The next extract I will give in the translation of Professor Stuart, Letters to Dr. Miller, (pp. 37, 38.)

Cap. 22. "God, the Father of the Universe, is incomprehensible, and cannot be contained in any place. But his Logos, by whom he made all things, assuming the person of the Father, came into paradise in his person, and conversed with Adam. For the Holy Scripture teaches us that Adam said he heard a voice. Now what else is a voice, but the Word of God, who is his Son? not as the poets and mythologers speak of the sons of God, born of carnal intercourse, but, as truth declares, the Logos who was always immanent in the heart of God. Before anything was made, he had him for a counsellor, who was his understanding and his reason. But when God desired to make what he had purposed to make, he begat the Logos, produced the first-born of all creatures. Not that the Father deprived himself of reason; but having begotten the Logos, he converses always with his Logos (or reason). This the Holy Scriptures and all inspired men teach; of whom John says, In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God,-showing that, at first, God was alone and his Logos in him. Afterwards he says, And the Logos was God. All things were made by him, and without him was nothing made. The Logos, therefore, being God and produced from God, when it seemed good to the Father of the universe, he sends him to any particular place," &c. (p. 365.)

IRENEUS, bishop of Lyons, was contemporary with the writers already quoted. Tertullian and Origen were born at this period, but most of their works belong to the early part of the third century. These writers are the most celebrated of the Antenicene Fathers, whose works yet remain to be examined. Their writings are more copious, and there is more of philosophical precision in their thoughts and language, than we have found in the works which we have just been inspecting.

The early Fathers had not the aid of inspiration; their intellectual culture was exceedingly imperfect; they had hardly learned to distinguish between the, qualities of matter and those of mind; and consequently, in all their speculations concerning the Divine Being, their conceptions appear to be grossly material. The opinion of Theophilus relating to the pre-existence and generation of the Logos is a striking illustration of this remark. If, therefore, we interpret the language of the Fathers by the principles of mental philosophy which prevail at the present day, we may make them avow sentiments which they never designed to inculcate. But if we honestly seek after the leading idea which guides all their speculation, and interpret their language with due regard to the modes of philosophising prevalent at that period, we need be at no loss in regard to what they really believed and taught. One thing will be observed in all their speculations which have been exhibited thus far, namely, that they uniformly take it for granted that Christ is of the same nature

with God, in his essence coeternal and identical with the Father, subordinate only in external developement as generated Logos. There can be but one divine nature. Whoever, therefore, acknowledges that Christ is of the same nature with God, is essentially a believer in the doctrine of the Deity of Christ. That the early Fathers acknowledged this there can be no doubt. They use expressions in regard to the Son which we should not adopt, and they do the same in regard to the Father; for their notions of spiritual existence and of the attributes essential to the Divine Being were altogether different from ours. It has cost many ages of severe study to bring the human mind to that definiteness and refinement of philosophical views respecting spiritual beings, to which it has now attained.

The doctrines of the Bible are always the same; but the theory, by which these doctrines are connected together and made to harmonize in a theological system, changes its form with the evervarying philosophy of each successive age. The Bible, which is given by inspiration of God, is one thing; and the philosophy by which men attempt to systematize the doctrines of the Bible, is quite another thing.

ON HERESY.

THE word, heresy, is commonly understood to imply a departure from essential truth, and an adherence to fundamental error, in matters of religion. It is not a mistake merely, or a false judgment, which is renounced and discarded as soon as discovered. Were it nothing more than this, it would not be criminal; whereas, heresy, if persisted in, is fatal.

In opposition to this view of the subject, it has been contended, that, irrespective of opinion and sentiment, the word means sect only that, as now used, it has no correspondent sense whatever in Scripture that it designates an effect, not a cause—and that for the two first centuries, it never denoted an opinion, and never stood connected with any of the words usually signifying to teach or to preach.

The subject is important. Men are not rashly to condemn each other for heresy, in the common sense of the word; nor if it mean sect, and designate an effect rather than a cause, is it unimportant what sect is intended, and what relation we stand in towards it. In every view, the subject is worthy of attention.

Without asserting that the word is used in precisely the same sense in every place, my object in this paper will be to examine the

several passages in the New Testament where it is found, and thus to ascertain, as far as may be, the sense given to it by the inspired writers. Previous to this examination, it will be necessary to state, in brief, some of the principles of interpretation, and some of the facts concerned in the case.

In determining the use of words and phrases, and their meaning in different connexions, we are to consider the circumstances and apparent motives or designs of the writer or speaker; the kind of composition in which they are found; the circumstances of time and place; the relation of the different persons concerned to one another; the parties to which they belong, on supposition they are divided; and, finally, the sentiments and views they reciprocally entertain of each other, and of things in general. These, and the like, are some of the first principles of interpretation. The facts important to be kept in mind, are, that in the time of Christ and his apostles, there were parties in religion, as there are now, some of which embraced more, and some less of revealed truth; while one, though not perfect, was yet substantially approved; that of the former, were the Sadducees and Pharisees and those generally whom Christ denominated "the world," and that of the latter, were those who "waited for consolation," and "looked for redemption in Jerusalem."

In passing to the examination of passages, suppose the result should favor, as to primary meaning, the idea of sect, as being that which, the word translated heresy, more generally signifies; and suppose it should designate an effect, not a cause, and so point out a division only, or the leaders of a party, and not the sentiments of the party; yet, who does not know that cause and effect imply each other? and that the idea of a sect or party necessarily implies some peculiarity of sentiment or practice, by which the sect or party is known? And suppose the term be not, in every instance, accompanied with any express mark of reprobation; are we of course to infer that no fatal error is involved in it; while it is manifest that, in narration especially, or history, the sacred writers were wont generally to record facts, without formally expressing an opinion respecting them?

But not to detain the reader; the first passage to come under consideration is Acts v, 17, whereas (heresy) is rendered sect, and is applied to the Sadducees. "Then the high priest rose up, and all they that were with him, which is the sect of the Sadducees."

Suppose in this passage we render a doctrine, sentiment, or opinion; what objection to such a translation? Which is of the doctrine, sentiment or opinion of the Sadducees.' This certainly is not bad English; nor do I perceive that it fails to express the fact which the writer wished to record. True, he neither approves, nor disapproves; but shall we therefore infer the absence

of all hurtful error? Let us recur to our principles and facts. He had no occasion to commend or condemn the persons of whom he spake. His object was simply to record who they were. Had he been called to speak of their sentiments, and say whether he approved or disapproved them, we may reasonably suppose there would not have been wanting express marks of disapprobation.* Consider who the Sadducees were, what sentiments they held, and whether Christ and his apostles approved them. The Sadducees denied the resurrection, and believed neither angel nor spirit. And what is heresy, in the common acceptation of the word, if not involved in the denial of these great doctrines?

The next passage is Acts xv, 5, where is again rendered sect. It is applied to the Pharisees, and used without commendation or censure. "But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees." But with the same propriety as in the former case, the word here might be rendered doctrine, sentiment, or opinion; and we have only to call to mind what the doctrines of the Pharisees were, and how they were treated by Christ and his apostles, to see that they were a most fatal heresy, in the common acceptation of the word. That the Pharisees were the uniform opposers of Christ and the gospel is undeniable and notorious.

The next passage is Acts xxiv, 5, where the sect of the Nazarenes is spoken of. It is found in the speech of Tertullus, the orator, who informed against Paul before Felix. "We have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect Tapes of the Nazarenes." Here, the word is applied to the gospel, and to those who embrace it. But we are to remember that this is not the language of the sacred historian, nor of his christian brethren, but of a bigotted Jew; and, in the estimation of the Jews, what could have been a greater heresy, as the word is commonly used, than Christianity? In the judgement of Tertullus and the Jews, the Nazarenes held to pernicious and destructive errors. All this is confirmed by the next passage, which is the fourteenth verse of the same chapter. In this place, as is rendered heresy. "But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers." These words contain, first, Paul's profession of his faith in the truth and importance of the gospel, and its consistency with the religion of his fathers; and, secondly, the estimation of this gospel by unbelievers, regarding it as a destructive error and fatal delusion. Here, certainly, the word is used in the common acceptation. How meagre and void would the whole passage be, were we to render it sect, irrespective of sentiment! "But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call sect, so worship I the God of

a

*See 2 Tim. ii, 17, 18. Titus iii, 10.

my fathers?" Beyond all question, Paul meant to admit, that, in the opinion of Tertullus and the Jews, the gospel was a ruinous error.

The next passage in order is Acts xxiv, 5, where Paul is speaking of his manner of life before conversion. "After the most straightest sect aipers of our religion, I lived a Pharisee." Here, says an eminent critic, It was manifestly Paul's intention to exalt the party to which he belonged, and to give their system the preference to every other system of Judaism, both in soundness of doctrine and purity of morals.' Be it so. I acknowledge that here, if anywhere, the word must be used in a good sense. But though, as he formerly regarded it, and as those whom he was addressing still regarded it, Pharisaism was the best of the Jewish systems; still, as the apostle now viewed it, might it not be called a heresy, in the common sense of the word? Why might not Paul as well"call" Pharisaism a heresy, as the Jews "call" christianity a heresy? Was not Pharisaism now as great a heresy to him, as christianity could be to them? Let not, then, a construction be put upon this passage, which will represent the apostle as passing a compliment upon those views, in the spirit of which he had once been a persecutor and injurious.

But I proceed to the next and last passage in the Acts (xxviii, 22,) where the word is rendered sect, and applied, as in xxvi, 5, to Christians: "For, as concerning this sect, we know that it is everywhere spoken against." This is the language of the unbelieving Jews to Paul; and here, evidently, the word must be understood of doctrine or sentiment. They say, "But we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest ;" which is an inquiry after belief. They had heard various accounts of the belief of the Christians; now they come to Paul to know the truth. No mention is made of persons any way, and no substantial reason can be given why doctrine, or sentiment, or christianity as a system, may not be the chief thing meant by the word pris. Indeed, that such is the fact, this additional consideration proves, namely, that Christianity was considered, even by Pagans (and if by them, much more by the Jews) as "a new and mischievous superstition." At any rate, those who employed the term in this passage regarded christianity in this light. They considered Christ as an impostor, and his religion as subverting the religion of their fathers-a heresy certainly, in their judgment, surpassed by nothing that has since borne the name. I pass now to the Epistles, in which the word in question is found but three times. It occurs first, in 1 Cor. xi, 19. "For there must be also heresies is among you." In this passage, says the critic before referred to, the term 'has no necessary reference to doctrine, true or false.' But why? it may be asked, why has it no reference to doctrine? How does it appear that heresies (rus) in the nineteenth verse means the same thing as xiomara in the preceding; and that neither relates to doctrine ?