to be the doctrine of Latitude. Now, I can conceive such a view of the subject to be maintainable, supposing God had given us no revelation,—though even then, (by the way,) and were we even left to the light of nature, belief in His existence and moral government would, one should think, at least be necessary to please Him. "He that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them which diligently seek Him '." But however, not to press this point, one may conceive that, before God had actually spoken to us, He might accept as sufficient, a sincere acting on religious opinions of whatever kind; but that after a revelation is given, there is nothing to believe, nothing (to use an expressive Scripture word) to hold, to hold fast, that a message comes from GOD, and contains no subject-matter, or, that containing it (as it must do), it is not important to be received, and is not capable of being learned by any one who takes the proper means of learning it, that there is nothing in it such, that we may depend on our own impression of it as true, feel we have really gained something, and continue in one opinion about it,-all this is so extravagant, that I really cannot enter into the state of mind of a person maintaining it. I think he is not aware what he is saying. Why should GoD speak, unless He meant to say something? Why should He say it, unless He meant us to hear? Why should we be made to hear, if it mattered not whether we accepted it or no? What the doctrine is, is another and distinct question; yet that there is some doctrine revealed, and that it is revealed in order that it may be received, and that it really is revealed,-that it is not hidden, so as to be a mere matter of opinion, a chance what is true and what not, or as if there were a number of opposite modes of holding it, one as good as another,—but that it is plain in one and the same substantial sense to all who sincerely and suitably seek for it, and that God is better pleased when we hold it than when we do not, -all this seems a truism. Where it is given us, whether entirely in Scripture, or partly elsewhere, this again is another and secondary question; though surely that it is given somewhere cannot 1 Heb. xi. 6. VOL. V.-85. be denied, either without some eccentricity or confusion of mind, or some want of seriousness and candour. When then we once decide that there is some essential doctrine proposed to our faith, the question at once follows, what is it, and how much, and where? and we are forthwith involved in researches of some kind or other, somewhere or other; for the doctrine is not written on the sun. For reasons such as the above, I really cannot conceive a serious man, who realized what he was speaking about, a consistent Latitudinarian. He always will reserve from the general proscription his own favourite doctrine, whatever it is; and then holding it, he will be at once forced into the difficulty which is ours also, but which he would fain make ours and not his, that of stating clearly what this doctrine of his is, and what are those grounds of it, such as to enable him to take in just so much of dogmatic teaching and nothing more, to hold so much firmly, and to treat all the rest as comparatively unimportant. Revelation implies a something revealed, and what is revealed is imperative on our faith, because it is revealed. Revelation implies imperativeness; it limits in its very notion our liberty of thought, because it limits our liberty of error, for error is one kind of thought. But now, putting aside abstract considerations, let us turn to the fact which is urged in behalf of Latitudinarianism. The doctrine, then, that it matters not what you believe, so that you act up to what you believe, is grounded (it would seem) on this alleged fact, that no one creed of any sort can be surely gathered from Scripture,—that the divine message, the whole counsel of GOD, is not there. "Whichever view of religion you fix upon (it is said), there are parts of it which, by a candid, dispassionate, unprejudiced observer, will be pronounced additions to Scripture; therefore (it is inferred) there is no definite creed or message at all revealed anywhere." Indeed! Supposing the fact to be as stated (which I do not grant, but supposing it), is this the necessary conclusion? No: there is another. Such an inference indeed as the above is a clever controversial way of settling the matter; it is the sort of answer which in the schools of disputation or the courts of law, may find a place, where men are It is an There is not in earnest; but it is an answer without a heart. excuse for indolence, love of quiet, or worldliness. another answer. I do not adopt it, I do not see I am driven to it, because I do not allow the premises from which the argument starts. I do not allow that there is no creed at all contained in Scripture, though I grant it is not on the surface. But if there be no divine message, gospel, or creed, producible from Scripture, this would not lead me one iota towards deciding that there was none at all any where. No; it would make me look out of Scripture for it, that is all. If there is a revelation, there must be a doctrine; both our reason and our hearts tell us so. If it is not in Scripture, it is somewhere else, it is to be sought elsewhere. Should the fact so turn out, (which I deny,) that Scripture is so obscure that nothing can be made of it, even when the true interpretation is otherwise given, so obscure that every person will have his own interpretation, and no two alike, this would drive me not into Latitudinarianism but into Romanism. Yes, and it will drive the multitude of men. It is far more certain that Revelation must contain a message, than that that message must be in Scripture. It is a less violence to one's feelings to say that part of it is revealed elsewhere, than to say that nothing is revealed any where. There is an overpowering antecedent improbability in Almighty God's announcing that He has revealed something, and revealing nothing; there is no antecedent improbability in His revealing it elsewhere than in an inspired volume. And, I say, the mass of mankind will feel it It is very well for educated persons, at their ease, with few cares, or in the joyous time of youth, to argue and speculate about the impalpableness and versatility of the divine message, its chameleon-like changeableness, its adaptation to each fresh mind it meets; but when men are conscious of sin, are sorrow. ful, are weighed down, are desponding, they ask for something to lean on, something external to themselves. It will not do to tell them that whatever they at present hold as true, is enough. They want to be assured that what seems to them true, is true; they want something to lean on, holier, diviner, more stable than their own minds. They have an instinctive feeling that there is so. an external, eternal truth which is their only stay, and it mocks them, after being told of a revelation, to be assured next that that revelation tells us nothing certain, nothing which we do not know without it, nothing distinct from our own impressions concerning it, whatever they may be,-nothing such, as to exist independently of that shape and colour into which our own individual mind happens to throw it. Therefore, practically, those who argue for the vague character of the Scripture informations, and the harmlessness of all sorts of religious opinions, do not tend to advance Latitudinarianism one step among the many, they advance Romanism. That truth, which men are told they cannot find in Scripture, they will seek out of Scripture. They will never believe, they will never be content with, a religion without doctrines. The common sense of mankind decides against it. Religion cannot but be dogmatic, it ever has been. All religions have had doctrines; all have professed to carry with them benefits which could be enjoyed only on condition of believing the word of a supernatural informant, that is, of embracing some doctrines or other. It is a mere idle sophistical theory, to suppose it can be otherwise. Destroy religion, make men give it up, if you can; but while it exists, it will profess an insight into the next world, it will profess important information about the next world, it will have points of faith, it will have dogmatism, it will have anathemas. Christianity, therefore, ever will be looked on, by the multitude, what it really is, as a rule of faith as well as of conduct. Men may be Presbyterians, or Baptists, or Lutherans, or Calvinists, or Wesleyans; but something or other they will be; a creed, a creed necessary to salvation, they will have; a creed either in Scripture or out of it; and if in Scripture, I say, hidden in Scripture, indirectly gained from Scripture. Latitudinarianism, then, is out of the question; and you have your choice, to be content with indirect proofs in Scripture, or to look for tradition out of Scripture. You cannot get beyond this; either you must take up with us, (or with some system not at all better off, whether Presbyterianism, or Independency, or the like,) or you must go to Rome. Which will you choose? You may not like us; you may be impatient and impetuous; you may go forward, but back you cannot go. But further, it can scarcely be denied that Scripture, if it does not furnish, at least speaks of, refers to, sanctions, recommends some certain doctrine or message which is to be believed in order to salvation; and which, accordingly, if not found in Scripture, must be sought for out of it. It says, "He who believeth shall be saved, and he who believeth not shall be damned;" it speaks of "the doctrine of CHRIST," of "keeping the faith," of "the faith once delivered to the saints," and of" delivering that which has been received," recounting at the same time some of the articles of the Apostles' Creed. And the case is the same as regards discipline; rules of worship and order, whether furnished or not, are at least alluded to again and again, under the title of "traditions." Revelation then will be inconsistent with itself, unless it had provided some creed somewhere. For in Scripture it implies that it has; therefore some creed exists somewhere, whether in Scripture or out of it. Nor is this all; from the earliest times, so early that there is no assignable origin to it short of the Apostles, one definite system has existed in the Church both of faith and worship, and that in countries far disjoined from one another, and without any appearance (as far as we can detect) of the existence of any other system any where; and (what is very remarkable) a system, such, that the portion in it which relates to matters of faith (or its philosophy), accurately fits in and corresponds to that which relates to matters of worship and order (or its ceremonial); as if they were evidently parts of a whole, and not an accidental assemblage of rites on the one hand, and doctrines on the other; -a system moreover which has existed ever since, and exists at the present day, and in its great features, as in other branches of the Church, so among ourselves;-a system moreover which at least professes to be quite consistent with and to appeal and defer to the written word, and thus in all respects accurately answers to that to which Scripture seems to be alluding in the notices above cited. Now, is it possible, with this very significant phenomenon standing in the threshold of Christian history, that a |