their days and nights to inquire after the wisdom from above; men of taste and literature found Homer and Virgil, Demosthenes and Cicero, jejune, insipid, and unedifying, in comparison with the Psalms of David, and the Epistles of Paul; and the whole society of Christians laboured and delighted in exploring the mine of Scripture, where they found that the deeper they dug, the richer was the ore, and the higher the reward."* I shall leave the reader to judge of the veracity of the assertions of "Gregory," by simply stating, in addition, the fact, that Origen, who was born A.D. 185, published the Hexapla, that is, the Bible, in six different languages, and to which St. Jerome was probably indebted when he revised the many Latin translations, and formed the original of what is now called the Vulgate. The puerile remarks of "Gregory," when trying to show that "Protestants do not adhere to the Bible as their only rule," have been well answered by "Clement:" but to his answer I would add that the Bible, though it is the sole judge of controversies among all Protestants, and the rule by which we examine all that our ministers say, yet it does not profess, nor do we profess for it, to make all men see and think alike on every subject relating to Christianity. If true religion required uniformity of opinion on everything connected with it, in order to salvation, how would our Roman Catholic friends fare in the matter? Do they, under the "motherly" care of their "infallible" guide, always see and think alike on all subjects? Certainly not. The puissant Emperor, Charles the Fifth, could not make his subjects do so, though under the especial protection of the "infallible" church, any more than he could make all the clocks he manufactured keep the same time. If it be true that the Bible is not a sufficient Rule of Faith, because all men do not think alike on every subject taught therein, it is equally true that the Romish Church is not an infallible guide, because all men do not think alike on everything she teaches. I have proved this to be the case respecting the fundamental doctrine now under debate; but is it not true that, in all controversies between men and men, the party who will not submit to any judgment but his own, is generally suspected to be wrong; while he, who is willing to refer to a third indifferent party, is generally presumed to have the best cause? Now, the Romish Church will not submit to any judgment but her own. She must determine whether she be a true church or not; whether she be pure or corrupt; or whether she be infallible or not. But Protestants do not make themselves and their church the only judge; but they willingly submit to be judged by the Scriptures, in the same way as the apostles submitted to be tried when at Berea, and for which they commended the Bereans. What I have just advanced will show that the remarks of "Gregory" respecting Protestants not "The Manners and Trials of the Primitive Christians. By the Rev. Robert Jamieson," p. 46. Second Edition, 1841. N adhering to the Bible as their only rule, will tell with equal weight against his own church; and that the Protestants are presumed to have the best cause, because they submit to be judged by the Scriptures, while the Romish Church declines all judgment but her own, which is against the common sense of all men. 66 I shall now briefly consider the paper of "Ignatius." He says: "It was proved in the first negative article that Protestants do not use the sacred volume as their exclusive Rule of Faith." If, like Gregory," he believes that Protestants nullify their rule, because men do not think alike on everything taught therein, he may consider the above charge against us proved; but, at the same time, he must admit, from what has been said, that the Romish church cannot be infallible for the selfsame reasons; but if he maintains that a difference of opinion on some subjects is consistent with the infallibility of his church,—and this he must do, to maintain his ground-then the charge of "Gregory" has NOT been proved, because a difference of opinion on some subjects in the Bible is quite consistent with its sufficiency as our only Rule of Faith." But we hold that we do use the sacred volume as our exclusive rule. This is, in fact, the honour of our religion, that we are allowed to examine all that our ministers teach by that rule; while the cause of the Roman Catholic Church is such as dares not abide the trial. I have thus swept away the foundation of "Ignatius," on which he has endeavoured to show that our "Rule of Faith is quite impracticable." 66 Before proceeding further, we must try to escape from a dilemma in which we are apparently placed by "Gregory" and " "Ignatius." On page 16, "Gregory" says that had the Bible been intended as the only Rule of Faith, "we should have had some record of the fact in the book itself." On page 101, Ignatius says, "No proof of the inspiration of the New Testament can be drawn from the Old; and no proof can be drawn from the New Testament, since it cannot give witness to itself." Both these statements cannot be true. Yet, on page 104, "Ignatius" says, They say that the Bible alone is a sufficient Rule of Faith. They know, therefore, what books are inspired, either from the Bible alone, or from some other unerring authority. If from the Bible alone, where is the list of inspired books given in the Bible? If from some other authority, do they not deny that the Bible only is a sufficient Rule of Faith? Let Protestants, if they can, escape from this dilemma." From this it will appear that "Ignatius" not only contradicts his friend "Gregory," but himself too, and that he does not seem to understand what constitutes a "Rule of Faith;" for he insinuates that if we derive our list of canonical and inspired books from any other source than the Bible itself, we "deny that the Bible only is a sufficient Rule of Faith;" and that if the Bible contained a list of its own inspired books, it would prove nothing, because "it cannot give witness to itself." Let "Ignatius," if he can, escape from the dilemma of inconsistency. 66 Again, "Ignatius" says that "nothing but a Divine authority, some revelation or communication from God, would be sufficient to guarantee this Divine fact of the inspiration of the Bible. It is a fact not cognizable by human reason, which could only be known to God in the first instance, and to man only in case God should have communicated it to him, either directly, or through an infallible church." Of course the Romish Church claims this infallibility; and, consequently, she must have received this revelation from God. She is, therefore, able to determine the true meaning of the Scriptures; consequently she is "deeply guilty of uncharitableness, or envy, or cruelty to souls, that she doth not put forth a clear and infallible comment upon the whole of the Scripture, but still suffers the whole world to live in contention about the true meaning of hundreds of texts of Scripture." But I must here ask "Ignatius" when the Church of Rome received this revelation? and where a record of this fact is to be found? I find that the Popes Sixtus V. and Clement VIII. speak rather differently from "Ignatius.'" They appear to have adopted precisely similar means as other men do to ascertain what is Scripture, and its true meaning. Pope Sixtus V. tells us, in the preface to his translation of the Bible, that he "picked out of the cardinals, and almost out of all nations, a college of learned men, who advised him in the work." They," says he, "consulted, and I chose that which was best." He adds, It is most evident that there is also, these remarkable words: no surer nor stronger argument than the comparing of ancient and approved copies." This translation he put forth "to be followed, without adding, or diminishing, or altering, under pain of excommunication." But about two years after, up came Clement VIII., who put forth another edition and translation of the Bible, differing from and contrary to that of Sixtus V., in about two thousand places. And, what is more remarkable, the preface to the last edition of Clement contains the following words: -"Receive, Christian reader, this old and vulgar edition of Scripture, corrected with all possible diligence, which, though in respect of human weakness, it be hard to affirm that it is every way complete, yet it is not to be doubted but it is more pure and corrected than all that hath gone before it." I think this is sufficient evidence to show how great an error it is to pretend that the Pope is an infallible interpreter of Scripture. Here we have exhibited one of these infallibles contradicting and upsetting another infallible; and instead of Divine infallibility being claimed by the Pope, we have a public acknowledgment of his imbecility. He cannot presume to affirm his work to be perfect, which it must have been, had he been some revelation or communication from infallibly guided in it by God," which "Ignatius" says is necessary 'to guarantee this Divine fact." Since, then, these Popes, being translators and editors of the Word of God, do not claim "infallible" guidance in doing their work, it must follow that either the Roman Catholic Church cannot be certain of possessing the Bible, or that a : 66 reve lation or communication from God" is not necessary " NEGATIVE ARTICLE.-III. Ir has been already advanced in this debate that the Creator has given to man a rule both of faith and practice. I go a step farther, and assert that the Divine Rule of Faith must necessarily be both clear and infallible. A guide, which is not clear, cannot be safe; and if not infallible in its results, must be attended with danger. In considering whether the Protestant Rule of Faith (i. e., private interpretation of the Bible) possesses these characters, I shall not suppose any disputes to exist as to the fact of the Bible being the inspired Word of God. Disputes as to the number of canonical books will be alike disregarded. Does the Bible require an interpreter? If so, it is not clear. If not, there is but one method of treating it, which is-to attach no other meaning to any passage but that which is conveyed by the literal expression of its words. If the Bible is intended to be a sufficient Rule of Faith, the latter mode is surely the most reasonable. But it is needless for me to quote a single passage, in order to prove that it is not intended to be understood altogether literally, because no one has ever ventured to adopt this view. It must, then, be acknowledged it needs an interpreter; and the question arises, Who or what this interpreter is to be? None can be relied on, save the same Holy Spirit who dictated the writing; hence it is only an infallible guide to those who are taught the meaning of its passages by the power of the Holy Ghost. The Bible alone, then, is not a sufficient Rule of Faith, because, in addition to it, we must have an infallible interpreter, viz.—the Holy Spirit. This is beyond dispute; and therefore if a person, after reading any part of Holy Scripture, feels convinced he has interpreted rightly what he has read, this conviction must be accompanied with the belief that the Holy Ghost has directed his interpretation. But if any single individual were thus guided, his interpretation would be infallible, because it would be the interpretation of the Holy Spirit. If, on the other hand, the Almighty has left His written word to be interpreted by each one for himself, the words of our Lord to his apostles, Spirit of Truth is come, He will teach you all truth" (John xvi. But when He, the 13), would have been unnecessary. 66 Now we know that the inspiration of the Prophets was the work of the Spirit of Truth. Supposing, therefore, His work was to be only what it had hitherto been, how could our Lord have described Him as one who was to come? Dare any of us neglect to obey the command of God under the Mosaic dispensation, to keep the seventh day holy, if we did not believe the command abrogated by means of the Holy Ghost, although not found in the written word? If the Almighty has made no revelation of His will to man, except by means of the written word, then this command is set aside merely by human authority. But there are those who say that all which is absolutely necessary to believe is clear enough to the human understanding; all which they consider necessary for salvation being the doctrine of the atonement. St. Peter declares that in St. Paul's epistles "are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, to their own destruction:" from which it is quite clear that something besides a simple faith in the atonement is included in the doctrines of Christianity; and that unlearned persons, by putting their own constructions upon some passages, may be the means of their own destruction. This alone should make Protestants pause in their headlong course of interpreting Scripture so as to support a preconceived opinion, or to evade that sense which the Catholic Church, in all ages, has attached to it. But how can it be said the doctrine of the atonement is clear? Even upon this point the greatest contention is raised; for one will argue that our Saviour died for all, while another will say He died for the elect only. Both can appeal to the Bible in support of their assertions, and both are of themselves equally fallible in their interpretation. If we do not believe in the existence of a living, infallible authority, we have no right to condemn the human judg ment of either. But the Spirit of Truth, who inspired the writers of Holy Scripture, is unchangeable; and, therefore, one only of these constructions can be correct. Surely it must be on account of such differences as these that so many are, unhappily, content to take no notice whatever of many of the Divine commands, as if they were not absolutely imperative. "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved," is not a whit more plain and distinct than "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life and I will raise him up at the last day." (John vi. 54, 55.) Here are words which my opponents will readily tell me require interpretation; but then they expect me to take the interpretation which they are pleased to put upon them. They, like myself, are but fallible. The written Word of God assures me there is a way, and even "fools shall not err therein" (Isa. xxxv. 8); while, on the other hand, it is written, "There is a way which seemeth just to a man; but the end thereof leads to death." (Prov. xiv. 12.) I ask -Can fools be secured from error by interpreting Scripture for themselves? That the will of God is capable of being preserved by tradition, is evident from the fact that the Almighty was pleased to have it |