Good; but what _are_ the fundamental principles of Protestantism? 'They are,' says _Phil._, 'the sole sufficiency of Scripture,'[Footnote: This is much too elliptical a way of expressing the Protestant meaning. Sufficiency for what? 'Sufficiency for salvation' is the phrase of many, and I think elsewhere of _Phil_. But _that_ is objectionable on more grounds than one; it is redundant, and it is aberrant from the true point contemplated. _Sufficiency for itself, without alien helps_, is the thing contemplated. The Greek _autarkeia_, self-sufficiency, or, because that phrase, in English, has received a deflexion towards a bad meaning, the word _self- ufficingness_ might answer; sufficiency for the exposition of its own most secret meaning, out of fountains within itself; needing, therefore, neither the supplementary aids of tradition, on the one hand, nor the complementary aids on the other, (in the event of unprovided cases, or of dilemmas arising,) from the infallibility of a _living_ expounder.] the right of private judgment in its interpretation, and the authority of individual conscience in matters of religion.' Errors of logic show themselves more often in a man's terminology, and his antithesis, and his subdivisions, than anywhere else. _Phil._ goes on to make this distinction, which brings out his imperfect conception. 'We,' says he (and, by the way, if _Phil._ is _we_, then it must he my duty to call him _they_), 'we do not propose to defend the varieties of _doctrine_ held by the different communities of Protestants.' Why, no; that would be a sad task for the most skilful of funambulists or theological tumblers, seeing that many of these varieties stand related to each other as categorical affirmative and categorical negative: it's heavy work to make _yes_ and _no_ pull together in the same proposition. But this, fortunately for himself, _Phil._ declines. You are to understand that he will not undertake the defence of Protestantism in its _doctrines_, but only in its _principles_. That won't do; that antithesis is as hollow as a drum; and, if the objection were verbal only, I would not make it. But the contradistinction fails to convey the real meaning. It is not that he has falsely expressed his meaning, but that he has falsely developed that meaning to his own consciousness. Not the word only is wrong; but the wrong word is put forward for the sake of hiding the imperfect idea. What he calls _principles_ might almost as well be called _doctrines_; and what he calls _doctrines_ as well be called _principles_. Out of these terms, apart from the rectifications suggested by the context, no man could collect his drift, which is simply this. Protestantism, we must recollect, is not an absolute and self-dependent idea; it stands in relation to something antecedent, against which it protests, viz., Papal Rome. And under what phasis does it protest against Rome? Not against the Christianity of Rome, because every