subject of controversy that can be conceived. The propositions revealed in Scripture are so few and simple, that it is hardly possible for those who rest in Scripture to disagree. But the pride of human wisdom does not readily submit to be confined within bounds so narrow. Those, who have been accustomed to speculate upon other subjects, continue their speculations upon religion, and, forgetting the proper province of reason with regard to truths that are revealed, which is to receive with humility what does not appear upon examination to be absurd, they reject as unimportant every thing that reason did not investigate; or they endeavour, by means of reason, to carry their explanations and discoveries far beyond the measure of light contained in the Scripture; or they embarrass, by the terms and distinctions of human science, subjects so imperfectly revealed as not to admit of them. It cannot be expected that there should be uniformity in employments such as these, which do not proceed upon certain principles, and do not admit of being reduced to any fixed rule. When men of different modes of education, and different habits of thinking, undervaluing the simplicity of the facts revealed in Scripture, and desirous to be wise above what is written, carry their inquiries into the manner of these facts, they set out from different points, they wander without a guide in a boundless field of conjecture, and, having assumed their premises at pleasure, they arrive at opposite conclusions.

Even in the days of the apostles, "the form of sound words" which they delivered was complicated, and disguised by the prejudices of those who embraced it. The Jewish converts, retaining an implicit veneration for the teachers of the law, wished to incorporate with the Christian faith all the fables which they found in the writings of their Rabbins; and many of the heathen converts proceeded to canvass the subjects of revelation, with the presumptuous and inquisitive spirit of the philosophy which they had learned. Hence you read in the Epistles of Paul of "foolish and unlearned questions which gender strife;" of teachers" who, concerning the truth had erred, and overthrew the faith of some;" of "fables and endless genealogies;" and of "oppositions of science, falsely so called." We learn from Peter that the unlearned and unstable wrested some things in Paul's Epistles that are hard to be understood, and the other Scriptures also, to their own destruction: and it is a tradition from the earliest Christian writers, that John wrote both his first Epistle and his gospel with a view to combat a heresy concerning our Lord's person, which attachment to the oriental philosophy had introduced amongst the first Christians. If controversy thus found a place in the church even under the eye of the apostles, and was not effectually repressed by their explanation of their own words, and by their authority, you may expect that it would multiply fast after their departure, when the only standard of faith was the written word, and no person was entitled to impose his interpretation of that word as the true mind of the apostles. The same presumptuous curiosity, which had appeared in the earliest times, continued to extend to all the parts of Christian doctrine. Men speculated concerning the manner in which the Son and the Spirit exist with the Father. Instead of judging of the evidences of the divine mission of Jesus, they proceeded to scan the reasons of that dis

pensation which they were required to believe. They investigated the principles upon which the several parts of the dispensation combine in producing the end, and they pretended to ascertain the nature and the manner of their operation. They spread out the scanty information which Scripture affords upon all these subjects into large systems. But the original materials being very few, and the rest being supplied by imagination and false philosophy, the systems differed widely from one another, and it was impossible to find any method of reconciling the difference.

You will not suppose that these discussions proceeded in every instance purely from a desire of attaining the truth, or that they were conducted with the calm disinterested spirit which becomes a lover of knowledge. Any person, who has that acquaintance with human nature which history and experience afford, will not be surprised to find that other passions often mingled their influence with the pride of reason. Jealousy of a rival produced opposition to his opinions, so that some systems of theology grew out of a private quarrel. The vices of an individual needed some shelter, and he tried to find it in the zeal and ingenuity with which he brought forward speculations upon some of the points that were then universally interesting. The love of power induced some to stand forth as the leaders in theological controversy, whilst meaner desires dictated to others the station which they were to assume, and the humble offices by which they were to maintain the combat. Matters of order, ceremonies of worship, and all those usages in Christian societies, which the word of God has left as matters of indifference to be regulated by human prudence, were laid hold of by artful men who knew that they were of no essential importance, and placed in such a light as to be the most effectual means of inflaming the minds of the multitude. Some of the earliest and most violent controversies respected the time of celebrating Easter; and the history of the church abounds with others equally insignificant. By this mixture of more ignoble principles with the presumptuous curiosity that pried into those "secret things which belong to the Lord," theological subjects became one field for exhibiting the angry passions, which from the beginning of the world have disturbed the peace of society. Had that field been wanting, men would have found other pretexts for acting, from jealousy, ambition, and avarice; and many of the controversies of the Christian church are, in one respect, a proof of that depravity of human nature, which, notwithstanding the remedy brought by the gospel, continued to operate in the breasts of those who professed to receive that religion.

The number and intricacy of theological controversies were very much increased by the philosophy of the times. In the second century the philosophy of Plato was held in the highest admiration, and some of the learned Christians, having been educated in the schools of the later Platonists, retained the sentiments, and even the dress of philosophers, after they became the disciples of Christ. In the third century, Origen, who by the extent of his erudition, the intenseness. of his application, and the vigour of his genius, was qualified to lead the minds not of his contemporaries only, but of succeeding ages, was a professed Platonist. In his theological system, he accommo

dates the whole scheme of Christian doctrine to the leading principles of Platonism; and in his interpretation of the Scriptures, he adopts that allegorical and mystical method of exposition, to which the luxuriant fancy, and the sublime imagery of the Athenian philosopher had given occasion, and the Platonic father was thus able to bring out of the simplicity of the Scriptures all the profound speculations which he wished to find there. Origen is generally regarded as the father of scholastic theology, which derives its name from applying the terms and distinctions of human science to the truths of revelation. Scholastic theology assumed different forms, corresponding to the succession of particular systems of philosophy. But during the whole period of its existence, it maintained this general character, that it altered and corrupted the divine simplicity of the gospel, and that by affecting metaphysical precision upon subjects which the Scriptures have left undefined, it was productive of endless controversies. The progress of these controversies, which rendered it necessary for the opposite parties to entrench their opinions behind definitious, divisions, and terms of art, recommended to theologians the philosophy of Aristotle. The subtile distinguishing genius of Aristotle had invented a language peculiarly fitted to convey the discriminating tenets of their systems, and his authority had introduced and established the syllogistical mode of reasoning, a mode of no avail in making discovery, but of singular use in disputation, because it furnishes a kind of defensive weapons, which, by keeping an opponent at a distance, may, when skilfully managed, render it impossible for him to gain a victory. For these reasons, as well as for others, which it is not my province to explain, the Platonic philosophy yielded after a few centuries to the Peripatetic. The authority of Aristotle became as complete in the schools of theology as in those of logic or metaphysics; and all theological systems abounded so much with the barbarous jargon then in use, that we cannot at this day understand the opinions which were held upon intricate points of divinity without attempting to learn it. Upon all subjects this language served to conceal ignorance under an ostentatious parade of words. But when it is applied to those subjects which the wisdom of God hath seen meet to reveal in very imperfect measure, the number of clear ideas bears so very small a proportion to the multitude of words, that the study of it forms a very unprofitable waste of time; for it requires much labour to apprehend the meaning, and, unless your mind be so unhappily constituted, as to remember words better than things, the meaning escapes almost as soon as it is attained.

Since the era of the Reformation, the Aristotelian philosophy has been gradually sinking in the public esteem; and the human mind, having broken the fetters in which she had long been bound, has freely canvassed all subjects connected with religion. While the ablest writers have appeared during the two last centuries in the deistical controversy, all the other controversies relating both to the doctrine, and to the rites or discipline of the Christian church, have called forth men of profound erudition and of philosophical minds. The same causes which we formerly mentioned, have produced in modern times a difference of opinion, both with regard to those intricate questions in natural theology which the gospel has not solved, and

with regard to those new points, concerning which the information given in Scripture is by no means satisfying to the curiosity of man. A more rational criticism, than that used in ancient times, has been applied to the interpretation of Scripture. A more enlightened philosophy, a sounder logic, and a language less technical, but not deficient in precision, have been employed in supporting the different theological opinions which former habits of thinking, or the interpretation of Scripture, have led men to adopt. The most controverted points have been the subject of public national disputes, as well as of private inquiry. Churches are discriminated from one another by the system upon those points which enters into their creed; and individual members of every church, with that boldness of inquiry of which the Reformation set the example, have carried their researches into many points which most creeds had left undefined. The consequence of this thorough examination of the Scripture system has been, not that all the parts of it are understood, but that the measure in which they can be understood is known; every unnecessary degree of obscurity which had been attached to them is removed, and the limits of reason in judging of religion, together with the proper method of its being applied to that subject, are ascertained. The opponents in these controversies have corrected the errors of one another. The appeals which have been constantly made to Scripture, the diligence with which all the passages relating to every subject have been collected, and the ingenuity with which they have been applied in support of different systems, enable an impartial inquirer to attain the true meaning; and a student of divinity must be very much wanting to himself, if, after all the labours of those who have gone before him, he does not acquire a distinct notion of the various opinions that have been entertained concerning the several parts of the Scripture system, and an apprehension of the train of argument by which every one of them is supported.

A review of the controversies forms a principal part of a course of theological lectures. We do not bring forward to the people all the variety of opinions which have been held by presumptuous inquirers, or superficial reasoners. To men who have not leisure to speculate upon religion, and who require the united force of all its doctrines to promote those practical purposes, which are of more essential importance than any other, it is much better to present "the form of sound words," as it was "once delivered to the saints," unembarrassed by human distinctions and oppositions of science, and to imprint upon their minds the consolation and " instruction in righteousness," which, when thus stated, it is well fitted to administer. This is the business of preaching. But this is not the only business of students in divinity. You are not masters of your profession, you are not qualified to defend the truth against the multiplicity of error, and your conceptions of the system of theology have not that enlargement and accuracy which they might have, unless you study the controverted points of divinity. It is true that there have been many disputes merely verbal; that there have been others that cannot be called verbal, the matter of which is wholly unimportant; and that perhaps all have been conduced with a degree of acrimony which the principles of Christian toleration, when thoroughly understood, will enable you to avoid.

These general remarks will find their proper place, after reviewing the particular controversies. But in that review you will meet with many which turn upon points so essential to the Christian faith, where the arguments upon both sides appear to have so much force, and have been urged in a manner so able, and so well fitted to enlighten the mind, that you will think it childish to affect to despise theological controversies in general, because there has been some impropriety in the manner of their being conducted, or because some of them are insignificant.

The time was when the decision of all theological controversies turned upon a kind of traditional authority. The writers in the first four centuries of the Christian church were supposed to be much better acquainted with the mind of the apostles, and to have been in a more favourable situation for knowing the truth upon all difficult questions, than those who apply to the study of theology in later times. They were dignified with the name of the fathers. Their opinions were resorted to with a kind of reverence, which is not due to any human compositions. They were considered as the only sure interpreters of Scripture; and such confidence was reposed in their interpretation, that their works were sometimes placed very nearly upon a level with the inspired writings. The charm of human authority was dispelled by the Reformation. An accurate enlightened criticism has appreciated the merit of the Christian fathers. We allow them all the credit, which is due to honest men attesting facts that came within their own knowledge. We venerate their antiquity; we prize that knowledge of the early rites of the Christian church, and of the tradition of doctrine from the days of the apostles, which can be derived only from them. Above all, we consider their writings as an inestimable treasure upon this account, that by their mention of the books of the New Testament, and by the quotations from Scripture with which they abound, they are to us the vouchers of the authenticity of the sacred books, and of the manner in which the canon of Scripture was completed. But our sense of their merit, and of their importance to the Christian faith in the character of historians, does not induce us to submit to them as teachers. Without any invidious detraction, with every indulgence which the manners of the times and the imperfections of other early writers demand for the Christian fathers, Protestants adhere to their leading principle, which is this, to consider the Scriptures as the only infallible rule of faith. They have learned to call no man their master, because one is their Master, even Christ: and in interpreting the words of Christ and his apostles, they consider themselves as no less entitled to judge for themselves, and as, in some respects, no less qualified to form a sound judgment, than those who, living in earlier times, had prejudices and disadvantages from which we may be exempt. I cannot express this principle better than in the words of our Confession of Faith: "The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture."

This is the principle to be followed in that review of the great con