containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.' The concise and popular method of expressing the rule-" The Bible, and the Bible only, is the religion of Protestants"-has passed into a "text;" and is quoted against "Papists" and "Puseyites," in sermons, lectures, books, and newspapers, as quite indis putable; indeed, from the manner in which some use it, one would really suppose that it was a veritable text of Scripture, instead of being merely the dictum of one of the greatest religious weathercocks that ever lived, viz., Chillingworth. I propose to prove, in the following article, that the Bible only is not a sufficient Rule of Faith, for four reasons; and I confine myself to the consideration of only this much of the question, as I should otherwise greatly exceed the limits which must govern writers in this Magazine. My reasons are I. The Bible was never intended to be the only Rule of Faith. IV. As a matter of fact, Protestants do not make it their only I. The Bible was never intended to be the only rule. Had it been so, we should have had some record of the fact in the Book itself. But what is the state of the case? You will not find the slightest hint, either from our Lord, or from his apostles, which would lead us to infer that Christianity was to be promulgated by means of any book, or rather, by the series of books of which the Bible is composed. Instead of sending his apostles armed with Bibles, our Lord commissioned them to "preach the gospel to every creature.' The idea of compiling a book, which should contain all Christ's doctrines, never seems to have entered the minds of the Apostles. Had they believed, or could have possibly believed, that which Protestants now assert, that nothing but an inspired volume was to enlighten the world on the subject of Christianity, they would have taken the utmost care to commit to writing all the words and all the commands of our Lord, and to diffuse the book containing them throughout the world, to the utmost of their power; and to some church which they founded, they would have addressed epistles containing such clear summaries of Christian doctrine, that no schism could possibly have occurred. But that all our Lord's sayings were not recorded, is proved, incontestably, by St. John, who distinctly declares that "there are also many other things which Jesus did, which, if they were written every one, the world, I think, would not be able to contain the books which should be written." St. John xxi. 25. Nor is there the slightest ground for supposing that the Epistles supply this deficiency. All the books of which the New Testament is composed are simply four Gospels, several letters to churches and individuals, a record of some of the travels of St. Peter and St. Paul, and a book of Revelations. The Apostles, so far from considering a written rule absolutely necessary, neglected entirely, with the exception of two of their number, to record a single word or act of our Lord. Two of the Gospels are by parties who were not apostles at all. One of the writers (St. Luke), who probably never in his life saw our Lord, writes only at the instance of a friend, who wished to know something of the history of Him whose religion St. Luke professed. And even St. John, the beloved disciple, actually defers writing his Gospel until within six years of his own death, when his labours were finished, and his course nearly run. His Epistles are limited to three very short ones, neither of them containing much information respecting Christianity; and one of them merely a private letter. St. Peter, the chief among the Apostles, writes no gospel at all; neither has he written anything, but two short Epistles. Fourteen out of the twenty-one Epistles contained in the New Testament were written by one who was neither of the twelve, nor an immediate disciple of our Lord; and a cursory perusal of these writings will suffice to convince any one, not disposed to prejudge the question, that scarcely any of them would have been written at all, but for the existence of abuses in the churches to which they were addressed. And so far were the Apostles from believing, or having any anticipation of their writings becoming the sole Rule of Faith to a body of Christians, that St. Paul absolutely refrains from writing on some subjects, on the ground that he would be able to express himself more fully and satisfactorily when present. In 2 Cor. xi. 34, he says, after giving several directions concerning the government of that church: The rest I will set in order when I come;" clearly meaning that if he had been with them, he would not have written at all. Again, in writing to Timothy (1 Ep. iii. 14), "These things write I unto thee, hoping that I shall come unto thee shortly." St. John, in his third Epistle, chap. i. 13, 14, says: "I have many things to write unto thee, but I would not with pen and ink write unto thee. But I hope speedily to see thee, and we will speak face to face." Of course it will be admitted that what St. Paul would say to the Corinthians and to Timothy, and what St. John would say to Gaius, would be quite as much inspired as what they wrote; and from the tenor of these Epistles, we may conclude that the most important things were not touched upon in the letters at all; again demonstrating that these Apostles never intended their writings to be the guides of any but those to whom they addressed them; and even then only under peculiar circumstances. In Heb. i. 2, St. Paul says: "(God) hath in these days spoken," not written, "to us by His Son." In Matt. xxviii., Christ does not say, "Go, write Bibles to all nations," but "Go, teach all nations." In St. Luke x. 16, he does not say, 'He that readeth, or heareth the Scripture, heareth me," but "He that heareth you, heareth me." In Matt. xviii. 17. he does not say, “He that will not read the Scripture," but "He that will not hear the Church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man, and a publican." What is to me quite conclusive in the matter, and to which I would particularly direct the attention of Protestants, is this important fact, that every single Epistle which we possess was addressed to Christians already fully instructed in the faith;— persons to whom a volume of doctrinal instruction was perfectly unnecessary. II. The Bible was not at first regarded as the only Rule of Faith. This is so obvious, as scarcely to need any illustration. The practice of the Apostles is a complete confirmation of it. Our Lord, shortly after he began to preach, sent forth seventy disciples, and not one of them was supplied with any document whatever. Their mission was to preach; not to distribute Bibles. Our Lord himself preached. He wrote no new law. Most of his Apostles wrote no books; nor did they direct their followers to do so either. St. Paul, writing to Timothy, does not tell him to record carefully, in writing, what had been delivered to him; but, "The things which thou hast heard of me, before many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also," 2 Tim. ii. 2. And in his first Epistle to Timothy, he several times repeats, "These things teach and exhort;"" These things command and teach.' 1 Tim. vi. 2; iv. 11, &c., &c. This hardly bears out the Protestant theory. We find, too, the early Christians utterly opposed to writing down anything at all, lest it should be made a subject for mockery by the pagans. All their instructions were by word of mouth. When a pagan desired to become a Christian, he was not furnished with a Bible (indeed, it would have been impossible to supply him with one, as the books of which it consists were not collected for four hundred years after the ascension of our Lord), but was sent to the clergy, and instructed in some of the primary doctrines of Christianity; nor was he fully instructed until he had been baptized for some length of time; and even then no Bible was given to him. Probably one of the Gospels, or one or two Epistles which the church to which the convert belonged possessed, were lent or read to him; but certainly nothing further, in the way of written teaching, was supplied to any one. And from the extreme paucity of the Epistles, and the small number of writers, may we not conclude that the early Christians, when it was discovered what use the pagans made of their writings, were instructed to commit to writing nothing but what was strictly necessary? A single fact, worth hundreds of arguments, may be mentioned. The whole of the then known world was converted during the first four hundred years, entirely without the Bible. Nor do we find a single writer, prior to the Reformation, advocating or broaching the opinion now held by Protestants, that the Bible was, or ought to be, the sole Rule of Faith. III. The adoption of this rule in the early ages was, humanly speaking, impossible-impossible to have been the rule during the first century, as the Bible was not complete; and equally impossible during the first four centuries, since the books composing the New Testament were not collected into one volume, and very few copies of individual books existed, and these written, of course, with the pen. We have no evidence, nor have we, consequently, any right to assume, that any portion of the Bible was, during that period, translated into any language, to facilitate the spread of Christianity. Would this have been neglected by the Apostles and their followers, had they been Protestants? Until the art of printing had been invented, it was practically impossible to multiply copies of the Bible to the extent which, on Protestant grounds, it would have been required for the evangelization of the world. And during the first fourteen hundred years of Christianity, the labour of translating the Bible was so great, that copies of it were rarely seen, except in monasteries, and other religious houses, or in the residences of opulent men. Now, if it had been the intention of our Lord to have had his religion diffused by means of the Protestant Rule of Faith, would he not have devised some means for carrying out his will? Either he would have suggested himself (I speak with all possible reverence), or have inspired some of his followers with the idea of printing, or, if possible, with a still more expeditious means of supplying the world with a book which should contain all that he wished to be known of the religion which he taught. He imparted to his Apostles the gift of tongues, and they were, therefore, able to supply the world with true translations of the book. Let Protestants decide for themselves how far the result has fulfilled the original intention of our Lord, if it was what they would have us believe. IV. As a matter of fact, Protestants do not adhere to the Bible as their only rule. If I succeed in proving this proposition, I presume none of the Protestant readers of the British Controversialist will be disposed to prolong the discussion. For if they themselves, in any particular, positively ignore the only rule by which they will permit their religion to be judged, and by which they affect to judge others, it plainly shows that the question we are discussing is decided by their own practice, notwithstanding any assertion to the contrary. What Protestant was ever taught his religion by the Bible alone? Was he not in his childhood first instructed by his parents, at school by teachers, and later by tutors who, whenever he met with passages which clashed with his Protestantism, gave him their interpretation of it? The Bible, in the hands of young persons, is a mere history. The theology which it contains is incomprehensible to them. And not until his religious convictions are formed, the Bible is to him an enigma. He is taught in his childhood that there is a God, the creator of all, and that He is one in three persons. But where do they find this fundamental truth of Christianity laid down? Is it sufficient for them to go backwards and forwards, from verse to verse, and chapter to chapter, and stringing together several texts, declare that they sufficiently prove the doctrine of the Trinity? What says the Unitarian? Why, that the Bible teaches the very reverse. Such is the decision to which he comes in his examination of the Sacred Volume. He finds nothing whatever respecting the three persons in one God, nor any proof of the divinity of the Son: but many texts speaking of the absolute Unity of God; and others, such as My Father is greater than I;" "I live by the Father;" "My work is to do the will of Him that sent me:" texts which seem to imply that the Son is inferior to, and dependent upon the Father. It is, of course, utterly useless to quote in support of the Trinity the solitary text, "There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one;" for he will immediately, and with a considerable display of reason, object to the genuineness of the words which proclaim the unity of the three persons. And he will also tell, what is moreover strictly true, that the dogma of the Trinity is nowhere explicitly laid down in Scripture and declare that it is a Romish corruption, and mention the date when the Church defined the corruption. (A.D. 325.) Protestants have been content to take this, as well as whatever else is positive in their creed, in trust from the Catholic Church. The observance of Sunday is nowhere commanded, although that of Saturday is. Yet Protestants, while professing to believe and practice nothing but what the Bible sanctions, ignore the scriptural command to keep the Jewish sabbath, and that, "from even to even," and follow the traditions of the Catholic Church by observing the Sunday instead. And it must also be observed, that although we have scriptural evidence, though very slight, that the Apostles and their followers hallowed in some way the Sunday, yet there is not the slightest hint, nor have we any right to expect it, since most of the Christians at that time were Jews, that the observance of the sabbath was neglected. It most probably died out with other Jewish observances, such, for instance, as circumcision, which was most certainly practised, and to some extent insisted upon, by St. Peter. But where is the Protestant authority for neglecting Saturday? I challenge them to produce one. It is a common practice with most Protestants to baptize infants; but what scriptural proof exists that the Apostles even admitted one not arrived at years of discretion to baptism ? or what command is to be found for the practice? The Baptists, grounding this portion of their belief upon four or five isolated texts, assert that it is absurd to require or expect a profession of faith from one who is utterly unable to comprehend the most simple article of that faith; also, that as our Lord has said, "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," it is evident that belief, or faith, must precede baptism; children, not being capable of believing, are neither capable of being |