followed, that of the Church, or that of our private opinion, we cannot settle the question by assuming that the explanations of either one of the two are certainly right. If the teaching of the Church be necessarily true, it matters not whether her doctrines harmonize with, or contradict, the decisions of the individual mind; so that it is plainly absurd, to seek to prove that such teaching is not infallible, by showing that its expositions are contrary to those which the private student of Scripture would give. The argument that tradition opposes the written word, and is consequently of no divine authority, is of no avail to overthrow its claims to obedience, except on the supposition that whatever is opposed to our personal interpretation is not to be considered as necessarily true; which manifestly presupposes the paramount authority of private judgment.

2. It is sometimes argued by Protestants, that because the Bible contains certain doctrines which are therein declared to be necessary to salvation, we are therefore to conclude that no other truths are equally binding upon all who will be saved. This mode of reasoning is utterly invalid in the question before us: and that for two reasons.

In the first place, the fact that the

reception of some fixed truths is needful in all who are to be accepted as true believers, is no proof that God does not demand a belief in any other articles of faith also. Because the Bible contains revelations from God, which we cannot neglect without peril of eternal ruin, it by no means follows that all necessary truth is therein declared. Other doctrines may be equally fundamental, and it may have pleased God to convey them to mankind by other means. And, secondly, until we have obtained some trustworthy interpreter, whether that guide be the Church or our own common sense, how can we be sure that the Scriptures do contain doctrines of any one particular character? Until we comprehend the real nature of the truths which are therein written, how shall we know that they are necessary to salvation in themselves, and much less, that they are of such a description as alone to place the believer in a state of acceptance with God? When once, indeed, we have attained to a full knowledge of the contents of the Scriptures, we may perceive that some truths are set forth in such terms and under such conditions, that it is plain that a belief in them is of itself sufficient to render us true believers in the sight of God. A set of doctrines may of course be of

such a description as to contain in themselves all the fundamental truths of the Gospel, and thus to show that God has made known no other revelations of a similar character. But the knowledge of these articles of faith can only be gained by those who have already made choice of their guide; and therefore no argument can be drawn from them by those who are still in search for a teacher, against the divine claims of any doctrines not written in the inspired volume.

3. But inasmuch as Scripture is not merely the depositary of revealed truths, and the source from whence articles of religious faith (as the word is commonly used) are to be derived; but is at the same time a record of facts which have occurred upon this earth, and of certain commands uttered by the first founders of Christianity; it therefore becomes necessary that we inquire how far the words of the sacred volume are to be made use of, in order to discover the proper guide to the understanding its entire contents. For those who deny to the individual any power of interpreting Scripture doctrines, usually grant that a distinction is to be drawn between the facts and commands, and the mysterious articles of faith, recorded in the Bible. They suppose (and with reason) that however obscure

and incomprehensible be its intimations concerning what are properly called doctrines, as a history the sacred volume is really fitted to the understanding of the private Christian. And consequently, it is their practice to appeal to various expressions of Christ as decisive in favour of their own opinions, and to demand obedience to the authority they uphold, on the strength of certain precepts enjoined by the Saviour or his apostles.

We must here, therefore, observe, that in a collection of writings in which doctrines and facts are so closely interwoven as in the Scriptures, there will be constant risk of forgetting the distinction between the two, and of appealing to some particular doctrinal truth in order to prove the view which is maintained. Continual care must therefore be exerted, lest we violate the fundamental rule, that no one passage in the sacred writings can be advanced either to prove or disprove a right of interpreting, given to the church or to tradition, whose force and meaning depend upon any doctrine of direct revelation. It matters not whether such passage merely record an event which took place upon this earth, or contain nothing more than a positive command; if the fact or command be unintel

ligible, except upon the supposition that some doctrine implied or involved, be already known, every argument deduced therefrom is necessarily futile. By the very nature of the question debated, we are commencing our course of reasoning with no more knowledge concerning the sacred volume, than that it is a book written by men who had the power of working miracles, and who are therefore entitled to be believed in every thing that they declare. This book we soon perceive to be a history of certain events which befel the Founder of Christianity and his followers, a record of various positive commands by them laid down, and a depositary of truths which were unknown to the world until they were thus revealed. As a narrative of facts, it is agreed on all hands that every man may study it for himself, and that from what he reads therein he may gather a tolerably correct idea of the actions and sayings of the persons who first propagated the religion. But when from such a study of the sacred volume, the enquirer would go on either to search out for himself the actual mysteries which are therein announced, or to test the various systems of religious faith which he knows to prevail in the world, by the interpretation which to his own private judgment,