are many passages in which we need all the helps we can obtain; and after all, perhaps, notwithstanding “tradition," must remain uncertain of their meaning.

Nor is it one of the least uses of pastoral teaching, and commentaries upon the Scriptures, to rescue them from the misinterpretations to which, from various causes, and especially from the corrupt prejudices of the natural mind, they have been subjected; and to the influence of which all are more or less exposed. The mind is often prepossessed at an early age in favour of incorrect views; and most come to the Scriptures rather to confirm their preconceived notions, than to learn the truth from the word of God; and, alas! with minds in which, beyond the erroneous ideas that may have been instilled by others, there are sure to be, more or less, many innate prejudices to operate against the reception of the truth. It is of great importance, then, that the objections, difficulties, and misinterpretations that have been, or are likely to be, raised by the natural mind, should be cleared away, that the truth may be more easily seen.

Hence, moreover, the importance of that confirmation of the truth, which we derive from the writings of the Fathers, the creeds, confessions, and Conciliar determinations of the early Church. However clearly the truth may be laid down in Scripture, the prejudices of the natural mind, as well as the various discordant interpretations given to it, throw difficulties in the way of its reception. Both these causes will tend to create self-distrust; and the latter to produce perplexity. A consciousness, then, of a liability to be deceived, will naturally and properly make the humble and sincere enquirer after truth anxious to know how others have understood it. He will be desirous of hearing the explanations which may be offered by those whose opinion he respects; or who, like the early Fathers, might have had some facilities which he does not possess, for learning the right interpretation of Scripture. In a word, he will seek for a confirmation of his view of Scripture truth,

from the writings of the best and wisest of those who have, at various times, been received as teachers in the Church; and if he can find no such confirmation in an important article of faith, he will justly be led to question the correctness of his deductions from Scripture in the

matter.

Such writings, then, will be of essential service in counteracting the tendencies of corrupt prejudices, in showing the incorrectness of plausible misinterpretations, in pointing out the truth to those who care not to study the Scriptures in order to learn it; and as a continual check upon the presumption and extravagance of the human imagination.

We are far indeed, then, from depreciating the value and importance of ministerial labours, and the treasures of sound instruction to be found in the ecclesiastical writers of former times; but we, at the same time, hold, that when God has spoken, man is responsible to God for believing and acting upon what God appears to him to have said. And we hold that the best expositor of the difficulties of Scripture, is Scripture.

Nor is there any ground for the charge of presumption which our opponents are so fond of making against individuals who assume to themselves the right of judging what is the meaning of Scripture in the fundamental articles of the faith; for they forget that there is hardly a single point upon which the authority of doctors and councils may not readily be quoted for views directly at variance with each other.

The only other objection of any weight to the view for which we here contend, is the following.

It is said,

Men differ about the meaning of the Scriptures, or, as it is sometimes stated, The Scriptures do not teach the truth so as to prevent men from erring; and therefore they are not clear, not perspicuous enough to teach the faith.

On this plea I have already had occasion to offer some

remarks; but as it is one of the great arguments of our opponents, I feel called upon to revert to it in this its most appropriate place.

If this be a solid objection, then it follows that nothing can be clear about which men disagree. Are our opponents prepared to venture such an assertion? Are they prepared to say that when St. John says, "The Word was made flesh," the denial of the incarnation by some heretics shows that Scripture is obscure on this point; or that when he says, "The Word was God," the denial by some of the divinity of the Son in any sense, shows that Scripture is obscure on that point? Are they prepared to say that our Lord did not give clear evidence of his divine mission, because men disagreed about it?

In fact, our opponents may be confuted in this matter by their own admissions. For they allow that the sense of Scripture is clear when it is pointed out.1 But men differ about the meaning as much after it has been thus pointed out as before. Consequently, according to their own statements, the fact that men differ in such a matter is no proof that the truth is not clearly delivered.

Indeed, if nothing be plain about which men disagree, then it is not plain that Christianity itself came from God, for many do.not believe that it did.

A man may shut his eyes at noon day, and declare that he cannot see the sun; but this is no proof that it is doubtful whether the sun shines or not, nor does it show that further light is necessary to enable us to see the sun. And there are various ways in which the eyes of the mind may be shut to the truth, when it is shining upon us in its full strength. They may be shut by the natural corruption of our hearts; by that worldly-minded spirit that leaves us a prey to the god of this world, who blinds the minds of those who believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ should shine unto them; by prejudices against the truth; by negligence in availing our

1 Newm. Lect. p. 165.

selves of the instruction given; by apathy and indifference; and, lastly, they are shut to any saving view of the truth by that self-confidence which makes us depend upon our own strength and imaginations, and neglect earnest prayer for that Divine aid and illumination which can alone enable us to receive the truth in the love of it. It is not "tradition," or any teaching of the Church, that can make men understand and receive the faith. The cause of their non-reception of it is not in the obscurity of the Scriptures, but in the state of their own minds; and as long as that remains the same, they will warp the Scriptures, and the Fathers too if they think it worth their while, to their own views and notions. Is it a remark bordering upon severity to say, that those who misinterpret the Scriptures on fundamental points, must be culpable in one or more of the ways above alluded to? He must have a high idea of human nature who can find fault with the remark on that ground.

The objections commonly made to the views advocated in this chapter may, I believe, be all summed up in the two we have just noticed. With these observations, then, I leave them with the reader.

We shall see, in the following chapters, that in the remarks here made as to the clearness of Scripture in all vital points, and its being the best expositor of itself, I am only taking the ground which has been occupied before me by some of the best and wisest both of antient and modern divines.

Before proceeding further, however, I will here add the testimonies of two learned divines of our Church on the subject.

The first is from Dr. Chaloner, written in the time of James I. It is in reply to the Popish objection, How can we know the sense and meaning of Scripture but by the exposition of the Church? "I answer," he says, "that although all places of the Scripture are not alike perspicuous, as all are not alike necessary to salvation, yet for the opening of the sense thereof, so far as is be

hoofefull for his Church, God is the best interpreter of his own meaning, expounding outwardly one place of the word by another, and inwardly both opening one's eyes to discern and inclining one's heart to assent unto the truth. As for those who cannot see but with the Pope's spectacles, and pretend the Scriptures to be everywhere throughout so overshadowed with a mist that nothing presents itself clearly to their view, I wonder the less at them, because their blindness is such that they cannot see to serve God without burning tapers and lighted candles at noon day."1

The second is from the pen of one of the most able of our modern prelates, Bishop Horsley, with which I shall conclude this chapter: "It should be a rule," he says, "with every one who would read the Holy Scriptures with advantage and improvement, to compare every text which may seem either important for the doctrine it may contain, or remarkable for the turn of the expression, with the parallel passages in other parts of Holy Writ; that is, with the passages in which the subject matter is the same, the sense equivalent, or the turn of the expression similar . . . . Particular diligence should be used in comparing the parallel texts of the Old and the New Testaments .. It is incredible to any one, who has not in some degree made the experiment, what a proficiency may be made in that knowledge which maketh wise unto salvation, by studying the Scriptures in this manner, without any other commentary or exposition than what the different parts of the Sacred Volume mutually furnish for each other. I will not scruple to assert, that the most illiterate Christian, if he can but read his English Bible, and will take the pains to read it in this manner, will not only attain all that practical knowledge which is necessary to his salvation, but, by God's blessing, he will become learned in everything relating to his religion in such a degree, that he will not be liable to be misled

■ Credo ecclesiam, &c. ed. 1638. pp. 105-7.