that it demolishes the law for Agricola-the divinity of Christ for Arius-the Trinity for Servetus the whole system of the Christian Dispensation for Socinus? Is God the author of contradiction, will the Holy Spirit teach one doctrine to one man, and the very contrary to another, while both are engaged in what they call the work of God? Was it from the Bible the Messalian learned to serve God in the liberty of the flesh, on the principle that he could not sin even in thought, having once attained the state of perfection? Did the Priscillianists found their favourite maxim, jura, parjura, secretum nunquam prode, dissolve marriage, worship God pell-mell, naked and in the dark, on private interpretation? Was the sanctified Joanna impregnated by some passage from the Bible, and were her pious adherents moved by the spirit to prepare the cradle for the coming Messiah? Did the Jumpers, Seekers, Quakers, Shriekers, Dunkers, and Primitive Ranters, find jumping, seeking, quaking, shrieking, dunking, and ranting texts in the Bible? Did the Diabolians of Lombardy also learn to worship the devil from the Bible? If private interpretation be a fundamental principle of Protestantism in all its forms, why appropriate so many millions of guineas and green acres to

the useless drones of a useless establishment? By what right do persons holding this doctrine enact laws against suicide, drive a stake through the body, and bury it in the highway, since its late inhabitant had only to make the sacred text, jump up, and down, as Calvin does in his Harmony, to form such an arrangement as would suit his purpose, or take the shorter and more simple way of believing with Luther, "that no sin, however great, could damn him, but infidelity alone;" or with Calvin, that he could no more be damned than Jesus Christ himself! What a blessed doctrine this of justification by faith alone! How truly does 11th of the Church of England's thirty-nine articles proclaim it, "a most wholesome doctrine, and full of comfort." Most wholesome verily, and consoling to Jocelynites, Bulgarites, Hillites, et hoc genus omne. "Even adultery, and "murder do not hurt the pleasant children "but rather make for their good-God sees no "sin in believers, whatever sin they commit. “Though I out-sin Manasses, I should not "be less a pleasant child, because God always "views me in Christ.-Hence in the midst of "murders, adulteries, incests, he can address "me with: thou art all fair, my love, my undefil"ed, there is no spot in thee-adultery, murder,

"incest shall upon the whole, make me holier "upon earth, and merrier in heaven." Fletcher's checks to Antinomianism. Very shocking these sentiments of Sir Richard, no doubt, but a very natural deduction from the wholesome doctrine, and full of comfort.

But for the present, I shall dismiss a subject which has been forced on my consideration, and of which I am heartily surfeited. What purpose could it serve to go into a farther exposure of the ravings, deliriums, absurdities, and blasphemies; the violation of decency, subversion of religion, destruction of morals; the atrocious maxims, and still more atrocious and unnatural practices, which have sprung' from a principle, that proves every error, and refutes every truth. Not one crime in the vocabulary of human delinquency, not one crime which it is possible for depravity to invent, or malice to excite, which may not be invented, perpetrated, and defended too, on the strength of that ambi-dextrous, irresistible principle-private interpretation the rule of faith. Why will the fanatical knaves who are endeavouring to sap the foundation of religion, and social order; who with the Bible in their hands, and sedition on their tongues, are sowing the seeds of a future

revolution; why will these fanatics force on our view the sad exhibition of guilt and misery-why will they drive us to the sorrowful alternative, the disgusting exposure of the frightful aberrations of the heart of man, of the monstrous doctrines, and still more hideous and monstrous excesses which have sprung from this right of private interpretation? Are not our ears stunned with blasphemies?—are not our eyes shocked by indecencies ?-are not all our senses outraged? -are not our hearts saddened by the sanguinary fanatic appealing to the sacred volume, quoting scripture in his defence, and with blood-stained hands, and perjured tongue invoking the God of truth to witness his innocence? Are we yet doomed to another exhibition? shall we again, behold a murderous Thurtell?-shall the fetters of the blessed Apostle of nations be again polluted? -be again assimilated to the chains which bind down a blood-thirsty monster, a ferocious, treacherous, heartless murderer!

.

CLEROPHILOS.."

Dublin, March, 1824.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE REGISTER.

SIR,

Having proved, satisfactorily, I should hope, and unanswerably too, that the Bible was not given to man as the sole arbitrator and directing authority, in matters of religion; that it was not, and could not, be the design of the Lord to erect each individual into a Supreme Judge, and make his private interpretation of the mysterious volume, the only and practical rule of faith. I shall, in addition to the reasons already adduced, refer to the› Fathers in illustration of my position, and back their testimony with the analogous suffrage of Protestant writers.

The pride of our nature glows within me when I see its innate goodness bursting for freedom, rushing through the chains of education and prejudice, and clasping, in fraternal embrace, the kindred frame of a common mortality.-Often did I stop, and sigh