racter of some individuals undetermined, the evil is trifling, and one for which themselves only are responsi ble; while by making such a decision we may confirm them in self-delusion, and occasion their final ruin, How much of the revelation of God may be safely rejected, or how little need be believed to reach heaven, is a question, not made for man; one which must be left to God, when he sits on the throne of judgment. It will therefore contribute much to the satisfaction of the writer, to witness that intelligent piety in the Editor of the Christian Spectator, which will not attempt to hold with a firm hand "this balance between the demands of charity and of the powers of the world to come." 3. How small a portion of reveal ed truth, men may believe and be saved, is a question not to be determined. It seems to be a growing fashion of the present age of catholicism, to circumscribe those articles of belief, which so far as belief is concerned, are necessary to salvation. One is satisfied with a general avowal, that Jesus is the Christ, without even an inquiry into its import. Another supposes that the belief of some two, or three, or more particular doctrines, is, so far as belief is concerned, sufficient evidence of christian character. While I greatly rejoice in the catholic spirit of professed christians, and clearly discern the smiles of heaven upon it, I cannot but regret that its propagation should be attempted, by limiting the necessary articles of christian faith. There is an obvious distinction between maintaining on the one hand, that none can be saved without believing certain doctrines, and on the other, that, in all cases, the belief of these doctrines is sufficient to save. More may be necessary to this end in some circumstances, than is necessary in all. There are some doctrines which so enter into the very essence of the gospel, and are revealed with such fulness and clearness, that nothing but irreligion can deny them. There are others, the denial of which in some circumstances,may be as decisive proof of impiety as the denial of an universally essential truth. Obligation is commensurate with light and capacity; and to reject any truth with its evidence fully presented and clearly seen, may imply that spirit of error which incurs condemnation.guishing between the exhibitions of Until therefore we can ascertain precisely the circumstances and capacities of different minds, and fix some common measure which shall apply to all the diversity of cases which may occur, it must be deemed a perilous and even an insolvable problem, to determine "the minimum of saving truth." Nor can I discover the necessity, or even a reason, which requires its solution. If by leaving it undecided, we leave the christian cha 4. It is not less desirable to your correspondent, that you should avail yourself of those advantages, which the progress of theological science affords for stating and defending the doctrines of the gospel. There is a strange attachment in some worthy men to particular statements of divine truth, because they have the authority and sanction of antiquity. That authority deserves veneration, but does not claim unqualified submission. Doubtless, the great and good men, who under God ushered in upon a dark world, the light of the re formation, maintained and taught the true gospel. Doubtless, the true gospel has been maintained and taught in every age of the church. But while that gospel is immutable, like its author, the modes of stating and defending its truths, are of men. Distin divine truth, as made under the unerring guidance of inspiration, and that truth as stated and defended by its fallible interpreters, it is easy to see that theological science considered in the latter sense is susceptible of improvement and progress. A limited acquaintance with the history of the church, will evince that such pro gress has been made. We all know, how soon after the days of the Apostles, human philosophy connected its illustrations, and pagan superstition mingled its vagaries, with the purity of divine truth. We all know how reluctant we should be to adopt and undertake to defend the exact positions of many of the early fathers, even on those points, in which we doubt not that they held the substantial gospel. With more restrictions, the same remarks apply to the reformers from popery. Although, when we consider the darkness from which these men emerged, we look at the extent and correctness of their theological knowledge with amazement, yet it is hardly possible that they should have advanced to that technical exactness and fulness of acquisition which would result from the protract ed labors and conflicts of their able successors. We may detect errors in those who have gone before us, or see truths which they did not discover, and yet be indebted to them for the ability to do either. A dwarf may see farther than a giant, when the latter has put him on his shoulders.Besides, substantial correctness in doctrine, does not imply exact precision in definition. Every one knows that imperfection of language, by which we so often fail to convey to other minds the ideas of our own; and how apt we are, when the eye is fixed upon some single truth, to overlook the remote relations and consequences, of the mode of statement, which we adopt. Few men, perhaps none, possess that measure of intellect, which enables them to see the whole drift and bearing of every position, in so enlarged a science as that of the ology, or to bring the natural strength of intellect, to the arrangement of a system, with entire exemption from the influence of the early prejudices of education and habit. Even the most ardent love of truth, is not always the most favourable to systematizing a creed in a course of logical and precise propositions; nor would it be strange, that men who like the reformers, discovered truth obscured by so much rubbish, should lay hold of it with an eagerness that would. overlook the minuter regularities and beauties of the precious treasure.— It would not be more surprising, in their circumstances of conflict, should their statements of doctrine receive, in no small degree, their shape and aspect from the errors of their antagonists, and while opposing directly and successfully the errors they aimed to demolish, should leave themselves open to the oblique, but formidable. attacks of future assailants. As illustrative of these.remarks, permit me to express the opinion that while Calvin maintained the utter insufficiency of man to effect his own. con-, version to God, in opposition to the error, that man possesses power, in. every respect, adequate to such a change, his statements are not always safe from the charge of subverting human accountability. The reason is doubtless to be found in the fact, that the latter doctrine was not disputed ground .And had this great man foreseen the apostasy of his pupil Arminius, and the manner in which he turned his weapons against the master, he would probably have effectually closed that pass to onset.* The question of the free-agency and dependence of men has ever since great➡ ly agitated the church, nor is it perhaps too much to say, that the principles on which the consistency of these doctrines rests, was a desideratum in theological science, till the "Essay on the will," by the immortal Edwards appeared. The degrees, then, of acquirement and correctness in theology, as a science made up of human expositions of inspired truth, have been greatly diversified at dif ferent periods. For many past ages, there has been progress and improvement, and from the thick darkness: * Our correspondent, we presume, does not intend to say that Arminius was, stricthe was educated in the principles of that ly speaking, the pupil of Calvin, but that great man, and finally aljuring the opin ions which he once embraced, availed himself of the knowledge acquired from ions. Arminius was born A. D. 1560, ard the writings of Calvin, to impugn his opin-" Calvin died 156 which preceded the reformation, an attentive eye may easily trace the varied degrees of illumination, advancing from the first dawn of morning, toward the strong lustre of the perfect day. The design of these remarks, Mr. Editor, you cannot easily mistake.Why should improvements in every human science be hailed as auspicious: to the welfare of man, and yet the very intimation of progress in the celestial science of theology, be scowled upon with disdain, or cast out as impious. If the interpretation of the word of God, is committed to the talents and piety of human expounders, then, let the wisdom of the great and good, of every age, the results of their toils and researches, be summoned to our aid. It is no impeachment of the skill of a military commander, that he fortifies anew the points of defence which former assaults have proved to be weak; nor that he selects those positions for conflict, which furnish the best means of annoyance to the enemy, with the least injury to himself. 5. Obligation to know the truth is limited only by the capacity and the means of knowing it. The varied natural endowments of mankind, the different circumstances of their condition, and the different means within their reach, obviously indicate different degrees of obligation, with respect to the acquisition of religious knowledge. With this exception, ignorance of any part of the truth can be ascribed only to the want of a right heart. But powerful and extensive as is this cause of error, whether it operate in wilful rejection of evidence, or in negligent indifference respecting points of belief, it is an offence of deep criminality, and can never be pleaded in arrest of condemnation. If, therefore, we would neither ascribe imperfection to the divine word, nor make guilt its own apology, then, so far as man possesses the capacity and the means, so far he is bound to know the truth. As the efficacy of truth is con fined to its reception, God has extended our obligation to the belief of the whole gospel, with the single proviso, that it is required of man according to what he hath, and not according to what he hath not. Adopt any principle, Mr. Editor, which shall fix other limits, and you take away all obligation to explore the field of truth, beyond the limits which you assign, however profitable may be the dis coveries, there to be made. And who with just views of the aversion of the human heart to the truth, will expect it to prompt to one step beyond the pressure of obligation? If the obliga tion be, to believe only a part, and if the specification of that part is not made by the Author of revelation, by whom is it to be made? Plainly, by man. By what rule? Plainly, according to his own inclination-and thus his obligation to submit to the testimony of God, is reduced to the liberty of consulting his own will. The limit then of God's instructions, and of our capacity, is the limit of our obligation to learn; as far as the light shines, and our power of vision extends, so far we are bound to see. 2 6. There may be great diversity of religious opinion without substantial diversity of religious character.Such diversity of opinion may result from different capacity and different means of discovering truth, and therefore exists with an equal degree of honesty in investigation. Another cause of diversity and er ror of opinion, is to be found in the. remaining depravity of christians.— All who do not maintain the absolute perfection of christians here on earth, will readily concede that they may be influenced by worldly and sinister motives, by those prepossessions and prejudices, which arise from passion, party, and other like causes. And when we reflect how much is promised to a spirit of docility, we shall by irresistible deduction infer, that much the greater part of contrariety and er ror of opinion is to be traced to the want of perfection in this christian grace. This defect with what is im prejudice, or sin, or other causes, mistake its meaning? Has truth no evidence above falsehood? Does the possibility of error, justify sloth, prejudice, and unbelief, when God has set truth before us with a clearness, worthy of himself; or does failure to discover truth, resulting from such causes, justly incur eternal condemnation? Every man, then, is bound to examine the depository of divine truth, to derive his creed from it, and to be responsible to God, and to God only, for his creed. He may neither regard all creeds alike, nor throw away his Bible because he may mistake its import; but he must decide with the plied in it, it is true,loses not its criminality by being found in christians; nor is it more inconsistent with christian character, than are many other sins into which christians daily fall.These all prove imperfection, but not irreligion. They who build on the true foundation, wood, hay, stubble, shall be saved, yet so as by fire. There are then errors of minor importance, which may so easily be the result of innocent disqualification to discover truth, or of that moral imperfection which is known to be consistent with christian character, that we readily open the embrace of christian communion to those who adopt them. This, if I mistake not, is the true basis of christian catholicism-light and capacity which God has givIt is the principle on which rests that "charity which suffereth long, and is kind, thinketh no evil, beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things." It is a principle, which the christian spectator in all his animadversions, on the errors of his brethren, should never lose sight of, and whose delightful and conciliating influence, he should never fail to feel, and to manifest. 7. Every man is bound to study the scriptures, and determine their import for himself. Man as an intelligent being, is vested with the privilege and laid under the responsibility, of thinking and judging for himself. He may not think any thing or nothing, adopt, innocently, any opinion or no opinion. This liberty would annihilate all moral distinctions and make one creed as good as another. The word of God being given him, he as a rational, voluntary being, is to search it with candour, with prayer, with perseverance, with the aid of such help as Providence may furnish, and then to adopt that interpretation, which is supported by evidence. He is to remember that in this way, the truth will be discover ed, and that he should regard what he thus discovers, as the truth. Allow the possibility, that as a fallible being he may mistake. Is the Bible nothing because fallible, men may through en him, and with an honest and good heart concerning the faith once delivered to the saints. If there be any hazard in this, (and God forbid, that we should doubt that “whoso will do his will, shall know of the doctrine") that hazard must be encountered, and the result decided by the final Judge. Every other course dishonors the word of God, is inconsistent with all integrity on our part, and fatal to the soul. This principle Mr. Editor, if I mistake not, is of deep importance in conducting your work. Permit me to say, that it is so with respect to your readers, as well as to yourself.--Whether the gospel shall be received or rejected, is a question between God and every man to whom it is sent. Each must stand or fall to his own Master. The plainness, the fil ness, the importance of its truths, create a pressure of obligation, which should annihilate all indifference to every thing which God has thought fit to reveal; and prompt every man to search the scriptures with that diligence, humility, and prayer, which shall produce the conviction, that in them he has eternal life. will not allow him to avow and propagate opinions, which he does not adopt; benevolence will not suffer him to be silent on truths, which he believes God has revealed for the benefit of men. It is a popular notion that in many cases, the cause of truth is to be best promoted, not indeed by concealing the substantial truths of the gospel, but by observing a strict neutrality on all subordinate points of controversy. But what demands, what justifies, this course? Does not the whole evil of controversy, lie in the spirit with which it is conducted and which it occasions? Has not controversy been the means of keeping truth in the world? and have we not an apostolic precept to “contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints?" Besides, if the fact that minor points are controverted, is a reason for their omission, then we must draw the exact line between essential, and unessential truths, and pronounce the latter worse than useless, so long as they are points of controversy. Who is competent to the one, who is bold enough to venture on the other? That all scripture is profitable, is a position which rests on inspired assertion; and that all error which is opposed to divine truth is injurious, is an inevitable consequence. Such error cannot fail to be injurious, as it dispenses with the salutary influence of the truth which it denies. Piety undoubtedly may be found mingled with error. But in all cases in which other things are equal, we must expect piety in a degree proportioned to the truth received, or we must dishonour the lively oracles of God. And Mr. Editor, permit me to ask you, if there are not many doctrines, which you would not pronounce universally essential, whose truth.rests on an equally full and explicit testimony of holy writ, and demands the same unshaken faith, as others which you do regard as thus essential. Must not the denial of these doctrines, in many cases, result from decided implety, and prove fatal to salvation? In all cases must it not counteract all that salutary influence, which divine wisdom and goodness, designed in revealing them? How often are these very doctrines blessed to the conversion and salvation of the soul? for who will maintain that the Holy Ghost is confined in his saving operations exclusively to the exhibition of essential doctrines? If not, how often may silence on unessential points, be the occasion of perdition to your readers, by concealing the very truth which was necessary to the detection of the hypocrite, or the conversion of the sinner? How greatly may it retard the progress of the saint in the divine life, and delay his meetness for heaven? Here also, Mr. Editor, you will at once discover the wish of your correspondent-viz. that you should conceal no truth, which you believe, when a fit occasion occurs for its advancement, nor refuse to expose any error, when it calls for your animadversions. You will cause no direct injury to others, merely by differing from them' in opinions. If they are right, well. If they are wrong, you will thus do what in you lies, to set them right. Temperate christian controversy is not unbecoming on any subject, which God has thought of sufficient importance to reveal. The first defenders of the faith, were not for neutrality on any point; they fought their way through a rebel world, declaring the whole counsel of God, alike contemning that policy which compromises with error, and that spirit which deals only in denunciation. To follow their steps is the only path of duty or of safety; the only course, in which you, sir, in your responsible station, can act the part of benevolence to man, or of faithfulness to your Lord and Master. Lastly, it is my fervent prayer that in all your labours you may be guided by the wisdom, and governed by the spirit of Christianity. It cannot be necessary for me to point out to you, in detail, the various ways in which the wisdom and spirit of the Gospel |