But when Abel yielded his heart in faith-when Noah prepared the ark-when Abraham left his kindred to be an exile in the land of Canaan-when Moses went back to Egypt as the deliverer of Israel—when Elijah thought himself alone in the midst of idolatry and profanation-when the apostles saw their hopes quenched in the darkness of their beloved Master's sepulchre-when St. Paul wandered about from city to city, disputing in the markets, teaching in the synagogue, or leading the Athenians on Mars Hill to contemplate the attributes of the unknown God-where, in all these instances was the Church, to aid the private judgment of the individual in deciding upon the truth of the word of inspiration? Nay, is it not demonstrable, from the necessity of the case, that the Word of God, embraced through the operation of his grace by the private judgment, must be anterior to the Church, since the Church consists of a company or society of believers, and in the nature of things, individual belief must go before the formation of any such society?

But to us who live after the full organization of the Church, it may be said that the order of the whole question is changed, because we are now obliged to take, through the medium of the Church, what was originally received by an extraordinary communication. This, however, only alters our mode of arriving at the standard of our faith, without at all affecting the standard itself; since it is obvious that whether the will of God be delivered to me by the word or by the pen of the inspired instrument, I am equally bound to receive it. And whether the word of God be delivered to me by evangelists and apostles in person, or be transmitted in writing through the channel of the Church, its authority and my submission to it must be the same, and the exercise of private judgment in either case must be equally indispensable.

Here, however, two questions arise, in which correct ideas of the Church become of the highest importance. One of them

respects her credit, as the witness and keeper of Holy Writ, the other regards her claim to be its best interpreter.

The first question resolves itself into the simplest form, when it is considered that the Church, or the body of Christ's faithful people, must of necessity, be the only safe guardian of the Scriptures, because none but the Church could have had any serious motive for their preservation, and to her they were the very charter of all her hope. It is saying nothing to the purpose, therefore, to tell us that we are indebted to the Church for the Bible, since the Bible could have descended to us in no other way; and in receiving it from the Church we have all the evidence that the case allows, and can ask no more. The first Churches obtained their Canon of Scripture from apostolic authority, and handed it down with religious care to each succeeding generation, so that by this simple yet necessary principle of transmission, we have the very word of inspiration in its own integrity, whatever else may have been liable to change.

The second question, namely, the claim of the Church to be the interpreter of Scripture, is a totally different matter, and yet it is one which, to a reflecting and unprejudiced mind, could never have been made the subject of a doubt, with regard to those points in which the judgment of the Church has been harmonious. For all must allow that the first Christians, who had the privilege of the inspired apostles' teaching for years, possessed advantages altogether superior to ou selves in ascertaining the mind of the Spirit. Titus, the bishop of Crete, for example, and Timothy, the first bi Ephesus, were instructed by St. Paul for the pres the ministry. Who would refuse them a p for that very reason, if it were possible to at the present day? Or if their favou they had communicated the results of with the great apostle, were now

suade us that they were not the safest guides for the soul? It is not, therefore, an assumption without argument, but a plain deduction of common sense, that the nearer we can approach to the apostolic fountain, the more highly we must esteem the opinions or judgment of the Church. But the first generation of teachers after the apostles were too much occupied in doing and suffering, to leave many written memorials behind them. And the remains even of the second are not numerous. As the progress of the Church advanced, indeed, they multiplied, and highly do we estimate them all. But we find a want of unanimity amongst them, which totally forbids that we should think them free from error. So early as the second century, for instance, soon after the death of the apostle John, we behold them disputing about the time for holding the festival of Easter. Further dissensions concerning the baptism of heretics spring up in the third century, and in the beginning of the fourth, the first General Council is summoned by the Emperor Constantine, to compose the strife which convulsed the Church upon the all-important subject of the Trinity, and the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. In all their disputations, however, we find them unanimous in appealing to the Scriptures as the standard of faith. Tradition, indeed, was sometimes called upon in the way of corroborative interpretation, but the decisive evidences of truth were only sought for in the Bible. Nothing, therefore, can be more manifest to the unprejudiced student of antiquity than this: that the primitive Christians de the Bible their infallible rule of faith, as we do, and used help of tradition on the very same ground that we ourallonmely, as being entitled to the highest respect of the Bible, but nothing more.

tatement, which we shall have to ení a future discourse, it results undeniathe Bible to be received above all other aith as alone infallible, are sustained not

only by the fact that it is the sure record of the Word of God, but by the unanimous consent of the primitive fathers. So that when we rest our faith on the same foundation, we are justified, first, by the reason of the thing itself, and, secondly, by the concurrent admission of those who had the advantage of living so much nearer than ourselves to the apostolic day. And the authority which should be conceded to the primitive Church, in the character of judges or interpreters of Scripture, is readily resolved in the same way. For surely the reverence which we yield to the ancient fathers cannot, in justice, go beyond the reverence which they claimed for themselves, or which they accorded to each other. As judges and interpreters of the Written word of God, they have our absolute confidence wherever they are unanimous. But where they are not unanimous, we are compelled to do as they did-compare their discordant sentiments with Scripture, and adopt that sense which seems most conformable to the language of inspiration.

In determining the last question, as to the obligation resting on all men, according to their light and opportunity, to select their Church for themselves, we can be at no loss to discover the argument furnished by the same recurrence to antiquity. For since, in some things, the infallible standard of the Scriptures has been interpreted by different portions of the Church in different ways, so that in agreeing with one party, we must perforce differ from another; what have we but our own judgment, under God, to decide for us between them? Or who shall deprive us of the privilege of obeying the apostles' precept-" Prove all things, hold fast that which is good?"

I may not, however, conclude even this cursory view of the principles set forth by our Articles on the rule of faith, without directing your attention to the wholesome limits provided for this exercise of private judgment. It is the plain doctrine of

our Church, that those things which are necessary to salvation are not only declared in Scripture, but are settled of old in the interpretation and judgment of the primitive Church, as by the several creeds, which are accordingly laid down as immovable landmarks in our system. Those points which are not essential to salvation, and which different portions of the Universal Church have settled differently, are nevertheless to be received and followed for the sake of peace and order by the members of each particular Church, just as that Church to which they belong has seen good to direct them. Allowance, therefore, is given to private judgment, to choose which Church it will adopt; but no allowance is given to differ from all for the sake of setting up a novelty, and thereby casting a new brand of dissension into Christ's kingdom, on account of some comparatively trifling matter which belongs not to the integrity of the faith. Here then, you perceive, we allow all Christian liberty, but no licentiousness; the right to purify the old temple, but not to build a new one; the privilege and even the duty of bringing the Church as nearly as possible to the apostolic standard of the early faith of Christendom, but no privilege for the tongue of censorious non-conformity, or the hand of wanton innovation.

I have only to add, my brethren, that the subject before us has been handled but slightly in many respects, because it is so complicated with that of our next lecture-the rule of faith propounded by the Church of Rome-that the discussion of their doctrine will necessarily throw additional light and evidence upon our own. Meanwhile, may the Spirit of the only living and true God direct and sanctify you, that you may not merely acknowledge the standard of the faith, but may appropriate the faith itself, so as to know by your own experience how it works by love, and purifies the heart, and overcomes the world.

D