important doctrines which have commonly been denominated orthodox.

Such has been the impression on me from reading German writers: and, with such impressions, I can never regret the time that I have spent in studying them. Abler advocates than they for the fashionable philosophy of the day, which is endeavouring to explain away the peculiar doctrines of the Scriptures, I do not expect to find.

Able, however, as they are, my mind returns from the study of them with an impression more deep, radical, and satisfactory than ever before, that the doctrines commonly denominated evangelical or orthodox, are the doctrines of the Scriptures, and are the truth of God. My views as to the exegesis of particular texts, in some cases, have been changed by the study of philology and interpretation. I should not rely for the proof of doctrines now, on some texts which I once thought contained such proof. But my impressions of the real truth and importance of evangelical doctrines, I can truly say, are greatly strengthened.

Before you pronounce sentence upon the German expositors and critics, to whom I have referred above, I trust you will give them a hearing. I should rejoice to find that you are engaged in the study of them for a mind capable of reasoning and thinking as yours, must necessarily, as it seems to me, come to the same conclusions with Eichhorn, and Paulus, and Henke, and Eckermann, and Herder, and other distinguished men of the new German school; or embrace with us the sentiments which are commonly denominated orthodox. I cannot refrain from adding, that I do most earnestly hope and pray for the latter.

You may be ready, perhaps, to express your surprise, that I should commend the study of such writers as those whom I have quoted. I am well aware, indeed, that the serious mind revolts at the glaring impiety of such com-. ments as those which I have produced: but, after all, if a man were to judge of and condemn these very writers by a few selections of this nature, it would be hasty. On points which are not concerned with the special doctrines of Christianity-in illustrating critical and literary history, philology, natural history, and grammatical exegesis—in a

隆

word, every thing literary or scientific that pertains to the Bible-who can enter into competition with recent German writers? But it should be understood, that there are writers on these subjects in Germany, who are what is denominated orthodox, as well as those of a different character, such as I have just mentioned. The lover of acute, thorough-going, radical discussion, will lose much, if he does not cultivate an acquaintance with both these classes of writers.

I know, indeed, that you are an advocate for unlimited research. For myself, I have long practised upon this principle; and I cannot but think the cautious fears of many of those with whom I agree in sentiment, in respect to the limits of study, though honourable to the spirit of piety which they cherish, and indicative of real interest and concern for the prosperity of the Church, are not well-founded. The fundamental principle of Protestantism is, that the Bible is the only rule of faith and practice. To know what the Bible teaches, then, is the great object of all religious knowledge. To understand this, (as to acquire every thing else,) study and diligence are necessary. Men are not inspired now, as the Apostles and primitive Christians were, to understand all truth. Men are imperfect, and have imperfect knowledge. No one sect, party, or body of men, can claim absolute perfection of knowledge or virtue. And as a great many points of inquiry (interesting and important ones too), may be managed by men of sobriety, in the use of only their natural intellect, and their resources of learning, the man who loves the Book of God, and desires the most extensive acquaintance with it which he can possibly make, will not neglect their works, nor any other source of knowledge within his power. It was a noble maxim of a Heathen, "Fas est et ab hoste doceri ;” We may receive instruction even from an enemy. Christians too often forget this; and permit antipathy to particular sentiments, to exclude them from all the profit which might be derived from a more enlarged acquaintance with the writings of opponents. Believing, as I do, that many who are arrayed against the sentiments that I espouse, are not destitute of sense, or of learning, and are not to be despised, I am inclined always

to see how they vindicate their cause. If I am not convinced by their arguments, I am rendered better satisfied with my own, and more able to defend them by such an investigation. But if I could not practise upon the noble maxim, "We may receive instruction even from an enemy," I would at least apply another one to vindicate the study of the German writers, and justify myself for even recommending it, in proper cases. I would say (as was said in a different connexion, and for a different object), "Egyptii sunt, spoliemus;" They are Egyptians, let us take their spoils. Shall I not accept the good which they proffer me, and proffer me in a more scientific manner, and well digested, lucid, established form, than I can elsewhere find? Without hesitation, I answer, Yes.

I cannot help viewing the subject in another light. Every student in theology, every Christian minister, ought to be established in the truth, and able to "convince gainsayers." How can he do this, if he does not know what these gainsayers allege? Is he to engage in war against the foes of truth, without knowing the weapons by which his enemies are to assail him? It is a mistaken system of education, indeed, which teaches him thus-which thrusts out a young man upon the Church, unacquainted with the nature of its enemies' assaults, and liable, of course, to become the victim of the first powerful attack that is made upon him. Without any doubt, private Christians should have little or nothing to do with all this ground of dispute; but it is a shame for a minister of the gospel, who has the opportunity, not to seize every advantage in his power to render himself as able as possible to defend the cause which he has espoused.

I may venture to add a better authority still, to confirm these reasonings. An inspired Apostle has directed Christians to " prove all things;" but to "hold fast that which is good." How does he comply with the spirit of this direction, who never examines any views that differ from his own; but settles down with the full conviction that he is right, and that all who differ from him are wrong? As no man, now, is inspired, and no man, therefore, is free from some error, does it not become those who are to be" set for the defence of the truth," to examine,

as far as it may be in their power, the dissentient views of others, who have called themselves Christians, and who lay claim to an extensive understanding of the Word of God? Such an examination will enlarge their views, and render them more able to oppose error and defend truth.

Such are my reasons for pursuing the study of German writers, and commending the study of them. Truth has nothing to fear from examination. If the sentiments that I espouse will not stand the test of investigation, then I will abandon them. I never shall willingly embrace any sentiments, except on such a condition. But, in respect to the study of the more liberal (so called) German writers, I fear no injury from it in the end to the sentiments denominated evangelical. Exegesis has come, by discussion among them, to a solid and permanent science. That the Scriptural writers taught substantially, what we believe to be orthodoxy, is now conceded by some of their most able expositors.

There is another point of view in which the subject may be regarded. The person who reads their works will see what the spirit of doubt and unbelief can do, in respect to the Book of God, and where it will carry the men whỏ entertain it. It is indeed a most affecting and awful lesson. But is there no reason to fear that we are to learn it by sad experience? Does not the progress of the sentiments which you defend illustrate the nature of this subject? A short time since, almost all the Unitarians of New England were simple Arians. Now, if I am correctly informed, there are scarcely any of the younger preachers of Unitarian sentiments who are not simple Humanitarians. Such was the case in Germany. The divinity of Christ was early assailed; inspiration was next doubted and impugned. Is not this already begun here? Natural religion comes next in order; and the question between the parties here may. soon be, in substance, whether natural or revealed religion is our guide and our hope.

For myself, I must say, it is my conviction, that the sooner matters come to this issue the better. Not that natural religion is better in itself than Unitarianism: No. I believe that Christianity, under any form, is better than

Deism. But the contest which is now carried on here will be more speedily terminated by such an issue. The parties will then understand each other; and the public will understand the subject of dispute. I cannot think that they do at present. It is but very recently that explicit declarations have been made in print by you and your friends. And, though with such views as I possess, I cannot help feeling the most sincere regret that such sentiments should be propagated; yet I can never do otherwise than applaud that ingenuousness which openly avows sentiments that are more privately inculcated. I shall be very ready to confess my apprehensions are quite erroneous, if the lapse of a few years more does not produce, in many cases, the undisguised avowal of the German divinity, in all its latitude. I anticipate this, because I believe that the laws of exegesis, when thoroughly understood, and applied without party bias, will necessarily lead men to believe that the Apostles inculcated, for substance, those doctrines which are now called orthodes And as there will probably be not a few who will reject these doctrines, my apprehension is, that, to take the German ground, will, ere long, be deemed both ingenuous and expedient.

Believing, however, as I now do, while my convictions remain, I must act agreeably to them. I hope I shall never be guilty of exercising an exclusive or persecuting spirit. But, while my present views last, I cannot look with indifference on the great contest which is pending in this part of our country. I must regard the opinions, which you have avowed in your sermon, to be fundamentally subversive of what appear to me to be the peculiarities of the Christian system. If the doctrine of Christ's divinity and humanity be not true, nor that of the vicarious sacrifice of Christ, and pardon by it--if human nature be not of itself entirely destitute of principles of holiness, that may fit men for heaven, and does not need special regenerating and sanctifying grace-then I know not what there is in the Christian system, that very much concerns our duty or our interest, which is not taught by the principles of natural religion, nor what there is for which it is our duty to contend. The great question at present be

N