which they were composed; and where doubts arise as to the meaning of particular words or phrases on which the sense of important passages depends, critical skill, even of a superior cast, may be requisite. That there are passages of Scripture relating to some of the essential doctrines of Christianity, in which such skill is called for, cannot be denied. And though we may allow that no essential doctrine depends for its proof upon any one doubtful or disputable text, yet is it evident that the errors of those who corrupt the faith by a misinterpretation of such passages, cannot be effectually removed but by the aid of biblical criticism; and to none of the learned world is Christianity more indebted, than to those who successfully cultivate this important study. In searching, therefore, for the cause of those "strifes of words" which the Apostle deprecates, we must trace to its source the abuse of this valuable talent, not its legitimate use. We shall find it, not in philology itself, but in the disposition of the philologist, either to lay undue stress upon what is of little moment, or to employ his talents in distorting and perplexing what might otherwise be made sufficiently clear and intelligible.

There can be no doubt that numberless

controversies have arisen from mere want of perspicuity on the part of those who handle theological subjects, and not from the want of it in the sacred writings, which they undertake to expound. Luther observed that, in his time, many heresies and errors arose, not from simplicity of diction, but from want of simplicity, and from an affectation of obscure expressions. Several writers on ecclesiastical history have shewn, that not only individuals, but entire sects, have been charged with heresy, chiefly on the ground of certain inaccurate or ambiguous expressions, which naturally gave occasion to such charges, although they were probably adopted without an intentional departure from the truth. Of so much importance is the rule laid down by Quintilian, that the disputant should be careful, not only that his hearers may understand him, but that they may not possibly misunderstand him : "non ut intelligere possit, ❝sed ne omnino possit non intelligere curan"duma."

Nearly allied to that real or affected obscurity, which both occasions and perpetuates religious feuds, is the practice of unnecessarily introducing into theological disquisitions peculiar terms or phrases unsanctioned

a Inst. Orator. lib. VIII. c. 2. ad finem.

66

by the sacred writers. This practice appears to have been of early date; and might partly owe its origin to the intermixture of oriental philosophy with the study of the Scriptures. Some have supposed that St. Paul had this in view, when he exhorted Timothy to "shun profane and vain babblings." If such were its intent, the admonition appears to have been much disregarded in succeeding ages. The ostentation of scholastic learning led very many to abandon the pure and simple diction of the Scriptures, and to substitute in its stead a phraseology better suited to the exercise of disputatious talents. The language of Plato or of Aristotle was too often engrafted on that of the Apostles and Evangelists: and a false philosophy thus imperceptibly gained ground, making fearful inroads upon the faith. The world had probably never heard of one half of the vain disputes which made Christianity a subject of scoffing and reproach among unthinking men, but for that pretended science, which elevates human knowledge above divine, or that depraved taste, which despises plain and unsophisticated truth.

Here, however, some explanation may be necessary, lest we should seem incautiously to condemn, (what to some has appeared

matter of offence,) the introduction of a phraseology not strictly scriptural into certain creeds and confessions of faith, still in use among us, and of the highest antiquity and authority in the Christian Church. Are not, it may be said, the terms Trinity, Incarnation, Substance, Person, and Essence, of this description; and have they not given frequent occasion to strife and contention?

One apology for these (if apology indeed be necessary) is similar to that already given for the enlargement and multiplication of such public formularies. The perverseness of heretical teachers, and their wantonness of speculation on some main articles of the faith, gave occasion to the use of these terms, and rendered them almost necessary for the preservation of sound doctrine. When several points connected with those articles came to be argued with a minuteness of investigation, called for by the subtleties of the adversary himself, the adoption of this new phraseology could hardly be avoided; nor could the doctrines themselves, perhaps, under such circumstances, have been otherwise effectually guarded against misapprehension. The censure, therefore, whether just or unjust, falls upon those whose temerity in diving into the depths of mystery, either first introduced

them into theological subjects, or necessarily led to their introduction by the advocates of the orthodox faith.

But, it must further be observed, that however we may deprecate the unnecessary use of terms not purely scriptural, and the contentions which have too often sprung from them; we must beware that we do not overlook the real utility of certain established modes of expression, which, though not of scriptural usage, are yet clearly and distinctly significant of the truths they denote. Thus, the terms Trinity and Incarnation so comprehensively describe the doctrines they relate to, that they serve as an almost decisive test of men's opinions on those doctrines. They convey to the intelligent hearer that definite notion of each doctrine, which it is hardly possible to misconceive, and which supersedes the necessity of more elaborate explanation. He who denies the essential Divinity of either of the Persons in the Godhead, cannot consistently use the former term; nor he who denies the union of God and man in one Christ, the latter. The Socinian, for example, who, instead of St. John's declaration that Christ is come èv σapkì, “in "the flesh," would rather say that he is come éκ σαρκòs "of the flesh," (i. e. was born