mentals. Men differ from each other at present, first from the influence of the false theories of Private Judgment which are among us, and which mislead them; next from the want of external guidance. They are enjoined, as a matter of duty, to examine and decide for themselves, and the Church but faintly protests against this proceeding, or supersedes the need of it. Truth has a force which error cannot counterfeit; and the Church, speaking out that Truth, as committed to her, would cause a corresponding vibration in Holy Scripture, such as no other notes, however loudly sounded, can draw from it. If, after all, persons arose, as they would arise, disputing against the fundamentals, or separating on minor points, let them go their way;

66

they went out from us, because they were not of us." They would commonly be "men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith';" I do not say there never could be any other, but for such extraordinary cases no system can provide. If there were better men, who, though educated in the Truth, ultimately opposed it openly, they, as well as others, would be put out of the Church for their error's sake, and for their contumacy; and God, who alone sees the hearts of men, and how mysteriously good and evil are mingled together in this world, would provide in His own inscrutable way for anomalies which His revealed system did

not meet.

1 2 Tim. iii. 8.

I consider, then, on the whole, that however difficult it may be in theory to determine when we must go by our own view of Scripture, when by the decision of the Church, yet in practice there would be little or no difficulty at all. Without claiming infallibility, the Church may claim the confidence and obedience of her members; Scripture may be read without tending to schism; minor differences allowed, without disagreement in fundamentals; and the proud and self-willed disputant discarded without the perplexed inquirer suffering. If there is schism among us, it is not that Scripture speaks variously, but that the Church of the day speaks not at all; not that Private Judgment is rebellious, but that the Church's judgment is withheld.

I do really believe that, with more of primitive simplicity and of rational freedom, and far more of Gospel truth than in Romanism, there would be found in the rule of Private Judgment, as I have described it, as much certainty as the doctrine of Infallibility can give. As ample provision would be made both for the comfort of the individual, and for the peace and unity of the body; which are the two objects for which Romanism professes to consult. The claim of Infallibility is but an expedient for impressing strongly upon the mind the necessity of hearing and of obeying the Church. When scrutinized carefully, it will be found to contribute nothing whatever towards satisfying the reason, as

was observed in another connection; since it is as difficult to prove and bring home to the mind that the Church is infallible, as that the doctrines it teaches are true. Nothing, then, is gained in the way of conviction; only of impression,-and, again, of expedition, it being less trouble to accept one doctrine on which all the others are to depend, than a number. Now this impressiveness and practical perspicuity in teaching, as far as these objects are lawful and salutary, may, I say, be gained without this claim; they may be gained in God's way, without unwarranted additions to the means of influence which He has ordained, without a tenet, fictitious in itself, and, as falsehood ever will be, deplorable in many ways in its results.

LECTURE VI.

ON THE ABUSE OF PRIVATE JUDGMENT.

I MUST not quit the subject of Private Judgment, without some remarks on the popular view of it; which is as follows,-that every Christian has the right of making up his mind for himself what he is to believe, from personal and private study of the Scriptures. This, I suppose, is the fairest account to give of it; though sometimes Private Judgment is considered rather as the necessary duty than the privilege of the Christian, and a slur is cast upon hereditary religion, as worthless or absurd; and much is said in praise of independence of mind, free inquiry, the resolution to judge for ourselves, and the enlightened and spiritual temper which these things are supposed to produce. But this notion is so very preposterous, there is something so very strange and wild in maintaining that every individual Christian, rich and poor, learned and unlearned, young and old, in order to have an

intelligent faith, must have formally examined, deliberated, and passed sentence upon the meaning of Scripture for himself, and that in the highest and most delicate and mysterious matters of faith, that I am unable either to discuss or even to impute such an opinion to another, in spite of the large and startling declarations which men make on the subject. Rather let us consider what is called the right of Private Judgment; by which is meant, not that all must, but that all may search Scripture, and determine or prove their Creed from it: that is, provided they are duly qualified, for I suppose this is always implied, though persons may differ what the qualifications are. And with this limitation, I should be as willing as the most zealous Protestant to allow the principle of Private Judgment in the abstract; and it is something to agree with opponents even in an abstract principle.

At the same time, to speak correctly, there seems a still more advisable mode of speaking of Private Judgment, than either of those which have been mentioned. It is not the duty of all Christians, nor the right of all who are qualified, so much as the duty of all who are qualified; and as such it was spoken of in the last Lecture. However, whether it be a duty or a right, let us consider what the qualifications are for exercising it.

To take the extreme case: inability to read will be granted to be an obstacle in the exercise of it;