weighing the arguments which are brought forward by contending parties, the words of Scripture appear to require; then it is argued, that to such a task his powers of mind are unequal, and that he must seek for the true exposition of the passages in question from an institution which Christ himself commissioned to instruct his individual disciples.

Hence it is clear, that the private Christian cannot be required to submit to such an authority on the strength of any allusion, promise, or command of Christ or his apostles, which cannot be understood without deciding upon the truth or falsehood of some doctrine. By our hypothesis, we are searching for some guide to teach us the truth on subjects of positive revelation; and therefore it is absurd to allege in favour of the right of any authority to lead us, that it is justified by certain expressions, which can have no intelligible meaning until we have come to a decision as to the nature of some truth as yet unknown. For example; when Christ makes a promise which can only be fulfilled in the sense which is affixed to it, on the supposition that he who made the promise was truly the Son of God, it is plain that we cannot draw any conclusion in favour of the opinion in question, until the real nature of

Christ is ascertained. And this can only be accomplished when we have learned what guide we are to follow in our search after revealed truths.

4. It has been stated, that we cannot be allowed to prove the absence of all authority in unwritten tradition, by showing that the articles of belief which it sets forth, are contrary to what we ourselves conceive to be the meaning of the words of Scripture. One further remark, however, must be made in conjunction with this statement, which is as follows; that though we are not justified in arguing against the authority of tradition, from the additions or apparent contradictions to Scripture which are thereby maintained, we are yet perfectly at liberty to reject such claims, when it is shown that we cannot admit them without being compelled to believe either manifest absurdities or impossibilities. Though we cannot refuse to follow the Church in preference to our own judgment, because in our own judgment the Church opposes the Bible, without taking it for granted that our individual convictions are of the higher authority of the two; we nevertheless are fully justified in refusing to hearken at all to an interpreter, who would lead us to admit what we know, from the nature

of the case, cannot be true.

For this we have no

need of going to the written word; we want not even a hint as to its probable or possible contents; it matters not whether or no there be a thousand other arguments to be brought forward in favour of the authority which demands our obedience. So soon as it is manifest that tradition teaches one impossibility, its claims vanish into nothing. We do not presume to set up our own conceptions on the character of the truths which God may have made known to us, and to measure the acts of the divinity by our own feeble imaginations; we do not reject the right of tradition to expound the revealed word, merely because it sets forth doctrines which are above our comprehension. But the moment we are commanded to believe that which is contrary to our reason; the moment we are desired to disregard evidence, upon whose validity depend all our convictions with regard to the affairs of our daily lives; then we decide at once, that! however plausible the reasonings by which the title of this guide is upheld, it is absolutely impossible that such a teacher should be infallibly right in all the doctrines it sets forth. If the right of the Church to expound the Scriptures can only be maintained on condition of our

rejecting those principles of reasoning, which we cannot disregard without introducing a universal scepticism on all subjects, it is clear that by such a proceeding those who support this right must overthrow their own claims, and in convicting their opponents of error, must destroy every possible evidence which could be adduced in their own favour. Be it ever remembered, that one single necessary truth is sufficient to overthrow the largest conceivable amount of moral evidence. It is to no purpose that we bring forward in favour of an opinion, probabilities a hundred-fold more than would be enough to establish its truth, were there only probable arguments to be adduced against it; if it be clear. that it can only be upheld on the supposition of one impossibility, all evidence in its behalf falls at once to the ground.

The same may be said in justification of the argument which rejects traditionary teaching, on the ground that such teaching would compel us to deny that very evidence by which is established the title of the sacred volume to be considered the word of God. We may fairly. meet the supporters of this supposed authority, with the objection that we cannot receive their doctrines, without casting away the proofs on

which we believe the right of our Lord and his apostles to instruct us in the divine will. If such be the character of the proofs by which the infallibility of the Church is upheld, we cannot admit them without rejecting Scripture itself; if we decide on following such a leader, we have nothing to which she may conduct us; instead of being by these means instructed in the true doctrines of the Gospel, we must deny the Gospel itself, and end the question at once.

5. Great caution will be requisite, not only in reasoning upon the actual doctrines which tradition or the Church may teach, but also in estimating the true value of arguments deduced from considerations of antecedent probability or improbability, either for or against the question under discussion. It must be remembered that we are debating a theory which professes to be revealed from God to man, and therefore that no arguments can be urged as fully conclusive against it, which would equally militate against truths which are confessedly divine. We are considering whether or no the Almighty has Himself appointed an institution, which under his guidance shall be the instrument for interpreting his written word through all ages; and therefore we may not prove that it could not be