saved-who does not think, that any will repent without the influences of that Spirit whose descent he invokes-who feels, that to himself and others there is no ray of hope beaming from any quarter on his prospects for the favor of God in time and eternity, save from the cross of Christ. Just as religion is the same in all places of God's dominion-in the angel that bows before the throne, and in the saint that worships on the footstool-just as one principle unites all the holy, every where, dwell they on earth, or in heaven, so must the faith of all be essentially the same. The objective matters of belief must coincide. The truths, which contemplated by angel-eyes, produce joy and love and swift obedience there, are substantially the same with those that produce similar effects in their brethren here below. But while there is this uniformity in what we may call the ground-work of holiness every where; while there is one faith, essentially, to all the holy throughout the universe; yet there may be, and is, an infinite diversity of philosophical views. Not one of the cardinal doctrines of the bible but has experienced a variety of fortune, in regard to the manner in which it has been stated and defended. The field which we term the philosophy of theology, is such, that men's opinions will vary interminably, while knowledge in part continues to be a law of their condition. It is a field, properly, of human, not of divine, knowledge. God has not seen fit to pour the same clear and full light of certainty on it, as he has poured on the domains of strict theology. He has left men to their common sense; and is to be vindicated from any blame for the injurious errors, that may have incidentally flowed from his having done so, in the same manner as from the blame of any erroneous system of natural philosophy, or moral, or political science. God may as well be faulted for the follies and mistakes of men, in these latter departments of knowledge, as for their follies and mistakes in the philosophy of theology; and it might as well have been expected, that a revelation from him would be a perfect encyclopedia of all knowledge possible to man, the statements of which would be clear beyond all possibility of misconception, as that it could be perfect and full on the philosophy of theology. The truth is, that the principles of theological science are every where pre-supposed in the bible. The spirit of inspiration passes them over as themes on which revelation is unnecessary-but unnecessary not because men will not err, but because, err as they may here, if they err not elsewhere, it will not be fatal to their souls, and because it were beneath the dignity of reveVOL. X. 61 lation to be occupied with theories so simple as these. It does not admit of a doubt, that much error in theological science, though injurious in one or another degree, to him who holds it, and to others, is yet consistent with a right heart and a sound practical theology. A person may reject, as we have remarked, the true theory of a natural phenomenon, as that of light, and substitute a false one in its place, without in the least doubting that the sun is the original source of light; and a great diversity of opinion among philosophers, as to the mode of its transmission from the sun, is consistent with entire agreement as to the main fact. Diversity of opinion does prevail on that point, in entire consistency with agreement in the main fact. So in multitudes of instances does extensive disagreement among philosophers, in respect to theories, prevail, yet consistently with entire accordance as to the facts which those theories are brought forward to explain. So, too, may immense error and diversity of opinion prevail among theologians and christians, respecting theories, by which the fundamental doctrines are attempted to be explained, and all this consistently with perfect accordance in these doctrines themselves. No diversity of opinion, in regard to philosophical theories, should divide christians from one another. No errors here should bring any one under an anathema. Provided the great revealed facts be held fast, the ground of fellowship and christian confidence remains. No "doubtful disputation" should embarrass him who thus holds the head from which flows the life and soul of essential christianity. He is the infidel, the heretic, who rejects the revealed facts. He who rejects a given philosophy of any of those facts which man has invented, does but assert the right to think for himself, where the supreme authority of clear revelation has not decided. It is preposterous to exclude from cordial fellowship any, simply because they reject a particular philosophy of the doctrines of the bible, as it is no less so to extend such fellowship to those who reject any of these doctrines themselves. If agreement in theories were the test of soundness in the faith, and the rule of christian fellowship, there would be no end of the process of challenging. The church would be broken up into small parties, as numerous as its theologians of any note. No longer would there be one faith; no longer one community. Torn into factions, whose watch-word would be the motto of their philosophical schemes, the church would have no more of harmony than the world. Its history would thenceforth be a statement, who was of Paul, who of Apollos, and who was of Cephas; ending with the melancholy annunciation, that none were of Christ. It is, then, mainly in theological science, that we suppose there is room for difference of opinion among those who are alike christians; room for the existence of error without its implying want of soundness in the faith, or of vital piety; room for improvement, therefore, till that which is in part shall be done away. Reasoning analogically from the progress of knowledge in general, we should be prepared to expect, that in this field likewise some fruit had been gathered. One science never advances alone. It is not the habit of the human mind to push its advances in one of its fields of knowledge, and not, at the same time, in all the rest. A communion and co-partnership binds the sciences together; their gains are the gains of all-their losses are the losses of all. Their gains may not be equal, yet will all truly gain. Shed light on one of the proper domains of the mind, and that, reflected, illumines portions of the rest. At the Reformation, knowledge was beginning to be greatly increased. It was the period for a general advance of the human mind-of a general impulse, which has been propagated from age to age, down to this day. Now, would it not be reasonable to suppose, that just as theological science partook of the benefits of the first revival of knowledge-shared to the full the movements of that great impulse-so it has still advanced continually, keeping pace with sister sciences, enlarging its borders as they enlarged theirs, correcting its bearings and distances as they corrected theirs? From the commune vinculum of the sciences can we infer less than this? Out of blind deference for the Reformers, shall we insist on believing, that they placed the science of theology, properly so called, beyond all reach of improvement? The doctrines of the Reformation stand from everlasting to everlasting. But shall we impose on ourselves so much as to believe, that the philosophy of the Reformers, too, so far as they had any, which was not far, in like manner stands and is to stand, forever; that God, in complaisance to them, has incorporated their speculations into his eternal truth, and made it alike unchangeable and unim provable? Such a supposition does no honor to them. It adds no stability to that-the stability of which needs and permits no addition-the theology of the Reformation. But if analogy will not suffice on this point, let us call in the faith of history. Its unquestioned and unquestionable testimony is, that the scholastic philosophy, though scathed, was not killed at the Reformation. In the onset of Luther and Calthat were, it was stunned, and seemed for Calvin had little, Luther no friendship for vin it; they left it for dead, cast out, rejected, on the field of battle. In this they did wisely; as wisely as some of their helpers and successors did foolishly. The scholastic philosophy was revived by the very men whose fathers supposed they had given it its death-wound. It was brought in from the field, and such breath of life as could be was breathed in among the dry bones; it was made to stand on its feet, and though dead the scepter of dominion over all living things was put again into its hands, and it was called upon to lead the war against the beast and his prophets. As if that dead, eyeless, soulless, senseless, unmoving skeleton, of pagan Aristotle, could help along the ark of the living God, in its return to his holy temple! As if that philosophy which had, beyond all manner of question, wrought out and brought in Popery, and made her empress of nations' consciences, would, after its proper and natural death, assist mightily the sacramental host of God's elect in their conflict, and work out and bring in for them, in like manner, complete success against that mother of abominations. Yet all this, most preposterous as it was, was expected. If history is to be trusted in aught of its testimony, it is to be trusted on these points: that the scholastic philosophy, whatever may be said of its modifications, as age after age of its unexampled career rolled away, was mainly built upon the heathen Aristotle; that, though it furnished a sort of palæstra for the mind, it was nevertheless, as a whole, useless, a blind guide, a perverse disputer, a dreamer of empty dreams; that, while it lived its proper life, it was the devoted, humble servant and most prompt and efficient supporter of the church of Rome; that this church has never yet discarded her favorite ally. A philosophy of this character was called into the service of the reformed theology, by the successors of Luther and Calvin, and the office of explaining and defending that theology was committed to its trust. As full and plain is the testimony of history to the fact, that this philosophy exerted a most corrupting influence on theology, rendering its statements, instead of scriptural, dry and technical, and putting theories of man's invention in the place of the truths of the bible. Now this philosophy, in its distinct form, has, in the progress of theological science, been universally given up by Protes tants. Will it be questioned whether this is real gain? Will it be said, that the restoration of this philosophy to its influence on theology, would be advantageous to the latter? None will say it. Here, then, is an undeniable instance of the actual progress of theological science. A great part, indeed, of all that has been gained to this science, has been by the expulsion of the so-called Aristotelian philosophy from its throne of dominion over men's opinions. But it is not all, that this philosophy is extinct. In its place a new and correct mode of philosophizing has been introduced, the influence of which has been felt over the whole circle of human knowledge. Bacon has the chief praise, certainly, of having taught men better than they knew before, how to discover truth. His method has a practical, common-sense character, which could not limit its influence to men's investigations in natural science. He who was led by the new Baconian philosophy, to begin at the beginning instead of the end, in natural science, and follow on the evidence of observed facts, would not and could not well avoid carrying the same habit of investigation into the field of theological science. The same great principles could not but be observed to be equally applicable to both. The philosophy of Bacon is indeed universal in its application. Its spirit is essentially diffusive, penetrating. Its rise, therefore, and introduction to general use, is to be regarded as having been an era, as well in the history of theological as of almost all other sciences. One of the most fortunate consequences that flowed to theology from the philosophy in question, was the improvement of mental science, especially in its connection with moral and religious truth. From ignorance in this respect, arose no small part of all previous errors in theology and religion. It was not long after the time of Bacon, when his influence was felt in the creation of a science of the mind, almost new, which was the means of detecting and refuting those errors. No sooner had the foundations of a correct mental philosophy been laid, than the triumph of theological truth was ascertained. Nothing, then, could impede its onward progress. If, to the influence of the Baconian philosophy be added, that of an improved style of sacred interpretation-the fruit, in part no doubt, of that same philosophy-we shall have the sum of those causes to which it might have been confidently looked for advancement in theological science, and which, in our view, did contribute efficaciously to that end. The Reformation was a struggle for great principles. It was more a struggle for a pure theology, and for the principles of civil and religious liberty, than for a correct philosophy. All that the Reformers did towards the latter was the setting aside of Aristotle. They simply rejected the guidance of the scholastic system, but did nothing to prevent its re-introduction, ex |