8. The doctrine of baptism. By this ordi- | Rom. xii. 6. But there åvaλoyía tñs яistews is nance Christian rights are imparted and assured the proportion or degree of theoretical and practo all who are admitted into the Christian tical faith or Christianity; like uitpov riotɛws, church. ver. 3. The meaning is, Christians should deThese are the fundamental doctrines which vote the different degrees of knowledge and were taught by the apostles.

Note.-The whole Mosaic dispensation, as all will admit, rested on the principles of theocracy. But it is equally clear from the New Testament, that the new or Christian dispensation rests on principles of theocracy and Christocracy. Christ is not merely a teacher, now deceased, like Socrates and Plato, and other sages of antiquity, who live indeed in remembrance, but who now no longer exert a personal influence upon men. He is now, as he was formerly, and will always continue to be, a true and living king (κύριος) and judge, (κριτής ζώντων καὶ νεκρών.)

experience in religion which they may possess to the general good of the church. Those, for example, possessing the gift of prophecy, should be content with this gift, and employ it, according to the best of their ability, for the good of others.

But although this term, as used in this passage, has a different sense from that attached to it by theological writers, the thing itself which they mean to designate by it is just and important. The analogy of faith, as they use it, implies,

1. That no one doctrine of faith may contradict the other doctrines of the system; and that all must conspire to promote the one great end

The doctrine of the divine justice, for example, must be explained in such a way as to be consistent with the doctrine of the divine goodness, and as to be promotive, and not destructive, of the improvement of men. Vide Morus, s. 6.

2. That the doctrines of faith should mutually explain and illustrate each other, and be drawn from one another by fair conclusion. Any doc

Christianity, then, in the purely scriptural view of it, is no more an institute for mere in--the moral improvement and perfection of men. struction than the ancient Mosaic dispensation. It does not rest its precepts upon the weight of the reasons by which they might be supported. It is a divinely constituted government, in which Christ is king, legislator, and judge. To his will, in furtherance of their improvement and blessedness in time and in eternity, the hearts of men should be united. To his authority, as lawgiver and king, God has given abundant tes-trines may belong to the system of faith which timony. His will and command are therefore the only ground which the Bible offers for the unconditional obedience to him which it requires of all the subjects of his rule. Christ does not indeed omit, as our teacher, to give us reasons for his precepts; but, at the same time, as our Lord and judge, he requires obedience to his simple authority. These views might be proved From the writings of the apostles and the discourses of Jesus. Vide Matt. v., seq.

II. Of the Analogy of Faith and of Scripture. The analogy of faith is the connection which subsists between the doctrines of the Christian religion and the relation, arising from this connection, of these doctrines to one another and to the whole system. Intimately connected with this is the analogy of Scripture, which is the connection and agreement which subsists between all the truths contained in the holy scriptures. The analogy of scripture lies at the foundation of the analogy of faith, since the scriptures are the ground of the doctrines of faith. This agreement should subsist in every system; the parts should conspire harmoniously to one end. The propositions should be connected together into a complete whole, without | chasms; and follow, one after another, in natural order, without contradiction. But this is eminently important in the Christian system.

The phrase analogy of faith is borrowed from

may be derived, by just consequence, from the holy scriptures, although not contained in them in so many words; and all the doctrines should be carefully preserved in the relations which they bear to each other. When isolated and viewed by itself, alone, a doctrine is apt to appear in a false light. This is the case with the doctrine of the divine attributes, and with much of the doctrine respecting Christ.

3. That the particular doctrines of the system should be exhibited in a natural connection, in a proper place, and a regular order. No one determinate method can be prescribed; and yet some fixed plan should be followed through the whole, and into all the particulars. The doctrines in which other doctrines are presupposed should not hold the first place. It would be absurd, for example, to begin a system with the doctrine respecting death, the Lord's supper, or baptism, since these doctrines presuppose others, without which they cannot be understood and thoroughly explained. Cf. Morus, p.14, s. 5

SECTION VI.

OF THE MYSTERIES OF RELIGION.

1. THE Greek uvoτrpov is commonly rendered mystery. It answers to the Hebrew app, and signifies in general anything concealed, hidden, unknown. In the New Testament it generally signifies doctrines which are concealed from men,

either because they were never before published, not undertake to say beforehand that a revelation

(in which sense every unknown doctrine is mysterious,) or because they surpass human comprehension. Some doctrines are said to be mysterious for both of these reasons, but more frequently doctrines which are simply unknown are called by this name. Muotŕplov signifies, therefore, in its biblical use, (1) Christianity in its whole extent, because it was unknown before its publication-e. g. μvotýpiov ríorews, 1 Tim. iii. 9; (2) Particular truths of the Christian revelation-e. g. 1 Cor. iv. 1; xv. 51, and especially in the writings of Paul; (3) The doctrine that the divine grace in Christ extends, without distinction, to Gentiles as well as Jews, because this doctrine was so new to the Jews, and so foreign to their feelings-e. g. Eph. i. 9; iii. 3; Coll. v. 6, seq. &c.

2. The word mystery is now commonly used in theology in a more limited sense. Here it signifies a doctrine revealed in the holy scriptures, the mode of which is inscrutable to the human understanding. A doctrine, in order to be a mystery in the theological sense, must be shown to be (a) a doctrine really contained in the holy scriptures; and (b) a doctrine of such a nature as to transcend though not contradict the powers of the human understanding. Of this nature are the doctrines respecting Father, Son, and Holy Ghost-the union of two natures in Christ-the atonement, &c.

cannot contain mysteries. Whether the revelation which God has given us contains mysteries or not is a question of fact; and in such questions, demonstrations à priori have no place. (3) The great object of divine revelation is the promotion of the moral improvement of men. Those dark and unintelligible doctrines, which are either themselves subversive of this end, or are wholly disconnected with the practical truths which tend to promote it, do not belong, we may be sure, to the system of revealed religion. But of such a character are not the mysteries of the Christian religion! They stand throughout in so close a connection with the most clear and practical truths, that removing them would render these truths very different from what they are exhibited to be in the holy scriptures. The mystery of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, for example, stands in close connection with what we are taught respecting Christ, and respecting our duties and relations to God; and to remove this mystery would render our duties and relations to God essentially different from what they are represented in the New Testament. This suggests the important rule: to consider the mysteries of the Christian religion not as solitary and isolated, but as connected with the other truths revealed in the holy scriptures.

(4) The reason of the mystery and obscurity which covers many of the doctrines revealed in

To the above definitions we subjoin the fol- the Bible is, that the great first principles upon lowing observations :

which these doctrines rest lie beyond the circle (1) Whether such religious mysteries are of our vision, in the sphere of spirit, with which really contained in the holy scriptures can be we have only a very imperfect acquaintance. determined only by the principles of hermeneu- This is the case with the mysteries of the work tics. The mysteries which, through ignorance of redemption,-God and man united in one of the original languages of the Bible, were person,-God reconciled with man through the supposed to be contained in many texts, disap-innocent death of his own Son, &c. Could we pear on a fair interpretation. They were greatly rise above the sphere of sense, and understand multiplied by the fathers of the church, since the great principles upon which these doctrines mysteries were in great request in their day, rest, we should doubtless find them clear, conand in high esteem even among the heathen; sistent, and connected, and lose all our suspithey were accordingly attributed in great abun- cions concerning them. Even among the objects dance to the Christian system. There is ground, of our senses there are many things of which we therefore, for the caution given by Morus, p. 41, cannot see the reason, and yet cannot doubt the s. 32, n. 3, not to seek to increase the number reality. How many more, then, in the world of of mysteries. But this caution is unnecessary spirits, which is almost inaccessible to us in our at the present day, when many theologians, in present state! consequence of their philosophical objections against mysteries, banish them wholly from their theories; and, not content with this, seem bent to exclude them, by a violent interpretation, even from the holy scriptures.

(2) Since we are unable to decide, beforehand, what a divine revelation will contain, we should not undertake to say that it must necessarily contain mysteries. Mystery is not, in itself considered, an essential mark and requisite of revelation. But, on the other hand, we should

|

(5) Since these objects lie so wholly beyond the conceptions of our minds, confined as they are within the horizon of sense; the human understanding, in its present circumstances, should abstain from anxious inquiry after their internal and essential nature. On these subjects it becomes us to be modest, and to remain contented with the information which the holy scriptures have given us. A proud and inquisitive spirit, on subjects like these, always leads to hurtful results. We are taught by the Bible, that we

SECTION VII.

OBSERVATIONS ON THE USE OF THE SCRIPTURES, REASON, AND TRADITION, AS SOURCES OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES.

can never fully comprehend the objects which!
lie beyond the circle of our bodily vision, and
that yet we must believe in them, notwithstand- GENERAL
ing all objections, as far as they are found by
experience to be effectual means of promoting our
holiness or moral improvement. We must be-
lieve in Christ, as Redeemer and Saviour; in
God, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; and we
must make a practical use of these doctrines for
the end and in the manner prescribed by Christ,
however unable we may be to understand their
grounds and internal connection.

(6) Religion, as we may conclude from all that has been said, is a necessary result from the principles of human reason. It therefore rests upon a faith, which is grounded on these principles of reason; otherwise it would be superstition. The great inquiry, then, on this subject, is, whether this faith is rational, conformed to the laws of our thinking nature, and such that we can justify it to ourselves and others. And this faith will be rational, if it is not contradictory to reason and morals. If it be contradictory to either of these, we can neither justify it to ourselves nor find grounds on which to commend it to others. This faith, then, may be rational, whether the doctrines to be believed are comprehensible or not. This is a point not at all essential to the reasonableness of faith; because the objects of this religious faith belong to the spiritual world, and are, therefore, from the very nature of the case, incomprehensible to man. The comprehensibleness of the doctrines of religion cannot therefore be made the criterion by which their truth is to be determined, as has been done erroneously by many modern philosophers and theologians. Proceeding on the principle, that every thing in the doctrines of religion which was incomprehensible must be explained away or rejected, they came at last, in order to be consistent with themselves, to renounce all religion, natural as well as revealed; or, at best, to leave only the name of it behind. The nature of God is, and must ever remain, wholly incomprehensible. We know not what he is in himself, nor the manner in which he acts. And we may say the same even with respect to our own souls. If we consider this, we shall easily see that we must either give up the comprehensibleness of the doctrines of religion as the criterion of their truth, or wholly renounce religion. As we have intimated above, religion is a product of our moral nature. It is eminently a concern of the heart; and we believe in its truths because they influence our hearts. If we withheld our assent to the truths of religion till we could comprehend them, we should never believe; but, as human nature is constituted, we firmly believe, not because we fully understand, but because we deeply feel.

Cf. Morus, p. 41, 42; s. 32, 33.

I. Of the Use of the Holy Scriptures. THE Bible is the proper source of our knowledge of those truths of religion which Christians receive as revealed. The New Testament is the more immediate source of the Christian system; not exclusively, however, of the Old Testament, to which constant reference is made, and which is always presupposed, in the New.

If any teacher who lived before our own times left written monuments behind, these are the surest sources from which we can learn what his opinions and doctrines were. If he himself wrote nothing, the writings of his disciples and familiar friends are our best authority. Our knowledge will be more easy and sure, in proportion to the number and completeness of these written records. The writings of disciples who were contemporary with their teacher, and his personal friends, are far more important in ascertaining his principles than the writings of later followers, who are apt to introduce opinions foreign to the system which they undertake to exhibit. Socrates wrote nothing himself; but Plato, Xenophon, and others of his early disciples, wrote abundantly respecting him and his doctrine. The disciples of these men styled themselves, still, the followers of Socrates, and continued to expound his system, but they ascribed to him many opinions which he did not profess. All this is applicable to the New Testament. Jesus wrote nothing himself: but many of his early disciples left records respecting him which are collected in the New Testarnent. If these records are truly the productions of those disciples of Jesus whose names they bear (the proof of which will be given in the Article on the holy scriptures), they furnish, doubtless, the most authentic information which we can possess respecting the doctrines which Jesus himself taught, and wished his disciples to teach. The writings of the apostolical fathers, the followers of the first disciples of Christ, are of inferior authority; and still less authentic are the traditions transmitted orally in the church.

If it is true that Jesus is, what these writings affirm him to be, a teacher divinely commissioned, and the greatest among all whom God has sent into the world; and if the books of the New Testament were composed under that peculiar divine guidance, called inspiration, then we must admit that the doctrines of Christ and the apostles contained in them are true and divine. These two suppositions are the ground of the doctrine of the symbols of the protestant

D

church, that the holy scriptures, and especially the only source of the truths of religion; which the New Testament, are the only sure source of Christian truth, and, consequently, the only rule of Christian faith and practice, exclusively of all commandments and traditions of merely human origin.

Our system of faith and morals depends, therefore, solely upon the authority of Christ and his apostles, regarded as teachers commissioned by God. If any one does not regard them as such, he cannot hold himself bound to believe their doctrines solely on their authority; he must demand that his reason should be convinced by rational proofs. He may, indeed, hold the memory of Christ and the apostles, as he does of Socrates and Epictetus, in high respect, as worthy teachers; but he cannot feel himself obliged to believe on their word. We here see the cause of the real importance of the controversy which has existed on the question, Whether, in matters of faith, the Bible or reason is the true principium cognoscendi.

II. Of the Use of Reason.

are not, therefore, to be deduced from nature alone. None but the rationalist would pretend, that the only sources of our religious knowledge were the nature of our own minds, and of the external world. The Bible teaches us that, in respect to objects of the spiritual world, which lie beyond the sphere of sense, and which could not be known except from revelation or history; reason is merely the instrument of our knowledge. But we are not at liberty to neglect to use reason as the instrument of our knowledge of the objects of revelation. On the contrary, we are sacredly bound to employ our reason in examining the credibility of the history of revelation, and the correctness of the facts gathered by experience, and in discovering and estimating the suitableness and sacredness of the duties imposed upon us.

Reason may properly be used, as the instrument of our knowledge of revealed truth, in the following particulars :-viz.,

vidence of God, &c. (c) Without the use of reason we cannot ascertain the truth of Christianity, the credibility of the history of the sacred books, their divine authority, or the rules by which they should be interpreted. (d) We must employ our reason in developing such doctrines as are not distinctly expressed, but only implied, in the holy scriptures. Reason may be further employed.

1. In the discovery and arrangement of argu ments in support of these truths, and of results The frequent abuses of reason, when applied flowing from them. (a) The proof of many to matters of faith, led Luther and many of the doctrines which are clearly revealed is not disolder theologians to express themselves severely tinctly stated in the Bible, but thrown upon respecting the use of reason on these subjects. reason. The proof of the divine existence, for Their objections, however, were directed only example, is not drawn out in the Bible, but is against the arrogance and perversion of reason, presupposed. (b) Proofs, auxiliary to those and especially against the Aristotelian philoso- given in the scriptures, may be suggested by phy, then prevalent in the schools. Paul object-reason in favour of the articuli mixti; the proed in the same way to phocopía, (Col. ii. 8;) or yvwois Tevdívvμos, 1 Tim. vi. 20. All these writers have, in other passages, done full justice to reason in itself, as the noblest gift of God. Reason (Vernunft) is that power which guides and regulates, by its spontaneous action, the other faculties of our minds in the acquisition of knowledge; it constitutes the peculiar characteristic of humanity, and is that by which alone we are capable of religion. Reason alone can acknowledge and receive the truths of either natural or revealed religion, and give them an influence upon the human will. Vide s. 6, No. 6. It is therefore always mentioned with respect in the Bible; and the use of it, in the study and examination of religious truth, always recommended. Cf. Rom. i. 20; Psalm xix.; Isaiah, xl. xli. Indeed, the use of reason is presupposed in a revelation; since without the use of reason we should be incapable of enjoying a revelation. It is the object of revelation to supply the deficiencies of the knowledge which we acquire in the use of unaided reason; and this very revelation cautions us against the two extremes, of relying wholly upon reason for our knowledge, and of neglecting the use of it altogether.

Human reason, as the Bible teaches, is not

2. In the exhibition and statement of the truths of revelation. We find the truths of religion brought together in the Bible in a loose and disconnected manner, and must therefore make a diligent use of our reason in collecting, arranging, and uniting them into such a system as shall suit our own convenience or the advantage of others. We must also illustrate the truth, excellence, and fitness of the particular parts of the system of revealed religion, by analogies drawn from human things, by the observation of human nature, by historical illustrations, and in many other ways which call reason into exercise.

3. In the defence of revealed religion, and of the particular doctrines which it embraces (usus rationis humanæ apolegeticus). How much reason is needed in this particular must appear sufficiently from the preceding remarks.