of God, to be taught and instructed by his Spirit, is a high provocation of him; nor shall I expect the discovery of truth from any one who thus proudly engages in a work so much above his ability. But this is THE SHEET ANCHOR of a faithful expositor in all difficulties: nor can he without this be satisfied that he hath attained the mind of the Spirit in any divine revelation. When all other helps fail, as they frequently do, this will afford him the best relief. The labors of former expositors are of excellent use; but they are far from having discovered the depths of this vein of wisdom; nor will the best of our endeavors prescribe limits to our successors: and the reason why the generality go in the same track, except in some excursions of curiosity, is not giving themselves up to the conduct of the Holy Spirit in the diligent performance of their duty.' And Ernesti himself, whom none will accuse of fanaticism, scruples not to assert that 'men truly pious, and desirous of knowing the truth, are assisted by the influence of the Holy Spirit in their researches, specially in those things that pertain to faith and practice."

While we would heartily concur in urging the necessity and efficacy of earnest prayer on the part of all who desire to comprehend the divine teachings, we cannot but take exception to the above attempt to explain the mode in which its results are effected. The illumination is here attributed to the "enlightening influences of the Holy Spirit." The aid received through prayer is here restricted to a special, internal and efficient operation of that divine agent." And `although it is at the same time admitted that "no such extraordinary teaching as was enjoyed in the age of inspiration can warrantably be expected in the present day;" yet, from the above expressions and the reference to 1 John xi. 20, 27., how is it possible for any one to perceive the difference, or to admit the distinction which is here asserted between such extraordinary teaching and this special illumination of the Spirit? No attempt, indeed, is made to prove that there is a difference between the two cases; nor has any one of the writers upon this vexed subject of spiritual influence ever been able to define and mark it out. The whole result must be attributed, at all hazards, to the "special, internal, and efficient operation of the Holy Spirit"-a favorite doctrine, which must by no means be overlooked; but, on the contrary, be brought forward on all occasions, as though it were in itself a satisfactory answer to all inquiry, a clear explanation of all mystery, and a key to all religious truth. It is greatly to be regretted that, in treating of a matter of so much importance as prayer for divine illumination, the subject should be embarrassed by theological dogmas and speculative opinions; and that men will not be content with a simple SERIES III.-VOL. V.

37

statement of the truth as stated in Holy Writ, that "if any man lack wisdom he should ask of God," without presuming to dogmatize upon the mode by which that wisdom is imparted.

It is surely not essential to the fulfilment of the divine promise to communicate wisdom, that we should adopt a particular theory as to the mode in which it shall be given; much less that we should presume to restrict its communication to one particular agency, or to one single method. Are there not providential, as well as spiritual influences at the command of the Almighty? Are not the former as exclusively under his control as the latter, and consequently as remote from that of man, and as justly an object of prayer to God? Are they not, too, as effective as any special and direct spiritual agency? Would the mind of Ahasuerus, for instance, have been better prepared, by a special spiritual influence, for the visit and intended request of Haman, than it was by a sleepless night and the consequent providential reading of the "Book of the Records of the Chronicles"? Or would Haman have been better prepared by direct spiritual agency to answer the question of the king, than he was by the repeated invitation to banquet with the queen? Are there not a thousand avenues through which the human mind may be impressed, guided, enlightened? Are there not innumerable agencies and influences which may be brought to bear upon man in answer to prayer, of which he could form no conception or anticipation? And is it not the part of the Christian to believe and rejoice in the divine promise, without presuming to dogmatize upon the means or method of its accomplishment?

It is an overweening regard for human systems of divinity that induces men thus to parade on all occasions a favorite point of theology, and to exalt it to an undue pre-eminence. To be agreeable to them, every spiritual repast must be strongly flavored with this indispensable ingredient, which conceals every defect and gives relish to insipidity itself. The dogmas of system-mongers; the theories of speculative religionists, and the hackneyed phrases of scholastic theology, must be intruded into every investigation, and give character and acceptance to every conclusion. It is not sufficient to admit a simple biblical fact, or plain scripture declaration, but it must be associated with some theoretic abstraction, or some labored and fanciful exposition. Nothing is to be received in its primitive simplicity, but every statement of the sacred writings must be so qualified, and every doctrine so explained, that a particular theory of religion may appear consistent with itself.

In no case, perhaps, have more injurious effects resulted from this

inordinate love of theory, than in the matter of scripture interpretation. The popular views respecting the exercise of the divine sovereignty, and concerning human depravity and incapacity, have induced men to suppose a direct interposition of divine power necessary to enable any one to understand the word of God. An acquaintance with the original language of the scriptures; the labors of translators; of annotators and paraphrasts; the diligent study of the word itself;-all are vain and futile, unless there be superadded the "special, internal, and efficient operation of the Holy Spirit," required by our author for the illumination of the soul.

Hence have originated those views of the inefficiency of the word of God to enlighten the mind; the inefficacy of the divine testimony in the production of faith, and the insufficiency of scriptural motives to induce obedience, which have proved so great a hindrance to the spread of the gospel, and the reformation of society. Hence that disparagement of the Bible which has led to its neglect, and that misconception and exaggeration of spiritual influences which has engendered, on the one hand, the spiritual pride of the bigot, and occasioned, on the other, the hopeless despair of the melancholy religionist.

And all these evil consequences have flowed from a pertinacious adherence to a tenet which really and practically is not of the slightest importance. For it is to be remembered that the great doctrine of the agency of the Holy Spirit in the salvation of men, is not called in question by either of the parties in this controversy. On the contrary, it is equally admitted and urged by both that the Spirit of God alone enlightens and converts the soul. But a speculative theology presumes to go beyond the circle of divine revelation, and to dogmatize upon the mode in which the Spirit accomplishes his work. Not content with the belief of the truth, it would engraft upon it a favorite hypothesis which can produce nothing but the pernicious fruits of discord and debate. Dissatisfied with the simple fact alleged upon divine authority, it demands for its own explanation of the fact, unqualified assent and undoubting credence.

If, indeed, it were a question of the agency of the Holy Spirit itself, there might be reason for an earnest contention, and an unyielding firmness. If it were affirmed that man could effect his own salvation, or that no influence whatever was in any case necessary to open the heart to conviction; if mere motive-grinders asserted the entire absence of every species of divine agency, and resolved Christianity into a system of selfishness, either intellectual or moral, there might indeed be cause for controversy, and a necessity to

strive earnestly for the truths thus sought to be overthrown. But when entire dependence upon divine aid is affirmed, and all the glory of human salvation is given to its Author, there can be no need that every subject in religion should be encumbered with a hypothetical exposition of the precise mode in which the divine aid is given, or that a ready assent should be required in advance to such a degma. Surely the human mind might be safely entrusted to the word of God, and be allowed to repose in prayerful confidence upon the fulfilment of his promise of heavenly wisdom, without requiring it to define the exact method in which aid was to be afforded, or to determine beforehand, that it could be through no other means than a 'direct, efficient, internal, illuminating agency of the Holy Spirit,' so indefinite and so supernatural as not to be distinguished from the inspiration by which the divine oracles were originally delivered. R. R.

CHRISTIANITY-NOT THE RELIGION OF ANY SECT IN CHRISTENDOM.-No. I.

COURTEOUS READER, be not startled at the position we have taken, when we assert that Christianity is not the religion of any sect in Christendom. It is not, we assure you, a mere assumption incapable of proof; nor does such an assumption betray in us an uncharitable or illiberal spirit towards those who may differ from us.

If one's creed be a fair exponent of one's principles, ours must be of the most liberal kind, seeing our creed is acknowledged by all parties to be itself, the message of good will towards men. It would, therefore, ill befit the professor of it to indulge in uncharitable temper towards those who may labor under involuntary errors of any kind. We trust, then, that while we attempt the proof of our proposition, we shall do it in the spirit of that religion which we now propose to define.

What, then, is Christianity? It is, says one, the religion of our party. Says another, Ours is the religion of Christ. Answers tantamount to the above would, we presume, be given, if required, by any of the numerous religious parties. Now consistency requires that every true partizan shall deny the above definition to be true of any religion but that of his own party or church; or, in other words, that he shall deny to every other sect what he claims for his own-that is, that his church alone possesses the religion of Christianity.

Now what we propose in our essays, is to determine, if possible, what is the religion of Christianity. This we shall attempt by giving a definition somewhat more particular than either of the above.

A more precise, as well as a more satisfactory definition would be, we conceive, something like the following:-Christianity is that religion whose faith, doctrine, and discipline, both in matter and form, are contained entirely and exclusively within the New Testament; and of which Jesus Christ alone is the author and finisher. Now the important question is, "Is Christianity, as above defined, the religion of any sect in Christendom? Will the Roman Catholic, with his traditions, hold to be equal authority with the inspired word, his image worship-his passion for the relics of saints, his monastic orders, his doctrine of purgatory, his seven sacraments, and his decretals of the Popes? or the Episcopalian, with his code of faith and discipline of thirty-nine articles, and liturgy or book of church service, established by royal edict? or the Presbyterian, with his Confession of Faith, made by the Westminster Assembly of Divines, convened by act of Parliament, and established by the same, in 1644, as a directory of public worship? or the more modern Presbyterian of this country, with his Westminster Confession of Faith, adopted in the year 1729, as the standard of his church? or the Congregationalist, with his Saybrook Platform? or the Wesleyan Methodist, with his Book of Discipline, ordaining and regulating class-meetings, love-feasts, quarterly meetings for communion, camp-meetings, and yearly conferences? or the Lutheran, with his Augsburgh Confession of twenty-one articles? or the Baptist, with his Philadelphia Confession of Faith and his monthly or quarterly communion? or the Quaker, with his light within independent of the Bible-teaching him to reject a Christian eldership, the Lord's day, the Lord's supper, and baptism? or the Socinian, with his creed, disproving the divinity of Christ, original sin, predestination, propitiation for sin by the death of Christ, and the plenary inspiration of the scriptures? or the Universalist, with his creed?-that all mankind are already perfectly restored to the divine favor-and that, receiving the correction due to them in the present world, they are at death admitted to the felicities of the heavenly world; or if punishment be extended to another world, it is merely corrective and disciplinary, and will ultimately prepare the soul for the enjoyment of heaven? or the Swedenborgian, with his Book of Exposition, showing that the sense of scripture is threefold, corresponding to SERIES III.-VOL. V.

37*