single epistle which we possess was addressed to Christians already fully instructed in the faith," an opinion which does not seem warranted by many expressions in the epistles (see Heb. v. 11-14; 1 Cor. iii. 1-3; Gal. iii. 1, and v. 7); or if they were so instructed, the rod of an Apostle was often requisite to stir the primitive Christians up to their duty, and doubtless may also be as often required in our own time. St. Peter, however, urges his readers to " desire the sincere milk of the Word," not any mixture of Scripture diluted with tradition, "that they may grow thereby," 1 Pet. ii. 2. To say that a "volume of doctrinal instruction was perfectly unnecessary" to the first Christians, is an assertion at complete variance with the facts of history; indeed, they all point the other way, as any attentive reader of the New Testament will at once readily perceive. Indeed, the wisdom of the Divine Author of Christianity is more clearly seen when we remember the circumstances which called forth the several apostolic epistles of the New Testa

ment.

His second argument, that "the Bible was not at first regarded as the only Rule of Faith," is simply untrue, as is evident from a consideration of the opinions we have quoted as being held by the early Fathers: they always appealed to Scripture as the final authority; Irenæus declares that "those things which the Apostles taught, they afterwards delivered in the Scriptures, the foundation and pillar of our faith."* When, therefore, the Scriptures were thus delivered, they must have superseded unwritten traditions, for Irenæus further pronounces the Scriptures to be "perfect, as derived from the word of God and His Spirit." Eusebius also testifies that all things, which Polycarp professes to have derived from the Lord, were in every respect conformed to the Scriptures. Irenæus further remarks, "If the Apostles knew recondite mysteries, which they taught to the perfect in secret, apart from others, they would have delivered them to those most especially to whom they committed the churches." The circumstances of the case necessitated much viva voce instruction in the early Church; and while the books composing the Bible were scarce, and learning uncommon, it is not to be supposed a matter of wonder that such was the case, nor yet that such a practice has the greater claims upon our commendatory notice. The early Christians, like ourselves, were doubtless left to find out, and put in practice, those means which, in their view, appeared best calculated to secure the spread and triumph of the truths of Christianity: to insinuate, therefore, as "Pope Gregory " has done, that our Divine Master should have suggested to some of his followers the art of printing, as the most expeditious way of accomplishing his plan, is only another way of casting a scornful reflection upon the idea that God has chosen to work by human means, and that He chose to work just as He has * Advers. Heres., lib. iii., cap. 4. See Bennett's " Theology of the Early Church."

† Advers. Heres., lib. iii., cap. 1, 2, 3. Ibid.

done, when, possibly, our wisdom would have suggested another and a better way.

"Gregory's" next argument, that the "adoption of this rule in the early ages was, humanly speaking, impossible," because it was not complete during the first, and because, during the succeeding two or three centuries, the books of the New Testament were not collected into one volume, may be a very profound argument, but we confess that we do not really see the point of it upon this present question. Because the early Christians did not possess the complete Bible, are we, therefore, to assume its insufficiency? Because they possessed but a few fragments of this heavenly gift, are we to despise the whole treasure, and prefer in its stead the vague, corrupt, spurious traditions of men? We pity the mental wisdom of the man who should thus choose the beggarly crumbs of tradition in preference to the Word of Life.

We now come to our opponent's fourth argument, and which is, doubtless, intended as a poser to us Protestants; We do not," he says, "adhere to the Bible as our only rule." Indeed! We always

"The time and occasion of the formation of the Christian canon, and its general reception in the Church, are questions as difficult as they are interesting and important. That the beloved disciple, John, as the survivor of the Apostles, anthoritatively closed the canon, has been asserted, and it may surely be pronounced the most natural hypothesis; but it is still a question of fact, at what period, and to what extent, this decision was known and prevailed among the churches. It cannot be ascertained that the apostolical Fathers possessed even the Gospels as early as we should have expected. When Clement of Rome quotes the Old Testament, he says, 'Thus it is written;' but he adopts another style concerning Christian verities, saying, 'Let us be mindful of the words of the Lord, teaching mildness;' 1 Epist. ch xiii. And Ignatius quotes what certainly does not exist now in either of the Gospels, Handle ire, and see that I am not an incorporeal dæmon;' Epist. to Smyrna, chap. iii. Polycarp also says, Let us serve Christ with fear and all piety, as He himself commanded, and the Apostles and Prophets who preached before the coming of our Lord;' Epist, chap. vi. Luke, in his introduction to the Gospel which bears his name, intimates that there were then extant many gospels, not of Divine authority, but neither also of heretical pravity, and from some of these the early Fathers appear to quote. All this must naturally have occurred. But strong suspicions are excited that the early Christians, satisfied of the truth of those things which the Apostles preached, were negligent of the canon. . . . But when in the second century, Marcion, after his teacher, Cerdo, had appealed to Scripture, the Fathers were roused to the discharge of a sacred duty, to form or procure a collection of the sacred writings, first of the Gospels (and to that of Luke was appended the Acts), and, afterwards, of the apostolical Epistles, which were followed by the Revelation. Justin Martyr, Irenæus, Origen, Tertullian, then begin to speak a different language, referring to the four Gospels, and to the Epistles, not omitting the mention of the Revelation. In this, as well as other instances, the heretics served the cause of truth, which they laboured to destroy."*-Theology of the Early Church."

• This subject is ably discussed by Campegius Vitringia, the worthy son of a justly celebrated father. "Dissertationes Sacra," edited by Venema, Franequer

1731.

66

thought that all true Protestants ever did. But let us hear in what matter it is that we depart therefrom: and first, it is because we presume to teach our children and explain the Bible so as to be comprehended by their limited understandings, instead of telling them to read and find out, what it is desirable they should know, by themselves! Really "Gregory," this is a joke; you cannot be serious. But we pass on to doctrine. The doctrine of the Trinity, he affirms, we owe to the traditions of his church. We may here remark, that if it were not plainly taught in the Bible, it would cease to be a Protestant doctrine. Every intelligent Protestant can deduce it in a legitimate manner from the language of Scripture, without being obliged to "take it, as well as whatever else is positive in their creed, in trust from the (Roman) Catholic Church.' It is a Protestant doctrine, not because it is a Roman Catholic tenet, but because it is a truth of Scripture; and in reference to the case of the Unitarian who is referred to by Gregory," we may remark, that we cannot understand how it is that men who can reason as other men do, on other questions, reason quite differently when the doctrine of the Trinity is the subject of debate. So also with regard to infant baptism and the observance of the first day of the week ;-every intelligent Protestant is satisfied as to his duty in these matters, by legitimate inference from the recorded facts of the New Testament, and the practice of the Apostolic (not the Roman Catholic) Church. The Apostle's command in Acts xv. 29, had reference to the peculiar views of the Jewish converts relative to things non-essential, and cannot be considered binding upon all Christians, except where the moral law is infringed. In St. John xiii. 14, after the example of humility our Lord had given His disciples, in condescending to perform the menial office of a servant, He says, "If I, then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet:" not that they "must" do so literally, "if they would be His disciples," as "Gregory" expresses it, but that the spirit of the act should enter into, and be cultivated by them towards each other. Receiving the Sacrament in any other part of the day than the evening, does not seem to us of so much importance as it appears to be to our opponent. The celebration of any event can be observed at any other diurnal time than exactly the sameas the original, if the object of the celebration be not lost sight of. St. James's advice (v. 14, 15) was given with the view of healing the sick, and not as the Roman Catholics administer extreme unction as the final preparation for death according to the Apostle, the "prayer of faith" was to 66 save the sick" from death, the "Lord raising him up" in answer thereto a result never contemplated when the priest enters the sick chamber in order to administer "extreme unction."

Thus have we cursorily noticed the various arguments advanced against the sufficiency of the Bible as the sole Rule of Faith, by our opponent "Pope Gregory." At the close of his article, he asks for "a single clear text that in the remotest manner supports "

our theory. During the treatment of our subject, we have quoted many passages of Scripture, and referred to many more, all of which bear, either more or less, upon the question at issue: if this is not sufficient, we must now leave both him and our readers with the language of St. Peter:-"We have not followed cunningly devised fables,"-as are traditions,-but we have " a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day-star arise in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not at any time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," 2 Pet. i. 16—21.

NEGATIVE ARTICLE.-II.

CLEMENT.

It was proved in the first negative article, that Protestants, whatever they may assert about their being guided by "the Bible only," do not, as a matter of fact, use the sacred volume as their exclusive Rule of Faith. It is my intention, in the following pages, to inquire into the cause of this glaring inconsistency; and I hope to make it clear to my readers, that Protestants do not observe their first principle, for this very simple reason, THEIR RULE OF FAITH IS

QUITE IMPRACTICABLE.

I do not think that any of my readers will be disposed to quarrel with me, when I assert that the Protestant Rule of Faith requires that all conviction in religious matters should be based on individual research and individual satisfaction, and that all ecclesiastical authority should be rejected. This is the very essence of Protestantism. On this principle, therefore, every Protestant is obliged to satisfy himself by individual research-1st, of the existence of a revelation; 2ndly, that such revelation is really confided to man in that collection of works called the Bible, and there only; 3rdly, that each and every one of the books of the Bible is divinely inspired, and that the book, which is called the Bible, is really the whole Bible and nothing but the Bible; 4thly, that each book of the Bible was written by the person whose name it bears, and has been handed down without any material corruption; 5thly, that the translation which he uses has been so correctly made, that he can rest confident that in reading it, he is reading the words which the Spirit of God dictated to the Prophets and Evangelists; 6thly, as many parts of Holy Scripture "are hard to be understood, and are apt to be wrested by the unlearned and unstable to their own perdition," each person must see that he understands the Seriptures rightly; for Holy Scripture is Holy Scripture only in the right sense of Holy Scripture."

* By "private interpretation," the Apostle evidently refers to the practice of explaining isolated passages in such a manner as to support some pre-conceived theory, instead of comparing Scripture with Scripture, and so making the Bible its own interpreter.

Such is the complicated and laborious inquiry which the Protestant Rule of Faith, theoretically speaking, imposes on each individual; I ask, then, is not a rule, which requires all its adherents to pass through such a labyrinth of difficulties, quite impracticable to the majority of mankind? Can it be the Rule of Faith which God has given as a guide to the poorest, simplest, and most illiterate of His creatures? It is quite absurd to answer, as some do, that the learned can make these researches, and the unlearned must be guided by the voice of their pastors, for you thus create two rules of faith, one for the learned, and another for the unlearned; besides, as experience has shown, it is impossible for any one, on Protestant principles, to arrive at any certain result on many of the points which I have enumerated.

66

As my space is necessarily very limited, I will confine myself to an examination of the difficulties which would beset a Protestant in his examination of the third point, which has reference to the canon and inspiration of Holy Scripture. As Protestants profess to rest their whole belief on the Bible alone, saying that they will believe implicitly every doctrine which it inculcates, and reject every doctrine which is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby,' it must obviously be a matter of the highest importance to them to ascertain, beyond the possibility of a doubt, that nothing has been admitted into that volume which ought to have been rejected, and nothing left out that ought to have been inserted; for, in the first case, they might believe some important doctrine on human authority only; and, in the second case, it might happen that some doctrine or practice, absolutely necessary to salvation, would be entirely neglected. They must, therefore, be able to prove to their own satisfaction, and to the conviction of their adversaries, that each and every one of the books in their Bible is inspired; that no merely human production has found a place in that volume; and that no part of what was really written under Divine inspiration has been rejected as of no authority. But how many of those who profess to hold the Bible in such great veneration, and proclaim that it is their only guide, are able to do this? Not one. I fearlessly assert that, on Protestant principles, it is an impossible task. The canon and inspiration of Scripture cannot be proved without reference to the traditions and decrees of the Catholic Church; at least, there must be some infallible authority to reveal to us which are the books that have been written under Divine inspiration. “If the books which compose the canon of Scripture are not revelation, then we have no revelation. If the canon be not established to us as a matter of revelation, the books of which it is composed are not so established; and if the books be not so, then not one doctrine or precept, which they contain, comes established to us as a revelation."*

Nothing but a Divine authority, some revelation or commu* Haldane, a Protestant, "On the Genuineness and Authenticity of the New Testament," p. 379.