exhibit in systematic order the truths of Scripture, would have to go over exactly the same ground, and occupy in all the same position, as he who aims at presenting the belief of the church. And it consequently might be found more convenient, as well as serve a number of valuable ends, to combine these two things together, rather than to treat them separately. It may be advisable to unfold the Confession of Faith and the Bible in connection, rather than apart, that thus an opportunity may be taken, not only to show what the teachings of each are, but also to show that these are identical, or rather, that the former is simply based upon or drawn from the latter. And yet, whatever may be said in favour of this combination, whatever convenience may attend it, and whatever advantages may follow from it, it is neither necessary nor desirable to forget that they are, in conception at least, distinct. It is an important Protestant principle, that the standards of the church are her standards, not for their inherent value, but only because they represent the Bible; and that they ought to be her standards only in so far as they represent the Bible. If they swerve from that, the true and highest form of faith and duty, their authority is null, and they ought in so far to be discarded. Church dogmas are of worth only in so far as the church has held fast to the lively oracles of infallible truth; only in so far as the faith of the church coincides with the faith once delivered to the saints. The standard of her faith, which she has for important reasons framed for herself, may not be put upon a par with the divinely inspired sources of her faith, as though those had, like these, an original underived authority. And for this reason, it may be well that the distinction between Biblical and Church theology should be stated and remembered, even though it may not be practically observed. It is not a matter of course, however, that they should even harmonise, much less coincide. They have not always been harmonious in fact.

The condition of the church here may be a reason why this distinction has not been more insisted on amongst us ;-why it has either not been made or has been esteemed unimportant. All diversities of theological belief have their representatives in the numerous denominations of Christians, with their proper symbols, and their well understood distinguishing sentiments. Every man may thus seek his proper affinity in the ranks of those like-minded with himself, or failing to discover such, may head an independent sect of his own. Every one may accordingly find in the belief of that branch of the church to which he is attached, the counterpart of what he personally holds to be the teaching of the Bible. Biblical theology and church theology are thus to him the same, or differ only in

the aspect under which the same body of truth is contemplated.

An altered condition of things can, however, be readily conceived, which would naturally and necessarily bring the distinction between these two modes of theology into greater prominence. Suppose, for example, that it should become a matter of doubt and controversy in any communion, what the settled and proper faith of that communion was. Suppose, that the strifes which rose concerned questions like those now agitating the Episcopal Church, not only in this country, but in Britain, regarding the true intent of the Prayer Book, or like those some years since, in the bosom of our own communion, touching the tenets of the Presbyterian Church. And if, still farther, as was the case in the Quaker controversy, the denominational creed was to be found, not in definite articles or symbols of faith, but in a great number of voluminous writings belonging to different occasions, different periods, and even different countries, and these ambiguous perhaps, or perhaps contradictory upon the points in dispute; it can be easily seen, that in such a case the distinction must be made. What is the faith of the Bible? what is the faith of the church? would be totally distinct questions; each would possess an independent importance, and they would of necessity be treated separately.

Again, suppose a different case. One may be imagined in which the faith of the church was perfectly well understood, and no controversy could be raised upon that ground; but many within her pale, whether constituting a majority or not, whether following one road or not, had departed from her recognised tenets. Now, let it be assumed, either that the church creed was right, or that it was wrong; in either case there will be a juncture which cannot fail to suggest and to bring out the distinction already several times referred to. This case is not a merely imaginary one in either of its aspects. Besides numerous other exemplifications of it which might be named, the period of the Reformation is an instance of the former; the counter revolution in Europe in the last century, in which a shallow rationalism took the place of the Reformers' faith, though still retaining the Reformers' symbols, affords an instance of the latter. And this last was really the occasion and the time which gave birth to Biblical Theology in its present sense, and as a study to be separately pursued.

It does not, however, fall within the limits of the theme suggested by the treatise before us, to discuss the subject of Biblical Theology generally, nor even to raise the question with regard to its desirableness; accordingly, we pass this by, and advance nearer to our proper theme, by remarking, that if

Biblical and Dogmatic Theology have thus to so great an extent coalesced amongst us, it was scarcely to be expected that any clear separation would have been effected between the different branches of Biblical Theology itself. A salutary fear of marring the unity of the sacred volume may have had something to do with restraining the formation of an Old Testament, as distinguished from a New Testament, Theology, and within the latter again of further subdivisions, such as a Petrine or Pauline Theology, or that of the beloved disciple. We must not be understood to sanction either the principles or the methods of many of those who have admitted these distinctions, and who have undertaken to carry them out. We have neither fellowship nor sympathy with those who would sunder the real and intimate bond of union between all the sacred writers, by ignoring or denying the directing influences of the Holy Spirit, by whom all were moved. Regarding merely their human origin, they entirely isolate the books of Scripture, as the work of independent thinkers; or esteem them to have had no more connection with each other than they are occupied with the same or similar subjects, and were the products of the same age, and of a similar congeries of influences. This is to overlook the very thing which makes the Bible what it is, the very thing which gives to it its chief value for us and for the world. The Bible is a unit; not, however, as a uniform undistinguishable mass as a unit; but as a system combining many and various parts, yet all constructed and arranged under the guidance of one master Mind, and all harmonising, all governed by one pervading principle, all conspiring to one grand and worthy result. A machine has unity in spite of its complication; or rather, the sense of unity which beholding it produces, is heightened by reason of the very complication of its parts; its wheels moving upon wheels with their various velocities and directions, yet no interference, no jarring, all necessary to the end of its formation. A tree has unity, with its roots, its trunk, its branches, its leaves, diverse, yet the same. The pure ray of light, as it comes to us direct from heaven, is one; and yet it has all the prismatic colours beautifully blended within it.

While investigations into the varied exhibitions of truth, to be met with in different parts of the sacred volume, may be so conducted as to interfere with the unity of the whole, they need not be. Nor does a just regard for the divine character and inspiration of the sacred volume require that these should be overlooked, or thrust into a corner as insignificant and unimportant. There is no impropriety in the admission that there are peculiarities of style and diction belonging to each of the sacred writers, and no harm is done by investigating what these are. On the contrary, they have a place and an impor

tance which every critical student of the Scriptures knows. Neither is there any more impropriety in admitting peculiarities, not barely in the mode of conceiving and presenting truth, but in the truths themselves presented, whether as to the degree of clearness with which they are set forth, or the position which they occupy in the scheme of revelation. Only our admissions must not outrun the reality, and our investigations must be conducted fairly and on sound and sober principles, not for the sake of inventing or proving a theory, but of discovering the facts as they exist. That view of the nature of inspiration which would take offence at such investigations, or be alarmed at their results, finds no warrant in the teachings of Scripture, and no support in the phenomena which it exhibits.

If the Spirit of truth, in communicating to the world the way of salvation, chose to make use of not one man as his organ, but many, and those in different ages, from different ranks of life, trained under different circumstances, and with different mental constitutions and habits, had He not a design in all this? Or by what principle of faith or of religion can we be required to shut our eyes upon it if He had? If Holy Scripture, instead of presenting a dead level, contains the most grandly beautiful diversities of scenery, why may we not delight our eyes with beholding, whilst we are busying ourselves with gathering the rich grain from its surface, or with digging the precious ores from its bosom? Or rather, if there is not only a beauty which may please, but a heavenly meaning in all this, if there is here a confirmation of the divine original of the Bible, and valuable suggestions as to the true character and intent of the Bible, why must we be denied the instruction no less than the gratification hence afforded?

If the wondrous constitution of the Bible is such as of itself to evidence, from first to last, one guiding superintending Mind, acting above and through the human instruments; if it can be shown that there was a Mind engaged in framing the earlier portions of the sacred record, and in conducting the earlier portions of the sacred history, who was all the while intimately and profoundly conscious of the whole that was to come after, though not unfolded for centuries upon centuries, is not this a fact to be observed and pondered? If this can be shown not only in a prediction here and there which lies upon the surface, but if it has penetrated the framework of the whole, and the proofs become more marked and multiplied the farther and the deeper we push our investigations; if even what at first sight seemed random and unconcerted, perhaps conflicting, is upon renewed examination perceived to fall in exactly with a regular and consistent plan; and it is seen at the close more clearly than it could possibly be discovered be

fore, that all has been driving towards one issue, evidently designed from the first and aimed at throughout, though the human actors could have had but a faint anticipation of it, even if any whatever, then here is a proof which none can controvert of Divine superintendence and guidance. Now, if all this be in the Scriptures, or any thing approaching or resembling it—which is the more culpable, he who searches it out, or he who refuses to see it himself and hinders those who would? To confine ourselves, however, to the Old Testament, the advantages are evident and unquestionable which would be derived from a thorough and systematic exhibition of its contents distinctly and by themselves, whether taken as a whole or considered in their gradual development from the patriarchal germs. Such a careful tracing out of all the facts, and a presentation of them in their mutual relations and their ulterior bearings is necessary to a proper comprehension of the Old Testament, of the religion which it embodies, and the connection between it and the revelations of the New. In fact, if we would rightly understand the whole scheme of reve lation, we must first get clear and definite conceptions of its opening stage. By some it may be imagined that the character of the former dispensation is sufficiently obvious without the need of any deep investigation. But such a thought only betrays the shallowness of their acquaintance with the subject who are capable of cherishing it. There is room for the most elaborate and profound inquiry; and this will be amply repaid by discoveries not only interesting and unexpected, but valuable in the highest degree. It is in this case as in that of many other works of God. The superficial observer passes them by as undeserving of attention; but the profound student tarries long, and the longer he examines the more cause he sees to wonder and adore. If now a clear and succinct account of the religion of the Old Testament be asked for, which shall be at once comprehensive and minute, embodying the facts and revelations of the former dispensation in systematic or generic order, and without any foreign elements, those acquainted with English and American theology will know how many works there are within the range of our literature in which it can be found. They will know whether it is a single one which even undertakes to present such an account, or once grapples fairly with the questions which it involves, however imperfectly or inadequately the task may be performed.

But apart from the dearth of comprehensive and systematic exhibitions of the theology and religion of the former dispensation, the elucidation of individual points, where that has been attempted, has not been all that could be desired. This is in fact what might have been expected. The want of a just