upon the strength of it. They held in fact these three great principles in concord-the sufficiency of the Scriptures, the right of private judgment, and the authority of the Churchbetween which Dr. Baines's party have produced an unnatural disunion, by their arrogant extension of the prerogative of the Church, encroaching on the privileged ground both of Scripture and of reason, and exalting human authority over the divine. They are the real advocates of the extravagant use of private interpretation, when they are seen intus et in cute-view them apart from the purple and fine linen of their hierarchy, the illuminated vellum of their missals, the bulls of their Popes, the apparatus of their councils, their processions, their crossings, and bowings, and creepings, and genuflexions, and we find the gentlemen who can dogmatize er cathedrâ are men of like passions and inclinations with ourselves, and their expositions of Seripture, which they would have us account as the voice of God and not of man, are but poor performances savouring of the mortality of the expounders, and weak inventions of the enemy. Comparing their authoritative decisions with the authentic verities of Scripture, how are we reminded of the words of the Psalmist: "But unto the wicked God saith, what hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth? seeing thou hatest instruction and castest my words behind thee." The method in fact pursued by the Church of Rome, while it asserts the contrary, is nothing more than private interpretation under a specious form, and under the opposite title of infallible authority, (in conformity with the catachrestical titles of Pius, Boniface, Innocent, Clement, &c. assumed by the Popes themselves on commencing their reign) domineering over the text and sense of Scripture.

But we will look more closely at Dr. Baines's inferences from the imperfection of private judgment in deciding on Scripture truth. He wishes evidently to impress upon his readers the necessity of an unerring living guide in matters of religion. But not a word that he advances proves any such necessity, nor even as he flatters himself the necessity of any guide at all, but only, as we before observed, the expediency of a guide, which we fancy none but the fanatic will call in question. The word necessarily is very conveniently inserted in his conclusion, but it is only by his private interpretation of his own reasoning that it finds a place there. The difficulty and general impracticability of deciding on Scripture truth, are certainly not decisive as to the necessity of a living oracle, for if some find it out alone, then may a guide be dispensed with, in some cases at least, nor again is the inconsistency of various interpreters, unless it is proved that all are wrong, for the principle of interpretation may be right while many apply it

incorrectly, and the one sect which may use it correctly, is an example in favour of its propriety. Nor because it may be perverted to licentiousness, is that any ground for condemning the principle, any more than because many persons take im proper means for preserving their health and incur disorders, proves the necessity that every body should have Dr. Kitchener at their elbow when they sit down to dinner.

But Dr. Baines conceives the case of private interpretation of Scripture is the same as that of the laws of the land.

"Should the same principle be applied to any code of human laws, its fallacy would be immediately seen. The laws of England, for instance, like those of the Gospel, are a consistent code, enjoining certain duties and forbidding certain acts. But should these laws be put into the hands of the people, to be explained by the latter according to their own private judgment, they would cease to be a consistent code: they would enjoin and forbid the same duties, forbid and enjoin the same acts. We should have in a short time as many different systems of the laws of England as we have different religious sects." P. 37.

"If the same questions were put respecting any code of human laws, each one's common sense would dictate the answer. Are the laws of England written or read in vain, because every individual is not at liberty to give them the sense he pleases ?" P. 40.

This is the hackneyed illustration employed by his party. There is however no analogy between the two cases. A revelation from God, written expressly that men might believe, and believing have life, is very different in nature from a code of laws written for the administration of justice in a community. The revealed laws of God are framed in relation to a silent invisible power, which searcheth the inward part and maketh us to understand wisdom secretly. The laws of the land in relation to a visible power on earth, without which they would have no significancy and force. If we were living, like the Jews in their ancient state, under a theocracy, then would there be some resemblance between the laws of our country and those of the Scripture, as in fact with the Jews the two coincided. But with us the law of the land must in its very constitution have a reference to its human administration, Therefore it is, that it only concerns itself with outward actions. The law of the Scripture, on the contrary, as administered by an all-seeing Judge, controuls the conscience, Private judgment is consequently the only ultimate criterion of the latter, whilst in the former it has no place, the law being the rule by which a third party (the governor or judge) is to decide on our conduct, As far as mere interpretation goes, indeed, every one may be said to have a right of interpreting the law of the land, but it is the practical construction of it which he

may adopt, that is of importance, and which will shew him how far it is his concern.

The true analogy of the Scripture law is to be found in the law of reason. This again can alone come under the cognizance of the searcher of hearts, and is a matter accordingly between God and our own consciences. Like the Scripture too, it is in many cases hard to be understood-particular experiences of individuals, sometimes leading to apparently contradictory conclusions. In many cases again it is liable to be perverted, and yet no one supposes there is any necessity for a set of authorized interpreters of it, so as to usurp the prerogative which God has given to every man of judging to the best of his ability of the rules of natural Providence, as they are taught by the course of experience. In regard to this unwritten code of the Almighty Lawgiver, it may also be observed that a similar expediency arises, as in the interpretation of Scripture, from the help of a guide. That man would be culpable indeed, who in investigating the law of reason did not use such helps as are cast in his way, and provided for him in the experience of others, and by the more enlarged observation of philosophers and moralists.

But Dr. Baines having turned his argument entirely on the question of private interpretation and evaded the other question, which is really quite distinct, as to the sufficiency of the Scriptures as a rule of faith and conduct; we will endeavour to supply his deficiency. The truth is, if the Scriptures do contain all that is required for salvation, his Church is at once condemned out of her own mouth, in whomsoever the right of interpretation may be vested. For in that case the right of interpreting, be it ever so rightfully conceded, will convey no charter for additions and supplements.

Independently then of the internal evidence which the Scriptures bear to their own sufficiency, not only by the testimony of particular texts, such as-that in the preface of St. Luke, where he states the reason of writing an account of the Gospel transactions to be, that the disciple "might know the certainty, (rTÙY dopáλav,-the word itself seeming to denote that the word written was the only infallible vehicle of the truth) of the things, wherein he had been instructed,-the beginning of the Acts of the Apostles, where St. Luke refers to his previous account in his Gospel, as "an account of all things which Jesus began to do and to teach until the day when he was taken up"-in which the expression, "all things," must of course be restricted to all things necessary to salvation,-St. Paul's praise of Timothy for having studied the Scriptures, which were able to make him wise unto salvation, which, if said of the Old Testament to one who enjoyed the personal teaching of an

Apostle, may reasonably be applied to the whole volume of the Bible, now that the canon has been completed:-the whole tenor of the Bible is such as to lead us to rely on its own sufficiency unto salvation. We find no intimation of its own inadequacy to this high purpose; no reference to any expositor who whould come after to supply its own imperfection. St. John indeed says, that there were also many other things which Jesus did, as might well be conceived from the small compass of his narrative, but the transient manner in which he has alluded to the omissions in his account, shews that the particulars which have been given in writing tell enough for us to know. There is a completeness, and a compactness we might say, about the sacred volume, to which nothing can well be added as nothing can be taken from it. If we had the Old Testament alone, we might then observe that there were signs of imperfection in the very face of the record; that there was not an universal religion set forth, and therefore another revelation was needed; that it does not appear to be a whole, as not having an end of such a nature, that there is nothing required after it. Indeed its whole tone is the language of its last messenger in speaking of himself, "There cometh one mightier than I after me." But how different is the air of the whole record, now that the Mightier is come and has added the testimony of his Apostles and Evangelists to the sacred canon? Nothing is now wanting which can satisfy the heart of man, so far as satisfaction is attainable by us or consistent with our state of probation. The life eternal is now set forth to us in both its awful alternatives of reward and punishment, with an authority and a clearness which come home to every man's comprehension; and the way of that life is also pointed out, both in its meritorious cause and its subordinate means, with a reach of thought and copiousness of doctrine, which need no subsequent enlargement from the source of revelation. It may require the aids of human learning, and the methods of art to explain more fully and illustrate to various understandings the instruction given from above; but these are only ordinary means subservient to its general application, in the same way in which its_translation into different languages renders the truth accessible to all.

But besides the testimony which the Scriptures bear to their own sufficiency, it is impossible to substantiate by adequate evidence any other than a written record of divine revelation. If the writings of the Fathers, considered as records of sacred tradition, have sufficient evidence that their testimony is divine, there is no alternative but that they must be admitted as part of the canon of Scripture itself: if, on the other hand, they have not an evidence amounting to such proof, which no one will venture to pronounce that they have, it remains that they must

2

be regarded only as historical evidence, and in no sense be admitted beyond the word of Scripture. As to all oral testimony, floated down in the stream of the Church, this can never be proved to have originated from God. Though the tradition were ever so current and uniform, it only argues that the institution or the opinion thus handed down is congenial to the human mind, and that therefore such institution or opinion is to be respected, but it has no claim on our religious veneration; nor does its antiquity consecrate it to the office of revelation. The unchangeable nature of an authoritative record of inspiration, appears indeed to offer the only mode of communica ting heavenly truth correspondent to the unchangeable nature of the revealer. We all know the fluctuations of statement tỏ which the commonest matters of fact are subject, when they are transmitted through successive oral reporters. And when these varieties of tradition are observable in things subject to experience, how much more must the history of inexperienced facts and modes of doctrine be open to a like mutability in their detail in travelling from generation to generation? If, also, even authentic manuscripts are subject to varieties of readings from the inaccuracy of successive transcription, how much more again must an oral creed be deformed by like discrepancies, resulting from the carelessness of the casual historian, whilst at the same time there is no opportunity of correcting such discrepancies by a comparison of the credibility of the various reporters. The last report is in fact the only one of which we have the means of judging. If it be said that these discrepancies may be over-ruled by a controlling Providence appointing such a mode of conveyance, we argue that, as they have not been over-ruled in the known case of the Scriptures, sơ neither is it reasonable to suppose that they would be overruled in the case of tradition.

So convinced are even the upholders of tradition of the necessity of some recorded standard of doctrine, that while they renounce the sufficiency of the Scriptures, they most inconsistently appeal to the Creed of Pope Pius IV. and the record of the Council of Trent, as their standards of orthodoxy! Bossuet, for instance, instead of setting forth his "exposition of the faith," as an exposition of Scripture doctrine, presents it to the world as an expression of the mind of the Council of Trent. Consistently with his Church's consecration of tradition to the conveyance of inspired truth, he ought to have stated it to be an exposition of their faith, as gathered from the compound authority of Scripture and tradition. For the principle on which they proceed sets aside the exclusive validity of any written standard. Nor are the present advocates of Popery entitled to rest on any written statement of their doctrines. It