye perfectly single, without a dark spot of sin, or prejudiced reasoning of any kind. It is also unquestionable that a full and clear statement gathered from all parts of scripture is advantageous; but implied consequences, where the scripture has not stated those consequences, and artificial plans and arrangements of truth, may deprive us of the power and simplicity of truth, and even prejudice the mind of others against it. In this view it appears to me that many excellent writers have gone too far in their distinctions. Let us keep to scriptural terms and ideas, and not be wise above what is written. Let us also not interpret figurative expressions too minutely. Where scripture is plain and obvious, there is a clear ground of faith. Where it is ambiguous or intricate, suspend your judgment, neither affirm nor deny, but humble yourself before God and admire His majesty. Especially, seek not by human additions to make every part clear in your own system. That system which is more exact and clear than the scriptures is so far false. We ought to be as fairly chargeable with inconsistency as the book of God. But we are often in study attending rather to the theory and science of theology, than to practical obedience, and the holy efficacy of scriptural truth. Some of the best Puritan writers. fell into this fault of a too

refined or artificial divinity. Dr. Owen was, as Mr. Cecil observes, too systematic.

Cultivate A SPIRIT OF TENDER LOVE TOWARDS ALL FROM WHOM YOU DIFFER. Anger is soon excited in a religious controversy, and nothing is more prejudicial to its happy termination. When the Archangel Michael had to contend with Satan, he had a good cause and the worst adversary, yet his pure and holy nature would not sully itself by angry words and railing accusation. Dr. Manton observed, When tongue is sharpened against tongue, and pen against pen, what follows? Nothing but mutual animosities and hatred, whereby, if we gain aught of truth, we lose much of love and goodness.... Those engage most successfully that use the hardest arguments and the softest words; whereas railings and revilings, as they are without love, So are they without profit.' I admire the words of Augustine to the sceptics of his age. He says, Let those rage against you who know not with what labour truth is found, and how hard it is to avoid errors, who know not with what difficulty the eye of the interior man is healed, who know not with what groans and sighs we get to understand the very least trofy God.'This spirit of love is of vast importance, dand even good men have failed in this respect. Bishop Davenant speaking of the controversies in Holland, [says, I doubt not to affirm that those Doctors among the Dutch churches which are deceived, and yet are - ready to retain brotherly communion with others, are -held more excused from schism before God, than they sewho maintain the true opinion in these controversies,

944 Mooraf See Manton on James, p. 166.

J

and in the mean time disdain to hold brotherly communion with other churches desiring the same.” -It is a hard and, I trust, a generally unmerited censure which Orton brought against faithful clergymen ; but even a false charge may teach a true lesson. He says, Those who, I hope, are truly serious and concerned to do good, are frequently great bigots to the Church, and very uncharitable in their sentiments, and will secretly undermine the reputation of a dissenting minister if they can, when they find he is not as narrow and rigid as themselves.' It was the observation of Mede, in a day when he had full opportunity for ascertaining the fact, A man that has once drawn blood in controversy, is seldom known ever perfectly to recover his own good temper afterwards."

How beautiful, on the other hand, is that spirit which returns kindness for unkindness, and instead of railing gives a blessing. Thus did Augustine towards his opponents. 3 Thus did Calvin, in a letter to Bullinger, highly commending Luther, who had Jabused him. He says, I am often accustomed to say that if he should call me devil, yet I will still honour and acknowledge him as an eminent servant lof God.' Calvin's Epistles, 239. In later times both Hooker and Scott have afforded a beautiful specimen of the mode in which controversy should be conducted. 16 How little have stronger Christians acted on the direction, We that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Supposing our views to be correct, why should we despise

1 See Exhortation, p. 44. 2 See his Letters, Vol. i. 116. 3 See Milner, Vol. ii. 468.