discoveries of modern science, and with the principles of a more refined ethics and a more enlightened philosophy. Rigid orthodoxy indeed has all along maintained its original position, and given up nothing to science and philosophy, maintaining, on the assumed ground of plenary inspiration, that the truth of God must always be preferred to the speculations of men." But for the last two centuries there have been men in all parts of Protestant Europe sincerely attached to Christianity, and fully appreciating the inestimable benefits it has conferred on humanity, who plainly saw that the question could not be thus summarily disposed of-who were anxious to effect an amicable adjustment between the claims of faith and reason-who desired to conciliate the natural and healthful progress of human ideas, with an undiminished reverence for those hopes and principles which Christianity had introduced into the world.

This feeling gave rise to the system of accommodation, as it has been called, according to which the inspired preachers of the Gospel were supposed to have adapted their language to the prejudices of their hearers, and to have employed, by way of figure and illustration, the popular conceptions of the time without themselves entertaining them. It must be observed, that the whole of Protestant theology has emerged out of a strong belief in the plenary inspiration of the Bible. Even the freest forms of it, as, for example, the Socinian, have been distinguished by a deep reverence even for the letter of Scripture. We might almost say, that a rigidly Scriptural Christianity is the outward mark and sign of Protestantism. What was felt or perceived to be true in morals, in philosophy, or in religion, it was assumed must be found whole and entire within the limits of the Sacred Volume. On this system, then, only one of two alternatives seemed left to the believers; either an implicit acquiescence in the literal interpretation of the words of Scripture, taken in their unforced and obvious sense, without any regard to its irreconcilableness with the conclusions of modern science and philosophy; or else the supposition, that the Sacred writers had veiled the truths they taught in language adjusted to the low and imperfect education of their contemporaries. They were said to avail themselves of Jewish modes of speech, to make impressive and intelligible their Christian doctrines. Their words, it was contended, appeared to state one thing, but the real meaning of them involved another.

Great violence was in this way frequently offered to the natural construction of the text; and it was not always perceived, that an idea was rather put into words, than fairly extracted out of them but this was the only method in which it was deemed

possible to maintain the authority of Scripture, and to uphold in any sense the notion of inspiration. A more plausible method of overcoming the difficulty was next suggested, in the distinction which it was affirmed might be drawn between that which the apostles delivered from inspiration, and that which they said under the feelings and with the knowledge of ordinary men; and in accordance with this view, the principle of interpretation approved by Paley was laid down, that we should admit the conclusions of the Apostles, and not regard their arguments. But we find, on trial, that it is not so easy to draw the line which is here suggested. Conclusions and arguments perpetually run into one another with a continuity which it is impossible, at any assignable point, to dissolve. In fact, propounded in this loose and unguarded form, the principle throws open the Bible to the license of every dogmatic interpreter. For all that accords with his own views he will be ready to claim the sanction of divine authority. Whatever is at variance with them he will not hesitate to reject as a mere form of speech, which forms no essential part of the doctrinal system of Scripture.

It will be readily conceived, that the Epistles were that portion of the New Testament which was most severely subjected to this species of critical dissection. Their multifarious contents furnish the most abundant materials for dogmatic controversy; their practical application of Christian principles to the earliest circumstances of the Church deservedly confer on them great interest and importance; and the difference between the Apostles and Christ might seem to excuse and justify a freer treatment of their writings than would have been deemed consistent with the reverence due to the words of the Saviour himself. For this reason, the Epistles-especially the Epistles of Paul-with the Gospel of John, which possesses a similar dogmatic character, and perhaps owes its origin to similar circumstances-have ever been-and will no doubt continue to be-the principal field on which the battle of a controversial theology must be fought; till the awakening of a spirit more calmly and deeply religious shall call men back to the essentials of Christianity, and dismiss polemics to the receptacle into which time finally sweeps all useless and exploded things.

No part of the New Testament is fraught with deeper interest than the Epistles of Paul,-revealing to us, as they do, the earliest development of the organic life of Christianity: there is none, as to the meaning and application of which it is perhaps more difficult to arrive at a completely satisfactory conclusion. Three courses seem open to us, and have been pursued by three different classes of inquirers :-First, That of the orthodox, who

rest in the system deduced from a literal interpretation of the Apostle's words,-and who, regarding this system as the characteristic and peculiarity of Divine Revelation, and shrouding its more difficult features in the veil of mystery, do not think it necessary to establish the conformity of their scheme with the principles of natural religion and human philosophy, or to maintain the coherence and consistency of all its elements with each other, when wrought out into their legitimate consequences. Secondly, That of those who consider Christianity as a completion and supernatural sanction of the truths of natural religion, and the resurrection of Christ in particular as a confirmation of the doctrine of a future life, of which the evidence from reason and nature is not so clear and convincing as could be wished. This is the system generally adopted by Unitarians, though not exclusively by them: those who adopt it, recognise the religion of nature as it offers itself to the reason of man, and refer to it as a standard of the truths taught in Scripture; whatever interferes with their conceptions of the teaching of reason and nature being explained into mere phraseology, and rejected from the substance of revelation. Thirdly, That of the Deist, who, admitting the correctness of many of the orthodox interpretations, but regarding as fundamental and indubitable the principles of natural religion, and being unable to reconcile the two, on the system usually embraced by Christians, concludes that Christianity itself must have had its source in imposture or fanaticism, and is nothing more than a lasting delusion.With the first of these courses-speaking now with exclusive reference to the Epistles of Paul-we cannot concur, because some of the doctrines inculcated by orthodoxy, and which are perhaps justified by a literal interpretation of texts, would, if carried out into their consequences, appear to us not only at variance with the clearest principles of ethics and natural religion, but altogether irreconcilable with other, still greater and more vital, doctrines undoubtedly taught by the Apostle himself. As to the second, we must confess ourselves dissatisfied with several interpretations generally received among Unitarians, because they seem to us to put a meaning into the Apostle's words which they do not naturally bear, or perhaps more frequently do not admit the entire force which is fairly deducible from those words,-often resolving into a form of speech, or a Jewish illustration, what we cannot but regard as the expression of deep and living conviction. With the Deist we cannot agree, because there is to our minds strong evidence of a divine power —a superhuman influence and operation-in the life and teachings of Christ, for which we can find no adequate cause in the

circumstances of his age and country, and which we are compelled therefore to refer to the direct inspiration of God. It was this same divine power, influence, and operation-proceeding from God through Christ-which we believe to have passed into the hearts and minds of the Apostles, and to have been the spring of their enthusiasm, and the cause of their success, enabling them to implant a new spirit in the corrupted manners and institutions of the world, and to become the creators of a new civilization. This same power, acting through faith and love on the heart and conscience, has, as we believe, in all subsequent ages of the Church, produced the truest heroes, sages, and philanthropists-has softened manners, ameliorated laws, and spiritualized art, literature, and philosophy; and having made a new world in Europe, is now scattering the seeds of a higher culture in the distant regions of the south and west. The whole of European history, since the fall of the Western Roman empire, with the present tendencies and prospects of society, we cannot but regard as a clear declaration of the will of Providence, and a confutation of Deism.

What then, it will be asked, is essentially Christianity? and how are we to discover, amidst the various contents of its original records, that element of divine life, which has produced these great effects, and which is still burning in the heart of the great fraternity of Christendom? This question, simple as it may seem, has never yet been completely answered; it furnishes the great problem which theology has yet to solve. Its solution is limited by the three conditions which we have already suggested. It must avoid the irrational and immoral consequences of orthodoxy; it must renounce the strained interpretations of the rationalist systems; it must escape the unsatisfactory negations of Deism. Within these limits its solution must somewhere be found. Different solutions will be offered by different minds; and none may completely satisfy all the conditions of the case; but all are entitled to attention which are offered in the spirit of truth and seriousness, and which furnish an approximation to the desired result.

No one ever wielded the divine life and power of Christianity with greater success and purer integrity than Paul. Let us endeavour to ascertain, from an analysis of his writings, what it was that he taught, without any reference to our modern theories that analysis may perhaps lead us to the secret of his moral influence, and enable us to separate the spirit of his religion from its form.

We shall now place before our readers, deduced immediately from his own writings, and conveyed, as nearly as possible, in

his own words, the doctrinal system of Paul, on the great topics of God, Man, Christ, and the Future Life. Possessed of these views, we shall proceed in a concluding article in our next number, to compare them with our actual state of manners, knowledge, and opinion, and so endeavour to determine their present significance and practical application.

II.

Systematic theology is an idea that sprang up subsequent to the original promulgation of the Gospel. The only unity that we can reasonably look for in the teachings of the primitive missionaries of the faith, is that which arises from their consistent exemplification of the great principles by which they were inspired, their unwavering trust in the promises of which they were the heralds, and their steady prosecution of the practical objects of the Christian dispensation. Called forth by circumstances, adapted to the condition and capacity of the parties immediately addressed, and clothed in a form in which effect and impressiveness were more consulted than the scientific enunciation of abstract truth-the teachings of the New Testament can be reduced to anything like systematic unity, only by tracing them back to the primary convictions in which they had their source, and viewing them all with a common reference to the grand topics of apostolic instruction and testimony. Nevertheless, the authority which attaches generally to the declarations of Scripture-the distinct and definite shape in which the tenets of different churches are conceived and expressed-the desirableness of ascertaining, in order to judge of the comparative claims of those tenets, what primitive Christianity both in spirit and in form actually was-and the great importance more particularly of the instructions of that Apostle who carried the Gospel out of the narrow circle of Judaism into the wide community of heathens-seem to impose on us the necessity of carefully studying his writings, and of extracting from them as complete and systematic a statement of his doctrines as the nature of epistolary composition will admit.

As his writings are all occasional, and the notion of a doctrinal system never probably entered his mind, we must ourselves construct a scheme with reference to those topics on which the Apostle was led most constantly and most emphatically to insist, and arrange the several passages of his Epistles under the heads thus suggested to us; and by this artificial distribution of the contents of his writings, we must mould them into a shape which will admit of an immediate comparison with our present modes of representing religious truth. Every text