they profess to have investigated, and which they certainly might have investigated to its very foundations and throughout all its bearings and connexions? Is it not the prerogative of science to dispel error, to remove prejudice or to convert what was once prejudice, into certain knowledge or indisputable truth, by a lucid development of the evidence on which it rests? But when she fails to produce this effect in her votaries-when even the comparatively enlightened favored few, who affect to despise the ignoble vulgar, evince an uncandid, dogmatical, opinionative spirit, an obstinate adherence to tenets which they have adopted, they cannot tell whence or wherefore-what can be reasonably urged in their defence or justification? Or what benefit do they derive from science, if their minds be not sufficiently enlarged and liberalized to qualify and dispose them to look into their own hearts, and to scrutinize the opinions and doctrines which they may have been accustomed to cherish as indubitable or as innate verities?

We do not mean to insinuate that a man, in order to become truly learned upon any subject, ought forthwith to renounce all his previously acquired ideas of that subject—to become, as it were, a tabula rasa-that he may be enabled to proceed dispassionately and without bias, till he shall arrive at truth by fair demonstration or induction. We would not reduce him to a state of infancy with a view to rectify the obliquities of premature manhood. This would be impossible. But we ask him to exercise his reason in subjecting to a legitimate test the materials already stored in his mind. We ask him to be ready to give the proof of what he professes to believe. And not like mere children to appeal to the authority of parents and teachers, or like orthodox Romanists, who believe because the church believes. We ask him to venture beyond the bare ipse dixit of philosopher or priest or favorite author, and to learn why his master has taught him thus, or why this particular creed or system has been imposed on his mind and incorporated with his feelings rather than another. We ask him, in a word, to be open to conviction. Not to become a skeptic in order to escape delusion.

When a man has once reached this point, he is in a fair way to discover truth and cordially to embrace it. He may then be said to have begun to be divested of prejudice. He

is prepared to canvass systems and opinions which had once been his aversion; to give a candid hearing to men and parties which all his early habits and notions had led him to oppose and despise. Names no longer alarm him, however odious they may be to the particular party or sect or denomination with which birth and education may have connected him. It is truth, under whatever guise or name she appears, that he is now in search of. Such a man is liberal, forbearing, tolerant, generous, independent, just and modest. He never condemns hastily, nor without adequate cause. And if his researches shall have made him acquainted with the Bible as they necessarily would, if he have the happiness to live in a Protestant Christian country-we may then behold in him an edifying example of what is so rarely to be met with-a truly charitable man. In the Bible he finds truth, pure and unadulterated, substantial and cheering to the soul. Before its celestial light, all his religious prejudices vanish away. And his faith is settled, as upon a rock, never more to be shaken.

But why then are not all Christians of one mind and of one faith? Why do they not, at least, live together in the exercise of love and mutual forbearance? If charity be the essential pervading attribute of our holy religion; should we not expect that her friends would be friends to one another? Should we not expect, moreover, that much unanimity of sentiment would obtain among men who derive their notions or doctrines from one and the same source? This, we think, might reasonably have been anticipated. For we certainly should never have conjectured, previously to a knowledge of the fact, that so many discordant opinions as are entertained in the Christian world, could ever have claimed a shadow of support from the great charter of a religion so pre-eminently gracious and benevolent in its nature and object. Strange that so many inconsistencies should exist in a book, the avowed design and tendency of which are so plain and obvious that even the most illiterate may readily understand and obey its precepts. Strange that the Holy Scriptures, the volume of inspiration, the only unerring guide to mortals through this world of darkness, sin and trial, the only revelation ever vouchsafed by the infinitely wise and good Jehovah to his creatures-strange, inconceivably strange, that the work of such a Being, and given for so great and so

kind a purpose, could be fairly construed or even plausibly perverted so as to countenance the multiform, absurd, pernicious, and contradictory dogmas which have been ascribed to it or extorted from it.

We must believe that a revelation from God could not be justly obnoxious to such variety of constructions: otherwise we take from it all certainty and all value. Its grand paramount object must be something definite, unequivocal and explicit. If then the Bible does contain a revelation of the Divine will-and that it does, all the contending parties agree -it necessarily follows that its main scope and design must be clear and precise, and altogether above the misconception of any candid mind. But were we to judge of the gospel exclusively from the conduct and writings of very many Christian doctors and divines, we should be apt to conclude that it consisted of some antiquated collection of ambiguous, metaphorical, mysterious, oracular, enigmatical phrases and sentences-similar to the far famed Sibylline verses-which had been purposely contrived or accidentally arranged, to bewilder and perplex the human intellect, and to defy all rational interpretation. And yet, we feel assured, that the gospel is light; and that, like its glorious Author, in it there is no darkness at all. It unfolds to us a system of morals and a plan of salvation, which, however depraved ingenuity may misrepresent or reckless impiety assail and asperse it, cannot fail to command the reverence, and to meet the wants and fears and hopes of the humble, the ingenuous and the devout.

It becomes then a matter of some curiosity at least, to inquire whence such various and conflicting opinions have arisen with respect to its doctrines and provisions; and why these still continue to be held by honest and dishonest, learned and unlearned Christians, in every land where the light and privileges of the gospel are most abundantly diffused and enjoyed? Whence is it that the mild, benevolent, peace-speaking religion of Jesus has been, and still is, disgraced by the wranglings and disputes of those who are solemnly commanded by their common Lord to dwell together in unity and love, as the brethren of one family, and the servants of one Master? Neither the nature of this religion, nor the volume which records it, furnishes any solution of the difficulty. No reason can there be discovered for such uncharitable dissensions.

The truth is, that all these differences, and all the controversies which have agitated the Christian church, are chargeable, in some sense, to prejudice-to the study and influence of theological systems, composed by schoolmen or philosophers, or spiritual dogmatists, or zealous enthusiasts, or aspiring ecclesiastical demagogues, and addressed to the credulity of their disciples, either as a substitute for the Bible or as a complete exposition of its doctrines. Thus we have embodied, in the elaborate tomes of divinity designed for the training of the youthful minister, and in the numberless religious books, tracts and catechisms prepared expressly for the laity, all sorts of crude speculation, of ingenious sophistry, of mystic reveries, of monstrous hallucinations, of logical subtleties and metaphysical refinements, which either human reason, or passion, or fancy, or ambition, or wisdom, or folly or cunning, or hypocrisy, may have been able to achieve or to inculcate.

This heterogeneous mixture of human absurdities with Divine revelation, has caused, and still nourishes, that captious persecuting spirit which has reigned for ages in the church. The gospel had scarcely appeared in the world, when it began to be adulterated by human contrivances. Among the Jews, it received much of its coloring from the Mosaic law and those traditionary institutions to which they were obstinately attached. Nor even among these did Christianity exhibit one uniform hue, but was diversely shaded according to the peculiarities of the several sects which embraced it : as Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes and Herodians.

The Greeks and Romans, also, very soon endeavored to incorporate their favorite philosophy with the body of the gospel. The disciples of Pythagoras, of Zeno, of Epicurus, of Plato, of Aristotle, did not fail to discover some kind of resemblance between many of their maxims and those of the Messiah. And even where there evidently was none at all, pride and prejudice prompted them to fancy or create one. They had been long accustomed to yield implicit credence to the word of their masters; whose dogmas they frequently revered as eternal and immutable truths. They sought therefore to bend the gospel to suit their own preconceived opinions, instead of examining these before the light of revelation. The same observation may apply to the admirers of the Oriental philosophy, which gave rise to the

Gnostic and Manichean heresies. And in every country where the gospel was preached, there flourished a system of opinions deeply rooted in the minds of all classes of men. These, the gospel had to encounter: and it succeeded beyond all human probability—in a degree, indeed, which no human means could have effected. The banners of the cross were unfurled in every region perhaps of the habitable earth: and multitudes submitted unreservedly to its heavenly precepts. But many, however, and those generally of the most learned and ingenious, yielded only in part. They chose to form to themselves a mixed system-a compound of truth and error. So that, in a little space, the world presented as great a variety of Scripture glosses, or rather mongrel gospels, as there were schools of philosophy.

Some were led by comparisons instituted between Christ and the ancient sages, to treat them all with the same veneration and respect, Thus Alexander Severus paid divine honors indiscriminately to Christ and to Orpheus, to Apollonius, and the other philosophers and heroes whose names were famous in history or in fable.

Christianity therefore was constantly fluctuating and changing its aspect, according to the caprice, or genius, or learning of the great fathers and doctors who professed to teach it ex cathedra and agreeably to the most approved systems and authorities. They seem never to have thought of regulating their studies and researches by Scripture alone. To study theology, was to study a system constructed by some celebrated bishop or divine, who had devoted his days and nights to the dialectics of Aristotle or to the more captivating morality of Plato; and who, of course, had warped and perverted every gospel tenet to some kind of conformity to his own peculiar and more rational theory. Thus we may perceive that the gospel was not the cause of the early divisions in the church; but that these resulted solely from human devices and prejudices and anti-scriptural systems.

And when we contemplate the rapid progress of error in the world-the innumerable forms which the gospel was made to assume-the bitter animosities and furious contests which arose about the most insignificant quibbles and conceits-the colleges of divinity converted into nurseries of mere logomachy,-where, instead of the gospel, youth were carefully disciplined to manage with adroitness the noisy