^^>^N^^^ ot \^« ^^foHim ^ "f'U % PRINCETON, N. J Division g vi^'-ov / ■ ..,„.„ /O.S^(o Shrf/: Xumh.r V .'.... J^. | V THE COLLECTED WRITINGS James Henley Thornwell, d.d.. ll.d.. ; j^.^., JLJJL^.^ ., LATE PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY AT COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA. EDITED BY JOHN B. ADGER, D.D. JOHN L. GIRAEDEAU, D.D. VOL. III. -THEOLOGICAL AND CONTROVERSIAL E I C H M O N D : PEESBYTEEIAN COMMITTEE OF PUBLICATION. NEW YORK: ROBEKT CARTER & BROS. PHILADELPHIA: ALFRED 5IARTIKX. 1873. Entered according to Act of Congress, iu the year 1S72, by CHARLKS GEN NET, in trust, as Treasurer of Pubucation of the Gexeral Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States, In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at "Washington. S: CONTENTS. PAET I.— KATIONALIST CONTEOVERSY. PAGE Prefatory Note by the Editor 7 The Standard and Nature of Religion in three Sections.. 9 Section 1. An External Standard Vindicated 9 " 2. Religion Psychologically Considered 78 " 3. Revelation and Religion 153 The Office of Reason in regard to Revelation 183 Miracles 221 Their Nature 228 Their Apologetic Worth 233 Their Credibility 251 PART II.— PAPAL CONTROVERSY. Prefatory Note by the Editor 279 The Validity of the Baptism of the Church of Rome 283 Romanist Arguments for the Apocrypha Discussed 413 Letter I. Preliminary Statements — Council of Trent and the Canon 413 " II. The Argument for Inspiration Examined 430 " IIL The Argument for an Infallible Body 439 " IV. Historical Argument 460 " V. Infallibility— Historical Difficulties 475 " VL Infallibility and Skepticism 493 " VII. Infallibility and Superstition 51fi " VIIL Infallibility and Civil Government 540 " IX. The Apocrypha not quoted in the New Testament 558 " X. The Apocrypha and the Jewish Canon 569 " XI. Silence of Christ as to the Apocrypha 584 " XII. The Apocrypha and the Jewish Church — The Apoc- rypha and the Primitive Church 600 " XIII. The Apocrypha and Ancient Versions of Scripture — The Apocrypha and the Apostolic Fathers 611 " XIV. Patristic terms applied to the Apocrypha 628 3 4 CONTENTS. PAOE Letter XV. Testimonies from the Second Century 644 " XVI. Testimonies from the Tiiird Century 665 " XVir. Testimonies from the Fourth Century G77 " XVIII. The Keal Testimony of tiie Primitive Church 711 Appendix 743 Original Article on the Apocrypha by the Author 745 Specimen Letters of a Keply by the Kev. P. N. Lynch, D. D 753 Collection of Passages in wliich Dr. Lynch represents the Fathers as quoting the Apocrypha 802 PART I. RATIONALIST CONTROYERSY. '^ OBTOH ^,„ ,,i PREFATOKY NOTE. These contributions to the Controversy with the Eationalists consist of— 1. An examination of Mr. Morell's celebrated work, entitled The Philos- ophy of Religion; 2. A discussion of the Office of Eeason in regard to Eevelation ; and 3. A Treatise on Miracles. They were all published in the Southern Presbyterian Keview, and the last one appeared likewise in the Southern Quarterly during the short period for which Dr. Thornwell was the conductor of that work. Our authority for the titles we have given to the Examination of Morell, and to its different portions, will be found in the first pages of the second section of it. Dr. Thornwell /rs< considers the Philosophy of Religion in the light of an argument against an external Eevelation as the authoritative Standard of Eeligion ; and secondly, he examines the Psycnoiogy of Morell in relation to the question, What is the nature of the Subject in which Ee- ligion inheres? There remains, for the full execution of his plan as announced, the consideration, thirdly, of the Essence of Eeligion itself, and fourthly, of the Mode in which Eeligion is produced — in other words, the question. How is the given Subject put in possession of the given Essence? These two last points he subsequently threw together, and discussed them in the form of a sermon preached in Charleston before the Young Men's Christian Association. This sermon constitutes Section third of the Ex- amination of Morell's work. Section First appeared first in October, 1849, Section Second in January, 1850, but Section Third not until April, 1856. The discussion of the Office of Eeason in regard to Eevelation was published in June, 1847, as the first article of Volume First of that Ee- view whose pages during some fifteen years were illuminated with so many of the productions of his pen. The question, which he considers here is not the office of Eeason in relation to doctrines known to be a Eevelation from God— where, of course, the understanding is simply to believe— but 8 PREFATORY NOTE. the office of Reason -where tlie reality of the Eevelation remains to be proved and the interpretation of the doctrine to be settled. The general principle is maintained that the competency of Eeason to judge in any case is the measure of its right. And — a distinction being made in the contents of the Scriptures betwixt the Supernatural or what is strictly Re- vealed, and the Katural or what is confirmed but not made known by the Divine testimony — it is argued that the office of Eeason in the Super- natural department of Eevelation may be positive, but never can be neg- ative, while in the Natural it is negative, but to a very limited extent, if at all, positive. In other words, in the Supernatural, Eeason may prove, but cannot refute — in the Natural, she may refute, but cannot establish. The Treatise on Miracles was published July, 1857, in the form of a Eeview of the works of Trench, Wakdlaw and Hinds. It opens with a brief history of the Controversy with tlie Eationalists, and then discusses the Nature, the Apologetic Worth and the Credibility of the Miracle. It is supernatural — a temporary suspension of the laws of nature; it is, in itself, a sufficient credential of a Divine commission ; it is as credible as any other fact, and may be proved by competent testimony. The possi- bility of the event is thje sole limit to the credibility of testimony, and the question of the possibility of the Miracle is simply the question of the Existence of a personal God. THE STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. A REVIEW, IN THREE SECTIONS, OF MORELL'S PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION. SECTION I. AN EXTERNAL STANDARD VINDICATED. " rpHE design of this book," ^ we are told in the preface, _L "grew out of some of the reviews which appeared upon a former work of the author's, entitled An Historical and Critical View of the Speculative Philosophy of Europe in the Nineteenth Century." These reviews evinced, at least to the mind of Mr. Morell, "such a vast fluctuation of opinion," and such deplorable obscurity and confusion of ideas upon the whole subject of the connection betwixt philosophy and religion, that, in mercy to the general igno- rance, and particularly in deference to a suggestion of Tho- luck, he was induced "to commence a discussion" which, he evidently hoped, might have the effect of imparting in- tensity to the religious life, vigour to the religious literature and consistency to the religious sentiments of his country. He is at pains to inform us,^ and we thank him for the information — the book itself furnishing abundant internal evidence, which, in the absence of such a declaration, would ^ Page iii. ^ Preface, p. xxxii. 9 10 STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [Sect. I. have been decisive to the coutrarv — that he has not rushed "hastily and unpreparedly into the region of theological inquirv." ""While philosophy has been the highest recrea- tion, theology," he declares, "has ever been the serious business of my whole life. To the study of this science I gave my earliest thoughts, under the guidance of one^ who is recognized by all parties as standing amongst the leading theologians of our age ; I pursued it through many succeeding years; and if I have found any intense pleasure, or felt any deep interest in philosophy at large, it has been derived, mainly, from the consciousness of its high import- ance, as bearing upon the vastest moral and religious in- terests of mankind." Trained by this fitting discipline for the task, it is perhaps no presumption in Mr. Morell to have published a book which professes to be not " a popular and attractive exposition" of the questions which come within its scope, but a thorough philosopliical discussion, developing "from the beginning, as far as possible in a connected and logical form," a subject which involves the fundamental principles of human knowledge, and that any- thing like justice may be done to it, demands, at every step, the subtlest analysis, the profouudest reasoning and the in- tensest power of reflection. These qualities Mr. Morell may possess in an eminent degree — he may even feel that the possession of them implies a vocation of God to give a new and nobler impulse to the. religion of his country, and that, like all apostles, he is entitled to use great boldness of speech — still we cannot but suggest that, as modesty be- comes the great, a little less pretension would have de- tracted nothing from the charms of his performance. The perpetual recurrence of phrases which seem to indicate the conviction of the author that his book is distinguished by extraordinary depth, and that he is gifted M'ith a superior degree of mental illumination, is, to say the least of it, ex- tremely ofiensive to the taste of his readers; and he Mill * We learn from the 'Son\\ British Review that Dr. 'NVarillaw is the di- vine referred to. Sect. I.] an external standard vindicated. 11 probably find few who are prejiared to share in the super- ciKous contempt which he lavishes upon the prospective opponents of his system. The philosophy with which Mr. Morell is impregnated is essentially arrogant ; and it is more to it than to him that we ascribe the pretending tone of his work. The pervading consciousness of the weakness and ignorance of man, the diffidence of themselves, the profound impression of the boundlessness of nature and of the limitless range of inquiry which lies beyond the present grasp of our faculties, the humility, modesty and caution which characterize the writings of the great Eng- lish masters, will in vain be sought among the leading philosophers of modern Germany and France. Aspiring to penetrate to the very essence of things, to know them in themselves as well as in the laws which regulate their changes and vicissitudes, they advance to the discussion of the sublimest problems of God, the soul and the universe with an audacity of enterprise in which it is hard to say whether presumption or folly is most conspicuous. They seem to think that the human faculties are competent to all things, that whatever reaches beyond their compass is mere vacuity and emptiness, that omniscience, by the due use of their favourite organon, may become the attainment of man, as it is the prerogative of God, and that, in the very structure of the mind, the seeds are deposited from which may be developed the true system of the universe. Within the limits of legitimate inquiry we would lay no restrictions upon freedom of thought. All truly great men are conscious of their powers; and the confidence which they have in themselves inspires the strength, intensity and enthusiasm which enable them to conceive and to execute purposes worthy of their gifts. To the timid and distrustful their excursions may often seem bold and j^resumptuous; but in the most daring adventures of their genius they are restrained, as if by an instinct, from the visionary projects and chimerical speculations which transcend the sphere of their capacities, as the eagle, in his loftiest flights, never 12 STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [Sect. I. soars beyond the strength of his pinion. Confidence ad- justed to the measure of power never degenerates into arrogance. It is the soul of courage, perseverance and heroic achievement; it supports its possessor amid discour- agements and obstacles; it represses the melancholy, languor and fits of despondency to which the choicest spirits are subject; it gives steadiness to efibrt, patience to industry and sublimity to hope. But when men forget that their capa- cities are finite, that there are boundaries to human investi- gation and research, that there are questions which, from the very nature of the mind and the necessary conditions of human knowledge, never can be solved in this sublunary state — ^when they are determined to make their understand- ings the sole and adequate standard of all truth, and pre- sumptuously assume that the end of their line is the bottom of the ocean, — this is intolerable arrogance, the very spirit of ISIoloch, "Whose trust was with the Eternal to be deemed Equal in strength ; and rather than be less Cared not to be at all." We can have no sympathy with the pretensions of any method, whether inductive or reflective, which aims at a science of being in itself, and professes to unfold the nature of the Deity, the constitution of the universe and the mys- teries of creation and providence. To say, as INIr. INIorell docs,^ that " our knowledge of mind, in the act of reflective consciousness, is perfectly adequate, that it reaches to the whole extent of its essence, that it comprehends the intui- tion of its existence as a jpoiver or activiUj, and likewise the observation of all its determinations," is sheer extravagance and rant, which can be matched by nothing but the astounding declaration of the same author, that "to talk of knowing mind beyond the direct consciousness of its spontaneous being, and all the affections it can undergo, is absurd ; there is nothing more to know." We are not to be 1 History of Modern Philosophy, p. 53, vol. ii., second Loudon edition. ^ Sect. I.] AN EXTERNAL STANDARD VINDICATED. 13 surprised that such a philosophy should find nothing to rebuke it in the awful and impenetrable depths of the Di- vine nature, that it should aspire to gaze directly upon the throne of God, and profess to give a "direct apperception" of Him^ whom no man hath seen or can see, and whose glory would be intolerable to mortal eyes. Titanic audacity is the native spirit of the system ; and it is in the imper- ceptible influence of this spirit upon a mind otherwise generous and manly that we find the explanation of the fact that ]Mr. Morell, in the tone and temper of his per- formance, has departed so widely from the modesty of true science. There is one feature of the book before us which is par- ticularly painful, and we confess our embarrassment in find- ing terms to express it. Hypocrisy would precisely indicate the thing, but as that word cannot be employed without casting a serious and, we believe, an undeserved imputation upon the personal integrity of the author, we shall forbear to use it. We have no doubt that he is cordial and sincere in the zeal which he manifests for an earnest and vital re- ligion ; but what we object to is, that he should so often employ a phraseology, and employ it in such connections, as to convey the idea to undiscriminating readers — which the whole tenor of his argument proves to be false — that the earnest and vital religion which enlists his zeal em- braces the distinctive features of the system of grace. When he speaks of Christianity, in its essence, as a deep inward life in the soul, and pours contempt upon the barren forms and frigid deductions of logic as a substitute for piety — when he contends for divine intuitions, heavenly im- pulses and a lofty sympathy and communion with God — there is something in all this so much like the language of converted men that untutored minds are apt to be caught with the guile, and under the impression that they ^ Ibid., p. 52. It is refreshing to contrast with such pretensions the statements of Locke in the introduction of his celebrated Essay on the Human Understanding. 14 STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [Sect. I. are still clinging to the doctrines of a living, in opposition to a formal and dead, Christianity, may imbibe, without suspicion, a system which saps the foundations of the whole economy of the Gospel. Mr. Morell is no friend to what is commonly denominated Evangelical Religion. His divine life is not that which results from mysterious union with the Son of God, as the Head of a glorious covenant and the Father of a heaven-born progeny. His divine intuitions are not the illuminations of that Sjjirit which irradiates the written Word, and reveals to our hearts the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ; his communion with the Father is not the fellowship of a child, who rejoices in the assurance of his gracious adoption, and renders unceasing thanks for his marvellous deliverance, through the blood of a great Me- diator, from sin, condemnation and ruin. His religion embraces no such elements ; and he ought not, in candour, to have disguised sentiments, utterly at war with the com- mon conceptions of piety, in the very dress in which these conceptions are uniformly presented. If he has intro- duced a new religion, he should not have decked it in the habits of the old. It is the same species of dishonesty, the same paltering in a double sense, as that to which we object in Cousin, who, in seeming to defend the inspiration of Prophets and Apostles, and to rebut the assaults of a rationalistic infidelity, really denies the possibility of any distinctive and peculiar inspiration at all, and places Divine revelation upon the same platform with human discoveries. We acquit Mr. Morell of any intention to deceive. We rather suspect that he has partially imposed upon himself. We can understand his declaration,^ that he "does not know that he has asserted a single result the germs and principles of which are not patent in the writings of various of the most eminent theologians of the Church of Eng- land, or of other orthodox communities," in no other Avay than by supposing that he has been so long accustomed to ^ Preface, p. xxxiii. Sect. L] AN EXTERNAL STANDARD VINDICATED. 15 associate his own philosophical opinions with the character- istic phraseology of spiritual religion that the terms have ceased to suggest any other ideas to his mind; so that he is unconscious of the change of meaning which they have imperceptibly undergone from his habits of thought. His honesty, however, does not diminish the danger which results from the ambiguity of his language. A corrupt system, disguised in the costume of the true, is like Satan transformed into an angel of light. We should have rejoiced if Mr. MorelFs religion could have been more nakedly presented. It is not the ingenuity of his arguments, .nor the subtlety of his analysis, it is not the logical state- ment or the logical development of any of his principles, from which the most serious mischief is to be apprehended : it is from his fervour, his earnestness and zeal, which, in seeming to aim at a higher standard of Christian life, will enlist the sympathies of many, who feel that there is some- thing more in the Gospel than a meagre skeleton of doc- trines. They will be apt to think that the words which he speaks to them, resembling so often the tone of Christ and His Apostles, are, like theirs, spirit and life. They will take the draught as a healthful and vivifying potion, and find, too late, that it is a deadly mixture of hemlock and nightshade. Here is the danger ; in this covert insinuation of false principles, this gilding of a nauseous pill. If there were less in the book which counterfeits the emotions that spring from religion, the operation of its poison would be comparatively circumscribed. The danger, in the present instance, is incalculably in- creased by the surpassing enchantment of the style, which, though not distinguished by the precision of Stewart, the energy of Burke or the exquisite elegance of Hall, has a charm about it which holds the reader spell-bound from the beginning to the end of the volume. We will venture to assert that no man ever took up the book who was will- ing to lay it down until he had finished it; and very few, we apprehend, have finished it who were willing to dismiss 16 STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [Sect. I it without another, and perhaps still another, perusal. Mr, Morcll is never dull; in his abstrusest speculations, in his most refined and subtle efforts of analysis, there is an unc- tion Avhich fascinates the reader; he has the art, the rare and happy art, of extracting from the dry bones of meta- physics a delightful entertainment. The sorcery of his genius and the magic of his eloquence conceal the naked deformity of his principles ; and attention is beguiled from the hideousness of the object by the finished beauty of the painting. The transparency of his diction, the felicity of his illus- trations, the admirable concatenation of his thoughts, his freedom from the extremes of prolixity and brevity, and his skill in evolving and presenting in beautiful coherence and consistency the most complicated processes of thought, justly entitle him to rank among the finest philosophical writers of his country. Imbued as he is with the spirit of German philosophy, and thoroughly conversant with the productions of its best masters, it is no small praise that in his own compositions he has avoided all affectation of foreign idioms, and that at a time when our language seems likely to be flooded with the influx of a " pedantic and un-Eng- lish phraseology." He has found his mother-tongue amply adequate to the expression of his thoughts, and even the misty ideas of Germany, which its own authors have sel- dom been able to render intelligible in a dialect of amazing flexibility and compass, are seized with so firm and mascu- line a grasp, are so clearly defined and so luminously con- veyed, that we hardly recognize their identity, and can- not but think that if Kant could rise from the dead and read his speculations in the pages of Mr. Morell, he would understand them better than in his own uncouth and bar- barous jargon. We could wish that all importers of Ger- man metaphysics and German theology would imitate the example of Mr. Morell in his use of the vernacular tongue. We want no kitchen-Latin, and we strongly suspect that anv ideas which refuse to be marslialled in Enulish sen- Sect. I.] AN EXTERNAL STANDARD VINDICATED. 17 tences, or to be obedient to English words, are unsuited to our soil, and had better be left to vegetate or perish on the banks of the Rhine. As Mr. Morell nowhere tells us precisely what he means by the philosophy of religion, we are left to collect its im- port from his occasional statements of the scope and design of philosophy in general, his definition of religion, and the nature of the whole discussion. Religion he carefully dis- tinguishes from theology ; they are, as he insists in his former work,^ "■ two widely different things. Theology implies a body of truth founded upon indisputable principles, and having a connection capable of carrying our reason with it running through all its parts. Religion, on the other hand, is the spontaneous homage of our nature, j)oured forth with all the fragrance of holy feeling into the bosom of the Infi- nite. Religion may exist without a theology at all, prop- erly so called." Or, as the same sentiments are expressed in the work before us, "Let it be distinctly understood in tlie outset that we are speaking of religion now as a fact or phenomenon in human nature. There is a very common but a very loose employment of the term religion, in which it is made to designate the outward and formal principles of a community quite independently of the region of human experience, as when we speak of the Protestant religion, the religion of Moham- med, the religions of India, and the like. The mixing up of these two significations in a philosophical treatise cannot fail to give rise to unnumbered misunderstandings, and we emphatically repeat, there- fore, that in our present use of the term we are not intending to express any system of truth or form of doctrine whatever, but simply an inward fact of the human consciousness — a fact, too, the essential nature of which it is of the utmost importance for us to discover. ' ' '^ By religion, then, we are to understand not a system of doctrine or a creed, but those states of the mind and those inward experiences of the heart which spring from a sense of the Infinite and Eternal. But religion, in general, occu- pies a very subordinate jilace in the book ; it is only intro- duced at all in order to prepare the way for what Mr. 1 Vol. ii., Appendix, 2d Edition, p. G50. - Pages 62, 03. Vol. III.— 2 18 STANDARD AND XATUKE OF RELIGION. [Sect. I. Morell (lonoiniuates "the Christian consciousness." It is Christian exjierience, particularly, which he proposes to investigate. But what is the ]^)liilosophy of religion ? AYe have a clue to what the author means by it in the following passage of the preface : "All great systems of philosophy are simply methods ; they do not give us the material of truth : they only teach us how to realize it, to make it reflective, to construct it into a system." ^ The inquiries which, in conformity with this definition — a definition, we would add, rather of logic than philosophy —we should expect to find him conducting as obviously falling under the import of his title, are such as have ref- erence to the department of the soul in which religion is pre-eminently seated, the nature and origin of our religious affections, the laws of their development and growth, the process by which a theology may be formed, and the grounds of certainty in regard to religious truth. In this expectation we are not disappointed; these are the high themes that he discusses — the pith and staple of his argu- ment. But we must take the liberty to say that in our humble judgment the analysis of these points, whatever appearances of candour and impartiality may be impressed upon it, was instituted and shaped with special reference to a foregone conclusion. The author was in quest of what Archimedes w^anted in order to move the world — a tzou arco — by means of which he could overturn the foundations of the Christian faith. There was a darling hypothesis in relation to the authority of the Bible which he was de- termined to establish; and with an eye to this result his philosophy, though digested into the form of a regular and orderly development of principles, was invented and framed. It is a species of special pleading, ingeniously disguised in the mask of philosophical research against the great distinct- ive feature of Protestant Christianity. AVhen we contem- plate the havoc and desolation of his theory — the Bible as an authoritative standard of faith, and creeds and confes- ' Page xxiv. ^ Sect. I.] AN EXTERNAL STANDARD VINDICATED. 19 sions as bonds of Christian communion and fellowship, involved in a common ruin, with nothing to supply their place but the dim intimations of sentiment and feeling, chastened and regulated by the natural sympathy of earnest and awakened minds — we might be appalled at the pros- pect, if it were not for the consolatory reflection which the author himself has suggested, that his "philosophy does not give us the material of truth." But to be a little more minute, the book is divided into twelve chapters, the first of which presents us with a gen- eral survey of the human mind. And as two of its powers are found to be of fundamental importance to the subse- quent discussion, the second is devoted to a somewhat ex- tended elucidation of the distinction betwixt them. In these two chapters the "philosophical groundwork" is laid of the author's whole system. If he is at fault in any essential point of his analysis, or has misapprehended the nature and relations of the "two great forms of our intel- lectual being" which play so conspicuous a part in his theory, his speculations labour at the threshold, the founda- tions are destroyed and the superstructure must fall to the ground. Since a human religion must be adjusted to the faculties of the human mind, an important step is taken toward the determination of its real nature when these faculties are explored and understood. Mr. Morell is, accordingly, conducted by his mental analysis to an inquiry into "the peculiar essence of religion in general," which he prosecutes in the third, and to a similar inquiry into the essence of Christianity in particular, which he prosecutes in the fourth, chapter of the book. He is now prepared to enter into the core of the subject ; and as it is in the applica- tion of his psychology to the affiliated questions of Revela- tion and Inspiration, and to the construction of a valid system of Theology, that the poison of his principles most freely works, we must invite particular attention to his opinions upon these points, the development of which occupies the fifth, sixth and seventh chapters of the work. 20 STANDARD AND NATURE OF JfKLlCJION. [Sect, I. Revelation he regards as a "mode of intelligence" — a process by which a new field of ideas or a new range of experience is opened to the mind. It is jirecisely analo- gous to external perception, or that more refined sensibility to beauty and goodness upon which we are dependent for the emotions of taste and the operations of conscience. It consists in the direction of an original faculty to a class of objects which it is caj)able of apprehending. It is wholly a subjective state, and should never be confounded with the things revealed; a spiritual clairvoyance which brings the soul into contact w^itli spiritual realities, and enables it to gaze ujion invisible glories. Hence an external revelation, or a revelation which does not exist in the mind, is a con- tradiction in terms. We might just as reasonably suppose that the Bible or any other book could supply the place of the senses in giving us a knowledge of the material w^orld, as to snppose that it can supply the place of revelation in giving us a knowledge of religion. It can no more see for us in the one case than in the other; this is a personal operation, a thing which every man must do for himself. And as each individual must have his own power of per- ception, that he may know the existence of the objects around him, so each individual must have a personal and distinct revelation in himself, that he may come into the possession of the "Christian consciousness;" he must be brought immediately into contact with the object, and con- template it "face to face." Inspiration is not essentially difl'erent from revelation ; they are rather different aspects of the same process. As in all immediate knowledge there is an intelligent subject and an intelligible object brought into union, revelation, for the convenience of distinction, may be regarded as having primary reference to the act of God in presenting spiritual realities to the mind; and inspiration to wdiatever influence may be exerted upon the soul in order that it may be able to grasp and comprehend the realities presented. Revelation, in other words, gives the object; inspiration, the eye to behold it. The concur- Sect. I.] AN EXTERNAL STANDARD VINDICATED. 21 rence of both is essential to the production of knowledge. As inspiration, therefore, indicates, exclusively, a state of the mind, and that a state in whicli we are conscious of immediate knowledge, it cannot be affirmed of any class of writings nor of any processes of reasoning. An inspired book or an inspired argument is as senseless a form of expression as an intelligent book or an intelligent argu- ment. Hence the whole question of an authoritative standard of religious truth, commended to our faith by the testimony of God, is summarily dismissed as involving an absurdity — a discovery which relieves us from all those perplexing speculations in relation to the proofs of a Divine commission, and the criteria which distinguish the Word of God from the delusions of man or the impostures of the Devil, upon which theologians, from the earliest age, have been accustomed, in their ignorance and folly, to waste their ingenuity. The doctrine is avowed, openly and broadly avowed, that God cannot, without destroying the very nature of the human understanding, put us in possession of an infallible system of truth. A book or an argument can be inspired in no other sense than as it proceeds from a man under the influence of holy and devout sensibilities, and contains the results of his reflection — in the develop- ment of which the Almighty cannot protect him from error — upon the facts of his own experience. The Pilgrim's Progress is, accordingly. Divine, or the Word of God, in precisely the same sense in which the Scriptures are Divine ; and the productions of Prophets and Apostles are entitled to no different kind of respect, however different in degree, from that which attaches to the writings of Owen and Bax- ter and Howe. Theology, in every case, results from the application of logic and philosophy to Christian experience; it is necessarily a deduction from subjective processes, and not the offspring of the comparison and arrangement of doctrines derived from an external source. Being the crea- ture of the human understanding, and tlie understanding being above or below the immediate guidance and control 22 STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [Sect. I. of God — we do not know exactly where the author places it — every theology must be fallible and human, whether it be that of Paul, or Peter, or James, or John, or — for such is the fearful sweep of the argument — that of Jesus Christ himself Having settled the principles upon which theology must be constructed, he proceeds to apply them in the eighth chapter, with remorseless havoc, to the i)opular faith of his age and country. His next step is to investigate the grounds of religious fellowship — an investigation which turns out to be a spirited and earnest assault upon creeds and confessions. AYhen the Bible is gone, these beggarly children of the understanding can, of course, show no cause why sentence of death should not be pronounced upon them. The tenth chapter, which is a sort of summary of all his previous speculations, discusses the grounds of certainty in reference to spiritual truth, which are resolved partly into our own consciousness, or immediate knowledge of its reality, and partly into the consciousness of other similarly inspired people. The eleventh chapter, on the significancy of the past, seems to us to be a logical append- age of the seventh or eighth, mercifully intended to relieve our minds from the despondency and gloom which were likely to over^^•llelra them on account of the loss of the Bible, and the feebleness and imperfection of the instrument which we must use in its place in "realizing" a system of faith. After all, he tells us, among earnest and awakened minds there is no danger of miscarriage. Error is the fiction of bigotry rather than a stern and sober reality. All contradictions and discordancies of opinion are only the divergencies or polar extremities of some higher unity of truth, in which they are blended and reconciled, as the mnnberless antagonisms of nature contribute to the order and harmony of the universe. The progress of Theology depends upon the success of the effort to discover those higher realities in M'hich heresy and orthodoxy sweetly unite, and hence all opposition to error and zeal for the '^s Sect. L] AN EXTERNAL STANDARD VINDICATED. 23 truth, overlooking the important fact that they are different phases of the same thing — that error, in other words, is only a modification of truth — are very wicked and indecent. The relation between Philosophy and Theology is the subject of the last chapter, in which he undertakes to vin- dicate himself from the anticipated charge of Rationalism. How successful he has been we shall see hereafter; but one thing is certain, his Rationalism has but little tendency to exalt the understanding. In 'the pictures Avliich he occa- sionally draws of a perfect Christian state, this perverse and unruly faculty, it seems, is to be held in abeyance ; the soul is to be all eye, all vision, everlastingly employed in the business of looking, so completely absorbed in the rapture of its scenes that it cannot descend to the cold and barren formalities of thought. But while the understanding is degraded, another element of our being is unduly promoted. Throughout the volume we find attributed to sympathy the effect, in producing and developing the Divine life, which the Scriptures uniformly ascribe to the Holy Spirit. Society and fellowship are, indeed, the Holy Ghost of Mr. JNIorell's gospel. They beget us again to a lively hope, they refine and correct our experiences, they protect us from dangerous error, they establish our minds in the truth, and through them w^e are enabled to attain the stature of perfect men in Christ Jesus. From this general survey of the scope and contents of the book, it must be obvious to the reader that we are called to contend with a new and most subtle form of infi- delity. The whole ground of controversy is shifted. The end aimed at is the same — the destruction of the Bible as a Divine revelation, in the sense in which the Christian world has heretofore been accustomed to use the term — but the mode of attack is entirely changed. The infidels of former times impugned Christianity either in its doctrines or evi- dences, but never dreamed of asserting that an external standard of faith was inconceivable and impossible. Some denied that it was necessary, as the light of nature is suf- 24 STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [Sect. I. ficient for all the purposes of religion ; the ground generally taken being that the Scriptures were wanting in the proofs by which a Divine revelation ought to be authenticated, or that they were self-condemned in consequence of the absurd- ity and contradiction of their contents, or that no proofs could ascertain to others the reality of a revelation to our- selves; but whatever was the point of assault, whether miracles, prophecy or doctrines, the genuineness and authen- ticity of the records, the origin and propagation of Chris- tianity in the world and its moral injfluence on society, it was always assumed that there was sense in the proposition which affirmed the Bible to be a Divine and authoritative standard of faith. Elaborate apologies for it, under this extraordinary character, Avere deemed worthy of the powers and learning of the most gifted members of the race. But Mr. IMorell takes a widely different position. He under- takes to demonstrate, by a strictly a priori argument, drawn from the nature of the mind and of religion, that a revealed theology is a psychological absurdity. His design is, from the philosophy of Christian experience, to demolish the foundations of Christianity itself. His method requires him to attack neither miracles, prophecy nor doctrines ; you may believe them all, provided you do not regard them as proving the Bible to be a rule of faith, nor receive them on the ground that they are attested by the seal of Heaven. In the application of his boasted reflective method he has plunged into the depths of consciousness and fetched from its secret recesses the materials for proving that, in the very nature of the case, every system of doctrine not only is, but must be, human in its form and texture. It is on this ground that we charge him with infidelity. He takes away the Bible, and w^e deliberately assert that, when that is gone, all is lost. He talks, indeed, of his intuitions and fellowship and sympathy and his all-powerful organon of rcflecticMi, but when he proposes these as a substitute for the lively oracles of God, our minds labour for a greater ability of (k'spising than they have ever had occasion to exert Sect. I.] AN EXTERNAL STANDARD VINDICATED. 25 before. Let the authority of the Bible be destro}'ed, and Christianity must soon perish from the earth. Put its doc- trines upon any other ground than a "thus saith the Lord," and every one of them will soon be denied, and from the dim territory of feeling in which Mr. Morell has placed reli- gion we shall soon cease to hear any definite reports of God. What has been the effect upon himself since he has declined to receive his theology from the Bible? How many of the doctrines which he was, no doubt, taught in his infancy and childhood has he been able to "realize" by his own method of construction? The plan of his work has not required him to treat of particular articles of faith, but from occa- sional glimpses which we catch, it is easy to collect that his creed is anything but evangelical. The doctrine of the incarnation, for example, is reduced to nothing but "the realization of divine perfection in humanity." "We need," says the author,^ "to have the highest conceptions of divine justice and mercy, and the highest type of human resigna- tion and duty realized in an historical fact, such as we can ever gaze upon with wonder andi delight; not till then do they become mighty to touch the deepest springs of our moral being." Jesus is, accordingly, represented as a fin- ished model of ideal excellence, combining in his own per- son all that is pure and lovely and sublime, a living em- bodiment of the moral abstractions which, it seems, are powerless to aflFect the heart until they are reduced to "an historical and concrete reality," and which then, as if by an electric shock or a wizard's spell, can stir the depths of our nature, rouse our dormant energies and inspire us with zeal to imitate what we are obliged to admire. Hence the whole mystery of godliness — of the Word made flesh — is a very simple aifair; it is just God's giving us a pattern to copy. This is what reflection makes of it from the intui- tions of religion without the Bible. Justification by faith, the articulus stantis aut cadentis ecclesice — " the very life- spring," as Mr. Morell admits,^ " of the Beformation " — 1 Page 241. ^ Page 253. 26 STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [Sect. I. fares no better in his hands as it passes, through his con- structive method, from the region of experience to that of doctrine. It is not a little remarkable, too, and sets this method in a very unfavourable light, that while our author professes to have the same " moral idea " with Lutlier and the Reformers, his statement of it as a doctrine is precisely opposite to theirs. Total depravity, and the consequent ne- cessity of regeneration, he must, to be consistent, deny, as his theory requires that religious sensibility, even in our fallen state, should be viewed as an original faculty of the soul; and from the beginning to the end of the volume there is not a single passage wliich even remotely squints at the doctrine of atonement in the sense of a satisfaction to the justice of God for the guilt of men. What, then, of real Christianity does he believe? Echo answers. What? These specimens are sufficient to show what success crowns the effi)rts of our author in constructing a theology without the Bible. We want no better illustration of what is likely to become of our religion when we give up an external standard for the dim intuitions of inspired philos- ophers. We are not, however, without other lessons of experience, which Mr. Morell must admit to be applicable. Upon his principles, the construction of the universe is a process exactly analogous to the construction of a creed. The ontological systems of the German masters may, accord- ingly, be taken as a fair sample of what reflection is able to achieve in the science of world-making; and, judging from them, we can form something more than a conjecture of the extravagance and folly which will be palmed upon us for the pure and wholesome doctrines of the Cross, should the same method be admitted into the department of Christian theology. It would be sheer insanity to suppose that it will make less havoc of our creeds than it has made of nature, of the soul and God. Upon one thing Ave might count witli certainty — the being speedily overwhelmed with a species of Pantheism, in which all sense of duty and reli- gion would perish. The fatalism of Mohammed has the merit Sect. I.] AN EXTERNAL STANDARD VINDICATED. 27 of being consistent, but the transcendental philosophy, as if impelled by an irresistible instinct to contradictions and absurdity, makes its boast, in one breath, of the demonstra- tion of the essential and indestructible freedom of man as its greatest triumph, and in the next does not scruple to deduce the contingent, finite and variable from their neces- sary relations to the absolute, infinite and eternal. No man can turn from these speculations and laugh at the Geeta or the Ramayuna of Yalmeeki. They teach us — what it wonld be madness to disregard — that, in relation to theo- logy, the real issue is between the Bible and a wild imagina- tion "in endless mazes lost;" between the Bible, in other words, and Atheism. We do not hesitate, therefore, to rank Mr. Morell's book in the class of infidel publications. He has assailed the very foundations of the faith ; and in resist- ing his philosophy we are defending the citadel of Chris- tianity from the artful machinations of a traitor, who, with honeyed words of friendship and allegiance upon his tongue, is in actual treaty to deliver it into the hands of the enemy of God and man. Entertaining these opinions of the character and tendency of the work, we shall make no apology for entering with great freedom into a critical estimate of its merits. It is, perhaps, only the first-fruits of what we may yet expect from larger importations of the same philosophy into Britain and America, and, as is generally the case with first- fruits, it is probably the best of its kind. We apprehend that no man who shall undertake a similar work will be able to bring to it a larger variety of resources, a more pro- found acquaintance with ancient and modern speculations, a nicer critical sagacity or an intenser power of reflection, than have fallen to the lot of Mr. Morell ; and we are glad that it is a man thus eminently gifted, the great hiero- phant of German mysteries, and not the humble and con- temptible retailer of oracles hawked about as divine only because they defy all eifort to understand them, who has brouti-ht on the first serious collision in the field of English 28 STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [Sect. I. literature betwixt evangelical religion and the new discov- eries in metaphysics. The vigour of his assault may be taken as a fair specimen of the power and resources of the enemy ; and we rejoice in being able to say that whatever vague and undefined fears may have floated through our minds for the security of our faith while the conflict was' yet at a distance, and the ^proportions of the foe unduly magni- fied by the fogs and mists through which he was contem- plated, they have turned out to be, upon the first demonstra- tion of his real dimensions and his skill in battle, like the shudder and dismay conjured up by a moonlight ghost. The book may be considered in the double light of a philosophy and an argument, the philosophy supplying the premises of the argument. We intend to examine it in both aspects; and as in every instance of ratiocination the first and most obvious inquiry is in regard to the validity of the reasoning. Does it hold, do the premises contain the conclusion? we shall pursue in the present case the natural order of thought, and inquire into the merits of the argu- ment before we investigate the claims of the philosophy. We hope to show that there is a double escape from the infidelity and mysticism into which the author would conduct us — one through the inconclusivcness of his reasoning, the other through the falsehood or unsoundness of his premises. He is signally at fault in both his logic and his philosophy. The fundamental proposition of the treatise in which its preliminary speculations were designed to terminate, and upon which its subsequent deductions are dependent for all the value they possess, is, that a valid theology is never the gift of Heaven, but is always the creature of the human understanding. This is assumed as a settled point in the last six chapters of the book. The seventh, which devel- ops the process by which, in conformity with the laws of mind, wc are able to construct a theology for ourselves, evi- dently takes it for granted that this is a thing which we have to do for ourselves, unless the author intended tlicse discus- sions as a mere exhibition of his skill, an amusing play of Sect. I.] AN EXTERNAL STANDARD VINDICATED. 29 ingenuity and fancy, like Ferguson's Natural History of Society, or Smith's Theory of the Origin of Language. If God has given us a body of divinity, it is of very little consequence to speculate on what might have taken place had we been left to ourselves. Theology, in this aspect of the case, being reduced to the condition of any other science, perhaps the method described by our author is, as he asserts it to be, the omly method by which we could successfully proceed. But the very stress of the controversy turns upon the question. Whether we have been left to ourselves whe- ther theology is in fact, like all other sciences, the produc- tion of man, or whether God has, framed it for us ready to our hands? The same assumption in regard to the human origin of theology pervades all the speculations of the eighth chapter, professedly on Fellowship, but really on Creeds and Confessions. If there be a faith once delivered to the saints, it may be our duty to contend for it, and to withdraw from those who consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness, and to reject those after the first and second admonition who bring in damnable heresies. If there be such a thing as a form of sound words, there may be an obligation to teach it, and hence an analogy betwixt the Church and the School, in consequence of which believers may be termed disciples, ministers teachers, and Christ the great Prophet of all. These things cannot be gainsaid until we have something more than assertion that there is no authoritative type of doctrine into which we ought to be cast. As to the chapter on Certitude, that never could have been written by a man in whose philosophy it was even dreamed of that there might be a ground of assurance in a Divine testimony fully equal to dim and misty intuitions, which require to be corrected by the generic consciousness of the race. Let it be admitted that God has given us a theology, and evinced it to be His by signs and wonders or any species of infallible proofs, and we certainly need no firmer basis for our faith than that the mouth of the Lord 30 STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [Skct. I. lias spoken. All such sijeculations as those of our author are darkening counsel by words without knowledge. The relation, too, in which philosophy stands to theology — the subject of the last chapter of the book — is materially changed when it is denied that philosophy is the organon to form it, or when the whole question concerning the triith or falsehood of any doctrinal system is made a question of authority, and not a question of abstract speculation. It is hence obvious that the human origin of theology is the soul of this system ; it pervades all the author's specula- tions. Without it one-half of his book falls to the ground, and the conclusions which palpably contravene the popular faith are strij)ped of all plausibility and consistency. As a logical production his entire treatise is a failure unless this principle can be established. Now, has it been proved? Has the author anywhere demonstrated that theology, as contradistinguished from religion, must necessarily be human, and can possess no other authority but that which attaches to it from the laws of thought ? Or, has he even succeeded in showing that as a historical fact it is human, though it might have been other- wise, and therefore subject to the same criticisms to which every human production is amenable ? Let it be remem- bered that the real issue betwixt himself and the popular faith is. Whether or not God has communicated in the lan- guage of man a perfect logical exposition of all the truths which in every stage of its religious development the human mind is capable of experiencing. Islv. Morell denies ; the popular faith affirms. If he can make good his negative, then we must create theology for ourselves ; his speculations upon that point become natural and proper, and all the con- clusions which are subsequently drawn from them in rela- tion to fellowship, certitude, and the precise office of philos- ophy with respect to systems of Christian doctrine, become consistent and legitimate. If, on the contrar}^, he fails to do so, then all these speculations are premature, they have no solid foundation in truth ; and though they may still be Sect. I.] AN EXTERNAL STANDARD VINDICATED. 31 interesting as a new and curious department of fiction, they should drop the name of philosophy or couple it with that of romance, and assume a title which would indicate the fact that their logic is purely hypothetical. Has he suc- ceeded, or has he failed ? This question we shall be able to answer by considering wdiat the exigencies of his argument demanded, and the manner in which he has addressed him- self to the task of meeting them — by comparing, in other words, what he had to do with what he has done. What, then, is necessary in order to prove that no such Divine communication as the popular faith maintains has ever been made to men? There are, obviously, only two lines of reasoning that can be pursued in an argument upon this subject. It must either be shown a priori that such a Divine communication is impossible, involving a contradic- tion to the very nature of theology, or a posteriori that such a Divine communication as a matter of fact never has been made, or, what upon the maxim, de nan apparentibus, etc., is equivalent to that, never has been proved. This last proposition may be established, in turn, either by showing that no testimony and no evidence can authenticate such a communication ; or that the evidence, in the given case, falls short of Avhat ought to be afforded ; or that it is set aside by countervailing evidence ; or that there is positive proof that some other method has been adopted. This seems to us to be a true statement of the logical condition of the question. Mr. Morell was bound to prove either that a Divine revelation, in the ordinary sense of the term, is impossible, a psychological absurdity, or that no book pro- fessing to be a revelation is w^orthy of credit ; there can be, or there has been, none. This being the state of the con- troversy, let us proceed to examine how he has acquitted himself in disposing of these points, the last of which alone has given rise to a larger body of literature than perhaps any other subject in the world. The premises of the argument, in both aspects, whether a priori or a posteriori, are contained in the chapters on ' 32 STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [Si:cT. I. Kevelation and Inspiration. It was evidently the design of these chapters to develop a theory Mhich should explode the vulgar notions in relation to the Bible as at once absurd in a philosophical point of view and destitute of evidence as a matter of fact. His whole view of inspira- tion he represents as "a protest and an argument"^ against "the formal use of the letter of Scripture," which is made by " those who ground their theology, professedly at least, upon an induction of individual passages, as though each passage, independently of the spirit of the whole, were of Divine authority." "To suppose that we should gain the slightest advantage" by accuracy of definitions and con- sistency of reasoning on the part of the sacred writers, "implies," he informs us,^ "an entire misapjirehension of what a revelation really is, and of what is the sole method by which it is possible to construe^ a valid theology. An actual revelation can only be made to the intuitional faculty, and a valid theology can only be constructed by giving a formal expression to the intuitions thus granted." We understand these passages, especially when taken in connec- tion Avith the spirit of the whole discussion, as distinctly asserting the projaosition that theology, as a formal state- ment of doctrine, can never be divinely communicated, and that upon the ground that it involves elements which are incompatible with the very nature of revelation — a revealed theology being a contradiction in terms. Clearly, if "the giving of a formal expression to the intuitions" of religion be the sole method by which it is possible to construct it, there is no place for an authoritative standard of faith. Now does the author's theory of revelation, admitting it to be true, preclude the possibility of a Divine theology ? AVe shall not deny — for we have no disposition to dispute about a word — that it is inconsistent with a revealed theology, in the author^s sense of the term. We may here take occa- sion to say that much of the impression which his reasoning makes upon the mind of his readers is due to the ambi- 1 Page 205. ' Page 175. Sect. I.] AN EXTERNAL STANDARD VINDICATED. 33 guity of language. They, from old associations and familiar usage, mean one thing by revelation, and he another; and it is hard to keep distinctly in view that conclusions which may be legitimate in his sense may not be legitimate in theirs. If Mr. Morell chooses to restrict the application of the term to the subjective processes by which the mind is brought into contact with spiritual realities, and then infer that an external standard of faith cannot be a revela- tion, the inference may be just ; but it no more concludes against the reality or possibility of such a standard than to restrict the term animal exclusively to quadrupeds, and then infer that neither men nor birds were animals, con- cludes against the truth of their existence or their possession of life. What Mr. Morell undertakes to settle is not a question of words and names, not whether the Bible shall receive this title or that (no one dreams that it is a spir- itual vision, or any special mode of intelligence), but whether God can communicate, in writing or in any other form, a perfect logical exposition of those very intuitions which he makes it the office of revelation to imj)art. That such a Divine communication is, in the nature of the case, impossible — not that it cannot be called by a given name — is what he represents his theory of revelation as necessarily involving ; and that, if it does not involve, it is not per- tinent to the argument. This theory is designed to give an answer to the question. In what manner does a man become a Christian? The essential elements included in that form of man^ religious life which he denominates the Christian consciousness having been previously enumerated, he proceeds, in his account of revelation, to describe the "process by which such phenomena of man's interior being are produced — the secret link which unites them with an outward causality, and the laws by which they are brought into existence, regulated, and finally developed to their full maturity." It is only " in relation to the method by which it is commu- nicated to the human mind" that Christianity can be prop- VoL. III.— 3 34 STAXDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [Skct. I. erly designated "as a revelation from God."* That is, if we understand the author, it is the office of revehxtion to excite the emotions which are characteristic and distinct- ive of the religion of Jesus. It has reference, therefore, exclusively to what, in common language, would be styled experimental religion, and includes nothing but the means by which the state of heart is engendered, which entitles a man to be considered as a real, in contradistinction from a formal, believer. But as religion consists, essentially, in emotions, and emotions are dependent upon that form of intelligence which supplies the objects adapted to awaken them — a direct correspondency always subsisting between the intellectual and emotional activity — the question arises, To which faculty are we indebted for the objects that aAvaken religious emotions? We must know them, they must be present to the mind, or no affections can be excited ; through what form of intelligence, then, do we become cognizant of spiritual realities? The answer is. Intuition. " In considei'ing, then, under which of the two great generic modes of intelligence we have to class the particular case involved in the idea of revelation, we can have 'but little hesitation in referring it, at once, to the category of intuition. The idea of a revelation is univer- sally considered to imply a case of intelligence in which something is presented direcfh/ to the mind of the subject ; in which it is conveyed by the immediate agency of God himself; in which our own efforts would have been unavailing to attain the same conceptions ; in which the truth communicated could not have been drawn by inference from any data previously known ; and, finally, in which the whole result is one lying beyond the reach of the logical understanding." ^ The author then proceeds to run the parallel betwixt this account of revelation and intuition in its lowest form — that of external perception ; and finding a perfect corre- spondence, he does not hesitate to rank them as kindred species of the same mode of intellectual activity. But, to make assurance doubly sure, he undertakes to show that revelation cannot be addressed to the understanding — "that the whole of the logical processes of the human mind are 1 Page 122. 2 Page 126. Sect. I.] AN EXTERNAL STANDARD VINDICATED. 35 such that the idea of a revelation is altogether incompatible with them ; that they jire in no sense open to its influence, and that they can neither be improved nor assisted by it."^ His meaning is that no new original elements of knowledge, or, as Locke would call them, no new simple ideas, can be imparted to the mind by definition, analysis or reasoning. He regards revelation as a source of original and peculiar ideas, like the eye or the ear, or what Hutcheson felicitously styles the internal senses of the mind. " The object of a revelation is to bring us altogether into another and higher region of actual experience, to increase our mental vision, to give us new data from which we may draw new infer- ences ; and all this lies quite apart from the activity of the logical faculty."^ The author still further, though not more plainly, de- velops his views in the answer he returns to the question, " Could not a revelation from God consist in an exposition of truth, made to us by the lips or from the pen of an inspired messenger, that exposition coming distinctly under the idea of a logical explication of doctrines, which it is for mankind to receive as sent to us on Divine authority ?" Let us hear him upon this point : " Now this is a case of considerable complexity, and one which we must essay as clearly as possible to unravel. First of all, then, we have no doubt whatever but that there have been agents commis- sioned by God to bring mankind to a proper conception of Divine truth ^nd comprehension of the Divine will. But now let us look a little more closely into their real mission, and consider the means by which alone it was possible for them to fulfil it. "These Divine messengers, we will suppose, address their fellow- men in the words and phrases they are accustomed to hear, and seek in this way to expound to them the truth of Grod. If we imagine oiu'selves, then, to be the listeners, it is needless to say that so long as they treat of ideas which lie icithm the range of our present expe- rience, we should be well able at once to comprehend them, and to judge of the grounds on which they urge them upon our attention. But it is manifest that such a discourse as I describe could in no proper sense be termed a revelation. So long as the Divine teacher keeps » Page 131. ^ Page 133. 86 STANDARD AND NATL'RH OF KKLIGIOX. [Si:CT. I. witliiii the ranjre of our jjresont iiit<'ll<(tual oxperionce, he miirht itvU'od tlirow things into a new light, he iniglit point out more accu- rately their connection, he might show us at once their importance and their logical consistency, hut all this would not amount to n revr- hitloii, it would give us no linmidintr manifestation of truth from (lod. it woiild offer no conee|>tions lying heyond the range of our pres- ent data, it would quite fail in hringing us into contact with new real- ities, nor would it at all extend the sweep of our mental vision. Mere exposition always ]msii])pniies some familiarity with the suhject in hand ; one idea lias always, in .such a ca.se, to he exjjlained by another; but suppo.«ing there to be an entire blindness of mind upon the whole question, then it is manifest that all mere logical definition and expli- cation is for the time entirely thrown away. '"Illustrations of this are as numerous as are the sciences or the subjects of human research. Let a man, for example, totally unac- quainted with the matter, hear another converse with the greatest clearness about differential quantities in physics or mathematics, how much of the explanation would he be able to comprehend ? He has not yet the experiences of space, number or motion on which the intelli- gibleness of the whole dejiends, and in want of these the whole of the explanations offered are involved in the darkest ob.scurity. Take up any other subject, such as biology, ethics or metaphysics in their higher and more recondite branches. Exi)lication here is of no avail, unless the mind first realize for itself, and reproduce in its own think- ing, the fundamental conceptions of the teacher. TNTiat is true of perceptive teaching in the case of the infant is true in a modified sense of all human education, to the most advanced stage of intelli- gence. You must in every instance alike take proper means to awaken the power of vision within, to furni.-*h direct experiences to the mind ; in l)rief to give clear intuitions of the iJrmrnts of tnith, before you can produce any effect by the most complete process of defining or exjtlanation. '• Ijet us return, then, to the supposed ca.se of the inspired feacher, and imx'ced with our analysis of the conditions that are necessiiry to his becoming the medium of a revelation, proi)erly so called. We have seen that if he always kept within the region of oxir jiresent cxiterience, there would Ik' no fresh ri'vclation made to us at all ; but imw let us imagine him to trnuscnul the jiresent sphere of our mental vision, it is evident from what 1 have first .«aid that in such a case we slmuld be by no means in a condition to comi)rchend his meaning, on the sullpo^ition, of course, that he was to confine himself to vure crpiisitiini. The only way in which he could give us a revelation of truth hitht'rto unrealized woidd be by becoming t^ic agent of elevat- ing our inward religious consciousness uji to the same or a similar Sect. I.] AN EXTERNAL STANDARD VINDICATED. 37 Standard as his own, which is the same thing as if we had said that all revelation, ijroperly so called, can be made to us primarily only in the form of religious intuition. ' ' ^ We have now said enough to put our readers completely in possession of the author's views of revelation. It implies a direct perception of spiritual realities, a gazing upon eter- nal verities, which, upon the principle that the eye affects the heart, produces those peculiar emotions in which the essence of religion consists. It communicates to us the ele- mental ideas of all religious knowledge, the primary data, without which the science of theology would be as unmean- ing as the science of optics to a man born blind. As per- ception gives us all our original and simple ideas of matter, the moral sense our notions of the good, taste our notions of the beautiful and sublime, so revelation imparts to us the ideas of God, of Christ, of redemption and of sin. The subjective processes in all these cases are the same. Nature, the beautiful, the good, are just as truly and properly reve- lations as the verities embraced in Christian experience. There was, however, in the case of Christianity, a series of " Divine arrangements through the medium of which the loftiest and purest conceptions of truth were brought before the immediate consciousness of the Apostles, and through them of the whole age, at a time, too, when in other respects the most universal demoralization abounded on every side."^ These arrangements the author admits to be supernatural, the result of a " Divine plan altogether distinct from the general scheme of Providence as regards human develop- ment ;" but the revelation consequent upon them is purely natural. Man was elevated to a mountain which com- manded prospects beyond the ordinary range of his eyes, but the vision which ensued was in strict obedience to the laws of sight. Now we ask our readers to ponder carefully this account of revelation, and to lay their fingers on the principle which cither directly or indirectly proves that a perfect standard 1 Pages 134-137. ' Page 145. 38 STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [SECT. I. of theology cannot be imparted to us by God, or that any and every theology must be the offspring of the human understanding. This aceount, we are told, is at once a pro- test and an argument against the popular notions on the sub- ject. The protest w^e can find, it is patent on every page, but the ' argument we are utterly unable to discover. Does it follow that because religion as a matter of experience is Divine, therefore theology as a matter of science must be human ? Does it follow that because God gives us all the direct and immediate cognitions out of which the science can be framed, therefore He is unable to construct the science Himself? Does it follow that because He makes us feel and see, therefore He is incompetent to describe either our visions or emotions ? We confess that our sin- cerest efforts cannot render palpable to our thinking faculty the least incongruity betwixt the notions of a Divine the- ology and a revealed religion in the sense of Mr. Morell. For aught that we can see to the contrary, his whole psychol- ogy might be granted ; all that he says of the understand- ing and intuition, their differences and relations, with his whole scheme of revelation, all might be granted, and yet nothing be conceded at all destructive of the doctrine that we have a faith ready developed to our hands which we are bound to receive upon the authority of God. We might no longer call it a revealed faith, but it Avould be none the less infallible and Divine on that account. Mr. Morell admits that man can construct a theology for himself, that " he is able to give a definite form and scien- tific basis to his religious life, and to the spiritual truth involved in it." The intuitions of religion, like all other intnitions, can be submitted to the operations of the under- standing ; they can be compared, classified and arranged ; they are as really the materials of a science as the fiicts of pereejition or the phenomena of conscience. Xow, what is ther(> in the process of constructing a science from religion which limits it exclusively to man? Is there any absurdity in supjjosing that God can communicate in writing or in Sect. L] AX EXTERNAL STANDARD VINDICATED. 39 some other form a perfect logical exposition of all the intui- tions which in every stage of its religious history the human mind is capable of exj)eriencing ? any absurdity in suppos- ing that God can do perfectly and infallibly for His weak and ignorant creatures what it is conceded they can do im- perfectly and fallibly for themselves ? What is there incon- ceivable in God's giving a logical and formal expression to the religious mind of man ? We do not deny that a Divine theology, though it might be strictly scientific in its form, and capable of the same proofs to which all human sciences appeal, must yet challenge our assent upon a higher ground. Tt is to be received, not because it accords witli'our expe- rience, but because it is the testimony of God. It comes to us, and must come to us, with authority. It is truth, because it proceeds from the fountain of truth. If Mr. Morell contends that this peculiarity removes it from the category of science, we shall not dispute about a word ; all that we contend for is, that it is and must be a more full and complete representation of all the phenomena of relig- ion than reflection itself could give with the aid of the best conceivable organon aj^plied to intuitions as strong, distinct and clear as the most definite percej)tions of sense. It is clear that Mr. Morell, in representing his scheme of revelation as an a priori argument against the possibility of a Divine theology, has quietly assumed that the agency there described is the sole agency of the Deity in relation to the religion of His creatures. He seems to think that the Almighty exhausted Himself in the production of spiritual perceptions, and therefore could not reduce them to the forms of the understanding — that in the process of engendering religion he lost the ability to describe it. But where is the proof that revelation, in our author's sense, includes the whole agency of God? Not a particle is adduced, and hence, as a Divine theology is not inconsistent with a revealed religion, as there is no shadow of contra- diction betwixt them, and not the slightest proof that the revelation of religion is the only form in which God conde- 40 STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [Sect, I scends to His ignorant and sinful creatures, Mr. Morell has signally failed to establish, on philosophical grounds, the human origin of theology. His premises do not contain his conclusion. For aught that he has alleged to the con- trary, we may be as truly indebted to the Divine benignity for a perfect and infallible standard of faith as for those other operations in consequence of which we feel the pulsa- tions of the Christian life. The only thing, indeed, in the whole chapter on Revela- tion which seems remotely to bear upon the subject is the passage already quoted, in which he states the question only to evade it. He shows, indeed, that a logical explication of doctrines could not awaken ideas in a mind destitute of the capacity to apprehend them. We may cheerfully con- cede that no painting can make a blind man see, that no music can ravish a deaf man with the rapture of its sounds; but still the painting and the music may both exist and be perfect in their kind. No one claims for a Divine theology the power of making men Christians ; it is universally con- ceded that the letter killeth, but the controversy betwixt Mr. Morell and the popular faith is, whether that letter can exist. It is a poor evasion to say, because it cannot perform an office which no one has ever thought of ascribing to it, that, therefore, it is essentially and necessarily inconceivable as a real and substantive entity. All that our author proves is, that it cannot enlighten ; that it can impart no new simple idea ; that it presupposes all the elemental germs of thought which enter into theology, as natural philosophy presupposes the informations of sense, and psychology those of consciousness. It supposes, in other words, that men are capable of religion, but it by no means follows that because a Divine theology can neither create the religious faculty nor immediately produce its appropriate intuitions, therefore it cannot express them with logical exactness, nor describe the objects on which they are dependent. Moral philosophy camiot originate a conscience, but it may still be a scientitic exhibition of all the operations of the moral Sect. I.] AN EXTERNAL STANDARD VINDICATED. 41 nature. What Mr. Morell's argument requires him to prove is, that a Divine theology is impossible — that a science of religion being admitted, that science cannot be imparted to us by God, it must, from the nature of the case, be human in its origin ; and this proposition is not aifected by the inadequacy of such a science to accomplish a certain subjective effect, unless it can be shown that its ability to do this is the condition of its existence. But perhaps the proof we are seeking may be found in the chapter on Inspiration. It is the object of that chap- ter to show that "Inspiration does not imply anj'thing generically new in the actual processes of the human mind ; it does not involve any form of intel- ligence essentially different from what we already possess ; it indicates rather the elevation of the religious consciousness, and with it, of course, the power of spiritual vision, to a degree of intensity peculiar to the individuals thus highly favoured. We must regard the whole process of inspiration, accordingly, as being in no sense tneclianical, but purely dynamical ; involving, not a novel and supernatural faculty, but a faculty already enjoyed, elevated supernaturally to an extra- ordinary power and susceptibility ; indicating, in fact, an imvard nature so perfectly harmonized to the Divine, so freed from the distorting influences of prejudice, passion and sin, so simply recipient of the Divine ideas circumambient around it, so responsive in all its strings to the breath of heaven, that truth leaves an imjiress upon it which answers perfectly to the objective reality. ' ' ^ All which, being interpreted, is that inspiration and holi- ness, or sanctijieation, are synonymous terms. The author apprehends, in its literal sense, the benediction of our Sa- viour on the pure in heart, and makes them seers not only of God, but of those things of God which, the Apostle assures us, none can understand but the Spirit of God Himself It will certainly strike our readers as a novelty that there should be any inconsistency betwixt the grace of holiness and the gift of knowledge. They will be slow to comprehend how sauctifi- cation and instruction can be contradictory processes — so much so that He who sanctifies cannot teach. ''Sanctify them through thy truth : thy word is truth." " (iod liath from 1 Page 151. 42 STAKDAED AND NATURE OF RELIGIOX. [Skct. I. the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctifi- cation of the Spirit and belief of the truth." For aught that we can see, it may be granted to the author that the measure of piety is the exact measure of ability to appre- ciate, to understand, to know Divine truth, that holiness is essential to a living faith ; and yet it will not follow that God cannot communicate the truth with which, as holy beings, we are brought into harmony. If our holiness were perfect, it would enable us, according to the author, to apprehend the objects of religion in their concrete reality, but not in their scientific form ; and there is nothing absurd in the idea that the things which have aroused our moral sensibilities should be presented, in their full and perfect proportions, to the contemplation of the understanding. It may be objected, however, that although Mr. Morell's 2)hilosophy does not prove a Divine theology to be impossible or absurd, in the strict acceptation of the terms, yet it demonstrates what, in reference to any dispensation of God, amounts to the same thing, that it is unnecessary or useless. This is no doubt the real scope of his argument, though he has been bold enough to assert that the only way, the sole method, by which a valid theology can be constructed is by human reflection on the phenomena of religion. But widely diiferent as the issues of possibility and expediency evidently are, we shall concede, in the present instance, that the proof of uselessness is tantamount to the proof of absurdity, and proceed to inquire how Mr. Morell has succeeded in even this aspect of the case. " To a man utterly ignorant," says he,^ " of all spiritual conceptions, and altogether insensible to Divine things, the mere exposition of the truths and doctrines of Christianity is useless. He does not grasp them at all in their proper meaning and intensity ; ranging as they do beyond the sphere of his present experience, the very terms of the propositions employed awaken no cor- responding idea within his mind." That is, theology, under a certain contingency, is powerless to produce a given 1 Page 137. Sect. I.] AN EXTERNAL STANDARD VINDICATED. 43 eifect. But a specific incompetency and a general useless- ness are very diiferent things. Because, in a " man utterly ignorant of all spiritual conceptions and altogether insen- sible to Divine things," the mere exposition of the truths and doctrines of Christianity cannot supply the place of faculties to apprehend them, it by no means follows that, to the man who has spiritual conceptions and is " sensible to Divine things," theology may not be of incalculable ser- vice. To a man destitute of senses, natural philosophy would, no doubt, be a very unintelligible jargon ; but does it follow that it must be correspondingly useless to one who has all the simple ideas of which it is composed? But Mr. Morell has himself settled the question. He represents theology, in our present condition, as a necessity^ of our nature, and ascribes to it offices of immense importance in the development of the religious life. It is true that he has his eye only on human theology, but the uses which he admits are not at all dependent upon its origin, but upon its truth. It answers these valuable ends, not because it has been reached by reflection, but because it has a real existence and is capable of a real application. It is the thing itself which is useful, and not the mode of its dis- covery. It would seem, too, that the more perfect it was, the better ; and that the circumstance of its being Divine, so far from detracting from its value, would immensely enhance it. Let us now attend to the author's admissions : " Theology, having once been created, can be presented didactically to the understanding before there is any awakening of the religious nature, and can even lead the mind to whom it is presented to such an interest in the subject as may issue in his spiritual enlightenment." * Here it is obvious that the use of the Theology is not at all dependent upon its origin; it is useful to a mind which has not been in a situation to construct a system reflectively for itself. This is just what we attribute to a Divine theo- logy ; it is the means under God of awakening the religious 1 Page 196. ^ i3 207. 44 STANDARD AXD NATURE OF RELIGION. [SECT. I. nature, the incorruptible seed by which we are begotten to newness of life, and the standard to which all our expe- riences must be brought, and by which their soundness must be tried. This single consideration, that the science of religion may be the means of awakening the religious nature, that theology may be the parent of piety, is enough to set aside all that the author has said against the value of a logical exposition of the truths and doctrines of Chris- tianity. The following remarks, professedly intended to elucidate the subject, are applicable with tenfold power to such a sys- tem as the Bible claims to be. We ask nothing more than what the author has himself suggested, to remove all cavils against the letter because it killeth, while the spirit only is competent to quicken into life : " The uses of Christian theology are — "1. To show the internal consistency of religious truth. Little as we need to see this consistency whilst our inmost souls are burning with a deep and holy enthusiasm, yet in the ordinaiy state of human life, beset as we are with a thousand repressive influences, it is highly important to strengthen ourselves with every kind of armour against skepticism and indiiFerence. In proportion as our zeal and excite- ment become cooler, do we need so much the more the concurring testimony of reason to support us in the pursuit of the Christian life. It is upon this we fall back when the fire of life burns dim, until we can kindle it again from the altar of God. Hence, the importance of hav- ing Christian truth presented to us in such a form that we may see its harmony with all the laws of our intellectual being, and have their witness to seal its truth on our hearts. "2. Another use of Christian theology is to repel philosophical objections. The unbeliever has not the witness within himself, and, what is more, he would fain destroy the validity of the truths of Christianity to others by affirming their inconsistency with reason or with one another. The moral influences of the religious life do not ansicer these objections, although they may disarm them greatly of their force. To answer them the truth convej-ed in the religious life must be made reflective and scientific; then, indeed, and not till then, can itself be maintained, and its consistency be defended upon the grounds of the philosojihical objector himself " 3. A third use of Christian theology is to preserve mankind from vague enthusiasm. A strong religious excitement is not inconsistent Sect. I.] AN EXTERNAL STANDARD VINDICATED. 45 with a weak judgment, a feeble conscience, and active tendencies to foil}', and even sin. Under such circumstances the power of the emo- tions will sometimes overbalance the better dictates of Christian faith, love and obedience, so as to impel the subject of them into something bordering upon fanaticism. Against this evil religion alone is often unable to struggle ; it needs the stronger element of calm reason to curb these wandering impulses, and bring them into due subjection to duty and to trath. Here, then, the influence of theology bears upon the whole case, and to its power is it mainly owing that the intense incentives oifered by Christianity to the emotive nature of man have been so ordered and directed as to keep him from vague enthusiasm in his belief and an unsober fmaticism in his actions. "4. The last use we mention to which theology may be applied is to embody our religious ideas in a complete and connected system. In this form they appeal to every element in the nature of man. The moral influence they exert upon the whole spirit is coupled with the power of their appeal to the reason, and the intellect of mankind becomes satisfied as the heart becomes softened and renewed. "Such, in brief, are some of the principal uses of theology, form- ally considered. ' ' ^ Having shown that our author has signally failed in his a priori argument against the existence of a Divine stand- ard of theology — that is, that his philosophy, even upon the supposition of its truth, is not inconsistent with the 23opular faith in regard to the authority of the Bible — we shall next notice the several considerations by which he attempts to prove that, as a matter of fact, no such Divine standard has ever been vouchsafed to our race. His first argument is drawn from the proofs by which Christianity has been revealed to man. "The aim of revelation," he informs us, "has not been formally to expound a system of doctrine to the understanding, but to educate the mind of man gradually to an inward appreciation of the truth concerning his own relation to Grod. Judaism was a propedeutic to Christianity, but there was no formal definition of any one spiritual truth in the whole of that economy. The purpose of it was to school the mind to spiritual contemplation, to awaken the religious consciousness by types and symbols and other perceptive means to the realization of certain great spiritual ideas, and to furnish words and analogies in which the truths of Christianity could be embodied and proclaimed to 1 Pages 225-227. 46 STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [Sect. I. the world. If wc iiass on to the Christian revelation itself, the mode of procedure we find was generic-ally the same. There was no formal exposition of Christian doctrine in the whole of the discourses of the Saviour. His life and teaching, His character and suiferiiig, His death and resurrection, all appealed to the deeper religious nature of man ; they were adapted to awaken it to a newer and higher activity ; instead of offering a mere explication to the understanding, thej^ were intended to furnish altogether new experiences, to widen the sphere of our spiritual insight, to embody a revelation from God. The Apos- tles followed in the same course. They did not start from Jerusalem with a system of doctrine to propound intellectually to the world. It would have been no revelation to the world if they had, for with his moral and spiritual nature sunk down into insensibility and sin, man would have had no real spiritual pei-ception associated with the very terms in which their arguments and propositions must have been couched. The Apostles went forth to awaken man's power of spirit- ual intuition — to impress upon the world the great conceptions of sin, of righteousness, of judgment to come, of salvation, of pm-ity and of heavenly love. This they did by their lives, their teaching, their spirit- ual intensify m action and suffering, their whole testimony to the word, the person, the death and the resurrection of the Saviour." ^ We do not remember ever to have seen a more signal exemplification of a theory breaking down under its own weight than that wliich is presented in the preceding extract. The end of all revelation is to furnish, we are told, intui- tional perceijtions of religious truth ; it cannot, therefore, be addressed to the understanding, neither can it contain logi- cal and definite statements of doctrine. But still this rev- elation is to be imparted through the instrumentality of commissioned agents, and these agents fulfil their vocation by teaching. Now, if the reader will turn to the second chapter of our author's book, in which the distinctions are drawn out at length betwixt the intuitional and logical con- sciousness, he will find that the very first point insisted on is that the " knowledge we obtain by the logical consciousness is representative and indirect, while that which we obtain by the intuitional consciousness is presentative and immediate" To produce an intuition, consequently, the mind and tlie object must be brought together in actual contact. It must 1 Pages 139, 140. Sect. I.] AN EXTERNAL STANDARD VINDICATED, 47 not be some description or representation, but the reality of truth itself, which must stand face to face with the knowing subject. Where essential existence or original elements of knowledge are concerned, the power of language is utterly inadequate to convey any ideas to the mind ; the intuitions themselves must exist, or all efforts to awaken the concep- tions are utterly hopeless. If, in conformity with these principles, Christ and His Apostles were commissioned to make a revelation to men whose moral and spiritual nature was sunk down into insensibility and sin, all that they could have done was to present the spiritual realities which they themselves apprehended, and then impart a corresponding power to perceive them. They went, according to the theory, among the blind to make known glorious objects of sight. Their first business must have been to place the objects within the reach of the eye, and then purge the eyes to behold them. This is the only way in which we can conceive that they could have succeeded in eflPecting vision. But what has teaching to do with this process? All the knowledge acquired from another through the medium of signs is indirect and representative, and there- fore addressed not to intuition, but to the understanding. How will our author explain this inconsistency? He, in the first place, represents Christ and His Apostles as spiritual mesmerizers, whose whole business it is to bring their fellow-men face to face with a class of transcendental realities, and then at the very time that he is disproving the possibility of an appeal to the understanding, he converts them into teachers, dealing not with the realities themselves, but with their signs and logical exponents. They a^vaken intuitions by teaching! Hence, upon his own admission, the process by which Christianity has been revealed to man is not in accordance with the fundamental principles of his system. The inconsistency of his statements is still more glaring in reference to the JNIosaic institute. That, it seems, was a propredcutic to Christianity, but it had nothing logi- cal, nothing in the way of representative instruction, and 48 STAND AUD AND XATUKE OF EELIGIOX. [Skct. T. "yet aAvakened the religious consciousness by types and symbols." Now, we would humbly ask, What are types and symbols but a language through which, in the one case, instruction is communicated by means of analogy, and in the otlicr by means of visible and exj^ressive signs? In what way could these figured representations of truth- sug- gest the spiritual realities to the mind, but through the operations of the understanding, comparing the type with the antitype, the sign with the thing signified ? From the author's own account, then, it is evident that both Judaism and Christianity were propagated by appeals to the under- standing, that the agents of the revelation in both cases were, in the strict and proper sense of the term, teacherSf and that it was a part of their commission to embody in language of some sort the high conceptions to which they were anxious to elevate their race. These conceptions when embodied in language became doctrines, so that there must have been, to the same extent to which Christ and His Apostles were teachers, "a formal exposition of Christian doctrine." But we would ask our author, How, apart from didactic appeals — which, we have already seen, he confesses may be the means of spiritual awakening — spiritual intuitions could be engendered by any merely human agency ? In what way is it possible for one man to present a spiritual reality to another, except through its verbal sign, or by a descrip- tion of the occasions on which the intuitions are expe- rienced ? His whole office must be logical. He can neither give eyes to see, nor can he bring the objects themselves in their essential and substantive existence into contact with the mind. He can, in other words, do nothing, according to Mr. Morell's own psychology, but make a logical state- ment of his own experiences. How could the Apostles, for example, impress upon the world the great conceptions of sin, of righteousness, of judgment to come, of salvation, of purity, of heavenly love, but by some definite — that is to say, logical — expression of these very conceptions as they Sect. L] AN EXTERNAL STANDARD VINDICATED. 49 existed in their own minds, or, if they were simple and elementary ideas, by referring to the occasions or circum- stances connected with their first suggestion to themselves ? The intuitions they could no more produce than they could create a soul. Through a strong ideal presence of the scenes amid which their own experiences had been awa- kened, they might rouse the latent susceptibilities of their hearers, but their office terminated with the descriptions suited to produce this presence, Avhich is purely a logical pro- cess. " Their testimony to the word, the person, the death and the resurrection of the Saviour" must, in the same way, have been conveyed in words ; they could only hope to reach the sensibilities through the understanding ; they could set Christ and his life in vivid distinctness before the minds of men, but it could only be by signs which repre- sented the realities ; and therefore their appeals must have been exclusively logical. Their intensity in action and suffering, as a mere phenomenon, suggested no definite idea; it might have been madness, fanaticism or any other extra- vagance ; it could have no moral import to spectators until it was explained ; and we see no way of explaining it but by signs which should represent the moral enthusiasm from which it sprung. Hence, according to the author's own showing, the labours of Apostles and Evangelists were con- fined exclusively to the faculty which deals with signs. They testified to facts, and embodied in words the great moral conceptions which these facts involved; and hence Christianity then was diffused so far as the agency of men was employed by addresses to the logical faculty. The Apostles taught, testified, acted ; their teaching and testimony were obviously to the understanding, and action has no meaning except as its principles and motives are understood. Direct appeals to the intuitional consciousness would evidently liave been preposterous. That faculty deals immediately with things themselves ; and unless the Apostles were gifted with power to command the presence of spiritual realities at pleasure, to bring God and Heaven and Hell into direct Vol. III.— 4 50 STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [Sect. I. contact witli the minds of men, and possessed a similar power over the hardened hearts, the slumbering consciences and the stupid sensibility of their age — unless they could give eyes to the blind and ears to the deaf — to have sent them into the world to awaken religious intuitions would have been about as sensible an errand as to have sent them into a cemetery to quicken corpses and make the dead entranced admirers of the beauty of nature. If they were to be debarred from addressing the understanding, we are utterly at a loss to conceive in what manner they would pro- ceed. Mr. Morell has involved himself in perplexity and contradiction by confounding the real mission of the Apos- tles, which was purely logical, and from the nature of the case could not have been otherwise, with the results which God intended to effect, and which, if he likes the expres- sion, were purely intuitional. The whole process, as it is described in the New Testament, is plain, simple, intelli- gible. It consisted, in the fii'st place, in that very logical explication or statement of doctrines which Mr. IMorell so much abhors ; and then in a process of supernatural illumi- nation which it was the prerogative of God alone to com- municate. The Apostles described the realities of religion, and the Holy Ghost enabled the hearers to understand. They made the sounds, the Spirit imparted the hearing ear ; they presented the scenes, the Spirit gave the seeing eye ; they announced the truth, the Spirit vouchsafed the under- standing heart. They, in other words, upon the authority of God, proclaimed an infallible theology ; and the Spirit of all grace produced the religion of which that theology was the logical expression. He used their truth to renew, to sanctify, to purify, to save. Their business was to teach ; it was the office of an Agent more august and glorious than themselves to awaken the conceptions which that teaching embodied. It is particularly in the chapter on Inspiration that the author points out the difficulties with which the vulgar Sect. I.] AN EXTERNAL STANDARD VINDICATED. 51 theory of the Divine authority of the Scriptures is encum- bered. We have seen that he regards inspiration as efj[uiva- lent to holiness ; and most of the chapter is occupied in refuting what he has chosen to designate the mechanical view of the question. It is, of course, indispensable to the authority of the Scriptures as the Word of God that the men who wrote them should have written as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Any hypothesis which sets aside a Divine testimony to every statement and doctrine of the Bible is inconsistent with the exercise of that faith which the Scriptures exact, and which is the only adequate foundation of infallible assurance. So far as responsible authorship is concerned, a Divine rule of faith must be the production of God. The design of such a rule is not simply to give us truth, but truth which we know to be truth, specifically on the ground that the Lord has declared it. Hence the theory of " verbal dictation," which our author declares ^ " has been so generally abandoned by the thought- ful in the present day," is the only theory which we have ever regarded as consistent with the exigencies of the case, the only theory which makes the Bible what it professes to be, the Word of God, and an adequate and perfect mea- sure of our faith. If its contents, in any instances, however insignificant, rest only upon the testimony of the human agents employed in writing it, in those instances we can only believe in man ; the statements may be true, but they cease to be Divine and infallible, and the assent which we yield to them becomes opinion and not faith. If, therefore, the author has succeeded in demolishing the theory of ver- bal dictation or of a distinct commission — which he treats separately, though they are only different expressions of the same thing — it must be confessed that, however he has failed in his philosophy, he has completely triumphed in the a posteriori aspect of his argument. His first consideration is, that '' there is no positive evi- dence of such a verbal dictation having been granted." 1 Page 154. 52 STANDAED AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [Sect. I. This is summary enough. But the reason assigned is still more remarkable. "The supposition of its existence would demand a twofold kind of inspiration ; each kind entirely distinct from the other. The Apostles, it is admitted, were inspired to preach and to teach orajh/, but we have the most positive evidence that this commission did not extend to their very words. Often they were involved in minor misconcep- tions ; and sometimes they taught specific notions inconsistent with a pure spiritual Christianity, as Peter did when he was chided by Paul. The verbal scheme, therefore, demands the admission of one kind of inspiration having been given to the Apostles as men, thinkers, moral agents and preachers, and another kind having been granted to them as writers.^' ^ In the first place, this twofold inspiration is the result of Mr. Morell's own arbitrary use of language. If he chooses to describe the influences under Avhich men are converted and sanctified as one kind of inspiration, the theory of verbal dictation, of course, implies another, but another by no means inconsistent with the former. The process by which a man is transferred from sin to holiness is very diiferent from the process by which he receives a message to be announced in the terms of its conveyance. There is nothing in personal integrity incompatible with the ojffice of a secretary or amanuensis. In the next place, Mr. Morell begs the question in assum- ing that the commission of the Apostles as teachers and preachers involved no other inspiration but that which changed their hearts. The very stress of the controversy turns upon the question. What was the apostolic commis- sion ? Whatsoever it was, it is universally conceded that it extended to their writings in exactly the same sense in which it extended to their preaching. If their preaching, in the discharge of their functions as Apostles, was not verbally dictated, no more were their letters. If they sjxd'e not by the Holy Ghost, neither did they zvrite under His suggestions. " But," says our author, " we have the most positive evidence that this commission did not extend to 1 Page 155. Sect. L] AN EXTERNAL standard vindicated. 53 their very words." This, if it coukl be proved, would set- tle the question. But there is something in the first com- mission which our Saviour gave to the Twelve when He sent them out to the lost sheep of the house of Israel which seems to be in such palpable contradiction to this confident assumption that we must be permitted to question whether the evidence can be regarded as superlatively positive. " Behold," says the Master, " I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves ; be ye, therefore, wise as serpents and harmless as doves. But beware of men, for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues, and ye' shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles. But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak ; for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not yc that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you." Or, as it is more pointedly in Mark, " it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost." Paul, too, for whom by the way the author has no great jiartiality, professed to speak the things which had been freely revealed to him of God, " not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but the Holy Ghost teacheth," and had the arrogance to treat his own communications "as the commandments of the Lord." But what is the most positive evidence to which Mr. Morell refers ? Why that the Apostles " were often involved in minor misconceptions, and sometimes they taught spe- cific notions inconsistent with a pure spiritual Christianity, as Peter did when he was chided by Paul." Peter taught no such thing. He was guilty of dissimulation in conduct. He knew the truth and acted in consistency with it before that certain came from James, but when they were come, he was tempted to humour their prejudices. Paul reproved him distinctly upon the ground that he was acting in con- tradiction to what he knew to be the truth of the Gospel. This case, therefore, only proves that Peter, as a man, was partially sanctified ; it does not prove that, as an Apostle, 54 STANDARD AND NATUEE OF EELIGION. [Sect. I. he was jDcrmittecl to fall into doctrinal error. As to the other minor misconceptions, to which our author refers, it will be time to explain them when we know what they are. Meanwhile, we may be permitted to remark that in this case of Peter, the author has confounded holiness of cha- racter with the apostolic commission. The only inspiration which he seems able to conceive is that of personal purity ; and if a man has any remnants of sin cleaving to his flesh or his spirit, he is, according to Mr. Morell, imperfectly inspired. This, we. repeat, is a begging of the question. No one maintains that the Apostles, as men, were perfect ; they were sinners under the dominion of grace; but as Apostles, in their official relations, it is the doctrine of the popular faith that they were the organs of the Holy Spirit in communicating to the Church an infallible rule of faith and practice. It is no presumption against this hypothesis that they were subject to the weaknesses of fallen humanity; the treasure was put in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power might be confessed as springing from God. It is surely miserable sophistry, when the very question in debate is. What was the apostolic commission? quietly to assume a theory, and then, make that theory the pretext for rejecting another account. And yet this is what our author has done; he assumes that the apostolic commission con- sisted exclusively in the elevation of the religious sensi- bilities, and then, upon the ground of this assumption, re- jects the hypothesis of verbal dictation, as requiring a commission for the writers distinct from that of the apos- tolic office ! We suspect that it would be no hard matter to prove any proposition in heaven or earth, if we can only be indulged in the liberty of taking our premises for granted. The author's second argument,^ upon which, very pru- dently, he does not insist, is draAvn " from the fact that Ave find a distinctive style maintained by each separate author." He regards it " as a highly improbable, and even extra- 1 Page 15(3. Sect. I.] AN EXTERNAL STANDARD VINDICATED. 55 vagant, supposition, without the most positive proof of it being offered, that each writer should manifest his own modes of thought, his own temperament of mind, his own educational influence, his own peculiar phraseology, and yet, notwithstanding this, every word should have been dictated to him by the Holy Spirit." If Mr. Morell had investigated, a little more fully than he seems to have done, the grounds of the popular faith, he might have found in this very circumstance, which he considers so extremely improbable and extravagant, a fresh illustration of the wisdom of God. The external proofs of inspiration, which consist in the signs of an Apostle or Prophet, found either in the writer himself, or some one commissioned to vouch for his production, require, in most cases, a knowledge of the author. And in conducting an inquiry upon this point, the internal evidence arising from style, structure and habits of thought materially contributes to a satisfactory result. In the first stage of the investigation wc consider the productions simply as human compositions^ s.nd God has wisely distributed the gift of inspiration, so thsA, while He is responsible for all that is said, the individual peculiar- ities of the agent shall designate the person whose instru- mentality He employed. He has facilitated our inquiry into the human organ of the Holy Spirit. Having ascer- tained ourselves as to the human authors or their works, the next question is, as to the claims which they themselves put forward to Divine direction. What are these claims, and how are they substantiated? If they pretend to a verbal dictation, and then adduce the credentials sufficient to authenticate it, we have all which, in the way of external evidence, could be reasonably exacted. The Epistle to the Romans, for example, is put into our hands as a part of the Word of God. The first question is. Who wrote it ? If it can be traced to Paul, we know that he was an Aj^ostle of the Saviour and enjoyed Avhatever inspiration was attached to the apostolic office. He possessed in an eminent degree the signs of an Apostle, and if it were one of tJie privileges 56 STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [Sect. I of the office that those who were called to it should, in their public instructions and testimonies for Jesus, speak the language of the Holy Ghost, as soon as we are convinced that Paul was the writer of the document, its ultimate emanation from God is settled. Now it obviously facilitates this inquiry to have the mind of Paul stamped upon the letter — to have it distinctly impressed with his image, while it contains nothing but the true and faithful sayings of God. It is consequently no presumption against the Divine dicta- tion of a book that it should exhibit traces of the hand that was employed. The third argument^ mistakes altogether the very end of inspiration. The purpose was to furnish a statement of facts and an exhibition of doctrines, which should be re- ceived with a faith infallible and Divine, upon the sole con- sideration that God was the Author of both. Its design was to give us a rule of faith and not a standard of opinion. It was to be a Divine testimony ; and therefore, whatever might be the moral and religious qualifications of the wri- ters, however competent they might have been upon their own authority to have told us the same things, their words could, in no sense, be received as the real oracles of God. The Lord Himself must speak ; and this being the purpose of inspiration, verbal dictation detracts in no way from the character or worth of the Apostles. What they were in- spired to teach others was received by themselves upon the same ultimate ground on which it is received by us. They were channels of communication, not because they were fit to be nothing else, but because the end intended to be answered necessarily precluded any other relation, on their part, to the message conveyed. The fourth argument, which is a repetition, almost for the hundredth time, of the incompetency of the Bible to change the heart and enlighten the understanding, though the author presents it here as a "moral demonstration" against the theory of verbal dictation, has already been 1 Page 156. Sect. L] AN EXTERNAL STANDARD VINDICATED. 57 sufficiently answered in what we have said of the uses of theology. Mr. Morell ought to know how to distinguish between an inadequacy to produce a given effect and uni- versal worthlessness. Is the eye useless because it can- not hear, or the ear useless because it cannot see? And must a Divine standard of theology be utterly good for nothing because it cannot perform the office of the Holy Spirit ? Is there nothing else that it can do ? Has not he himself repeatedly admitted that a human theology sub- serves many valuable purposes in the economy of religion ? and in the name of truth and righteousness what is there in the mere circumstance that it is human to give it such an immense advantage over one that is Divine ? The theory of a distinct commission — which the author treats separately from that of verbal dictation, though they are only different expressions of the same thing — he sum- marily dismisses as destitute of any satisfactory evidence, and indebted for " its growth and progress in the Church to the influence of a low and mechanical view of the whole question of inspiration itself." ^ The compositions of the Prophets and Apostles, whether in the Old or New Testa- ment, he considers as the spontaneous effusions of their own minds, prompted by the motives which usually regu- late good men in their efforts to promote the welfare of their race. The purpose to write and the things they should write were equally the suggestions of their own benevolence and wisdom. The theory of a distinct commission, on the other hand, asserts that they were commanded to write by the special authority of God, and that the things which they wrote were dictated to them by the agency of the Holy Spirit. The settlement of this controversy evidently turns upon two points : the light in which the writers themselves regarded it, or, in the absence of any specific information upon this head, the light in which it was regarded by those who were competent to judge. If they claimed a distinct commission, or if those whose testimony ought to be decisive 1 Page 160. 58 STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [Sect. I awarded it to them, there is an end of the dispute. With relation to the books of the Old Testament, we receive their verbal insjiiration upon two grounds. The first is the testi- mony of the Jewish Church, which in the successive genera- tions contemporary with the successive writers in its canon known to them, hoAvever unknown to us, possessed the means of determining with accuracy whether the several authors exhibited themselves the external proofs of a Divine commission, or, in the absence of such proofs, whether their productions were vouched by the seal of those who were competent, from the same proofs, to give an infallible decision. The second is the testimony of Christ ^nd His Apostles. These witnesses are competent to judge. Now the question is. What judgment did they give? In what sense did they receive these books as coming from God ? AYe shall not here enter into the question concerning the notions of the Je^vs, although they are patent upon almost every page of the New Testament; but we confidently assert that Christ and His Apostles distinctly and unequi- vocally awarded to the Prophets of the ancient dispensation precisely the verbal inspiration in their writings which Mr. INIorell labours to subvert. Paul declares that " all Scrip- ture is given by inspiration of God ;" ^ Peter, a little more definitely, that " holy men of God sjxihe as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." ^ Our Saviour rebuts a malig- nant accusation of the Jews by an argument which turns upon the Divine authority of the u-ords of the Old Testa- ment;^ and passages are again and again quoted by His Apostles as the ipsissima verba of the Holy Spirit : " Well spake the Holy Ghost," says Paul, " by Esaias the Prophet unto our fathers."* "Wherefore as the Holy Ghost saith, To-day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts." ® The Old Testament is compendiously described as "the oracles of God,® and the Apostle informs us that it Avas "God who, at sundry times and in divers manners, spake 1 2 Tim. iii. 16. " 2 Pet. i. 21. » John x. 33-36. * Acts xxviii. 25. * Heb. iii. 7. ' Eom. iii. 2. SEca. I.] AN EXTERNAL STANDARD VINDICATED. 59 iu time past unto the fathers by the Prophets."^ Paul goes so far as to identify the Scripture with God Himself — attrib- uting to it what was absolutely true only of Him. " The Scripture saith unto Pharaoh ;" " the Scripture foreseeing that God would justify the heathen;" "the Scripture hath con- cluded all under sin." It is absolutely certain, from these references, that Christ and His Apostles regarded the Old Testament as verbally inspired, and the Prophets as nothing but the agents through whom the Holy Ghost communicated His will. It is of no consequence, therefore, whether we know the human authors of the different books or not, or the times at which they were written, or even the country in which they were composed ; it is enough that what con- stituted the canon of the Jews in the days of our Saviour was endorsed by Him and His own chosen Apostles as the Word of God. He and they referred to that canon as a whole, under the well-known titles of "The Scriptures," "The Law," "The Prophets and the Psalms;" "treated it generally as authoritative;" called it specifically " the Oracles of God;" and, quoted particular passages in a way in which they could not have quoted them if there had been no distinct commission to write them. But these considerations, it ap- pears, are nothing to Mr. Morell. Because we are not in possession of the evidence which justified the reception of each particular book into the Jewish canon, he triumphantly asks what chance we have upon the hypothesis of verbal dictation of being successful in proving the inspiration of the Old Testament against the aggressions of the skeptic.^ " The fact," he adds, " upon which many lay such remark- able stress, that Christ and His Apostles honoured the Old Testament, is nothing to the purpose, as far as the nature of their [its] inspiration is concerned." But is it nothing to the purpose that Christ and His Apostles distinctly de- clare to us that it was God who spake by the Prophets, that the Scriptures are called by our Saviour the Word of God, and that particular passages are repeatedly cited as 1 Heb. i. 1. ^ Page 178. 60 STAND AED AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [Sect. I. the ipsisswia verba of the Holy Ghost? Is this kind of honour nothing ? But he continues: " They honoured the Divine and the ^toviaHn the old dispensa- tion. They honoured the men who had been servants and prophets of the IMost High. They honoured the writings from which their spirit of piety and of power breathed forth. But never did they affirm the literal and special divinity of all the national records of the Jewish people, as presened and read in the synagogues of that day. ' ' ^ No doubt Christ and His Apostles honoured the Divine and the Eternal in the old dispensation, but, if the Scrip- tures are to be credited, they also honoured the Divine and temporary. They honoured everything that was Divine, whether it was to remain or to be done away. The Master fulfilled all righteousness. As to the men who had been servants and prophets of the ISIost High, they said very lit- tle about them — at least very little is recorded. But it is certain that they never honoured the writings of the Proph- ets because they were the offspring of pious and devo- tional feeling. It was not because the spirit of the men was in them, but because the Spirit of God was there, that they attached the importance which they did attach to the books of the Old Testament; and the passages which we have already quoted put it beyond any reasonable doubt that they did regard God as the real and responsible Author of these books. Their testimony is, or ought to be, deci- sive of the question. The author's opinion of the inspiration of the New Tes- tament may be collected from the following passage, which, though long, cannot be conveniently abridged : "Passing from the Old Testament to the New, the same entire absence of any distinct commission given to the writers of the several books (with the exception, perhaps, of the Apocalypse of John) pre- sents itself Mark and Luke were not Apostles, and the latter of them distinctly professes to write from the testimony of eye-witnesses, and to claim the confidence of Theophilus, for whom his two treatises were 1 Page 178. Sect. I.] AN EXTERNAL STANDARD VINDICATED. 61 composed, on this particular ground. Matthew and John wrote their accounts somewhat far in the first century, when the increase of the Christian converts naturally suggested the necessity of some such statements, at once for their information and for their spiritual require- ments generally. Finally, Paul, as we know, wrote his letters as the state of i^articular churches seemed to call for them ; but in no case do we find a sjjecial commission attached to any of these, or of the other Epistles of the New Testament. "Added to this, the light which history sheds upon the early period of the Christian Church shows us that the writings which now com- pose the New Testament Canon were not at all regarded as express messages to them from God, independently of the conviction they had of the high integrity and spiritual development of the minds of the writers. They received them just as they received the oral teachings of the Apostles and Evangelists ; they read them in the churches to supply the place of their personal instructions ; and there is abundant evidence that many other writings beside those which now form the New Testament were read with a similar reverence and for a sim- ilar edification. "It was only gradually, as the pressure of heresy compelled it, that a certain number of writings were agreed upon by general consent as being purely apostolic, and designated by the term homologoumena, or agreed upon. But that much contention existed as to which should be acknowledged canonical, and which not, is seen from the fact that a number of the writings now received were long termed ' antilego- mena,' or contested, and that the third century had wellnigh com- pleted its course before the present canon was fixed by universal con- sent. All this shows us that it was not any distinct commission attached to the composition of certain books or documents which imparted a Divine authority to the Apostles' writings, but that they were selected and approved by the Church itself as being veritable productions of men ' who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost ' — men who were not inspired in order to write any precise documents, but who wrote such documents, amongst other labours, by virtue of their being inspired. " The conclusion which we necessarily draw from these considerations is, that the canonioity of the New Testament Scriptures was decided upon solely on the ground of their presenting to the whole Church clear statements of apostolical Christianity. The idea of their being wi-itten by any special command of God or verbal dictation of the Spirit was an idea altogether foreign to the primitive churches. They knew that Christ was in Himself a Divine revelation ; they knew that the Apostles had been with Him in His ministiy; they knew that their hearts had been warmed with His truth, that their whole religious 62 STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [Sect. I. nature had been elevated to intense spirituality of thinking and feel- ing by the possession of His Spirit, and that this same Spirit was poured out without measure upon the Church. Here it was they took their stand, and in these facts they saw the reality of the apostolic inspiration ; upon these realities they reposed their faith ere ever the sacred books were penned ; and when they icere penned, they re- garded them as valid representations of the living truth which had already enlightened the Church, and as such alone pronounced upon their canonical and truly apostolic character." ^ The substance of these observations may be reduced to three points: 1. That the writers of the New Testament made no pretensions to the sort of inspiration implied in the idea of a Divine commission to write. 2. That the primitive Church did not look upon their productions as the words of the Holy Ghost; and, 3. That the collection of books which constitute the canon of the New Testament was made, not that it might be an authoritative rule of faith, but that precious mementas of the Apostles and of apostolic preaching might be embodied and preserved. Every one of these propositions is grossly and notoriously false. There are three considerations which to any candid mind put it beyond all reasonable controversy that the Apostles and Evangelists must have claimed the plenary inspiration for which we contend. The first is, that the Saviour, on no less than four different occasions, promised to the Twelve the verbal dictation of the Spirit when they should be called to testify for Him. The last of these prom- ises has no limitation as to time and place, and the language in which it is couched deserves to be seriously pondered : "Howbeit, when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth ; for He shall not speak of Himself, but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak, and He will show you things to come."^ These promises explain the nature of the apostolic commission, at least so far as oral teaching was concerned. When the Apostles spake, 1 Pages 163-165. * John xvi. 13. The other instances are: Matt. x. 19, 20; Mark xiii. 11 ; Luke xii. 11, 12. Sect. I.] AX EXTERNAL STANDARD VINDICATED. 63 it was not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, bnt which the Holy Ghost teacheth. The second consideration is, that the Apostles placed their writings upon the same footing exactly with their oral instructions. Est enim Scrip- turce et prcedicationis par ratio} The third is, that they attributed the same authority to their own compositions which they awarded to the Scriptures of the Old Testament. Peter refers to the Epistles of Paul with the same reverence with which he refers to the canon of the Jews,^ and Paul quotes the Law of Moses and the Gospel of Luke as entitled to equal consideration.^ If, now, our Saviour promised the verbal dictation of the Spirit in the oral teaching of the Apostles, and they ascribed the same authority to their writ- ings which belonged to their preaching, if they reckoned their own compositions in the same category with the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms, and distinctly traced these to the immediate suggestions of God, what more can be re- quired to establish the unqualified falsehood of Mr. Morell's first position upon the subject? But Luke, it seems — ^whom, be it remembered, Paul quotes as of equal authority with Moses — virtually disclaimed this species of inspiration, since "he professes to write from the testimony of eye-wit- nesses, and to claim the confidence of Theophilus, for whom his two treatises were composed, on this particular ground.'"* Mr. Morell is particularly unfortunate whenever he deals with Scripture. The memorable words of our Saviour to Nicodemus, " God so loved the world," etc., he very amus- ingly expounds^ as a discovery of one of the Apostles — a bright ray of intuition beaming from a mind intensely heated by the marvellous scenes connected with the history of Jesus. And here he blunders sadly in reference to the beloved physician. Luke does not say that he wrote from 1 2 Thess. ii. 15; 1 Cor. xv. 1; John xx. 31; 1 John i. 1-4. = 2 Pet. iii. 16. ' 1 Tim. V. 18. The labourer is tcorthy of his hire is a passage found no- where else as quoted by Paul but in Luke x. 7, and there it occurs exactly in the words of the Apostle. * Page 163. 5 Pages 247, 248. 64 STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [Sect. I. the testimony of eye-witnesses, but that others had done so. He simply ascribes to himself, according to our English version, an accurate knowledge of the facts, or, according to another version, a thorough investigation of them; and he claims the confidence of Theophilus, because he himself was perfectly ascertained of the truth of what he wrote. His own mind had reached certainty — by what particular steps is not made known to us — and he was anxious to im- part the same certainty to the friend to Avhom his treatises are addressed. Nothing hinders but that this very investi- gation may have been prompted by an impulse which ter- minated in that very dictation of the Spirit without which his book is entitled to no special authority. Mr. Morell is not surely to learn that the theory of verbal inspiration contemplates something more than organic influence ; that it represents the sentiments and language as the sentiments and language of the writers as well as of the Holy Ghost. God employed the minds of the Apostles, with all their faculties and powers, distinctively as minds, and not as machines, to communicate His own will in His own words to mankind. Through their thoughts, memories, reasonings, studies and inquiries He infused His truth into their hearts, put His words into their lips and impressed His own decla- rations on the written page. How these things can be we profess not to determine. Our philosophy cannot penetrate the mysteries of God. But we have the faculty of believing where we cannot explain. The incarnate Word was man and God in one person and two distinct natures, and His divinity stamped ineffable value upon the deeds and suffer- ings of his humanity. The written Word is Divine and human in mysterious concurrence, and the Divine invests it with all its value and authority as a conclusive standard of faith. "We grant," says Dr. Owen,* "that the sacred wri- ters used their own abilities of mind and understanding in the choice of words and expressions. So the preacher sought to find out acceptable words. Eccles. xii. 10. But 1 Works, vol. ii., p. 159— Holy Spirit, book 2d, chap. i. Sect. I.] AN EXTERNAL STANDARD VINDICATED. 65 the Holy Spirit, who is more intimate into the minds and skill of men than they are themselves, did so guide and operate in them as that the words they fixed upon were as directly and certainly from Him as if they had been spoken to them by an audible voice." "God," says Haldane,^ "did not leave them to the operation of their own mind, but has employed the operations of their mind in His Word. The Holy Spirit could dictate to them His own words in such a way that they would also be their own words, uttered with the understanding. He could express the same thought by the mouth of a thousand persons, each in his own style." It is upon this obvious principle that God employed them as intelligent agents, that they were re- quired to give attendance to all the ordinary means of im- proving their faculties, to reading, study, meditation and prayer, to mutual consultation and advice, and to all the ordinances of the Christian Church. They were, by no means, like Balaam's ass, the passive vehicles of articulate sounds; God spoke through their voice, and communicated ideas through their minds. The second proposition — that the Primitive Church did not look upon the writings of the Apostles and Evangelists as verbally inspired — is so ludicrously false, and betrays such disgraceful ignorance of the history of opinions upon the subject, that very few words will be sufficient to despatch it. It is well known to every scholar that the theory of verbal dictation, stated often in such forms as to make the sacred writers merely passive instruments of Divine com- munications, is the oldest theory in the Christian Church. Justin, Athenagoras, Macarius and Chrysostom very fre- quently compare them to musical instruments, which obey the breath of the performer in the sounds they emit. Ma- carius tells us that the Holy Scriptures are epistles which God, the King, has sent to men.^ Chrysostom affirms that ^ Haldane on Inspiration, p. 117. 2 All the quotations which follow may be found with many others in Suicerus, Article ypa'Pv, and Conybeare's Bampton Lectures, Lecture 1 Vol. III.— 5 66 STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [Sect. I. "all the Scriptures have been written and sent to us, not by servants, but by God, the Master of all" — that "the words which they utter are the words of God Himself." He tells us, farther, that even their very syllables contain some hid- den treasure; that nothing is vain or superfluous about them, everything being the appointment of the wise' and omniscient God. The same opinions are found also in Origen, Cyril of Alexandria, Irenfeus and Gregory Thau- maturgus. And yet the Primitive Church attributed no verbal inspiration to the authors of the Gospels and Epis- tles! It is notorious, too, that the same terms of respect which the Jews were accustomed to appropriate to their canon were promiscuously applied by the Christian Fathers to the whole canon of the Christian Church, and to the books particularly of the New Testament.^ They were called by Irenpeus, Divine Scriptures, Divine Oracles, Scrip- tures of the Lord ; by Clement of Alexandria, Sacred Books, Divine Scriptures, Divinely -inspired Scriptures, Scriptures of the Lord, the true Evangelical Canon; by Origen, the whole canon was called the Ancient and New Oracles; by Cyprian, the books of the New Testament were distin- guished as Boohs of the Spirit, Divine Fountains, Fountain of the Divine Fidlness. We hope Mr. Morell will look a little into history before he ventures to assert again that " in the early period of the Christian Church the writings which now compose the New Testament Canon were not all regarded as express messages to them from God." The third proposition is, that these books were not collected because they were the canon or authoritative rule of faith, but because they contained interesting memorials of apos- tolic teaching and labours. If INIr. INIorell has not sufficient leisure to peruse the documents of ecclesiastical antiquity, he will find in the treatise appended to the Corpus et Syn- tagma Coufessionum, or the Consent of the Ancient Fathers at tlie end. The reader is also referred to Taylor's Ductor Dub., Book 2d, Chap, iii., Rule 14. ^ Paley's Evidences, Part 1, Chap, ix., § 4. Sect. I.] AX EXTERNAL STAXDARD VINDICATED. 67 to the Doctrines of the Reformation, a very satisfactory account of the precise light in which the Primitive Church looked upon the Holy Scriptures. In the mean time, we may inform our readers that she had exactly the same notions of their Divine authority as the arbiter of faith and the judge of controversies which all evangelical Christians noAv entertain of them. "It behoveth," says Basil of Csesarea, "that every word and every work should be accredited by the testimony of the inspired Scripture." "Let the in- spired Scriptures," he says again, "ever be our umpire, and on whichever side the doctrines are found accordant to the Divine Word, to that side the award of truth may, with entire certainty, be given." And still again, "It is the duty of hearers, when they have been instructed in the Scrip- tures, to try and examine, by them, the things spoken by their teachers, to receive whatever is consonant to those Scriptures, and to reject whatever is alien; for thus they will comply with the injunction of St. Paul, to prove all things, and hold fast that which is good." "We have known the economy of our salvation," says Irenseus, " by no other but by those by whom the Gospel came to us; which truly they then preached, but afterward, by the will of God, delivered to us in the Scriptures, which were to be the pillar and ground of our faith." The facts upon which ]\Ir. INIorell relies to give counte- nance to his notions in refei'ence to the early estimate of the Scriptures prove to our minds exactly the reverse. Why, when the primitive Christians were pressed by heresy, were they so anxious to be ascertained of the apostolic writ- ings, if these writings were not a standard of truth ? Why so cautious in their inquiries, so watchful against impostures and frauds, so thorough in their investigations, if Avhen they had agreed upon the genuine productions of the Apos- tles they w^ere no nearer settling their controversies than they were before ? Can any satisfactory reason be assigned, but that of the eloquent and fervid Chrysostom ? — "The apostolical writings are the very walls of the Church. Some 68 STANDAKD AND NATURE OF KELIGION. [Skct. I. one, perhaps, may ask, What then shall 1 do, who cannot have a Paul to refer to ? Wh.v, if thou wilt, thou mayest still have him more entire than many even with whom he was personally present, for it was not the sight of Paul that made them what they were, but his words. If thou wilt, thou mayest have Paul and Peter and John, yea, and the whole choir of Prophets and Apostles, to converse with thee frequently. Only take the works of these blessed men arid read their writings assiduously. But why do I say to thee, Thou mayest have Paul? If thou wilt, thou mayest have Paul's Master; for it is He Himself that speaketh to thee in Pavd's words." The Apostles themselves were to the first churches which they collected the Oracles of God. They were inspired to teach and publish the whole counsel of God in reference to the Church. The words which they spake were not theirs, but those of Christ who sent them. To all future genera- tions their writings were designed to occupy the position which they themselves occupied towards the first converts. In these writings we now have what God originally spake through them. The care and anxiety of the primitive churches to guard against delusion and deceit were owing to the belief that all apostolic compositions — that is, all com- positions written either directly by themselves or commended as inspired by their approbation — were, in the proper accep- tation of the term, canonical; they were a rule of faith — they were the Word of God. This being the state of the case, no book was received as of apostolical authority but after full and complete investigation. The evidences of its origin were thoroughly canvassed. The question was. What books has God sent to us ? or, in the language of Chrysostom, What epistles has God sent to us as the stand- ard of truth? The answer was, Those which the Apostles, in the discharge of their apostolic commission, either wrote themselves or sanctioned as written by others. What books were these? The Primitive Church finally settled this question when it agreed upon the canon of the New Testa- ment. The whole history of the matter shows that these documents were honoured, not as memorials of Peter, James and Jolui, but as the words of the Master communicated Sect. I.] AN EXTERNAL STANDARD VINDICATED. 69 through them. Mark and Luke were not Apostles them- selves, and yet they are included in the canon, and entitled to the same authority with Paul or any other Apostle. The reason was, that the early Church had satisfactory evidence that they wrote under the same guidance which was prom- ised to the Twelve. Mr. Morell is therefore grossly at fault in maintaining that the Apostles themselves made no pre- tensions to verbal or plenary inspiration, that the Primitive Church did not accord it to them, and that their writings were not regarded as a Divine and infallible canon of truth. The testimony of history is clearly, strongly, decidedly against him; and any conclusions against the theory of a Divine commission which he has drawn from the monstrous propo- sitions which, as we have seen, have no existence but in the fictions of his own fancy, are nothing worth. There remain two other arguments by which he attempts to set aside the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures. The first is the defective morality of the Old Testament, and the second is the inconsistencies and discrepancies of the sacred writers. As to the first, it is obvious, from the whole tenor of the JSTew Testament, that it professes to make no new revelations in morality ; it is only a commentary on the Law and the Prophets. The great principle which is supposed by many to be characteristic of the Gospel, that we should love the Lord our God with all our hearts, and our neigh- bours as ourselves, is distinctly inculcated by Moses; while patience under injuries, alms to the indigent and kindness to the poor, afflicted and oppressed, are the reigning spirit of the ancient institute. The Israelites were indeed com- missioned to wage exterminating wars against the devoted objects of Divine wrath, but in these instances they were the scourge of God. It was not to gratify their private resentments or national ambition, but to execute the ven- geance of Heaven, that they were commanded to destroy the tribes of Cauaan. They were as the plague, pestilence and famine in the hands of the Almighty — God was the real destroyer ; they were but the instruments of His will, 70 STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [Sect. I. and they departed from every principle of their institute if they suffered themselves to be influenced by private mialice. There are other instances in which deeds of treach- ery and deceit are recorded, but there is a huge difference betwixt recording and approving them. The drunkenness of Xoah — if indeed he were drunk, which we very much doubt — the lies of Abraham, the cruelty of Sarah, the incest of Lot, the frauds of Jacob and the adultery of David were written not for our example, but our warning. There are other instances in which the moral import of the same material action was very different then from what it is now. There can be no doubt that in the pi-ogress of society rela- tions may be developed and causes unfolded which shall make an act criminal in one age that Avas perfectly blame- less, in another. Incest was lawful in the family of Adam ; under a certain contingency a Jew might marry his brother's widow ; and it remains to be proved that, in the early con- dition of Eastern civilization, the habits and customs which now provoke our censure were possessed of the same moral import which attaches to them now. "With these distinc- tions and limitations, we have no hesitation in asserting that the morality of the Old Testament is precisely what we might expect it to be upon the theory of verbal inspira- tion. The great duties of piety and religion, of truth, justice and benevolence, the charities of life, the virtues of the citizen, the master and tlie man, the husband, the father and the son, are all impressed under the ancient economy with the sanctions peculiar to that dispensation. There is nothing impure, immoral, unworthy of God. As to inconsistencies and discrepancies in the sacred writers which cannot be fairly explained, we simply deny them. Mr. Morell charges them with inconclusiveness of reasoning, defects of memory and contradictions to science and themselves in their statements of fact. When he con- descends to specify the instances, and to j^^'ove that his alle- gations are true, it will be time to answer yet again these exploded cavils of infidelity, which have a thousand times Sect. I.] AN EXTERNAL STANDARD VINDICATED. 71 been refuted, and Avliich he ought to know to be worthless. In regard to defects of memory, we beg him to recollect that any effort to substantiate this charge may involve an effort to cast a serious imputation upon the moral character of Jesus Christ Himself. If there was anything which He distinctly and unequivocally promised to His Apostles, it Avas that the Holy Ghost should teach them all things and bring all things to their remembrance which He himself had said unto them. There is indeed one specification which he has made — the inconsistency of geological speculations with the Mo- saic cosmogony. Mr. Morell, however, is not ignorant that the Mosaic narrative contradicts not a single fact of de- scriptive geology. All that she reports of the shape of the earth, its minerals, and fossils, its marks of convulsion and violence, — all these faets may be fully admitted, and yet not a line of Moses be impugned. It is only when the geologist proceeds to the causes of his facts, and invents hypotheses to explain them, that any inconsistency takes place; and this inconsistency is evidently not betwixt geology and religion, but geologists and Moses. It is a war of theories, of speculation and conjecture, against the historical fidelity of a record supported by evidence in comparison with which they dwindle into the merest fig- ments of the brain. There is one other consideration which demands our notice, and which we have reserved to this place, because it is evidently not an argument against the abstract possi- bility of a Divine theology — being not at all inconsistent with the patristic notion of organic inspiration — but against that view of the manner in which a Divine theology has been communicated which we have felt it our duty to de- fend. Mr. Morell asserts, "That the whole of the logical 2:>roeesses of the human mind are such that the idea of a revelation is altogether incompatible with them, that they are in no sense open to its influence, and that they can neither be improved nor assisted by it. All our logical processes 72 STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [Sect, I. of mind, all the operations of the understanding, take place in accord- ance with the most fixed and determinate laws, those which are usually termed the laws of thought. Whatever can be infeiTcd by these laws, whatever can be derived in any way from them, must be strictly within the natural capacity of the human mind to attain. If, on the contrary, there be anything which these laws of thought are naturally unable to reach, no extraneous influence whatever could give thera the power of reaching it. The laws of thought are immovable —to alter them would be to subvert the whole constitution of the human intellect. Whatever is once within their reach is always so. Correct reasoning could never be subverted by revelation itself; bad reasoning could never be improved by it." ^ We are not sure that we understand this passage. If the author means that our logical processes do not originate the materials upon which they are employed, what he says may be true, but it is nothing to the purpose; but if he means that the mind being already in possession of all the simple ideas upon which it is to operate, God, in consistency with its own laws, cannot secure the understanding from error, what he says is contradictory to the revelation of a theology through the agency of men, upon any other hypothesis but that of organic inspiration. The cpiestion is not whether any Divine influence can make bad reasoning good or good reasoning bad, but whether God can exempt men from the bad, and infallibly conduct them to the good, without subverting their intellectual constitution. Mr. Morell will hardly deny that if all the conditions and laws which ought to be observed in the processes of the understanding were faithfully regarded, there would be no danger of fallacy or mistake. Error is the result of dis- obedience or inattention to the laws of our own nature — the punishment of intellectual guilt. The naked question then is, whether God, by any subjective influence on the soul, can preserve it from eccentricity and disorder, and keep it in harmony with the essential conditions of its healthful operation. Surely it is no subversion of the constitution of the mind to have that constitution protected from violence 1 Pages 141, 142. Sect. L] AN EXTERNAL STANDARD VINDICATED. 73 and eucroacliment. The soul is more truly itself when it moves in the orbit prescribed for it than when it deserts its pioper path and wanders into forbidden regions. If God cannot exert a controlling influence upon the understanding, it must be because there is something in the nature of its faculties or exercises incompatible with the direct inter- ference of the Deity. Now the faculties which belong to it are, according to our author's own statement/ memory, conception, imagination, abstraction and generalization, to which may be added the association of ideas; and the pro- cesses which belong to it are definition, division, judgment and reasoning, whether inductive or deductive. Not to enter at this stage of the discussion into any metaphysical an- alysis, it is obvious that these faculties exist, among different men, in very different degrees of perfection, and these pro- cesses are conducted with very different degrees of correct- ness, and yet their essential nature is the same in all. If, then, by the act of God, there can be different degrees of memory in different persons without any infringement of the laws of memory, why may there not be different degrees in the same person? If God can make one man reason better than another, without disturbing the laws of ratioci- nation, why cannot He make the same man reason at one time better than he reasoned at another? Can He not impart additional clearness to conception, vigour to imagination, nicety to analysis, and accuracy to the perception of those resemblances and relations upon which generalization and reasoning proceed? The truth is, one of the most myste- rious features connected with the human mind is its suscep- tibility of growth and improvement without receiving additions to its substance. Perfectly simple and indisccrp- tible in its own nature, incapable of enlargement by accre- tion, it yet begins, in the simplest operations of sense, to exert an activity which waxes stronger and better in every successive period of its existence, and to the development of which there seem to be no natural limits. All the ex- ^ Page 15. 74 STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [Skct. 1. prcssions by Avliich we represent this change are borrowed from material analogies, and are evidently liable to the abuse which, from such applications, has made the history of philosophy too much a history of confusion. In rela- tion to our minds, much more than in relation to our bodies, we are fearfully and wonderfully made. And if the natural order of improvement is a mystery, profound and imjjene- trable — if we are unable to comprehend, much less to ex- plain, how a single substance, remaining unchanged in its essence, shall exhibit those wonderful phenomena which we can liken to nothing but growth, expansion and enlarge- ment in material objects — surely it is too much to say that in this world of mystery another mystery still cannot be found, that of supernatural improvement, in which every faculty shall faithfully obey the laws of its structure. To us the idea that any creature, in any of its operations, can be independent of God, involves a gross contradiction. Absolute dependence is the law of its being. As without the concursus of the Deity it must cease to exist, so His sustentation and support are essential to every form of action, every degree of development, every step in improve- ment. It is only in God that it can live and move, as it is only in God that it has its subsistence. We see no more difficulty in supposing that God can superintend and direct the various processes of the understanding than in admitting that He created its powers in the first instance, and impressed upon them the laws which they ought to observe. Prov- idence is no more wonderful than creation. Mr. Morell admits that the Deity can exert a subjective influence upon the intuitional faculties, that they can be elevated to a supernatural degree of intensity, and that this is actually done in the phenomenon of inspiration. AMiy, then, should the understanding not be accessible to God ? If He can touch the soul in one point, why not in another? If He can improve its vision, what hinders but that He may regulate and assist its reflection ? That He can turn the hearts of men as the rivers of water are turned ; that the Sect. L] AN EXTERNAL STANDARD VINDICATED. 75 spirits of all jElesli, in the full integrity of tlieir faculties, are as completely in His hands as clay in the hands of the potter; that He can bring every proud thought and lofty imagination into humble obedience to his will; that the whole man is absolutely and unresistingly in His power, so that He can direct its steps without a contravention of the laws of its being, — is the only hypothesis upon which the great evangelical doctrine of regeneration is consistent or possible. The work of the Spirit is represented as ex- tending to the whole soul ; it gives eyes to the blind, ears to the deaf, knowledge to the ignorant, wisdom to the fool- ish. It enlightens the mind, purifies the heart, cleanses the imagination, purges the conscience, stimulates the mem- ory, quickens the judgment, and imparts an unwonted apt- itude in the perception of spiritual relations. As there is not a faculty which has not suffered from the ruins of the Fall, so there is not a faculty which does not share in the restoration of grace. The testimony of Scripture may be nothing to Mr. Morell; but as his presumptuous asser- tion is unsupported by anything in his own mental analysis ; as it is inconsistent with the analogy which the case of intuition, confessed by him to be susceptible of supernatural influence, obviously suggests; as there is nothing in the nature of the understanding, in any of its faculties or ex- ercises, which places it beyond the reach of Divine regula- tion ; as there is no more absurdity in God's governing than in God's creating its powers, — we may safely receive the declarations of the Bible, as well as the dictates of common sense, until we have some better reason for calling them into question than the ipse dixit of a transcendental philosopher. And that theory is certainly reduced to a desperate ex- tremity which allows its author no refuge but a bold and impudent denial of the essential attributes of God. What- ever does not involve a contradiction, and so prove itself to be nothing, lies within the boundless range of possibilities which Almighty power can achieve. It is the folly and blasphemy of the wicked to reduce their Creator to their 76 STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [Sect. I. level, to make Him altogether such an one as they tliem- selves, and to measure His resources by their own insignif- icant capacities. It is His prerogative to lift His hand and swear that as He lives for ever, so He shall accomplish all His will, and rule alike the minds and bodies He has framed. Our God is in the heavens. He has done what- soever He hath pleased; and if among the things which have pleased Him were the purpose to communicate a Di- vine theology through the minds and understandings of men, there could have been no impediment which His power could not easily surmount. We shall here finish our examination of the book before us with reference to the soundness of its logic. The single point to which our remarks have been directed is, whether the conclusions are legitimately drawn from the premises. We have admitted, for the sake of argument, the principles of the author's philosophy. We have not called in ques- tion his psychology, his analysis of religion, or his accounts of revelation and inspiration. Our object has been to dis- cover whether, granting all these, the popular faith in re- gard to the authority of the Scriptures is necessarily sub- verted. We have attempted to show that though his philosophy pretends to be an a 'priori argument against the possibility of this notion being true, it demonstrates notliing to the purpose; that revelation, in his sense, is not exclusive of revelation in its common and ordinary acceptation ; and that his inspiration is by no means inconsistent Avith the inspiration of the vulgar faith. Divest his argument of the ambiguity of language, and of the gratuitous assumja- tion that the agency which he admits is the sole agency of God, and it is divested of all pertinency and force. We have gone still farther, and convicted of weakness and con- fusion all his efforts to render useless and unnecessary the existence of a canon such as the Bible professes to be. Out of his own mouth have we condemned him. As a philo- sophical argument, therefore, we are compelled to say that his book is utterly wanting — that so far from demonstrat- Sect. I.] AN EXTERNAL STANDARD VINDICATED. 77 ing that a revealed theology is a psychological absurdity, he has beaten his drums and flourished his trumpets when the enemy had not been even in sight. We have also fol- lowed him in his arguments addressed to the question as a matter of fact. We have seen that he is at fault in charg- ing the- popular faith with a total destitution of positive proof, and that all his objections to the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, whether founded on varieties of style, the necessity of Divine illumination, the diminution of our re- spect for the sacred writers, the history of the canon, the immoralities, absurdities and contradictions of the Bible, or the alleged impossibility of a Divine revelation through the understandings of men, are capable of an easy and obvious refutation. The conclusion of the whole matter is, that as an infidel assault his book is a signal failure. For anything that he has proved to the contrary, by either a priori or a posteriori reasoning, the Bible may be what the Christian world has always been accustomed to regard it. But a harder task remains yet to be performed. His philosophy must be brought to the touchstone of truth ; and we hope at no distant day to be able to convince our readers that no better success has attended his speculations than has rewarded his efforts to apply them. SECTIOI^ II. RELIGION PSYCHOLOGICALLY CONSIDERED. HAYIXG, ill our former article, considered the work of Mr. Morell as an argument against an authoritative theology, we proceed, according to our promise, to examine the philosophy on which the argument is founded. This task we undertake with unfeigned reluctance. The ques- tions which it involves demand a poAver of analysis, a pa- tience of reflection, an intensity of thought, a depth of investigation and an amplitude of learning to which, we are conscious, we can make no pretensions. We always return from the stucb^ of the great problems of human knowledge with a conviction of littleness, incapacity and ignorance which, though the process by which it has been produced has disclosed enough to prevent us from " despair- ing of the ultimate possibility of philosophy," teaches us to commiserate rather than denounce the errors of others, and makes us feel that our position must always be that of humble and teachable inquirers. Far from dreaming of the attempt to originate an independent system of our own, or even to combine into a consistent and harmonious whole the various elements of truth which may be elicited from existing systems, we are content, in regard to these high problems, to discharge the negative office of refuting error without presuming to establish its contrary — of saying M'^hat is not, without undertaking to declare what is, truth. The Avork of simple destruction, though often invidious, is some- times necessary. In the case before us we shall feel our- selves to be the authors of an incalculable good if we can convict Mr. Morell's philosophy of inconsistency and false- 78 Sect. II.] EELIGION PSYCHOLOGICALLY CONSIDERED. 79 hood, though we should fail, in the progress of the argu- ment, to make a single direct contribution to a sounder system. This philosophy may be embraced under the three heads of Psychology, Religion and Revelation, together with the connection subsisting between them. The first inquiry of the author is in regard to the subject in which religion inheres. What is it that is religious? Then in regard to the essence of religion itself. What is it to be religious? And finally in relation to the mode in which religion is produced. How is the given subject put in possession of the given essence? The answer to the first inquiry constitutes his Psychology ; to the second, his Analysis of religion in general and of Christianity in particular; to the last, his Theories of Revelation and Inspiration. As to the con- nection subsisting between them, the nature of the subject determines, to some extent, the nature of religion ; and the nature of religion, in its relations to the subject, determines the mode and laws of its production. Mind being given, the essential element of Religion is given; mind and relig- ion being both given, the characteristics of Revelation are settled. This is a general outline of the discussions of the book. We begin with the Psychology ; and that our readers may fully understand the strictures which we shall make upon some of the doctrines of our author, it may be well to give a preliminary statement of the essential differences which distinguish existing schools of philosophy. I. Sir William Hamilton has very justly observed that^ " philosophy proper is principally and primarily the science of knowledge; its first and most important problem being to determine, What can we know? that is, what are the conditions of our knowing, whether these lie in the nature of the object, or in the nature of the subject, of knowledge." The origin, nature, and extent of human knowledge are, accordingly, the questions which have divided the schools, and the answers which have been returned to them have 1 Hamilton's Keid, page 808 : Note. 80 STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION, [Sect. II. determined the place which their authors have taken in the history of speculation. It is now universally conceded that all knowledge begins in experience, but there is not the same agreement as to the conditions which are essential to experience, and under which alone it becomes available. In one class of opinions, the mind, at its first exi.stence, is represented as a tabula rasa or a sheet of blank paper, upon which, from without, are written the characters which, contemplated by itself, constitute the sole materials of cognition. It comes into the world unfurnished, an empty room, and the world fur- nishes it. There is, on the one hand, a capacity to receive, and on the other a power to communicate ; and the relation of the two constitutes experience. Upon the materials thus given the mind can operate — it can combine, compare, de- compose and arrange — but it can add absolutely nothing to the stock which has been imparted to it as a passive recip- ient. Experience is restricted exclusively to sensation ; the mind is a machine, and its various faculties the tools with which it works up the materials afforded in sensible phenomena. This low and contracted hypothesis, which sprang from a corruption of Locke's principles, at best partial and incomplete, was pushed to its legitimate con- sequences of Atheistic Materialism and the blindest chance by the celebrated authors of the French Encyclopaedia. And it is to this scheme that we would confine the distinct- ive title of Sensationalism. "We need not say that the Sensationalist stumbles at the threshold. He gives no account of hnoioleclge: to receive ideas, as the canvas receives the impression of the brush, is not to know. Intelligence involves judgment, belief, con- viction of certainty, not merely that the thing is there, but, to use a sensible analogy, seen to be there. No mechanical activity, however delicate and refined, is competent to ex- plain the peculiar phenomenon involved in the feeling, 1 know. Experience, therefore, must include conditions in the subject which make it capable of intelligence. There Skct. il] religion psychologically considered. 81 must be a constitution of mind adapted to that specific activ- ity by which it believes and judges, as it is only by virtue of such a constitution that knowledge can be extracted from experience. This preparation of the mind to know, or its adaptation to intelligence, consists in subjecting it to kiws of belief under which it must necessarily act. Its energies can be exercised only under the condition that it shall know or believe. As it is the necessity of belief which distin- guishes intelligent action from every other species of opera- tion, and as there can be no belief without the belief of something, there must be certain primary truths involved in the very structure of the mind, which are admitted from the simple necessity of admitting them. As undeveloped in experience, they exist not in the form of propositions or general conceptions, but of irresistible tendencies to certain manners of belief when the proper occasions shall be afforded. They are certain " necessities of thinking." But, developed in experience and generalized into abstract state- ments, they are original and elementary cognitions, the foundation and criterion of all knowledge. They are the standard of evidence, the light of the mind, and without them the mind could no more be conceived to know than a blind man to see. Being in the mind, a part of its very structure, they are not the products of experience. Essen- tial conditions of mental activity, they are not the results of it. As experience furnishes the occasions on which they are developed or become manifest in consciousness, it is obviously from experience that we know them as mere men- tal phenomena, in the same way that we know every other faculty of mind ; but as primitive beliefs, as vouchers and guarantees for the truth of facts beyond " their own phe- nomenal reality," ^ they are involved in the very conception 1 For a masterly dissertation on the Philosophy of Common Sense, the reader is referred to Hamilton's Eeid, Appendix, Note A. We deem it just to ourselves (and we hope we shall not be suspected of vanity ) to say that the distinction indicated in the text, and the corresponding distinction in regard to the possibility of doubt illustrated by Hamilton, p. 744, had occurred to us, in our own speculations, before we had ever seen his book. Vol. III.— 6 82 STAXDAIJD AND NATURF: OF RELIGIOX. [Sect. II, of experience. ''Catholic principles of all philosophy," they have been more or less distinctly recognized, in every school and by every sect, from the dawn of speculation until the present day. According to the different aspects in which they have been contemplated, they have received different titles,^ as innate truths, first principles, maxims, prin- ciples of common sense, general notions, categories of the un- derstanding and ideas of pure reason, fundamental laws of belief and constituent elements of reason; but whatever names they have borne, their character remains unchanged of original, authoritative, incomprehensible faiths. Though the distinct recognition and articulate enuncia- tion of these principles have played a conspicuous jjart in tlie speculations of modern philosophers, yet the admission of them can hardly be regarded as characteristic of a school. It forms a class, in distinction from that of the ultra Sensa- tionalists, in which two schools" are embraced, discriminated from each other by the application which they make of what both equally admit. They are divided on the ques- tion of the relation which our primary cognitions sustain to the whole fabric of human knowledge. One party represents them as wholly barren and unpro- ductive in themselves — the forms of knowledge and indis- pensable to its acquisition, but not the sources from which it is derived. It is only when, acting in obedience to them, we come in contact with objective realities that we truly knoAv. All knowledge implies the relation of subject and object ; the laws of belief qualify the subject to know, but cannot give the thing to be known. Hence, we are dependent on experience for all the objects of knowledge. The mind, however richly furnished with all the capacities of cogni- tion and belief, however intelligent in its own nature, can- not create by the laws of its constitution a single material ^ See g 5, Note A, Hamilton's Reid. ^ "What is a school ? It is a certain number of systems, more or less connected by time, but especially connected by intimate relations, and still more so by a certain similarity of principles and of views." Cousin, In- troduct. to the Hist. Phil., Lect. iv., Linberg's Trans., p. 97. Sect. II.] RELIGIOX PSYCHOLOGICALLY CONSIDERED. 83 of thought. The description of our iutelligent constitution is an answer to the question how we know, but not to the equally important question what we know. There must be something distinct from a faculty, something to Avhich it is applied or applies itself in conformity with its nature, before the relation of knowledge can obtain. Or, in one Avord, the laws of belief are the conditions of knowing, but, in themselves considered, are not knowledge. They are not the matter of an argument, but the criterion of the truth of any and of every premiss. According to this class of philosophers, experience not only furnishes the occasions on which our primitive cognitions are developed, but furnishes the objects about which our faculties are conversant. It gives us the toJiat we are to know. From the importance which this school attaches to induction, it may be pre-emi- nently styled the school of Experience} Others represent our original beliefs not merely as the criterion of truth and the indispensable conditions of know- ledge, but as the data, the «/>/««, in which are imj^licitly contained all that is worthy of the name of science. We are dependent upon experience only to awaken them, but when once awakened and roused into action, they can con- duct us to the fountain of existence and solve all the mys- teries of the universe. As reason is held to be the comple- ment of these universal and all-comprehensive principles, this class of philosophers is commonly denominated Ra- tionalists. Differing as widely as they do in regard to the matter of our knowledge, it is not to be w^ondered at that these tM'O great schools of Rationalism and Experience should differ as widely in relation to its nature and extent or the precise province of a sound philosophy. Rationalism, in all its forms, aims at a complete science of Ontology; it pretends to be, in the language of Cousin, " the absolute intelli- ^ For a very full and satisfactory account of the relations of our primary beliefs to human knowledge, the reader is referred to Stewart's Elements, vol. ii., chap. i. 84 STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [Sect. II. gcnoe, the absolute explanation of everything ;" ^ or, in the language of Sir William Hamilton, " it boldly places itself at the very centre of absolute being, with which it is in fact identified, and, thence surveying existence in itself and in its relations, unveils to us the nature of the Deity, and explains from first to last the derivation of all created things."? The philosophy of Experience is guilty of no such extrav- agances. Professing to build on observation, its first and fundamental principle is that all knoM'ledge must be rela- tive in its nature and phenomenal in its objects. As specu- lations about abstract being transcend the province of legiti- mate induction, it dismisses them at once as frivolous and absurd, and aspires to know only those qualities and attri- butes of things through which they become related to our minds. What they are in themselves, or what they are to the omniscience of God, it would regard as a no less pre- posterous inquiry than to undertake to determine the size, number and employments of the inhabitants of the moon. Still, phenomena in its vocabulary are not synonymous, as Rationalists constantly assume, with phantoms or delusions. They are realities, the conditions of the objects correspond- ing to the conditions of the subjects of human knowledge, and consequently as truly real as those necessary principles of reason for the sake of which they are despised. " What appears to all," says Aristotle, " that we affirm to be, and he who would subvert this belief will himself assuredly advance nothing more deserving of credit."^ Claiming, therefore, only a relative knowledge of exist- ence, the philosophy of Experience, instead of futile and abortive attempts to construct the universe, takes its stand, in conformity with the sublime maxim of Bacon,^ as the ^ Introduct. Hist. Phil., Lect. i., p. 24, Linberg's Trans. 2 Edinburgh Review, Cross's Selections, vol. iii., p. 176. A masterly article on Cousin's Philosophy. ^ Eth. Nic., Lib. x.. Cap. 2 ; a passage repeatedly quoted by Sir "Wil- liam Hamilton. * Nov. Organ., Aphor. i. In this age of transcendental speculation the words deserve to be repeated: Homo naturae minister et interpres, tantum Sect. II.] EELIGION PSYCHOLOGICALLY CONSIDERED. 85 minister, not the master — the interpreter, not the legislator, of Nature. Professing its incompetence to pronounce before- hand what kinds of creatures the Almighty should have made, and "what kinds of laws the Almighty should have established, it is content to look out upon the world, and to look in upon itself, in order to discover what God has wrought. Without presuming to determine what must be, it humbly and patiently inquires what is. From the very nature of the case it pretends to no science of the Deity. To bring Him within the circle of science would be to degrade Him, to make Him a general law or a constituent element of other existences, instead of the Eternal and Self-exist- ent God. The two schools of Rationalism and Experience are, accordingly, at war in regard to the scope and province of philosophy. Agreeing in their general views as to the indis- pensable conditions of intelligence, they diifer fundament- ally in the answers which they return to the question. What can man knoAv ? This single consideration is enough to show the futility, or at least the delusiveness, of a classi- fication like that adopted by Mr. Morell in his former work, which brings Stewart, Reid and Brown under the same general category with Fi elite, Schelling and Hegel. The problems which the former undertook to solve were the poles apart from those discussed by the latter. The former were inductive psychologists, apj)lying the same method to the phenomena of mind which Newton had applied with such splendid results to the phenomena of matter; the latter were bold and rampant ontologists, unfolding the grounds of universal Being from the princi- ples of pure reason. The former restricted their inquiries to the phenomenal and relative, the latter pushed into the region of the absolute and infinite ; the former stopped at properties and attributes, the latter plunged into the essence of all things. From Locke to Hamilton, English and facit et intelligit quantum de naturte ordine re vel mente observaverit, nee amplius scit aut potest. 86 STANDAED A>'D NATURE OF RELIGION. [SECT. II. Scotch philosophy has been for the most part a confession of human ignorance; from Leibnitz to Hegel, German philosophy has been for the most part an aspiration to omniscience.^ After these preliminary remarks, we can have no diffi- culty as to the general position to which we must assign Mr. Morell. He is a Kationalist, coming nearer, so far as we -can collect his opinions, to the Eclecticism of France than to any other school. His method, the psychological,^ is evidently that of Cousin, and there is the same unsuc- cessful attempt to combine the philosophy of Experience with that of Rationalism. 1. The treatise before us opens with an inquiry into that which constitutes the essence of the mind. "Now, first," says our author,^ "whenever we speak of the mind, or use the expression, ^myself,'' what is it, we would ask, that we really intend to designate ? What is it in which the mind of man essentially consists?" The terms in which the question is propounded would seem to indicate that Mr. Morell regards personality and mind as synonymous expressions, the Ego as embracing the whole subject of all the phenomena of consciousness. And yet in another passage he obviously divorces intelli- gence from "self,^' and restricts the jjerson to individual peculiarities. "Neither, lastlj'," says he,* "can the real man be the complex of our thoughts, ideas or conceptions. These indicate simply the exist- ence of logical forms, intellectual laws or perceptive faculties, which are essentially the same in all minds ; they do not express the real, concrete, individual man ; they do not involve the element which 1 Kantdeservestobespeclallyexcejitedfromthiscensure. The "ontology of piu-e reason" he has remoi-selessly demolished m his celebrated Critique. See also Morell's History of Modern Philosophy, vol. ii., pp. 81, 82. - Fraginens Philosophiques, Pref. A translation of tliis Preface may be found in the first volume of Eipley's Specimens of Foreign Standard Literature: Boston. 1838. See also Morell's Hist. Mod. Phil., vol. ii. p. 484, 2d London Edit. 3 Page 2. * Page 2. Sect. IL] RELIGION PSYCHOLOGICALLY CONSIDERED. 87 makes each human being enth-ely distinct from the whole mass of humanity around him ; in a word, they do not constitute oiu- jyerson- alitijr To us, we frankly confess, it is amazing that the essence of mind as mind should consist in something that is not common to all minds. But the difficulty does not stop here. The will, in which ]Mr. Morell fixes the essence of the man as a mere iwwer of spontaneous action, is just as universal and just as uniform as the operations of intel- ligence. It, therefore, "as the capacity of acting independ- ently and for ourselves," cannot be the essential principle of mind, and we are absolutely shut ijp by this species of logic to the idiosyncracies and oddities of individuals. It is strange that Mr. Morell, in adopting the analysis of Maine de Biran, has not admitted the limitations of Cousin, who, it seems to us, has unanswerably proved that, upon this hypothesis, we must deny the personality of reason, at least in its spontaneous manifestations, and make "self and mind expressions of different but related realities. If the Ego is the will, then intelligence is no more of it than the organs of sense. "Eeason," says Cousin,^ adhering rigidly to his conception of personality as involving only the individual and voluntary, to the entire exclusion of the universal and absolute — " reason is not a property of individ- uals; therefore it is not our own, it does not belong to us, it is not human ; for, once more, that which constitutes man, his intrinsic personality, is his voluntary and free activity ; all which is not voluntary and free is added to man, but is not an integrant part of man." This is consistent. But what shall we say, upon this hypothesis, of the veracity of consciousness, the fundamental postulate of all philosophy, which just as clearly testifies that the operations of reason are subjective — that they are, in other words, affections of what we call ourselves — as that the decisions of the will are our own? The distinction betwixt reason, in its sponta- 1 Introduct. Hist. Phil. Lect. v., Linberg's Trans, p. 127 ; Lecture vi., 88 STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [SECT. II. neous and reflective manifestations, does not touch the point. The " spontaneous apperception of truth," ^ which Cousin boasts to have discovered "within the penetralia of con- sciousness, at a depth to which Kant never penetrated," is either a subjective act, and then it is personal, or it is only another name for the intellectual intuition of Schelling, in M^iich the distinction of subject and object disappears, and we have the miracle of knowledge without anything known or any one to know. If M. Cousin admits that his spon- taneous apperception of truth involves a percipient, relative- ness and subjectivity are not only apparent, but as real as they are in reflection ; if it does not involve a percipient, then we humbly submit that it is self-contradictory, and there- fore equivalent to zero. A theory which defends the im- personality of reason by an assumption which denies the very possibility of thought may be safely remanded to the depths from which its author extracted it, and into which it is not at all astonishing that such a thinker as Kant never penetrated. We cannot but add that as Cousin's ontology is founded on the authority of reason, and the authority of reason founded on its impersonality, and its impersonality founded on the annihilation of thought, his speculations upon this subject end exactly where those of Hegel begin — at nothing. Mr. Morell, however, rigidly cleaves to Maine de Biran, and saves the personal character of reason by the extraordinary hypothesis — the most extraordinary which, we venture to say, has ever been proposed in the history of philosophy — that will, spontaneity or personality (for they are all, in his vocabulary, synonymous expressions) is the substance of mind — that our various faculties of intelligence sustain the same relations to the will, which, according to popular apprehension, an attribute sustains to that of which it is a 1 Fragmens Philosophiqnes, Pref. Morell Hist. Mod. Phil. vol. ii. p. 495. We take occasion to say that this account of Cousin's Psychology is one of the clearest statements of his system that we have ever seen, apart from his own writings. Sect. II.] RELIGION PSYCHOLOGICALLY CONSIDERED. 89 property. That unknown substratum which, under the appellations of mind, soul or spirit, other philosophers had been accustomed to represent as the subject in which all our mental capacities and energies inhere, Mr. Morell pro- fesses to have drawn from its concealment, and to have identified with spontaneous activity, or the power of acting independently and for ourselves. Reason or intelligence, accordingly, is a property of the will, in the same sense in which extension is a property of matter. All the opera- tions of the mind are only so many modifications of the will — so many manifestations of activity, not as an element which they include, but as the support upon which they depend. "If, therefore," says he,^ in a passage which shows that we have not misrepresented him — " if, therefore, in our subsequent classification of the faculties of the mind, little appears to be said about the will, it must be remem- bered that we assume the activity it denotes as the essential basis of our whole mental being, and suppose it conse- quently to underlie [the italics are his own, and show that he means, it is the substance of] all our mental operations." And again : ^ " Remembering, then, that the power of the will runs through the whole, we may regard these two classes [the intellectual and emotional] as exhausting the entire sum of our mental phenomena," And again : "We would also again remind them that the activity of the will must be regarded as running through all these different phenomena ; and that as there is involved in the spontaneous operations of the human mind all the elements vphicli the consciousness at all contains, it must not be imagined that these elements have to be reflectively realized before they can contribute their aid to our mental develop- ment. It is, in fact, one of the most delicate and yet important of all psychological analyses to show how the power of the will operates through all the region of man's spontaneous life, and to ])rove that our activity is equally voluntary and equally moral in its whole aspect, although the understanding may not have brought the ]3rinciples on which we act into the clear light of reflective truth. ' ' * "To talk of knowing mind," he affirms in his former 1 Pages 3, 4. * Page 4. » Pages 25, 26. 90 STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [Sect. II. work/ " beyond the direct consciousness of its spontaneous being and all the affections it can undergo, is absurd ; there is nothing more to know." By spontaneous being he evi- dently means the existence of mind as a spontaneity. Be- yond this and the various properties it exhibits there Ls nothing to be known ; in spontaneity we have the substance, in the " affections it can undergo " the attributes ; and these, in their connection, exhaust the subject. If, now, spontaneous activity is the substance of the soul, and intelligence and reason, with all our various capa- cities and powers, are only properties or modifications of this spontaneous activity, it necessarily follows that all thought and belief, all knowledge and emotion, are purely voluntary. When we cognize an external object imme- diately present in consciousness, or assent to any universal or necessary truth, such as that the whole is greater than a part, we do it by an act of the will. The cognition is spontaneous ; which means, if it mean anything, that the mind is not irresistibly determined to it; and that, con- sequently, it might refuse to know when the object is act- ually present before it, and refuse to believe when the terms of the proposition are distinctly and adequately apprehended; which, being interpreted, is that a man may refuse to see when he sees, and refuse to believe when he knows. This very circumstance of the independence of truth, especially of necessary and absolute truth, of the human will, is one of the principal arguments of Cousin to establish the im- personality of reason. We cannot help believing when the evidence of truth is clearly before us, says Cousin; we be- lieve in every case only because we loill to believe, says Morell. Doctors diifer. But passing over this difficulty, and admitting the doc- trine, hard as it is to reconcile with the obvious testimony of consciousness, that all knowledge and belief are the creatures of the will, the products of sj)ontaneous activity, we find ourselves unable to detect in this activity the only ^ Vol. ii., p. 53, 2d London Edition. Sect. II.] RELIGION PSYCHOLOGICALLY CONSIDERED. 91 criterion by which our faculties are capable of distinguish- ing substance from attributes. "That which is in itself and conceived by itself," is the compendious definition of substance given by Spinoza/ and though it expresses what every human intellect must pronounce to be impossible, and contains the elements of proof that our only notion of substance is a certain relation to attributes — in other words, a postulation of the mind which we are forced to make, by the very constitution of our nature, in order to explain the existence of what is felt to be dependent — ^yet, as Mr. Morell admits it,^ we will apply its canon to the case before us. Everything, then, is an attribute which cannot be recognized as self-subsistent and independent, and everything is a substance which can be construed to the mind as self-subsistent — self-subsistent in the sense that it inheres in nothing as an attribute in it. Hence, whatever is conceived by the mind as having only a dependent and relative existence, or is not conceivable as having a separate and independent existence, must be an attribute; it cannot be a substance. Apply this principle to the case before us. Is activity dependent or independent? In other words, can we conceive of it abstracted from every agent and every form of operation ? Does it not just as much require a subject as intelligence or thought, and some definite mode of manifestation? Can it not just as properly be asked, What acts? as What thinks or believes ? AVe confess that we are no more capable of representing to the mind absolute activity than of representing absolute intelligence or abso- lute motion. We can understand the proposition that the mind is active, that it performs such and such operations, but we can attach no glimmer of meaning to that other proposition, that it is activity itself. Action without some- thing to act and some manner of action is to us as pre- posterously absurd as knowledge without some one to know ; ^ Spinoza, in Howe's Living Temple, Pt. ii., chap, i. * This is evident from what he says of substance, p. 37 ; also Hamilton's Reid, p. 895, note, 1st col. 92 STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [Sect. IT, and we are unable to enter into that j^eculiar mode of cogi- tation which can be content to settle down on activity as the substratum, the self-subsisting subject, of all intellectual phenomena. That the mind is active in thought, and that activity thinks, are propositions the poles apart ; that activ- ity is a characteristic and all-pervading quality of every species of mental affection, and accordingly the highest generalization of mental phenomena, is a veiy different statement from that which makes it the mind itself. Hence, according to the canon, activity is only an attribute. Mr. Morell, in fact, admits as much. "We do not say, indeed," says he, "that we can comprehend the very essence of the soul itself apart from all its determinations ; but that by deep reflection upon our inmost consciousness we can com- prehend the essence of the soul in connection with its operations — that we can trace it through all its changes as a poicer or pure activ- ity, and that in this spontaneous activity alone our real personality consists."^ But it is essential to any positive idea of substance that it should be conceived apart from attributes. It is that "which exists in itself and is conceived by itself, or whose conception needs the conception of nothing else whereby it ought to be formed." In saying, therefore, that activity cannot in thought be abstracted from its manifestations, Mr. Morell has conceded the impossibility of his thesis, and, instead of making it the substance, he has only made it the universal characteristic, of mental operations. But be it substance or accident, we venture to suggest a doubt whether such a thing as spontaneous activity, in the sense of Mr. Morell, does not involve a contradiction. According to this hypothesis, man is an undetermined cause, or a cause determined by nothing but his own prop- er energy. How shall we account for the first act? It either produced itself or it came into being by chance, for all foreign influences are, ex hypothesi, excluded : to have 1 Page 3. Sect. II.] RELIGION PSYCHOLOGICALLY CONSIDERED. 93 produced itself it must have existed as a cause before it existed as an effect; that is, it must have existed before it existed, which is self-contradictory. To say that it was produced by chance is to say that the negation of all cause is the affirmation of some cause, or that a thing can be and not be a cause in the same relation and at the same time, which is also self-contradictory. We crave from Mr. Morell and his admirei's a solution of these difficulties. We are utterly unable to absolve the doctrine of spontaneous activity from the charge of implying the doctrine of an absolute commencement, and an absolute commencement we are as incapable of conceiving •as a triangle of four sides. If Mr. Morell takes man " out of the mighty chain of cause and effect, by which all the operations of nature are carried on from the commencement to the end of time," and makes him a separate and independent cause, receiving no causal influence from without, we should like to know how he makes a beginning ? For to us it is as plain that all commencement must be relative as that there is any such thing as a commencement at all. If an absolute com- mencement were possible, Atheism could not be convicted of absurdity; and we see not how they can consistently apply the principle of causation to the proof of theism — how they can deny that all things might have spontaneously sprung from nothing, when they distinctly affirm that our mental acts generate themselves. Upon this subject there are obviously only three suppositions that can be made — that of the Casualist, who asserts an absolute commencement ; that of the Fatalist, who asserts an infinite series of relative commencements ; that of the Theist, who asserts a finite series of relative commencements, carried up in the ascend- ing scale to a necessary Being, at once Creator and Pre- server, the seat of all causation, who is without beginning of days or end of life. The extremes of Fatalism and Casualism are not only inconceivable — for we readily grant that the power of thought is not the measure of existence — but they are palpably and grossly self-contradictory, and 94 STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [Sect. II. therefore must be false. The hypothesis of tlie Theist is also inconceivable. We cannot represent in thought a necessary and eternal Being ; but, then, it is not self-con- tradictory, and upon the doctrine of excluded middle it must be true ; so man must take his place in the " mighty chain of cause and effect, by which all the operations of nature are carried on from the commencement to the end of time." In the calumniated doctrine of an universal Providence, extending to all events and to all things, the only depositary of real efficiency and power, we find the true explanation of an activity which is neither casual in its origin nor a dependent link in an endless chain.^ In God we live and move and have our being. Nature and our own minds present us with multifarious phenomena linked together as antecedent and consequent, but all are equally effects. jSTeither nature nor ourselves present us with an instance of a real cause. To Him that sitteth on the throne, and to Him alone, in its just and proper sense, belongs the prerogative of power. He speaks and it is done. He commands and it stands fast. The proof by which Mr. Morell establishes his proposi- tion that spontaneous activity is the substance of the soul is as remarkable as the proposition itself. His argument is what logicians call a destructive conditional, to the va- lidity of which it is as requisite that all the suppositions which can possibly be made in the case should be given in the major, as that all but the one contained in the con- clusion should be destroyed in the minor — the very spe- cies of argument which we ourselves have employed in regard to the existence of a necessary Being. Now, sayr, Mr. Morell, the essence of mind must consist either in sen- sation, intelligence or will. It does not consist in sensa- tion or intelligence; therefore it must consist in the will. Very plausible, no doubt. But how, we ask, does it ap- 1 Hence we dissent totally from the doctrine laid down by Sir. "Wm. Hamilton, that there is no medium between fatalism and chance. Hamil- ton's Keid, p. 602 : Note. Sect. II.] RELIGION PSYCHOLOGICALLY CONSIDERED. 95 pear, that it must consist in one of the enumerated ele- ments? Why may it not consist in something else, in that unknown substance denominated spirit — unknown, but yet believed by virtue of the very constitution of our nature ? This supposition is, at least, one which may be made in the case, wliicli has been made by philosophers of the highest repute, and which, we venture to predict, will continue to be made by the great mass of mankind so long as the world shall stand. Then, again, in his process of destruc- tion he removes a great deal more than he intends. He removes whatever " is essentially the same in all minds," and of course the will considered as a mere " spontaneity or capacity of acting independently and for ourselves," for in this sense it is unquestionably common to all mankind. Its modes of manifestation are various in different indi- viduals, and in the same individual at different times ; but as a faculty or a power abstracted from its effects "it is essentially the same in all minds." We have insisted, at what may seem a disproportionate length, upon this preliminary feature of Mr. Morell's psy- chology, because we believe that it contains the seeds of incalculable mischief. The serious proposal of the ques- tion concerning the substance of the soul, as one that our faculties can answer, involves a complete apostasy from the fundamental principle of the Experimental school. The great masters of that philosophy would as soon have thought of gravely discussing the relations of angels to space, how they can be here and not there, or there and not here, and yet be incorporeal and unextended beings. Des Cartes, indeed, speaks of the essence of the soul, and places it in thought, as he had placed the essence of matter in extension. But he uses essence, not as synonymous with substance — for he expressly distinguishes them — but for the characteristic and discriminating quality. If there be any principle which we regard as settled, it is that all human knowledge must be phenomenal and relative; and that science transcends its sphere when it 96 STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [Sect. II. seeks to penetrate into the region of substances or into that of efficient causes — two things which, we shall afterward have occasion to observe, Rationalists are perpetually con- founding. We will not quote in confirmation of our own, the opinions of philosophers imperfectly or not at all acquainted with the modern speculations of Continental Europe. We choose rather to refer to one who is master of them all; who in depth and acuteness is a rival to Aristotle, in immensity of learning a match for Leibnitz, and in comprehensiveness of thought an equal to Bacon. We allude to Sir William Hamilton. His work on Reid has filled us with amazement at the prodigious extent and critical accuracy of his reading. The whole circle of the ancient classics, poets, philosophers and orators ; the entire compass of Christian literature, Eastern and Western, from Justin to Luther, including the angry controversies and the endless disputes of the Fathers and Schoolmen ; the great works of the Reformation, and the prolific productions of England, Scotland, Germany and France from the period of the Reformers until now, — all seem to be as familiar to his mind as the alphabet to other men ; and, what is more remarkable, this ponderous mass of learning is no incum- brance: he has not swallowed down only, but digested, libraries, and while he carries — it is hardly extravagant to gay — all the thoughts of all other men in his head, he has an immense multitude besides, precious as any he has col- lected, which none have ever had before him, and for which the world will always hold him in grateful remembrance. He is an honour to Scotland and an ornament to letters. Upon this subject of the nature and extent of human know- ledge and the legitimate province of philosophy, we are rejoiced to find that he treads in the footsteps of his illus- trious predecessors of the same school. He fully recognizes the distinction betwixt laith and science. " All we know," says he,* "either of mind or matter, is only a know- 1 Edinburgh Eeview, Cross's Selections, p. 181. A splendid article on Cousin's Philosophy. Sect. II.] RELIGION PSYCHOLOGICALLY CONSIDERED. 97 ledge in each, of the particular, of the diiferent, of the modified, of the phenomenal. We admit that the consequence of this doc- trine is, that phi]o8oph.y, if viewed as more than a science of the conditioned, is impossible. Departing from the particular, we can never in our highest generalizations rise above the finite ; that our knowledge, whether of mind or matter, can be nothing more than a knowledge of the relative manifestations of an existence which, in itself, it is our highest wisdom to recognize as beyond the reach of philosophy. ' ' "We know — we can know," he observes again,' " only what is relative. Our knowledge of qualities or phenomena is necessarily relative ; for these exist only as they exist in relation to our faculties. The knowledge, or even the conception of a substance, in itself and apart from any qualities in relation to, and therefoi-e cognizable or conceivahle by, our minds, involves a contradiction. Of such we can form only a negative notion ; that is, we can mereXy conceive it as in- conceivable.''' And again, ^ "We know nothing whatever of mind and matter, considered as substances ; they are only known to us as a twofold series of phenomena, and we can only justify against the law of parcimony, the postulation of two substances, on the ground that the two series of phenomena are reciprocally so contrary and incom- patible that the one cannot be reduced to the other, nor both be sup- posed to combine in the same common substance." And finally,^ "We are aware of a phenomenon. That it exists only as known — only as a phenomenon— only as an absolute relative — we are unable to reahze in thought ; and there is necessarily suggested the notion of an unimaginable something, in which the phenomenon inheres — a subject or substance. ' ' These principles are so intuitively obvious to us that we find it difficult to sympathize with men who can persuade themselves that, with our faculties, they can ever arrive at any other conception of substance but as the unknown and unknowable support of properties. It is not a matter of knowledge, but of belief; it is not an object which, in itself, is ever-present in consciousness ; it is veiled from human penetration by the multitude of attributes and qualities which intervene betwixt it and the mind. It belongs to the dominion of fliith and not of science. We admit its 1 Hamilton's Eeid, p. 322. 2 Hamilton's Eeid. Appendix. Note A, ? 11, p. 751. /■ ^ Ilaniilton's Reid. Appendix. Note D.** Vol. III.— 7 98 STAND AED AND NATURE OF RELIGION, [Skct. TL existence, not because we know it, but because we are un- able not to believe it. The unfounded conviction that by some means we can ascend from the phenomenal to the sub- stantial, that we can apprehend existence in itself, that we can know it simply as Being, without qualities, without properties, without any relative manifestations of its reality, that we can comprehend it in its naked essence, and track the progress of all its developments from its abstract esse to its countless forms throughout the universe, has given rise to all the abortive attempts of German and French speculation to fix the absolute as a positive element in know- ledge. These speculations are not the visions of crack- brained enthusiasts. The reader who has judged of the German philosophers from the extravagant conclusions they have reached will find, upon opening their works and mastering their uncouth and barbarous dialects, and, what is often more difficult, their abstract and rugged formulas, that he is brought in contact with men of the highest order of mind, the severest powers of logic and the utmost cool- ness of judgment. They do not rave, but reason. They do not dream, but think; and that, too, with a rigour of abstraction, an intensity of attention, and a nicety of dis- crimination, which he is obliged to respect M'hile he laments the perverseness of their application. The difficulty with them is that they begin wrong. Refusing to recognize the limits which the constitution of our nature and our obvious relations to existence have imposed upon the excursions of our faculties, and inattentive to the great law of our being, that in this sublunary state we are doomed to walk by faith much more than by sight, they undertake to bring within the circle of science the nature and foundation of all reality. Reluctant to accept any constitutional beliefs, they seek to verify the deposition of our faculties by gazing upon the things themselves with the intuition'of God and grasping them in their true and essential existence. Hence, their endless quest of the absolute as the unconditioned ground of being. They suppose that, if they can once com- Sect. II.] RELIGION PSYCHOI-OGICALLY CONSIDERED. 99 prehend in its inmost essence what it is to be, they have the data for "the absokite intelligence and absolute ex])la^ nation of all things." The consequences, too well known, which inattention, in their hands, to the necessary limits of human knowledge has legitimately produced, show the supreme importance of accurately fixing in our minds — to use the homely language of Locke ^ — "how far the under- standing can extend its view, how far it has faculties to attain certainty, and in what cases it can only judge and guess." The salutary lesson of human ignorance is the last to which human pride submits ; but a sound philos- ophy concurs with the sure word of inspiration in pro- nouncing man to be a creature of yesterday, who knows comparatively nothing. It is precisely because we discover, in the preliminary speculations of our author, this tendency to transcend the sphere of our faculties, which, in its last manifestation — when it has grasped the absolute — identifies man with God, that we have adverted with so much earnest- ness to the indispensable conditions of knowledge. In the case before us Mr. Morell has evidently made nothing of substance. After all that he has said of spontaneity, will, power, capacity of acting independently and for ourselves, the real nature of the mind is as inscrutable as it was be- fore; and although he has confidently said that beyond what he has disclosed there is nothing more to know, the instinctive belief of every understanding will instantane- ously suggest that there is something more to know. 2. His classification of the powers of the mind comes next in order. He divides them into two classes or orders — "those relating to the acquisition of knowledge on the one side, and those subserving impulse and activity on the other." The former he terms intellectual, the latter emo- tional. " Between the intellectual and emotional activity," he observes*,^ "there always subsists a direct correspond- ency." The successive stages of human consciousness, in the order of its development and in the correspondence ^ Essay on Human Understanding, Introduct., ^ 4. -' Page 4. 100 STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [Sect. II. of the intellectual and emotional activity, he presents in the following tabular view : MIND, COMMENCING IN MERE FEELING (undeveloped Unity), EVINCES A TWOFOLD ACTIVITY. ' L n^^ Intellectual. Emotional. 1st Stage. The Sensational Consciousness, (to which coiTCspond) Tlie Instincts. 2d Stage. The Perceptive Consciousness, " Animal Passions. 3d Stage. The Logical Consciousness, " Relational Emotions. 4th Stage. The Intuitional Consciousness, " ^Esthetic, Moral and Religious Emotions. MEETING IN FAITH (highest or developed Unity ).^ If it is the design of this table, as it seems to be, to indi- cate all our means of knowledge, it is certainly chargeable with an unaccountable defect. There is no faculty which answers to the Reflection of Locke or to the Consciousness of Reid, Stewart and Royer-Collard. Mind can unques- tionably be made an object of thought to itself, and its own powers and operations, its emotions, passions and desires, are materials of knowledge as real and important as the phenomena of sense. Mr. Morell has told us how we be- come acquainted with our material organism, with external objects, with beauty, goodness and God, but he has omitted to' tell us how we can know ourselves. He has made no allusion to that " internal perception or self-consciousness" which, according to Sir William Hamilton,^ whose analysis, in another respect, he has followed, '' is the faculty presen tative or intuitive of the phenomena of the Ego or Mind." 1 Page 5. ' Hamilton's Eeid. Appendix B., § 1, P- 809. Sect. II.] RELIGION PSYCHOLOGICALLY CONSIDERED. 101 In our author's substitution of the circumlocutory phrases, Sensational Consciousness, Pei-ceptive Consciousness, Log- ical Consciousness, Intuitional Consciousness, for the more common and familiar terms. Sensation, Perception, Under- standing, and Reason, we have an intimation of what he distinctly avows in his former work,^ that he agrees with Sir William Hamilton ^ that Consciousness is not to be con- sidered as a distinct and co-ordinate faculty of the mind, taking cognizance of its other powers and operations to the exclusion of their objects — the opinion of Reid, Stewart and Royer-Collard — but that it is the necessary condition of intelligence, the generic and fundamental form of all intellectual activity. We cannot, in other words, know without knowing that we know. We cannot think, will, feel or remember without knowing, in the exercise and by the exercise of these faculties or powers, that we are the subjects of such operations. Hence, although it is strictly true that every form of mental activity is a form of con- sciousness, yet there is certainly, as Sir William Hamilton himself admits, a logical distinction betwixt a faculty m known and a faculty m exerted; and this logical distinction ought to be preserved in language. It has, indeed, been preserved in the common terminology, which assigns to the separate faculties, considered in themselves, apj^ropriate appellations, while the relation of each and all to our know- ledge of them is denoted by consciousness. It is a word which precisely expresses the formula, toe know that we knoio, and, when employed without an epithet restricting it to some specific mode of cognition, indicates the complement of all our intellectual faculties. It is, therefore, indispens- able to any adequate enumeration of the sources of human knowledge. Those who regard it as a single and distinct power, of course, cannot omit it, and those who regard it as the universal condition of intelligence should include it, because it is a compendious statement of all the faculties in 1 Hist. Mod. Phil,, vol. ii., p. 13, seq. ^ Cross's Selections, Edin. Eeview, vol. iii., p. 197. 102 STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [Sect. II. detail, and in that precise relation which the classification contemplates. In tlie table before us, Mr. Morell gives us Perception as known, Sensation as known, Understanding as known, Keason as knoicn, and various departments of Emotion as known, but he does not give us ourselves, the mind in its integrity, as knoicn. This omission is the more remarkable as, in his history of Modern Philosophy, he has himself suggested^ the convenience of the term, self- consciousness, "to express the mind's cognizance of its own operations." We need not say that the faculties which he has enumerated he has illustrated, according to his own views of their connection and dependence, in a very graph- ic and interesting sketch of the natural history of the human mind. 3. AVithout detaining the reader with his accounts of Sensation and External Perception, in which he has pro- fessedly followed Sir William Hamilton — and upon this subject he could not have followed a better or a safer guide — we come to that part of his psychology which bears more immediately upon the main questions of his treatise, and in which error or mistake is likely to be productive of serious consequences. We allude to his doctrine of the Understanding and Reason. Understanding, as a synonym for logical consciousness, is, so far as we know, utterly without authority in our phil- osophical literature; for we do not regard Coleridge as authority for anything but literary theft. It is a term em- ployed in a wider or narrower sense. In its wider sense it embraces all the powers which relate to the acquisition of knowledge, in contradistinction from those which are subservient to impulse and activity — it answers, in other words, precisely to the division which Mr. Morell has styled intellectual. Hence the common distribution of our fa(^ulties into those of the understanding and those of the will. In its narrower and, as we think, its proper sense, it denotes those higher intellectual faculties which pre- 1 Vol. ii., p. 15: Note. Sect. II.] RELIGION PSYCHOLOGICALLY C0\SIDERF:D. 103 eminently distinguish man from the brute, to the exclusion of sense, imagination, memory and fancy. But we cannot recollect a single instance in which it has ever been re- stricted to our lower cognitive faculties or to the processes of ratiocination. The change which Mr. Morell has intro- duced, or rather followed Coleridge in introducing, is a radical departure from established usage. There is much more authority for identifying reason with the logical con- sciousness than understanding. For although that word, in its prevailing usage, is exactly synonymous with under- standing, both in its narrower and wider sense, yet it has not unfrequently been employed by writers of the highest repute to denote precisely the Discursive Faculty. This is the first meaning which Johnson assigns to it, and the meaning in which Reid systematically employs it in his Inquiry into the Human Mind; the meaning to which Beattie restricts it in his Essay on Truth, and which Dr. Campbell evidently attached to it when he denied it to be the source of our moral convictions. We would not be understood as objecting, however, to Mr. Morell's employ- ment of reason as synonymous with, common sense, or, as he prefers to style it, the Intuitional Consciousness : this is justified by the highest authority. Dugald Stewart long ago suggested "whether it would not, on some occasions, be the best substitute which our language affords for intuition, in the enlarged acceptation in which it had been made equivalent to the ancient uouc; or locus pinncipiorum.'" But what we deny is, that understanding is ever equivalent to logical consciousness as contradistinguished from reason in its restricted application, or is ever opposed to it in any other sense than a genus is opposed to a species.^ Intelligence is one, and all our faculties, when legitimately exercised, are harmonious and consistent with each other. They all con- spire in the unity of knowledge. It is not one reason which knows intuitively, and another reason which knows deduct- 1 See Stewart's Elements, vol. ii., Prelim. Cons., and Hamilton's Eeid, Appendix. Note A, | v., p. 768, seq. Also p. 511 : Note. 104 STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [Sect. II. ively ; but it is the same reason which knows in each case, though the relations of the object to it are different, but not repugnant or contradictory. To suppose that the logical consciousness, operating in conformity with the laws of thought, shall ever be exclusive of intuitive results, is to suppose that philosophy is impossible, and that skepticism is the highest wisdom of man. The unity of reason and the harmony of intelligence being kept steadily in view, we have no objections to any form of phraseology which shall exactly designate the rela- tions in which the objects of knowledge are contemplated by the mind. There is certainly a distinction between those faculties which are simply receptive and those which operate upon the materials received — those which furnish us with our simple and elementary ideas, and those which combine them into structures of science ; and if this is the distinc- tion which Mr. Morell designed to signalize — if he means by intuition the complement of all our faculties of present- ative, and by logical consciousness the complement of all our faculties of representative, knowledge — he has aimed at the expression of an obvious truth, but, we must take the liberty to say, has been extremely unfortunate in the mode of its development. He has, in the first place, confounded presentative and intuitive knowledge. These knowledges have not the same logical extension: one is a genus of which the other is a species. All presentative is intuitive, but all intuitive is not presentative, knowledge. Intuition may be, and is, con- stantly applied not only to the immediate view which the mind has of an object in an act of presentative cognition, but to the irresistible conviction of the vicarious character of the representative in an act of representative cognition, as well as to the instantaneous perception of the agreement of subject and predicate in self-evident propositions. To make these distinctions more obvious: knowledge, in its strict acceptation, as contradistinguished from faith, is con- versant only about realities which have been given in ex- Sect. II.] RELIGION PSYCHOLOGICALLY CONSIDERED. 105 perience, and is either mediate or immediate. It is im- mediate, when an object is apprehended in itself without relation to others; mediate, when it is known or apprehen- ded in and through its relations. Immediate knowledge is, again, subdivided into presentative and representative — presentative, when the object itself, and not an image, con- ception or notion of it, is that which is present in conscious- ness; representative, when it is not the object, but an image, notion or conception of it, which is present in consciousness. Hence, although all presentative knowledge is immediate, all immediate is not presentative knowledge; and although all mediate knowledge is representative, all representative is not mediate knowledge; and both presentative and rep- resentative knowledge may be intuitive. External per- ception is an instance of presentative and intuitive, memory, of reiDresentative and intuitive, knowledge. In the one case, the external object is known in itself, being actually present in consciousness; in the other, the past, which, ex hypothesi, cannot be present, is apprehended through a modification of the mind representing it. But the know- ledge of memory is as strictly self-evident — as strictly in- dependent of proofs — though it may not be as perfect in degree, as the knowledge in external perception. If, now, the logical consciousness embraces all our faculties of pre- sentative, and the intuitional all our faculties of represent- ative, knowledge, intuition certainly may be common to both. It does not follow that, because an object is intui- tively known, it is therefore directly and immediately given in consciousness. His confusion of Intuition and Presentation has led him, in the next place, into a still more remarkable error — the confusion of mediate and indirect knowledge with that which is direct and immediate. When he comes, for ex- ample, to account for our conceptions of God, though, with singular inconsistency, he uses terms expressive of present- ative cognition, yet in describing the process of develop- ment by which we ascend to the lofty stage of supersensible 106 STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [Sect. II. consciousness, he gives us nothing but evolutions of reason- ing— necessary deductions from our primitive and instinct- ive beliefs. God is not actually present as the object of consciousness; He does not stand before us as the outward object in an act of perception : it is the finite, limited, tem- porary and dependent which we immediately apprehend; and, in consequence of the necessary laws of mind, these suggest the infinite, eternal, independent and absolute. God, in other words, is not known in Himself — in His separate and distinct existence, as a datum of consciousness; He is apprehended in and through His works — through rela- tions intuitively recognized and spontaneously suggesting the reality of His being. Or, we know God, as we know substance, in and through attributes. This species of know- ledge is evidently indirect and mediate. Take away the limited, finite, contingent, take away the necessary belief that these require a cause, and you take away all "Sir. Mo- rell's consciousness of God ; and hence we believe in God, not because He is seen or stands face to face with any of our faculties of cognition, but because other things are known which are utterly inexplicable except upon the supposition of the Divine existence. "The heavens declare His glory and the firmament showeth His handiwork ;" " the invisible things of Him are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made." We agree most fully that there is a process by which tlie understanding can, to a limited extent, ascend from the known to the unknown ; that we are so framed as that our- selves— our bodies, our souls, and nature around us — become witnesses for God; but the knowledge we derive in this way we should never dream of describing as immediate, presentative or direct. Mr. Morell has been betrayed into this inconsistency by making presentation co-extensive with intuition. There is no doubt that this knowledge of God is intuitive, as it results from the indestructible categories of thought — which, developed into formal statements, are self-evident propositions — in their application to the objects Sect. II.] RELIGION PSYCHOLOGICALLY CONSIDERED. 107 furnished in experience. Constituted as we are, we can neither cognize ourselves nor the world without a belief of God : the belief is inseparably connected with the cogni- tion : we can give no reason for it but that such is the con- stitution of our nature that when an effect is given a cause must be admitted, and hence, while we may be said to know intuitively, we evidently do not know the cause in itself; it is mediated by the effect. The knowledge, in other words, is intuitive, but not presentative. It is useless to adduce passages to prove what no one, perhaps, will think of disputing, that presentation and in- tuition are treated as synonymous; but as it may not be so readily conceded that mediate and indirect knowledge is also treated as presentative and immediate, we appeal to the following statements in justification of our assertion : "Let us take a third instance. The mind, after it has gazed for awhile upon the phenomena of the world around, begins to ponder within itself such thoughts as these : What is this changing scene which men call nature? What then is nature? Of what primary elements do all things consist ? What is the power and the wisdom through which their infinite forms of beauty spring forth, live, decay, and then become instinct with a new vitality ? In these questions we again discern the activity of a higher state of consciousness than the understanding alone presents. The understanding, looking at the objects presented to us through the agency of perception, abstracts their properties and classifies them ; in a word, it separates things into their genera and species, and there leaves them. But the pure rea- son, instead of separating the objects of nature and classifying them into various species, seeks rather to unite them, to view them all together — to find the one fundamental essence by which they are upheld ; to discover the great presiding principle by which tliey are maintained in unbroken harmony. The understanding has simply to do with separate objects viewed in their specific or generic cha- racter ; the higher reason has to do with them as forming parts of one vast totality, of which it seeks the basis, the origin and the end. With the phenomena of the human mind it is the same. The under- standing merely classifies them, the pure reason inquires into the nature of the principle from which they spring, and views the human mind as a totality, expressing the will and purpose of its great Archetype. "These two efibrts of the reason to seek the nature and origin, both 108 STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [Sect. II. of the universe and the soul, lead naturally and inevitablj^ to the con- ception of some common ground from which they are both de- rived. The soul is not self-created, but is consciously dependent upon some higher power. There must be a type after which it was formed — a self-existent essence from which it proceeded — a supreme mind which planned and created my mind. So also with regard to nature. If the universe, as a whole, shows the most perfect harmony; all the parts thereof symmetrically adapted to each other, all proceeding onwards like a machine infinitely complicate, yet never clashing in its minutest wheels and movements, there must be some mind vaster than the universe — one which can take it all in at a single glance, one which has planned its harmony and keeps the whole system from perturbation. In short, if there be dependent existence, there must be absolute existence — if there be temporal and finite beings, there must be an Eternal and an Infinite One. Thus the power of intui- tion, that highest elevation of the human consciousness, leads us at length into the world of eternal realities. The period of the mind's converse with mere phenomena being past, it rises at length to grasp the mystery of existence and the problem of destiuJ^" ^ We beg the reader to examine carefully this passage, and to lay his hand, if he can, upon anything but a very awk- ward and mystical statement — certainly a very feeble and inadequate one — of the common a posteriori argument from eifect to cause. Instead of gazing directly upon the Supreme Being and standing face to face with the absolute, we gaze outwardly upon the world and inwardly upon ourselves, and are conducted by processes of natural and spontaneous inquiry to the admission of an adequate and all-sufficient Cause of the wondrous phenomena we behold. Whether our steps be from the finite to the infinite, from the de- pendent to the absolute, from the fleeting to the eternal, they are the steps of intelligence mediating a knowledge of God through relations which we intuitively recognize. We see Hiin only in the operation of His hands. He is mirrored in His works. The knowledge in this case is precisely analogous to that of tlie external world whicli tlie Hypothetical Realists ascribe to us. We are not directly conscious of its existence, but are conscious of effects pro- 1 Pages 20-22. Sect. II.] RELIGION PSYCHOLOGICALLY CONSIDERED. 109 diiced in ourselves, which tlie constitution of our nature determines us to refer to outward and independent realities. If Mr. Morell seriously believes that our knowledge of God is presentative, he is bound, of course, that he may be consistent with himself, to postulate a faculty through which the Divine Being may be given as the immediate object of involuntary consciousness. We have the senses through which the v^arious properties of matter are directly and spontaneously cognized ; we have taste and conscience, which bring us into contact with the beautiful and the deformed, the right and the wrong ; and, to preserve the analogy, we must have some power or sense which shall be directly conver- sant about God — a faculty of the Divine or the absolute, sustaining the same relations to the Deity which the senses sustain to the outward world, taste to the fair, and con- science to the right. This is the only way in which the theory of presentative knowledge can be consistently carried out in its application to God. But if this be admitted, it is as absurd to talk of hunting up the Deity through the realms of matter and of mind, to be feeling, inquiring and searching after Him in the regions of the finite, limited and dependent, as it is to represent men as seeking the primary qualities of matter, or the elementary distinctions betwixt beauty and deformity, a virtue and a crime. All present- ative knowledge comes, in the first instance, unbidden. There is no appetite or instinct for it which leads us in quest of it. We had no conception of matter until we were made conscious of its existence; beauty was an unmean- ing word, and we should never have known how to set about comprehending its meaning until the experience of it was first felt; and if there be a separate and distinct faculty of God, He must be absolutely incognizable and inconceivable by us until He reaches us through the me- dium or instrumentality of this faculty. He must come into the mind like extension, figure, solidity — like beauty, virtue and all our simple and elementary cognitions. He is not to be a craving of our nature — something longed for no STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [Sect. II. and yearned after; but an immediate datum of conscious- ness— something which we know to be, because he is now and here present to intelligence. But the passage which we have just quoted from our author is directly in the teeth of any such doctrine. There is no presentation there of any objective realities in themselves, but the finite, de- pendent and phenomenal — these are alone present in con- sciousness; but being cognized as effects, they give us, as vouchers and witnesses, other existences beyond themselves. They testify of God, but do not present God. They develope a belief which is natural, spontaneous and irresistible, whose object is unknown except in so far as it may be collected from their qualities and attributes in their rela- tions to it. Mr. Morell is equally at fault in the account which he has given of the logical consciousness. This, we have seen, he employs as a compendious expression for all our facul- ties of representative knowledge. It embraces those pro- cesses of the mind which relate to the combination, arrange- ment and structure of the sciences, which conduct us from particular phenomena to general laws, which group indi- vidual existences into classes, and perform the functions which are commonly denominated discursive. Its first office is to turn our intuitions into notions or conceptions — to give us representatives, through the acts of the intellect, of the real and independent existences Avhich are grasped by the faculty of inward or outward perception. It ideal- izes, in other words, the matter of our direct and present- ative knowledge. It then decomposes its conceptions, fixes upon one or more elements contained in them, abstracts these from the rest, and makes tliese abstractions the grounds of classification. To it belong memory, the mediate know- ledge of the past; imagination, the mediate knowledge of the conceivable and possible; and, if Mr. Morell admits such a thing as possible, i^rescience or the mediate know- ledge of the future. He calls this complement of faculties lofjic(d ; and we think the epithet well cliosen to designate Sect. II.] RELIGION PSYCHOLOGICALLY CONSIDERED. Ill representative in contradistinction from presentative know- ledge, because it is in them that the mind is specially cogitative — it is in them that the laws and necessary forms of thought which it is the office of logic to investigate are conspicuously developed. In presentation the mind knows; in representation the mind thinks. In presentation there is an immediate object apart from the mind ; in representa- tion nothing is directly given but the acts of the mind itself. In presentation the mind may be regarded as com- paratively passive; in representation it is wholly and essen- tially active. In presentation, accordingly, the prominent matter is the object of cognition; in representation, the categories of thought. There are two points, however, in Mr. Morell's doctrine of the logical consciousness against which we must enter a solemn and decided protest. The first is, that our conceptions cannot exactly represent our intuitions — that the remote and ultimate object, as given in an act of mediate and representative cognition, is not precisely the same as the immediate object in an act of direct and presentative cognition. The other is, that the understanding cannot enlarge our knowledge of numerical existences ; that we can only think the precise, identical realities which have been given in experience, and can infer and prove the substantive existence of naught beyond them. In relation to the first point, we can only speak of what strikes us as the prevailing doctrine of the book, for the author is so vague, vacillating and inconsistent in his account of conception that we freely admit that he appears in two passages to teach the doctrine for which we contend. But as a general thing he maintains that the understanding is exclusively conversant about attributes or properties. "It has to do," he informs us, "entirely with the attributes of things — separating, scrutinizing, classifying them, and adapting them, by the aid of judgment and reasoning, to all the purposes of human existence." "Thus every no- tion" [conception], he tells us in another place, " we have 112 STANDARD AXD NATURE OF RELIGION. [Sect. II. of an external object — as a house, or a tree, or a flower — is compounded of two elements, a material and a formal. The matter is furnished by the direct sensational intuition of a concrete reality, and this is perception ; the form is furnished by the logical faculty, which, separating the attri- butes of the object, as given in perce})tion, from the essence, constructs a notion or idea [conception] which can be clearly defined and employed as a fixed term in the region of our reflective knowledge." And again: " Of mere phenomena we can gain a very good knowledge by an in- termediate or logical process. We can have the different attributes presented to us as abstract ideas ; we can put these attributes together one by one, and thus form a conception of the whole thing as a j^^ie- nomenon ; but this cannpt be done in regard to any elementary and essential existence. Of substance, for example, we can gain no con- ception by a logical definition; the attempt to do so has, in fact, always ended in the denial of substance altogether, considered as an objective reality ; it becomes in this way simply the projected shadow of our own faculties. The only refuge against this logical skepticism, which has been uniformly attached itself to a sensational philosophy, is in the immediacy of our higher knowledge — in the fact that we see and feel the existence of a substantial reality around us, without the aid of any logical idea or definition by which it can be i-epresented or conveyed. ' ' ^ Mr. Morell surely cannot mean that through any repre- sentative faculty, original ideas can be imparted of attri- butes and qualities which had never been presentatively given — that a blind man can be instructed in colours by a logical definition, or a deaf man in sounds. Every simple idea, whether of qualities or not, must, in the first instance, have been conveyed in an act of immediate cognition. What we understand Mr. Morell as teaching is, that the conceptions of the understanding do not adequately rep- resent the cognitions of intuition ; that the phenomenon does not mirror the whole reality; that there is something- given in perception which cannot be mediated by an act of mind. It is true that this mysterious something is described as the essence or substance of the thing perceived ; and it is 1 Page 37. Sect. II.] religion PSYCHOLOGICALLY CONSIDERED. 113 equally true that essences or substances are only matters of belief; we neither see them nor feel them — they lie beyond the boundaries of knowledge, whether presentative or other- wise. But we maintain that whatever can be perceived or immediately known can be also imagined or conceived. We can frame an image or notion which shall exactly correspond to the tvhole object of an inward or outward perception. We can represent all the essence that we ever knew. There is no diiference between the remote and ultimate object in an act of representative, and the immediate and present object in an act of immediate and presentative, cognition. Unless Mr. Morell admits what we understand him to deny, that the vicarious knowledge involved in conception answers exactly to the original knowledge given in intui- tion, he must maintain that the knowledge of any exist- ence but that which is now and here present in conscious- ness is impossible. All else becomes purely ideal — our conceptions cease to be representative; for the very notion of representation implies a reality apart from itself which, as represented, is known. To affirm that the representative does not truly mirror the original is to invalidate the only conceivable process by which we can pass from the ideal to the actual. It is to deny the fidelity of our faculties in the irresistible conviction which we have of the reality of the original, though mediated, idea, and thus to lay the founda- tion of universal skepticism. To illustrate by an example: memory is the mediate knowledge of the past. The house, or man, or flower which we saw yesterday, and remember to have seen to-day, has no longer a present existence in consciousness; what we now contemplate, and immediately cognize, is not the thing itself, but a conception which we feel to be its representative. According to our author, however, this conception is partial and inadequate — it does not embrace all that we saw; the most important part, the only part indeed which was real, has been omitted. But consciousnesss assures us that we distinctly and adequately recollect our perception of yesterday — the whole perception Vol. III.— 3 114 STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [Sect. 11. precisely as it was experienced; that, to accommodate the language of Mr. Hume, the present idea is an exact tran- script of the former impression. If, now, consciousness de- ceives us in this case, if it lies in pronouncing that to be an adequate representative which is partial, maimed and defect- ive, what guarantee have we for its veracity in any case ? And how, especially, shall we prove that memory and all our powers of mediate knowledge are not faculties of mere delusion? Mr. Morell, it seems to us, must deny all object- ive existences apart from the mind, or he must admit that the understanding can frame conceptions exactly commen- surate with original intuitions. This, we conceive to be the fundamental condition of the certainty of all represent- ative knowledge. We see no alternative between pure idealism and this theory of the understanding. When it abstracts and fixes its attention upon one or more attributes, performing what Mr. Morell regards as its characteristic functions, these attributes are not absolutely conceived, but relatively, as the attributes of real things. The other point — that the understanding cannot enlarge the boundaries of knowledge — Mr. Morell seems uniformly to treat as wellnigh self-evident. "And yet this logical consciousness, although it is the great instru- ment of practical life, is entirely subjective and formal. The material with wliich it has to do is wholly given in sensation and percep- tion ; all that it furnishes in addition to this are forms of thought, general notions, categories and internal processes, which have an abstract or logical value, but which, when viewed alone, are absolutely void of all ' content.' " ^ If Mr. Morell means nothing more than that the under- standing can furnish no original ideas beyond the contents of intuition, the proposition, though unquestionably true, is far from being new. It is universally conceded that no powers of conception, imagination, memory or reasoning, no processes of definition, analysis or judgment, can supply the elementary notions of the senses to one who was desti- I Page 16. Sect. II.] RELIGION PSYCHOLOGICALLY CONSIDERED. 115 tute of the material organism. But if he means, what the tenor of his argument demands, and what we, accordingly, understand him to a.ssert, that, all our simple ideas being given, the understanding or the law*s of thought cannot conduct us to the full conviction of existences lying beyond the range of present intuition, the proposition is just as un- questionably false. What transcends the limits of moment- ary experience can either not be known at all, or it must be known through the medium of the logical consciousness. If it cannot be known at all, then human knowledge, in regard to external things, is limited to what is in immediate contact with the organs of sense; in regard to internal things, to the fleeting consciousness of the moment. We can know nothing of the past, we can know nothing of the distant, we can predict nothing of the future. In other words, all science is a rank delusion; even our knowledge of the material world, as embracing a wide range of exist- ence, is an inference of the understanding, and not the result of a direct perception of its amplitude and variety. Upon the theory of external perception which Mr. Morell has adopted it is intuitively obvious that we can perceive nothing, or have a presentative cognition of nothing, but that which is in contact with our material organism. The sun, moon and stars are not objects of perception, but of inference; they are not directly, but representatively known. We can immediately know only what is now and here pres- ent in consciousness. "In the third place," says Sir William Hamilton,^ " to this head we may refer Reid's inaccuracy in regard to the precise object of percep- tion. This object is not, as he seems frequently to assert, any distant reality ; for we are percipient of nothing but what is in proximate contact, in immediate relation, with our organs of sense. Distant realities we reach, not by perception, but by a subsequent process of inference, founded thereon ; and so far, as he somewhere says, from all men who look upon the sun perceiving the same object, in reality every individual, in this instance, perceives a different object, nay, a different object in each several eye. The doctrine of Natural Realism requires no such untenable assumption for its basis. It is sufficient to 1 Hamilton's Reid, p. 814. 116 STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [Sect. 11. establish the simple fact that we are competent, as consciousness assures us, immediately to apprehend through sense the non-ego in certain limited relations ; and it is of no consequence whatever, either to our certainty of the reality of a material world, or to our ultimate knowledge of its properties, whether, by this primary apprehension, we lay hold, in the first instance, on a larger or a lesser portion of its contents." And in another place:* "A thing to be knoyrn in itself must be known as actually existing, and it cannot be known as actually existing unless it be known as existing in its When and its Where. But the When and Where of an object are immediately cognizable by the subject, only if the When be now {i. e., at the same moment with the cognitive act), and the where be here, [i. e., within the sphere of the cognitive faculty) ; therefore a presentative or intuitive knowledge is only com]ietent of an object present to the mind both in time and space. E converso, whatever is known, but not as actually existing now and here, is known not in itself, as the presentative object of an intuitive, but only as the remote object of a representative, cognition." Upon the hypothesis of Mr. Morell, accordingly, which restricts the operations of the understanding to the specific contents which have been given in actual intuitions, the worlds which astronomy discloses to our faith are merely subjective forms and logical processes, and not realities at all. All the deductions of pure mathematics are sheer delusions, inasmuch as they are the products of the under- standing operating upon the primary qualities of matter, which alone are furnished in perception. That the results which the chemist has obtained to-day, shall, under the same circumstances, be verified to-morrow, that like ante- cedents shall be attended with like consequents in all the departments of philosophy, cannot with confidence be pre- dicted, since that would be a present knowledge of a future event, and involve a fact numerically diiferent from any which had ever been given in experience. To say that the understanding cannot compass other realities beside the precise identical ones which have been or are present in consciousness is to pull down the entire fabric of human science, to leave us nothing of nature but the small frag ment of its objects within the immediate sphere of our 1 Ilaniilton's Roid, p. 809. Sect. II.] RELIGION PSYCHOLOGICALLY CONSIDERED. 117 faculties, to make us, without a figure, the creatures of the passing moment. All that can be maintained is, that the understanding cannot conduct us to the knowledge of exist- ences involving elements which have not been derived from some, objects of actual intuition. But it may infer and prove the existence of realities involving these ele- ments in different degrees and different modes of combi- nation from any that have actually fallen within the sphere of consciousness. We can prove the existence of the sun, and yet we may have never seen him. Without a specific presentation of his substantive reality, we can frame the con- ception of him by a combination of attributes which have been repeatedly given in other instances of intuition. We ascribe to him nothing but what we know from experience to be properties of matter, and what we know he must pos- sess in order to produce the effects which he does produce. We believe in the existence of animals that we never saw, of lands that we are never likely to visit, of changes and convulsions that shook our globe centuries before its present inhabitants were born; and though we have no experience of the future, we can frame images of coming events, all of which may, and some of which, as the decay and disso- lution of our bodies, most assuredly will, take place. Were there not a law of our nature by which we are determined to judge of the future by the past, and a uniformity of events which exactly answers to it, the physical sciences would be impossible, and prudential rules for the regulation of conduct utterly absurd. So far, indeed, is it from being true that the understand- ing does not enlarge our knowledge of real existences, tluit it is precisely the faculty or complement of faculties which gives us the principal part of that knowledge. Intuition supplies us with very few objects, it is limited to a very narrow sphere; but in the materials which it does embrace it gives us the constituents of all beings that we arc capable of conceiving. The understanding, impelled to action in the first instance by the presentation of realities, goes for- 118 STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [Sect. 11. ward in obedience to the laws of thought, and infers a multitude of beings lying beyond the range of our presen- tation, some like those that have been given, others pos- sessed of the same elementary qualities in different degrees and proportions. It is impossible to say how much our knowledge is extended — our knowledge, we mean, of ver- itable, objective realities — by the processes involved in general reasoning. We can form some conception of the immense importance of abstraction and generalization, as subservient to intellectual improvement, by imagining what our condition would be if we were deprived of the benefits of language. How much better, apart from speech, would be our knowledge than the crude apprehension of the brute? He has, no doubt, all the intuitions of the primary qualities of matter which we possess, but he knows them only as in this or that object; he has never been able to abstract, generalize, classify and name ; and therefore his know- ledge must always be limited to the particular things now and here present in consciousness. He can have no science. To us it is almost intuitively obvious that the under- standing, as the organ of science, is pre-eminently the fac- ulty of knowledge. Intuition gives us the alphabet; the understanding combines and arranges the letters, in con- formity with the necessary forms of thought, into the words which utter the great realities of nature, whether material, moral or intellectual. Intuition is the germ, the bud ; un- derstanding, the tree, in full and majestic proportions, spreading its branches and scattering its fruits on all sides. Intuition is the insect's eye, contracted to a small portion of space and a smaller fragment of things; understanding, the telescope, which embraces within its scope the limitless expanse of worlds — "of planets, suns and adamantine spheres, wheeling unshaken through the void immense." Mr. Morell has been betrayed into his inadequate rep- resentation of the understanding as an instrument of know- Icduc bv adhering too closely to the Kantian theory of its nature as subjective and formal, without a reference to the Sect. II.] RELIGION PSYCHOLOGICALLY CONSIDERED. 119 circumstances by which the theory, though essentially just, must be limited and modified. We believe most fully that there are and must be laws or categories of thought — that there must be conditions in the subject adapting it to know, as well as conditions in the object adapting it to be known. Thinking is not an arbitrary process, our faculties of rep- resentation do not operate at random; there are forms of cogitation which cannot be separated from intelligence without destroying its nature. We care not by what names they are called; they certainly exist, and it is the special function of logic to investigate and analyze them. But one thing is set over against another. These laws of the under- standing are designed to qualify it to be an instrument of knowledge. They are the conditions by which a limited and finite creature can stretch its intelligence beyond the points of space and time in which its existence is fixed. The laws of thought are so adjusted to the laws of existence that whatever is true of our conceptions wull always be true of the things which our conceptions represent. The opera- tions of the understanding, though primarily and imme- diately about its own acts, are remotely and mediately about other objects. Its acts are representative, and hence it deals with realities through their symbols. If Mr. Morell had kept steadily in view the representative character of our logical conceptions, he would have seen that they must have respect to something beyond themselves which is not sub- jective and formal. He would have seen that every opera- tion of mind rtiust be cognitive — must involve a judg- ment. Every conception implies the belief that it is the image of something real, that has been given in experience ; every fancy implies a judgment that it is the image of something possible, that might be given in experience. At- tention to this circumstance of the cognitive character of all the operations of mind would have saved him from the error of supposing that the acts of the understanding are exclusively formal. Kant knew nothing of the distinction betwixt presentative and representative knowledge. His 120 STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [Sect. II, conceptions, therefore, involved no judgment — they were not the images of a reality, as given in intuition ; they were purely the products of the mind, and corresponded to nothing beyond the domain of consciousness. Had he recognized the truth that every intellectual act is cognitive, and every act of the understanding representative, he would have " saved the main pillars of human belief;" and while he still might have taught, what we believe he has unan- swerably demonstrated, that space and time are native notions of the mind and not generalizations from experience, he would have seen that, as native notions, they are the indispensable conditions of its apprehending the time and space properties of matter, and have accorded, consequently, an objective reality to extension, solidity and figure which his theory, in its present form, denies; he would have seen that the understanding is as truly conversant about things as intuition — that the only difference betwixt them in this respect is, that the one deals with them and apprehends them directly, the other, through means of representa- tives, and that, consequently, the conclusions of the under- standing, legitimately reached, must have a counterpart in objective reality as truly as the cognitions of sense. We are sorry to say that Mr. Morell, though professing to adopt the distinctions to which we have adverted, falls again and again into the peculiarities of the Kantian hy- pothesis, against which they are a protest. Take the fol- lowing passage: "Perception, viewed alone, indicates simply the momentary con- sciousness of an external reality standing before us face to face, but it gives us no notion which we can define and express by a term. To do this is the office of the understanding — the logical or con- structive faculty, which seizes upon the concrete material that is given immediately in perception, moulds it into an idea, expresses this idea by a word or sign, and then lays it up in the memory, as it were a hewn stone, all shaped and prepared for use whenever it may be required, either for ordinary life or for constructing a scientific system. Thus every notion we have of an external object — as a house, a tree, or a flower — is compounded of two elements, a material and a formal. Sect. II.] RELIGION PSYCHOLOGICALLY CONSIDERED. 121 The matter is furnished by the direct sensational intuition of a con- crete reaUty ; and this is perception : the form is furnished by the logical faculty, which, separating the attributes of the object as given in per- ception from the essence, constructs a notion or idea, which can be clearly defined and employed as a fixed term in the region of our reflective knowledge. ' ' ^ This passage, upon any theory but that of Kant — and even upon that theory it requires modification — is absolutely unintelligible. Upon the theory which Mr. Morell pro- fesses to adopt it is pure gibberish. " The understanding seizes upon the concrete material that is given immediately in perception.^' Now this "concrete material" was the "ex- ternal reality standing before us face to face." Are we then to understand that the understanding captures the outward object itself f If so, it surely has matter as well as form. But then it moulds the concrete material into an idea, dubs it with a name and lays it away in the memory. What does he mean, what can he mean, by moulding an external reality into an idea ? But it seems that in this moulding process, though the understanding had originally seized the concrete reality, yet by some means or other the essence slipped between its fingers, and the notion or idea lodged away in the memory retains nothing but the qualities. Now what is the real process of the mind which all this nonsense is designed to represent? Perception gives us the external reality in those qualities which our faculties are capable of apprehending. We know it in itself, and as now and here existing. Conception, or rather imagination, is an act of the understanding, producing an image or representative of the object; it seizes upon no material given from without; the immediate matter of its knowledge is its own act, and that act, from its very constitution, vicarious of something beyond itself "A representation," says Sir William Ham- ilton,^ "considered as an object, is logically, not really, dif- ferent from a representation considered as an act. Here, object and act are the same indivisible mode of mind 1 Page 72. 2 Plam ikon's Reid, p. 809. 122 STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [Sect. II. viewed in two different relations. Considered by reference to a mediate object represented, it is a representative object; considered by reference to the mind representing and con- templating the representation, it is a representative act." Hence, in every operation of the logical consciousness what we immediately know is not the external reality, but a modi- fication of the mind itself, and through that modification we know the external object. The form and immediate matter, therefore, cannot be separated even in thought. Mr. Morell indeed speaks of forms and categories of thought in such terms as to imply that the mind creates the qualities which it represents in its conceptions. This, of course, is to deny that its acts are properly representative — to shut us up within the prison of hopeless idealism. The laws of thought enable the mind, not to create, but to image, figure or represent; they enable it to think a thing which is not before it, but they do not enable it to invest it with a single property which it does not possess; and they are violated whenever a thing is thought otherwise than as it actually exists. The mind as intelligent, and things as intelligible, are adapted to each other. We may now condense into a short compass what we con- ceive to be the truth, in contradistinction from Mr. Morell's doctrine of the understanding, on the points to which we have adverted. We believe, then, that this faculty, or rather complement of faculties, possesses the power of represent- ing, and of completely and adequately representing, every individual thing, whether a concrete whole or a single attri- bute, which ever has been presented in intuition. '' It stamps," in the language of Aristotle, " a kind of impres- sion of the total process of perception, after the manner of one Avho applies a signet to wax." This is the fundamental condition of the certainty of its results. For, as Sir Wil- liam Hamilton expresses it, "it is only deserving of the name of knoMdedge in so far it is conformable to the intui- tions it represents." There is no separation of the essence from the attributes in an act of recoUective imagination; Sect. II.] RELIGION PSYCHOLOGICALLY CONSIDEEED. 1 23 what was given in intuition, and all that was given, is pic- tured in the image. As representative, we believe, in the next place, that the understanding is ultimately conversant about things — realities — and not fictions or empty forms. What it proves of its conceptions legitimately framed will hold good of the objects which they represent; its ideas are, if we may so speak, the language of reality. In the next place, it is not confined to the numerical particulars which have been actually given in intuition. It is depend- ent upon presentation for all the elements it employs in its representations — it can originate no new simple idea; but testimony and the evidence of facts, induction and deduc- tion, may lead it — may compel it — to acknowledge the ex- istence of beings which in their concrete realities have never been matters of direct experience. It frames a con- ception of them from the combination of the elements given in intuition in such proportions as the evidence before it seems to warrant. Thus the geologist describes the animals which perished amid what he believes to be the ruins of a former world ; thus we believe in the mon- sters of other climes, the facts of history and the calcula- tions of science. After what has already been said, it is hardly necessary to devote much space to the detailed and articulate account of the distinction betwixt the logical and intuitional con- sciousness, upon which Mr. Morell has evidently bestowed much labour, and to which he attaches no small degree of importance in consequence of the part which it is destined to play in his subse(|uent speculations. His first observa- tion is, that " the knowledge we obtain by the logical con- sciousness is representative and indirect, while that which we obtain by the intuitional consciousness is presentative and immediate. ^^ This is the fundamental difference of the two complements of faculties. Intuition, or, as in consequence of the ambiguity and vagueness of that term, we should prefer to call it. Presentation, embraces all our powers of original knowledge. Through it we are furnished with 124 STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [Sect. II. whatsoever simple ideas we possess ; it is the beginning of our intellectual strength. The logical consciousness, on the other hand, embraces all our powers of representative knowledge; it builds the fabric of science from the mate- rials presentatively given; it comprehends all the processes of thought which the mind is led to carry on in consequence of the impulse received in presentation. If Mr. ]Morell had consistently adhered to this fundamental distinction, and admitted no differences but what might naturally be referred to it, he would have been saved from much need- less confusion, perplexity and self-contradiction. His second observation is, that "the knowledge we obtain by the logical consciousness is reflective; that which we obtain by the intuitional consciousness is spontaneous." This distinction, we confess, has struck us with amazement. In the first place, upon Mr. Morell's theory of the soul, spontaneity is the indispensable condition of all intelligence; it is of the very essence — substance — substratum, of mind. Reflection, therefore, is not something distinct from, it is only a, form of, spontaneity. "The power of the will," he tells us, "operates through all the region of man's sponta- neous life," "our activity is equally voluntary and equally moral in its whole aspect." In the next place, upon any just view of the subject, what we are authorized to affirm is, that all reflective knowledge is representative, but not that all representative knowledge is reflective. The two propositions are by no means convertible. Reflection is nothing but attention to the phenomena of mind. It is the observation — if you please, the study — of what passes within. "The peculiar phenomena of philosophy," says one^ who has insisted most largely upon the spontaneous and reflective aspects of reason, "are those of the other world, which every man bears within himself, and which he perceives by the aid of the inward light which is called consciousness, as he perceives the former by the senses. The phenomena of the inward world appear and disappear 1 Cousin, Frag. Phil., Pref. Sect. II.] RELIGION PSYCHOLOGICALLY CON.SIDERED. 125 SO rapidly that consciousness jjerceives them and loses sight of them almost at the same time. It is not then sufficient to observe them transiently, and while they are passing over that changing scene; we must retain them as long as possible by attention. "VVe may do even still more. We may call up a phenomenon from the bosom of the night into which it has vanished, summon it again to memory, and reproduce it in our minds for the sake of contemplat- ing it at our ease; we may recall one part of it rather than another, leave the latter in the shade, so as to bring the former into view, vary the aspects in order to go through them all and to embrace every side of the object; this is the office of reflection.''' Reflection is to psychology what obser- vation and experiment are to physics. Now to say that all our representative knowledge depends upon attention to the processes of our own minds, that we know only as we take cognizance of the laws and operations of our faculties, is too ridiculous for serious refutation. Even Mr. Morell starts back from the bouncing absurdity; and — with what consistency we leave it to our readers to determine — reluct- antly admits that "there is evidently a sense in which all the faculties, even the logical consciousness itself, may be regarded as having a spontaneous movement, such as we have described — a sense in which we cast our knowledge spontaneously and unreflectively into a logical mould." In order to ex|;ricate himself, however, from the contradiction in which he is involved, he invents another meaning for re- flective, in which he makes it synonymous with ■scientific. But we do not see that this subterfuge relieves him. All representative knowledge is surely not scientific, nor attained upon scientific principles. The elements of science must exist and be known representatively before science itself can be constructed, and reflection always presupposes spon- taneous processes as the objects of its attention. "Without spontaneity there could be no reflectivity. There would be nothing to reflect upon. Reflection, therefore, is simply an instrument or faculty of one species of representativo 126 STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [Sect. IT. knowledge, the organon through which science is con- structed from spontaneous data, whether those data be tlie spontaneous facts of presentation or the spontaneous pro- cesses of representation. All the faculties and operations of mind can be made the objects of contemplation and of study. If Mr. Morel 1, therefore, had said that our focul- ties of presentation include no power of reflection, that this belonged to the logical consciousness, he would have announced a truism, but a truism about as important in reference to the object he had in view as if he had said that memory and imagination belong to the understanding and not to intuition. His third observation is, that "the knowdedge we obtain by the intuitional consciousness is material, that which we gain by the logical consciousness is formal." Xoav formal, as opposed to material, amounts in our judgment to about the same thing as nothing in contrast to something. That the understanding is a complement of formal faculties, is a proposition which we not only are able to comprehend, but fully believe; that the knowledge we obtain by means of these faculties is formal, is a proposition which we frankly confess transcends our powers of thought : a form without something to which it is attached passes our comprehension. The matter of knowledge means, if it means anything, the object known. Now in intuition there is but a single object, which is apprehended in itself and as really existing; in the logical consciousness there is a double object — the act of the mind representing wdiat is immediately and present- atively known, and the thing represented, which is me- diately and remotely known. The matter, therefore, both in intuition and the logical consciousness, is ultimately the same ; it is only differently related to the mind, — in the one case it stands before us face to face ; in the other case it stands before us through the forms of the understanding. Hence it is sheer nonsense to speak of the logical conscious- ness as matferless, which is equivalent to saying that it knotcs, but knows nothing, Mr. Morell, though expressing Sect. IL] RELIGION PSVCHOLOGICALLY CONSIDERED. 127 great admiration of Sir William Hamilton's theory, in which we heartily unite with him, departs from it precisely in the points in which it is absolutely fatal to idealism. His fourth observation is, that " the logical consciousness tends to separation (analysis), the intuitional consciousness tends to unity (synthesis)." Analysis and synthesis, in the proper acceptation of the terms, are both expressive of purely logical processes, the one being the reverse of the other. The idea of a whole is a logical conception, imply- ing the relation of parts, and presupposing both analysis and synthesis as the condition of its being framed. The induction of Aristotle, for example, is a synthesis; the de- duction, an analysis. Presentation may give us things in the lump or mass — a dead unity; but the separation and subsequent recomposition of parts are offices which belong exclusively to the understanding. Mr. Morell has ad- mitted as much:^ "Knowing," says he, "as we do too well, that the intuitions we obtain of truth in its concrete unity are not perfect, we seek to restore and verify that truth by analysis — t. e., by separating it into its parts, viewing each of those parts abstractedly by itself, and finding out their relative consistency, so as to put them together, by a logical and reflective construction, into a systematic and formal whole. Hence the impulse to know the truth aright gives perpetual vitality and activity to the law by which our spon- taneous and intuitional life passes over into the logical and reflective. Logical reasoning is the result of human imper- fection struggling after intellectual restoration." This is well and sensibly said; and as it is a clear concession that the logical consciousness tends to unity — that the very end of its analysis is an adequate synthesis — we cannot but marvel that either of these functions should have been ascribed to intui- tion. Kant's reason, accordingly, which aimed at an all- comprehensive unity of existence, is simply the understand- ing moving in a higher sphere, and its regulative ideas nothing but the categories under a new name and translated 1 Page 74. 128 STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [SiCCT. II. to a different province. There is no distinction, according to him, between the powers themselves or the modes of their operation; they are conversant about different objects — ■ reason being to the conceptions of the understanding what the understanding is to the intuitions of sense. Kant, too, made his reason seek after its darling unity or totality of being, through the same processes of generalization by which the understanding reaches its lower unities and separate totalities in the various departments of science. The synthetic judgments of Kant, upon which Mr. Mo- rell seems to have shaped his conceptions of synthesis, are not instances of synthesis at all. They are amplifications or extensions of our knowledge — they are new materials added to the existing stock, and are either presentative or mediate according to the circumstances under which they are made. The discovery of new qualities in substances is, of course, presentative; but what he denominates synthetic judgments a priori involve only simple beliefs, the object of the belief being unknown, as in the case of substance, or an indirect and representative knowledge of the object as given in its relations to the things which spontaneously suggest it. In all cases in which the ultimate object known is mediated and represented, in virtue of the essential con- stitution of the mind, upon occasions in which other objects are the immediate data of consciousness, the process belongs, according to the fundamental distinction of our author, to the logical and not the intuitional consciousness: in these cases there is a law of belief, necessary and indestructible, which authenticates the premises of a syllogism, conducting us logically, not presentatively, from what is given in ex- perience to what experience is incapable of compassing, and wdiich, therefore, cannot be immediately known. We grant that such judgments are intuitive — the grounds of belief are in the very structure of the soul, they involve primary and incomprehensible cognitions; but the objective realities apprehended in virtue of these beliefs are not themselves directly given in consciousness. They are conceptions of Sect. II.] EELIGIOX PSYCHOLOGICALLY CONSIDERED. 129 the mind necessitated as vicarious of real existence. The conclusion of such a syllogism is not the simple assertory judgment of presentative intuition, Something is, but the imperative and necessary declaration of representative in- tuition, Something must be; it is not expressed by the formula, Something is, because it is actually apprehended in itself and as existing, but. Something is, because the mind is incapable of conceiving that it is not. The mind does not so much affirm the reality of existence as deny the impos- sibility of non-existence. This is the nature of the synthesis in that class of judgments to which Mr. Morell has referred ; and how it differs from what all the world has been accus- tomed to regard as the logical process involved in a posteriori reasoning, we leave it to the Rationalists to determine. Mr. Morell's fifth note of distinction is, that "the logical consciousness is individual; the intuitional consciousness is generic." That is, if we understand our author, the truths about which the logical consciousness is conversant depend, in no degree, for the confirmation of their certainty, upon the common consent of mankind, while the truths about which the intuitional consciousness is conversant are to be received in consequence of the universal testimony of the race. "We all feel conscious," says he, "that there are certain points of truth respecting which we can appeal to our own individual under- standing with unerring certainty. No amount of contradiction, for example, no weight of opposing testimony from others, could ever shake our belief in the definitions and deductions of mathematical science or the conclusions of a purely logical syllogism. On the other hand, we are equally conscious, upon due consideration, that there are truths respecting which we distrust our individual judgment, and gain certainty in admitting them only from the concun-ing testimony of other minds. (Of this nature, for example, are the main points of moral and religious truth. ) Hence it appears evident that there is within us both an individual and a generic element ; and that answer- ing to them there are truths for which we may appeal to the individual reason, and truths for which we must appeal to the testimony of man- kind as a whole." ^ 1 Page 70. Vot.. III.— 9 130 STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [Sect. II. He then goes on to observe that "The ground of this twofold ele- ment in our constitution, and the reconciliation of the respective claims of the individual reason and the common sense of humanity, is easily explained when we take into account the distinction which we have been developing between the logical and the intuitional con- sciousness. It will be readily seen, upon a little consideration, that the logical consciousness is stamped with a perfect individualism— the intuitional consciousness with an equally universal or generic character. The logical consciousness, as we have shown, is formal ; and it is in those branches of knowledge which turn upon formal definitions, distinctions and deductions (such as mathematics or logic) that we feel the most perfect trust in the certainty of our individual conclu- sions. The understanding, in fact, is framed so as to act on certain principles, which we may term lav-s of thonghf, and whatever know- ledge depends upon the simple application of these laws, is as certain and infallible as human nature can possibly make it. The laws of thought (or, in other words, the logical understanding) present a fixed element in every individual man, so that the testimony of one sound mind, in this respect, is as good as a thousand. Were not the forms of reasoning, indeed, alike for all, there could no longer be any certain communication between man and man. The intuitional con- sciousness, on the other hand, is not formal, but material ; and in gazing upon the actual elements of knowledge, our perception of their truth in all its fullness just depends upon the extent to which the in- tuitive faculty is awakened and matured. The sciV»ce of music, for ex- ample, is absolutely the .same for every human understanding; but the real perception of harmony, upon which the science depends as its ma- terial basis, turns entirely upon the extent to which the direct sensibil- ity for harmony is awakened. And so it is with regard to every other subject which involves a direct element of supersensual truth. The in- tensity with which we realize it dejiends upon the state of our iufuifi'on'd consciousness, so far, at least, as the subject in question is concerned. Here there are no fixed and uniform laws of intellection, as in the logical region, but a progressive intensity from the weakest up to the strongest power of spiritual vision or of intellectual sensibility."^ We shall need no apology to our readers for these long extracts, when they reflect that the distinction in (question plays a very prominent part in the author's subsequent speculations, especially in relation to the origin and develop- ment of the religious life and the foundations and criterion of religious certitude. The whole force of the argument 1 Pages 71 , 72. Sect. II.] RELIGION rSYCHOLOGICALLY CONSIDERED. 131 for that species of Realism which is involved in the modern doctrine of progress, and which Leroux has .so eloquently expounded and the Socialists have so coarselv practised, is here presented. The individual is nothing, humanity is everything. The genus man is not a logical abstraction, not a second intention, but a real, substantive entity; and mankind is not the collection of all the indi- viduals of the human race, but something which, though inseparable, is yet distinct, and to which each is indebted for his human character. Something of this sort seems to be implied in making intuition a generic element, in con- tradistinction from understanding as personal and indi- vidual, and depending for its perfection, not upon the culture of the individual, but upon the development of the race. Something very like it is directly affirmed when our author teaches that " Intuition being a thing not formal, but material — not uniform, but varying — not subject to rigid laws, but exposed to all the variations of association and temperament, being, in fact, the function of liutnan- ity^ and not of the individual mind — the only means of getting at the essential elements of primary intuitional truth is to grasp that which rests on the common sympathies of mankind in its historical develop- ment, after all individual impurities and idiosyncracies have been entirely stripped away. ' ' ^ But, bating the vein of Realism which pervades this and the other passages we have quoted, the proposition of the author, so far as it has sense, is, that the operations of the understanding are as perfect in each individual as in the whole race collectively, and that its deliverances cannot be affected by an appeal to the testimony of mankind — that what it pronounces to be true must be true to us, though all the race should unite in contradicting it. We can never be assured of the certainty of intuitional truth, however, without comparing the deliverances of our consciousness with the consciousness of other men; the touchstone of certainty is universal consent. The understanding, in other 1 Page 73. 132 STANDARD AND NATURE OP RELIGION. [Sect. II words, vindicates to itself the absolute right of private judgment ; the intuition appeals to the authority of catliolic tradition. This is the thesis. The arguments are: 1st. That, in point of fact, the most certain truths, those about which we feel it impossible to doubt, are the truths of the understanding — he instances mathematics and logic! The example of logic is unfortunate. That science is not even yet perfect. There are sundry points upon which logicians are not agreed, and others intimately connected with the subject, to which hardly any attention has been paid. The Apodictic Syllogism has been thoroughly investigated, but will Mr. Morell venture to say the same of the Inductive? Will he pretend that any writer upon logic has kept steadily and consistently in view its distinctive character as a science of forms, and never interpolated or corrupted it with con- siderations of matter ? As to mathematics, its conclusions are certain, and certain precisely because it deals -^ath hypothesis and not with realities. But then it is a pro- digious leap from the proposition that some truths are cer- tain within the circle of the understanding, to the proposi- tion that all truths peculiar to it are certain — ^that because it admits of demonstration at all, therefore it admits of nothing but demonstration. The same process of argument would establish the same result in regard to intuition. What can be more indubitable to us than our own person- ality, our indiscerptible identity, the existence of our thoughts, feelings and volitions? "No amount of contra- diction, no weight of opposing testimony from others, could ever shake our belief" in the reality of the being which every man calls himself, or those processes of intellect which consciousness distinctly affirms. AVhat human understand- ing can withhold its assent from the great laws of causality, substance, contradiction, and excluded middle? These are all intuitive truths — we receive them on the naked deliverance of consciousness; and we can no more deny them than wo can annihilate ourselves. Certainty, therefore, is not pecu- liar to the undcrstandino: as contradistinguished from intui- Sect. II.] RELIGION PSYCHOLOGICALLY CONSIDERED. 133 tion. But, says the author, some intuitional truths — those, for example, of morals and religion — are uncertain, in so far as we depend upon the single testimony of our own minds. But are not some logical truths uncertain also ? Is everything demonstrative, reduced to apodictic certainty in the sciences of morals, government, politics, chemistry, botany and history? Is it not a characteristic of the evi- dence upon which the ordinary business of life is conducted that it admits of every variety of degrees, from the lowest presumption to the highest certainty? Is there no such thing as a calculation of chances ? and no such thing as being deceived by logical deductions ? The author some- where tells us that the " purely logical mind, though dis- playing great acuteness, yet is ofttimes involved in a mere empty play upon words, forms and definitions; making endless divisions and setting up the finest distinctions, while the real matter of truth itself either escapes out of these abstract moulds, or perchance was never in them." ^ One would think, therefore, that it was not so inflillible after all. As, then, certainty is not restricted to the under- standing, nor the understanding to it, the same ground of appeal, from private judgment to the verdict of the race, exists in reference to Us deliverances which the author postulates from the testimony of intuition. The argument is valid for both or neither. 2dly. His next position is, that the intuitional consciousness is susceptible of improve- ment, of education, development. The logical conscious- ness is fixed and unchanging. If we admit the fact, it is not so easy to discover its pertinency as an argument, so far as intuition is concerned. AYe may grant that if the understanding is the same in all minds, the testimony of one is as good as the testimony of a thousand; but it does not appear that because the degrees of intuition are dilFercnt in different minds, therefore each mind must appeal to all others before it can be certain of its own intuitions. One man may see less than another, but it does not follow that 1 Pages 10, 17. 134 STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [Sect. II. he is dependent upon the testimony of that other for the assurance that he sees the little that he does see. We can- not comprehend why he should not loiow that he sees what he sees, however little it may be, as well as others know that they see their more. But it is positively false that the understanding is not susceptible of progress and improve- ment. The powers of reasoning and of representative thought can be developed and educated — have their germ, expansion and maturity — as well as the powers of intuition. The laws of thought may be fixed, but the capacity of ap- plying, or acting in obedience to, these laws is by no means fixed. It is a capacity which requires culture; and the multiplied instances of bad reasoning in the world — to which our author has contributed his full proportion — are so many proofs that man must be taught to reason and to think, as well as to hiow. There is an immense difference betwixt the logical consciousness of a Newton and of a Hottentot, betwixt the logical consciousness of Newton at twelve and Newton at fifty. These laics of thought are the same to all men, and to the same men at all times, but the men themselves are not the same. If these laws were always faithfully observed, error might be avoided ; but the amount of truth that should be discovered would depend upon the degree to which the faculties were developed, and not upon the laws which preserve them from deceit. But unfortu- nately there is a proneness to intellectual guilt in transgress- ing the laws of thought, which is as fruitful a source of error as defect of capacity is of ignorance ; and each is to be remedied by a proper course of intellectual culture. But if the argument from fixed laws proves the understanding to be fixed and unchanging, it may be retorted with equal force against the progressiveness of intuition. It is true that Mr. INIorell affirms that this form of intellection " has no fixed and uniform laws ;" but this is an error arising ti'om the relation in which he apjirehends that the laws or forms of thought stand to representative cognitions. They arc the conditions, not the matter, of this species of intel- Sect. II.] RELIGION PSYCHOLOGICALLY CONSIDERED. 135 ligence. They are not the things known, but the means of knowing. They solve the problem of the possibility of mediate knowledge. Now, corresponding to them, there are, in all instances of representative cognition, conditions in the thing known, which render it capable of being ap- prehended by the mind. The qualities, phenomena---prop- erties which make it cognizable, make it capable of coming within the sphere of consciousness — are laws of intuition as certain and fixed as the relations of things to the mind. In other words, the adaptations of things to our faculties are as truly laAvs of intuition as the adaptations of our faculties to think them are laws of the logical consciousness. Hence, if the argument from the reality of laws cuts oiF the understanding from an appeal to universal consent, it cuts off intuition also, and we are shut up to private judg- ment in the one case by the same process which shuts us up to it in the other. It is no distinction, consequently, be- twixt the understanding and intuition, to say that the one is individual and the other generic. They are both equally individual, both equally generic; both belong to evev^ man, and therefore to all men ; both may subsist in dif- ferent degrees, in different men, and in the same men at different times ; and both are consequently susceptible of education and improvement. The truth is, ]\Ir. Morell has entirely mistaken the pur- pose for which philosophers are accustomed to appeal from private judgment to the general voice of mankind. It is not to authenticate the deliverances of intuition — not to certify us that we see wdien we see or know that we know ; our own consciousness is the only voucher which we can have in the case. Every faculty is its own witness. In the case of the understanding, others may point out fallacies and guard against errors, but our 02vn minds must perform the process before there is any logical truth to us. In the case of intuition, the voice of mankind cannot help us if we are destitute of the power, or if it is unawakened, nor add a particle to the degree of clearness with which we 136 STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [Sect. II. apprehend existences, nor to the degree of certainty with which we repose upon the data of consciousness. Others may suggest the occasions upon which the intuitions shall arise or indicate the hindrances which prevent them ; but the intuitions themselves are and must be the immediate grounds of belief. From the very nature of the caise all truth must be individually apprehended, though all truth is not necessarily apprehended as individual. Private judgment is always and on all subjects the last appeal. Nothing is truth to us, whatever it may be in itself, until it is brought in relation to our own faculties, and the extent to which they grasp it is the sole measure of our know- ledge. However, there is a question upon which an appeal to common consent is an indispensable means of guarding against error, misapprehension and mistake, and of rectify- ing inadequate, false or perverted judgments ; but that question happens to be one which concerns directly the operations of the logical understanding. It is simply whether reflection exactly represents the spontaneous move- ments of the soul. The distinction betwixt reflection and spontaneity has been ably and happily illustrated by Cousin : "To know without giving an account of our knowledge to ourselves ; to know and to give an account of our knowledge to ourselves — this is the only possible difference between man and man ; between the peo- ple and the philosopher. In the one, reason is altogether spontaneous ; it seizes at first upon its objects, but without returning upon itself and demanding an account of its procedure ; in the other, reflection is added to reason, but this reflection, in its most profound investiga- tions, cannot add to natural reason a single element which it does not already possess ; it can add to it nothing but the knowledge of itself Again, I say reflection well directed — for if it be ill directed it does not comprehend natural reason in all its pails ; it leaves out some element, and repairs its mutilations only bj^ arbitrary inventions. First to omit, then to invent — this is the common vice of almost all systems of philosophy. The office of philosophy is to reproduce in its scientific formulas the pure faith of the human race — nothing less than this faith, nothing more than this faith — this faith alone, but this faith in all its parts." ^ 1 Phil. Frag., Pref. Sect. 11. ] RELIGION PSYCHOLOGICALLY CONSIDERED. 137 This is justly and beautifully said. It is assumed that all minds are essentially the same; and when the question is, What are the phenomena of consciousness, what are the laws, faculties and constitution of the soul? this question can only be answered by unfolding the nature of its spon- taneous movements. In these the constitution of the intel- lect is seen. But from the fleeting, delicate and intangible nature of the phenomena, it is extremely difficult to repro- duce them in reflection, and make them the objects of scientific study. It is no easy thing to reconstitute the in- tellectual life — "to re-enter," in the language of the dis- tinguished philosopher just quoted — "to re-enter conscious- ness, and there, weaned from a systematic and exclusive spirit, to analyze thought into its elements, and all its ele- ments, and to seek out in it the characters, and all the characters, under which it is at present manifested to the eye of consciousness." This is the office of reflection. As the phenomena which it proposes to describe are essentially the same in all minds, every man becomes a witness of the truth or falsehood of the description. Common consent is a criterion of certainty, because there is little possibility that all mankind should concur in a false statement of their own intellectual operations. It is particularly in regard to our original and primitive cognitions that this appeal to the race is accustomed to be made. One of the acknow- ledged peculiarities Avhich distinguish them is the necessity of believing, and of this necessity universal agreement is an infallible proof We wish to know whether any given principle is a primary and necessary datum of consciousness — whether it belongs essentially to intelligence; and this question is answered by showing that it is a characteristic of all minds. But in all cases in which reflection apj)eals to the testimony of the race, that testimony is not regarded as the immediate ground of faith, but as a corroborative proof that we have not fallen into error. It is the deliv- erance of consciousness which determines belief; and when it is found that every other consciousness gives the same 138 STANDARD AND NATURE OP RELIGION. [Sect. II. deliverance, we are satisfied that our reflection has not been partial or defective. But if the voice of mankind is against us, we feel that we have erred somewhere, and consequently retrace our steps, analyze thought with greater minuteness and attention ; and thus make the verdict of the race the occasion of reflection being led to correct itself. This is the true nature of the appeal which a sound philosophy makes to the testimony of mankind. The question is, What are the phenomena of spontaneity? Reflection undertakes to answer, and the answer is certified to be correct when all in whom these phenomena are found concur in pronouncing it to be true. Each man answers for himself from his own consciousness, and the philosopher feels that there is no further occasion to review his analysis. He has been led, for example, to announce the existence of the external world as an original datum of consciousness. He thinks he finds in his belief of it that criterion of necessity which dis- tinguishes primitive cognitions, but it is so hard to seize upon the spontaneous phenomena of the mind with cer- tainty and precision that he may mistake prejudice, associa- tion or an early judgment for an original belief. He appeals to other minds; he finds the belief to be universal; he is confirmed consequently in regarding it as necessary, and therefore natural; and hence he is satisfied that reflec- tion has, in this case, exactly described spontaneity. It would appear, therefore, that instead of saying the intu- itional consciousness is generic, and the logical, individual, it would be much nearer the truth to assert that the spon- taneous consciousness, in all its operations, whether intu- itional or logical, is generic, or essentially the same in all minds; and the reflective, individual, or modified by per- sonal and accidental peculiarities. And this is precisely the distinction which Cousin makes. Reason, which, with him, is synonymous with intelligence, without regard to our author's distinction of a twofi)ld form, in its spontaneous movements is impersonal; it is not mine nor yours; it belongs not even to humanity itself; it is identical with God; and Sect. II.] religion PSYCHOLOGICALLY CONSIDERED. 139 upon the ground tliat "humanity as a mass is spontaneous and not reflective," he declares that " humanity is inspired." Reason, on the other hand, in its reflective movements, when its deliverances are made the object of attention, analysis and study, is subjective and personal, or rather appears to be so from its relations to reflection, while its general relations to the Ego, in which it has entered, renders it liable, though in itself infallible and absolute, to aberrations and mistakes. "Reflection, doubt and skepti- cism appertain to some men," such is his language ; " pure apperception and spontaneous faith appertain to all ; spon- taneity is the genius of humanity, as philosophy is the genius of some men. In spontaneity there is scarcely any difference between man and man. Doubtless there are some natures, more or less happily endowed, in wliom thought clears its way more easily, and inspiration mani- fests itself with more brightness ; but, in the end, though with more or less energy, thought devlopes itself sponta- neously in all thinking beings ; and it is this identity of spontaneity, together with the identity of absolute faith it engenders, which constitutes the identity of human kind." The distinction here indicated is just and natural, but it is very far from the distinction signalized by our author. His sixth and final observation, that "the logical con- sciousness is fixed through all ages, the intuitional con- sciousness 'progressive,^^ is but a consequence of his positions which we have just been discussing. We need only detain the reader to remark that the author has evidently con- founded the progress or education of the faculties with the progress and improvement of society. The probability is, that among any cultivated people the degree to which mind is developed is not essentially ditferent in one age from what it is in another. The thinkers of the ])resent generation, for example, have no greater capacity of thought than the Greek philosophers, the Schoolmen, or the philosophers and divines of the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centu- ries. The present age may know more, in consequence of the 140 STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [Sect. IL labours of those that have preceded; but as its greater amount of- knowledge, under the circumstances of the case, involves no greater amount of effort, and as it is healthful exercise, and not the number or variety of objects that elicit it, which developes the mind, society may be in ad- vance in point of knowledge — the standard of general intelligence may be higher — while yet the standard of in- tellectual vigour and maturity may be essentially the same. The tyro now begins where Newton left off, but it does not follow that because he begins there he has the capacities or intellectual strength of Newton. All generations, men- tally considered, are very much upon a level. Every man has to pass through the same periods of infancy, childhood and youth ; but in reference to the objects which occupy attention, each successive age may profit by the labours of its predecessors, and thus make superior attainments in knowledge without a corresponding superiority of mental intensity or power. The progress of society, therefore, is not due, as Mr. Morell seems to intimate, to the progress of intuition ; it is not that we have better faculties than our fathers, but that we employ them under better advantages. Their eyes were as good as ours, but we stand upon a moun- tain. We need not add that we have no sympathy with the mystic Realism which dreams of a destiny of humanity apart from the destiny of the individuals who compose the race — a destiny to which every generation is working up, and which is yet to be enjoyed only by the last, or by those in the last stage of development. We can hardly compre- hend how that can be a destiny of humanity in which im- mense multitudes, to whom that humanity belongs, have no immediate share, and to which they stand in no other rela- tion than that of precursors and contributors. Least of all do we believe that any progressive development of human nature as it is will ever conduct any individual to that con- dition of excellence in which the " whole sensibilities of his nature" are brought " into harmony with the Divine — with the life of God." This consummation requires a transfor- Sect. II.] RELIGION PSYCHOLOGICALLY CONSIDERED. 141 mation as well as education, renovation as Avell as progress. We must be new creatures in Christ Jesus before Ave can be partakers of a Divine nature. Having explained the distinctions betAvixt the logical and intuitional consciousness, Mr. Morell proceeds to ex- pound their connection and dependence. He represents " logical reasoning as the result of human imperfection struggling after intellectual restoration." The case is this : The harmony of our nature Avith moral, intellectual and religious truth has been disturbed and deranged, and the consequence is "that the poAver of intuition is at once diminished and rendered uncertain. The reality of things, instead of picturing itself, as it Avere, upon the calm sur- face of the soul, casts its reflection upon a mind disturbed by evil, by passion, by prejudice, by a thousand other in- fluences which distort the image, and tend to eiface it altogether." To correct our defective and imperfect in- tuitions we resort to the double processes of analysis and synthesis. We separate the parts, compare them Avith each other, and, from the perception of their consistencies and adaptations, reconstruct our knowledge into a logical whole, which shall more faithfully correspond to reality than the original intuitions themselves. Upon this re- markable statement Ave hope to be indulged in a few obser- vations. As logical or representative truth is based upon and ne- cessarily presupposes presentative, it never can be more cer- tain than intuition. Demonstration is strictly an intuitive process. In the pure mathematics the conceptions inA^olved in the definitions which are the subject matter of the reasoning are not regarded as representative; they are the things, and the only things, to Avhich reference is had ; and every step in every demonstration is a direct gazing upon some property or content of these conceptions. As the logical consciousness only reproduces the elementary cogni- tions of intuition, it can add nothing to them; it can neither increase their intensity, remove their obscurity, nor 142 STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [SECT. II. directly reduce them to consistency. It must faithfully represent them just as they are. Inconsistencies in our reflective exhibitions of truth may indeed send us back to our original intuitions and make us repeat the occasions on which they are produced, so that we may question them with more minuteness and attention; but it is not the intuitions which we suppose to be defective, but our accounts of them. We seek to correct the inadequacies of memory by the com- pleteness of consciousness. If a man's powers of intuition, therefore, are deranged upon any subject, no processes of ratiocination will cure him. Logic is neither eyes to the blind nor ears to the deaf. And if a man is destitute of the moral faculty, reasoning will be utterly incompetent to put him in possession of the notions of right, duty and obligation; or if his intuitional faculties are defective and disordered, he can only reason upon the defective and dis- torted conceptions which faithfully represent them. He can never have clearer notions till he is furnished with sounder faculties. It is true that logical exposition may be the means of aAvakening, developing and maturing intu- itions; but then the logical expositions must come from others who have actually had the intuitions described, or from the God that made us. They cannot come from the man to be awa-kened. So that his logical consciousness cannot stand to his intuitional in this relation of a help. We cannot comprehend how Mr. Morell, without departing from every principle which he has previously laid down, and upon which as occasion requires he is not backward to insist, should represent the logical understanding as a remedy for dimness of vision. Did Adam have no under- standing before the fall? Are the angels without it? and shall we drop it at death? Is it an endowment vouchsafed to the race only in consequence of the moral confusion and disorder which have supervened from sin, and are we to look to it as the Holy Spirit by which we are to be reno- vated and saved? The true view of the subject we apprehend to be, that Sect. II.] RELIGION PSYCHOLOGICALLY CONSIDERED. 143 the understanding is designed not to cure the disorders and remedy the imperfections, but to supplement the defects, of the intuitional faculties. It is the complement of intuition. Finite and limited as we are, presentative knowledge can extend but a little way; and the office of the understanding is to stretch our knowledge beyond the circle of our vision. We are so constituted that what we see shall be made the means of revealing more than we see. Presentation and Representation, Intuition, Induction and Inference are all instruments of knowing ; and by virtue of the constitution they- describe, man is able to penetrate beyond the limits of time and space to which consciousness is evidently restricted. It is, therefore, distinctly to add to his knowledge, to com- plete his constitution as an intelligent creature, that God has given him understanding. It is true the necessity of an understanding implies defect — intuition is the highest form of knowledge — but it is a defect which attaches to all finite creatures. They must either supplement intuition by inference, or their knowledge must be limited in time and space to the sphere of their personality. It belongs to the omnipresent God alone, as He is uncircumscribed in His being, to embrace all things in a single glance of unerring intuition. Creatures, however glorious and exalted, from the very limitation implied in being creatures, can never dispense with the faculties of mediate and representative cognition ; this is the law of their condition ; and a funda- mental error which pervades Mr. Morell's whole account of the understanding is, that it is not a faculty of know- ledge. Had he, in this point, risen above the philosophy of Kant, many of the paradoxes and inconsistencies of his treatise might have been obviously avoided. He professes to be a Natural Realist, and as such contends, and very properly contends, that we have faculties by which we can immediately apprehend existences; but his theory of the understanding, instead of being constructed in harmony with this hypothesis, instead of making it that complement of powers by which the mind can represent to itself the 144 STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [Sect. II. properties and qualities of absent objects, instead of treating its categories and forms as the conditions in conformity to which its representations shall be adequate and just, has made it the organ of the rankest delusions, of the most contempt- ible and puerile trifling. Our author takes occasion to caution his readers, " in the outset, against the supposition that the distinction" which he has elaborately expanded between the intuitional and logical consciousness " is anything at all novel in the history of mental philosophy. So far from it/' he affirms, "that it is almost as universal as philosophy itself, -lying alike patent both in ancient and modern speculation."^ This we cannot but regard as a mistake. Our acquaint- ance with the history of philosophy is small, but we know of no writer previously to Kant who took precisely the same views of the nature, office and operations of the understanding; and we know of no writer but Mr. Morel 1 who has restricted reason or intuition exclusively to the faculties of presentative cognition. It would require more space than we can at present devote to the subject to dis- cuss his ancient authorities, but we cannot forbear a word upon his modern examples. To begin with Kant : we very frankly confess that in his Critical Philosophy we never could distinguish betwixt the operations or modes of action which he ascribes to reason and those which he attributes to the understanding. They seem to us to be exactly the same faculty, or complement of faculties, employed about different objects, and in this opinion we are confirmed by an authority which it is seldom safe to contradict. " In the Kantian philosophy," says Sir William Hamilton, " both faculties perform the same function, both seek the one in many, the idea {idee) is only the conception [begriffe) sub- limated into the inconceivable, reason only the understand- ing which has overleaped itself." Intellect directed to the objects beyond the domain of experience is the Kantian reason ; within the domain of experience, the Kantian under- 1 Page 27. Sect. II.] RELIGION PSYCHOLOGICALLY CONSIDERED. 145 standing. Intellect in search of scientific unity is under- standing; in search of absolute unity, the reason. Em- ployed about the finite, limited, contingent, it is understand- ing ; employed about the correlatives, the absolute, infinite, necessary, it is reason. Or, in one word, as the faculty of the conditioned it is understanding; as the faculty of the unconditioned it is reason. But if the science of contraries be one, the faculty in each case as an intellectual power must be the same. There is, accordingly, a much closer corre- spondence between Mr. Morell's logical consciousness and Kant's speculative reason than between Kant's reason and Mr. Morell's intuition ; and Mr. Morell's intuition, in turn, is much more analogous to Kant's sensibility than to his reason. Mr. Morell's intuition is the presentative know- ledge of supersensible realities. Kant pronounced all such knowledge to be a sheer delusion. Mr. Morell's intuition is exclusive of analysis. Kant's reason reaches its highest unity through processes of generalization. Mr. Morell's intuition has no fixed and permanent laws. Kant's reason has its ideas as his understanding its categories. Between Kant's practical reason and Mr. Morell's intuition there are some striking points of correspondence, but they are points in M'hich Mr. Morell is inconsistent with himself. Both attrib- ute our firm conviction of the Divine existence and of a future life to our spiritual cravings and the authoritative nature of conscience ; but, in thus representing them as a want on the one hand and an implication on the other, our author abandons his fundamental principle that in intuition the object reveals itself. Neither is Mr. Morell's intuition precisely the same with the principles of common sense or the fundamental laws of belief of the Scottish school. These were not faculties 2^re- sentative of their objects, but vouchers of the reality of knowledge; and as to the Eclectics, they make no such distinction between reason and understanding as that sig- nalized by Kant, Coleridge and our author, but treat the categories and ideas promiscuously as laws of reason or Vol. III.— 10 146 STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [Sect. II. intelligence. " The one catholic and perennial philosophy, notwithstanding many schismatic aberrations/' is not that all objective jcertainty depends upon the actual presentation of its realities, and that the understanding cannot conduct us beyond the circle of sensibility, but that all knowledge is ultimately founded on faith, and "the objective certainty of science upon the subjective necessity of believing." If Mr. Morell had meant by intuition nothing more than " the complement of those cognitions or principles which we receive from nature, which all men therefore possess in common, and by which they test the truth of knowledge and the morality of actions," or, if he had defined it simply as the faculty of such principles, we should have regarded him in this matter beyond the reach of any just exceptions. But this is not his doctrine. The importance of the points upon which we have been insisting will appear from their application to the great problems of Keligion. What is God? What vouchers have we for the objective certainty of His being ? What kind of intercourse can be maintained betwixt Him and His creatures ? These are questions which will be variously answered according to varying views of the nature and extent of human knowledge, and the offices and operations of the human faculties. We have already seen that, in describing the developments of the higher stages of the intuitional consciousness, Mr. Moi'ell has confounded the intuition of a principle with the presentation of an object, representing our inference in relation to the Divine exist- ence, authenticated by the necessary law of causation, as a direct perception of the Deity Himself. His language in many places will bear the interpretation that our know- ledge of God is intuitive only in so far as it rests upon original principles of belief; but there are other passages in which he unquestionably teaches that God reveals Him- self as an immediate datum of consciousness, and that we know Him in Himself precisely as we know the phenom- ena of matter or the operations of mind. These two sets Sect. II.] RELIGIOX rSYCIIOLOGICALLY CONSIDERED. 147 con- of statements are really inconsistent — an unjustifiable fusion of intuition and presentation — but it is easy to see how they have arisen in the Rationalistic school. The law of substance has been marvellously confounded with the law of causality, and an inference from an effect to its cause has, accordingly, been treated as a perception of the relation of a quality to a substance. The proof of a cause has, in other words, been taken for the presentation of a substance, on the ground that the effect is a phenomenon which, as it cannot exist, cannot be perceived apart from its substratum or " fundamental essence." To affirm, therefore, in consistency with these principles, that the external world and ourselves are a series of effects, is simply to affirm that they are a series of phenomena which must inhere in some common substance, and of which they are to be regarded as the manifestations. "In my opinion," says Cousin, "all the laws of thought may be reduced to two — namely, the law of causality, and that of substance. These are two essen- tial and fundamental laws, of which all others are only derivatives, developed in an order by no means arbitrary." Having shown that these two fundamental laws of thought are absolute, he proceeds to reduce them to identity : " An absolute cause and an absolute substance are identical in essence, since every absolute cause must be substance in so far as it is absolute, and every absolute substance must be cause in order to be able to manifest itself." To reduce causality to substantive being, and effects to phenomenal manifestations, is to deny the possibility of a real creation. Substances as such cannot be relative and contingent : to make them effects is to make them phenomena. There can, therefore, be but one substance in the universe, and all that we have been accustomed to regard as the works of God are only developments to consciousness of the Divine Being Himself. The world stands to Him in the same relation in which thought and volition stand to our OAvn minds. This is the necessary result of confounding causation with sub- stance, and yet this is Avhat Mr. Morell has done, and Avhat 148 STANDARD AND NATURE OF EELIGIOX. [Sect. II, his psychology absokitely demanded to save it from self- contradiction. At one time we find him ascending, by vir- tue of the law of causality, from the finite, contingent and dependent to the infinite, necessary, self-existent, from effects to their causes, in the very track of the argument which he affects to despise. He finds God, not in Himself, but in His creatures. At another time, "in loftier moments of contemplation," he seems to stand upon the verge of infinity, and to gaze upon " Being (substance) in its essence, its unity, its self-existent eternity." At one time the great problem of reason is to discover the power and wisdom which gave the world its being and impressed upon nature its laws ; at another " to find the one fundamental essence by which " all things are upheld. At one time, in a single word, God is contemplated and known as the cause, at another as the substance, of all that exists. This conftision pervades the book, and is constantly obtruded upon us in that offensive form which makes the Deity nothing but the bond of union or the principle of co-existence to His creatures. This is the plain meaning of all that eternal cant about " totality and absolute unity," about the tendency of reason to syn- thesis, which is echoed and re-echoed in various forms with- out any apparent consciousness of its wickedness, blasphemy and contradiction. The whole doctrine of the absolute which has played so conspicuous a part in German specula- tions turns upon this blunder. To get at the cause of all things is only to get at the substance in which all inhere and coexist — to get at Being in its necessary and funda- mental laws, which, of course, would give all its manifes- tations. Those who wish to see what this philosophy has achieved in other hands will do well to consult the pages of Mr. INIo- rell on the systems of Fichte, Schelling and Hegel; and those who would appreciate its pretensions to truth and consistency would do well to study the masterly article of Sir William Hamilton upon the Eclectic Scheme of Cousin. We shall add here only a few reflections, that the reader Sect. II.] EELIGIOX PSYCHOLOGICALLY CONSIDERED. 149 may distinctly see where Mr. jNlorell's principles would con- duct him. In the first place, Deity, as absolute substance, is neces- sarily impersonal. The idea of individuality, or of .separate and distinct existence, is indispensable to our conception of a Person. But absolute Being has no distinct existence ; to distinguish is to condition it — to make it a being, and a being of such and such qualities, which is to destroy its absoluteness. In the next place, it obviously follows that everything is God and God is everything. As absolute being He is the generative principle of being in all that exists. He is their essence — that upon which their esse depends, and without which they Avould be mere shadows and illusions. Just as far as anything really exists, just so far it is God. He is the formal and distinguishing ingre- dient of its nature as an entity or existence. Hence, it deserves further to be remarked that there can be no such thing as real causation. The law of substance is made to abrogate the law of causality. The absolute is not a productive, but a constitutive, principle — a fundamental element or condition, but not an effi,cient of existence. It is no more a cause in the sense in which the constitution of our nature determines us to apprehend the relation, than body is the cause of extension, mind the cause of thought, or the sun the cause of light. Absolute beauty, for ex- ample, is not the creator, but the essential element, of all particular beauties ; absolute right is not the producer, but an indispensable constituent, of all particular rectitude ; and absolute Being is not the maker, but the necessary in- gredient or characteristic principle, of every particular being. There is then no creation, no maker of heaven and earth, no father of the spirits, nor former of the bodies of men. There is simply ens reale, from which what we call creatures emanate, as its properties and adjuncts. This doctrine is unblushingly avowed by the great master of the Eclectic School ; and it is deeply imbedded in everything that Mr. Morell has said of the relations of the Deitv to 150 STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [Sect. II. the world. We need not say that a philosophy which con- tradicts a fundamental principle of belief, which denies the law of causality, or, what is the same, absorbs it in another and a different law, is self-condemned. We affirm finally that every form in which the philos- ophy of the Absolute ever has been, and, we venture to say, ever can be, proposed, necessarily leads to nihilism — the absolute annihilation of the possibility of knowledge. The very notion of the absolute is inconsisteiit with the conditions of knowledge. Merging all difference in iden- tity, and all variety in unity, it is evidently incompatible with the nature of consciousness, which evidently implies, as Cousin has lucidly explained, plurality and difference. The only consistent hypothesis is the intellectual intuition of Schelling, "in which there exists no distinction of sub- ject and object — no contrast of knowledge and existence ; all difference is lost in absolute indifference — all plurality in absolute unity. The intuition itself, reason and the absolute are identical." But consistency is here evidently maintained at the sacrifice of the possibility of thought. Fiehte, though his confidence in his system was so strong that he staked his everlasting salvation on the truth of even its subordinate features, yet confesses that it was, after all, a mere tissue of delusions. "The sum- total," saj^s he, "is this: there is absoluteb' nothing permanent, either without me or within me, but only an unceasing change. I know absolutely nothing of any existence, not even my own. I, raj-self, know nothing, and am nothing. Images there are — they constitute all that apparently exists, and what they know of them- selves is after the manner of images ; images that pass and vanish without there being aught to witness their transition ; that consist in fact of the images of images — without significance and without an aim. I, myself, am one of these images ; nay I am not even thus much, but only a confused image of images. All reality is converted into a marvellous dream, without a life to dream of and without a mind to dream — into a dream made up only of a di-eam of itself Perception is a dream — thought, the source of all the existence and all the reality which I imagine to m.yself of my existence, of my power, of my destination, is the dream of that dream." Sect. II.] EELIGION PSYCHOLOGICALLY CONSIDERED. 151 Melancholy confession ! God grant that it may serve as an awful warning to those who, with presumptuous confidence, would plunge into the fathomless abyss of the Absolute ! The certainty of God's existence rests upon no such flimsy speculations. Through the indestructible principles which are not merely, as Kant supposed, regulative laws of thought, but guarantees for the objective realities to which they con- duct us, we have an assurance for the Divine existence which cannot be gainsayed without making our nature a lie. Reason conducts us to God — its laws vouch for His exist- ence, but it is in the way of inference from what passes around us and within ns. He has so constituted the human mind that all nature shall be a witness for Himself Every- thing is inexplicable until He is acknowledged. But we know Him, and can know Him, only mediately. We spell out the syllables which record His Name as they are found in earth, in heaven and in ourselves. What is presentatively given is not the Almighty, but His works; but reason, from the very nature of its laws, cannot apprehend His works without the irresistible conviction that He is. The principles are intuitive by which we ascend from nature to its Author, but the substance of the Godhead never stands before us face to face as an object of vision, though these deductions of reason are felt to have an objective validity independent of the subjective necessity of believing. Let it be granted that our knowledge of God is mediate, and that the understanding is a faculty of cognition, and the whole groundwork of Mr. Morell's system is swept away. All that remains to prove that the logical conscious- ness may be an adequate medium of revelation and a com- petent instrument of religion is to indicate the fact that through its representative conceptions it can reproduce every emotion which the original intuitions could excite. The copy can awaken all the feelings of the original. Vivid description may produce the effects of vision. Tlie peculiar emotions of religion, consequently, are not dependent upon 152 STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [Sect. II. the power of gazing upon its actual realities. If they can be embodied so as to produce what Lord Karnes denominates ideal presence, the result may be the same as if the presence were real. To this principle painting, jjoetry and oratory owe their power to stir the depths of the human soul — to rule like a wizard the world of the heart, to call up its sunshine or draw down its showers. The remaining portions of the book we must reserve for another opportunity. SECTION III. REVELATION AND RELIGION. THE Apostle Paul, writing to the Romans, says, "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God." In these words he first states in what the essence of a sinner's religion consists, and then how it is produced. The essence of this religion, as plainly appears from the context, he makes to be Faith in Jesus Christ. " If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." As if anxious to avoid the imputation of novelty, and to show that he taught nothing but what was contained in the lively Oracles of God, the Apostle appeals in confirmation of his doctrine to the testimony of an ancient Prophet. " For the Scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed." I must call your especial atten- tion to the manner in which Paul applies this passage to the case of the Gentiles, as it furnishes a strong incidental proof of his profound conviction that the very words of Scripture were the words of the Holy Ghost. He knew nothing of an inspiration of the Spirit as contradistinguished from an inspiration of the letter, and consequently does not scruple to build an argument upon a single exj)ression, when that expression is the language of a Prophet. Because the Scrip- ture saith whosoever, without limitation or restriction, the Apostle concludes that there is no diflerence between the Jew and the Greek. This term equally includes them both, and he accordingly has no hesitation in drawing the infer- 154 STANDARD AND NATURE OP RELIGION. [Sect. III. euce that " the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him." It is to be received as an universal ijroposition, true in all cases and under all circumstances, and that upon the force of a single term, that " Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." The religion of a sinner being compendiously embl'aced by the Apostle under the head of Faith, the question arises. How is this faith produced ? The successive steps of the process are first expanded in a series of forcible and pungent interrogatories, and then recapitulated in this solemn lan- guage : " How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed ? and how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear with- out a preacher ? and how shall they preach except they be sent ?" That is, in order to the existence of fiiith there must be a Divine testimony. The AYord of God is its standard and measure. That this testimony may produce faith, it must be known — it must be imparted from without ; it is not the offspring of our own cogitations, nor the product of our own thoughts ; it comes to us in the form of a report. But in order that it may be proposed and communicated, there must be persons commissioned for the purpose ; there must be Apostles — men, in other words, to whom the Word of the Lord is entrusted. This then is the Divine arrange- ment. A class of men is to be put in charge of that which is to be the object of faith; this is Inspiration. They report to others the Word of the Lord; this is Revelation; and this report is the medium through which a saving Faith is engendered. "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the AVord of God." Inspiration gives rise to revelation, revelation to faith, and faith is the sum and sub- stance of religion. If you ask the Apostle what it is to be inspired, he briefly answers that it is to be sent with a mes- sage from God ; if you ask him what he means by revela- tion, he as promptly replies that it is the Divine message delivered ; and if you inquire of liim in regard to man's duty, it is, compendiously, to believe the report. This is his Sect. III.] REVELATION AND RELIGION. 155 philosophy of religion : God sends ; Apostles report ; men believe. But, simple and consistent as it seems, this account, Ave are told, is in palpable contradiction to the very nature of religion and the fundamental laws of the human mind. We are accordingly furnished with a theory drawn from a deeper philosophy than Prophets or Apostles ever knew, which, under the pretence of emancipating us from the bondage of the letter and giving free scojie to the liberty of the spirit, has left us nothing of Christianity but the name. A reve- lation which reports the testimony of God, and the faith which believes it because it is His testimony, are both dis- carded as psychological absurdities ; and as to the idea that any men or set of men have ever been commissioned to speak to others in the name of the Lord, and to challenge submis- sion to their message on the ground of the Divine authority which attests it, this is scouted as " of all our vanities the motliest, the merest word that ever fooled the ear from out the Schoolman's jargon." The issues involved in this con- troversy are momentous. It is not a question about words and names ; it is a question which involves the very founda- tions of Christianity. These insidious efforts to undermine the authority of the Bible and to remove an external, infal- lible standard of faith, however disguised in the covert of philosophy, are prompted by a deej) and inveterate opposi- tion to the doctrines of the Cross. The design is to destroy the religion, and hence the fury of the efforts against the citadel in which it is lodged. It is not the casket, but the jewel, that has raised all this clamour of rancorous opposi- tion ; and when men cry, Down with the Bible ! the real meaning of their rage is, Away with Jesus and His Cross ! Vain is all their opposition, vain the combination of philos- ophers and sophists ; He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh, the Lord shall have them in derision ; He hath set His Son upon the holy hill of Zion, and there he must reign until He has put down all His enemies under His feet. The new theory of religion — I call it new, not because 156 STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [Sect. III. any of its fundamental principles are new, they are only old errors in a new dress, but because it is supported upon new grounds — this new theory of religion I propose briefly to consider in contrast with the testimony of Paul, so that it may be seen to be untenable, even on the principles of the metaphysical philosophy behind which it has entrenched itself. I. I shall begin with the new theory of Revelation, as the discussion of that will lead me to say all that I deem important upon the present occasion on the nature and essence of religion. " The idea of revelation," we are told by the writer whom I have in view, " always implies a process by which know- ledge, in some form or other, is communicated to an intelli- gent being. For a revelation at all to exist there must be an intelligent being, on the one hand, adapted to receive it, and there must be, on the other hand, a process by which this same intelligent being becomes cognizant of certain facts or ideas. Supj)ress either of these conditions, and no revelation can exist. The preaching of an angel would be no revelation to an idiot — a Bible in Chinese would offer none to a European. In the former case, there is no intel- ligence capable of receiving the ideas conveyed ; in the lat- ter case, the process of conveyance renders the whole thing practically a nonentity by allowing no idea whatever to reach the mind. We may say then, in a few words, that a revelation always indicates a mode of intelligence." ^ From this passage we see the necessity of being on our guard against the ambiguity of words. It is perhaps unfor- tunate that a term which in its strict and proper acceptation applies only to a part of the contents of the Sacred Volume, should have been, as in the language of theology it con- fessedly has been, applied to the whole canon of faith. The Scriptures themselves denominate nothing revelations but those supernatural mysteries which lie beyond the province of reason, which eye hath not seen nor ear heard, and which 1 Morell's PliU. Eel., pp. 123, 124, Eng. Ed. Sect. III.] REVELATION AND RELIGION. 157 could not be known independently of the supernatural teach- ing of the Spirit. When they speak of themselves as a whole they are designated simply by some title which indicates that they are the Word of God. This is the phrase which Paul employs in writing to the Romans, and employs in the same sense in which popular usage applies revelation. It is little worthy of the dignity and candour of philoso- phy to construct an argument upon a verbal quibble. Reve- lation as synonymous with the standard of faith and as cov- ering the whole contents of Scripture, without reference to the distinction of the natural and supernatural, is not so much a mode of intelligence as a ground of belief. Its office is not subjective, but objective. It is not in the mind, but to the mind. The simplest notion that we can form of it is that it is a message from God. Its work is done when it reports what He says. What distinguishes revealed truth from every other species of truth is not its nature, not its object- matter, but the immediate ground of credibility. It is the measure of faith ; and the argument of faith is. Thus saith the Lord. The characteristic of revelatibn, in the generic sense in which it is applied to the canon, is, that it contains, or rather is, a Divine testimony, and this testimony must be the immediate ground of belief — I say the immediate ground of belief, because the ultimate and final basis of truth in every case is the faithfulness of God in the structure of our mental constitution. We believe the reports of our senses and the data of consciousness because the constitution of our nature is such that we cannot do otherwise ; but when we are asked how we know that our faculties do not deceive us, we can only appeal to the moral character of Him who has wrought these laws of belief into tlie very texture of our frames. But in these cases the immediate grounds of belief are found in our faculties themselves. It is ourselves that we first trust, and not God. Such truths may be dis- coveries, but they are not revelations ; they may be clear, distinct, unquestionable, but they are not Divine. We receive them either because they are self-evident and need 158 STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [Sect. III. no proof, or because we are able to prove them, and not because God appears as a witness in their behalf. Revela- tion and a Divine testimony are one and the same thing. How this testimony shall be received and what eiFects it shall produce, whether men shall understand it or not, whether it shall really awaken any ideas in their mind.s or create any emotions in their hearts, — these are matters which, however important in themselves, do not at all affect the question whether it is really a message from God. It may be admitted that a revelation to an idiot or in an unknown tongue, where no adequate provision was made for remov- ing the impediments to an apprehension of its contents, would be very senseless and absurd. But such a message being supposed, the question whether it is a revelation is one thing, and whether it is wise and judicious is another ; and in a philosophical discussion things that are separate ought to be kept distinct. This adroit play upon the ambiguity of the term revela- tion, in which it is made to be a mode of intelligence rather than the measure of a Divine faith, is the corner-stone upon which the author's whole theory of the nature and grounds of religious truth is erected. It is unnecessary to give a detailed account of the process by which revelation is distinguished; it will be enough to seize upon his fundamental principle and expose its fallacy. His doctrine is briefly this, that revelation is a species of intuition in which things authenticate themselves. The realities of religion are brought directly into contact with the mind and vouch for their own existence, just as the material world and the forms of beauty and of virtue are their own witnesses. We kno\v the things that are freely given us of God, not by the testimony of His Spirit, but the immediate consciousness of their presence. Revelation is a spiritual perception in which we see the invisible, and stand face to face with the infinite and eternal. Its objects are presented to us by God, but in no other sense than He presents the objects of all other knowledge. The rocks, Sect. III.] REVELATION AND RELIGION. 159 mountains, caves and valleys of the material world, the heavens above us and the earth beneath, are as really and truly a revelation from Him and in the same essential sense as the Person, offices and work of His own eternal Son. Faith is vision, and the actual presentation of its objects its only standard and measure. In conformity with these views inspiration is represented as a subjective process in which God adapts the mind to the objects presented in reve- lation. It is a clearing of the spiritual sight, a strengthen- ing of the spiritual eye, " an especial influence wrought upon the faculties of the subject, by virtue of which he is able to grasp these realities in their perfect fullness and integrity. Eevelation and Inspiration, then, indicate," we are told, " one united process, the result of which upon the human mind is to produce a state of spiritual intuition, whose phe- nomena are so extraordinary that we at once separate the agency by which they are produced from any of the ordi- nary principles of human development. And yet this agency is applied in perfect consistency with the laws and natural operations of our spiritual nature. Inspiration does not imply anything generically new in the actual processes of the human mind. It does not involve any form of intel- ligence essentially different from what we already possess. It indicates rather the elevation of the religious conscious- ness, and with it, of course, the power of spiritual vision, to a degree of intensity peculiar to the individuals thus highly favoured by God." ^ This might be taken as a caricature of the work of the Spirit in the effectual calling of God's children, were it not that the author has taken special pains to show that there can be no other kind of inspiration, without contradiction to the laws of mind, but that which he has described. His inspiration is, in many respects, analogous to the saving oj)erations of the Spirit. It enaWes its subject to under- stand revelation; brings him into harmony with Divine truth; subdues the passions; represses the influence of 1 Morell, p. 151. 160 STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [Sect. III. sense and sanctifies the heart. It evidently stands in the same relation to his revelation that the regenerating and enlightening influences of grace sustain to the Scriptures of God. But an inspiration which gives rise to a revela- tion, which commits a message from the Holy One to the hands of men, which ends in a Divine testimony as the standard and measure of a Divine faith, he can by no means abide. The objects of religion must authenticate themselves. The consequence is, that every man, in so far as he is religious, is inspired, and " every man has his doc- trine and his psalm." The inconsistency of these views with the uniform and pervading testimony of the Scrip- tures must strike the dullest apprehension. Paul, as we saw, solemnly declares that faith comes by hearing ; this new philosophy affirms that it comes by vision. Paul de- clares that the immediate ground of belief is the testimony of God ; this new philosophy, that it is found in the things themselves. Paul declares that inspiration imparts to men a Divine message; this new philosophy, that it purges the mind. Paul declares that it is restricted to Apostles ; the new philosophy, that it is the property of the race. All these enormous and palpable contradictions of Scrip- ture have sprung from the gratuitous assumption that revelation is a mode of intelligence, a process of our own minds, and not an extraordinary message of God. Taking it for granted that it is nothing more than an exercise of our natural faculties in some form of cognition, the author proceeds to conclude from the laws of the disjunctive syl- logism that it must be intuitive. He acknowledges but two modes of intelligence, and to one or the other of these it must belong. It cannot be a process of ratiocination; no rules of logic, no powers of combination and analysis, no force of words nor ingenuity of inference could ever have evolved the scheme of redemption or the sublime mysteries of the Cross. There are elements embraced in religion which it never could have entered the heart of man to con- ceive. It introduces us, in a high and sublime sense, into a Sect. III.] T^EVELATIOX AND RELICxIOX. 161 new world, exalts us to new conceptions, aiul unveils to us glories beyond the suggestion of mortal thought. It bears upon its face impressions of originality and novelty which remove it beyond the sphere of the logical understanding, and carry convincing evidence that, however it came, it never could have been excogitated. This reasoning has a show of plausibility. It labours, however, under one fatal defect — the disjunction can be easily retorted. It is as easy to show, on the one hand, that Christianity, as a whole, never could have been intuitive, as it is to prove, on the other, that it never could have been the offspring of logic. It involves relations and dependencies which could only have been adjusted by powers of combination. It is not a single concrete reality, like a man, a mountain or a tree, but a connected scheme of events, every one of them con- tingent in relation to our knowledge, and concatenated into a system which cannot be grasped without calling into play all the powers of the logical understanding. It is a system which pre-eminently requires reasoning — a comprehensive view of great moral principles as they are involved and illustrated in a wonderful series of facts. What then? It cannot be intuitional, it cannot be logical. One would think that this obvious reductio ad absurdum would have been sufficient to open the mind of a philasopher to the fallacy of his fundamental principle. No wonder that sub- jective religionists hate logic; it makes sad havoc with their finest speculations. The notion that revelation is a mode of intelligence, which, in plainer terms, means that it a faculty of the human mind, is the parent or child — it is hard to say which is the first in order of nature — of a still more se- rious mistake in reference to the nature of religious trnth and the ^peculiarities of Christian exjjerience. This double misconception has concealed from the author the palpable incongruities of his system, and induced him to believe that the doctrines of grace might be pressed to the support of an hypothesis which, legitimately carried out, reduces them Vol. III.— 11 162 STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [Sect. III. to nonsense. To refute his scheme is simply to expose these errors. He has made religious truth essentially dif- ferent from what it is, and therefore has had to postulate a faculty in order to cognize it. He has made the religious life essentially different from what it is, and therefore has had to fit the work of the Spirit to his assumptions. 1. His first error is a fundamental misconception of the nature of religious truth. To say nothing of his chapters upon the peculiar essence of religion in general and Chris- tianity in particular, it is evident, from the manner in which he attempts to set aside the popular notion of revelation, that he looks upon religion as embracing a province of things, a class of realities, or, if you prefer an expression more in accordance with the theory of Locke, a collection of simple ideas, entirely distinct from every other depart- ment of knowledge, every other sphere of existence. It is a world to itself. And as all primitive conceptions must come through some original faculty to which they are adapted, there must be a peculiar faculty of religion analo- gous to taste or the sensibility to beauty, and to conscience or the sensibility to right. "Imagine yom^self," says the author, "by definitions and explications addressed to the understanding, attempting to make a blind mau, who had never gazed upon nature, com- prehend the exquisite beauties in form, hue and graceful motion, presented to the eye by a summer's landscape. It is needless to say that all your descriptions would fall infi- nitely short of the actual reality — that they would not convey the hundredth part of what one minute's gaze upon the scene would spontaneously present — that he could only conceive, indeed, of any portion of it by analogies taken from the other senses. The reason of this is that he knows the thing only formally by logical exposition ; he has never had the proper experiences, never the direct sense-percep- tions, which are absolutely necessary to a full realization of it. And so it is, mutatis mutandis, with religious truth. You may expound, and define, and argue upon the high Sect. III.] REVELATION AND RELIGION. 163 tlienics which Christianity presents to the contemphition ; but unless a man have the intuitions on which all mere verbal exposition must be grounded, there is no revelation of the spiritual reality to his mind, and there can be no clearer perception of the actual truth than there is to the blind man of the vision of beauty which lies veiled in darkness around him." Improvement in religious knowledge, accordingly, is rep- resented as consisting in the education and development of the religious faculty, which, at every stage of its growth, enlarges the sphere of our actual experience and expands the horizon of our mental vision. Religion, like taste, presupposes an original susceptibility to a particular class of ideas. It may be cultivated, ennobled and refined ; but the mind can never get beyond the fundamental data which are given in this form of consciousness. All acces- sions to its knowledge are only new experiences; the foculty is the parent of all the truth we can know. Reflection may construct a science, presenting these data in their proper order, and showing their connections, dependencies and consequences, but to him who is destitute of the data the science is unmeaning and nugatory. All theology, con- sequently, is nothing but the product of analysis and synthesis from the materials which are given in experience. As the science of optics to the blind and the science of music to the deaf can be little more than jargon, so any representative exhibitions of Divine truth to one whose religious faculty has not yet been awakened would be worse than idle. We meet this M'hole train of reasoning by a bold and confident denial of its fundamental assumption. Religion, in the sense asserted, is not a simple thing — it is not a collection of ideas at all analogous to the sensible properties of matter or the original fiiculties of the mind. Neither is it exclusively confined to any one department of our nature, so that we can say that this is the religious sense, as we affirm of conscience that it is a moral sense, or of taste 1G4 STANDARD AND NATrRF, OF RELIGIOX. [SiXT. Ill, that it is the sense of the beautiful and fiiir. I do not say that religion involves no simple ideas or primitive elements of thought; this would be an absurdity. But I do say that there are no intuitions peculiar to religion, requiring a separate and distinct faculty in order to their cognition, and which could not and would not liave been developed in the ordinary exercise of our powers. There are no things, no objects of thought which, as such, are simply and exclusively religious — which exist, in other words, only in so far as they are religious. There are no simple ideas characteristic of revelation, and Avhich, without it, would never have found a lodgment in the mind. On the con- trary, our faculties, in the sphere of their ordinary exercise, furnish us witli all the materials out of which the whole fabric of revealed truth is constructed. Every stone in the sacred and august temple is hewn from the quarry of com- mon experience. The Bible contains not a single simple idea which, considered merely as an element of thought, may not be found in the consciousness of every human being who has ever exercised his wits. It is not the ele- ments, but the combinations of these elements, that give to revelation its peculiarity and grandeur. It is not the stones, but the order and arrangement of the stones, that constitute the building. Revelation deals pre-eminently with complex ideas, particularly with what Locke denomi- nates mixed modes, which, as they are mainly retained in the mind by the force of words, would seem to refer revela- tion to the category from which our author excludes it — of verbal exposition. But the fallacy of the notion of a peculiar religious fac- ulty, with its characteristic cognitions, Avill yet more fully appear from a brief investigation of the nature of religion itself. What, then, is religion ? In whatever its peculiar essence may be said to consist, one thing is universally con- ceded— that it grows out of the relations betwixt moral and intelligent creatures and their God. Take away God, and ( Sect. III.] REVELATION AXD RELIGION. 165 llicrc can be no relioion, because there is no object upon which it can fasten. Take away moral and intelligent crea- tures, and there can be no religion, because there are no sub- jects in whom it can inhere. Prosecute the analysis, and it will be found that the relations out of which religion arises are those that are involved in moral government. " Thev that come unto God must believe that He is, and that He is the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him." It is not a little remarkable that this conception of moral govern- ment, without w^liich religion is a term destitute of meaning, has wholly escaped the notice of our profound philosopher, and we need not be astonished that a system which dis- penses with obedience and law has no manner of use for the Bible. The essence of religion, as a subjective phenomenon, is made to consist in a state of feeling which a dog may have in common with his master. There is certainly nothing- moral in a naked sense of dependence. Men may feel -that ihey are in the hands of God, and hate his power. Devils feel it, and blaspheme although they tremble. Having settled the principle that religion grows out of the relations involved in moral government, we are pre- pared for a detailed consideration of its objective elements. These are obvioiisly embraced in a history of the Divine administration — an account of the law to which obedience is exacted, of the rewards to which it shall be entitled, and of the doom to which transgressors shall be assigned. It is a history, in other words, of God's providence as unfolded in His dealings with the race — an account of God's purposes as already, or yet to be, developed in events. Subjectively considered, it indicates the attitude in wliich men should stand to the Divine administration — a generic condition of the soul prompting to exercises in unison with tlie requisitions of the law. It extends not to a single fac- ulty or po^ver, but to the whole man ; it is the loyalty of a subject to his j)rince — of a dutiful son to the father that begat him. God, the just and righteous Ruler; man, tlie sul)ject, whether obedient or rebellious, — these arc tlie terms 166 STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [Sect. III. that must be given to understand religion. It is mainly- conversant with relations, and those exclusively moral. As it treats of the progress and conduct of a government, any account of it must, in the nature of the case, be to a large degree historical. Revelation in regard to it must be analogous to an explanation of the laws, constitution and history of a kingdom in past ages or in a distant quarter of the earth. These things being so, no other intuitions are needed in order to grasp the truths of religion but those which are evolved by our circumstances in the world. The great idea of moral government is not only a primary dictum, in its germ, of every human consciousness, but is daily and hourly exemplified in more or less completeness by the relations of the Family, the School, the State. It meets us everywhere, and men can never efface it from their souls until they have extinguished the light of conscience. Truth, justice, benev- olence, mercy — all those moral attributes which adorn the character of God, and which are required to be found in us — demand nothing more than the ordinary operations of our moral nature in order to be in some measure under- stood. Revelation consequently deals with no new and peculiar simple ideas. It is not, consequently, a faculty or mode of intelligence. Conversant about relations and his- torical in its form, it must be a presentation to our faculties of facts and events involving combinations of simple ideas collected from all quarters — which can only be done by report. Philosophy confirms the Apostle that faith comes by hearing. But we may go a step fiirther, and shoAv from a brief recapitulation of the distinctive doctrines of Christianity, as they are unfolded in the Scriptures, that they turn upon events which could be known only by the testimony of God. The Gospel is a history of the conception and exe- cution of God's purposes of grace to the fallen family of man. That there should exist such a purpose is, relatively to liuniau knowledge, a contingent event. There were no Sect. III.] REVELATION AND RELIGION. 167 principles from which wc or any creature could demonstrate it a 'priori. How then shall we know it ? By intuition ? It is one of the deep things of God, and none can penetrate His counsels but His own Spirit. He must reveal it, or it must remain locked up in eternal secrecy. The mediation of Christ, the grand agency by which redemption has been achieved, as actually interposed, is a history involving a series of events deriving all their significancy and import- ance from relations that the understanding alone can grasp. As God and Man in one Person, as Prophet, Priest and King of the Church, He performed and still continues to perform a work in which what strikes the senses is the shell ; the substance lies within. How shall we know that He was the federal head and legal substitute of men ? This was a sovereign and arbitrary appointment. How shall we know that He bore our sins in His own body on the tree ? that He was bruised for our iniquities and wounded for our transgressions ? How shall we know that He was justified in the Spirit, and that He is now seated at God's right hand, and ever liveth to make intercession for us? Evidently these things must depend upon report. Faith must come by hearing. Either, then, such a religion as Christianity cannot be true — not only is not true, but cannot be true, or at least known by us to be true — or revelation is not a mode of intelligence. In this sense such a religion cannot be revealed. The only species of revelation which it admits is that of verbal exposition. It must be a history recited or recorded, or both. Faith must lean on report. As a religion of moral government so obviously requires this species gf revelation, if revealed at all, it is worthy of remark that those who have been most malignant in their assaults against the bondage of the letter have been left to exemplify the fact, in many painful and distressing instances, that they were also emancipated from the bondage of the law. Dealing in intuitions and rhapsodies, living in a world of impalpable shapes and airy forms, they soon learn to treat with contempt the tame and sober relations mIiIcIi 1 68 STAXDAED AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [Sect. III. are involved in the notions of husband, citizen, friend and subject. JNIysticism is an intoxicating draught — a stimulus so powerful, not unfrequently, in particular directions, that all sense of responsibility is lost, and the darkest crimes arc perpetrated with as little remorse as that with which a drunkard belches forth his oaths or insults the wife • of his bosom and the children of his loins. The letter is the guardian of morals as well as of truth. It teaches men — Avhat they are often anxious to forget — that there is a law, holy, just and good, and yet terrible to evil-doers, wliich supports the eternal throne. It unveils a judgment to come ; a day is appointed in which the world shall be judged in righteousness, and every man shall receive at the hands of impartial justice according to his deeds. This unflinching supremacy of right, this supreme dominion of law, this terrible responsibility for sin, is no doubt a griev- ous oifence. But those who will not accept the provisions of grace— all in accordance with the immutable requisitions of right — may kindle a fire and walk in the light of their own sparks, but this shall they have at God's hands, they shall lie down in sorrow. Their intuitions and impulses, their dreams and inspirations, will not save them from the awful exactions of that government which was whispered in conscience, thundered on Sinai and hallowed on Calvary. God will by no means clear the guilty. But misapprehending, as the author has done, the essen- tial nature of religious truth, he has confounded two things that are entirely distinct, — the process of giving a revelation, and the process of making a Christian. Having made Revelation a fiiculty in man, which, like every .other faculty, is developed by exercise on its appropriate objects, he could find no other office for Inspiration but that of stimulating and strengthening the natural organ of religious truth. Revelation itself is the Divine life. The possession of this faculty is what makes man a religious being, and he im- proves in religion just to the extent that this form of con- sciousness is developed, cultivated and refined. Inspiration Sect. III.] EEVEL.ATION AND RELIGION. 169 is what quickens it into motion. Let it be granted that there is 'such a species of inspiration as that here described, it obviously does not exclude the inspiration which gives a message from God. If religious truth is of such a nature that in order to be known it must be reported, the fact that an influence may be necessary to enable a man to receive and understand the report is not inconsistent with the other fact, that there must be some one to make the report. You can dispense with messengers only upon the supposition that the knowledge to be conveyed cannot be communicated by a message. It is this misconception which has led our author to confound inspiration with conversion. If he had been right as to what religion is, he would Ijave seen he necessity of inspiration in the sense of the Apostle, who makes it the sending of men with a testimony from God. What it is in its own nature, how God operated upon the minds of Apostles, and how far their own powers were called into play, are simply curious questions, about which the Bible has resolved nothing. The main thing is, that those who were so sent spake not the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth ; and as they spake so also they wrote, as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Their Avords and writings are equally and alike the testimony of God. The end of inspiration is to furnish the rule of faith. Faith comes by hearing, and hear- ing by the Word of God. But, apart from the abusive application of the term insjnration to the renewing and sanctifying operations of the Spirit, the author has misrep- resented that work itself in consequence of his primary error in reference to revelation. The notioh that revelation is a faculty of peculiar intui- tions the author has marvellously confounded with the evan- gelical doctrine of the agency of the Spirit in regeneration. " In making these statements," says he, "we are simply put- ting in a more definite form what almost all classes of Chris- tians fully admit, and what they are perpetually .asserting. Is it not allowed that men, even of intellect and learning, 170 STANDARD AXD NATURE OF RELIGION. [Sect. III. may read the Bible througli and through again, aud yet may have no spiritual perceptions of the realities to which it refers ? Do we not constantly hear it asserted that Divine truth must be spiritually understood? Nay, does not St. Paul himself tell us that the things of the Spirit of God must be spiritually discerned? And what does all this amount to but that there must be the awakening of the religious consciousness before the truth is actually revealed to us, and that it can only be revealed to us at all, essen- tially speaking, in the form of religious intuition ?" I am willing to admit that if religious truth consisted of a collection of simple and primitive cognitions, the only conceivable mode of making them intelligible to men would be to produce them in their consciousness. If God designed to impart to the blind the idea of colours, to the deaf the idea of sounds, or to those totally destitute of the senses the glories of heaven and the beauties of earth, it would be necessary to impart the faculties that they wanted and bring them into contact with their appropriate objects. But if Divine truth, so far as it implies intuitional elements, lays under tribute the contributions of all our faculties in the ordinary sphere of their exercise, as it involves no elements requiring a peculiar and distinctive faculty of religion, as it appeals mainly and pre-eminently to the logical understand- ing, the difficulty which is obviated in regeneration and conversion must be something very different from the pro- duction of a new class of cognitions. Hence, it has never been contended by evangelical divines that grace communi- cates new faculties to the soul. Man, since the Fall, pos- sesses all the original powers with which he was endowed when he came from the hands of God. Nor is it contended that the Spirit awakens any dormant susceptibilities, any latent capacities which have lacked the opportunity of devel- opment and exercise. Neither this, nor anything like this, is the scriptural theory of grace; and if our author had understood the real condition of man he would have seen the true position of the A¥ord in the economy of salvation, Sect. III.] REVELATION AND RELIGION. 171 and have assigned it its office without confounding it with the work of the Spirit. 2. I proceed to expose his misconception in relation to the end or design of Divine Revelation. He makes it, as ^ve have seen, a faculty in man which God developes by the presentation of its appropriate objects, and occasionally stimulates by the special influence of inspiration. Revela- tion is, therefore, the Divine life. A man is religious just to the extent that this form of intuitional consciousness is developed, cultivated and refined. Now, in opposition to this, Paul asserts that revelation is m order to the Divine life, the means of producing it, and rearing and expanding it to its full proportions. He makes faith to be the very essence of a sinner's religion, and the Word of God to be its measure and its rule. The testimony of God without us supplies us with the credenda, the things to be believed. That exists independently of our own minds. But will the mere report of the Divine testimony infallibly terminate in faith ■? Paul promptly replies that they have not all obeyed the Gospel, and Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report ? What, then, is the difficulty ? Is it that the Gos- pel is naturally unintelligible? — that it contains, I mean, verbal statements involving simple ideas or primitive ele- ments of thought which we have no faculties to grasp ? Is it that it talks of colours to a blind man, or of sounds to a deaf one ? By no means : the terms it uses are all in them- selves intelligible, and intelligible by us with none but the faculties that we bring with us into the world. It speaks of a ruler, a judge, sin, guilt, condemnation, pardon and atone- ment,— all of them things which, to some extent, we are able to conceive and to represent in thought. It is not, therefore, that its terms are senseless; it is not as if written in Chinese or Sanscrit, nor like the preaching of an angel to an idiot. The difficulty is one which intuition cannot reach. If the tilings revealed were actually present to the mind, the difficulty would still exist ; it would still be true that the natural man would refuse to receive them, and that he 172 STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [Sect. III. could not spiritually discern them. Mr. Morell seems to think that all that is wanted is simply the faculty of appre- hension— the power of knowing the things and perceiving them to be real. But this is not the case. The difficulty lies in the moral condition of the sinner. The sinner remaining as he is, no presence of spiritual realities, no con- tact of them with the mind, however immediate and direct, would give him a diiferent kind of discernment from that which he obtains from the Word. This moral condition is denominated in the Scriptures a state of death; and the term is happily chosen, for it exactly describes depravity in its- pervading influence u])on all the powers and faculties of the man. Holiness is called a life, the life of God in the soul of man; and by pursuing the analogies which these terms sug- gest we may form some definite conceptions of the real hin- drances among men to the cordial reception of the Word. What, then, is life ? It evidently belongs to that class of things which, incomprehensible in themselves and incapable of being represented in thought, are matters of necessary belief. We see its effects, we witness its operations, Ave can seize upon the symptoms which distinguish its presence. But what it is in itself no mortal mind can conceive. We can only speak of it as the unknown cause of numberless phenomena which we notice. Where is life ? Is it here and not there ? is it there and not here ? Is it in the heart, the head, the hands, the feet ? It evidently pervades the frame ; it is the condition, the indispensable condition to the organic action of every part of the body. The body may be j)erfect in its structure; it may have every limb and nerve and muscle, and foreign influences may be made to mimic the operations of life, but if life be not there these actions, or rather motions, will be essentially distinct from those of the living man.^ In like manner holiness is a generic condition of the soul. As a state or nature it is incomprehensible in itself; we 1 Note by Editor. — Some of these sentiments and illustrations will be fonnd also in Vol. I. Thcl. Lect. xiv., and in Vol. II. Discourse i. on Truth. Sect. III.] REVELATION AND RELIGION. 173 can no more represent it in thought than we can form an image of power or causation. It is a something which lies at the foundation of all the soul's exercises and operations, and gives them a peculiar and distinctive cast. It is not itself a habit nor a collection of habits, but the indispensable condition of all spiritual habits. It is not here nor there, but it pervades the whole man — the understanding, the will, the conscience, the affections; it underlies all the dis- positions and habitudes, and is felt in all the thoughts and desires. Natural life has its characteristic functions; so spiritual life has its distinguishing tendencies. They all point to God. He is holy, and where this quality exists in the creature it is attracted to Him and produces a com- munion, a fellowship, a familiarity, if I may so speak, which easily detects the impressions of God wherever they exist. It involves an union with Him that renders His traces patent and obvious wherever they are found. Spir- itual death or depravity is the opposite of all this — a gen- eric condition of the soul in which these particular exercises are not possible. The same faculties may remain, the same ideas may be suggested, the same objective realities may be conceived, the same materials of thinking may exist, but that influence proceeding from holiness M'hich distin- guishes all the oj^erations of the sanctified mind is wanting. That union and fellowship with God, that mysterious familiarity which hears and knows His voice even in its lowest whispers, is gone. The characteristic tendencies of the carnal mind are from God ; it is even enmity against God, not subject to His law nor capable of becoming so. Now faith, in the apostolic sense, involves the recognition of God in the Word. It believes in consequence of the Divine testimony. It knows God's voice. When the Gospel is proclaimed it is perceived to be a message of love and of mercy from the eternal throne. This faith can only exist in a holy heart. An uncon- verted sinner can no more exercise it than the dead can rise and walk or the blind can see. Two men may receive a 174 STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [Sect. III. letter from the same person, or rather the same letter may be put into the hands of both. One is an intimate friend of the writer, the other an entire stranger. The stranger reads it, and apprehends exactly the same ideas, considered as mere thoughts ; but he sees not the writer in it, and can- not enter into it with that sympathy, that cordiality and delight with Avhich the friend peruses it. The Gospel is a message from God; all holy hearts see God in it, and re- joice in it because of His Name; strangers and aliens have the Word in their hands, but have not God in the Word. They may be convinced by external arguments — and such arguments abound — that it is indeed His message ; but they have not that witness within themselves upon Avhicli the heart reposes with assured confidence. Now here comes in the agency of the Spirit, who imparts that new nature, that generic condition of soul, which brings the heart into sympathy with God and all that is Divine, and enables it to believe. This throws a new light around the truth, gives a new direction to the heart and imparts its influence to the whole soul. It creates an instinct for God, which infal- libly recognizes His presence wherever He condescends to manifest it. There is no new faculty and there are no new ideas ; but there is a new mode of exercising all the foculties and a new discernment of the old truths. Just apprehensions, consequently, of the work of the Spirit afford no manner of countenance to the doctrine that Divine revelation involves an intuitive perception of spiritual realities. Place a sinner in heaven, and he would be no nearer to a spiritual discernment of the glories of God and the Lamb than he is in his guilt and blind- ness on earth. He would there need as much as here to be born of water and the Spirit, that his heart might magnify the Lord. The apostolic theory of the relations of faith and reve- lation indicates an appointment of God in regard to the Divine life in beautiful analogy with his arrangements for the preservation and growth of animal existence. One Sect. III.] REVELATION AND EELIGIOX. 175 thing, as Butler has forcibly illustrated, is set over against another. Life implies an inAvard state, and an external condition to correspond to it; and in the harmony of these conditions consists the healthfulness of being. Now, the Word is to the spiritual man the external condition to which his new nature is adapted — it is the element in which it moves, and grows and flourishes. It is milk to babes, and strong meat to those who have their senses exercised by reason of use. If God should regenerate a man, and leave him in the world without His truth, in some form or other, communicated — if, for example, He should renew a heathen, and yet give him no revelation of His will, except as He might gather it from the instincts and impulses of the iiew heart — how deplorable would be his condition ! Conceive him pregnant with celestial fire. Upon what objects shall his mind be employed ? Where shall he go to find the materials that are suited to his taste ? He has cravings which earth cannot satisfy, and yet knows nothing of the bread which came down from heaven, nor of the streams which gush from Siloah's fount. He longs for God, but his soul cannot find Him; and as he feels for Him on the right, and He is not there, on the left, but He is gone, he sinks down in weariness and disappointment, to famish and die. He is in a world of enemies, of idolaters and will-worshippers and children of the Devil. Where is his jjanoply against the powers of darkness — the shield of faith, the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit? What hopes shall support and dignify his soul ? He knows nothing of Christ, nothing of the Spirit, nothing of the Divine promises, nothing of the glorious inheritance of the saints in light. There is no element about him which cor- responds to his disposition. No, impossible! Such an anomaly never takes place ; it cannot be endured that God's children should be as orphans in the world, without food or raiment or shelter. As well might we suppose that fish should be transferred to the air and birds to the sea as that God should new-create a soul and leave it without 176 STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [Sect. III. the external adaptations that its wants demand. These, in this life, ai'e found in the Bible; faith makes them realities, makes them substantial. It opens from the Scriptures a new and glorious world, to which all the faculties of the new creature are proportioned ; and when it has educated and trained them for a higher sphere, they pass from its discipline to the full fruition of the things themselves. We now learn in books; we shall hereafter study things. The appointments of God in the kingdom of grace are at one with this appointment in the kingdom of nature. The argument does not apply to infants dying in infancy, because they may be translated instantly to a sphere in which a holy nature shall have ample opportunity of ex- pansion. But the anomaly cannot be endured that God's children should be left as sheep without a shepherd ; even worse, without food, raiment or shelter. The scriptural doctrine, moreover, guards against the absurd supposition that the life of religion consists in the development and expansion of any single power of the soul. It is not confined to any one department of thought or feeling. The whole man must acknowledge its influence; it thinks in the head, feels in the heart and acts in the will. It is the great pervading law of our being, leading us to find God everywhere, and, whether we eat or drink, to do all to His glory. It is the religion of a moral creature under the dominion of a moral law; not the visions of a seer, the phantoms of a dreamer, but the inspiration of a soul pregnant with celestial fire. Body, soul and spirit, all are the organs of the Divine life. It extends to all actions, to all impulses, to all ends. It reigns as well as lives. Such is Bible religion. How stunted and dwarfish, in comparison, a single faculty gazing on a single class of things— the eye playing with colours, or the ear sporting Avith sounds ! II. Having shown that the tlieory in question mistakes the nature of religious truth and the office of revelation in the economy of salvation, it only remains that the essence Skct. TIL] REVELATION AXD liELIGIOX. 177 of Religion should be more distinctly considered. In its subjective and objective aspects a little has already been said of it, but only in reference to the argument then in hand. It is particularly in the subjective aspect that we propose to consider it now. The question is, What is it to be religious ? Particularly, What is it to be a Christian ? The word essence is very unfortunately applied to the sub- ject, as it is apt to mislead by its vagueness and ambiguitv. If it is supposed that there is some one formal quality, some simple and uniform idea that enters into all the exercises that are distinctively religious (the notion evidently of our author), it is a very great misapprehension. When we arrange things according to their colour it is precisely the same quality of whiteness which characterizes all that ^ve classify as white. But there is no single quality of actions and of thoughts that causes them to be ranked under the head of religion. Two emotions, entirely distinct in their own nature, having nothing in common, considered merely as phenomena, may yet be equally religious— hope and fear, for example. Upon what ground are they grouped together ? The reason of the classification must evidently be sought, not in themselves, but in the state of mind from which they proceed. That state of mind which is truly religious is the condition which we have previously described as spiritual life or holiness; but as a state we have also seen that it belongs to the category of things which we are compelled to believe without being able to represent in thought. It is rather, in fact, the condition of religion than religion itself. That consists in the exercises which proceed from this state of the soul, and they are all distinguished by the cir- cumstance that they are in harmony with our relations to God. These relations must be known before it can be deter- mined that any given experiences are proper manifestations of religion. The subjective cannot be comprehended Avith- out the objective. An universal and pervading disposition to comply with the will of God — a heart in symjxathy with Him, is the nearest approximation tlint we can make to a Vol. III.— 12 178 STANDARD AND NATUEE OF RELIGION. [Skct. III. description of what constitutes religion as a subjective phe- nomenon. This is the state in which angels are, the state in which man would have been, if man had never sinned. This is the state to which when men are exalted they are said to be saved. This is religion in general. Now, Chris- tianity is a scheme through which, in conformity with the nature of moral government, man is recovered from his ruin and exalted to this condition. It is the immediate end which the mediation of Christ aims at, and the attainment of this end in the case of any sinner is salvation. But the means by which Christianity produces its fruits in us is faith. This is the great requirement of the Gospel, the only medium by which we can ever be brought into har- mony and fellowship with God. Hence, faith may justly be described as embracing the whole religion of a sinner. "He that believeth hath everlasting life;" "with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confes- sion is made unto salvation." It is not only the instrument by which through Christ we are justified, but the organ through which the whole Word of God operates upon the soul and builds it up in holiness. It is the great and all-comprehen- sive duty which springs from our relation to God under the Gospel. I need not prosecute this inquiry any farther. It is only necessary to put the two systems, that of the Gospel and that of the subjective philosophy, side by side, in order that we may perceive the immeasurable superiority of the former. Both admit the importance of revelation, and in developing its nature the Gospel gives us three terms — the Person from whom, the persons to whom, and the message itself. Its revelation professes to be the Word of God. The new philosophy gives us but two — a thinking mind, and the things to be thought. There is no Revealer; it is a mes- sage without an author and without a messenger. Which is most reasonable? AVhen we go a step farther, and inquire into the characteristics of the things revealed, the Gospel unfolds a system of moral government springing Sect. III.] REVELATION AND RELIGION. 179 from the very nature of God and His relations to His crea- tures, involving a series of the sublimest events that the mind can conceive. It unveils the great drama of Provi- dence, and shows how the Divine purposes have been work- ing to their accomplishment from the beginning of all things. It spans the arch of time — explains to man his nature, his fall, his duty and his destiny. Above all, it unveils a scheme of grace, an eternal purpose conceived in the bosom of infinite love for the redemption of the guilty, and executed in the fullness of time by an agency so mys- terious and amazing that angels desire to look into it. Throughout the Bible holiness reigns. God appears there a holy God, His law supreme; and the perfection of man is measured by his approach to the Divine excellence. Relig- ion is there represented as a life into which we are quick- ened by Almighty grace, and which brings every faculty of the soul in sweet subjection to the authority of God. What are the revelations of the subjective philosophy? Echo answers. What? There are no responses from the tripod, the oracles are yet dumb. The worshipper sits, and gazes, and feels, but what he sees and how he feels we are quietly told that mortal language is incompetent to describe. One of the most offensive features in this system is the utter deceitfulness with which it avails itself of the ambi- guity of language. From its free and familiar use of the language consecrated to evangelical religion the unwary reader is insensibly beguiled from the contemplation of its real character. It pretends to be a revealed system. This sounds fair and well. But when we look a little deeper, it is a revelation as nature is a revelation, and when we express our astonishment at this abuse of words, we are told for our comfort that God made the world and that He made us with faculties capable of knowing its existence. He reveals the world to us by creating us with eyes to see it. The whole work is Divine. So He made a certain class of spiritual concretions, and made us with faculties capable of enjoying them. This is all surely Divine ! 180 STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [Sect. III. So again it speaks of a Divine life. But wlien we inquire into its meaning we do not find the new birth, we do not recognize a holy nature, we do not discover an influ- ence upon the whole soul of man which brings him into harmony with Divine truth. There is nothing supernat- ural, there is nothing eminently gracious. On the contrary, we meet with nothing but what takes place in regard to every function of life — -just the natural faculty developed and exercised by the presentation of its appropriate objects. The faculty of religion and the faculty of imagination are brought into activity in the same way, and there is as much of grace and as much of God in the process by which a child learns to know that a stone is hard as in the process by which a man passes from death to life. God may dispose cir- cumstances so as to hasten the development, but all religion springs from the man himself! Such, without exaggeration or caricature, is the system for which we are called upon to surrender the Bible. We are to give up God's Word and the hopes of the Gospel for the rhapsodies and ravings of every spirit who pretends to a higher development of the relig- ious consciousness. Man must be supreme. He must be allowed to create his God, his law, his religion ! The mind of every individual is the universe to him, intuition is his oracle, and he has but to look within to know his state, his prospects and his destiny ! Behold, I show you a more excellent way. "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in times past unto the fathers by the Prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son." We have a message from the skies. We are not left, like the blind, to grope in the dark, but we have an excellent Word, to which we are exhorted to take heed as unto a light that shineth in a dark place. But let us remember that the Word alone cannot save us; it is the means but not the source of life. The Bible without the Spirit is a dead letter, as the spirit without the Bible is a Iving delusion. The Spirit and the Bible, this is the great Sect. III.] REVELATION AND RELIGION. 181 principle of Protestant Christianity. " The doctrine whieli ■\ve defend is not only the testimony of the Scriptures, but, still further, the testimony of the Holy Spirit. If we main- tain the Scriptures against those Avho wish only for the Spirit, so do we also maintain the Spirit against those who w^ish for nothing but the Scriptures." The Bible without the Spirit can rise no higher than formalism — the spirit without the Bible will ' infallibly end in fanaticism. The Bible with the Spirit will conduct to Christ, to holiness and God. The times are threatening. With the earlier schools of infidelity the main objection to the Scriptures was that they inculcated the necessity of a Divine life in the soul of man — they wanted to get quit of the Spirit ; with the sub- jective philosophers the great difSculty is that they are not all spirit. Surely the men of this world are like children sitting in the market-place ; if you pipe to them they refuse to dance, if you mourn they refuse to weep. I confess frankly my apprehensions that, if the great doc- trine of the supremacy of the Scriptures should be shaken in the popular mind, we have no security against the per- petration of the most enormous crimes in the hallowed name of religion. If men are to draw their faith from themselves, it will be like themselves — it will patronize their lusts and sanctify their most outrageous excesses. It is imjjossible to estimate the power of the Bible as a bit to curb where it does riot save. Of all ungovernable mobs that is the most dangerous which acts under the frenzy of religious fanat- icism. When men enthrone the Devil as their god, we may tremble for the interests of society. Give me storms, earth- quakes and tornadoes, plague, pestilence and famine — any form of evil that springs from the Providence of God — but save me from that hell, the hearts of men where the fiends of foul delusion have taken up their lodgment. The Bible, the Bible is the great safeguard of nations. We must rever- ence its holy pages as we love our country, our homes and our- selves. We must stand by the Scriptures or perish. AA^ell 182 STANDARD AND NATURE OF RELIGION. [Sect. III. did Luther say, " If we will not drink of the water of the fountain, so fresh and pure, God will cast us into ponds and sloughs, and there oblige us to swallow long draughts of a putrid and stinking water." Note. In the passage "whosoever believeth," etc., it may be well to remark that the universality is implied in the o 7.eyuv, and that Paul intro- duces the Traf as interpretative. THE OFFICE OF REASON IN REGARD TO REVELATION. T OED BACON has very justly observed, in relation -L^ to the subject announced at the liead of this article, that Christianity maintains the " golden mediocrity between the law of the heathen and the law of Mohammed, which have embraced the two extremes." The heathen system attached no importance to truth; "it had no constant belief or con- fession, but left all to the liberty of argument." In its richer developments it was evidently the offspring of imag- ination, requiring no piety, but taste. Fables were its Scriptures, poets its divines and the fine arts its altars. In its practical operations it was an affair of State. Princes w^ere its priests, magistrates its guardians, and obedience to its precepts a branch of the duties of a citizen. Destitute of truth, it was, of course, destitute of moral power ; and from the intimate connection which subsists between the imagination and emotions, its appeals to the fancy must have served to inflame the passions and to augment the corruption which it is the office of religion to repress. Cul- tivating to excess that " forward, delusive faculty " which Butler pronounces to be the "author of all error," while it left the understanding without instruction and the heart without discipline, it must have formed a species of charac- ter in which indifference to truth was strangely blended with sensibility to beauty, and refinement of taste unnat- urally combined Avitli the grossness of vice and the obscen- ities of lust. 183 184 THE OFFICE OF REASON The law of Mohammed claimed to be a revelation from heaven ; and though, in accordance with its pretensions, it demanded faith, yet, as it presented no rational grounds of conviction, its policy was to intimidate or bribe the under- standing, according as fear, prejudice or lust was the pre- dominant principle of action. Where it could not extort a blind credulity, it made the passions the vehicles of its doc- trines ; the timid it frightened to submission, the profligate it allured to acquiescence, and the heretic and skeptic it wheedled and cajoled by a partial patronage of their errors. Exclusively a system of authority, it gave no scope to dis- cussion. Its great argument was the word of its Prophet, its decisive sanction the sword of its soldiers, and its strong- est attraction the license which it gave to voluptuous indul- gences. Paganism wore the "face of error," and Moham- medanism of "imposture." Christianity, on the contrary, attaches pre-eminent im- portance to truth, and acknowledges no faith but that which is founded in conviction. At the same time it professes to be from God, and therefore, as becomes it, speaks with authority. As a system claiming to be Divine, it invites the fullest discussion. As a system proved to be Divine, it demands implicit submission. It both " admits and rejects disputation with difference." But how far "it admits" and how far "it rejects disputa- tion"— that is, the precise province of reason in regard to revelation — is a point Avhich has been keenly discussed between Socinians and the orthodox, infidels and believers in Christianity. It is needless to deny that the language of divines has not always been sufficiently guarded on the subject. Their intemperate reprobations of the spirit of perverse specula- tion which confounds the departments of Revelation and Philosophy, and applies to the former measures of truth which are obviously incompatible with its nature, have given some pretext to the calumny that faith is inconsistent with reason, and that Christianity repudiates an appeal to IN REGARD TO REVELATION. 185 argument. Religion, from the necessity of the case, is addressed to reason.^ Its duties are represented as a reason- able service, and its inspired teachers, who disdained the tricks of human eloquence and disclaimed the agency of human wisdom as an adequate foundation of faith, were accustomed to resort to argument to produce conviction. It is reason which distinguishes man from the brute. With- out it we should be incompetent to apprehend truth or feel the obligation of moral law — as incapable of ajDpreciating a message from God as "the beasts which perish." To say, therefore, that Christianity puts an absolute interdict upon the exeix'ise of reason is equivalent to saying that she exempts us from the duty of considering her claims. To prohibit rational is to prohibit moral action. To strip us of reason is to free us from law. The question, however, in dispute, is not in regard to rea- son as a faculty of the mind, the faculty which judges of truth and falsehood, right and wrong; but in regard to rea- son as a compendious expression for the principles and maxims, the opinions, conclusions or prejudices which, with or without foundation, men acknowledge to be true. Locke and Witsius have both pointed out the distinction.^ Rea- ' Cseternm Ratio, quantumvis corrupta, Ratio tamen manet, id est, ea fac- ultas qua lionio cognoscit et judical. Adeo quidem ut homo iiiliil omnino, quale illudcunque sit, cognoscere et judicare valeat, nisi per rationeni suara, tanquam proximum cognitionis et judicii principiura et causani. Idcirco si Divinseres, si mysteria Religionis cognoscenda sint, non aliter id fieri potest nisi per Rationem. Ipsa Fides, quum cognitio et v6?jaic sit et assensus, Rationis sive mentis est operatio. Idque tarn est liquidum ut pro rationali non sit habendus qui in dubium id revocat. Witsius, Opera, Tom. ii., p. 588 : De Usu et Abusu Rationis, § x. 2 Locke says: "The word reason, in the English language, has different significations. Sometimes it is taken for true and clear principles ; some- times for clear and fair deductions from those principles ; and sometimes for the cause, and particularly tlie final cause. But tlie consideration I shall have of it here is in a signification different from all these ; and that is, as it stands for a faculty in man — that faculty wliereby man is supposed to be distinguished from beasts, and wherein it is evident he much surpasses them." Hum. Understand., Book iv., c. 17, H. Witsius says : "Ratio significat vel Facuiart in his miracles; therefore they were Divine, and therefore his doctrines were to be received. The pure morality is pleaded to remove objections, and nothing more ; and the principle is obviously implied that any imperfections in this respect are a conclusive refutation of the pretensions, how- ever supported, of a professed revelation. The negative jurisdiction which we have assigned to rea- son in the natural department of revelation, we are not reluc- tant to confess, is capable of immense abuse. This is the arena upon which shallow philosophy and spurious science have delighted to contest the claims of Christianity. The dreams of visionaries, the maxims of education and the prejudices of ignorance will in the exercise of this jurisdic- tion be made, to a g]'eater or less extent, the touchstone of Divine truth, and prove the rock on which thousands shall stumble and perish. It is not to be expected, in this world of sin and error, that rights will be always rightly used. The Jews, without controversy, not only had the right, but were solemnly bound, to try the religion of Jesus by the standard of Moses and the Prophets, and yet in the exercise of this unquestionable right, the discharge of this imper- ative obligation, they were led to condemn the Saviour as an impostor and blasphemer. They were surely not to be denied the privilege of reasoning from the Scriptures be- cause they reasoned badly. The use of medicine is not to be prohibited because quacks and mountebanks turn it into 214 THE OFFICE OF REASON poison and murder their unfortunate patients. If God gives reason the right to judge, He gives it subject to a fearful responsibility ; and in nothing is the obligation so sol- emn and awful to cultivate a love of truth, to cherish a spirit of honesty and candour, and guard the mind against prejudice and passion, as in this veiy matter of Aveighing the evidence of a professed revelation. When there is a contradiction betwixt our philosophy and it, the method of reason and of duty is to compare their respective evidences, and lean to the side which has the preponderance. If the principle which is contradicted be an intuitive truth or a demonstrative conclusion, the pretended revelation must be evidently discarded ; if it be only a probable opinion, the arguments which sustain it must be stronger than the proofs of revelation before the latter can be jnstly rejected for the former. Whatever credentials the professed revelation pre- sents are so many positive arguments which cannot be set aside without stronger opposing proofs. The great danger is in over-estimating the evidence in support of a favourite opinion. " Nothing," says Paley, " is so soon made as a maxim." Those, consequently, who do not make conscience of truth are under severe temptation to contract the guilt of rejecting the Word of God on account of its opposition to silly prejudices and hasty inductions which are assumed to be unquestionable. This abuse of reason is a sin to which the apostasy has exposed us. We may misjudge where we have the right to judge, but Ave do it at our risk. The most precious doctrines of the Gospel, though in the forms of their development and the precise mode and cir- cumstances of their application they are pre-eminently supernatural, yet ultimately rest upon moral principles which do not transcend the legitimate province of reason. Justification by faith, for example, while it involves tlie supernatural facts connected with the advent and offices of Christ, at the same time proceeds upon a law — that of federal representation, and the consequent proi)riety of imputation — which })elongs to the department of morals, and upon the IN REGARD TO REVELATIOX. 215 essential character of which, as just or unjust, reason is to some extent competent to pronounce. A folse philosophy may condemn this cardinal principle of God's dispensations with man ; it may be assumed as a maxim that neither sin nor righteousness can be justly imputed. The proper reply to such cavils and objections is, not that reason has no right to pronounce a judgment in the case, but that the judgment in question is contrary to truth and evidence. Those who obstinately persist in their prejudices are in the same condi- tion with the Jews, who felt it to be impossible that He who was accursed of God — as Christ, according to the Scriptures, was shown to be by hanging on a tree — could be the Saviour of men, or their own promised Messiah. They were not wrong in applying the test of Scripture to the pretensions of Christ, but they were wrong in adopting false interpre- tations, in reasoning from false premises or corrupting those that were true. There is no such moral axiom as the ene- mies of imputation allege. The doctrine is fully consistent with reason, and if on account of it a revelation is rejected, it is rejected in concession to a false philosophy. So, again, it may be assumed that all sin consists in voluntary action, and the Bible may be spurned for teaching a better doctrine. But the species of abuse which reason undergoes in this case is analogous to that ^yhich it received at the hands of Hume when he attempted to demonstrate that miracles w^ere inca- pable of proof from human testimony. Reason, in such instances, does not pronounce upon a subject entirely beyond its province, but it may grievously and sinfully err in the character of the judgment it shall render. It may prosti- tute its right to the cause of falsehood and hell. Could it be shown that the doctrine of imputation involved a principle essentially iniquitous, or that states of heart, as contradistinguished from transitory acts, could not be pos- sessed of a moral character, we should feel that the argu- ment against Christianity were as complete as if it had been convicted of inculcating lying or authorizing fraud. And hence we regard those who by their perverse disputations 216 THE OFFICE OF REASON corrupt the great truths of justification aud original sin not simply as heresiarchs, but as the patrons and abettors of gross infidelity. The world is not to be mystified by absurd interpretations, and the issue which will ultimately be made is not what is the sense of the Scriptures, but wdiether docu- ments containing the sense which the Bible evidently does can be inspired. The advocates of the new divinity are lay- ing the foundations broad and deep of a new phase of philo- sophical infidelity — an infidelity more dangerous, because more subtle, than that of Bolingbroke and Hume, which pre- tends reverence while it really insults, which, like Judas, betrays the Son of man with a kiss. We would remind these men that all the trains of evidence in favour of Chris- tianity— its prophecies fulfilled, its stupendous miracles, its salutary effects on the world — are so many positive argu- ments against their pretended axioms which they are solemnly bound to weigh before they are authorized to dig- nify their crudities wdth the title of intuitive truths, and on account of them dismiss the Gospel with a sneer. The Jews were as certain that no prophet could spring from Galilee and no good thing from Nazareth as these men that neither sin nor righteousness can be imputed, or that all sin must be resolved into voluntary action. They, too, may be confounding familiar prejudices with intuitive truths, and they too may find that the penalty of this awful abuse of God's best gift is that they shall die in their sins. We would not attack this species of philosophical infidelity by putting its moral inquiries beyond the territory of reason, but we would assault its principles themselves ; and Ave are much mistaken if it cannot be shown — though this is not the place for doing so — that they are as contrary to the facts of experience as to the Word of God, that they are shallow, false, sophistical, having indeed the semblance of wisdom, but the substance of folly. We should be reluctant even to suggest the impression, by timid distinctions and sly insinu- ations against the office of reason, that the friends of truth are unable to meet its enemies on the moral ground which IN REGARD TO REVELATION. 217 they have chosen to occupy. ^Ve Avould direct our batter- ies against their strongholds, turn their favourite weapons against themselves, and construct the same species of argu- ment against their cobweb theories which they have in vain fabricated against the grace of the Gospel. We would appeal from reason misinformed to reason rightly informed, from the drunken to the sober judge, from philosophy, falsely so called, to the true philosophy of facts. We wish, however, to have it distinctly recollected that the province which we assign to reason in this wdiole de- partment is purely negative. It is not within the compass of nature, of moral philosophy or metaphysics, with all the lights and resources which either or both can command, to devise a system of religion adequate to the wants of a sinner — to determine of what elements it ought to consist, how it shall be communicated, in what form dispensed, or under what circumstances imparted. These are secret things which belong to God, and can be knoAvn only as He chooses to reveal them to the sons of men. But, while reason cannot say what the scheme of salvation shall be, it may condemn a system which, j^rofessing to be from heaven, contradicts the obvious principles of truth and rec- titude. Its office hath this extent, no more.^ What reve- lation actually is must be known from its own records. The Word and Oracle of God is our only source of infor- mation. We have no sympathy with the prevailing tend- ency of some modern speculations to aspire at universal truths — truths which shall contain the seeds of all possible knowledge, the principles of all philosophy, and from which universal science may be deduced, by strictly a priori \n'o- ^ The negative jurisdiction for which we contend is generally assumed by Protestants in their arguments against transubstantiation. Though this professes to be a supernatural mystery, yet it touches upon points of human philosophy and contradicts the most obvious principles of science ; and therefore, instead of being entitled to credit on the authority of a pi'etcnded revelation, it is sufficient to damn the claims of any system which inculcates it. "We feel the argument to be complete against it, be- cause it is an absurditv. 218 THE OFFICE OF REASON cesses. It was to be hoped that Bacon had completely exploded this whole method of investigation, though he has given countenance to the possibility of some such uni- versal science — attained, however, by induction, and not from necessary maxims of pure reason — in his curious speculation upon what he denominates the first philosophy. There is but little danger that the physical sciences will ever be cultivated • upon any other principles than those of the Novum Organum. The time has gone by when the dreams of Rabbins and Hutchinsonians upon the letters, points and dots of the Bible shall be substituted for the observation of nature and the consequent generalization of facts. Science is felt to be no longer the creature of inge- nuity, but the offspring of patient attention and rigorous induction. But in religious and moral subjects the age is prone to revert to the exploded method of the Schools. Discarding in nature the safer guidance of experience, -and in revela- tion the safer guidance of a sound interpretation, those who aspire to the highest forms of philosophy are intent upon constructing systems without facts, from principles which have been woven of the stuff* that dreams are made of. The origin of this unfortunate tendency is, no doubt, to be ascribed to an obvious defect in Mr. Locke's theory of the sources of our knowledge. Overlooking the fact that the understanding is, and must be, a source of ideas to itself, he had ascribed too much to sensation and reflection. The detection of the error has created a tendency to the opposite extreme, and in modern times too much is attributed to the spontaneous development of principles in the mind. These are made the universal forms of knowledge, and as weary a search is instituted after these magic forms as ever the Realists embarked in after their general entities. As many an alchemist persuaded himself, and perhaps others, that he had found the golden secret of his toil, so these deluded children of the mist eagerly embrace phantoms, which they mistake for the object of their quest, and chuckle IN REGARD TO REVELATION. 219 in the imagined possession of materials from -vvhieh they are prepared to fabricate God, worlds and religion. Happy mortals! no longer doomed to the slow discipline of the senses and the slower discipline of the understanding, they carry a laboratory within from which they can extract at will the essence and quintessence of all possible and real things. They wield an enchanter's wand potent as the eye of Omniscience. They need no voice from nature, the universe or God. Nature, the universe and God are all the creatures of their skill. For ourselves, doomed to drudge in an humbler sphere, we are content to know of the external world just what our senses reveal, of the world within us what reflection can bring to light, and of the world above us what the inspiration of the Almighty may vouchsafe to impart. Beyond these soundings we are lost in unfathomable depths. Here, then, we are con- tent to abide. Timid believers may, perhaps, be alarmed at the negative jurisdiction which we have conceded to reason in those points in which revelation touches the subjects of natural knowledge. But they have nothing to apprehend from its legitimate exercise. Not a single contradiction to any single principle of science and philosophy can be justly imputed to the Records of Christianity. Time was when infidelity exulted in the prospect of reading the doom of the Gospel in the mysteries of the stars; but astronomy now is made subservient to its glory, and the God who rules the heavens is felt to be the God of redemption. Then the bowels of the earth were ransacked, and some secret voice was in- voked from the monuments of faded races and past gene- rations to give the lie to the narrative of Moses, but Nature, in all her caverns, answered back to the testimony of inspi- ration. Nothing in the/ac^.s of the earth's history could be found in contradiction to the Sacred Records, although they were often rendered subservient to conclusions with which they are as slightly connected as a sick man's dreams with the realities of life. None dare assert that the facts 220 OFFICE OF REASON IN REGARD TO REVELATION. themselves were contravened by the Bible. And who shall affirm that the deductions which they were made to yield are entitled to the prerogative of infallibility, or possess any clearer proof than the external evidence of the credibility of Moses. We repeat it, Christianity has nothing to fear from true science. It has passed the test; and whatever is the extent of the presumption of Divine interposition, arising from the fact that it touches upon j)hilosophy in so many points, and yet contradicts it in none, it is a presump- tion to which our holy religion is fully entitled. How dif- ferent is the case with the records of Mohammedan and Hin- doo faith ! The Bible is certainly singular in this respect, and it ought to be a matter of sincere gratulation to the heart of every believer. IRACLES. ALL the departures from the ancient faith concerning the authority of the Scriptures which have distin- guished modern speculation may be traced directly, what- ever may be said of the per\'^erseness of the heart as the ultimate cause, to an insuperable repugnance to the admis- sion of miracles. The supernatural has been the stone of stumbling and the rock of offence. The antipathy to it has given rise to open infidelity on the one hand, and to the various types of criticism on the other, which, in conse- quence of their agreement in rejecting everything that trans- cends the ordinary agencies of nature, have been classed under the common name of Rationalism. If the immediate intervention of God, either in the world of matter or of mind, is assumed to be inti'insically incredible, nothing is left but to discard the records which assert and pretend to give examples of it as impudent impostures ; or to seek by tortuous interpretation to reconcile accounts confessedly false with the honesty of the historian, and, what Avould seem to be still more difficult, with the essential divinity of the religion. The English Deists in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries took the former course, and denounced the Bible in unmeasured terms of vituperation and abuse. They saw no middle ground between the rejection of the supernatural and the rejection of Christianity. They could not comprehend how that could, in any sense, be treated as Divine which Avas made up of a tissue of fables, or how 221 222 MIRACLES. they could be regarded as honest men who had palmed the grossest extravagances upon the world as sober, historical realities. AVoolston may perhaps be deemed an exception. His letters upon the miracles of our Saviour are remarkable for having anticipated the method, in some degree at least, which has been carried out with such perverseness of learn- ing and ingenuity by Strauss and Bauer. " His whole rea- soning"— we use the words of Strauss himself — " turns upon the alternative, either to retain the historical reality of the miracles narrated in the Bible, and thus to sacrifice the Divine character of the narratives, and reduce the miracles to mere artifices, miserable juggleries or commonplace de- ceptions ; or, in order to hold fast the Divine character of these narratives, to reject them entirely as details of actual occurrences, and regard them as historical representations of certain spiritual truths." His own opinion is nowhere articulately expressed, but the presumption is, from the general tenor and spirit of his book, that he was really a Deist, who resorted to allegory as a convenient cover for his malignity, and to the spiritual sense as a protection from the unspiritual weapons with which he was likely to be assailed. He was well aware, if his dilemma could be fairly and conclusively made out, which horn of it the sturdy common sense of Englishmen would adopt. A religion shrouded in figures could be no religion for them. But, with this exception, if exception it can be called, the issue in England was, No miracles, no Christianity; the Bible must be accepted as it is, as out-and-out Divine, or wholly and absolutely rejected; it was the ancient faith or open and avowed infidelity. The case was diiferent in Germany. The publication of the Wolfenbiittel Fragments — an anonymous production of Reimar which pursued precisely the same line of argument with the English Deists — gave rise to a class of theologians who have undertaken to retain Christianity at the expense of the historical accuracy of its records. They agree with the Deists in repudiating all that is supernatural, but they MIRACLES. 223 canuot agree with them in tlenouneing Prophets and Apos- tles as impostors, or in divesting the biblical narratives of all moral and spiritual significance. The modes in which they save the credit of the sacred writers and the Divine import of the sacred history vary with the reigning philosophy, and constitute the different schools into which the class of theologians commonly known as Rationalists may be divided. The first of these schools, that founded by Eich- horn and perfected by Paulus, accepted the authenticity of the Scriptures as a narrative of facts by reducing the mirac- ulous to the dimensions of the natural. They were only ordinary events produced by ordinary agency, which had assumed an extraordinary character in the narrative, eitlier from the omission of circumstances necessary to explain them, or from the style in which, the opinions and preju-. dices of the age led the spectators to describe them. Our Saviour neither wrought, nor pretended to work, miracles, and the Evangelists, properly interpreted — that is, inter- preted in the light and spirit of their own times — record nothing of the kind. All was natural. Jesus was a wise and a good man, and what we are accustomed to consider as His wonders were " works of benevolence and friendship, sometimes of medical skill, sometimes also the results of acci- dent and good fortune." In this w^ay the history was saved, but what became of the Divine ? That also was reduced to very small proportions. Jesus introduced a pure and spiritual religion, enforced it by the example of a spotless life, and confirmed it by the glory of a martyr's death. He was called of God, in the sense that providential circum- stances favoured the development of His character, and His natural gifts qualified Him to become a great moral teacher. The thorough-going attempt to reduce the supernatural in the New Testament to the dimension of the natural, to make the miracles nothing but the language in which the age signalized ordinary phenomena, is one of the most curious chapters in the history of criticism. It contained the seeds 224 MIRACLES. of failure in itself; " and now," says Trench, " even in the land of its birth it has entirely perished." The approximation to a deeper and more earnest fliith was indicated by the systematic effort of Sehleiermacher to reconcile religion to nature without stripping it of all Divine power. The supernatural, in common with the Deists and the preceding school, he discarded. The low sense of the natural which Paulus contended for he equally repudi- ated. He wanted more of God — a religion that should really answer to the description of God manifest in the flesh. The anxiety to escape from anything like a real mir- acle, and the longing for a system of spiritual life and power, the revulsion alike against a material naturalism and a pal- pable supernaturalism, is the key to the elaborate Christol- ogy of Sehleiermacher. The conception which he had of Christ as the archetype of perfect humanity, in whom the consciousness of God existed in absolute strength, led him to attribute to the Saviour an intimacy of communion with nature and an access to her secrets which no other man possessed. He was familiar with her mighty energies, and He could lay His hand upon the springs of her power, and produce effects which to those immei-sed in sense should appear to be supernatural. Still, all that He did was to obey her laws. He never rose above her. A profounder knowledge invested Him with a deeper power, but it was the same in kind with the power of other men. This, of course, was to deny the miracles without denying the phe- nomena of the New Testament. Next comes a school which discards the entire histories of the New Testament as authentic narratives of facts, and makes them the offspring of the love, admiration and glory with which the followers of Jesus adorned their recollec- tions of their Master. They were unconscious allegories, into which their imaginations, enriched and expanded by the prejudices, and expectations, and habits of thought engendered by the Old Testament, threw their remem- brances of their Lord—" the halo of glory with which the MIRACLES. 225 infant Cliiirch, gradually and without any purpose of deceit, clothed its Founder and Head. His mighty personality, of which it Avas livingly conscious, caused it ever to surround Him with new attributes of glory. All which men had ever craved and longed for — deliverance from physical evil, dominion over the crushing powers of nature, victory over death itself — all which had ever, in a lesser measure, been attributed to any, they lent in a larger abundance, in unre- strained fullness, to Him whom they felt greater than all. The system may be most fitly characterized "—and we cor- dially concur in the caustic criticism of Trench — " as the Church making its Christ, and not Christ His Church." On this scheme the history, both natural and supernatu- ral, is fairly abandoned. There was a basis of facts in the life of Jesus, but what those facts really were we have no means of determining. He lived and died, and this is about all we can know with any certainty. What, then, becomes of the Divine ? Is not that abandoned too ? By no means, says Strauss. The history is altogether unessential ; the absolute contents of Christianity are quite independent of it. The stories of the New Testament are only the dra- pery in which a grand idea is represented, and that idea may be seized and retained without clinging to the dress in which it was first presented. We may give up the Bible without surrendering aught that is Divine in Christianity itself. Here that criticism which ventures to reject the supernatural, and yet call itself Christian, seems to have reached its culminating point. Extravagance could go no farther. Though the term Rationalist as a distinctive title is, for the most part, restricted to the school of Eichhorn and Paulus, we have not hesitated to extend it to them all, in consequence of their agreement in radical and fundamental principles. They all equally reject the supernatural, they all equally admit no other standard of truth but our own reason, they all equally repudiate an objective, external Divine revelation. The Divine witli them is only the true, Vol. III.— 15 226 MIRACLES. and the true is that which authenticates itself to our own souls. We believe because we see or feel, and not because the mouth of the Lord has spoken. They all equally make man the measure of his religion. To indicate the differ- ences among themselves, the epithets Sensual and Spiritual might be chosen, which seem to be aj^propriate to the differ- ent systems of philosophy they had respectively eml^raced. The pretensions to a deeper spiritualism and a pro founder life have given something of currency to the peculiar system of Schleiermacher, have detracted from the historic form in which the Christology of the ancient faith is embodied, and served to increase, if not to engender, a secret prejudice, on the part of earnest inquirers, against the miraculous features of Christianity. Men have been willing to accept a religion which promises to satisfy the longings of their nature without demanding an extraordinary faith ; which meets their wants without repressing the freedom of speculation. But the point on which' the Church has always insisted, and which she makes essential to the existence of a true faith, is, that the scheme of Christianity involves the direct intervention of God, and that the Scriptures, which record that scheme, are an authoritative external testimony from Him. She is not content with a barren compliment to the honesty and integrity of the writers, nor with the still more barren admission that something of truth, more or less elevated, according to the philosophy of the critic, can be extracted from their pages. She asserts their autliority to speak in the name of God ; and she commends their doc- trines, not because they commend themselves by intrinsic probability or ideal excellence, but because they are the Word of the Lord. The fundamental postulate of the Rationalist of every type precludes the conception of such a revelation. A religion of authority he as indignantly rejects as the most unblushing scoffer. Such a revelation, being essentially supernatural, stands or falls with the mirac.'lc. Let those, therefore, who feel themselves tempted to join in the cry against miracles, and to depreciate them MIRACLES. 227 as carnal and earthly, who would insist upon the Divine truths of Christianity to the exclusion or neglect of its equally Divine credentials, consider well Avhat they are doing. They are giving currency to a principle which, if i legitimately carried out, would rob them of those very / truths in which they are disposed to rest. There is not a distinctive doctrine of the Gospel which could be knoAvn i to be true independently of just such a revelation as impliesj the reality of miracles. There are no lines of ratiocination, no measures of experience, no range of intuition, no ideas awakened in the soul, which could authenticate to us the ends and purposes on the part of God involved in that series of stupendous facts unfolded in the biblical histories. What elevation of consciousness or what intensity of moral and spiritual enthusiasm could ever ascertain to us the ap- pointment of a great Mediator, on the part of Heaven's high chancery, to bring in an everlasting righteousness and to open the kingdom of heaven to all believers? The sen- sible phenomena connected with the life and death of Jesus may, indeed, be apprehended, but their significance in the economy of God it transcends the sphere of our faculties to discover. They are the counsels of His will, which none can penetrate but His own eternal Spirit; and unless He has revealed them, our speculations about them are little better than a sick man's dreams. They must be known by a Divine testimony, or they cannot be known at all. The question, then, of miracles runs into the question concerning those very doctrines for the sake of which we affect to sliglit them. It is impossible to abandon the miracle, and cling to any other Christianity but that which is enkindled in our own souls from the sparks of our own reason. The consciousness of the individual or the consciousness of the Christian community, awakened and propagated by sym- patliy, must be the sole criterion of truth. There is no alternative; man must make his religion if God cannot give it to him. As the question of an external, authoritative revelation 228 MIRACLES. depends upon the question of the truth or possibility of miracles, we have thought proper to contribute our mite to the interests of religion and (may we not add?) of a sound philosophy by a calm and candid discussion of the whole subject. We are aware that some would have religion as completely divorced from letters as from politics. But such a separation is as hopelessly impossible as it is unde- sirable, if it were possible. Religion and philosophy touch ~at every point ; and we agree with Suarez that no man can be an accomplished theologian who is not, at the same time, an accomplished metaphysician, and that no man can be an i accomplished metaphysician without imbibing principles [which should lead him to religion. Faith and reason are distinguished, but not opposed; and though a superficial culture may have the eifect which Strauss ascribes to it, of alienating the mind from the Sacred Records, yet a deeper and sounder philosophy will correct the aberration. We shall know nothing of sects or parties; but those broad questions which mere sectaries and partisans cannot comprehend, yet which pertain to the statesman and scholar, are exactly the topics which ought to find a place in a journal like this. We shall feel that we have rendered an essential service to society if we can succeed, in any mea- sure, in showing that the prejudice against the supernatural, which operates unfavourably on the minds of many in averting their attention from Divine revelation, is without any just foundation. We hope that religion can be rec- onciled with science upon a safer and easier plan than the sacrifice of either. The works named at the head of our article^ cover the whole ground which we propose to occupy. We shall pursue the method adopted by Dr. Wardlaw, and discuss, first, the nature of miracles; then, their apologetic worth; and, finally, their credibility. 1. What, then, is a miracle? It is obvious that the 1 Note by Editor.— These were Trench and Wardlaw on Miracles, ind Hinds' Inquiry into the proof, nature and extent of Inspiration. MIRACLES. 229 definition should contenipltite it only as a phenomenon, and include nothing but the difference wliich distinguishes it from every other species of events. There should be no reference to the cause that produces it; that must be an inference from the nature of the effect. Those who make, as Mill does in his Logic, the belief of God's existence essential to the credibility of a miracle, virtually deny that the miracle can be employed as a proof of His being. But there is evidently no reason in the nature of things why the argument here cannot proceed from the effect to the cause, as in the ordinary changes of nature. The miracle presup- poses God, and so does the Avorld. But the miracle, as a phenomenon, may be apprehended even by the Atheist. It is an event, and an event of a peculiar kind, and God comes in when the inquiry is made for the cause. Hence Cud- worth and Barrow, as well as the Fathers and Schoolmen, do not hesitate to appeal to miracles as an argument for the Divine existence. Considered as a phenomenon, in what does the peculiarity of the miracle consist? Trench does not give a formal definition, and we find it difficult to determine precisely what his notion was. He explains the terms by which miracles are distinguished in Scripture, but these terms express only the effects upon our own minds, the purposes for which and the power by wdiich they are wrought, and the operations themselves — the effect, the end, the cause — but they do not single out that in the phe- nomenon by which it becomes a wonder, a sign, a power or a work. In his comparison of miracles and nature we have either failed to understand him or he contradicts him- self. He asserts, first, that the agency of God is as imme- diate in the ordinary occurrences of nature as in the pro- duction of miracles. The will of God is the only })Ower which he recognizes anywhere, and to say "that there is more of the will of God in a miracle than in any other work of His is insufficient."^ And yet in less than a page he asserts: "An extraordinary Divine causality be- 1 Trench's Xotes on the Miracles, p. 10. 230 MIRACLES. longs, then, to the essence of the miracle; more than that ordinary which we acknowledge in everything; powers of God other than those which have always been working; such, indeed, as most seldom or never have been working until now. The unresting activity of God, which at other times hides and conceals itself behind the veil of what we term natural laws, does in the miracle unveil itself; it steps out from its concealment, and the hand which works is laid bare."^ If God immediately produces all events, what can be meant by extraordinary Divine causality? And if the will of God is the sole energy in nature, what are "the powers of God other than those which have been always working?" Has the will of God been seldom or never exerted? If the hand of God was directly in every event, how has it been concealed behind natural laws? There is certainly a confusion here. The two sets of statements must have been written under the influence of different feelings. His anxiety to escape from a dead, mechanical view of nature, and from Epicurean conceptions of the in- dolence of God, may account for his denial of all second- ary agencies; the palpable features of the miracle forced upon him the admissions of these same agencies as a stand- ard by which it was to be tried. The scriptural term which gives us the nearest insight into the real nature of the miracle is precisely the one of which Dr. Trench speaks most slightingly — the word wonder.^ It is true that every wonder is not a miracle, but every miracle is a wonder. The cause of wonder is tlie unexpectedness of an event; and the specific difference of the miracle is, that it contradicts that course of nature wliich we expected to find uniform. It is an event either above, or opposed to, secondary causes. Leave out the notion of these secondary causes, and there can be no miracle. All is God. Admit a nature apart and distinct from God, and 1 Trench on Miracles, p. 12. - Miraculi nomen ab adniiratione sinnitur. Thomas Aquinas, Siinnna, 1, (Juest. cv., Art. vii. MIRACLES. 231 there is scope for an extraordinary power. Tlie doctrine of nature, as consisting of a series of agencies and powers, of substances jjossessed of active j)i'operties in their rela- tions to each other, by no means introduces a dead, mechan- ical view of the universe. God has not 'left the world, as a watchmaker leaves his clock after he has wound it up, to pursue its own course independently of any interference from Him. He is present in every part of His dominion ; He pervades the powers which He has imparted to created substances by his ceaseless energy. He sustains their ef- ficiency, and he regulates all the adjustments upon which their activity depends. He is the life of nature's life. In Him we live, and move, and have our being. But still, in dependence upon His sustaining care and the concurrence of His pervading energy, nature has powers and consists of causes which, in the same circumstances, always produce the same effects. To the following remarks of Dr. Wardlaw we cordially assent : "I have alreadj', at the very outset, given a definition of them in other terms — as works mvolving a temporary suspension of the known, laws of nature, or a deviation from the established constitution and fixed order of the tmiverse; or, perhaps more correctly, of that de- partment of the universe which constitutes our oion system, whose established order and laws we are capable, to the full extent requisite for the purpose, of accurately ascertaining — works, therefore, which can be effected by no power short of that which gave the universe its being and its constitution and laws. In this definition, let it be observed, I have called a miracle a suspension of the known laws of nature. It is necessary to mark this. Efi"ects, it is abundantly obvi- ous, might be produced, such as, to those who witnessed them, might appear, and might be believed, miraculous, while the persons by whom they are ])eiformed are well 'aware, from their superior acquaintance with the laws, and powers, and phenomena of nature, that the ap- pearance is fallacious and the belief unfounded. The per-sons before whom they are performed may be utterly unable to account for them by any natural laws or powers knoicn to them ; while, in point of fact, in ])lace of their being suspensions of any law or laws of nature whatsoever, they are actually the product of their operation ; so that, in the circumstances, the real miracle would have lain not in their production, but in their no/i-production. That would have been the 232 MIRACLES. true deviation from the settled constitution of nature. In such a case, the miracle is a miracle only to ignorance; that is, it is no miracle. A little farther development of the secrets of nature anni- hilates the seemingly miraculous, and only reads to the previously un- informed mind a new lesson of nature's uniformity. It becomes, there- fore, an indispensable requisite to a genuine miracle that it be wrought both on materials, and by materials, of which the properties are well and fiimiliarly known ; respecting which, that is, the common course of nature is fully understood. ' ' ^ Dr. Wardlaw subsequently criticises, and we think with justice, the distinctions and evasions by which Trench undertakes to rescue the miracle from being a violation of nature's order ; to this point we shall afterward refer. We cannot forbear to quote a portion of his remarks : "The truth is, we must understand the term nature in the .sense usually attached to it, as relating to the constitution and laws of the physical system of our own globe. It is true that, in consequence of sin, there have been 'jarrings and disturbances' of its 'primitive order.' But it does not follow from that that there are no natural principles and laws in fixed and constant operation. And when an event occurs for which these natural principles and laws make no pro- vision, for which they can in no way account, which is quite aside from and at variance with their ordinary uniform operations, it does not to me seem very material whether we speak of it as beyond nature, or above nature, or beside nature, or against nature, or con- trary to nature — whether as a suspension, an iutermption, a contra- vention, or a violation of nature's laws — provided we are understand- ing 'nature and natm-e's laws' as having reference to the physical economy of our own system. When, in illustration of his position that a miracle is not at all ' the infraction of a law, but only a lower law neutralized and put out of working by a superior,' Mr. Trencb says, ' Continually we behold in the world around us lower laws held in restraint by higher, mechanic by dynamic, chemical by vital, jihys- ical by moral ; yet we say not, when the lower thus gives place in favour of the higher, that there was any violation of law, that any- thing contrary to nature came to pass; rather we acknoAvlcdge the law of a greater freedom swallowing u]i the laAv of a lesser, ' he seems to forget that this ' holding in restraint of one law by the operation of another' is itself one of the very laics whose working ' w^e behold in the world around us,' and that it comes, therefore, among the laws of nature as ordinarily understood— that is, as having relation to this 1 Wardlaw on Miracles, pp. 34, 35. MIRACLES. 233 said 'world around us,' to the physical order of our sj^stem. But it is manifestly unfair, in interpreting nature, to quit our own system, to mount to a loftier sphere, to take in a wider amplitude, to embrace the entire range of being ; and then, because a thing, though a mani- fest contravention of the laws of ' the world around us, ' of ' the nature which we know,' may not be out of harmony with nature when con- sidered as embracing the boundless universe, and even the attributes of its Maker, thus bringing Omnijiotence itself into the range of 'nat- ural causes, ' to deny the propriety of pronouncing anything whatever to be against nature. For this involves the fallacy of taking the same term in two senses, and because the thing in question may not be inconsistent with it in the one, concluding that it cannot be inconsist- ent with it in the other !" ' 2. Having settled that the essence of the miracle consists in the contranatiiral or the supernatural, we are now prepared to investigate its apologetic worth. The question to be answered is briefly this — we quote the words of Mr, Trench — " Is the miracle to command, absolutely and without fur- ther question, the obedience of those in whose sight it is done, or to whom it comes as an adequately attested fact, so that the doer and the doctrine, without any more debate, shall be accepted as from God?" In other words, is the miracle in itself, from its own intrinsic character, a suf- ficient credential of Divine inspiration or a Divine com- mission ? Trench, in company with the Jewish and Pagan enemies of Christianity, and a large body of both Catholic and Protestant theologians, answers in the negative. Dr. Ward- law answers in the affirmative, and we think that Dr. Wardlaw is right. The assumption on which the negative proceeds is, that a real miracle may be wrouglit by beings inferior to God. The Jews ascribed those of our Saviour to Beelzebub, the Gentiles to magic, and the Scriptures themselves warn us against the lying wonders of the Man of sin. The miracle, consequently, estiiblishes, in tlie first instance, only the certainty of a superhuman origin, without determining anything as to its character. It may bo lieaven ' "Wardlaw on Miracles, pp. 40, 41. 234 MIRACLES. or it may be hell. To complete the proof the nature of the doctrine must be considered. If that is approved by the conscience or commends itself to the reason, it settles the question as to the real source of the miracle, and the miracle, thus authenticated as from God, confirms in turn the Divine origin of the doctrine. We acquit this reasoning of the charge which has often been brought against it of arguing in a circle. When it is said that the doctrine proves the miracle, and the miracle the doctrine, it is obvious, as War- burton has judiciously remarked, that "the term doctrine, in the first proposition, is used to signify a doctrine agree- able to the truth of things, and demonstrated to he so by nat- ural light. In the second proposition, the term doctrine is used to signify a doctrine immediately and in an extraor- dinary manner revealed by God. So that these different significations in the declared use of the word doctrine, in two propositions, sets the whole reasoning free from that vicious circle within which our philosophic conjurors would confine it. In this there is no fruitless return of an unpro- gressive argument, but a regular procession of two distinct and different truths, till the whole reasoning becomes com- plete. In truth, they afford mutual assistance to one another, yet not by taking back after the turn lias been served what they had given, but by continuing to hold w^iat each had imparted to the support of the other." ^ The whole argument may be stated in a single sentence : The goodness of the doctrine proves the divinity of the miracle ; the divinity of the miracle proves not the goodness — that would be the circle — but the divine authority of the doctrine. But though we admit that this reasoning is valid as to form, we cannot make the same concession in relation to its matter. We cannot bring ourselves to believe that any created being, whether seraph or devil, can work a real miracle. We hold that this is the exclusive prerogative of God. The only power which any creature possesses over nature is the power which results from the knowledge of, 1 Divine Legation, Book ix., chap. 5. MIRACLES. 235 and consists in obedience to, her laws. No finite being can make or unmake a single substance, nor impart to matter or to mind a single original property. Nature is what God made it, her laws Avhat God appointed; and no orders of finite intelligence, however exalted, can ever rise above nature, for they are all parts of it, nor accomplish a single result independently of the properties and laws which God has ordained. They, like man, can only conquer by obeying. They may through superior knowledge effect combinations and invent machinery which to the ignorant and unin- structed may produce effects that shall appear to transcend the capabilities of a creature, but they can never rise above, nor dispense with, the laws they have mastered. They may reach the mirah'de, but never the miraculum} It was to set in a clear light the truth that the miracle from its very essence transcends the only species of power which we can ascribe to creatures, that we were so earnest in fixing the definition of it as something above or contradictory to nature. The power which works a miracle is evidently creative; the same Avhich first gave to the universe its being, to all substances their properties, and to the course of things its laws. It is the power of Omnipotence. Hence, wher- ever there is a real miracle, there is and must be the finger of God. Neither can this power be delegated to a creature. ^ Tlie distinction between finite power and that by which a real miracle is wrought, and between real and relative miracles, is clearly stated by Aquinas, Summa 1, Quest, ex., Art. iv. : " Miraculum proprie dicitur, cum aliquid sit prteter ordinem naturae, Sed non sufficit ad rationem mira- culi, si aliquid fiat prseter ordinem naturte alicujus particulari.s : quia sic cum aliquis projicit lapidem sursum, miraculum faceret, cum hoc sit prteter ordinem naturre lapidis. Ex hoc ergo aliquid dicitur esse mira- culum quod sit prseter ordinem totins naturae creatse. Hoc antem non potest facere nisi Deus; quia qnicquid facit angelus, vel qua^cun(}ue alia creatura propria virtute, hoc sit secundum ordinem naturae crcata- ; et sic non est miraculum. " Quia non omnis virtus natura^ creata> est nota nobis, ideo cum aliquid sit prseter ordinem naturae creatae nobis nota; per virtutem creatam nobis ignotam, est miraculum quoad nos. Sic igitur cum dremones aliquid faciunt sua virtute naturali, mimcula dicuntur non simpliciter, sed quoad nos." Compare 2. 2., Quest, clxxviii., Art. ii. Z3b MIRACLES. He is, in no case, even the instrument of its exercise. If imparted to him as a habit, it would be like every other faculty subject to his discretion ; if only as a transient virtue, it would still be a part of himself, and we cannot conceive that even for a moment infinite power could be resident in the finite.^ The Prophet or Apostle accordingly never performs the miracle. He is only the prophet of the presence of God. He announces what the Lord of nature will do, and not what he himself is about to perform. Tlie case is well put by Dr. Ward law : "Another observation still requires to be made — made, that is, more pointedly, for it has already been alluded to — I mean that in the work- ing of a miracle there is in every case a direct and immediate inter- ference of Deity. There is no transference of power from God to the divinely-commissioned messenger. Neither is there any commit- ting of Divine Omnipotence to his discretion. The former is, in the nature of the thing, impossible. It would be making the crea- ture for the time almighty, and that (since omnipotence can belong to none but Divinity) would be equivalent to making him God. And the latter, were it at all imaginable, would neutralize and nullify the evidence, inasmuch as it would render necessary to its validity a pre- vious assurance of the imx>eccahility of the person to whom the tmst was committed — that is, an assurance, and an absolute one, of the impossibility of its being ever perverted by the improper application of the power to purposes foreign to those of his commission. Om- nipotence placed at a creature's discretion is indeed as real an impos- sibility in the Divine administration as the endowing of a creature with the attribute itself; for, in truth, if the power remains with God, it would amount to the very same thing as God subjecting Himself to His creature's arbitrary and capricious will. Tiiere is, strictly speak- ing, in any miracle no agency but that of the Divine Being Himself Even to speak of the messenger as His instrument is not correct. All ^ The same doctrine is enunciated by Dr. Hinds, Part ii., ^ 4, p. 120. It is also found, as to its leading thought, in Aquinas, Sunima 2. 2., Quest. clxxviii., Art. i. : "Operatic virtutum (miracles) se extendit ad omnia qun3 supernaturaliter fieri possunt ; quorum quidem causa est divina omnipolentia, quje nulli creaturse communicari protest. Et ideo impos- sibile est quod prineipium operandi miraeula sit aliqua qualitas habitu- aliter manens in anima. Sed tamen lioc potest contingerc quod siout mens prophets movetur ex iuspiratione divina ad aliquid supernaturaliter cognoscendum ; ita etiam mens miraeula facientis moveatur ad faciendum aliquid ad quod sequitur etiectus miraculi, quod Deus sua virtute faeit." MiRAcr.ES. 237 that the messenger does is to declare his iiicssage, to appeal to God for its truth, and if, at his word, intimating a miracle as about to be performed in proof of it, the miracle actually takes place, there is, on his part, in regard to the i^erformance, neither agency nor instru- mentality, unless the mere utterance of words, in intimationof what is about to be done, or an appeal to Heaven and petition for its being done, may be so called. God Himself is the agent, the sole and im- mediate agent." ^ The miracle, according to this view, requires no extra- neous support in authenticating its heavenly origin. It is an immediate manifestation of God. It proclaims His presence from the very nature of the phenomenon. But how does it become a voucher for a doctrine or the Divine commission of a teacher? Neither conclusion is implicitly contained in it, and notable difficulties have been raised as to the possibility of establishing spiritual truths by material facts. We are far from asserting that miracles are so con- nected in the nature of things with a Divine commi-ssion that wherever they are proved to exist inspiration must be admitted as a necessary inference. There is no logical con- nection that the human mind is capable of tracing between the supernatural exercises of power and the supernatural communication of knowledge. It is certainly conceivable that one might be able to heal the sick and raise the dead who could neither predict future contingencies nor speak with the authority of God. The relation betwixt the miracle and inspiration depends upon the previous an- nouncement of its existence. The man who professes to come from God must appeal to the extraordinary interven- tion of His power. That appeal makes known to us a connection by virtue of which the miracle establishes the doctrine, not in its logical consecution, but by the extrinsic testimony of God — establishes the doctrine, not as a truth internally apprehended, but a matter of fact externally authenticated. It makes the Almighty a witness in tlie case. The previous appeal is the great canon upon which ^ On Miracles, pp. 52, 58. 238 MIRACLES. the applicability of the miracle, as a proof, depends; and whenever it is complied with, the performance of the mir- acle is as a voice from heaven; it is a present God affixing His seal to the claims of His servant. That this is the case can, we think, be conclusively evinced by three consider- ations : (1.) The miracle is an instance of the reality of that which alone creates any presumption against the claims of the prophet — it is an example of the supernatural. There is obviously the same antecedent presumption against the pretension to work miracles as against the pretension to inspiration. They are phenomena which belong to the same class, and the man who justifies his pretensions in the one case removes all proper ground of suspicion in the other. He goes farther; he illustrates an intimacy of con- nection with the Deity which inspiration supposes, and on account of which it is inherently improbable. This argu- ment is clearly put by Dr. Hinds : "In the case of a i^erson claiming to be commissioned with a mes- sage from God. the only proof which ought to be admitted is mi- raculous attestation of some sort. It should be required that either the person himself should work a miracle, or that a mii-acle should be so wi'ought, in connection with his ministry, as to remove all doubt of its reference to him and his message. The miracle, in these cases, is, in fact, a specimen of that violation of the ordinary course of nature which the person inspired is asserting to have taken place in his ap- pointment and ministry, and corresponds to the exhibition of speci- mens and experiments which we should require of a geologist, miner- alogist or chemist if he asserted his discovery of any natural phe- nomena, especially of any at variance with received theories. In this latter case, it would be only reasonable to require such sensible proof, but it would be unreasonable to admit the assertion without it — with- ovit seeing the experiment or specimen ourselves, or satisfying our- selves, on the testimony of credible witnesses, that it had been seen by others. Equally unreasonable would it be to admit any person's claim to inspiration or extraordinary communion with Grod without the appropriate test, the earnest of the Spirit." ' (2.) The miracle, in the next place, is not only a speci- 1 Hinds' Inquiry, p. 9. MIRACLES. 239 men of the supernutural in general, bnt a speeimen of tlie precise kind of the snpernatnrul which it is adduced to confirm ; it is a specimen of inspiration. Here the import- ance of the doctrine that God is, in every case, the imme- diate worker of the miracle — that the power is never delegated to a creature — becomes manifest. He who ap- peals to the miracle with the certainty of its performance must know that God will put forth His energy. He is a prophet of the Divine purpose, and therefore, really and truly, as to the event in question, inspired. As we are in- debted to Dr. Wardlaw for this feature of the argument, we shall permit him to speak for himself: ^ "For, having said that every prophecy is a miracle, I have now further to say that every miracle is a prophecy. The propheqi is a miracle of knowledge; the miracle is a prophecy of power. The power by which the miracle is wrought (as may be noticed more par- ticularly by and by), being Divine power, not transferred to the human messenger, but remaining God's, and God's alone, and being by God alone directly put forth for its eflfectuation, it is plain that a miracle, as far as the messenger is concerned whose commission and whose testimony are to be certified, is simply an intimation of such Divine power being about to be put forth by Him who alone possesses it, to l)roduce an effect which He alone is able to accomplish. And to make this still more manifest: if we only suppose that the production of the miraculous effect is not immediate, not to take place at the mo- ment of its intimation, but fixed in the messenger's announcement for a precise time in the somewhat distant future ; in that case, when the time came, and the power was put forth, and the miracle wrought accordingly, we should have, you will at once perceive, a miracle and a fulfilled prophecy in the same event; we should have, in that one event, the evidence of the miracle of knowledge and the miracle of power united. ' ' ^ "And there is in connection with the miracle of power, a miracle of knowledge, consisting in such a secret supernatural communication between Jhe mind of God and the mind of His servant as imjiarts to ' The same thought is found in Dr. Hinds, but it had escaped our no- tice until we had read the work of Dr. Wardlaw. It is not so clearly stated by Dr. Hinds as by Dr. Wardlaw, and Dr. Hinds does not seem to have appreciated its hearing upon the testimonial character of the miracle. See Hinds' Inquiry, p. 120. 2 On Miracles, pp. 32, 33. 240 MIRACLES. the latter the perfect assurance that God iciU, at the moment, put forth the necessarj' power— that he certainlj' loill strike in with His miraculous attestation. ' ' ^ The miracle, therefore, being an instance, is a proof, of inspiration. (3.) The third consideration is drawn from the character of God. It is not to be presumed that He will prostitute His power to the purposes of deception and fraud ; and yet if he works a miracle at the bidding of an impostor He becomes a party to a double lie. He endorses equally the claim to supernatural power and supernatural know- ledge. The whole thing becomes a scene of complicated wickedness. First, a creature with intolerable audacity professes to be in intimate communion with his Maker; then, with a still more intolerable profaneness, takes the name of God in vain, not only by pronouncing it upon his lip, but by demanding a manifestation of the Divine pres- ence; and the supposition is that God acquiesces in his blasphemy, succumbs to his behests and fosters his designs. We cannot conceive of anything more atrocious. The miracle, as we have seen, is, in every case, the immediate operation of Divine power. The man is not even the in- strument; he is only the prophet of the Divine purpose. Now, to say that God's power shall be subject to his arbi- trary dictation is to say that the Almighty becomes a tool to answer the ends of imposture and flilsehood, a willing instrument to propagate deceit. If a creature, by habitual virtue, were able to effect a miracle, the case would be different. We might not be competent to say how far God's goodness should interfere to restrain its discretion. But the question is of the immediate agency of God Him- self; and then it is wicked to think, much more deliberately to propose the problem, how far He can lend Himself as a party to a fraud. This consideration seems to us to con- clude the controversy. We concur most heartily in the earnest representation of Dr. Wardlaw: 1 On Miracles, p. 53. MIRACLES. 241 " If a man announces himself as having been commissioned by God to propound a certain doctrine or system of doctrines, as from Him, and for the truth of his commission and his communication appeals to works such as no power but that of God can effect; if, upon his making this appeal, these works are instantly and openly done at his bidding ; there is no evading of the conclusion that this is a Divine inttrposition, at the moment, in attestation of the authority he claims, and of the truth of what is declared. The professed Di- vine ambassador says: ' This is from God;' and God, by the instant intervention of the miracle, sets His seal to it — says, as by a voice from heaven, if not even more decisively, ' It is from Me /' The sole questions requiring to be answered, in order to the legitimacy of the conclusion, are these two: ' Is the icorh one ichich God alone can do f and ' 7s it actually done T If these questions are settled in the affirmative, there is no reasonable ground on which the conclusion can be withstood." * The foregoing reasoning, as to the testimonial connection between the miracle and inspiration, seems to us to be abundantly confirmed by the example of our Lord. In the case of the paralytic He claimed, in the first instance, to exercise a special prerogative of God. The scribes were shocked at the blasphemy. They looked upon it as alto- gether incredible that a man should be intrusted with any such authority. "And Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said. Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts? For whether is easier to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say. Arise, and walk?" That is. Which is antecedently the most im- probable, that I should be commissioned to forgive sin, or to control the course of nature? Is there not the same presumption against the one as the other? Are they not both equally the supernatural, and, in that respect, equally unlikely? If, now, I can demonstrate to your senses that I have the power in one case, will not that convince you tliat I have it also in the other? If, by a word, I can arrest this disease and restore health and energy to tliis palsied frame, will you not believe that I am likewise commissioned to remit sin? Their silence indicated that the scribes acknowledged the force of the appeal. They instinctively ' On Miracles, p. 51. Vol. III.— 1G 242 MIRACLES. felt that if Jesus could do the one, there was no reason for saying that He could not do the other. The intrinsic im- probability of both was precisely the same. " But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith He to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house. And he arose, and departed to his house." The effect was electric; the multitudes felt that He had made out His case, "and they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men." We venture to say that the same effect would have been produced u^on every unsophisticated mind that witnessed the scene. In this case all the conditions of our argument are com- plied with. The miracle is appealed to as the proof of the commission ; it is treated as belonging to the same category of the supernatural, as being a specimen of the kind of thing which is claimed, and as pledging the character of God for the truth of what is affirmed. This case seems to us to go still farther, and implicitly to rebuke the opinion of those who make the doctrine vouch for the Divine original of the miracle. The Jews were right in insisting upon the exclusive authority of God to pardon sin. It was blasphemy for a creature to claim and exercise the power in his own name. No such doctrine could commend itself to a Jew as good. If, therefore, the pretensions of the Saviour, in the case before us, had been tried only upon internal grounds, or if the miracle had been estimated only by the nature of the truth it was invoked to sustain, there would have been some pretext for the blas- phemous insinuation that He wrought His wonders by the finger of Beelzebub. Besides, there are other instances in which Jesus appealed from the internal improbability of the doctrine to the external authority of the miracle. When He announced the truths in reference to His own person, offices and works which were so offensive to his country- men, on account of their alleged discrepancy with the per- vading tenor of the Prophets, He in no case undertakes to MIRACLES. 243 oV)viate their piH^iulioes by removing the ground of their objections, and showing that the doctrine was intrinsically excellent, but appeals directly and at once to the miracle as to that which ought to be an end of controversy. "The Avorks that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. If I do not the w^orks of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works, that ye may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in Him." He suspends the guilt of the Jews in rejecting Him upon the sufficiency of His miracles to authenticate His mission. " If I had not done among them the works Avhich none other man did, they had not had sin." The theory which proves the doctrine by the miracle is so much more simple, obvious and direct, and so much more in accordance with the general tone of Scripture and the spon- taneous suggestions of our own minds, that no counter- hypothesis w^ould ever have been devised had it not been for the philosophic error that real miracles may be per- formed by a power inherent in the spirits of evil. That error w^e have exposed as arising from a WTong conception of the nature of finite poAver, and the argument may be regarded as complete that miracles are always the great seal of heaven, infallible credentials of a Divine commission. Whoever works them must have God with him. But it may be objected that it avails nothing to prove that God is the only author of a real miracle, and that all such miracles impress the seal of His authority upon the doctrine, so long as it is admitted that superior intelligences can produce effects wdiich to us in our ignorance shall seem to be miraculous. We want a criterion by which to distin- guish these achievements of a higher knowledge from the supernatural Avorks of God. Cudworth applies the term supernatural to both classes of effects, though he is careful to indicate that the feats of demons do not transcend the sphere of nature and her laws. " Wherefore it seems," says he, " that there are two sorts of miracles or effects supernatural. First, such as, though they could not be 244 MIRACLES. done by any ordinary and natural causes here amongst us, and in that respect may be called supernatural, yet might notwithstanding be done, God permitting only, by the ordi- nary and natural poAver of other invisible created spirits, angels or demons. As, for example, if a stone or other heavy body should first ascend upward, and then hang in the air without any visible either mover or supporter, this would be to us a miracle or effect supernatural, and yet, according to vulgar opinion, might this be done by the nat- ural power of created, invisible beings, angels or demons, God only permitting, without whose special providence, it is conceived, they cannot thus intermeddle with our human affairs. . . . But, secondly, there is another sort of mira- cles, or effects supernatural, such as are above the power of all second causes, or any natural created being whatso- ever, and so can be attributed to none but God Almighty Himself, the Author of nature, who, therefore, can control it at pleasure." The distinction is a just one, though we do not like the application of the terms miracle and supernatural to the first class ; the broad line which distinguishes them from the works of God is that they are within the sphere of nature. But still, may not these achievements of the creature be palmed upon us as real miracles, and are we not in danger of being deceived by them, unless we have some criterion apart from the nature of the phenomena by which we can distinguish the real from the apparent? Must we not, after all, fall back upon the doctrine to settle the question whether a real miracle has been wrought — whether the phenomena in question are in the sphere of the natural or not? This evidently comes to the same thing with the hypothesis we have been endeavouring to set aside, and if it could be consistently maintained, all that we have said would go for nothing. But among those who concur in our views of the testimonial character of the miracle, the difficulty is commonly solved by appealing to the goodness of God. The theory is, that God will not permit His weak MIRACLES. 245 and ignorant creatures to be deceived by counterfeits of His OM'n seal, He will not suifer demons to imitate miracles in cases in which they are likely to mislead, He will restrain the exercise of their power. This, if we understand him, is the position which Dr. Wardlaw has taken. It is the position taken by Mosheim in his valuable notes to Cud- worth. God will never suffer anything that can be fairly taken for a miracle, or that is calculated to have that effect upon us, to be wrought in attestation of falsehood. AVe must be permitted to say that the inference here is contra- dicted by all analogy. We have no means of ascertaining beforehand how far God is likely to limit the discretion of His creatures, or to prevent the machinations of malignity and falsehood. The argument from His goodness is shown to be lame from the uniform experience of the world. We see nothing in the distinctions of Dr. Wardlaw to render that experience inapplicable to the case. The effect of all such prevarications and evasions is to destroy the value of the miracle as a proof. If it possesses no authority in itself except as supported by foreign con- siderations, and if these are neither clear nor obvious, it seems to be of comparatively little use; it is better to eject it from the scheme of evidences at once. But these distinc- tions are altogether unnecessary. The true doctrine is, that, as the miracle proves by an evidence inherent in itself, no miracles should be admitted as the credentials of a mes- senger or doctrine but those which carry their authority npon their face. Doubtful miracles are in the same cate- gory with doubtful arguments; and if a religion relies upon this class alone to substantiate its claims, it relies upon a broken reed. There are unquestionably phenomena which, surveyed from a higher point of knowledge, we should per- ceive at once to be perfectly natural, and yet to us they may have the wonder and the marvel of the true miracle. We can lay down no criteria by which to distinguish in every case l)etwixt the natural and the supernatural. The effect is, where the line cannot be drawn, that the wonders are 246 MIRACLES, not to be accepted. We do not know them to he miracles, and consequently have no right to give them the weight of miracles. When the witness is suspected, w^e discard his testimony. Let it be conceded that the doctrine is good ; that only shows it to be true, and not that God has revealed it. The same superior knowledge which enables a demon to transcend my experience of nature, may enable him to transcend my science; and so, after all, the good doctrine may come to me from a very bad source. Devils some- times speak truth, though not from the love of it. Shall we say that God will prohibit them from trifling ^^■ith our credulity? This may be a trial of our undei-standings ; the design may be to measure our love of truth, and to see whether we shall narrowly scrutinize the evidence which is submitted to our minds. We know not how far it may be proper that God should restrain His creatures in the ex- ercise of their own energies. Suppose an unprincipled man of science should go among savages, and find that his attainments could give to him the distinction of being the great power of God, would God arrest his exhibitions be- cause they were deceiving and cheating the ignorant multi- tude? Has he ever arrested the frauds of jjriests who, under the guise of a rare acquaintance Avith philosophy, have gulled the populace with their marvellous achieve- ments ? This hypothesis is destitute of all probability and of all analogy. The only -consistent course is to treat all suspected miracles as we treat all prevaricating witnesses. And if there were no other kinds of miracles but these, w^e should say that no doctrine could be authenticated by such evidence. But, as Cudworth has suggestetl, there are some miracles which carry their credentials upon their face — so clearly above nature and all secondary causes that no one can hesitate an instant as to their real character. There are some things which we pronounce intuitively to be the sole prerogative of God. Others may be doubtful, but these are clear as light. This is the class of miracles on which a reli";ion must rely. These are seals where the MIRACLES. 247 impression is distinct and legible — abont which there can be no hesitation or uncertainty. These are the conclusive arguments to which a sound understanding feels itself justified in adhering. That the criterion of the miracle must be sought in itself, and that, where such a criterion cannot be definitely traced, the effect of the miracle as a proof is destroyed, is only the application to this depart- ment of evidence of the universal rules of probability. An argument must consist in its own light ; and according as that light is feeble or strong the argument is weak or con- clusive. If a man should come to us professing to be a messenger from God, and produce no clearer credentials than such effects as Cudworth has enumerated — the walking upon the water, the suspending of a stone in the air, or the cleaving of a whetstone by a razor, effects which might un- questionably be produced by higher laws suspending or holding in check the lower — we should feel no more dif- ficulty in rejecting him than in rejecting a pretended syl- logism with two terms, or a prevaricating witness. His pretensions might be true, but we should quote to him the maxim, " De non apparentibus et non existentlbus, eadem est ratio.'' "When we turn to the miracles of the Bible, wnth a few trifling exceptions, which are redeemed from suspicion by their connection with the others, as doubtful testimony may be confirmed by corroborating circumstances, — when we turn to the miracles of the Bible, we feel intuitively that they are of a character in themselves and on a scale of magnitude which render the supposition of secondary causes ridiculously absurd. The scenes at the Red Sea, the cleaving of the waters, the passing over of the Israelites on dry land between the fluid walls, the pillar of cloud by day and of fire by night, the daily supply of manna from the skies, — effects like these carry the evidence of their original on their face. There is no room for doubt. And so, in the New Testament, the conversion of water into wine; the stilling of the tempest; the raising of the dead; 248 illRACLES. the instant cure, without means or appliances, of invet- erate diseases; the feeding of thousands with a few loaves, which involves the highest possible exercise of power, that of creation ; and, above all, the resurrection of Jesus him- self,— cases like these have nothing of ambiguity in them. They reveal, at a glance, the very finger of God, The supernatural and the contranatural are so flagrant and glaring that he that runs may read. We may not be able to say what a devil or an angel can do ; but there are some things which we can confidently say that he cannot do ; and these are the things from which the miracles of our religion have been chosen. We have insisted upon this point iat some length, because the neglect of the distinction has been at the bottom of all the frivolous evasions which have had no other tendency than to weaken our faith in the Divine authority of the miracle. The place, consequently, which we are disposed, as the reader may already have collected, to assign to the miracle is the very front rank in the Christian evidences. We can- not understand how the question of a revelation or a Divine commission can be entertained at all until the credentials are produced. Mr. Trench laments the stress which has been laid upon them by modern apologists, and thinks it has contributed to obscure or to weaken the spiritual power of the Gospel. We are not prepared to deny that many have been strenuous advocates of the miracles who Avere strangers to the life of Christianity. It is one thing to believe in miracles, and quite another to believe in the Saviour of mankind. Faith in the Divine authority of our religion is not necessarily faith in Christ. We admit all that he has said of the beauty, and glory, and self-evi- dencing light of the doctrine, and subscribe fully to the sentiment contained in the passage of Calvin's Institutes, to which he has referred us. That passage asserts what all the creeds and confessions of the reformed churches, and tlie creeds and confessions of martyrs and saints in all ages of MIRACLES. 249 the world have always asserted, that true faith in Jesus is not the offspring of logic or philosophy ; it is no creature of earth, but the gift of heaven, the production of God's Holy Spirit. AYe would detract nothing from the inward light and power of the Gospel, or from the need of super- natural grace. Neither, again, do avc complain that ]\Ir. Trench has signalized the ethical value of the Christian miracles as being at once types and prophecies of greater works upon the soul. He has made an important contri- bution to our literature by the successful manner in which he has illustrated this principle in his rich and valuable Notes. AVe agree, too, that the appearance of such a being as Jesus would have been wanting in consistency if nature had not been made to do homage to His name. An incar- nate God could hardly walk the earth without unwonted indications of His presence. Such a wonder must needs draw other wonders after it, and Mr. Trench has strikingly displayed this aspect of the importance of miracles. But still it does not follow that because miracles are graceful complements of the mission of Christ that their only use or their chief use is their typical relations to grace, and their harmony with the character and claims of the Saviour. We maintain, on the contrary, that their principal office is to guaranty an external, objective revelation by which we can try the spirits whether they be of God. They are the cri- terion by which a real is distinguished from a pretended revelation, the mark by which we know that God has spoken, and discriminate His Word from the words of men. An external, objective, palpable test is the only one which can meet the exigencies of the case. If men are thrown upon their intuitions, impulses and emotions, their pretended revelations will be as numerous and discordant as the dialects of Babel. Each man will have his doctrine and his })salm. The necessity of such a test has been uni- versally acknowledged. The Catholic feels it, and aj>peals to a visible, infallible society which is to judge between tiie genuine and spurious; the Protestant feels it, and a|)peals 250 MIRACLES. to his Bible; the Bible bows to the same necessity, and appeals to miracles. These, it triumphantly exclaims, dis- tinguish my doctrines from those of every other book, and seal them with the impress of God. Here, then, is a stand- ard, fixed, stable, certain, Avith which the experiences of men must be compared. To the law and to the testimony ; if they speak not according to this loord, it is because there is no light in them. A religion of authority is the only bulwark against fanaticism on the one hand, and a dead naturalism on the other. We have no doubt that if the miracle should be reduced to an obscure or subordinate position in the scheme of Chris- tian evidences, the result would eventually be that an author- itative, external revelation would be totally discarded. This was the progress of criticism in Germany. Those who prevaricated with miracles prevaricated with inspiration, and we suspect those among ourselves who are offended at the latter have as little relish for the spirit of the Gospel, except when it happens to chime in with the breathings of their own minds. We have never had apprehensions of any other species of rationalism in this country but that which obtains in the school of Schleiermacher. We think that there are symptoms in various quarters that it is insinuating itself into the minds of those of our scholars and reflecting men who have not thoroughly studied the grounds of his philos- ophy. It invites, by its warmth, and ardour, and life ; it gives a significancy to the history of Jesus which falls in with the pensive longings of a meditative spirit ; it speaks of redemption, and pardon, and holiness, and sin ; it employs, except in relation to the resurrection, the very language of piety ; and seems to put on a broad and per- manent foundation the holy catholic Church and the com- munion of the saints. But as it has no external standard of truth, it must repudiate all precise dogmatic formulas, and reduce the doctrine to a general harmony of feeling or pervading uniformity of sentiment. Religion must be a life without a creed. But as the understanding must have I MIRACLES. 251 something to feed on, each man will be tempted to analyze the operations of his own consciousness of God, and reduce to the precision of logical representation the inspirations of his own soul. And when it is seen that the religion is sup- ported by a philosophy essentially pantheistic, that the dif- ferences betwixt holiness and sin are stripped of all moral import, and that a stern necessity underlies the whole con- stitution of things, we may well tremble at the results, should this scheme be introduced in place of an authorita- tive Bible. It is because we feel that the tendency of every disparaging remark in relation to miracles is to set aside the Bible, in the aspect of authority, that we are so earnest to rebuke it. We love spiritual religion, but we abhor fanaticism. We detest bigotry, but we love the truth; and we believe that there is a truth in relation to God and to ourselves which ought to be embraced in the form of defi- nite propositions, and not apprehended as vague sentiments. There are truths which are powerful in proportion as they are clear and articulate, and worthless unless they are dis- tinctly understood. 3. We come now to the last point which remains to be discussed — the credibility of miracles; and here we enter into the very citadel of the controversy between the friends and opponents of Divine revelation. Here the question is fairlv encountered. Can God stand to man in the attitude of a witness to the truth ? Can He declare to other intel- ligent beings, the creatures of His own power, facts which He knows, as one man can communicate knowledge to another? Or, if we admit the possibility of individual inspiration, in conformity with the laws of our mental con- stitution. Can God authenticate that inspiration to a third party ? Can He enable others to prove a commission from Him ? To answer in the affirmative is to admit the credi- bility of miracles. There are certainly no natural laws by which we can recognize any communications as author- itatively from heaven. Whether the miracles be visible or invisible; a supernatural operation upon the mind, pro- 252 MIRACLES. ducing an immediate consciousness of the Divine voice, or supernatural phenomena addressed to the senses, producing the conviction of the Divine presence ; no matter what may be the process, it must be evidently miraculous, as out of, and against, the ordinary course of nature. It would be obviously impossible to show, by any direct processes of argument, that there is anything in the mode of the Divine existence which precludes the Deity from holding intercourse with His creatures analogous to that which they hold with each other. "We can perceive nothing in the nature of things which would lead us to suppose that God could not converse with man or make man the mes- senger of His will. Analogy, on the contrary, would suggest that, as persons can here communicate with each other, as they can be rendered conscious of each other's existence, as they can feel the presence of one another and interchange thoughts and emotions, the same thing might be affirmed of God. It is certainly incumbent upon the Rationalist to show how God is precluded from a privilege which, so far as we know, pertains to all other personal existences. Capacity of society and converse seem to be involved in the very nature of personality, and it cannot be demonstrated that there is anything more incomprehensible in the case of a Divine than of a human testimony. How one man knows that another man, another intelligence, is before him, how he reads the thoughts and enters into the emotions of another being, are problems as profoundly inscrutable as how a man shall know that God talks with him and imparts to him truths which neither sense nor reason could discover. It deserves further to be considered that as all worsliip in- volves a direct address of the creature to the Deity, as man must talk to God as well as obey His laws, must love and confide in Him as well as tremble before Him — it deserves to be considered how all this is practicable if the commu- nications are all to be confined to the feebler party. Relig- ion necessarily supposes some species of communion with MIRACLES. 253 the object of worship, some sense of God ; ami if this is possible, we see not why the correspondeiu-e may not be extended into full consistency with the analo<>y of human intercourse. Certain it is that the moral nature of man, which loads him to converse with God, has in all ages in- duced him to hope and expect that God would converse with iiim. Every age has had its pretensions to Divine revelations; there have always been seers and prophets. Many have been false, have had nothing intrinsic or ex- trinsic to recommend them, and yet they have succeeded in gaining a temporary credit, because they addressed them- selves to the natural belief that a revelation would indeed be given. Whence this natural expectation, whence this easy credulity, if the very conception of a direct conmiuni- cation from God involves a contradiction and absurdity ? Arguments of this sort are certainly not without their weight. They never have been and they never can be answered in the way of direct refutation. The approved method is to set them aside by the sweeping ajDplication of the principle upon which the Sadducees set aside the resur- rection of the dead. Revelation and its proofs are equally supernatural, and whatever is supernatural must be false. "Xo just notion of the true nature of history," says Strauss, " is possible without a perception of the inviolability of the chain of finite causes and of the impossibility of mir- acles." The first negative canon which this remarkable author prescribes for distinguishing betwixt the historical and fabulous, is "when the narration is irreconcilable with the known and universal laws which govern the course of events." He affirms that " according to these laws, agree- ing with all just philosophical conceptions and all credible experience, the absolute cause never disturbs the chain of secondary causes by single arbitrary acts of interposition, but rather manifests itself in the production of the aggre- gate of finite causalities and of their reciprocal action." In opposition to this desolating doctrine, wc shall undertake to set in a clear light the principh^ that in all eases <»f enm- 254 MIRACLES. petent testimony, where the witnesses have honestly related their own convictions, and where they were in a condition to judge of the facts, possibility is the sole natural limit to belief. We are bound to believe, upon competent testimony, what is not demonstrably impossible. The application of this law to all other cases of antecedent improbability but the supernatural will hardly be questioned, and we shall there- fore discuss it with special reference to miracles. It would seem to be a self-evident proposition that whatever is, and at the same time is adapted to our cogni- tive faculties, is capable of being known. No doubt but that man is a little creature, and that there are and for ever will remain things locked up in the bosom of Omniscience which his slender capacities are unfitted to comprehend. But then there are other things to which his faculties are unquestionably adjusted — which are not only cognizable in themselves, but cognizable by him. All that is necessary in reference to these is, that they should stand in the proper relation to the mind. When this condition is fulfilled knowledge must necessarily take place. If an object be visible, and is placed before the eye in a sound and health- ful condition of the organ, it must be seen; if a sound exist, and is in the right relation to the ear, it must be heard. Let us now take a supernatural fact, such as the raising of Lazarus from the dead, as recorded in the Gospel of John. There is not a single circumstance connected with that event which lies beyond the cognizance of our faculties. Everything that occurred could be judged of by our senses. That he was dead, that he was buried, that the process of putrefaction had begun, that he actually came from the grave at the voice of Jesus, bound hand and foot in his graveclothes, and that he subsequently took his part in human society as a living man, are phenomena which no more transcend the cognitive faculties of man than the simplest circumstances of ordinary experience. We are not now vindicating the reality of this miracle — that is not necessary to the argument in hand. All that we contend MIRACLES. 255 for is, that if it had been a fact, or if any other real in- stance of the kind shoukl ever take place, there would be nothing in the nature of the events, considered as mere phenomena, which woukl pkice them beyond the grasp of our instruments of knowledge. They would be capable of being known by those who might be present at the scene — capable of being known according to the same laws which regulate cognition in reference to all sensible appearances. Our senses would become the vouchers of the fact, and the constitution of our nature the warrant for crediting our senses. The skeptic himself will admit that if the first facts sub- mitted to our experience were miraculous, there could be no antecedent presumption against them, and that we should be bound to receive them with the same unquestioning credence with which a child receives the earliest report of its senses. This admission concedes all that we now con- tend for — the possibility of such a relation of the .facts to our faculties as to give rise to knowledge — such a connec- tion betwixt the subject and object as to produce, according to the laws of mind, real cognition. This being granted, the question next arises. Does the standard of intrinsic proba- bility, which experience furnishes in analogy, destroy this connection? Does the constitutional belief, developed in experience, that like antecedents are invariably followed by like consequents, preclude us from believing, subsequently to experience, what we should be compelled, by the essential structure of our nature, to believe antecedently to experience? Does analogy force a man to say that he does not see what, if it were removed, he would be bound to say that he does see? To maintain the affirmative is to annihilate the possiI)ility of knowledge. The indispensable condition of all know- ledge is the veracity of consciousness. We have the same guarantee for the sensible phenomena which are out of tlie analogy of experience as for those phenomena from Avhich that experience has been developed. If, now, f;onscious- 256 MIRACLES. ness cannot be credited in one case, it can be credited in none — -falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus. If we cannot believe it after experience, it must be a liar and a cheat, and we can have no grounds for believing it prior to expe- rience. Universal skepticism becomes the dictate of wis- dom, and the impossibility of truth the only maxim of philosophy. Consciousness must be believed on its own account, or it cannot be believed at all; and if believed on its own account, it is equally a guarantee for every class of facts, whether supernatural or natural. To argue back- ward from a standard furnished by consciousness to the mendacity of consciousness in any given case is to make it contradict itself, and thus demonstrate itself to be utterly unworthy of credit. There is no alternative betwixt ad- mitting that, when a supernatural phenomenon is vouched for by consciousness, it is known, and therefore exists, and admitting that no phenomenon whatever can be known. This knowledge rests upon the same ultimate authority with all other knowledge. But it may be asked. Is not the belief of the uniformity of nature a datum of consciousness, and does not the hypoth- esis of miracles equally make consciousness contradict itself? By no means. There is no real contradiction in the case. The datum of consciousness, as truly given, is that under the same circumstanf es the same antecedent will invariably be followed by the same consequent. It is not that when the antecedent is given the consequent will invariably appear, but that it will appear if the conditions upon which the operation of its cause depends are fulfilled. Cases con- stantly happen in which the antecedent is prevented from putting forth its efficacy ; it is held in check by a power superior to itself " Continually we behold in the world around us lower laws held in restraint by higher, mechanic by dynamic, chemical by vital, physical by moral, yet we say not when the lower thus gives place to higher that there was any violation of the law, that anything contrary to nature came to pass ; rather we acknowledge the law of a MIRACLES. 257 greater freedom swallowing up the law of a lesser. Thus, when I lift my arm the law of gravitation is not, as far as my arm is concerned, denied or annihilated ; it exists as much as ever, but is held in suspense by the higher law of my will. The chemical laws which would bring about decay in animal substances still subsist, even when they are hemmed in and hindered by the salt which keeps these substances from corruption."^ When the consequents, therefore, in any given case are not such as we should pre- viously have expected, the natural inference is not that our senses are mendacious, and that the facts are not what con- sciousness represents them to be, but that the antecedents have been modified or counteracted by the operation of some other cause. The conditions upon which their connec- tion with their sequences depends do not obtain. The facts, as given by the senses, must be taken, and the explanation of the variety is a legitimate jjroblem of the reason. Suppose, for example, that a man uninstructed in physi- cal science should visit the temple of Mecca, and behold the coffin of Mohammed, if the story be true, unsustained by any visible support, suspended in the air, would it be his duty to believe that because all experience testifies that heavy bodies left to themselves fall to the ground, therefore the phenomenon as given by his senses in the present case must be a delusion ? or would it not rather be the natural infer- ence, as he could not possibly doubt what he saw, that the coffin was not left to itself — that though inscrutable to him there must be some cause which counteracted and held in check the operation of gravity? "In order," says Mill,^ ^ Trench on Miracles, p. 21. 2 Mill's System of Logic, c. xxv., ? 2. This representation requires to be somewhat modified, as it seems to imply that a previous knowledge of the cause is necessary to render the miracle credible, which is by no means the case. On the contrary, every phenomenon, whether natural or super- natural, must in the first instance authenticate itself, and after it has been accepted as a fact the inquiry into the cause begins. All that the consti- tution of our nature positively determines is, tliat it must have some cause, that it cannot be an absolute commencement. We do not, therefore, believe Vol.. III.— 17 258 MIRACLES. " that any alleged fact should be contradictory to a law of causation the allegation must be, not simply that the cause existed without being followed by the effect (for that would be no uncommon occurrence), but that this happened in the absence of any adequate counteracting cause. Now, in the case of an alleged miracle the assertion is the exact oppo- site of this. It is that the effect was defeated, not in the absence but in consequence of a counteracting cause — namely, a direct interposition of an act of the will of some being who has power over nature, and in particular of a being whose will, having originally endowed all the causes with the powers by which they produce their effects, may well be supposed able to counteract them. A miracle, as was justly remarked by Brown, is no contradiction to the law of cause and effect ; it is a new effect supposed to be produced by the introduction of a ncAV cause." A man is, accord- ingly, in no case permitted to call into question the veracity of his senses ; he is to admit what he sees and what he can- not but see ; and when the phenomena lie beyond the range of ordinary experience, it is the dictate of philosophy to seek for a cause which is adequate to produce the effect. This is what the laws of his nature require him to do. It is obvious, from these considerations, that if sensible miracles can exist they can be known; and if they can be known by those under the cognizance of whose senses they immediately fall, they can be proved to others through the medium of human testimony. The celebrated argument of Mr. Hume against this proposition proceeds upon a false assumption as to the nature of the law by which testimony authenticates a flict. He forgets that the credibility of testimony is in itself, not in the object for which it vouches ; it must be believed on its own account, and not that of the phenomena asserted. In all reasoning upon this subject the principle of cause and effect lies at the basis of the process. the miracle because we know that there is a cause which can produce it, but we know that there is such a cause because we know the eflect has been produced. MIRACLES. 259 A witness, strictly speaking, only puts us in possession of the convictions of his own mind and the circumstances under which those convictions were produced. These con- victions are an effect for which the constitution of our nature prompts us to seek an adequate cause, and where no other satisfactory solution can be given but the reality of the facts to which the witness himself ascribes his impressions, then we admit the existence of the facts. But if any other sat- isfactory cause can be assigned, the testimony should not command our assent. There is room for hesitation and doubt. If a man, for example, afflicted with the jaundice should testify that the Myalls of a room were yellow, we might be fully persuaded of the sincerity of his own belief, but as a cause in the diseased condition of his organs could be assigned apart from the reality of the fact, we should not feel bound to receive his statement. Two questions, conse- quently, must always arise in estimating the value of testi- mony. The first respects the sincerity of the witnesses, — Do they or do they not express the real impressions that have been made upon their own minds ? This may be called the fundamental condition of testimony ; without it the state- ments of a witness cannot properly be called testimony at all. The second respects the cause of these convictions, — Are there any known principles which under the circum- stances in which the witnesses were placed can account for their belief without an admission of the fact to which they themselves ascribe if? When we are satisfied upon these two points — that the witnesses are sincere, and that no causes apart from the reality of the facts can be assigned in the case, then the testimony is entitled to be received with- out hesitation. The presumption is always in favour of the cause actually assigned until the contrary can be estab- lished. If this be the law of testimony, it is evident that the intrinsic probability of phenomena does not directly affect their credibility. What is inherently probable may be proved upon slighter testimony than what is antecedently unlikely; not that additional credibility is imparted to the 260 MIRACLES. testimony, but additional credibility is imparted to the phe- nomena, there being two separate and independent sources of proof. The testimony is still credible only upon its own grounds. In the case, accordingly, of sensible miracles, in which the witnesses give unimpeachable proofs of the sin- cerity of their own belief, it is incumbent upon the skeptic to show how this belief was produced under the circum- stances in which the witnesses were placed before he is at liberty to set aside the facts. He must show how the wit- nesses came to believe so and so if there were no founda- tion in reality. The testimony must be accounted for and explained, or the miracle must be admitted through the operation of the same law which authenticates testimony in every other case. It is an idle evasion to say that men some- times lie. No doubt there are many lies and many liars in the world ; but we are not speaking of a case in which men fabricate a story, giving utterance to statements which they do not themselves believe. That is not properly a case of testimony. We are speaking of instances in which the witness honestly believes what he says, and surely there are criteria by which sincerity can be satisfactorily established. With respect to such instances, we affirm that there can be but two suppositions — either the witness was deceived, or the facts were real. The question of the credibility of the testimony turns upon the likelihood of delusion in the case ; and where it is one in which the delusion cannot be affirmed without affirming at the same time the mendacity of the senses, the miracle is proved, or no such thing as extrinsic proof exists on the face of the earth. But it may be contended that although testimony has its own laws, and must be judged of by them, yet in the case of miracles there is a contest of opposite probabilities — the extrinsic arising from testimony in their favour, and the intrinsic arising from analogy against them; and that our belief should be determined by the preponderating evidence, which must always be the intrinsic, in consequence of \i^ concurrence with general experience. The fallacy here coi.- MIRACLES. 261 sists ill siipjjosing that these two probabilities are directed to the same point. The truth is, the interiial probability amounts only to this, that the same antecedents under the conditions indispensable to their operation will produce the same effects ; the external is, that in the given case the neces- sary conditions were not fulfilled. There is, consequently, no collision, and the law of testimony is left in undisturbed operation. It is clear that Mr. Hume would never have thought of constructing his celebrated argument against the credibility of miracles if he had not previously believed that miracles were phenomena which could never authenticate themselves — that they were in their own nature incapable of being known. This is the conclusion which he really aimed to establish under the disguise of his deceitful ratiocinations, the conclusion which legitimately flows from his premises, and a consistent element of that general system of skepti- cism which he undertook to rear by setting our faculties at war with each other, and making the data of consciousness contradictory either in themselves or their logical results. If he had believed miracles to be cognizable, he would per- haps have had no hesitation in admitting that what a man would be authorized to receive upon the testimony of his own senses he would be equally authorized to receive upon the testimony of the senses of other men. AYhat is cogni- zable by others — all having the same essential constitution — is cognizable by us through them. We see with their eyes and hear with their ears. The only case in which the intrinsic and extrinsic probabilities come into direct collis- ion is that in which the alleged fact involves a contradictif)n, and is therefore impossible. In all other cases testimony simply gives us a new effect. The skepticism of Mr. Hume and the disciples of the same school, it is almost needless to observe, is in fatal con- tradiction to the whole genius and spirit of the inductive ])hilosophy. Observers, not masters, interpreters, not legis- lators, of nature, we are to employ our faculties, and im- plicitly receive whatever in their sound and healthful con- 262 MIRACLES. dition they report to be true. "We are not to make phe- nomena, but to study those which God has submitted to our consciousness. If antecedent presumptions should be allowed to prevail, the extraordinary as contradistinguished from the facts of every-day life, the new, the strange, the uncommon, the mirabile, any more than the miraculum, never could be established. To make a limited and uniform experience the measure of existence is to deny that expe- rience itself is progressive, and to reduce all ages and geue- tions to a heartless stagnation of science. The spirit of mod- ern philosophy revolts against this bondage. It has long since ceased to wonder, long since learned to recognize every- thing as credible which is not impossible ; it explores every region of nature, every department of existence ; its excur- sions are for facts ; it asks for nothing but a sufficient extrin- sic probability, and when this is furnished it proceeds with its great work of digesting the facts into order, tracing out their correspondences and resemblances, referring them to general laws, and giving them their place in the ever-widen- ing circle of science. AVhen they are stubborn and intract- able, standing out in insulation and independence, and refus- ing to be marshalled into systems, they are still retained as phenomena yet to be accounted for, and salutary mementos of human ignorance. But no man of science in the present day would ever think of rejecting a fact because it was strange or unaccountable. The principle is universally rec- ognized that there are more things in heaven and eartli than are dreamed of in our philosophy. If Hume's laws were the laws of philosophy, where would have been the sciences of chemistry, galvanism, electricity, geology and magnetism ? With what face could the palaeontologist come out with his startling disclosures of the memorials of extinct generations and perished races of animals? What would be said of aerial iron and stones? and where would have been the sublimest of all theories, the Cojiernican theory of the heavens? The philosopher is one who regards everything, or nothing, as a wonder. MIRACLES. 263 The remarks of Butler are not only philosophically just, but worthy of Bacon himself, when he asserts that miracles must not be compared to common natural events, or to events which, though uncommon, are similar to what we daily experience, but to the extraordinary phenomena of nature. It is nothing worth to say that these extraordinary phenomena may be subsequently explained in the way in which physical philosophers account for events. That was not known when they were first authenticated to conscious- ness. They had to be believed before they could be ex- plained. Miracles, too, when we reach a higher pinnacle of knowledge, may connect themselves as clearly with the general scheme of God as the wonders of physics. The conclusion, then, would seem to be established that as the will of God is the sole measure of existence, so the power of God or the possibility of the event is the sole limit to the credibility of testimony. The only question, therefore, which remains to be dis- cussed is, whether miracles are possible. This is simply the question concerning the existence of a personal God. If there is a Being of intelligence and will who created and governs the world, there can be no doubt that the same power which at first ordained can subsequently con- trol the laws of nature, and produce eifects independently of, as easily as in concurrence with, the secondary causes which He has appointed. Accordingly, none will be found to deny the physical possibility of miracles but those who deny a great First Cause, or those who resolve the relations of the finite and the infinite into a principle of immanence or identity, totally destructive of all freedom and intelli- gence, and of all essential separateness of being on the part of what they profess to call God. The Avorshippcrs of the supremacy of law, on the one hand, who see nothing in nature but a blind succession of events, and the philos- ophers of the imagined absolute upon the other, who have ascended to the fountain of universal being, and traced the process by Mhieh the conditioned has been propagated and 264 MIRACLES. derived, unite in the warfare against miracles, because, in either case, the miracle is fatal to their pretensions. They cannot reconcile it with the stern necessity and rigid con- tinuity which their speculations imperatively demand. With the avowed Atheist it is useless to contend. It is enough that he gets quit of miracles only by getting quit of God. And if he should be induced to admit their phe- nomenal reality, he could as easily resort to subterfuges and pretexts to explain them away as he can dispense with intelligence and wisdom in accounting for the arrangement and order of the universe. To him to whom the glorious wonders of creation and providence, renewed with every morning sun, to whom what Philo calls "the truly great — the production of the heavens, the chorus of the fixed and erratic stars, the enkindling of the solar and lunar lights, the foundation of the earth, the outpouring of the ocean, the course of rivers and flowing of perennial fountains, the change of revolving seasons, and ten thousand wonders more," reveal nothing of design, to him the most astonish- ing exhibitions of supernatural power could appear as nothing but fantastic freaks. As, according to Lord Bacon, God never wrought a miracle to convince an Atheist, it would be frivolous to vindicate to him the possibility of such phenomena, or to take into serious account principles which he holds only by the abnegation of his nature. If there be no God, we care very little whether there are mir- acles or not. But there is a class of philosophers whom unlettered Christians are very apt to regard as closely approximating to Atheists, but who themselves profess to be very zealous for the Divine existence and perfections, whose poison is as insinuating as it is dangerous, and whose speculations have mainly contributed to undermine the credibility of the miracle. For the purpose which we have in view they may all be reckoned as Pantheists. It is obvious that those who, with Spinoza, start out from the notion of substance, and by logical deduction from the elements contained in it MIRACLES. 265 reduce the finite to a modification of the infinite, come to the same ultimate conckision with those who start out from the analysis of consciousness, and by the phenomena of human knowledo;e are led to confound thought and exist- ence, and identify the subject and the object. In either case, essential being is one, and the differences of things are only varieties in the modes of manifestation. In the eclectic system of Cousin both processes are combined : the infinite is the substance; the finite, the attributes or affec- tions ; the infinite is the real, the permanent, the unchanging; the finite is the phenomenal, the fluctuating, the variable ; the infinite is the cause ; the finite the effect. The one is the complement of the other; neither can exist, or be known, apart. The fundamental error of Pantheism is, that it overlooks the fact of creation. Let this be denied, and we see no way of avoiding the philosophy of Spinoza or of Hegel. We must seek a logical and a necessary connection between the finite and the infinite. It must be that of a substance with its accidents, or a mind with its thoughts, or a blind cause with its effects. Deny creation, and you can conceive of no higher existence of the world than as a thought of the Eternal Mind — an object to the knowledge of God; and contemplated in this light it has no real being — it is only God himself; it is only a subjective phenomenon of the Divine nature. Postulate creation, and these eternal thoughts, or, as Plato would call them, these eternal ideas, become realized in finite substances, which have a being, dependent to be sure, but still a being of their own. They are no longer the consciousness of God himself. But crea- tion, as distinct from emanation or development, necessarily implies the voluntary exercise of power. It is a thing which might or nn'ght not be. It is in no sense necessary. Hence the relation of the finite to the infinite, upon this hypothesis, becomes purely contingent. It is a relation in- stituted by will and de[)endent ui)on \\ill. In other words, we have no longer a necessary, but a free, cause. This 266 MIRACLES. aspect of the case changes the whole problem of philosophy, and gives a new direction to the current of speculation. It must now flow in the channels of induction and not of de- duction. When we speak of creation as contingent, we do not mean to represent it as arbitrary. The will of God, so far from being analogous to caprice, can never be divorced from His wisdom and goodness. He must always act like Himself; and if He create a w^orld or a universe, it must be to answ^er an end worthy of His exalted perfections. But while nothing can be conceived as done by Him un- worthy of His Name, no knowledge of His attributes can ever conduct us, a 'priori, to the nature of the particular concrete objects to which He might determine to give being. It would enable us to speak of their general character and aim, but it would throw no light- upon their specific and individual differences. No man knows what kind of inhab- itants there are in the moon, or whether there are any. He cannot deduce from the attributes of God any firm solu- tion of the problem ; and yet he is persuaded that, however it may be solved, these attributes are illustrated. It is one thing to be able to say, that whatever God does must be wise and good; it is quite a different thing to be able to spe- cify what those wise and good things may be. Speculation, therefore, must abandon the law of rigid deduction when the starting-point is a free, voluntary, intelligent cause — a Person. The question then becomes one concerning the free determinations of a will regulated by wisdom and goodness. It is a question concerning design. Necessity obtains only in relation to its general character ; all else is contingent. Creation gives us at once a personal God and final causes. It gives us real existences apart from God, which are precisely what He chose to make them; and final causes give us a plan which we have no means of knowing in its special adaptations and general , order, ex- cept as it is manifested in the course of experience or super- naturally revealed. It is at this fact of creation that the pantheistic philosophy has stumbled; and in stumbling MIRACLES. 267 here it has as thoroughly exploded design as it has miracles. The argument is as complete in the one case as the other ; and we would impress it upon those who permit themselves to be entangled in these cobwebs of transcendental meta- physics that while they are revolting from the supernatural on the ground that it contradicts their philosophy, and pronouncing all miracles to be absolutely impossible, they are, at the same time, revolting from all manifestations of intelligence, and pronouncing their own most familiar con- sciousness to be also an impossibility. Pantheism, in its common illustrations of the universe, has more of poetry than of truth. It represents it as an organic whole, whose unity is preserved by a regular series of separate developments, concurring in a common result. This seems to be the notion, if he had any, which Strauss intended to convey when he said : " Since our idea of God requires an immediate, and our idea of the world a mediate, Divine operation, and since the idea of combination of the two species of action is inadmissible, nothing remains for us but to regard them both as so permanently and immov- ably united that the operation of God on the world con- tinues for ever and everywhere twofold, both immediate and mediate; which comes just to this, that it is neither of the two, or this distinction loses its value." The iniiverse, in conformity with what we take to be the meaning of this passage, is not unfrequently described as a living organism, the properties of matter being strictly analogous to vital forces, the development of Avhich is like the growth of an animal body. This view, we are sorry to say, disfigures that masterly work, the Cosmos of Humboldt. The de- sign of his introductory remarks is " not solely to draw attention to the importance and greatness of the physical history of the universe — for in the present day these are too well understood to be contested — but likewise to prove how, without detriment to the stability of special studies, we may be enabled to generalize our ideas by concentrating them in one common focus, and thus arrive at a p(»int of 268 MIRACLES. , view from which all the organisms and forces of nature may be seen as one living, active whole, animated by one sole impulse." Having sufficiently indicated the point at which Pan- theism diverges from the truth, and exposed the fallacy of its a jirlori demonstration of the impossibility of miracles, we cannot let it pass without rebuking the presumption of its spirit. In nothing is it more distinguished from the humility of true science than in the magnificence of its pretensions. When we consider the immensity of the universe, and the magnitude and extent of that government, physical and moral, which God has been conducting from the beginning over all His creatures, whether material or intelligent, the conclusion forces itself upon us that the plan of the universe is a point upon which we have not the faculties to dogmatize. True science, accordingly, aspiring only to a relative knowledge of existence, instead of futile and abortive attempts to construct a universe or to fix the TO Tcav as a positive element of consciousness, takes its stand, in conformity with the sublime maxim of Bacon, as the minister, not the master — the interpreter, not the legis- lator, of nature. Professing its incompetence to pronounce beforehand what kinds of creatures the Almighty should have made, and Avhat kinds of laws the Almighty should have established, and what kinds of agency He Himself should continue to put forth, it is content to study the phe- nomena presented to it, in order to discover what God has wrought. Without presuming to determine what must be, it humbly and patiently inquires what is. The spirit of true philosophy is much more a confession of ignorance than a boast of knowledge. Newton exhibited it when, after all his splendid discoveries, he compared himself to a child who had gathered up a few pebbles upon the seashore, while the great ocean of truth lay undiscovered before liim. La Place exhibited it when he spoke of the immensity of nature and human science as but a point; and Butler was a living example of it in the uniform modesty of his coufes- MIRACLES. 269 slons and tlie caution and meekness of liis researches. Shall man, the creature of yesterday, who calls corruption his Hither and the worm his mother and his sister, who at best can only touch, in his widest excursions, the hem of .Jeho- vah's garment — shall man undertake to counsel the Holy One as to the plan He shall pursue? Is it not intolerable arrogance in a creature whose senses are restricted to a point, who is confessedly incompetent to declare what ends it may be the design of Deity to accomplish in creation and providence, who cannot explain to us why the world has sprung into being at all, Avith its rich variety of scenery, vegetation and life, who is unable to tell the meaning of this little scene in the midst of which he is placed, — is it not iritolerable arrogance in him to talk of comprehending the height and depth and length and breadth of that eter- nal purpose which began to be unfolded when creation was evoked from emptiness, and the silence and solitude of vacancy Avere broken by the songs of angels bursting into light, and which shall go on unfolding, in larger and fuller proportions, through the boundless cycles of eternity? Our true position is in the dust. We are of yesterday, and know nothing. This plan of God! — it is high as heaven ; what can we do ? — deeper than hell ; what can we know ? Our ignorance in regard to it is a full and sufficient answer to the folly and presumption of those who confidently assert that its order would be broken and its unity disturbed by the direct interposition of Omnipotence. Who told these philosophers that the plan itself does not contemplate inter- ventions of the kind? Who has assured them that He who knew the end from the beginning has not projected the scheme of His government upon a scale which included the occasional exhibition of Himself in the direct exercises of power? Who has taught them that miracles are an invasion, instead of an integral portion, of the Divine ad- ministration ? It is frivolous to answer objections which proceed upon the infinitely absurd supposition that we know the whole of the case. 270 MIRACLES. But tliough the idea of a universe ap a living, self- developing organism cannot be sustained, though the unity of nature is nothing but the harmony of Divine operations, and creation and providence only expressions of the Divine decrees, though the whole case is one which confessedly transcends our faculties, yet something we can know, and that something creates a positive presumption in favour of miracles. We know that God has erected a moral govern- ment over men, and that this sublunary state, whatever other ends it may be designed to accomplish, is a theatre for human education and improvement. We cannot resist the impression that the earth was made for man, and not man for the earth. He is master here below. This earth is a school in Avliich God is training him for a higher and nobler state. If the end, consequently, of the present con- stitution and course of nature can be helped forward by occasional interpositions of the Deity in forms and circum- stances which compel us to recognize His hand, the order of the world is preserved and not broken. AVhen the Pan- theist " charges the miracle with resting on a false assump- tion of the position which man occupies in the universe, as flattering the notion that nature is to serve him, he not to bow to nature, it is most true that it does rest on this as- sumption. But this is only a charge which would tell against it, supposing that true which, so far from being truth, is indeed his first great falsehood of all — namely, the substitution of a God of nature in the place of a God of men." ^ Admit the supremacy of God's moral government, and there is nothing which commends itself more strongly to the natural expectations of men than that He sliould teach His creatures what was necessary to their happiness according to the exigencies of their case. Miraculous inter- ventions have, accordingly, been a part of the creed of humanity from the Fall to the present hour. The argument here briefly enunciated requires to be more distinctly considered. There is no doubt that, after all, the ^ Trench's Notes on tlie Miracles, p. 60. ^riRACLES. 271 strongest presumption Avhich is commonly imagined to exist against the miracle arises from the impression that it is an interference with the reign of order and of law. It is regarded as an arbitrary infraction of the course of nature, or a M-ilful deviation from the general plan of God. It is treated as an aimless prodigy. If this view were correct it would be fatal to its claims. The moral argument would be so overwhelming that Ave should be very reluctant to admit any testimony in its favour. It is to obviate this prejudice that so many attempts have been made, like the one already noticed in Trench and rebuked by Dr. Ward- law, to transfer the miracle to a higher sphere of nature. Nitzsch very distinctly states the difficulty, and resolves it in the same way that Trench has done. " If a miracle," says he, " were simply an event opposed to nature's laAvs, a something unnatural and incomprehensible, and if the human understanding together with entire nature expe- rienced through its agency merely a subversive shock, then would the defence of Christianity — a religion established by means of a grand system of miracles — have to contend against insurmountable difficulties. But the miracles of revelation, with all the objective supernaturalness essentially belonging to them, are in truth somewhat accordant with natural laws, partly in reference to a higher order of cir- cumstances to which the miracles relate, and which order also is a world, a nature of its own kind, and operates upon the lower order of things according to its mode ; partly in regard to the analogy with common nature which miracles in some way or other retain ; and, finally, on account of their teleological perfection." ^ The same difficulty occurs in Thomas Aquinas,- and his 1 Christian Doctrine, p. 83. * "A qualibet causa derivatur aliquis ordo in suos effectus, cum qufplibet causa habeatrationemprincipii; et ideo secundum multiplicationeni causa- rum multiplicantur et ordines, quorum unus continetur sub altcro, sicut et causa continetur sub causa. Unde causa superior jion continetur sub ordine causae inferioris, scd e converso; cujus exemplum apparet in rebus humanis : nam ex patrefamilias dependet ordo domus, qui continetur sub 272 MIRACLES. answer strikes us as far more direct and conclusive tlian any ingenious attempts to divest the miracle of its distinctive and essential character as a supernatural phenomenon. The answer amounts substantially to this : the miracle is against the order of nature, but not against the end of nature. It is a different way of accomplishing the same ultimate design. There is moral harmony, notwithstanding phenomenal con- tradiction. As one law of nature holds another in check, as one sphere of nature is superior to another, and the superior rules and controls the lower, and yet as all these collisions and conflicts conduce to the great purjDose of God in estab- lishing these laws and systems, so He who is supreme above them all may hold them all in check when the design of all can be more effectually promoted by such an inter- ference. There is no more confusion or jar in this omnipo- tent interposition of His own will in contradiction to nature than when one part of nature thwarts and opposes another. In the sense, then, of disorder as being a turning aside from the ultimate relation of things to the great First Cause, the miracle is not maintained. It is the highest order, the order of ethical harmony. It introduces no confusion in the uni- verse. It rather lubricates the wheels of nature, and gives it a deeper significance. It breaks the apathy into which unbroken uniformity would otherwise lull the soul. The introduction of miracles into the moral system of the world is analogous in its effects to the introduction of chance upon ordine civitatis, qui procedit a civitatis rectore, cum et hie contineatur sub ordine regis, a quo totum regnum ordinatur. Si ergo ordo rerum con- Bideretur, prout dependet a prima causa, sic contra rerum ordinem Deus facere non potest; si enim sic faceret, faceret contra suam prrescientiam, aut voluntatem, aut bonitatem. Si vero consideretur rerum ordo, j^ront dependet a qualibet secundarum causarum, sic Deus potest facere prseter ordinem rerum : quia ordini secundarum causarum ipse non est subjec- tus ; sed talis ordo ei subjicitur, quasi ab eo procedens, non per necessita- tem naturre, sed per arbitrium voluntatis. Potuisset enim et alium ordi- nem rerum instituere; unde et potest prseter hunc ordinem institutum agere, cum voluerit ; puta, agendo efiectus secundarum causarum sine ipsis, vel producendo aliquos effectus, ad quos causae secundse non se exten- dunt." Summa 1, Quest, cv. Art. vi. MIRACLES. 273 SO large a scale. Tlie fortuities of nature keep us constantly reminded of God, and impress us with an habitual sense of dependence. We are compelled to recognize something more than law. The miracle, in the same way, brings God distinctly before us, and has a- direct tendency to promote the great moral ends for which the sun shines, the rains descend, the grass grows, and all nature moves in her steady and majestic course. Miracles and nature join in the grand chorus to the supremacy and glory of God. The true point of view, consequently, in which the mira- cle is to be considered is in its ethical relations. It is not to be tried by physical, but by moral, probabilities; and if it can contribute to the furtherance of the ends for which man was made and nature ordained, if it can make nature her- self more eifective, we have the same reason to admit it as to admit any other arrangement of benevolence and wisdom. AVe degrade ourselves and we degrade our Creator when we make the physical supreme, when we make the dead uni- formity of matter more important than the life and health and vigour of the soul. This subject is very ably discussed by Dr. Wardlaw, and we close our argument upon it by a pregnant extract : " Let me illustrate my meaning by a simple comparison — a compari- son taken from what is human, but in the principle of it bearing with infinitely greater force on our conclusion when transferred to what is Divine. A mechanician, let me suppose, has devised and completed a machine. Its structure in each of its parts, and in its entire com- plexity, is as perfect as human ingenuity and long-practised skill are capable of making it. All its movements are beautifully uniform. Its adaptation for its intended purpose is exquisite. So far as that purpose is concerned it cannot be improved. It works to admiration. In such a case the probability certainly is that the maker will not think of introducing any change, seeing in a structure thus faultless every alteration would be for the worse. The machine, therefore, would be kept going on as at the first, to the continued satisfaction of the inventor and artificer, and the delight and wonder of all who have the oi)i)or- tunity of examining it. Thus far all is clear. But sujipose now fur- ther that circumstances .-should occur in which the continuance of the regular movements of the ^aid machine exposed a human life to dan- VoL. III.— 18 274 MIRACLES. ger, and that by simply stopping or changing one of those movements for but a few seconds that Hfe could be saved, and yet more, that it is in the power of the maker and owner with perfect ease to stop or to change that movement, and to do so without in the slightest degree injuring his machine, or even at all interfering with and impeding the chief purpose of its constructionj — if in these circumstances we knew the maker and owner to be a man of unusual sensibility and benevo- lence, or even of no more than ordinary humanity, should we not feel it by far too feeble an expression to say that it was UMy he would stop or change the movement? — should we not think we insulted him- self and maligned his character if we pronounced his doing so less than certain f If, merely because he was enamoured of the beauty and regularity of a mechanical motion, he were to refuse interference and allow life to perish, what should we think of the man's heart, and what too of his head ? Should we not look upon him with equal detes- tation for his cruelty and contempt for his childish imbecility, setting him down at once as a heartless monster and as a senseless fool ? And if thus you would think of the fellow-man who could act such a part, what is to be thought of the God who, when a world's salvation was in the question, involving not the safety of a human life merely, or of hundreds and thousands of such lives, but the eternal well-being of millions of immortal souls, should allow that world to perish for want of evidence of His willingness to save it, rather than allow the order of the material creation to be in a single point or for a single moment interfered with, and that too although not the slightest injury was by such interference to be done to the system ? For surely by no one will it be held an injury to be made subservient to a purpose incom- parably transcending in importance any or all of those which by its uninterrupted regularity it is effecting. " Excepting in one particular, the cases I have thus been comparing are closely analogous. The particular in which they differ is this: thatinthe case of the mechanician the evil was not by him anticipated, nor consequently the need for his interference, whereas, in the case of the Divine Creator and Kuler, all was in full anticipation, and the occa- sional deviations from the order of the physical creation entered as essentially into the all-perfect plan of His moral administration as the laws by which that order was fixed entered into the constitution of the physical creation itself But such a difference there necessarily is between everything human and everything Divine, between the pur- poses and plans of a creature who ' knoweth not what a day may bring forth,' and the purposes and plans of Him who ' knoweth the end from the beginning. ' It evidently does not, in the least degree, affect the principle of the analogy or invalidate the force of the conclusion deduced from it. ' ' Pp. 70-73. MIRACLES. 275 We cannot conclude these remarks without alluding to the fact that the researches of modern science are rapidly exploding the prejudices which Pantheism on the one hand, and a blind devotion to the supremacy of laws on the other, have created and upheld against all extraordinary interven- tions of God. The appearances of our globe are said to be utterly inexplicable uj)on any hypothesis Avhich does not recognize the fact that the plan of creation Avas so framed from the beginning as to include at successive periods the direct agency of the Deity. The earth proclaims from her hills and dales, her rocks, mountains and caverns, that she was not originally made and placed in subjection to laws which themselves have subsequently brought her to her present posture. She has not developed herself into her present form, nor peopled herself with her present inhabit- ants. That science which at its early dawn was hailed as the handmaid of infidelity and skepticism, and which may yet have a controversy with, the Eecords of our faith not entirely adjusted, has turned the whole strength of its resources against the fundamental principle of Rationalism. It has broken the charm which our limited experience had made so powerful against miracles, and has presented the physical government of God in a light w^hich positively turns analogy in favoui* of the supernatural. The geologist begins with miracles, every epoch in his science repeats the number, and the whole earth to his mind is vocal with the name. He finds their history wherever he turns, and he would as soon think of doubting the testimony of sense as the inference which the phenomena bear upon their face. Future generations will wonder that in the nineteenth cen- tury men gravely disputed whether God could interpose in the direct exercise of His power in the world He has made. The miracle a century hence w^ill be made as credible as any common fact. Let the earth be explored, let its physical history be traced, and a mighty voice Avill come to us from the tombs of its perished races testifying in a thousand instances to the miraculous hand of God, Geplogy and the 276 MIRACLES. Bible must kiss and embrace each other, and this youngest daughter of Science will be found, like the Eastern Magi, bringing her votive offerings to the cradle of the Prince of peace. The earth can never turn traitor to its God, and its stones have already begun to cry out against those who attempted to extract from them a lesson of infidelity or Atheism. PART II. PAPAL CONTROVERSY. PREFATORY NOTE. The reader is presented here with two contributions to the Papal Con- troversy, viz. : 1. An Argument against the Validity of Komish Baptism ; and, 2. A Discussion of the Arguments of Eomanists for the Apocrypha. The history of the former is as follows : The Presbyterian General Assembly (Old School) meeting at Cincinnati in May, 1845, had occasion to give its judgment respecting the validity of Eoman Catholic baptism. Dr. TnoRjra'ELL being present and taking a leading part in the debate, which was decided in accordance with the views he advocated. The Princeton Review of the following July brought out an elaborate crit- ique upon the Assembly's decision of the question, which it is understood was from the pen of Dr. Charles Hodge. To this Dr. Thornwell replied in a series of articles, which appeared in 1846, over the name of Henley, in the colunms of the Walchman and Observer, published at Kich- mond, Virginia. No reply appeared from the other side. In order to pre- sent them in a more accessible and permanent form, these articles were subsequently collected and republished in three separate portions in The Southern Presbyterian Review of July and October, 1851, and January, 1852. In reproducing them here, they have been simply brought together as one treatise. This treatise contains a masterly discussion of Justification and Sancti- fication, which supplies the defect of such discussion in Vol. II. The history of the latter is sufficiently detailed in the Dedication and Preface. The former was in these words: To the Rev. Robert J. Breckinridge, D.D., an ornament to his cluircli and a blessing to his country, a stranger to every other fear but the fear of God, the bold de- fender and untiring advocate of truth, liI)orty and religion, this book, 280 PREFATORY NOTE. which owes its existence to his instrumentality, Ls now affectionately in- scribed by the author. The Preface bearing date July 12, 1844, was in these words: "The history of the present publication is soon told. Some time in the year 1841 I wrote, at the special request of a friend in Baltimore, the Rev. Dr. Breckinridge, a short essay on the Claims of the Apocrypha to Divine Inspiration. This was printed anonymously in the Baltimore Visitor, as No. V. of a series of articles furnished by Protestants in a controversy then pending with the domestic chaplains of the Archbishop of Baltimore. From the Visitor it was copied into the Spirit of the Nineteenth Century, some time during 1842. From the Spirit of the Nineteenth Century it was transferred, by the editor of the Southern Chronicle, a valuable newspaper published in this place, to his own columns, and, without consulting me or in any way apprising me of his design, he took the liberty, having ascertained that I was the author, to append my name to it. Seeing it printed under my name, and, as he might naturally suppose, by my authority. Dr. Lynch, a Roman Catholic Priest of Charleston, of reputed cleverness and learning, no doubt re- garded it as an indirect challenge to the friends of Rome to vindicate their Mistress from the severe charges which were brought against her. He accordingly addressed to me a series of letters, which the m^bers of his own sect pronounced to be very able, and to which the following dissertations (for, though in the form of letters, they are really essays) are a reply. The presumption is, that the full strength of the Papal cause was exhibited by its champion ; and that the reader may be able to judge for himself of the security of the basis on which the inspiration of the Apocrypha is made to depend, I have given the substance of Dr. Lyncli's articles in the Appendix. This work, consequently, presents an unusually full discussion of the whole subject connected with these books. I have insisted largely upon the dogma of infallibility — more largely, perhaps, than many of my readers may think to be consistent with the general design of my performance — ^because I regard this as the prop and bul- wark of all the abominations of the Papacy. It is the stronghold, or rather, as Robert Hall expresses it, ' the comer-stone of the whole system of Popery — the centre of union amidst all the animosities and disputes which may subsist on minur sul)jects; and the proper definition of a Catholic is, one who professes to maintain the absolute infallil)ility of a ocTi;i!ii coniinnnity styling itself the Church.' PREFATORY NOTE. 281 "It is not for me to conimeiul my own i)rocluction, neitlicr sliall I seek to soften tlie asperity of criticism by plaintive apologies or hnmble con- fessions. In justice, however, I may state that the following pages were composed in the midst of manifold afflictions : some of the letters were written in the chamber of the sick and by the bed of the dying, and all were thrown off under a pressure of duty which left no leisure for the task but the hours which were stolen from the demands of nature. If, under circumstances so well fitted to chasten the spirit and to modify the temper, I could really harbour the malignity and bitterness which, in certain quarters, have been violently charged upon me, I must carry in my bosom the heart of a demon, and not of a man. 'And here will I make an end. If I have done well, and as is fitting the story, it is that which I desired ; but if slenderly and meanly, it is that which I could attain unto.' " It may be here suggested that the reader should first examine the little article on the Apocrypha, of some half dozen pages, which will be found in the Appendix, and then the letters of A. P. F. which it occasioned, before he enters on the elaborate discussion of Dr. Thorn well. That lit- tle article contains the expressions, vassals of Rome, captives to the ear of Home, Papists, Romanists, which A. P. F. reprobates as shocking to ears polite. He holds up himself and also his Church as models of courtesy, patience and gentleness, yet his letters sometimes betray, in spite of his efibrts, a different spirit. In his reply, Dr. Thornwell was undoubtedly led to employ not only very strong language in dealing with the corrupt and pernicious teachings of Kome, but also considerable asperity of lan- guage toward his assailant personally. Having heard him express the intention, if he should live to republish, of modifying these expressions, the Editor has considered it his duty to carry out, according to his best judgment, the known wishes of the Author in this particular. No such liberty has, however, been taken with any one of his denunciations of the Romish system, but they are left to stand in all their unsparing and just severity. In the work of removing such blemishes from this noble production the Editor has enjoyed the great advantage of the aid of Dr. T. Dwigiit WiTiiERSPOoN, and very especially of Dr. John L. Girardeau — l)oth intimate friends of the Author. 282 PREFATORY NOTE. The Editor feels bound to acknowledge here some degree of error in the general statements made by him in the Preface to these Collected Writings respecting this discussion. Bishop (then Dr.) Lynch did not, as he had been led to suppose, " quit the field," nor did Dr. Thornwell " publish both sides of the controversy," except in part. The former con- tinued his letters in reference to the first article of Dr. Thornwell, at in- tervals, for many months after the latter had begun to publish his letters in reply, but he never undertook any answer to them. The first four pages of the Seventh Letter of Dr. Thornwell being found to correspond almost verhatim with a passage in the second of the Discourses on Truth, it was thought proper to omit those pages. More- over, the Seventh Letter being so intimately connected with the discus- sion in the Sixth as to constitute just a corollary from it, the incorporation of it with that Letter was deemed advisable. This makes the number of the Letters as here presented only eighteen instead of nineteen, as they appeared in the original volume. Touching the spelling of the names Augustine, Bellarmine, Turrettine, the reader may notice a departure in this volume from the practice of the first two. General use is various, and Dr. Thornwell's use was so like- wise. It was thought best to adopt neither spelling to the exclusion of the other, only endeavouring to have each volume conformable to itself in this particular. THE VALIDITY OF THE BAPTISM OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. THE remarks which appeared in the Pnnceton Review, the July number of the jjast year (1845), upon the decision of the Assembly in regard to the validity of Rom- ish baptism, deserve a more elaborate reply than they have yet received. The distinguished reputation of the scholar to whom they are ascribed, and the evident ability with which they are written — for, whatever may be said of the soundness of the argument, the ingenuity and skill with which it is put cannot be denied — entitle them to special consideration. And as the presumption is, that they embody the strongest objections which can be proposed to the decis- ion in question, a refutation of them is likely to be a com- plete and triumphant defence of the action of the Assem- bly. Under ordinary circumstances, it might be attributed to arrogance in ordinary men to enter the lists Avitli Prince- ton, but truth always carries such fearful odds in its favour that the advocate of a just cause need not dread, with far inferior ability, to encounter those whom he may regard in some degree the patrons of error. As in the General Assembly it was maintained by tliose who denied the validity of Popish baptism that the ordi- nance itself was so corrupted in its constituent elements — its matter and its fjrni — that it could not be treated as the 2 S3 284 THE VALIDITY OF THE BAPTISM institution of Christ, and that the Papal communion as an organized body, being destitute of some of the indispens- able marks of a true Church, could not be recognized in that character, the strictures of the Reviewer have been shaped with a reference to this twofold argument. In opposition to the Assembly, he asserts that the essential elements of baptism are found in the Romish ceremony, and the essen- tial elements of a church in the Papal communion; and what is still more remarkable, he insists that, even upon the supposition that the Romish sect is not a church of the Lord Jesus Christ, it by no means follows that its baptism is not valid. The consent of the Protestant world for ages and generations past to the opinion which he has espoused, without being adduced as a separate and distinct argument, is repeatedly introduced as an offset to whatever weight the overwhelming vote of the Assembly might carry with it. Such is a general view of the Princeton remarks. Now, I propose to show that their distinguished author has failed to prove any one of these positions, — either that the essential elements of baptism belong to the Popish or- dinance, or that without being a church Rome can have the sacraments of Christ, or that the testimony of Protestant Christendom is more clearly in his favour than it is against him. These are the points upon which issue is joined. To the question. What constitutes the validity of bap- tism ? the reply obviously is. The conformity of any rite with the definition of baptism which may be collected from the Scriptures and justified by them. Whatever ordinance possesses all the elements which belong to Christian bap- tism is Christian baptism, and should be recognized as valid by all who bear the Christian name. The validity of a sacrament does not depend upon any effects which it pro- duces, either mysterious or common, but upon its nature : the question is, not what it does, but what it is ; and what- ever coincides with the appointment of Christ, so as to be essentially the same ordinance which He instituted, must be received as bearing His sanction. W^hen the Assembly, OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 285 therefore, decided that Popish baptism is not vaHd, it intended to assert that what in that corrupt communion is administered under the name of baptism is really a differ- ent institution from the ordinance of Christ. Rome's cere- mony does not answer to a just definition of the Christian sacrament. In enumerating the elements of baptism the Reviewer seems to have fallen into two mistakes — one wholly unim- portant, the other materially affecting the question in dis- pute. Intention is treated as something distinct from the foi^m of baptism ; and matter, form and intention are repre- sented as constituting the essence of the ordinance. Now, in the language of the Schools, for-m and essence are equiva- lent expressions. The form of a thing is that wdiich makes it what it is, w^hich distinguishes it from all other beings, and limits and defines our conceptions of its properties.^ According to Aristotle it is the forms impressed upon the first matter which enable us to discriminate betwixt differ- ent substances. As intention, according to the statement of the Reviewer, is a part of the essence of baptism, it is consequently an error of arrangement to make it different from the form. The whole idea of baptism may be era- braced under two heads. The Reviewer, no doubt, had his eye upon the Peripatetic division of causes, but the intention of which he speaks cannot be the final cause of Aristotle, because that w'as not an ingredient of the essence. The use of a table, or the purpose of a mechanic in making it, is no part of the nature of the table. But the intention in bap- 1 TL (Twf TO ei6oc ; ro ri ?/v eivai. Arist. Met., L. vii., c. 4. " Form is that," says Stanley, quoting this passage, " which tlie thing itself is said to be per se, the being of a thing what it is, the whole common nature and essence of a thing answerable to the definition." Philos., part 4th, chap. 3d. "Now that accident," says Hobbes, "for which we give a cer- tain name to any body, or the accident which denominates its subject, is commonly called the essexce thereof, and the same essence, ina.'smucli as it is generated, is called the form." Philosophy. "Ens a forma habet," says Wolfius, "ut sit hiijus generis vel speciei atque ab aliis distinguatur. Hinc scholastici aiunt, formam dare esse rei, dare distingui," Ontologia, Pars ii., sec. 3, c. 2, ^ 945. 286 THE VALIDITY OF THE BAPTISM tism is indispensable to the existence of the ordinance ; it is a necessary element of a just definition, and therefore belongs appropriately to the form. The true final cause exists in the mind of God. In the case of baptism a definition which should set forth the matter and form fully and com- pletely would coincide exactly with the logical rule which resolves a definition into the nearest genus and the specific difference. The matter, watei', is a generic term, and sug- gests every other kind of ablution besides that of baptism, while the form distinguishes this particular mode of wash- ing from every other mode of using this element. As this mistake in arrangement, however, is a mere ques- tion of words and names, I pass to a more important error — ^the omission of one of the elements which, according to the great majority of Protestant confessions, enters into the essence of baptism. The form does not consist alone in washing with water, with solemn invocation of the name of the Trinity, and with the professed purpose of complying with the command of Christ. There must be some one to make the invocation and to apply the water. These are acts which require an agent — services which demand a ser- vant. Not any application of water in the name of the Trinity, with the ostensible design of signing and sealing the blessings of the new and everlasting covenant, con- stitutes baptism : the water must be applied by one who is lawfully commissioned to dispense the mysteries of Christ. There must be an instrumental, as well as a material and formal, cause. This fact the Reviewer seems neither pre- pared to deny nor assert ; and, though he takes no notice of it in his formal definition of baptism, he is yet willing to concede it for the sake of argument. The question, then, is, Do these four things enter into the baptisms administered by the authority of the Romish Church ? Do her priests wash with water in the name of the Trinity, with the pro- fessed design of complying xcith the command of Christ, and are they themselves to be regarded as lawful ministers of the Word/ The Princeton Review has undertaken, in all these OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 287 instances, to prove the affirmative; and it is my purpose to show that it has signally failed — that, according to their scriptural import, not one of these particulars is found in the Po])ish ordinance. I. The EevicAver expresses great surprise ^ at the state- ment made on the floor of the Assembly that Romanists are accustomed to corrupt the Avater which they use in baptism with a mixture of oil. It is rather a matter of astonishment that he himself should not have been aware of so notorious a fact. It is true that their church formu- laries make natural water the only thing essential to the matter of the ordinance, but it is equally indisputable that such water is only used in cases of urgent and extreme necessity. Whenever the rite is administered with solemn ceremonies — and these can never be omitted except upon a plea which is equally valid to dispense with the services of a priest — the water, instead of being applied in its natural state, in conformity with the command of Christ, is pre- viously consecrated, or rather profaned, by the infusion of chrism, a holy compound of balsam and oil. Innovations upon the simplicity of the sacraments began with the spirit of superstition in the Christian Church, and grew and strengthened until they reached their consummation in the magical liturgy of Rome. The precise period at which this specific mode of consecrating the water was first introduced I am unable to determine, but there is an evident reference to it in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy which goes under the name of Dionysius. " Immediately after the unction," says Bingham,^ " the minister proceeded to consecrate the water, or the bishop, if he were present, consecrated it, while the priests were finishing the unction ; for so the author, under the name of Dionysius, represents it. ' While the priests,' says he, 'are finishing the unction, the bishop ^ "We were, therefore, greatly surprised to see that it Avas stated on the floor of tlie Assembly that Romanists did not baptize witli water, but with water mixed with oil." — Prineeton Review, July, 1845, p. 449. * Origines Ecclesiastics, Lib. xi., cap. x., O- 288 THE VALIDITY OF THE BAPTISM comes to the Mother of Adoption (so he calls the font), and, by invocation, sanctifies the water in it ; thrice pouring in some of the holy chrism, in a manner representing the sign of the cross.' " The Catechism of the Council of Trent not only insists upon this mixture whenever baptism is performed with solemn ceremonies, but states distinctly that it has always been observed in the Catholic Church, and traces its origin to apostolical tradition. " Illud vero animadvertendum est, quamvis aqua simplex, quse nihil aliud admixtum habet, materia apta sit ad hoc sacramentum conficiendum, quoties scilicet baptismi ministrandi necessitas incidat, tamen ex Apostolorum traditioue semper in Catholica Ecclesia obser- vatum esse, ut cum solemnibus ceremoniis baptismus con- ficitur, sacrum etiam Chrisma addatur, quo baj)tismi effectum magis declarari perspicuum est."^ This same catechism divides the ceremonies of baptism, as is usual among the Komish writers upon the subject, into three classes — the first embracing those which precede, the second, those which accompany, and the third, those which follow, the administration of the ordinance. " In primis " — it begins the explanation of the first head — " igitur aqua paranda est, qua ad baptismum uti oportet. Conseeratur, enim, baptismi fons, addito mysticse unctionis oleo, neque id omni tempore fieri permissum est; sed more majorum, festi quidam dies, qui omnium celeberrimi et sanctissimi Optimo jure habendi sunt, expectantur; in quorum vigiliis sacrte ablutionis aqua conficitur," etc. " In the first place, the water to be used in baptism must be prepared. The font is consecrated by adding the oil of the mystic unction. Nor can this be done at any time ; but, in conformity with ancient usage, is delayed until the vigils of the most cele- brated and holy festivals." ^ Durand enumerates four kinds of blessed Avater, among which he includes the water of baptism, and gives a full and particular account of the mode of sanctifying it. ' Pars ii., cap. ii., § 11. ^ Pars ii., cap. ii., § 60. OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 289 " In the last place, the Avatcr is mixed with chrism — as we have previously mentioned. Whence it is said in Burcard, lib. iii., We bless the fonts of baptism toith the oil of unction. And Augustin, using the same words, subjoins that it is done more from a mystical reason than from any authority of Scripture. ■ By a mixture of this sort the union of Christ with the Church is signified ; the chrism representing Christ, and the water the people." ^ To the same purport is the testimony of Alcuin, the famous preceptor of Charlemagne : " These things having been com- pleted before the fonts, and silence instituted, the priest standing, the benediction of the font follows : Omnipotent, Eternal God, etc. Then succeeds the consecration of the font, to be chanted, as in the preface to the mass : Eternal God, loho by the invisible power of Thy sacraments. At the invocation of the Holy Spirit, whom the priest proclaims with a lofty voice — that is, with deep affection of mind — the blessed candle is deposited in the water, or those which had been lighted from it, to show the presence of the Spirit, the priest now saying : May He descend in this fullness of the font. The font being blessed, the Pontiff receives from the Archdeacon the chrism with oil mixed in a vase, and sprinkles it in the midst of the font in the form of a cross." ^ 1 "Postremo sit admixtio Chrismatis in aqua, sicut dictum est. Unde dicitur in Burcardo, lib. iii., ' benedicimus fontes baptismatis oleo unctio- nis;' et Augustinus eisdem verbis utcns subjecit quod hoc magis tacite, sire sine Scriptura, hac mystica ratione introductum est quam per aliquam Scripturam. Per hujusmodi ergo adniixtionem unio Christi et Ecclesise significatur. Nam Chrisma est Christus, aqua populus, et dicitur : Sancti- ficetur fans isle. Ex quibus verbis ad quid fiat admixtio satis datur in- telligi." De Divinis Officiis, Lib. vi., fol. cxl., Lyons Edition, 1518. ^ " Quibus finitis ante fontes et facto silentio, stante sacerdote, sequitur benedictio fontis : Omnipotens, sempiterne Deus, et reliqua. Sequitur consecratio fontis, in modum prsefationis decantanda: yJElerne Deu^, qui invisibili poientia sacramentorum tuorum. Ad invocationem vero Spiritus Sancti, quem sacerdos celsa voce proclamat, id est, alto mentis aflectu, deponitur cereus benedictus in aquam, sive illi qui ab eo illuminati sunt, ad demonstrandam scilicet Spiritus Sancti prcsontiam, sacerdote jam Vol. III.*-] 9 290 THE VALIDITY OF THE BAPTISM These passages, from Durand and Alcuin, are extracted from their accounts of the solemnities of the great Sab- bath— the Saturday preceding Easter. This festival and Pentecost were the solemn seasons to which, in the times of Leo, the administration of baptism was confined, except in cases of necessity ; and hence it is in the description of these festivals that we are to look for a detailed exhibition of the ceremonies connected with its due celebration. In the first book of Martene De Antiquis Ecclesiae Ritibus may .be seen the forms, taken from various liturgies, of consecrating the font, and the infusion of the chrism is, invariably, a part of the process.^ Hurd, in his interesting work on religious rites and ceremonies, mentions among the solemnities of Easter-eve the consecration of the waters of baptism : " The officiating priest perfumes the font thrice with frankincense, after which, he takes some of the oil used in baptism, and pours it on the holy water cross- ways, mixed with chrism, and this is reserved to baptize dicente: Descendat in hanc plenitudinem fontis. Fonte benedicto, accipit Pontifex chrisma cum oleo mixto in vase ab Archidiacono et aspergit per medium fontis in modum crucis." De Divinis Officiis, cap. xix. De Sabbato Sanctse Vigil. Paschse. 1 The following specimens may be taken : — 1. Ex Missali Gotliico-Galli- cano : After a prayer for blessing the fonts and the exorcism of the water, the rubric directs that the water shall be blown upon three times, and the chrism infused into it in the form of a cross. Deinde insufflas aquam per tres vices, et mittis chrisma in modum crucis, et dicis — Ivfusio chrisma salutaris Domini nostri Jem Christi, ut fiat fons aquce scdienlis cutictis descendentibtis in eo, ni vitani ceternam. Amen. Lib. i.. Art. 18, ordo i. 2. Ex Veteri Missali Gallicano: After the prayers for blessing the fonts, the rubric directs that three crosses should be made upon the water with chrism. Postea facis tres cruces super aquam de chrisma et dicis, etc. Ibid., ordo ii. 3. From an old Paris Ritual, the form of administering baptism on the great Sabbath, the Saturday preceding Easter, is extracted. Ibid., ordo x. Among the other ceremonies enumerated, the infusion of the clirisni is ex- pressly mentioned. " Inde," is the rubric for that purpose, " indc accipiens vas aureum cum chrismate, fundit chrisma in fonte in modum crucis, et expandit aquam cum manu sua, tunc baptizantur infantes, primum mas- culi, deinde feminae." OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 291 all the catechumens or chiklreu who shall be brought to the church." ^ These authorities, I trust, are sufficient to diminish the Reviewer's surprise at the statement made on the floor of the Assembly, and to put it beyond doubt that the matter of Romish baptism is not simple, natural water, but water artificially corrupted. Whether this corruption vitiates the sacrament to such an extent as seriously to affect its validity is not so trivial a question as the Reviewer supposes. As baptism is a species of ablution, whatever unfits the water for the purpose of cleansing unfits it for the Christian ordi- nance. Such mixtures as are found in nature, in springs, pools, rivers and seas, so long as they do not affect the liquidity of the fluid, do not affect its adaptation to any of the ordinary purposes of life. Men still roash with it. But a water which cannot be used in washing is not suitable mat- ter for baptism, and as oil evidently impairs its cleansing properties, it destroys that very quality in water in conse- quence of w^hich it is capable of representing the purifying influence of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost. No more incongruous substances can be found than water and oil, and to wash in such a mixture is not to cleanse, but defile. The significancy of the rite is affected ; it is not made to consist in simply washing with water, but in wash- ing with a water duly consecrated with oil. In the present case attention is called to the mixture ; great importance is attached to it, and it is in consequence of the chrism that the mixed substance is used in preference to the pure, simple, natural element. It is not becaase it is ivater, but because it is sanctified by oil, that the priests employ it in baptism. This is, certainly, not making the significancy of the rite depend upon washing with water ; it makes it equally depend upon the oil of the mystic unction. Tiie very pur- pose of the mixture is to increase the significancy of the rite — to declare more fully the nature and efl'ect of the bap- 1 Hurd's History of the Kites, Ceremonies and Customs (Religious) of the Wliole World, p. 218. 292 THE VALIDITY OF THE BAPTISM tism. The oil is, consequently, made a prominent element in the compound, and it is precisely that wliicli in ordinary- cases fits the water for its use. In other cases the foreign element is left entirely out of view, and the adulterated substance is used as water, and nothing but water. But here it is not, notwithstanding the mixture, but, because of the mixture, that the corruj^ted water is employed. It is not used as water and nothing but water, but as \vater invested with new properties in consequence of the oil. The pres- ence of the foreign matter is an improvement, when canon- ically introduced, upon the original appointment of the Saviour; and so much importance is attached to it that Rome permits simple water to be used only on the plea which may also dispense with the services of the priest — the plea of stern necessity. Water without the chrism may be employed in that class of cases in which Jews, Infidels and Turks are authorized to baj)tize. Through the pressure of necessity God may sanctify it without the oil, but in ordi- nary cases the charm lies in the mystic unction. These two circumstances seem to me to distinguish the mixture in question from all the combinations which are found in nature: 1. That the oil destroys the ^/)iess of water for the purpose of ablution, and so affects the sig- nificancy of the rite ; and, 2. That the mixture is not used as water, but that peculiar stress is laid upon the foreign element. It enters into the baptism as a very important ingredient. He who baptizes with rain or cistern water, or water impregnated with saline mixtures, overlooks the for- eign matter and attaches value only to the water. He uses the mixture simply as water. But Rome makes the cor- ruption of the water a part of her solemn ceremonies ; the chrism works wonders in the font, and imparts to it an effi- cacy which only in rare cases it would otherwise possess. The mixture of the chrism with the water is, according to Durand, a sign of the union between Christ and the Church ; and as an evidence of the value attached to the 'chrism, he adds that it represents Christ, while the water represents the OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 293 people. The Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches that additional significancy is given to the water by the holy chrism. We may concede to the Reviewer " that water with oil thrown on it is still water" — that is, it may be heated and used, notwithstanding the mixture, as water; that wine adulterated with water continues to be wine, or may be used as such, provided the mixture is not made a matter of prominent observation. But when the foreign elements are dignified into importance, and made to play a part in the offices performed, then the water is no longer simple water, but water and oil — the wine is no longer sim- ple Avine, but wine and water. If in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper we were professedly to adulterate the wine in order to give superior efficacy to it, and to use the com- pound not simply as wine, but as wine invested with new properties in consequence of the mixture, the matter of the sacrament would be evidently vitiated, and that not because it would be a mixture, but because it would be vsed as a mixture. If the same wune were used as wine, notwith- standing the mixture, there would be no impropriety, but when it is used in consequence of the mixture, the case is manifestly different. It is not a little remarkable that the Romanists them- selves condemn a practice which seems to be fully as justifi- able as their own. " But neither are they to be approved, of whom Egbert, archbishop of York, says (Excerp., cap. 42), " There are some who mix wine with the water of baptism, not rightly, because Christ did not command to be baptized with wine, but with water." ^ And yet in the very next sec- tion this writer insists on the importance of using consecrated water, and not profane, Avhenever the ordinance is adminis- tered, and refers among other authorities to the passage from Dionysius, already quoted, which shows that the consecra- ^ De Aiitiquis Ecclesia? Ritihus, Lib. i., cap. i., art. 14. "Scd neqiie probandi .sunt illi," says Martene, " de quibus Egbcrtns Eboracensis archi- episoopus (in E.xcerptis), cap. 42. ' Sunt quidam, iixpiit, qui miscent viiunn cum aqua baptismatis, non recte ; quia C'liristus non jussit l)aptizari vino, sed aqua.' " 294 THE VALIDITY OF THE BAPTISM tion embraced the infusion of chrism in the form of a cross. It is difficult to see how a mixture with wine vitiates the sacrament, while a mixture with oil improves it. The com- mand of Christ, which is very properly pleaded against wine, applies as conclusively to chrism. But whatever may be said of this self-condemnation on the part of Rome, I think it cannot be denied that in that idolatrous communion the matter of baptism is corrupted, and that the Reviewer has consequently failed in making out his first point, that Papal baptism is a washing with water, and that this is the sole matter of the sacrament. But it may be asked, What, then ? Did baptism become extinct when this innovation was first introduced among the churches that adopted it? My reply is, That I know of no sacredness in baptism which should entitle it to be preserved in its integrity when the ordinance of the Lord's Supper has been confessedly abolished in the Latin Church. Why should baptism be perpetuated entire, and the supper transmitted with griev- ous mutilations? Or will it be maintained that the essence of the supper was still retained when the cup was denied to the laity ? Is it more incredible that an outward ordinance should be invalidated than that the precious truths which it was designed to represent should be lost ? Is the shell more important than the substance? And shall we admit that the cardinal doctrines of the Gospel have been damnably corrupted in the Church of Rome, and yet be afraid to declare that the signs and seals of the covenant have shared the same fate ? If Rome is corrupt in doctrine, I see not why she may not be equally corrupt in ordinances, and if slie has lost one sacrament, I see not why she may not liave lost the other ; and as the foundations of her apostasy were laid in the ages immediately succeeding the time of the Apostles, I cannot understand why the loss of the real sacrament of baptism may not have been an early symptom of degeneracy and decay. But our business is with truth and not with consequences. We should not be deterred from admitting a scriptural con- OF THE CIIUKCII OF ROME. 295 elusion because it removes, with a desolating besom, the structures of anticjuity. AVe are not to say, a ^jriori, that the Church in the fifth or sixth centuries musi have had the true sacrament of baptism, and then infer tiiat such and such corruptions do not invalidate the ordinance. But we are first to ascertain from the Scriptures what the true sacra- ment of baptism is, and then judge the practice of the Church in every age by this standard. If its customs have at any time departed from the law and the testimony, let them be condemned; if they have been something essen- tially different from what God had enjoined, let them be denounced as spurious. The unbroken transmission of a visible Church in any line of succession is a figment of Papists and Prelatists. Conformity with the Scriptures, and not ecclesiastical genealogy, is the true touchstone of a sound church-state ; and if our fathers were without the ordi- nances, and fed upon ashes for bread, let U6 only be the more thankful for the greater privileges vouchsafed to ourselves. II. The form of baptism, or that which distinguishes this species of ablution from every other washing with water, consists in the relations which, according to the ap- pointment of Christ, it sustains to the covenant of grace. The solemn invocation of the names of the Trinity,^ though a circumstance attending the actual application of the ele- ment, and perhaps an indispensable circumstance, does not constitute the whole essence of the ordinance. A Socinian may undoubtedly employ the same fornudary as ourselves. And yet, according to repeated admissions of tlie Reviewer himself,^ his want of faith in the Perstmal distinctions of the Godhead would be sufficient to render void the pretended sacrament. To baptize in the name of Father, Son and Spirit is not to pronounce these words as an idle form or a mystical charm, but to acknowledge that solemn compact into which those glorious Agents entered, from eternity, for ^ "Is it then correct as to the form? Is it administered in tlic name of the Trinity?"— Princeton Review, July, 1845, p. 450. 2 Pages 44G-4C.S. 296 THE VALIDITY OF THE BAPTISM the redemption of the Church. It is the faith of the Trin- ity, much more than the names of its separate Persons, that belongs to the essence of baptism ; and where this faith existed, some of the ancient fathers contended — how justly I shall not undertake to decide — that the ordinance was validly administered, even though done without the explicit men- tion of all the Persons of the Godhead. " He that is blessed in Christ," says Ambrose,^ " is blessed in the name of the Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost ; because the name is one and the power one. The Ethiopian eunuch, who was bap- tized in Christ, had the sacrament complete. If a man names only a single Person expressly in words, either Father, Son or Holy Ghost, so long as he does not deny in his faith either Father, Son or Holy Ghost, the sacra- ment of faith is complete ; as, on the other hand, if a man in words express all the three persons. Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but in his faith diminishes the power either of the Father, or Son, or Holy Ghost, the sacrament of faith is void." Whatever objection may lie against the first part of this statement, that the explicit mention of all the Persons of the Trinity is not indispensable to the due ad- ministration of baptism, none can decently deny that to name them without believing in them is not to celebrate but to profane the ordinance. As, therefore, the invocation of the Trinity may take place in ablutions which it is impossible to recognize as the baptism instituted by Christ, it cannot constitute the lahole form of the sacrament. In this there is no real difference between the Reviewer and myself. He only uses the word form in a different sense from that in Avhich I have been accustomed to employ it, but by no means confines the essence of the sacrament to what he denominates its form. On the contrary, he makes the design or intention^ an essen- ^ Bingham, Origines Ecclesiasticse, B. xi., c. iii., sec. 3. ^ "There is, liowever, a third particiUar inchided in tliis definition of baptism ; it mnst be with tlie design to ' signify and seal our ingrafting into Clirist, and partaking of tlic benefits of the covenant of grace, and our engagements to be the Lord's.' .... No washing with water, even OF THE CHURCH OP ROME. 297 tial part of the ordinance, and means by it precisely what I would be understood to convey when I resolve the form of a sacrament into the relations which its material elements, according to the appointment of Christ, sustain to the cove- nant of grace. To eat bread and to drink wine is not necessarily to celebrate the sacrament of the Lord's Supper; to be immersed or sprinkled — a formal invocation of the names of the Trinity accompanying the deed — is not neces- sarily to be baptized. There must be a reference to the economy of grace, a distinct recognition of that precious scheme of redemption in its essential features and funda- mental doctrines, without which ordinances are worthless and duties are bondage. That which determines a s[)ecific ablution to be Christian baptism, which impresses upon the matter what may be styled the sacramental form, and which, consequently, constitutes its essence as a sacrament, is the relation which it bears to the covenant of God's unchanging mercy. To deny that relation, though all the outward appearances may be retained, is to abolish the sacrament. To tamper with the essence of an ordinance is to tamper with its life. As the constitution of this relation, Avhatever it may be, depends exclusively upon the authority of Christ, it is competent to Him alone to define the circum- stances under which it may be justly conceived to exist, to specify the conditions upon which its actual institution depends. For aught Ave know, He might have rendered every circumstance of personal ablution, or of eating and drinking, on the part of believers, a sacramental act. But He has chosen to restrain the sacramental relations within certain limits; and when His own prescriptions are not ob- served, no power of man, no intention of ministers, can impress the sacramental form upon material elements. The purpose of a family to convert its ordinary meals into memorials of the Saviour's passion, coupled with the fact if ill tlie name of the Trinity, is Christian haptisin, iniioss administered with tlie ostensible design of signifying, sealing and ajiplying the benefits of the covenant of grace." — Princeton Review, July, 1845, p. 448. 298 THE VALIDITY OF THE BAPTISM that they are despatched with the usual solemnities of the eucharistic feast, is not sufficient to make them, in truth, the supper of the Lord. The emblems of His broken body and shed blood are not made thus common and profane. If, to be more specific, the authority to administer the sacraments is intrusted exclusively to the ministers of the AVord, the same matter employed, in the same way, by others, Avould be evidently destitute of the sacramental form. The relation to the covenant of grace, which depends upon the institution of Christ, could not be justly apprehended as subsisting, and the promises attached to the due celebration of the ordinance could not be legitimately expected to take eifect. He, therefore, that would undertake to prove that the Romish ceremony possesses the form or the essential elements of Christian baptism must not content himself with shQW- ing that Rome baptizes in the name of the Trinity. He must prove, besides, that slie inculcates just views concern- ing the nature of the relationship which the outward wash- ing sustains to the covenant of grace ; that her conceptions of the covenant itself, that to which the ablution has refer- ence, are substantially correct; and that she employs the outward elements in conformity with the conditions pre- scribed by the Author of the sacrament. If she is funda- mentally unsound upon any of these points, slie abolishes the essence of the ordinance, she destroys its form. She may, for instance, be as orthodox as Princeton represents her to be in regard to the personal and official relations of the Trinity;^ she may teach the truth in regard to the scheme of redemption ; and yet if her baptism bears a dif- ferent kind of relationship to the covenant of grace from that instituted by the Redeemer, it is evident that it must be a different thing. If, on the other hand, she is sound as 1 "There is not a church on earth which teaches the doctrine of the Trinity more accurately, thoroughly or minutely, according to the ortho- doxy of the Lutheran and Reformed churches, than the Church of Rome. The personal and official relations of the adorable Trinity arc also ]ire- served." — Princeton Review, July, 1845, p. 450. OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 299 to the nature of tlu' rclationsliii), and yet corrupt as to the object to which the sacrament refers/ her baptism is only analogous to Christian baptism, and therefore cannot be tlie same. The rehitions are similar, but the thinjjs related are diiferent. If, again, she holds to the truth, botii as it respects the relationship itself and the things related, and yet does not administer her ordinance according to the con- ditions on which the sacramental form may be expected to take place, she washes, indeed, but not sacramental ly ; the authority of Christ is wanting. She administers no baptism. If to be unsound in any one of these points makes void a sacrament, Avhat shall be said when there is unsoundness in all ^ Such an ordinance is trebly void. And that this is the case with Romish baptism, I think will be made to ap- pear when the arguments of the Reviewer — the strongest, perhaps, that can be presented to show that it possesses the form or retains the essence of the Christian institute — sliall have been duly weighed. 1. First, then, does Rome teach the truth in regard to the nature of the relationship involved in a sacrament? The answer to this question will depend upon the answer to the previous question, what the nature of the relationship is. How much soever they have differed upon other points, Protestant divines have generally agreed that one prime office assigned to the sacraments is to represent to the eye, as preaching unfolds to the ear, Christ as the substance of the new covenant. They are sic/ns which teach by analogy. As water cleanses the body, so the blood of the Redeemer purges the conscience and the Spirit of the Redeemer ])uri- fies the heart. As bread and wine constitute important articles of food, and administer strength to our feeble frame, so the atonement of Christ is the food of the spiritual man, and the source of all his activity and vigour." This anal- 1" There can be no baptism where the essence of Christianity is not preserved." — Burnet, XXXIX. Articles, art. xix., p. 242, London edition of 1S37. ' "The signiiication and substance is to sliow us liow we arc led with the bodv of Christ — that Ls, that like as material lircad fccdctii our body, 300 THE VALIDITY OF THE BAPTISM ogy is what Augustine meant when he said, " If sacraments had not a certain likeness and representation of the things whereof they be sacraments, then indeed they were no sac- raments."^ The things themselves unquestionably are not similar. There is no likeness between the water and the Spirit, between bread and wine and the death of Jesus, but there .'is a resemblance in their relations. Water performs a similar office for the flesh to that which the blood of Christ performs for the soul. Bread and wine sustain a relation to our natural groAvth similar to that which faith in Christ bears to our spiritual health. It is obvious that, regarded simply as signs instituted by the authority of Christ, the sac- raments are happily adapted to confirm our faith in the truth and reality of the Divine promises. They place before us in a different form and under a different aspect, in a form and aspect adapted to our animal and corjjoreal nature, the same grounds and object of faith which the Word presents to the understanding. They do not render the promises of the covenant, in themselves considered, more sure or credi- ble, but they help us, by images addressed to the senses, in apprehending what might otherwise be too refined for our gross perceptions.^ They are a double preaching of the so the body of Christ nailed on the cross, embraced and eaten by faith, feedeth the soul. The like representation is also made in the sacrament of baptism, that as our body is washed clean with water, so our soul is washed clean with Christ's blood." — Jewell, Defence of the Apology, Part ii., chap. X., Divis. i. ^ Quoted by Jewell, ibidem. 2 Hence Calvin very justly observes: "And as we are corporeal, always creeping on the ground, cleaving to terrestrial and carnal objects, and incapable of understanding or conceiving of anything of a spiritual nature, our merciful Lord, in His infinite indulgence, accommodates Him- self to our capacity, condescending to lead us to Himself even by these earthly elements, and in the flesh itself to present to us a mirror of spirit- ual blessings. 'For if we were incorporeal,' as Chrysostom says, 'He would have given us these things pure and incorporeal. Now, because we have souls enclosed in bodies. He gives us spiritual things under visi- ble emblems ; not because there are such qualities in the nature of the things presented to us in the sacraments, but because they have been des- ignated by God to this signification.' " — Institutes, B. iv., c. xiv., sec. 3. OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 301 same Gospel, and confirm the A\^or(l just as an additional witness establishes a fact. They arc, in short, visible prom- ises, Avhich we cannot contemplate in their true cliaracter without an increased conviction of the truth and faithfulness of God. But in addition to this, God may be regarded as declaring through them to worthy recipients that just as certainly as water purifies the body, or as bread and wine sustain it, just so certainly shall their consciences be purged from dead works, and their spiritual strength rene^ved, through the blood of the Eedeemer. The certainty of the material phenomena, which is a matter of daily experience, is made the pledge of an equal certainty in the analogous sjiiritual things. It is in this way, I conceive, that the sac- raments are seals of the covenant. They not only rtpreseni its blessings, are not only an authorized proclamation of its promises addressed to the eye, but contain, at the same time, a solemn assurance that to those who rightly apprehend the signs the spiritual good shall be as certain as the natural consequences by which it is illustrated — that the connection between faith and salvation is as indissoluble as between washing and external purity, eating and physical strength. Is this the doctrine of the Church of Rome? Does she regard her sacraments as instituted signs of spiritual things or as visible pledges of the faithfulness of God in the new and everlasting covenant? If so, she has been most griev- ously slandered by the most distinguished Protestant divines, and the Princeton Review is the only work, so far as I know, of any merit, which has ventured to assert that her doctrine on this subject is precisely the same with that of the Reformed Church. It is, indeed, admitted that there is a difference between Papists and Protestants as to the mode^ in whicli the design of baptism is accomi)lished. But did it not occur to the Reviewer that there could be no ^ " The great difference between Protestants and Romanists relates not to the design of the ordinance, but to the mode and certainty witli which that design is accomplished, and the conditions attached to it. In other words, the difference relates to the efficacy and not to the design of the ordinance." — Princeton Review, July, 1845, p. 451. 302 THE VALIDITY OF THE BAPTISM difference upon this point if tliere were a perfect agreement as to the nature of that relation which baptism sustains to the covenant of grace? If ^ome looked upon the sacra- ments in the same light with ourselves, as only signs and seals, and nothing more than signs and seals, though she might have disputed whether the benefits which they re- present are, in every instance in which no serious obstruc- tion exists, actually conveyed, the question as to their inherent efficacy never could have been raised. She would have taught their recipients, as we do, to look beyond the visible symbols to the personal agency of the Holy Ghost to render them effectual. As well might she have expected her children to become men in understanding by reading books in an unknown tongue, as have directed them to seek for grace in signs and seals, without any reference to the things represented. As it is the ideas which words suggest that constitute knowledge, so it is Christ's words and His benefits that constitute the value of the sacraments ; and they cannot be used with any just conception of their real nature without leading the soul directly to Him. Any theory of their office which even proposes the temptation to stop at themselves is utterly destructive of their true design. The questions which have been agitated with so much zeal among the Popish theologians, whether the con- secration of a priest imparts a mystic power to the external symbols, enabling them to produce effects which, independ- ently of his benediction, they could not accomplish ; whether his intention to bestow this magical virtue is absolutely essential to its actual communication ; whether the appro- priate results of the ordinances are secured ex opere opcrantis or ex opere operato, or by both conjointly, — questions of this sort, which have been the fruitful themes of so much discus- sion among the sainted doctors of Rome, are too obviously absurd to be asked upon the Protestant hypothesis. And yet Princeton tells us that Rome and ourselves are precisely agreed upon the nature of the sacraments ; ^ that she, as we ^ "Then as to the third essential part of the ordinance, the design, in OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 303 do, makes them signs and seals of the new covenant, and consequently fixes the hopes of her children not upon them, but upon the glorious Object whom they represent. So thought not Calvin,^ who inveighs so eloquently against the " pestilent and fatal nature of the opinion " which he attri- butes to the Sophistical schools, and declares, in his cele- brated Tract concerning the necessity of reforming the Church, to have been universal before the Reformation,'^ "that the sacraments of the New Law, or those now used in the Christian Church, justify and confer grace, provided we do not obstruct their operation by any mortal sin." So thought not Turrettin,^ who evidently treats it as the doc- trine of the Papists, that the sacraments are not signs and seals of the everlasting covenant, but true, proper, physical causes of the grace they are said to represent. This error this also their [Komish] baptism agrees with that of Protestants. Ac- cording to our standards, the design of the sacrament is to signify, seal and apply to believers the benefits of the new covenant. Tliis is the precise doctrine of the Komanists, so far as this." — Princeton Review, July, 18-15, p. 450. ' Institutes, B. iv., c. xiv., sec. 14. ' " Besides, the consecration both of baptism and of the mass differs in no respect whatever from magical incantation. For by breathings and whispering and unintelligible sounds they think they work mysteries. .... The first thing we complain of here is, that the people are enter- tained with showy ceremonies, while not a word is said of their signifi- cancy and truth. For there is no use in the sacraments unless the thing which the sign visibly represents is explained in accordance with the Word of God. Therefore, when the people are presented with notliing but empty figures with which to feed the eye, while they hear no doctrine Aviiich might direct them to the proper end, they look no farther than the external act. Hence that most pestilential superstition under which, as if the sacraments alone were sufficient for salvation, without feeling any solicitude about faith, or repentance, or even Christ himself, they fasten upon the sign instead of the thing signified by it. And indeed not only among the rude vulgar, but in the schools also, the impious dogma every- where obtained, that the sacraments were eflTectual themselves, if not ob- structed in their operation by mortal sin ; as if the sacraments had been given for any other end or use than to lead us by the hand to Christ." — Calvin's Tracts, vol. i., pp. 138, 139, as published by Calvin Translation Society. See also pp. 16(5 and 194. ' Turrettin, Instit. Theo., vol. iii., p. 404, Loc. xix., Qu. viii., g 3. 304 THE VALIDITY OF THE BAPTISM concerniug the inherent efficacy of the sacraments Pictet^ also declares to be contrary to their nature. Owen ^ felt that there was a vital controversy betwixt us and Rome on this point when he denounced Popish baptism as a species of idolatry. It is impossible to read the Reformed confessions, and the apologies which the Reformers made for them, Avithout being impressed with the fact that their authors laboured under a deep conviction that the minds of the people were seduced, by the teachings of Rome, with dan- gerous and fatal error on the very essence of the sacraments, the nature of their relation to the covenant of grace, the precise office they discharge under the dispensation of the Gospel. This was, in fact, a standing topic of controversy between the two parties. Rome represented the new doc- trines concerning gratuitous justification and the work of the Spirit as derogatory to the dignity and value of the sacraments, and artfully turned the tide of prejudice, grow- ing out of the old associations of mystery and awe with which the people had been accustomed to look upon the consecrated symbols, against the restorers of the Church. The cry everlastingly was, " You have robbed the sacra- ments of their glory. You have degraded them into empty shoios.^ You have introduced your new-fangled doctrines of faith and the Spirit in their place." These and similar accusations were continually alleged against the Reformers by the Pa])ists, showing that there was a radical difference between them as to the design of the sacraments. Rome felt that one of her strongest holds upon the people was their attachment to these mysteries of her faith, and hence she was anxious, as much as possible, to make the sacra- ments the seat of the war. While the Papists charged the Reformers with prostituting these solemn and august cere- monies into Avorthless signs, the Protestants retorted upon 1 Pictet, Theol. Chret., L. xv., c. 4. ^ Owen's Works, vol. xvi., p. 95 : Sermon on the Chamber of Imagery. ^ "You make Christ's sacraments," said Harding against Jewell, "to be only shows." — Richmond's British Reformers, vol. vii., p. G93. OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 305 Rome that she had converted thoin into charms, and had invested creatures of dust and earth, the beggarly elements of this world, with the high prerogatives of God. The question was not so much about the mode of operation, as Princeton insinuates, but about the ar/ent that operated; it was a question whether the sacraments themselves conferred grace, or whether God the Holy Spirit conferred it, employ- ing them simply as means which had no intrinsic power to do the work. It was a question whether the sacraments were really signs or evident agents ; and if this be not a question concerning their nature, it would be hard to raise one that is. If the impression of the Reformers was right, that Rome exalted the sacraments into true and proper causes of grace, there can be no doubt that, whatever she may have professed in words, she did in fact deny them to be s/^?is, and consequently changed their relations to the covenant of grace, and made them essentially diiferent things from what Christ had appointed. It is a matter of no sort of consequence that the Reformers themselves failed to deduce this inference. The full application of a principle is not always perceived at once, and the soundness of a conclusion depends upon the truth of the premises and the rigour of the reasoning, and not upon human authority. If the essence of the sacraments is determined by their relation to the covenant of grace, and that relation consists in their being signs and seals of its blessings, then whoever denies the reality of the signs, or teaches doctrines incon- sistent with it, evidently destroys the very being of the sacraments, and what he presents under their names, whether charms or magic or physical causes of grace, are an impious and blasphemous substitution. This is precisely what Rome does. "While she retains the ancient definitions, and uses the expressions signs and seals, she vacates their meaning by giving such a view of the actual offices they discharge in the economy of redemption as to make signs no more signs, seals no more seals. They cease to bo, in the ordinary sense of the phrase, means of grace, and become hues of Vol. hi.— 20 306 THE VALIDITY OF THE BAPTISM grace. She teaches a mechanical theory of salvation, calcu- lated at once to exalt her priests and to degrade God, and fritters down the personality of the ever-glorious Spirit into the mere nexus which connects a cause with its eiFect, a law with its results. She teaches men, accordingly, to rely upon the sacraments and not upon Christ, to stop at the external act — as if water, bread and wine were our Saviours — in- stead of looking to Him in whom all the truths of the Gospel centre and terminate ; an error which could not be com- mitted if she held the sacraments to be real signs. These statements I shall endeavour to make good. The official doctrine of the Church of Rome clearly is that the sacraments confer the grace which they signify ex opere operato} If it should be conceded, for the sake of argu- ment, that Luther, Melancthon, Calvin and Zuingle mis- took the meaning of this anomalous phrase, and that the cautious definitions of Bellarmine and Dens contain the true explanation of the subject, still the conclusion will seem to be inevitable that the sacraments produce their spiritual effects either in the way of physical causes, or of mechanical instruments. Both hypotheses are inconsistent with the theory of signs. It would be obviously absurd to say that fire is a symbol of heat, or that the combined forces which keep the planets in their paths are signs of the elliptical or- bits they describe, or that the screw, the lever, and the wedge represent the effects they respectively produce. The relation of a cause to its effect, or of a machine to the phe- nomena of motion, is widely different from that of a sign to the thing it denotes. According to Bellarmine, == to confer 1 Si quis dixerit, per ipsa novse legis Sacramenta ex opere opersito non conferri gratiam, sed solam fidem divinse promissionis ad gratiam conse- quendam sufficere, anathema sit. Trident. Cone, Sessio vii., Can. viii.^ 2 Igitur ut intelligamus, quid sit opus operatum, notandum est, in jus- tificatione, quam recipit aliquis, dum percipit Sacramenta, multa con- currere ; nimirum, ex parte Dei, voluntatem utendi ilia re sensibili ; ex parte Christi, passionem ejus ; ex parte ministri, potestatem, voluntatem, probitatem; ex parte suscipientis, voluntatem, fidem et pcenitentiam ; den- ique ex parte Sacramenti, ipsam actionem extcrnam, qua? consurgit ex debita applicatione formse et materia^ Ccterum ex his omnibus id, quod OF TUE CHURCH OF lUniE. 307 grace ex opere operato is to confer grace by virtue of the sacramental action itself, instituted of God for this very purpose. The effect of the ordinance does not depend either upon the merit of him who receives or of him who dispenses it, but upon the fact of its due administration. Though the authority of God which institutes the rite, the death of Christ which is the ultimate meritorious ground of grace, the intention of the minister which consecrates the elements, and the dispositions of the recipient which remove obstacles from his mind, all concur in the production of the result, yet that which immediately and actively secures the justifi- cation of the sinner is the external action which constitutes the sacrament. This, and this alone, however other things may be subsidiary, is, according to the appointment of G(jd, active, et proxime, atque instrumentaliter efficit gratiani jiistificationis, est sola actio ilia externa, quse Sacramentum dicitur, et haec vocatur opus operatum, accipiendo passive (operatum) ita ut idem sit Sacramentum conferre gratiam ex opere operato, quod conferre gratiam ex vi ipsius ac- tionis Sacramentalis a Deo ad hoc institutte, non ex merito agentis, vd suscipientis: quod S. Augustinus lib. 4, de Baptismo, ca. 24, expressit illis verbis : Ipsum per seipsum Sacramentum multum valet. ' Nam voluntas Dei, quae sacramento utitur, concurrit quidem active, sed est causa principalis. Passio Chi-Lsti concurrit, sed est causa meritoria, non autem eflectiva, cum non sit actu, sed pr?eterierit, licet moneat objective in mente Dei. Potes- tas, et voluntas ministri concurrunt necessario, sed sunt causae remotje; requiruntur enim ad efficiendam ipsara actionem Sacramentalem, quae postea immediate operatur. Probitas ministri requiritur, ut ipse minister non peccet Sacramenta ministrando, non tamen ipsa est causa gratite in suscipiente, nee juvat suscipientem per modum Sacramenti, sed solum per modum impetrationis et exempli. Voluntas, fides, et poenitentia in sus- cipiente adulto necessariS requiruntur, ut dispositiones ex parte subjecti, non ut caussae activae : non enim fides et poenitentia efiiciunt gratiam Sac- ramentalem, neque dant efficaciam Sacramentis, sed solum tollunt obsta- cula, quae impedirent ne Sacramenta suam efficaciam exercoro pos.-e-nt ; unde in pueris, ubi non requiritur dispositio, sine his rebus sit justificatio. Exemplum esse potest in re naturali. Si ad ligna comburenda, priiaum exsiccarentur ligna, deinde excutereter ignis ex silice, tum applicaretur ignis ligno, et sic tandem fieret combustio ; nemo diceret, caussam imrae- diatam combustionis esse siccitatem, aut excussionem ignis ex silice, aut applicationem ignis ad ligna, sed solum igneni, ut caussam primariam, et solum calorem, seu calefactioneru, ut caussam instrumentalem. Dc Sac- ramentis, Lib. ii., cap. 1. 308 THE VALIDITY OF THE BAPTISM the immediate instrument in effecting, when not prevented by obstacles or hindrances, the grace which is signified. How this is done is said to be an open question in the Church of Rome;^ but the different opinions which have divided her divines and distracted her Schoolmen may be embraced under the general theories of moral power and physical causation.^ The patrons of the former, slow to comprehend how material elements can achieve a spiritual result, ascribe the efficiency not to the sacraments them- selves, but to the agency of God. They suppose that He has pledged His omnipotence, in every instance of their due administration, to impart the benefits which the matter represents. He has inseparably connected the effectual working of His ovn\ power with the external action. Grace always accompanies the rite; their union is fixed by Divine appointment, cemented by Divine energy, and as indissolu- ^ Secundo notandum, non esse controversiam de modo quo Sacramenta sint caussse, id est, an physice attingendo effectum, an moraliter tantnm ; et rursum si physic^, an per aliqiiam qualitatem inliserentem, an per solam Dei motionem ; ista enim ad questionem fidei non pertinent : sed solum generatim, an Sacramenta sint verse et propria caussse instnimen- tales justificationis, ut vere ex eo quod quis baptizatur, sequatur, ut justi- ficetur. Nam in hoc conveniunt omnes Catholici, ut Lutherus ipse fatetur, in lib. de captiv. Babyl. cap. de Baptismo : Arbitrati, inquit, mnt quam plurimi esse aliquam virtutem occultam spiritualem in verbo, et aqiui, qjtce ope- retur in anima recipient is gratiam Dei. His alii contradicentes staluunt, nihil esse virtutis in Sacramentis, sed gratiam a solo Deo dari, quia assistit ex pacto Sacramentis a se institutis: omnes tamen in hoc concedunt, Sacramenta esse efficacia signa gratice. Ibid. Salva autem fide, inter Catholicos disputatur, an Sacramenta novae legis conferant suos effectus physicS, an tantum moraliter. Dens, De Sacram., vol. v., No. 17, p. 90. - Quidam tenent causalitatem physicam, et sese explicant, quod Sacra- menta, tanquam Divinse Omnipotentise instrumenta, ver^ et realiter con- currant ad productionem effectuum in anima, per virtutem supernaturalem a principali agente sibi communicatam, et per modum actionis transeuntis sibi unitam. Qui vero adstruunt causalitatem moralem tantftm, dicuut quidem Sacramenta non esse nuda qusedam signa, nee mere talia, quibus positis, Deus gratiam infundat, sed esse velut chirographa et authentica monuraenta pacti, quo Deus se quodammodo obstrinxit, ut ad praesentiam signorum Sacramentalinm gratiam conferret debite suscipientibus. Dens, Ibidem. OF THE CHURCH OF EOME. 309 ble in the experience of the faithful as they are in the pur- pose of the Ahuighty. This theoiy, though not so gross and palpably absurd as the other, reduces the sacraments, in their relations to us, to the category of machines — machines in the kingdom of God, to which spiritual phenomena may be ascribed, just as truly as the wheel, the pulley, and the wedge are mechanical contrivances for bending nature to our wills. In their relations to God they would seem to be somewhat analogous to laws, since they are described as stated modes of Divine operation, and may evidently be regarded as compendious expressions for a class of facts which take place with unvarying uniformity. In the schools of philosophy no more inherent efficacy is attributed to natural laws than the Romanists, who support the theory of moral power, are accustomed to bestow on the operation of the sacraments. It is God in each case who acts, and the law simply declares the regularity and order of His con- duct. But, however this may be, to resolve the connection between outward orduiances and spiritual benefits into the fixed uniformity of a law is to make the external action, in reference to men, a species of machine. As motion, in the last analysis, must be attributed to God, those mechanical instruments which are adapted to its laws are only conti'iv- ances for availing ourselves of His power to compass ends which our own strength is inadequate to reach. Experience, by giving us the laws of nature, acquaints us with the methods of the Divine administration. And mechanism consists in a skilful disposition of materials with reference to these laws, so as to make them subsidiary to the purpose which we propose to achieve. If, accordingly, there be a fixed connection between the due dispensation of the sacra- ments and the reception of grace, we can avail ourselves of them to secure spiritual good ^vith as much certainty and as little piety as we can depend upon the wheel, the jiullcy, or the lever to raise enormous weights, rely upon the wedge to break the stoutest cohesion, or trust to the screw for an immense compression. Tlio c.xtcnial action is a<1:i]tt('(l to 310 THE VALIDITY OF THE BAPTISM the law of sacramental union, as the ordinary mechanical powers are instruments adjusted to the laws of motion. Hence, regeneration is effected, in flat contradiction to the Scrijitures, by the will of man, and justification is as much our own work as the erection of a building or the construc- tion of a monument. We can use the instrument which secures it. The other theory of the operation of the sacraments re- presents them as causes. Its advocates seem to have believed, in opposition to the prevailing conclusions of modern phil- osophy, that what, in material phenomena, are dignified with this appellation are possessed of a latent power to accomplish their effects. Regarding the invisible nexus which binds events in this relationship together, as some- thing more than the established order of sequences given by experience, they were led to ascribe mysterious efficacy to the cause by which it not only preceded the effect with unvarying uniformity, but actually gave it existence. They attributed to physical facts that potency, according to their measure, which our instinctive belief of causation leads us to recognize somewhere, and sound philosophy centres in God. The sacraments, accordingly, are represented, by the advocates of their physical efficacy, as invested with a vir- tue, force or power in consequence of which they produce the grace they are said to signify. This theory is not only the most common in the Church of Rome, but seems to me to be the only one strictly accordant with the views of Trent. The sixth Canon of the Seventh session of that Council pronounces its usual malediction upon those who shall deny that the sacraments of the Gospel contain the grace which they signify, or that they conifer that grace upon those who place no obstacles in the way.^ But whatever may be said ^ Si quis dixerit, Sacramenta novre legis non continere gratiam quara significant, aul gratiam ipsani non ponontibus obicem non conferre, quasi signa tantum externa sint accepta; per fidem gratiae vel justitise, et notje qtipedam Christians professionis, quibus apud homines discernuntur fideles ab infidelibus, anathema sit. Trident. Con., Sess. vii., can. vi. OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 311 of the decrees of the Council, its Catechism seems to be clear and unambiguous. Havino; spoken of signs which are only significant and monitory, it proceeds to observe^ that "God has instituted others which have the power, not only of signifying, hut of effecting, and in this class must evidently be reckoned the sacraments of the new law. They are signs divinely prescribed, not invented by men, which, we certainly believe, contain in themselves the 'power of effecting the sacred thing [the grace] which they declare." A sacrament is defined to be^ a "thing subjected to the senses, which, in consequence of the appointment of God, possesses the power, not only of signifying, but also of effecting, holi- ness and righteousness." They are said to have been insti- tuted as "remedies and medicines for restoring and defending the health of the soul," and are commended as pipes which convey the merit of the Saviour's passion to the consciences of men.'* What language can be stronger than that which the authors of the Catechism have employed in treating of the first effects of the sacraments?* "We know," say they, " by the light of faith " — and all true Papists must respond Amen — " that the power of the omnipotent God 1 Alia vero Deus instituit, quse non significandi modo sed efficiendi etiam vim haberent, atqiie in hoc posteriori signorum genere sacramenta novffi legis nuraeranda esse liquido apparet: signa enim sunt divinitiis tradita, non ab hominibus inventa, quje rei cujuspiam saera^, quain de- clarant, efficientiam in se continere certo credimus. Trident. Catechism. Pars ii., cap. i., § viii. 2 Quare, ut explicatiils quid sacramentum sit declaretur, docendnni erit rem esse sensibus subjectam, quse ex Dei institutione sanctitatis, et justitise turn significandse, turn efficiendae, vim habet. Ibid., cap. i., § x. ' Tertia causa fuit, ut ilia tanquam remedia, ut scribit sanctus Anibro- sius, atque Evangclici Samaritani medicamenta ad animarum sanitatem, vel recuperandam, vel tuendam prse-std e.ssent. Virtutem enim, quae ex pa-ssione Christi manat, hoc est, gratiam quara ille nobis in ara crucis meruit, per sacramenta, quasi per alveum quemdam, in nos ipsos derivari oportet, aliter vero neraini uUa salutis spes reliqua esse poterit. Ibid., cap. i., ? xiii. * At tidei lumine cognoscimus, omnipotentis Dei virtutem in sacramentis in esse, ijua id efficiant, quod sua vi res ipsae naturales prsestare non pos- sunt. Ibid., cap. i., § xxvi. 312 THE VALIDITY OF THE BAPTISM exists in the sacraments, and tliey can, consequently, effect that which natural things, by their own energy, cannot achieve." In the comparison which is instituted between the sacra- ments of the new and those of the old dispensation, the pre-eminence is given to the former, in consequence of pos- sessing what the others did not possess, the ability of effect- ing that which their matter represents.^ The latter availed to the cleansing of the flesh, the former reach the impurities of the soul ; the latter were instituted simply as signs of blessings to be afterward conferred by the ministry of the Gospel, but the " former, flowing from the side of Christ, who, through the Eternal Spirit, offered himself without spot unto God, purge our consciences from dead works to serve the living God, and so work, through the power of Christ's blood, that grace which they signify." The gen- eral current of this phraseology seems to be incompatible with any hypothesis but that of physical causation ; the same sort of relationship is attributed to the outward matter and the inwftrd grace which subsists between impulse and motion, fire and heat. This view of the subject is confirmed by the prevailing tone Avhich the Popish theologians adopt in discussing the doctrine of the sacraments. " Grace," says Bellarmine,^ " is the effect of the sacrament, and hence is contained in the ' Ex iis igitur quae de priori sacramentorum effectu, gratia scilicet justi- ficante, demonstrata sunt, illud etiam plane constat, excellentiorem, et prsestantiorem vim sacramentis novse legis inesse, quam olim veteris legis sacramenta habuerunt: quae ciim infirma essent, egenaque elementa, inquinatos sanctificabant ad emundationem carnis, non animae : quare, ut signa tantura earum rerum quae ministeriis nostris efficiendae essent, in- stituta sunt. At vero sacramenta novae legis ex Christi latere manantia, qui per Spiritum Sanctum semetipsum obtulit immaculatum Deo, emun- dant conscientiam nostram ab operibus mortuis, ad serviendum Deo viventi, atque ita earn gratiam, quam signiticant, Christi sanguinis viitute operantur. Ibid., cap. i., | xxviii. * Gratia enim effeetus est sacramenti, proinde in sacramento continetur, ut quilibet alius effeetus in sua caussa. Bellarmine, De Sacramentis, Lib. i., cap. iv. OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 313 sacrament, as every other effect is contained in its own caitee." " That which is chiefly and essentially signified," ' he observes again, " by the sacraments of the new law, is only justifying grace. For, as we shall subsequently see, the sacraments of the new law eifect that which they signify. They do not, however, eflfect the passion of Christ nor future blessedness. They presuppose, on the contrary. His passion, and promise future blessedness ; but they do, prop- erly, import justification." In discussing the question, whether a sacrament can be logically defined, he announces a truth which seems to be fatal to tliose who, like the Re- viewer, w^ould inculcate the identity of Popish and Protest- ant views in regard to the nature of the sacraments. " A sacrament, as such," says he,^ " not only signifies, it also sanctifies. But to signify and to sanctify belong to different categories, the one being embraced under that of relation, the other under that of action." " It is more proper," he states, in another connection,^ " to a sacrament to sanctify than it is to signify." In rebutting Calvin's account of the nature of the sacraments, he does not scruple to assert * that " they are efficacious causes of grace when no obstacles interpose." His critique of the great Reformer's definition so strikingly illustrates the fundamental difference between Protestants and Romanists on this whole subject that I ^ Est autem hoc loco notandum, id quod praecipue et essentialiter sigiii- ficatur per sacramentnm novae legis, esse solam gratiam justificaiiteni. Nam ut infra dicemus, sacramenta nov£e legis efficiunt, quod siguificaut, at non efficiunt passionera Christi, nee vitani beatam sed solam justifica- tionem: passionem enim prawupponiuit, et vitam beatam proniittunt, justificationem autem proprii- adferunt. Ibid., cap. ix. * Secundo, sacramcntum, ut sacramentum, non solilm significat, sed etiam sanctiiioat, ut Catliolici omnes decent de sacramentis novie legis. Ibid., cap. X. ' Prima propositio : Ad rationem .sacramenti in gcnere non satis est, ut significet, sed requiritur etiam, ut efficiat sanctitatem seu sanctificationem : immo magis proprium est sacramenti sanctificare, quam signifiiare. Ibid., cap. xii. * Sacramenta esse causas gratise efficaces, nisi ponatur obex. Ibid., cap. xvi. 314 THE VALIDITY OF THE BAPTISM hope the reader will excuse me for extracting the part which relates to the sign. Calvin says that a sacrament is " an outward sign, by which the Lord seals in our consciences the promises of his good-will toward us, to support the weakness of our faith ; and we, on our part, testify our piety toward him ; in His presence and that of angels, as well as before men." " This whole definition," says Bellar- mine,^ "is vicious, as will evidently appear from a close ex- amination of it word by word. The first expression is an outward sign. This, indeed, is absolutely true, but not in the sense in which Calvin intends it. He means a naked sign, a symbol which signifies only, but effects nothing. For throughout his whole definition he contemplates no other effects of the sacraments than to seal the promises of God and to testify our own piety. It is no objection to this statement that he asserts, in his Antidote to the Council of Trent (Sess. 7, can. 5), that The sacraments are instruments of justification, for he calls them instruments, because they ^ His explicatis refellenda est htec definitio : tota enim est vitiosa, ut perspicuum erit, si percurramus singula verba. Primum verbum est, Symbolum externum. Quod quidem verum est absolute, non tamen in eo sensu, quo accipitur a Calvino. Ille enim intelligit esse nudum symbo- lum, id est, symbolum quod solum significet, non autem operetur aliquid: nam in tota definitione non ponit alios effectus liujus symboli, nisi obsig- nare Dei promissiones, et testificari pietatem nostram : neque obstat, quod Calvinus dicat in Antidoto Concilii "Tridentini, Sess. vii., can. v. : Sucra- vienta esse instrumenta justificationis ; nam intelligit esse instrumenta, quia excitant, vel alunt fidem ; idque non per aliquam efficientiam, sed mere objective. Id quod explicat clarissime Theodorus Beza, in lib. De summa rei sacramentarise, quest. 2, cum sic ait : Unde efficacia ilia sacramenlorum ? A Spiritus sancti operatione in solidum, non autem a signis, nisi quatenus externis illis objectis interiores sensus moventur. Yitec ille. Qua ratione certe signa etiam, quae in foribus publicorum hospitiorum pendent, instru- menta dici possunt coenationis, quia movent hominem, ut cogitet in ea domo paratam esse mensam, etc. At Scripturse passim docent, sacramenta esse res quasdam operantes, nimirum quae mundent, lavent, saiictificent, justificent, regenerent. Joan. iii. ; 1 Cor. vi. ; Eph. v., ad Tit. iii. ; Act. xxii. Immo nusquam Scripturae dicunt, sacramenta esse testimonia promis- sionum Dei et nostrse pietatis, aut certe non tam expresse hoc dicunt, ut id quod nos asserimus, nimirum quod sint causae justificationis. Ibid., cap. 16. OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 316 excite and strcngtlieu foith, and that not efficiently, bnt only objectively. Beza has very clearly expressed the same idea in his book De Sunima Rei Sacramentariae, Question 2, where he says : * Whence is the efficacy of the sacraments ? It depends entirely upon the operation of the Holy Spirit, and not upon the signs, except so far as the outward objects may excite inward perceptions.' Thus Beza. For the same reason, the signs which hang on the doors of inns might be called instruments of eating, since they suggest the idea of a table within. The Scriptures, however, everywhere teach that the sacraments are operative, inasmuch as they cleanse, wash, sanctify, justify, regenerate. John, chap, iii.; 1 Cor. vi.; Eph. v.; Tit. iii.; Acts xxii. Never do they assert that the sacraments are testimonies of God's promises and of our piety ; or, at least, they do not certainly teach this M'ith as much directness as they inculcate the doctrine which we have asserted, that the sacraments are causes of justifi- cation." The point most oifensive to the mind of Bellar- mine in the doctrine of Protestants was, evidently, that in which they represent the effiect of the sacraments as de- pending upon the Holy Spirit and upon the truths and prom- ises which they address to faith. He regarded the external action as the secret of their power. When duly adminis- tered, they just as truly, according to him, confer grace as impulse communicates motion or fire communicates heat. They were causes containing their eiFects, not figuratively, but really and properly — instruments producing their results by immediate and direct efficiency. Precisely to the same purport is the doctrine of Dens. "In the fourth place," says he,^ "a sacrament is a sign, efficacious and practical, effect- ing that which it signifies." The recipient is said to be passive under its jDower,^ and the sacraments are represented as truly and properly the causes of grace to those who do 1 Quarto, est signnni " eflScax et practicum," scilicit efRi'iciis id, quod significat. — Dens, De Sacrani., vol. v., No. iii., p. 68. ^ Quia subjectum non concurrit active, sed tantdm passivO. Il)id., No. iv., p. 70. 316 THE VALIDITY OF THE BAPTISM not interpose obstacles^ — "they contain the grace causally and instrumentally. and that not simply as they are signs of it, which was the case with the sacraments of the old law, but as instrumental causes from which it may be ex- tracted.^ Harding, the Jesuit, in his celebrated controversy with Jewell,^ says : " There be seven sacraments, which do not only signify a holy thing, but also do sanctify and make holy those to whom they be exhibited, being such as, by insti- tution of Christ, contain grace in them and power to sanc- tify." "The sacraments of the new law," he teaches again,'* "work the thing itself that they signify, through virtue given unto them by God's ordinance to special effects of grace." "Sacraments contain grace, after such manner of speaking as we say potions and drinks contain health." ^ The theory of causation is kept up even in the doctrine of obstacles. There is a striking analogy betwixt the resist- ance which is offered by material hindrances to the action of physical causes, and that of the obstacles which, accord- ing to the Romish doctors, defeat the operation of the sacra- ments. What is technically called an obstacle — I allude not to those essential ones arising from perverseness of will or from gross hypocrisy, which render void the sacrament, but to those accidental ones which do not invalidate, but only impede the efficacy of the ordinance — what is technically called an obstacle of this sort is either some disposition directly repugnant to the sanctifying tendency of the sacra- ment, or the want of such a state of mind as is suited to its action. There must be some congruity, as in material phe- nomena, between the tendencies of the cause and that upon ' An Sacramenta novae legis causent Gratiam ? Responsio Fidei contra sectarios est, ea vere et proprie causare Gratiam non ponentibus obicem, non tanquam causas principales (hoc enim solius Dei est), sed tanquam instrumentales. Ibid., No. xvii., p. 89. * Sed quod Gratiam contineant causaliter et instrumentaliter, vel, ut dicit Steyaert, quatenus non sunt tantum signa Gratiae, ut ilia veteris Legis, sed et causae instrumentales, de quibus earn depromere liceat. Ibid., No. xviii., p. 90. ^ Richmond's British Reformers, vol. vii., p. 685. * Ibid., p. 690. 5 Ibid., p. 686. OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 317 which they are expended. Fire has a tendency to burn, but then the fuel must be dry. Motion once begun has a tend- ency to continue, but then friction and resistance must be removed ; and so the sacraments are fitted to sanctify, but then tlie subject must be adapted to their action.^ Whatever may be the mode in which the sacraments operate, whether mechanical or efficient, tlie relation in which they are conceived to stand to the covenant of grace is essentially different from that represented in the Scrip- tures. Instead of being signs and seals of the benefits of redemption, conducting the mind beyond themselves to Jesus, the Author and Finisher of faith, they usurp the office of the Holy Ghost, and undertake to accomplish what He alone is pledged to effect. It cannot be doubted that the only Holy Spirit whom Rome practically recognizes is what she denominates her sacraments. Her whole theory of gi'ace is grossly mechanical. The Tridentine Catechism runs the parallel between natural and spiritual life, and shows that the sacraments are to the latter what birth, growth, nutriment and medicine are to the former.^ The 1 Est carentia — says Dens, defining an obstacle — dispositionis neces- saria ad recipiendum sacramenti effectuni ; sivc est defectus aliciijus non impediens valorem sacramenti, sed ejus effectum sen collationem Gratiae ob indispositionera suscipientis ; ut si quis in afiectu peccati raortalis, vel cum ignorantia necessariorum necessitate medii, suscipit aliquod sacra- mentum, praeter Pcenitentiam. Quotupliciter continget, poni obicem accidentalera? Dnpliciter : scilicit per obicem sacramenti positivum seu contrarium, et per obicem negativum seu privativum. Obex positivus seu contrarius sacramenti consistit in indispositione actual! repugnante infusioni Gratise sanctificantis. Talis est quodcumque peccatum actuale mortale, sive cujus actus vel eflectus in suscipiente sacramentnm adliuc moraliter dici potest per- severare; sive quod in ipsa sacramenti cujuscunKjue susceptione com- mittitur. Obex negativus consistit in carentia dispositionis necessarise ad eflectum sacramenti ex ignorantia vel inadvertentia nuUo modo, vel saltern non graviter culpabili ; v. g. ignorantia inculpabilis necessariorum necessitate medii. — Dens, de Sacram., vol. v.. No. xxix., p. 107. ' Catholicae igitur Ecclesise sacramenta, quemadmodum ex Scripturis probatur, ct Patruiu traditione ad nos pervenit, et conciliorum testiitur 318 THE VALIDITY OF THE BAPTISM sinner is renewed by baptism, strengthened by confirmation, nurtured by the eucharist, restored to health by penance, and dismissed into eternity, prepared for its awful solemni- ties, by extreme unction. Baptism is the birth, confirma- tion the growth, the eucharist the food, penance the medi- cine, and extreme unction the consummation of the spirit- ual man. Call them causes or call them machines, no matter how they act, while it is conceded that the sacra- ments confer grace ex opere operato, their relation to the economy of salvation is substantially that which the eternal Word assigns to the Third Person of the Trinity. Lying vanities, as they are, according to the teaching of the mother of harlots, they are yet the saviours to which the millions of her deluded children cling for acceptance before God. They are accustomed to use nothing higher in the scale of excellence than the empty pageantry of cere- auctoritas, septenario numero definita sunt. Cur autem neque plura neque pauciora numerentur, ex iis etiam rebus, quae per similitudinem a natural! vita ad spiritualem transferuntur, probabili quadam ratione ostendi poterit. Homini enim ad vivendum, vitaraque conservandam, et ex sua reique publicse utilitate traducendam, hsec septem necessaria viden- tur : ut scilicet in lucem edatur, augeatur, alatur ; si in morbum incidat, sanetur; imbecillitas virium reficiatur; deinde, quod ad rempublicam attinet, ut magistratus nunquam desint, quorum auctoritate, et imperio regatur ; ac postremo, legitima sobolis propagatione seipsum et humanum genus conservet. Quae omnia quoniam vit?e illi, qua anima Deo vivit, respondere satis apparet, ex iis facile sacramentorum numerus colligetur. Baptismus. — Primus enim est baptismus, veluti ceterorum janua, quo Christo renascimur. Confirmatio. — Deinde confirmatio, cujus virtute fit ut divina gratia augeamur, et roboremur. Baptizatis enim jam apostolis, ut Divus Augus- tinus testatur, inquit Dominus : Sedete in civitate, donee induamini virtute ex alto. Eucharktia. — Tum Eucharistia, qua, tanquam cibo verl cselesti, spiritus noster alitur, et sustinetur. De e^ enim dictum est k Salvatore : " Caro mea vere est cibus, et sanguis mens vere est potus." Poeniteniia. — Sequitur quarto loco pauitentia, cujus ope sanitas amissa restituitur, postquam peccati vulnera accepimus. Extrema-unctio. — Postea vero Extrema-unctio, qui peccatorum reliquiae tolluntur, et animi virtutes recreantur, siquidem D. Jacobus, cdm de hoc Sacramento loqueretur, ita testatus est: Et si in peccatis sit, remittentur ei. — Trid. Catech., Pars ii., cap. i., § 18. OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 319 monlal pomp, or to dream of nothing' better in the way of felieity than the solemn farce of sacerdotal benediction ; their hopes are falsehood and their food is dust. Strangers to the true conei8i<^n of the heart ■which they have expe- rienced who -worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh, the miserable votaries of Rome confound the emotions of mysterious awe produced by the solemnities of a sensual worship with reve- rence for God and the impressions of grace. Doomed to grope among the beggarly elements of earth, they regale the eye, the fancy and the car, but the heart withers. Im- agination riots on imposing festivals and magnificent proces- sions, symbols and ceremonies, libations and sacrifices ; the successive stages of worship are like scenes of enchantment, but the gorgeous splendours of the liturgy, which famish the soul while they delight the sense, are sad memorials of religion "lying in state surrounded with the silent pomp of death." The Holy Ghost has been supplanted by charms, and physical causes have usurped the province of supernat- ural grace. As to the point Avhether the sacraments are seals, it deserves to be remarked that there is a discrepancy between some of the most distinguished Popish theologians and the Catechism of Trent. The latter teaches^ that "as God in the Old Testament was accustomed to attest the certainty of his promises by signs, so also in the New Law our Saviour Christ, having promised us the pardon of our sins, heavenly grace, the communication of the Spirit, has insti- tuted signs subjected to the eyes and senses which serve as pledges of His truth, so that we cannot doubt but that He will be faithful to His promises." And yet of the same 1 Quemadmodum igitur in veteri Testamento Deus fecerat, ut magni alicujns promissi constantiam signis testificaretur; ita etiam in nova lege Christus Salvator noster cilm nobis peccatoriim veniam, cQ?lestein gratiam, Spiritfts Sancti comninnicationem pollicitus est, qusedam signa oculis et sensibus subjecta instituit ; qiiibus eum quasi pignoribiis obligatuin habe- remus, atque ita fideleiu in promissis futurum dubitare nunquam posse- mus. Ibid., \ xiii. 320 THE VALIDITY OF THE BAPTISM doctrine, as announced by Luther, Bellarmine remarks^ " that it is so absurd that nothing can be conceived more so. Signs and prodigies," he continues, " may justly be emj^loyed for confirming the message of a preacher, since they are known and striking of themselves, and depend not at all upon the message. But the sacraments have no pOwer of themselves ; they cannot be even apprehended as sacraments except as confirmed by the testimony of the Word. Those who see the sick suddenly healed, demons expelled at a word, the blind restored to sight, and the dead raised from their graves by a preacher of the Divine Word, are so struck and prostrated by the intrinsic power and splendour of the 1 Sed hsec sententia "fam est absurda — ut nihil fere cogitari possit absur- dius. Nam signa atque prodigia ad confirmandam prwdicationem merito adhibentur, ciim sint ex se nota et illustria neque a prsedicatione ulla ratione dependeant : contra autem sacramenta nuUam ex se vim habent, ac ne sacramenta quidem esse intelliguntur, nisi testimonio verbi confir- mentur. Itaque qui a prsedicatore divini verbi, vel morbos repente curari, vel dsemones verbo pelli, vel csecos illuminari, vel ab inferis mortuos revo- cari conspiciunt, ipsa miraculi vi tanquam fulgore quodam ita percellim- tur, ac prosternuntur, ut vel inviti verbis tanti viri fidem habere cogantur. Qui vero aquis hominem ablui, quod in baptismo facimus, vident, nihil mirantur, neque facile credunt in ea lotione aliquid sublimius latere, nisi verbo Dei ante crediderint. Quod si non ante sacramenta suspicere incip- imus, quam verbo Dei fidera habeamus ; quo pacto, quseso, fieri potest, ut sacramentis divina eloquia confirmentur? An non ridiculus esset, qui ethnico diceret; "ut credas vera esse qu?e dico, amphoram istam aquae super caput tuum effundam ?" Egregia sane probatio ; nisi enim ex Dei verbo disceremus lotionem illam et illam unctionem ad purgandos animos valere, quis crederet? quis id non rideret? neque enim id habet aquae natura, ut morbos animi curet, et cordis maculas eluat; sed quidquid in hoc genere potest, ex institutione divina potest, divinam autem institu- tionem divina eloquia patefaciunt, Porro comparatio ilia, qua verbum diplomat!, sacramentum sigillo ab adversariis, passim confertur, tam est inepta, ut nihil ineptius fingi queat ; multoque rectius verbum Dei sigillum sacramenti, quam sacramentum verbi Dei sigillum dici possit. Nam ut sigillum, etiam sine diplomate, vim suam habet atque agnoscitur et honoratur ; diploma sine sigillo non agnoscitur esse diploma, nee vim ullam habet ; sic etiam verbum Dei, sine testimonio sacramenti, suam, eamque summam habet auctoritatem ; sacra- mentum vero sine verbi testimonio, nullam. Non igitur sacramentum, ut illi volunt, sigillum verbi, sed verbum, sigillum sacramenti nominari iebuisset. Bellarmine, Preface to vol. iii., De Sacrament. OF THE CIIUKCII OF ROME. 321 miracle tliat even against their Mills they are compelled to credit his message. Those, however, who perceive a man washed with water — which is what we do in baptism — see nothing Avonderful, and are slow to believe that anything of unnsnal sublimity lies hid in the act, unless they shall have i)reviously credited the Word of God. If we do not begin to honour the sacraments until we have faith in the Divine Word, how, I pray, is it possible that the sacra- ments should confirm that Word ? Would he not be ridicu- lous who should say to a heathen, In order that you may believe what I say, I will pour this pitcher of water upon your head ? An admirable proof, truly ! Unless taught by the Word of God that that washing and that unction avail to purify the soul, who would believe it? Who would not laugh at the thought ? There is nothing in the nature of m ater to cure diseases of the mind or to cleanse the stains of the heart. Whatever virtue of this sort it possesses is derived from Divine institution, and that insti- tution is made known by the AYord of God. Besides, the comparison, so common among our adversaries, of the Word to a charter and the sacrament to its seal, is so inapt that nothing can be conceived more so. With much more propriety can the Word be called the seal of the sacrament than the sacrament, of the Word. For as the seal even without the charter has its own power, and is acknowledged and honoured, while the charter without the seal is not rec- ognized as such, and has no force, so also the Word of God without the testimony of the sacrament has its own, and that the highest, authority, M'hile the sacrament without the testimony of the Word has none. The sacrament, therefore, should not be called the seal of the Word, but the Word the seal of the sacrament." Manv other passages of the same nature might be extracted from this writer in which the doctrine of sacramental seals is repudiated, scouted, scorned. Can it then be regarded as an autlioritative dogma of Roine ? Her leading theologians despise it, make it a spurn and trample in their controversies with Protestants, Vol.. in.— 21 322 THE VALIDITY OF THE BAPTISM pronounce it the very height of absurdity, the perfection of inaptitude. The Decrees of Trent nowhere allude to it, and the only place in which it seems to be remotely favoured is a single short paragraph in the Tridentine Catechism, occurring in the midst of a long, elaborate dissertation on the sacraments. The emphasis most clearly, in the Church of Rome, is laid upon the power of the sacraments to sanc- tify. This is their distinguishing feature, this, according to Bellarmine, their, differentia} Their essence lies here, and whoever denies to them their power destroys their reality. I cannot, therefore, disguise my astonishment that Princeton should have represented that the views of Home and of ourselves in regard to the nature of the sacraments are precisely the same. She teaches that they are causes of grace, and we that they are signs. She teaches that they dispense the blessings of salvation by their own poAver ; we, that they are nothing without the Holy Ghost. According to her, they justify, regenerate and sanctify. According to us, they point to Him who, of God, is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption. Ac- cording to Rome, they work infallibly where material dis- positions exist. According to us, they are lifeless and un- meaning when estranged from faith. We insist that they are seals of the everlasting covenant, and Rome, if she speaks at all upon this point, mutters the confused gabble of Babel. Rome's sacraments and ours belong essentially to different categories. They are as wide apart as action and passion. Hers is a species of deity, and ours are content to be elements of earth. When she baptizes, her Avater pene- trates the soul, purges the conscience and purifies the heart. When we baptize, we wash only the flesh, while our faith contemplates the covenant of God and His unchanging faithfulness. Our baptism represents what the blood of the Redeemer, applied by the eternal Spirit, performs upon the souls of believers. Rome's does the work itself. Ours is ^ Proinde signum, est velnti genus; sanotiticans, voluti differentia. Bel- larmine, De Sacramentis, Lib. i., cap. x. OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 323 vain without the Holy Ghost. Rome's is all the Holy- Ghost she needs. From the foregoing discussion it will be seen that Home vitiates the form of the sacraments by inculcating the dogma that they produce their effects ex opere operaio. It is this principle which changes them from means into laws or causes of grace, and converts them into a species of ma- cliinery, by the use of which men become the architects of their spiritual fortunes. The argument, therefore, as urged against Rome, does not apply with equal force to the strictly Lutheran and the English churches, unless it can be shown that these communions embrace the principle that the sac- raments confer, ex opere operato, the grace which they signify. The churches of the East I have no disposition to ridicule. There is sad reason to apprehend that the Gospel has long since departed from their sanctuaries. But the great Prot- estant communions of England and Germany, glorious from the strife of other days, I cannot contemplate, with all their defects, without veneration and love ; and it will require something more than the unsupported word of the Reviewer to convince my mind that they symbolize with Rome in one of her deadliest errors.' The English Reformers have ex- pressed themselves with great clearness upon the subject of the sacraments — this having been one of the hottest j>oints of controversy in England — and their Catechisms, Letters, Protestations and Creeds are free from any tinge of error. The Articles adopted in London in 1552, and published by the king, Edward VI., in 1553, are as explicitly Protestant as words can make them. The 26th treats of the sacra- ments, in which it is said that "in such only as worthily 1 " Besides, if baptism is null and void when administered by those who bold the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, what shall we say to the bap- tism in the Church of P^ngland, in the strict Lutheran churches and in all the churches of the East? On this plan we shall have to unchurch almost the whole Christian world; and Presbyterians, instead of being the most catholic of churches, and admitting tlie being of a church wlierever we see the fruits of the Spirit, would become one of the narrowest and most bigoted of sects." Princeton Rev., July, 1845, p. 452. 324 THE VALIDITY OF THE BAPTISM receive the same they have a wholesome effect and opera- tion, and yet not that of the work ^vrought {ex opere operato), as some men speak ; which word, as it is strange and un- known to Holy Scripture, so it engendereth no godly, but a very superstitious, sense." ^ The Catechism adopted by the same Convention, and published at the same time, is almost as bald in its definition or description as Zuingle himself could have desired." The Articles, as now existing, have undergone considerable changes since the reign of the good King Edward ; the clause condemning the opus operatum doctrine of Rome is no longer retained, but the opposite truth is most clearly expressed. A\Tiat there is in the Lutheran symbols to subject them to the just imputation of the Romish error, I am unable to discover. Luther him- self, says Bellarmine,^ has defined a sacrament " to be noth- ing else than a Divine testimony, instituted for exciting and increasing faith, which, like a miracle, confirms, and, like a seal, ratifies, the promise of grace." "A ceremony in the New Testament without faith," says the Augsburg Confes- sion,^ " merits nothing, either for the agent or others. It is a dead work, according to the saying of Christ, The true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth. ^ Kichmond's British Eeformers, p. 334. ^ Master. Tell me what thou callest earliest sacraments? Scholar. Tbey are certain customary reverent doings and ceremonies ordained by Christ, that by them He might put us in remembrance of His benefits, and we might declare our profession that we be of the number of them which are partakers of the same benefits, and which fasten all their affiance in Him ; that we are not ashamed of the name of Christ, or to be termed Christ's scholars. Ibid., p. 369. ^ Princeps Lutherus, ciim in Babylone, tum in assertione Articulorum, nihil aliud sacramentum esse voluit nisi divinum testimonium ad excitan- dam, vel nutriendam fidem, institutum, quod instar miraculi confirmet, et instar sigilli obsignet promissionem gratise. Quocirca Sacramenta fere conferre solet cum vellere Gedeonis, cum signo quod Isaias obtulit regi Achaz, cum aliis ejusmodi miraculis, atque prodigiis, quibus ad faciendam fidem Propheta? et Apostoli utebantur. Bellarmine, Praef., vol. iii., De Sacramentis. * Augsburg Confession, De Missa ; compare also Article xiii., which is very strong. OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 325 The whole eleventh cliaptcr ol" llchrcws jji-ovcs the same: By faith Abel ottered abetter !^a('ritice; witliout faitli it is impossible to please God. Therefore, the Mass does not merit remission of guilt or punishment ex oj)erc opcrato. This reason clearly refutes the merit whieh they term ex opcre operato.'^ If there be any one principle of the Gospel Avhieh Luther saAV in a steady lio-ht and held with a firm grasj), that principle was justification by faith — a principle as utterly opposed to the sacramental grace of Rome as to the ceremonial righteousness of the Jews ; and it is grossly improbable that Luther, who understood so fully, appreciated so highly, and laboured so severely for, the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, should have been entangled with the galling yoke of ceremonial bondage. How could he the business of whose life it was to unfold the blessedness of faith have taught, in the same breath in which he proclaim- ed the glories of the Cross, that we are justified bv any ex- ternal work, however sacred ? Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Askelon ! It is true that he did teach — what the Liturgy of England is supposed to sanction — that infants are regenerated at the time of baptism, but he was far from teaching the mortal heresy of Rome, that baptism itself renews them. He treated the sacrament as only a sign and seal ; but he supposed that God works in their hearts by the power of his Holy Spirit that faith, upon which the grace of the sacrament depends. The sacrament, in other words, profits them precisely as it does all other believers. It is a symbol and a seal in every case, whether of infants or adults, addressed to faith. " Perhaps," says lie in the Babylonian Captivity,' after liaving explained the necessity of faith to the efficacy of baptism, " perhaps the baptism of little children may be objected to what I say as to the necessity of faith. But as the AVord of God is mightv to change the heart of an ungodly person, who is not less deaf nor hel])less than an infant, so the prayer of the Church, to which all things are possible, changes the little child, by 1 Quoted in D'Aiihigne's Ilist. Ref., vol. ii., p. iii., Carter's lulition. 326 THE VALIDITY OF THE BAPTISM the operation of the faith which God pours into his soul, and thus purifies and renews it." " The Anabaptists," he says again,^ " greatly err in preventing infants from being bap- tized. For though little children at another time want the judgment of reason, yet when they are baptized, God so operates upon their minds that they hear His Word, and know and love Him, as formerly the holy John, in the womb of his mother, perceived the presence of Christ, and leaped for joy." If other evidence were wanting that he w^as far from embracing the; opus operatum fiction of Rome, I might refer to his Sermon on Baptism, in which he de- nounces this heresy of schools, and while he admits that the Master of the Sentences and his followers have treated w^ell of the dead matter of the sacraments, he asserts that "their spirit, life and use, w^hich consist in the verity of the Divine promise and our owai faith, have been left wholly untouched." ^ And nothing more is needed to vin- dicate the Lutheran Church than Melancthon's defence, in his Apology, of the passage already extracted from the Augsburg Confession.^ " Here we condemn," says he, "the whole rabble of Scholastic doctors, who teach that the sacra- ^ Potius graviter errant Anabaptistse, homines fanatici ac furiosi, dum infantes baptizari prohibent. Nam etsi parvuli alio tempore judicio rationis carent, tamen dum baptizantur, sic in eorum mentibus operatur Deus, ut et verbum Dei audiant, et Deum etiam agnoscant, ac diligant ; quemadmodum olim sanctus Joannes in utero matris Christi prsesentiam sensit, et prae guadio exultavit. Luther quoted in Bellarmine, Pra^f , as above. ^ Esto contemptor Magistri Sententiarum cum omnibus suis scribentibus, qui tantum de materia, et forma sacramentorum scribunt, dum optime scribunt, id est, mortuam, et occidentem literam Sacramentorum tractant ; cseterum spiritum, vitam, et usum, id est, promissionis divinse veritatem, et nostram fidem prorsus intacta relinquunt. Luther quoted in Bellar- mine, De Sacram., Lib. i., cap. ii. 3 llic daranamus totum populum scholasticorum Doctorum, qui docent, quod Sacramenta non ponenti obicem conferent gratiam ex opere operalo sine bono motu utentis. Hsec sirapliciter Judaiea opinio est, sentire, quod per ceremoniam justificemur, sine bonu motu cordis, hoc est, sine fide : et tamen hfec irapia, et superstitiosa opinio magna auctoritate docetur in tota regno Pontificio. Luther quoted in Bellarmine, De Sacram., Lib. i., cap. iii. OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 327 mcnts confer grace upon him who interposes no obstucle, ex opere operato, without any good motion on the part of the recipient. This opinion is pure Judaism — to suppose that we can be justified by a ceremony without a good motion of the heart, tliat is, without faith; and yet this iini)ious iuid superstitious opinion is taught with great authority in tlie wliole kingdom of the Pope." Such proofs might be indefinitely multiplied.' The Reviewer, I think, nuist have been misled by the ambiguity of the piirase, baptismal regeneration. It may mean regeneration pro- duced by the ordinance itself, ex opere operato, or, as Bellar- mine expresses it, the external action — which is the doctrine of Rome; or it may mean regeneration effected by the Spirit of God at the time of baptism — Avhich was unques- tionably the opinion ^of Luther, and perhapsof the com pi lei's of the English Ritual. The first destroys the nature of the sacrament as a sign and seal ; the other docs not impair it : and hence the argument, so fatal to Rome, leaves untouched the English and Lutheran comnuniions. To obviate a difficulty which may suggest itself to the minds of some, it may be well to remark that the erroi-s of an individual minister do not invalidate the ordinances dispensed by him, so long as the Church with which he is connected teaches in her symbols, and retains as a body, just conceptions of their nature. He is guilty of aggra- vated sin in trifling with the mysteries of Christ. But his public and official acts must be measured not by his ])rivate opinions, since it is not man's prerogative to search the heart, but by the standards of the society to which he be- longs, and by whose immediate authority he acts. Those who, in Christian siin])li('ity, receive the sacraments at his 1 This matter is discussed pretty fully in the tliird volume of Bellar- mine's " Disputationum, de Controversiis/' lufjolstadt e ments as badges of Christian profession. Procl they do to the eye, the great distinguishing features of re- demption, they cannot be consistently received nor decently administered when the scheme of salvation, in its essential elements, is denied or repudiated; and as their purpose is to confirm our interest in Christ, they evidently involve such a profession of Christianity as is consistent with a reasonable hope of personal acceptance through His blood. To assert, consequently, of Romish baptism integrity of form, is to assert that he who receives it if arrived at years, and his sponsors who present him if an infant of days, make a credible profession of vital union with Him who is the substance of the eternal covenant, and in whom all its promises are yea and amen. Baptism administered to those who do not profess to believe the Gospel is evidently null and void; it is an empty ceremony, a sign and seal of nothing. The question, therefore, at issue between the As- sembly and the Reviewer is, whether a man, by submitting to the Romish ordinance, becomes a "professing Clu'istian;" or, in other words, whether, consistently with the faith that the church requires, and the obligations she imposes upon him in imparting to him this first sacrament, he can cher- ish a scriptural hope of "his engrafting into Christ, of re- generation, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life." These are the benefits which baptism signifies and seals ; and if the profession which is actually made or necessarily implied is incompatible with the reception of these bless- ings, it is not a profession but a denial of the Gospel; and sucii baptism docs not neal, but gives the lie to, the covenant of grace. It is imjKjrtant to bear in mind that tiie profes- sion which the validity of the ordinance requires is not that of a general belief in Ciu-istianity, without specific reference to what is, par eminence, v[\\\vi.\ the (i(isi)cl, but 330 THE VALIDITY OF THE BAPTISM oue which is consistent with a saving interest in Christ. The two things are evidently distinct, though the Reviewer has more than once confounded them. There is a loose and general sense in which the term Christian is applied to all who trace their religion, whatever may be its doctrines or precepts, to the authority of Christ. It is an epithet which distinguishes them from Jews, Pagans and Moham- medans, and all Avho do not believe in Jesus as a teacher sent from God. In this application it does not indicate any particular type of doctrine, whether Calvinism, Arianism, Pelagianism or Socinianism; it expresses simply the fact that whatever be the system, it is professedly received upon the authority of Christ. In this sense no one denies that Papists are Christians: no one, using his terms in the strictest sense, would rank them "in the same category"^ with Mohammedans and Pagans, with Jews, infidels and Turks. They are Chris- tians upon the same principle which extends the epithet to Pelagians, Arians, Universalists and Socinians. But there is another and a stricter sense in which Christian denotes a peculiar relation to Christ, and is confined exclusively to those who believe, or profess to believe, the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel, or what is distinctively styled the way of salvation. To be entitled to this ajiplication of it, some- thing more is required than a general belief in Jesus of Nazareth as the author of a new dispensation of religion. The religion itself which He taught, not any system which men may choose to ascribe to Him and recommend to the world under the sanction of His name, but that which He proclaimed in His own person, or committed to the inspired founders of His Church, which is emphatically the way of life, and the only basis of human hope, must in its leading principles be cordially embraced. They only can be Chris- tians, in this strict and proper sense, who profess to receive under the name of Christianity nothing that subverts the economy of grace. ^ Princeton Review, July, 1845, p, 465. OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 331 It may be oheerliiUy conceded, the Assembly has not denied, and the whole Protestant world has asserted, that in the first sense tiie Church of Home is Christian — Chris- tian, as the Schoolmen would say, secandum quid, accident- ally and not essentially; Christian, as professing to trace her scheme of doctrine, whatever it may be, to the instruc- tions of Christ. She may be Christian in this sense, and yet all her children go down to hell. She may have the name without the Gospel of Christ. As the sacraments, however, contemplate the covenant of grace as a scheme of salvation, as it is not the name but the religion of Jesus which they signify and seal, if Rome in dispensing her bap- tism demands a faith and imposes obligations which are inconsistent with a saving relation to Christ, however she may make professing Christians in one sense, she makes none in the only sense in which the title is important. If she does not baptize into Christianity in its peculiar and distinguishing features as the scheme of redemption and the foundation of human hope, she might as well, so far as any valuable result is concerned, baptize into the name of Confucius or Mohammed. If she is not Christian in the second sense which I have indicated, if her Gospel is not the Gospel of Christ, her religion not the religion of the Son of God, her baptism cannot be tliat which He instituted. Though Christian in name, she is Antichristian in reality. The real question, consequently, is, whether or not in what she denominates baptism Rome requires a profession and imposes obligations which are inconsistent with a saving interest in Christ, or tlie a[)plication of tliose very benefits which the Christian sacrament was appointed to represent and seal. Can a man believe what she commands him to believe, and engage to do ^\■hat she obliges him to do, and be at the same time a spirit- ual disciple of Jesus Christ ? This is the issue. Princeton says that he can : the Assembly and all the Protestant world have declared that he cannot. To determine the matter, the profession and engagements must be previously appre- 332 THE VALIDITY OF THE BAPTISM hended which a man makes when he is baptized in the Church of Rome. The statements of the Reviewer upon this point are wide of the truth. By a most extraordiiiaiy paradox, as it seems to me, the merits of which will be aficr- wards discussed, he has been led to maintain that the recipi- ents of Romish baptism are not made Romanists, and that the heresies of Popery are not exacted in the ordinance.^ But what says Rome herself? She certainly is a better witness of what she actually imposes on her children than those that are without. " Whosoever shall affirm," says the Council of Trent,^ " that the baptized are free from all the precepts of holy Church, either written or delivered by tradition, so that they are not obliged to observe them unless they will submit to them of their own accord, let him be accursed." This is sufficiently explicit, and so strong is the obligation which baptism imposes to observe these precepts which make up what Rome calls a " Christian life," that those who when arrived at years may be disposed to relinquish the vicarious promises of their sponsors can yet be com- pelled to redeem them.^ It is true that the Apostles' Creed is the summary which is actually professed at the time of baptism, but then this contains only the heads of doctrine, the details of which must be embraced according to the sys- tem of Rome. " The true Catholic faith, out of which none can be saved," and into which consequently all must be ' "It was hence argued that the recipients of Romish baptism are made Romanists, and are baptized into a profession of all the heresies of Popery. This appears to us an entirely wrong view of the subject No man, therefore, is made a Papist by being baptized by a Papist." Princeton Review, .July, 1845, pp. 468, 469. ^ Si quis dixerit, baptizatos liberos esse ab omnibus Sanctje Ecclesiaj prajceptis, quae vel scripta vel tradita sunt, ita ut ea observare non tenean- tur, nisi se, sua sponte, illis submittere voluerint ; anathema sit. Cone. Trident., Sess. vii., can. viii., De Baptis. ^ Si quis dixerit, hujusmodi parvulos baptizatos, cum adoleverint, inter- rogandos esse, an ratum haberi velint, quod patroni eorum nomine, dum baptizarentur, polliciti sunt ; et ubi se nolle responderint suo esse arbit- rio relinquendos, nee alia interim })(i>iia ad Christianam vitam cogendos, nisi ut ab Eucharistise alioruuKpie Sacramentorum perceptione arccantur, donee resipiscant ; anathema sit. Ibid., can. xiv., De l?;iptis. OF TIIK CHURCH OF ROME. 333 baptized, is the symbol of Pius lY. This creed all prose- lytes to the Romisli Church are ro(|uired publicly to adopt, and hence it must be the creed which all her children are presumed to embrace. They are at liberty to put no other interpretation upon the sacred Scriptures, much less upon minor symbols of fiiith, than that which the Church has authorized. Baptism is regarded as a sort of oath to observe her statutes and ordinances, and whatever articles she pro- poses at the time must be taken in her own sense. The coiiinna hnponeydis determines what the catechumen must believe, or be understood to profess, when he gives his assent to ^hose sections of the creed which treat of the holy catholic Church, the forgiveness of sins, the commu- nion of saints, and the state of the dead. As she makes a public declaration beforehand that all whom she bajjtizes are subject to her authority in faith and practice, as this is the known condition on which the ordinance is dispensed, it is undeniable that those who receive it at her hands do vir- tually profess " her whole complicated system of truth and error," and become ipso facto Romanists or Papists. Her notorious claim to exact obedience afterwards upon the ground of baptism would be grossly preposterous upon any other hypothesis. Bellarmine accordingly enumerates it among the advantages of the ceremonies which Rome has appended to her ordinances that those who are baptized with them are distinguished not merely from Jews, infidels and Turks, but also from heretics or Protestants — that is, they profess by the reception of the rite with its Papal accompaniments not simply Christianity as contradistin- guisiied from Paganism, but Popery as contradistinguished from Protestantism.^ The Reformers, too, seem to have understood the matter in the same light. Regarding baptism as a species of com- ^ Sexta est di.stinctio Catholicorum ab hsereticis. Nam Sacramenta siinl quidem symbola qua'dara, quibus discernimiir alj intidolibuH, tamen ab hiereticis vix per Sacramenta distingui possumus, sed per cjpremonias optinie distinguimnr. Bellarm., De Sac, Lib. ii., cap. 31. 334 THE VALIDITY OF THE BAPTISM munioii with the Church, which implies the sanction of its doctrines and a promise of subjection to its precepts, they deemed it to be inconsistent with attachment to the true religion to submit to the institute of Rome. It was not merely that she had corrupted by additions and obscured by her mummeries the simple appointment of Christ — this, though one, was not the principal ground of objection. But, according to the Confession and Discipline of the Re- formed Church of France,^ those who received baptism at her hands polluted their consciences by consenting to idola- try ; they virtually endorsed the synagogue of Satan and treated it as the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ. There is a very striking passage in the " Confession and Protesta- tion of the Christian Faith," drawn up by John Clement on the first day of April, 1556. This Clement was a re- markable witness for the truth in the reign of Queen Marv, and, like many others, was doomed to the stake for his opinions, from the horrors of which he was mercifully saved by a natural death in prison. His Confession, it would seem from the testimony of Strype, was transcribed and circulated as a faithful manual of the Reformed doctrines in England. The passage to which I have referred occurs in the seven- teenth article. " Howbeit," says he, " this I do confess and believe, that no Christian man ought to bring or send his chil- dren to the Papistical church, or to require [request] baptism of them, they being Antichrists ; for in so doing he doth confess them to be the true Churcli of Christ, Avhich is a grievous sin in the sight of God and a great oiFence to his true congregation."^ Notwithstanding this extraordinary protestation, Clement acknowledged the validity of such ^In the mean while, because of those corruptions which are mingled with the administration of that sacrament, no man can present his chil- dren to be baptized in that Church without polluting of his conscience. Quick's Synodicon, p. 12 ; Confession of French Reformed Ch., art. 28. Such as by their proxies present children to be baptized in the Church of Korae shall be severely censured, because they consent thereby unto idolatry. Ibid., p. xlvi.. Discipline Fr. Ref. Ch., can. xiii. 2 Richmond's British Reformers, vol. iv., p. 292. OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 335 baptisms: liis objection to them Avas, not that tlie child Avould fail of receiving a true baptism, but that the parent ])rofessed by implication a false faith. He knew nothing of tlie Princeton theory — the Reformed Church of France had never heard of it — that baptism was simply an introduction to the Church in general, and involved a profession of the creed of no church in particular. If this hypothesis be cor- rect, which I had previously been accustomed to consider as only a Catabaptist riddle, it is hard to perceive in what the wickedness consists of receiving baptism from Home. If her priests are true ministers of Jesus, as Princeton affirms, and impart a valid baptism, as she also asserts ; if those who submit to it hold no communion with her errors ; if they are made professing Christians and not Papists, introduced into Christ's body and not into the Papal congregation, where is the sin ? What have they done that deserves the censures of the Church ? Surely there can be no crime in being made professing Christians, if nothing more nor worse is done. And Avhat more? Is it that they have acquiesced in the superstitious ceremonies which precede, accompany and fol- low the administration of the ordinance ? Was it for cere- monies only that the churches of France and Scotland and the noble army of Reformers denounced participation in the Romish rites as polluting and idolatrous, and excluded those from their own communion who had presented their children in Papistical assemblies ? The Lutheran Church retained many ceremonies ; was it a sin to be baptized in it? The English Church in her palmiest days was defiled with many fragments of Popery ; was the participation of her baj)- tism idolatrous ? Why, then, if ceremonies are so fatal in Rome, were they not equally fatal in Germany and Britain ? The truth is, ceremonies were the smallest item in the ac- count. It was the faith of Rome which the Reformers abhorred, and because they regarded all who sought baptism at her hands as professing that faith, they subjected them to discipline as transgressors and idolaters. They believed, as all the world l)ut Princeton believes, that he who requests 336 THE VALIDITY OF THE BAPTISM baptism from Rome declares by the act that he is a Ro- manist. He goes to the Pope because he loves the Pope. But whatever Reformers thought, and whatever Pruice- ton may think, it is plain, from the testimonies already ad- duced, that Rome herself looks upon all to whom she ad- ministers the ordinance as bound to be Papists. The profes- sion which is made is the profession of her o^vn creed ; the obligation assumed, an obligation to obey all her statutes and ordinances. Now, the creed of Pius IV., which is the only distinctive creed of Rome, binds the subscriber, and every human being that hopes to be saved, to receive the canons and decrees of Trent, to render true obedience to the Pope, and to submit, by consequence, to every bull which may be issued from the Pontifical throne. The very circum- stance that this creed is pronounced to be indispensable to salvation shows conclusively that those must profess it to whom in baj)tism is imparted the remission of sins. Now the question recurs, Is such a profession consistent with a saving interest in Christ ? Can a man believe the Gosjjel, and at the same time believe the doctrines of Trent, and the still more detestable doctrines of the memorable Con- stitution Unigeniius f Can a man " enter into an open and professed engagement to be wholly and only the Lord's," and at the same time engage to observe all the precepts, whether written or traditive, enjoined by the Papal Church ? This is substantially the issue which the Reviewer him- self accepts in discussing the question whether or not the Church of Rome is a true church of the Lord Jesus Christ. " If a man," says he, " makes no profession of faith, aac can- not regard him as a believer ; nor can we so regard him if he makes any profession inconsistent with the existence of saving faith. And consequently, if a body of men make no profession of faith, they cannot be a church ; nor can they be so regarded if they make a profession which is in- compatible with saving faith in Christ If, therefore, we deny to any man the character of a Christian on ac- count of the profession which he makes, Ave must be pre- OF THE CIIUllCH OF ROME. 337 pared to sliow that such faith is incompatible Avith salva- tion And in like manner, if we deny to any body of men the character of a church on account of its creed, we thereby assert that no man holding that creed can be saved." ^ Hence the doctrine of the Reviewer is, that a cordial profession of the Romish creed — for what signifies profession without the corresponding motion of the heart ? — Rome being a true church of the Lord Jesus Christ, is not incomjxitible with saving fiith ; that a man may, in other Avords, be a sincere Papist, and still be a sj)iritual child of God. If this proposition can be sustained, no argument can be drawn from her vicAvs of the covenant to invalidate the baptism of Rome ; if not, the decision of the Assembly is according to truth and righteousness. It is amusing to see the Reviewer, after having himself given so clear a statement of the issue in dispute, proceed- ing in the very next breath to discuss a different question, or, if it be the same, so disguised as to suggest a different one to the mind of the reader. There are evidently two general causes Avhicli may invalidate a profession of saving faith — ignorance and error. The grounds of suspicion in the one case are defective views of the economy of grace; in the other, those that are incompatible with its principles. In the one case, we apprehend that enough of truth is not received and understood to save the soul ; in the other, that wrong notions and contradictory opinions destroy its efficacy. In the one case, the resolution of our doubts de- pends upon the minimum of truth essential to salvation; in the other, upon the maximum of error inconsistent with it. The question then is, not, as the Reviewer intimates, whether Rome teaches truth enough to save the soul, but whether she teaches error enough to damn the soul. It is not a question of ignorance, but licresy; not whether her system fulls short of the Gospel standard by defect, but whether it is inconsistent with it by error ; not whether she fails to profess something that ought to be professed ' Princeton Ecview, July, 1845, p. 401. Vo... III. -22 338 THE VALIDITY OF THE BAPTISM in order to salvcation, but whether she professes something that cannot be professed in consistency with salvation. These questions are obviously distinct, and yet the Re- viewer has strangely blended and confounded them, con- fining his discussion to the first, and deducing his conclusion in reference to the second. His whole argument is a glaring instance of ignoratio elenchi. There are two forms of heresy incompatible with salva- tion. In the one, the foundation is directly denied, in the other, necessarily subverted ; in the one, the contradictory of the Gospel is openly professed, in the other, it is secretly insinuated ; the one destroys by the boldness of its attacks, the other by the subtlety of its frauds. The Socinians may be taken as examples of the one ; the Pelagians as illustra- tions of the other. This latter form of heresy is the more dangerous, because least suspected. It steals upon the soul in insidious disguises, recommends its errors by the truth it adopts, labels its poisons as healthful medicines, and admin- isters its deadly draughts under the promise of life. To this class of heresy it was contended in the Assembly that the doctrines of the Church of Rome must be referred. Whatsoever of the Gospel she retains is employed simply as a mask to introduce her errors without suspicion. She is a fatal graft upon the living stock of Christianity, and though the root be sound, yet she, as a branch, brings forth nothing but the fruit of death. Her creed contains some truth — this cannot be disputed ; it contains enormous error —this is equally unquestionable. The truth is not her creed, the error is not her creed, but the two combined; and to ascertain whether her creed is incompatible with salvation, we must take it as a whole, and compare the sys- tem which as a whole it presents with the essential prin- ciples of the Gospel. If it is inconsistent with them, or subversive of them, it cannot be regarded as a saving creed. The connection and dependence of the truth and error in a complicated system will determine the sense in which each is apprehended, and often give a result entirely different OF THE CHURCH OP HOME. 339 from tliat wliich would be reached by tlic isolated and sole contemplation of cither. It is possible to assent to proposi- tions which, in themselves considered, contain vital and saving truth, but yet, as modified by others, they may be far from having a salutary tendency. INIcn, for example, may profess to believe that Jesus Christ is the Saviour of the world. In making this profession they assent in loords to a fundamental doctrine of the Gospel; and yet they may so limit and restrain it by other propositions as to make Christ, after all, the tool of human merit, and grace the foundation of a claim of law. The formularies of Rome may contain all the important principles of Christianity which the Reviewer thinks he has found there, and yet, after all, they may be so modified by the introduction of different principles as to give a result utterly incompatible with the salvation of the soul. As she teaches them, and as she requires her children to believe them, they may be essentially another Gospel. It is not enough that she min- gles the elements of Christianity in her creed: she must mingle them with nothing that shall convert them into a savour of death unto death. The most discordant proper- ties, not unfrequeutly, are produced by different modes of combination when the same materials are employed. Sugar and alcohol contain the same chemical ingredients, but how different their qualities and effects ! And so the articles which make up the creed of a child of God may enter into the profession of a Papist, and yet the system embraced by the one be as widely different from the system of the other as alcohol from sugar. The question in dispute is, whether the Greed of Rome is a saving creed; and as neither her truth nor her errors, separately taken, constitute her creed, it is as incongruous to argue from either alone as to infer the nature of a compound from the properties of one of its ingredients. And yet this is the fallacy which the Re- viewer has perpetrated. He has seized upon the funda- mental doctrines of the Gospel, which he asserts that Rome holds, and because she holds these he infers that her cri'od 340 tup: validity of the baptism must be saving, without stopping to inquire whether they are not so linked and connected with fundamental errors, so checked, modified and limited, as to convey a meaning widely remote from the teachings of the Bible. It is nothing to the puqjose to say that the doctrines of the Trinity, inc-amation and atonement are saving dcxrtrines: no one denies it when they are scripturally understood and cordially emh)raced ; and if Rome believed nothing more or nothing inconsistent with orthodox conceptions of them, the dispute would be ended. But as these constitute only a fragment of her creed, it was incumbent upon Princeton to show that her additional articles were not incompatible with the saving application of these others. In most instances of the mixture of error with import- ant truth, they are brought simply in juxtaposition without any attempt to define the system which results from their combination. In such cases it is hard to determine the characrter of the whole, and to pronounce with confidence upon its saving or pernicious tendencies. Minds are so differently constituted that the form of words which shall be the means of conducting one to salvation shall prove fetal to another. The real creed, as it is impressed upon the heart, may be very different from that which the exami- nation of its elements might lead us beforehand to deter- mine. But in the case of Rome no such difficulty exists. She has stated her truths; she has announced her errors: she has gone farther and detailed the system of salvation which she deduces from the whole. Her Gospel is full and minute in the directions which it gives to the sinner who inquires, with the jailer, what he must do to be saved. If these directions are inconsistent with the instructions of the Apostles, if their obvious tendency is to subvert and set aside the way of salvation as revealed in the Scriptures, the dispute is ended. Rome repudiates the covenant of grace of which baptism is a seal, and consequently destroys the form of the Christian sacrament. Now the Reviewer has nowhere attempted to show that the creed of Rome, OF THE ClIl'UCll OF HOME. 341 Avliicli is the creed of Pius 1\".,' incliulinn- the ileerees of Trent (in conibrniity with wliieh it is expressly provided that all previous symbols must be interpreted) and the sub- sequent bulls of the A^'utiean, contains nothing incompatible with the cordial reception of the scriptural method of salva- tion. This, the real point in dispute, he has wisely left untouched, and has wasted all his strength upon another — that Rome })roclaims certain propositions from which, sep- arately taken, the essence of the Gospel may be drawn.' His second argument, founded on the concession that there are true believers in the Papacy, is not less fallacious than the first.^ It proceeds upon the assumption that they were made Christians by the creed they ostensibly profess in the sense which that Church teaches and requires her children to adopt; that is, it begs the very question in dis- pute. If these true believers reject, in their hearts, the complicated system of the Pope, and were instrumentally converted by a different Gospel from that of Trent, the truth of their piety is no proof that the Romish creed is saving. Now it is certainly possible to be in Rome and not to be of Rome — to be in nominal connection witli the Church without believing its creed; and that this is the precise condition of true believers in the Papacy is indi- ' Sec an able article on the creeil uf Konie, in I'apism in the Nineteenth Century, p. 214. 2 "If these prineiples are correct, we have only to apply tin in to tlie case in hand, and ask, Does the Church of Rome retain truth enonL;h to save the soul? We do not understand liow it is possible for any Christian man to answer this question in the negative. They retain the doctrine of Incarnation, which we know, from the infallible Word of God, is a life- giving doctrine. They retain the whole doctrine of the Trinity. Tiicy teach the doctrine of atonement, far more fully and accurately tli;m iinilti- tudes of professedly orthodox Protestants. They hold a much higher doc- trine as to the necessity of Divine influence than prevails among many whom wc recognize as Christians." — Princeton Review, Jidy, IS I"), [i. 4G.'3. 3 "It is further evident that the Church of Rome retains truth enough to save the soul, from the fact that true helievei's, who have no other means of instruction than those therein afforded, are to he founil in that conimuMion. Wherever the fruits of the Spirit are, there is the Spirit; and wlicrcvcr the Spirit is, there is still the Church."— Ibid., p. -K!"). 342 THE VALIDITY OF THE BAPTISM cated by the intense anxiety which, in proportion to their light, they generally feel to escape from her borders. But then they are converted "by no other means of instruction than those aiForded by Rome." The means she affords, and the use to which the Sjsirit of God may turn them, are quite distinct. That the Holy Ghost should bring light out of darkness and truth out of error is proof of His own power and grace, but none that darkness is light and error is truth. The godly in Babylon are saved by the mercy of our heavenly Father, in having their atten- tion diverted from her monstrous corruptions, and fixed upon those propositions which, scattered up and down in her formularies, may be made to suggest ideas not by any meaus contemplated in the real creed of the Church. It is the force of the truth that is ostensibly retained by Rome, applied by the Spirit in a sense which Rome expressly repudiates, which delivers these men from the po^^-er of Satan, and introduces them into the kingdom of God. They are saved in spite of her creed. But, says the Reviewer, these men evince the fruits of the Spirit, and " wherever the Spirit is, there is still the Church." I cheerfully concede that wherever a true church is, there is the Spirit, but I am not prepared to convert the proposition without a limitation. If the Spirit is only in the Church, how are men to be convei'ted from the world ? The Bible requires them to be believers before they can belong to the Church ; they cannot be believers without the Spirit; and according to Princeton they cannot have the Spirit, unless they are in the Church. So that those who are without are in a truly jiitiable dilemma. They cannot have the Spirit because they are not in the Church; they cannot belong to the Church because they liave not the S])irit. What, then, is to become of them? It is our unspeakable comfort that the Bible knows nothing of the Princeton doctrine ujion this point. The Holy Gliost is a Sovereign, working when, where and how He chooses. In the lowest depths of Paganism, in the dungeons of crime. OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 343 amid Hindoo temples and Indian pagodas, in the darkest chambers of imagery, as well as the congregation of Chris- tian people, He may be traced accomplishing the end of election, and preparing the vessels of mercy destined from eternity to glory. He works as well out of the Chnrch as in the Church. He knows no limits but His sovereignty, no rule but the counsel of His will. Wherever He is, there are life and grace, because there is union with the Son of God. There, too, is a membership in the invisible Church; but it is an act of the believer, subsequent to his conversion, and founded upon it, to seek a corresponding membership in that visible congregation to which the ordinances are given. True faith will engender the desire to be connected with the true Church, and hence converted Papists are, for the most part, eager to renounce the Mother of harlots, as those called from the world are anxious to renounce it. I have now examined the arguments by which the Re- viewer would prove that the Romish creed is not incon- sistent with a saving interest in Christ, and the reader, I trust, is prepared to render the verdict, They are found Avant- ing. For aught that appears, this creed may belong to that species of heresy which, without directly denying, subverts the foundation by subtlety and fraud. It may take away our Lord, not by gross and open violence, but by stratagem and craft ; it may, like Judas, betray the Son of Man with a kiss. This was the opinion of the General Assembly. It was on the ground of heresy, fatal, damnable heresy, that Rome was declared to be apostate and her ordinances pro- nounced to be invalid. It was indeed asserted, and asserted in full consistency with this explanation of the issue, that she does not retain truth enough to save the soul. The meaning was, that the system resulting from the combination of her trutlis and errors, the rea^ creed which i.s the prochirt of these jarring and discordant elements, as developed by herself in the accounts of the plan of salvation, leaves so little scope for the operation of any of the distinctive doctrines of the Gos- 344 THE VALIDITY OF THE BAPTISM pel, according to their native tendencies, that the impression made upon the heart is not that of the truth, ])ut of a lie. In the compound whole there is too little truth practically- efficacious, or capable of being practically efficacious, to resist the working of the deadly errors. The poison is too strong for the healthful medicine. The Romish creed is a mixture of incongruous materials. Among these materials some truth is found, but in the tendencies of the mixture the characteristics of the truth are so lost and blended that it fails to preserve its distinctive properties or to produce its distinctive effects. It was only in this aspect of the case that she was regarded as retaining too little truth to save the soul, and that in this sense the imjiutation is just I shall endeavour by God's grace to prove. The substance of the Gospel is compendiously embraced by John,^ under the threefold record of the Spirit, the AYater and the Blood ; in which phraseology of his Epistle there is obviously a reference to the circumstance he very par- ticularly mentions in the Gospel of the miraculous effusion from the Saviour's side when pierced by the spear of the soldier. The Water and the Blood I take to be emblem- atical expressions of the two great divisions of the work which the Redeemer came to accomplish. They define the nature and specify the elements of that salvation which He dispenses to His disciples. A change of state and a change of character, justification and sanctificatiou, both equally indispensable, are the immediate benefits of the covenant of grace. The change of state is fitly represented by the Blood, an emblem of that death which consummated obe- dience to a broken law, satisfied its awful curse, brought in an everlasting righteousness, and reconciled the pardon and acceptance of sinners with the justice of God. The change of character is with equal fitness represented by the Water, the scriptural symbol of purity and holiness, the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost. When, therefore, it is said that the Redeemer came by 1 1 John V. 8 ; compare Gospel, xix. 34. OF THE CirURCII OF KOME. 345 Water and by Blood, not by Water only, but by "Water and by Blood, the meaning is that He came to justify and sanctify; not simply to restore to men the lost image of God by the infusion of grace, but, as the foundation of every other blessing, to restore them to the lost favour of God by the merit of His death. The Apostle guards us against the defective view of His work which overlooks the Blood, which confounds jiardon and holiness, righteousness infused and righteousness imjiuted. As He came by both, the integ- rity of the Gospel requires both ; and as they flowed simul- taneously and in consequence of the same act from His side, so they are indissolubly joined together in the expe- rience of the faithful, and are imparted without confusion, and yet without division, to all who are called by God's grace. The Spirit, on the other hand, indicates the process by Avhich these benefits, the Water and the Blood, justifica- tion and sanctific De Justiiicat., Lib. ii., c. 2. OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 361 the passion of Christ. If He had not died, we should neither have been able to perform works of righteousness, nor would works of righteousness have saved us. It is in consequence of what He has done that our own doings are effectual. His merits are given in the same way that His wisdom is given — the one to make us meritorious, as the other removes our ignorance; and we can present them to the Father for our sins because, in consequence of them, remission may be expected according to the tenor of the new law under which they have placed us. Our prayers? penances, satisfactions and obedience could not purge our consciences from guilt unless the blood of the Redeemer had imparted this efficacy to them, as the sun could dispense no light without the sovereign appointment of God. Such I take to be the meaning of Bellarmine. Of what has been spoken upon the first point, the denial of the Blood, this then is the sum. It has been proved, in the first place, from the testimony of Paul, that no creed which teaches salvation by works can be a saving one ; in the second place, that the creed of Rome does teach it, be- cause she resolves our justifying righteousness into personal holiness, damns the doctrine of imputation, audaciously proclaims the figment of human merit, both of congruity and condignity, and makes Christ only the remote and ulti- mate cause of pardon and acceptance. These premises being established, the conclusion necessarily follows that the creed of Rome cannot be a saving one. It robs God of His glory and the Saviour of His honour; gives us ashes for bread, a scorpion for an egg, and death for life. (2.) Rome corrupts the Water. To make acceptance with God dependent upon personal holiness is to repudiate the distinction between depravity and guilt, and to endorse the detestable doctrine of the Socinians, that repentance is an adequate ground of pardon, since it effaces those moral qualities the possession of which is what renders men liable to punishment. Rome and the Fratres Poloni differ, not in the principle on which justification immediately proceeds 362 THE VALIDITY OF THE BAPTISM — both ascribe it to inherent rigliteousness — but in the source ■\vlience the principle in reference to the fallen derives its efficacy. The change of character which is sujjposed to be inseparably connected with the favour of God and a title to happiness is, according to the Socinian hypothesis, attain- able by the strength of nature without the assistance of grace. Rome, on the other hand, contends that, although free-will has not been extinguished in men by the Fall, they have become so completely the slaves of sin and the subjects of the Devil that neither Jews nor Gentiles, inde- pendently of the passion of Christ and the aid of the Spirit, could be restored to liberty and peace. The inherent righteousness by which we are justified is, in the theology of Rome, the infusion of grace; in the theology of Socinus and his followers it is the product and offspring of nature. When the question is asked how we obtain it, these doctors differ ; but when it is inquired what it accomplishes or ichat is its office, Herod and Pontius Pilate are agreed; the Papist and Socinian strike hands in harmonious accord, impelled by equal fury against the most glorious truth of the glorious Gospel of the blessed God — justification by grace. That Avhicli, according to both, effaces guilt and exempts from punishment is the possession of personal righteousness. The inward purity which expunges the stain obliterates the crime. Men cease to be punishable as soon as they cease to be wicked. Though their personal identity re- mains unchanged, yet, as guilt attaches only to character, it must be expunged as soon as the character undergoes a change. God deals with n:\en according to the present con- dition of their moral qualities, and he, consequently, Avho would escape from punishment, must escape from that moral pollution which the law condemns, and acquire those traits which the hiM" ap})roves. INIen can cease to be guilty only by becoming just; their righteousness covers their iniquities — their purity cancels their guilt. Abandoning the grounds of displeasure against them, they procure the favour of God. OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 363 Whatever objections to this reasoning may be drawn from the ordinary conduct of Providence, and however fallacious it may be in itself, yet the conclusion at which it aims must be confessed to be plausible — it falls in with our instinctive conviction of propriety; and as the government of God is moral, dispensing rewards and punishments according to the principles of distributive justice, there is felt to be a manifest incongruity in treating the righteous, no matter how or when they become so, as if they were wicked. The fact of being righteous would seem to be sufficient to exempt from j)unishment, though it might entitle to no positive rewards. Accustomed to regard purity as the parent of hap- piness, and misery as the offspring of vice, we spontaneously pronounce it to be absurd, no less than a contradiction in terms, to suppose that the holy can ultimately perish or the good be abandoned of God. Still, the claims of violated law are sacred and immutable. God has inseparably linked together punishment and crime, and it is the dictate alike of reason and revelation — the soul that sinneth it shall die. Whatever changes may have been experienced in the moral qualities of the agent, his personal identity is untouched — he is the man who sinned; and as the wrath of God is re- vealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteous- ness of men, and as the sin cannot be visited except in the person of the transgressor himself, he is the man that must suffer. It would appear, then, that if a sinner could repent of his iniquities, and undergo a complete and thorough transformation in his moral nature, so as to be possessed of all the qualities which God requires, the change in his cha- racter would create an emergency in the Divine administra- tion, the issue of which it would be impossible for us, upon any principles of natural religion, to predict with certainty. Penal justice, constituting an indispensable ingredient of the holiness of God, would be evidently forfeited if the past offences of the guilty were permitted to escape M^ith impunity; and yet the idea that hell should be peopled with the righteous — wuth those who bear the image of their 364 THE VALIDITY OF THE BAPTISM Maker, and are intent, even amid their agonies, upon the glory of His name — cannot for a moment be endured. How, then, shall this problem be resolved? ]\Iost evi- dently by denying the possibility of the case. Piety in- stinctively suggests what reason and Scripture concur to authenticate — that the government of God is too wisely ordered in all its arrangements to permit emergencies to arise, as they often occur in human administrations, which cannot be adjusted without inconsistency, compromise or concession. It can never consequently happen, in the course of the Divine economy, that moral fitness sliall be violated by dooming the upright to punishment ; neither can penal justice be foregone by allowing the guilty to escape. These two principles, equally sacred and immu- table, must be preserved in inviolable harmony — their demands can never be permitted to clash. Hence, the guilty must necessarily be incapable of rectitude. They can never acquire the character which moral fitness shall approve while they continue in the state which penal jus- tice must condemn. Pardon is accordingly indispensable to repentance; the liability to punishment, or what Prot- estants denominate guilt, must be cancelled, before refor- mation is possible or holiness attainable. Sanctificatiou, independently of a previous justification — previous in the order of nature, though not necessarily in the order of time — involves a gross contradiction in terms. Personal holi- ness, according to the uniform teachings of the Scriptures, results from union with God ; and union with God neces- sarily implies the possession of His favour. Good works, proceeding as they do from the love of God as their source, governed by His law as their rule, and directed to His glory as their end, cannot be conceived to exist among out- casts and aliens. Men without God are' without hope in the world. As the light of the sun is the prolific parent of life, beauty, vegetation and growth to the earth, so the light of the Divine countenance diffuses health, cheerfulness and vigour in the hearts of the children of men. His OF THE CIIUECH OF ROME, 365 favour is to the moral what the sun is to the material world, and the soul that is darkened by His frown can no more " move in charity and turn upon the poles of truth " than a soil covered with perpetual night can be enriched with verdure or adorned with animals and plants. In the beau- tiful language of the Psalmist, His favour is life, and His loving-kindness is better than life. Union with Him is the only source of strength, purity and peace. This is what the Scripture denominates life. Now, what is the condition of an unpardoned sinner? His first transgression, upon the necessary principles of retributive justice, has doomed him to the curse. But to be under the curse, and at the same time enjoy the favour of God, are contradictory states. The curse implies some- thing inconceivably stronger than a bare negation of favour — it fixes an illimitable chasm between the sinner and his Judge. It effects that awful separation from God, that banishment from His presence, that aggregate of all that is terrible, which the Bible compendiously expresses by death : in this condition of wretchedness and of exile the dominion of sin must be unbroken and complete. Corrup- tion riots on its victim. The curse which banishes from God banishes from holiness. The unpardoned sinner, con- sequently, from the very nature of his state, is as incapable of aspiring to holiness as a corpse is incapable of the func- tions of life. It is his doom, like the serpent, to crawl upon his belly and to lick the dust. The condemnation which sends him out, like Cain, from the presence of the Almighty for ever precludes the possibility of repentance, places him beyond the pale of communion with his Maker, beyond the reach of spiritual impulses, and leaves him to wither in the atmosphere of death. Such is the strength of the law to crush the victims of its penalty. All that are under the curse are dead — cut off from the fountain of life ; the only works they are competent to perform are dead works. The effect of a single sin upon the relations of a creature to God is by most men inadequately apprehended, in con- 366 THE VALIDITY OF THE BAPTISM sequence of confounding spiritual death with the extinction of the moral nature. As long as habits of incurable wicked- ness are not formed, while conscience in any measure con- tinues to discharge its office, and the understanding re- cognizes the distinctions of right and Avrong, there is snp- posed to be a form of spiritual life, which, by vigilance and culture, may be restored to strength and nurtured to maturity. Death in trespasses and sins is represented as the result of a course of transgression, a permanent condi- tion of depravity produced by the natural operation of habit. This is to confound the cause with its effects, the tree with its fruits — death as a state with its ultimate and complete exhibitions. According to the Scriptures, the slightest sin, like a puncture of the heart, is instantly at- tended with this awful catastrophe. It dissolves the union betwixt the sinner and God ; it superinduces the condem- nation of the law, and whatever operations the moral nature may subsequently perform are destitute of the only principle which can render them acceptable. As natural death con- sists in the separation of the body and soul, so spiritual death consists in the separation of the soul and God. As the body, though destitute of life, may long resist the pro- cess of putrefaction, preserving the integrity of its members and all the features and lineaments of the man ; so the soul, though banished from God, may long resist what may not unaptly be styled the process of mom! putrefaction, contin- uing to possess sensibility of conscience, delicacy of per- ception, and revolting at the thoughts of abandoned wicked- ness. As the body may be beautiful in death, so the soul, deserted of God and bereft of the light of holiness, may yet retain something of original brightness in its form, and reveal in the grandeur of its ruins the glory of the state from which it fell. It is a great mistake to suppose that spiritual death is the destruction of all moral susceptibilities and impressions. There may be total depravity without desperate atrocity, a complete alienation from God without degradation to the fiendishness of devils, an utter destitu- OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 367 tlon of holiness without the possession of all conceivable wickedness. The condition which the moralist and Phar- isee might acknowledge to be death is that to which spiritual death necessarily tends. As soon as the soul is cut loose from God it begins a career which, sooner or later, eifects the prostration of the whole moral nature. It is in a state to form the habits which bind it in fetters of massive deprav- ity, as the body ultimately moulders in decay from which the soul has taken its flight. Spiritual death, consisting, as we have seen, in the separa- tion of the soul from God, must continue to reign until a reunion shall have been effected. There can be no holiness until the sinner has been restored to the favour of his Maker, and he cannot be restored to this state until the curse of the law has been removed. He must therefore continue to be incapable of holiness as long as the law con- tinues to condemn. Its penalty is an awful barrier betwixt his soul and life, and until that barrier is in some way or other destroyed he must remain the victim of everlasting death. Hence, the removal of the curse is the first step in his progress to holiness; the removal of the curse implies pardon ; so that he must be pardoned before he can repent, he must cease to be condemned before he can breathe the atmosphere of life. Repentance and reformation, proceed- ing from communications of Divine love, involve the pos- session of Divine favour, and can never consequently obtain among those whom God pronounces to be vessels of His wrath. To suppose that a sinner can be sanctified is to suppose that he can enjoy fellowship with God, and perform those works which flow from the participations of Divine love. To suppose that he can be sanctified without being justified is to suppose that he can be in a condition in which God denounces him as the object of vengeance, and at the same time in a state of reconciliation and favour — • that he can be and not be at one and the same moment under the curse. Repentance, therefore, implying resto- ration to favour and communion with God, is incompatible 368 THE VALIDITY OF THE BAPTISM with a state of condemnation which debars from both ; and consequently an unpardoned sinner cannot repent. If, now, pardon is essential to repentance, acceptance in- dispensable to holiness, it necessarily follows from the hypo- thesis of Rome, which confounds the Water and the Blood, that repentance and holiness are hopelessly impossible. The design of justification is to put the sinner in a state in which the light of the Divine countenance can be lifted up upon him, in which he can receive communications of grace and enjoy communion with God. If these manifestations of favour are indispensable to holiness, and can only be im- parted when the sinner is justified, justification must be the only basis on which righteousness of life can be reared. Rome, however, has reversed this order, and made holiness essential to acceptance; the necessary consequence is, that justification is denied to be of grace, and sanctification is impossible. With all her pretended zeal for the interests of righteousness, her extravagant adulation of works, and her presumptuous confidence in merit, she has proclaimed a creed which whoever cordially embraces and consistently endeavours to embody in his life must everlastingly remain an alien from* God, under sentence of condemnation, in bondage to spiritual death. Philosophy and Scripture con- cur in declaring that whoever would be holy must be in union with his Maker, that union with God is inseparably connected with the possession of His favour, and the posses- sion of His favour a fruit of justification; so that M'hoever Avould be holy must necessarily be justified. Rome, on the other hand, proclaims in foolish confidence of boasting, that the sinner must begin in holiness and end in the favour of his Judge, begin at the point which he can never reach, and of course end precisely where he was — under the wrath and curse of the Almighty. Here, then, is the insuperable dif- ficulty of Rome — she denies the Blood, and, in denying the blood, inevitably corrupts the Water; she takes away the cause, and of course must renounce the effect. Upon her OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 369 hypothesis sanctification is subverted. How, then, can hers be a saving creed? The impossibility of constructing a system of sanctifica- tion independently of a gracious justification does not strike men at once, because they are apt to confound two widely different conditions, those of a fallen and an unfallen creature. In an unfallen state, justification is possible by the deeds of the law, because personal obedience is within the power of the agent. Created in the image of God, pos- sessed of a holy nature and governed by holy impulses, they present no obstructions in their persons and character to the free communications of Divine favour. They are united with God, and are, consequently, able to do all that His law demands. But so long as they are not justified this union is precarious; they may fall from their integrity and lose their rectitude of nature. Justification confirms this union, and renders their apostasy for ever impossible, giving them at the same time a right to whatever rewards had been promised to obedience, so that perpetual secur- ity is one of its leading and characteristic benefits. But the justification of a sinner, of a fallen being, though essen- tially the same, yet, in consequence of the different condition of the subject, includes the imparting of an element which in the other case was previously possessed. As an unfallen creature already enjoys the favour of God, he is simply con- firmed in its possession, while a fallen creature, who, from the nature of the case, is alienated from his Maker, must first acquire this privilege before he can be confirmed in it ; his union with God must be instituted as well as established. As, then, in the justification of a sinner, communion with God is to be procured as well as confirmed, he cannot be justified by deeds of law, which presuppose its existence. His acceptance must be of grace, or it cannot be effected at all. It must precede personal obedience, or personal obe- dience can never take place. It is vain to allege, in extenuation of the beggarly the- ology of Rome, that, in consequence of the work of the Re- VoL. III.— 24 370 THE VALIDITY OF THE BAPTISM deemcr, communications of grace may be imparted to the guilty which enable them to repent, to bring forth the fruits of righteousness, and so to be justified by works. These communications either imply the possession of the Divine favour and deliverance from the condemnation of the law, or they do not. If they do, the sinner is already justified M'ithout works, and pardoned independently of repentance, which is contrary to the hypothesis. If they do not, then they leave him under the curse, in the power of spiritual death, and of course do not impart spiritual life; so that the W'Orks which they enable him to perform are only dead works. The conclusion is therefore unaifected, that without a gracious justification no sinner can be sanctified. Pardon and acceptance must precede repentance and holiness. The practiced effects of the Eoraish system are so modified by the temper and constitution of those by whom it is re- ceived as to present no uniform appearance. In some it produces an awful bondage. Anxiously solicitous about the salvation of their souls, and taught to seek for the Divine favour in works of righteousness wdiich their hands have wrought, they exhaust the resources of their nature in vain and servile efforts to compass obedience to the law. Tor- tured by conscience, w^hich always in the guilty foreeasteth grievous things, groaning in spirit under the intolerable burden of aggravated guilt, they multiply devices of super- stition and will-worship, in the delusive hope of bringing peace to their troubled and agitated breasts. They know nothing of the liberty of the sons of God. Strangers to that glorious spirit of adoption which the sense of accept- ance generates, they feel existence to be a curse, and dread the presence of God as a terrible calamity. Their obe- dience is the effort of a slave to propitiate a tyrant, and after a life dragged out in galling servitude, death comes to them clothed with tenfold terror. Eternity is shrouded in insupportable gloom, and the dismal tragedy of life closes with an awful catastrophe. To such sensitive and con- scientious minds Rome presents her system in the aspect of OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 371 unbending severity. She imposes penances and privations, pilgrimages and fasts, vows of poverty and self-denial, haircloth and rags, the torment of the body for the good of the soul. Eternity alone can disclose the groans,' the sufferings, the agony which the cells of her monks and the chambers of her nuns have witnessed among those who are anxiously inquiring wherewith they should appear before the Lord and bow themselves before the Most High God. And all this anguish has been occasioned by her devilish cruelty in suppressing the grace of God. She has refused to point the wounded spirit to the Fountain opened in the house of David for sin and for uncleanness ; she has refused to proclaim a free and glorious justification through the obedience unto death of the Son of God, to open the doors of the captive and strike the fetters from the hands of the prisoner. Instead of acting as the herald of mercy, she has betrayed the cruelty of a tyrant brooding in vindictive malice over the woes and anguish which, with the scorpion whip of the law, she has wrung from hearts to which the oil of grace should have been imparted, and has rejoiced in thickening the horrors of superstition where she was bound to diffuse the light of the Gospel. Like the ancient Pharisees, she binds heavy burdens upon men and grievous to be borne, and lays them on their shoulders, and will not move them with one of her fingers. She shuts the king- dom of heaven against them, neither entering herself nor permitting others to do so. Like ancient Egypt to the He- brews, she is literally the house of bondage. Some, like Luther, have escaped from her cruelty. The key which opened their prison doors and enabled the soul to laugh at her terrors was justification by grace. This precious truth, for which their hearts had panted in Babylon, was the talis- man of joy, of peace, of holiness. Delivered from the curse of the law, the dominion of the Devil and the horrors of con- science, they could serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear, in holiness and righteousness before Him, all the days of their lives. There are others whose apprehensions 372 THE VALIDITY OF THE BAPTISM of sin are less feeble and impressive. Disposed to make a mock of its consequences, they indulge in presumptuous hopes, and treat the salvation of the soul as an easy and comparatively light matter. These Rome flatters Avith the deceits of a frivolous and deadly casuistry. Corrupting the first principles of morals, she makes sin to be no more sin, law to be no more law ; Avith elaborate ingenuity she has undertaken to solve the problem, what is the minimum of decency and the maximum of sin with which men can enter into heaven ; she has confounded the distinctions of truth and falsehood, of right and wrong, and left nothing certain but her own pretended authority ; and all to accom- modate easy consciences, to reconcile hopes of heaven with a careless and wicked life. Such is the working of the system. Theoretically, it makes sanctification impossible; practically, it verifies the truth of the theory. Extremes meet. An old writer has pithily observed that the least touch of a pencil will translate a laughing into a crying face. In illustration of the j)roverb, it would not be difficult to prove that the vaunting legalism of Rome really terminates in a filthy and disgusting antinoraianism. She degrades the majesty of the Divine law, substitutes for it a fictitious standard of excellence, and represses those emotions which niust characterize the heart of every true penitent. Her doctrine of venial sins, which are confessed to be transgressions of the Divine commandments, is utterly incompatible with those awful impressions of the malignity of the least departure from rectitude which the holiness of God and the atonement of the Redeemer alike impart. She teaches that men may disregard the authority of their Maker and yet not be deserving of death — that there are some precepts so insignificant, and some offences so trivial and harmless, that a few signs of the cross and muttered incantations, a little holy water, an Ave Maria or a Pater Noster, are abundantly sufficient to expiate them. Is not blasphemy written on the portals of a church which can OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 373 preach such a doctrine as this? Does she not make the commandments of God of none effect by her traditions ? But the odious tendencies of her doctrine are not only manifested in her slight estimate of some of the command- ments— one she has absolutely expunged. The pure and sublime idea which the Scriptures inculcate of a spiritual God, neither possessed of a corporeal figure nor capable of being represented by visible symbols, is as much a stranger to the theology of Rome as to the " elegant mythology of Greece." Hence, we are told that " to represent the persons of the Holy Trinity by certain forms under which, as we read in the Old and the New Testaments, they deigned to appear, is not to be deemed contrary to religion or the law of God." Accordingly, the second commandment is annulled by the hierarchy (in books of popidar devotion it is wholly suppressed), the windows of Papal churches are frequently adorned with images of the Trinity, the breviaries and mass- books are embellished with engravings which represent God the Father as a venerable old man, the Eternal Son in human form, and the blessed Spirit in the shape of a dove. Sometimes grotesque images, hardly surpassed in the fabu- lous creations of heathen poets, where centaurs, gorgons, mermaids, with all manner of impossible things, hold un- disputed sway, are employed to give an adequate impression of Him who dwells in majesty unapproachable, whom no man hath seen or can see. To picture the Holy Trinity with three noses and four eyes and three faces — and in this form these Divine persons are sometimes submitted to the devout contemplation of Papal idolaters — is to give an idea of God from which an ancient Roman or a modern Hindoo might turn away in disgust. Such gross and extravagant symbols, however carefully explained or allegorically interpreted, involve a degradation of the Supreme Being which it is im- possible to reconcile with the sublime announcement of our Saviour that God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth. The adoration which is paid to the Deity under any corporeal figure or 374 THE VALIDITY OF THE BAPTISM visible representation cannot be vindicated from the charge of idolatry upon any principles which do not exempt from the same imputation every form, whether ancient or modern, of Pagan superstition. It is quite certain, from the accounts of heathen philosophers and poets, that the images of their gods Avere regarded simply as visible memorials of invisible deities, as signs by which their affections were excited and through which their worship was directed. The veneration with which they were treated was purely of that relative kind which the Romish doctors impute to the devotees of their own communion.^ Pagan statues and Romish pictures ^ " Nor is it of any importance whether they worship simply tlie idol or God in the idol ; it is always idolatry when Divine honours are paid to an idol under any pretence whatsoever. And as God will not be wor- shipped in a superstitious or idolatrous manner, whatever is conferred on idols is taken from Him. Let this be considered by tliose who seek such miserable pretexts for the defence of that execrable idolatry with which for many ages true religion has been overwhelmed and subverted. The images, they say, are not considered as gods. Neither were the Jews so thoughtless as not to remember that it was God by whose hand they had been conducted out of Egypt before they made the calf. But when Aaron said that those were the gods by whom they had been liberated from Egypt, they boldly assented : signifying, doubtless, that they would keep in remembrance that God Himself was their Deliverer, while they could see Him going before them in the calf. Nor can we believe the heathen to have been so stupid as to conceive that God was no other than wood and stone. For they changed the images at pleasure, but always retained in their minds the same gods, and there were many images for one god; nor did they imagine to themselves gods in proijortion to the multitude of images ; besides, they daily consecrated new images, but without supposing that they made new gods. Eead the excuses which Augustine (in Psalm cxiii.) says were alleged by the idolaters of the age in which he lived. When they were charged with idolatry, the vulgar replied that they wor- shipped not the visible figure, but the Divinity that invisibly dwelt in it. But they whose religion was, as he expresses himself, more refined, said that they worshipped neither the image nor the Spirit represented by it, but that in the corporeal figure they beheld a sign of that which they ought to worship." Calvin's Inst., Lib. i., cap. xi., | 10. Upon this whole subject of the idolatry of tlie Church of Eome tlie reader is referred to Archbishop Tenison's Discourse of Idolatry, particularly to chapters x., xi., xii. That the heathens did not regard their images as gods, and that they worshipped them on the same principle vindicated by the Papists, mav l)e seen from Arnobius, Lactantiiis, Austin and divers of the Fathers. OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 375 are due to the operation of the same principle — an attempt to accommodate the receding majesty of a s^jiritnal being to human sympathies, and to divest the adoration of an infinite object of some of its awful and mysterious veneration by reducing its grandeur to the feeble apprehension of human capacities. Fallen humanity, having originally apostatized from God, and lost the right as well as the power of intimate communion with the Father of spirits, seeks to gratify its religious aspirations by tangible objects around which its sympathies can readily cling. Unable to soar to the unap- proachable light in which Deity dwells in mysterious sanc- tity, it spends its devotion upon humbler things, to which it imparts such Divine associations as may seem at least to reconcile the worship with the acknowledged supremacy of God. When we cannot rise to God, the religious necessities of our nature will drag Him down to us. In the Papal community the degradation of the Supreme Being seems to have reached its lowest point of disgusting fetichism in the adoration of the bread and wine of the sacramental feast. I know of nothing in the annals of heathenism that can justly be compared with this stupendous climax of absurdity, im- piety, blasphemy and idolatry. The work of the cook and the product of the vintage, bread and wine, the materials of food which pass through the stages of digestion and decay, are placed before us, after having been submitted to the magical process of sacerdotal enchantment, as the eternal God in the person of the incarnate Redeemer.^ The eucha- A very interesting discussion of the nature and unlawfulness of image- worship may be found in Taylor's Ductor Dubitantium, book ii., chap, ii., rule 6, ? 21, ad fin. ; Works, vol. xii., p. 382, seq. The vain pretexts of the Papists are there so ably discussed that the reader is earnestly requested to peruse it. ^ We submit to the reader the following description of the scene when the bread and wine are about to be destroyed and the person of the Saviour produced. It is taken from Bishop England's preface to his translation of the Roman missal, p. 78 : "We are now arrived at that part which is the most solemn, important and interesting of the entire; everything hitherto had reference remotely or proximately to the awful moment which approaches. For now the 376 THE VALIDITY OF THE BAPTISM rlstic elements are not memorials of Christ nor visible sym- bols of his love : they are, after the pretended consecration of the priest, the Son of God himself. They are Avorshipped and adored, eaten and drunk, received into the stomach and jDassed into the bowels, as the Creator, Preserver and Saviour of mankind ! The ancient Egyptians, in paying religious veneration to inferior animals and to a certain class of vegetables, regarded them as sacred, as we learn from Herodotus and Cicero, on account of their subservience to purposes of utility. They Avere considered not as gods themselves, but as instruments of Divine Providence by which the interests of husbandry were promoted and noxious vermin were destroyed. But where in the whole history of mankind, among the darkest tribes of Africa or the benighted inhabitants of the isles of the sea, is another instance to be found of a superstition so degraded or a form of idolatry so horribly revoltmg as that which is presented in the doctrine of the INIass ? The in- fernal incantation of the witches in INIacbeth, chanting their awful dirges over the boiling caldron in which are mingled the elements of death, are to my mind less insupportably disgusting, less terrifically wicked, than those of the priests of Rome pretending to subject the Saviour of the world, true victim is about to be produced. In a well-regulated cathedral this indeed is a moment of splendid, improving and edifying exhibition to the well-instructed Christian. The joyful hosannas of the organ have died away in deep and solemn notes which seem to be gradually lost as they ascend to the throne of God, and solemn silence pervades the church ; the celebrant stands bareheaded, about to perform the most awful duty in which a man could possibly be engaged. His assistants in profound expectation await the performance of that duty ; taper-bearers line the sides of the sanctuary, and with their lighted lamps await the arrival of their Lord ; incense-bearers kneel, ready to envelope the altar in a cloud of perfumes which represents the prayers of the Saints, and at the moment of the con- secration, when the celebrant elevates the host and the tinkling of a small bell gives notice of the arrival of the Lamb, every knee is bent, every head is bowed, gratulating music bursts upon the ear, and the lights wliich surround the throne of Him who conies to save a world are seen dimly blazing through the clouds of perfumed smoke which envelope this mystic place." OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 377 in cold-blood cruelty and for purposes of hire, and that in increasing millions of instances, to the unutterable agonies of Gethsemane and Calvary. While she thus depresses the Divine standard of holiness, mutilates the first table of the law, and makes idolatry a part of devotion, she fabricates a standard of her own. She assumes to be a lawgiver, and proclaims her impious pre- cepts upon the pains of the second death. Men may violate the law of God with impunity, but the authority of Rome must be guarded with the awful sanctions of eternity. She has instituted days, and months, and years ; she has ap- pointed confessions, penances and ceremonies ; she has con- structed a vast system of will-worship, and has conceded the palm of distinguished holiness to the sanctimonious h}^30crites who most scrupulously comply with her minute and painful observances, although they may be living in flagrant contempt of some of the most palpable injunctions of God. And what shall be said of the fiction of supererogatory merits, of the competency of one man to satisfy for the sins of another, and of the power of the Church to disj)ense indulgences for gold ? What shall be said of purgatory, private masses, auricular confession and priestly absolution ? What are all these but so many proofs of the desperate blindness of Rome in regard to the nature of holiness, the beauty and simplicity of spiritual truth, and the compass, purity and extent of the Divine law — so many monuments of presumptuous confidence in the resources and ability of man, and contempt for the provisions and efficacy of God's grace ? Her whole system in regard to the Water is fundamentally corrupt. She renders the sanctification of the Gospel hope- lessly impossible, substituting for a spiritual devotion the grievous bondage of superstition, and for holiness of life the sanctimonious hypocrisy of will-worship. (3.) Having shown that Rome is essentially unsound in regard to the Water and the Blood, I proceed to consider her 378 THE VALIDITY OF THE BAPTISM doctrine of the Spirit, or the account which she gives of the application of redemption to the hearts and consciences of men. Upon this j^oint, aUhough the Reviewer has asserted that she holds " a much higher doctrine as to the necessity of Divine influence than prevails among many whom we recognize as Christians/' yet, according to the standard of the lleformation, the theology of the Vatican is in fatal and fundamental error. If we take the creed of Rome, not from the speculations of private doctors nor the peculiar opinions of chosen schools — Dominicans, Thomists and Jansenists — but from the public and authorized symbols of the Church, it seems to me impossible to deny that her theory of grace is exactly in accordance with the conditions of a legal system, and presents as wide a departure from the simplicity of the Gospel in regard to the operations of the Spirit as her views of justification in regard to the righteous- ness of Christ. Representing the economy of salvation as a new dispensation of law, she makes its blessings con- tingent and precarious, dependent upon the decision of its subjects and not upon the agency of God. As freedom and mutability of will are evidently essential to a state of proper probation — freedom, as implying the power to fulfil whatever conditions are exacted; mutability, as denoting that the power may be abused and the required obedience withheld — Rome can consistently admit no other operations of the Spirit than those which shall impart ability to stand without affecting the liability to fall. Able to stand and liable to fall, — this is a compendious description of man in his condition of innocence, and must appertain to him under every economy which suspends acceptance upon personal performances. Hence, Rome places the destiny of the sinner in his own hands. Suce quisque fortunce faber est. Whatever may be her pretensions on the subject — and they are vain enough — the supernatural gifts which she attributes to the Spirit, since they are in- tended to qualify men for a legal dispensation, are no more entitled to be denominated grace than the natural endowments OF THE CHURCH OF EOME. 379 of the Pelagian. They stand in the same relation to salva- tion, spring from the same source and are dispensed for the same end. If, as Rome contends, we are the subjects of an original probation, whatever is necessary to fit us for the trial must be imparted on principles of justice ; and it is a mere question of priority of time whether the necessary qualifications which must be possessed shall be traced to creation or to some act subsequent to birth : it is equally a question of words and names whether they shall be called nature or grace. To be born with them is as truly to receive them fi'om God as to acquire them by an extraordinary com- munication ; and in either case they are intended to adapt us to the exigencies of a legal condition. Gifts springing from the same source, directed to the same end, accomplishing the same results, are unquestionably of the same nature, whatever may be the order of time in which they are bestowed. The only point in which the hypothesis of Rome has the advan- tage of the most unblushing Pelagianism is in relation, not to the doctrine of grace, but to the natural condition of man. In the Papal creed, the Fall, as a federal transgression, is admitted, and guilt and depravity confessed to be the in- heritance of Adam's descendants. In the Pelagian creed, it is denied to be any thing more than a private sin, and its penal consequences are accordingly restricted to the author of the act. But both parties represent the present as a legal state — the Pelagian, as a continuance of our first trial, and, therefore, he supposes that we are born with all that is requisite to meet it ; the Papist, as a new trial superinduced upon the ruins of the first, and therefore, as he must admit that we first reap the consequences of the original failure, he confesses that we are horn in sin, yet because of the new dispensation he makes provisions to fit us for the race which is now set before us. The creed of one has more truth, but not more grace, than the other, for both are equally a cove- nant of works, and equally destructive of the principles of the Gospel. In conformity with this reasoning, no operations of the 380 THE VALIDITY OF THE BAPTISM Spirit can be justly denominated grace which leave the decision of his destiny in the hands of the sinner. The agency of God may be carried so far as to make men able to stand, yet, if it depends upon themselves to stand or fall, to use or reject the assistance Avhich is given, there is noth- ing in such a state to distinguish it from the grossest legal- ism. The Spirit is evidently the servant not the master of the man ; grace obeys but (Joes not reign. All such schemes, -whatever honour they may pretend to ascribe to the Holy Ghost, are insulting to God, since they lay a foundation for boasting in the creature. That alone is grace, in the strict and proper application of the term, which, independently of works on our part, determines the will, and not only makes it able to stand, but guards it against the possibility of failure. As in justification it is the righteousness of God that reigns to the exclusion of human obedience, so in regeneration it is the will of God that reigns to the exclu- sion of that of man. This is the doctrine of the Scrip- tures. " Of His own will begat He us ;" " it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy." This is the only view of the sub- ject which is consistent with the doctrine of gratuitous justification, and hence those who have attributed a sove- reignty to the human will which God cannot control Avith- out destroying its nature have invariably denied the impu- tation of the Saviour's righteousness. From the very necessity of the case they must be legalists ; the reason why one is justified and another not, they must seek in the sinner himself, and, hence, justification cannot be wholly irrespective of works. What is commonly called free-will is as directly contradictory to the grace of the Spirit in effectual calling as works of righteousness to the grace of the Redeemer in justification. Grace must reign, or it ceases to be grace, and the office of the human will is not so much to concur with it as to obey it ; its efficacy consists in removing the spirit of resistance and implanthig the spirit of obedience. " The grace of God," says Quesnel, in OF THE CHURCH OF EOME. 381 his Moral Eeflections on the New Testament, " is nothing else but His omnijjotent will." " God/' says a higher authority, "worketh in us both to will and to do of His good pleasure." All the analogies by which it is illus- trated in Scripture show that in regeneration man is the subject of an almighty operation, extending to all the facul- ties of the soul, the will itself included. It is not a change in man — it is a change of man. In his natural condition he is as completely nothing in regard to the proper ends of his existence as if he possessed no being at all, and the power which recalls him from this state is as independent of his concurrence as that which originally created him from nothing. The human will, therefore, must be excluded from any participation in the work of regeneration, or grace ceases to be grace, man reigns, , God is dethroned, and a legal system is established. Grace is the antithesis of the sovereignty of man. Hence, the Reformers, who reviewed the doctrines of grace, were deeply imj^ressed with the indis- pensable necessity of laying deeply the foundation of the Spirit's work in the bondage of the human will. They perceived at a glance that gratuitous justification could not be maintained a moment if it depended upon man himself whether he should be justified or not. Luther, accordingly, while he denominated justification by grace the "a7-ticulus stantis aid cadentis ecdesice," attached no less importance to the resistless power of the Spirit in the new birth as that by which alone the grace of the former could be preserved. What appeared to his age his most extravagant paradoxes were put forth on the natural impotence of man. His sense of the necessity of maintaining the servitude of the will as the only adequate foundation of grace may be judged from the fact that he paid to Erasmus, who had written an elaborate defence of its freedom, the distinguished compli- ment of being the only champion of the Papacy who under- stood the controversy betwixt the Reformers and Rome. "I must acknowledge," says Luther, "that in this great controversy you alone have taken the bull by the horns." 382 THE VALIDITY OF THE BAPTISM It is evident that if the doctrine of justification were the hinge upon which the Reformation turned, the servitude of the will was the hinge upon which the controversy about justification turned. The supremacy of the Divine will and of Christ's righteousness stand or fall together. Effect- ual grace and free justification are inseparable elements of the same system. These precious truths carry in their bosom the kindred doctrines of personal election, final per- severance and particular redemption, which are so indisso- lubly united together that to deny one is logically, though not always in fact, to deny them all, and to admit one is logically, though not always in fact, to admit them all. These are the truths which combined into a system con- stitute pre-eminently the doctrines of grace, Avliich, after having been buried and obscured for ages, w'ith the excep- tion of a cloister here and there, or a few hearts doomed to solitude and suffering, in which their light still dimly burned, burst upon the world in their original lustre at the time of the Reformation. These are the truths which bring glory to God in the highest, and distribute peace among men. They are the hope of our race, the stars which adorn the firmament of revelation. In their light we behold the sovereignty of God and the nothingness of man ; here the Creator is supreme, while the creature is prostrate in the dust. They force from us the doxology of earth, "Not unto us, not unto us," and the pealing anthem of heaven, " The Lord God Omnipotent reigncth." That Rome denies tlie efficacy of grace, which is equiva- lent to denying its reality, as contradistinguished from the qualification of a legal state, may be inferred not only from the logical necessity of her system, but from the canons of Trent and the subsequent bulls of her popes. The Tri- dentine Fathers affirm, in the first place, that liberty of will is not extinguished by the Fall ; it is only enfeebled and bent. This cautious phraseology implies that notwithstand- ing the ruins and desolation of sin there yet lingers in man some germ of spiritual life, some latent susceptibility of OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 383 holy emotions, which proper nourishment and care may develope into healthful exercise. Man is not dead in tres- passes and sins, he is only crippled and exhausted; he does not require to be created anew, it is amply sufficient to nurse his attenuated power, to stop the progress of dis- ease, and leave to nature the action of its vis mecUcatrix. " Free-will," says Andradius,^ in explaining this very state- ment of the Council, " without the inspiration and assist- ance of the Spirit, cannot perform spiritual actions. This, however, does not result from the fact that the mind and will which man possesses from his birth are previously to conversion utterly destitute of any of the power, abilities or faculties which are necessary for beginning or consum- mating spiritual actions. It is rather because these natural abilities and faculties, though neither eifaced nor extin- guished, are so involved in the snares of sin that man can- not by his own strength extricate himself from the net ; as he who is fettered with iron shoes may have the natural ability to walk, yet although he possesses he cannot lise it and actually walk until the fetters are broken which hin- der and retard his motion." Here is the famous distinc- tion, which should always have been confined to the forges of Home, between natural and moral ability. The sinner possesses the power to act, but his energies are restrained by superior strength. Conversion simply throws oif the super- incumbent pressure, and permits the wearied and exhausted faculties of man to develope and expand. Grace imparts no new susceptibilities, communicates no supernatural faculties; it only takes from the garden of nature the weeds which infest it. An illustration similar in import to that of Andradius is employed by Bellarmine.^ In answer to the question how the will can possess the power of contrary choice when it is unable to do good, he observes: "That the will is indeed free, ibut its liberty is bound and restrained ; it becomes ^ As quoted in Chemnitzii Exam. Cone. Trident., de Libero Arljitrio, p. 134. ^ De Gratia et Lib. Arbit., Lib. vi., c. xv. 384 THE VALIDITY OF THE BAPTISM released and disentangled when the proximate power of working is imparted to it by the preventing grace of God. Something similar wc experience in regard to the power of vision where the sensible species is absent ; man still pos- sesses the power and liberty of seeing, for that species is not the cause of either. The power, however, is remote, and the liberty bound, until the species being present the power is perfected and may be actually exercised." The doctrine of Trent, then, plainly is, that man is pos- sessed of natural though not of moral ability to comply with the commandments of God; and if this doctrine has recently been regarded as fatal in the Presbyterian Church, it is hard to understand how it can be saving in the Church of Rome. Anywhere and everyAvhere it breathes the spirit of a legal covenant. In the next place, the phrases by which Trent distin- guishes the operations of the Spirit are studiously accom- modated to this absurd theory of the freedom of the will. Grace "excites" and "helps," — expressions which obviously imply that there are dormant energies to be stimulated and fainting strength to be assisted. But the most detestable feature in her theory is, that the influences of the Spirit derive their efficacy not from the will and power of God, but from the consent and concur- rence of man. Such is the sovereignty of the human will that all the efforts of the Almighty to regenerate the heart may be rendered abortive by an obstinate resistance. The will is above the reach of Deity Himself. God may per- suade, but He cannot subdue. To ascribe such dominion to man is utterly destructive of the reality of grace ; and yet Trent expressly teaches^ that it is by the free consent and co-operation of the sinner that the agency of God accom- plishes his conversion — that he is fully competent to reject the inspiration of the Spirit, and so is, what every ^ibject of a legal dispensation must be, able to stand and liable to fall. The fourth canon on justification, though awkwardly * De Justificatioiie, Sessio vi., cap. v. OF THE CHURCH OF KOME. 385 and even absurdly expressed, was obviously aimed against the Lutheran, which is the scriptural, hypothesis, that man is passive in regeneration — a doctrine absolutely essential to preserve the completeness of the analogy betwixt Christ and Adam. There must be a double union with both in order that the effects of their respective covenants may be com- municated to their respective seeds — a federal union, which renders their public conduct imputable, a personal union, through which it becomes actually imputed. Now the per- sonal union with Adam, which consists in descent from his loins, is unquestionably instituted without any concurrence on our part. The very act which makes us men makes us his children, and by necessary consequence the heirs of his guilt and ruin. Why, then, should not our union with Christ, which is constituted in effectual calling, be also independent of our own co-operation ? If our connection with the Head of the first covenant is confessedly involuntary, why should not the analogy be sustained and our connection with the Head of the second be equally involuntary ? If the act which makes us the seed of Adam is prior to our possession of natural being, why should not the act which makes us the seed of Christ be also prior to our possession of spiritual existence ? The truth is, we are new-created in Christ as we were originally created in Adam — we are the subjects of both operations, and active in neither. We can no more be our own spiritual than our natural fathers. The attempt of the Dominicans to reconcile the Triden- tine theory of grace with the doctrines of their great mas- ter, Augustine, deserves to be briefly noticed, as it has led to the impression which the Keviewer himself has sanc- tioned, that the decrees of the Fathers are ambiguous.^ The Council said expressly that "man can dissent from God, exciting and calling him, if he should will to do so." This seems to be a plain denial of efficacious grace, and yet, by a quibble grossly contradictory and absurd, the Domini- cans endeavoured to prove that it was not inconsistent with 1 Princeton Eeview, April, 1846, p. 342, Vol. III.— 25 386 THE VALIDITY OF THE BAPTISM their favourite doctrine. They aclniitted that man might dissent if he should loill to do so, but they denied that it is possible to have such a will when the grace of God is im- parted. It is the essence of grace to take from him the power of willing to the contrary. In the midst of this trivial sophistry, the Dominicans had forgotten what Bellar- raine commends to their attention, that the Council had pre- viously determined that man could reject the grace itself. How could he reject it without a previous will ? " The im- possibility of willing to dissent," continues Bellarmine,* "is utterly inconsistent with free-will, if it be maintained, as the adversaries maintain, that this impossibility of willing to dissent results from the fact that grace actively and intrin- sically determines the will to the contrary. "We have already declared that man can believe or love God if he will ; that he cannot will, however, without assisting grace. There is no inconsistency here, because free-will is feeble for good, and therefore requires assistance. But when the assistance is imparted, we affirm that man can will and not will, and tliat in this way he is truly and properly free. But if, grace being present, man cannot will to dissent, and grace being absent he cannot will to consent, there is no liberty of will, no departure from the opinion of heretics." The Dominican interpretation is further contradicted by notorious facts. For the space of a century and a half after the dissolution of the Council of Trent a bitter and ferocious controversy was waged in the Church of Rome upon the doctrines of grace ; and all the authoritative documents which were published during that period were decidedly Semi- pelagian, and sometimes worse. They are, to be sure, for the most part negative, but they are negations of the funda- mental truths of Christianity. On the first of October, 1567, Pius V. issued a bull con- demning the seventy-six propositions which were said to have been extracted from the works of Baius. It is nothing to my purpose whether or not this distinguished professor really ' De Gratia et Lib. Arbit., Lib. vi., cap. xv. OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 387 entertained all the sentiments which his enemies ascribe to him ; it is enough to know what the oracle of the faithful pronounced to be heresy. Among the repudiated propo- sitions are the following : XX. No sin is of its own nature venial, but every sin de- serves eternal punishment. XXXV. All the works of unbelievers are sins, and the virtues of the philosophers are vices. xxxvii. Free-will, without the assistance of God's grace, can do nothing but sin. xxxviii. It is a Pelagian error to say that by free-will man can avoid any sin, XXXIX. What is done voluntarily, though it be done necessarily, is done freely. XLI. The only liberty which the Scriptures recognize is not from necessity, but sin. LXV. To admit any good use of free-will, or any which is not evil, is Pelagian error, and he does injury to the grace of Christ who so thinks and teaches. LX^^. Violence alone is repugnant to the natural liberty of man. When the authenticity of the bull denouncing these propo- sitions had been seriously called into question, it was sol- emnly confirmed by a constitution of Gregory XIIL, bearing date the 28th of January, 1579. Upon the infallible authority of two popes, Urban YIII., in 1642, and Innocent X., in 1653, five propositions, pur- porting to be taken from the Augustine of Jansen, were sub- jected to the odious imputation of heresy. These propo- sitions asserted the impotency of man, the invincibility of grace, the certainty of predestination, and the definite nature of the atonement. I give them in order : I. There are some commands of God which righteous and good men are absolutely unable to obey, though disposed to do it ; and God does not give them so much grace that they are able to observe them. 388 THE VALIDITY OF THE BAPTISM II. Iiiward grace in the state of fallen nature cannot be resisted. III. To constitute merit or demerit in the state of fallen nature, man does not require liberty from necessity ; liberty from coercion being sufficient. IV. The Semi-pelagians admitted the necessity of inward ])reventing grace to every act, even the beginning of faith, hut their heresy consisted in this — that they maintained this grace to be such that the human will could resist or re- strain it. V. It is Semi-pelagian to say that Christ died for all men. The first of these propositions iSb^ondemned as "rash, impious, blasphemous, heretical ; " the second and third are declared to be " heretical ; " the fourth is pronounced to be " false and heretical ; " and all the vials of pontifical abuse seem to be emptied on the fifth ; it is denominated " im- pious, blasphemous, contumelious, derogatory to piety, and heretical."^ The last document to which I shall refer is the mem- orable constitution Unigenitus, signed by Clement XL at Rome on Friday, the 8th of September, 1713, the birth- day, as Romanists assert, of the Immaculate Virgin. This Bull,^ the professed design of which was to condemn one hundred and one propositions extracted from the work of Quesnel, entitled Moral Reflections upon each verse of the New Testament, contains a formal reprobation of the dis- tinguishing doctrines of grace. How far in each case the censure extends it is difficult to determine. The propo- sitions are "respectively" denounced as "folse, captious, shocking, offensive to pious ears, scandalous, pernicious, rash, injurious to the Church and her practice, contumelious not only against the Church, but likewise against the secular ])owers, seditious, impious, blasphemous, suspected of heresy and plainly savouring thereof, and likewise favouring here- ' Leydekker's Historici Jaiii^enismi, pp. 126, 278. Mosheim, vol. iii., p. 332." ■^ I have made my extracts from the cojiy given in Lafitau's History of it. OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 389 tics, heresies and schism, erroneous, bordering very near upon heresy, often condemned, and in fine even heretical and manifestly reviving several heresies, and chiefly those which are contained in the infamous propositions of Jau- senius, even in the very sense in which those propositions were condemned." The term " respectively" indicates that this medley of epithets is to be distributed — that all are not to be applied to each proposition, but only that each epithet should find a counterpart in some proposition, and each proposition be embraced under some epithet. But the allusion to Jansenius shows that, whatever may be said of the rest, the propositions containing his doctrines are to be regarded as heretical. Among the one hundred and one condemned articles are the following truths of the Word of God, numbered as they are numbered in the Bull : I. What else remains to the soul that has lost God and His grace but sin and the consequences of sin, haughty poverty and lazy indigence — that is, a general impotence to labour, to prayer, and to every good work ? II. The grace of Jesus Christ, the efficacious principle of every sort of good, is necessary to every good work ; with- out it nothing either is done or can be done. V. When God does not soften the heart by the inward unction of His grace, exhortations and external advantages serve only to harden it the more. IX. The grace of Jesus Christ is sovereign ; without it we can never confess Christ, and with it we shall never deny him. X. Grace is the operation of God's almighty hand, which nothing can let or hinder. XII. When God wills to save a soul at any time or place, the effect indubitably follows the determination of His will. XIII. Whenever God wills to save a soul, and touches it with the inward hand of His grace, no human will resists Him. XIV. However remote an obstinate sinner may be from 390 THE VALIDITY OF THE BAPTISM salvation, whenever Jesus is revealed to him in the saving light of His grace, he yields, embraces Him, humbles him- self and adores the Saviour. XIX. The grace of God is nothing else than His omnipo- tent will. This is the idea which God Himself gives us in all the Scriptures. XXI. The grace of Jesus Christ is strong, mighty, sove- reign, invincible, being the operation of God's almighty will, the consequence and imitation of the working of God in making the Son incarnate and raising Him from the dead. XXIII. God has given us the idea of the almighty work- ing of His grace in representing it as a creation out of nothing, and a resurrection from the dead. XXX. All whom God wills to save by Christ are infalli- bly saved. xxxviii. The sinner is free only to evil without the grace of the Saviour. xxxix. The will, without preventing grace, has light only to wander, heat only for rashness, strength only to its wounding. It is capable of all evil and incapable of any good. XLi. Even the natural knowledge of God, such as ob- tained among the Gentile philosophers, must be ascribed to God, and without grace produces only presumption, vanity and opposition to God, instead of adoration, gratitude and love. LXix. Faith, its use, increase and reward, are wholly the gift of God's pure liberality. LXXiii. What is the Church but the congregation of tlie sons of God, dwelling in His bosom, adopted in Christ, subsisting in His person, redeemed by His blood, living by His Spirit, acting by His grace, and waiting for the grace of the future life? These documents establish by the most conclusive nega- tive testimony that Rome repudiates the only theory of grace which can bring salvation to the lost. She utterly denies its power. The terms efficacious grace are indeed OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 391 found in the writings of her cherished theologians, but in a sense widely different from that which the Reformers taught. It is an efficacy consisting in the skilful adaptation of motives on the part of God to the mind of man, by which the will is determined in conformity with the Divine desire. God does not determine it, but only presents considerations which from His knowledge of the man He perceives before- hand will induce it to determine itself. It is the efficacy not of power, but of persuasion ; God acts the part not of a sovereign, but of an able orator. " It cannot be understood/' says Bellarmine,^ "how efficacious grace consists in an inward persuasion which may be spurned by the will, and yet infallibly accomplishes its end, unless we add that with all those whom God has infallibly decreed to draw He employs a persuasion which He sees to be adapted to their disposition, and which He certainly knows will not be despised." It is not a little strange that Princeton should attribute to Rome a " much higher doctrine as to the necessity of Divine influence than prevails among many whom we rec- ognize as Christians," when the orthodox portion of the Protestant world has already condemned, her opinions. The creed of Rome diff'ers only for the worse from the creed of the Remonstrants ; it is not so full and clear upon the subject of depravity, and much bolder on the freedom of the will. Still their respective theories of grace are sub- stantially the same, and if the orthodox world in the sev- enteenth century conspired to suppress the errors of the Remonstrants as dangerous and fatal, what magic has extracted their malignity in the lapse of two hundred years and upward, so that they are harmless in the hands of the Pope ? So striking is the similarity between the j)rinciples of the Remonstrants and the decrees of Trent that I am constrained to place them in a note in juxtaposition, that the reader may see at a glance what Princeton denominates a " much higher doctrine as to the necessity of Divine influ- ^ De Gratia et Lib. Arbit., Lib. I., cap. xii., last sentence. 392 THE VALIDITY OP THE BAPTISM ence than jircvails among many whom we recognize as Christians."^ Both seem willing to ascribe everything to God but the conquest of the will. He may teach, enlighten, remonstrate and persuade, but He cannot subdue. The will sits as a sovereign upon her throne, and can laugh at all His thunder. ^ I. "Man," say the Remonstrants,* "has not saving faith himself, nor by virtue of his own free-will, forasmuch as, being in a state of sin, he can neither think, will nor do by or of himself any good, especially such as proceeds from a saving faith. But it is necessary he should be regen- erated and renewed by God in Christ through His Holy Spirit in his understanding, will and all his faculties, to the end that he may rightly understand, reflect upon, will and fulfil the things which are good and which accompany salvation. II. "But we maintain that the grace of God is not only the beginning, but likewise the progress and completion, of all good ; insomuch that even the regenerate themselves are not able without this previous or prevent- ing, exciting, concomitant, and consequent grace to think, will or effect any good thing, or resist any temptation to evil ; so that all good works and actions ought to be ascribed to God. III. " Nevertheless, we do not believe that all the zeal, care and pains employed by men in order to the working out their salvation are before Faith and the spirit of Renovation vain and unprofitable, and even more prejudicial than advantageous; but on -the contrary we maintain, that to hear the Word of God, to be sorry for and repent of our sins, earnestly to desire saving grace and the spirit of RcnovJttion (which, however, cannot be done without grace), are not only not hurtful, but rather very useful and absolutely necessary to the attaining Faith and the spirit of Reno- vation. IV. "The will has no power, in the state of sin and before the call, of doing any good to salvation. And, therefore, we deny that the will has, in every state of man, the liberty or freedom of willing the saving good as well as evil. V. "EflUcacious grace whereby men are converted is not irrcsistilile, and though God works in such a manner by His Word and the internal operation of His Spirit as to communicate the power of believing and supernatural strength, and even to cause men actually to believe, yet, nevertheless, men may of themselves reject this grace, and refuse to believe, and consequently be lost through their own fault." "In the first place," says Trent,f "the holy council maintains that it is necessary, in order to understand the doctrine of justification truly and well, that every one should acknowledge and confess that since all men * See Brandt, History of the Reformation, vol. iii., book xxxv., pp. 87, 88. t Concil. Trident., Sess. vi., cap. i., cap. v., can. vii. OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 393 If the creed of R,ome is fatally unsound in regard to the nature of Effectual Calling, there is nothing to redeem its errors, but much to heighten its dangers, in what it teaches of the reason, office and operations of Faith, in the produc- tion of which the mystical union is completed, and upon which the whole application of redemption depends. The calling, indeed, is never effectual, and the condition of the sin- ner is never safe, until faith is actually wrought. To it all the promises of salvation are addressed; it is pre-eminently the work of God, that which He requires at our hands, without which it is impossible to please Him, with which it is im- possible to be condemned. It is the characteristic principle of Christian life, comprising in its nature and results the Mdiole mystery of Christian experience. "I am crucified Math Christ : nevertheless I live ; yet, not I, but Christ liveth in me : and the life which I now live in the flesh, I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me." The blessedness and joy, the light, fortitude and had lost innocence by Adam's prevarication, and had become unclean, and, as the Apostle says, ' by nature children of wrath,' as is expressed in the decree on original sin, they are so completely the slaves of sin, and under the power of the Devil and of death, that neither could the Gentiles be liberated or rise again by the power of nature, nor even the Jews by the letter of the law of Moses. Nevertheless, free-will was not wholly extinct in them, though weakened and bowed down. " The Council further declares that in adult persons the beginning of justification springs from the preventing grace of God through Christ Jesus — that is, from His calling wherewith they are called, having in themselves no merits — so that those who in consequence of sin were alien- ated from God are disposed to betake themselves to His method of justify- ing them by His grace, which excites and helps them, and with which grace they freely agree and co-operate. Thus, while God touches the heart of man by the illumination of His Holy Spirit, man is not altogether passive, since he receives that influence which he had power to reject, while on the other hand he could not of his free will, without the grace of God, take any step toward righteousness before Him. " Whoever shall affirm that all works done before justification, in what- ever way performed, are actually sins and deserve God's hatred, or that the more earnestly a man labours to dispose himself for grace he does but siu the more, let him be accursed." 394 THE VALIDITY OF THE BAPTISM peace, the hopes which stimulate the zeal and the beauties which adorn the character of those who love God, their change of state and the gradual transformation of their minds, are all in the Scriptures ascribed to faith. With- out it the Water and the Blood are nothing worth ; the invi- tations of the Gospel, the monitions of Providence, the per- suasions of the ministry, and even the signs in the holy sacraments, are vain and nugatory, lifeless appeals, which play around the head or amuse the fancy, but are incapable of reaching the heart. The spirit of faith is the spirit of life. Faith justifies the guilty and cleanses the impure ; faith is the shield in the panoply of God which quenches all the fiery darts of the wicked, the victory which over- comes the world and extracts lessons of experience from trials of patience. Faith conquers death and opens the kingdom of heaven to the triumphant saint ; it is the sub- stance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. The contrast is amazing betwixt the importance which the Scriptures everywhere attach to this grace, and that which is assigned to it in the theology of Rome. While, according to the unvarying tenor of the Gospel, which is, Believe and be saved, faith is the first, second, third thing, comprehending everything else in the department of per- sonal religion, according to the creed of the Papacy it is at best a very slender accomplishment, having no necessary connection with salvation, capable of existing among those who are without Christ, without God, and without hope in the world. It may distinguish as well the victim of per- dition as the heirs of heaven. The single fact that Rome declares that believers may be lost, while the Bible asserts that every believer shall be saved, is conclusive i>roof that her theology and that of the Bible are fundamentally at variance. There are tw'O principal points, in connection with this subject, in regard to which she is grossly and fatally un- sound— the relation of faith to the Christian life, and the immediate reason of faith itself. OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 395 First. The distinguished eificacy which the Scriptures uniformly attribute to this grace does not depend upon its own intrinsic excellence, nor the natural operation of the truths, important as they are, which it receives and assim- ilates. These, however exalted, however cordially em- braced, however admirably adapted to generate the active principles of love, hope and fear, could never achieve the splendid results which proceed from the influence of faith. As an accomplishment of the spiritual man, an integral element of inherent righteousness, charity is certainly entitled to precedence, yet charity is never said to justify; it applies neither the Water nor the Blood, but presupposes the application of them both. It is not, then, as a grace, or an act of formal obedience to the authority of God, that faith perform its wonders. The source of its power is not in itself — in moral dignity and worth it is the least of graces — nor in the propositions, abstractly considered, which it brings in contact with the understanding and the heart; the result of these could only be the production of dili- gence, zeal, gratitude, love, hope and fear, which, singly or combined, avail nothing in the justification of the guilty. The secret of its efficacy lies in its relation to Christ. It is a bond of union with Him. As an exercise of holiness it has its appropriate place among the elements of personal obedience. It receives the whole revelation of God, and be- comes the medium through which the different emotions are excited which the various aspects of the Word are suited to inspire. Through it Divine truth penetrates the heart, presenting the terrible majesty of God, to the consternation of the guilty, and disclosing the ineffable tenderness of His love, to the consolation of the humble; but faith saves us, not because it believes the truth, but because it unites us as living members with a living Head. It is not the be- liever that lives or works ; it is Christ who lives in him. He is our life, and faith is the channel through which His grace is efficaciously imparted. He dwells in us by His Spirit, and Me dwell in Him by faith. And as He 396 THE VALIDITY OF THE BAPTISM all the elements of salvation in Himself — wisdom, right- eousness, sanctification and redemption — faith, which cements a union with His person, must involve communion in His graces. As He is emphatically the Life, those who are possessed of the Son must be possessed of life. We are justified by faith, because, in connecting us with Christ it makes us partakers of His righteousness and death. We are sanctified by faith, because the Spirit is communicated from the Head to the members, revealing the true standard of holiness in the person of the Son, presenting the true motives of holiness in the grace and promises of the Gospel, implanting operative principles of holiness in gratitude, love, hope and fear, and giving efficacy to all subordinate means by the omnipotent energy of His will. Faith saves us, because it joins us to Him who is salvation, and who is able to save to the uttermost all that come unto God through Him. Such is its potency. Nothing in itself, it makes us one with Christ; by it we suffer with Him, we die with Him, we are buried with Him, we rise with Him, and with Him we are destined to reign in glory. Rome, however, knows nothing of this mystical union with Christ, and consequently the only efficacy which she attributes to faith in the application of redemption is that of a spiritual grace, constituting one of the elements of the formal cause of justification. It is a part of the righteous- ness in which the sinner is accepted before God. "The principal reason," says Bellarmine,^ "why our adversaries attribute justification to faith alone is because they suppose that faith does not justify after the manner of a cause, or on account of its dignity and worth, but only relatively, as it receives in believing what God offers in the promise. For if they could be convinced that faith justifies by pro- curing, meriting, and, in its own way, beginning justifica- tion, they would undoubtedly acknowledge that the same might be predicated of love, patience and otlier good acts. We shall prove, therefore, that true and justifying fiiith is 1 Bellarmine, De Justificatione, Lib. i., cap. xvii. ; cf. Lib. i., cap. iii. OF THE CHURCH OF ROJfE. 397 not, as the adversaries affirm, a naked and sole apprehen- sion of righteousness, but is an efficacious cause of justifi- cation. All the arguments to this point may be reduced to three heads. The first shall be taken from those testi- monies which teach that faith is a cause of justification in general, the second those which prove that in faith justifi- cation is begun, the third from those which demonstrate that by faith we please God, and procure and in some way merit justification." In developing these arguments Bel- larmine repeatedly ridicules the idea that faith is an instru- ment which apprehends the righteousness of Christ. Ac- cording to him, it contributes to our justification only in so far as it is an act of righteousness itself — its value dej^end- ing not upon its relation to Christ, but upon its own in- trinsic excellence. Its inherent dignity and worth are an element of personal holiness. To the same purport the Council of Trent declares that^ "we are said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation — the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and come into the fellowship of His children." In other words, faith is the first grace which among adults enters into the disposition or the state of heart which is preparatory to the reception of this great blessing. It is the first element of righteousness which is infused into the soul, and, as being first and intimately con- nected with all the rest, it is the root and foundation of a holy life. But its only influence is that which it possesses as an inward grace, meritorious in itself, and capable, through the truth which it embraces, of generating other motions of good. But as the righteousness in which we are accepted must correspond to all the requisitions of the law, and as faith alone is only a partial obedience, Rome teaches that it must be combined with other graces, par- ticularly with charity, in order to secure our justification. Charity indeed she pronounces to be the end, perfection and form of all other virtues. Without it, faith is unfinished 1 Trident. Concil., Sess. vi., cap. viii. 398 THE VALIDITY OF THE BAPTISM and dead, incapable of meriting life or of commending to the favour of God. If there be any one doctrine of the Bible against which Rome is particularly bitter, it is that we are justified by faith alone, without the deeds of the law. This principle strikes at the root of the whole system of infused and inherent righteousness. It removes all occasion of gloiying in the flesh. It prostrates the sinner in the dust, and makes Christ the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the all-in-all of human hope. Hence, Trent enumerates no less than seven acts^ as constituting the disposition prepar- atory to the reception of justification, among which faith is found, and it entitled to no other pre-eminence than that it is the first in the series, having, from the nature of its operations, a tendency and fitness to excite the rest. Hence, also, it pronounces 2 its anathema upon all who, in con- formity with the Scriptures, shall affirm " that the ungodly is justified by faith only, so that it is to be understood that nothing else is to be required to co-operate therewith in order to obtain justification, and that it is on no account necessary that he should prepare and dispose himself to the effort of his own will." Hence, too, the doctrine of impu- tation is condemned, being consistent with no other hypo- thesis but that which makes faith a bond of union with Christ as a federal Head, appropriating His obedience and pleading the merits of His death. " Whosoever shall affirm that men are justified only by the imputation of the right- eousness of Christ or the remission of sin, to the exclusion 1 Trident. Concil., Sess. vi., cap. vi. Bellarmine remarks— De Justifi- catione, Lib. i., cap. xii.— " The adversaries, therefore, as we have before said, teach that justification is acquired or apprehended by faith alone. Catholics, on the other hand, and especially the Tridentine Synod, which all Catholics acknowledge as a mistress (Sess. vi., cap. 6), enumerates seven acts by which the ungodly are disposed to righteousness: faith, fear, hope, love, repentance, the purpose of receiving the sacrament, and the'purpose of leading a new life and keeping the commandments of God." This opinion he endeavours in several successive chapters to establish. - Cone. Trident., Sess. vi., can. ix. OF THE CHURCH OF EOME. 399 of grace and charity, which is shed abroad in their hearts and inheres in them, or that the grace by which we are justified is only the favour of God, let him be accursed." ^ It cannot fail to be observed that the Romish theory of faith is peculiarly unfavourable to the cultivation of humil- ity. Abstracting the attention from the fullness and suf- ficiency of Christ, and dignifying personal obedience into a meritorious cause of salvation, it must bloat the heart with spiritual pride, and generate a temper of invidious com- parison with others, equally fatal to the charity Avhich thinketh no evil and the self-abasement which should cha- racterize debtors to grace. When the efficacy of faith is attributed to the relation which it institutes with Christ, it is felt to be nothing in itself; every blessing is ascribed to the sovereign mercy of God; it is no more the sinner that lives, but Christ lives in him; it is no more the sinner that works, but Christ works in him. The Divine Redeemer becomes the all-in-all of his salvation — his wisdom, right- eousness, sanctification and redemption. It is only when faith is apprehended as a bond of union with Christ that it produces the effect which Paul attributes to it, of excluding boasting; in every other view it furnishes a pretext for glorying in the flesh. As an instrument it exalts the Re- deemer; as a meritorious grace, entering into the formal cause of justification, it exalts the sinner: as an instrument it leads us to exclaim that by the grace of God we are what Ave are; as a meritorious grace, to thank God that Ave are not as other men. Secondly. The Papal creed is hardly less unsound in reference to the nature, than it is in reference to the office, of faith. If there be anything in the Scriptures clearly re\^ealed and earnestly inculcated, it is that the faith by Avhich Ave apprehend the Redeemer as the foundation of our hope depends upon the immediate testimony of God. It is super- natural in its evidence, as Avell as supernatural in its origin. ^ Cone. Trident., Sess. vi., can. xi. 400 THE VALIDITY OF THE BAPTISM The record which God has given of His Sou bears upon its face impressions of Divinity which are alike suited to com- mand the assent of the understanding and to captivate the affections of the heart. The argument by which we ascend from redemption to its Author is analogous to that (though infinitely stronger in degree) which conducts us from nature to nature's God. The Almighty never works without leaving traces of Himself; a godlike peculiarity distinguishes all His opera- tions. He cannot ride upon the heavens but His name Jah is proclaimed; the invisible things of Him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and God- head. But if the material w^orkmanship of God contains such clear and decisive traces of its Divine Author — if the heavens declare His glory and the firmament showeth his handiwork — if sun, moon and stars, in their appointed orbits, demonstrate an eternal Creator, and leave the Atheist, skeptic and idolater without excuse — much more shall that stupendous economy of grace which bears pre-eminently the burden of His name reveal the perfections of His cha- racter and authenticate the Divinity of its source. The evidence that it sprang from the bosom of God, and that its voice is the harmony of the world, must be sought in itself. It stands a temple not built with hands, bearing upon its portals the sublime inscription of God's eternal purpose, of His wisdom, power, justice, goodness and grace. It is the palace of the great King, where His brightest glories are disclosed. His choicest gifts bestowed. Jesus is seen, is felt to be the image of the invisible God, the first-born of every creature. The believer has only to look upon His face, and he beholds His glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, has shined into our hearts, and re- vealed the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. But while redemption contains the evidence of its lieav- I OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 401 enly origin, such is the deplorable darkness of the human understanding in regard to things that pertain to God, and such the fearful alienation of men from the perfection of His character, that though the light shines conspicuously among them, they are yet unable to comprehend its rays. Christ crucified proves to all, in their natural condition, whether Jews or Gentiles, a stumbling-block or foolishness. Hence, to the production of faith there must be a heavenly calling. In order that the infallible evidence which actually exists in the truth itself may accomplish its appropriate eflects, the eternal Spirit, who sends forth His cherubim and seraphim to touch the lips of whom He pleases, must be graciously vouchsafed to illuminate the darkened mind, and manifest in the provision of the Gospel the power of God and the wisdom of God unto salvation. It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing. Re- demption is a spiritual mystery, and faith is the spiritual eye, supernaturally imparted, which beholds it. He that believeth hath the witness in himself: the divine illumi- nation of the Spirit is the immediate and only reason of a true and living faith. Other arguments may convince, but they cannot convert; they may produce opinion, but not the faith of the Gospel; and those who, in their blindness, rely upon miracles and prophecy — upon the collateral and in- cidental proofs with which Christianity is triumphantly vindicated from the assaults of skeptics and infidels— they who rely upon the fallible deductions of reason to generate an infallible assurance of faith have yet to learn in what the testimony of God consists which establishes the hearts of His children. Their witness is not within themselves ; it lies without them — in historical records, musty traditions and the voice of antiquity. The Romish doctors are not reluctant to admit that faith is supernatural in its origin. "Whoever shall affirm," says Trentji "that man is able to believe, hope, love or repent, as he ought, so as to attain to the grace of justification, ^ Cone. Trident., Sess. vi., can. iii. Vol. in. 402 THE VALIDITY OF THE BAPTISM Avithout the preventing influence and aid of the Holy Spirit, let him be accursed." "It is impossible," says Stapleton, as quoted by Owen,^ "to produce any act of faith, or to believe with faith, rightly so called, without special grace and the Divine infusion of the gift of faith." " This is firmly to be held," says Melchior Canus ^ — I again quote from Owen — " that human authority, and all the mo- tives before mentioned, or any other which may be used by him who proposeth the object of faith to be believed, are not sufficient causes of believing as we are obliged to believe; but there is moreover necessary an internal, efficient cause, moving us to believe, which is the especial help or aid of God. Wherefore all external human persuasions or arguments are not sufficient causes of faith, however the things of faith may be sufficiently proposed by men ; there is moreover necessary an internal cause — that is, a certain Divine light, inciting to believe, or certain internal eyes to see, given us by the grace of God." But there is a still more remarkable passage in Gregory of Valentia.^ "Whereas," saith he, "we have hitherto pleaded arguments for the authority of Christian doctrine, which, even by themselves, ought to suffice prudent persons to induce their minds to belief; yet I know not whether there be not an argument greater than they all — namely, that those who are truly Christians do find or feel by experience their minds so affiscted in this matter of faith that they are moved (and obliged) firmly to believe, neither for any argument that we have used, nor for any of the like sort that can be found out by reason, but for somewhat else, which persuades our minds in another manner, and far more effisctually than any arguments whatever." " It is God Himself, who, by the voice of His revelation, and by a certain internal instinct and impulse, witnesseth unto the minds of men the truth of Christian doctrine or of the Holy Scripture." And the ' Owen on the Reason of Faith : Works, vol. iii., p. 304. - ll.iil., pp. 364, 365. 3 Ibid., p. 365. OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 403 same doctrine is maintained by Bellarmine in the second chapter of his sixth book on grace and free-will. All this seems wonderfully orthodox. But it is a de- ceitful homage rendered to the work of the Spirit. Rome grants that He enables us to believe, but departs widely from the truth, and assigns to the Spirit a mean and sub- sidiary office, when she undertakes to specify the evidence through which He produces a living faith. The immediate end of His illumination, according to her theology, is not to reveal the evidence which lies concealed in the Gospel itself, but to ascertain the inquirer of the Divinity of her own tes- timony. The office of the Spirit is to prove that she is the prophet of God, His lively oracle, which must be devoutly heard and implicitly obeyed. The testimony of the Church, and not of God's Sj^irit, she makes to be the immediate and adequate ground of faith. Whatever light the Spirit im- parts is reflected from her face, and not from the face of Jesus Christ ; and whatever witness the believer possesses, he possesses in her, and not in himself. Hence Stapleton,^ while he admits the necessity of Divine illumination, gives it a principal reference to the judgment and testimony of the Church. " The secret testimony of the Spirit is alto- gether necessary, that a man may believe the testimony and judgment of the Church about the Scriptures." Bellarmine says,^ " in order that f lith may be certain in relation to its object, two infallible causes are required — the cause revealing the articles, and the cause proposing or declaring the articles revealed. For if he who reveals, and upon whose authority we rely, can be deceived, faith is obviously rendered uncer- tain. Therefore, the cause revealing should be none other than God. And, by parity of reason, if he who proposes or declares the articles revealed is liable to error, and can pro- pose anything as a Divine revelation which in fact is not so, faith will be rendered wholly uncertain. Mohammedans and heretics therefore, although they suppose that they be- iQwen on the Eeason of Faith: Works, vol. iii., p. 3(35. ^ Bellarmine, De Grat. et Lib. Arbit., Lib. vi., cap. iii. 404 THE VALIDITY OF THE BAPTISM lieve on the ground of a Divine revelation, yet in fact they do not, but simply believe because they rashly choose to believe, inasmuch as they acknowledge not a cause infallibly proposing and declaring the revelation of God. For if one should inquire of the heretics how they know that God has revealed this or that article, they will answer, From the Scriptures. If it should be further inquired how they know that their interpretation of Scripture is correct, seeing that it is differently expounded by different persons, or how they ever know that the Scriptures are the Word of God, they can answer nothing but that this is their opinion. They reject the judgment of the Church, which alone God has declared to be infallible by numberless signs and prodigies and many other testimonies, and every one claims for him- self the right of interpreting Divine Revelation. Who, without great rashness, can believe his own private judg- n;^ent of Divine things to be infallible, since such infallibility can be proved neither by Divine promise nor human reason ? Catholics, on the other hand, have a faith altogether certain and infallible, since it rests on the authority of revelation. That God has given the revelation they are equally assured, since they hear the Church declaring the fact, which they are certain cannot err, since its testimony is confirmed by signs and wonders and manifold arguments." Whatever the Church authoritatively enjoins is a material object of faith. " The authority of the Church," says Dens, " affords the first and sufficient argument of credibility."^ The Rules of Faith are divided by Dens^ into two classes, animate and inanimate, the latter comprehending the Holy Scriptures and tradition, and the former embracing the Church, General Councils and the Pope. " The animate rule of faith is that wliich declares to us the truths which God has revealed, so that it may pro- pose them with sufficient authority to be believed as it Avere 1 Dens, De Virtutibns, vol. ii., No. 18, p. 27. ' Dens, De Kegulis Fidei, vol. ii.. No. 59, p. 93. See particularly De Resolutione Fidei, vol. ii.. No. 20, p. 30. OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 405 by a Divine faith." Even Erasmus/ half-reformer as he was. could utter such detestable language as the following : " "With me the authority of the Church has so much weight that I could be of the same opinion with Arians and Pela- gians, had the Church signified its approbation of their doc- trines. It is not that the words of Christ are not to me sufficient, but it should not seem strange if I follow the interpretation of the Church, through whose authority it is that I believe the canonical Scriptures. Others may have more genius and courage than I, but there is nothing in which I acquiesce more confidently than the decisive judg- ment of the Church." It is a point on which all Romanists are heartily agreed, that somewhere in the Papacy, either in the Pope, a General Council, or the Pope and a General Council combined, an infallible tribunal exists, whose prerogative it is to settle controversies and to determine questions of faith. From its decisions there is no appeal ; its voice is the voice of God — - it is the Urim and Thummim of the Christian Church. The possession of such a living oracle is made the distin- guishing glory of their sect. The doctors of Rome are accustomed to boast that in consequence of this boon they have the advantage of an infallible faith, while Protestants are doomed to the uncertainty of opinion or the delusions of a private spirit. Their Divine faith consequently de- pends upon the testimony of an infallible church, and not upon the witness of the Spirit of truth. They believe be- cause the Church declares, and of course must believe what the Church declares. The practical working of the system is to make every parish priest and every father confessor a lord alike of the conscience and understanding. Every man, upon the Papal hypothesis, no matter what may be his condition and attainments, has infallible evidence that the material objects of his faith are Divine revelations. But to the great mass of private individuals the testimony of their 1 Erasmus, as quoted in Waddington's History of the Eeformation, vol. ii., chap, xxiii., p. 165. 406 THE VALIDITY OF THE BAPTISM priests or confessors Jf all the evideuce that they can have, and hence these priests and confessors must themselves be infallible. " Though there have been infinite disputes," says a writer in the Edinburgh Review, " as to where the infalli- bility resides, Avhat are the doctrines it has definitively pro- nounced true, and who to the individual is the infallible ex- pounder of what is thus infallibly pronounced infallible, yet he who receives this doctrine in its integrity has nothing more to do than to eject his reason, sublime his faith into credulity, and reduce his creed to these two comprehensive articles : ' I believe whatsoever the Church believes ;' ' I be- lieve that the Church believes whatsoever my father con- fessor believes that she believes.' For thus he reasons : Nothing is more certain than whatsoever God says is infalli- bly true ; it is infallibly true that the Church says just what God says ; it is infallibly true that what the Church says is known ; and it is infallibly true that my father con- fessor or the parson of the next parish is an infallible ex- positor of what is thus infallibly known to be the Church's infallible belief, or M'hat God has declared to be infallibly true. If any one of the links, even the last, in this strange sorites be su})posed unsound, if it be not true that the priest is an infallible expounder to the individual of the Church's infallibility, if his judgment be only 'private judgment,' we come back at once to the ]ierplexities of the common theory of private judgment." Now, as the whole doctrine of Papal inflillibility is a fiction, all pretences to a Divine illumination which reveals it must be a delusion of the Devil, and that faith Avhich rests upon nothing but the testimony of men, whether col- lectively or individually, whether called a church, pope or council, is human, earthly, fallible — it is not the faith of God's elect. The degree of assent should rise no higher than the evidence which produces it ; and as the llomanist can never be assured that his Church is inspired, he can never have assurance, according to his princii)les, that Jesus Christ is the Saviour of men, much less can he be assured OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 407 of his own interest in the Redeemer. Doubt, perplexity, apprehension and uncertainty must characterize his whole Christian experience.^ As faith is measured by the testi- mony of the Church, and it is not the office of the Church to disclose the state of individuals, none can be certain of their own conversion or order their cause with confidence before God. They may hope for the best, but still, after all, it may be their fate to endure the worst. Unquestionably, the direct witness of the Spirit to the fact of our conversion is one of the most comfortable elements of Christian experience. It is the only evidence which is productive of full and triumphant assurance ; and yet uj^on the hypothesis of Rome, which interposes the Church betwixt the sinner and Christ, it is difficult to conceive how the Spirit can impart this testimony to the hearts of God's children. It is, therefore, in con- sistency with the analogy of her faith that she denounces her anathema " upon those who pretend to assert that they know that they have passed from death unto life by the Spirit which God hath given them. '' It is on no account to be maintained that those who are really justified ought to feel fully assured of the fact without any doubt whatever, or that none are absolved and justified but those who believe themselves to be so ; or that, by this faith only, absolution and justification are procured, as if he who does not believe this doubts the promise of God and the efficacy of the death and the resurrection of Christ. For while no godly person ought to doubt the mercy of God, the merit of Christ or the virtue and efficacy of the sacraments, so, on the other hand, whosoever considers his own infirmity and corruption may doubt and fear whether he is in a state of grace, since no one can certainly and infallibly know that he has ob- tained the grace of God." So important an element of personal religion is the direct witness of the Spirit that where it is bordially embraced it ^See this subject discussed in Dens, De Justificatione, vol. ii., No. 31, p. 452, seq. ^ Cone. Trident., Sess. vi., cap. ix. 408 THE VALIDITY OF THE BAPTISM will infuse vitality into a dead system, counteract the prin- ciples of a professed Remonstrant, and mould his experience into a type of doctrine Avhich he ostensibly rejects. It is the redeeming feature of modern Arminianism ; to it the school of Wesley is indebted for its power; it is a green spot in the desert, a refreshing brook in the wilderness. Wherever it penetrates the heart it engenders a spirit of dependence upon God, a practical conviction of human imbecility, and an earnest desire for supernatural expres- sions of Divine favour. It maintains a constant commu- nion with the Father of lights, an habitual anxiety to walk witii God, which, whatever may be the theory of grace, keeps the soul in a posture of prayer, and cherishes a tem- per congenial with devotion and holiness. He that seeks for the witness of the Spirit nuist wait upon God ; and he that obtains it has learned from the fruitlessness of his own efforts, his hours of darkness and desertion, his long agony and conflicts, that it is a boon bestowed in sovereignty, the gift of unmerited grace. It is through this doctrine that the personality of the Spirit as an element of Christian experience is most distinctly presented. It compels us to adore Him as a living Agent working according to the counsel of His will, and not to underrate Him as a mere influence connecting moral results with their causes. Rome, consequently, in discarding this doctrine from her creed, has discarded the only princi})le which could impregnate the putrid mass of her corruptions with the seeds of health and vigour. Thirdly. Not satisfied with displacing faith from its proper position, and corrupting the evidence by which it is produced, Rome proceeds to still greater abominations in ascribing to the sacraments the same results in the applica- tion of redemption which the Scriptures are accustomed to ascribe to faith. The mode of operation, hoM'cver, is vastly different. The sacraments, according to the Papal hypo- thesis, are i)ossessed of an inherent efficacy to generate tiie graces which render us acceptable to God, while faith, accord- OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 409 ing to the scriptural hypothesis, makes us oue with Christ. The sacranieuts, accordiug to Rome, euable us to live. Faith, according to the Scriptures, makes us die, and Christ lives in us. The sacraments, according to Rome, are efficient causes of salvation. Faith, according to the Scrip- tures, is but an instrument which appropriates and applies it. In the operation of the sacraments, therefore, Rome combines the work of the Spirit and the functions of faith. By baptism we are alike regenerated and justified ; what- ever takes place before the administration of the ordinance is only in the way of preparation : that which crowns the whole, and actually introduces us into a state of favour, is the reception of the sacrament.^ Those, too, who subse- quently to baptism have fallen into mortal sin are recov- ered from their error, not by the renewed exercise of faith in the Son of God, but by the fictitious sacrament of pen- ance. The weak are established, not by looking unto Jesus, the Author and Finisher of faith, and praying for the unction from the Holy One which shall enable them to know all things, but by submitting to episcopal manipula- tion and trusting to episcopal anointing. If the soul feeds upon the body and blood of the Redeemer, it is not as the food of faith to the spiritual man, but the food of sense to the natural man, which, instead of uniting us to Christ, assimilates Him to our mortal flesh. Her ministers are called to her altars by a sacrament; a sacrament blesses the marriage of her children ; her first office to the living is a sacrament, her last office to the dying is a sacrament, and she follows the dead into the invisible world with sacra- mental sorcery. Her power to bless, to justify and save depends upon her sacraments; these constitute her spiritual strength, these are her charms, her wands of si)iritual enchantment. If Rome were sound upon every other point, her errors in regard to the application of redemption are enough to condemn her. AMiat though she speak the truth as to the ^ Cone. Trident., Ses.s. vi., oai>. vii. 410 THE VALIDITY OF THE BAPTISM essential elements of salvation, yet if she directs to an im- proper method of obtaining them, she still leaves us in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity. The application of redemption, — this is to us the question of life and death, and a wrong answer here permanently persisted in must be irretrievably fatal. Christ will profit none who are not united to Him by faith. Baptism will not save us ; confirmation will not impart to us the Spirit ; the eucharist is an empty pageant, penance a delusion, and extreme unction a snare, without the faith of God's elect. Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God unto salvation to believers — ^to believers only, and not to the bap- tized— and whatsoever creed sets aside the office of faith practically introduces another Gospel. In Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith which works by love. Here, then, is the immeas- urable distance between the way of life proposed in the Scriptures and that which is proposed in the Papacy. The Bible says, " Believe and be saved ;" Rome says. Be bap- tized and be justified. It is the difference between the Spirit and the flesh, the form of godliness and its power. I have now finished what I intended to say upon the Romish creed. Having been compared with the standard of an inspired Apostle, I think that it has been sufficiently convicted of fundamental departures from the doctrines of the Gospel. It corrupts the Blood, the Water and the Spirit* It denies the doctrine of gratuitous justification, makes the Redeemer the minister of human righteousness, converts His death into the basis of human merit, destroys' the possibility of scriptural holiness, degrades the perfec- tion of the Divine law, exalts the church into the throne of God, and erects a vast system^ of hypocrisy and will- worship upon the ruins of a pure and spiritual religion. Divine grace is divested of its efficacy, and the Almighty is reduced to the pitiful condition of an ancient German prince, whose sole influence consisted in the authority to persuade, but not in the power to enforce. Faith is dis- OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 411 lodged from its legitimate position, perverted in its nature and corrupted in its evidence, while the sacraments, clothed with preternatural power, are foisted in its place. Such is the creed which, to the astonishment of the land, Princeton has pronounced to be not incompatible with a scriptural hope of life. I have never said, neither do I now assert, that all who are nominally in Kome must necessarily be of Rome — that every man, woman or child who ostensibly pro- fesses the Papal creed must be liopelessly doomed to perdi- tion. It is the prerogative of God alone to search the heart, and He may detect germs of grace in many a breast which have never ripened into the fruit of the lips. Jiut I do confidently assert that no man who truly believes and cordially embraces the Papal theory of salvation can, con- sistently with the Scriptures, be a child of God. If his heart is impregnated with the system, it is impregnated with the seeds of death. To make his own obedience, and not the righteousness of Christ, the immediate ground of his reliance ; to look to the power of the human will, and not to the potency of Divine grace, as the immediate agent in conversion ; to depend upon the sacraments and not upon faith for a living interest in the benefits of redemption ; to defer implicitly to human authority and reject the Spirit ex- cept as He speaks through a human tribunal, — this is to be a Papist : and if these characteristics can comport with sincere discipleship in the school of Jesus, the measures of truth are confounded, humility and pride are consistent, and gi-ace and works are synonymous expressions. Even Hooker, the semi-apologist for Papists, is compelled to admit that though in the work of redemption itself they do not join other things with Christ, yet " in the application of this inesti- mable treasure, that it may be effectual to their salvation, how demurely soever they confess that they seek remission of sins not other^vise than by the blood of Christ, using humbly the means appointed by Him to apply the benefits of His holy blood, they teach indeed so many things per- nicious to the Christian faith, in setting down the means 412 THE VALIDITY OF ROMISH BAPTISM. whereof they speak, that tlie very foundation of faith which they hold is thereby plainly overthrown on the force of the blood of Jesus Christ extinguished." This witness is true, and if true the baptism of Rome is nothing worth. It wants the form of the Christian ordinance, which derives its sacramental cliaracter from its relation to the covenant of grace ; it is essential to it that it signifies and seals the benefits of redemption. Apart from the Gospel it cannot exist. The institute of Rome is neither a sign nor a seal, however she may apply these epithets to it ; and even if it were, as she has introduced another Gospel and another scheme of salvation, she must necessarily have introduced another baptism. The one baptism of Paul is insepar- ably connected Avith the one Lord and the one faith. When the truths of the covenant are discarded, its signs lose their efficacy and its seals their power. Note. — For some admirable remarks on the immoral tendencies of the Komish doctrines, see Taylor's Dissuasive from Popery. See also the preface to his Ductor Dubitantium for a brief account of Papal Casuisti-y. If I can do so without offence, I would also refer to a recent work on the Apocrypha for some arguments, not altogether common, upon the tend- encies of Rome to skepticism, immorality and superstition. Some use has been made of this work in the present article. ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE APOC- RYPHA DISCUSSED, LETTER I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENTS— COUNCIL OF TRENT AND THE CANON, SIR: If you had been content with simply writing a review of my article on the Apocrypha, without alluding to me in any other way than as its author, I should not, perhaps, have troubled you with any notice of your strict- ures. But you have chosen the form of a personal address ; and though the rules of courtesy do not require that anony- mous letters should be answered, yet I find that your epistles are generally regarded as a challenge to discuss, through the public press, the peculiar and distinctive principles of the sect to which you belong. Such a challenge I cannot decline. Taught in the school of that illustrious philosopher who drew the first constitution of this State, I profess to be a lover of truth, and especially of the truth of God; and as I am satisfied that it has nothing to apprehend from the assaults of error so long as a country is permitted to enjoy that "capital advantage of an enlightened people, the liberty of discussing every subject which can fall within the com- pa.ss of the human mind " (a liberty, as you Avell know, possessed by the citizens of no Papal state), I cannot bring myself to dread the results of a controversy conducted even in the spirit which you ascribe to me. If, sir, my sensibilities were as easily wounded as your 413 414 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [LETTER I. own, I too might take offence at the asperity of temper which you have, indeed, attempted to conceal by a veil of affected politeness, but which, in spite of your caution, has more than once been discovered through the flimsy disguise. But, sir, the spirit of your letter is a matter of very little consequence to me. If the moderation and courtesy of the Papal priesthood were not so exclusively confined to Protestant countries, where they are a lean and beggarly minority, there would be less reason for ascribing their politeness to the dictates of craft instead of the impulses of a generous mind. It is certainly singular that Papists among us should make such violent pretensions to fastidiousness of taste, when the style of their royal masters — if the example of the popes is of value — stands pre-eminent in letters for coarseness, vulgar- ity, ribaldry and abuse. Dogs, wolves, foxes and adders, imprecations of wrath and the most horrible anathemas, dance through their bulls, " in all the mazes of metaphor- ical confusion." If these models of Papal refinement are not observed in a Protestant state, men will be apt to reflect that an Order exists among you whose secret instructions have reduced fraud to a system and lying to an art. How you, sir, without "compunctious visitings of conscience," could magnify breaches of "the rules of courtesy" on the part of Protestants toward the adherents of the Papal com- munion into serious evils which often required you "to draw on your patience," is to me a matter of profound astonishment. Standing as you do among the children of the Huguenots, whose fathers tested the liberality of Rome, and signalized their own heroic fortitude at the stake, the gibbet and the wheel, were you not ashamed to complain of "trifles light as air," mere "paper bullets of the brain," while the blood of a thousand martyrs was crying to heaven against you? Two centuries have not yet elapsed since the exiles of Languedoc found an asylum in this State. Who could have dreamed that in so short a time the members of a community which had pursued them with unrelenting Letter I.] PRELIMIXARY STATEMENTS. 415 fury at home should have been found among their descend- ants, whining piteously about charity and politeness? They who, in every country where their pretended spiritual dominion has been supported by the props of secular author- ity, have robbed, murdered and plundered all who have been guilty of the only crimes which Rome cannot tolerate — freedom of thought and obedience to God — are horribly persecuted if they are not treated with the smooth hypocrisy of courtly address! Did you feel constrained, sir, in the city of Charleston, where the recollection of the past can- not have perished, where the touching story of Judith Manigault must always be remembered, to make the formal declaration that " Catholics [meaning Papists] are not de- void of feeling ?" Were you afraid that the delight which you formerly took in sundering the tenderest ties of nature, tearing children from their parents and husbands from their wives, and above all your keen relish for Protestant blood, coupled with the notorious fact that you have re- nounced your reason and surrendered the exercise of private judgment, might otherwise have created a shrewd suspicion that you possessed the nobler elements of humanity in no marked proportions ? But I am glad to learn that you are neither " outcasts from society nor devoid of feeling ;" and I shall endeavour to treat you jn the course of this contro- versy as men that have " discourse of reason," though I plainly foresee that your punctilious regard to " the rules of courtesy " will lead you to condemn my severity of spirit. It is a precious truth that my judgment is not with man. To employ soft and honeyed phrases in discussing questions of everlasting importance ; to deal with errors that strike at the foundation of all human hope as if they Avere harm- less and venial mistakes; to bless where God curses and to make apologies where God requires us to hate, — though it may be the aptest method of securing popular aiiplause in a so- phistical age, is cruelty to man and treachery to Heaven. Those who, on such subjects, attach more importance to the " rules of courtesy " than the measures of truth, do not 416 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Letter I. defend the citadel, but betray it into the hands of its enemies. Judas kissed his Master, but it was only to mark him out for destruction; the Roman soldiers saluted Jesus, Hail, King of the Jews ! but it was in grim and insulting mockery. Charity for the persons of men, however, corrupt or desperately wicked, is a Christian virtue. I have yet to learn that opinions and doctrines fall within its province. On the contrary, I apprehend that our love to the souls of men will be the exact measure of our zeal in exposing the dangers in which they are ensnared.^ It is only among those who hardly admit the existence of such a thing as truth, who look upon all doctrines as equally involved in uncertainty and doubt — among skeptics, sophists and calcu- lators— that a generous zeal is likely to be denounced as bigotry, a holy fervency of style mistaken for the inspira- tion of malice, and the dreary indiiference of Pyrrhonism confounded with true liberality. Such men would have condemned Paul for his withering rebuke to Elyjuas the sorcerer, and Jesus Christ for his stern denunciations of the Scribes and Pharisees. Surely if there be any subject which requires pungency of language and severity of re- buke, it is the " uncasing of a grand imposture ;" if there be any proper object of indignation and scorn, " it is a false prophet taken in the greatest, dearest and most dangerous cheat — the cheat of souls." 1 "We all know," says Milton, in a passage which I shall partially quote, "that in private or personal injuries, yea, in public sutlerings for the cause of Christ, His rule and example teaches us to be so far from a readiness to speak evil as not to answer the reviler in his language, though never so much provoked ; yet in the detecting and convincing of any notorious enemy to truth and his country's peace, I suppose, and more than suppose, it will be nothing disagreeing from Christian meekness to handle such an one in a rougher accent, and to send home his haughtiness well bespurted with his own holy water. Nor to do this are we unauthor- ized either from the moral precept of Solomon, to answer him thereafter that prides himself in his folly ; nor from the example of Christ and all His followers in all ages, who, in the refuting of those that resisted sound doctrine and by subtle dissimulations corrupted the minds of men, have wrought up their zealous souls into such vehemencies as nothing could be more killingly spoken." — Animadvemions upon the Remonst. Def. Pre/, Letter I.] PRELIMINARY STATEMENTS. 417 If I know my own heart, I am so far from entertaining vindictive feelings to the persons of Papists that I sincerely deplore their blindness, and would as cheerfully accord to them as any other citizens who have no special claims upon me the hospitalities of life. It is only in the solemn matters of religion that an impassable gulf is betwixt us. You apply, it is true, to the Papal community throughout your letters (I have three of them now before me) the title of the Catholic Church ; and perhaps one ground of the offence that I have given is to be found in the fact that I have not acknowledged even indirectly your arrogant pretensions. Sir, I cannot do it until I am prepared with you to make the Word of God of none effect by vain and impious tradi- tions, and to belie the records of authentic history. I say it in deep solemnity and with profound conviction, that so far are you from being the Holy Catholic Church that your right to be regarded as a Church of God at all, in any just scriptural sense, is exceedingly questionable. A community which buries the truth of God under a colossal pile of lying legends, and makes the preaching of Christ's pure Gospel a damnable sin; which annuls the signs in the holy sacra- ments, and by a mystic power of sacerdotal enchantment pretends to bestow the invisible grace ; which, instead of the ministry of reconciliation, whose business it is to preach the Word, cheats the nations with a Pagan priesthood, whose function it is to offer up sacrifice for the living and the dead ; which, instead of the pure, simple and spiritual wor- ship that constitutes the glory of the Christian Church, dazzles the eyes with the gorgeous solemnities of Pagan superstition ; a community like this — and such is the Church of Rome — can be regarded in no other light than as "a detestable system of impiety, cruelty and imposture, fabri- cated by the father of lies." Like the " huge and mon- strous Wen," of which ancient story' tells us, that claimed a seat in the council of the body next to the head itself, the constitution of the Papacy is an enormous excrescence which 1 See the story told in Milton, Reformation in Eng., Book ii. Vol. III.— 27 418 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lettf.h I. has grown from the Church of Christ, and which, when opened and dissected by the implements of Divine truth, is found to be but a " heap of hard and loathsome uncleanness, a foul disfigurement and burden." The Christian world was justly indignant with the fraternal address which Eng- lish Socinians submitted " to the ambassador of the mighty emperor of Fez and Morocco" at the court of Charles the Second.^ But their own spurious charity to Papists is a no less treacherous betrayal of the cause of truth. What claims have Eoman Catholics to be regarded as Christians which may not be pleaded with equal propriety in behalf of the Mohammedans ? Is it that Rome professes to receive the Word of God as contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments ? The false Prophet of Arabia makes the same pretension. Assisted in the composition of the Koran by an apostate Jew and a renegade Christian, he has given a lodgment to almost every heresy which had infected the Church of Christ in this rude and chaotic mass of fraud and imposture. Professing to receive the Bible, he makes it of none effect by his additions to its teaching. The real creed of Mohammedans has no countenance from Scripture. It is on the ground that Mohammed makes void the Word of God by his pretended revelations that he is treated by the Christian world as a blasphemer and impostor. Has not Rome equally silenced the Oracles of God in the din and clatter of a thousand wicked traditions ? Her real creed, that which gives form and body to the system, that which is proposed alike as the rule of the living and the hope of the dying, is not only not to be found in the Bible, but contra- dicts every distinctive principle of the glorious Gospel of God's grace. If Mohammedans justify the heterogeneous additions of their Prophet to the acknowledged revelation of Heaven by pretending that the Bible is imperfect, and consequently inadequate as a rule of faith and practice, how much better is the conduct of Rome in reference to the same 1 See Leslie's Socinian Controversy. For the authenticity of this address, see Horslev's Tracts in controversy with Dr. Priestley. Letter I.] PRELIMINARY STATEMENTS. 419 matter? She may not assume Avitli Mohammed that the Scriptures have been corrupted, but she does assume that the Scriptures are not what God declares that they are — able not only to make us wise unto salvation, but to make " the man of God perfect, thoroughly furnished unto every good work."^ Again, Rome's bulwark is tradition. Moham- med, however, far outstrips her in this matter, and appeals to a tradition preserved by the descendants of Ishmael that reaches back to the time of Abraham. So, also, in the article of infallibility and authoritative teaching, the Arabian impostor and the Roman harlot stand on similar ground. The doctrines of the Koran are announced with no other evidence than the dorb^ i(pyj of the master, and the Edicts of Trent claim to bind the world because they are the Edicts of Trent. In one respect the religion of Mohammed is purer than that of Rome ; it is free from idolatry. There is in it no approximation to what Gibbon calls the " elegant mythology of Greece." Mohammedanism and Popery are in truth successive evo- lutions in a great and comprehensive plan of darkness, con- ceived by a master mind for the purjjose of destroying the kingdom of light and perpetuating the reign of death. For centuries of ignorance and guilt the god of this world possessed a consolidated empire in the unbroken dominion, among all the nations but one, of Pagan idolatry. This was the grand enemy of Christ in the apostolic age. When this fabric, however, in the provinces of ancient Rome, tottered to its fall, with his characteristic subtlety and fraud the Great Deceiver, according to the predictions of Prophets and Apostles, began another structure in the corruption of the Gospel itself, which should be equally imposing and more fatal, because it pretended a reverence for truth. Under the plausible and sanctimonious pretexts of superior piety and extraordinary zeal the simple institutions of the Gospel were gradually undermined; errors, one by one, were imperceptibly introduced ; the circle of darkness con- 1 2 Tim. iii. 17. 420 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [LETTER I, tinned daily to extend, until in an age of profound slum- ber, through the deep machinations of the wicked One, the foundations of the Papacy were securely laid. The temple of the Western Antichrist, erected on the ruins of Chris- tianity in the bounds of the Roman See, and requiring as it did the corruptions of ages to prepare, cement and consoli- date its parts, owes its compactness of form and harmonious proportions to the profound policy and consummate skill of the Enemy of souls. As left by the Council of Trent, the Papal Church stands completely accoutred in the panoply of darkness — the grand instrument of Satan in the West as ]\Iohammedanism in the East — to oppose the kingdom of God.^ The lights are now extinguished on the altar ; those in her, but not of her, who have any lingering reverence for God, are required to abandon her ; her gorgeous forms and imposing ceremonies are only the funeral rites of relig- ion ; the life, spirit and glory have departed. Entertaining as I do these convictions in regard to the Papal community, I shall not pretend to sentiments which as a man I ought not to cherish, and as a Christian I dare not tolerate. Peace with Rome is rebellion against God. My love to Him, to His Church, His truth and the eternal interests of men will for ever prevent me — even indirectly by a mawkish liberality which can exist only in words — from bidding God-speed to this Babylonish merchant of souls. But I wish it to be distinctly understood that my most unsparing denunciations of doctrines and practices w^iich seem to me to lead directly to the gates of death are not to be construed into a personal abuse of the Papists them- selves. Little as they believe it, I would gladly save them from the awful doom of an apostate church. With these general explanations of the spirit by which I am and shall continue to be actuated, I shall pass on to make a few remarks in vindication of the expressions at which you have taken offence as indicating ill feelings on 1 The doctrine of the immacuhite conception of the Virgin is supposed to be derived from the Koran. See Gibbon, vol. ix., chap. 1., pp. 2C5, 266. Letter I.] PEETJMIXArvY STATEMENTS. 421 my part, and "with which even in quotation you are unwilling to sully your pen." These expressions, you will excuse me for saying, are perfectly proper. Protestants designate their own churches by terms descrip- tive of their peculiar forms of government or the distinctive doctrines they profess. Some are called Presbyterians and some Prelatists, some Calvinists and others Arminians. You acknowledge the supremacy of the Pope ; this is a distinctive feature of your system. Where, then, is the ground of offence in applying to you a term, or, as you choose to call it, a " vulgar epithet," which exactly describes a character- istic principle of your sect ? Then again, as to the phrases "vassals of Rome" and " captives to the car of Rome," they are really the least offensive terms in which your relations to the Papal See, as set forth in standard writers of your own Church, can be ex- pressed. You must be aware, sir, or you would hardly ven- ture to assume with so much confidence the air of a scholar, that the word vassal was employed by our earlier writers as equivalent to a man of valour, and was flir from conveying a reproachful meaning. "The word," says Richardson, "is indeed evidently as much a term of honour as knighthood was." It is certainly a softer term than slave, which, ac- cording to Cicero's definition of servitude — obedientla fnicti aniini et abjedi et arbitrio carentis suo^ — seems to be more exactly adapted to describe your state. Captivity to Christ is the glory of a Christian ; and as the voice of Rome is to you the word of the Lord, I do not see why you should object to being called "captives to the car of Rome." I am afraid, sir, that the real harm of these words is not to be found in their vulgarity and coarseness, but in the un- palatable truth which they contain. If there were no sore there would be no shrinking beneath the probe. As to my " mocking language concerning the awful mystery of tran- substantiation," I am not yet persuaded that there is any other mystery in this huge absurdity but " the mystery of 1 Cicero, Paradoxon, V. i. 422 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Letter I. iniquity." To you, sir, it may be mvful; so no doubt were calves and apes to their Egyptian worshippers. I. Your letters contain, or profess to contain, an explana- tion of what the Council of Trent actually did in regard to the Canon of Scripture, a vindication of its conduct, and a laboured reply to my short arguments against the inspira- tion of the Apocrypha. In other words, they naturally divide themselves into three parts : a statement, the proof, and refutation. Of each, now, in its order. In your statement of what the Council did, you have given us a definition of the word Ccmon which, since the term is not — as you seem to imply — univocal, adequately represents neither ancient nor modern usage. As I shall have occasion in another part of this discussion to revert to this subject again, it will be sufficient for my present pur- pose to observe that, in the modern acceptation of the term, the Scriptures are not called canonical because they are found in any given catalogue, but because they are authorita- tive as a rule of faith. The common metaphorical meaning of the Greek word xaucov is a rule or measure. In this sense it is used by the classical wTiters of antiquity,^ as well as by the great Apostle of the Gentiles.^ Whether found in a catalogue or not, if the inspiration of a book can be ade- ([uately determined, it possesses at once canonical authority. It becomes, as far as it goes, a standard of faith. And with all due deference, sir, to your superior facilities for under- standing aright the decisions of your Church, you will per- mit me to declare that the Council of Trent, which you so much venerate, in pronouncing the Apocrypha canonical^ either employed the term in the sense wdiich I have indi- cated, and made these books an authoritative rule of faith, or was guilty of a degree of folly which, w4th all my con- tempt for the character of its members, I am unwilling to impute to them. You inform us, sir, that a book is to be regarded as sacred because it is inspired, but that no book, 1 Aristotle, Polit., lib. ii., caji. 8; Eurip., Hec, 602. 2Gal. vi. 16: Phil. iii. 16. Letter I.] COUNCIL OF TEENT AND THE CANON. 423 whatever its origin, is to be received as canonical until it is inserted in some existing catalogue. With this key to the interpretation of its language, the Council of Trent ^ has pronounced its anathema not only on the man who refuses to receive these books as inspired, but also on him who does not believe that they are found in a catalogue. He is as much bound, on pain of what you interpret to be excommu- nication, to believe in the existence of a list of inspired books as he is to believe in the Divine authority of the books themselves. It is not enough for him to know that the various documents which compose the Bible were written by men whose minds were guided by the Holy Ghost ; he must also know that a body of men in some quarter of the world has actually inserted the names of these books in a catalogue or list. " Risum teneatis, amici f Now — to borrow an illustration from your favourite quarter — suppose one of our slaves should be converted to Popery, that is, should receive as true all the dogmas that the priests inculcate, and yet be ignorant that such a learned body as the Council of Trent had ever been convened, or, what is no uncommon thing among you, be profoundly igno- rant that such a book as the Bible exists at all, would he be damned? To say nothing of his not receiving the Scrip- tures under such circumstances as sacred, he most assuredly does not receive them as canonical in your sense. He knows nothing of a list or catalogue in which these books are enumerated. It is an idle equivocation to say that the curse has reference only to those who know the existence of the catalogue. In that case the sin which is condemned is evi- dently a sheer impossibility except to a man who is stark mad. To know that a catalogue is composed of certain books, and this is the only way of knowing it is a catalogue, ^ " Now if any one does not receive as sacred and canonical those books entire, with all their parts, as they have been usually read in the Catholic Church, and are found in the old Latin Vulgate edition, and shall know- ingly and industriously contemn the aforesaid traditions, let him be ana- thema."— Letter I. 424 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Letter I. and yet 7iot to believe that the books are in it, is a mental contradiction which can only be received by those whose understandings can digest the mystery of transubstantiatiou. According to your statement, the venerable Fathers as- sembled at Trent did three things: 1. They decided what books were inspired ; 2. They arranged them in a list ; and, 3. They excommunicated all those heretics who would not receive both books and list. In my humble opinion, how- ever, the holy Fathers declared what books they received as sacred and authoritative in matters of faith, and pro- nounced their curse upon those who did not acknowledge the same rule with themselves. I shall quote from the de- cree itself, in your own translation, a sentence which shows that your sense of the term canonical was foreign from their thoughts : " It has, moreover, thought proper to annex to this decree a catalogue of the sacred books, lest any doubt might arise which are the books received by this Council." You will find, on recurring to the original, that the word which you have rendered catalogue is not canona, but indi- cem. Again, sir, as the Fathers are said to receive these books before their own list is made, how did they do it ? Evidently in the same way — unless there be one sort of faith for the people and another for divines — in which they required others to receive them, that is, as saered and canonical. But the preceding part of the decree contains not a word about the existence of former catalogues, though it is particular to insert the inspiration of these books as well as of tradition as the ground of their reception, main- taining, at the same time, that they were, if not the rule, at least what is equivalent to it, the source {fontem), of every saving truth and of moral discipline. Hence, in the sense of Trent, to be sacred and canonical " is to be inspired as a rule of faith." After this specimen of definition we are not to be astonished at still more marvellous achievements in the way of trans- lation. The words, clear and explicit in themselves, "pan pietatis affectu ac reverentia suscipit et vena'atur," I find are Letter I.] COUNCIL OF TRENT AND THE CANON. 425 rendered by you into English, hardly less equivocal than the language of an ancient oracle.^ Sir, to say nothing of the obvious meaning of the words, you might have learned from your own Jesuit historian Pollavicuio^ that it was the intention of the Fathers in this famous decree to place the Apocrypha and unwritten traditions upon a footing of equal authority wdth the book which the Lutherans acknowledged as inspired. Their object was to give their Canon or rule of faith. Deter- mined as the Pope and his legates were to suppress the Refor- mation, which had then been successfully begun, and to per- petuate the atrocious abuses of the Roman court, they com- menced the work of death by poisoning the waters of life at the fountain. In the sentence immediately succeeding the anathema, we are given to understand that the preliminary measures in reference to faith were designed to indicate the manner in which the subsequent proceedings of the Council touching questions of doctrine and order should be conducted. 1 " Keceives with d^ie piety and reverence, and venerates." The same blunder is found in the translation of this decree prefixed to the Douay version of the Scriptures. ^ " Deinde quo res per futuram Sessionem statuendse discuterentur, idem Legatus exposuit : Optimum sibi facta videri, ut primo loco recen- serentur ac reciperentur libri Canonici sacrarum Literarum, quo certo con- staret, quibus armis esset in hcereticos dimicandum, et in qua basi fundanda esset Fides Catholicorum ; quorum aliqui super ea re misere angebantur, cum cernerent in eodem libro a plurimiss Spiritus digitum adorari, alios contra digitum impostoris execrari. Hoc statuto tria in peculiaribus coetibus proposita sunt. Primum, an omnia utriusque testamenti volumina essent comprobanda. Alteram, an ea comprobatio per novum exaraen peragenda: tertium a Bertano ac Seripando propositum, an expediret sacros libros in duas classes partiri : alteram eorum quae ad promovendam populi pietatem pertinent, et illius ergo solum ab Ecclesia recepti tam- quam boni, cujusmodi videbantur esse Proverbiorum et Sapientise libri, nondum ab Ecclesia probati tamquara Canonici, tametsi frequens eorum mentio haberetur apud sanctum Hieronymum et Augustinuni, aliosque veteres auctores : alteram eorum, quibus etiam fidei dogmata innituntur. Sed ea divisio, tametsi ab aliquo auctore prius facta, et tunc a Seripando promota per libellum eruditissimum ea gratia conscriptum, quo cuncti libri Canonici rite expenderentur, uti revera firmara rationem non prsefe- rebat, ita nee sua specie Patres allexit, vix nacta laudatorem : quare nihil ultra de ilia disputabinius." — Pullavicino, Hist. Cone. Trident., lib. vi., cap. xi. 426 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Letter I. They settled the proofs and authorities to which in all their future deliberations they intended to appeal. As Luther was to be crushed, and as the armory of God's Word furnished no weapons with which this incorrigible heretic could be con- victed of error, a stronger bulwark must needs be raised to protect the abuses and cover the corruptions of the Church of Rome. You cannot be ignorant, sir, that much difficulty was felt by the Council in settling the list of canonical books.^ It was not prepared at once to outrage truth and history by making that Divine which the Church of God had never re- ceived as the w^ork of the Holy Ghost. But, sir, without the Apocrypha and unwritten tradition, the holy Fathers were unable to construct an embankment sufficient to roll back the cleansing tide of life which Luther was endeavouring to pour into the Augean stable of Papal impurity and filth. The awful plunge was consequently taken, and these spurious books and lying legends were made standards of faith of equal authority with God's holy Word. Inspired Scripture, apocryphal productions and unwritten traditions were not only received with due piety and reverence, as you would have us to believe, but were received with equal piety and vene- ration, as the decree itself asserts. This, sir, is what Trent did, and, until it can be shown that all these elements of ^ " Some thought fit to establish three ranks. The first, of those ivhich have been always held as Divine ; the second, of those whereof sometimes doubt hath been made, but by use have obtained canonical authority, in which number are the six Epistles, and the Apocalypse of the New Tes- tament, and some small parts of the Evangelists; the third, of those whereof there hath never been any assurance ; as are the seven of the Old Testament and some chapters of Daniel and Esther. Some thought it better to make no distinction at all, but to imitate the Council of Carthage and others, making the catalogue, and saying no more. Another opinion was that all of them should be declared to be in all parts, as they are in the Latin Bible, of Divine and equal authority. The book of Baruc troubled them most, which is not put in the number, neither by the Lao- diceans, nor by those of Carthage, nor by the Pope, and therefore sliould be left out, as well for this reason, as because the beginning of it cannot be found. But because it was read in the Church, the Congregation, es- teeming this a potent reason, resolved that it was, by the ancients, accounted a part of Jeremy and comj)rised with him." — Father Paul, p. 1-14. Letter I.] COUNCIL OF TEEXT AND THE CANON. 427 Papal faith are really entitled to the same degree of author- ity and esteem — that they are all, in other words, equally inspired — ray charge of intolerable arrogance remains un- answered against the Church of Rome. I said, and repeat the accusation, that she made that Divine which is noto- riously human, and that inspired which, in the sense of the Apostle, is notoriously of " private interpretation." I did not impeach the Council for having presumed to draw up a catalogue of sacred and canonical books; but I did impeach it, and do still impeach it, of one of the most awful crimes which a mortal can commit, in having solemnly de- clared " Thus saith the Lord," when the Lord had neither spoken nor sent them. The insulted nations, heartsick with abuses, were looking, with the anxiety of a dying man, for the sovereign remedy which it was confidently hoped would be prepared and administered by this long-looked- for assembly of spiritual physicians ; but when the day of their redemption, as they fondly dreamed, had at length arrived, and the cup of blessing was put to their lips, be- hold, instead of the promised cure, a deadly mixture of hemlock and nightshade ! Five crafty cardinals and a few dozen prelates from Spain and Italy, called together by the authority of the Pope, and acting in slavish subjection to his sovereign will (as if the measure of their iniquity was now full, and the hour of their final and complete infatua- tion had at length arrived), proceeded, with the daring desperation of men bereft of shame and abandoned of God, to collect the accumulated errors of ages into one enormous pile, and to send forth, as if from the " boiling alembic of hell," the blackening vapours of death to obscure the dawn- ing light, to cover the earth with darkness and involve the people in despair. Where were truth and decency, sir, when this miserable cabal ' of scrambling politicians claimed ^ When we call to mind the arts and subterfuges by whicli the Court of Rome endeavoured to evade the necessity of calling a Council ; its long delays, while groaning Europe was clamouring for reform ; its wily manoeuvres, when the necessity at last became inevitable, to have the Council under its own control ; the crafty policy by which it succeeded, — 428 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Letter I. to represent the universal Church f Is it not notorious that when the Canon of your faith was settled, even Papal Europe was so poorly represented that not a single deputy was found in the Council from whole nations that it assumed to govern? Its pretensions, too, to be guided by the Holy Ghost, when its whole history attests that the spirit of the Pope was the presiding spirit of the body, afford "damning proof" that it was given up to " hardness of heart and reprobacy of mind." You have favoured us, sir, with an extract from Hallam, which I shall not crave pardon for asserting is entitled to about as much respect as his discriminating cen- sures of Pindar's Greek. I am surprised, sir, that you should have ventured to commend the learning of the Fathers of Trent.^ The matter can easily be settled by an when we look at these things — and whoever has read the history of Europe during that period cannot be ignorant of thena — the language of the text cannot be deemed too severe. The Council was evidently a mere tool of the Pope. 1 The following extracts, one from Robertson, the other from Father Paul (a Papist himself), may be taken as an offset to the testimony of Hallam, and a flat contradiction to "A. P. F.'s" account of the learni',igoi the body: " But whichever of these authors," says Robertson, referring to the histories of Father Paul, Pallavicino and Vargas " whichever of tliese authors an intelligent person takes for his guide in forming a judgment concerning the spirit of the Council, he must discover so much ambition as well as artifice among some of the members, so much ignorance and corruption among others; he must observe such a large infusion of human policy and passions, mingled with such a scanty portion of that simplicity of heart, sanctity of manners and love of truth which alone qualify men to determine what doctrines are worthy of God, and what worship is acceptable to Him,— that he will find it no easy matter to believe that any extraordinary influence of tlie Holy Ghost hovered over this assembly and dictated its decrees." — Charles V., vol. iii., b. x., p. 400. " Neither was there among those prelates any one remarkable for learn- ing : some of them were lawyers, perhaps learned in that profession, but of little understanding in religion ; few divines, but of less than ordinary sufficiency ; the greater number gentlemen or courtiers ; and for their dignities, some were only titular, and the major part bishops of so small cities that, supposing every one to represent his people, it could not be said that one of a' thousand in Cliristendom was represented. But par- ticularly of CJermany there was not so much as one bishop or divine."— Father Paul, p. 153. Letter I.] COUXCIL OF TRENT AND THE CANON. 429 appeal to facts. Cajetan was reputed to be the most emi- nent man among them, " unto whom/' says Father Paul, " there was no prelate or person in the Council who would not yield in learning, or thought himself too good to learn of him ;" ^ yet, with all his learning, he knew not a word of Hebrew. What divine of the present day would be deemed a scholar at all who could not read the Scriptures in the original tongues? When the question of the authen- ticity of the Vulgate was nnder discussion in the Council, what a holy horror was displayed of grammarians ! What shocking alarm lest the dignities of the Church should be given to pedants, instead of divines and canonists ! ^ Sir, why this dread of the Hebrew and Greek originals if your pastors and teachers could read them ? Is it not a shrewd presumption that you made the Bible authentic in a tongue which you could read, because God had made it authentic in tongues which you could not read? So much for the learn- ing of these venerable men, II. Having sufficiently shown that your statement is a series of blunders, and your eulogy on the Council wholly unfounded, I proceed to your proof The point which you propose to establish is, that the Apocrypha were given by inspiration of God. You undertake to furnish that positive proof which I had demanded, and without which I had asserted that no moral obligation could exist to receive them. Before, however, you proceed to exhibit your argu- ment, you step aside for a moment to show us the extent of your learning in regard to the disputes which at various times have been agitated touching the books that should be received as inspired. Sir, the object of such statements is obvious — you wish to create the impression that the whole subject of the Canon is involved in inextricable confusion, and that the only asylum for the doubting and distressed, the only place in which the truth can be found and perplex- ities resolved, is the bosom of your own communion. In your zeal to represent Protestants as without any solid 1 Page 145. = Father Paul, page 146. 430 AKGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Letter II. foundations for their faith, it would be well to confine your- self to statements better supported than some that you have made. That the Sadduoees, as a sect, rejected all the books of the Old Testament with the exception of the Pentateuch, is certainly not to be received upon the conjectures of the Fathers against the violent improbabilities which press the assertion — improbabilities so violent that, with all his re- gard for the Fathers, Basnage^ has been compelled to soften down the proposition into the milder statement that this skeptical sect only attributed greater authority to the writings of Moses than to the rest of the Canon. If by the Albigenses you mean the Paulicians, you can know but little about them except what you have gathered from their bitter and implacable enemies. The documents of their faith have all perished. You cannot be ignorant, how- ever, that Protestant divines have constructed a strong argument from the very nature of their origin to rebut the assertion which you have ventured to assume as true. LETTER II. THE ARGUMENT FOR INSPIRATION EXAMINED. I COME now, sir, to the examination of your argument for the inspiration of the Apocrypha, as well as of all the other books which you profess to receive as sacred and canonical. In appreciating the force and importance of this argument it will be necessary to bear distinctly in mind that the conclusion which you aim to establish is not to be probably time, but infallibly certain. You require of those who undertake to determine for themselves what books ' B.isnage, History of the Jews, B. ii., ch. vi., p. 96. — Brucker, Crit. Hist. Phil., torn, ii., pp. 721, 722. See particnUirly Eichhorn, who has clenrly .shown that the charge is unfounded : Einleit., 4th Edit., vol. i., p. 136. Letter II.] ARGUMENT FOR INSPIRATION EXAMINED. 431 have been given by inspiration of God to decide the matter with absolute certainty, or to renounce the exercise of their private judgments. In proposing, therefore, a " more ex- cellent way," you could not think of substituting one which did not fulfil this high and important condition. Your conclusion, then, is not to be a matter of opinion, but in- fallible truth ; and if your arguments do not establish beyond the possibility of a reasonable doubt the inspiration of the Apocrypha, they fall short of the purpose which you have brought them forward to sustain. Your proposition consequently is that there is infallible evidence that the Apocrypha were given by inspiration of God ; or, to state it in another form, that the Apocrypha were inspired is infallibly and absolutely certain. Your general argument may be compendiously expressed in the following syllo- gism : "Whatever the pastors of the Church of Eome declare to be true must be infallibly certain ; That the Apocrypha were inspired the pastors of the Church of Rome declare to be true ; Therefore it must be infallibly certain. In other words, the Council of Trent did not err in this particular case because it coidd not err in any case. It is the argumentwm a non posse ad non esse, which is then only logically sound when the non posse is sufficiently established. Since the whole weight of your reasoning rests upon the truth of your major proposition, you have very judiciously employed all your resources in fortifying it. Still, sir, after all your care, it is signally exposed to heretical assaults. In the first place, you must be aware that your argument is vitiated by that species of paralogism which logicians denom- inate ambiguity of the middle. What is the precise exten- sion of the words " pastors of tlie Church of Rome" ? They may be understood either universally, particularly, or distributively; and you will excuse me for saying that in the course of your first letter you have either employed them in each of these different applications, or I have been 432 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Letter IL wholly iinaLlc to apprehend your meaning. At one time it would seem that you mean the whole body of your priest- hood collected together in a grand assembly. You speak of " a body of individuals, to whom, in their collective capa- city, God has given authority to make an unerring decision." Then, again, you inform us that the " pastors of the Cath- olic Church" (meaning, of course, the Church of Rome) " claim to compose it." In addition to this, you speak of a single priest "presenting himself to instruct a Christian or an infidel" as a member of the body ; whence, the inference is natural and necessary that every priest is a member of the body. From a comparison of these various passages in your first letter it would evidently appear that you employed the words "pastors of the Church of Rome" in your major proposition in their fullest extension. If, then, you meant an assembly composed of all the pastors of the Church of Rome, the Council of Trent, which comprised only a small portion of your teachers, has manifestly not the shadow of a claim to the precious virtue of infallibility. In this case your major might be true, and yet your minor would be so evidently false as to destroy completely the validity of your- conclusion. A body consisting of all the pastors of the Church of Rome never has met, never will meet, and, from the nature of the case, never can meet; and an infallibility lodged in such an assembly for the guidance of human faith or the regulation of human practice is just as intangi- ble and Avorthless as if it were lodged with the man in the moon. Still, whether this infallible tribunal were accessible or not, your argument would be a sophism. It would stand precisely thus : Whatsoever all the pastors of the Church of Rome in their collective capacity declare must be infallibly certain. That the Apocrypha were inspired some of the pastors of the Church of Rome collected at Trent declared. Therefore, it must be infallibly certain. An infallible con- clusion, undoubtedly ! But, sir, the words may be taken particularly. If, how- ever, they are to be taken in a restricted sense, you should Letter II.] ARGUMENT FOR INSPIRATION EXAMINED. 433 have told us precisely what limitation you intended to pre- fix, otherwise your reasoning may be still vitiated by an ambiguous middle. Without such an explanation w^e have no means of ascertaining whether the Avords as employed in the minor coincide as they should do with the same words as employed in the major. You should have told us under what circumstances infallibility attaches to some pastors of the Church of Rome, if you indeed intended to limit the phrase. That you have occasionally used it in a limited sense is evident from the fact that you attribute infallibility to the Council of Trent, which was certainly a small body compared with all the pastors of your entire Church. Are you prepared to say that any number of Popish pastors met under any circumstances shall be infallibly guided by the Holy Ghost in all their decisions concerning doctrine and practice — that even the same number which met at Trent, collected together by accident, or merely by mutual consent, would be possessed of the same exemption from all possi- bility of error Avhich you ascribe to Trent ? If you are not prepared to make this assertion, your major proposition is not absolutely true, but only under special limitations. These limitations are not even stated, much less defined; and while your leading proposition is left in this unsettled con- dition, what logician can determine whether your argument be anything more than a specious fallacy ? Certain it is that it can never be regarded as conclusive until you show that all those conditions were fulfilled in the Council of Trent which are necessary to secure infallibility to '^ some of the pastors" of the Church of Rome. Where in all your let- ters have you touched this point? What was there that distinguished the Fathers of Trent from an equal number of bishops and divines met together upon their own respon- sibility, in such a way as to make the former infallible and the latter not ? Was it the authority of the Pope ? Then your argument was not complete until you had proved with absolute certainty that a Papal bull secures the guidance of the Holy Ghost. Was it the concurrence of the Emperor? Vol. III.— 28 434 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [LETTER II. This matter is nowhere established. Was it both combined ? What was it, sir? Let me remind you that as you aim at an infallible conclusion, every step of your argument must be supported by infallible proof. There must be no hidden ambiguities, no rash assumptions, no precipitate deductions. In so solemn a business you should construct a solid fabric, able to support the enormous weight which you would have us to rest upon it. There is still another meaning which your major propo- sition may bear. You may have employed the words " pas- tors of the Church of Rome " in a distributive sense, and then you would distinctly inform us that every priest belong- ing to your sect shall infallibly teach the truth. The appli- cation of your argument to the condition of the ignorant and unlearned absolutely requires this sense. According to you every man, no matter what may be his condition or attainments, may have infallible evidence on the subject of the Canon. Where is he to find it ? In the instructions of the priest who informs him what books were inspired and Avhat books arose from " private interpretation " ? The tes- timony of the single, individual priest is all the evidence that he does or can have. If, then, he has infallible evi- dence, the testimony of the priest, which is his only evidence, must be infallible, and consequently the priest himself must be infallible too, or incapable of teaching error. It is not enough that the water should be pure at the fountain, it must also be pure in the channels through which it is con- veyed. The Council of Trent may have been infallible, but if it has only fallible expounders, the people can have nothing but fallible evidence. According to you, however, the people do have infallible evidence ; therefore, the Coun- cil must have infallible expounders ; therefore, every pastqr must be individually infallible.^ While your argument, ^ "Though there have been infinite disputes as to where the infallibility resides, what are the doctrines it has definitively pronounced true, and ■who to the individual is the infallible expounder of what is thus infallibly pronounced infallible, yet he who receives this doctrine in its integrity has nothing more to do than to eject his reason, sublime his faith into credu- Letter II.] ARGUMENT FOR INSPIRATION EXAMINED. 435 however, indispensably requires this sense, you seem to dis- claim it in those passages of your letters which speak of a body of individuals in their collective capacity as the chosen depository of the truth of God. How, I beseech you, is a poor Protestant heretic, with no other helps but his gram- mar and lexicon, and no other guide but his own reason, to detect your real meaning in this mass of ambiguity and con- fusion? I would not misrepresent you, and yet I confess that I do not understand you. I can put no intelligible sense upon your words which shall make all the parts of your letter consistent with themselves. You seem to have shifted your position as often as you added to your para- graphs. We have no less than four distinct propositions covertly concealed under the deceitful terms of your major premiss : 1. Whatsoever all the pastors of the Church of Rome declare must be infallibly true. 2. Whatsoever some of the pastors of the Church of Rome, under certain special limitations, declare, must be infallibly true. 3. Whatsoever some of the pastors of the Church of Rome, under any circumstances, declare, must be infalli- bly true. 4. Whatsoever any priest or pastor of the Church of Rome declares must be infallibly true. lity, and reduce his creed to these two comprehensive articles: 'I believe whatsoever the Church believes; 'I believe that the Church believes whatsoever my father confessor believes that she believes.' For thus he reasons: Nothing is more certain than whatsoever God says is infal- libly true ; it is infallibly true that the Church says just what God says; it is infallibly true that what the Church says is known ; and it is also infallibly true that my father confessor, or the parson of the next parish, is an infallible expositor of what is thus infallibly known to be the Churcli's infallible belief of what God has declared to be infallibly true. If any one uf the links, even the last, in this strange sorites, be supposed unsound, if it be not true that the priest is an infallible expounder to the individual of the Church's inCillibllity, if his judgment be only 'private judgment,' we come back at once to the perplexities of the common theory of private judgment." — Edinburgh Review, No. 139, Amer. reprint, p. 206. 436 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Letter II. Until, sir, you shall condescend to throw more light upon the intricacies of your style, your leading proposition must stand like an unknown quantity in Algebra, and for aught that appears to the contrary the letter x might have been just as safely and just as definitely substituted. Those -who look for an infallible conclusion in this reasoning must not be surprised if they meet with the success which rewards the easy credulity of a child in seeking for golden treasures at the foot of the rainbow. Thousands have fully believed that they were there, but none have been able to reach the spot. The infallibility of testimony which you attribute to the pastors of the Church of Rome you endeavour to collect from two general propositions, which it is necessary to your argument to link together as antecedent and consequent. First, you inform us that God must have " given authority to a body of individuals in their collective capacity to make an unerring decision upon the subject" of the Canon; and then you infer that if such a body exists at all it must be composed of the pastors and teachers of the Church of Rome. Until you can show that the antecedent in the proposition is necessarily true, and the consequent just as necessarily connected with it, you must acknowledge, sir, that you have failed in presenting to your readers what your extravagant pretensions require — an wfaUible conclu- sion. You must show, according to the process of argu- ment which you have prescribed for yourself, not only that an infallible body exists, but that it is and can be composed of no other elements but those which you embrace under the dark and unknown phrase, "pastors of the Catholic Church." Deficiency of proof on either of these points is fatal to your cause. It is not a little remarkable, in the history of human paradox, contradiction and absurdity, that absolute infalli- bility should be claimed for the testimony of those who, if tried by the ordinary laws which regulate human belief, would be found destitute of any decent pretensions to the Letter II.] ARGUMENT FOE, INSPIRATION EXAMINED. 437 common degree of credibility. You have presented the pastors of the Church of Home before us distinctly in the attitude of witnesses. Their power in regard to articles of faith is simply declarative ; they can only transmit to others pure and uncorrupted tliat which they received at the hands of the Apostles. They can add nothing to it, they can take nothing from it, and whatever they may declare to be the truth of God, according to the original preaching of the Apostles, w^e are bound to receive upon their testimony. "Whatsoever they declare or testify to be true, according to your statement, must be infallibly certain. Now the credi- bility of a witness depends as much upon his moral integ- rity as upon his means and opportunities of knowledge. He must not only know the truth, but be disposed to speak it. As, too, our assent to testimony is ultimately founded upon our instinctive belief that every effect must have its adequate cause, when existing causes can be assigned which are sufficient to account for the deposition of a witness apart from the truth of his declarations, we are slow to rely on his veracity. In other words, when he is known to be under strong temptations to pervert, conceal or misstate facts, we proportionably subtract from the weight of his evidence, and if it should so happen that he had ever been previously detected in a lie, few would be inclined to receive his testimony. If these remarks be just, whoever would un- dertake to establish the credibility of your pastors must prove that they are possessed of such a degree of moral honesty as to constitute a complete exemption from all adequate temptations to bear false witness. To prove their know- ledge of the subject is not enough, their integrity must also be fully made out. Any abstract arguments, however refined and ingenious, would be liable to a palpable reduc- tio ad absurduiii if after all their extravagant pretensions it should be ascertained from undeniable facts that your priesthood has ever been found destitute of those sterling moral qualities which lie at the foundation of all our confi- dence in testimony. Has it ever been shown, sir, that the 438 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lettek II. bishops of your Church have never been exposed, from their lordly ambition and indomitable lust, to adequate motives for bearing record to a lie ? Has it ever been proved that the purity of their manners and the sanctity of their lives have always been such as to render them the most unexcep- tionable witnesses on the holy subject of religion ? How will you dispose of the remarkable testimony of Pope Adrian VI., who confessed through his nuncio to the Diet of Nuremberg that the deplorable condition of the Church was " caused by the sins of men, especially of the priests and prelates'^ ? What say you, sir, to that admirable com- mentary on the honesty and integrity of your pastors, the " Centum Gravamina" of the same memorable Diet, which was carefully and deliberately drawn up with a full know- lege of the facts and despatched with all possible rapidity to Kome? Do the records of the past furnish no authenti- cated instances in which your infallible pastors have either testified to falsehood themselves or applauded it in others? Sir, if all history be not a fable, the priesthood of Rome, taken as a body, can yield in corruption, ambition, tyranny and licentiousness to no class of men that ever cursed the earth. If infallible honesty can be proved of them, if the Holy Spirit has indeed been a perpetual resident in this cage of unclean birds, if the ordinary credibility Avhich attaches to a common Avitness can be ascribed to them where their pride, ambition or interest is involved, then all moral reasoning falls to the ground, the measures of truth are deceitful, and we may quietly renounce the exercise of judg- ment and yield to the caprices of fancy. No, sir ; instead of being the temple of the Lord, the habitation of the Holy One of Israel, your dilapidated Church is a dreary spectacle of moral desolation, peopled only by wild beasts of the desert, full of doleful creatures, owls, satyrs and dragons.^ ' "Without entering into the mazes of a frivolous and unintelligible dis])nte about words, it is sufficient to remark that the supernatural and infallible guidance of a Church wliich leaves it to stumble on the thres- hold of morality, to confound tlie essential distinctions of rigiit and wrong, to recommend the violation of the most solemn compacts, and the I Letter III.] ARGUMENT FOR AN INFALLIBLE BODY. 439 Tried in the scale in which other witnesses are tried, your witnesses will be found deplorably wanting. Hence, you very wisely evade all moral considerations, and resolve your boasted infallibility, not into your own attachment to the truth, but into the stern necessity of uttering whatever God by the irresistible operation of His Spirit shall put into your mouth, as Balaam's ass, through His power, overcame the impediments of nature and spoke in the language of men. Whether you have succeeded in demonstrating by infallible evidence that you are the subjects — the passive and me- chanical subjects — of such an uncontrollable afflatus from above as may entitle you to a credit which your honesty and integrity w^ould never warrant, remains now to be in- quired. LETTER III. THE ARGUMENT FOR AN INFALLIBLE BODY. In resuming now the analysis of your argument, it may be well to repeat that the ultimate conclusion which you propose to reach is the infallibility of Rome as a witness for the truth. This point you endeavour to establish by show- ing, in the first place, that there must be some " body of in- dividuals to whom, in their collective capacity," God has gra- murder of men against whom not a shadow of criminality is alleged except a dissent from its dogmas, is nothing worth, but must ever ensure the ridicule and abhorrence of those who judge the tree by its fruits, and who will not be easily persuaded that the eternal fountain of love and purity inhabits the breast -wrhich 'breathes out cruelty and slaughter.' If persecution for conscience' sake is contrary to the principles of justice and the genius of Christianity, then, I say, this holy and infallible Church was so abandoned of God as to be permitted to legitimate the foulest crimes, to substitute murders for sacrifice, and to betray a total ignorance of the precepts and spirit of the religion which she professed to support ; and whether the Holy Ghost condescended, at the same moment, to illuminate one hemisphere of minds so hardened and hearts so darkened, may be safely left to the judgment of common sense." — HaWs Works, vol. iv., p. 249. 440 ARGUMENTS FOE APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Letter III. ciously vouchsafed the precious prerogative which you claim for your pastors. According to you, the whole question of the truth of Christianity turns upon the existence of an infallible tribunal on earth, from which men may receive unerring de- cisions in matters of faith, aud without which the over- whelming majority of the race must be abandoned to hope- less and complete infidelity. If there were, indeed, no es- cape from the dilemma to which you have attempted to reduce us, the means of salvation would be hardly less fatal than the dangers from which they are appointed to rescue us. But it may yet be found, sir, that a merciful God has dealt more gently wdth His children than to commit their fate to the teachings of a body " whose garments are dyed in blood," whose whole career on earth, like the progress of Joel's locusts, has been marked by ruin, and which, if its future blessings are to be collected from its past achieve- ments, can give us nothing but wormwood aud gall, a stone for bread and a serpent for a fish. The friends of liberty and man, if reduced to the deplorable alternative of reach- ing the sacred Scriptures only on condition of submitting to a bondage more grievous than that from which the groaning Israelites were delivered by a strong hand and an out- stretched arm, would, in all probability, prefer the frozen air of infidelity to the deadly miasma of Rome. But I am persuaded that no such dilemma, so fatal in either horn, exists in reality ; and that there is a plan by which we may be rescued at once from the gloomy horrors of skepticism and the despotic cruelty of Rome. To you, sir, it is utterly inconceivable that the infinite God, whose judgments are un- searchable and His ways past finding out, should have been able to devise, in the exhaustless resources of His wisdom, any plan of authenticating the record of His own will but that which you have prescribed. You undertake to prove that there must be a body of individuals authorized to make an unerring decision upon the doctrines of religion as well as the truth and insj)iration of the Scriptures, from the absolute impossibility that any other scheme could be efficient Letter III.] ARGUMENT FOR AN INFALLIBLE BODY. 441 or successful. What is this but to limit the Holy One of Israel ? You would do well to remember that the purposes of God are not adjusted by the measures of human prudence or of human sagacity. As the heavens are high above the earth, so His thoughts are high above our thoughts, and His ways above our ways. In His hands broken pitchers and empty lamps are capable of achieving as signal execution as armed legions or chariots of fire. To judge, therefore, of the schemes of the Eternal by our own conceptions of expe- diency or fitness — to bring the plans of Him who is won- derful in counsel, and whose government is vast beyond the possibility of mortal conception, to the fluctuating standard of the wisdom of this world is to be guilty of presumption, equalled by nothing but the transcendent folly of the eflbrt. A sound philosophy as well as a proper reverence for God would surely dictate that His appointments must always be efficacious and successful, simply because they are His ap- pointments. We are not at liberty upon matters of this sort to indulge in vain speculations a priori, and pronounce of any measures that they cannot be adopted because they seem ill-suited to their ends. It is true wisdom to believe that He who originally established the connection of means and ends can accomplish His purposes by the feeblest agents, the most unpromising arrangements, or by no subsidiary instru- ments at all. Plausible objections avail nothing against Divine institutions. Whatever does not coiitradict the es- sential perfections of the Deity, nor involve a departure from that eternal law of right which finds its standard in the nature of God, is embraced in that boundless range of possibilities which infinite power can accomplish by a single act of the will. Any argument, therefore, which bases its conclusion upon the gratuitous assumption that the wisdom of God and the conceptions of man shall be found to harmonize is built uj)on the sand. To you, sir, the theory of private judgment may be encumbered with difficulties so insur- mountably great as to transcend your ideas of the power of God : you can perceive no wisdom in a plan on which priests 442 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Letter III. are not tyrants and the people are not slaves. But your objections are hardly less formidable than those of Jews and Greeks to the early preaching of the cross. Still, sir, Christ crucified was the power of God and the wisdom of God. In your attempt to fathom the counsels of Jehovah by arbi- trary speculation, and to settle with certainty the appoint- ments of His grace, may we not detect the degrading effects of a superstition which tolerates those who acknowledge a god in a feeble mortal and find objects of worship in de- parted men ? Certain it is that your reasoning involves the tremendous conclusion that the great, the everlasting Je- hovah, the Creator of the ends of the earth, is altogether such an one as we ourselves. Do you not tell us, in effect, that God could not have given satisfactory evidence of the truth and inspiration of His own Word without establish- ing a visible tribunal protected from error by His special grace ? And that He is thus limited in His resources, thus necessarily tied up to the one only plan which the pastors of Rome have found so prodigiously profitable to them, ac- cording to your reasoning, must be received as an infallible truth, just as absolutely certain as an axiom in geometry. The argument by which you reach this stupendous conclu- sion has been wonderfully laboured, but when Aveighed in the balances of logical propriety, it is found as wonderfully wanting. I shall now proceed in all candour and fidelity to expose the " nakedness of the land." With a self-sufficiency of understanding which never betrayed itself in such illustrious men as Bacon, Newton, Locke or Boyle, you undertake to enumerate all the possi- ble expedients by which God could ascertain His creatures of the inspiration of His Word. These you reduce to jour, and as the first three, according to you, are neither " practicable nor efficient," the fourth remains as a necessary truth. In the species of argument^ which you have thought ^ The argument of " A. P. F." is a destructive disjunctive conditional. It may most conveniently be expressed in two consecutive syllogisms : A man must either judge for himself concerning the inspiration of the Letter III.] ARGUMENT FOR AN INFALLIBLE BODY. 443 proper to adopt, the validity of the reasoning depends on two circumstances : 1st. All the possible suppositions which can be conceived to be true must be actually made ; and, 2dly, Every one must be legitimately shown to be false but the one which is embraced in the conclusion. If all the others have been refuted, that must be true, provided, from the nature of the subject, some one must necessarily be admitted. In the present case it is freely conceded that there is some way of settling the Canon of Scripture, and hence your argument proceeds upon a legitimate assumption.^ 1. Now, sir, the first question which arises upon a criti- cal review of your argument is, Do your four schemes com- pletely exhaust the subject? Are these the only conceiva- ble plans by which the inspiration of the Scriptures could be satisfactorily established? If not, if there indeed be other methods which you have not noticed, other schemes which you have suppressed or overlooked, some one of these may be the truth, and your infallible conclusion con- sequently false. In Paley's celebrated argument for the benevolence of God, if he had simply stated that the Deity must either intend our happiness or misery, and had omitted entirely all notice of the third supposition, that He might be indifferent to both, the conclusion, however true in itself, Scrii^tures, or rely on the authority of others. He cannot judge for himself, therefore he must rely on the authority of others. This is the first step. If he must rely on authority, it must either be the authority of unin- spired individuals, of a single inspired individual, or of an inspired body of individuals. It cannot be the first two, therefore it must be the last. Now, according to the books, this species of syllogism must contain in the major all the suppositions which can be conceived to be true ; then, the minor must remove or destroy all hut one. That one, from the necessity of the case, becomes established in the conclusion. The argument in question violates both rules, and therefore, upon every view of the subject, must be a fallacy. ^ " We cannot be called on to believe any proposition not sustained by adequate proof. When Almighty God deigned to inspire the words con- tained in the Holy Scriptures, He intended they should be held and believed to be inspired. Therefore there does exist some adequate proof of their inspiration." — Letter I. 444 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Letter III. would not have been logically just. "Without pretending that I am capable of specifying all the methods by which God might authenticate His own revelation, I can at least conceive of one, in addition to those enumerated by you, which might have been adopted, which may therefore possi- bly be true, and which, until you have shown it to be false, must hold your triumphant conclusion in abeyance. It is possible that God Himself, by his eternal Spirit, may con- descend to be the teacher of men, and enlighten their under- standings to perceive in the Scriptures themselves infallible marks of their Divine original. That you should so entirely have overlooked this hypothesis — wdiich must be overthrown before your argument can stand — is a little singular, since it is distinctly stated in the very chapter of the AVestmin- ster Confession to which you have alluded.^ " The heavens," we are told, " declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth His handiwork." " For the invisi- ble tilings of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead." If the material workman- ship of God bears such clear and decisive traces of its Divine and eternal Author as to leave the Atheist and idola- ter without excuse, who shall say that the Word, which He has exalted above every other manifestation of His Name, may not proclaim with greater power and a deeper emphasis that it is indeed the law of His mouth ? Who shall say that the composition of the Holy Spirit in the Scriptures may not be distinguished by a majesty, grandeur and super- natural elevation which are suited to impress the reader with an irresistible conviction that these venerable docu- ments are the true and faithful sayings of God ? Is there any absurdity in asserting with a distinguished writer that "the words of God, now legible in the Scriptures, are as ^ "Our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and Divine authority thereof (Holy Scriptures) is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts." — Weslmin- ster Confession, chap. i. v. Letter III.] ARGUMENT FOR AN INFALLIBLE BODY. 445 much beyond the words of men as the mighty works which Christ did were above their works, and His prophecies beyond their knowledge"? Jehovah has left the outward universe to speak for itself. Sun, moon and stars in their appointed orbits proclaim an eternal Creator, and require no body of men, " of individuals in their collective capa- city," to interpret their voice, or to teach the world that " the hand which made them is Divine." Why may not the Scriptures, brighter and more glorious than the sun, be left in the same way, as they run their appointed course, to testify to all that their source "was the bosom of God, and their voice the harmony of the world"? Is not the cha- racter of God as clearly portrayed in them as in the mute memorials of His power which exist around us and above us ? Why should an infallible body be required to make known the Divine original of the Bible when it is not neces- sary to establish the creation of the heavens and the earth ? It is then a possible supposition that the Word of God may be its own witness, that the sacred pages may themselves contain infallible evidence of their heavenly origin which shall leave those without excuse who reject or disregard them. They may contain the decisive proofs of their own inspiration, and by their own light make good their preten- sions to canonical authority. The fact that multitudes Avho hold the Bible in their hand do not perceive these infallible tokens of its supernat- ural origin is no objection, upon your own principles, to the existence of such irrefragable evidence. The reality of the evidence is one thing, the power of perceiving it quite another. It is no objection to the brilliancy of the sun that it fails to illuminate the blind. Such is the deplorable darkness of the human understanding in regard to the things that per- tain to God, and such the fearful alienation of men from the perfection of His character, that though the light shines conspicuously among them they are yet unable to compre- hend its rays. Hence, to the production of faith, in order that the evidence, the infallible evidence which actually exists, 446 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Letter III. may accomplish its appropriate effects, the " Eternal Spirit who sends forth His cherubim and seraphim to touch the lips of whom He pleases" must be graciously vouch- safed to illuminate the darkened mind, and remove the impediments of spiritual vision. The infallible evidence is in the Scriptures ; the power of perceiving it is the gift of God. Your own writers, sir, acknowledge, and you among the number, that the infallible evidence which your Church professes to present cannot produce faith without God's grace, so that evidence may be infallible and yet not effect- ual, through the folly and perverseness of men. Bellarmine declares that " the arguments which render the articles of our faith credible are not such as to produce an undoubted faith, unless the mind be Divinely assisted."^ And you have told us that the teaching of your pastors meets with a firmer and readier assent among minds that have been touched by the Spirit of God.^ Xow, sir, if your infallible evidence can yet be ineffectual through the blindness and wickedness of men, you cannot say that the Scriptures are not infallible witnesses of their own authority because all who possess them do not receive their testimony. In either case the illumination of God's Spirit is the means by which faith is really produced. According to you, it inclines the understanding to receive the teaching of the .pastors of your Church ; according to the doctrine of the Westminster divines, it enlightens the mind to perceive the impressions of Jehovah's character and Jehovah's hand in the sacred oracles themselves. There is, then, evidently, a fifth supposition by which an humble inquirer after truth may be assured of the Divine 1 "Argumenta enim quae articulos fidei nostrse credibiles faciunt non talia sunt ut fidem omnino indubitatam reddant, nisi mens divinitua adjuvetur." De Grat. et Lib. Arb., Lib. vi., cap. iii. ^ "We should ever bear in mind, too, that if this be the method adopted by Almighty God, if in reality, as the hypothesis requires, He speaks to that individual through this teachvr. His Divine grace will influence the mind of the novice to yield a more ready and firm assent than the tend- ency of our nature and the unaided motives of human authority would produce.'' Letter I. Letter IIL] ARGUMENT FOR AN INFALLIBLE BODY. 447 inspiration and canonical authority of the Holy Scriptures. God Himself may be his teacher, and the illumination of His Spirit may be the means by which, from infallible evi- dence contained in the books themselves, their Divine inspi- ration may be certainly collected. Whether true or false, right or wrong, this has been the doctrine of the Church of God from the beginning.^ And before you can hope to ^ As a specimen of what have been the sentiments of distinguished writers, I give a few extracts, selected from tlie midst of many others equally striking, which may be found arranged in Owen's admirable Dis- course on the Keason of Faith. Works, vol. iii., p. 359, seq. The follow- ing passage from Clemens Alexandrinus is remarkable as asserting at once the sufficiency of Scripture and the right of private judgment in opposition to all human authority : Oh yap aT/l&Jf anocpaivofiEvoic avOpuTTOiQ wpoatxoilJ-^v 5ig Kai avTOTvocpdivEGBac err' larfg i^ECTiv, Ei d' ovk apxet fiSvov dn?.ug tcTreiv to M^av, d/\^a KiffTuana- 6ai 6ei to XsxSiv ov r^ If avdp&Tcuv dva/xhofiev fiapTvpiav, aXla ttj tov Kvpiov (puvTJ TTiGTovjueda to (t/tov/hsvov. '^H irdauv awodei^euv exeyyvoTepa fidXkov 6e fj jidvT] dndSei^ig ovaa Tvyxdvei, "OvTug ovv koX rjneiq air' dvruv rrepl civTuv Tuv ypacpuv te^iEiuq cittoSeikvvvtec ek. TcicTTEug nEiddfXEda aTroSetK-iKUQ, Strom., Lib. vii., cap. xvi. " For we would not attend or give credit sim- ply to the definitions of men, seeing we have a right also to define in con- tradiction unto them. And as it is not sufficient merely to say or assert what appears to be the truth, but also to beget a belief of what is spoken, we expect not the testimony of men, but confirm that which is inquired about with the voice of the Lord, which is more full and firm than any demonstration ; yea, which rather is the only demonstration. Thus we, taking our demonstration of the Scripture out of the Scripture, are assured hy faith as by demonstration." Basil on Psalm cxv. says : UiaTic, ivx' ^ yEo/^sTpiKaig avdyKaiq, dA/V ■fi Tciig TOV 'KVEVjj.aTOQ kvEpynaiQ EKyivojiEvrj. " Faith is not the eflfect of geo- metrical demonstrations, but of the efficacy of the Spirit." Nemes. de Horn., cap. ii. : 'H tuv dhuv "koyiuv ^Ldacna'Aia to ttiotov d(p' EavT>]c Exovaa 6id to •&e6tvev(ttov Eivai, " The teaching of Divine oracles has its credibility from itself, because of their Divine inspiration. The words of Austin (Conf. Lib. ii., cap. iii.) are too well known to require to be cited. The second Council of Orange, in the beginning of the sixth century, in its fifth and seventh canons, is explicit to ray purpose. Fleury, b. xxxii. 12 : Si quis sicut augmentum ita etiam initium fidei, ipsumque credulitatis affectum, .... non per gratise donum, id est, per inspirationem Spiritug Sancti, corrigentem voluntatem nostram ab infidelitate ad fidem, ab im- pietate ad pietatem, sed naturaliter nobis inesse dicit, apostolicis dogmati- bus adversarius approbatur. Si quis per naturae vigorem bonum aliquid 448 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Letter III, overthrow it you must ))e prepared to prove — what, I tliink, you will find an irksome undertaking — that the Scriptures do not bear any signs or marks characteristic of their Author, quod ad salutem pertinet vitse seternje cogitare ut expedit, aut eligere, sive salutari, id est, evangelicse prsedicationi consentire posse confirmat absque illuminatione et inspiratione Spiritus Sancti, qui dat omnibus suavitatem in consentiendo et credendo veritati, hseretico fallitur spiritu : " If any one say that the beginning or increase of faith and the very afiection of belief is in us, not by the gift of grace — that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit correcting our will from infidelity to faith, from impiety to piety — but by nature, he is an enemy to the doctrine of the Apostles. If any man affirm that he can by the vigour of nature think anything good which pertains to salvation as he ouglrt, or choose to consent to saving — that is, to evangelical — preaching without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who gives to all the sweet relish in consenting to and believing the truth, he is deceived by an heretical spirit." Arnobius advers. Gentes, Lib. iii., c. i., says : " Neque enim stare sine assertoribus non potest religio Christiana? Aut eo esse comprobatur vera, si adstipulatores habuerit plurimos, et auctoritatem ab hominibus sump- serit? Suis ilia contenta est viribus et veritatis propria fundarainibus nititur nee spolietur sua vi, etiam si nullum habeat vindicem, immo si linguae omnes contra faciant contraque nitantur et ad fidem illius abrogan- dam consensionis unitae animositate conspirent." " Shall it be said that the Christian religion cannot maintain itself without the aid of men to vindicate its truth ? Or shall its truth be said to depend on the warranty and authority of man ? No, Christianity is sufficient for itself, in its o\Yn inherent strength, and stands firm upon the basis of its own inherent truth ; it could lose none of its power, though it had not a single advocate. Nay, it would maintain its ground, though all the tongues of men were to contra- dict and resist it, and to combine with rage and fury to effect its destruction." The great Athanasius (Orat. Cont. Gent., c. i.) says: A'vrdpKEic fiev yap eimv di &ytai mi fJeonveix-ai ypa4)di irpoQ T?p r^f aArjdkia^' a-jrayyeliav. "The Christian faith carries within itself the discovery of its own authority, and the Holy Scriptures which God has inspired are all- sufficient in themselves for the evidence of their own truth." There is a beautiful passage to the same purport in Baptista Mantuanus de Patient. Lib. iii., cap. ii. It concludes as follows : " Cur ergo non omnes credunt evangelio ? Quod non omnes trahuntur a Deo. Sed longa opus est dis- putatione? Firmiter sacris Scripturis ideo credimus quod divinam inspi- rationem intus accepimus." " Why, then, do not all believe the Gospel ? Because all are not drawn of God. But what need of any long disputa- tion? We, therefore, firmly believe the Scriptures because we have received a Divine inspiration." Those who wish to find a large collec- tion of Patristic passages bearing on this point will meet with ample sat- isfaction in chap. ix. of Good's Kule of Faith. The whole subject is ably Letter III.] ARGUMENT FOR AN INFALLIBLE BODY. 449 and that God's grace will not be vouchsafed to the humble inquirer to enable him to perceive, according to the prayer of the Psalmist, " wondrous things out of His law." Unless you can disprove this fifth hypothesis, and show it to be — what you have asserted of three that you have named — neither "practicable nor efficient," your triumphant argu- ment vanishes into air ; it violates the very first law of that species of complex syllogism to which it may be easily reduced. You have beaten your drum, and flourished your trumj3ets, and shouted victory when you had not been even in reach of the enemy's camp. If a man, sir, reasoning upon the seasons of the year, should undertake to prove that it must be winter because it was neither spring nor autumn, his argument would be precisely like yours for an infallible tribunal of faith. His hearers might well ask why it might not be summer; and your readers may well ask why this fifth supposition, which you have so strangely sup- pressed when it must have been under your eyes, may not be, after all your elaborate discussion, the true method of God. In this ancient doctrine of the Church of God there may be an escape from your fatal dilemma, and men may find a sure and infallible passage to heaven without mak- ing a journey to Rome to be guided in the way. Upon your principles of reasoning dilemmas are easily made, but very fortunately they are just as easily avoided. Their horns, weak and powerless as a Papal bull's, cannot gore the stubborn and refractory. He who should infer that a sick man must be scorching with fever because he is not aching in all his bones with a shivering ague, would, in this pitiful foolery, present a forcible example of the sort of sophism in which you have boasted as triumphant argument. discussed in Calvin's Institutes, Owen on the Reason of Faith and his kin- dred treatise, and Halyhurton's inimitable essay on the Nature of Faith. Some valuable hints may also be found in Lancaster's Bampton Lectures, Jackson on the Creed, and Chalmers' Evidences. I cannot forbear, how- ever, to advert to the two beautiful illustrations of the power of the Scrip- tures to authenticate themselves, which Justin Martyr and Francis Junius have given us in their accounts of their own conversion. Vol. III.— 29 450 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA . DISCUSSED. [LETTER HI. 2. Your reasoning is not only radically defective in con- sequence of an imperfect enumeration of particulars, but fatally unsuccessful in establishing the impossibility of those which you have actually undertaken to refute. The minor premiss is as lame as the major, and your argument at best can yield us nothing but a " lame and impotent conclusion." Your fourth method derives its claims to our confidence and regard from the pretended fact that all other schemes are neither " practicable nor efficient." Unless, therefore, this can be made clearly to appear, your reasoning must fall to the ground. Have you proved it? So far from it, the objec- tions which you have adduced against your first three methods apply just as powerfully to the fourth, and prove, if they prove anything, that neither one of the methods specified by you can possibly be the truth. The arguments, for instance, which you have employed to overthrow the Protestant theory of private judgment, as implying the responsibility of men for their opinions, and a consequent exemption from all human authority, may be employed with equal success to demolish the pretensions of an infallible tribunal, or to show that such a body can neither be " prac- ticable nor efficient." AVhy then is private judgment inadmissible? Why is it that each man is not at liberty to examine for himself, and form his own opinions upon those solemn subjects in which his own individual happiness is so deeply concerned? Because, according to you, unless a man could speak with the tongues of men and angels, unless he comprehended all mysteries and all knowledge, unless, in other words, his mind was a living encyclopaedia of science, he must be in- capable of estimating properly the historical and internal evidences of the Divine original of the Scriptures. Like the Jewish Cabalists, you have rendered the judgments of the people utterly worthless to them in that matter which, of all others, is most important to their happiness. i\Iaimou- ides^ goes a little beyond you. He not oidy makes Logic, ^ More Neboclum, pars i., c. 34. Letter III.] ARGUMENT FOR AX INFALLIBLE BODY. 451 Mathematics and Xatural Philosophy indispensable to our progress in Divine knowledge, but absolutely necessary in order to settle the foundation of religion in the being and attributes of God; and according to him, those who are unfurnished with these scientific accomplishments must either settle down into dreary Atheism, or make up their deficien- cies by submitting implicitly to cabalistical instruction ! You, I presume, would grant that a man could be assured of the existence of the Deity without an intimate acquaint- ance with Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Syriac, Chaldee, and diyers modern tongues, or without being master of Mathematics, Chemistry, Geology, Natural History and Physics. These things, on your scheme, are only necessary to settle the in- spiration of the Scriptures. Let us grant, for a moment, that all this immense appa- ratus of learning is necessary to settle a plain, simple, his- torical fact; what becomes of the skill and competency of your infallible body? If it is to decide according to the evidence, and all these boundless attainments are absolutely requisite in order to a just appreciation of the evidence, every individual member of your unerring corps must be deeply versed in all human lore, as -^^ell as blessed with an "almost supernatural accuracy of judgment," before the body can be qualified, according to your statements, to make an infallible decision. Suppose, sir, Europe and America were ransacked, how many individuals could be found, each of whom should possess the varied and extensive attain- ments which you make indispensable in settling a plain question of fact connected with the events of an earlier age? How many of the pastors of the Church of Rome would be entitled to a seat in a General Council composed only of those who could abide your test of competency to decide on matters of faith? Certain it is that there was not a single individual in the whole Council of Trent who pos- sessed even a tithe of the learning without which, in your view, an accurate decision is hopeless. As we have already seen, those holy Fathers seemed to be fully persuaded that 452 AKGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Letter III. " Hebrew roots were only found To flourish best in barren ground." Their skill in Samaritan, Coptic, Arabic and Syric versions may be readily conjectured from their profound acquaint- ance with the original text. If they were deeply versed in the mysteries of Chemistry and Geology, they must have been endowed with an extraordinary prolepsis which has no parallel in the recorded history of man. How, then, could these venerable men decide with "absolute certainty" when all the evidence in the case was high above, out of their reach ? You tell us, sir, that they made their decision "after patient examination and a thorough investigation of all the evidence they could find on the subject." But yet, upon your own showing, the historical and internal proofs of inspiration were inaccessible not only to the pre- lates themselves, but to the whole rabble of divines who assisted them in their deliberations. How does it happen, then, that their decision is entitled to be received with absolute certainty? But perhaps you will say that the Fathers possessed some other evidence — that they them- selves were supernaturally inspired, or irresistibly guided by God's grace to make an unerring decision? To say nothing of the fact that your argument, in order to be con- clusive, requires you to show that the same supernatural assistance cannot be vouchsafed to individuals as well as to a body, I would simply ask, Hoto could the Fathers know that they were inspired? You have made all human knoio- ledge a necessary means of judging of inspiration. A man must be able "to refute all the objections brought from these different sources against the intrinsic truth, and, con- sequently, internal evidence of the Di\ane inspiration, of the Scriptures." If, then, a man cannot be satisfied of the inspiration of the Scriptures until he is able to perceive the intrinsic truth of their teachings — that is, until he can show that scientific objections are really groundless — how can he be satisfied of his own inspiration until he can, in like manner, determine tliat the propositions suggested to Letter III.] ARGUMENT FOR AN INFALLIBLE BODY. 453 liim are not contradictory to any truth received or taught in the wide circle of human science? And how, I beseech you, can the people be assured tliat any body of men has been supernaturally guided, until they are able to refute all the objections from all the departments of human know- ledge to the decrees of the body? Will you say that inspi- ration, once settled, answers all objections? Very true. But how is the inspiration to be settled? You say that an individual cannot judge of inspiration until he is able to refute all objections and to defend the truths that profess to be inspired. No more, I apprehend, can a body of in- dividuals. But a body of individuals may be inspired to judge of the inspiration of others. But how are they to determine their own inspiration ? They must still be able to refute all possible objections, and perceive the intrinsic truth of what they are taught, themselves, or their own inspiration is uncertain ; and the people need it just as much to judge of the inspiration of a council as of the inspira- tion of the Scriptures. So that your circle of science becomes necessary sooner or later for a body of men, if it be necessary for a private individual. You perceive, then, that your argument against the rights of the people may be turned with a desolating edge against yourself. Like an unnatural mother, it devours its own conclusion. If, sir, the infallibility of a body depends upon the illumination of God's Spirit, it will be hard to show why God can supernaturally enlighten every man in a special assembly, and yet be unable to enlighten private individuals in their separate capacity. How the mere fact of human congregation, under any circumstances, can confer additional power upon God's Holy Spirit you have nowhere explained, and I think that you will hardly undertake the task. Upon your own showing, then, your triumj^hant argu- ment is a beggarly sophism. Your objections to private judgment prove too much, and therefore prove nothing. Whatever is simply necessary to establish inspiration applies 454 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [LETTER III. as much to the inspiration of Trent as to the inspiration of Davidj Isaiah and Paul. As I am now exclusively engaged in the examination of your argument, I shall not turn aside from my purpose to indicate the manner in which a plain, unlettered man can become morally certain, from the historical and collateral evidences of inspiration, that the authors of the Bible wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Your long, involved and intricate ac- count of the learning and attainments required for this end could easily be shoM'n, and has been triumphantly shown, to be a mere phantom of the brain. You are fond, sir, of raising imaginary difficulties in the way of the humble inquirer after the truth, in order that you may find a ready market for the wares of Rome. But in this instance your own feet have been caught in the pit which your hands have dug. When you condescend to inform me how the Fathers of Trent could decide with infallible certainty upon the inspiration of the Scriptures, without the learning which is necessary, in your view, to understand the evi- dence, if they themselves were uninspired; or how, if in- spired, they could, without this learning, either be certain themselves of the fact or establish it with infallible cer- tainty to the mass of the people, who, without your learn- ing, must judge of the inspiration of the holy Council, — when consistently with your principles you resolve these difficulties, one of the objections to your argument will cease. Until then it must continue to be a striking example of that sort of paralogism by which the same premises prove and disprove at the same time. 3. But, sir, the chapter of your misfortunes is not yet closed. Your favourite, triumphant, oft-repeated argument not only labours under the two serious and fatal defects which have already been illustrated, but, what is just as bad, even upon the supposition that it is logically sound, it fails to answer your purpose. It does not yield you what your cause requires — an infallible conclusion. At its best estate it is a broken reed, which can only pierce the bosom Letter III.] ARGUMENT FOR AN INFALLIBLE BODY. 455 of him that leaus on it. You infer that a certain plan must be the true one because all others are false. It is evident that it must be absolutely certain that the others are false, before it can be absolutely certain that the one insisted on is true. The degree of certainty Avhich attaches to any hypothesis drawn from the destruction of all other supposi- tions is just the degree of certainty with which the others have been removed. The measure of their falsehood is the measure of its truth. If there be any probability in them, that probability amounts to a positive argument against the conclusion erected on their ruins. Now, sir, upon the gratuitous assumption that your argu- ment is legitimate and regular, your conclusion cannot be infallible unless it is absolutely certain that the three methods of determining the inspiration of the Scriptures which you have pronounced to be neither " practicable nor efficient" are grossly and palpably absurd. They must be unquestionably false or your conclusion cannot be unquestion- ably true. If there be the least degree of probability in favour of any one of these schemes, that probability, how- ever slight, is fatal to the infallible certainty required by your cause. Your conclusion, in such a case, can only re- sult from a comparison of opposing probabilities; it can only have a preponderance of evidence, and therefore can only be probable at best. I venture to assert, upon the approved principles of Papal casuistry, that two, most certainly, of your condemned sup- positions are just as likely to be true, or can at least be as harmlessly adopted, as that which you have taken into favour. We are told by your doctors that a probable opinion may be safely followed, and their standard of prob- ability is the approbation of a doctor or the example of the good — " SuJJicit opjinio alicujus gravis doctoris, aut bonoi'um exemplum." Try your third supposition by this standard, and does it not become exceedingly probable? Why have you passed it over with so vague, superficial and unsatisfactory a notice? 456 AEGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [LETTER III. Were you afraid that there was death in the pot? You surely, sir, cannot be ignorant that scores of your leading divines have boldly maintained the infallibility of the Pope — a single individual whom they have regarded as divinely commissioned to instruct the faithful. The Council of Florence decided that the Pope was primate of the Univer- sal Church; that he is the true Lieutenant of Christ — the father and teacher of all Christians; and that unto \\\m full power is committed to feed, direct and govern the Catholic Church under Christ. He, then, it would seem, is the very individual to whom that Council would refer us for satis- factory information concerning the Canon of Scripture and every other point of faith. The prelates of the Lateran Council under Leo X. oiFered the most fulsome and disgust- ing flatteries to that skeptical Pontiff, calling him King of hings and Monarch of the earth, and ascribing to him all power, above all powers of heaven and earth. The Legates of Trent would not permit the question of the Pope's authority to be discussed, because the Pontiff himself, while he was yet ignorant of the temper of the Fathers, was secretly afraid that they might follow the examples of Constance and Basil. Pighius, Gretser, Bellarmine and Gregory of Valentia have ascribed infallibility to the head of your Church in the most explicit and unmeasured terms.^ 1 Gregory of Valentia carried the doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope so far as to maintain that his decisions were unerring, whether made with care and attention or not. His words are : "Sive Pontifex, in definiendo studium adhibeat, sive non adhibeat ; modo tamen controversiam definiat, infallibiliter certe definiet, atqiie adeo re ipsa utitur authoritate sibi a Christo concessa." — Analys. Fid., Qu. 6. Augustinus Triumphus observes: "Novum symbolum condere solum ad Papam spectat, quia est caput fidei Christianae, cujus auctoritate omnia quae ad fidem apectant firmantur et roborantur." — Qu. 59, Art. 1. This same writer, treating of ecclesiastical power, observes again: " Error est non credere Pontificem Eomanum universalis Ecclesiae pas- torem, Petri successorem, et Christi Vicarium, supra temporalia et spiri- tualia universalem non habere primatum, in quem, quandoque multi la- buntur, dictse potestatis ignorantiae, quae cum sit infinita eo (juod magnus est doniinus et magna virtus ejus et magnitudinis ejus non est finis, oranis creatusintellectusinejusperscrutationeinveniturdeficere." — Prcef. P., John Letter III.] ARGUMENT FOR AN INFALLIBLE BODY. 457 It is generally understood, too, that this doctrine is main- tained by the whole body of the Jesuits. To my mind, wicked and blasphemous as it is, this is a less exceptionable doctrine than that which you have defended. A single in- dividual can be more easily reached, more prompt in his decisions, and is always ready to answer the calls of the faithful. To collect a Council is a slow and tedious process, and the infallibility slumbers while the Council is dissolved. The infallibility of a single individual, which is your third hypothesis, is 'probable upon the well-known principles of your most distinguished casuists. You ought to have shown, therefore, that this opinion is palpably absurd. Write a book upon this subject and send it to Rome, and it may possibly lead to your promotion in the Church. How- ever, let Gregory XYI. be first gathered to his fathers, as he might not brook so flat a contradiction to his own pub- lished opinions.^ I am inclined to think that, to the major- xxii. But the climax of absurdity and blasphemy is fairly reached in the following passage from Bellarmine, De Rom. Pont., Lib. iv., cap. v.: "Si autem Papa erraret pr?ecipiendo vitia, vel proliibendo virtutes, teneretur Ecclesia credere vitia esse bona et virtutes malas, nisi vellet contra consci- entiam peccare." Scores of passages to the like effect may be collected from the writings of the Popes themselves. 1 I have before me the French translation of a book written by the present Pontiff when he was Cardinal Maur Cappellari, entitled the Triumph of the Holy See and of the Church, in which the dogma of the Pope's infallibility is fully and curiously discussed. His Holiness re- pudiates with horror the Galilean doctrine of the superiority of Councils, and stoutly maintains that the Government of the Church is an absolute monarchy, of which the Pontiff is the infallible head. It is a little sin- gular that A. P. F. should dismiss with contempt, as unworthy of discus- sion, the precise opinions which his master at Rome holds to be essential to the stability of the faith ; and whether the real doctrine of the Papacy is more likely to be gathered from an obscure priest or from the supreme Father of the faithful, I leave it to the reader to determine. As a speci- men of the Pope's book I give two extracts at random, as they may be found in the French version of Abbe Jammes : "Le Pape, ainsi qu'il a et6 prouv^, est un vrai monarque; done il doit €tre pourvu des moyens necessaires a I'exercice de son autorite monar- chique. Mais le moyen le plus necessaire a cette fin sera celui qui otera tout pretexte a ses sujets de refuser de se soumettre a ses decisions et a sea 458 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Letter III, ity of Papal minds, there is so much probability iu this third opinion that if your letter had been written by a Jesuit at Rome it would in fact have been made the infallible conclusion. Certain it is that you have not offered a single lois, et son infaillibilite seule peut avoir cette efficacite. Done le Pape est infaillible:'— Prelim. Dis., vol. i., p. 174, § 82. " Quoique, apres tout ce qui ete dit jusqu' a present, il ne dut pas 6tre n^cessaire de rien aj outer d' a vantage, je chercherai encore a les tirer de leurs erreurs par des argumens plus pressans. Parmi toutes les soci^tes, celle-la seule est infaillible, qui constitue la veritable Eglise; c'est de foi : mais il n'y a pas de veritable Eglise sans Pierre ; nous I'avons de- montre : done I'infaillibilite appartient exclusivement a la societe qui est unie a Pierre et*, ses successeurs. Or cette union avec Pierre ou avec le Pape ne serait pas une note suffisante pour distinguer entre plusieurs soci^tes celle qui serait infaillible, si cette union ne contribuait en quelque maniere par son concours a faire jouir cette societe du privilege de I'in- faillibilite ; done elle doit reellement y contribuer et y coneourir. Mais I'Eglise doit avoir, dans ses definitions, une infaillibilite perpetuelle et durable jusqu' a la fin des siecles ; done le meme perpetuite, la m^me duree jusqu' a la fin des siecles doit etre assuree an concours de cette union de I'Eglise avec le Pape, laquelle est attacliee a I'infaillibilite de I'Eglise elle-meme. IVou il s'ensuit que, dans le cas d'un point quelconque a d^finir, il sera aussi vrai de dire, avant meme qu'il ait lieu, que ce con- cours positif et explicite ne manquera pas, qu'il est vrai de dire que I'Eglise est infaillible dans la decision qu'elle portera, et qu'elle ne tom- bera pas dans I'erreur. Mais, s' il est certain que, toutes les foLs qu'il s'agira de definir un point de foi, on pourra compter sur le concours de I'union de I'Eglise avec le Pape, il doit 6tre egalement certain que Dieu ne permettra jamais que le Pape ne donne pas son assentiment a des veri- tes de foi, puisque, sans cet assentiment, il ne saurait, y avoir de veritable definition de I'Eglise. Done, si ce concours doit etre continuel et per- p^tuel, Dieu devra continuellement et perpetuellement incliner le Paj^e a donner son assentiment aux verites de fois ; et il ne permettra jamais que le Pape, comme tel, s'eloigne de la vraie croyance. En efiet, s'il n'en etait pas ainsi, et que Dieu put permettre que le Pape, en cette quality, abandonnat la verite, il pourrait arriver que, par sa primaut^ dans I'Eglise, et par le droit qu'il a, poiir le maintien de I'unite, comme dit saint Thomas, de projioser le point de foi, il entrainat I'Eglise avec lui dans I'erreur. Done Dieu a dA accorder au Pape, comme tel, le privilege d'une infaillibilite ind^pendante de I'Eglise, independantc de cette so- ciety, a I'infaillibilite de laquelle il contribue et concourt par le moyen de I'union de celle-ci avec lui. Les novateurs ne puevent rejeter cette con- sequence sans nier la n^cessitd du concours du Pape ; et s'ils la nient, ils 86 rangent parmi les sehismatiques et les protestans, qui se font une lilglise eeparge du Pape." — Vol. i., e. ii., pp. 206-208. Letter III.] ARGUMENT FOR AN INFALLIBLE BODY. 459 argument against it. You play off upon Esdras and the Jewish Sanhedrim, and sundry questions which "more veteran schohirs than you" have found it hard to decide, and then conchide with inimitable self-complacency that the "third method cannot be admitted."^ Sir, when you write again let me beseech you to write in syllogisms. If you have disproved the infallibility of the Pope, I cannot find your premises; and yet, unless you have done it, your triumphant conclusion is a mere petitio principii. Your own doctors will rise up against you if you undertake this task ; you are self-condemned if you do not. Then again, your first hypothesis — the theory of private judgment — must have some little probability in its favour, or such mighty minds as those of Newton, Bacon, Locke and Chillingworth would not have adopted it with so much cordiality, nor would such multitudes of the race have sealed their regard for it at the stake, the gibbet and the wheel. A principle confessedly the keystone that supports the arch of religious liberty, which emancipates the human mind from ghostly tyranny and calls upon the nations to behold their God, which lies at the foundation of the glorious fabric of American freedom and distinguishes the Constitutions of all our States, is not to be dismissed with- out examination as grossly false or palpably absurd. The conditions which you have prescribed for its exercise are not only arbitrary and capable of being turned to capital advantage against you, but, as I shall show when I come to the examination of your second argument, they have been virtually withdrawn by yourself. You have actually ad- mitted, sir, all that the friends of private judgment deem to be important in the case. According to your own state- ment, the ignorant and unlearned may be assured, upon sufficient grounds, of the genuineness and authenticity of the books of the New Testament. This foundation being laid, inspiration will naturally follow. So that, notwith- ^ Note by Editor. — It is understood that Bishop Lynch, since the late Council of the Vatican, is no longer unable to admit "the third method." 460 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Letter IV. standing all your objections, private judgment remains unaifected in the strength and glory of its intrinsic prob- ability. How, then, upon a just estimate of its merits, stands your boasted argument? Why, there are only four suppositious that can be made in the case. The first and third of these are so extremely 'probable that millions of the human race have believed them to be true. Therefore the fourth must be infallibly certain ! AVeighed in the balances of logical propriety, the infallible certainty of your conclusion turns out to be like Berkeley's "vanishing ghosts of departed quantities." LETTER IV. HISTORICAL ARGUMENT. We owe it to the goodness of God that the most corrupt and dangerous principles are not unfrequently combined in the same person with a confusion of understanding which effectually destroys their capacity of mischief and renders the triumph of truth more illustrious and complete. Error, in fact, is so multiform and various, so heterogeneous in its parts and mutually repulsive in its elements, that it requires a mind of extraordinary power to construct a fabric of such discordant materials having even the appearance of regu- larity and order. Truth, on the other hand, is simple and uniform. Her body, like that of the beautiful Osiris, is composed of homogeneous and well-adjusted parts; and as, in the progress of discovery or the light of patient investi- gation, limb is added to limb, and member to member, the mind perceives in the harmony of the proportions and the exquisite symmetry of the form a mysterious charm which, like the magic of musical enchantment, chains its sympathies and captivates its powers. The fascinations of falsehood Letter IV.] HISTORICAL ARGUMENT. 461 are essentially distinguished from the " divine, enchanting ravishment" of truth by their peculiar effects upon the health and vigour of the soul. Whatever pleasure they administer is like the profound slumber produced by power- ful drugs or stupefying potions, in which the joys that are ex^jerienced are the unnatural results of a temporary de- lirium, or, as Milton expresses it, of that "sweet madness" in which the soul is robbed of its energies and rendered impotent for future exertion; but "the sober certainty of waking bliss, a sacred and homefelt delight," a manly and solid satisfaction which at once refreshes and invigorates the mind, belongs exclusively to the province of truth. Hence philosophy, which is only another name for the love of truth, was warmly commended among the ancient sages as the health and medicine of the soul, the choicest gift of heaven and the richest jewel of earth. Falsehood, how- ever it may exhilarate, always confounds, and the stimulus, however powerful, which it may impart to the faculties of the mind, can produce nothing more substantial or real than the vain phantoms of a sick man's dream. Hence, defences of error are almost always inconsistent with themselves, and the advocate of truth has often no harder task than to place the different statements of the sophist or deceiver in immediate juxtaposition, and leave them, in their war of contradictions, to demolish the system which their master had laboriously toiled to erect. The most finished produc- tions of superstition, infidelity and Atheism, when resolved into their constituent parts, are found to be wanting in that beautiful consistency which springs from the bosom of God, and whfch is written, as if by the finger of Heaven, upon every system of truth. Without intending to degrade your understanding, you must permit me to call attention to the fact that the different portions of your own compositions are " like two prevaricating witnesses, who flatly contradict each other, though neither of them speaks the truth." This confusion of ideas is perhaps to be attributed to the nature of the cause which, with more 462 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Letter IV. zeal than prudence, you undertook to defend. Consistency cannot be expected from the advocates of a black and bloody superstition which sprang from the father of lies, whose appropriate element is darkness, and whose legitimate effect upon the life is to form a character homogeneous in nothing but implacable enmity to God. "VVe are not to be astonished, therefore, to find that your elaborate defence of the infalli- bility of a body which solemnly sanctioned one of the most deliberate and atrocious frauds^ that ever disgraced the annals of mankind should be so awkwardly adjusted in its parts as to resemble nothing more distinctly than the monstrous picture with which Horace opens his epistle to the Pisos. They who receive not the truth in the love of it are smitten with such madness, blindness and astonish- ment of heart as to grope at noonday, even as the blind ^ "When John Huss, the Bohemian Eeformer, was arrested, cast into prison and publicly burnt alive at Constance, in spite of a "safe-conduct" given, him by the Emperor Sigismund, merely because he refused to belie his conscience by abjuring his pretended heresy, all was executed under the eyes and by the express authority of the Council, who solemnly de- creed that the safe-conduct of the Emperor ought to be considered as no impediment to the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, but that, not- withstanding, it was perfectly competent for the ecclesiastical judge to take cognizance of his errors and to punish them agreeably to the dictates of justice, although he presented himself before them in dependence upon that protection but for which he would have declined appearing. Nor were they satisfied with this impious decision alone. Because murmurs were heard on account of the violation of a legal protection, they had the audacity to add, that since the .said John Huss had, by impugning the orthodox faith, forfeited every privilege, and since no promise or faith was binding, either by human or divine right, in prejudice of the Catholic faith, the said empei'or had done as became his royal majesty in violating his safe-conduct, and that whoever, of any rank or sect, dare%to impugn the justice of the holy Council or of his majesty, in relation to their pro- ceedings with John Huss, -shall be punished without hope of pardon as a favourer of heretical pravity, and guilty of the crime of high treason." — Hall, vol. iv., p. 245. See L'Enfant's Council of Constance, vol. ii., p. 491. The third Council of Lateran, Canon XVI., decreed that all oaths con- trary to the utility of the Church and to the institutions of the Fathers are to be regarded as perjuries, and therefore not to be kept. "Non enim dicenda sunt jui'amenta, sed potius pcrjuria, quoe contra utilitatem eccle- aiasticam et sanctorum patrum renitent instituta." Letter IV.] HISTORICAL ARGUMENT. 463 gropeth in darkness, and to feel for the wall in the full blaze of the meridian sun. The blandishments of error, like the subtle allurements of Samson's wife, may rob the noblest genius of its strength, and leave it in the midst of its enemies dark, dark, irrecoverably dark. I am far from contemplating such instances of mental eclipse with feelings of exultation or delight. There cannot be a more appalling spectacle in nature than a mind in ruins; and in the right- eous severity of God, which visits the advocates of error by sealing up the intellectual eyeball in impenetrable night, we may learn the awful majesty of truth and the tremen- dous danger of trifling with the light. This disastrous judgment is the portentous herald of a deeper woe. It is therefore with feelings of the profoundest pity, and with the most heartfelt reciprocation of your prayer on my be- half, that I am now compelled to expose that tissue of in- consistencies, contradictions and unwarrantable assumptions which constitutes your second argument; and if, sir, you shall be made to feel, as I sincerely trust you may, that you have been only w^eaving a tangled web of sophistry and deceit, you should take a salutary warning, and before you finally stumble on the dark mountains contemplate the severity of God in them that fall. Your object is to exhibit the historical grounds for believ- ing that God has in fact established, through Jesus Christ, a commissioned delegate from Heaven, " a body of individ- uals to whom in their collective capacity He has given authority to make an unerring decision" on the subject of the Canon. These historical proofs, you inform us, contain nothing that transcends the means or surpasses the under- standing even of an Indian or a negro. Now, what are these historical proofs, and" whence are they derived ? The recorded /acfe of the New Testament received on the authority of the Apostles and Evangelists ! You appeal to " certain histories written by persons who lived at the same time with the Saviour, and were for years in daily and intimate inter- course Avith Hin], and the accuracy of whose reports is uni- 464 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Letter TV. versally acknowledged and can be easily substantiated." In other words, the genidneyiess and authenticity of the books of the New Testament are matters so simple and plain that there is nothing in the evidence " above or contrary to the means and understanding of an Indian or a negro." These books contain satisfactory proof of the miracles of Christ ; these miracles establish His Divine commission, and conse- quently impart Divine authority to whatever He enjoined ] and as a body of infallible teachers to be perpetuated to the end of time was His provision for preserving His truth pure in the world, that arrangement unquestionably pos- sessed the sanction of God. Such is your argument. Xow, sir, if the books of the New Testament are to be received as credible testimony to the miracles of Christ, why not on the subject of their own inspiration ? Are you not aware that the great historical " argument on which Protestants rely in proving the inspiration of the Scriptures presup- poses only the genuineness of the books and the credibility'^ of their authors ? You have yourself admitted that the teaching of the Apostles was supernaturally protected from error, and if their oral instructions were dictated by the Holy Ghost, why should that august and glorious visitant desert them when they took the pen to accomplish the same object, when absent, which, when present, they accomplished by the tongue f ^ They themselves declare that their writ- 1 " We have seen how fully gifted the Apostles were for the business of their mission. They worked miracles, they spake with tongues, they explained mysteries, they interpreted prophecies, they discerned the true from the false pretences to the Spirit, and all this for the temporary and occasional discharge of their ministry. Is it possible, then, to suppose them to be deserted by their Divine Enlightener when they sat down to the other part of their work to frame a rule for the lasting service of the Church ? Can we believe that that Spirit which so bountifully assisted them in their assemblies had withdrawn Himself when they retired to their private oratories, or that when their speech was with all power their writings should convey no more than the weak and fallible dictates of human knowledge ? To suppose the endowments of the Spirit to be so capriciously bestowed would make it look more like a mockery than a gift." Warbiirton, Doct. of Grace, book i., chap. v. Letter IV.] HISTORICAL ARGUMENT. 465 ings possessed the same authority with their oral instruc- tions. Peter* ranks the Epistles of Paul with the Scrip- tures of the Old Testament, which were confessed to be inspired, and Paul exhorts the Thessalonians to hold fast the traditions which they had received from him, either by word or epistle.^ If, then, the credibility of these books is a matter so plain and palpable, and can be so " easily sub- stantiated"— and such is your concession — what need of Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Syriac, Chaldee and divers modern tongues, together with Geology, Chemistry, Natural His- tory, and almost every science, to make out their inspira- tion f They assert it, and they are to be believed ; there- fore one would think they might be believed by a simple, unlettered man, without being master of a library of which Charleston and perhaps Columbia is too poor to boast! I had always thought that the only difficulty in making out the external proof of inspiration was in establishing the credibility of the books which profess to be inspired. It had struck me that if it were once settled that their own testi- mony was to be received, the matter was at an end. But it seems now that the credibility of a witness is no proof that he speaks the truth, and though " the accuracy of his state- ments can be easily substantiated, even to the mind of an Indian or a negro," there is one fact about which he cannot be believed, except by a man who carries all the learning of Europe and America in his head. Nay, with all the advan- tages of a " larger library than Charleston can boast of," with the tongues alike of the dead and living, with univer- sal Science pouring her treasures in boundless profusion at his feet, with an almost "supernatural accuracy of judg- ment," added to other marvellous accomplishments, it is still doubtful whether, in the way of private judgment, a man could ever be assured that credible books are to be believed on the subject of their origin !^ But just let one of 1 2 Pet. iii. 15, 16. 2 2 Thess. ii. 15. '""Whether any investigation in either or botli cla'^ses" (that is, of external and internal evidence), ''carried on even under the most favonr- VoL. III.— 30 466 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Letter IV. an infallible body present himself before a Christian or an infidel, an Indian or a negro, and how changed the scene ! As if at the waving of a wizard's wand the mists are dis- pelled, the shadows disappear, a flood of light removes all lingering doubt, and an infant mind can surmount those giant difficulties which " veteran scholars " and " sage phi- losophers" were unable to subdue. This teacher can achieve these mighty wonders before it is jj'i^oved that he belongs to au unerring band ; there is magic in his voice. Just let him ope his ponderous lips and give the word, and the sun of the Scriptures no longer " looks through the horizontal misty air shorn of his beams, no longer stands in awful eclipse scattering disastrous twilight over half the nations," but shines out in the full effulgence of meridian day ! It is strange to me that you did not perceive the egre- gious absurdity of attempting to establish the infallible authority of a body of individuals upon historical grounds, when you denied the possibility of proving the infallible authority of the Scriptures by the same process. The evidence in both cases is precisely of the same nature. The inspiration of Rome turns upon a promise which is said to have been made nearly two thousand years ago ; the inspiration of the New Testament turns upon facts which are said to have occurred at the time. Both the promises and the facts are to be found, if found at all, in this very New Testament. Now, how does it happen that when the point to be proved is the pretended promise made to the pastors of Rome, the New Testament becomes amazingly accurate, and the proofs of its credibility are neither above nor contrary " to the means or understanding of an Indian or a negro," but when the point to be proved is the facts which establish the inspiration of the writers, then the New Testament becomes involved in a cloud of uncertainty which no human learning is able to remove ? Your argument, sir, able circumstancevS, will unerringly prove the inspiration of any books of the Scripture, I leave to be mooted by those who choose to undertake the task." Letter I. Letter IV.] HISTORICAL ARGUMENT. 467 has certainly placed you in a sad dilemma. You cannot make out the historical proofs of Papal infallibility with- out making out at the same time the historical jiroofs of scriptural inspiration. Both must be traced through the same channels to the age of the Apostles. Now, one of two things must be true — either the credi- bility of tte Scriptures can be substantiated to a plain unlet- tered man, or it cannot. If it can be, then there is no need of your infallible body to authenticate their inspiration, since that matter can be easily gathered from their own pages. If it cannot, then your argument from the Scrip- tures to an Indian or a negro in favour of an infallible body is inadmissible, since he is incapable of apprehending the premises from which your conclusion is drawn. You have taken both horns of this dilemma, pushing Protestants with one and upholding Popery with the other, and both are fatal to you. Now, as it is rather difficult to be on both sides of the same question at the same time, you must adhere to one or the other. If you adhere to your first position, that all human learning is necessary to settle the credibility of the Scriptures, then you must seek other proofs of an infal- lible body than those which you think you have gathered from the Apostles. You must first establish the infallibility of the body that claims to teach us, and then receive the Sacred Oracles at their hand. A circulating syllogism proves nothing ; and if he who establishes the credibility of the Scriptures by an infallible body, and then establishes the infallibility of the body from the credibility of the Scriptures, does not reason in a circle, I am at a loss to apprehend the nature of that sophism. If you adhere to your other position, that the accuracy of the Evangelists can be easily substantiated, then your objections to private judgment are fairly given up, and you surrender the point that a man can decide for himself Avith absolute certainty concerning the inspiration of the Bible. Take which horn you please, your cause is ruined, but you have chosen both ! The process by which you endeavour to elicit an infallible 468 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSS KD. [Lktter IV. body of teachers from the Scriptures is in perfect keeping with the rest of your argument. You do not pretend that they contain any express testimony to the fact; neither do you deduce from them any marks by which your unerring guides of faith can be discriminated from those who intro- duce errors and attempt to change the religion of Christ. How then does it appear that sucli infallible instrtictors were appointed? Why, there is no other way in which Gotl could accomplish His purpose of transmitting Christianity pure and uncorrupted to the remotest generations of men ! This is the sum and substance of the argument for the sake of which you have made yourself so consummately inconsistent, by contradicting your previous statements in regard to the credibility of the Scriptures! "Some adequate provision must be made against the error and change-seeking tendency of man," and as Christianity is appointed to be learned from persons delegated to teach in the name and by the authority of Christ, " that provision must evidently and necessarily be directed to preserve that body of teachers by the power of God from error, and to make them in fact teach all things whatsoever He had taught them." That an infallible body of teachers presents the only ef- fectual means of perpetuating the religion of Christ, un- adulterated with error, is so exceedingly unlikely that it would require nothing less than a constant miracle to pre- serve a system transmitted in this way from corruptions, additions and radical changes. Unless each individual pastor were himself infallible, fatal errors might be widely disseminated before the body could be collected together to separate the chaflP from the wheat and to distinguish the precious from the vile. Three centuries have hardly passed away since the last General Council of the Roman Church was first convened. In that lapse of time how many unauthorized opinions may have gained currency among the pastors of your Church, and have perverted your flocks from the true doctrines of Rome ! The truth is, without a perpetual superintendence over the mind and I Letter IV.] HISTORICAL ARGUMENT. 4G9 heart of every solitary teaelier, amounting to a niiraculon.s protection from error, the plan of transmitting a system of religion by oral tradition is the most unsafcj uncertain and liable to abuse of any that could be adopted. The com- monest story cannot pass through a single community with- out gathering additions as it goes. How then shall a com- plicated system of religion be handed down from generation to generation, passed on from lip to lip, and from age to age, and lose nothing of its original integrity, and gain nothing from the invention of man ? Sir, your " com- mon sense," and " the common sense of an Indian or negro," might lead you "to expect that this is the course which the Saviour would adopt," but nothing but His own AVord could render it credible to me. No, sir, God has taken a different method to guard against the " error and change- seeking tendencies of men." He has committed His holy religion to icritten documenU, which are to abide as an in- fallible standard of faith till the heavens and the earth are no more. There, and there alone, we are to seek the truth. By them, and them alone, all the spirits are to be tried, all the teachers are to be judged; and if Roman pastors, with their wicked pretensions to infallible authority, speak not according to these Records, they are to be cast out as lying j)rophets whom the Lord hath not sent. You have totally misconceived the appropriate functions of the Christian ministry. Sir, the preachers of the Gospel were never designed to be the lords of the people's faith, but helpers of their joy. They are to propose, but it belongs to the Scriptures alone to confirm or prove, the doc- trines of religion. The infallible standard is in the Bible, and they who are noble will, like the Bereans, test the in- structions of their pastors by the true and faithful sayings of God. You must remember, sir, that the Scrij)tures, which you have admitted to be credible, which were written by men under a special promise of Christ to be protected from error 470 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [LETTER TV. and instructed in the truth, profess to be a perfect rule of faith and practice. " Their accuracy can be easily substan- tiated/' even to the most illiterate understanding. Why, then, should there be an infallible stream of tradition kept up by a constant miracle running parallel with the infallible stream of Scripture, which can be and has been preserved pure by the ordinary providence of God ? Is a large va- riety of means for the accomplishment of any effect, when a few are abundantly adequate, characteristic of the works of God? Is it His ordinary course to multiply agents when a single cause is sufficient for His purpose? Your assumption, then, that a body of infallible teachers is neces- sary to preserve the doctrines of Christianity in their origi- nal purity is wholly groundless, and your argument, conse- quently, may be given to the winds. The Bible shows us a more excellent way. You have indirectly insisted upon the promises of Christ that He would send the Spirit to guide His disciples into all truth, and be ^vith them to assist and bless them in preach- ing His Gospel to the ends of the earth. But, sir, these promises do not serve your purpose. The first was fulfilled in each of the Apostles, and if it is to be applied in a similar form to all their successors, it would prove the full inspiration of every lawful minister of God. This is more than you are willing to admit. You have already told us that no single individual is to be received as an infallible teacher, but that the authority to make an unerring decision belongs exclusively " to a body of individuals in their col- lective capacity." Our Saviour said nothing of such a body ; His promise in reference to the Apostles was evidently personal, and applied to them in the official relations which each sustained as a steward of the mysteries of God. How, then, was the promise accomplished to succeeding ages ? By leading the Apostles, under the insj)iration of the Holy Ghost, to record the infallible instructions of Christ, which should be a perpetual rule of faith, containing all things im- Letter IV.] HISTORICAL ARGUMENT. 471 portant for man to know or for man to do.^ These venerable men live in their l)ooks : " for books ai*e not absolutely dead things, but do contain a progeny of life in them, to be as active as that soul whose progeny they are ; nay, they do ^ See this subject ably and satisfactorily discussed in Warburton's Doc- trine of Grace, pt. i., and Bishop Hebei-'s Bampton Lectures. The reader will excu.se the following extract from the 7th of Heber's Lectures : "It appears, then, that the advent of the Paraclete, and his abode among men, would be, during any period of Christian history, sufficiently evinced by the existence of one or more inspired individuals, whose au- thority should govern, whose lights should guide, whose promises should console their less distinguished brethren, and by whom, and in whom, as the agents and organs of His will, the Holy Ghost should be recognized as Sovereign of the Church LTniversal. But if this be conceded, it will signify but very little, or (to speak more boldly, perhaps, but not less ac- curately) it will be a circumstance altogether insignificant, whether the in- struction afforded be oral or epistolary ; whether the government be carried on by the authority of a present lawgiver, or through the medium of re- scripts bearing his seal, and, no less than his personal mandates, compulsory on the obedience of the faithful. In every government, whether human or Divine, the amanuensis of a sovereign is an agent of his will, no less or- dinary and effectual than his herald ; and St. Paul both might and did lay claim to an equal deference when, in the name and on behalf of that Spirit by whom he was actuated, he censured by his letters the incestuous Corinthian, as if he had, when present and by word of mouth, pronounced the ecclesiastical sentence. It follows that the Holy Ghost as accurately fulfilled the engagement of Christ, as the Patron and Governor of Chris- tians, by the writings of the inspired person when absent as by his actual presence and preaching. And if St. Paul, having once by Divine au- thority set in order the Asiatic and Grecian churches, had departed for Spain, or Britain, or some other country at so great a distance as to render all subsequent communication impossible, yet still, so long as the instruc- tions left behind sufficed for the wants and interests of the community, that community would not have ceased to be guided and governed by the Holy Gho.st through the writings of His chosen servant. But that au- thority which we allow to the writings of an absent Apostle we cannot, without offending against every analogy of reason and custom, deny to those which a deceased Apostle has left behind him. For the authority of such writings, I need hardly observe, is of an official, not of a personal nature. It does not consist in their having emanated from Peter or James or John, abstractly considered (in which case, the authority of any one of them might, undoubtedly, terminate with his life), but their authority is founded in that faith which receives these persons as accredited agents of the Almighty. We reverence their communications as the latest edicts of the Paraclete ; and Ave believe all further communications to have ceased for 472 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [LETTER IV. preserve, as in a vial, the purest efficacy and extraction of that living intellect that bred them. A good book is the precious life-blood of a master-spirit, embalmed and treas- ured up on purpose to a life beyond life." It is in the Records which they left that we now find the Spirit of inspira- tion ; there is His abode, there the place of His supreme illumination, and in these books, consequently, Christianity must be sought in its purity and vigour. The other promise pledges the assistance of Christ to those who preach the truth. It is a standing encourage- ment to all ministers that in faithfully dispensing the Word of God according to the law and the testimony their labour should not be in vain in the Lord. Our Saviour had pre- viously given a command to go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature. The prospect of suc- cess in the fulfilment of this solemn injunction, from the condition of society, the prejudices of the Jews, the philos- ophy of the Greeks and the superstition of the Romans, was far from encouraging. To support their faith and quicken their hopes their ascending Saviour pledged His almighty power to make His truth efiPectual in bringing down lofty imaginations and subduing the hearts of men in captivity to His cross. The promise in that passage is a time ; not because these eminent servants of God have long since gone to their reward, for it were as easy for the Holy Spirit to raise up otlier prophets in their room as it was originally to qualify them for that high office — not because we apprehend that the good Spirit is become indifl'er- ent to the welfare of the Church, for this would be in utter contradiction to the gracious assurance of our Saviour ; but because sufficient light has been already afforded for the government of our hopes and tempers; and because no subsequent question has occurred for wliich the Scriptures already given had not already and sufficiently provided " We conclude, then, as Warburton has long since concluded (though he arrived at the same truth by a process somewhat different, and encum- bered its definition by circumstances which I have shown to be irrelevant), — we conclude that it is by the revelation of the Christian covenant, and by the preservation of the knowledge thus communicated to the ancient Church in the Scriptures of the New Testament, that the Holy Ghost has manifested and continues, as the Vicar and Successor of Christ, to mani- fest his protecting care of Christianity." Letter IV.] HISTORICAL ARGUMENT. 473 not tliat they should speak the truth, and nothing but the truth, but that in speaking the truth, in preaching Avhatever He had commanded, He would be with them always, even to the end of the world ; and this promise has never failed. Your letter contains a few incidental statements, intro- duced in the way of cumulative testimony, to confirm the pretensions of your infallible body. You tell us first that it can trace its predecessors in an unbroken line up to the age of the Apostles themselves. So far is this from being the truth, that not a single priest in your Church can have any absolute certainty that he is a priest at all unless he be invested with the prerogative of God to search the hearts and try the reins of the children of men. Intention, on your principles, is an essential element of a valid ordina- tion ! How can a priest be assured that his bishop intended to ordain him, or how can the bishop be assured that he himself was lawfully consecrated ? The whole matter is involved in confusion, and you cannot know whether you are pastors at all or not. Again, you inform us of the prodigious numbers that have been converted by the labours of your infallible teachers. Sir, the world loveth its own, and it is character- istic of the broad road Avhich leads to death that thousands are journeying its downward course. Mohammed laid the foundations of an empire which in the course of eighty years extended farther than tlie Roman arms for eight hundred years had been able to spread the jurisdiction of the Csesars. In this comparatively short sj)ace of time there Avere brought under the sway of the Crescent the Grecian, Persian and Mogul States, with many others of inferior importance, and yet Mohammedanism, notwithstanding its unparalleled success, was a gross system of imposture and fraud. The purity of a system is not to be determined by the multitudes that embrace it. How significant is the question of our Saviour, " When the Son of man cometh, shall He find faith on the earth?" "Fear not, little flock, it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom." 474 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Letter IV. Why have you omitted all mention of the meekness and patience that have always been characteristic of the Church of God ? Were you conscious, sir, that you had no claims to that discriminating badge of the fliithful ? Did the past rise up before you in horrible distinctness and warn you to forbear ? Rome, Papal Rome, which professes to ' be the humble, meek, patient, suffering Church of God, is literally steeped in human gore. Your pastors have inflicted more suf- ferings upon men, have shed more human blood, have invent- ed a greater variety of tortures, have more deeply revelled in human misery and feasted on human groans, than all the tyrants, bigots and despots of all the other systems of super- stition and oppression that have ever appeared in the world from the fall of man to the present day. To Papal Rome the foul pre-eminence of cruelty must unquestionably be awarded. The holy ministers of the Inquisition, under the sacred name of religion, have tested to its utmost limits the capacity of human endurance ; every bone, muscle, sinew and nerve has been effectually sounded, and the precise point ascertained at which agony is no longer tolerable, and the convulsed and quivering spirit must quit its tenement of clay. The degree of refinement and perfection to which the art of torment has been carried in these infernal prisons is enough to make humanity shudder and religion sicken, and nothing but the most invincible blindness could ever confound these habitations of cruelty, these dark corners of the earth, with the means of grace and the elements of sal- vation. How preposterous, while breathing out slaughter and cruelty, exhibiting more the spirit of cannibals than the temper of Christians, to claim to be the Holy Catholic Church, the chosen depository of truth, the special temple of the Holy Ghost ! Having, as you suppose, sufficiently proved that an infal- lible body exists, you next proceed to show us that it must be composed of the pastors and teachers of your own com-, munion. This part of your argument need not detain me long, as I have clearly refuted your proofs of the existence Letter v.] HISTORICAL DIFFICULTIES. 475 of such a body. Still, if it did exist, the mere claim of Rome would not establish her pretensions to be received as an unerring tribunal of faith. Theudas and Judas each claimed to be the promised Messiah of the Jews. Moham- med claimed to be a true prophet of God, and the Devil himself sometimes claims to be an angel of light. If an arrogant claim is sufficient to establish a right, and such a right is founded in absolute certainty, how long would the distinctions of truth and falsehood, of virtue and vice, be preserved among men ? LETTER V. INFALLIBILITY— HISTORICAL DIFFICULTIES. The infallibility of the Papal Church is a doctrine so momentous in its consequences as to deserve a more ex- tended view than a simple refutation of the arguments by which you have endeavoured to support it. This, sir, is the TipcozoD if'toooz of your system, the foundation of those enormous corruptions in doctrine and abuses in discipline by which you have enslaved the consciences of men, and transmuted the pure and glorious Gospel of Christ into a dark and malignant superstition, which through fear of your malediction keeps its deluded victims in bondage in this world, and from the certain malediction of God dooms them to perdition in the world to come. Your pretensions to the unerring guidance of the Holy Ghost render change impossible and reformation hopeless. Whatever you have been in the past ages of your history you are to-day ; and the errors which in other times ignorance engendered from a warm imagination, or which avarice and ambition have found it convenient to present to the world as the offspring of truth, must still be defended and still carried out into all their legitimate results. The impositions Avhich you practised in an age of darkness must now be justified in an 47B ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Letter V. age of light. The absurdities of the past, which sprang from the blind superstition of monks and priests or from the lordly pretensions of popes and prelates, must now be fathered upon the Spirit of God, and that aid which neither reason nor the Scriptures impart to your dogmas must be supported by an arrogant claim to the control and super- vision of the Holy Ghost. This is your last resort; and when this corner-stone is removed your whole system tot- ters to its fall. It is the impression of Divine authority that conceals from your parasites the hideous proportions of the Papal fabric ; it is this which throws a charm of solemnity around it, and renders that awful and venerable which seen in its true light would at once be pronounced the temple of Antichrist. The question, therefore, of infal- libility is to you a question of life and death. The very being of the Papacy depends upon maintaining the spell by which you have so long deluded the nations of the earth. Let this wand of your enchantment be broken and tlie cliambers of your imagery disclosed, and darker abomina- tions will be revealed than those which the prophet beheld in the temple of the Lord at Jerusalem. In pretending to the distinguished prerogative of infal- libility, there is a prodigious and astonishing contrast be- tween the weakness of your proofs and the extravagance of your claims. It seems that you act upon the principle by which Tertullian once supported a palpable absurdity, and resolve to believe it, because, under the circumstances of the case, it is absolutely impossible that it can be true. The ordinary arguments which your writers are accus- tomed to adduce proceed upon a principle radically false. They reason from expediency to fact, and because an infal- lible tribunal is supposed to be a proper appointment for suppressing heresy and terminating controversy in matters of faith, it is rashly inferred that such a tribunal has been actually established. The inconsistency of such an arrange- ment with that peculiar probation which the moral govern- ment of God involves, in which our charactei-s are tested. Letter V.] HISTORICAL DIFFICULTIES. 477 our principles developed and the real inelinations of the heart made manifest — a probation which necessarily sup- poses temptations, dangers and trials, both in apprehending the truth and in discharging the duties of life — seems to form no part of their estimate. With such a condition of moral discipline the plan which the providence of God has appointed lor arriving at certainty upon the truths of the Gospel is perfectly consistent. The truth is committed to written documents; the reception of those documents de- pends in a great degree upon the state of the heart, which, as the medium through which it must pass, imparts its own tinge to the evidence submitted. They that are willing to comply with the commandments are in that mental condi- tion which disposes them to receive and justly to appreciate the truth of God; and to all such the Spirit of grace, which the Saviour bequeathed as a legacy to the Church, will im- part an infallible assurance to establish their minds. A plan like this is in harmonious accordance with every other feature of the moral government of God. The understand- ing is as really tested as the heart, or rather the dispositions of the heart — the moral character of the man is really exhib- ited by his dealings with the truth. There is in the first instance no overwhelming evidence which quells opposition, silences prejudice and conceals the native enmity of man against spiritual light. There is no resistless demonstration which compels assent, and which, by rendering us timid in indulging inclination, may make us less visibly vicious, but not less really depraved nor more truly virtuous. There is no portentous sign from heaven which startles the skeptic in his parleys with error, and forces him to receive what his nature leads him to detest. The true evidence of the Gospel is a growing evidence, sufficient always to create obligation and to produce assurance, but effectual only as the heart expands in fellowship with God and becomes assimilated to the spirits of the just. It is precisely the evidence which is suited to our moral condition. And any views of expediency which would prompt us to expect a 478 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Letter V. different kind of evidence — an evidence which should stifle or repress those peculiar traits of character by which error is engendered — would be inconsistent with the state in which we are placed. Hence, we are told that it must needs be that heresies should come, that they which are approved may be made manifest. Our real condition requires the possibility of error ; and God consequently has made no arrangements for absolutely terminating controversies and settling questions of faith without regard to the moral sym- pathies of men. Upon the supposition, however, that a kind of evidence was intended to be provided by which the truth might be infallibly apprehended while the heart continued in rebellion against God; by which the possibility of cavil might be removed and no plausible pretext be afforded to the sophist ; by which, in fact, the light actually vouchsafed should not only be sufficient, but wholly irre- sistible,— if the object had been to extirpate error and to prevent controversy, it would have been a less circuitous method to have made each man personally infallible, and thus have secured the reception of the truth. The argu- ment from expediency is certainly as strong in favour of individual infallibility as in favour of the infallibility of a special body: it is even stronger, for the end desired to be gained could be much more speedily and effectually accom- plished. Errors would not only be checked but prevented, controversy would be torn up by the roots, and the whole world would be made to harmonize in symbols of faith. "^ 1 " But it is more useful and fit, you say, for deciding of controversies, to have, besides an infallible rule to go by, a living, infallible judge to determine them; and from hence you conclude that certainly there is such a judge. But why, then, may not another say that it is yet more useful, for many excellent purposes, that all the patriarchs should be in- fallible, than that the Pope only should ? Another, that it would be yet more useful that all the archbishops of every province should be so, than that the patriarchs only should be so. Another, that it would be yet more useful if all the bishops of every diocese were so. Anotlier, that it would be yet more available that all the parsons of every parish should be so. Another, that it would yet be more excellent if all the fathers of families were so. And, lastly, another, that it were much more to be desired that Letter V.] HISTORICAL DIFFICULTIES. 479 The method of reasoning, consequently, from expediency to fact is fallacious and unsafe; and if the magnificent pre- tensions of your sect rest upon no firmer basis than deceit- ful notions of utility and convenience, they are indeed built ui)on the sand. Instead of a solid and a noble fabric of imposing strength and commanding grandeur, you present us with a structure as weak and contemptible as the toy- houses of children constructed of cards. There are no less than three different opinions entertained in your Church as to the organ through which its infalli- bility is exercised or manifested. This single circumstance is enough to involve the whole claim in contempt. If it be not infallibly certain where the infallible tribunal is, in case of emergency, to be found, the old logical maxim ap- plies with undiminished force, de non appaf^entibus et non existenfibus eadem est ratio. To settle controversies it is not enough that a judge exists; his existence must be known and his court accessible. Uncertainty as to the seat of an infallible authority is just as fatal to the legitimate exercise of its functions as uncertainty in regard to the being of the authority in the abstract. To resolve our doubts and re- move our difficulties some of your doctors refer us to the Pope as the vicar of Christ, thQ head of the Church, the teacher of the faithful, and plead the decisions of councils in behalf of his pretensions. As the centre of unity to the Church and the fountain or source of ecclesiastical power, they represent him as possessed of an authority as absolute as that "with which the head controls the members of the every man and every woman wei-e so: just as much as tlie prevention of controversies is better than the decision of them, and tlie prevention of heresies better than the condemnation of them; and upon this ground, conclude by your own very consequence that not only a general council, nor only the Pope, but all the patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, pastors, fathers, nay, all men in the world, are infallible. If you say now, as I am sure you will, that this conclusion is most gross and absurd, against 8ense and experience, then must also the ground be false from which it evidently and undeniably follows — viz. : that that course of dealing with men seems always more fit to Divine Providence which seems most fit to human reason." — Chillingworth, vol. i., p. 249; Oxford edition of 1838. 480 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Letter V. body. Hence, your bishops are nothing but his vicars; and in token of their bondage they are not content with the usual oaths of allegiance by which subjects are held in obedience to their sovereign, but they enter into a solemn obligation to appear personally before him every three years to give an account of their stewardship, or else to" excuse themselves by an adequate deputy. "As in a disciplined army," says Dr. Milner, a modern writer of your sect, in a charge which, though intrinsically Avorthless, excited too much controversy to be speedily forgotten — "as in a disci- plined army the soldiers obey their officers, and these, other officers of superior rank, who themselves are subject to a commander-in-chief, so in the Catholic Church, extending, as it does, from the rising to the setting sun, the faithful of all nations are guided by their pastors, who in their turns are submissive to the prelates, lohilst the whole body is subordinate to one supreme pastor, Avhose seat is the rally ing- point and centre of them all." In this exquisite system of slavery the Pope is evidently the sovereign authority — the whole body is subordinate to him, and whatever infallibility the Church possesses, it must be found in the person of her supreme pastor as the centre and rallying-point of the whole. Under any other theory of infallibility this, it may be well to remark, is and must be the practical working of your system. Your leading maxim is obedience; there must be no investigation of the right to command, no regard to the propriety of the precepts; the whole duty of the people is summed up in a single word, obey. This system of absolute submission runs itp unchecked until it terminates in the Sovereign Pontiff at Rome, whose edicts and decrees, by necessary consequence, none can question, and who is there- fore the absolute lord of Papal faith. This seems to be the inevitable result of that slavish doctrine of passive obedience which your pastors inculcate, and without which your Church would expire in a day. Hence, whether you lodge infalli- bility with councils, with the body of the pastors at large, or give the Pope an ultimate veto upon the decisions of Letter V.] HISTORICAL DIFFICULTIES. 481 oecumenical synods, to this complexion, under the theory of implicit obedience, it must unavoidably come at last; and the practical impression upon the people will be precisely that M'hich, we are told by intelligent travellers, prevails in Italy — " the Pope is greater than God." ^ It is evident that the infallibility of the Pope cannot be separated from his claim to supremacy. To prove that he is not sup'eme is, in other words, to prove that he is not in- fallible. Now, to those who maintain that the infallible authority o'f the Church is to be sought in the person of his Holiness, this serious historical difficulty arises : Where was that infallibility before a Supreme Pastor existed ? It is a fact sustained by the very amplest testimony that as late, at least, as the seventh century, the bishops of the Church, not excepting the bishops of Rome, whatever accidental dif- ferences prevailed among them, were regarded at least as officially equal. According to Jerome, every bishop, whether of Rome, Eugubium, Constantinople, Rhegium, Alexandria or Tanis, possessed the same merit and the same priesthood.^ " There is but one bishopric in the Church," says Cyprian, " and every bishop has an undivided portion in it ;" ^ that is, it is one office, and the power of all who are invested with it is precisely the same. In his letter to Pope Stephen this doctrine is still more distinctly announced, but it is fully brought out in the speech which he delivered at the opening of the great Council of Carthage. " For no one of us," says he, " makes himself bishop of bishops, and compels his colleagues, by tyrannical power, to a necessity of comply- ing ; forasmuch as every bishop, according to the liberty and power that is granted him, is free to act as he sees fit ; and ^ "II papa e piii die Dio per noi altri." — For a remarkable account of the extravagant adulation which has been heaped upon the Popes, see Erasmus on 1 Tim. i. 6. ' Epist. ci., ad Evang. — Ubicunque fuerit Episcopus, sive RoniEe, sive Eugubii, sive Constantinopoli, sive Rhegii, sive Alexandria, sive Tanis, ejusdum meriti, ejusdem est et Sacerdotii. 3 De Unitat. Eccles. Episcopatus unus est, cujus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur. ^ v. Vol. III.— 31 482 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Letter V. can no more be judged by others than he can judge them. But let us all expect the judgment of our Lord Jesus Clirist, who only hath power both to invest us with the government of His Church and to pass sentence upon our actions." But an authority which ought to be decisive on this ques- tion is to be found in the testimony of Gregory the Great, who was filled with horror at the arrogant pretensions of the patriarch of Constantinople to be treated as a universal bishop, and in the strongest terms reprobated the idea that any such title could be lawfully applied to any person what- ever.^ During these six centuries in which the Church was with- out a visible head, when there was neither centre of unity nor rallying-point to the whole, when, in the modern sense, there was no such thing as a pope, where was the infallibility of the body ? Most evidently it could not have been in the bishop of Rome; he was not then what he is now; and those who contend that he constitutes now the infallible tribunal of the Church are reduced to the awkward neces- sity of maintaining either that there was then no infallible tribunal at all, or that it has since been transferred from its ancient seat to the person of the Pope. If the latter alter- native should be assumed, upon what grounds and by what authority was the transfer made ? When, where and how ? These are questions which require to be answered with ab- solute certainty before we can have any absolute certainty that the bishop of Rome is not as liable to error now as he was in the days of Firmilian.^ The theory which lodges infallibility with general coun- cils is pressed with historical difficulties just as strong as those which lie against the infallibility of the Pope. If you ^ Epist., lib. vi., epist. 30. — Ego fidenter dico, quod quisquis se Universa- lem Sacerdotem vocat vel vocari desiderat, in elatione sua, Antichristum prjecurrit. " I affirm with confidence that whoever calls himself, or wishes to be called universal BiKhop, in this lifting up of himself is the forerunner of Antichrist." - See his Epistle to Pope Stephen, charging him both with error and echism. — Ci/priani EpiPtolcc, cp. Ixxv. Letter V.] HISTORICAL DIFFICULTIES. 483 except the Synod at Jerusalem in the age of the Apostles, which can hardly be called oeciimenical or general, there was no such thing as a general council of the Church until the first quarter of the fourth century. For two hundred years, consequently, after the last of the Apostles had fallen asleep, the Church had neglected to speak, though numerous and dangerous heresies had been industriously circulated, through the only organ by which she could pronounce an infallible decision. During all that time she was shorn of her strength. Is it probable, is it credible, that while the most fatal errors were disseminated in regard to the person of Christ, and the wildest vagaries were indulged by the Mon- tanists and Gnostics, there existed an authority to which the whole Church deferred as sujareme, and which by a single word was competent to crush these growing delusions? Why did the Fathers ply so strenuously the strong argu- ments of scriptural truth, the words and teachings of Prophets and Apostles, if there was indeed a stronger ar- gument to which they might resort, and from whose decision there was no appeal? A judge that neglects to act in critical emergencies just at the time when his authority is needed is little to be preferred to no judge at all. There is still another historical fact which it is difficult to reconcile with synodical supremacy. The early councils attributed the authority of the canons which they settled to the sanction of the emperor. They pretended to no infalli- ble jurisdiction ; their decrees were not set forth as the Word of God ; the veto of the emperor destroyed them ; his favour made them obligatory as far as his power extended.^ Were the Apostles thus helpless without the imperial sanc- tion? Did their instructions acquire the force of Divine laws from the favour of Xero or the patronage of the Cae- sars? If the councils were as infallible as the Apostles, why did they not proclaim their edicts in the name of God, and, whether the emperors approved or condemned, main- tain their absolute power to bind the conscience by the au- ^ See Barrow, Suprem. Pope, and passages referred to, Suppos. 6. 484 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lktter V. thority of Christ? These councils were evidently expedi- ents of peace, adopted by the government as well as by the Church for the purpose of securing uniformity of faith and preventing religious disturbances in the empire. They were not regarded as the unerring representatives of Christ ; the deference paid to the writings of the Apostles was never paid to them ; they were not acknowledged as the organ of the Spirit. Others, again, maintain that no council is infal- lible whose convocation and decisions have not alike re- ceived the sanction of the Pope. These persons are truly in a sad dilemma ; for all the early councils were confessedly convened by the mandate of the emperor, and many were acknowledged as authoritative in their own day whose canons were opposed by the bishop of Rome. According to this principle, there was no such thing as infallibility in the Church until the Pope acquired the dominion of an earthly prince, and could assemble the subjects of the realm from different quarters of the globe by his own sovereign authority.^ If, as a last desperate resort against all these historical objections, it should be asserted that the unanimous consent of all the pastors of the Church was a sufficient proof of the infallible truth of any system of doctrines, the question might still be asked, whether such unanimity has ever pre- vailed, and how in reference to any given point it can be ascertained. The idea of reaching the truth by a system of eclecticism, collecting only the doctrines which have never been disputed, is utterly unworthy of a rational understand- ing. It proceeds upon the wholly gratuitous assumption that nothing important has ever been denied, or nothing evidently true has ever been questioned. The history of religion, however, affords the most abundant proof that the vanity of man, even apart from considerations of interest, may be an adequate motive for attacking the most sacred opinions and the most venerable institutions, while others less important are protected from insult by their acknow- ^ See Barrow, Siiprcni. Pope, and passages referred to, Suppos. 6. Lv:tteu v.] historical DIFFICULTIES. 485 ledged insignificance. Such is the weakness of humanity that fame is often more precious than truth, and lie who cannot hope to rise to distinction by contributing to the general fund of human knowledge is sometimes tempted to seek notoriety from the profane attempt to demolish the temple erected by the labour of years. The very grandeur of the edifice provokes the efforts of infatuated vanity. To suppose, consequently, that those doctrines of religion are alone infallibly true which have met with universal appro- bation is to overlook the weakness and folly of man, and to attribute to his conduct in regard to religion a wisdom and propriety which the history of the past by no means sus- tains. It is much more natural to suppose that the most important truths should be the subjects of the fiercest con- tentions, that ambitious churchmen who had been defeated in their views of personal aggrandizement should endeavour to wreak their vengeance and gratify their vanity by aim- ing their blows at the very vitals of Christianity. Hence, we find, in fact, that a large share of the distractions of Christendom, the most pestiferous and deadly errors, have owed their origin to the spleen and mortification of their authors. How much, too, ambition, the master-sin by which angels fell, has corrupted the Church and perverted the right ways of the Lord, the whole history of the Papacy abundantly attests. Arius failed in obtaining a bishopric, and vented his malignity in attacking the very foundation of the faith. The extent to which prejudice, mere prejudice, prevailed in the controversies of the Iconoclasts and Mono- thelites is an amusing commentary on the harmony of priests in fundamental doctrines ; and there is an instance on record of a famous interpreter wlio confessedly distorted a passage of Scripture from its just and obvious meaning because the leader of another sect had endorsed it in his commentaries. A man, consequently, who should act upon the famous maxim, quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omni- bus, in the formation of his creed, and resolve to admit nothinsr as infallible truth which had not the mark of uni- 486 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Letter V. versal consent, might condense his articles in a very narrow compass. Not a single distinctive feature of revelation upon this absurd hypothesis would be regarded as an essential element of faith. The plenary inspiration of the Scriptures has been confessedly denied by distinguished divines, whole books of the Bible have been ruthlessly discarded from the Canon, and even poj)es themselves are said to have treated the history of Jesus as a gainful fable. It is important, therefore, to believe nothing about the inspiration of the Scriptures ! The doctrine of the Trinity has been bitterly assailed, the incarnation of the Redeemer openly derided, and the work of the Spirit denounced as enthusiasm. While one council has determined that Christ was the eternal Son of the Father, another with equal pretensions to infallibility has decided against His Divinity. Nothing, therefore, is infallibly certain about the person of Christ, and a man may be a very good Catholic, according to the maxim in question, w ithout any opinion of the Saviour at all ! Nay, the very being of God may be lawfully discarded from a creed collected in this way, since the successors of the Fish- erman, unless they are greatly belied, have not occasionally scrupled to indulge in skeptical doubts upon this prime article of religion ! This unanimous consent of the pastors of the Chui'ch, therefore, is a mere phantom of the brain, always mocking oiir efforts to compass it, and retreating before us like the verge of the horizon. It is " vox et pne- terea nihil." But suppose such an unanimous consent existed in fact in reference to all the doctrines of Christianity, suppose that no pastors of the Church had ever been heretical, how is an Indian or negro to become acquainted with the testi- mony that embraces all the priests that have ever said or sung the services of the Church, from the age of the Apos- tles to the period of his own existence ? To achieve such a task w^ould require a critical apparatus hardly less formid- able than that which you pronounce to be essential to the settlement of the Canon. Letter V.] HISTORICAL DIFFICULTIES. 487 I have now reviewed the leading theories in regard to the seat of the infallibility of your Church which have been maintained among you, and have shown them to be encompassed with historical difficulties fatal to their truth. There is one general objection of the same kind which covers them all, and which, upon the approved principle of logic, that two contradictories cannot possibly both be true, would seem to settle the matter. It is indubitably certain that popes have contradicted popes, councils have contradicted councils, and pastors have contradicted pastors, and all have contradicted the Scriptures. Notwithstanding your vain boasts of the unchanging uniformity of your system, and the perfect consistency and harmony of the doctrines of faith which your Church in every age has inculcated, it is still historically true that you have exhibited at different periods such variety of tenets as to render you wonderfully like the administration of Lord Chatham as inimitably described by Burke. Your syntagma confessionwn Avould present a scene " so checkered and speckled ; a piece of joinery so crossly indented and whimsically dovetailed ; a cabinet so variously inlaid; such a piece of diversified mosaic, such a tesselated pavement without cement — here a bit of black stone, and there a bit of white — that it might be indeed a very curious show, but utterly unsafe to touch and unsure to stand on." In the short compass of twenty-three years, to give a specimen of your wonderful consistency, we have idolatry both abolished and established by the councils of a Church which, according to Bossuet, never varies — the Council of Constantinople unanimously decreeing the removal of im- ages and the abolition of image-worship, and the second Council of Nice re-establishing both, and pronouncing an anathema on all who had concurred in the previous decision. The second Council of Ephesus approved and sanctioned the impiety of Eutyches, and the Council of Chalcedon con- demned it. The fourth Council of Lateran asserted the doctrine of a physical change in the eucharistic elements. 488 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Letter V. in express contradiction to the teachings of the Primitive Church, and the evident declarations of the Apostles of the Lord. The second Council of Orange gave its sanction to some of the leading doctrines of the school of Augustine, and the Council of Trent threw the Church into the arms of Pelagius. Thus, at different periods every type -of doc- trine has prevailed in the bosom of an unchangeable Church. She has been distracted with every variety of sect, tormented with every kind of controversy, convulsed with every spe- cies of heresy, and at last has settled down upon a platform which annihilates the Word of God, denounces the doc- trines of Christ and His Apostles, and bars the gates of salvation against men. That the Scriptures, and not the priesthood or any infalli- ble body of men, were the only channels through which an infallible knowledge of Divine truth was to be acquired, is so clearly the doctrine of the Primitive Church, which was founded by the hands of the Apostles themselves, as to be absolutely fatal to any of the forms in which the pretensions of Rome are asserted. Among the host of testimonies that might be adduced to establish and corroborate this vital point the following may be deemed a sufficient exposition of the views of the Fathers : " Look not," says Chrysos- tom, " for any other teacher ; you have the oracles of God ; no one can teach like them. Any other instructor may from some erroneous principle conceal from you many things of the greatest importance, and therefore I exhort you to pro- cure for yourselves Bibles. Have them for your constant instructors, and in all your trials have recourse to them for the remedies you need." ^ " It behooveth," says Basil, " that every word and every work should be accredited by the testimony of the inspired Scripture." ^ " It is the duty of hearers," he observes again, " when they have been instructed in the Scriptures, to try ^ See also Chrysostom's 3d Horn, de Laz. The truth is, a volume might be collected from this Father in support of my position. * Moralia, Eegula xxvi. Letter V.] HISTORICAL DIFFICULTIES. 489 and examine by them the things spoken by their teachers, to receive whatever is consonant to those Scriptures, and to reject whatever is alien." ^ " Without the Word," says Clemens Alexandrinus, " all religious investigation is vain ; the holy prophetic Scriptures are the foundation of religious truth, the rule of life, the high road to salvation,"^ " Whence," says Cyprian, " is this tradition [alluding to a pretended tradition of Stephen, bishop of Rome] ? Is it delivered down to us on the authority of the Lord and of the Gospel, or from the precepts and writings of the Apos- tles? For God Himself testifies that those things which are ivritten are to be observed. Josh. i. 8. And the Lord, sending his Apostles, commands the nations to be baptized and to be taught to observe whatsoever He has commanded. If, therefore, it be prescribed in the Gospel or contained in the Epistles or Acts of the Apostles, by all means let this Divine and holy tradition be observed. What obstinacy, what pre- sumption, to prefer the tradition of men to the Divine or- dinance, without considering that God is angry and pro- voked whenever human tradition breaks and overlooks the Divine commands!"'' In the Scriptures, then, according to these venerable men, and in the Scriptures alone, we possess the charter of our faith, pure and uncorrupted as it came from the inspired breasts of the Apostles ; and the Holy Spirit, in moving these chosen ambassadors of Christ to commit His infallible teachings to imperishable records, secured that certainty in the transmission of Christian doctrine which completely obviates the necessity of an infallible body of men. Here is, according to the Fathers, what all history shows the priesthood of Rome is not — a safe, wise, adequate, successful provision against the error and change-making tendency of man. I need not add that this appears to be the uniform doc- trine of the Scriptures themselves ; not only do they assert ^ Moralia, Reg. Ixxii. 2 Admon. to the Gentiles. ' Epist. Ixxiv. Pompeio, §2 ii. iii. 490 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Letter Y. their own sufficiency and completeness as a rule of faith, but that they were written with the design of handing down, in their integrity and purity, the doctrines which the Apostles taught and the early Christians received. The Evangelist Luke, in recording the motives which induced him to commit his Gospel to writing, states distinctly that his object was that the "certainty" of those things which had been previously communicated by oral teaching might be fully a])prehended. He proceeds upon the just and natural principle that written documents presented a safer channel for the transmission of truth than verbal tra- dition. Peter, when about to put oif his mortal tabernacle, makes provision for perpetuating the faith after his decease by W7'itwg his second Epistle. Here Avas the time and here was the place for the pretended founder of the Papacy to assert the prerogatives of his see. But not a word does he utter of living teachers — of any infallible tribunal composed of men. To his mind written, memorials were the true se- curity for preserving entire apostolical instructions.^ But ^ " The claim of infallibility, or even authority, to prescribe magisterially to the opinions and consciences of men, whether in an individual or in assemblies and collections of men, is never to be admitted. Admitted, said I ? It is not to be heard with patience, unless it be supported by a miracle ; and this very text of Scripture (2 Pet. i. 20, 21) is manifestly, of all others, the most adverse to the arrogant pretensions of the Koman Pontiff. Had it been the intention of God that Christians, after the death of the Apostles, should take the sense of Scripture, in all obscure and doubtful passages, from the mouth of an infallible interpreter, whose de- cisions in all points of doctrine, faith and pi-actice should be oracular and final, this was the occasion for the Apostle to have mentioned it, to have told us plainly whither we should resort for the unerring explication of those prophecies which, it seems, so well deserve to be studied and under- stood. And from St. Peter, in particular, of all the Apostles, this infor- mation wa-s in all reason to be expected, if, as the vain tradition goes, the oracular gift was to be lodged with his successors. This, too, was the time when the mention of the thing was most likely to occur to the Apos- tle's thoughts, when he was about to be removed from the superintendence of the Church, and was composing an Epistle for the direction of the flock which he so ftiithfully had fed, after his departure. Yet St. Peter, at this critical season, when his mind was filled with an interested care for the welfare of the Church after his decease, upon an occasion which Letter V.] HISTORICAL DIFFICULTIES. 491 the grand and fatal objection to the doctrine of infallibility, in whatever form it is asserted, is, that it is totally destitute of the only kind of proof by which it can be possibly sup- ported. To exempt a single individual or any body of men from the possibility of error is the exclusive preroga- tive of God. It depends upon Him, therefore, and upon Him alone, to declare whether He has granted this distinc- tion to the Popes of Rome, the councils of the Church, or the whole body of its pastors. This is a fact which can only be substantiated by a Divine revelation. This is the sort of evidence which the case requires, and without such evi- dence all such pretensions are vain, delusive, arrogant and blasphemous. Abstract reasoning can avail nothing ; there must be a plain declaration from the Lord. Where, I ask, and ask triumphantly, is such a declaration to be found? Where has God confirmed by miracles the extravagant claims of the Papal community? To look for it in the Scriptures would involve the supposition that the Scriptures are already known to be inspired — the proof would become destructive of the end for which it was sought. Papists tell us that Ave cannot be assured that the Scriptures are di- vinely inspired until we are assured that the decisions of the Church are infallible. It would be, then, most prepos- terous in them to remand us to the Scriptures to prove their claims, when the only authenticity they ascribe to the Scrip- tures is derived from these claims. Still, we may safely challenge them to produce from the Bible a single passage which directly asserts or by necessary implication involves the proposition — either that the Pope, in his official rela- might naturally lead him to mention all means of instruction that were likely to be provided, — in these circumstances St. Peter gives not the most distant intimation of a living oracle to be perpetually maintained in the succession of the Eoman bishops. On the contrary, he overthrows their aspiring claims by doing that which supersedes the supposed necessity of any such institution ; he lays down a plain rule, which, judiciously ap- l)lied, may enable every private Christian to interpret the written oracles of prophecy in all points of general importance for himself." — Horsley's Sermons, vol. i., Serm. 15. 492 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lktter V. tions, is an infallible expounder of the faitli, or that general councils are unerring in their decisions, or that the whole body of pastors shall be preserved inviolably from error. On the contrary, it is worthy to be noticed how the Ephesian elders are solemnly assured that from even among themselves, among the very teachers of the Church, griev- ous wolves should arise, not sparing the flock. And the voice of all history — though the Bible says nothing spe- cifically about them, as never contemplating such a phe- nomenon— the voice of all history abundantly attests that councils have erred, and so dissipates the idle fiction of their infallibility. Is there, then, any other revelation beside the Sacred Oracles from which the infallibility of the Church may be gathered? What messenger has ever been com- missioned to proclaim this truth, and to seal his com- mission by miraculous achievements ? Where has the voice of God ever commanded us to submit to Rome as His rep- resentative and vicar? Where are the Divine credentials of Papal infallibility ? Until these questions are satisfac- torily answered, Rome must be viewed in the light of an impostor, assuming to herself that supreme deference which is due exclusively to the Spirit of God. Her pretensions must be regarded as the offspring of fraud, engendered by ambition and nurtured by interest, which none can acknow- ledge without treason against God and perdition to them- selves. Like the harlot in the Proverbs of Solomon, she stands arrayed in gaudy attire to beguile the simple, but her feet take hold on death and her steps lead down to hell. Letter VI.l INFALLIBILITY AND SKEPTICISM. 493 LETTER VL INFALLIBILITY AND SKEPTICISM. To abandon the exercise of private judgment, and intrust the understanding to the guidance of teachers arrogant enough to claim infallibility without producing the creden- tials of a Divine commission, is to encourage a despotism which none can sanction without the express authority of God. Private judgment, indeed, can never be wholly set aside; the pretensions of an infallible instructor must be submitted to the understandings of men, and finally de- termined by each man's convictions of truth and justice. The ultimate appeal must be to that very reason which, in its independent exercise, is dreaded as the parent of so much mischief, the prolific source of so much schism. It is a circumstance, however, not sufficiently regarded that the pretensions of Rome to that degree of inspiration which she arrogantly claims cannot be admitted without striking at the basis of all human knowledge, confounding the distinc- tions of truth and falsehood, and laying the foundations of a skepticism more malignant and desolating than the worst calamities which can possibly result from the free and un- hampered indulgence of private opinion. As extremes are so intimately connected that the least touch of the pencil can translate expressions of joy into symptoms of sorrow, so those who seek to remove the occasions of difference, to terminate schism, extinguish controversy and establish re- ligion upon the strongest grounds of absolute certainty, by resorting to a guide that claims infallibility without those signs and wonders which indubitably declare that God's Spirit is in him and God's hand upon him, pursue a course having, in reality, a striking and inevitable tendency to conduct the mind to a dreary and hopeless Pyrrhonism. There can be no assurance of truth without a corresponding confidence in our faculties; the light which we enjoy, the 494 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Letter VI, convictions of our minds, the appearances of things to the human understanding, — these are to us the measures of truth and falsehood. Whoever is not content to receive the infor- mation of his senses, the reports of his consciousness and the evident conclusions of his own mind, deduced in con- formity with those fundamental laws of belief which are presupposed in all its operations; whoever, in other words, looks upon his faculties as instruments of falsehood, and distrusts the clearest exercise of his powers; whoever re- fuses to take upon trust what the very constitution of his nature inclines him to believe, — must rest content with the cheerless prospect of perpetual ignorance. There can be no knowledge without previous belief, de- termined by the law of our nature, and liable to no suspi- cions of deception, because ultimately resolvable into the veracity of God. There are certain primary convictions — certain original principles, as Aristotle calls them — through which we know and believe everything else, and which must, therefore, themselves be received with paramount certainty. These instinctive elements of natural faith con- stitute the standard of evidence, the foundation of truth, the groundwork of knowledge. Truth is the natural and necessary aliment of the soul ; and the faculties of the mind, in their original constitution, were evidently adjusted with a special reference to its pursuit, investigation and enjoy- ment. As the stability of external nature responds harmo- niously to our instinctive belief of the uniformity of its laws, so all the elements of faith which enter into the essen- tial constitution of the mind are as admirably and unerr- ingly adapted to their appropriate objects. Whatever, con- sequently, has a tendency to unsettle a man's confidence in the legitimate and natural exercise of his faculties, or to call into question what a distinguished philosopher has de- nominated the "fundamental laws of human belief," has an equal tendency to introduce a general skepticism, in which the distinctions of truth and falsehood are con- founded, and the elements of life and dcatli promiscuously liETTER VI.] INFALLIBILITY AND SKEPTICISM. 495 mingled. To bring the different powers of tlic sonl into a state of unnatural collision; to set our faculties at war; to involve their functions in suspicion; to make the deductions of the understanding contradict the original convictions of our nature, — is effectually to sap the foundations of know- ledge, to annihilate all certainty, to reduce truth and false- hood to a common insignificance, and expose the mind to endless perplexity, confusion and despair. Now this is pre- cisely the result which the Church of Rome accomplishes in the minds of those who are foolish enough to receive her as an infallible teacher and her instructions as infallible truth. She subverts the original constitution of the mind, contradicts the primary and instinctive convictions of every human understanding, and pronounces that to be absolutely certain which God, through the essential principles of human belief, declares to be absolutely false. She destroys the only foundation of evidence, extinguishes its light, surrounds her followers with an artificial darkness, and invites them to a repose from which no voice of truth can awaken them, no force of argument arouse them. He that yields his understanding to the guidance of Rome must frequently meet with cases in which the information of his faculties is clear and unambiguous, and the constitution of his nature prompts him to one view, while the infallible authority to which he has submitted requires a contrary faith. Hence, if he be consistent, he must follow his guide, because, according to the terms of the hypothesis, the guide is in- fiillible, and consequently distrust the strongest convictions of his own understanding. If, in such clear cases, the rea- son of men deceives them, as deceive them it must if the teacher be indeed incapable of error, how shall it ever be known when to trust their faculties at all? If they must regard that light which contradicts the sentiments of their pretended instructor as a temptation of the Devil, designed in the providence of God to test their fidelity, how shall they ever be able to distinguish these false aj^pearances from the real illuminations of truth? Is it not evident that they 496 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Letter VI. must always be children in understanding, shrivelled up in intellectual dwarfishness by a comfortless Pyrrhonism — ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth? It is a singular fact that, by pretending to infallibility, Rome occupies the same position in regard to religion which Hume maintained in relation to philosophy.^ She is a skeptical dogmatist, and by making the same principles conduce to contradictory results, she virtually pronounces truth to be impossible and " reduces knowledge to zero." The doctrine of transubstantiation, for instance, cannot be admitted without involving in uncertainty the information of our senses, and rendering doubtful the only evidence upon which all our conceptions of the phenomena of matter must ultimately depend. Upon the authority of Rome we are required to believe that what our senses pronounce to be bread, what the minutest analysis which chemistry can institute is able to resolve into nothing but the constituent elements of bread, what every sense pronounces to be ma- terial, is yet the incarnate Son of God — soul, body and Divinity, full and entire, perfect and complete. Here Rome and the senses are evidently at war; and here that infallible Church is made to despise one of the original principles of belief which God has impressed on the constitution of the mind. If, in reference to the magical wafer, which the juggling incantations of a priest have transformed into the person of the Saviour of the world, our senses cannot be regarded as worthy of our confidence, how are we to know when to trust them at all ? Why may not all our impres- sions of colour, of touch and of taste be just as delusive as those which deceive us in reference to this bread? There can be no other evidence of any sensible phenomenon than is possessed of the fact that the wafer is bread ; and if this evidence is fallacious and uncertain, the existence of matter 1 For a discussion of the relation of the fundamental data of conscious- ness to the reality of knowledge, see Sir W. Hamilton's Article on the Philosoi)hy of Perception, Discussions on Philosophy, p. 84. Letter VI.] INFALLIBILITY AND SKEPTICISM. 497 may be a chimera, or the speculation of Spinoza may not be unsound, that only one substance obtains in the universe, and that substance is God. If Rome is to be believed in opposition to the senses, the paramount authority of our primary convictions is at once overthrown; the constitution of our nature is rendered subject to suspicion; the measures of truth are involved in perplexity, and man is set afloat upon the boundless sea of speculation without chart, com- pass or rudder. The standard by which opinions must be ultimately tried is called into question, and the only thing which can be regarded as absolutely certain is the utter un- certainty of everything on earth. It is intuitively clear that if our faculties cannot be trusted in one case which falls within the sphere of their legitimate jurisdiction, they cannot be trusted in another. If they cannot be credited when, with every mark of truth, they inform us of physical phenomena, they can no more be credited when they inform us of the infallibility of the Church; if our primary con- victions are doubtful, all other impressions must be delusive and deceitful. So far as we are able to ascertain, one thing, under such circumstances, is just as true as another ; the sophist is the only philosopher, skepticism the only form of wisdom. In conformity with what reason would lead us to expect, we find from actual experience that in Papal countries, where the infallibility of the Church is maintained without limitation or reserve, the intelligent members of the com- munity have no real belief in any of the distinctive doc- trines of religion. Hence, too, " the chair of St. Peter" has been so frequently filled by those who despised every prin- ciple embraced in the noble confession of that distinguished Apostle. Leo X., John XXIII. and Clement VII., Car- dinal Bembo, Politian, Pomponatius, and a host of others, distinguished alike by their offices and attainments in the very heart of the Papal dominions, are renowned, many in the annals of infidelity, all in the history of religious hypocrisy. Vol. Ill— 32 498 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [LETTER VI. The Schoolmen, indeed, did not hesitate to maintain the assertion that opinions might be philosophically true and yet theologically false, or theologically true and at the sam;- time philosophically false. In other words, they main- tained that truth might consist with open contradictions, which is equivalent to saying that its existence was- impos- sible, or at least inconceivable. There can be no doubt that the speculatioiis of the Schoolmen prepared the way for the extensive desolations of what has been called philosophical wfidelity^ in modern times, and just as little doubt that the violence which is offered by the creed of Rome to the origi- nal principles of human belief introduced the Schoolmen into those curious refinements of perverse dialectics which effectually destroyed the unity of truth, but without which they were compelled to abandon the infallible dicta of an arrogant community. Modern infidelity, in all its forms, is ^ Many valuable hints concerning the connection betwixt the scholastic philosophy and the skepticism by which it was rapidly succeeded may be found in Ogilvie's Inquiry into the causes of infidelity and skepticism. The seed was evidently planted by the Schoolmen of the Middle Ages which subsequently bore such bitter fruit ; they encouraged the spirit of captious dialectics, that absurd inattention to the fundamental laws of belief as the basis of philosophy, which in other hands was to subvert tlie foundations of all that was fair, venerable or sacred. The reader may be pleased with the following extract from a learned and valuable work : " Imo, unde scholastici suas quodlibeticas et frivolas questiones, nisi ex hac scepticismi lacuna, hauserunt. Hoc bene notavit Jansenius (August, torn, ii., Lib. Prooem., cap. xxviii.). Scholastici, inquit, nimio philosophiiP amore quasi ebrii, arcana ilia mysteria gratise sepulta deletaque, secun- diim humanpe rationis regulas, eruere, penetrare, formare, judioare, volue- runt. Hinc ille ardor de quolibet disputandi, quidlibet eorum in dubium revocandi. Llinc eorum theologia innumerabilium opinionum farragine rcferta est, per quas fere omnia, quantumcunque contraria, facta sunt pro- babilia ; quse secundum eorum pronunciata, cuilibet tueri licet. Ita vix quicquam certi, prseter fidem, formandarum opinionum novarum promp- titude reliquum fecit. Prtecipitii enim poena suspendium, etvoxv hoc est ; temeritatis, omnis hesitantia et incertitudo. Nihil enim naturalius et vicinius quam ut homines ex Pcripateticis fiant Academici, quorum illi, sublucente ratiuncula, sententiam extemplo precipitant ; hi, temeritatis ducti ptenitentia, semper hesitant; et nunc hoc, nunc illud, animo fluctu- ante, displicit, placet; unde fit ut quod eis hodie probabile est, eras fal- sum judicetur." Galcei Philos. OeneraL, Par. ii., Lib. i., c. iv. Letter VI.] INFALLIBILITY AND SKEPTICLSM. 499 much more intimately connected with tlie influence of tlie Papacy than seems to be generally apprehended. From the very nature of the case, Popery must be the parent of skep- ticism, and the dogmas of Rome cannot be admitted with- out making a double standard of truth and destroying all its consistency and harmony. Those, however, who are not prepared for the dreary shades of unmitigated skepticism will much prefer the legitimate conclusions of their own understanding to the wretched tattle of the Papal priest- hood. Fully assured that a standard of truth in reality exists, uniform and stable, they can never believe that God has subjected their minds to the control of men who can deliberately trifle with the constitution of their nature, and make its inherent propensities and instinctive faith a matter of mockery. The very fact that these miserable guides con- tradict the universal bias of mankind is sufficient to show that they are blind leaders of the blind, and that, instead of hav- ing a commission from Heaven, they derive their claims from the father of lies. God Himself in His acknowledged reve- laiions appeals to the authority of our primary convictions. The miracles of Jesus Christ were addressed to the senses, to human eyes and human ears, and in all His expostula- tions with the Jews our Saviour evidently assumes the abso- lute certainty of sense and consciousness — the ultimate sources of all human knowledge — as well as the irresistible authority of those original principles which constitute the tests of truth. We cannot conceive, indeed, that a Divine revela- tion could be possibly authenticated without assuming the credibility of our faculties. To shake our confidence in them is to render belief impossible, no matter what may be the subject proposed or the evidence submitted. It is idle, in fact, to talk of evidence — which is only the light in which the mind perceives the reality of truth — if all our percep- tions are to be called into question or involved in uncertainty. Any pretended teacher, therefore, who does not authenticate his claims to Divine authority by performing miracles which 500 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Letter VI. none could achieve unless God were with him, any teacher who belies his pretensions by opening his mouth in what every law of our nature requires us to denounce as false- hood, must be regarded as a child of darkness, the enemy of light and the foe of man. No Divine revelation can be more certain than the testimony of sense or the evidence of consciousness. Through one of these sources every idea must be conveyed to the mind ; and whatever teacher un- dertakes to set them aside is the father of skepticism, and requires of man a homage which, though he may profess to render, it is utterly impossible to pay. If the evidence that such a teacher were really sent from God were equal to the evidence of sense or consciousness, the mind would then be involved in the state of contradiction in which it is impos- sible to form an opinion ; the teacher and our nature, like two negatives in English, would destroy each other, and our real faith would be expressed by a cipher. The mind, in other words, would be a perfect blank, a stagnant pool of ignorance and doubt, a mere chaos of discordant elements, the sport of endless confusion and caprice. It is vain to pretend that we honour God in cordially receiving what the constitution of our nature prompts us to reject, that the merit of the faith is enhanced by the difficulties which we struggle to subdue. When these difficulties arise from per- verse dispositions, from stubborn prejudices, impetuous pas- sions or pride of understanding, there may be some foun- dation for the plea ; but when they lie in the very nature of the evidence, he that commends his faith on such ground glories in the fact that his assent is strong just in propor- tion as the evidence is weak, and amounts to absolute cer- tainty when, upon the most favourable hypothesis that can be made in the case, there is, in truth, no evidence at all. The Papist, for instance, may regard it as a wonderful tri- umph of devout respect for the authority of God that he really believes that bread and wine are transformed into the person of his glorious Redeemer, the accidents of bread and Letter VI.] INFALLIBILITY AND SKEPTICISM. 501 wine remaining still unchanged.^ But then it is impossible that the evidence in favour of this supposition can ever be stronger than the evidence against it. Let us grant that it may be equal. What, then, is the real state of the case? God in the constitution of our nature requires us to believe the reality of the bread ; through an infallible Church He requires us to believe the nature of the change. We are just as certain that He speaks through the essential consti- tution of the human mind as through a general Council of the Roman Church. To say, therefore, that we honour Him by despising our nature, and being absolutely certain that the Church is right, is just to say that when the evidence is precisely on a poise it is insulting to God not to disregard His first revelation through the reason of man. Transub- stantiation is not a mystery, but an absurdity, not a dif- ficulty, but a contradiction, not something which transcends the legitimate province of reason, but a fact which is repug- nant to every principle of human belief — a fact which no man can receive without denying the paramount authority of those elementary truths which are implanted in our nature as the germ of all subsequent knowledge and phil- osophy, and without which even the infallibility of a teacher cannot possibly be proved. Rome, then, in proposing this dogma as an article of faith, is the patron of skepticism, and undermines the very foundation on which alone she can rest her authority to dictate at all. In requiring us to believe this monstrous absurdity she is guilty of the equally stupendous folly of requiring us to believe, and at the same time deny, the certainty of sense as a means of information ; ^ Trent teaches that by the consecration of the bread and wine the whole substance of the bread is converted into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and the whole substance of the wine into the sub- stance of His blood (Sess. xiii., chap, iv.) ; that Christ, whole and entire, exists under the species of bread, and in every particle thereof, and under the species of wine and in all its parts (Ibid., c. iii.). Our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, says the Council in chap, i., is truly, really and sub- stantially contained in the pure sacrament of the holy eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, and under the species of those sensi- ble objects. 502 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Letter VI. to believe the certainty of sense in order to substantiate the infallibility of the Church, which ultimately rests on the Diyine commission of Christ as established by miracles ad- dressed to the senses, and acknowledged by them to be indis- j:)utable facts ; to deny the certainty of sense in order to sus- tain the enormous figment that all the sensible properties of the bread can remain unchanged after its substance has been physically transmuted into the complex person of the Diyine Kedeemer. How such egregious trifling witli the intellect- ual nature of mankind differs from the false philosophy of Hume in its legitimate effects and ineyitable tendencies, I leave to be determined by those who are fond of a riddle or tickled with a paradox. It is enough for me to know that no one can consistently be a Papist Avithout ceasing to be a man, nor subscribe to the infallible dogmas of that apostate community without virtually inculcating that truth is a fiction, and that evidence is " of all our vanities the motli- est, the merest word that ever fooled the ear from out the Schoolman's jargon." The history of Greek philosophy and the controversies on the subject of transubstantiation reveal a remarkable co- incidence between the ancient Skeptics of Greece and the modern doctors of Rome : they are alike in the principles with which they set out, and remarkably alike in the posi- tive but inconsistent dogmatism upon the most solemn and important subjects with which they professed to terminate their inquiries. The distinctive features of the school of Pyrrho may be accurately ascertained from his division of philosophy and the answers Avhich he gives to those great questions which naturally arise from his distribution of the subject. " Whoever," says the founder of this ill-omened sect — '* whoever would live hai)pily ought to look to three things: first, how things are in themselves; secondly, in what relation man stands to them ; and, lastly, Avhat will be the inevitable consequence of such relations." The followers of this blind and infatuated guide called into question the voracity of the senses, and endeavoured to show that there Letter VI.] INFALLIBILITY AND SKEPTICISM. 503 was no unalterable standard of truth in conformity with which our judgments should be formed. They regarded mankind as walking literally in a vain show, and pronounced it to be impossible to ascribe w^ith certainty any real exist- ence to the objects which surround us. Hence they recom- mended a suspension of judgment — an entire absence from all positive assertion, as the dictate of wisdom. Their propo- sitions were to be thrown into the form of questions, not that the answers could ever be determined, but that the uncertainty of knowledge miglit be clearly indicated and the vacancy of the mind distinctly acknowledged. This fluc- tuating state of opinion, or rather this abstinence from any- thing sufficiently positive to be called opinion, was regarded by the Skeptics as the true method of securing felicity. To embrace skepticism was to embrace a life of tranquillity, in which the indifference of the mind to truth and falsehood happily responded to the uncertainty of things ; and as nothing ^Yas alloM^ed to be real, the anxieties of hope, the perturbations of fear and all the inquietude of passion were suppressed by the removal of the causes which produce them. This was the theory, but the rules of life which these philosophers prescribed (and in this matter with a strange inconsistency they were dogmatical and positive) were completely at war ^viih their speculative doctrines. They recommended a moderation of desire which evidently implied that there were real causes in existence to disturb the equanimity of the soul ; and, like the Romanists, while in one breath they rejected the authority of the senses, in the very next they assumed their information as the basis of practical wisdom. It will be remembered that, in the progress of opinion, the Skeptics introduced the Epicureans. The true tendency of Pyrrhonism is to destroy all interest in human aifairs, to bring about a state of complete indifference, to shroud the mind in a listless apathy, to produce an intellectual swoon in which, though the powers exist, their exercise is entirely suspended. To confound the distinctions of truth 504 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Letter VI. and falsehood, to render knowledge impossible or certainty absurd, is to divest the mind of all motive to exertion and remove from character the stability of principle. The in- vestigation of truth is the proper employment of the human understanding ; the possession of truth constitutes its wealth ; the love of truth its glory ; and sympathy with truth its health and vigour. A greater curse cannot, consequently, be inflicted on the race than to repress the mind in its noble aspirations by pronouncing its pursuits to be vain and nu- gatory. Society could not exist, every faculty of the soul would wither, and pine, and die, unless something were believed, something cherished and loved. To deny that there are any principles in any department of human in- quiry on which we may repose with confidence and safety is to reduce man to a condition of torpor which nature can- not and will not tolerate. The activity of the soul must be exerted ; and if debarred from the generous pursuit of truth, it will vent its inclinations in lawless pleasure and gratify its lusts with unrestrained licentiousness. The Sophists are natural precursors of Atheists and Libertines. It was so in Greece ; it was so in the Middle Ages ; it is still so where the Roman hierarchy is unchecked in its influence by the warning and example of Protestant teachers. The reality of the passions, of pride, ambition, avarice and re- venge, is a matter of feeling which the refinements of skep- ticism are unable to dissipate. These will exert unlimited sway where the sacred majesty of truth has been disrobed of its power ; these will remain as certainties when all other things are involved in doubt; and skepticism can do no more, from the very nature of man, than to remove the checks from appetite and lust, and give the reins to the indulgence of desire. In charging, therefore, the Church of Rome with embracing the fundamental principles of ske]iticism, I bring an awful accusation against her. She disturbs the foundations of society ; she sanctions principles which, if legitimately carried out, would obliterate all science, all morality, all regulated freedom and all religion. Letter VI.] INFALLIBILITY AND SKEPTICISM. 505 Instead of being the representative of Christ, who came to bear witness to the truth, she stands on the same platform with Pyrrhonists, Sophists, Atheists and Epicureans. Hence we should not be surprised that Rome is now, and ever has been, in every period of her history, the mortal enemy of free discussion. Those who acknowledge no invariable standard of truth must regard investigation as idle and ar- gument as vain. And Rome, too, is just skeptic enough to discard all sense of moral obligation and to gratify her characteristic lusts — ambition and avarice — without the an- noyances of compunction and remorse. These passions, like beasts of prey, seek the cover of darkness for their crimes ; and the history of the past affords the fullest au- thority for saying that Rome has found it convenient to envelop truth in obscurity, in order that she might promote her own aggrandizement without molestation or disturbance. Nothing, indeed, can more strikingly illustrate her indiffer- ence to truth, and the steady zeal with which she pursues her purposes of pride, than her shameful policy in reference to books. Her exj)urgatory and prohibitory indexes em- brace the choicest monuments of learning ; her sons are de- barred from holding communion with the master-spirits of the race to whom science, philosophy and liberty are under the deepest obligations. Among the works which to this day are proscribed by the proper authorities at Rome are the writings of Bacon, Milton and Locke. Even the more liberal of her own children who have had the audacity to prefer candour to the interests of the hierarchy have been rudely enrolled on the list of proscription. Du Pin, DcThou and Fenelon stand side by side with Cave, Robertson and Bingham. Rome dreads nothing so much as liberty of thought. Light is death to her cause; and consequently truth, philosophy and reason, the Book of God and the books of men, must be supjaressed, silenced and condemned, lest the slumbers of the people should be broken, the sun of righteousness arise, and the frauds and impostures of an arrogant community exposed to the gaze of day. She can 506 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Letter VI. only flourish among a nation of sophists, among a people who have lost the love of truth and seek from authority what ought to be sustained by evidence. To the Papal sect we are also indebted for the first re- straints upon the freedom of the press.^ Till the unhal- 1 " The first instances of books printed with Imprimaturs, or official per- missions, are two printed at Cologne, and sanctioned by the University in 1479 (one of them a Bible), and another at Heidelberg, in 1480, author- ized by the Patriarch of Venice. The oldest mandate that is known for appointing a Book-Censor is one issued by Berthold, Archbishop of Mentz, in the year 1486, forbidding persons to translate any books out of the Latin, Greek or other languages into the vulgar tongue, or, when trans- lated, to sell or dispose of them, unless admitted to be sold by certain doctors and masters of the University of Erfurt. In 1501, Pope Alexan- der VI. published a Bull prohibiting any books to be printed without the approbation of the Archbishops of Cologne, Mentz, Treves and Magde- burg, or their Vicars-General, or officials in spirit\ials, in those respective provinces. The year following, Ferdinand and Isabella, sovereigns of Spain, published a royal ordinance* charging the Presidents of the Chan- cellaries of Valladolid and Ciudad Eeal, and the Archbishops of Toledo, Seville and Grenada, and the Bishops of Burgos, Salamanca and Zamora, with everything relative to the examination, censure, impression, impor- tation and sale of books. In the Council of Lateran, held under Leo X., in 1515, it was decreed that no book should be printed at Rome, nor in other cities and dioceses, unless, if at Rome, it had been examined by the Vicar of his Holiness and the Master of the Palace ; or, if elsewhere, by the Bishop of the diocese, or a doctor appointed by him, and had received the signature, under pain of excommunication and burning of the book." — Townley's Essays on various subjects, etc. The above extract has been taken from ]\Iendliam's Literary Policy of the Church of Rome— a work which condenses much rare and valuable information, illustrating the savage ferocity of Popes and Councils in ref- erence to the independent productions of the human mind. The infomous decree of the Council of Lateran was confirmed by Trent, and Rome is to-day as bigoted and bitter, as much the enemy of light and knowledge, as she was three hundred years ago. The Encyclical Letter of the present Pope, dated August 15, 1832, among other precious maledictions of the rights of man, denounces the " fatal and detestable liberty of publishing what- ever one chooses" (deterrima ilia ac nunquam satis execranda et detesta- bilis libertas artis librarian ad scripia qua-libet edenda in ndgus); and the Letter of Cardinal Barthelemi Pacca, dated August 16, 1832, addressed to the Abbe de Mennais, which may be regarded as an authoritative expo- sition of the Encyclical Letter itself, condemns the doctrines of the A vinci — a periodical publication which exerted great influence at the time Letter VI.] INFALLIBILITY AND SKEPTICISM. 507 lowed usurpations of Rome had devised the expedient of suppressing thought by preventing its propagation, "books," says Milton, " were ever as freely admitted into the Avorld as any other birth ; the issue of the brain was no more stifled than the issue of the womb; no envious Juno sat cross-legged over the nativity of any man's intellectual off- spring ; but if it proved a monster, who denies but that it was justly burnt or sunk into the sea? But that a book in a worse condition than a peccant soul should be to stand before a jury ere it be born to the world, and undergo, yet in darkness, the judgment of Rhadamanth and his col- leagues ere it can pass the ferry backwards into light, was never heard before, till that mysterious iniquity, provoked and troubled at the first entrance of reformation, sought out new limbos and new hells wherein they might include our books also within the number of the damned." How the literary policy of Rome can be reconciled with any decent regard for the authority of truth or the enlarge- ment of the mind it is impossible to discover. If Truth indeed be " strong next to the Almighty, she needs no policies, nor stratagems, nor licensings to make her victo- rious ; these are the shifts and defences that Error uses against her power." It is the owls and bats of the world that love to expatiate in darkness : the eagle gazes on the sun, and his flight is as lofty as his vision is clear. Truth rises from the conflicts of discussion noble and puissant; untarnished by the smoke and dust of the collision, she shakes her invincible locks, and, like a strong man re- freshed by reason of wine, rejoices to run her race. That in reference to freedom of religion and tlie freedom of the press. Liberal sentiments on these subjects the Cardinal declares to be highly reprehen- sible, inconsistent alike with the doctrines, the maxims and the practice of the Church. In July, 1834, the Pope issued another infernal bulletin against light, knowledge and liberty, occasioned by a new work of Men- nais, entitled the Words of a Believer. This document far surpasses in the violence of its tyrainiical principles the P^ncyclical Letter of August 15. These facts show what Jlo))ie noiv is. 1 allude to them now incident- ally, as I sliall have occasion hereafter to notice them more fully. 508 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lettek VI. cause which is propped by prohibitions and anathemas, which apjioints spiritual midwives to slay the man-children born into the world, which, like kings, is stronger in legions than in arguments, bears a shrewd presumption on its face that it is not the cause of the Father of lights. It is a beautiful arrangement of infinite wisdom that they who assert so stujDendous a claim as that of infallibility, without the least proof of Divine authority, should yet so completely stumble on the very threshold of philosophy as to make their stupidity much more remarkable than their pretensions to knowledge. It would be amusing, if it were not so humiliating, to see these arrogant empirics swelling with pompous promises to dispel all doubt, obscurity and confusion from the doctrines of religion, and to establish Christianity upon the firm basis of infallible truth, while the words have scarcely escaped from their lips before they contradict every principle of human belief, and teach us to regard all certainty and evidence as mere chimeras. They promise to give us infallible assurance, and end by instruct- ing us that such a thing as assurance is utterly impossible. Surely they are the men, and wisdom will die with them! How true it is that the wicked are ensnared in the work of their own hands ! How true the exclamation of the poet, — "Oh what a tangled -sveb we weave When first we practise to deceive !" It deserves to be added that, in inculcating a spirit of skepticism and denying a permanent standard of truth, the Church of Rome impeaches the immutability of moral dis- tinctions, and declares herself to be a child of the devil and an enemy of all righteousness. She unsettles the founda- tions of right and wrong. She is as loose in her principles as she is corrupt in her practices. Consistently with her statements on the subject of transubstantiation, it is impos- sible to establish an unchanging standard of moral obliga- tion ; and as she evidently begins in Pyrrhonism, she must necessarily end in Epicureanism. The enormous corrup- Letter VI.] INFALLIBILITY AXD SKEPTICISM. 509 tions of the clergy Avhich provoked tlie indignation of Europe at the time of the Reformation, their rapacity, licentiousness and lust, were not the occasional abuses of wicked men, foreign to the system and abhorrent to the principles of the mass of the Church. They were the legitimate, natural, necessary results of that spirit of skep- ticism which Romanism must engender among all who reflect upon the foundations of knowledge or the nature of evidence. They were the bitter fruit of her graceless pre- tensions to infallibility.^ As the priesthood of Rome, in their mortal opposition to the natural measures of truth and certainty, have virtually claimed to be the arbiters of truth, it was not unreasonable to expect that they should likewise claim to be lords of the conscience and arbiters of duty. Hence we find, in fact, that by the name and pretended authority of God they have instituted a standard of morality which completely sets aside the eternal principles of rectitude, and makes the interests of the Papacy, which means nothing more than the wealth and power of the hierarchy, the supreme object of pursuit. That is right, according to the philosophy of Rome, Avhich enlarges the dominion of the priests or increases the revenues of the Pope. Actions take their moral complexion, not from their influence on the relations which men sustain to society or the relations in which they stand to their God, but from the bearing which they have upon the temporal grandeur of the Roman See. The Papists, like the Scrip- tures, divide mankind into two great classes; but the right- eous, according to Rome, are not those who are distinguished by works of faith, benevolence and charity : these she has felt it her special vocation to pursue, in every corner of the earth, with fire and sword, with stripes and torture, im- prisonment and death. Moral accomplishments are nothing, in her eye, as she acknowledges no standard of duty which 1 Note by Editor. — For a discussion of the relation between error in speculation and lubricity of moral principle, between skepticism and immorality, see Discourse of the Author on Truth, vol. ii., p.- 486. 510 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Letter VI. docs not award to her the sublime position which reason and the Scriptures accord to the Almighty as centre of the moral system, to whom are all things, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things. Her just ones may be polluted by every crime which humanity can perpetrate — by incest, adultery, murder and treason; they may, like Hildebrand, be firebrands of hell, like John XII., the beastly impersonations of lust ; yet all is right : they are the salt of the earth, the excellent ones in whom Rome takes de- light, if they prefer her interests above their chief joy. The supremacy of homage and aifection which she claims for herself places her on the throne of the Eternal, regulates the standard of morality according to the measures which are best adapted to promote her authority, completely sets aside the glory of God, which is and ought to be the chief end of man, and reverses all those arrangements of Infinite Wisdom by which the harmony of the universe has been nicely adjusted in accordance with the moral laws, which spring necessarily from the Divine perfections. He that makes the glory of God the end of his being, and the per- fections of God his standard of rectitude, is certainly in unison with all that we know of that vast system of goveini- ment, embracing the universe and compassing eternity, under which we live. But such grand and magnificent conceptions of duty, the views of the Bible, of truth and of nature, find no encouragement from the niggard politicians of Rome. They see in man but a slave for their lusts; and their whole system of morality is a sordid calculation of interest, their duties are feudal services, and the solemn sanctions of religion are only introduced to give currency and success to their nefarious frauds. Wealth and power are the watchwords of the hierarchy. The visible and in- visible worlds are alike the sources of their merchandise, souls are their spoils and the patronage of sin the ultimate issue of their policy. The doctrine of indulgences, the practice of auricular confession, the system of penances, the invention • of purgatory and the detestable principle of Letter YL] INFALLIBILITY AND SKEPTICISM. 511 private masses are only links in a chain of tlespotism by which Rome binds the consciences of men, in order to seize the possession of their treasures. The whole scheme of Papal abominations is directed with unerring sagacity to the secular aggrandizement of the clergy.^ Every doctrine 1 "What can we think of redeeming souls out of purgatory, or pi-eserv- ing them from it by tricks, or some mean pageantry, but that it is a foul piece of merchandise? What is to be said of implicit obedience, the priestly dominion over consciences, the keeping the Scriptures out of the people's hands and the worship of God in a strange tongue, but that these are so many arts to hoodwink the world, and to deliver it up into the hands of the ambitious clergy ? What can we think of superstition and idolatry of images, and all the other pomp of the Roman worship, but that by these things the people were to be kept up in a gross notion of religion as a splendid business, and that priests have a trick of saving them if they will but take care to humour them, and leave that matter wholly in their hands? And to sum up all, what can we think of that constellation of prodigies in the Sacrament of the Altar but that it is an art to bring the world by wholesale to renounce their reason and sense, and to have a most wonderful veneration for a sort of men who can, with a word, perform the most astonishing thing that ever was?" — Burnet, Hist. Ref. "Of all the contrivances to enthral mankind and to usurp the entire command of them, that of auricular confession appears the most impudent and the most effectual. That one set of men could persuade all other men that it Avas their duty to come and reveal to them everything which they had done, and everything which they meant to do, would not be credible if it were not proved by the fact. This circumstance rendered tlie clergy masters of the secrets of every family ; it rendered them, too, the universal advisers ; when any person's intentions were laid before a clergyman, it was his business to explain what was lawful and what was not, and under this pretext to give what counsel he pleased. In this manner the clergy became masters of the whole system of human life ; the tivo objects they chiefly pursued were to increase the riches of the order and to gratify their senses and pride. By using all their arts to cajole the great and wealthy, and attacking them in moments of weakness, sickness and at the hour of death, they o!)tained great and numerous bequests to the Church ; by abusing the opportunities they enjoyed with women, they indulged their lusts ; and by the direction they obtained in the manage- ment of every family and every event, they exercised their love of power when they could not draw an accession of wealth." — Villers on Reform. The doctrine of private masses is one of the worst corruptions of the Romish Church. What Rome teaches to be Jesus Christ is actually sold in the market, and the solemn oblation of the Son of God is professed to 512 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Letter VI. has its place in the scale of profit ; power and money are the grand and decisive tests of truth and righteousness; and every principle is estimated by Rome according to its weight in the balances of ambition and avarice. Expediency, in its most enlarged acceptation, is a dangerous test of moral obligation; but when restricted to the contemptible ends Avhich the Papacy contemplates, when all the duties of man- kind are measured by the interests, the secular interests, of a wicked corporation, we may rest assured that the most detestable vices will pass unrebuked, monsters of iniquity be canonized as saints, and the laws which hold the universe in order be revoked in subservience to the paltry purposes of sacerdotal intolerance. Rome claims the power of bind- ing the conscience. She professes to wield the authority of God, and her injunctions, audacious as they are, she has the moral eflfi'ontery to proclaim in the name of the Most High. She consequently is at once a lawgiver and a judge. Trutli is what she declares and righteousness is what she approves. Such stupendous claims on the part of ignorant, erring and sinful mortals like ourselves must exert a disas- trous influence on the purity of morals, and sanctify the filthy dreams of men as the inspired revelations of the Father of truth. It is impossible, under such circumstances, but that interest should be made the ultimate standard of propriety, and the whole moral order of the universe in- volved in corresponding confusion, by making that which be made for dollars and cents. We have masses for penitents, masses for the dead, masses at privileged altars, all which command a price in the shambles and increase the revenues of the grasping priesthood. To the disgrace of the hierarchy it deserves to be mentioned that they frequently received large sums of money for masses -which they never had the honesty to say. Llorente tells us of a Spanish priest who had been paid for eleven thousand eight hundred masses which he never said. We are in- formed of a church in Venice, in 1743, that was in arrears for sixteen thousand four hundred masses. What a traffic in human souls ! Cheated of their money, cheated of their liberty, cheated of their hopes, cheated of salvation, — how mournful the condition of the blinded, infatuated Papists ! What a stupendous system for accumulating power and wealth in tlie hands of the clergy ! Letter VI.] INFALLIBILITY AND SKEPTICISM. • 513 ought never to be au end the supreme object of human pursuit. The moral system of the Jesuits, as developed in their secret instructions and the writings of their celebrated casu- ists, breathes the true spirit of the Papacy. These men are the sworn subjects of the Roman Pontiff; to promote the interests of their sect is the single j^urpose of their lives, and their code of morality is based uj)on the principles which support the foundation of the Papal throne. In the Jesuits, consequently, we behold the legitimate effects of the Papal system ; in them it is unrestrained by the voice of nature, the authority of conscience or veneration for God. They are Papists — pure, genuine, undulterated Papists ; they have endeavoured to divest themselves of every quality which is not in unison with the authority of Pome ; they have made the Pope their god for whom they live, in whom they trust and to whom they have surrendered their health and strength and all things. It is only in them, or those who breathe a kindred spirit with themselves, that the true tendencies of Romanism have ever been fully developed. Thousands in Rome have not been able to be fully of Rome, and the influence of Popery has been secretly modified by numberless restraining circumstances in their position, rela- tions and condition of society. To take the doctrines of the Jesuits as the true standard of Papal authority cannot be censured as injustice by those who consider the intimate connection Avhich subsists between licentiousness and skepticism. There is not a single dis- tinctive feature of Jesuitism which may not be justified by the necessary tendencies of the acknowledged principles of Rome.' These men have embodied the sj)irit of tlie Church ; they have digested its doctrines into order ; they have reduced its enormities to logical consistency, and held up ^ "One cannot condemn the Jesuits without condemning at tlie same time the whole ancient school of the Eoman Church." Claude's Defence of the Keformation, Part I., chap, iii., ^ 9. The proofs are furnished in connection with the passage. Vol. III.— 33 514 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Letter YI. before us a faithful mirror in which we may contemplate the hideous deformities of a body which claims to be the Church of God, but has inscribed in indelible characters on its front the synagogue of Satan. Hence, the Papal guar- dians of the press, in their zeal to stem the torrent of false- hood and repress the spread of dangerous speculations, while they have eviscerated the Fathers, prohibited the writings of the early Reformers and condemned the most precious monuments of philosophy and learning, have suffered the productions of Jesuitical casuists to stalk abroad into the light of day with the imprimatur of the Church upon them. These works are studied in Papal schools and colleges ; sys- tems formed in accordance with the doctrines of ]\lolina have free circulation where Locke, Cudworth and Bacon are not permitted to enter. If the moral system of the Jesuits was unpalatable to Rome, why has the order been revived ? Why has power been granted to its members to apply themselves to the education of youth, to direct colleges and seminaries, to hear confessions, to preach and administei the sacraments f Pius VII., in allusion to the Jesuits, and in vindication of his odious conduct in turning them loose to desolate society, states, " he would deem it a great crime toward God if amidst the dangers of the Christian republic he should neglect to employ the aids which the special pro- vidence of God had put in his power, and if placed in the bark of St. Peter and tossed by continual storms, he should refuse to employ the vigorous and experienced rowers who volunteer their services." The peculiar services which the Jesuits have rendered to the interests of the Papacy have been owing to the lubricity of their moral principles. It is not their superior zeal, but the superior pliancy of their consciences, which has made them such " vigorous and expe- rienced rowers," and in condescending to accept their labours Rome has endorsed the enormities of their system and actually sanctioned their atrocious immoralities. The most detestable principles of this graceless order have not only received in this way the indirect sanction of Letter YL] INFALLIBILITY AND SKEPTICISM. 515 the head of the Papacy, but may be found embodied in the recorded canons of general Councils. That the end justifies the means, that the interests of the priesthood are superior to the claims of truth, justice and humanity, is necessarily implied in the decree of the Council of Lateran, that no oaths are binding Avhich conflict with the advantage of the Catholic Church, that to keep them is perjury rather than fidelity. What fraud have the Jesuits ever recommended or conmiitted that can exceed in iniquity the bloody pro- ceedings of the Council of Constance in reference to Huss? AYhat spirit have they ever breathed more deeply imbued with cruelty and slaughter than the edict of Lateran to kings and magistrates to extirpate heretics from the face of the earth ? The principle on which the sixteenth canon of the third Council of Lateran proceeds covers the doctrine of mental reservations. If the end justify the means, if we can be perjured with impunity to protect the authority of the priesthood, a good intention will certainly sanctify any other lie, and a man may be always sure that he is free from sin if he can only be sure of his allegiance to Rome and his antipathy to heretics. The doctrine of probability is in full accordance with the spirit of Papacy in substituting authority for evidence and making the opinions of men the arbiters of faith.^ And yet these three cardinal principles of intention, mental reser- vation, and probability, which are so thoroughly and com- pletely Papal, cover the whole ground of Jesuitical atrocity.^ How absurd, then, to pretend that the tendencies of the Church should not be gathered from the system of the Jesuits ! On the contrary, it is plain that they are the ^ On the effects of the doctrine of probability there are some admirable remarks in Taylor, vol. xi., pp. 348-351. ^ The Jesuit, Casnedi, maintained in a published work that at the day of judgment God will say to many, " Come, my well-beloved, you who have committed murder, blasphemed, etc., because you believed that in so doing you were right." For a popular exposition of the morality of the Jesuists the reader is referred to Pascal's Provincial Letters with Nicole's Notes. 516 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lett. VII. only consistent exponents of Romish doctrine ; and should that Church ever rise to its former ascendency among the nations of the earth, should it ever reclaim its ancient authority, the type which it would assume will be impressed upon it by the hands of the Jesuits. There is no standard, however, by which Rome can be judged that can vindicate her character from flagrant immorality. Her priests in all ages have been the pests of the earth, and that inhuman law which, for the purpose of Avedding them more comjiletely to the interests of the Church, has debarred them from one of the prime institutions of God, has made them the dread of innocence and the horror of chastity. I take no pleas- ure in drawing the sickening j)icture of their depravity. The moral condition of Europe at the time of the Reform- ation, superinduced by the principles and policy of the popes, the profligacy of the clergy, the corruption of the people, the gross superstition which covered the nations, — these are the fruits of Palpal infallibility. That apostate community commenced its career by unsettling the standards of truth and knowledge. Skepticism prepared the way for licen- tiousness. When the standard of truth was gone the standard of morals could not abide ; and as fixed principles were removed nothing remained but the authority of Rome, who usurped the place of God, became the arbiter of truth to the understanding and of morals to the heart by making her own interests, her avarice and ambition, the standard of both. LETTER VII. INFALLIBILITY AND SUPERSTITION. When our Saviour declared to the woman of Samaria, God is a Spirit and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth, He announced in this sublime proposition the just distinction between pure and undefiled Lett. VII.] INFALLIBILITY AND SUPERSTITION. 517 religion and the various forms of superstition, idolatry and will- worship. That the highest felicity of man is to be found alone in sympathetic alliance with the Author of his being is the dictate alike of experience, philosophy and Scripture. To restore the communion which sin has inter- rupted, to transform man again into the image of his ]Maker, and to fit his natui'e to receive communications of Divine love, is the scope and purpose of the Christian Revelation. Harmonious fellowship with God necessarily presupposes a knowledge of His character, since it is an interchange of friendship which cannot be conceived when the parties are strangers to each other. Hence, the foundation of religion must be laid in a just (though from the nature of the case it must be inadequate) conception of the attributes of Deity, a proper apprehension of His moral economy, and a firm belief of that amazing condescension by which He becomes conversable with men. He that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him. The opposite extremes of true religion, both equally founded in ignorance of God, though under diiFerent forms of application, are superstition and Atheism. From Atheism — which, as it dispenses with the sanctions of decency and morality, is a prolific fountain of bitterness and death — proceed the w^aters of infidelity, blas- phemy, profaneness and impiety ; from superstition — which distinguished philosophers^ in ancient and modern times, have pronounced to be more disastrous to the interest of man than Atheism itself — flow the streams of idolatry, fanaticism and spiritual bondage. By a fatality of error, which seems to be characteristic of this grand apostasy, the Church of Rome is at once the patron of Atheism and the parent of superstition.^ Intent upon nothing but her own 1 Plutarcli and Bacon. Both have drawn the contrast between Atheism and snperstition, and both have expressed the opinion that Atheism is the more harmless of the two. Warburton, in his Divine Legation, haa reviewed tlie sentiments of both with liis nsual ability and force. - That I am not singular in ascribing to tiie same cause in diflerent 518 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lett. VII. aggrandizement, she asks of men only the decencies of external homage ; and so tliey are content to swell her train and increase her power, it is a matter of comparative indif- ference whether they acknowledge the existence of God, reverence His truth, love His character or yield obedience to His laws. Her arbitrary pretensions to infallible author- ity disgust the intelligent, and while, like the heathen phil- osophers and the Pagan priests, who occupied a higher form of knowledge than pertained to the vulgar, they silently acquiesce in existing institutions, they maintain in their hearts a profound contempt for the whole system of popular delusion. That the Church of Rome encourages a mean and slavish superstition will sufficiently appear from considering the nature of superstition itself. According to the etymology of Vossius,^ it denotes religious excess. Any corruption of aspects such opposite effects, will be seen from the following passages in works which have very few points of coincidence : " For mfidelity and superstition are, for the most part, near allied, as pro- ceeding from the same weakness of judgment or same corruption of heart. Those guilty fears and appreliensions of an avenging Deity which drive some persons into superstition do as naturally drive others of a more hard and stubborn temper into infidelity or Atheism. The same causes, work- ing differently in different persons or in the same person at different times, produce both, and it has been a common observation, justifiable by some noted instances, that no men whatever have been more apt to exceed in superstition at the sight of danger than those who at other times have been most highly profane." — Waterland's "Works, vol. viii., pp. 57, 58. "Atheism and superstitioii are of the same origin ; they both have tlieir rise from the same cause, the same defect in the mind of man — our want of capacity in discerning the truth, and natural ignorance of the Divine essence. Men that from their most early youth have not been imbued with the principles of the true religion, or have not afterward continued to be strictly educated in the same, are all in great danger of falling either into tlie one or the other, according to tlie difference tliere is in tlie temper- ament and complexion they are of, the circumstances tliey are in, and tlie company they converse with." — Second part of the Fable of the Bees, p. 374, quoted by Waterland, ibidem. * " Quando in cultu ultra modum legitimum aliquid superest, sive quando cultus modum rectum superstat atque excedit." — Vossii, Etymo- logicum in Superstitio. "But the word" [superstition], says Waterland, "proi)erly imports any Lett. VII.] INFALLIBILITY AND SUPERSTITION. 519 tlie true religion, cveiy modification of its doctrines or addition to its precepts, comes, according to this view, under the head of superstition. In the estimation of others, its derivation imports a species of idolatry founded on the im- 23ression that the souls of the departed preserve their inte- rest in sublunary things.^ This sense is evidently embraced in the wider meaning of religious excess, and we may con- sequently adopt with safety the more general acceptation which the first etymology naturally suggests. The causes of superstition, as developed by illustrious writers of antiquity as well as by modern philosophers and divines, in unison with the voice of universal experience, may be traced to the influence of zeal or fear in minds unenlightened by the knowledge of God.^ Plutarch and Bacon concur in making the reproach or contumely of the Divine Being, in ascribing to Him a character which He does not deserve, of imperfection, weakness, cruelty and revenge, an essential element of this religious excess. Tay- lor^ has copiously declaimed on fear as the fruitful source of superstitious inventions. Hooker* has shown that an ignorant zeal is as prolific in corruptions as servile dread ; and Bentley^ has proved that a multitude of observances, which first commenced in simple superstition, were turned religious excesses, either as to matter, manner or degree. There may be a superstitious awe when it is wrong placed, or is of a wrong kind, or exceeds in measure ; and whenever we speak of a superstitious belief, or worship, or practice, we always intend some kind of religious excess. Any false relig- ion, or false i)art of a true one, is a species of superstition, because it is more than it should be, and betokens excess." — Waterland, ibidem. ^ Warburton gives a different explanation : " The Latin word supersiiiio hath a reference to the love we bear to our children in the desire that they should survive us, being formed upon the observation of certain religious practices deemed efficacious for procuring that happy event." — Div. Leg., b. iii., § 6. For the view in the text, see Taylor, vol. v., p. 127, Heber's edition. '^ Timor inanis deorum. Cic. de Nat, Deo. i. 42. s Vol. v.. Sermon ix., pp. 126-139. * Ecclesiast. Polity, b. v., sect. 3. The reader will find it an exquisite passage, but it is too long to introduce here. * Sermon upon Popery, vol. iii., Works, pp. 253, 254. 520 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lett. VIL by the artful policy of Rome into sources of profit, so that the dreams of enthusiasts and the extravagance of ascetics received the sanction of infallible authority, and were pro- claimed as expressions of the will of God. From the fol- lies of mystics, the excesses of fanatics, the legends of mar- tyrs and the frauds of the priesthood, whatever could be converted into materials of power or made available to purposes of gain has been craftily selected; and Romanism as it now stands is so widely removed from the simplicity of the Gospel that only enough of similitude is preserved to make its deformity more clear and disgusting. It sustains, in fact, the same relations to primitive Christianity which ancient Paganism sustained to the primeval revelations imparted to our race. It bears — to accommodate a simile of Bacon's — the same resemblance to the true religion which an ape bears to a man. To develop the corruptions of the Papal hierarchy, which stamp that Church with the impress of superstition, would be to transcribe its distinctive doc- trines and peculiar practices. The range of discussion would be too vast for a limited essay. I shall therefore content myself with briefly showing how completely the Church of Rome is imbued with the spirit of ancient Paganism.^ The Pagan tendencies of Rome appear, in the first place, from the appeal which she makes to the assistance of the senses in aiding the conception and directing the worship of the Supreme Being.^ But in tracing the origin of transubstantia- tion, and the consequent absurdity of the Mass, we are struck with another coincidence between the practices and doctrines ^ See this subject fully aud elaborately discussed in Gale's Court of the Gentiles, part iii., book ii., chap. ii. Bishop Horsley says : " The Church of Kome is at this day a corrupt Chui-ch, a Church corrupted with idolatry — with idolatry very nuieii the same in kind and in degree with the worst tliat ever prevailed among the Egyptians or the Canaanites, till within one or two centuries, at the most, of the time of Moses." — Dissert, on Prophecies of the Messiah Dispersed among the Heathen, Works, vol. ii., p. 289. '^ For a discussion of this point see pp. 373-377 of this work. Lett. YII.] INFALLIBILITY AND SUPERSTITION. 521 of Rome and the rites and customs of Pagau antiquity. That the terms and phrases and peculiar ceremonies which were applied to the mysteries of the heathen supei'stition have been transferred to the institutions of the Christian system, and have vitiated and corrupted the sacraments of the Gospel, is now generally admitted.^ It is in the teachings ' The following extract from Casaubon's sixteenth Exercitation on the Annals of Baronius will sustain the assertion of the text : " Pii patres, quum intelligerent, quo facilius ad veritatis amorem cor- ruptas superstitione mentes traducerent ; et verba sacrorum illorum quam- plurima, in suos usus transtulerunt ; et cum doctrinse verse capita aliquot sic tractarunt, turn ritus etiam nonnullos ejusmodi instituerunt ; ut vide- antur cum Paulo dicere gentibus voluisse, a ayvoowrec EvaejietTE, ravra Ka-a-j'yeAXo/xEv v/uv. Hinc igitur est, quod sacramenta patres appellarunt mysteria, jivrjaELg^ T£7.ETag, TeAEiuoeic, e7ro7rre«af, sive Eiroipscac, TETlEOTTigia • interdum etiam, ogyiaj sed rarius ; peculiariter vero eucharistiam te?ietuv teIettjv. Dicitur etiam autonomastice to ^va-rjgtov aut numero multitudinis ra [iva-7]gLa. Apud patres passim de sacra communione leges (pgiKTa /ivariigia vel to Evrrogg/jTov fivaTTjgiov: Gregorio Magno, 'magnum et pa- vendum mysterium.' MvEiadai. in veterum monumentis soepe leges pro coense dominicae fieri jiarticeps : fJ-vr/acv pro ipsa actione ; /nvaTr/g est sacer- dos, qui etiam dicitur o /nvaTayuyuv et o lEgoTElEaTtjQ. In liturgiis Grascis et alibi etiam v isga teXett] et tj Kgvopa, quae foras effere jus erat; ita universam doc- trinam Christianam veteres, distinguebant in ra eK^opa, id est, ea quae enuntiari apud omnes poterant, et ra a-izogg7jTa arcana temere non vul- ganda: inquit Basilius, dogmata silentio premuniur, pi-ceconia publicantur. Chrysostomus de iis qui baptizantur pro mortuis : ciipio quidem perspicue rem dicere ; sed propter non initiatos non audeo ; hi interpretationem reddiml diffieiliorem ; dum nos cogunP, aut perspicue non dicere, aut arcana, quce taceri detent, apud ipsos efferre. Atque ut e^oQxetadai ra fivcTTjpta dixerunt pagani, de iis qui arcana mysteriorura evulgabant, ita dixit Dionysius, vide ne enmities aut parum reverenter habeas sancta sanctoi'um. Passim apud Augustinum leges, sacramentum quod norunt fideles. In Jobanncra tract, xi. autem sic: Omnes catechiimeni jam credunt in nomine Christi. Sed Jesus non sk credit iis. Mox, Interrogemus catechumennm, 3Ianducas carnem filii hominis ? nescit quid dicimv^. Iterum, Nesciunt catechinneni quid accipiant Christiani; erubescant ergo quia nesciunt." Lett. VII-l INFALLIBILITY AND SUPERSTITION. 523 the purpose of exalting to the rank and dignity of inter- cessors with the Fatlier a liost of obscure and worthless individuals, some of whom were the creatures of fiction, others rank and disgusting impostors, and a multitude still a disgrace to humanity. The eloquent declamation of the Fathers on the glory which attached to a crown of martyr- dom, the distinguished rewards in a future state which they confidently promised to those who should shed their blood for religion, combined Avith the assurance of corresponding honours and a lasting reputation upon earth, were suited to encourage imposture and frauds — leading some to seek in the fires of persecution a full expiation for past iniquities, and hundreds more, when the storm had abated, to magnify sufferings which had only stopped short of death. It was perfectly natural that the Primitive Church should concede unwonted tokens of gratitude to the memories of martyred champions and the persons of living confessors. Nor are we to be astonished that their names should be commem- orated with the pomp and solemnity of public festivals among those who had witnessed the signal effects of such imposing institutions upon the zeal and energy of their Pagan countrymen. What at first was extravagant admira- tion, finally settled into feelings of devotion; these sacred heroes became invested with supernatural perfections; from mortal men they imperceptibly grew, in the sentiments of the multitude, to the awful dignity of demigods and sa- viours, and finally received that religious homage which was due exclusively to the King Eternal. The system of Rome as it stands to-day, having confirmed the growing superstition of ages, is as completely a system of polytheism as that of ancient Egypt or Greece. The Virgin jNlary is as truly regarded as Divine as her famous prototype Cy- bele or Ceres; and the whole rabble of saints are as truly adored in the churches of Rome as the elegant gods of Olympus were worshipped in the temples of Greece. To say that the homage accorded to these subordinate divinities is inferior in kind and different in principle is a feeble and 524 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lett. VII. worthless evasion. Magnificent temples are erected to their memories, in which their worship is "adorned with the accustomed pomp of libations and festivals, altars and sacrifices." In the solemn oblation of the Mass, which, according to the Papal creed, is the most awful mystery (jf religion and the highest act of supreme adoration, the honour of the saints is as conspicuous a part of the service as the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ.^ Their relics are conceived to be invested with supernatural power; their bones or nails, the remnants of their dress or the accidental ap- pendages of their person, are beheld with awful veneration or sought with incredible avidity, being regarded as pos- sessed of a charm like " the eye of ne^Yt and the toe of frog," which no machinations can resist, no evil successfully assail. As the name of God sanctifies the altars consecrated to His worship, so the names of these saints sanctify the altars devoted to their memories; and vast distinctions are made in the price and value of the sacrifice according to the spot on which the same priest offers precisely the very same victim. In the case of these privileged altars it is evidently the name of the saint which gives peculiar value to the gift, though that gift is declared to be none other than the Son of God himself. To these circumstances, which un- questionably indicate more than mortal respect, may be added the vast importance which the worship and creed of Home attach to their pretended intercession. They execute 1 The following prayer occurs in the Ordinary of the Mass : "Eeceive, O Holy Trinity, this oblation which we make to Thee in memory of the Passion, Eesurrection and Ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in honour of the blessed Mary, ever a Virgin, of blessed .John Baptist, the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and of all the Saints ; that it may be avail- able to their honour and oin- salvation ; and may they vouchsafe to in- tercede for us in heaven whose memory we celebrate on earth. Through the same Christ our Lord." — England's Translation of the Rom. Miss., p. 281. Here Christ, the eternal Son of God, is distinctly said to be offered up in honour of all the saints. What can that man withhold from them who gives them liis Saviour ? His heart surely is a small boon com- pared with this august oblation. And yet Trent has the audacity to de- clare that they are not worshipped with homage truly Divine I Lett. VII.] INFALLIBILITY AND SUPERSTITION. 525 a priestly function at the riglit hand of Gocl which it is hard to distinguish from the office of the Redeemer; in fact, their performances in heaven seem to be designed to stinudate the lazy diligence of Chri.st, and to remind Him of the wants of His brethren, which the absorbing contem- plation of His own glory might otherwise exclude from His thoughts. It is the saints who keep us fi'csh in the memory of God, and sustain our cause against the careless indiffer- ence of an advocate whom Rome has discovered not to be sufficiently touched with the feeling of our infirmities, though Paul declares that he sympathizes in all points with His brethren, and ever liveth to make intercession for them. To these multiplied saints, in accordance with the true spirit of ancient Paganism, different departments of nature are intrusted, different portions of the universe assigned. Some protect their votaries from fire, and others from the power of the storm. Some guard from the pestilence that walketh in darkness, and others from the arrow that flietli at noonday. Some are gods of the hills, and others of the plains. Their worshippers, too, like the patrons of ju- dicial astrology, have distributed among them and allotted to their special providence and care the different limbs and members of the human frame. It is the province of one to heal disorders of the throat; another cures diseases of the eye. One is the shield from the violence of fever, and another preserves from the horrors of the plague. In ad- dition to this, each faithful Papist is constantly attended by a guardian angel and a guardian saint, to whom he may flee in all his troubles, whose care of his person never slumbers, whose zeal for his good is never fatigued. If this be not the Pagan system of tutelar divinities and household gods, it is hopeless to seek for resemblances among objects pre- cisely alike ; for a difference of name, where no other dis- crepancies are discernible, is sufficient to establish a differ- ence of things ! The fatherly interest, the unceasing vigil- ance, the deep devotion with which these heavenly spirits 526 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lett. VII. superintend the affairs of the faithful, cannot be explained upon any principles which deny to them the essential att«i- butes of God. The prayers which are offered at their shrines, the incense which is burnt before their images, the awful sanctity which invests their relics, the stupendous miracles which the very enunciation of their names is be- lieved to have achieved, are signal proofs that they are re- garded as really and truly Divine.^ The nice distinctions of ^ The following may be taken as a specimen of the honour which is as- cribed to the saints. Let the reader judge whether more importance be attached to the intercession of Christ than to the prayers of His departed servants : " O God, who wast pleased to send blessed Patrick, thy bishop and con- fessor, to preach thy glory to the Gentiles, grant that by his merits and in- tercession we may through Thy mercy be enabled to perform what Thou commandest." Take again the Collect for St. George's Day: "O God, who, by the merits and prayers of blessed George, thy martyr, fillest the hearts of thy people with joy, mercifully grant that the blessing we a.sk in his name (per eum) we may happily obtain by Thy grace." Festival of St. Peter's Chair, at Eome, Collect : " O God, who, by delivering to Thy blessed Apostle Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven, didst give him the power of binding and loosing, grant that, by his intercession, we may be freed from the bonds of our sins." In what is called the Secret it is said : " May the intercession, we beseech Thee, O Lord, of blessed Peter, the Apostle, render the prayers and offerings of Thy Church acceptable to Thee, that the mysteries we celebrate in his honour may obtain for us the pardon of our sins." The Apostles are addressed in the following hymn, as the dispensers alike of temporal and spiritual blessings to their earthly suppliants : "Vos Steculorum Judices, Et vera mundi lumina, Votis precamur cordium ; Audite voces supplicum. Qui templa coeli clauditis Serasque verbo solvitis, Nos a reatu noxios Solvi jubete, quaosumus. PrcBcepta quorum protinus Languor salusque sentiunt Sanate mente languidas ; Augete nos virtutibus." 0 you, true lights of human kind, And judges of the world designed, Lett. VII.] INFALLIBILITY AND SUPERSTITION. 527 worship which the Church of Rome artfully endeavours to draw for the purpose of evading the dreadful imputation of idolatry are purely fictitious and imaginary. That the language in which alone the Fathers of Trent recognized the Scriptures as authentic is too poor to express the sub- tlety of these refinements, is a violent presumption against them, and that the Greek from which they are extracted does not justify these niceties of devotion, must be admitted by all who are capable of appreciating the force of words. Certain it is that no sanction is found in the Scriptures for the arbitrary gradations of worship which the Papacy is anx- ious to inculcate under the terms oooXeia (dulia), UTzsp-dookeia (hyper-dulia), and Xazpeta (latria).^ AVhatever forced inter- To you our hearty vows we show : Hear your petitioners below. The gates of heaven by your command Are fastened close or open stand; Grant, we beseech you, then, that we From sinful slavery may be free. Sickness and health your power obey; This comes, and that you drive away. Then from our souls all sickness chase, Let healing virtues take its place. These extracts may be found in the Vespers or Evening Office of the English Papists. The Secret is from the Pocket Missal. See Bamp. Lect. for 1807, from which I have taken them, not having the original works at hand. ^ " They pretend that the reverence which they pay to images is ei6u7o6ov- Icia (service of images), but deny that it is eiSulolarpeia (worship of images). For in this manner they express themselves when tliey main- tain that the reverence which they call dulia may be given to statues or pictures without injury to God. They consider themselves, therefore, liable to no blame, while they are only tlie servants of their idols and not worshippers of them, as though worship were not rather inferior to service. And yet, while they seek to shelter themselves under a Greek term, they contradict themselves in the most childish manner. For since the Greek word ^arpeveiv signifies nothing else but to worship, what they say is equiva- lent to a confession that they adore their images, but without adoration. Nor can they justly object that I am trying to ensnare them with words : they betray their own ignorance in their endeavours to raise a mist be- fore the eyes of the simple. But, however eloquent they may be, they will never be able, by their rhetoric, to prove one and the same thing to 528 AllGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lett. VII. pretations may be put upon the language of the Romish Breviaries in the prayers which are addressed to the other saints, the worship of the Virgin is evidently in the highest form of supreme adoration. She is not only invoked as being likely to prove a successful intercessor with the Sa- viour, but solemnly entreated to command her Son to answer the petitions of her servants.^ She is exalted above all that be two different things. Let them point out, I say, a difference, in fact, that they may be accounted different from ancient idolaters. For as an adulterer or homicide will not escape the imputation of guilt by giving his crime a new and arbitrary name, so it is absurd that these persons should be exculpated by the subtle invention of a name, if they really differ in no respect from those idolaters whom they themselves are con- strained to condemn. But their case is so far from being different from that of former idolaters that the source of all the evil is a preposterous emulation, with which they have rivalled them by their minds in con- triving,-and their hands in forming, visible symbols of the Deity." — Cal- vin's Inst., lib. i., cap. xi., § 11. ^ This blasphemous language, which is justified by the services of the Church, was stoutly defended by Harding in his controversy with Bishop Jewell. " If now," says he, " any spiritual man, such as St. Bernard was, deeply considering the great honour and dignity of Christ's mother, do, in excess of mind, spiritually sport with her, bidding her to remember that she is a mother, and that thereby she has a certain right to command her Son, and require in a most sweet manner that she use her right, is this either impiously or impudently spoken ? Is not he, rather, most impious and impudent that fiudeth fault therewith ?" The following note, which occurs in the Bampton Lecture for 1807, p. 238, presents an awful view of the devotions which, in their author- ized books, the English Papists render to the Virgin : "In the common office for her we have the hymn Ave Maria Stella, which contains the following petitions ( Vespers, p. 131) : " Solve vincla rcis, Prefer lumen cajcis, Mala nostra pelle, Bona cuncta posce. Monstra te esse matrem, Sumat per te preces Qui pro nobis natus Tulit esse tuus." The sinner's bonds unbind, Our evils drive away, Bring light unto the blind, For grace and blessings pray. Lett. VII.] INFALLIBILITY AND SUPERSTITION. 529 is called God ; " she approaches," according to Damiani, a celebrated divine of the eleventh century — " she approaches the golden tribunal of Divine Majesty, not ashing, but com- manding, not a handmaid, but a mistress." We are taught by Albertus ^Magnus that " Mary prays as a daughter, re- quests as a sister and commands as a mother." Another writer informs us that " the blessed Virgin, for the salvation Thyself a mother show j May He receive thy prayer, Who for the debts we owe From thee would breathe our air. "In the office of Matins in Advent is the hlessing, 'Nos, cum prole pia, benedicat Virgo Maria,' which junction of the two names in this way- must shock every true Christian: 'May the Virgin Mary, with lier pious Son, bless us.' — Primer, p. 75. At p. 99 we have the hymn where she is called upon to 'protect us at the hour of death,' and she is called 'Mother of Grace,' 'Mother of Mercy.', 'Mater gratiae, mater misericordia?, tu nos ab noste protege et hora mortis suscipe.' At p. 290 I find this recom- mendation to her: 'O holy Mary, I commend myself, my soul and body, to thy blessed trust and singular custody, and into the bosom of thy mercy, this day and daily, and at the hour of my death ; and I commend to thee all my hope and comfort, all my distresses and miseries, my life and the end thereof, that by thy most holy intercession and merits all my works may be directed and disposed, according to thine and thy Son's will. Amen.' My readers will by this time be both wearied and dis- gusted, but I must add the prayer which immediately follows: 'O Mary, Mother of God and gracious Virgin, the true comforter of all afflicted persons crying to thee, by that great joy wherewith thou wert comforted when thou didst know our Lord Jesus was gloriously risen from the dead, be a comfort to my soul, and vouchsafe to help me with thine and God's only-begotten Son in that last day when I shall rise again with body and soul, and shall give account of all my actions ; to the end that I may be able by thee, O pious Mother and Virgin, to avoid the sentence of per- petual damnation, and happily come to eternal joys with all the elect of God. Amen.' It must be remembered, that it is not to what miglit be dis- claimed as obsolete canons or mere opinions of the Schools (not to any fooleries of a St. Buonaventure or Cardinal Bona) that I am referring the reader, but to what is the actual and daily pi-acticc of the Romanists in these kingdoms. I can add even the express recommendation of one of their bishops." How just is the satire implied in the pithy remark of Bishop Bull, that "such is the worship given to the blessed Virgin by many in the Church of Rome that they deserve to be called Mariani rather tliMU C'hris- tiani!" — Serin, on Luke i., 48, 49: Worses, vol. i., p. 107. Vo... 111.-34 530 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lett. VII. of her supplicants, can not only supplicate her son as other saints do, but also by her maternal authority command her son. Therefore the Church prays, ' Monstro te esse maf.rem ;' as if saying to the Virgin, Supplicate for us after the man- ner of a command and with a mother's authority." To her the characteristic titles of God, the peculiar offices of Christ and the distinctive work of the Holy Spirit are clearly and unblushingly ascribed in approved formularies of Papal de- votion.^ If this be not idolatry, if this be not the worship of the creature more than the Creator, it is impossible to understand the meaning of terms. If there be in this ease any real distinction between douXtta (dulia) and Aazpeia (latria), the douhia (dulia) is rendered to God, and the larpua (latria) to the Virgin. She is the fountain of grace, and He is the obedient servant of her will. There is a species of superstition extravagantly fostered by veneration for the images and relics of saints, which was sevei'ely condemned by the Pagan philosophers of antiquity, though extremely common among their countrymen, and is as warmly encouraged by the bigoted priesthood of Rome. It consists in the practical impression that there is no grand and uniform plan in the government of the world, founded in goodness, adjusted in wisdom and accomplished by a minute and controlling Providence; but that all the events of this sublunary state are single, insulated acts, arising from the humour of different beings, suggested, for the most part, by particular emergencies, and directed generally to ^ In addition to the proofs of this awful accusation furnished in tlie pre- ceding note, I appeal to the Encyclical Letter of the Pope, dated August 15, 1832 : "We send you a letter on this most joyful day, on which we celebrate a solemn festival commemorative of the triumph of the most holy Vir- gin, who was taken up to heaven ; that she, whom we have found our patroness and preserver in all our greatest calamities, may also be pro- pitious to us whilst writing to you, and guide our mind by her heavenly in- spiration to such counsels as shall he most wholesome for the flock of Christ." In the same document the same Pope ascribes to this same creature the glorious offices of Christ. He declares that she is his " chief confidence," " his only ground of hope." Lett. VII.] INFALLIBILITY AND SUPERSTITION. 531 mercenary ends. That it secured "deliverance from unne- cessary terrors and exemption from false alarms," was one of the chief commendations of the lax philosophy of Epi- curus, in which religion and superstition were, contrary to the opinions of the most distinguished sages of antiquity, strangely and absurdly confounded. The legitimate fear of God was involved in the same condemnation and exposed to the same severity of ridicule with the fear of omens, prodigies and portents.^ To the minds of the people, who admitted a plurality of gods possessed of diiferent attributes and intent upon opposite designs, it was certainly impossible to communicate those enlarged conceptions of a harmonious scheme of Providence carried on by the power of a super- intending mind, which are only consistent with such views of the supremacy of one Being as the philosophers them- selves faintly apprehended. Polytheism must always be the parent of imaginary terrors. The stability and peace of a well-ordered mind, that unshaken tranquillity which is neither alarmed at the flight of birds, the coruscations of meteors nor eclipses of the moon, proceeds from a firm per- suasion that there is one God, who sitteth in the heavens and whose counsel none can resist. ^ Hence Virgil says : " Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas, Atque metus omncs, et inexorabile fatum Subjecit pedibus, strepitunique Acherontis avari." — Georg. ii. 490. Happy the man who, studying nature's laws, Through known effects can trace the secret cause — His mind possessing in a quiet state, Fearless of fortune and resigned to Fate ! Speaking of religion, Lucretius says : " Qufe caput a coeli regionibus ostendebat, Horribili super a?pectu mortalibus instans." — i., 65. Mankind long the tyrant power Of superstition swayed, uplifting proud Her head to heaven, and with horrific limbs Brooding o'er earth. — Goode's Lucretius. 532 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [LiCTT. VII. To suppose that diiferent portions of the universe are assigned to the care of different divinities, possessed them- selves of contradictory qualities and ruling their depart- ments by contradictory laws, is to maintain — if the happi- ness of men consists in their favour or is at all dependent upon obedience to their will — that we must ever be the victims of dread, unable to escape the "barking waves of Scylla," without being exposed to equal dangers from Charybdis. Such are the rivalries and jealousies among these conflicting deities, such the variety of their views and the discordance of their plans, that the patronage of one is always likely to secure the malediction of the rest ; and if one department of nature be rendered subservient to our comfort, all other elements are turned in fury against us. Under these circumstances men's lives must be passed in continual apprehension. They view nature not as a connected whole, conducted by general laws, in which all the parts have a mutual relation to each other, but as broken into fragments by opposing powers, made up of the terri- tories of hostile princes, in which every event is a declara- tion of war, every appearance, whether common or acciden- tal, a Divine prognostic. To appease the anger and to secure the approbation of such formidable enemies will lead to a thousand devices of servility and ignorance. Every phenomenon will be watched with the intensest solicitude ; the meteors of heaven, the thunders in the air, the prodigies of earth will all be pressed into the service of religion, and anxiously questioned on the purposes of the gods. Charms, sorcery and witchcraft, the multiplied forms of divination and augury, servile flattery and debasing adulation, must be the abundant harvest of evils which is reaped from that ignorance of Divine Providence and the stability of nature which is involved in the acknowledgment of a multitude of gods. Epicurus distinctly perceived the folly of imaginary terrors, but in suggesting a remedy overlooked the fact tliat the cause was not to be found, as he evidently thought, in the Lett. VII.] INFALLIBILITY AND SUPERSTITION. 533 admission of Providence/ but in its virtual denial by ascrib- ing the course of the world to the distracting counsels of innu- merable agents. Just conceptions of Providence presuppose the absolute unity of the Supreme Being, and Polytheism is no less fatal to the interests of piety than Atheism itself. That the Church of Rome encourages that form of super- stition which heathen philosophers had the perspicacity to condemn, Avliich heathen poets, such as Horace, Virgil and Lucretius, endeavoured to escape by fleeing to the opposite extreme of irreligion, and which the very constitution of our mind rebukes in its instinctive belief of the uniformity of nature, is too apparent to need much illustration. The account which Plutarch has given of the religious excesses of his countrymen may be applied with equal justice, but with intenser severity, to the countless devices of Rome. The same absurd and uncouth adorations, rollings in the mire, dippings in the sea, the same contortions of the face, and indecent postures on the earth, the same charms, sul- phurations and ablutions, which he indignantly charges upon the "■ Greeks, inventors of barbarian ills," are carried to a still more extravagant extent among the Papal invent- ors of worse than barbarian enormities. The people sit in darkness and the valley of the shadow of death. The heavens to them are redundant with omens, the earth is fraught A^dth prodigies, the church is a magazine of charms, and the priests are potent and irresistible wizards, who rule 1 " Cfetera, quae fieri in terris cceloque tuentur Mortales, pavidis cum pendent mentibus saepe, EflSciunt animos humiles formidine divum, Depressosque premunt ad terram ; propterea quod, Ignorantia causarum conferre deorum Cogit ad imperium res, et concedcre rcgnum." — Lucr. \., 49. Whate'er in heaven, In earth man sees mysterious, shakes his mind. With sacred awe o'erwhelms him, and his soul Bows to the dust; the cause of things concealed Once from his vision, instant to the gods All empire he transfers, all rule supreme ; And doubtful whence they spring, with headlong haste Calls them the workmanship of powers divine. — Goode's Lucretius. 534 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lett. VII. the course of nature and govern the destinies of men by the bones, images and fragments, real or fictitious, of the slumbering dead. In the Treasure of Exorcisms, the Ro- man Ritual and the Flagellum Dtemonum we have minute and specific directions for casting devils out of the pos- sessed, and for extracting from these lying spirits a veracious testimony to the distinctive doctrines of the Papacy.' The holy water, the paschal wax, the consecrated oil, medals, swords, bells and roses, hallowed upon the Sunday called Lsetare Jerusalem, are charged with the power of conferring temjjoral benedictions and averting spiritual calamities. The Agnus Dei is a celebrated charm in the annals of Romish sorcery.^ It possesses the power of expelling demons, securing the remission of venial sins, of healing diseases of the body and promoting the health of the soul. Holy water has also achieved stupendous wonders : broken limbs have been restored by its efficacy, and insanity itself has yielded to its power.'^ Whole flocks and herds are not ^ The story of the exorcising of Martha Brosser, a.d. 1599, may be found in the history of Thuanus, lib. cxiii. The reader will find it an admirable specimen of the bkick art. 2 Urban V. sent three Agnos Dei to the Greek Emperor, with these verses : "Balsam, pure wax and chrism-liquor clear Make up this precious lamb I send thee here. All lightning it dispels and each ill sprite : Remedies sin and makes the heart contrite; Even as the blood that Christ for us did shed, It helps the childbed's pains, and gives good speed Unto the birth. Groat gifts it still doth win To all that wear it and that worthy bin. It quells the rage of fire, and cleanly bore. It brings from shipwreck safely to the shore." The forms for blessing holy water and the other implements of Papal magic and blasphemy may found in the Book of Holy Ceremonies. I had marked out some of the prayers to be copied, but I have already furnished sufficient materials to establisli the position of the text. 3 See the dialogues of St. Gregory and Bede. St. Fortunatus restored a broken thigh with holy water ; St. Malachias brought a madman to liis senses by the same prescription ; and St. Ililarion healed divers of the sick with holy bread and oil. These are only specimens, and very moderate ones, of the legends of the saints. The magic of Komc turns the course of nature into a theatre of woiulcrs. Lett. Vir.] INFALLIBILITY AND SUPERSTITION. 535 unfrequently brought to the priest to receive his blessing, and we have approved formularies for charming the cattle and putting a spell upon the possessions of the faithful. Rome is indeed a powerful enchantress^ Even the sacra- ments become Circean mixtures in her hands, dispensing mysterious effects to all who receive them from her priestly magicians; being indeed a substitute for virtue, a complete exemption from the necessity of grace.^ The type of character and religious opinion, the pervad- ing tone of sentiment and feeling, which any system pro- duces on the mass of its votaries, is a just criterion of its real tendencies. The influence of a sect is not to be exclu- sively determined from abstract statements or controversial expositions, but from the fruits which it naturally brings forth in the hearts and lives of those who belong to it. The application of this test is particularly just in the case of Romanism, since the priests possess unlimited control over the minds and consciences of their subjects. They are consequently responsible for the moral condition, the relig- ious observances, the customs and opinions of Papal com- munities. Hence, the system of Rome in its practical ope- rations can be better ascertained from the spiritual state of the mass of the people than from the briefs of Popes, the canons of Councils and the decisions of doctors. It is seen among the people embodied in the life ; its legitimate tend- encies are reduced to the test of actual experience ; we know what it is by beholding what it does. Tried by this stand- ard, it seems to me that Romanism cannot be regarded in any other light than as a debasing system of idolatrous superstition, in which the hopes of mankind are made to depend upon the charms of magic and the effects of sorcery, 1 "Upon the Sacraments themselves," says Bishop Taylor, "they are tauj;;ht to rely with so little of moral and virtuous dispositions that the efficacy of one is made to lessen the necessity of the other ; and the sacraments are taught to be so efTectual by an inherent virtue that they are not so much made the instruments of virtue as the suppletory ; not so much to increase as to make amends for the want of grace." — Works, vol. X., p. 241. 536 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lett. VII. instead of the glorious principles of the doctrine of Christ. It is indeed a kingdom of darkness, in which the Prince of the power of the air sits enthroned in terror, envelops the people in the blackness of spiritual night, and shrouds their minds in the grim repose of death. Where the raven wings of superstition and idolatry overshadow a land the spirit of enterprise is uniformly broken, the energies of the soul are stifled and suppressed, and the noblest affections of the heart are chilled, blighted and perverted by the malignant influ- ence of error. The picture which Taylor draws of the Papal population of Ireland,' which Townsend gives of the ^ I give a single specimen of the abject superstition of the Papists, upon the authority of Jeremy Taylor : " But we have observed amongst the generality of the Irish such a declension of Christianity, so great cre- dulity to believe every superstitious story, such confidence in vanity, such groundless pertinacity, such vicious lives, so little sense of true religion and the fear of God, so much care to obey the priests and so little to obey God, such intolerable ignorance, such fond oaths and maimers of swear- ing, thinking themselves more obliged by swearing on the Mass-book than the four Gospels, and St. Patrick's Mass-book more than any new one; swearing by their father's soul, by their gossip's hand, by other things which are the product of those many tales that are told them ; their not knowing upon what account they refuse to come to church, but now they are old, and never did or their countrymen do not, or their fathers or grandfathers never did, or that their ancestors were priests and they will not alter from their religion ; and after all they can give no account of their religion, what it is, only they believe as their priests bid them, and go to mass, which they miderstand not, and reckon their beads to tell the num- ber and the tale of their prayers, and abstain from eggs and flesh in Lent, and visit St. Patrick's Well, and leave pins and ribbons, yarn or thread hi their holy wells, and pray to God, St. Mary, St. Patrick, St. Columbanus and St. Bridget, and desire to be buried with St. Francis' cord about them, and to fast on Saturdays in honour of Our Lady. ... I shall give one parti- cular instance of their miserable superstition and blindness. I was lately, within a few months, very much troubled with petitions and earnest requests for the restoring a bell which a person of quality liad in his hands at the time of and ever since the late rebellion. I could not gues.s at the reasons of their so great and violent importunity, but told the peti- tioners if they could prove that bell to be theirs, the gentleman was will- ing to pay the full value of it, though lie had no obligation to do so, that I know of, but charity. But this was so far from satisfying them that still the importunity increased, whicli made me diligently to inquire into the secret of it. The first cause I found was that a dying person in the par- Lett. VII.] INFALLIBILITY AND SUPERSTITION. 537 bigoted peasantry of Spain, the condition of the Church in Sile.sia, Italy, Portugal and South America, disclose the features of the Papacy in their true light, and demonstrate beyond the possibility of doubt that it is a system of the same sort, founded on the same i)rinciples, and aiming at the same results, with the monstrous mythology of the Hindoos. They are ennobled by none of those sublime and elevated views of the moral government of God, and the magnificent economy of His grace through the Lord Jesus Christ, which alone can impart tranquillity to the conscience, stability to the character and consistency to the life. They recognize God in none of the operations of His hands : priests, saints, images and relics, beads, bells, oil and water so completely engross their attention and contract their conceptions that they can rise to nothing higher in the scale of excellence than the empty pageantry of ceremonial pomp, or dream of nothing better in the way of felicity than the solemn farce of sacerdotal benediction. Their hopes are vanity and their food is dust. To the true Christian they present a scene as melancholy and moving as that which stirred the spirit of the Apostle when he beheld the citizens of Athens wholly given to idolatry ; in the possession of the strong man armed, it requires something mightier than argument, ish desired to have it rung before him to church, and pretended he could not die in peace if it were denied liim, and that the keeping of that bell did anciently belong to that family from father to son ; but because this seemed nothing but a fond and unreasonable superstition, I inquired farther, and found at last that they believed this bell came from heaven, and that it used to be carried from place to place, and to end controversies by oatli, which the worst men durst not violate if they swore ujjou that Ijell, and the best men amongst them durst not but believe them ; that if this bell was rung before the corpse to the grave, it would help him out of purga- tory, and that, therefore, when any one died, the friends of the deceased did, whilst the bell was in their possession, hire it for the behoof of their dead, and that by this means that family was in part maintained. I was troubled to see under wliat spirit of delusion these poor souls do lie, how infinitely their credulity is abused, how certainly tliey believe in trifles and perfectly rely on vanity, and how little they regard tlie truths of God, and how not at all they drink of tlie waters of salvation." — Works, vol. x.: Pref. to Dissuasive from Popery, p. cxxi., seq. 538 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lett. VII. stronger than the light of truth, to break the spell of spirit- ual enchantment which leads them on to death, to dissipate the deep delusions of priestly imposture which are sealing their souls for hell. The mind recoils at the thought of the terrible account which their blind guides, who have acted the part of mad diviners, must render in the day of final retribution, when the blood of countless souls shall be required at their hands. The priests of other supersti- tions may plead to some extent irremediable ignorance for their errors, idolatries and crimes — the Avay of righteous- ness had never been revealed to them — but the priests of Rome have no cloak for their wickedness ; they have delib- erately extinguished the light of revelation, have sinned wilfully after they had received the knowledge of the truth, have insulted the Saviour and despised the Spirit — betrayed the one, like Judas, with a kiss, and reduced the other to a mere magician, and must consequently expect the severity of judgment at the hands of the Almighty Disposer of events. The Pagan tendencies of Rome appear, in the last place, from her substitution of a vain and imposing ritual, copied from the models of her heathen ancestors, for the pure and spiritual worship of the Gospel. The Saviour has told us that God requires the homage of the heart, and that all our services, in order to be accepted by Him with whom we have to do, must be rendered in the name of the Son, by the grace of the Spirit, and according to the requirements of the written Word. To worship God in spirit and truth is to bring to the employment that knowledge of His name, that profound veneration for His character, that cordial sympathy with the moral perfections of His nature, which presuppose an intimate acquaintance with the economy of His grace through Jesus Christ, the renovation of the heart by the effectual operation of the Holy Ghost, and a con- stant spirit of compliance with all His statutes and ordi- nances. It is indeed the sjiirit of love and of obedience; and both necessarily suppose that knowledge which is idcn- Lett. VII.] INFALLIBILITY AND SUPERSTITION. 539 tificd with faith and proceeds from the disclosures of the written Word. Whatever is not required is not obedience, and therefore cannot be worship, which must always be measured by the will of God. Upon comparing the worship which Rome prescribes with that which the Gospel requires, they will be found to diifer in every essential element of acceptable homage. The Gospel confines our worship ex- clusively to God; Rome scatters it upon a thousand objects whom she has exalted to the rank of divinities. The Gos- pel directs that all our services should be offered exclusively in the name of Christ; Rome has as many intercessors as gods, and as many mediators as priests. The Gospel re- quires the affections of the heart, j^urified and prompted by the Holy Ghost; Rome prescribes beads and genuflexions, scourgings and pilgrimages, fasts and penances, and partic- vdarly the magic of what she calls sacraments, which are an excellent substitute for grace. The end which the Gos- pel proposes is to restore the sinner to communion with God — to make him, indeed, a spiritual man, and hence the appeals which it makes to the assistance of the senses are few and simple; the end contemplated by Rome is to awaken emotions of mysterious awe, which shall ultimately redound to the advantage of the priesthood, and hence her services are exclusively directed to the eye, the ear and the fancy. If she succeeds in reaching the imagination, and produces a due veneration for the gorgeous solemnities which pass be- fore us, she has compassed her design, and excited the only species of religious emotion with which she is acquainted. The difference between spiritual affections and sentimental impressions, which is indeed the difference between faith and sense, is utterly unknown to the blinded priesthood of the Papal apostasy. Imi)osing festivals and magnificent processions, symbols and ceremonies, libations and sacrifices, — these proclaim the poverty of her spirit, the vanity of her mind: they are sad memorials of "religion lying in state, surrounded with the silent pomp of death." 540 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lett. VIII. LETTER VIII. INFALLIBILITY AND CIVIL GOVERNMENT. The extravagant pretensions of the Romish sect to the Divine prerogative of infallibility are not only fatal to the interests of truth, morality and religion but equally de- structive of the rights of magistrates and the ends for which governments were instituted. To define the connec- tion which ought to subsist between Church and State, to prescribe their mutual relations and subserviencies, and mark their points of separation and contact, are problems of polity which have tasked the resources of the mightiest minds, and which their highest powers have been inadequate to solve. The difficulties, hoAvever, have not arisen from the inherent nature of the subject, but from the force of ancient institutions and early prejudices to blind and enslave the understanding. The masterly abilities of Warburton were certainly competent to the discussion of this or any other subject ; the zeal of eloquence and power of argument with which he has presented the importance of religion as con- ducing to the success and stability of the State are, perhaps, irresistible; yet the attentive reader will perceive that none of his reasonings, however unanswerably they prove the value of the Church and the need of its aid, establish the necessity of a federal alliance. The gratuitous assumption which vitiates the logic of this celebrated book is the ancient opinion, that Christianity could not contribute its influence to the peace and order of society without being supported by the State. " The props and buttresses of secular author- ity" were conceived to be essential not only to the pros- perity, but also to the being of the Church; as if, in the language of Milton, " the Church were a vine in this re- spect, that she cannot subsist without clasping about the elm of worldly strength and felicity." It is found from experience, however, and might be deduced from the natm-e Lett. VIII.] INFALLIBILITY AND CIVIL GOVERNMENT. 541 of its principles, that Christianity is then most powerful, and sustains the government by its strongest sanctions, when it stands alone, commending itself to every man's conscience • by truth and purity. Alliance with the State corrupts and\ M-eakcns spiritual authority. It debases the Church into a secular institution; makes emolument and splendour more imi)ortant objects than righteousness and truth; defeats the ends for which it has been instituted; and, instead of add- ing weight to the laws of man, detracts from the authority of the laws of God. Church and State, distinct as they are^ / in their offices and ends, clothed with powers of a different species and supported by sanctions essentially unlike, fulfil their respective courses with less confusion and disturbance when each is restrained within its own appropriate jurisdic- tion. The harmony of the spheres is preserved by the regularity and order with which they revolve in their ap- pointed orbits. The protection of life, property and person is the leading end for which governments were instituted; the restoration of man to the image of God, through faith in the scheme of supernatural revelation, is the grand pur- pose for which the Church was established. The State views man as a member of society, and deals exclusively with external acts ; the Church regards him as the creature of God, and demands integrity in the inward parts. The State secures the interests of time; the Church provides for a blessed immortality. The State is concerned about the bodies of men; the Church is solicitous for the deathless soul. Racks, gibbets, dungeons and tortures are the props and muniments of secular authority ; truth and love, " the sword of the Spirit" and " the cords of a man," are the mighty weapons of the spiritual host. To maintain with a recent writer, whose work is far inferior in compactness and precision to the treatise of Warburton, that one of the dis- tinctive ends of government is to propagate the truths of religion, is to destroy the Church as a separate institution and make it an appendage to the State. The administra- tion of religion, under this view, becomes as completely a 542 ARGUMEXTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lett. VIII. part of the government as courts of justice or halls of legis- lation. The doctrine of Rome, on the mutual relations of the temporal and spiritual power, leads to consequences as fatal" to the liberty of States as those of Warburton or Gladstone to the independence, purity and efficiency of the Church. Three different views have been taken of this subject by distinguished writers in the Papal communion. The Canon- ists ' and Jesuits,^ for the most part, carrying out the idea 1 For an amusing effort to evade the claims of the Canon law, vide Gibert, vol. ii., pp. oil, 512. 2 The doctrine seems to be embodied in the Jesuit's oath, which the learned Archbishop Usher drew from undoubted records in Paris and published to the world. In that oath it is asserted that the Pope, by vir- tue of the keys given to his holiness by Jesus Christ, hath power to depose heretical kings, princes, states, commonwealths and governments, all beinff illegal without his sacred confirmation ; and consequently all allegiance is renounced to any such rulers. The entire document is as follows: "I, A. B., now in the presence of Almighty God, the blessed Virgin Mary, the blessed Michael the Archangel, the blessed St. John Baptist, the holy Apostles St. Peter and St. Paul, and the saints and sacred host of heaven, and to you, my ghostly father, do declare from my heart, without mental reservation, that his holiness Pope Urban is Christ's vicar-general, and is the true and only head of the Catholic or universal Church through- out the earth : and that, by the virtue of the keys of binding and loosing given to his Holiness by my Saviour Jesus Christ, he hath power to depose heretical kings, princes, states, commonwealths and governments, all being illegal without his sacred confirmation, and that they may be safely de- stroyed ; therefore, to the utmost of my power, I shall and will defend this doctrine and his Holiness's rights and customs against all usurpers of the heretical authority whatsoever, especially against the now pretended authority and Church of England, and all adherents, in regard that they and she be usurpal and heretical, opposing the sacred Mother Church of Eome. I do renounce and disown any allegiance as due to any heretical king, prince or state named Protestant, or obedience to any of their in- ferior magistrates or officers. I do further declare, that the doctrines of the Church of England, of the Calvinists, Huguenots, and of others of the name of Protestants, are damnable, and they themselves are damned, and to be damned, that will not forsake the same. I do further declare, that I will help, assist and advise all or any of his holiness's agents, in any place wherever I shall be, in England, Scotland and in Ireland, or in any other territory or kingdom I shall come to, and do my utmost to extirpate the heretical Protestants' doctrine, and to destroy all their pretended powers, legal or otherwise. I do further promise and declare, that, not- Lett. VIII.] INFALLIBILITY AND CIVIL GOVERNMENT. 543 that the Pope is the vicai' of God upon earth, ch)the him •with all the plenitude of power, in relation to sublunary things, which belongs to Deity Himself. It is his prerog- ative to fix the boundaries of nations, to appoint the hab- itations of the people, and to set over them the basest of men. From him kings derive their authority to reign and princes to decree justice; upon him the rulers and judges of the earth are dependent alike for the sceptre and the sword; it is his, like Jupiter in Homer, to "shake his ambrosial curls and give the nod — the stamp of fate, the sanction of a god." In the sentence against Frederick II., passed in the Council of Lyons, which, according to Bellar- mine, represented without doubt the universal Church, this extravagant pretension to absolute power is assumed.^ At withstanding, I am dispensed to assume any religion heretical for the pro- pagating of the Mother Church's interest, to keep secret and private all her agents' counsels from time to time, as they intrust me, and not to divulge, directly or indirectly, by word, writing or circumstance whatso- ever; but to execute all that shall be proposed, given in charge or dis- covered unto me by you, my ghostly father, or by any of this sacred con- vent. All which, I, A. B., do swear, by the blessed Trinity, and blessed sacrament which I now am to receive, to perform and on my part to keep inviolably ; and do call all tlie heavenly and glorious host of heaven to witness these my real intentions to keep this my oath. In testimony hereof, I take this most holy and blessed sacrament of the eucharist; and witness the same further with my hand and seal in the face of this holy convent, this day of , An. Dom.," &c. * " Nos itaque super prsemissis et compluribus aliis ejus nefandis exces- sibus, cum fratribus nostris, et sacro concilio deliberatione prsehabita dili- genti, cum Jesu Christi vices licet immeriti teneamus in terris, nobisque in beatl Petri Apostoli persona sit dictum : ' Quodcumque ligaveris super terrain, &c.' Memoratum principem, qui se imperio et regnis omnique honore ac dignitate reddidit tarn indignum,qnique propter suas iniquitates a Deo ne regnet vel imperet est abjectus, suis ligatum peccatis, et abjec- tum, omnique honore et dignitate privatum a Domino ostendimus, denun- ci.amus, ac nihilo minus sententiando privamus ; omnes, qui ei juramento fidelitatis tenentur adstricti, a juramento hujusraodi perpetuo absolventes; autoritate apostolica firmiter inhibendo, ne quisquam de Cfetero sibi tara- quam imperatori vel regi pareat vel intendat, et decernendo quoslibof, qui deinceps ei velut imperatori ant regi consilium vel auxilium pra?stiterint sen favorcm, ipso facto excommunicationis vinculo subjacere. Illi auteni ad quos in eodem imperio imperatoris spectat electio, eligant libera sue- 544 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lett. VIII. the close of the second session of the fifth Council of La- teran, an oration was delivered by Cajetan, which abounds in fulsome adulation of the Pope, representing him as the vicar of the Omnipotent God, invested alike with temporal })ower and ecclesiastical authority, and exhorting him, in blasphe- mous application of the language of the Psalmist, to " gird his sword upon his thigh and proceed to reign over all the powers of the earth." ' The Pontiffs, in their damnatory sentences, are particu- larly fond of quoting, in accommodation to themselves, the words of Jeremiah : " I have set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms," as well as the Avords of Christ to Peter, in the largest and most absolute sense. To be the vicar of the Omnipotent God is to be Lord of lords and King of kings. In the famous controversy betwixt Boniface yill. and Philip the Fair, the insolent pontiff boldly as- serted that " The king of France, and all other kings and princes whatsoever, were obliged, by a Divine command, to submit to the authority of the Popes, as well in all political and civil matters as in those of a religious nature." These doctrines are fully brought out in the memorable Bull, " Unam Sanctam" in which it is maintained that " Jesus had granted a twofold power to the Church — or, in other w^ords, the spiritual and temporal sword — and subjected the whole human race to the authority of the Koman Pontiff," cessorem. De prsefato vero Sicilire regno providere curabimus, cum eornn- dura fratrura nostrorum consilio, sicut viderimus expedite." — Labb., Concil., Tom. xi., p. 645. 1 " Assequetur autem hoc, te volente, teque imperante, si lii ipse, pater sancte, omnipotentis Dei cnjus vices in terris non solum honore dignitatis, sed etiam studio voluntatis gerere debes : si ipsius Dei potentiam, perfec- tionem, sapientiaraque imitaberis. Atqui ut in primis potentiam imiterls, accingere, pater sancte, gladio tuo, too inquam accingere: binos enim babes, unum tibi reliquis que hujus mundi principibus commuuem : alte- rum tibi proprium, atque ita tuum, ut ilium alius nemo nisi a te habere possit. Hoc itaque gladio tuo, qui ecclesiasticre potestatis est, accingere, potentissime, et accingere super femur tuum, id est, super universas huniani generis potestates." — Labb., Concil., Tom. xiv., p. 75. Lett. VIII.] IXFALLIBILITY AND CIVIL GOVERNMENT. 545 whom they were bound to obey on pain of eternal damna- tion.' There is another view, which has been approved by the Church in every possible way, by the voice of her doctors, the bulls of Popes and the decriees of Councils, which reaches the same practical results on grounds less flagrantly M'icked or detestably blasphemous. It is the opinion main- tained by Baronius, Bellarmine, Binius, Carranza, Perron, Turrecrema and Pighius, and abounding ad nauseam in the documents of Gregory VII. Tlie Pope, according to these writers, is not absolute lord of the infidel world. His spe- cial jurisdiction is the guardianship and care of the Church. In protecting his flock, however, from the encroachments of error and the dangers of schism, he is clothed with plenary power to disturb the government of nations and destroy the institutions of states. He has a broad com- mission from heaven to provide for the welfare and pros- perity of the Church, and whatever powers may be found subservient to the fulfilment of this delegated trust are in- directly vested in his hands. Like a Roman dictator, his business is to see that the republic of the faithful receives no damage ; and if kings and rulers should be regarded as dangerous to the interests of the Church, kings and rulers may be laid aside at his sovereign pleasure. If there be a single principle which can be called the doctrine of the Romish sect, to which its infallibility is solemnly pledged, and which has been exemplified in repeated acts, this is the principle. Thomas Aquinas distinctly teaches that the Church can absolve believing subjects from the power and dominion of infidel kings, ^gidius maintains that the power of the Church, which is fully embodied in the sov- ereign Pontiff, extends not only to spiritual interests but also to temporal affairs. Thomas Cajetan defines the power ^ Gibert, Corpus .luris Canonici, vol. ii., p. 513, sums up the famous bull of Bonifoce VIII., De Majoritate et Obediemia, in these pregnant words : " Deiinit terrenam potestatem spirituali ita subdi, ut ilia possit ab ista in- 3titui et destitui." Vol. III.— 35 546 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED, [Lett. VIII. of the Pope almost in the very Avords with which I have described this general opinion.^ Those w^ho wish to see a sickening list of the Popish writers who have maintained this notion of Pontifical power will find ample satisfaction in the treatise of Bellarmine, De Potestate. Private wri- ters, however, are of little value, compared with Councils and Popes themselves. Gregory VIL, in a Roman synod consisting of one hundred and ten bishops, presumed, for the honour and protection of the Church, to depose Henry from the government of Germany and Italy, and transfer his dominions to another man. This sentence, as Bellar- mine triumphantly boasts, was afterward confirmed by Victor, Urban, Pascal, Gelasius and Calixtus, in the Synods of Beneventine, Placentia, Rome, Colonia and Rheims.^ I need not insist upon the cases of Boniface and Philip the ^ " Aquinas : Potest tamen juste per sententiam, vel ordinationem Ecclesise, auctoritatem Dei habentis, tale jus dominii, vel prselationis tolli; quia infi- deles merito suae infidelitatis merentur potestatem amittere super fideles, qui transferuntur in filios Dei ; sed hoc quidem Ecclesia quandoque facit, quandoque non facit." — Bellarm., Tract. De Potest. Summ. Pontif., p. 11. "iEgidius: Sed, inquit, diceret aliquis, quod Eeges et Principes spir- itualiter non temporaliter subsint Ecclesise. Sed haec dicentes vim argii- menti non capiunt: nam si solum spiritualiter Reges et Principes subessent Ecclesiae, non esset gladius sub gladio : non essent temporalia sub spiritual- ibus ; non esset ordo in potestatibus ; non reducerentur infima in suprema per media. Hsec ille, qui toto illo tractatu hoc probat, potestatem Eccle- sise, quffi plenissima est in Summo Pontifice, non ad sola spiritualia, sed etiam ad temporalia se extendere." — Ibid., p. 13. " Cajetan : Ideo suae potestati duo conveniunt : primo, quod non est directe respectu temporalium : secundo, quod est respectu temporalium in ordine ad spiritualia : hoc enim habet ex eo, quod ad supremum finem omnia ordinari debent, etiara temporalia ab eo procul dubio, cnjns interest ad ilium finem omnes dirigere, ut est Christi Vicarius ; primum autem ex natura sujb potestatis consequitur." — Ibid., p. 15. '^ "Quapropter confidens de judicioet misericordia Dei, ejusque piissimse matris semper virginis Marise, fultus vestra auctoritate, sa?pe nominatum Henricum, quern regem dicunt, omnesque fautores ejus excomnuinicationi subjicio et anathematis vinculis alligo ; et iterum regnum Teutonicorum et Italite, ex parte Omnipotentis Dei et vestra, interdicens ci, omncra potes- tatem et dignitatem illi regiam tollo et ut nullus Christianoruin ei sicut regi obediat interdico, omnesque qui ei juraverunt vel jurabunt de regni dominatione a juramenti promissione absolvo." — Labbe, vol. x., p. 384. Lktt. VIII.] INFALLIBILITY AND CIVIL GOVERNMENT. 547 Fair, Paul III. and Henry VIII., Pius V. and the Virgin Queen. The memorable Bull, in Ccena Domini, issued by Pius V. in 1567, should not be suffered to pass with- out notice. This atrocious document prostrates the power of kings and magistrates at the foot of the Pope, sub- verts the independence of States and nations, and makes the sword of monarchs and rulers the pliant tool of Pon- tifical despotism.^ Even in the nineteenth century the successors of the Fisherman are regaled with dreams of ter- restrial grandeur, and Pius VIL, in the plenitude of sjjir- itual power, poured all the vials of his wrath upon the head of Napoleon. Directly or indirectly, more or less distinctly, eight gen- eral councils have endorsed the doctrine of the temporal jurisdiction of the Pope — the fourth and fifth of Lateran, those of Lyons, Vienna, Pisa, Constance, Basil and Trent. The third canon of the fourth Council of Lateran is in- tended to provide for the extirpation of heresy. It is there decreed that if any temporal lord, after the admonition of the Church, should neglect to purge his realm from heretical pravity, he shall be excommunicated by his metropolitan and suffragans. If he should still fail to give satisfaction for a year, his contumacy shall be announced to the Sov- ereign Pontiff, who shall proceed to absolve his subjects from their allegiance, and transfer his dominions to any usurper willing and able to exterminate heretics and re- store the faith.^ "If this," says Bellarmine, "is not the ' For a particular account of this famous Bull the reader is particularly referred to Giannone I.stor. di Napoli, lib. 33, cap. iv., who may there see its audacious interference with the right of kings, magistrates and rulers fully exposed. ^ "Si vero Dominus Temporalis requisitus et monitus ab Ecclesia, ter- ram suam purgare neglexerit ab hac hseretica fceditate, per melropolita- num et coeteros comprovinciales episcopos excommunicationis vinculo in- nodetur. Et, si satisfacere conterapserit infra annum, significetur hoc summo Pontifici, ut ex tunc ipse vassalos ab ejus fidelitate denunciet abso- lutos, et terram exponat Catholicis occupandam, qui earn exterminatis hsereticis sine ulla contradictione possideant et in fidei puritate conser- vent." — Labbe, vol. xi., p. 148. 548 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lett. VIII. voice of the Catholic Church, where, I pray, sliall ^ye find it?" The Council of Trent — that I may not occupy the reader with a tedious display of the insolence, arrogance and pride of Vienna, Constance, Pisa and Basil — the Council of Trent, in its twenty-fifth session, passed a stat- ute in relation to duelling;, which seems to assume some- thing more definite and tangible than spiritual power. The temporal sovereign who permits a duel to take place in his dominions is punished not only with excommunication, but loith the loss of the place in which the combat occurred. The duellists and their seconds are condemned in the same sta- tute to perpetual infamy, the forfeiture of their goods, and deprived, if they should fall, of Christian burial, while those who were merely spectators of the scene are sentenced to eternal malediction.^ The inevitable tendency of these arbitrary claims to sec- ular authority is to merge the State in the Church. Kings and emperors, nations and communities, become merely the instruments, the pliant tools, of spiritual dominion. The kingdoms of the earth are inferior principalities to a mag- nificent hierarchy, the first places of which are reserved for ecclesiastical dignitaries. The higher commands the lower ; and so the Pope can set his feet upon the neck of kings, 1 " Detestabilis duellorum usus fabricante diabolo introductus, ut cruenta corporum morte aniinarum etiam perniciem lucretur, ex Christiano orbe penitus exterminetur. Iniperator, reges, duces, principes, marcliiones, ' comites, et quocuraque alio nomine domini temporales, qui locum ad monomachiam in terris suis inter Cliristianos concesserint, eo ipso sint excommunicati ac jurisdictione et dominio civitatis, castri, aut loci, in quo vel apud queni duellum fieri permiserint, quod ab Ecclf pia obtinent, privati intelligantur ; et, si feudalia sint, difeotis dominis statim acquiran- tur. Qui vero pugnam commiserint, et qui eonim patroni vocantur, ex- coramunicationis, ac omnium bonorum suorum proscriptionis, ac perpetuse infamise pcenam incurrant; et ut homicidre jnxta sacros canones pnniri debeant ; et si in ipso conflictu decesserint, perpetuo careant ecclesiastica sepultura. Illi etiam, qui, consilium in causa duelli tam in jure quam facto dederint, aut alia quaonnque ratione ad id quemquam suaserint, necnon spectatores, excommunicationis ac perpetuae maledictionis vinculo teneantur; non obstante quoounique privilegio, sen prava consuetudine etiam immemorabili." — Ijihbe, vol. xiv., p. 916. Lett. VIII.] INFALLIBILITY AND CIVIL GOVERNMENT, 549 and bind their nobles in fetters of iron. The Church in- cludes the State, as the greater inchides the less, as a bishop includes a priest, and a priest includes a deacon. The natural consequence is, that the supreme allegiance of the faithful is due primarily to the head of the Church. In a conflict of power between princes and popes, the first and highest duty of all the vassals of Rome is to maintain her honour and support her claims. Hence the Jesuit in his secret oath renounces allegiance to all earthly powers which have not been confirmed by the Holy See, and devotes his life and soul to the undivided service of the Pope. The Romish Church, too, sets her face like a flint against the subjection of her spiritual officers to the legal tribunals of the State, and has positively prohibited the intolerable pre- sumption in laymen, though kings and magistrates, of de- manding oaths of allegiance from the lofty members of her hierarchy.* They are specially and emphatically her sub- jects, and she cannot consent that their fealty should be transferred to others. Such principles are fatal to the in- dependence of nations ; and just in proportion as the doc- trines of Rome gain the ascendency among any people, just in the same proportion a secret enemy is cherished, slowly but surely plotting the destruction of all institutions, how- ' "Nimis de jure Divino quidam laici u.surpare conantur, cum viros ecclesiasticos, nihil temporale detinentes ab.eis, ad prsestandum sibi fideli- tatis jurainenta compellunt. Quia vero, secundum Apostolum, servus suo Domino slat aut cadit, sacri auctoritate concilii prohibemus, ne tales clerifi personis ssecularibus prsestare cogantur hujusmodi juramentum." — IV. Lateran, Can. 43: Labbe, vol. xi., p. 191. That ecclesiastical officers should be tried only in ecclesiastical coui-ts is the standing doctrine of the Canon Law. I select a few extracts from Gibert's Corpus Juris Canonici, vol. iii., p. 530 : " Ut nullus judicum neque presbyterura, neque diaconum vel clericum uUum aut juniores ecclesiae sine scientia Pontificis per se distringat aut damnare prtesuraat. Clericus de orani crimine coram judice ecclesiastico debet conveniri. In sacris canonibus generaliter traditur ut de omni cri- mine clericus debeat coram ecclesiastico judico conveniri. "A saeculari potestate nee ligari, necsolvi sacerdotem posse, manifestum 550 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lett. VIII. ever noble or sublime, that may happen to contradict the humour of a bigoted Italian prince, or be inconsistent with decrees passed in ages of darkness, superstition and despot- ism. The slaves of the Papacy are taught to conceal their weapons until they are ready to strike — ^to disguise their hemlock and nightshade until they can prepare, the deadly potation with the certain prospect of success. But when once they become master of the sceptre and the sword, they are to strike for Rome, sell the liberties of the country to their spiritual lord, raise the banner of inhuman persecu- tion, and purge the land from the damning stain of heretical pravity with the blood of its noblest sons. La Fayette is reported to have said that if ever the lib- erties of this country should be destroyed, it would be by the machinations of Romish priests. They are all, in fact, the sworn subjects of ii foreign jjotentate; they acknowledge an earthly king who has repeatedly denounced every dis- tinctive principle for which our fathers bled. The priest- hood of Rome is a formidable body. The moral elements which bind the human family together in the ties of truth, fidelity and honour are feeble to them as Samson's withes or pointless as Priam's darts. To the outward eye all may be fair and seemly; but the country which they truly love is that which is prepared to bow the knee to the authority of Rome and lick the Pontiff's feet. All other lands are accursed of God, and their vocation is to reclaim them from their ruin, to bring them into the holy fold, to overturn and overturn and overturn, until the Man of Sin is prepared to pronounce his magic benediction. The immortal Milton, "the champion and martyr of Eng- lish liberty," as well as the "glory of English literature," the bold defender of the freedom of the pres.s, the rights of conscience and the rights of man, gave it as his delil)erate opinion that a Christian commonwealth, in consequence of the Pope's pretensions to political power and the idolatrous nature of his religious rites, ought not to tolerate his dau- Lett. VIII.] INFALLIBILITY AND CIVIL GOVERNMENT. 551 gerou.s sect.* AVhen destitute of power or forming only a fraction of the eomjiiunity, Papists may do no serious harm, but the serpent in the fable had lost nothing of its venom though it had lost its muscular activity. They whose eyes, night and day, arc turned to the Eternal City, whose prayers are hourly ascending for its glory and whose zeal is devoted to its highest prosperity; they who are persuaded that the ark of God is there, and that the hopes of man are centred in the favour of the monarch who sits upon the seven hills ; they who are bound, under an awful curse, to maintain the princely and Divine prerogatives wdiich superstition, fanati- cism, pride and ambition have attributed to this august and venerable mortal, — are not the men to love a land which is darkened by his frown or blasted by his bitter execrations. They may take the usual oath of allegiance, but Lateran has taught them that oaths are breath when the interests of the Church demand their violation. There is but one tie which is stronger than death — the tie which binds them to Rome. Living or dying, in all states and conditions, in poverty or wealth, at home or abroad, wherever they are or whatever they do, Rome must never be forgotten. The claims of brotherhood, friendship, patriotism and honour — all that is dear on earth in private relations or public in- stitutions— all must be sacrificed when the voice of Rome commands it. She holds in her hands the dread retributions of eternity; heaven or hell depends upon her nod; and when she brings to bear her terrific sanctions, her faithful children throughout the . world, to avoid the impending storm, nestle beneath her wings. Where is the State, com- munity or nation on the whole face of the earth that can thunder with a voice like Rome? What are laws, statutes, ordinances and oaths when a single word from the Eternal City can turn them, in the eyes of Pa[)ists, to vanity and Mnnd? When was it ever known that a faithful .son of the Church respected the laws as much as his priest, his country ^ See the question dificus.sed, "How far the religion of the Church of Rome is tolerable ?" in Taylor's ' Liberty of Prophe.'^ying,' § xx. 552 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lett. VIII. as much as Rome, the highest tribunal of the land as much as the Pope? It is idle to attempt to disguise the fact that the religion of the Pope is essentially seditious. In its grasping ambition it tramples upon thrones, principalities and powers, subverts the liberty of nations, destroys the independence of States, and makes the sword and the sceptre alike subservient to its own relentless despotism. These results so obviously follow from the claims to temporal authority, which have already been considered, that many Papists have been disposed to restrict the power of the Pope wholly within spiritual bounds. Hence a third view — that maintained by the Parliament of Paris and endorsed by the Galilean clergy — remains to be considered. According to this view, kings and rulers are not subject to the Sovereign PontiiF in the conduct of their secular aifairs. Their jurisdiction is distinct from his: he moves in the orbit of spiritual dominion, and they in the orbit of temporal authority; he deals in matters of supernatural faith, and they in matters of civil obedience. This theory is beautiful and the distinction is just, but the doctrine of infallibility renders them practically worthless. The Pope has power to define articles of faith and to instruct the faitliful in the will of God. Whatever he proposes as an article of faith must, of course, be received with undoubting faith. To admit the right of the people to determine what are articles of faith, and what are not, would be to intro- duce the odious principle of the right of private judgment. Then if the Pope has plenary power to define the articles of Catholic faith, and if everything is to be received as an article of faith which he proposes as such, he can easily in- troduce his arbitrary claims to temporal jurisdiction under the convenient disguise of supernatural revelation. He will not directly assert that he possesses the power of deposing kings or subverting nations, but it is the will of God that heretical magistrates should not be encouraged, and obe- dience to their laws is a sanction of their crimes. He might caution the faithful not to be partakers in other men's sins, Lett. VIII.] INFALLIBILITY AND CIVIL GOVERNMENT. 553 and guard them especially from encouraging the great in rebellion against God. The nice distinctions of the Gal- ilean Church are mere dust and ashes, unless the doctrine of infallibility is denied and the right of private judgment maintained. If the people are bound to believe whatever the Pope may prescribe as an article of faith, the door is thrown wide open — as open as Hildebrand himself could wish it — for the introduction of all manner of treason. It is an idle evasion to say that although men are not judges of spiritual matters, yet they are judges of temporal mat- ters, and therefore capable of deciding when the Sovereign Pontiff invades the territory of temporal jurisdiction. This plea would be good if the Sovereign Pontiff were fallible. They might then oppose their judgments to his decision. But if he be infallible, and pronounces a principle to be an article of faith which they beforehand would have viewed as belonging to the sphere of the civil magistrate, they must, of course, yield their fallible opinion to an infallible decis- ion. A crust of bread is mutton, wine and beef, the sacred wafer is the Redeemer of men, soul, body and divinity, if Rome pronounces them to be so. It is not more unreason- able that we should abandon our judgments about political rights at the bidding of his Holiness than that we should renounce our confidence — instinctive though it be — in the report of our senses. Practically, therefore, the theory of the Galilean clergy is no security from the encroachments of Rome; so long as infallibility is maintained, it will poi- son the purest ])rinciples and corrupt the fairest schemes. It affords an abundant entrance for that indirect power over States, nations and empires for which doctors have pleaded, councils decreed and popes intrigued. It is a pungent saying of Passavan, that "Satan tendered the earth and all its glory to Immanuel, and met with a per('mj)tory rejection; he afterwards made the same overture to the Pope, who accepted the offer with tlianks and yv'ith. the annexed condition of worshipping the Prince of Dark- ness." The subtle arts and crafty machinations by which, 554 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lett. VIII. from small beginnings, the popes have usurped, under various pretexts, the right of universal dominion, are a pregnant proof of an intimate alliance with the flither of lies. Their first interferences in the affairs of States were slow and gradual ; they were content to use their spiritual authority in instigating subjects to rebellion or embroiling nations in war. Encouraged by success, they rose higher and higher in their claims, until the summit of pontifical arrogance was reached in the person of Hildebrand. AVhat a chasm between Gregory I. and Gregory VII., filled up with gins, snares and nets, fraud, hypocrisy and lies ! While " the successors of St. Peter " have pretended to labour for the salvation of souls, it is plain that nations have been their game, kings their victims and diadems their hope. The golden vision of universal empire, which encouraged the zeal, quickened the efforts and soothed the anxieties of Gregory VII., has never ceased to float before the minds of his successors, and make them at once the enemies of man and the objects of abhorrence to God. Their eyes are fixed upon the Earthy and the cup of their ambition will never be full until, from east to west, from north to south, every kindred, tongue and language, all the tribes and flim- ilies of man, shall acknowledge the Pope as king of kings and lord of lords. To accomplish this grand and magnif- icent purpose, Jesuits are found in every country, plying their labours with untiring zeal. Their voice is heard amid the roar of the cataract in the forests of the savage, or it charms the circles of the giddy and the gay in the saloons of refinement and elegance. Their shadows are seen in the dusky light of the convict's cell, and their persons are found in the halls of the great and the palaces of kings. They stoop to instruct the child in its alphabet and the young in philosophy, and delight to discuss with senators and states- men the policy of States. Hunger, cold and all the inclem- encies of the sky are cheerfully endured in their exhausting journeys ; the frosts of winter consume them by night and sleep departs from their eyes, and yet their zeal is invin- Lett. VIII.] INFALLIBILITY AND CIVIL GOVERNMENT. 555 cible and their indu.stiy untiring. There is one glorious object which animates their hopes, which lifts them above the ordinary passions of man, and renders them insensible to danger and fearless of death. That object is the triumph of Rome. For her they have sacrificed moral character, personal comforts, the delights.of patriotism and the endear- luents of home. To her they are devoted with a terrible enthusiasm, which is cool and collected, because too intense to be vented in passion or wasted in extravagance; and if Rome sliould ever triumph, they are the men whose prin- ciples shall be lord of the ascendant and dictate law to all the nations of the earth. In their diligence, industry, zeal and enthusiasm let the people of this country learn their danger and provide for their safety. There are peculiar principles in the constitution of the polity of Rome which render it an engine of tremendous power. The doctrine of auricular confession establishes a system of espionage which is absolutely fatal to personal in- dependence, and from the intimate connection between priests and bishops, and bishops and the Pope, all the important secrets of the earth can easily be transmitted to the Vatican. What can be more alarming tlian a whole army scattered through the length and breadth of the land in clo.se and secret correspondence with a tyrant wlio detests every prin- ciple that makes life dear or a country glorious? The ingenuity of earth and hell could not devise a more success- ful expedient for prostrating liberty, enslaving the con- science, and introducing the Pope to an intimate acquaint- ance with all the purposes and interests of man, than the scheme of auricular confession. It opens a window into the chambers of the heart, and permits a mortal to read those secrets which it is tlie sole ])rerogative of Gnd to know, I have now, I a})prehend, sufficiently shown that, accord- ing tt) the princi])les of Rome, the civil power is sub.>ersuaded that if these books are not, they ought to have been, quoted by Christ and his Lett. IX.] it IS NOT QUOTED IN NEW TESTAMENT. 559 Apostles. Tlie strongest evidence, I apprehend, upon which your position can be made to rest will be found in an appeal to a General Council. If you could induce some such body as that of Trent to decree that these passages are quotations, why then quotations they would have to be considered. The first text which you give us as a quotation from the Apocrypha is the golden rule of our Saviour : " Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them ; for this is the law and the proph- ets.'" Matt. vii. 12; Luke vi. 31. This you would have us to believe was suggested to the Saviour by Tobit iv. 15, which in the Douay version is rendered, " See thou never do to another what thou wouldest hate to have done to thee by another." The reader, however, will observe that this is not a translation but a paraphrase. The original is, o [iKTBo: !ir/)evc zocr^arii; — "What thou hatest do to no one." Now the question is, whether the four words that constitute the substance of the Apocryphal passage suggested to our Lord the fifteen words which in the original embody the golden rule as found in the memorable Sermon on the Mount. There is evidently no quotation in the case, since there is but a single word which they have in common. Neither, on the other hand, is there any such coincidence of thought as to warrant the supposition that our Saviour had in his mind the passage from Tobit when he announced the principle recorded in Matthew. Our Saviour's precept, as Grotius has very properly observed, is positive, while that in Tobit is negative. In the Sermon on the Mount our Saviour tells us what to perform, and Tobit, in his instructions to his son, what to avoid ; the one resolves us in the things that are right, and the other in the things that are wrong. One, in short, is a command, the other a prohibition. There is no more coincidence of thought betwixt these two passages ' Hiietius, who also gives the golden rule as a quotation from this pas- sage of Tobit, adinit8, at the same time, that it might have been suggested as a dictate of natui-e. — Demonslratio Evanc/ei, Propos. IV., j). 361 : Ue Libra Tobias. 560 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lett. IX. than between Ex. xx. 15, "Thou shalt not steal," and Rom. xiii. 7, "Render, therefore, to all their dues." And yet who would dream of maintaining that the precept of Paul is either a literal quotation of the eighth command- ment, or was necessarily suggested by the form in which it is recorded in the book of Exodus ? " What thou hatest," says Tobit, " do to none." " What thou lovest," says our Saviour, substantially, " do to all." If, now, our Saviour quoted from Tobit, upon the same principle of criticism every positive, contrary to the usual order of thought, must be suggested by its corresponding negative. But our Saviour himself has put the matter beyond the possibility of doubt. The rule which He gave us was a compendious expression of the moral instructions of the Law and the Prophets. As you have freely acknowledged that the Apocryphal writings were not to be found in the Canon of the Jewish Church, you will hardly contend that the "iazo and the Prophets'' embraced any of those books which Josephus mentions as not being possessed of equal authority with the twenty-two which he had previously enumerated. You will also admit — for it would certainly be useless to deny — that the canonical books of the Old Testament were divided into three clas.ses : the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa. Now, if the Saviour Himself is to be trusted. His memorable rule must have been suggested by something which is found not in any Apocryphal writer, but in the Law and the Prophets, in the acknowledged Canon of the Jewish Church. His Sermon on the Mount is in fact a Divine exposition of the ethical code which is contained in the Old Testament, with special reference to the corruptions and abuses which igno- rant and wicked teachers had introduced and fostered. He explains the moral law, and maintains its strictness, purity and extent in opposition to the destructive glosses of the Scribes, Pharisees and Doctors. The golden rule itself is evidently nothing but a state- ment, in another form, of the principle of universal love. Our own expectations from others are made the standard of Lett. IX.] it is XOT QUOTED IX NEW TESTAMExNT. 561 our conduct towards them— tliat i.s, our love to ourselves is to be the exact measure of our love to other men. The passage in Matt. xxii. 35-40 will throw additional light upon this whole subject. Our Saviour there condenses the law into two great commandments— love to God, and love to man; and then adds that "on these two commandments hang all the Law and the Pmphds." It is evident, there- fore, that Matt. vii. 12 teaches precisely the same thing as Matt. xxii. 39 : " Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself;" and this passage is a literal quotation, not from Tobit, but from the book of Leviticus (xix. 18). This was the'text upon which our Saviour's mind was unquestionably fixed when he announced his celebrated maxim ; it was, in fact, constantly before his eyes, and so frequently explained, as well as earnestly inculcated and enforced by so many new and peculiar sanctions, as to be almost entitled to the name of a new commandment. Between the rule in Leviticus and the precept of our Saviour there is an exact coinci- dence of thought. Both are positive, and both make our regard for ourselves the standard of our treatment to others. One is the text and the other a faithful commentary. " Love thy neighbour as thyself," says the Law—" What you would love to have done to you, do to others," says the Saviour. How it could fail to strike your attention that the passage in Leviticus was ' especially before the mind of our Redeemer, when he refers you so distinctly to the Law, surpasses my comprehension. You are hardly more successful in your attempt to deduce the magnificent description of the heavenly Jerusalem in the Apocalypse of John from what you suppose to be a cor- responding i3assage in the same book of Tobit.' You have again followed the Douay version, which, however it may agree with the Vulgate, does not precisely render the origi- nal. The English reader will find the passage to whi'^h you refer in Tobit xiii. 15-18 of the authorized translation. There can be evidently no quotation in this passage, since ' Vide Huetii, Denionstratio, Propos.iv., pp. 301, 362: De Libro Tobire Vol. Ill— ,3fi 562 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lett. IX. John is describing a vision just as he saw it. He saw the jasper, gokl and precious stones which adorned tlie founda- tions of the holy city, and testifies wliat he had seen. He does not pretend to give us a picture of the fancy, but a real view, and of course his language must be suggested by the things themselves. In such descriptions quotations may be introduced to embellish or adorn, but most assuredly the names of things themselves must be suggested by the objects before the mind. Again, the whole description is so strik- ingly analogous to several passages in Isaiah and Ezekiel that if there be any allusion to other writers at all it is to these venerable Prophets. The twelve gates in the vision of John correspond precisely to the twelve gates in the vision of Ezekiel (xlviii. 31-34). The golden reed with which the angel measured the city, and the gates thereof and the wall thereof, may be in allusion to the measuring- reed and the line of flax in Ezekiel xl. 3. The garnishing of the foundations of the wall with all manner of precious stones corresponds with the promise of Isaiah (liv. 11, 12): " I will lay thy stones with fair colours, and lay thy foun- dation with sapphires. And I Avill make thy windows of agates, and thy gates of carbuncles, and all thy borders of pleasant stones." The brilliant illumination of the city by the presence of God is in exact accordance with Isaiah xxiv. 23; Ix. 19, 20. The truth is, these precious stones with which the city was adorned, as seen by John, are the com- mon and familiar figures by which the glory of the Church is constantly depicted in the sacred writings. The splendid decorations of Solomon's temple, independently of any other cause, would naturally suggest these symbolical embellish- ments. That they occur, consequently, in different writers, and in the same connection, is no proof whatever of quota- tion or reference ; it only shows a familiar and common method of illustration. If the Church, for instance, be compared to a kingdom, two or a dozen writers might describe its peculiarities in conformity with this scriptural metaphor, and yet be ignorant of each other's compositions. Lett. IX.] IT IS NOT QUOTED IN NEW TESTAMENT. 563 The metaphor itself would suggest analogous trains of thought. So when the Church is compared to a city, to a splendid and magnificent city, the usual appendages of walls, gates and ornaments will be obviously presented to the mind, or if it be compared to a temple, the splendour and pomp of Solomon's unparalleled edifice would probably be the first association in a Jewish understanding. It manifests, therefore, the strangest inattention to the laws of thought to suppose that the description of the holy city in the Apocalypse of John must needs be taken from the rhapsody of Tobit, because both speak of walls and foundations, jasper, amethyst and gold. It is much more probable that Tobit borrowed from Chronicles, Ezckiel and Isaiah. Your attempt to make 1 Cor. x. 9, 10 a quotation from Judith scarcely needs refutation.^ Paul is apjiealing to the recorded history of the " fathers," as furnishing salutary examples of practical instruction. He gives us, conse- quently, a brief summary of the leading events connected with their removal from Egypt and their ultimate settle- ment in Canaan. This summary, of course, is taken from the history itself. It is just an epitome of what may be 1 " Tliirdly, in favour of the book of Judith they bring two citations — one made by St. Paul when he said, They tvere destroyed by the destroyer, and another by St. James, who said. The Scripture was fulfilled, and Abra- ham ivas called the friend of God; both which passages (if there were any credit to be given to Serarius) are borrowed out of the eighth chapter of Judith, as we read them in the Latin paraphrase of that book ; for in tlie Greek copies there is never a word like them to be found. But whom shall the Jesuit persuade that the Apostles quoted a Latin pai-aphrase which wa.s not extant in their time? Or if we should grant that tlie Greek or Chaldean copies had as much in them of old as the Latin hath now, yet who would believe that St. Paul and St. .James alluded rather to the book of Judith than to the book of Numbers,* where they that were destroyed by the destroyer are upon record at large, and to the book of Genesis,f where the story of Abraham is recited, together with the second book of the Chronicles,! where Abraham is called the friend of God, and the book of Esay,|l where God himself saith of him, "Abraham my friend ^ — Cosin, Scholast. Hist. Can., p. 2'>. * Numb, xiv., xvi. f (icn. xv.-xviii. J 2 Chron. xx. 7. j| Isa. xli. 8. 564 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lett. IX. found fully recorded in the books of ]\Ioses. The passage in Judith, therefore, is just as much a quotation from the Pentateuch as that of Paul. Strictly, however, neither passage is a quotation. Both ^Titers have simply availed themselves of the same facts to inculcate lessons of piety and wisdom. Your fourth passage is equally unfortunate. Matthew xiii. 43 is not a quotation from the book of Wisdom, but is a palpable allusion to Daniel xi. 3 and Proverbs iv. 18. The passage in Matthew is, " Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father." The passage in Wisdom is, " In the time of their visitation they shall shine and run to and fro like sparks among the stubble." Now, how is it possible that "running to and fro like sparks among the stubble " could ever suggest the idea of the brilliancy of the sun in the firmament of heaven ? If in the book of Wisdom it had been written that the right- eous should be like glow-worms or fire-flies, there would have been just as solid foundations for saying that this gave rise to the magnificent image of the Saviour in depicting the fate of the just at the end of the world. The expres- sion in Daniel is suited to the dignity of the subject: " They that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament," or as it is in Proverbs, " The path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day." Equally futile is your attempt to make 1 Cor. vi. 2 a quotation from Wisdom iii. 8. It is, in fact, only another form of stating the promise that the kingdom and the great- ness of the kingdom under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the most high God. Paul had before his mind the ultimate triumph of the kingdom of God, Avhich is the burden of prophetic inspiration and the constant subject of believing prayer. We have precisely the same idea in Psalm xlix. 14 : " Like sheep they are laid in the grave ; death shall feed on them, and the uprigiit Lett. IX.] IT IS NOT QUOTED IN NEW TESTAMENT. 565 .shall have domiuiou over them in the morning." And in Daniel vii. 32: "Judgment was given to the saints of the ]Most High, and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom." Wisdom^ iv. 10 and Hebrews xi. 15 are both in pointed reference to Genesis v. 22-24, and therefore neither is a quotation from the other. Paul was not in the habit of dealing with second-hand authorities. He therefore goes to the original record for the history of Enoch, and not to a doubtful and obscure writer some centuries afterwards. 1 " In the first place, for the canonizing of the book of Wisdom they produce St. Paul, and say that Kom. xi. 34 (Who hath made known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been His counsellor ?) is taken out of W^isdom ix. 13 (For what man is he that can know the counsel of God, or who can think what the will of the Lord is?). But Gretser is .somewhat ashamed of this instance, and our answer to it is, that the sentence which St. Paul citeth is clearly taken out of Esay xl. 13, where both the sense and the words (in that translation which the Apostle followed) are alto- gether the same, as in the book of Wisdom they are not. Secondly, as much may we say to what they note upon Heb. i. 3, where Christ is called the brightness of His Father's glory, alluding to Sap. vii. 26, where Wis- dom is called the brightness of everlasting light. For as it is not certain whether St. Paul ever saw that book of Wisdom or no, which, for aught we know, was not extant before his time, nor compiled by any other author than Philo, the Hellenist Jew of Alexandria, so there be several expres- sions in the undoubted Scriptures concerning the representation, the splen- dour, the wisdom and the glory of God, whereunto he might allude in this his Epistle to the Hebrews, as he had done before in hLs Epistle to the Colossians and in his second Epistle to the Corinthians, setting forth Christ there to be the image of the invisible God and the first-born of every creature, by whom all things were created, and do still consist; the substance and ground whereof may be found in Ezekiel i. 28 ; Isaiah ix. 6 and Ix. 1 ; Psalm ii. 7 and cxxxvi. 5 ; 2 Samuel vii. 14 ; Jeremiah li. 15 and x. 12 ; to some of which places the Apostle himself refers in this place to the Hebrews. Thirdly, that which is said of Enoch (Heb. xi. 5) needs not the book of Wisdom to confirm it, for the story is clear in Genesi.s, and in the translation of the Septuagint (which St. Paul followed) the words are alike. Fourthly, that the powers which be are ordained of God was said by the wisdom of God itself in Solomon (Prov. viii. 15, 16) ; and, fiftlily, that God is no accepter of persons is taken out of the words of Moses in Deuter- onomy (x. 17). And yet there are that refer both these maxims to the book of Wisdom, ^as if St. Paul had found them nowhere else." — Cosin, Scholast. Hist. Can., pp. 23, 24. 566 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lett. IX. On comparing Heb. i. 3 with Wisdom vii. 26, there is but a single word which they possess in common. The ideas are evidently not the same ; Paul is treating of a person, and the author of Wisdom of an attribute. How the use of a solitary word can establish a coincidence in the passages themselves I am utterly unable to compre- hend. To make out a quotation or a reference there must be either identity of expression or identity of thought, and where neither is found no quotation exists. Romans xi. 34, if quoted at all, is quoted from Isaiah and not from Wisdom. The prominent idea of the passage fre- quently occurs both in Job and the Prophet : Job xv. 8 ; Isaiah Ix. 13, etc. The analogy in Rom. ix. 21 occurs in Jeremiah and Proverbs as well as the book of Wisdom: Jer. xviii. 6 ; Prov. xvi. 4. Romans i. 20 is a plain allu- sion to the nineteenth Psalm. The passage in Eph. vi. 13- 20 is much more analogous to Isaiah lix. 17 than to any- thing that occurs in the book of Wisdom. It is evidently, however, an original passage. The preceding train of thought naturally and obviously suggested this beautiful account of Christian armour ; it grew almost unavoidably out of the metaphor employed. Romans i. 20 is in evident allusion to Psalm xix. 1, and not, as you pretend, to Wisdom xiii. 4, 5. The connection between love and obedience is one of the most familiar and common ideas in the whole Pentateuch. You will find it in Deut. vi. 5, 6; x. 12, etc.; and it is just this connection which our Saviour insists on in John xiv. 15-22. Proverbs xv. 27; xx. 21 are much more analogous to 1 Tim, vi. 9 than the passage which you have extracted from Ecclesiasticus. The train of thought in the parable of the rich fool in the Gospel might have been more readily discovered in the Psalms of David than the obscure author- ity to which you have referred us. (See Ps. Ixix. 10, seq.) ^Matthew xix. 17 is plainly a reference to hev. xviii. 5. That Hebrews xi. 35 contains a reference to 2 Maccabees Lett. IX.] IT IS NOT QUOTED IX ^'E^V TESTAMENT. 567 vi. 18-31, in "which an account i.s given of fhe martyrdom of Eleazar, is not so certain as you seem to apprehend ; even if it were certain, nothing is proved but the historical fidelity of the narrative, which is far from being identical with inspiration.^ I have now noticed the several instances in which you profess to have discovered traces of the Apocrypha in the writers of the Xew Testament; and I think that any candid reader must be fully convinced that in every case in which an allusion exists at all, it is to the Jewish Canon, and not to the corrupt additions of the Council of Trent. But still nothing would be gained by satisfactory proof that Christ and his Apostles made use of the Apocrypha. Mere quota- tions prove nothing but the existence of the books from which they are made. Paul introduces lines from the heathen poets in various parts of his writings, and many have supposed that a striking analogy subsists between por- tions of the Gospel of John and the speculations of Philo. Nothing is gained, therefore, in behalf of the inspiration of the Apocryphal books by proving that quotations were made from them by Christ and his Apostles. This may 1 " "Where for the persons the mutter is not so sure. For other men are of another mind, and Pauhis Burgeusis (whose additions have the honour, even among the Romanists themselves, to be printed with Lyra's Notes and the ordinary gloss upon the Bible) understands not St. Paul here to have spoken of Eleazar and his brethren in the time of the Maccabees, but of the saints and martyrs of God that had been tortured in his own time, under the New Testament. And for the canonical authority of the book (if any book be here cited), whatever it was, the reference here made to it gave it no more authority of authentic Scripture than the words imme- diately following gave to another received story among the Hebrews, that lOsay the Prophet was sawn asunder to death. Whereunto, though the Apostle might have reference when he said, The^J were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword, they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, tormented, yet who ever made all these instances before St. Paul wrote them to be authentic and canonical Scripture? or who can with reason deny (if Monsieur Perron's rea.son were good) but that the story of Esay's death ought to be canon- ized, as well as the story of Eleazar and his seven brethren in the Mac- cabees, seeing there is as much reason for the one as there can be given for the otlier?" — Cosin, Scholast. Hist Can., pp. 27, 28^ 568 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lett. IX. have been done, and yet the books themselves be entitled to no more reverence than Tally's Offices or Seneca's Epistles.^ In the progress of this discussion your apparent want of acquaintance with the Word of God has struck me with painful and humiliating force. The books in your Bible which you seem to have studied the most are those which the Church of God, in ancient and modern times, has unanimously excluded from the sacred Canon. The Law and the Prophets, to which our Saviour so often alludes, seem to be unknown to you ; and however clear his refer- ences to these venerable documents, you can seize upon nothing but Tobit, Judith and Wisdom. If you find a single phrase which can be tortured into a remote approxi- mation to coincidence of thought, you instantly leap for joy like Archimedes from his bath, and expose yourself in the ecstasy of your delight. In a paraphrase of a passage in Tobit you scent out the golden rule of the Son of God, though that rule had been revealed in the Law of the Lord centuries before Tobit was born or blind. In that same precious compound of superstition and folly you meet with something about the city of the Jews adorned with gold, jasper and precious stones, and behold! the magnificent description of the entranced Apostle dAvindles down into a puerile plagiarism; sparks and stubble give you the clue to the glorious picture which our Saviour has drawn of the final condition of the blessed ; and Paul cannot allude to the ultimate triumphs of the kingdom of God without being indebted to a feeble passage in the book of Wisdom. There was an eflTort to destroy the fame of the author of Paradise Lost by robbing him of the praise of original invention in his noble production. The immortal bard was denounced as a plagiary. Permit me to say that you have succeeded no better than the wretched slanderer of the greatest, brightest, most glorious name that adorns the ^ Vide, on this subject of quotations, Rainoldi Censui'a Libroruni Apoc- rypliorum, Pra4ectio»vii., vol. i., p. 77. Lett. X.] APOCRYPHA AND THE JEWISH CANON. 569 annals of English literature. The case was much more plausibly made out that Milton borrowed from obscurer men than that Christ and His Apostles have quoted from the Apocrypha. LETTER X. THE APOCRYPHA AND THE JEWISH CANON. I HAVE now reached the third partition of your letters, in which you attempt — whether successfully or not remains yet to be determined — to refute my arguments against the inspiration of the Apocrypha. You have undertaken to show that the authors of these books wrote "as they were moved by the Holy Ghost/' and that their productions are, by consequence, entitled to equal veneration and authority with the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms. As your refutation begins with a desultory notice of my first argument, it will be necessary to present the argument itself distinctly but briefly, and then discuss the validity of your reply. I assumed as true what is capable of being proved by abundant testimony, and what you yourself have freely admitted, that these books are not to be found in the Jewish Canon. The question naturally arises why they were excluded, or, what is substantially the same, why they were not introduced: my answer was, Because they were not inspired. That their exclusion from the Jewish Canon is satisfactory evidence to us that they were destitute of Divine authority was made to appear from a very simple and conclusive process of reasoning. If they were inspired, the Canon of the Jews was evidently defective, as it failed to present the ichole rule of faith which God had revealed to the Church. But that no such defect existed in their sacred library was made to appear from the silence of our Saviour, who nowhere insinuates that their standard of faith was incomplete, and — what is still more conclusive — 570 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISC"USSED. [Lett. X. from his recorded approbation of the Jewish Canon just as it stood. Their Canon, then, could not possibly have been defective, and therefore the Apocrypha could not possibly have been inspired. The leading proposition of ray argu- ment was of that peculiar species in which the destruction or removal of the consequent is, by logical necessity, the destruction or removal of the antecedent. The only points, therefore, in which, as the Schoolmen would have informed you, this argument could have been successfully assailed were in the connection of the two propositions Mdiich con- stitute the hypothesis on which it rests, or the validity of the process by which the consequent was denied. To give a complete and satisfactory refutation you would be required to show either that the rejection of the Apocrypha from the Canon of the Jews, though written by inspiration of God, did not render it defective, or that the Canon was not sanc- tioned as complete by Jesus Christ and his Apostles. As to the first, you have entirely mistaken the point of my argument in supposing that it turned essentially upon the proof of moral delinquency in the Jews in excluding the Apocrypha from their sacred library. It is true, sir, that I cannot conceive how the writers of those books could possibly have been Prophets, and yet no- evidence of the fact be made to appear until centuries after they were dead. If they had been sent of God as teachers to their own gen- eration or to generations which were then unborn, some credentials of their Divine commission would seem to be essential. They would either have been charged with the power of performing wonders which none could achieve unless God were with him, or their heavenly vocation would have been attested by those who were known to be possessed of the Holy Ghost. There would surely have been some evidence — enough to constitute an adequate foundation of faith — that these writers were messengers of God, declaring the things which they had received from Him. In con- formity with the old logical maxim, de non existentibus et non apparentibus eadem est ratio, they might just as well not be Lett. X.] APOCRYPHA AND THE JEWISH CANON. 571 inspired at all as not be able to authenticate the fact. Un- proved inspiration is to the reader no inspiration. Hence, I did not regard it as a violent assumption that if these men were really inspired there must have existed satisfactory evidence of their Divine illumination. You yourself have told us that "when Almighty God deigned to inspire the works contained in the Holy Scriptures, He intended they should be held and believed to be inspired." Accordingly, sir, the authors of the Apocrypha must have presented to their contemporaries such attestations of their commission from Heaven as to have rendered obedience imperative and faith indispensable. The Jews, therefore, in rejecting their productions from the sacred Canon must have resisted the authority of God, and in pronouncing them not to be in- spired must have been guilty of a flagrant fraud. The charge of fraud, however — which, of course, is hypo- thetically made — is only incidentally introduced, and does not constitute, as in your reply you seem to have suj^posed, the essence of the argument. It was urged chiefly for the purpose of setting in a strong light the moral necessity whi(;li to my mind seemed to rest upon the Saviour of vindicating the authority of these books, if, as you pretend, they were really the Word of God. The real difficulty which the Romanist is required to explain is, how a document could be perfect and complete when one-fifth of its pages were actually omitted. Every book which God had given to the Jews, through the Divine inspiration of His Prophets, was entitled to be a part of their rule of faith; and a complete collection of such books would constitute their Canon or entire rule of faith. Now, if the Apocrypha were inspired productions, even Trent being witness, they were canonical, and therefore their pres- ence was indispensably essential to the integrity of the Canon. They were a part of the rule Avhich God had given, and yet our Saviour treats the rule as 'perfect when it is miserably cheated of its fair proportions — that is, upon this new system of Pai)al mathematics, some of the parts 572 AEGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lett. X. are made equal to the whole. Such is the substance of the argument which you were required to answer. Every step was so plainly stated in my original essay that I do not see how you failed to understand it. Now, sir, what is your answer? To what you conceive to be the leading proposi- tion of my argument you have nothing to reply but that the Jews might possibly have been ignorant of the super- natural character of the books, or that no public tribunal existed possessed of legitimate authority to introduce them into the Canon. Your answer consists, in other words, of nothing more nor less than a pitiful defence of the honesty of the Jews ! The ancient people of God were guilty of no fraud in rejecting a host of canonical books because they had not the means of ascertaining that the books were in- spired ! They were not to blame. God had furnished them with no satisfactory proofs that the Apocryphal authors were His Prophets, and therefore they were not at liberty to treat their compositions as clothed with Divine author- ity! Your answer, sir, is such a wonderful specimen of reasoning that you must excuse me for presenting it and my argument in the form of conditional syllogisms. My argument was : If the Apocrypha were inspired the Canon of the Jews was defective ; but the Canon of the Jews was not defective; therefore the Apocrypha were not inspired. Now the reader will observe that the validity of the argu- ment does not depend upon the causes which induced the Jews to exclude the Apocrypha, but simply upon the fact that they were excluded. The causes might have been ignorance or fraud; as I intimated in the original essay, the fact is all that is essential. Your answer is : If there is not satisfactory evidence that a book is inspired, there is no fraud in excluding it from the Canon; there was not satisfactory evidence that the Apocrypha were inspired; therefore there was no fraud in excluding them from the Canon. What now is the conclusion of this resistless logic? What end is answered or what point is gained? It follows, we are told, for we have to receive it on authority, that my Lett. X.] APOCRYPHA AND THE JEWISH CANOX. 573 "argument is valueless and crumbles under its own irresist- ible weight." You exhibit the tact of a practised logician in evading the point of my argument, and, like an artful pupil, when the question proposed by the master is too hard you ayiHicer another. You are aware, sir, that the very existence of your cause depends upon the truth of my consequent, and accordingly whatever of reasoning there is in your essay is devoted to the proofs by which my minor jjroposition was established. You deny, in other words, that Jesus Christ or His Apostles ever treated the Jewish Canon as possessed of Divine author- ity, or even referred to it at all. In refuting this extrava- gant assertion I must correct a series of errors (into one of which you were led by Du Pin) which tinge your whole performance, and which, when once detected, leave in a pitiable plight nine-tenths of your second epistle. Your fundamental error consists in your restricted application of the term Canon to a mere catalogue or list. The common metaphorical meaning of the Greek word xavojv, as I have already had occasion to remark, is a rule or measur'c. In this sense it is used by the classical writers of antiquity, as well as by the great Apostle of the Gentiles. The subor- dinate meanings which we find attached to it in Suicer and Du Fresne may be easily deduced from its original applica- tion to a rule or measure. In the early ecclesiastical wri- ters it is sometimes employed, as Eichhorn properly ob- serves, to designate simply a book, and particularly a book that served in general for the use of the Church. The col- lection of hymns -which was to be sung on festivals, and the list of members who were connected with the Church, re- ceived alike this common appellation. Again, it was apj^lied to the approved catalogue of books that might be read in the public assemblies of the faithful for instruction and edification; and in modern times it is used to designate those inspired writings which constitute the rule of faitli.^ ^ Eichhom's Einleitung, vol. i., cap, 1, § 15, pp. 102, 103. The text is almost a literal translation of the passage. 574 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lett. X. The Scriptures therefore are said to be canonical, not be- cause their various books are numbered in a list or digested into any particular order, but because they are authoritative standards of Divine truth; and the whole collection of sacred writings is called by pre-eminence the Canon, not because it is a collection, but because, in embodied form, it presents the entire rule of faith.^ It is inspiration, there- fore, and that alone, which entitles a book to be regarded as canonical, because it is inspiration alone that invests it with authority to command our faith. If there were but one in- spired book on the face of the earth, that book would be ^ " The infinitely good God, having favoured mankind with a revelation of His will, has thereby obliged all those who are blessed with the know- ledge thereof to regard it as the unerring rule of their faith and practice. Under this character, the Prophets, Apostles and other writers of tlie sacred books published and delivered them to the world; and on this account they were dignified above all others with the titles of the Canon and the canonical. The word Canon is originally Greek, and did, in that language, as well as in the Latin afterward, commonly denote that which ivas a rule or standard by which other things were to be examined and judged. And inasmuch as the books of inspiration contained the most remarkable rules and the most important directions of all others, the collection of them in time obtained the name of the Canon, and each book was called canonical." — Jones^ New and Full Method for Settling the Canon, etc. ; pt. 1, c. i., p. 17, vol. i. See also Lardner's Supple., chap. 1, | 3, vol. v., p. 257 of Works; Chalmers' Evidences of Christianity, Book iv., chap. 1 ; Owen on Hebrews, Exercit. i., | 2. That the definition which has been given in the text is abundantly confirmed by approved Papal authorities, the fol- lowing extracts will place beyond question. Ferus says : Scriptura dicitur canonica, id est, regularis, quia a Deo nobis data vita? et veritatis regula, qua omnia probamus et juxta quam vivamus. Jacobus Andradius says : Minime sibi displicere eorum sententiam, qui canonicos ideo appellari dicunt [Scripturse] libros quia pietatis et fidei et religionis Canonem, hoc est, regulam atque normam e ccelis aummo Dei beneficio ad nos delatam continent amplissimam. Nam cum omnipotentis Dei incorruptissima et integerrima voluntas humanarum esse debat actionum et voluntatum norma : merito sana a canone et regula nomeu accipere ii codices debuere, quibus Divina raysteria atque voluntas comprehensa. And Bellarniine, whom Rainold styles the Prince of Jesuits, affirms: Kemnitium recte deduxisse ex Augustino, libros sacros Scriptune ideo dictos canonicns, quod sint instar regulse. These extracts may be found in Bainol. Censura, Prajlect. iv., vol. i., p. 61. Lett. X.] APOCRYPHA AND THE JEWISH CANON. 575 the Canon, though it would be perfectly absurd to talk of a catalogue or list of one book. Accordingly, the distin- guished German critic to whom I have already referred treats canonical and inspired as synonymous terms. The Jews, it is important to state, did not appl^ the term Canon to the collection of their sacred writings. They described the books themselves in terms expressive of their Divine origin, arranged them in convenient general divisions, but did not confine themselves to any one specific enumeration. The books were computed indiscriminately, so as to suit the number of letters either in the Hebrew or Greek alphabets. The Jews knew nothing of the magic of a list. Philo and Josephus, for instance, never speak of the "Canon," but of the "compositions of their prophets," their "sacred books," "the oracles of God," using such terms as denoted inspira- tion. This was the only canonical authority of which they dreamed. This it was that distinguished their books from the works of the Gentiles, and exalted their faith above the deductions of a fallible philosophy. If, then, canonical and inspired, as applied to the Scriptures, are synonymous terms, to insert a book in the Canon is simply to be convinced of its Divine inspiration. The very evidence which J)roves it to come from God makes it canonical. In other words, the ])roofs of inspiration and the proofs of canonical authority are one and the same thing. Hence, instead of requiring some great and imposing assembly, like the cheneseth haga- dolah of the Jews or your own favourite Council of Trent, to settle the Canon of Scripture, it is a work which every one must achieve for himself. The external proofs of in- spiration which consist in the signs of an Apostle or a Pro- phet— found either in the writer himself, or some one com- missioned to vouch for his production — are as easy and ol>- vious as the external proof that any body of men are supcr- naturally guarded from error.' * "The inspiration of a writer," says Jahn, "can only be proved by Di- vine testimony. Nevertheless, nothing more can be required than that a man who has proved his Divine miracles or prophecies should assert that 576 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lett. X. The contemporaries of Moses would know, from the miraculous credentials by which his commission was sus- tained, that his compositions were the supernatural dictates of God. They would consequently be a canon to his coun- trymen. As other Prophets successively arose, their instruc- tions, supported by similar credentials, would receive a simi- lar distinction. The Canon in this way would be gradually enlarged. Writers might be found who gave no external proofs themselves that they wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, and yet their writings might be authenti- cated by those who were unquestionably possessed of the prophetic spirit, and on this account these compositions would also be added to the existing Canon. We read in the Scriptures that " all Israel, from Dan even to Beer- sheba, knew that Samuel was established to be a Prophet of the Lord." (1 Sam. iv. 20.) How did they know it? There was no great synagogue to publish the fact or authen- ticate its truth. There was no great council to settle the matter by an infallible canon, but there was something better and higher : " The Lord was with him," and attested by miracles the supernatural character of His servant. Now, precisely in the same way could the claims of every other Prophet be established, and the evidences of Divine inspi- ration be speedily and extensively diffused. The sacred books circulated among the people, as well as preserved in the Library of the Temple^ by the priests, would have every moral protection from corruption, forgery or frauds. The innovations of the priests would be speedily detected by the people, and the changes of the people just as readily exposed by the priests. In the multitude of copies, as in the book or books in question are free from error." — Introduct. 0. T., cap. ii., pp. 34, 35, Turner's Translation. The reader will find this subject very clearly presented in Sermon xxiii. of Van Mildert's Boyle Lectures. ^ The existence of such a Temple Library will hardly be disputed by any sober critic. Traces of it may be found before the captivity in Deut. xxxi. 26 ; Joshua xxiv. 26 ; 1 Samuel x. 25. After the captivity the evi- dence is complete : Josephus, Antiq., L. iii., c. i., § 7 ; L. v., c. i., ? 17 ; De Bello. Jud., L. vii., c. v., § 5. See also Eichhorn, Einleit., vol. i., § 3. Lett. X.] APOCRYPHA AND THE JEWISH CAXOX. 577 the mtiltitude of counsellors, there M'ould be safety.^ To this must be added the sleepless providence of God, which would preserve His AYord, which He hath exalted above every other manifestation of His name, amid all the assaults of its enemies, and transmit it to future generations unim- paired by the fires of persecution, as the burning bush was protected from the flame.^ It is a favourite scheme of the Papists to represent the settling of the Canon as a work of gigantic toil and formid- able mystery. It evidently, however, reduces itself to a. simple question of fact : What books were written by men whose claims to inspiration were either directly or remotely established by miracles ? It is a question, therefore, of no more difficulty than the authenticity of the sacred books. To illustrate the matter in the case of the New Testament : the churches that received the Epistles from Paul could have had no doubts of their canonical authority, because they kneM' that the Apostle was supernaturally inspired as a teacher of the faith. He produced in abundance the signs of an Apostle. So also the writings of the other Apostles would be recognized by their contemporary brethren as the Word of the Lord. The books actually Avritten by the Ajiostlcs or approved by their sanction would be known by living witnesses of the fact. The historical proofs of this fact — that is, the testimony of credible witnesses — would be sufficient in all future time to attest the inspiration of any given work. If a man, for example, in the third cen- tury is doubtful of the Epistle to the Romans, all that is necessary to settle his mind is to convince him that Paul actually wrote it. This being done, its inspiration follows as a matter of course. If a book, on the other hand, Avhich pretended to be inspired could produce no adequate proofs of 1 This subject is ably discussed by Abbadie in a short compass. See Clirist. Relig., vol. i., § 3, c. 6. ^ Upon the manner in which the Canon was gradually formed, and for a full and satisfactory explanation of the doubts wliich existed in the primitive Church in reference to some of the l)ooks of the New Testa- ment, see Lancaster's Bampton Lectures. Vol. hi.— 37 578 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED, [Lett. X. apostolic origin or apostolic sanction, its claims Avould have to be rejected, unless its author could exhibit in his own person the signs of a heavenly messenger. The congrega- tions in possession of inspired records were accustomed, as we gather from the Apostles themselves, to transmit their treasures to the rest of their brethren, so that in process of time this free circulation of the sacred books would put them in the hands of all the portions of the Church ; and as each Church became satisfied of their apostolic origin, it received them likewise as canonical and Divine, and in this way a common Canon was gradually settled. The idea that a council or any mere ecclesiastical body could settle the Canon is perfectly preposterous. To settle the Canon is to settle the inspiration of the sacred books ; to settle the inspiration of the sacred books is to prove that they were written by Divine Prophets; and to prove this fact is to prove either that the Prophets themselves established their pretensions by miraculous achievements, or were sanctioned by those who were already in possession of supernatural credentials. Now, what can a council do in a matter of this sort but give the testimony of the men who compose it? Its authority as a council is nothing. It may be en- titled to deference and respect as embodying the testimony of credible witnesses. Everything, however, will depend upon the honesty, accuracy, fidelity and opportunities of the individual members who constitute the synod. Having now shown what a canon is, how a book is deter- mined to be canonical, and how the Canon was gradually collected, little need be said in refutation of your extrava- gant account of the origin and settlement of the Canon of the Jews. I could have predicted beforehand, from your known partiality for synods and councils, that you would liave found in 'the great synagogue of Ezra an adequate tribunal for adjusting the rule of faith. You would never, at least, have rested in your inquiries until you had met with some body of men in whose decision your Papal proclivity to con- Lett. X.] APOCRYPHA AND THE JEWISH CANON. 579 fide in the authority of man niiglit be humoured or indulged. As to the wolf in the fable no possible combination of let- ters could be made to s})cll anything luit agnus, so your inherent love for a Council would lead you to embrace any floating tradition by which you could construct a plausible story that such a tribunal had settled the Canon of the Jews. But, sir, where is the proof that this great synagogue ever existed ? The fii-st notice which we have of it is contained in the Talmud, a book which began about five hundred years after this synagogue is said to have perished. You are more modest, however, than some of your predecessors. Genebrard, not content, like yourself, with a single council, has fabricated two other synods to complete the work which Ezra had begun.* By one of these imaginary bodies the books of Tobias and Ecclesiasticus were added to the Canon, and by the other the remaining works of the Ai)ocrypha. The great synagogue which you have endorsed was a reg- ular ecclesiastical body, in which might be discerned, to use your own words, " a general council of the Church in the old law, claiming and exercising by the authority of God the power of teaching the faithful what were the inspired books." Beyond the traditions of the Rabbins, what evi- dence are you able to produce that a body so evidently extra- ordinary as this is reported to have been is anything more than a fiction ? You are probably aware, sir, that Jahn pro- nounces the story to be a fable, in which he is confirmed by what in a question of literary criticism is still higher author- ity, the opinion of Eichhorn.^ We are not wanting in ' Hottinger, Thesaur. Phil., Lib. i., c. i., quest. 1, p. 110. * "The Jews attribute the establishment of the Canon to what they call the Great iSyiiagogne, Avhich during more than two hundred years, from Zerubbabel down to Simon the Just, wa.s composed of the prophets and the most eminent men of the nation. But the whole story respecting this synagogue, which first occurs in the Talmud, is utterly unworthy of credit. It is evidently a fictitious representation of the historic truth that the men who are said to have constituted the synagogue were chiefly instru- mental in the new regulation of the State, and in the constitution of the Jewish Church, and consequently in the collecting and fixing the holy 580 AEGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lktt. X. Jewish writers from the period of Ezra to the advent of Christ and the compilation of the Tahuud, and it is certainly astonishing, if the synagogue had been a historical entity of so much importance as the traditions of the Rabbins ascribe to it, that some authentic notice has not been taken of its history, organization and proceedings. How, sir, will you explain this wonderful phenomenon? Then, again, the one hundred and twenty men who composed this assembly are said all to have flourished at the same time, and so Daniel and Simon the Just are made contemporaries, although there could have been, according to Prideaux, little less than two hundred and fifty years between them. The whole story is so ridiculous and absurd as to carry the stamp of talse- hood upon its face. It no doubt arose from the fact that Ezra was assisted in restoring the constitution of the Jewish State, and publishing a correct edition of the Scriptures of the Canon as already existing, by the " principal elders, who lived in a continual succession from the first return of the Jews after the Babylonish captivity to the death of Simon the Just." ^ That Ezra could not have settled the Canon of Scripture is clear from the fact that most of .the books already existed and were known to be the compositions of Prophets. There is no evidence that he furnished addi- tional proof of the inspiration of Moses, David or Isaiah, and yet this he must have done if he made them canonical.^ books upon wliicli this constitution was established." — Jahn's Introd., Tur- ner's Trans., p. 45. See also Eichhorn's Einleit., vol. i., § 5. An account of this great syna- gogue may be found in Bartolocci, Bibliotheca Eabbinica, vol. iv.,p. 2, on the word " Cheneseth Hagadolah ;" Buxtorf, Tiberias, c. x., xi. ; Leusden, Philol. Heb., Dissert, ix., § 4, p. 73. • Prideaux, Part I., book iv., p. 265. In addition to the authority of Jahn, see also Knapp's Lectures, vol. i., art. i., § 4, p. 81. -' " But the great work of Ezra was his collecting together and setting forth a correct edition of the Holy Scriptures, which he laboured much in, and went a great way in the perfecting of it. This both Christians and Jews gave him the honour of, and many of the ancient Fathers attribute more to him in this particular than the Jews themselves ; for they hold that all the Scriptures were lost and destroyed in the Babylonish captivity, and that Ezra restored them all again by Divine inspiration. Thus saitli Lett. X.] APOCRYPHA AND THE JEWISH CANON. 581 T]ie truth is, he did nothing- more in reference to existing books than discharge the duties of a critical editor. His labours were precisely of tlie same kind as those of Gries- bach, Knapp and Mill. He might have been guided by inspiration in executing these functions, for he was con- fessedly an inspired man, but the ancient books which he published were just as canonical before he was born as they were after he was dead. '^AMiat authority," you state with ineffable simplicity, " they [the Jews] thought necessary and sufficient to amend the Canon I have never met laid down by any of them. Nor do they treat of the evidence sufficient to establish the inspiration of a book." The authority, it is plain, is the evidence of inspiration, and that, in its external division, is the exhibition of miraculous credentials. Whoever claimed to be inspired, and sustained his pretensions by signs and A\onders which none could do unless God were with him, was in fact inspired, and whatever he wrote under the in- fluence of inspiration belonged of necessity to the Canon. ^ Irenreus, and thus say Tertullian, Clemens Alexandrinus, Basil and others. But they had no other foundation for it than that fabulous relation which we have of it in the 14th chapter of the second Apocryphal book of Esdras — a book too absurd for the Eomanists themselves to receive into their Canon." — Prideaux, Part I., book iv., p. 270. 1 "In the case of a person claiming to be commissioned witli a message from God, the only proof which ought to be admitted is miraculous attest- ation of some sort. It should be required that either the person himself should work a miracle, or that a miracle should be so wrought in comicc- tion with his ministry as to remove all doubt of its reference to him and his message. The miracle, in these cases, is, in feet, a specimen of that violation of the ordinary course of nature which the person inspired is asserting to have taken place in his appointment and ministry; and cor- responds to the exhibition of specimens and experiments which we should require of a geologist, mineralogist or chemist if he asserted his discovery of any natural phenomena, especially of any at variance with received theories." — Hinds on Inspiration, pp. 9, 10. "The Bible is said to be inspired in no other sense than the government of the Israelites miglit be termed inspired ; that is, the persons who wrote the Bible, and those wlio were appointed to govern God's people of old, were divinely com- missioned and miraculously qualified, as far as was needful, for their re- spective employments. This being so, the inspiration of Scripture Ls not, 582 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lett. X. Your distinction, accordingly, between not inserting a book really inspired in a canon, and rejecting it from a canon through defect of proof or want of authority, is wholly gratuitous and absurd. As the only way in Avhich a book can be inserted into the Canon is to acknowledge its Divine authority as a rule of faith — that is, to receive it as inspired — so the only way of rejecting it is to deny or not be convinced of its inspiration. A book cannot be re- jected after its inspiration is established ; Ave may refuse to obey its instructions, but if we know it to be inspired, it must be regarded as speaking with authority. Whether we hear or whether we forbear, it still is entitled to be con- sidered as a rule. Those that would not submit to the government of Christ were still treated and punished as his subjects. His right of dominion was not at all impaired by their disobedience. You are quite mistaken, therefore, in su]>posing that the charge of rejecting the Apocrypha from the Canon cannot be sustained against the Jews, unless they had proof that these books were inspired, and possessed a tribunal whose function it was to insert them into the Canon. They were rejected from the Canon, from the very nature of the case, if they were not believed to be inspired.^ by the strict rule of division, opposed to the inspiration of persons, but forms one branch of that multifarious ministry in which those persons were engaged The proof requisite for establishing the Divine authority of any writings, when, as in the case of the Bible, the testimonial miracles of the authors can be no longer witnessed, is either — 1, That some miracle be implied in the authorship; or, 2, That there be satisfactory testimony that the writers were persons who performed miracles; or, 3, That there be satisfactory testimony that the writings were recognized as works of inspiration by persons who must have been assured of this on the evidence of miracles." — Ibid., p. 27, 28. ^ I find that Kainold in his admirable work has taken the same view. In rebutting the very distinction of A. P. F., which, in the days of this great scholar, was urged by Canus and Sixtus Sonensis, he thus proceeds : "Concidit ergo alterum exceptionis Sixti membrum : nunc ad altenini, quod ita habet : Etsi non recepcrunt in can.onem, (amen non rejecerunt ; alind enim non recipere, aliud rejiccre. At idem plane est ad id de quo agimus, non accipere et rejicere. Nam mutemus verba prioris ratiocina- Lett. X.] APOCRYPHA AND THE JEWISH CANON. 583 All your blunders upon this subject have arisen from the ambiguity of the Avord Canon, and from the preposterous idea that there is something peculiarly mysterious and pro- found in making a collection of sacred works. It seems never to have entered your head that there is nothing more wonderful or abstruse in gathering together the accredited writings of the Holy Ghost than in making a collection of the acknowledged publications of a human author. The difficulty of the subject is not in the collection, but in the ])roof that the separate pieces, in either case, are genuine. Inspiration is the mark of a genuine work of the Spirit, and miracles are the infallible marks of inspiration. Those preliminary suggestions in reference to the nature and authority of the Canon furnish the keys to a satisfactory solution of all your difficulties. Your refutation of the minor proposition of my argument will be found so essen- tially wanting in every element of strength that it may safely be pronounced as worthless as you have represented my own to be, and will assuredly " crumble under its own irresistible weight." tionis nostrce, et dicamus: Si quce unquam Ecclesia verum et cerium testimo- nium dare potuit de Libris canonicis Saerce Scriptura, de Libris certe Veieris Teslamenti vetus Ecclesia Judaica potuit. At ea has, qui sunt in controversia, libros in canonem nan recipit. Ergo recipiendi non sunt. Quid jam lucra- tus est Canus? Nobis satis probasse non esse recipiendos, quod enim Christus apud Matthseum dicit, qui vos recipit, me recipit, id apud Lucam sic effertur, qui vos rejicit, me rejicit, et alibi qui non colligil mecum spargit : hie non recipi est rejici, ut in virtutis via regreditur, quicunque non pro- greditur, et in Apocalypsi, foris erunt canes, et venefici, et scortatores, et homicidce, et idolatrce, et quisquis amat, et committit mendacium. Quid his proderit non rejici, si non recipiantur ? Verum est ista distinctio adhuc plenius refutetur, ego non modo non receptos hos libros, sed et rejectos fuisse docebo. Quid est enim rejicere, nisi negare esse canonicos? Quid non recipere, quam (ut levius in Cani gratiara interpreter) dubitare num sint recipiendi?" — Cens. Lib. Apoc, Prselect. ix.,vol. i., p. 86. 584 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lett. XL LETTER XL SILENCE OF CHRIST AS TO THE APOCRYPHA. That the Jewish Canon was not defective was made to appear from the silence of Christ in reference to any omis- sion impairing its integrity, from His recorded conversa- tions in which He evidently sanctioned it as complete, and from the instructions of His Apostles who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Your reply to these several distinct proofs of my mi- nor proposition I shall now examine in the order which seems to me to be most convenient for fully presenting the subject. First, then, you deny that our Saviour or His Apostles ever referred to the Canon of the Jews at all, and in order to give some semblance of truth to this gross and palpable error, you avail yourself of the ambiguity of a term, and endeavour to "imbosk in the dark, bushy and tangled forest" of verbal technicalities. It is freely conceded that our Sa- viour nowhere enumerates, by their specific names or titles, all the books which compose the Jewish Scriptures. He never pretended, so far as it appears from the sacred records, to give an accurate list or formal catalogue of all the in- spired writings which the Jews received as the infallible standard of supernatural truth. But what is this to the point? Even if we take canon in .your own arbitrary sense of it, you have grossly failed to sustain your mon- strous hypothesis. It is certainly one thing to refer to a canon, and quite a different thing to enumerate all the books which compose it. Such general terms as the WorT:s of Homer, the Works of Plato or the Works of Cicero evi- dently embrace a complete collection of their various per- formances ; and to refer to them under these titles is to refer to the catalogue or list of their literary labours. If the question were asked, What were the works of Ilouier? Lett. XI.] SILENCE OF CHRIST AS TO APOCRYPHA. 585 could it be answered in any other way than by enumerating the specific books of which he was supposed to be the author ? Now, if the Jews applied any general and comprehensive titles to the whole body of their sacred writings, and if our Saviour referred to these documents under those titles, he referred unquestionably to the catalogue or list of their Di- vine compositions ; that is, in your own sense, he referred unquestionably to the Canon of his countrymen. Have you yet to learn, sir, that the phrases "Scriptures," "Holy Scriptures," "Sacred Books," and such like expressions, ^\•hich are continually occurring in Philo and Josephus, Avere the common and familiar designations of those works which were believed to have proceeded from the Spirit of God?^ Have you further to learn that the division of their sacred books into three, parts, the Law, the Prophets and the rest of the books, was an ancient classification?^ Certainly, sir, there is as much evidence of these facts as of the existence of an infallible "council of the Churcli in the old law " in the days of Ezra. If, now, our Saviour and His Apostles ever referred to the inspired documents of the Jewish faith under the general and comprehensive title of the "Scriptures," or under the threefold division of their books which ancient usage had sanctioned, they re- ferred, beyond all question, to their Canon, in the sense of a catalogue or list of their Divine compositions. That they did refer, however, to the Scriptures generally, you yourself admit. How, then, can you deny the obvious conclusion, without maintaining that the general does not include the particulars, the whole is not composed of its parts? Homer » Hottiiiger, Thesaur. Phil., lib. i., c. 2, ^ 3 ; Lensden, Phil. Heb., Dis- sert, i., ? 1 ; Eichhorn, Einleit., c. i., | 0; Jahn, Introd., Prelim. Observ., U- '' That this was an ancient division may be gathered from the fact that it appears to have been of long standing in the time of .Ie.sus tlie .son of Sirach. We find it in his Prologue. See Leusdcn, Phil. Ileb., Dissert, ii., I 1 ; Ilottinger, Thesaur. Phil., lib. ii., c. i., ? 1 ; Eichhorn, Einleit., c. i., 'i 6 ; Jahn, j.t. 1., \ 103. 586 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lett. XL sometimes nodded; and you, too, in a moment of unlucky forgetfulness, have virtually acknowledged that there can be a reference to a canon when the name itself is not men- tioned, and when there is no complete enumeration of the specific books which constitute the list. You have appealed to Flavius Josephus for the purpose of showing " what were the ideas of the Jews " on the subject of their national Canon. What evidence have you, sir, that will not as clearly apply to the case of Christ and His Apostles, that Josephus, in the celebrated passage to which you allude, refers to the Canon, since he only mentions the general division of the sacred books into three leading parts, and mentions the number, not the names, of the works that be- long to each division?^ The same divisions are mentioned by our Saviour (Luke xxiv. 44) : " All things must be ful- filled which are written in the Law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me," and yet you deny that in this passage of Luke, or in any other passage of the New Testament, there is any reference at all to the Canon of the Jews ! I am at a loss to understand how a reference to a general classification when found in Josephus should be a reference to the Canon, but when found in the mouth of our Saviour should be entirely different. It is vain to allege that because Josephus mentions the number of books in each department this is equivalent to the men- ^ This passage occurs in Joseplius contra Ap., lib, i., § 8. It may be thus rendered : " For we have not innumerable books which contradict each other; but only twenty-two, which comprise the history of all times past, and are justly held to be Divine. Five of these books proceed from Moses ; they contain laws and accounts of the origin of men, and extend to his death. Accordingly, they include not much less than a period of three thousand years. From the death of Moses to the death of Artax- erxes, who, after Xerxes, reigned over the Persians, the Prophets who lived after Moses have recorded, in thirteen books, what happened in their time. The other four books contain songs of praise to God and rules of life for man. Since Artaxerxes up to our time, everything has been recorded ; but these writings are not held to be so worthy of credit as those written earlier, because after that time there was no regular suc- cession of Prophets." Lett. XI.] SILENCE OF CHRIST AS TO APOCRYPHA. 587 tion of a canon. The number of books may be gathered from the catalogue, but it is no more the catalogue itself than the general heads under which the list is arranged. If I should say that there are twenty thousand volumes in the library of the South Carolina College, would that be the same as a list of the books? If I should say that the books which it contains might be conveniently arranged under the four departments of Law, Divinity, Philosophy and Belles Lettres, and that each department contains five thousand volumes, Avould that be equivalent to a catalogue of the library? It is perfectly plain, sir, that Josephus no more gives us a list of the sacred writings of the Jews — Avhich, with you, is the only way of referring to their Canon — than Christ and His Apostles; and there is no line of argument by which you can show that he refers to the Canon in the passage which you have extracted from his works that will not also show that Christ himself refers to it in the passage recorded by Luke. You yourself, then, being judge, your broad and unqualified assertion, that "there is not in the whole New Testament a single passage showing that Christ and His Apostles ever referred to the canon, catalogue or list of inspired books held among the Jews," is a pure fabrication of the brain. Your imagina- tion was evidently coinmencing that grand process of un- real formations which finally resulted in the stupendous creation of a "general council of the Church in the old law, claiming and exercising by the authority of God the ])ower of teaching the faithful what were the inspired books." I tremble for history in this process of travail. Labouring mountains produce a mouse, but labouring priests bring forth facts from the womb of fancy, are delivered of gods in the shape of bread, and produce re- deemers in the form of saints. If, upon your own hypothesis that a canon and a list of inspired books are .synonymous terms, your position is grossly and palpably erroneous, how triumphant becomes its refutation upou tlio true view of the case, that the Canon 588 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lett. XI. of the Jews was tlicir authoritative standard of faith ! What Philo and Josephus denoted by the terms "Scriptures," "Holy Scriptures," "Sacred Books," "Oracles of God," and such like expressions, was precisely the same thin;^ which is now denoted by the compendious appellation canon. This word was not at that time in use in reference to the sacred books, but in those connections in which we would naturally use it they always employed some phraseology which indicated the Divine authority of the books. All books which were written by Prophets or inspired men belonged to the class of Holy Scriptures, and those which were destitute of any satisfactory claims to a supernatural origin were ranked in a different category. As, then, the Jews evidently meant by the Scriptures precisely what Ave mean by the Canon or canonical books, our Saviour's refer- ences, as also those of His Apostles, to the Jewish rule of faith under this general designation were references to the national Canon. Wherever the w^ord occurs in allusion to the sacred books, the corresponding term canon may be safely substituted, and not the slightest change will be made in the meaning. With these explanations I now proceed to show that our Saviour did quote, approve and sanction, as complete, the inspired rule of faith which the Jews in his own day professed to acknowledge.^ 1. First, he appealed to it under its ancient division into three general departments, the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms. Luke xxiv. 44. This, according to Leusden, was the first general partition of the sacred books. What in this category is called Psalms — the first book of a class being put for the whole class — w^as subsequently denomi- nated Hagiographa ; the phrase employed by the Jews [Ketubim) being less definite and precise. The books of ^ In my original essay I made no special references to show that Christ and His Apostles had quoted and approved the Jewish Canon, because I never dreamed that any human being would think of denying so plain a proposition. It appeared to me like proving that the sun shines at noonday. Lett. XI.] .SILENCE OF CHRIST AS TO APOCRYPHA. 589 this third division, as woukl appear from the term Ketubiin itself, were usually described by a periphrasis, as there was no general name which exactly comprehended them all. Hence, in the former Prologue of Jesus the grandson of Sirach, they are simply mentioned under the vague title of the " rest of the books." Josephus also applies to them a similar appellation. The Psalms being the first in order under the general class of Hagiographa, our Saviour, in conformity with the Jewish method of citation, mentions them as including the rest of the Ketubim.^ It ai)pears, too, that Jesus was accustomed to introduce repeated allu- sions to the books of the Okl Testament under a twofold division — which not unfrequently occurs in the remains of the Fathers— the Law and the Prophets.^ (Matt. v. 17; vii. 12; xi. 13; xxii. 40; Luke xvi. 16.) 2. Not only did Christ and His Apostles appeal to the Canon of the Jews in a general way, but they appealed to it as possessed of Divine authority. They made a broad distinction between it, and all the writings of man. Paul says expressly, in evident allusion to the sacred books of his nation, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God." (2 Tim. iii. 16.) Peter declares that " prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." Our Saviour refers the Jews to the Scriptures, Avhich they were in the habit of reading as containing the words of everlasting life, for a. satisfactory defence of His own supernatural commission. Then, again, ]iarti('ular passages are repeatedly introduced as the ipsis- siina verba of the Holy Ghost.^ These facts incontestably 1 The Paalms of our Saviour's arraiigemeiit and the Hacjiographa of later classifications are evidently the same. There being no single word l)_v which all the books of this class could be denoted, led, necessarily, to a periphrastic de.'scription, or to the mention of a single book as a reference to the series. "^ Suicer on the word ygaipii, | 7. 3 The following passages show the light in which the Jewish Canon was held bv the writers of the New Testament. I have before me a list of 590 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lett. XI. prove that the Jewish Canon was sanctioned by Christ, approved by His Apostles, and commended to the Church as the lively oracles of God. The estimate which Christ and His Apostles put upon the Scriptures of the Old Testament may be gathered from the fact that they uniformly treat Christianity as only a development of Judaism. It was a neic dispensation of an old religion. Hence, in their arguments with Jews and Gentiles, in their instructions to all classes and conditions of men, they refer to the Scriptures — ^the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms — for a Divine confirmation of all the doc- trines which they taught. The New Testament is only an inspired exposition of the principles contained in the Old. Every doctrine which Christ or His Apostles announced may be found in the existing Canon of their day. What- ever changes they made or novelties they taught respected the organization and not the essence of the Church. Hence, the primitive Christians, even before a single Gospel or Epistle had been indited, had a written rule of faith. They were never for a moment, as the Papists pretend, left to oral tradition for the doctrines of their creed. 3. But the Jewish Canon was also held to be eomplete. In the original essay this point was presented as a legiti- mate and obvious inference from the silence of the Saviour in reference to any defects in the sacred library of his coun- trymen. Now, the strength of this argument must depend on the stretigth of the presumption that if such defects in reality existed, the INIessiah would have felt Himself bound to correct and remove them. According to the hypothesis of Kome, one-fifth of the revelation of God was deprived of that equal veneration and authority to which it \vas justly entitled with the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms. Now direct quotations made from the Old Testament by the writers of the New, amounting to about 272. Yet there is no reference to the Jewish Canon 1 Matt. xi. 13, XV. 3-6, xix. 4-6, xxii. 31-43, xxvi. 54; Luke xvi. 16, 29, 31, xviii. 31, xxiv. 25-27, 44-46; Mark vii. 9, 13; John v. 39, 46, x. 34; Acts iii. 18, xxviii. 25; Rom. i. 2, iv. 3-24; Gal. iii. 8, 16; Heb. iii. 7, xii. 25; 1 Pet. i. 11; 2 Pet. i. 21. Lett. XI.] SILENCE OF CHRIST AS TO APOCRYPHA. 591 the question is, whether that great Prophet of the Church " who was clad with zeal as a cloak," who came to " mag- nify the Law and make it honourable/' and who expressly declared that He had "not refrained His lips" from speak- ing righteousness in the great congregation, nor concealed from it the truth and loving-kindness of the Lord — the ques- tion is, whether such a Prophet would suffer so large a part of the light of revelation to be extinguished without utter- ing a single word in its defence. Upwards of fourteen hun- dred years before He was born His Father had distinctly announced, " I will put my words in His mouth, and He shall speak unto them all that I shall command Him." He came, then, not only as a Priest and King, but also as a Teacher, a teacher of God's truth, and yet permitted a body of that truth almo.st equal in bulk to the whole Xew Test- ament to be " buried in the dust of death." If He raised no warning voice, no cry of expostulation, if He stood silent by when such violence was done to the sacred records of the faith, how could He say, " Thy law is within my heart, lo, I have not refrained my lips, O Lord, thou knowest"? The Jews had excluded the Apocrypha, either wilfully or ignorantly : if wilfully, they were guilty of a fraud, and that fraud ought to have been rebuked ; if ignorantly, they were involved in a great calamity, and their illustrious Prophet Mould not have left them in their darkness and error. So that upon every view of the subject the silence of Christ is wholly unaccountable if these books were really inspired. It becomes simple and natural upon the supposition that they were merely human productions. He would have, in that case, no more occasion to mention them than to men-, tion the writings of the Greek philosophers. Now, sir, what is your answer to this plain argument from the silence of Christ? Why, you tell us in your third distinction that it is not so perfectly certain that Christ observed any such silence as I have attributed to Him. You inform us, in conformity with the testimony of John — for that is the only passage which bears upon the 592 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lett. XI. point — that Jesus did a great many things which are not recorded, therefore He must also have said a great many things which have not been preserved. I confess that I do not exactly perceive the consequence. But let that pass. Let us admit that He may have said as well as done a great many things which have never been written, is it likely that the Apostles and Evangelists would have omitted what their Master had taught in reference to a subject so vastly important as the very constitution of His Ciiurch? No his- tory perhaps records all the sayings and doings of the Con- tinental Congress, but that certainly would not deserve the name of a history that should neglect to make the most dis- tant reference to the Declaration of Independence. What- ever other things the sacred writers have passed in silence and neglect, we may feel perfectly certain that they have not concealed or suppressed the instructions of their Master in regard to so fundamental a matter as the rule of faith. The very same arguments that render it improbable that our Saviour would have failed to correct the defects of the Jewish Canon, if any defects had existed, render it also improbable that His biographers would have neglected to record the substance, at least, of what He had taught upon the subject. If we grant, however, that their silence is no proof of their Master's silence, you have gained nothing. You have only avoided one difficulty by plunging into another. You would have the silence of the Apostles and Evangelists to explain, instead of the silence of Christ. For this and all other difficulties, however, you have a stereotyped solution at hand. What Christ did not choose to do in person upon earth, and what His Apostles failed to perform however clearly within the compass of their sacred commission, may yet be accomplished by a standing tribu- nal, a general council of the Church, like the fictitious syna- gogue of Ezra, " claiming and exercising by the authority of God the power of teaching the faithful what were the inspired works." But as every error accumulates additions in its progress — vires acqni fit eundo — so your infallible body "Lett. XI.] SILENCE OF CHRIST AS TO APOCRYPHA. 593 possesses some larger powers in your second letter than it was re^^resented to possess in your first. You have brought it so often before the public, and exposed it to view in such tat- tered apparel, that it has finally lost ite modesty, and begins to speak more "swelling words of vanity" than it dared to utter at its first appearance. In your first letter councils could do no more, on the head of doctrine, than merely declare and define what had always been the faith of the Church. They possessed no power to make new articles of faith ; they could only announce with infallible certainty what had always been the old. In your second letter these councils rise a step higher and become prophets themselves, intrusted with new revelations, which neither Christ nor His Apostles had ever communicated to the Church. It seems that it is a matter of no sort of consequence whether Christ or His Apostles in their om' n persons had ever testified to the inspi- ration of the Apocrypha — that is, had ever taught that the Apocrypha were inspired : an infallible council could sub- sequently teach it for them. How? If Christ and His Apostles had never taught it, the members of the council could not receive it from tradition ; they must therefore ascertain the fact by immediate revelation. What your coun- cils will become next it is impossible to augur ; they already claim to be the voice of the Lord ; they will perhaps aspire to be God himself. I shall add nothing here to what I have already said touching your pretensions to infallibility. My previous numbers are a full refutation of this stupen- dous folly. You are extremely unfortunate in your attempt to refute from analogy my obvious inference from the silence of the Saviour. You appeal to the case of the Sadducees and Samaritans, who, according to you, denied all the books of the Jewish Canon but the five books of Moses, and yet were not rebuked by the Saviour for their wicked infidelity. Now, sir, that the Sadducees denied the Divine authority of the Prophets and Ketubim I think it will be difficult Vol. in.— 38 594 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lktt. XL for you or any other man to prove. It has been supposed that because our Saviour refutes their skeptical opinions in regard to the resurrection of the dead by a passage extracted from the Pentateuch, therefore they denied the inspiration of any other books. But it will be seen, by inspecting the context, that they had drawn their cavils from a distinctive provision of the Jewish law. They had virtually asserted that the Pentateuch denied the resurrection, since in a given case its peculiar requisitions, according to their view, would introduce confusion and discord into the future state. The Saviour met their difficulties by correcting their misappre- hensions in regard to the nature of the future life, and by distinctly showing that Moses had taught the doctrine which they supposed he had condemned. Among the Fathers, Origen, Tertullian, Jerome and Athanasius have endorsed this calumny upon the faith of the Sadducees. It was first called in question by Drusius, and subsequently refuted with such triumphant success by Joseph Scaliger that Bishop Bull pronounces his argument to be decisive of the ques- tion. That must be a bad cause in a matter of literary criticism which such men as Scaliger, Spanheim, Pearson, Bull, Jortin, Waterland and Eichhorn, to say nothing of Brucker, Buddseus and Basnage, unite to condemn, and yet all these men are found arrayed against the patristic opinion that the Sadducees rejected the Prophets and the Psalms.^ It is universally acknowledged that the Samaritans denied the Divine authority of the whole Jewish Canon, with the exception of the Pentateuch, but it is not so clear that the Saviour failed to rebuke them. You are probably aware, sir, that distinguished commentators, both in ancient and modern times, have regarded John iv. 22 as a pointed reproof of Samaritan infidelity, and it was incumbent upon you to prove that this common interpretation was erroneous before you could confidently assume that the whole matter 1 Brucker, vol. ii., p. 721; Pearson, Viiulicut. Ignat., part i., c. vii., p. 467 ; Bull, Harm. Apost. Diss. Po^^t., cap. x., § 14. Lett. XL] SILENCE OF CHRIST AS TO APOCRYPHA. 595 was permitted to pass sub sikntio by Christ.^ Again, it was hardly necessary to rebuke the Samaritans, as our Saviour's notorious concurrence in the faith of tlie Jews was an open, ])ublic and sufficient condemnation of the errors and defects of this remarkable people. The inconsistency of the various solutions which you have suggested to the palpable difficulty arising from the silence of Christ affords an amusing illustration of human weak- ness. Fii'st, it was not so absolutely certain that Christ was silent, since He performed many signs and wonders which have never been committed to Avritten records. Then, again. He could afford to be silent, as He had established an infal- lible tribunal abundantly competent to supply all His de- ficiencies and teach the faithful to the end of time. In an analogous case, that of the Sadducees and Samaritans, He probably was silent, as there is no evidence whatever that He rebuked the former for a sin which they never committed, and very strong evidence that He reproved the latter for an omission of which they were undoubtedly guilty ! So you seem to oscillate between a denial and admission of the silence of Christ. Like a man walking upon ice, you tread with wary steps, lest your next movement should engulf you. Finally, however, after all your vibrations, you "screw your courage to the sticking place," and settle down in grim despair upon a probable solution by which you seem determined to abide. You stoutly deny that Christ was silent in the matter, and promise to prove " that Christ and His Apostles did take some steps, not indeed to insert those books in the Jewish Canon, but to give them to the Chris- tians as divinely-inspired works." Apart from the testimony of an inftdlibk Church, the only proof which you present in your second letter of this miserable fiction is drawn fi'om the assum[)tion that in the New Testament quotations are made from the Apocryphal writers, and from the admitted 1 Such is the interpretation put upon this passage by Aninionius, (.iro- tiiis, Lanipe, Tholuclc and others. Tholuck's comment is specially deserv- ing of notice. 596 AKGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lett. XI. fact that these books v:ere early embodied iu the SeptuaLrint. The first position you have entirely failed to substantiate. There is no proof whatever that a single passage from any of the books of the Apocrypha is introduced into the docu- ments which compose the New Testament. The passage, Rom. xi. 34, which of all others seems to be most analo- gous to a corresponding text in the book of Wisdom (ix. 31), is confessed by several of the Fathers, Tertullian, Basil and Ambrose, as well as by modern authors of the Papal sect, to have been borrowed from the canonical prophet Isaiah, xl. 13.^ If, however, it could be proved that the Apocrypha were quoted by Christ and His Apostles, this would not establish their Divine inspiration, unless it could also be shown that every book quoted in the New Testament was on that account inspired. I can conceive of no other major proposition which would answer the ends of the argument. But surely, sir, you would not hazard a statement like this ! It is more than Trent would dare to assert, that the hea- then poets whose verses are found in the Epistles of Paul were holy men of Greece who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. It is an old logical maxim that an argu- ment which proves too much proves in reality nothing. Your reasoning from the second fact is easily set aside. You proceed on the assumption, for which you quote the authority of AValton, that in the time of Christ and His Apostles the Septuagint contained the Apociypha.^ You ^ See Number IX. of this series of letters. ^ I have seen no reason, since writing my original essay, to change the opinion which I then expressed, that the Septuagint in the time of Christ did not contain the Apocrypha. If these documents were in the hands of the Apostles, why were they never quoted ? How does it happen that not a single allusion is made to them nor a single passage extracted from them? But the subject is too unimportant to allow much time to be spent upon it. I shall just observe that I am sustained in my opinion by Eich- horn as well as Schmidius. The passage from Walton proves nothing as to the Hme when the union betwixt the Septuagint and Apocrypha took place. A. P. F.'s eulogy upon AValton's competency to settle a question of this sort is not a little amusing, since probably the most exceptional)le j>;irt of his famous Prolegomena is in relation to the origin of the Sep- Lett. XI.] SILENCE OF CHRIST AS TO APOCRYPHA. 597 then infer that "if those books were uninspired, the Saviour and His Apostles were certainly bound positively to reject them." Now, as I have already shown from the very nature of the case, to insert a book into the Canon is to receive it as inspired, and to reject a book is to be not persuaded or con- vinced of its Divine inspiration, or, to pronounce it unin- spired. As there is no evidence that a single man, woman or child in the whole land of Judea looked upon the Apoc- rypha as inspired productions, what need was there that Christ should positively assert what no one thought of deny- ing ? His silence w^as conclusive proof that He acquiesced in the popular opinion. It was beyond all controversy the positive rejection for which you so earnestly plead. You have admitted that the Jews had no satisfactory evi- dence that the Apocrypha were inspired, that they were excluded from the Jewish Canon, and of course a complete separation as to authority was made between them and the sacred books ! Every end was consequently answered which could have been effected by the most pointed denunciation of these books. There was no need for Christ to s[)eak, unless He intended to add these works to the sacred Canon. Then it would have been necessary to show the Jews their error in refusing to admit the Divine authority of Tobit, Judith and Wisdom. The truth is, you have been led into this fallacious argument by the ambiguity of the sentence that the Sej)tuagint contained the Apocrypha. You evi- dently treat the phrase as conveying the idea that whatever books were inserted in that version Avere possessed of e(|ual authority. The only meaning, however, which the words can consistently bear is that wherever there were copies of the Greek version of the Old Testament there were also copies of the Greek documents which we now style the Apocrypha. They usually went together, and that for the purpose of presenting in regular series the remarkable hi.s- tory of God's chosen people. In this way a complete col- tua^i'it. He ought not to be read upon this point without Hody at liaiid to correct his partiality for the fable of Aristjeus. 598 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED, [Lett. XI. lection was made of Jewish literature, inspired and unin- spired. The line was clearly drawn betAveen the Divine and human, but as they both met in the common point of Jewish history, they were united together in one collection. Thus much might have been gathered from the famous pas- sage of Josephus which was evidently before your eyes. " We have not," says he, " innumerable books which con- tradict each other, but only twenty-two, which comprise the history of all times past. . . . Since Artaxerxes up to our time, everything has been recorded." In the eyes of Josephus, then, both the canonical and Apocryphal books contained the history of his nation, and therefore had a com- mon quality which might serve as a bond of union, but the difference between them lay in this : the twenty-two books were "justly held to be Divine;" those composed since the time of Artaxerxes " were not so worthy of credit, because after that time there was no regular succession of Prophets" or inspired writers. Another circumstance Avhich undoubt- edly contributed in no small degree to the popularity of those works was their singular adaptation to the religious spirit of the age. The Jews, like the Papists, had obscured the revelation of God, and, trusting in the vain traditions of man, had mistaken superstition for piety and sentiment for grace. Hence, they would be likely to regard (particu- larly the Hellenists) these Apocryphal documents with the same sort of veneration with which we now conteni[)late the monuments of illustrious teachers of the truth. It is, certainly, no commendation of these books to say that they were written with that subordinate degree of in- spiration which the Jews denominate the " daughter of the voice.'' ^ The stories of the Pabbins concerning this sin- gular method of supernatural communication reveal a de- gree of superstition and betray a fondness for magical delusion which sufficiently illustrate the real source of their famous "bath quol." In attributing to the Avritings ' For an account of this species of insjjiration. see Witsii Opera, vol. i., lib. i., c. 3 ; Lightfoot on Matt. iii. 17. Lett. XL] SILEXCE OF CHRIST AS TO APOCRYPHA. 599 of the Apocrypha this peculiar species of inspiration, they naturally awakened a suspicion that much of the esteem in which they held them may be ultimately traced to their own patronage of something not very remote from the black art. A strong inclination to credulity and magic was, ac- cording to Lightfoot, a characteristic of the Jews under the second temple, and I know of nothing better suited to a humour of this sort than the book of Tobit, unless it be the Arabian Nights. You seem to think that if these books were not admitted into the Septuagint until after the time of Christ, it must have been done ^y'lth the sanction of the Apostles in such a way as to imply that they were divinely inspired. This Avould follow only upon the hypothesis that when admitted they w^ere admitted as insjiired. If they w^ere introduced into connection with the Septuagint simply as historical works covering an interesting period of the Jewish annals, or as moral compositions pervaded by an elevated tone of religious sentiment, there would be no more objection to in- corporating them with the Septuagint than to placing them on the same shelf in a bookcase. The Apostles, I presume, ■would not have objected to their followers that they studied the writings of the heathen philosophers, provided they did not make Plato and Aristotle arbiters of their faith. It w^as not the perusal of the books, or the places in which they were found, that could make a matter of exception. So long as they were treated simply as human compositions, possessed of no Divine authority, and to be ultimately tried in all their doctrines by the sacred Canon, the Apostles w^ould hardly object to the study of them. It w^as no part of their creed to denounce freedom of inquiry; on the other hand, they inculcated the noble and generous maxim, " Prove all things, hold fast that which is good." Paul did not hesitate to quote the heathen poets; and if the Hellenistic Jews and the early Christians could not place the Apocryj)ha by the side of their canonical books w'ithout sanctioning the inspi- ration of the former, how could Paul weave whole sentences 600 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lett, XII. of heathen poetry into his own Divine compositions with- out, at the same time, endorsing the supernatural inspira- tion of Aratus, Menander and Epimenides? The argument from the Septuagint's containing the Apocrypha is so evi- dently preposterous that it need be pressed no farther. Let it lie in its glory, and let peace be with it. The whole matter in dispute betwixt us is brought down at last to this plain issue : the Apocrypha must be rejected from the sacred canon and treated simply as human compo- sitions, unless it can be shown that Christ and His Apostles did sanction their Divine inspiration and authorize their use as standards of faith. Up to the time of Christ there was no satisfactory proof that they constituted any part of the oracles of God. Whatever evidence, therefore, now exists of their supernatural character must have been de- veloped in the age of the Apostles. Their inspiration must have been approved by men who gave unquestionable evi- dence that they spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. This is the proof which the case demands ; and if you fail to produce it, you are only spending your strength for that which is not bread, and your labour for that which satisfieth not. LETTER XII. THE APOCRYPHA AND THE JEWISH CHURCH— THE APOCRYPHA AND THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. To you and all your predecessors in this field of contro- versy the conduct of the Jewish Church — to whom were com- mitted the oracles of God — in regard to the Apocryplia has been so seriously embarrassing, that your efforts to explain it in consistency with your own views of their Divine original are a powerful illustration of the desperate expedients to which men may be driven by extremity of circumstances who arc Lett. XII.] APOCRYPHA AND JEWISH CHURCH. 601 resolved not to receive the truth. The rule of Augii.stine is so palpably just, that the authority of a book must depend on the testimony of contemporary witnesses, that the ab- sence of all such testimony in the present case, or of any testimony at all for a long series not of years alone but of centuries, is felt to be a huge impediment to your cause. As you cannot suborn the ancient people of God to give the least countenance to your vain and arrogant pretensions, you expend all your ingenuity upon fruitless and abortive efforts to reconcile the exclusion of the Apocryphal books from the Jewish Canon with your modern hypothesis of their Divine inspiration. The Jesuits cannot disguise their spleen at the stubborn and intractable conduct of the sons of Abraham. In the true spirit of some of the venerable Fathers of Trent,^ Bellarmine speaks of the Jewish synagogue with great contempt, representing it to be, from its very name, a collection of cattle rather than men. And Campianus, his inferior in learning, though his superior in elegance, treats its Canon as a mere grammatical affair dependent upon the characters of the Hebrew alphabet, and incapable of being increased after the books had reached the charmed number of the letters. Others again have endeavoured to show that the Jews, as a body, always entertained a profound respect for these disputed documents, and that some of the nation actually received them as divinely inspired.^ But of all 1 The spirit of the Fathers of Trent may be gathered from the following extract : " To these reasons, which the major part applauded, others added also that if the providence of God hath given an authentical Scripture to the Synagogue, and an authentical New Testament to the Grecians, it cannot be said without derogation that the Church of Rome, more beloved than the rest, hath wanted this great benefit, and therefore that the same Holy Ghost who did dictate the holy books hath dictated also that translation which ought to be accepted by the Church of Rome." — Father Paul, p. 147. For a full and able refutation of Campianus and Bellarmine upon this subject, see Rainold, Cens. Lib. Apoc, Prelect, xi., torn, i., p. 96, etc. 2 This opinion is attributed by Melchior Canus to Cochlseus, but the per- sons among the Jews who did receive these books have never been brought to light. 602 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lett. XII. the theories which have ever been invented, tlmt which you have borrowed from Melchior Canus, and endorsed, is be- yond controversy the most unfortunate. It turns upon a distinction which I have already shown to be false, which Bellarmine himself saw to be imtenable and consequently passed without discussion, and which, as presented by you, is absolutely fatal to your cause. You deny that the Jews rejected the Apocrypha because they had no satisfactory evidence that the books were inspired, or possessed no tri- bunal competent to enlarge the extent of the Canon. They did not receive them, you admit; but as no body commis- sioned to pronounce an authoritative judgment probably existed, there could be no rejection in the case. You lay great stress upon the arbitrary distinction of Canus, that there is a vast difference between not receiving a book as Divine and positively rejecting it as a human composition.^ Now, sir, you have only to turn to your second letter to perceive what you regarded as satisfactory proof that in the days of Ezra an infallible tribunal existed, a council of the Church in the old law commissioned by God for the express purpose of teaching the fiithful what were the inspired books. In your first and subsequent letters conclusive evi- dence is furnished of your firm conviction that many of these Apocryphal books were written before the time of the great synagogue, and consequently must have been in exist- ence at the period of Ezra. You attribute, for instance, the book of Wisdom to Solomon ; Baruch, according to you, was originally an integral portion of Jeremiah; and the in- ternal evidence is strong that the book of Tobit was written some six or seven hundred years before the advent of Christ. Then, again, the Song of the Three Children, the History of Susannah, together with the Story of Bel and the Dragon, you represent as having been originally parts of Daniel. The additions to the book of Esther, too, you make to bo a 1 " Aliiul est cnim non accipere, aliud rejicere. Certe Jtula>i intra smim Canonem hos libros publica auihoritate niinime receperunt, taniet.> Marsh, Comp. ^'ie^v, chap, vi., ppJOS, 109 (note). Lett. XIII.] APOCRYPHA AND APOSTOLIC FATHERS. 615 Dismissing, therefore, your argument from the case of the ancient versions as less than nothing and altogether lighter than vanity, I proceed to that upon wliich Bellarmine rests the strength of your cause — the quotations from the Chris- tian Fathers. It is to be regretted that you have not, like this distinguished Jesuit, precisely specified the point upon which the discussion should be made to -turn. I am at ai loss to understand whether you regard a quotation, though unaccompanied with any expressions of respect that would seem to imply inspiration, as sufficient proof, or whether you design to confine the argument to those allusions in which the Apocrypha are said to be Divine. You are just as pro- fuse in bringing forward instances in which there is nothing stronger than a mere accommodation of the words of the Apocrypha, as in adducing passages which seem to invest them with a sacred authority. Bellarmine, on the other hand, restricted the argument to those quotations in which these works are cited as Divine} I have already shown that mere quotations can prove nothing but the existence of a book, and to accommodate a passage is only to endorse the particular sentiment which it contains, without any neces- sary approbation of the work itself. To prove that the Fathers quoted the Apocrypha is a very different thing from proving that they believed these documents to be infallible standards of faith. Paul quoted the heatlien poets, and the ancient infidels quoted, in scorn, the canonical Scriptures. It is therefore truly unfortunate for your cause that you have loaded your articles with nu- merous extracts, which, if they were faithfully given — in many cases they are not — from the original works of the Fathers, would prove nothing more than that they had read the books which Rome pronounces to be inspired, and adopted from them sentiments and opinions which they ^ Disputat. de Cont., lib. i., c. x., vol. i., p. 34. His words are: " Apos- toli enim poterant sine aliis te-stimoniis declarare libros illos esse canonicos, quod et fecerunt: aliocjui nunquam Cyprianus et Clemens, et alii quos citabimus, tam constanter dixissent eos esse Divinos." 616 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lett. XIIL deemed to be applicable to their own purposes. By the same method of reasoning, there is hardly a Protestant writer of any note who might not be convicted of acceding to the authority of the Romish canon. If you will turn to the works of Bishop Butler, and consult his fourth sermon upon the Government of the Tongue, you will find, in the •very small compass of that single discourse, more extracts from the Apocryphal books than you have been able to collect from all the writings of the apostolic Fathers. The fifth sermon concludes, as the fourth had done, with a pas- sage from the son of Sirach; and the sixth almost opens with one. In the sermons of Donne, Barrow and Jeremy Taylor we find all classes of books, heathen and Christian, gay and grave, lively and severe, indiscriminately quoted in the margin ; and yet these men would have thoi^ght it a most preposterous conclusion that because they enriched their own compositions, plenis manibus, with the spoils of others, therefore they believed in the Divine inspiration of Aristotle and Tully, Lactantius and Origen, Euripides and Horace. Even the humble writer of these lines could not escape the imputation of Romanism if to quote a book and to believe it inspired are necessarily connected. In his own published sermon upon the Vanity and Glory of Man, written long after his essay on the Apocrypha had been anonymously committed to the press, an extract is made from the book of Wisdom; and in his unpublished lectures upon the Origin and Progress of Idolatry the splendid Apocryphal passage on the same subject is introduced with commendation and applause. If bare quotations are to be regarded as satisfactory proofs of a supernatural origin, the cause of Rome can be sustained by " reasons as plentiful as blackberries." It is evident, however, that quotations them- selves can prove nothing to the purpose; it is the manner in which the quotations are made and the ends to which they are applied. If the Apocrypha are not quoted as infallible standards of faith of equal authority with Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms, or if there are not circuui- Lett. XIII.] APOCRYrHA AND APOSTOLIC FATHERS. 617 stances attending the quotations which show indisputably that the writers regarded them as the AVord of God, from whose decision there M'as no appeal, nothing can be gathered from the fact in behalf of these works which could not also be collected from similar quotations in behalf of the heathen philosophers and poets. Why the ancient Fathers should be denied the privilege, conceded to all writers, of adorning their compositions Avith elegant expressions or judicious sentiments which might chance to strike them in the compass of their reading, it is difficult for me to com- prehend. It is certainly ridiculous to say that because a man writes upon religious subjects he shall not lay all the resources of his knowledge under tribute to supply him with apt similitudes or fitting illustrations. Surely he is permitted to bring the treasures of his learning to the feet of his Redeemer, and to honour his Master with the spoils which he has gathered in his literary excursions. From the apostolic Fathers you have pretended to present us with nothing but quotations, unaccompanied with a single expression that indicates the light in which the original works were regarded. If, therefore, your extracts had been accurate, you would have gained nothing but the gratifica- tion which springs from the display of learning. But by some strange fatality of blundering, which seems like an evil genius to attend you, you have only exhibited your misconceptions of the meaning of the Fathers and of the tongue in which their works were written. That the reader may be able to form an adequate estimate of the nature and value of your services as a literary critic, I shall examine your extracts from the apostolic Fathers with a degree of attention which they do not deserve. And first from Bar- nabas : Jiysc yaf) b ~j)0(f7jTr^z iTZC zbv Paya/jX' Ohm zf^ i"^'p,j duzaJv ore ,3z,3o'j/.eui'Tai [-iooAr^v -ovriodv y.al}' hiozwv icrzni'ze;' oij- acojizv zbv dixatoi^, bzc o'jaytr/^azu; '^//^^^ i(Tzi. But what saitli the Prophet against Israel : Woe be to their souls, because they have taken wicked counsel against themselves, saying, 61 8 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lett. XIII. Let US, therefore, lie in wait for the just, because he is not for your turn. — Barnab. EpisL, § 6. " This passage," you tell us, " is composed of two texts, Isaias iii. 9, ' AVoe to their soul, for evils are rendered to them,' and Wisdom ii. 12, ' Let us, therefore, lie in wait for the just, because he is not for our turn.' Here St. Barna- bas quotes in the same sentence, and as of equal inspired authority, the book of Isaias, contained in the Canon of the Jews, and that of Wisdom ; one of those you boldly declare to be of no more authority than Seneca's Letters or Tully's Offices." Will the reader believe, after this confident state- ment, that the whole passage as quoted by Barnabas occiu-s almost verbatim in the book of Isaiah as found in the version of the Seventy ? This, as xre have already seen, at a very early period supplanted the Hebrew originals, and became itself the source of appeal and the fountain of authority. This venerable translation Barnabas used, and from it has introduced the text which you have attributed to the book of Wisdom, but which is not there to be found. In your fourth letter you seem to be sensible that you had gone a little too far in relation to this passage, and if you had gen- erously and magnanimously confessed your error, I should have passed the matter over without any notice. If you had not obliquely insinuated a doubt whether Barnabas drew from the Septuagiut or not, when the thing is as plain as anything of that sort can possibly be made, I should have given you credit for an honesty and candour to which I am afraid your lame apology shows you not to be entitled. " Candour," you tell us, with a ludicrous gravity, when you were about to act with a very questionable regard to its precepts, " requires that I should make a remark on a pas- sage in my last letter." The passage to which you refer is the one before us; now what is the remark? "I did not at that moment [when writing the letter] recollect that tiie passage from Isaias was one in which the translation of the Septuagiut varies from the Hebrew as we have it now. St. Barnabas does not quote the Septuagint exactly, but he Lett. XIII.] APOCRYPHA AND APOSTOLIC FATHERS. 619 approache.s so nearly as to make it possible, nay, probable, that the difference resulted from a varying reading of the text." I shall now give the passage as found in the Sep- tuagint : Oual zfi (po'^f, abzibv, dcort ^ei^ooXiuvrai ^ooXtjV 7:ov7j()av xaff' kauTcov, iizoi^zs^' orjcrco/isi^ rbv ocxacoi', ore duayjir^aro;; ■^fxiv iazi. — Isaiah iii. 9, 10. Now, the only difference in the passage as quoted by Bar- nabas and as found in Isaiah is in the fifth word, the causal particle dcozc, of which in Barnabas the first syllable is want- ing. But the part of the sentence which you ascribe in your third letter to Wisdom is, verbatim et literatim, the same in the Father and the Prophet. But the beauty of the whole matter lies in this : in your third letter you were absolutely certain that a text was quoted from Wisdom, when the principal word in the text was not to be found in the passage to which you referred us. Barnabas says, dtjacojisv zbv dcxaiou. In Wisdom it is written, kusdfjeoaio/nei^ 8e zbu dixacov. But in your fourth letter the omission of a single syllable is sufficient to raise a doubt — makes it only probable that a quotation is intended. You were quite con- fident that a sentence is taken from Wisdom when the lead- ing word is changed, another word added, and the sense materially altered ; you are not so sure that it can be from Isaiah when the sense, words and everything but one poor l:j^rmless syllable are exactly preserved. If, sir, you could find passages in the Fathers so nearly corresponding to pas- sages in the Apocrypha as those of Barnabas and Lsaiah, we should not be troubled with your doubts ; it would be no longer a " po-ssible, nay, a probable," matter that they were genuine quotations ; we should hear the yell of triumph, the chuckle of delight and the insulting tones of defiance. If, however, there be the least hesitation in admitting that Bar- nabas quoted from I.^aiah, it is irresistibly evident that he could not have quoted from Wisdom. Instead, then, of its being so vciy clear that the good Father " quotes in the same sentence, and as of equal inspired authority, the book of 620 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [LuTT. XIII. Isaiah, contained in the Canon of the Jews, and tluit of Wisdom, one of those you boldly declare to be of no more authority than Seneca's Letters or Tully's Offices," it is absolutely certain that no allusion is made whatever to the Apocryphal production. So much for your first effort to find the Apocrypha in the Fathers ! Your second attempt is like unto your first. In xix.' of this same Epistle of Barnabas a passage occurs which you have discovered to be a quotation from the book of Eccle- siasticus (iv. 28, 31), though you have not been at the pains in this particular instance to account for the manifest dis- crepancies between the son of Sirach and the Father by a "varying reading" of the text. It is never doubtful whe- ther the Apocryj^ha were quoted, but as Papists have a cor- dial abhorrence of the Bible, they are slow to discern quota- tions from the Canon among those whom they honour. It will be perceived, upon consulting the original, that your translation of Barnabas and the Douay version of Ecclesiasticus, which you have copied without change, are neither of them consistent with the original text. Accord- ing to you, there are three coincidences in these passages, which show that the one must have been taken from the other. The first which you have italicized is the exhorta- tion to strive, but unfortunately no such exhortation is found ^ The translation of Barnabas is as follows : " Thou shalt not be for- ward to speak, for the mouth is the snare of death ; strive witli thy soi^l for all thy might. Eeach not out thy hand to receive, and withliold it not when thou shouldst give." The originals are as follows: Barnabas — Ovk eaij TzgdyXuaaoq' naylg yag aTdjxa davdrov. O'aov 6'vvacai vneg r;/v ipvxijv gov dyvevGEig. M?) ylvov irpoq ftiv to Aa.3elv £K-eivuv 7aq -(liQag^ TtpoQ rfe to dovvai cvcittuv. Ecclesiasticus — Euf tov davoTov dyuviaai irepl Tf/c d?.?/6eiac, Kal Krpwf 6 9eof noXsfiT/aei vTrep aov. M^ yivov rpaxvg kv yXuaari aov, km vuOpbg Koi TTapELjitvoQ kv TolQ epyoig gov. My egtu f/ x^ig gov EKTeTaukvi] kig to la^liVf mi kv T6J anoSidduai GweGTn'Apevr/. The version of Ecclesiasticus is in these words: " Strive for justice for thy soul, and even unto death figlit for justice, and God will overtlirow thy enemies for thee. Be not hasty in thy tongue, and slack and remiss in thy works. Let not thy hand be stretched out to receive, and shut u-hen tliou shouldst give." I have given tlie italics as found in A. P. F.'s citation. Lett. XIII.] APOCRYPHA AND APOSTOLIC FATHER.S. 621 ill Barnabas. The good Fatlicr i.s insisting upon the duties of benevolence, charity and temperance, and in the passage before us exhorts his readers to cidtivaie chastity, even beyond the resources of their natural strength. There is nothing in the Greek that can by any possibility be made to cor- respond with the sentence in your version : " Strive with thy soul for all thy might." The conjectural reading of Cotclerius, Avhich you seem to have followed, uKSp rij^c ^'^yj,Z (^ou dfcoueuasK:, is liable to serious objections. In the first place, the word dycoi^e'jrrec!:, which that critic would substitute for the received reading, 6.)'vvjatci;, belongs to no language under the sun — most certainly it is not Greek; it is justified neither by the usage of the classics, the authors of the Septuagint nor the writers of the New Testament. The legitimate word to express the idea of striving is dycovi^co. In the second place, the new reading gives a sense wholly unsuited to the con- nection in which the passage is found. It occurs among a series of earnest exhortations to specific duties. It is pre- ceded by solemn admonitions against severity to servants, avarice and volubility, and succeeded by directions equally definite and precise. Now, to introduce an abstract jjropo- sition which covers a multitude of duties in the midst of specific, definite and precise instructions is, to say the least of it, exceedingly awkward. The old reading, which makes the passage an exhortation to the practice of chastity, suits the nature of the context, and on that account is to be de- cidedly preferred. In the third place, there is no need of emendation. The preposition seems to be used in its com- mon acceptation Avhen followed by the accusative of excess, and il"->y/^'-' may be regarded as a compendious expression for the powers of the man. This word is frequently used to designate the whole man, and in such connections is equivalent to a^{?/>w;roc, and every Greek scholar knows that Orrkp nyt^nio-ov may be properly rendered ^^ beyond human strength."^ ' ^'igt•r, De Idiotismis, c. ix., sect. 9, Reg. 1. 622 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lett. XIII. Turned into English, and substituting the imperative for the future, the passage in Barnabas upon which you found your first coincidence is simply this : " As far as you are able, beyond your strength, cultivate chastity." Employ not only your natural resources — these alone are not to be trusted — but seek a strength beyond your own, even the all-sufficient grace of God. What now in the corresponding passage says Jesus the son of Siracli ? — " Strive for truth even unto death :" a marvellous coincidence with the exhortation to purity; an extraordinary quotation, when there is not a single w^ord in the two clauses alike! One is exhorting to stability of opinion, and the other to innocence of life. The next coincidence is the ex-hortation in relation to the tongue. In the clauses containing this advice the principal words, as found in Greek, are widely different in their mean- ing. Barnabas uses a word (Trpdyhoaao:;) which denotes ex- cessive volubility, and he gives advice, therefore, precisely similar to that recorded in the first chapter and nineteenth verse of the Epistle of James : " Be slow to speak." The son of Sirach, on the other hand, is exhorting to civility of speech, and uses expressions which, Avhen literally translated, amount to this: "Be not rough with your tongue." The Latin version surely should not supersede the Greek, and I know of no copies of the Septuagint that give the reading ra-j^u^ which the Latin translators seem to have followed,* though some copies do give d^riaah^. Either of these readings harmonizes exactly with the succeeding verse : " Be not as a lion in thy house, nor frantic among thy servants." This sentence illustrates what he means by being " rough-tongucd ;" it is to betray the fury and ferocity of the lion among those who are dependent upon us. The coincidence, then, in this passage between Barnabas and Ecclesiasticus is just the coincidence between an admonition not to be loquacious or excessively talkative, and an admonition to overcome acer- 1 I say, seem to have followed, because the phrase adopted by the Vulgate, citatus m lingua, is evidently susceptible of a rendering consistent with the common reading : " Be not violently excited in thy tongue or speech." Lett. XIII.] APOCRYPHA AXD APOSTOLIC FATHERS. 623 bity of speech. One says, in effect, " Be silent ;" the other says, " Be gentle." It is very obvious that the sentiment in Barnabas was suggested by the passage in James upon the same subject. The last coincidence which you notice is in reference to what is said of illiberality, or avarice ; and here I freely admit that there is a coincidence both of expression and sentiment, but a coincidence just of that sort which betrays no marks of design. It is a repetition in both cases of one of those common maxims which are to be found in all writers upon morals. The sentiment is evidently the same with that which Paul attributes to the Saviour in Acts xx. 35, and which is likewise suggested by numerous passages in the heathen sages of antiquity. Barnabas says, " Extend not thy hand to receive; close it not to give." Our Saviour says, "It is more blessed to give than to receive." In almost precisely the same words, Artemidorus says, "To give is better than to receive."^ vElian says, "It is better to enrich others than to be rich ourselves,"^ and a similar sentiment occurs in Aristotle.^ Coincidences of this sort evidently show that such aphorisms must be regarded as the spontaneous suggestions of the mind to those who observe, with the eye of the moralist, the vicissitudes of men and manners. The same process of thought by which they be- come the property of one understanding renders them the possession of others. They belong to those common topics which, whoever attempts to discuss, will, according to John- son, "find unexpected coincidences of his thoughts with those of other writers," growing out of the very nature of the subject, and implying no design to imitate or adopt. The next passage with which you favour us is taken from a part of the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, which is now preserved only in a Latin translation. We cannot ^ Oneirocr., iv. 3. 2 jj y ^ ^ix. 13. * Nichom., iv. 1. For many striking illustrations of the same sentiment to be found in various authors, the reader is referred to Kninoel, Wolfius and Wetstein, on Acts xx. 35. 624 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lett. XIII. consequently determine with certainty what precisely were the words which the Father employed. You seem to be quite certain that he had liis eye upon Tobit xii. 9: "For alms delivereth from death." The whole passage to which you refer in Polycarp is in these words: " Quum potest is benefacere nolite deferre : quia eleemosyna de morte liberat. Omnes vobis invieem subjecti estate: conversationem ves- tram irrejjrehensibilem habentes in gentibus."^ In com- menting upon this extract, you inform us that " St. Poly- carp, like St. Barnabas, quotes in the same breath an author " whom all admit to be inspired (1 Peter ii. 12), and another whom Protestants reject (Tob. xii. 9). If we admit, in the first place, that Polycarp quoted from Tobias, it will by no means follow that he regarded the book as inspired or canonical. He simply accommodates a sen- tence which suited his present purpose, just as Paul adopted from Menander the memorable aphorism, "Evil communi- cations corrupt good manners." But, in the second place, the passage in Tobit is itself a quotation — a literal quotation from the tenth chapter and second verse of the book of Proverbs, where it is rendered in our English version, "Righteousness delivereth from death." The coincidence of the sentiment in the contexts creates a presumption that the one passage was suggested by the other. Solomon's context is, " Treasures of wickedness profit nothing ;" and that of Tobit is, " It is better to give alms than to lay up gold." Solomon adds, " Righteousness delivereth from death ;" and Tobit adds that " Alms deliver from death." Now the Hebrew Avord which Solomon employs for right- eousness ('^p.lX) is not unfrequently rendered by the Seventy, Ihr^iioawrj, alms, the very word which is found in the Greek translation of this passage of Tobit. If, then, Tobit was originally written in HebreAV, as was doubtless the case, there being Hebrew copies extant in the time of Origen, • 1 The passage may be thus translated : " When it is in your power to do good, defer it not, for alms delivereth from death. Be all of you subject oue to another, having your co7iversation honest among the Gentiles." Lett. XIII.] APOCRYPHA AND APOSTOLIC FATHERS. 625 the probability i.s that the same word which occurs in Prov- erbs was used in this place. The Jews Avere accustomed to interpret the passage in Solomon precisely as it has been rendered by the Greek translators of Tobit.^ Hence, in the original, this text of Tobit was in all probability an exact quotation from the corresponding text in Proverbs. It is worthy of remark, that there are several Hebrew copies of Tobit extant at this day, translated, it is generally supposed, from the Greek. Two of these have been published — one by Sebastian Munster, and another by Paul Fagius. Hue- tius possessed another in manuscript, differing somewhat from both, but according more closely with that of Munster. The editions of Munster and Fagius were reprinted in the London Polyglot, and may be found in the fourth volume of Walton, with the Latin translations of these distinguished scholars annexed. Both these copies, in the passage before us, concur, literatim et punctuatim, with the passage in Prov- erbs, which is certainly a strong presumption that Solo- mon's Hebrew and Tobit's Greek (or rather his translator's) are precisely equivalent. Now the question is, Which did the Father quote — the Septuagint translation of Solomon, or the Greek translation of Tobit — since both were versions of the same original? Your answer is, that he quoted Tobit. How can that be known? His own Greek is lost, and we have no means of ascertaining what word he . used. If he employed the term dcxacoaovfj, righteousness, then Solomon, as found in the LXX., was quoted; if he employed iX^fxoauvrj, alms, then the Greek version of Tobit was quoted. How shall we determine which word was employed? The Latin transla- tion affords no certain clue, since either term might be rendered eleemosyne, both corresponding as they do to the Hebrew, and the one always, and the other frequently, mean- ing the same thing as eleemosyne. Your next passage is from the first Epistle of Clement to * RosenmuUer on Prov. x. 2. Vol. III.— 40 626 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lett. XIII. the Corinthians, which, you say, is compounded of Wisdom xi. 22 and xii. 12. There is, however, an exact agreement in sense, although not a verbal correspondence, between this passage and Daniel iv. 35 (32 in LXX.), and Burton is of opinion that Clement had specially in his eye Isaiah xlv. 9, and Rom..ix. 19, 20. The idea is one continually occurring in the canonical Scrip- tures, and I think it doubtful whether the Father had any particular passage in his mind, for his words exactly tally with no one text or combination of texts in the Scriptures. I shall present, however, Clement, Wisdom and Daniel, that the reader may judge for himself whether the Father had not as much reference to Daniel as to Wisdom ; and as in this case I do not object to your translation, I shall dispense with the original. Clement says : "Who shall say to Him, What dost Thou? or who shall resist the power of His strength ?" Wisdom : " For who shall say to Thee, What hast Thou done ? and who shall resist the strength of Thy arm ?" Daniel says : " He doeth according to His will in the army of heaven and among the inhabitants of earth, and none can stay His hand, or say unto Him, What dost Thou ?" The coincidence with Daniel is more striking from the succeeding sentence in Clement: "When He wills and as He wills, He has done all things, and none of His decrees shall pass away." Your last reference to the apostolic Fathers is peculiarly unfortunate. You appeal to the abstract which Clement has given us of the history of Judith in the fifty-fifth sec- tion of his epistle, and would insinuate the belief that there was something in the passage to favour the idea tliat the book was inspired. But what is the fact ? The history of Judith is commended as a laudable example in the same connection with the story of CEdipus and the heathen accounts of such devoted men as Codrus, Lycurgus and Scipio Africanus. A wonderful proof of inspiration, truly! Clement, no doubt, believed the authenticity of the book, Lett. XIIL] APOCRYPHA AND APOSTOLIC FATHERS. 627 but that is a very different matter from its Divine inspira- tion. The only passage in the reference of Clement upon which you fasten as a quotation from Judith happens very strangely not to be one.* If you wnll turn to the originals, you will find that the words translated "deliver" are very different in Judith and Clement, and the epithet with which Judith distinguished the Lord is omitted by the Father, and the name of Holofernes is not mentioned in Judith, though it is in Clement. There is nothing, I may add, in the account which Clement gives of Esther that can be remotely tortured into proof that he deemed the Apocryphal portions to be inspired. He appeals to her history simply as true, and intimates nothing of the origin of the book. Such, then, are your abortive efforts to find a tradition in the apostolic Fathers that Christ and His Apostles deliv- ered the Apocrypha to the Christian Church as the oracles of God. If the Apostles in their own writings said noth- ing on the subject, this is the age and these the men upon whom, according to Bellarmine himself, we must rely. Con- 1 1 shall give the whole passage as it appears in Archbishop's Wake's Iranslation : " Nay, and even the Gentiles themselves have given us examples of this kind, for we read how many kings and princes, in times of ijestilence, being warned by their oracles, have given up themselves unto death, that by their own blood they might deliver their country from destruction. Others have forsaken their cities, that .so they might put an end to the seditions of them. We know how many among ourselves have given up themselves unto bonds, that thereby they might free others from them ; others have sold themselves into bondage, that they might feed their brethren with the price of themselves, and even many women, being strengthened by the grace of God, have done many glorious and manly things on such occasions. The blessed Judith, when her city was besieged, desired the elders that they would suffer her to go into the camp of tiieir enemies, and she went out exposing herself to danger for the love she bare to her country and lier people tliat were besieged, and the Lord delivered Holofernes into the hands of a woman. Nor did Esther, being j^crfcct in faith, expose herself to any less hazard for the delivery of the twelve tribes of Israel in danger of being destroyed, for by fasting and huml)ling herself she entreated the great Maker of all things, the God of spirits, so that, beholding the humility of her soul, he delivered the people for whose sake she was in peril." — c. Iv. 628 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lett. XIV. temporary writers or the next generation, this wily Jesuit admits, are the legitimate witnesses of the authenticity of facts. Here, after the Apostles had fallen asleej), and the last of those who had seen or been taught by them is gath- ered to his fathers, there remains not a single intimation, not a distant hint, not even a remote insinuation, that these spurious documents which Rome has canonized are part and parcel of our faith. Who now shall tell us what Christ and His Apostles had taught ? Who shall be able to pene- trate the past when the only light which could guide us is withdrawn for ever ? AVhat witnesses shall we evoke when those alone who were competent to testify have kept the silence of the grave ? It is perfectly plain that if up to the commencement of the second century nothing is known about any such instructions on the subject of the Apocry- pha as you attribute to Christ, nothing can be satisfactorily ascertained afterward. The witnesses are too far removed from the facts. That nothing was known, however, when the last of the apostolic Fathers was called to his reward must be assumed as true until it is proved to be false. The silence of these men is death to your cause. In vain have you endeavoured to make them break that silence; your efforts have only recoiled upon your own character as a scholar and a critic. LETTER XIV. PATRISTIC TERMS APPLiED TO THE APOCRYPHA. The only plausible argument in support of your propo- sition that the Primitive Church received the Apocrypha as inspired is derived from the fact that the early Fathers, in introducing quotations from these disputed books, not un fre- quently applied to them the same expressions with which they were accustomed to distinguish the canonical records. Lett. XIV.l PATRISTIC TERMS FOR APOCRYPHA. 629 Upon tills point, as I have hinted already, Bellarmine prin- cipally dwelt. He refers, as you have done in your fourth and succeeding letters, to passages of the ancient writers in which they not only accommodate the language of the Apocrypha, but also denominate it Scripture, sometimes with- out any qualifying epithet, and sometimes with the titles, in addition, sacred, holy or Divine. To infer from a circum- stance like this that they regarded these works as possessed of the same authority with Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms, or the acknowledged compositions of the Apostles and Evangelists, is to be guilty of a gross paralogism. Those who reason in this way manifestly take for granted that the term Scripture is exclusively applicable to inspired compo- sitions; but where is the evidence of this fact? It is freely conceded that this is a common and familiar designation of the canonical books, but it by no means follows that it is restricted in its usage exclusively to them. To say that because all inspired writings are Scripture, therefore all Scripture must also be necessarily inspired, is to assume as true what will be found with ?l single exception to be inva- riably false, that the simple converse of an universal affirm- ative proposition is equivalent to the original statement. Your reasoning, if I understand it, is this : the Primitive Church believed the Apocrypha to be inspired because the Fathers quoted them as Scripture, and all Scripture must be inspired because all books confessedly inspired are denomi- nated Scripture. This specimen of logic cannot be more happily illustrated than by a parallel case. He who should ascribe to the beasts of the field the distinctive excellences of men because beasts and men are alike said to be subject to decay, would reason j)recisely as you do in deducing the Divine authority of the books in question from the applica- tion to them of the same titles which are given to the sacred Canon. When your argument is stated in the form of syl- logism, Avhich, after all, is the real test of conclusive rea- soning, it will be found to contain the miserable fallacy of an undistributed middle. The insj)ired books are called 630 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lett. XIV, Set' ijiture; the Apocrypha are called Scripture; therefore the Apocrypha are inspired. Before you were at liberty to draw the triumphant conclusion which you seem to think you have legitimately reached, it was evidently incumbent upon you to prove (for this was the major proposition which the case required) that whatever is called Scripture or Divine Scripture must have been written under the super- natural influence of the Holy Spirit. This is unquestion- ably the basis of your argument; and in pity to the cause which you had undertaken to sustain, you should have placed it upon grounds less treacherous and deceitful than its being the converse of a statement universally acknoAv- ledged to be true. Why, therefore, did you not manfiilly meet the point, and prepare the way for your multiplied quotations by showing at the outset what is certainly far from evident, that S&ripture and inspiration are coextensive in their import? It is not a little remarkable that you should have expended so much labour in evincing that the Apocrypha were often characterized by this appellation, and yet have passed in profound silence the other proposition, which was equally important, that all books so denominated must be inspired. Believe me, sir, it was a most unfortu- nate oversight; it leaves your conclusion halting upon a single premiss — about as good a support as a solitary crutch to a man destitute of legs. All that your extracts are capa- ble of proving may be fully granted, that the books in ques- tion were often distinguished by the title of Scripture; hut it is a broad leap from an ambiguous expression of this sort to the conclusion which you have collected. There are several considerations which indisputably show that such appellations as Scripture, Divine Sd'ipture, etc., were generic terms as used among the Fathers, having a much larger extension than your argument seems to sup- pose. While they included as a part of their meaning those works which were acknowledged to be the offspring of the Holy Ohost, they were also applied to other departments of composition, in which no other spirit was conceived to Lett. XIV.] PATRISTIC TERMS FOR APOCRYPHA. 631 predominate but the spirit of devotion. Scripture itself is synonymous with loriting, and is consequently an appropri- ate term for designating anything recorded with the pen. The epithets sacred, holy and Divine not unfrequently imply what is suited to produce, to stimulate or quicken the devout affections of the heart; and the whole phrase, Divine Scrip- tu7'e, was employed among the ancients to denote that pecu- liar class of composition which we denominate religious in opposition to profane. Even in our own tongue the word Scripture, contrary to its present acceptation, was used among the earlier writers with a latitude of meaning analo- gous to that which obtained in the language from which it was derived. It was not only applied to any Avritten document whatever, whether sacred or profane, but was even extended to inscriptions on a tomb} The Greek word ypafij was perhaps more general than the Eng- lish term writing, as it embraced not only the work of the scribe but the performance of the painter. We are so accustomed, however, to the definite and restricted applica- tion of the word Scripture, and particularly the plural Scriptures, to the inspired records of our faith, that we experience no little difficulty in divesting ourselves of this association when the term is mentioned, and in going back to the thoughts and feelings of an age when it suggested nothing so peculiar, emphatic and precise. The Christian Fathers themselves seem to have laboured under a measure of embarrassment in selecting from the general and exten- sive phrases which were best adapted to the purpose appro- priate titles of distinction and respect for the sacred volume. If there had been any one phrase which the usage of the language would have authorized them to adopt as a specific and exclusive name for their inspired documents, they would hardly have accumulated so many titles as are found scat- tered through their writings. The definite word would have been uniformly, or at least generally, adopted. But no such definite apj)ollation existed, and they were obliged to employ ^ See Richardson's Dictionary, word Scripture. 632 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lett. XIV, generic terms in a peculiar and emphatic sense when they appealed to their rule of faith. Sometimes the sacred Canon was denominated the Holy Scriptures, sometimes the Oracles of the Lord, sometimes Divine Scriptures, Divine Oracles, Divinely Inspired Scriptures, Scriptures of the Lord, the True Evangelical Canon, the Old and New TcMarnent, the Ancient and New Scriptures, the Ancient and New Oracles, Books of the Spirit, Divine Fountains, Fountains of the Divine Fullness} In this abundance of phrases — and only a part is given — there is an obvious effort to convey a pre- cise idea by terms which were felt to be general, a constant endeavour to limit in a particular case what, according to the laws of the language, was susceptible of a larger exten- sion. Hence, while it is true that such phrases were 'pre- eminently applied to the Word of God, we must know that a given book is the AVord of God before we can deter- mine whether these titles are bestowed on it in the restricted and emphatic sense or in their usual and wider significa- tion. That the Fathers were accustomed to use them in both applications it requires but little acquaintance with their writings to be assured. Eusebius testifies that Irenaeus, whom you have repre- sented as endorsing the Apocrypha, cited as Scripture one of the weakest performances of ecclesiastical antiquity — the Shepherd of Hernias. His words are worthy of being fully exhibited : " Nor did he (Irenseus) only know, but he also receives the Scripture of the Shepherd, saying : Well there- fore spake the Scripture which says, ' First of all, believe there is one God who created and formed all things, and -what fol- lows.'"^ Here it is evident that Scripture means only a written document, and has no reference whatever to any impression of supernatural origin. The meaning of Ire- nseus, as Lardner very justly expounds it,^ is exactly this: " Well spake that writing, W'Ork or book which says." " It ' See a collection of these titles in Paley's Evidences of Christianity, part i., chap. ix. ^ H. E., lib. v., c. 8. 3 ^Vorks, vol. ii„ p. 186 (London Ed., 1834). Lett. XIV.] PATRISTIC TERMS FOR APOCRYPHA. 633 is certain," continues the author of the Credibility, " that Irenseus himself had so used this word ypo-^fr} or Scripture. Giving an account of the Epistle of Clement, Avritten to the Corinthians in the name of the Church of Rome, he says : ' The Church of Rome sent a most excellent 8c7'ipture (that is, Epistle) to the Corinthians.' And afterward, ' from that Scripture one may learn the apostolical tradition of the Church.'" Eusebius himself uses the term krtcaToAT^ as synonymous with ypatfij. " Polycarp," says he, " in his Scripture to the Philippians, still extant, has made use of certain testimoniee taken from the First Epistle of Peter."* A^iong the Apocryphal books of the New Testament which he utterly rejects from any reasonable claim to inspired authority he mentions the Scripture of the Acts of Paul.^ Clement of Alexandria, who figures largely in your pages, applies the term Scriptures to the compositions of the hea- then authors with which Ptolemy adorned his library, as well as to the sacred and canonical books.^ If the word were not confessedly general and indefinite, nothing could be inferred from it as a term of reference after the Apocrypha had become incorporated into the sacred volume — and but few references were made to them before — and had begun to be used as a means of instruction in the congregations of the faithful. They would naturally receive the same titles which belonged to the collection as a whole. The name of the volume would be adopted for the conve- nience of citation, and nothing could be deduced from a quotation of this sort but the existence of the book in the specified volume. Nothing is added to the strength of the argument by citing passages from the Fathers in which the Apocrypha are denominated sacred or Divine Scripture. To say noth- ing of the fact that such quotations occur, for the most part, after the custom to which allusion has just been made obtained extensive prevalence, there is abundant evidence that this ' II. E., lii-. iv., c. 14. -' Ibid., lib. Hi., c. 25, 3 Strom., Ill), i., cap. xxii. 634 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lett. XIV. and equivalent phraseology were often employed to conyey the idea of religious literature. Divine Scripture, in nume- rous instances, means precisely the same thing as an edify- ing booh or a composition upon religious subjects, Dionys- ius, surnamed the Areopagite, quoting a passage from the Epistles of Ignatius, styles him the Divine Ignatius.^ Poly- crates, the metropolitan bishop of Ephesus, said of Melito that " he was governed in all things by the Holy Ghost." ^ Cyril, appealing to a decree of the Council of Nice, calls it a Divine and most holy oracle, and speaks of its decisions as divinely inspired.^ Melchior Canus admits that Innocent III. pronounced the words of Augustine to be holy Scrip- ture, just as the Pontifical laws are called holy to distin- guish them from the statutes of princes.* So, too, the decrees of councils and the decisions of the Church were called holy and Divine, because they related to the subject of religion. But what places it beyond all doubt that the honourable epithets with which the Fathers adorn the Apocrypha were not intended to convey the idea of inspiration, is that in some instances those very writers who reject them from the Canon yet quote them under the same titles. Origen, who in professedly enumerating the books which constituted the rule of faith excluded the Apocrypha from the Canon, did not scruple to refer to the Wisdom of Solomon and of the son of Sirach, to the Maccabees, Tobit and Judith, as Scriptures or the Divine Word {d-lco:: loyoQ).^ Jerome, whose testimony is as explicit as language can make it, cites a passage from the book of Ecclesiasticus and calls it Divine Scripture.^ Now, when we compare his statement concerning this book and that of Wisdom, that they should be read for popular edification in life and manners, and not 1 De Div. Nom., cap. iv., sect. 9. ^ Euseb. H. E., lib. v., c. 24. » De Trinitat., lib. i. * Eainold, Censura Librorum Apocry., Prselect. vi., vol. i., p. 6". 5 De Princip., ii. 1, opp. 1, p. 79. Cont. Cels., viii., opp. 1, p. 778, etc. « Epist. 92, ad Julian. Lett. XIV.] PATRISTIC TERMS FOR APOCRYPHA. 635 for the establishing of any doctrine in the Church, we under- stand at once wliat meaning to attach to his laudatory notice of Ecclesiasticus. Epiphanius, as Bellarmine admits, acknowledged no books but those which were found in the Hebrew Canon, and Rome herself does not pretend that the Apostolical Constitutions are the inspired Word of God. Yet, Epiphanius quotes them as Divine Scripture,^ a clear and triunipliant proof that this phrase was by no means equivalent to inspired writings. One of the clearest pas- sages for illustrating the meaning of this phrase is found in his disputation against iEtius.^ He there enumerates the books Mhich constitute the Hebrew Canon, then the Avritings of the New Testament, and having completed his account of the books that were inspired, he mentions Wis- dom, Ecclesia.sticus and such like books as Divine Scriptures. His design was to show that ^tius could defend his heresies neither from the books which the Church admitted as inspired, nor from those other writings upon religious sub- jects which were allowed to be read for the ])urpose of per- sonal improvement. The very structure of the passage shows that he made a marked distinction between the Apocrypha and canonical books, though both were equally denominated Divine Scripture. Cyprian, too, quotes the Apocrypha as sacred Scripture, but at the same time he shows unequivocally that he did not regard them as an authoritative standard of faith. Having on one occasion cited a sentence from the book of Tobit, he proceeds to con- firm it by the " testimony of truth " — that is, by a passage from the Acts of the Apostles, a canonical book, evidently implying that though the Apocry])ha were Divine Scripture, they wei'c not on that account the Word of God.^ This same Father also cites the third and fourth books of Esdras, and the argument is just as strong that he regarded them as inspired, though Kome rejects them, as it is in favour of the books in question. There is another circum.stance which to my mind .settles 1 ILi re-s SH. ' Ibid., 75, Cont. ^Et. ^ De Oper. et Eleemos, I vi. 636 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lett. XIV. the matter that the ancients used the expressions which they apply to tlie Apocrypha without intending to commend those documents as inspired. Tliey make a distinction in the authority due to books which yet they expressly honoured as Divine. It is evident that all truly inspired writings, Trent itself being witness, must be received with equal veneration and piety. There may be a difference in the value of the truths which are communicated in different books, but there can be no difference in authority when all proceed from the Father of lights, with whom is no varia- bleness, neither shadow of turning. Inspiration secures a complete exemption from error, and the Divine testimony is entitled to the same consideration whether it be interposed to establish a primary or a secondary principle. AVhenever God speaks, no matter what may be the subject on which He chooses to address us. His voice is entitled to absolute obedience, and we are as much bound to believe what seems in itself to be of subordinate importance when He pro- claims it, as we are to receive the weightier matters of the law. All inspired Scripture, therefore, stands on the same footing of authority.^ When, therefore, a writer treats one ^ This is well expressed by Bishop Marsh, Comp. View, p. 90. His words are as follows : "But it is really absurd to talk of a medium between canonical anil uncanonical, or of degrees of canonicity. Let us ask what the Church of England understands by a canonical book. This question is answered in the sixth article. It is a book to which we may appeal in confirma- tion of doctrines. It belongs to the Canon, or to the rule of faith. And the very same explanation is given in the corresponding decree of the Council of Trent — namely, that which passed at the fourth session ; for, after an enumeration of the books called sacred and canonical {sacri et canonici), the decree concludes with the observation that the authoritie.s above stated are those which the council proposes to use in confirmation of doctrines {in confirmandis dogmatibus). Every book, therefore, ranst either be or not be acknowledged as a work of authority for tlie establish- ment of doctnnes. Between its absolute rejection and its absolute admis- sion there is no medium. When the question relates to the establishment ot doclrinet, a book must have/«// authority for that purpose, or its author- ity is worth nothing. And hence the Council of Trent very consistently ascribed equal authox'ity to them all. No writer, therefore, belonging to Lett. XIV.] PATRISTIC TERMS FOR APOCRYPII.V. 637 book as of less authority tlian another, it is equivalent to saying that the subordinate book is not inspired. Now the Fathers did treat books which they pronounced to be sacred and Divine as of inferior authority, and therefore sacred and Divine with them must have been something very different from inspiration. Juuilius, in his Treatise de Partibus Divina; Legis, in speaking of the " authority of the Divine books," expressly declares that " some are jiossessed of per- fect authority, some middle, and some of none at allJ' It is impossible that any Christian man, who had the least reve- rence for the testimony of God, could say of what He had revealed by His Spirit that it possessed no authority at all. And yet Junilius, a Christian bisho]> in the sixth century, asserts this of books which in his day were received as holy and Divine. The conclusion is unavoidable that in such connections these Avords mean something very different from inspired. The testimony of Augustine is equally explicit in the matter. He was a member of that Council of Carthage which is supposed to have canonized the Apocryphal books, and of course received them as Divine Scripture. Speaking of the books of Maccabees, however, he justifies their recep- tion by the Church, chiefly on account of the moral tendency of the history.^ It is plain that he could not have regarded them as inspired, since their inspiration would have been the Church of Rome could represent their authority as unequal without impugning that decree of the Council of Trent." To the same purport is the following declaration of Lindanus in Pano- plia Evang., as quoted by Kainold, Cens. Lib. Apoc, Pralect. xxiv., vol. i., p. 203 : "Eosimpio se sacrilegio contaminarc, ([ui in Scripturarum Christian- arum cor[)ore, quosdam quasi gradus authoritatis cunantur locare quod uiiam, eandcmque Spiritus Sancti vocem impio iiumanie stultitiic discern- iculo audent in varias impares di.-^cerpere ac distribuere authoritatis classes." ' Augustine says : " Hanc Scripturam qure appellatur Maccluibcenrum, non habent Judsei sicut Legem et Prophetas et Psalmos quibus Dominus testimonium prohibit. . . . Sed recepta est ab>^I'>cclesia non inutiliter, si sobrie legatur vel audiatur, maxime propter illos Macchabseos qui pro Dei lege sicut veri martyres i persecutoribus tam indigna atque horrenda per- pessi sunt." — Cont. Gaudent. Donat., lib. i., c. xxxi. 638 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lett. XIV. the strongest of all possible reasons for receiving them. He receives them only because they might be profitably read and heard, and they were Divine in no other sense than as being subservient to the purpose of edification and improvement. As, now, such phrases as Divine Scripture are confessedly ambiguous, as a meaning may be put upon them justified by the nature of the w^ords and by ancient usage qu^e distinct from that of inspiration, it certainly devolves upon those who adduce the adoption of such expressions by the ancient Fathers, as sustaining the decision of the Council of Trent, to prove unanswerably that Divine Scripture and inspired Scripture are uniformly used as synonymous terms by the early Avriters, or their Avhole argument falls to the ground. It is one thing to assert that books are Divine in the sense that they may be profitably read or devoutly studied ; it is quite another to affirm that their authors wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. The issue betwixt us and Rome is on the point of inspi- ration. She affirms that God is the Author of these books, and Ave deny it. The question is not whether the primitive churches read them or not, wdiether the early Fathers quoted them or not, or whether they regarded them as instructive or not, or whether they pronounced them Divine or not ; the question is, Was God their Author ? And while this is the issue, the Romanist only exposes himself and his cause to contempt by elaborate proofs of what no Protestant would deem it of any importance to dispute with him. It would be well for you to bear in mind what you will find strikingly illustrated in the Offices of Tully,' the marked difference between the looseness of popular language and the accuracy of scientific disquisition. As the Primitive Church entertained no doubts of the exclusive claims of the Hebrew Canon, as this was a settled matter, there was no danger of being misunderstood in employing words in a general sense which had a peculiar and emphatic application only to a particular class of books. They were not likely to mislead, 1 Lib. ii., c. 10. Lett. XIV.] PATRISTIC TERMS FOR APOCRYPHA. 639 any more than to cite the Apocrypha now as belonging to the Old Testament would be construed into a recognition of their Divine authority, or to speak of Watts, Hervey, Owen and Newton as holy men, illustrious divines and spiritual writers would be regarded as tantamount to the assertion that they were supernaturally inspired. All the epithets with which we distinguish the sacred Scriptures have a loose and popular as well as a strict and scientific sense, and hence the mere use of the words determines nothing as to the cha- racter of the writings. An argument constructed upon this foundation would prove too much even for Home; it would authorize Barnabas, Clement, Ignatius, the Apocryphal l)ook of Isaiah, the book of Henoch, and the third and fourth books of Esdras, the writings of Augustine, the canons of coun- cils and the decrees of popes, to claim a place in the same category Avith Moses, the Prophets, the Psalms, Evangelists and Apostles. All these rejected documents were quoted by the Fathers, quoted distinctly as Scripture, in some instances as Divine Scripture, and, what is still more remarkable, as divinely inspired Scripture. This is the language which Nicholas^ employs in regard to the Fathers, and which CyriP applies to the Council of Nice. It may be, therefore, regarded as indisputably settled that Divine Scripture and such like expressions were not equiv- alent to a proper name for the canonical books. If, therefore, we wish to ascertain what were the senti- ments of the Primitive Church in relation to the extent of the Canon, we must appeal to more definite sources of in- formation than a collection of passages which may be just as accurately interpreted to mean that the disputed books were religious in opposition to profane as that they were inspired in opposition to human. Loose and popular ex- pressions are not the proper materials for an argument of this sort. Incidental statements, occasionally drop[)ed in the midst of discourses upon other matters, do not constitute 1 Epist. ad Micliii'l. Imp. (Rainolil, Pnelcct. xxiv., vol. i., p. 201). - De Trinitate, lib. i. (Kainoltl, Ibid.). 640 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lett. XIV. the testimony of the Primitive Church. That shouUl, man- ifestly, be sought in those places of the ancient M'riters in which they were professedly treating of the standard of faith, and avow it as their design to set forth the books which were received as supernaturally inspired. We have numerous passages in which these books are the subject of discussion; we have divers catalogues, made by different writers and at different times during the first four cen- turies, of all the documents which the Church received aa the rule of faith, in different forms and under different cir- cumstances ; the whole matter is repeatedly brought before us ; we have line upon line, precept on precept, here a little and there a little; and in such passages, and such passages alone, I insist upon it, is the testimony of the Primitive Church to be sought. In those parts of the Patristical re- mains where it is the express purpose of the writer to declare what books were believed to be of God, we may expect pre- cision, accuracy and care. The witness is put upon the stand, answers, as it were, under oath, and guards his phrase- ology, provided he be honest, so as to convey an adequate impression of the truth. The astronomer sjDcaks in popular language of the sun's rising and setting and pursuing his course through the heavens, and yet it would be preposter- ous to charge him with denying the elementary principles of his science or teaching a system that has long been ex- ploded, because he employs expressions which, though suf- ficiently exact for the ordinary intercourse of life, are not philosoj)hically precise. So, in a loose and familiar accep- tation, the primitive Fathers speak of the Apocrypha as Divine Scripture, intending to convey no other idea but that they belonged to a class of religious literature, and might be profitably studied for personal improvement; and it is equally preposterous from such general expressions to infer that they taught the supernatural inspiration of the books. For the real opinions of the astronomer you Avould appeal to his language when he is professedly treating of the heavenly bodies ; then you would expect him to \^•eigh his Lett. XIV.] PATRISTIC TERM.S FOR APOCRYPHA. 641 words, to avoid the looseness of popular discourse, and to employ no terms which are not scientifically just. So for the real opinions of the Fathers upon the subject of the Canon we should appeal to their statements when they pro- fessedly give us an accurate account or formal catalogue of the inspired Avorks. Then we should expect them to use terms in a strictly scientific sense ; and if in such connections the Apocrypha were ever introduced as a part of the Word of God, there would be something like testimony in behalf of the pretensions of Rome. But it is worthy of remark that in every case in which the ancient writers used the terms Seripture and Divine Scripture in their restricted and emphatic application, in all instances in which they are professedly treating of the Canon of inspiration, they never extend them to the Apocrypha. In none of the catalogues which they have given us of the books wdiich God has gra- ciously imparted as the Rule of Faith are these spurious rec- ords to be found. The voice of Christian antiquity accords with the voice of the Jewish Church, and both combine to condemn the arrogance and blasphemy of Trent. Nothing, sir, can reveal more clearly the desperate extrem- ities to which you are driven in support of a sinking cause than that, instead of giving those plain, pointed and direct statements which the Fathers themselves intended to be, and which common sense suggests must be, their testimony upon the subject, you hunt up and down through all the remains of antiquity, and preserve your soul from absolute despair by seizing, here and there, upon a few popular ex- pressions, which, by being tortured into a special and re- stricted sense, may be made to look with some degree of favour on your claims. You never seem to be aware of the egregious absurdity of bending the accurate to the loose, in- stead of the loo.se to the accurate. Upon the same principle, if you should meet with a pa.ssage in the private and con- fidential letter of a man of science in which he employed the language of the vulgar, you would at once construe it into the true exposition of his sy.stem, and make his ])hil- VOL. III.— 41 642 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lf.tt. XIV. osophical treatises succumb to his popular expressions. There is an apparent discrepancy, and that must be recon- ciled by torturing philosophy and dignifying the dialect of the vulgar. If, sir, there existed an apparent inconsistency between the statements of a witness, publicly given, -when he stood forth in the face of the world to make his deposition, and incidental expressions, touching the matter in dispute, drop- ped from him in the course of conversation upon other subjects, and if you regarded him as a man of veracity who would not really contradict himself, would you feel bound to explain his professed testimony by his loose conversation, or to reconcile his loose conversation with his professed tes- timony? Which would you regard as the standard by which the other was to be measured? Which, in other words, would be what might be properly called his testimony f It is certainly the dictate of common sense to explain the loose by the accurate. Cicero, in one of his philosophical treatises, in conformity with the example of illustrious predecessors, maintained that he who possessed one of the virtues must necessarily possess them all. In a popular work he subsequently re- marked that a man might be just without being prudent. Here appeared to be a discrepancy, and upon your principles of criticism the true method of explaining it was to deny that he held prudence to be a virtue. The philosopher, however, has solved the difficulty himself by assuring us that there was no real inconsistency, since in the one case the terms were employed with precision and accuracy, and in the other with popular laxness. Alia est ilia, says he — and it would be w^ell for you to remember the remai'k — cum Veritas ijysa limatur in disputatione, subtilitas : alia, cum ad opinionem commimem omnis accommodatur oratio. If the plain and obvious principles which I have briefly suggested be applied to the criticism of the ancient docu- ments which have survived the ravages of time, we shall find that there is not a single record of the first four cen- Lett. XIV.] P.\T1!ISTIC TERMS FOR APOCRYPIIA <)4.'i tiiries which sustains the decision of Trent. The unbroken testimony of that whole period is clearly, decidedly, unan- swerably, against that unparalleled deed of atrocity and guilt. And how else can it be regarded but as a downright insult to the understandings of men, when the formal cata- logues of the Primitive Church are produced, when the passages are brought forward in which the best and noblest champions of the faith undertake professedly to recount the books of the Canon, when they come forward for the express purpose of bearing testimony in the matter before us, — how else can it be regarded but as a downright insult to the un- derstandings of men to tell us that this is not the voice of antiquity, that these recorded statements are not the true statements of the case, because it so happens that other books besides those included in the lists of inspiration were not treated as absolutely heathenish and profane ? For this, as we have seen, when fairly interpreted, is the real amount of the testimony jn favour of the Apocrypha. The ancient Church treated them as religious and edifying books, just precisely as the modern Church regards the com})osi- tions of Howe, Owen and Scott. Therefore, we are gravely told, they must be inspired. When I reflect upon your whole course of argument uj)on this subject, I can hardly persuade myself that you are able to peruse your own lucubrations without losing your gravity. You set out with the purpose of proving that Christ and His Apostles had delivered the Apocrypha to the Christian Church as inspired documents. This was a perlcctly plain and intelligible proposition ; it respected a simple matter of fact, the legitimate proof of which was credible testimony, and we had a right to expect that you would produce some record of the Apostles, or some authentic evidence from those who were contemporary with them, in which it was directlv stated that such was the case. But these reasonable expectations are excited only to be blasted. Nothing of the sort appears in any part of your letters ; but, as if in mockery of our hopes, you put us off with a 644 TESTIMONIES FROM SECOND CENTURY. [Lett. XV. series of quotations, Avhich, allowing them all the weight that can possibly be given to them, prove nothing more than the existence of the books in the apostolic age. Then we are to infer, it Avould seem, that Christ and His A])ostles delivered the Apocrypha to the Christian Church as in- spired, because the books existed in the apostolic age. But hold! You have, perhaps, some stronger reasons in reserve. The Primitive Church believed them to be inspired; there- fore, beyond all question, they must be inspired. Now, granting what I am unable to perceive, the legitimacy of your therefore in the present case, how does it apj)ear that such was the faith of the Primitive Church? This point, you inform us, is as clear as noonday, for the Fathers of the ancient Church actually quoted these very books, ai^d pronounced them to be useful and edifying compositions. This is demonstration plain and irrefragable as holy Avrit, and he who cannot see the proofs of inspiration in conduct of this kind must be a stubborn and refractory spirit that deserves the damnation which Trent has denounced. The substance of your letters may be embodied in the folloAAang beautiful sorites: The Apocrypha were quoted by the Primitive Church. Whatever it quoted it believed to be inspired. Whatever it believed to be inspired it had received from the hands of Christ and His Apostles. Therefore the Apocrypha were delivered to the Church by Christ and His Apostles as inspired documents ! LETTER XV. TESTIMONIES FROM THE SECOND CENTURY. That the reader may distinctly apprehend how slender is the basis upon M'hich the Church of Rome has erected her portentous additions to the Scriptures, I proceed to ex- Lett. XV.] TESTIl\[ONIES FROM SECOND CENTURY. 645 amine, in detai], the various testimonies upon which you have relied to prove the inspiration of the Apocrypha. This task, it is true, is in a great degree unnecessary, since it has ah-eady been conclusively demonstrated that your method of procedure is fallacious. But as in the weakness of your attempted refutation, you have only shown the strength of the position that within the period embraced in this discussion — the first four centuries of the Christian era — not a single writer can be found who regarded these documents as the Word of God, it may be of service to the interests of righteousness to cross-examine your witnesses one by one, and to show, as the result, that upon the subject of the books of the Canon the voice of antiquity is harmo- nious and clear. Still, however, it deserves to be remarked that if you had been as successful as you evidently hoped to be in establishing the fact that the primitive Fathers, to wdiom you have appealed, coincided upon this point with the Council of Trent, your original proposition would not have been sustained. Your purpose was to prove that Christ or His Apostles had given to the Christian Church the authority of which, according to you, the Jews were not pos- sessed, to insert these books into the sacred Canon. It was testimony in behalf of this fact of which you were in quest, and such testimony you cannot surely pretend to have pro- duced in the beggarly quotations with which you have amused us. Since, however, you have failed, signally failed, as a slight investigation will render indubitable, in your laborious endeavours to prove that the Canon of the Fathers was the same with the Canon of E,ome, how overwhelming must be your defeat whenever you shall condescend to un- dertake the discussion of the other, your main and leading proposition ! 1. The first writer of tlie second century to whom you have appealed is Justin Martyr. You produce a passage from the first Apology, which Justin himself professes to have borrowed from the books of JIoscs, but which you are certain, in defiance of his own une(juivocal assertion, nnist 6-46 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lett. XV. have been condensed from a corresponding passage in the Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach. It is not, therefore, a question between you and me, but a question between you and the Father himself, whether or not he has quoted the Apocrypha. In the midst of proof of the moral agency of man, and a consequent refutation of the dangerous and absurd pretensions of libertines and fatalists, Justin observes, " The Holy Prophetic Spirit taught us these things, having said through Closes that God spoke thus to the first formed man : Behold, before you are good and evil ; choose the good." ^ " It might seem," you inform us in your curioiLS and amusing criticism upon this passage, " that St. Ju.stin thought that Moses declares God spoke thus to Adam; but in his writings he appears too well acquainted with the Scriptures, and to have studied the account of the creation too accurately, to commit such a mistake. I have not the means," you continue, " of discovering whether there be any grounds for supposing some error of the manuscript in recording the name, or whether we are forced to say that he meant that Moses gives us an account of the creation and of the facts, though he does not record the words which else- where the Holy and Prophetic Spirit testifies Avere spoken, or that St. Justin, in fine, erred in memory, confounding one part of Scripture with another. This much is certain, that the words attributed by him to the Holy and Prophetic Spirit are found in Ecclesiasticus xv., from Avhich they are evidently condensed." It is not a little singular that the holy Father should have been too accurately acquainted with the Scriptures to com- mit the mistake, if indeed a mistake it can be called, Avhich his words most obviously seem to imply, and yet at the same time have possessed a memory so treacherous and erring as to confound one part of Scripture with another. The ques- ^ EfSifJafe Kai ^fiac ravra to ayiov ttqo^ijtikov Tvvehjua 6ia Mcjaiug (p^aav '(ft TTQUTtj irlaadEVTi avdg^Tvu iigfjadai vtto tov deov ovtuc, i^ov npb irgoauirov aov rb ayaOhv km to kukSv EK?i£^aL to dyadov. Apol. i., § 44, p. 69, Paris edition, 1742. Lett. XV.] TESTIMONIES FROM SECOXD CENTURY. 647 tion, too, mio-ht naturally be asked, why, if tlie ineiuory only were in fiuilt, it is not just as likely that Justin has confounded what Moses is recorded to haye said in the fif- teenth and nineteenth verses of the thirteenth chapter of Deuteronomy to his assembled countrymen with what God aimounced to the progenitor of the race, as that he has mistaken the son of Sirach for the author of the Pentateuch. As there exists not a particle of evidence that the name of Moses has been corruptly foisted into the next, we are com- pelled to acknowledge that the good Father, even if he had really, though unconsciously, condensed the passage in ques- tion from the corresponding passage in the Wisdom of Jesus, treats it as inspired, and ascribes it to the Holy Prophetic Spirit, not because it is found in Ecclesiasticus, but because he supposed it had been written by the Jewish legislator. The words are certainly contained in the Pentateuch, though not in the connection in which they are quoted by Justin. JNIoses nowhere says, totidem verbis, that God employed such language to the father of the race, but he distinctly teaches what is equivalent to it — that Adam was placed under a legal dispensation, in which life was promised as the reward of obedience, and death threatened as the penalty of trans- gression. As such a dispensation might be conveniently described in the very words which Justin has quoted, and as Moses actually emj^loyed them in the thirtieth chapter of the book of Deuteronomy,^ it is no rash presumption to suppose that they were simply accommodated, in the pa.ssage before us, to express the condition in which man was placed, as Paul accommodates a portion of the same chapter in his beautiful description of the economy of grace.^ The point which Justin had in view was to prove the freedom of the human Avill, a point necessarily involved in a state of ])ro- bation, and which, therefore, would be sufficiently established by shoM'ing what Moses had unquestionably taught — that man was made the subject of law. *'It appears from the Scriptures," he would say — if I may be allowed to para- ' Verses lo and 19. ^ Vide Romans x. 0, 7, 8. 648 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lett. XV phrase his meaning — " it appears from the Scriptures, that man is a responsible, voluntary agent, because, Avhen orig- inally formed by God, it was made to depend upon his own choice, upon the free decisions of his own will, whether he should be eternally happy or miserable; life and death were set before him; an easy probation was assigned him; and hence it follows that the power of election necessarily be- longed to him. The very language which Moses employed in a diiferent connection so exactly describes the nature of the trial to which our first father was subjected that it may fitly be considered as the terms in which God addressed him when He set before him the blessing and the curse in the garden of Eden." ' If this view of the passage be correct, there is evidently no necessity of contradicting the state- ments of Justin himself, and of making him quote from one book when he professes to have borroM'ed from another. You have consequently not succeeded, and I may venture to assert that you will never succeed, in bringing up a single exception to the sweeping remark of Bishop Cosin, that Justin Martyr, " in all his works, citeth not so much as any one passage out of the Apocryphal books, nor maketh the least mention of them at all." This is certainly astonishing, since in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew the subject in- vited him to incidental notices of the conduct and temper of the Jewish people in regard to the Scriptures. Though you are right in supposing that quotations in that conference from the Apocryphal works as authoritative decisions of the matters in dispute would have been inadmissible, yet it was manifestly not out of place to expose the hardness of heart and blindness of mind which persevered in the rejec- tion of inspired documents after satisfactory proof had been furnished that they proceeded from God. Justin reproaches the Jews with their obduracy and malice, with tiieir deli- berate contempt of the light of truth, and their fraudulent ^ Tlie Editor of .Justin lia.s ucoordingly remarked, in a note upon the passage, " Si sensus consideretur, satis luoc congruunt cum iis ipue Deus Adamo dixit." Lett. XV.] TESTIMONIES FROM SECOND CENTURY. 649 supi)rcssioii of Messianic texts in the I'ropliets and tlie Psalms/ but not a syllabic does he whisper of Avhat would have been still more conclusive proof of their terrible fatuity, not a syllable does he whisper of their suppressing, in addition to single passages and isolated texts, whole books of the Bible. This is strange if the Jews indeed had been guilty of such an atrocity. So much for the testi- mony of Justin. 2. Your next witness is Irenseus of Lyons. You produce passages from him in which it is conceded that he quotes the Apocryphal books of Wisdom and of Baruch, and the cor- rupt additions to the prophecy of Daniel.^ As, however, he introduces his quotations with no expres- sions of peculiar respect or religious veneration, which show that the sentiment is not simply accommodated because it ac- cords with the judgment of the writer, but is received with deference and reverential submission as an authoritative statement of Divine truth — as Irenaeus drops no hint of any uncommon or extraordinary regard for the documents in question, beyond what he felt for other works, and works confessedly of human composition, of which he has also availed himself, I am wholly at a loss to determine what use you can possibly make of his testimony. Where does he say that these books are supernatural ly inspired, that they constitute a part of the Rule of Faitii — an integral portion of the written revelation which God has given of His will? What language does he apply to them from which it can be gatiiered that he looked upon them as pos- sessed of ecpial authority and entitled to equal veneration with the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms? If the mere fact that Irena?us has quoted them is sufficient to canouize AVisdom, Baruch and the additions to Daniel, Rome must ' \'ide Conference with Trypho, § 72, 73, for a speciiiu'ii of these charges of fraiuhilent dealing with tlie Scriptures. ^Wisdom vi. 20 is quoted Contra Hieres, lib. iv., cap. x.xxviii.; Ba- ruch iv. 30, 37, and Baruch v. entire are quoted, lib. v., cap. xxxv. The story of Susannah is (quoted, lib. iv., cap. xxvi. ; Bel and the I)ragon, lib. iv., I'lp. V. 650 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lett. XV. considerably enlarge her Canon, since the same argument would embrace in its sweeping conclusion divers other books which have never been esteemed as supernaturally inspired. In the sixth chapter of his fourth book against heresies he quotes a passage from Justin Martyr, and endorses the sentiment as fully and completely as in any of the cases in which he appeals to the Apocrypha.^ In the twenty-eighth chapter of the fifth book of the same great work a sentence is introduced from Ignatius' Epistle to the Romans,^ and in the fourth chapter of the fourth book a nameless author is commended,^ who is probably the same that Eusebius denominates an apostolical presbyter. But what is most striking and remarkable of all, in the twen- tieth chapter of the fourth book the Shepherd of Hermas is not only quoted, but quoted distinctively as Scripture} Now, are we to infer that Justin, Ignatius and Hermas all wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost ? Or shall we not rather conclude that the argument from Irenjeus proves too much, and therefore, upon logical principles, is absolutely worthless ? If you should object that Baruch is quoted under the name of Jeremiah, and the additions to Daniel under the name of that Prophet, you yourself have supplied us with the materials of solving the difficulty. " The book of Baruch was at that time joined to the book of Jeremiah," and cou- 1 Ka« Ka?M^ lovarivog ev rw Trpof Map/c/wva cwray/iari ^ijaiv 'on nvru ni Kvgiu) bv6' av ETreladeiEv^aXTiovdebv Ka-ay^eAAovTi-iTaQarbv6Tj/MovQy6v . . . AVe cannot complete the passage from Justin, since his own work has suffered more terribly from the ravages of time than even*that of Irenseus. The Latin is as follows : Et bene Justinus in eo libro qui est ad Marcionem ait : Quoniam ipsi quoque Domino non credidmem, alterum Deum annuntianti, proeter fabricalorem etfactorem et nutritorem nostrum. * 'Qq hive TiQ Tuv r]fieT£QUV^ 6ia t//v ~pbc Oebv iiaQrvgiav Karangidhg ~Qbt; d>/pia' on (tItuc ELfu denv^ Kal (h' bSbvrup Or/Qiuv aM/dofia/^ Iva KaOaQbg aQzog ivpefio). ^ Et bene qui dixit ipsum immensum Patrem in Filio mensuratum ; mensura enim Patris, Filius, quoniam et capit eum. * KaTiug 6w hivEV 7/ yQa7ialv: "Rightly, therefore, says the Apostle Barnabas." This is pre- cisely the form in wliich Clement sometimes quotes the inspired writers. For example, a passage from the Psalms is thus introduced, Strom., lib. ii., c. XV.: Ei/iorwf bw ftjalv 6 Tlpotir/Tric : "Rightly, therefore, says the Prophet." For other quotations from Barnabas, see Strom., lib. ii., cap. XV., xviii. ; lib. v., cap. x. ^ Strom., ii. 20 : Ov fioL 6ei 7r?.et6vuv 7.6yuv, ■KaQadefikvu fidprw tov a'szoaroX. iKfiv BaQvaiiav, etc. It is remarkable that in this passage, as the context will show, Barnabas seems to be quoted to prove a doctrine. 654 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lett. XV. stone." To tlie Apostles the promise was orio:inally made that the Holy Spirit shoukl be imparted as a Divine Teacher, who should guide them into all truth and bring to their remembrance the instructions of the Son. To call a man an Apostle, therefore, would seem to be equivalent to pronouncing him inspired. It was an office furnished with the gift of supernatural wisdom and infallible knowledge, and yet Clement does not scruple to distinguish " the fel- low-labourer of Paul" with this high title of authorit\\ Did Clement believe that Barnabas was actually inspired? Let a single fact answer the question. He contradicts^ the exposition which Barnabas had given of the Mosaic prohi- bition, "Thou shalt not eat of the hyena nor the hare," which, says Cotelerius, " he would by no means have done if he had believed that Barnabas was entitled to a place in the Canon." The epithet Apostle, the distinguishing title of the inspired founders of the Church, must consequently have been applied to him in an inferior and subordinate sense. To me it seems self-evident that to call a book Scripture is no stronger proof of inspiration than to affirm that it was written by an Apos- tle. In fact, it is much more likely that such a general term as Scripture, in its own nature applicable to every variety of composition, should be promiscuously employed, than that an official designation of the highest rank should 1 " There is no inconsiderable proof to be made out of the works of Cle- mens Alexandrinus himself that he did not look upon this Epistle [Barna- bas'] as having any manner of authority, but on the contrary took the liberty to oppose and contradict it when he saiv fit. One instance will be suf- ficient. In Paedag., lib. ii., c. x., p. 188, he cites the explication of Bar- nabas on that law of Moses, Thou shalt not eat of the hyena nor the hare — that is, not be like those animals in their lascivious qualities. He does not, indeed, name Barnabas as in other places, but nothing can be more evi- dent than that he refers to the Epistle of Barnabas, ch. x. After which he adds, that though he doubted not but Moses designed a prohibition of adultery by prohibiting these animals, oi' i-th' ra Tij6e e^tfyZ/aei tuv (tvu3o^- \kuq elptj/jhuv d'yuaridE/iat, yet he could not ayree ivith the symbolical expli- cation some gave of the place — viz., that the hyena changes its sex yearly, and is sometimes male and sometimes female, as Barnabas saith. After wliich he largely disputes against the fact." — Jones on Can., part iii., c. 40. Lett. XV.] TESTIMONIES FROM SECOND CENTURY. 655 be attributed to those who possessed none of the extraordi- nary endowments that give a right to the title. As, then, uninspired men among the ancient writers were unquestion- ably denominated Apostles, it is not incredible tliat unin- spired b5oks should have been in like manner denominated Scripture. (2.) Clement of Rome is also quoted^ in the Stromata, and quoted as an Apostle. Upon your principle of reason- ing, accordingly, his Epistle to the Corinthians ought to be inserted in the sacred library of the Church. (3.) But how will you dispose of the Shepherd of Her- mas ? It was evidently a favourite with Clement, and is sometimes described in language which, if you had found it in connection with Wisdom and Tobias, Ecclesiasticus and Baruch, you would perhaps have paraded as triumphant proof of their Divine authority. Let me call your atten- tion to two remarkable passages. In the twenty-ninth chap- ter of the first book of the Stromata a quotation is intro- duced from the Shepherd in these words :^ "Divinely, there- fore, says the power which speaks to Hernias by revelation." Again, at the close of the first chapter of the second book,'^ another quotation is introduced in terms almost as strong: " The power that appeared in vision to Hernias, says." Now here is a power which speaks divinely, reveals things in visions, and performs the offices in regard to Hernias which are described in the same words with the supernatural com- munications of the Holy Ghost to the Prophets. Did Cle- ment mean to assert that the Pastor of Hermas was an inspired production? Most unquestionably not,'* and yet ' Strom., lib. i., c. 7 : hv-'ma 6 K?.^//evc h rri irpoQ Kdpivdiovq 'nviCToli) , Kara M^iv, (pijal. Again, Strom., iv., c. 17 : Na? /x9/v ev rif Tvpbc KnpiMnvg £7naTuhJ 6 A~6a-o?.og lOJ/fievc, 2 9«wf Totvvv rj AhvafJic t) '(J Ep/xa Kara aTroKa?.uijuv ?xi?.ovaa. ' 4>5?(7^ yap h 76)" opdfiari r KT/gvy/ian Xeyei. Strom., lib. vi., c. v. Again, in the same chapter, referring to the same book — av-og Siac^a^^aei Ilf-pof. Two other references are in the same chapter, besides various others in the first and second books. Lett. XV.] TESTIMONIES FROM SECOND CENTURY. 657 is known Ijy the title of his Preachimj. On the same ground it may be said that in simiUvr quotations from Wisdom all that the Father intended to assert was, that Solomon is rep- resented to have said in a book which is distinguished by his name. In other words, in both instances the documents are quoted according to their titles. (5.) If the principle be true which you have assumed as the basis of your argument throughout this discussion — if the principle be true that whatever books are quoted by the Fathers in the same way with the canonical Scriptures must themselves be inspired, then the fourth book of Esdras, which Rome rejects, and Bellarmine declares to be disfigured with fables, the dreams of Rabbins and Talmudists, deserves to be inserted in the Sacred Library. In the sixteenth chap- ter of the third book of the Stromata you will find a pas- sage from this miserable work, standing, in your view, upon consecrated ground (for you frequently insist on it as a matter of some moment when a text from the Apocrypha is introduced in connection with one from the Canon), with Jeremy on one hand and Job on the other. Nay, it would seem, if we confine ourselves simply to the language, that Esdras was regarded as a fit companion for these venerable men. His book is quoted as the w'ork of a prophet — "says the Prophet Esdras." ^ Now, sir, is the fourth book of Esdras inspired ? Listen to Cardinal Bellarmine : " The third and fourth books of Esdras are apocryphal ; and although they are cited by the Fathers, yet, without doubt, they are not canonical, since no council has ever referred them to the Canon. The fourth book is found neither in Hebrew nor Greek, and contains 1 ETTtKardparof 6i tj riiieQa, iv y hix(hv. Kal fif/ iaru kirevKria, 6 lEQe/iiag (pi](jlv. oh TT/v yheaiv UTrXug iiriKaTaparov Myuv, oKk' anoSvaneTuv eizl roig d/iapT^/iaai tov laov Kal r^ aneideig,' enKpipei yoxw rf/d ri ydp kyewifirfv^ tov PMireiv k6-ovc km Trdvwf Kai (^leriAeaav iv ataxvvt] at ^fiipai fiov- avriKa ■wavreg ol KTjQvaaov-eg t^v a'Arfieiav, Jtd t^v ancideiav tuv aK0v6vTuv cSkjkovtS TE Kai iKivAvvel'OV. Ala ri yap ovk eyivero ^ fiijTQn ri/c fivrQ^^ fiov rd^fj Iva fi^ I6u rbv fioxOov tov IokijS, kui tov k6-ov tov yevovr Iffpai/? • E\ He fixes, in the first place, the age of Moses, then exhibits in rapid review the leading events between Moses and David, and David and the Captivity, and finally mentions the most remarkable facts that occurred during the })eriod of the Exile. In connection with this your first passage is introduced. Now, all that Clement's argument required was that the statements which he gathered from the Apoc- rypha should be historically true. It was not important that they should be confirmed by Divine inspiration or de- livered only by writers who were guided by the Spirit of God. It was enough that he believed them to be true. Historical credibility and supernatural inspiration are not terms of the same extension. The histories of Herodotus and Livy are, without doubt, to be received as authentic. Does it follow that they must also be regarded as inspired or Divine? Why then may not the history of the Macca- bees, the narrative of Tobit and the story of Susannah be received as a faithful exhibition of the facts which they record, without being clothed with supernatural authority? Clement simply informs us " that during this period lived Esther and Mordecai, whose book is had, as also that of the Maccabees." But is there a single syllable which in- dicates that either book was inspired ? We know, in fact, that Esther was, but if we had not other information we should never be able to collect it from this passage. Again, he says, "Tobias, because of the angel Raphael, takes Sara to wife, whose first seven husbands Satan had slain ; and after their marriage his father Tobit recovers his sight." In other words, Clement simply abridges a well-known Lett. XV.] TESTIMONIES FROM SECOND CENTURY. 661 narrative without the slightest expression of opinion as to the source from which it originated. The book of Tobit was a part of tlie general body of Jewish literature, and as such is introduced by the Father. But what puts it beyond all'doubt that Clement did not confine himself in this pas- sage, as you would have us to suppose, to the canonical books, the very next sentence to the last which you have quoted refers to the fourth book of Esdras (which liome declares to be apocryphal), and mentions a fact which is recorded in the fourteenth chapter of that fabulous produc- tion. Clement attributes to Esdras a renovation of the sacred oracles, in evident allusion to the story that the books of the Law had been burnt and were miraculously restored after the captivity. " Esdras afterwards " — these are the words of the Father ' — " returned to his country and by him were achieved the redemption of the people and the recen- sion and reneioal of the divinely-inspired oracles." Your second passage, which may be found in the nine- teenth chapter of the fourth book of the Stromata, is little more than a quotation from Clement of Rome's Ei)ist]e to the Corinthians ; and as you have already insisted upon it as found in the apostolic Father, I need not here rej)cat the answer which has already been given. That Susannah — a fact to which you attach no small degree of importance — should be named in connection with Moses, Miriam and Esther, is no more surprising than that Socrates should have been lauded as a martyr and honoured as a prophet of tlic Logos of God." 4. I see nothing in any of the extracts which you have given from Tertullian that can possibly be tortured into the semblance of an argument. AV^ithout insisting on the point which, I think, is susceptible of an easy demonstration, that some of the passages in which you represent him as 1 Kd< HETO. Ecrc'pa eif ri/v Tvarpuav yfiv avai^evyvvai. 61 ov yiverat i) h-o/.v- TQOxjtc ~dv 2xidv Kat 6 tCjv deoTrvevaruv avayvuQtafioc Kai avaKaivia/ioc ^oylui; — Strom., lib. i., cap. xxi. Irenffius also endorsied the same story: Contra Hasres. lib. iii., c. xxi.; of. Enseb., 11. $}., lib. v., cap. viii. ^ Strom., lib. iv., cap. xix.; Jmtin Martyr, Apol., i. 5. 662 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lett. XV. quoting the Apocrypha are, in fact, citations from the ca- nonical books, it is sufficient to observe that he drops not a single expression from which it can be necessarily inferred that he believed these works, however freely he might have used them, to be entitled to equal veneration and respect with the undisputed Canon of the Jews. If he appeals to Wisdom and Barueh under the names respectively of Sol- omon and Jeremiah, it is only in consequence of the title of the books. There is, in fact, as much evidence that he de- ferred to the fourth book of Esdras as canonical authority as you have been able to adduce in favour of the documents which Rome has appended to the Word of God. In the treatise De Habitu Muliebri there occurs, in the third chapter, an evident allusion to the apocryphal story, which the leathers seem to have received without suspicion, of the miraculous restoration of the Jewish books, after the return from the Babylonian captivity, by the agency of Esdras. ^'Omne instrumentuvi'^ is the language of Tertullian, "Judaicce Literaturce per Esdram constat restaur atum.'^ The expression, ocidi Domini altl, which may be found near the beginning of the tract De Prescriptione Haereti- corum, seems to have been suggested by a corresponding phrase in the eighth chapter of the fourth book of Esdras, Domine cujus oeidi elevati (v. 20). Very nearly an exact quotation from this same fabulous production is introduced again in the sixteenth section of the fourth book of the work against Marcion, Loquere in aures audientium. It is susceptible of the clearest proof that Tertullian did not scruple to refer to a book as Scripture which he knew at the time not to be inspired. So that if your argument had been even stronger than it is, if you had producetl — as you have not — citations from his writings in which this distinguished Father applies to the Apocrypha tlie usual appellations of the canonical books, your conclusion could not have followed from your premises. On two separate occasions Tertullian denominates the Pastor of Hernui.s Scrlj)iure, and yet in one of^ the instances, in the very con- Lett. XV.J TESTIMONIES FROM SECOND CENTURY. 663 nettion in wliic-h he refers to it under this honourable title, he distinctly testifies that it possessed no Divine authority, but was universally rejected as aj)ocryphal and spurious.^ So, aj^ain, in the seventeenth chapter of his Dissertation upon Baptism, he speaks of a composition which he declares to be spurious as the Scripture which an Asiatic presbyter had forged under the name of Paul.^ The author of the Poetical Books against Marcion, which pass under the name of Tertullian, seems to have entertained not the slightest suspicion that this " Prince of the Latin Church " called into question the integrity or completeness of the Hebrew Canon. He informs us that the twenty-four wings of the elders in the Apocalypse were symbolical rep- resentations of the twenty-four books which compose the Old Testament ; the number twenty-four being doubtless made, as we learii from Jerome that it was sometimes done, by separating Lamentations from the prophecy of Jeremiah, and Ruth from the book of Judges. " Alarum numerus antiqua volumina signat, Esse satis certa viginti quatuor ista Qure Domini cecinere vias et tempora pacis." Carm. Advers. Marc, lib. iv. It may be gatheijed as an important " inference from the examination which has just been instituted into the leading documents of the second century, that all writings, pro- fessedly religious, whether human or supernatural in their origin, were referred by the Fathers to a common class, and ' The second pa-ssage from Tertullian I shall insert entire: Sed cedereni til)i, si Scriptura Pastoris, quae sola nia»chos amat, divino instrumento me- ruisset incidi, si non ab omni concilio Eeelesiarum etiam vestrarum inter Apocrypha et falsa jndicaretur. — De Pudicit., c. x. Tertullian wrote this when he was a Montanist. That, however, is of no importance, since the critical [)urpose for which it is adduced is to show that he may call a book Scripture and yet believe it to be apocryphal. ^ Quod si qua; Pauli jierperam Scripta legunt, exenij)luni Thecl.e ad licciitiain muruTum docendi tingnendique defendunt, sciant in Asia Pres- bytcruni, qui cam Scripturam construxit, (juasi titnio Pauli de suo cum- ulans, convictnm atque confessum id se araore Pauli fecisse, loco disces- sissc. 664 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lett. XV. embraced under a common appellation. This was done in order that a broad line might be drawni between the monu- ments of Pagan literature and the productions of those M-ho sought to be governed by the fear of God. The sacred and profane were not to be promiscuously blended or confounded ; the acknowledged compositions of the sons of light, unin- spired though they might be, were not to be included in the same category with the vain discussions and false phil- osophy of the children of darkness. They belonged to a different department of thought — a department possessing much in common with those Divine Books which the Spirit had given as a rule of faith. Whatever was written with a pious intention and promised to promote holiness of life was consequently ranked in the same class with the inspired Scriptures, to distinguish them effectually from the whole body of heathen literature. When the Fathers, therefore, use such terms as you have insisted to be a proof of inspi- ration, they meant no more than that the writings which they quote were suited to develope the graces of the Spirit and to quicken diligence and zeal. They were religious books — religious in opposition to profane — books which might not only be perused without detriment, but studied with positive advantage. Divine Scripture and such like expres- sions were terms, to speak in logical language, denoting a subaltern genus which embraced under it two distinct species — inspired and uninspired productions. These species were distinguished from each other by the difference of their origin ; but as they agreed in the common property of being subservient to the interests of piety, and by this common property were alike removed from all other works, they received, in consequence, a common name. There must have been some phraseology by which even an uninspired literature that the faithful might commend could be discrim- inated from heathen letters ; and as the leading difference between them was, that one was Divine in its tendencies and ends, while the other was sensual, earthly and devilish, no terms could possibly have been selected more ai)propriate Lett. XVL] TESTIMONIES FROM THIRD CENTURY. 665 than those which were actually applied by the early Fathers to Hennas, Barnabas and Clement, as well as to Wisdom, Tobit and Barueh. Let the reader, then, bear in mind that, according to the usage of the Primitive Church, Divine Scripture was a generic term, including in its meaning what- ever might be profitably read — whatever was fitted to foster devotion and to inspire diligence in the Christian life, and the language of the Fathers will present no difficulty. LETTER XVI. TESTIMONIES FROM THE THIRD CENTURY. The same erroneous principles of criticism which be- trayed the weakness of your cause in your appeal to the Avritings of the second century have signally misled you in the inferences which you have drawn from what you call the testimony of the third century. 1. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, with whom you com- mence your account of this period, and to whom you seem Milling to defer with absolute submission, Avill be found, I apprehend, when so interpreted as to be consistent with himself, to afford no more countenance to the adulterated Canon of Rome than his celebrated "master," Tertullian.' It deserves to be remarked, though I shall not insist upon the fact in the argument, that several of the })assages which you have culled from the writings of this distinguished Father are taken from a treatise upon which, in the judg- ment of scholars, no certain reliance can be placed. The Testimonies against the Jews to (iuirinus, even by those who allow it to be genuine, is acknowledged to be so largely corrupted that it is impossible to distinguish wdiat is truly ' Nunqiiaiu ( 'yiirianum absque Tertulliani lectioiie imam (liein pnp- terisse, ac sibi crelire dicere solitum: Da majjistriini, Tcrtiilliaimni sigiiif- icans. — Vila per Jac. Pamilium. Q66 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lett. XVI. Cyprian's from what has been subsequently added by others.^ A work of this sort sliouhl evidently " be quoted," as Lard- ner has justly observed, "with some particular caution;" you, however, have used it as freely, certainly with as little appearance of suspicion, as if you had been perfectly assured that every sentence, line and word stood precisely as they came from the hands of the venerable bishop of Carthage. (1.) Your favourite Tobias is the first book which you attempt to canonize by the assistance of this Father, and verily you could not, in the whole range of the Apocrypha, have selected a work more admirably adapted to furnish a complete refutation of your whole process of argument. It is admitted that Cyprian has repeatedly quoted this docu- ment, and in some instances quoted it as Divine Scripture. But that this does not amount to an admission of its canon- ical authority — that it implies no more than that the work was historically true in its statements, and suited to promote the purposes of piety — is plain from the fact that while he acknowdedges it to be Divine Scripture, he virtually asserts that it was not hispnred. He draws a broad distinction be- tween it and the unerring testimony of revealed truth ; and although he was willing to accommodate its sentiments, breathe its devotion and commend its morality, he was too well acquainted with its nature and origin to depend upon it for a proof of doctrine. Accordingly, in the treatise De ^ Stephen Baluze had paid great attention to the study of Cyprian, and possessed twenty-one manuscripts of this particular treatise. His opinion, therefore, is entitled to great weight : Si qua sunt loca in operibus sancti Cypriani, de quibus pronuntiari non possit ea certe illius esse, id vero in primis asseri potest de libris Testimonioruni ad Quirinuni. Plures enim codices plus habent quam vnlgatfe editionis, alii minus. Itaque, quoniam impossibile est discernere ea qufe vere Cypriani sunt ab iis qufe post ilium a studiosis addita sunt, nos retinuimus ea quae reperta nobis sunt in anti- quis exemplaribus manuscriptis. Porro duo tantum priores libri extant in editione Spirensi, in veteri Veneta, et in e3, quam Kemboldus procn- ravit. Erasmus tertiam emisit ex codice scripto monasterii Geniblacensis. Habui autem unum et viginti exemplaria velera horum librorum, quorum tamen quinque habent tantum lil)ros duos priores. — Baluz. Not. ad Cyprian., p. 596, as quoted in Lardner, vol. iii., pp. 17, IS (marg.j. Lett. XVI.] TESTIMONIES FROM THIRD CENTURY. 667 Opere et Elcenios)'nis, having cited and briefly expounded the passage, " Prayer is good with fasting and alms " (Tob. xii. 8), he proceeds : ' " The aijgel reveals, and manifests, and confirms the trutli that our petitions are rendered effect- ual by alms, that our lives are redeemed from peril by alms, and that by alms our souls are delivered from death. Nor do we allege these things, dearest brethren, so as not to prove what the angel Raphael has said by the testimony of truth. In the .Vets of the Apostles the truth of the fact is established; and that souls are delivered by alms, not only from the second, but also from the first, death, is confirmed alike by fact and experience." He tlien appeals to the his- tory of Tabitha, and to divers passages in the canonical Scriptures, as the proof of what he had cited from the book of Tobit. What is this but a virtual declaration that this document, however valuable on other accounts, was no part of the rule of faith, and could not be adduced to bind the conscience with the authority of God ? Cyprian appeals to it, but instead of relying upon it, as he does upon the Acts, Gospels, Genesis and Proverbs, proceeds to confirm the sen- timent which he had quoted by what he denominated the testimony of truth. This phrast, if we may judge from the connection, evidently means the testimony of Him who can- not lie — who, embracing the past, the present, and the future in a single glance of unerring intuition, is emphat- ically the Father of lights. His law, according to the Psalmist, is the fountain of truth, and His testimony must be regarded as the seal of truth. AVhen Cyprian, there- fore, applies this expression, as he unquestional)ly does in the present instance, to the plain declarations of the Acts, the Gospels, Genesis and Proverbs, he can mean nothing less 1 Kevelat angelus et manifestat, et firinat, elceniosynis petitiones nostras efficaces fieri, eleemosynis vitani cle periculis redemi, eleeinosynis a morte animort liberari. Nee sic, fnitres carissimi, ista proferririms, iit iioii quod Raphael angeliis dixit veritatis testimonio coinproheinus. In Actibus Apostolorum faeti fides posita est, et quod eleemosynis non tantum a se- cunda, sed a j)rima morte aniniie liherentur, gestie et iinpletie rei proba- lione compertum est. — g vi. 668 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lett. XVI. than tliat these books are to be received as authoritative standards of faith ; and when he distinguishes the teaching of Tobit, as we see that he has done, from the Testimony of Truth, what other idea can be conveyed but that this work is not entitled to a place in the category of inspired Scrip- tures ? We have, consequently, his own statements against your inference. You maintained that he deferred to Tobit with the same submission, veneration and respect which he awarded to the books that are not disputed ; he, on the other hand, assures us that while he believed it to be Divine Scripture, a godly and edifying book, he still regarded it merely as a human production, which, so far from being competent to regulate our faith, needed itself to be con- firmed by a higher sanction than the authority of its author — even the Testimony of essential Truth. (2.) You next attempt to show that Cyprian received "Wis- dom and Ecclesiasticus as inspired compositions, and your proof is derived from the fact that he repeatedly quotes them under the name of Solomon, and through Solomon attributes them to the Holy Spirit. He seldom speiiks of them absolutely and without qualification as the testimony of God, but whenever he alludes to them as the work of the Spirit it is plainly on the supposition that they were actually written by Solomon. In other words, the evidence is precisely the same that he held them to be Solomon's as that he held them to be supernatural ly inspired. He intro- duces, for instance, a passage from the third chapter of Wisdom — the first upon your list — in these words : ^ " By Solomon the Holy Spirit hath shown and forecautioned us, saying;" and again :^ "The Holy Spirit teaches by Solo- mon." So, too, Ecclesiasticus is quoted in these words :^ 1 Per Salomonem Spiritus Sanctus ostendit et prsecinit, dicens.— />e Exhort. Martyrii, ? xii. ■^ Re-1 et per Siilomonern docet Spiritus Sanctus, eos, &c.—De }rortaUtate, \ xxiii. ■' Sed et Salomon in Spiritu Sancto constitutus testatur et docet.— Epid. iii. Lett. XVI.] TESTIMONIES FROM THIRD CENTURY. 669 "Solomon also, guitlcd by the Holy Ghost, testifies and teaches." It is evident from these passages — and they are the strong- est which can be produced — that it is only a conditional inspiration which Cyprian attributes to Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom. If he believed that they were written by Solo- mon, then he unquestionably received them as inspired. Now, you have confidently asserted the consequent of this proposition, but have nowhere condescended to furnish us with any portion of the evidence by which the antecedent is established. Every Protestant is willing to concede that if these books were the productions of Solomon they deserve to be inserted in the sacred Canon. But the real question is, whether or not Solomon was their author. If there is no satisfactory evidence that Cyprian believed them to be his, then there is no satisfactory evidence that he believed them to be inspired. They came from God, in the view of this Father, only on the supposition that they came from Solomon. But where is the proof that Cyprian believed thefii to have been written by him ? On this point, which is vital to your argument, you have left us completely in the dark. If it can be shown, however, that he did not Ijelieve that Solomon was their author, then he furnishes no testimony Avhatever in behalf of their inspiration, since we can never reason, in hypothetical propositions, from the removal of the antecedent to the establishment or removal of the consequent. Cyprian says that they were inspired if Solomon wrote them, but where does he say that Solo- mon wrote them ? Unless he has said so, your conclusion is drawn from no premises which he has supplied. Now, I maintain that there is satisfactory evidence that neither Cyprian nor any other intelligent Father really believed that Wisdom and Ecclesia.sticus were the compositions of Solomon. Augustine has distinctly informed us that though they were usually ascribed to him, it was not because they were reputed to be his, but because they ^vere imita- tions of his style. In the twentieth chapter of the seven- 670 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lett. XYI. teenth book of the treatise De Civitate Dei, after having mentioned the three books, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Can- ticles, which were universally acknowledged to have been by Solomon, he adds:^ "Two other books, one of which is called Wisdom, the other Ecclesiasticus, have also from cus- tom, on accomit of some similarity of style, received their titles from the name of Solomon. That they are not his, however, the more learned entertain no doubt." So also in his Speculum de libro Ezechielis:^ "Among these" — that is, the books written before the advent of Christ, which the Jews rejected from the Canon, but which the Christian Church treated with respect — " among these are two which by many are called by the name of Solomon, on account, as I suppose, of a certain similarity of style, for that they are not Solomon's admits of no question among the more learned. It does not indeed appear who was the author of the book of Wisdom, but that the other, which we call Ecclesiasticus, was written by a Jesus who was surnamed Sirach must be acknowledged by all who have read the book through." % If now Cyprian were among the more learned doctors of the Church — and you have given him a distinguished place in your introductory eulogium on his character — he did not believe, according to the testimony of Augustine, that these disputed books were written by Solomon, and therefore 1 Prophetasse etiam ipse reperitur in suis libris, qui tres recepti sunt in auctoritatem canonicam, Proverba, Ecclesiastes, et Canticum Canticorum. Alii vero duo, quorum unus Sapientia, alter Ecclesiasticus dicitur, propter eloquii nonnullam similitudinem, ut Salomonis dicantur, obtinuit consue- tudo: non autem esse ipsius, non dubitant doctiores. — S. Augustini Epif' copi de Civitate Dei, lib. xvii., cap. xx. ^ Sed non sunt omittendi et hi, quos quidem ante Salvatoris adventum constat esse conscriptos, sed eos non receptos a Judaeis, recipit taraen ejus- dem Salvatoris Ecclesia. In his sunt duo qui Salomonis a pluribus appellantur, propter quandara, sicut existinio, eloquii similitudinem. Nam Salomonis non esse, nihil dubitant quique doctiores. Nee tamen ejus qui Sapientice dicitur, quisnam sit auctor appai-et. Ilium vero alterum, quem vocanius Ecclesiasticum, quod Jesus quidam scripserit, qui cognonii- natur Sirach, constat inter eos qui eundem librum totum legerunt. — S. Augustini Episcopi Speculum de libro Ezeckielis. Lett. XVI.] TESTIMONIES FROM THIRD CENTURY. 671 there is not a particle of evidence that he hekl them to be inspired. In fact, it is altogetlier incredible that any critic of ordinary intelligence could be persuaded that an inspired man was the author of a work which not only bore upon its face the name of another individual, but contained in its preface a satisfactory account of its original composition in one language and its subsequent translation into another. Here is a book Avhich professes to have been written -by one Jesus. The proof of its inspiration turns upon the fact that it Avas not written, as it professes to be, by Jesus, but by Solomon ; that is, it can only be proved to be inspired by being proved to open with a lie — in other words, it is shown to be the testimony of infallible truth by being shown to contain a palpable falsehood ! The ridiculous evasion of Bellarmine, that Jesus diligently collected and reduced into a volume the maxims of Solomon, so that Ecclesiasticus might with propriety be attributed to each,^ is refuted by the Pro- logue which is prefixed to the book. It is there stated that the original author, " when he had much given himself to the reading of the Law and the Prophets and other books of our (Jewish) fathers, and had gotten therein good judg- ment, was drawn on also himself to write something per- taining to learning and wisdom." This looks very little like collecting and digesting the maxims of Solomon. Ecclesiasticus evidently purports to be an original work, suggested not by the study of Solomon alone, but by the whole Canon of the Jews. It is true that it is an imitation, and in many instances a very successful imitation, of the pointed and sententious style of the wise monarcli of Israel. Besides the similarity of style, which was perhaps the original ground for attributing this work to Solomon, two other reasons may be assigned for quoting both it and Wis- ,dom under his name, as we sec that Cyprian has done. In ^ At Epiphanius in luercsi Anomoeorum, et alii nonnulli aiictoreni libri hujus Jesuni Sirach esse volunt. Eespondeo, facile potui.sse fieri, ut .Jesiia Sirach sententias Salomonis a se diligenter collectas in ununi vohinien redegerit, ita uterque auctor dici poterit. — De Verbo Dei, lib. i., cap. xiv. 672 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lett. XVI. the first place, it was a rapid and convenient mode of refer- ence. The name of Solomon was a part of the professed title of the book of Wisdom, but as it w^as notorious that he was not the author of it, it would have been silly, hyper- critical nicety always to have resorted in referring to it to the awkward periphrasis, the author of the book called the Wisdom of Solomon. To quote it by its title implied no be- lief that its title was just. Clemens Alexandrinus a])peak'd to the fourth book of Esdras under the name of the Prophet Ezra. Baruch is frequently cited under the name of Jere- miah, and the Preaching of Peter was accommodated by Clement under the name of the Apostle. As the book of Ecclesiasticus, on account of its striking analogy to the compositions of Solomon, was in all proba- bility designated by his name — just as we call a great poet a Homer, or a great conqueror another Alexander — the Fathers would feel no liesitation in adopting a common and popular title, especially when the work itself contained an effectual antidote against all erroneous impressions. " In the Gospel of Luke," says Rainold,^ " Christ is called the sou of Joseph, as likewise in the Gospel of John. Luke, ^ Apud Lucam Christus Joseph! filius dicitur, similiter et apud Johan- nem. Quanquam Lucas alibi id explicat, dicens Christum fuisse fiUum Josephi ut putabatur, et Philippns ad Nathanselem Invenimm (inquit) Je- sumfilium Joseph, de quo scripsit Moses in lege et Prophetce. Atqui Moses in lege adumbravit Christum per Melchisedecum sine patre ut honiinem, sine matre ut Deum. Et prophetarum princeps Esaias, Ecce (inquit) virgo coneipiet et pariet filium, unde patet Christum ut hominem non habu- isse patrera, adeoque poterat Philippus prius intellexisse Josephum non fuisse vere patrem Jesu. Si intellexerit ergo ad commoditatem significa- tionis sic loquutus est sed ignorarit id Philippus, sciebat certe beata virgo eum a Spiritu Sancto conceptum esse, ipsa tanien apud Lucam, Ecce (inquit) pater tuus et ego cruciati quoerebavius te. Cum sciret non fuisse Josephum Christi patrem, appellat tamen Josephum patrem, primo quia, sic putaba- tur esse, secundo propter reverentiam, qua usus est Christus erga Jose- phum, tanquam patrem. Eodem modo verisimile est Patres, ciim citarint libros Sapienti et Ecclesiastici sub nomine Salomonis, usos esse eo nom- ine, non quod Salomonis esse putarint sed significandi commoditatem Bequutos, appellationem vulgo usitatam retinuisse. — De Libris Jpocryphis, Prcelectio xix., vol. i., p. 154. LErr. XVI.] TESTIMONIES FROM THIRD CENTURY. 673 however, elsewhere explains it, saying that Christ was the son of Joseph, as it loas supposed, and Philip says to Nathanael, We have found Jesus the son of Joseph, of whom Moses in tlie law, and the pro[)hets have written. Yet Moses in the Law adumbrated Christ by Melchisedec with- out father as man, without mother as God ; and Isaiah, the prince of Prophets, says. Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bring forth a son. Hence, it is evident that Christ as man had no father, and so Philip might have known that Joseph was not in reality the father of Jesus. If he did know it, he used the phrase only for convenience of reference. But if Philip were ignorant of the fact, the blessed Virgin certainly knew that Jesus had been conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, and yet she says in the Gospel of Luke, Behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. Though she knew that Joseph was not the father of Christ, yet she calls him his father ; in the first place, because he Avas reputed to be so, and in the second on account of the filial reverence with which Christ uniformly treated Joseph. In the same way it is likely that the Fathers, in citing the books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus under thfe name of Solomon, did so, not because they imputed them to him, but for convenience of reference they retained a common and popular designation." To this may be added, as the same learned writer has intimated, that they used the name of Solomon to conciliate greater reverence and esteem for the sentiments which they had chosen to accommodate. These books were so strikingly analogous to those of Solomon that they might be studied, in the opinion of Fathers, with safety and advantage. Their authors, whoever they were, breathed the spirit of devotion, and hence their productions were api)lauded, as the modern Church warmly commends Owen, Charnock and Scott. Wisdom, Eccl&siasticus, Tobit and Judith were regarded as good elementary works of religion, which might be placed with success in the hands of novices, to prepare them for the higher mysteries of the faith. Such, Vol. III.— 4S 674 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Lett. XVI. at least, is the testimony of Athanasius.^ In his famous Festal Epistle, after having given a catalogue of the inspired books of the Old and New Testament, he adds : " There are also other books besides these, not indeed admitted to the Canon, but ordained by the Fathers to be read by such as have recently come over [to Christianity], and who wish to receive instruction in the doctrine of piety — the NVisdoni of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, the Doctrine of the Apostles, as it is called, and the Shepherd." But whether the explanations which have been given of the manner in which the Fathers quote Wisdom and Eccle- siasticus be satisfactory or not, one thing is absolutely cer- tain— that their ascribing them to Solomon in incidental ref- erences is no proof whatever that they really believed them to be his. Bellarmine appeals to Basil as having cited Ecclesiasticus in this way, and yet Basil unequivocally asserts that only three books, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Canticles, were written by Solomon. Jerome, too, has been guilty of the same method of citation, and has just as strongly affirmed that no other books can be properly ascribed to Solomon but those which are found in the Jew- ish Canon.2 It is unnecessary to adduce more examples. 1 Earl Kcu etequ jiijT/Ja tovtuv e^udev, oh Kavovi^dfiEva fiev, TETVizuiitva 6i TT-apa 7UV ^arepuv hvayivioaKeadai tolq apri Tvpoffepxo/ievoic nal ^ovloiihotq KaTTjxha^M Tov tvq evcelieiaq Uyov. I,oia 'LokofiavTOQ, aaX mtpia lipax, nal Eoi??)p, Kot lov6l^, ml To/3mf, km 6i6axv Kalovfihvv tuv ATroardTMV, kuI b Tloifi^v.—Athanasius, Epistola Festalis, 0pp. i., p. 961, ed. Bened. 2 Ita videtis judicio Cani posse negari consequutioiiem illius argumenti: patres hos libros d Salomone scrlptos putarunt, ergo sunt ab eo scripti. Nunc istins enthymematis antecedens examinemus. Patres existimarunl hos libros d Salomone scriptos, ad quod confirraandumprimum enthymema per- tinet, patres citarunt hos libros sub nomine Salomonis, ergo existimarunt ab eo scriptos. Hie qiioque claudicat consequutio; in illis enim qui librum Sapientije sub Salomonis nomine citarunt, fuit Basilius, qui tamen aperte inficiatur eum a Salomone scriptum, ubi tres oranino sacros libros Sal- omoni adscribit, rph? ^aaaf iyvufiev tov la?Mfi(ovToc roc ~payfiareia(. Hieronymus etiam ex eomm numero est, qui Ecclesiasticura sub nomine Salomonis citant. At alius est idem Hieronymus, ubi tres libros a Salo- mone scriptos dicit, Fertur (inquit) et alius qui a Siracide sci-iptus est, Lett. XVI.] TE.STIMON1ES FltOM THIRD CENTURY. 675 One single instance is .sufficient to iniiini u conclusion drawn from tlie only circumstance which can be tortured into any- thing like evidence that Cyprian or any other Father im- puted the documents in question to the pen of Solomon. It Avill now be remembered that the leading proposition of your argument was this : If Cyprian believed that Solomon ^vas the author of Ecclesiasticus and AVisdora, he believed them to be inspired. It was incumbent on you to prove the antecedent, which you have not so much as attempted to do. I, on the other hand, have shown that it is false, or, at least, that there is not a particle of evidence in its favour. The argument then stands in this way : If Cyprian believed that Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom were written by Solomon, he believed them to be inspired. But he did not believe that they were written by Solomon. Here in my opinion the .syllogism halts — claudicat coiisecutio — and Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus are left precisely where they were before you appealed to the testimony of Cyprian. (3.) The claims of Baruch and the additions to Daniel to a place in the Canon you endeavour to vindicate by the same process of argument which we have seen to be worth- less in the case of Ecclesiasticus and AVisdom. Because Cyprian has quoted the one under the name of Jeremiah, and the other under the name of Daniel — that is, because lie has referred to the books by their notorious and ordinary titles — you would have us to believe that he really looked upon these venerable Prophets as the authors of the docu- ments in question. The futility of such reasoning has already been sufficiently exposed, and therefore, without further ceremony, we may dismiss the testimony of Cyprian in behalf of these Avorks as having no existence but in your own mind. (4.) His quotations from the Maccabees are no more remarkal)le tiian a quotation which he has made from the third l)ook of Esdras ; and if his conviction of the historical Sdlomonis ; el adhuc alius rl'evtk-lypaipoc qui ikipienlia Salomonis iiiscribi- tur. — Rainold., De Libris Apocryphis, Prcelectio xviii., vol. i., p. 152. 676 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSKD, [Lett. XVI. credibility of tlie narrative in the one case is sufficient to canonize the books, his full and cordial accommodation of a sentiment in the other must be equally valid for the same purpose. The truth is, the argument is stronger in behalf of Esdras, since Cyprian not only quotes it, but quotes it in the very same form in which Christ and His Apostles were accustomed to cite the writings of the Old Testament. " Custom without truth," says he,^ " is only antiquity of error : wherefore, having abandoned error, let us follow truth, knowing that truth, according to Esdras, conquers, as it is Avritten, ' Truth endureth and is ahvays strong : it liveth and conquereth for evermore.' " 2. In what you call the testimony of Hippolytus and Dionysius you have presented us with nothing which requires an answer. They quote and comment on passages contained in the disputed books, but I have yet to learn that anything can be gathered from a fact of this sort but the existence of the works in the age of the MTiters, and their knowledge and probable approbation of their con- tents. But you were truly bold to insist on what is called the Apostolical Constitutions as evidence in your favour. It is true that the Apocrypha are quoted in this collection, but it is not true that the citations which occur imply tliat there was any Divine authority in the MTitings from which they were made. On the contrary, we have in the fifty- seventh chapter of the second book a catalogue or list of the books which were directed to be read in the churches, and not a syllable is whispered concerning Wisdom, Ecclesiasti- cus, Tobit, Judith, or any of the works which Rome has added to the Canon — a pregnant proof that to quote a book and to believe it inspired are two very different things. The only books which are mentioned in connection with the Old Testament are the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, ^ Nam consuetude sine veritate, vetustas erroris est. Propter quod relicto errore sefjuanuir veritatem, scientes quia et apud Esdram Veritas vincit, sicut scriptum est : Veritas manet et invalesoit in aeternum, et vivit et obtinet in sa^cula sfeculonim. — Epistola Ixxiv. Let. XVII.] TESTIMONIES FROM FOURTH CENTURY. 677 Kings, Chronicles, the Return ironi Jxihyh>n by Ezra — that is, Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther, David, Solomon, Job and the sixteen I'rophets.' Here, then, is the Canon of the Apostolical Constitutions; and though it is a document which is notoriously spurious,- yet as you have chosen to appeal to its authority, I hope that in this matter you Avill abide by its decision. LETTER XYII. TESTIMONIES FROM THE FOURTH CENTURY. You open the testimony of the fourth century with the Council of Nice. It is wholly immaterial to the argument whether I " despise its decisions " or reverence its decrees, since the only question before us has reference to the Canon, which, whether right or wrong, it believed to be Divine. I may observe, however, that while I embrace its admirable creed with cordial acquiescence, I cannot but regret that so distinguished and venerable a body should have sanctioned the principle of religious persecution, and indirectly, if not positively, endorsed the odious doctrine that pains, penalties and civil disabilities are appropriate instruments for pro- moting uniformity of faith. The age of Constantine is, no doubt, a period in the history of the Church upon Avhich Romanists love to linger. Then were laid the foundations of that secular authority and that joyous and imposing pomp of ceremonial which subsequently enabled the ]Man of Sin to tread upon the necks of kings, to bind their nobles with fetters of iron, and to banish all that was pure and spiritual from the temple of God. I ' AvayivuGKerij to, McwTfWf Kal 'lijaov tov Nan^* rd tuv KpiTuv Koi, tuv ^aailetuv to. tuv irapay.ec-of/tvuv koi ra r^f eirav66ov wpbg Tovroig ra tov 'lu/i Kal TOV Ilo?.ofio)vog Kal Ta tuv eKKahhKa irpoifriTuv ava 6vo fie yevo- uivuv nva)'vojaudTon>, erepoc tiq toL'c tov Aafiid ipa?./J:To) vfivovq. '^ For a clear and satisfactory dis.sertatioii upon the value of the Apos- tolical Constitutions, see Lavdner, vol. iv., p. 194, et set]. 678 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Let. XVII. " Ah, Constantine ! of how much ill was cause, Not thy conversion, but those rich domains That the first wealthy pope received of thee ! " 1. But discarding all discussion of the merits of the council, and of the peculiar corruptions of the age in which it was convened, let us confine ourselves to the mat- ter in hand, and endeavour to ascertain whether the wick- edness and folly in reference to the Scriptures were perpe- trated at Nice which upward of twelve hundred years afterward formed a fit introduction to the atrocities of Trent. To discover the opinions of a council the simplest method is to appeal to the acts, the authentic proceedings, of the body itself; but as in the creed, canons and synodical epistle, the only clear and unquestionable monuments of the doings of Nice that have survived the ravages of time, not a single hint is given touching the books which the Fathers received as inspired, you have been obliged to resort to col- lateral and indirect evidence, and that of the vaguest kind. The testimony upon which you have relied is a passage of Jerome and a few quotations found in the work of an obscure scribbler, Gelasius Cyzicenus. In replying to your arguments I shall reverse the order in which you have marshalled your witnesses, and begin with Gelasius. (1.) This writer has given us a history of the Council of Nice written a hundred and fifty years after the body had been dissolved, collected from documents of Avhich nothing is known with certainty, and consequently nothing can be pronounced with confidence. He pretends to have pre- served the discussions and debates which occurred in the synod betwixt the orthodox and the Arians, but speeches reported under such circumstances are evidently entitled to small consideration.^ Worthless, however, as his history is, you have appealed to it as possessing upon this subject " some value." " At the time," you inform us, " when ^ The reader may form some conception of the value of this historian from the " Admonitio ad Lectorem " prefixed to his work in Labbieus and Cossart, vol. ii., p. 103. Lkt. XVII.] TESTIMONIES FROM FOURTH CENTURY. 679 Gelasius wrote there were many monuments ol' the Conneil of Xiee still extant wliieli have since perished. The senti- ments of the Fathci's could be easily ascertained, and it is utterly incredible that if they were unanimously opposed to the insi)iration of any books of the Old Testament save those in the Jewish Canon, he would have dared them to assert the contrary or to put in their mouths expressions directly opposed to what they would liave used." Let this be granted, and where is the proof that Gelasius attributed to the orthodox any sentiments or "put into their mouths" any speeches inconsistent with a cordial rejection of the whole Apocrypha from the list of inspired compositions? In the passages which you have adduced he simj)ly repre- sents the Fathers as quoting the book of Baruch under the name of Jeremiah and the book of Wisdom under the name of Solomon. Now it is perfectly conceivable that they might have appealed to these works in their arguments against the Arians, as setting forth the sentiments of God's ancient and chosen people upon the matter in dispute, with- out implying, or intending to imply, that their declarations were to be received as authoritative statements of truth. Their object might have been to show that the Church, under the former dispensation, was as far removed from Arianism as under the latter. These books were legitimate sources of proof as to the actual creed of the Jews, or at least a part of the nation, in the age of the writers, and there was consequently no impropriety in using them as a ])robable exposition of the national faith. In fact, they have been used in modern times for precisely the same purpose in the able work of Allix, entitled "The Judgment of the Jewish Church against the Unitarians." "We make use of their authority," says he, "not to prove any doctrine which is in dispute, as if they contained a Divine Kevela- tion and a dcc-ision <»f an insj)ired writer, but to witness what was the faith of the Jewish Churcli in the time when the authors of those A])Ocryphal books did flourish."' ' See AUix's Jiuhjment of the JevUh Church, etc., c. v., ji. G(i. 680 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Let. XVII. It is, hence, by no means certain that the Fathers of Nice, if indeed they quoted the Apocrypha at all, intended to sanction the inspiration of the works. That they referred to Baruch under the name of Jeremiah, and to Wisdom under the name of Solomon, proves no more than that these were the ordinary and familiar titles of the books. If, how- ever, you insist on the proposition that nothing was quoted against the Arians which was not regarded by the council as inspired, and admit that Gelasius is a fit witness of what was quoted, your argument will prove a little too much. This writer testifies that the Fathers cited two grossly spurious documents — not only cited them, but cited them as Scrip- ture, and cited them apparently to prove a doctrine. In the eighteenth chapter of the second book of his history he exhibits at length the reply of the bishops to the Arian exposition of Proverbs viii. 22 : " The Lord possessed me in the beginning of His ways, before His works of old." In the course of the reply, which was intrusted to Euse- bius, these words occur : ^ " Enough has been said, as it appears to me, and the proofs have clearly shown, O philos- opher, that the Son of God was the former of the rational wisdom spoken of by Solomon, and of all the creatures, and was not a mere instrument. But in order to exhibit the exposition of this matter in a clearer light, and to come more speedily to the sense of the passage, we will declare certain things from the Scripture. Moses, the Prophet, when about to die, as it is written in the book of the 1 iKava hvat jioL doKli ra "XexdevTa. Koi ai arroSei^eic ■jzapeanjaav^ u ^lAdaotpe^ oTi 6 vibg Tov Qeov kariv, 6 koX tt/v'" kv YioXofiuvTC ri ?ioyi(TTiKfjv ccxpiav KTiaac, Kal navra to. ktigtUj Kai ova kpyaMiov, Iva 6e aoi aaoearepav tt/v dh/S^ Tuv TvpayjxaTuv anddei^iv napaffTT/au/nev, Kal rdxiov eXdujuev ewl tov vSftov tov Tvpdy/xaToc, Kal ttjq deupiag dvrov, to. ek ttjq ypa(p^c Affw/zev. /lie^Tmv 6 Trpo^r/TtiQ Muaf/g k^ievai tov jSiov, wf yeypaTTTai kv ^ifiTM ava IrjipeuQ Mwcr^wf, izpodKaT^a- dfiEvog Irjcovv vibv "Nav^, Kal dialeydfiEvog irpbc avrov^ e^tj' koi TvposOEaaaTO HE o Geof TTpo KaTaPoAiJQ Kdafiov, hvai jxe ttjc ihaBI/KTig avTov fiEaiTijv. Kal kv (H^Tm "kdyuv fivaTiKW MoxyeuQ, avTog Mua^g TrpoEiTTE irk pi tov Aa/?(c^ koi 2o\o/ic)V7og. — Gelasii Historia, lib. ii., c. 18. For a particular account of the apocryphal book called Assumption of Moses, see Fabricius, Cod. Pseud. V. T., torn, i., p. 839. Let. XVII.] TESTIMONIES FROM FOURTH CENTURY. 681 Assunii)ti()n of Moses, called to him Joshua, the son of Nun, and thus addressed him: 'God foresaw, before the foundation of the world, that I should be the mediator of His testament,' and in the book of the Mystic Speeches of Moses, IVIoses himself spake beforehand of David and Solomon." Here are two books, both of them confessedly apocryphal, one called the Assumption of Moses, the other his Mystic Si)eeclies, which the histoi-ian Eusebius, in the name of all the bishops, is represented by Gelasius as employing under the title of Scripture against the anonymous chami)ion of Arianism. Now, you must either admit that Nice held these works to be inspired, or deny that their citation of a book as Scripture is any proof that the Fathers received it as inspired. If you take the first proposition, and main- tain that Nice canonized these books, why has Rome re- jected them ? Upon what authority is the decision of the first general council set at naught and despised? Upon what grounds do you concur with Nice in receiving Judith, Baruch and Wisdom, and refuse your assent when you have precisely the same evidence that it sanctioned the inspiration of these legends of Moses? But you cannot, as a consistent Romanist, admit that the Assumption of ]\Ioses was treated as canonical at Nice. If not, then its quotation of a book is no proof that the work was held to be inspired, and you have consequently lost your labour in proving that it quoted Baruch, Judifli and Wisdom. It deserves, however, to be remarked, that if you had succeeded in your design you would have sapped the foundation of the principal excuse Avhich Bcllarmiue offers for the heresy of Jerome in reject- ing all of the Apocrypha, with the exception of Judith, from the Canon.^ "I admit," says he, "that Jerome was of this opinion, because as yet no general council had de- termined anything concerning any of these books, with the ^ Adniitto iffitiir Ilieronyiniiiii in ea fuis-se oi)inii)iu>, (|uia noiKliiin gen- erale concilium do his libris aliciuid .statuerat, c.xccpto libro Judilli, ce ; nee in Germanic-is (iiiitloni Bibliis .'^cqnitur Nehemiam, sed in earn partem rejicitur, ubi Apooryphi poniintiir. Hoc tandem Lucas vidit, et agnovit, ct confes- SU.S est .se deceptum, etc., sed quod ad rem prsesentem facit, afiirmat ibi Lucas, tertium Esdrse Latinorum, esse primum Grcecis. Atque hoc est, quod primum observatum volui. Proximo loco animadvertere debetis Augustinum et patres Carthaginienses in Canone consignando, et alias in disputationibus suis translatione Latina e Gra?ca 70 editione ver.sa, uti consuovisse. Quod ip.se planum facit ubi citato illo loco, Etformavit Lteus hominem pulverem dc terra: subjungit, Sicut Grccci codices habenl, itnde in Lalinam liiujuam scripiura ipsa conversa est. Manifestius autem id dicit, ubi rem ex professo dispntat. Nam cumfuerint (inquit Augustinus) et alii interprefes, etc., hanc tamen, quce septuaginta est, tanquam sola esset, sic recipit Ecclesia, eaque utuntur Grceci populi Christiani, quorum plerique ut rum alia sit aliqua ignorant. Ex hac 70 interpretatione etiam in Latinam linguam interpi-etatum est, quod Ecclesia Latince tenent, quamvis non defuerit temporibus nostris pres^byter Hieronymus homo doctissimus, et omnium trium linguarum peritus, qui non ex Grceco, sed ex Hebrceo in Latinvm eloquium easdem scrip- turas convertit, et quae sequuntur. En ut disertis verbis Augustinus non solum se usum ilia Septuaginta interpretum versione significat, sed et earn perinde quasi sola esset, ab Ecclesia receptam, et Ecclesiam Latinam, quod tenet id ex ilia interpretatione tenere, adeo ut quamvis, Augustini tempo- ribus Hieronymus summa fide ex Hebraicis fontibus converteret, Ecclesia tamen prteferret earn editionem, quw ex Grseca 70 Latina facta est. Id qtiod et loco .superiore docuit Augustinus, et prsecipue in Epistolis, ubi ad Ilieronymum sic scribit, iififo sanii te mallem Grcecas potius canonicas nobis interpretari scripturas, quce 70 interpretum authoritate perhibentur. Per- durum erit enim, si tua interpretatio per multas Ecclesias Jrequentihs ceperit lectitari, quod d Gracis Ecclesiis Latince Ecclesioe dissonabunt, etc., et alibi petit il Hieronymo, ut interpretationem suam Bibliorum e 70 mittat. Idea autem (inquit) desidero interpretationem tuam de70, ut et tanta Latino- rum, qui qualescunque hoc ausi sunt, quantum possitmus imperitia careamus: et hi qui me invidere putant utilibus laboribits tui.'>, eandern aliquando si fieri potest, inlelligant, propterea me nolle tuam ex Hebrceo interpretationem in Ecclesiis legi, ne contra Septuaginta auctoritalem, tamquam novum aliquid proferentes, magno scandalo perturbemus plebes Christi, quarum awes el corda illam interpretationem audire consueverunt, qua ab upostolis approbata est. Denique in libris de Doctrina Christiana, vult ille Latinos codices veteri.s testamenti, si necesse fuerit, Gnecorum auctoritate emendandos, et eornm potissimum, qui cum 70 cssent, ore uno interpretati esse perhibentur, etc., locus coneulatur. Neque vero hsec Augustinus solum luculente testatur, 692 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Let. XVII itself was conditional ; the Church beyond the sea, as we gather from an ancient note, was to be consulted for its con- firmation. The Council of Carthage, then, received the books mentioned in its list as canonical, provided the trans- sed et reliqui scriptores, qui in eum commentarios scripserunt, vel de eo loquuti sunt. In quibus Ludovicus Vives in prsefatione comment, ait A ugustinum versione/ni 70 interpreium ubiqne adducere. Et in ipsis commen- tariis ostendit (inquit) olim. Ecclesias Latinos lisas interpretatione Latitia ex 70 versa, non hac Hierov.ymi ut mirer esse qui tantum nefas exisiiment tram- lationes attingi, modu sohrih ac prvdenter fiat. vSixtus Senensis duas fuisse docet in Ecclesia Latina Latinas editiones V. T. novam scilicet ac veterem. Vetus quidem (inquit ille) vulgata et communis nomen accepit, tum quia nullum cerium haberet auetorem, tUm quia non de Hebrceo fonte, sed de koivt/, vel de Septuaginta interpretatione sumptu esset {quern admodurn August. 18, De Civit. Dei, c. 43, et Hieronymus in prcefatione Evangeliorum testantur), cujus lectione usa est Ecclesia longe ante tempora Hieronymi, ac etiam mulfo post, usque ad tempora Gregorii Papce. Nova vera a Hieronymo non de Grceca, sed de Hebraica veritate in Latinum eloquium versa est : qua Ecclesia usque ab ipsis Gregorii temporibus, una. cum veteri editione usa est. Utriusque enim Gregorius in pro'J'alione Moralium meminit, inquiens : Novam translationem deferro, sed cum probationis causa me exigit, nunc veterem, nunc novam pro testimonio assumo: ut quia sedes Apost. cui authore Deo prcesideo utraque utitur, mei quoque labor studii ex utroque fuJdatur. Hsec apud Sixtum, undfe liquet longe ante tempora Hieronymi, ad usque Gregorium (quasi ad 600 annos), in usu fuisse trans- lationem Latinam e Graeca 70. Adeoque recte coUigi Augustinum et Carthaginiensis concilii patres editionem illam Grsecam 70 sequutos esse. Quid quod Bellarminus ipse hoc agnoscit, veteres sequutos esse vei"sionem Septuaginta? Apud quos (inquit) qui nobis Esdrce tertius est, fuit primus, siccine f Quomodo ergo te expedies e laqueo rationis nostrre ? Conatur ille quidem expedire se, sed hseret ut mus in pisa. Majorem revera (ait) esse diffictdtatem de tertio, Esdrce quam de quarto. Sed respondet, Etsi duo libri Grcecorum sint nostris tertius, non tamen sequi patres antiquos cum duos Esdrce in canone ponant, nostras tres intellexisse. Quid ita? Quatuor nimirum rationes adhibet e quibus plerseque non attingunt nostram sen- tent iam, certe nullse labefactant. Prima ratio hsec est: Quia Melito, Epiphanius, llilarius, Hieronymus, Buffinus, aperte sequuti sunt Hebrceos, qui terfium Esdrce 7ion agnoscunt. Quid tum ? Ergone Augustinus cum duos Esdra; acoenseat, non intellexit nostros tres? Quia scilicet, Melito, Epiphanius, Hilarius, Hieronymus, Euffinus, aperte sequuti sunt Hebraeos, ergo Augustinus non est sequutus editionem Graecam Septuaginta? perinde ratiocinatur ac siquis diceret, Socrates, Plato, veteres Academici vocarunt Deum Ideam boni, etc., ergo ae Aristoteles et Perpateticorum schola sic voeavit. Si nondum appareat hujus rationis infirmitas at facillime apparebit in ratione simili quam adjun- Let. XVII.] TESTIMOXIES FROM FOUIITII CENTrWV. 693 marine churches Avcmhl consent. Surely it coukl not mean that these books are inspired, provided tlie transmarine churches will agree that they are so. The evidence of their inspiration was either complete to the council, or it was not. If it was complete, they were bound as faithful ministers of Christ to say unconditionally and absolutely that these gam : Melito, Epiplianlus, Ililarius, Hieronynius et Kuffinus rejecerunt h canone sacrarum Scripturariim libros Sapiential, Eccle.siastifi, Tobise, Judith, etc., ergo et Augustinus ho.s rejecit, et concilium Carthaginiense; lia^c nisi ratio firma sit, videtis quara infirma sit altera. Secunda Bellarmini ratio ea est d. precibus publicis et usii, Eeclesiastici officii. Quia jam diu nihil legitur ex illo libro in officio Ecdedastico. Quid inde? An ergo Augustinus cum duos Esdra; libros in Caiione numeraret, non intellexit nostros tres ? Aut Augustini tenii)ore et a patribus Cartlia- giniensibus non habebatur tertius Esdrae in canonicis? Perinde hoc est ac si quis ita ratiocinetur : Exulat jam diu papains ex Anglia, ergo Henrici VI. tempore exulavit. Imo absurdior ilia ratio quam hsec, quo propriils abfuit ab aetate nostra Henrici VI. Eegnum, quam Augustini tempora ; cum ille ab hinc non ultra 100 annos floruerit, ab Augustino ultra 1000 effluxerint, quo temporis decursu niulta mutari potcrant. Bellarminus enim ipse fatetur, Augustini tempore monachos tondori solitos fuisse, suo radi. Potuit taraen simili ratione uti : Jamdiu in usu i'uit, ut raderentur monachi, ergo August, tempore non solebant tonderi. Sed fortasse tertia ratio subtilior, qute ab auctoritate Gehisii ducitur Is namque unum tantum Esdra; libriim in canone ponil, id est (inquit lieliar.) nostros duos. Optime. Conceditur enim, postea rem penitus intros])iciemus, et videbimus utrum unum ille tantum numeret. Interim concedant Gela- sium, qui vixit centum annos post Aug. et Carthag. Cone, unum tantum EsdriB lib. in canone posuisse. Quid vero hoc ad August, et Carthag. patres? An deinde illi non numerarunt duos? an duorum nomine nos- tros tres non significarunt? Quidni ergo sic ratiocinent: M. Crossnx par- lib, oplimatum favit, ergo C. Marias non f nit popularisf Hsec argumenta >i in nostris scholis supponerentur, credo riderentur il pueris. Verum ciun sufieruntur A Jesuitis, quodam ni fallor «(WT/'twi' artificio insohil)ili;i ]i:i!k- buntur. Verum enim vero fortassis artilicio Rhetorum firmissiinam ratiMm-ni pdstreino loco reservavit. Ea crit palmaria. jSuuupie Jlieroin/nins (inciuit Bellarminus) aperti docet, tertium Esdra non modo non cipud Ilcbra'os haberi, ned neque apud Septuaginla. An id aperte docet Hier. ? Eo certe delapsura esse Bellarminura miror. Consulite Ilieron. ( Videbitis eum non modo non aperte docere, quid ei affingit Bellar. sed nee omnino; imo contrarium sta- tuere, quid consensu antiquorum, qui testimoniis, e tertio Esdne perssepe usi, postea mihi pluribus erit confirmandum.) — Eainoldu«, Dr Libris Apoeryphis, Prcdectio xxviii., vol. i., pp. 2'.Vi-'l\'.\. 694 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Let. XVII. books belong to the rule of faith. Under such circum- stances to have enacted a conditional decree would have been treason against truth and impiety to God. Why con- sult the Church beyond the sea in regard to a matter which was unquestioned and notorious ? If, on the other hand, the evidence was not complete or satisfactory in regard to the inspiration of the books, why make a Canon until doubts were settled and difficulties resolved ? If the design of appealing to the transmarine churches was to obtain more light, why did the Fathers undertake to act until the light had been supplied ? It cannot be pretended that their intention was to procure the confirmation of the Holy See. It was not the Pope alone nor a general council that they proposed to consult ; it was the Church beyond the sea — transmarina ecdesia — the Bishop of Rome, or " the other bishops of those parts"; for if the end sought had been the settlement of the inspired Canon, and every bishop and doc- tor connected with this Church, with Boniface himself at their head, had been assembled in council, and had given their decision, their voice would have been only the voice of a provincial synod, and therefore not entitled to be received, according to your doctrine, as the infallible dictate of the Holy Ghost. The conduct of the Carthaginian Fathers in passing a conditional decree, if their design was to settle the Canon of inspiration, is wholly inexplicable. They vir- tually say. We have satisfactory evidence that these books are inspired, and yet it is not satisfactory. Such egregious trifling cannot be imputed to them, and therefore some interpretation must be evidently put upon the Canon which shall justify their appeal to a foreign Church. No better way is left us of arriving at a just conception of this matter than by considering the testimony of Au- gustine, who was himself a member of the council, and who may be presumed to have known the real intentions of the body. His opinions may be taken as a true exponent of the opinions of the African Church. This illustrious advocate of the doctrines of grace has given us a list of the Let. XVII.] TESTIMONIES FROM FOURTH CENTURY. 69o canonical Scrijitures which coincides precisely with the cata- logue of Carthage ; ' and yet there is abundant proof that several of the books which are mentioned in his list Au- gustine did not believe to be inspired. In the twenty-fourth chapter of the .seventeenth book of his City of God, he remarks/ "that in all the time after their return from Babylon, till the days of our Saviour, the Jews had no prophets after Malachi, Haggai and Zeehariah, who prophesied at that time, and Ezra; except another Zachariah, father of John, and his wife Elizabeth, just be- fore the birth of Christ; and after his birth, old Simeon, ' Totus autem Canon Scripturarum, in quo istam considerationera ver- sandaiu dicimus, his libri.s continetur. Quinque Moyseos, id est Genesi, Exodo, Levitico, NumerLs, Deuteronomio ; ac uno libro Jesu Nave, uno Judicum, uno libello qui appellatur Entli, qui magis ad Rcgnorum prin- cipia videtur pertinere ; deinde quatuor Regnorum et duobus Paralipo- menon, non consequentibus, sed qua.si a latei'e adjunctis simulque per- gentibus. Heec e.st historia, quae sibimet annexa tempora continet, atque ordinem rerum : sunt alise tamquam ex diverso ordine, quae neque huic ordini, neque inter se connectuntur, sicut est Job, et Tobias, et Esther, et Judith, et Machabaeoruni libri duo, et Esdrae duo, qui magis subsequi videntur ordinatam illam historian! usque ad Eegnorum vel Paralipo- nienon terminatam. Deinde prophette, in quibus David unus liber Psal- morum, et Salomonis trcs, Proverbiorum, Cantica Canticorum, et Eccle- siastes. Nam illi duo libri, unus qui Sapieiitia, et alius qui EcdesiaMicus inscribitnr, de quadani similitudine Salomonis esse dicuntur : nam Jesus filius Sirach eos seripsLsse constanti.ssime perhibetur, qui tamen quoniam in authoritatem recipi meruerunt, inter propheticos numerandi sunt. Reliqui sunt eorum libri, qui proprie prophets appcllati sunt, duodeeim prophetarura libri singuli, qui eonnexi sibimet, quoniam numquam se- juneti siuit, pro uno habentur: quorum proplictarum nomina sunt haec. Usee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Xahum, llabacuc, Soplionias, Agganis, Zacharia.s, Malachias : deinde quatuor prophota> sunt majorum voluminum, Isaias, Jeremias, Daniel, Ezechiel. His (piadraginta quatuor libris Testamenti veteris terminatur auctoritas. — S. Auf/ustini Episcopi de Doclrina Christiana, lib. ii., cap. viii. ^ Toto autem illo tempore, ex quo redierunt de Babylonia, post Mala- chiain, Aggajum et Zacharianr, qui turn prophetaverunt et Esdrani, non habuernnt prophetas usque ad Salvatoris adventum, nisi aliuni Zaeliariam patrem .Johannis, que Elisabet ejus uxoreni, Christi nativitatc Jam prox- ima; et eo jam nato, Simeonem senem, et Annam viduam jriin(iue gran- dicvam et ipsum Johannem novissimum. — S. Aiiguatini, Episcopi dc Civitali Dei, lib. xvii., cap. xxiv. 696 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Let. XVII and Anna a widow of a great age ; and John last of all." Again :^ "From Samuel the Prophet to the Babylonish Captivity, and then to their return from it, and the rebuild- ing of the temple after seventy years, according to the prophecy of Jeremiah, is the whole time of the Prophets." To ascertain his idea of a prophet and of a prophetic com- position, let us turn to the thirty-eighth chapter of the eighteenth book of the same treatise.^ It is there stated as a probable explanation of the fact that some books which were written by prophets were excluded from the Canon, "that those to whom the Holy Spirit was accustomed to reveal what ought to be received as authoritative in religion wrote some things as men of historic investigation, and others as Prophets of Divine inspiration: the two were kept distinct, that the former might be attributed to the men themselves, the latter to God, who spoke through the Prophets." A Prophet, then, is a person " to whom the Holy Spirit is accustomed to reveal Avhat ought to be re- ceived as authoritative in religion" — he is a man who speaks by "Divine inspiration/' and does not depend upon his diligence and industry for the truths which he commu- nicates. He is not merely an individual who foretells the future — he may write a history, but he must depend for his facts, not upon historical research, but the instructions of the Spirit. In other words, Augustine plainly treats Prophet and inspired man as terms of equivalent extension. When, therefore, he says that from Ezra to Christ no ^ Hoc itaque tempus, ex quo sanctus Samuel prophetare coepit, et dein- ceps donee populus Israel captivus in Babyloniam ducereter, atque inde secundum sancti Jeremise proplietiam post septuaginta annos reversis Is- raelitis Dei domus instauraretur, totum tempus est Prophetarum. — Aug., De Civ. Dei, lib. xvii., c. i. ^ Cujus rei, fateor, causa me latet ; nisi quod ego existimo, etiani ipsos, quibus ea quae in auctoritate religionis esse deberent Sanctus utiqne Spir- itus revelabat, alia siout homines historica diligentia, alia sicut Prophetas inspiratione Divina scribere potuisse; atque hiec ita fnisse distincta, ut ilia tamquam ipsis, ista vero tamquam 'Deo per ipsos loquenti, judica- rentur esse tribuenda : ac sic ilia pertinerent ad ubertatem cognitionis, hffic ad religionis auctoritatem.— .iMr/., De Civ. Dei, lib. xviii., c. xxxviii. Let. XVII.] TE.STIMONIES FROM FOURTH CENTURY. 697 Pix)})liet appeared among the Jews, he unquestionably means that the gift of inspiration was withdrawn, and that, consequently, no works written during tiiat i)eriod were entitled to be received as of authority in religion. Now, it is notorious that a large portion, if not all, of the Apocrypha was written during this very period, in which, as it is piteously lamented in the Maccabees, "a Prophet was not seen among them." Therefore, according to Au- gustine, a large portion of the Apocrypha is not insjiired. In addition to this, there are several passages in his works in which he evidently treats the Hebrew Canon as complete. In his commentary on the fifty-sixth Psalm,^ he observes, " that all the books in which Christ is the sub- ject of prophecy were in the possession of the Jews. We bring our documents from the Jews, that we may put other enemies to confutation: the Jew carries the Book from which the Christian derives his faith. The Jews are our librarians." Again, he says, in another dissertation : ^ " The Jews are the escritoirs of Christians, containing the Law and- the Prophets, which prove the doctrines of the Church." And in another place he expressly says that the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms comprehended " all the canonical authorities of the Sacred Books." ^ It is notorious, however, that the Jews rejected the Apocrypha — that these were documents which they refused to carry; and if Augustine received as inspired no other works but those which were ^ Propterea auteni adhuc .ludiBi sunt, ut libros nostro.s portent ad conl'n- sionem suam. Quando eniiu volumus ostendere prophetatum Christum, proferimus pajjanis istas literas Quia omnes ipsic litera', ,, Ezechielis, et Beati Danielis. Hahet etiam Libros, et Episfolas de Fide, et Ecclesia. Edidit quoqm Orationes Metricns, Hymnos, et Cantica: Cantusque omnes Dejunctorum : et Lucubrationes ordine Alpha- betico : et Disputationem- adversiis Judceos : necnon adversus Simonem, et Bar- desanem, et contra Mareionem, atque Ophitas: demiim solutionem impietaiis Juliani. Ubi Hebedjesu ea dumtaxat Ephrsemi opera recenset, quse ipse legit, vel ad manus habuit. Nam Ephrsemum alia plura edidisse, quam qure hie numerantur, certum est ex auctoribus supra relatis, et ex codice nostro Syriaco iii. in quo habentur commentaria ejusdem in Xumeros, in Deuteronomium, etc. — .4sseHi., Biblioth. Orient., vol. i., p. 58. Let. XVII.] TESTIMONIES FROM FOURTH CENTURY. 707 the rest of tlic books ? Asseman informs us ' tliat the eor- rupt additions to Daniel were not contained in the vulgar Syriac Bible, though they were subsequently added from Greek copies, and your own citations abundantly prove that they were known to Ephrem. He must, therefore, have passed them over by design. His references to them show tliat he held them to be historically true and ])ractically useful. Why, then, sever them in his commentaries from the books to which they were generally attached, and of which they were supposed to be a part ? I know of but one answer that can be given, and that is, that he followed the Hebrew Canon. 5. Your appeal is just as unfortunate to the great Basil, bishop of Csesarea. Several of your citations are taken from that portion of the treatise against Eunomius which is not universally admitted to be genuine. The last two books have been called into question. Still, upon the prin- ciples which have been repeatedly explained, the strongest quotations which you have been able to extract from the writings of this Father do not establish the Divine authority of those books of the Apocrypha which he chose to accom- modate. We have, however, positive evidence that he ad- mitted as inspired only the books which were acknowledged by the Jews. In the Philocalia, or Hard Places of Scrip- ture, collected by him and Gregory Nazianzen out of Origen's Avorks, he proposes the question,^ "Why were only twenty- ' Qufe D. Hieronymus ex Theodotione transtulit Danielis capita, nimi- rum Canticuin triiim puerornm, cap. 3, k vers. 24, ad vers. 91. HiHtoriam Susannse, cap. 13, Bel idoli et Draconis, atque Danielis in locum leonum missi, cap. 14, ea et Ephrajra Ilebrsecum Textum secjuutns, in hisce com- nientariis tacitus ])ra?teriit. Hjcc enim in vulgata Syronim vcrsione hand extabant; licet postea ex Grsecis exemplaribus in sernionem Syriaciim 3. recentioribns Interpretibus con versa fuerint. — Assem., Bibliot/t. Orient., vol. i., p. 72. And yet Gregory Nyssen, as cited by Asseman, tom. i., p. 56, says that Ephrem commented upon the lohole Bible! Could these additions to Daniel, then, have been a part of it? ^ Quare xxii. Libri Divinitius inspirati? Respondeo, Quoniani in nuiuerorum loco, etc. Neque enim ignorandum est quod V. T. libri (ut 708 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Let. XVII. two books divinely inspired ?" He then goes on to tell us that, " as twenty-two letters (the number of the Hebrew alphabet) form the introduction to wisdom, so twenty-two books of Scripture are the basis and introduction of Divine wisdom and the knowledge of things." Again, in the second book against Eunomius, having quoted the passage in the eighth chapter of Proverbs, " The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his days," Basil ob- serves^ that "it is but once found in all the Bible," as Eusebius had done before. And yet, if Ecclesiasticus is a part of the Bible, the statement is false, for substantially the very same thing is declared in the ninth verse of the twenty-fourth chapter of Ecclesiasticus. In fact, Bellar- mine has represented Basil ^ as quoting it in the fourth book against Eunomius, from Ecclesiasticus, and because the Father there attributes it to Solomon, the Jesuit has inferred that he ascribed the Wisdom of Sirach to the monarch of Israel. It is plain, however, that Basil had reference to Proverbs, and Proverbs only. 6. Your next witness is Chrysostom, who, you have suc- ceeded in proving, held the Apocrypha to be Scripture, and, if you please. Divine Scripture; but you have nowhere shown that he believed them to be inspired. On the con- trary, he himself affirms in his homilies on Genesis^ that "all the inspired books of the Old Testament were origin- ally Avritten in the Hehreio tongue.''^ How many of those in dispute were written in this language? Again, in another Hebnei tradnnt) viginti et duo, quibus jequalis est numerus Elementorum Hebrfeonim. Non abs re sint. Ut enira xxii. Literre introductio ad sapien- tiam, etc., ita ad sapientiam Dei, et remm notitiani fundaraentiim sunt et introductio Libri Scripturae duo et viginti, — Philoc, c. 3, as quoted by Cosin. In margin p. 66. 1 "Aira^ tv TTciaaiQ rale y(}adra.s, an Plato? nam Paulus Esdrse, non Piatonis sequutu.s est dicta. Ksdrxs revclavit secundum coUatam in se revelationem, justos futuro.'* cum (iirislo, futuros ct cum Sanctis. 710 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Let. XVII. cording to the revelation imparted to him ;" and still again, " Who was the elder, Esdras or Plato ? For Paul followed the sayings of Esdras, and not of Plato." Now, if Ambrose could treat Esdras as a prophet who received a revelation to be communicated to others, and yet not really believe him to be inspired — if his language, in this case, must be understood in a subordinate and modified sensed — why not understand him in the same way when he applies a similar phraseology to the other books of the Apocrypha ? Am- brose, if strictly interpreted, proves too much, even for the Jesuits. They are obliged to soften his expressions, and in doing so they completely destroy the argument by which they would make him canonize the books which Trent has inserted in the Sacred Library. As to his quoting Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus under the name of Solomon, that proves nothing, since he has distinctly informed us ^ that Solomon was the author of only three books — Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Canticles. 8. It is unnecessary to dwell upon your citations from Paulinus of JSTola, as they involve only the same argument which has been so frequently refuted ; and the testimony of Augustine, your last witness, has been abundantly con- sidered already. It now remains to sum up the result of this whole in- vestigation. You undertook to prove that Rome was not guilty of arrogance and blasphemy in adding to the Word of God — in other words, you undertook to prove that the Apocrypha were inspired. For this purpose you brought forward Jour arguments, which I shall collect in the syllo- gistic form. 1. The first was, Whatsoever Rome, being infallible, de- clares to be inspired, must be inspired. 1 Unde et Salomonis tres libri ex plurimis videntur electi : Ecclesiastes de natiiralibus, Cantica Canticorum de mysticis, Proverbia de moralibus. — In Ps. xxxvi., pr. t. i., p. 777. Quid etiara tres libri Salomonis, umis de Proverbiis, alius Ecclesiastes, tertius de Canticis Canticorum, nisi trinte luijus ostendunt nobis Sapientiffi sanctum Salomonem fuisse solertem ?— In Litmm, pr. I. i., p. 12(3"2, A. Let. XVIII.] REAL TESTIMONY OF PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 711 Rome declares that the Apocrypha are so. Therefore the Apocrypha must be inspired. In a series of E.ssays I completely and triumphantly re- futed the major; so that this argument, which was the key- stone of the arch, fell to the ground. 2. Your second was, M'hatsoever books Christ and His Apostles quoted nmst be inspired. Christ and His Apostles quoted the Apocrypha. Therefore the Apocrypha must be inspired. Both premises of this syllogism were proved to be false ; so that it is not only dead, but twice dead, plucked up by the roots. 3. Your third was, Whatever books were incorporated in the ancient versions of the Bible must be inspired. The Apocrypha were so incorporated. Therefore the Apocrypha must be inspired. The major was shown to be without foundation, and con- tradicted by notorious facts. 4. Your fourth and last was. Whatever the Fathers have quoted as Scripture, Divine Scripture, etc., must be inspired. They have so quoted the Apocrypha. Therefore the Apocrypha must be inspired. Here again the major was shown to be false, as these were only general expressions for religious literature, whether inspired or human. The result, then, of the whole matter is, that in three instances your conclusion is drawn from a single premiss, and in one case from no premises at all. Upon this foundation stand the claims of the Apocryphal books to a place in the Canon. LETTER XVIII. REAL TESTIMONY OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. Havixc; now shown that Rome has utterly failed in pro- du(^ing a })articlc of proof in favour of her adulterated 712 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Let. XVIII, canon, I proceed to vindicate my original assertion, that, for four centuries, the unbroken testimony of the Christian Church is against the inspiration of the Apocryphal books. During all that period there is not only no intimation of what you have asserted to be true, that Christ and His Apostles delivered them to the faithful as a part of the Di- vine Rule of Faith, but there is a large amount of clear, positive and satisfactory evidence that no such event could possibly have taken place. The testimony of the Primitive Church presents itself to us under two aspects : It is either negative, consisting in the exclusion of the disputed books from professed catalogues of Scripture ; or positive, consisting in explicit declarations on the part of distinguished Fathers that they were not regarded as inspired. These two classes of proof I shall treat promiscuously, and adduce them both in the order of time. 1. Little more than half a century after the death of the last of the Apostles, flourished Melito, bishop of Sardis, one of the seven churches to which John, in the Apocalypse, was directed to write. Such was the distinguished reputa- tion which this good man enjoyed that Poly crates, bishop of Ephesus, says of him that he was guided in all things by the Holy Ghost ; and Tertullian not only praises " his elegant and oratorical genius," but adds that " he was esteemed by many as a prophet." The recorded opinions of such a man, living near enough to the times of the Apostles to have conversed with those who had listened to the Divine instructions of John, though not to be receiv^ed as authority, are certainly evidence of a very high character. It so happens, in the providence of God, that we have a cat- alogue of the Sacred Books drawn up by him for his friend Onesimus, which he professes to have made with the utmost accuracy, after a full investigation of the subject. I shall suifer him to speak for himself: "Melito sends greeting to his brother Onesimus. Since in thy zeal for the Word thou hast often desired to liave selections from the Law and the Let. XVIII. ] HEAL TESTIMOXY OF PUIMITIVE CHURCH. 713 Propliets concerning the Saviour and tlie whole of our faith, and hast also wished to obtain an exact statenient of the ancient Books, how many they were in number and what was their arrangement, I took pains to effect this, under- standing thy zeal for the fiiith and thy desire of knowledge in respect to the Word, and that, in thy devotion to God, thou esteemest these things above all others, striving after eternal salvation. Therefore, having come to the Ea.st and arrived at the place where these things were preached and done, and having accurately learned the books of the Old Testament, I have subjoined a list of them and sent it to thee. The names are as follows : of Moses, five books : namely, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deute- ronomy; Joshua, son of Nun, Judges, Ruth; four books of Kings, two of Chronicles, the Psalms of David, the Prov- erbs of Solomon, which is also called Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs and Job ; of Prophets, the books of Isaiah and Jeremiah, writings of the twelve Prophets in one book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Ezra, from which I have made selections, distributing them into six books." ^ This testimony, you inform us,^ " corroborates the fact " that in the age of Melito " the practice of the Christian 1 Me'AiTuv 'OvTjaifiu teg diXklfi. lolofiuvToq Ilagoi/xiai MiaT^ud, 'EKKljjaiacrf/g, Ku£?.e6' 'Aff/za 'Aofja- Tuv, Hlg daaiglfi. 'Hcmmf, 'lEaa'id, 'lEgsfiiag (jvv Qgijvoig Koi n) £mcTo7.^, ev hi 'Ig/iia, Aavti}?., Aavtijl. ' 1e(^eki7j7i, IsSi^Kr/?., 'Iw/? '1^/3. 'Ecrdi/g, 'Ea6r/g, l^u 6e tovtuv karl rd MaK/ca/Sai/ca, aTrsg ETriyeygaTrrat "ZagliijO 2agj3av£ 'EX. — Origen., Can.fr. Euseb. Eccl. Hist., vi. 25. Let. XVIII.] REAL TESTIMONY OF PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 721 as canonical, but the one which occurs in the twenty-ninth chapter of the book of his Prophecy. Such then is Origen's catalogue, in which, although he has followed the Jews, for they are the only safe guides on this subject, he has given, according to Eusebius, "the books in the Sacred Scriptures of the Old Testament." It is expressly stated that the Maccabees are out of the Canon; and of the other works in the Apocrypha not a syllable is mentioned. The Epistle to Julius Africanus,' upon which you have relied to make Origen contradict himself, does not assert the Divine inspiration of the story of Susannah, but vindi- cates it simply as a historical narrative from the charge of being a fabulous imposture. Africanus had asserted the book to be a fiction, grossly spurious and utterly unworthy of credit. It was from this accusation that Origen defended it, and showed conclusively that some of the reasoning M'hich his friend adopted, if carried out into its legitimate results, would sadly mutilate even the records which the Jews acknowledged. The Church had permitted this story to he read, and Origen maintains its substantial authenticity, in order that the Church might not be subject to the odious imputation of having given to her children fables for truth. Such books were recommended to the faithful as valuable helps to their personal improvement. This was evidently done upon the supposition that the facts which they con- tained were worthy of credit; and as this was, perhaps, the general belief, in which Africanus could not concur, Origen merely intended to prove tliat it was not at least without some foundation. It is true that this Father has freely quoted the Apocry- phal books under the same titles which are usuallv bestowed on the canonical Scriptures. So also has he quoted in the same way the spurious prophecy of Enoch, tlie She{)herd of Hermas, the Acts of Paul and the Gospel according to the Hebrews. He has even gone so flu-, in reference to the ' Vide Opera Origen, vol. i., p. 10, seq. Vol.. III.— 46 722 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Let. XVIII. Shepherd, as to say that this Scripture was, as he supposed, divinely inspired} I cannot believe, however, that Origen intended to convey the idea that this mystical medley should be entitled to equal veneration with the Prophets, Apostles and Evangelists. He simply meant to commend the heav- enly and holy impulses under which, as he conceived, the work had been written. From incidental expressions of this sort, which are often nothing but terms of respect, we are not to gather the real position which, in the opinions of those who use them, a book is to occupy in relation to the Canon of supernatural inspiration. There is nothing, con- sequently, to diminish the value or obviate the force of the plain and pointed testimony which Origen has given to the books of the Old Testament in a formal catalogue in which they are professedly numbered and arranged. 3. I shall now give the Canon of Athanasius, which may be found in his Festal Epistle.^ "For I fear," says he, "lest some few of the weaker sort should be seduced from ^ Puto tamen, quod Hermas iste sit scriptor libelli illius, qui Pastor ap- pellatur : quse scriptura valde mihi utilis videtur, et ut puto, divinitus in- spirata. — Explan. Rom. xvi. 14. "^ '^ireiS^ireg tiveq kTVExsi-gTiaav avard^aadai iavroig rd XeySfzeva 'ATrdicpv^ Kat ETTifii^ai Tavra Tij deoirvEvarcp yQa, Mfrd Si Tdvra jit^?.og "tay.fiuv, Kal E^ijg Tlapoifiiai. ^EtTa 'EKK?.^v Tvag' avroig .}i.}7.iuv. — Athan. 0pp. u., pp. 96-98. Let. XVIII.] REAL TE.STLMONY OF PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 725 order tliat they might be ca.sily identified, and he expres.sly tells us that the Esther which he means eommences in the manner Avhioh ha.s just been specified. We are, therefore, at no loss to determine what he intended to condemn and repu- diate under the title of Esther. The name of Baruch occurs in these catalogues, as it does also in those of Cyril and the Council of Laodicea, but it is only a fuller expression for the book of Jeremiah. " For Baruch's name," says Bishop Cosin,^ " is famous in Jeremy, whose disciple and scribe lie wa.s, suffering the same persecution and banishment that Jeremy did, and publishing the same words and prophecies that Jeremy had required him to write, so that in several relations a great part of the book may be attributed to them both. And very probable it is that for this reason the Fathers that followed Origen did not only, after his exam- ple, join the Lamentations and the Epistle to Jeremy, but the name of Baruch besides, whereby they intended nothing else (as by keeping themselves precisely to the number of twenty-tM'O books only is clear) than what was inserted con- cerning Baruch in the book of Jeremy itself." 4. Hilary," bishop of Poitiers in France, thus enume- rates the books of the Old Testament, which, he assures us, according to the tradition of the ancients, amounted to twenty-two : " Five of Moses ; Joshua the son of Nun, the sixth ; Judges and Ruth, the seventh ; first and second ' Vide Cosin, Scholast. Hist., p. 59. ^ Et ea causa est, ut in viginti diio.s libros lex Testamenti Veteris depute- tur, ut cum literarum numero convenirent. Qui ita secundilm traditioiies vetcrum deputantur, ut Moysi .sint libri quinque; Jesu Naue sextus; Judicura et Ruth septimus; primus et secundus Kegnorum in octavum, tertius et (piartus in nonum ; Paralipomenon duo in decimum sint, ser- nioncs dierum. Ivsdrte in undecimnm ; Liber Psalmorum in dnodeci- nuun ; Salomonis I'roverbia, Kcclesia.ste.s, Canticum Canticorum in tertium decimum, et quartum decimum, et quintum decimum ; duodecim autem I'rophetse in sextum decimum; Esaias deinde et Jeremia.s cum Lamenta- tione et Epistola; sed et Daniel, et Ezechiel, et Job, et Hester, viginti et diuun librorum numerura consumment. Quibusdam autem visum est, additis Tobia et Judith viginti quatuor libros secundum numerum Grse- carum literarum connumerare. — Hilari, Prolofjo in Paabnos, § xv., p. 9. 720 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Let. XVIII. Kings, the eighth ; third and fourth Kings, the ninth ; two books of Chronicles, tlie tenth ; Ezra, the eleventh ; Psalms, the twelfth ; Ecclesiastes and Canticles, the thirteenth, four- teenth and fifteenth ; the Twelve Prophets, the sixteenth ; then Isaiah and Jeremiah, together with his Lamentations and his Epistle ; Daniel, and Ezekiel, and Job, and Esther make up the full number of twenty-two books." 5. Contemporary with Athanasius and Hilary was Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, a prominent member of the second general council of Constantinople. His opinions of the Canon may be gathered from the following pa&sage:' " Learn diligently from the Church what are the books of the Old Testament and what of the Xew, but read me none of the Apocryphal ; for if you do not know the books acknowledged by all, why do you vainly trouble yourself about the disputed books ? Read, then, the Divine Scrip- tures, the twenty-two books of the Old Testament, which have been translated by the seventy-two interpreters. Of the Law the first are the five books of Moses, then Jesus the son of Nave, and the book of Judges with Ruth, which is numbered t\ie seventh ; then follow other historiciil books, the first and second of the Kingdoms (one book according to the Hebrews) ; the third and fourth are also one book ; 1 i/lo^atef ETviyvudi TraQo, r^f £KK7.r]alag, nolai, fiev ktcLv al r^g Tza/xuag 6iaB/]Kr]g jii^%OL, Tzbiai 6e T?jc Kaivfjg Kal fiot fif/Skv ruv cnTOKpvipuv avaylvuaue. 0' yag to, ■Kaga ndaiv o/xoAoyov/isva fit/ «(5wf, rt n-ept to, a/i(j)i^a?i?M/ieva ra/.a- iTugsig /xaTT/v • ' AvayivoxxKE rag Oeiag ygai^ag^ rag eiKoat 6vo (iijSXovg T^g TvaAaiag diadr/KTjg, Tag VTro tuv ejifiofifjKOVTa 6vo ig/Lif}vevT(hv Egfi7fVEv6eiffag, . , . rov v6[iov ^lEv^ yag Eiatv al Muaiug Trgurai ■kevte pi/iloi . . . ef^f de, Ir/aovg vlbg Nan^, Kai TUV Kgiruv fiETO. TTJg VoW (iiliMov ^lidofiov agidfiovfiEvov, tuv 6e TioiTTuv loTogiKuv (iifHiuv, -KgoTi] Kai SivTega tuv 'Baai7.eiuv fiia nag' ESgaloig EOTi fii(ilog- fiia 6e mi i] TgiT-q kcli 7) TeragTt/- ofioiug Se nag' avToig koi tuv UagalecKO/j.ivuv i] ngidTi} mi t) ^EVTtga, fiia Tvyxavk jSt^Xog, km tov Effdga 1) ngiyTT] mi r) SsvTEga fi'ia XEA.6ytaTai, dudEKCiTTf fii!3Aog 7/ Ead^g. Kai to. fih laTogim TavTa. Td Se aToixvg^ rvyxdvEi itevte' It)/?, mi jSi^Aog 'ta7.fiuv, mi Tlagoifiiaij ml EKKlrjaiaaTfjg, mi 'Au/ua 'AafiaTuv, enTamifikmTov lii^Tiov. 'Enl f5f TOVTOtg to. irgo^T/Tim ttevte' tuv rfwJsKa 'ngoa }.Ey6fiEva, aTivd EOTiv ovTug' iTjaoii Toii 'Salt/ ^ifiAog. KgiTuv fiErd Tfjg Poi'd' 'n.apa?^i~ofihuv TTqCiTt} fiETa Tijg dEVTEpag, Baai?.Et/ (iili/.og^ t) Tf/g BaOf/p Ka/fiTui. 'EnA^pM/aav ovv di EiKoai6vo jTi,17mi KUTa tov cipiO/ibv Ti>i> iiKoat^vo aToixhuv Trap' Ejiipdiotg. Al yap OTixfjpEig dio jiijiAoi 7/ te tov lo?.ofiuvTog 7/ UarnpfTog ?ie}'OfiEv^, mi 7) TOV Irjabv tov vlbv I.tpdx, Eicydvov dt tov I^ffdi', tov mi t7/v ^o^iav. EfipatoTl ypdfnvTog f/v 6 i/qovog ai'Tov l7/advg ipfit/vivaag F?.?.iivtaTi typaypEy Kal avTai xC'/^tfioi /itv Eiai Kai u(j>i?ufioiy d/.?,' Eig dptfl^ov pr/Tuv ovit dvaflpovTai. — Epipha. De Ponderihxis et Mens., iii., iv., pp. lOl, 102. 728 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Let. X^III. two, have been interpreted. For there are twenty-two let- ters among the Hebrews, five of which have a double form ; for Caph is double, so also are Mem and Nun and Phi and Zade. But since five letters among them are doubled, and therefore there are really twenty-seven letters, which are reduced to twenty-two, so for this reason they enumerate their books as twenty-two, though in reality twenty-seven; for the book of Ruth is joined to the book of Judges, and the two together are counted as one by the Hebrews. The first and second Kings are also counted as one book, and in like manner the third and fourth of Kings are reckoned as one. And in this way all the books of the Old Testament are comprehended in five pentateuchs, with two other books not included in these divisions. Five pertain to the Law, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. This is the pentateuch in which the Law is contained. Five are poetical, Job, Psalms, Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes and Canticles. Then another pentateuch embraces the Hagiographa, Joshua, Judges and Ruth, first and second Chronicles, first and second Kings, and third and fourth of Kings. This is the third pentateuch. Another pentateuch contains the twelve Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel. Besides these there remain the two books of Ezra, which are counted as one, and the book of Esther. In this way the twenty-two books are made out according to the number of the Hebrew letters. As for those two books, the Wisdom of Solomon and the Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach, written by the grandfather in Hebrew and trans- lated by the grandson into Greek, they are profitable and useful, but not counted in the number of the received books.' 7. The following is the Canon of Gregory Nazianzeu:' 1 laropmai /lev laac [ii[iloL dvoKalSena Tvoaai, IIqut!(TT7/ TtvEGcr^ hr' E^oih^^ AevivtKdv ve. 'Ekelt' Apidfioi' eha Aevteqo^ v6[ioq. E7recus est, quod ex ipsa quoque phrasi jirobari potest. jLet. XVIIL] real testimony of primitive church. 731 Xun, Pc, Sade. Hence, by most men, five books are eon- sidered as double; viz.: Saniuel, Malaehini [Kin^s], Dabre Hajamini [Chronicles], Ezra, Jeremiah witli Kincjtii, that is, the Lamentations. Therefore, as there are twenty-two let- ters, so twenty-two volumes are reckoned. The first book is called by them Bresith, by us Genesis ; the second is called Exodus; the third, Leviticus; the fourth, Numbers; the fifth, Deuteronomy. These are the five books of Moses, which they call Thora, the Law. The second class contains the Prophets, which they begin with the book of Joshua, the sou of Nun. The next is the book of the Judges, with Avhich they join Ruth, her history hapijcning in the time of the Judges. The third is Sanuicl, which we call the first and second book of the Kingdoms. The fourth is the book of the Kings, or the third and fourth book of the King- doms, or rather of the Kings ; for they do not contain the history of many nations, but of the people of Israel only — consisting of twelve tribes. The fifth is Isaiah ; the sixth, Jeremiah ; the seventh, Ezekiel ; the eighth, the book of the twelve Prophets. The third class is that of Hagio- grapha, or sacred writings : the first of which is Jol) ; the second, David, of which they make one volume, called the Psalms, divided into five parts ; the third is Solomon, of which there are three books, the Proverbs — or Parables, as they call them — the Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs ; the sixth is Daniel ; the seventh is the Chronicles, consisting with us of two books, called the first and stscond of the Re- mains ; the eighth is Ezra, which among the Greeks and ]^atins makes two books ; the ninth is Esther. Thus there arc in all two and twenty books of the old Law; that is, five books of ]\Ioses, eight of the Prophets and nine of the ITagiographa. But some reckon Ruth and the Lamenta- tions among the Hagiograi)ha ; so there will be four and twenty. This prologue I write as a hclmeted prefiice to all the books to be translated l)y me from the Hebrew into Latin, that we may know that all the books which are not of this iiunibcr are to be reckoned Apncryphal ; thcrcfon", Wisdom, 732 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Let. XVIII. which is commonly called Solomon's, and the book of Jesus the son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobit, and the Sliepherd, are not in the Canon. The first book of Maccabees I have found in Hebrew ; the second is Greek, as is evident from the style." ^Ye have two other catalogues furnished l)y Jerome — one in the Bibliotheca Divina, and tlie other in a letter to Paulinus — both exactly according with this. To these testimonies may be added a passage which oc- curs in the preface to his translations of the books of Sol- omon.^ " I have translated," says he, " the three books of Solomon, that is, the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Canticles, from the ancient version of the Seventy. As for the book called by many the Wisdom of Solomon, and Ecclesiasticus, which all know to be written by Jesus the son of Sirach, I have foreborne to translate them ; for it was my intention to send you a correct edition of the canonical Scriptures, and not to bestow labour upon others." In the Prologue to his translation of Jeremiah, he says ^ he " does not translate the book of Baruch, because it was neither in the Hebrew nor received by the Jews." He also condemns the Apocry- phal additions to Daniel as not found in the Hebrew, and as having exposed Christians to ridicule for the respect Avhich they paid to them.^ Although he translated Tobit 1 Tres libros Salomonis, id est, Proverbia, Ecclesiasten, Canticuni Canti- coriini, veteri Septuaginta interpretum auctoritate reddidi Porro in eo libro, qui a plerii5qiie Sapientia Salomonis inscribitur, et in Eccle- siastico, quern esse Jesu filii Sirach nullus ignorat, calamo temperavi; tantummodo canonicas Scripturas vobis emendare desiderans, et studium meum certis raagis quam dubiis commendare. — Fr. in Libr. Salom., juxta Septung. Interp., t. i., p. 1419. '^ Librum autem Baruch, notarii ejus, qui apud Hebrseos nee legitur, nee habetur, prsetermisimus. — Prol. in Jerem., t. i., p. 554. ^ Hsec idcirco, ut difficultatem vobis Danielis ostenderem ; qui apud He- br»os nee Susannse habet historiam, nee Hymnum Trium Pnerorum, nee Bells Draconisqne fabulas ; quas nos, quia in toto orbe disperstie sunt, vernm t anteposito easque jugulante, subjecimus; ne videremur apud iniperitos magnam partem voluminis detruncasse. Audivi ego quemdam de pne- ceptoribus .Tudseorum, quum Susannae derideret historiam, et a Gnwo nescio quo diceret esse confictam : illud opponere quod Origeni quoijue Africanup opposuit, etymologias has, a-o roc axiynv (rxlmii, ml a-b rdv-fi:- Let. XVIII.] real TESTIMONY OF riJlMITlVE t'lll'RCH. 733 and Judith iVoni C'lialdt'O into Latin, yet he })nnioiinces each of them to be Apoervplial. Wisdom, Ecelesiiisticus and ^Maccabees he never tran.slated at all. It is perli'ctly plain from these testimonies that Jerome acknowledged no other books of the Old Testament to be inspired but those which were received by the Jews; and it deserves to be remarked that he characterized the Hebrew Canon as emphatically the "Canon of Hebrew verity." It alone was the infallible testimony of truth. The testimony of Jerome is felt to be so iniixirtant and conclusive that Romanists have resorted to various expe- dients for the purpose of obviating its force. In the first place, it has been contended that he was not treating of the Canon of the Christian Church, nor of the books which, in his own opinion, ought to be received as inspired, but oidy of those which the Jews acknowledged. This objection, however, is so plainly inconsistent with the language which Jerome employs, that Bellarmine, too wise to defend it, frankly confesses that it is utterly without foundation. It is amazing how Cocceius, Catharinus and Cauus could gravely have proposed an explanation of this sort, when it was clearly written before them that "the Church reads arnih. and such books, but does not receive them as canonicaV^ Cardinal Perron, who admits, however, that Jerome was treating of the Christian Canon, resorts to a solution so exceedingly ridiculous that one cannot but conjecture that the cardinal himself was labouring under just the opposite infirmity. In his opinion, Jerome had not reached, Avhcn he wrote his memorable Prologue, the ripeness of his studies. It is hard to fix any precise and definite period for the de- velopment and maturity of the intellectual powers. But to vov TZQiaai, de Graeco serraone descendere Deinde tantiim fuisse otii tribus pueris cavillabatiir, lit in caraino a?stuantis incendii metro luderent, ct per ordinein et huidem Dei omnia elementa provocareiit: aut qiind miraciiliim diviiiaHpie aspirationis indifiiim, vel draconcm in- terfectum offii pieis, vel sacerdotum Belis macliina.s (Uprolieiriaa? Quie magis j)rudentia solertes viri quam projjlietati spiritu perpetrata? — Pra-f, in Dan., t. i., p. 089. 734 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Let. XVIII be an infant at fifty — and such was the a^e, according to tlie lowest calculation, which the venerable Father had then attained ' — is an infirmity so closely approximating to ab- solute idiocy, that the cardinal, I ap})rehend, will find it much more easy to convince his readers that he himself was on the borders of dotage than that the author of such a composition as the Prologus Galeatus was either a victim of imbecility of mind or the extravagance and rashness of youth. It has also been attempted to destroy the force of this testimony by asserting that he rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews. This, however, is so far from being true that he actually cites the Epistle under the name of Paul, and dis- tinctly declares that he received it as authentic.^ He says, to be sure, that others doubted of it, but that is very dif- ferent from calling it into question himself. It is finally contended that he subsequently changed his opinions. But of this fact no evidence can be produced. 'The Jesuits, indeed, tell us that in his Apology against Ruffin he retracted the censure which he had formerly pro- nounced upon the spurious additions to Daniel ; that in his Preface to Tobit he impugns the integrity of the Hebrew Canon ; in his Preface to Judith and his exposition of the Psalms he revokes what he had said of the book of Judith ; and in his commentary upon Isaiah retracts his assertions in relation 1x) the Maccabees. Such are the grounds upon which it is contended he changed his opinions. It would be very easy, by a particular examination of the passages which are cited, to show that there is no foundation what- ever for any of these assumptions. In reference to the Apocrypiial additions to Daniel, Ruf- finus was as far from admitting their inspiration as Jerome himself. He could not, therefore, with the least degree of 1 Jerome wrote his Prologue about the year 392. He was born, accord- ing to Baronius, about the year 340 : according to others, he was born still earlier. ^ Hatic Epistolain . . . ab omnibus . . . quasi Pauli Apostoli siiscipi . . . Apocalypsin . . . et tamen nos utramque suscipimus. — Epid. ad Dardunum. Let. XVIIL] REAL TK8TLMOXY OF I'ULMmVL CHURCH. 735 propriety or consistency, censure his iornier friend for opin- ions which tliey held in common. But Jerome was under- stood to say, in his Preface to Daniel, that the stories of Susannah and of Bel and the Dragon were mere fabulous narrations. This is what he explains in his Apology against Rufiinus.^ He asserts that he had been misunderstood, and that when he used such language in reference to these tales he was not giving his own opinion of their value, but the sentiments of the Jews. He was willing to admit that they might be usefully and profitably read, but so far Avas he from subscribing to their Divine inspiration that he reite- rates the approbation which he had formerly given of the Re})ly of Origen to Porphyry, who had quoted these works — "that they were not possessed of the authority of Scrip- ture, and therefore Christians were not bound to defend them." There is, consequently, but one principle on which Jerome can be made to endorse the claims of these wretched fictions, and that is, whatever he did not believe to be fab- ulous he must have believed to be inspired ! In his Preface to Tobit there is no retraction whatever. He simply states that he had yielded to the desire of the bishops M-ho had urged him to translate it, although in so doing he was aware that he had exposed himself to the re- proach of the Jews. He adds, however, that he judged it better to displease the Pharisees than to disregard the in- junctions of the bishops.^ But surely to translate a book — a book which was allowed to be read in the Church, and was commended as rf fit introduction to piety (for so many of the ancients regarded it) — does not necessarily imply that it was held to be inspired. And yet Jerome's expressions of willingness to displease the Jews, and to translate Tobit at the earnest request of his friends, is all the proof upon which it is asserted that he changed his mind in regard to it. I pay no attention to the obviously-corrupted jiassage in which he represents the Jews as ranking this book in the class of Hagiographa. The word ILu/ior/rnpha is an ' Ai>ol. '1 ;i(lvs. Kudin. ' Pra-fat. in Tohiaiu. 736 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Let. XVIII. evident mistake of the copyist for Apocrypha ; and so the ablest doctors among the Ilomanists themselves have agreed.^ The glaring falsehood of the assertion upon any other sup- position is enough to show that the text is vitiated. So, again, it is contended that he changed his opinion in reference to Judith, because he yielded to the entreaty of his friends and consented to translate it. He was the more induced to do so because the book itself presented an emi- nent example of chastity, and was suited to edify the people, and because the story went that the Council of Nice had inserted it in the Canon.^ On these grounds he translated the work, but not a hint does he drop that he received it as inspired. We may therefore conclude in the words of Bishop Cosin : " And thus have we made it to appear that St. Jerome was always constant herein to himself. For in the year 392 he avowed his translation of the Bible, before which he placed his Prologus Galeatus, as a helmet of de- fence against the introduction of any other books that should pretend to be of equal authority with it. Not many years after he wrote his Preface upon Tobit and Judith, and therein he changed not his mind. About the same time he wrote his Commentary upon the Prophet Haggai and his Epistle to Turia, wherein the book of Judith remaineth uncanonized. In the year 396 he wrote his Epistle to L»ta, and therein he is still constant to his Prologue. About the same year he wrote upon the Prophet Jonas, where the book of Tobit is kept out of the Canon. In the year 400 (or somcAvhat after) he wrote upon Daniel, and there Susan- nah, Bel and the Dragon have no authority of Divine Scripture. And at the same time he wrote his Apologie against Ruffin, where he referreth to his former Prologues, and expressly denieth any retraction of them. About the year 409 he wrote upon Esay, where he revoketh nothing. And in the latter end of his age he set forth his Comment- * Comestor, Hugo the Cardinal, Tortatus, Driedo, Catliarin, have all pronounced it to be a corrupt reading. See also note to Prafat. in Tobiara. ^ Prsefat. in Judith. Let. XVIII.] REAL TESTIMONY OF PRIMITIVE CPIURCH. 737 ary upon Ezechiel, wherein lie acknowledged no more books oi' the Old Testament than he had counted before, but con- tinued his belief and judgment herein to the day of his death, which followed not long after." 10. I shall next give the testimony of Ruffinus,* once the beloved friend, and afterwards the open and avowed adver- sary, of Jerome. In his Exposition of the Apostles' Creed he says : " This, then, is the Holy Spirit who in the Old Tes- tament inspired the Law and the Prophets, and in the New the Gospels and Epistles. Wherefore the Apostle says that ' all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profit- able for doctrine.' It will not, therefore, be improper to ' Ilic igitur Spiritus Sanctus est, qui in veteri Testamento Legem et Prophetas, in novo Evangelia et Apostolos inspiravit. Unde ApostoluB dicit: oranis Scriptura divinitus inspirata utilis est ad docendum. Et ideo quae sunt novi ac veteris Testatamenti volumina, quae secundum majorum traditionem per ipsum Spiritum Sanctum inspirata creduntur, et ecclesiis Christi tradita, competens videtur hoc in loco evidenti numero, sicut ex patrum monumentis acccpimus designare. Itaque veteris Testa- menti, omnium primo Moysi quinque libri sunt traditi, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Ntunerus, Deuteronomium. Post h?ec Jesus Nave ; Judicum, simul cum Kuth. Quatuor post haec Eegnorum libri, quos IIebra?i duos numerant. Paralipomena, qui Dierum dicitur Liber, et Esdrse duo, quia apud illos singuli computantur, et Hester. Prophetarum vero Isaias, Jeremias, Ezechiel, et Daniel, preterea duodecim Prophetarum, liber unus. Job quoque, et Psalmi David singuli sunt libri. Salomon vero tres ecclesiis tradidit, Proverbia, Ecclcsiasten, Cantica Canticorum. In his concluserunt numerum librorum veteris Testamenti. . . . Sciendum tamen est, quod et alii libri sunt, qui non sunt canonici, sed ecclesiastici a major- ibus appellati sunt; id est Sapientia quae dicitur Salomonis, et alia Sapientia, quae dicitur filii Sirach, qui liber apud Latinos, hoc ipso gene- ral! vocabulo, Ecclesiasticm appellatur, quo vocabulo non autor libelli, sed scriptura? qualitas cognominata est, ejusdem vero ordinis libellus est Tobia;, et Judith, et Macliabaeorum libri. In novo vero Testamento libel- lus qui dicitur Pastoris sive Hermes, qui appellatur Ducb Via', vel Judi- cium Petri. Quae omnia legi quidem in ecclesiis voluerunt, non tamen proferi ad auctoritatem ex his fidei confirmandam. Caetera-s vero scriptu- ras apocrypha.s nominarunt quas in ecclesiis legi noluerunt. Haec nobis a patribus tradita sunt qua? ut dixi, opportunum visum est hoc in loco desig- nare, ad instructionem eorum, qui prima sibi ecclesiae ac fidei clcmenta suscipiunt, ut sciant ex quibus sibi fontibus verbi Dei haurienda sint pocula. — Ruffiti. in Symb. ap. Ci/prian, in App., pp. 20, 27, et ap. Hier., torn, v., pp. 141, 142. Vol. III.— 47 738 ARGUMENTS FOR APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED. [Let. XVIII, enumerate here the books of the Xew and the Old Testa- ment, which we find by the monuments of the Fathers to have been delivered to the churches as inspired by the Holy Spirit. And of the Old Testament, in the first place, are the five books of Moses : Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, ]S"um- bers, Deuteronomy. After these are Joshua the son of Nun, and the Judges, together with Kuth. Xext, the four books of the Kingdoms (which the Hebrews reckon two), the book of the Remains, which is called the Chronicles, and two books of Ezra, which by them are reckoned one, and Esther. The Prophets are Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel, and besides one book of the twelve Prophets. Job also and the Psalms of David. Solomon has left three books to the Church : the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs ; with these they conclude the number of the books of the Old Testament. . . . However, it ought to be observed that there are also other books which are not canonical, but have been called by our forefiithers ecclesias- tical, as the Wisdom of Solomon, and another which is called the Wisdom of the son of Sirach, and among the Latins is called by the general name of .Ecclesiasticus. By which title is denoted not the author of the book, but the quality of the writing. In the same rank is the book of Tobit and the books of the Maccabees. In the New Tes- tament is the book of the Shepherd or of Hermas, which is called the Two Ways or the Judgment of Peter. All which they would have to be read in the churches, but not to be alleged by way of authority for proving articles of faith. Other Scriptures they called Apocryphal, which they would not have to be read in the churches." 11. I shall close this list of testimonies with the Cauon of the Council of Laodicea, which was afterwards confirmed at Constantinople in the close of the seventh century. The closing decrees are in these words : ^ " Private Psalms should ' On ov 6h ISiuTiKoi'C ijiaT^fiovc Myeadai ev rfj 'cKKT^rjaiq^ bvde aKavoviff-a ^l^ha, aXka nova ra KavoviKO. rsyf KaLvijg Kal iraXatag diadiiarjg. Oaa del ^i^lia avayiv6aKEcdai r?/f Ka?Mtag diad/jKr/g- a' Tivemg Kdafiov. /?' Lkt. XVIII.] PvEAL TESTIMONY OF PRlMriTVE ClIURCJI. 739 not be read in the Chuirh, nor any books which are not canonical, but only the canonical books of the Old and New Testament. The books of the Old Testament which ouirht to be v&dd are these: 1, The Genesis or generation of the AA'orld ; 2, The Exodus out of Egypt ; 3, I^eviticus ; 4, Numbers ; 5, Deuteronomy ; 6, Joshua the son of Xun ; 7, Judges, with Ruth; 8, Esther; 9, The first and second books of Kings; 10, The third and fourth books of Kings ; 11, The first and second books of Chronicles; 12, The first and second books of Esdras ; 13, The book of 150 Psalms; 14, The Proverbs of Solomon ; 15, The Ecclesiastcs ; 16, The Song of Songs; 17, Job; 18, The twelve Prophets; 19, Isaiah; 20, Jeremiah and Baruch, the Lamentations and Epistle; 21, Ezekiel; 22, Daniel." The only serious exception which can be taken to the testimony of this council is the fact that in the Canon of the New Testament the Apocalypse of John is omitted. There are three hypotheses upon which this difficulty may be removed, each of which is fatal to the inspiration of the books in question. In the first place, it might have been the design of the Fathers simply to prescribe the books which should be read, and as the Apocalypse was of an abstruse and mystical character, they might have thought it expedient to leave it out in the public services of the Church. But no such objections could have been alleged against \\'^isdom, Eccle- siasticus and Maccabees. These books were held to be eminently useful, and specially adapted to the instruction and improvement of recent converts. Their omission, therefore, cannot be explained upon the same principle with the omission of the Apocalypse. Why, tlien, were they not V.^fM^or t^ A'lyv-rov. y' x\.evi-iK6v. (V A()idfiiti. e' AevreQov6/iiov. r' Ji/aovr Nai7/. C' Kptrdt, Poi'O. 7}' EaOi/Q. d' BamXeiuv a koi fi'. t' "BaaO.eiiJv y' iV, id UaQalenrSfiEva a', /?'. ifi', EaAiiac a koi /?'. ly' /?«'/3/roceeds from j'our own authority to decide for yourself, and for which you alone are responsible. If you alone and the Fathers of Trent together are equallj'^ qualified to make that decision, then must the same terms which you apply to them be applicable to yourself. If, on the con- trary, any one should think j^ou personally inferior to them in the qual- ifications of learning and research on this point, then, unless charity and courtesy forbid him, as certainly they do me, must he look for ex- pressions, if possible, more bitter and harsh than j'our own. I pre- sume, however, that the ardour with which you engaged in the contest blinded your e3-es to the fact that while .you made your very first thrust at the Council, you fatally exi)Osed yourself to the retort. \Ve believe that the Church of Christ will ever know and believe and teach His doctrines and precepts — that He has secured to her the possession of the truths of Ilis revelation through the ministry of that body of pastors of wliich the Apostles were the first members, and whom He appointed His delegates and sent forth to "baptize all na- tions, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever He had taught them," guaranteeing at the same time that He would be with them in the performance of this duty ALL day.s, even to the consummation of the world. He promised them the Spirit of truth, who .should teach them all truth. Hence we hold that the Apostles and their suc- cessors in the ministry, in the first and second and in every succeeding century, have taught, and icill continue to the end of the world to teach, all things that He taught them originally ; and when they tes- tify that any doctrine is one of those originally taught by the Saviour, and handed down to them by their predecessors in the ministry, we feel bound to hear them, His delegated teachers, as we would hear Him from whom they received their authority, and we have the as- surance that He is with them, and teaches through them. I will not, reverend sir, enter at large on the general jiroofs on this point. I might show that our doctrine is fully sustained by the words of the Saviour himself, that it has ever been recognized and acted on from the earliest days of Christianity, that the contrary is opposed to rea.son and the infinite wisdom of God, inasmuch as it would ever leave us in doubt and indecision, and as only through it can all learn, with that certainty which is required for an uidiesitating assent of reason, what doctrines have been in truth revealed by the Saviour. To attempt to establish all this would be to depart too far from the subject I have undertaken to treat. I will consider it simply in refer- ence to the Canon of Scripture; and hope to show that the authority claimed by the Catholic Church of determining the Canon— that is, of authoritatively declaring what books have been committed to her care 756 APPENDIX B. bj- the Apostles as inspired, and have ever been revered as such — so far from being a "striking display of intolerable arrogance," must be admitted if the Christian world generally is to possess any certainty of Divine inspiration. In the first place, it seems strange to me that you should so severely condemn the Catholic Church for having presumed to draw up a Canon. It is nothing more than many denominations of Protestants— your own, reverend sir, included — have done. In the Tliirty-nine Ar- ticles of the Church of England and of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, in the Articles of the Methodist Episco- pal Church and in the Westminster Confession of the Presbyterians, we find Canons of the Scriptures. Nothing is more natural than that several ecclesiastical bodies, as the.*e denominations are, should give forth to its members and the world, through what each, according to its peculiar polity, recognizes as its proper tribunal, decisions on this all- important point. In the Catholic Church a general council is deemed a proper tribunal, and when circumstances required it the Catholic Church through such a tribunal gave her declaration. I am not now speaking of the accuracy of the decision, but of the "authority exer- cised" in making it. In stj'ling it "a striking display of intolerable aiTOgance," j'ou strike a blow which harms us not, but recoils with tenfold force on your own denomination. Surely, if the persons as- sembled at Westminster could draw up a Canon or catalogue of what they were of opinion should be received and acknowledged by all as inspired books, the Catholic Church could through her bishops assem- bled in council declare too what books had ever been handed down in her bosom as the Word of God. If it was no aiTOgance in the first to put forth a decree which was valueless, because on their own princi- ples it bound no one, and which every member of your communion ha.s a right to reform, and which some to my own knowledge do reform, it was certainly none in the Catholic Church to pronounce a decree which circumstances required, and which her children throughout the world felt had some weight. You might contend that the Catholic Church has no commission from God to make such decisions — that Catholics err when they believe them to possess some value. That would be attacking our doctrine. But it strikes me as strange that this partic- ular exei-cise of authority should be singled out for condemnation by a divine of a church which, without even claiming this commi,t an equally striking display of intolerable arrogance as the declaration of FIRST LETTER OF A. P. F. 757 thp Council of Trent that the books you mention were ever presei"ved in the Church, and must still be held as divinely inspired. I might :il.-led in the Holy Ghost, the three aforesaid Legates of tlie A])os- tolic See presiding therein, having this always in view, that errors 758 APPENDIX B. lieing taken away, the purity of that gospel should be preserved in the C'liurch, which, promised by the prophets in the Holy Scriiitures, our Loid Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and afterwards commanded should be preached by His Apostles to every creature as the source of every saving trath and moral disci- pline ; and clearly seeing that this truth and discipline is contained iu the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself or from the Apostles themselves, dictated by the Holy Ghost to them, have come do\vn even to us, delivered as it were from hand to hand ; following the ex- ample of the orthodox Fathers, receives with due piety and reverence, and venerates, all the boohs as well of the Old as of the New Testa- ment, since one God is the author of both, and also those traditions appertaining to faith and morals which have been held in the Cath- olic Church in continued succession, as coming from the mouth of Christ or dictated by the Holy Ghost. It has moreover thought proper to annex to this decree a catalogue of the Sacred Books, lest any doubt might arise which are the books received by this Council. They are the following [here follows the list, containinr/ the books to ichich entirely or in part you object). Now, if anj' one does not re- ceive as sacred and canonical those books entire, with all their parts, as they have been usually read in the Catholic Church, and are found in the old Latin vulgate edition, and shall knowingly and industriou.*ly contemn the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema." Sessio quarta celehrata die viii. Mens April., 31DXL YI. This decree, you perceive, reverend sir, treats of the inspired Scriii- tures and the unwritten traditions. Your essay takes up the first topic : I leave the second, then, without any remark. From this document it appears at first glance that the Coimcil de- sired to draw up for the use of the faithful a Canon or catalogue of the in.spired Books, and that they inserted therein those works which they were convinced had ever been looked upon by the universal Church as sacred and inspired. It is a doctrine of our Church, sustained by the arguments at which I have hinted above, that Almighty God has promised never to permit error under such circumstances to be taught instead of truth. Hence the Council looked upon that decree as deci- sive, and as such it has been and is received by the Catholic Chuivh throughout the world. Were any Catholic to refuse, he would be sep- arated from her communion. She would no longer recognize in him a sheep of her own true fold : before the tribunal of God he would stand or fall, according as in his own conscience he was really more or le.ture. 766 APPENDIX B. Before the coming of Christ, Esdras is said to have esta])lished a Canon for the use of the Jewish nation. It has been disputed whether he did so or not, whether he did so bj' his own authority or by the authority of God, whether alone or in conjunction with and as member of the Sanhedrim. It has been asserted, too, that in that catalogue were originally contained books which in the vicissitudes of that nation perished in the Hebrew, and are consequently no longer in the Jewish Canon, which consists only of books preserved in that language. I need not trouble you with my opinions on those different points. More veteran scholars than I have found some of them insoluble enigmas. I apprehend a certain and accurate answer to them all would, at least, be far beyond the capacity of the majority of Christians, and yet this much would be indispensably necessary if they are to have any Divine authority even for the Jewish Canon. At all events, that decision of Esdras would not bear on the inspiration of books then unwritten, a.s were all the books of the New Testament, so important to Christians, and nearly all the works the inspiration of which your essay contro- verts. The third method, then, cannot be admitted, because no such clear, unequivocal testimony of the entire number of inspired books proceeding from an individual who is evidently and undoubtedly commissioned of Grod exists, and because in the case of Esdras the most we can say is that the substance of the declaration is tinged with doubt, while the fact that he made it and his authority for doing so cannot be ascer- tained by the vast majority of Christians. IV. The fourth method alone now remains — namely, that God has ordained that each Christian shall learn what books are inspired from a body of individuals, to whom, in their collective capacity, He has given authority to make an unerring decision on that point; and we find ourselves reduced to the alternative of either admitting this, or of saying that while God requires all to believe the inspiration of the Scripture, and binds them to reject it unless it be clearly proved. He has left them without any such proof Would such a method, if established, be adapted to all Christians? Would it lead them to truth ? One of such a body presenting himself to instruct a Christian or an infidel would first inform him that a number of .vears ago a Person known by the name of Jesus Christ appeared in Judea and e.stablished a new religion. Sufficient motives of ci-edibility can easily be brought forward to induce the novice to believe this. He proceeds to state that Christ proved His heavenly commission to do so by frequent pub- lic and manifest miracles. It will not require much to establish in those works certain striking characteristics, of themselves clearly indic- ative of a miraculous nature. Hence common sense is forced to con- FIRST LETTER OF A. P. F. 767 elude that the religion established by Christ was Dicine, springing from God and binding on man. So far we find nothing above or con- trary to the means and understanding even of an Indian or a negro. Our instructor then states that Christ, in order to secure the extension of His religion to every people and its perpetuation to the end of time, selected from among His followers certain persons, who, with their successors, were in His name and by the same authority He i)o.s- sessed to go forth and teach all nations all that He had liiniself taught in Judea.' Such a delegation is by no means unnatural or strange, and there could be found no novice, however rude and uncultivated, whose mind could not grasp it, and who would not be led to believe it on sufficiently credible testimony. The next lesson will be that the Saviour assured them that they would be opposed ; that others would rise up to teach errors whom He sent not, and that some of their own number would fall away, but that God would recall to their minds all things He had taught them ; - that He would send them the Spirit of Tmth, who should abide with them for ever' and should teach them all tmth;* that He himself would be with them while fulfilling that commission all days, even to the consummation of tlie world ; ^ and that the gates of hell, the fiercest conflicts of enemies, should never prevail against that Church* which He sent them to found and ever to instract. For stronger and more explicit evidence of this, he might, if necessary and convenient, recur to certain histories written by persons who lived at the same time with the Saviour, and were for years in daily and intimate intercourse with Him — who could not mistake such simple points, and the accuracy of whose reports is universally acknow- ledged and can easily be substantiated. "All this," replies the novice, "my own common sense would lead me to expect. The persecutions and errors you refer to are but the natural workings of the passions of men, such as experience shows them in every-day life. It would be strange, indeed, that while men change and contradict everything else, they should not seek to change and contradict God's doctrines and precepts too. If He willed that the religion of Christ should endure always — that is, that the doctrines He revealed should be ever preached and believed, the jirecejjts He gave ever announced and obeyed — it was necessary to make some adequate provision against this error and change-seeking tendency of man. If those doctrines and precepts are to be learned from persons He ap- pointed to teach in His name and by His authority, as delegates whom, in virtue of the power given Him, He sent as He was .«ent by the Father, that i)rovision must evidently and necessarily be directed to preserve the purity of their teaching, to preserve that body of teachers » Matt, .xxviii. 19, 20. 2 John xiv. 26. » John .\iv. IC, 17. * John xiv. 20; xvi. 13. * Matt, xxviii. 20. « Matt. xvi. 18. 768 APPENDIX B. by the power of God from eiTor, and to make them, in fact, ' teach all things whatsoever He had taught them, ' Unaided reason almost as- sures me this is the course the Saviour would adopt. The evidence you lay before me is satisfactory and worthy of credit. I assent." The missionary would then inform his pupil that the body of teach- ers thus guaranteed to teach all truth "for ever" "to all nations" and " all days, even to the consummation of the world," and consequently ever to exist and to teach, does in fact exist, claiming and exercising that i)ower — that at the present day it consists of such individuals, of whom he is a commissioned teacher. If asked, he would probably be able to point out the predecessors of those persons in the last and every preceding age, for a line of succession would have come down from the days of the Apostles claiming and exercising that authority. He might state that one hundred and seventy-five millions of e^ery na- tion— from New Zealand to China, from Van Diemen's Land to the Canadian Indians, from the Cape of Good Hope to Siberia — admit and subject themselves to this authority ; that this immense multitude is owing to no sudden increase, but that millions on millions in every age have done the same. The novice might inquire whether the pre- dictions concerning persecutions and eiTor had yet been fulfilled. In answer, the past and present persecutions might be laid before him, and the long list of those who in various ages opposed the teaching of that body by every imaginable shade of eiTor, but with all their efi"orts could never overturn or suppress it. "Truly," exclaims the pupil, " the gates of hell shall never prevail against the Church of Christ. The existence of that body, its history, its claims recognized by such multitudes, would of themselves, had I no other motive for believing, convince me of all the facts I have just admitted. Were they not true, this claim would be unfounded— this body, subject to the fate of all human bodies, would have long since perished. I see whatever Christ taught must be true. I recognize you as His commissioned teacher. I believe Him for his miracles, I believe you for His authority. What are His doctrines, that I may receive them ? His precepts, that I may obey them ?' ' In all this there is nothing opposed to the nature or the powers of any man, or to the nature of religion. The facts to which assent is asked are as simple, and may be readily made as clear and as certain, as that there lived such a Roman as Julius Caesar, that he wan-ed in Gaul, afterwards turned his arms against his country, overcame Pompey, and finally met his death from assassination. An appeal is made to that principle implanted in the human mind by its Creator, and among the earliest to be developed — confiding reliance on the statements of others — while He guarantees that through His almighty providence TRUTH shall be stated. An infant would believe, by force of that nature which FIRST LETTER OF A. P. F. 769 God has given it, all I have proposed and the doctrines delivered in consequence, long before it would dream of asking evidence for author- ity to teach, and when reason is sufficiently developed to receive mo- tives of credibility they arc already at hand. We should ever bear in mind, too, that if this be the method atloptcd by Almighty God— if in rcalitA-, as the hypothesis requires, He speaks to that individual through this teacher — His Divine grace will influence the mind of the novice to yield a more ready and firm assent than the tendency of our nature and the unaided motives of human authority would produce. In this system there is no room for that awful but necessary, inevitable conse- quence of the axioms of Protestants and of your own princii)les, that in the life of every individual there should be a dark void of infidelity and unbelief from the time when, having attained the u.se of reason, he is able and most solemnly bound before his Maker to judge for him- self, until the time when clear and cogent arguments for the inspira- tion of at least some one of the scriptural books have been laid before his mind. During that interval, be it long or short — an hour, a day, a month, a year, entire lustres or a whole life — their inspiration is nn- pwved to his mind; "clear and cogent arguments for their Divine origin are not yet submitted to his understanding," and hence he is "solemnly bound" to "treat them as he treats all other writings, merely as human productions," "having no more authority than Sen- eca's Letters or Tully's Offices." In this interval he is without an inspired Bible, and con-sequently cannot believe the truths of Divine Revelation, which, on the broad ground of Protestantism, are to be learned from the Scriptures alone as the inspired Word of God ; in one word, during that period he is "solemnly bound" (shall I say un- less "he runs the risk of everlasting damnation?") to live a perfect Infidkl. I know that this statement will startle many of my readers — that you will di.savow it. I do not charge Protestants with holding the absurdity, for none, as far as I know, have avowed it totulem ver- bis. I see, however, a partial adniis.-ion in the practice of many Prot- estants to let their children grow up without much religious instruction becau.se in future years they have to examine and judge for themselves. Still, this conclusion, however ab.surd and awful (as you have not ad- vanced it I may, without infringing the rules of courtesy, add), how- ever hhisjihemous, is the nece.s.sary, unavoidable consequence of your premises. Such an inference cannot follow from truth. This fourth method is not repugnant to the nature of religion, for all true religion is based on submission of the understanding and the will to God when He speaks to us Himself— to His authorized dele- gates when through them He deigns to teach. Had He apjiDinted it, that body of individuals so commi.s.sioned would evidently teach TRUTH. Vol. III.— 49 770 APPENDIX B. The foui'tli method alone is therefore both iiracticable in the ordinary condition of the Christian world, and efficient. Does there exist a body of men clothed with this authority guaran- teed by such a Divine promise from error? Has it made a declaration setting forth, in pursuance of that authority, what works are tiuly inspired ? You, reverend sir, are forced to the alternative of either answering both questions in the affirmative, or of saying that the overwhelming majority of Christians are " solemnly bound" to reject the Scriptures, and if they have admitted them, it was in violation of the will of God and of their solemn duty. From this dilemma there is no escape. Were I not unwilling to take too wide a range, 1 might here de- velop those arguments on the subject which 1 referred to in the be- ginning of this letter. Those who are desirous of investigating thi.s question, of vital importance to every sincere Christian, I refer to Wise- man's Lectures, an English work, and one easily obtained. I trust that I have said enough to show that such a tribunal, at least for proving the inspiration of the Scriptures, does and must exist, unless we presume to tax the infinite wisdom of God with absurdity and con- tradiction. Which, then, is that body? The pastors of the Catholic Church claim to compose it. No other body claims that commission. Leav- ing aside an appeal to the historical evidence of continued succession from the Apostles, and other arguments bearing on the subject, com- mon sense tells us that if God has invested any body of individuals with such authority, that body cannot either be ignorant of its powers nor disclaim them. The Catholic Church, then, is that body. In the decree of the Council of Trent the Christian world has its authorized declaration. But why delay for fifteen centuries and a half this necessary, all-im- portant proof? Why leave the world for such a length of time with- out this evidence of the inspiration of the Scripture? I deny that tho delay took place. In order that the sentiments of a conmiunity bo known by those who move within its bosom or have intercourse with its members, it is not necessary that these should assemble in a itublic meeting and set forth their opinions in a preamble and resolutions. So, too, the doctrines of the Catholic Church can be known by tlie universal and concordant teaching of her pastors, even when lier bish- ops have not assembled in a general council and embodied those doc- trines in a list of decrees. When general councils are held, it is. on the head of doctrine, merely to declare and define what doctrines have ever been taught and believed in the Church. This is what the Coun- cil of Trent did on the Canon of Scripture. The Apostles left to the infant Church those inspired works which FIRST LETTER OF A. P. F. 771 Catholics now hold. They wore universally used, excepting, pcrhaj)?, in a few churches for whose variations I sliall account when treating of your second argument. Atler a numlier of years circumstances arose which led some persons to doubt whether the universal Church — though she ever had and still continued to use them — did so because she looked on all as inspired, or some merely as pious and instructive works. Other works, too, were protruded as inspired, and some seemed to obtain partial circulation. An expression of the belief of the body of jiastors was required. It was again and again given in the councils of Carthage and Hippo and the decisions of Innocent I. and Gelasius. In these the whole body of pastors acquiesced, and for a thousand years no objection of any imjiortance was made. After that peiiod arose Protestantism. Luther and his followers denounced uumy books — not those alone you controvert, but others also wliich you revere as in- spired— in terms compared to which even your essay is courteous. Some Catholics, too, seemed to think the former decision had not been sufficiently explicit, and therefore the bishops at Trent, assisted by the most learned divines, canonists and .scholars, after every possible re- search and the fullest investigation, decided again that all those books in the Catholic Bible had been handed down from the Apostles, had ever been held in the Chiux-h as inspired, and should therefiire be still revered as .sacred and canonical. These diffijrent assertions I sliall sus- tain by due authority when I answer your second argument. But many olijections have been urged against the truth of that de- cision. I a.sk j-ou, reverend sir, is there any doctrine of revelation again.st which uiany arguments have not been urged? Have not the veiy existence of God and His unity been assailed? Have not the mys- teries of the Trinity, of the incarnation of the Son, and every doctrine of Christianity, been attacked? The fact, therefore, of opposition is no disproof Nor is it necessary for the true believer to be able to an- swer everj' cavil or sophism. Surely the negro cannot answer, cannot even comprehend, the arguments brought against the existence of God. Is he therefore doomed to remain an Atheist? When we know posi- tively and clearly that God requires us to believe a certain doctrine because He declares it to be true, we are bound to obey uncondition- ally. Common sense tells us that eveiy objection to it nnist be based on error, even though we be unable to point it out. And so, too, a Cath- olic relies on the authorized deci-sion of his Church concerning the insjiired writings with surety, cla.s.sing all tlie objections urged there- against with the numberless other objections urged in like manner against every tnith of Divine revelation, against the Deity himself, which, according to his degree of knowledge, he may or may not be able to refute, but wliich he knows by a jmori evidence of the strong- est character ?>t//.v^ be false. 772 APPENDIX B. I trust that "a candid and unprejudiced mind" will, upon a mature consideration of the arguments I have brought forward, see that the act of the Council of Trent, so far from being a "striking display of intolerable an-ogance," was a decision with the Divine authority for which, and therefore its tmth, the inspiration of the Scriptures for the vast majority of Christians, and consequently, on Protestant prin- ciples, Christianity itself, must stand or fall. After thus establishing the absolute necessity of admitting that au- thority which you impugn, and showing the frightful consequences of a contrary course — consequences from which I am certain you will shrink — I might rest satisfied that I have fully answered your essay, and proved by clear and cogent arguments the inspiration of those works against which it is directed. Whatever else I may say will be "over and above what is actually required." "With the distinct un- derstanding, then, that I am doing a work which justice to our cause does not absolutely require," but which places the truth not in a firmer position, but in a stronger light, I will proceed in my next to notice those arguments you so confidently term "irresistible." Mean- while I remain, reverend sir, Yours, etc., A. P. R LETTER 11. To THE Reverend JAMES H. THORNWELL, Professor of the Evidences of Chris- TIANITT, ETC. Reverend Sir: In the introductorj^ remarks to .your essay you said you were not required to advance a single argument against the books of "Tobit, Judith, the additions to the book of Esther, Wis- dom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch with the Epistle of Jeremiah, the Song of the Three Children, the Story of Susannah, the Story of Bel and the Dragon, and the first and second books of Maccabees." It would at first sight appear from your article that Catholics urge only the au- thority of the Council of Trent in behalf of the insjiiration of those books and parts of books. You have scarcely given us the credit of advancing a single argument in corroboration of the truth of that de- cree. "A candid and unprejudiced mind" would, methinks, have de- sired from you at lea.st a full and fiiir statement of what reasons we do bring forward. Your position forbids my supposing you ignorant of at least some of them. Still, I cannot say I regret the course you have taken, though it is not the one I would have chosen. Every impar- tial, "thinking mind," even though he knew nothing of the Catholic view of the question, would see that yours is completely an vJtra jiarty exposition of the case, and that, before forming his decision, coniuion SECOND LETTER OF A. P. F. 773 l)ru(k'iR-C' requires him to hear the other side. I trust that my letters uiay tall into the hands of some such. Ill my first I treated of the authority of the decree of the Council of Trent, which declared those works "sacred and canonical," and showed by a line of argument — which, although not conclusive to an infidel, must be so to every Christian, because leased on the very nature of Christianity — that in the decree itself we had clear and cogent proof of their inspiration. I argued thus: No man can be called on to be- lieve what is not sustained by adequate proof. Hence, when CJod pro- ] loses any truth for the belief of man, He sustains it by adequate proof His own Divine veracitj' would fully constitute that proof for the indi- vidual to whom He speaks. For others it is necessary that the addi- tional fact that God did reveal His truth to that individual be also sustained by adequate proof Nothing deserves that name which can- not be learned or understood, or which, if learned and understood, would lead to error or leave room for reasonable doubt. You hold that one of the truths proposed by Almighty God for the belief of all Christians, to whom Christianity is duly announced, is, that certain works are inspired. Unless we betake ourselves to the tenets of the Society of Friends, and say that He declares by a .special revela- tion or teaching of the Private Spirit to every individual what books are and what are not inspired (which neither of us is willing to do), we must confess that this truth is one communicated to man many ages ago, and which is now to be believed by all those Christians of eveiy cla.ss and condition and clime because of that communication. Of this communication there does, therefore, there must exist, adequate ]noof for all such ]iersons. There can be but four methods of obtain- ing that i>roof three of which, we saw, must be rejected and the fourth consequently admitted. The ^first — a i)ersonal examination by each individual of the argu- ments, historical or intrin.sic, in favour of and against the insjiiration of the Scripture, even if siich an examination woidd ever lead to a cer- tain result — could not be admitted, because the overwhelming majority of Christians are prevented from instituting that examination by the duties and the circumstances of that condition in which Divine Provi- dence has placed them. The second — that the learned .should deciiring a work five hundred, one thou.«and or two thousand years after Christ, and His then making known, in any way He thinks proper, that a work written any number of years before is inspired. I make this remark, not because I intend to use it in my argument, but because it is highly improper to bind down the providence of God in regard to the insjiired writings to cer- tain laws and times, as you seem to do, that have no foimdation in truth. The Saviour came, if you will, to give us the whole revelation of God — that is, all the ifncfraial truths of that revelation, but not all the ins])ired works, for not one of the books of the New Testament was written until years after His crucifixion. St. John wrote the la,st after the year VIO. Many early Christians thought that the I'astor of 1 lermas, written many years still later, was in.spired. They were mis- taken ; but even that error shows that they at that early age knew of no declaration of the Saviour or Apostles that there should be no more insjjired books. With these i»refatory observations, I take up your argument as sim- jily stated above, and meet it by answering that when the Jewish Syn- agogue did not admit those works into the Canon it was because of the want of i)roof of their insjiiration, and perhajis want of authority to amend an already duly-established Canon, and that therefore they wore not guilty of the heinous sin you lay at their door; and, secondly, tliat Christ and His Ajiostles tlul take some steps, not, indeed, to in- sert tliKse books in the Jewish Canon, but to give them to the Chri.s- tians as divinely-inspired works, and it is in consequence of those steps that the Catholic Chiu-ch has ever held them as inspired and the Coun- cil of Trent enumerated them in the li.st of "Sacred and Canonical" works. The distinction laid ihiwn in my first remark completely mdlifics your argument. In order to convict the Jews of an "outrageous fraud in regard to the Sacred Oracles" if those works are insj)ired, you should show, not only that thfise works were not insertecl in the na- tional Cani>n, but also that when a work was insjiired sufiicicnt proof thereof was ever offered under the Synagogue, and that there also ever existed wime individual or body of men who had authority to act on such ])roof and to amend accordingly that national Canon. Need I say that in ynur dissertation we look in vain fur anything establishing 778 APPENDIX B. either of those points? The only remark bearing on them is that alreadj^ referred to : "If it should be said that the Jews received those books as inspired, but did not insert them in the Canon because they had not the authority of a Prophet for doing so, why is it that Christ did not give the requisite authority, if not to the Jewish jjriests and rulers, at least to His own Apostles?" I assert that the Saviour did give to His Apostles and their successors every power that was neces- sary. This follows as a necessary consequence from the argument laid down in my previous letter, and I will further sustain it by historical evidence. But even had He done nothing directly or indirectly, re- corded or unrecorded, in the matter, the only legitimate consequence would be that He was not pleased ever to prove authoritatively the inspiration of those books. I confess it would be highly probable they were uninspired, but their want of inspiration would not be an inevi- table consequence. Were not the vision of Addo, and other works I will mention below, inspired, though now lost and known only by name ? Who can say that the other prophets of those days did not write works, even whose names are unknown? They doubtless served the particular end for which God designed them. But even had the Saviour acted in such a matter as to show evidently that those works were uninspired, this would not touch either of two points so import- ant to the validity of your argument. These, reverend sir, you have assumed without any show of reason or authority. Your argument is valueless, and crumbles under its own "irresistible" weight. I might here dismiss this part of your essay, as the onus was cer- tainly on you to prove everything necessary to make your argument conclusive. However, even though it be something "over and above" what justice to my cause "absolutely required," I will lay before our readers a few remarks on the national Canon of the Jews. The earliest notice of an authoritative sanction of any work among the Israelites is found in the command of Moses to the Levites (Deut. xxxi. 24-26), to place in the side or by the side of the ark the volume in which he had written the words of the law. This would apjiear to designate the book of Deuteronomy alone, and certainly it does not follow from the words used that Moses, in ivriting that volume, re- ceived the supernatural assistance of Divine Inspiration. But I am willing to admit that the entire Pentateuch was even in that early pe- riod known to be inspired, and was used in the public services, though this last, I think, cannot be proved. Moses died in the j'ear 1447 before Christ, according to Calmet. Esdras returned to Jeru.s;ilem from the Babylonian captivity, 462 B. C. During this period of nearly one thousand years many insi)ired works were written. We have a number of them in the Old Testament. Others, too. were written which no longer exist. I might mention the book of Samuel SECOND LETTER OF A. P. F. 779 the Seer, that of Nathan the Prophet, and of Gad the Seer,' contain- ing accounts not found in our Bil)le, the books of Ahias the Silonite and the vision of Addo thi; Seer,^ the books of Semeias the Prophet* and tlie words of Hozai,* and might easily swell the catalogue. All those works, extant or lost, were in all piobability known to be inspired ])y the contenii)oraries of the several writers, but we have nothing to lead us to supj)ose that dilring all this time an exact catalogue or CaiKin of them was formed by national or Divine authority. In the yi'ar '.tTO B. C, after many of them were written, the ten tribes sci)a- rated from the kingdom of Judah, not a few of the Israelites retaining the true faith. After they were borne into cajjtivity and other nations introduced into their country, these new-comers were instructed by an Israelite jjriest how they should worship the Lord, but for some time tliey joined therewith heathen jirofanities and idolatry. These, how- ever, we know they afterwards abandoned. You are aware they still exist, and that they have always publicly recognized only the five books of Moses as inspired. It would appear, then, that at the time of the separation of the children of Israel under llehoboam no Canon had been yet drawn up by (hie autliority. This is more evident if we advert to the fact that all the Jewi.sh writers attribute the formation of their Canon to the Cheneseth Ghe- dolah, or great Synagogue, after the cai)tivity of Babylon, of which Esdras was a principal member. According to the testimony of the rabbins generally, this synagogue commenced under Darius Hystaspes, and ended in Simon, surnauied the Just, high priest under Seleucus Nicanor. All agree in i)lacing it between tlio.se two extremes, and .some restrict it, at least in its flourishing condition, to a much sh(jrter space. It .seems generally to be allowed that the greater part of the duty in regard to the sacred writings devolved on Esdras himself, who expurgated the sacred works from the various faults into which copy- ists had lallen. and collected them all into one body, introduced the Jewish divi.sions of Pen'-ihot, Sedmitn and Pexhuot, and arranged the whole into books. It would seem, too, and it is generally admitted, that various additions were made, such as the conclusion of the book of Deuteronomy concerning the death of Mo.se.s. Grotius thought that the inscriptions and dates at the beginning of the i)rophecies originated here too. But I do not see why we need go so far, as it was natural tliat the original writers should jtlace them there, and they elsewhere occur under such circumstances as show them to be evidently the work of the Prophets themselves. In speaking of this recension of the Scripture and formation of the Canon, the Jews generally attributed it > 1 Paralip., or 1 Chron. xxi.x. 30. 2 2 Pariilip., or 2 Chron. i.\. 29 : .\ii. 15 ; xiii. 22. ' 2 l*arali|i., or 2 Chron. xii. li. * 2 I'aralip., or 2 Chron. xxxiii. 19. 780 APPENDIX B. to the Cheneseth Ghedolah, or great Synagogue, as, in the treatise 31ey1iillah, third chapter of the Ghemara, they say this synagogue re- stored the i^ristine purity of the Scriptures, and in Baba bcithra, chap. 1, that the men of the great Synagogue wrote the book of the tweh-e Prophets and the books of Daniel and Esther. EHas the Levite and other learned rabbins treat the whole work as that of the synagogue. Perhaps we would not be far from the tiiith in saying that Ksdras, as member of the Sanhedrim, revised the coi^ies of the sacred writings, re- stored the true reading, collected the scattered parts of the Psalms — as the authors of the Synopsis of Scripture, sometimes attributed to St. Athanasius and St. Hilary (Prol. in Psalm.), say — the detached Prov- erbs, and the other scattered parts, and arranged the whole in a body, and that the synagogue itself authoritatively sanctioned the woik, thus establishing a national Canon. In this plan we must admit that some other books were superadded at a posterior date by the same sjna- gogue. In arriving at a decision on the formation of this Canon we have to guide ourselves, not by the infallible, unvarying statements of inspired writers, but by the perplexed, sometimes contradictory, and often nearly valueless, statements of historians who wrote long after- wards. One thing is certain, the Canon was closed after the admis- sion of the book of Nehemiah. No evidence whatever exists to prove the existence of a national Canon before the Babylonian captivity. The Jewish and the early Christian writers speak of this alone, and their testimonies, carefully weighed, would lead to the opinion I have stated. What were the ideas of the Jews on this subject at the time of the Saviour may be learned from the following passage of Josephus Fla- vins, in his first book against Appion. After stating in the sixth chap- ter that the ancient Jews took great care about writing lecords of their history, and that they committed that matter to their high priests and their prophets, and that those records had been written all along down to his own times with the utmost accuracy; and in the seventh, that the best of the priests and those who attended upon the Divine wor- ship were appointed from the beginning for that design, and that great care was taken that the race of the priests should continue mimixed and pure, he continues : "And this is justly or rather necessarily done, because every one is not permitted of his own accord to be a writer, nor is there any dis- agreement in what is written, they being only prophets that have written the original and earliest account of things as they learned them of God himself by inspiration ; and others have written what hath hap- pened in their own times, and that in a very distinct manner also. "For we have not an innumerable multitude of books an)ong us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another [as the Greeks have], sp:coxd letter of a. p. f. 781 but only twonty-two Itooks, which contain the rccorils of all the past time, which are justly believed to be divine, and of them five belong to 3I0SCS, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of. mankind till his death. This interval of time, from the death of Moses till the vi'Ainn of Ai"t:ixcrxes. king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, rlic pro] )hets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hynms to God ami precepts for the conduct of human life. It is true, our history liath boon written .>*ages, but these will be sufficient for my imrpose. Any "candid and unprejudiced mind," at all versed in the rules of criticism, must .see that in the New Testament the jiassages I have brought forward are alluded to and were had in view. The iden- tity of thought and the similarity, often .striking coincidence, of expres- sion, absolutely require this, else there is no such thing as one writer's using the thought and exiire.«sion of anotlier. You say, though you do not maintain their ojiinion, that some "learned men have doubted V.,i.. 111.-50 786 APPENDIX B. whether some of them existed at all until some time after tlie last of the Apostles had fallen asleep." You yourself do not "believe that the Septuagint contained them at the time of the Saviour and the Apostles. ' ' I have not taken the pains to see who were those learned men, or what books they thought were posterior to the Apostles. I have before me — and, had your adopting their opinion rendered it necessary, or did the space of this letter permit, might produce — tes- timony in abundance to prove those works anterior to the Saviour. One of the authors j^ou quote, Eichhorn, and Jahn, one of the most acute of German critics, declare that Philo has drawn much from the earlier of those works, so much so as to have been sometimes deemed the author of the book of Wisdom. To your own "belief," and, if you please, the authority of Schmidius, I will oppose the express dec- laration of Origen, the highest authority we can find or could desire on this question of fact. In his epistle to Julius Africanus, De Historia Siisannce, he says: I)i nostro Grceco sermone feruntur in nmni ecdesia Christi, that these passages of Daniel "are found in our Greek tongue throughout the entire Church;" and further on: Ajyiid utnanque erat de Susanna ut tu dicis Jigmenhini, et extremce partes in Daniele; "in both (the Septuagint and the version of Theodotion) are contained what you call the fiction of Susannah and the last parts of the book of Daniel ;" and immediately afterwards, enumerating what you term the additions to the book of Esther, emphatically declares that though not found in the Hebrew in his day, Apud Septuaginta autem et Theodo- tioneni ea sunt, " they are found, nevertheless, in the Septuagint and Theodotion. " I do not pretend to say that the Seventy translated into Greek works written in that language, as were some of the books in question, or not composed until they were in their graves. It is gene- lally allowed that they translated at most only the canonical works of the Jews shortly after that Canon was formed. Other works, how- ever, existed in the Jewish nation, which were revered and used and looked on as written in Bath quol, or the second degree of inspiration, and were added, if you please, as an appendix to the collection of works translated by the Seventy, the whole collection, containing both classes of books, still retaining, at least among Christians, the name of the Septuagint version. Not to multiply quotations on this point, I will merely bring forward the testimony of Walton, the editor of the Polyglot, whom I respect as the most learned of I rotestants in such matters, and eminently qualified, by his vast researches on the difier- ent versions, to decide authoritatively. His Protestantism effectually prevented any partialiti/ in favour of those books. In his Prol., cap. ix., he says : ^^ Libri itaque Apoa-yphi, ut d variis auctorihus ita variis temporihns scripti sunt, quidam Hebraic^, quidam Grcech ; et licet apud JMlenistas primuni recepti fuerint, tempus tamen prcecisi assig- SECOND LETTER OF A. P. F. 787 narl non potest, qunndo cum reh'qui.t lihri-s sacris in luium vohimen compacti fueiiiit. Hoc tamen clarum est, a Jtufais irelleni.stis cinn reJlqua Scrlptura Ecclesiam eos recepisse.^' " Wlieicfoie the Apociy- phal books were written as well by diflferent authors as at different times, some in Hebrew and some in Greek ; and although they were first received by the Hellenists, yet the precise time cannot be assigned when they were united in one volume with the other sacred works. This much, however, is evident, that the Church received them from the Hellenist Jews." Whether this transfer was made with or without the consent of the Apostles may, I think, be learned from a glance at the texts I have quoted above. What are the facts of the case ? There existed a cer- tain collection of books well known to the apostolic writers and to the faithful to whom their epistles were sent, as many, if not most, of them were converts from the number of those same Hellenist Jews. In that collection were compri.sed not only the canonical books of the Jews, but also those styled by the Protestants apocryphal. The Ai)0.s- tles quote frequently by name books of that collection, sometimes extract verbatim or with a partial change of words entire sentences, but more frequently, adopting and appealing as it were to some pas- sage, incorporate its sentiment, and more or less of its wording, into their own train of thought. This is most frequently done by the Saviour, as may be seen by any of my readers who disdains not, in his love of the Bible alone, to use one with accurate marginal references. The passage from Tobias is as striking and as well defined a quotation as any other, and as such must have .'Struck his hearers. The change of the original negative into the positive is not so striking as that of Micheas v. 2: "And thou, Bethlehem Ephrata, art a little one among the thousands of Judah," quoted thus by St. ^latthew, ii. 6: "And thou Bethlehem, the land of Judah, art NOT the least among the princes of Judah." Protestants find not the least difficulty in admit- ting such passages of the New Testament to contain allusions to the Old as long as their canonical books alone are concerned, but when a jiassage of the works whose inspiration they deny is laid before them, the thought and tournure of expression of which an Apostle has adoi>ted into his own Epistle so evidently as would now-a-daj's suffice to convict a poet of plagiary, oh ! then that cannot be a quotation ! Truly, reverend sir, to use your own words, "Light is death to their cau.se." I have thus, reverend sir, examined your first argument. You state that at the Saviour's time the Jews had a national Canon in which the works you impugn were not contained. I am willing to admit this in regard to all the books except Bnrnch with the Epistle of Jeremiah, the a hi it ion to the book of Esther, and the jiarts of Daniel which you 788 APPENDIX B. style the Stoi-y of Susannah, the Stoi-)/ of Bel and the Dragon, and the Song of the Three Children. I know that they had the books of which these were considered parts ; it is allowed that those parts once existed in the original language of those books, and that at the time of Origen they no longer existed in those languages. Before I admit that they perished in those languages, not after but before the time of the Saviour, I must have proof positive, which I do not recollect having ever met, and I am of opinion does not exist. However, T waived all controversy on this point, allowing your argument all the force it could receive from the foot did it take place. You then said that the Jews excluded them from their Canon under such circumstances as, were they in reality inspired, to render them- selves "guilty of an outrageous fraud in regard to the Sacred Oracles." This was a mere assumption unsupported by any proof It could not be the case unless there existed a tribunal in their nation capable of adding to the Canon already established, and the books were laid before this tribunal. You seem to think that the Jewish Canon was established by Divine authority. This would at once take off all respon- sibility from the Jewish nation and defeat your own argument. I have not taken advantage of it, however, as the Jews themselves attribute the formation of their Canon not to an immediate revelation of God, but to their Cheneseth Ghedolah, or Great Synagogue. I, who see there- in a general Council of the Church in the old law, claiming and exer- cising by the authority of God the power of teaching the faithful what were their inspired works, will readily admit its Divine authority so far as the decree can be evidently shown to have gone — that is, that those books were inspired. It cannot be proved that it determined anything in regard to books either lost, as probably many were, or yet unwrit- ten, or not in their possession. It would seem that it was with great difficulty they obtained even those whose inspiration they testified to. I question much whether in this view j'ou will admit the Divine authority of the Jewish Canon, and j-et j'ou say the Saviour did. History informs us that this great Synagogue ended, and was not revived or succeeded by any other of equal authority to act on the Canon of Scripture. Hence, even were there noonday evidence of the inspiration of those books, the Jews could not, at least according to their own writers, place them in the Canon. It was not necessary that such full evidence should exist; We have no proof that it did exist ; though that some evidence was in possession of the Jews may be gath- ered from the facts that, as Walton isays, they were united in the same volume, and that the rabbins hold some of them as inferiorly inspired. At all events, it is evident the Jews were not "guilty of an outrageous fi-aud in regard to the Sacred Oracles ' ' in not inserting those works, even though they be inspired, in their national Canon. SECOND LE'rrER OF A. P. F. 789 Your next assertions were, that "the Saviour and His Apostles aj)proved of the Jewisli Canon, whatever it was, and appealed to it as possessing Divine authority." Had they gone no farther, this would not have militated against us. I might, on the contrary, ai>peal to it as a positive Divine sanction of the fourth method of my preceding letter. Still, you have not in their words the least support for your assertions. The circumstances from which you would wftr it exist sini])ly in your own ardent imagination, and are not such as historical evidence sustains. These you follow up with another .statement, equally unsupported by their words or the facts of the case, that " the Saviour and His Apos- tles evidently treated the Jewish Canon as complete, and containing the whole of God's revelation as far as it was then made." For this, l)recisely, you offer no proof You view it as the evident consequence (if the other items of argument. They fall to the ground, and this must (all with them. You think that had the Jews been guilty of the heinous crime with which, in case these books are insjnred, you tax them, the Saviour and His Apostles were bound to denounce this particular offence. I think it would have been sufficient to condemn them in general and to state some of their errors, without being hound to go over the whole list. He proposed the truth of Christianity in general for their acceptance. If they embraced this, the acceptance of tho.se books would have fol- lowed, as I will .show it did follow for the early Christians. We know that as a people they "received Him not." He came not to reform the Jewish religion, but to establish another— that which it foreshad- owed. He might — as He did — condemn i)articular errors and abuses, but the end, the grand aim, of His preaching, was to bring them to believe in Him and all those things which He taught His Apostles personally for forty days after His resurrection, or by the Spirit of truth aftei-ward, concerning His Church, the kingdom of God. He never declared that He would, and we see no reason why He should, enumerate and condemn every abu.se, or that He wa.s bound to single out this particular error. We have two parallel cases : that of the Sanuiritans, who.se schism or en-or He condemned in John iv. 22, and of the Sadducees, whom both He and St. Paul condemned. Both were heinou-sly guilty of rejecting inspired writings as mere human Iiroductions, and j-et we have no evidence that they charged them with this particular en-or or sin. Why, then, bind them to do so in regard to the Pharisees? You finally state that Christ and His Apo.stles did nothing in regard to those books ; and this j'ou sustain in your first argiiment by saying there is not in the New Testament any record of the fact, and in your second by endeavouring to show that the Christians of the first four 790 APPENDIX B. centuries acted in such a manner in regard to those books as thej' cer- tainly would not have done if the Saviour or His Apostles had given any testimony of their inspiration. I might answer that though the Saviour did not establish evidently the inspiration of those books then, He could have done it after four centuries with equal facility, either through such a body of individuals as I have often referred to, or by any other means He thought proper to use. The only questions for us would be, Did He adopt those means? What are the books the inspiration of which is thus declared? But I meet your assertion directly. In my next I will show that the early Christians acted in regard to these books in such a manner as they would not have done unless they had been received from the Saviour or the Apostles as inspired. We find nothing in the Gospels or Epistles to show that they do or must contain all that the Saviour or Apostles taught or did. St. Paul taught many things by word, as we learn from himself The Saviour's discourse to the disciples on the road to Emmaus and a full account of all His conversations with the Apostles after His resm-rection would be very valuable. Among these last you might, reverend sir, find something bearing on the num- ber of inspired books. However, until you have all He said to the Jews and His Apostles, or an assurance from Him or them that this was not contained among the things omitted, venture not to assert that because He did not, as far as you can learn, say it on certain occasions to certain persons. He never said it to any one at all. That the Sa- viour and Apostles did do something in regard to those books, I opine, is evident from the texts I have quoted, else plagiary among authors is an imaginary crime. The identity of thought and the similaritj', sometimes copied turn, of expression prove this evidentlj'. The cir- cumstances of the case support it. According to Walton, the collec- tion containing these, with the canonical books of the Jews, was in the hands both of the writers and those who read their books. The sub- jects were the same. In their writings they avowedly quote, adopt and allude to the language and thoughts of that collection. Those instances show that such allusions were made, not only to the canoni- cal works, but also to those you deem uninspired. I believe with Walton, that the Septuagiid, as that collection was called, contained those books before the coming of the Saviour. You think this, if true, strengthens your argument. I think not. If those books thus united were uninspired, the Saviour and the Apostles were certainly bound positively to reject them, and not to suffer the unnatural union to pass into the Church. Now I shall show that as far back as the remnants of those early ages will carry us we find Christians uniting them both in the Septuagiiit, and revering both as divinely inspired. This very omission of excluding them, taken especially with the de- THIRD LETTER OF A. P. F. 791 cidcd belief of the early Christians, is a strong jn-oof in favour of the inspiration of those books. But you Jo not "believe that the Septua- gint at the Saviour's time contained tlie Apocrypha." Reverend sir, a more disastrous avowal you could not have made. The union then took ijlace in the Church, necessarily under the eyes and with the apin-obation of the Apostles and their immediate, most faithful disci- ples. These books are quoted and referred to as divinely-inspired Scripture. 1 could not desire a stronger case. Before the Apostles the conte.sted books were not inserted. Immediately afterwards we find them already inserted. A change has taken place. It could only be efiected by, it can only be attributed to, the Saviour and His Apostles. Therefore, they DID leave these works to the Christian world as in- spired. I remain, reverend sir, yours, etc., A. P. F. LETTER III. ' To THE Reverend JAMES H. TIIORNWELL, Professor of the Evidences of Cbris- TIANITT, ETC. : Reverend Sir : We are now arrived at the most important point in the examination of the historical evidences in favour of those books, for revering which as "sacred and canonical" you charge the Catholic Church with blasphemously adding to the Word of God. Before 1 enter on the task of laying before you the evidence of that character in favour of the truth of the decree passed by the Council of Trent, let me again urge on you the al)solute necessity of admitting the Divine authority on which the Church based it, and its consequent truth. By denying that authority you at once overthrow the only means whereby the overwhelming majority of Christians can learn with certainty, and on which they can be required to believe unhesi- tatingly, the in.spiration of the scriptural books. Even did there exist no historical te.stimony whatever to prove the truth set forth in that decree, as long as we have reasons for admitting, and are forced by necessity to admit, the authority of the tribunal from which it ema- nates, the inspiration oftho.se books is proved to our understanding by an a priori argument of the strongest character. In point of fact, millions on millions of Christians in every age have believed ami nuist still hold the Scrii)tures to be Divinely inspired, simply on autliority. How many are there, think you, even among Protestants in South Carolina, who believe it— not because their l)arcnts or instructors have .so taught them ; not because it is the gen- eral belief of persons whom they esteem, of the community of which they are members, of the denomination to which they are attached ; 792 APPENDIX B. nor yet because they have read some dissertation like yours, wherein a few names are quoted, some books in Latin or German referred to, some extracts inserted, and then a sweeping conclusion drawn, set off with a tirade of hard names and denunciations, but scarcely warranted by the premises and wholly unsupported by facts, — how many, I ask, are there, even among Protestants, who believe the Scriptures to be inspired, not on motives like these, but because clear and .cogent and really valid arguments have been submitted to their understandings? I have amused myself at times by asking those who assail me with texts against what they believe are our doctrines to prove the books they quote from to be inspired, and I very rarely found any one who knew even how to set about the task. They believed them to be inspired, not because any valid argument from historical or internal evidence had been laid before them, but because they had been brought up and led by education and authority to do so. Whether by acting thus, notwithstanding the want of the aforesaid arguments, they fol- lowed a course that was not "righteous and holy" and "ran the risk of everlasting damnation," I leave you, reverend sir, to decide. To me such cases are but particular examples of a general truth taught ahke by common sense and experience — that not one in ten thousand Christians has the time, the means and the ability to qualify himself properly for that arduous research and to prosecute the investigation of that mass of evidence with success. Any system which would re- quire all to do so must be absurd, for it supjwses that possible which is morally impossible ; and false, because it contradicts the infinite wis- dom of God as displayed in His apportionment of men in the various conditions of life. Both among Catholics and Protestants there ever will be, there must be, many to whose understandings no valid argu- ments from reason or from historical evidence for the inspiration of Scriptm-e will ever be submitted — whose condition in life prohibits it. Some may think they have them whose reasons, nevertheless, for belief are anything but valid, and would only provoke a smile from those who are qualified to estimate their value. If God requires those millions to believe that inspiration at all. He requires them to believe it on authority, for in no other manner can they learn it. And unless His works be imperfect. He has given an authority to teach them this doctrine whose teaching constitutes the necessary, clear, cogent and valid argument which is to be laid before their understandings. Now in the Protestant system there is no such authority to teach this truth, none which any one is bound to hear, or at least none which may not lead to error, and none, therefore, whose teaching necessarily gives truth with unerring accuracy and leaves no room for reasonable doubt and hesitation. In this system God would not have provided any means whereby those can learn certainly and unerringly the inspiration THIRD LETTER OF A. P. F. 793 of the Scripture, who are by tlieu- circumstances unavoidably restricted to the use of authority alone on this question. In the Catholic sys- tem, on the contrary, this hiatus in the works of God does not exist. An authority is estiiblished by Kim to teach this truth, and in fulfill- ing that commission is guarded by His Omnipotence from falling into error. The evidence of the commission itself and of the guarantee from error is before the world. Christians are required to believe the Scrip- tures to be inspired on that authority, and in believing they have an assurance from Divine Truth and Omnipotence that they err not. Historical evidence may or may not exist to corroborate the declara- tion of that authority. Those who believe may or may not possess it. To them it is a secondary collateral proof placing the doctrine not in a firmer position, but, if you will, in a stronger light. A practical illus- tration adds nothing to the certainty of a theorem established by mathematical demonstration. If this collateral testimony were not in the possession of the person whose belief is required, or even were it not in existence, the truth of the doctrine taught would remain un- changed and the obligation of believing it equally strong. Nay more : a person is still bound to believe even when seeming arguments which he cannot refute are urged to the contrary. Com- mon sen.se tells him that what is known and proved to be true by one method of demon.stration cannot be shown to be really false by another — that truth is never opposed to truth. Experience would tell him that there is no doctrine against which words cannot be arraj'cd. He may find objections, the fallacy or falsehood of which he cannot point out, brought against the inspiration of any or of all the books so declared to be inspired. But he knows that the authority which pro- claims them inspired teaches truth, and that whatever contradicts truth must be erroneous. He is bound still to believe. Men act thus every day in matters of life, and they are forced to cany out the prin- ciples also in doctrines of Christianity. Let me illustrate it by an example. You hold, revei'end sir, that God has declared and requires every one, even the unlettered negro, to believe unhesitatingly that there are three Divine Persons in one God. Now the negro, debarred by law from learning to read, cannot peruse his Bible ; cannot (leaving aside the question of inspiration) decide whether certain texts (among them the strongest, perhaps the only decisive one, on the Trinity) be interpolations, as most Protestant critics have determined that of 1 John V. 7 to be ; cannot collate all the texts on the subject, and pro- nounce unerringly that in them God has made such a declaration. He must learn the doctrine of the Trinity from authority. He is bound to believe it unhesitatingly, because God, who cannot declare an untruth, has declared it; and the Catliolic would add, common sense 794 APPENDIX B. requires, because the authority which communicates to him that dec- laration of God is prevented by Divine Omnipotence from teaching that He declared what in flict He did not. An Unitarian might say to the negro: "You are told that the Father is distinct from the Son, and the Holy Ghost from both; they are three distinct Persons. Now, if the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, they must, therefore, be three Gods and not one God ; and to say that three distinct Persons form only one God is as absurd as to say that three men form one individual. God could not have said so, for He cannot say anything absurd, and anj'body that tells you He did say so leads you into an error." Even a negro would see the force of this objection. Can he lay bare the sophism? In the Catholic system his answer would be clear and satisfactory: " My mind is feeble; I cannot by reasoning reply to what you say; but here is a tribunal which God has appointed to teach me what doctrines He has declared, and which He will not permit to mistake. That tribunal tells me that He has declared this doctrine, and when He declares it, it must be true and not absurd, and therefore 1 believe it, though I cannot refute j'our arguments." If on the Protestant principle he believed that the authority which had taught him the Trinity could propose doctrines which were false, and could assert that God had taught what in truth He did not teach, I confess that I do not see what answer the negi-o could make, or how he could reasonably continue in an unhesitating belief of the Trinity. I oi)ine, too, that even the most learned theologian would find him- self in the same predicament. It would puzzle him to explain how three Divine Persons, each of them God, can only constitute one God, while three human persons must constitute, not one, but three beings. He can only seek to establish the fiict that God did declare this to be the case. Now I certainly believe the doctrine of the Trinity as firmly as I do my own existence. But could I leave aside the authority of the Catholic Church, could I believe that it was possible for her to declare that God has revealed a doctrine which He has not, I, for one, would not admit this mystery, for the simple reason that except through her I have no positive assurance that it is one of the doctrines revealed by Almighty God. The strongest text, as I said above, is rejected by most Protestant critics as supposititious. Were it not, it is suscepti- ble of another and very different sense. So, too, are all the other texts urged in favour of this dogma. The Unitarians strongly and earnestly urge these views. And in perusing several Protestant trea- tises on the subject I have not met a Trinitarian who. in my opinion at least, could, without some one-sided appeal to the authority of the Church to decide the question, overthrow their positions or make out for himself more than a ]ilausible, perhaps a probable, case. Deprived THIRD LETTER OF A. P. F. 795 of the authoritative teaching of tlio Catholic Church, I would not, on ujere plausible or probable evidence, yield an unhesitating belief in so astoinidiiig a uijstery as this, or exjiose myself to the danger of Idol- atry by adoring as God one who might prrlutps be after all a mere creature. I thank Heaven I am not left in this perplexity or unbelief. Though I cannot refute mcta])hysically all the metajihysical objections against the august mystery of the Trinity, though ray researches of mere historical testimony or simple examination of the Scrijjture would not lead me to the certain and evident conclusion that God did reveal it, I have His revelation unerringly preserved by those the Saviour sent to teach all that He had taught, even as He was sent by the Father. Them I hear as I would hear Him. On His authority and their tes- timony 1 believe the doctrine of the Trinity firmly and unhesitatingly, despite of unsolved sophisms, and bend the knee to adore Jesus Christ as the Eternal God, no dark, horrific doubt flashing the while through my mind that perliapa He is but a creature and I am staining my soul with the damning sin of Idolatry. To apply this to the subject of my letter : If Almighty God has been pleased to establish a tribunal with authority to declare uner- ringly, in His name, what books are sacred and canonical, we arc bound to receive unhesitatingly as the Word of God the books designated as such by that tribunal, even though we possess not collateral proof from historic or intrinsic evidence to sustain it. We would be equally bound to receive them did no historical evidence whatever exist ; nay, even if objections which we have not the means of solving could be lu-ged against the insi)iration of some or of all of those books. I luxve shown in my first letter that every Christian at least must admit that God did establish such a tribunal. When that is estab- lished, collateral testimony is of secondary imi)ortance. Had the flood of time swept away every record of the early Church, as it has swept away many, the decree of the Council of Trent would still stand. I have made these prefatory, perhaps discursive remarks, that our readers may see the natiu'C, the bearing and the value of historical tes- timony in fuvovu-of the inspiration of the books which Catholics admit as insi)iied, and you reject as of no more authority than Seneca's Let- ters or Tully's Ofiices. I will now proceed to redeem the promise made towards the close of my last letter, and to show that the early Christians acted in such a manner in regard to those books and i)arts of books as they would not have done T'NLKSS the Saviour and Tlis Apostles had left them to the early Church as inspired. Here, reverend sir, we are fairly at vari- ance. 1 will give your second argument in your own words. [Here A. P. F. quotes Dr. Tliornwell's .^^econd argument] This, reverend sir. might strike a reader altogether unacquainted 796 APPENDIX B. with those early times as very forcible, and nearly, if not quite, " irre- sistible." A second perusal of j-our essay would show him that much as you seem to have kept the matter out of sight, even in those fir.>^t four ages there were at least two sides to the question, whereas your argu- ment is grounded on the assertion that the unbroken testimony of the Church during all this time was against the inspiration of those books. St. Jerome, you state, informs us that the Christians were. exposed to ridicule from the Jews for the respect in which they held one part of what your arguments affirm uninspired writings. Now St. Jerome wrote before the year 400, and that respect might, for aught you say, be some remnant of a tradition from the Apostles regarding their inspiration. Those decisions, too, which you spoke of, made in their favour by bodies of which St. Augustine was a member, occurred also before the year 400. Might they not be other remnants? But, reve- rend sir, to one who is acquainted with those early days of the Church it must be a matter of astonishment how, if you had read five authors of those times (and if 3'ou had not, you should not make your second argument so boldly), you could assert unqualifiedly and emphatically "that for four centuries the unbroken testimony of the Christian Church is against their inspiration. ' ' I assert that, on the contrary, the manner in which the Christians of the first four centuries acted in regard to those writings shows that they were left to them by the Apostles as inspired. I presume you will admit that while these early Christians were tried in the furnace of persecution, and laid down their lives by thousands rather than swerve one jot or tittle from the trath handed down to them, they would not throughout the world unite in " blasphemouslj' adding to the Word of God. ' ' If they united in receiving those works as in- spired, then is our cause fully sustained, for they would not have thus united unless they had been taught by the Apostles that those books formed part of the Word of God. You have appealed to the testi- mony of the Church for the first four centuries. You shall have it. Would that you may abide by its award ! In the first place, all those books or parts of books were contained in the Old Testament as used by the early Christians in the infancy of the Church. That they all existed at the time of St. Jerome, and at his day formed part of the Old Testament, cannot be denied. At the proper place I will speak of his views on their inspiration. At present let us investigate facts. The Latin Vulgate as used then contained them. Now, reverend sir, if it be made evident that those works were received universally and from the earliest day into the body of the Old Testament, j'our assertion that there is no remnant of any tra- dition does liv^: coincide with the fact. At what time were those works joined to the canonical works of the THIRD LETTER OF A. P. F. 797 ciept, jierliaps, Wisdom and tlie second book of Maccabees, were originally written in Hebrew or Chaldaic, as their frequent Semitic idioms evidently show. St. Jerome translated Tobias and Judith from the Chaldaic, and declares that he saw Ecclesiasticus and Mac- cabees in the original Hebrew. Baruch with the Pipistle of Jeremiah )»ear tlu- indelible impress of their Hebrew origin. Origen declares emiihatically that the i)arts of Estlier and Daniel you reject were in the versions of the Septuagint and of Theodotion. We know that Theodotion, whom St. Jerome calls a Jndaizing heretic, translated from the Hebrew into Greek, and his version of Daniel containing those parts is that anciently adopted by the Greek and Latin churches, and still followed entirely by the first, and in those parts by the latter. This clearly-ascertained origin at once shows that the works were prior to the Saviour. If the Christians had written them afterward, which this general adoption forbids, they would have done it in Greek or Latin — their languages. The book of Wisdom and the second book of Maccabees are allowed by all sane critics to be incontestably anterior to the Saviour. The translation of the HcImcw works into the Greek for the use of the Hellenist Jews is also allowed to have taken place before the Saviour's time. Without attempting now to prove this at length in regard to every book, especially as you have not denied it, I will again content myself with referring to Walton, who declares that those works were first received by the Hellenist Jews, although it can- not be a.^certained at what time they were joined in one volume with the Jewish canonical works, but that this much is certain, that the Church received them with the rest of the Scripture from those Hel- lenist Jews. I said the transfer was made with the approbation of the Apostles, who in writing their inspired Epistles had manifestly used those works. I will now prove it by the versions of the Old Tes- tament among the Christians. Taking the Septuagint or Greek ver- sion alone. I cannot see what valid arguments can be adduced to prove that it did not contain those works in the beginning. Not the omis- sion of them in coi)ies, for the oldest entire manuscripts contain then). Not any testimony of some ancient writer, for as far as they bear wit- ness it did, and, as I will show farther on, they quote those identical works. But there is another insurmountable objection to your opin- ion and an irrefragable proof of my proposition Two versions were made of the Scriptures immediately after the death of the Apostles — the Latin for the use of the Western Christians, from the Greek, and the Syriac, from the Hebrew and Greek, for those of the East. Both contain those works. We are informed that many ver.<, Isaias iii. 9, "Woe to their soul, for evils are rendered to them," and Wisdom ii. 12, "Let us 800 APPENDIX B. tliereforo lie in wait for the just, because he is not for our turn." Here St. Barnabas quotes in the same sentence, and as of equal in- spired authority, the book of Isaias, contained in the Canon of the Jews, and that of Wisdom, one of those you boldly declare to be of no more authority than Seneca's Letters or Tully's Offices. 2. Towards the end of the same Epistle the apostolical writer says : "Thou shalt not be forward to speak, for the mouth is the snare of death. Strive with thy soul for all thy might. Reach not out thy hand to receive, and withhold it not when thou should.st give. ' ' What is this but a quotation of Ecclesiasticus (iv. 33, 34, 36), another of the books of 3'our heathen category? " Strive for justice for thy soul, and even unto death fight for justice, and God will overthrow thy enemies for thee. Be not hasty in thy tongue, and slack and remiss in thy works. Let not thy hand be stretched out to receive and shut when thou shouldst give." 3. St. Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians comes next. In the tenth section he has the following passage : " When it is in your power to do good, defer it not, for charity delivereth from death. Be all of j^ou subject to one another, having your conversations honest (or in-e- proachable) among the Gentiles." St. Polj'carp, like St. Barnabas, quotes in the same breath an author whom you admit as inspired, and one whom you reject, and condemn Catholics for revering with him. "For alms delivereth from death." Tobias xii. 9. "Having your conversation good among the Gentiles." 1 Pet. ii. 12. There are one or two passages in the Epistles of St. Ignatias which seem to me to imply quotations from the books in question, but as they are not so clear and striking I omit them. I find, too, that sev- eral authors refer to a passage speaking of Daniel and Susannah, but as it is not in the copy before me, I consider it most probably one of the interpolations foisted into the saint's writings in after j^ears. We will leave him, then, and take up the other writer. 4. In the first Epistle to the Corinthians, ? 27, St. Clement, fourth bishop of Rome, has the following passage : " Who shall say to Him, What dost thou? or who shall resist the power of His strength?" These words are taken from Wisdom xi. 52 and xh. 12: "For who shall say to thee. What hast thou done?" "And who shall resist the strength of thy arm?" 5. In I 55 he writes thus: "And even many women, being strength- ened by the grace of God, have done many glorious and manly things. The blessed Judith, when her city was besieged, desired the elders that they would suffer her to go to the camp of the strangers, and she went out, exposing herself to danger for the love she bore to her coun- try and her people that were besieged. And the Lord delivered Holo- femes into the hands of a tcoman. Nor did Esther, being perfect in TIIIUD LETTEIi OF A. P. F. 801 faith, expose herself to any less liazanl for the delivery of the twelve tribes of Israel in clanger of being destroyed. For by fasting and hum- bling herself she entreated the great iMaker of all things, the God of ages, who, beholding the huiuility of her soul, delivered the people for whose sake she was in peril." The passage speaks for itself I may say that the words marked in italics are extracted from the sublime canticle of Jmlith (xvi. 7). In his account of Esther, too, St. Clement evidently had in his mind not only the passage in Hebrews iv. 16, v. 2, but the prayer of Esther (xiv. ), one of those portions which you reject, with which every word he uses admirably tallies. I have been admonished not to encroach too much on the columns of the ^liscellany, and must conclude here for the present. "We have sctn that the Old Testament in the infancy of the Church, and from one extremity of the Christian world to the other, whether in SjT-iac, in Greek or in Latin, contained the books which the Cath- olic Canon now^contains, and which you would have us exclude. We have seen three out of the four first Christian writers quoting them unequivocally, j)recisely as they quote the other books of the Scripture, making no distinction whatever. Add to this, if you please, the pas- sages enuuierated in my last letter, wherein the inspired writers of the New Testament have evidently used those works, and then withdraw your thoughtless assertion that " the unbroken testimony of the Chris- tian Church is against their inspiration." I will in my next take up some Christian writers of the second cen- turj', and shall show that they also quoted those works as parts of the Scripture. 3Ieanwhile, I remain, reverend sir. Yours, etc., A. P. F. Vol. III.— 51 APPENDIX C. COLLECTION OF THE PASSAGES IN WHICH DK. LYNCH HAS KEPKESENTED THE FATHERS AS QUOTING THE APOCRYPHA. N. B. The first column gives the name of the author and the book; the second, the passages which are simply quoted or accommodated ; the third, those which are quoted with some marks of distinction, as scripture. Divine scripture, or under the name of a prophet; the fourth gives merely allu- sions to the contents of the book, or assumes its history to be true. Some few passages may have been omitted, as the syllabus has been pre- pared in great haste. Names of the Fathers and of their Works. Apocryphal passages which are simply quoted. Those quoted as scrip- ture or Divine scrip- ture. Allusions to Apocrypha. JUSTIN MARTYR. 1 Apol '6 -14 Ecclus. XV. 14-18. Wisdom vi. 20. Baruch iv. 36, 37. Daniel xiii. 56. 52, 53. " xiv. 3, 4, 24. Ecclus. xxi. 6; 1.21, 22. Ecclus. xxi. 20. " xxxviii. 1. " xxxix. 26, 27. " XXV. 6. Wisdom iii. 2-8 (as Di- vine Wisdom). Wisdom V. 2-5 (under name of Solomon). Wisdom iii. 14, a.s Sol. Bar. iv. 4; iii. 4, as Jer. " iii. 16-19. Tobias xii. 8. IREN^US. Contra HtEreR.,l.iv.c.38. lib. V. c. 35. lib.iv.c.26. lib. iv.c.5.. CLEMENS AT.EX. PKdag., lib. i. c. 8 " lib. i. c. 9 " lib ii c 5 Ecclus. XXX. 8. " lib ii c. 8 " lili iii c. 3 «' lib vi Pmdag., lib. i. c. 10 " lib ii c. 3 Strom lib vi TERTULLIAN. Judith viii. 1. Wisdom i. 1, as Sol. " i. 1, as Sol. Ecclus. XV. 18. Bar. vi. 3, 4, 5, as Jer. De Anima, c. 15.. De Virst. Vel., c. 13 Cont. Marc, c. 5 Wisdom i. 6. . « viii.21. Ecclus. XV. 18. Scorpia5um.„ 802 APPENDIX C. 803 Names of the Fathers and of their M'orks Apocryphal passages which are simply quoted. Those quoted as scrip- ture or Divine scrip- ture. Allusions to Apocrypha, TERTCLLIAN. DeCoroii Milit., C. 4 De Idol c 18 Daniel xiii. 32. DunicI xiv De Jejun., c. 9.: " xiv. 82, 38. De Pm-scrip., c. 13 CYPRIAN. Tost, ad Qiiir.,1. iii.c.l. 1. iii. c. 6. DeMort>.li.,c.7 De Orat Doni c 21 '2 Mac viii. 28. Tobias ii. 2; iv. 6-12. " ii. 14. " xii. 15. Tobit. xii. 8. Wisdom iii. 4-8. " iv. 11-14. V. 1-8. V. 8. " iii. 4-8. Ecclus. ii. 1-4. " iii. 30. " xxviii. 28. " vii. 29, 31. Daniel xxv. 34. De Op. et Eleemos.. o. 4. Toblt xii. 8. De Habit. Virg., c. 7 \d Itojjat De Alurtal c 5 De Op. ct Eleemos., c. 2. Ad Rogat De Unit Eccles c 11 Daniellil.4»-00. ■ Daniel iii. 51. xiv. 4. De Orat, Dom c 14 " xiv De Op. et Eleemos., c. 8. Epist 40 " xiii. Test, ad Qiiir., i. ii. c. 6. Bar. iii. 35-37, as Jer. " vi. 6. Test. adQuir.,l.iii.c.4. lib. iii. c. 17. lib. iii. c. 3... 2 Mac. ix. 12; ii.62,63. 2 Mac. vi. 30; vii. 9, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19. 1 Mac. ii. 60. 2Mac.vl.■ xiv Lib V c 20 Baruch iii. 36-38. " iv. 4. Wisdom ui. 1. POPE SIRICICS. Epiet. ad Ilimmer.,c.7. JULIUS FTRMICUS MA- TEKNUS Wisdom 1. 4. Wisdom XV. 15-17, as Solomon's. Baruch vi. 5-9, as Jer. " vi.21.25,3;l,81, 64, 50 and 67. EPHREM THE SYR- IAN. Daniel ix. 7. •' Iii. 40. " iii. 89. " iii. 60. " Iii. 33. De Virfiit., C.3 Denun.il.,c.9 Paricns., 9 DeOrat 804 APPENDIX C. Names of the Fathers and of their Works. Apocryphal passages wliich are simply quoted. Those quoted as scrip- ture or Divine scrip- ture. Allusions to Apocrypha. EPHREM THE SYR- IAN. De Psenit c 23 Daniel iii. Parsen. ad Mouegit., c. Daniel xiii. 52. Daniel xiii. " xiii. " iv. 32-36. " iv. 32-38. De Muliere De Rect Viv Nat c 85 Tobit.xii.f. Bar.ix.4and20;iii.38. Wisdom iv. 12. Wis. iv. 7, 8, 9 ; v. 1-16. " iii. 1,6, 9. " ii. 21, 22. Wisdom XV. 12. V. 18-24. Ecclus. ii. 15- " XXV. 13; iii. 7; xviil. 30 and 31. Eccl.xi.5;iv.7;vii.4ft " vi. 30. Advs Levit De Hiimil c 94 Wisdom vi. 9. i. 12. Exhort 40 •' 46 Ecclus. xxxii. 1; viii. 6, 7 ; xxxi. 5. Ecclus. vi. 18. Ecclus. iv. 25, 26. 2 Mac. vi. " vi. BASIL THE GREAT. Cont. Eunoiu., lib.v., c. 15 3 2 Wisdom i. 4. Wisdom i. 7. " ix. 1, 2, as Sol. " i. 4, 7. " i. 4, as Sol. « vi. 7. Baruch iii. 32, as Jer. Cont. Eunom., c. 14, g 2. Epist. 8, a 12 and 11 Horn 12. Wisdom i. 7. DeSanc.Spir.,c.2.3,§54. Wisdom i. 7. Daniel xiii. 50. " iii. 40. " iii. 38, 39. Esther xiv. 11. Horn, in 40 Mart., § 6... Epist. 243, 3 43 Cont.Uuain.,lib.2,§19. " "4 c. 3. DeSanc.Spir.,c.8,§19. Judith ix. 4. 2 Mac. vii. Horn. Deut., c. 5, 9 Hexam. Horn., 6, 910... Ecclus. ix. 20. " xxvii. 12. Ecclus. xxxii. 22. Ecclus. xviii. 26 ; xi. 5. " xix. 16. " ii. 1-5. " XV. 17 and 15. Ec. i. 20;ix.l0,asSol. Ecclus. xvi. 3. Wisdom xiv. 8. " xvi. 28. vi. 7. " iv. 8, 9. Baruch iii. 36, 37, 38. " iii. 36, 37, 38. CHRYSOSTOM. Ecclus. ii. 1, 2. " V. 8. " xiv. 2. Exhort. 2 ad. Tlieod Horn. 18,ad. Pop.Anth. De Fato Hom.l5,adPop. Anth.. Serm. 1 in Act. Apost... De Virginitat, c. 22 Serm. in Calondas Wisdom V. ale. " iii. 1. Horn, in Ept. Ileb. 7 Cont Jnde et Gent Horn. 3, ad Pop. Anth... Horn. 60 in Joan Esther xiv. 13. [tioncd. Judith men- Horn. 13 in Epis. Ileb... Tobit. iv. 7. APPENDIX C. 805 Names of tlio Fathers aud of their Works. Aiiocryplial passages which aro simply quoted. Those quoted as scrip- ture or Divine scrip- ture. Allusions to Apocrypha. CIIRYSOSTOM. Horn. 9 in Epis. Ileb. Horn. 5, Nous. Auom.... Cout. Judo ctOent H.ini. in Pentecost, 1.... Iloui 15 in 1 Cor Toblt. iv. 11. Daniel xiii. 52. Ecclus. xxvi. 12. " xxxii. 13. " • iv. 8. " ii. 5. Wisdom i. 6. Wi8.iv.8,9; xiv.7,8. " ii. 12, as Sol. " vii. 7, " Baruchiv. 26; v. 27, as Jeremiah. Baruch iii. 24, 25. " iii. 1. " iii. 29, 30. Dan. iii. 56, 68, 67, 74. Daniol iii. 23. " iii. 38. " iii. 38. Horn. 18 " Daniel iii. 29,30. " iii. 29, 30, 39, 32; xiv.37. Horn. 2 in Philem AMRROSE. In Nabotli.,c. 8 • Tract, do 42 Josepli . Ilextem. lib. 3 c. 14.... In Tobit Hexwni., lib. ii.c.4 fUefer to Story { of Susannah (Refer to Bol \ and Dragon. Do Officiis lib. ii c 9 Joseph., c. 5 Jacob lib i c 8 Elias. c. 9 De Officiis c 13 and 14 Judith viii. C. Refer to Judith Jacob lib ii c 9 .. . 2 Mac vi & vii PAULINUS OF NOLA. Exhort, ad Cclant Eccl, iv. 25-28 ; xxviii. 28,29; iii. 20. Ec.xxxviii.l6;xvii.l8. Ec.vii. 16; Wis. viii. 1. Ec. xix. 15. Ec. V. 8. Wisdom iv. 7 ; Baruch iii. 18, 19. Epist.adPamach., 37... " 30 " 39 " 37 INDEX. Abiutt, natural, of man maiDtained by Rome, 384. AnsoLi'TB, The, the error of German and Frt-ucli speculation as to, 9S ; disastrous re- sults of the philosophy of, 148. Activity, Morull's theory of spontaneous, as constituting the essence of mind, discussed, 89; Morell's view of spontaneous, aa. the criterion for distinguishing substance from attributes, 91. Adam, dependent upon revelation foraknow- ledpre of (iod, UIO (note); analogy between, and Christ, 3Sd; double union between, and his seed, :Wa. Alcuin, bis account of the consecration of the water of baptism, 289. Alexankria, testimony of Synod of, as to .\pocryphii, 687. Amurose, view of, as to form of administering biiptism, 296; testimony of, as to Apocry- 7oy. Amphilociiics, testimony of, as to Apocry- pha, 729. Analysis, as related to synthesis. 127. Anoradius, doctrine of, iis to free-will, 383. Antinomiamsm, what, 345. Apocalvpsk, omission of, by Council of Laodi- cea explain.-d, 7:!9. Apocrypha, d.-cn f Council of Trent as to, 423 (notf); allfned quotations of, by New Testanicnt writers examined, 659; quota- tions from, wonlil not establish inspiration of, ■-.67; not found in .lewish Canon, 569; how introduieil into Sepluagint, if at all, 597: how introduced into Ancient Ver- sions of Scripture, Oil; application of terms Scrijiture, Divinf Srripture, etc., to, e.xplained, 028 ; authority of, in early Church not same as that of inspired Scriptures, tViO; not found in early cata- logues of inspired writings, 640; testi- mony of the Fathers in favour of, exam- ined, 6j4: testimony of tlie Fathers against, adduced, 711. Apostolic Commission, nature of the, 52. APOSTOLIC CoxsTiTL'Tio.Ns, supposed testimony of, for Apocrypha, 670. Aquinas, views of, as to miracles, 230, 235, 271 (notes). Aristotle, doctrine of, as to formal and flnal caus<-8, 2S5. Atii\nasiu!<, testimony of, as to Apocryplia, 074. 6S4, 722. Atheism, the issue between, and the Bible, the rnal issue raisfd by Rationalists, 27 ; jiortraiture and rebuke of, 204; Church of Kuine patron of, 517. Ato.nement, »h a sjitisfaction to justice utter- ly iguored by Morell, 26; doctrine of lim- ited, implies a supernatural revelation, 205; Ronntnist doctrine of Christ's, as meriting for us a new trial on foot uf personal right- eousness, 357; particular, inseparable from effectual grace and free jnstilicalion, 382. Attributes of substance nut absolutely, but relatively, conceived, 114. Augustine, view of, wi to the analogy of the sacraments, 300 ; testimony of, as to Apoc- rypha, 669, 694. Bacon, Lord, maxim of, as to the relation of man to nature, 84, 199; remark of, touch- ing the ])ositiou of Christiaidty as to the office of reason, 183; remark of, as to the superiority of faith to knowledge, 188; view of, as to ofhce of reason in regard to revelation, 200; opinion of, as to supernat- nral character of the morality of the Gos- pel, 2(17 ; opposition of philosophy of, to that of Rationalists, 218; remark of, as to miracles, 264. Baius. doctrines of, condemned by Pope Pius v., 386. Baptism, what constitutes valiility of, 284 ; essential elements of, 285; essential ele- ments of, not found in that of Rome, 287; matter of, corrupted by Rome, 287; threefold Romanist classification of cer- emonies of, 288 ; form of, 295 ; form of, destroyed by Rome, 298 ; nature of rela- tionship involved in, not truly taught by Rome, 299; of Rome, not a profession of truths of the Gospel, 328: aduunistra- tion of, to non-profi'ssors of the Gospel null and void,32'J; creed of recipient of Roman- ist, determined by the animus impnni^itix, XiZ ; reception of Romanist, subjection to whole system of Rome, 33.3: of Rome, a profession not merely of Christianity, but of Popery, 333: of Rome, protested against by the Reformers on account of the faith profe.ssed in it, .333. BARNAUts, alleged quotations by, of Apocry- pha as Scrijiture, examined, 617. Barrow, appealed to miracles aa proofs of the Divine existence, 229. Basil of Cebarea, alleged quotations by, of Apocrypha as Scripture, examined, 707. Brino, science of, in it.self impossible, 12. Belief, lundamental laws of, til; relation of experience to fundamental laws of, 81 ; criteria of the fundniuental laws of, 137 ; the ground of, in revelation and in our own facidties, 157: source of authority of funilameiilal laws of, IS7. Bellarmimk, doctrine of, that God cannot effect contradictions, 194; tipiu ii]ttrutum, doctrine of, 3o6, 312 ; strictures of, on Lu- 807 808 INDEX. ther'g ^^ew of the Bacramenfs as seals, 320 ; testimony of, to Lutheran view of tlie sac- raments, 324, 326 ; view of, tliat recipients of Konianist baptism distinctively profess roiKiy, 333; doctrine of, as to justification by grace, 349, 352; doctrine of, as to ofiBce of works in justification, 355; doctrine of, as to office of Christ's merits in justifica- tion, 360 ; doctrine of, as to free-will, 383, 386; doctrine of, as to efficacious grace, 391 ; doctrine of, as to justifying faith, 396; doc- trine of. as to the seven acts preparatory to justification, 398 ; doctrine of, as to su- pernatural origin of faith, 403; doctrine of, as to the cause of certainty of faith, 403; testimony of, as to the Apocryphal books of Ksdras, 689. Benevolknce of Christianity and of Nature different principles, 211. Bible. The, the destruction of, the great end of Kationalist theories, 18, 23; the issue between, anil Atheism, the real issue raisiil by Itatic.nalists, 27; the verbal in- spiiiiiiiiii 111, Til ; and the Spirit the great priiiiipk' of I'mtestant Christianity, 180; ruiuuiLs results of abandoning the suprem- acy of, 181. Bingham, his account of the consecration of the water of baptism, 287. BR.iNDT, his history of the Reformation quoted as to creed of the Remonstrants, 392. Burnet, Bishop, view of, as to the validity of baptism, 299. Bl'TLEii. liisiioi', ( pinion of, as to the imagin- ation, ly.;-. V7 ; of Jewish Church ijut (K-f.Ttivf, fiS4 ; nf Jewish Church recc.oniz.nl by Christ as complete, 684; true relation of Ezra tu the, 580. Canonical, indefinite use of term by Council of Carthage, 699. Canoxicity and inspiration inseparable, 574. Canonization or Saints, a relic of Pagan su- jierstitiun, 522. Carthaoi'^ testimony of Council of, as to Aponypha. f.sT. Casu 11 \. t.-tiiii.iiiv of, as to Pagan origin of i;uii,i-h iiivM,iii.s, 521 (note). Catholic, the Cliiiich of Rome not, 417. Cadse, man as an undetermined, 92; law of, different from that of substance, 147 ; con- fusion of, with substance, makes God the only sub.stance in the universe, 147 ; the denial ol. a result of the philosophy of the Absolute, 149. Certainty, when common consent is a crite- rion of, 137. CiiANCK, the doctrine of, as causal, sclfcon- tia.lii-tury, 93. CiiAUiTV, false notions of, exposed, 415. Christ, analogy between, and Adam, 385; double union, federal and personal, be- tween, and His seed, 385; the all-in-all of salvation, 399; silence of, as to the Apocn- pha, 584. Christian, mode by which a man becomes a, 33; the making of a, confounded by Ra- tionalists with the giving of a revelation, 159, 108 ; what it is to be a, 177 ; two senses of the term, 330. Christiamtv, nature of, as a particular scheme of religion, 178 ; the Spirit and the Bible the great principle of Protestant, 180; compared with Ileathenism and Mo- hammedanism as to truth," 183-186; dis- tinction between its claiming to be, and its being proved to be. Divine, 184; does not absolutely interdict reason in religion, 185 ; distinctive principles of, contradictory to distinctive principles of ancient philoso- phy, 186; indiscreet zeal of certain writers in advocacy of external evidences of, 190; internal evidences of, those most common- ly employed in testing religious systems, 191 ; mysteries of, revealed to the meek, 197 ; distinction between distinctive and incidental elements of 197; self-authenti- cating, 203; reasonableness of, 203; in- volves the direct intervention of God, 226; truths of, dependent upon a Divine testi- mony capable of objective proof, 227. Chrysostom, testimony of, as to Apocrypha, 708. Church, The, position maintained by, as to Chrisiiaiiitv and the Scriptures against in- fidelity, 226; relation of, to the State, 540, 556 ; true value of testimony of the Primi- tive, 605 ; real testimony of the Primitive, as to Apocrypha, 711. Clement XI., Pope, condemned doctrines of grace held by Quesnel, 388. Clement, John, opinion of, as to Romanist baptism, 334. Clement of Rome, alleged quotation by, of Apocrypha as inspired, 626. Clement of Alexandria, testimony of, as to Apocrypha, 651. Commencement, doctrine of an absolute, 93. Commission, nature of the Apostolic, 52; ar- gument against a, to the sacred writers, did- russed, 57. Com eption, adequately represents our intui- tions, 113; office of, 121. CoN.s(iouSNESs, nature of, 101; Morell's ac- count of the logical, discussed, 110; Mo- rell's distinction between the logical and the intuitional, discussed, 123 ; distinction between knowledge furnished by tlie logi- cal as reflective, and the intuitional as spontaneous, discussed, 124; distinction be- tween knowledge obtaineci by the logical as material, and that by the intuitional as formal, discussed, 126; the matter of the logical and of the intuitional, ultimately the same, 126; distinction between the logical, as tending to separation, and the intuitional, to unity, discussed, 127: anal- ysis and synthesis both belong tu the logi- cal, not tile intuitional, 127 : distiiKtion between the logical, as inili\ idiial. ami the intuitional, as generie, iii>ens>etl. 129; re- sults of both the logical aiel the intuition- al, admit of coni|iarisoii w iili the eoiiinion judgments of the race, \:\1: the logical, susieiitible of iiiiiToveMieiil, l."4 : llie logi- cal anil the intuitional, eini.ill.v in8, 292. Ddty, distinction between moral and posi- tive, 211. E. Eppectcal Cailwo, doctrines of Rome as to, 378-392; tho sole origin of suviug faith, 401. ElcuuoRN, Infidel theory of school of, 223. Election, doctrine of, implies a supernatural revelation, 205; inseparable from effectual grace and free justilication, 382. Enuland, Bishop, his description of the Bor- vico of the Mass, 375. EpiPHANios, testimony of, as to Apocrypha, Ephrem the Syrian, testimony of, as to Apoc- rypha, 705. Erasmus, compliment of Luther to, 381 ; de- testable doctrine nf, as t,i implicit faith in anti Error, definiii 1 ^ i. • nu secure us from,bvaMil i i . ..n the soul, 72; severity „■■.■.-.,,, ,n n hukii.g, 414. Evidence of intrin-ie pinl.abllity does not destroy the possibility of the knowledge of miracles, 255; all real, grounded in the Divine testimony, 187 ; internal, of re- ligious systems that are most commonly employed in testing them, 191 ; chief in- ternal, of revelation derived from its mys- teries, 209. Eusebius, testimony of, as to Apocrypha, 084. Experience is the origin of knowledge, 80; sensationalist theory of, 80; relation of, to the fundamental laws of belief, 81; the school of, described, 82; difference between the school of, and that of Kationalisni, 85. EZKK, the synagogue of, a myth, 578; true relation of, to the Canon, 581. Faculty, no new, communicated to the soul by grace, 170. Faith, the essence of a sinner's religion, 153, 171, 173, 17s ; how produced, 154; the Word of tiud tlie slaiidani of, and the me- dium tluts, discussed, 65; argument against tho verbal, ot the sacred books that they were collecteil simply as mouiorials, discussed, 66; argument against verbal, from alleged defective morality of tho Old Testament, discusscil, 69 ; argument against verbal, from alb-grd incousistencies of the sacred writers, discussed, 70; of the spirit not to be contradisting\ii»hed from that of the letter, 153; is the committal of a Di- vine testimony to messengers who report it 154; Morell's view of, as purely sub- jective, examined, 159; Morell'e, largely synonymous with the work of tho Holy Spirit, 168 ; covers tho natural, as well as the supernatural, contents of the Scrip- tures, 206; proved by miracles, 233; Dr. Lynth's four methods of ascertiiining, 442; tlie true method of ascertaining, omitted by I)r. Lynch, 444. Intuition the source of theology, according to Morell, 32; furnishes, according to Mo- rell, the objects which awaken religious emotions, 34; distinction between, and presentation, 104; contents of, not the sole materials upon which the understanding operates, 114 ; no special faculty of, re- quired by religion, 164, 166; no remedy for opposition to revealed truth, 171 ;_ not the producing cause of saving faith, 171. lREN.«us OF Lyons, testimony of, as to Apoc- rypha, 640. J. Jansenius, doctrines of grace held by, con- demned by Home, 387. JERO.ME, testimony of, as to decrees of Coun- cil of Nice concerning the Apocrypha, 682, 729. Jewell, Bishop, view of, as to the import of the sacraments, 299. Jesuits, The, the true representatives of the system of Home, 513; detestable principles of, 514 ; doctrine of, as to the relations of the temporal and the spiritual power, 542. Judgment, when the appeal from private, to the consent of mankind is legitiuutte, 135; the last appeal always to private, 136. JosTiFlCATio.N, effect of Morell's scheme upon the doctrine of, 25 ; proceeds ultimately upon a law which does not transcend rea- son, 214; definition of, 349; symbolized by the Blood, 344; inseparable from sanctifi- cation, 345; by grace denied by Rome, 347 ; by works affirmed by Rome, 347 ; by grace through faith the cardinal doctrine of Christianity, 347 ; by grace excludes per- sonal obedience or inherent righteousne.ss, 348 ; only two possible methods of, 349 ; only three possible suppositions as to a right- eousness leading to, 349 ; by inherent right- eousness the theory of liome, 349 ; by grace, according to Rome, is justification by graces, 350; by inherent righteousness is juslitication by the deeds of the law, 351; Rome's theory as to, subversive of the Gos- pel, 351 ; by an inherent righteousness pro- duced by grace disproved, 3.53; by graces not just'itication by grace, 353 ; of the sin- ner and of Adam essenlially the same, ac- cording to Rome, 353; theory of Rome as to the meritorious cause of, 357 ; theory of Rome as to the formal cause of, 358; ne- cessary in order to sanctlfication, 364; the design of, 368 ; difference as to, between a fallen and an unfalleu creature, 369; by grace key to escape from bondage of Rome, 371; God's righteousness reigns in, to the exclusion of uian's obedience, 380 ; gratuitous, inconsistent with sovereignty of the human will, 381. Justin Mahtvb. alleged testimony of, as to Apocrypha examined, 645. K. Kames, Lord, effects of tho ideal presence of, 152. Kant, his theory of nature as subjective ancl formal uuduly pressed by Morell, 118; the 812 INDEX. synthetic judgments of, what, 128 ; his dis- tinction between the operations of tlie un- dtrstanding and of the reason criticised, 144; Morell's doctrine of tlio understand- ing and reason compared with tliat of, 145. Knowledge universally admitted to bt-gin in experience, 80 ; sensationalist tlieory as to origin of, 80; all, is phenoliiciial and rela- tive, 96 ; presentative and intuitive, distin- guished, 104; as contradi>.tin;;ui>l]L-d frum faith, 104; mediate ;iii(l inin.r.ljate, distin- guished, 105 ; iinine(lial._ di-tiii^nished as presentative and re|.reseiitaii\e, 105; our, of God not presentative and immediate, 106; our, of (jtod intuitive, 106; competen- cy of the understanding to enlarge the boundaries of, 114; the understanding pre- eminently the faculty of, 118; distinctions between that obtained by the logical con- sciousness and that obtained by the intui- tiunal consciousness discussed, 124; matter of, what, 126 ; different generations dififer in the amount of, not in the capacity to acquire, 139 ; comparison between, and opinion, as to their ground, 187 ; demon- strative, inferior to intuitive, 188 ; the object of, what, 254; the sole condition of, what, 254; miracles proper objects of, 254; the relation of the veracity of con- 1 to, 255. Lafitau, his history of the Bull, Unigenitus, quoted, 388. Laodicea. testimony of Council of, to Apoc- rypha examined, 738. La Place, humility of true philosophy exhib- ited by, 268. Law, objection to miracles from rigid su- premacy of, discussed, 271. Law op God, effects of the curse of, 365 ; re- moval of curse of, necessary in order to holiness, 367 ; mutilated by Home, 372, 373. Legalism, what, 345 ; of Rome, 349-361. Letdkkker quoted as to condemnation of Jansenius by Home, 388. Life, scriptural account of spiritual, 172,173, 176, 365 ; adaptation of the Word of God as an external condition, to spiritual, as an internal state, 175; spiritual, not confined to a single power, but pervades the whole Locke, view of, as to senses of the term rea- son, 185 ; opinion of, as to reason as a nat- ural revelation, 187 ; defect in theory of, as to the sources of knowledge, 218. Love superior to faith as to intrinsic excel- lence, but has no part in justification, 395. Luther, doctrine of, as to the sacraments as seals, 320, 324 ; vindicated from charge of holding the opus operatum doctrine, 325 ; compliment of, to Erasmus, 381; views of, as to servitude of the will, 381. M. Man as an undetermined cause, 92; essen- tially a religious being, 253; condition of, in innocence, able to stand, liable to fall, 37S: condition of, in sin, 172, 364, 365, 401. Martene, his account of consecration of the water of baptism, 290. Mariolatry of the Church of Rome, 528. Mass, The, idolatry of, 374; of Pagan origin, 375. Melanctiion, his statement of Lutheran view of the sacraments as excluding the opus operatum doctrine, 326. Melchior Cavds, doctrine of, as to supernat- ural origin of faith, 402. Melito, Bishop of Sardis, testimony of, against the Apocrypha, 712. Merit, of congruity, theory of Rome as to, 354 ; of condiguity, theory of Runie as to, 355; doctrine of Home as to relation of Christ's, to justification, 357 : of Christ not imputed, but infused, according to Rome. 360. ' Milton quoted as to vehemence in rebuking error, 416 (note) ; quoted as to freedom of the Press, 507. Mill, J. S., his view that belief in God's ex- istence is essential to the credibility of miracles, 229 ; his view of miracles as not contradicting the law of causation, 257. Mind, The, faculties of, in all men, same as to essence, different as to degree, 73; suscep- tible of growth, 73; susceptible of super- natural improvement, 74 ; all the parts of, susceptible of Divine influence, 74; Mo- rell's view of the essence of, examined, 86; Morell's classification of the powers of, 99; receptive and elaborative faculties of, dis- tinguished, 104. Miracles, importance of question as to, 221 ; position of English Deists as to, 221; posi- tion of German Rationalists as to, 222; na- ture of, 'Z28 ; genus of, 228; specific differ- ence of, 230; apologetic worth of, 233; in themselves sufiicient credentials of Divine inspiration, "233; relation of, to doctrine, 234; impossible to created beings, 234; power to work, creative and intransferable, 235; Prophets and Apostles as to, only prophets of the Divine power, 236; precise relation between, and inspiration, 237; themselves examples of the supernatural, 238; themselves specimens of inspiration, 238 ; involve God's endorsement of claims of messenger announcing working of, 240; testimonial connection of, with inspiration confirmed by Christ, 241 ; criteria for dis- tinguishing real, from pretended, 244; goodness of God not a guarantee against pre- tended, 244 ; goodness of ductrine not alone a criterion of, 245; the only sure criterion of, 247; place of. the front rank of Chris- tian evidences, '248; faith in, distinguished from saving faith in Christ, 248; ethical value of, 249 ; principal office of, 249 ; ef- fect of depreciation of, "250; credilnlity o(, 251; direct communication of God with man supposed by, credible, 252 ; phenome- na of, cognizable by the human faculties, 254; intrinsic improbability of, no disproof of possibility of knowledge of, 255 ; con- sciousness atfirmiug the uniformity of na- ture no disproof of, 256 ; phenomena of, as effects, demand adequate causes, 25S ; trans- missibility of proofs of, b.v testimony, 258; Hume's argument against, discussed, 258; intrinsic and extrinsic probability not in conflict as to, 260; skepticism as to, contra- dictory to genius of the inductive philoe- ophy. 261 ; possibility of, 263 ; question of possibility of, the question of a personal God, 263; position of the Atheist as to, 264; position of the Pantheist as to, 264; objec- tion to, from the reign of order and law, 271 ; ethical relations of, the true point of view, 273; effect as to, of researches of modern science, 275. Mohammedanism, description of, in contnwt with Christianity, 184; comparison of. with Romanism, 418. INDEX. 813 Morality, the, of revelation not supernatural, MoRELL, J. D., philosopliy of religion of, re- viewed, 9 ; falsely employs phraseology of evangelical religion, 14; style of, applaud- ed, 15; his fU'tiiiition of religiun, 1"; his distinLtiiiii lii'twofu riligiim ami theology, ligioii, 18 ; ruinous teupl'.Miiun, 2(1, 34, 35. 37, 41, 51; his diiiJMl .1 ;iiL riuihoritativo standard of re- li-i ! -i -■ 7 , scheme of, a subtle form <■! i I . '■: his mode of attack on rill 1 N|Mied with that of earlier iiilii 1- -I: II. . t osilivi', 211 ; the sphere of moral, enlarged by the Christian revelation, 211. O.ntoloov, a complete science of, the aim of the Rationalistic school, 83. Opinion, distinction between, and knowledge, 1.S7 ; distinction between, and faith, 401. Origen, testimony of, against the Apocrypha, 719. OwKN, John, opinion of, as to the sacraments of Rome, 304. Pallavicino, his history of Council of Trent quoted, 425. Palev, remiu'k of, as to the making of max- ims, 214. Pantheism, fundamental error of, 265 ; por- traiture and rebuke of, 264-270. Paruo.n necessary in order to repentance, 364; condition of the sinner without, 366. Paulinus of Nola, alleged testimony of, for the Apocrypha, 710. Paulus, infidel theory of school of, 223. Pelagianism compared with Romanism, 379. Pebrot, remark of, as to folly of preferring philosophy to revelation, 188. Perseverance of Saints, final, inseparable from etfoctual grace and free justification, 382. Perception, Morell's and Hamilton's views as to external, compared, 115; ofiSce of, 121. Peter, dissimulation of the Apostle, no proof against verbal inspiration, 63. Philo, fine piussage from, as to the teachings of nature, 264. Philosophers, modesty of English, contrast- ed with boldness of German and French, 11; difference between Scotch, and Ger- man, 86; tribute to the German, as think- ers, 98; the great defect of the German, Philosopht, contradictions of the Transcen- dental, 27 ; the Rationalistic, limits God's power, -75 ; of the Absolute, disastrous, 148 ; comparison between the Riitionalistic, and the Gospel, 178 ; the Rationalistic, charge- able with deception in using evangelical phraseology, 179; disastrous results of the Rationalistic, 18il; extravagance of tbo modern Rationalistic, 218. Pictet, opinion of, as to the sacraments of Rome, 304. Pus IV., Pope, the symbol of, the true faith of Rome, 332, 333, 340. Pius v.. Pope, liull of, condemning the doc- trines of grace helil by Uaius, 386. Polycarp, alleged testimony of, foi the Apoc- rypha. 623. Pope, The, infallibility of, 456; supremacy of, .542; councils sustaining the supremacy of, 547. Pope.-!, the usurpation of, 653. PoPi.RY aiiti-ehristian and dangerous 4in. Pre-SENTation, diiitinction between, and into- ition, 104 ; distinction between, and repre- sentation, 106, 111 ; office of, 123. Press, The, freedom of, opposed by Church of Rome, 506. 814 INDEX. Priesthood, The, of Rome notoriously im- moral, 438. Private Judgment, the right of, an indispen- sable safeguard against skepticism, 493. Probation, two essential elements of a state of, 378 ; Komanist doctrine of, as secured for sinners by Christ's merits, 359, 379. Protestantism, the Spirit and the Bible the great principle of, 180. Providence, doctrine of an universal, as the only seat of real power. 94. Psychology, Morell's, examined, 79. Pyrrhonism, comparison of, with Romanism, 502. Q. QUESNEL, doctrine of, as to grace, 380; doc- trines of grace held by, condemned by Rome, 388. Quick, his Synodicon quoted, 334. Rainoidus quoted at length as to the Apoc- rypha, 672, 685, 690. Rationalism, philosophic school of, described, 83 ; aims at a complete science of ontology, 83 ; difference between school of, and that of experience, 86 ; in rejecting the letter of Scripture rejects the government of law, 167 ; comparison between, and the Gospel, 180; disastrous results of, 148, 180; por- traiture and ridicule of, 218 ; historical sketch of, 221; position of German, 222; of Eichhorn and I'aulus, 223; of Schleier- macher, 224, 250 ; of Strauss, 224. Reason, Cousin's theory of the impersonality of, criticised, 87 ; place of, in a classifica- tion of the mental powers, 103 ; unity of, as intuitive and as deductive, 103 ; office of, in regard to Revelation, 183 ; language of some divines as to office of, in regard to revelation, unguarded, 184; not absolutely interdicted by revelation, 1^5 ; definition of term, when used as to its crticr in rr-iud to revelation, 184 : office ol. ,i- in .i l;i.own revelation, 186; office of, ;i> t.. ii (iroirsM/d revelation, 189; difficulty of the .jnestiou as to office of, in regard to revelation due to the Fall, 189; rc-lation of. to internal proofs of religious systems, 190; argument from abuse of, always suspicious, 194 ; the competency of, the measure of its right to judge of a professed revelation, 19.i, 198 ; distinction between office of, iis to the nat- ural and as to the supernatural contents of revelation, 196; illumination of grace necessary to, in investigating supernatural contents of revelation, 197, 203 ; office of, as to the supernatural not to judge but to apprehend, 199, 200; doctrine of want of negative jurisdiction of, as to the supernat- ural, subversive of philosophical infidelity, 201 ; distinction between what is above, and what is contrary to, 202; incapacity of, to perceive impressions of Deity no pre- sumption against their existence,' 203; ca- pacity of, from negative considerations to infer the Divine origin of supernatural rev- elation, 204 ; office of, as to natural con- tents of revelation negative, not positive, 206 ; office of, as to moral contents of reve- lation negative, 207; distinction between office of, in man as unfallen and as fallen, 207 ; competency of, to recognize the duties growing out of moral relations supernatu- rally revealed, 212; use and abuse of, iu Redemption, scheme of, authenticates ito own Divine origin, 20.3, 400; why called reasrmahU, 203 ; inipossiliility of any other origin of, than the Divine mind, 205; the great end of, 210; creates new moral rela- tions and duties, 211; facts of, the peculiar glory of the Gospel. 209; the most glorious product of the Divine perfections, 400; man blind to, in his natural state. 401 ; is a spiritual mystery, 401. Regeneration, effect of Morell's scheme upon doctrine of, 26; act of, as affecting the hu- man faculties, 75; Baptismal, Romanist and Lutheran views as to, 327 ; God sove- reign and man passive in, 380, 381 ; a new creation, 385. Reflection omitted by Morell in his classifi- cation of the mental powers, 100; office of. va. Reim.\r, method of, in Wolfenbiittel Frag- ments, 222. Relics, worship of, by Church of Rome, 530. Religio.v, standard and nature of, 9 ; external standard of, vindicated, 9 ; phraseology of evangelical, falsely and dangerously em- ployed by Rationalists, 13. 15; Jlorell's dis- tinction between, and theolog.v, 17 ; Mo- rell's conception of, 17 ; Morell's definition of philosophy of, 18; an authoritjitive standard of, denied by Morell, 21 ; results of abandonment of an external standard of, 26; emotions of, awakened, according to Morell, by objects furnished by intui- tion, 34; argument against the possibility of an external standard of. discussed, 37 ; argument against the usefulness of an ex- ternal standard of, discussed, 42; position that no external standard of, has, in fact, been given, discussed, 45 ; supernatural il- lumination necessary to the understanding of an external stanilard of, 50; arguments against verbal inspiration as the source of an external standiird of, discussed, 61 ; ar- gument against an external standard of, from its alleged incompatibility with our logical processes, discussed, 71 ; psycho- logically considered, 79; faith the essence of a sinner's, 153, 171, 173, 178 ; Haul's phil- osophy of, 155; opposition to an authorita- tive standard of, prompted by hatred of the Cross, 155; Morell's theory as to the nature of, discussed, 162; not a collection of simple ideas, 163 ; requires no separate faculty spe- cifically adapted to it, 164, 166; grows out of relations involved in moral government, 164 ; the true nature and essence of, 164. 177 ; the objective elements of, embraced in a history of the Divine administration, 165 ; what is implied in, subjectively con- sidered, 165; a sinner's, only possible in consequence of God's testimony as to the doctrines and facts of Christianity, 166; revelation not a subjective faculty of, but an objective means in order to. 171; the life of, in the soul produced only by the Holy Spirit, 174; the life of, not confined to a single power, but pervades the whole man, 176 ; the essence of, subjectively con- sidered, 177 ; the nature of Christianity aa a particular scheme of, 178. Remonstrants, The, comparison of creed o^ with that of Rome, 391. Repentance presupposes pardon, 364; impos- sible to a sinner under condemnation, 367; impossible on the scheme of Rome, 36S. INDEX. 815 Rkprerentatiok. flistinction between, and lireseiitatioii, 106, 111. Representation, Federal, competency of ruasou to pronounce ita to. as a funilauieu- tal principle of religion, "214. Revehtion, Morell'8 detinitiiin of, 20; Mo- rell's theory of, as made to the intuitional faculty, 32; uot addressed to the logical understanding, according to Morel), 34; imparts, according to Morell, the original elements of knowledge — simple ideas, 35; Morell'g view of, stated, 37 ; is the report of a Divine testimony by inspired messen- gers, l.i4; relation of, to inspiration and to faith, 154; Rationalistic theory of, as a mode of intelligence, discussed, 150; the contents of, strictly speaking, are super- natural, 156; office of, objective, not sub- jective, 157; is a Divine testimony, 15S; not a species of intuition, 158; Morell's theory of, as involving error as to the na- ture of religious truth, 16J; as an objective Divine testimony, the only source of know- ledi;i' as to distinctive doctrines and facts of Christianity, Ititi: the giving of a, and the process of making a Christian con- founded by Rationalists, 168; the design of, misconceived by Ratiimalists, 171 ; not a subjective faculty of, but an objective means in order to, religion, 171; the be- lieving nci-ption of. due to the subjective agency of the Jloly Spirit, 174; supplies tlie external conilition adapted to the spir- itual life as an internal state, 175; picture of a converted soul supposed to bo desti- tute of, 175; office of Reason in regard to, 183; a known, to be implicitly received by reason, 186 ; a disputed, office of reason as to, 189; doctrine as the test of a pretended. 192 ; distinction between, as supernatural and as natural, 196; costume of, distin- guished from substance of, 197 ; every true, self-authenticating. 198; Divine illumina- tion necessary to the understanding of the supernatural contents of, 198; as supernat- ural, a source of new ideas, 199; no natu- ral meiisures of supernatural mysteries of, 199; uniy be above, is never ct)ntrary to, reason, 202; incapacity to receive impres- sions of Deity in. no presumption against their existence, 203; ignorance of myste- ries of. no ground of argument against, 204 ; contents of, as furnishing negative proof of its supernatural origin. 2(>4; natural contents of, furnish no positive evidence of its supernatural origin, 2U6: moral con- tents of, furnish only a presumptive jiroof of its supernatural origin, 207 ; the nmrals of. receive new sanctions from supernatu- ral facts of, 209 ; mysteries of, chief source of internal evidences of, 209; equally the ground ot natural religion ami the Gospel, 210; consistency of, with true science and philow.phy, 219. BlOHTEOUSNESS, distinction between infu.sed and imputed. 344; only three suppositions as to a justifying, 349; receives its di'noni- inatinn not from its source, but its end. 353; the sinner's, placed by Koine on same foot with Adam's, f.h?,; inherent, accord- ing to Rome, is infusion of grace, 362; im- putation of Christ's, condemned by Rome, 360, 301. KosiE,ClilRcri OF. internal eviilence of system of, as rebutting her appeals to miracles, 191; validity of the baptism of, discussed, 283; doctrine of, as to the sacraments, 301- 3'-'S, 408-412; Christian only in nominal sense, JUO; creed of, coutaiued in the de- crees of Trent and the symbol of Pius IV., 332, 333, 340; arguments to show that creed of, is saving, discussed, 338; creed of, does not, as a system, present saving truth, 343; denies justification by the blood of Christ, 347 ; corrupts the doctrine of eanctification, 361 ; efl'ects of system of, on different minds, 370; doctrine of, as to venial sins, 372 ; annuls the second com- mandment, 373; idolatry of, 374. 520; will- worship of, 377 ; denies spiritual, experi- mental religion, 377 ; creed of, compared with I'elagianism, 379 ; creed of, compared with that of the Remonstrants, 3ill ; de- nies the efficacy of grace, 3S2; doctrine of, as to the liberty of the will, 382; boasted unity of, rent by controversies, 386; nn- Bt)nndness of, as to the office of faith, 395; unsoundness of, as to the nature of faith, 399; unsoundness of, as to the ground of faith. 403 ; doctrine of, as to the seal of in- fallibility, 405; system of, compared with Mohammedanism, 418; arguments of, for the Apocrypha, discussed, 430; claim of, to infallibility, discussed, 439; treachery of, 462; cruelty of, 474; a parent of skepti- cism, 493 ; an enemy of free thought, 505 ; an enemy of a free Press, 506 ; a patron of iniinoralit,v, 508; wealth and power watch- words of, 511 ; doctrine of, as to expedien- cy, 512 ; the Jesuits true exponents of, 513 ; system of, a Christianized Paganism, 520; grossness of superstitions of, 535; system of, dangerous to civil government and free institutions, 540. RuFFi.NLS, testimony of, against the Apocry- pha, 737. Sacraments, The, validity of, 284 ; intention of, 285; matter and form of, '285, '297 ; in- strumental cause of, 2s6 ; nature of rela- ti(mship involved in, as signs and seals, 299; analogy of, "299; are visible promises, 301 ; opus operatum view of Rome as to, 303 ; Romanist theory of, mechaiiiiHl, 306 ; Romanist theory of, as necessarily involv- ing moral power,'3u8; Romanist theory of, as physical causes, 310; I'rot'eslant doctrine as to efficiency of, 315, 322; ofjus operatum view not that of the English and lAitheran Churches, 3'23; rule as to administration of, by an unworthy minis- ter, 327 ; relationship of, to the truths of the covenant of grace, 328; Protestant view of, as badges of the Christian profes- sion, 329; Romanist doctrine of, as dis- charging the office ascribed by Scriptures to the Spirit and to faith, 40S. Saddlckes, The, the princiide of. opposition to the supernatural, 253; rejection of Old Testament canon by, cannot be proved, 593. Saints, worship of, by Church of Rome, 530. SaNCTIFICAtion symbolized by the water, 344; inseparable from justilicalion. .'Uo. ,367; presupi>oses justification, 36.'i: impossible on scheme of Koine, ;;68 ; dinin-nce as to, between a fallen and an uufalleu creature, 369. Scfileiermaciif.r, Rationalist theory of, 223, '226; danger from Ratioiialism of, 250. * SoiiooLMKN, The. skepticism of, 498. ScRil'TlRES, The, the verbal inspiration of, 51 : the standard and measure of faith, 154 ; 816 INDEX. not precisely coincident with revelatitm, 156; rejection of authority of tlie letter of, tends to rejection of authority of moral law, 167 ; adaptation of, as an external con- dition to the spiritual life as an internal state, 175 ; picture of a converted soul sup- posed to be destitute of, 176; ruinous re- sults of giving up the supremacy of, 181 ; consistency of, with true science and phil- osophy, 219; objections to the reading of, by all, met, 196; Divine illumination ne- cessary to the understanding of, 197 ; igno- rance of the mysteries of, no ground of argument against, 2(H\ position of the English Deists as to, 221 ; position of the German Rationalists as to, 222, 226; are an external, authoritative revelation from God, 226; the miracles of, not doubtful, but above suspicion, 247 ; autopistie, 445 ; independent of an infallible Church, 469; the only rule of faith, 488 ; acknowledged as the only rule of faith by the Fathers, 488 ; in harmony with our intuitive prin- ciples, 499 ; the Old Testament, quoted and appealed to as inspired, by Christ aud the Apostles, 689. Scripture, patristic use of the term to desig- nate uninspired wiilings, 629. Self-consciousness omitted by Morell in his classification of the mental powers, 100. Sensation.^lism, delinition of, 80; defects of, 80. Septuagint Version not necessarily composed of inspired books only, 697. Sin, voluntary action not the only form of, 215 ; effect of the first, 365 ; distinction be- tween the effects of the first, and a course of, 366 ; venial, doctrine of Rome as to, 372. Skepticism result of abandonment of the right of private judgment, 493; dogma of iiitiiUibility conducive to, 495; vice the oft'sjiriug of, 508. SociMANiSM, doctrine of, as to repentance as a ground of pardon, 361 ; compared with Romanism as to justification, 361. Sp.vce a native notion of the mind, 120. Spinoza, doctrine of, as to substance, 91, 264 ; philosophy of, unavoidable if creation be denied, 265. Spontaneity, Morell's theory of, as consti- tuting the essence of mind, 88. Stapleton, doctrine of, as to the supernatural origin of faith, 402: doctrine of, as to the necessity of the testimony of the Church to faith, 403. Strauss, his account of Woolston's method, 222; account of the theory of, 224; Canon of, for distinguishing between the histori- cal and the fabulous, 263 ; Pantheistic doc- triiie of, as to the uniou of God and the world, 267. Strtpe, statement of, as to John Clement's confession, 334. Substance, Morell's view of spontaneous ac- tivity as the criterion for distinguishing, from attributes, 91 ; how alone cognizable by us, 97 ; of tin- s..ul c-ininut be known, 95; distinction In tu. m. ■.lihI ijjlcient cause confounded by i; iih nili-t-. M, 147; doc- trine of SpinozM as ti>, 'Jl, 2(14 ; doctrine of Cousin as to, 265. Supernatural, The. what, 202; office of rea- son as to, 197. 199 ; the stumbling-stone of * infidelity, 221. Supekstition, nature of, 518; causes of, 519; of the Church of Rome, 520. SlMHESis as related to analysis, 127. Tatlof, Jeremv, valuable hints in his Dnctor Dubitantiuni as to oifice of reason in r<-pard to revelation. 196; estimate of hia Dnctor Dubitantiuni, 196; quoted »g to Komicb su- perstitions, 536. Tertl'LLIan, testimony of, as to the Apocrv pha, 661. Testimont, possibility the sole natural limit to belief in competent, 254; transmissibil- ity of proof of miracles through human, 258; canons as to credibility of, 258; fmi- damcntal condition of, 259 : credibility of, not affected by intrinsic iiiiprobability uf phenomena, 260; criteria of sinceriiy uf, attainable, 260; in case of, as to nuracles, the intrinsic and extrinsic probabilities not directed to same point, 261. Theist, The, doctrine of, as to cause, 93. Theologv discriminated from religion by Mo- rell, 17 ; the human origin of, Morell's fun- damental position, 28 ; an external, author- itative, not precluded by a revelation if made to the intuitional faculty, 32 ; Ra- tionalist theory of the impossibility of a Divine, discussed, 37 ; God as competent as man to construct and communicate an au- thoritative, 38 ; Rationalist theory of the usefulness of an authoritative, discussed, 42 ; Morell's uses of a human, applicable in greater degree to a Divine, 43 ; theory that in fact no Divine, external standard of, has been given, discussed, 45 ; a logical state- ment of an external standard of, necessa- rily implied in the teaching of Christ and the Apostles, 47; supernatural illninina- tion necessary to the understanding of an external standard of, 50 ; arguments against verbal inspiration as the source of an ex- ternal standard of, discussetl, 61 ; argument against an authoritative, from its alleged incompatibility with our logical processes, discussed, 71 ; according to Morell, is con- structed from materials subjectively given in experience, 163; interpretation is to, what observation and experiment are to philosophy, 200. Tholuck, suggestion of, to Morell, 9. Thought, freedom of, 11 ; office of the laws of, 119, 122, 134 ; Cousin's reduction of laws of, 147 ; different generations differ not in ca- pacity of, but in amount of knowledge, 139. Time a native notion of the mind, I'JO. Transubstantiation contradicts the senses, 496; nusettles belief, 497 ; lands in skepti- cism, 497 ; makes revelation impossible, 499; Involves the basest idolatry, 376; Pa- gan origin of, 520. Trent, Council of, deliverances of, as to use of chrism in baptism, 2S8, 293; as to cere- monies in baptism, 288;