This distinction is of the utmost importance, and lies at the very threshold of religious reformation and Christian union. Without a proper recognition of the difference between FAITH and OPINION it is impossible to make any progress in a just knowledge of Divine things, or to obtain any clew by which the mind can be extricated from the perplexed labyrinth of sectarism. Notwithstanding, however, that it is so important to distinguish between these things which are so radically different from each other, they are everywhere confounded; the fallible deductions of human reason are continually mistaken for the unerring dictates of inspiration, and human authority is blended with that which is Divine. Human opinions, indeed, are the plastic cement in which partyism has imbedded the more solid yet disconnected scriptural materials of its partition walls. Or, to employ another figure, a theory, consisting of any number of favorite opinions, [8] smoothly intertwined, forms the thread upon which various Scripture doctrines and texts are strung and curiously interwoven, so as to assume a form and meaning wholly artificial and unauthorized.

      When men thus fail to make any distinction between the express revelations of God and the opinions which men have superadded, and when they have already committed the great error of adopting indiscriminately, in the religious system of a party, an incongruous mixture of opinions with the things of faith, the mistiness and obscurity which surround the former overspread by degrees the latter also. Hence it has come to pass that matters of belief and mere speculations upon religious subjects are usually classed together as "religious opinions;" and when we speak of a man's religious opinions, we are constantly understood to mean, or, at least, to include, his belief. Hence, too, the Divine communications themselves have lost much of the authority and respect which are justly due to them, by being thus reduced to a level with human opinions, and by the implication that they are so limited in their range of subjects, and so deficient in clearness, as to require additions and explanations from uninspired and fallible men, in order to render them intelligible and complete. The question, accordingly, is no longer, "What say the Scriptures?" "How readest thou?" "What hath the Lord spoken?" but, What do the [9] Scriptures mean? What thinkest thou? What do the standards of my church or the leaders of my party say?

      In opposition to views and practices so erroneous, we urge--

      1. That the Scriptures mean precisely what they say, when construed in conformity with the established laws of language.

      2. That the Bible contains the only Divine revelations to which man has access; and that these revelations are perfectly suited, by their Divine Author, to the circumstances and capacity of man to whom they are addressed.

      3. That true religious faith can be founded upon this DIVINE TESTIMONY alone.

      4. That opinions are mere inferences of human reason from insufficient and uncertain premises, or conjectures in regard to matters not revealed, and that they are not entitled to the slightest authority in religion, by whomsoever they maybe propounded.

      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 [10] 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 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 almost universal agreement among 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, [11] 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 labours. 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 connection 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 perish with all the bitter fruits they have so profusely borne.

      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 is no where said that there is one opinion. On the contrary, differences of opinion are distinctly recognised, 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 [12] 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 the 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.

      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 inculcate any thing of human authority, of private opinion, or inventions of men, as [13] 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."¹

      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 [14] 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,² 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 [15] 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 proofs and arguments by which to sustain these views; and not, as a sincere inquirer after truth, to engage in a 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 a mere storehouse of arms and ammunition for partisan 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 [16] 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 [17] 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.

      To acknowledge that there are certain difficulties in regard to some matters of Holy Writ is but to concede the depth and vastness of its themes, and the deficiency of fallen man in his powers of comprehension, and in his aptitude to receive spiritual truths. Unquestionably, 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 nebulæ, 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. [18] 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. To admit, further, that the Bible will not be at once equally clear to all minds, even in regard to matters actually developed in it, is only to confess that men are unequal in capacity, in spiritual mindedness, and in devotion to the means of biblical knowledge. We may say of the whole Bible, 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 [19] the exercise of their functions, promote the growth and edification of the church.

      How different, however, from this primitive state of the Christian church; this mutuality of spiritual edification and growth; this common yet individual interest in the Divine communications, is that imbecile condition of perpetual and hopeless pupilage in which congregations wait for the weekly explication of some fragment of Scripture called a "text;" no member presuming to edify either himself or his brethren by his own researches, or venturing to trust himself to the Word of God, or to advance a single step in scriptural knowledge, lest he should ignorantly miss the path prescribed by church authority, and become entangled in the snares of error! The truth is, that the great mass of Protestants are just as effectually debarred, by clerical influence, from the exercise of the right of private judgment in matters of religion, as are the Romanists themselves by priestly prohibition. They have no confidence in the intelligibility of the Bible, or in any views which they may take from it. An individual, having once in his life exercised the right of private judgment, not in regard to the things taught in Scripture, but in choosing between the systems and tenets of different parties, and having adopted the particular system which he prefers, will for ever after rest content with the orthodoxy of his opinions, and give himself little [20] concern about what may be contained in the Scriptures of Truth. One who unites with the church of Rome, must thus far, at least, exercise the right of private judgment in choosing between conflicting claims, and can show subsequently scarcely less indifference to the Holy Volume of inspiration.

      Indeed, it were difficult to conceive why, on his own principles, the sectary should make a proper use of the Bible. He may, indeed, read it as a pastime or as a task; he may even feel a certain interest in its historical details, or be more or less impressed with its sublime imagery and powerful diction; but for truly religious purposes it can avail him nothing. Confident that his favorite creed-makers have secured the treasure for his use, he cares but little for the casket, which he thinks himself unable to unlock. Believing them to have traversed the whole area of revelation; to have settled authoritatively all its difficult questions; guarded all its essential truths, and unfolded in a few brief, sententious articles of faith, all its deep and hidden mysteries, what inducement can he have to prosecute research, or bring his mind into direct communication with the Word of God?

      In this Reformation, however, it is a fundamental principle that every one shall take his religion directly from the Bible, without the intervention of popes or priests, councils or assemblies, or any of the [21] creeds which they have framed. With us, every thing in religion must have a Scripture warrant, and human authority is regarded as wholly incompetent to the decision of any question which may legitimately arise in regard to the great matters of faith and duty. Whatever rests upon a Divine warrant is a matter of FAITH. Whatever subordinate and collateral questions may exist which have not this warrant are MATTERS OF OPINION, which each one is at liberty to entertain according to his own pleasure, and to which no one, from the very nature of the case, can attach any importance. Nor is it to be imagined that any doctrine or sentiment can be justly entertained under the title of an opinion which will conflict with or nullify any portion of Scripture. Where the Bible speaks, there is no place for any opinion; and if any one hold a view which contravenes any declaration of Holy Writ, this is not an opinion, but actual DISBELIEF of so much of the Word of God as is thus contradicted and opposed.

      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 [22] 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 [23] to the followers of Jesus, viz. DISCIPLES OF CHRIST; CHRISTIANS; THE CHURCH OF CHRIST; or THE CHURCH OF GOD, &c.; all of which are regarded as scriptural, and to be used interchangeably, according to circumstances.

      I hope I have been sufficiently explicit upon the distinction to be made between faith and opinion. But now, as faith springs from 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. [24]

[PORR 8-24]