ture premises, and some of them might be expressed in the very terms of Scripture. Our inquiry is not, whether, in the general or the particular, "religious doctrine" be true, but whether such doctrines or "tenets" do really constitute what may scripturally, and hence properly, be considered the Christian doctrine. That they do not form the object of the Christian faith, we have already shown, and we will now endeavor to prove that they are just as far from constituting THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

And just here, I would remark, that I feel it exceedingly difficult to render myself understood in relation to this particular question by those on whose attention it has a special claim. But the difficulty does not arise from the nature of the subject, or from the want of any facility of expression, but from the peculiar modes of thought to which those referred to have become habituated in respect to religion. So thoroughly has the Protestant mind been imbued with the notion that the saving efficacy of religion depends upon the accuracy of our views of it, and so completely is it preoccupied with doctrinal questions and controversies, that it seems almost incapable of entertaining simple views of Christianity, or of contemplating, with just perception, the character of this institution, as it was originally presented to the world by the ministry of the apostles. It seems to be taken for granted, that the errors introduced into Christianity in its early history, have occasioned such a doctrinal fermentation throughout the entire substance of Divine truth, that this has lost all its original sweetness and power to nourish the soul, and that it is now only fit to be distilled in the alembic of systematic theology, to obtain the intoxicating and maddening spirit of sectarism, or the nauseous acerbity of religious bigotry and intolerance. Oh! there are few who seem to have power to ignore the present and the past controversies about religion; to renounce the tyranny of mental habits; to rise above the influences of religious associations and training, and seek, with honest hearts and earnest sincerity, the original and uncorrupted fountain of Divine knowledge!

There is, again, another matter which renders the difficulty, just mentioned, still greater, viz: that as a necessary consequence of a departure from scriptural ideas, our religious vocabulary has become greatly changed from that of apostolic times, and it is scarcely possible to use the latter any longer so as to be understood. New terms have been introduced in countless numbers, and Scripture words and phrases have received senses and applications wholly novel and foreign to those which they possess in the Book of God; or these have been so curtailed or so expanded that the real value of the expression can no longer be determined. The sterling coin of truth, stamped with

a Divine impress, has been mutilated by the file of the sectary, or debased by the alloy of the theorist, so that it is no longer current even with those, who, though they may still recognize a portion of the image and superscription which it bears, can never, by its reception, sanction such corruption of tho currency of Heaven.

The question before us now, is one directly of this nature. It is an inquiry into the scriptural meaning and application of a scripture term; and, as we proceed with the investigation, and contrast the primitive with the modern uses of the words "doctrine" and "doctrines," our subject will itself present a clear illustration of that condition of our religious vocabulary to which we have just adverted.

It will not, we presume, be disputed that these words are now, as we have stated, in their religions use, almost always indicative of some settled opinions or dogmas propounded by some ecclesiastical authority. To speak of a religious doctrine, is to speak of some special tenet which is thus stated and embraced as a distinct proposi tion by a religious party. And as these "tenets" are very numerous, we have this word doctrine oftener in the plural than in the singular. We have the doctrines of Arminius, the doctrines of Calvin, the doctrines of Universalism, &c., &c.

In the Scriptures, however, in striking contrast with modern usage, the word doctrine, in the singular, though of frequent occurrence, is never, in one single instance, applied to a particular tenet or dogma; and, what is worthy of special notice, whenever it is used in the plural, when of course it does embrace particular opinions or usages, it is always employed in a bad sense. Hence we have before us, in the outset, the remarkable fact that, in Scripture, while no "doctrine," in the special modern sense of the word, is ever taught or recommended, all "doctrines," in the plural, are condemned, and Christians are warned against them. Thus, those are censured who "teach for doctrines the commandments of men;" who "give heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils," and who are "carried about with diverse and strange doctrines;" but, in no place, do we have mention made of "doctrines" which are to be received as true. We read in Theology of the "doctrines" of Luther, of Zwingle, of Calvin, but we never read, in the Scriptures, of the doctrines of Christ.

The word dogma also, we may here incidentally remark, which is now used interchangeably with "doctrine" or "tenet," and indicates an intellectual view or doctrinal notion, has, in Scripture, a totally different meaning, being applied there to an established law or enactment having respect to conduct, and not to belief. In some profane writers, and in a philosophical sense, it occasionally signifies an opinion, or mental decision, but, for the most part, it is used in refer

ence to a legal decision-a law of the civil authority; as a decree of the king or of the senate, and always has respect to something to be performed. In this sense, it is constantly used in the Scriptures, and has never any reference to men's opinions. Thus, Luke ii. 1, "There went out a decree (dogma) from Cesar, that all the world should be taxed." Acts xvi. 4, "They delivered to them the decrees (dogmas) to keep which were ordained of the apostles." Eph. ii. 15, “Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances," (dogmas.) And, again, in Col. ii. 14, "Blotting out the hand-writing of ordinances (dogmas) which was against us, which was contrary to us." The word occurs but once more in the New Testament, Acts xvii. 7, "All do contrary to the decrees (dogmas) of Cesar." As tenets, indeed, in modern times, are matters decreed by some ecclesiastical authority, they are of course dogmas in the sense of conclusions, decisions, or enactments of a tribunal; but there is this important difference, that in Theology these. decisions or enactments have respect to things to be believed, while, in the Scriptures they have, in every instance, reference to things that are to be done. Thus the proper and primitive application of the word to matters connected with conduct, has been wholly lost in its modern use, where it has exclusive reference to mental or doctrinal views. In the Scripture, it is used in its ordinary, but in Theology, in its philosophic sense. In the word of God, dogmas were rules of behavior; in modern usage, they are rules of thought.

It is a change very similar to this which has been made in the meaning and application of the word "doctrine." Such a thing as "doctrine," in the modern and theological sense of the word, seems never to have entered into the conception of the writers of the New Testament. Upon their use of the word doctrine, we would now make two remarks. The first is, that with them the word is commonly used in its general sense of teaching or instructing. The second is, that when applied to the things taught, its relation is to rules of conduct or the principles and duties of practical life, and never to tenets to be believed.

In proof of the correctness of these assertions, I must, of course, refer the reader to the numerous passages in which the word occurs. He will find that, in many of them, it has respect simply to the act or mode of teaching, and that one of the words employed in the original (didaskalia) is sometimes rendered by the English word teaching, as in Rom. xii, 7, "He that teacheth, [let him wait] on teaching." In ch. xv. 4, it is translated objectively by "learning"-"things written for our learning," or, more accurately, our instruction. See, also, 1 Tim. v. 17, vi, 1–3. In many cases, didaskalia applies to the things

taught. Thus we have "sound doctrine," 1 Tim. i. 10, and 2 Tim. iv. 3; "good doctrine," 1 Tim. iv. 6; "God's doctrine," 1 Tim. vi. 1, Titus ii. 10. The other original word for doctrine (didakee) is similarly applied both to the act of teaching and to the things taught. Thus, "The people were astonished at his doctrine," or mode of teaching, so different from that of the scribes. Math xxii. 33, Mark i. 27. Again, we have in Acts xiii. 12, "Astonished at the doctrine of the Lord"-i. e., his way of teaching by miracles; also, in 1 Cor. xiv. 6, "By prophesying or by doctrine;" i. e., teaching. As referring to the thing taught, we have, "The doctrine of Christ," 2 Jno. ix.; "this doctrine," 2 Jno. 10; "The doctrine of Balaam," Rev. ii. 14; "The doctrine of the Nicolaitanes," Rev. xi. 15, &c.

Of course, we cannot find the modern idea of doctrine in any of those passages where the above words denote the act or mode of teaching. If it is to be found at all, it will be in those places where these words are applied to the things taught. We have, then, only to ascertain what were the things taught, in order to determine the important question before us, viz: whether any thing denominated "doctrine," or "a doctrine," in the Holy Scriptures, answers to what is now considered "doctrine," or "a doctrine," in the religious world? We know perfectly well, that when we speak of the doctrine, or doctrines of Arminius, of Calvin, or of Luther, we refer to certain points of systematic theology; to intellectual views of revealed truth; to theoretic opinions respecting the Divine nature; the decrees of God; the plan of salvation, or some other religious theme. But, when mention is made in Scripture of "the doctrine of Christ," of "sound doctrine," "good doctrine," "the apostles' doctrine," &c., is the reference here to any set of tenets or theological dogmas, which are any where presented by Christ and his apostles as articles of faith? Most assuredly, we shall search the Scriptures in vain for such formulas of belief; such expositions of orthodox opinionism, or such theories of the Divine nature and purposes. We shall find there nothing that resembles them, either in character or object; nothing that corresponds to them in nature or effect. And since they are not to be found there, it follows that the Scripture phrase, "the doctrine of Christ," can have no reference to such "tenets."

This oft-recurring scriptural expression, "the doctrine of Christ," or the "doctrine of the Lord," refers, indeed, to something very different from abstract propositions. "The doctrine of Christ" is, really and simply, the teaching of Christ, and we have, then, only to turn to his discourses, to see how different in its scope, its nature and design, was his teaching from any thing now styled "doctrine." Consider the "Sermon on the Mount," in which we are told, "he

taught" his disciples, and which, nevertheless, does not contain one of the "tenets" of modern theology.* Listen to his voice as "he taught the people," and among those all-important lessons which all were urged to hear who had "ears to hear," say what modern formula of "essential doctrines" he presented! Search those incomparable parables, through which he loved to communicate Divine wisdom, and state in which of them we shall find a modern religious dogma expressed or illustrated! And yet it was to those very teachings our Lord himself referred the high priest, when he, after the style of modern orthodoxy, "asked him of his disciples and of his doctrine." He presented, in reply, no "syllabus of cardinal doctrines" or "body of divinity," but directed him to inquire of those who had heard his teachings. The only confession which he really made, was that "good confession" witnessed before the Jewish Sanhedrim and Pontius Pilate, viz: That he was "the Messiah, the Son of God"-the confession for which he died; the acknowledgment for which the early martyrs suffered; the rock on which he himself had declared that he would build his church. And yet, mark it well, this was the very confession which he himself, during his ministry, for special reasons, in all his discourses had studiously withheld from the people, and strictly forbade his disciples to make known! Most assuredly, if he reserved it to himself to declare this fundamental fact of Christianity at that last eventful hour, when, in harmony with the Mosaic law, which required the sinner to lay his hand upon the head of the offering, both Jews and Gentiles, by their legal representatives, were assembled to lay their hands upon the victim Lamb of God, and he was about to be slain for the sin of the world, we shall vainly expect

This Sermon on the Mount is his first and principal recorded discourse, and we perceive that he did not, like modern theologians, commence his religious teachings by laying down definitions and prescribing articles of faith. He does not begin by saying that God is a being "without body or parts," neither does he deliver propositions concerning "original sin," or "free-will," or set himself to regulate "Rites, Ceremonies and Sacraments." On the contrary, he begins by pronouncing a blessing upon the "poor in spirit;" upon the "mourner," and upon the "meek;" upon those who "hunger and thirst for righteousness;" upon the "merciful;" the "pure in heart;" the "peace-makers," and the "persecuted." He instructs his disciples to "let their light so shine before men that they may see their good works and glorify their Father in heaven." He teaches them to act like children of God, in loving their enemies, doing good to those that bated them, and in praying for their persecutors. He delivers throughout rules of life and conduct;-heart- teachings; heart-exhortations; soul-saving principles of action, and closes with the expressive words, "Whosoever heareth these sayings of mine and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man which built his house upon a rock;" "And every one that heareth these sayings of mine and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man who built his house upon the sand." Christ's "sayings," then, had respect to things that were to be done, and not to matters of opinion and questions in theology.