relating to Christ; and there was a degree of obscurity in the declarations of the Old Testament respecting the incarnation and sufferings of Christ which the event only could clear up. Our Lord, therefore, might well explain to his disciples, the precise way in which they were to be accomplished, and show them how accurately they had been fulfilled in himself. And what our Lord did was to "open their understandings," which were blinded by prejudice and unbelief, that they might receive that which, in the prophecy connected with the accomplishment, was plainly set before them. In a word, he removed the prejudices by which "their minds were blinded," and the "veil" which was 66 upon their hearts." (2 Cor. iii. 14, 15.) And, in the writings of the Apostles, our Lord has given us similar explanations, and will by his Spirit open in like manner the understandings of all sincere and penitent inquirers after the way of salvation, and remove the blindness and prejudices of the natural mind, and enable it to understand and receive those truths which are thus so plainly set before it.

We are also met sometimes by the observation of St. Peter, that in the Epistles of St. Paul there are some things hard to be understood. (2 Peter iii. 16.) But do we deny that such is the case? Far from it. But we say that such things were intended by the Holy Spirit to be "hard to be understood," and that we must seek the meaning of them from that Holy Spirit himself; and with respect to them call no man or set of men master, i. e. authoritative teacher, upon earth.

And lastly, the passage is sometimes urged, in which St. Peter tells us that "no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation," (2 Pet. i. 20;) but most incorrectly, for the context shows that the meaning is, that no prophecy of the Scripture proceeds from any private interpretation or declaration of God's will, for it is added, "for the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." And so the Vulgate translates the passage, "The prophecy of Scripture is not made by private interpretation," (propria interpretatione non fit ;) and Menochius, in his comment on the passage, allows that this is its meaning; and so does Cornelius a Lapide, though he attempts also to extract the other meaning from it, to make it support the Romish cause. This suitability of Scripture to teach the Christian religion may be inferred,

Secondly, From the professed object of the sacred writers of the New Testament, which was to teach all the great truths of the Gospel, without concealment or reserve.

This is fully proved by many passages of their writings. St. Luke wrote his Gospel in order, in the first instance, that Theo

philus might "know the certainty of those things in which he had been instructed." (Luke i. 4.)

And St. Paul, when speaking of himself as a minister of the New Testament, says, "Seeing, then, that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech, and not as Moses, who put a veil over his face," &c. (2 Cor. iii. 12.) And again, a little further on, he says," By manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God,” (2 Cor. iv. 2.) a testimony remarkably forcible in proof of our position, that the Apostle always delivered the truths with which he was entrusted as clearly as language would permit, and so as to commend the instructor to every man's conscience, and thus teach every man the truth in the most forcible manner, and therefore certainly so expressed himself, when delivering those truths in his Epistles to the Churches. And he exhorts the brethren to pray for him, that " utterance might be given unto him, that he might open his mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel." (Eph. vi. 19.)

If, then, the writings of this Apostle and his brethren contain all the essential truths of the gospel, (as it is admitted they do,) surely men who felt thus would take care that in such documents more especially those truths should be clearly and fully expressed, to say nothing of that spiritual guidance under which those documents were penned.

It is impossible not to see how totally opposed such statements as those we have referred to are to the views of the Romanists and the Tractators, whose representations would lead us to suppose that the Bible is a sort of cabalistical book, the knowledge of whose meaning is confined to a certain order of men, ordained by succession from the Apostles. Such a notion, however, is suitable only to the priests of superstition and idolatry. Would that we might live to see the day when such doctrines were left in their sole possession! To them they are suitable enough, for false religion dreads the light, and hence their so called sacred books are most consistently veiled in the language of concealment and mystery. But it is not so with the word of God. All that God sees fit to reveal is, as far as it was intended to be known, stated clearly and plainly on all occasions by those whom he uses as instruments to deliver his word. And therefore certainly the fundamentals of religion are never obscurely stated in any Divine declaration respecting them.

The sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures to teach the Christian religion to mankind generally, may be inferred,

Thirdly, From the persons to whom the writings of the Apostles are addressed,

These writings, with but few exceptions, are not addressed to

the pastors of the Church in particular. The Gospels were written for the instruction of Christians generally; and, in fact, of mankind at large; and were written in order to give them a full knowledge of the Christian faith. The Epistles are most of them expressly directed to all the individuals of the body of Christians to whom they are addressed. The Epistle to the Romans is addressed to "all that are in Rome called to be saints." (Rom. i. 7.) And the First to the Corinthians is addressed to "the Church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord both theirs and ours;" (1 Cor. i. 2;) and to these persons the Apostle uses this language, "I speak as to wise men, judge ye what I say;" (1 Cor. x. 15;) "Judge in yourselves, is it comely, &c." (1 Cor. xi. 13.)1 And the Apostles were anxious that their writings should be read by all; for St. Paul, writing to the Thessalonians, exhorts them to take care that his Epistle be" read to all the holy brethren," (1 Thess. v. 27,) and commands the Colossians to cause his Epistle to them to be read also in the Church of the Laodiceans; and that they should read the Epistle from Laodicea. (Col. iv. 16.)

Hence they are written so that all may learn the truths of which they speak, from them. They are written in a style adapted to the instruction of every, even the humblest, member of society. They address each individual as one who is responsible to God for receiving and obeying that which they have thus delivered.

True, the persons so addressed had some previous knowledge of the truths of Christianity; but this, in no respect, diminishes the force of the argument. For if any truths were passed over on this account, they would only be the most plain and simple; but these, it is conceded, are contained in Scripture. And in whatever matters the persons so addressed needed instruction, they needed it in the most plain and clear form, brought down to the comprehension of mankind in general. So that, in whatever point instruction is given by the Apostles, it seems evident, from the way in which they address themselves to all mankind, that such instruction must be given in the plainest and clearest formı. If a man was addressing a miscellaneous body of professing Christians, including the humblest of mankind, and instructing them in the faith, he would use language suited to teach the faith, as far as it went, to all mankind. Just so was it with the Apostles. They had, for the most part, simple and ignorant men to deal with, and they wrote so as to be understood by them.

1 See also 1 Thess. v. 27. Phil. i. 1. &c.

The suitability of Scripture to teach the Christian religion, might also be inferred,

Fourthly, From the evident simplicity of the language of the New Testament.

This is a point in which our appeal lies to the common sense and observation of the reader. Can it be denied that the statements of the New Testament are couched in terms the most simple, and phrases the most perspicuous, that the subject would admit of? Can it be denied that, instead of any air of mystery or concealment being adopted with regard to all the great fundamental articles of the faith, there is, on the contrary, every appearance of an endeavour to state them in the most plain and intelligible manner? Nay, it is admitted by our adversaries, that such is the case; but with a reservation that makes their tenet self-contradictory, viz., that they are thus plain in Scripture only to those who have been taught them beforehand; that is, in fact, that Scripture does not plainly deliver them to all.

I ask, then, if Scripture contains all the fundamental articles of the faith, couched in the most plain and intelligible terms, how is it that it can be insufficient to teach those articles?

I must add, also, that the suitability of Scripture to teach the Christian religion, may be inferred,

Fifthly, From its actual effects.

Here, again, our appeal is to experience and fact; and many, I have no doubt, will be disposed at once to deny that any argument can be deduced from this source, in favour of our position. Here, then, we are in a situation that renders it next to impossible to press the argument home upon the reader. Narratives of facts, such as those to which I am here alluding, generally carry little conviction to the mind of one prepossessed in favour of an opposite view. Such facts must be witnessed, to convince the gainsayer. But I cannot omit a reference to them here, as bearing important witness in favour of our position. It is an argument which it may not be easy to test; because the cases are comparatively few where a man has been left to gather his religious knowledge altogether from the Bible. But no man can have perused the accounts given from time to time of the proceedings of our religious societies of late years, and not have been struck with the testimonies borne to the effects produced by the Scriptures alone.

However, I shall content myself here with having directed the attention of the reader to this argument, and would only request him not to form a hasty judgment from the effects produced by the careless and apathetic perusal given to the Scriptures by the generality, but from those produced by the earnest and sincere perusal of one who is really desirous of learning and following

the truth, and is seriously asking the question, "What must I do to be saved?"

Lastly, I will not hesitate to add, fortified by the preceding evidences, that the suitability of Scripture to teach the Christian religion, may be inferred from the nature of its subject, compared with the revealed character of its Author.

Its subject is the way and means of man's salvation; the character of its Author, one who willeth that salvation. The very fact, then, of its being a revelation upon such a subject, from such a source, is of itself an evidence that whatever is delivered in it, so far as it was intended by God that the revelation should extend, is well calculated to impart the knowledge which it was God's purpose to give. He who charges the word of God with obscurity in such matters as were intended by him to be revealed to man, either charges its Author with incompetency, or takes away from him that character in which he delights, by representing him as putting unnecessary difficulties in the way of the salvation of man.

And this would apply, doubtless, to whatever the Apostles delivered on the subject, whether orally or by writing; but of the former, we have no satisfactory testimony what it was; and if we suppose that their teaching was uniformly thus clear and plain, the existence of the Scriptures leaves us but little cause to regret the absence of sufficient testimony as to what they did deliver orally, at least as far as the fundamentals of faith and practice are concerned.

These writings are not all occasional productions, written to meet particular errors, and inculcate particular points. The Gospels at least were intended to give us a full account of our Lord's teaching, and of all the great facts which form the Christian faith. And besides them we have more than twenty Epistles of the Apostles, giving an enlarged account of the same faith. But all are not sufficient, we are told, to teach us the faith. And we are sent to what? To the monuments accidentally remaining to us of antiquity, the works of a few antient authors, borne up by chance upon the surface of the stream of time; while thousands have perished equally or better entitled to our respect; and these belonging only to what some might call the prevailing party among Christians, and confessedly, in part, (to what extent we know not,) corrupted and interpolated, and suppositious; and from these volumes we are to obtain the meaning of the Holy Scriptures; seeing, forsooth, that these volumes are to be taken as containing within them an infallible representation of the oral teaching of the Apostles; from which alone we can tell what they meant in their writings; or rather what the Holy Spirit meant when he was professing to teach it in them.