attendance which the law prescribes to students; and partly from an opinion that the arrangement adopted in the ordinary course is not the most perfect. You will not think this opinion ill founded, when you come to read Marckii Medulla; for there, and I believe in every other of the common systems, there is so close an alliance between the subjects treated under the different heads, that the same principles are frequently resorted to in order to illustrate the orthodox doctrine; objections, the same in substance with those that had been answered in a former chapter, recur under a different form, and the same answers are repeated with only a little variation in the manner of applying them. I am very far from condemning this arrangement as in all respects improper. It was adopted by very able men; it is most useful for giving a thorough acquaintance with all the parts of the Scripture system; and there is one book in which it appears to such advantage, that what I account its imperfection is almost forgotten, I mean Calvin's Institutes of the Christian religion; a book written in Latin, that is not only perpicuous, but elegant, and giving a most masterly comprehensive view of the great points of theology. It consists of four books. The first is entitled, De Cognitione Dei Creatoris. The second, De Cognitione Dei Redemptoris. The third, De Modo Percipiendæ Christi gratiæ, et qui fructus inde nobis proveniant, et qui effectus consequantur. The fourth, De Externis Mediis ad Salutem. It requires much time to read this book carefully; but when a student has leisure to make it his business, he will find his labour abundantly recompensed; and I do not know a more useful book for a clergyman in the country. It may be purchased for a trifle, and it is the best body of divinity. But excellent and profitable as this book is, the imperfection which I mentioned adheres to the plan upon which it is composed; and although the order of Calvin's Institutes appears to me simpler and more natural than that of any other system which I have read, yet I think that, if I were to attempt to follow it, I should be reminded by frequent repetitions, that a more perfect arrangement might have rendered the course shorter and less fatiguing.

This impression led me to attend to another arrange

ment of the controversies, which has been executed with much ability by some theological writers. Every controversy is stated by itself; i. e. all the distinguishing opinions of those, who derive a particular name from the peculiarity of their tenets, are brought into one view, and are referred to one general principle, so that you see the system of their creed, and can mark the connexion between the several parts. To give an example: Socinianism is the system of those who hold the opinions of Socinus. The principle of Socinianism is, that man may be saved by that religion, which is founded upon the relation between God the Creator, and man his creature. From this principle flow their opinions with regard to the intention of Christ's death as a witness to the truth, and an example to his followers, but not as an atonement for sin; their exclusion of mysteries from religion; and all the tenets by which they transform the Christian religion into the most perfect system of morality. The principle of Pelagianism, or of those who hold the opinions of Pelagius, is this, that the natural powers of man since the fall are sufficient to enable him to keep the law of God. From this principle flow the opinions of the Pelagians concerning original sin, the decrees of God, the influences of the Spirit, and the measure of perfection which may be attained upon earth.

This methed of arranging the controversies is manifestly much more scientific than the former. In every set of opinions which deserves the name of a system, there are some leading principles which connect the several parts. It is an agreeable exercise of the understanding to trace these principles, and to mark that kind of unity and subordination which arises from their influence. It is an act of justice in those who examine the opinions of others, to take into view that mutual dependence which renders them a consistent whole; and it is an endless unavailing task to attempt to defend the truth against a multitude of detached errors, unless your reasoning reach the sources from which these errors proceed. I recommend it, therefore, to those students who, in the course of their reading, have attained an intimate acquaintance both with the evidences of Christianity and with the particular doctrines of our faith, to study the most important controversies in this scientific manner. You will derive much assistance in this branch

of your researches from Mosheim's Church History, which is an invaluable treasure of theological knowledge. This most learned and ingenious author, who, when read along with the able and judicious notes of his translator Maclaine, is in almost every instance a safe guide, has given, in one division of his work, a summary of all the heresies or particular opinions that were held in the different ages of the Church. He has traced their rise and their progress, and has discriminated, with critical acumen, those which appear to an ordinary eye almost the same. As his work, from its nature, makes mention of all the controversies, both those which are important and those which are trifling, you cannot expect that even the opinions, upon which he has judged it proper to bestow the most particular attention, will be fully elucidated in a book which comprehends such an extent of time, and such a variety of matter. You will supply this unavoidable defect by the books which Mosheim quotes in his notes, or which I recommend: and from the general index which he furnishes, and the treatises which professedly explain the particular subjects, you will be able to form a distinct connected view of every one of the five controversies which are universally interesting, and which are commonly known by the names of Arianism, Pelagianism, Socinianism, Arminianism, and the Popish controversy. There are many other controversies that turn upon very important points. But they have not been so perfectly digested into the form of a system as the five now mentioned, nor have they been defended with such ability as to occupy a great part of the attention of a student.

Although I thus earnestly recommend attention to the scientifical arrangement of the controversies, I have been restrained from adopting it as the plan of my course by the following reasons. Some of the five great controversies resemble one another in several points. Thus Pelagianism and Arminianism both turn upon the natural powers which man has, since the fall, to obey the will of God. Socinianism agrees with Pelagianism upon this point, and it agrees with Arianism in denying that Jesus is truly God, while it differs from Arianism in the account which it gives of his person. You may judge from this specimen, that although the scientifical method, which I mentioned, is unquestionably the best for making you acquainted with any

Be

particular system of opinions, yet to us, who mean to review all the most important controverted points, it would necessarily be attended with much repetition. We should often meet, under different names, with the same objections, and the same heretical opinions, and we should be obliged to bring forward the same arguments and the same passages of Scripture in answer to them. Further, our object is not so much to know who held the particular opinions, and what was the age in which they lived; but what were the various opinions upon the great subjects of theology, and what were the grounds upon which they rested. We may attain this object, although we confound the shades of difference between systems that nearly approach, and therefore to us it were a needless waste of research and of time to discriminate them nicely. Further still, as every one of the five great controversies embraces particular opinions upon many different points, the arranging the five separately breaks the subjects of theology into parts, and does not afford a full united view of any one subject. You will understand what I mean from an example. sides the opinions of the early ages concerning the person of Christ, one opinion was held in the third century by Arius, another at a much later period by Socinus, and a third has been the general doctrine of the Christian church. Any one who wishes to make himself master of this interesting subject will desire to see the different opinions brought together, that he may compare their probability, that he may judge of the support which every one of them receives from particular passages of Scripture, or from the analogy of faith, and may thus attain a conclusion which he can defend by good reasons. Had you a book continually by you, in which all the controversies were arranged singly, you might make a collation of the different opinions upon the same subject, by reading first a part of Arianism, then the corresponding part of Socinianism, and next the corresponding part of that system which is called Orthodox, in the same manner as you get a full view of a siege in the Peloponnesian war, by passing directly from the portion of the siege which is written in one book of the history of Thucydides, to the portion of the same siege which is writen in another book. But you could not make this collation in hearing a course of lectures, unless I repeated

under one controversy as much of what I had said under the corresponding part of another, as to bring it to your mind; and this repetition would be a proof that the arrangement, however favourable to your understanding any one system of opinions, is unfavourable to your understanding the whole controverted subject.

the

Once more, there is in the different opinions upon same subject a progress that may be traced, by which you see how one paved the way for the other; and the succeeding opinion is often illustrated by the preparation which had been made for its reception. This advantage is lost, when you throw together the different subjects that were agitated in one system of opinions. You see, in this way, the chain which binds together all the parts of Pelagianism, Arminianism, or Socinianism. But in passing along the chain, you miss the thread which conducts you from the opinions on a particular subject found under one system, to the opinions on the same subject found under another.

For these reasons, I resolved neither to follow the path of the ordinary systems of theology, nor to adopt the more scientific mode of classing the opinions that distinguish different sects of Christians. The plan of my course is this:

Out of the mass of matter that is found in the system, I select the great subjects. which have agitated and divided the minds of those who profess to build their faith upon the same Scriptures. I consider every one of these subjects separately; I present the whole train and progress of opinions that have been held concerning it; and I state the grounds upon which they rest, passing slightly over those opinions which are now forgotten, or whose extravagance prevents any danger of their being revived, and dwelling upon those whose plausibility gave them at any time a general possession of the minds of men, or which still retain their influence and credit amongst some denominations of Christians.

In selecting the great subjects to be thus brought forward, I was guided by that general view of the Gospel which was formerly illustrated. We found its distinguishing character to be the religion of sinners,-a remedy for the present state of moral evil, provided by the love of God the Father, brought into the world by Jesus Christ,