"are given. Therefore, accordingly, they do "receive them; we do not think that in them "God hath omitted any thing needful unto his purpose, and left his intent to be accomp"lished by our devising. But the absolute

66

perfection of Scripture, is seen by relation "unto that end whereto it tendeth."* The spe- B.ii.gult cific commands contained in the word of God, are assuredly not the only rules of human actions. The design of Revelation has no such positive reference to the regulation of social affairs, but relates almost exclusively to the discovery of those supernatural truths, the knowledge of which is necessary to salvation, but which knowledge reason could not supply. The sufficiency of the Bible, as a rule of faith and practice, is to be considered as exclusive, not of other means of rational guidance, but of all other sources of authority in matters of religious duty. It is not implied, that nothing but what Scripture commands is lawful, but that nothing which Scripture has not made to be duty, can, as respects the concerns of religion, be constituted our duty by the authority of man. The word of God is our only rule, in the sense both of a law and a standard; a rule sufficient, as opposed to all deficiency; exclusive, as relates to the Divine authority from which it emanates; universal, as embracing all the principles of human actions; and ultimate,

On the bypothesis of

ized inter

preter.

as admitting of no appeal. For all religious purposes, it is literally the only rule, because the Divine command constitutes the only reason, as well as the only law of religious actions; and there can, therefore, be no scope for other rules, except with regard to the mere outward circumstantials of religious duties, which da not come within the obligations of any law. § 4. A third ground on which the opponents au author of the practical application of the grand principle under discussion take their stand, is this: They concede that the Scriptures are the only standard of religious truth, but this standard must needs have an authorized interpreter. The Church is, according to this notion, " a witness "and a keeper of Holy Writ," and as such, hath not only "power to decree rites or ceremonies," but hath also " authority in con"troversies of faith," or, in other words, the right of interpreting Scripture. It is truly astonishing that an hypothesis of this kind, so fatal, were it tenable, to the cause of Protestantism, should ever have been heard of out of the precincts of the Romish hierarchy. Yet has this claim been extensively regarded as inseparable from the honour and the interests of the English Episcopacy. We have seen it in the present day revived by a powerful faction in the Establishment, as among the chief reasons of their determined hostility to the plan of

66

the British and Foreign Bible Society. No one can imagine that the coalition of Episcopalians and Protestants of other sects, in that admirable Society, would have excited so much jealousy and alarm, had the Prayer Book been permitted to take the Bible under its guardianship. It is the principle on which the society was instituted, and what is implied by that principle the sufficiency and exclusive authority of the Bible without note or comment, which have roused into full play the latent anti-Protestantism which seems inherent in all establishments. The institution of the British and Foreign Bible Society, has served, in this respect, as a grand experiment, to determine the relative state of the moral atmosphere within and without the pale of the National Church, and to shew what is the degree of affinity between the spirit of Episcopacy, and the spirit of the Bible. Serious alarms have been expressed by the clergy, as to the probable effects of an unrestricted circulation of the Scriptures, in reference to the safety of the Established Church; and language has again and again been suffered to escape from Church-men in the warmth of their anger and the imbecility of panic fear, which, from the lips of a Dissenter, would have sounded like the bitterest sarcasms. Many, indeed, of the opponents of the Bible Society, have not scrupled boldly and unequi

Argument from the internal cha

vocally to maintain the unsuitableness of the Bible, as well as its inefficiency, in the hands of the common people.

To all such representations as these, as well as the hypothesis they are employed to support, Scriptures. is to be opposed, in the first place, The internal

racter of the

character of the sacred Scriptures themselves. The Scriptures, which alone could supply adequate proof of the existence and claims of an authorized interpreter, are not merely silent on the subject, but furnish evidence utterly fatal to all such pretensions. The circumstances

under which they were originally promulgated, prove that they were designed for popular use, and for the most unrestricted publicity. With respect to the Jewish Scriptures, it will scarcely be contended, that "the Church" is, in the sense intended by the phrase, a "witness and

keeper" of holy writings, which were, ages prior to the Christian era, the peculiar property of the Hebrew nation. The key to the ancient prophecies, the true means of interpretation, is undoubtedly in the possession of the Gentile Church; but the right of interpretation must needs belong to those more especially to whom were originally "committed the oracles of "God." It must be the New Testament, then, to which these factitious claims relate. But do the Gospels require the illustration of an authorized expositor? Few will deny that these are suf

ficiently intelligible to be entrusted in the hands of all descriptions of persons. Besides, the

16.

Church does not go so far as to claim a right of interpretation extending to facts. The doctrinal parts of Scripture, therefore, can alone be alluded to as requiring the light of an authorized exposition to be thrown upon their mysterious contents, in order to their being rendered safe or intelligible to the vulgar. And now we arrive at the true meaning of the objection. It is the Epistles of which "the Church" has always shewn this prudent jealousy, misquoting the words of St. Peter, as the ground of 2 Peter iii. ignorant allegations against the writings of St. Paul, and holding out that text in terrorem, to deter all unauthorized interpreters from trench. ing upon the prerogative attached to the true succession. Hence that marked distinction in the Liturgy, between the Gospels and the Epistles, which is expressed by the direction to stand up while the former are read, but to hear the latter read sitting; a distinction originating in the days of the darkest superstition, and the pernicious influence of which is very apparent in the indelible prejudice so prevalent among even the better informed church-people, in favour of the superior sanctity of the historical portions of Inspiration. Yes: it is the Epistles, respecting which these apprehensions are entertained. From what other source can con

Y