EIGHT SERMONS

PREACHED BEFORE

THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD,
AT THE
BAMPTON LECTURE,
IN THE YEAR MDCCCXXXVIII.

TO
THE REVEREND
JOHN HENRY NEWMAN, B. D.
FELLOW OF ORIEL COLLEGE.
IN TOKEN OF LONG AND INTIMATE FRIENDSHIP,
AND AS A TRIBUTE OF RESPECT
TO THE HIGHEST INTELLECTUAL ENDOWMENTS,
CONSECRATED,
THROUGHOUT A LIFE OF CONSISTENT PURITY AND HOLINESS,
TO THE CAUSE OF CHRIST'S CHURCH,
THIS VOLUME IS INSCRIBED,
BY HIS SINCERE AND AFFECTIONATE FRIEND,
H. A. W.

EXTRACT FROM
THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT
OP THE LATE
REV- JOHN BAMPTON,
CANON OF SALISBURY.
 " I give and bequeath my Lands and Estates to the
" ChanceUor, Masters, and Scholars of the University of
" Oxford for ever, to have and to hold all and singular the
" said Lands and Estates upon trust, and to the intents and
" purposes hereinafter mentioned ; that is to say, I will and
" appoint that the Vice-ChanceUor of the University of Oxford
" for the time being shall take and receive all the rents, issues,
" and profits thereof, and (after all taxes, reparations, and
" necessary deductions made) that he pay all the remainder to
" the endowment of eight Divinity Lecture Sermons, to be
" established for ever in the said University, and to be per-
" formed in the manner foUowing :
" 1 direct and appoint, that upon the first Tuesday in Easter
" Term, a Lecturer be yearly chosen by the Heads of CoUeges
" only, and by no others, in the room adjoining to the Print-
" ing-House, between the hours of ten in the morning and
" two in the afternoon, to preach eight Divinity Lecture Ser-
" mons, the year following, at St. Mary's in Oxford, between
" the commencement of the last month in Lent Term, and the
" end of the third week in Act Term.
a 2

iv EXTRACT FROM CANON BAMPTON'S WILL.
" Also I direct and appoint, that the eight Divinity Lecture
" Sermons shaU be preached upon either of the foUowing
" Subjects — to confirm and establish the Christian Faith, and
" to confute aU heretics and schismatics — upon the divine
" authority of the holy Scriptures — upon the authority of the
" writings of the primitive Fathers, as to the faith and practice
" of the primitive Church — upon the Divinity of our Lord and
" Saviour Jesus Christ — upon the Divinity of the Holy Ghost
" — upon the Articles of the Christian Faith, as comprehended
" in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds.
" Also I direct, that thirty copies of the eight Divinity
" Lecture Sermons shall be always printed, within two months
" after they are preached, and one copy shall be given to the
" ChanceUor of the University, and one copy to the Head of
" every CoUege, and one copy to the Mayor of the city of
" Oxford, and one copy to be put into the Bodleian Library ;
" and the expense of printing them shall be paid out of the
" revenue of the Land or Estates given for establishing the
" Divinity Lecture Sermons ; and the preacher shall not be
" paid, nor be entitled to the revenue, before they are printed.
" Also I direct and appoint, that no person shaU be qualified
" to preach the Divinity Lecture Sermons, unless he hath
" taken the degree of Master of Arts at least, in one of the
" two Universities of Oxford or Cambridge ; and that the
" same person shall never preach the Divinity Lecture Ser-
" mons twice.

PREFACE

nnHE peculiar circumstances under which the following
work, and those undertaken under the same or a like
appointment, are necessarily executed, present obstacles
in the way of properly treating the subject, from which
a work not placed under the same restrictions would be
comparatively free. The ordinary rules of composition
and arrangement are necessarily to a certain extent vio
lated, and a corresponding room for criticism, of course,
thereby afforded, as to the mode in which the subject is
treated. The circumstance of its being delivered openly, and
that at intervals, before its general publication, renders
it necessary, for the proper understanding of the subject,
to place in the text what, in a work written solely for
publication, would have been more appropriately placed
in a preface ; while the limit placed to the number and
extent of the Lectures, not only renders it difficult to
give to the subject generally the expansion it requires,
but even causes the insertion of remarks thus transferred
from the preface, to be attended by the sacrifice of what
would materially conduce to its elucidation.
A preface, therefore, to works of this nature, may be
a3

vi PREFACE.
said to be rendered in some degree necessary, to supply
such things as may have been omitted in the text to
make room for prefatory matter — things necessary to
give full effect to the subject, though not so much required
at the earlier stages of its development.
It was my intention, when I first commenced this
work, to take a far more extended range. I had long
thought that the arguments derived from analogy and
the constitution of our moral nature, which have been
used for the defence of the Christian Revelation gene
rally, might be applied with equal force to the constitu
tion and polity of the Christian Church.
On commencing, however, with that which naturally
claimed the earliest attention, as being first in the order
of importance. The Rule of Faith, I found the subject
grow in my hands ; and it was soon obvious that
the present work must be confined to that branch.
The Scriptural statement alone of the principle which
it was necessary to defend, occupied a whole Lecture ;
and the application of the same to doctrines and
ordinances, I found could not be satisfactorily disposed
of in less space *.
-o. I ought here to mention, perhaps, that when these Lectures were
delivered, I hdd not read Mr. Newman's Lectures on the Prophetical Office
of the Church. Had I done so, I might have been induced to omit, or state
in a (Jiiferent form, some things which I have said, as being infinitely better
treated in that work. At the same time, it is no small satisfaction to find
what I have advanced confirmed hy a work of such acknowledged value
and authority, of which it may be truly said, that it is more calculated to
check the progress aud destroy the influence both of Romanism and Sec
tarianism, than any which has appeared in our day — a work as vet
unanswered, and likely so to continue, alike by Romanist and Sec
tarian.

PREFACE. vii
A peculiarity which must strike many persons as
attending this and the like discussions, is, that from the
prevailing ignorance and prejudice on the subject, one
is obliged to treat it with a degree of earnestness and
caution against being misunderstood, (involving, I fear,
not unfrequently, a degree of repetition amounting to
tedium,) not indeed unsuited to the importance of the
subject, but disproportionate to the degree of knowledge
which ought to be assumed to exist, among churchmen
at least, on the subject. And it is impossible not to
feel, that hereafter, when the nature of Church prin
ciples generally shall be better understood, as it was
indeed till puritanism and profligacy in succession gave
birth to the latitudinarian principles of the present
and preceding century, the now urgent advocacy of
Catholic principles will require the recollection of what
men now think and hold, to account for the fact,
which will otherwise appear inexplicable, that truths
which will then appear self-evident, should ever have
required to be set forth with so much earnestness. For
this we must be prepared ; and to those truly zealous
for the faith once committed to the saints, although this
will require to be taken into account, it will not occasion
any real practical difficulty.
Looking, however, to the case as it stands at present,
the necessity of calling men's attention to the nature and
constitution of the Apostolic Church, does not stand in
need of much proof. Whatever may have been the
meaning attached to the word Protestant in its original
acceptation, as distinguished from Romanism, however
a 4

viii PREFACE.
dear to those by whom it was first employed, it is obvious
that, in its ordinary and popular acceptation in the pre
sent day, it has little to commend it to those who hold
the Apostles' doctrine in its primitive purity, and who
love the Lord Jesus in sincerity. In its original accepta
tion, when the whole Christian world was Catholic, or
nearly so, Protestantism, as forming the distinctive fea
ture of that portion of the Western Church which pro
tested against the corruptions of Romanism, had a definite
and tangible meaning. Its meaning was differential and
specific, not generic. If this was not expressed in words, it
was only as being deemed unnecessary ; and if, by the
conventional force of language, it was used as a term by
itself, rather than as having only the force of an adjec
tive, it was only because at that time there was scarcely
any other form of Christianity, by being combined with
which, it might itself receive a corresponding limitation.
It must be clear, however, to the commonest observer,
that from the various sects and heresies whicii have
sprung up in Christendom since that period, each of
which assumes to itself the title of Protestant, (and truly,
as regards the mere denial of Romanism,) the term has
itself assumed a generic character, which requires to be
limited on the other side; unless, indeed, we are pre
pared to merge all positive differences in the mere nega
tive point of resemblance, which consists in dissent from
Romanism. Now, whatever may be the views and feelings of sec
tarians on this point, no one who truly receives the Apo
stles' doctrine, even in its simplest form, as contained in

PREFACE. ix
».
the Creed, will be content with this negative distinction.
However anxious he might be, through abhorrence of
Popery, to know that those with whom he has to do,
whether persons or opinions, are not Romanist, yet his
regard for the truth would make him no less anxious to
know, on the other hand, what they are. And for this,
the term Protestant, in its modern acceptation, will not
suffice. It merely tells us, that a man is not a Romanist :
as Christian men, it behoves us to know what he is.
This confusion has arisen, as was observed above, from
the circumstance that, in popular language, the term
Protestant is no longer considered as necessarily joined
to that of Catholic, as in its primary acceptation ; and
being, when thus disjoined, of a purely negative character,
it affords no guarantee in itself, that the person to whom
it is applied holds any essential article of the Christian
faith. It affords no security that the doctrine of which
it is predicated is otherwise than deadly error, ruinous
to the souls of those who hold it. For it must be re
membered, that there is no sect or heresy which does
not profess to have formed its creed from the Scriptures,
and which does not lay claim to the title of what is popu
larly termed (to use their own expression) Bible Christian.
I say not with what justice, I speak merely of the fact,
that in their own estimation, each of these finds its creed
in the Bible. Nor, again, is there any sect which does
not lay claim to the designation of Protestant, and whose
claims are not admitted by most of the Societies which
are so designated. Unless, therefore, we are prepared to
admit, as some of these virtually do, that religious faith

X PREFACE.
is a mere matter of opinion, depending for its truth solely
on the persuasion of those who hold it; that the doctrines
of the Incarnation, Atonement, Sanctification, Baptismal
Regeneration, the divinity of the Son and Spirit, the Holy
Trinity, have no real existence but in the minds of those
who hold them ; or that having an existence, their recep
tion is a mere matter of indifference as regards indivi
duals, involving no' responsibility or obligation, save that
what they believe they believe conscientiously ; it is evi
dent that mere Protestantism, as such, is no security
whatever against the most deadly error, nor the appeal
to Holy Scripture, without some authority external to
the opinions of individuals, any pledge that a tenet so
alleged to be proved, is any portion whatever of the
Christian faith. It is evident that we require some limi
tation to Protestantism itself, some distinctive character
in it, besides the mere negation of Romanism, some limi
tation to the deductions which may be made from Holy
Scripture, some guide in the interpretation of it, external
to, and independent of, the caprice or fancy of each indi
vidual or sect. The churchman at once sees that this is
effected by re-uniting to the differential characteristic of
Protestantism the generic one of Catholicity, with which it
was combined (in England at least) in its original accepta
tion : a process which restores to us the Reformers' Rule
of Faith, and with it their creed. To this many objec
tions will be found to exist in practice, both among the
advocates of sectarianism, universally, and among ortho
dox Protestants in part ; with the one, as bringing their
differences with the Church to an issue, and placing them

PREFACE. xi
in the wrong ; with the other, as introducing (to them)
a new element in determining the rule of faith, which in
former times has in practice led to grievous error, as
none will deny when used alone, but the nature and
value of which, when used in conjunction with Holy
Scripture, they have yet to learn, and which they as yet
view with jealousy and alarm.
Let me, however, state the case more definitely.
We, as members of the Anglican Church, believe in
her doctrines, and assent to her ritual and government.
We do this, because we believe them to have the sanc
tion and authority of Holy Scripture, as well as that of
Catholicity and Antiquity. Having had our minds early
taught to perceive them, and our hearts to love them,
we are enabled to trace them in the written word, and
to see them pervading it throughout. From whatever
source our first impressions may have been derived, here,
at least, they receive confirmation and proof, giving them
the force of convictions.
But the Socinian and Sectarian deny these, wholly or
in part, though professing to receive the Christian Scrip
tures, and to found their views of doctrine and disciphne
solely upon them : for they all profess to abide by the
Sixth Article of our Church.
Here we are at issue with them on a definite question,
having between us the common ground from which to
proceed, of our mutual belief in the genuineness and au
thenticity of Holy Scripture. Our first step is to cite on
either side the scriptural authorities in favour of our
respective opinions : on the force of these we join issue.

xii PREFACE.
calling to our aid critical or other learning in support of
the meaning of particular passages or words: yet the
result is, that we remain as we were, each retaining his
previous convictions — they pleading, on their part, the
assumed Protestant principle, that Scripture alone is
the rule of faith, and the right to exercise their own
judgment upon it to the best of their ability. We, of
course, deem them to be in lamentable error. They allege
the same of us. Who is to judge between us ? Our
personal convictions, however satisfactory to our own
minds, clearly will not by themselves place them in the
wrong, without some other authority escternal to both
parties, to whose decisions both must be assumed, on their
own principle, to be amenable, whether practically admit
ting it or not. Still less will they satisfy the painful
doubts of some third party who may be, as is frequently
the case, looking on, anxious to form his opinions, yet
unable to do so amid conflicting arguments, where no
better ground has as yet been taken, than the individual
convictions of the respective disputants.
The fundamental laws of all reasoning require, in
every argument, this external authority or rule, common
to and admitted by each disputant. It is obvious, that,
in the present instance, it cannot be the Scripture, inas
much as we have, by the hypothesis, already advanced
beyond that stage of the argument ; the interpretation of
Scripture itself being now the point in question, for which
this common and external rule is still required.
"l What is this rule ? where is it to be found, and how
defended ?

PREFACE. xiii
But besides the objection alleged against the various
texts of Scripture which we cite in support of specific
doctrines, the Socinian has another argument of no in
considerable weight to urge against us — the a priori argu
ment, founded on the assumed improbability against
such proof altogether. He asks, whether it is probable,
that doctrines so important as we allege these to be,
would beleft to depend on proofs so difficult to be arrived
at, and admitting of such variety of construction, hunted
through distant and detached parts of Scripture, depend
ing on the critical examination of words. This will be
seen from the extracts from Milton and the modern
Socinians, which I have quoted in the second Lecture.
Now it must be admitted that there is much apparent
force in this objection ; nor can we easily disprove the
assumption, on the supposition that Scripture is the
first informant and sole guide. It may be contended,
I admit, and as I have attempted to shew in the second
Lecture, that the analogy of Natural Religion, so called,
favours the presumption of such proofs : but this argu
ment from analogy, however satisfactory to the Church
man, would be of little avail to the Sectarian generally,
as opposed to the Socinian, because it involves the
assumption that a previous knowledge of the main truths
of natural religion precedes, and in fact causes, the per
ception of these truths in the outward world; which, when
used as an argument, would imply the admission of
a corresponding previous knowledge in relation to the
force which Scripture texts possess, as proofs ofthe
Christian mysteries. At the same time, even the admis-

xiv PREFACE.
sion of the Socinian assumption, mentioned above, would
by no means pledge us to admit, in the slightest degree,
the inference which the Socinian would draw from it.
The truth is, that we might, vnthout risk, admit his
assumption of the antecedent improbability in question,
and his objections to the indirect and alleged defective
nature of Scripture proofs of important doctrines, viewed
as sole informants. But there our agreement would end :
from that point there is this essential diflerence between
us : — that he uses the indirect nature of the proofs as
arguments against the doctrines themselves ; — we regard
it as the natural and consistent result of what Scripture
itself reveals to us respecting our rule of faith. With the
Socinian, it is the premiss of his argument ; with us, the
conclusion. The doctrines, he maintains, are untrue —
or if true, unimportant — because the Scripture proofs
are indirect and by implication. We reply, that before
coming to the perusal of the Holy Scripture, we are
assumed to have derived our elementary knowledge of
the Christian doctrines through another channel, though
ultimately from the same authority with that of Holy
Scripture ; and that therefore the notices in Scripture of
these doctrines are often brief and indirect, as addressed
to those not unacquainted with the subject. For one and
the same principle furnishes us with an answer both to the
Sectarian's objections against specific texts, and likewise
to his a priori argument founded on the general character
of such texts. To the latter we reply, on the authority of
Scripture itself, that the doctrines in question were not
left to be gathered from these texts alone, nor in the

PREFACE. XV
way which he describes. We reply that the reader of
the Christian Scriptures is supposed to be already ac
quainted with its leading doctrines ; that those Scrip
tures were written for Christians, and are addressed to
Christians ; and that consequently proofs indirect,
latent, or by implication are sufficient, where, had we to
derive our first notions from Scripture alone, we should
require, as the Sectarian professes to do, full and direct
statements. The same principle furnishes us with our conclusive
argument in disputing on the force of particular texts of
Scripture. Admitting even that two apparently opposite
texts, or that even the same text, may be made to
support opposite conclusions, according to the prepos
sessions or view taken by each side, — allowing the pre
sumption to be equally balanced, it is clear that any
authority which can be assigned to the opinion of either
side, especially if it can be shewn, or can be presumed on
reasonable evidence, that such was the doctrine taught
by the sacred writer himself, must impart its authority to
the texts cited in support of such view. Let us take,
for example, the texts commonly urged against the
doctrine of the divinity of our Lord and the Holy Spirit,
or those against Baptismal Regeneration, or Episcopacy
and Apostolical Succession ; and hkewise, on the other
side, those by which we support these articles. Let it be
granted, for argument's sake, that their respective force
is equal, as texts ; that they might prove either position
in themselves, though the force of each is much neutral
ized at present by the existence of the opposite: if it

xvi PREFACE.
can be shewn, that there are reasonable grounds for be
lieving that either of the propositions which they can
thus be made to support was maintained by the writer
of the same Scripture, or by those who, from personal
knowledge of him or other circurastances, may be as
sumed to represent his sentiments, some of them having
received their instruction from him or from those who
had so received it ; the force of the texts in question, as
an evidence or proof, assumes a very different character.
Or again, if it can be shewn that, at the period when the
Church may be assumed to have been most pure, this or
that interpretation was uniformly held by those whose
numbers and unanimity afford a presumption against their
having been in error, the probabihties in favour of such
interpretation would possess a force little short of direct
proof. This would be the case without reference to any
previous teaching, on the mere assumption that the
Scripture was our sole informant on the subject of
Christian doctrine, the instrument for teaching as well as
proving — the guide, as well as the standard of faith. It
was observed however above, that these Scriptures pre
suppose the existence of some knowledge, on the part of
the reader, of the things of which they speak, being
addressed, (as we learn from the opening of St. Luke's
Gospel, as well as all the Epistles, without a single ex
ception,) to persons already instructed, and that for
many years previously, in the Christian faith. The pecu
liarity of this feature in the Gospel, as distinguished
from the Law, I have adverted to in the third Lecture,
as also its adaptation to our moral nature. Viewed

PREFACE. xvii
however as a matter of fact, it is unquestionable, from
the account which the Scripture gives of itself, that the
Christian Church, as well as the body and form of
Christian doctrine, and the Christian ordinances, are
of earlier date by several years than the Christian
Scriptures ; that the latter are addressed to Christians,
and presuppose in every case a knowledge (and of
course with it a bias) of views and doctrines of so'ine
kind. It is a plain historical fact, that the Apostles
themselves, under the inspiration and direction of the
Holy Ghost, delivered some form of doctrine and ordi
nances, and that too at some length, to which their
subsequent writings refer as to things well known to
those whom they addressed. Also from the circum
stance that the Apostles themselves died without com
mitting to writing the form of doctrine which they had
taught, and the system of Church government and ordi
nances which they had appointed, there is the strongest
presumption, certainly no intimation to the contrary,
that the system was designed to be continued as it had
begun, by means of human agents, as distinguished from
tables or a written covenant ; a system shewn to be
adapted to the Gospel itself, and more peculiarly so,
when viewed in relation to our moral nature, and our
state of moral probation. This would suggest itself
a priori, from the nature of the case ; while the appoint
ment of a body of men to succeed the Apostles in their
office of teachers and rulers, and the instructions given
to the former to appoint others after them, to whom they
were to communicate both their authority and commission,
b

xvni

PREFACE.

add to the presumption alluded to the force of a com
plete proof— as complete, that is, as could be reasonably
expected, where not only the evidence itself is moral, but
the whole system is one designed to promote a high
degree of moral probation, the leading feature of which
is faith, and which, from its very nature, requires not only
the testimony of external evidence to produce conviction,
but also the predisposition of the heart, and a state of
moral preparation, partaking, in kind, of that more per
fect state of faith and submission of our nature to a moral
and spiritual control, which it is the avowed object of
the whole system of the Gospel to form within us.
Now we maintain that the form of doctrine which the
Apostles taught, as well as the system of government
and ordinances which they appointed — to which the
Christian Scriptures refer — which St. Paul directed
Timothy to hold fast, and to transmit to his successors,
together with the Apostolical commission — have re
mained in the church ever since, according to the
promise, having come dovm to us together with the
Scriptures themselves. We maintain that the body
of doctrine which the Anglican Church now holds,
is substantially the same with that which the Scrip
ture records the Apostles to have taught, before they
penned the Christian Scriptures ; and in the belief
of which men lived and died, who could not possi
bly have even heard of those Scriptures, at that time
not in existence. There may be adduced, doubtless,
objections to the proofs of this identity of our doc
trines with those of the Apostolic age : could it be

PREFACE. xix
otherwise without a miracle, or without a degree and
kind of evidence ill suited to exercise our faith in a
state of trial? But without entering on the specific
proofs of the doctrines themselves, which does not fall
within the scope of these Lectures, I have attempted to
shew, with regard to the objections alleged against such
proofs generally, that the'y prove too much: that they lie
against the proofs of the genuineness of Scripture itself,
as well as against the testimony of things past alto
gether, as mere objections ; but that as parts of a sys
tem, besides being sufficient for their purpose, they have
analogy in their favour, and are, like the evidences of
the genuineness of Scripture itself, calculated to pro
mote the object of the Revelation itself, as suitable cor
respondent means, being adapted to our moral constitu
tion, and calculated to forward the end of our being as
moral agents. But without contending for the exact de
gree of proof, it is clear that whatever proof can be adduc
ed that our doctrine and ritual is that of the Apostolic
age, is, as far as it goes, decisive of the question between
the Sectarian and ourselves, as to the force of opposite
or ambiguous texts of Scripture cited on either side in
support of our respective positions. It takes the matter
out of our hands, referring it to a tribunal, the authority
of which the Sectarian must admit, if he receives as au
thentic the Scripture account of the mode in which the
Gospel was first revealed and taught ; and if he is
unable to shew that the form of sound words, which
St. Paul committed to Timothy, with the command that
he should in his turn commit the same to faithful men
b 2

XX PREFACE.
who raight be able to teach others also, is other than
that which we profess to have received through the
same channel, and which, by the blessing of God, and
the covenanted promise of Christ's abiding in his
Church, we hope, in our turn, to teach others also.
It unquestionably adds to the difficulties we have to
encounter in defending this principle, that to this trans
mission and descent of the Christian verities should
have been attached a term, against which, in former
times, the fears and prejudices of men had been, and
not altogether without reason, so strongly excited.
Doubtless it had been so far better, as regards the
present popular temper on the subject, could some other
term than Tradition have been adopted, against which no
such prejudice existed — as, for example, Historical testi
mony. Witness of the Church, or one of like kind ; under
which names it will be found that there is sufficient
proof of the Apostolic origin of the great truths which
the Sectarian and Rationalist now reject as deficient in
authority — proceeding on the assumption, that the Scrip
tures by themselves were designed to teach, as well as
to prove, the Christian verities. And yet, were the
term Tradition abandoned, we should feel as it were in
some sort separated from many wise and holy men who
have adhered both to the principle and the name. It
were better, as regards the ultimate triumph of truth,
and what is due to the memory of elder saints, to retain
the term, however grating to the ears of sectarianism
and licentiousness, however it may even awhile offend
the weaker brethren ; and endeavour to redeem it from

PREFACE. xxi
the obloquy under which it has fallen, and to restore it
to its right meaning and use.
It is some satisfaction to reflect, that other terms,
equally or more significative of Apostolic truth, have, in
their turn, suffered under the like abuse. It is something
to reflect that even the term Catholic has in like manner
been abused and driven from its original meaning, and has
been even regarded as a badge of error, though a professed
article of belief with every member of our communion.
It need create no surprise, therefore, that other terms
also indicative and preservative of Apostolic truth,
should have fallen under the like abuse : that when the
sins of the Church have brought them into disrepute,
and caused them to be invested with a meaning foreign to
their original design and acceptation, God should in his
wrath have allowed it so to be ; consistently with his
mode of dealing with those who abuse his gifts, and hold
the truth in unrighteousness. Let us rather hope, in
patient faith, that as the minds of men have been
gradually disabused in regard to the term Ca,tholio, so
will they also be in regard to Apostolic tradition. And
it is no slight encouragement to know that, as the out
cry against it has had its origin in ignorance or mis
conception of its real meaning, so when men have been
at length led to read and consider for themselves,
and to judge from recorded and authenticated views,
they have, with very few exceptions, and these easy
to be accounted for, uniformly arrived at the same
result. With truly good and spiritual minded men,
who had adopted Sectarian views from a miscon
ception of their real nature, and from ignorance of the
b 3

xxii PREFACE.
Scriptural fpilndation and truly evangehcal character of
sound and pure Apostolic principles, their return to the
latter is a question of time rather than of fact.
Let me, however, here offer a few remarks on some
misrepresentations and objections which are found to
exist on the subject.
In consequence of having traced the connection be
tween the Sectarian principle and Socinianism, the
a&vocates of Tradition and of the authority of the
Church, have been represented as maintaining that
the reading Scripture by itself, without any external
guide or assistant, will lead a man to Socinianism : than
which nothing can be more illogical or unjust. That a man
should read Scripture without a/ny bias at all, is next to
impossible. That the reading without the authority and
guide of antiquity has, as a mere fact, led in the long
rim to Socinianism, no one can deny without shutting
his eyes to the state of belief among the great bulk of
foreign Protestants, who read Scripture in this way, and
form their creed on this principle, and whose distinctive
feature, as opposed to the Protestant Anglican Church,
consists in their adoption of this principle. But that
this would be the result to any particular individual,
reading Scripture in this way, it is a very different thing
to affirm, and by no raeans follows. It is only negatively
and accidentally that this principle leads to Socinianisra,
by removing that which would prevent such a result.
As has been observed, to read without any bias at all is
barely possible, and can only occur in the case of perfect
vacuity of mind : every one must have his own tone of
mind and thought, such as it is, however faint and weak;

PREFACE. xxiii
and this, whether consciously or not, must constitute his
bias, with reference to which, facts of whatever kind,
which are brought before him, acquire their relative im
portance. Scripture, like external nature, is capable of
being viewed in different and opposite Hghts, and of
proving different and opposite conclusions to the minds
of individuals, according to their bias and prepossessions.
This involves no objection in itself, being analogous to
the laws of external nature, and conformable to the laws
of moral subjects generally.
Whether this, in the case of any individual, will lead
to his becoming a Presbyterian, Wesleyan, Independent,
Baptist, Irvingite, or Socinian, will depend on the prepos
session, natural or instilled, ofthe individual. Thus much,
however, may be suggested a priori, that if the blessed
Gospel be designed to correct and contravene our corrupt
nature, and if the doctrines of original sin, the atonement,
the divinity of the Saviour and of the Holy Spirit, are,
as articles of belief, essentially conducive to that object,
it might be expected that they would be far from meeting
with a ready acceptance with those in whom that nature
is least renewed, and who have yet to learn the first
principle, which even the science of Morals declares to be
essentially connected with our nature and necessary to fit
it for its proper end, and which from morals is adopted
into revelation, viz. the great moral truth, that our moral
perceptions require to be developed and strengthened by
a course of training under the authority and guidance
of others. Unquestionably, the disregard for authority
which is essentially involved in the Sectarian principle,
b 4

xxiv PREFACE.
and the violation thereby of what may be considered a
moral obligation, would be no small preparative for a
state of religious behef which was connected, in the
relation either of cause or effect, with a moral deteriora
tion. In this sense, Socinianism would be the tendency,
if not the probable result ultimately, of the absence of all
external bias in reading Holy Scripture. As far as ex
perience is at all decisive of the question, the existing
state of the so called Protestant Churches on the conti
nent of Europe, who profess to have formed their
respective creeds from the Scriptures alone, would fur
nish no inconsiderable presumption that man's nature
gravitates, as it were, towards Socinianism ; that the
principle of resorting to Scripture alone, without any
external guide and authority, does, if time is allowed it,
lead to that fatal heresy. But that this will be the
result to any given individual, is a separate question, by
no means following from the other. To this tendency,
however, whether in the individual or a generation, the
Church at once interposes an authoritative and ef
fectual check, by teaching her children the Creed, before
Placing the Scriptures in their hands. This, indeed.
Sectarians likewise do : but with them, the practice is
in despite of their principle, not in conformity with it ;
and consequently it provides no security ; nor could
any individual member be said to depart from his pro
fessed principle in acting otherwise, either as regards
himself or those who may be placed under him. And,
moreover, the Church alone is enabled to affirm, that of all
the forms of faith which the Scriptures raay be made to

PREFACE.

XXV

prove, that which she teaches, and vvhich she proves from
the Scriptures, can alone offer any evidence of apostolic
origin. In this way it raay be allowed, that the au
thority and teaching of the Church are preventive of
Socinianisra, and their absence productive of it. More
than this, in addition to the moral tendency of the
Sectarian principle, is not contended for. Nor, as re
gards individuals, does the warning that they are reading
Scripture on the Heretical or Socinian principle, at all
involve any charge oi personal Heresy or Socinianism.
For ray own part, I should rather believe, nay affirm,
that if a case could be met with of a person reading the
New Testament, literally without the slightest previous
knowledge or prepossession, he would, in the first in
stance, be far from taking up any positively erroneous
view. I would affirm, that the result of his reading
would be that of inquiry founded on partial knowledge,
rather than that of decided conviction, either way, on
the Christian mysteries. I believe, that one situated as
I have described, would, from a simple (literally) un
biassed reading of the New Testament, follow, as nearly
as possible, the line of thought which I have sketched
out in the thii-d Lecture : that finding the direct histo
rical narrative relate to him the rise, progress, and
gradual extension, for several years, of a certain course
of teaching, of the vital importance of which it speaks
throughout, but with the full paiticulars of which, while
it alludes to them, it has not made him acquainted; next,
finding the epistolary portions which immediately follow
in order, occupying a more remote position in point of

xxvi PREFACE.
time, divided by a period of several years from the direct
historical narrative, yet referring to it retrospectively,
speaking of the teaching mentioned in it, as of something
of considerable date, known and familiar to the persons
whom themselves address, — I believe that his first and
natural inquiry would be for that circumstantial teaching
of which the Acts of the Apostles speaks, and to which
the apostolic Epistles refer. The Epistles to Timothy and
Titus, especially the injunctions contained in 2 Tim. i. 1, 2.
would probably give the first direction to the inquiry, by
informing him that the form of doctrine of which he was
in search, had been comraitted, by its first teachers, to men
whom they had appointed for the purpose of receiving
and teaching it, and of transmitting it, together with
the commission spoken of in the narrative, to others,
who were in their turn again to transmit it in like man
ner — by a system designed to continue, as far as therein
appears, indefinitely. His next and natural step would
be, to inquire whether the system was continued —
whether such a succession of men did arise and continue,
receiving, and in turn transmitting, the commission and
the knowledge spoken of both in the Acts and Epistles.
And this inquu-y would lead, step by step, when the
inspired narrative closed, into uninspired history; and
the more so, if the writings of men, some of them fellow-
labourers and disciples of the Apostles themselves—
writings, the genuineness of which is unquestionable,
affording as it were a link connecting the inspired nar
rative with those historical records ofthe Church, which
were removed by distance of years, as well as in point

PREFACE. xxvii
of authority from the sacred writings, — 'exhibited to
him a form of faith professing to be received from the
Apostles, through those persons, as intermediate chan
nels, to whom the Scriptures describe it as having been
committed. Or his inquiry raight take this direction in preference :
having followed the stream downwards to the point where
it takes leave of inspired testimony, having seen the
commencement of that apostolic succession of which the
Scripture speaks, and finding the existing church pro
fessing to be in the direct line of that succession, he
would commence from this point, and trace the stream
upwards in his inquiry after the point of its conjunction
with that, the commencement of which is related in the
sacred writings. What the result of his inquiry would
be is of little iraportance to the present argument. But
this may at least be said, that if it should terminate in
error, and he should have to commence afresh, he would
have to conduct it on the same principle, merely from
what Scripture itself relates on the subject. If hterally
unbiassed, and believing in the New Testament, he would
there seek for the form of Christian doctrine, where, whe
ther at present existing or not, the Scripture at least
records it to have been originally deposited.
Hence it would also appear, that the Catholic or
Church principle, in regard to the rule of faith, is,
strictly speaking, more Scriptural, both in its origin and
character, than that which professes to be formed from
and to be guided by Scripture alone. The latter is not
only without sufficient authority in Scripture, but, if

xxviii PREFACE.
closely examined, will be found to be in opposition to
the direct declarations of Scripture, as a principle ; its
conformity with Scripture in particulars being, as it
were, accidental, and one which it possesses in common
with the Church and Sectarianism of whatever kind, as
regards any authority external to the mere judgment of
individuals. The Church principle, on the contrary, is
founded in Scripture from the beginning to its termina
tion. It commences with the first intimation which
Scripture gives us of the origin of our faith. It follows
that Scriptural account step by step, as long as it con
tinues to guide us, and when that ceases, it continues its
course of inquiry in the direction to which the Scripture
points, and by the means which the Scripture prescribes ;
holding in its hand, as it proceeds, those other blessed
portions of Holy Scripture, which, though not designed
as our guides, are yet appointed to light us on our way,
and to assure us that the way in which we walk, is that
in which the Apostles walked under the immediate light
of Heaven, and to which the sacred writings point, ere
they cease, as that in which the Church should here
after go.
The principle which, in reply to the Sectarian's posi
tion generally, may be thus shewn to be Scriptural in its
origin and character, I have attempted to shew, in reply
to the Rationalist, is moreover conformable to the ana
logy both of Natural Religion and of Morals, and likewise
adapted to our moral nature, and calculated to promote
the end of our being as moral agents in a state of trial. On
this branch of the subject, however, though the chief one,

PREFACE. xxix
I have not felt it necessary to make any prefatory re
marks, further than to observe, that the arguments from
analogy and adaptation, though in themselves distinct,
yet are so closely connected through their common
origin, that it is difficult, and sometiraes impossible, in
treating the subject, to keep them entirely distinct.
I trust, therefore, that I shall be excused, nor be deemed
to have bestowed on the subject less care than its import-
tance demands, if, instead of running parallel through
out, these two arguments should appear occasionally to
converge, and to occupy the place one of the other.
The objection which might at first appear to lie
against the advocacy of these principles, ,viz. of ap
pearing to make the Church, rather than Revelation or
Christianity, the object of defence, I have noticed in the
eighth Lecture. I would merely add here, that the
point of defence has been determined by that of at
tack. If Christianity has been assailed through the
Church, it is through the Church that it must be de
fended. In the vague indefinite sense in which the
terms Christian and Christianity are employed in the
present day, being made in popular language to include
the worst forms of Heresy, not excepting even Socinian
ism, it must be obvious that the purity of the Gospel
cannot, at present at all events, be defended under that
general name, so as to satisfy those who love the Lord
Jesus in sincerity, and are anxious for the faith once de
hvered to the saints. When Christianity and the Church
Catholic were synonymous terms, as to the true Catholic
Churchman they still are, the case was widely different ;

XXX PREFACE.
and to the Christian, his Ofaurchmanship, instead of
being used to distinguish him from the Heretic and Schis
matic, served rather, as a terra of love, to embody in the
more endearing form of domestic relation, (if the ex
pression maybe allowed,) as a member of Christ's family
and household, what, as a Christian, he might be led to
view in the more awful relation of a weak and sinful
creature towards his future judge. But now, since
every one, how little soever he may believe respecting
the nature and office of his Redeemer, is aUowed in
popular language to retain, or rather to usurp the name
of Christian, it follows that, since we cannot control the
fluctuating variations in the meaning of words, Chris
tianity must be defended under the more lengthened de
finition of the Church's creed, or by that term which
assigns to it a definite and substantial, as well as its
original meaning.
It must not be forgotten that the Infidels of the last
century are the Rationalists and Socinians of the pre
sent. On the more popular objections commonly alleged
against the principle contended for in these Lectures, be
sides those replied to in the Lectures themselves, little
need be said. Indeed it may be observed that they
scarcely admit of any reply beyond that of simple denial,
being, in general, allegations of facts which have no ex
istence but in the minds of those who allege them. It
is asserted, for example, that the advocates of primi
tive tradition set up its authority as equal, if not su
perior to. Scripture itself; that they would establish on

PREFACE. xxxi
its anthority, as essential articles of faith, what the
Scriptures do not contain; that they represent the
apostles as having delivered to the church, as esoteric
doctrines, what they in no way committed to writing ;
that they assign to the church the power of delivering,
on independent authority, doctrines of her own, instead
of giving form and shape to that which, in substance, is
diffused over the face of Scripture, and interwoven with
its structure; and that they also claim for her the power
of determining suo arhitrio, on the interpretation of
Scripture, in fundamentals, instead of bearing testimony,
as a witness, to the truth as it has been received : con
founding, throughout, the authority claimed for the
church from the beginning, as a witness of primitive
apostolic truth, with that claimed by the Romanist of
raaking the existing church the independent judge in
matters of faith ; and as a part of the same error, charg
ing us with adopting the opinions of the ancients, as
opinions, instead of receiving their testimony of what
they had themselves received.
However true it may be that the things here alleged
are maintained in the Roman church, it rests with
their opponents to shew that any of these has been
advanced or maintained by the advocates of primitive
tradition and ecclesiastical authority, in the Anglican
church. The vague general charge of Popery, and of admitting
Popish principles, is in itself not of a nature to require se
rious notice. That it should be made, is not to be wondered
at ; inasmuch as there will always be those, who either

xxxii PREFACE.
frora prejudice will refuse to entertain a question which
militates against judgments already formed; or who,
frora defective moral and inteUectual vision, are unable
to judge of the proportions of objects in perspective, or
to distinguish their relative distance ; blending in one
confused mass whatever things are removed from their
own centre of vision, no matter how distant one from
the other.
Any specific charges of Popery however are, like the
charges mentioned above, in no way difficult to reply
to, being, when specifically made, resolved into simple ques
tions of fact, to be determined by a comparison of the
principles in question on the one hand, with those of the
Anglican church on the other. I need scarcely add, that
as yet the onus prohandi lies on the other side. What
ever has been hitherto alleged, has been found to be, on
inquiry, either not true as a matter of fact ; or, if true,
not at variance with the Anglican church.
The practice on the part of Sectarianism of branding
with the charge of Popery whatever differs from it on
the side of church authority, and places a restraint on its
licentiousness and its wild interpretation of Scripture,
is an ancient device on the part of the enemies of the
Gospel. It was not unaptly corapared, by Haramond, to
the ancient practice of dressing up the martyrs in the
skins of animals, in order to induce the wild beasts to fall
on thera with the greater ferocity.
With what spirit it was conducted, of what atrocities
it was raade the pretext, let the history of the past bear
witness, in the sufferings of the church from the bitter-

PREFACE. xxxiii
ness of sectarian persecution during the Rebellion and
the Coraraon wealth.
From this charge of Popery on the assertion of church
principles, however, there arises a question entitled to no
small consideration frora those who value their Christian
hberty ; which is, that those who use it would not only
lirait our terms of communion, but virtually introduce a
new, and that a human standard of faith. When a truth
is proposed, a doctrine set forth, or an ordinance revived,
which from neglect had fallen into disuse, the rule by
which it is tried is not its conformity with any acknow
ledged standard. The question forthwith asked, is not
whether it be true or Scriptural ; not even whether it be
maintained by our own church : but whether it be not
held by Romanists. Now what is this but virtually to
make Romanism in the negative the standard of faith ;
running into the error they profess to shun, and making
the judgment of men in some shape their rule and guide?
This is a serious blow aimed at our Christian liberty,
which may well excite the apprehensions of all who are
truly zealous for the gospel in its simplicity and purity.
It has been well observed that it is the peculiar glory
of the English church, as distinguished frora other Pro
testant societies, that we are not the followers of any
huraan teachers : that we are not, for example, Luther
ans, or Calvinists : that we are not even followers of our
reformers as masters, nor called by their name : that in
none of our formularies or confessions of faith is allusionor
reference made to the Reformation or Protestantism, even
by name, still less as forming any part of our rule of faith ;
c

xxxiv PREFACE.
nor is even an expression of opinion upon them recognised
as in any degree entering into our terras of communion :
that in fact we own no master but Christ and his Apostles.
But they who would make the negation of Popery
their rule of faith, would rob us of this high privilege
and distinction, deprive us of our Christian liberty, and
enclose us with trammels more oppressive and tyrannical
than those of Popery itself. What security have we, by
this rule, that the blessed doctrines of the Atonement and
Sanctification, the divinity of the Son and of the Holy
Spirit, the Trinity in Unity, the efficacy of the Sacra
ments, the Coraraunion of Saints — in short, what
security have we that every article of the Creed will not
be denied to us, if tested by this rule of the negation of
the Roraish faith ; seeing that all of them form integral
portions of that faith ?
This question deserves the serious consideration, not
only of those who value their Christian liberty, but of
those who are zealous for the entireness and purity of the
Christian faith. It is clear that the enemy of all truth
has endeavoured to establish this spurious standard of
truth among us ; and unfortunately indolence,. ignorance,
and prejudice, have alike combined to a certain extent
to give it currency. But in truth this very resorting to
Romanism as a negative standard of truth, serves but
to betray the weakness of the cause it is designed to
uphold. It contains the virtual admission, that by any
acknowledged standard it is incapable of being main
tained. With regard to the rule of faith which it has been my

PREFACE. XXXV
object to vindicate in these Lectures, this raay at least
be said, that no true member of the Anglican church will
find room to object to it, either in its principle or its
results. It adds no article of faith by the mere
authority of the Church, because what it proposes, it also
tests and proves by holy Scripture : it risks no article
of faith by requiring the sanction of Scripture, because
the teaching and testimony of the Church give weight
and authority to those portions of Scripture which Sec
tarians and Socinians reject as not being sufficiently ex
plicit as proof, on the (assumed) principle that Scriptur*^
is the guide and teacher, as well as the standard and
proof. It fences the faith as it were by a double wall^
against the Romanist on the one side, and the Sectarian
on the other. To the spurious traditions of the one, it
opposes the authority of holy writ, as testified by tho
voice of the Church from the beginning : to the selfwise
interpretations, or wild deductions from Scripture, which
the other would impose, it opposes the genuine traditions
of the Church'CathoUc as confirmed by holy Scripture.
To both of these, however opposed to each other, it will
naturally prove a restraint and an offence, even as, in civil
matters, despotism and democracy alike find a check, and
a consequent cause of hatred, in that form of governraent
which combines the due protection of hfe and property
with the exercise of rational liberty. To us however it
may be truly said to set our feet in a large room. To
the true raember of the Anghcan church it will bring
no difficulty, if true to the principles which he pro
fesses to hold, and to the confession of faith which he
c 2

xxxvi PREFACE.
has made. That it does so to many nominal members
of that church, as the fact cannot be denied, so neither
need it create surprise, nor form any ground of objection.
For herein hes the real cause of their hostility : that
they are not true to their principles, nor to the faith
which they profess : that they reject, for example, the
efficacy of the Sacraments, Infant baptism, ' Apostolic
succession, and the authority of the Church; even if
they reject not doctrines more immediately relating to
the eternal Godhead. And Tradition, giving its au
thority to the Scriptural proofs of these articles, which
would otherwise be put aside by such men as unimport
ant or ambiguous, naturally becomes an object of dishke
and hostility.
But where the whole body, both of doctrines and ordi
nances of our church, is truly held, no such objections
will arise.
It may in truth be said, that of all those who profess
to make Scripture in any way their rule, the Church alone
practically and consistently abides by its principle. The
Socinian will suppress or gloss over those texts which refer
to the divinity of the Son and the Spirit, and the Holy
Trinity; the Presbyterian, those relating to Episcopacy
and Sacraments ; the Romanist, those that are at vari
ance with his spurious traditions; the Baptist, those which
regard Infant baptism; the Independent, those which
refer to Apostolical authority and succession, and the
whole constitution of the Church. In fact, not to mul
tiply examples, each denomination in turn rejects, or
makes of no account, such portions of Scripture as are

PREFACE. xxxvii
at variance with its own tenets and views. It is the
Church alone which may be truly said to receive " the
whole Bible."* And this by the grace of God the church
is enabled to do, because, retaining the whole counsel
of God as received from the Holy Spirit by the
apostles, and by them delivered to the Church, she
needs not to suppress or pervert any portion of Scrip
ture, as proving things not in her creed ; possessing that
which gives a meaning and authority to those portions
of holy writ, which others either pass over as insufficient
to prove what they would wish to be untrue, or mutilate
and pervert, to support errors they would wish to sub
stantiate. Retaining in its primitive purity the form of
sound doctrine which the Apostles received and taught,
she is enabled, authoritatively, to communicate /brm and
shape to the substance of the same, as contained in the
Scriptures which, under the inspiration of the same
Spirit, the same apostles wrote.
The barriers thus formed by the authority of Scrip-
• " None, however, it would seem, but a coraplete and accurately moulded
Christian, such as the world has never or scarcely seen, would be able to
bring out harmoniously and perspicuously the full divine characters which
lie hid from mortal eyes within the inspired letter of the revelation. And
this, by the way, may be taken as one remarkable test, or at least charac
teristic of error, in the various denominations of religion which surround
us; none of them embraces the whole Bible, none of them is able to inter-
pret the whole, none of them has a key which will revolve through the
entire compass of the wards which lie within. Each has its favourite text,
and neglects! the rest. None can solve the great secret, and utter the
mystery of its pages. One makes trial, then another : but one and all in
tum are foiled. They retire, as the sages of Babylon, and make way for
Daniel. The Church Catholic, the true prophet of God, alone is able to
tell the dream and its inteqiretation."
(Newman's Lectures on the Prophetical Office ofthe Church.)

xxxviii PREFACE.
ture on the one side, and by that of the church on the
other, while they serve to protect each other, together
form as it were the spiritual Thermopylfe in which, and
there alone, the Christian soldier will successfully defend
the fair and goodly heritage of his Lord, from the invading
hordes alike of the Romanist, Sectarian, Socinian, and
Infidel. Of these two citadels, the one, in tirae past,
usurped by the Romanist, was made the instrument of
arbitrary power and oppression, wherewith to assail the
other fortress, and to keep in subjection all around it ; a
protection to those only who were willing to be his slaves.
They who would drive the Romanist from his exclusive
and unlawful possession of it, have in the excess of their
zeal well nigh levelled it with the ground, leaving the
vineyard as much unprotected from external aggression,
as it was before oppressed by those who should have
been its protectors.
God grant that it may be our lot to witness the re
building of this pillar and ground of the truth : that it
may fall to the lot of this generation to build the old
waste places, to raise up the foundations of many gene
rations, and to be called the repairer of the breach, the
restorer of paths to dwell in^^.
•• Isaiah Iviii. 12.

CONTENTS.

LECTURE I.
INTRODUCTION.
2 Tim. i. 13.

Holdfast ihe form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me,
in failh and love which is in Christ Jesus. P. I
LECTURE IL
ARGUMENT FROM ANALOGY, IN FAVOUR OF (ALIiEGED)
IMPERFECT PROOFS.
Luke i. 4.
That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein
thou hast been instructed. 41
LECTURE IIL
THE SCRIPTURE STATEMENT AND PROOF OF THE
PRINCIPLE.
2 CoR. V. 19, 20.
And hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now
then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech
you by us : we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconc'tled to
God. 82
LECTURE IV.
APPLICATION OF THE FOREGOING TO DOCTRINES AND
ORDINANCES.
2 Tim. ii. 2.
The things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses,
the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to
teach others also. ' 29

xl CONTENTS.
LECTURE V.
ARGUMENT IN FAVOUR OF A BIAS OR PREJUDICE
DRAWN FROM ANALOGY AND ITS ADAPTA
TION TO OUR MORAL NATURE.
Luke xviii. 17.
Whosoever shall not receive the k'mgdom of God as a little child,
he shall not enter therein. 178
LECTURE VI.
APPLICATION OF THE FOREGOING ARGUMENT TO
INFANT BAPTISM, NATIONAL EDUCATION,
AND SUBSCRIPTION TO THE ARTICLES OF RELIGION.
Mark x. 15.
Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child,
he shall not enter therein. 221
LECTURE VIL
TRADITION AND THE WITNESS OB THE CHURCH
ILLUSTRATED BY ANALOGY, AND
ITS ADAPTATION TO OUR MORAL NATURE.
Romans x. 10.
With the heart man believeth unto rigliteousness. 270
LECTURE VIII.
ARGUMENT IN FAVOUR OF THE CHURCH'S PRINCIPLE
DRAWN FROM THE LANGUAGE OF ST. PAUL—FROM
THE CONSEQUENCES OF ITS VIOLATION— THE
ANALOGY OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT— THE
ORIGINAL QUESTION REVERTED TO
—CONCLUSION.
Matthew vi. 10.
Thy kingdom come. 321

LECTURE I.
INTRODUCTION.

2 Tim. i. 13.
Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou
hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in
Christ Jesus.
IT is the lot of all institutions admin
istered by human agency, that in their
passage through the hands of men, they
have a tendency to deteriorate ; and this,
not so much in themselves and in their
own nature, as by departing from their
original principles, and thus becoming cor
rupted. Hence it becomes necessary, from time
to time, to return to their original prin
ciple and purpose, to compare their present
state with their first design, their practice
with their theory. To this, all institutions

2 LECTURE I
incorporated on human society are liable,
whatever their origin, whether human or
divine; our natural tendency is to gravitate,
to sink from the point at which we set out
on any moral course. In peaceable times,
we are more especially prone to this; we
are apt to lose sight, partially or entirely,
of the principle on whicii the institution
of which we are members was originally
based ; and then it is, that on looking back,
and comparing our principle with our prac
tice, we discover, perhaps for the first time,
how far we have deviated from it.
If this is true of institutions generally, it
may be more peculiarly said of those of
divine appointment ; inasmuch as there
exists in these, besides that natural ten
dency to deteriorate just spoken of, another
risk, arising out of the very circumstance
of their divine origin. For it is a peculiar
feature of those dispensations which pro
ceed more immediately from God himself,
that, agreeably to the general analogy of
his works, they are framed with reference
to the moral condition of man, and the
state of probation in which he is placed as

LECTURE L s
a moral and responsible agent. This very
circumstance implies a liability to err, nay
a certainty of doing so in particular cir
cumstances, to a degree from which mere
human institutions, which had no such
end in view, would be comparatively free.
Human institutions, for example, would
be fenced by all the preservatives of which
they were capable, limited only by the im
perfection of human nature, or the want
of sufficient control over circumstances on
the part of the founder. Those of divine
origin, on the contrary, would seem to find
an earlier limit to these preservatives, at
that point where greater security from error
than that afforded, would interfere with a
state of probation, by not leaving sufficient
scope for moral trial, and for its conse
quence, the liability of falling into error.
A state of probation must always require a
degree of risk and temptation, sufficient to
promote its exercise and the moral dis
cipline of the agent ; and this, in a greater
degree than would be allowed in a mere
human institution, where there existed at
least the power to prevent it.
B 2

4 LECTURE L
Another feature to be observed in regard
to divine dispensations, is, that in the coun
sels of God, time does not appear to be
taken into account ; that extraordinary
means are not resorted to, nor is the course
of nature interrupted, to effect results
which time, however remote, would bring
about in the ordinary course of things as
appointed by himself. Having, for instance,
revealed a divine purpose, and having ap
pointed his instruments for carrying it into
effect, the Almighty appears to have left
them to operate through ordinary causes,
and to allow the result to follow, at how
ever distant a period of time, as it would
follow, except the course of things should
be interrupted and the design delayed, by
the waywardness and wickedness of the
agents themselves. Or again, having given
intimations of his will, accompanied by a
general warning of the evils which would
follow from a neglect of it, and of the con
sequences which would be visited on those
through whom that neglect should arise,
he has left them to find out by experience,
m the apparently ordinary course of events.

LECTURE L 5
the sad reality of those evils of which they
had been forewarned, and the truth of the
denunciations. These, which may be said to be the
ordinary features of God's dispensations, it
will be further seen are strictly analogous
to those observed in the moral government
of the world, as far as it can be traced
in the course and constitution of nature.
In all our moral obligations, for example
while the course prescribed for us is suffici
ently clear and definite to direct those who
desire to be so guided, and who are willing
to seek Truth in the way she herself pro
fesses to be found, there is still consider
able difficulty in following it, and room for
doubt and error, together with a degree of
temptation and risk of falling into vice,
which, though very great, we cannot but
feel is no more than is required for our
probation as moral and responsible agents.
And again, the effects of vice, or the viola
tion of our moral obligations generally, are
often remote — not perceptible for a con
siderable period ; yet when they do come,
bearing testimony to the truth of the warn-
B S

6 LECTURE L
ing implied in the admission of a moral
obligation. And though we cannot but feel,
that to have been checked at an earlier
period of our course by some interposition
of Providence, might have saved us from
the present consequences ; yet that as a
general rule, such visitations are less suited
to a state of probation, and less calculated
to promote the habit of self-denial and of
practising virtue for its own sake, than the
consequences of vice, which fall more re
motely in the appointed order of things.
The revealed dispensations of God, there
fore, are analogous to those of the course
and constitution of nature, both in respect
of the greater scope they afford for error,
as having reference to a state of moral
trial, and in the remoteness of the period
at which, in either case, the consequences
of a violation of them become perceptible.
Nor do the visitations which God occa
sionally interposes to recall us to our duty
within the covenant, form any greater ex
ception to his general law, than those which
he sends on individuals to reclaim them
from a course of vice, form to the general

LECTURE I. 7
law, that the consequences of such a course
are, as a rule, remote.
Let us apply these observations to the
dispensation of the Gospel, especially to
the provision made by our Lord for its
propagation, in the twofold instrument
appointed for that purpose, the Church
and the Holy Scriptures; and the proba
tion provided by the relation in which
these two instruments stand to each other,
and the consequent room for error of the
most fearful magnitude to those who would
violate that relation. We might suppose
the appointment of instruments leaving far
less room for trial and for error — as was
the case with the Law, whose precepts were
more specific, and consequently more easily
determined. We might suppose the case
of the Christian Scriptures having been
given, like the Law, with such specific state
ments as to matters of faith, and such de
terminate directions on points of discipline,
government, and practice generally, that
no question could arise as to their meaning
and object— so that he might run that read-
eth ; instead of their being, as they really
15 4

8 LECTURE L
are, of that nature, that the perception of
their truths is made to depend much on
the prepossessions, the bias, the wishes,
the general tone and character of mind on
the part of the reader. We might suppose
it otherwise ; but it is obvious to any one
who reflects, that such a state of things
would be unsuited to a state of probation,
and the moral discipline required to attain
the high and spiritual character of mind,
which it is the tendency of the Christian
Scriptures to form within us.
Again, we might suppose a case where
the Church, the other instrument, having
been fully instructed in the doctrine of
Christ, and commanded to teach it, was
to be kept by an extraordinary providence
from corrupting the truth, through the
instrumentality of continual warnings and
chastisements, instead of being left, as it
has been, to find out its errors by experi
ence, and to meet with punishments, more
slow and remote indeed, but far more se
vere, in the constituted course of things.
It is obvious here also, that such a process,
though pursued towards the earlier Jewish

LECTURE 1. 9
Church, would be little suited to a state
of probation now required for those who
are ordained to walk by faith and not by
sight, nor analogous to the dealings of
God generally.
This feature in the divine dispensations
may serve both to account for, and to re
concile to our minds, the greater degree
of vitiation which has from time to time
been observed in the administration of the
Gospel, than would be expected, or be found
generally to exist, in institutions merely
human ; while the consideration that time
is not considered in the divine counsels, if
purchased at the expense of probation or the
exercise of the principle of faith, may tend
to check the despondency in which many
might be disposed to indulge, at the com
paratively little progress which the Gospel
has made in the course of eighteen cen
turies. The circumstances which generally lead
us to turn to and reconsider our principles
in regard to institutions, are various ; but
the most obvious and of most frequent
occurrence, will be found to be attacks

10 LECTURE L
made upon them, either from without or
by those ostensibly within, and that viti
ation of the original principle before-
spoken of, which at first, and for some time,
was too small to attract observation ; but
gradually increasing, and thus becoming
more visible, both in itself and by compa
rison with that which it professes to be,
our attention is more forcibly drawn to it ;
and we are made to perceive to how great
an extent we have departed from our prin
ciple. At the same time, even this would
perhaps escajie our observation for a longer
period, and till a great degree of vitiation
had ensued, were it not for the circum
stance of some external assault, which com
pels us to turn our eyes inwardly on our
selves, with a view to see how we may best
meet it. And then again it is that our
attention is awakened to any diminution
of our internal resources occasioned by our
previous neglect.
Such may be said to have been the case
with the Church for the period preceding
the Reformation : not that we need limit
to that period the evils which it was the

LECTURE I. 11
object of that event to remove, but because
it was then chiefly that the attention of the
English Church was called to it by being
placed in circumstances similar to those de
scribed. Its internal principle had long
been vitiated; but without determining for
what period violence had been offered to it,
it was not till then that the English Church
had begun formally to consider how she
stood in regard to the original principles of
her constitution, by adhering to which she
might best place herself in the position of
defence requisite for her protection.
A remarkable feature, however, in the
Reformation in this country, and one which
strongly denoted a superintending Provi
dence, was the circumstance that the Re
formers so little followed the ordinary ten
dency of human nature, nor allowed them
selves to be carried away into the opposite
extreme to that from which they had re
cently suffered and were now set free — that
having seen the authority of the Church
so greatly abused, and carried to that ex
tent as almost to lead to the virtual ex^
elusion of Scripture from having any share

12 LECTURE L
of authority in forming a standard of faith,
they did not, by a natural reaction, assign
to it a corresponding excess of authority, to
the exclusion of that of the Church ; but
that many of them were still willing to re
ceive as the apostles' doctrine whatever had
come down to them through the apostolic
succession, whether embodied in liturgies,
creeds, formularies, or even oral tradition,
provided it could be found in, and proved
by. Holy Scripture ; admitting the pre
sumptive claims of all that the Church
had hitherto taught, until found to be at
variance with Holy Scripture ; but at the
same time claiming the right to refer all
such teaching to the written Scripture, be
fore they would receive it as necessary to
be believed for salvation — claiming, in fact,
the right to try the alleged Apostles' doc
trine by those Scriptures, which, by the
admission of thei* opponents themselves,
the same Apostles wrote. Both these prin
ciples, viz. 1st, the authority of antiquity,
which may be termed the generic character
of the faith ; and, 2nd, the right of appeal
to Scripture, which was its specific charac-

LECTURE I. 13
ter, and which are alike essential for the
attainment of truth in regard to Christian
doctrine — both these principles were main
tained by the English Reformers, though
popular ignorance and sectarian prejudice
too frequently attribute to them the latter
alone, and speak of the principle of the
Reformation, as though there were but one
— as though the Reformers, in appealing to
Scripture as the ultimate standard of faith
for proof of doctrine, overlooked the divinely
derived claims of the Church to be the
teacher of Christian doctrine, and her au
thority in matters of faith. And if they
seemed to lay a greater stress on one, and
to say little, in comparison, of the other, it
was not that they underrated the latter,
but that the circumstances of the times
did not require them to give it an im
portance which it possessed already. At
that time there were few who were not
Catholics; few who denied the presump
tive claims of the Church to be heard, till
found to be at variance with Scripture. It
was the right of appeal to Scripture for the
truth and proof of what was taught, the

14 LECTURE L
specific character of the faith, for which
they had to contend; and to that they
naturally attached, for the time, a greater
importance ; but that they did so, consi
dering the circumstances under which they
acted, would afford no proof that they
underrated the authority of the Church
and the presumptive claims of primitive
antiquity, even were their own testimony
on the subject wanting.
Their energies and labours would natu
rally be directed to the assertion and vindi
cation of the authority of Holy Scripture ;
but that they did not undervalue or lose
sight of the other principle, that of Catho
licity, and that the apparently secondary
importance they attached to it was purely
relative, having relation to the peculiar cir
cumstances of the times, is sufficiently ob
vious from their own recorded sentiments
on the subject. Nay, even if they had
made it a point of secondary importance
absolutely, without reference to the temper
and spirit of the times, it would not have
been a matter of much surprise; nor would
it have afforded a sure test of their real

LECTURE I. 15
sentiments, still less of the truth of the
principle itself, considering the natural ten
dency of human nature, after being unduly
forced into one extreme, to react in the
other ; especially when the principle, on the
side of which they are tempted to excess,
has been asserted at the expense of per
sonal risk and suffering,, and sealed by the
blood of their dearest friends and brethren.
When therefore we find that, with all this
temptation to go into an opposite extreme
from that into which the tyranny of the
Romish Church would have forced thenij
with the disgust which men would natu
rally take, even at the legitimate exercise of
a principle, from the ewcess of which they
had suffered and seen others suffer so deep
ly ; when, notwithstanding all this, we find
that our English Reformers did speak de
cidedly (no matter how briefly in compa
rison) on the subject of Antiquity, Church
Authority, and Primitive Tradition, we
may form some estimate of the importance
which they at least attached to it.
It may not unreasonably be questioned,
whether at the present day we have not

16 LECTURE L
again arrived at that point in a departure,
though in a different direction, from the
original principles of the Gospel, at which
the consequences of that departure, though
following in the natural course of things
rather than from any special visitation, are
beginning to tell most fearfully, as well as
perceptibly, on the interests and prospects
of Christianity. For it would seem that
the reaction in favour of the sole supre
macy of Scripture, to the prejudice if not
the suppression of Antiquity and Catholi
city, from which the Reformers appear to
have been providentially protected by the
spirit of truth, that reaction (from causes
into which it is unnecessary now to enter)
did take place in the times succeeding them,
and its fruits are seen not only in the
errors and heresies which have in conse
quence sprung up and daily increase in
number among us, but also in the circum
stance that, with many persons, the mere
mention of, or bare allusion to Catholic
principles. Antiquity, and Primitive Tra
dition, creates alarm and suspicion, little
inferior to that of Popery in its worst and

LECTURE L 17
most hideous form. A proof, if such were
required, how greatly we have departed
from the principles, as well of the Re
formers, as also of the Apostles.
In returning, therefore, to the original
principles of our faith, it is obvious that
our primary object should be, to redeem
from the obloquy and disuse into which
they have fallen, the true Catholic, or
Church principle, as distinguished from
the Sectarian and Rationalistic free-think
ing principle of the age, and to assign to
the Church and the Scriptures respectively,
their part and province in the establish
ment of the Christian faith. To do this
is indeed a work of some difficulty, not
indeed in itself, nor from any deficiency
of proof, but from the obstacles which pre
sent themselves in the prejudices and fears
of men, which at times seem so strong as
to refuse, not conviction merely, but to
entertain the question at all, as though it
savoured of impiety, and were derogatory
to the word of God, and the sufficiency
of Holy Scripture. Nor is the difficulty
lessened by the consideration, that there

18 LECTURE L
is to be found among the objectors to these
principles, who, while they retain the doc
trines, yet rest them on different grounds,
so much piety, so much zeal, so much sin
cere regard for what they conceive to be
the word of God, so much devotion to what
they believe to be the cause of truth, that
the utmost caution is requisite to avoid
giving pain or needless outrage to the feel
ings ; and still more lest, in removing what
we conceive to be an erroneous principle,
we fail to establish in its stead that which
we believe to be a safer and more legiti
mate one, and thus leave in painful doubt
and perplexity, perhaps in hopeless error,
those whora we would fain have guided
into truth. All which considerations may
well serve to impress, on those who profess
to advocate a return to those principles we
have so long been losing sight of, the ex
tent of the responsibility they incur, and
how narrow is that way of truth in which
the Church teaches them to pray that all
those may be led who profess and call
themselves Christians, so that they may
hold the faith in unity of spirit, in the

LECTURE L 19
bond of peace, and in righteousness of
life. Add to this, that we have to contend
against fearful difficulties in the temper
and spirit of the times. The same spirit
which, in ecclesiastical and spiritual mat
ters, has given birth to heresies and errors
of such fearful magnitude, far from being
confined to these, is embodied in the events,
political or social, which are passing around
us : it seems to infect the atmosphere in
which we have our moral being, and, like
the atmosphere of the natural world, its
pressure, even on ourselves, is that from
which we vainly try fo escape ; we our
selves must be more or less affected, and
our judgments influenced by it, however
unconscious of it ourselves. Not that
there is any thing surprising or otherwise
than natural in this ; and so far, it may
seem to assist us in seeing our through the
difficulties which beset us. For the spirit
or principle of an age, be it what it may,
will not vary in different things, but will
be the same in all; — be it licentiousness,
tyranny, indolent impatience of inquiry,
c 2

20 LECTURE L
restless impatience of restraint — the spirit
of undue subraission, or lawless resistance ;
be it what it may, it will pervade the whole
moral atmosphere, and shew itself alike in
all our acts or institutions — public or pri
vate, ecclesiastical, civil, or social. The
union, for example, of Popery with Despot
ism, of Sectarianism with Republicanism,
of true apostolical principles with mixed
institutions securing rational liberty, where,
in the one case, the authority of the Church
is liraited by the supremacy of Holy Scrip-.
ture, and the wildness of individual inter
pretation of Scripture is checked by the
authoritative teaching of the Church, pro
tecting the judgment against itself; and
where, in the analogous case, the power of
the executive and popular representation
mutually exercise a check on each other; —
the union of civil and spiritual institutions,
raarked by these analogous features, is far
from being accidental.
To proceed then : let it be observed, that
two instruments were appointed by our Lord
for propagating the Christian Revelation —
the Church and the Holy Scriptures.

LECTURE L 21
To both of these were their respective
offices assigned : to the one to teach, the
other to prove. The teaching of the one,
after the Apostles were dead and the
Canon of New Testament complete, was not
to be received as essential to salvation, (as
our portion of the western church teaches,)
unless what it taught could also be found
in, and be proved by, Holy Scripture ;
while, on the other hand, the written word
presupposes, on the part of the reader, a
knowledge of the doctrines of which it
speaks, being addressed, as the opening
of each Epistle sets forth, to Christians,
and those of some standing ; and there
fore speaks by implication, in the way of
allusion and reference, clearly indeed, but
still in this way ; nor does it any where
intimate that it was designed to instruct in
the elements of the Christian faith the
persons whora it addresses; nor is there
any intimation that persons reading it
with that view, will ever, without some
other and external assistance, attain to a
knowledge of its truths. This will also be
spoken of raore fully hereafter. It is clear,
c S

22 LECTURE I.
however, thus far, that if these were the
two instruments ordained to be used con
jointly for propagating and maintaining
the truth, the suppressing, or in any way
injuring either, would be calculated to give
an undue preponderance, or a wrong direc
tion to the other, and would necessarily
have the effect of corrupting the truth; it
is obvious, for instance, that the Church,
unchecked by the appeal to the written
Scripture, would be tempted to raake, from
time to time, such additions to the truth it
professed to have received and to be em
powered to teach, as the caprice or wicked
ness of raen raight suggest. It would be
no less obvious, that the written Scripture,
unless preceded in its perusal by instruc
tion in those doctrines of which it speaks
throughout as of things already well known,
would not only incur the risk of having
those doctrines overlooked, (certainly called
in question frora the absence of more posi
tive proof,) but would also be wrested to
prove points they were not designed to
prove, but which they might be made to
prove to the mind of any given individual,

LECTURE L 23
who was already prepossessed with the
notion, and desirous of finding proofs for it.
That the first of the two evils here spoken
of, would arise from the suppression of the
one instrument. Holy Scripture, the whole
History of the Papacy is at once the exem
plification and the proof That the cor
responding evil on the other side would
arise from the suppression of the Church's
teaching, men are more slow to learn. Still
that they are learning it, and that by sad
experience, we may now trust, cannot be
denied; and that too, for the reason spoken
of at the coraraenceraent of this Lecture, viz.
that the corruptions and evils springing frora
it, though less distinguishable at first, are
now, frora their increasing magnitude, be
coraing visible to the coraraonest observers.
That the Church's teaching has been
sadly lost sight of and undervalued, and
its paramount authority to hold the first
place in the order of time absolutely de
nied, even where its usefulness as a pre
vious guide has not been questioned, is too
obvious to require proof; but that the
evils which now overhang the spread of
c 4

24 LECTURE L
true evangelical truth araong us — the ra
tionalistic free -thinking spirit of the age,
the increase of the Socinian heresy, and,
still raore, the increase of the Socinian
principle; the proud, flippant, self-sufficient
teraper of the tiraes, in all that regards
divine things and the spiritual condition
of raan — that these have any necessary or
even accidental connexion with the sup
pression of the Church's teaching, or the
atterapts to change the relation which, by
God's appointment, it bears to Holy Scrip
ture, this men have yet to learn. The
great enemy of souls long since tried how
he could establish his kingdom by the sup
pression of the second instrument, and for
a while he succeeded. When detected in
that shape, he took advantage of men's
fears and the natural reaction of their
minds, to assurae the opposite form, and
to assail them in the other extreme, —
with what success, need not be asked
by those who will look around and see
the numerous sects of heretics which
daily spring up and increase araong us, all
of whom, as they suppose, find in Holy

LECTURE L 25
Scripture the proofs of their respective
creeds. That such do find their proofs in
the Bible, as they think, we cannot deny.
True, we raay think thera in laraentable
and dangerous error ; but it is difficult to
say with what justice we can take upon
ourselves to pronounce them responsible
for it, or to say that we are better than
they, if, denying the need of previous
teaching, still less admitting the presuraptive
clairas of the Church to be that teacher,
we admit the principle that each person is
to take up his Bible as that from which
alone he is to derive his faith and his
knowledge of his relation to God.
It was observed above, that for this
principle there is not the slightest authority
in the Scripture itself; a circumstance of
which there will be occasion to speak more
fully hereafter. It raight not unseasonably
be mentioned however, at this stage, as
tending to disarm, in sorae degree, the pre
judice which raay have been excited in
the minds of any thus far, by what has
been already said of the authority of the
Church, and the relation in which it stands

26 LECTURE L
to Holy Scripture. Mention has been al
ready made of the difficulties which present
themselves in treating this subject, from
the prejudices of raen. Nor let it be
thought that the terra is used in any offen
sive sense. It is not denied that this preju
dice frequently has for its base a sincere ve
neration for divine truth, a holy zeal for the
honour of God and the purity of his word,
and an honest indignation at those who for
that word would substitute the vain tradi
tions of raen. But it should be observed, that
both its direction and its object are wrong,
when aroused against the authority and
teaching of the Church in conjunction with
Holy Scripture ; and that to object to such
previous authoritative teaching is at best
unsupported by Scripture, even were it not,
as it will be shewn that it is, repugnant to
Scripture. With a view therefore to re-
raove the prejudices which might be ex
cited by what has been said thus far, let it
be noted, that for the assertion, that the
Bible is that from which each person or
body of persons, is at liberty to form their
own system of faith, as they severally think

LECTURE I. 27
best; in other words, that the Bible by itself
is the sole rule and guide of faith, (as distin
guished from the standard of faith, which it
is,) there is no authority whatever in Scrip
ture itself; nay raore, that even the right to
try by the standard of Scripture what we
have already heard, the substance in fact of
our Sixth Article, that even this is, in a cer
tain sense of the word, an assumption —
one, which God forbid should ever be ques
tioned, but still an assumption for which
there is no direct proof in Scripture it
self, though abundantly proved from other
sources, which, however, do not come into
consideration here, as not being recognised
by the advocates of the Sectarian principle.
Until, therefore, the teaching of the
Church, and the sufficiency of Holy Scrip
ture, have each their respective authority
assigned and maintained in instructing sin
ners in the way of life, it is hopeless to ex
pect that the Apostles' doctrine can be
retained in its primitive purity, or the true
Gospel of peace preached among men. The
corruptions which have arisen from denying
its due authority to Holy Scripture, form

28 LECTURE L
the history of Popery ; those which flow
from the opposite error of denying its pro
per authority to the Church, will form the
history of the eighteenth or nineteenth
centuries ; and if we are less able to trace
them than we could wish, it is because, as
is the case with the outward vision, the
objects are too near to us to be so clearly dis
cerned as those of forraer days : we live in
the midst of thera : they surround us like
a dark vapour ; and though obscuring from
our spiritual vision the light of heavenly
truth, they are in their actual forra less
distinguishable than those which exhaled
frora the corruptions of Popery, which, in
their day, were as little distinguishable, to
those who lived in the raidst of thera ; but
which, as the breath of heavenly wisdom
has dispelled them, have now, when viewed
in the distance of years, or from a higher
point of spiritual knowledge, like clouds
viewed from a distance, assumed to our eyes
a distinguishable and tangible shape.
The errors, therefore, which corrupt the
truth of Jesus in our day, are raainly to be
traced, as were those of Popery, to one cause

LECTURE L 29
— a violation of the harmony which ought
to exist, in the relation of the Church's
teaching to Holy Scripture : with this dif
ference in our day, that whereas Popery
suppressed Scripture, men now suppress or
keep back the teaching of the Church : to
this are all the heresies and errors of the
day, with few exceptions, to be raore or
less reraotely traced.
In support of this assertion, it may be
observed, that every denoraination of he
resy appeals to Scripture for proofs of its
creed, and professes to have deduced it
from. Scripture, in pursuance of an assuraed
right of private judgment, in the interpre
tation of Scripture, limited only by its ul-
tiraate responsibility to God hiraself. There
is no sect of heresy which does not profess to
abide by the Sixth Article of our Church ;
that is, according to iheir view of that
Article, (for they will not allow the Church
to be the expositor of her own Article,)
overlooking the important circumstance
that that Article was framed for Catholics,
to whora, at that period, the authoritative
teaching of the Church required to be but

30 LECTURE L
little set forth, in comparison of the other
neglected truth, the authority of Holy Scrip
ture". We adhere to pure evangelical truth, so
far only as it is determined whether we
regard the Scripture as that from which we
are to forra our religion, according to our
own interpretation and views ; or whether
we regard it as that to which, after having
been instructed by the apostolical Church,
we are to approach, in prayer and in hura
ble leaning for guidance on the Spirit of
truth, " in order that we may know the
" certainty of those things, in which we
" have been instructed." The first of these
may be called the Sectarian or Heretical
principle; the other, the Catholic or Church
principle : it is only by adhering to the
latter, that we can hope to raaintain in its
^ The logical fallacy of which they are guilty, consists
in assuming the converse of the universal affirmative
proposition, that " Whatsoever is Christian doctrine, is
to be found in and proved by Holy Scripture.'" Inde
pendently of the fact, that the terms will not of them
selves bear this conversion, the framers of the article
never contemplated that the subject itself would ad
mit it.

LECTURE L 31
purity, the truth as it is in Jesus. It will
be my object in the following Lectures, to
offer sorae arguments in defence of this
principle, and to meet sorae of the objec
tions coraraonly brought against it. This,
it must be confessed, is a somewhat wide
field, affording copious materials from which
to select. Of the objections alleged against
the Church's principle, 1 propose to meet
those chiefly which are urged by the Sec
tarian and the Rationalist ; that of the
former being that the principle is unscrip
tural ; that of the rationalist, that it is ir
rational, and unsuited to the nature of
man as a moral and intellectual being,
being calculated to fetter his moral and
mental energies, pervert and enfeeble his
judgment, and to make him the mere crea
ture of prejudice ; and likewise the ob
jection, that it is opposed to what is sup
posed to be the progressive character of
Christian knowledge.
Another feature objected to in the
Church's systera, is the adraission of the
principle of indirect, and, as sorae would
terra it, imperfect proofs in Scripture of

32 LECTURE L
raany essential articles of belief. The ob
jections to this, I propose to raeet, araong
other arguments, by shewing that the kind
of proof thus afforded, (assuraing it to be as
the objectors state,) is as coraplete as that
which we find out of the Bible, in nature, of
things their belief in which the objectors
admit unhesitatingly. This arguraent from
analogy will be first used elenchtically, shew
ing that the objection proves too much :
that it leads to Deisra ; and this raight, for
the raain purpose, appear sufficient. But
it will admit of being carried farther, and
used deictically, shewing that the kind of
proof which Scripture gives us of these
articles of faith, is such as might have been
expected a priori, or the assumption that it
would bear an analogy to the proofs we
raeet with, external to the Bible, of things
believed, on such proofs, by the objector.
It is desirable to keep distinct these two
raodes of using the arguraent frora analogy,
because, if to sorae, the a priori argument
should appear unconclusive, we may at
least fall back on the elenchtic argument,
and place the objector in the position of

LECTURE L 33
admitting our principle, or of giving up his
own. The like distinction raay be made, if ne
cessary, in the argument from the adapta
tion of the church system to human nature,
using it first elenchtically, by shewing that
it does no more in the way of placing re
straints on the freedom of thought, than is
done every day by the objectors themselves,
in raatters where the defence of the prac
tice would be, that is rendered necessary
by the actual state of human nature : and
then carrying the argument on to one of a
deraonstrative character, shewing the ante
cedent grounds in favour of the system.
But as the arguments in either case will
rest on nearly the same statements, and as
the demonstrative argument is in itself suf
ficiently strong to be ventured at once, and
to be adraitted by every one, who would not
irapugn whatever has been written on the
subject, and run counter to the universal
practice of raankind, it will not be neces
sary here to raake this distinction. We raay
therefore use the arguraent frora the adapt
ation to huraan nature^ at once as demon-
D

34 LECTURE I.
strative, as regards the a priori argument,
endeavouring to shew, that the very points
objected to in the catholic or church prin
ciple, especially those which regard the
restraints placed on the exercise of freedom
of thought, and the control assuraed over the
right of private judgraent, that these are no
raore than raight have been expected ante
cedently, on the assuraption, that the Gospel,
being itself adapted to the actual condition
and wants of raan, would be propagated by
instruraents calculated to promote its ef
ficiency in raeeting and providing for thera ;
and by instruraents, and in the mode, adapt
ed to the moral constitution of the recipient.
It will be seen, that the persons to be re
plied to by each of these three arguments
respectively, are different frora each other ;
especially those to whom refer the arguments
from Scripture, and that from the adaptation
of the system to human nature. The one
are frequently of a decidedly raore religious
character than the other, and generally
strong and sincere assertors of the supre
macy and sufficiency of Holy Scripture. The
others are less marked by this, than by

LECTURE L 35
their hostility to the restraint which the
Church lays upon them.
The one are primarily jealous, really or
avowedly, of the alleged infringements on
the authority of Holy Scripture ; and only
secondarily so, of the restrictions placed
on their own liberty of judgment. The
other are primarily jealous of the inter
ference with their right of private judgment;
and only secondarily, and as it would seem
accidentally so, as regards the Scriptures.
It is obvious, therefore, that the Scrip
tural defence of the systera, and that found
ed on analogy and its adaptation to our
moral constitution, apply in different de
grees to each of these two classes of ob
jectors respectively. At the sarae time, each
class requires both : the rationalist, for ex
ample, while asserting with all his raight
the supreraacy of reason, and therefore
being mainly to be replied to by the philo
sophical defence of the systera, yet adraits
the authority of Scripture in a certain way,
and after his own fashion ; and therefore
requires the arguraent frora that, as far as
his principle will adrait of it.
D 2

36 LECTURE L
The Sectarian on the other hand, though
professing to rest chiefly on Scripture, yet
contends strongly on the reasonableness of
exercising his own judgraent upon it, in
his own way. It will be seen, that " the
" right of private judgraent," which is, as
it were, his watchword, is enthymematic, as
though it were clairaed on abstract grounds
of reason. He therefore cannot shrink frora
the arguraent drawn frora the reasonable
ness of the system, as exhibited in the phi
losophical elucidation of it.
The argument from analogy, in defence
of the Scripture proofs of the Church's doc
trine, is addressed chiefly to those who,
believing in the divine origin of the know
ledge of God and of a future state, (which
must be conceded,) are dissatisfied with the
alleged imperfect and insufficient charac
ter of the proofs from Scripture, which the
Church brings in support of doctrines which
they reject, and reject on the ground of
that insufficiency. These will consist of
the lowest class of Sectarians— lowest, that
is, as regards the number of Church doc
trines they admit, and farthest removed, in

LECTURE L 37
the scale of orthodoxy, frora the Church's
creed. At the same time, although it is to
this class mainly, if not exclusively, that
the argument frora analogy addresses it
self, it applies to sectarians of every other
grade, who are for that purpose reduced, on
their own principle, to one class — I say on
their own principle, because it is difficult
to conceive how any one who objects to
the Church's doctrines, on the ground of
the nature of the proofs by which they
are supported, can, consistently with his
principle, stop short of absolute Socinian
isra. This of course does not regard his
personal belief, but the tendency of his
principle as an argument which raust
lead to that: it proves in fact too rauch.
This will be denied by him. The Trinita
rian dissenter, while rejecting Apostolical
succession. Infant-baptism, or the efficacy
of the Sacraments as raeans and pledges
of grace, on the ground of the insufficiency
of proof of thera in Scripture, will deny
that the proofs of the doctrines which he
does admit, are in any way inconclusive or
unsatisfactory. Yet what says the Socinian
D S

38 LECTURE L
respecting those same doctrines ? Is he sa
tisfied with these proofs which to the other
are so convincing? And how the former is
to reply to hira, consistently with his prin
ciple, it is difficult to conceive. True, they
will join issue on the force with which
the proofs strike each of them respect
ively; and each may, and probably will,
retain his opinion. But the former has,
by his own principle of the right of private
interpretation, put it out of his power to
condemn the creed ofthe other, or to raain
tain that his own is raore scriptural or more
essential to salvation. Let us now introduce
a third party to the discussion in the person
of the churchman. To him the proofs of
doctrines, which the other rejects as insuffi
cient, are quite sufficient and satisfactory.
The Sectarian for example, admitting
the doctrines of the Divinity of Christ, and
the Trinity, rejects Apostolical succession,
and the efficacy of the Sacraments; while to
the Churchman, the proofs of these are satis
factory. Again ; the sarae Sectarian is per
fectly satisfied with the proof of doctrines,
which to the Socinian are insufficient ; while

LECTURE L 39
to the churchman, the Socinian 's grounds
for his heresy are no worse than those by
which the other attempts to justify his.
Hence arises an important result; that it
rests with the Sectarian, of whatever grade
or denomination, to shew how he can argue
with the churchman respecting their points
of difference, on the ground of the imper
fect character of the Scripture proofs ; and
likewise with the Socinian, respecting their
points of difference, on the ground of the
sufficiency of Scripture proofs, which the So
cinian will not receive, without the admission
that some previous teaching or knowledge
is implied, (or, on the supposition that this
is the only proof which can be adduced in
support of them.) He is in this position —
arguing with the Churchman on Socinian
grounds ; and with the Socinian on Church
grounds, (if on any beyond those of in
dividual interpretation ;) and in reference
to either of these, his argument leads to
the opposite principle. To one or the
other of these he raust belong. As regards
his own individual convictions, he raay re
main where he is, at the expense of his
consistency; but his principle becomes of
D 4

40 LECTURE L
necessity raerged in one or the other of
these two.
As regards the principle therefore, we
may fairly be allowed to place all who
separate from the Church catholic, in the
like position ; or to lay down, that among
Protestants there are but two principles :
the Catholic or Church principle, and the
Sectarian or heretical, which may be also
terraed the Rationalistic or Socinian prin
ciple — the jCatholic, which assumes that
the Church is the divinely appointed in
strument for teaching the Gospel, with the
Scripture for its credentials and proof, be
yond which it cannot go — the Heretical,
which regards the Scripture as the sole in
strument frora which, by virtue of this as
suraption, every individual and society is at
liberty to forra their own creed, as they
may deem best, without any previous bias
or external restriction.
That the latter of these two principles is
at variance with Scripture, Analogy, and
the Moral constitution of Man, it will be
my attempt to trace out more fully in the
following Lectures.

LECTURE II.

ARGUMENT FROM ANALOGY, IN FAVOUR OF (ALLEGED)
IMPERFECT PROOFS.

Luke i. 4.
That thou mightest know the certainty of those
things, wherein thou hast been instructed.
IN a work professing to give a summary
of the tenets of the (so called) "Uni-
" tarian Christians," published by authority
by one of the teachers of that sect, the fol
lowing passage occurs, with reference to the
doctrine of the Trinity, and their reasons
for rejecting it.
" So entirely do the Scriptures abstain
" from stating the Trinity, that when our
" opponents would insert it into their
" Creeds and Doxologies, they are com-
" pelled to leave the Bible, and to invent
" forras of words altogether unsanctioned
" by scriptural phraseology. That a doc-
" trine so strange, so liable to raisapprehen-

42 LECTURE IL
" sion, so fundamental as this is said to be,
" and requiring such careful exposition,
" should be left so undefined and unpro-
" tected, to be made out by inference, and
" to be hunted through distant and de-
" tached parts of Scripture, is a difficulty
" which, we think, no ingenuity can ex-
" plain \"
Before offering any reraarks on the pre
ceding passage, let us turn to the following,
to the same effect, from Milton's Treatise
on Christian Doctrine.
First, with reference to his reasons for
rejecting the doctrine of the divinity of the
Son, and his unity with the Father; he
writes : " If indeed I were a meraber of the
" church of Rorae, which requires implicit
" obedience to its creed on all points of
'' faith, I should have acquiesced from edu-
" cation or habit to its simple decree or au-
" thority, even though it denies that the
" doctrine of the Trinity, as now received,
" is capable of being proved from any pas-
" sage of Scripture. But since I enrol
" myself araong the nuraber of those who
^ Statement 'pi the views of the Unitarian Christians
by Dr. Channing.

LECTURE IL 43
" acknowledge the word of God alone as
" the rule of faith, and freely advance what
" appears to me rauch raore clearly dedu-
" cible from the Holy Scriptures than the
" commonly received opinion, I see no rea-
" son why any one who belongs to the same
" protestant or reformed Church, and pro-
" fesses to acknowledge the same rule of
" faith as myself, should take offence at ray
" freedom, particularly as I impose my au-
" thority on no one, but merely propose
" what I think more worthy of belief, than
" the creed in general acceptation. I only
" entreat, that my readers will ponder and
" examine my statements, in a spirit which
" desires to discover nothing but the truth,
" and with a raind free from prejudice.
" For without intending to oppose the au-
" thority of Scripture, which I consider in-
" violably sacred, I only take upon rayself
" to refute huraan interpretations, as often
" as the occasion requires, conforraably with
" my right, or rather with ray duty as a
" raan. If indeed those with whora I have
" to contend were able to produce direct
" attestation frora Heaven to the truth of
" the doctrine which they espouse, it would

44 LECTURE IL
" be nothing less than irapiety to venture
" to raise, I do not say a clamour, but so
" much as a murraur against it. But inas-
" rauch as they lay claim to nothing raore
" than huraan power, assisted by that spi-
" ritual illumination which is coraraon to
" all, it is not unreasonable that they should
" on their part allow the privileges of dili-
" gent research and free discussion to an-
" other inquirer, who is seeking truth
" through the sarae raeans, and in the
" same way as themselves, and whose desire
" of benefiting raankind is equal to their
" own." p. 80— 8 L
" Surely what is proposed to us as an
" object of belief, especially in a raatter
" involving a primary article of faith, ought
" not to be an inference, forced and ex-
" torted from passages relating to an en-
" tirely different subject, in which the
" readings are sometiraes various, and the
" sense doubtful; nor hunted out by care-
" ful research, from among articles and par-
" tides ; nor elicited by dint of ingenuity,
" like the answers of an oracle, from sen-
" tences of dark or equivocal meaning ;
t' but should be susceptible of abundant

LECTURE II. 45
" proof, frora the clearest sources. For it
" is in this, that the superiority of the
'' Gospel to the Law consists ; this, and this
" alone, is consistent with its open sirapli-
" city ; this is that true light and clearness,
" which we had been taught to expect
" would be its characteristic." p. 118.
Add to this passage the following, frora
the same work, in reference to the Holy
Spirit :
" If it be the divine will, that a doctrine,
" which is to be understood and believed
" as one of the primary articles of our faith,
" should be delivered without obscurity or
" confusion, and explained, as is fitting, in
" clear and precise terras ; if it be certain,
" that particular care ought to be taken in
" every thing connected with religion, lest
" the objection urged by Christ against the
" Saraaritans, should be applicable to us, Ye
" ivorship ye know not what: (John iv. 22.)
" if our Lord's saying should be held sa-
" cred, whenever points of faith are in
" question, — we know what we worship, —
" the particulars which have been stated,
" seem to contain all that we are capable of
" knowine, or are required to know, re-

46 LECTURE IL
" specting the Holy Spirit, inasmuch as re-
" velation has declared nothing else ex-
" pressly on the subject.
" Wherefore it remains now to be seen, on
" what grounds and by what arguments we
" are constrained to believe that the Holy
'' Spirit is God, if Scripture nowhere ex-
" pressly teach the doctrine of his divinity,
" not even in the passages where his office
" is explained at large, nor even in those
" where the unity of God is explicitly as-
« sented." p. 161.
" It seems exceedingly unreasonable, not
" to say dangerous, that in a raatter of so
" rauch difficulty, believers should be re-
" quired to receive a doctrine, represented
" by its advocates as of priraary iraportance
" and of undoubted certainty, on any thing
" less than the clearest testiraony of Scrip-
" ture ; and that a point which is con-
*' fessedly contrary to huraan reason, should
" nevertheless be considered as susceptible
" of proof from huraan reason only, or
" rather frora doubtful and obscure dispu-
" tations." p. 162.
Now the Church claims for the Chris
tian doctrines an authority far higher

LECTURE IL 47
than that of human interpretations and de
ductions frora Holy Scripture ; it assigns to
them an antiquity, antecedent even to that
of Scripture itself; and believes that inform,
(while it leaves their proofs with Scripture)
they have descended with the succession of
the Christian ministry, to whora the New
Testaraent describes thera as having been
coramitted before that sacred volurae was
itself written. We know, raoreover, that
the New Testaraent is addressed to Christ
ians, and written for Christians ; and that
it presupposes, on the part of the reader, a
course of previous teaching, and a know
ledge of the leading Christian doctrines ;
and therefore naturally speaks in the way
of allusion and reference to such truths, as
to things already " raost surely known and
" believed" by him, to whom a formal state
ment of such truths would therefore have
been unnecesaary. We therefore, as Church
men, believing this, are not unwilling to
admit, that on the principle that the
Scripture was given as that from which, as
containing the whole revelation of God in
form, as well as substance, (which we do
not admit,) every individual or sect is at

48 LECTURE II.
liberty to form their own system of belief, as
they may deem best, the Socinian argu
raent against the doctrine of the Holy
Trinity is extremely difficult to answer.
The conclusion appears to follow legiti-
raately from their principle, which however
it will be at once seen they assume. " If it
" be admitted," as the first work quoted
above proceeds to say, that "the leading
" principle, in interpreting the Scriptures
" is," not only, " that the Bible is a book
" written for men, in the language of men,"
but also, " that its meaning is to be sought
" in the sarae raanner as that of other
" books," if this principle be admitted, it
is no easy matter to explain the difficulty
involved in the fact, " that a doctrine so
" strange, so liable to raisapprehension, so
" fundaraental as this is said to be, and
" requiring such careful exposition, should
" be left so undefined and unprotected, to
" be raade out by inference, and to be
" hunted'' through distant and detached
" parts of Scripture."
'' It is not altogether unimportant to observe the
adoption of this same figure, by both the authors quoted
above. The expression in the Latin original of Milton's
work is "aucupio quodam captari."

LECTURE IL 49
Again, if we adraitted the assuraption
on which Milton's arguraent rests, viz.
that we must come to the study of Holy
Scripture, ' with a mind free from preju
dice ,-' that the Christian verities are only
the result of ' huraan interpretation,' mere
deductions from those portions of Scripture,
to which the Church refers for their proof
when taught ; we should not be unwilling
to " allow the privilege of diligent research
" and free discussion, to those who are seek-
" ing truth through the same means, and in
" the same way as ourselves ;" which on that
hypothesis indeed they might be doing,
but which, on our present principle of
teaching and proving the Christian doc
trines, they are confessedly not doing. Nor
should we be unwilling to agree with him,
that "an object of belief involving a pri-
" raary article of faith, ought not to be an
" inference forced and extortedfrora passages
" relating to an entirely different subject, in
" which the readings are soraetimes various
" and the sense doubtful." This difference
of interpretation, the apparently incidental
and casual way in which these doctrines

50 LECTURE IL
are raentioned, which now comes recom
mended to us by its peculiar fitness to its
object, and its adaptation to a state of trial,
where the reception of these truths on the
peculiar evidence thus afforded, forras an
essential feature in our spiritual probation,
all this would, in that case, become a diffi
culty and a sturablingblock.
Against this adraission, on our part, ofthe
Socinian's conclusion frora his principle, the
Trinitarian dissenter will protest, feeling
probably that the Scripture proofs of what
he believes, as opposed to the Socinian, are
not of the character described by the other.
To the Churchraan, it is a raatter of cora-
parative indifference whether they be so
or not ; to him, this difference between So
cinian and Sectarian is perfectly intelligible,
and creates no difficulty ; he sees that the
principle of the Sectarian, if fairly carried
out, leads to Socinianism. Not that he is
otherwise than pained at seeing this direc
tion of any principle ; rauch as he rejoices,
for the truth's sake, to see that this is
the natural consequence of the Sectarian
and heretical principle ; but he feels, that

LECTURE IL 51
against each of these, he possesses, as a
Churchraan, a principle, which, while it satis
fies his own raind, brings thera both to an
issue, and places thera both in the wrong ;
a principle which, if pressed, they too must
adrait, on any fair system of reasoning, on
the authority of Scripture itself. He sees
also, that whatever differences these two
classes have between thera, are but the
natural result of their respective characters
and feelings ; that the one wishes certain
points to be true — the other, not ; and
that accordingly, as in any other moral
subject, each finds the proof of his own
view, varying in strength and degree, ac
cording to the interest he takes in the
point to be proved.
It should be observed, however, that the
same arguraent which is so shocking to the
Trinitarian dissenter, when applied to the
Trinity, he uses without scruple against
the Church, in regard to his difference
with her. And therefore he places himself
in this position ; — that he is unable to main
tain his ground against the Church, without
admitting the Socinian principle, as regards
E 2

52 LECTURE IL
the right of private judgment in the inter
pretation of Scripture ; he puts it out of
his power to say that the Socinian is more
in error, (certainly not more responsible for
his opinions and belief,) than himself. Nor
can he raaintain his argument against the
Socinian, without calling to his aid a prin
ciple, which involves the admission of the
whole point at issue between hiraself and
the Church. Therefore, for the purpose of
considering the alleged defective character
of the Scripture proofs of doctrines, we may
reduce to one class, all those who differ
from the Church's full doctrine : a process,
which tends rauch to siraplify the case, en
abling us to take as our opponents, all those
who require full and direct stateraents from
Scripture, of all that the Church requires
them to believe.
Now the Churchman will not be un
willing to adrait, that, for raany iraportant
points which the Church holds and calls
upon her children to believe, the proofs in
Scripture are not direct and explicit in the
sense in which Sectarians regard proofs ;
nor is it necessary that they should be so —

LECTURE II. 53
say, e. g. the proofs in favour of Confirm
ation, Episcopacy, Apostolical Succession,
Infant Baptism, or the efficacy of the Sa
craments as essential means of grace.
The question we are content to ask is, are
the proofs such as we have a right to ex
pect ? or, without even going so far as this,
are the objections brought against the kind
of proof, other than may be brought against
proofs of things external to the Bible, which
those who object to these Scripture proofs
are content to regard as sufficient ? Now we
maintain, that the very character and kind
of proof of the Christian doctrines which
we derive frora Scripture, is at least as
good as raen are content to take in natural
religion for what they there believe; and
further, that it is such as we raight expect
antecedently, on the assumption, either that
they would be analogous to those of Na
tural Religion, or that they would be
adapted to our nature, viewed in reference
to a state of 'probation ; or from what Scrip
ture would itself lead us to expect, frora its
account of itself and its origin, and of the
mode in which the Gospel was first revealed
E 3

54 LECTURE IL
and taught. Let it be granted that it
is as the Socinian or Sectarian (we have
before merged them in one class as regards
the principle of their objection) maintains ;
that the proofs of things which the Church
holds and which they reject, are, as proofs,
defective. It may be asked, is there no
thing in this analogous to what we find in
Natural Religion, and that in matters of
deep interest? And if it is not what we
should have expected antecedently from
analogy, is it not at least that which, when
we find it, raay be accounted for by ana
logy ? Here again it will be seen that the
principle of the Sectarian, if followed up,
proves too much, that after having led to
Socinianism, the argument of both leads to
a form of Deism. It was before shewn,
that adraitting, for argument's sake, that
the Church's proofs from Scripture are, on
the Sectarian principle, imperfect ; those of
Sectarianism are, on the same principle, im
perfect also, and would justify the Socinian
heresy. Again, assuming with the Sectarian
of whatever denomination, that the only
knowledge we possess of God, or of our

LECTURE II. 55
relation to him, is derived from revelation,
we do not see how the Sectarian can deny
the Deist's pretensions to the same know
ledge from the light of nature, without
calling in to his aid the principle which
the Churchman contends for in arguing
with him, by which he accounts for the
supposed force of the proofs in question,
by the possession of previous knowledge
and instruction, of which, when once
known, it is impossible to divest himself,
even in imagination, so as to ascertain, in
the raost reraote degree, what force such
proofs would have had to his mind with
out that previous knowledge. That, in
short, his argument against the Churchraan
leads to Socinianisra, and thence to Deisra ;
while his arguraent against the Deist leads
to and involves the recognition of the
Church principle.
The advocates of the sufficiency of Na
tural Religion take upon theraselves to
deny the necessity of a divine revelation.
There is nothing surprising in this : when
we possess knowledge, it is often difficult,
if not impossible, to determine how or
E 4

56 LECTURE IL
whence we obtained it; especially if we
have within us raoral perceptions corre
sponding to it, and if we find obvious proofs
of it, not only in its harraony with our
nature, but in things around us and exter
nal to us. Now the facts which even na
tural religion professes to teach, are so
congenial to our nature, are in every way
so intiraately connected with our being,
and raoreover are confirmed by such pal
pable proofs in nature and the world around
us, that it is by no means surprising that
persons should be led to believe they
originally derived their knowledge from
these sources, when every one is willing to
admit that it is confirmed and exeraplified.
And they are the more likely to feel this,
if there exist reasons of strong self-interest,
though they raay not be conscious of being
influenced by them, for wishing it to be
thus. This would be the case, if they
merely felt it was that which their nature
required, and which, when known, seemed
as it were to belong to them. Much more
will it be so, in raatters of which there are
obvious evidences in the world around, as

LECTURE II. 57
e.g. the existence of God and his attributes,
and a future state. The proofs of these
articles of faith, drawn from nature, are so
strong, that the Deist believes he is claira-
ing for thera no raore than their due, in
maintaining that his knowledge is derived
solely from them, denying altogether the
necessity of a divine revelation for that
purpose. This position of the Deist is denied by
the Sectarian ; in which we thoroughly
coincide ; though we speak in the narae
of the latter as distinct frora ourselves,
since our arguraent is with him presently.
He adraits the visible proofs which the
world affords of natural religion, but denies
that they are sufficient to derive that know
ledge from in the first instance, though
strong proofs of the fact when known.
He maintains that their force is derived
subsequently from reflection, analogous to
the raeaning of a prophecy elicited by its
fulfilraent; which, though very clear and
satisfactory when brought to pass, so much
so, in fact, as to make us feel that it must
have been obvious frora the beginning.

58 LECTURE IL
yet we know, as a raatter of fact, that until"
fulfilled, few even of those raost interested
in it, appear to have had any conception of
its real drift, or the raode of its fulfilraent.
These are the arguraents raainly by
which the Sectarian replies to the Deist,
when, frora the force which the evidences
of natural religion possess as proofs of re
vealed religion, the Deist would argue to
their sufficiency, as sources of knowledge
for superseding it in the first instance :
and in this reasoning we, as Churchmen,
fully concur. And we further agree with
him in the unfairness with which the Deist
assumes the whole point at issue. As to
the question how far these truths could
have been known without revelation, we
cannot, of course, in arguing with the Deist,
derive any presumptive arguraent against
him, frora the fact that they were first
revealed. But we have a right to maintain
that his position must at least be for ever
incapable of proof ; we may at least throw
on hira the onus of shewing that they
could be discovered from these evidences
in nature. The mere fact of their being

LECTURE IL 59
believed by those who knew not revelation,
proves nothing to us who hold that they
were revealed in the first instance, and
when once known, would, frora their con
geniality to man's nature, cling to hira in
every stage of society or knowledge, in
some shape or other, however corrupted
and debased, long after the source frora
which they were derived had been forgotten
in the distance of years. This arguraent
we cannot, of course, use against hira, who
denies the revealed origin of them, as
it presents no coraraon ground on which
we can proceed ; but it prevents him, on
the same principle, from using, against our
position, the circumstance that nations, un
acquainted with revelation, have yet held
these truths. We are therefore severally
left where we were before, as regards that
ground. The abstract question could only
be determined by experiment, and that too
by an experirae'ht not likely to occur.
We must, for that purpose, find a nation,
or an individual, either brought up pur
posely in ignorance of these things, or else
so far debased and gone back in the scale

60 LECTURE II.
of humanity, as to have lost the entire
knowledge of them ; we raust then place
thera in the way of advancing in civiliza
tion and knowledge, with the further con
dition that they were restrained (supposing
it were possible) frora all access, whether
to persons, books, or other records, which
could convey the slightest intiraation of
these things ; and this being done, in their
progress in civilization, (the liraits of which
we need not fix, nay, every assistance to
which we will be supposed to furnish, pro
vided nothing was done which could con
vey the reraotest intiraation of the truths
which we wished to keep from them,) we
raust watch and see whether, by the force of
their own rainds, and the assistance furnish
ed by external nature, they would arrive
at the conclusion that there was any supe
rior being not of this world, or any conti
nuation elsewhere of that principle of life
in theraselves, the termination of which
here at least they daily witnessed. Nor
would it at all meet the case of this sup
posed experiment, to produce a nation, or
an individual, with whom these articles.

LECTURE II. 61
though believed, were still held in the
most debased and corrupted form, — and
then to draw any arguraent from the
effect which iraproved civilization would
have on them. This would not meet
the case, for here it is already known,
and when known is, we admit, proved
by things around on all sides, and will
abide with thera through their several
stages of civilization or debaseraent ; and
that they iraprove as knowledge improves,
is obvious frora the superiority of the
opinions held by the wiser of heathen phi
losophers, over those of the multitude, re
specting the Deity and a future state ; a
superiority which was obviously the result
of more education and deeper thought,
which enabled them to see the folly of the
popular theology ; the natural result of a
cultivated mind reasoning on facts already
known ; but proving nothing whatever re
specting its capacity to have discovered
those facts in the first instance.
We have gone into this discussion with
the Deist, concurring, as we proceed, with
the Sectarian, not as arguing with the

62 LECTURE IL
former, but as shewing the argument by
which, changing the terms, we also reply
to the Sectarian himself. It will not be
said that the argument against the Deist
has been overstated, nor will the Sectarian
deny that it is thus that he replies to the
Deist's denial of the necessity of a divine
revelation for the knowledge of these things;
nor that, unless thus replied to, the Deist
is able to advance that which, prima facie,
has great weight.
Let us now apply the same process of
reasoning to the Sectarian, in reply to
his assertion, that for the knowledge and
proof of the great raysteries which we meet
with in the Bible, no knowledge or assist
ance is requisite beyond that furnished by
the Bible itself; and likewise to his rejec
tion of some, on the ground that the pas
sages adduced in support of thera are not
sufficiently explicit, nor of that prorainent
character which would be expected in the
proofs of such iraportant doctrines; though
he is not unwilling to admit that their force
as collateral proofs would be considerably
augmented, on the assumption of a previous

LECTURE II. 63
knowledge of them on the part of the
reader. The Sectarian admits then the ge
nuineness and authenticity of the canonical
books of Holy Scripture. He admits like
wise that, without thera, the facts which
he does believe would not have been known ;
in other words, he admits the necessity of
a divine revelation — though when known,
he allows that corroborating proofs of these
facts are to be seen in many things out
of the Bible ; say, e. g. in external nature,
or in the constitution of huraan nature.
He admits also that the Deist, obtaining
possession of these facts frora Revelation,
makes an unfair use of them, ascribing his
knowledge of thera to his own reason act
ing on proofs which it cannot be denied
are furnished by raany things, when the
facts theraselves have been previously known
or even suggested ; but which till then are
insufficient. He admits, therefore, that the
proofs external to the Bible for truths re
vealed in it, are of this character — insuffi
cient in themselves to have even suggested
the idea without a revelation, yet so strong
when the truths are once known, that it is

64 LECTURE II.
difficult to persuade any one, not a befiever
in revelation, but that he derived his know
ledge of these truths frora their proofs
originally. We raay therefore, in fairness,
include hira araong those of whora we ask
this question ; " If Scripture gives the
" proofs of the truths we are called upon to
" believe ; what is the kind of proof we
" should expect, antecedently, to find there,
" on the supposition that this work of God,
" his written word, would bear any analogy
" to the other works of the sarae divine
" Author, especially those, frora which we
" raay be presuraed to gather, directly or in-
" directly, any raanifestations of his nature
" or his will ?" For we have two arguments
with the Sectarian : I. The a priori argu
raent in favour of the Church's view of
the real nature of Scripture proofs, drawn
from analogy. II. The elenchtic argu
ment, drawn, either from that which he
uses against the Deist, which proves too
much in our favour ; or from that against
us, which proves too much in favour of the
Deist : leading in fact either to Deism, or
to the admission of the Church's principle.

LECTURE IL 65
Of these two, the arguraent frora analogy
presents the strongest presuraption against
his raain objection, founded on the alleged
defective character of the Scripture proofs
of doctrines without previous teaching ; i.e.
if, in the written word, we should expect
antecedently, to find proofs of iraportant
doctrines, analogous to those which natural
religion furnishes of divine things ; in
other words, on the assumption, that the
proofs we raeet with in Scripture, would be
analogous to those which we find in natural
religion, whether of the sarae divine truths,
or of others. If the existence of any pre
vious teaching were adraitted, to which the
Scripture would be supposed to refer, and
of which, it might be supposed to be a
continuation, the indirect character of its
proofs would follow naturally enough ; we
should expect to find, and be content with,
allusions, references, and proofs by implica
tion, where, on the supposition that Scrip
ture contained our primary instruction, we
should require full and direct statements.
At present however this is not adraitted;
it will be proved in its proper place. We

66 LECTURE IL
are now considering the objections brought,
a priori, against indirect proofs, as such,
as well as (carrying the argument a stage
further) the grounds which might be sup
posed to exist antecedently, in favour of
the probability of such proofs. It might
here be observed, however, that whatever
evidence is established thus far of the ex
istence of such proofs, is an argument a
priori, as far as it goes, in favour of the
probability of some previous teaching and
knowledge. It should be borne in mind here, that in
estiraating the antecedent probability of
this kind of proof, the opponent is sup
posed to adrait the necessity of some divine
revelation, in order to have arrived at the
truths he holds, in opposition to the Deist,
who raaintains the sufficiency of the light
of nature, and of external proofs, to have
given the sarae knowledge ; and that the
forraer maintains, that though proofs of
these are to be seen every where, when once
known, yet that the truths themselves are
originally derived from some other source ;
and that if it appears otherwise to the

LECTURE II. 67
Deist, it is, because he cannot divest hira
self of such knowledge when once obtained,
and that he unfairly ascribes to the proofs
in nature, a power, which though they
possess, they only derive by reflecting, as it
were, revealed light.
To this may be added another pecu
liarity of the natural evidences of religion
(which does not however refer to any one
class of Religionists, as to their being Deists
or otherwise) ; that besides the intellectual
perception of thera, their force depends
rauch on the raoral condition of the person,
for the time being, to whora they address
themselves ; that though adduced as proofs
even of things familiar to him, yet they
often fail of having any effect as evidences.
And as a rule, as far as may be drawn
from induction and observation, it may be
said that their force as proofs, or the
capacity to feel them as such, varies in
proportion to the moral character of each
individual; and that frequently to the
sarae person, the very sarae proofs possess
a different force at different times, if,
F 2

68 LECTURE IL
during the interval, any change has taken
place, for the better or worse, in his moral
state. Some, for example, will see in the na
tural world, proofs of the benevolence of
God, and the prevailing features of love,
mercy, and justice ; subject to apparent ex
ceptions, which to their rainds, create no
serious difficulty : others, on the contrary,
will see, as they imagine, arguments against
these, if not against the presumption of
there being a superintending Providence.
The attention of some, is more called to
the devastating effects of sin, on our moral
condition ; while that of others, will be
rather awakened to the harraony still to
be traced in the constitution of our nature,
notwithstanding the effects of sin ; their
respective views being often determined,
among other things, by the morbid or san
guine temperament of each.
Again, the views of the very same person
will change, both in kind and degree, if
any change has taken place, raeanwhile,
in his bodily or mental condition. In fact.

LECTURE II. 69
not to multiply examples, it raay be truly
said of all of us,
" Our eyes see all around in gloom or glow,
" Hues of their own fresh borrowed from the heart."
If then we take up the Scripture, as con
taining the proofs of great truths relating
to the Deity, and to raen as regards their
relations to him, should we not, on the as
sumption, that the author of nature was also
the author of revelation, and that the pro
cess in each would be analogous, expect to
find in the latter, proofs of that character,
which, though very abundant, and though
simple and obvious ivhen known, are such
as, if any one could be found, or even be
supposed, to have been brought up in ig
norance of the truths to which they refer,
would leave a considerable question, (with
out at present urging the probability that
they would not,) whether they would of
themselves, and without the least previous
teaching, suggest these truths ? In what
way they would be exhibited to us, so as to
have this particular effect, is not a matter of
any raoraent for the present argument, as
long as they would stand in this particular
F 3

70 LECTURE II.
relation to the truths of which they were
the evidence.
Again ; in reference to the other pecu
liarity just alluded to, respecting the de-
pendance of external evidence on the
raoral condition of the person ; adraitting
even, that the proofs were in theraselves
sufficient, as regards their independence of
any previous instruction, should we not
expect to find them of that peculiar cha
racter, as proofs of great moral truths, that
they would have to depend, for their re
ception and force, very rauch on the raoral
condition of the persons to whose belief
they were proposed, and therefore, so far
iraperfect in theraselves, as to require to be
filled up by the predisposition, if not the
actual wish, to be influenced by thera, on
the part of the reader ?
Now it is obvious, that this is what no
proofs could be liable to, which were siraple
direct statements in themselves, and more
over repeated and reasserted in each por
tion of the work, as frequently as their im
portance demands, and as they would be, if
the author were himself impressed with a

LECTURE IL 71
sense of their importance. And that they
are at least not thus categorically stated in
Scripture, will, I think, hardly be denied ;
still leaving open the question, how far
they are independent of any thing but them
selves for having their meaning elicited.
This therefore would lead us to expect, that
the statements involving these proofs would,
in the first place, not be forraal and direct,
so that he raay run that readeth, however
independent of any external or previous
teaching. In the next place, we should expect,
that besides being indirect, they would be
of that description, as to admit of two op
posite constructions ; and yet that each
should be satisfactory to those by whora
they were respectively adopted: that the
adoption of each should be attended by a
distinct raoral condition, a distinct cha
racter of raind, sufficiently uniforra in the
respective holders of each, to warrant the
presuraption, of there being a close con
nexion between the character of mind and
the views of Scripture with which it is as
sociated ; and further, that the interpreta-
F 4

72 LECTURE XL
tion of each would vary, in proximity or
the reverse, according to the degree in
which the holders exhibited a resemblance,
or the reverse, in regard to tone of mind
and general moral character.
We are thus furnished with strong
grounds, from analogy, of an antecedent
probability in favour of proofs, in a written
revelation, so far iraperfect in themselves,
as to require to be filled up, in the one case
by previous knowledge, in the other, by the
predisposition of the raoral inclinations.
How far this probability is realized by
facts, in regard to previous knowledge, we
shall see when we corae to exaraine the
written Scripture itself. How far it is
realized, in regard to their dependance on
the heart and raoral capacity, will be seen
by every one who has observed, with any
degree of attention, the various kinds and
degrees of Heresy or of Infidelity, which
have fallen under his notice, whether in
different individuals and bodies, or in the
same individual or body at different pe
riods. He cannot have failed to observe
the different, and sometiraes opposite force.

LECTURE II. 73
with which the very sarae Scriptural proofs
of the Christian verities have been at
tended ; at one time, and to one person,
carrying complete conviction ; at another,
completely powerless, or explained away.
Nor will he have failed to observe, in a
general way, for it is not given us to scan
the raotives and judge the feelings of
others too closely, how much the force of
tliese doctrinal proofs will vary, according
as he beholds, in the individual or body to
whora they are proposed, an approach to, or
a departure frora, that peculiar character
and tone of raind, which it is obviously the
tendency of a belief in such doctrines to
forra within us. And, to those who will
turn their eyes inwardly on themselves, and
search into the secret recesses of their own
hearts, it needs not that another should
tell them, that the doctrinal statements of
Holy Scripture speak to thera with more
or less force of proof, are received by them
with hope or fear, willingness or distaste,
in a way calculated in either case, to ex
ercise a raost powerful influence on their
faith through the medium of the will.

74 LECTURE IL
according as they feel within themselves,
that they can realize in their hearts those
raotives to serve God, which it is the effect,
if not the object, of a belief in those
blessed verities to create within them, and
the absence of which raotives gives them
a direct interest in wishing the doctrines
untrue, which in that case they cannot but
feel must condemn them.
The first argument then which we use
with the Sectarian, as regards his objections
to the (alleged) iraperfect and indirect
nature of the Scripture proofs which the
Church is content to receive in support
of her doctrines, is that of antecedent
probability derived frora the assuraed ana
logy of Scripture to nature. It should be
observed, however, that though stated in
this forra, as regards its being antecedent,
yet it is by no raeans necessary that it
should araount to a positive declaration of
probability, if to any the arguraent should
appear incapable of being carried to that
extent. It is quite enough for the present
purpose, if, without urging it to this, we
use it elenchtically, to remove any objections

LECTURE IL 75
which might seem to lie antecedently
against such a supposed feature in Scrip
ture proofs. It would at least serve to
shew that the sarae objections lie, accord
ing to the stateraent of the Sectarian hira
self, against the proofs in natural reli
gion; that, granting they do exist in
Scripture, they are no more than we
might expect to find, on the supposition
that they would be analogous to those of
the forraer.
This arguraent, it will be seen, has refer
ence to those doctrines, the proofs of which
the Sectarian rejects on the ground of not
being sufficiently explicit in themselves,
nor such as we should be led to expect
in a divine revelation.
The other argument which we eraploy
against the Sectarian, has reference to
proofs which he does adrait, but to esta
blish the validity of which he has uncon
sciously called to his aid the principle for
which the Church contends on behalf of
those doctrines which he rejects ; and
which he in his turn uses against the
Deist, to account for the seeming suffi-.

76 LECTURE IL
ciency in nature to discover divine truths ;
viz., the principle that he is already in pos
session of the question before coming to
the testiraony : while the argument which
the Sectarian uses against us in favour of
those proofs, the independent sufficiency of
which he admits, is no raore than the
Deist raight, on his own principle, eraploy
against him.
The Sectarian is in this position between
the Churchman and the Deist. He argues
with the Churchman on deistical princi
ples : he argues with the Deist on Church
principles : whatever he contends for in
favour of the sufficiency of his own Scrip
ture proofs to teach so as to supersede the
teaching of the Church, the Deist contends
for against him in favour of his own natural
proofs, so as to supersede the need of a
divine revelation. On the other hand,
whatever he alleges against the sufficiency
of the Deist's proofs, as only deriving their
force by reflection from previous know
ledge gained from other sources, though
admitted to be so clear, when known, as to
raake the mistake not unnatural ; the same

LECTURE IL 77
the Churchman might and does allege
against his claim to have derived his first
views of Christian doctrines from those
portions of Holy Scripture, which, while
refusing to recognise thera as the priraary
instruraent of instruction in regard to time,
or as transraitting the fo7^m of Christian
doctrine, the Churchraan would be as jealous
as the Sectarian in guarding with his life,
as containing the proof of those blessed
truths on which depend his only hope of
salvation, and as being the ultimate stand
ard of divine truth.
Whether, in either of the cases we have
been considering, men could have dispensed
with their guide, and have depended on
their proof alone ; whether, for example, the
Sectarian could have deduced the doctrines
he believes frora Scripture alone ; whether
the Deist could have deduced frora the
light of nature and the evidences of the
natural world, the existence of God and
of a future state, are questions which can
never be deterrained till children are
brought up in utter ignorance of these
truths, apart from the habitations or con-

78 LECTURE IL
verse of those who in any degree believe
thera. Till this experiraent has been tried,
and every opportunity thus afforded by
free access to the Scriptures, every inter
course with raen, whether by tongue or
writing, being debarred, it were utterly un
warranted by any thing in the word of God
to assert that they would so learn. Neither
is the solution of this question at all requi
site for the present purpose : all that is
here contended for is, that the arguraent
of the Deist against the Sectarian, is at
least as good as that of the latter against
the Church — that in fact the arguraent of
the Sectarian leads to Deisra : and, that
the arguraent which the Sectarian employs
against the Deist, tells with equal force
against himself in the hands of the Church
man — that it leads to an admission of the
Church principle.
Tell us not of raen who, having long
lived as infidels, have at length been
brought, under grace, to a knowledge of
the truth by reading the Holy Scriptures.
Such cases prove nothing respecting the
point under consideration. Although re-

LECTURE IL 79
jecting these sacred truths, they have long
dwelt among men who believed them, and
araong whom they heard them spoken of;
nay, that they knew them, is implied in the
assertion that they disbelieved them. It
was irapossible but that they were in pos
session of that eleraentary instruction for
the need of which the Church contends ;
and when at length they were in mercy
led by the Holy Spirit to the perusal of
the Holy Scriptures, they came to that
sacred study — it will be said, " to judge for
" themselves." Be it so; this is all that the
Church contends for. But she would
embody that adraission in the words of the
inspired evangelist ; andin "coraingtoHoly
" Scripture to judge for theraselves," she sees
the unconscious fulfilment of the divine ap
pointraent, " that they raight know the cer-
" tainty of those things in which they had
" been " (no raatter whether they believed
thera) " instructed." That men should thus,
in the pride of the huraan heart, deny the
heavenly source frora which they derived
their knowledge, is surely not a raatter of
wonder ; still less a reproach to that source

80 LECTURE IL
of light and knowledge, as though it were
not needed for our blindness and infir-
raities. " For it is not to be iraagined that men
" fail to profit by the light that has been
" shed upon thera, though they have not
" always the integrity to own the source
" frora whence it coraes ; or raay turn their
" back upon it, whilst it fills the atrao-
" sphere around thera ; no, not even if in a
"higher strain of raalice, they address the
" great lurainary, only, as the apostate spirit
" once did, ' to tell it how they hate its
"bearas."'^ If " the fact is not to be denied, that
^' the religion of nature has had the op-
" portunity of rekindling her faded taper
" by the Gospel light, whether furtively or
"unconsciously taken;" as little can it be
denied that Sectarianisra has lighted her
torch at the altar of that holy flarae, which,
on the day which witnessed the new-born
Church of Christ, descended frora the
Father of lights, and rested on each of the
Apostles, with whom, and their appointed
^ Davison on Prophecy.

LECTURE IL 81
successors, it will, if we believe the holy
promise, abide till the angel shall be sent
forth to gather together the elect whom
that light shall have guided into the way
of salvation which is by Christ Jesus.
Let not Sectarianisra, like the religion of
nature, "dissemble the obligation and the
" conveyance, and make a boast of the
" splendour, as though it were originally
"her own, or had always in her hands
"been sufficient for the illumination of
" the world ^" ^ Davison on Prophecy.

a

LECTURE III.

THE SCRIPTURE STATEMENT AND PROOF OF THE
PRINCIPLE.

2 Cor. v. 19, 20.
And hath committed unto us the word qf recon
ciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for
Christ, as though God did beseech you by us:
we pray you in Chrisfs stead, he ye reconciled
to God.
ONE of the objections alleged against
the Church's principle, that portion of
it at least which regards the relation of the
Christian doctrines to Holy Scripture, from
which it was proposed to vindicate it in these
Lectures, is that urged by the Sectarian, that
it is repugnant to Scripture itself. There
fore, before entering upon the subject of
the adaptation of the principle to the moral
constitution of man, it will be desirable

LECTURE IIL 83
first to examine the Scriptural grounds on
which it rests ; although in doing this we
shall be necessarily led over a somewhat
beaten track, and be exposed to the charge
of repeating obvious truths. This is ren
dered the more necessary, however, from
the circumstance that the Sectarian, as
suming to himself exclusively the credit
of being guided by Scripture in the forma
tion of his views, is apt to stigmatize the
Church's principle, as though it were with
out sufficient foundation in Scripture, if
not actually repugnant to it. And it is
soraewhat reraarkable, that this party, while
contending for their principle of the Bible,
and that alone, being the authority by which
they are to be guided in the forraation of
their creed, overlook entirely the fact, that for
this, their fundamental position, the Scrip
ture itself furnishes no authority ivhatever.
It is true, they will adduce passages to that
effect, as for example, 2 Tim. iii. 15 — 17,
but a moment's reflection will shew any
one that this furnishes no arguraent ; and
if it be adraitted as evidence, referring as it
does to the Old Testament exclusively, it
G 2

84 LECTURE III.
would at once, on their own principle, go
to prove the New Testament utterly un
necessary. And they may be safely chal
lenged to produce any authority from the
New Testaraent, (which raust of course be
the authority, if any,) in support of their
position. This principle of theirs, which raay be
described as being represented by that un
meaning, or at any rate perverted saying,
" The Bible, and Bible alone, is the reli-
" gion of Protestants," is one which men
have gone on repeating', till, as is often
the case, they have persuaded themselves
of its reality. Nor is it one difficult to
be accounted for, considering the natural
tendency of raen's minds to react in an
opposite extrerae, after being unduly forced
into the other ; but more particularly, from
the liberty of choice and unlimited right
of private judgment which the principle
involves, and the absence of those whole
some restraints upon the heart and raind,
which the Holy Spirit raercifuUy iraposed
in the constitution of the Apostolic Church,
and which, though in truth a protection

LECTURE IIL 85
against ourselves, are repulsive to the
natural pride and independence of raan;
like those laws of civil society, which,
while they protect us in the exercise of
rational liberty, are an offence to the tur
bulent, and the hatred of evil doers.
The Sectarian principle, therefore, is one
the existence of which is by no raeans diffi
cult to be accounted for, whether considered
historically, or with reference to its bearing
on some of the passions of our nature ; but
at the same tirae, it is one for which there
is no warrant whatever in Holy Scrip
ture. And in saying this, it raay further
be observed, that there are not only no
direct statements in Scripture in support
of this principle, but not even those in
direct proofs, those proofs by iraplication,
which would be satisfactory on the as
suraption that the principle was already
understood and adraitted by those for whom
the Scripture was written — those proofs
which the Church receives in support of
the doctrines which she holds, and which
even Sectarians are content to take in proof
of those points which they hold in common
G 3

86 LECTURE III.
with the Church. There are not even
proofs or notices of this description in the
New Testaraent, that the Sacred Scriptures
were designed to be the sole work of inspi
ration, the sole work of the Holy Ghost
speaking through raen ; still less that they
are designed by theraselves to teach Chris
tianity ; or are that frora which alone raen
were to derive their knowledge of God, of
their relation to hira, or of the mode in
which they were to worship him.
If there be any to whom this assertion is
new, and whom, from its apparent novelty,
it may startle, while it raight seera for the
raoraent to strike at the authority which
should be ascribed to the Holy Scriptures,
and detract from the reverence with which
they have been accustoraed to regard thera,
(and God forbid that authority should be
weakened or that reverence diminished,)
I would entreat such to bear with me
a while, while I proceed to shew that the
Church, in asserting her authority as the
depositary and teacher of God's word in
conjunction with Holy Scripture, and deny
ing the office of the Scripture as a primary

LECTURE IIL 87
and sole guide to the knowledge of the
whole counsel of God respecting them,
does not trifle with their hopes or the
grounds of their salvation; does not, as
they may think, take the authority from
God to give it to man ; does not, while
removing with parental hand that on which
they now lean, leave them without support ;
but replaces what she takes away by an
other prop, more sure, raore consoling in the
hour of doubt and darkness, raore conforra-
able to the general analogy of God's deal
ings, and, what is of the chief iraportance
in the truly Protestant sense of the word,
raore strictly in accordance with his written
word, more purely scriptural. For, in as
serting her authority to be the priraary
instruraent (in point of tirae) for teaching
the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Church is
not left, as is the principle of Sectarian
ism, unsupported by the testimony of Holy
Scripture. Nay further, she is not com
pelled to rest, for the credentials of this
authority, on Scripture proofs as indirect
as those on which she is often content
to rest for the proof of her particular doc-
G 4

88 LECTURE III.
trines; but the grounds on which the
Church asserts her claims and her authority
primarily, are no other than those furnish
ed by Holy Scripture itself, and that not
by implication merely, but by direct his
torical statement. These we will now pro
ceed to review.
The notion here contended against, re
specting the relation of the Christian doc
trines to Holy Scripture, is probably in
some measure to be ascribed to a confusion,
in the minds of those who hold it, of the
principles and provisions of the Gospel
with those of the Law. If any one, pre
viously farailiar with the Old Testament,
had been told that the New Testament
was written by men under the immediate
inspiration of the Holy Spirit, on things
pertaining to man's eternal salvation, to
which he was to refer, as to an unerring
standard, for the proof of all things said
to be essential to that salvation, it would
be not unnatural for him to suppose, at
first, and before he had read it, that it
was also the primary, if not the sole instru
ment for revealing these things to him.

LECTURE IIL 89
This he would infer frora the analogy he
raight naturally assurae it to bear to the
Law and Revelation given by Moses, which
was, in its day, the priraary, if not the
sole instrument of making known, to those
who lived under it, their relation to God,
and the duties arising out of it.
And yet, though the Law had the sarae
ultiraate end in view with the Gospel,
though it was preparatory to it, and the
schoolraaster to bring raen to it, yet in
many respects, in its forra, its sanctions,
the raode of its proraulgation, and the in
struraents by which it was proraulgated, it
was not only different, but essentially, and,
as it would seera, designedly, opposed to it.
The one was a covenant of works — the other,
of grace ; the one, of the letter — the other,
of the spirit : of the one the sanctions were
teraporal — of the other, spiritual and eter
nal: the one brought raen into bondage — ¦
the other gave thera liberty. The design
of the Almighty in thus giving this oppo
site character to each of his two dispensa
tions, it would not be part of the present
subject to inquire into. We first notice

90 LECTURE IIL
the fact that they were thus opposed.
Published, however, as the Gospel was, first
araong the Jews, who had not only received
the Law previously, but had been taught
to regard the Gospel as the fulfilment of
it, and as the second and final revelation
frora the God of their fathers, it would
not be unnatural nor surprising, that they
should expect to find, in the one, the main
features which had characterized the other.
Certainly, we know that its dissimilarity
was the first, if not the chief cause, which
served first to prejudice thera against it,
and ultiraately led thera to reject it. That
this reserablance to the elder covenant
would be expected by them, would seem to
be implied in the repeated warnings and
cautions which were given of those things
in which the dissimilarity would be raost
felt, and be most likely to prejudice the
Israelite against the new religion. This is
strikingly seen in the repeated warnings
of the sufferings which would befall the
first converts, as well as in the sufferings
theraselves when they actually arrived : as
though it were designed to irapress on the

LECTURE IIL 91
Jew, that, whereas the elder covenant had
been one of this world, sanctioned by tem
poral rewards and punishments, having the
promise of present prosperity to those who
obeyed its precepts ; lest the Christian con
vert should be led to expect that the new
covenant, proceeding frora the sarae raighty
Author, should partake of the same charac
ter ; — in addition to the differences, revealed
at the time, respecting the fundaraental
features of the two covenants, it was ex
pressly and repeatedly intiraated, that the
sanctions would not be like those of the
forraer one. And when the hour of trial
carae, painful experience attested that those
warnings had not been given in vain — that
it was not without reason that divine raercy
had " told thera of these things before they
" carae to pass, that when they did corae to
" pass, they might remeraber that he told
" thera," and not iraagine, frora the contrast
which their sufferings bore to the blessings
which had attended their fathers, that it was
because they had forsaken his Law, that
God had given thera over to their eneraies.
Now looking at the dissirailarity between

92 LECTURE IIL
the two covenants, in all the points which
have just been briefly adverted to, we
might be led to expect, certainly not sur
prised to find, a dissimilarity in the instru
ments by which, and the mode in which,
the two revelations would be respectively
made ; and the more so, if the character
of the instrument would be likely to be
determined by that of the covenant, or the
raore immediate object of the Revelation
itself. We thus arrive, if not at the antecedent
argument in favour of a different instru
ment, and a different mode of proraul-
gating the new covenant, at least at grounds
for removing any objections which might
be supposed to lie antecedently against
such a different instrument or mode being
adopted, (and to the raind of a Jew such
would lie, but for the precautions which
appear to have been divinely taken to pre
vent thera.) And when we further con
sider the raore iraportant features of the
new covenant, in respect of its being not of
the letter but of the spirit, involving the
highest state of probation and spiritual dis-

LECTURE IIL 93
cipline, completely adapted to man's nature
as a moral and responsible agent, and cal
culated to promote the end of his being
in a state of trial ; we raight not unreason
ably expect, that the raode and the instru
ments by which knowledge should be com
municated and he exercised therein, should
have relation to these features of the cove
nant, should have regard to his nature as a
moral and responsible agent, and be in them
selves also designed to promote, in their
office of channels of divine knowledge, the
main end of his being, as in a state of pro
bation. How far and in what way this was
realized in the Gospel, we have now to see.
The chief feature that meets us on taking
up the Historical account which Scripture
gives us of the Gospel Revelation, as distin
guished from the Law, is, that whereas the
Law was promulgated in writing, the Gospel,
on the contrary, was comraitted, in the
first instance, to huraan agents, by direct
inspiration, and by them coraraunicated to
the people, without the intervention of, or
reference to, any written docuraent, as re
garded that which they were coraraissioned

94 LECTURE IIL
to teach, or an appeal to any authority
beyond their own comraission ; the divine
origin of the latter being attested by the
rairacles they were empowered to work in
confirmation of it. The Law was commit
ted to tables — the Gospel to raen. The
Law was designed to be perpetuated, as it
had begun, in writing. — The Gospel was to
be perpetuated and preserved, not in writ
ing, (as regards any express divine appoint
ment to that effect) but by a society of
huraan agents, especially by a body of men
(without being confined to thera) ordained
to this purpose by those before thera, who
were in their turn, by the appointraent of
the sarae Spirit, to coraraunicate what they
had thus received to others, whom they
were empowered to ordain for the purpose.
The ordinances of the Law were made
known by what God said in that Law.
The ordinances of the Gospel were made
known by what God, through the inspired
Apostles, actually did; the ewistence of such
ordinances being, in raany cases, the first
intiraation to us of their appointment; e.g.
Infant Baptisra — the Eucharist, as an es-

LECTURE IIL 95
sential raeans of grace — the appointraent
and observance of the Lord's Day — Epi
scopal Ordination — Confirmation — Aposto
lical Succession. The Law, once delivered
in its written form, was coraplete, thence
forth nothing could be added to it nor
taken away, till recalled by its Divine
Author. The Gospel, on the other hand, received
by the Apostles from the Holy Ghost, was
doubtless delivered by thera in all essential
points of doctrine, withholding nothing —
" the whole counsel of God " being declared
by thera. But in respect of ordinances,
which, though indifferent till appointed,
yet when appointed becarae essential, and
were, as proceeding frora thera, of divine
appointraent, these the Apostles, acting
under inspiration, appointed from time to
time as circumstances might require ; act
ing under the authority of the commission
given to them, " As my Father hath sent
" me, so send I you ;" and the sanction, that
" whatsoever they should bind on earth
" should be bound in heaven."
Let us now consider the Gospel as a sys-

96 LECTURE IIL
tem of doctrine, and as the revelation of
God's purpose towards us in his Son Jesus
Christ. This was described as having been
committed to huraan agents, without the
intervention of, or reference to, any written
law or coraraission, and without any inti
mation that it was to be coramitted after
wards to writing as Moses was enjoined to
do in regard to the Law ; thereby declaring,
as far as could be inferred from the exist
ence of a divinely appointed and complete
mode of instruction, and the absence of all
intiraation, that any alteration was hereafter
to be made in the system ; that such were
the divinely appointed means, under the
new dispensation of grace, for communi
cating its glad tidings, and the revelations
connected with it, till the end of the world.
Many are willing to admit this to a cer
tain extent ; so far that is, as to allow that the
Church is the expounder of Scripture, and
that the Church's views are of essential
assistance in determining the meaning of
Scripture ; that the Scripture is the pri
mary revelation, the Church its interpreter
only. But the Scripture itself warrants us

LECTURE III. 97
in going rauch further than this ; and, if we
consider it attentively, it will exhibit to us
the Church as containing the priraary reve
lation, (in regard to time,) the body and
form of Christian doctrine, as being the
instrument expressly appointed for the pur
pose of teaching it ; and the Scripture, as
containing the substance and the proof,
beyond which the Church cannot go in
teaching or commanding any thing to be
believed as necessary to salvation.
Let us review what the Scripture itself
tells us on the subject. Let us take, as
the point at which to coraraence, the period
at which, after the resurrection and before
the ascension of our Lord, the Apostles,
having been previously chosen, received
frora hira the coraraission to baptize, and
to preach the Gospel; with the injunc
tion, however, that they should remain at
Jerusalera till they had received power
frora on high, and the knowledge of the
truth into which the Holy Spirit should
guide them; in other words, until they
should have revealed to them that on which,
though they were so soon to preach it, they
H

98 LECTURE IIL
were as yet very imperfectly informed. It
should be remarked, however, here, that in
viewing the Scripture account of this origin
of the Gospel, the sarae difficulty raeets us
which was spoken of in a former Lecture,
as being caused by the mere possession of
knowledge. When once we possess know
ledge, we cannot divest ourselves of it,
even in imagination ; and therefore it is
impossible for us to ascertain how we should
have felt without it, in regard to things
which to us, perhaps, have little or no exist
ence, except in relation to such knowledge,
as is the case with raany proofs in Scripture
of the Christian doctrines. It is on this
principle, that, farailiarly acquainted as we
are with the contents of the four Gospels,
as also of the Epistles, it is difficult, if not
irapossible, for us to place ourselves in the
position of those to whom these things
were unknown, as was the case with most
of those to whom the Apostles first preach
ed the Gospel, and who consequently had
no knowledge of these things, except so far
as they learned thera by oral communica
tion frora the Apostles.

LECTURE III. 99
Let us, however, keeping as nearly as
possible in thought to this ignorance, com
mence our view of the progress of the
Gospel from this point.
The Apostles, then, having received their
comraission to preach and to baptize, were
to reraain at Jerusalem till, according to the
proraise, they should receive knowledge and
power from on high — both their Commission
and Credentials. In the interval, they do
not appear to have had much conception of
the nature of the knowledge they were to
receive, nor ofthe real object for which Jesus
had corae into the world and died. The
language of disappointed hope, as expressed
by the disciple on the way to Eramaus,
" We trusted that it had been he who should
" have redeeraed Israel," shews what their
expectation had been prior to their Lord's
death ; while the question, " Lord, wilt
" thou at this tirae restore again the king-
"dom to Israel?" shews, that even after
their assurance of his resurrection, they had
raade little progress towards attaining to
the knowledge of the spiritual nature of
his kingdora ; and at the same time, his
H 2

100 LECTURE IIL
reply to this question points to the coming
of the Holy Ghost, as that which was to
remove their ignorance and enlighten them
on the subject of his kingdom. On the day
of Pentecost, however, we find the whole
aspect of things changed. The minds of the
Apostles respecting our Lord's death and the
object of it, are no longer undetermined; all
ignorance is in an instant reraoved by the
revelation, then raade, of the great scherae
of raan's rederaption by the death and resur
rection of Christ. Frora that raoraent, the
events of his life becorae to thera connected
with the mighty work which they were now
commissioned to reveal. Those events, be
fore known, indeed, yet not understood,
now had a distinct meaning; words and
deeds were now, as he had foretold, brought
to remembrance, and the Apostles them
selves guided into all truth. And that day,
at whose dawn the Church as yet had not an
existence nor a narae, had, before its close,
beheld that Church receive into its bosora
three thousand souls. On that day, and on
every occasion on which the Apostles, by
their teaching, converted sinners to God,

LECTURE IIL 101
from the day of Pentecost to the last event
recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, they
advanced what they did advance, on the
authority of their coraraission, confirmed
by the rairacles they were empowered to
work in attestation of it. In no case is
any written document referred to, as forra
ing the raessage they were coraraissioned
to deliver. If the Scriptures of the Old
Testaraent were on any occasion referred
to, (those of the New were not yet in exist
ence,) it was generally either in corrobora
tion of what they taught, as shewing there
in the fulfilraent of a prophecy, as in the
sermon of St. Peter on the day of Pentecost,
and the address of St. Paul in the syna
gogue of Antioch in Pisidia ; or to re
move sorae objections which raight seem to
lie against the doctrines they preached, as
being opposed to the testimony of the Law
and the Prophets ; of which kind was the
address of St. Stephen previous to his mar-
tyrdora — and even this raay be regarded
priraarily as the legal defence of a prisoner
on trial, though used no less as an instru
ment, in God's hands, for preaching the
H 3

102 LECTURE IIL
Gospel to those to whom it was spoken.
But on no occasion is any Christian Scrip
ture spoken of as their authority for what
they taught, or as designed, either with or
without the aid of their exposition, to teach
what they were teaching.
It is unnecessary to advert to the several
cases in which, and in sorae instances for a
long period, St. Paul is described in the Acts
of the Apostles, as preaching the Gospel
and founding Churches in particular places;
but it raay be observed, that in no instance
is allusion there raade to any written Scrip
ture having been used for coramunicating
the truths of the Gospel, nor is the most
remote intimation given, notwithstanding,
that those whom he taught, were other
wise than fully instructed in the whole
truth. And in connection with this, it
should be particularly observed, that when
St. Paul told the Ephesian elders, that " he
"had not shunned to declare to them all
"the counsel of God," although this was
sorae years after the Church at Ephesus
had been founded, and it raay be reason
ably assumed that men had lived and died

LECTURE III. 103
in the faith, yet at that time the Epistle to
the Ephesians had not been ivritten.
Thus, then, for a period of several years,
the Gospel had been preached, and Churches
founded, without any intimation, however
remote, that any Christian Scripture had
been employed for the purpose. Regard
ing, as we must, the Acts of the Apostles
as containing the direct inspired narrative
of the History of the Gospel Revelation,
commencing with its first proraulgation on
the day of Pentecost, it raay be said that,
frora its beginning to its terraination, it
raakes reference to no written docuraents
as its authority, nor speaks of any such
being designed as instruraents for the pur
pose of coinraunicating it : so entirely was
the whole revelation, the whole scherae
of salvation, communicated directly by the
Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and frora the
Apostles to the Church, without any inter
mediate channel or instrument being em
ployed in either case.
Neither again are we told to the full
extent, in this history of the Revelation,
what that Revelation, whose origin and

104 LECTURE IIL
early progress are thus described, consisted
in ; at least, we are not told, to the degree
we should expect, were it designed that
we should derive our knowledge of it from
this narrative. We are told that it was
revealed to the Apostles, and by them
coraraunicated orally to the converts; but
what it was which was thus revealed and
thus communicated, we are not told, ex
cept, as it were, incidentally, where the cir
cumstances of the history appear to require
a fuller allusion to it. In this way some
articles, and those fundaraental ones, are
spoken of, which, to those previously im
bued with Christian doctrine, would be at
once recognized, and would appear to be
stated with a degree of plainness and pre
cision, equivalent to the declarations of pri
mary instruction. But without going to
the question, whether we should have un
derstood the full allusion and raeaning of
these passages, without being thus irabued
in the doctrines by previous instruction, it
is obvious, from the way in which they are
there introduced, that they were not design
ed by themselves to give that instruction.

LECTURE IIL 105
But granting, for arguments' sake, that
this was the method in which these chief
doctrines were intended to be corarauni
cated to us ; and that, stated as these are
supposed to be, we have no excuse for not
recognizing and receiving thera, even though
we had not heard of thera before ; what
becoraes of raany other doctrines, which
we hold to be equally sacred, and as essen
tially parts of the Gospel revelation, of
which, however, there is confessedly not the
sarae full notice in this history of that reve
lation ? as, for example, first of all the Holy
Trinity, next the efficacy of the sacraments
as means of grace. Infant Baptisra, Episco
pacy, and Apostolical Succession ? Believing
these to forra part of the coraraission which
the Apostles received frora the Holy Spirit,
we cannot account for their oraission, (for
certainly, whatever allusion is raade to thera,
there is little direct statement,) on the as
sumption that the history which relates the
progress of the Gospel revelation, would tell
us also in what that revelation consisted.
It raust therefore be adraitted, that to
the close of the History of the Gospel Re-

106 LECTURE IIL
velation, as narrated in the Acts of the
Apostles, (for it doubtless does terminate
with this book, though more may be in
ferred from allusions and notices in the
other writings,) we are not told with any
precision or fulness, what it was which,
during that time, the Apostles preached as
the Gospel Revelation, which, throughout
the narrative, Christians are represented as
believing, and in the belief of which they
died. For this, therefore, we must go to
other parts of the New Testaraent; and we
shall perhaps be told by our opponents,
that there, in the Epistles especially, we
shall find the doctrines fully stated, whence
we are to gather our knowledge of them,
as well as inform ourselves on points of
discipline and church government, as far as
God has therein revealed his will concern
ing thera ; beyond which we have no liberty
to inquire for ourselves, or authority to
prescribe for others. And we shall per
haps be further told, that though the
Apostles, during the chief period of their
ministry, coraraunicated the Gospel by
raeans of oral instruction, yet that after-

LECTURE III. 107
wards they comraitted it to writing for the
instruction of the Church ; and that the
writings of the New Testament now stand
to us in the place of that oral instruction,
called the "form of sound words," which
they had eraployed with the first converts,
and in the early period of the Church. Let
us ascertain how far this is so by a .refer
ence to these Scriptures theraselves. But
here the caution raust be again repeated,
that we raistake not proofs for teaching ;
nor be too hasty to conclude that a notice,
which is sufficient to furnish proofs of a
fact acknowledged to be previously known,
is for that reason sufficient to have inform
ed us of, or to have suggested that fact, by
its own force, without such previous know
ledge. With this caution, let us refer to
the Apostolic Epistles, with the predispo
sition, it may be, to find in them that full
and direct information on the Christian
doctrines, with which the narrative of the
Acts, while it relates their history and pro
gress, does not furnish us. Here, however,
we are met, in the outset, by a circumstance
which at once places a bar upon any such

108 LECTURE IIL
expectation. On taking up the Epistles one
by one, we find, in their preamble or salu
tation, that they are, without a single ex
ception, addressed, not to strangers, but to
Christians ; not even to beginners in the
Christian faith, but to Christians of some
standing. This circumstance alone, in the
absence of other proofs, would be no incon
siderable arguraent, previous to an exarai-
nation of the fact, that they would not be
designed to convey the priraary knowledge
of these truths. We should expect to find
antecedently that, addressed as they are to
Christians, they would presuppose, in the
hearer or reader, a knowledge of the chief
Christian doctrines ; however we might ex
pect to find that they would enlarge upon
them, and point out the great practical re
sults which would flow frora a belief in
thera ; or that they would remedy any
misconceptions which raay have been forraed
of them, either frora raisunderstanding them
at the time, or frora subsequent forgetful-
ness, or from counteracting errors since
instilled by false teachers: whatever we
raight expect to find said in reference to

LECTURE IIL 109
all or any of these several points, we should
certainly expect that they would presup
pose a knowledge of the doctrines them
selves ; and that in speaking of them, they
would do so, not in the way of formal
enunciation, but by way of allusion and
reference, as to things already known in
sorae forra or other.
Now that this actually is the case in
regard to the Apostolic Epistles, it can
scarcely be necessary to repeat here, being
obvious to any one who will exaraine
those sacred writings fairly and impar
tially, however cursorily. Take, e. g. one
of the strongest passages to which the
Church refers in proof of the divinity of
Christ, Phil. ii. 5—11. The Apostle is not
mentioning it, as if for the first time, nor
as though his chief object in mentioning it
were to propound the fact ; but citing it
as a fact already known, he refers to it to
cheer and encourage the Phihppians, by
so bright and glorious an exaraple, as
becarae the acknowledged servants of Him
of whom he speaks, to bear, with like hu
mility and Christian fortitude, the perse-

no LECTURE III.
cutions and sufferings under which it is one
ffreat object of this Epistle to corafort and
encourage them.
That this indirect raode of stating, in
the Christian Scriptures, this and other
vital doctrines, does not affect their vali
dity to us as a standard of faith, nor the
value and blessedness of the sarae Scrip
tures, for many and great purposes belong
ing to our peace, besides the mere proof of
doctrines and articles of faith — their ines
timable value as radiations of heavenly light,
reflecting, as it were, though in these scat
tered coruscations, the divine glory — their
profitableness " for reproof, for correction,
•' for instruction in righteousness, that the
'•'¦ man of God raay be perfect, thoroughly
'•^ furnished unto all good works ;" — all this,
we as Churchraen adrait to the utmost,
and acknowledge with thankful devotion.
And further than this, it might be shewn,
that for these blessed objects, the indirect
mode here spoken of, not only presents no
objection, but comes recommended to us by
its analogy to the rest of God's works, and
its adaptation to the wants of our nature.,

LECTURE III. Ill
What was said above of the Epistles,
respecting their not being designed to teadt
the Christian doctrines, from their being
addressed to Christians and presupposing
a knowledge of those doctrines, as well as
their validity and sufficiency for the proofs
of those doctrines, applies also to the
Gospels. These also are addressed to
Christians, and presuppose a knowledge,
if not of the facts recorded, at least of the
doctrines founded upon them, and subse
quently revealed by the Holy Spirit. The
object of St. Luke's Gospel, and of the
circumstances, in part, under which it was
written, he states himself in the fourth
verse of the first chapter — that the disciple
" might know the certainty of those things
t' wherein he had been instructed*." And
^ Or catechized — Trepl &v KaTrjxnOrjs. It is impossible
to urge too strongly the important testimony which these
words of St. Luke bear to the principle maintained by
the Protestant Catholic against the Eomanist on the
one side, and the Sectarian on the other.
While against the one, they point directly to previous
instruction, if not to Catechetical teaching, previous to
knowing the certainty and proof of the same from Holy
Scripture ; against the other, in regard to oral tradition,
they shew "that St. Luke thought not what was de-

112 LECTURE III.
the same Evangelist, in the preceding
verses, speaking of the writings of others
who had done as he was then doing, hav
ing previously been "eyewitnesses from
"the beginning and ministers of the word,"
terras thera " a declaration of those things
" which are most surely believed among
" us." Of the immediate object of St. John's
Gospel, and its peculiar and iraraediate
reference to the heresies of his day, espe
cially those of the Ebionites, Cerinthians,
and others, there can be no doubt. His
Gospel appears to presuppose not only a
knowledge of the doctrines themselves, but
also, in part, of the controversies which had
been raised upon them.
It cannot, therefore, be said that the
Christian Scriptures, written as they were
for Christians, and addressed to Christians,
were designed, in their original purpose,
" delivered by word of mouth only, even by the eye-
" witnesses and ministers of the word, sufficient to give
" Theophilus a knowledge of the certainty of these things,
" vvdthout writing the Gospels ; and this the wisdom of
" God shewed, in causing them to be written, saith
" Irenseus, ' to be the pillar and foundation of the faith.' "
— Whitby in he.

LECTURE IIL 113
to teach Christianity to those ignorant of
it, however coraplete the proofs they afford
of it to those who have been taught.
Nor is there any better ground for sup
posing that, adraitting their original object
to have been different, their divine author
intended them to serve that purpose now,
as supplying the place, in these later times,
of the oral instruction of the first inspired
teachers. This will be seen more clearly
presently; but it raay be observed here,
that even in their original application, they
seera to be shielded by a sort of jealous
precaution, lest their object and their rela
tion to the Christian doctrines should be
hereafter misunderstood; as though the
Holy Spirit designed to warn us, through
the sacred writers, of the use to which these
Scriptures would afterwards be perverted \
The relation of the Epistles to the Chris
tian doctrines would perhaps be best seen,
if we could suppose that, in the Acts of the
Apostles, at the exact point in the history
at which the Apostle had written each of
a See Eom. xv. 14, 15 ; 1 Peter v. 12 ; 2 Peter i. 12.
iii. 1, 2; IJohn ii. 21. I

114 LECTURE IIL
his Epistles, (of those at least the dates of
which fall within the period comprised by
the Acts of the Apostles,) the sacred histo
rian had notified the narae of each of them
in its proper place : as if, e. g., he had said.
Here the Apostle wrote such or such an
Epistle. Or, which would make it clearer,
if, after having arranged the Epistles in
chronological order, we were to place them
in the Acts of the Apostles at the particular
period, as marked by tirae and place, when
they were written ; and having done this,
to read the whole as one continued history.
We should thus, by bringing them in juxta
position with the history of the Apostles'
teaching, form a juster estimate of their
office in relation to Christian doctrines.
Finding the history relate to us the pro
gress of a certain teaching on the part of
the Apostles, with the particulars of which
it has not as yet acquainted us, but which
it might be supposed we should find stated
in the other Scriptures, we turn to those
Scriptures for that purpose ; and find that
they, instead of giving us, in full or in
detail, the particulars of that teaching.

LECTURE IIL 115
treat it as though it were already taught,
and speak of it in the way of allusion
rather, as to something already known ;
thus declaring, by implication, that there
was something between that history and
those Epistles, which the written Scriptures
as yet have not coraraunicated, but which
obviously is understood to exist somewhere,
unless we can find which, we are in the
situation of a person (if the comparison may
be allowed) who has lost one in a series
of volumes on a given subject, the substance
of which he thinks he can gather from
the remainder, but of which he desires to
be assured frora authority ; especially since
he finds that others also profess to deduce,
frora the same, a system materially opposed
to his own, but which may, after a fashion,
be deduced frora thera, and which he feels
that he has no authority for pronouncing
to be erroneous, beyond his own private
opinion, if it be admitted that this principle
of mere deduction is the only, or even an
authorized mode of ascertaining the truth.
This teaching, to which the Epistles refer,
the Apostles obviously possessed, having
I 2

116 LECTURE IIL
been described as receiving it, according to
promise, from the Holy Ghost ; and the
Epistles are too circumstantial in their
allusions to it, not to have been written
consequent upon it, and with immediate
reference to it. It should also be particu
larly observed, that the Epistles continually
speak of, and allude to, " the Word of God."
And this Word is evidently spoken of as
denoting the revelation of God in his Son,
and the glad tidings of salvation offered
through his name ; nor does it appear in
any case to be used in any other sense,
except in Heb. xi. 3. and 2 Peter iii. 5, or
as otherwise than comprehending all that is
necessary to be known and believed for salva
tion, " the whole counsel of God " towards
those to whom it was preached. In the
Gospels, " the word," and " the Word of
" God," though used parabolically and pro
phetically, (inasmuch as at that time the
Gospel scheme of salvation had not been
revealed, and was known to none but its
divine author,) yet appears to be intended,
frequently though not exclusively, in the
same sense when used by himself; as, for

LECTURE IIL 117
example, in the parable of the sower, and in
Mark iv. 17, (and perhaps John xii. 48,)
Luke viii. 21. xi. 28.
It is remarkable, however, though gene
rally overlooked, that the expression " the
" word of God," when used to denote the
Christian revelation, though denoting that
word as soraething past and already deliver
ed, yet in no instance, either in the Epistles
or Acts of the Apostles, means the written
Scripture ; nor in any other sense does the
term "word" in the Epistles refer to any
thing written, unless perhaps we except the
instance in 2Thess. iii. 14, where the Apostle
refers it indeed to what he had written
in the sarae Epistle ; but this, not on a
point of doctrine, but of discipline.
I do not say in what sense the terra is
used in the Gospels, because that would be
to assurae the point in question. Being
used prophetically, its reference will depend
on the sense in which, when brought to
pass, it was to be eraployed; which, as
we have seen in the Acts and Epistles,
which speak of it as a matter of fact, is
never that of written Scripture.
I 3

118 LECTURE IIL
We are therefore compelled, by the ne
cessity of the case, as shewn by the siraple
statements of Scripture, to fall back on the
principle laid down above : that it was the
peculiar design of God, that the Gospel, as
distinguished from the Law, should be com
mitted, as regards its form, not to tables
of writing, but to raen. Or to shew this
raore clearly by these several parallelisras :
The history of tbe Gospel, prior to the
day of Pentecost, will be analogous to that
of the elder covenant, previous to the de
livery of the Law, (as far as any analogy is
there required.)
The Revelation by the Holy Ghost, of
the scherae of rederaption by Christ, on
the day of Pentecost, is strictly analogous
to the delivery of the Law on Mount Sinai ;
while its being ordained to take place on
the anniversary of that delivery, and on
the day appointed for its coraraeraoration,
was syrabolical of the fact now also re
vealed, that henceforth it was designed to
supersede it and to supply its place.
But there is wanting, in the Gospel
revelation, the analogous appointment to

LECTURE IIL 119
that in the Law, by which Moses was cora
raanded to commit to writing that which
the Lord had spoken in his hearing and
that of the people, as the future instruraent
for teaching that Law. There is no record
that the Apostles received a coraraand to
corarait to writing the new Revelation as
it had been coraraunicated to them by
the Holy Spirit. There is no record that
the Apostles did so corarait it to writing.
That the writings which they have left to
us are not that coraraunication in its form,
(which the analogy requires,) however in
fallibly they furnish its proofs when known,
we have already seen. But that they com
municated that word of God, as it had
been delivered to them ; that they kept
back none of it, nor had shunned to de
clare the whole counsel of God, at the very
tirae they were penning the inspired Scrip
tures, those sarae Scriptures plainly tell us.
Let us however here turn, with thankful
devotion and wonder, to that peculiar and
merciful adaptation to the nature and
wants of raen, displayed in the appoint
raent, that the Gospel, a dispensation, not
I 4

120 LECTURE IIL
of the letter but of the spirit ; not of
judgment, but of raercy ; not of wrath, but
of love ; involving the highest form of pro
bation and discipline, yet bringing men
into personal connexion with its author;
placing them in those relations to him, out
of which arise motives to serve hira of a
personal character, raaking their duty
henceforth one of personal obligation, the
result of a faith working by love ; — that a
dispensation of this nature should be ad
ministered, not by the stern unbending
written tables of the Law, but by raen of
like passions and infirraities with those to
whom as ambassadors they were sent;
themselves once sinners and aliens, yet now
pardoned and raade vessels of mercy ; men
who could sympathize with those to whom
they rainistered ; who could bear with
their waywardness, and feel for their rai-
sery and obduracy, having been theraselves
in the like conderanation ; men, feeling in
their own persons the blessedness of par
don and of reconciliation with God, of that
change from death to life, which is the
portion of Christ's redeemed people here.

LECTURE IIL 121
and the earnest of that future inheritance
which is their portion hereafter ; raen who,
feeling all this, combining the wisdom of
the serpent with the simplicity of the dove,
and thinking no cost or trouble too great
which could save a soul from perdition
and bring it to Christ, would, being by the
Spirit of truth instructed unto the king
dora of heaven, bring out of their treasure
things new and old, able to give the railk
of the word to babes, and stronger raeat
to those of fuller age and spiritual stature ;
willing and able, if needs be, to be raade all
things to all men, that they raight by all
raeans save sorae ; — who, whatever authority
was and must have been assuraed by
them in Christ's flock, of which he had
raade thera overseers, yet felt this was no
cause of human boasting, but rather of
fearful responsibility ; who must have felt,
in the words of one of their number, " Yea
" though I preach the Gospel, I have
" nothing to glory of; for necessity is laid
" upon rae ; yea woe is me if I preach not
"the Gospel;" who, under the sense of
their own weakness, must, with the same

122 LECTURE IIL
Apostle, have asked, " Who is sufficient for
" these things ? " and who could . have
found no answer to meet the despondency
which this feeling must otherwise have en
gendered, save the promise of their divine
Master, the last he breathed before he
returned to glory, (surely was it then raost
needed,) " Lo, I ara with you alway ; even
" to the end of the world. Araen."
If, however, this Scriptural account of
the proraulgation of the Gospel be a just
one, and I ara not aware that it is overstated
or partially represented, a raost iraportant
result suggests itself, which should be briefly
adverted to here, but which will be con
sidered raore fully in another Lecture.
If it was the design of God that the Gospel
should thus be confided in the first instance
to huraan agents, and by thera corarauni
cated to the Church orally ; and if the
Canon of Scripture closes without itself
giving us that form of doctrine committed
to writing, or intimating that the first
teachers of it had themselves provided for
its being so coramitted ; the question at
once presents itself, " What provision was

LECTURE IIL 123
" ordained for transraitting this forra of
" doctrine to the Church when the Apostles
"should be no raore?" That no such
provision should have been raade, would
be most unaccountable ; that it was not by
being coraraitted to writing, we have already
seen. The question therefore, as it were,
forces itself upon us ; " Was there no pro-
" vision made for transraitting it, as it
" had coraraenced, by huraan instruraents?"
Were the Apostles commissioned to appoint
no persons who might hereafter occupy
their place and exercise their functions ;
to whom, together with the word of God
which they had received from the Holy
Ghost, they might give authority to preach
it ; and who might in their turn hereafter
appoint others to succeed them, with the
like powers ; thus perpetuating the merciful
purpose of God as manifested in the first
Christian converts, and transmitting the
form of doctrine and the authority frora
generation to generation ?
Now antecedent to any evidence of the
fact, this question would seem to force
itself upon us, from the very nature of the

124 LECTURE IIL
case, as shewn in the preceding circum
stance. We thus arrive at the strongest
presuraptive grounds in favour of a suc
cession of Apostolic Ministers, This we
possess, even though we were in possession
of no subsequent knowledge ; though we
had never seen the clear and unquestion
able declarations on the subject in St.
Paul's Epistles to Tiraothy; though we had
no historical evidence of the fact, nor the
testimony furnished by the uninterrupted
practice of the Church to the present hour.
Without such a provision, the whole matter
would be perplexing and unaccountable.
We arrive also at another important
conclusion — viz. that while ^ox proofs ofthe
Christian doctrine we should refer to Scrip
ture as the standard of faith, yet for its
form, if ever reduced to writing, we should
look to the writings of those who succeeded
the Apostles and had received the truth
frora thera ; or to those records which,
though uninspired, were likely to furnish
the most authentic accounts of what those
primitive Christians held and taught. And
in regard to matters of discipline and ordi-

LECTURE IIL 125
nances : since the Scripture is comparatively
silent respecting thera, having raerely stated
that our Lord had delegated to the Church
the power of ordaining and regulating these,
with the promise of his sanction to their
appointments, — we raust look for them both
in primitive practice, and in the universal
practice of the Church ever since ; with the
limitation, of course, as in the case of doc
trines, that nothing is to be received as
necessary to salvation in the one case, or
binding on the conscience in the other,
which is repugnant to the written word of
God. Lastly. Believing that every Christian
verity was revealed by the Holy Spirit to
the Apostles, and by thera coraraunicated
to the Church, if new doctrines are pro
posed to us as being supported by Scripture
proofs, we shall not be content with that,
knowing that not even our own rest on
that alone, and that Scripture is, by its
own statement, capable of being wrested
to a wrong purpose — independently of the
analogy of things, which tells us that the
evils of blessings abused, are proportion-

126 LECTURE IIL
ate to their benefits when used as God
designed ; but we shall also endeavour to
ascertain whether the doctrine or tenet in
question was held in those ages of the
Church in which, from its proxiraity to
the fountain head, the stream would natu
rally be assuraed to be raost pure.
Having brought the subject therefore to
this point, let us for the present leave it,
reserving the fuller consideration of these
and other deductions frora the Scriptnre
account of the Gospel for another Lecture ;
merely observing, in concluding this, that
if to any it raay seera superfluous, if not
dangerous, to raise questions as to the origin
of our Christian knowledge, while we are
content with its proofs, and to dispute about
the rule and guide of our faith, while we are
agreed as to the ultiraate standard by which
all truth raust be eventually tried ; our
reply is, that it might frequently perhaps
be spared, did the question merely regard
our own personal convictions ; and likewise,
in many cases, (for it cannot be conceded as
an absolute rule,) in our dispute with the
Romanist, who, holding what we hold, but

LECTURE IIL 127
holding at the same time rauch that we do
not hold, as finding no warrant in Scripture,
may in these be combated rather with the
written word, as testing those things which,
through the vain traditions of raen, he has
added on to the pure word of God as
embodied in the Apostolic traditions of
the primitive Church, and confirmed by
the testimony of holy Scripture. But the
battle in our day is with Socinianisra ra
ther than with Popery ; with the Epicurean
laxity of a self-styled intellectual age, rather
than the ascetic gloora of the dark ages —
with Rationalisra, rather than with Super
stition. With these new eneraies we raust
fight with other weapons. It is not enough
for thera to shew that a proposed article
of faith is such as raay, by sorae inge
nuity, be raade to find its authority in
Scripture. With us, that authority is not
initiatory, but appellative ; and with thera
we claira the right of trying their doctrine
by the testiraony also of Catholic Tradition.
Neither is it any valid objection they urge
against the Christian verities, that their
Scriptural proofs are indirect, often latent.

128 LECTURE IIL
and implied rather than stated. We do
not rest on this proof alone the specific
character of our faith, without regard to
its generic character also — that it is the
catholic faith, held from the days of the
Apostles downward.
It is only by preserving this Apostolic
relation between the Christian verities and
their proofs in Holy Scripture, that, in
the study of those " Holy Scriptures which
" were written for our learning," we can
have a reasonable hope that it will be
granted to us, in answer to our prayers,
that " we may in such wise hear them,
"read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest
" them, that by patience, and comfort of
"God's holy word, we may embrace, and
"ever hold fast the blessed hope of ever-
" lasting hfe, which God has given us in
"our Saviour Jesus Christ."

LECTURE IV.

APPLICATION OF THE FOREGOING TO DOCTRINES AND
ORDINANCES.

2 Tim. ii. 2.
T^he things that thou hast heard qf me among
many witnesses, the same commit thou to faith
ful men, who shall he able to teach others also.
HAVING reviewed, in the last Lecture
the account which Scripture itself
gives us of the origin and progress, both
of the doctrines and of itself, up to the
period when the Canon of the New Testa
ment closes, we are brought to this point.
We have seen that the Gospel, unlike the
Law, was coraraitted by the Holy Spirit,
not to tables of writing, but to raen. And
that during the lifetirae of those raen, as
far as the New Testaraent inforras us, it
was taught, not by written Scripture, but
by. oral instruction. In what forra they
K

130 LECTURE IV.
taught it, or what it was in fact which they
did teach, the New Testaraent does not
inform us very minutely. It intimates that
they kept back no part of what they had
received from the Holy Ghost, but taught
the whole counsel of God. Whether, at any
future period, the Apostles themselves cora
raitted to writing what they had thus
taught for so raany years by word of
raouth, the Scripture is silent. For that the
books of the New Testaraent do not consti
tute it in forra, (however satisfactorily they
provide the proofs of it,) we have already
seen from the testiraony of those sacred
writings theraselves. We have seen that
those writings are in every case addressed
to Christians, and presuppose an acquaint
ance with the Christian doctrines, being
addressed, in most cases, to the same per
sons whora the writer himself had pre
viously instructed in the form of Christian
doctrine. And not only is this set forth in
the prearable, or forra of salutation, at the
beginning of each Epistle, but any one who
reads with an ordinary share of attention,
will see that the notices of the most im-

LECTURE IV. 131
portant doctrines, even that in Phil. ii.
6 — 11, however satisfactory and indis
pensable now as proofs, yet are introduced
in reference to truths already known and
familiar to the reader, not as those made
known to him for the first tirae; and ob
viously never could have been designed
for that object, even had their own decla
rations on the subject been wanting.
We are, therefore, naturally brought to
the question — Where is that body and form
of Christian doctrine which the Apostles re
ceived from the Holy Ghost, and which they
coraraunicated to the Church? or rather,
which will facilitate the inquiry, What be
came ofit when the Apostles themselves were
dead, if the Apostles theraselves did not, as
we believe to be the case, theraselves corarait
it to writing ? It was not frora any want
of importance in the doctrine itself that
they did not so write it down ; for it is
spoken of as a " form of sound words," a
"sacred thing coramitted, and to be kept
"by the Holy Ghost dwelling" in the per
son to whora it had been comraitted; it
is described as "the faith once coramitted
K 2

132 LECTURE IV.
" to the saints," and in another passage, as
"the whole counsel of God." It were un
reasonable, therefore, to suppose that it
was designed to die with the Apostles ;
and if we do not find that they raade any
provision to preserve it in a written form,
still less that they wrote it down themselves,
the question remains to be answered — What
became of the form of doctrine when they
were dead ? It would be utterly unac
countable if no provision were raade for
perpetuating a thing of such vast import
ance to the souls of a lost world, and for
transmitting it to future ages.
Being convinced then that sorae provision
raust have been raade, what provision would
suggest itself to our minds as likely to be
appointed for perpetuating the doctrine,
other than that which its divine author
appointed for making it known in the first
instance ; unless it can be shewn that there
exist reasons, on some other ground, why
this could not be continued ? Should we
not expect to find the same system con
tinued, at all events, until some intimation
should be given that it was to cease ; or

LECTURE IV. 133
unless there was soraething in the systera
unsuited to the object to be attained, either
in itself, or in reference to its being con
tinued beyond the Apostolic age? Now as
regards the suitableness of the raeans adopt
ed in the first instance, in committing the
Gospel to human agents and instruments,
allusion was made, in the last Lecture, to
the raerciful adaptation to the wants of our
nature, exhibited in this appointraent, by
which, considering its object, its sanctions,
its living principle of active faith, its rela
tion to us as placed in a state of moral pro
bation, the Gospel was comraitted to men
of the like passions and infirmities with
those whom they were coraraissioned to
bring to a knowledge of its saving truths,
and who could attest from their practical ex
perience, and exhibit in their own persons,
the efficacy and blessedness of its saving
power. Unless therefore it could be shewn
that such a system would be less suited to
subsequent ages of the Church than to that
of its coraraenceraent, should we not expect,
antecedently to inquiry, to find that sorae
provision had been made for its continu-
K 3

134 LECTURE IV-
ance, especially if there is no intiraation of
any other system having been ordained for
the purpose? Should we not expect to
find that the first inspired Apostles would
be commissioned to appoint others, to
whom, before they left the world, they
might confide the sacred truths committed
to themselves ; and who, in their turn, might
corarait the sarae to others whom they had
appointed for the purpose both of preserv
ing and of teaching it ; thus, by a succession
of agents expressly and lawfully appointed
for the purpose, transraitting the same form
of doctrine to the end of the world? It
would not be overstating the case to affirm,
that this would suggest itself from the very
nature of the case, as being the obvious
solution of what raust otherwise present a
great difficulty, viz. that the body and form
of Christian doctrine, after the imraense im
portance attached to it in the Sacred History,
should be left without any visible raeans
for its perpetuation and transmission. The
nature of the case would suggest the neces
sity of some raeans being provided for these
objects ; — the harraony of God's designs

LECTURE IV. 135
and the analogy of his dispensations would
suggest, that those just described would
be the means adopted.
We thus arrive at the strongest antece
dent probability in favour, not only of
some channel for transraitting the forra
and body of Christian doctrines ewterior
to the Scriptures, but of the appointraent
of a series of ministers who might succes
sively occupy the place and office of the
Apostles, both for receiving the doctrines
and transmitting thera to others; both as
the depositaries and trustees of the truth,
and as the instruraents for teaching it.
Now view this in connexion with our
Lord's declaration to his Apostles, that
whatsoever they should bind on earth,
should be bound in heaven ; and that what
soever they should loose on earth, should be
loosed in heaven ; and with his proraise to
be with thera even to the end of the world.
Turn from this to the account which the
Scripture gives us of the appointment and
ordination of Tiraothv and others, and
view these in connexion with the following
injunctions delivered by St. Paul to Timo-
K 4

136 LECTURE IV.
thy, after his separation and ordination to
the work of the Christian rainistry, and his
appointraent to be a Bishop in the Church.
" Neglect not the gift that is in thee,
" which was given thee by prophecy, with
" the laying on of the hands of the Presby-
" tery." (1 Tira. iv. 14.) " Take heed to
" thyself and unto the doctrine — continue
" in them." v. 16. " Hold fast the form of
" sound words which thou hast heard of
" rae, in faith and love which is in Christ
" Jesus. That good thing which was cora-
" raitted unto thee, keep by the Holy
" Ghost which dwelleth in us." (2 Tira. i.
13, 14.) And especially the following
striking passage : " Thou therefore, ray son,
" be strong in the grace that is in Christ
" Jesus : — And the things that thou hast
" heard of rae among many witnesses, the
" same commit thou to faithful men, ivho
" shall be able to teach others also." (2 Tim.
ii. 1, 2.)
These passages of Scripture, viewed
in connexion with the antecedent proba
bility in favour of Apostolic succession and
Catholic tradition, as exhibited by Scripture

LECTURE IV. 137
itself, and especially with the circumstance
that what the Apostles taught, is not related
in Scripture, circumstantially or in forra, are
so strong and clear, that they would seem,
when viewed impartially, sufficient of
themselves to establish the fact, even on
the assumption that we are to deduce our
opinions on these subjects from Scripture
alone, without the aid of any collateral or
subsequent testimony. And when we corae
to consider the case as it really is ; to add
the testiraony of ecclesiastical history ; and
to see, from this, the unquestionable fact
that, from the beginning to the present
hour, there ever has been such a succession
of Apostolic ministers — such a transmission,
with them, of the doctrines received by the
Apostles theraselves, and by thera delivered
to their iraraediate successors ; and that
these have, in every age, been regarded as
the appointed raeans and instruments for
perpetuating and transraitting the form of
doctrine ; it is difficult to conceive what
further evidence on the subject could be
reasonably expected as to the purpose of
Christ to his Church in this respect ; nor is

138 LECTURE IV.
it easy to propose any other solution of the
matter, which does not, either in itself or
in its consequences, (which raust of course
be taken into account in estiraating the
force of a principle,) present greater diffi
culties. Moreover, consider that, however griev
ously particular branches of the Church
may have erred; (and God forbid those
errors should be extenuated or lightly
accounted;) however they may in turn
have corrupted or suppressed individual
doctrines; yet that the Church, as a whole,
has never yet been in vital error, — never yet,
as a whole, suppressed or corrupted any one
fundaraental or essential doctrine. Con
sider, further, that in the Divine dispensa
tions, time is no object to Him in whose
hands is eternity, and with whom a thousand
years are but as one day ; and that in His
dispensations, natural and revealed, extra
ordinary means are not interposed to bring
about results which time, however distant,
would effect in the ordinary course and
constitution of things ; nor to save men
from error, of which, after he has once

LECTURE IV. 139
forewarned them and provided such means
of escape as are consistent with a state of
probation and trial, time, however reraote,
and sad experience would at length con
vince themj when they had neglected those
means ; — thus leaving them to find out, if
they will, the reality of those shoals and
quicksands, of which the light of his pro
phecy had warned thera, as calculated to
raake shipwreck of their faith. Consider
all this, and it must be admitted, that there
is nothing in the consequences, real or
probable, of the principle here contended
for, from which any argument could be
drawn against that principle, as tending, in
any one of its results, to militate against
the analogy of his dealings, whether as
exhibited in Holy Scripture, or in the
course and constitution of nature.
Admitting then, that the body and form
of Christian doctrine was to be continued as
it had begun, being vested in huraan agents,
subject to the proof of Holy Scripture ;
(which, in one sense, after the Apostolic age,
stood in the place of the miracles, as the cre
dentials of the teacher ;) there result, frora

140 LECTURE IV-
this, deductions of the greatest moment,
which raay be regarded as representing, in
the raain, the chief features of the Church
principle, and those coraraonly objected to
by the Sectarian. What these are, I shall
proceed to state in the remainder of the
present Lecture, before shewing, in the
following ones, their analogy to God's
other appointments, and their adaptation
to the moral constitution of man.
In order, however, to obviate any
undue prejudice which raight be excited
against these, I would again observe,
though at the risk of being charged with
needless repetition, that although they
are deductions frora a particular principle,
yet that the principle itself is one of
purely Scriptural origin, deduced from the
account which the Scripture itself gives us
of the origin and early progress of the
Gospel. The first result then to which we arrive,
is, that for the form of Christian doctrine
we must look out of the Scriptures ; whe
ther as declared in controversial writings,
or forraally drawn out in articles of belief,

LECTURE IV. 141
or embodied in liturgical or other forrau-
laries. If ever it was committed to writing,
it would be subsequently to the days of
the Apostles and the writing of the New
Testament. And it is to be expected
that it would be so comraitted to writing
by raen who would desire to retain and
perpetuate what they had derived frora the
fountain head ; and it would also be raore
called for as the Church increased in nura-
bers, when the want of sorae systera and
corapendiura of doctrine would be felt,
to raeet the demand for teachers, and as
raeans to facilitate instruction : though,
probably, some of the first indications of it
would be found in the controversial writings
of the Fathers, being called forth by the
heresies and departures frora the faith,
which had begun to spring up even in the
Apostles' days.
Neither is it any valid objection to these
doctrines that they are not found expressed
in formal stateraents, until drawn forth at
this or that period, and then perhaps by sorae
controversy or heresy. This raode of gra
dually developing the truth, and of raaking

142 LECTURE IV.
these apparent incidents the occasions of
doing so, is not only that which it has
pleased God to adopt in regard to doc
trines, but is strictly analogous to the
course pursued in the gradual developraent
of raatters of raore practical character in
the Scriptures theraselves. Such e.g. is
the course observed in regard to offences ;
such also in regard to the due celebration
of the Lord's Supper, in 1 Cor. xi. The
instruction given by the Apostle on these
occasions, though at first sight the result,
in the one case, of questions referred
to hira, — in the other, of an abuse which
had been brought under his notice, is
more valuable to us in this form, than
it would have been in the forra of
bare precepts without reference to any
existing circurastances. Being drawn forth
by circumstances which actually occurred
from the Gospel coraing in contact with
human nature, they are much more cal
culated to meet our wants than bare rules
or precepts. St. Paul's direction not to
make the Lord's Supper an occasion of
excess or wrangling, would perhaps have

LECTURE IV. 143
been by many deeraed superfluous, if de
livered in the form of mere precept, before
a case had actually occurred which called
for them.
Analogous to this is the method which
seems to have been adopted by the Holy
Spirit for the gradual developraent, to the
world, of the forra of Christian doctrines,
through the raedium of heresy and con
troversy, or of questions arising from doubt
or misconception.
Hence, apart from the fact that it is
historically true, the inquiry after what it
was that the Apostles taught, would na
turally take this direction. Finding the
history of the coraraenceraent and early
progress of the Gospel, (as related in the
Acts of the Apostles,) and the Epistles
running parallel to each other, both of
them speaking fully of the word of God,
yet neither of tljera distinctly stating what
it is, we should be led naturally to follow
ecclesiastical history, step by step, into the
region of uninspired testiraony, and look
out for the first intimations we could raeet
with there, of any thing in the shape of

144 LECTURE IV.
system or body of doctrine, professing to
represent the creed of the Church, and the
faith as received frora the Apostles ; subject,
of course, to the corroboration and testi
raony of Holy Scripture. We should
expect that its descent would be neces
sarily traditional, as distinguished from
any inspired written form, seeing that the
Apostles themselves, though professing to
have communicated it wholly and unre
servedly to those whora they taught and
appointed to succeed them, yet died with
out having themselves reduced it to writing.
The first stage in its coraraunication being
in this sense traditional, every subsequent
one necessarily becarae so, the successors
of the Apostles having, as uninspired raen,
no authority for transmitting it as the
word of God, beyond their own assertion
of having received it from the Apostles,
(whether imraediately or through raore
links in the chain of descent,) and the
testiraony of the Scriptures adraitted to
have been written by the sarae Apostles.
In another sense it would not be tradi
tional, seeing that it was coraraitted to

LECTURE IV. 145
writing, its most essential doctrines at
least, in the very earliest ages, in forras
in which we receive and use it to this
very day.
And here it raay be well to observe on
the indefinite raeaning attached by raany
to the word Tradition,, and the needless
and inconsistent alarm and prejudice with
which any mention of it is received, when
spoken of as the channel through which
we receive any portion of the Christian
faith. It is not difficult to account for the
prejudice against Tradition, knowing the
sad abuses to which it has been perverted
in past ages of the Church. But this does
not affect the part which God designed it
should occupy in the transraission of the
Christian doctrines ; nor render it less in
cumbent on us to endeavour at least, to
redeem it from the obloquy and prejudice
under which it has fallen. It has been
before observed, that for the assertion that
the Bible alone is our guide to the know
ledge of the Christian verities, there is no
satisfactory authority in the Bible itself. It
may be said with no less truth, that there
I.

146 LECTURE IV.
are intimations, if not positive declarations,
in the Bible, to which those who profess to
take the Bible for their guide cannot be
blind without wilfully shutting their eyes
to them, that Tradition, in conjunction
with Holy Scripture, was the instrument
ordained by the Holy Spirit for preserving
and transraitting the Christian verities ; Tra
dition conveying its form — the Scriptures
supplying the proof. Nay, further, if we
take the strict letter of Scripture, the inti
mations in favour of Tradition being the
instrument, are stronger and more frequent
than those in favour of Scripture. The rela
tion of Scripture to those verities, as set forth
in the Sixth Article of our Church, rests, as
was observed above, on other authority than
that of any direct Scripture proof: and es
sential as is the protection of this Article to
the purity of our faith and our Christian
liberty, we have no right to abuse it so
as to attempt to overturn God's own ap
pointments, as though we were wiser than
he — as though we were so well able to
determine how the Gospel ought to be
taught, that we may take upon ourselves

LECTURE IV. 147
to affirm that it was and must be so taught,
in the face of God's own declaration to the
contrary, as revealed in the very Scriptures
which we profess to make our guide. Every
one who is aware of the fearful extent to
which tradition has been abused, and the
purposes to which it has been perverted
in past ages of the Church ; and who also
feels, as every Christian should feel, that,
as a member of Christ's body, he cannot
but partake of whatever befalls that body,
whether of guilt or suffering; would be
willing to bear long with the prejudices
he has to encounter, and must acknowledge
that it is not his to shew impatience or a
want of forbearance towards those whose
fears render thera slow to receive, even in
its legitimate forra, that, with the abuse of
which alone they have been hitherto ac
quainted. At the sarae time, those who are
thus strongly prejudiced against Tradition,
even when used in conjunction with Scrip
ture and ultimately subjected to it for proof
and authority — tradition occupying the first
place in the order of time — these should
be reminded that the genuineness of Scrip -
L 2

148 LECTURE IV.
ture itself is likewise a matter of tradition —
received on sirailar traditional evidence — -a
tradition, which God forbid we should ever
be led to question ; nor should we overlook
the consideration of the wants of our nature
exhibited in this peculiar provision, nor its
suitableness to us as placed in a state of
probation. Still it is, after all, as raatter
of fact, traditional. Men are accustomed
to think and speak of the New Testaraent,
as if, like the Law, it had been comraitted
to the ark, and there kept, as if by an
extraordinary protection of the Almighty,
frora all possibility of change or corrup
tion ; or as if, raore sure than even the
Law in the days of Josiah, it had been
suddenly found and recovered, in a way
calculated to preclude all doubts of its
genuineness, even to the most sceptical —
regarding its genuineness as a kind of
axiom in theology, which it were as un
reasonable to question, as the evidence of
a miracle worked before their eyes. It is
hardly necessary to remark, how entirely
repugnant to any notion of a state of trial,
would be this mathematical demonstration

LECTURE IV. 149
as it were of a fact, the belief of which
forms so vital a feature in our moral pro
bation. It is unnecessary to dwell on the
iraprobability that God would have left it
in this state, independently of the fact that
he has not so left it. To those to whom
the doctrines of the Church Catholic are
an offence, whether frora sincere though
raistaken scruples, or, as is raore coraraonly
the case, frora the barriers they interpose
to the self-wise inquirer, and the restraints
they irapose on the presumptuous and self-
sufficient spirit, in which, under the name
of free inquiry and liberty of thought, the
pride of the natural man delights to exer
cise itself — to these it is doubtless acceptable
to iraagine that the grounds on which they
receive the Scriptures as genuine, do not
pledge them to any principle which may
hereafter, on some other subject, be era
ployed against theraselves. And yet, if
questioned as to these grounds, they are
unable to refer them to any other source
than tradition, and the authority of the
Church — the very sarae tradition, the very
same authority with that on which we
L 3

150 LECTURE IV.
receive that body of Christian doctrine,
that forra of sound words, for the proof
of which we afterwards refer to Scripture.
Twist and turn this as we will, it comes to
the same point. Call it Historical evidence,
or by whatever narae we will, it is but
another narae for Tradition; we receive
these Scriptures (as regards their external
evidence, of which alone I am now speak
ing) on the traditional testimony of past
ages ; we receive them because they always
have been received as the original sacred
writings — on precisely the same grounds
as those on which we receive the Christian
doctrines, (subject to Scripture proof here
after,) viz., the testimony of the Church, on
which, by whatever name we call it, we are
ultiraately corapelled to lean ; as our Article
expressly says, " In the name of the Holy
Scripture we do understand those canonical
books of the Old and New Testament, of
whose authority was never any doubt in the
ChurchV
* It is curious to observe, how those who are most
vehement in their professions of adherence to the Sixth
Article of the English Church, either virtually omit the
sentence here quoted, or entirely overlook their admis-

LECTURE IV. 151
In order, however, to obviate any undue
prejudice or misconception, it might be well
to state here, what will be explained more at
length hereafter, that for things past we can
not have any other testimony than that of
tradition, or a miracle. The kind of tradi
tional testiraony raay differ in degree ; still
it is but in degree ; the only alternative in
volving a difference of kind, is a miracle.
And if this should appear to weaken the evi
dence for Scripture rather than strengthen
that of the doctrines, it will be shewn in
its proper place, that the objections which
might seera at first to lie against both,
necessarily arise out of the nature of the
case ; and next, that they are no raore
than is requisite for our probation, as trials
of faith — that they form essential parts of
our trial, and are overcome by the same
kind of faith which it is the aim of the
Gospel to form within us, and by which we
receive the doctrines themselves, even when
the genuineness and authenticity of the
Scriptures themselves are fully admitted.
sion of the authority and traditional testimony of the
Church, implied in their assent to it.
l4

152 LECTURE IV.
Moreover, there may be drawn, as some
raay think, a collateral arguraent in favour
of the genuineness of the Christian Scrip
tures, frora the circurastance that the chan
nel by which we receive those Scriptures,
is the sarae by which we also receive, not
only the true Catholic tradition, but the
spurious traditions of the Roraish Church,
which the appeal to those Scriptures has
contributed to overturn. Had the traditions
of the Church, and the writings of the New
Testaraent, been in the keeping of two par
ties respectively opposed to each other, I
will not say there would have been any
thing prejudicial to the Scriptures from
their being opposed to the traditions, when
ever they were found to differ ; but there
would, at all events, have been wanting that
testimony in their favour, which is now
furnished by the circurastance of their
having been in the keeping of those with
whose doctrines they are at variance, and
who raight be supposed to have an interest
in suppressing or corrupting such portions
of Scripture as were unfavourable to their
cause. The arguraent thus furnished in

LECTURE IV. 158
favour of the genuineness of the New Tes
taraent, is analogous to that in favour of
the Jewish Scriptures, provided by the cir
cumstance, that the Jews themselves were
the guardians and keepers of that book,
which at once related the history of their
apostasies, rebellions, and punishraents ; and
which declared, by an appeal to itself,
how, according to their own shewing, they
had raade the word of God of none effect
by their traditions.
Adraitting, then, the traditional cha
racter of the form of Christian doctrines,
seeing that the Scriptures theraselves give
us little account of it, yet speak of its
having been unreservedly coraraunicated
to the Apostles, and by thera to their dis
ciples ; and refer distinctly to a provision
already made, by which the forra of doc
trines should be perpetuated by being cora
raunicated to a body of raen especially set
apart for the purpose, who were, in like
raanner, in their turn, to set apart and teach
others after thera ; — there arises from this,
I. The absolute necessity, on the part of
those who are dissatisfied with, and would

154 LECTURE IV.
appeal frora the doctrinal decisions of the ex
isting Church, of referring, not to Scripture
only, but also to history and to antiquity ;
especially to the writings of those who, living
either in or near to the Apostolic age, were
likely to have received the Apostles' doctrine
in a less adulterated forra than when, in a
later period, it had contracted raore defile-
raent in passing through the hands of cor
rupt and fallible men. But, as regards the
popular notion of taking up the Scriptures
and judging for ourselves, making such
deductions from Holy Scripture as the
sacred text raay to us seera to suggest,
without reference to any previous instruc
tion, or any historical intimation that such
a tenet has been at least spoken of in the
Church, though requiring proof before it is
to be received as true — reading in fact for
new knowledge on things necessary to salva
tion, rather than to " know the certainty of
" the things in which we have been in-
" structed" — for this we have no warrant
whatever; however fresh light may break
upon us, from repeated perusal, on things
not essential to salvation.

LECTURE IV. 155
Still less have we any authority for what
is popularly called free and bold inquiry in
reading Scripture ; still less for fancying
that we can raake any doctrinal discoveries,
or that knowledge of this kind is progres
sive. Believing, as we raust, that the whole
counsel of God was revealed by the Spirit
to the Apostles, and by thera coraraunicated
to those whora, led by the sarae Spirit, they
appointed to succeed thera ; the utmost we
can hope to attain to, after the most labo
rious researches into Scripture and antiquity
combined, is at best to recover such portions
of those blessed verities, those sources of
hope and rejoicing, which the vain traditions
of men have overlaid with corruption and
error, or which, for the sins of his Church,
the Lord has in wrath caused to be hid from
his people.
II. In regard to ordinances. We find
from Scripture that the Apostles were ap
pointed to " preach the Gospel," or " the
" Word ;" in which would necessarily be
included every thing necessary to carry that
word home to the hearts of their hearers,
as well as to keep it there — its machinery,

156 LECTURE IV.
if the expression raay be allowed — every
thing necessary for implanting the seed of
'kcternal life in their hearts, as well as for
retaining it there, and nourishing it, so that
it might bring forth fruit unto holiness.
For these objects, ordinances become of es
sential iraportance as instruraents. Now of
these, little direct raention is raade in the
New Testaraent, while their necessity would
be such, that it were unreasonable to sup
pose for a raoraent that the Gospel would
be devoid of thera, when viewed in relation
to its object, and the beings whom it was
designed to influence. Where, then, should
we look for them, or how should we defend,
or what weight and authority attach to,
those which we raay find actually existing
in the Church?
Here, then, we are again referred to the
authority and coraraission given to the
Apostles, to preach the Gospel and to found
Churches ; together with the sanction,
which applies here also, that whatever they
should bind on earth should be bound in
heaven. That they did appoint ordinances,
under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and

LECTURE IV. 157
that, besides preaching the Gospel, they
wrapped it up, as it were, in outward forms
and ordinances, we have ample intimations ;
as also that they attached great importance
to the observance of them, as of the ap
pointments of an authority which every
raeraber of the Church was pereraptorily
called upon to obey. Yet what these ordi
nances actually were, we are not told very
explicitly in Scripture itself; though we find
sufficient proof of thera, when we believe
that we have learned what they were.
Now frora these considerations it follows,
that for a fuller account of the ordinances
theraselves, we raust, as for the form of
doctrine, look out of Scripture, either in
the past or present practice of the Church ;
still, as in the case of doctrines, not regard
ing thera as essential to salvation, (what
ever raight be the presumptive clairas to our
acceptance furnished by their mere exist
ence,) unless they can also be proved by
Scripture. At the sarae time, to know
what the ordinances were, which the Apo
stles instituted, we raust, if we dispute the
Apostolic origin of those which the Church

158 LECTURE IV-
offers us, and the sufficiency of the texts to
which she refers in support of them, look
out of Scripture into uninspired ecclesias
tical history ; especially where that history
assumes any thing like a systematic form,
and where we have good ground to believe,
that those who speak of them or who are
described as adopting them, received them
either immediately, or through satisfactory
channels, frora the Apostles themselves.
Now those ordinances which, under these
limitations, we find that the Church re
ceived and adopted, we may reasonably
assurae to be of divine appointraent; —
divine, that is, as regards the appointment
by the Apostles, and those Apostles acting
under the guidance of the Spirit, and in
pursuance of the authority delegated to
them by their Lord. This, I say, we may
reasonably assurae — as reasonably, at least,
as any thing else of which the statements
are not positive and direct. It appears to
follow directly from the scriptural state
ments of the authority given to the Apo
stles, from the comparative silence of Scrip
ture respecting ordinances, the necessity of

LECTURE IV. 159
which would be unquestionable, and from
the existence of the ordinances themselves
traced historically to the days of the
Apostles. If, therefore, we find them in accordance
with Holy Scripture, we have a right to
regard them as the institutions of the Apo
stles themselves. It is important to urge
this, because so little express raention is
raade in Scripture itself of particular ordi
nances, especially of Episcopacy; and Sec
tarians have taken upon themselves, frora
this circumstance, to deny their divine
origin. Now admitting, with some, that
the doctrines of the Gospel are sufficiently
clearly gathered from Scripture without
preliminary instruction, are they prepared
to adrait the sarae of the ordinances of the
Christian Church ? And yet it were unrea
sonable to imagine that such would be
entirely omitted in the scheme ; we should
expect to find instructions and authority
for them somewhere, and in sorae shape.
And instead of being driven about in
painful perplexity, we find a siraple solution
of the question in the principle laid down

160 LECTURE IV.
in a forraer Lecture, respecting the pecu
liarity of the Gospel as distinguished frora
the Law, in being coramitted to huraan
agents, instead of to tables; its raerciful
revelation and its covenant being raade
through the one rather than the other,
and coramitted to instruments of the like
passions and infirraities with those to whora
they were coraraissioned to irapart the
knowledge of its saving truths.
In conforraity with the sarae principle,
the appointraent of its ordinances appears
to have been coraraitted to the sarae agents,
and to be made known to the Church by
what God, through the Apostles, did, rather
than what he commanded. The sacred
writings would themselves seem to imply,
from many expressions in them, that a
minute ritual was contemporaneous with
them ; that the Apostles recognise it as
existing and binding ; that it was founded
on religious principles, and tended to the
inculcation of religious truth. Not that
any formal proof is conceivable or attain
able, considering the brevity and subjects
of the inspired documents ; but such fair

LECTURE IV. 161
evidence of the fact, as may recomraend it
to the belief of the earnest and single-
rainded Christian.
It is abundantly evident that the Epistles
were not written to prescribe and enforce
the ritual of religion ; all then we can
expect, if it existed in the days of the
Apostles, is an occasional allusion to it in
their Epistles, as existing, and a plain ac
quiescence in it : and thus rauch we find''.
First we have the more general allusion
to ordinances, as to things well known and
understood by those to whom it was ad
dressed : such, e. g., would be the clear and
forcible coraraand given by the Apostle to
the Thessalonians, (2 Thess. ii. 1 8.) " Bre-
" thren, stand fast and hold the traditions
"which ye have been taught, whether by
" word or by our Epistle." It would seem
indeed as if the very multiplicity of the
details of the Church ritual made it
plainly impossible for St. Paul to write
them all down, or to do more than remind
the Corinthians of his way of conducting
^ Eites and Customs of the Church — No. 34. of the
series called Tracts for the Times.
M

162 LECTURE IV.
religious order when he was araong thera.
" Be ye followers of rae," he says : " I praise
" you that ye reraeraber rae in all things."
It is evident that in the working of any
large systera, there are a thousand little
points which a present instructor alone can
settle. This did St. Paul, as regards the
system of Christian discipline and wor
ship ; and when he could not go himself^
he sent Tiraothy in his place. " I beseech
" you, be ye followers of rae  For this
" cause I sent unto you Tiraotheus, who
" shall bring you into reraerabrance of ray
" ways which be in Christ, as I teach every
" where in every Church."
Here there is the sarae reference to an
uniforra systera of discipline, whether as
to Christian conduct, worship, or Church
governraent. Let us turn from these more general
allusions to those of a raore specific cha
racter ; e. g. " What, have ye not houses to
" eat and drink in ? or despise ye the
"Church of God?" a passage which is re
raarkable as being a solitary allusion in
Scripture to houses of prayer under the

LECTURE V. 163
Christian system, which nevertheless we
know from ecclesiastical history, were used
from the very first. Here then is a most
solemn ordinance of primitive Christianity,
which barely escapes, if it escapes, omission
in Scripture.
Next, in the original institution of the
Eucharist, as recorded in the Gospels, and
the account given us of our Saviour's wash
ing the disciples' feet, followed by the
injunction that they should do the like to
each other, — there is little intimation there
given, that the one was to be of less perraa
nent observance than the other — certainly
not sufficient to reconcile the total oraission
of the one with the regular and soleran ob
servance of the other. We are corapelled
mainly to refer the distinction to the
practice of the Church, confirmed by the
seemingly incidental allusion to the one in
St. Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians, which
thenceforth acquires the force of a proof,
referring as it does to an ordinance spoken
of as existing then, and which we continue
to observe to the present hour, though the
origin of its perraanent character, as distin-
M 2

164 LECTURE IV.
guished from the washing of feet, is no
where expressly recorded.
Neither, in the original institution of the
Eucharist, is there any mention of conse
crating the elements, nor any authority for
our practice and the prayer of consecration ;
but St. Paul, in 1 Cor. x. 16, calls it "the
" cup of blessing which we bless," and obvi
ously alludes to it as to soraething well
known to those whora he addressed.
Sirailar to this are the seeraingly inci
dental notices respecting household and
infant baptisra, the observance of the Lord's
day, the asserabling for the purpose of
divine worship ; none of which, taken by
theraselves, would have the force of inde
pendent proofs, according to the Sectarian
principle ; but which, taken as parts of a
system, and viewed in connexion with the
fact that they were addressed to those
whom the writer had himself previously
taught, and among whom he had long
dwelt; next, with the fact that the ordi
nances to which they refer have existed
from that day to the present, furnish suffi
cient evidence of the fact contended for.

LECTURE IV. 165
to recommend it to the belief of every
earnest and single minded Christian.
These instances then, not to notice others
of a like or different kind, are surely suffi
cient to reconcile us to the complete ritual
system which breaks upon us in the writ
ings of the Fathers, and to lead us to attri
bute to the latter soraething more than the
respect due to mere human institutions. If
any parts of it indeed are contrary to Scrip
ture, that is, of course, a decisive reason at
once for believing thera to be additions and
corruptions of the original cereraonial ; but
till this is shewn, we are bound to venerate
what is certainly priraitive, and probably is
Apostolic. If, then, we have the clearest intiraations
of authority given to the Apostles, with
the proraise of a divine sanction to their
appointraents ; if we find that in pursuance
of this they raade these appointments, why,
it may be asked, are we to regard these as
less of divine appointraent, than if we found
a specific command to that effect in an
Epistle — if (which must be conceded) we
have reasonable grounds to believe that the
M 3

166 LECTURE IV.
Apostles did institute thera ? Why is that
wliich God, through the Apostles, thus did,
less sacred or less binding upon us, than
that which God, through the sarae Apostles,
said 9 If we find the Apostles speaking of
what they had done, surely, knowing as we
do that they acted under the iraraediate
inspiration and direction of the Holy Ghost,
we ought to regard that which they had
then done, as being as rauch of divine
appointraent as any more specific precept
of theirs in the same Scripture. If we find
thera speaking of a certain order of raen
whora they had ordained, or of certain
ordinances which they had either appointed
or were ministering, how can we, without
placing a limit to their infallibility and
authority, which would go to shake the
whole foundation of our faith, regard these
appointments as less proceeding frora God,
as less declaratory of his will as regards
his Church, or as less binding on the Church
now, than if the Apostles had said, " I will
" that such and such raen be ordained ;
" that such and such a succession of minis-
" ters shall continue as teachers of the word;

LECTURE IV. 167
"and that such and such ordinances be
" established ? " Did the Apostles speak only
as they were raoved by the Holy Ghost,
and did they act raerely as fallible men,
with no further intimations of their divine
Master's will than such as is vouchsafed
under the ordinary operations of the Spirit
in our day ?
If it be thus, where is our authority for
the practice of Infant Baptisra, and the
rite of Confirraation ? where our autho
rity for the observance of the Lord's Day,
and of public worship ? the notices of which
in Scripture are too scattered and reraote
to have the force of proofs on the Sectarian
principle ; though conclusive to those who
view thera in connexion with the historical
fact that the Apostles theraselves observed
these ordinances.
But, it will be said, on this principle each
branch of the Church raay still claim an
assent to its own creed, however discordant
one with another, and plead the authority of
Tradition and Antiquity for what it teaches.
This we deny. On the part of the Church
we maintain, that if we resort to this rule
M 4

168 LECTURE IV.
of faith, viz. Antiquity and Catholic Tradi
tion, subject to the proof of Holy Scripture,
(the forraer being the generic, the latter
the specific character of our faith,) and
moreover with a mind morally qualified for
the investigation and perception of truth in
such a matter, content to take such evi
dence as the subject, from its nature, is
necessarily confined to, which is an essen
tial element in forming a right judgment
in morals and on raoral subjects, we shall
not differ in our respective creeds. Men
do differ, because they will not resort to
this rule ; at least it rests with our oppo
nents to shew, that there exists any branch
of the Church which, having resorted to it,
holds a faith different from ourselves who
profess to have deterrained ours by it. This
principle the Church lays down on the
coraraon ground, of the authority of Scrip
ture. Herself gives the result of this in our
Articles, Creeds, and Liturgies. For the
presumptive claims of these to belief, she
pleads Universality and Antiquity ; for the
ultimate proof of the several articles df
faith stated or implied in them, she appeals

LECTURE IV. 169
to Holy Scripture. Surely it reraains for
our opponents to shew that we are in error —
to shew that others, after having adopted
this rule, have attained to a different faith-
When they have done this, it will then be
tirae enough for us to join issue on points
of difference, and to determine whence they
have arisen.
It must be confessed, that there is, even
in this modified and Scriptural view of the
use and importance of Tradition, much that
is at variance, in the minds of raany, with
strong and early prepossessions, (of which I
would not be thought unraindful,) calcu
lated to lead thera, however unjustly, to
receive it with suspicion and prejudice.
And, as was observed in a forraer Lec
ture, were the question raerely our indi
vidual conviction, or were our contest with
Popery alone, there would be less urgent
reason to contend for it ; though, even
with the Roraanist, it would not be suffi
cient to argue upon Scripture proofs alone;
lest he retort on us the arguraent we
employ against the Sectarian's alleged
right of private judgment; viz. that his

170 LECTURE IV.
principle puts it out of his power to con
demn the Socinian who proceeds upon the
sarae. In neither case would there be any
authority external to the opinions of indi
viduals on disputed or doubtful texts.
But here we have no choice to make.
The question does not rest with us : it has
been already opened by the assailants of
the truth ; and we are compelled to act on
the defensive. The fundaraental articles
of the Christian faith are called in question
on the alleged insufficiency of proof in
Scripture ; and heresies are held and taught
on the alleged authority of texts of Scrip
ture, which, whether valid or no, are raain-
tained to be as good as those to which we
refer in support of our creed. Whether
we will or no, we are raet by the Socinian
argument, founded on the assuraption that
Scripture is our sole guide frora which each
is at liberty to deduce his own creed as
appears best to hiraself. We are here raet,
first by his powerful argument — that on this
assumption, it is unreasonable that truths
of such magnitude should be left to be so
gathered and learned, as many (to us) most

LECTURE IV. 171
iraportant doctrines would confessedly ap
pear to be ; next, by his argument — that on
the principle of the right of private judg
ment in the interpretation of Scripture, his
views of Christian doctrine may be as cor
rect as ours: both which arguments are
employed by the authors quoted in the
Second Lecture.
On this assuraption, it is difficult, if not
irapossible, to reply to hira, or to pronounce
him to be in error by the decision of any
other authority than that of our own pri
vate judgraent, for which we have there no
raore right to claim a deference than he has
for his. And, what is raore fearful, we have
no better authority than this, (which at
any hour of individual trial of darkness
and doubt raay fail us,) on which to rest,
not only our own eternal hopes, but also
the sacred duty, (which, whatever be our
belief, we raust in consistency practise,) of
instilling by the earliest possible bias, and
of tending in their growth by all the autho
rity, natural or otherwise, with which we
raay be invested, the principles of that form
of faith which we ourselves believe to be

172 LECTURE IV.
the true one, in the hearts of those whom
God has made dependant upon us, and
for whose salvation, as far as it is dependant
on such means, we feel ourselves responsible.
The narae of Tradition need convey no
alarra to the rainds of those who will view
it in the light in which it has been here
atterapted to set it forth, or to those who
assign to it no further authority than that
which is here contended for. If there are
difficulties connected with its adoption ; if
it limits the exercise of our private judg
raent on the words of Scripture ; if it re
duces us to the alternative of adopting the
decisions of those who have gone before,
or of forraing a judgment for ourselves
only at the cost of rauch labour and re
search into History and Antiquity; it is at
least only in accordance with the divine
provisions respecting us in raatters of equal
iraportance. For it is in like raanner only
that we can be satisfied of the evidences of
our faith, nay, even those furnished by the
Christian rairacles : it is thus only that we
can be satisfied of the credibility as well as
genuineness of the Scriptures themselves.

LECTURE IV. 173
Does it follow then that every one who
would inform hiraself on the Christian
verities, raust necessarily go through the
laborious process of investigating History
and Antiquity, and of raaking those re
searches for which the longest life would
scarce suffice, even were there no other
demands on his tirae and thoughts ? By
no raeans. It raust be remerabered that
the arguraent here is not with raerabers of
our own coraraunion, (except accidentally,)
who both believe in the doctrines, and are
satisfied with the proofs of thera in Holy
Scripture ; but with those who take upon
themselves to question our faith as em
bodied in the Liturgy and Articles. Such
as these we are compelled to refer to the
grounds of our faith. The Church gives
all these verities at once into the hands of
her children ; places before thera the whole
body of Christian doctrine ; offers a guar-
rantee for the truth of. it, and requires
their assent to it. The disciple has but to
prove and hold fast what he has thus learn
ed ; for which purpose, after having taught
him, the Church places the Scriptures in

174 LECTURE IV.
his hands, by reading which, under the
teaching of the Holy Spirit, he may " know
"the certainty of the things in which he
" has been instructed ;" and for this. Scrip
ture will, to the humble inquirer after
truth, suffice. But those who desire to
investigate by reading the course of prirai
tive and Catholic tradition, and have tirae
and ability for the task, are not forbidden,
but are encouraged to the undertaking.
Only it behoves such to take heed to the
motives which lead thera to it ; whether it
be in the hurable, teachable spirit of inquiry,
which earnestly hopes that the truths which
the Church has taught thera raay be fur
ther proved and confirraed to their minds ;
or in the presumptuous self-sufficient spirit
of huraan pride, which delights in novelty,
and in questioning the collective wisdora of
forraer days: whether it be in the hope
to find things true, or the desire to find
thera false. Nor would the opposite result,
to which the latter of these two courses
might possibly lead, furnish any argument
against the efficiency of the Church's prin
ciple for the attainment of truth when used

LECTURE IV. 175
aright : it is that to which the investigation
of all raoral truth, and the actions of all
raoral agents raust necessarily be liable.
But for any other course for the attainraent
of truth in regard to the Christian doc
trines, we have no warrant either in God's
word or in reason. If any one is disposed, in
the popular language of the day, to judge for
hiraself, and to exercise an unfettered opinion
on things sacred, (to say unbiassed opinion
would involve a contradiction in raorals and
on raoral subjects,) let him at least be so
far consistent and honest, as to judge by
those means which are appointed for the
purpose, and through which alone the sub
ject itself professes, through the raediura
of Holy Scripture, that the truth will be
attained : it is to her children only that
wisdora can with reason be expected to
justify herself. Let hira refer to the pri
raitive faith and practice; let him search
the records of antiquity ; let him trace
back the truth to the fountain head, or to
that point where it may be expected to
be found raost pure and unadulterated.
And this let him do in an humble

176 LECTURE IV.
spirit— one that is not easily fatigued or
frighted at the task before it. Let him
bear in raind what he has undertaken,
which is no less than to reconsider the
decrees of former councils, to reopen ques
tions long since set at rest, to appeal from
the collective testimony of the Church for
eighteen centuries. A project bold as this,
an undertaking of this magnitude, ought to
shrink from no labour, should be deterred
by no difficulties. Let him use every col
lateral aid within his reach. Then let him
refer to the test of the written word, what
ever, in the course of the investigation, he
may meet with. Above all, let hira ever
invoke the especial guidance of the Spirit of
truth, by whom the holy penmen were
theraselves " guided into all truth," and
without whora all our labour and reading
were in vain. And it raay so be that when
he has done all this, he raay, by God's
mercy, learn the first step towards divine
knowledge, of which perhaps he was before
ignorant — he may learn humility. He may
learn that the Church has been indeed a
faithful witness and guardian of the truth.

LECTURE IV. 177
He may discover that the faith which has
been sealed by the blood of martyrs, is
indeed " the faith once delivered to the
" saints." He may learn perhaps not too
late, that it is not only in respect of purity
of heart and life, but of childlike simplicity
and humility, in the willingness to be
taught, in filial subraission and depend
ance on those whom God had appointed his
spiritual pastors, that it has been said,
" Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom
" of God as a little child, he shall not enter
" therein,"

N

LECTURE V.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOUR OF A BIAS OR PREJUDICE
DRAM^N FROM ANALOGY, AND ITS ADAPTA
TION TO OUR MORAL NATURE.

Luke xviii. 17.

Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom qf God
as a little child, he shall not enter therein.
IF the view be correct which has been
taken in the two preceding Lectures,
of the scriptural intiraations respecting the
relation in which the doctrines and ordi
nances of the Christian Church stand to
the text of Holy Scripture; and if it be
true that the New Testaraent presupposes,
on the part of the reader, a knowledge of
the raain doctrines of which it speaks, and
of the raain articles of the Christian faith ;
the necessity of previous teaching before

LECTURE V. 179
coraing to the perusal of the sacred volurae,
would seem to be at once admitted. And
it would follow, as a necessary consequence,
that before reading it ourselves, or putting
it into the hands of those whose religious
education we were conducting, we should
endeavour to acquaint ourselves, or them,
what those doctrines and articles of faith
consist in, to the best of our belief, or
according to the best raeans we can resort
to for the purpose of ascertaining : we
should otherwise be placing ourselves, or
thera, in the situation of the Ethiopian
raentioned in the Acts of the Apostles ; and
with hira should wish that sorae one had
inforraed us before, or were at hand to in
form us now, on the several points to which
the Scripture refers ; and should be driven to
confess with hira, " How can I understand,
"except sorae raan should guide rae?"
Whether we have possessed ourselves of
this previous teaching in its pure and
genuine forra ; whether that which we
teach is that which the Apostles had thera
selves taught, before they penned their
respective writings, is a separate question ;
N 2

180 LECTURE V.
as is, likewise, the vindication of the mode
in which we profess to have determined
that question.
Moreover, frora the raoral character of
the doctrines theraselves, from their avowed
influence on our hearts, dispositions, and
characters, which would of itself presup
pose and imply some raoral preparation
and fitness on the part of the recipient ;
frora the fact that the very sarae passages
give rise to such opposite interpretations
and deductions, varying according to the
several preconceptions of the various
readers; it would follow, that we should
not only give the enunciation of the
doctrines, — not raerely propound them to
the intellect, but that we should also endea
vour to prejudice the will of the disciple
in their favour ; that we should try to
raake hira feel a personal interest in them,
to lead him to wish those things proved to
be true which we have placed before him.
This would follow from the raoral and
practical character of the doctrines, and
their personal relation to ourselves as
moral agents ; so that the bias or prejudice.

LECTURE V. 181
which is rendered necessary by the very
circumstances under which the Scriptures
were written and their relation to the
Christian doctrines, would be further re
quired by the character of the doctrines
theraselves. That the Church adopts such a course of
preliminary teaching ; that she resorts to
this bias or prejudice in reference to Holy
Scripture, in the spiritual instruction of
her children, it is unnecessary to state
here; as also that the instruraents she
adopts for this purpose are raainly the
Catechisra, Creeds, Articles, and Liturgy, at
tended by all the jealous precautions taken
to keep thera frora being altered in thera
selves or superseded by others ; as well as
the iraraediate and strenuous opposition
offered to views or interpretations of Scrip
ture of an opposite tendency, not raerely
those which raight contradict her own
views, but those even which have not re
ceived her sanction.
Now it is this feature in the Church's
teaching and views of scriptural truth,
which causes offence to a large class of
N 3

182 LECTURE V.
dissentients ; to all those, in fact, who dis
sent frora her on the lower side of the
scale, if it may be so termed ; that is, not
on the side of catholicity. I do not say
that their offence at the systera causes
their dissent : it is the consequence rather
than the cause of it : it is the circurastance
that they have adopted a creed opposed to
that of the Church, as well as the grounds
on which they are obliged to defend it,
that not unnaturally engenders a feel
ing of a deeper and stronger character
than would be accounted for by a mere
difference of opinion, in a supposable case,
between parties free to forra their respect
ive opinions, in pursuance of sorae prin
ciple held in coraraon between thera; —
which principle, involving, as it would in
this case, the right of forraing their re
spective creeds frora the text of Scripture
alone, is not adraitted on the part of the
Church. Their objections take a twofold direction.
I. Against the principle, as such, of bias-
sing or prejudicing the raind in the pursuit
of truth ; and —

LECTURE V. 183
II. Against the particular instruction
and forra of faith by which the Church
effects this.
The objections brought against these are
to be replied to on different grounds. And
in each, the grounds will vary according
to the nature and origin of the objection
alleged. In regard to the forraer of the
two questions, that regarding the principle,
it is objected that it is unscriptural — that
it is erroneous as a principle in the ab
stract — that it is irrational and unphiloso-
phical, unsuited to the nature and consti
tution of raan ; and this, for reasons which
will be adverted to raore fully presently.
The assertion that it is unscriptural has
been replied to in the two preceding
Lectures. Next, it is objected, that even were the
principle adraitted, yet that the particular
instruction and bias adopted by the Church
is unauthorized, and incapable of proof to
the extent which would be required, so as
to justify the Church on insisting upon it,
in the way she does, to the necessary exclu
sion of other creeds — and this too on a sub-
N 4

184 LECTURE V.
ject which, from its very nature, would seem
necessarily to adrait of rauch variety of opin
ion—that the proofs alleged are unsatisfac
tory—nay, that the raode and principle of
the proof are still raore so; — that it is
unreasonable and iraprobable that things, so
important as these are affirmed to be, should
be left to a mode of proof so inadequate
and unsatisfactory as this obviously is.
Reserving to its proper place the fuller
consideration of these objections to the
particular bias and instruction which the
Church adopts, I would raerely observe, in
alluding to the subject at this stage, that
for this authority and proof we raust of
course refer chiefly to the authority of the
Church, to traditional and historical testi
raony, which, in all raatters relating to the
genuineness of Scripture or Christian doc
trines, raust be very rauch dependent on
the evidence which the Church itself
affords; and which, frora its very nature,
iraplies that it is raoral, and therefore, in
one sense, defective testimony. But that
such evidence is not inappropriate to a
subject of this nature, will be shewn in its

LECTURE V. 185
proper place ; as also its conformity to
general analogy, its adaptation to our
raoral constitution, and its suitableness to
a state of probation. Let us now proceed
with the first branch of the subject, the
objections brought against the principle,
as such.
The objections coraraonly alleged against
the Church's principle of biassing the
raind, and of deraanding frora the disciple
an assent to her doctrines before putting
the Scriptures into his hands, are chiefly
these : — that it is irrational and unphiloso-
phical — unsuited to raan's nature — placing
undue and unwarrantable restrictions on
his raind ; — that it is unfavourable to the
spirit of free inquiry, and hostile to the
progressive character of Christian know
ledge. It is urged, raoreover, that it in
volves the fallacy of reasoning in a circle
— defending the practice on the ground of
our own convictions, yet unable to give any
other account of our convictions but the
fact that they were forraed by a sirailar
process : — that the Church defends indeed
her principles, as well as her doctrines, by
appealing to Scripture ; but assuraes to her-

186 LECTURE V.
self the office of interpreter of Scripture.
Of tliese objections to the principle, that
founded on its opposition to the progressive
character of Christian knowledge has been
already replied to by what has been said
above ^ on the relation of the Christian
doctrines to Holy Scripture.
In a lax age, like the present, especially
when we consider the popular dread (of
which it is not ray intention here to speak
disrespectfully) of Popery, and of every
thing, whether true or not, connected with
it, it is not difficult to conceive that sorae
portions of priraitive apostolic truth, though
of course not of first iraportance, raay have
been partially lost ; which, by a diligent
search into the records of the Church, we
raight by God's grace be enabled, if not to
recover, at least to confirra. But that Chris
tian truth, as such, in things essential to
salvation, is progressive, beyond the point
at which the Apostles left it, is a principle
which cannot be for one raoraent entertained,
but on the supposition, from which our feel
ings recoil, that the Holy Spirit had failed
of guiding the Apostles, according to the
"Lectures III. IV.

LECTURE V. 187
proraise, into all truth ; or that the whole
counsel of God, which the Apostle spoke of
having declared to the Ephesian Church,
regarded in thera, in respect of their rela
tion to God and their raeans of salvation, a
state different to that which the supposed
progressive character of Christian truth
would seem to imply in those who have
lived since.
The other objections to the principle are
to be replied to in different ways, having
reference to the grounds of the several
objections respectively. We might here
reply first elenchtically, shewing that what
ever is alleged against the Church principle
on account of its biassing or prejudicing
the raind, is no raore than raight be urged
against the principle pursued on all raoral
subjects, and in all raoral instruction : and,
in strict justice, our opponents could have
no reason for coraplaint, if we were content
to rest our defence upon this elenchtic
arguraent alone.
We raay, however, without stepping out
of the science of morals, or advancing any
thing which would not be sanctioned by it.

188 LECTURE V.
go on to the demonstrative argument, and
affirm, that the principle in question, so far
from being unphilosophical, or calculated
to fetter the human mind and irapede the
progress of truth, is perfectly in accordance
with that philosophy whose province it is
to treat of raan's raoral nature ; (to which
branch it raust in coraraon sense and fair
ness be referred ;) and that it is not other
wise than might have been expected ante
cedently, on the assuraption that it would
be analogous to other systems of instruction
on raoral subjects, or that the Gospel, itself
a great raoral truth, and addressing itself
to the several parts of our raoral nature,
would be taught and conveyed by instru
ments adapted to the moral constitution of
the recipient.
It should not be forgotten, that the
object of the system is not investigation
and inquiry, but instruction — not to dis
cover truth, but to teach it. The confusion
of these objects is one great cause of the
fallacy which leads raen to object to the
Church's principle. There raust be, of
course, in evangelical, as well as in other

LECTURE V. 189
truth, both the liberty and the raeans of
investigation and inquiry, even to tracing
things back to their first principles ; but then
in evangelical, as in other truth, this raust
be pursued by the raethod which the subject
itself, and the revealed will of its divine
author, point out as the legitiraate one.
Viewing the system objected to, however,
as one of instruction rather than investiga
tion and inquiry, we might, before proceed
ing to shew its analogy and fitness, call on
our opponents to adduce any case of moral
(as distinguished from demonstrative) truth,
where the same principle is not adopted in
teaching it, and in the forraation of opinions
and character under it — where the raind of
the disciple is not first biassed or prejudiced
in favour of it, before the proofs and illus
trations are brought before him ; and where
at least a temporary and conditional assent
to the opinions and belief of the teacher is
not both demanded and given, on the sole
authority of the latter, as being presuraed
to be rightly inforraed ; or if there is any
thing reciprocal in the agreement, it is the
proraise, on the part of the teacher, that

190 LECTURE V.
after a given tirae, the assent of the dis
ciple will be deraanded on no other ground
than his own personal convictions. And,
allowing for exceptions, to which even the
laws of nature are liable, and which, in the
case of raoral truth, can generally be traced
to sorae violation of the conditions by
which it is perceived, it will be found
that the convictions of persons thus taught
and trained, proceed with a degree of
uniforraity and agreeraent, indicating the
existence of sorae general law, for which
the uniforraity in the system of instruction
is by no means sufficient to account.
In demonstrative and physical truth it is
otherwise. There is here no previous sub
raission of the judgment to the teacher, on
moral considerations ; no assent to his au
thority independently of proof, or beyond
the willingness to try his experiraents or
refer to his facts and deraonstrations. The
intellect is satisfied on one point before it
proceeds to the next stage of proof There
is no personal relation iraplied. The
standard of truth is determined already,
being purely objective, and rendered sub-

LECTURE V. 191
jective afterwards, by raeans of the intellect
alone. The instant, however, we touch on raoral
truth, — not only that which is exclusively so,
but the instant the subject becomes not
purely intellectual and abstract, — from that
raoraent a different course becoraes requi
site for the perception of it ; we then assign
to the disciple, not the faculty to judge of
truth, but raerely the capacity to form that
faculty under a given course of instruction.
And although the standard in subjects of
this kind is as satisfactory as in physics,
though, unlike physics, existing in the deci
sions and minds of raen, rather than capa
ble of actual demonstration, yet we never, if
we can avoid it, leave the learner to find
out the truth for hiraself, nor take for
granted that he possesses the power of per
ceiving it without the previous forraation
of habits. This is the case with all raoral
truth, pure or raixed — all which is not the
subject of raere deraonstration : we assurae
that the disciple possesses the innate seed
of the faculty, which, however, does not grow
into the faculty itself of perceiving truth.

192 LECTURE V.
except it be trained to do so, and formed
into a habit. Consequently, being ourselves
convinced, as we believe, of the truth, we
scruple not to do what seems at first sight
perfectly inimical to the very principle of
investigation and free inquiry ; we begin
by telling him that such and such a course
is truth, requiring him to receive this solely
on our assertion ; we then train him to
think so, by placing before him every thing
which raay tend to confirm our assertion,
and keeping from him whatever raight lead
to the risk of his thinking otherwise. And
if any thing should happen to be brought
in his way, calculated to warp or retard the
growth of his judgraent, we interfere to
reraove it, with an arbitrariness of decision
and authority which will not for an instant
adrait the supposition of interference with
our systera.
Our defence of this apparently arbitrary
proceeding, is our own conviction that we
are ourselves right, confirraed by an appeal
to the opinions and practices of others ; and
the certainty, that as soon as his judgment
is matured and his opinions formed, our

LECTURE V. 193
disciple will adopt the sarae standard of
truth. It will be at once seen, that there is in
this course an apparent fallacy — an appa
rent practical reasoning in a circle : we
form the judgments of others in this deci
sive way, on the strength of our own con
victions — and our own convictions would
seem to have been the result, in a great
measure, of a similar process exercised to
wards ourselves : so that, to an indifferent
spectator, there does not appear at first any
external standard, independent of our per
ceptions, to indicate any legitimate process
of reasoning, proceeding frora a fixed or
definite principle. At present, however, I
ara only describing the practice, as generally
adopted, and the irapression it would na
turally convey to one not concerned in it.
Now this practice, this apparent reasoning
in a circle, exists of necessity in the instruc
tion pursued on all moral subjects — on all
subjects, in fact, which are not purely intel
lectual and demonstrative. This will be
seen at once in the highest and purest raoral
science, that which treats of the moral
o

194 LECTURE V.
nature of man, which may be regarded as a
purely raoral subject — all, in fact, which is
coraprehended in the term " Moral Philoso-
" phy." It will also be seen in the lower and
raore raixed subjects, say, e. g., that of taste,
which raay be regarded in a great degree
as an intellectual faculty, but which par
takes in a degree of a raoral character, and
by virtue of that, is brought within the
operation of the principle of prejudice and
bias, just described as applying arbitrarily
to all questions of a raoral character in their
respective degrees.
In raoral philosophy, let us take the two
first great principles in raorals :
I. That relating to the developeraent and
strengthening of the raoral sense.
II. That the identity of our duty with
our happiness and best interest, is only per
ceived by raaking the forraer our priraary
object — the latter being perceptible to those
only who have so done — or if perceived
before, it being only through faith in the
means which lead to it — thus still leaving
duty the primary object.
Now in developing the raoral sense, and

LECTURE V. 195
in establishing a standard of right in the
raind of the disciple, we learn frora the
science of Morals, that he possesses naturally
not the full raoral perception, but the capa
city, under a certain course, to attain it — the
germ in fact : — that this is liable to go wrong,
and that it will go wrong if left to itself;
and that it therefore requires the earliest
possible care and attention, to be arrested
as soon as reason itself dawns, if not earlier,
before it shall be overrun or destroyed by
the growth of evil passions : — that for this
purpose there is required in raorals an un
conditional subraission of the will as well
as the actions to some external authority,
under which it is to be placed in a course
of training : — that a young person, who has
not gone through this course nor brought
his passions under control, is not compe
tent to forra a judgraent on raorals ; that
those only are corapetent to this, who have
been brought up carefully under the guid
ance and authority of others in the way
just described : — that this systera of acting
and thinking on the authority of others, is
not designed to continue for ever ; but that,
o 2

196 LECTURE V.
in process of tirae, the sense will be fully
developed, and the faculty strengthened, by
which he will be able to judge for himself;
so that, though trained in this way, and
not allowed, for a time, to think for hira
self, (and if, either spontaneously or at the
suggestion of others, he should think differ
ently frora our standard, we have no scruple
in checking it by all the raeans in our
power,) yet afterwards, in pursuance of the
sarae principle of moral probation, he is
corapelled to think and act for hirnself, on
his own responsibility. For it is part of
the same principle of moral probation, which
raakes it necessary for hira to trust at first
to our older judgraent, in opposition to his
own passions and natural pride ; and after-
xcards to be thrown on his own responsibi
lity, at the period when he would naturally
wish to be guided in raatters of practical
difficulty by the authority or exaraple of
others, and to shift the responsibility on
thera. To one thus trained, the process is this :
He believes a certain course of action to be
right. For the truth of it he appeals to

LECTURE V. 197
his own convictions and those of others, as
that on which no doubt exists ; and this,
not as a mere question of feeling or im
pulse, but as some acknowledged truth,
having the force of a first principle, con
taining its reason within itself, the very
mention of which seems to imply its claims
to universal recognition. Those by whom
he was thus trained would seera to have
derived their principles from the same pro
cess, from having been brought up in the
same way by persons entertaining similar
principles, who, in their turn, derived
theirs in a similar way : so that there ap
pears at first to be a complete reasoning in
a circle ; each person training those under
him on the strength of his own convictions,
and himself possessing those convictions
because he has been trained to think in
this way.
How this seeming fallacy is explained will
be shewn hereafter. Let us now observe the
practice as a raatter of fact, as a first princi
ple in morals ; raerely noticing, at this stage
that although there is this apparent fallacy,
and although the system would seem open
o3

198 LECTURE V-
to the objection that each raight, by thus
early prejudicing the mind, create a separate
standard for himself, yet, as a matter of fact,
such is not the case ; that the standard of
right, thus established and thus taught, is
sufficiently uniform throughout the world
to indicate its dependance on some general
law ; for the exceptions to it, which doubt
less exist, furnish no arguraent against it,
any raore than the physical peculiarities
of individuals or tribes would invalidate
the general laws applicable to the species
as a whole — and still less so, inasmuch
as they can in raost cases be accounted
for on the very principle here contended
for. It should be observed, raoreover, that
although the convictions and irapressions
of each individual raight seem attributable
to the particular system under which he
has been trained, yet no one in practice
ever thinks of referring thera to this cause,
but to sorae external standard, which both
himself and others appear as little disposed
to question as the laws which govern the
natural world.
Here again is the same apparent reason-

LECTURE V. 199
ing in a circle in another shape : The
standard is true, because all mankind (sub
ject to the exceptions alluded to) agree in
thinking so ; and they all think thus, be
cause they are brought up to think so.
Let us now take another case, lower
down in the scale of morals, one of a raixed
character, where, though rauch depends on
the intellectual perceptions, yet the subject
does not admit of deraonstration nor of
being reduced to rule ; but a certain por
tion of moral perception is also implied ;
viz. that of taste — which appears to stand
upon the confines of the moral and intel
lectual parts of our nature, and which, frora
not being purely intellectual, would fall
partly within the province of raorals, and
becorae subject, in a proportionate degree,
to its laws and provisions.
To take one branch of this by way of
exaraple. If we wish to forra the taste of
a young person in regard to works of art —
say, e. g., sculpture or painting — and to
enable hira to acquire the faculty of judg
ing for hiraself in these raatters ; what is
the course we pursue ?
o 4

200 LECTURE V.
Assuraing his utter incapacity to judge for
hiraself, we should direct his attention to
what we conceive to be the best speciraens
of the art, and raost conforraable to what
we believe to be its rules ; at the same tirae
giving such theoretic instruction as the
subject admitted, or the pupil was capable
of receiving. But we should never for an
instant assume that he possessed naturally
the power of judging for hiraself, nor any
thing beyond the capacity to forra such a
power of judging, under the course of in
struction which we thought proper to give.
We should assurae that he possessed this ca
pacity, analogous to the germ of the moral
sense in Pure Morals ; but that the faculty
itself requires to be developed and strength
ened, as in morals, by continued exercise
under the guidance and authority of others;
and that at a certain point, to be deter
rained by age, natural capacity, application,
and other circurastances, the faculty will
be sufficiently forraed to enable hira to
judge for hiraself During this process,
however, we require a coraplete surrender
of his judgraent to ours ; and hesitate not.

LECTURE V. 201
in the most arbitrary and determined raan
ner, to reraove out of his way every thing,
whether in the form of rules, speciraens, or
associates, which raay tend, in our estima
tion, to vitiate the judgraent, or prevent the
forraation of what we believe to be a pure
taste. This sounds arbitrary and exclusive
enough, and utterly subversive of all free-
dora of thought. Yet such is the practice ;
and it raust be remembered that the object
of it is not to discover truth, but to teach it ;
it is assuraed to be known and adraitted
on the part of the instructor. But we our
selves had our tastes forraed by the sarae
process, being brought up to think in this
way. And yet we feel that we think so at
this tirae, not siraply because we were
trained to do so, but because we possess an
internal sense which declares to us, as
clearly as our outward vision, that our
judgments are based on truth, as such ; that
they have reference to laws as real as those
which govern the natural world, though
perhaps incapable of deraonstration, or of
being reduced to abstract rules ; but which,
at the sarae tirae, no demonstration of a

202 LECTURE V.
contrary nature could overturn ; and to the
truth of which, testimony is borne by the
concurrent decisions of those whom the
universal voice of mankind has pronounced
to be the raost fit judges on this subject.
For thus it is that here, as in Morals,
we get out of the apparent reasoning in
a circle ; viz. by falling back on the uni
forraity of the standard thus established,
which is referred, in the raind of each, to
principles which he feels to be true and
strictly philosophical, though perhaps not
adraitting of deraonstration nor of being
reduced to abstract rules ; confirraed raore
over by the universal testimony and prac
tice of raankind. For there is here, as in
Morals, the sarae apparent reasoning in a
circle, as is obvious on the most cursory
view. If, for exaraple, any one, after ex
pressing his opinion on any work of art,
were to be asked on what his judgraent was
founded, he would refer us to the rules of
taste. If asked by what standard he formed
his taste, his reply would be, that it was by
studying the best masters, and making him
self acquainted with the best productions.

LECTURE V. 203
If asked how he knew that the masters or
productions referred to were the best, he
would (unless he at once broke through the
circle by referring to the general opinion of
raankind) reply, that he had been told so by
those who were deemed (which is another
outlet frora the circle in the same direction)
the best judges. If asked again how these
formed their judgraent, the reply would
again be, that it was by studying the best
specimens and productions : thus reasoning
apparently frora the work to the rule; from
the rule to the particular judgment; and
frora the judgment back again to the work;
going round again and again in the same cir
cle, in a way which in deraonstrative science
would be raost illogical and absurd, and
which doubtless appears so to those who
would apply the rules of deraonstrative
science to moral subjects; but which in
such subjects is neither illogical nor absurd,
because in morals we step out of that circle
on to a principle which, if it cannot be esta
blished by demonstration, neither can it be
overturned by it ; which, though it seera to
rest on no surer ground than the testimony

204 LECTURE V.
of human feeling, is sufficiently uniforra in
its operation and results, to indicate design
on the part of the divine Author of our
nature; and which, if it be less demon
strable than the laws which he has given
to the natural world, is at least better
adapted to a state of probation, with which
mechanical laws of demonstration would
be utterly at variance, and quite in accord
ance with that fundamental feature of his
dealings with us as raoral and responsible
agents, by which both our raoral percep
tion and our raoral standard are raade to
depend on the obedience to the moral sense
and the fulfilment of our moral relations,
in which humility of character, and the
willingness to learn according to his ap
pointments, forra an essential feature.
As an additional corroboration of the
reasonableness of surrendering the judg
ment and subraitting to the guidance of
others, though such a course be opposed to
our immediate opinions and wishes, we raay
appeal to the experience of alraost every
one, when, on looking back in after-life to
the restrictions laid both on our actions and

LECTURE V. 205
opinions when young, we see that the ad
vantage, still less the necessity of such re
strictions, could not, by any explanation,
have been raade intelligible to us at that
period ; and yet that now we are convinced,
not only of their necessity, but that the
opinions and tone of thought which they
were designed to establish within us, are
unquestionably true ; and this, not raerely
by the judgraent of our own habits and
feelings, but with reference to a standard
obviously external . to ourselves, but the
perception of which we feel to be raainly,
if not exclusively, owing to the course of
training and discipline which we have gone
through. A supposed case should be alluded to here,
on account of the application, to be raade
presently in the way of analogy, to a sup
posed case in regard to Christian doctrines.
It will be admitted in regard to taste and
works of art, that although incapable of
being reduced to any very definite or ab
stract rules, yet there does exist a standard,
exteimal to and independent of the percep
tions of the individual, sufficiently uniform

206 LECTURE V.
throughout the world, to indicate its de
pendance on some fixed principles or general
law. Now let us suppose for a raoraent that
this knowledge was entirely lost; — that
every individual possessing it was removed
frora the world, without having the oppor
tunity of coramunicating it previously ; —
but that the works and specimens them
selves reraain, and that raankind were
coraraanded, under a raost severe penalty,
to recover this knowledge. Let it be con
ceded that it is possible to recover this
knowledge — to re-establish the standard.
By what a long and tedious process raust
this be effected — at what a cost of time
and labour — what a long and careful pro
cess of induction on the part of individuals
— what an equally long and careful process
of comparison of the judgments, first of
those individuals one with another, in the
same nation ; next, of what raight appear
the collective judgraent of each nation, one
with another ; and then of one age with
another; before any thing like a deter
minate standard could be established. And

LECTURE V. 207
when at length the standard had been thus
regained, it cannot, I think, be questioned,
that, knowing how rauch was at stake, the
experience of the difficulties encountered
in its recovery, added to the conviction that
it was the true standard, would lead to the
estabUshraent, by universal consent, of the
principle, even now virtually established
and generally adopted in practice, — that
hereafter the study of such subjects should
be preceded, first by the coraraunication of
such general principles as were capable
of being reduced to rule; and next by a
selection, raade by those supposed to be
corapetent judges, of such speciraens and
productions as were deeraed the best ; the
disciple being assuraed to possess nothing
but the willingness to be thus instructed,
and the gerra of a faculty within hira,
capable, under a course of instruction like
this, of being at length raatured into the
power of judging in like raanner for hira
self. Before applying the case here supposed,
by way of parallel to a similar one in
regard to the Christian doctrines, it may

208 LECTURE V.
be observed, that what has been above
shewn to exist respecting both the prin
ciples and practice of raankind in raorals
and in taste, at least serves to shew that a
prejudice or bias in conveying truth, or in
forming the capacity to judge of it, is not
the unreasonable thing which some would
represent it to be, being neither unsuited
to the nature of men, nor contrary to their
practice. And here some raight be con
tent to leave it, being satisfied with having
shewn that the principle, however loudly it
raay be condemned, is at least no more
than is sanctioned by the universal practice
pf raankind, where opinions are to be
forraed and truth conveyed, on subjects
not purely intellectual and deraonstrative.
The arguraent will, however, adrait of
being carried rauch further. We raight
fairly throw on our opponents the onus of
shewing why a principle, observed in every
other case of raoral truth and moral in
struction, should find its only exception in
the greatest of all moral subjects. The po
pular fallacies on the subject arise, in fact,
frora overlooking the circumstance that

LECTURE V. 209
faith is a raoral, not an intellectual ques
tion, concerned with raoral evidence; and
that its absence or defect is connected with
raoral causes. The practice described
above, as universally observed in morals
and in taste, as well as the principle to
which it is referred for its defence, is,
merely changing the terras, precisely that
which, whether principle or practice, the
Church has always raaintained in convey
ing that truth of which she is the ap
pointed teacher. So that even if the
principle were not as scriptural as it is, —
even if it did not necessarily follow frora
what the Scripture relates of the instru
ments and the raode of teaching the Chris
tian verities, it would at least corae recom-
raended to us by the clearest analogy, and
by such presumptive grounds of its adapta
tion to our nature, as would be furnished
by the universal practice of mankind.
If any further argument in its favour
were needed, it might be found in the
practice of all those who profess to object
to it as a principle, yet are practically
unable to act in opposition to it.

210 LECTURE V.
They object to the Church's principle of
instruction by means of Creeds and Cate
chisms and Formularies, generally on the
ground that they prejudice the mind and
prevent it from forming an unbiassed and
unfettered judgment ; denouncing as arbi
trary and subversive of truth, any attempt
to control the judgment or influence the
will. This they object to ; and as a juster
course, and one better calculated for the
attainment of truth, they prefer that each
should read for hiraself, and raake his own
deductions frora the sacred text. Yet what
is their practice, when they have thus de
duced their form of belief from the Bible,
and that alone ? They imraediately pro
ceed to teach it on the Church's principle :
they thoroughly imbue the minds of their
disciples and children with it, before giving
them the Scripture ; and having done this,
they, like the Church, place the Bible in
their hands, that they may know the cer
tainty of those things in which they have
been (would that we could say truly) in
structed. The deduction is but for one
generation at the utmost ; thenceforward it

LECTURE V. 211
becomes a tradition *. Its origin is hereti
cal ; the raeans of its perpetuation, catholic.
It is notorious that none are so rigid, so
tyrannical, if we raay use the expression, in
their observance of the catholic principle
in their instruction, in thoroughly prepos
sessing the rainds of their disciples with
their views before giving thera the Holy
Scriptures, as sectarians generally, espe
cially those furthest reraoved frora the
Church catholic, as Socinians, — none so
jealously vigilant lest the disciple, when he
does peruse the Scripture, should exercise
a free judgraent, and question the views
with which he had been irabued — none so
intolerant, so veheraent in their denuncia
tions of hopeless error, if he should deera
he found in Holy Scripture the certainty of
other things, than those in which he h^
been instructed : so truly in this, as in
other things, do the eneraies of truth bear
their unconscious testiraony to it ; and jus-
a What do Heretics and Sectarians, who profess to
object to the use of Creeds, &c. mean when they speak
of persons being educated in the tenets, e. g., of the Uni
tarian, or any other persuasion ?
P 2

212 LECTURE V.
tify wisdora of her children, even by the
testiraony of them that hate her.
With this strong corroborative testiraony,
unwittingly furnished by the practice of the
avowed opponents of the Church's professed
principle and practice, we can hardly doubt
what would be the probable, if not certain,
course pursued in the supposed event —
analogous to that supposed above in the
case of raorals or of works of art and taste —
of the Christian doctrines being lost or for
gotten ; or if, which is expressing the same
hypothesis in a different shape, the Chris
tian Scriptures were suddenly introduced
into a nation who had never before heard
of them, nor were in possession, either be
fore or given with the Scripture, of any
knowledge whatever of the doctrines but
such as could be gathered from the Scrip
tures theraselves ; so as to place the Church
in circurastances analogous to those sup
posed above in regard to raorals and taste.
It is not conceded that any such case has
ever yet occurred, whatever may be con
tended to the contrary. Those who, in
Christian lands, after having lived as in-

LECTURE V. 213
fidels, are recorded to have searched the
Scriptures for themselves, and to have been
brought to a knowledge of the truth, with
no guidance but that of Scripture itself, and
the assistance of the Holy Spirit sought in
prayer, — these furnish no evidence on the
point in question, because they have, by the
terms of the supposition, previously lived
among Christians ; and therefore, not only
must they be presuraed to have had a de
gree of eleraentary knowledge, unless it can
be specifically shewn to the contrary ; but,
as was observed in a former Lecture, a cer
tain portion of knowledge is necessarily
implied in the very notion of rejection and
disbelief Besides, it is not proved whether
such persons ultiraately possessed, after all,
the doctrine of the Apostles, or raerely that
vague indefinite faith, which, in popular
langauge, is denorainated a belief in Chris
tianity, — a faith to which the lowest grade
of Socinianism lays claim ''.
b In a notice of the death of a distinguished Asiatic in
this country, not long since, it was stated that he had,
since his arrival in England, renounced Paganism and
embraced Christianity : that it was not known, however,
p 3

214 LECTURE V.
Nor, ^gain, is any thing proved respecting
the question, by the stated results of the
circulation df the Scriptures alone among
heathen people in our day; because it is
well known that assistance of some kitid,
either from books or teachers, precedes,
accompanies, or follows it. Neither in this
case is sufficient known of the actual state
of belief among such people, to say what
portion of the Christian verities they are
acquainted with, or of what they are igno
rant. If, however, we suppose a case, (and at
present it can only rest upon hypothesis,)
in which the Christian Scriptures could be
suddenly introduced among a people till
then in perfect ignorance both of them and
of the doctrines they contain, accompanied
by nothing, in the way of external instruc
tion, which could convey any idea of their
object and raeaning ; and if the people in
question were told that they were to de
duce a systera of faith from the book, and
whether he had embraced any particular form (!) of
Christianity ; but that he was generally supposed to
have adopted the Unitarian persuasion (!)

LECTURE V. 215
that their eternal interests were concerned
in their deducing a right one, what do we
suppose would be the result ?
Without citing at full length, step by step,
the several points of analogy to the case of
raorals and art supposed above, we may rea
sonably assume, that in their search after
the meaning of that book, in raaking their
several deductions, they would arrive in
succession at the several persuasions and
heresies to which raen have arrived and
daily do arrive, who read Scripture in this
way and on this principle. This would be
one necessary result. Whether they would
arrive at that forra of faith which the
Church both receives and teaches as the
Apostles' doctrine, yet for the proof of
every article of which she refers to the
sarae Scriptures, is a question which we
cannot take upon ourselves to deterraine,
on the authority of the experience of any
age or country ; nor, as has been observed
before, on any authority of Holy Scripture
itself. But this at least we raay take upon
ourselves to affirra : that if by any means
they did succeed in deducing this pure form
p 4

316 LECTURE V.
of faith ; having now gone the whole cycle of
truth and error, — having determined araong
theraselves which was the best interpreta
tion of Scripture, the best forra of faith,
and the systera best adapted to proraote
the moral and spiritual welfare of raankind ;
and having seen how raaterially the adop
tion of this or of any other systera depended
on the raind of the disciple being pre
viously imbued with it and prejudiced in its
favour, — since all were, in the judgment of
their respective advocates, equally capable
of proof from the Scriptures ; they would,
whenever they were interested for the wel
fare of others, and had the power to reduce
their interest to practice, take every precau
tion, before putting the Scriptures into the
liands of their disciples, to prepossess and
bias their rainds in favour of those views of
doctrine which they desired them to find
in Scripture ; using for this purpose Creeds,
or Catechisms, or such methods of prelirai-
nary instruction, written or unwritten, as
they should deera best calculated to effect
this object.
Surelv then it must be admitted, that.

LECTURE V. 217
even were we not assured of the divine
origin of the Church's principle, it comes
recomraended to us frora its adaptation to
our nature, and has incalculable clairas on
our veneration and gratitude frora the pro
vision it raakes for our wants, the protection
it affords us as a preservative frora error, a
protection against sorae of our worst eneraies
— ourselves, and our own corrupt hearts.
What if the forra of sound words which
we now hold, is not, down to its rainute
details and expressions, that of which the
Apostles spoke as coeval with, nay ante
cedent to Scripture itself; but that por
tions of it, as doubtless is the case with
sorae, are the result of later days, as the
assaults of eneraies from without corapelled
the Church to throw up, from time to time,
those bulwarks of the faith comraitted to
her keeping ? What if the simpler forras of
elder days are now succeeded by the jeal
ously guarded definitions of the Athanasian
Creed, when they who would steal the Ijord's
body from his people, have compelled the
Church to guard his sacred form with holy
jealousy, less needed in apostolic days, when

218 LECTURE V,
he walked more openly among them, and
no man sought to lay hands upon him?
What if, in later times, the corruptions of
one branch of the Church, have caused the
erection on that side, of those outwarks
which are forraed by the defensive and con
troversial articles of our own branch ?
Every creed, every article thus formed, is
an historical record of the errors and here
sies of former ages. They are the marks
which warn us of the shoals and quicksands
on which others have aforetime made ship
wreck of their faith. If we were to take
up the buoys and destroy the light houses
around our coast, and bid the deluded
mariner find out for hiraself the shoals and
rocks which endanger his course, or dis
cover in the darkness of night " the haven
where he would be," we should be acting
as reasonably as those who, to the learner
in the doctrine of Christ, would abolish
all creeds or forraularies which the Church,
under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, has
established to warn frora error, or to guide
into truth.
What if attacks are made upon them by

LECTURE V. 219
an evil generation? what if we are told that
all creeds are alike, that it matters little
which creed we take, provided we are sin
cere ? These attacks, as well as the presump
tuous efforts of others to explain or reject
what God designed to be a raystery, are but
the natural efforts of huraan pride to escape
frora the restraint of doctrines which are irk-
sorae, chiefly because they involve raotives
which the heart refuses to acknowledge.
Let us not regard thera as restraints and
burdens, but as pillars of faith on which we
lean in hours of temporary darkness and
despondency. Remember they have been
the support of saints in every age  that
raartyrs who have died in their defence,
have been in turn supported by thera in
the hour of trial. That bosom of the
Church, which to the believer is a home
and protection against the storms which
endanger his faith, though far frora designed
to protect hira in indolent ease or to prevent
hira from pursuing his course through a
world of trial, raay, by the rationalist or
freethinker, be deemed a restraint and a
prison. He may, like a wilful headstrong

220 LECTURE V.
child, break from his parents' roof, rush
into what he may call a raore liberal system
of faith, and exult awhile in his imaginary
liberty. But in the wide ocean of error, in
vain will he seek a resting-place. He may
traverse the dark waters free and uncon
trolled ; but he will there find no rest for
the sole of his foot. And happy will he be,
if, before night closes upon him, the merci
ful interposition of Providence should again
bring him within sight of the ark, and the
hand of redeeraing love should be again
extended to take hira to his rest.

LECTURE VL

APPLICATION OF THE FOREGOING ARGUMENT TO
INFANT BAPTISM, NATIONAL EDUCATION,
AND
SUBSCRIPTION TO THE ARTICLES OF RELIGION.

Mark x. 15.
Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom qf God
as a little child, he shall not enter therein.
FROM the view which was taken, in the
preceding Lecture, of the adaptation
of the Church's principle to Huraan Nature,
in prejudicing the mind and will in favour
of the Christian doctrines before giving the
proofs of them as contained in Holy Scrip
ture, and the strict conformity of the prac
tice with that pursued in conveying know
ledge on all subjects not purely abstract
and intellectual, — there follow iraportant
results, relating to the application of the

222 LECTURE VI.'
same principle in other matters of faith
or practice, which are also supported by
the sarae arguraent drawn from the adapta
tion of the principle to dur moral consti
tution. Araong the chief of these results, is the
defence provided for the institution and
practice of Infant Baptisra. Before entering
on this, however, it should be here repeat
ed, that according to the principle deduced
in a forraer Lecture for deterraining the
divine origin of this or other appointraents
in the Church, founded on the authority
given to the Apostles for these purposes,
with the proraise of a divine sanction to
what they should thus appoint, together
with the absence of direct statements in
Scripture respecting the tirae knd raanner
oftheir appointment ; — it would follow that,
in order to ascertain what was the appoint
ment or practice of the Apostles on these
matters, we shall look not only to Scrip
ture, but to those records out of Scripture
which, being either contemporary with the
Apostles, or near to their day, raight be
assumed to afford the fairest testimony of

LECTURE VL 223
their institution, and record of their prac
tice. And if, finding these institutions
spoken of both as then existing and as of
divine appointraent, frora these we turn to
Scripture, and there find those notices and
allusions to them, which would be satisfac
tory evidences on the assuraption that they
were supposed to exist at that tirae, and to
be well known to the writer of the sacred
text as well as those to whora it was
addressed, — we should, in strict conforraity
with the spirit of the Sixth Article of our
Church, and the known principle of the
Reformers on the subject of the Catholic
Faith, be quite content to rest the Scrip
tural defence of the Institutions upon such
notices and allusions, where, on the assurap
tion that Scripture was the only guide as
well as the sole standard of faith, we doubt
less should not be warranted, on the Soci
nian or Sectarian principle, in resting such
raoraentous matters on such indirect and
apparently imperfect proofs. It is on proofs
of this nature that we raust rest our defence
of the divine appointraent of Infant Bap
tism, the Sacramental character of the Eu-

224 LECTURE VI.
charist, the Observance of the Lord's Day,
Public Worship, Episcopal Ordination and
Apostolical Succession, and those spiritual
functions and powers with which the Church
maintains that the Apostolic Priesthood
has been ever invested. Nor should it be
forgotten, that it is on proofs of a similar
character that we are often said to rest the
raore fundamental and vital articles of our
faith — the Divinity of the Holy Spirit ; the
doctrine of the Trinity in Unity ; and we
might add, the whole body of the faith
once delivered to the Saints.
Our object at present, however, is to
point out the argument in favour of the
institutions and practices drawn from their
conformity to the principle, which we have
shewn to exist in the Church's teaching,
of adaptation to our moral nature.
In regard, then, to Infant Baptism : this
Institution would not only follow frora the
principle in question, but its absence would
be an oraission for which it would be diffi
cult to account. We have seen that, on
raoral subjects, our perceptions and opinions
depend on an early bias, and an early

LECTURE VL 225
training for the purpose of retaining it ;
that we begin by arresting the passions,
and by enlisting the feelings and the will,
as early as possible ; that the opinions and
views, in favour of which we thus prepossess
the mind, are those which we ourselves feel
to be right, — the only lirait being the extent
of our own conviction of their truth ; that
when our convictions are decided, and we
feel ourselves responsible for the opinions
of those coraraitted to us, we do not hesi
tate to use all the raeans in our power to
forra thera aright, not only by persuasion,
but even consider it a duty to use the
power, where we possess it, if not to raake
thera think as we would have them, at least
to put those things before them which may
tend to that effect, and to debar thera frora
access to those of an opposite tendency.
We have seen that we do this at the ear
liest possible opportunity, as soon as reason
dawns, or the capacity to receive moral im
pressions developes itself; and that if we
do not this at an earlier period, it is only
because this capacity does not exist, nor is
the will capable of being influenced by us :
Q

226 LECTURE VI.
(though even here we do endeavour to
create associations in favour of or against
things we respectively approve or condemn.)
If then we thus do all we can to create a bias
and to engage the will, the only lirait being
— in point of time, the assumed incapacity of
the recipient — or in point of degree, any
possible misgivings on our part as to the
truth of our own convictions ; — if this is the
theory of the formation of moral habits and
impressions, as evolved by the science of
morals, confirraed raoreover by the uni
versal practice of raankind, as far as the
condition of huraan nature and the circum
stances of huraan relations will adrait of its
being reduced to practice ; (and we know
that the result is coraparatively defective
only from the weakness and corruption of
nature, and the want on our part of some
power sufficient to meet and control that ;)
surely it would follow from this, that if a
system be proposed as coming from God,
which, besides adopting the principle and
method prescribed by morals for the for
mation of raoral habits and character, pro
fesses moreover to be supported by a super-

LECTURE VL 227
natural power, unlimited in its extent, of
influencing the will, correcting the pas
sions, and forming the habits, — infusing, in
fact, an entirely new and divine principle
of action into the heart ; — if we believe in
its efficacy for this object, and if, before
the knowledge of this, or in raatters which
even now do not fall within its operation,
the only lirait to the period of our in
fluencing the will, was the want of human
power to reach it, — the want of such a
power being an acknowledged though an un
avoidable defect in the system ; — surely we
should expect that the all-powerful divine
influence would at least supply this defect ;
unless it could be shewn that such a provi
sion would be unsuited to the state of pro
bation in which we are here placed. It were
unreasonable ta suppose that, professing to
supply our wants, it should stop in its ope
ration at that precise point where human
power had stopped merely because it was hu
man; that it should not follow up the prin
ciple, and coraraence at a still earlier period.
It would be unaccountable if there were not
this provision. To say that it is incorapre-
Q 2

228 LECTURE VL
hensible or irrational, is no reply. The
whole doctrine of Divine grace is incom
prehensible, and to human means, impos
sible. But if it is promised at all ; if its
influence is adapted to our nature, sup
plying our wants where obedience to the
moral law without it had felt and declared
those wants ; it would have been unaccount
able, on any acknowledged principle of
God's dealings with us, if it did not supply
that of which reason felt the want, and for
which she did not provide, only because
she could not, nor dreamed that in the
inexhaustible storehouses of Divine love, a
way had been provided by which it might
be supplied.
Nor is it necessary, for this, to enter on the
question of the degree of grace, vouchsafed
to the new-born soul of one brought to
Christ in infancy, and washed in the laver
of regeneration. It is enough that it be
commensurate with the reason and the
will. If the one be but a germ, a mere
seed, as yet latent and undeveloped, the
other is not more. If the one be not per
ceptible, neither is the other : though he

LECTURE VL 229
would be rash who would take upon hira
self to determine when moral responsibility
commences, even to those who are not
under grace; still raore, to fix it at that
point where the evidences of it are first
discernible to the eyes of others. All that
is here contended for is, that if the influ
ence of the Blessed Spirit be, in its opera
tions, adapted to the nature of raan, and
calculated to supply, as far as was cora-
patible with a state of probation, the wants
which reason had pointed out; we should
expect that it would begin with, (if sought
in tirae through the appointed means,) and
be coraraensurate with, the raoral powers ; —
that if designed to purify the heart, correct
the passions, and regulate the will, it would
not wait for that period to which the opera
tion of huraan power would necessarily be
liraited. We should expect that it would
be iraplanted early, frora the beginning, as
seed, perhaps the sraallest of all seeds ;
dormant awhile and undeveloped, like the
gerra of the moral sense and moral facul
ties ; yet taking the lead of thera ; able
to keep that lead, if duly cultivated and
Q 3

230 LECTURE VI.
watered by the refreshing dews of God's
grace, sought through his appointed means;
springing up in the goodly heritage, thus
mercifully reclaimed from the waste and
wilderness of sin; increasing day by day,
utterly abolishing the whole bddy of sin,
and bringing forth fruit unto holiness.
This a priori argument in favour of
Infant Baptisra, — or rather Infant Regene
ration, against which the objections are
urged, — would seera to follow from the
mere revelation, in conjunction with morals,
of a divine influence capable of supplying
the wants of huraan nature, and of ef
fecting that which the science which treats
of that nature had pointed out, as wanted
to enable it to fulfil its proper end. If the
moral truth be adraitted, as it raust, that in
order to fulfil the end of our being, the
passions are to be subdued, and the affec
tions engaged in a given course, limited in
the period of its coraraenceraent, only by
the limit placed to human powers ; and if
it be admitted that a divine influence is
given, able to effect that which reason had
pointed out as necessary, rather than as
within her reach, for controlling our nature

LECTURE VL 231
and directing it aright; it rests with the
opponents of Infant Regeneration to shew
why the limits which nature places to
unassisted human powers, should be made
to circumscribe the operation of a divine
power ; or how they reconcile their posi -
tion with the principle which pervades the
whole of God's dealings with his creatures
under every dispensation, in making them
first feel their wants and weakness while
without his covenant, and then shewing
how, to those within it, he can mercifully
and abundantly supply them.
Another important result of this defence
of the Church's principle is, the answer it
furnishes to the fallacy of what is, in popu
lar language, termed religious liberty, and
of supposing that men either possess the
power by nature, or have any authority in
revelation, for choosing a religion for them
selves ; as well as to the daring and unchris-
tian assertion, that religion is an affair
resting entirely between the conscience of
each individual and his God, with which no
other authority has any right to interfere.
It is a charge alleged against the Church
Q 4

232 LECTURE VI.
in every country, that she has claimed the
authority to preside over public instruction
and national education, and to prescribe
the course and the principle on which it
should be conducted, demanding that the
children of the state should be brought up
in her creed. Now that the Church sanc
tions such a principle as this, will not be
denied; which however is not the same
thing with claiming its adoption as a matter
of right, or enforcing it by civil penalties.
But if we inquire further, we shall find
that the authority is claimed by the State
rather than the Church — by churchraen
in their capacity of statesraen and civil
legislators, rather than as churchmen. We
shall find that the principle on which it is
founded, existed in morals and in nature,
before its adoption by the Church or by
revelation ; and that it is resolved not only
into the first principles of morals, but those
which actuate the universal practice of
mankind, from the highest duty which can
devolve on moral agents, to the lowest
instinctive impulse of humanity or of self-
preservation.

LECTURE VL 233
We learn frora the science of morals, nay
even frora a less accurate observation than
is required for philosophic investigation,
that if to raoral agents we wish to convey
moral impressions, and to create moral
habits, we raust begin early ; and that the
degree of success which raay attend our
instructions, will depend raainly on the
period at which we commence : that al
though, even then, the success is less than
we could have wished or expected, it is at
least more than we could attain by any
other huraan raeans, and certainly an ap
proach to that which we require. We
learn too, frora the sarae sources, that raen,
if left to theraselves, will never attain to
these habits; that they will never volun
tarily subject theraselves to the authority
necessary to put thera in a course of train
ing, or to the discipline necessary to con
tinue thera in it and to form their character
under it. Reason, philosophy, analogy,
experience, every thing is against such a
supposition. It is only by beginning in
childhood that we can expect, on any
acknowledged principles, that they can be

234 LECTURE VL
placed in a course of training and moral
discipline, or derive, in any effectual degree,
the formation of character and tone of
raind to be produced under it. We raight
as readily expect that children would vo
luntarily find out and place themselves
under the discipline, physical or raoral,
necessary for their present health or future
welfare, as that men would voluntarily
place themselves under those restraints,
and that moral discipline, which is essen
tially necessary for the developeraent and
strengthening of their raoral and intel
lectual powers.
No one who pretends to the slightest
knowledge of huraan nature will deny, that
this is the case with raen, considered merely
as moral and responsible agents, apart from
religious considerations, or the knowledge
of motives and assistance derived from
Revelation. If such was not the universal
practice of ancient governments, it was at
least their theory, — and a theory founded
on deep and comprehensive views of human
nature, and the science of man viewed in
his raoral and social relations. Such, too.

LECTURE VL 235
was the theory of whatever laid claim to
the philosophy of man's nature ; which was
not reduced to practice, only from obstacles
beyond the reach of control, and from the
existence of spurious principles founded on
the prejudices and ungoverned passions of
raankind, which raay at once be as far pro
nounced to have been unsuited to raan's
nature, raorally and politically, that when
raeasured by their consequences, spread
over a sufficiently large surface of tirae,
they are decided to have been intimately
connected, in the relation of cause and
effect, with the social degradation and
raoral deterioration of those who professed
thera. Why a principle which formed so essen
tial an ingredient in the raoral and political
philosophy of man, in its best days, when,
in the absence of revelation, it raust be
regarded as an irapartial description of
huraan nature as it really is, — why this
should be less advocated under the Gospel,
which is so peculiarly adapted to raan's
nature, is a paradox not difficult to explain,
but to which it would not be necessary to

236 LECTURE VL
advert at the present raoraent, further than
to observe, that the rejection of it by raany
professing the Gospel, especially the reasons
they allege for so doing when called upon
to defend it, forra the best testimony to the
truth of the principle, and shew unconsci
ously what the adoption of it would be,
under the Gospel, if truly and scripturaUy
followed up.
It was observed, however, that the Church
does sanction the adoption of this principle
in civil governraent, as applied to the bring
ing up, by authority, the children of the
state in her own creed. But then, as was
also observed, the adoption of it originates
with the state, the Church being only
secondarily a party to it : the principle
existed in our nature, and was recognised
in the philosophy of government, long before
it formed the ground of any connection
between the Church and the civil power.
And indeed, the principle itself being ad
mitted, as it raust on any acknowledged
theory of huraan nature, unless it can be
shewn that the Gospel is opposed to man's
nature or calculated to defeat the end of

LECTURE VL 237
his being as a raoral and responsible agent,
the application of the principle to the
Gospel, in the education of a nation, follows
as a necessary consequence. Surely the
common sense of duty, the common feelings
of humanity — feelings strong as instinct
could raake thera, which do not even wait
for a process of reasoning to justify thera
to our rainds, — these prescribe, that when
we are interested, not to say responsible,
for the welfare and happiness of others, we
use, whatever power we possess, to proraote
thera. Whether we have forraed right
views of what will conduce to their happi
ness and welfare, is a separate question :
but such as our views are, if we have the
power of carrying thera into effect, on what
principle should we hesitate to do so ? If
in raorals a given habit of raind, or in reli
gion a given forra of faith, is in our esti
raation calculated, if not necessary, to pro
raote these ; and if we feel that we
have the power of bringing thera to it ; in
what relation can we suppose ourselves
placed to thera, which would relieve us of
the duty of exercising that power ? and

238 LECTURE IV.
the raore convinced we were of being
ourselves right, the raore sure we felt of
success in endeavouring to conform their
views to ours, the more deterrained and
resolute should we be in our efforts to do
so, however disagreeable at the tirae to
thera. We should do this, on the same prin
ciple that we should prevent a raan frora
comraitting suicide, using even force if
necessary ; the only limit to the exercise
of our power being, any defect in the con
viction that we were ourselves right, and
in the grounds we possessed for expecting
success. It will be seen that we are discussing the
question, thus far, without reference to any
particular forra of faith, or any particular
condition of mind ; merely defending, as
an abstract question, the duty of every
state to educate its citizens in that parti
cular mode, whether as regards religion or
any other condition of raind or thought,
which it is itself convinced is most likely
to ensure their welfare and proraote their
best interests as moral and responsible
agents ; the only limitation being any

LECTURE VL 239
doubts they may have of the goodness of
the mode, or of the success which may
attend it. Now Revelation tells us, that
in addition to the value of early impres
sions and early habits, a divine influence is
capable of being iraplanted in the heart, to
enable it to be born again, to be forraed
anew; and that provision is raade for the
cultivation and increase of this divine prin
ciple, so that it may grow with our growth,
not only keeping pace with the growth of
the evil passions it is designed to conquer,
but maintaining the lead which was given
to it at its coraraenceraent. It tells us
how, to those who hold a certain faith, this
divine principle is to be obtained — how
increased — and likewise how it raay be lost.
Surely then, it raust be adraitted, on the
coraraonest principles of reason, that one
possessed of authority, whether an indi
vidual or raany, who believed this, who
was convinced that a particular form of
faith was essential to the well being of
those entrusted to him, would, on princi
ples of humanity alone, use all the power
he was possessed of, not indeed to force

240 LECTURE VL
conviction, as is unjustly charged against
the Church, (that were irrational and un
philosophical, as well as unwarranted by
any thing in God's word,) but to create
conviction by early training, such as raorals
would prescribe, by exercising parental
restraints, by removing, even by force,
which he may here use if necessary, what
ever is likely to injure what he conceives to
be the best interests of those dependent on
him, through vicious contaraination, exam
ple, or other interference with the principles
and general character, which he is desirous
of forraing within thera. This he would
do by the sarae right and duty as that by
which he would prevent thera frora com
raitting self-destruction. If force, to use
the expression, is justifiable in the one
case, (and where is the code of laws which
would not recognise it ? ) why is it less so
in the other ? or rather, why not mo7'e jus
tifiable, proportionately to the greater ira
portance of the point at stake ? The only
limit to the exercise of this power would
be that of his own convictions. If these
are settled, if he is sure that these opinions

LECTURE VL 241
or belief are essential to the well being of
his dependants ; if he feels that the surest,
at all events the most probable raode of
establishing them, is by an early and ex
clusive course of training in thera, and he
has the power to enforce this ; on what
principles of reason or of coraraon huraa
nity would he be justified in hesitating to
do so ? If he doubts the truth of his own
creed, the very fact of knowing that success
can be ensured, under a divine promise, to
the true faith, would lead hira, if consistent,
to find out, by every legitiraate raeans,
which was the true faith. This, even a
wise heathen, legislating on principles de
rived from a knowledge of human nature,
would prescribe for him ; and if he delayed
to enforce the authority he possessed, it
would only be till this question had been de
termined. Any delay without such plea, were
raost unreasonable ; and any delay founded
on this plea, yet unaccorapanied by the raost
active and careful inquiry for the purpose
of reraoving it, would be a sharaeful be
trayal of a sacred trust, for which the prin
ciples and practice of Heathenism, acting
R

242 LECTURE VL
by the light which had been vouchsafed to
it, would rise in judgment against hira.
Let it be adraitted, for arguraent's sake,
that a question may fairly arise, whether
the Church's Creed be the true one: then
let him investigate the subject in the mode
in which the subject itself professes to
be capable of investigation, and deterraine
which is the true creed. If those who
object to the Church's creed, were to en
deavour, with equal zeal, to substitute their
own for it, they would at least be ra
tional; but to be indifferent on the sub
ject, or to reraove the one without supplying
its place, betrays a want of acquaintance
with the nature and object of the Gospel,
an ignorance of huraan nature, or a most
culpable disregard of the claims of huraa
nity. Nothing can be raore unphilosophical,
as well as unscriptural, than what is terraed
liberality in raatters of faith. In raoral
subjects, no less than in demonstrative, of
two contradictory propositions only one can
be true at the sarae tirae. The truth may
be raore difficult to arrive at in raorals and
religion, than in physics, and therefore raen

LECTURE VL 243
are raore likely to dispute and differ re
specting it. This we raust expect; and did
contending parties, retaining this obvious
principle, join issue on the truth of their
respective creeds, and contend for their
exclusive adoption, they would be raore
difficult to reply to. The bigot, however
erroneous his creed, has more of reason and
philosophy on his side, than the (so called)
liberal or the lukewarra. We can raeet him
on sorae coraraon ground, and bring hira to
an issue ; while the other proceeds on a
principle disallowed alike by Morals and
Revelation. Without fixing the limits to
which charity raay go in tolerating differ
ence of belief, as soon as it is gravely main
tained that of two opposite creeds both raay
be right, the proposition is too raonstrous
to be listened to. There may be rights of
conscience, as they are terraed, as well as
rights of person ; but there raust also be
adraitted the right, where we possess the
power, to save frora ruin by the undue
exercise of the one, as well as of the other.
But it will perhaps be said, that the pro
test against any interference in the forma-
r2

244 LECTURE VI.
tion of religious belief, is grounded, not on
any assuraed indifference to the clairas of
opposing creeds, but upon the difficulty of
deterraining which, after all, is right : that
since there is obviously, as daily experience
shews, such great diversity of opinion acting
on the sarae data, and no appointed author
ity to decide between the clairas of each, it
is a raanifest injustice to assign the absolute
precedence to any one, in such a way as to
place a virtual prohibition on the exercise
of the others : that this liberty raay be
contended for under the existing circum
stances of the Christian world, without
encroaching on the principle, otherwise
adraitted, of enforcing uniforraity where
the standard of truth is sufficiently deter
minate. In reply to this, the Church clairas the
right to ask, whence and by what right
exists this variety of opinion and belief?
By what right is the principle assumed, the
adoption of which leads to this contrariety
of belief ? For it will be at once admitted,
that the variety in question arises from the
fallacy, before spoken of, of supposing that

LECTURE VI. 245
the Scriptures were given to us as that
from which each individual or body was at
liberty to deduce their own creed as they
think best, without any external or colla
teral assistance : that the Scripture in fact
is the rule and guide, as well as the stan
dard of faith. The Church therefore asks,
by what authority is this right assuraed?
For that it is not on the authority of
Scripture itself, we have seen before ; and
the challenge raay be here repeated to the
deductionist, to produce any authority
frora Scripture itself, in favour of his prin
ciple of deducing his creed from the Scrip
ture, instead of proving his creed, derived
frora sorae other source, by the Scripture.
The Church's principle, on the contrary,
for deterraining the truth of Christian doc
trine, viz.. Antiquity and Catholic Tradi
tion, in conjunction with Scripture — the one
supplying its forra, the other its proof — the
one being the guide, the other the stan
dard of faith, — was considered at some
length in a former Lecture, together with
the scriptural authority on which it rests.
But, in reply to the otherwise formidable
R 3

246 LECTURE VI.
objection to the atterapt authoritatively to
establish uniforraity in a matter admitting
of such contrariety of opinion, it raust be
here repeated, that it rests with our oppo
nents to shew that, on the Church's prin
ciple of determining the rule of faith, any
such contrariety of opinion would arise :
and this principle, it will be reraerabered,
was shewn to be perfectly scriptural, as well
as philosophical, being founded raainly on
the account which Scripture gives of itself
and of its origin, and of its relation to the
Christian verities. In this way the Church,
while requiring uniforraity, prescribes the
raode by which it will be attained, — a raode
too, not created by herself for the purpose
of defending her practice, but one coeval
with Christianity itself, corapletely con
firmed by Scripture, and the testiraony of
those whose name and authority, though
uninspired, the Church has ever held in
highest reverence. If, therefore, the Church,
while requiring uniformity of faith, provides
a rule competent to effect this, and defends
that rnle against its opponents on the cora
raon ground of its scriptural origin, surely

LECTURE VI. 247
it rests with the opponents to shew, either
that it is unscriptural, or else, that though
scriptural, it has in practice failed to pro
duce a more uniform systera of faith, than
the direct appeal to Scripture alone without
any intermediate or external guide : that
persons adopting this rule, have arrived at
a different faith from that which we hold.
Till one of these two cases has been shewn
to exist, viz., want of Scripture authority
for the rule, or its failing to produce uni
formity when fairly carried into practice ;
the objections to the principle of a compul
sory education of the children of the state
in the faith of the Church, founded on the
assuraed want of a sufficiently deterrainate
rule of faith, are incapable of being sus
tained. Now although the Church undoubtedly
sanctions the practice here spoken of, yet
the principle on which it is founded existed
before, in the constitution of our nature,
and is coeval with the creation of that
nature .
Moreover it will be seen, that the prac
tice, having reference to principles and
R 4

248 LECTURE VI.
designed to raeet wants which belong to
man in every stage of his moral and social
existence — wants which were acknowledged
and attempted to be provided for by the
adoption of the like principle, prior to the
knowledge of the Christian Revelation, — it
will be seen that the practice originates
with the state rather than the Church,
being rendered necessary to raen in their
civil and social, independently of their
religious relations. A governraent founded
on a proper knowledge of the raoral nature
of raan, and of what is requisite to fit hira
for the end of his being, in his raoral and
political relations, would necessarily main
tain the principle of educating its citizens
in that tone of raind, and condition of
thought, which it deeraed best calculated
to proraote their true interests. And if it
deeraed that the principles and belief of
the Church Catholic were best calculated
for this end, it is difficult to say on what
principle of consistency it could fail of
adopting thera ; or with what plea of jus
tice coraplaints could be brought against
the Church itself, as assuraing to itself a

LECTURE VL 249
secular authority, raerely because the state,
as an independent agent, holding itself re
sponsible for the proper education of its
children, and conceiving that the principles
of the Church are such as it ought to pre
scribe for that object, uses its legitiraate
authority, not, as was observed before, to
enforce conviction, but to provide that her
people shall be trained in them, and to
suppress, by the civil authority, whatever
raay have a tendency to cause thera to
offend and fall away from thera. It is strange
that raen will overlook this obvious distinc
tion in the functions of the Church and
civil power respectively, in this connection,
and cite, as an arguraent against the prac
tice, our Lord's declaration, that " His
" kingdora was not of this world." This
would be valid if the Church, as the Church,
claimed the right of enforcing conformity
to its faith and discipline by civil author
ity; but on what plea can it be urged as
an argument to prevent the State, as the
State, from educating those for whora she
feels responsible, in that condition of raind
and thought, by which she feels she can

250 LECTURE VI.
best discharge to her own conscience that
soleran obligation ?
The Church itself rests on no huraan
power for support : she relies on a divine
agency — she trusts to a divine promise :
she instructs in her faith and extends her
covenanted blessings, by means and instru
raents appointed for the purpose by her
Divine Founder ; raeans consonant to rea
son herself, and which had previously re
ceived, as far as the tendency of unassisted
reason could give it, the sanction of the
best and wisest decisions of huraan philoso
phy. She clairas no right to inflict punish
ment on raen here, beyond that which, by
the laws of nature, is inherent in every
society, — the right to exclude frora her cora
raunion, and whatever benefits raay be con
nected with it, those who will not conform
to her laws. If, from the circumstance of
a civil power incorporating her principles
with its own, the exclusion frora her cora
raunion leads to an abridgraent of what
are terraed civil rights ; surely it were raost
unjust and unreasonable that this loss,
which is purely accidental on the part of

LECTURE VL 251
the Church, should be charged on her, as
though it were an essential part of her
provisions. If the state should deera that
some heretical creed were preferable, or
more ScripturaUy true, and were to deter
raine that her children should be educated
in that creed, and that those only who pro
fess it should be adraitted to offices of
trust and power, surely it were most un
just to charge on that creed, or the sect
that professed it, the restraints or temporal
disabilities to which raen were raade liable
in a relation purely civil.
Doubtless the Church goes further than
Sectarianisra in sanctioning the principle;
but it does so, because it is more in con
forraity with the principles which regulate
huraan nature, to which men must, after
all, revert in their theories of civil govern
ment, and frora which, in Christian states,
they are only frighted, paradoxical as it
raay seem, because they are Christian —
because, if they act upon the principles
most suited to huraan nature as such, those
principles are so essentially those of the
Church, that it is difficult to adopt the one

252 LECTURE VL
without the other; — and if the Sectarian
spirit is possessed of sufficient secular
power to prevent the principles of the
Church frora being acted upon in the
State, the latter must, in abandoning thera,
abandon also those principles of legislation
and governraent, which, putting revelation
aside, would have been adopted, and were
adopted, frora the necessity of the case, as
exhibited by the nature and actual condi
tion of raan, viewed in his moral and social
relations. Yet, surely, if the question is dispassion
ately considered, it will not be raaintained,
as it virtually is by those whose principles
we are combating, that a statesman raust
betray his duty, as a statesman, because he
happens also to be a churchraan ; or that a
churchraan is to renounce his principles as
a churchraan, because he happens also to be
possessed of civil power. For exaraple — if
a statesraan feels, as every wise one raust,
that it is his duty to train the children of
the state in the best forra of Christian
faith, and to provide raeans for their con
tinuance in it afterwards ; is he, because

LECTURE VL 253
Christ's kingdom is not of this world, nor
dependent on the arm of flesh, to neglect
the duty incumbent on him, and the au
thority vested in hira, in the parental
relation of civil governor, to provide that
those dependent on him shall be brought
up in the fear and nurture of the Lord,
and that no offence shall come to the little
ones entrusted to him ? What parent would
act thus in regard to his own children ?
Why is the parental relation of the state less
real, or its obligations less binding ? why
are the restraints and compulsions to be
charged on the civil governor as a Church
man, which he exercises in his relation of
statesman f Or, on the other hand, if a
Churchraan feels that he raust, by the pro
visions of his faith, begin in infancy with
those whom he would instruct in the faith
of Christ, and that he cannot expect a
blessing on his labours, unless he watch the
seed which he has sown, and keep frora it
whatever, in the way of influence or ex
araple, raay tend to injure it or irapede its
growth ; if he acts thus in regard to his
own children, and feels that, as civil go-

254 LECTURE VL
vernor, he possesses the power to act in the
like raanner towards the children of the
state ; is he, possessing this power, to dis
regard the clairas of humanity, and to
refuse to exercise it, on the principle that
Christ's kingdom is not of this world ? Will
it be seriously and gravely maintained, even
by the lowest Sectarianism, that our Lord's
words can be applied to a case like this ?
that the authority to enforce a given course
of education, is to be confounded with the
attempt to force personal conviction when
the habits and belief are already formed ?
or that the right to suppress expressions of
opinion prejudicial to the eternal welfare
of those for whom we are responsible, is to
be confounded with the principle, which is
not contended for, of punishing by huraan
penalties, opinions, as opinions, without
reference to their effect on the welfare of
others when attempted to be propagated ''?
Because the Gospel, by the omnipotent
^ The confusion of these two cases is as if a state
were accused of punishing a man for his bodily infirmities,
because it prevented him from spreading an infectious
disease, or affixed civil penalties to those who should

LECTURE VI. 255
power of grace, mw, as it has done, triumph
over all the evils which the craft or subtlety
of the devil or raan can work against it;
is it therefore better that those evils should
continue, and that no huraan power ^should
be used to reraove thera ? (which is virtu
ally iraplied in the assertion, that the Gospel
should receive no assistance from the civil
power because in its divine strength it can,
if needs be, do without it.)
Then raight we on the sarae principle
tolerate an infidel persecution, nor afford
the Christian the protection of the law in
the free exercise of his faith, because in the
first ages (and we believe that the sarae
result would ensue now under the like cir
curastances not of our own creation) the
Christian faith increased in the raidst of
persecution, and grew abundantly when
watered by the blood of martyrs.
It will be urged, however, against the
principle in question, that this is the very
principle objected to in the Roman Church,
wilfully do so. The penal laws enacted in some countries
respecting inoculation, furnish a case somewhat in point ;
as do also quarantine laws.

256 LECTURE VL
by which she endeavours, as a duty, to
make all, nations as well as individuals,
conform to her own creed ; and that for
this reason it is not considered safe to en
trust with civil power those who profess it.
In reply to which, it raay be said that the
principle of the Roraan Church here spoken
of, is, as a principle, right, whether referred
to the decision of the Gospel or of reason;
and were her doctrines also true, and her
faith pure, according to the Church's ac
knowledged rule and standard of faith, her
practice would be corapletely defensible.
But the latter condition cannot be shewn
to exist on the part of the Roraan Church:
we reply to her, (though this is not the
place to enter on the subject,) that she is in
error on points of faith, not only on the
Sectarian principle that the Bible alone,
without any external aid, is the guide and
rule of faith ; not only on the Church's
principle, of Antiquity and Catholic Tra
dition in conjunction with Holy Scripture
being the rule of faith ; but even on her
own avowed principle, that of Antiquity
and Catholic Tradition, though unsupported

LECTURE VL 257
by Scripture. We tell her that her tenets
will not abide the test even of Antiquity
and Priraitive Tradition; that, besides
being unscriptural in their foundation, they
are the interpolations of a later date, ex
crescences as it were adhering to the body
of Catholic doctrine, thrown out by an
unhealthy and anti-catholic state of the
Church's systera, the date of whose intro
duction, long since the Apostolic days, raay
be ascertained by reference to the doctrinal
history of the Church. Knowing this, we
do not regard her faith as pure, nor deem
her a fit guardian of public instruction,
or raore fit to be entrusted with the forraa
tion and protection of a nation's creed, than
the various sects who constitute the other
extreme of heresy. But her principle of
establishing conformity to the creed she
professes to hold, we must admit on any
acknowledged principles of Morals or of
Revelation. In this consists the true theory
of the connection between the Church and
the State. This is the raeaning of the pro
phecy in Isaiah, (xlix. 23.) " Kings shall be
" thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy
s

258 LECTURE VL
" nursing mothers." Not, as is too cora
raonly supposed, that they shall foster the
Church itself, or that the Church either
needs their support, or will surrender its
independence to them ; but that the civil
power shall bring its own children to the
Church, carry them in its arms, tending
the children of the Church, but as a nurse
{TiBrjvos "), and in that capacity ministering,
as servant, not as ruler, to the Church.
The connection of the Church with the
State, thus established, originates, as a prin
ciple, with each in the same degree perhaps ;
with the State, as prescribing for the good
of its members, on principles adapted to
the nature and wants of men ; while the
Church, being in conformity with the sarae
principles, cannot but sanction the sarae
course, though possessed of a divine power
and proraise to effect her own object with
out huraan aid. The exercise of power,
however, to produce conforraity to the
Church, originates with the State in her
relation of guardian to her subjects, for
<= Cf. Numbers xi. 12.

LECTURE VL 259
whose best and highest interests she is
responsible. The objection, that the in
stant the two characters are united in the
same person, force is used — in other words,
that the instant the Church obtains civil
power, she uses that to reraove offences
from her children ; or that the instant the
statesman becomes a Churchraan, he uses
his secular authority to proraote the exten
sion of his faith — this very objection is but
the substance and fulfilment of Isaiah's
prophecy cited above : it points to the
relation which, in a healthy state of things,
the State will necessarily bear to the
Church, as the nurse, so to say, of her
children. Another application of the same prin
ciple should here be noticed, which, al
though it does not fall so immediately
within the province of these Lectures, yet
is too intiraately connected with the sub
ject, as a branch of it, and of too great
local interest, independently of its own
intrinsic iraportance, to be passed over in
silence. For it is on the sarae principle of
biassing the raind in the forraation of reli-
s 2

260 LECTURE VL
gious belief, as being in its nature essen
tially connected with our moral constitu
tion, and in its results one to which we
have the hope of success founded on a
divine promise, save through our own fault
in neglecting or abusing the means, — that
we best defend our academical practice of
subscription to the Articles of Religion —
viewed, that is, as a religious question ; — for
as a prelirainary to a course of education
in moral subjects, such as forra our studies
here, it rests on different grounds — those of
necessity — frora the circurastance that, from
the very nature of things, there raust exist
in the pupil some bias, or tone of mind and
thought, from their relation to which facts
acquire an existence to his raind ; and that
to expect a raind to be entirely devoid of it,
would be little le^s unreasonable than to
expect a vacuura to exist in nature: that
therefore, in giving what we conceive to
be a good condition of raind, we only pre
occupy by good what raust otherwise, in
the very nature of things, have been pre
occupied by sorae other, and perhaps a bad
condition of thought.

LECTURE VL 261
Viewed, however, in relation to reli
gious belief alone, the practice will find
its best defence in the principle discus
sed in this and the preceding Lecture,
respecting the formation of habits and
moral perceptions. The objections urged
against it, lie with equal force against every
application of the principle, under which
our moral habits and perceptions are neces
sarily the offspring, in the first instance, of
bias and prejudice, and of a certain course
of training under the guidance and author
ity of others. The objection that the
persons subscribing may be, frora ignorance
or other circurastances, incorapetent to
form an . opinion, would lie equally against
the requiring from a child the confession
of faith embodied in the Apostles' Creed,
and involved in his repetition of the Church
Catechism. It would lie against the de
raand which nevertheless we are obliged
to raake in all raoral subjects, from the
highest to the lowest, of the assent of the
disciple to our judgraent, without refer
ence to proof, on the sole authority of our
assertion. s 3

262 LECTURE VI.
It is not, however, an opinion which we
require, but a confession of faith ; raade,
if you will, in blind reliance on the author
ity and judgraent of others, — not however
on the authority of casual persons, but,
which involves the whole question, on the
authority of those towards whora there
previously exists a relation, involving a
raoral obligation to obey and confide in
thera. This childlike subraission of the judg
raent to others for a tirae, which pervades
the whole systera of raorals as well as Reve
lation, is corapletely reconciled to the rainds
of those who raake the deraand, by the
conviction that they are theraselves right,
and that those of whora they require this,
will assuredly, save through neglect of the
necessary raeans, attain ultiraately to the
same raind, if they possess it not already.
How far the views in favour of which we
create this prejudice are right — in other
words, how far the Creed of the Church is
capable of defence and proof, is a question
not necessary to enter into for the defence
of the principle in question.

LECTURE VI. 263
Now the application of the Church's
principle in these several instances, it will
be said, is bigotry, and opposed to every
received notion of liberality and the rights
of conscience. Probably it is. Truth is
bigoted and exclusive, and it is its unbend
ing character, its unchanging nature, that
arras the prejudices of raankind against it,
especially when it interferes with their pas
sions or their interests. Moreover, popular
ignorance on subjects of raoral truth, en
ables men to assail it without laying thera
selves open, in the eyes of the raany, to the
charge of folly and ignorance whenever
they assail it, as would be the case if they
assailed in like raanner the principles of
physical and deraonstrative science. The
sarae assaults would be raade, however, on
demonstrative truth, if it interfered in like
manner with their passions and interests,
and if they could be protected in their
folly by a similar degree of popular igno
rance. A proof of this raight be seen in
the outcry which was raised at the first
intiraation of many discoveries in natural
science, as long as the outcry was protected
s 4

264 LECTURE VL
by popular ignorance. However raen's
passions raight have been at first excited
by the contradiction supposed to be involv
ed in these to the Mosaic account of the
creation, yet popular knowledge has long
since advanced beyond that point at which
any such objection would be alleged, and
the outcry has long died away.
On raorals however, and on moral subjects,
there is so much popular ignorance, that in
ordinary society, and to ordinary readers, a
man may boldly advance statements as un
reasonable as the denial of the theory of
the solar system, or of the principle of gra
vitation, without injuring the reputation
for comraon sense or ordinary knowledge,
of which every man would naturally be
tenacious. We raight mention, among other
instances of this, the credence given, or at
best the indifference shewn, to the assertion
that we are not responsible for our opin
ions on moral and religious subjects ; that
our belief does not depend upon ourselves ;
the denial of the raoral sense, or the doc
trine of expediency, as gravely propounded
by Paley and adopted by his followers now ;

LECTURE VL 265
all of which are denials of eleraentary
truths in raorals, to which in demonstrative
science would correspond, the denial of the
fact that earth revolved round the sun,
because to the eye it seemed otherwise, — or
that the antipodes of the globe could be
attracted to the same centre of gravity with
ourselves. The popular knowledge on
raorals does not extend beyond the point,
corresponding to that at which, in natural
philosophy, these truths are proved. And
an audience doubtless might be found
araong the uneducated, before whora one
so disposed raight successfully deny these
very sarae truths in natural philosophy.
The contempt, however, in which such
miserable fallacies would be held by any
educated person, would not exceed that felt
by those possessed of a moderate acquaint
ance with raorals or huraan nature, at the
assertion of our irresponsibility for opinions
and belief, the doctrine of expediency, or
the denial of the moral sense : or if this con-
terapt is not felt, it is frora being absorbed
in the deeper and raore intense feeling of
indignation at those who can thus trifle with

266 LECTURE VI.
the eternal interests of those whora they
raislead, with some admixture of pity at their
own fatal blindness. But no human decision,
no human changes, no human concessions
to the passions and prejudices of men, can
affect the irarautable character of truth,
physical or raoral. No liberality of senti-
raent can change the laws of gravity, affect
the relations of quantity, or alter the pro
perties of raatter. As little can it affect
moral and revealed truth. No liberality of
feeling can affect the unchangeable nature
of the eternal Godhead. No liberality of
faith can raake the death of Christ an
erapty narae, nor render the atoneraent of
his precious blood needless to sinners : for
surely this is iraplied in that unholy saying,
which it was reserved for a superficial and
irreligious age to produce—that " it matters
" little what faith we hold provided we are
" sincere"— in other words, that the atone
raent of the blood of Christ, and the rege
nerating influence of the Holy Spirit, are
unnecessary to those who deem them unneces
sary ! If we believe a pure faith to be
essential to everlasting salvation, no liberal-

LECTURE VI. 267
ity can absolve us from the duty, where we
possess the power, of training and keeping
in it those dependent upon us. Let every
raan render an account of his own belief to
the Searcher of all hearts. No huraan
power will interfere with it, while he con
fines it to hiraself: he raay then revel in
his favourite maxim, that it is a question
between his own conscience and his God ;
and confound eternal truth with the hal
lucinations of a perverted and reprobate
mind. But when such raen atterapt to
infect the minds of others for whose spi
ritual condition we feel responsible, the
case is widely different : we then claira the
right to interfere, not as upholding divine
truth by the arra of civil power, but on
principles of justice and humanity, for the
protection of those coraraitted to us by God.
When thus interfered with, raen are
too ready to cry out against the infringe
ment on their religious liberty, and the
interference with the rights of conscience ;
they complain of the injustice of being
punished for their religious belief They
are not punished for this, but for mak-

268 LECTURE VL
ing those opinions, by giving them pub
licity, injurious to the eternal welfare of
those whose spiritual condition we have it
in our power, as a sacred trust, to promote;
and for whom we are, to a proportionate
extent, accountable. And any erroneous
opinions which, in our estimation, are cal
culated to injure that, we do claira the
right to denounce and suppress, on the
sarae principle as that by which we should
oppose the introduction of a contagious
disease. The Christian statesman is not so
ignorant of the raoral nature of raan, as
to iraagine that he can correct, by the
exercise of civil power, inveterate habits
confirraed by a long course of raOral
neglect. He is not so ignorant of the pro
visions of the Gospel of Christ, as to iraagine
that he can effect, by civil penalties, what
it is reserved for divine power and raercy
alone to effect — to reclaira the evil heart
of unbelief brought on by continued resist
ance to grace and light. But as hiraself one
of the household of Christ — as responsible
for those whora God has entrusted to hira, iri
however sraall a degree — as possessed of an

LECTURE VI. 269
iraraortal soul, which must hereafter render
account of the way in which he has dis-
discharged that solemn trust — he has a
right to reraeraber the awful denunciation
which is addressed to hira, if, having the
power to proraote Christ's kingdora, we fail
to exercise it, and thereby becorae par
taker with those who would offend the
little ones whora Christ would have in part
saved through his instruraentality, — " It
" must needs be that offences corae, but woe
" unto hira through whora the offence
" coraeth."

LECTURE VII.

TRADITION AND THE WITNESS OF THE CHURCH
ILLUSTRATED BY ANALOGY, AND
ITS ADAPTATION TO OUR MORAL NATURE.

Romans x. 10.
With the heart man believeth unto righteousness.
THE defence ofthe principle asserted on
behalf of the Church, of prepossessing
the mind and will in favour of particular
views of Scripture and of specific doctrines,
before coming to the study of the Holy
Scriptures themselves, is distinct from the
question whether the views and doctrines
thus instilled are theraselves right; as it is
also frora the grounds on which the Church
professes to have determined thera.
Hitherto we have been defending the
principle in question against those whose

LECTURE VII. 271
objections to it are not fraraed with refer
ence to any particular creed ; who, even if
their own views of doctrine were admitted
to be right, yet profess to object, as a prin
ciple, to prejudicing the raind in favour of
thera, however in practice they are led, as
experience uniformly shews, to act in oppo
sition to their avowed principle.
That some previous bias or prepossession
would be designed by its divine Author, on
the assumption that the Gospel was adapt
ed to our raoral nature, would appear from
the principle and practice observed in re
gard to all moral truth, both in comrauni-
cating it, and in forraing the character and
habits under it ; and frora the iraprobability
that God would have left us without the
raeans of forming a similar preconception,
and of giving a similar bias, in this the
raost iraportant subject of all ; and this
raore especially, when it is adraitted by all
that that to which we raust eventually
refer as our standard and proof, is capable
of various and opposite interpretations. To
which raay be added the testiraony fur
nished by universal practice, even of those
who professedly object to the principle in

272 LECTURE VII.
question, all of whora nevertheless act upon
it, and before they place the Scriptures in
the hands of their disciples, prepossess their
rainds with their own tenets, though they
reject those of the Church.
It should be remerabered, however, that
the arguraent in favour of the principle
drawn frora its adaptation to our raoral
nature, is quite independent of that in
volved in the fact, as related in the New
Testaraent itself, that the Christian Church
is, by raany years, antecedent to the Chris
tian Scriptures, and that the latter are ad
dressed to those already instructed in the
chief doctrines.
There are, then, three questions to be
kept distinct one frora the other.
I. The principle itself of biassing the
raind, as such.
II. The rule by which we are to ascer
tain the views and doctrines in favour of
which that bias is to be exercised.
III. Whether the views and doctrines
which we profess to have deterrained by
this rule, and in favour of which we bias the
raind, can be shewn to be correct according
to that rule.

LECTURE VIL 273
It is necessary to keep these questions
distinct, because raany, while differing
with us respecting the origin and descent
of the Christian doctrines, yet hold thera
as doctrines, though on different grounds;
and likewise adrait the principle of pre
possessing the disciple, and of biassing his
raind in favour of them. In defending,
therefore, the principle of a bias, and the
practice of previous teaching, before giving
the Scriptures to read, we raake common
cause with those who, while they agree with
us in regard to doctrine and discipline, yet
differ from us as to the rule by which they
are to be tried, against the Sectarian and
Rationalist, who protest against biassing the
mind by any previous instruction, or fetter
ing it by any restrictions whatever.
Of these three questions, then, the first
we have considered already.
Of the other two, that which regards the
specific proofs of our own creed, we maj
leave, as not falling within the scope of the
present work, the object of which is not to
defend the particular Creed of the Church,
save indirectly, so rauch as to vindicate the

274 LECTURE VII.
grounds on which we profess to receive it,
and to defend the principle, which we
raaintain, of teaching it by Creeds and
Catechisms and Formularies generally, and
of thoroughly prepossessing the mind and
will in favour of it, before referring to the
proofs of it in Holy Scripture. The de
fence of the doctrines theraselves, as regards
our present object, would not be necessary,
to the Churchraan, who adraits thera, while
together with him we have to defend our
raode of teaching them ; nor to the Secta
rian, who, even were the doctrines ad
mitted, would, if consistent, still deny the
Church's principle of instruction.
In leaving this question, however, it
should be observed, that if, to suppose a
case, the doctrines in question should here
after be proved to be untrue, that even
this would not invalidate the principle here
contended for, for determining the truth pf
doctrines ; and that if we should be obliged
to form an entirely new form of faith and
body of doctrine, we should still have to
forra it on the sarae principle, and to abide
by the sarae rule of faith.

LECTURE VIL 275
It reraains, therefore, for us to proceed
with the question of Tradition, or the Tes
tiraony of the Church under whatever
name, being an element in determining our
rule of faith — subject, in all cases, to the
ultimate appeal to Holy Scripture. Or
rather it reraains for us to raeet sorae of
the objections brought against it.
The Scripture arguraent in favour of it
was developed at sorae length in the third
and fourth Lectures. We raay, however,
here adduce, as was done in reference to
the Church's principle of instruction, the
collateral arguraents furnished by analogy
and its adaptation to our raoral nature.
And in doing this our arguraent is with all
who deny it : we cannot, as in the question
of a bias, raake coraraon cause with the
orthodox deductionist; but are corapelled
to class hira, for the tirae, with those who,
on every other point, are opposed to hira.
In this case also, the arguraent will assurae
a twofold shape, as regards the degree
of force of which it may be deemed capa
ble in the estiraation of different persons.
It may be shewn, for exaraple, that the
T 2

276 LECTURE VII.
objections urged against Tradition, lie with
equal force against other sirailar principles
raaintained by the objectors — that they
prove too rauch. To those again who raay
be disposed to carry the arguraent further,
it raay be shewn, that the principle is no
raore than raight have been expected ante
cedently, on the assuraption that it would
be analogous to that observed in parallel
cases of raoral evidence.
Now the objections alleged against Tra
dition are raainly these : —
That it is at best an uncertain and un
satisfactory guide, and one in no way adapt
ed to a subject of this raagnitude, though
nothing definite were proved against it ; —
that as it is, it has corae to us through
channels adraitted on all sides to have
been in many things corrupt ; — that it has
in practice been grossly and notoriously
abused, and been cited to substantiate doc
trines adraitted to be unwarrantable ; and
that it leads to Popery.
Before noticing these objections, we might
be allowed to ask, what is the aim and ob
ject of Christian doctrines, as regards the

LECTURE VII. 277
life and practice of those who hold them ?
What is the kind of faith by which they
are received ? Is it intellectual, or does it
partake of, in any degree, a raoral charac
ter? What is the kind of evidence and proof
best adapted to, and calculated to exercise,
that kind of faith, involving, as it does to a
considerable degree, a raoral probation ?
Is it deraonstrative or moral ? And, lastly,
are the difficulties and objections in the
way of Tradition, which are said to be
against its use, such as are unsuited to that
moral probation ? On the answers to be
given to these several questions, will raainly
depend the force of the objections men
tioned above.
Of the objections generally, it raight be
shewn that they prove too rauch; that they
lie also against the proofs of the genuineness
of Scripture, and likewise the testiraony of
rairacles ; both of which, as was observed in
a forraer Lecture, rest on traditional evi
dence. In short, if pushed to their full ex
tent, they would go to invalidate all testi
raony whatever of things past, if not human
testimony generally. T 3

278 LECTURE VIL
As the objector is assumed to admit the
genuineness and authenticity of the written
Scripture, it would be sufficient, for the
purpose of replying to him, to shew that
his objections to Catholic Tradition He also
against the forraer. This mode of reply,
however, raight appear to sorae to be
open to a serious practical objection on
another ground, as tending, not so rauch
to strengthen and confirra Tradition, as to
weaken Scripture itself. Now even if it
should have this tendency on the minds of
some, it is no more than what all elenchtic
arguraents raust, frora their very nature, be
liable to. At the sarae time, if ever they
should be found practically to be attended
with this result, it might be shewn that
they are the occasion rather than the cause
of it ; that the same habit of raind which
would raise doubts on the parallel case to
which they were designed to reply, would
not, as a habit or test of character, be made
worse by it, having already adraitted the
principle, which would not be affected in
its raoral character or responsibility by
shewing its practical application ; while on

LECTURE VIL 279
the other hand, as a mere tendency, or the
result of ignorance not forraed into a habit,
it raay be checked, and raay serve to sug
gest watchfulness and self discipline, by
shewing that our thoughts may unwarily
betray us into the adraission of principles,
frora which our habits and feelings are as
yet corapletely abhorrent. Strictly speaking,
those who use arguments of this nature,
are not responsible for the consequences to
which they may lead. They raerely take
up their opponents' own principle, the ten
dency of which they have an unquestion
able right, as it is also their duty, to point
out ; and whatever evils raay possibly arise
from this, are chargeable solely on those
who first advance the position. If, for
example, the arguraent by which Bishop
Butler shews that the grounds of the Deist's
objections against Revelation lead to Athe-
isra, should ever, as has been objected,
lead any one to that result, the responsibi
lity would unquestionably lie with the Deist
who first advanced those grounds, not with
hira who pointed out their natural and
necessary consequence : the conclusion was
T 4

280 LECTURE VIL
involved in the premiss previous to its de
veloperaent. The same answer may be given to any
objections which may be urged against
shewing the application of the Sectarian's
arguraent against Catholic Tradition, to the
grounds of our belief in the genuineness
and authenticity of Holy Scripture. At
the sarae time, the justification of the use
of an arguraent does not preclude us from
pointing out any further positive benefits
resulting frora it, although its negative and
refutative character raight absolve us frora
any obligation to do so. In the present
instance, it raight be shewn that the
alleged objections, which are asserted to
lie alike against Tradition and the genu
ineness and authenticity of Scripture, so far
frora invalidating either, afford a presurap
tion in favour of both, when viewed in
reference to their object, the subjects with
which they are conversant, and our own
raoral constitution. And further, that the
reserablance of the two, in regard to the
alleged objections against each, affords a
presuraption of their proceeding from the

LECTURE VIL 281
sarae Author. We raay therefore take the
arguraents against Catholic Tradition out
of the Sectarian's hands, and apply thera
to our own purpose.
The evidence by which the Church
establishes the identity of her doctrines
with those of the Apostolic days, is, both
in regard to its objections and its force,
analogous to that on which we are cora
pelled to rest the genuineness of the
Christian Scriptures. Like that, it rests
partly on probabilities independent of di
rect testiraony ; partly on tradition and
historical testimony : like that, it is in its
nature, moral, not demonstrative evidence :
like that, it is defective and open to raany
objections to those disposed to find thera — ¦
who require more deraonstrative proof than
the case either admits of, or would bear
without defeating its object as a raoral
trial ; and who want the raoral state of the
heart, which the subject itself avows to be
an essential eleraent in belief. Whatever
raay be alleged against the evidences of
the one, lie against the other. And fur
ther, it raay be contended that the pecu-

282 LECTURE VIL
liarities objected to in the one, are no
raore than raight be expected, on the as
suraption, which few would refuse to con
cede, that they would be analogous to those
of the other. And here, in strict justice,
we might be content to leave the question,
as regards those who, while they unhesitat
ingly adrait the genuineness and authen
ticity of the Scriptures on such evidence
as the case adraits of, and that evidence
furnished by the Church's historical records,
yet object to the very sarae kind of evi
dence, though furnished by the sarae au
thority, when applied to substantiate the
genuineness of Catholic doctrines. Nor, as
was observed before, if to any one the
result of this mode of argument should be,
to shake the evidence of Scripture rather
than confirra that of the doctrines, does
the responsibility rest with us, who raerely
take up our opponents own arguraent, and
eraploy against them a weapon which they
had previously put in operation against us.
We may, however, without incurring any
risk of this kind, or of unsettling the minds
of those who believe in the Christian Scrip-

LECTURE VIL 283
tures, now take the arguraent entirely out
of the hands of the Sectarian, and proceed
to shew that the objections which might
be alleged against the evidence in either
case, lie with equal force against testimony
of every kind, in subjects not purely de
raonstrative. And even beyond this, that
the objections alleged are no more than
raight have been expected antecedently, on
the assuraption, either that the systera pur
sued in either case would be analogous to
that pursued in every other dependent on
raoral evidence, or that it would be calcu
lated to proraote its own object in reference
to our moral trial, by suitable correspond
ent raeans.
Without going very deeply or at any
length into the subject, it raay be observed
that, putting miracles aside, facts, of what
ever kind, can only be known in two ways,
by our senses, and by human testimony.
Past facts, antecedent to our own raeraory,
are of course excluded frora the subjects of
sense, and are therefore, in the absence of
a rairacle, referred to testimony alone. This
at once involves a new principle and ele-

284 LECTURE VIL
ment of belief, comprehending confidence
in sorae other person towards whom there
exists a relation demanding that confidence,
and a state of mind willing to concede it,
but which may, under circumstances, be
induced to withhold it. The knowledge of
our own informant raay have been the result
either of his own senses, or of a simi
lar testimony frora another, involving the
like confidence and like grounds for be
lieving. In short, the instant the fact in
question is antecedent to the memory of
those from whora we receive it, the testi
mony itself requires testimony ; and the
force of this testiraony, supported by no
other, will obviously be dirainished, at each
successive link in the chain.
Again, this testiraony raay be delivered
either orally, such as would seem to have
been the case with the knowledge possessed
by those who Uved before Moses, of the
creation, the fall, the promise to Eve, the
deluge, the call of Abrahara, the promises
raade to his seed — in fact, of all the events
whicll had occurred, save those which they
had personally witnessed : or it might be

LECTURE VIL 285
transraitted by sorae visible record, such as
a book, or a raonument, or an institution
founded on it and designed to commemo
rate it, such as an annual or other period
ical festival ; or by one which, though inde
pendent of it, might be associated with it,
and designed to transrait and perpetuate it.
Or again, the testimony might be trans
raitted by a raethod corabining both of
these, either successively or conjointly — e. g.,
it raight be transraitted orally for a certain
tirae, and subsequently coraraitted to some
record of a raore permanent character,
whether a book, raonuraent, or institution ;
as is the case with the facts related by
any historian, as having occurred previous
to the period where he takes up the nar
rative of events of which he has been per
sonally a witness : or it raight be trans
raitted by a visible record or raonuraent
from the beginning, the genuineness of
which is itself supported by an oral tra
dition running parallel to it.
The perraanent visible record we are
accustomed to regard, naturally, as raore
satisfactory than mere oral transraission.

286 LECTURE VIL
being necessarily more continuous, and less
likely to be changed; — and one raade up
of both of these successively, we regard as
more satisfactory than the- one, though less
so than the other. Strictly speaking, how
ever, they will not be so distinct, nor so
widely different, nor so independent of
each other, as might at first appear. For
admitting that a fact has been committed
to writing, or any other record, either at
the time or subsequently, yet it is obvious
that the genuineness of this record itself
requires proof, which ultimately must be,
for the most part, oral testimony — the cir
curastance that it was always regarded as
such, and as such handed down. Or if
substantiated by other perraanent records,
these latter again becorae the subjects of
this oral traditional testiraony. It is only
shifted frora one to the other, and placed a
stage farther off in the chain of evidence.
The genuineness of the written record
raust be supported by this traditional tes
tiraony, or by that which is so supported.
Even a raonument, lasting as the pyramids,
cannot authenticate, unsupported, its own

LECTURE VIL 287
origin and history beyond the raeraory of
living witnesses : all prior to that, is a
matter of tradition in some shape. Even
the genuineness of the Law, preserved in
the Ark, would only have been known by
this testimony, in the absence of a miracle.
Not that there is any objection to this, —
it is the only testimony which can be pro
vided of things past, except by a rairacle ;
and it is precisely the kind of proof calcu
lated for beings placed in a state of raoral
probation. It is not necessary now to enter into
the raore subtle question how the per
manent record and oral testiraony support
each other, and appear to alternate and to
intertwine, as it were, so as to weave the
sufficiently corapact body of raoral evidence
which we have of things past ; because we
shall have occasion presently to refer it to
another principle, which forras an essential
element in determining a standard of truth.
Let it be observed, however, that we pos
sess, for the different parts of the Christian
faith, each pf the three kinds of testiraony
just described. The transraission of the

288 LECTURE VIL
facts themselves, on which our faith is
founded, rests on written record from the
very coraraenceraent, as contained in Holy
Scripture. Again, the genuineness of the
written record itself has been transraitted
by the other two. At first it was by oral
testimony : soon however it was committed
to writing in various ways. The genuine
ness of this testiraony is again the subject
of other testiraony, now written — now un
written — now running parallel — and toge
ther forming that body of proof which is
best represented by the simple statement
of our Sixth Article, the force of which
will be at once felt and acknowledged by
every sincere and hurable raind, such as
the Gospel requires. — " In the narae of
" Holy Scripture, we do understand those
" canonical books of the Old and New
" Testament, of whose authority was never
" any doubt in the Church."
If then it be adraitted that, in the absence
of rairacles, all testiraony of things prior to
our personal recollection raust necessarily be
traditional, there can be nothing derogatory
to the sacred character of the Holy Scrip-

LECTURE VIL 289
tures, and their sufficiency to salvation, to
say that, frora the very nature of the case, we
are corapelled to rest their genuineness on
this ground. The question for our con
sideration would be, looking to the dif
ferent degrees of probability and raoral
certainty attributable to each kind of Tra
dition respectively, whether that by which
we defend the genuineness of Scripture
and the Christian doctrines, is such as is
adapted to the nature of the subject, and
its relation to us in a state of probation ;
and whether it is calculated to exercise and
proraote the kind of faith which it is the
aira and tendency of the Gospel to forra
within us : or, which is stating nearly the
sarae thing in a different forra, whether the
kind of faith by which we should receive
the Scriptures and the forra of doctrine
upon such evidence, is in its nature a
saving faith.
Now it is here contended, that the degree
of raoral proof that attaches to the tradi
tionary evidence on which we receive the
Christian Scriptures, and the Church's
fbrm of doctrines and ordinances, is not
u

290 LECTURE VII.
only better than men are content to act
upon unhesitatingly in other raatters, even
where they raight by inquiry form at least
a more satisfactory estiraate, whether for
the better or worse, of the evidence on
which they act; but that it is adapted to
the kind of faith which is peculiar to the
Gospel, analogous to all the raoral features
of the Gospel itself, suited to the state of
trial in which we are placed, and ana
logous to the proofs of moral obligation
antecedent to revelation, which constituted
the responsibility of the heathen world,
and to which we must, to this day, ulti
raately refer the raoral obligation to obey
the Gospel as a religion of raotives, even
after the genuineness and authenticity of
the Scriptures themselves have been ad
raitted. Before pointing out this more fully, we
must connect this necessity of relying on
Tradition for proof of things past, with
another principle, now to be adverted to,
in determining a standard of truth.
It raust be observed then, that whatever
raay be the ground of our personal convic-

LECTURE VIL 291
tions on any subject, or the process by which
we arrive at thera, the standard to which we
are compelled to refer thera, before we feel
satisfied with them or proceed to act upon
thera, especiaUy if it involves the corapul-
sion of others, is the testiraony, real or
assuraed, of raankind generally. Until we
possess this, the stability for our own con
victions is not to be depended upon, how
ever strong they raay appear for the rao
raent. This appeal to the collective testi
raony of raen, is not to be confounded with
our personal perceptions. We feel that
these are, in their nature and origin, inde
pendent of it, as shewn in a forraer Lec
ture ; yet we feel that they are so far
dependent on the support of this testiraony,
that unless we possess it, our convictions
will be exposed to continual raisgivings.
This will be obvious at once in regard to
raoral subjects, where our perceptions are
forraed by a course of training under others
who derived theirs by a similar process, and
where we escape from the seeraing fallacy
of reasoning in a circle, which such a pro
cess involves, by falUng back at once on the
u 2

292 LECTURE VIL
concurrent testimony of mankind. Yet if
pressed further, the principles will be
found to hold also in demonstrative truth.
Here, our powers of perception, being
purely intellectual, and not dependent for
their origin on any course of raoral training
or restraint, would seera, if any, to be inde
pendent of every thing but themselves, and
the objects of which they are cognizant.
And yet, if we found that our convictions
were opposed to those of the rest of man
kind, we should, if we did not abandon
them, at least be much staggered ; and
should either pause before we proceeded to
act upon thera ; or, if we did proceed, should
do so with much restlessness and misgiving :
unless indeed it should chance to be that
we were rauch advanced beyond the rest of
raankind in the track in which they were
already proceeding, and felt that we had,
by such an advance, raerely arrived at a
point at which we were sure they would
arrive by following the course they were now
in, and by carrying out the principles on
which they were this raoraent acting : but
without this reservation, we should never

LECTURE VIL 293
be able to act upon, or perraanently abide
by, even conclusions which would seera the
result of deraonstration, if opposed to the
general voice of raankind. Nay, raen have
even been known to abandon the testiraony
of their own senses, when borne down by
the unaniraous decision of others, and to
attribute their convictions to sorae delu
sion : so essentially necessary to our con
victions, is the concurrence of raankind;
and so corapletely are we corapelled to
appeal to this as an ultiraate standard.
So that, provided we are careful not to
confound the essentials of truth with its
accidents, or its substance with its proof;
provided we retain the distinction between
objective and subjective truth; we need not
hesitate to affirm, as a rule, that the stan
dard to which all truth must be referred, is
the decision, directly or indirectly gathered,
of the raajority of raankind — or, which
coraes to the same point, of those to whom
the majority raight be fairly assuraed to
delegate their decisions, and who raay be
said to represent their sentiments.
Without, however, urging the extension
u 3

294 LECTURE VIL
of this principle to demonstrative truth,
which the arguraent does not require, let
us confine it at present to raoral subjects,
where it is essentially necessary as regards
the standard prior to any practical applica
tion of truth, though quite independent of
our perceptions of it. It is obvious that,
previously to obtaining the sanction of
revelation, the raost iraportant truths, even
the first principles of raorals, raust have
been referred for a standard to the testi
raony of raankind as a whole; and we
have now to observe, which is most irapor
tant for the application to be raade here
after in regard to the Scriptures and the
Christian doctrines, by what process that
standard was determined, and that testi
mony collected. It was not a very easy
task, because it required a comprehensive
view ; while there was the natural tempta
tion to take a raore narrow and cursory one,
further increased by the conflicting testi
raony, offered by any survey which took a
soraewhat wider range, and went further into
the subject, without going entirely through
with it, and grappling with it as a whole.

LECTURE VIL 295
In deterraining the laws of the raoral
nature of raan, the process would naturally
be an inductive one, sirailar to that pur
sued in deterraining the physical laws of
the species; and, like that, would require
to be conducted on an extensive scale, to
afford any reasonable ground for believing
its correctness. In either case, a partial
view would be inefficient, or raight even be
raade to support a paradox, or establish a
theory utterly at variance with the truth.
If a man, e. g., who had lived in a moun
tainous region, and another who had passed
his whole time in a tropical climate, should
proceed each to draw his conclusions re
specting the huraan race as a whole, frora
the physical peculiarities of the species
which had fallen under his own observation
alone, they would be found not only to
differ raaterially one from the other, but to
be also far removed from the truth itself.
The obvious reply to any such conclusions
would be, that they were founded in igno
rance, and on a narrow and superficial view,
which a raoderate share of knowledge would
serve to correct. Nor is it likely that any
u 4

296 LECTURE VIL
extensive or permanent error could arise
from any such theory. The case is here
adduced rather for purposes of illustration,
and for its application to an analogous one
in regard to the moral peculiarities of the
species. For that a parallel error raight
arise in deterraining the laws of the raoral
nature of raan, and arise too frora a survey
analogous in regard to its narrow and
superficial character and its general igno
rance of that raoral nature, is not a case
which rests altogether on hypothesis.
Neither again is it merely hypothetical, that
a false theory, founded on such a super
ficial view, should to a certain extent ob
tain credence among men who either had
an interest in wishing it established, or had
not the opportunity, frora instruction or
observation, of becoraing acquainted with
its folly. For we have an instance in the
literature of our own country, of one who,
erainent and good in other respects, yet
actually did fall into an error of this de
scription, in which he is followed by raany
at this very day, and was led gravely and
seriously to deny the existence of a moral

LECTURE VIL 297
sense, because he had observed cases where it
appeared to be extinct ; and this too, in the
face of the declarations, not only of Scrip
ture, but of philosophy of every age, and also
of the circurastance, that the exceptions on
which he seeras to have founded his observ
ations, are specially provided for in the
econoray of huraan nature itself, whether
viewed in regard to its structure and con
stitution, as exhibited by philosophy, or in
its relation to God, as set forth in his re
vealed word. We have also had abundant
evidence of the credulity with which, either
frora ignorance or self-interest, such lament
able errors will be received and acted upon,
both privately and publicly. The answer
to such fallacies is sirailar to that by which
we should reply to the supposed analogous
case, in regard to the physical nature of
raan, as arising frora a narrow and super
ficial view, and being founded in ignorance
of our moral constitution.
It should be remarked, however, here,
that however painful raay be the contera-
plation of a raind like Paley's, falling into
errors like this ; however shocking to be-

298 LECTURE VIL
hold the popular readiness with which such
errors will be adraitted and followed,— and
this too, obviously from the plea which
they afford for the reraoval of all raoral
restraints, and the denial of any standard
of truth, but the will of the individual, or
the flickering caprice of each generation ;
they are not without their use to us, as
affording melancholy but valuable records
of what even good raen raay fall into, who
either delight in paradox, or are so far defi
cient in humility, as to set their own crude
and shallow theories in opposition to the
collective and unanimous testiraony of cen
turies ; and as shewing also, the extent to
which popular fallacies raay run, however
preposterous, when they coincide with the
passions of raan ; and how little the readi
ness with which such fallacies are received,
is to be regarded as any test of truth.
The greater value however to us of a
fallacy like this and of its grounds, and the
purpose to which I would now apply it, is
frora the analogy which it bears to a sirailar
one, which has obtained in regard to the
Christian verities and the grounds on

LECTURE VIL 299
which they rest. For this purpose, then,
let us proceed with the inquiry into the
raode by which, prior to revelation, the
standard of raoral truth was necessarily
deterrained. This was said to be induc
tion. And it is clear that the induction
must have been an extensive one, both as
to time and space,/ to avoid the fallacy we
have just been exposing. The Philosophers
felt that they had no standard but that of
the opinions of mankind. They observed,
however, that the popular opinions, on rao
ral subjects, were opposed and fluctuating ;
each individual perhaps differing frora his
neighbours, — one nation differing frora
another, — one generation adopting a stan
dard different frora that which preceded it.
Without now adverting to the causes of
this diversity, (which does not form part of
the present subject,) it is clear, that if the
opinions of any one nation or generation had
been taken as the standard, no definite one
could have been obtained, inasrauch as
they would not have been found to agree
in many points with those of another ; nor
would it have been satisfactory as far as it

300 LECTURE VIL
went, inasrauch as the popular opinion on
such subjects must have reflected, and have
been materially influenced by, the ruling
passion for the time being of the age or
country. It was obvious that a raore ex
tended range was required, which could
only be afforded by collecting the opinions
of raen as diffused over a larger portion of
tirae and space. This was the problera —
and it appears to have been solved by the
following process.
They appear to have regarded the huraan
species as one ; and to have assuraed, that
although particular generations or indivi
duals might be in error, yet that mankind
as a whole, would, in the long run, be
right ; especially if time were allowed, and
they had the opportunity of finding out by
experience the practical evils of false prin
ciples ; analogous, in sorae respects, to the
experience of individuals, — but with this
great difference, that while no individual's
life would suffice to go the whole cycle of
truth and error, and to see consequences
which often fell at a reraote distance from
their causes, — to the race as a whole, time

LECTURE VII. 301
would be no consideration. The process,
however, by which the testiraony of the
race was collected, appears to have been
by taking the decisions of those whora
each age and country had pronounced to
be good raen and corapetent judges. It
was observed, that however the individuals
forraing a generation or society raight dif
fer, yet that they agreed in their opinions
generally of what constituted a good and
wise raan. It was observed too, that how
ever different generations or nations raight
vary in their decisions, as shewn by a raore
cursory glance at the popular feeling of the
day, yet that they agreed one with another
in the character of those whora they de
signated as good men, and who raight con
sequently be supposed to represent their
sentiraents on raoral truth. It was further
observed, that the several individuals who
raight thus be assumed to represent the
opinions of each age or country, however
they raight differ in sorae things, yet were
agreed in the foundations of raorals ^ In
a The parallel which this bears to the agreement of
the Fathers, on essential points of doctrine, while differ
ing on other and minor matters, will strike every one.

302 LECTURE VII.
this way, raaking each age and nation send
its representatives as it were to the con
gress or general council of opinions, they
collected together the testiraony of the
whole race, — and finding, frora the voices
thus collected, an agreeraent on what were
deeraed essential points, and regarding this
as the voice of raankind as a whole, they
assumed this to be a determinate standard
of Morals — not only the best which could
be obtained, but a sufficient one, consider
ing the nature of the subject, and the rao
ral condition of man, with which it seemed
essentially connected. The difficulties en
countered in forraing this standard, arose
out of the very nature of the case ; and its
seeraing iraperfect character when raea
sured by the laws of demonstrative truth,
was only a necessary part of its nature as a
moral question, and one relating to beings
in their relation of raoral agents. For the
testiraony of raankind thus gathered would
not by itself be satisfactory, nor indeed of
any value as a proof, except to strengthen
and confirm the convictions of the indivi
dual, as formed by the process, (described
in the fifth Lecture,) whereby our moral

LECTURE VII. 303
perceptions are developed, and our raoral
habits forraed. When this had been done,
the testiraony of raankind, thus gathered,
would corae in to give to these raoral con
victions the support, which our convictions
on all subjects require, of the testiraony of
others ; as though designed to confirm and
sanction raoral habits when forraed, not to
supersede thera : the will and the affections
were first required, in order to feel the
force of this raoral evidence of the truth of
Morals. This has its parallel in Christian doc
trines. The will and the state of the heart
are first necessary, before the testiraony of
the Church, here spoken of, will have any
effect ; being designed to confirra and
strengthen the heart of belief, not to super
sede it. The evidence is purely moral,
and, as such, requires the raoral prepara
tion of the heart to render it effectual.
But, before applying this raore fully by
way of parallel to the testiraony of the
Church in favour of the genuineness of
Scripture and of the Christian doctrines,
and to the raode in which that testiraony

304 LECTURE VIL
is necessarily collected, let us note these
three brief propositions :
I. If, in collecting the testiraony of raen,
we raay regard the human species as one,
much raore raay we so regard the Church
of Christ, which is eraphatically spoken of
by hiraself, and also by his Apostles, as one ;
of which unity was to be the great charac
teristic ; and division raost opposed to its
nature, and destructive of its interests and
existence. II. That, viewed as a divine institution,
there was an antecedent probability of its
falling into error for a time, above that to
which one of raere huraan origin would be
liable, inasrauch as the latter would be
fenced by all the preservatives of which it
was capable, being limited only by the want
of control over circurastances on the part of
the founder ; whereas in divine institutions,
which are also fraraed with reference to
the moral probation of raen for whora they
are designed, these preservatives we should
expect would be liraited by the liability
to error, necessary to constitute the raoral
trial and responsibility of men themselves.

LECTURE VIL 305
III. Instead of the assumption, which
in deterraining the standard of Morals we
are obliged to raake, of the probability that
in the long run raankind will be right, we
have, in regard to the Church, the express
promise of our Lord, that he will abide
with it to the end : so that, viewing it as
one, in whatever country situate, or in
whatever age, frora the beginning to the
present hour, we may regard its testiraony,
assuraing it to be properly collected and
correctly determined, as having the force
of soraething beyond a raere huraan witness.
Now putting these three propositions to
gether, in connection with what has been
said above — that in the absence of a rairacle,
we cannot have any proof of things ante
cedent to living witnesses, except Tradition
and huraan testimony — the result will be,
that viewing the Church, frora its cora
raenceraent, as one undivided whole, no
raatter at what period viewed or where
situated, we find that it has gone through
a considerable portion of a cycle of error ;
those into which it has hitherto fallen
being such as raight have been expected
X

306 LECTURE VII.
from the circumstances of each, and the
liability to err arising from the relation of
the Christian doctrines to Holy Scripture —
a relation which would seera to have been
framed with reference to our probation,
and one which, frora that very circum
stance, necessarily implies teraptation and
risk. So that Popery, which was the first
rock on which the Church split, and Infi
delity, on which the danger is that in our
day raen raake shipwreck of their faith,
through Rationalism and Heresy, would
seem but the natural result of the Gospel,
with the liability to err alluded to, coraing
in contact with human nature, the one in a
rude and dark age, the other in a refined
and superficial one.
We find that the several branches of the
Church have in turn erred ; and that,
grievously. Our Article, as though ac
knowledging this fact, and at the sarae
tirae guarding against the inferences which
sorae raight be disposed to draw against
the Church, as a whole, from the errors of
particular branches, says, " As the Churches
" of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch

LECTURE VIL 307
" have erred, so also the Church of Rorae
" hath erred, not only in their living and
" raanner of cereraonies, but also in raatters
" of faith." (Art. XIX.)
We find, however, that though particular
branches of the Church have thus griev
ously erred, yet that the Church has never
been in error, as a whole, on any vital
point; never, as a whole, denied any vital
truth or doctrine. We find, that as in
regard to the foundation of morals without
the covenant, the huraan race, notwith
standing grievous exceptions in nations and
individuals, always retained a witness of
God speaking to them, and of his Spirit
pleading through the conscience — never, as
a whole, acknowledged sin as otherwise
than sin — never, as a whole, denied any
real virtue ; — so, in regard to the foundation
of Christian doctrine withiti the covenant,
the Church, viewed as a whole, has, from the
beginning, retained the signs of Christ's
abiding according to the proraise ; has
never, as a whole, maintained any deadly
heresy ; never, as a whole, suppressed any
essential doctrine. It is not raerely to the
x 2

308 LECTURE VIL
decisions, true or false, of the Church of
Jerusalera, Alexandria, Antioch, or Rome
alone, to which we should look, if required,
for the testimony of the Church, whether
on the subject of the Godhead or any other
vital truth ; but to that which " the Holy
" Church throughout the world doth acknow-
" ledge him to be."
The raode again in which, if necessary,
this testiraony is to be collected, is ana
logous to that by which was collected the
testiraony of raankind to the truth of
morals. Analogous also are the errors into
which raen have fallen from a partial ap
peal or liraited survey. Men, when desired
to refer to the testiraony of the Church, for
exaraple, instead of taking the testiraony of
the Church as a whole, gathered up as it
were frora the Church in every age and
country, will rather perversely turn to one
particular branch which we ackcowledge to
have been in error, and to that period
when it is acknowledged to have been most
in error; or will turn to the contradictions
between the several branches of the Church,
which doubtless exist, and which require

LECTURE VIL 309
careful investigation and collation, in order
to trace the agreeraent on the point to be
proved, among so much confusion in other
respects. They will do this, and thence
argue to the impossibility of gathering any
satisfactory information frora an appeal to
the Church, and deny the right of trusting
to any appeal so gathered.
This impatience of inquiry, this super
ficial survey, and judgment frora iraperfect
evidence, is but the parallel, in raatters of
faith, to Paley's error in raorals, where,
finding contradictory testiraony furnished
by different ages or countries — seeing that
what was held in aboraination by sorae, was
deeraed innocent by others, and even cora-
raendable by another class, — came at once
to the conclusion that there could be no
definite standard whatever. If, however,
the rule of ancient philosophy, founded on
the deepest and most coraprehensive views,
be deeraed a better evidence on the subject
than the superficial view and shallow rea
soning of Paley ; so raay the principle of
the Church, which, relying on our Saviour's
proraise of abiding to the end and of re-
X 3

310 LECTURE VIL
taining the spirit of truth, looks for the
fulfilraent of that promise in the body of
Christ throughout the world, in every age
and every land, — be deeraed a safer guide to
the knowledge of the Apostle's doctrine, than
the shallow superficial spirit of Sectarianism,
which, if it ever extend its view beyond its
own borders, it is but to see the spirit of evil
rather than of good, and to recognise error
in every disagreement with itself.
The result of the above investigation will
be to establish these principles :
That for our proofs in this raoraentous
raatter, we raust, frora the very nature of
the case, have had to depend, in the absence
of rairacles, on huraan and traditional tes
tiraony in sorae shape or other : — That the
raode in which we collect this, is analogous
to that by which we deterraine the standard
of truth on all raoral subjects^ : — and that
^ Although the case which has been here selected to
illustrate this, is that of pure ethics, yet it will be found
to exist in all subjects partaking in any degree of a moral
character — i. e. not purely demonstrative — all those, in
fact, where our perceptions require to be developed and
strengthened by a course of training under the direction
of others, as described in Lecture V.

LECTURE VIL 311
the degree of certainty to which we attain,
is not only sufficient for the purpose, but is
probably the best we could have had, with
out encroaching on that principle of moral
probation which pervades the whole of our
relations to God, and without interfering
with the need of the predisposition of the
will and the affections, and that raoral pre
paration of the heart generally, which forms
an essential eleraent in the perception of
moral truth, and the power to receive
moral evidence.
The teaching and authority of the Church
afford a protection against the suggestion
of our own corrupt hearts and wild fancies,
without forraing a rule, as it were a groove,
too exact to allow roora for moral responsi
bility. The Scripture, on the other hand,
in regard to its proofs of what the Church
teaches, is sufficiently indeterminate to re
quire a moral preparation of the heart, so
as to afford room for moral probation ; yet
sufficiently determinate to save those who
read it in the way which God designed,
from being blown about by every wind of
doctrine. X 4

312 LECTURE VIL
If objections should be urged against
what has been said, grounded on the al
leged difficulty of investigating the testi
mony spoken of, and of determining by this
rule, requiring a degree of care and labour
for which the occupations of the majority
of raankind would afford little opportunity,
and an extent of tirae for which to many
the longest life would seera barely to suffice;
we raust repeat what was before said in
regard to a sirailar objection, — that this does
not apply to raerabers of our own cora
raunion, who are content with the result
of all this as already collected and provided
for thera by the Church to which we
belong, and brought horae to their hands
in the Creed, Liturgy, and Articles; and
to whora the Scriptures are at the sarae
tirae given that they raay prove what they
have been taught, and know the certainty
of the things in which they have been in
structed. It applies rather to those with
out, and to those who are disposed to re
ject or dispute about what the Church
teaches. If Sectarians and Rationalists will
take upon themselves to question what the

LECTURE VIL 313
Church has ever held, and to claira the
right, which is not denied thera, of investi
gation and inquiry, we have at least a right
to deraand, on the other side, that they
investigate in the way and by the raeans
through which the subject itself professes
to be capable of investigation. Nor will we
concede to the Sectarian the right of judg
ing by Scripture alone, in the face of the de
claration of Scripture itself to the contrary;
nor allow hira to represent our principle as
unscriptural, when it is supported by the
fullest and raost satisfactory testiraony of
Scripture ; nor will he abandon our ground
to the Rationalist, on his assertion that our
principle is irrational and unphilosophical
and unsuited to raan's nature, when we find
by inquiry that reason and philosophy are on
our side, and that our principle has every
presuraption in its favour which can be
furnished by analogy, and its adaptation to
our raoral constitution.
To the humble-rainded Apostolic Church
raan, however, there is furnished by the
grounds of his faith, as developed above, a
source of hope and corafort in the hour of

314 LECTURE VIL
need, too important to be passed over, and
which must be briefly alluded to before
concluding this part of the subject.
There are periods in the life of all, when
our faith is liable to be assailed by doubts
and temptations to unbelief. It may please
God that our trial should be to question the
blessed verities directly, without any appa
rent interraediate cause. It may be that
our faith in the doctrines shall be assailed
through the raediura of personal trials,
whether of affliction or otherwise, in which
we can be sustained only through divine
grace, and by reliance on God's promises
raade to us in his Son, our Lord Jesus
Christ. But our hope of this grace, our
trust in these proraises, will depend much
on our belief in the doctrines, in the truth
of which we feel that they are involved : —
say, e. g., the hope of forgiveness depending
on the divine nature of our sacrifice, and the
consequent sufficiency of his atoneraent,
and the efficacy of his intercession ; or our
hope of sanctification, the need of which
we feel, depending on the divine nature of
the Sanctifier hiraself Our belief in these

LECTURE VIL 315
is assailed; the evidences which once carae
horae to our hearts with such conviction,
seem to have lost their force ; the declara
tions of Scripture, which once seemed so
clear and decisive, are powerless or ex
plained away ; gloora and despondency seera
gathering around us ; God's Spirit seeras to
be deserting us. Now .in hours of dark
ness, trying as these are, what have they to
rely on who have hitherto trusted to the
vaunted privilege of private judgraent ;
even assuming their faith itself, without
regard to its grounds, to have been pure ?
That on which they have hitherto lean
ed, has given way ; and what remains to
support and cheer them ? Not thus un
supported, in the like fiery trial, is the
hurable Apostolic Churchraan. It is then
that he feels the value of his previous little
ness in the spiritual world. It is then
that he feels the value of his raerabership
in the Church, and the blessedness of the
Coraraunion of Saints. Instead of aban
doning hiraself to despair or indifference,
he falls back on the Church as a whole,
and leans on the body of saints. And this.

316 LECTURE VIL
not in blind confidence, as superseding his
personal faith, or absolving him from his
individual responsibility ; (that were Po
pery ;) but as interposing a suspensive
power, a temporary refuge, to shield him
till the tyranny be overpast. As an insu
lated being in the world of spirits, he
would fall : but he turns to the Church — to
the saints in the Church — and there sees
that every thing is against his present
doubts and fears, and they receive a check
which, if it does not restore confidence, at
least prevents despair and renews inquiry,
and encourages him to pray and to hope.
He looks to the Church, and there sees
that this, of which he now doubts, has,
frOra the beginning, been regarded as sacred
truth ; that whatever he raay now think,
whatever he has heard ungodly raen avow,
that there at least, in the Church, the wise,
the good, the saints of every age, have held
it in unity of faith. That that Lord,
whora he is now perhaps terapted to deny,
the Holy Church throughout the world hath
ever acknowledged to be the Father of an
Infinite Majesty — the honourable, true, and

LECTURE VIL 317
only Son — also the Holy Ghost the Cora-
forter ; — hath ever confessed that Thou art
the King of Glory, O Christ ! — Thou art the
everlasting Son of the Father.
What a check raust this afford to a
downward course of doubt and raisgiving !
what an encouraging array does it present
to cheer and animate him in resisting the
terapter ! what a cloud of witnesses raust
he feel doth encompass about hira ! I do not
say that it would of itself restore confidence;
but it stands forth to suspend his rais
givings ; it gives hira time to rally and seek
for strength and light ; it suggests the
question whether, with so goodly a host
of testimony against hira, he raay not be
wrong in his doubts — whether there be not
that which, if he seek again, he may find as
they have found — whether, if he fight
again, he raay not conquer as they have
conquered ; and thus, as to a fugitive fly
ing frora the field of battle, they present
an array of power with ensigns of past vic
tories, towards whom he raay direct his
course, frora whora he raay gain counsel
and assistance while he rallies his strength,

318 LECTURE VIL
and with whora he raay find a refuge from
his pursuing foe, till one mightier than he
shaU have disarmed hira of the power to
hurt hira.
In truth, to the really humble-minded
Christian — hurable, that is, not only in re
gard to the written word, but also to
the universal testiraony of the Church ;
hurable, not only in regard to God, but
also in regard to men, (for both of these
enter into the character of Christian hu
raility ;) to such an one, in every doubt,
difficulty, or painful raisgiving which raay
beset hira, questions like these will come to
his relief: is it likely that the holy Church,
from the beginning, should have been in
error on this point, built as it was on the
foundation of the Apostles theraselves ?
Is it likely that good and wise raen of
every age, should have been so grievously
deceived? Is it not raore likely, that such
a host of witnesses, agreeing as they do in
one faith, and that frora the beginning,
should be right, than ray doubts, or the
opinions of those who would lead me to a
different faith ? Such questions will come

LECTURE VIL 319
to his relief. Not that they will of them
selves convince and satisfy hira — nor ought
they: they are not raeant to supersede
Scripture — that were Popery ; but to assist
and guide him in the interpretation of it—
that were Apostolical and Christian. They
have this effect — to arrest doubts which are
beginning, and to stop those which have
gained some head. In the one case they
prevent the coraraenceraent; in the other
they interpose and exercise a suspensive
power, leading hira to distrust hiraself, and
thus to seek that enlightening power of the
Holy Spirit, which is not denied to the
bewildered wanderer who seeks it in spirit
and in truth — ^perseveringly and in faith.
How different is it with those who have
relied only on theraselves and their own
private judgraent in the interpretation of
Scripture! What have they to look to in
hours of darkness and difficulty ? Scripture
gives thera no light — the promises bring
no comfort when doubt seizes thera —
and that which should have been their
friend, seeras an idle tale. They cannot
fall back and rest awhile on the bosom of

320 LECTURE VIL
the Church, and see, in the uniformity of
faith there, the silent rebuke to their own
faithlessness, which raakes thera give up
because of a passing trial. They have
leaned on the boasted strength of private
judgraent : it has now failed thera, and
they know not whither to turn.
The Apostle Paul was no stranger to
this. He knew the doubts which would
assail raerabers of the Church ; and bids
them, in their perplexities, find corafort in
following the steps of the Apostles, and in
deferring to the opinions of the Church :
" Be ye followers together of me, and raark
" thera which walk so as ye have us for an
" ensaraple." He does not require us to
follow hira individually as an inspired
Apostle raerely, but those also who follow
hira, the saints in the Church ; and mostly
do we require this guidance, and mostly
does it befriend us, when the holy light
of Scripture seems for a time to be hidden
from us. And such has been the rule of
Scripture in the Church in every age. —
" Tell rae," says the Scripture, " tell rae, O
" thou whora my soul loveth, where thou

LECTURE VIL 321
" feedest, where thou makest thy flock to
" rest at noon : for why should I be as
" one that turneth aside by the flocks of
" thy companions ? If thou know not,
" go thy way forth by the footsteps of the
" flock, and feed thy kids beside the shep-
" herds'' tents." And it is our duty, no less
than our privilege, thus to listen to and
lean on the advice and opinion of the
Church, at once an act of obedience and
a source of corafort.
Surely then we raay say and acknowledge
with thankfulness, that He who knew what
was in raan, has consulted mercifully for us
in the mode in which he has ordained that
the witness of the truth should be left,
though it should not be found to be such
that he raay run that readeth. If it be
raercy and wisdom combined, to proraote
our probation and spiritual warfare, yet to
have corapassion on our weakness; to prove
us, to exercise our faith through teraptation,
yet to leave us a way to escape which all
who seek may find; to fit us for our end
by training us, in childlike dependance,
through the different stages of the spiritual

322 LECTURE VIL
life to Christian manhood ; to provide for'
us, in our darkest hours of spiritual trial, a
guide and refuge which, while it protects,
serves to exercise our faith and dependance
on Him, nor allows us to wax cold ; — all
these have been provided for us in the con
stitution of the Apostolic Church, and in
the relation in which it has pleased Him
to place the Christian verities to Holy
Scripture. That these should prove an offence to
the proud and self-willed, is not to be
wondered at. That sometiraes they should
even be a snare to weaker brethren, is no
raore than raight be expected frora the
general analogy of God's works. As differ
ent insects are said to extract honey and
poison frora the sarae plant, even so may it
be with the mightier dispensations of the
spiritual world, as well as in things of lesser
raagnitude, which raay prove blessings or
curses, according to the way in which we
use them. It is in our power, with the
raeans which God has given us, to choose
the good and avoid the evil. But as an
essential part of our probation here, as

LECTURE VIL 323
inseparable from a state of trial, it is im
possible to be free from danger — "it raust
" needs be that offences corae."
That it should be thus in regard to the
Christian faith, and its relation to Holy
Scripture, is but what the greatest re
vealed blessing has ever been liable to.
And herein we see but a continuation of the
sarae principle, by which in Christ crucified,
which unto thera that were called was
Christ the power of God and the wisdora
of God, the Jew could find but a sturabling
block, nor the Greek see ought but foplish-
ness; and by which the sarae raessage of
grace was declared to be a sweet savour of
Christ in thera that were saved, and in
thera that perish : to the one the savour
of death unto death,— to the other, the
savour of life unto life.

y2

LECTURE YIII.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOUR OF THE CHURCH'S PRINCIPLE
DRAWN FROM THE LANGUAGE OF ST. PAUL— FROM
THE CONSEQUENCES OF ITS VIOLATION— THE ANA
LOGY OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT— THE ORIGINAL QUES
TION REVERTED TO— CONCLUSION.

Matthew vi. 10.
Thy kingdom come.
THE main features to be observed in
the Church's principle of instructing
in the Christian faith, as set forth and
defended in the foregoing Lectures, will
be found to be humility, subraissiveness,
faith, docility, — a willingness to learn and
believe according to the direction into
which the mind is turned and trained ; not
receiving things with suspicion and a feel-

LECTURE vm. 325
ing of contentious disputation, regarding
them as false, or even doubtful, till proved
to be true ; but with the feeling of child
like docility and affectionate obedience,
wishing and hoping that they are true, till
found to be false. And this, not so much
from particular views furnished by the sub
ject itself, as from a predisposition to rely
on the persons frora whora the instruction
is derived; the latter being those towards
whora there previously exists a relation
involving a raoral obligation to obey and
confide in thera ; the first irapressions and
the first irapulses towards belief being
derived frora the teacher rather than the
thing taught — from persons, rather than
from things.
This feature in the Church's principle
was shewn to be that observable in all raoral
instruction, and in conveying knowledge
on all subjects not purely demonstrative
and abstract — partaking in any degree of a
moral character. In these it was shewn
that, besides the mere coraraunication of
knowledge, the sense or faculty of perceiv
ing raoral truth, corresponding to the in-
y3

326 LECTURE VIII.
tellect in the perception of demonstrative
truth, required first to be developed by a
course of training under the guidance and
authority of others, and gradually formed
into a habit by which the disciple becoraes
possessed of the faculty of seeing and judg
ing for hiraself : the principle adopted by
our Lord in the constitution of the Apo
stolic Church, existed previously in the
constitution of huraan nature. Of this
principle, the leading features, as regards
the disciple, raay, for the sake of brevity,
be coraprised in one terra — docility.
This stateraent would be further strength
ened by referring to the terra uniformly
adopted by St. Paul in reference to the
first instruction in Christian doctrine, as
contrasted with its opposite, the terra heresy,
considered in regard to its raeaning as well
as its etyraology, and the assuraed liberty
of choosing for one's self, which would seera
to be denoted by if.
The Apostle, on the contrary, in allu-
¦^ The want of the concrete verb of heresy in English,
and of the abstract noun, as well as of the verbal denoting
the agent, of wapaAa^/Saz^w, in both languages, must have

LECTURE vm. 327
sion to the doctrines which the several
Churches had learned, speaks of them as
that which they had received ^ from hira ;
as though he, with the credentials which
he exhibited, were sufficient authority for
deraanding their acceptance of it. And the
same terra is uniformly applied, indicating
at once the truth received, the relation of
the parties, and the obligations arising out
of it ; coraprising on his part the right to
be heard, and on theirs the duty to obey.
But in no case does he adopt a terra which
would seera at variance with this relation.
In no case does he admit, directly or by
implication, the right of choosing for them
selves; nor does he speak of it, save to con
demn it, or to point out its moral tenden
cies, and to advert to the moral deteri
oration which seeras to forra its natural
and necessary consequence. Not that the
Church would demand, any more than
morals, a continued blind faith and irre-
been frequently experienced by the theological student,
in reference to the principles which they respectively
denote. d See in particular 1 Cor. iv. 7; xv. 1. 2 Cor. xi. 4.
Phil. iv. 9. Col. ii. 6. 1 Thess. i. 6 ; ii. 13 ; iv. 1.
V 4

328 LECTURE VIIL
sponsible reliance on others, as is often
unjustly charged against the principles of
the Church Catholic ; but for learning, for
the forraation of opinions, for the establish
ment of belief, the Church does, like reason
and raorals, require for a tirae an iraplicit
reliance on the guidance of those under
whora, as regards the subject to be learned,
we are placed, either by the positive pre
cepts of the revealed covenant, or by the
raoral obligations involved in relations pre
viously existing in the natural constitution
of things.
This deraand for iraplicit reliance and
subraission to others, which has been shewn
to be necessary for the developeraent of our
perceptions in all cases of moral truth, and
which is adopted into the constitution of
the Church, and carried into effect by the
various instruments through which the
Church irabues the minds of her disciple
with her own views, and engages his will
in their favour before giving him the
Scriptures to read, — is not to be confounded
with a blind belief, resting solely on the
word of others, at a tirae of life when the

LECTURE VIII. 329
disciple ought to be sufficiently advanced
in Christian raanhood and knowledge of the
doctrine of Christ, to be able to see with
his own eyes, to read and understand for
hiraself, and, frora the study of the Holy
Scriptures, so to read, that he raight know
the certainty of the things in which he has
been instructed. For though it is true?
both in raorals and religion, that one thus
trained will agree with those by whora he
has been trained ; and though, by the
appointraents both of nature and of revela
tion, this agreeraent is in one sense the
result of the course he has gone through,
and perhaps he would not have thought
thus without this, yet the course of training
is the accidental not the essential cause of
the agreeraent. For when he coraes to
exaraine his convictions and the grounds of
thera, he does not refer, thera to his course
of education, but feels that they depend on
grounds independent of his training, and on
evidences external to hiraself ; that his
education has been the occasion rather than
the cause of his thinking thus ; and that
what he has really derived frora his edu-

330 LECTURE VIIL
cation, is the moral vision whereby he is
enabled to perceive these grounds and this
evidence, and the moral capacity to feel its
force. The essential connection of this principle
of submission and docility with our moral
constitution, and the provision for our
wants exhibited by its adoption into the
leading features of the Gospel, should be
viewed in reference to another argument
— that drawn frora the consequences of
its violation.
If instruction in Christian doctrine, by
raeans of the Church under the Gospel,
be analogous to that pursued in raoral
subjects generally, in respect of moral
subraissiveness on the part of the dis
ciple, and a course of raoral preparation
before the mind is able to receive the
truth ; and if this subraissiveness, prepara
tory to the perception of truth, be an
essential part in the econoray of our raoral
constitution, essentially belonging to raan
as raan; we might expect, antecedently,
that the violation of the conditions on
which the efficacy of the instruction de-

LECTURE VIIL 331
pends, would not only be destructive of it,
but be productive of pernicious effects on
the raoral character generally. How far
this is realized in practice, how far the
violation of this principle of subraissiveness
and docility does affect the character gene
rally, it needs not an extended observation
to tell, whether viewed in regard to its
influence on political, social, and domestic
relations, or its effects on personal character
alone. No one who views in these rela
tions the conduct of those who adopt the
heretical principle, and who thereby throw
off the docility which belongs to thera as
men, can fail to observe its effect on the
whole character, when fairly carried out.
It seeras to derange the whole moral sys
tem ; to reraove as it were the keystone of
the raoral fabric ; to take away frora raan's
nature the barrier which protects it from
what is most hostile to it — to subvert the
whole raan. Let any one read with an
ordinary degree of attention the Epistle of
St. Jude, and the second chapter of the
General Epistle of St. Peter, and contem
plate the character therein so vividly and

332 LECTURE VIIL
forcibly described. He cannot but be
struck with the intimate connection of the
character with the Socinian and Sectarian
principle, and with the principle of resist
ance to constituted authority generally,
from which it seems to flow, even had it
not been specifically connected with it,
and with the sin of Korah, by the Apostle
hiraself. " But chiefly thera that walk after the
" flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and
" despise government. Presuraptuous are
" they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to
" speak evil of dignities. Whereas angels,
" which are greater in power and raight,
" bring not railing accusation against thera
" before the Lord. But these, as natural
" brute beasts, raade to be taken and de-
" stroyed, speak evil of the things that they
" understand not." . . . . " For when they
" speak great swelling words of vanity,
" they allure through the lusts of the
" flesh, through much wantonness, those
" that were clean escaped frora them that
" live in error. While they promise them
" liberty, they themselves are the servants

LEC|TURE VIIL 333
" of corruption." Thus St. Peter. To the
same effect writes St. Jude.
" For there are certain men crept in
" unawares, who were before of old ordain-
" ed to this conderanation, ungodly men
" turning the grace of God into lascivious-
" ness, and denying the only Lord God,
" and our Lord Jesus Christ  Like-
" wise these filthy dreamers defile the flesh,
" despise dominion, and speak evil of digni-
" ties  But these speak evil of things
" which they know not  Woe unto
" them ! for they have gone in the way of
" Cain, and ran greedily after the error of
" Balaam for reward, and perished in the
" gainsaying of Core."
Now without raaking a closer application
than Christian charity will allow, of this
description of the two Apostles, to the
eneraies of the Church and the Church's
principle in our own day, it would be
irapossible not to be struck by the close
reserablance. And when the sarae Apostles
so closely connect the general depravity of
character with the conterapt of dorainion,
the speaking evil of dignities, and the sin

334 LECTURE VIII.
of Korah cited by name, can we do other
wise than feel, that the fulfilraent of the
Apostles' description, brought to pass as it
were at our very doors, conveys to us a
warning involving a deep responsibility, to
guard against the first approaches of that
spirit of Antichrist here so visibly depict
ed, and to resist, at its coraraenceraent, the
spirit of pride and contempt for authority,
which, if unrestrained, we behold at a later
stage leading to the fatal results which the
Apostle has so forcibly described to us e ?
Now that this principle of subraissive
ness and need of wholesome restraint in
the formation of character, which is so
suited to our nature in the proper sense of
the word, should be offensive to the na
tural raan, and to the pride of the human
heart, is in no way surprising. It is not to
be expected that raen will approve it, much

« In fact, the Heretical and Schismatic spirit, is the
violation of a moral as well as of a positive obligation.
Even were there no rule on the subject in Scripture
itself, it would still have been a sin, from its very nature.
The consequences to which it leads in practice
and iUustrate its character, rather than constitute it.

LECTURE VIIL 335
less voluntarily place theraselves under it,
unless trained to do so frora childhood.
To say that it is for their good — that their
raoral constitution requires it — that it is
necessary in order to fit thera for the pro
per end of their being as raoral and respon
sible agents, — all this would be of no avail
towards reconciling them to it; nay, it
would but further excite their hostility.
Humanly speaking, such arguments would
be utterly useless ; and it would be unrea
sonable, and contrary to analogy and expe
rience, to expect that any success would
attend them — that is, when addressed to
those who have not been brought up (or
under the Gospel led by the Holy Ghost)
to see and feel their force. With what
prospect of success could any one advocate
such principles to those who have not been
trained to understand thera? One who
should so advocate them, against one who
defended unrestricted liberty of thought,
and raaintained the unlimited right of
private judgment, would labour under a
sirailar disadvantage with one who should
recoramend the duty of submission to con-

336 LECTURE VIIL
stituted authority in secular matters, and
denounce the sin of rebellion, before an
audience who had just returned from lis
tening to a demagogue enlarging on the
evils of tyranny and the vices of kings, and
expatiating on liberty and the abstract
rights of raan. Under such circurastances,
and before such an audience, what chance
of success could the advocate of subrais
sion to legitimate government have against
the assertor of unlimited freedom ? How
easy would it be to denounce the one as
the abettor of tyranny, and the enemy of
liberty ; and to uphold the other as the
protector of the poor, and the defender of
liberty and the rights of raan. Such would
be the natural result. Sirailar to this, is
the position in which those are placed who,
either in raorals or religion, insist on the
duty of submission to the judgraent of
others — nay, the necessity of doing so,
preparatory to the full developeraent of
our moral perceptions, and the formation
of our moral habits. And the more will
this be felt, if raen have been suffering
under the abuse and undue exercise of the

LECTURK VIII. 337
principle, as exhibited in popery; or if
they fear, whether with reason or not, that
they are in danger of so suffering. What
chance of success, humanly speaking, would
such an one have over the raan who advo
cated the unliraited right of private judg
raent, denounced all interference with it as
a violation of a sacred birthright, [and pro
fessed to stand forward as the champion of
Holy Scripture ? How easy to represent
the one as an enslaver of raen's consciences,
the extinguisher of huraan liberty, the
defender of popery, and the suppressor
of the word of God ! How easy to uphold
the other as the assertor of the rights
of conscience, the friend of liberty of
thought, the charapion of Protestantism,
and the defender of the word of God ^ !
a It is a matter of common observation, that, in civil
matters, raany, while in their hearts abhorring the spirit
of democracy, and in nothing raore than the tyranny and
oppression which are its usual characteristics ; and anx
ious to strengthen the hands of government, if for no
other reason, at least for the security thereby afforded
to the exercise of rational liberty, — are yet often deterred
from expressing their sentiments as freely as they could
wish, partly frora false shame, partly from real fear — in
z

338 LECTURE VIIL
Such raust be the result of the two prin
ciples respectively, when advocated before
raen who, frora habits and education, or frora
either case, from the unwillingness to be included in the
sweeping charge made against all such by the inso
lence of the democratic party, and to be denounced and
held up as abettors of tyranny and enemies of public
liberty. In like manner, in religious matters, from the arro
gant assumption of the exclusive championship of Holy
Scripture and of religious liberty, on the part of the
advocates of ultra-Protestantism and the Sectarian prin
ciple generally, many, while condemning that principle —
among other reasons, on account of the tyranny over
men's minds, especially in the interpretation of Scrip
ture, of which it is made the instrument, — and uphold
ing the Catholic principle and the authority of the
Church, from the protection and liberty thereby afforded
in the perusal of Scripture, and the legitimate exercise
of conscience, — yet are deterred from expressing their
convictions openly, or resisting as they ought the oppo
site principle, by a dread of encountering the charge,
so freely dealt out against them, of being abettors of
popery, and enemies of Scripture and the rights of
conscience. In either of these two parallel cases, it requires no
ordinary share of moral courage to stand up fearlessly
for truth. But as regards the religious part of the
question, those who are deterred from defending the
truth against its assailants, through fear of the imputa
tions to which it may expose them, would do well to
consider our Lord's words, Mark viii. 3 — 8. Luke x. 16.

LECTURE vm. 339
vitiation by false teachers, are utterly incom
petent to form an opinion on such subjects.
But whether the^^ecisions of men so situ
ated are to be regarded as any test of truth,
may be best answered by reflecting, in re
gard to the parallel case in civil matters, how
far the voice of an ignorant and misguided
populace, excited by the raisrepresentations
of a designing demagogue, and incensed
perhaps by an imaginary sense of oppres
sion, is to be regarded as decisive on the
coraplicated questions of government and of
laws, and the necessity, even on the lowest
utilitarian principle, of surrendering in the
social corapact sorae portion of our natural
liberty or acquired property, for the pur
pose of securing the remainder. Or to
refer both of these to a third case to which
they are strictly analogous, let us ask how
far children are the best judges of the
degree of restraint and discipline, bodily or
moral, necessary for their future health
and moral iraproveraent ; and how far we
should, as their responsible guardians, stop
to regard their objections, or consider the
pleasure or pain attendant on the course
z 2

.340 LECTURE VIIL
we thought it our duty to pursue, any rule
of its fitness to attain our object, for their
best interests and future ^happiness. The
general analogy of nature, and the whole
constitution of things as appointed by God,
corabine in declaring to us, if we will but
open our eyes to see it, that the beginnings
of all things conducive to our real good,
raust be attended with a teraporary personal
sacrifice ; and a surrender of our judgment,
for a time, to those who, frora age and ex
perience, from settled habits and opinions
of their own, are competent to form ours.
The object of such raoral education is to
lead us, by early irapressions, by habits
early forraed and tastes early excited, to
take pleasure in proper objects'". Our
natural disposition is averse to such things ;
and our natural" distaste for them, and the
reluctance to encounter the course by
which that distaste raay be reraoved, varies,
not only according to the different consti
tution and teraperaraent of each, but also
^ Aio Sei Jjx^ai ttws evdvs iK viiav, ws 6 YiXaratv (priirlv,
wore xalpeiv xe koI kvmltiBai, oh 8er rj yap opOfj •naibela
aUrrj i(rrCv .—Avkt. Eth. II. 3.

LECTURE VIII. 341
according to the period at which this course
of training begins.
To this statement of our raoral nature, as
drawn out by the science of Morals, Scrip
ture adds not only its own testimony, but
beyond this, full revelations respecting
our natural condition — the cause of it — ¦¦
our utter inability of ourselves to think
or do any think acceptable to God without
hira — the need of a new birth, and the
infusion into our nature of an entirely new
principle of action : and following up, as it
were, the voice of God speaking through
the philosophy of forraer days, places the
beginning of this new birth at a period
earlier still than that which reason would
prescribe for the work of renovation, be
cause, acting through a divine power and
under a divine promise, she is not circum
scribed within those liraits by which the
powers of reason were necessarily bounded.
And although, both in Morals and in the
Gospel, the difficulties are greatly over
come by an early coraraenceraent, yet to
the end, the nature- of raan reraains the
same. What is his best interest, must
z 3

342 LECTURE VIIL
ever, to a certain extent, be distasteful to
hira. Though under grace — though his
condition is changed, his » nature reraains
the sarae, and will be ever tempted to
break through the barriers which have been
placed before it. There is ever need of
vigilance, mortification, self-denial, humili
ation, deference to an authority and reli
ance on a power external to himself, — all
those things, in fact, which may be said to
militate raost against what is popularly
terraed liberty of thought and the rights of
conscience. The heart of raan ever requires a protec
tion against itself; and in nothing does it
require it raore, in nothing is it likely to
suffer more from the absence of it, than in
the glorious privilege which God has given
us of reading his will, and in tracing ra
diations of his heavenly glory, as revealed in
Holy Scripture. This protection he has
hiraself given us, in the constitution of the
Apostolic Church, and in the relation in
which he has raade the teaching of that
Church stand to Hol^ Scripture. And it is
from violating this relation, as adverted to at

LECTURE vm. 343
the coraraenceraent of these Lectures, that
the evils have arisen which have hitherto
defaced the fair body of Christ's Church ;
nor is it otherwise than by preserving this
relation, assigning to the Church and the
Scripture respectively their office in the
forraation of a true faith, that we can ever
hope to retain, in its priraitive purity, the
truth as it is in Jesus.
It is not necessary, at this stage of
the subject, to revert, at any length, to
the corruptions which have arisen from
violating this relation and the harraony
which ought to subsist between the Church
and Holy Scripture — first, in the erection
of Popery, from the suppression of Scrip
ture ; next, in the reign of Sectarianism,
with those which follow in its train —
Heresy, Rationalisra, Socinianisra, Infide
lity — arising frora the suppression of the
other divinely-appointed instruraent, the
teaching of the Church : but it would
contribute to enable us to see this raore
clearly, if we advert briefly to the analogy
in this respect between civil and ecclesi
astical raatters: for there is, in respect
z 4

344 LECTURE VIIL
of the points under consideration, a close
analogy. It was observed, that the heart of raan
requires protection against itself in raoral
and spiritual raatters, as raan requires pro
tection against raan in secular raatters, and
in the raaintenance of civil rights. In civil
raatters, we are aware that unliraited liberty
is utterly at variance with due security of
life and property. The object of good
government, and the result of the due
observance of our social relations, with the
duties involved in them, is to provide the
greatest degree of liberty compatible with
order, and the greatest security of life and
property consistent with rational liberty.
Without entering into political discussions,
we are aware that, in human society, these
objects are best attained by such relations
being established between the executive
and the governed, whether by popular re
presentation or any other kind of charter,
as raay enable thera to serve, as a check
one upon the other. What extent of power
should be vested in each, is a separate
question, depending on the advance each

LECTURE VIIL 345
state raay have made in the capacity to
bear civil liberty ; but one not affecting
the present arguraent, nor at all entering
into the analogy, now under consideration,
as regards the Church ".
Whenever, frora the circurastances of a
people, both of these are required, it is
obvious that the suppression of either, or
even the disturbing the balance and rela
tive influence of each which the genius of
the nation requires, would be attended with
evil consequences either to order or to
liberty : that the suppression of the charter
raust lead to despotisra ; that the suppres
sion of the government must lead to licen
tiousness, and thence, by a different road,
to tyranny.
To these two, in secular raatters, will
correspond, in spiritual and ecclesiastical
ones, the Church and the Scripture, — not
'^ There is nothing, in the relation of the Church to
Holy Scripture, corresponding to the principle which, in
civil government, regulates the relative influence of the
crown and popular control according to the circumstances
of each state, and its capacity to bear civil liberty:
a caution to be carefully observed in tracing analogies
of this nature. The analogy does not extend to this.

346 LECTURE VIIL
as regards any general analogy, but as re
gards the questions of governraent, protec-^
tion, and the principle of rautual check.
The Church is the depository and trustee
of Christian doctrine, the appointed instru
raent for the conversion of the world and the
instruction of sinners in the way of life —
the executive'', so to say, of Christ's king
dom on earth, as well for other acts of
governraent and protection, as also for ex
cluding by spiritual outlawry, and depriving
^ It must not be forgotten that, in another sense, the
Church is also legislative a,nd judicial; and likewise that,
as an independent society, it has its own executive, legis
lative, and judicial branches, distinct one from the other.
Viewed, however, as executive or legislative in relation
to Holy Scripture, Scripture will assume to it the rela
tion — in the one case, of a charter of liberty — ^in the
other, of a coordinate branch of legislature.
This is better expressed in the words of our Church : —
" The Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies,
" and authority in controversies of faith : and yet it is
" not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is
" contrary to God's word written, neither may it so ex-
" pound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to
" another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness
" and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree
" any thing against the same, so besides the same ought
" it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity
" of salvation." Art. XX.

LECTURE VIII. 347
of the privileges and benefits of its cora
raunity, (which is the lirait of its penal
powers, as such,) those who will not observe
its laws and obey its rulers. It is but a
delegated power indeed, as Christ's vice
gerent, yet having full power frora hira,
with the proraise that whatsoever it should
bind on earth he would bind in heaven.
This power, however, has a limit and a
check, in another instrument, also appointed
by our Lord, to which the acts and decrees
of the Church raust be referred, before
they are deeraed essential to the salvation
of its raerabers. That instrument is Holy
Scripture. To this have the raerabers of
the Church the liberty of appeal ; and
beyond this the Church cannot go.
The Scripture, on the other hand, while
providing this appeal, and furnishing as it
were this charter of our Christian liberties,
does not profess to originate raeasures ; does
not undertake to teach, as doctrine, what
ever the wildness or caprice of individual
fancy raay suggest; but to prove to the
disciple of Christ what the Church has
already taught hira — to shew to hira the

348 LECTURE VIII.
certainty of the things in which he has
been instructed; — to stand forth as the
jealous guardian of his liberties on that side,
as the Church is on the other. The union
of these two sacred instruraents in their
due proportion, where each retains its rela
tive influence, is like those happily raixed
constitutions in civil raatters, which cora
bine, as far as huraan corruption and way
wardness will allow, protection and liberty.
It gives protection against the huraan heart,
with the exercise of such liberty as our
nature can bear ; and by its appeal to
Scripture, under certain liraitations, it affords
liberty, without the licentiousness and law
lessness arising frora the undue indulgence
of the right of private judgraent. Now
of these two instruraents, the suppression
or weakening of either, is most prejudicial
to the whole fabric of the Christian faith.
The suppression of Scripture leads to cor
ruption and tyranny like Popery : the sup
pression of the authority of the Church leads
no less certainly to licentiousness, proceed
ing through the various grades of heresy, to
rationalisra and infidelity ; and thence back,

LECTURE VIII. 349
perhaps, by a different road, to Popery.
These will correspond respectively to de
spotisra and democracy, caused by the sup
pression, — in the one case of the charter,
— in the other of the government.
Popery is despotism in religion, effected
by the suppression of our charter. Holy
Scripture. Sectarianism is democracy and republi
canism in religion, brought about by the
suppression of the Church.
Of the one, we have the exeraplification
and the proof in the whole history of the
Papacy, frora which the protecting mercy
of God, in his own good time, gave us
deliverance. Of the other, if the history of our own
tiraes does not afford the like exemplifica
tion, it is because we are in progress to it,
rather than have as yet fully arrived at it.
May God, of his infinite raercy, grant
that our eyes raay yet be opened, to see
the path into which the judicial blindness,
which our sins have brought down, is fast
leading us.
The connection, however, between the

350 LECTURE vm.
two, is not merely one of analogy, but also
of principle.
The principle of Popery is the despotic
and servile principle on the part of the
ruler and governed respectively : the prin
ciple of Sectarianisra, is the deraocratic and
republican principle, equally despotic and
servile in another shape ^. Hence arises that
union of the two characters, which alraost
universally presents itself to our notice in
individuals, and frequently in nations also.
It is not raere accident that unites Popery
with despotisra and arbitrary governraent ;
sectarianisra and infidelity with republic-
anisra ; and true Apostolic principles with a
raixed constitution like our own. And it
requires but a raoderate acquaintance with
the history of our own country to see, that as
e From this approximation of extremes to each other,
it will not be difficult to trace likewise the parallel, as
well as the identity of principle, between the spirit which,
in secular matters, has associated nominal republics with
despotic governments in their attacks on the liberties of
free states ; and that which, in religion, has exhibited
the corresponding apparent paradox, in our own times
and in our own country, of the union of sectarianism
with Popery for the overthrow of the Church in these
realms.

LECTURE VIIL 351
popular influence has increased and gained
strength, so has the authority of Scripture
had raore influence in determining points
of faith. This, to a certain point, was just,
and restoring a balance unduly violated
previously. But the sarae history also in
forras us, that at the time when the spirit of
rebellion was at the highest, and the demo
cratic influence raost pararaount, the au
thority of the Church in spiritual raatters
sank with that of the governraent in secular
ones ; and that Scripture and the narae of
God on the one hand, and liberty and the
narae of the people on the other, were used
as pretexts for sorae of the foulest deeds
which pollute the annals of our country.
And to those who are disposed to follow
out the analogy further than the tirae
would now allow me to do here, raany strik
ing points of reserablance, or rather of
identity, will present theraselves, of the
principle of democracy with that of secta
rianisra and dissent. Both profess to abide
by, while they abuse, the sacred narae of
liberty. As the one professes to be the
sole champion of public liberty, so does

.352 LECTURE VIIL
the other profess to be, of the rights of
conscience. As the one arrogates to itself
the sole claim to the title of friend of the
people, so does the other that of the advo
cate of Holy Scripture, and the honour of
God as involved in that. As the one de
nounces its political opponents as the abet
tors of tyranny, so does the other charge
those who oppose it with favouring Popery.
As the one uses the narae of liberty and
the people, to establish its own power on the
ruins of that which it would overthrow,
so does the other use the name of Scripture,
the plea of conscience, and the right of
private judgment, to establish a spiritual
despotisra, raore oppressive, if possible, than
the tyranny of Rorae ^.
f Unhappily, our own times and country furnish us
daily with too many instances of this, to render it neces
sary to do more than merely allude to them for the pur
pose of proof and illustration. This will be obvious to
any one who has observed with an ordinary degree of
attention the Jesuitical attempts of sectarians to advance
from toleration, through equality, to supremacy and uni
versal dominion ; as also the tyranny and oppression
exercised over their own members, which, to those enjoy
ing the liberty afforded in the Apostolic Church, seem
scarcely credible. To shew how far the same was real-

LECTURE VIII. 353
This is the last point of analogy to which
the time would now allow us to advert.
ized in past times, when, for once, sectarians did obtain
supremacy, would be but to transcribe the history of the
Rebellion and the Commonwealth. For a summary, how
ever, of the events of those times, exhibiting in its true
colours the persecuting spirit of sectarianism, the reader
is referred to the chapter on the " Sufferings of the
Clergy," in the Life of Hammond, by the Rev. W. Hone,
in his interesting work on the Lives of Eminent Christians,
in which the subject is forcibly and feelingly treated.
The faithfulness of the following portrait, in its main
features, will be readily recodified even in our own day.
" In truth, the furious outcry raised by the Calvinistic
" faction of that age against Archbishop Laud, as a
" Popish persecutor, furnishes us with a singular illus-
" tration of the deceitfulness of the huraan heart, or of
" the hardness of the human forehead. For, of all the
" repulsive peculiarities of the holy discipline, as it ex-
" hibited itself in his time, there was none perhaps so
" remarkable, as its coarse, hard-featured resemblance to
" that very Popery which was the object of its professed
" abhorrence. The Presbyterian system was, in its
" original principles, as sternly and avowedly intolerant
" as the pontifical chair. It extended no hope of salva-
" tion beyond the pale of its own communion. It affect-
" ed a dominion paramount to all earthly magistracy.
" It proclaimed a war of extermination against heresy.
" It was ready to compass earth and sea for proselytes.
" Violence and terror were employed to establish its
" claim to infallibility. And if Popery had its Council
" of Trent, Calvinism had its Synod of Dort. If it
"abjured the idolatry of the mass, it may fairly be
A a

354 LECTURE VIIL
And here, as in others, it will be seen, frora
the protection which the constitution of
the Apostolic Church affords us, both
against ourselves and against the tyranny
of self-appointed teachers, how raercifuUy
it has been fraraed with reference to our
wants. In reverting, in conclusion, to what was
advanced at the coraraenceraent of these
" said to have found a substitute in the ordinance of
" preaching ; for, to the Presbyterian, the sermon was
" almost as much the life and soul of public worship, as
" the sacrifice of the Eucharist was to the Romanist. If
'' it renounced the merit of ritual observances, it seemed
" to indemnify itself by setting up instead the merit of
" neglecting them. If the Pope claimed power to hurl
" monarchs from their thrones, the Presbytery, in like
" manner, held itself commissioned to denounce them as
" traitors to the majesty of the people, and enemies to
" Grod. If the Pope could proclaim, that to keep faith
" with heretics was to be false to the Church, the Pres-
" bytery could declare, precisely in the same spirit, that
" oaths were nullities whenever they tended to the detri-
" ment of the holy cause. Nay, if the Pontiff grasped
" the keys of St. Peter, the Presbytery wielded the
" sceptre of Christ himself. And, lastly, to complete
" the similitude, if the Romish discipline transferred the
" care of his own conscience from the sinner to the
" priest, very similar to this was the effect of the system
" of G-eneva." — Life of Archbishop Laud, by C. W. Le Bas,
M.A.

LECTURE VIIL 355
Lectures, respecting the subject of them,
and the circumstances which rendered it
iraportant to be considered at the present
tirae, a few remarks remain to be offered
both for our encouragement and caution,
and with reference to the bearing of such
discussions on the present and future pro
spects of the Church.
It was observed, that the circurastances
in which the Church is now placed, call
upon us to take sorae decisive raeasures
with reference to the laxity of the princi
ples of the day on ecclesiastical subjects,
and to arrest the rapidly increasing corrup
tion of pure doctrine, and the no less rapid
increase of heresy and heretical principles
generally, as well as of Socinianisra and
Socinian principles in particular ; that we
are placed in a situation analogous to that
in which the Church was placed previous to
the Reforraation, in respect of departure
from true principles; (practically, at least,
for we still profess to hold them ;) but
with this difference in our time, that where
as the evils then arose from the suppression
of Scripture, those of our day arise frora
A a 2

856 LECTURE VIIL
the virtual suppression of the teaching of
the Church, and the denial of the Church's
authority. The helps which forraerly avail
ed against the corruptions of Popery, now,
frora change of circurastance, no longer avail
us against the spirit of heresy and rational
isra. In forraer tiraes, when there were
few who were not Catholics, and the clairas
of the Church were adraitted, there was
little need, while asserting the authority of
Scripture, to contend rauch for that of the
Church. Not that the English Reforraers
lost sight of the latter, as is obvious frora
their own declarations on the subject ; nor,
had they said less on that subject than they
did, would it have affected the question,
considering the circurastances under which
they were placed. But that they fully
adraitted and acted upon those principles,
is clear, not only frora their own declara
tions, but frora the circurastance, that while
asserting the sufficiency of Holy Scripture,
and the right of appealing to it for the
proof of the things to be believed, they
were content with proofs in Scripture, in
direct and by implication, against which

LECTURE VIII. 357
objections are now urged, both as being in
sufficient in theraselves, and as having,
raoreover, against thera the antecedent ira
probability of being designed so to teach
and prove, on the assuraption that Scripture
was designed to be the teacher as well as
the proof of Christian doctrine. The bar
rier which they thus erected of Scripture
was, on their principle, sufficient for the
purpose of purifying the faith of the cor
ruptions which had defiled it. It served
to throw off whatever would not' pass its
ordeal, though it allowed to pass, on proofs
indirect and by iraplication, such articles
of faith as could exhibit the starap of
Catholic antiquity, and might be assumed
to have been sufficiently familiar to the
sacred writer and those whom he addressed,
to account for those indirect and apparently
faint allusions, which would not be allowed
the sarae force of proof, if the first intima
tion, as well as the proof, was to be gathered
frora Scripture alone. In this way, while
the anti- catholic and anti-scriptural corrup
tions of Popery were discarded, there were
allowed to pass the test. Infant Baptism,
Aa 3

358 LECTURE VIIL
Baptismal Regeneration, the sacramental
efficacy of the Eucharist, Episcopal author
ity, and Apostolical succession. To wliich
we might add, in the judgment of many,
the divinity of the Word and of the Spirit,
and the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity.
Things however are now changed. The
Sixth Article no longer serves to protect
us ; since all will adrait it, even while
denying the points of faith which the
Church receives on its authority. They
will not allow the Church to read her own
Article, and interpret her own declarations,
in her own senses. First, there are those,
g In a note appended to a former Lecture, (p. 150.)
allusion was made to the inconsistency and unfairness of
those who, while professing to abide by the Sixth Article
of our Church, yet always overlook or disregard the clause
" In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand
" those canonical books of the Old and New Testament,
" of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church"
— which involves an admission of their entire dependence
on the Traditional testimony of the Church for the
genuineness of the Scriptures themselves.
A similar instance of unfairness and inconsistency
occurs in the case now under consideration, in which they
take upon themselves to interpret the clause, " Holy
" Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation,"
as predicating of the Scripture, that it is the guide as well

LECTURE VIIL 359
even within the coraraunion of our Church,
to our sharae and sorrow be it said, who will
deny that Baptismal regeneration will pass
the test of the Sixth Article, or episcopacy,
or the sacramental efficacy of the Eucharist.
Well then — the erroneous principle of con
ciliating by conceding points of difference
leads to the abandonment of these. Then,
following up the principle, others will com
plain that we allow the divinity of the Son
and Holy Spirit to pass the test, and will
deny that it can do so ; as was stated in the
passages frora Milton and the raodern Soci
nians, quoted in the second Lecture : and
how these latter are to be replied to, if the
arguraent of the former class be adraitted, it
as the standard of faith : whereas, would they but go on
to the remaining clause of the sentence, viz., " so that
" whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved
" thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should
" be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought re-
" quisite or necessary to salvation " — which assigns to the
former its proper force as declaratory of the sufficiency
of the Holy Scriptures for salvation — they would see the
meaning and intention of the framers of the article, in
erecting this, as it were, the barrier on the side of
Popery, as the testiraony of the Church is on the side of
Heresy and Sectarianism. The first clause enunciates the
decision of the Reformers ; the second defines its meaning.
A a 4

360 LECTURE VIII.
is not easy to say. After these follow others,
protesting against allowing the doctrine of
the Trinity in Unity to pass the barrier,
and denying that it can do so. In the
train of these follow others, each denying
the sufficiency of proof in Scripture, for
such articles of faith, as his fears or interests
lead him to wish to be untrue. Thus the
body of Christ, in its passage through the
Sectarian band, is torn limb from lirab, de
prived of its vitality, the residue, after these
successive rautilations, being but a dead
unraeaning nothing, to which all or any
raay lay claira, without indeed involving
any difference or dispute, inasrauch as
there is nothing of shape or substance on
which a difference of opinion could arise.
Yet all these, the while, call theraselves
Christians ! Their faith they terra a belief
in Christianity ! They all profess to concur
in the Sixth Article of our Church !
And what has occurred to produce this ?
The virtual suppression of the Church's
teaching; the denial of the Church's au
thority in raatters of faith ; the losing sight
of the circurastance that the Christian

LECTURE VIIL 361
Scriptures are written for Christians, and
addressed to Christians, and that they pre
suppose, in the reader, at least eleraentary
instruction in the doctrines of which they
speak, and therefore speak in the way of
allusion, as to things so far known and
farailiar; and that, on this principle, we are
content with allusions and proofs by impli
cation, where, on the supposition that Scrip
ture was our first instructor and only guide,
we should, with the Sectarian, and on his
principle, not feel satisfied without more full
and direct statements.
These evils then having arisen frora the
suppression of the Church's authority and
teaching, and the undue relative preponder
ance assigned to Scripture, as the teacher of
doctrine, distinguished from its authority as
proof subsequently, our object must be to
restore the balance between the two sacred
instruraents, and to assign to each its due
office in the formation of a pure faith. This
is no easy task, because we have arrayed
against us the Sectarian and the Ration
alist, as well as raany adopting their re
spective principles within the pale of the

362 LECTURE VIII.
Church — the one raaintaining that our prin
ciple is unscriptural, and derogatory to the
sufficiency of the Holy Scripture ; the
other, objecting to it as irrational, unphilo
sophical, unfavourable to the progress of
truth and free inquiry, opposed to the
nature of raan, and hostile to the develope
raent and full exercise of his raoral and
mental powers. In reply to these, it has
been attempted to be shewn, in these Lec
tures, that the Church's principle of bias
sing the raind before giving the Bible to
read, is perfectly Scriptural, conformable
to the general analogy of things, adapted
to the raoral nature of raan, and conform
able with the principle observed in all
raoral instruction ; while the identity of
the views, in favour of which the Church
now prejudices the rainds of her children,
with those asserted to have been taught by
the Apostles theraselves, and with reference
to which their writings were penned, was
alleged to be proved by that on which we
are corapelled to rest the genuineness of
Scripture itself, viz. the universal testi
mony of the Church : that the objections

LECTURE VIIL 363
urged against the one, lie against the other
also; and that the seeraing objections against
both, only served to denote in both their ana
logy and conforraity to the laws of moral evi
dence, and to mark their adaptation to our
raoral nature, and their suitableness to our
condition as moral and responsible beings.
Nor need it be thought an objection,
that the Church be deeraed the object of
defence, rather than Christianity itself. It
is upon the Church, and not upon Chris
tianity generally, that the attacks are made
by the Rationalist and Sectarian : and this,
for a very obvious reason. In former tiraes,
Christianity and the Church were nearly
synonyraous terms; and in attacking the
Church, Christianity itself was also assailed.
Now, however, from the raultiplicity and
daily increasing nuraber of Sects, all of
whom, no matter how far removed frora
the Apostles' doctrine, still call themselves
Christians, it happens that those to whora
the raain or any doctrines of the Gospel
are a sturablingblock, have no need to ob
ject to Christianity itself, or renounce it in
name, there being always some Sect to

364 LECTURE VIIL
which they can profess to belong, and in
which they can retain the narae of Chris
tian, however virtually they may have for
feited their claira to it : and generally
speaking, raen are not disposed^ to go the
whole length of opposing the opinions of
the generality, if it can be avoided. But
in the raidst of this apostasy, the Church,
continuing to hold the priraitive Catholic
faith, in all its purity and entireness, re
ceives the brunt of the assaults, which
were formerly directed against Christianity
itself. And since Scripture alone, from
the nature of the case, will not defend her
faith against those who conceive they have
forraed theirs by that rule, and since she
therefore professes to have another guide,
which, together with Scripture, forras her
rule of faith, — this other guide becoraes the
object of attack on the part of her enemies ;
which it has been my object to vindicate in
these Lectures. It does not therefore rest
with ourselves, whether the attention of
men shall be called to what are terraed
Church principles ; that being already done
by the attacks raade on our faith, which

LECTURE VIIL 365
can only be replied to, against the Sectarian
and Rationalist's arguraent, by a declaration
of the principle on which we defend it,
and which forras the specific feature which
distinguishes us frora thera. We are cora
pelled, therefore, to call the attention of
raen to these principles, even though the
only object to be attained by it were our
own defence. We may, however, hope that
other benefits, and those of the greatest
raoraent to the progress of evangelical
truth, raay flow frora the discussion of
them, which the last few years have wit
nessed. Two of these in particular should
be raentioned.
I. As regards many nominally in our
coraraunion, as well as raany without, there
can be no question that, for a long period
prior to the close of the last century, real
evangelical preaching was at a very low ebb
in the Church in this country. Without
entering into the causes which led to a
revival of spiritual religion, it is well known
that attention was rauch called to it by
those who had separated frora the corarau
nion of the Church. From this, it was not

366 LECTURE VIIL
unnatural that spiritual religion should by
the unreflecting and ignorant be identified
with dissent. When further taken up by
raen, not indeed out of our coraraunion, but
raen whose principles approximated materi
ally to those of Sectarians, it was not un
natural that spirituality even in the Church,
should be associated with the idea of laxity
on the subject of Church discipline and
Apostolic authority; and that orthodoxy
and Church principles should, by those
ignorant of their nature, be deemed life
less and devoid of spirituality, as political
rather than ecclesiastical or spiritual : and
this irapression has, frora various causes, too
long prevailed. Those, however, who have
given their attention to orthodoxy and
Church principles, are aware that they are
the raost inspiring, invigorating, — the raost
spiritual and evangelical ; not robbing raen
of those spiritual views which dissent and
latitudinarianisra profess to open to them,
but giving these views, only more spiritual,
offering in a purer forra, that which the
other could but offer in a spurious one.
Without passing any judgment on those

LECTURE VIIL 367
whose efforts first seeraed to lead the way
to raore active Christianity, or defending
those whose lifeless professed orthodoxy is
said to have been the cause which called
thera into being, we raay ask, what will be
the probable effect of the revival araong us,
of pure Church principles in the true and
Apostolic sense of the word ? Nay, what
does not experience begin to suggest, in
addition to the antecedent probability of it ?
That it will purify the Church, — that it
will try the spirits of raen, — that those
who, either wholly or in part, departed
frora Catholic principles under the im
pression that they were lifeless, unspirit-
ual, political rather than religious, — that
these, when they find that true Church
principles, fairly carried out, are raore spirit
ual, more evangelical, more supporting in
the hour of need, than the spurious excite
raent produced by dissent and Sectarian
principles, will corae back with heart and
soul to the bosora of the Church, and that
rauch zeal and piety now lost to the
Church, may, under grace, be won back
to it. While on the other hand, those who

368 LECTURE VIIL
adopted Sectarian views from motives of
pride, as is frequently the case — first, as
involving the assumed right of judging and
choosing for themselves, so acceptable to the
pride of the natural raan ; next, as affording
the raeans, which in the Church they could
not have possessed, of acquiring notoriety
and influence as the leaders of a party, the
little popes as it were of a little circle, —
these will naturally be exasperated at the
estabUshraent of principles, which would
extinguish their undue iraportance by raerg-
ing thera in the great body of the Church
catholic, and put an end to their spurious
influence, by reraoving that on which it
rests ; like the political deraagogue, M'ho,
while inveighing against bad government,
is still more afraid of good governraent,
which, by correcting abuses, reraoves, with
thera, the foundation of his influence.
Another iraportant result, to which we
may not unreasonably look forward, from
the revival and re-establishment of true
Church principles, is one which regards the
members of the Roman Catholic Church,
and its probable influence in recalling

LECTURE VIII. 369
them to a purer faith. To this must every
sincere Christian look with deep interest.
As yet, little has been done towards their
reforraation ; to which raany causes have
contributed, over wliich we may have had
no control. But may it not be owing, in a
great degree, to the raanner in which their
creed is spoken of by raany, and which,
indirectly at least, receives our sanction ?
Let us not palliate what is really sinful
and opposed to God's word ; but let us re
gard the matter impartially, and place our
selves in imagination in their position : —
convinced that they hold much that is
true ; that we ourselves allow it to be so :
that we admit their orders and succession,
while we repudiate those of Sectarians : that,
as to Israel, however they raay have abused
the privilege, to thera were coraraitted the
oracles of God: that our own Reforraers,
by whom we profess to stand, held much
in coraraon with them, ^vhich we profess to
hold, but which in practice we virtually
renounce : that they are assailed by every
violence of language, having things im
puted which they disown ; having charged
Bb

370 LECTURE VIIL
upon them, as sinful errors, things which
even we nominally hold : that many things
which we hold in coraraon with them, yet
if we avow openly, are, from popular igno
rance, charged on us as sin also : and that
many, far raore reraoved frora us than they
are, in corruptions of the faith, are yet re
ceived by us as brethren, though joined to
us by hardly any other bond than the
negative one of difference with thera ;
nay, that we reckon araong these, many of
whora the Apostle would have said Ana
thema maranatha. Let us consider all
this calraly and dispassionately ; and can
we wonder that they should look with
coldness and suspicion on those who place
theraselves in such a relation to thera ?
Can we expect that they will forego
their chivalrous devotion to their own
Church, and renounce hereditary feelings
and prejudices for that cold selfish Sect
arianisra, from which every thing noble
and generous would seem to be excluded?
Can we wonder that they should prefer
their own faith, with all its corruptions,
to that unmeaning ultra-protestantism.

LECTURE VIII. 371
which, having little more in common with
us than with them, has no distinctive fea
ture in itself, nor bond of union between
its several raerabers, but that of disagree-
raent with them? that they should pre
fer even the superstitions and vanities
of their own creed, where Christ is still
worshipped as God, and the sacraments
deeraed channels and pledges of grace, to
that profane indifference to Apostolic doc
trine, and disregard of Apostolic injunc
tion, which, while denouncing thera as
Antichrist, hails in bonds of Christian fel
lowship those who deny the Lord that
bought them, and of whom they are told in
the Scripture, which we also profess to hold
in reverence as the word of God, that they
receive thera not into their house, neither
bid thera God speed ? When they behold
in us such inconsistency and contradiction
between profession and practice, raay they
not find in this a plea to do the like, and
content themselves with the reflection, that
their profession, whether error or not, is,
like our own, not always in practice acted
upon? Is it too rauch to believe that there
B b 2

.372 LECTURE VIII.
is yet in the bosom of the Roman Church a
Fenelon ora Pascal; — that there is yet many
an one who, though aware, in a great de
gree, of the errors of his Church, yet regards
them through the raediura of filial rever
ence, and with the leniency of filial affec
tion ; — that he sees whatever therein is fair
and good, and loves it too well to be aban
doned for that of which he knows not the
value, or even the nature ; and will there
fore wait for better tiraes, and a better
spirit towards hira than that he now expe
riences ? Can we expect hira to renounce
the faith in which he was born and edu
cated, in which his fathers lived and died,
without offering what is to hira a better
and purer one ? And it raust be reraera
bered, that those principles are so absorb
ing, whether right or not, that one who
holds them at all, will retain them in error,
rather than embrace a systera which era-
bodies thera in no shape whatever.
Looking at the associations avowedly
formed for their conversion, and for pro
moting what are erroneously terraed the
principles of the Reforraation, — the spirit

LECTURE VIIL 373
by which they are actuated, — the persons
of whora they are coraposed, — not even
necessarily baptized persons; — in other
societies, the official seat at their board,
and the official voice in the direction of
their operations, assigned to the authors
of heresy and schisra, (from which we pro
fess daily to pray for deliverance,) — could
we judge harshly of the Romanist, if he
recoiled, with feelings of something beyond
mere distrust, from such advances ? Could
we blame hira if he experienced, in reference
to his Church and its self-styled reformers,
the feelings which elicited from the elo
quent and patriotic statesraan, in reference
to his country, the sentiraent that " to
" avoid the evils of inconstancy and ver-
" satility, ten thousand tiraes worse than
" those of obstinacy and the blindest pre-
" judice, we have consecrated the State,
" that no raan should approach to look
" into its defects or corruptions, but with
" due caution ; that he should never dreara
" of beginning its reforraation by its sub-
" version ; that he should approach to the
" faults of the State, as to the wounds of
Bb3

374 LECTURE VIIL
" a father, with pious awe and trerabling
" solicitude. By this wise prejudice, we
" are taught to look with horror on those
" children of their country, who are
" prorapt, rashly to hack that aged parent
" in pieces, and to put hira into the
" kettle of raagicians, in hopes that, by
" their poisonous weeds and wild incan-
" tations, they raay regenerate the paternal
" constitution, and renovate their father's
" life." "
But if we, without relaxing the great
principle of the Reforraation — the right
of appeal to Holy Scripture — would but
carry out the principles which we profess
to hold, and which our Church did also in
practice hold, till puritanisra, and the profii-
gate age which succeeded it, dealt such
deadly blows against them ; if we adrait
the legitiraate authority of the Church —
that with which Scripture itself records it
to have been invested — our lirait being the
concurrence of the written word; if we
listen patiently to the presuraptive clairas
^ Burke, on the French Revolution.

LECTURE VIIL 375
of Antiquity, not as to be irapUcitly re
ceived, but with respect due to the voice
of Antiquity, as such, still reserving the
right of comparing it afterwards with Holy
Scripture; and if, in our differences with
the Romanist arising hence, we are content
to argue with hira on his own ground, not
disputing the clairas of his church, as such,
but questioning the grounds on which he
would here apply thera ; proceeding in a
Christian spirit ; beginning, if he wishes,
with the clairas which his church ought to
have on her children frora her raere exist
ence, till found to be false ; trying this,
and tracing with hira the streara upwards,
shewing hira how and when it becarae pol
luted, — that his present error was not held
by those whose authority he professes to
take ; and thus, while reraoving his false
prop, giving, by gentle hand, a better, a>
surer testimony of Antiquity, crowning it
by the testimony of Holy Scripture ; — is it
altogether visionary to hope that he may
be led to reconsider his errors, and that his
branch may yet be reabsorbed into the
purer portion of the one Holy Catholic
Bb 4

376 LECTURE VIII.
Church ?s If such a blessed result may
not be looked for, we shall at least have
done that which the word of God warrants,
and which Christian prudence would sug
gest, as affording the greatest room for ex
pecting to reclaim him. And, what is of
no less raoraent for us to consider, we shall
have done rauch towards reraoving frora our
own souls the guilt, which there may be
too much ground to fear now li€S against
thera, of confirraing hira in error by our
treatraent of him, and the exhibition of our
own inconsistency, and of making ourselves
thereby partakers of his sin.
Whether or no, however, any of these
beneficial results may flow from the revival,
in a pure forra, of sound Church principles,
our duty and course is independent of that
result. Let us do our best, and leave the
issue, however discouraging, in God's hands.
At the sarae tirae, the prospect of success
s The reformation of individual Romanists, to which
this refers, leaves alone the question whether the Roman
Church will ever be reformed as a Church, and as such
record its reformation by any formal decree or solemn act
of renunciation ; or whether, as a Church, it stands irre
vocably committed, as some think, by its own decrees.

LECTURE VIII. 377
should not be left out of the account in
shaping our views, were the time and mode
of acting left to our own discretion. But
here, as was observed, we have no choice :
the course is forced upon us by the circura
stances in which we live. Still we raay, as
we should, be cautious and wary, corabining
the wisdora of the serpent with the sira-
plicity of the dove. There will ever be
those who either want the mind to under
stand our principles, or the honesty not to
misrepresent them. By these we shall be
accused of leaning to Popery, and of weak
ening the reverence for, and detracting from
the authority of Holy Scripture. That
they should do this, involves no objection
to the principles theraselves, because, as
was observed, pride brooks no restraint ;
and to the lovers of license, any restriction
on their interpretation of Scripture is an
offence, as the restraint of civil powers is a
grievance to the turbulent and self-willed.
But if any sincere and hurable rainded
weak brother should be offended, let us
deal tenderly and charitably with him,
standing fast indeed in our Christian liberty.

378 LECTURE VIIL
but taking heed, lest, by any raeans, this
liberty of ours becorae a stumblingblock
to them that are weak.
But as to any charge of undervaluing
Scripture, because the circurastances of our
day require us rather to advocate, in com
parison, the authority of the Church, — on
that principle St. Paul raight be accused of
raaking light of good works, or St. James
of denying the doctrine of justification by
faith, because the circurastances in which
they respectively wrote, required thera to
urge in particular the points they respect
ively enforced. If we do not doubt that
the two Apostles agreed in that great
doctrine, and that each would have ex
pressed hiraself as the other did, had their
circurastances been reversed, as little can
we doubt that those who, at the Reforraa
tion, advocated the authority and sufficiency
of Scripture, and those who now advo
cate the authority of the Church and the
Church's teaching, had the sarae object in
view, and would have expressed theraselves
each in the sarae way, had they been placed
in the same circumstances.

LECTURE VIIL 379
Still we require caution, and every exer
cise of Christian prudence, that we do not
defeat our object, nor eventually retard the
cause of truth by being too precipitate ;
lest, frora haste or want of judgment, we
cause offence, and thence create a reaction
in favour of sectarianism, analogous to that
caused by the violence of Popery, frora the
effects of which we are even yet suffering.
These liabilities to error we cannot utterly
avoid ; to the end it must be, while the
agents are human ; nor is it any objection
to a systera, that it is liable to it. Our
duty is to guard against it as much as pos
sible, both by checking our own personal
tendencies, and, which is no less iraportant,
by taking heed lest we personally cause
offence^lest we create in the rainds of
others, by our own teraper or conduct, a
feeling which alraost unavoidably in their
rainds will transfer itself frora us to the prin
ciples we advocate." Our personal life and
conversation, our raode of advocating and
recoraraending our principles, will have an
influence in advancing or retarding thera,
for which we shall be responsible. The tone

380 LECTURE VIII.
and temper necessary for this, is only to be
obtained by cultivating Christian principles,
by holy living, by watchfulness and prayer,
by frequent study of Holy Scripture, and
irabibing from it its spirit. Herein is
one of the many blessed advantages of
reading Holy Scripture, beyond the raere
proof of doctrines. Against the heretic
and sectarian we are obliged to assert the
authority of the Church, and to guard with
sorae jealousy the relation in which, by our
Lord's appointnaent, as declared in Holy
Scripture, that Scripture stands to the
Christian doctrines. But to those truly in
coraraunion with us, the war of controversy
may cease ; and we may turn to Holy
Scripture, not with a jealous fear, lest weak,
unstable, or proud, they should wrest it to
their own destruction — not merely to prove
a doctrine or refute error — but to trace out
its practical relation as exhibited in Holy
Scripture — to deepen the impression on our
hearts — to purify our souls — to irabibe its
spirit — and especially, in reference to the
present subject, that spirit of charity to
wards the ignorance, prejudices, and way-

LECTURE vm. 381
wardness of others, which "suffereth long
"and is kind; that vaunteth not itself, is
" not puffed up, doth not behave itself un-
" seeraly, seeketh not its own, is not easily
" provoked, thinketh no evil, beareth all
"things, hopeth all things, endureth all
" things." For, lastly, another consideration which
ought to weigh rauch with us in enforcing
the duty of patience and raoderation in the
estabUshraent of our principles is, that the
faults which led to the errors into which
raen have fallen, are our own work, i. e.
that of the Church, of which we, as raera
bers, and coraraunicating one with another,
are partakers : we raust therefore bear with
much, as though we were bearing with our
selves and our own sins. What if we think
ourselves less culpable than those who have
gone before us ? We know not if we are ;
and even were it so, it is but in harmony
with all God's dispensations, natural and
revealed, that we suffer without reference
to that. Judah was carried into captivity
for sins which their fathers had coraraitted,
but the penalty of which they seemed to

.382 LECTURE VIIL
suffer. Yet if they fiUed up the ini
quity of their fathers, why should not we ?
Certainly, in the raysterious counsels of
God, the huraan race seeras regarded as
one; and his object seeras attained, if it
be fulfilled to one generation. It was thus
in reference to the flood, the captivity,
the filling up iniquity ; and thus also will
it be in the fulfilraent of the prophecy,
that " the earth shall be filled with the
"knowledge of the glory of the Lord, as
" the waters cover the sea."
But be that as it raay, we do partici
pate, through this raysterious partnership,
in sins which we have apparently not cora
raitted, and in blessings which we certainly
have not earned. Others- have laboured,
and we have entered into their labours ;
and, by the sarae appointraent, we raust
be content to labour, though others shall
enter into it and reap its fruits ? Let us
be satisfied that our Lord's kingdora does
corae, content to receive the blessing through
faith, and enjoy it through the corarau
nion of saints. If tirae is no object in
God's counsels, why should we be irapatient

LECTURE VIIL 383
to see the termination of the work of our
own little span of life ? If four thousand
years were not deemed too rauch to pre
pare the way for the fulness of time, before
the coming of the promised Deliverer ;
if four hundred years were not too rauch
for the fulfilment of the promise to the
Patriarch, that his seed should inherit the
land ; on what principle shall we justify
impatience, or think that God has forgotten
us, or that his proraise has failed and
corae to an end ? If the Patriarch could
look forward in faith to the period when
in his seed the nations of the earth should
be blessed ; if, through the vista of cen
turies — in nuraber even more than have
since witnessed its fulfilment — he could see
that day and be glad, — how does this not
rebuke the sluggishness of our faith ? Let
us rather reflect — and while we do so, it
raay serve to nourish and increase our faith
in the ultiraate triuraph of the kingdora of
Christ, — that while, with those of former
years, it has been given to us to hear and
see those blessed things which prophets and
kings had in vain desired to hear and see.

384 LECTURE VIIL
we have also a blessedness, which even
the Apostles shared not on earth, save
through faith — the experience of eighteen
centuries, attesting the faithfulness of the
proraise, that He is with us always, even
to the end of the world.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08844 3008