17. 14: 6. Now these directions are fully exhibited in Christian theology.

Note. The division of religion into natural and revealed, is entirely rejected by Socinus, Ferguson, Gruner, and some other theologians. Vid. Gruner, Theol. Dogm. p. 9, and Diss. censura divisionis religionis et theologiæ in naturalem et revelatam, Hal. 1770. These maintain that we owe all our knowledge of God, originally, to divine revelation, such as our first parents received in paradise, and thence transmitted to their descendants. They deny that we have any knowledge of God which, as to its origin, is natural.

The Scriptures do indeed teach that God revealed himself to men even in the earliest ages of the world; and much of this original revelation has doubtless been transmitted, from age to age, until the present time. But still this division is not to be rejected. For (a) many religious truths which have been revealed, are discoverable, and have actually been discovered, by reason and the light of nature. In this division, then, we have respect, not to the actual source of our knowledge of these truths, but to the ground on which we rest our knowledge of them. (b) The elements only of many revealed truths were communicated to our first parents. Men were left to examine, in the diligent use of their powers, the grounds of the revelation given them; to build higher upon the foundation already laid; and to deduce the proper consequences from what had been already taught. They obtained this additional knowledge by the study and contemplation of nature. And why may not this religious science, thus derived from nature, be called natural religion ?

4. Is the knowledge of God innate?

The natural knowledge of God has been divided, especially by the ancients, into innate (insita, congenita, uguros) and acquired (acquisita, Enixtyros). The acquired knowledge of God is that which we obtain by the use of reason, and by the observation and study of the world. By the innate knowledge of God, the ancients understood an idea of God actually innate in all men, brought directly into the world with them, and obtained neither by instruction nor reflection. Pythagoras, the Platonists, and many ancient philosophers believed in these innate ideas (anteceptæ animo notiones). Vid. Cic. De Nat. Deor. I. 11, sq. Seneca, Epist. 117. This opinion was connected by Plato with his theory respecting the existence of the human soul before its union with the body. He taught that all our ideas previously existed in our minds; and that learning was only the recollection of what belonged to our former condition. Des Cartes also advocated this innate knowledge; and many theologians considered it as a remnant of the divine image in man.

§3. NATURAL AND REVEALED RELIGION.

39

the moral system of Jesus. He will find, on an unprejudiced inquiry, that this system is more exalted and reasonable, and more decidedly useful, than any other system of morals. But when he comes to put it into practice, he will soon find that he is no more able to obey its requirements, although he acknowledges their excellence, than he is to obey the requirements of a merely philosophical system of morals. Vid. § 2. No. 4. In short, he will experience the same difficulties which Paul did; and find the account, Rom. 7: 7-25, copied as it were from his own soul.

How then can we, who are so weak, attain the strength which is requisite for the practice of virtue? Jesus, and the writers of the New Testament every where answer: by believing on the person and whole doctrine of Jesus Christ; and in no other way. But those only really believe on him, who are convinced that he is the very person, which the Bible represents him, and which he himself every where claims to be. Now the Bible represents him as a direct messenger from God to men; as the greatest among all who have been sent by heaven to earth; as the Saviour,-the Christ. If we are convinced of this, we shall (a) believe that Christ and his doctrines are the means appointed by God for the moral improvement and happiness of men; and shall (6) make use of these means for the purpose for which they were given, and in the manner prescribed by Christ. Doing this, we shall not want strength to practise the moral system of Jesus.

We see here, what an intimate and necessary connexion there is between Christian morals, and Christian doctrines or theology; and what a mistake it is to separate them. Christian morals are supported by Christian doctrines. Christian theology teaches us where we can obtain the strength which we need in order to obey. the moral precepts of Christianity. Whoever, then, preaches the morals without the doctrines of Christianity, preaches not the gospel of Christ, and preaches Christ in vain. When any are convinced that Christ is a messenger sent from God, and their moral lawgiver and judge, but are at the same time conscious that they are unable to obey his moral requirements; their duty obviously is, to follow the directions which he has given them, and to proceed in the manner which he has prescribed, in order to attain to a full certainty, that he and his doctrine are the means appointed by God for the real moral perfection and consequent salvation of men. Vid. John 7:

L

Some have endeavoured to prove this innate knowledge from the writings of Paul. But they mistake his meaning. The doctrine of Paul, contained in the two passages referred to, entirely agrees with the theory just stated.

1. Rom. 2: 14, 15. The subject of this passage is, the moral sense or feeling which appears in all men, even in childhood, as soon indeed as the practical reason is developed. This feeling renders it impossible for men, whether extremely barbarous or highly cultivated, when free from prejudice and passion, to withhold approbation of right and admiration of virtue. But this moral feeling, as was remarked above, stands in close connexion with the idea of God, and leads directly to it. Paul says that even the heathen (un vóμov ¿yovtɛs) have this feeling. They, indeed, have no direct revelation (vóμov); but they know from their own nature (quoɛ) that the same things are right and wrong, which revelation declares to be so; and they act accordingly. In v. 27, he presents the same contrast; and in v. 15, he explains his meaning. They show (evdɛizvvvτai) by their judgements and actions, that the precepts of the law (τὸ ἔργον τοῦ νόμου, what the moral law commands to be done or avoided) are written upon their hearts. This last expression is frequently cited in proof of innate knowledge. But it denotes merely an acquaintance with a subject, so fixed and thorough, that it cannot be obscured or obliterated from the mind. So Heb. 8: 10, God wrote his commands in the hearts of the Israelites; and Cic. Acad. IV. 1, Res in animo suo insculptas habere. Vid. Wetstein, ad h. 1. "Their conscience condemns them when they do wrong, and acquits them when they do right. They cannot, therefore, be destitute of the certain knowledge of right and wrong.”

2. Rom. 1: 19, 20. The doctrine advanced is, that the heathen are as liable to punishment when they transgress the law of nature, as the Jews, when they transgress the precepts of revelation. For the knowledge of God (τὸ γνωστὸν τοῦ θεοῦ for γνῶσις θεοῦ) is attainable even by the heathen. It is evident even to them (φανερόν ἐστιν ἐν αὐτοῖς for αὐτοῖς); for God has revealed it to them, i. e. has given them the means of attaining it in the natural world. So that even they (passing to the last clause in v. 20) cannot excuse themselves with the plea of ignorance (εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτοὺς αναπολογήτους). The words, τὰ γὰρ - - θειότης, are parenthetical, and explanatory of the declaration, that God had revealed himself to

§ 5. OF THE ARTICLES OF FAITH.

43

the heathen, v. 19. They show in what manner this revelation was made. The attributes of God, in themselves invisible and inscrutable (dogara avrov), his omnipotence and other divine perfections (Dεióτns), can be discovered, since the creation of the world (ano xτioεos nóσμov, while the world stands, cf. Luke 11: 50), by the observation of the things that are made (roinuaot, by reflection upon the works of God). The knowledge here spoken of is, therefore, acquired knowledge (cognitio acquisita).

The sec

The first of these passages treats, then, of the moral sense, which the heathen, the civilized, and the savage alike possess. ond, treats of the knowledge of God acquired from the creation; such knowledge as the enlightened heathen philosophers had obtained by the study of the natural world; for with these had Paul, and his readers at Rome, at that time to deal, and of these, therefore, he here principally speaks.

5. Of the articles of faith; and the analogy of faith.

I. OF THE DIVISIONS OF THE DOCTRINES.

The particular parts which compose the system of theoretic religion are called doctrines of faith (articuli fidei, capita fidei Christianæ); also, loci, from the sections and rubricks into which they are collected; whence the phrase loci theologici. The whole sum of the truths of theoretic or doctrinal religion, exhibited in their proper order and connexion, constitutes a system of doctrines, or a system of theoretic theology. The articles of faith are divided,

1. Into pure, and mixed; in respect to the ground upon which our knowledge of them rests. Pure, are those truths which we learn wholly from the Holy Scriptures. Mixed, are those which we not only learn from the Scriptures, but which we can discover and demonstrate by reason. Morus, p. 10, ad finem.

2. Into fundamental or essential, and unessential or less essential; in respect to their internal importance, and their connexion with the whole system of Christian truth. Vid. Morus, p. 12, §§ 3, 4. This division has been rendered more accurate by the controversies which have arisen in relation to the different doctrines of theology. The fundamental doctrines are those, without which the

system taught in the Bible is unfounded, and with which it must stand or fall. Such are the doctrines enumerated by Morus, p. 8. They may also be defined to be those, which cannot be denied or contested without subverting the ground of Christian faith and hope. The unessential doctrines are those, which do not concern the vitals of religion, and which we are not required to believe in order to salvation. Vid. § 4. The fundamental doctrines are subdivided into primary and secondary.

We subjoin the following remarks to this important division of the doctrines, into essential and unessential.

(a) This division was first distinctly stated in the first half of the seventeenth century, by Nic. Hunnius. It was afterwards adopted by Calovius, Musæus, Baier, and others.

(b) The term fundamental is taken from 1 Cor. 3: 10, 11. Paul here compares himself and other Christian teachers, to architects; the Christian community, to a building; the doctrines of Christianity, to the materials for building. The elementary truths of Christianity, which Paul and other teachers preached at the establishment of churches, are here called the foundation; in opposition to the superstructure, which some other one at Corinth had built upon this foundation (noxodoμsĩ, and vs. 6, 7). Cf. Eph. 2: 20, where the same comparison is found. Paul calls the instruction which he had given in the elements of Christianity, yála, 1 Cor. 3: 2. Heb. 5: 12; also, λόγος τῆς ἀρχῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ, Heb. 6: 1. Fundamental doctrines, then, in the sense of Paul, are those elementary truths, which should be communicated to such as wish to understand and embrace the Christian religion. These elementary doctrines, as well as the higher truths suited to those who are more advanced, should all be related, and never opposed, to the great doctrines respecting Christ, as the Saviour of the world. 1 Cor. 3: 11.

It is not, in reality, a difficult thing to determine what doctrines the apostles regarded as essential to Christianity; since they themselves have so often and so distinctly informed us. We only need to pursue the historical method; and to follow the same principles as when we inquire, what doctrines were considered essential by the founder and first teachers of the Mahommedan, or any other positive religion. The theologians of different sects have, however, been always at variance on this subject. They look at the doctrines of