very pointedly introduced into most, if not all confeffions, and decided in the ambiguous manner remarked by Hartley.

For thefe and fimilar reafons, ambiguities and obfcurities must arife, though every poffible precaution be taken to prevent them. Where there is no real and clear idea, that is, such as we may discover from the apparent fenfe, or from analogy, there is nothing that the expofitor can comprehend, and he is liable to form different conceptions, whilft he adheres to the established language. and the expreffions employed. When the writer does not underftand what he means himself, he cannot expect that his readers fhould. In all fuch cafes fymbolical books can only promote uniformity of expreffion, not identity of notions and fentiments; and the leaft deviation from this uniformity of expreffion, or the alteration of a single word, will produce a diversity of opinion: a fufficient proof, that nothing clear and determinate has been impreffed on the mind, and that terms of art have supplied the place of ideas. The unity thus promoted is like the peace of which Tacitus fpeaks: ubi folitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant. We may go ftill farther: not unfrequently the expreffions of articles of faith are induftriously contrived to be indeterminate and equivocal, to allow fome difference of opinion, at least in points confidered as not abfolutely effential.

Finally, did fymbolical writings express ideas, and points of doctrine, with all due accuracy and precifion, till they would be no longer clear and determinate, than the philofophical fyftem which they followed prevailed, and its language remained unaltered. Should this philofophy, and this language, give way to a new fyftem, and a new phrafeology, obfcurity and ambiguity muft enfue, and the words of the confeffion would not convey the meaning of the compofer, but a different, and frequently an

oppofite

opposite one. In confirmation of this, we have a ftriking example in the word prefence, as it is ufed in the fymbolical books of the Lutheran church, with respect to the body of Chrift in the Lord's fupper. When they were drawn up, probably, fomething more was understood thereby than an effectual prefence, which the followers of Wolfe's philofophy now confider it to imply. This change of ideas has at leaft occafioned a confiderable difference in the Lutheran doctrines refpecting the Lord's fupper; which difference appears fo important to a celebrated divine, that he accufes thofe, who admit the presence of Chrift only according to Wolfe's idea, of feceding from the Lutheran church. But how is this opinion to be maintained and verified? Unqueftionably on exegetical principles: for the grounds of the foregoing Lutheran tenet are as clear in the holy fcriptures, as the tenet itself in the fymbolical books. Cannot the learned inquirer, then, as clearly prove it from the former, as from the latter? Moft affuredly, if he be impartial, and not obftinately blind to the truth. Even fuppofing him to be prejudiced against the truth, will he be lefs fo when he meets with it in fymbolical books, than when he finds it in the fcriptures? and confequently fee it more clearly, and with greater readinefs, in the former, than in the latter? Surely not, unlefs he acknowledge the fymbolical books to be obligatory, and they have a power of compelling him to embrace their doctrines. If he but deem them of equal authority with the fcriptures themfelves, and confider it as neceffary to conform his opinions to thofe they deliver, as to thofe contained in the fcriptures, they will only be of equal weight with him.

If precife and definite forms be indifpenfable to the maintenance of a neceffary uniformity in teaching, why are they confined to the doctrines of belief, excluding thofe of morality? Herefies and fchifms

are not lefs poffible in the latter, and are far more dangerous, as Dr. Töllner has well obferved. The Bible does not prefent us with a regular fyftem of morality, any more than of faith. The duties, as well as the theory of chriftianity, are delivered in popular language, and without art. Allegorical and hyperbolical modes of expreffion, that feem to require an explanation, and more strict definition, occur equally in both. Many of our Redeemer's precepts of morality, particularly in the fermon on the mount, are delivered in very general terms, requiring to be explained with as much care, and confideration of the concomitant and occafional circumftances, as doctrines of faith, if we wish not to apply them improperly. Such, for inftance, are the precepts termed confilia evangelica, on which we have enlarged in a preceding note. Clear as the literal meaning of these and other precepts may be, the application of them to particular cafes is attended with confiderable difficulties: and as this application of them is neceffary to be confidered, for the inftruction of chriftians, and general edification, it fhould feem, that a fymbolical ftandard would here be particularly conducive to orthodoxy. But let it be farther confidered, that different opinions, or contradictions, between teachers on the fubject of morality are far more obvious and fhocking, and make a much stronger impreffion on the minds of the hearers, than difagreements in that part of chriftianity, to determine which has been the chief aim of the fymbolical books of all parties, namely theological hypothefes. With refpect to the latter, two teachers of the fame communion may differ widely from each other in their doctrines, if the one do not announce his opinion in the moft precife manner, for the declared purpose of oppofing the other, without their disagreement being fufpected by their hearers, to whom these fpeculative notions are neither impor

tant

tant nor comprehenfible, however weighty they may appear to the learned dogmatifts: and even fhould they fufpect it, it would intereft them little, whilst they confidered, that their duties would remain unaltered, whatever way the abftrufe question might be decided. Far otherwife would it be, fhould one of the teachers permit the mode of conduct, amusements, and pleasures, to which they had been accustomed, and the other condemn them. Far otherwife would it affect their minds, fhould the one lead them to fufpect thofe acts of piety which the other had recommended, and reprefent to them as fallacious the hope of a fpeedy converfion, with which the other had flattered them. In general, the perplexities and fcandal that may be, and actually are, occafioned by erroneous teaching, arife on points to which fymbolical books have paid little attention, and in which men know how to difpenfe with their affiftance.

Let now the impartial reader decide, how far the judgment of our author concerning articles of faith is juft, from the preceding comparison of human creeds with the fcriptures, and from experience. To many, perhaps, it will not appear altogether improbable, that the holy fcriptures alone, without any human additions, or authoritative interpretations, are fufficient to maintain the unity of doctrine neceffary for general inftruction and edification; fo far at least as this unity requires nothing but the principles of truth, and not refpect to the heads of church or ftate. It muft alfo be observed, that the only neceffary unity of opinion is intelligible to the common capacity of mankind, without the aid of learning or philofophy: this is what concerns the facts of chriftianity, as delivered in the creed of the apostles, and in the doctrines and precepts immediately deducible from it. All other theories and hypothefes appertain not to general edification, X x 4

or

or fhould be propounded with modefty as private opinions, and left to the hearer's examination. If a teacher, from his knowledge of his flock, have reafon to fuppofe, that a confiderable portion of them have not fufficient knowledge and wisdom to prove fuch theories by the holy, fcriptures, and are incapable of forming a right judgment of them, fo that his hearers muft blindly believe what he delivers, merely from their respect to his authority, this ought to prevent his uttering them from the pulpit.

PROP. LXXXV. p. 380.

On the Expectations of the Bodies politic of the prefent State of the Earth, and particularly of the Jews.

IN proof of the expectations which our author announces in this fection, he appeals to prophecies in the holy fcriptures, it is true, but he does not cite them with accuracy: ftill lefs does he expound them, and fhew, that they actually foretel the events which he is led by them to expect, though thefe prophecies must be the principal, if not fole grounds of his expectations. For were we to judge from the experience of paft times what may happen hereafter, and form our prognoftic from the course of the world, thefe expectations may turn out in many refpects differently. It would not have been amifs, too, had our author been more precife and circumftantial in his arguments. He ought not to have explained the prophecies concerning the latter days fo authoritatively as he has done, or confidered their meaning as to determinate and precife, as it is well known, that many expofitors of the prophetic paffages which he had in view have not found in them any grounds for fuch expectations, and others have deemed the language of the prophecies,