(4.) Let the reader observe, that though there are strong features of resemblance between popery and Socinianism, we do not speak of papists and Socinians personally; nor do we assert that the prevailing tendency of the two bodies is the same. In respect to literature and all the decencies of enlightened society, the latter are not behind their Protestant neighbours. They acknowledge no foreign power, civil or religious; they do not think it lawful to propagate their principles by force, or to punish men for heresy.

4. Another objection to the exercise of judgment in the reading of Scripture is the divisions among Protestants, or, in other words, that the circulation of the Holy Scriptures in the vulgar tongue produces numerous sects. It appears that there were sects among the Jews, in the apostles' days, and among the primitive Christians. And as it respects one notable Jewish sect, our Lord declares that the cause of their error was ignorance of the Scriptures: "Ye do greatly err, not knowing the Scriptures." Their reading of Scripture was not the cause of their errors or sectarianism, but their neglect of the Scriptures, and ignorance of them. It is plain that the reading of the Scriptures and reasoning upon them is the method appointed by our Saviour to prevent error, to convince heretics, and convert them to the faith. Protestant churches excommunicate heretics where they appear, and Romanists ought not to do any thing more. Nevertheless, they add force and persecution, and if this be a more effectual way, it is certainly an unscriptural one. There are two ways of settling disputes, reason and force. Protestants take the former, and Catholics the latter.

Nor have Catholics any just cause to exult, that their rule and its enforcement have proved successful toward the prevention of various sects. Among them still exist Jansenists and Jesuits, and many other such divisions. Have the divisions among the Franciscans and Dominicans escaped their recollection? Have they never read of the division between Fenelon and Bossuet, respecting the mystic notions of Madame Guion? And when the matter was referred to the pope, who, through fear of Bossuet and regard for Fenelon, hesitated to give his opinion; but at length yielded to the influence of the former?

The Roman Catholic Church cannot boast of a unity by any means equal to that which exists among the leading Protestant churches of Europe and America. It could be easily shown that the common bond of union, that is, the Bible, among Protestants, is stronger and more efficacious than that which arises from union with the see of Rome.

5. We are also sometimes told that the unrestrained reading of the Scriptures produces insubordination, disloyalty, and rebellion. The only reply we shall make to this is, that the careful perusal of Scripture will lead men to assert their natural and civil rights, and also to oppose tyranny and despotism in church and state. And as the Catholic system is supported by, and, therefore, fosters despotism, it is no wonder that the devotees of the Church of Rome pronounce their anathema against the circulation and reading of Scripture among all classes of mankind.* If all men, in this free country, were not allowed the exercise of private judgment; if they were not even allowed to twist the sacred letter to integras. Et si aliquatenus integras præstat, nihilominus diversas expositiones com. mentata convertit."-Tertul. de Prascrip. Hæret., c. 17, tom. ii, p. 459.

* See the discussion at the Carlow Meeting, pp. 63, 64.

1

6*

whatever sense or nonsense they pleased, Romanists would not be allowed to hold, much less to publish their nonsense; for of all the sects in existence none exhibit such a mass of nonsense as the Church of Rome does; and it is nonsense founded on the wresting of many plain texts of Scripture.

6. Let us examine Bible reading by its effects. The Church of Rome declares that it is the cause of more harm than good.

It is remarkable that the periods of the world's history when the morals of mankind were in the worst state-the places where iniquity prevailed most-were the times and places when and where the greatest scarcity of the word of God prevailed. Such was the case before the flood. "The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence." Here is what tradition could do-here is what a destitution of Scripture could accomplish. Greece and Rome, under the guidance of tradition and philosophy, were sunk in every species of crime and error; as appears from the first chapter of Romans, as well as from their own writers. The same is the case with modern heathen nations. Roman Catholic countries, too, where the word of God is little read, and less known, furnish ample proofs of the corrupting effect of prohibiting the general reading of the word of God, by the ignorance, errors, and immorality which prevail. And in countries where the Bible is circulated, very few, if any of those who are intemperate or inmates of penitentiaries, are constant and careful readers of the Bible.

Besides, the good effects of Bible reading are great and numerous. Was ever any one injured by reading the Bible, or induced by it to injure others? Nay; we may appeal to any man who has paid attention to the subject, whether he ever knew a good man become bad, or even a bad man become worse, in consequence of his reading the Bible. But if we believe Catholics, we find that their experience is against Bible reading; accordingly they speak of it as one of the greatest evils in the world. Indeed, they ascribe most of the evils which have infested Europe for the last three hundred years to reading the word of God.

7. It is objected that Christ and his apostles did not propagate the gospel by the instrumentality of the written word. Mr. Hughes says, "Christ has made the promise of infallibility to the succession of TEACHING, and not to reading, writing, or private interpretation."* Dr. Milner, vicar general of all England, in his End of Controversy, declares, "If Christ had intended that all men should learn their religion from a book, namely, the New Testament, he would have written that book himself, and enjoined the obligation of learning to read it, as the first and fundamental precept of religion. But Christ wrote no part of the New Testament himself, and gave no orders to his apostles to write it." They maintain that Christ sent his apostles "to teach all nations, and this always means oral instructions. They were sent to preach, not to write books." To this we reply, that we find Christ and his apostles continually referring to the written word of God; and though they declared many truths not contained in the Old Testament, in general, they only enlarged upon and more fully explained what had been formerly written. Besides, they propagated Christianity by means of the written word, for our Lord continually

* Controversy with Mr. Breckenridge.

referred to what was written; and the phrases, according to the Scriptures, as it is written in the law-the prophets-the psalms-show what use he made of the word of God. The first preachers proved that Jesus was the Christ, from the Scriptures. (See Luke xxiv, 44, 45; Rom. xvi, 26; Acts xviii, 28.) In brief, it may be said of the New as well as of the Old Testament, "Whatsoever was written aforetime was written for our learning, that we through patience and faith of the Scriptures might have hope."

Teaching implies as much the use of writing as of oral instruction. And our Lord's command to teach included as much an injunction to write as to speak. Apostolical usage proves this; they did write as well as preach; they declared that they were enjoined to write. (See John xx, 31; Rev. i, 11, 19.)

Indeed, the apostles and evangelists not only made large use of the Scriptures of the Old Testament, but they also wrote down the New Testament for the instruction of all. And so far were they from thinking that those whom they instructed in Christianity were sufficiently taught without written instructions, that with the writings of Moses and the prophets, they thought it necessary to leave with the whole church, the laity as well as clergy, the various pieces which compose the New 'Testament.

If it be said that the Scriptures may be used for the benefit of the faithful, but not to convert heathens to Christianity, nothing is more false. For is it a more convincing way to persuade men to become Christians by mere oral declarations respecting events that have long since transpired, than, with oral teaching, to produce written documents also which have every external and internal mark of genuineness, as well as the solemn impress and seal of inspiration?

Indeed, Thomas Paine and other infidels never made a grosser attack on Scripture than this. And it furnishes us with an additional proof of the oneness of infidelity and popery.

Dr. Milner also argues, that since few can read, and no such means were provided by Christ to teach men to read, therefore to instruct men by the written word is absurd and impossible. "Christ has not so much as enjoined it to his followers, in general, to study letters." So says the vicar general of England. But we answer, that the very giving of the Scriptures in the language of men is a proof that Christ intended them for the instruction of mankind. He provided also means for their reading and understanding them when he endowed men with rational powers, and promised the aids of his Spirit to guide men. To say that Christ did not intend the Bible as our guide in religion, because he did not teach all men to read, is as absurd as to say that he did not intend the fruits of the earth to be the food of man, because he did not directly instruct them in the arts of husbandry.

VIII. Romanists deny that the canon of Scripture can be ascertained without referring to the authority of their church or to tradition. That the canon can be, and actually is defined and ascertained, we have ample proofs, though the Church of Rome were blotted out of existence; for what belongs to the church catholic, or universal, is as much ours as theirs. They have introduced the Apocrypha into the canon; we reject it, and for this rejection we have the most ample testimony. We call the books of the Bible canonical, either because they are received

into the catalogue of books which we receive as inspired, or because they are the rule of faith; the word canon (kavwv) signifying a rule or standard. We call those books apocryphal, that is, doubtful or uncertain, which are not acknowledged as divine or inspired of God. Protestants reject the books called apocryphal from the rule of their faith; while Romanists acknowledge many of the books of this description as canonical. The following reasons induce us to reject the apocrypha. 1. The canon of Protestants, as it respects the Old Testament, is the same with that which the Jews always did, and do now acknowledge.

The learned Du Pin, a Roman Catholic, quotes Jerome on this subject as follows:--" All the books of the Old Testament among the Jews just make up the number of twenty-two, five whereof were written by Moses, eight by the prophets, and nine are the Hagiographia. Some persons make them twenty-four in number by separating Ruth and the Lamentations from the prophet Jeremiah, and placing them among the hagiographia. This prologue to the Bible may serve as a preface to all those books that we have translated out of the Hebrew; and we ought to understand that whatsoever book is not to be found in this number is apocryphal. From hence it follows, that the book of Wisdom, commonly attributed to Solomon, the Ecclesiasticus of Jesus the son of Sirach, Judith, Tobit, and the Pastor do not belong to the canon any more than the two books of Maccabees do; one of which was written in Hebrew and the other in Greek, as the style sufficiently shows."* Neither the ancient prophets, Christ or his apostles, or ancient Christians, as is worthy of remark, accused the Jews of omitting any canonical books; which they would not fail to have done had they considered the books called apocrypha as properly belonging to the inspired writings.

2. The apocryphal books were not admitted into the canon of Scripture during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.

The ancient Christians followed the Jewish canon in the books of the Old Testament. The first catalogues of the canonical books made by the ecclesiastical Greek and Latin authors comprehended no more. We quote again our Catholic historian on this point. "The first catalogue we find of the books of the Scriptures among the Christians is that of Melito, bishop of Sardis, set down by Eusebius in the fourth book of his history, chap. xxvi. It is entirely conformable to that of the Jews, and contains but twenty-two books, in which number Esther is not reckoned, and the book of Ruth is distinguished from that of the Judges. Origen, also, in a certain passage, drawn out of the exposition of the first Psalm, and produced by Eusebius in his sixth book, chap. xxv, reckons twenty-two books of the Old Testament; but he places the book of Esther in this number, and joins the book of Ruth with that of Judges. The Council of Laodicea, which was the first synod that determined the number of the canonical books; St. Cyril, of Jerusalem, in his fourth catechetical lecture; St. Hilary, in his preface to the Psalms; the last canon falsely ascribed to the apostles; Amphilochus, cited by Balsamon; Anastasius Sinaita upon the Hexameron, lib. vii; St. John Damascene, in his fourth book of Orthodox Faith; the author of the abridgment of Scripture and of the festival letter attributed to St. Athanasius; the author of the book of the hie

*Du Pin, vol. i, p. 16.

rarchy, attributed to St. Dionysius; and the Nicephori follow the catalogue of Melito."* Our author also states on the same page that "the ancient Christians have followed the Jewish canon in the books of the Old Testament. The first catalogues of the canonical books made by the ecclesiastical Greek and Latin authors comprehended no more.' To this decisive evidence against the canonical authority of the apocrypha, we may add that they were never read in the Christian Church until the fourth century, when they were read for example of life and instruction of manners, but were not applied to establish any doctrine, as Jerome saith. The Council of Laodicea, held between 360 and 370, and representing the catholic or universal Church, ordains in her sixtieth canon that the canonical books of the Old Testament are those which are acknowledged by the Jews, and rejects the apocrypha. "These canons," says Du Pin, "have been received by the whole church, and put in the code of the canons of the universal church."+ 3. The apocryphal books are not canonical.

(1.) They possess no authority whatever, either external or internal, to procure their admission into the sacred canon. See this fully esta

blished by Horne in his Introduction, &c., vol i, p. 627.

(2.) The apocryphal books contain many things which are fabulous, contradictory, and directly at variance with the canonical Scriptures. (3.) They contain passages which are in themselves false, absurd, and incredible.

(4.) They contain passages at variance with the authentic records of profane historians. Our limits do not permit us to enlarge. But for the proofs of the propositions contained in this and the last two heads, see Horne as referred to above.

(5.) The apocryphal books are not quoted in the New Testament; but those which were received into the canon of the Jews are frequently quoted.‡

4. The introduction of the apocrypha among the canonical books is not of primitive, but rather modern usage.

Monsieur Du Pin speaks on this subject as follows: "The first catalogue of the books of the Holy Scriptures, where they added some books to the Jewish canon, is that of the third Council of Carthage, held A. D. 397, when the books of Judith, Tobit, the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, and the two books of the Maccabees, were reckoned in the number of canonical books. There is at the end of this canon a remarkable postil: Let the church beyond the sea be consulted concerning the confirmation of this canon. De confirmando isto canone ecclesia transmarina consulatur. This catalogue of canonical books is confirmed by the authority of Pope Innocent I. in an epistle to Exuperius, (A. D. 405,) and by that of a Roman council held under Gelasius, A. D. 494, and is followed in the decree of Eugenius (elected pope 824) to the Armenians, and by the holy Council of Trent. All these catalogues serve to acquaint us, in general, what were the books that were always believed to be cer

* Du Pin, Ecc. Hist., vol. i, p. 17.

+ Eccl. Hist., vol. i, p. 613, where he quotes the articles of the council.

See this established fully by the Catholic Du Pin in his preliminary dissertation, prefixed to his Ecclesiastical History, vol. i, p. 17, and notes ƒ and g, p. 9, English translation. Dublin, 1723.