You

catechism? But we can feel no such reverence for these fallible compilations upon scripture, nor allow them to have any weight in our minds, except so far as they accord with divine truth. And if in our view they should appear irreconcilably opposed to this, which ought we to take for our guide? will not hesitate in your answer. Do not then expect us to follow you into these regions of metaphysical divinity, where we look in vain for the bread of life, for the pure doctrines and precepts of the gospel, for the form of sound words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ. Whatever of revealed truth may be supposed to exist here, we had rather seek for it at its original source, the bible, where we are sure to find it unmixed with the delusive speculations of fallible, presumptuous men.

May we not in this way arrive at a true conception of the fundamentals of christianity? Is it not possible, too, that in taking a different course, you may be led to adopt as fundamental doctrines, some of those mere human statements and metaphysical deductions, which have no real foundation in the word of God? May you not be as liable to such an error, as some of the greatest, wisest and most devout men have been before you?

Transubstantiation was once held to be a fundamental doctrine of christianity. Sir Thomas More, that most learned and pious chancellor of England, could bring men to the stake for denying it. Luther, with all his boldness of reform, could but half renounce it, still holding to consubstantiation, scarcely less irrational; and breaking communion with those of his brethren, who would renounce it altogether. Even the Westminster catechism. has been thought to contain expressions relating to the eucharist, which are more easily traced to this Lutheran scheme, than to the gospel.

From such instances of human weakness and error, let us learn caution how we depart from the pure word of God, in stating and ascertaining the doctrines which he has revealed. What could appear to us, at this day, more opposed to scripture, reason, and common sense, than the doctrine of transubstantiation, once so zealously contended for as an essential part of christiani

ty? And can we be certain that some of those doctrines, which were always cherished along with this in the bosom of the Romish church, and are stated in terms equally remote from the simplicity of the gospel, may not hereafter appear as groundless, as the doctrine of the real presence now does ?

Should not this consideration abate our zeal in contending for such doctrines, and keep alive our charity for those who conscientiously believe, that they have no existence in the bible? Should not the fact, that so many sincere and intelligent inquirers after truth fail to find them there, satisfy us, that they cannot be fundamental doctrines? Who are most likely to perceive these doctrines as they are truly revealed in the scriptures, those who take the bible for the sole guide of their inquiries, or those who connect with it some intricate system of doctrinal theology, formed by human ingenuity, under the influence, perhaps, of sectarian zeal? Allowing to both parties the same ability and faithfulness in their inquiries, the conclusion, it is manifest, must be in favor of those who are led solely by an infallible guide.

This conclusion will be strengthened, and our conviction, that the doctrines referred to are not fundamental, confirmed, if we consider of what nature are the fundamental doctrines of our religion, and the degree of ability necessary to understand them. They are not the deep results of metaphysical skill or learned investigation, but those evident truths, which all men of ordinary capacity and diligence may receive from a perusal of the bible. According to the most approved, enlightened, and orthodox judgment, among christians, "no doctrine is a fundamental, a necessary article of a christian's faith, but what is so plainly and distinctly revealed, as that an ordinary christian, sincere in his inquiries, cannot miss of the knowledge of it.”*

The Westminster confession alone must be sufficient to satisfy your minds, as to the correctness of this position. In the first chapter of that work, it is declared that "all things in scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and

*Foster on Fundamentals.

observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them."

With these principles accord those of that profound philosopher, Locke, who was no less successful in his investigation of the christian scriptures, than in his inquiries into the human understanding. These scriptures he studied through with the single purpose of ascertaining what is the faith required to make a man a christian. The result of his examination was, as may be seen in his Reasonableness of Christianity,' that this faith is "the believing the only true God, and Jesus Christ to be the Messiah whom he hath sent." In a vindication of this work, he quotes bishop Patrick as of the same opinion, and as saying that "it is the very same thing, to believe that Jesus is the Christ, and to believe that Jesus is the son of God." Such is the belief which makes one a christian, a subject of Christ's kingdom. "As for the rest of divine truths," " he adds, "there is nothing more required of him, but that he receive all the parts of divine revelation, with a docility and disposition prepared to embrace and assent to all truths coming from God; and submit his mind to whatsoever shall appear to him to bear that character.”

"The writers and wranglers in religion fill it with niceties, and dress it up with notions, which they make necessary and fundamental parts of it.-But," adds this great man, "whoever has used what means he is capable of for the informing of himself, with a readiness to believe and obey what shall be taught and prescribed by Jesus, his Lord and King, is a true and faithful subject of Christ's kingdom; and cannot be thought to fail in any thing necessary to salvation.”*

"It is very common," says Dr. Gale, "to call those points we are fond of, fundamentals; and then think it very justifiable, nay commendable, to renounce communion with such as err in those fundamentals. But we seldom inquire whether the scrip

* Locke's Reasonableness of Christianity, with the Vindication.

tures have declared them fundamentals; if not, I am sure we have no power to make them so; and to attempt to do it is to usurp Christ's authority; which he knew human nature too well to entrust with any man or body of men upon earth. What the scriptures make necessary to a christian's faith and practice will be found to be very plain and simple, and not to consist in many articles."*

To the same purpose much might be produced from the excellent writings of Baxter, but a single passage shall suffice. "All that," says he, "without which a man cannot be a good and holy christian, is plain and easy in itself; and Christ did choose therefore to speak to the capacity of the meanest." How, indeed, could it ever have been thought otherwise? To the poor and ignorant, more especially, was the gospel originally preached. It must therefore have been designed for them, and adapted to their comprehension. Among the poor and ignorant of the present day, protestants of every denomination boast of sending the bible, "without note or comment." But wherefore should it be so sent, if they may not of themselves learn from its pages all that is fundamental, or essential to make them christians?

Thus you must perceive that the fundamental doctrines of the gospel are not hidden from the common eye, but are made plain to every capacity, plain as the vision of the prophet, which “he who ran might read." Such is the judgment of the most learned in the scriptures, such is the universal sense of those who are engaged in spreading them through the world, and such is the decision of the Westminster confession itself. Hence it clearly follows, in the first place, that this church, with the bible for the man of our counsel, is competent to understand these doctrines; and, in the second place, that if your church has adopted certain doctrines which we are unable to learn from the bible, whatever else they may be, they cannot possibly be the fundamental doctrines of christianity.

We see not how you can avoid this conclusion, if

* Sermons, v. 4, p. 443.

you

allow us

common honesty in the use of the scriptures. It is possible, however, that you refuse to allow us this, and would be understood to mean by “ a dereliction from the great doctrines of christianity,' a wilful apostasy from the faith. It is possible that you may have such an assured feeling of the truth of certain doctrines, as stated in the Westminster confession and catechism-the trinity, for instance, though a term as foreign from the language of scripture as transubstantiation—that you cannot think us sincere and honest inquirers after truth, if we adopt not the same views and phraseology respecting it. If this be the case, we beg you to consider seriously whether such an assured feeling, even should you think it grounded upon divine illumination, can, of itself, be evidence of truth; since those of every religious persuasion, not excepting deists, have had it, and as they sometimes thought, to a supernatural degree.* And we beg you also to reflect, with an excellent Scotch divine, how widely "we depart from the meekness and humility of the gospel spirit, when we allow ourselves to think and to speak hardly of others, because they do not see every thing just in the same light with us, or have not freedom to express themselves in our phrases, which are, perhaps, not only unscriptural, but were unknown in the christian church for many centuries, and can claim no better nor higher original, than the dregs of the scholastic philosophy."+

Still, whatever you may think of us, or of our religious conduct and phraseology, if you admit that any honest, intelligent inquirers could be led by a study of the bible to embrace our views on this subject, the argument and conclusion respecting your supposed fundamentals remain the same. But if you deny the possibility of this, and judge us to be insincere or dishonest in our inquiries, merely from the result of those inquiries, from the religious opinions we conscientiously adopt, you have to consider the extent of your judgment, and the nature of the responsibility attending it. Together with us you must condemn, as unfaithful and insincere inquirers after divine truth, all those great and good men, and enlightened christians, who have adopt

*See Life of Lord Herbert.

† Dr. Leechman.