The Right of Private Judgment.

83

absence of any spiritual discernment' of it, or of any hold deeper than the conviction of the intellect.'

We object still more strongly to Mr. Swainson's observations on the proof-texts of the doctrine of the personality and deity of the Holy Spirit (p. 83). He says, 'The connexion of the Holy "Spirit with the Father and the Son in the baptismal formula, in the apostolic benediction, and in kindred passages, is inexplicable on 'any other but the belief of the church. Then the texts that are I usually quoted in proof of the doctrine become most valuable in 'illustration of it when proven!' We always thought that the texts referred to were among the proofs usually quoted; and that by these, just as much as by the rest, supposed to be of use only as 'illustrations,' the very belief of the Church was definitively elicited.

It is but just, however, to our author to say that he seems to be aware that his language on this matter is open to misapprehension, for in a note in the appendix we find him guarding against an inference which, we confess, seems to us very natural; he reduces the paradoxes in question to very innocent truisms. 'I do not wish,' he says, 'to speak slightingly of the direct proofs 'of the Deity of our Lord, and other great truths held by the 'church universal. I wish, however, to suggest that the in'direct and circumstantial evidence has been too much neg'lected.' (p. 211.)

Another point on which we feel disposed to make a few remarks is Mr. Swainson's treatment of that important subject, the right of private judgment.' His representations, we think, are chargeable with vacillation and inconsistency; events, we cannot see that he arrives at any well-defined principle.

at all

If we took our author's first exposition of this 'Right,' we should feel pretty well satisfied with it. For he admits that it is not the duty of any Christian lazily to acquiesce in what is told him, but to emulate the conduct of the Bereans, who diligently 'searched the Scriptures to see if the things told them were so.' But then, if so, what follows? Why all that any advocate of the 'Right' can ask for. For it must follow, if there be such a thing as obligation of conscience at all, that if a man has thus searched' whether the things told him' by his ecclesiastical teachers 'be so,' and is conscientiously convinced that they are not so, he must reject them; so called, the 'right' is not so much a 'right' as a necessity, if the man is to be honest at all. The man may not, indeed, be free from blame, due to haste or prejudice which may have accompanied his inquiry; but as long as he holds his views

he must act upon them, unless he is consciously to juggle with his conscience.

But our author having thus really conceded all that is wanted, endeavours at some length (in his anxiety to maintain some indefinite authority to the Church) to show that the 'right,' as ordinarily held, is impossible and absurd-that it never has been, nor can be, exercised. He says:

'But the propositions that Christian people have 'the power of forming a scheme of religion,' by reading the holy volume, and using such helps as would facilitate the same; and that they have a right to do so, and a right to expect God's aid in the attempt, admit of further doubt, and call for more serious inquiry. The proposition, that they can generally form a scheme of religion which is unmixed with serious error, whilst they ignore the experience of past ages, and the guidance of the great body of their fellow Christians, the Church universal, must surely be positively and directly contradicted.'-pp. 139, 140.

The supposition that the advocates of the 'Right' claim on behalf of every man, that he is able, ignoring all help and learning, and all' experience of the past,' to go into a corner with the English version of the New Testament, and 'make a complete scheme of religion' for himself, is often made an objection; but, in fact, no one, unless it be a fanatic here and there, pleads for such a power in everybody, and very few would allow it to anybody; nor does it at all affect the assertion of the 'Right.' The question simply is,-whether, having inquired as diligently as he can, every man has not the right of always following conscience, and not authority, if he conscientiously thinks that the things he is told are so,' are not so? If our author concedes this, as he seems to do, he concedes, we imagine, all that is asked of him; if he does not, then he must seek what he would find it hard to find, a method by which he may justify a man in accepting that as true (whether he has had great or small means of investigation, matters not) which he believes to be false. The attempt has often been made, but it is in vain; and, inconvenient as the exercise of the 'right' may be, it is infinitely less inconvenient than its repression; not to say, that if those inconveniences were a thousand times as great as they are, they could not be helped.

But as to the opposite inconveniences;-let us for a moment consider one or two of these. During many ages, the only church authority to which appeal could be made told the individual-what was certainly no less true then than it is now-that he was quite incapable of making out a scheme of religion for himself by the unaided study of the Scriptures, and yet enjoined upon him the reception of the most serious errors. Had the

The Right of Private Judgment.

85

Reformers listened to that plea, and accepted the dogmas authority laid upon them, there could have been no reformation then; and, for similar reasons, there could never have been any at all.

And as regards the difficulty of interpeting the New Testament; after all, Mr. Swainson concedes that the essentials of the faith,' and the main truths of practical Christianity,' are plain enough in the Scriptures;- faith in God, and love of man, are fully taught in the holy volume;' the life of the Christian is amply set forth there.'

By denying, therefore, the 'power of forming a scheme of religion' (as in the above passages he does), he must mean that of arriving at complete truth on non-essential points; and to this we may say :

1. Does he know of any man who can flatter himself he has done so, even with all the experience of the past,' and the voice of the universal church' to help him? Is it possible he should, on Mr. Swainson's theory, that many discoveries' are yet to be made'?

2. If the man reads 'the holy volume with such helps as facilitate the understanding of it,' is not the experience of past ages, and deference to the voice of Christians in general, so far as it is safe to yield such deference (for the past shows us it must have its limits), among the 'helps' for arriving at the truth?

For our own parts, in spite of all that the advocates of an indefinite Church authority say of the infinite difficulties of interpreting aright the Christian records, we most honestly believe, that though a man who should ignore any help would be a great fool for his pains, his great difficulty, if he has but an honest desire to learn, would be to miss his way on any important point. We hold the New Testament though in some places the most profound of books, and in some others the most difficult-yet, in the main, the plainest of all; especially in the teaching of Him who taught as never man taught,' and 'whom the common people heard gladly,'plainer, incomparably plainer, than fathers or schoolmen-and infinitely easier to understand than it is to gather what is the sense of the Universal Church,' amidst the infinite strife of tongues as to what that divided unity is, and what its undivided utterances. Nor, indeed, must Mr. Swainson forget his own declaration-equally true in all times-that, in fact, hardly a heresy has ever been possible except by denying a part of canonical Scripture-which, if received in its integrity, is even but too plain for it!

But we must not part with our author without giving our readers a specimen of what he can do in his best moods. The

following seems to us a very just statement of the chief characteristics of the incredulity of our time, and is excellently well expressed :

In the eighteenth century-at all events during the latter part of it-stress was laid almost exclusively on the external character of the evidences of Christianity. This view was necessarily imperfect and it is the reaction from it that has induced many persons in the present day to adopt the point of view from which its internal character can alone be seen. But however imperfect the earlier view, the modern aspect is equally insufficient; and if the older arguments neglected the influence of man's spirit in the reception of the things of God, the later neglect no less the power of man's intellect in the province that falls under its supervision. But this does not comprehend all the evil consequences of such a principle. Another, which I would mention is, that inquirers have been led by very trivial circumstances to take partial views of Christianity. Instead of inquiring rigidly as to the evidence in favour of and against the opinions which they entertain, they study the Scriptures to discover those passages which support them, and they reject or neglect those which oppose them. I do not mean that they do this intentionally or purposely, but such is the infirmity of our human nature and the strength of our human passions, that we are all apt to take note of the circumstances which accord most with our own feelings. Thus, opinions which are taken up in early years become, as it were, a part of ourselves; and our character seems to be at stake when we are asked to examine their evidence.

'But serious though this is, and much as it is connected with the dissensions of the day, the subject assumes a far more important position when we find that the principle at stake is elevated into a principle of philosophy, and that under the shelter of it, thus elevated, much of the infidelity of the day takes rest. For if we deem it sufficient to appeal to our own feelings, and our own consciousness, and our own sense of right and wrong, we must permit the unbeliever to appeal to his feelings as boldly and as confidently. If, on our side, we consider that our powers of intuition supersede all necessity of external testimony, we cannot complain if others affirm that their intuition is so good as to overcome the evidence that such testimony offers. In fact, we are giving our sanction to the erection of those entrenchments which the evil heart of unbelief' is throwing up around it; and when they are erected, who will be able to drive it from them? Let me therefore, this afternoon, speak to you first of the absolute necessity that is laid upon us of accepting and treating as facts the substance of the historical narratives that have come down to us. They come to us with an amount of evidence that cannot be gainsaid. If we were to content ourselves even with those portions of the New Testament, which the severest and most hostile criticism has conceded. as genuine, from those portions alone we could reconstruct, in its essential characteristics, the Life of our Redeemer-his Life, Death,

Characteristics of Modern Unbelief.

87

Resurrection, Session on High. These essential characteristics remain, and it is simply absurd, after such an investigation, to reject them merely because they suit not the views of truth that our minds may have suggested, because they contradict the primal laws of our nature,' or because our instinct recoils from them.' They are historical facts, facts coming to us on historical evidence; they are the facts to which (according to our own account) the apostles were constituted as witnesses, appointed and authenticated witnesses, and to them they did bear witness in their lives and letters. They are essentially the facts of Christianity.

"These, then, are facts to which the apostles bore record, and no hypothesis either in regard to the witnesses themselves, or to the facts they attest, can furnish us with sufficient reason for rejecting their testimony. Mere guess, supposition, possibility, when opposed to historical evidence, prove nothing, except that historical evidence is not demonstrative.' The suppositions made to evade the force of the Christian evidences, 'weaken the force of evidence in all cases, but destroy it in none.' So said Butler a hundred years ago; and to his remarks I suppose that we should all assent.

'So far, therefore, of the purely historical features of Christianity -of our Lord's Life and Miracles, and Death and Resurrection.'pp. 65-67.

If we were formally reviewing this volume, there are many other passages of merit which we should feel pleasure in citing; and we must add, there are some faults which we should feel it our duty to dwell upon. The style is often heavy and tedious. from the repetition of the same formula in the construction of the several clauses of a sentence, and which often strikes one as mere pulpit verbiage. Thus-Whatever we may do to check it, men will search for the laws by which God carries on the provisions. 'of nature; they will search for the laws by which he carries on 'the moral government of the world; they will search for the 'laws,' &c. The two last clauses in italics might be left out with advantage to the sentence. Nearly every sentence in the same page is constructed on the same wearying principle. Similarly there is a very unnecessary obtrusion of the formulæ of pulpit address-as 'My brethren,' 'My brethren in the Lord,' My dear brethren in the Lord,' which, albeit the discourses were sermons, might have been judiciously weeded out of the manuscript before sending it to press. Further, were we generally reviewing the work, we should feel inclined to examine a little attentively the somewhat vain-glorious claims which our author prefers for Cambridge studies and training over those of Oxford, as specifically prophylactic against the contagion of the various spiritual epidemics which plague us in this our day. But we have not at present space or inclination to