The text of this and other superb works are available on-line from:

The Willison Politics and Philosophy Resource Center

http://willisoncenter.com/

Reprint and digital file May 20, 2002.

Jeremiah Day graduated Yale 1795. He served first as a tutor, and later Professor of Mathematics, with his published text books an educational mainstay running through repeated issues. President, Yale 1817-1847. No doubt the influence of his predecessor, Timothy Dwight, was substantial, as the selection below attests! [ Willison Editor. ]

The following begins the original text:

Jude. v. 3.—It was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you, that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

WERE the apostle who wrote this epistle now on the earth, he would hardly find cause to complain, that there is not contention enough in the Christian Church ; or that existing controversies are not conducted with sufficient earnestness ; though he might not always approve of the ground of contention. And if any one has an inclination to engage in theological warfare, he may have an ample field for the exercise of his powers. Among the divisions and subdivisions of sects and parties, he may find abundant opportunity, to exhibit his controversial skill. But in selecting the ground which he is to defend or attack, he may have occasion to inquire, whether by engaging in this or that theological contest, he will approve him-self to God. Our text furnishes a rule, by which we may be safely guided, in choosing the field of our controversial labors. "Earnestly contend," says the apostle, "for the faith which was once delivered to the saints."

The word faith, in this place, as in many other passages of Scripture, is evidently used to signify, not the act of believing, but the

[ 2 ]

object of belief; the doctrines of the true religion, as they had been made known to the Church. These truths, upon which our salvation depends, the apostle calls upon Christians to defend, with the earnestness which their immeasurable importance demands. The exhortation is confined to revealed truths. It makes no reference to the inventions of men ; to the speculations of human philosophy. Its import may be expressed, in the following simple proposition :

IT IS THE DUTY OF CHRISTIANS, TO CONTEND EARNESTLY FOR THE SYSTEM OF DOCTRINES MADE KNOWN IN THE SCRIPTURES.

To illustrate this proposition, is the design of the present discourse. I propose to consider, first, what is implied in contending for the faith delivered to the saints; and secondly, what is not necessarily included, in a right performance of this duty.

1. That, in opposition to infidels, [ The so-called "Enlightenment" thinkers, Willison Ed.] we exhibit the evidence of the authenticity of the Scriptures.

The Bible contains the only original records which we have of the communications of the will of God to the prophets and apostles. If its authority be set aside, we are left without any satisfactory account of the system of truth delivered to the saints. The evidences of Christianity, as they are commonly termed, are the foundation of all our knowledge of scriptural theology. We are bound, therefore, to guard effectually against the sophistry and artful suggestions by which the primary article of our faith is liable to be assailed. Christians, at the present day, indeed, will rarely find opportunity to meet the infidel, in the use of fair and direct argument. But we are exposed to the more efficient weapons of ridicule, sly insinuation, and affected contempt. To ward off these, it is necessary to be well furnished with that defensive armor which historical truth, and the benevolent spirit of the Christian religion, so abundantly supply.

2. The next step, in defending the faith delivered to the saints, is to maintain the ground, that the Bible is not only an authentic record; but that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God; that "holy men of God spake, as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." If the Scriptures were only the work of well-meaning but erring men, should have no infallible standard of doctrine and practice; no determinate rule to which we might refer our earnest discussions, for final adjudication. Theological controversies would be truly interminable.

But the faith of which the apostle speaks in our text, is that which was delivered to the saints; not that which they had discovered, by their own powers of reasoning. "I certify you brethren," says

[ 3 ]

Paul, "that the gospel which was preached of me, is not after man: For I neither received it of man; neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.* To the Thessalonians he says, " When ye received the word of God, which ye heard of us, ye received it, not as the word of men ; but as it is in truth, the word of God."† This is the broad and immoveable foundation of the Christian’s faith. So long as we have evidence, that God has spoken to us in the Scriptures, so long may we know, that we have there the words of everlasting truth. There can be no firmer ground, on which to rest our religious belief and our hopes of salvation.

3. We are to contend for those principles of interpretation, which will lay open to our view the true meaning of the Scriptures; and not bring to them a meaning derived from our own preconceived opinions.

There are two widely different methods of interpreting the word of God. According to one of these, we first determine for ourselves what doctrines and precepts the Scriptures probably contain ; . and then set ourselves at work, to extort from them a meaning, in conformity with the opinions which we have already formed. All the arts of plastic criticism are applied, to modify and explain away the passages which at first view, stand in the way of our favorite theories. There is no text, however unequivocal its genuine meaning, which may not be made to yield to this transforming process.. The critical alchemy will bring forth from the crucible, any product which the dexterous operator wishes to obtain. The word of God may be appealed to, in support of as many different systems of theology, as ardent theorists choose to propose. If we can determine beforehand, what God ought to reveal to us, for what purpose do we need a revelation? On this supposition, our own powers of reasoning, without aid from above, can teach us all which it concerns us to know. It is a vain pretence, to profess to make the word of God the standard of our faith; while we mould it and shape it, at our pleasure, to render it conformable to schemes of theology of our own devising. It is not unfrequently the case, that far greater liberties are taken with the Scriptures, than would be tolerated, in interpreting any other book.

But the true method of interpretation goes upon the supposition, that God has spoken to us, with a purpose of being understood; that his communications to us have one definite meaning; and that this is to be learned, by the ordinary rules, of construction, by, inquiring. how the language would be understood, by those to whom it was

* Gal. i. 11, 12. † 1 Thess. ii. 13,

[ 4 ]

originally addressed. When we have thus found what God has actually spoken, we are not at liberty to substitute in the place of it, something else, which we should have thought would more probably be revealed. The true point of inquiry is, what saith the Scripture; what meaning does its language convey to us ; and not, what construction may be forced upon it, by the perverted refinements of criticism. We are not, indeed, required to believe assertions which are intuitively or demonstrably false. If such were found in the Bible, they would prove it not to be the word of God. But he may reveal to us mysteries, which our own unaided reason would never have discovered. "Behold," says the apostle, "I show you a mystery." We are to contend, then, for those principles of interpretation, which will unfold to us the revelation of God, as it really is and not transform it into another gospel.

4. We are to contend for the very system of truth which was delivered to the saints ; to maintain it in its simplicity and purity, unadulterated with additions from the speculations of men.

There is one invariable meaning of the Scriptures; that which was given them, when originally written. Nothing has been added to this meaning, since the book of Revelation was brought to a close, by the apostle John. It will remain the same, till the heavens and the earth are no more. The same portion of the Bible has not different meanings for different ages of the world ; for different ranks of society; for different denominations of Christians. Its import may be more correctly understood at one time than another. It may have different applications to the learned and the ignorant; to the rich and the poor ; to the monarch and his subjects. But the meaning of the word of God was the same, when used by Luther and his fellow-laborers, to expose the corruptions of popery; as when read, at the present day, in Christian lands; or carried to the heathen, in India, or Africa, or the islands of the Pacific. It is this one uniform meaning, which we are bound to searh for, as for hid treasures; and which we are to keep distinct from every addition or variation suggested by the wisdom of men. If philosophizing Christians insist upon bringing forward their theories, and systems, and discoveries; let them have all due credit, for the products of their genius. But let them not blend their speculations with the truths which have come to us, in a voice from heaven. Let us always have it in our power, to distinguish the one from the other. Let there be a broad line of separation, between the reasonings of men, and communications from the infinite fountain of truth.

Contending for the Christian faith, implies that we contend for the

[ 5 ]

doctrines, and not merely the words of Scripture. A man may profess to believe all which the Bible contains; and yet may apply himself so intently to the task of explaining away its language, as to leave scarce a shadow of its genuine meaning. The use of the words of Scripture, is to communicate truth. If the latter is rejected, it is to no purpose, that the former are retained. A man may renounce all the essential doctrines of the gospel; and yet profess to have a sacred regard for the language of revelation. In contending for the faith, we are to maintain what we ourselves believe to be the meaning of Scripture; what, after diligent and impartial examination, we think the language clearly expresses. Though we may have a deference for the opinions of others; yet we are to determine the question of the correctness of their views, by bringing them for trial to the word of God.

We are bound to contend for the very same system of truth which is revealed in the Scriptures; as the danger is great, that it will be adulterated, by modifications and additions, introduced by theological controversy, and sectarian zeal. This has been the case, in every age of the Christian Church. Statements which were, at first, intended merely as illustrations of scriptural doctrine, become gradually incorporated, as a part of the system. In discourses from the desk in theological discussions, in religious periodical publications, the results of our own reasoning become so insensibly blended with revealed truth, that it is no easy task, to separate the one from the other. This is necessary, however, if we would know what are truly the doctrines communicated from heaven.

These truths, in distinction from all others, we are strenuously to maintain, because infinite wisdom has given them the preference, in its message of mercy to our world. They are the truths on a belief of which, our everlasting salvation depends. "Go ye into all the world," says Christ, "and preach the gospel to every creature: he that believeth shall be saved." He that believeth what? The gospel of Christ ; not the abstractions of philosophy. These are the truths which are accompanied with the sanctifying influence of the Spirit. "Sanctify them," says Christ, "through thy truth ; thy word is truth." They are the truths which have such an overpowering efficacy, in the conversion of the heathen. Can this be said of our finely wrought metaphysical speculations?’ When missionaries of different denominations meet on pagan ground, they lay aside, in a great measure, their sectarian peculiarities, and affectionately unite in preaching the simple gospel of Christ. It is this, which causes the Christian to triumph on the bed of death. It is this, by which our eternal allotment will be fixed, at the judgment of the great day.

[ 6 ]

A zealous defence of scriptural doctrines is our duty, because they are violently opposed. Men destitute of godliness, however widely they may differ in other respects, are united in their hostility to the humiliating declarations, and unyielding demands of the gospel. They will tolerate any of the corruptions of Christianity, rather than the pure system of evangelical truth, as it was left by Christ and his apostles. This determined opposition calls for unceasing vigilance, on the part of those who adhere to the faith, as it was delivered to the saints. The difficulty of the contest is greatly increased, from the necessity of frequently meeting an insidious and treacherous enemy. The opposers of the truth, instead of attacking it openly, may often effect their purpose more surely, by artfully explaining away the doctrines which they profess to believe. While they would wish to be thought sound in the faith, they are occupied in undermining the system which they pretend to support. Against this unwearied opposition, either open or concealed, the friends of the truth must steadily and boldly contend.

5. Contending for the primitive Christian faith, implies a defence not merely of what is expressly stated in the Scriptures; but also, of what may be clearly inferred from the truths revealed. It would have been impossible to comprise in a single volume, particular directions applying to all the varieties of human conduct. General principles are laid down in the Scriptures; and are illustrated by examples, parables, answers to inquiries; and practical exhortations. In adapting these principles to our own circumstances, it is often necessary to draw conclusions from them, by a course of reasoning. Whatever points of doctrine or of duty, can be manifestly inferred from the express declarations of Scripture, may be considered as implied in the original Christian faith.

The proper mode of reasoning on theological subjects, is to start with premises given in the word of God; and from these, to deduce consequences applicable to the present condition and exigencies of the Church. But even on this plan, when the course of argument is long and complicated, we are liable to much uncertainty in our results. The reasoning, on moral and religious subjects is, in many cases, of a character widely different from mathematical demonstration. In the latter, equal and absolute certainty runs through the whole. The conclusion, in a long chain of argument, is as indubitably evident, as any of the preceding steps. But in the probable arguments which are commonly applied to religious subjects, each step, as we advance₁ becomes weaker than the preceding. The conclusion is affected by all the chances of error, in the whole series of inferences. Little

[ 7 ]

reliance, therefore, is to be placed on the results, unless each is fortified by different lines of argument, all made to concur in proving the same point.

II. Our subject may he farther illustrated, by considering some modes of theological discussion, which are not necessarily implied in contending for the primitive Christian faith. There are various methods of professedly defending the doctrines of the gospel, which have a very doubtful claim to be included in the duty enjoined in the text. Some of these, it may be proper, on the present occasion, to specify.

1. A defence of scriptural doctrines does not necessarily imply, that we prove them to be true, by a course of argument INDEPENDENT of revelation. The evidence on which they rest is this, that God, who cannot err, and will not deceive, has caused them to be revealed to us as true. We can have no higher ground of assurance, than the declaration, "Thus saith the Lord." No course of reasoning can add to the evidence. Will you undertake to confirm by logical deduction, what the God of heaven has declared to be true ? Will you bring out your rushlight, to add to the blaze of the noonday sun? Why not undertake to prove by argument, that we live, and feel, and think? When we have shown that the Bible is the word of God and have clearly ascertained the meaning of any portion of it ; all reasonable inquiry concerning the truth of what we find there, is at an end.

But suppose the meaning of a passage of Scripture is doubtful’?

The only way to determine the sense of it, is to apply to it correct principles of interpretation. If according to these, the language does not express a particular doctrine, then there is no evidence, that the doctrine is contained in the passage. Do you say, that one of the methods of interpretation, is to ascertain, by reasoning, whether the doctrine in question is true or not? But if it is true, it by no means follows, that it is contained in the passage under consideration; Or even that it is a doctrine of Scripture. There are innumerable truths, which are not stated in the Bible.

But you say, if a doctrine is not true, it surely cannot be found in the word of God. If you can demonstrate, that is, if you can prove with infallible certainty, that a proposed doctrine is false or impossible; then indeed, it cannot be taught in the Scriptures. But determining what cannot be the meaning of a passage, is only one step, towards showing what is the meaning. And even this negative point is not gained, by merely exhibiting the improbability of the doctrine in question, as seen by the light of nature alone. Many truths are found in the Bible, which to unassisted reason, would appear highly

[ 8 ]

improbable. The whole plan of redeeming mercy, is far beyond the power of human reason to contrive; or to render probable, without the aid of revelation. The natural probability or improbability of the truth of a doctrine, therefore, does not settle the question, whether it is contained in the Scriptures. Their meaning must be determined, on other grounds.

To admit nothing into our creed, but what can be proved by the light of nature alone, is to exclude all the peculiar doctrines of the gospel. Was it not highly improbable to human view, that he who was the brightness of his Father’s glory, should come into our world, and suffer and die for those who have rebelled against the authority which all heaven obeys? It is the very purpose of revelation, to disclose to us truths which we could not other wise know. " Things which eye bath not seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, God bath revealed to us by his Spirit." The numerous miracles recorded in Scripture, are so many instances of events highly improbable, according to the common course of nature. Was it probable that Lazarus would come forth from the grave ; that the Red Sea would divide its waters, at the lifting of Moses’ rod; that Elijah would ascend in a chariot of fire to heaven? Are all accounts of this nature in the Scriptures to be explained away, upon neological principles of interpretation, till they become nothing more than figurative representations of ordinary events?

But we have to deal with those who do not admit the authority of the Bible. Is it not necessary on their account, to resort to a course of reasoning, to establish religious principles ?

How will you do this? Will you undertake to prove to them, in this way, all the truths of the Bible, or only a part ? If a part only, how will this convert them to Christianity? Many books which are not inspired contain some truths. If you can prove all the truths of Scripture, by a course of reasoning independent of divine testimony, what need is there of inspiration? Why may we not rely upon our own reason alone, as being itself sufficient to make known to us all the will of God?

He who believes only what he can prove without the aid of revelation, is still an infidel. He can never become a Christian, till he yields his assent to the testimony of God in the Scriptures. And then, there will be no farther necessity of proving to him, without the Bible, the doctrines for which the Bible itself furnishes the best of all evidence. There are many of the most essential truths of the gospel, which. you can never make manifest by the mere light of nature.

[ 9 ]

But how are we to combat the numerous errors among nominal Christians ?

Do as Paul did: "Reason with them out of the Scriptures." It may sometimes be expedient to use means, to silence those who array their metaphysical subtilties against the truths of revelation. It may be proper to meet them on their own ground; and to show them, that upon their own principles of reasoning, their positions are unfounded. But even here, the object should be, not to prove the doctrines of Scripture, by philosophical arguments ; but by shaking the objector’s confidence in his own speculations, to lead him to rest his belief on the authority of divine testimony. Unless you bring him to this, your efforts will be lost upon him. If he hear not Moses and the prophets, Christ and the apostles ; you will in vain hope to convert him to the true faith, by the aid of philosophy. Are we destitute of sufficient evidence of the omniscience and veracity of God, till we can prove, from other sources, the truth of every thing which He has revealed?

2. Contending for the faith delivered to the saints, does not necessarily imply, that we contend for any particular form of words, different from those of Scripture, in which we or others have thought proper to express this faith.

A great portion of the ardent theological controversy which has existed in every age of the Christian Church, has been respecting the technical phraseology in which scriptural doctrines have been dressed. Particular words and phrases are regarded with as much veneration, as the language of the Bible itself. He who ventures to substitute for them other forms of expression, is considered as having rejected the doctrines which had been stated in these favorite terms. But scriptural truths are not of such a nature, that they can be justly exhibited, in one uniform set of words only. The meaning may be retained, while the language is varied. If no change could be made in the phraseology, without materially altering the sense, then we ought to confine ourselves to the terms of Scripture ; to "the words which the Holy Ghost teacheth." We can find no perfect substitute for the language of inspiration. Still, there may be art advantage, for particular purposes, in adopting different modes of expression. Especially, if theology is to be thrown into the systematic form of a regular science; or if its principles are to be investigated, by a train of logical deductions; a corresponding precision of terms may be necessary. The language of Scripture is that of common life; not of abstract reasoning, and metaphysical exactness. But it was found sufficient for communicating all the truths which are necessary to

THE NATIONAL PREACHER.

[ 10 ]

salvation and holiness of life. If a man maintains and expresses clearly all the great doctrines of Scripture, though he may do it in his own language, he is not to be considered a heretic.

Will it be said, that a public teacher may explain away the language of the Bible ; and therefore, that it may be necessary to have some settled phraseology agreed upon, to protect the sacred pages front perversion? But he may, with greater ease, explain away any merely human composition. Can you throw around him a wall of words so firm, that he can find no way of breaking through it? The very fact, that a form of words long in use, is liable to have its meaning gradually changed by continued efforts to explain it away, may render it necessary to substitute, from time to time, other expressions, which have not been subjected to this modifying process.

On the other hand, when terms well selected have been judiciously applied to revealed truth ; when they have been found, on trial, to answer the purpose for which they were adopted, that of conveying distinctly the meaning of Scripture ; and especially, if they have come into familiar use, and are well understood by Christians in common life; it is unwise to set them aside; and to introduce others which are liable to be misapprehended, and to excite alarm and suspicion, among those who would sacredly preserve the purity of Christian doctrines. Still it should be remembered, that evangelical truth is not so dependent on the language in which we may think proper to clothe it, as to justify vehement contention among Christians, about words and phrases which the Holy Ghost has not taught. There was too much of this unwarrantable controversy, it would seem, even among the primitive Christians. "Charge them before the Lord," says the apostle, "that they strive not about words, to no profit."

3. Defending the truths of revelation, does not imply, of course, a defence of the philosophical theories or hypotheses which have been proposed, to explain the grounds, and reasons, and causes, of what is revealed. Theoretical explanations are not the evidence on which our belief of these truths should rest. We are bound to receive them, on the simple testimony of God. The philosophical explanation which is added to the scriptural statement, is no part of the revelation. We may believe in the resurrection of the dead, without attempting to explain the manner in which they will rise. We may believe, that "those who are alive, at the coming of our Lord, will be changed, in the twinkling of an eye ;" though we may have no hypothesis, to account for the change. We may believe that the soul is united to the body, without advancing a theory, to explain the

[ 11 ]

nature of this union. We may believe that God is omniscient, without giving a philosophical account of the grounds of this knowledge.

But how, it may be asked, can we believe that which we do not understand? We do understand the thing which we believe. But something else, supposed to be connected with this, we may, perhaps, not understand. We can understand the fact, that Moses and Elms appeared to the three disciples, on the mount of transfiguration though we may not know, in what manner they came there. We can understand, that our limbs move, at the bidding of our wills though nothing is more mysterious, than the influence of the mind upon the body. We may believe in the growth of trees and plants though we know nothing of the principle of vegetable life. ‘We may understand what is meant by the diurnal revolution of the earth, without proposing a theory to assign the cause of this motion. We may understand the momentous truth, that God works in us, to will and to do; though we may not be able to explain the mode in which he operates on our hearts. What is revealed, that is, what is made known to us, we can certainly understand. In the common business and intercourse of life, we become acquainted with innumerable facts, that have causes, and consequences, and relations, which no philosophy can explain. Indeed every fact is connected; either directly or remotely, with something else which is inexplicable. The nature of our minds, the power of life in our bodies, the air we breathe, the light of heaven, are full of mysteries. If we could not understand anything, without being able to explain all its relations to other objects; we could know absolutely nothing.

Will it be said, that in this age of light and inquiry, there is no getting along without philosophical theology; that both Christians and opposers of the truth, will have their theories; that if you do not furnish them with such as are sound, they will adopt those which are false and dangerous; that the doctrines of Scripture will not be received, without some theory to explain them?

Have we then come to this, that, with the Bible in our hands, philosophy is, after all, the foundation of our belief, and the guide of our conduct; that, though we profess to receive the Scriptures, as the word of the living God; yet we really give credit to his declarations, so far only, as they conform to our preconceived philosophical opinions; that the testimony of omniscience itself, is not sufficient to gain our assent to a doctrine, till our limited understandings have found out a theory to explain it? Brethren, I fear we are far out at sea, on the drifting tide of adventurous speculation. And our chart, instead of being the infallible guide of everlasting truth, is, too often, the conjectural sketch of some bold projector.

THE NATIONAL PREACHER.

[ 12 ]

But are we forbidden to exercise our own reasoning powers, on subjects contained in the Scriptures? By no means ; provided our speculations are made to keep their proper place, in relation to the divine testimony. If they are not allowed to modify, or explain away scriptural truth ; or to affect its credibility ; if they are not offered, as a necessary supplement to the Bible; they may be allowed, as gratifying a rational curiosity; as giving to insulated doctrines a connected arrangement ; as illustrating the harmony between the truth which the Creator has presented to us in his word, and the light which he has thrown around us in his works.

But what is to be done with those who bring forward their theories, in opposition to the doctrines of Scripture? They are undoubtedly to be met, either by exposing the fallacy of their particular views; or by doing that which is far better, convincing them, that a God of eternal truth is to be believed, whatever becomes of our theories and speculations. If you merely combat a man’s particular sophistry, you will only induce him to shift his ground ; to substitute one false scheme for another: for theories can be fabricated, as easily, and as abundantly, as the imagery of the poet. And many of them can be taken to pieces, with as much dispatch, as they have been put together. The work of mutually constructing and destroying them, is going on rapidly, at the present day. Theological combatants are fast demolishing each other’s hypotheses ; and thus furnishing most abundant proof, that philosophy is no sure foundation for religious truth. The assailants themselves are evidently beginning to be sensible, how much easier it is, to prostrate the theories of others, than to give any firm support to their own. If we must be involved in unceasing controversy, we may find some relief from our fears, in observing how extensively, philosophical theology is applied to its appropriate use, that of confuting philosophical theology. It is well employed, when made to bear upon those who bring forward their own deceptive reasonings, in opposition to the statements, of Scripture.’ Though the philosophy which is consistent with the Bible, may not be so important, as to call for any earnest contention; yet that which is opposed to revealed truth, ought undoubtedly to be wrested from the hand of the enemy, as a powerful and dangerous weapon. This should be done, however, for the purpose of converting those who are in error, not from one hypothesis to another ; but from all their speculations, to a belief in the simple testimony of God. Defending the Christian faith, implies that all attacks upon it be firmly resisted. But opposition to scriptural truth, is to be carefully distinguished, from opposition to some philosophical

[ 13 ]

explanation, which has been added to the Scriptures. It is often the case, that a man is charged with assailing revealed truth; when his attacks have really been directed against some philosophical hypothesis all the opposition in the case, being between one theory and another; when neither of them, perhaps, has any necessary connection with what God has declared in his word.

Some may inquire whether the doctrines of Scripture ought to be, or even can be, separated from the philosophy which belongs to them? To this I answer, that the philosophy which is found in the Bible itself is as much a part of revelation, as the doctrines, the commands, or the predictions. We can no more be justified in rejecting any philosophical explanation contained in the Scriptures, than in setting aside their historical or doctrinal statements. I am not objecting to inspired philosophy ; but to those inventions of men, which claim to be the guides of our faith, on points that have been settled by divine authority. If we must have theological philosophy, let it be the philosophy of Moses, of Isaiah, and of Paul; not of Plato, of Aristotle, and of Kant.

The apostles, it maybe said, have set us an example of philosophical discussion. They did not merely communicate the truths which they had received, by revelation from heaven; but they reasoned with those to whom they spake. It ought to be considered, however, that much of their reasoning was addressed to unbelieving Jews or heathen; neither of whom admitted their claim to a divine commission. They were dealing not with Christians; but with infidels. These could be met, upon their own ground only. But in the epistles written to Christian churches, the reasoning is commonly founded on the Old Testament, which, at that time, constituted the volume of Scripture.

But is not philosophy necessary, in the interpretation of Scripture? Is not some previous knowledge requisite, to enable us to understand the language ? Such knowledge, undoubtedly, as was common to the persons to whom it was originally addressed; the husbandmen, and shepherds, and fishermen of Judea. Such philosophy as that with which Peter, and Matthew, and John were familiar. The language of Scripture is generally the simple diction of common life. It must have been well understood, by those to whom it was originally spoken. But it by no means follows, that they were previously familiar with the truths which it was employed to communicate. A distinct apprehension of the meaning of words, does not imply a knowledge of all the propositions which can be expressed in. those words. An acquaintance with arithmetical numbers, and

[ 14 ]

their names, does not include all which can be known of arithmetic. A familiarity with the terms and definitions in Euclid’s Elements, does not constitute all the knowledge of geometry. Several important doctrines which Christ himself taught, were in direct opposition to the previous opinions of his hearers. The most sublime and surprising truths may often be expressed in terms perfectly familiar. It was the very design of a revelation intended for all mankind, to make known the high and wonderful purposes of heaven, in the simple language of common life. A knowledge of this language, and of the meaning which it conveys, does not necessarily imply any special philosophical attainments; or any previous acquaintance with the truths to be revealed. Do you inquire, whether the foundation of our religious belief, must not be laid in a correct philosophy? The foundation of our religion ought not to be laid in any philosophy, but that which proves the Scriptures to be the word of God, and enables us to understand its meaning. " Other foundation can no man lay, than that which is laid."

4. Contending for the faith delivered to the saints, does not imply, that we undertake to free it from all the difficulties which may be connected with the truths revealed. A revelation respecting the purposes, providence, and moral government, of the infinite Ruler, must present many considerations, which are mysterious to the limited powers and attainments of man. The facts and the doctrines which are stated, may be very plain. But we may start inquiries respecting the causes of the facts, and the manner in which they exist concerning points which are not revealed. Some difficulties may, indeed, be explained. But many will remain, after all our endeavors to solve them. The explanation which is given of one mystery, will often bring others into view, which are still greater. The difficulties which we must encounter, in our investigations, instead of becoming less numerous, multiply upon us, as we advance in knowledge. The more a man enlarges the horizon of his mental vision, the broader is the circle from which he looks out upon an unlimited space, in which nothing is distinctly apprehended. As he ascends one height after another, it is to bring others into view, yet farther on, and still bounding his prospect.

If we suspend our belief till we can free the truths of revelation from all mystery, we shall never believe them. The attributes of God, the purposes of his throne, the revelations of his vast and eternal kingdom, are too high to be fully comprehended by us. "No man can find out the work that God maketh, from the beginning to the end." Our own existence, the constitution of our minds, the

[ 15 ]

heavens and the earth, the allotments of providence, are full of inexplicable wonders. But in all these manifestations of unsearchable wisdom, we admit the facts, without waiting for an explanation of the mysteries with which they are connected. We give credit to the assertions of men, respecting events which are wholly unaccountable. And shall we call in question the testimony of God, till we can satisfy ourselves, that every thing to which it refers, is, in all its relations, within the reach of our comprehension? If a man renounces his religious principles, whenever he meets with a difficulty respecting them ; he must give up one point after another, till he arrives at atheism, which involves greater mysteries, than any or all other opinions.

5. Defending the primitive faith does not necessarily imply, that we earnestly contend for every point which may be connected even with fundamental doctrines. Concerning the most essential truths of revelation, many inquiries may be started and many suggestions proposed which are comparatively unimportant. Whatever God has thought proper to reveal, respecting the fundamental truths of Christianity, we are bound to defend, against all opposition. But we are not under obligation to maintain, with the same earnestness, every point which our own ingenuity has brought into view, Upon the same subjects. All which is in any way connected with essential truth, is not of course essential, even though it may be trite. Some seem to think, that the fundamental doctrines of the gospel, have so hazardous a position, that if even the dust which has gathered upon these corner-stones be disturbed, the whole fabric will be shaken. Many erect for themselves a finely proportioned theological system, with its stories, and columns, and arches, and key-stones; composed of materials partly taken from the word of God, and partly such as their own hands have wrought; and when it is finished, they appear to be apprehensive, that if a little of their untempered mortar be removed, the entire structure will be in danger. It may be, that all the important parts of revealed truth, have some relations to each other, that to the view of omniscience, any one implies the whole. But our limited understandings cannot discover all the links of the chain which binds them together. Nor is this requisite for the establishment of our faith. When it is necessary to prove any point, by a course of argument independent of revelation, we must be able to trace its connection with something previously known. But God, by his simple declaration, can give us the fullest assurance of the truth of any doctrine, without pointing out the relations which it bears to other parts of the Christian system. Nothing can shake the

foundation on which it rests, but that which goes to prove, that the Scriptures which contain the doctrine are not the word of God.

6. Contending for the Christian faith does not imply a defence of all the additions which have been made to this faith, with a view of supplying supposed deficiencies in the Scriptures. In our controversies with Papists, we frequently refer to the fundamental doctrine of Protestantism, that the word of God is the only and sufficient rule of faith. But whatever may be our professions, I fear that we are far from adhering to this principle in practice.

Additions may be made insensibly, and without any design of corrupting the word of God. But they become, by degrees, so effectually incorporated with scriptural truth, that it is not easy to separate the alloy from the original material with which it is blended? And we often contend, with more ardent zeal, for our own additions, than for the pure word of God. Can this be justified upon Christian principles? When God has given us a revelation, with the express design of saving our fallen world ; when he continued his communications to prophets and apostles, through successive ages, "that the man of God might be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works ;" and when, on bringing the inspired volume to a close, he pronounced so fearful a curse upon the "man that shall add to these things ;" shall we declare, by our conduct, that we consider the book as, after all, defective ; insufficient for the purpose for which it was given ? There may be religious truths which are not found in the Bible. But are they such as are necessary to salvation and holiness of life? Are they the truths which were used by the apostles, to bring the gentiles to repentance, or which are especially blessed by the Divine Spirit, to the conviction and conversion of sinners, the increasing sanctification of Christians, and reviving the power of godliness in the Church ? Are they the great instrument by which missionaries, at the present day, are shaking the foundations of pagan superstition? Are they the truths by which the departing spirit is sustained in the hour of death; and by which the world will be tried, at the judgment of the great day?