This distinction is of the utmost importance, and lies at the very threshold of religious reformation and Christian union. It is one, however, which is, even yet, by no means duly understood by the religious community. In the partition walls, indeed, of the different parties, human opinions are the very cement which holds together the more solid, yet disconnected Scriptural materials, of which they are composed. They are hence regarded as equally important with the Scriptures which they unite, and absolutely essential to the construction of any definite or permanent structure. Or, to employ another figure, a theory, consisting of any given number of favorite opinions, smoothly intertwined, forms the thread upon which, like beads, various Scripture doctrines and texts are strung, and made to assume a relation, form and meaning, wholly artificial and illegitimate.

      In opposition to views and practices so erroneous, it is urged, that true religious faith can be the result of Divine testimony alone, and that opinions, which are merely inferences of human reason from insufficient data, or conjectures in regard to matters not distinctly revealed, are in no case to be confounded with faith, and in no way to be connected with it. The measure of faith is, then, precisely the amount of Scripture testimony, neither more nor less. What this distinctly reveals, is to be implicitly believed. Where this is obscure or silent, reason must not attempt to elaborate theories or supply conclusions, and impose them upon the conscience as of Divine authority. By the practical recognition of this principle, the theological systems and theories which have distracted religious society, are at once deprived of all their fancied importance, and, consequently, of all their power to injure. Those remote speculations; those metaphysical subtleties; those untaught questions which have occupied the minds of the religious public, to the exclusion of the all-important, yet simple truths of the gospel, are at once dismissed as the futile reveries of uninspired and fallible mortals. When these are thus dismissed, the human mind is left alone with the word of God. It is brought into direct contact with the Divine law and testimony, from which alone the light of spiritual truth can emanate, and this light is no longer obscured by the mists of human opinionism and speculation.

      If this distinction, then, were duly appreciated by the Protestant world, there would be a speedy end of those controversies by which it has been so long disturbed. For it is undeniable, that there is an [326] almost universal agreement amongst the various evangelical denominations, in regard to the great revealed truths of Christianity; and that they are separated, alienated and belligerent, for the sake of certain favorite opinions, which have been promulged by their founders. Each one admits that there exists this common Christianity, apart from denominational peculiarities, and that salvation is possible in any of these parties, yet each continues to urge its distinctive tenets, and maintain its peculiar opinions, as though the salvation of the world depended upon these alone. Human opinions and speculations, then, have manifestly too much authority with the religious public, and are too highly honored in being made the great objects for which each party lives and labors. If, then, they were clearly distinguished from the revealed truths, upon which like parasites many of them have grown; if they were fairly separated from all connexion with the Divine testimony, from which they derive a stolen nourishment and a borrowed vigor, they would appear at once in their true character, as matters wholly foreign and insignificant, and would be allowed to droop and wither, unnoticed and uncared for; unless, perchance, some of them should be preserved, like dried specimens, in cabinets of religious philosophy.

      It is preposterous to expect that men will ever agree in their religious opinions. It is neither necessary nor desirable that they should do so. It is no where commanded in the Scriptures that men should be of one opinion. It is there declared that there is "ONE FAITH," but it is no where said that there is one opinion. On the contrary, differences of opinion are distinctly recognized, and Christians are expressly commanded to receive one another without regard to them. (Rom. xiv. 1.) As well might we expect to conform the features of the human face to a single standard, as to secure a perfect agreement of men's minds. Hence there can be no peace, unless there be liberty of opinion. Each individual must have a perfect right to entertain what opinions he pleases, but he must not attempt to enforce them upon others, or make them a term of communion or religious fellowship. They can do no harm, so long as they are private property, and are regarded in their true light, as human opinions possessed of no divine authority or infallibility. It is quite otherwise, however, when leading and ambitious spirits take them for the warp and the Scriptures for the woof from which they weave the web of partyism. The flimsy and ill assorted fabric may please the taste of a few, while it will be despised and derided by those who manufacture an article no better from similar incongruous materials, and thus a contention is perpetuated, with which human selfishness and pride have much more concern than either piety or humanity. [327] It is, accordingly, one of the primary objects of the present Reformation, to put an end to all such controversies, by reducing human opinions to their proper level, and elevating the word of God, as the only true standard of religious faith. Hence it was, in the very beginning, resolved to "reduce to practice the simple original form of Christianity, expressly exhibited upon the sacred page, without attempting to incubate any thing of human authority, of private opinion, or inventions of men, as having any place in the constitution, faith, or worship of the Christian Church; or any thing as matter of Christian faith or duty, for which there cannot be expressly produced a thus saith the Lord, either in express terms or by approved precedent."

      Every proposition or doctrine, then, for which there is not clear Scriptural evidence, is to be regarded as a matter of opinion; and every thing for which such evidence can be adduced, is a matter of faith--a fact or truth to be believed. It may be objected here, that what may be clear to one mind may be doubtful to another; and that the Scriptures are constantly appealed to, by all parties, as affording to each sufficient proof of its peculiar views, which, in each case, conflict more or less with those of every other party. This may be true, but what follows? That the Scriptures are themselves a tissue of contradictions and ambiguities? That it is impossible to determine their true meaning? Nay, truly, this were to deny the fundamental principles of Protestantism, viz: the Divine origin of the Bible, and the right of private interpretation. For God could not be the author of a volume of this character; and the right to interpret the Scriptures, presupposes the ability to comprehend them, since, without this, to concede the right would be but mockery.

      The facts involved in the above objection may be readily accounted for, without impugning either the Divine origin or the intelligibility of the Bible. They are such as must necessarily occur when men adopt false rules of interpretation, or come to the Scriptures with minds already biassed in favor of particular views. The intelligibility of the Bible is not absolute, but relative, depending as much upon the state of mind of him who reads it, and the method he pursues, as upon the perspicuity of the book itself. All Protestants assert, that the way of salvation is clearly defined in the Sacred Volume, so as to be plain to the most ordinary comprehension. If, then, erroneous views be formed from it, the cause is to be sought, not in the Bible, but in the mind of the errorist himself. He comes to the Scriptures as an advocate of preconceived opinions or doctrines, to seek for proof and arguments by which to sustain these views, and not, as a sincere inquirer after truth, to engage in a [328] process of careful investigation, and with a mind prepared to follow whithersoever the truth shall lead. Hence it is, that all errorists and parties holding sentiments the most discordant, have recourse alike to the Bible for their proofs. They seek not for the truth which is in the Bible, but for proofs of the errors with which their minds are previously imbued--for something to sustain the particular system to which they are inclined. To them the Bible is not itself the fortress, but a mere store-house of arms and ammunition for partizan warfare. It has no well defined plan or purpose of its own, but is merely a collection of proof-texts, from which any one is at liberty to select whatever may appear to suit his purpose, without respect to the context, or the laws of interpretation applied to all other writings. Thus it is that the Bible answers the purposes of all parties equally well. As with the mirror of the Arabian tale, each one can see in it only what he wishes to see; and as each party wishes to see only itself, the Divine mirror reflects to its view no other image. A man would not be more surprised to see in the glass before which he stands, the image of his enemy, instead of his own, than would be the advocate of one party to find in the Bible the views of an opposite sect. It must be evident, that to treat the Bible thus, is grossly to abuse the most precious gift of heaven, and to sustain, by a mere pretence of Divine authority, a system of partyism and contention wholly incompatible with the express purpose of Christianity, and the conversion and salvation of the world. He who would understand the Divine communications must study them with the humility and docility of a child; he must prayerfully endeavor to ascertain the meaning of the text by the context, making the Scriptures their own expositor, and must give himself up to be led by them, instead of presuming to lead them to his own favorite and preconceived opinions, by wresting and perverting them from their true meaning and application.

      He, then, who will thus devote himself to the study of the Bible, will not long remain either in ignorance, error or doubt, as to the great matters of faith and duty. It is distinctly affirmed in the Book itself, that "the inspired Scriptures are profitable for all things; for doctrine, for reproof, for correction and instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, and thoroughly furnished unto every good work." If, then, the believer may be thus perfected, thus thoroughly furnished, what needs he more? Most assuredly, if the Book of God appear in any case to fail thus to enlighten the mind and direct the conduct, we may in vain expect that any volume from fallible and uninspired men could supply the deficiency and secure these objects. [329]

      We do not, however, assert that every thing contained in the Bible can be fully understood. There are some subjects too mysterious in their nature to be clearly explained in human language; some too great to be completely grasped by a finite mind; many too remote from the ordinary range of human thought, to be distinctly apprehended by the most discerning intellect. As, in the natural heavens, we have bodies so remote that they appear but as faint nebulae, and stars which can scarcely be distinguished by human vision from those which cluster around them, so have we, in the Book of God, glimmerings of spiritual systems far distant from our own, whose relations to us we may never comprehend in our present state of being. Such must necessarily be the case in regard to communications concerning the Divine Creator and the things of an infinite, unseen spiritual world. These are subjects to be reverently pondered and contemplated only so far as, upon the heavenly scroll, we may discover their outline, or discern their more salient points. These are not things about which men may dogmatize; into which they may vainly and presumptuously intrude; or in regard to which they may insolently excommunicate and anathematize each other. Neither do we affirm that the Bible will be at once equally clear to all minds, even in regard to subjects actually developed in it. We may say of it as Peter said of Paul's Epistles, that it contains "some things hard to be understood;" which, nevertheless, may be understood through diligent study and proper use of the means of Biblical interpretation. Scriptural knowledge is, therefore, progressive, and will vary in different cases and in the same person, at different periods. There will be always babes, young men, and fathers in Scriptural learning; and hence, there is opportunity to comply with the apostolic injunction--that the elder should teach the younger, and that Christians should edify each other. Hence, too, the use of pastors and teachers, who, in the exercise of their functions, promote the growth and edification of the church.

      It has been a great misfortune to the religious community, that no proper distinction has been maintained between faith, opinion, and this diversity of religious knowledge of which we have just spoken. Matters of belief, and mere speculations upon religious subjects, have been classed together, as religious opinions; so that when we speak of a man's religious opinions, we are invariably understood to mean, or at least to include, his belief. Cajetan required Luther to abstain from propagating "his opinions," under which head he classed the great evangelical facts and truths which Luther taught. And the same confusion of thought and language prevails among Protestants themselves, to this very hour. So that the capital error has not been [330] so much the exalting of human speculations to the dignity and authority of Divine revelations, as that of degrading revealed truths to the level of mere human opinions, and involving the whole in that mistiness and uncertainty which belongs only to the latter.

      We distinguish, then--

      1st. OPINIONS, as inferences of human reason in respect to things not actually revealed or treated of in the Scriptures.

      2d. FAITH, as the belief or sincere reception of the Divine testimony in its full meaning, and as regards all the subjects which it presents to view. In its comprehensive sense, as Paul defines it, "it is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen," whether past or present, which are revealed in the Bible. I would remark further, that unbelief is strictly an ignorance of the testimony. When the testimony is actually heard and rejected, either by word or deed, this is disbelief--a "denying of the faith;" i. e., denying the truth of the things attested. Such a one is, of course, "worse than an infidel," or mere unbeliever, whose ignorance is voluntary. Hence, when persons broach propositions which contradict, or are incompatible with the Divine testimony, they are not to be regarded as sound in faith, nor are their doctrines to be considered as opinions. They are, in fact, indirect attempts to refute Divine testimony. For example, if an individual, without formally denying any statement of Scripture, should affirm, as some did in the time of the Apostles, that the resurrection is already past, we must regard him as a disbeliever of the Divine testimony, so far, at least, as this particular matter is concerned, and the faith of those who receive his doctrines, is "overthrown." So, also, is it if one teach that there is a state of probation or dispensation of mercy interposed between death and judgment, and that the unconverted will have another opportunity to acknowledge and obey Christ, in order to salvation, in the spirit world. Such a view is far from being an opinion or harmless speculation, since the Divine testimony is explicit in regard to the place, the time, and the means of salvation; and what it teaches in regard to these points, must be disbelieved before such a view can be entertained.

      As to opinion, we are furnished with a very good illustration of its nature in the close of the Testimony of John. "Peter seeing John, said to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? Follow thou me. Then went this saying out among the brethren, that that disciple should not die." Here is an hypothesis or inference of human reason unauthorized by the premises; an opinion engrafted, indeed, upon something said, but not contained in what was said. Hence John adds, with beautiful simplicity, "Yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall [331] not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?" Thus repeating the exact words used, as best fitted to convey the true meaning, and teaching a most important lesson--that no false glosses are to be put upon the words of Holy Writ; but that what is said, is to be heard and believed in the exact language of inspiration itself. With respect to faith, then, the question with us is always, "What hath the Lord spoken?" We always say: "To the law and to the testimony; if any one speak not according to these, it is because there is no light in him." And as to opinions in religion, what men may, think, or opine, we regard every thing of this nature as wholly unimportant, whether the thinker be pope or priest, doctor, prelate or disciple.

      In entire harmony with these views, it is regarded as of the utmost practical importance, to speak always of religious matters in the exact language of the Bible. All those unscriptural terms and expressions, of which the modern sectarian vocabulary almost wholly consists, are, accordingly, discarded as conveying ideas more or less foreign from the Bible, and as being in no case so accurate and appropriate as the language of Scripture. It is true, that Bible terms themselves may be misunderstood or misapplied, if the context be not carefully examined; and especially, if a religious theory or favorite practice be in question. But when an individual is unable to express his religious sentiments, without using unscriptural expressions, it is prima-facie evidence that his religious views are not in the Bible. For if they were, he could certainly state them in the exact language of the Sacred Volume. Such is the reciprocal influence of words and thoughts, that any change in the language employed by the inspired writers is to be regarded with suspicion; nor can we suppose it possible to have a restoration of the simple original gospel of Christ and the primitive institutions of Christianity; that is to say, of primitive modes of thought and action, without a return to the primitive modes of expression also. The names, and many of the institutions of the different sects, as well as their modes of speech, are alike utterly unknown to the Bible. As for those who take part in the present reformation, they desire to have nothing to do with any thing in religion that is not, at least, as old as the books of the New Testament; and in aiming to restore and obey the simple primitive gospel and its institutions, and to give to these Bible things their Bible names, they desire, also, to assume themselves no other titles than those originally given to the followers of Jesus, viz: Disciples of Christ; Christians; the Church of Christ; or the Church of God; etc.; all of which are regarded as Scriptural, and to be used interchangeably, according to circumstances. [332]

      I hope I have been sufficiently explicit upon the distinction to be made between faith and opinion. But now, as faith is the reception of the Divine testimony, and will be co-extensive, so to speak, with the knowledge which any one may have of that testimony, the question arises, How great must be the extent of this faith, in order to entitle an individual to be received to church membership? In other words, How much of the Bible must he have explored and comprehended, before he makes a profession of Christianity? Must he have examined the whole Divine testimony, in regard to all the subjects of which it treats; or are there particular points or doctrines, to which his attention may be restricted, and in regard to which alone his faith may be properly inquired into and tested? Or, to shorten the question, What is that which is emphatically called "the faith," "the truth"--the belief which "sanctifies" and "saves" the soul? Our views of this I shall now proceed to give you.

	Adieu,
R. R.

Source:

Robert Richardson. "Principles and Purposes of the Reformation: A Brief Account of the Principles and Purposes of the Religious Reformation Urged by A. Campbell, and Others.--I. Distinction between Faith and Opinion." The Millennial Harbinger 23 (October 1852): 579-587.

NOTE: Included in Robert Richardson's The Principles and Objects of the Religious Reformation, Urged by A. Campbell and Others, Briefly Stated and Explained. 2d ed., rev. and enl. Bethany, VA: A. Campbell, 1853, pp. 8-24.

[MHA2 326-333]